text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
abstract: 'Nonlinear metal-dielectric layered structures are shown to be able to efficiently generate entangled photon pairs using spontaneous parametric down-conversion. Increase of electric-field amplitudes in these structures enhanced by the presence of metal layers is sufficient to compensate for losses inside thin metal layers. As an example, photon pairs emitted from a structure composed of alternating nonlinear dielectric GaN layers and metal Ag layers are analyzed in spectral, temporal as well as spatial domains. Also correlations and entanglement between two photons in a pair are determined. Very narrow photon-pair spectra together with strong directionality of photon-pair emission are observed making the photons suitable for photon-atom interactions. Highly enhanced electric-field amplitudes provide high photon-pair generation efficiencies.'
address:
- 'RCPTM, Joint Laboratory of Optics of Palacký University and Institute of Physics of AS CR, 17. listopadu 12, 771 46 Olomouc, Czech Republic'
- 'Institute of Physics, Joint Laboratory of Optics of Palacký University and Institute of Physics of AS CR, 17. listopadu 50a, 771 46 Olomouc, Czech Republic'
- 'RCPTM, Joint Laboratory of Optics of Palacký University and Institute of Physics of AS CR, 17. listopadu 12, 771 46 Olomouc, Czech Republic'
author:
- 'D. Javrek'
- 'J. Peřina Jr.'
- 'J. Svozilík'
bibliography:
- 'javurek.bib'
title: 'Photon-pair generation in nonlinear metal-dielectric 1D photonic structures'
---
Introduction
============
Spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) is a quantum nonlinear process that was predicted in 1961 [@Louisell1961] and experimentally observed for the first time in 1968 [@Harris1967; @Magde1967]. SPDC occurs in nonlinear media with nonzero second-order nonlinear susceptibility tensor $\chi^{(2)}$. During this process, the conservation law of energy originating in homogeneity of time is fulfilled. Also the conservation law of momentum is usually obeyed, at least for the transverse components of wave vectors of the interacting fields. This law originating in homogeneity of space is approximately valid also for longer homogeneous crystals along the propagation direction. The generation of photon pairs has to fulfill both laws and so photon pairs typically occur in states entangled in frequencies, momenta, orbital angular momenta or polarizations [@Keller1997; @Svozilik2011; @Svozilik2012; @Grice2008; @Law2004].
Phase-matching conditions can only be fulfilled under specific conditions that determine the properties of photon pairs. For this reason, new and efficient sources of photon pairs have been developed using, e.g., periodically poled crystals. Periodical poling which introduces periodical modulation of $ \chi^{(2)} $ nonlinearity offers enhanced control of phase matching of the nonlinear process as well as modification of spectral properties of the emitted photon pairs [@Harris2007; @Brida2009; @Svozilik2009].
Modern optical structures that confine the fields in one (layered structures) or two (waveguides, optical fibers) dimensions represent qualitative improvement from the point of view of efficiency of photon-pair generation. The confinement of interacting fields enhances their electric-field amplitudes on one side, it qualitatively changes the conditions for an efficient nonlinear interaction on the other side. The requirement for phase matching of wave vectors is then replaced by the need of large spatial overlap of the electric-field amplitudes of all three interacting fields. As spatial profiles of the electric-field amplitudes depend strongly on parameters and geometry of the structures, much broader possibilities for tailoring properties of the emitted photon pairs exist.
A great deal of attention has been devoted to waveguiding structures including planar or rectangular waveguides and photonic fibers. Two-dimensional confinement, together with sufficiently long structures, provides high absolute conversion efficiencies of SPDC, even three or four orders in magnitude larger compared to typical nonlinear bulk crystals. Efficient SPDC in periodically-poled waveguides has been investigated in [@Eckstein2011; @Jachura2014; @Machulka2013]. On the other hand, SPDC in photonic fibers [@Ren2004; @Sang2006; @Zhu2012] provides photon pairs in transverse (guided) modes with radial symmetry, that are pivotal for optical-fiber communications. From the perspective of applications in communications, ring and vortex nonlinear silica fibers are promising [@Javurek2014a; @Javurek2014b].
As already mentioned, nonlinear layered structures confine the fields along their propagation direction. Back-scattering of the fields creates a one dimensional photonic-band structure (PBG) with transmission peaks and forbidden bands [@Scalora1997; @Centini2005; @PerinaJr2006; @PerinaJr2011]. The electric-field amplitudes are enhanced by this back-scattering, which under suitable conditions gives an efficient nonlinear interaction. However, as the confinement of optical fields occurs only in one dimension, the enhancement of optical fields is considerably weaker compared to waveguiding structures, at least for dielectric structures. On the other hand, there exist the usual transverse phase-matching conditions and the impinging fields can be easily coupled into the modes of the structure [@PerinaJr2011]. Also properties of a two-photon state can be efficiently and easily controlled by spatial and temporal spectra of the pump beam. Taking into account the precision of well-established fabrication techniques, one-dimensional PBGs represent promising sources of photon pairs.
Nonlinear dielectric layered structures have been already investigated from the point of view of SPDC. Both semiclassical (stochastic) [@Centini2005] and quantum models [@PerinaJr2006; @PerinaJr2011] of SPDC in dielectric layered structures have been elaborated. These structures have been shown to be able to provide entangled photon pairs anti-symmetric with respect to the exchange of signal and idler frequencies [@PerinaJr2007b]. Also random nonlinear dielectric layered structures have been analyzed as sources of spectrally ultra-narrow photon pairs [@PerinaJr2009b; @PerinaJr2009c]. Surface SPDC has been shown to give important contribution to photon-pair generation rates [@PerinaJr2009; @PerinaJr2009a; @Perinova2013].
On the contrary, metal-dielectric layered structures have been investigated from the point of view of transmission properties [@Scalora1999; @Gadson2009]. It has been shown that, considering the overall transmission, the total amount of metal inside the structure can be considerably larger provided that it is split into thin layers sandwiched by dielectric layers. This occurs due to strong back-scattering on metal-dielectric boundaries with high contrast of refraction indices. This contrast is not only sufficient for the compensation of losses in metal layers, it also enhances the electric-field amplitudes considerably stronger compared to only dielectric structures [@PerinaJr2014]. It also allows us to consider efficient nonlinear processes in more complex metal-dielectric structures. Narrow spectral interaction regions and strong directionality of photon emissions are distinguished properties of such structures. For this reason, the emitted photon pairs are suitable for photon-atom interactions that require both properties to maximize the strength of interaction [@Kolchin2006]. We note that such photon-atom interaction is in the center of attention in recent years in quantum-information processing as entanglement is easily generated in optical fields but excitations are easily stored in atomic systems [@Raimond2011; @Volz2006; @Choi2008]. Recently, the process of second harmonic generation in metal-dielectric layered structures has been investigated both theoretically and experimentally [@Lepeshkin2004; @Scalora2010]. Also the first brief investigation of SPDC in such structures has confirmed high enhancement of photon-pair generation rates due to strong back-scattering occurring at metal-dielectric boundaries with high contrast of refraction indices [@Javurek2012]. In the paper, we extend this investigation to provide a comprehensive study of properties of photon pairs emitted in metal-dielectric layered structures.
Optical nonlinear response of metals can arise due to several physical processes including the Fermi smearing [@Lepeshkin2004], strong redistribution of charges [@Scalora2010; @Ginzburg2010] and affecting the path of electrons by a strong magnetic field. Other mechanisms leading to nonlinearity are discussed in [@Scalora2010; @Larciprete2008]. In this paper, we derive nonlinearity of the considered Ag layers from the action of the Lorentz force on electrons [@Larciprete2008]. As for the dielectric layers, we consider GaN that is transparent for the pump field at wavelength $
\lambda_p = 400 $ nm and thus allows the generation of photon pairs with wavelengths around $ \lambda = 800 $ nm efficiently detected at single-photon level by Si-based detectors. Moreover, GaN has sufficiently high $ \chi^{(2)} $ nonlinearity and the fabrication of thin layered GaN structures is well mastered.
The paper is organized as follows. The model of SPDC in metal-dielectric layered structures is presented in Sec. II. Physical quantities characterizing the emitted photon pairs are described in Sec. III. In Sec. IV, a metal-dielectric resonator composed of two Ag layers and one GaN layer is analyzed. An efficient structure composed of eleven GaN and Ag layers is suggested and analyzed as a typical example in Sec. V. Temporal properties of the emitted photon pairs are investigated in Sec. VI. Noise originating in losses in metal layers is addressed in Sec. VII. Conclusions are drawn in Sec. VIII. Appendix A brings the derivation of $\chi^{(2)}$ tensor for metals. Extension of the theory quantifying the noise is given in Appendix B.
Model of spontaneous parametric down-conversion
===============================================
Vectorial model of SPDC in nonlinear layered structures has been formulated in [@PerinaJr2011] using the interaction Hamiltonian $ \hat{H}_{\rm int} $. Alternatively, the interaction momentum operator $ \hat{G}_{\rm int} $ can be used to describe SPDC caused by a strong pump beam propagating along the $ z $ axis [@Mandel1995; @PerinaJr2000; @PerinaJr2014]: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{G}_{\rm int}(z) &=& 2 \varepsilon_0 \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dt
\int_{\cal S} dxdy \; \chi^{(2)}({\bf r}) \nonumber \\
& & \mbox{} :
\left[ {\bf E}_{p}^{(+)}({\bf r},t) \hat{\bf E}_{s}^{(-)}({\bf r},t)
\hat{\bf E}_{i}^{(-)}({\bf r},t) + {\rm h.c.} \right];
\label{1}\end{aligned}$$ $ {\bf r} = (x,y,z) $. The pump-field is characterized by its positive-frequency electric-field vector amplitude $ {\bf
E}_{p}^{(+)}({\bf r},t) $. The signal and idler fields are described by their negative-frequency electric-field operator vector amplitudes $ \hat{\bf E}_{s}^{(-)}({\bf r},t) $ and $
\hat{\bf E}_{s}^{(-)}({\bf r},t) $, respectively. Shortening of the tensor of nonlinear susceptibility $ \chi^{(2)} $ with respect to its three indices is denoted by $ : $. Symbol $ \varepsilon_0 $ stands for the vacuum permittivity; $ {\rm h.c.} $ replaces the Hermitian conjugated term. We note that whereas the nonlinear interaction Hamiltonian $ \hat{H}_{\rm int} $ gives the interaction energy, the momentum operator $ \hat{G}_{\rm int}(z) $ provides the overall flux of this energy through the transverse plane $ {\cal S} $ positioned at distance $ z $.
The strong un-depleted pump field is characterized by its incident temporal spectrum $ {\cal E}_p(\omega_p) $ and spatial spectrum $
{\cal E}_p^{\rm tr}(k_{p,x},k_{p,y}) $ defined in the transverse plane $ {\cal S} $. The pump positive-frequency amplitude $ {\bf
E}_{p}^{(+)}({\bf r},t) $ occurring in Eq. (\[1\]) can be decomposed in a layered structure with boundaries localized at positions $ z_j $, $ j=0,\ldots,N $, (for the scheme of the structure, see Fig. \[fig1\]) as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf E}_{p}^{(+)}({\bf r},t) &=&
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}^3 c^2} \int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2}
|\sin(\vartheta_p)| \, d\vartheta_p \int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2} d\psi_p
\nonumber \\
& & \hspace{-5mm} \int_{0}^{\infty} \omega_p^2 d\omega_p \; {\cal E}_p(\omega_p)
{\cal E}_p^{\rm tr} \left[ k_{p,x}
({\bf \Omega_p}), k_{p,y}({\bf \Omega_p}) \right] \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{-5mm} \mbox{} \times \exp \left[ i k_{p,x}({\bf \Omega_p})
x + i k_{p,y}({\bf \Omega_p}) y\right] \sum_{\gamma={\rm TE,TM}} \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{-5mm} \mbox{} \sum_{g=F,B}
\sum_{l=0}^{N+1} {\rm rect}^{(l)}(z) A_{p_g,\gamma}^{(l)}({\bf
\Omega_p}) {\bf e}_{p,\gamma}^{(l)}({\bf \Omega_p}) \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{-5mm} \mbox{} \times
\exp\left[ ik_{p_g,z}^{(l)}({\bf \Omega}_p) (z-z_{l-1}) \right]
\exp(-i\omega_p t)
\label{2}\end{aligned}$$ using the notation $ {\bf \Omega}_p \equiv
(\omega_p,\vartheta_p,\psi_p) $ for ’spherical coordinates’ composed of the frequency $ \omega_p $, radial propagation angle $\vartheta_p $ and azimuthal propagation angle $ \psi_p $. The scalar electric-field amplitudes $ A_{p_F,\gamma}^{(l)} $ and $
A_{p_B,\gamma}^{(l)} $ in Eq. (\[2\]) characterize the forward- and backward-propagating pump fields, respectively, with $ \gamma
$ polarization in an $ l $-th layer with index of refraction $
n_p^{(l)} $. Polarization vectors $ {\bf e}^{(l)}_{p_F,\gamma} $ and $ {\bf e}^{(l)}_{p_B,\gamma} $ determine polarization directions of $ \gamma $-polarized waves in an $ l $-th layer propagating forward (index $ F $) and backward ($ B $), respectively. Function $ {\rm rect}^{(l)}(z) $ for $ l=1,\ldots,N
$ equals 1 for $ z_{l-1} \le z < z_l $ and is zero otherwise; function $ {\rm rect}^{(0)}(z) $ \[$ {\rm rect}^{(N+1)}(z) $\] is nonzero only for $ z<z_0 $ \[$ z_N \le z$\] and equals 1. Speed of light in vacuum is denoted as $ c $. Decomposition of the pump electric-field amplitude $ {\bf E}_{p}^{(+)} $ into its TE- and TM-polarized waves [@Yeh1988] in Eq. (\[2\]) is done with respect to the plane of incidence of a plane wave with given wave vector $ {\bf k}_p $.
![Scheme of a metal-dielectric layered structure composed of six GaN layers and five Ag layers.[]{data-label="fig1"}](javurek1.eps)
Cartesian components of the pump-field wave vector $ {\bf k}_p $ can be written in the form: $$\begin{aligned}
k_{p,x}({\bf \Omega}_p) &=&
- \frac{\omega_p\sin(\psi_p)\sin(\vartheta_p) }{c} , \nonumber\\
k_{p,y}({\bf \Omega}_p) &=& \frac{
\omega_p \cos(\psi_p)\sin(\vartheta_p) }{c}, \nonumber \\
k_{p_a,z}^{(l)}({\bf \Omega}_p) &=& \pm \frac{ n_p^{(l)}(\omega_p)\omega_p}{c}
\cos(\vartheta_p^{(l)}), \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{3mm} l=0,\ldots,N+1,
\label{3}\end{aligned}$$ where the radial propagation angle $ \vartheta_p^{(l)} $ in an $ l
$-th layer obeys the Snell law: $$ n_p^{(0}\sin(\vartheta_p^{(0)}) =
n_p^{(l)}\sin(\vartheta_p^{(l)}),
\hspace{5mm} l=1,\ldots,N+1,
\label{4}$$ $ \vartheta_p^{(0)} \equiv \vartheta_p $. When writing Eq. (\[3\]), air around the structure was assumed ($ n_p^{(0)}
=n_p^{(N+1)} = 1 $). As the transverse components of wave vectors do not change during the propagation, the $ x $ and $ y $ components of wave vector $ {\bf k}_p $ in Eq. (\[3\]) are not indexed. Also sign $ + $ ($ - $) in Eq. (\[3\]) corresponds to the forward- (backward-) propagating field.
The signal and idler fields with intensities at single-photon level can be decomposed in the same way as the pump field in Eq. (\[2\]). However, instead of coefficients $
A_{p_g,\gamma}^{(l)} $ characterizing the classical pump amplitudes, operator coefficients $ \hat{A}_{m_a,\alpha}^{(l)} $ describing the quantized signal ($ m = s $) and idler ($ m = i $) fields are needed [@Mandel1995]. The formula (\[2\]) for the pump field can be transformed into the form applicable to the signal and idler fields: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\bf E}_{m}^{(+)}({\bf r},t) &=&
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}^3 c^2} \int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2}
|\sin(\vartheta_m)| \, d\vartheta_m \int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2}
d\psi_m \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{-10mm} \int_{0}^{\infty} \omega_m^2 d\omega_m \;
\exp \left[ i k_{m,x}({\bf \Omega_m})
x + i k_{m,y}({\bf \Omega_m}) y\right] \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{-10mm} \sum_{\gamma={\rm TE,TM}} \sum_{a=F,B}
\sum_{l=0}^{N+1} {\rm rect}^{(l)}(z) \hat{A}_{m_a,\alpha}^{(l)}({\bf
\Omega_m}) \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{-10mm} \mbox{} \times {\bf e}_{m,\alpha}^{(l)}({\bf \Omega_m})
\exp\left[ ik_{m_a,z}^{(l)}({\bf \Omega}_m) (z-z_{l-1}) \right]
\nonumber \\
& & \hspace{-10mm} \mbox{} \times \exp(-i\omega_m t); \hspace{5mm} m=s,i.
\label{5}\end{aligned}$$ Symbols introduced in Eq. (\[5\]) have the same meaning for the signal and idler fields as those defined below Eq. (\[2\]) for the pump field.
The pump electric-field amplitudes $ A_{p_F,\gamma}^{(l)} $ and $
A_{p_B,\gamma}^{(l)} $ as well as the signal and idler electric-field operator amplitudes $ \hat{A}_{m_F,\alpha}^{(l)} $ and $ \hat{A}_{m_B,\alpha}^{(l)} $ occurring in Eqs. (\[2\]) and (\[5\]), respectively, are mutually coupled through the Fresnel relations at the boundaries and free-space evolution inside the layers. These relations allow to express the pump electric-field amplitudes inside the layers in terms of the amplitudes $
A_{p_F,\gamma}^{(0)} $ and $ A_{p_B,\gamma}^{(N+1)} $ characterizing the forward- and backward-propagating incident pump fields. On the other hand, the same relations applied to the signal and idler fields provide the signal and idler electric-field operator amplitudes inside the layers in terms of operator amplitudes $ \hat{A}_{m_F,\alpha}^{(N+1)} $ and $
\hat{A}_{m_B,\alpha}^{(0)} $ that correspond to the forward- and backward-propagating outgoing signal and idler fields. The transfer matrix formalism describing these relations has been developed in [@Yeh1988; @PerinaJr2011; @PerinaJr2014]. Using quantization of photon flux [@Vogel2001; @Huttner1990], the operator amplitudes $ \hat{A}_{m_F,\alpha}^{(N+1)} $ and $
\hat{A}_{m_B,\alpha}^{(0)} $ can be written using the annihilation operators $ \hat{a}_{m_F,\alpha}^{(N+1)}({\bf \Omega}_m) $ and $
\hat{a}_{m_B,\alpha}^{(0)}({\bf \Omega}_m) $ obeying the usual boson commutation relations: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{A}_{m_F,\alpha}^{(N+1)}({\bf \Omega}_m) &=& i \sqrt{
\frac{\hbar\omega_m }{ 2\varepsilon_0 c }} \,
\hat{a}_{m_F,\alpha}^{(N+1)}({\bf \Omega}_m) ; \nonumber \\
\hat{A}_{m_B,\alpha}^{(0)}({\bf \Omega}_m) &=& i \sqrt{
\frac{\hbar\omega_m }{ 2\varepsilon_0 c }} \,
\hat{a}_{m_B,\alpha}^{(0)}({\bf \Omega}_m) .
\label{6}\end{aligned}$$ Symbol $ \hbar $ stands for the reduced Planck constant. More details can be found in [@PerinaJr2011; @PerinaJr2014].
An outgoing photon pair in the state $ |\psi_{s,i}^{\rm out} \rangle
$ is described by the first-order perturbation solution of the Schrödinger equation written as $$ |\psi_{s,i}^{\rm out}\rangle = \frac{i}{\hbar} \int_{0}^{L} dz \, \hat{G}_{\rm
int}(z) |{\rm vac} \rangle .
\label{7}$$ In Eq. (\[7\]), $ L $ denotes the structure length and $ |{\rm
vac} \rangle $ means the signal and idler vacuum state.
Substituting Eqs. (\[1\]), (\[2\]), (\[5\]), and (\[6\]) into Eq. (\[7\]) we reveal the expression for the two-photon state $ |\psi_{s,i}^{\rm out} \rangle$: $$\begin{aligned}
|\psi_{s,i}^{\rm out} \rangle &=& - \frac{2i}{\sqrt{2\pi}^3 c^7}
\sum_{l=1}^{N} \sum_{a,b,g=F,B} \sum_{\alpha, \beta, \gamma={\rm TE,TM}}
\nonumber \\
& & \hspace {-0.7cm} \Biggl[ \prod_{m=p,s,i} \int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2} |\sin(\vartheta_m)|
d\vartheta_m \int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2} d\psi_m \int_{0}^{\infty} \omega_m^2
d\omega_m \Biggr] \nonumber \\
& & \hspace {-0.7cm} \sqrt{ \frac{\omega_s\omega_i}{n_s^{(l)}(\omega_s)
n_i^{(l)}(\omega_i)} } \; {\cal E}_p(\omega_p) {\cal E}_p^{\rm tr}[k_{p,x}({\bf \Omega}_p),k_{p,y}({\bf \Omega}_p)] \nonumber \\
& & \hspace {-0.7cm} \mbox{} \times \delta(\omega_p-\omega_s-\omega_i)
\delta \left[ k_{p,x}({\bf \Omega}_p) - k_{s,x}({\bf \Omega}_s) - k_{i,x}({\bf \Omega}_i)\right] \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{-0.7cm} \mbox{} \times
\delta\left[ k_{p,y}({\bf \Omega}_p) - k_{s,y}({\bf \Omega}_s) - k_{i,y}({\bf \Omega}_i) \right] \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{-0.7cm} \mbox{} \times \chi^{(2)(l)}({\bf \Omega}_p,{\bf \Omega}_s,{\bf \Omega}_i):
{\bf e}_{p_g,\gamma}^{(l)}({\bf \Omega}_p) {\bf e}_{s_a,\alpha}^{(l)*}
({\bf \Omega}_s) {\bf e}_{i_b,\beta}^{(l)*}({\bf \Omega}_i) \nonumber \\
& & \hspace {-0.7cm} \mbox{} \times L_l f \left[\frac{1}{2}
\Delta k_{g,ab,z}^{(l)}({\bf \Omega}_p,{\bf \Omega}_s,{\bf
\Omega}_i)L_l \right] A_{p_g,\gamma}^{(l)}({\bf \Omega}_p) \nonumber \\
& & \hspace {-0.7cm} \mbox{} \times
\hat{a}_{s_a,\alpha}^{(l)\dagger}({\bf \Omega}_s)
\hat{a}_{i_b,\beta}^{(l)\dagger}({\bf \Omega}_i)
|{\rm vac} \rangle ;
\label{8}\end{aligned}$$ $ f(x) = \exp(ix)\sin(x)/x $. Phase mismatch $ \Delta k_{g,a
b,z}^{(l)}({\bf \Omega}_p,{\bf \Omega}_s,{\bf \Omega}_i) =
k_{p_g,z}^{(l)}({\bf \Omega}_p) - k_{s_a,z}^{(l)}({\bf \Omega}_s)
- k_{i_b,z}^{(l)}({\bf \Omega}_i) $ occurs in an $ l $-th layer of length $ L_l = z_l-z_{l-1} $. We note that there also exist photon pairs emitted at the boundaries [@PerinaJr2009; @PerinaJr2009a; @PerinaJr2014] that are not described by Eq. (\[8\]). Contribution of this surface SPDC behaves similarly as the analyzed volume contribution given in Eq. (\[8\]). It increases the photon-pair generation rates. We want to point out that the second-order susceptibility $ \chi^{(2)} $ of metals depends not only on frequencies $ \omega $ of the interacting fields, but also on their propagation directions described by angles $ (\theta,\psi) $ (for mode details, see Appendix A). For GaN layers, nonzero elements of the susceptibility tensor $
\chi^{(2)} $ take the values [@Miragliotta1993] $$\begin{aligned}
&\chi^{(2)}_{xxz}=\chi^{(2)}_{xzx}=\chi^{(2)}_{yyz}=\chi^{(2)}_{yzy}=\chi^{(2)}_{zxx}=\chi^{(2)}_{zyy}= 10\,\mbox{pm/V},&
\nonumber \\
&\chi^{(2)}_{zzz}=-20\,\mbox{pm/V}. & \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
The output state $ |\psi^{\rm out}_{s,i}\rangle $ in Eq. (\[8\]) can be further decomposed with respect to the signal and idler propagation directions and field polarizations. Each term describing the signal field at position $ \mathrm{\mathbf{r}}_s $ and the idler field at position $ \mathrm{\mathbf{r}}_i $ takes the form: $$\begin{aligned}
|\psi_{s_a,i_b}^{\alpha\beta}({\bf r}_s,{\bf r}_i,t)\rangle
&=& \prod_{m=s,i} \Biggl[ \frac{1}{c^2}
\int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2}|\sin{\vartheta_m}|
d\vartheta_m \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{-25mm} \int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2} d\psi_m \int_{0}^{\infty}
\omega_m^2 d\omega_m \Biggr] \phi_{ab}^{\alpha\beta}({\bf \Omega}_s,{\bf \Omega}_i)
\exp[i(\omega_s+\omega_i) t] \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{-25mm} \mbox{} \times \exp[-i({\bf k}_{s_a}^{\rm out} {\bf r}_s + {\bf k}_{i_b}^{\rm out} {\bf r}_i)]
\, \hat{a}_{s_a,\alpha}^\dagger({\bf \Omega}_s)
\hat{a}_{i_b,\beta}^\dagger({\bf \Omega}_i) |{\rm vac} \rangle, \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{0mm} a,b = F,B; \hspace{5mm}\alpha,\beta = {\rm TE, TM}.
\label{9}\end{aligned}$$ Wave vectors $ {\bf k}_{s_a}^{\rm out} $ and $ {\bf k}_{i_b}^{\rm
out} $ are defined outside the structure. Spectral two-photon amplitude $ \phi_{ab}^{\alpha\beta} ({\bf \Omega}_s,{\bf
\Omega}_i) $ defined by Eq. (\[9\]) gives the probability amplitude of emitting an $ \alpha $-polarized signal photon at frequency $ \omega_s $ and propagation direction ($ \vartheta_s,
\psi_s $) together with its $ \beta $-polarized idler twin at frequency $ \omega_i $ and propagation direction ($ \vartheta_i,
\psi_i $) at the outputs $ a $ and $ b $ of the structure.
Quantities characterizing photon pairs
======================================
Spatial and spectral intensity properties of photon pairs [@PerinaJr2006; @PerinaJr2014] can be derived from the joint signal-idler photon-number density $ n_{ab}^{\alpha\beta}({\bf
\Omega}_s,{\bf \Omega}_i) $ related to signal \[idler\] photons with polarization $ \alpha $ \[$ \beta $\] and frequency $
\omega_s $ \[$ \omega_i $\] propagating at angles $
(\vartheta_s,\psi_s) $ \[$(\vartheta_i,\psi_i) $\] in direction $
a $ \[$ b $\]. Using the formula Eq. (\[9\]) for two-photon state $|\psi_{s_a,i_b}^{\alpha\beta}({\bf r}_s,{\bf
r}_i,t)\rangle $ the density $ n_{ab}^{\alpha\beta} $ can be written as follows: $$ n_{ab}^{\alpha\beta}({\bf \Omega}_s,{\bf \Omega}_i) =
\frac{|\sin(\vartheta_s)\sin(\vartheta_i)|\omega_s^2\omega_i^2}{c^4}
|\phi_{ab}^{\alpha\beta} ({\bf \Omega}_s,{\bf \Omega}_i)|^2 .
\label{10}$$
Signal photon-number density $ n_{s,ab}^{\alpha\beta}({\bf
\Omega}_s) $ is then derived in the form: $$\begin{aligned}
n_{s,ab}^{\alpha\beta}({\bf \Omega}_s) &=&
\int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2} d\vartheta_i \int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2} d\psi_i
\int_{0}^{\infty} d\omega_i \, n_{ab}^{\alpha\beta}({\bf \Omega}_s,{\bf \Omega}_i).
\nonumber \\
& &
\label{11}\end{aligned}$$ Subsequently, the signal spectral photon-number density $
n_{s,ab}^{\omega, \alpha\beta}(\Omega_s) $ is determined along the formula: $$\begin{aligned}
n_{s,ab}^{\omega,\alpha\beta}(\omega_s) = \int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2} d\vartheta_s
\int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2} d\psi_s
\, n_{s,ab}^{\alpha\beta}({\bf \Omega}_s).
\label{12}\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, the signal transverse photon-number density $
n_{s,ab}^{{\rm tr},\alpha\beta}(\vartheta_s,\psi_s) $ characterizing photons propagating in direction ($
\vartheta_s,\psi_s $) is determined as: $$\begin{aligned}
n_{s,ab}^{{\rm tr},\alpha\beta}(\vartheta_s,\psi_s) = \int_{0}^{\infty}
d\omega_s \, n_{s,ab}^{\alpha\beta}({\bf \Omega}_s).
\label{13}\end{aligned}$$
Intensity correlations between the signal and idler fields in their transverse planes are described by the joint signal-idler transverse photon-number density $ n_{ab}^{{\rm
cor},\alpha\beta}(\vartheta_s,\psi_s,\vartheta_i,\psi_i ) $ characterizing a photon pair with signal \[idler\] photon propagating along angles ($ \vartheta_s,\psi_s $) \[($
\vartheta_i,\psi_i $)\] in direction $ a $ \[$ b $\]: $$\begin{aligned}
n_{ab}^{{\rm cor},\alpha\beta}(\vartheta_s,\psi_s,\vartheta_i,\psi_i)
&=& \int_{0}^{\infty} d\omega_s \int_{0}^{\infty} d\omega_i \,
n_{ab}^{\alpha\beta}({\bf \Omega}_s,{\bf \Omega}_i). \nonumber\\
& &
\label{14}\end{aligned}$$ If a signal photon is detected at angle ($ \vartheta_s^0,\psi_s^0
$), the joint signal-idler transverse photon-number density $
n_{ab}^{{\rm
cor},\alpha\beta}(\vartheta_s^0,\psi_s^0,\vartheta_i,\psi_i )$ gives the probability of detecting the accompanying idler photon at direction $(\vartheta_i,\psi_i )$. This probability determines the shape of correlated area [@Hamar2010].
In the time domain, two-photon states are characterized by a two-photon temporal amplitude $ {\cal A}(\tau_s,\tau_i) $ that gives the probability amplitude of detecting a signal photon at time $ \tau_s $ together with detecting the accompanying idler photon at time $ \tau_i $. Using two-photon spectral amplitude $
\phi_{ab}^{\alpha\beta} $ in Eq. (\[9\]), the two-photon temporal amplitude $ {\cal A}(\tau_s,\tau_i) $ can be expressed as: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal A}_{ab}^{\alpha\beta}(\theta_s,\psi_s,\tau_s,\theta_i,\psi_i,\tau_i)
&=& \frac{\sqrt{|\sin(\vartheta_s)\sin(\vartheta_i)|}\hbar }{
4\pi \varepsilon_0 c^3}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\omega_s \nonumber\\
& & \hspace{-38mm} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\omega_i
\sqrt{\omega_{s}^3\omega_{i}^3}
\phi_{ab}^{\alpha\beta}({\bf \Omega}_s,{\bf \Omega}_i)
\exp(-i\omega_s\tau_s) \exp(-i\omega_i\tau_i). \nonumber \\
& &
\label{15}\end{aligned}$$
Temporal properties of photon pairs are usually experimentally investigated employing the Hong-Ou-Mandel interferometer [@Hong1987]. In this interferometer, two photons are mutually delayed by $\tau_l$ and then they interfere on a beam splitter which output ports are monitored by two detectors measuring in coincidence. A normalized coincidence-count rate $ R $ depends on time delay $ \tau_l $ according to the formula: $$ R_{ab}^{\alpha\beta}(\tau_l,\vartheta_s,\psi_s,\vartheta_i,\psi_i)=
1 -\rho_{ab}^{\alpha\beta}(\tau_l,\vartheta_s,\psi_s,\vartheta_i,\psi_i),
\label{16}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{ab}^{\alpha\beta}(\tau_l,\vartheta_s,\psi_s,\vartheta_i,\psi_i) &=&
\frac{|\sin(\vartheta_s)\sin(\vartheta_i)|\hbar^2 }{ 2 c^4 R_{0,ab}^{\alpha\beta}}
\int_{0}^{\infty} d\omega_s \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{-35mm} \int_{0}^{\infty} d\omega_i \omega_s^3\omega_i^3
{\rm Re} \Bigl\{ \phi_{ab}^{\alpha\beta *}({\bf \Omega}_s,{\bf \Omega}_i)
\phi_{ab}^{\alpha\beta}(\omega_i,\vartheta_s,\psi_s,\omega_s,\vartheta_i,\psi_i) \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{-20mm} \times
\exp[i(\omega_s-\omega_i)\tau_l] \Bigr\} ,
\label{17} \\
R_{0,ab}^{\alpha\beta}(\vartheta_s,\psi_s,\vartheta_i,\psi_i) &=&
\frac{|\sin(\vartheta_s)\sin(\vartheta_i)|\hbar^2 }{2c^4} \int_{0}^{\infty} d\omega_s
\nonumber \\
& & \hspace{-20mm} \int_{0}^{\infty} d\omega_i
\, \omega_s^3\omega_i^3 |\phi_{ab}^{\alpha\beta}({\bf \Omega}_s,{\bf \Omega}_i)|^2 . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Enhancement of the nonlinear interaction inside a layered structure originates from increased electric-field amplitudes due to back-scattering on the boundaries. This enhancement can be quantified using a reference structure defined in [@PerinaJr2011]. This reference structure uses the natural material nonlinearity exploiting the greatest nonlinear coefficient, but it does not contain any boundary that would scatter the propagating light. The reference structure generates a signal photon in direction ($ \vartheta_s,\psi_s $) together with an idler photon in direction ($ \vartheta_i,\psi_i $) exploiting phase matching in the transverse plane reached with a pump plane wave found in the spatial spectrum $ {\cal E}_p^{\rm tr} $. The corresponding two-photon state $ |\psi_{s,i}^{\rm ref}\rangle $ is expressed as: $$\begin{aligned}
|\psi_{s,i}^{\rm ref}\rangle &=&
- \frac{2i}{\sqrt{2\pi}^3 c^5 } \Biggl[ \prod_{m=s,i}
\int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2} |\sin(\vartheta_m)| \, d\vartheta_m
\nonumber \\
& & \int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2}
d\psi_m \int_{0}^{\infty} \, \omega_m^2 d\omega_m \Biggr]
{\cal E}_{p}(\omega_s+\omega_i) \nonumber \\
& & \mbox{} \times
{\cal E}_p^{\rm tr} \left[k_{s,x}({\bf \Omega}_s) + k_{i,x}({\bf
\Omega}_i),k_{s,y}({\bf \Omega}_s) + k_{i,y}({\bf \Omega}_i)
\right] \nonumber \\
& & \mbox{} \times \sum_{l=1}^{N}
\sqrt{ \frac{\omega_s \omega_i}{n_s^{(l)}(\omega_s) n_i^{(l)}(\omega_i)} } \,
\max(|\chi^{(2)(l)}|)\, L_l \, \nonumber \\
& & \mbox{} \times \hat{a}_{s}^\dagger({\bf \Omega}_s) \hat{a}_{i}^\dagger({\bf \Omega}_i)
|{\rm vac} \rangle.
\label{18}\end{aligned}$$ Creation operator $ \hat{a}_{s}^{\dagger}({\bf \Omega}_s) $ \[$
\hat{a}_{i}^{\dagger}({\bf \Omega}_i) $\] describes the signal \[idler\] photon at the output plane of the structure. Function $
\max $ gives the maximal value of elements of nonlinear tensor $
\chi^{(2)(l)} $. Using the signal photon-number density $n_s^{\rm
ref}({\bf \Omega}_s) $ of the reference structure given in Eq. (\[11\]), the signal relative photon-number density $
\eta_{s,ab}^{\alpha\beta}({\bf \Omega}_s) $ at frequency $
\omega_s $ and in emission direction ($ \vartheta_s,\psi_s $) is conveniently defined using the relation: $$ \eta_{s,ab}^{\alpha\beta}({\bf \Omega}_s) = \frac{
n_{s,ab}^{\alpha\beta}({\bf \Omega}_s) }{ \max_{\vartheta_s,\omega_s}\left[n_s^{\rm ref}({\bf
\Omega}_s)\right] }.
\label{19}$$ In Eq. (\[19\]), the maximum is taken over the whole interval of radial emission angles $ \vartheta_s $ and frequencies $ \omega_s
$ assuming a fixed azimuthal emission angle $ \psi_s^0 $.
In our numerical calculations, we consider a cw pump field with amplitude $ \xi_p $ and Gaussian transverse profile, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal E}_p(\omega_p) &=& \xi_p \delta (\omega_p-\omega_p^0) ,
\label{20} \\
{\cal E}_p^{\rm tr}(k_x,k_y) &=& \frac{r_p}{\sqrt{2\pi}}
\exp\left[ - \frac{ r^2_p(k_x^2 + k_y^2)}{4} \right] ;
\label{21}\end{aligned}$$ $ \omega_p^0 $ is the central frequency and $ r_p $ stands for the radius of transverse profile. It holds that $ \int dk_x \int dk_y
|{\cal E}_p^{\rm tr}(k_x,k_y)|^2 = 1 $. Whenever the expression $ \delta^2(\omega) $ occurs in the above defined formulas, it has to be replaced by the expression $ 2T/(2\pi)
\delta(\omega)$ obtained for the fields defined inside interval $
(-T,T) $. Physical quantities obtained per unit time interval are reached in the limit $ T \rightarrow \infty $.
A simple metal-dielectric resonator
===================================
Though both the metal and dielectric layers are nonlinear, the dielectric layers are able to provide much higher photon-pair fluxes. For this reason, the presence of thin metal layers is important for an enhancement of electric-field amplitudes inside the structure. This enhancement then results in much stronger nonlinear interaction and efficient production of photon pairs. Compared to pure dielectric layered structures like those composed of GaN and AlN, analyzed in [@PerinaJr2011; @PerinaJr2014], metal-dielectric layered structures allow for much higher enhancement of electric-field amplitudes due to the high refraction-index contrast of the used metal and dielectric materials. For comparison and considering the wavelength 800 nm, this contrast equals 2.51 \[2.16\] for GaN \[AlN\] layers and 5.3 \[2.51\] for Ag \[GaN\] layers analyzed here. However, strong attenuation and losses of the electric-field amplitudes occur in metal layers. This puts restrictions to the possible thicknesses of metal layers as well as to the number of metal layers embedded into the structure.
To get deeper insight into the behavior of metal-dielectric layered structures, we first consider the simplest possible structure composed of only one nonlinear GaN layer sandwiched by two thin Ag layers. Thus, the Ag layers form mirrors of a simple resonator that enhances the electric-field amplitudes inside the GaN layer. To achieve efficient nonlinear interaction, we apply the method for designing an efficient layered structure for SPDC suggested in [@PerinaJr2011]. Lengths $ l_2 $ of GaN layers and $ l_1 $ of Ag layer vary in the method to reveal the most efficient structure. In the method, only pairs $ (l_1,l_2) $ of lengths that provide transmission maxima for the pump field at a chosen wavelength $ \lambda_p^0 $ are analyzed. Concentrating on the highest transmission maximum that also gives the greatest enhancement of the pump field, the appropriate pairs $ (l_1,l_2) $ of lengths form a one-dimensional parametric system. This means that for any value of GaN-layer length $ l_2 $ there exists only one value of Ag-layers length $ l_1 $.
In the analysis, we consider a plane-wave TE-polarized pump-field at central wavelength $\lambda_p^0=400$ nm impinging on the structure at normal incidence. Structures with thick Ag layers ($l_1 > 10$ nm) provide frequency-degenerated photon pairs. On the other hand, structures with thin Ag layers emit frequency non-degenerated photon pairs. The greatest value of relative signal photon-number density $ \eta $ defined in Eq. (\[19\]) is reached for slightly frequency non-degenerated photon-pair emission for $l_1=9.6376$ nm and $l_2=95.1195$ nm. We note that the signal and idler photons can leave the structure either along the $ +z $ or $ -z $ axes, so four possible combinations for photon pairs exist. Nevertheless different photon pairs have comparable properties. That is why, we pay attention to only photon pairs with both photons propagating along the $ +z$ direction. The structure generates photon pairs around the radial emission angle $\vartheta =83$ deg. Two emission maxima in relative signal photon-number density $ \eta_s $ plotted in Fig. \[fig2\] are observed. Whereas one maximum contains TE-polarized photons, the other maximum is composed of TM-polarized photons. As elements $\chi^{(2)}_{xxz} $ and $
\chi^{(2)}_{xzx}$ of susceptibility tensor participate in the nonlinear interaction, a TE-polarized photon is accompanied by a TM-polarized photon and vice versa. Two maxima in relative signal photon-number density $ \eta_s $, shown in Fig. \[fig2\], are sharp compared to similar dielectric structures. This is a consequence of strong interference of back-scattered optical fields caused by the high refractive-index contrast. These sharp features are characteristic for both spectral and spatial properties of photon pairs.
![Topo graph of relative signal photon-number density $ \eta_s $ in dependence on signal radial emission angle $\vartheta_s$ and wavelength $\lambda_s$ for a simple ’metal-dielectric’ resonator structure composed of one GaN layer and two Ag layers. Both photons with arbitrary polarizations propagate along the $ +z $ axis; $ \lambda_p^0 = 400 $ nm, $l_1=95.1195$ nm, $l_2=9.6376$ nm, $\psi_s^0=0$ deg; log denotes the decimal logarithm.[]{data-label="fig2"}](javurek2.eps)
The advantage of ’metal resonator’ surrounding the nonlinear GaN layer can be quantified comparing its signal photon-number density $ n_s $ \[Eq. (\[11\])\] with that characterizing one GaN monolayer structure of the same length ($l=114.3947$ nm). Ratio $
\kappa $ of these photon-number densities $ n_s $ (see Fig. \[fig3\]) shows that the enhancement of up to five orders in magnitude is reached in areas of maximal emission intensities, i.e. under conditions of the strongest constructive interference of the signal \[idler\] field. The enhancement factor rapidly drops down when wavelengths $ \lambda_s $ and radial emission angles $
\vartheta_s $ move away from these optimal conditions.
![Topo graph of ratio $\kappa $ of signal photon-number densities $ n_s $ of the simple ’metal-dielectric’ resonator structure and GaN monolayer of equal thickness as it depends on signal radial emission angle $\vartheta_s$ and wavelength $
\lambda_s$. Parameters are written in the caption of Fig. \[fig2\].[]{data-label="fig3"}](javurek3.eps)
An efficient metal-dielectric structure
=======================================
In order to sufficiently enhance the nonlinear interaction, more complex metal-dielectric layered structures have to be considered. There exists an interval of suitable numbers of the used layers. On one side, larger number of layers leads to strong interference and also to high enhancement of electric-field amplitudes. On the other side, larger number of metal layers results in strong attenuation of the electric fields. To keep balance between these effects, we have decided to design a structure with five metal Ag layers sandwiched by six GaN layers (for the scheme, see Fig. \[fig1\]).
Following the design procedure, we have plotted the pump-field intensity transmission coefficient $ T_p $ at the wavelength $
\lambda_p^0 = 400 $ nm and for TE polarization \[see Fig. \[fig4\](a)\] as it depends on layers’ lengths $ l_1 $ and $
l_2 $. The pump field impinging on the structure at normal incidence has been assumed. In this graph, five transmission bands can be seen. It follows from the theory of band-gap structures that the greatest enhancement of electric-field amplitudes occurs in the transmission band closest to the band gap. In this band, also the greatest values of absorption $ A_p $ are found \[see Fig. \[fig4\](b)\] indicating large electric-field amplitudes inside the metal layers [@Larciprete2008].
Structures corresponding to the maxima of the first transmission band have been parameterized by the ratio $L=l_2/l_1$. Maximum $
\eta_s^{\rm max} $ of relative signal photon-number density $
\eta_s $ taken over frequency $ \omega_s $ and radial emission angle $ \vartheta_s $ assuming fixed azimuthal angle $\psi_{s,0}$ was chosen for quantification of efficiency of the nonlinear process. Structures with parameter $ L $ in the interval $
(0.1,0.25)$ were only considered because very thin metal layers do not sufficiently enhance the electric-field amplitudes. Moreover, their transmission bands are broader. On the other hand, thick metal layers attenuate the propagating electric fields. Maximal values $ \eta_s^{\rm max} $ of relative signal photon-number density $ \eta_s $ were found in two regions: $L\in(0.17,0.18)$ and $L \in (0.225,0.24)$. In these regions, $\eta_s^{\rm max} $ reaches values around $ 10^6 $. The first region of $ L $ analyzed in Fig. \[fig5\] is more suitable and contains the most efficient structure ($L=0.178$) with lengths $l_1=101.752$ nm and $l_2=18.083$ nm. The obtained values of maxima $ \eta_s^{\rm max}
$ are higher by two orders in magnitude compared to the values of maxima $ \eta_s^{\rm max} $ of the ’metal resonator’ investigated in Sec. IV. Additionally, these values are even higher by seven orders in magnitude compared to those of pure dielectric layered structures studied in [@PerinaJr2011]. Detailed analysis of SPDC inside the metal-dielectric structures shows that dielectric layers are the major source of photon pairs. Metal layers give photon-pair numbers lower by six orders in magnitude compared to the dielectric layers. Nevertheless, they play a critical role in the enhancement of electric-field amplitudes inside the structure due to their high indices of refraction. We have also analyzed SPDC involving a TM-polarized pump field along the same vein. However, the obtained values of maxima $ \eta_s^{\rm max} $ have been found considerably lower than those discussed above for the TE-polarized pump field.
![Maximum $\eta_s^{\rm max} $ of relative signal photon-number density $ \eta_s $ depending on ratio $ L $ of layers’ lengths, $ L=l_2/l_1$, for structures composed of 11 layers such that the pump field at $ \lambda_p^0 = 400 $ nm occurs in the center of the first transmission band (see Fig. \[fig4\]).[]{data-label="fig5"}](javurek5.eps)
Relative signal photon-number density $ \eta_s $ of this structure (plotted in Fig. \[fig6\]) reveals two emission peaks. One peak is centered at the wavelength $\lambda_s=737.837$ nm and the radial emission angle $ \vartheta_s=47.686 $ deg, the other peak occurs at the wavelength $\lambda_s=873.601$ nm and the radial emission angle $\vartheta_s=61.095$ deg. The signal photon at wavelength $\lambda_s=737.837$ nm is TE polarized and its twin has TM polarization. On the other hand, the signal photon at wavelength $\lambda_s=873.601$ nm has TM polarization, whereas its twin is TE polarized. This means that the first photon pair exploits the element $ \chi^{(2)}_{xxz} $ of susceptibility tensor whereas the second photon pair uses the element $ \chi^{(2)}_{xzx}
$. The emission peaks are very narrow in both the wavelength $
\lambda_s $ and radial emission angle $\theta_s$. The intensity peaks’ widths $ \Delta\lambda_s $ are narrower than $1\times
10^{-3}$ nm (full width at half maximum, FWHM). In radial emission angle, the intensity peaks’ widths $ \Delta \theta_s $ are narrower than $5 \times 10^{-2}$ deg. It is worth to stress that the sharpness of these peaks arises from the behavior of TM-polarized fields. The analyzed system has nearly radial symmetry which is only weakly broken by the varying values of $
\chi^{(2)} $ elements in azimuthal direction. So the emitted photon pairs form two narrow concentric rings; slightly changing intensities are found around these rings.
The electric-field amplitude profiles of the interacting fields along the propagating $ z $ axis for $ (p,s,i) = {\rm (TE,TE,TM)}
$ interaction are shown in Fig. \[fig7\]. The pump electric-field amplitude profile is determined for the incident electric-field amplitude 1 V/m impinging on the structure at $ z =
0 $ m. The signal and idler electric-field amplitude profiles are such that they give the outgoing amplitude 1 V/m at the end of the structure and 0 V/m for the outgoing amplitude at $ z = 0 $ m. The TE-polarized pump and signal fields have their electric-field amplitudes inside the structure enhanced several times. In contrast, the enhancement factor of TM-polarized idler field equals around $ 10^5 $ due to highly constructive interference of the back-scattered fields at the boundaries. For comparison, the enhancement factor for GaN/AlN layered structures typically equals several tens [@PerinaJr2011].
Also correlated areas characterizing spatial correlations between the signal and idler intensities are narrow. Two different shapes of correlated areas found in the analyzed structure are shown in Fig. \[fig8\] for a pump beam with Gaussian transverse profile of radius $r_p=1$ mm. If we fix the emission direction of the TM-polarized idler photon at $ \vartheta_i=-61.095$ deg, the correlated area of TE-polarized signal photon has roughly a Gaussian shape which originates in the Gaussian pump-field transverse shape \[see Fig. \[fig8\](a)\]. On the other hand, when the TE-polarized signal photon is detected at $\vartheta_s=47.686$ deg, the correlated area of TM-polarized idler photon is highly elliptic \[see Fig. \[fig8\](b)\]. The reason is that its extension along the azimuthal angle $ \psi_i $ is determined by the pump-beam radius $ r_p $, whereas its extension along the radial angle $ \vartheta_i $ is strongly limited by the properties of TM modes related to their strong back-scattering on the boundaries. The dependence on pump-beam radius $ r_p $ can be used to tailor the extensions of correlated areas [@Hamar2010].
Temporal properties of emitted photon pairs
===========================================
Due to stationarity, the two-photon spectral amplitude $
\phi(\omega_s,\omega_i) $ gets a general form $ f_i(\omega_i)
\delta(\omega_p^0 -\omega_s-\omega_i) $, in which the $ \delta
$-function expresses the energy conservation law. The squared modulus $ |f_i|^2 $ is then linearly proportional to the idler spectral photon-number density $ n_i^\omega(\omega_i) $. For the analyzed structure, the spectral density $ n_i^\omega $ of a photon pair with signal photon propagating along direction $
\vartheta_s^0= 47.686$ deg and $\psi_s^0=0$ deg and idler photon propagating along direction $ \vartheta_i^0=-61.095 $ deg and $\psi_i^0=0$ deg attains the form of a very narrow peak of width $
4.45\times 10^{-4}$ nm \[FWHM, see Fig. \[fig9\](a)\].
The narrow spectral peak is responsible for longer temporal correlations of fields’ intensities compared to those characterizing photon pairs generated in a typical bulk crystals. For the analyzed structure and cw pumping, intensity temporal correlations occur at the time scale of ns \[for the conditional probability density $ p_i $ of detecting an idler photon at time $
\tau_i $, see Fig. \[fig9\](b)\]. It is worth noting that the signal- and idler-field group velocities considerably differ. The TE-polarized signal photons propagate on average faster than the TM-polarized idler photons that undergo on average much higher number of back reflections on the boundaries after their emission. If pulsed SPDC occurred in the structure, the idler-field detection interval would be much wider than that of the signal field.
Different group velocities of the signal and idler photons inside the structure also result in highly asymmetric coincidence-count rate profiles observed in the Hong-Ou-Mandel interferometer, as documented in Fig. \[fig10\]. In this interferometer, a much longer average delay of the idler photon has to be compensated by a delay line placed into the signal-photon path to achieve mutual interference of both photons at a beam splitter. Fast oscillations caused by nonzero difference of the signal and idler central frequencies are also visible in the normalized coincidence-count rate $ R $ in Fig. \[fig10\]. We note that the Hong-Ou-Mandel interferometer represents the simplest tool for the observation of temporal correlations between photons.
![Normalized coincidence count rate $R$ in the Hong-Ou-Mandel interferometer depending on mutual time delay $ \tau_l $ between the signal and idler photons. The structure described in the caption to Fig. \[fig6\] is analyzed.[]{data-label="fig10"}](javurek10.eps)
Losses in the structure and noise photons
=========================================
Non-negligible losses occur in the analyzed metal-dielectric layered structures because of the presence of highly absorbing metal layers. When one photon from a photon pair is absorbed whereas the other photon leaves the structure, the emitted joint signal and idler field contains also the single-photon noise present both in the signal and idler fields. According to the theory developed in Appendix B, these noise contributions are comparable to the photon-pair one. Ratios $ R_{s,FF}^{\rm TE,TM} $ and $ R_{i,FF}^{\rm TE,TM} $ given in Eqs. (\[B5\]) in Appendix B and quantifying contributions of the signal and idler noise photon-number densities relatively to the photon-number densities $ n_s $ and $ n_i $ given in Eq. (\[12\]), respectively, are plotted in Fig. \[fig11\]. They are appropriate for the structure with 11 layers and the joint signal and idler field composed of the forward-propagating $ {\rm TE} $-polarized signal and $ {\rm TM} $-polarized idler photons. Despite the low amount of Ag embedded in the structure ($ 5\times18 $ nm), the numbers of signal and idler noise photons are comparable to the number of emitted photon pairs. Comparable values of ratios $ R_{s,FF}^{\rm
TE,TM} $ (1.20 for $ \vartheta_s = 47 $ deg and $\lambda_s = 738
$ nm) and $ R_{i,FF}^{\rm TE,TM} $ (0.97 for $ \vartheta_i = 61
$ deg and $ \lambda_i = 834 $ nm) for the signal noise and idler noise fields at the corresponding radial emission angles $
\vartheta $ and for the corresponding frequencies $ \omega $ indicate that the numbers of emitted noise photons depend mainly on the number of photon pairs generated inside the structure. It is worth to note that the values of ratios $ R_{s,FF}^{\rm TE,TM}
$ and $ R_{i,FF}^{\rm TE,TM} $ increase in the vicinity of forbidden bands, i.e. in the area with strong back-scattering and interference (see Fig. \[fig11\]).
As discussed in Appendix B, photons from photon pairs in which only one photon enters the detection system represent an additional source of the noise. In the analyzed structure, photon pairs with a forward-propagating $ {\rm TE} $-polarized signal photon and a backward-propagating $ {\rm TM} $-polarized idler photon contribute to the noise in the signal field. On the other hand, photon pairs with a backward-propagating $ {\rm TE}
$-polarized signal photon and a forward-propagating $ {\rm TM}
$-polarized idler photon are responsible for an additional noise in the idler field. As the numbers of emitted photon pairs with different propagation directions are comparable, the numbers of noise photons constituting these contributions are also comparable. However, these noise contributions can be eliminated if multiple coincidence-count detections are measured.
Considerable amount of the noise present in the generated photon-pair states restricts applicability of such states to the schemes based on coincidence-count measurements. In these schemes, a single-photon noise contributes to the measurement only via random coincidences that are, however, seldom due to the weakness of the field. Possible applications suitable for photon-pair states emitted from metal-dielectric layered structures include quantum cryptography using photon pairs [@Gisin2002] or quantum optical coherence tomography [@Abouraddy2002], to name few. On the other hand, these states are not suitable for constructing heralded single-photon sources [@Alibard2005].
Conclusions
===========
Using quantization of photon flux, a model of spontaneous parametric down-conversion in metal-dielectric layered structures has been developed. Applying this model, an efficient structure composed of six dielectric GaN layers and five metal Ag layers has been designed and analyzed. Highly enhanced electric-field amplitudes caused by metal layers not only compensate for losses in the metal layers, they also allow efficient photon-pair generation in the nonlinear GaN layers. Despite the small number of used layers, the generated photon pairs have very narrow spectra. They are also emitted into very narrow intensity rings in the transverse plane. Compared to a structure consisting of only one GaN monolayer with the same amount of material, the analyzed structure provides photon-pair fluxes greater by seven orders in magnitude. Correlated areas of the emitted photon pairs are very narrow and differ for TE- and TM-polarized fields. Whereas they attain a circular shape for TE-polarized fields and a Gaussian radially-symmetric transverse pump-beam profile, they are highly elliptic for TM-polarized fields due to squeezing in the radial direction. Temporal intensity correlations in a photon pair occur at the time scale of ns owing to many back-reflections on the boundaries. Compared to nonlinear dielectric layered structures, photon-pair fluxes greater by four orders in magnitude are found. On the other hand, they also generate a single-photon noise originating in broken photon pairs and having photon fluxes comparable to those of photon pairs. Metal-dielectric layered structures provide in general strongly directionally emitted and spectrally narrow-band photon pairs necessary, e.g., for quantum-information processing with photons and atoms.
Support by projects CZ.1.05/2.1.00/03.0058 and CZ.1.07/2.3.00/20.0017 of MŠMT ČR and P205/12/0382 of GA ČR are acknowledged. D.J. and J.P. acknowledge support by project IGA\_PrF\_2014005 of IGA UP Olomouc. J.S. thanks the projects CZ.1.07/2.3.00/30.0004 and CZ.1.07/2.3.00/20.0058 of MŠMT ČR.
$ \chi^{(2)} $ tensor for metals
================================
An expression for tensor $\chi^{(2)}_{jkm}$ of nonlinear susceptibility appropriate for metals containing electrons moving by the Lorentz force caused by an external pump field [@Larciprete2008] is derived in the Appendix. Position $ {\bf
r}(t) $ of an electron obeys the following equation of motion $$\label{A1}
\frac{d^2{\mathbf{r}(t)}}{dt^2} + \gamma \frac{d{\mathbf{r}(t)}}{dt} =
-\frac{e}{m} \mathbf{E}(t) - \frac{e}{m}\frac{d{\mathbf{r}(t)}}{dt}
\times \mathbf{B}(t),$$ in which $m$ stands for the electron mass, $\gamma$ is the collision factor and $e$ denotes the positive elementary charge. Symbol $\mathbf{E}$ ($\mathbf{B}$) means the electric- (magnetic-) field amplitude. Vector product is denoted as $ \times $. Considering mean volume density of electrons $ N $, macroscopic polarization $ {\bf P}(t)
$ is determined by the expression $ -e N {\bf r}(t) $. Equation (\[A1\]) can thus be transformed into the following equation for polarization $ {\bf P}(t) $: $$\label{A2}
{\frac{\partial ^2\textbf{P}}{\partial t^2}} + \gamma {\frac{\partial \textbf{P}}{\partial t}} =
\varepsilon_0 \Omega_p^2 \textbf{E} - \frac{e}{m} {\frac{\partial \textbf{P}}{\partial t}}
\times \textbf{B};$$ $\Omega_p \equiv e \sqrt{N/(\varepsilon_0 m)} $ is the plasma frequency.
Perturbation approach is applied to find the solution of Eq. (\[A2\]). Polarization $ {\bf P} $ is decomposed into strong linear and weak nonlinear parts. Also, the second term on the right-hand side of Eq. (\[A2\]) is much smaller than the first one. Solution of Eq. (\[A2\]) for three monochromatic waves representing the pump, signal and idler fields can then be easily found following [@Boyd2003]. It allows us to express the nonlinear tensor $ \chi^{(2)} $ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\chi^{(2)}_{jlm}(\mathbf{k}_p,\mathbf{k}_s,\mathbf{k}_i) &=&
-\frac{i \varepsilon_0}{2\pi N e}
\sum_{o,q=x,y,z} \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{-15mm} \Bigl[
L^\ast(\omega_p)L^\ast(\omega_s)A(\omega_s,\omega_i)
\varepsilon_{jlo}\varepsilon_{oqm} k^\ast_{i,q} \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{-15mm} \mbox{} + L^\ast(\omega_p)L^\ast(\omega_i)A(\omega_i,\omega_s)
\varepsilon_{imo} \varepsilon_{oql} k^\ast_{s,q} \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{-15mm} \mbox{} + L(\omega_i)L^\ast(\omega_s)A(\omega_s,\omega_p)
\varepsilon_{mlo} \varepsilon_{oqj} k_{p,q} \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{-15mm} \mbox{} - L(\omega_i)L(\omega_p)A(\omega_p,\omega_s) \varepsilon_{mjo}
\varepsilon_{oql} k_{s,q}^\ast \nonumber\\
& & \hspace{-15mm} \mbox{} - L(\omega_s)L(\omega_p)A(\omega_p,\omega_i)
\varepsilon_{ljo} \varepsilon_{oqm} k_{i,q}^\ast \nonumber\\
& & \hspace{-15mm} \mbox{} + L(\omega_s)L^\ast (\omega_i)A(\omega_i,\omega_p)
\varepsilon_{lmo} \varepsilon_{oqj} k_{p,q} \Bigr].
\label{A3}\end{aligned}$$ In Eq. (\[A3\]), $\varepsilon_{ijk}$ denotes the Levi-Civita tensor, $ L(\omega) = \Omega_p^2 / (\omega^2 + i \gamma \omega) $ and $ A(\omega,\omega') = \omega/\omega' $. The expression in Eq. (\[A3\]) for tensor $ \chi^{(2)} $ reveals its strong dependence on frequencies of the interacting fields. Wave vectors $ {\bf k} $ occurring in Eq. (\[A3\]) are assumed to be complex, as the fields are strongly attenuated in metals (due to the skin effect). The expected values of elements of $\chi^{(2)}$ tensor for metals are of the order of $10^{-13} $ m/V.
Losses in layered structures and noise photons
==============================================
The analyzed metal-dielectric layered structures may produce considerable amount of noise photons due to strong absorption of the metal. The reason is that an absorbed photon leaves its twin in the structure. If this twin exits the structure, it forms the noise that is superimposed on the emitted photon-pair field. In this Appendix, we develop a theory that quantifies the contribution of noise photons. We assume for simplicity that photon pairs are generated only in dielectric layers, in accord with our results that have revealed only weak generation of photon pairs in metal layers. However, the inclusion of metal layers as sources of photon pairs is straightforward.
Detailed inspection of Eq. (\[8\]) for two-photon state $
|\psi^{\rm out}_{s,i}\rangle $ reveals that this state is composed of contributions describing photon pairs emitted in different layers. We assume that similar decomposition can be done also for the joint signal-idler photon-number density $
n^{\alpha\beta}_{ab}({\bf \Omega}_s,{\bf \Omega}_i) $ defined in Eq. (\[10\]): $$\begin{aligned}
n^{\alpha\beta}_{ab}({\bf \Omega}_s,{\bf \Omega}_i) &\approx&
\sum_{l\in {\rm diel}} \, \sum_{a',b'=F,B}
T^{(l)\alpha}_{s,aa'}({\bf \Omega}_s) T^{(l)\beta}_{i,bb'}({\bf \Omega}_i)
\nonumber \\
& & \mbox{} \times
n^{(l)\alpha\beta}_{a'b'}({\bf \Omega}_s,{\bf \Omega}_i) .
\label{B1}\end{aligned}$$ In Eq. (\[B1\]), symbol $ n^{(l)\alpha\beta}_{ab}({\bf
\Omega}_s,{\bf \Omega}_i) $ stands for the joint signal-idler photon-number density of photon pairs emitted in an $ l$-th layer. Symbol $ \sum_{l\in{\rm diel}} $ means summation over dielectric layers. The photon-number density $ n^{(l)\alpha\beta}_{ab}({\bf
\Omega}_s,{\bf \Omega}_i) $ is determined along Eq. (\[10\]) using a two-photon spectral amplitude $
\phi^{(l)\alpha\beta}_{ab}({\bf \Omega}_s,{\bf \Omega}_i) $ appropriate for the $ l $-th layer. The intensity transmission coefficients $T_{m,aa'}^{(l)\alpha} $ introduced in Eq. (\[B1\]) give the probability that an $ \alpha $-polarized photon in field $ m $ propagating in direction $ a'$ in an $ l $-th layer leaves the structure in direction $ a $.
Whereas $ T_{m,Fa'}^{(l)\alpha} + T_{m,Ba'}^{(l)\alpha} = 1$ holds for dielectric structures, intensity absorption coefficients $D_{m,a'}^{(l)\alpha} $ are needed in metal-dielectric structures to generalize this relation: $$\begin{aligned}
& & T_{m,Fa'}^{(l)\alpha} + T_{m,Ba'}^{(l)\alpha} + D_{m,a'}^{(l)\alpha}= 1 ;
\nonumber \\
& & \hspace{10mm} m=s,i; \hspace{3mm} \alpha ={\rm TE, TM};
\hspace{3mm} a'=F,B .
\label{B2}\end{aligned}$$ The intensity absorption coefficient $ D_{m,a'}^{(l)\alpha} $ determines the probability that an $ \alpha $-polarized photon propagating in direction $ a'$ in an $ l $-th layer in field $ m $ is absorbed inside the structure. Using absorption coefficients $D_{m,a'}^{(l)\alpha} $, the signal noise photon-number density $
d^{\alpha}_{si,a}({\bf \Omega}_s,{\bf \Omega}_i) $ quantifying the amount of single $ \alpha $-polarized photons at frequency $
\omega_s $ propagating at angle $ (\vartheta_s,\psi_s) $ in direction $ a $ and originating in pairs with an idler photon with frequency $ \omega_i $ at angle $ (\vartheta_i,\psi_i) $ is expressed as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
d^{\alpha}_{si,a}({\bf \Omega}_s,{\bf \Omega}_i) &=&
\sum_{l\in {\rm diel}} \, \sum_{\beta={\rm TE,TM}} \, \sum_{a',b'=F,B}
T^{(l)\alpha}_{s,aa'}({\bf \Omega}_s) \nonumber \\
& & \mbox{} \times D^{(l)\beta}_{i,b'}({\bf \Omega}_i)
n^{(l)\alpha\beta}_{a'b'}({\bf \Omega}_s,{\bf \Omega}_i) .
\label{B3}\end{aligned}$$ An overall signal noise photon-number density $
d^{\alpha}_{s,a}({\bf \Omega}_s) $ is then simply determined by integrating over all possible idler-field frequencies $ \omega_i $ and propagation angles $ (\vartheta_i,\psi_i) $: $$ d^{\alpha}_{s,a}({\bf \Omega}_s) = \int_{0}^{\infty} d\omega_i
\int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2} d\vartheta_i \int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2}
d\psi_i \, d^{\alpha}_{si,a}({\bf \Omega}_s,{\bf \Omega}_i).
\label{B4}$$ Formulas analogous to those written in Eqs. (\[B3\]) and (\[B4\]) can be derived also for the idler-field noise contribution.
To judge contributions of noise single photons to the generated state with $ \alpha $-polarized signal photons in direction $ a $ and $ \beta $-polarized idler photons in direction $ b $, we define ratios $ R_{m,ab}^{\alpha\beta}({\bf \Omega}_m) $ of noise photon-number densities $ d_{s,a}^{\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_s) $ and $
d_{i,b}^{\beta}({\bf \Omega}_i) $ with respect to densities $
n_{m,ab}^{\alpha\beta}({\bf \Omega}_m) $ belonging to photon pairs and written in Eq. (\[11\]): $$ R_{s,ab}^{\alpha\beta}({\bf \Omega}_s) = \frac{
d_{s,a}^{\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_s) }{ n_{s,ab}^{\alpha\beta}({\bf \Omega}_s) },
\hspace{5mm}
R_{i,ab}^{\alpha\beta}({\bf \Omega}_i) = \frac{
d_{i,b}^{\beta}({\bf \Omega}_i) }{ n_{i,ab}^{\alpha\beta}({\bf \Omega}_i)}.
\label{B5}$$
Also photon pairs with polarizations and propagation directions different from the analyzed one and denoted by indices $(a,\alpha)
$ and $ (b,\beta) $ in Eq. (\[B5\]) contribute to noise photons provided that one of their two photons is captured by detectors. In this case, ratios $ \tilde{R}_{m,ab}^{\alpha\beta}({\bf
\Omega}_m) $ defined along the relations $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{R}_{s,ab}^{\alpha\beta}({\bf \Omega}_s) &=& \frac{
d_{s,a}^{\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_s) + \sum_{\beta'={\rm TE}}^{\rm
TM} \sum_{b'= F}^{B} n_{s,ab'}^{\alpha\beta'}({\bf \Omega}_s)
}{ n_{s,ab}^{\alpha\beta}({\bf \Omega}_s) } - 1 ,
\nonumber \\
\tilde{R}_{i,ab}^{\alpha\beta}({\bf \Omega}_i) &=& \frac{
d_{i,b}^{\beta}({\bf \Omega}_i) + \sum_{\alpha'={\rm TE}}^{\rm TM}
\sum_{a'= F}^{B} n_{i,a'b}^{\alpha'\beta}({\bf \Omega}_i) }{ n_{i,ab}^{\alpha\beta}({\bf \Omega}_i)}
-1 \nonumber \\
& &
\label{B6}\end{aligned}$$ appropriately characterize the noise of the emitted state. However, this part of noise can be removed in principle when multiple coincidence-count measurements are applied in the experiment.
To determine ratios $ R_{m,ab}^{\alpha\beta}({\bf \Omega}_m) $ and $ \tilde{R}_{m,ab}^{\alpha\beta}({\bf \Omega}_m) $ characterizing noise in the emitted state, we need intensity transmission and absorption coefficients for the signal and idler photons born in each dielectric layer. In what follows, we concentrate our attention to field $ m $ ($ m=s,i $) and an $ l $-th layer (for the scheme of a general structure, see Fig. \[fig12\]). To describe properly damping in metal layers, we have to introduce time into the description, at least implicitly. We reach this by defining the appropriate boundary conditions. We have to distinguish two cases characterizing the photons propagating forward and backward in the $ l $-th layer.
We first add to the $ l $-th layer backward-propagating $
\alpha$-polarized photons described by amplitude $ A^{(l),{\rm
ext}}_{m_B,\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m) $ and follow their evolution inside the structure. This evolution is described by the transfer-matrix formalism elaborated for the nonlinear layered structures in [@PerinaJr2011; @PerinaJr2014]. The remaining boundary conditions are such that photons do not enter the structure from its front \[$ A^{(0)}_{m_F,\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m)
=0$\] and rear \[$ A^{(N+1)}_{m_B,\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m) =0 $\] ends. The backward-propagating photons added into the $ l $-th layer propagate first in the layers to the left from the $ l $-th layer, they can penetrate into the layers to the right from the $
l $-th layer later and they can even return back to the left-hand-side layers from the right-hand-side ones. Following the scheme plotted in Fig. \[fig12\] and showing the used amplitudes, we can write two sets of linear equations characterizing the propagation through the left- and right-hand-side layers separately: $$\begin{aligned}
& &\left(\begin{array}{c} A_{m_F,\alpha}^{(l)}({\bf \Omega}_m) \\
A_{m_B,\alpha}^{(l),{\rm ext}}({\bf \Omega}_m) + [{\cal P}_{m}^{(l)}({\bf
\Omega}_m)]_{22}^* B_{m_B,\alpha}^{(l)}({\bf \Omega}_m) \end{array}\right)
= \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{35mm} {\cal L}^{(l)}_{m,\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m)
\left(\begin{array}{c}
0 \\ A_{m_B,\alpha}^{(0)} ({\bf \Omega}_m)
\end{array}\right), \nonumber \\
& &\left(\begin{array}{c} A_{m_F,\alpha}^{(N+1)} ({\bf \Omega}_m)\\
0 \end{array}\right)
= \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{15mm} {\cal R}^{(l)}_{m,\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m)
\left(\begin{array}{c} [{\cal P}_{m}^{(l)}({\bf
\Omega}_m)]_{11} A_{m_F,\alpha}^{(l)}({\bf \Omega}_m) \\
B_{m_B,\alpha}^{(l)} ({\bf \Omega}_m) \end{array}\right).
\nonumber \\
& &
\label{B7}\end{aligned}$$
![Scheme of a structure composed of $ N $ layers. Whereas amplitudes $ A^{(l)} $ describe the fields at the left-hand side of an $ l$-th layer ($ l=1,\ldots,N+1 $), amplitudes $ B^{(l)} $ are appropriate for the right-hand side of this layer ($ l=1,\ldots,N $); amplitudes $ A^{(0)} $ give the fields in front of the structure. Amplitudes $ A^{(l),{\rm ext}}_{B} $ and $ B^{(l),{\rm ext}}_{F}
$ belong to the fields added into an $ l $-th layer. Subscript $ F $ ($ B $) identifies the forward- (backward-) propagating fields. Matrices $ {\cal T}^{(l)} $ characterize an $ l $-th boundary and matrices $ {\cal P}^{(l)} $ determine the free-field evolution in an $ l $-th layer.[]{data-label="fig12"}](javurek12)
Matrices $ {\cal L}^{(l)}_{m,\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m) $ \[$ {\cal
R}^{(l)}_{m,\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m) $\] introduced in Eq. (\[B7\]) describe the propagation of both forward- and backward-propagating fields in the layers positioned to the left \[right\] from the $ l $-th layer. They can be expressed in terms of matrices $ {\cal T}^{(j)}_{m,\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m) $ and $ {\cal
P}^{(j)}_{m}({\bf \Omega}_m) $ characterizing propagation through a $ j$-th boundary and free-field propagation in a $ j $-th layer, respectively: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}^{(l)}_{m,\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m) &=& \prod_{j=l}^{2}
\left[ {\cal T}^{(j-1)}_{m,\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m)
{\cal P}^{(j-1)}_{m}({\bf \Omega}_m) \right]
{\cal T}^{(0)}_{m,\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m) , \nonumber \\
{\cal R}^{(l)}_{m,\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m) &=& \prod_{j=N}^{l+1}
\left[ {\cal T}^{(j)}_{m,\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m)
{\cal P}^{(j)}_{m}({\bf \Omega}_m) \right]
{\cal T}^{(l)}_{m,\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m) . \nonumber \\
& &
\label{B8}\end{aligned}$$ More details including definitions of the elements of matrices $
{\cal T}^{(j)}_{m,\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m) $ and $ {\cal
P}^{(j)}_{m}({\bf \Omega}_m) $ can be found in [@PerinaJr2011; @PerinaJr2014].
Two sets of equations written in (\[B7\]) are coupled. These equations can easily be rearranged such that one linear set of equations for amplitudes $ A_{m_F,\alpha}^{(N+1)} ({\bf \Omega}_m)
$, $ B_{m_B,\alpha}^{(l)} ({\bf \Omega}_m) $, $
A_{m_F,\alpha}^{(l)}({\bf \Omega}_m) $, and $ A_{m_B,\alpha}^{(0)}
({\bf \Omega}_m) $ characterizing the fields leaving the left- and right-hand-side layers is obtained: $$\begin{aligned}
& & \left( \begin{array}{c} 0 \\ 1
\\ 0 \\ 0 \end{array} \right) A_{m_B,\alpha}^{(l),{\rm ext}}({\bf \Omega}_m) = {\cal M}_{m,\alpha}^{(l)}({\bf \Omega}_m)
\left( \begin{array}{c} A_{m_F,\alpha}^{(N+1)}({\bf \Omega}_m) \\
B_{m_B,\alpha}^{(l)}({\bf \Omega}_m) \\ A_{m_F,\alpha}^{(l)}({\bf \Omega}_m) \\
A_{m_B,\alpha}^{(0)}({\bf \Omega}_m) \end{array} \right) ,
\nonumber \\
& &
\label{B9} \\
& & {\cal M}_{m,\alpha}^{(l)}({\bf \Omega}_m) = \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{10mm}
\left( \begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & -1 & [{\cal L}^{(l)}_{m,\alpha}]_{12} \\
0 & -[{\cal P}^{(l)}_m]_{22}^* & 0 & [{\cal L}^{(l)}_{m,\alpha}]_{22} \\
-1 & [{\cal R}^{(l)}_{m,\alpha}]_{12} & [{\cal R}^{(l)}_{m,\alpha}]_{11} [{\cal P}^{(l)}_m]_{11} & 0 \\
0 & -[{\cal R}^{(l)}_{m,\alpha}]_{22} & -[{\cal R}^{(l)}_{m,\alpha}]_{21} [{\cal P}^{(l)}_m]_{11} & 0
\end{array} \right). \nonumber \\
& &
\label{B10}\end{aligned}$$ The solution of Eqs. (\[B9\]) provides the output amplitudes that determine photon fluxes both inside the $ l$-th layer and outside the whole layered structure. Their analysis provides us the needed intensity transmission and absorption coefficients as follows.
According to the Poynting theorem, time-averaged power $
P^{(l)}_{m_B,\alpha} ({\bf \Omega}_m) $ generated in the $ l $-th layer by the added field $ A_{m_B,\alpha}^{(l),{\rm ext}} $ is expressed as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
& & P^{(l)}_{m_B,\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m) =
n_m^{(l)}(\omega_m)\cos(\vartheta_m^{(l)}) \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{10mm} \mbox{} \times \Bigl[ |A_{m_B,\alpha}^{(l),{\rm ext}}({\bf \Omega}_m) + [{\cal P}_{m}^{(l)}({\bf
\Omega}_m)]_{22}^* B_{m_B,\alpha}^{(l)}({\bf \Omega}_m)|^2 \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{10mm} \mbox{} + |[{\cal P}_{m}^{(l)}({\bf \Omega}_m)]_{11} A_{m_F,\alpha}^{(l)}({\bf \Omega}_m)|^2
- |A_{m_F,\alpha}^{(l)}({\bf \Omega}_m)|^2 \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{10mm} \mbox{} - |B_{m_B,\alpha}^{(l)} ({\bf
\Omega}_m)|^2 \Bigr] .
\label{B11}\end{aligned}$$ This power is partly dissipated both in the left- and right-hand-side layers and its remaining part leaves the structure either at its front or rear end. Power $ P^{(l)F}_{m_B,\alpha}
({\bf \Omega}_m) $ \[$ P^{(l)B}_{m_B,\alpha} ({\bf \Omega}_m) $\] beyond the rear end \[in front\] of the structure is determined as follows $$\begin{aligned}
P^{(l)F}_{m_B,\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m) &=&
\cos(\vartheta_m) |A_{m_F,\alpha}^{(N+1)}({\bf \Omega}_m)|^2, \nonumber \\
P^{(l)B}_{m_B,\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m) &=&
\cos(\vartheta_m) |A_{m_B,\alpha}^{(0)}({\bf \Omega}_m)|^2.
\label{B12}\end{aligned}$$ Power $ P^{(l)D}_{m_B,\alpha} ({\bf \Omega}_m) $ dissipated in the left- and right-hand-side layers can then be derived from the conservation law of energy: $$ P^{(l)D}_{m_B,\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m) = P^{(l)}_{m_B,\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m)
- P^{(l)F}_{m_B,\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m)
- P^{(l)B}_{m_B,\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m).
\label{B13}$$
If power $ P^{(l)}_{m_B,\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m) $ equals to that of one photon per second, the powers $ P^{(l)F}_{m_B,\alpha}({\bf
\Omega}_m) $, $ P^{(l)B}_{m_B,\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m) $ and $
P^{(l)D}_{m_B,\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m) $ give in turn intensity transmission coefficients $ T_{m,FB}^{(l)\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m) $ and $ T_{m,BB}^{(l)\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m) $ and intensity absorption coefficient $ D_{m,B}^{(l)\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m) $: $$\begin{aligned}
T_{m,aB}^{(l)\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m) &=& \frac{P^{(l)a}_{m_B,\alpha}({\bf
\Omega}_m) }{ P^{(l)}_{m_B,\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m) } , \hspace{3mm} a=F,B ,\nonumber \\
D_{m,B}^{(l)\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m) &=& \frac{P^{(l)D}_{m_B,\alpha}({\bf
\Omega}_m) }{ P^{(l)}_{m_B,\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m) } .
\label{B14}\end{aligned}$$
Now, we add to the $ l $-th layer forward-propagating $
\alpha$-polarized photons described by amplitude $ B^{(l),{\rm
ext}}_{m_F,\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m) $. These photons propagate first in the right-hand-side layers, they enter into the left-hand-side layers later and they can propagate back to the right-hand-side layers again. Also in this case, no photon enters the structure from its front \[$ A^{(0)}_{m_F,\alpha}({\bf
\Omega}_m) =0 $\] and rear \[$ A^{(N+1)}_{m_B,\alpha}({\bf
\Omega}_m) =0 $\] ends. Similarly as for the added backward-propagating photons, we can write two sets of linear equations characterizing the propagation through the left- and right-hand-side layers separately: $$\begin{aligned}
& & \left(\begin{array}{c}
A_{m_F,\alpha}^{(l)}({\bf \Omega}_m ) \\
{ [{\cal P}_{m}^{(l)}({\bf \Omega}_m )]_{22}^{*} }
B_{m_B,\alpha}^{(l)}({\bf \Omega}_m)
\end{array}\right)
= \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{40mm} {\cal L}^{(l)}_{m,\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m)
\left(\begin{array}{c}
0 \\ A_{m_B,\alpha}^{(0)} ({\bf \Omega}_m)
\end{array}\right), \nonumber \\
& & \left(\begin{array}{c} A_{m_F,\alpha}^{(N+1)} ({\bf \Omega}_m)\\
0 \end{array}\right)
= {\cal R}^{(l)}_{m,\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m) \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{5mm} \mbox{} \times
\left(\begin{array}{c} B_{m_F,\alpha}^{(l),{\rm ext}}({\bf \Omega}_m) +
[{\cal P}_{m}^{(l)}({\bf \Omega}_m)]_{11} A_{m_F,\alpha}^{(l)}({\bf \Omega}_m) \\
B_{m_B,\alpha}^{(l)} ({\bf \Omega}_m) \end{array}\right).
\nonumber \\
& &
\label{B15}\end{aligned}$$ Matrices $ {\cal L}^{(l)}_{m,\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m) $ and $ {\cal
R}^{(l)}_{m,\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m) $ are defined in Eqs. (\[B8\]). Equations (\[B15\]) can be transformed into a linear set of equations for amplitudes $ A_{m_F,\alpha}^{(N+1)}
({\bf \Omega}_m) $, $ B_{m_B,\alpha}^{(l)} ({\bf \Omega}_m) $, $
A_{m_F,\alpha}^{(l)}({\bf \Omega}_m) $, and $ A_{m_B,\alpha}^{(0)}
({\bf \Omega}_m) $ of fields leaving the left- and right-hand-side layers: $$\begin{aligned}
& & \left( \begin{array}{c} 0 \\ 0
\\ -{ [{\cal R}^{(l)}_{m,\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m)]_{11} }
\\ {[{\cal R}^{(l)}_{m,\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m)]_{21} }
\end{array} \right)
B_{m,\alpha}^{(l),{\rm ext}}({\bf \Omega}_m)
= \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{30mm} {\cal M}_{m,\alpha}^{(l)}({\bf \Omega}_m)
\left( \begin{array}{c} A_{m_F,\alpha}^{(N+1)}({\bf \Omega}_m) \\
B_{m_B,\alpha}^{(l)}({\bf \Omega}_m) \\ A_{m_F,\alpha}^{(l)}({\bf \Omega}_m) \\
A_{m_B,\alpha}^{(0)}({\bf \Omega}_m) \end{array} \right) ;
\nonumber \\
& &
\label{B16}\end{aligned}$$ matrix $ {\cal M}_{m,\alpha}^{(l)}({\bf \Omega}_m) $ is defined in Eq. (\[B10\]). The solution of Eqs. (\[B16\]) allows us to determine photon fluxes that give the powers discussed above. For the forward-propagating photons added into the $ l $-th layer, power $ P^{(l)}_{m_F,\alpha} ({\bf \Omega}_m) $ given into this layer by the external field with amplitude $
B_{m_F,\alpha}^{(l),{\rm ext}} $ is derived in the form: $$\begin{aligned}
& & P^{(l)}_{m_F,\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m) =
n_m^{(l)}(\omega_m)\cos(\vartheta_m^{(l)}) \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{10mm} \mbox{} \times \Bigl[ |B_{m_F,\alpha}^{(l),{\rm ext}}({\bf \Omega}_m)
+ [{\cal P}_{m}^{(l)}({\bf \Omega}_m)]_{11} A_{m_F,\alpha}^{(l)}({\bf \Omega}_m)|^2
\nonumber \\
& & \hspace{10mm} \mbox{} + |[{\cal P}_{m}^{(l)}({\bf
\Omega}_m)]_{22}^* B_{m_B,\alpha}^{(l)}({\bf \Omega}_m)|^2
- |B_{m_B,\alpha}^{(l)} ({\bf \Omega}_m)|^2 \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{10mm} \mbox{} - |A_{m_F,\alpha}^{(l)}({\bf \Omega}_m)|^2 \Bigr] .
\label{B17}\end{aligned}$$ This power can be divided into three parts. Its first part \[$
P^{(l)F}_{m_F,\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m) $\] is delivered beyond the rear end of the structure, whereas its second part \[$
P^{(l)B}_{m_F,\alpha} ({\bf \Omega}_m) $\] is transferred into the space in front of the structure. Finally, the third part \[$
P^{(l)D}_{m_F,\alpha} ({\bf \Omega}_m) $\] dissipates inside the metal layers. These powers then serve for the determination of intensity transmission coefficients $ T_{m,FF}^{(l)\alpha}({\bf
\Omega}_m) $ and $ T_{m,BF}^{(l)\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m) $ and intensity absorption coefficient $ D_{m,F}^{(l)\alpha}({\bf
\Omega}_m) $. Whereas formulas analogous to those written in Eqs. (\[B11\]) and (\[B12\]) give powers $
P^{(l)F}_{m_F,\alpha} ({\bf \Omega}_m) $, $ P^{(l)B}_{m_F,\alpha}
({\bf \Omega}_m) $ and $ P^{(l)D}_{m_F,\alpha} ({\bf \Omega}_m) $, expressions derived from those in Eqs. (\[B13\]) provide coefficients $ T_{m,FF}^{(l)\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m) $, $
T_{m,BF}^{(l)\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m) $ and $
D_{m,F}^{(l)\alpha}({\bf \Omega}_m) $.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Seshadri constants, introduced by Demailly, measure the local positivity of a nef divisor at a point. In this paper, we compute the Seshadri constants of the anticanonical divisors of Fano manifolds with coindex at most $3$ at a very general point. As a consequence, if $X$ is a nonsingular Fano threefold which is very general in its deformation family, then $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;x)\leq 1$ for all points $x\in X$ if and only if $\vert-K_X\vert$ is not base point free.'
address: 'Jie Liu, Morningside Center of Mathematics, Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100190, China'
author:
- Jie Liu
bibliography:
- 'seshadriconstants.bib'
title: Seshadri constants of the anticanonical divisors of Fano manifolds with large index
---
Introduction
============
Motivation
----------
Throughout the paper, we work over the field ${{\mathbb C}}$. Let $L$ be a nef line bundle over an $n$-dimensional projective normal variety $X$. In [@Demailly1992], Demailly introduces an interesting invariant which measures the local positivity of $L$ at a point $x\in X$.
\[Definition Seshadri constant\] Let $X$ be a projective normal variety and let $L$ be a nef line bundle on $X$. To every smooth point $x\in X$, we attach the number $$\varepsilon(X,L;x)\colon=\inf_{x\in C}\frac{L\cdot C}{\operatorname*{mult}_x C},$$ which is called the Seshadri constant of $L$ at $x$. Here the infimum is taken over all irreducible curves $C$ passing through $x$ and $\operatorname*{mult}_x C$ is the multiplicity of $C$ at $x$.
The Seshadri constant is a lower-continuous function over $X$ in the topology which closed sets are countable unions of Zariski closed sets. Moreover, there is a number, which we denote by $\varepsilon(X,L;1)$, such that it is the maximal value of Seshadri constant on $X$. This maximum is attained for a very general point $x\in X$. Unfortunately, in general it is very difficult to compute or estimate $\varepsilon(X,L;1)$. For the upper bound, an elementary observation shows that $\varepsilon(X,L;1)\leq \sqrt[n]{L^n}$. There have been many works in trying to give lower bound for this invariant. Ein and Lazarsfeld show that if $X$ is surface and $L$ is ample, then $\varepsilon(X,L;1)\geq 1$ (see [@EinLazarsfeld1993 Theorem]). In higher dimension, Ein, K[ü]{}chle and Lazarsfeld prove that $\varepsilon(X,L;1)\geq 1/\dim(X)$ for any ample line bundle $L$ over $X$ (see [@EinKuechleLazarsfeld1995 Theorem 1]) and this bound has been improved by Nakamaye in [@Nakamaye2005], by Cascini-Nakamaye for $3$-folds in [@CasciniNakamaye2014] and by Lee for Fano manifolds in [@Lee2003]. In general, we have the following conjecture.
[@Lazarsfeld2004 Conjecture 5.2.4]\[Intro ConjecturelowerboundSeshadri\] Let $L$ be an ample line bundle over a projective manifold $X$. Then $\varepsilon(X,L;1)\geq 1$.
In this paper, we are interested in the case where $X$ is a Fano manifold and $L$ is the anticanonical divisor $-K_X$. Given an $n$-dimensional Fano manifold $X$, Bauer and Szemberg show that $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)\leq n+1$ with equality if and only if $X$ is isomorphic to the projective space ${{\mathbb P}}^n$, and recently this result is generalized to ${{\mathbb Q}}$-Fano varieties by Liu-Zhuang in [@LiuZhuang2018]. On the other hand, as predicted by Conjecture $\ref{Intro ConjecturelowerboundSeshadri}$, we should have $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)\geq 1$ (see [@Lee2003] for more related results). Thus it is natural and interesting to consider the following question.
\[1-Classification\] Classify all Fano manifolds $X$ with $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)\leq 1$.
In dimension $2$, the Seshadri constants of the anticanonical divisors of del Pezzo surfaces are computed by Broustet in [@Broustet2006].
[@Broustet2006 Théorème 1.3]\[Broustet’s theorem\] Let $S$ be a del Pezzo surface of degree $d$.
1. $\varepsilon (S,-K_S;1)=1$ if $d=1$.
2. $\varepsilon(S,-K_S;1)=4/3$ if $d=2$.
3. $\varepsilon(S,-K_S;1)=3/2$ if $d=3$.
4. $\varepsilon(S,-K_S;1)=2$ if $4\leq d\leq 8$.
5. $\varepsilon(S,-K_S;1)=3$ if $d=9$.
This gives a complete answer to Question \[1-Classification\] for del Pezzo surfaces. As a direct corollary, if $S$ is a del Pezzo surface, then $\varepsilon(S,-K_S;1)\leq 1$ if and only if $\vert-K_S\vert$ is not base point free.
Main Results
------------
Recall that the *index* $r_X$ of an $n$-dimensional Fano manifold $X$ is defined to be the largest positive integer dividing $-K_X$ in $\operatorname*{Pic}(X)$ and the divisor $H$ such that $-K_X\sim r_XH$ is called the *fundamental divisor* of $X$. The *coindex* of $X$ is defined to be $n+1-r_X$. As predicted by Conjecture \[Intro ConjecturelowerboundSeshadri\], we should have $$\label{Inequality-Anticanonical}
\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)=r_X\varepsilon(X,H;1)\geq r_X.$$ The inequality is confirmed in the cases $r_X\geq n-2$ or $n\leq 4$ by Broustet in [@Broustet2009]. Following the same idea, we can easily derive the following result by applying the main result of [@Liu2017] and the results proved in [@Broustet2009].
\[Intro Lowerbound\] Let $X$ be a $n$-dimensional Fano manifold with index $r_X$ at least $ n-3$, then $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)\geq r_X$.
Denote by $H$ the fundamental divisor of $X$. By [@Broustet2009 Th[é]{}or[è]{}me 1.5], it remains to consider the case $r_X=n-3$. Thanks to [@Liu2017 Theorem 1.2] and [@Floris2013 Theorem 1.1], there is a descending sequence of subvarieties $$X=X_n\supsetneq X_{n-1}\supsetneq \cdots\supsetneq X_{3}$$ such that $X_{i}\in \vert H\vert_{X_{i+1}}\vert$ has at worst Gorenstein canonical singularities. Moreover, according to [@Broustet2009 Théorème 1.4 (2)], we have $\varepsilon(X_{3},H\vert_{X_{3}};1)\geq 1$ as $K_{X_3}\sim 0$. Then one can apply verbatim the proof of [@Broustet2009 Théorème 1.5] to prove the theorem.
The main result of this paper is to compute $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)$ explicitly for Fano manifolds $X$ with coindex at most $3$. Before giving the precise statement, we recall the *minimal anticanonical degree* $\ell_X$ of a covering family of minimal rational curves on $X$ by $\ell_X$, so that $\ell_X\in\{2,\cdots,n+1\}$ and $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)\leq \ell_X$.
\[Intro Dimension at least four Seshadri\] Let $X$ be an $n$-dimensional Fano manifold with index $r_X\geq \max\{2,n-2\}$. Then through every point $x\in X$ there is a rational curve $C$ such that $-K_X\cdot C=r_X$. In particular, we have $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)=\ell_X=r_X$.
Now it remains to consider nonsingular Fano threefolds. The classification of polarized Fano threefolds $(X,L)$ with $\varepsilon(X,L;x)<1$ for some point $x\in X$ was studied by Lee in [@Lee2003; @Lee2004a]. Moreover, if $X$ is a very general nonsingular Fano threefold with $\rho(X)=1$, then $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)$ is calculated by Ito via toric degenerations (see [@Ito2014 Theorem 1.8]). The nonsingular Fano threefolds with $\rho\geq 2$ are classified by Mori-Mukai in [@MoriMukai1981/82; @MoriMukai2003]. Given a nonsingular Fano threefold $X$, we identify it (or rather its deformation family) by the pair of numbers $$\gimel(X)=\rho.N,$$ where $\rho$ is the Picard rank of the threefold $X$, and $N$ is its number in the classification tables in [@MoriMukai1981/82; @Shafarevich1999; @MoriMukai2003].
\[Intro Fano threefolds Picard number large Seshadri\] Let $X$ be a nonsingular Fano threefold with $\rho(X)\geq 2$.
1. $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)=1$ if and only if $X$ admits a del Pezzo fibration of degree $1$, or equivalently $\gimel(X)\in \{2.1, 10.1\}$.
2. $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)=4/3$ if and only if $X$ admits a del Pezzo fibration of degree $2$, or equivalently $\gimel(X)\in\{2.2, 2.3, 9.1\}$.
3. $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)=3/2$ if and only if $X$ admits a del Pezzo fibration of degree $3$, or equivalently $\gimel(X)\in\{2.4, 2.5, 3.2, 8.1\}$
4. $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)=3$ if and only if $X$ is isomorphic to the blow-up of ${{\mathbb P}}^3$ along a smooth plane curve $C$ of degree $d\leq 3$, or equivalently $\gimel(X)\in\{2.28, 2.30, 2.33\}$.
5. $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)=2$ otherwise.
Combined with [@Ito2014 Theorem 1.8] and [@Shafarevich1999 Theorem 2.4.5] (cf. Corollary \[1-Non-Basepoint-Freeness\]), Theorem \[Intro Fano threefolds Picard number large Seshadri\] provides an answer to Question \[1-Classification\] for nonsingular Fano threefolds modulo genericity assumptions.
\[Intro Seshadri=1 classification\] Let $X$ be a nonsingular Fano threefold which is very general in its deformation family. Then $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)\leq 1$ if and only if $\vert -K_X\vert$ is not base point free.
Further developments
--------------------
One may ask if Corollary \[Intro Seshadri=1 classification\] still holds without the genericity assumption. In fact, the genericity assumption is only used to apply the result of Ito. In the case where $-K_X$ is very ample, by [@Chan2010 Lemma 2.2], $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)\leq 1$ if and only if $(X,-K_X)$ is covered by lines, which never happens if $r_X=1$. If $X$ is a nonsingular Fano threefold with $\rho(X)=1$, then $-K_X$ is very ample except $\gimel(X)\in \{1.1,1.2\}$ (see [@Shafarevich1999 Proposition 4.1.11]). If $\gimel(X)\in\{1.1, 1.2\}$ and $-K_X$ is not very ample, then $X$ is actually a smooth complete intersection in a weighted projective space (cf. Proposition \[Threefolds-Picard-Number-One\] and Remark \[Remark-Weighted-Complete-Intersection\]). We are thus led to ask the following question.
Let $X$ be a smooth Fano weighted complete intersection in a weighted projective space, and let ${{\mathcal O}}_X(1)$ be the restriction of the universal ${{\mathcal O}}(1)$-sheaf from the weighted projective space. If $(X,{{\mathcal O}}_X(1))$ is not covered by lines, does there exist a point $x\in X$ such that $\varepsilon(X,{{\mathcal O}}_{X}(1);x)>1$?
Furthermore, another natural question is to ask if the analogue of Corollary \[Intro Seshadri=1 classification\] holds in higher dimension. By Theorem \[Intro Lowerbound\], if $X$ is an $n$-dimensional Fano manifold of coindex at most $4$, an obvious necessary condition for $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)\leq 1$ is that the index $r_X$ of $X$ must equal to $1$. On the other hand, whereas the non-freeness of $\vert-K_X\vert$ implies $r_X=1$ for nonsingular Fano $4$-fold, it is no longer true for nonsingular Fano $5$-folds. Even in dimension $4$, there exist nonsingular Fano $4$-folds $X$ such that $\vert-K_X\vert$ is not base point free but $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)>1$.
\[4-fold-5-fold\]
1. Let $X\subset {{\mathbb P}}(1^{4},2,5)$ be a very general hypersurface of degree $10$. Then $X$ is a nonsingular Fano $4$-fold with index $1$. By [@IltenLewisPrzyjalkowski2013 Theorem 2.2], $(X,{{\mathcal O}}_X(1))$ degenerates to a polarized toric variety $(X_P,L_P)$ as a ${{\mathbb Q}}$-polarized variety for $$P\colon=\operatorname*{conv}(e_1,e_2,e_3,e_4,-1/6(e_1+e_2+e_3+e_4))\subset{{\mathbb R}}^4.$$ By [@Ito2014 Example 3.10 and Lemma 4.3], we obtain $$\varepsilon(X,{{\mathcal O}}_X(1);1)\geq \varepsilon(X_P,L_P;1)\geq 10/9.$$
2. Similarly, let $X\subset{{\mathbb P}}(1^5,2,5)$ be a nonsingular hypersurface of degree $10$. Then $X$ is a nonsingular Fano $5$-fold with index $2$ and $\vert-K_X\vert$ is not base point free. By [@Kollar1996 V, 4.11], the polarized pair $(X,{{\mathcal O}}_X(1))$ is covered by lines. In particular, we have $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)=2$.
Thus the strict analogue of Corollary \[Intro Seshadri=1 classification\] does not hold in higher dimension. However we can still ask the following question.
Let $X$ be a Fano manifold such that $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)\leq 1$. Is the base locus of the linear system $\vert-K_X\vert$ non-empty?
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
The author wishes to express his thanks to Andreas Höring and Christophe Mourougane their constant encouragements and supports. He also wound like to thank Amaël Broustet and Stéphane Druel for useful comments. This paper was written while the author stayed at Institut de Recherche Mathématique de Rennes (IRMAR) and Laboratoire de Mathématiques J.A. Dieudonné (LJAD) and he would like to thank both the institutions for the hospitality and support.
Polarized manifolds covered by lines {#Section Lines Fano manifolds}
====================================
In this section, we study the existence of lines on Fano manifolds with large index and the main aim is to prove Theorem \[Intro Dimension at least four Seshadri\].
\[Lines\] Let $(X,H)$ be a polarized projective manifold. A line (with respect to $H$) in $X$ is a rational curve $C\subset X$ such that $H\cdot C=1$. We say that $(X,H)$ is covered by lines if through every point $x$ of $X$ there is a line contained in $X$.
In general $X$ cannot be embedded into projective spaces in such a way that a line $C$ on $X$ becomes a projective line. If $(X,H)$ is covered by lines, then by definition it is easy to see $\varepsilon(X,H;x)\leq 1$ for every point $x\in X$.
\[RCfamily\] Let $(X,H)$ be a polarized projective manifold. Assume moreover that through a very general point $x$ there is a rational curve $C_x\subset X$ of degree $d$. Then there exists an irreducible closed subvariety $W$ of ${\ensuremath{\mbox{\rm Chow}(X)}}$ such that
1. the universal cycle over $W$ dominates $X$, and
2. the subset of points in $W$ parametrizing the rational curves $C_x$ (viewed as $1$-cycles on $X$) is dense in $W$.
Recall that ${\ensuremath{\mbox{\rm Chow}(X)}}$ has countably many irreducible components. On the other hand, since we are working over ${{\mathbb C}}$, we have uncountably many lines on $X$. Then the existence of $W$ is clear.
\[covered by lines open property\] Let $(X,H)$ be a polarized projective manifold. If through a very general point $x\in X$ there is a line $x\in\ell \subset X$, then through every point $x\in X$ there is a line. In fact, let us denote by $W$ the subvariety of ${\ensuremath{\mbox{\rm Chow}(X)}}$ provided in Lemma \[RCfamily\]. We remark that every cycle $[C]$ in $W$ is irreducible and reduced as $H\cdot C=1$. Let ${{\mathcal V}}$ be an irreducible component of ${\ensuremath{\mbox{\rm RatCurves}^n(X)}}$ such that its image in ${\ensuremath{\mbox{\rm Chow}(X)}}$ contains $W$. Then ${{\mathcal V}}$ is an unsplit covering family of minimal rational curves. Let $U$ be the universal family over ${{\mathcal V}}$. Then the evaluation map $e\colon U\rightarrow X$ is surjective. Hence, $(X,H)$ is covered by lines.
The following fact is well-known for experts, but for the convenience of reader we give a complete proof.
\[Lines-Large-Index\] Let $X$ be an $n$-dimensional Fano manifold such that $n\geq 3$, and let $H$ be the fundamental divisor. If either $r_X>n/2$, or $r_X=n/2$ and $\rho(X)\geq 2$, then $(X,H)$ is covered by lines.
Let ${{\mathcal K}}$ be a family of minimal rational curves on $X$. By [@Kollar1996 V, Theorem 1.6], for a general member $[C]\in {{\mathcal K}}$, we have $-K_X\cdot C\leq n+1$. Moreover, according to [@ChoMiyaokaShepherd-Barron2002], the equality holds if and only if $X$ is isomorphic to ${{\mathbb P}}^n$. Thus, without loss of generality, we may assume that $-K_X\cdot C\leq n$ for a general member $[C]\in {{\mathcal K}}$. As $r_X\geq n/2$, for a general member $[C]\in{{\mathcal K}}$, we obtain $$H\cdot C=\frac{1}{r_X}(-K_X\cdot C)\leq \frac{n}{r_X}\leq 2$$ with equality if and only if $r_X=n/2$ and $-K_X\cdot C=n$. Let $X$ be an $n$-dimensional Fano manifold with index $n/2$ and $\rho(X)\geq 2$ such that $-K_X\cdot {{\mathcal K}}=n$ for all families ${{\mathcal K}}$ of minimal rational curves on $X$. Then we get $\ell_X=n$. Thanks to [@CasagrandeDruel2015 Theorem 1.4], $X$ is the blow-up of ${{\mathbb P}}^n$ along a smooth subvariety $A$ of dimension $n-2$ and degree $d\in\{1,\dots,n\}$, contained in a hyperplane. Nevertheless, it is easy to see that such $X$ are Fano manifolds of index $1$, which is impossible by our assumption. Hence, if $X$ is an $n$-dimensional Fano manifold with index $n/2$ and $\rho(X)\geq 2$, then we have $\ell_X=n/2$. In particular, $(X,H)$ is covered by lines.
If $X$ is an $n$-dimensional Fano manifold with $\rho(X)=1$ such that $\ell_X=n$ and $n\geq 3$, Miyaoka proves in [@Miyaoka2004] that $X$ is isomorphic to a smooth quadric hypersurface. However, the proof there is incomplete (see [@DedieuHoering2017 Remark 5.2]).
\[Lines-Del-Pezzo-Mukai\] Let $X$ be an $n$-dimensional Fano manifold such that $n\geq 3$, and let $H$ be the fundamental divisor. If $r_X\geq \max\{n-2,2\}$, then $(X,H)$ is covered by lines.
By Proposition \[Lines-Large-Index\], it remains to consider the case $r_X=2$, $n=4$ and $\rho(X)=1$; that is, $X$ is a $4$-dimensional Mukai manifold with $\rho(X)=1$. Then $X$ is a smooth complete intersection in either a weighted projective space or a rational homogeneous space (see [@Shafarevich1999 §5.2]). In the former case, $(X,H)$ is covered by lines by [@Kollar1996 V,4.11]. In the latter case, it is easy to check that $(X,H)$ is also covered by lines (see [@ItoMiura2014 Lemma 1]).
It follows directly from Corollary \[Lines-Del-Pezzo-Mukai\] and Theorem \[Intro Lowerbound\].
Characterize Fano threefolds via Seshadri constants {#Fano threefolds with Picard number at least two Section}
===================================================
Fano threefolds with Picard number one
--------------------------------------
As mentioned in the introduction, the Seshadri constants $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)$ of very general nonsingular Fano threefolds $X$ with $\rho(X)=1$ are computed by Ito in [@Ito2014]. In the following result, we show that $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)$ is invariant in its deformation family if $-K_X$ is very ample. Recall that the *genus* of a nonsingular Fano threefold $X$ is defined to be $(-K_X)^3/2+1$.
\[Threefolds-Picard-Number-One\] Let $X$ be a nonsingular Fano threefold of genus $g$ with $\rho(X)=1$. If $-K_X$ is very ample, then the Seshardri constant $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)$ is invariant in its deformation family.
If the index of $X$ is at least $2$, it follows directly from Theorem \[Intro Dimension at least four Seshadri\]. Now we consider the nonsingular Fano threefolds with index one. By the very ampleness of $-K_X$, the induced morphism $\Phi_{\vert-K_X\vert}\colon X\rightarrow {{\mathbb P}}^{g+1}$ is an embedding, where $g$ is the genus of $X$. Note that $(X,-K_X)$ is not covered by lines since the index of $X$ is $1$. After identifying $X$ with its image under $\Phi_{\vert-K_X\vert}$, the line bundle ${{\mathcal O}}_X(-K_X)$ is isomorphic to ${{\mathcal O}}_{{{\mathbb P}}^{g+1}}(1)\vert_X$. By the classification (see [@Shafarevich1999 Table 12.2]), except the case $g=4$, $X$ is always a complete intersection of hypersurfaces of degrees at most two in a rational homogeneous space. Let $x\in X$ be a very general point. If $(X,-K_X)$ is not covered by lines, by the construction, there are no lines in ${{\mathbb P}}^{g+1}$ lying in $X$ and passing through $x$. Thus, thanks to [@ItoMiura2014 Theorem 3], for a very general point $x\in X$, we have $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;x)=\varepsilon(X,{{\mathcal O}}_{{{\mathbb P}}^{g+1}}(1)\vert_X;x)=2$. For the case $g=4$, $X$ is a complete intersection of a quadric and a cubic (see [@Shafarevich1999 Table 12.2]), by [@ItoMiura2014 Theorem 3] again, we get $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)=\varepsilon(X,{{\mathcal O}}_{{{\mathbb P}}^5}(1)\vert_X;1)=3/2$.
\[Remark-Weighted-Complete-Intersection\] According to [@Shafarevich1999 Proposition 4.1.11], if $X$ is a nonsingular Fano threefold with $\rho(X)=1$ such that $-K_X$ is not very ample, then either $X$ is a weighted hypersurface of degree $6$ in ${{\mathbb P}}(1^4,3)$ (i.e., $\gimel(X)=1.1$), or $X$ is a complete intersection of two weighted quadric hypersurfaces in ${{\mathbb P}}(1^5,2)$ (i.e., $\gimel(X)=1.2$). Up to now I do not know if the Seshadri constant $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)$ is invariant in the deformation families of smooth Fano complete intersections in weighted projective spaces.
Splitting and free splitting
----------------------------
The following concept plays a key role in the classification of Fano threefolds, and it is also the main ingredient of the proof of Theorem \[Intro Fano threefolds Picard number large Seshadri\].
\[Splitting\] A Weil divisor $D$ on a projective manifold $X$ has a splitting if there are two non-zero effective divisors $D_1$ and $D_2$ such that $D_1+D_2\in\vert D\vert$. The splitting is called free if the linear systems $\vert D_1\vert$ and $\vert D_2\vert$ are base point free.
The following criterion is frequently used in [@MoriMukai1986] to check the free splitting of anticanonical divisors.
[@MoriMukai1986 Proposition 2.10]\[intersection of members\] Let $Y$ be a projective manifold. Assume that $C$ is a smooth proper closed subscheme of $Y$. Let ${{\mathcal I}}_C$ be the sheaf of ideals of $C$ in $X$, and let $D$ be a divisor on $Y$. Let $f\colon X\rightarrow Y$ be the blow-up of $Y$ along $C$. We denote by $E$ the exceptional divisor of $f$. We say that $C$ is an intersection of members of $\vert D\vert$ when the equivalent conditions below are satisfied.
1. The map $H^0(Y,{{\mathcal O}}_Y(D)\otimes{{\mathcal I}}_C)\otimes{{\mathcal O}}_Y\rightarrow {{\mathcal O}}_Y(D)\otimes{{\mathcal I}}_C$ is surjective.
2. The linear system $\vert f^*D-E\vert$ is base point free.
\[Criterion-Complete-Intersection\] Under the situation of Definition-Proposition \[intersection of members\], if $C$ is a curve, then the linear system $\vert f^*D-E\vert$ is composed with a pencil of surfaces if and only if $C$ is a complete intersection of members of $\vert D\vert$.
One implication is clear. Now we assume that $\vert f^*D-E\vert$ is composed with a pencil of surfaces. Let $A$ be an ample divisor over $Y$. Then the pull-back $f^*A$ is nef and big. Since $\vert f^*D-E\vert$ is composed with a pencil of surfaces, the numerical dimension of $f^*D-E$ is $1$. In particular, we have $(f^*D-E)^2\cdot f^*A=0$. Then it yields $$D^2\cdot A=(f^*D)^2\cdot f^*A=-E^2\cdot f^*A=A\cdot C.$$ Since $H^0(Y,{{\mathcal O}}_Y(D)\otimes{{\mathcal I}}_C)\otimes{{\mathcal O}}_Y\rightarrow {{\mathcal O}}_Y(D)\otimes{{\mathcal I}}_C$ is surjective, there exist $D_1, D_2\in \vert D\vert$ without common components such that $C\subset D_1\cap D_2$ as sets. On the other hand, we have $$A\cdot C=D^2\cdot A=D_1\cdot D_2\cdot A.$$ As $A$ is ample, we obtain $C=D_1\cap D_2$ as $1$-cycles. Since $C$ is smooth, we get $C=D_1\cap D_2$ as scheme-theoretical complete intersections.
The following theorem plays a key role in the proof of Theorem \[Intro Fano threefolds Picard number large Seshadri\]. It is claimed in [@MoriMukai1981/82] and the proof is provided in [@MoriMukai1986].
[@MoriMukai1986 Theorem 3]\[existence of free splitting\] Let $X$ be a nonsingular Fano threefold with $\rho(X)\geq 2$, then the anticanonical divisor $-K_X$ has a splitting. Furthermore, $-K_X$ has a free splitting if $\vert-K_X\vert$ is base point free.
Morphisms induced by splittings
-------------------------------
This subsection is devoted to study the relation between $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)$ and the maps induced by splittings of $-K_X$. We begin with a simple but useful observation.
\[Contraction-Curve\] Let $X$ be an $n$-dimensional Fano manifold, and let $g\colon X\rightarrow Y$ be a surjective morphism with connected fibers onto a normal projective variety $Y$. Let $x\in X$ be a very general point, and let $C$ be an irreducible curve passing through $x$ and contracted by $g$. If $\dim(Y)=n-1$, then $-K_X\cdot C=2\operatorname*{mult}_x C$.
By genericity assumption, we may assume that the fiber of $g$ passing through $x$ is irreducible and smooth. In particular, as $\dim(Y)=n-1$, $C$ is exactly the fiber of $f$ over $x$. As $-K_X$ is ample, $C$ is a rational curve. Hence, we have $-K_X\cdot C=2=2\operatorname*{mult}_x C$ by the smoothness of $C$.
Now we can describe the structure of nonsingular Fano threefolds with small $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)$.
\[Morphisms-Splittings\] Let $X$ be a nonsingular Fano threefold with $\rho(X)\geq 2$. If $\vert-K_X\vert$ is base point free, then $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)>1$. Moreover, if $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)<2$, for any free splitting $-K_X=D_1+D_2$, after exchanging $D_1$ and $D_2$ if necessary, one of the following holds.
1. $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)=4/3$, and $\vert D_1\vert$ induces a del Pezzo fibration $X\rightarrow {{\mathbb P}}^1$ of degree $2$.
2. $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)=3/2$, and $\vert D_1\vert$ induces a del Pezzo fibration $X\rightarrow {{\mathbb P}}^1$ of degree $3$.
Fix a free splitting $-K_X=D_1+D_2$ (cf. Theorem \[existence of free splitting\]). Let $g_i\colon X\rightarrow Y_i$ be the morphism induced by the free linear system $\vert D_i\vert$. Moreover, by Stein factorization and generic smoothness, we shall assume that the general fiber of $g_i$ is irreducible and smooth. Let $x\in X$ be a very general point, and let $C$ be an irreducible curve passing through $x$. There are three different possibilities for $C$.
1. The curve $C$ is not contracted by $g_1$ nor $g_2$.
2. The curve $C$ is contracted by $g_1$ (resp. $g_2$) and $g_1$ (resp. $g_2$) is a fibration in curves.
3. The curve $C$ is contracted by $g_1$ (resp. $g_2$) and $g_1$ (resp. $g_2$) is a fibration in surfaces.
In case (1), by the freeness of $\vert D_1\vert$ and $\vert D_2\vert$, we can find $\widetilde{D}_1\in\vert D_1\vert$ and $\widetilde{D}_2\in\vert D_2\vert$ both passing through $x$ and not containing $C$. In particular, we have $$\label{Non-Contraction}
-K_X\cdot C=(\widetilde{D}_1+\widetilde{D}_2)\cdot C\geq 2 {\rm{mult}_x C}.$$
In case (2), without loss of generality, we may assume that $C$ is contracted by $g_1$. By Lemma \[Contraction-Curve\], we have $$\label{Contraction-To-Curve}
-K_X\cdot C=2\rm{mult}_x C.$$
In case (3), without loss of genericity, we shall assume that $C$ is contracted by $g_1$. Let $S$ be the fiber of $g_1$ passing through $x$. Since $x$ is very general, we can assume that $S$ is a general fiber of $g_1$. As $-K_X$ is ample, $S$ is a smooth del Pezzo surface and we have $$\label{Contraction-To-Surface}
-K_X\cdot C=-K_S\cdot C \geq \varepsilon(S,-K_S;1)\rm{mult}_x C.$$
As a consequence, $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)<2$ only if one of $g_1$ and $g_2$ is a fibration in del Pezzo surfaces of degree at most $3$ (cf. Theorem \[Broustet’s theorem\]). Moreover, if $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)=1$, then one of $g_1$ and $g_2$ is a fibration in del Pezzo surfaces of degree $1$. However, the anticanonical linear system $\vert-K_S\vert$ of a del Pezzo surface $S$ of degree $1$ is not base point free, we get a contradiction. Thus we have always $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)>1$.
On the other hand, note that $-K_X$ is ample and $-K_X=D_1+D_2$, so there are no curves contracted by both $g_1$ and $g_2$. In particular, at most one of $g_1$ and $g_2$ is a fibration in surfaces. Combined with , and , Theorem \[Broustet’s theorem\] implies that if $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)<2$, then either $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)=4/3$ and one of $g_1$ and $g_2$ is a fibration of del Pezzo surfaces of degree $2$, or $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)=3/2$ and one of $g_1$ and $g_2$ is a fibration of del Pezzo surfaces of degree $3$.
In the case where $\vert-K_X\vert$ is not base point free, we have the following well-known classification result.
[@Shafarevich1999 Theorem 2.4.5]\[Non-Basepoint-Free\] Let $X$ be a nonsingular Fano threefold. Then the linear system $\vert-K_X\vert$ is base point free except for the following two cases.
1. The blow-up of $V_1$ along an elliptic curve which is an intersection of two divisors from $\vert -\frac{1}{2}K_{V_1}\vert$, where $V_1$ is a smooth del Pezzo threefold of degree $1$, i.e. $\gimel(X)=2.1$.
2. ${{\mathbb P}}^1\times S_1$, where $S_1$ is a smooth del Pezzo surface of degree $1$, i.e. $\gimel(X)=10.1$.
\[1-Non-Basepoint-Freeness\] Let $X$ be a nonsingular Fano threefold with $\rho(X)\geq 2$. Then the following three statements are equivalent.
1. The linear system $\vert-K_X\vert$ is not base point free.
2. There is a del Pezzo fibration $X\rightarrow {{\mathbb P}}^1$ of degree $1$.
3. $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)=1$.
$(1) \implies (2)$. It is enough to consider case (1) of Theorem \[Non-Basepoint-Free\]. Let $E$ be the exceptional divisor of the blow-up $\pi\colon X\rightarrow V_1$. Let $H$ be the fundamental divisor of $V_1$. Then $C$ is an intersection of members from $\vert H\vert$. Thus the linear system $\vert \pi^*H-E\vert$ is base point free. Moreover, since $C$ is a smooth complete intersection, $\vert \pi^*H-E\vert$ is composed with a pencil of del Pezzo surfaces of degree $H^3=1$.
$(2) \implies (3)$. Let $x\in X$ be a very general point. Thanks to [@Broustet2009 Théorème 1.4], it suffices to show $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;x)\leq 1$. Let $S$ be the fiber of the fibration $X\rightarrow {{\mathbb P}}^1$ containing $x$. By the genericity of $x$ and generic smoothness, $S$ is a smooth del Pezzo surface of degree $1$. By definition, we get $$\varepsilon(X,-K_X;x)\leq \varepsilon(S,-K_X\vert_S;x)=\varepsilon(S,-K_S;x)\leq \varepsilon(S,-K_S;1)=1.$$ The last inequality follows from the lower semi-continuity of Seshadri constant.
$(3) \implies (1)$. It follows directly from Theorem \[Morphisms-Splittings\].
\[Splitting-Nonfreeness\] If $X$ is a nonsingular Fano threefold with $\rho(X)\geq 2$ such that $\vert-K_X\vert$ is not base point free, then there exists a splitting $-K_X=D_1+D_2$ such that $\vert D_1\vert$ is base point free and $D_2$ is nef and big. In fact, we can set $D_1=\pi^*H-E$ for $\gimel(X)=2.1$ and $D_1=p^*{{\mathcal O}}_{{{\mathbb P}}^1}(1)$. Then the nefness and bigness of $D_2$ can be easily checked.
A structure theorem
-------------------
The following example shows that a smooth Fano threefold may be released as two del Pezzo fibrations of different degree.
Let $X=S_d\times{{\mathbb P}}^1$, where $S_d$ is a smooth del Pezzo surface of degree $d$ such that $S_d$ is isomorphic to neither ${{\mathbb P}}^2$ nor a smooth quadric surface $Q^2$. Then there is natural fibration $S_d\rightarrow {{\mathbb P}}^1$ with general fiber ${{\mathbb P}}^1$. Denote the induced fibration $X\rightarrow{{\mathbb P}}^1$ by $p_1$ and the second projection $S_d\times{{\mathbb P}}^1\rightarrow{{\mathbb P}}^1$ by $p_2$. Then the general fiber of $p_1$ is a smooth quadric surface, while the fiber of $p_2$ is a del Pezzo surface of degree $d$.
\[Fibration-Different\] Let $X$ be a nonsingular Fano threefold such that $\operatorname*{Bs}\vert -K_X\vert\not=\emptyset$. If $X$ admits a del Pezzo fibration of degree $d\geq 2$, then $d\geq 4$.
As explained in Remark \[Splitting-Nonfreeness\], there exists a splitting $-K_X=D_1+D_2$ such that $\vert D_1\vert$ is base point free and $D_2$ is nef and big. Moreover, it is easy to see that $\vert D_1\vert$ is composed with a pencil of del Pezzo surfaces of degree $1$. Denote by $g\colon X\rightarrow {{\mathbb P}}^1$ a del Pezzo fibration of degree $d\geq 2$ and let $S$ be a general fiber of $g$. Then $-K_S=D_1\vert_S+D_2\vert_S$ is a splitting. As $\vert D_1\vert$ is base point free, $\vert D_1\vert_S\vert$ is also base point free. Denote by $\pi\colon X\rightarrow Y$ the induced surjective morphism with connected fibers. Then $Y$ is a curve. Let $s\in S$ be a very general point and let $C\subset S$ be an irreducible curve passing through $s$. If $C$ is not contracted by $\pi$, then we can find $D\in \vert D_1\vert_S\vert$ passing through $s$ but not containing $C$. Since $D_2\vert_S$ is a nef and big divisor, by [@Broustet2009 Proposition 4.12], we get $$-K_S\cdot C\geq D\cdot C+\varepsilon(S,D_2\vert_C;1)\textrm{mult}_xC\geq 2\textrm{mult}_x C.$$ If $C$ is contracted by $\pi$, then we have $-K_S\cdot C=2\operatorname*{mult}_x C$ by Lemma \[Contraction-Curve\]. As a consequence, we obtain $\varepsilon(S,-K_S;s)\geq 2$. Then Theorem \[Broustet’s theorem\] shows $d\geq 4$.
Now we are in the position to prove the main technique theorem in this paper. It gives the classification of Fano threefolds with $\rho(X)\geq 2$ via Seshadric constant $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)$.
\[fibration iff Seshadri\] Let $X$ be a nonsingular Fano threefold with $\rho(X)\geq 2$.
1. $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)=1$ if and only if there is a fibration in del Pezzo surfaces $X\rightarrow{{\mathbb P}}^1$ of degree $1$.
2. $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)=4/3$ if and only if there is a fibration in del Pezzo surfaces $X\rightarrow{{\mathbb P}}^1$ of degree $2$.
3. $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)=3/2$ if and only if there is a fibration in del Pezzo surfaces $X\rightarrow{{\mathbb P}}^1$ of degree $3$.
4. $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)=3$ if and only if $X$ is isomorphic to the blow-up of ${{\mathbb P}}^3$ along a smooth curve $C$ of degree $d$ at most $3$ which is contained in a hyperplane.
5. $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)=2$ otherwise.
The statement (1) follows directly from Corollary \[1-Non-Basepoint-Freeness\]. To prove (2), by Corollary \[1-Non-Basepoint-Freeness\] and Theorem \[Morphisms-Splittings\], it is enough to show that if $X$ admits a del Pezzo fibration of degree $2$, then $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)=4/3$. By definition, we have $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)\leq 4/3$ if $X$ admits a del Pezzo fibration of degree $2$. Then Lemma \[Fibration-Different\] shows that $\vert-K_X\vert$ is base point free. Therefore, according to Theorem \[Morphisms-Splittings\], we have $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)\geq 4/3$, and consequently $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)=4/3$.
To prove (3), by Corollary \[1-Non-Basepoint-Freeness\] and Theorem \[Morphisms-Splittings\], it suffices to show that if $X$ admits a del Pezzo fibration $f\colon X\rightarrow {{\mathbb P}}^1$ of degree $3$, then it does not admit a del Pezzo fibration of degree $\leq 2$. By Lemma \[Fibration-Different\], $\vert -K_X\vert$ is base point free. Thus, by Theorem \[Morphisms-Splittings\], it remains to exclude the case in which $X$ admits a del Pezzo fibration of degree $2$. If so, then we have $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)=4/3$ by (2). Let $-K_X=D_1+D_2$ be a free splitting of $-K_X$. By Theorem \[Morphisms-Splittings\], we may assume that $\vert D_1\vert$ is composed with a pencil of del Pezzo surfaces of degree $2$. Let $S$ be a general fiber of $f$. By assumption, $-K_{S}$ has a free splitting of the following form $$-K_{S}=-K_X\vert_{S}=D_1\vert_{S}+D_2\vert_{S}.$$ The slightly modified argument as in the proof of Lemma \[Fibration-Different\] shows that we have $\varepsilon(S,-K_{S};1)\geq 2$. This contradicts Theorem \[Broustet’s theorem\] and the fact that $S$ is a del Pezzo surface of degree $3$. Hence, $X$ does not admit a del Pezzo fibration of degree $2$.
To prove (4) and (5), if $\ell_X\geq 3$, [@CasagrandeDruel2015 Theorem 1.4] shows that $X$ is isomorphic to the blow-up of ${{\mathbb P}}^3$ along a smooth plane curve of degree $\leq 3$. On the other hand, we always have $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)=3$ for such $X$ (see [@LiuZhuang2018 Theorem 3]). If $\ell_X<3$, then we have $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)\leq 2$ and the theorem now follows from Theorem \[Morphisms-Splittings\], Corollary \[1-Non-Basepoint-Freeness\] and (1)-(3).
\[Special-Spliting-Check\]
1. The same argument as in the proof of (3) can be modified to show that the del Pezzo fibration in (2) and (3) is unique.
2. According to Theorem \[Morphisms-Splittings\] and Theorem \[fibration iff Seshadri\], to see if a nonsingular Fano threefold $X$ admits a del Pezzo fibration of degree $2$ or $3$, it suffices to check it for the morphisms induced by an arbitrary free splitting of $-K_X$.
Del Pezzo fibrations of small degree
====================================
This section is devoted to complete the proof of Theorem \[Intro Fano threefolds Picard number large Seshadri\]. According to Theorem \[fibration iff Seshadri\], we need to find out all Fano threefolds admitting a del Pezzo fibration of degree $2$ or $3$. Nevertheless, as explained in Remark \[Special-Spliting-Check\], it suffices to consider the morphisms induced by an arbitrary free splitting of $-K_X$.
General results
---------------
Following [@MoriMukai1986 Proposition 2.12, 2.13 and 2.14], we introduce the following notion for the convenience.
1. Let $X$ be a nonsingular Fano threefold. We say that $X$ satisfies ($\clubsuit$) if $X$ can be obtained from blowing-up of a nonsingular threefold $Y$ along a smooth (but possibly disconnected) curve $C$, where $C$ is an intersection of members of a complete linear system $\vert L\vert$.
We start by collecting and reformulating some import properties of the morphisms induced by free splittings of $-K_X$.
[@MoriMukai1986 §7]\[Intersetions-Properties\] Let $X$ be a nonsingular Fano threefold with $\rho(X)\geq 2$. If $$\begin{gathered}
\gimel(X)\not\in\{2.2,2.6,2.8,2.18,2.24,2.32,2.34-2.36,3.1-3.3,3.8,\\
3.17,3.19,3.27,3.28,3.31,4.1,4.10,5.3,6.1-10.1\},
\end{gathered}$$ then $X$ satisfies ($\clubsuit$). Moreover, let $E$ be the exceptional divisor of the blow-up $f\colon X\rightarrow Y$ and set $D_1=f^*L-E$. Then the following statements hold.
1. There exists a divisor $D_2$ such that $-K_X=D_1+D_2$ is a splitting, which is free if $\vert-K_X\vert$ is base point free. Moreover, if $\vert-K_X\vert$ is base point free, then the linear system $\vert D_2\vert$ is composed with a pencil of surfaces if and only if $\gimel(X)=3.5$.
2. The smooth curve $C$ is a complete intersection of members of $\vert L\vert$ if and only if $$\begin{gathered}
\gimel(X)\in\{2.1,2.3-2.5,2.7,2.10,2.14,2.15,2.23,2.25,2.28-2.30,2.33,\\
3.4,3.7,3.11,3.24,3.26,4.4,4.9,5.1\}.
\end{gathered}$$
By definition, if $X$ lies in one of the situations of Proposition 2.12, Proposition 2.13 and Proposition 2.14 in [@MoriMukai1986], then $X$ satisfies $(\clubsuit)$. Moreover, set $D_1=f^*L-E$ and $D_2=-K_X-D_1$. If $\vert-K_X\vert$ is base point free, then $\vert D_2\vert$ is composed with a pencil of surfaces if and only if $X$ satisfies the assumptions of [@MoriMukai1986 Proposition 2.14]. If $X$ is a nonsingular Fano threefold with $\rho(X)=2$, the theorem follows form [@MoriMukai1986 (7.1)-(7.3), (7.8)]. The rest can be checked similarly.
First we consider the nonsingular Fano threefolds with $\rho=2$. Recall that a nonsingular Fano threefold $X$ is said to be *imprimitive* if it is isomorphic to the blow-up of another nonsingular Fano threefold with center along a smooth irreducible curve. Otherwise $X$ is said to be *primitive*.
\[Picard-Number-Two-Cases\] Let $X$ be a nonsingular Fano threefold with $\rho(X)=2$.
1. There exists a del Pezzo fibration $X\rightarrow {{\mathbb P}}^1$ of degree $2$ if and only if $\gimel(X)\in\{2.2,2.3\}$.
2. There exists a del Pezzo fibration $X\rightarrow {{\mathbb P}}^1$ of degree $3$ if and only if $\gimel(X)\in\{2.4,2.5\}$.
If $\gimel(X)\in\{2.3,2.4,2.5\}$, $X$ is the blow-up of a nonsingular Fano threefold $Y$ with index $r$ along an irreducible smooth curve $C$. Let $H$ be the fundamental divisor of $X$. Then $C$ is a complete intersection of members of $\left\vert (r-1)H\right\vert$. Let $E$ be the exceptional divisor of the blow-up $f\colon X\rightarrow Y$. Then the linear system $\left\vert(r-1)f^*H-E\right\vert$ defines a del Pezzo fibration of degree $2$ (resp. $2$, $3$) if $\gimel(X)=2.3$ (resp. $\gimel(X)=2.4, 2.5$).
If $\gimel(X)=2.2$, $X$ is a double cover of ${{\mathbb P}}^1\times{{\mathbb P}}^2$ ramified along a divisor of bidegree $(2,4)$. Let $X\rightarrow {{\mathbb P}}^1\times{{\mathbb P}}^2\rightarrow {{\mathbb P}}^1$ be the composite. Then a straightforward computation shows that the general fiber is a del Pezzo surface of degree $2$.
Now we assume that $X$ admits a del Pezzo fibration $f\colon X\rightarrow {{\mathbb P}}^1$ of degree $d\in\{2, 3\}$. As $\rho(X)=2$, $f$ is an extremal contraction. If $X$ is primitive, by the classification given in [@MoriMukai1983 Theorem 1.7], we have $\gimel(X)=2.2$.
If $X$ is imprimitive, then $X$ is the blow-up of another nonsingular Fano threefold $Y$ along an irreducible smooth curve $C$. As $\rho(X)=2$, $Y$ is a nonsingular Fano threefold with index $r$ and $\rho(X)=1$. Denote by $\pi\colon X\rightarrow Y$ the blow-up, by $E$ the exceptional divisor of $\pi$ and by $H$ the ample generator of $\operatorname*{Pic}(Y)$. Note that we have $r\geq 2$ by [@Shafarevich1999 Proposition 7.1.5]. Thanks to [@Shafarevich1999 Corollary 7.1.2], $C$ should be a scheme-theoretical intersection of divisors from $\left\vert(r-1)H\right\vert$. In particular, the contraction $f$ is induced by $\left\vert(r-1)\pi^*H-E\right\vert$. The linear system $\left\vert(r-1)\pi^*H-E\right\vert$ is composed with a pencil of surfaces if and only if $C$ is a complete intersection of members of $\left\vert(r-1)H\right\vert$ and if so the general fiber of $f$ is a del Pezzo surface of degree $d=(r-1)H^3$. On the other hand, $(r-1)H^3=2$ if and only if $(r,H^3)\in\{(3,1),(2,2)\}$. Nevertheless, if $r=3$, then $Y$ is a quadric threefold and we have $H^3=2$. Therefore the case $(r,H^3)=(3,1)$ does not happen. Hence, if $f$ is a del Pezzo fibration of degree $2$, then $(r,H^3)=(2,2)$, i.e. $\gimel(X)=2.3$. The same argument can be applied to the case $(r-1)H^3=3$ to yield $\gimel(X)\in \{2.4, 2.5\}$.
Next we consider the nonsingular Fano threefolds satisfying $(\clubsuit)$.
\[Intersections-Cases\] Let $X$ be a nonsingular Fano threefold satisfying ($\clubsuit$).
1. There exists a del Pezzo fibration $X\rightarrow {{\mathbb P}}^1$ of degree $2$ if and only if $\gimel(X)=2.3$.
2. There exists a del Pezzo fibration $X\rightarrow {{\mathbb P}}^1$ of degree $3$ if and only if $\gimel(X)\in \{2.4, 2.5\}$.
Firstly we consider the case $\gimel(X)=3.5$. By [@MoriMukai1981/82], $X$ is the blow-up of ${{\mathbb P}}^1\times{{\mathbb P}}^2$ along a curve $C$ of bidegree $(5,2)$ such that the composition $C\hookrightarrow {{\mathbb P}}^1\times{{\mathbb P}}^2\rightarrow{{\mathbb P}}^2$ is an embedding. Let $E$ be exceptional divisor of the blow-up $f\colon X\rightarrow Y={{\mathbb P}}^1\times{{\mathbb P}}^2$, and let $g\colon{{\mathbb P}}^1\times{{\mathbb P}}^2$ be the first projection. Set $L={{\mathcal O}}_Y(-K_Y)\otimes g^*{{\mathcal O}}_{{{\mathbb P}}^1}(1)$. Then $C$ is an intersection (not complete intersection) of members of $\vert L\vert$. Moreover, set $D_1=f^*L-E$ and $D_2=f^*g^*{{\mathcal O}}_{{{\mathbb P}}^1}(1)$. By [@MoriMukai1986 Proposition 2.14] or [@MoriMukai1986 (7.17)], $-K_X=D_1+D_2$ is a free splitting. Thus, $\vert D_1\vert$ is not composed with a pencil of surfaces and $\vert D_2\vert$ is composed with a pencil of surfaces. The induced morphism by $\vert D_2\vert$ is exactly $g\circ f\colon X\rightarrow {{\mathbb P}}^1$. Let $S$ be a general fiber of $g\circ f$. From the construction, $S$ is the blow-up of ${{\mathbb P}}^2$ at $5$ points. Therefore, $S$ is a del Pezzo surface of degree $4$.
Secondly, we consider the case in which $\vert D_2\vert$ is not composed with a pencil of surfaces. By Lemma \[Criterion-Complete-Intersection\], $\vert D_1\vert$ is composed with a pencil of surfaces if and only if $C$ is a complete intersection. In this case, the general fiber $S$ of the morphism $\Phi_{\vert D_1\vert}\colon X\rightarrow{{\mathbb P}}^1$ is an irreducible del Pezzo surface of degree $D_1\cdot D_2^2$. As the case $\rho(X)=2$ is already considered in Proposition \[Picard-Number-Two-Cases\], it remains to consider the case $\rho(X)\geq 3$. Then the quantity $D_1\cdot D_2^2$ is computed in the Appendix and we see that $S$ is always a del Pezzo surface of degree $\geq 4$.
Finally we consider the nonsingular Fano threefolds of product type.
\[Products-Cases\] Let $X$ be a nonsingular Fano threefold such that $\rho(X)\geq 6$ or $\gimel(X)\in \{3.27,3.28,4.10,5.3\}$. Then $X$ admits a del Pezzo fibration of degree $d\leq 3$ if and only if $X\simeq{{\mathbb P}}^1\times S$, where $S$ is a del Pezzo surface of degree $d$.
One implication is clear. Now we assume that $X$ admits a del Pezzo fibration of degree $d\leq 3$. By the assumption, $X$ is isomorphic to ${{\mathbb P}}^1\times S$, where $S$ is a del Pezzo surface of degree $d$. Set $D_1=p_1^*(-K_{{{\mathbb P}}^1})$ and $D_2=p_2^*(-K_S)$. If $d=1$, then $\vert-K_X\vert$ is not base point free and consequently $S$ is a del Pezzo surface of degree $1$ by Corollary \[1-Non-Basepoint-Freeness\]. If $d\geq 2$, then $-K_X=D_1+D_2$ is a free splitting, and we can conclude by Theorem \[fibration iff Seshadri\].
Remaining cases
---------------
As a consequence of Theorem \[Intersetions-Properties\], Proposition \[Picard-Number-Two-Cases\], Proposition \[Intersections-Cases\] and Lemma \[Products-Cases\], it remains to consider the nonsingular Fano threefolds $X$ such that $$\gimel(X)\in\{3.1-3.3,3.8,3.17,3.19,3.31, 4.1\}.$$
[|M[0.5cm]{}|M[11cm]{}|]{} $\gimel$ & brief description\
$3.1$ & a double cover of ${{\mathbb P}}^1\times{{\mathbb P}}^1\times{{\mathbb P}}^1$ ramified along a divisor of tridegree $(2,2,2)$\
$3.2$ & a divisor from $\vert \xi^{\otimes 2}\otimes{{\mathcal O}}(2,3)\vert$ on the ${{\mathbb P}}^2$-bundle ${{\mathbb P}}({{\mathcal E}})$ over ${{\mathbb P}}^1\times{{\mathbb P}}^1$, where ${{\mathcal E}}={{\mathcal O}}\oplus {{\mathcal O}}(-1,-1)^{\oplus 2}$ and $\xi$ is the tautological bundle ${{\mathcal O}}_{{{\mathbb P}}({{\mathcal E}})}(1)$\
$3.3$ & a divisor on ${{\mathbb P}}^1\times{{\mathbb P}}^1\times{{\mathbb P}}^1$ of tridegree $(1,1,2)$\
$3.8$ & a divisor from $\vert p_1^*g^*{{\mathcal O}}(1)\otimes p_2^*{{\mathcal O}}(2)\vert$ on ${{\mathbb F}}_1\times {{\mathbb P}}^2$, where $p_i$ is the $i$-th projection and $g\colon {{\mathbb F}}_1\rightarrow {{\mathbb P}}^2$ is the blow-up\
$3.17$ & a divisor on ${{\mathbb P}}^1\times{{\mathbb P}}^1\times{{\mathbb P}}^2$ of tridegree $(1,1,1)$\
$3.19$ & the blow-up of $Q^3\subset{{\mathbb P}}^4$ at two non-collinear points\
$3.31$ & ${{\mathbb P}}({{\mathcal O}}\oplus{{\mathcal O}}(1,1))$ over ${{\mathbb P}}^1\times{{\mathbb P}}^1$\
$4.1$ & divisor on ${{\mathbb P}}^1\times{{\mathbb P}}^1\times{{\mathbb P}}^1\times{{\mathbb P}}^1$ of multidegree $(1,1,1,1)$\
If $\gimel(X)\in \{3.1,3.3,3.17,4.1\}$, then $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)=2$.
In these four cases, it is easily seen that we can write $-K_X=D_1+D_2+D_3$ with all $\vert D_i\vert$ free linear system. Let $x\in X$ be a very general point and let $C$ be an irreducible curve passing through $x$. If there exist $D_i$ and $D_j$ with $i\not=j$ such that $D_i\cdot C>0$ and $D_j\cdot C>0$, then we have $-K_X\cdot C\geq 2\operatorname*{mult}_x C$ as before. If there exist $D_i$ and $D_j$ with $i\not=j$ such that $D_i\cdot C=D_j\cdot C=0$, then $C$ is contained in a fiber of the map $\pi=(\pi_i,\pi_j)\colon X\rightarrow Y_i\times Y_j$, where $\pi_i$ and $\pi_j$ are the morphisms induced by $\vert D_i\vert$ and $\vert D_j\vert$, respectively. As $\dim(Y_i\times Y_j)\geq 2$ and $x$ is very general, it follows that $\pi$ is a fibration in curves. By Lemma \[Contraction-Curve\], we get $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;1)=2\operatorname*{mult}_x C$. Thus we have $\varepsilon(X,-K_X;x)\geq 2$ and we see that the equality holds from Theorem \[fibration iff Seshadri\].
If $\gimel(X)=3.2$, denote by $f$ the composite $X\rightarrow {{\mathbb P}}^1\times {{\mathbb P}}^1\rightarrow {{\mathbb P}}^1$, where the last morphism is the projection to the first factor, then $f$ is a del Pezzo fibration of degree $3$.
Denote by $H_1$ and $H_2$ the line bundles $\pi^*{{\mathcal O}}(1,0)$ and $\pi^*{{\mathcal O}}(0,1)$ respectively, where $\pi\colon{{\mathbb P}}({{\mathcal E}})\rightarrow{{\mathbb P}}^1\times{{\mathbb P}}^1$ is the projection. Then we have $-K_X=(\xi+2H_1+H_2)\vert_X$. Set $D_2=(\xi+H_1+H_2)\vert_X$ and $D_1=H_1\vert_X$. Then $-K_X=D_1+D_2$ is a free splitting and $\vert D_1\vert$ is composed with a rational pencil of surfaces. As $X\sim 2\xi+2H_1+3H_2$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
(K_X+D_1)^2\cdot D_1 & = ((-\xi-H_1-H_2)\vert_X)^2\cdot H_1\vert_X\\
& = (\xi^2\cdot H_1+2\xi\cdot H_1\cdot H_2)\cdot(2\xi+2H_1+3H_2)\\
& = 2\xi^3\cdot H_1+5\xi^2\cdot H_1\cdot H_2
\end{aligned}$$ By the relation $(\xi+H_1+H_2)^2\cdot\xi=0$ (see [@MoriMukai1986 (7.14.2)]), we obtain $$\xi^3=-2\xi^2\cdot (H_1+H_2)-2\xi\cdot H_1\cdot H_2.$$ This yields $$(K_X+D_1)^2\cdot D_1=3\xi^2\cdot H_1\cdot H_2=3.$$ Since $\vert-K_X\vert$ is base point free, the general fiber of $f$ is a smooth irreducible del Pezzo surface of degree $3$.
If $\gimel(X)\in\{3.8,3.19,3.31\}$, then there exists a free splitting $-K_X=D_1+D_2$ such that $\vert D_1\vert$ and $\vert D_2\vert$ are both not composed with a pencil of surfaces. In particular, $X$ does not admit a del Pezzo fibration of degree $\leq 3$.
*Case 1. $\gimel(X)=3.8$.* Denote by $C$ the exceptional curve of $g$ and set $E=p_1^{-1}(C)$. Let $H_1$ and $H_2$ be the line bundles $p_1^*g^*{{\mathcal O}}_{{{\mathbb P}}^2}(1)$ and $p_2{{\mathcal O}}_{{{\mathbb P}}^2}(1)$, respectively. Then we have $$-K_X=\left(2H_1+H_2-E\right)\vert_X$$ We set $D_1=(2H_1-E)\vert_X$ and $D_2=H_2\vert_X$. Then $-K_X=D_1+D_2$ is a free splitting such that $\vert D_2\vert$ is not composed with a pencil of surfaces. On the other hand, we have $$\begin{aligned}
D_1^2\cdot (H_1+H_2)\vert_X = 8H_1^2H_2^2+2E^2H_2^2=6>0.
\end{aligned}$$ Thus the numerical dimension of $D_1$ is at least $2$. In particular, $\vert D_1\vert$ is not composed with a pencil of surfaces.
*Case 2. $\gimel(X)=3.19$.* Denote by $L$ the line bundle ${{\mathcal O}}_{Q^3}(1)$ and by $f\colon X\rightarrow Q^3$ the blow-up. By [@MoriMukai1986 (7.11.1)], we have a free splitting $$-K_X\sim f^*L+2(f^*L-E_1-E_2),$$ where $E_1$ and $E_2$ are the exceptionl divisors of $f$ over $p$ and $q$, respectively. We set $D_1=f^*L$ and $D_2=2(f^*L-E_1-E_2)$. Then it is easily to see that $\vert D_1\vert$ is not composed with a pencil of surfaces. On the other hand, note that we have $$D_2^2\cdot f^*L=4(f^*L)^3=8>0.$$ Thus the numerical dimension of $D_2$ is at least $2$, and consequently $\vert D_2\vert$ is not composed with a pencil of surfaces.
*Case 3. $\gimel(X)=3.31$.* Denote by ${{\mathcal E}}$ the vector bundle ${{\mathcal O}}\oplus(1,1)$ over ${{\mathbb P}}^1\times{{\mathbb P}}^1$. Let $\pi\colon {{\mathbb P}}({{\mathcal E}})\rightarrow {{\mathbb P}}^1\times{{\mathbb P}}^1$ the projection. Set $D_1={{\mathcal O}}_{{{\mathbb P}}({{\mathcal E}})}(2)$ and $D_2=\pi^*{{\mathcal O}}(1,1)$. Then $-K_X\sim D_1+D_2$ is a free splitting. As ${{\mathcal O}}(1,1)$ is very ample on ${{\mathbb P}}^1\times{{\mathbb P}}^1$, we see that $\vert D_2\vert$ is not composed with a pencil of surfaces. On the other hand, we have $$D_1^2(D_1+3D_2)=(-K_X)^3-3D_1\cdot D_2^2=40>0,$$ Similarly as above, $\vert D_1\vert$ is not composed with a pencil of surfaces.
Conclusion
----------
We summarize the main results proved in the previous two subsections in the following theorem. Combining it with Theorem \[fibration iff Seshadri\] will immediately yield Theorem \[Intro Fano threefolds Picard number large Seshadri\].
Let $X$ be a nonsingular Fano threefold.
1. $X$ admits a del Pezzo fibration of degree $2$ if and only if $\gimel(X)\in \{2.2, 2.3, 9.1\}$.
2. $X$ admits a del Pezzo fibration of degree $3$ if and only if $\gimel(X)\in\{2.4, 2.5, 3.2, 8.1\}$.
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
Let $X$ be a nonsingular Fano threefold with $\rho(X)\geq 3$ satisfying $(\clubsuit)$. If $C\subset Y$ is a complete intersection of members from $\vert L\vert$ such that $X$ is isomorphic to the blow-up of $Y$ along $C$ with natural morphism $f\colon X\rightarrow Y$, then $\vert f^*L-E\vert$ is composed with a pencil of del Pezzo surfaces of degree $d=L^2\cdot (-K_Y-L)$, where $E$ is the exceptional divisor of $f\colon X\rightarrow Y$. In the proof of Proposition \[Intersections-Cases\], we claim that we have always $d\geq 4$. In the following, we give the details of the calculation.
[|M[0.5cm]{}|M[5cm]{}|M[5cm]{}|M[0.5cm]{}|]{} $\gimel$ & $Y$ & $L$ & $d$\
$3.4$ & $f\colon Y\rightarrow {{\mathbb P}}^1\times{{\mathbb P}}^2$ is a double cover whose branch locus is a divisor of bidegree $(2,2)$. & $f^*p_2^*{{\mathcal O}}_{{{\mathbb P}}^2}(1)$, where $p_2\colon {{\mathbb P}}^1\times{{\mathbb P}}^2\rightarrow{{\mathbb P}}^2$ is the projection to the second factor & $4$\
$3.7$ & $W\subset {{\mathbb P}}^2\times{{\mathbb P}}^2$ a smooth divisor of bidegree $(1,1)$ & $-\frac{1}{2}K_W$ & $6$\
$3.11$ & $\pi\colon V_7\rightarrow {{\mathbb P}}^3$ is the blow-up of ${{\mathbb P}}^3$ at a point $p$ with the exceptional divisor $E$ & $-\frac{1}{2}K_{V_7}$ & $7$\
$3.24$ & $W\subset {{\mathbb P}}^2\times{{\mathbb P}}^2$ a smooth divisor of bidegree $(1,1)$ & ${{\mathcal O}}_W\otimes {{\mathcal O}}_{{{\mathbb P}}^2\times{{\mathbb P}}^2}(0,1)$ & $8$\
$3.26$ & $\pi\colon V_7\rightarrow {{\mathbb P}}^3$ is the blow-up of ${{\mathbb P}}^3$ at a point $p$ with the exceptional divisor $E$ & $\pi^*{{\mathcal O}}_{{{\mathbb P}}^3}(1)$ & $9$\
$4.4$ & $\pi\colon Y\rightarrow Q^3$ is the blow-up of $Q^3\subset{{\mathbb P}}^4$ with center two points $x_1$ and $x_2$ on it which are not colinear with exceptional divisors $E_1$ and $E_2$. & $\pi^*{{\mathcal O}}_{Q^3}(1)\otimes{{\mathcal O}}_Y(-E_1-E_2)$ & 6\
$4.9$ & $f\colon Y\rightarrow{{\mathbb P}}^3$ is obtained by first blowing up along a line $\ell$ and then blowing-up an exceptional line of the first blowing-up & $f^*{{\mathcal O}}_{{{\mathbb P}}^3}(1)$ & $8$\
$5.1$ & $\pi\colon Y\rightarrow Q^3$ is the blow-up of $Q^3\subset{{\mathbb P}}^4$ three points $x_i$ on a conic on it with exceptional divisors $E_i$ ($1\leq i\leq 3$). & $\pi^*{{\mathcal O}}_{Q^3}(1)\otimes{{\mathcal O}}_Y(-E_1-E_2-E_3)$ & $5$\
1. $\gimel(X)=3.4$. Denote by $H$ the line bundle $f^*{{\mathcal O}}_{{{\mathbb P}}^1\times{{\mathbb P}}^2}(1,0)$. By ramification formula, we have $K_Y=-H-2L$. It follows $$(-K_Y-L)^2\cdot L=(H+L)^2\cdot L=2H\cdot L^2=4.$$
2. $\gimel(X)=3.7$. Here $Y$ is the del Pezzo threefold $W$ of degree $6$. As $L=-1/2K_W$, we obtain $$(-K_Y-L)^2\cdot L=-\frac{1}{8}K_Y^3=\frac{1}{8}(-K_W)^3=6.$$
3. $\gimel(X)=3.11$. Here $Y$ is a del Pezzo threefold $V_7$ of degree $7$. As $L=-1/2 K_{Y}$, we have $$(-K_{Y}-L)^2\cdot L=-\frac{1}{8}K_Y^3=\frac{1}{8}(-K_{V_7})^3=7.$$
4. $\gimel(X)=3.24$. Denote the line bundles ${{\mathcal O}}_{{{\mathbb P}}^2\times{{\mathbb P}}^2}(1,0)$ and ${{\mathcal O}}_{{{\mathbb P}}^2\times{{\mathbb P}}^2}(0,1)$ by $H_1$ and $H_2$, respectively. Then $W=H_1+H_2$ and $K_W=(-2H_1-2H_2)\vert_W$ and we have $$(-K_W-L)^\cdot L=(2H_1\vert_W+H_2\vert_W)^2\cdot H_2\vert_W=8H_1^2\cdot H_2^2=8.$$
5. $\gimel(X)=3.26$. Here $Y$ is a del Pezzo threefold $V_7$ of degree $7$. As $-K_{V_7}=-4L+2E$, we obtain $$(-K_{V_7}-L)^2\cdot L=(3L-2E)^2\cdot L=9L^3=9.$$
6. $\gimel(X)=4.4$. Denote by $H$ the line bundle $\pi^*{{\mathcal O}}_{Q^3}(1)$. Then $L=H-E_1-E_2$ and $K_Y=-3H+2E_1+2E_2$. It follows $$(-K_Y-L)^2\cdot L=(2H-E_1-E_2)^2\cdot (H-E_1-E_2)=6.$$
7. $\gimel(X)=4.9$. Denote by $E_1$ the strict transform of the exceptional divisor of the first blowi-up and denote by $E_2$ the exceptional divisor of the second blow-up. Then we have $K_Y=-4L+E_1+2E_2$. It follows $$(-K_Y-L)^2\cdot L=(3L-E_1-2E_2)^2\cdot L=9L^3+L\cdot E_1^2=8.$$
8. $\gimel(X)=5.1$. Let $H$ be the line bundle $\pi^*{{\mathcal O}}_{Q^3}(1)$. Then $L=H-E_1-E_2-E_3$ and $K_Y=-3H+2E_1+2E_2+2E_3$. It follows $$(-K_Y-L)^2\cdot L=(2H-E_1-E_2-E_3)^2\cdot(H-E_1-E_2-E_3)=5.$$
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We prove the last of five outstanding conjectures made by R.M. Robinson from 1965 concerning small cyclotomic integers. In particular, given any cyclotomic integer $\beta$ all of whose conjugates have absolute value at most $5$, we prove that the *largest* such conjugate has absolute value one of four explicit types given by two infinite classes and two exceptional cases. We also extend this result by showing that with the addition of one form, the conjecture is true for $\beta$ with magnitudes up to $5+{\ensuremath{1/25}}$.'
author:
- |
Frederick Robinson\
`[email protected]`
- |
Michael Wurtz\
`[email protected]`
bibliography:
- 'bib.bib'
title: On the magnitudes of some small cyclotomic integers
---
Introduction
============
In [@Robinson], Raphael Robinson made a study of small cyclotomic integers, namely, cyclotomic integers $\alpha$ all of whose conjugates lie in $|z| \le R$ for $R = 2$ and $R = \sqrt{5}$. Robinson made a sequence of five conjectures concerning these numbers, four of which were proved by Schinzel [@Schinzel], Cassels [@Cassels], and Jones [@Jones1; @Jones2]. In this paper, we resolve the final outstanding conjecture. First, we recall the following definition:
For a cyclotomic integer $\beta$, let the house of $\beta$, denoted $\ho{\beta}$, be the largest absolute value of all conjugates of $\beta$.
Our main result is as follows:
\[resultone\] If $\beta$ is a cyclotomic integer with $\ho{\beta}^2 \leq 5$, then $\ho{\beta}$ has one of the forms $$\robeqone{N}, \quad \robeqtwo{N},$$ where $N$ is a positive integer, or else is equal to one of the two numbers $$\robnumone, \quad \robnumtwo.$$
Note that these values do actually occur as $\ho{\beta}$ for some cyclotomic integers (with the exception of $N=1$ in the first equation), specifically, for $\beta$ as follows: $\zeta_N + \zeta^{-1}_N$, $ \zeta_4 + \zeta_N + \zeta^{-1}_N$, $1 + \zeta_{13} + \zeta^4_{13}$, and $\zeta^{-9}_{84} + \zeta^{-7}_{84} + \zeta^{3}_{84} + \zeta^{27}_{84}$. The first and last numbers on this list are totally real, so $\ho{\beta} = \beta$ in these cases. In studying this problem, we follow the approach of Cassels [@Cassels], as well as the recent paper of Calegari, Morrison, and Snyder [@Calegari], where a version of this theorem is proven for totally real $\beta$.
We actually prove the following stronger statement:
\[result\] If $\beta$ is a cyclotomic integer with $\ho{\beta}^2 \le 5 + {\ensuremath{1/25}}$, then either $\ho{\beta}$ is a number on the list above, or $$\ho{\beta} = \left|\ournumone\right|, \text{ where } \zeta_{70}=e^{2\pi i / 70}$$
The main result of Cassels [@Cassels] Implies Theorem \[resultone\] with *at most finitely many exceptions*. The methods of Cassels, however, do not lead to a practical algorithm for determining what those exceptions might be. Indeed, it is noted in [@Calegari] that any exception must lie in $\Z[\zeta_N]$ for $$N = 4692838820715366441120
= 2^5 \cdot 3^3 \cdot 5 \cdot 7 \cdot 11 \cdot 13 \cdot 17 \cdot 19 \cdot 23 \cdot 29 \cdot 31 \cdot 37 \cdot 41
\cdot 47 \cdot 53.$$
The motivation for this project is twofold. Most naturally, it was desirable to answer Robinson’s conjecture. Robinson was motivated in part by understanding the relationship between the house of a cyclotomic integer $\alpha$ and the “complexity” of such an integer, as for example measured by the number of roots of unity required to represent $\alpha$. Although this problem was qualitatively answered by Loxton [@Lox], those arguments are not effective. Another motivation is to the interaction between the algebraic number theory of cyclotomic fields and the numerology of subfactors of small index, as occurring (for example) in [@J1] and more recently in [@J2]. This was also the motivation for the recent paper [@Calegari]. Although there is no direct application of our result to the indices of subfactors, it is intriguing that the square of the “exotic” case $\sqrt{(5+\sqrt{13})/2}$ of Theorem \[resultone\] is also the index of the first exotic subfactor constructed by Aseada and Haagerup [@AH].
Some Notation
-------------
The following is well known:
A number $\beta \in \Q(\zeta_N)$ is a cyclotomic integer if and only if $\beta \in \Z(\zeta_N)$ for some $N$, i.e. if $\beta$ can be written as a finite sum of roots of unity.
In light of this, the following definition makes sense:
For a given cyclotomic integer $\beta$, $\Num(\beta)$ is the minimal number of roots of unity whose sum is $\beta$.
Note that given $\alpha$ and $\beta$, we have that $\Num(\alpha) - \Num(\beta) \leq \Num(\alpha \pm \beta) \leq \Num(\alpha) + \Num(\beta)$.
Following Cassels, we also make the following definition:
For a given cyclotomic integer $\beta$, $\M(\beta)$ is the arithmetic mean of $|\beta'|^2$ for all conjugates $\beta'$ of $\beta$.
Note that $|\beta|^2 = \beta \overline{\beta}$ is a cyclotomic integer. Since the Galois group of a cyclotomic extension is abelian, complex conjugation commutes with any automorphism. In particular, $\M(\beta) = \M(\beta')$ for any conjugate $\beta'$ of $\beta$, and moreover $\M(\beta)$ is the (normalized) trace of $|\beta|^2$, and hence lies in $\Q$.
Two cyclotomic integers $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are equivalent if $\alpha = \zeta \beta'$ for some $\zeta$ a root of unity and $\beta'$ a conjugate of $\beta$. We write $\alpha \equiv \beta$.
Since every root of unity has absolute value one, it follows that $\M(\zeta \gamma) = \M(\gamma)$ for any root of unity $\zeta$. In particular, if $\alpha \equiv \beta$, then $\M(\alpha) = \M(\zeta \beta') = \M(\beta') = \M(\beta)$.
A cyclotomic integer $\beta$ is minimal if $\beta \in \field{N}$, and there is no equivalent $\beta' \in \field{N'}$ with $N' < N$.
Since $\ho{\beta} = \ho{\beta'}$, it suffices to prove the theorem to consider all minimal cyclotomic integers.
We always mean a primitive $N$th root of unity by $\zeta_N$, not any $N$th root of unity.
Some Preliminary Results
========================
Properties of M
---------------
$\Num(\beta) = 1$ if and only if $\M(\beta) = 1$. This follows from [@Kronecker].
If $\Num(\beta)=2$, either $\M(\beta) \geq {\ensuremath{15/8}}$, or $\M(\beta) = {\ensuremath{3/2}}, {\ensuremath{5/3}}, {\ensuremath{7/4}}, {\ensuremath{9/5}}$, or ${\ensuremath{11/6}}$. The first four values occur only when $\beta$ is equivalent to $1+\zeta_N$ for $N = 5$, $7$, $30$, or $11$ respectively, and ${\ensuremath{11/6}}$ occurs only for $N =13$ or $42$.
The sum of two roots of unity is equivalent to $1 + \zeta_N$ for some $N$. One computes directly that $\M(1+\zeta_N) = 2(1+{\ensuremath{\mu(N)/\varphi(N)}})$, where $\mu$ is the Möbius $\mu$-function and $\varphi$ is Euler’s totient function, from which the result follows (cf. [@Calegari] Remark 9.0.2).
If $\Num(\beta) \geq 3$, then $\M(\beta) \geq 2$.
If $\beta \in \ring{N}$, and $p^n$ exactly divides $N$, then we can write $\beta$ as a sum of products of ${p^n}^{th}$ roots of unity with $\other_j \in \ring{N/p}$. Write $\beta = \sum_{j=0}^{p-1} \zeta_{p
^n}^j \other_j$, and let X be the number of non-zero terms in the summation. Let $\alpha_i$, $1 \leq i \leq X$, refer to the $X$ nonzero $\other_j$.
If $p$ exactly divides $N$, note that this representation is unique up to adding a constant to all $\other_i$. We have the equality $$\label{exactEqn}(p-1) \M(\beta) = (p-X) \sum_{i=1}^X \M (\alpha_i) + \sum_{1\leq i <j \leq X} \M(\alpha_i-\alpha_j).$$ On the other hand, if $n>1$, then this representation is unique. In this case, we have the equality $$\label{squareEqn}\M(\beta) = \sum_{i=1}^X \M(\alpha_i).$$
Conjugation
-----------
Throughout the paper, in many cases we will need to show for $\beta$ the sum of two given cyclotomic integers, that $\ho{\beta}^2 > 5+{\ensuremath{1/25}}$, and thus $\beta$ is not an exception to the theorem. One common method of proving this is as follows:
\[conjLemma\] Suppose $\beta$ is equivalent to $\alpha + \zeta_{p^n} \gamma$, where $\alpha \in \field{M'}$ and $\gamma \in \field{M''}$. Let $m$ be the largest integer such that $\zeta_{p^m} \in \field{M'}$ or $\field{M''}$. Then if $m<n$, $$\ho{\beta}^2 \geq |\alpha|^2 + |\gamma|^2 + 2 \ |\alpha| \cdot |\gamma| \cdot \cos(\theta)$$
where $$\theta = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
2 \pi / p^n & \mathrm{if\ } m=0 \\
\pi / p^{n-m}& \mathrm{if\ } m>0.
\end{array}
\right.$$
Moreover, if $(M', M'')=1$, then $$\ho{\beta}^2 \geq \ho{\alpha}^2 + \ho{\gamma}^2 + 2 \ \ho{\alpha} \cdot \ho{\gamma} \cdot \cos(\theta).$$
By assumption on $m$ and $n$, there exists a Galois automorphism sending $\zeta_{p^n}$ to $\zeta_{p^n}^i$ and fixing $\alpha$ and $\gamma$ as long as $(i,p) = 1$ and $\zeta_{p^m} = \zeta_{p^m}^i$, i.e. when $i \equiv 1 \mod p^m$. If $m=0$, we may conjugate $\zeta_{p^n}$ to any other *primitive* $p^n$-th root of unity. The largest angle between two adjacent primitive $p^n$-th roots of unity is $2 \cdot 2 \pi / p^n$, so we can place the argument of $\zeta^i_{p^n} \gamma$ to within $2 \pi / p^n$ of the argument of $\alpha$. If $m>0$, then there are $p^{n-m}$ equally spaced primitive $p^n$-th roots of unity that are congruent to $1 \hspace{-1.5mm} \mod p^m$. We can then guarantee that some conjugate of $\beta$ is $\alpha + \zeta_{p^n}^i \gamma$, where the difference in arguments between $\alpha$ and $\zeta_{p^n}^i \gamma$ is at most $\pi / p^{n-m}$.
For the second claim, if $(M', M'')=1$, then we may *simultaneously* conjugate $\alpha$ and $\gamma$ to their largest conjugate, and then apply the first part of the Lemma.
A Note on Computational Accuracy
--------------------------------
In several places we have verified results through the use of a computer. For example, given $\beta$, we wish to know if $\ho{\beta}$ is equal to some $\gamma$ from theorem \[result\]. We show, that by computing $\ho{\beta}$ to a necessary degree of accuracy, we can claim that $\ho{\beta}$ is equal to $\gamma$, and not just very near to it.
Suppose $\beta$ is a cyclotomic integer, $\gamma$ is on the list of theorem \[result\], and $k = [\field{N} : \Q] = \varphi(N)$, where $\beta, \gamma \in \field{N}$. If $|\ho{\beta} - \gamma| < (10+{\ensuremath{1/25}})^{-k}$, then $\ho{\beta} = \gamma$.
Let $\delta = |\ho{\beta} - \gamma|$, then $\delta$ is also a cyclotomic integer in $\field{N}$ and $\delta$ has at most $k$ conjugates. Denote the conjugates by $\delta_1, \dots, \delta_i$ with $\delta_1=\delta$. As all conjugates of $\ho{\beta}$ and $\gamma$ have magnitude at most $5+{\ensuremath{1/25}}$, all conjugates of $\delta$ have magnitude at most $10+{\ensuremath{2/25}}$. Then $|\Norm(\delta)| = |\delta_1 \cdots \delta_i| \leq \delta (10+{\ensuremath{2/25}})^{k-1} < 1$. $|\Norm(\delta)| < 1$ if and only if $\Norm(\delta)=0=\delta$, so $\ho{\beta} = \gamma$.
Theorem \[result\] when N(B) is less than or equal to 3
-------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we recall known results that allow us to deduce Theorem \[result\] in the special case when $\Num(\beta) \le 3$:
1. If $\Num(\beta)=1$, then $\ho{\beta}=1=\robeqone{3}$.
2. If $\Num(\beta)=2$, then $\beta \equiv 1+\zeta_n$ for some $n$ and $\ho{\beta}=2|\cos(\pi / n)|$.
3. If $\Num(\beta)=3$, Jones’ [@Jones2] Theorem 2 states that if $\ho{\beta} \leq 1 + \sqrt{2}$, then $\beta$ is equivalent to $1+\zeta_n-\zeta_n^{-1}$, $1 \pm i + \zeta_n$, or one of $15$ numbers that he lists.
In the first case, $\beta$ equivalent to $1+\zeta_n-\zeta_n^{-1}$, we have that $\ho{\beta}$ is equal to $\robeqtwo{M}$ where the value of $M$ depends on $n$ in a slightly subtle way. In particular, $$M(n) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
2n & \mathrm{if\ } n \text{ is odd} \\
n & \mathrm{if\ } n/2 \text{ is odd} \\
n/4 & \mathrm{if\ } n/4 \text{ is odd} \\
n/2 & \mathrm{if\ } n/4 \text{ is even}.
\end{array}
\right.$$
In the second case, $\beta$ is equivalent to $1 \pm i + \zeta_n$. Lemma \[conjLemma\] proves that if $n$ does not divide $2^4 \cdot 3 \cdot 5 \cdot 7$, then $\ho{\beta}>\sqrt{5+{\ensuremath{1/25}}}$ (by letting $\alpha = 1 + i$). There are then $40$ divisors of $2^4 \cdot 3 \cdot 5 \cdot 7$ that were checked computationally.
We checked each number in the third case, and all were equal to a form from Robinson.
An upper bound for M(B)
=======================
Many of our arguments are based on the following Lemma:
\[134\]If $\beta$ is a cyclotomic integer with $\ho{\beta}^2 \leq 5 + {\ensuremath{1/25}}$, then $\M(\beta) < {\ensuremath{13/4}}$ or $\ho{\beta} = \robeqtwo{N}$ for some $N$.
*One should compare this with Lemma 5.1.1 of [@Calegari], where, assuming the slightly weaker condition $\ho{\beta} \leq {\ensuremath{76/33}}$, it is shown that $\M(\beta) < {\ensuremath{23/6}}$. The significant improvement (${\ensuremath{23/6}} = {\ensuremath{13/4}} + {\ensuremath{7/12}}$) in our upper bound for $\M(\beta)$ (at the cost of a stronger bound on $\ho{\beta}$) is what allows us to push the methods of Cassels and [@Calegari] to prove Robinson’s conjecture.*
Let $P_i$ and $\alpha_i$ be as below (note that all $P_i$ are irreducible over , and their roots are real and positive): $$\begin{array}{l|l|r|l}
i & P_i & 1000\alpha_i & N\\
\hline
1 & x-3 & 110 & 4\\
2 & x-4 & 530 & 6\\
3 & x-5 & 620 & 1\\
4 & x^2-6x+6 & 18 & 12\\
5 & x^2-6x+7 & 28 & 8\\
6 & x^2-7x+11 & 194 & 10\\
7 & x^3-10x^2+31x-29 & 130 & 14\\
8 & x^4-13x^3+58x^2-98x+41 & 45 & D_8\\
9 & x^4-13x^3+59x^2-107x+61 & 40 & 15
\end{array}$$ Let $f(x) ={\ensuremath{13/4}} - x - \sum \alpha_i \log|P_i(x)|$. We claim that $f(x)$ is positive for all values of $x$ in $[0,5+{\ensuremath{1/25}}]$ where it is defined (there are many asymptotes where $f(x) \to +\infty$). Note that $f$ is defined everywhere that is not a root of some $P_i$. $$\includegraphics[height=210px]{134graph}$$
The derivative of $f(x)$ has $14$ real zeroes in $[0,5+{\ensuremath{1/25}}]$, at which all of $f$ is positive. Also, $f$ is positive at 0 and $5+{\ensuremath{1/25}}$. So $f$ is positive everywhere on $[0,5+{\ensuremath{1/25}}]$ where it is defined. Now take any non-zero cyclotomic integer $\beta$ with $\beta \bar\beta = \ho{\beta}^2 \leq 5+{\ensuremath{1/25}}$.
If $\ho{\beta}^2$ is equivalent to a root of some $P_i$, note two things: it cannot be $P_8$, as that has a non-abelian Galois group which would imply that $\beta$ is not a cyclotomic integer. Furthermore $\ho{\beta}^2$ is the largest root of $P_i$. All largest roots of $P_i$, $i \neq 8$, are squares of for $N$ as shown in the above table.
If $\beta \bar\beta$ is not equivalent to a root of any $P_i$, let $x_j$, $1 \leq j \leq n$, be the conjugates of $\beta \bar\beta$. Note that the conjugates of $\beta \bar\beta$ are $\beta' \bar{\beta'}$ for $\beta'$ the conjugates of $\beta$. Then $0 < x_j \leq 5+{\ensuremath{1/25}}$ and $P_i(x_j) \neq 0$ for any $i, j$, so we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum^n_{j=1} f(x_j) &> 0\\
\sum_{j=1}^n \left( \frac{13}{4} - x_j - \sum_i \alpha_i \log |P_i(x_j)| \right) &> 0\\
\frac{13}{4} n - \sum_{j=1}^n x_j - \sum_i \left(a_i \sum_{j=1}^n \log|P_i(x_j)|\right) &> 0\\
\frac{13}{4}n -n \M(\beta) - \sum_i a_i \log \left| \prod_{j=1}^n P_i (x_j)\right| &> 0\\
\frac{13}{4} n - n \M(\beta) &> \sum_i a_i \log \left|\prod_{j=1}^n P_i(x_j)\right|\\
\frac{13}{4} n - n \M(\beta) &> \sum_i a_i \log \left|\Norm(P_i(\beta\bar\beta))\right|\\
\frac{13}{4}n - n\M(\beta) &> 0\\
\frac{13}{4} & > \M(\beta)\end{aligned}$$
If B is in Q(Zn), then N or N/2 is squarefree
=============================================
\[psquared\] Suppose $\beta \in \field{N}$ is a minimal exception to Theorem \[result\]. If $p^2$ divides $N$, then $p = 2$ and $4$ exactly divides $N$.
Suppose towards a contradiction that $p^n$ exactly divides $N$, with $n \geq 2$ and $p^n \neq 4$. Write $\beta = \sum_{i=0}^{p-1} \zeta_{p^n}^j \other_j$, with $\other_j \in \field{N/p}$. We refer to this as the $p$-decomposition of $\beta$. Let $\alpha_i$ be the $X$ nonzero $\other_i$. We have by Cassels [@Cassels] that $\M(\beta) = \sum \M(\alpha_i)$, so by Lemma \[134\], $\sum \M(\alpha_i) < {\ensuremath{13/4}}$. $X$ must be $2$. $X=1$ would mean $N$ is not minimal, $X=3$ would mean $\Num(\beta)=3$, and $X>3$ would mean $\M(\beta) \geq 4$.
Let $\beta = \alpha + \zeta_{p^n}\gamma$, and assume that $\M(\alpha) \leq \M(\gamma)$. Then $\M(\alpha) \leq {\ensuremath{13/8}}$, so $\M(\alpha) = 1$ or ${\ensuremath{3/2}}$.
M(a)=1
------
Recall that $\Num(\beta) > 3$, so $\Num(\gamma) \geq 3$.
Assume (by multiplying $\beta$ by a root of unity) that $\alpha = 1$. We know that $2 \leq \M(\gamma) < {\ensuremath{9/4}}$.
- First assume that $\ho{\gamma}^2 > 2$, then by Cassels’ corollary to Lemma 5, we have $\ho{\gamma}^2 \geq 3$. If $p \geq 3$, then by Lemma \[conjLemma\], $\ho{\beta}^2 \geq 4+\sqrt{3}$.
In the case of $2^n$, $n > 2$, write $\gamma = \gamma' + \zeta_{2^{n-1}} \gamma''$, with $\gamma', \gamma'' \in \field{N/4}$. $\M(\gamma')+\M(\gamma'') = \M(\gamma) < 2 {\ensuremath{1/4}}$, so either both $\gamma'$ and $\gamma''$ are roots of unity and $\beta$ is 3 roots of unity, or one of $\gamma'$ or $\gamma''$ are 0. The latter case implies $\beta \equiv 1 + \zeta_{2^n}^i(\gamma' + \gamma'')$, and by Lemma \[conjLemma\], $\ho{\beta}^2 \geq 4+\sqrt{6}$.
- The other case is if $\M(\gamma) = \ho{\gamma}^2 = 2$. By Cassels’ Lemma 6, $\gamma$ is equivalent to one of $(-1 + \sqrt{-7})/2 \equiv 1+\zeta_7+\zeta_7^3$ or $(\sqrt{5}+\sqrt{-3})/2 \equiv \zeta_3-\zeta_5-\zeta_5^{-1}$. We break down into cases as follows:
- $p^n=3^2$ and $\gamma \equiv 1+\zeta_7+\zeta_7^3$
then $\theta \leq 2\pi/9$ and $\ho{\beta}^2 > 5.1667$.
- $p^n=3^2$ and $\gamma \equiv \zeta_3-\zeta_5-\zeta_5^{-1}$
Here, we have $\gamma = \zeta_m \cdot (\zeta_3^j-\zeta_5^k-\zeta_5^{-k})$, and so, after multiplying $\beta$ by some root of unity, we may assume $\beta$ is of the form $1+\zeta_{3^2}^i \cdot \zeta_m^l \cdot (\zeta_3^j-\zeta_5^k-\zeta_5^{-k})$ for some values of $i,j,k,l$. If $2^4$, $5^2$, or any prime greater than $5$ divides $m$, we may conjugate $\beta$ by Lemma \[conjLemma\]. We may also assume (by changing $i$) that $3$ does not divide $m$. This limits $m$ to $8$ possible values. We may conjugate $\zeta_m$ such that $l=1$. There are then $384 = 2 \cdot 4 \cdot 6 \cdot 8$ possibilities for $\beta$. Computation reveals that all of these have $\ho{\beta}^2 > 5.094$.
- $p^n=2^3$ and $\gamma \equiv \zeta_3-\zeta_5-\zeta_5^{-1}$ or $\gamma \equiv 1+\zeta_7+\zeta_7^3$
Then $\beta$ is of the form $1+\zeta_{2^3}^i \cdot \zeta_m^l \cdot \gamma'$ for some $i,l$, and $\gamma'$ a conjugate of $\zeta_3-\zeta_5-\zeta_5^{-1}$ or $1+\zeta_7+\zeta_7^3$. Reasoning as above, $m$ divides $3^2 \cdot 5 \cdot 7$. There are then $12$ possible values for $m$. There are $672 = 4 \cdot 12 \cdot (8+6)$ possibilities for $\beta$. Computation reveals that all of these have $\ho{\beta}^2 > 5.0489$.
- In all other cases, $\theta \leq \pi/5$. Hence $\ho{\beta}^2 \geq 3+2\sqrt{2}\cos(\pi/5) \approx 5.28825$.
M(a)=3/2
--------
Note that $\M(\gamma) < {\ensuremath{13/4}}-{\ensuremath{3/2}}={\ensuremath{7/4}}$.
- $\M(\gamma) = {\ensuremath{3/2}}$
$\alpha$ and $\gamma$ are both equivalent to $1 + \zeta_5$. Let $\zeta_5 = {\ensuremath{e^{2 \pi i {} / {5}}}}$, then by conjugating and multiplication by a root of unity, assume that $\beta = (1 + \zeta_5) + \varrho(\zeta_5^i + \zeta_5^j)$ for some root of unity $\varrho$. If the difference between $i$ and $j$ (mod 5) is 2 or 3, then $\beta$ is equivalent to $(\zeta_5 + \zeta_5^4) + \varrho' (\zeta_5^2 + \zeta_5^3)$. If the difference $i-j \mod 5$ is $1$ or $4$, then $\beta$ is equivalent to $\alpha + \zeta_{p^n} \gamma$ with $|\alpha| = |\gamma|=(1+\sqrt{5})/2$. Then by Lemma \[conjLemma\], regardless of $p^n$ we have $\theta \leq \pi/4$, and $\ho{\beta}^2 \geq (2+\sqrt{2}) (3+\sqrt{5})/2 \approx 8.93853$.
- $\M(\gamma) = {\ensuremath{5/3}}$
$\alpha$ is equivalent to $1 + \zeta_5$, and $\gamma$ is equivalent to $1 + \zeta_7$. Again by Lemma \[conjLemma\], regardless of $p^n$ we have $\theta \leq \pi/4$, and $\ho{\beta}^2$ is even larger than the preceding case.
If B is in Q(Zn), then N divides 420
====================================
If $\ho{\beta}^2 < 5.3$, then either $\beta$ is on the list of Theorem \[result\], or $\beta \in \field{420}$.
First we’ll establish some facts that we use throughout. Recall that $X$ refers to the number of nonzero terms in the $p$-decomposition of $\beta$.
We have from Cassels’ [@Cassels] (3.5) and Lemma \[134\] $$\label{two}p \geq 11 \Rightarrow X \leq \frac{p-1}{2}.$$
By equation \[exactEqn\], and since $ \M(\beta) < {\ensuremath{13/4}}$ by Lemma \[134\], we have $$\label{134eqn}\frac{13}{4} (p-1) > (p-X) \sum_i^X \M(\alpha_i) + \sum_{1 \leq i<j\leq X} \M(\alpha_i - \alpha_j).$$
Now let $\beta \in \field{N}$ be a minimal cyclotomic integer that is an exception to Theorem \[result\]. Let $p$ be the largest prime dividing $N$, and suppose $p>7$. By Lemma \[psquared\], $p$ exactly divides $N$. We proceed by considering different combinations of $p$ and $X$.
p=11
----
Note that by equation \[two\], $X \leq 5$.
### X=2 {#p11X2}
By equation \[134eqn\]
$$\frac{65}{2} > 9(\M(\gamma)+\M(\alpha)) + \M(\gamma-\alpha).$$
Assume that $\M(\alpha) \leq \M(\gamma)$. $$\M(\alpha) \leq \frac{65}{36} \Rightarrow \M(\alpha)=1, \frac{3}{2}, \frac{5}{3}, \frac{7}{4}\mathrm{\ or\ }\frac{9}{5}.$$
We consider each possible value of $\M(\alpha)$ below:
- [$\M(\alpha)=1$.]{} As $\Num(\beta) > 3$, $\Num(\gamma) > 2$ and thus $\M(\gamma) \geq 2$. By conjugating we can assume $|\gamma| \geq \sqrt{2}$, then by Lemma \[conjLemma\] we have $\ho{\beta}^2 \geq 3+2 \sqrt{2} \cos(2\pi/11) \approx 5.37942$.
- [$\M(\alpha)={\ensuremath{3/2}}$.]{} If $\Num(\gamma) > 2$ the inequality is false, since $\M(\gamma-\alpha) \geq 1$ and $M(\gamma) \geq 2$. If $\Num(\gamma) = 1$ then $\Num(\beta) = 3$. So let $\gamma$ be equivalent to $1+\zeta_n$.
If $n=5$, $\alpha \equiv \gamma \equiv 1+\zeta_5$. As we have previously argued, either $\beta \equiv (\zeta_5 + \zeta_5^4) + \varrho (\zeta_5^2 + \zeta_5^3)$ for some root of unity $\varrho$, or we can conjugate to assume that $|\alpha|=|\gamma|=(1+\sqrt{5})/2$. Then $\ho{\beta}^2 \geq (3+\sqrt{5}) (1+\cos(2\pi/11)) \approx 9.64093$.
If $n$ is coprime to $5$ then $n\geq4$ and by (Lemma \[conjLemma\]), with $\theta=2\pi/11$, $\ho{1+\zeta_5}=(1+\sqrt{5})/2$, and $\ho{1+\zeta_n} \geq \sqrt{2}$, we have $\ho{\beta}^2 \geq 8.46802$ (Lemma \[conjLemma\]).
If $n$ is divisible by $5$ it must be at least $10$. Conjugate $\beta$ so $|1+\zeta_n| = \ho{1+\zeta_n} \geq \ho{1+\zeta_{10}} = \sqrt{(5+\sqrt{5})/2}$. The smallest conjugate of $1+\zeta_5$ is $(\sqrt{5}-1)/2$. Thus by Lemma \[conjLemma\], with $\theta=2\pi/11$, $\ho{\beta}^2 > 5.9779$ .
- [$\M(\alpha)={\ensuremath{5/3}}$.]{} Again we have $\Num(\gamma) = 2$. Let $\gamma$ be equivalent to $1+\zeta_n$.
If $n=7$ then both $\alpha$ and $\gamma$ are equivalent to $1+\zeta_7$. We may conjugate them simultaneously so neither is the smallest conjugate as follows: let $\zeta_7$ be ${\ensuremath{e^{2 \pi i {} / {7}}}}$. Assume that $\alpha = 1 + \zeta_7$, and $\gamma = \varrho(1 + \zeta_7^i)$ for $\varrho$ a root of unity. Then $\beta = (1+\zeta_7)+\zeta_{11}\varrho(1+\zeta_7^i)$. If $i \neq 3,4$ we are done, otherwise, $\beta$ under the conjugation $\zeta_7 \rightarrow \zeta_7^2$ is $(1+\zeta_7^2)+\zeta_{11}\varrho'(1+\zeta_7^{2i})$, which satisfies our requirement. We now have $|\alpha|, |\gamma| \geq |{\ensuremath{e^{2 \pi i {2} / {7}}}}|$, and then by Lemma \[conjLemma\], $\ho{\beta}^2 > 6.09385$.
The case $n$ coprime to $7$ easily follows from the previous case with $\M(\alpha)={\ensuremath{3/2}}$, since $\ho{1+\zeta_7} > \ho{1+\zeta_5}$.
If $n$ is divisible by $7$, similarly to before, conjugate $\gamma$ to its largest conjugate and then $|\gamma| = \ho{\gamma} \geq |{\ensuremath{e^{2 \pi i {} / {14}}}}|$ and $|\alpha| \geq |{\ensuremath{e^{2 \pi i {3} / {7}}}}|$. We then have $\ho{\beta}^2 > 5.66523$
- [$\M(\alpha)={\ensuremath{9/5}}$.]{} Then $\alpha \equiv 1+\zeta_{11}$, but this is impossible as $\zeta_{11} \notin \field{N/11}$.
- [$\M(\alpha)={\ensuremath{7/4}}$.]{} From the inequality, $\M(\gamma) = {\ensuremath{7/4}}$ or ${\ensuremath{11/6}}$. However, we see that ${\ensuremath{11/6}}$ makes the inequality false with $\M(\alpha-\gamma) \geq 1$, so $\M(\gamma) = {\ensuremath{7/4}}$.
Recall that $\M(\rho) = {\ensuremath{7/4}} \Rightarrow \rho \equiv 1 + \zeta_{30}$. Conjugate $\alpha$ to $1 + {\ensuremath{e^{2 \pi i {} / {30}}}}$. This will fix $\gamma$ to be some other conjugate, of which the smallest is $1+ {\ensuremath{e^{2 \pi i {13} / {30}}}}$. By Lemma \[conjLemma\], $\ho{\beta}^2 > 5.71638$.
### X=3
By equation \[134eqn\] $$\frac{65}{2} > 8 \sum_{i=1}^3 \M(\alpha_i) + \sum_{1 \leq i<j\leq 3} \M(\alpha_i - \alpha_j).$$ If more than one $\alpha_i$ is not a root of unity, the inequality is false. We may assume that not all three $\alpha_i$ are roots of unity, as the case $\Num(\beta)=3$ is done. Then notice that $\Num(\alpha_i)>2$ again makes the inequality false. So we may assume that $\Num(\alpha_1)=\Num(\alpha_2)=1$, and $\Num(\alpha_3)=2$.
Either the respective values are $(1,1,{\ensuremath{3/2}})$, $(1,1,{\ensuremath{5/3}})$, or $(1,1,{\ensuremath{7/4}})$.
We must calculate $\ho{\beta}$ with $\beta$ of the form $1 + \zeta_{11} \zeta_{420}^i + \zeta_{11}^j \zeta_{420}^k (1+\zeta_n)$ for all $i,j,k$ where $n = 5, 7$, or $30$. Some computation shows that the smallest such $\beta$ is $1+\zeta_{77}+\zeta_{77}^{11}+\zeta_{77}^{55}$ and $\ho{\beta} > 5.761$.
### X=4
By equation \[134eqn\] $$\frac{65}{2}>7 \sum_{i=1}^4 \M(\alpha_i) + \sum_{1 \leq i<j\leq 4} \M(\alpha_i - \alpha_j).$$ If any $\alpha_i$ is not a root of unity, this inequality is false.
Therefore each $\alpha_i$ is a root of unity and $$\frac{9}{2} > \sum_{1 \leq i<j\leq 4} \M(\alpha_i - \alpha_j),$$ which implies there are at most 2 distinct roots of unity.
There remain 3 cases after conjugation. $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\alpha_3,\alpha_4)$ is equivalent to one of the following, for $\zeta$ some root of unity: $$(1,1,\zeta,\zeta) \mathrm{\ or\ } (1,1,1,\zeta) \mathrm{\ or\ } (1,1,1,1).$$ In both cases with $\zeta$, we must have $\M(1-\zeta)=1$ or else the inequality is false. Thus $\zeta = \zeta_6$.
The only such $\beta$ with $\ho{\beta}^2<6$ of the above form are below $$\begin{array}{c|c|c}
(\alpha_1, \alpha_2, \alpha_3, \alpha_4)& \beta& \ho{\beta}\\
\hline {\rule{0pt}{3.1ex}}(1,1,1,1)&1+\zeta_{11}+\zeta_{11}^2+\zeta_{11}^5&\robeqtwo{11}\\ {\rule{0pt}{3.1ex}}(1,1,1,\zeta_6)& \zeta_6+\zeta_{11}+\zeta_{11}^3+\zeta_{11}^8& \robeqtwo{33}\\ {\rule{0pt}{3.1ex}}(1,1,\zeta_6,\zeta_6)& \zeta_6+\zeta_6\zeta_{11}+\zeta_{11}^3+\zeta_{11}^9&\robeqtwo{22}
\end{array}$$
### X=5 {#above}
By equation \[134eqn\] $$\frac{65}{2}> 6 \sum_{i=1}^5 \M(\alpha_i) + \sum_{1 \leq i<j\leq 5} \M(\alpha_i - \alpha_j).$$ If any $\alpha_i$ is not a root of unity it has $\M(\alpha_i)\geq {\ensuremath{3/2}}$ and this inequality is false. So all $\alpha_i$ are roots of unity, and $$\frac{5}{2} > \sum_{1 \leq i<j\leq 5} \M(\alpha_i - \alpha_j).$$ However, if there exists $\alpha_i\neq\alpha_j$ then the above inequality is false, so we may assume that $\alpha_i=1$ for all $i$.
One can compute every $$\beta=1+\zeta_{11}+\zeta_{11}^a+\zeta_{11}^b+\zeta_{11}^c$$ with $a, b, c$ distinct and not equal to $0$ or $1$, and $\ho{\beta}<\sqrt{5}+.1$. They are all equivalent to $$1+ \zeta_{11}+\zeta_{11}^2+\zeta_{11}^4+\zeta_{11}^7 .$$ Which has $$\ho{\beta} = \robeqone{6} = \robeqtwo{4}.$$
X=2 {#x2}
---
Let $\beta = \alpha + \zeta_p \gamma$, with $\alpha, \gamma \in \field{N/p}$ and $p \geq 13$. By equation \[134eqn\], $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{13}{4} (p-1) &> (p-2)(\M(\alpha)+\M(\gamma))+\M(\alpha-\gamma) \\
\frac{13}{4} \cdot \frac{p-1}{p-2} &> \M(\alpha)+\M(\gamma)+\frac{\M(\alpha-\gamma)}{p-2} \\
\frac{39}{11} &> \M(\alpha)+\M(\gamma)\end{aligned}$$
From here, the reasoning follows almost exactly as in Section \[p11X2\]. As $p>11$, any argument based on Lemma \[conjLemma\] is still valid, as $\theta$ will be smaller. There are two cases where we need to change the argument: $1+\zeta_{11}$ can appear, and the difference term $\M(\alpha-\gamma)$ may be larger.
We can still assume $\M(\alpha) \neq {\ensuremath{9/5}}$, now because $\frac{1}{2} \cdot 39/11 < 9/5$.
In the $\M(\alpha) = {\ensuremath{7/4}}$ case, $\M(\gamma) = {\ensuremath{11/6}}$ or ${\ensuremath{9/5}}$ is still not possible: now by the restriction on $\M(\alpha)+\M(\gamma)$ instead of the other reasons.
p=13
----
### X=3
By equation \[134eqn\] $$39 > 10 \sum \M(\alpha_i) + \sum \M(\alpha_i - \alpha_j).$$ We may assume that the values $(\Num(\alpha_1), \Num(\alpha_2), \Num(\alpha_3))$ are $(1, 1, 2)$. If they are less, $\Num(\beta)=3$, and if they are more, the inequality is false.
The values must be $(1, 1, {\ensuremath{3/2}})$ or $(1, 1, {\ensuremath{5/3}})$ for the inequality to hold.
- $(1, 1, {\ensuremath{3/2}})$
$\sum \M(\alpha_i - \alpha_j)<4$. Neither $\Num(\alpha_3-\alpha_1)=3$ nor $\Num(\alpha_3-\alpha_2)=3$. If so, then either $\alpha_2-\alpha_1=0$ and $0+2+2 \geq 4$, or $\Num(\alpha_2-\alpha_1)=1$ and $1+1+2 \geq 4$.
Assume that $\alpha_1 = 1$. Because $\Num(\alpha_3 - \alpha_1) \leq 2$, there is some cancellation occurring in the difference $\alpha_3 - \alpha_1$. In particular, $\alpha_3$ must be equal to $1+\zeta_5$, $\zeta_5+\zeta_5^i$, or $\zeta_6+\zeta_6\zeta_5$. We divide into cases based on $\Num(\alpha_3 - \alpha_1)$, and employ a result of Mann [@Mann] (see also Poonen and Rubinstein [@Poonen]). For small $n$, he classified vanishing sums of $n$ roots of unity. For $n<6$, these must be sums of groups comprised of equally spaced roots of unity.
- $\Num(\alpha_3 - \alpha_1) = 0$, then we have a vanishing sum of 3 roots of unity, which is impossible when two of them differ by a fifth root of unity.
- $\Num(\alpha_3 - \alpha_1) = 1$, then we have a vanishing sum of 4 roots of unity, and by Poonen, it must consist of two groups of 2 roots of unity each of whose sum vanishes. $\alpha_3 = 1 + \zeta_5$.
- $\Num(\alpha_3 - \alpha_1) = 2$, then we have a vanishing sum of 5 roots of unity, and by Poonen, it must be a primitive vanishing sum of 5 roots of unity, or is two vanishing sums, one of 2 roots of unity and one of 3 roots of unity. If we are in the 5 case and $\alpha_3 = \zeta_5 + \zeta_5^i$ or we are in the 2-3 case and $\alpha_3 = \zeta_6 + \zeta_6\zeta_5$.
So, we may assume that $(\alpha_1, \alpha_2, \alpha_3)$ is one of the following: $(1, \zeta_5, \zeta_5^i+\zeta_5^j)$, $(1, \zeta_5, \zeta_6+\zeta_5^i\zeta_6^j)$, or $(1, \zeta_6, \zeta_6^i+\zeta_5\zeta_6^j)$ for some $i,j$.
We compute the house of all $\beta$ with restrictions from above, and in all cases, $\ho{\beta}^2>5.66$.
- $(1, 1, {\ensuremath{5/3}})$
$\sum \M(\alpha_i - \alpha_j)<{\ensuremath{7/3}}$. $\alpha_1=\alpha_2$, and $\alpha_3-\alpha_1$ is a root of unity. So we may assume that $\alpha_1=\alpha_2=1$ and $\alpha_3=1+\zeta_7$. The smallest such $\beta$ is $1+\zeta_{13}+\zeta_{13}^2(1+\zeta_5)$ with $\ho{\beta}^2>10$.
### X=4
We proceed as in Section \[above\]. By equation \[134eqn\] $$39> 9 \sum_{i=1}^4 \M(\alpha_i)$$ implies that $\alpha_i$ are all roots of unity, and $$3 > \sum_{1 \leq i<j\leq 4} \M(\alpha_i - \alpha_j)$$ implies that they are all the same root of unity. Thus $\beta \in \field{13}$ is a sum of $4$ roots of unity.
One can verify that the the only such $\beta$ with $\ho{\beta}<\sqrt{5} + .1$ is $$\beta = 1 + \zeta_{13}+ \zeta_{13}^3+ \zeta_{13}^9,$$ with $$\ho{\beta} = \robeqone{6} = \robeqtwo{4}.$$
### X is greater than or equal to 5
By equation \[two\], $p=13$ implies that $X \leq 6$. Equation \[134eqn\] gives us $$\frac{13}{4} \cdot 12 > (13-X)X,$$ which is false for $X=5,6$.
X=3
---
### p=17
By equation \[134eqn\] $$52 > 14 \sum \M(\alpha_j) + \sum\M(\alpha_i - \alpha_j).$$ So we may assume that $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ are both roots of unity. Also, assume $\alpha_3$ is not a root of unity, since this case has been done already. We may conclude that $\M(\alpha_3)={\ensuremath{3/2}}$, otherwise the inequality is false.
Now, $$3 > \M(\alpha_1 - \alpha_2) + \M(\alpha_1 - \alpha_3) + \M(\alpha_2 - \alpha_3).$$
For this to hold, we must have $\alpha_1=\alpha_2$ and $\alpha_3-\alpha_1$ a root of unity. We may assume that $(\alpha_1, \alpha_2, \alpha_3)=(1, 1, 1+\zeta_5)$, and then that $\beta$ is equivalent to $$\beta = 1 + \zeta_{17}+\zeta_{17}^j(1+\zeta_5)$$ for some $j$. One can verify that the smallest such such $\beta$ is $1 + \zeta_{17}+\zeta_{17}^5(1+\zeta_5)$ with $\ho{\beta}^2>9$.
### p=19
By equation \[134eqn\] $$\frac{117}{2} > 16 \sum \M(\alpha_i) + \sum\M(\alpha_i - \alpha_j).$$ As in the previous section, $(\M(\alpha_1), \M(\alpha_2), \M(\alpha_3))=(1, 1, \frac{3}{2})$. Then $$\frac{5}{2} > \M(\alpha_1 - \alpha_2) + \M(\alpha_1 - \alpha_3) + \M(\alpha_2 - \alpha_3)$$ and we may assume that $(\alpha_1, \alpha_2, \alpha_3) = (1, 1, 1+\zeta_5)$. $\beta$ is equivalent to $$\beta = 1 + \zeta_{19}+\zeta_{19}^j(1+\zeta_5)$$ for some $j$. One can verify that the smallest such such $\beta$ is $1 + \zeta_{19}+\zeta_{19}^5(1+\zeta_5)$ with $\ho{\beta}^2>10$.
### p is greater than or equal to 23
In this case, all $\alpha_i$ must be roots of unity. Otherwise, this contradicts equation \[134eqn\]. Thus $\Num(\beta)=3$ and there are no exceptions to theorem \[result\].
X is greater than or equal to 4, p is greater than or equal to 17
-----------------------------------------------------------------
By equation \[134eqn\] $$\frac{13}{4}(p-1)>(p-X)X,$$ which is false for $X \geq 4$ and $p \geq 17$ when $X \leq (p-1)/2$ as required by equation \[two\]. We can see this, as $$\frac{d}{dX}(pX-X^2) = p-2X,$$ so for $x<p/2$, $pX-X^2$ increases with $x$. Thus the minimal value for $(p-X)X$ in the region is at $X=4$, but $$\frac{13}{4}(p-1)>(p-4)4$$ is false for $p \geq 17$.
There are no exceptions in Q(Z 420)
===================================
Theorem \[result\] holds for $\beta \in \field{420}$.
We have computed all $\beta \in \field{420}$ with $\Num(\beta) \leq 6$ as follows: we assume that the first root is 1, the second root $\zeta_{420}^i$ has $i$ dividing $420$ (or equal to 0), and the other roots $\zeta_{420}^j$ have $(420, j) \geq i$. No exceptions were found, thus we know that any exceptions $\beta$ must have $\Num(\beta) > 6$.
Write $\beta$ as $\sum_{i=0}^{4} \zeta_5^i \other_i$ with $\other_i \in \field{84}$. Let $X$ be the minimal number of nonzero $\other_i$ that can represent $\beta$ in this way, and let $\alpha_i$ be these nonzero $\other_i$.
In the below cases we make use of several facts about $\alpha \in \field{84}$:
- If $\Num(\alpha) = 2$, then $\M(\alpha) \geq {\ensuremath{5/3}}$, as $1+\zeta_5$ cannot appear.
- If $\Num(\alpha)=4$, then $\M(\alpha) \geq {\ensuremath{5/2}}$, by [@Calegari] 7.0.8.
- If $\Num(\alpha) \geq 5$, then $\M(\alpha) \geq {\ensuremath{17/6}}$, by [@Calegari] 7.0.8.
In each of the following cases, we demonstrate a contradiction to equation \[134eqn\]: $$13 > (5-X) \sum_i^X \M(\alpha_i) + \sum_{1 \leq i<j\leq X} \M(\alpha_i - \alpha_j) =S.$$
X=1
---
In this case, $\beta \in \field{84}$. We can write $\beta = \alpha + \zeta_4 \gamma$ with $\alpha, \gamma \in \field{21}$. We know that $\M(\alpha) + \M(\gamma) < {\ensuremath{13/4}}$, so we may assume that $\M(\alpha) \leq {\ensuremath{13/8}}$. Then $\alpha$ is a root of unity. But then $\M(\gamma) < {\ensuremath{9/4}}$ and $\Num(\gamma) \geq 6$, a contradiction by [@Calegari] 7.0.5.
X=2 {#x2-1}
---
$\M(\alpha_i) \geq {\ensuremath{23/6}}$ contradicts equation \[134eqn\]. So by [@Calegari] 7.0.9, $\Num(\alpha_i) \leq 5$.
In the following table and throughout we list lower bounds on the values of $\M$ and $S$. In all cases, $S\geq13$, contradicting equation \[134eqn\].
$$\begin{array}{cc|cc|c|c}
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\Num(\alpha_i)}&\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\M(\alpha_i)} &\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\M(\alpha_1-\alpha_2)}&\multicolumn{1}{|c}{S} \\\hline
\geq 2& 5& {\ensuremath{\sfrac{5}{3}}} &{\ensuremath{\sfrac{17}{6}}}& 2& {\ensuremath{15\sfrac{1}{2}}}\\
\geq 3& 4& 2 & {\ensuremath{\sfrac{5}{2}}} & 1 & {\ensuremath{14\sfrac{1}{2}}}
\end{array}$$
X=3
---
The column $\M(\alpha_i-\alpha_j)$ is listed in the order $\alpha_1-\alpha_2, \alpha_1-\alpha_3, \alpha_2-\alpha_3$. $$\begin{array}{ccc|ccc|ccc|c}
\multicolumn{3}{c|}{\Num(\alpha_i)}&\multicolumn{3}{|c|}{\M(\alpha_i)} &\multicolumn{3}{|c|}{\M(\alpha_i-\alpha_j)}&\multicolumn{1}{|c}{S} \\
\hline
1& 1& \geq 5&1&1&{\ensuremath{\sfrac{17}{6}}}&0&2&2&{\ensuremath{13\sfrac{2}{3}}}\\
1& 2& \geq 4&1&{\ensuremath{\sfrac{5}{3}}}&{\ensuremath{\sfrac{5}{2}}}&1&2&{\ensuremath{\sfrac{5}{3}}}&15\\
1& \geq 3& \geq 3&1&2&2&{\ensuremath{\sfrac{5}{3}}}&{\ensuremath{\sfrac{5}{3}}}&0&{\ensuremath{13\sfrac{1}{3}}}\\
2&2&3& {\ensuremath{\sfrac{5}{3}}}&{\ensuremath{\sfrac{5}{3}}}&2&0&1&1&{\ensuremath{12\sfrac{2}{3}}}^*\\
2&2&\geq 4& {\ensuremath{\sfrac{5}{3}}}&{\ensuremath{\sfrac{5}{3}}}& {\ensuremath{\sfrac{5}{2}}}& 0&{\ensuremath{\sfrac{5}{3}}}&{\ensuremath{\sfrac{5}{3}}} & 15 \\
2& \geq 3& \geq 3&{\ensuremath{\sfrac{5}{3}}}&2&2&1&1&0&{\ensuremath{13\sfrac{1}{3}}}\\
\geq 3& \geq 3& \geq 3&2&2&2&1^{**}&0&0&13\\
\end{array}$$
$^*$
: See that $\M(\alpha_1 - \alpha_2)=0$ and $\M(\alpha_3 - \alpha_1)=1$, or else $S>13$. But then $\beta$ can be written as a sum of 5 roots of unity: take $\other'_i = \other_i-\alpha_1$.
$^{**}$
: This results from assuming at least one pair is different. If all $\alpha_i$ are equal, then $\beta$ can be represented with $X=2$ by taking $\other'_j = \other_j - \alpha_1$.
X=4
---
No two $\alpha_i$ are equal. If $\alpha_j=\alpha_k$, then there is another representation with $X<4$ given by $\other'_i = \other_i-\alpha_j$ for all $i$.
The column $\M(\alpha_i-\alpha_j)$ is listed in the order $\alpha_1-\alpha_2, \alpha_1-\alpha_3, \alpha_1-\alpha_4, \alpha_2-\alpha_3, \alpha_2-\alpha_4, \alpha_3-\alpha_4$.
$$\begin{array}{cccc|cccc|cccccc|c}
\multicolumn{4}{c|}{\Num(\alpha_i)}&\multicolumn{4}{|c|}{\M(\alpha_i)} &\multicolumn{6}{|c|}{\M(\alpha_i-\alpha_j)}&\multicolumn{1}{|c}{S} \\
\hline
1&1&1&\geq 4&1&1&1&{\ensuremath{\sfrac{5}{2}}}&1&1&2&1&2&2&{\ensuremath{14\sfrac{1}{2}}}\\
1&1&2& \geq 3&1&1&{\ensuremath{\sfrac{5}{3}}}&2&1&1&{\ensuremath{\sfrac{5}{3}}}&1&{\ensuremath{\sfrac{5}{3}}}&1&13\\
1&1& \geq 3&\geq 3&1&1&2&2&1&{\ensuremath{\sfrac{5}{3}}}&{\ensuremath{\sfrac{5}{3}}}&{\ensuremath{\sfrac{5}{3}}}&{\ensuremath{\sfrac{5}{3}}}&1&{\ensuremath{14\sfrac{2}{3}}}\\
1& 2& 2& 2&1&{\ensuremath{\sfrac{5}{3}}}&{\ensuremath{\sfrac{5}{3}}}&{\ensuremath{\sfrac{5}{3}}}&1&1&1&1&1&1&12^\dagger\\
1&\geq 2& \geq 2&\geq 3&1&{\ensuremath{\sfrac{5}{3}}}&{\ensuremath{\sfrac{5}{3}}}&2&1&1&{\ensuremath{\sfrac{5}{3}}}&1&1&1&13\\
2& 2& 2& 2&{\ensuremath{\sfrac{5}{3}}}&{\ensuremath{\sfrac{5}{3}}}&{\ensuremath{\sfrac{5}{3}}}&{\ensuremath{\sfrac{5}{3}}}&{\ensuremath{\sfrac{5}{3}}}^{\dagger\dagger}&1&1&1&1&1&{\ensuremath{13\sfrac{1}{3}}}\\
\geq 2& \geq 2& \geq 2& \geq 3 &{\ensuremath{\sfrac{5}{3}}}&{\ensuremath{\sfrac{5}{3}}}&{\ensuremath{\sfrac{5}{3}}}&2&1&1&1&1&1&1&13
\end{array}$$
$^\dagger$
: If any of the differences is more than a single root of unity, it increases $S$ by at least ${\ensuremath{2/3}}$, so at most one difference is more than a single root of unity. Thus we may assume that $\M(\alpha_2 - \alpha_1) = \M(\alpha_3 - \alpha_1) = 1$. Then $\Num(\beta) \leq 6$, as evidenced by $\other'_i = \other_i-\alpha_1$ for all $i$.
$^{\dagger\dagger}$
: If every difference is a single root of unity, $\Num(\beta) = 5$: put $\other'_i = \other_i-\alpha_1$ for all $i$.
X=5 {#x5}
---
This is not minimal, there is always a representation with $X < p$: put $\other'_i = \other_i-\alpha_1$ for all $i$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Let $L_0$ be a closed densely defined symmetric semi-bounded operator with nonzero defect indexes in a separable Hilbert space ${\cal H}$. With $L_0$ we associate a metric space $\Omega_{L_0}$ that is named a [*wave spectrum*]{} and constructed from trajectories $\{u(t)\}_{t \geq 0}$ of a dynamical system governed by the equation $u_{tt}+(L_0)^*u=0$. The wave spectrum is introduced through a relevant von Neumann operator algebra associated with the system. Wave spectra of unitary equivalent operators are isometric.
In inverse problems on [*unknown*]{} manifolds, one needs to recover a Riemannian manifold $\Omega$ via dynamical or spectral boundary data. We show that for a generic class of manifolds, $\Omega$ is [*isometric*]{} to the wave spectrum $\Omega_{L_0}$ of the minimal Laplacian $L_0=-\Delta|_{C^\infty_0(\Omega\backslash
\partial \Omega)}$ acting in ${\cal H}=L_2(\Omega)$, whereas $L_0$ is determined by the inverse data up to unitary equivalence. By this, one can recover the manifold by the scheme “the data $\Rightarrow L_0 \Rightarrow \Omega_{L_0} \overset{\rm isom}=
\Omega$”.
The wave spectrum is relevant to a wide class of dynamical systems, which describe the finite speed wave propagation processes. The paper elucidates the operator background of the boundary control method (Belishev, 1986) based on relations of inverse problems to system and control theory.
author:
- 'M.I.Belishev [^1]'
title: 'An unitary invariant of semi-bounded operator and its application to inverse problems'
---
Introduction
============
Motivation
----------
The paper introduces the notion of a [*wave spectrum*]{} of a symmetric semi-bounded operator in a Hilbert space. The impact comes from inverse problems of mathematical physics; the following is one of the motivating questions.
Let $\Omega$ be a smooth compact Riemannian manifold with the boundary $\Gamma$, $-\Delta$ the (scalar) Laplace operator, $L_0=-\Delta|_{C^\infty_0(\Omega \backslash \Gamma)}$ the [*minimal Laplacian*]{} in ${\cal H}=L_2(\Omega)$. Assume that we are given with a unitary copy $\widetilde L_0=U L_0 U^*$ in $\widetilde {\cal H} =U{\cal H}$ (but $U$ is unknown!). To what extent does $\widetilde L_0$ determine the manifold $\Omega$?
So, we have no points, boundaries, tensors, etc, whereas the only thing given is an operator $\widetilde L_0$ in a Hilbert space $\widetilde {\cal H}$. Provided the operator is unitarily equivalent to $L_0$, is it possible to extract $\Omega$ from $\widetilde L_0$? Such a question is an “invariant” version of various setups of dynamical and spectral inverse problems on manifolds [@BIP97], [@BIP07].
Content
-------
Substantially, the answer is affirmative: for a generic class of manifolds, any unitary copy of the minimal Laplacian determines $\Omega$ up to isometry (Theorem 1). A wave spectrum is a construction that realizes the determination $\widetilde L_0
\Rightarrow \Omega$ and, thus, solves inverse problems. In more detail,
- With a closed densely defined symmetric semi-bounded operator $L_0$ of nonzero defect indexes in a separable Hilbert space ${\cal H}$ we associate a metric space $\Omega_{L_0}$ (its wave spectrum). The space consists of the so-called eikonal operators ([*eikonals*]{}), so that $\Omega_{L_0}$ is a subset of the bounded operators algebra ${\mathfrak B ({\cal H})}$, whereas the metric on $\Omega_{L_0}$ is $\|\tau-\tau'\|_{{\mathfrak B
({\cal H})}}$.
The eikonals are constructed from the projections on the reachable sets of an abstract [*dynamical system with boundary control*]{} governed by the evolutionary equation $u_{tt}+L_0^*u=0$. More precisely, they appear in the framework of a von Neumann algebra ${\frak N}_{L_0}$ associated with the system, whereas $\Omega_{L_0} \subset {\frak N}_{L_0}$ is a set of the so-called [*maximal eikonals*]{}. The peculiarity is that this algebra is endowed with an additional operation that we call a [*space extension*]{}.
Since the definition of $\Omega_{L_0}$ is of invariant character, the spectra $\Omega_{L_0}$ and $\Omega_{\widetilde L_0}$ of the unitarily equivalent operators $L_0$ and $\widetilde L_0$ turn out to be isometric (as metric spaces). So, a wave spectrum is a (hopefully, new) unitary invariant of a symmetric semi-bounded operator.
- A wide generic class of the so-called [*simple manifolds*]{} is introduced[^2]. The central Theorem 1 establishes that for a simple $\Omega$, the wave spectrum of its minimal Laplacian $L_0$ is isometric to $\Omega$. Hence, any unitary copy $\widetilde L_0$ of $L_0$ determines the simple $\Omega$ up to isometry by the scheme $\widetilde L_0
\Rightarrow \Omega_{\widetilde L_0}\overset{\rm isom}=\Omega_{L_0}
\overset{\rm isom}= \Omega$. In applications, it is the procedure, which recovers manifolds by the BC-method [@BIP97], [@BIP07]: the concrete inverse data determine a relevant $\widetilde L_0$, what enables one to realize the scheme.
- We discuss one more option: once the wave spectrum of the copy $\widetilde L_0$ is found, the BC-procedure realizes elements of the space $\widetilde {\cal H}$ as functions on $\Omega_{\widetilde L_0}$ [^3]. Thereafter, one can construct a [*functional model*]{} $L_0^{\rm mod}$ of the original Laplacian $L_0$, the model being an operator in ${\cal H}^{\rm
mod}=L_{2,\,\mu}(\Omega_{\widetilde L_0})$ related with $L_0$ through a similarity (gauge transform). Hopefully, this observation can be driven to a functional model of a class of symmetric semi-bounded operators. Presumably, this model will be [*local*]{}, i.e., satisfying ${\rm supp\,} L_0^{\rm mod}y
\subseteq {\rm supp\,} y$.
Comments
--------
The concept of wave spectrum summarizes rich “experimental material” accumulated in inverse problems in the framework of the BC-method, and elucidates operator background of the latter. In fact, for the first time $\Omega_{L_0}$ has appeared in [@BKac89] in connection with the M.Kac problem; its later version (called a wave model) is presented in [@BIP07] (sec. 2.3.4). Owing to its invariant nature, $\Omega_{L_0}$ promises to be useful for further applications to unsolved inverse problems of elasticity theory, electrodynamics, graphs, etc.
Actually, a wave spectrum is an attribute not of a single operator but an algebra with space extension. In the scalar problems on manifolds, this algebra is commutative, whereas its wave spectrum is identical to Gelfand’s spectrum of the norm-closed subalgebra generated by eikonals. However, it is not clear whether this fact is of general character. The algebras that appear in the above mentioned unsolved problems, are [*noncommutative*]{} and the relation between their wave and Jacobson’s spectra is not understood yet.
By the recent trend in the BC-method, to recover unknown manifolds via boundary inverse data is to find spectra of relevant algebras determined by the data [@BSobolev]. We hope for further promotion of this approach.
Wave spectrum
=============
Algebra with space extension
----------------------------
Let ${\cal H}$ be a separable Hilbert space, ${\rm Lat}{\cal H}$ the lattice of its (closed) subspaces; by $P_{\cal A}$ we denote the (orthogonal) projection onto ${\cal A} \in {\rm Lat}{\cal H}$. Also, if ${\cal A}$ is a non-closed lineal set, we put $P_{\cal
A}:=P_{{\rm clos\,}{\cal A}}$. By $\mathfrak B ({\cal H})$ the bounded operator algebra is denoted.
An one-parameter family $E=\{E^t\}_{t\geq 0}$ of the maps $E^t:
{\rm Lat}{\cal H} \to {\rm Lat}{\cal H}$ is said to be a [*space extension*]{} if
1. $E^0\,=\, \rm id$
2. $E^t\{0\}\,=\,\{0\}, \quad t\geq 0$
3. $t\leq t'$ and ${\cal A}
\subseteq {\cal A}'$ imply $E^t {\cal A} \subseteq E^{t'}{\cal A}'$.
It is also convenient to regard $E^t$ as an operation, which extends the projections, and write $E^t P_{\cal A}=P^t_{\cal A}:=P_{E^t{\cal A}}$.
Assume that an extension $E$ is given; let $a \subset {\rm
Lat}{\cal H}$ be a family of subspaces. By $\mathfrak N [E,a]$ we denote the minimal von Neumann operator algebra[^4], which contains all projections $\{P_{\cal A}\,|\, {\cal A} \in a\}$ and is closed with respect to $E$, i.e., $P\in \mathfrak N [E,a]$ implies $P^t =E^t P \in
\mathfrak N [E,a],\,\,\,t>0$. As is easy to see, such an algebra is well defined. As any von Neumann algebra, $\mathfrak N [E,a]$ is determined by the set ${\rm Proj\,}\mathfrak N [E,a]$ of its projections, whereas its additional property is $$E^t\, {\rm
Proj\,}\mathfrak N [E,a] \subset {\rm Proj\,}\mathfrak N [E,a]\,,
\qquad t > 0.$$
Fix a projection $P \in {\mathfrak N}[E,a]$; a positive self-adjoint operator in ${\cal H}$ of the form $$\tau_P\,:=\,\int_{0}^\infty t\,dP^t \,,$$ where $P^t=E^t P$, is said to be an [*eikonal*]{} [^5]; the set of eikonals is denoted by ${\rm Eik\,}\mathfrak N [E,a]$.
Let us say that we deal with the [*bounded case*]{} if each eikonal is a bounded operator (and, hence, belongs to $\mathfrak N
[E,a]$) and the set ${\rm Eik\,}\mathfrak N [E,a]$ is bounded in $\mathfrak B ({\cal H})$: $$\label{C<infty}
\sup\, \{\|\tau\|\,\,|\,\,\tau \in {\rm Eik\,}\mathfrak N
[E,a]\}\,<\,\infty\,.$$ Otherwise, the situation is referred to as [*unbounded case*]{} (see the end of sec 3.4).
Unless otherwise specified, we deal with the bounded case.
Recall that the set of self-adjoint operators is partially ordered: for $A,B \in \mathfrak B ({\cal H})$ the relation $A \leq
B$ means $(Ax,x) \leq (Bx,x), \,\,x \in {\cal H}$. Any monotonic bounded sequence $A_1 \leq A_2 \leq \dots , \,\,\,\sup
\|A_j\|<\infty$ converges in the strong operator topology to $s$-$\lim A_j \in \mathfrak B ({\cal H})$ (see, e.g., [@BSol]).
Extend the name [*eikonal*]{} to all elements of the set $s$-${\rm
clos\,} {\rm Eik\,}\mathfrak N [E,a] \subset {\mathfrak N}[E,a]$ and denote the extended set by the same symbol ${\rm
Eik\,}\mathfrak N [E,a]$. An eikonal $\tau$ is said to be [*maximal*]{} if $\tau \geq \tau'$ for any eikonal $\tau'$ comparable with $\tau$. Let $\Omega_{{\mathfrak N}[E,a]} \subset {\rm
Eik\,}\mathfrak N [E,a]$ be the [*set of maximal eikonals*]{}.
\[Omeganonempty\] The set $\Omega_{{\mathfrak N}[E,a]}$ is nonempty.
[**Proof**]{}By (\[C<infty\]), any totally ordered family of eikonals $\{\tau_\alpha\}$ has an upper bound $s$-$\overline{\lim}
\tau_\alpha$, which is also an eikonal. Hence, the Zorn lemma implies $\Omega_{{\mathfrak N}[E,a]}\not= \emptyset$.$\square$
The ${\mathfrak B ({\cal H})}$-norm induces the distance $\|\tau-\tau'\|$ in $\Omega_{{\mathfrak N}[E,a]}$ and makes it into a metric space, which is determined by the extension $E$ and the initial reserve of subspaces $a$. The space $\Omega_{{\mathfrak N}[E,a]}$ is the main subject of our paper.
Extension $E_L$
---------------
Here we introduce the space extension associated with a semi-bounded self-adjoint operator. Without lack of generality, it is assumed positive definite: let $$\label{L}
L=L^*\,=\,\int^\infty_0 \lambda\,dQ_\lambda\,; \qquad (Ly,y)\geq
\varkappa \,\|y\|^2,\,\,\,y \in {\rm Dom\,} L \subset {\cal H}\,,$$ where $d Q_\lambda$ is the spectral measure of $L$ and $\varkappa$ is a positive constant. Such an operator governs the evolution of a dynamical system $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dynsystem_1} & v_{tt} + L v\,=\,h\,, \qquad t>0\\
\label{dynsystem_2} & v|_{t=0}\,=\,v_t|_{t=0}\,=\,0\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $h \in L_2^{\rm loc}\left((0,\infty); {\cal H}\right)$ is a ${\cal H}$-valued function of time ([*control*]{}). Its finite energy class solution $v=v^h(t)$ is represented by the Duhamel formula $$\begin{aligned}
\notag & v^h(t)\,=\,\int_0^t L^{-\frac{1}{2}} \sin\left[(t-s)
L^{\frac{1}{2}}\right]\,h(s)\,ds =\,\langle{\rm see (\ref{L})} \rangle\\
\label{trajectory}& =\,\int^t_0 ds \int^\infty_0 \frac{\sin {\sqrt
\lambda}(t-s)}{\sqrt \lambda}\,d Q_\lambda\, h(s)\,, \qquad t \geq
0\,\end{aligned}$$ (see, e.g., [@BSol]). In system theory, $v^h(\,\cdot\,)$ is referred to as a [*trajectory*]{}; $v^h(t)\in {\cal H}$ is a [*state*]{} at the moment $t$. In applications, $v^h$ describes a [*wave*]{} initiated by a source $h$. Note that in the case of $\varkappa\leq
0$ the problem (\[dynsystem\_1\]), (\[dynsystem\_2\]) is also well defined but the representation (\[trajectory\]) is of slightly more complicated form. Thus, the assumption $\varkappa>0$ is accepted just for simplicity.
Fix a subspace ${\cal A} \subset {\cal H}$; the set $${\cal V}_{{\cal A}}^{\,t}:=\{v^h(t)\,|\,\,h \in L_2^{\rm loc}\left((0, \infty); {\cal A}\right)\}\,, \qquad t>0$$ of all states produced by ${\cal A}$-valued controls is called [*reachable*]{} (at the moment $t$). Reachable sets increase as ${\cal A}$ increases and/or $t$ grows. Indeed, the representation (\[trajectory\]) easily implies $$\label{delay_relation}v^{{\cal T}_\xi h}(t)\,=\,\left({\cal T}_\xi
v^h\right)(t), \qquad t \geq 0\,,$$ where ${\cal T}_\xi$ is the right shift operator in $L_2^{\rm
loc}\left((0,\infty); {\cal H}\right)$: $$\left({\cal T}_\xi
g\right)(t):=\begin{cases}0, \quad \qquad 0\leq &t <\xi\\
g(t-\xi), &t \geq \xi\end{cases}$$ with $\xi \geq 0$. For $0<t
\leq t'$ and ${\cal A} \subseteq {\cal A}'$, we have $${\cal V}_{{\cal A}}^{\,t} \ni v^h(t)=\left({\cal T}_{t'-t} v^h\right)(t')=\langle
{\rm see\,} (\ref{delay_relation}) \rangle =v^{{\cal T}_{t'-t}h}(t') \in
{\cal V}_{{\cal A}}^{\,t'} \subseteq {\cal V}_{{\cal A}'}^{\,t'}\,,$$ i.e., the inclusion $$\label{inclusion_V}
{\cal V}_{{\cal A}}^{\,t} \subseteq {\cal V}_{{\cal A}'}^{\,t'}\,, \qquad 0<t \leq t'$$ does hold.
Define a family $E_L=\{E^t\}_{t \geq 0}$ of the maps $E^t: {\rm
Lat} {\cal H} \to {\rm Lat} {\cal H}$ by $$\label{definition_EL}
E^0 {\cal A}:={\cal A}, \quad E^t {\cal A}:={\rm clos\,} {\cal V}_{{\cal A}}^{\,t} \,, \quad t > 0\,.$$
\[E\_is\_extension\] $E_L$ is a space extension.
[**Proof**]{}The properties 1 and 2 (see section 1.1) easily follow from the definitions and the obvious relation ${\cal V}_{\{0\}}^{\,t}=\{0\}$; the property 3 for $0<t \leq t'$ is seen from (\[inclusion\_V\]). Thus, it remains to verify 3 for $t=0$, i.e., to check that $0=t\leq t'$ and ${\cal A} \subseteq {\cal A}'$ leads to $E^{0} {\cal A} \subseteq E^{t'} {\cal A}'$ or, the same, that ${\cal A} \subseteq
E^r{\cal A}$ for all $r>0$ and ${\cal A}\not=\{0\}$.
Take a nonzero $y \in {\cal A}$ and consider (\[dynsystem\_1\]), (\[dynsystem\_2\]) with the control $h_\varepsilon(t)=\varphi_\varepsilon
(t)\,y$, where $$\varphi_\varepsilon (t):=\begin{cases} 0, &t\in [0,
r-2\varepsilon)\\\frac{1}{\varepsilon^2}, &t \in [r-2\varepsilon, r-\varepsilon)\\-
\frac{1}{\varepsilon^2}, &t \in [r-\varepsilon, r)\\0, &t \in [r, \infty)
\end{cases}$$ ($\varepsilon >0$ is small); note that $$\int_0^r\varphi_\varepsilon(t)\,f(t)\,dt \underset{\varepsilon \to 0} \to - f'(r)$$ for smooth $f$’s, i.e., $\varphi_\varepsilon(t)$ converges to $\delta^\prime(t-r)$ as a distribution. Define $$\psi_\varepsilon(\lambda):=\int_0^r
\frac{\sin[\sqrt{\lambda}\,(r-t)]}{\sqrt
\lambda}\,\varphi_\varepsilon(t)\,dt\,=\,\frac{2 \cos(\sqrt{\lambda}
\,\varepsilon)-\cos(\sqrt{\lambda} \,2 \varepsilon) - 1}{\varepsilon^2 \lambda}$$ and note that $\psi_\varepsilon(\lambda) \underset{\varepsilon \to 0} \to 1$ uniformly w.r.t. $\lambda$ in any compact segment $[\varkappa,
N]$.
Therefore, one has $$\begin{aligned}
&\left\|y-v^{h_\varepsilon}(r)\right\|^2 = \langle{\rm see\,}
(\ref{trajectory})\rangle=\left\|y-\int_0^r dt
\int_{\varkappa}^\infty \frac{\sin[\sqrt{\lambda}\,(r-t)]}{\sqrt
\lambda}\,dQ_\lambda
[\varphi_\varepsilon(t) y]\right\|^2 =\\
& \left\|y - \int_{\varkappa}^\infty
\psi_\varepsilon(\lambda)\,dQ_\lambda y\right\|^2
=\left\|\int_{\varkappa}^\infty
\left[1-\psi_\varepsilon(\lambda)\right]\,dQ_\lambda
y\right\|^2=\\
& \int_{\varkappa}^\infty |1-\psi_\varepsilon(\lambda)|^2\,d \|Q_\lambda
y\|^2\,\underset{\varepsilon \to 0}\to 0\end{aligned}$$ by the properties of $\psi_\varepsilon$. The order of integration change is easily justified by the Fubini Theorem.
Thus, $y=\underset{\varepsilon \to 0}\lim\, v^{h_\varepsilon}(r)$, whereas $v^{h_\varepsilon}(r)\in E^r{\cal A}$ holds. By the closeness of $E^r{\cal A}$, we get $y \in E^r{\cal A}$. Hence, ${\cal A} \subseteq E^r{\cal A}$. $\square$
So, with each positive definite operator $L$ one associates the certain space extension $E_L$ by (\[definition\_EL\]).
Algebras ${\mathfrak N}_{L, {\cal D}}$ and ${\mathfrak N}_{L_0}$
----------------------------------------------------------------
Return to the system (\[dynsystem\_1\])–(\[dynsystem\_2\]) and fix a nonzero subspace ${\cal D} \in {\rm Lat} {\cal H}$ that we’ll call a [*directional subspace*]{}. It determines a class $$\label{classM_D}{\cal M}_{{\cal D}}:=\left\{h \in C^\infty\left([0, \infty);
{\cal D}\right)\,|\,\,{\rm supp\,} h \subset (0, \infty)
\right\}$$ of smooth ${\cal D}$-valued controls vanishing near $s=0$, and the sets $$\begin{aligned}
\notag &{\cal U}^t:=\left\{h(t)- v^{h^{\prime \prime}}(t)\,\biggl |\,h
\in {\cal M}_{{\cal D}}\right\}\,=
\langle\,{\rm see\,} (\ref{trajectory})\, \rangle\,=\\
\label{reachable_sets_U} & \biggl\{h(t)-\int_0^t L^{-\frac{1}{2}}
\sin\left[(t-s) L^{\frac{1}{2}}\right]\, h^{\prime
\prime}(s)\,ds\,\biggl |\,\,h \in {\cal M}_{{\cal D}}\biggr\}, \qquad t \geq 0\end{aligned}$$ (here $(\,\cdot\,)^\prime :=\frac{d}{ds}$), which we also call [*reachable*]{} [^6]. As can be easily derived from (\[delay\_relation\]), the sets ${\cal U}^t$ increase as $t$ grows.
Now, take $$a_{L,{\cal D}}\,:=\,\{{\rm clos\,} {\cal U}^t\}_{t \geq 0}\,\subset
\,{\rm Lat}{\cal H}$$ in capacity of the initial family of subspaces (see sec 1.1). The pair $L, {\cal D}$ determines the algebra with extension $${\mathfrak N}_{L, {\cal D}}:={\mathfrak N}[E_L, a_{L,{\cal D}}]$$ and its eikonals ${\rm
Eik\,}{\mathfrak N}_{L, {\cal D}}$. Assuming that (\[C<infty\]) holds for ${\mathfrak N}_{L, {\cal D}}$, the set of maximal eikonals $$\Omega_{L, {\cal D}}\,:=\,\Omega_{{\mathfrak N}_{L,
{\cal D}}}$$ is well defined and called a [*wave spectrum*]{} of the pair $L, {\cal D}$. The operator $$\label{boundary eikonal}
\tau^\partial:=\int_{0}^\infty t\,dP_{{\cal U}^t}$$ is said to be a [*boundary eikonal*]{}. The set $$\label{boundary of spectrum}\partial \Omega_{L,
{\cal D}}:=\left\{\tau \in \Omega_{L, {\cal D}}\,|\, \tau \geq
\tau^\partial\right\}\,\subset\, \Omega_{L, {\cal
D}}$$ is a [*boundary*]{} of the wave spectrum.
Thus, each pair $L, {\cal D}$ determines an algebra with space extension ${\mathfrak N}_{L, {\cal D}}$ and all corresponding attributes.
Let $L_0$ be a closed densely defined symmetric semi-bounded operator with [*nonzero*]{} defect indexes $n_{\pm} = n \leq
\infty$. As is easy to see, such an operator is necessarily unbounded. For the sake of simplicity, it is assumed positive definite: $(L_0 y, y)\geq \varkappa \|y\|^2,\,\,y \in {\rm Dom}
L_0$ with $\varkappa>0$. Let $L$ be the extension of $L_0$ by Friedrichs, so that $L=L^* \geq \varkappa\,\mathbb I$ and $$\label{L0subLsubL0*} L_0
\subset L \subset L_0^*$$ holds [@BSol]. Also, note that $1 \leq {\rm dim\,}{\rm Ker\,}L_0^*= n \leq \infty$. Taking $${\cal D}\,:=\,{\rm Ker\,}L_0^*$$ as a directional subspace, we can constitute the pair $L, {\rm Ker\,}L_0^*$, which determines the algebra $${\mathfrak N}_{L_0}:={\mathfrak N}_{L, {\rm Ker\,}L_0^*}$$ and its eikonals ${\rm
Eik\,}{\mathfrak N}_{L_0}$. If (\[C<infty\]) holds, the set of maximal eikonals $$\Omega_{L_0}:=\Omega_{L, {\rm Ker\,}L_0^*}$$ is well defined and referred to as a [*wave spectrum*]{} of the operator $L_0$; its subset $\partial \Omega_{L_0}$ is a [*boundary*]{} of the wave spectrum.
So, with every $L_0$ of the above-mentioned class, one associates the algebra ${\mathfrak N}_{L_0}$ and the algebra eikonals ${\rm
Eik\,}{\mathfrak N}_{L_0}$. If the latter set is bounded, the operator $L_0$ possesses the wave spectrum $\Omega_{L_0}\not=
\emptyset$ [^7].
DSBC
====
Green system
------------
Dynamical systems with boundary control (DSBC) are defined in the next sections 2.2 and 2.3; here we introduce a basic ingredient of the definition. The ingredient is a collection $\{ {\cal H},{\cal
G}; A,\Gamma_0, \Gamma_1\}$ of the separable Hilbert spaces ${\cal
H}$ and ${\cal G}$, and the densely defined operators $A:{\cal H}
\to {\cal H}, \, \Gamma_k:{\cal H} \to {\cal G}\,\,\,(k=0,1)$ connected through the Green formula $$(Au,v)_{\cal H} - (u,Av)_{\cal H} =
(\Gamma_0 u,\Gamma_1 v)_{\cal G} - (\Gamma_1 u, \Gamma_0 v)_{\cal
G}$$ (see [@Kot]). Such a collection is said to be a [*Green system*]{}; ${\cal G}$ and $\Gamma_k$ are referred to as a [*boundary values space*]{} (BVS) and the [*boundary operators*]{} respectively. In the applications, which we deal with later on, the following is also provided:
1. ${\rm Dom\,} \Gamma_k \supseteq {\rm Dom\,} A$ holds, whereas $A$ is such that the restriction $$A|_{{\rm Ker\,} \Gamma_0 \cap {\rm Ker\,}
\Gamma_1}=:L_0$$ is a densely defined symmetric positive definite operator with nonzero defect indexes and $\overline
A=L_0^*$ is valid (’bar’ is the operator closure)
2. the restriction $$A|_{{\rm Ker\,} \Gamma_0} =: L$$ coincides with the Friedrichs extension of $L_0$, so that we have $$\label{L0subLsubL0*subA}
L_0 \subset L \subset L_0^*=\overline A\,,$$ whereas $L^{-1}$ is bounded and defined on ${\cal H}$
3. for the subspaces ${\cal A}:={\rm Ker\,} A$ and ${\cal D}:={\rm Ker\,} L_0^*$, the relations $$\label{density} {\rm clos\,} {\cal A} = {\cal D}\,, \qquad {\rm clos\,}
\Gamma_0 {\cal A}={\cal G}$$ are valid.
These properties are in consent with the Green system theory by V.A.Ryzhov, which puts them as the basic axioms. Note, that there are a few versions of such an axiomatics but the one proposed in [@Ryzh] is most relevant for applications to the forward and inverse [*multidimensional*]{} problems of mathematical physics.
In what follows we deal with the Green systems, which satisfy the conditions 1–3.
As is shown in [@Ryzh], the axioms provide the following:
- the map $\Pi:=\left(\Gamma_1 L^{-1}\right)^*: {\cal G} \to {\cal H}$ is bounded, whereas ${\rm Ran\,} \Pi$ is dense in ${\cal D}$
- the subspace ${\cal A}$ admits the characterization $$\label{charact_A}{\cal A}=\{y \in {\rm Dom\,} A\,|\,\,\Pi
\Gamma_0 y = y\}$$
- since $L$ is the extension of $L_0$ by Friedrichs, we have $$\label{L0 via L and D}
{\rm Dom\,} L_0 = L^{-1}[{\cal H} \ominus {\cal D}]\,, \quad L_0\,=\,L|_{L^{-1}[{\cal H}
\ominus {\cal D}]}$$ that easily follows from the definition of such an extension (see [@BSol]).
[**Example**]{}Let $\Omega$ be a $C^\infty$-smooth compact Riemannian manifold with the boundary $\Gamma$, $\Delta$ the (scalar) Laplace operator in ${\cal H}:=L_2(\Omega)$, $\nu$ the outward normal on $\Gamma$, ${\cal G}:=L_2(\Gamma)$. Denote [^8] $$A=-\Delta|_{H^2(\Omega)}\,, \qquad \Gamma_0
:=(\,\cdot\,)|_\Gamma\,, \qquad \Gamma_1
:=\frac{\partial}{\partial \nu}(\,\cdot\,)|_\Gamma\,,$$ so that $\Gamma_{0, 1}$ are the trace operators. The collection $\{ {\cal H},{\cal G}; A,\Gamma_0, \Gamma_1\}$ is a Green system, whereas other operators, which appear in the framework of Ryzhov’s axiomatics, are the following: $$L_0=-\Delta|_{H^2_0(\Omega)}$$ is the minimal Laplacian; $$L=-\Delta|_{H^2(\Omega)\cap H^1_0(\Omega)}$$ is the self-adjoint Dirichlet Laplacian; $$L_0^*=-\Delta |_{\{y \in {\cal H}\,|\,\Delta y
\in {\cal H}\}}$$ is the maximal Laplacian; $${\cal A} = \{y \in H^2(\Omega)\,|\,\,\Delta y =0\}$$ is the set of harmonic functions of the class $H^2(\Omega)$; $${\cal D}=\{y \in
{\cal H}\,|\,\,\Delta y=0\}$$ is the subspace of all harmonic functions in $L_2(\Omega)$; $\Pi: {\cal G} \to {\cal H}$ is the harmonic continuation operator (the Diriclet problem solver): $$\Pi \varphi=u: \qquad
\Delta u=0\,\,\,{\rm
in}\,\,\,\Omega,\,\,\,u|_{\Gamma}=\varphi\,.$$
Evolutionary DSBC
-----------------
Note in advance that the goal of the sections 2.2, 2.3 is not to obtain results but motivate the above introduced objects and notions. That is why the presentation ignores certain technical details.
[**Definition**]{}The Green system determines an evolutionary [*dynamical system with boundary control*]{} of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{0.1} & u_{tt}+A\,u=0 &&{\rm in}\,\, {\cal H}, \quad 0<t<\infty \\
\label{0.2} & u|_{t=0}=u_t|_{t=0}=0 &&{\rm in}\,\, {\cal H} \\
\label{0.3} & \Gamma_0 u=f(t) &&{\rm in}\,\,{\cal G}, \quad 0\leq
t < \infty,\end{aligned}$$ where $f$ is a [*boundary control*]{} (${\cal G}$-valued function of time), $u=u^f(t)$ is the solution ([*wave*]{}).
Assign $f$ to a class ${\cal F}_+$ if it belongs to $C^\infty
\left([0, \infty); {\cal G}\right)$, takes the values in $\Gamma_0
{\rm Dom\,} A$, and vanishes near $t=0$, i.e., satisfies ${\rm
supp\,} f \subset (0, \infty)$. Also, note that $f \in {\cal F}_+$ implies $\Pi \left(f(\,\cdot\,)\right) \in {\cal M}_{{\cal D}}$, where ${\cal D}= {\rm Ker\,} L_0^*$ and ${\cal M}_{{\cal D}}$ is defined by (\[classM\_D\]).
For $f \in {\cal F}_+$, the classical solution $u^f$ to problem (\[0.1\])–(\[0.3\]) is represented in the form $$\label{u^f=h-int}
u^f(t)\,=\,h(t)-\int_0^t L^{-\frac{1}{2}} \sin\left[(t-s)
L^{\frac{1}{2}}\right]\, h^{\prime \prime}(s)\,ds\,, \qquad t \geq
0$$ with $h:=\Pi \left(f(\,\cdot\,)\right) \in {\cal M}_{{\cal D}}$.
[**Proof**]{}Introducing a new unknown $w=w^f(t):=u^f(t)-\Pi\left(f(t)\right)$ and taking into account (\[charact\_A\]), we easily get the system $$\begin{aligned}
& w_{tt}+A w=-\Pi\left(f_{tt}(t)\right) &&{\rm in}\,\, {\cal H}, \quad 0<t<\infty \\
& w|_{t=0}=w_t|_{t=0}=0 &&{\rm in}\,\, {\cal H} \\
& \Gamma_0 w = 0 &&{\rm in}\,\,{\cal G}, \quad 0\leq t <\infty\,.\end{aligned}$$ With regard ro the definition of the operator $L$ (see the axiom 2), this problem can be rewritten in the form $$\begin{aligned}
& w_{tt}+L w\,=\,- h_{tt} &&{\rm in}\,\, {\cal H}, \quad 0<t<\infty \\
& w|_{t=0}=w_t|_{t=0}=0 &&{\rm in}\,\, {\cal H}\end{aligned}$$ and then solved by the Duhamel formula $$w^f(t)\,=-\int_0^t L^{-\frac{1}{2}} \sin\left[(t-s)
L^{\frac{1}{2}}\right]\, h^{\prime \prime}(s)\,ds\,.$$ Returning back to $u^f=w^f + \Pi f$, we arrive at (\[u\^f=h-int\]). $\square$
The sets $$\begin{aligned}
\notag & {\cal U}^t_+\,:=\,\{u^f(t)\,|\,\, f \in {\cal F}_+\}=
\langle\,{\rm see\,} (\ref{u^f=h-int})\, \rangle\,=\\
\label{reachable_from_boundary} &\biggl\{h(t)-\int_0^t
L^{-\frac{1}{2}} \sin\left[(t-s) L^{\frac{1}{2}}\right]\,
h^{\prime \prime}(s)\,ds\,\biggl |\,\,\,\,h=\Pi
f(\,\cdot\,),\,\,\,f \in {\cal F}_+ \biggr\}\,, \quad t \geq 0\end{aligned}$$ are said to be [*reachable from boundary*]{}. In the mean time, the Green system, which governs the DSBC, determines the certain pair $L, {\cal D}$, which in turn determines the family $\{{\cal U}^t\}$ by (\[reachable\_sets\_U\]). Comparing the definitions, we easily conclude that the inclusion ${\cal U}^t_+ \subset {\cal U}^t$ holds. Moreover, the density properties (\[density\]) enable one to derive $$\label{clUxipartial=clUxi}{\rm clos\,} {\cal U}^t_+ = {\rm clos\,} {\cal U}^t\,, \qquad t
\geq 0$$ and it is the relation, which inspires the definition (\[reachable\_sets\_U\]) and motivates the use of the term “reachable set” for ${\cal U}^t$ in the general case, where neither the boundary value space nor the boundary operators are defined.
[**Illustration**]{}Consider the Example at the end of sec 2.1. The DSBC (\[0.1\])–(\[0.3\]) associated with the Riemannian manifold is governed by the wave equation and is of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{0.1Rim} & u_{tt}-\Delta u=0 &&{\rm in}\,\,\,\Omega \times (0, \infty) \\
\label{0.2Rim} & u|_{t=0}=u_t|_{t=0}=0 &&{\rm in}\,\,\,\Omega \\
\label{0.3Rim} & u|_\Gamma =f(t) &&{\rm for}\,\,\,0\leq t < \infty\end{aligned}$$ with a boundary control $f \in {\cal F} := L_2^{\rm loc}\left((0,
\infty); L_2(\Gamma) \right)$; the solution $u=u^f(x,t)$ describes a wave, which is initiated by boundary sources and propagates from the boundary into the manifold with the speed 1. For $f \in
{\cal F}_+:=C^\infty \left([0, \infty); C^\infty(\Gamma) \right)$ provided ${\rm supp\,} f \subset (0, \infty)$, the solution $u^f$ is classical. By the finiteness of the wave propagation speed, at a moment $t$ the waves fill the near-boundary subdomain $$\Omega^t[\Gamma]:=\{x \in \Omega\,|\,\,{\rm dist\,} (x, \Gamma) <t\}\,.$$ Correspondingly, the reachable sets ${\cal U}^t_+$ increase as $t$ grows and the relation $$\label{Uxi_sub_Hxi}
{\cal U}^t_+ \,\subset {\cal H}^t\,, \qquad t \geq 0$$ holds, where ${\cal H}^t := {\rm clos\,} \{y \in {\cal H}\,|\,\,{\rm supp\,} y \subset
\Omega^t[\Gamma]\}$.
So, if the pair $L, {\cal D}$ (or the operator $L_0$) appears in the framework of a Green system, then $\{{\cal U}^t\}$ introduced by the general definition (\[reachable\_sets\_U\]) may be imagine as the sets of waves produced by boundary controls. The question arises, what is the meaning of the corresponding wave spectrum $\Omega_{L, {\cal D}}$ ($=\Omega_{L_0}$)? In a sense, it is the question, which this paper is written for. The answer (postponed till section 3) is that $\Omega_{L_0}$ is a wave guide body, in which such waves propagate.
[**Controllability**]{}Return to the abstract DSBC (\[0.1\])–(\[0.3\]) and define its certain property. The definition is premised with the following observation. Since the class of controls ${\cal F}_+$ satisfies $\frac{d^2}{dt^2}{\cal F}_+={\cal F}_+$, the reachable sets (\[reachable\_from\_boundary\]) satisfy $A
{\cal U}^t_+ ={\cal U}^t_+$. Indeed, taking $f \in {\cal F}_+$ we have $$\label{relations}
A u^f(t)=\langle\,{\rm see\,} (\ref{0.1})\,\rangle = - u^f_{tt}(t)
= u^{-f^{\prime \prime}}(t) \in {\cal U}^t_+\,$$ and, by the same relations, $$u^f(t)\,=\,A u^g(t)$$ with $g=-(\int_0^t)^2 f \in {\cal F}_+$. Hence, the sets ${\cal U}^t_+$ reduce the operator $A$, so that its parts $A|_{{\cal U}^t_+}$ are well defined.
The DSBC (\[0.1\])–(\[0.3\]) is said to be [*controllable*]{} from boundary for the time $t=T$ if the (operator) closure of the part $A|_{{\cal U}^T_+}$ coincides with $\overline A$, i.e., the relation $$\label{controllability_def_1}
{\rm clos\,} \left\{\{u^f(T), A u^f(T)\}\,|\,\,f \in
{\cal F}_+\right\}\,=\,{\rm clos\,} {\rm graph\,} A$$ (the closure in ${\cal H} \times {\cal H}$) is valid, where $${\rm graph\,}
A:=\left\{\{y, A y\}\,|\,\,y \in {\rm Dom\,} A \right\}\,.$$ Controllability means two things. First, since $A$ is densely defined in ${\cal H}$, (\[controllability\_def\_1\]) implies $${\rm clos\,} {\cal U}^t_+ \,=\,{\cal H}\,, \qquad t \geq T\,,$$ i.e., for large times the reachable sets become rich enough: dense in ${\cal H}$. Second, the “wave part” $A|_{{\cal U}^T_+}$ of the operator $A$, which governs the evolution of the system, represents the operator in substantial: it coincides with $A$ up to closure.
In applications to problems in bounded domains, such a property “ever holds” (for large enough times $T$). In particular, the system (\[0.1Rim\])–(\[0.3Rim\]) is controllable for any $T>\underset{x \in \Omega} \max\, {\rm dist\,}(x, \Gamma)$ (see [@BIP97], [@BIP07]).
Let us represent the property (\[controllability\_def\_1\]) in the form available for what follows. At first, with regard to (\[L0subLsubL0\*subA\]) and (\[relations\]), it can be written as $$\label{controllability_def_2}
{\rm clos\,} \left\{\{u^f(T), u^{-f^{\prime \prime}}(T)\}\,\bigg|\,\,f
\in {\cal F}_+\right\}\,={\rm graph\,} L_0^*\,.$$ Further, for each $t \geq 0$, introduce a [*control operator*]{} (“input $\to$ state” map) $W^t: {\cal F} \to {\cal H}, \,\,\,{\rm Dom\,} W^t = {\cal F}_+$, $$W^t f\,:=\, u^f(t)\,.$$ In terms of this map, (\[controllability\_def\_2\]) takes the form $$\label{controllability_def_3}
{\rm clos\,} \left\{\{W^T f, W^T (-f^{\prime \prime})\}\,\bigg|\,\,f \in
{\cal F}_+\right\}\,={\rm graph\,} L_0^*\,.$$ The control operator can be regarded as an operator from a Hilbert space ${\cal F}^t:=L_2\left((0, t); {\cal G}\right)$ to the space ${\cal H}$ with ${\rm Dom\,} W^t={\cal F}^t_+:=\{f|_{[0, t]}\,\,|\,\, f \in {\cal F}_+\}$. As such, it can be represented in the form of the [*polar decomposition*]{} $$W^t\,=\,U^t\,|W^t|\,,$$ where $|W^t|:=\left((W^t)^*W^t\right)^{1 \over 2}$ and $U^t$ is an isometry from ${\rm clos\,} {\rm Ran\,} |W^t| \subset {\cal F}^t$ onto ${\rm clos\,} {\rm Ran\,} W^t
\subset {\cal H}$ (see, e.g., [@BSol]). For $t=T$, one has ${\rm clos\,}
{\rm Ran\,} W^T = {\cal H}$, so that $U^T$ is a unitary operator from the (sub)space $\widetilde {\cal H}:={\rm clos\,} {\rm Ran\,} |W^T|$ onto ${\cal H}$. Correspondingly, the operator $$\widetilde
L_0^*\,:=\,\left(U^T\right)^*L_0^*\, U^T$$ acting in $\widetilde
{\cal H}$ turns out to be unitarily equivalent to $L_0^*$. As result, (\[controllability\_def\_3\]) can be written in the final form $$\label{controllability_def_4}
{\rm clos\,} \left\{\left\{|W^T| f,\, |W^T| (-f^{\prime
\prime})\right\}\,\bigg|\,\,f \in {\cal F}_+\right\}\,={\rm graph\,} \widetilde
L_0^*\,.$$ As a consequence, we get
\[|WT|\_determines\_L0\*\] If the DSBC (\[0.1\])–(\[0.3\]) is controllable for the time $T$ then the operator $|W^T|$ determines the operator $L_0^*$ up to unitary equivalence.
[**Response operator**]{}In the DSBC (\[0.1\])–(\[0.3\]), an “input$\to$output” correspondence is described by the [*response operator*]{} $R: {\cal F} \to {\cal F}, \,\,\,{\rm Dom\,}
R = {\cal F}_+$, $$\left(Rf\right)(t)\,:=\,\Gamma_1 \left(u^f(t)\right)\,, \qquad t
\geq 0\,.$$ Also, the reduced operators $$R^t f\,:=\,\left(Rf\right) |_{[0, t]}$$ are in use and play the role of the data in dynamical inverse problems.
The key fact of the BC-method is that the operator $R^{2t}$ determines the operator $(W^t)^*W^t$ through a simple and explicit relation: see [@BIP97], [@DSBC], [@BIP07]. Hence, $R^{2t}$ determines the modulus $|W^t|$. Combining this fact with the Proposition \[|WT|\_determines\_L0\*\], we arrive at
\[R2T\_determines\_L0\*\] If the DSBC (\[0.1\])–(\[0.3\]) is controllable for the time $T$ then its response operator $R^{2T}$ determines the operator $L_0^*$ (and, hence, the operator $L_0=L_0^{**}$ and its Friedrichs extension $L$) up to unitary equivalence.
As illustration, the response operator of the DSBC (\[0.1Rim\])–(\[0.3Rim\]) is $$R^{2T}: f\,\mapsto
\frac{\partial u^f}{\partial \nu}\bigg|_{\Gamma \times
[0,2T]}\,.$$ By the aforesaid, given for a fixed $T>\underset{x
\in \Omega} \max\, {\rm dist\,}(x, \Gamma)$ this operator determines the operator $L_0$ up to a unitary equivalence.
Stationary DSBC
---------------
Our presentation follows the paper [@Ryzh]. The basic object is the Green system $\{ {\cal H},{\cal G}; A,\Gamma_0, \Gamma_1\}$ and the associated operators $L_0, L$ (see sec 2.1).
[**Definition**]{}Along with the evolutionary DSBC, one associates with the Green system the problem $$\begin{aligned}
\label{0.1Stat} & \left(A - z \mathbb I\right) u=0 &&{\rm in}\,\,
{\cal H},\,\,\, z \in \mathbb C \\
\label{0.2Stat} & \Gamma_0 u=\varphi &&{\rm in}\,\,{\cal G}\end{aligned}$$ that is referred to as a [*stationary*]{} DSBC. For $\varphi \in
\Gamma_0 {\rm Dom\,} A$ and $z \in {\mathbb C\,}\backslash {\,\rm spec\,}
L$, such a problem has a unique solution $u=u^\varphi_z$, which is a ${\rm Dom\,} A\,$-valued function of $z$.
[**Weyl function**]{}The “input $\to$ output” correspondence in the system (\[0.1Stat\])–(\[0.2Stat\]) is realized by an operator-valued function $$M(z) \varphi \,:=\,\Gamma_1
u^\varphi_z\,, \qquad z \notin {\,\rm spec\,} L$$ that is called [*Weyl function*]{} and plays the role of the data in frequency domain inverse problems.
The following fact proven in [@Ryzh] is of crucial value. Recall that a symmetric operator in ${\cal H}$ is said to be [*completely non-selfadjoint*]{} if there is no subspace in ${\cal H}$, in which the operator induces a self-adjoint part.
\[M\_determines\_L0\] If the Green system, which determines the DSBC (\[0.1Stat\])–(\[0.2Stat\]), is such that the operator $L_0$ is completely non-selfadjoint, then the Weyl function of the DSBC determines the operator $L_0$ up to unitary equivalence.
[**Illustration**]{}Consider the Example at the end of sec 2.1. The DSBC (\[0.1Stat\])–(\[0.2Stat\]) associated with the Riemannian manifold is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{0.1StatRim} & \left(A + z \right) u=0 \qquad {\rm in}\,\,\Omega\\
\label{0.2StatRim} & u|_\Gamma\,=\,\varphi\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $A=-\Delta|_{H^2(\Omega)}$. The operator $L_0=-\Delta|_{H^2_0(\Omega)}$ is completely non-selfadjoint. Indeed, otherwise there exists a subspace ${\cal K} \subset {\cal H}$ such that the operator $L_0^{{\cal K}}:=-\Delta|_{{\cal K} \cap H^2_0(\Omega)}\not=
\mathbb O$ is self-adjoint in ${\cal K}$. In the mean time, $L_0^{{\cal K}}$ is a part of $L$, the latter being a self-adjoint operator with the discrete spectrum. Hence, ${\rm spec}\,L^{{\cal K}}_0$ is also purely discrete; each of its eigenfunctions satisfies $-\Delta
\phi=\lambda \phi$ in $\Omega$ and belongs to $H^2_0(\Omega)$. The latter implies $\phi = \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial \nu}=0$ on $\Gamma$, which leads to $\phi \equiv 0$ by the well-known E.Landis uniqueness theorem for solutions to the Cauchy problem for elliptic equations. Hence, $L^{{\cal K}}_0=\mathbb O$ in contradiction to the assumptions.
The Weyl function of the system is $$M(z) \varphi\,=\,
\frac{\partial u^\varphi_z}{\partial \nu}\bigg|_\Gamma \qquad (z
\not \in {\rm spec\,} L)\,.$$ By the aforesaid, the function $M$ determines the operator $L_0$ up to a unitary equivalence.
Besides the Weyl function, there is one more kind of inverse data associated with to the DSBC (\[0.1StatRim\])–(\[0.2StatRim\]). Let $\{\lambda_k\}_{k=1}^\infty : \,\,\,0<\lambda_1<\lambda_2\leq
\lambda_3 \leq \dots \to \infty$ be the spectrum of the Dirichlet Laplacian $L$, $\{\phi_k\}_{k=1}^\infty :
\,\,\,L\phi_k=\lambda_k\phi_k$ its eigenbasis in ${\cal H}$ normalized by $(\phi_k, \phi_l)=\delta_{kl}$. The set of pairs $$\Sigma_\Omega\,:=\,\left\{\lambda_k ;\,\frac{\partial
\phi_k}{\partial \nu}\bigg|_\Gamma\right\}_{k=1}^\infty$$ is called the (Dirichlet) [*spectral data*]{} of the manifold $\Omega$. The well-known fact is that these data determine the Weyl function and vice versa (see, e.g., [@Ryzh]). Hence, $\Sigma_\Omega$ determines the minimal Laplacian $L_0$ up to unitary equivalence. However, such a detrmination can be realized not through $M$ but in more explicit way.
Namely, let $U: {\cal H} \to \widetilde {\cal H} := \emph{l}_2$, $$U y\,=\,\widetilde y:=\{(y,\phi_k)\}_{k=1}^\infty$$ be the Fourier transform that diagonalizes $L$: $$\label{diag_L}
\widetilde L\,:=\,U L U^*={\rm diag\,}\{\lambda_1,\,\lambda_2\,,\,
\dots\}\,.$$ For any harmonic function $a \in {\cal A}$, its Fourier coefficients are $$(a,\phi_k)\,=\,-\,\frac{1}{\lambda_k} \int_\Gamma
a\,\frac{\partial \phi_k}{\partial \nu}\,d\Gamma$$ that can be verified by integration by parts. With regard to the latter, the spectral data $\Sigma_\Omega$ determine the image $\widetilde {\cal A}:=U {\cal A} \subset \widetilde {\cal H}$ and its closure $\widetilde {\cal D}=U {\cal D}={\rm clos\,}
\widetilde {\cal A}$, so that the determination $$\Sigma_\Omega\,\Rightarrow \widetilde L\,, \widetilde {\cal D}$$ occurs. In the mean time, (\[L0 via L and D\]) implies $$\label{tildeL0}
\widetilde L_0\,=\,U^* L_0 U\,=\, \widetilde L |_{{\widetilde
L}^{-1}\left[\widetilde {\cal H} \ominus \widetilde {\cal D}\right]}$$ by isometry of $U$. Thus, $\widetilde L_0$ is a unitary copy of $L_0$ constructed via the spectral data.
Applications
============
Inverse problems
----------------
In inverse problems (IP) for DSBC associated with manifolds, one needs to recover the manifold via its boundary inverse data [^9]. Namely,
[**IP 1:**]{}given for a fixed $T>\underset{x \in
\Omega} \max\, {\rm dist\,}(x, \Gamma)$ the response operator $R^{2T}$ of the system (\[0.1Rim\])–(\[0.3Rim\]), to recover the manifold $\Omega$
[**IP 2:**]{}given the Weyl function $M$ of the system (\[0.1StatRim\])–(\[0.2StatRim\]), to recover the manifold $\Omega$
[**IP 3:**]{}given the spectral data $\Sigma_\Omega$, to recover the manifold $\Omega$.
The problems are called [*time-domain*]{}, [*frequency-domain*]{}, and [*spectral*]{} respectively.
Setting the goal to determine an unknown manifold from its boundary inverse data, we have to keep in mind the evident nonuiqueness of such a determination: all [*isometric*]{} manifolds with the mutual boundary have the same data. Therefore, the only reasonable understanding of “to recover” is to construct a manifold, which possesses the prescribed data [@BIP07].
As we saw, the common feature of the problems IP 1–3 is that their data determine the minimal Laplacian $L_0$ up to unitary equivalence. By this, each kind of data determines the wave spectrum $\Omega_{L_0}$ up to isometry. As will be shown, for a wide class of manifolds the relation $\Omega_{L_0} \overset{\rm
isom}= \Omega$ holds. Hence, for such manifolds, for solving the IPs it suffices to extract a unitary copy $\widetilde L_0$ from the data, find its wave spectrum $\Omega_{\widetilde L_0}
\overset{\rm isom}=\Omega_{L_0}$, and thus to get an isometric copy of $\Omega$. It is the program for the rest of the paper.
Simple manifolds
----------------
Recall that we deal with a compact smooth Riemannian manifold $\Omega$ with the boundary $\Gamma$; $\rm vol$ is the volume in $\Omega$. Also, recall some definitions.
For a subset $A \subset \Omega$, denote by $$\Omega^r[A]\,:=\,\{x \in \Omega\,|\,\,{\rm dist\,}(x, A)<r\}$$ the metric neighborhood of $A$ of radius $r>0$ and put $\Omega^0[A]:=A$. Note that whatever $A$ be, its neighborhood is an open set with the zero volume boundary: $$\label{Federer}{\rm vol\,\,}\partial
\Omega^r[A]\,=\,0\,,\qquad r>0$$ [@Fed]. By $A^\flat$ we denote the set of its interior points: $x \in
A^\flat$ if there is an $\varepsilon>0$ such that $\Omega^\varepsilon [\{x\}]\subset A$. For a system $\alpha
\subset 2^\Omega$, we define $\alpha^\flat:=\{A^\flat\,|\,\,A \in
\alpha\}$.
Let $Y$ be a set, $\Xi \subset 2^Y$ a system of subsets. The system $\Xi$ is said to be an [*algebra*]{} if
- $Y \in \Xi\,\,\,$
- $A, B \in \Xi\,\,\,$ implies $\,\,\,Y\backslash A, \,A \cap B \in \Xi$ (and hence $\,\,\,\emptyset,\,A \cup B \in \Xi$).
For a family $\alpha \subset 2^Y$, by $\Xi[\alpha]$ we denote the algebra generated by this family, i.e., the [*minimal algebra*]{} that contains $\alpha$. As is known, $\Xi[\alpha]$ consists of the sets of the form $\cup_{n=1}^N \cap_{m=1}^M A_{nm}$, where $A_{mn}$ or $Y\backslash A_{mn}$ belong to $\alpha$ (see, e.g., [@BSol]).
Return to the manifold. The following is an universal process that associates with $\Omega$ a certain system $\alpha_\Gamma \subset
2^\Omega$ and that we refer to as a [*Procedure $1$*]{}. The process is a consequent repetition of the same operation $\sigma$ that acts as follows: for a given family $\alpha \subset
2^\Omega$,
1. constitute the algebra $\Xi[\alpha]$ and go to the system $\Xi^\flat[\alpha]$
2. construct the system of the neighborhoods $$\sigma[\alpha]:=\{\Omega^t[A]\,|\,\,A \in \Xi^\flat[\alpha],\,\,t
\geq 0\}$$ that is the product of the operation $\sigma$.
Such an operation is of the following important feature. We say a set $A \subset \Omega$ to be [*regular*]{} (and write $A \in {\cal R} \subset 2^\Omega$) if ${\rm vol\,\,}A>0$ and ${\rm
vol\,\,}\partial A=0$ holds. Note that ${\cal R}$ is an algebra. The feature is that by the definition of the minimal algebra and property (\[Federer\]), the inclusion $\alpha \subset {\cal R}$ implies $\sigma [\alpha] \subset {\cal R}$. Also, note that the passage $\Xi[\alpha] \to \Xi^\flat[\alpha]$ removes the zero volume sets, which can appear in the algebra $\Xi[\alpha]$.
Now, we describe
[**Procedure $\bf 1$**]{}:
[**Step 1**]{}Take the family of boundary neighborhoods $\gamma:=\{\Omega^t[\Gamma]\}_{t\geq 0}\subset
2^\Omega$ and construct the system $\sigma[\gamma]$
[**Step 2**]{}Construct $\sigma^2[\gamma]\,:=\,
\sigma[\sigma[\gamma]]$
[**Step 3**]{}Construct $\sigma^3[\gamma]\,:=\,
\sigma[\sigma[\sigma[\gamma]]]$
………
[**Final Step**]{} Constitute the system $$\alpha_\Gamma\,:=\,\bigcup \limits_{j=1}^\infty \sigma^j[\gamma]$$ that is the end product of the Procedure $1$. As is easy to see, the constructed system consists of regular sets, and is determined by the metric in $\Omega$ and the “shape” of its boundary $\Gamma$.
A system $\alpha \subset 2^\Omega$ is said to be a [*net*]{} if for any point $x \in \Omega$ there exists a sequence $\{\omega_j\}_{j=1}^\infty \subset \alpha$ such that $\,\,{\rm
vol\,} \omega_j>0,\,\,\,\omega_1 \supset \omega_2 \supset \,
\dots\,\,$, ${\rm diam\,}\omega_j \to 0$, and $x \in \bigcap
\limits_{j \geq 1}\omega_j$.
We say the manifold $\Omega$ to be [*simple*]{}, if the system $\alpha_\Gamma$ is a net. The following is some comments on this definition.
The evident obstacle for a manifold to be simple is its symmetries[^10]. For a ball $\Omega=\{x
\in {\mathbb R}^n\,|\,\,|x|\leq 1\}$, the system $\alpha_\Gamma$ consists of the sets $\eta \times S^{n-1}$, where $\eta \subset
[0,1]$ is a sum of positive measure segments. Surely, such a system is not a net in the ball. A plane triangle is simple iff its legs are pair-wise nonequal. Sufficient and easily checkable conditions on the shape of $\Omega \subset {\mathbb R}^n$, which provide the simplicity, are proposed in [@BKac89]. They are also available for Riemannian manifolds and show that simplicity is a generic property: it can be reached by arbitrarily small smooth variations of the boundary $\Gamma$.
For an $A \subset \Omega$, define a distant function $$d_A(x)\,:= \,{\rm dist\,}(x, A)\,, \qquad x \in \Omega\,.$$ By the well-known properties of the distance on a metric space, distant functions are continuous: $d_A \in C(\Omega)$. The latter space is a Banach algebra (with the $\sup$-norm). Let $C_\Gamma(\Omega)$ be the (closed) subalgebra in $C(\Omega)$ generated by the family $\{d_A\,|\,\,A \in \alpha_\Gamma \}$. The following is the result, which in fact inspires the notion of simplicity.
\[CGamma=COmega\] If the manifold $\Omega$ is simple then the equality $$\label{C_Gamma(Omega)=C(Omega)}
C_\Gamma(\Omega)\,=\,C(\Omega)$$ holds.
[**Proof**]{}For $x, x' \in \Omega,\,\,x\not=x'$, choose $\omega \in \alpha_\Gamma$ such that $x \in \omega$ and $x' \not
\in \overline \omega$, what is possible since the system $\alpha_\Gamma$ is a net. One has $0=d_\omega(x)$ and $d_\omega(x')>0$, so that $C_\Gamma(\Omega)$ distinguishes points of $\Omega$. Therefore, by the Stone theorem, the sum $C_\Gamma(\Omega) \vee \{\rm constants\}$ coincides with $C(\Omega)$. In the mean time, assuming $\{\rm constants\} \not
\subset C_\Gamma(\Omega)$, we have $C(\Omega)=C_\Gamma(\Omega)
\overset{.}+\{\rm constants\}$ and conclude that $C_\Gamma(\Omega)$ is a maximal ideal in $C(\Omega)$. By the latter, there exists a (unique) point $x_0 \in \Omega$ such that all functions of $C_\Gamma(\Omega)$ vanish at $x_0$ (see, e.g., [@Mur]). Evidently, it is not the case since $\alpha_\Gamma$ is a net. Hence, we arrive at (\[C\_Gamma(Omega)=C(Omega)\]).$\square$
Solving IPs
-----------
Here we prove the basic
\[Theorem\_1\] Let $\Omega$ be a simple manifold, $L_0=-\Delta|_{H^2_0(\Omega)}$ the minimal Laplacian, $\Omega_{L_0}$ its wave spectrum. There exists an isometry (of metric spaces) $i$ that maps $\Omega_{L_0}$ onto $\Omega$, the relation $i(\partial \Omega_{L_0})=\Gamma$ being valid.
[**Proof**]{}consists of the parts I–III.
[**I.System $\hat \alpha_\Gamma$**]{}
We say a system of subspaces $\hat\Xi \subset {\rm Lat\,}{\cal H}$ to be an [*algebra*]{} if
- ${\cal H} \in \hat
\Xi\,\,\,$
- ${\cal A}, {\cal B} \in \hat \Xi\,\,\,$ implies $\,\,\,{\cal H}
\ominus {\cal A}, \,{\cal A} \cap {\cal B} \in \hat \Xi$ (and hence $\,\,\,\{0\},\,{\cal A} \vee {\cal B} \in \hat \Xi$).
For a family $a \subset {\rm Lat\,}{\cal H}$, by $\hat \Xi[a]$ we denote the algebra generated by this family, i.e., the [*minimal algebra*]{} that contains $a$. As is known, $\hat \Xi[a]$ consists of the subspaces of the form $\cup_{n=1}^N \vee_{m=1}^M {\cal A}_{nm}$, where ${\cal A}_{mn}$ or ${\cal H} \ominus {\cal A}_{mn}$ belong to $a$.
Below we present an universal process that associates with $\Omega$ a certain system of subspaces $\hat\alpha_\Gamma \subset
{\rm Lat\,}{\cal H}$ and that we refer to as a [*Procedure $\hat 1$*]{}. The process is a consequent repetition of the same operation $\hat \sigma$ that acts as follows: for a given family $a \subset {\rm Lat\,}{\cal H}$,
1. constitute the algebra $\hat \Xi[a]$
2. construct the family $$\hat \sigma[a]:=\{E^r{\cal A}\,|\,\,{\cal A} \in \hat \Xi[a],\,\,r
\geq 0\}\,\subset {\rm Lat\,}{\cal H}\,,$$ where $\{E^r\}_{r \geq
0}=E_L$ is the space extension determined by the Dirichlet Laplacian $L \supset L_0$.
The latter family is the product of the operation $\hat\sigma$. Such an operation is of the following important feature.
A subspace ${\cal A} \subset {\cal H}$ is called [*regular*]{} (we write ${\cal A} \in \hat {\cal R} \subset {\rm Lat\,}{\cal H})$ if $${\cal A} =\{y \in {\cal H}\,|\,\,{\rm supp\,} y \subset
\overline A\}\,=:\, {\cal H} A$$ with an $A \in {\cal R}$; so, a regular subspace consists of functions supported on a regular set. Now, we invoke a fundamental property of the DSBC (\[0.1Rim\])–(\[0.3Rim\]) known as a [*local controllability*]{} [^11], by which
- the embedding (\[Uxi\_sub\_Hxi\]) is dense, i.e., in our current notation, we have ${\rm clos\,} {\cal U}^t_+ = {\cal H} \Omega^t[\Gamma]$, which shows that all ${\rm clos\,} {\cal U}^t_+$ are regular subspaces. As a consequence, by (\[clUxipartial=clUxi\]) we conclude that the subspaces ${\rm clos\,} {\cal U}^t$ are also regular: $$\label{Holmgren1}{\rm clos\,} {\cal U}^t\, = \,{\cal H}
\Omega^t[\Gamma]\,\subset \hat {\cal R}, \qquad t
>0$$
- for any regular subspace ${\cal H} A$, the relation $$\label{Holmgren2}
E^t {\cal H} A\,=\,{\cal H}\Omega^t[A]\,, \qquad t \geq 0$$ holds.
The above-announced feature of the operation $\hat \sigma$ is the following. By the definition of the minimal algebra and property (\[Holmgren2\]), if $\hat \sigma$ is applied to a family $a$ of regular subspaces, then the result $\hat \sigma[a]$ also consists of regular subspaces, i.e., $\hat
\alpha \subset \hat {\cal R}$ implies $\hat \sigma[\hat \alpha] \subset
\hat {\cal R}$.
Now, we describe
[**Procedure $\bf \hat 1$**]{}:
[**Step 1**]{}Take the family of subspaces $\hat
\gamma:=\{{\rm clos\,} {\cal U}^t\}_{t\geq 0}\subset \hat {\cal R}$ corresponding to the boundary neighbourhoods $\Omega^t[\Gamma]$ (see (\[Holmgren1\])) and construct the family $\hat \sigma[\hat
\gamma]$
[**Step 2**]{}Construct $\hat\sigma^2[\hat\gamma]\,:=\,
\hat\sigma[\hat\sigma[\hat\gamma]]$
[**Step 3**]{}Construct $\hat\sigma^3[\hat\gamma]\,:=\,
\hat\sigma[\hat\sigma[\hat\sigma[\hat\gamma]]]$
………
[**Final Step**]{} Constitute the family $$\hat\alpha_\Gamma\,:=\,\bigcup \limits_{j=1}^\infty \hat\sigma^j[\hat\gamma]$$ that is the end product of the Procedure $\hat 1$. As is easy to see, the constructed family consists of regular subspaces: $\hat
\alpha_\Gamma \subset \hat {\cal R}$.
The evident duality of the Procedures $1$ and $\hat 1$, which is intentionally emphasized by the notation, easily leads to the bijection $$\label{bijection} {\cal R} \supset \alpha_\Gamma \ni
A\,\,\longleftrightarrow\,\,{\cal H} A \in \hat \alpha_\Gamma \subset
\hat {\cal R}\,.$$
[**II.Eikonals**]{} Recall that for a linear set ${\cal A}
\subset {\cal H}$, by $P_{\cal A}$ we denote the projection in ${\cal H}$ onto ${\rm clos\,} {\cal A}$.
By the bijection (\[bijection\]), each projection $P_{\cal A}$ with ${\cal A} \in \hat \alpha_\Gamma$ is of the form $P_{\cal
A}=P_{{\cal H} A}$ with $A \in \alpha_\Gamma$. Hence, as an operator in ${\cal H} = L_2(\Omega)$, $P_{\cal A}$ multiplies functions by the indicator $\chi_A (\,\cdot\,)$ of the set $A$ (cuts off functions on $A$), what we write as $P_{\cal A}=\chi_A$. By (\[Holmgren2\]), the projection $P^t_{\cal A}=E^tP_{\cal A}$ cuts off functions on $\Omega^t[A]$, i.e., $P^t_{\cal
A}=\chi_{\Omega^t[A]}$. As result, the operator $$\tau_{P_{\cal A}}\,=\,\int_{0}^\infty t\,dP^t_{\cal A}\,=\,\int_{0}^\infty
t\,d\chi_{\Omega^t[A]}$$ multiplies functions by the distant function: $$\label{tau=d_A}\left(\tau_{P_{\cal A}}
y\right)(x)\,=\,d_A(x)\,y(x)\,, \qquad x \in
\Omega\,.$$
Let ${\mathfrak L}_\infty(\Omega)$ be the algebra of $L_\infty$-multipliers, which is a von Neumann subalgebra of ${\mathfrak B}({\cal H})$. By ${\mathfrak C}_\Gamma(\Omega)$ and ${\mathfrak C}(\Omega)$ we denote the subalgebras of $C_\Gamma(\Omega)$- and $C(\Omega)$- multipliers respectively, both of them being closed w.r.t. the operator norm; so, we have ${\mathfrak C}_\Gamma(\Omega) \subset {\mathfrak C}(\Omega)
\subset{\mathfrak L}_\infty(\Omega) \subset{\mathfrak B}({\cal
H})$. These subalgebras are commutative; also, as is well known, ${\mathfrak C}(\Omega)$ is weakly dense in ${\mathfrak
L}_\infty(\Omega)$ [@Mur]. Recall that ${\mathfrak N}_{L_0}$ is defined in sec 1.3, whereas $L_0$ which we are dealing with, is the minimal Laplacian on $\Omega$.
\[NL\_0=L\_infty\] If the manifold $\Omega$ is simple then one has ${\mathfrak
N}_{L_0}={\mathfrak L}_\infty(\Omega)$.
[**Proof**]{} (sketch) By construction of $\hat
\alpha_\Gamma$, all projections $P_{\cal A}$ with ${\cal A} \in \hat
\alpha_\Gamma$ belong to the algebra ${\mathfrak N}_{L_0}$. Whence, the eikonals of the form (\[tau=d\_A\]) belong to ${\mathfrak N}_{L_0}$, so that the embedding ${\mathfrak C}_\Gamma(\Omega) \subset
{\mathfrak N}_{L_0}$ occurs.
By simplicity of $\Omega$, one has ${\mathfrak
C}_\Gamma(\Omega)={\mathfrak C}(\Omega)$, what is just a form of writing the assertion of Lemma \[CGamma=COmega\]. So, we have ${\mathfrak C}(\Omega) \subset {\mathfrak N}_{L_0}$. The latter, by the above mentioned w-closeness of ${\mathfrak C}(\Omega)$ in ${\mathfrak L}_\infty(\Omega)$, implies ${\mathfrak
L}_\infty(\Omega)\subset {\mathfrak N}_{L_0}$.
All projections belonging to ${\mathfrak L}_\infty(\Omega)$ are of the form $P=\chi_A$ with a Borel $A$ [@Mur]. Using the relevant generalization of the relation (\[Holmgren2\]) on Borel positive volume sets, one can show that the algebra ${\mathfrak
L}_\infty(\Omega)$ is invariant w.r.t. the extension $E_L$. Since ${\mathfrak N}_{L_0}$ is a minimal $E_L$-invariant algebra, the embedding ${\mathfrak L}_\infty(\Omega)\subset {\mathfrak N}_{L_0}$ yields ${\mathfrak L}_\infty(\Omega)= {\mathfrak N}_{L_0}$. $\square$
The set of eikonals ${\rm Eik\,}{\mathfrak N}_{L_0}$ consists of the operators of the form (\[tau=d\_A\]) with the Borel $A$’s.
[**III.Wave spectrum**]{}We omit the proof of the following simple fact: the eikonal $\tau_{P_{\cal A}} =d_A$ is maximal iff $A$ is a single point set, i.e., $A=\{x_0\}$ for a $x_0 \in
\Omega$. Such an eikonal is denoted by $\tau_{x_0}$, so that we have $$\Omega_{L_0}\,=\,\{\tau_{x_0}\,|\,\,x_0 \in \Omega\}\,$$ by the definition of a wave spectrum, whereas a map $$i: \,\Omega_{L_0}\, \ni \tau_{x_0} \mapsto x_0 \in\, \Omega$$ is a bijection. Recall that the distance between eikonals $\tau',\tau'' \in \Omega_{L_0}$ is $\|\tau'-\tau''\|$ and show that $i$ is an isometry.
Take $x',x'' \in \Omega$; the corresponding eikonals $\tau_{x'},
\tau_{x''} \in \Omega_{L_0}$ multiply functions by $d_{x'}$ and $
d_{x''}$ respectively. For any $x \in \Omega$, by the triangular inequality one has $|d_{x'}(x) - d_{x''}(x)| \leq {\rm dist\,} (x',
x'')$; hence for $y \in {\cal H}=L_2(\Omega)$ one easily has $\|\left[\tau_{x'} - \tau_{x''}\right] y\| \leq {\rm dist\,} (x',
x'')\|y\|$ that implies $$\label{||tau'-tau''||<}
\|\tau_{x'} - \tau_{x''}\| \leq {\rm dist\,} (x', x'')\,.$$ Choose $\omega_j \subset \Omega$ such that $\omega_1 \supset
\omega_2 \supset \dots\,, \, {\rm diam\,} \omega_j \to 0$, and $x'
= \cap_{j \geq 1}\, \omega_j$; then put $y_j=\|\chi_j\|^{-1}\chi_j$, where $\chi_j$ is the indicator of $\omega_j$. As is easy to see, $\|\tau_{x'} y_j\| \to 0$ and $\|\tau_{x''} y_j\| \to {\rm dist\,} (x', x'')$ holds as $j \to \infty$ that implies $$\label{||tau'-tau''||to dist}
\|\left[\tau_{x'} - \tau_{x''}\right] y_j\| \to {\rm dist\,} (x', x'')\,,
\qquad \|y_j\|=1.$$ Comparing (\[||tau’-tau”||<\]) with (\[||tau’-tau”||to dist\]), we arrive at $\|\tau_{x'} - \tau_{x''}\|= {\rm dist\,} (x', x'')$ and conclude that the map $\tau_{x_0} \mapsto x_0$ is an isometry.
Recall that the boundary of the wave spectrum is introduced in sec 1.3 by (\[boundary eikonal\]) and (\[boundary of spectrum\]). In our case, in accordance with (\[Holmgren1\]) the projections $P_{{\cal U}^t}$ cut off functions on the near-boundary subdomains $\Omega^t[\Gamma]$ and, correspondingly, the boundary eikonal $\tau^\partial=\int_0^\infty t\,d P_{{\cal U}^t}$ multiplies functions by $d_\Gamma:={\rm dist\,} (\,\cdot\,, \Gamma)$. As is evident, the the relation $d_{x_0} \geq d_\Gamma$ holds in $\Omega$ iff $x_0 \in
\Gamma$. Equivalently, the eikonal $\tau_{x_0} \in \Omega_{L_0}$ satisfies $\tau_{x_0}\geq \tau^\partial$ iff $x_0 \in \Gamma$. This means that the isometry $i$ maps the boundary $\partial
\Omega_{L_0}$ of the wave spectrum onto the boundary $\Gamma$ of the manifold.
Theorem 1 is proved. $\square$
Regarding non-simple manifolds, note the following. If the symmetry group of $\Omega$ is nontrivial then, presumably, $\Omega_{L_0}$ is isometric to the properly metricized set of the group orbits. Such a conjecture is supported by the following easily verifiable examples:
- for a ball $\Omega=\{x \in {\mathbb R}^n\,|\,\,|x| \leq
r\}$, the spectrum $\Omega_{L_0}$ is isometric to the segment $[0,r] \subset \mathbb R$, whereas its boundary $\partial
\Omega_{L_0}$ is identical to the endpoint $\{0\}$
- for an ellipses $\Omega=\{(x, y)\in {\mathbb R}^2\,|\,\,\frac{x^2}{a^2} +
\frac{y^2}{b^2} \leq 1\}$, $\Omega_{L_0}$ is isometric to its quarter $\Omega \cap \{(x, y)\,|\,\,x \geq 0,\, y \geq 0 \}$, whereas $\partial \Omega_{L_0}\overset{\rm isom}=\{(x,
y)\,|\,\,\frac{x^2}{a^2} + \frac{y^2}{b^2} =1,\,\,x \geq 0,\, y
\geq 0 \}$
- let $\omega$ be a compact plane domain with the smooth boundary, which lies in the (open) upper half-plane ${\mathbb R}_+^2$; let $\Omega$ be a torus in ${\mathbb R}^3$, which appears as result of rotation of $\omega$ around the $x$-axis. Then $\Omega_{L_0}\overset{\rm isom}=\omega$ and $\partial \Omega_{L_0} \overset{\rm isom}=\partial \omega$.
Actually, possible lack of simplicity is not an obstacle for solving the problems IP 1–3 because their data determine not only a copy of $L_0$ but substantial additional information relevant to the reconstruction of $\Omega$. Roughly speaking, the matter is as follows. When we deal with each of these problems, the boundary $\Gamma$ is given. By this, instead of the algebra ${\mathfrak N}[E_L,a]=
{\mathfrak N}_{L_0}$ generated by the family $a=\{{\rm clos\,} {\cal U}^t\}_{t \geq 0}$ of the sets reachable from [*the whole*]{} $\Gamma$ (see (\[reachable\_sets\_U\]) and (\[u\^f=h-int\])) we can invoke the wider algebra ${\mathfrak N}[E_L,a'] \supset {\mathfrak N}[E_L,a]$ generated by the much richer family $a'=\{{\rm clos\,} {\cal U}^t_\sigma\}_{t \geq 0, \,\sigma
\subset \Gamma} \supset a$ of the sets reachable from [*any patch*]{} $\sigma \subset \Gamma$ of positive measure [^12]. As result, although the equality ${\mathfrak N}_{L_0}={\frak
L}_\infty(\Omega)$ may be violated by symmetries, the equality ${\mathfrak N}[E_L,a']={\frak L}_\infty(\Omega)$ always holds, whereas the wave spectrum $\Omega_{{\mathfrak N}[E_L, a']}$ turns out to be isometric to $\Omega$. The latter is the key fact, which makes the reconstruction possible: see [@BSobolev] for detail.
Comments and remarks
--------------------
[**A look at isospectrality**]{} As at the end of sec 2.3, let ${\rm spec}\,L=\{\lambda_k\}_{k=1}^\infty$ be the spectrum of the Dirichlet Laplacian on $\Omega$. The question: “Does ${\rm
spec}\,L$ determine $\Omega$ up to isometry?” is a version of the classical M.Kac’s drum problem [@Kac]. The negative answer is well known (see, e.g., [@BCDS_isosp_dom]) but, as far as we know, the satisfactory description of the set of isospectral manifolds is not obtained yet. The following is some observations in concern with such a description.
Assume that we deal with a simple $\Omega$. In accordance with Theorem 1, such a manifold is determined by any unitary copy $\widetilde L_0$ of the operator $L_0 \subset L$. If the spectrum of $L$ is given, to get such a copy it suffices to possess the Fourier image $\widetilde {\cal D} =U{\cal D}$ of the harmonic subspace in $\widetilde {\cal H} = \emph{l}_2$: see (\[tildeL0\]) [^13]. In the mean time, as is evident, if $\Omega$ and $\Omega'$ are isometric, then the corresponding images are identical: $\widetilde {\cal D}=\widetilde {\cal D}'$. Therefore, $\Omega$ and $\Omega'$ are isospectral but not isometric iff $\widetilde {\cal D}\not=\widetilde {\cal D}'$. In other words, the subspace $\widetilde {\cal D}$ is a relevant “index” that differs the isospectral manifolds.
To be a candidate on the role of the harmonic functions image, which is admissible for the given $\widetilde L={\rm
diag\,}\{\lambda_1, \lambda_2, \,\dots\}$ (see (\[diag\_L\])), a subspace $\widetilde {\cal D} \subset \emph{l}_2$ has to possess the following properties:
1. a lineal set ${\cal L}_{\widetilde {\cal D}} :={\widetilde
L}^{-1}\left[\emph{l}_2 \ominus \widetilde {\cal D}\right]$ is dense in $\emph{l}_2$ (see (\[tildeL0\])), whereas replacement of $\widetilde {\cal D}$ by any wider subspace ${\widetilde{\cal
D}}^\prime \supset \widetilde {\cal D}$ leads to the lack of density: ${\rm clos\,} {\cal L}_{\widetilde {\cal
D}^\prime}\not=\emph{l}_{2}$
2. extending an operator $\widetilde L|_{{\cal L}_{\widetilde {\cal D}}}$ by Friedrichs, one gets $\widetilde L$ (see (\[tildeL0\])).
In the mean time, taking [*any*]{} subspace $\widetilde {\cal D}
\subset \emph{l}_2$ provided 1 and 2 [^14], one can construct a symmetric operator $\widetilde L_0$ by (\[tildeL0\]) and then find its wave spectrum $\Omega_{\widetilde L_0}$ as a candidate to be a drum. However, the open question is whether such a “drum” is human (is a manifold).
[**Model**]{}Once again, let $\Omega$ be simple. By Lemma \[NL\_0=L\_infty\], the algebra ${\mathfrak N}_{L_0}$ is [*cyclic*]{}, i.e., possesses the elements $g \in {\cal
H}=L_2(\Omega)$ such that $${\rm clos\,} \left\{Pg\,|\,\,P \in {\rm
Proj\,}{\mathfrak N}_{L_0}\right\}\,=\,{\cal H}\,.$$ This enables one to realize elements of ${\cal H}$ as functions on the wave spectrum of ${\mathfrak N}_{L_0}$ by the following scheme:
- Fix a cyclic $g \in {\cal H}$ and endow $\Omega_{L_0}$ with a measure $\mu$ as follows. For a maximal eikonal $\tau=\int_0^\infty t\,dP^t_\tau \in \Omega_{L_0}$ and a ball $B_r[\tau]:=\{\tau' \in
\Omega_{L_0}\,|\,\,\|\tau'-\tau\|<r\}$ put $$\label{measure mu def}
\mu\left(B_r[\tau]\right):=\left(P_\tau^r g, g\right)_{\cal H}$$ and then extend $\mu$ to the Borel subsets of $\Omega_{L_0}$. As is easy to check, the equality $$\label{measure mu representation}
\mu\left(B_r[\tau]\right)=\int_{\Omega^r[x]}|g|^2\,\,d\,\rm vol$$ holds, where $\tau$ and $x$ are related through the isometry $i:\Omega_{L_0} \to \Omega$ established by Theorem \[Theorem\_1\]: $x=i(\tau)$.
So, we have a [*model space*]{} ${\cal H}_{\rm mod}:=L_{2,\,
\mu}(\Omega_{L_0})$.
- For a $y \in {\cal H}$, define its image $I y \in {\cal H}_{\rm mod}$ by $$\label{Image def}
\left(I y\right)(\tau):=\underset{r \to 0} \lim\,
\frac{\left(P_\tau^r y, g\right)_{\cal H}}{\left(P_\tau^r g,
g\right)_{\cal H}}\,.$$ The relations (\[measure mu def\]) and (\[measure mu representation\]) easily imply $$\label{Image vis integrals}
\left(I y\right)(\tau)=\underset{r \to 0} \lim\,
\frac{\int_{\Omega^r[x]} y\,\bar g\,\,d\,\rm
vol}{\int_{\Omega^r[x]} |g|^2\,\,d\,\rm
vol}\,=\,\left(g^{-1}y\right)(x)\,$$ and, hence, the image map $I$ is a unitary operator from ${\cal
H}$ onto ${\cal H}_{\rm mod}$.
An operator $$L^{\rm
mod}_0:=I L_0 I^*$$ can be regarded as a functional model of the operator $L_0$ on its wave spectrum that we call a [*wave model*]{}. In the case under consideration, we have $L^{\rm
mod}_0=g^{-1}L_0 g$, i.e., this model is just a gauge transform of the original. As such, it is a [*local*]{} operator: $$\label{locality}
{\rm supp\,} L^{\rm mod}_0 w \subset {\rm supp\,} w$$ holds for $w \in {\rm Dom\,} L^{\rm mod}_0$.
[**Conjectures**]{}
[**1.**]{}We suggest and hope that ${\cal H}_{\rm mod}$ and $L^{\rm mod}_0$ do exist for a wide class of symmetric semi-bounded operators $L_0$, the locality property (\[locality\]) being held. In contrast to the known models (see, e.g., [@Shtraus]), this one has good chances to be of the real use for applications.
The principal point (and difficulty) is to attach the invariant meaning to the limit (\[Image def\]). Presumably, it can be done in the framework of the representation $$\label{N=integral N}
{\mathfrak N}_{L_0}\,=\,\oplus \int_{\Omega_{L_0}}{{\mathfrak N}}_\tau\,d\mu(\tau)$$ in the form of a 1-st kind von Neumann algebra. Such a representation diagonalizes ${\mathfrak N}_{L_0}$ and is expected to be valid for $L_0$’s coming from mathematical physics. As an encouraging example, the Maxwell system in electrodynamics can be mentioned: see [@BIP07]. Note that Maxwell’s ${\mathfrak
N}_{L_0}$ is noncommutative.
[**2.**]{}A question of independent interest is whether any von Neumann algebra with space extension (in particular, ${\mathfrak N}_{L_0}$) is of the form (\[N=integral N\]). Also, in addition to the metric $\|\tau-\tau'\|$, it is reasonable to look for more subtle structures on $\Omega_{L_0}$ like tangent spaces, differentiable structure, etc.
[**3.**]{}One more attractive option is to construct a [*wave model*]{} of the abstract Green system satisfying Ryzhov’s axiomatics, by the scheme $$\{ {\cal H},{\cal G};
A,\Gamma_0, \Gamma_1\} \Longrightarrow L_0 \Longrightarrow
\Omega_{L_0} \Longrightarrow \{ {\cal H}_{\rm mod}, {\cal G};
A^{\rm mod},\Gamma_0^{\rm mod}, \Gamma_1^{\rm mod}\}$$ with ${\cal
H}_{\rm mod}=\oplus \int_{\Omega_{L_0}}{\cal H}_\tau\,d \mu(\tau)$ and a [*local*]{} $ A^{\rm mod}$. An intriguing point is that the boundary $\partial \Omega_{L_0}$ is well defined, so that there is a chance to realize $\Gamma_{0, 1}^{\rm mod}$ as the “true” trace operators. Such a model would provide a canonical realization of the original system, the realization being determined by its Weyl function $M$ and, hence, relevant to inverse problems.
[**Unbounded case**]{}Return to the sec 1.1. If the assumption (\[C<infty\]) is cancelled, the set ${\rm
Eik\,}\mathfrak N [E,a]$ is still well defined but unbounded. In particular, the case that [*all*]{} eikonals $\tau=\int_0^\infty
t\,dP^t$ are unbounded operators is realized in applications: for instance, it holds if we deal with a noncompact simple manifold $\Omega$. As result, even though in the mentioned example the relevant maximal eikonals do exist, in the general situation we have to correct the definition of the wave spectrum $\Omega_{\mathfrak N [E,a]}$. A possible way out is to deal with the [*regularized*]{} eikonals $\tau=\int_0^\infty
\frac{t}{1+\alpha t}\,dP^t$ with a fixed $\alpha>0$ and thus reduce the situation to the bounded case.
[**A bit of philosophy**]{}In applications, the external observer pursues the goal to recover a manifold $\Omega$ via measurements at the boundary $\Gamma$. The observer prospects $\Omega$ with waves $u^f$ produced by boundary controls. These waves propagate into the manifold, interact with its inner structure and accumulate information about the latter. The result of interaction is also recorded at $\Gamma$. The observer has to extract the information from the recorded.
By the rule of game in IPs, the manifold itself is unreachable in principle. Therefore, the only thing the observer can hope for, is to construct from the measurements an [*image*]{} of $\Omega$ possibly resembling the original. By the same rule, the only admissible material for constructing is the waves $u^f$.
To be properly formalized, such a look at the problem needs two things:
- an object that codes exhausting information about $\Omega$ and, in the mean time, is determined by the measurements
- a mechanism that decodes this information.
Resuming our paper, the first is the minimal Laplacian $L_0$, whereas to decode information is to determine its wave spectrum constructed from the waves $u^f$. It is $\Omega_{L_0}$, which is a relevant image of $\Omega$.
The current paper develops an algebraic trend in the BC-method [@BSobolev], by which [*to solve IPs is to find spectra of relevant algebras*]{}. An attempt to use this philosophy for solving new problems would be quite reasonable. An encouraging fact is that in all above-mentioned unsolved IPs of anisotropic elasticity and electrodynamics, graphs with cycles, etc, the wave spectrum $\Omega_{L_0}$ does exist. However, to recognize how it looks like and verify (if true!) that $\Omega_{L_0} \overset{\rm isom}=
\Omega$ is difficult in view of very complicated structure of the corresponding reachable sets ${\cal U}^t$.
[13]{}
M.I.Belishev. , 173: 30–41, 1988 (in Russian); English translation: J. Sov. Math., v. 55 , no 3, 1991 .
M.I.Belishev. , 13(5): R1–R45, 1997.
M.I.Belishev. , 17 (2001), 659–682.
M.I.Belishev. , 23 (2007), no 5, R1–R67.
M.I.Belishev. , Springer, 2008, 5–24.
M.S.Birman, M.Z.Solomyak. , 1987.
P.Buser, J.Conway, P.Doyle, K-D.Semmler. , 1994, No 9, 391–400.
H.Federer. , vol. 93, 1959, 418-491.
M.Kac. , 73 (1966), 1–23.
A.N.Kotchubei. . , 17(1):41–48, 1975 (in Russian).
G.J.Murphy. , 1990.
V.Ryzhov. , 27 (2007), no. 2, 305–331.
A.V.Shtraus. , 10(5): 1–76, 1998.
[^1]: Saint-Petersburg Department of the Steklov Mathematical Institute (POMI), 27 Fontanka, St. Petersburg 191023, Russia; [email protected]. Supported by RFBR grants 08-01-00511 and NSh-4210.2010.1.
[^2]: Roughly speaking, the simplicity means that the symmetry group of $\Omega$ is trivial.
[^3]: In the BC-method, such an option is interpreted as [*visualization of waves*]{} [@BIP07].
[^4]: i.e., a unital weekly closed self-adjoint subalgebra of $\mathfrak B
({\cal H})$: see [@Mur]
[^5]: the term is taken from the motivating applications
[^6]: The meaning of this definition and term is clarified later on, when we deal with systems with boundary control in sec 2.2
[^7]: However, there are examples in applications, in which $\Omega_{L_0}$ consists of a single point.
[^8]: $H^k(\,\dots\,)$ are the Sobolev classes; $H^2_0(\Omega)=\{y \in H^2(\Omega)\,|\,y=|\nabla y|=0\,\, {\rm
on}\,\Gamma\}$.
[^9]: In concrete applications (acoustics, geophysics, electrodynamics, etc), these data formalize the measurements implemented at the boundary.
[^10]: Presumably, any compact manifold with trivial symmetry group is simple, but it is a conjecture. Note that for noncompact manifolds this is not true.
[^11]: see [@BIP07], sec 2.2.3, eqn (2.21). This property is based upon the fundamental Holmgren-John-Tataru theorem on uniqueness of continuation of solutions to the wave equation (\[0.1Rim\]) through a noncharacteristic surface: see [@BIP97] for detail.
[^12]: ${\cal U}^t_\sigma$ consists of the solutions (waves) $u^f(t)$ produced by the boundary controls $f$ supported on $\sigma \times
[0, \infty)$
[^13]: It is the fact, which is exploited in [@BKac89]
[^14]: such subspaces do exist (M.M.Faddeev, private communication)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this article, I summarize and discuss the body of evidence which has accumulated in favor of dark matter in the form of approximately 10 GeV particles. This evidence includes the spectrum and angular distribution of gamma rays from the Galactic Center, the synchrotron emission from the Milky Way’s radio filaments, the diffuse synchrotron emission from the Inner Galaxy (the “WMAP Haze”) and low-energy signals from the direct detection experiments DAMA/LIBRA, CoGeNT and CRESST-II. This collection of observations can be explained by a relatively light dark matter particle with an annihilation cross section consistent with that predicted for a simple thermal relic ($\sigma v \sim 10^{-26}$ cm$^3$/s) and with a distribution in the halo of the Milky Way consistent with that predicted from simulations. Astrophysical explanations for the gamma ray and synchrotron signals, in contrast, have not been successful in accommodating these observations. Similarly, the phase of the annual modulation observed by DAMA/LIBRA (and now supported by CoGeNT) is inconsistent with all known or postulated modulating backgrounds, but are in good agreement with expectations for dark matter scattering. This scenario is consistent with all existing indirect and collider constraints, as well as the constraints placed by CDMS. Consistency with xenon-based experiments can be achieved if the response of liquid xenon to very low-energy nuclear recoils is somewhat suppressed relative to previous evaluations, or if the dark matter possesses different couplings to protons and neutrons.'
author:
- Dan Hooper
title: The Empirical Case For 10 GeV Dark Matter
---
Introduction
============
Several independent lines of observational evidence support the conclusion that the majority of the matter in our universe consists of cold dark matter, rather than baryons or other known particle species [@hep-ph/0404175; @bullet]. These observations, however, reveal little about the nature of the dark matter itself. An enormous variety of dark matter candidates have been proposed, ranging in mass from $\sim$$10^{-6}$ eV axions to superheavy ([*i.e.*]{} GUT or Planck scale) particles. From among this vast landscape of dark matter candidates, the class known as weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) are among the most strongly motivated. The hierarchy problem requires new physics to appear at or around the electroweak scale, but in order to be consistent with the stringent constraints of electroweak precision measurements, the interactions of those particles must be limited, such as by a symmetry or parity which in many cases leads to the stability of one or more state. A stable particle with a weak-scale mass, $X$, will be produced and freeze-out in the early universe with a thermal relic density given by $\Omega_{X} h^2 \approx 0.1 \times [\sigma v/(3\times 10^{-26} \, {\rm cm}^3/{\rm s})]^{-1}$, where $\sigma v$ is the self-annihilation cross section of the particle, evaluated at the time of freeze-out. As $\sigma v\sim 3\times 10^{-26}$ cm$^3$/s is similar to the value estimated for a generic weak-scale interaction, we conclude that a GeV-TeV scale stable particle with a roughly weak-scale annihilation cross section will naturally be produced in the early universe with an abundance similar to the observed density of dark matter. This argument, sometimes referred to as the “WIMP Miracle”, applies equally well to particles with 1-20 GeV masses as to those with masses more traditionally associated with supersymmetric neutralino dark matter ($m_{\chi}\sim 40-1000$ GeV). It is not at all difficult to construct a viable particile physics model which includes a $\sim$10 GeV WIMP that is produced in the early universe with an abundance equal to the observed density of dark matter.
If the dark matter consists of WIMPs, these particles could potentially be observed through a variety of techniques. Direct detection experiments attempt to observe the recoil from the elastic scattering of dark matter particles interacting with nuclei in a detector. Indirect detection experiments are designed to observe and identify the annihilation products of WIMPs, such as gamma-rays, neutrinos, cosmic rays, and emission at radio/microwave wavelengths. Alternatively, one could potentially produce and observe dark matter particles in collider experiments, such as at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). While each of these approaches have their advantages and disadvantages, it is interesting to note that all three of these strategies for detecting dark matter particles have reached or are about to reach the level of sensitivity that has long anticipated to be required to observe most postulated varieties of WIMPs.
Over the past several years, a number of observational signals have been reported which can be interpreted as interactions of dark matter particles. While anomalous or otherwise difficult to explain astrophysical signals are often interpreted as possible products of dark matter annihilations (for example, Refs. [@astro-ph/0309686; @hep-ph/0309029; @astro-ph/0405235; @arXiv:0810.4995; @803110; @Dobler:2011mk]), these anomalies are in most cases ultimately found to have non-exotic origins, whether astrophysical or instrumental. In order for the scientific community to become convinced that a given signal or collection of signals does in fact arise from dark matter particles, those observations will have to be favorably compared to the predictions of the dark matter hypothesis in several different ways. Ideally, the set of observations will overconstrain the problem in such a way that conclusions can be made which are largely independent of astrophysical uncertainties and choices in the particle dark matter model.
In this article, I will attempt to make the case that these stringent criteria required to convincingly identify dark matter interactions are largely satisfied by the body of evidence that has accumulated in favor of $\sim$10 GeV dark matter particles. These data include the spectral and morphological distribution of gamma-rays from the Galactic Center [@hooperlinden; @HG2], the synchrotron emission from the Inner Galaxy [@timhaze; @darkhaze; @darkhaze1], the synchrotron emission from radio filaments in the Inner Galaxy [@filaments], and signals from three direct detection experiments, DAMA/LIBRA [@damanew], CoGeNT [@Aalseth:2011wp; @Aalseth:2010vx], and CRESST-II [@Angloher:2011uu]. As I will describe in more detail later this in this article, the gamma-ray signal observed from the Galactic Center is consistent with 7-12 GeV dark matter particles annihilating mostly to leptons with an annihilation cross section consistent with that of a thermal relic (as motivated by the “WIMP Miracle”, $\sigma v\sim 3 \times 10^{-26}$ cm$^3$/s), and with a distribution in good agreement with the results of hydrodynamical simulations ($\rho_{\rm DM}\propto r^{-1.3}$, where $r$ is the distance to the Galactic Center). No viable astrophysical explanations for this emission are known (see Ref. [@hooperlinden] for a discussion). Using this choice for the dark matter mass, annihilation cross section, annihilation channels, and spatial distribution, one can predict the spectrum, intensity, and angular distribution of synchrotron emission resulting from electron and positron dark matter annihilation products in the Inner Galaxy and compare this to that observed by WMAP (the “WMAP Haze”) and from the Milky Way’s radio filaments. In each of these cases, there is good agreement between these observations and the predictions of the gamma-ray motivated dark matter model. This scenario is further supported by the observations reported by the DAMA/LIBRA [@damanew], CoGeNT [@Aalseth:2011wp; @Aalseth:2010vx], and CRESST [@Angloher:2011uu] collaborations, which each report signals consistent with a dark matter particle of similar mass. These three experiments make use of different technologies, target materials, and detection strategies, but each report results which are not compatible with known backgrounds, but that can be accommodated by a dark matter particle with a $\sim$10 GeV mass and an elastic scattering cross section with nuclei of approximately a few times $10^{-41}$ cm$^2$ [@arXiv:1110.5338].
These six distinct observations (of the Fermi Galactic Center, the Milky Way radio filaments, the WMAP Haze, and signals from DAMA/LIBRA, CoGeNT and CRESST-II) provide a collection of evidence for $\sim$10 GeV dark matter particles with 1) is unable to be explained by proposed or known backgrounds, 2) overconstrains the properties of the underlying dark matter model, and 3) is consistent with theoretical expectations. By overconstraining the model, I mean that multiple observations require the same distribution, mass, and cross sections for dark matter. For example, one could not interpret the spectra of the Milky Way’s radio filaments as signals of dark matter annihilations if the WMAP Haze was not also observed – the annihilation rate and channels required to power the radio filaments requires a Haze-like signal to also be present. Similarly, if the radial profile of the WMAP Haze or the collection of radio filaments had a much shallower or steeper distribution, it would not be easily reconciled with the dark matter profile implied by the gamma ray observations of the Galactic Center. Furthermore, if CoGeNT had seen no evidence of annual modulation in their event rate, it would be very difficult to interpret DAMA/LIBRA’s modulation as dark matter, and vice versa. By consistent with theoretical expectations, I mean that the dark matter particle required to explain these observations possesses an annihilation cross section consistent with a simple thermal relic, and does not require any unexpected or baroque features (such as large boost factors, non-standard dark matter distributions, or non-minimal particle physics features such as Sommerfeld enhancements or inelastic scattering).
The primary purpose of this article is to summarize in a self-consistent way these observations and their implications for dark matter. Much of the material described here has been presented previously elsewhere, and the reader is encouraged to follow the references (in particular Refs. [@hooperlinden; @filaments; @timhaze; @arXiv:1110.5338; @Buckley:2010ve]) to find many of the details that have been omitted here.
The remainder of the article is structured as follows. In Sec. \[indirect\], I discuss the gamma-ray signal from the Galactic Center as observed by the Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope, as well as the synchrotron signals observed from the Milky Way’s radio filaments, and from the Inner Galaxy by WMAP. In Sec. \[direct\], I discuss the direct detection signals reported by DAMA/LIBRA, CoGeNT, and CRESST-II. In Sec. \[particle\], I discuss the particle physics implications of these observations and explore some of features of models that contain a dark matter candidate capable of producing these signals. Finally, in Sec. \[summary\], I summarize these results and draw conclusions.
Evidence From Indirect Detection {#indirect}
================================
Expectations and Predictions
----------------------------
### General Comments
Before discussing any specific observations, I will begin by asking the question, “What would a 10 GeV annihilating dark matter particle look like to indirect detection experiments?” Although the answer to this question depends to a degree on the detailed properties of the dark matter particle being considered, a few very general and model-independent statements can be made. One the one hand, as the total dark matter annihilation rate is proportional to $1/m^2_{\rm DM}$, dark matter particles with relatively light masses are expected to produce significantly brighter annihilation signals than are predicted from heavier particles. On the other hand, many indirect detection experiments have energy thresholds which make them insensitive to the annihilation products of low mass dark matter particles. Large volume neutrino telescopes such as IceCube (DeepCore), for example, are sensitive only to neutrinos above $\sim$50-100 GeV ($\sim$10 GeV). For light dark matter particles, we are thus forced to rely on much smaller neutrino detectors with lower energy thresholds, such as Super-Kamiokande. Similarly, ground-based gamma-ray telescopes such as HESS, VERITAS and MAGIC are almost entirely blind to gamma-rays below $\sim$50-100 GeV. Furthermore, the spectrum of $\sim$1-10 GeV cosmic rays is significantly impacted by the effects of the solar winds, diffusive reacceleration, convection, and other astrophysical phenomena which make them more difficult to model and interpret than their higher energy counterparts.
So while many indirect detection experiments are not sensitive to relatively light dark matter particles, those which are able to detect low-energy annihilation products are likely to observe quite large fluxes of such products. Particularly promising strategies for identifying such light dark matter particles are those being employed by the Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope (FGST) and various radio and microwave telescopes. For $\sim$10 GeV dark matter particles with an annihilation cross sections on the order of $\sigma v\sim 3\times 10^{-26}$ cm$^3$/s, these experiments are generally predicted to observe quite bright and likely observable signals.
### The Annihilation Rate in the Inner Galaxy
The annihilation rate of dark matter at a given location in space depends on both the annihilation cross section of the particle and on the square of its number density. And while we do not know precisely how the dark matter is distributed or with what cross section it annihilates, we do possess information which enables us to make reasonable and informed estimates of these quantities.
As stated in the introduction, the dark matter annihilation cross section is related to its thermal relic abundance. In particular, a stable particle with a mass in the GeV to TeV range will be produced thermally in the early universe with a density equal to the measured dark matter abundance if it self-annihilates with a cross section of $\sigma v\approx 3\times 10^{-26}$ cm$^3$/s [@kolbturner]. For a GeV-TeV thermal relic, this can be thought of as an approximate upper limit on the annihilation cross section today (unless very light force carriers lead to Sommerfeld enhancements [@sommerfeld]). It is possible that the annihilation cross section today could be lower than this value if velocity-dependent terms in the annihilation cross section contribute significantly to the process of thermal freeze-out, but do not contribute significantly to the current annihilation rate. Coannihilations between the dark matter and another state could also play an important role in freeze out [@threeexceptions], although for the light mass range being considered here, this is unlikely to be the case. Taken together, the relic abundance calculation leads us to expect the dark matter to annihilate with a cross section as large as, and likely not very much smaller than, $\sigma v \sim 3\times 10^{-26}$ cm$^3$/s.
Our knowledge of the distribution of dark matter in the Milky Way is based on a combination of observational constraints and numerical simulations. Observations of the Milky Way’s rotation curve and its gravitational microlensing optical depth are best fit by a cusped dark matter distribution, $\rho_{\rm DM} \propto r^{-1.3}$, although with large uncertainties [@bertonehalo]. And while numerical simulations which model the evolution of cold dark matter without baryons tend to find halos with inner profiles of approximately $\rho_{\rm DM} \propto r^{-1}$ [@nfw; @vialactea; @aquarius], hydrodynamical simulations which include the baryonic processes involved in galaxy formation have begun to converge in favor of Milky Way-like halos being significantly contracted [@ac], leading to a steepening of their inner profiles from $\rho_{\rm DM} \propto r^{-1}$ to slopes typically in the range of $\rho_{\rm DM} \propto r^{-1.2}$ to $r^{-1.5}$ (see Ref. [@Gnedin:2011uj] and references therein).
The highest annihilation rates occur in the high density central regions of dark matter halos. The center of the Milky Way, in particular, has long been recognized as the single most promising target of indirect detection efforts [@gc]. 10 GeV dark matter particles annihilating with a cross section of $\sigma v = 3\times 10^{-26}$ cm$^3$/s and distributed as $\rho_{\rm DM} \propto r^{-1.3}$ release energy in annihilation products at a rate of $\sim 2 \times 10^{40}$ GeV/s within the innermost 150 parsecs around the Galactic Center (corresponding to approximately the innermost $1^{\circ}$). As we will see in the remainder of this section, this power is comparable to that observed in gamma-rays from the Galactic Center by Fermi. This annihilation rate is also in good agreement with that required to power the observed synchrotron emission from the Milky Way’s radio filaments and the synchrotron emission from the inner galaxy known as the “WMAP Haze”.
{width="2.45in"} {width="2.2in"}\
{width="2.45in"} {width="2.2in"}\
{width="2.45in"} {width="2.2in"}\
{width="2.45in"} {width="2.2in"}\
{width="2.45in"} {width="2.2in"}
{width="3.5in"} {width="3.5in"}
Gamma-Rays from the Galactic Center
-----------------------------------
Since its launch in June of 2008, the Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope (FGST) has been producing the most detailed and highest resolution observations to date of the gamma-ray sky between 50 MeV and 100 GeV. In Fig. \[maps\], linearly spaced contour maps of the gamma-ray emission from the region surrounding the Galactic Center are shown, derived from the first three years of Fermi data [@hooperlinden]. In the left frames, raw maps are shown, smoothed at a scale of 0.5 degrees. In the right frames, two types of astrophysical backgrounds have been subtracted: known gamma-ray point sources [@catalog] (shown as blue dots) and gamma-ray emission from the galactic disk. The disk model is based on the observed morphology of the disk at angles beyond $|l|=5^{\circ}$, and agree very well with observations of 21-cm surveys, which trace the density of neutral hydrogen [@gas; @gas2]. Note that the central bright source has not been removed, as its emission is difficult to disentangle from dark matter annihilation products originating from the inner region of a cusped halo profile. See Ref. [@hooperlinden] for more details.
The gamma-ray residuals shown in the right frames of Fig. \[maps\] resemble in both spectrum and morphology the signal one would expect from dark matter annihilations. First of all, the angular distribution of the observed residual is spatially extended and is not consistent with that of a single point source. In Fig. \[spec\], we plot the spectrum of the residual emission as shown in the right frames of Fig. \[maps\]. Also shown as a dashed line in Fig. \[spec\] is the broken power-law spectrum of point-like emission as reported by three independent groups [@HG2; @Boyarsky:2010dr; @aharonian]. Less than half of the residual emission at energies above 300 MeV can be accounted for by a single, centrally-located point source (presumably associated with the Milky Way’s supermassive black hole). Furthermore, the extended component of the emission is strongly peaked at energies between 300 MeV and 10 GeV, and drops suddenly above $\sim$10 GeV. Such a peaked spectrum is consistent with dark matter annihilation products.
To account for this spatially extended component of gamma-rays, we include in Fig. \[spec\] the spectrum from the annihilations of a 10 GeV dark matter particle (dot-dashed) and from a component extrapolated from HESS’s observations of the Galactic Ridge (dots) [@ridge]. The sum of these contributions (solid) provides a good fit to the total observed spectrum, for dark matter which annihilates mostly to leptons (the gamma-ray flux is dominated by annihilations to $\tau^+\tau^-$), possibly with a subdominant fraction proceeding to hadronic final states. To accommodate the angular extent of the observed gamma-ray signal, a dark matter distribution of approximately $\rho_{\rm DM}\propto r^{-1.25}$ to $r^{-1.4}$ is required [@hooperlinden]. Interestingly, the annihilation cross section required to normalize the gamma-ray signal is not far from the value predicted for a simple thermal relic ($\sigma v = 3\times 10^{-26}$ cm$^3$/s). Adopting central values for the local dark matter density [@bertonehalo], the annihilation cross section to $\tau^+ \tau^-$ is required to be $\sigma v_{\tau\tau}\approx(1-5)\times 10^{-27}$ cm$^3$/s for a dark matter distribution with an inner slope of 1.3 to 1.4. If the dark matter also annihilates to electrons and muons at a similar rate, the total annihilation cross section falls within a factor of a few of the canonical estimate of $3\times 10^{-26}$ cm$^3$/s.[^1]
Although astrophysical origins of the gamma-ray emission observed from the Galactic Center region have been discussed [@hooperlinden], considerable challenges are faced by such interpretations. Possibilities that have been considered include emission from the central supermassive black hole [@aharonian; @HG2], and from a population of unresolved point sources, such as millisecond pulsars [@pulsars].
In the case of the supermassive black hole, direct emission from this object is not consistent with the observed morphology of the gamma-ray signal. The observed angular extent of the emission could be reconciled, however, if the gamma-rays originate from cosmic rays that have been accelerated by the black hole and then diffuse throughout the surrounding interstellar medium, producing pions through interactions with gas [@aharonian; @aharonianold]. The spectral shape of the spatially extended emission is very difficult to account for with gamma-rays from pion decay, however. Even for a monoenergetic spectrum of protons, the resulting spectrum of gamma-rays from pion decay does not rise rapidly enough to account for the observed gamma-ray spectrum.
A large population of unresolved gamma-ray pulsars surrounding the Galactic Center has also been proposed to account for the observed emission [@HG2; @pulsars; @hooperlinden]. The spectra observed from among the 46 pulsars in the FGST’s first pulsar catalog, however, are typically much softer than is observed from the Galactic Center [@pulsarcatalog; @hooperlinden]. Unless the spectra among the population of pulsars surrounding the Galactic Center is significantly different from those observed elsewhere, it does not appear to be possible to account for the observed signal with pulsars. Furthermore, it is also difficult to accommodate the very spatially concentrated morphology of the observed gamma-ray emission with pulsars. To match the observed angular distribution of this signal, the number density of pulsars would have to fall off with the distance to the Galactic Center at least as rapidly as $r^{-2.5}$. In contrast, within the innermost parsec of the Galactic Center, the stellar density has been observed to fall off only about half as rapidly, $r^{-1.25}$ [@Schoedel:2009mv]. Even modest pulsar kicks of $\sim 100$ km/s would allow a pulsar 10 pc from the Galactic Center to escape the region, consequently broadening the angular width of the signal. Unlike with most astrophysical sources or mechanisms, annihilating dark matter produces a flux of gamma-rays that scales with its density [*squared*]{}, and thus can much more easily account for the high concentration of the observed signal from the Galactic Center.
Synchrotron Emission From The Inner Galaxy’s Radio Filaments
------------------------------------------------------------
If dark matter annihilations produce mostly charged leptons, as implied by the Galactic Center’s gamma-ray spectrum, then electrons and positrons should carry away much of the total power produced in this process. Electron and positron cosmic rays lose much of their energy to synchrotron emission, providing a potentially detectable signal for telescopes operating at radio and microwave frequencies [@Fornengo:2011iq].
Particularly promising sources of dark matter-powered synchrotron emission are the peculiar astrophysical objects known as non-thermal radio filaments. Radio filaments are long ($\sim$40 pc) and thin ($\sim$1 pc) structures, found at distances between 10 and 200 pc from the Galactic center. The very hard spectra of highly polarized radio synchrotron emission observed from these objects [@1984Natur.310..557Y] imply that they contain highly ordered poloidal magnetic fields of strength on the order of $\sim$100 $\mu$G [@1986AJ.....92..818T]. These strong and highly ordered magnetic fields lead the filaments to act as magnetic mirrors, efficiently rejecting incident electrons and retaining those electrons within their volumes.
The spectrum of electrons that must be contained within the Milky Way’s radio filaments in order to produce their extremely hard synchrotron emission has long been a challenge to explain astrophysically. Since the 1980s, observations of radio filaments have revealed a turnover at $\sim$10 GHz in the synchrotron spectrum, implying an electron energy spectrum that is strongly peaked (sometimes described in the radio astronomy literature as “monoenergetic” ) at an energy of approximately $\sim$10 GeV, propagating in a magnetic field on the order of 100 $\mu$G . The leading astrophysical mechanism proposed to explain these spectra involves magnetic reconnection zones that are formed in collisions between radio filaments and molecular clouds, leading to an electric potential capable of accelerating electrons to their required energy . This scenario fails, however, to explain why so many observed radio filaments exhibit such similar spectra (especially those without associations with molecular clouds [@1999ApJ...521L..41L; @2004ApJ...611..858L]). Furthermore, recent simulations find that it is unlikely that such a mechanism would be capable of accelerating electrons to energies much above 10 MeV, several orders of magnitude below that needed to explain the observed synchrotron signal [@2005MNRAS.358..113L; @2011arXiv1103.5924Z].
![The spectra of synchrotron emission observed from the Milky Way’s non-thermal radio filaments imply that they contain a spectrum of electrons/positrons that is strongly peaked at energies near $\sim$10 GeV. Here, we compare the observed spectra of four particularly well measured radio filaments [@radiospec] to that predicted from dark matter annihilations ($m_{\rm DM}=10$ GeV, annihilating equally to $e^+ e^-$, $\mu^+ \mu^-$ and $\tau^+ \tau^-$ with $\sigma v=7\times 10^{-27}$ cm$^3$ s$^{-1}$) compared to the observed intensity and spectrum of G0.2-0.0 (the Radio Arc, top left), G0.08+0.15 (Northern Thread, top right), G0.16-0.14 (Arc Filament, bottom left) and G359.1-0.2 (the Snake, bottom right). The magnetic field strengths, filamentary widths, and synchrotron energy loss times have been chosen to accommodate each filament. This figure was adapted from one originally appearing in Ref. [@filaments].[]{data-label="fig:4"}](filamentsspec.pdf){width="3.3in"}
While astrophysical mechanisms struggle to explain the strongly peaked spectrum of $\sim$10 GeV electrons present within the Milky Way’s radio filaments, the annihilations of 10 GeV dark matter particles to leptons (including to $e^+ e^-$) can easily accommodate the observed spectra. In Fig. \[fig:4\], the spectrum of radio emission observed from four particularly well measured filaments [@radiospec] is compared to the synchrotron flux and spectrum predicted from the electrons produced through the annihilations of a 10 GeV dark matter particle. As in the previous subsection, we adopt a dark matter distribution of $\rho_{\rm DM} = 0.34 \, {\rm GeV/cm}^3 \times (r/8.5\,{\rm kpc})^{-1.3}$, a total annihilation cross section of $\sigma v=7\times 10^{-26}$ cm$^3$/s, and equal fractions of annihilations proceeding to $e^+ e^-$, $\mu^+ \mu^-$ and $\tau^+ \tau^-$. For each filament, we have adopted values of the magnetic field ($B$) and the ratio of timescales for diffusion and synchrotron losses ($\tau$) which best accommodate the observed spectra. In each case, we find it possible to provide a good fit to the filament’s spectral shape. As the overall normalization of the emission from each filament is proportional to its overall volume, there is some uncertainty in the overall intensity predicted from each such object. For each filament, we have treated their geometry as cylindrical and have adopted a width which provides the necessary normalization. In each case, the width we have used is within a factor of two of that reported in the observational literature. This modest discrepancy could very plausibly be accounted for by factors such as differences between observed peak luminosities (as are typically reported) and average luminosities (being calculated here).
A particularly powerful test of the dark matter interpretation for the emission of radio filaments is the strong dependence of the luminosity with distance to the Galactic Center that is predicted. For a dark matter distribution of the form $\rho_{\rm DM} \propto r^{-1.3}$ (as motivated by the morphology of the Galactic Center gamma-ray signal), a filament at a distance of 10 pc from the Galactic Center should be nearly 400 times brighter than an identical filament located at 100 pc from the center. Although variations in each filament’s geometry, magnetic field, and other properties will lead to a degree of filament-to-filament scatter in their overall brightness, if dark matter annihilations are in fact powering the radio emission of these objects, a strong correlation with galactocentric distance should be evident.
In Fig. \[fig:5\], we compare the flux divided by the square of the filament’s length to the projected distance of the filament to the Galactic Center, for 13 filaments measured at 1.4 GHz [@filaments; @1pt4] (the length squared factor is included to account for the greater volume of longer filaments and the longer length of time that longer filaments will retain electrons, valid in the regime in which $\tau$ is of order unity). We find a very significant correlation, consistent with that predicted for annihilating dark matter distributed as $\rho_{\rm DM} \propto r^{-1.3}$. As we are plotting the projected distance rather than the actual (but unknown) distance to the Galactic Center, we expect a sizable amount of scatter to appear. The dashed lines shown in Fig. \[fig:5\] were chosen such that they bracket 68% of the projected directions from the Galactic Center, and can be thought of as an uncertainty intrinsic to this comparison. Note that observations of radio filaments at frequencies below that expected to be dominated by dark matter (330 MHz, in particular) do not exhibit this correlation [@filaments].
![Flux per length squared (in milli-Janskys per square parsec) for 13 radio filaments at 1.4 GHz [@1pt4], as a function of their projected distance from the Galactic Center. There is a clear trend that those filaments closer to the Galactic Center are brighter than those farther away. The solid line denotes the slope of this correlation predicted for a dark matter distribution of the form $\rho_{\rm DM} \propto r^{-1.3}$. The dashed lines shown in Fig. \[fig:5\] were chosen such that they bracket 68% of the projected directions from the Galactic Center, and can be thought of as an uncertainty intrinsic to this comparison. This figure was adapted from one originally appearing in Ref. [@filaments].[]{data-label="fig:5"}](slope.pdf){width="3.3in"}
Synchrotron Emission From The Inner Galaxy: “The WMAP Haze”
-----------------------------------------------------------
If annihilating dark matter particles are responsible for the gamma-ray and radio signals described in the previous two subsections, then a sizable flux of energetic electrons and positrons will be injected into the Inner Galaxy. And whereas any electrons and positrons produced within the volumes of radio filaments will have their energy rapidly converted into the hard and polarized synchrotron emission observed from those filaments, dark matter annihilations taking place elsewhere in the inner Milky Way will produce a more diffuse synchrotron signal through interactions with the Galactic Magnetic Field.
In addition to cosmic microwave background photons, the WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) experiment has provided the best measurements to date of a number of standard emission mechanisms known to take place in the interstellar medium, including emission from thermal dust, spinning dust, ionized gas, and synchrotron [@spergel]. GeV-scale cosmic ray electrons in the presence of 10-50$\mu$G magnetic fields produce synchrotron emission that peaks at GHz frequencies, and within the frequency range studied by WMAP and other CMB experiments. WMAP’s observations have revealed an excess of microwave emission in the inner $20^{\circ}$ around the center of the Milky Way, distributed with approximate radial symmetry, and uncorrelated with all other known foregrounds [@haze1; @doblerfink]. This anomalous emission, known as the “WMAP Haze”, is generally interpreted as hard synchrotron emission from a population of energetic cosmic ray electrons/positrons present in the inner kiloparsecs of the Milky Way. Due to the morphology and overall power of the WMAP Haze, it has been proposed that this signal could be synchrotron emission from electrons and positrons produced through dark matter annihilations [@darkhaze; @darkhaze1; @timhaze].[^2]
To calculate the synchrotron signal predicted from the annihilations of 10 GeV dark matter particles, one must model the propagation of the electron and positron annihilation products through the inner galaxy. We do this using the cosmic ray propagation code $Galprop$ [@galprop], adopting conventional values for the diffusion coefficient ($3.5\times 10^{28}$ cm$^2$/s) and Galactic Magnetic Field ($B = 22 \, \mu{\rm G} \,\, e^{-r/5.0\,{\rm kpc}} \, e^{-|z|/1.8\,{\rm kpc}}$, where $r$ and $z$ represent the distance from the Galactic Center along and perpendicular to the the Galactic Plane).
In Fig. \[democratic\], we compare the synchrotron haze predicted from 10 GeV dark matter particles to that observed by WMAP. Here, we have used the same dark matter model as in the previous two subsection (with the exception of a slightly different distribution, $\rho_{\rm DM}\propto r^{-\gamma}, \gamma=1.33$ rather than $\gamma=1.3$, which should be of little consequence). We find quite good agreement with the observed features of the WMAP Haze. These fits to the WMAP Haze were obtained with relatively little freedom in the astrophysical or dark matter parameters. In particular, the mass, annihilation cross section, and halo profile are each tightly constrained by the observed features of the Galactic Center gamma-ray signal. Although the choice of the magnetic field model allowed us to adjust the morphology and spectrum of the of the synchrotron emission to a limited degree, we had little ability to significantly adjust the overall synchrotron intensity. If the gamma-rays from the Galactic Center as observed by Fermi are interpreted as dark matter annihilation products, we are forced to expect a corresponding synchrotron signal from the Inner Galaxy very much like that observed by WMAP.
Dark matter particles annihilating in galaxies other than the Milky Way will produce annihilation products which contribute to the diffuse isotropic radio background. Interestingly, data from ARCADE 2 (Absolute Radiometer for Cosmology, Astrophysics and Diffuse Emission), and a number of low frequency radio surveys have revealed a sizable flux of isotropic power at radio frequencies ($\lsim 3$ GHz), brighter than a factor of 5-6 than that expected based on extrapolations of of the luminosity functions of known radio sources. This emission also exhibits a harder spectrum than is observed from resolved sources such as radio galaxies [@arcade]. In Ref. [@arcadedarkmatter] it was suggested that dark matter annihilations may account for this excess. In particular, they point out that 10 GeV dark matter particles annihilating to leptons can provide a good fit to the observed radio background, without relying on large boost factors [@arcadedarkmatter; @pc].
Indirect Evidence Summary and Constraints
-----------------------------------------
Over the past several pages, I have summarized three independent astrophysical observations which can be explained by the annihilations of a 10 GeV dark matter particle (four if you include the excess power in the diffuse radio background). In this subsection, I will briefly discuss what these observations (if interpreted as dark matter annihilation products) tell us about the dark matter particle and its distribution, and compare this to various constraints that can be placed from other observations.
Beginning with the dark matter distribution, the angular distribution or morphology of the gamma-ray signal observed from the Galactic Center requires a dark matter distribution of $\rho_{\rm DM} \propto r^{-\gamma}$, with $\gamma\approx1.25$ to 1.40 [@hooperlinden]. This is consistent with the correlation observed between the geometrically corrected flux from the Milky Way’s radio filaments and their projected distance to the Galactic Center (see Fig. \[fig:5\]). More specifically, the best-fit linear regression for this correlation favors a slope of $\rho_{\rm DM} \propto r^{-1.27}$ [@filaments]. The observed morphology of the WMAP Haze is also consistent with this dark matter distribution (see Fig. \[democratic\]), although this is somewhat degenerate with the choice of the distribution of the Galactic Magnetic Field in the inner kiloparsecs of the Milky Way. If we assume that this profile slope persists out to the solar neighborhood, we can combine these results with rotation curve and microlensing measurements [@bertonehalo] to arrive at $\rho_{\rm DM} \approx 0.34 \, {\rm GeV/cm}^3 \times (r/8.5\,{\rm kpc})^{-1.3}$, although with significant uncertainties in the overall normalization. One should keep in mind that the slope of the profile could be different that the value favored by these observations at distances beyond a few kiloparsecs from the Galactic Center.
To accommodate the gamma-ray spectrum observed from the Galactic Center, we require either a dark matter particle with a mass in the range of 7-12 GeV which annihilates primarily to leptons (including to $\tau^+ \tau^-$) or a mass in the range of 25-45 GeV and which annihilates to hadronic final states (such as to $b\bar{b}$). To produce the synchrotron spectrum observed from the Milky Way’s radio filaments, however, we must require the production of $\sim$10 GeV electrons and thus choose to focus on the lower of these mass ranges. If the dark matter particles annihilate roughly equally to $e^+ e^-$ and $\tau^+ \tau^-$ (along with any annihilations to muons), the spectra and relative normalizations of the Galactic Center gamma-ray, radio filaments, and WMAP Haze signals can all be accommodated simultaneously. A modest fraction ($\lsim$ 20%) of annihilations could also proceed to quarks, although this is not required. Using the previously mentioned dark matter distribution, and assuming equal fractions of annihilations proceed to $e^+ e^-$, $\mu^+ \mu^-$, and $\tau^+ \tau^-$, the normalization of these signals requires an annihilation cross section of $\sigma v \approx 7\times 10^{-27}$ cm$^3$/s. Again, uncertainties in the dark matter distribution make this quantity uncertain at the level of a factor of a few.
We can now compare the dark matter properties inferred from these signals to the various constraints that can be derived from other observations.
- [[**Gamma-rays from dwarf spheroidal galaxies:**]{} The Fermi collaboration’s combined analysis of 10 dwarf spheroidals excludes 10 GeV dark matter particles annihilating to $\tau^+ \tau^-$ with an annihilation cross section greater than $\sigma v_{\tau\tau} \approx 1.4\times 10^{-26}$ cm$^3$/s (or $\sigma v \approx 4.2 \times 10^{-26}$ cm$^3$/s for equal fractions of annihilations to electrons, muons and taus) [@dwarf]. This is a factor of approximately six larger than that required to normalize the signals discussed in this section. Other gamma-ray constraints, such as those from galaxy clusters [@clusters] or from the diffuse gamma-ray background [@cosmo] are also not yet sensitive to the annihilation cross sections required in this scenario.]{}
- [[**Effects on the cosmic microwave background:**]{} Dark matter annihilation products can heat and ionize the photon-baryon plasma at $z\sim1000$, distorting the CMB. For a 10 GeV dark matter particle annihilating equally to $e^+ e^-$, $\mu^+ \mu^-$, and $\tau^+ \tau^-$, however, WMAP only requires $\sigma v \lsim 8 \times 10^{-26}$ cm$^3$/s [@Finkbeiner:2011dx], an order of magnitude above the value required here. This effect could potentially be within the reach of Planck, however.]{}
- [[**Neutrinos from the Sun:**]{} Dark matter particles can elastically scatter with nuclei in the Sun, leading to their gravitational capture and subsequent annihilation. Electrons and muons produced in such annihilations quickly lose their energy to the Solar medium and produce no observable effects. Annihilations to taus, on the other hand, produce neutrinos which can be observed by Super-Kamiokande. For a 10 GeV dark matter particle annihilating 1/3 of the time to $\tau^+ \tau^-$, Super-Kamiokande data can be used to constrain the dark matter’s spin-independent elastic scattering cross section with protons to be less than $\sigma \approx 4 \times 10^{-41}$ cm$^2$ [@Kappl:2011kz], which is larger than the value required to accommodate CoGeNT, CRESST-II and DAMA/LIBRA (see Sec. \[direct\]).]{}
- [[**Cosmic ray antimatter:**]{} Measurements of the antiproton and positron components of the cosmic ray spectrum can be used to place constraints on the dark matter annihilation rate in the Galactic Halo. As the dark matter particle being considered here annihilates to hadronic final states no more than $\sim$10-20% of the time, current cosmic ray antiproton constraints from PAMELA and BESS Polar-II are about an order of magnitude weaker than would be needed to test this scenario [@Kappl:2011jw]. Dark matter annihilating directly to $e^+ e^-$ can lead to a distinctive edge-like feature in the cosmic ray positron fraction (and potentially in the cosmic ray electron+positron spectrum) at an energy equal to the mass of the dark matter particle [@Baltz:2004ie]. For reasonable estimates of the local radiation and magnetic field densities ($\rho_{{\rm Rad}+B} \sim 2$ eV/cm$^3$), the model being considered here will lead to a cosmic ray positron flux of $E_{e^+}^3 dN_{e^+}/dE_{e^+} \sim 1.6$ GeV$^2$ m$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$ at 10 GeV, corresponding to a sub-percent feature in the positron fraction, which would be difficult to identify with PAMELA [@Adriani:2008zr]. It is conceivable, however, that AMS-02 may be able to resolve such a feature. Note that the anomalous positron fraction reported by PAMELA [@arXiv:0810.4995] and confirmed by Fermi [@FermiLAT:2011ab] is observed at much higher energies that is being considered here.]{}
Evidence From Direct Detection {#direct}
==============================
Annual Modulation: DAMA/LIBRA and CoGeNT
----------------------------------------
If a population of events observed in a detector result from the elastic scattering of dark matter particles, then the Earth’s motion around the Sun will induce a degree of seasonal variation in the rate of those events [@modulation]. This signature provides a way of discriminating a dark matter signal from various backgrounds which either do not undergo annual modulation, or that modulate with a different phase or period than is predicted for dark matter.
For over a decade, the DAMA collaboration has been reporting an annual modulation in their event rate, consistent in phase and period with that expected from dark matter [@INFN-AE-00-01; @damanew]. More recently, the larger DAMA/LIBRA detectors (consisting of 242.5 kg of high purity NaI(Tl) crystals) have observed annual modulation with a statistical significance of 8.9$\sigma$ [@damanew]. The variation of DAMA/LIBRA’s rate is consistent with a sinusoid peaking at May 16$\pm$7 days at energies between 2 and 4 keV, May 22$\pm$7 days between 2 and 5 keV, and May 26$\pm$7 days between 2 and 6 keV, within the range predicted for dark matter based on the results of numerical simulations [@Kuhlen:2009vh].
Since the time of DAMA’s original claim, null results from CDMS and other experiments have ruled out much of the dark matter parameter space which could potentially account for their signal. Exceptions include models in which dark matter scatters inelastically with nuclei [@inelastic], and models in which the dark matter is relatively light ($m_{\rm DM} \sim 5-20$ GeV) [@lightorstream; @Bottino:2003cz].
In May of 2011, the CoGeNT collaboration reported evidence of an annual modulation in their event rate, although with a modest statistical significance of 2.8$\sigma$ [@Aalseth:2011wp] (they have also reported an overall excess of low energy events [@Aalseth:2010vx; @JuanTAUP], which we will return to later in this article). Despite the limited statistical significance of this signal, it shares many of the features possessed by DAMA’s modulation. The peak of CoGeNT’s phase is April 18$\pm$16 days, which is slightly earlier (at the 1.6$\sigma$ level) than that favored by DAMA/LIBRA. A common phase that peaks in early May would be consistent with both experiments [@Hooper:2011hd] and with expectations for dark matter.
In comparing the spectrum and amplitude of DAMA and CoGeNT’s annual modulation signals, it is possible to plot the results in such a way that does not depend on the velocity distribution of the dark matter particles in the local halo [@Fox:2010bz; @Fox:2010bu]. In Fig. \[fig:damaAtCogent\], we compare the modulation spectrum as observed by CoGeNT (for two different choice of phase) to the equivalent spectrum from DAMA/LIBRA. As the quenching factor for low-energy sodium recoils is quite uncertain [@damaquenching; @consistent; @JuanTAUP], results are shown for three values of this quantity ($Q_{\rm Na}=0.40$, 0.25, and 0.15). To generate this comparison, we adopt $m_{\rm DM}=10$ GeV, and an elastic scattering cross section which scales as $A^2$, where $A$ is the atomic mass of the target nucleus (valid for spin-independent scattering with equal couplings to protons and neutrons). From this figure, it is evident that the overall spectrum and normalization of the modulation amplitudes reported by CoGeNT and DAMA/LIBRA are in good agreement, although with sizable uncertainties associated with the sodium quenching factor. If the modulation reported by DAMA/LIBRA is the product of dark matter spin-independent elastic scattering, then one should expect CoGeNT to observe a modulation with broad features very much like that they report, and vice versa. As CoGeNT (and its planned extension CoGeNT-4) accumulates more data, it will become increasingly possible to make detailed comparisons between the modulation spectra observed by these two experiments [@kelso].
Given the similarities between the modulations observed by DAMA/LIBRA and CoGeNT, it appears unlikely that these signals are detector effects, or the result of the experiments’ local environments (DAMA/LIBRA and CoGeNT make use of different detector materials and are located on different continents). If their signals do not arise from dark matter scattering, they are most likely associated with a common modulating background. Potential backgrounds which are known to exhibit seasonal variation consist of those associated with the underground muon flux and resulting from radon decays [@modbg]. Neither of these possibilities appear to possess the characteristics required to produce the signals observed by DAMA/LIBRA and CoGeNT, however. Although the underground muon flux is known to modulate as a result of seasonal variations of the temperature and density of the upper atmosphere, the phase of this modulation has been measured to peak on July 5$\pm$15 at Gran Sasso [@LVD] and July $(7-9)\pm3$ at Soudan [@minos; @minosslides], each of which are inconsistent with the phases reported by DAMA/LIBRA and CoGeNT [@Chang:2011eb]. Furthermore, simple estimates of the muon-induced neutron flux lead to a rate that is $\sim$$10^{-2}$ to $10^{-3}$ times smaller than required to generate DAMA/LIBRA’s modulation. The phase of radon-induced backgrounds has also been measured to peak considerably later than DAMA/LIBRA’s signal, in August/September [@minosslides; @radon]. Further challenging these interpretations is the fact that DAMA/LIBRA’s multiple hit events (which are attributed to neutrons) do not show evidence of modulation. To date, no background has been identified with characteristics (phase, spectrum, and rate) compatible with the signals observed by DAMA/LIBRA and CoGeNT (see also, Ref. [@Bernabei:2009du]).
Excess Low-Energy Events: CoGeNT and CRESST-II
----------------------------------------------
In addition to their detection of an annual modulation in their event rate, the CoGeNT collaboration has also reported the observation of an overall excess of low-energy events [@Aalseth:2010vx]. While some of these events are thought to be unidentified surface events, this background does not appear to be sufficient to account for the observed low-energy rate [@JuanTAUP]. Even more recently, the CRESST-II collaboration has reported a similar excess of low-energy nuclear recoil candidate events [@Angloher:2011uu]. In their analysis, they identified 67 low-energy nuclear recoil candidate events, which is at least 30% more than can be accounted for with known backgrounds. The CRESST-II collaboration has assessed the statistical significance of their excess to be greater than 4$\sigma$.
In Fig. \[fig:massCross\], the range of dark matter mass and elastic scattering cross section are shown which can provide a good fit to the spectra of excess low-energy events reported by CoGeNT [@arXiv:1110.5338] and CRESST-II [@Angloher:2011uu], assuming a Maxwellian velocity distribution with $v_0=220$ km/s and $v_{\rm esc}=544$ km/s (see also Ref. [@kopp]). In fitting to the spectrum of the CoGeNT data, we marginalize over a range of surface event rejection efficiencies, as described in Ref. [@arXiv:1110.5338]. As seen from this figure, the dark matter parameter space favored by CRESST-II is compatible with the region implied by CoGeNT’s spectrum. In particular, a dark matter particle with a mass of roughly 10-20 GeV and an elastic scattering cross section with nucleons of $(1-3)\times 10^{-41}$ cm$^2$ could account for the excess events reported by both collaborations.
Direct Evidence Summary and Constraints
---------------------------------------
In this section, I have summarized the direct detection signals reported by the DAMA/LIBRA, CoGeNT and CRESST-II collaborations. The spectra of excess events observed by CoGeNT and CRESST-II are compatible with arising from the same dark matter particle with a mass of $\sim$10-20 GeV and an elastic scattering cross section with nucleons of $(1-3)\times 10^{-41}$ cm$^2$. Similarly, the modulation amplitudes reported by DAMA/LIBRA and CoGeNT appear to be mutually consistent. Under the standard assumptions of a Maxwellian velocity distribution and velocity-independent scattering cross sections, however, the spectrum and rate of events reported by CoGeNT and CRESST-II would lead one to expect a signficantly smaller (by a factor of about three to five) modulation amplitude than is observed by DAMA/LIBRA and CoGeNT. In order to account for this apparent discrepancy, one can consider dark matter particles 1) with non-Maxwellian features in their velocity distribution, such as local streams [@lightorstream], or 2) with a velocity-dependent scattering cross section with nuclei [@inelastic; @momentumdm; @resonant; @Fitzpatrick:2010br; @Farina:2011pw], either of which can lead to significant enhancements in the observed modulation amplitude.
High-resolution numerical simulations find that instead of being smooth, the dark matter halos of Milky Way-like galaxies contain many smaller subhalos. Most of these subhalos have a great deal of their outer mass stripped, resulting in the formation of cold tidal streams [@simulations; @nonmaxwell]. And while the presence of such streams in the local neighborhood could potentially effect the spectrum of dark matter-induced events observed in direct detection experiments [@nonmaxwelldirect; @Lisanti:2010qx], these effects are often found to be far more pronounced in the modulation signals of such experiments [@Kuhlen:2009vh]. The presence of such streams can significantly enhance a modulation signal, as well as shift the phase of the modulation relative to that predicted in more simple halo models [@Kuhlen:2009vh; @ls; @lightorstream]. If $\sim$20-30% of the local dark matter density is found the form of a velocity stream, the large modulation amplitudes observed by DAMA/LIBRA and CoGeNT could potentially be reconciled with the spectra of excess events reported by CoGeNT and CRESST-II [@arXiv:1110.5338].
As the CoGeNT collaboration collects more data, the spectrum of the modulation amplitude will become much better measured, making it possible to begin to discriminate between the various options described in this section. By the summer of 2012, the CoGeNT collaboration will have doubled the size of their data set, and plans to deploy the first of four CoGeNT-4 (C4) detectors, roughly quadrupling their effective target mass (the completed C4 experiment will possess a target mass an order of magnitude larger than the existing CoGeNT detector). If streams or resonances are responsible for a significant fracton of the observed modulation, these features will become increasingly apparent as this data set grows.
A number of other direct detection experiments have placed constraints on the elastic scattering cross sections of dark matter particle in the mass range being considered here. I will next review these constraints and discuss their implications for the dark matter interpretation of DAMA/LIBRA, CoGeNT and CRESST-II.
- [[**CDMS Low Threshold Analysis:**]{} The CDMS-II collaboration has presented the results of two analyses searching for low-mass dark matter particles [@Ahmed:2010wy; @Akerib:2010pv]. The more stringent of these constraints finds $\sigma \lsim 2.2\times 10^{-41}$ cm$^2$ for a mass of 10 GeV (at the 90% confidence level). So although this result disfavors the upper range of the elastic scattering cross section capable of accounting for CoGeNT and CRESST-II, an elastic scattering cross section of $\sim(1-2.2)\times 10^{41}$ cm$^2$ is consistent with CoGeNT, CRESST-II and CDMS-II. In fact, the spectrum of low events observed by CDMS is quite similar to that reported by CoGeNT (see Fig. 4 of Ref. [@arXiv:1110.5338] for a direct comparison). It should be emphasized that if CoGeNT’s annual modulation does result from dark matter, then CDMS’s low energy events will also demonstrate a considerable degree of annual modulation. Although no CDMS modulation analysis has been presented as of yet, the results of such a study would be very valuable.]{}
- [[**Constraints from XENON-100 and XENON-10:**]{} The XENON-100 [@xenon100] and XENON-10 [@xenon10] collaborations have each reported rather strong constraints on the parameter space of low-mass dark matter particles. As presented, these constraints appear to largely rule out the dark matter parameter space collectively favored by CoGeNT and CRESST-II. There are a number of ways, however, in which these constraints could be significantly weaker than they might appear. Firstly, any uncertainties in the response of liquid xenon to very low-energy nuclear recoils (as encapsulated in the functions $L_{\rm eff}$ and/or $Q_y$) could significantly impact the corresponding constraints for dark matter particles with a mass in the range of interest. The constraints from the XENON-100 collaboration were derived using measurements of the scintillation efficiency, $L_{\rm eff}$, as described in Refs. [@plante], which have been criticized in Ref. [@juan2] (see also Ref. [@Collar:2010ht]). Even modest changes to these values at the lowest measured energies ($\sim$3-4 keV) can lead to much weaker constraints on light dark matter particles. It has also been argued that the relatively large (9.3 eV) band-gap of xenon is expected to lead to a suppression of the response to nuclear recoils in the energy range of interest (see Ref. [@Collar:2010ht] and references therein). Many of these issues also apply to constraints on light dark matter making use of only the ionization signal in liquid xenon detectors [@xenon10]. Alternatively, the constraints from XENON-100 and XENON-10 could be modified if dark matter particles do not have identical couplings to protons and neutrons [@zurek; @feng]. In particular, for a ratio of couplings given by $f_n/f_p \approx -0.7$, the constraint from xenon-based experiments is weakened by a factor of $\sim$20 relative to that found in the $f_n=f_p$ case [@feng]. For this ratio of couplings, the cross section favored by CRESST-II would also be moved down by a factor of $\sim$7 relative to that observed by CoGeNT. A ratio of $f_n/f_p \approx -0.6$ would reduce the strength of the XENON-100 and XENON-10 constraints by a factor of 3-4, while also lowering the CRESST-II region (relative to that of CoGeNT) by a similar factor.]{}
- [[**Constraints from other direct detection experiments:**]{} We briefly mention that although the SIMPLE collaboration has placed constraints on the region of parameter space being considered here [@Felizardo:2011uw], those results have been strongly criticized in the literature [@Dahl:2011tf; @Collar:2011kr]. In particular, it is difficult to reconcile the results of SIMPLE’s physics run with its own calibration data [@Dahl:2011tf]. We also note that a constraint based on the CRESST commissioning run data [@Brown:2011dp] appears to be in mild tension with the upper range (in cross section) of the parameter space reported to be favored by the analysis of the CRESST-II collaboration. This result is consistent with the lower range of the parameter space favored by CRESST-II and CoGeNT, however.]{}
Implications for Particle Physics {#particle}
=================================
To accommodate the collection of observations summarized in this article, a dark matter candidate must have a number of fairly specific characteristics. In particular, such a particle must possess:
- [A mass in the range of approximately 7-12 GeV.]{}
- [A low-velocity annihilation cross section to each of $e^+ e^-$ and $\tau^+ \tau^-$ of $\sigma v\approx (1-5)\times 10^{-27}$ cm$^3$/s. If we make the not unreasonable assumption that annihilations also proceed to $\mu^+ \mu^-$, we require a total cross section to charged leptons of $\sigma v\approx (3-15) \times 10^{-27}$ cm$^3$/s (or $\sigma v\sim [1.5-30] \times 10^{-27}$ cm$^3$/s if uncertainties in the dark matter density [@bertonehalo] are taken into account). In addition, up to another approximately 20% of annihilations could also proceed to hadronic final states.]{}
- [A spin-independent elastic scattering cross section with nucleons of approximately $\sigma\approx (1-3)\times 10^{-41}$ cm$^2$.]{}
We could also impose that the dark matter candidate in question be produced in the early universe with a relic density equal to the measured dark matter abundance, which implies that the total annihilation cross section at freeze-out be $\sigma v_{\rm FO} \approx 3 \times 10^{-26}$ cm$^3$/s. Any difference between this value and those required in the second bullet point above could arise from velocity dependent terms in the annihilation cross section, for example.
In this section, I will summarize the particle physics implications of these observations, and discuss what kind of dark matter particle could account for them (following, in large part, Ref. [@Buckley:2010ve]).
Dark Matter’s Elastic Scattering Cross Section
----------------------------------------------
We first consider the requirement of the dark matter’s elastic scattering cross section. Such interactions are well suited for an effective field theory approach [@beltran]. In particular, there are relatively few operators we can write down which lead to a sizeable spin-independent scattering cross section in the relevant low-velocity limit. These possibilities consist of elastic scattering mediated by a heavy colored and fractionally charged particle, by a neutral vector boson (the $Z$ or a $Z^{\prime}$), or by a neutral scalar.
In order to generate an elastic scattering cross section as large as required by CoGeNT and CRESST-II ($\sigma \sim 2\times 10^{-41}$ cm$^2$) through an interaction mediated by a colored and fractionally charged particle, $q^{\prime}$, the mass of the mediator must be less than approximately 2 TeV (for perturbative couplings, $g \lsim 1$). Such a state is very likely within the ultimate reach of the LHC.
Alternatively, we can consider dark matter scattering that is mediated by a vector boson, such as the Standard Model $Z$, or a $Z'$. In the case of the Standard Model $Z$, we can obtain the required cross section for small coupling between the dark matter and the $Z$, $g_{Z-{\rm DM}-{\rm DM}}\approx0.007$, well below the constraints from measurements of the invisible $Z$ width ($g_{Z-{\rm DM}-{\rm DM}}\lsim 0.023$) [@PDG]. For perturbative couplings, a $Z'$ as heavy as approximately 2.6 TeV could generate the cross section implied by CoGeNT and CRESST-II. And although a heavy $Z'$ with universal couplings to Standard Model fermions is excluded by LEP, a lighter ($\sim$10 GeV) and thus more weakly coupled $Z'$ need not be leptophobic. A TeV-scale leptophobic $Z'$ with couplings capable of producing the cross section implied by CoGeNT and CRESST-II should quickly become within the reach of the LHC [@Han:2010rf], although such a state with a mass below $\sim$300 GeV could remain below the sensitivity of the LHC and Tevatron experiments [@Aaltonen:2008dn]. Several models capable of generating the CoGeNT and CRESST-II signals with a $\sim$150 GeV $Z'$ motivated by CDF’s recent $W$+dijet excess have been proposed (for example, see Ref. [@Buckley:2011vc]).
Lastly, we can also consider dark matter scattering mediated by a scalar [@Belikov:2010yi]. In particular, a scalar which is a singlet under $SU(2)_L$ can couple directly to the dark matter and to Standard Model quarks through mixing with the Higgs sector. A very light scalar ($m \lsim 10$ GeV) that mixes slightly with the Standard Model Higgs could account for the signals reported by CoGeNT and CRESST-II. If the Higgs sector is more complicated (such as in models with multiple Higgs doublets), heavier scalars could also mediate such an interaction.
If instead of a singlet, the mediating scalar is a doublet under $SU(2)_L$, it can couple directly to quarks. But in this case, the dark matter itself must consist of a mixture of $SU(2)_L$ singlets, doublets, and/or triplets, leading to the introduction of heavy charged states in the dark sector. To evade constraints on charged particles from LEP-II, the dark matter must be primarily singlet, and will posses very small effective couplings to quarks. In such a scenario, the mediating scalar must be lighter than $\sim$20 GeV if cross sections as large as those implied by CoGeNT and CRESST-II are to be generated.
Dark Matter Annihilation
------------------------
Turning our attention now to dark matter annihilation, we are primarily interested in those interactions which contribute to the annihilation cross section in the low velocity limit and which can primarily result in annihilations to leptons (including $\tau^+ \tau^-$ and $e^+ e^-$). If the dark matter is a Dirac fermion, for example, a leptophilic $Z'$ could mediate such an interaction. To evade constraints from LEP-II, however, such a $Z'$ must be relatively light ($m_{Z'} \lsim 30$ GeV) and somewhat weakly coupled. In principle, the same $Z'$ (with smaller, but non-zero couplings to quarks) could also mediate the elastic scattering cross section observed by CoGeNT and CRESST-II.
The dark matter’s annihilations could also be mediated by a scalar, although Yukawa couplings acquired though mixing with the Higgs sector will be unable to provide the necessary annihilations to $e^+ e^-$ (although in some such models, the gamma-ray signal from annihilations to $\tau^+ \tau^-$ can be accommodated [@leptonhiggs]). Alternatively, one could consider annihilations through the $t$-channel exchange of a particle with lepton number (or a scenario in which the dark matter particles which themselves carry lepton number).
Asymmetric Dark Matter
----------------------
In most models, the abundance of dark matter is simply determined by its self-annihilation cross section and is unrelated to the density of baryons in the universe. From this perspective, it may be somewhat surprising that the cosmological dark matter and baryon densities are of the same order of magnitude, $\rho_{\rm DM}/\rho_b \approx 5$. This observation has motivated models in which the baryon-antibaryon asymmetry that leads to the cosmic baryon abundance is connected to an analogous asymmetry in the dark matter sector [@ADMmodels]. If dark matter particles and quarks each carry the same absolute baryon number, for example, one could account for the observed baryon density without a net baryon number asymmetry if the dark matter were to possess a mass of $m_{\rm DM} = 3 \times (\rho_{\rm DM}/\rho_{b}) \, m_p \approx 14$ GeV. And while the precise ratio of the dark matter and nucleon masses required in such a scenario depends on the details of the operator that transfers the asymmetry between the baryons and dark matter, one generally expects the dark matter to possess a mass on the order of 10 GeV in asymmetric models (for possible exceptions, see Ref. [@randall]). In light of this observation, the evidence for approximately 10 GeV dark matter particles presented here is suggestive of a connection with the baryon asymmetry.
If the dark matter were to retain such an asymmetry and remain in a pure particle (or pure anti-particle) state indefinately, it would be unable to annihilate and produce the gamma-ray and radio signals discussed in Sec. \[indirect\]. In many asymmetric dark matter models, however, particle-antiparticle mixing can efficiently erase such an asymmetry over time, enabling indirect signals to appear [@Buckley:2011ye].
Constraints From Colliders
--------------------------
Although constraints on relatively light dark matter particles from collider experiments can depend strongly on the details of the particle physics model under consideration, some largely model-independent statements can be made:
- [[**Constraints From LEP:**]{} Light dark matter particles with couplings to electrons can be constrained by monophoton-plus-missing energy searches at LEP. Such constraints are relatively model-independent, and can be made using an effective field theory approach. For a vector, $s$-channel (scalar, $t$-channel) operator with equal couplings to all three generations of charged leptons, Ref. [@Fox:2011fx] finds that LEP data constrains $\sigma v \lsim 2.2 \times 10^{-26}$ cm$^3$/s ($\sigma v \lsim 1.4 \times 10^{-26}$ cm$^3$/s) at the 90% confidence level. This constraint is a factor of roughly three (two) time weaker than would be required to exclude a dark matter interpretation of the gamma-ray and radio signals described in Sec. \[indirect\], and could be further weakened if the annihilation cross section is mediated by a light particle.]{}
- [[**Constraints From Hadron Colliders and Prospects For The LHC:**]{} Much as lepton colliders can constrain dark matter’s couplings to electrons by searching for events with a photon and missing energy, the Tevatron and LHC can constrain dark matter’s couplings to quarks and gluons by searching for events with missing energy and a single jet [@Beltran:2010ww] . And although current constraints from the Tevatron are still more than two orders of magnitude from the cross sections implied by CoGeNT and CRESST-II [@Bai:2010hh], future LHC data (operating at 12-14 TeV) should be sensitive to dark matter with the effective couplings required to generate these signals. Again, such constraints could be potentially evaded if the interactions are mediated by light particles [@Fox:2011pm].]{}
Summary and Conclusions {#summary}
=======================
In this article, I have attempted to summarize and describe the body of evidence in favor of approximately 10 GeV dark matter particles that has accumulated over the past several years. In my opinion, the case for a dark matter interpretation of this data is very compelling and should be given significant attention and scrutiny. Some of the reasons supporting this opinion include:
- [Several of the observations described here are very difficult to explain with known or proposed astrophysical backgrounds or systematic effects. Although sources such as pulsars and cosmic ray scattering have been explored to explain the Galactic Center gamma ray flux, they fail to accommodate the observed spectrum and morphology of this signal. The spectra observed from the Milky Way’s radio filaments has also been a long standing challenge to explain astrophysically. The annual modulation observed by DAMA/LIBRA (and now supported by CoGeNT) possesses a phase which peaks earlier than any of the possible backgrounds that have been proposed (such as those associated with the atmospheric muon flux and radon decay rate). This has often not been the case in past instances of observations being interpretated in terms of dark matter (such as PAMELA’s positron excess [@arXiv:0810.4995], which could as easily be explained by conventional astrophysics, such as pulsars [@pamelapulsars], as by dark matter.)]{}
- [The collection of observations described here overconstrains the underlying dark matter model in important ways. The gamma-ray, radio filaments, and synchrotron haze signals, for example, each probe the rate and distribution of dark matter annihilations in the Inner Milky Way, and thus are interconnected. In particular, all three of these observations require the same (or very similar) dark matter distribution and annihilation cross section. In this way, these signals are not only consistent with each other, but imply and require each other. Similarly, in order to interpret DAMA/LIBRA’s modulation in terms of dark matter, CoGeNT’s rate must also demonstrate a degree of variation comparable to that observed. The spectrum of excess low-energy events reported by CoGeNT and CRESST-II are also compatible and imply similar values for the dark matter’s mass and elastic scattering cross section with nuclei.]{}
- [The characteristics of the dark matter particle and its distribution implied by these observations is consistent with conventional theoretical expectations. In particular, the normalization of the gamma-ray, radio filaments, and synchrotron haze signals each require an annihilation cross section to leptons that is similar (within a factor of a few) of the value predicted for a simple thermal relic ($\sigma v \approx 3 \times 10^{-26}$ cm$^3$/s). No boost factors or other enhancements are required. Furthermore, the dark matter distribution that is required to accommodate these signals ($\rho_{\rm DM} \propto r^{-1.3}$) is highly consistent with the predictions of state-of-the-art hydrodynamical simulations, as well as with observations.]{}
I have reviewed constraints on this dark matter scenario from gamma-ray studies of dwarf spheroidal galaxies, distortions of the cosmic microwave background, the positron and antiproton cosmic ray spectra, energetic neutrinos from the Sun, CDMS, LEP, the Tevatron, and the LHC. In each case, I have found consistency with the dark matter interpretation being put forth here. Consistency with the results of the XENON-10 and XENON-100 collaborations requires either a suppression in the response of liquid xenon to low-energy nuclear recoils, or destructive inference between the dark matter’s couplings to protons and neutrons. In the relatively near future, data from Planck, AMS-02, CDMS, and the LHC could be able to further strengthen (or weaken) the case for a dark matter interpretation of these signals.
[*Acknowledgements*]{}: In preparing this article, I have relied heavily on previous work by Matt Buckley, Lisa Goodenough, Chris Kelso, Tim Linden, Tim Tait, and others. I would also like to thank Matt Buckley, Juan Collar, Paddy Fox, Tim Linden, and Ethan Neil for many helpful comments and discussions. This work has been supported by the US Department of Energy and by NASA grant NAG5-10842.
G. Bertone, D. Hooper and J. Silk, Phys. Rept. [**405**]{}, 279 (2005) \[hep-ph/0404175\]; G. Bertone, (Ed.), “Particle dark matter: Observations, models and searches,” Cambridge, UK: Univ. Pr. (2010). D. Clowe, M. Bradac, A. H. Gonzalez, M. Markevitch, S. W. Randall, C. Jones and D. Zaritsky, Astrophys. J. [**648**]{}, L109 (2006) \[astro-ph/0608407\].
C. Boehm, D. Hooper, J. Silk, M. Casse and J. Paul, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 101301 (2004) \[astro-ph/0309686\]. W. de Boer, M. Herold, C. Sander and V. Zhukov, hep-ph/0309029; W. de Boer, M. Herold, C. Sander, V. Zhukov, A. V. Gladyshev and D. I. Kazakov, astro-ph/0408272. D. Elsaesser and K. Mannheim, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 171302 (2005) \[astro-ph/0405235\]. O. Adriani [*et al.*]{} \[PAMELA Collaboration\], Nature [**458**]{}, 607 (2009) \[arXiv:0810.4995 \[astro-ph\]\]. J. Chang, J. H. Adams, H. S. Ahn, G. L. Bashindzhagyan, M. Christl, O. Ganel, T. G. Guzik and J. Isbert [*et al.*]{}, Nature [**456**]{}, 362 (2008).
G. Dobler, I. Cholis and N. Weiner, Astrophys. J. [**741**]{}, 25 (2011) \[arXiv:1102.5095 \[astro-ph.HE\]\]. D. Hooper and T. Linden, Phys. Rev. D in press, arXiv:1110.0006 \[astro-ph.HE\]. D. Hooper, L. Goodenough, Phys. Lett. [**B697**]{}, 412-428 (2011) \[arXiv:1010.2752 \[hep-ph\]\].
D. Hooper, T. Linden, Phys. Rev. [**D83**]{}, 083517 (2011), \[arXiv:1011.4520 \[astro-ph.HE\]\].
D. Hooper, D. P. Finkbeiner and G. Dobler, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{}, 083012 (2007) \[arXiv:0705.3655 \[astro-ph\]\]. D. P. Finkbeiner, arXiv:astro-ph/0409027. T. Linden, D. Hooper, F. Yusef-Zadeh, Astrophys. J. [**741**]{}, 95 (2011) \[arXiv:1106.5493 \[astro-ph.HE\]\].
R. Bernabei, P. Belli, F. Cappella [*et al.*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. [**C67**]{}, 39-49 (2010). \[arXiv:1002.1028 \[astro-ph.GA\]\].
C. E. Aalseth, P. S. Barbeau, J. Colaresi, J. I. Collar, J. Diaz Leon, J. E. Fast, N. Fields, T. W. Hossbach [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**107**]{}, 141301 (2011). \[arXiv:1106.0650 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
C. E. Aalseth [*et al.*]{} \[CoGeNT Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**106**]{}, 131301 (2011). \[arXiv:1002.4703 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
G. Angloher, M. Bauer, I. Bavykina, A. Bento, C. Bucci, C. Ciemniak, G. Deuter, F. von Feilitzsch [*et al.*]{}, \[arXiv:1109.0702 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
C. Kelso, D. Hooper and M. R. Buckley, arXiv:1110.5338 \[astro-ph.CO\]. M. R. Buckley, D. Hooper and T. M. P. Tait, Phys. Lett. B [**702**]{}, 216 (2011) \[arXiv:1011.1499 \[hep-ph\]\].
R. Kolb and M. Turner, “The Early Universe”, Front. Phys. [**69**]{}, 1-547 (1990).
J. Hisano, S. .Matsumoto, M. M. Nojiri and O. Saito, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 063528 (2005) \[hep-ph/0412403\]; M. Cirelli, A. Strumia and M. Tamburini, Nucl. Phys. B [**787**]{}, 152 (2007) \[arXiv:0706.4071 \[hep-ph\]\]; N. Arkani-Hamed, D. P. Finkbeiner, T. R. Slatyer and N. Weiner, Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 015014 (2009) \[arXiv:0810.0713 \[hep-ph\]\].
K. Griest and D. Seckel, Phys. Rev. D [**43**]{}, 3191 (1991). F. Iocco, M. Pato, G. Bertone and P. Jetzer, JCAP [**1111**]{}, 029 (2011) \[arXiv:1107.5810 \[astro-ph.GA\]\].
J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk and S. D. M. White, Astrophys. J. [**462**]{}, 563 (1996) \[arXiv:astro-ph/9508025\]; J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk and S. D. M. White, Astrophys. J. [**490**]{}, 493 (1997).
J. Diemand, M. Kuhlen, P. Madau, M. Zemp, B. Moore, D. Potter, J. Stadel, Nature [**454**]{}, 735-738 (2008) \[arXiv:0805.1244 \[astro-ph\]\]; J. Diemand, M. Zemp, B. Moore, J. Stadel, M. Carollo, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**364**]{}, 665 (2005) \[astro-ph/0504215\].
J. F. Navarro [*et al.*]{}, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**349**]{}, 1039 (2004) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0311231\]. V. Springel [*et al.*]{}; Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**391**]{}, 1685 (2008) \[arXiv:0809.0898 \[astro-ph\]\]. G. R. Blumenthal, S. M. Faber, R. Flores, J. R. Primack, Astrophys. J. [**301**]{}, 27 (1986); B. S. Ryden and J. E. Gunn, Astrophys. J. [**318**]{}, 15 (1987).
O. Y. Gnedin, D. Ceverino, N. Y. Gnedin, A. A. Klypin, A. V. Kravtsov, R. Levine, D. Nagai, G. Yepes \[arXiv:1108.5736 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
L. Bergstrom, P. Ullio and J. H. Buckley, Astropart. Phys. [**9**]{}, 137 (1998) \[arXiv:astro-ph/9712318\]; V. Berezinsky, A. Bottino and G. Mignola, Phys. Lett. B [**325**]{}, 136 (1994) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9402215\]; V. S. Berezinsky, A. V. Gurevich, K. P. Zybin, Phys. Lett. [**B294**]{}, 221-228 (1992).
The Fermi-LAT Collaboration, arXiv:1108.1435 \[astro-ph.HE\].
P. M. W. Kalberla and J. Kerp, Ann. Rev. AA. [**47**]{}, 27-61 (2009).
H. Nakanishi and Y. Sofue, Publ. Astron. Soc. Jap. [**55**]{}, 191 (2003) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0304338\].
A. Boyarsky, D. Malyshev, O. Ruchayskiy, Phys. Lett. B [**705**]{}, 165 (2011) \[arXiv:1012.5839 \[hep-ph\]\].
M. Chernyakova, D. Malyshev, F. A. Aharonian, R. M. Crocker, and D. I. Jones, Ap. J. 726, 60C (2011).
F. Aharonian [*et al.*]{} \[H.E.S.S. Collaboration\], Nature [**439**]{}, 695 (2006) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0603021\].
L. Goodenough, D. Hooper, arXiv:0910.2998 \[hep-ph\].
V. Vitale, A. Morselli \[For The Fermi-LAT Collaboration\], arXiv:0912.3828 \[astro-ph.HE\]; Nuc. Inst. Meth. A 630, 147-150 (2011); V. Vitale, A. Morselli, B. Canadas \[For The Fermi-LAT Collaboration\], Proc. of Identification of Dark Matter (2008).
K. N. Abazajian, JCAP [**1103**]{}, 010 (2011). \[arXiv:1011.4275 \[astro-ph.HE\]\].
F. Aharonian and A. Neronov, Ap&SS, 300, 255 (2005); Astrophys. J. [**619**]{}, 306 (2005) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0408303\]; arXiv:astro-ph/0503354; AIP Conf. Proc. [**745**]{}, 409 (2005).
A. A. Abdo [*et al.*]{} \[Fermi-LAT Collaboration\], Astrophys. J. Suppl. [**187**]{}, 460-494 (2010) \[arXiv:0910.1608 \[astro-ph.HE\]\]; Science, 325 848 (2009); D. Malyshev, I. Cholis, J. D. Gelfand, Astrophys. J. [**722**]{}, 1939 (2010) \[arXiv:1002.0587 \[astro-ph.HE\]\].
R. Schoedel, D. Merritt, A. Eckart, arXiv:0902.3892 \[astro-ph.GA\].
N. Fornengo, R. A. Lineros, M. Regis and M. Taoso, arXiv:1110.4337 \[astro-ph.GA\]. F. Yusef-Zadeh, M. Morris, D. Chance, Nature [**310**]{}, 557 (1984).
M. Tsuboi, [*et al.*]{}, Astrophys. J. [**92**]{}, 818 (1986).
H. Lesch, R. Schlickeiser, A. Crusius, Astron. Astrophys. [**200**]{}, L9 (1988).
H. Lesch and W. Reich, Astron. Astrophys. [**264**]{}, L493 (1992).
M. A. Malkov and L. O’C Drury, Rept. Prog. Phys. [**64**]{}, 429 (2001).
S. Boldyrev and F. Yusef-Zadeh, Astrophys. J. [**637**]{}, L101 (2006) \[astro-ph/0512373\].
S. Lieb, H. Lesch and G. T. Birk, Astron. Astrophys. [**419**]{}, 161 (2004) \[astro-ph/0402595\]. A. Lazarian, G. Kowal, E. Vishniac and E. d. G. d. Pino, arXiv:1003.2637 \[astro-ph.GA\]. J. Giacalone and J. R. Jokipii, Astrophys. J. [**520**]{}, 204 (1999).
C. Law and F. Yusef-Zadeh, Astrophys. J. [**611**]{}, 858 (2004) \[astro-ph/0404544\].
Y. E. Lyubarsky, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**358**]{}, 113 (2005) \[astro-ph/0501392\].
O. Zanotti and M. Dumbser, arXiv:1103.5924 \[astro-ph.HE\].
W. Reich, Astron. Astrophys. [**401**]{}, 1023 (2003) \[astro-ph/0302348\]; Y. Sofue, Y. Murata and W. Reich, Publ. Astron. Soc. Jap. [**43**]{} 367 (1992); C. C. Lang, M. Morris and L. Echevarria, Astrophys. J. [**526**]{}, 727 (1999) astro-ph/9906336; A. D. Gray, J. Nicholls, R. D. Ekers, L. E. Cram, Astrophys. J. [**448**]{}, 164 (1995).
F. Yusef-Zadeh, J. Hewitt and W. Cotton, Astrophys. J. Suppl. [**155**]{}, 421 (2004) \[astro-ph/0409292\].
D. N. Spergel [*et al.*]{} \[WMAP Collaboration\], Astrophys. J. Suppl. [**170**]{}, 377 (2007) \[astro-ph/0603449\].
D. P. Finkbeiner, Astrophys. J. [**614**]{}, 186 (2004). G. Dobler, D. P. Finkbeiner, Astrophys. J. [**680**]{}, 1222-1234 (2008). \[arXiv:0712.1038 \[astro-ph\]\].
M. Su, T. R. Slatyer and D. P. Finkbeiner, Astrophys. J. [**724**]{}, 1044 (2010) \[arXiv:1005.5480 \[astro-ph.HE\]\].
R. M. Crocker and F. Aharonian, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**106**]{}, 101102 (2011) \[arXiv:1008.2658 \[astro-ph.GA\]\]. A. W. Strong and I. V. Moskalenko Astrophys. J. [**509**]{}, 212, (1998); A. W. Strong [*et al.*]{}, \[arXiv:0907.0559 \[astro-ph\]\]
D. J. Fixsen, A. Kogut, S. Levin, M. Limon, P. Lubin, P. Mirel, M. Seiffert, J. Singal [*et al.*]{}, Astrophys. J. [**734**]{}, 5 (2011) \[arXiv:0901.0555 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]; M. Seiffert, D. J. Fixsen, A. Kogut, S. M. Levin, M. Limon, P. M. Lubin, P. Mirel, J. Singal [*et al.*]{}, Astrophys. J. [**734**]{}, 6 (2011) \[arXiv:0901.0559 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
N. Fornengo, R. Lineros, M. Regis, M. Taoso, \[arXiv:1108.0569 \[hep-ph\]\].
M. Regis, private communication.
The Fermi-LAT Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**107**]{}, 241302 (2011) \[arXiv:1108.3546 \[astro-ph.HE\]\]; A. Geringer-Sameth, S. M. Koushiappas Phys. Rev. Lett. [**107**]{}, 241303 (2011) \[arXiv:1108.2914 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
M. Ackermann, M. Ajello, A. Allafort [*et al.*]{}, JCAP [**1005**]{}, 025 (2010) \[arXiv:1002.2239 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]; L. Dugger, T. E. Jeltema, S. Profumo, JCAP [**1012**]{}, 015 (2010) \[arXiv:1009.5988 \[astro-ph.HE\]\].
K. N. Abazajian, P. Agrawal, Z. Chacko, C. Kilic, JCAP [**1011**]{}, 041 (2010) \[arXiv:1002.3820 \[astro-ph.HE\]\]; A. A. Abdo [*et al.*]{} \[Fermi-LAT Collaboration\], JCAP [**1004**]{}, 014 (2010) \[arXiv:1002.4415 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
D. P. Finkbeiner, S. Galli, T. Lin and T. R. Slatyer, arXiv:1109.6322 \[astro-ph.CO\]; T. R. Slatyer, N. Padmanabhan and D. P. Finkbeiner, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 043526 (2009) \[arXiv:0906.1197 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]; G. Hutsi, J. Chluba, A. Hektor and M. Raidal, arXiv:1103.2766 \[astro-ph.CO\].
R. Kappl and M. W. Winkler, Nucl. Phys. B [**850**]{}, 505 (2011) \[arXiv:1104.0679 \[hep-ph\]\]; D. Hooper, F. Petriello, K. M. Zurek and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 015010 (2009) \[arXiv:0808.2464 \[hep-ph\]\]; S. Kundu and P. Bhattacharjee, arXiv:1106.5711 \[astro-ph.GA\]. R. Kappl and M. W. Winkler, arXiv:1110.4376 \[hep-ph\]; D. G. Cerdeno, T. Delahaye and J. Lavalle, Nucl. Phys. B [**854**]{}, 738 (2012) \[arXiv:1108.1128 \[hep-ph\]\]. E. A. Baltz and D. Hooper, JCAP [**0507**]{}, 001 (2005) \[hep-ph/0411053\].
O. Adriani [*et al.*]{} \[PAMELA Collaboration\], Nature [**458**]{}, 607 (2009) \[arXiv:0810.4995 \[astro-ph\]\].
M. Ackermann [*et al.*]{} \[The Fermi LAT Collaboration\], arXiv:1109.0521 \[astro-ph.HE\].
A. K. Drukier, K. Freese, D. N. Spergel, Phys. Rev. [**D33**]{}, 3495-3508 (1986).
R. Bernabei [*et al.*]{} \[DAMA Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [**480**]{}, 23 (2000).
M. Kuhlen [*et al.*]{}, JCAP [**1002**]{}, 030 (2010) \[arXiv:0912.2358 \[astro-ph.GA\]\].
D. Tucker-Smith, N. Weiner, Phys. Rev. [**D64**]{}, 043502 (2001). \[hep-ph/0101138\]; D. Tucker-Smith, N. Weiner, Phys. Rev. [**D72**]{}, 063509 (2005). \[hep-ph/0402065\].
P. Gondolo and G. Gelmini, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 123520 (2005) \[hep-ph/0504010\].
A. Bottino, F. Donato, N. Fornengo, S. Scopel, Phys. Rev. [**D69**]{}, 037302 (2004). \[hep-ph/0307303\].
Talk by J. Collar, TAUP 2011 Workshop, Munich, Germany, Sep. 5-9, 2011; CoGeNT Collaboration paper in preparation.
D. Hooper, C. Kelso, Phys. Rev. D [**84**]{}, 083001 (2011) \[arXiv:1106.1066 \[hep-ph\]\].
P. J. Fox, J. Liu and N. Weiner, Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{}, 103514 (2011) \[arXiv:1011.1915 \[hep-ph\]\]. P. J. Fox, G. D. Kribs, T. M. P. Tait, Phys. Rev. [**D83**]{}, 034007 (2011). \[arXiv:1011.1910 \[hep-ph\]\].
D. Hooper, J. I. Collar, J. Hall, D. McKinsey, C. Kelso, Phys. Rev. [**D82**]{}, 123509 (2010). \[arXiv:1007.1005 \[hep-ph\]\].
The DAMA Collaboration, Nuovo Cim. [**4**]{}, 26 (2003); See references contained within Ref. [@damaquenching] and K. Fushimi, H. Ejiri, H. Kinoshita [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**C47**]{}, 425-428 (1993); D. R. Tovey, V. Kudryavtsev, M. Lehner [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**B433**]{}, 150-155 (1998); H. Chagani, P. Majewski, E. J. Daw [*et al.*]{}, JINST [**3**]{}, P06003 (2008). \[arXiv:0806.1916 \[physics.ins-det\]\].
C. Kelso, D. Hooper, JCAP [**1102**]{}, 002 (2011). \[arXiv:1011.3076 \[hep-ph\]\].
D. Nygren, arXiv:1102.0815 \[astro-ph.IM\]; K. Blum, arXiv:1110.0857 \[astro-ph.HE\]; J. P. Ralston, arXiv:1006.5255 \[hep-ph\]. M. Selvi (The LVD Collaboration), “Analysis of the seasonal modulation of the cosmic muon flux in the LVD detector during 2001-2008”, Proc. of the 31st International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC), Lodz, Poland, 2009.
P. Adamson [*et al.*]{} \[MINOS Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 012001 (2010) \[arXiv:0909.4012 \[hep-ex\]\]. Talk given by Alec Habig, November 2011.
S. Chang, J. Pradler and I. Yavin, arXiv:1111.4222 \[hep-ph\].
D. Bauer, private communication.
R. Bernabei, P. Belli, F. Cappella, R. Cerulli, C. J. Dai, A. d’Angelo, H. L. He, A. Incicchitti [*et al.*]{}, AIP Conf. Proc. [**1223**]{}, 50-59 (2010). \[arXiv:0912.0660 \[astro-ph.GA\]\].
J. Kopp, T. Schwetz, J. Zupan, \[arXiv:1110.2721 \[hep-ph\]\].
B. Feldstein, A. L. Fitzpatrick, E. Katz, JCAP [**1001**]{}, 020 (2010) \[arXiv:0908.2991 \[hep-ph\]\]; S. Chang, A. Pierce, N. Weiner, JCAP [**1001**]{}, 006 (2010). \[arXiv:0908.3192 \[hep-ph\]\].
Y. Bai, P. J. Fox, JHEP [**0911**]{}, 052 (2009). \[arXiv:0909.2900 \[hep-ph\]\].
A. L. Fitzpatrick, K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. [**D82**]{}, 075004 (2010). \[arXiv:1007.5325 \[hep-ph\]\].
M. Farina, D. Pappadopulo, A. Strumia, T. Volansky, JCAP [**1111**]{}, 010 (2011) \[arXiv:1107.0715 \[hep-ph\]\].
J. Diemand, B. Moore, J. Stadel, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**352**]{}, 535 (2004). \[astro-ph/0402160\]; R. Wojtak, E. L. Lokas, S. Gottloeber, G. A. Mamon, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**361**]{}, L1 (2005). \[astro-ph/0503391\]; S. H. Hansen, B. Moore, M. Zemp, J. Stadel, JCAP [**0601**]{}, 014 (2006). \[astro-ph/0505420\]; S. H. Hansen, B. Moore, New Astron. [**11**]{}, 333 (2006). \[astro-ph/0411473\].
J. Diemand, M. Kuhlen, P. Madau, M. Zemp, B. Moore, D. Potter, J. Stadel, Nature [**454**]{}, 735-738 (2008). \[arXiv:0805.1244 \[astro-ph\]\]; J. Diemand, M. Kuhlen, P. Madau, Astrophys. J. [**657**]{}, 262-270 (2007). \[astro-ph/0611370\]; J. Stadel, D. Potter, B. Moore, J. Diemand, P. Madau, M. Zemp, M. Kuhlen, V. Quilis, \[arXiv:0808.2981 \[astro-ph\]\]; V. Springel, J. Wang, M. Vogelsberger, A. Ludlow, A. Jenkins, A. Helmi, J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk [*et al.*]{}, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**391**]{}, 1685-1711 (2008). \[arXiv:0809.0898 \[astro-ph\]\]; M. Zemp, J. Diemand, M. Kuhlen, P. Madau, B. Moore, D. Potter, J. Stadel, L. Widrow, \[arXiv:0812.2033 \[astro-ph\]\].
M. Lisanti, L. E. Strigari, J. G. Wacker, R. H. Wechsler, Phys. Rev. [**D83**]{}, 023519 (2011). \[arXiv:1010.4300 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
B. Moore, C. Calcaneo-Roldan, J. Stadel, T. R. Quinn, G. Lake, S. Ghigna, F. Governato, Phys. Rev. [**D64**]{}, 063508 (2001). \[astro-ph/0106271\]; J. D. Vergados, S. H. Hansen, O. Host, Phys. Rev. [**D77**]{}, 023509 (2008). \[arXiv:0711.4895 \[astro-ph\]\].
C. Savage, K. Freese and P. Gondolo, Phys. Rev. D [**74**]{}, 043531 (2006) \[astro-ph/0607121\].
Z. Ahmed [*et al.*]{} \[CDMS-II Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**106**]{}, 131302 (2011). \[arXiv:1011.2482 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
D. S. Akerib [*et al.*]{} \[CDMS Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. [**D82**]{}, 122004 (2010). \[arXiv:1010.4290 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
E. Aprile [*et al.*]{} \[XENON100 Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**107**]{}, 131302 (2011) \[arXiv:1104.2549 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
J. Angle [*et al.*]{} \[XENON10 Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**107**]{}, 051301 (2011). \[arXiv:1104.3088 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
G. Plante, E. Aprile, R. Budnik, B. Choi, K. -L. Giboni, L. W. Goetzke, R. F. Lang, K. E. Lim [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**84**]{}, 045805 (2011) \[arXiv:1104.2587 \[nucl-ex\]\].
J. Collar, arXiv:1106.0653 \[astro-ph.CO\].
J. I. Collar, \[arXiv:1010.5187 \[astro-ph.IM\]\].
A. L. Fitzpatrick, D. Hooper, K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. [**D81**]{}, 115005 (2010). \[arXiv:1003.0014 \[hep-ph\]\].
J. L. Feng, J. Kumar, D. Marfatia, D. Sanford, Phys. Lett. [**B703**]{}, 124-127 (2011). \[arXiv:1102.4331 \[hep-ph\]\].
M. Felizardo, T. Girard, T. Morlat, A. C. Fernandes, F. Giuliani, A. R. Ramos, J. G. Marques and M. Auguste [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:1106.3014 \[astro-ph.CO\]. C. E. Dahl, J. Hall and W. H. Lippincott, arXiv:1111.6192 \[astro-ph.CO\]. J. I. Collar, arXiv:1106.3559 \[astro-ph.CO\].
A. Brown, S. Henry, H. Kraus, C. McCabe, \[arXiv:1109.2589 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
M. Beltran [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**D80**]{}, 043509 (2009), \[arXiv:0808.3384 \[hep-ph\]\].
K. Nakamura (Particle Data Group), J. Physics. [**G37**]{}, 075021 (2010).
G. Aad [*et al.*]{} \[ATLAS Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 161801 (2010) \[arXiv:1008.2461 \[hep-ex\]\]; T. Han [*et. al.*]{}, JHEP [**1012**]{}, 085 (2010) \[arXiv:1010.4309 \[hep-ph\]\].
T. Aaltonen [*et al.*]{} \[CDF Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. [**D79**]{}, 112002 (2009), \[arXiv:0812.4036\].
M. R. Buckley, D. Hooper, J. Kopp and E. Neil, Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{}, 115013 (2011) \[arXiv:1103.6035 \[hep-ph\]\]; M. Buckley, P. Fileviez Perez, D. Hooper and E. Neil, Phys. Lett. B [**702**]{}, 256 (2011) \[arXiv:1104.3145 \[hep-ph\]\]; M. R. Buckley, D. Hooper, J. L. Rosner, D. Hooper and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Lett. B [**703**]{}, 343 (2011) \[arXiv:1106.3583 \[hep-ph\]\].
A. V. Belikov [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**705**]{}, 82 (2011) \[arXiv:1009.0549 \[hep-ph\]\]; J. F. Gunion [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:1009.2555; S. Andreas [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**D82**]{}, 043522 (2010), \[arXiv:1003.2595\]; P. Draper [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**106**]{}, 121805 (2011) \[arXiv:1009.3963 \[hep-ph\]\]; V. Barger [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{}, 095011 (2010) \[arXiv:1008.1796 \[hep-ph\]\]; K. J. Bae [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{}, 115014 (2010) \[arXiv:1005.5131 \[hep-ph\]\]; E. Kuflik [*et al.*]{} Phys. Rev. [**D81**]{}, 111701 (2010), \[arXiv:1003.0682\]; V. Barger [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**D82**]{}, 035019 (2010), \[arXiv:1005.3328\]; M. H. G. Tytgat, PoS IDM [**2010**]{}, 126 (2011) \[arXiv:1012.0576 \[hep-ph\]\]; Z. Kang, J. Li, T. Li, T. Liu and J. Yang, arXiv:1102.5644 \[hep-ph\].
M. S. Boucenna and S. Profumo, Phys. Rev. D [**84**]{}, 055011 (2011) \[arXiv:1106.3368 \[hep-ph\]\]; H. E. Logan, Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{}, 035022 (2011) \[arXiv:1010.4214 \[hep-ph\]\]; G. Marshall and R. Primulando, JHEP [**1105**]{}, 026 (2011) \[arXiv:1102.0492 \[hep-ph\]\].
D. B. Kaplan, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 741 (1992); S. Nussinov, Phys. Lett. B [**165**]{}, 55 (1985); S. M. Barr, Phys. Rev. D [**44**]{}, 3062 (1991); S. M. Barr, R. S. Chivukula and E. Farhi, Phys. Lett. B [**241**]{}, 387 (1990); S. B. Gudnason, C. Kouvaris and F. Sannino, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 115003 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0603014\]; S. Dodelson, B. R. Greene and L. M. Widrow, Nucl. Phys. B [**372**]{}, 467 (1992); M. Fujii and T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B [**542**]{}, 80 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0206066\]; R. Kitano and I. Low, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 023510 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0411133\]; R. Kitano, H. Murayama and M. Ratz, Phys. Lett. B [**669**]{}, 145 (2008) \[arXiv:0807.4313 \[hep-ph\]\]; G. R. Farrar and G. Zaharijas, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 041302 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0510079\]; Z. Berezhiani and A. Lepidi, Phys. Lett. B [**681**]{}, 276 (2009) \[arXiv:0810.1317 \[hep-ph\]\]; G. D. Kribs, T. S. Roy, J. Terning and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 095001 (2010) \[arXiv:0909.2034 \[hep-ph\]\]; Y. Cai, M. A. Luty and D. E. Kaplan, arXiv:0909.5499 \[hep-ph\]. H. An, S. L. Chen, R. N. Mohapatra and Y. Zhang, JHEP [**1003**]{}, 124 (2010) \[arXiv:0911.4463 \[hep-ph\]\]; D. E. Kaplan, M. A. Luty and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 115016 (2009) \[arXiv:0901.4117 \[hep-ph\]\]. T. Cohen and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 101301 (2010) \[arXiv:0909.2035 \[hep-ph\]\].
M. R. Buckley and L. Randall, JHEP [**1109**]{}, 009 (2011) \[arXiv:1009.0270 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. R. Buckley and S. Profumo, arXiv:1109.2164 \[hep-ph\].
P. J. Fox, R. Harnik, J. Kopp and Y. Tsai, Phys. Rev. D [**84**]{}, 014028 (2011) \[arXiv:1103.0240 \[hep-ph\]\].
M. Beltran, D. Hooper, E. W. Kolb, Z. A. C. Krusberg and T. M. P. Tait, JHEP [**1009**]{}, 037 (2010) \[arXiv:1002.4137 \[hep-ph\]\]. Y. Bai, P. J. Fox and R. Harnik, JHEP [**1012**]{}, 048 (2010) \[arXiv:1005.3797 \[hep-ph\]\].
P. J. Fox, R. Harnik, J. Kopp and Y. Tsai, arXiv:1109.4398 \[hep-ph\]; A. Rajaraman, W. Shepherd, T. M. P. Tait and A. M. Wijangco, arXiv:1108.1196 \[hep-ph\]; J. Goodman, M. Ibe, A. Rajaraman, W. Shepherd, T. M. P. Tait and H. -B. Yu, Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{}, 116010 (2010) \[arXiv:1008.1783 \[hep-ph\]\]; J. Goodman [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**695**]{}, 185 (2011) \[arXiv:1005.1286 \[hep-ph\]\].
D. Hooper, P. Blasi, and P. D. Serpico, JCAP 0910:025 (2009), \[arXiv:0810.1527 \[astro-ph\]\].
[^1]: While these results are largely based on the analysis of Ref. [@hooperlinden] (and its predecessors Refs. [@HG1; @HG2]), an independent analysis of the Fermi data in the direction Galactic Center was also presented in Ref. [@Boyarsky:2010dr]. The results of Ref. [@Boyarsky:2010dr] are in good agreement with those of Ref. [@hooperlinden]. In particular, Ref. [@Boyarsky:2010dr] find that the inclusion of a dark matter-like signal in their analysis improves the log-likelihood of their fit by 25 with the addition of only one new parameter, corresponding to a significance of approximately 5$\sigma$ [@Boyarsky:2010dr]. The Fermi Collaboration has also presented preliminary findings [@prelim] which describe a spectrum of excess emission consistent with that found in Ref. [@hooperlinden].
[^2]: More recently, a diffuse flux of gamma-rays has been identified at high latitudes in the Fermi data, likely resulting from the Inverse Compton scattering of $\sim$TeV electrons/positrons [@Su:2010qj] (or possibly the scattering of cosmic ray hadrons with gas [@Crocker:2010dg]). While it is possible that this emission (which goes by names such as the Fermi Haze, the Fermi Bubbles, and the Fermi Lobes) is in some way connected to the WMAP Haze, it is also possible that these signals result from two separate populations of cosmic rays, with considerably differing energies and which are evident in quite different parts of the sky.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We use measurements of the stellar mass function, galaxy clustering, and galaxy-galaxy lensing within the COSMOS survey to constrain the stellar-to-halo mass relation (SHMR) of star forming and quiescent galaxies over the redshift range $z=[0.2,1.0]$. For massive galaxies, $\mgal\gtrsim 10^{10.6} \msol$, our results indicate that star-forming galaxies grow proportionately as fast as their dark matter halos while quiescent galaxies are outpaced by dark matter growth. At lower masses, there is minimal difference in the SHMRs, implying that the majority low-mass quiescent galaxies have only recently been quenched of their star formation. Our analysis also affords a breakdown of all COSMOS galaxies into the relative numbers of central and satellite galaxies for both populations. At $z=1$, satellite galaxies dominate the red sequence below the knee in the stellar mass function. But the number of quiescent satellites exhibits minimal redshift evolution; all evolution in the red sequence is due to low-mass central galaxies being quenched of their star formation. At $\mgal\sim 10^{10} \msol$, the fraction of central galaxies on the red sequence increases by a factor of ten over our redshift baseline, while the fraction of quenched satellite galaxies at that mass is constant with redshift. We define a “migration rate” to the red sequence as the time derivative of the passive galaxy abundances. We find that the migration rate of central galaxies to the red sequence increases by nearly an order of magnitude from $z=1$ to $z=0$. These results imply that the efficiency of quenching star formation for centrals is increasing with cosmic time, while the mechanisms that quench the star formation of satellite galaxies in groups and clusters is losing efficiency.'
author:
- |
Jeremy L. Tinker, Alexie Leauthaud, Kevin Bundy, Matthew R. George,\
Peter Behroozi, Richard Massey, Jason Rhodes, Risa H. Wechsler
bibliography:
- '../risa.bib'
title: |
Evolution of the Stellar-to-Dark Matter Relation:\
Separating Star-Forming and Passive Galaxies from $z=1$ to 0
---
Introduction
============
One of the defining characteristics of the $z=0$ galaxy distribution is its bimodality. Galaxies can be roughly categorized into the star-forming sequence of blue, disky, gas-rich galaxies, and the quiescent, ellipsoidal galaxies with old stellar populations and red colors (@strateva_etal:01 [@blanton_etal:03cmd; @kauffmann_etal:03b; @madgwick_etal:03]). This bimodality is firmly in place at $z=1$ (@bell_etal:04 [@cooper_etal:06; @willmer_etal:06]) and extends out to $z=2$ and possibly beyond (@kriek_etal:08 [@williams_etal:09]). The physical processes that drive the creation and evolution of the red sequence are not fully understood. There are many possible routes to the red sequence, but the relative efficiency of each are unquantified. In this paper we use measurements of the stellar mass function, galaxy clustering, and galaxy-galaxy lensing from the COSMOS survey (@scoville_etal:07) to disentangle the various process that attenuate star formation in galaxies. This paper is an extension of [@leauthaud_etal:11a; @leauthaud_etal:12_shmr] (hereafter, L11 and L12). In L11 we presented our theoretical framework; in L12 we applied this framework to stellar mass defined samples in COSMOS; in this paper we extend this framework to samples defined by both stellar mass and star formation activity, and apply it once again to COSMOS data.
The proposed mechanisms for quenching star formation can be grouped into two broad categories: processes that affect galaxies that exist at the center of the potential well of their host dark matter halo, and processes that affect galaxies that orbit as satellites within a larger dark matter potential. Central galaxy processes include mergers, AGN feedback— triggered either by mergers or by disk instabilities—and shock heating of infalling gas at a critical halo mass scale or galaxy mass scale (e.g., @croton_etal:06a [@bower_etal:06; @dekel_birnboim:06; @cattaneo_etal:06; @hopkins_etal:08b]). Satellite galaxy processes do include some AGN and merging activity, but are likely dominated by tidal effects from the host dark matter halo, harassment by other galaxies within the group, strangulation from an active cold gas supply, and ram pressure stripping of gas by interaction with the host halo’s hot gas (e.g., @gunn_gott:72 [@moore_etal:98; @balogh_etal:00]).
In this work we define a galaxy group as a set of galaxies that share a common dark matter halo. Close pairs of halos certainly exist in the field (e.g., the Milky Way-Andromeda pair), but by our definition these are not galaxy groups. This definition matches up to the division of processes that quench galaxies defined in the previous paragraph: ram pressure, tidal stripping, and strangulation do not significantly affect galaxies until they have crossed the virial radius of a larger halo[^1]. This definition also fits seamlessly with our theoretical framework for analyzing the clustering and lensing of galaxies.
To disentangle the relative numbers of central and satellite galaxies, we use the framework of the Halo Occupation Distribution (HOD; see, e.g., @peacock_smith:00 [@seljak:00; @roman_etal:01; @cooray_sheth:02; @berlind_weinberg:02] for early works, and @zheng_etal:07 [@vdb_etal:07; @tinker_etal:10_drg] for examples of more recent implementations of the framework). In brief, the HOD provides a statistical framework for the probability distribution function of galaxies within halos. Traditionally, HOD models parameterize $P(N|\mhalo)$, the probability that a halo of mass $M$ contains $N$ galaxies in a pre-defined sample. The HOD for a given galaxy mass, $\mgal$, is based on two characteristic halo mass scales: the mean halo mass for central galaxies and a larger halo mass where there is (on average) one satellite galaxy of mass $M\ge\mgal$. Here we use an extended model that parameterizes this probability as a function of galaxy mass, $P(N|\mhalo,\mgal)$, rather than for a specified threshold. The specific model we implement is described in detail in L11, which begins with parameterization of the stellar mass-to-halo mass relation for central galaxies (SHMR). This function specifies the mean mass of a central galaxy as a function of halo mass. The halo mass scale for satellite galaxies is motivated by previous HOD analyses that find a tight relation between these two halo mass scales.
The benefit of the COSMOS survey for this work is that it provides a consistent set of observations and the same definition of stellar mass at various redshifts. Additionally, the broad wavelength coverage of COSMOS are highly efficient at differentiating dusty star-forming galaxies from truly passive objects. Although data exists at multiple epochs from various surveys, the clustering of galaxies depend sensitively on survey selection (@sanchez_cole:08), and stellar mass estimates depend on both survey parameters and on assumptions in the stellar mass modeling (@conroy_etal:09 [@conroy_gunn:10]). Constraints on the redshift evolution in the SHMR are significantly weakened when incorporating such uncertainties into the analysis (@behroozi_etal:10), thus the COSMOS data set is crucial for identifying true redshift trends.
In this paper we will interchangeably use the terms “quiescent”, “quenched”, and “passive” to refer to galaxies that have little to no star formation and are intrinsically located on the red sequence. Galaxies that appear red due to dust contamination of broadband colors are included in the star-forming sequence. We will discuss this further in §2. We will refer to the “red sequence” to mean the set of galaxies that are intrinsically red. The complement of the red sequence is the set of star-forming (SF) galaxies.We will use the knee in the stellar mass function, approximately $10^{10.6}\,\msol$ at all redshifts considered (@drory_etal:09 [@marchesini_etal:09]), as the reference point between “high-mass” and “low-mass” galaxy samples. Our reference point for small and large distance scales is 1 Mpc (comoving; $\sim
110$ arcsec at $z=0.5$), which is the at the center of the transition in the galaxy correlation function from pair counts being dominated by galaxies in two distinct halos and pairs that arise from two galaxies occupying a common halo. We will frequently refer to both the fraction of galaxies that are satellites, $\fsat$, the fraction of galaxies that are quenched $\fred$, and combinations of both. For clarity, the fraction of satellites that are quenched is referenced as $\fred(sat)$ while the fraction of quenched galaxies that are satellites is referenced as $\fsat(q)$—i.e., the subsample [*for which*]{} the fraction is determined is referenced parenthetically, while the quantity [*by which*]{} the fraction is determined is listed in the subscript.
In all theoretical modeling we assume a flat cosmological model of ($\om$,$\s8$,$\omb$,$n_s$,$h_0) =
(0.272,0.807,0.0438,0.963,0.72)$. We define a dark matter halo as a spherical, virialized object with a mean interior density of $\Delta\equiv 3\mhalo/4\pi\om\rhocrit R_{h}^3=200$. All halo statistics used in this paper are calibrated from numerical simulations that match this halo definition.
Data {#s.data}
====
Details of the COSMOS survey can be found in [@scoville_etal:07]. Details of the measurement techniques and methods for the stellar mass functions (SMFs), angular galaxy clustering ($\wtheta$), and galaxy-galaxy lensing ($\DS$) can be found in L12. All $\wtheta$ measurements are taken from the Subaru catalog (2.3 deg$^2$) while lensing and SMF measurements are restricted to the $HST$ ACS catalog (1.64 deg$^2$). The sample selection is also identical to L12. Here we repeat all these measurements, now broken into two subsamples of star-forming (blue) and passive (red) objects. Intrinsically passive galaxies are identified in a specific region in the $(NUV-R)-(R-J)$ color-color space in the same manner as [@bundy_etal:10]). The addition of near-IR data breaks the degeneracy between dusty and star-forming objects (@pozzetti_mannucci:00 [@labbe_etal:05; @williams_etal:09; @zhu_etal:11]).
Photometric redshifts are obtained from [@ilbert_etal:09], versions v1.7 and v1.8. These photo-$z$ estimates have negligible differences at $z<1$ but v1.8 has improved accuracy relative to spectroscopic redshifts. The v1.7 photo-$z$’s are used for the SMF and $\wtheta$ and v1.8 for the lensing catalog. Later version of the photometric redshifts, which were not available during much of the present work, focus on $z\sim 2$. We have confirmed that there are negligible changes to $z<1$ results.
Stellar masses are estimated using the Bayesian code of [@bundy_etal:06] and assume a [@chabrier:03] IMF. While the method of Bundy et. al. uses multi-band colors to constrain the $M/L$ ratio in the observed K-band, with mass estimates derived from application to the K-band luminosity only.
We restrict our analysis to stellar masses above the 80% stellar mass completeness limit, as in L12. Due to the lower intrinsic luminosities at fixed stellar mass, passive galaxies have a higher completeness limit at fixed redshift by roughly $\sim 0.2$ dex. For the stellar mass function and the galaxy-galaxy lensing measurements, we restrict the measurements of the passive population to be above that limit (although we will compare our lensing fits to the data for these bins in the presentation of our results for comparison purposes). For the clustering measurements, we find that including passive galaxies down to the star-forming stellar mass limit does not bias the clustering of those samples[^2] thus we incorporate these galaxies in the clustering bins. See Figure 2 in L12 for a plot of the completeness limits as a function of redshift. Stellar mass limits are also given in Table 1.
In addition to the SMFs, we also incorporate the ratio of the passive and SF SMFs into our analysis. The ratio takes into account that the amplitudes of the passive and SF SMFs are correlated to some degree, given that they are measured from the same sample of galaxies. All measurements are made in three redshift bins that span a range of $z=[0.22,1.00]$. The median redshifts are $z=0.36$, 0.66, and 0.88. We will present our measurements in §4 when discussing our best-fit models.
We also incorporate information from the COSMOS X-ray group catalog of [@george_etal:11]. The central galaxy in each group is determined with high probability, yielding a measurement of the red fraction of central galaxies at $\mhalo \sim 10^{13.5} \msol$ in each redshift bin. The error in this quantity is determined by bootstrap resampling of the group catalog. The purpose of including these data is to prevent unphysical divergent behavior of the models, e.g., models in which the red fraction of central galaxies turns over and approaches zero at high halo masses where the constraints from the three galaxy measures are weak. In practice, the inclusion of the group data does not significantly affect the results.
As described in L11 and L12, we use a large-volume, high-resolution N-body simulation to create mock galaxy distributions with the same angular size and comoving depth of each slice in the COSMOS survey. We use the “Consuelo” simulation, which is part of the LasDamas simulation suite (C. McBride, in preparation). This simulation is 420 on a side and contains 1400$^3$ particles. These mocks are then used to estimate the covariance matrices of each data set. Within the simulation, we are able to create 409, 179, and 105 mocks for the $z=0.36$, $0.66$, and $0.88$ redshift bins, respectively. We populate the halos in the simulation with galaxies using a preliminary HOD fit to the measurements, yielding a preliminary estimate of the covariances. We then repeat this procedure with HOD fits that utilize the first covariance matrices to produce the final errors used in the results presented here. These covariance matrices are used as the full errors on the SMFs and $\wtheta$ measurements. Because these two statistics involve simple counting of galaxies and their pairs, the N-body simulations encompass both the sample variance from large-scale structure and shot noise from small number statistics. For the lensing measurements, the statistical errors arising from the ellipticity measurements of the background sources are added to the covariance matrices from the mocks, which estimate the sample variance. In most cases, the statistical errors dominate the uncertainty in $\DS$.
Theory
======
In L11, we outlined an HOD-based model that can be used to analytically predict the SMF, g-g lensing, and clustering signals. A key component of this model is the SHMR which is modelled as a mean-log relation, noted as $\mgal=\fshmr(M_h)$, with a log-normal scatter[^3] noted $\sigma_{\rm log M_{\ast}}$. Here we give a brief review of the model of the minor modifications used to adapt it to passive and SF subsamples of galaxies.
The stellar-to-halo mass relation for central galaxies
------------------------------------------------------
Following @behroozi_etal:10, $\fshmr(M_h)$ is mathematically defined following its inverse function:
$$\log_{10}(\fshmr^{-1}(\mgal)) = \hspace{0.65\columnwidth}$$
$$\label{e.shmr}
\quad \log_{10}(M_1) + \beta\,\log_{10}\left(\frac{\mgal}{M_{\ast,0}}\right) +
\frac{\left(\frac{\mgal}{M_{\ast,0}}\right)^\delta}{1 + \left(\frac{M_{\ast}}{M_{\ast,0}}\right)^{-\gamma}} - \frac{1}{2}.$$
where $M_{1}$ is a characteristic halo mass, $M_{*,0}$ is a characteristic stellar mass, $\beta$ is the low-mass slope, and $\delta$ and $\gamma$ control the massive end slope. We note that equation \[e.shmr\] is only relevant for central galaxies. We use equation \[e.shmr\] to parameterize the SHMR of both passive and SF central galaxies, but each subsample will have a separate $\fshmr$.
Eq. \[e.shmr\] specifies the mean halo mass as a function of $\mgal$. We assume that the distribution of central galaxy mass at fixed halo mass, $\Phi_c(\mgal|\mhalo)$, follows a log-normal distribution with scatter $\sigsm$. We will discuss halo occupation of central galaxies at fixed halo mass presently. Previous work suggests that $\sigsm$ is independent of halo mass. [@more_etal:11] finds a scatter in $\mgal$ at fixed halo mass of $0.17 \pm 0.04$ dex. [@moster_etal:09] are able to fit the SDSS galaxy clustering measurements assuming constant $\sigsm$. In L12 we found that a halo mass-varying scatter produced no better fit than a model with constant scatter. We adopt a constant $\sigsm$ here as well, but allow the scatter for passive and SF central galaxies to be independent.
Accounting for passive and star-forming subsamples
--------------------------------------------------
We are bound by the requirement that each halo contains one and only one central galaxy. The mass of that galaxy may be too small to be counted in any COSMOS sample, but formally we require that
$$\int \fred(\mhalo)\times\Phi_{\rm cen}^{\rm q}(\mgal|\mhalo)\,+ \hspace{0.25\columnwidth}$$
$$[1-\fred(\mhalo)]\times\Phi_{\rm cen}^{\rm SF}(\mgal|\mhalo)\,d\mgal = 1,$$
where $\fred(\mhalo)$ is a function specifying the fraction of times that a halo of mass $\mhalo$ contains a quenched central galaxy (independent of galaxy mass), and $\Phi_{\rm cen}^{\rm
x}(\mgal|\mhalo)$ is the conditional stellar mass function for central quenched or SF galaxies, each normalized to unity. Parameterizing the quenching of central galaxies by halo mass as opposed to stellar mass (or the ratio between the two) makes an implicit choice of the mechanisms that quench star formation in central galaxies (see the discussions in @hopkins_etal:08b and @tinker_wetzel:10). Given the small scatter between stellar mass and halo mass, this choice is not likely to bias the results we focus on here, e.g., the fraction of centrals that are red. This choice is also beneficial for its ease of implementation in our halo occupation framework.
We do not choose a parametric form for $\fred(\mhalo)$. Rather, we choose five halo mass points at which to specify $\fred(\mhalo)$ and smoothly interpolate between them. The five masses are evenly spaced in $\log\mhalo$ from 10.8 to 14.0.
Calculating halo occupation of centrals and satellites
------------------------------------------------------
In order to avoid explicit dependence of our HOD parameters on our bin size, we define all HODs as threshold quantities. Having halo occupation parameterized for threshold samples yields maximal flexibility for taking the same HOD parameters and calculating $\langle N\rangle_M$ for a bin of arbitrary size. For a sample of galaxies above a threshold stellar mass, the central occupation function $\ncen$ is expressed as
$$\langle N_{\rm cen}(M_h|>\mgal) \rangle = \hspace{0.65\columnwidth}$$
$$\label{e.ncen}
\frac{1}{2}\left[ 1-\mbox{erf}\left(\frac{\log_{10}(\mgal) - \log_{10}(\fshmr(M_h)) }{\sqrt{2}\sigma_{\rm log M_{*}}} \right)\right].$$
As discussed in L11, equation (\[e.ncen\]) correctly captures the behavior of $\ncen$ for massive galaxy samples, as opposed to the common parameterization where scatter is parameterized at fixed stellar mass as opposed to fixed halo mass. Eq. \[e.ncen\] is valid for both SF and passive central galaxies, but the parameters of the $\fshmr$ are independent for each subsample. Eq. \[e.ncen\] assumes that there is one central galaxy per halo; in the case of our subsamples, this is not explicitly true. For red central galaxies, Eq. \[e.ncen\] is multiplied by $\fred(\mhalo)$, and by $1-\fred(\mhalo)$ for SF central galaxies.
The occupation of satellite galaxies as a function of halo mass, $\nsat$, is
$$\langle N_{\rm sat}(M_h|>\mgal) \rangle = \hspace{0.65\columnwidth}$$
$$\label{e.nsat}
\left(\frac{\mhalo}{M_{\rm sat}}\right)^{\asat} \exp\left(\frac{-(\mcut+\fshmri(\mgal)}{\mhalo}\right),$$
where $\msat$ is the halo mass scale for satellite galaxies, $\mcut$ is a cutoff scale, and $\asat$ is how the number of satellites scales with halo mass. We treat the satellite occupation of the passive and SF subsamples independently; unlike central galaxies, there is no integral constraint on the total number of satellite galaxies any halo can have. Equation (\[e.nsat\]) is a minor modification from L11 (Eq. 12 therein); in L11, $\nsat$ is proportional to $\ncen$—this guarantees that satellite occupation fully cuts off at the same halo mass scale as central galaxies of the same mass. However, in our new red/blue parameterization this would correlate $\ncen$ to $\fred(\mhalo)$. We circumvent this problem by including $\fshmri$ to the numerator in the exponential cutoff, producing a similar cutoff scale.
HOD modeling of luminosity-dependent galaxy clustering has shown that $\msat$ is roughly 20 times $\fshmri$, varying weakly with luminosity (e.g., @zehavi_etal:05 [@zehavi_etal:11; @zheng_etal:07; @zheng_etal:09]). We thus parameterize $\msat$ and $\mcut$ as
$$\frac{M_{\rm sat}}{10^{12} M_{\odot}}= B_{\rm sat} \left(\frac{\fshmri}{10^{12}
M_{\odot}}\right)^{\beta_{\rm sat}},$$
and
$$\label{mcut_eq}
\frac{M_{\rm cut}}{10^{12} M_{\odot}}= B_{\rm cut} \left(\frac{\fshmri}{10^{12}
M_{\odot}}\right)^{\beta_{\rm cut}}.$$
In L12 we set $\asat=1$, in agreement with many previous results. However, the fraction of satellites that are star forming depends on halo mass (@wetzel_etal:12_groups1), thus we allow $\asat$ to be free for both passive and SF subsamples. Equations (\[e.ncen\]) and (\[e.nsat\]) give the number of galaxies above a mass threshold as a function of halo mass. Our data are measured in stellar mass bins. To determine the halo occupation in a given bin, we simply take the difference between $\nsat$ (or $\ncen$) at the low- and high-mass edges of the bin.
The model has 27 free parameters. To model the halo occupation of a given subsample requires 11 free parameters. The SHMR has 5 free parameters ($M_{1}, M_{*,0}, \beta, \delta, \gamma$), with one additional parameter for the scatter, $\sigsm$. The satellite occupation requires 5 more parameters ($\Bsat$, $\bsat$, $\Bcut$, $\bcut$, $\asat$). To determine the fraction of central galaxies that are red at each halo mass requires 5 more parameters for a total of 27. Each set of 27 parameters describes the galaxy-halo relation at a given redshift. For each of our three redshift bins, we fit the parameters separately. We use the halo mass function of [@tinker_etal:08_mf], the halo bias relation of [@tinker_etal:10_bias], and the concentration-mass relation for dark matter halos of [@munoz_cuartas_etal:11], assuming that satellite galaxies follow the dark matter within a halo with an NFW profile (@nfw:97). We refer the reader to L11 for a complete description of how to take the halo occupation parameters and calculate the SMFs, clustering, and lensing signals.
[ccc]{} & &\
$218.5/(247-27)$ & $273.0/(241-27)$ & $220.5/(207-27)$\
Results
=======
We use Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) analysis to find both the best-fit model and the uncertainties in model parameters. We analyze each redshift bin separately. For each trial model in the MCMC chain, we calculate a separate $\chi^2$ for the SMF, for each mass bin in $\wtheta$, and each mass bin in $\DS$, for passive and SF subsamples, and the red fraction of central galaxies within the X-ray groups. The total $\chi^2$ is then
$$\label{e.chi2}
\chi^2_{\rm tot} = \sum_{q,SF}\left[ \chi^2_{\rm smf} +
\sum_{i=1}^{N_w} \chi^2_{w,i} + \sum_{j=1}^{N_{\DS}}
\chi^2_{\DS,j}\right] + \chi^2_{fred} + \chi^2_{ratio}.$$
The last two terms in the above equation represent the $\chi^2$ for the red central fraction from the X-ray group catalog and the $\chi^2$ for the ratio of the passive ($q$) and SF SMFs, respectively. We use a covariance matrix for each individual $\chi^2$ calculation, with the exception of $\chi^2_{fred}$. Parameter values and errors from the MCMC chains are in Table \[t.hod\_results\]. The total $\chi^2$ for each best-fit model is listed in Table \[t.chi2\_values\].
Stellar Mass Functions and the Quenched Fraction of Galaxies
------------------------------------------------------------
Figure \[smf\_compare\] shows our measurements of the passive and SF SMFs in COSMOS. Data are shown down to the stellar mass completeness limits for each subtype. The stellar mass functions show limited evolution across our redshift range with the exception of low-mass passive galaxies: the abundance of these galaxies increases by a factor of 2-3 depending on stellar mass. This trend has been shown in a number of papers as a component of the “downsizing” of galaxy formation. [@brinchmann_ellis:00] detected this trend in morphologically-selected samples, and [@bundy_etal:06] found similar results in the abundances of SF and passive galaxies in DEEP2. In our measurements, the $z=0.36$ passive SMF shows a minimum at $mgal\sim 10^{9.5} \msol$, with a subsequent upturn at lower masses, as shown by [@drory_etal:09] for COSMOS data and confirmed in PRIMUS by [@moustakas_etal:13].
In Figure \[smf\_compare\] we compare our measurements to those from [@drory_etal:09] and [@moustakas_etal:13]. The [@drory_etal:09] measurements are also taken from COSMOS, but with two main differences. First, they are measured in different redshift bins. Due to the small footprint of COSMOS, the sample variance from different binning is a non-negligible effect. Second, there are differences in the stellar mass calculations themselves: Drory et. al. fit the mass-to-light ratio $(M/L)$ from all photometric bands, while the method of Bundy et. al. uses multi-band colors to constrain the M/L ratio in the observed K-band, with mass estimates derived from application to the K-band luminosity only. There are also minor differences in the stellar population templates used. Last, in this figure we plot the fitting function results rather than the measurements themselves. The Drory et. al. measurements lie slightly above their fits at the massive end, so the agreement with our data is somewhat better than implied in this figure. Even so, there are minimal differences in the SMFs.
The SMFs from [@moustakas_etal:13] are measured from PRIMUS (their Fig 11; tabulated data kindly provided by J. Moustakas), which is a larger area but does not go as deep as COSMOS due to the use of low-resolution spectroscopy to obtain galaxy redshifts. The abundance of passive galaxies is somewhat higher in the PRIMUS results, but the conclusion of [@moustakas_etal:13] agrees with our measurements here: that the only significant change in abundance is in the low-mass passive population.
Because the focus of this paper is on the growth of the red sequence, we compare our measurements for the redshift evolution of the overall quenched fraction to that of recent measurements from PRIMUS (@moustakas_etal:13) and to the analysis of zCOSMOS by [@knobel_etal:13]. We define the quenched fraction as the density of passive galaxies relative to the total number. PRIMUS contains within it the COSMOS field, but there are differences in both the stellar mass assignment and in the determination of which galaxies are passive. [@moustakas_etal:13] use SED fitting to estimate the star formation rates of PRIMUS objects and then divide the sample based upon this distribution. Figure \[cosmos\_primus\_redfrac\] compares the quenched fractions for four different stellar masses between the two surveys. At all masses, the PRIMUS $\fred$ is slightly higher than the COSMOS value(s). An important comparison, however, is the slope of $\fred$ with redshift. For each bin in $\mgal$, the rate of change appears consistent between the two surveys. For zCOSMOS, the flux limit makes it difficult to achieve a long redshift baseline for anything but the most massive galaxies. But the quenched fractions in [@knobel_etal:13] are significantly higher than either PRIMUS or this work. [@knobel_etal:13] use a $U-B$ color cut to select their sample of passive galaxies, which may be susceptible to dust contamination. In their paper they compare their quenched fractions to those derived from a $NUV-R-J$ color-color diagram (similar to the approach used here), finding very good agreement. In contrast to their results (their Figure 1), the single-color cut is not consistent with the $NUV-R-J$ color selection and it yields a decreasing $\fred$ with decreasing $z$ at the most massive galaxies, which is at odds with the other two results. We will make further comparisons with the results of [@knobel_etal:13] in the §4.5.
In this figure we have included data from the SDSS groups catalog of [@tinker_etal:11_groups]. These represent the data points at $z=0.05$. In this figure, we are presenting $\fq$ for the overall galaxy population, but the group finder is applied to volume-limited samples derived from the SDSS Main sample, yielding a full central-satellite decomposition of all galaxies in the sample. This group catalog is $\sim 95\%$ complete in finding central galaxies and $\sim 90\%$ pure in its sample of satellite galaxies. Quenched fractions in sub-populations of the group catalog are corrected for impurity and completeness statistically (see further details in @tinker_etal:11_groups). We will make significant use of this catalog later in the paper. The differences in stellar mass estimates between COSMOS and SDSS make comparisons of absolute abundances problematic, but fractions are more robust. To facilitate a more robust comparison of the SDSS data with our COSMOS results, we have added 0.2 dex to the stellar mass estimates and added 0.2 dex of scatter. The former represents the 0.2 dex shift in the SMFs between SDSS (@li_white:09) and COSMOS once deconvolved to a common scatter value. The latter is meant to mock up the increase uncertainties between SDSS spectroscopic redshifts and COSMOS photometric redshifts (see the discussion in Figure 14 in L12). Both of these changes lower $\fq$ by 0.1 to 0.2, with the shift in mass scale dominating the effect. The upper error bars show the original SDSS values before shifting and adding scatter. Because both alterations to the SDSS data lower $\fq$, the values used here should be considered lower limits on the quenched fraction of SDSS galaxies.
Comparison of the Measurements to the Best Model Fits
-----------------------------------------------------
Figure \[bestfit\_smf\] compares the stellar mass functions to the best-fit halo occupation models from the MCMC chains. The overall model SMF is shown with the thick solid curves, and the contribution to the SMFs from satellite galaxies is shown with the thin curves. The lower panels show the abundance ratio of SF and passive galaxies. In these panels, the growth of the red sequence at low mass is more evident.
Figure \[bestfit\_wtheta\] shows the clustering measurements for the passive and SF galaxies. Consistent with previous measurements from other redshifts and other surveys, the passive galaxies have equal or higher clustering than the SF galaxies at every bin of stellar mass. For low-mass galaxies, the enhanced clustering of passive galaxies is due to the high fraction of such galaxies being satellites in high-mass halos (e.g., @zehavi_etal:05 [@tinker_etal:08_voids; @vdb_etal:03_early_late; @skibba_sheth:09; @weinmann_etal:06a; @tinker_wetzel:10; @wetzel_etal:12_groups1]) This effect gives rise to the well-known color-density relation. At high masses, $\log\mgal\ge 10.8$, the large-scale bias appears roughly independent of color, while the small-scale clustering of passive galaxies is slightly enhanced. As we will see when inspecting the constraints on the SHMR in Figures \[shmr23\], massive SF galaxies live in higher mass halos than their red counterparts, when binned by halo mass; this is true of both the SHMR results presented here and the group catalog results from [@tinker_etal:12_cosmos] (hereafter T12). However, when binned by galaxy mass, scatter minimizes the difference in the mean halo mass and thus the large-scale bias. Massive SF galaxies have nearly negligible satellite fractions in comparison to massive passive galaxies (at least at $z\ge 0.48$), yielding a higher amplitude for the passive galaxy subsample at small scales.
Figure \[bestfit\_lensing\] rounds out our presentation of the data and model fits. Lower-mass star-forming galaxies primarily live as central galaxies in lower mass halos, the lensing signal is weaker than that of passive galaxies and thus has larger statistical errors. This is reflected in the large error bars for the lower-mass SF measurements. To better understand the information that the lensing signal affords, Figure \[lensing\_detail\] shows a breakdown of the constituent parts of the lensing fit for high mass and low mass galaxies. Ignoring the contribution to the lensing signal between two halos[^4], the lensing signal has three parts: the halo profile around central galaxies, the halo profile around satellite galaxies, and the central point source (i.e., the galaxy itself). For red galaxies, the higher amplitude of the $\DS$ measurements at scales $R\gtrsim 100$ kpc is indicative of the higher satellite fractions, as this scale probes the mass profile of the dark matter halo in its outskirts. Interior to this scale, the lensing signal is a measure of the mass of dark matter halos around central galaxies. For both bins in $\mgal$ shown, the mean halo mass of centrals appears roughly consistent between passive and SF subsamples. The differences are driven primarily by the fraction of galaxies that are satellites.
The Stellar-to-Halo Mass Ratios and their Evolution
---------------------------------------------------
The left-hand panels in Figure \[shmr23\] show the SHMR for red and SF galaxies at each redshift bin. The curves show the best-fit model for each sample, while the shaded regions indicate the range that contains inner 68% of the models. At low masses, the SHMR becomes shallow and stellar mass increases much more rapidly than halo mass: $\mgal \sim \mhalo^{1/\beta}\sim \mhalo^2$. As galaxy mass increases, however, the relation reaches a pivot point at which central galaxies increase in mass slower than their halos and the SHMR becomes steep. This is now accepted as a generic result of the abundance matching paradigm (@conroy_etal:06 [@wang_etal:07; @conroy_wechsler:09; @moster_etal:09; @behroozi_etal:10; @yang_etal:11]). In L12 we defined the pivot point quantitatively as the location in the $\mgal$-$\mhalo$ relation were the $\mgal/\mhalo$ ratio is maximal, usually around $\mgal\sim 10^{10}\,\msol$ and $\mhalo\sim 10^{12}\,\msol$.
At all redshifts, the qualitative behavior of the SHMR for SF and passive galaxies is quite similar; both subsamples show a pivot point. The pivot halo mass is roughly $10^{12} \msol$ and the pivot stellar mass is roughly $10^{10.6} \msol$. We will present a more detailed comparison presently, but broadly speaking, there are few major differences in the results. When comparing the results at low masses, however, it is important to remember that these results do not reflect the fraction of halos occupied by red central galaxies. For the $z=0.66$ and $z=0.88$ redshift bins, the fraction of halos below $10^{12} \msol$ that have red central galaxies is vanishingly small. Only for $z=0.36$ does the red central fraction become significant at these halo mass scales.
At scales above the pivot point, however, the behavior of the SHMR is quantifiably different. At $z\sim 0.88$, massive SF galaxies occupy larger halos at fixed stellar mass. In each panel, the point with horizontal error bars shows the mean stellar mass within the X-ray group sample from [@george_etal:11]. Although the red central fraction from the groups is used within the MCMC chains, the mean stellar mass is not. At $z\sim 0.66$, massive SF galaxies still reside in more massive halos than their quiescent counterparts, but now the mean relations are much closer together. At $z\sim 0.36$, the mean SMHR for red and SF galaxies have crossed; massive passive galaxies occupy slightly more massive halos than similar SF galaxies. The sample variance for the low-$z$ bin is significant, but an evolutionary trend can be seen across the full COSMOS sample. In T12 we compare these results to the central galaxies found in the group catalog, finding quantitative agreement. This figure also compares the new color-dependent results to the SHMR from L12. At low masses, the SF SHMR tracks the all-SHMR nearly exactly; this is expected given that SF galaxies dominate the population at these masses. At high masses, the all-SHMR is intermediate between the SF and passive SHMRs.
The origin of the differential evolution at the massive end comes from our specific combination of data. The stellar mass functions clearly indicate that there are more passive galaxies than SF galaxies at the massive end of the spectrum. The clustering and lensing, however, indicate that the large-scale bias and halo masses of the SF and passive subsamples are consistent. Recall that the left-hand panels show the mean stellar mass as a function of halo mass, even though we have plotted the observable, $\log \mgal$, on the $x$-axis. At fixed $\mgal$, scatter becomes very important at the massive end. The right-hand panels in Figure \[shmr23\] show the mean halo mass at fixed stellar mass. In this plot, the differences between the red and SF subsamples is almost entirely gone; thus, in bins of $\mgal$ where satellite galaxies are negligible (i.e., at stellar masses significantly above the knee in the stellar mass function), one would expect the clustering and lensing of SF and passive galaxies to be consistent. The difference in the SHMRs is driven by the larger values of $\sigsm$ for SF galaxies than for passive galaxies. For SF galaxies at $z=0.88$, $\sigsm=0.25\pm 0.01$, while for passive galaxies $\sigsm=0.18\pm 0.05$. By $z=0.36$, the passive galaxies have the smaller scatter, and the steeper SHMR at the massive end. Although our functional form for $\fshmr$ is meant to have a high degree of flexibility at high halo masses, we cannot rule out a possible bias due to our parametric form for $\fshmr$. Additionally, the assumption of a symmetric, log-normal scatter may come into play in this regime where the scatter is important. With the current data we are unable to test alternative models for scatter.
To determine the origin of the constraints on the high-mass end of the SHMR, we ran a series of chains removing different data sets. Figure \[supp\_chains\] show highlights from this series for the $z=0.88$ redshift bin. Intriguingly, the constraints when using the SMFs only already show clear indication of a separation between the SHMR of SF and passive galaxies, although the difference is not as large as the final result. Adding just the most massive clustering bin increases the separation between passive and SF SHMR values into rough agreement with the full data. Similar results are found when [*removing*]{} the most massive clustering bin and incorporating all others; constraints on $\sigsm$ come from a range of stellar masses, provided the halos occupied are in the regime where halo bias is monotonically increasing with halo mass (roughly $\mhalo\sim 2\times 10^{11} \msol$ at this redshift). Because the halo bias function is highly non-linear, the mean halo mass is not the same as the bias-weighted halo mass. In this respect, the clustering has more constraining power on $\sigsm$ than the lensing data. The top panel in Figure \[supp\_chains\] demonstrates that our final results are not sensitive to the data derived from the X-ray groups. Results when removing the lensing data are similar.
Central Red Fraction vs Halo Mass
---------------------------------
Figure \[fred\_halomass\] shows the 68% ranges of $\fred(\mhalo)$ from the MCMC chains for each redshift bin. At $z=0.66$ and $z=0.88$, $\fred(\mhalo)$ has a sharp cutoff between $\mhalo = 10^{11.5-12.0}
\msol$. Although the median value of the cutoff evolves to somewhat lower mass between $z=0.88$ and $z=0.66$, the results from the two redshift bins are also consistent with no evolution. At $z=0.36$, $\fred(\mhalo)$ is higher at all halo masses, most notably at $\mhalo
\lesssim 10^{11.5} \msol$; rather than a sharp cutoff in the quenched central fraction, there is a long tail toward lower masses where the $\fred(\mhalo)$ is 3-10%. This is driven by all three sets of data: a higher abundance of low-mass passive galaxies in the SMF, lower clustering amplitude at for low-mass samples in $\wtheta$ and a lower satellite fraction in the $\DS$ measurements. We will explore this in detail in subsequent sections.
Figure \[fred\_halomass\] also shows results from the $z=0$ SDSS groups catalog of [@tinker_etal:11_groups]. The shape of $\fred(\mhalo)$ from the groups is similar to our non-parametric fit in COSMOS, but the amplitude is higher by $\sim 0.1-0.2$ dex. This may reflect evolution given that the time elapsed between $z=0.36$ and $z=0.05$ is 3.3 Gyr, equal to the time elapsed from $z=0.88$ to $z=0.36$. It may also reflect differences in the definition of “quenched”; in [@tinker_etal:11_groups], a 4000-Å break below 1.6 is used to denote quenched, as opposed to NUV-optial-NIR colors cuts used on the COSMOS data. Although this definition is less sensitive to dust than the traditional $g-r$ color, $D_n4000$ may suffer from aperture bias for more massive galaxies. The results for COSMOS groups are plotted as well, one datum per redshift bin, color-coordinated with the MCMC results.
[@tinker_wetzel:10] constrained halo occupation for color-selected clustering from DEEP2 and COMBO17, concluding that there was not a strong cutoff in $\fred(\mhalo)$ (additional data from the UKIDSS-UDS were inconclusive). The clustering samples were created using a single color cut without any NIR data, contaminating the red sequence with dust-reddened star-forming galaxies. From Figure \[fred\_halomass\], many of these galaxies are centrals in low-mass halos, making $\fred(\mhalo)$ appear flatter and without any strong cutoff. [@zhu_etal:11] find that $\sim 25\%$ of sub-$L^\ast$ galaxies with red colors are star-forming with specific rates of $\sim
10^{-10} {\rm yr}^{-1}$.
We note again that the detailed constraints on $\fred(\mhalo)$ depend on our assumption that quenching of central galaxies is a function of halo mass, independent of stellar mass. Because the mean galaxy mass at fixed halo mass is similar between passive and SF subsamples, a parameterization of $\fred$ that depends on stellar mass rather than halo mass will likely yield consistent results.
Central-Satellite Decomposition of the Stellar Mass Functions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Figure \[smf\_censat\] shows the SMFs for the SF and passive subsamples, broken down into the separate abundances of central and satellite galaxies. For SF galaxies, there is a modest increase in the number of both central and satellite galaxies in time. The abundance of red satellite galaxies exhibits little redshift evolution at low masses. There is actually a deficit of massive red satellites at $z=0.36$. It is unclear whether this represents physical evolution versus sample variance, an issue we will discuss in this subsection.
The only subsample that exhibits significant redshift evolution is red central galaxies. At the massive end there is minimal evolution, consistent with larger surveys results of the evolution of the luminosity function of Luminous Passive Galaxies (LRGs; @cool_etal:08 [@wake_etal:06]). However, at $\mgal\lesssim
10^{11} \msol$, the number of red central galaxies increases rapidly from $z=0.88$ to $z=0.36$. At $\mgal=10^{10} \msol$, this abundance increases by 1.2 dex. At this same mass scale, the change in the number of satellite galaxies is negligible.
This result is more clearly expressed by looking at the fraction of galaxies that are red, and how this fraction depends on categorization as a central or a satellite galaxy. Figure \[fred\_evolve\] shows $\fred$ as a function of redshift for five values of $\mgal$ over the range $\log\mgal=[9.7,11.2]$. In this figure we have included data from the SDSS groups catalog of [@tinker_etal:11_groups]. The differences in stellar mass estimates between the two surveys make comparisons of absolute abundances problematic, but fractions are more robust. To create the SDSS data in this figure, we have added 0.2 dex to the stellar mass estimates and added 0.2 dex of scatter. The former represents the 0.2 dex shift in the SMFs between SDSS (@li_white:09) and COSMOS once deconvolved to a common scatter value. The latter is meant to mock up the increase uncertainties between SDSS spectroscopic redshifts and COSMOS photometric redshifts (see the discussion in Figure 14 in L12). Both of these changes lower $\fq$ by 0.1 to 0.2, which the shift in mass scale dominating the effect. The upper error bars show the original SDSS values before shifting and adding scatter. Because both alterations to the SDSS data lower $\fq$, the values used here should be considered lower limits on the quenched fraction of SDSS galaxies.
Figure \[fred\_evolve\]a shows $\fred$ for all galaxies in each stellar mass bin. The rate of change in $\fred$ with redshift monotonically decreases with increasing stellar mass. For massive galaxies, $\fred$ is roughly constant. At $\log\mgal=9.7$, $\fred$ increases by a factor of five. Figure \[fred\_evolve\]b shows the same quantity, but now for satellite galaxies only. Aside from the lowest mass bin, $\fred(sat)$ in all bins is consistent with no redshift evolution. Central galaxies, on the other hand, show significant evolution; at $\log\mgal\lesssim 10$, $\fred(cen)$ increases by an order of magnitude. Even at $log\mgal=10.5$, $\fred(cen)$ increases by a factor of 5 over our redshift baseline.
[@knobel_etal:13] use group catalogs in the zCOSMOS survey to measure the redshift evolution of centrals and satellites as well. Due to the flux limit of the zCOSMOS target selection, they only achieve a redshift baseline for galaxies $\mgal\gtrsim 10^{10.3}\,\msol$. They also find little to no evolution of the red fraction of satellites. For central galaxies, however, they find weaker evolution for the red fraction of central galaxies. In Figure \[fred\_evolve\_knobel\] we compare $\fred$ for centrals and satellites between the two methods. An objective comparison is obstructed by the overall offset in $\fred$ between the two definitions of quenched (see Figure \[cosmos\_primus\_redfrac\]). Both approaches yield a small decrease in $\fred(sat)$ for massive galaxies as $z$ decreases, but the [@knobel_etal:13] groups yield a quenched fraction at $\mgal=10^{11}\,\msol$ that is nearly unity. In this panel we plot the results from the COSMOS X-ray groups of [@george_etal:11], which use the same definition of quenched as this work. The $\fred(sat)$ values are mostly consistent with those from our SHMR analysis. For central galaxies, the [@knobel_etal:13] groups yield contrasting results above and below $\mgal=10^{10.5}\,\msol$. Below this limit, the zCOSMOS central galaxies show a moderate increase in $\fred(cen)$, but above this limit the zCOSMOS central galaxies exhibit significantly decreasing $\fred(cen)$ with decreasing redshift. The quenched fraction of $\mgal=10^{11}\,\msol$ centrals decreases from 90% to 60% over their redshift baseline.
The $U-B$ color cut used in zCOSMOS may be susceptible to dust contamination, which may be stronger at higher redshifts where star formation rates are also higher. Additionally, there may be differences driven by the two methods—halo occupation and group finding. Misclassification of which galaxy in a group is the central is a major source of bias for group catalogs (@skibba_etal:11). Given that the quenched fraction of satellites exhibits no redshift evolution, this type of bias will only weaken the true trend of $\fred(cen)$. Moreover, [@knobel_etal:13] use a probabilistic scheme to select subsamples of centrals and satellite galaxies that have purity near 80%, forcing them to assume that these subsets are representative of the overall populations. Halo occupation methods do not suffer from these biases, as central and satellite populations are constrained only in a statistical fashion, and not on an object-by-object basis. We also note that the central galaxies in the X-ray group catalog used here are a much cleaner sample of central galaxies, given that the group center can be verified with the X-ray brightness profile.
Figure \[fsat\_evolve\] shows a complementary statistic: the fraction of galaxies that are satellites, $\fsat$, for the same stellar mass bins and redshift range. For all galaxies, $\fsat$ is between $0.25-0.35$, consistent with previous analyses of $z=0$ luminosity-dependent clustering (e.g., @zehavi_etal:05 [@tinker_etal:07; @vdb_etal:07; @zheng_etal:07; @zehavi_etal:11]). Halo occupation analysis of $z\sim 1$ luminosity dependent clustering indicates a somewhat smaller $\fsat$ than at $z=0$ (@zheng_etal:07 [@abbas_etal:10]). However, recent analysis of stellar-mass dependent clustering at $z=1-2$ by [@wake_etal:11] find $\fsat$ values consistent with those in COSMOS. Due to the fact that satellite galaxies are predominantly red, they are fainter than SF galaxies at the same stellar mass, lowering the satellite fraction at a given mass. For SF galaxies, star formation rates increase with redshift, increasing the difference between luminosity and stellar mass defined samples.
The satellite fractions of star forming galaxies are lower than for the full sample, generally near $\sim 0.2$, with minimal redshift evolution. Satellites dominate the population of low-mass passive galaxies at $z\sim 1$. Even at $\log\mgal=10.8$, $\fsat=0.55$. By $z=0$, satellites represent less than half of passive galaxies at $\log\mgal>9.7$. The change in $\fsat$ for passive galaxies is non-monotonic when incorporating the SDSS data, yielding a “dip” in $\fsat$ at $z=0.36$. The small volume of this redshift slice raises the possibility that the galaxy distribution around $z=0.36$ within COSMOS is a significant outlier with respect to the cosmic mean. We note that while the trend of $\fsat(red)$ with redshift is non-monotonic, the trend in $\fred(cen)$ [*is*]{} monotonic. Thus, if the $z=0.36$ redshift slice is simply removed from consideration, the results in Figures \[fred\_evolve\] and \[fsat\_evolve\] are still consistent with the scenario in which the only population to undergo significant evolution since $z=1$ is red central galaxies.
Signature of the Evolving Red Central Population in the Data
------------------------------------------------------------
Figure \[test\_fred\_evolve\] demonstrates where our constraints on the evolving population of red centrals derive from. If we assume that the fraction of halos with red centrals is fixed at $z=0.88$, the abundance and clustering of the overall red population is markedly different at $z=0.36$. Figure \[test\_fred\_evolve\] shows results from the HOD model at $z=0.36$, but the five parameters of the non-parametric $\fred(\mhalo)$ function have been replaced by the best-fit values at $z=0.88$. In this model, the abundance of low-mass is low by a factor of $\sim 2.5$ relative to the data, while the clustering is too high by an order of magnitude or more. The increased clustering amplitude is attributed to the higher satellite fraction of passive galaxies in this model. It is possible to construct a model with the $z=0.88$ $\fred(\mhalo)$ that relieves the tension with the SMF, but this requires making up the difference by increasing the number of satellite galaxies, which only increases the tension with the clustering. In short, the only way to match both the SMF and $\wtheta$ measurements at $z=0.36$ is to increase the frequency of quenched central galaxies relative to $z=0.88$.
Discussion
==========
In an upcoming paper we will present a detailed analysis of the halo occupation results presented here, comparing these results to the growth histories, merging rates, and subhalo accretion and evolution in high-resolution N-body simulations. But it is possible to make significant qualitative assessment of our breakdown of the red sequence into central and satellite galaxy components.
[*Evolution of SHMR for high-mass galaxies.*]{} Observations indicate that the red sequence begins with massive galaxies at $z\gtrsim 2$ (@kriek_etal:08 [@williams_etal:09]). Thus it is not surprising that massive passive and SF galaxies have substantially different SHMRs at $z=1$. Both the halo occupation analysis presented here and the X-ray groups in analyzed T12 indicate that, above the group halo mass scale ($\gtrsim 10^{13} \msol$), star-forming central galaxies are less massive than their red counterparts at fixed $\mhalo$. The substantial difference between $\mgal$ for SF and passive subsamples implies that star formation is not a stochastic process in these objects: if massive central galaxies underwent periodic episodes of star formation followed by longer-term quiescence, the galaxies at fixed halo mass would have the same stellar mass. The results also imply that massive quenched galaxies formed their stars very rapidly at high redshift, essentially getting ‘ahead of the growth curve’ relative to central galaxies that would still be forming stars by $z=1$. At high redshift, central galaxies essentially “knew” they would be quenched by $z=1$ (see the discussion in T12).
From $z=1$ to $z=0$, the SHMRs evolve quite differently depending on star formation activity. By $z=0.36$, the mean relations have crossed and red central galaxies live in higher mass halos than SF central galaxies at fixed mass. This inversion is also consistent with results from $z=0$ studies (@mandelbaum_etal:06_gals [@more_etal:11]). Star forming galaxies of mass $10^{11} \msol$ grow by a factor of $\sim 1.6$ using the star formation rates of [@noeske_etal:07a] from $z=0.88$ to $z=0.36$. Host halos for these galaxies ($\mhalo\sim
10^{13})$ grow by a factor of $\sim 1.8$ over the same redshift interval (@wechsler_etal:02), thus star-forming central galaxies grow almost as fast as their host halos. For quenched galaxies, their growth rates are significantly slower than that of their host halos, causing the inversion of the SHMR seen in Figure \[shmr23\]. Although halos will accrete substantial stellar mass from smaller galaxies, most of this mass does not merge with the central galaxy; this is implied by the evolution of the luminosity function of massive passive galaxies (@wake_etal:06 [@cool_etal:08]). This mass contributed to the buildup of the intracluster light (@conroy_etal:07 [@purcell_etal:07]). The results here will put strong constraints on the growth of massive passive galaxies in our follow-up paper.
[*Evolution of the SHMR for low-mass galaxies.*]{} In contrast to the massive end of the galaxy population, low-mass galaxies show little evolution in the SHMR as well as very little difference in the SHMR between passive and SF subsamples. Due to the low abundance of low-mass red central galaxies, the errors on the SHMR below the pivot point are much higher for passive galaxies relative to SF galaxies. For each redshift bin, the red SHMR is slightly below the SF relation (at fixed $\mgal$), but they are consistent within the error bars. From Figures \[smf\_censat\] and \[fred\_evolve\], the abundance of red centrals is nearly negligible at $z=1$ and increases rapidly relative to other constituents of the full galaxy population. Thus, most low mass quiescent central galaxies will be recent additions to the red sequence and the halo masses of red galaxies will be similar to those of SF galaxies. Low mass galaxies have significant gas content, with $M_{\rm gas} \gtrsim \mgal$ at $\mgal\lesssim 9.5$ at $z=0$ (@baldry_etal:08). The difference in stellar mass at fixed halo mass should be indicative of the amount of this gas that has been converted into stars during the quenching process. This proposition assumes no increase in the halo mass; ie, the quenching mechanism is not major mergers.
[*The migration rate of central galaxies to the red sequence.*]{} Our results are in good agreement with recent measurements from PRIMUS from [@moustakas_etal:13] that demonstrate that the growth of the red sequence from $z=1$ to 0 is primarily due to low-mass galaxies being quenched of their star formation. Our SHMR analysis further indicates that this growth is happening in the low-mass central population as opposed to satellites in groups and clusters. Figure \[redcen\_rate\] shows the rate at which central galaxies are added to the red sequence. The $x$-axis is stellar mass and the $y$-axis is the difference in the abundance of red centrals between adjacent redshift bins, divided by the time lapse between redshift bins (units of number/volume/dex/Gyr). The shaded regions shows the $1-\sigma$ range in rates given the uncertainties in the abundances in red centrals at each redshift. Within $1-\sigma$, there is evidence for an accelerated migration rate over the COSMOS redshift baseline, although the migration rates are consistent within their $2-\sigma$ uncertainties.
Figure \[redcen\_rate\] also shows the migration rate of central galaxies to the red sequence using the SDSS group catalog of [@tinker_etal:11_groups]. This group catalog allows us to isolate only the abundance of central quenched galaxies (quenched by the criterion of $D_n(4000)>1.6$). Although the redshift baseline within the SDSS Main galaxy sample is small, the overall number of galaxies is very large and it is possible to detect changes in the abundance of red central galaxies within the volume-limited group catalogs of [@tinker_etal:11_groups] (see their Table 1). As discussed earlier, direct comparison of the SDSS stellar masses with COSMOS stellar masses is not possible, but given the lack of significant slope of the migration rate with stellar mass, the difference in $\mgal$ estimator is less relevant. The SDSS results yield a migration rate nearly an order of magnitude higher than the $z=0.88\rightarrow 0.66$ COSMOS results.
Previous studies have also detected an acceleration of the migration rate onto the red sequence with cosmic time. Both the PRIMUS results and results from zCOSMOS of [@pozzetti_etal:10] find that growth rate, in number and mass density, for objects on the red sequence is increasing with decreasing redshift at $\mgal\lesssim
10^{10.6}\msol$. These studies find significantly less evolution in the growth rate than in this work, which is a natural consequence of analyzing to overall galaxy population as opposed to focusing on central galaxies.
The results here make strong predictions for the minimum $\mgal$ that can be quenched in the field. [@geha_etal:12] find that there no isolated field galaxies below $10^9\,\msol$ that are passively evolving in the low-redshift NASA-Sloan Atlas. Our models predict that the $\fred(cen)$ drops below 1% at $\mgal=3\times10^9\,\msol$ at $z=0.66$ and $\mgal=6\times
10^9\,\msol$ at $z=0.88$. Extending this search for the minimum quenched field galaxy can confirm and strengthen the constraints from the SHMR analysis.
[*The quenching timescale for satellite galaxies.*]{} The probability that a satellite is quenched increases monotonically with the time that has passed since it was accreted (@wetzel_etal:13_groups2); older satellites are more likely to be quenched of their star formation. Thus we can compare our constraints on $\fred(sat)$ with our theoretical knowledge of the accretion and destruction of subhalos in N-body simulations. At high $z$, the mean age of a subhalo (i.e., the time that has elapsed since it was accreted) is significantly smaller than the mean age of subhalos at $z=0$. Dynamical friction is more efficient at higher redshifts because the mean density of dark matter halos increases as $(1+z)^3$. Making the ansatz that the oldest subhalos have the lowest star formation rates allows us to infer the timescale that must elapse for galaxies that are accreted as star-forming to migrate to the red sequence; e.g., if 50% of subhalos are older than 4 Gyr and 50% of satellite galaxies are red, it takes approximately 4 Gyr for satellite galaxies to be quenched of their star formation (@tinker_etal:10_drg [@tinker_wetzel:10; @wetzel_etal:13_groups2]).
Figure \[quenching\_time\] shows the estimated quenching time for $\mgal=10^{10.5} \msol$ satellite galaxies. Here we use the simulation results from [@tinker_wetzel:10]. The two values represent the upper and lower bounds on the quenching timescale, based on assumptions about the fraction of satellite galaxies that were quenched prior to accretion; either that $\fred(cen)=0$ or that $\fred(cen)$ is the value at the redshift of the measurement. In reality, $\fred(cen)$ will be nonzero but lower than at the redshift of the measurement because galaxies were accreted at higher redshift. We compare these results to those for $\mgal=10^{10.5}
\msol$ galaxies $z=0$ (@wetzel_etal:13_groups2). This estimate takes into account the evolution in $\fred(cen)$. We also show results from [@tinker_etal:10_drg] and [@tinker_wetzel:10] at higher redshift. These latter papers analyze clustering for different luminosity-defined samples, so this is not an apples-to-apples comparison. But in general these results are consistent with a scenario in which the quenching timescale of satellite galaxies varies with the evolving dynamical timescale of the host halos: $\tq\sim (1+z)^{-3/2}$.
[@peng_etal:10; @peng_etal:12] investigate the quenched fraction of galaxies as a function of local density, stellar mass, and redshift. They parameterize galaxy quenching as “mass quenching” and “environment quenching”, demonstrating that the effects of these disparate mechanisms are fully separable. “Mass quenching” can be compared to central galaxy processes, while “environment quenching” is tightly associated with satellite processes. The fundamental difference in the approach of Peng et. al and this work is that the fundamental parameter in our approach is the mass of the host halo (and of the subhalo if it is a satellite), while Peng et. al. consider the stellar mass to be fundamental for the central galaxies and local density of galaxies to be fundamental for the satellites. For central galaxies, due to the small scatter between stellar mass and halo mass, it may not be possible to distinguish between these two approaches. Further work is required to see if a model in which central galaxy quenching is determined by galaxy mass fits the data as well as the model we have presented here. It is worth noting that [@peng_etal:10] find their ‘mass-quenching efficiency’ to increase with cosmic time, in agreement with our results.
For satellite galaxies, [@peng_etal:12] find that local density correlates better with quenching than either stellar mass of the satellite galaxy or host halo mass. This is at odds with our conclusions, as well as the model presented in [@wetzel_etal:12_groups1; @wetzel_etal:13_groups2; @wetzel_etal:13_groups3], in which the observed correlation between host halo mass and quenched fraction of satellite galaxies is driven by the time that has elapsed since the satellites were accreted. More massive halos have older subhalo populations, thus contain satellites that are more often quenched of their star formation. In the next paper in this series (A. Wetzel, et. al., in preparation), we model various physical mechanisms in detail, scrutinizing the local density model as a driver of satellite evolution.
[@peng_etal:10] find no evolution with redshift in their environment quenching efficiency, which is in stark contrast to the results in Figure \[quenching\_time\] and our conclusion that satellite quenching efficiency is much higher in the past. The actual quenched fraction of satellite galaxies is nearly independent with redshift (cf. Figure \[smf\_censat\] and [@tinker_wetzel:10]), but [@peng_etal:10] do not take into account the redshift dependence of satellite dynamics discussed above, i.e., the fact that satellite at $z=1$ survive as satellites $\sim 1/3$ of the time $z=0$ satellites do. The [@peng_etal:10] results imply that the fraction of satellites that are quenched after accretion is time independent, thus their results are consistent with an efficiency (or timescale) that varies with the dynamical time of dark matter halos.
[*What is the mechanism responsible for the growth of the red sequence?*]{} The constant $\fred(sat)$ with redshift implies that the rates of creation and destruction of red satellite galaxies roughly balance. So although the mechanisms that quench star formation in groups and clusters—ram pressure, strangulation, harassment, etc—are constantly acting on star-forming satellites to quench their star formation, they have minimal impact on [ *change*]{} in the number of objects on the red sequence from $z=1$ to $z=0$[^5]. The conclusion of @wetzel_etal:13_groups2 is that roughly 1/3 of $z=0$ quenched galaxies with $\mgal\ge 10^{9.7}\,\msol$ were put on the red sequence by satellite-driven processes (their Figure 6). This is true whether averaging by number of galaxies or by total stellar mass. At $z=1$, this fraction was higher, but the overall number of objects on the red sequence was somewhat smaller. For central galaxies, the primary mechanisms proposed to quench star formation are AGN and major mergers, or perhaps a combination of the two as the latter may drive the former. To be in agreement with the results here, the mechanism for star formation quenching in central galaxies must satisfy two requirements: (1) become more efficient with time (ie, as $z\rightarrow 0$) and (2) be roughly independent of stellar mass.
Let us take AGN and mergers as uncorrelated mechanisms. For mergers, [@hopkins_etal:10_mergers] find a general agreement among theoretical predictions and observational estimates in which the merger rate is $\sim 0.1$ Gyr$^{-1}$ at $z=1$ and rapidly decreases by a factor of $\sim 5$ from $z=1-0$ for galaxies in the range $10^{10}\msol<\mgal<10^{11}\msol$. There is also a strong stellar mass dependence on the major merger rate (@maller:08 [@stewart_etal:09]). Which mergers actually put galaxies on the red sequence is not fully quantified, given that merger simulations with gas-rich progenitors can yield star-forming disk galaxy remnants (@robertson_etal:06 [@hopkins_etal:09]). Regarding AGN, although theoretical models focus on AGN as a method to halt star formation in massive galaxies, observed stellar mass functions of X-ray-AGN-hosting galaxies show little to no dependence on stellar mass (@bundy_etal:08 [@georgakakis_etal:11]). There is general consensus that AGN activity peaks at $z\approx 2$ and monotonically decreases toward $z=0$, but when quantified as a stellar mass function of AGN hosts, the picture is less clear. [@bundy_etal:08] show no redshift evolution in the X-ray AGN host SMF over $z=[0.4,1.4]$, while [@georgakakis_etal:11] find a lower amplitude of this quantity at $z\approx 0$ relative to $z=1$. These results rely on the pencil-thin 0.5 deg$^2$ AEGIS field, so sample variance may be significant. As with galaxy mergers, connecting AGN to quenching requires knowledge of which AGN matter; is there an X-ray luminosity threshold for quenching? If so, does it depend on stellar mass or gas mass or redshift?
Another possibility is simply a lack of fuel for star formation. [@behroozi_etal:13_letter] demonstrate that the overall mass accretion rate monotonically declines for all dark matter halos at $z\rightarrow 0$. If baryonic accretion falls accordingly, star-forming central galaxies may not have a high enough surface density to continue forming stars
Galaxy morphology affords an extra lever-arm in constraining power that we have not utilized in this paper. [@bundy_etal:10] find a population of passive disks at $z\sim 0.6$ but a paucity of such objects at lower $z$ (see @george_etal:13 for an investigation of such galaxies within groups). At low stellar masses, where we find the most significant increase in the red sequence, the morphological type with the highest fractional increase is ellipticals/S0, implying that the path the red sequence for low-mass central galaxies is accompanied by morphological change as well.
Summary
=======
We have constrained the stellar to halo mass relations for passive and star-forming galaxies over the redshift range $z=[0.2,1.0]$ in the COSMOS field. These constraints are derived from measurements of the stellar mass function, the angular correlation function, and galaxy-galaxy lensing for multiple stellar mass bins within each redshift bin. For massive galaxies, $\mgal\gtrsim 10^{10.6}\msol$, the SHMRs for passive and SF samples exhibit significant differential evolution, with passive galaxies growing much slower than their halos while SF galaxies grow roughly at the same rate as their host halos. At lower masses, there is little difference, implying that most faint passive galaxies are recent additions to the red sequence.
Our analysis affords a breakdown of the COSMOS galaxy population into central and satellite galaxies. With this breakdown, we demonstrate that the number of passive satellite galaxies shows little to no evolution with time, thus the change in the red sequence is driven by quenching of central galaxies, primarily at low masses. The overall migration rate of central galaxies to the red sequence is increasing with cosmic time, with the rate at $z=0.05$ being nearly a factor of 10 higher than that derived at $z=0.78$. Over the same redshift span, the quenching efficiency of satellite galaxies is decreasing with cosmic time. At $z=0.05$, the timescale for quenching is $\sim 2.5$ times longer than the quenching timescale for satellites at $z=0.88$.
We parameterize the quenching of central galaxies as being a function of their host halo mass. At $z=0.88$, we find a sharp cutoff in quenched central galaxies at $\mhalo\sim 10^12$, a cutoff that shifts down 0.2-0.4 dex by $z=0.66$. These results are reminiscent of recent theoretical work demonstrating a critical halo mass scale for shock-heating of infalling gas; the cold-mode/hot-mode accretion scenerio (e.g., @birnboim_dekel:03 [@keres_etal:05; @keres_etal:09; @dekel_birnboim:06]). This shift continues to $z=0.36$, but at this redshift there is also a tail of quenched central galaxies that extend to $\mhalo\lesssim 10^{11} \mhalo$, the lowest halo mass scale for which we can probe halo occupation. The $z=0.36$ bin does exhibit unusual clustering and abundances that indicate sample variance is playing some role, but the redshift trends found in the both the quenched central and satellite galaxy populations is consistent with those found from SDSS results. Simply removing the $z=0.36$ results from consideration does not change any of the conclusions of this paper.
We thank the referee for many helpful comments and suggestions that have improved this work. This work was supported by World Premier International Research Center Initiative (WPI Initiative), MEXT, Japan. The HST COSMOS Treasury program was supported through NASA grant HST-GO-09822. We wish to thank Tony Roman, Denise Taylor, and David Soderblom for their assistance in planning and scheduling of the extensive COSMOS observations. We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the entire COSMOS collaboration consisting of more than 70 scientists. More information on the COSMOS survey is available at [ **<http://cosmos.astro.caltech.edu/>**]{}. It is a pleasure the acknowledge the excellent services provided by the NASA IPAC/IRSA staff (Anastasia Laity, Anastasia Alexov, Bruce Berriman and John Good) in providing online archive and server capabilities for the COSMOS data-sets.
[^1]: Some studies have found an increased fraction of quenched galaxies extending several virial radii outside of clusters (e.g., @balogh_etal:00 [@hansen_etal:09; @vonderlinden_etal:10]), but these results are easily explained by accounting for galaxies that are satellites in nearby groups, as well as galaxies in the cluster infall region that have orbited within the virial radius of the cluster, but the apocenter of their orbit is outside $\rvir$ (@wetzel_etal:13_groups3.)
[^2]: The passive galaxy completeness limit essentially cuts part-way through the lowest stellar mass bin at each redshift interval. We compares measurements of the clustering of all passive galaxies in this bin to those that are above the limit, finding that the results are consistent with one another, but the higher number of galaxies in the full bin yields better error bars, especially at small scales.
[^3]: Scatter is quoted as the standard deviation of the logarithm base 10 of the stellar mass at fixed halo mass.
[^4]: The two-halo terms is included in all modeling, but has minimal impact on our results because we do not measure $\DS$ out past 1 Mpc.
[^5]: We note that the mass of these ‘destroyed’ satellites is not lost, but it is likely that much of it goes into ICL and is not accounted for by a simple mass-weighted integral over the red-galaxy stellar mass function.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Li, Chen, Tai & E. (*J. Machine Learning Research*, 2018) have proposed a regularization of the forward-backward sweep iteration for solving the Pontryagin maximum principle in optimal control problems. The authors prove the global convergence of the iteration in the continuous time case. In this article we show that their proof can be extended to the case of numerical discretization by symplectic Runge-Kutta pairs. We demonstrate the convergence with a simple numerical experiment.'
address: 'Mathematical Institute, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80010, 3508 TA Utrecht, the Netherlands'
author:
- Xin Liu
- Jason Frank
bibliography:
- 'LiFr19.bib'
title: 'Symplectic Runge-Kutta discretization of a regularized forward-backward sweep iteration for optimal control problems'
---
nonlinear optimal control ,Pontryagin maximum principle ,symplectic inegrators ,nonlinear iterations
Recently, Li et al. [@LiChTaE18] proposed a new indirect iteration for optimal control problems in the context of deep neural networks, that utilizes the ‘method of successive approximations’, i.e. forward and backward integrations, combined with an ‘augmented Lagrangian’ regularization that ensures global convergence. The authors argue that this approach is particularly suitable for high-dimensional optimal control problems as encountered in deep learning. Large scale optimal control problems figure centrally in a number of modern applications such as deep neural networks [@LiChTaE18], reinforcement learning [@SuBa18; @Bersekas], filtering and data assimilation methods [@BaCr09; @ZhFrHeSh15] and mean field and stochastic differential games [@Carmona16; @CaDe18a; @Cade18b]. In this paper we describe how the iteration of Li et al. combines naturally with symplectic/variational integrators to yield a convergent numerical scheme.
Optimal control problems possess a natural variational structure that gives rise to Hamiltonian dynamics which may be exploited in a numerical treatment [@JuMaOb05]. Symplectic methods for Hamiltonian *initial* value problems have been much studied since the mid-1990s due to their demonstrated superiority for conserving energy and other first integrals [@SaSeCa94; @HaLuWa06; @LeRe05]. On the other hand, optimal control problems lead to boundary value problems, and it is unclear that the advantages of symplectic integrators for IVPs should translate to the BVP setting. Recent papers that address the use of symplectic Runge-Kutta methods for optimal control stress the conservation of quadratic invariants [@SanzSerna16; @FrZh14] and the persistence of critical orbits in modified equation expansions [@ChHaVi09]. See also recent work on the preservation of bifurcations under symplectic discretization of boundary value problems [@McLOf18].
In the first three sections of the paper we review the Hamiltonian structure of optimal control problems (§\[sec:background\]), the regularized forward-backward sweep iteration proposed by Li et al. [@LiChTaE18] (§\[sec:msa\]) and the discrete variational approach to constructing symplectic Runge-Kutta methods (§\[sec:VarInt\]). In Section \[sec:convergence\] we prove the convergence of the discrete regularized forward-backward sweep iteration, which follows closely the proof of [@LiChTaE18] for the continuous case. It is the symplectic structure of the discretization that facilitates this proof. Finally, in Section \[sec:numer\] we demonstrate the convergence of the method for a simple example using two symplectic discretizations.
Background \[sec:background\]
=============================
In this section we define continuous optimal control of differential equations and discuss their Hamiltonian structure, and we review the regularized forward-backward sweep iteration of Lie et al. [@LiChTaE18].
Hamiltonian structure of optimal control problems
-------------------------------------------------
The state of the system to be controlled is described by a vector $x(t):{\mathcal{T}}\to{\mathbf{R}}^d$, where ${\mathcal{T}}=[0,T]$ represents a time interval. The control function $u(t)$ is for each $t$ an element of the set of admissable controls ${\mathcal{U}}\subset{\mathbf{R}}^m$. The motion of the system is described by a differential equation $$\label{dynamics}
\dot{x} (t)= f(x(t),u(t)), \qquad x(0) = \xi,$$ where $f:{\mathbf{R}}^d\times {\mathcal{U}}\to{\mathbf{R}}^d$ and $\xi\in{\mathbf{R}}^d$ is the initial state. The control $u(t)$ is chosen to minimize the objective functional $$\label{cost}
J[u] = \Phi(x(T)) + \int_0^T h(x(t),u(t)) \, dt,$$ where $\Phi:{\mathbf{R}}^d \to {\mathbf{R}}$ is the end cost and $h:{\mathbf{R}}^d\times {\mathcal{U}}\to{\mathbf{R}}$ is the running cost.
As in [@LiChTaE18] (cf. equations (A1) and (A2) of that article) we assume that $\Phi$, $f$ and $h$ are twice continuously differentiable with respect to $x$ and satisfy Lipschitz conditions for all $x$, $x' \in {\mathbf{R}}^d$, $u\in{\mathcal{U}}$ and $t\in {\mathcal{T}}$: $$\label{contLipschitz} \begin{split}
&| \Phi(x) - \Phi(x') | + \| {{\Phi_{x}}}(x) - {{\Phi_{x}}}(x') \| \le K \| x - x'\|, \\
&\| f(x,u) - f(x',u) \| + \| {{f_{x}}}(x,u) - {{f_{x}}}(x',u) \| \le K \| x - x'\|, \\
&| h(x,u) - h(x',u) | + \| {{h_{x}}}(x,u) - {{h_{x}}}(x',u) \| \le K \| x - x'\|.
\end{split}$$ Note that the solution $x(t)$ of is well-defined for appropriate $u(t)$ so that we may think of $J$ as a functional essentially depending only on $u(t)$.
The problem can be reformulated as a constrained optimization problem by introducing the Lagrange multiplier function $\lambda(t):{\mathcal{T}}\to{\mathbf{R}}^d$ and the Lagrangian functional $$\label{Lagrangian}
{\mathcal{L}}[x,\lambda,u] = \Phi(x(T)) + \lambda_0^T(x(0)-\xi) + \int_0^T h(x,u) + \lambda^T\left(\dot{x} - f(x,u) \right) \, dt.$$ (Throughout the paper we use the transpose and dot product notation interchangeably, whichever is more convenient.) The variational derivatives of the functional ${\mathcal{L}}$ with respect to the functions $x(t)$, $\lambda(t)$ and $u(t)$, denoted ${\mathcal{L}}_x$, ${\mathcal{L}}_\lambda$ and ${\mathcal{L}}_u$, are defined with respect to the $L^2$ inner product $\langle \cdot , \cdot \rangle$ and a class of admissible variations in an appropriate (dual) function space, possibly via integration by parts. For instance, $$\label{varderiv}
\langle {\mathcal{L}}_x, \delta x \rangle = \lim_{{\varepsilon}\to 0} \frac{1}{{\varepsilon}} ( {\mathcal{L}}[x+{\varepsilon}\delta x,\lambda,u] - {\mathcal{L}}[x,\lambda,u]).$$ Here $\delta x(t)$ denotes an arbitrary variation of the function $x(t)$. Substituting into , expanding terms in Taylor series, and taking the limit yields $$\langle {\mathcal{L}}_x, \delta x \rangle = {{\Phi_{x}}}(x(T)) \cdot \delta x(T) + \lambda_0^T\delta x(0) + \int_0^T {{h_{x}}} (x,u) \delta x + \lambda^T (\delta \dot{x} - {{f_{x}}}(x,u)\cdot \delta x) \, dt.$$ where ${{h_{x}}}$ denotes the vector of partial derivatives of $h$ with respect to $x$ and ${{f_{x}}}$ denotes the Jacobian matrix of partial derivatives of $f$ with respect to $x$. To express the left side as an inner product, we use integration by parts with respect to the term $\lambda^T\delta\dot{x}$ to obtain $$\langle {\mathcal{L}}_x, \delta x \rangle = {{\Phi_{x}}}(x(T)) \cdot \delta x(T) + \lambda_0^T\delta x(0) + \lambda^T\delta x\big|_0^T + \int_0^T \left[ {{h_{x}}}(x,u) - \dot{\lambda} - {{f_{x}}} (x,u)^T\lambda \right] \cdot \delta x \, dt.$$ The boundary terms vanish if we require $\lambda(T) = -{{\Phi_{x}}}(x(T))$, leaving an inner product with $\delta x(t)$. In this case, there are no boundary restrictions on the variation $\delta x(t)$, and we identify $${\mathcal{L}}_x = \dot\lambda + {{f_{x}}}(x,u)^T\lambda - {{h_{x}}}(x,u).$$ The variational derivatives ${\mathcal{L}}_\lambda$ and ${\mathcal{L}}_u$ can be determined analogously (in fact, no integration by parts is needed for these). The first order necessary conditions for an optimum of are given by the Euler-Lagrange equations (${\mathcal{L}}_x\equiv{\mathcal{L}}_\lambda\equiv{\mathcal{L}}_u\equiv 0$): $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{x} &= f(x,u), \label{EL_x}\\
\dot{\lambda} &= -{{f_{x}}} (x,u)^T \lambda + {{h_{x}}}(x,u), \label{EL_lam}\\
0 &= {{f_{u}}}(x,u)^T \lambda - {{h_{u}}}(x,u). \label{EL_u}\end{aligned}$$ These equations are supplemented by the boundary conditions $x(0) = \xi$ and $\lambda(T) = -{{\Phi_{x}}}(x(T))$. In particular, if $f$ and $h$ are smooth and $u$ is an optimal control in the interior of ${\mathcal{U}}$, then it satisfies –. It is useful to define a function $g(x,\lambda,u)$ for the right side of $$\label{gfun}
g(x,\lambda,u) = -{{f_{x}}} (x,u)^T \lambda + {{h_{x}}}(x,u).$$
The Hamiltonian formulation can be derived from the Lagrangian formulation by introducing a Legendre transformation. In the particular case of optimal control, the adjoint variable $\lambda$ is identically equal to the conjugate momentum associated to the state variable $x$. The Hamiltonian function is $$\label{Hamiltonian}
H(x,\lambda,u) = \lambda^Tf(x,u) - h(x,u).$$ Hamilton’s equations are $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{x} &= {{H_{\lambda}}}(x,\lambda,u), \label{Ham_x}\\
\dot{\lambda} &= - {{H_{x}}}(x,\lambda,u), \label{Ham_lam}\\
0 &= {{H_{u}}}(x,\lambda,u). \label{Ham_u}\end{aligned}$$ These are equivalent to the Euler-Lagrange equations. Note that minimizing the objective functional $J$ corresponds to maximizing the Hamiltonian with respect to $u$. The condition above can be generalized to apply to controls $u(t)$ constrained by the boundary of ${\mathcal{U}}$ by replacing with Pontryagin’s maximum principle $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{x} &= f(x,u^*), \quad x(0) = \xi, \label{PMP_x}\\
\dot{\lambda} &= g(x,\lambda,u^*), \quad \lambda(T) = -{{\Phi_{x}}}(x(T)) \label{PMP_lam}\\
u^*(t) &= \arg\max_{u(t)\in{\mathcal{U}}} H(x,\lambda,u), \quad \forall t\in{\mathcal{T}}\label{PMP_u}\end{aligned}$$
Regularized forward-backward sweep iteration\[sec:msa\]
-------------------------------------------------------
Solution of – is challenging due to the boundary conditions. One approach is to solve in succession for $x(t)$, for $\lambda(t)$ and for $u^*(t)$ and iterate. Such a forward-backward sweep iteration typically diverges unless the Lipschitz constant $K$ and the time interval $T$ are small [@McMoHa12]. In a recent article, Li et al. [@LiChTaE18] proposed a modified iteration based on a regularized Lagrangian approach. They introduce the augmented Hamiltonian function $$\label{augLag}
\tilde{H}(x,\lambda,u,p,q) = H(x,\lambda,u) - \frac{\rho}{2} \left( \| p - {{H_{\lambda}}} (x,\lambda,u) \|^2 + \| q + {{H_{x}}} (x,\lambda,u) \|^2 \right)$$ Subsequently, the forward-backward sweep iteration is modified to solve consecutively: $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{x}^{(k+1)} &= {{\tilde{H}_{\lambda}}} (x^{(k+1)},\lambda^{(k)},u^{(k)},\dot{x}^{(k+1)},\dot{\lambda}^{(k)}), \label{MSA_x}\\
\dot{\lambda}^{(k+1)} &= -{{\tilde{H}_{x}}} (x^{(k+1)},\lambda^{(k+1)},u^{(k)},\dot{x}^{(k+1)},\dot{\lambda}^{(k+1)}), \label{MSA_lam}\\
u^{(k+1)} &= \arg\max_{u(t)\in{\mathcal{U}}} \tilde{H}(x^{(k+1)},\lambda^{(k+1)},u,\dot{x}^{(k+1)},\dot{\lambda}^{(k+1)}). \label{MSA_u}\end{aligned}$$ It is important to note that along solutions to and , the right two terms of are zero. Consequently, only is modified with respect to . However, Li et al. show that this modification is sufficient to ensure convergence [@LiChTaE18].
Li et al. introduce the regularized forward-backward sweep iteration to train deep neural networks [@LiChTaE18] and argue that an advantage of this approach is that it is suitable for application to high dimensional systems.
The analysis of [@LiChTaE18] addresses only the continuous time case. Li et al. point out that the question of whether Pontryagin’s principle holds under numerical discretization is ‘a delicate one’ and refer to counterexamples. In this paper we show that for variational/symplectic RK methods, an analysis analogous to that of Li et al. holds. In particular, their proof of convergence may be translated directly to discrete form.
Variational integrators and symplectic Runge-Kutta pairs\[sec:VarInt\]
======================================================================
Symplectic Runge-Kutta methods possess two properties that make them attractive for numerical integration of Hamiltonian *initial* value problems: they conserve certain quadratic first integrals and they conserve a modified Hamiltonian function over exponentially long time intervals. See the monographs [@SaSeCa94; @HaLuWa06; @LeRe05] for a complete discussion. Symplectic Runge-Kutta methods can be derived using a discrete variational formalism, see [@MaWe01].
Variational methods are also well known in the optimal control literature see e.g. the work of Marsden, Leok and Ober-Blöbaum [@ObBlThesis] and references therein. In a recent review, Sanz-Serna [@SanzSerna16] argues that it is the property of conservation of quadratic integrals that it is most relevant in the adjoint context.
For optimal control, use of the variational integrator framework may have additional advantages: first, by discretizing the integral before optimizing, one constructs a discrete problem for which an optimum may be established, whereas directly discretizing the Euler-Lagrange equations relies on the approximation property in the limit ${\tau}\to 0$, where ${\tau}>0$ is the step size, to guarantee an optimum. Second, backward error analysis implies the existence of a modified Hamiltonian, near the continuous Hamiltonian, which may have consequences for optimality in the presence of nonunique minima. Backward error analysis may also be applicable for control problems on long time intervals, or for problems with multiple time scales for which the time interval is long on a fast time scale.
We discretize the interval ${\mathcal{T}}$ into $N>0$ equal steps of size ${\tau}=T/N$. An $s$-stage Runge-Kutta method for the state equation is $$\begin{aligned}
x_{n+1} &= x_n + {\tau}\sum_{i=1}^s b_i f(X_{i,n}, U_{i,n}), \label{RK_x} \\
X_{i,n} &= x_n + {\tau}\sum_{j=1}^s a_{ij} f(X_{j,n}, U_{j,n}), \quad i=1,\dots,s, \label{RK_X} \end{aligned}$$ where $n=0,\dots,N-1$ denotes the time step index and the coefficients $b_i$ and $a_{ij}$, $i, j=1,\dots,s$, are chosen to ensure accuracy, stability, and additional properties. See the monographs [@HaNoWa; @HaWa] for a thorough treatment. Numerical consistency requires the coefficients $b_i$ satisfy $\sum_i b_i = 1$. In this paper we will also assume that $b_i\ge 0$, $i=1,\dots,s$.
To simplify notion we will frequently suppress the time step index $n$ in the internal stage variables $X_{i,n}$ and $U_{i,n}$. In all formulas the stage variables are evaluated at time level $n$, so there should be no ambiguity.
A variational integrator for the Lagrangian is a quadrature formula consistent with the above RK method. Enforcing the internal stage relations requires the introduction of additional Lagrange multipliers. The discrete Lagrangian becomes $$\begin{gathered}
\label{RKalt}
{\mathcal{L}}[{\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{\lambda}},{\boldsymbol{X}},{\boldsymbol{u}},{\boldsymbol{G}}] = \Phi(x_N) + \lambda_0^T(x_0 - \xi)
+ {\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \left\{ \phantom{\left( \sum_i^n \frac{X_i}{{\tau}} - \sum_i^s \right)} \right. \\
\sum_{i=1}^s b_i h( X_i, U_i) + \lambda_{n+1}^T
\left(\frac{x_{n+1} - x_n}{{\tau}} - \sum_{i=1}^s b_i f(X_i,U_i) \right)\\
\left.
- \sum_{i=1}^s b_i G_i \cdot \left(X_i - x_n - {\tau}\sum_{j=1}^s a_{ij} f(X_j,U_j) \right) \right\}.\end{gathered}$$
Here and henceforth we denote ${\boldsymbol{x}} = \{ x_n \, | \, n=0,\dots,N \}$, ${\boldsymbol{X}} = \{ X_{i,n} \, | \, i=1,\dots,s; n=0, \dots, N-1\}$, etc. An exception is the control variable, which only appears at internal stage values. Consequently we may denote ${\boldsymbol{u}} = \{ U_{i,n}\, | \, i=1,\dots,s; n=0, \dots, N-1 \}$ without ambiguity. We also denote $u_n = \{ U_{i,n} \, | \, i=1,\dots,s \}$.
The associated discretization of the cost function is $$\label{Jtau}
J^{\tau}[{\boldsymbol{u}}] = \Phi(x_N) + {\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \sum_{i=1}^s b_i h( X_i, U_i).$$ One can formally construct a discrete variational derivative of with respect to discrete function spaces and a discrete inner product. However for uniform time step ${\tau}$ it is sufficient to consider just partial derivatives of ${\mathcal{L}}$. The Euler-Lagrange equations become: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial {\mathcal{L}}}{\partial \lambda_n} &= 0 = x_{n+1} - x_n - {\tau}\sum_{i=1}^s b_i f(X_i,U_i), \quad x_0 = \xi, \label{dEL_x} \\
\frac{\partial {\mathcal{L}}}{\partial G_i} &= 0 = X_i - x_n - {\tau}\sum_{j=1}^s a_{ij} f(X_j,U_j), \label{dEL_X}\\
\frac{\partial {\mathcal{L}}}{\partial x_n} &= 0 = -\lambda_{n+1} + \lambda_n + {\tau}\sum_{i=1}^s b_i G_i, \quad \lambda_N = -{{\Phi_{x}}}(x_N),\label{dEL_lam}\\
\frac{\partial {\mathcal{L}}}{\partial X_k} &= 0 = b_k {{h_{x}}} (X_k,U_k) - b_k {{f_{x}}}(X_k,U_k)^T \lambda_{n+1} -b_k G_k + {\tau}\sum_{i=1}^s b_i a_{ik} {{f_{x}}} (X_k,U_k)^T G_i,\label{dEL_G}\\
\frac{\partial {\mathcal{L}}}{\partial U_k} &= 0 = b_k
{{h_{u}}}(X_k,U_k) - b_k {{f_{u}}}(X_k,U_k)^T\lambda_{n+1} - {\tau}\sum_{i=1}^s b_i a_{ik} {{f_{u}}}(X_k,U_k)^T G_i. \label{dEL_U}\end{aligned}$$ The relations – are clearly equivalent to –. Solving for $\lambda_{n+1}$, substituting into and defining the coefficients $\tilde{a}_{ij} = b_j - b_j a_{ji}/b_i$, one finds $$G_i = -{{f_{x}}}(X_i,U_i)^T \left[ \lambda_n + {\tau}\sum_{j=1}^s \tilde{a}_{ij} G_j \right] + {{h_{x}}} (X_i,U_i).$$ Similarly is written $$\label{Ucond}
0 = {{h_{u}}}(X_i,U_i) - {{f_{u}}}(X_i,U_i)^T \left[ \lambda_n + {\tau}\sum_{j=1}^s \tilde{a}_{ij} G_j \right].$$ It is useful to introduce the auxiliary stage variable $\Lambda_i$ to represent the term in square brackets in the previous two expressions: $$\Lambda_i = \lambda_n + {\tau}\sum_{i=1}^s \tilde{a}_{ij} G_j,$$ such that (cf. ) $$G_i = g(X_i,\Lambda_i,U_i) = - {{f_{x}}}(X_i,U_i)^T \Lambda_i + {{h_{x}}}(X_i,U_i)$$ and the condition becomes $$0 = {{h_{u}}}(X_i,U_i) - {{f_{u}}}(X_i,U_i)^T\Lambda_i.$$ In terms of the new variable, the variational Runge-Kutta discretization of Pontryagin’s maximum principle is $$\begin{aligned}
x_{n+1} &= x_n + {\tau}\sum_{i=1}^s b_i f(X_i, U_i), \quad x_0 = \xi, \label{sum_x}\\
X_i &= x_n + {\tau}\sum_{j=1}^s a_{ij} f(X_j, U_j), \quad i=1,\dots,s, \label{sum_X} \\
\lambda_{n+1} &= \lambda_n + {\tau}\sum_{i=1}^s b_i g(X_i,\Lambda_i,U_i), \quad \lambda_N = -{{\Phi_{x}}}(x_N), \label{sum_lam} \\
\Lambda_i &= \lambda_{n} + {\tau}\sum_{j=1}^s \tilde{a}_{ij} g(X_j,\Lambda_j,U_j),\quad i=1,\dots,s, \label{sum_Lam}\\
0 &= {{h_{u}}}(X_i,U_i) - {{f_{u}}}(X_i,U_i)^T\Lambda_i, \quad i=1,\dots,s. \label{sum_U}\end{aligned}$$ This system consists of the state equations and , the adjoint equation and , and the optimality condition .
Recalling the Hamiltonian , we can also write the above relations in a form that emphasizes the Hamiltonian structure: $$\begin{aligned}
x_{n+1} &= x_n + {\tau}\sum_{i=1}^s b_i {{H_{\lambda}}}(X_i, \Lambda_i,U_i), \quad x_0 = \xi,\label{RKham_x} \\
X_i &= x_n + {\tau}\sum_{j=1}^s a_{ij} {{H_{\lambda}}}(X_j, \Lambda_j,U_j), \quad i=1,\dots,s, \label{RKham_X} \\
\lambda_{n+1} &= \lambda_n - {\tau}\sum_{i=1}^s b_i {{H_{x}}} (X_i,\Lambda_i,U_i), \quad \lambda_N = -{{\Phi_{x}}}(x_N), \label{RKham_lam} \\
\Lambda_i &= \lambda_{n} - {\tau}\sum_{j=1}^s \tilde{a}_{ij} {{H_{x}}} (X_j,\Lambda_j,U_j), \quad i=1,\dots,s, \label{RK_Lam} \\
0 &= {{H_{u}}} (X_i,\Lambda_i,U_i), \quad i=1,\dots,s. \label{RKham_U}\end{aligned}$$ In some cases, it is appropriate to replace the latter condition with the more general $$\label{RK_pmp}
U_i = \arg\max_{u\in\mathcal U} H(X_i,\Lambda_i,u), \quad i=1,\dots,s.$$
As noted in [@SanzSerna16], a pair of RK methods defined by coefficients $\{b_i, a_{ij} \}$ and $\{b_i, \tilde{a}_{ij}\}$, where $\tilde {a}_{ij} = b_j - b_j a_{ij}/b_i$, constitute a symplectic partitioned RK pair. That is, if these methods are applied to a pair of differential equations $\dot x = {{H_{\lambda}}}(x,\lambda)$, $\dot\lambda = -{{H_{x}}}(x,\lambda)$, then the resulting map from $t_n$ to $t_{n+1}$ is a symplectic map. Hence, we obtain the well-known result that the discrete variational approach automatically produces a symplectic integrator for the Euler-Lagrange equations.
Symplectic Euler method
-----------------------
The elementary example of a symplectic variational integrator is the symplectic Euler method, which corresponds to the RK pair with $s=1$, $b_1 =1$, $a_{11} = 0 = 1- \tilde{a}_{11}$. In this case all of the internal stage relations can be eliminated, leaving the discrete Lagrangian $${\mathcal{L}}[{\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{\lambda}},{\boldsymbol{u}}] = \Phi(x_N) + \lambda_0^T(x_0 - \xi) + {\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} h(x_n,u_n) + \lambda_{n+1}^T\left( \frac{x_{n+1}-x_n}{{\tau}} - f(x_n,u_n) \right).$$ The discrete Pontryagin maximum principle is $$\begin{aligned}
x_{n+1} &= x_n + {\tau}f(x_n,u_n), \label{Euler_x} \\
\lambda_{n+1} &= \lambda_n - {\tau}{{f_{x}}}(x_n,u_n)^T\lambda_{n+1} + {\tau}{{h_{x}}}(x_n,u_n), \label{Euler_lam} \\
0 &= {{f_{u}}}(x_n,u_n)^T\lambda_{n+1} - {{h_{u}}}(x_n,u_n), \label{Euler_u} \end{aligned}$$ with boundary conditions $x_0 = \xi$, $\lambda_N = -{{\Phi_{x}}}(x_N)$.
Note that – can also be written in terms of the Hamiltonian $H$: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{x_{n+1}-x_n}{{\tau}} &= {{H_{\lambda}}}(x_n, \lambda_{n+1},u_n), \label{Hager_SE1}\\
\frac{\lambda_{n+1} - \lambda_n}{{\tau}} &= -{{H_{x}}}(x_n, \lambda_{n+1},u_n), \label{Hager_SE2}\\
0 &= {{H_{u}}}(x_n,\lambda_{n+1},u_n). \label{Hager_SE3}\end{aligned}$$
Reduced notation for Runge-Kutta methods
----------------------------------------
Hager [@Hager00] introduced notation that casts general symplectic Runge-Kutta methods – in a form consistent with the symplectic Euler method. Define $$\label{ftau}
f^{\tau}(x,u) = \sum_{i=1}^s b_i f(X_i(x,u),U_i(u)), \quad
h^{\tau}(x,u) = \sum_{i=1}^s b_i h(X_i(x,u),U_i(u)),$$ where we view the stage values $X_i$ and $U_i$ as functions of grid point value $x$ and discrete control $u = \{ U_1,\dots, U_s \}$ according to $$\label{Xmap}
X_i(x,u) = x + {\tau}\sum_{j=1}^s a_{ij} f(X_j(x,u),U_j(u)), \quad i =1,\dots,s.$$ Similarly, define the Hamiltonian $$\label{Htau}
H^{\tau}(x,\lambda,u) = \lambda^T f^{\tau}(x,u) - h^{\tau}(x,u).$$ With this notation, the discretization of Pontryagin’s maximum principle with any symplectic Runge-Kutta pair can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{x_{n+1} - x_n}{{\tau}} &= {{H^{\tau}_{\lambda}}}(x_n,\lambda_{n+1},u_n), \label{Hager_x}\\
\frac{\lambda_{n+1}-\lambda_n}{{\tau}} &= -{{H^{\tau}_{x}}} (x_n,\lambda_{n+1},u_n),\label{Hager_lam}\\
0 &= {{H^{\tau}_{u}}}(x_n,\lambda_{n+1},u_n).\label{Hager_u}\end{aligned}$$ To see the equivalence, note that evaluating at $x_n$ yields the implicit relations . Taking the derivative of with respect to $\lambda$ and substituting shows to be equivalent to . The proof of the relation is more involved. We adapt the proof from [@Hager00] for our notation.
Let $\Psi_i(x) = \partial_x X_i(x,u)$ and denote $\Psi_i = \Psi_i(x_n)$. Then computing the derivative of at $x_n$ yields the linear system $$\label{Psi}
\Psi_i = I + {\tau}\sum_j a_{ij} {{f_{x}}}(X_i,U_i) \Psi_j.$$ The derivative on the right side of is $$\label{Hager_Hx}
{{H^{\tau}_{x}}} (x_n,\lambda_{n+1},u_n) = \sum_{j=1}^s b_j \Psi_j^T{{f_{x}}}(X_j,U_j)^T \lambda_{n+1} - b_j \Psi_j^T {{h_{x}}} (X_j,U_j).$$ Rearranging gives $$b_j G_j - {\tau}\sum_{i=1}^s b_i a_{ij} {{f_{x}}} (X_j,U_j)^T G_i = b_j {{h_{x}}} (X_j,U_j) - b_j {{f_{x}}}(X_j,U_j)^T \lambda_{n+1}.$$ Premultiplying by $\Psi_j^T$ and summing over $j$ gives $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{j=1}^s b_j \Psi_j^TG_j - {\tau}\sum_{i,j=1}^s b_i a_{ij} \Psi_j^T{{f_{x}}} (X_j,U_j)^TG_i\\
= \sum_{j=1}^s b_j \Psi_j^T{{h_{x}}} (X_j,U_j) - b_j \Psi_j ^T{{f_{x}}}(X_j,U_j)^T \lambda_{n+1}= -{{H^{\tau}_{x}}} (x_n,\lambda_{n+1},u_n),\end{gathered}$$ where the last equality follows from . Now changing the index of summation in the first sum on the left, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
-{{H^{\tau}_{x}}} (x_n,\lambda_{n+1},u_n) &= \sum_{i=1}^s b_i \Psi_i^T G_i - {\tau}\sum_{i=1}^s \left( \sum_{j=1}^s
a_{ij} \Psi_j^T {{f_{x}}} (X_j,U_j)^T\right) b_i G_i ,\\
&= \sum_{i=1}^s b_i G_i,\\
&= \frac{\lambda_{n+1} - \lambda_n}{{\tau}},\end{aligned}$$ where the second equality follows from , thus confirming .
The proof of follows similar arguments, see [@Hager00]. Note the analogy between the relations – and – for the symplectic Euler method.
Convergence analysis\[sec:convergence\]
=======================================
In this section we prove the convergence of the regularized forward-backward sweep iteration – for symplectic Runge-Kutta methods. The proof here follows closely that of Li et al. for the continuous case [@LiChTaE18]. It is the symplectic/variational structure that facilitates this analogy.
Using the compact notation and , we define the discrete regularized Hamiltonian function $$\label{Htilde_tau}
\tilde{H}^{\tau}(x,\lambda,u,q,p) = H^{\tau}(x,\lambda,u) - \frac{\rho}{2}\left( \| q - {{H^{\tau}_{\lambda}}}(x,\lambda,u) \|^2 + \| p + {{H^{\tau}_{x}}} (x,\lambda,u) \|^2\right).$$ In iterate $k$, the symplectic Runge-Kutta discretization of the regularized forward-backward sweep iteration – solves, in sequence, $$\begin{aligned}
x_{n+1}^{(k+1)} &= x_n^{(k+1)} + {\tau}{{\tilde{H}^{\tau}_{\lambda}}} \left(x_n^{(k+1)} ,\lambda_{n+1}^{(k)},u_n^{(k)},\frac{x_{n+1}^{(k+1)} -x_n^{(k+1)} }{{\tau}},\frac{\lambda_{n+1}^{(k)}-\lambda_n^{(k)}}{{\tau}}\right), \label{dMSA_x} \\
\lambda_{n+1}^{(k+1)} &= \lambda_n^{(k+1)} - {\tau}{{\tilde{H}^{\tau}_{x}}} \left(x_n^{(k+1)} ,\lambda_{n+1}^{(k+1)} ,u_n^{(k)},\frac{x_{n+1}^{(k+1)} -x_n^{(k+1)} }{{\tau}},\frac{\lambda_{n+1}^{(k+1)} -\lambda_n^{(k+1)} }{{\tau}}\right), \label{dMSA_lam} \\
u_n^{(k+1)} &= \arg\max_{u\in{\mathcal{U}}} \tilde{H}^{\tau}\left(x_n^{(k+1)} ,\lambda_{n+1}^{(k+1)} ,u,\frac{x_{n+1}^{(k+1)} -x_n^{(k+1)} }{{\tau}},\frac{\lambda_{n+1}^{(k+1)} -\lambda_n^{(k+1)} }{{\tau}}\right), \label{dMSA_u} \end{aligned}$$ proceeding as follows: by forward integration with ${\boldsymbol{u}}$ and ${\boldsymbol{\lambda}}$ fixed, then by backward integration with ${\boldsymbol{x}}$ and ${\boldsymbol{u}}$ fixed, and finally solved for each time step independently (e.g. in parallel), with ${\boldsymbol{x}}$ and ${\boldsymbol{\lambda}}$ fixed.
It is important to recall that with $u$ fixed, along solutions of and the extra regularization terms in the extended Hamiltonian $\tilde{H}^{\tau}$ are identically zero and $$\begin{aligned}
{{\tilde{H}^{\tau}_{\lambda}}} \left(x_n,\lambda_{n+1},u_n,\frac{x_{n+1}-x_n}{{\tau}},\frac{\lambda_{n+1}-\lambda_n}{{\tau}}\right) &= {{H^{\tau}_{\lambda}}}(x_n,\lambda_{n+1},u_n), \\
{{\tilde{H}^{\tau}_{\lambda}}} \left(x_n,\lambda_{n+1},u_n,\frac{x_{n+1}-x_n}{{\tau}},\frac{\lambda_{n+1}-\lambda_n}{{\tau}}\right) &= {{H^{\tau}_{x}}}(x_n,\lambda_{n+1},u_n),\end{aligned}$$ i.e., the regularization terms only affect the maximization step .
### Notation and identities {#notation-and-identities .unnumbered}
In the following we consider a single iteration of –. We think of $H^{\tau}$, ${\boldsymbol{x}}$ and ${\boldsymbol{\lambda}}$ as functions of ${\boldsymbol{u}}$. Consequently we denote by $x_n^u$ and $\lambda_n^u$ the numerical solutions to and given a candidate control ${\boldsymbol{u}}$.
It is convenient to define the composite notation $$z_n = \begin{pmatrix} x_n \\ \lambda_{n+1} \end{pmatrix}, \quad {{H^{\tau}_{z}}}(z_n,u_n) = \begin{pmatrix} {{H^{\tau}_{x}}}(x_n,\lambda_{n+1},u_n) \\ {{H^{\tau}_{\lambda}}}(x_n,\lambda_{n+1},u_n) \end{pmatrix}.$$
We consider two control sequences ${\boldsymbol{u}}$ and ${\boldsymbol{v}}$, and we are interested in bounding the change in $\tilde{H}^\tau$ when ${\boldsymbol{u}}$ is replaced by ${\boldsymbol{v}}$. To that end we define an operator that denotes the difference between quantities dependent on ${\boldsymbol{u}}$ and ${\boldsymbol{v}}$: $${\delta_u}x_n = x_n^v - x_n^u.$$ We use this notation also for functions, e.g. $${\delta_u}H^{\tau}|_n = H^{\tau}(z_n^v,v_n) - H^{\tau}(z_n^u,u_n).$$ We denote by ${\bar{\delta}_u}H^{\tau}$ the change due to an update in ${\boldsymbol{u}}$ with ${\boldsymbol{x}}$ and ${\boldsymbol{\lambda}}$ fixed as functions of $u$: $$\label{Ham_incr}
{\bar{\delta}_u}H^{\tau}|_n = H^{\tau}(x_n^u,\lambda_{n+1}^u,v_n) - H^{\tau}(x_n^u,\lambda_{n+1}^u,u_n).$$ We denote the temporal forward difference operator by ${\delta_t}$: $${\delta_t}x_n = \frac{x_{n+1} - x_n}{{\tau}},$$ and remark that ${\delta_t}$ commutes with ${\delta_u}$ when applied to variables, i.e. ${\delta_u}{\delta_t}x_n = {\delta_t}{\delta_u}x_n$.
Next we note the discrete integration by parts formula: $$\begin{aligned}
{\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \lambda_{n+1}^T {\delta_t}x_n &= \sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \lambda_{n+1}^T (x_{n+1} - x_n) \\
&= -\lambda_0^T x_0 + \lambda_0^T x_0 - \lambda_1^T x_0 + \lambda_1^T x_1 + \cdots - \lambda_N^T x_{N-1} + \lambda_N^T x_N \\
&= \lambda_n^T x_n\big|_0^N - {\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} ({\delta_t}\lambda_n)^T x_n. \end{aligned}$$ This formula holds for any discrete functions defined for $n=0,\dots,N$, and in particular we may insert the difference operator ${\delta_u}$ to obtain two useful alternatives: $$\label{parts1}
{\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \lambda_{n+1}^u \cdot {\delta_t}{\delta_u}x_n = \lambda_n^u \cdot {\delta_u}x_n \big|_0^N
- {\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} {\delta_t}\lambda_n^u\cdot {\delta_u}x_n.$$ $$\label{parts2}
{\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} {\delta_u}\lambda_{n+1} \cdot {\delta_t}{\delta_u}x_n = {\delta_u}\lambda_n \cdot {\delta_u}x_n \big|_0^N
- {\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} {\delta_t}{\delta_u}\lambda_n \cdot {\delta_u}x_n.$$
### Estimates {#estimates .unnumbered}
In the Appendix we show that—possibly with a restriction on step size—the Lipschitz conditions on $f$ and $h$ translate into related Lipschitz conditions on $f^{\tau}$ and $h^{\tau}$. Henceforth choosing $K$ to be a generic Lipschitz constant we obtain the bounds $$\label{discLipschitz} \begin{split}
&\| f^{\tau}(x,u) - f^{\tau}(x',u) \| + \| {{f^{\tau}_{x}}}(x,u) - {{f^{\tau}_{x}}}(x',u) \| \le K \| x - x'\|, \\
&| h^{\tau}(x,u) - h^{\tau}(x',u) | + \| {{h^{\tau}_{x}}}(x,u) - {{h^{\tau}_{x}}}(x',u) \| \le K \| x - x'\|.
\end{split}$$ Note also that the leftmost terms in the above inequalities as well as the analogous ones of imply global bounds on the derivatives (which may be relaxed, see [@LiChTaE18]) $$\label{bound}
\| {{\Phi_{x}}}(x) \| \le K, \quad
\| {{f_{x}}}(x,u) \| \le K, \quad
\| {{h_{x}}}(x,u) \| \le K, \quad
\| {{f^{\tau}_{x}}}(x,u) \| \le K, \quad
\| {{h^{\tau}_{x}}}(x,u) \| \le K.$$
We use two discrete forms of Grönwall’s lemma [@Emmrich99]. Let $\{b_n\}$ be a given, monotone sequence and ${\tau},K>0$. Then the following implication holds: $$\label{gronwall1}
a_{n+1} \le (1+{\tau}K) a_n + {\tau}b_n, \forall n \quad \Rightarrow \quad
a_{n} \le e^{{\tau}n K} a_0 + K^{-1} e^{{\tau}n K} b_{n-1}.$$ Under the same conditions, the following implication holds: $$\label{gronwall2}
a_{n+1} \le b_{n+1} + {\tau}K \sum_{m=0}^n a_m, \forall n \quad \Rightarrow \quad
a_n \le e^{{\tau}n K } b_n.$$
From and , and using the bounds on ${{f_{x}}}$ and ${{h_{x}}}$, $$\| \lambda_n \| \le \| \lambda_{n+1} \| + {\tau}\| {{H^{\tau}_{x}}} (x_n \lambda_{n+1}, u_n) \|
\le (1 + {\tau}K ) \| \lambda_{n+1} \| + {\tau}K,$$ where we have absorbed the constant from into $K$. Further using Grönwall bound and the bound on ${{\Phi_{x}}}(x)$, $$\label{lam_bound}
\| \lambda_n \| \le K_1 := (K+1) e^{{\tau}K N} = (K+1)e^{KT}.$$
From ${\delta_u}x_{n+1} = {\delta_u}x_n + {\tau}{\delta_u}f^{\tau}|_n$ and ${\delta_u}x_0=0$ we calculate $$\begin{aligned}
\| {\delta_u}x_n \| &\le {\tau}\sum_{m=0}^{n-1} \| {\delta_u}f^{\tau}|_m \| \\
&\le {\tau}\sum_{m=0}^{n-1}\| {\bar{\delta}_u}f^{\tau}|_m \| + \| f^{\tau}(x_m^v,v_m) - f^{\tau}(x_m^u,v_m) \| \\
&\le {\tau}\sum_{m=0}^{n-1}\| {\bar{\delta}_u}f^{\tau}|_m \| + K \| {\delta_u}x_m \|,\end{aligned}$$ and using Grönwall bound , $$\label{Du_x_bound}
\| {\delta_u}x_n \| \le {\tau}e^{K T} \sum_{m=0}^{N-1} \| {\bar{\delta}_u}f^{\tau}|_m \|.$$
Similarly, from ${\delta_u}\lambda_n = {\delta_u}\lambda_{n+1} + {\tau}{\delta_u}{{H^{\tau}_{x}}}(x_n,\lambda_{n+1},u_n)$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\| {\delta_u}\lambda_n \| &\le \| {\delta_u}\lambda_N \| + {\tau}\sum_{m=n}^{N-1} \| {\delta_u}{{H^{\tau}_{x}}}|_m \| \\
&\le K \| {\delta_u}x_N \| + {\tau}\sum_{m=n}^{N-1} \| {\bar{\delta}_u}{{H^{\tau}_{x}}}|_m \| + {\tau}K \sum_{m=n}^{N-1} \| {\delta_u}\lambda_{m+1} \|
+ {\tau}K (K_1+1) \sum_{m=n}^{N-1} \| {\delta_u}x_m\|,\end{aligned}$$ where the last term uses and the Lipschitz condition on ${{H^{\tau}_{x}}}$. The discrete Grönwall’s lemma gives $$\| {\delta_u}\lambda_n \| \le K e^{K T} \left( \| {\delta_u}x_N \| + {\tau}(K_1+1) \sum_{m=0}^{N-1} \| {\delta_u}x_m \| \right) + {\tau}e^{K T} \sum_{m=0}^{N-1} \| {\bar{\delta}_u}{{H^{\tau}_{x}}}|_m \|.$$ Finally, making use of gives $$\label{Du_lam_bound}
\| {\delta_u}\lambda_{n} \| \le {\tau}K_2 \sum_{m=0}^{N-1} \| {\bar{\delta}_u}f^{\tau}|_m \| + {\tau}e^{K T} \sum_{m=0}^{N-1} \| {\bar{\delta}_u}{{H^{\tau}_{x}}}|_m \|, \quad K_2 = K e^{2K T} (1 + (K_1+1)T).$$
The following estimates make use of Taylor’s theorem in the mean value form: $$\label{DuHz}
{\delta_u}{{H^{\tau}_{z}}}|_n \cdot {\delta_u}z_n = {\bar{\delta}_u}{{H^{\tau}_{z}}}|_n \cdot {\delta_u}z_n + {\delta_u}z_n\cdot {{H^{\tau}_{zz}}} ( z_n^u + r_1 {\delta_u}z_n,u_n) \cdot {\delta_u}z_n,$$ for some $r_1 \in [0,1]$, where ${{H^{\tau}_{zz}}}$ denotes the Hessian matrix of second partial derivatives of $H^{\tau}$. $$\label{DuPsix}
{\delta_u}{{\Phi_{x}}}(x_N) \cdot {\delta_u}x_N = {\delta_u}x_N\cdot {{\Phi_{xx}}} (x_N^u + r_2 {\delta_u}x_N)\cdot {\delta_u}x_N,$$ for some $r_2\in [0,1]$. Similarly, $$\label{DuPsi}
{{\Phi_{x}}}(x_N^u)\cdot {\delta_u}x_N = \Phi(x_N^v) - \Phi(x_N^u) - \frac{1}{2} {\delta_u}x_N\cdot {{\Phi_{xx}}} (x_N^u + r_3 {\delta_u}x_N)\cdot {\delta_u}x_N,$$ for some $r_3\in [0,1]$. $$\label{DuH}
{\delta_u}H^{\tau}= {\bar{\delta}_u}H^{\tau}+ {{H^{\tau}_{z}}}(z_n^u,v)\cdot {\delta_u}z_n + \frac{1}{2} {\delta_u}z_n \cdot {{H^{\tau}_{zz}}}(z_n^u+r_4{\delta_u}z_n,v_n)\cdot {\delta_u}z_n,$$ for some $r_4\in [0,1]$.
### Convergence of the iteration {#convergence-of-the-iteration .unnumbered}
Convergence of the regularized forward-backward sweep iteration relies on Lemma 2 of [@LiChTaE18], the proof of which we adapt for the symplectic RK method here. The result we want states that under the assumptions , there exists a constant $C>0$ such that for any two discrete controls ${\boldsymbol{u}},{\boldsymbol{v}} \in {\mathcal{U}}$, the discrete cost function satisfies $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Lemma2}
J^{\tau}({\boldsymbol{v}}) \le J^{\tau}({\boldsymbol{u}}) - {\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} {\bar{\delta}_u}H^{\tau}|_n + C {\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \| f^{\tau}(x_n^u,v_n) - f^{\tau}(x_n^u,u_n) \|^2 \\
+ C {\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \| {{H^{\tau}_{x}}}(x_n^u,\lambda_{n+1}^u,v_n) - {{H^{\tau}_{x}}}(x_n^u,\lambda_{n+1}^u,u_n) \|^2 \\
= J^{\tau}(u) - {\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} {\bar{\delta}_u}H^{\tau}|_n + C{\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \| {\bar{\delta}_u}{{H^{\tau}_{z}}}|_n \|^2\end{gathered}$$
Define the discrete functional $$\label{Idef}
\mathcal{I} ({\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{\lambda}},{\boldsymbol{u}}) = {\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \lambda_{n+1}^T {\delta_t}x_n - H^{\tau}(x_n,\lambda_{n+1},u_n) - h^{\tau}(x_n,u_n) \equiv 0.$$ The functional $\mathcal{I}$ is identically zero for sequences $x$ and $\lambda$ satisfying –. Note the identity $$\label{id-1form}
{\delta_u}(\lambda_{n+1}\cdot {\delta_t}x_n) =
\lambda_{n+1}^{u} \cdot {\delta_t}{\delta_u}x_n + {\delta_u}\lambda_{n+1} \cdot {\delta_t}x_n^u + {\delta_u}\lambda_{n+1} \cdot {\delta_t}{\delta_u}x_n.$$
We find $$\begin{gathered}
0 \equiv \mathcal{I}({\boldsymbol{x}}^v,{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}^v,{\boldsymbol{v}}) - \mathcal{I}({\boldsymbol{x}}^u,{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}^u, {\boldsymbol{u}}) = \\
{\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \lambda_{n+1}^{u} \cdot {\delta_t}{\delta_u}x_n + {\delta_u}\lambda_{n+1} \cdot {\delta_t}x_n^u +
{\delta_u}\lambda_{n+1} \cdot {\delta_t}{\delta_u}x_n \\
- {\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \left(H^{\tau}(x_n^v,\lambda_{n+1}^v,v_n) - H^{\tau}(x_n^u,\lambda_{n+1}^u,u_n)\right) \\
- {\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \left( h^{\tau}(x_n^v,v_n) - h^{\tau}(x_n^u,u_n) \right)\end{gathered}$$ In our notation this is $$0 \equiv {\delta_u}\mathcal{I} = {\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \lambda_{n+1}^{u} \cdot {\delta_t}{\delta_u}x_n + {\delta_u}\lambda_{n+1} \cdot {\delta_t}x_n^u +
{\delta_u}\lambda_{n+1} \cdot {\delta_t}{\delta_u}x_n
- {\delta_u}H^{\tau}|_n - {\delta_u}h^{\tau}|_n. \label{dI}$$ [**Remark.**]{} [*This is the point where the symplectic/variational property of the symplectic RK method is important. Since $x_n$ and $\lambda_n$ are discretized by a symplectic partitioned Runge-Kutta method, we see that $\mathcal{I}$ is also equivalent to the constraint part of the discrete Lagrangian: $$\mathcal{I} = {\tau}\sum_{N=0}^{N-1} \lambda_{n+1}^T\left( \frac{x_{n+1}-x_n}{{\tau}} - f^{\tau}(x_n,u_n)\right),$$ which is identically zero along a solution to the state dynamics . Of course, one could define $\mathcal{I}$ as above for an arbitrary choice of the $\lambda_n$. Then $\mathcal{I}$ would be identically zero, but one would not be able to translate this into a statement about the Hamiltonian.*]{}
Using the first two terms on the right side of are equal to $$\begin{gathered}
{\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \lambda_{n+1}^{u} \cdot {\delta_t}{\delta_u}x_n + {\delta_u}\lambda_{n+1} \cdot {\delta_t}x_n^u \\
= \lambda_n^u \cdot {\delta_u}x_n \big|_0^N
+ {\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} f^{\tau}(x_n^u,u_n) \cdot {\delta_u}\lambda_{n+1} + {{H^{\tau}_{x}}} (x_n^u,\lambda_{n+1}^u, u_n)\cdot {\delta_u}x_n,\end{gathered}$$ or in compact notation $$\label{dI_terms12}
{\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \lambda_{n+1}^{u} \cdot {\delta_t}{\delta_u}x_n + {\delta_u}\lambda_{n+1} \cdot {\delta_t}x_n^u
= \lambda_n^u \cdot {\delta_u}x_n \big|_0^N + {\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} {{H^{\tau}_{z}}}(z_n^u,u_n) \cdot {\delta_u}z_n.$$ Similarly, using the third term on the right side of is equal to $$\begin{gathered}
{\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} {\delta_u}\lambda_{n+1} \cdot {\delta_t}{\delta_u}x_n
= \frac{1}{2} {\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} {\delta_u}\lambda_{n+1} \cdot {\delta_t}{\delta_u}x_n +
\frac{1}{2} {\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} {\delta_u}\lambda_{n+1} \cdot {\delta_t}{\delta_u}x_n \\
= \frac{1}{2}{\delta_u}\lambda_n \cdot {\delta_u}x_n\big|_0^N + \frac{1}{2}
{\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \left( {{H^{\tau}_{x}}}(x_n^v,\lambda_{n+1}^v,v_n) - {{H^{\tau}_{x}}} (x_n^u,\lambda_{n+1}^u,u_n)\right) \cdot {\delta_u}x_n \\
+
\left( {{H^{\tau}_{\lambda}}}(x_n^v,\lambda_{n+1}^v,v_n) - {{H^{\tau}_{\lambda}}} (x_n^u,\lambda_{n+1}^u,u_n)\right) \cdot {\delta_u}\lambda_{n+1},\end{gathered}$$ or, $$\label{dI_term3}
{\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} {\delta_u}\lambda_{n+1} \cdot {\delta_t}{\delta_u}x_n
= \frac{1}{2}{\delta_u}\lambda_n \cdot {\delta_u}x_n\big|_0^N
+ \frac{1}{2} {\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} {\delta_u}{{H^{\tau}_{z}}}|_n \cdot {\delta_u}z_n.$$ [**Remark.**]{} [*Again the symplectic property of the discretization allows us to express this as the gradient of the Hamiltonian collocated at the numerical solution of the forward and backward equations, which in turn will allow cancellation with the second term of the Taylor expansion in .*]{}
Combining , and gives $$\begin{gathered}
\label{dIprime}
0 \equiv {\delta_u}\mathcal{I} = (\lambda_n^u + \frac{1}{2}{\delta_u}\lambda_n) \cdot {\delta_u}x_n\big|_0^N + \\
{\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} {{H^{\tau}_{z}}}(z_n^u,u_n) \cdot {\delta_u}z_n + \frac{1}{2} {\delta_u}{{H^{\tau}_{z}}}|_n \cdot {\delta_u}z_n - {\delta_u}H^{\tau}|_n - {\delta_u}h^{\tau}|_n.\end{gathered}$$
Given that ${\delta_u}x_0= 0$, the boundary term in reduces to $$\label{boundary}
(\lambda_N^u + \frac{1}{2} {\delta_u}\lambda_N) \cdot {\delta_u}x_N = -{{\Phi_{x}}}(x_N)\cdot{\delta_u}x_N - \frac{1}{2} \left({{\Phi_{x}}}(x_N^v) - {{\Phi_{x}}}(x_N^u)\right)\cdot {\delta_u}x_N.$$
We substitute and into the second and third summand of , into the boundary term, and subsequently the estimates and to yield: $$\begin{gathered}
0 \equiv {\delta_u}\mathcal{I} = -\left( \Phi(x_N^v) - \Phi(x_N^u) - \frac{1}{2} {\delta_u}x_N\cdot {{\Phi_{xx}}} (x_N^u + r_3 {\delta_u}x_N)\cdot {\delta_u}x_N \right) \\
- \frac{1}{2} \left( {\delta_u}x_N\cdot {{\Phi_{xx}}} (x_N^u + r_2 {\delta_u}x_N)\cdot {\delta_u}x_N\right)
+ {\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} -{\delta_u}h^{\tau}|_n + {{H^{\tau}_{z}}}(z_n^u,u_n) \cdot {\delta_u}z_n \\
+ \frac{1}{2} \left( {\bar{\delta}_u}{{H^{\tau}_{z}}}|_n \cdot {\delta_u}z_n + {\delta_u}z_n\cdot {{H^{\tau}_{zz}}} ( z_n^u + r_1 {\delta_u}z_n,u_n) \cdot {\delta_u}z_n \right) \\
-\left({\bar{\delta}_u}H^{\tau}|_n + {{H^{\tau}_{z}}}(z_n^u,v_n)\cdot {\delta_u}z_n + \frac{1}{2} {\delta_u}z_n \cdot {{H^{\tau}_{zz}}}(z_n^u+r_4{\delta_u}z_n,v_n)\cdot {\delta_u}z_n\right), \end{gathered}$$ or, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{dI_simplified}
{\delta_u}\Phi(x_N) + {\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} {\delta_u}h^{\tau}(x_n,u_n) = \\
- \frac{1}{2} {\delta_u}x_N\cdot \left( {{\Phi_{xx}}} (x_N^u + r_2 {\delta_u}x_N) - {{\Phi_{xx}}} (x_N^u + r_3 {\delta_u}x_N)\right) \cdot {\delta_u}x_N \\
- {\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} {\bar{\delta}_u}H^{\tau}|_n + \frac{1}{2} {\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} {\bar{\delta}_u}{{H^{\tau}_{z}}}|_n \cdot {\delta_u}z_n \\
+ \frac{1}{2}{\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} {\delta_u}z_n \cdot \left( {{H^{\tau}_{zz}}}(z_n^u+r_1{\delta_u}z_n,v_n) - {{H^{\tau}_{zz}}}(z_n^u+r_4{\delta_u}z_n,v_n)\right) \cdot {\delta_u}z_n.\end{gathered}$$
Next, we use the estimates and and the fact that the quadratic terms are bounded by a some constant $K_3$ to calculate $$\begin{aligned}
J^{\tau}[{\boldsymbol{v}}] - J^{\tau}[{\boldsymbol{u}}] \le &-{\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} {\bar{\delta}_u}H^{\tau}|_n, \\
&+ K_3 \| {\delta_u}x_N\|^2 + K_3 {\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \left( \| {\delta_u}x_n \|^2 + \| {\delta_u}\lambda_{n+1} \|^2 \right), \\
&+ \frac{1}{2} {\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \| {\delta_u}x_n\| \| {\bar{\delta}_u}f^{\tau}|_n\| + \frac{1}{2} {\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \| {\delta_u}\lambda_{n+1} \| \| {\bar{\delta}_u}{{H^{\tau}_{x}}}|_n \|, \\
\le & -{\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} {\bar{\delta}_u}H^{\tau}|_n + C \left( {\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \| {\bar{\delta}_u}f^{\tau}|_n \| \right)^2 + C \left({\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \| {\bar{\delta}_u}{{H^{\tau}_{x}}}|_n \| \right)^2, \\
\le & -{\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} {\bar{\delta}_u}H^{\tau}|_n + C {\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \| {\bar{\delta}_u}f^{\tau}|_n \|^2 + C {\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \| {\bar{\delta}_u}{{H^{\tau}_{x}}}|_n \|^2, \end{aligned}$$ which is the result sought (cf. ).
It now remains to show that the regularized forward-backward sweep iteration converges. We first show that an estimate of the same form as holds for ${\delta_u}H^{\tau}$ when the regularized Hamiltonian is maximized. These can be combined to show monotone decay of the objective function $J^{\tau}[{\boldsymbol{u}}]$. Thereafter, it is shown that the sum of the decrements is finite, which implies convergence of the differences.
Let ${\boldsymbol{v}}$ denote the improved control obtained by solving . The resulting change in $\tilde{H}^{\tau}$ must be nonnegative, hence $$\begin{gathered}
0 \le {\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}{\bar{\delta}_u}\tilde{H}^{\tau}|_n= {\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} {\bar{\delta}_u}H^{\tau}|_n \\
- \frac{\rho}{2} \left[ \| \frac{x_{n+1}^u-x_n^u}{{\tau}} - f^{\tau}(x_n^u,v_n) \|^2 +
\| \frac{\lambda_{n+1}^u-\lambda_n^u}{{\tau}} +H^{\tau}_x (x_n^u,\lambda_{n+1}^uv_n) \|^2 \right] \\
+ \frac{\rho}{2} \left[ \| \frac{x_{n+1}^u-x_n^u}{{\tau}} - f^{\tau}(x_n^u,u_n) \|^2 +
\| \frac{\lambda_{n+1}^u-\lambda_n^u}{{\tau}} +H^{\tau}_x (x_n^u,\lambda_{n+1}^u,u_n) \|^2 \right].\end{gathered}$$ The last term in square brackets vanishes since $x_n^u$ and $\lambda_n^u$ satisfy –. Consequently, the above expression is equivalent to $$\label{duHt}
0 \le {\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}{\bar{\delta}_u}\tilde{H}^{\tau}|_n = {\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} {\bar{\delta}_u}H^{\tau}|_n - \frac{\rho}{2} \left[ \| {\bar{\delta}_u}f^{\tau}|_n \|^2 +
\| {\bar{\delta}_u}{{H^{\tau}_{x}}}|_n) \|^2 \right]$$ Combining this with Lemma 2 gives $$\label{monotone}
J^{\tau}[{\boldsymbol{v}}] - J^{\tau}[{\boldsymbol{u}}] \le -(1- \frac{2C}{\rho}) {\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} {\bar{\delta}_u}H^{\tau}|_n$$ The summation on the right side is nonnegative, as a consequence of . Therefore, choosing $\rho>2C$ ensures that $J^{\tau}$ is nonincreasing. Next suppose we iterate –. Let ${\boldsymbol{u}}^{(k)}$ denote the control variable in iteration $k$. Then it holds that $$\sum_{k=0}^M {\tau}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} {\bar{\delta}_u}H^{\tau}|_n \le D^{-1} (J^{\tau}[{\boldsymbol{u}}^{(0)}] - J^{\tau}[{\boldsymbol{u}}^{(M+1)}]) \le D^{-1}( J^{\tau}[{\boldsymbol{u}}^{(0)}] - \inf_{{\boldsymbol{u}}\in {\mathcal{U}}} J^{\tau}[{\boldsymbol{u}}] ),$$ where $D = (1-2C/\rho)>0$. Consequently, in the limit $M\to\infty$ this sum is bounded, which implies $$\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} {\bar{\delta}_u}H^{\tau}|_n \to 0,$$ proving convergence of the iteration.
Numerical illustration\[sec:numer\]
===================================
In this section we study numerically the convergence of the discrete regularized forward-backward sweep iteration. As a test problem we control the motion of a damped oscillator in a double well potential. The controlled motion is given by $$x = \begin{pmatrix} q \\ p \end{pmatrix}, \qquad f(x,u) = \begin{pmatrix} p \\ q - q^3 - \nu p + u \end{pmatrix}, \label{dwp}$$ where $\mu>0$ is a damping parameter. The control $u(t)$ acts only on the velocity. As initial condition we choose $\xi = (-1,0)$ in the left potential well, and we seek to minimize the cost function $$J[u] = \frac{\alpha}{2} \| x(T) - x_f \|^2 + \int_0^T \frac{1}{2} u(t)^2 \, dt,$$ where the target final position is $x_f = (1,0)$, in the right potential well. For the numerical computations we take $T=6$, $\nu = 1$, and $\alpha = 10$.
We solve the optimal control problem using the discrete regularized forward-backward sweep iteration – and the symplectic Euler scheme –. We iterate until the update to the control variable $u$ is less than a prescribed tolerance $$\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \| u_n^{(k)} - u_n^{(k-1)} \| < \varepsilon,$$ where $\varepsilon = 1e^{-8}$. The computed optimal path $x(t) = (q(t),p(t))$ is shown as a solid blue curve on the left plot of Figure \[fig:soln\]. The background contours are level sets of the total energy function $E = {1 \over 2} p^2 + {1\over 4} q^4 - {1 \over 2} q^2$. The optimal control must accelerate the motion of the particle to reach an energy level above the saddle point, allowing it to cross to the potential well on the right.
For this computation we chose $\rho=100$ for the regularization parameter. Figure \[fig:conv\] shows the convergence of the discrete cost function for values $\rho=50$, $\rho=100$ and $\rho=200$. For $\rho=100$, the convergence is monotone as predicted by the theory of the previous section (cf. ). For $\rho=50$, we observe an initial reduction in cost, which eventually oscillates and does not converge. For $\rho=200$, the iteration converges but at a slower late than for $\rho=100$. Hence, our experience suggests there is a critical value of $\rho$ below which there is no convergence of the regularized forward-backward sweep iteration, and above which the convergence becomes steadily slower.
The minimal cost obtained using the symplectic Euler method and $N=160$ was $J = 0.7712$. We also computed the optimal solution for $N=20$ time steps, shown as the red dash-dot line in the left plot of Figure \[fig:soln\]. As noted in Section \[sec:VarInt\], by discretizing the Lagrangian we obtain a discrete optimal control problem for each $N$. For the case $N=20$ the optimal path deviates significantly from that for $N=160$. Because the Lipschitz constant is larger for this solution, it was necessary to take $\rho=400$ for convergence. The optimal cost is $J=0.7006$, which is lower than was found for $N=160$.
We also solved the optimal control problem using the implicit midpoint rule, a second order symplectic Runge-Kutta method with $s=1$ and coefficients $a_{11} = b_1 = 1/2$. The solutions for $N=20$ and $N=160$ are shown in the right plot of Figure \[fig:soln\]. Here we see that the discrete optimum at low resolution is much closer to that at high resolution. The optimal costs were computed $J=0.7837$ for $N=20$ and $J=0.7769$ for $N=160$. Both resolutions converged with $\rho=100$.
![Optimal motion in $q$–$p$ plane, computed with the symplectic Euler method (left) and implicit midpoint method (right), for $N=160$ (solid blue line) and $N=20$ (dash-dot red line). \[fig:soln\]](soln2.eps "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Optimal motion in $q$–$p$ plane, computed with the symplectic Euler method (left) and implicit midpoint method (right), for $N=160$ (solid blue line) and $N=20$ (dash-dot red line). \[fig:soln\]](soln_IM2.eps "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
![Convergence of the cost function for the regularized forward-backward sweep iteration using the symplectic Euler method –, with $\rho=50$ (blue), $\rho=100$ (red) and $\rho=200$ (yellow). \[fig:conv\]](convSE_160.eps){width="60.00000%"}
Summary\[sec:conclusions\]
==========================
In this article we have extended the convergence proof of a regularized forward-backward sweep iteration [@LiChTaE18] for solving optimal control problems to the discrete setting. We showed that if the continuous problem is discretized by a partitioned Runge-Kutta pair (using a variational integrator approach), then the convergence proof of [@LiChTaE18] may be easily adapted. Numerical experiments with the first order, explicit symplectic Euler method and the second order implicit midpoint rule demonstrate monotonic convergence of the cost function if the regularization parameter $\rho$ is chosen large enough. For insufficiently large $\rho$ the cost undergoes bounded oscillations; whereas for excessively large $\rho$ the convergence is slower. In our experiments, convergence was observed even with large step sizes, however the resulting discrete optimization problem is an inaccurate approximation of the continuum problem. The total number of iterations required for convergence may be dramatically reduced using an acceleration method such as Anderson acceleration [@WaNi11].
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
In this appendix we prove that the bounds follow from .
Since $b_i \ge 0$, $i=1,\dots,s$, $$\label{dftau}
\| f^\tau(x',u) - f^\tau(x,u) \| \le \sum_{i=1}^s b_i \| f(X_i,U_i) - f(X_i',U_i) \|,$$ where $X_i'$ satisfies $$X_i' = x' + {\tau}\sum_{j=1}^s a_{ij} f(X_j',U_j).$$ Denoting $\Delta X_i = X_i - X_i'$ and using the Lipschitz condition on $f$ (cf. ), we find $$\| \Delta X_i \| \le \| x - x' \| + {\tau}\sum_{j=1}^s | a_{ij} | \cdot K \| \Delta X_j \|.$$ Denote by $|A|$ the matrix with elements $|a_{ij}|$, by $|\Delta X|$ the vector with elements $\| \Delta X_i \|$, and let $\mathbbold{1}$ be the vector of dimension $s$ with all elements equal to 1. Then the above equation becomes $$\label{stageBound1}
(I - {\tau}K |A|) |\Delta X| \le \| x-x'\| \mathbbold{1}.$$ For *explicit* Runge-Kutta methods, the matrix on the left always has positive inverse given by $$(I - {\tau}K |A|)^{-1} = \sum_{i=0}^{s-1} ({\tau}K |A|)^i.$$ For *implicit* Runge-Kutta methods, the matrix on the left of is an M-matrix with positive inverse if we impose the step size restriction $$\label{steplimit}
{\tau}\le (K \max_{ij} |a_{ij}|)^{-1}.$$ In either of the above cases we find $$\label{stageBound}
\| X_i - X_i' \| \le K^\tau \|x-x'\|, \qquad K^\tau = \| (I - {\tau}K |A|)^{-1} \mathbbold{1} \|_\infty.$$ Returning to we obtain $$\| f^\tau(x',u) - f^\tau(x,u) \| \le \sum_{i=0}^s b_i K K^{\tau}\| x-x' \| = K K^{\tau}\| x-x' \|.$$ proving the first bound in .
To prove the second bound, recall . Taking norms, and using the bound , $$\| \Psi_i \| \le 1 + {\tau}\sum_{j=1}^s | a_{ij} | K \| \Psi_j \|,$$ from which we conclude that $$\label{Psibound}
\| \Psi_i \| \le K^{\tau}.$$ We also find $$\begin{aligned}
\| \Psi_i - \Psi_i' \| &\le {\tau}\sum_{j=1}^s |a_{ij}| \| {{f_{x}}} (X_j,U_j) \Psi_j - {{f_{x}}} (X_j',U_j) \Psi_j' \| \\
&= {\tau}\sum_{j=1}^s |a_{ij}| \| {{f_{x}}} (X_j,U_j) (\Psi_j - \Psi_j') + ({{f_{x}}} (X_j,U_j) - {{f_{x}}} (X_j',U_j)) \Psi_j' \| \\
&\le {\tau}\sum_{j=1}^s |a_{ij}| ( K \|\Psi_j - \Psi_j' \| + K K^{\tau}\| X_j - X_j' \| )\\
&\le {\tau}\sum_{j=1}^s |a_{ij}| (K \| \Psi_j - \Psi_j' \| + K(K^{\tau})^2 \| x - x' \| )\\
&\le {\tau}(\max_i \sum_{j=1}^s |a_{ij}|) K (K^{\tau})^3 \| x - x' \|,\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality follows by inverting the matrix of —in the case of implicit RK methods under the step size restriction . Similarly, we compute $$\begin{aligned}
\| {{f^{\tau}_{x}}} (x,u) - {{f^{\tau}_{x}}}(x',u) \| &\le \sum_{i=1}^s b_i \| {{f_{x}}}(X_i,U_i) \Psi_i - {{f_{x}}}(X_i',U_i) \Psi_i' \| \\
&= \sum_{i=1}^s b_i \| {{f_{x}}}(X_i,U_i) (\Psi_i - \Psi_i') + ({{f_{x}}}(X_i,U_i) - {{f_{x}}}(X_i',U_i)) \Psi_i' \| \\
&\le \sum_{i=1}^s b_i ( K \| \Psi_i - \Psi_i' \| + K K^{\tau}\| X_i - X_i' \| ) \\
& \le ({\tau}\max_i \sum_{j=1}^s |a_{ij}|) K^2 (K^{\tau})^3 + K (K^{\tau})^2) \| x-x' \|,\end{aligned}$$ proving the second bound in .
The bounds on $h^\tau$ and ${{h^{\tau}_{x}}}$ in follow the same reasoning.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The parameter $\epsilon_K$ describes CP violation in the neutral kaon system and is one of the most sensitive probes of new physics. The large uncertainties related to the charm-quark contribution to $\epsilon_K$ have so far prevented a reliable standard-model prediction. We show that CKM unitarity enforces a unique form of the $|\Delta{{\rm S}}\!=\!2|$ weak effective Lagrangian in which the short-distance theory uncertainty of the imaginary part is dramatically reduced. The uncertainty related to the charm-quark contribution is now at the percent level. We present the updated standard-model prediction $\epsilon_K = 2.16(6)(8)(15)\times10^{-3}$, where the errors in brackets correspond to QCD short-distance and long-distance, and parametric uncertainties, respectively.'
author:
- Joachim Brod
- Martin Gorbahn
- Emmanuel Stamou
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'Standard-model prediction of $\epsilon_K$ with manifest CKM unitarity '
---
Introduction
============
CP violation in the neutral kaon system, parameterized by $\epsilon_K$, is one of the most sensitive precision probes of new physics. For decades, the large perturbative uncertainties related to the charm-quark contributions have been an impediment to fully exploiting the potential of $\epsilon_K$. In this letter we demonstrate how to overcome this obstacle.
The parameter $\epsilon_K$ can be defined as [@Anikeev:2001rk] $$\label{eq:ek:def}
\epsilon_K \equiv e^{i\phi_\epsilon} \sin\phi_\epsilon \frac{1}{2}
\arg \bigg( \frac{-M_{12}}{\Gamma_{12}} \bigg)\,.$$ Here, $\phi_\epsilon = \arctan(2\Delta M_K/\Delta\Gamma_K)$, with $M_K$ and $\Delta\Gamma_K$ the mass and lifetime difference of the weak eigenstates $K_L$ and $K_S$. $M_{12}$ and $\Gamma_{12}$ are the Hermitian and anti-Hermitian parts of the $|\Delta{{\rm S}}\!=\!2|$ weak effective Hamiltonian. The short-distance contributions to $\epsilon_K$ are then contained in the matrix element $M_{12} \equiv
\langle K^0 | \mathcal{H}^{\Delta{{\rm S}}= 2}_{f=3}| \bar K^0 \rangle /
(2\Delta M_K)$. Both $M_{12}$ and $\Gamma_{12}$ depend on the phase convention of the Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa (CKM) matrix $V$. To make the cancellation of the phase convention in Eq. explicit, we define the effective $|\Delta{{\rm S}}\!=\! 2|$ Hamiltonian in the three-quark theory as $$\label{eq:HS2:inv}
\begin{split}
&\mathcal{H}_{f=3}^{\Delta{{\rm S}}= 2} = \frac{{G_{\rm F}}^2M_W^2}{4\pi^2}
\frac{1}{(\lambda_u^*)^2} {Q}_{{{{\rm S}}}2}
\Big\{ f_{1} \,{\mathcal{C}}_{1}(\mu) \\
& + i J \left[ f_{2} \,{\mathcal{C}}_{2}(\mu)
+ f_{3}\,{\mathcal{C}}_{3}(\mu) \right] \Big\}
+ \text{h.c.} + \ldots
\end{split}$$ in terms of the real Wilson coefficients ${\mathcal{C}}_{i}(\mu)$, $i=1,2,3$, and four real, independent, rephasing-invariant parameters $J$, $f_{1}$, $f_{2}$, and $f_{3}$ comprising the CKM matrix elements. Here, we defined $\lambda_i \equiv V_{is}^* V_{id}$. The local four-quark operator $$\label{eq:def:QS2} Q_{{{{\rm S}}}2} =
(\overline{s}_L \gamma_{\mu} d_L) \otimes
(\overline{s}_L \gamma^{\mu}d_L)\,,$$ defined in terms of the left-handed $s$- and $d$-quark fields, induces the $|\Delta{{\rm S}}\!=\!2|$ transitions. The ellipsis in Eq. represents $|\Delta{{\rm S}}\!=\!1|$ operators that contribute to the dispersive and absorptive parts of the amplitude via non-local insertions, as well as operators of mass dimension higher than six.
The normalization factor $1/(\lambda_u^*)^2$ in Eq. ensures that the resulting expression of $\epsilon_K$ in Eq. is phase-convention independent if one accordingly extracts the factor $1/\lambda_u^*$ from the $|\Delta{{\rm S}}\!=\!1|$ Hamiltonian which contributes to $\Gamma_{12}$ via a double insertion. Moreover, the splitting into the real and imaginary part in Eq. is unique. Explicitly, we have $J = \mathrm{Im}(V_{us} V_{cb} V^*_{ub} V^*_{cs})$ and $f_{1} =
|\lambda_u|^4 + \dots$, where the ellipsis denotes real terms that are suppressed by powers of the Wolfenstein parameter $\lambda$.
By contrast, the splitting of the imaginary part among $f_2$ and $f_3$ is not unique. A particularly convenient choice is $f_{2} = 2
\mathrm{Re}(\lambda_t \lambda_u^*)$ and $f_{3} = |\lambda_u|^2$, leading to the Lagrangian $$\label{eq:LS2:final}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{L}^{\Delta{{\rm S}}=2}_{f=3} = - \frac{{G_{\rm F}}^2 M_W^2}{4 \pi^2}
\big[ & \lambda_u^2 {\mathscr{C}}_{{{{\rm S}}}2}^{uu}(\mu) + \lambda_t^2 {\mathscr{C}}_{{{{\rm S}}}2}^{tt}
(\mu) \\ +& \lambda_u \lambda_t {\mathscr{C}}_{{{{\rm S}}}2}^{ut}(\mu) \big] Q_{{{{\rm S}}}2}
+ \textrm{h.c.} + \dots \,,
\end{split}$$ where we used CKM unitarity and identified ${\mathscr{C}}_{{{{\rm S}}}2}^{uu} \equiv
{\mathcal{C}}_1$, ${\mathscr{C}}_{{{{\rm S}}}2}^{tt} \equiv {\mathcal{C}}_2$, and ${\mathscr{C}}_{{{{\rm S}}}2}^{ut} \equiv
{\mathcal{C}}_3$. This form of the effective Lagrangian, where the coefficient of ${\mathscr{C}}_{{{{\rm S}}}2}^{uu}$ is real, has been suggested in Ref. [@Christ:2012se] as a better way to compute the matrix elements on the lattice in the four-flavor theory, and it was speculated that also the perturbative part may then converge better. Above, we showed that this minimal form is essentially dictated by CKM unitarity; we will see below that, indeed, both ${\mathcal{C}}_2$ and ${\mathcal{C}}_3$ (as opposed to ${\mathcal{C}}_1$!) have a perfectly convergent perturbative expansion.
Traditionally, however, the effective Lagrangian has been given in a different form [@Buchalla:1995vs; @Herrlich:1996vf], $$\label{eq:LS2:conv:useful}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{L}^{\Delta{{\rm S}}=2}_{f=3} = - \frac{{G_{\rm F}}^2 M_W^2}{4 \pi^2} \big[
& \lambda_c^2 C_{{{{\rm S}}}2}^{cc}(\mu) +
\lambda_t^2 C_{{{{\rm S}}}2}^{tt}(\mu)\\
+&
\lambda_c \lambda_t C_{{{{\rm S}}}2}^{ct}(\mu) \big]
Q_{{{{\rm S}}}2} + \textrm{h.c.} + \dots \,,
\end{split}$$ which can be obtained from Eq. via the choice $f_2
= \mathrm{Re}(\lambda_t \lambda_u^*)$, $f_3 = \mathrm{Re}(\lambda_c
\lambda_u^*)$, where we are now lead to identify $C_{{{{\rm S}}}2}^{cc}
\equiv {\mathcal{C}}_1$, $C_{{{{\rm S}}}2}^{ct} \equiv 2{\mathcal{C}}_1 + {\mathcal{C}}_3$, and $2C_{{{{\rm S}}}2}^{tt} \equiv 2{\mathcal{C}}_1 + {\mathcal{C}}_2 + {\mathcal{C}}_3$. We see that in this choice ${\mathcal{C}}_1$ artificially enters all three coefficients, which all contribute to $\epsilon_K$. This is unfortunate because the perturbative expansion of ${\mathcal{C}}_1$ exhibits bad convergence, as shown in Ref. [@Brod:2011ty].
Clearly, Eq. can be directly obtained from Eq. by the replacement $\lambda_u = -\lambda_c
-\lambda_t$. We will refer to Eq. as “$c$-$t$ unitarity” and to Eq. as “$u$-$t$ unitarity”. It is customary to define the renormalization-scale-invariant (RI) Wilson coefficients $\widehat{C}_{{{{\rm S}}}2}^{ij} \equiv C_{{{{\rm S}}}2}^{ij}(\mu) b(\mu)$, $ij =
cc, ct, tt$, where the scale factor $b(\mu)$ is defined, for instance, in Refs. [@Herrlich:1996vf; @Brod:2010mj]. QCD corrections are then parameterized by the factors $\eta_{tt}$, $\eta_{ct}$, and $\eta_{cc}$, defined in terms of the Inami–Lim functions $S(x_i,
x_j)$ (see Ref. [@Inami:1980fz]) by $\widehat{C}_{{{{\rm S}}}2}^{tt}
=\eta_{tt} S(x_t)$, $\widehat{C}_{{{{\rm S}}}2}^{ct} = 2 \eta_{ct}
S(x_c,x_t)$, and $\widehat{C}_{{{{\rm S}}}2}^{cc} = \eta_{cc} S(x_c)$. Here, we defined the mass ratios $x_i \equiv m_i(m_i)^2/M_W^2$ with $m_i(m_i)$ denoting the RI $\overline{\rm MS}$ mass. $\eta_{tt}$ is known at next-to-leading-logarithmic (NLL) order in QCD, $\eta_{tt} =
0.5765(65)$ [@Buras:1990fn], while the other two are known at next-to-next-to-leading-logarithmic (NNLL) order, $\eta_{ct} =
0.496(47)$ [@Brod:2010mj] and $\eta_{cc} =
1.87(76)$ [@Brod:2011ty].
In the same way, we define the RI Wilson coefficients and the QCD correction factors for the Lagrangian in Eq. , namely, $\widehat{{\mathscr{C}}}_{{{{\rm S}}}2}^{tt} = \eta_{tt} {\mathscr{S}}(x_t)$ and $\widehat{{\mathscr{C}}}_{{{{\rm S}}}2}^{ut} = 2 \eta_{ut} {\mathscr{S}}(x_c,x_t)$. Note that since ${\mathscr{C}}_{{{{\rm S}}}2}^{uu}$ is real, it is not required to obtain $\epsilon_K$. Using Eqs. and and the unitarity relation $\lambda_c =
-\lambda_u -\lambda_t$, it is readily seen that the modified Inami–Lim functions ${\mathscr{S}}(x_i, x_j)$ are given by ${\mathscr{S}}(x_c) = S(x_c)$, ${\mathscr{S}}(x_c,x_t) = S(x_c) - S(x_c,x_t)$, and ${\mathscr{S}}(x_t) = S(x_t) + S(x_c)
- 2S(x_c,x_t)$. The latter relation implies that $\eta_{tt}$ coincides in $u$-$t$ and $c$-$t$ unitarity up to tiny corrections of order ${\cal O}(m_c^2/M_W^2) \sim 10^{-4}$, which we neglect. In what follows, we show that $\eta_{ut} = 0.402(5)$ at NNLL, with an order-of-magnitude smaller uncertainty than $\eta_{ct}$ and $\eta_{cc}$.
Analytic results\[sec:weakeffective\]
=====================================
In this section we will show that all ingredients for the NNLL analysis with manifest CKM unitarity of the charm contribution to $\epsilon_K$ are available in the literature. To establish the requisite relations, we display the effective five- and four-flavor Lagrangian using both the traditional $c$-$t$ unitarity, giving [@Herrlich:1996vf; @Brod:2010mj] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lag:s2:ct}
&\mathcal{L}_{f=4,5}^{\text{eff}} =\nonumber\\
&- \frac{4 {G_{\rm F}}}{\sqrt{2}} \biggl(
\sum_{k,l=u,c} \!\! V_{ks}^\ast V_{ld} (C_{+} Q_+^{kl} + C_{-} Q_-^{kl})
- \lambda_t \sum_{i=3,6} C_i Q_i\biggr)\nonumber\\
&- \frac{{G_{\rm F}}^2 M_W^2}{4\pi^2} \lambda_t^2 {C}_{\text{{{{\rm S}}}2}} {Q}_{\text{{{{\rm S}}}2}}
- 8 {G_{\rm F}}^2 \lambda_c \lambda_t \tilde{C}_7 \tilde{Q}_{7} + \text{h.c.}\, .\end{aligned}$$ and $u$-$t$ unitarity, giving $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lag:s2:ut}
&\mathcal{L}_{f=4,5}^{\text{eff}} =\nonumber\\
&- \frac{4 {G_{\rm F}}}{\sqrt{2}} \biggl(
\sum_{k,l=u,c} \!\!\! V_{ks}^\ast V_{ld} ({\mathscr{C}}_{+} Q_+^{kl} + {\mathscr{C}}_{-} Q_-^{kl})
- \lambda_t \sum_{i=3,6} {\mathscr{C}}_i Q_i\biggr)\nonumber\\
&- \frac{{G_{\rm F}}^2 M_W^2}{4\pi^2} \lambda_t^2 {{\mathscr{C}}}_{\text{{{{\rm S}}}2}} {Q}_{\text{{{{\rm S}}}2}}
- 8 {G_{\rm F}}^2 (\lambda_u \lambda_t +\lambda_t^2 )\tilde{{\mathscr{C}}}_7 \tilde{Q}_{7}
+ \text{h.c.}\end{aligned}$$ The Wilson coefficients in Eqs. and are related via $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:c:relation}
&{\mathscr{C}}_{i} = C_{i}\,,&
&{{\mathscr{C}}}_{\text{{{{\rm S}}}2}} = {C}_{\text{{{{\rm S}}}2}}\,,&
&\tilde{{\mathscr{C}}}_{7} = -\tilde{C}_{7}\,,&\end{aligned}$$ where $i=+,-,3,\dots,6$. Here, $\tilde{Q}_{7} \equiv m_c^2/g_s^2
{Q}_{{{{\rm S}}}2}$, with $g_s$ the strong coupling constant, while the remaining operators (current–current and penguin operators) are defined in Ref. [@Brod:2010mj]. The initial conditions for all the $C_i$ Wilson coefficients and $\tilde{C}_{7}$, up to NNLO, can be found in Refs. [@Buras:1991jm; @Bobeth:1999mk; @Buras:2006gb; @Brod:2010mj].
It is evident that the renormalization-group evolution of the coefficients ${\mathscr{C}}_{i}$ and $C_{i}$, as well as of ${{\mathscr{C}}}_{\text{{{{\rm S}}}2}}$ and ${C}_{\text{{{{\rm S}}}2}}$, is identical. We now show that also the mixing of the ${\mathscr{C}}_{i}$ into $\tilde{C}_{7}$ via double insertions of dimension-six operators can be obtained from results available in the literature. To this end we define the following short-hand notation for the relevant $|\Delta{{\rm S}}\!=\!2|$ matrix elements of double insertions of local operators $O_A$ and $O_B$, $$\langle O_A, O_B \rangle \equiv \frac{i^2}{2!} \int d^4x d^4y \langle
T\{O_A(x) O_B(y)\}\rangle \,.$$
With the Lagrangian in Eq. and using $(V_{cs}^*V_{ud})(V_{us}^*V_{cd}) = -\lambda_c^2 - \lambda_c\lambda_t$, the anomalous dimensions for the mixing of two ${\mathscr{C}}_{i}$s into $\tilde{C}_{7}$ can then be obtained from the divergent part of the amplitude $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:double}
&{\cal M}_\text{double insertions}^{\Delta{{\rm S}}=2}\big|_\text{div} \\[0.5em]
\propto& ~ ~\lambda_t^2 \left( {\langle Q_P,Q_P \rangle}
+{\langle Q^{uu},Q^{uu} \rangle}
+2{\langle Q_{P},Q^{uu} \rangle}
\right)\big|_\text{div}\nonumber\\
-& \lambda_c\lambda_t \big(
2 {\langle Q_P,Q^{cc} -Q^{uu} \rangle}
+ {\langle Q^{cc},Q^{cc} \rangle}
- {\langle Q^{uu},Q^{uu} \rangle}\big)\big|_\text{div}\nonumber\\[0.5em]
=& ~~\lambda_t^2 \left( {\langle Q_P,Q_P \rangle}
+{\langle Q^{cc},Q^{cc} \rangle}
+2{\langle Q_{P},Q^{cc} \rangle}
\right)\big|_\text{div}\nonumber\\
+&\lambda_u\lambda_t \big(
2 {\langle Q_P,Q^{cc} -Q^{uu} \rangle}
+ {\langle Q^{cc},Q^{cc} \rangle}
- {\langle Q^{uu},Q^{uu} \rangle}
\big)\big|_\text{div}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We introduced the short-hand notations $Q_P \equiv \sum_{i=3}^6
{\mathscr{C}}_iQ_i$ and $Q^{qq'} \equiv \sum_{i=+,-} {\mathscr{C}}_iQ_i^{qq'}$. In the first equality we utilized the observation that the divergence of the linear combination of amplitudes proportional to $\lambda_c^2$ vanishes [@Witten:1976kx], $$\label{eq:witten}
\left( {\langle Q^{cc}-Q^{uu},Q^{cc} -Q^{uu} \rangle} - 2{\langle Q^{uc},Q^{cu} \rangle}
\right)\big|_\text{div} = 0\,.$$ In the second equality we used, in addition, the unitarity relation $\lambda_c = -\lambda_u -\lambda_t$. We see that the divergent parts of the amplitudes proportional to $\lambda_c\lambda_t$ and $\lambda_u\lambda_t$ are the same up to a sign. Therefore, the corresponding anomalous dimensions can be extracted from existing literature. In the notation of Ref. [@Brod:2010mj] we have $\tilde
\gamma_{\pm,7}^{(ut)} = - \tilde \gamma_{\pm,7}^{(ct)}$, where the superscripts “$ut$” and “$ct$” denote the results in $u$-$t$ unitarity and $c$-$t$ unitarity, respectively. All other contributing anomalous dimensions remain unchanged.
Note that in the second equality in Eq. , the amplitudes proportional to $\lambda_t^2$ involve the charm-flavored current-current operators. This is related to the appearance of an initial condition of the operator $\tilde{Q}_7$ at the weak scale proportional to $\lambda_t^2$. This charm-quark contribution to ${{\mathscr{C}}}_{{{{\rm S}}}2}^{tt}$ will be neglected in this work, as discussed above. In this approximation, ${{\mathscr{C}}}_{{{{\rm S}}}2}^{tt}$ is identical to ${C}_{{{{\rm S}}}2}^{tt}$ and can be directly taken from the literature [@Buras:1990fn].
Also the matching of the four- onto the three-flavor effective Lagrangian at $\mu_c$ changes in a simple way. Picking the coefficient of $\lambda_u\lambda_t$, the matching of the Lagrangian in Eq. onto the one in Eq. yields the condition $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i,j=+,-} & {\mathscr{C}}_i(\mu_c) {\mathscr{C}}_j(\mu_c) \Big(2\langle Q_{i}^{cc}, Q_j^{cc} \rangle \nonumber \\
& -2\langle Q_{i}^{uc},
Q_j^{cu} \rangle -2\langle Q_{i}^{uu}, Q_j^{cc} \rangle \Big)(\mu_c) \label{eq:match:c:ut}\\
+ \sum_{i=3}^6 & \sum_{j=+,-}
{\mathscr{C}}_i(\mu_c) {\mathscr{C}}_j(\mu_c) 2\langle Q_{i}, Q_j^{cc} - Q_j^{uu} \rangle(\mu_c) \nonumber\\
& + \tilde{{\mathscr{C}}}_{7}(\mu_c) \langle {\tilde Q}_7
\rangle(\mu_c) = \frac{1}{32\pi^2} {{\mathscr{C}}}_{{{{\rm S}}}2}^{
ut}(\mu_c) \langle { Q}_{{{{\rm S}}}2} \rangle(\mu_c) \,.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Alternatively, selecting the coefficient of $\lambda_c\lambda_t$, the matching of the Lagrangian in Eq. onto the one in Eq. yields the condition $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i,j=+,-} & C_i(\mu_c) C_j(\mu_c) \Big( 2\langle Q_{i}^{uu}, Q_j^{uu} \rangle \nonumber\\
& -2\langle Q_{i}^{uc}, Q_j^{cu} \rangle -2\langle Q_{i}^{uu}, Q_j^{cc} \rangle \Big)(\mu_c)\label{eq:match:c:ct} \\
+ \sum_{i=3}^6 & \sum_{j=+,-}
C_i(\mu_c) C_j(\mu_c) 2\langle Q_{i}, Q_j^{uu} - Q_j^{cc} \rangle(\mu_c) \nonumber\\
& + {\tilde C}_7(\mu_c) \langle {\tilde Q}_7
\rangle(\mu_c) = \frac{1}{32\pi^2} { C}_{{{{\rm S}}}2}^{
ct}(\mu_c) \langle { Q}_{{{{\rm S}}}2} \rangle(\mu_c) \,.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and for the coefficient of $\lambda_c^2$ yields the condition $$\label{eq:match:c:cc}
\begin{split}
& \sum_{i,j=+,-} C_i(\mu_c) C_j(\mu_c) \big(\langle Q_{i}^{cc} - Q_{i}^{uu},
Q_j^{cc} - Q_j^{uu} \rangle \\ & -2\langle Q_{i}^{uc}, Q_j^{cu} \rangle \big)(\mu_c)
= \frac{1}{32\pi^2} {C}_{{{{\rm S}}}2}^{cc}(\mu_c) \langle { Q}_{{{{\rm S}}}2} \rangle(\mu_c) \,.
\end{split}$$ Recalling Eq. , we see that ${{\mathscr{C}}}_{{{{\rm S}}}2}^{ut} = 2{C}_{{{{\rm S}}}2}^{cc} - {C}_{{{{\rm S}}}2}^{ct}$, hence we can extract also the matching conditions from the literature.
In order to provide the explicit expressions, we parameterise the operator matrix elements as: $$\begin{split}
\langle {\tilde Q}_7 \rangle = r_{7} \langle {\tilde Q}_{7}
\rangle^{(0)}\, , \quad \langle { Q}_{{{{\rm S}}}2} \rangle = r_{{{{\rm S}}}2} \langle
{ Q}_{{{{\rm S}}}2} \rangle^{(0)} \,,\\ \quad \langle
Q_i Q_j \rangle^{qq'} (\mu_c) = \frac{1}{32\pi^2}\frac{m_c^2(\mu_c)}{M_W^2}
r_{ij,{{\rm S}}2}^{qq'} \langle { Q}_{{{{\rm S}}}2} \rangle^{(0)} \,.
\end{split}$$ Here, the superscripts $qq' = ut, ct, cc$ denote the specific flavor structures appearing in the double insertions in Eqs. , , and , respectively. The matching contributions are then given in terms of the literature results by $r_{ij,{{\rm S}}2}^{ut} =
2r_{ij,{{\rm S}}2}^{cc} - r_{ij,{{\rm S}}2}^{ct}$. It is interesting to note that, due to the presence of a large logarithm $\log(m_c/M_W)$ in the function ${\mathscr{S}}(x_c, x_t)$, only the NLO result for $\eta_{cc}$ of Ref. [@Herrlich:1993yv] is required. The remaining NNLO results can be found in Refs. [@Herrlich:1996vf; @Brod:2010mj].
Numerics
========
\
In Sec. \[sec:weakeffective\] we extracted all the necessary quantities to evaluate the $\lambda_t^2$ and $\lambda_u\lambda_t$ contributions to $\epsilon_K$ at NLL and NNLL accuracy, respectively. Here, we discuss the residual theory uncertainties in $u$-$t$ unitarity and compare them to the traditional approach of $c$-$t$ unitarity. To estimate the uncertainty from missing, higher-order perturbative corrections we vary the unphysical thresholds $\mu_t$, $\mu_b$, and $\mu_c$ in the ranges $40\,\text{GeV} \!\leq \!\mu_t
\!\leq\! 320\,\text{GeV}$, $2.5\,\text{GeV} \!\leq \!\mu_b \!\leq\!
10\,\text{GeV}$, and $1\,\text{GeV} \!\leq \!\mu_t \!\leq\!
2\,\text{GeV}$. When varying one scale we keep the other two scales fixed at the values of the RI mass of the fermions, $\mu_i=m_i(m_i)$ with $i=t,b,c$. The central values for the $\eta$ parameters are obtained as the average between the lowest and highest value of the three scale variations, and their scale uncertainty as half the difference of the two values. The leading, but small, parametric uncertainties of $\alpha_s$ and $m_c$ are obtained by varying the parameters at their respective $1\sigma$ ranges. We find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:etanum}
\eta_{tt}^{\rm NLL} &= \phantom{0}0.55 (1\pm4.2\%_{\text{scales}} \pm 0.1\%_{\alpha_s})\,,\\
\eta_{ut}^{\rm NNLL}&= 0.402(1\pm1.3\%_{\text{scales}} \pm0.2\%_{\alpha_s}\pm0.2\%_{m_c})\,.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Apart from the tiny correction of ${\cal O}(m_c^2/M_W^2) \sim 10^{-4}$ $\eta_{tt}$ is not affected by the different choice of CKM unitarity. The difference in the scale uncertainty with respect to Ref. [@Buras:1990fn] is mainly due to the larger range of scale variation chosen here. By contrast, the residual scale uncertainty of $\eta_{ut}$ is significantly less than the corresponding one in $\eta_{ct}$ and $\eta_{ct}$ in $c$-$t$ unitarity. To illustrate this, we show in Fig. \[fig:scalevariation\] the RI invariant Wilson coefficients $\widehat{{\mathscr{C}}}^{ut}$ and $\widehat{C}^{ct}$ as a function of the unphysical thresholds $\mu_t$ (left two panels) and $\mu_c$ (right two panels).
To obtain the standard-model prediction for $\epsilon_K$ we employ the Wolfenstein parameterization [@Tanabashi:2018oca] of the CKM factors in Eq. . In the leading approximation we find $\text{Im}(\lambda_t^2) =
-2\lambda^{10}A^4\bar\eta(1-\bar\rho) + {\mathcal O}(\lambda^{12})$ and $\text{Im}(\lambda_u \lambda_t) = \lambda^6 A^2 \bar\eta +
{\mathcal O}(\lambda^{10})$. Numerically, the neglected terms amount to sub-permil effects and can be safely neglected. Therefore, we can use the phenomenological expression (cf. Refs. [@Buchalla:1995vs; @Buras:2008nn; @Buras:2010pza]) $$\label{eq:eKformula}
\begin{split}
|\epsilon_K|
= & \kappa_\epsilon C_\epsilon \widehat{B}_K
|V_{cb}|^2 \lambda^2 \bar \eta \\ & \times \Big(|V_{cb}|^2(1-\bar\rho)
\eta_{tt} {\mathscr{S}}(x_t) - \eta_{ut} {\mathscr{S}}(x_c, x_t) \Big)\,,
\end{split}$$ where $$\label{eq:Ce}
C_\epsilon = \frac{{G_{\rm F}}^2 F_K^2 M_{K^0} M_W^2}{6\sqrt{2}\pi^2\Delta M_K}\,.$$ We write $\bar\eta = R_t \sin\beta$ and $1-\bar\rho = R_t \cos\beta$, with the quantity $R_t$ given by $$\label{eq:Rt}
R_t \approx \frac{\xi_s}{\lambda} \sqrt{\frac{M_{B_s}}{M_{B_d}}}
\sqrt{\frac{\Delta M_d}{\Delta M_s}}\,.$$ Here, $\xi_s =
(F_{B_s}\sqrt{\widehat{B}_s})/(F_{B_d}\sqrt{\widehat{B}_d}) =
1.206(17)$ is a ratio of $B$-meson decay constants and bag factors that is computed on the lattice [@Aoki:2019cca]. The kaon bag parameter is given by $\widehat{B}_K =
0.7625(97)$ [@Aoki:2019cca]. The phenomenological parameter $\kappa_\epsilon = 0.94(2)$ [@Buras:2010pza] comprises long-distance contributions not included in $B_K$. As input for the top-quark mass we use RI $\overline{\rm MS}$ mass $m_t(m_t) =
163.48(86)\,$GeV. We obtain it by converting the pole mass $M_t =
173.1(9)\,$GeV [@Tanabashi:2018oca] to $\overline{\rm MS}$ at three-loop accuracy using [RunDec]{} [@Chetyrkin:2000yt]. All remaining numerical input is taken from Ref. [@Tanabashi:2018oca].
Using the $\eta$ values in Eq. and adding errors in quadrature we find the standard-model prediction $$\begin{split}
|\epsilon_K| & = \big(
2.161
\pm 0.153_\text{param.}
\pm 0.064_{\eta_{tt}}
\pm 0.008_{\eta_{ut}}
\\ & \qquad
\pm 0.027_{\widehat{B}_K}
\pm 0.052_{\xi_s}
\pm 0.046_{\kappa_\epsilon} \big)
\times 10^{-3} \,,\\
& = \big(
2.161
\pm 0.153_\text{param.}\\
&\qquad
\pm 0.076_\text{non-pert.}
\pm 0.065_\text{pert.}
\big)\times 10^{-3} \,,\\
& = 2.16(18)\times 10^{-3} \,.
\end{split}$$ We see that the perturbative uncertainty ($\sim\!\!3.0\%$) is now of the same order as the combined non-perturbative one ($\sim\!\!3.5\%$), while the dominant uncertainties originate from the parametric, experimental uncertainties ($\sim\!\!7.1\%$). Moreover, the dominant perturbative uncertainty no longer originates from $\eta_{ct}$ but from the top-quark contribution, $\eta_{tt}$.
Discussion and Conclusions
==========================
In this letter, we showed that a manifest implementation of CKM unitarity in the effective $|\Delta{{\rm S}}\!=\! 2|$ Hamiltonian dramatically improves the convergence behaviour of the perturbative series for its imaginary part, by removing a spurious long-distance charm-quark contribution. In this way, and using only known results in the literature, we reduced the residual uncertainty of the short-distance charm-quark contribution to the weak Hamiltonian by more than an order of magnitude. The perturbative uncertainty is now dominated by the missing NNLO corrections to the top-quark contribution, as well as partially known electroweak corrections at the percent level (see Refs. [@Gambino:1998rt; @Brod:2008ss; @Brod:2010hi]). The calculation of these corrections [@BGS] has the potential to bring the perturbative uncertainty of $\epsilon_K$ down to the percent level, motivating a renewed effort to compute long-distance effects using lattice QCD.
By contrast, the real part of the $|\Delta{{\rm S}}\!=\!2|$ Hamiltonian is dominated by up- and charm-quark contributions, and their convergence is not improved. Hence, the calculation of these contributions is a genuine task for lattice QCD, to which a significant effort is devoted [@Christ:2012se; @Bai:2014cva; @Blum:2015ywa]. However, our results have the potential to supply useful cross checks for part of these calculations: By performing the matching to the hadronic matrix elements for $\epsilon_K$ above the charm-quark threshold we can obtain a prediction of these matrix elements that can be directly compared to a future lattice calculation. This could shed additional light onto the lattice calculation of the kaon mass difference.
JB acknowledges support in part by DOE grant DE-SC0020047. MG is supported in part by the UK STFC under Consolidated Grant ST/L000431/1 and also acknowledges support from COST Action CA16201 PARTICLEFACE.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The physical state condition in the BRST quantization of Chern-Simons field theory is used to derive Gauss law constraints in the presence of Wilson loops, which play an important role in explicitly establishing the connection of Chern-Simons field theory with 2-dimensional conformal field theory.'
address: |
${}^a$ High Energy Physics Laboratory, Department of Physics\
${}^b$ Research Institute for High Energy Physics, University of Helsinki\
P.O. Box 9 (Siltavuorenpenger 20 C), FIN-00014 Helsinki, Finland\
${}^c$ CCAST(World Laboratory), P.O. Box 8730, Beijing 100080, China\
${}^d$ Institute of Theoretical Physics, Academia Sinica, P. O. Box 2735, Beijing, 100080, China
author:
- 'M. Chaichian${}^{a,b}$, W. F. Chen${}^{b}$[^1] and Z.Y. Zhu${}^{c,d}$'
title: 'Gauss Law Constraints in Chern-Simons Theory From BRST Quantization '
---
When we discuss knot invariants in terms of Chern-Simons theory$^{\cite
{wit,gua,van,roza,horn,kg}}$ and the relationship between Chern-Simons field theory and conformal field theory$^{\cite{agg,ms}}$, an important relation is Gauss law constraint in presence of Wilson line, which was first given in ref.${\cite{wit}}$. This relation plays an important role in proving that states of Chern-Simons theory satisfy the Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov equation$^{\cite{bn,lr,emss,gins,kz}}$. In this letter we intend to derive the Gauss law constraints from BRST quantization of Chern-Simons field theory. We think this investigation is significant since in some sense BRST quantization formulation is defined better than a formal manipulation without gauge fixing$^{\cite{kugo}}$. We will show that when Wilson lines exist the physical state condition in BRST quantization will lead to Gauss law constraints with source terms just as those given in ref. ${\cite
{wit}}$. The procedure we will adopt is similar to the one in ref.${\cite{mar}%
}$, where the equivalence between Dirac’s first-class constraints and BRST treatment for Yang-Mills theory is formally proved.
Let us first write down the BRST quantization of Chern-Simons theory. The action of Chern-Simons field theory takes the following form $$S_{\text{CS}}=\displaystyle\frac k{4\pi }
{\int }_{M^3}\text{Tr}\left[ A{\wedge }dA+\frac 23A{%
\wedge }A{\wedge }A\right]~ ,$$ where $A=A_{\mu}dx^{\mu}=A_\mu ^aT^adx^\mu $ with $T^a$ being the generators in some representation of gauge group $G$. The parameter $k$ must be chosen to be an integer in order to make the theory gauge invariant under large gauge transformations. Without loss of generality, we choose $G=SU(N)$ and the normalization $\text{Tr}(T^aT^b)=\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}$. Choosing the Lorentz gauge ${\partial }^\mu A_\mu ^a=0$ and performing BRST gauge fixing, we obtain the following effective action $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle S_{\text{eff}} &=&{\int}d^3x~{\cal L}_{\text{eff}}
=S_{\text{CS}}+{\int }\text{Tr}{\delta }[\bar{c}({\partial }_\mu
A^\mu +B)] \nonumber \\
&=&\displaystyle {\int }d^3x\left\{\frac k{16\pi }{\epsilon }^{\mu \nu \rho
}\left[ A_\mu ^a({\partial }_\nu A_\rho ^a-{\partial }_\rho A_\nu ^a)+i\frac
23f^{abc}A_\mu ^aA_\nu ^bA_\rho ^c\right] \right. \nonumber \\
&&\displaystyle \left.-\frac{ik}{8\pi }A^{{\mu }a}{\partial }_\mu B^a+\frac{ik}{%
8\pi }(B^a)^2-\frac 12{\partial }_\mu \bar{c}^aD^\mu c^a\right\}~,\end{aligned}$$ where $B=B^aT^a$ is the auxiliary field and $A_{\mu}=A_{\mu}^aT^a,
c=c^aT^a, \bar{c}=\bar{c}^aT^a$. The BRST transformations of the fields are as follows $$\begin{array}{l}
{\delta }A_\mu ^a=D_\mu c^a,~{\delta }B^a=0~, \\[2mm]
\displaystyle {\delta }c^a=-\frac 12f^{abc}c^bc^c,
~{\delta }\bar{c}^a=\frac{ik}{4\pi }B^a~.
\end{array}$$ These transformations are nilpotent, i.e., ${\delta }^2=0$. Now, obviously the classical configuration space is enlarged by the introduction of new fields—ghost fields $c^a$, anti-ghost fields $\bar{c}^a$ and multiplier fields $B^a$. The canonically conjugate momenta can be well defined by $%
\displaystyle {\Pi }_\Phi =\frac{{\partial }{\cal L}}{{\partial }{\dot{\Phi}}%
}$, with ${\Phi }={\{}A_1,B,c,\bar{c}{\}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle {\Pi }_{A_1}^a &=&\frac k{8\pi }A_2^a,~{\Pi }_B^a=-i\frac k{%
8\pi }A_0^a~, \nonumber \\
\displaystyle {\Pi }_{\bar{c}}^a &=&-\frac 12D^0c^a,
~{\Pi }_c^a=\frac 12\dot{\bar{c}}^a~.\end{aligned}$$ These fields and their canonically conjugate momenta satisfy the Poisson brackets (for bosonic fields) or anti-brackets (for fermionic fields): $$\begin{aligned}
{\{}{\Pi }_\Phi ^i({\bf x},t)~,~{\Phi }_j({\bf y},t){\}}_{{\pm}\text{PB}}&=&-i{%
\delta }_j^i{\delta }^{(2)}({\bf x}-{\bf y})~, \nonumber \\
{\{}{\Pi }_\Phi ^i({\bf x},t)~,~{\Pi }_\Phi ^j({\bf y},t){\}}_{{\pm}\text{PB}}
&=&{\{}{\Phi }^i({\bf x},t)~,~{\Phi }^j({\bf y},t){\}}_{{\pm}\text{PB}}=0~.\end{aligned}$$ The BRST charge can be obtained by the Noether theorem $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle Q &=&{\int }d^2x\left[ \frac k{8\pi }{\epsilon }%
^{ij}D_ic^aA_j^a-\frac 14f^{abc}\dot{\bar{c}}^ac^bc^c-\frac{ik}{8\pi }%
B^aD^0c^a\right] \nonumber \\
\displaystyle &=&{\int }d^2x\left[ -\frac k{8\pi }c^aF_{12}^a
-\frac{1}{2}f^{abc}{\Pi }_c^ac^bc^c
+\frac{ik}{4\pi }B^a{\Pi }_{\bar{c}}^a\right]~ .
\label{brstcharge}\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to show that $$\displaystyle {\delta }{\Phi}={\{}Q~,~{\Phi }{\}}_{{\pm}\text{PB}},
~{\{}Q~,~Q{\}}_{{\pm}\text{PB}}=Q^2=0~.$$ When we perform quantization, the classical observables are replaced by operators, and (anti-) Poisson brackets by (anti-) commutative Lie brackets. With the present polarization choice, the Hilbert space are composed of square integrable functionals of ${\Phi }$. The quantum BRST charge operator $\hat{Q}$ is nilpotent $$\displaystyle \frac 12{\{}\hat{Q},\hat{Q}{\}}=\hat{Q}^2=0~,$$ where a hat “$\hat{~}$" denotes an operator. It is well known that the state space here possesses indefinite metric. According to the general principle of BRST quantization, physical states satisfy the so-called “BRST-closed” condition $$\hat{Q}|\text{phys}{\rangle }=0~. \label{physical}$$ Notice that above condition (\[physical\]) determines a physical state up to “BRST-exact states”, i.e. $$|\text{phys}{\rangle }{\sim }|\text{phys}{\rangle }+|\chi {\rangle },~|\chi {%
\rangle }=\hat{Q}|\text{any states}{\rangle }~.$$ Obviously these states $|\chi {\rangle }$ are normal to all physical states including themselves, $${\langle }\chi |\text{phys}{\rangle }={\langle }{\chi }_1|{\chi }_2{\rangle }%
=0~.$$ Thus they are zero norm states and make no contribution to the physical observables. Now we define the physical operator $\hat{\Phi}$ to be an operator that generates a physical state from vacuum. It is easy to show that the physical operator $\hat{\Phi}$ must satisfy the condition $$\lbrack \hat{\Phi},\hat{Q}]_{\pm }=f[\hat{\Phi}]\hat{Q}$$ due to Eq.(\[physical\]). Furthermore, the operators can be divided into two classes. According to ref.${\cite{mar}}$, we call them as the A-type and the B-type. An A-type operator transforms a physical state into another one $$\hat{A}|\text{phys}{\rangle }=|\text{phys}{\rangle }^{\prime }~.$$ A B-type operator transforms a physical state into a BRST exact state and has the form $$\hat{B}=[*,\hat{Q}]_{\pm }~, \label{btype}$$ where $*$ represents some operator. Eq.(\[btype\]) implies that a B-type operator can be regarded as the generator of a kind of gauge transformation since it does not affect physical observables. The (anti-)commutators of B-type operators with an arbitrary physical operator $\hat{\Phi}$ have the form $$\lbrack \hat{B}_i,\hat{\Phi}]_{\pm }=g[\hat{\Phi}]_{ij}\hat{B}_j~,$$ which means that B-type operators form an ideal in the operator algebra$^{%
\cite{mar}}$ $$\begin{array}{l}
\lbrack \hat{A},\;\hat{A}]_{\pm }\subset \{\hat{A}~\&~\hat{B}\}~, \\[2mm]
\lbrack \hat{A},\;\hat{B}]_{\pm }\subset \{\hat{B}\},\;[\hat{B},\;\hat{B}%
]_{\pm }\subset \{\hat{B}\}~.
\end{array}$$ The product of an arbitrary operator $\hat{K}$ (physical or nonphysical) with a B-type operator can also be regarded as the generator of gauge transformations due to the fact that $$\lbrack (\hat{K}\hat{B})_i,\hat{\Phi}]_{\pm }=h[\hat{\Phi}]_{ij}(\hat{K}\hat{%
B})_j~.$$ In addition, $\hat{K}\hat{B}$ operators also form a closed algebra $$\lbrack (\hat{K}\hat{B})_i,\hat{K}\hat{B})_j]_{\pm }=U_{ij}^k(\hat{K}\hat{B}%
)_k~.$$ Notice that the $\hat{K}\hat{B}$ operator transforms a physical state out of the genuine physical state space$^{\cite{mar}}$. We can see in the following that the properties of $\hat{B}$ or $\hat{K}\hat{B}$ operators play a crucial role in our derivation.
From the BRST charge given in Eq.(\[brstcharge\]) we can show that $$\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle \hat{B}_1^a\equiv [\hat{Q},\hat{\Pi}_c^a]=-\frac k{8\pi }\hat{F%
}_{12}^a-\frac 12f^{abc}\hat{\Pi}_c^b\hat{c}^c~, \\[2mm]
\displaystyle \hat{B}_2^a\equiv [\hat{Q},\hat{\Pi}_B^a]=\frac k{4\pi }\hat{%
\Pi}_c^a~, \\[2mm]
\displaystyle \hat{B}_3^a\equiv [\hat{Q},{\partial }^\mu \hat{A}_\mu
^a]=M_{ab}\hat{c}^b~,\label{decomp}
\end{array}$$ where $\displaystyle M_{ab}=\frac k{8\pi }[\hat{F}_{12}^a,{\partial }^\mu
\hat{A}_\mu ^b]$. Furthermore, we know that the matrix $(M_{ab})$ is non-singular from the fact that $\hat{F}_{12}$ and ${\partial }^\mu \hat{A}_\mu $ constitute a pair of second-class constraints$^{\cite{dirac,hnne}}$. Note that in deriving the Eqs.(\[decomp\]) we have used the $B$-field equation of motion (on-shell condition). The non-singularity of $M$ ensures that ghost field operators can be written as $\hat{c}^a=(M^{-1})^{ab}\hat{B}_3^b$ and belong to the B-type. Hence they are indeed the generators of gauge transformations.
From Eqs.(\[brstcharge\]), (\[decomp\]) and the above arguments, one can see that the three terms composed of BRST charge $\hat{Q}$ are all gauge transformation generators. However the second and third terms are $\hat{B}$- or $\hat{K}\hat{B}$-type operators. Thus when $\hat{Q}$ acts on physical states, the second and the third terms transform the physical state to non-physical state. Since there exists no coupling between the nonphysical gauge transformation generators $\hat{c}^a$ and the physical ones, after the action of BRST charge, the transformed state $|~{\rangle }$ can be written as $$|~{\rangle }=|\text{non-phys}{\rangle \oplus }|\text{phys}{\rangle }~.$$ So the physical state condition $\hat{Q}|\text{phys}{\rangle }=0$ reduces to $$\displaystyle \hat{F}_{12}^a|phys{\rangle }=0~,
\label{gausslaw}$$ when no Wilson loop exists. Now we turn to the case in the presence of Wilson loops. Let us take the manifold $M=\Sigma {\times }R$ as in ref.${\cite
{wit}}$, where $R$ is the time variable space and $\Sigma $ is the spatial surface. The physical state at some time $t$ in the presence of a Wilson loop can be represented by a punctured surface $\Sigma $, the puncture points being produced by the intersections of the surface $\Sigma $ with the links where the Wilson loop operators are defined. This has been given in ref.${\cite{gmm1}}$ $$\displaystyle
|\text{phys}{\rangle }={\Pi }_{n=1}^N
exp\left[i{\int }_{P_n~({\Gamma }_n)}^{Q_n}
{\sum }_{i=1,2}\hat{A}_i^{(n)}({\bf x})dx^i\right]|0{\rangle }~,$$ where $n$ denotes the $n$th component of links, ${\Gamma }_n$ is the projection on $\Sigma $ of links located in the three dimensional space-time region less than time $t$ and $P_n$, $Q_n$ are the endpoints of ${\Gamma }_n$. In the polarization chosen above, the state functional can be written down explicitly in a path integral form$^{\cite{gmm1}}$ $$\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle {\Psi }_{\text{phys}}[\Phi]
={\langle}\hat{\Phi}|\text{phys}{\rangle}\\[2mm]
\displaystyle =\left({\int }{\cal D}{\Xi}^{\prime}~\left\{ exp\left[ i{\int
}_{-{\infty }}^tdt^{\prime}{\int }_\Sigma d^2x{\cal L}_{\text{eff}}
-\frac{k}{2\pi}{\int }_\Sigma d^2x
{\sum }_{i=1}^2{A^{\prime}}_i^a{A^{\prime}}_i^a\right] \right.\right. \\[2mm]
\left.\left. {\times }{\Pi }_{n=1}^N\displaystyle
exp\left[i{\int }_{P_n}^{Q_n}{\sum}_{i=1}^2
A^{\prime(n)}_i(x)dx^i\right]{\Psi }_0\right\}\right)[{\Phi}] ~,\\[2mm]
\Phi =(A_1,B,c,\bar{c}), ~~ {\Xi}=(A_{\mu},B,c,\bar{c}), ~{\mu}=0,1,2~~~.
\label{pathform}
\end{array}$$ where $\Psi _0$ is the vacuum state functional at time $t=-{\infty }$ and it is determined by Eq.(\[gausslaw\]). Eq.(\[pathform\]) is in fact the gauge-fixed version of the state functional given in ref.[@lr]. Therefore, we have that $$\begin{array}{l}
\hat{Q}|\text{phys}{\rangle }=\left\{ \displaystyle{\int }d^2x
~\left[ \frac k {8\pi }{\epsilon }^{ij}D_i\hat{c}^aA_j^a
-\frac 14f^{abc}\hat{\dot{\bar{c}}^a}\hat{c}^b
\hat{c}^c-\frac{ik}{8\pi }\hat{B}^aD^0\hat{c}^a\right] \right. \\[2mm]
\left. \displaystyle {\times }{\Pi }_{n=1}^Nexp\left[i{\int }_{P_n~({\Gamma }%
_n)}^{Q_n}{\sum }_{i=1,2}\hat{A}_i^{(n)}(x_1,x_2)\right]\right\}|0{\rangle } \\%
[2mm]
=\displaystyle \left\{ {\int }d^2x\left[-\hat{c}^a[\frac k{8\pi }\hat{F}
_{12}^a-{\sum }_{n=1}^NT_{(n)}^a({\delta }^{(2)}({\bf x}-{\bf x}_{P_n})-{%
\delta }^{(2)}({\bf x}-{\bf x}_{Q_n})]\right. \right. \\[2mm]
\left. \left. +\displaystyle \frac k{4\pi }\hat{B}^a\hat{\Pi}_c^a-\frac 12%
f^{abc}\hat{\Pi}_c^a\hat{c}^b\hat{c}^c\right] \right\} |\text{phys}{\rangle }
\\[2mm]
=\displaystyle \left\{ {\int }d^2x\left[-\hat{c}^a[\frac k{8\pi }\hat{F}%
_{12}^a-{\sum }_{n=1}^NT_{(n)}^a({\delta }^{(2)}({\bf x}-{\bf x}_{P_n})-{%
\delta }^{(2)}({\bf x}-{\bf x}_{Q_n})]\right] \right\} |\text{phys}{\rangle }
\\[2mm]
{\oplus}|{\chi }_1\rangle >{\oplus}|{\chi }_2\rangle >=0~,
\end{array}$$ where Eq.(\[brstcharge\]) and the following operator equations have been used: $$\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle\hat{A}_2^a=\frac{8\pi}{k}\hat{\Pi}^a_{A_1}=-\frac{8i\pi}{k}
\frac{\delta}{{\delta}\hat{A}_1^a}~~,\\[2mm]
\displaystyle [~{\partial }_{P_n}^{{\bf x}}\frac \delta {{\delta }\hat{A}_1^a({\bf x}_{P_n})}~,~
exp\left[i{\int }_{P_n~({\Gamma }_n)}^{Q_n}{\sum }_{i=1,2}\hat{A}_i^{(n)}({\bf x})dx^i\right]~]
=-i~T_{(n)}^a{\delta }^{(2)}(
{\bf x}-{\bf x}_{P_n})\\[2mm]
{\times}\displaystyle exp\left[i{\int }_{P_n~({\Gamma }_n)}^{Q_n}{\sum }_{i=1,2}\hat{A}_i^{(n)}({\bf x})dx^i\right]~~, \\[2mm]
\displaystyle [~{\partial }_{Q_n}^{{\bf x}}
\frac \delta {{\delta }\hat{A}_1^a({\bf x}_{Q_n})}~,~
exp\left[i{\int }_{P_n~({\Gamma }_n)}^{Q_n}{\sum }_{i=1,2}\hat{A}_i^{(n)}({\bf x})dx^i\right]~]
=i~T_{(n)}^a{\delta }^{(2)}({\bf x}-{\bf x}_{Q_n})\\[2mm]
\displaystyle {\times} exp\left[i{\int }_{P_n~({\Gamma }_n)}^{Q_n}{\sum }_{i=1,2}\hat{A}_i^{(n)}({\bf x})dx^i\right]~~.
\end{array}$$ Thus, the physical state condition $\hat{Q}|\text{phys}{\rangle }=0$, can be reduced to the form $$\left[ \frac k{8\pi }\hat{F}_{12}^a-{\sum }_{n=1}^NT_{(n)}^a({\delta }^{(2)}(%
{\bf x}-{\bf x}_{P_n})-{\delta }^{(2)}({\bf x}-{\bf x}_{Q_n}))\right] |\text{%
phys}{\rangle }=0~. \label{gaussl}$$ These are exactly the Gauss law constraints given by Witten$^{\cite{wit}}$ in the case that Wilson loop operators are present.
: WFC is grateful to the World Laboratory, Switzerland, for financial support.
E. Witten, Comm. Math. Phys. [**121**]{} (1989) 351.
E. Guadagnini, Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**A7**]{} (1992) 87.
J.F.W.H. van de Wetering, Nucl. Phys. [**B379**]{} (1992) 172.
L. Rozansky and H. Saleur, Nucl. Phys. [**B376**]{} (1992) 461.
J.H. Horne, Nucl. Phys. [**B334**]{} (1990) 669.
R.K. Kaul and T.R. Govindarajan, Nucl. Phys. [**B380**]{} (1992) 293.
L. Alvarez-Gaumé, C. Gomez and G. Sierra, [*Topics in Conformal Field Theory*]{} in [*Physics and Mathematics of String*]{}, 16-184, ed. by L. Brink, 1990.
G. Moore and N. Seiberg, Phys. Lett. [**B220**]{} (1989) 422.
M. Bos and V.P. Nair, Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**A5**]{} (1990) 959.
J.M.F. Labastida and A.V. Ramallo, Phys. Lett. [**B228**]{} (1989) 214; [**B227**]{} (1989) 92;\
J.M.F. Labastida, P.M. Platas and A.V. Ramallo, Nucl. Phys. [**B348**]{} (1991) 651.
S. Elitzur, G. Moore, A. Schwimmer and N. Seiberg, Nucl. Phys. [**B326**]{} (1989) 108.
P. Ginsparg, [*Applied Conformal Field Theory*]{} in Field, String and Critical Phenomena, 1988, ed. by E. Brezin and J. Zinn-Justin.
V.I. Knizhnik and A. Zamolodchikov, Nucl. Phys. [**B247**]{} (1984) 83.\
D. Gepner and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. [**B278**]{} (1986) 493.
T. Kugo and I. Ojima, Supp. Prog. Theor. Phys. [**66**]{} (1979) 1.
R. Marnelius, Phys. Lett. [**B99**]{} (1981) 467.
E. Guadagnini, M. Martellini and M. Mintchev, Nucl. Phys. [**B336**]{} (1990) 581.
P.A.M. Dirac, [*Lectures on Quantum Mechanics*]{}, Yeshiva University, New York, 1964.
M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim, [*Quantization of Gauge Systems*]{}, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1992.
[^1]: ICSC-World Laboratory, Switzerland
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We introduce in this work a new method for online approximate Bayesian learning, whose main idea is to approximate the sequence $(\pi_t)_{t\geq 1}$ of posterior distributions by a sequence $(\tilde{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 1}$ which (i) can be estimated in an online fashion using sequential Monte Carlo methods and (ii) is shown to converge to the same distribution as the sequence $(\pi_t)_{t\geq 1}$, under weak assumptions on the statistical model at hand. In its simplest version, the proposed approach amounts to take for $(\tilde{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 1}$ the sequence of filtering distributions associated to a particular state-space model, and to approximate this sequence using a standard particle filter algorithm. We illustrate on several challenging examples the benefits of this procedure for online approximate Bayesian parameter inference, and with one real data example we show that its online predictive performance can significantly outperform that of stochastic gradient descent and of streaming variational Bayes.'
author:
- |
Mathieu Gerber$^{(1)}$, Randal Douc$^{(2)}$\
\
bibliography:
- 'complete.bib'
title: Online Approximate Bayesian learning
---
Introduction
============
Let $(Y_t)_{t\geq 1}$ be a sequence of i.i.d. random variables defined on the same probability space $(\Omega,{\mathcal{F}},{\mathbb{P}})$ and taking values in a measurable space $({\mathsf{Y}},{\mathcal{Y}})$. We let $\{f_{\theta},\,\theta\in \Theta\subseteq{\mathbb{R}}^d\}$ be a collection of probability density functions (p.d.f.) on ${\mathsf{Y}}$ with respect to some $\sigma$-finite measure $\eta({\mathrm{d}}y)$, and we assume that $\theta_\star:=\operatorname*{argmax}_{\theta\in\Theta}{\mathbb{E}}[\log f_\theta(Y_1)]$ is well-defined, with ${\mathbb{E}}$ the expectation operator associated to $(\Omega,{\mathcal{F}},{\mathbb{P}})$. We adopt a Bayesian perspective and let $\tilde{\pi}_0$ be a prior distribution for $\theta$ and $
\pi_t({\mathrm{d}}\theta)\propto \prod_{s=1}^t f_\theta(Y_s) \tilde{\pi}_0({\mathrm{d}}\theta)
$ be the posterior distribution associated to observations $\{Y_s\}_{s=1}^t$, for all $t\geq 1$. In this work we consider the problem of approximating $(\pi_t)_{t\geq 1}$ in an online fashion, where by online we mean that the memory and computational requirement to process each observation $Y_t$ is finite and bounded uniformly in $t$.
Current approaches to compute an online approximation of $(\pi_t)_{t\geq 1}$ essentially reduces to online variational methods [see e.g. @broderick2013streaming; @nguyen2017online; @zeno2018bayesian]. However, theoretical justifications for these algorithms are rather limited [see however the recent results obtained by @cherief2019generalization] and there is no guarantee that, as $t$ tends to infinity, their approximation error vanishes. Although not online, the iterated batch importance sampling (IBIS) algorithm of @MR1929161, which approximates $(\pi_t)_{t\geq 1}$ sequentially by Monte Carlo, can be an efficient alternative to online methods in situations where the number of observations to process is not too large and computing $f_\theta(y)$ is cheap (see the example of Section \[sub:linear\_model\]). Some computations in @MR1929161 indeed suggest that a random running time implementation of IBIS only requires ${\mathcal{O}}_{\mathbb{P}}(t)$ operations to estimate $\{\pi_s\}_{s=1}^t$. When it becomes computationally too expensive to process $Y_t$ using IBIS, @balakrishnan propose to approximate the Monte Carlo update of IBIS using the kernel smoothing idea introduced by @liu2001combined. The resulting algorithm (called one-pass SMC) is online but, unlike IBIS, is not theoretically justified.
The main idea of the method we introduce below for online approximate Bayesian learning is to approximate the sequence $(\pi_t)_{t\geq 1}$ by a sequence $(\tilde{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 1}$ which (i) can be approximated in an online fashion using Monte Carlo methods and (ii) is shown to converge to $\delta_{\{\theta_\star\}}$ as $t$ tends to infinity, in some sense to be defined. Notice that, by (ii), as $t$ increases the distance between $\pi_t$ and its approximation $\tilde{\pi}_t$ converges to zero. It is also worth mentioning at this stage that online variational updates involve expectations that are generally not computable, and thus in practice online variational methods also rely on Monte Carlo approximations (see the example of Section \[sub:online\]).
To introduce the construction of the sequence $(\tilde{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 1}$ with more details assume for now that $\Theta={\mathbb{R}}^d$. Let $(\mu_t)_{t\geq 0}$ be a sequence of probability distributions on ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ and $(\theta_t)_{t\geq 0}$ be such that $\theta_0 \sim \tilde{\pi}_0$ and such that $(\{Y_t,\theta_t\})_{t\geq 1}$ is a bivariate Markov chain verifying $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:state_space}
Y_t|\theta_t\sim f_{\theta_t}(y_t)\eta({\mathrm{d}}y_t),\quad \theta_t=\theta_{t-1}+U_{t-1},\quad U_{t-1}\sim \mu_{t-1},\quad t\geq 1.\end{aligned}$$ Then, for all $t\geq 1$, we define $\tilde{\pi}_t$ as the conditional distribution of $\theta_t$ given the observations $\{Y_s\}_{s=1}^t$. If all the $(\mu_{t})_{t \geq 0}$ are dominated by a common dominating measure, then defines a state-space model. In this case, $\tilde{\pi}_t$ is the corresponding filtering distribution at time $t$, and particle filter (PF) algorithms [@doucet2009tutorial] can be used to compute an online Monte Carlo approximation of $(\tilde{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 0}$, where the memory and computational requirement of each iteration is bounded by $C N$, with $N\in\mathbb{N}:=\{1,2,\dots\}$ the Monte Carlo effort and where in the rest of this section $C<\infty$ is a constant independent on $t$.
For situations where does not define a state-space model, we develop a sequential Monte Carlo (SMC) algorithm to approximate $(\tilde{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 1}$ whose memory and computational requirement at iteration $t\geq 1$ is a most $C k_t N$, with $k_t=t-\sup\{s<t:\mu_s\neq\delta_{\{0\}}\}$ if $\{s<t:\mu_s\neq\delta_{\{0\}}\}$ is not an empty set and $k_t=t$ otherwise. This SMC sampler reduces to the IBIS algorithm when $k_t=t$ for all $t$ and to a standard PF algorithm when $k_t=1$ for all $t$. Notice that if $k_t=\Delta$ for some $\Delta\in\mathbb{N}$ then the proposed SMC algorithm is an online algorithm. Our main contribution is then to provide, for *any* sequence $(k_t)_{t\geq 1}$, a way to construct sequences $(\tilde{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 1}$ that converge to $\delta_{\{\theta_\star\}}$, under standard regularity conditions on the statistical model.
As we will argue in Section \[sub:h\_t\], a trade-off between statistical and computational efficiency should be considered when choosing the sequence $(\tilde{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 0}$: the cheaper it is to approximate this sequence by Monte Carlo the slower it converges to $\delta_{\{\theta_\star\}}$. Averaging is a standard technique used to improve the statistical and/or predictive properties of online procedures, as briefly recalled in Section \[sub:averaging\]. Following this idea, we propose in that section to base the inference on the mixture distribution $\bar{\pi}_t:=(t+1)^{-1}\sum_{s=0}^t\tilde{\pi}_s$ instead of using $\tilde{\pi}_t$ directly. We show that the distribution $ \bar{\pi}_t $ converges to the same distribution as $\tilde{\pi}_t$ and that its online Monte Carlo estimation can be obtained as a by product of that of $\tilde{\pi}_t$. The merit of $\bar{\pi}_t$ over $\tilde{\pi}_t$ comes from the fact that, empirically, the point estimate $\bar{\theta}_t:={\mathbb{E}}_{\bar{\pi}_t}[\theta]$ typically converges to $\theta_\star$ at the optimal $t^{-1/2}$ rate under various definitions of $(\tilde{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ while, on the contrary, the convergence behaviour of $\tilde{\theta}_t:={\mathbb{E}}_{\tilde{\pi}_t}[\theta]$ is very sensitive to the choice of this sequence, as we shall see in the numerical example of Section \[subsec:example\].
Establishing theoretically the convergence rate of the distributions $\tilde{\pi}_t$ and of $\bar{\pi}_t$, and of the point estimators $\tilde{\theta}_t$ and $\bar{\theta}_t$, is however beyond the scope of the paper. Instead, the objective of the paper is to derive consistency results for $(\tilde{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ and $(\bar{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ that hold under weak conditions on the statistical model at hand, and by imposing minimal constraints on the sequence $(\mu_t)_{t\geq 0}$. An unavoidable consequence (see Section \[subsec:example\]) of the very few conditions we impose on this sequence is that our convergence results for $(\tilde{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ hold *in probability*, while under the same assumptions on the model the posterior distribution $\pi_t$ converges to $\delta_{\{\theta_\star\}}$ *almost surely*. Our theoretical analysis carefully deals with the case where $\Theta$ is unbounded, which is particularly important since, in this case, nothing prevents the distributions $\tilde{\pi}_t$ and $\pi_t$ to be arbitrarily far from each other at a given time $t$.
Additional notation and outline of the paper\[sub:set-up\]
----------------------------------------------------------
We let $\|\cdot\|_\infty$ be the maximum norm on ${\mathbb{R}}^d$, $B_\epsilon(x)$ be the open ball of size $\epsilon>0$ around $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$ w.r.t. $\|\cdot\|$, the Euclidean norm on ${\mathbb{R}}^d$, $t_{d,\nu}(m,\Sigma)$ be the $d$-dimensional Student’t-distribution, with $\nu>0$ degrees of freedom, location vector $m$ and scale matrix $\Sigma$, and $\mathcal{N}_d(m,\Sigma)$ be the $d$-dimensional Gaussian distribution with mean $m$ and covariance matrix $\Sigma $. Recall that for two strictly positive sequences $(a_t)_{t\geq 1}$ and $(b_t)_{t\geq 1}$ the notation $a_t=\Theta(b_t)$ means that $\liminf_{t\rightarrow\infty} (a_t/b_t+b_t/a_t)>0$.
Below we use the shorthand ${\mathbb{E}}[g]$ for ${\mathbb{E}}[g(Y_1)]$, $\nu(h)$ for $\int_{\Theta}h(\theta)\nu({\mathrm{d}}\theta)$, ${\mathrm{Var}}_{\nu}(h)$ for $\nu(h h^T)-\nu(h) \nu(h)^T$. In particular, ${\mathbb{E}}_\nu[\theta]$ stands for $\int_{\Theta} \theta\nu({\mathrm{d}}\theta)$ and ${\mathrm{Var}}_{\nu}(\theta)$ for ${\mathbb{E}}_\nu[\theta \theta^T]-{\mathbb{E}}_\nu[\theta]{\mathbb{E}}_\nu[\theta]^T$. If $A$ is a Borelian set of ${\mathbb{R}}^d$, we denote by $\mathcal{B}(A)$ the Borel $\sigma$-algebra on $A$, by $\mathcal{P}(A)$ the set of probability measures on $(A,\mathcal{B}(A))$ and we let $\mathcal{P}_L(A)$ be the set of probability measures on $(A,\mathcal{B}(A))$ that are absolutely continuous w.r.t. ${\mathrm{d}}\theta$, the Lebesgue measure on ${\mathbb{R}}^d$. Moreover, for a sequence $(\nu_t)_{t \geq 0}$ of probability measures on ${\mathbb{R}}^d$, the notation $\nu_t \Rightarrow \nu$ means that the sequence $(\nu_t)_{t \geq 0}$ converges weakly to the probability measure $\nu\in \mathcal{P}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$.
We let $f_\star(y)\eta({\mathrm{d}}y)$ be the distribution of $Y_1$ and assume throughout the paper that $\Theta\in\mathcal{B}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$, with $\int_{\Theta}{\mathrm{d}}\theta>0$. For what follows it is convenient to extend the parameter space $\Theta$ to ${\mathbb{R}}^d$. To this aim, for every $\theta\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$ we let $\tilde{f}_\theta:{\mathsf{Y}}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$ be such that $\tilde{f}_\theta\equiv f_\theta$ for all $\theta\in \Theta$ and such that $\tilde{f}_\theta\equiv 0$ for all $\theta \in {\mathbb{R}}^d\setminus \Theta$.
Lastly, for any probability measure $\nu$ on $\Theta$ and any sequence $(\nu_t)_{t \geq 0}$ of probability measures on $\Theta$ (implicitly indexed by random variables), we say that $\nu_t \Rightarrow \nu$ in ${\mathbb{P}}$-probability if the sequence of random variables $(\varrho(\nu_t,\nu))_{t \geq 0}$ converges in ${\mathbb{P}}$-probability to $0$, where $\varrho$ denotes the Prohorov distance between probability measures on ${\mathbb{R}}^d$. Notice that if $\nu_t \Rightarrow \nu$ in ${\mathbb{P}}$-probability then, for every continuous and bounded measurable function $\varphi:\Theta\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$, $\nu_t(\varphi)\rightarrow \nu(\varphi)$ in ${\mathbb{P}}$-probability. In the case where $\nu=\delta_{\{\theta_\star\}}$, and letting $V_\delta=\{\theta\in{\mathbb{R}}^d:\,\|\theta-\theta_\star\|\geq\delta\} $ for every $\delta>0$, @Ghosal2017 [Proposition 6.2 and above comment, page 124] provide the following necessary and sufficient condition for checking that $\nu_t \Rightarrow \nu$ in ${\mathbb{P}}$-probability.
\[prop:conv\_proba\] $\nu_t \Rightarrow \delta_{\{\theta_\star\}}$ in ${\mathbb{P}}$-probability if and only if ${\mathbb{E}}[\nu_t(V_\epsilon)]\rightarrow 0$ for all $\epsilon>0$.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The proposed approach is described in detail in Section \[sec:approach\] and convergence results for the sequences $(\tilde{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ and $(\bar{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ are given in Section \[sec:main\]. Section \[sec:num\] proposes some numerical experiments which notably aim at illustrating on challenging problems (including a latent variable model) the benefit of the method introduced in this work for approximate Bayesian parameter inference. In this section we also consider an online binary classification example, with 53 predictors, on which the proposed algorithm outperforms stochastic gradient descent and a standard online variational algorithm. Section \[sec:conclusion\] concludes and all the proofs are gathered in the Appendix.
Online Approximate Bayesian learning\[sec:approach\]
====================================================
In this section we introduce in detail the proposed approach for online approximate Bayesian learning. In Section \[sub:pi\_tilde\] we provide the precise definition of the sequence $(\tilde{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ and explain in what sense $\tilde{\pi}_t$ can be interpreted as an approximation of the posterior distribution $\pi_t$, for all $t\geq 1$. In Section \[sub:averaging\] we introduce the sequence $(\bar{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ of average measures and in Section \[subsec:example\] we study the properties of $\tilde{\pi}_t$ and of $\bar{\pi}_t$ on a toy example. In Section \[sub:Monte\_Carlo1\] we introduce a simple online Monte Carlo algorithm (Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\_online\]) that can be used to estimate $(\tilde{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ and $(\bar{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ in the special case where $\tilde{\pi}_t$ can be interpreted as the filtering distribution of a state-space model. In Section \[sub:h\_t\] we comment on the trade-off between computational and statistical efficiency one should consider when defining $(\tilde{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 0}$, and make some practical recommendations. The sequential Monte Carlo algorithm for approximating an arbitrary sequence $(\tilde{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ and associated sequence $(\bar{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ is introduced in Section \[sub:Monte\_Carlo\]. Lastly, in Section \[sub:post\_app\] we briefly discuss the approximation error we make when the output of this algorithm is interpreted as an approximation of the posterior distribution $\pi_t$.
The sequence Lg {#sub:pi_tilde}
---------------
Let $(\mu_t)_{t\geq 0}$ be a sequence in $\mathcal{P}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:mu_def}
\mu_t({\mathrm{d}}\theta)=
\begin{cases}
h_t^{-d}m_t(\theta/h_t){\mathrm{d}}\theta, &h_t>0\\
\delta_{\{0\}}({\mathrm{d}}\theta),&h_t=0
\end{cases},\qquad\forall t\geq 0\end{aligned}$$ where $(h_t)_{t\geq 0}$ is a sequence in $[0,\infty)$ and where, for some strictly increasing sequence $(t_p)_{p\geq 0}$ in $\mathbb{N}_0:=\{0\}\cup\mathbb{N}$, $m_t$ is the p.d.f. of the $\mathcal{N}_d(0,\Sigma_t)$ distribution if $t\not\in (t_p)_{p\geq 0}$ and the p.d.f. of the $t_{d,\nu}(0,\Sigma_t)$ distribution otherwise, with $\nu>1$ and $(\Sigma_t)_{t\geq 0}$ a sequence of symmetric positive definite matrices for which $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Sigma_t}
\exists c\in(0,\infty)\quad\text{such that }
\quad \|\Sigma_t\|\vee \|\Sigma^{-1}_t\| \leq c,\quad \forall t\geq 0.
\end{aligned}$$ Explanations why we require that the sequence $(\mu_t)_{t\geq 0}$ contains infinitely many Student’s t-distributions are postponed to Section \[sub:student\]. Conditions $\nu>1$ and are also needed for our theoretical results to hold. Notice that under the rate at which $\|{\mathrm{Var}}_{\mu_{t}}(\theta)\|\rightarrow 0$ is determined by the sequence $(h_t)_{t\geq 0}$.
Then, for a given prior distribution $\tilde{\pi}_0\in\mathcal{P}_L(\Theta)$, we let $(\tilde{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 1}$ be defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:pi_tilde}
\tilde{\pi}_t({\mathrm{d}}\theta)=\frac{ \tilde{f}_\theta(Y_t)(\mu_{t-1}*\tilde{\pi}_{t-1})({\mathrm{d}}\theta)}{\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} \tilde{f}_\theta(Y_t)(\mu_{t-1}*\tilde{\pi}_{t-1})({\mathrm{d}}\theta)}\in \mathcal{P}_L(\Theta) ,\quad t\geq 1.\end{aligned}$$
In Section \[sec:main\] we provide conditions on $(h_t)_{t\geq 0}$ and on $(t_p)_{p\geq 0}$ that ensure the convergence of $\tilde{\pi}_t$ towards $\delta_{\{\theta_\star\}}$, under standard assumptions on the statistical model. For instance, our main results enable us to define, for every $\alpha>0$ and sequence $(h_t)_{t\geq 0}$ such that $h_t=\Theta(t^{-\alpha})$, a strictly increasing sequence $(t_p)_{p\geq 0}$ for which $\tilde{\pi}_t\Rightarrow \delta_{\{\theta_\star\}}$ in ${\mathbb{P}}$-probability.
The definition and of $(\tilde{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ guarantees that if $h_s=0$ for all $s<t$ then $\tilde{\pi}_t=\pi_t$, where we recall that $\pi_t$ is the posterior distribution of $\theta$. This observation suggests that the size of $\max_{0\leq s< t}h_s$ controls the discrepancy between $\tilde{\pi}_t$ and $\pi_t$. The following result supports this intuition and justifies the interpretation of $\tilde{\pi}_t$ as an approximation of $\pi_t$. Notice that for this result to hold it is not necessary to assume the $Y_t$’s are i.i.d.
\[prop:continuity\] Assume ${\mathbb{P}}(\sup_{\theta\in\Theta} f_\theta(Y_1)<\infty)=1$, that the mapping $\theta\mapsto f_\theta(Y_1)$ is ${\mathbb{P}}$-a.s. continuous on $\Theta$ and that $\tilde{\pi}_0\in\mathcal{P}_L(\Theta)$ has a continuous and bounded density on $\Theta$. Then, $${\mathbb{P}}\big(\mathrm{as} \mbox{ $\max\{h_s,\,s<t\}\rightarrow 0$},\ \tilde{\pi}_{t}\Rightarrow \pi_t\big)=1,\quad\forall t\geq 1.$$
Establishing precisely the link between $\max\{h_s,\,s<t\}$ and the distance between $\tilde{\pi}_{t}$ and $\pi_t$ is beyond the scope of the paper. Nevertheless, Proposition \[prop:continuity\] has the merit to show that we can make $\tilde{\pi}_t$ arbitrary close to $\pi_t$ by reducing the size of the $h_s$’s, as illustrated in Section \[subsec:example\].
The sequence Lg\[sub:averaging\].
---------------------------------
Averaging is a standard technique used to improve the statistical and/or predictive properties of online procedures, see for instance @polyak1992acceleration and @shalev2011online for its use within stochastic approximations (SA) and online learning algorithms, respectively.
Following this idea, and as announced in the introductory section, we introduce the sequence $(\bar{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:pi_bar}
\bar{\pi}_t({\mathrm{d}}\theta)=\frac{1}{t+1}\sum_{s=0}^t\tilde{\pi}_s({\mathrm{d}}\theta),\quad t\geq 0.\end{aligned}$$ Recalling that $\tilde{\theta}_t={\mathbb{E}}_{\tilde{\pi}_t}[\theta]$ and that $\bar{\theta}_t={\mathbb{E}}_{\bar{\pi}_t}[\theta]$, it is worth noting that, for all $t\geq 0$, we have $\bar{\theta}_t=(t+1)^{-1}\sum_{s=0}^t\tilde{\theta}_s$.
Using Proposition \[prop:conv\_proba\] and Cesàro’s lemma, it can be easily checked that convergence in probability of $\bar{\pi}_t$ to $\delta_{\{\theta_\star\}}$ is implied by that of $\tilde{\pi}_t$. This is stated in the following proposition for future reference.
\[prop:bar\] Assume that $\tilde{\pi}_t\Rightarrow\delta_{\{\theta_\star\}}$ in ${\mathbb{P}}$-probability. Then, $\bar{\pi}_t\Rightarrow\delta_{\{\theta_\star\}}$ in ${\mathbb{P}}$-probability.
The main advantage of $\bar{\pi}_t$ over $\tilde{\pi}_t$ is that, empirically, the estimator $\bar{\theta}_t$ typically converges to $\theta_\star$ at rate $t^{-1/2}$ (see the numerical examples of Sections \[subsec:example\], \[sec:num\_quantile\] and \[sub:latent\]) while the convergence behaviour of $\tilde{\theta}_t$ depends on the speed at which $h_t\rightarrow 0$, as illustrated in the next subsection. We note that this property of estimators obtained by averaging online point estimates is well-known in the SA literature and has been proved in this context [@polyak1992acceleration]. On the other hand, and assuming $\Theta\subseteq{\mathbb{R}}$ to simplify the presentation, the inequalities $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lower_var}
{\mathrm{Var}}_{\scalebox{1.5}{$\scriptscriptstyle \bar{\pi}_t$}}(\theta)\geq \frac{1}{t+1}\sum_{s=0}^t{\mathrm{Var}}_{\scalebox{1.5}{$\scriptscriptstyle \tilde{\pi}_s$}}(\theta)\geq \min_{s\leq t}{\mathrm{Var}}_{\scalebox{1.5}{$\scriptscriptstyle \tilde{\pi}_s$}}(\theta) ,\quad\forall t\geq 0,\quad {\mathbb{P}}-a.s.\end{aligned}$$ suggest that, in general, $\bar{\pi}_t$ will not concentrate on $\theta_\star$ at a faster rate than $\tilde{\pi}_t$. Indeed, if $\tilde{\pi}_t$ converges to $\delta_{\{\theta_\star\}}$ then, under mild conditions, ${\mathrm{Var}}_{ \tilde{\pi}_t}(\theta)\rightarrow 0$, in which case it is reasonable to expect that, in , we have $ \min_{s\leq t}{\mathrm{Var}}_{\tilde{\pi}_s}(\theta)\approx {\mathrm{Var}}_{\tilde{\pi}_t}(\theta )$.
A second advantage of $(\bar{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ over $(\tilde{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ is that, empirically, the evolution of the former sequence is more stable than that of latter. One way to formalize this observation is to remark that we can establish the almost sure convergence of $\bar{\pi}_t$ to $\delta_{\{\theta_\star\}}$ under weaker conditions than for $\tilde{\pi}_t$. For instance, as a direct consequence of @lyons1988strong [Corollary 4], to guarantee that ${\mathbb{P}}(\bar{\pi}_t\Rightarrow\delta_{\{\theta_\star\}})=1$ it is enough to have, for all $\epsilon>0$, a $\delta_\epsilon>0$ such that ${\mathbb{E}}[\tilde{\pi}_t(V_\epsilon)]={\mathcal{O}}(t^{-\delta_\epsilon})$. By contrast, proving that ${\mathbb{P}}(\tilde{\pi}_t\Rightarrow\delta_{\{\theta_\star\}})=1$ usually requires to show that, for all $\epsilon>0$, ${\mathbb{E}}[\tilde{\pi}_t(V_\epsilon)]={\mathcal{O}}(t^{-\delta_\epsilon})$ for some $\delta_\epsilon>1$.
An illustrative example {#subsec:example}
-----------------------
For every $\theta\in\Theta:={\mathbb{R}}$ we let $f_\theta$ be the density of the $\mathcal{N}_1(\theta,1)$ distribution and, for some $\tilde{\theta}_0\in{\mathbb{R}}$ and $\tilde \sigma_0^2>0$, we let $\tilde{\pi}_0({\mathrm{d}}\theta)$ be the density of the $\mathcal{N}_1(\tilde{\theta}_0,\tilde{\sigma}_0^2)$ distribution. Remark that for this model our general assumptions on $(Y_t)_{t\geq 1}$ impose that ${\mathbb{E}}[Y_1^2]<\infty$, since otherwise $\theta_\star=\operatorname*{argmax}_{\theta\in\Theta}{\mathbb{E}}[\log f_\theta(Y_1)]$ is not defined. However, in this subsection we relax this condition and assume only that ${\mathbb{E}}[|Y_1|]<\infty$. Notice that if $\theta_\star$ is well-defined then $\theta_\star={\mathbb{E}}[Y_1]$. In addition, to make the computation of $(\tilde{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ tractable, we also relax the condition that $(\mu_t)_{t\geq 0}$ contains infinity many Student’s $t$-distributions (imposed in Section \[sub:pi\_tilde\]) by letting, in , $m_t$ be the density of the $ \mathcal{N}_1(0,1)$ distribution for all $t\geq 0$.
Then, with $g:{\mathbb{R}}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$ defined by $g(x)=x/(1+x)$, $x\in (0,\infty)$, it can be easily checked that $$\tilde{\pi}_t=\mathcal{N}_1(\tilde{\theta}_t,\tilde{\sigma}_t^2),\quad \tilde{\sigma}_t^2=g(\tilde{\sigma}^2_{t-1}+h^2_{t-1}),\quad \tilde{\theta}_t=\tilde{\sigma}_t^2 Y_t + (1-\tilde{\sigma}_t^2)\tilde{\theta}_{t-1},\quad t\geq 1.$$ Since $g$ is strictly increasing on $(0,\infty)$ it follows that $\tilde{\sigma}_t^2$ is a strictly increasing function of $h_s$, for all $s\in\{0,\dots,t-1\}$. The impact of $(h_t)_{t\geq 0}$ on the behaviour of the sequence $(\tilde{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ is studied in more details in the following proposition.
\[prop:gaussian\_toy\] Assume that $h_t\rightarrow 0$. Then,
1. \[part1\] $\tilde{\pi}_t\Rightarrow \delta_{{\mathbb{E}}[Y_1]}$ in ${\mathbb{P}}$-probability.
2. \[part2\] If in addition we have $h_t\sim c t^{-\alpha}$ for some constants $(c,\alpha)\in(0,\infty)^2$ then
1. \[part2a\] for $p\in[1,2)$ we have ${\mathbb{P}}(\tilde{\pi}_t\Rightarrow \delta_{{\mathbb{E}}[Y_1]})=1$ for all $(Y_t)_{t\geq 1}$ such that ${\mathbb{E}}[|Y_1|^p]<\infty$ if and only if $t^{1/p} \tilde{\sigma}_t^2={\mathcal{O}}(1)$,
2. \[part2b\] the condition $t^{1/2} \tilde{\sigma}_t^2={\mathcal{O}}(1)$ is necessary but not sufficient to have ${\mathbb{P}}(\tilde{\pi}_t\Rightarrow \delta_{{\mathbb{E}}[Y_1]})=1$ for all $(Y_t)_{t\geq 1}$ such that ${\mathbb{E}}[ Y_1^2]<\infty$,
3. \[part2c\] for all $p\geq 1$, we have $t^{1/p} \tilde{\sigma}_t^2={\mathcal{O}}(1)$ only if $\alpha\geq 1/p$,
4. \[part2d\] $ h_t^2/\tilde{\sigma}_t^2\rightarrow 0$.
Part \[part2d\] of the proposition shows that $\tilde \sigma_t^2$, the variance of $\theta$ under $\tilde{\pi}_t$, converges to $0$ at a strictly slower rate than that of $h^2_t$ whenever $h_t\sim c t^{-\alpha}$. More precisely, the numerical results given in Table \[table:ex\] shows that, for this example, $\tilde{\sigma}_t^2\approx t^{-\alpha}$ when $h_t=t^{-\alpha}$ for all $t\geq 1$. As argued in the previous subsection, we observe in Table \[table:ex\] that $\bar{\sigma}_t^2$, the variance of $\theta$ under $\bar{\pi}_t$, does not converge to zero at a faster rate than $\tilde{\sigma}_t^2$. Indeed, in this example, both $\tilde{\sigma}_t^2$ and $\bar{\sigma}_t^2$ converge at the same rate. The numerical experiments of Section \[sec:num\] suggest that, when $h_t=t^{-\alpha}$ for all $t\geq 1$, having a convergence rate for the variance of $\theta$ under $\bar{\pi}_t$ which is slower than that of $h_t^2$ is not specific to the model we consider in this subsection but generally holds true.
$z_t\backslash\alpha$ 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
${\mathrm{Var}}_{\scalebox{1.5}{$\scriptscriptstyle \tilde{\pi}_t$}}(\theta)$ 0.09 0.30 0.50 0.70 1.00
${\mathrm{Var}}_{\scalebox{1.5}{$\scriptscriptstyle \bar{\pi}_t$}}(\theta)$ 0.09 0.30 0.5 0.7 0.93
$|\tilde{\theta}_t-{\mathbb{E}}[Y_1]|$ 0.05 0.15 0.24 0.36 0.49
$|\bar{\theta}_t-{\mathbb{E}}[Y_1]|$ 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.53 0.68
: Ordinary least square estimate of $\beta_2$ for the model $\log(z_t)=\beta_1-\beta_2\log(t)+\epsilon_t$ and for the example of Section \[subsec:example\]. The results are for $T=10^7$ observations, $(\tilde{\theta}_0,\tilde{\sigma}^2_0)=(0,25)$, $Y_t{\stackrel{\mathclap{\normalfont\mbox{\tiny{iid}}}}{\sim}}\mathcal{N}_1(0,1)$, $h_0=0$ and $h_t=t^{-\alpha}$ for all $t>1$. \[table:ex\]
The first part of the proposition shows that the condition $h_t\rightarrow 0$ is enough to guarantee the convergence in ${\mathbb{P}}$-probability of $\tilde{\pi}_t$ towards $\delta_{{\mathbb{E}}[Y_1]}$. Our main results (Theorems \[thm:online\]-\[thm:lower\_bound\_1\]) show that weak conditions on the sequence $(h_t)_{t\geq 0}$ are indeed needed to guarantee that $\tilde{\pi}_t\Rightarrow\delta_{\{\theta_\star\}}$ in ${\mathbb{P}}$-probability. However, for reasons explained in Section \[sub:student\], these results require that infinitely many elements of the sequence $(\mu_t)_{t\geq 0}$ are Student’s t-distributions.
We saw above how the choice of $(h_t)_{t\geq 0}$ affects the convergence rate of $\tilde{\sigma}^2_t$ and of $\bar{\sigma}_t^2$, but it turns out that the rate at which the estimator $\tilde{\theta}_t$ converges towards ${\mathbb{E}}[Y_1]$ is also impacted by the definition of this sequence. The numerical results in Table \[table:ex\] indeed show that $|\tilde{\theta}_t-{\mathbb{E}}[Y_1]|\approx t^{-\alpha/2}$ when $h_t=t^{-\alpha}$ for all $t\geq 1$. By contrast, we observe in Table \[table:ex\] that $\bar{\theta}_t$ converges to ${\mathbb{E}}[Y_1]$ at rate $t^{-1/2}$, regardless the value of $\alpha$. The numerical experiments of Sections \[sec:num\_quantile\] and \[sub:latent\] suggest that, in general, this property of $\bar{\theta}_t$ also holds true for more complicated models.
![Evolution of $d_{\mathrm{MMD}}(\tilde{\pi}_t,\pi_t)$ (left plot) and of a Monte Carlo estimate of $d_{\mathrm{MMD}}(\bar{\pi}_t,\pi_t)$ (right plot) for the example of Section \[subsec:example\]. The observations, $\tilde{\pi}_0$ and $h_0$ are as in Table \[table:ex\], while $h_t=t^{-\alpha}$ for all $t\geq 1$, with $\alpha=0.5$ (solid line), $\alpha=0.7$ (dashed line) and $\alpha=1$ (dotted line). Note that only the results for $\alpha\in\{0.5,1\}$ are presented for $d_{\mathrm{MMD}}(\tilde{\pi}_t,\pi_t)$. []{data-label="fig:toy_mmd"}](figs/toy_example_mmd.pdf "fig:")![Evolution of $d_{\mathrm{MMD}}(\tilde{\pi}_t,\pi_t)$ (left plot) and of a Monte Carlo estimate of $d_{\mathrm{MMD}}(\bar{\pi}_t,\pi_t)$ (right plot) for the example of Section \[subsec:example\]. The observations, $\tilde{\pi}_0$ and $h_0$ are as in Table \[table:ex\], while $h_t=t^{-\alpha}$ for all $t\geq 1$, with $\alpha=0.5$ (solid line), $\alpha=0.7$ (dashed line) and $\alpha=1$ (dotted line). Note that only the results for $\alpha\in\{0.5,1\}$ are presented for $d_{\mathrm{MMD}}(\tilde{\pi}_t,\pi_t)$. []{data-label="fig:toy_mmd"}](figs/toy_example_mmdBar.pdf "fig:")
It is easily verified that, for this example, the posterior distribution $\pi_t$ converges ${\mathbb{P}}$-a.s. to $\delta_{{\mathbb{E}}[Y_1]}$, and it is of interest to find conditions on $(h_t)_{t\geq 0}$ that preserve this mode of convergence. If ${\mathbb{E}}[Y_1^2]<\infty$, so that $\theta_\star$ is well defined, Parts \[part2b\] and \[part2c\] of Proposition \[prop:gaussian\_toy\] imply that if $h_t\sim c t^{-\alpha}$ then the almost sure convergence of $\tilde{\pi}_t$ towards $\delta_{{\mathbb{E}}[Y_1]}$ may not hold for $\alpha\leq 0.5$. Notice that if $\alpha=0.5$ then $\ h^2_t/\sigma_{t}^2={\mathcal{O}}(1)$, where $\sigma_t^2={\mathcal{O}}(1/t)$ is the posterior variance of $\theta$. If we relax the assumption ${\mathbb{E}}[Y^2_1]<\infty$ then $\tilde{\pi}_t$ may not converge almost surely to $\delta_{{\mathbb{E}}[Y_1]}$ when $\alpha<1$, by Parts \[part2a\] and \[part2c\] of the proposition. Proposition \[prop:gaussian\_toy\] therefore shows that $h_t$ must converge very quickly to zero to guarantee that $\tilde{\pi}_t$ preserves the almost sure convergence property of $\pi_t$.
To illustrate the result of Proposition \[prop:continuity\], namely that $\tilde{\pi}_t$ gets closer to $\pi_t$ as $\max\{h_s,\, s<t\}$ decreases, Figure \[fig:toy\_mmd\] (left plot) shows the evolution, as $t$ increases, of the maximum mean discrepancy (MMD) distance $d_{\mathrm{MMD}}(\tilde{\pi}_t,\pi_t)$ between $\tilde{\pi}_t$ and $\pi_t$, when $h_t=t^{-\alpha}$ for all $t\geq 1$ and $\alpha\in\{0.5,1\}$. The MMD distance is computed using the Gaussian kernel with bandwidth parameter equals to one, in which case $d_{\mathrm{MMD}}(\tilde{\pi}_t,\pi_t)$ is explicitly computable and $d_{\mathrm{MMD}}$ is a metric on $\mathcal{P}({\mathbb{R}})$ [see e.g. @muandet2016kernel for more details on the MMD distance]. As expected, we see in Figure \[fig:toy\_mmd\] that $d_{\mathrm{MMD}}(\tilde{\pi}_t,\pi_t)$ is smaller for $\alpha=1$ than for $\alpha=0.5$. In addition, we observe that the distance between $\tilde{\pi}_t$ and $\pi_t$ decreases as $t$ increases, which is due to the fact that the two distributions converge to $\delta_{{\mathbb{E}}[Y_1]}$ as $t\rightarrow\infty$. The right plot of Figure \[fig:toy\_mmd\] shows the corresponding results for the MMD distance between $\bar{\pi}_t$ and $\pi_t$ and for $\alpha\in\{0.5,0.7,1\}$. Computing $d_{\mathrm{MMD}}(\bar{\pi}_t,\pi_t)$ explicitly is feasible but computationally expensive. For this reason the right plot of Figure \[fig:toy\_mmd\] in fact presents results for $d_{\mathrm{MMD}}(\bar{\pi}^N_t,\pi_t)$, with $\bar{\pi}^N_t$ the empirical distribution associated to an i.i.d. sample of size $N=5\,000$ from $\bar{\pi}_t$. Unsurprisingly, $d_{\mathrm{MMD}}(\bar{\pi}_t,\pi_t)$ decreases with $\alpha$ and $t$ while, as argued in Section \[sub:averaging\], we observe that the temporal evolution of $d_{\mathrm{MMD}}(\bar{\pi}_t,\pi_t)$ is more regular than that of $d_{\mathrm{MMD}}(\tilde{\pi}_t,\pi_t)$. Lastly, it is interesting to see that, for this example, $d_{\mathrm{MMD}}(\bar{\pi}_t,\pi_t)$ tends to be larger than $d_{\mathrm{MMD}}(\tilde{\pi}_t,\pi_t)$ despite of the fact that $\bar{\theta}_t$ is (much) closer to the posterior mean of $\theta$ than $\tilde{\theta}_t$ (see Table \[table:ex\]). A possible explanation for this phenomenon is that, in this particular example, $\tilde{\pi}_t$ belongs to the same family of distributions than $\pi_t$, for all $t\geq 0$.
$N\in\mathbb{N}$, $c_{\mathrm{ESS}}\in(0,1]$ and a resampling algorithm $\mathcal{R}(\cdot, \cdot)$ (see Section \[sub:resampling\])
\[line:for\]Let $\theta_1^n\sim \tilde{\pi}_0({\mathrm{d}}\theta_0)$ and set $w_1^n= \tilde{f}_{\theta_1^n}(Y_1)$ and $W_{1}^n=w_1^n/\sum_{m=1}^N w_1^m$
Set $\mathrm{ESS}_{t-1}= 1/\sum_{m=1}^N (W_{t-1}^m)^2$
\[line:R\] Let $(\hat{\theta}^{1}_{t-1},\dots,\hat{\theta}^{N}_{t-1})\sim \mathcal{R}(\{\theta_{t-1}^n,W_{t-1}^{n}\}_{n=1}^N,N)$ and set $w_{t-1}^n=1$ Let $\hat{\theta}^{n}_{t-1}=\theta^{n}_{t-1}$
Set $\theta_t^n=\hat{\theta}^n_{t-1} + c\,t^{-\alpha} \epsilon^n_{t-1}$ where $\epsilon^n_{t-1}\sim t_{d,\nu}(0, I_d)$ Set $\theta_t^n=\hat{\theta}^n_{t-1} + c\,t^{-\alpha} \epsilon^n_{t-1}$ where $\epsilon^n_{t-1}\sim \mathcal{N}_d(0,I_d)$ \[line:last\] Set $w_t^n= w_{t-1}^n\tilde{f}_{\theta_t^n}(Y_t)$ and $W_{t}^n=w_t^n/\sum_{m=1}^N w_t^m$
**Output:** An approximation $\tilde{\pi}_0^N:=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=1}^N \delta_{\{\theta_1^n\}}$ of $\tilde{\pi}_0$ and, for all $t\geq 1$, an approximation $\tilde{\pi}_t^N:=\sum_{n=1}^N W_t^n\delta_{\{\theta_t^n\}}$ of $\tilde{\pi}_t$ .
A simple online approximate Bayesian learning algorithm \[sub:Monte\_Carlo1\]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
As mentioned in the introductory section, computing an efficient Monte Carlo approximation of $(\tilde{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ is particularly easy when $h_t>0$ for all $t\geq 1$ since, in this case, a standard particle filter (PF) can be used.
In Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\_online\] we provide a simple PF algorithm that can be used to approximate a sequence $(\tilde{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ such that $h_0=0$ and, for all $t\geq 1$, $\Sigma_t=I_d$ and $h_t=c\, t^{-\alpha}$ for some constants $c,\alpha>0$. For every $\alpha>0$, examples of sequences $(t_p)_{p\geq 0}$ that verify the conditions of our convergence results (Theorems \[thm:online\]-\[thm:lower\_bound\_1\]) are given in Proposition \[prop:h\_t\]. All the numerical experiments of Section \[sec:num\] rely on Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\_online\] with $c=1$ and $\alpha=0.5$, except those of Section \[sub:linear\_model\].
For every $t\geq 0$, Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\_online\] computes and approximation $\tilde{\pi}_t^N$ of $\tilde{\pi}_t$, where $N\in\mathbb{N}$ is the Monte Carlo effort. Using standard results for PF algorithms [see @crisan2000 Theorem 1, and Proposition \[prop:conv\_algo\] below], it can be shown that, as $N$ tends to $\infty$, the approximation $\tilde{\pi}_t^N$ converges to $\tilde{\pi}_t$ at the usual $N^{-1/2}$ Monte Carlo convergence rate. Notice that in Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\_online\] each observation $Y_t$ is read only once and that the memory and computational requirement to process $Y_t$ does not increase with $t$ and is linear in $N$. A more precise description of Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\_online\] is omitted, since it is a particular case of Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\] which is introduced in details in Section \[sub:Monte\_Carlo\].
It is clear from Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\_online\] that, for fixed $N$, the larger $\alpha$ is (i.e. the faster $h_t$ converges to $0$) the higher is the probability that the support of $\tilde{\pi}_t^N$ is close to the support of $\tilde{\pi}_{t-1}^N$. Hence, if $\alpha$ is large and the algorithm is initialized faraway from $\theta_\star$, a large number of iterations may be needed for $\tilde{\pi}_t^N$ to reach a small neighbourhood $U$ of this parameter value, and it may even be the case that $U$ will never be reached with large probability. Consequently, a large value of $\alpha$ should usually be compensated by a large value of $N$. In practice, we find that choosing $\alpha=0.5$, so that $\sum_{t=0}^\infty h_t=\infty$, works well and, as mentioned above, this is the default value of $\alpha$ that we use in Section \[sec:num\] for the numerical examples that rely on Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\_online\].
To keep its description as simple as possible Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\_online\] does not compute any approximation of the sequence $(\bar{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 0}$. A natural way to approximate this sequence using the output of Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\_online\] is, for all $t\geq 0$, to sample $K$ independent random variables from $(t+1)^{-1}\sum_{s=0}^t\tilde{\pi}_s^N$ and then to use the empirical distribution of this sample as an estimate of $\bar{\pi}_t$. It turns out that such an approximation of $(\bar{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ can be computed on the fly, by adding Line \[bar\_init\] of Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\] just after Line \[line:for\] of Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\_online\] and by adding Line \[bar\] of Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\] just after Line \[line:last\] of Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\_online\]. Note also that the output of Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\_online\] can directly be used to compute the approximation $\bar{\varphi}_{t}^N:=(t+1)^{-1}\sum_{s=1}^t\tilde{\pi}^N_s(\varphi)$ of $\bar{\pi}_t(\varphi)$ using the recursive formula $$\bar{\varphi}_{t}^N=\frac{t}{t+1}\bar{\varphi}_{t-1}^N+\frac{1}{t+1}\tilde{\pi}^N_t(\varphi),\quad t\geq 0.$$
Choosing $(h_t)_{t\geq 0}$: computational v.s. statistical efficiency\[sub:h\_t\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both Proposition \[prop:continuity\] and the numerical results of Section \[subsec:example\] call for choosing a sequence $(h_t)_{t\geq 0}$ such that $h_t$ tends to $0$ quickly, while as mentioned in the previous subsection computational constraints will generally impose to take $(h_t)_{t\geq 0}$ such that the convergence of $h_t$ to $0$ is not too fast. In the special case where $h_t=\Theta(t^{-\alpha})$, we observed in our experiments that these latter usually lead to choose $\alpha=0.5$, in which case the example of Section \[subsec:example\] and those of Sections \[sec:num\_quantile\]-\[sub:latent\] suggest that the variance of $\theta$ under both $\tilde{\pi}_t$ and $\bar{\pi}_t$ converges to zero at a rate which is slower than the usual $t^{-1}$ convergence rate that we have for the posterior variance of $\theta$. Consequently, in practice the sequence $(\tilde{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ will be typically defined in such a way that the uncertainty quantification obtained using $\tilde{\pi}_t$ or $\bar{\pi}_t$ is too conservative. By contrast, the Bayesian credible sets may be over confident when the model is miss-specified [@Kleijn2012].
Monte Carlo Approximation of the sequences Lg and Lg \[sub:Monte\_Carlo\]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\] provides, for all $t\geq 0$, a Monte Carlo approximation $\tilde{\pi}^N_t:=\sum_{n=1}^N W_t^n\delta_{\theta_t^n}$ of $\tilde{\pi}_t$ and a Monte Carlo approximation $\bar{\pi}_t^{N,K}:=\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K\delta_{\bar{\theta}_t^k}$ of $\bar{\pi}_t$.
Following the idea of the IBIS algorithm [@MR1929161], at iteration $t\geq 1$ the observation $Y_t$ is processed and the approximation $\tilde{\pi}^N_{t-1}$ of $\tilde{\pi}_{t-1}$ is updated to yield an approximation $\tilde{\pi}^N_{t}$ of $\tilde{\pi}_t$, while the approximation $\bar{\pi}^{N,K}_{t-1}$ of $\bar{\pi}_{t-1}$ is updated to yield an approximation $\bar{\pi}^{N,K}_{t}$ of $\bar{\pi}_t$. Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\] is therefore a sequential algorithm and its memory and computational requirement to process a new observation depends on the sequence $(h_t)_{t\geq 0}$ (see Section \[sub:running\_time\]). Remark that if $h_t>0$ for all $t\geq 1$ then Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\] is a standard particle filter algorithm [see e.g. @doucet2009tutorial] while, if $h_t=0$ for all $t\geq 1$, it reduces to a particular instance of the IBIS algorithm where the particles are rejuvenated by mean a Metropolis-Hastings kernel.
Before describing Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\] in more details the following three observations are worth making. Firstly, the support of $\bar{\pi}_t^{N,K}$ is generated by sampling $K$ independent random variables from the mixture $ (t+1)^{-1}\sum_{s=0}^t\tilde{\pi}^N_s$. Secondly, if we are interested in estimating $\bar{\pi}_t(\varphi_i)$ for a small number of functions $\{\varphi_i\}_{i=1}^I$ then the estimates $\big\{(t+1)^{-1}\sum_{s=0}^t\tilde{\pi}^N_s(\varphi_i)\big\}_{i=1}^I$ are both cheaper to compute and have lower variances than the estimates $\{\bar{\pi}^{N,K}_t(\varphi_i)\}_{i=1}^I$. Lastly, when Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\] is neither a particle filter (i.e. $h_t=0$ for some $t>0$) nor the IBIS algorithm (i.e. $h_t>0$ for some $t>0$) it does not belong to the class of sequential Monte Carlo (SMC) samplers introduced by @DelDouJas:SMC. This point will be explained more precisely in Section \[sub:theory\] where a convergence result for Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\] is provided.
### Ingredients: Resampling and mutation steps\[sub:resampling\]
Sequential Monte Carlo algorithms require to specify selection steps, where the particles with large weights are replicated while those with low weights are discarded, and mutation steps, where new particles are generated. Selection steps are performed using a resampling algorithm, that can be informally defined as follow [see e.g. @gerber2019negative for a formal definition].
\[def:resampling\] $\mathcal{R}(\cdot,\cdot)$ is a resampling algorithm if $\mathcal{R}(\{x^m,p^m\}_{m=1}^M, L)$ is a probability distribution on $\{x^1,\dots,x^M\}^L$, where $(p^{1},\dots, p^M)\in[0,1]^M$ and $\sum_{m=1}^M p^m=1$. We say that $\mathcal{R}(\cdot,\cdot)$ is unbiased if the random vector $(X^1,\dots,X^L)\sim \mathcal{R}(\{x^m,p^m\}_{m=1}^M, L)$ satisfies ${\mathbb{P}}(X^l=x^m)=p^m$ for all $l$ and $m$. If in addition the random variables $X^1,\dots, X^L$ are independent then $\mathcal{R}(\cdot,\cdot)$ is the multinomial resampling scheme and is denoted by $\mathcal{R}_{\mathrm{multi}}(\cdot,\cdot)$.
On Line \[exact1\] of Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\] various resampling algorithms $\mathcal{R}(\cdot,\cdot)$ can be used. The most natural choice is the multinomial resampling scheme $\mathcal{R}_{\mathrm{multi}}(\cdot,\cdot)$ but in practice lower variance resampling methods are usually used, such as stratified resampling $\mathcal{R}_{\mathrm{strat}}(\cdot,\cdot)$ or residual resampling $\mathcal{R}_{\mathrm{res}}(\cdot,\cdot)$ [see e.g. @Douc2005]. We note in passing that the SSP resampling algorithm $\mathcal{R}_{\mathrm{ssp}}(\cdot,\cdot)$ proposed in @gerber2019negative also has a smaller variance than the multinomial resampling scheme, thanks to a result due to @chauvet2017.
The mutation step when $h_{t-1}=0$ amounts to sampling $\theta_t^n$ given the resampled particle $\hat{\theta}^n_{t-1}$ using a pseudo-marginal Metropolis-Hastings kernel [@Andrieu2009] having $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:target}
\frac{ \prod_{s=k_t+1}^{t-1} \tilde{f}_{\theta}(Y_s)(\mu_{k_t}*\tilde{\pi}^N_{k_t})({\mathrm{d}}\theta)}{\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}\prod_{s=k_t+1}^{t-1} \tilde{f}_{\theta}(Y_s)(\mu_{k_t}*\tilde{\pi}^N_{k_t})({\mathrm{d}}\theta) }\end{aligned}$$ as invariant distribution and $q_t(\theta|\theta'){\mathrm{d}}\theta$ as proposal distribution (with $k_t$ as defined in Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\]). The use of this pseudo-marginal approach has the advantage to keep the computational cost of Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\] linear in $N$, while implementing the Metropolis-Hastings kernel having as invariant distribution would result in an algorithm whose complexity is quadratic in $N$. Notice that the pseudo-marginal Metropolis-Hastings kernel, defined on Lines \[exact1\] and \[pseudo1\]-\[pseudo2\], can be iterated several times to improve the particles diversity.
When $h_{t-1}>0$ the mutation step reduces to sampling $\theta_t^n$ from $q_t(\theta|\theta'){\mathrm{d}}\theta$, where either $\theta'=\hat{\theta}^n_{t-1}$ (Line \[exact1\]) or $\theta'=\theta_{t-1}^n$ the (Line \[No\_res1\]). Notice that this mutation step corresponds to that of a PF algorithm.
### Memory and computational requirement\[sub:running\_time\]
The memory and computational cost of Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\] depends on the sequence $(h_t)_{t\geq 0}$. More precisely, the memory requirement is ${\mathcal{O}}(t-k_t)$ while, assuming that all the density functions involved in Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\] can be computed at a finite cost, iteration $t$ requires ${\mathcal{O}}( N+K )$ operations if no resampling step is performed (i.e. if $\mathrm{ESS}_{t-1}> N\,c_{\mathrm{ESS}}$) and ${\mathcal{O}}( (t-k_t)NJ+K)$ operations otherwise, where $J\geq 1$ is the number of simulations required by the pseudo-marginal kernel (typically, $J=1$). For instance, choosing for some $\Delta\in\mathbb{N}$ a sequence $(h_t)_{t\geq 0}$ such that $h_t>0$ for all $t\in\{s\Delta,\,s\in\mathbb{N}\}$ enables to keep in memory only the last $\Delta$ observations and guarantees that the number of operations performed at each iteration of Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\] is bounded by $C(NJ\Delta+K)$, for some constant $C<\infty$ independent of $t$. Notice that if this upper bound growths with $\Delta$ this is not necessarily the case for the expected running time when $c_{\mathrm{ESS}}<1$. Indeed, in this scenario, when no resampling step is needed Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\] only requires to update the weights when $h_{t-1}=0$ while, if $h_{t-1}>0$, a new set of $N$ particles also needs to be generated, i.e. Line \[No\_res1\] is computationally more expensive than Line \[No\_res2\] (see Section \[sub:linear\_model\] for numerical results supporting this point). Lastly, it is worth mentioning that, at time $t$, the expected cost of Lines \[bar\] is bounded by $C (K+dK/t)$, where $C<\infty$ is independent of $t$ and $d$. Consequently, the impact of the dimension of $\theta$ on the computational cost needed to approximate $\bar{\pi}_t$ decreases quickly with $t$.
$(N,K,J)\in\mathbb{N}^3$, $c_{\mathrm{ESS}}\in(0,1]$, an initial distribution $q_0(\theta_0){\mathrm{d}}\theta_0\in\mathcal{P}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$, a sequence $(q_t(\cdot|\theta))_{t\geq 1,\theta\in\Theta}$ of proposal densities on ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ and a resampling algorithm $\mathcal{R}(\cdot, \cdot)$
Let $\theta_0^n\sim q_0(\theta_0){\mathrm{d}}\theta_0$ and set $w_0^n= \tilde{\pi}_0(\theta_0^n)/q_0(\theta_0^n)$, $W_{0}^n=w_0^n/\sum_{m=1}^N w_0^m$ and $h_{-1}=1$
\[bar\_init\]Let $(\bar{\theta}_0^{1},\dots,\bar{\theta}_0^{K})\sim \mathcal{R}_{\mathrm{multi}}(\{\theta_0^n,W_{0}^{n}\}_{n=1}^N,K)$
Set $\mathrm{ESS}_{t-1}= 1/\sum_{m=1}^N (W_{t-1}^m)^2$
\[exact1\] Let $(\hat{\theta}^{1}_{t-1},\dots,\hat{\theta}^{N}_{t-1})\sim \mathcal{R}(\{\theta_{t-1}^n,W_{t-1}^{n}\}_{n=1}^N,N)$ and $\tilde{\theta}_t^n\sim q_t(\theta_t|\hat{\theta}^n_{t-1}) {\mathrm{d}}\theta_t$
\[l1\] Set $\theta_t^n= \tilde{\theta}_t^n$ and $w_t^n= h^{-d}_{t-1} \tilde{f}_{\theta_t^n}(Y_t)\frac{m_{t-1}( (\hat{\theta}^n_{t-1}-\theta_t^n)/h_{t-1})}{q_t(\theta^n_t|\hat{\theta}^n_{t-1})}$
\[pseudo1\] Let $V^n_t\sim{\mathcal{U}}(0,1)$ and $k_t=\max\{-1\leq s<t-1:\, h_s>0\}$ \[exact2\] Set $\alpha^n_t(\hat{\theta}_t^n,\tilde{\theta}_t^n)=q_t(\hat{\theta}^n_{t-1}|\tilde{\theta}_t^n)\tilde{\pi}_{t-1}(\tilde{\theta}_t^n) /\big(q_t(\tilde{\theta}^n_t|\hat{\theta}^n_{t-1}) \tilde{\pi}_{t-1}(\hat{\theta}^n_{t-1})\big)$ \[expensive\] For $s\in\{t-1,t\}$ let $(\tilde{\theta}_1^{n,s},\dots, \tilde{\theta}_J^{n,s}) \sim \mathcal{R}_{\mathrm{multi}}(\{\theta_{k_t}^n,W^n_{k_t}\}_{n=1}^N,J)$ and set $$\alpha^n_t(\hat{\theta}_t^n,\tilde{\theta}_t^n)=\frac{q_t(\hat{\theta}^n_{t-1}|\tilde{\theta}_t^n) \sum_{j=1}^J m_{k_t}(h_{k_t}^{-1}(\tilde{\theta}_t^n-\tilde{\theta}_j^{n,t})) \prod_{s=k_t+1}^{t-1} \tilde{f}_{\tilde{\theta}_t^n}(Y_s)}{q_t(\tilde{\theta}^n_t|\hat{\theta}^n_{t-1}) \sum_{j=1}^Jm_{k_t}(h_{k_t}^{-1}(\hat{\theta}^n_{t-1}-\tilde{\theta}_j^{n,t-1}))\prod_{s=k_t+1}^{t-1} f_{\hat{\theta}^n_{t-1}}(Y_s)}$$ \[accept\]
\[l2\] Set $\theta_t^n= \tilde{\theta}_t^n$ and $w_t^n= f_{\theta_t^n}(Y_t)$ \[l3\] Set $\theta_t^n=\hat{\theta}^n_{t-1}$ and $w_t^n= f_{\theta_t^n}(Y_t)$ \[pseudo2\] \[end\] \[No\_res1\] Let $\theta_t^n \sim q_t(\theta_t|\theta^n_{t-1}) {\mathrm{d}}\theta_t$ and set $w_t^n= h_{t-1}^{-d}w_{t-1}^n \tilde{f}_{\theta_t^n}(Y_t) \frac{m_{t-1}((\theta^n_{t-1}-\theta_t^n)/h_{t-1})}{q_t(\theta^n_t|\theta^n_{t-1})}$ \[No\_res2\] Let $\theta^n_t=\theta_{t-1}^n$ and set $w_t^n= w_{t-1}^n \tilde{f}_{\theta_t^n}(Y_t)$ Set $W_{t}^n=w_t^n/\sum_{m=1}^N w_t^m$.
\[bar\] Let $\bar{\theta}_t^{1:K}\sim \mathrm{PiBar\_Update}\big(t,\{\bar{\theta}_{t-1}^{k}\}_{k=1}^K, \{\theta_t^n,W_{t}^{n}\}_{n=1}^N\big) $
$t\in\mathbb{N}$, $\{\bar{\theta}^{k}\}_{k=1}^K\subset \Theta$, $\{\theta^n, W^n\}_{n=1}^N\subset\Theta\times \{w\in[0,1]^N:\,\sum_{n=1}^N w_n=1\}$
\[bar\_1\]Let $V^{k}\sim \mathrm{Bernoulli}(1/(t+1))$ and $(\theta_t^{1},\dots,\theta_t^{K'})\sim \mathcal{R}_{\mathrm{multi}}\big(\{\theta^n,W^{n}\}_{n=1}^N, K'\big)$, with $K'=\sum_{i=1}^K V^i$
Set $\bar{\theta}^{k}_t= \theta_t^{j_k}$, with $j_k=\sum_{i=1}^k V^i$ Set $\bar{\theta}^{k}_t=\bar{\theta}^{k}$ \[bar\_2\]
**Return:** $(\bar{\theta}^{1}_t,\dots,\bar{\theta}_t^K)$
### A convergence result\[sub:theory\]
Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\] is not a standard SMC sampler [@DelDouJas:SMC] because the pseudo-marginal kernel used at iteration $t\geq 1$ depends on all the random variables generated up to time $t-1$. The following proposition however shows that a non-asymptotic bound for the approximation error similar to that obtained for SMC samplers [@crisan2000 Theorem 1] holds for Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\].
\[prop:conv\_algo\] Consider Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\] with $\mathcal{R}\in\{\mathcal{R}_{\mathrm{multi}},\mathcal{R}_{\mathrm{strat}},\mathcal{R}_{\mathrm{res}},\mathcal{R}_{\mathrm{ssp}}\}$ on Line \[exact1\] and with $c_{\mathrm{ESS}}=1$. Assume that $$\sup_{(\theta,\theta')\in \Theta^2}\bigg(\frac{\tilde{\pi}_0(\theta)}{q_0(\theta)}+{\mathds{1}}_{(0,\infty)}(h_{t-1}) \frac{f_\theta(Y_t) m_{t-1}(\theta-\theta')}{q_t(\theta|\theta')} +f_\theta(Y_t)\bigg)<\infty,\quad{\mathbb{P}}-a.s.,\quad\forall t\geq 1.$$ Then, for all $t\geq 0$, there exists a random variable $C_t$ taking values in $(0,\infty)$ such that, for all $N\geq 1$, $$\sup_{|\varphi|\leq 1}{\mathbb{E}}\Big[(\tilde{\pi}_t^N(\varphi)-\tilde{\pi}_t(\varphi))^2|\,{\mathcal{F}}_t\Big]\leq\frac{C_t}{N},\quad
\sup_{|\varphi|\leq 1}{\mathbb{E}}\Big[(\bar{\pi}_t^{N,K}(\varphi)-\bar{\pi}_t(\varphi))^2|\,{\mathcal{F}}_t\Big]\leq\frac{C_t}{N\wedge K},\quad{\mathbb{P}}-a.s.$$
The sequence $(m_t)_{t\geq 0}$ does not need to be as defined in Section \[sub:pi\_tilde\] for the result of Proposition \[prop:conv\_algo\] to hold, which only requires that $\sup_{\theta\in {\mathbb{R}}^d} m_{t}(\theta)<\infty$ for all $t\geq 0$.
Conditions ensuring, as $N\rightarrow\infty$, the almost sure convergence of $\tilde{\pi}_t^N$ towards $\tilde{\pi}_t$ can be easily obtained using the results in @crisan2000 and in @gerber2019negative. An almost sure convergence results for $\bar{\pi}^{N,K}_t$, as $\min(N,K)\rightarrow\infty$, can then be easily deduced.
Approximation of the posterior distribution\[sub:post\_app\]
------------------------------------------------------------
In this short subsection we study the approximation error we make when the distribution $\tilde{\pi}_t^N$ is used as an estimate of $\pi_t$. To save place, we focus on $\tilde{\pi}_t^N$ in what follows but similar computations to those done below can be performed for the distribution $\bar{\pi}_t^{N,K}$.
Let $\varphi:\Theta\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ be a continuous and measurable function such that $|\varphi(\theta)|\leq 1$ for all $\Theta\in\Theta$. Then, under the assumptions of Theorems \[thm:online\]-\[thm:lower\_bound\_1\] (see the next section), there exists a sequence $(\delta_{\varphi,t})_{t\geq 1}$ such that $ \delta_{\varphi,t}\rightarrow 0$ and such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:approx_post}
{\mathbb{E}}\Big[\big(\tilde{\pi}_t(\varphi)-\pi_t(\varphi)\big)^2\Big]^{\frac{1}{2}}\leq \delta_{\varphi,t},\quad\forall t\geq 1.\end{aligned}$$
Therefore, assuming that the conditions of Proposition \[prop:conv\_algo\] are fulfilled, and with $(C_t)_{t\geq 1}$ as in this latter, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}\Big[(\tilde{\pi}_t^N(\varphi)-\pi_t(\varphi))^2\Big]^{\frac{1}{2}}\leq \sqrt{\frac{{\mathbb{E}}[C_t]}{N}}+\delta_{\varphi,t},\quad\forall (N,t)\in\mathbb{N}^2\end{aligned}$$ assuming that ${\mathbb{E}}[C_t]<\infty$ for all $t\geq 1$. Notice that this latter condition holds e.g. if $$\sup_{(\theta,\theta'y,)\in \Theta^2\times{\mathsf{Y}}}\bigg(\frac{\tilde{\pi}_0(\theta)}{q_0(\theta)}+{\mathds{1}}_{(0,\infty)}(h_{t-1}) \frac{f_\theta(y) m_{t-1}(\theta-\theta')}{q_t(\theta|\theta')} +f_\theta(y)\bigg)<\infty,\quad\forall t\geq 1.$$
Then, by and Proposition \[prop:conv\_algo\], the extra approximation error we make when we use $\tilde{\pi}_t^N$ to estimate $\pi_t$ rather than $\tilde{\pi}_t$ is at most $\delta_{\varphi,t}$, and thus converges to zero as $t\rightarrow\infty$. Computing the rate at which $\delta_{\varphi,t}\rightarrow 0$ and studying the behaviour of the sequence $(C_t)_{t\geq 1}$ are interesting open problems, whose resolution is necessary to understand more precisely how close $\tilde{\pi}_t^N$ is from $\pi_t$ for large values of $t$.
Theoretical analysis of the sequence Lg {#sec:main}
=======================================
In this section we provide conditions on the sequences $(h_t)_{t\geq 0}$ and $(t_p)_{p\geq 0}$ which, under mild assumptions on the statistical model $\{f_\theta,\,\theta\in\Theta\}$, ensure the convergence of the resulting sequence $(\tilde{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ towards $\delta_{\{\theta_\star\}}$, in ${\mathbb{P}}$-probability. Theorems \[thm:online\]-\[thm:lower\_bound\_1\], given in Section \[sub:theory\_main\], are the main results of this section, while in Section \[sub\_sec\] we provide explicit definitions of sequences $(h_t)_{t\geq 0}$ and $(t_p)_{p\geq 0}$ that satisfy the requirements of these two theorems (Proposition \[prop:h\_t\]). We recall the reader that all the results presented below also hold for the sequence $(\bar{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ of mixture distributions, by Proposition \[prop:bar\].
Assumptions on the statistical model
------------------------------------
The following two assumptions impose some regularity on the random mapping $\theta\mapsto f_\theta(Y_1)$ around $\theta_\star$.
\[m\_star\] There exist a constant $\delta_{\star}>0$ and a measurable function $m_{\star}\,{:}\,{\mathsf{Y}}\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ such that ${\mathbb{E}}[m_\star^{2}]<\infty$ and $$\big|\log(f_{\theta_1}(Y_1)/f_{\theta_2}(Y_1))\big|\leq m_{\star}(Y_1)\|\theta_1-\theta_2\|,\quad \forall \theta_1,\theta_2\in B_{\delta_\star}(\theta_\star)\cap\Theta,\quad {\mathbb{P}}-a.s.$$
\[taylor\] There exist constants $\delta_\star>0$ and $C_\star<\infty$ such that $${\mathbb{E}}\big[\log(f_{\theta_\star}/f_{\theta})\big]\leq C_\star \|\theta-\theta_\star\|^2,\quad\forall\theta\in B_{\delta_\star}(\theta_\star)\cap\Theta.$$
The next assumption notably implies that $\theta_\star$ is identifiable.
\[test\] For every compact set $W\in\mathcal{B}(\Theta)$ such that $\theta_\star\in W$ and every $\epsilon>0$ there exists a sequence of measurable functions $(\psi'_t)_{t\geq 1}$, with $\psi'_t:{\mathsf{Y}}^t\rightarrow\{0,1\}$, such that $${\mathbb{E}}[\psi'_t(Y_{1:t}) ]\rightarrow 0,\quad\sup_{\theta\in V_\epsilon\cap W}{\mathbb{E}}\Big[\big(1-\psi'_t(Y_{1:t}) \big)\prod_{s=1}^t (f_{\theta}/f_{\theta_\star})(Y_s)\Big]\rightarrow 0.$$
Assumptions \[m\_star\]-\[test\] are standard, see e.g. @Kleijn2012. It is easily checked that \[taylor\] holds when the mapping $\theta\mapsto{\mathbb{E}}[\log (f_{\theta})]$ admits a second order Taylor expansion in a neighbourhood of $\theta_\star$. By @Kleijn2012 [Theorem 3.2], \[test\] holds for instance when, for every compact set $W\in\mathcal{B}(\Theta)$ that contains $\theta_\star$ and every $ \theta'\in W$, the mapping $W\ni \theta\mapsto {\mathbb{E}}[f_\theta f_{\theta'}^{-s}f_{\theta_\star}^{s-1}]$ is continuous at $\theta'$ for every $s$ in a left neighbourhood of 1, and ${\mathbb{E}}[f_{\theta'}/f_{\theta_\star} ]<\infty$. Remark that if the model is well-specified then ${\mathbb{E}}[ f_{\theta}/f_{\theta_\star} ]=1<\infty$ for all $\theta\in\Theta$. If the model is miss-specified the condition ${\mathbb{E}}[ f_{\theta}/f_{\theta_\star} ]<\infty$ requires that the tails of $f_{\theta_\star}$ are not too thin compared to those of $f_\star$. For instance, if $f_\theta(y)\eta({\mathrm{d}}y)=t_{1,\nu}(\mu,\sigma^2)$, with $\theta=(\mu,\sigma^2,\nu)$, and $\lim_{|y|\rightarrow\infty} |y|^{\nu_\star+1}f_\star(y)<\infty$ then ${\mathbb{E}}[ f_{\theta}/f_{\theta_\star} ]<\infty$ for all $\theta\in{\mathbb{R}}\times(0,\infty)^2$.
Assumption \[test\] is stronger that needed for our results to hold, these latter requiring only that \[test\] holds for the specific compact set $W=\tilde{A}_\star\cap\Theta$, where $\tilde{A}_\star$ is as defined in Assumption \[new\] below.
\[new\] For some set $A_\star\in\mathcal{B}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$,
1. \[new\_part1\] One of the following conditions hold:
1. \[A41\] $
{\mathbb{E}}[\sup_{\theta \not\in A_\star}\log (\tilde{f}_{\theta})]< {\mathbb{E}}[ \log (f_{\theta_\star})]$
2. \[A42\] $\sup_{\theta \not\in A_\star }{\mathbb{E}}[\tilde{f}_\theta/f_{\theta_\star} ]< 1$
3. \[A43\] $\log\big(\sup_{\theta \not\in A_\star }{\mathbb{E}}[\tilde{f}_\theta]\big)< {\mathbb{E}}[\log (f_{\theta_\star})]$.
2. \[new\_part2\] There exists a set $\tilde{A}_\star\in\mathcal{B}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$, containing a neighbourhood of $A_\star$, such that $\tilde{A}_\star\cap\Theta$ is compact, the mapping $\theta\mapsto f_\theta(Y_1)$ is ${\mathbb{P}}$-a.s. continuous on $\tilde{A}_\star\cap\Theta$ and $$\exists \tilde{\delta}>0\quad\text{such that}\quad {\mathbb{E}}\Big[\sup_{\{ (\theta,v) \in (\tilde{A}_\star\cap\Theta)\times B_{\tilde{\delta}}(0)\}} \log (\tilde{f}_{\theta+v}/f_{\theta})^2\Big]<\infty.$$
If $\Theta$ is compact then \[new\] holds as soon as $\theta\mapsto f_\theta(Y_1)$ is ${\mathbb{P}}$-a.s. continuous on $\Theta$ and ${\mathbb{E}}\big[\sup_{\{ (\theta,\theta') \in \Theta^2:\,\,\|\theta'-\theta\|< \tilde{\delta}\}} \log (f_{\theta'}/f_{\theta})^2\big]<\infty$ for some $\tilde{\delta}>0$.
\[new1\] At least one of the following three conditions hold:
a) \[A51\] ${\mathbb{E}}[\sup_{\theta\in\Theta}\log (f_\theta)]<\infty$
b) \[A52\] $\sup_{\theta\in\Theta}{\mathbb{E}}[ f_\theta/f_{\theta_\star}]<\infty$
c) \[A53\] $\sup_{\theta\in\Theta}{\mathbb{E}}[f_\theta]<\infty$.
Condition \[new1\].\[A52\] always holds when the model is well-specified.
The last Assumption \[new2\] is used to derive convergence results that hold when the parameter space is unbounded.
\[new2\] Assume that one of the following conditions hold for some $ k_\star\in\{1/2\}\cup \mathbb{N} $.
a) \[A61\] $ \limsup_{C\rightarrow\infty} {\mathbb{E}}\big[ \sup_{\theta\in V_{C}}\log (\tilde{f}_{\theta}/f_{\theta_\star}) \big] (\log C)^{-1}<0$ and, for some $C_1\in(0,\infty)$, $$\sup_{C\geq C_1}{\mathbb{E}}\Big[\big|\sup_{\theta\in V_{C}}\log (\tilde{f}_{\theta}/f_{\theta_\star})-{\mathbb{E}}\big[\sup_{\theta\in V_{C}}\log (\tilde{f}_{\theta}/f_{\theta_\star})\big]\big|^{2k_\star}\Big]<\infty$$
b) \[A62\] $\limsup_{C\rightarrow\infty} \log \big(\sup_{\theta\in V_C}{\mathbb{E}}[(\tilde{f}_{\theta}/f_{\theta_\star})]\big) (\log C)^{-1}<0$
c) \[A63\] $\limsup_{C\rightarrow\infty} \log \big(\sup_{\theta\in V_C}{\mathbb{E}}[ \tilde{f}_{\theta} ]\big) (\log C)^{-1}<0$ and ${\mathbb{E}}\big[\,|\log (f_{\theta_\star})\,|^{2k_\star}\big]<\infty$.
Assumption \[new2\] implies the existence of a set $A_\star\in\mathcal{B}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ such that the first part of \[new\] holds.
Assumptions \[new\]-\[new2\] are non-standard but appear to be reasonable, as illustrated in the next proposition.
\[prop:assumption\] $ $
1. Let $\Theta={\mathbb{R}}\times[\underline{\sigma}^2,\infty)$ for some $\underline{\sigma}^2> 0$ and, for every $\theta=(\mu,\sigma^2)\in\Theta$, let $f_{(\mu,\sigma^2)}$ be the density of the $\mathcal{N}_1(\mu,\sigma^2)$ distribution. Then, \[new\]-\[new1\] hold if ${\mathbb{E}}[Y_1^4]<\infty$. If in addition we have ${\mathbb{E}}[e^{c|Y_1|}]<\infty$ for some $c>0$ then \[new2\] holds for all $k_\star\in\mathbb{N}$.
2. Let $\Theta={\mathbb{R}}\times[\underline{c},\infty)^2$ for some $\underline{c}> 0$ and, for every $(\mu,\sigma^2,\nu)\in\Theta$, let $f_{(\mu,\sigma^2,\nu)}$ be the density of the $t_{1,\nu}(\mu,\sigma^2)$ distribution. Then, \[new\]-\[new1\] hold if ${\mathbb{E}}[\log(1+c Y_1^2)^2]<\infty$ for all $c>0$. If in addition we have ${\mathbb{E}}[|Y_1|^c]<\infty$ for some $c\geq 1/2$ then \[new2\] holds for all $k_\star\in\mathbb{N}$.
Main results {#sub:theory_main}
------------
\[thm:online\] Let $(h_t)_{t\geq 0}$ and $(t_p)_{p\geq 0}$ be such that
1. \[thm1.1\] $h_{t_p}>0$ for all $p\geq 0$,
2. \[thm1.2\] $(t_{p+1}-t_p) \rightarrow\infty$ and $(t_p-t_{p-1}) \sum_{s=t_{p-1}+1}^{t_p-1}h_s^2 \rightarrow 0$,
3. \[thm1.3\] $\limsup_{p\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{t_{p+1}-t_{p}}{ t_{p}-t_{p-1}}<\infty$ and $\log(1/h_{t_{p-1}})(t_p-t_{p-1})^{-1}\rightarrow 0$.
Moreover, assume that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:compact}
\exists (\beta, c)\in (1,\infty)^2\quad\text{such that}\quad {\mathbb{P}}\big(\tilde{\pi}_{t_p} (V_{c/h_{t_{p}}^{\beta}})\geq \beta^{-1}\big)\rightarrow 0.\end{aligned}$$ Then, under \[m\_star\]-\[new1\], $\tilde{\pi}_{t}\Rightarrow\delta_{\{\theta_\star\}}$ in ${\mathbb{P}}$-probability.
Condition \[thm1.2\] implies that $h_t\rightarrow 0$.
Condition of Theorem \[thm:online\] holds when the parameter space $ \Theta$ is bounded, since in this case we have $\tilde{\pi}_t(\Theta^c)=0$ for all $t\geq 0$, ${\mathbb{P}}$-a.s. Theorem \[thm:lower\_bound\_1\] below provides sufficient conditions for to hold when $\Theta$ is unbounded.
\[thm:lower\_bound\_1\] Assume \[m\_star\], \[taylor\], \[new1\] and \[new2\]. For every $C>0$ let $$\zeta(C)=
\begin{cases}
{\mathbb{E}}\big[ \sup_{\theta\in V_{C}}\log (f_{\theta}/f_{\theta_\star}) \big],&\text{if \ref{new2}.\ref{A61} holds}\\
\log \big(\sup_{\theta\in V_C}{\mathbb{E}}[(f_{\theta}/f_{\theta_\star})]\big),&\text{if \ref{new2}.\ref{A62} holds}\\
\log \big(\sup_{\theta\in V_C}{\mathbb{E}}[ f_{\theta} ]\big), &\text{if \ref{new2}.\ref{A63} holds}
\end{cases}$$ and let $ k_\star\in\{1/2\}\cup \mathbb{N} $ be as in \[new2\]. Let $(h_t)_{t\geq 0}$ and $(t_p)_{p\geq 0}$ be such that Conditions \[thm1.1\]-\[thm1.2\] of Theorem \[thm:online\] hold and such that
1. \[thm2.1\] $h_{t_p}<h_{t_{p-1}}$ for all $p\geq 0$,
2. \[thm2.2\] $h_{t_p}=\Theta(t_p^{-\alpha})$ for some $\alpha>0$,
3. \[thm2.3\] There exists a constant $\beta_\star\in(0,\infty)$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:thm2}
\big|\zeta(h_{t_{p}}^{-\beta_\star})\big|^{-2k_\star}\sum_{i=1}^p (t_i-t_{i-1})^{-k_\star{\mathds{1}}_{\mathbb{N}}(k_\star)}\rightarrow 0.\end{aligned}$$
Then, Condition of Theorem \[thm:online\] holds.
Application of the main results {#sub_sec}
-------------------------------
The conditions on $(h_t)_{t\geq 0}$ in Theorems \[thm:online\]-\[thm:lower\_bound\_1\] are quite weak. In particular, as shown in the next result, they do not require that $\sum_{t=0}^\infty h_t^2<\infty$.
\[prop:h\_t\]
Let $C\in[1,\infty)$, $\alpha\in(0,\infty)$, $\varrho\in(0,\alpha\wedge 1)$ and $c\in(0,1)$ be some constants. Let $(t_p)_{p\geq 0}$ be defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:tp_formula}
t_0\in\mathbb{N}_0\quad C_{p-1}\in [c t^\varrho_{p-1}, t_{p-1}^\varrho/c],\quad t_p= t_{p-1}+\lceil C_{p-1} \log(t_{p-1})\vee C\rceil,\quad p\geq 1\end{aligned}$$ and let $(h_t)_{t\geq 0}$ be such that $h_{t_p}=\Theta(t_p^{-\alpha})$, such that $h_{t_p}<h_{t_{p-1}}$ for all $p\geq 1$ and such that, for all $t\geq 1$, either $h_{t-1}>h_t$ or $h_{t-1}=0$. Then, the sequences $(h_t)_{t\geq 0}$ and $(t_p)_{p\geq 0}$ verify Conditions \[thm1.1\]-\[thm1.3\] of Theorem \[thm:online\] and Conditions \[thm2.1\]-\[thm2.2\] of Theorem \[thm:lower\_bound\_1\]. In addition, the sequences $(h_t)_{t\geq 0}$ and $(t_p)_{p\geq 0}$ also verify Condition \[thm2.3\] of Theorem \[thm:lower\_bound\_1\] if \[new2\] holds for a $k_\star>(1+\varrho)/\varrho$.
By Proposition \[prop:h\_t\], it follows that Conditions \[thm1.1\]-\[thm1.3\] of Theorem \[thm:online\] and Conditions \[thm2.1\]-\[thm2.2\] of Theorem \[thm:lower\_bound\_1\] hold, for instance, when as in Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\_online\] we have $h_t=c\, t^{-\alpha}$ for all $t\geq 1$ and for some constant $(c,\alpha)\in(0,\infty)^2$, and when $(t_p)_{p\geq 0}$ is as defined in . The second part of the proposition notably implies that if \[new2\] holds for all $k_\star\in\mathbb{N}$, as in the examples of Propositions \[prop:assumption\], then any sequences $(t_p)_{p\geq 0}$ and $(h_t)_{t\geq 0}$ as defined in Proposition \[prop:h\_t\] verify the assumptions of Theorems \[thm:online\]-\[thm:lower\_bound\_1\].
The conclusions of Theorems \[thm:online\]-\[thm:lower\_bound\_1\] and of Proposition \[prop:h\_t\] are summarized in the following corollary.
\[cor:main\] Assume \[m\_star\]-\[new1\] and that \[new2\] holds for some $k_\star\geq 3$, and let $(h_t)_{t\geq 0}$ and $(t_p)_{p\geq 0}$ be as in Proposition \[prop:h\_t\] for some $\alpha>1/(k_\star-1)$ and $\varrho\in(1/(k_\star-1), \alpha \wedge 1)$. Then, $\tilde{\pi}_{t}\Rightarrow\delta_{\{\theta_\star\}}$ in ${\mathbb{P}}$-probability.
Discussion: Why Student’s $t$-distributions are needed?\[sub:student\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Our theoretical analysis of $(\tilde{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ requires that infinitely many times the distribution $\mu_{t-1}$ entering in the definition of $\tilde{\pi}_t$ is a Student’s $t$-distribution. This condition is used in the proof of Theorems \[thm:online\]–\[thm:lower\_bound\_1\] to guarantee that the mass of $\tilde{\pi}_t$ around $\theta_\star$ is large enough, sufficiently often (recall that Student’s $t$-distributions have thicker tails than Gaussian distributions). As shown in Proposition \[prop:continuity\], the smaller the $h_t$’s are the closer $\tilde{\pi}_t$ is from the posterior distribution $\pi_t$. Hence, since ${\mathbb{P}}(\pi_t\Rightarrow\delta_{\{\theta_\star\}})=1$ under the assumptions of Theorems \[thm:online\]–\[thm:lower\_bound\_1\] [@Kleijn2012], one may expect that the faster $h_t\rightarrow 0$ the less often it is needed to take a Student’s $t$-distribution for $\mu_{t-1}$ to guarantee that $\tilde{\pi}_t$ has sufficient mass on a neighbourhood of $\theta_\star$. The condition on $\varrho$ given in Proposition \[prop:h\_t\] supports this reasoning to some extend. However, in this result $\varrho$ cannot becomes arbitrarily large as $\alpha$ tends to $\infty$.
On the other hand, a consequence of the fat tails of the Student’s $t$-distributions is that regular Bayes updates (obtained when $\mu_{t-1}=\delta_{\{0\}}$) are more perturbed when $\mu_{t-1}$ belongs to this family of distributions than when $\mu_{t-1}$ is a Gaussian distribution. For this reason, Condition \[thm1.2\] of Theorem \[thm:online\] requires that the number of observations processed between two successive use of a Student’s $t$-distribution increases over time and converges to infinity as $t\rightarrow\infty$.
As shown in Proposition \[prop:h\_t\], one of the main merit of Theorems \[thm:online\]-\[thm:lower\_bound\_1\] is to guarantee the convergence on $\tilde{\pi}_t$ towards $\delta_{\{\theta_\star\}}$ under very week conditions on $(h_t)_{t\geq 0}$. It is an open problem whether or not a similar result can be achieved when, in the definition of $(\mu_t)_{t\geq 0}$, $m_t(\theta){\mathrm{d}}\theta$ is a Gaussian distribution for all $t\geq 0$.
Numerical Experiments\[sec:num\]
================================
The objective of this section is fourfold. Firstly, it is to study the impact of $(h_t)_{t\geq 0}$ on the convergence properties of $(\bar{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ in a more complicated set-up than in Section \[subsec:example\], and to compare the IBIS estimate of $\pi_t$ with those obtained by approximating $\tilde{\pi}_t$ and $\bar{\pi}_t$ using Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\] (Section \[sub:linear\_model\]). Secondly, it is to compare the number of observations that IBIS and Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\_online\] can process in a given amount of time. We use IBIS as benchmark in this section because, with the method introduced in this work, it is the only theoretically justified algorithm that can be used to approximate $(\pi_t)_{t\geq 1}$ sequentially. Recall that both Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\_online\] and IBIS are particular cases of Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\].
The IBIS algorithm may be particularly efficient when computing $f_\theta(y)$ is cheap (so that evaluating $\alpha^n_t(\cdot,\cdot)$ on Line \[expensive\] of Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\] is not too expressive, even for large values of $t-k_t$) and when the observations are actually i.i.d. Under these two conditions, and by letting $c_{\mathrm{ESS}}<1$ in Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\], as $t$ increases the number of resampling steps needed by IBIS may decrease sufficiently quickly to compensate the fact that the computational cost of each of them becomes larger [@MR1929161]. This phenomenon is illustrated with the example of Section \[sub:linear\_model\]. Sections \[sub:50\_dim\] and \[sub:latent\] provide two examples where computing $f_\theta(y)$ is very expensive and using IBIS is prohibitive, while the experiment of Section \[non-stationnary\] shows, with a simple logistic regression model with two parameters, that Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\_online\] can be much faster than IBIS when the observations are independent but not i.i.d. A real data example where Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\_online\] outperforms IBIS in term of running time is given in Section \[sub:online\].
Providing a fair comparison between the running time of two algorithms is a complicated exercise. Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\] is implemented in R [@R], except the computations of the likelihood terms appearing on Lines \[l1\], \[expensive\], \[l2\], \[l3\], \[No\_res1\] and \[No\_res2\], which are performed in C and parallelized over 6 workers. This implementation of Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\] is not particularity fast but should, to some extend, favour IBIS in the running time comparisons (recall that Line \[expensive\] is the most expensive step of IBIS). Still, these latter should be interpreted with care because they may depend heavily one the values chosen for the tuning parameters of Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\] (and notably on the value of $N$, $K$ and $c_{\mathrm{ESS}}$). We also remind the reader that IBIS computes a Monte Carlo approximation of $\pi_t$ while Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\_online\] computes a Monte Carlo estimate of a distribution which is itself an approximation of $\pi_t$. Consequently, the IBIS estimate of $\pi_t$ will be, in general, more accurate than the one obtained using Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\_online\].
The third objective of this section is to provide a first assessment of the online predictive performance of Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\_online\]. To this aim, in Section \[sub:online\] we consider a real data online binary classification example, with 53 predictors, and compare Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\_online\] with stochastic gradient descent and the version of streaming variational Bayes [@broderick2013streaming] proposed by @nguyen2017online [@zeno2018bayesian]. On this example we find that Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\_online\] largely outperforms these two competing methods.
If it is often reasonable to assume that the observations generated by a data stream are independent, in many real-world applications the i.i.d. assumption does not hold and, typically, the underlying data generating process is characterized by an evolving or a drifting phenomenon [@ditzler2015learning]. While none of the methods discussed in this work is designed for statistical learning in a time-varying environment, it is important to assess their ability to detect such a violation of the i.i.d. assumption. In addition, it has been proven that SGD may be useful in this context [@watanabe1975robbins] and it is of interest to study if this is also the case for the proposed approximate Bayesian approach. The last objective of this section is to provide a first answer to these questions, which is done in Section \[non-stationnary\] with a very simple model.
For reasons explained in Section \[sub:averaging\], we mainly focus below on the inference obtained using the sequence $(\bar{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 1}$ as an approximation of the posterior distributions $(\pi_t)_{t\geq 1}$. Lastly, because we consider computationally intensive examples, all the results presented below are based on a single run of the algorithms using a fixed seed for the underlying random number generator.
Simulation set-up
-----------------
Unless otherwise mentioned, all the results presented below are obtained using the R and C implementation of Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\] described above.
Throughout this section the sequence $(h_t)_{t\geq 0}$ will be such that $h_0=0$ while, for a $\Delta\in \mathbb{N}_0$ and an $\alpha>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sim_ht}
h_t=
\begin{cases}
t^{-\alpha} &t\in\{s\Delta,\,s\in\mathbb{N}\}\\
0&\text{otherwise},
\end{cases}\quad \forall t\geq 1.\end{aligned}$$ Then, we let $(t_p)_{p\geq 0}$ be defined by $t_{p}=\sup\{t\in \{s\Delta,\, s\in\mathbb{N}\}:\,\tilde{t}_p\geq t\}$, $p\geq 0$, where $$\tilde{t}_0=10,\quad \tilde{t}_p=\tilde{t}_{p-1}+\max\Big\{10, 10\big\lfloor \max\big\{0.5,\tilde{t}_{p-1}^{\,0.8\alpha}\big\}\log(\tilde{t}^{\,\alpha}_{t_{p-1}})\big\rfloor\Big\},\quad p\geq 1.$$ Notice that $(t_p)_{p\geq 0}$ verifies the conditions of Proposition \[prop:h\_t\]. To complete the specification of $(\mu_t)_{t\geq 0}$ we let $\nu=50$ and $\Sigma_t=I_d$ for all $t\geq 0$.
Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\] is implemented with $q_t(\theta_t|\theta_{t-1})=h_{t-1}^{-d}m_{t-1}((\theta_t-\theta_{t-1})/h_{t-1})$ for all $t\geq 1$ such that $h_{t-1}>0$. When $h_{t-1}=0$ we follow the standard approach in the SMC literature by letting $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:prop_q}
q_t(\theta |\theta'){\mathrm{d}}\theta=\mathcal{N}_d\Big(\theta', c\, \sum_{n=1}^N W_{t-1}^n\big(\theta_{t-1}^n-\sum_{m=1}^N W_{t-1}^m \theta_{t-1}^m\big)^T\big(\theta_{t-1}^n-\sum_{m=1}^N W_{t-1}^m \theta_{t-1}^m\big)\Big)\end{aligned}$$ for some scaling factor $c>0$. Remark that the covariance matrix in is the matrix $c{\mathrm{Var}}_{\tilde{\pi}_t^N}(\theta)$. While a direct application of the results in @roberts2001optimal, derived for the random walk Metropolis-Hastings algorithm, suggests to take $c=2.38^2 d^{-1}$ in , we find that, for the considered examples, $2.38 d^{-1/2}$ is a good default value for this constant. Hence, we let $c=2.38 d^{-1/2}$ and, for the remaining input parameters of Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\], we let $q_0=\tilde{\pi}_0$, $J=1$, $\mathcal{R}(\cdot,\cdot)$ be the SSP resampling algorithm [see @gerber2019negative Algorithm 1] and, somewhat arbitrarily, $c_{\mathrm{ESS}}=0.7$.
Except for the example of Section \[sub:linear\_model\], below we restrict ourself to the case $\alpha=0.5$ and $\Delta\in\{0,1\}$. Notice that when $\Delta=0$ in Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\] reduces to a particular version of IBIS, and we denote by $\pi_t^N$ the resulting estimate of $\pi_t$. Note also that when $\Delta=1$ Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\] reduces to Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\_online\] with $c=1$.
Lastly, for all $t\geq 0$ we let $\theta_t^N={\mathbb{E}}_{\pi_t^N}[\theta]$, $\tilde{\theta}_t^N={\mathbb{E}}_{\tilde{\pi}_t^N}[\theta]$, $\bar{\theta}^N_t=(t+1)^{-1}\sum_{s=0}^t\tilde{\theta}_s^N$ and $$\overline{{\mathrm{Var}}}_{t,N}(\theta)=\frac{1}{t+1}\Big\|\mathrm{diag}\Big(\sum_{s=0}^t{\mathbb{E}}_{\scalebox{1.5}{$\scriptscriptstyle \tilde{\pi}_s^N$}}[\theta\theta^T]-\sum_{s=0}^t(\tilde{\theta}_s^N)(\tilde{\theta}_s^N)^T\Big)\Big\|_\infty.$$ Remark that $\bar{\theta}^N_t$ is an estimate of $\bar{\theta}_t$ while $\overline{{\mathrm{Var}}}_{t,N}(\theta)$ is an estimate of $\max\{{\mathrm{Var}}_{\bar{\pi}_t}(\theta_i)\}_{i=1}^d$.
Bayesian quantile regression models\[sec:num\_quantile\]
--------------------------------------------------------
Let $(Z_t)_{t\geq 1}$ and $(X_t)_{t\geq 1}$ be sequences of i.i.d. random variables taking values in ${\mathbb{R}}$ and ${\mathbb{R}}^{d}$, respectively. We assume that, for every $\tau\in(0,1)$, the $\tau$-th conditional quantile function of $Z_t$ given $X_t$ does not dependent on $t$ and belongs to $\{\gamma(\theta, \cdot),\, \theta\in\Theta\}$, with $\Theta={\mathbb{R}}^d$. Then, following @Yu2001, for every $\tau\in(0,1)$ we let $$\begin{aligned}
g_{\tau,\theta}(z|x)=\tau(\tau-1)\exp\big(-0.5\big\{|z-\gamma(\theta,x)|+(2\tau-1)(z-\gamma(\theta,x))\big\}\big)\end{aligned}$$ and $\theta^{(\tau)}_{\star}=\operatorname*{argmax}_{\theta\in\Theta}{\mathbb{E}}[\log (g_{\tau,\theta}(Z_1|X_1))]$. Remark that $g_{\tau,\theta}(\cdot|x)$ is the density of an asymmetric Laplace distribution. We take for $\tilde{\pi}_0$ the $\mathcal{N}_d(\theta^{(\tau)}_{\star}-10,2 I_d)$ distribution, so that most of the mass of $\tilde{\pi}_0$ is faraway from the true parameter value, and we generate the observations as follows $$\begin{aligned}
Z_t|X_t\sim\mathcal{N}_1\big(\gamma(\theta^{(1/2)}_{\star},X_t),4 \big),\quad X_t\sim p_X,\quad t\geq 1\end{aligned}$$ where $p_X$ will depend on the specific example. Notice that the model is misspecified for ever $\tau\in(0,1)$ and that the misspecification becomes more severe as $\tau$ approaches 0 or 1.
### A 5-dimensional linear quantile regression model\[sub:linear\_model\]
In order to assess the properties of $(\bar{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ for various sequences $(h_t)_{t\geq 0}$ we consider a simple $d=5$ dimensional linear model, so that $\gamma(\theta,x)=\theta^Tx$. We let $\tau=0.9$, $\theta^{(1/2)}_{\star}$ be a random draw from the $\mathcal{N}_d(0,I_d)$ distribution and $p_X=\delta_{\{1\}}\otimes\mathcal{N}_{d-1}(0,\Sigma_X)$, with $\Sigma^{-1}_X$ a random draw from the Wishart distribution with $d-1$ degrees of freedom and scale matrix $I_{d-1}$. We simulate $T=10^7$ observations from the so-defined model and set $N=1\,000$ in Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\].
Figures \[fig:num\]-\[fig:num\] show the evolution of $\| \bar{\theta}^N_{t} -\theta^{(\tau)}_\star\|_\infty$ as a function of $t$ for $$(\Delta,\alpha)\in\big\{(1,0.5),(1,0.1),(10^4,0.1)\big\}.$$ For $(\Delta,\alpha)=(1,0.5)$ the estimation error $\| \bar{\theta}^N_{t} -\theta^{(\tau)}_\star\|_\infty$ decreases as $t^{-1/2}$ (Figure \[fig:num\]), while for $(\Delta,\alpha)=(1,0.1)$ the rate is much slower (Figure \[fig:num\]). Therefore, if as mentioned in Section \[sub:averaging\] the point estimate $\bar{\theta}_t$ can, empirically, converge at the optimal rate, there are situations where this is not the case. Further research is needed to understand the convergence properties of $\bar{\theta}_t$. Figure \[fig:num\] shows that increasing $\Delta$ from 1 to $10^4$ enables to recover an empirical convergence rate of order $t^{-1/2}$ when $\alpha=0.1$. Figure \[fig:num\] shows the evolution of $\overline{{\mathrm{Var}}}_{t,N}(\theta)$ as a function of $t$ and for $(\Delta,\alpha)\in\{(1,0.5),(1,0.1)\}$. As already observed in the toy example of Section \[subsec:example\] (see Table \[table:ex\]), we see that the convergence rate of the ‘variance’ $\overline{{\mathrm{Var}}}_{t,N}(\theta)$ is slower than that of $h^2_t$, and is thus slower than the usual $t^{-1}$ convergence that we have for the variance of $\theta$ under $\pi_t$. Indeed, Figure \[fig:num\] suggests that $\overline{{\mathrm{Var}}}_{t,N}(\theta)$ decreases as $t^{-0.1}$ for $\alpha=0.1$ and as $t^{-0.7}$ for $\alpha=0.5$. In Section \[sub:running\_time\] we explained that, for $(h_t)_{t\geq 0}$ as defined in , the running time of Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\] does not necessarily increase with $\Delta$ when $c_{\mathrm{ESS}}<1$. This example provides an illustration of this phenomenon. Indeed, for $\alpha=0.1$, the running time of the algorithm was 1.87 hour for $\Delta=1$ and 54 minutes for $\Delta=10^4$, against only 46 minutes for IBIS.
To assess, for $N=1\,000$ and $K=10\,000$, how the distributions $\bar{\pi}^{N,K}_t$ and $\tilde{\pi}^N_t$ are different from the IBIS approximation $\pi_t^N$ of $\pi_t$ we provide, in Table \[table:MMD\_sim\], estimates of ${\mathbb{E}}[d_{\mathrm{MMD}}(\bar{\pi}_t^{N,K}, \pi_t^N)|{\mathcal{F}}_t]$ and of ${\mathbb{E}}[d_{\mathrm{MMD}}(\tilde{\pi}_t^N, \pi_t^N)|{\mathcal{F}}_t]$, the expected MMD distance between $\bar{\pi}_t^{N,K}$ and $\pi_t^N$ and the expected MMD distance between $\tilde{\pi}_t^N$ and $\pi_t^N$, respectively. Notice that the expectations are w.r.t. the Monte Carlo approximation only. These expected distances are computed using the exponential kernel with bandwidth parameter equal to one (in which case $d_{\mathrm{MMD}}$ is a metric on $\mathcal{P}(\Theta)$) and with $\tilde{\pi}_t^N$ independent of $\pi_t^N$ given $\{Y_s\}_{i=1}^t$, for all $t\geq 1$ (and thus ${\mathbb{E}}[d_{\mathrm{MMD}}(\tilde{\pi}_t^N, \pi_t^N)|{\mathcal{F}}_t]>0$ even when $h_s=0$ for all $s\in\{0,\dots,t-1\}$).
From the results presented in Table \[table:MMD\_sim\], obtained for $t\in\{10^3,10^4,10^5\}$ and different values of $(\Delta,\alpha)$, we observe that ${\mathbb{E}}[d_{\mathrm{MMD}}(\bar{\pi}_t^{N,K}, \pi_t^N)|{\mathcal{F}}_t]$ decreases (i) when $t$ increases, in the case $\Delta=1$ and $\alpha\in\{0.5,0.6\}$, (ii) when $\alpha$ increases, in the case $\Delta=1$ and $t=10^5$, and (iii) as $\Delta$ increases, in all cases but one. Observation (i) (resp. observation (ii)) can be explained by the results of Section \[sec:main\] (resp. of Proposition \[prop:continuity\]), which imply that as $t$ increases (resp. as $\alpha$ increases) $\bar{\pi}_t^{N,K}$ and $\pi_t^N$ are Monte Carlo approximations of distributions that become more and more similar. This explanation for (i) is formalized in Section \[sub:post\_app\]. Observation (iii) is also intuitive since, informally speaking, increasing $\Delta$ makes $\tilde{\pi}_t$ more similar to $\pi_t$. It is interesting to note that for $t=10^4$ the expected distance ${\mathbb{E}}[d_{\mathrm{MMD}}(\bar{\pi}_t^{N,K}, \pi_t^N)|{\mathcal{F}}_t]$ is the smallest when $\alpha=0.5$ while for $t=10^3$ it is minimized when $\alpha=0.3$. Reducing $\alpha$ improves the exploration of the parameter space performed by Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\], which may indeed decrease ${\mathbb{E}}[d_{\mathrm{MMD}}(\bar{\pi}_t^{N,K}, \pi_t^N)|{\mathcal{F}}_t]$ for small values of $t$. The global picture of the results for ${\mathbb{E}}[d_{\mathrm{MMD}}(\tilde{\pi}_t^N, \pi_t^N)|{\mathcal{F}}_t]$ is similar.
$\Delta=1$ $\Delta=5\,000$ $\Delta=10\,000$
-------------- ----------------------- --------------------------- -------------------------------
$\alpha=0.6$ (0.391, 0.391, 0.196) (**0.248**, 0.157, 0.206) (**0.248**, **0.144**, 0.153)
$\alpha=0.5$ (0.344, 0.280, 0.203) (**0.248**, 0.156, 0.179) (**0.248**, **0.144**, 0.146)
$\alpha=0.3$ (0.328, 0.369, 0.334) (**0.248**, 0.162, 0.173) (**0.248**, **0.144**, 0.143)
$\alpha=0.6$ (0.429, 0.264, 0.136) (**0.057**, 0.108, 0.274) (**0.057**, **0.047**, 0.198)
$\alpha=0.5$ (0.187, 0.194, 0.171) (**0.057**, 0.103, 0.191) (**0.057**, **0.047**, 0.160)
$\alpha=0.3$ (0.249, 0.317, 0.318) (**0.057**, 0.094, 0.169) (**0.057**, **0.047**, 0.150)
: Model of Section \[sub:linear\_model\]. Estimated values of ${\mathbb{E}}[d_{\mathrm{MMD}}(\bar{\pi}_t^{N,K}, \pi_t^N)|{\mathcal{F}}_t]$(top) and of ${\mathbb{E}}[d_{\mathrm{MMD}}(\tilde{\pi}_t^N, \pi_t^N)|{\mathcal{F}}_t]$(bottom) for $t=10^3$ (first number), $t=10^4$ (second number) and $t=10^5$ (third number), where $N=1\,000$ and $K=10\,000$. The results are obtained from 20 independent replications. The numbers in black correspond to the case where $\tilde{\pi}_s=\pi_s$ for all $s\in\{0,\dots,t-1\}$.\[table:MMD\_sim\]
### A 50-dimensional non linear quantile regression model\[sub:50\_dim\]
We now consider a $d=50$ non-linear model where, inspired by @Hunter2000, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:nonlin}
\gamma(\theta,x)=\sum_{i=1}^d\big(e^{-x_{i}\theta^2_i}+x_{i}\theta_{d-i+1}\big),\quad \theta^{(1/2)}_\star=(1,\dots,1),\quad p_X=\delta_{\{1\}}\otimes {\mathcal{U}}(0,1)^{d-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Notice that the exponential and square functions appearing in , as well as the relatively large value of $d$, make the evaluation of the corresponding log-likelihood function expensive. We simulate $T=10^6$ observations from the so-defined model and perform simulations for $\tau=0.5$ (the only value of $\tau\in(0,1)$ for which $\theta_\star^{(\tau)}$ is known). For this example we let $N=K=10\,000$ and $(\Delta,\alpha)=(1,0.5)$, that is we consider Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\_online\] with $c=1$ and $\alpha=0.5$. The estimation error $\| \bar{\theta}^N_{t} -\theta^{(\tau)}_\star\|_\infty$, presented in Figure \[fig:num\], decreases at rate $t^{-1/2}$, suggesting that the estimator $\bar{\theta}_t$ can converge at this optimal rate in challenging settings. However, and as for the previous examples, we observe that the convergence rate of the ‘variance’ $\overline{{\mathrm{Var}}}_{t,N}(\theta)$ is slower than that of $h_t^2=t^{-1}$ (see Figure \[fig:num\] where this quantity decreases as $t^{-0.7}$). We now run IBIS (Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\] with $h_t=0$ for all $t\geq 0$) for the same amount of time that was needed to approximate $\{\bar{\pi}_t\}_{t=1}^T$, namely approximatively 15.5 hours. For this computational budget only $T'=129\,435$ observations (13% of the whole sample) have been processed by IBIS and, as shown in Figure \[fig:num\], the estimation error of $\theta_{T'}^N$ is about 1.77 times bigger than for the estimate $\bar{\theta}^N_{T}$ (0.46 against 0.26). By comparison, if $\|\theta_t^N- \theta_\star^{(1/2)}\|=C t^{-1/2}$ for all $t$ and some constant $C<\infty$, observing $T$ data points instead of $T'$ will divide the approximation error of the IBIS estimate of $\theta_\star$ by a factor 2.78.
It is worth mentioning that in this experiment the only reason why Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\] computes an approximation $\bar{\pi}_t^{N,K}$ of $\bar{\pi}_t$ with $K=10\,000$ is to make as fair as possible the above comparison between the running time of Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\_online\] and the running time of IBIS (recall that the point estimate $\bar{\theta}^N_{t}$ is not computed from $\bar{\pi}_t^{N,K}$).
[0.35]{}
[0.35]{}
[0.35]{}
[0.35]{}
[0.35]{} ![Examples of Sections \[sec:num\_quantile\]-\[sub:latent\]. Plots ()-() are for the example of Section \[sub:linear\_model\]. Plot () shows $\| \bar{\theta}^N_{t} -\theta^{(\tau)}_\star\|_\infty$ for $(\Delta,\alpha)=(1,0.5)$, plot () shows $\| \bar{\theta}^N_{t} -\theta^{(\tau)}_\star\|_\infty$ for $(\Delta,\alpha)=(1,0.1)$ (solid line, SL) and for $(\Delta,\alpha)=(10^4,0.1)$ (dashed line, DL), and plot () shows $\overline{{\mathrm{Var}}}_{t,N}(\theta)$ for $(\Delta,\alpha)=(1,0.5)$ (SL) and for $(\Delta,\alpha)=(1,0.1)$ (DL). Plots ()-() are for the example of Section \[sub:50\_dim\]. Plot () shows $\| \bar{\theta}^N_{t} -\theta^{(\tau)}_\star\|_\infty$ (SL) and $\| \theta_t^N -\theta^{(\tau)}_\star\|_\infty$ (DL) and plot () shows $\overline{{\mathrm{Var}}}_{t,N}(\theta)$. Plots ()-() are for the example of Section \[sub:latent\]. Plot () shows $\| \bar{\theta}^N_{t} -\theta_\star\|_\infty$ and plots ()-() show the marginal distributions of $\bar{\pi}^{N,K}_T$ (the horizontal lines give the true parameter values). In plots ()-() the dotted line represents the $\gamma t^{-x}$ line, with $x>0$ given in the plots and some constant $\gamma>0$. \[fig:num\]](figs/Non_lin_quantile2.pdf "fig:")
[0.35]{}
[0.35]{}
[0.35]{} ![Examples of Sections \[sec:num\_quantile\]-\[sub:latent\]. Plots ()-() are for the example of Section \[sub:linear\_model\]. Plot () shows $\| \bar{\theta}^N_{t} -\theta^{(\tau)}_\star\|_\infty$ for $(\Delta,\alpha)=(1,0.5)$, plot () shows $\| \bar{\theta}^N_{t} -\theta^{(\tau)}_\star\|_\infty$ for $(\Delta,\alpha)=(1,0.1)$ (solid line, SL) and for $(\Delta,\alpha)=(10^4,0.1)$ (dashed line, DL), and plot () shows $\overline{{\mathrm{Var}}}_{t,N}(\theta)$ for $(\Delta,\alpha)=(1,0.5)$ (SL) and for $(\Delta,\alpha)=(1,0.1)$ (DL). Plots ()-() are for the example of Section \[sub:50\_dim\]. Plot () shows $\| \bar{\theta}^N_{t} -\theta^{(\tau)}_\star\|_\infty$ (SL) and $\| \theta_t^N -\theta^{(\tau)}_\star\|_\infty$ (DL) and plot () shows $\overline{{\mathrm{Var}}}_{t,N}(\theta)$. Plots ()-() are for the example of Section \[sub:latent\]. Plot () shows $\| \bar{\theta}^N_{t} -\theta_\star\|_\infty$ and plots ()-() show the marginal distributions of $\bar{\pi}^{N,K}_T$ (the horizontal lines give the true parameter values). In plots ()-() the dotted line represents the $\gamma t^{-x}$ line, with $x>0$ given in the plots and some constant $\gamma>0$. \[fig:num\]](figs/PB2.pdf "fig:")
[0.35]{}
A latent variable model: Beta-Poisson distribution\[sub:latent\]
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Beta-Poisson distribution, which is a popular model for the distribution of single-cell gene expression levels [see @lee2019unbiased and references therein], is such that $X\sim$Beta-Poisson$(\theta)$ if $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:PB1}
X|W\sim\mathrm{Poisson}(\exp(\theta_1) W),\quad W \sim\mathrm{Beta}(\exp(\theta_2),\exp(\theta_3)),\quad \theta\in\Theta:={\mathbb{R}}^3.\end{aligned}$$ Following @lee2019unbiased we let $\{f_\theta,\theta\in\Theta\}$ be the family of p.d.f. on ${\mathbb{R}}$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:PB_model}
f_\theta(y)=\sum_{x=0}^\infty \varphi(y;x,25)p_{\theta}(x),\quad (y,\theta)\in{\mathbb{R}}\times\Theta\end{aligned}$$ with $\varphi(\cdot;m,\sigma^2)$ the density of the $\mathcal{N}_1(m,\sigma^2)$ distribution and $p_{\theta}(\cdot)$ the density of the Beta-Poisson$(\theta)$ distribution (w.r.t. the counting measure on $\{0,1,\dots,\}$).
Notice that defines a latent variable model and that $f_\theta(y)$ cannot be computed point-wise. However, using standard pseudo-marginal arguments [@Andrieu2009], it is easily checked that Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\] remains valid if, in this latter, each quantity of the form $\prod_{i=1}^k f_\theta(y_i)$ is replaced by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:PB_es}
\prod_{i=1}^k\Big(\frac{1}{m k}\sum_{j=1}^{m k} \varphi(y_i;X^{(j)}_i,25)\Big),\quad X_i^{(j)}{\stackrel{\mathclap{\normalfont\mbox{\tiny{iid}}}}{\sim}}\text{Beta-Poisson}(\theta)\end{aligned}$$ for some $m\in\mathbb{N}$. Remark that in we impose that the number of simulations increases linearly with $k$ to control the relative variance of the estimator [@lee2019unbiased].
We simulate $T=10^5$ independent observations $\{Y_t\}_{t=1}^T$ from $f_{\theta_\star}(y)\eta({\mathrm{d}}y)$ where, following @lee2019unbiased, $\exp(\theta_\star)=(500,2,8)$. In addition, as in this latter reference, we let $m=40$ in and $\tilde{\pi}_0({\mathrm{d}}\theta)$ be such that if $\theta\sim \tilde{\pi}_0({\mathrm{d}}\theta)$ then, for $i=1,2,3$, the random variable $\exp(\theta_i)$ has an exponential distribution with mean $\lambda_i$, with $\lambda_1=1\,000$ and $\lambda_2=\lambda_3=10$. As for the previous example, we let $N=K=10\,000$ and $(\Delta,\alpha)=(1,0.5)$ (i.e. we consider Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\_online\] with $c=1$ and $\alpha=0.5$). Figure \[fig:num\] shows the evolution of $\| \bar{\theta}^N_{t} -\theta_\star\|_\infty$ as a function of $t$. We observe that the estimation error first decreases as $t^{-1/2}$ and then at a faster rate (for $t>10^{4.7}$, say). From the definition - of the model we see that the sequence $(Y_t)_{t\geq 1}$ contains little information about $\theta_\star$, which may suggest that a larger sample size is needed for the sequence $\{\bar{\pi}_t\}_{t=1}^T$ to be in a stationary regime where it concentrates on $\theta_\star$ at a constant rate. In any cases, the important point is that in Figure \[fig:num\] the estimate $\bar{\theta}^N_{t}$ does not concentrate at a sub-optimal rate over the considered sample. The marginal distributions of $\bar{\pi}_T$, as estimated by $\bar{\pi}_T^{N,K}$, are presented in Figures \[fig:num\]-\[fig:num\].
For this example the time needed to approximate $\{\bar{\pi}_t\}_{t= 0}^T$ was about 2.5 hours. During this period of time, IBIS processed only 31 observations and thus failed to provide any significant new information about $\theta$, compared to the one induced by the prior distribution $\tilde{\pi}_0$.
We conclude this subsection by mentioning that @lee2019unbiased introduced a method which allows to use, in , only a sample of size ${\mathcal{O}}(mk)$ from the $\text{Beta-Poisson}(\theta)$ distribution while preserving the validity of pseudo-marginal algorithms. Although computing this new estimate of $\prod_{i=1}^k f_\theta(y_i)$ still requires ${\mathcal{O}}(mk^2)$ operations, their estimator is much cheaper than the naive one adopted in this subsection. Using the estimator of @lee2019unbiased within the approach developed in this work should lead to a fast algorithm for approximate Bayesian inference in latent variable models. Exploring this question further is however beyond the scope of the paper.
Logistic regression\[sub:logistic\]
-----------------------------------
We now let $d>1$, $\Theta={\mathbb{R}}^d$ and consider $T$ observations $\{(z_t,x_t)\}_{t=1}^T$ such that $z_t\in \{0,1\}$ and $x_t\in {\mathbb{R}}^{d-1}$ for all $t$. We model the observations as independent random variables such that the conditional distribution of $Y_t$ given $X_t=x$ is independent of $t$ and belongs to $\{p_{\theta}(\cdot|x),\,\theta\in\Theta\}$, where for every $\theta\in \Theta$ the function $p_{\theta}(\cdot|\cdot)$ is defined by (using the notation $\theta_{2:d}=(\theta_2,\dots,\theta_d)$) $$p_{\theta}(z|x)=\frac{z}{1+\exp(-\theta_1-\theta_{2:d}^T x)}+\frac{(1-z)\exp(-\theta_1-\theta_{2:d}^T x)}{1+\exp(-\theta_1-\theta_{2:d}^T x)},\quad (z,x)\in\{0,1\}\times{\mathbb{R}}^{d-1}.$$ The prior distribution $\tilde{\pi}_0({\mathrm{d}}\theta)$ is the $\mathcal{N}_d(0,2I_d)$ distribution throughout this subsection.
[0.30]{} ![Examples of Section \[sub:logistic\]. Plot () is for the example of Section \[sub:online\]. The solid line is for Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\_online\], the dotted line for SVB and the dashed line for SGD. Plots ()-() are for the example of Section \[non-stationnary\]. In plot () (resp. in plot ()) the solid line shows $\theta_{\star,2}(t)$ (resp. $\theta_{\star,1}$), the dotted line shows $\theta_{t,2}^N$ (resp. $\theta_{t,1}^N$) and the dashed line is for $\bar{\theta}_{t,2}^N$ (resp. $\bar{\theta}_{t,1}^N$). In plot() the non-smooth line is for $\tilde{\theta}_{t,2}^N$. \[fig:NS\]](figs/Cover.pdf "fig:")
[0.30]{} ![Examples of Section \[sub:logistic\]. Plot () is for the example of Section \[sub:online\]. The solid line is for Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\_online\], the dotted line for SVB and the dashed line for SGD. Plots ()-() are for the example of Section \[non-stationnary\]. In plot () (resp. in plot ()) the solid line shows $\theta_{\star,2}(t)$ (resp. $\theta_{\star,1}$), the dotted line shows $\theta_{t,2}^N$ (resp. $\theta_{t,1}^N$) and the dashed line is for $\bar{\theta}_{t,2}^N$ (resp. $\bar{\theta}_{t,1}^N$). In plot() the non-smooth line is for $\tilde{\theta}_{t,2}^N$. \[fig:NS\]](figs/beta.pdf "fig:")
[0.30]{} ![Examples of Section \[sub:logistic\]. Plot () is for the example of Section \[sub:online\]. The solid line is for Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\_online\], the dotted line for SVB and the dashed line for SGD. Plots ()-() are for the example of Section \[non-stationnary\]. In plot () (resp. in plot ()) the solid line shows $\theta_{\star,2}(t)$ (resp. $\theta_{\star,1}$), the dotted line shows $\theta_{t,2}^N$ (resp. $\theta_{t,1}^N$) and the dashed line is for $\bar{\theta}_{t,2}^N$ (resp. $\bar{\theta}_{t,1}^N$). In plot() the non-smooth line is for $\tilde{\theta}_{t,2}^N$. \[fig:NS\]](figs/a.pdf "fig:")
### Online binary classification using the Covertype dataset \[sub:online\]
In this subsection we assess the online predictive performance of Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\_online\] where, as is the last two examples, $c=1$ and $\alpha=0.5$. To this aim, we consider the Covertype dataset[^1], where $z_t=1$ if forest $t$ is of type 1 and 0 otherwise, and for which $d=54$ and $T=581\,011$. The mean of the $z_t$’s is approximatively 0.365 and the observations are randomly permuted to ensure that they are not ordered in any specific way.
For every $t\geq 1$ and $\theta\in\Theta$ we let $z(\theta,x_{t+1})={\mathds{1}}_{[0.5,1]}\big(p_{\theta}(1|x_{t+1})\big)$ be the corresponding predicted value of $Z_{t+1}$. Then, the objective of online classification algorithms is to learn on the fly parameter values $(\check{\theta}_t)_{t\geq 1}$ such that, for all $t\geq 1$, the average classification error $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:classification}
\frac{1}{t}\sum_{s=1}^t\big|z_{s+1}-z(\check{\theta}_s,x_{s+1})\big|\end{aligned}$$ is as small as possible.
In addition to Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\_online\], for which we let $\check{\theta}_t=\bar{\theta}_t^N$ for all $t\geq 1$, we consider two popular learning algorithms, namely stochastic gradient descent (SGD) and streaming variational Bayes [SVB, @broderick2013streaming]. For the former algorithm we let $\check{\theta}_t=\bar{\theta}_t^{\,\mathrm{sgd}}$ for all $t\geq 1$, where $$\bar{\theta}_t^{\,\mathrm{sgd}}=\frac{t-1}{t}\bar{\theta}_{t-1}^{\,\mathrm{sgd}}+\frac{1}{t}\theta_t^{\mathrm{sgd}},\quad \theta_t^{\mathrm{sgd}}=\theta_{t-1}^{\mathrm{sgd}}+\eta_t\nabla_\theta \log p_{\theta_{t-1}^{\mathrm{sgd}}}(z_t|x_t),\quad t\geq 1$$ with $(\eta_t)_{t\geq 1}$ a sequence of learning rates and where, to be consistent with the prior distribution $\tilde{\pi}_0$ that we consider, $\theta_{0}^{\mathrm{sgd}}=(0,\dots,0)$. Following the theoretical results on online learning algorithms [see e.g. @shalev2011online] we take $\eta_t=c t^{-1/2}$ for all $t\geq 1$ and for some constant $c>0$. To choose $c$ we run SGD for different values of this parameter and retain the one that gives the lowest classification errors, namely $c=0.001$.
Following @cherief2019generalization, we consider the following implementation of the SVB algorithm proposed by @nguyen2017online [@zeno2018bayesian], $$\label{eq:svb}
\begin{split}
&\theta_t^{\mathrm{svb}}=\theta_{t-1}^{\mathrm{svb}}+ c\, t^{-\frac{1}{2}}\nabla_\theta{\mathbb{E}}_{U\sim\mathcal{N}_d(0,I)}\Big[ \log p_{\theta_{t-1}^{\mathrm{svb}}+s_{t-1} U}(z_t|x_t) \Big]\\
&s_t=s_{t-1}f\bigg(\frac{0.5\, c t^{-\frac{1}{2}}}{s_{t-1}}\nabla_{s}{\mathbb{E}}_{U\sim\mathcal{N}_d(0,I)}\Big[ \log p_{\theta_{t-1}^{\mathrm{svb}}+s_{t-1} U}(z_t|x_t) \Big]\bigg),\quad t\geq 1
\end{split}$$ where $c>0$ is some constant, where all vector multiplications and divisions should be understood componentwise (notice that $s_t$ is a $d$-dimensional vector for all $t$) and where the function $f(x)=\sqrt{1+x^2}-x$ is applied componentwise. The expectations appearing in are not tractable and therefore need to be approximated. For $M\in\mathbb{N}$ we let $(\theta_t^{M,\mathrm{svb}})_{t\geq 1}$ be defined as in but with the expectations replaced by Monte Carlo estimates, i.e. $$\begin{split}
&\theta_t^{M,\mathrm{svb}}=\theta_{t-1}^{M,\mathrm{svb}}+ c\, t^{-\frac{1}{2}}\frac{1}{M}\sum_{i=1}^M\nabla_\theta \log p_{\theta_{t-1}^{M,\mathrm{svb}}+s^M_{t-1} u^{(t)}_i}(z_t|x_t)\\
&s^M_t=s^M_{t-1}f\bigg(\frac{0.5\, c t^{-\frac{1}{2}}}{s^M_{t-1}}\frac{1}{M}\sum_{i=1}^M\nabla_{s} \log p_{\theta_{t-1}^{M,\mathrm{svb}}+s^M_{t-1} u^{(t)}_i}(z_t|x_t)\bigg),\quad t\geq 1
\end{split}$$ where, for every $t\geq 1$, $ \{u^{(t)}\}_{i=1}^M$ is a set of $M$ independent realizations of the $\mathcal{N}_d(0,I_d)$ distribution. To be consistent with the prior distribution $\tilde{\pi}_0$ that we consider we let $\theta_{0}^{M,\mathrm{svb}}=(0,\dots,0)$ and $s^M_0=(\sqrt{2},\dots,\sqrt{2})$. We set $M=2\,000$ (preliminary simulations showed that taking $M=1\,000$ lead to numerical instabilities) and, following a similar approach as for SGD, we set $c=0.001$. Then, for SVB we let $\check{\theta}_t=\bar{\theta}_t^{M,\mathrm{svb}}:=t^{-1}\sum_{s=1}^t\theta_t^{M,\mathrm{svb}}$ for all $t\geq 1$.
The results are given in Figure \[fig:NS\]), which shows the evolution of the average classification error as a function of $t$ for the three online learning algorithms that we consider. We observe that, on this dataset, Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\_online\] significantly outperforms SGD and SVB, for all $t\geq 1$. We also see that SVB and SGD have very similar prediction errors. For these experiments the three algorithms are implemented in C and the running time was approximatively 59 minutes for Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\_online\], 1.86 hours for SVB (59 minutes for $M=1\,000$) and less than one second for SGD. Notice that Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\_online\] is therefore not slower than SVB.
We do not report the results for the cases $\check{\theta}_t=\tilde{\theta}_t^N$, $\check{\theta}_t=\theta_t^{\mathrm{sgd}}$ and $\check{\theta}_t=\theta_t^{M,\mathrm{svb}}$ because, for each learning method and for all $t\geq 520$, the corresponding average classification error is larger than the one reported in Figure \[fig:NS\]). Lastly, with the R and C implementation of Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\] considered in the previous subsections, the running time to proceed all the observations was approximatively 1.74 hours for Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\_online\] while, during this time lapse, only $T=41\,244$ observations (7.1% of the sample) were processed by IBIS.
### A time-varying environment example \[non-stationnary\]
Lastly, we compare the behaviour of the sequences $(\pi_t)_{t\geq 1}$, $(\tilde{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 1}$ and $(\bar{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 1}$ in a time-varying environment. To this aim we let $d=2$, $T=10^6$ and generate the observations $\{(z_t, x_t)\}_{t=1}^T$ as follows: $$Z_t|X_t\sim \mathrm{Bernoulli}\Big(\frac{1}{1+\exp(-\theta_{\star,1}-\theta_{\star,2}(t) X_t)}\Big),\quad X_t{\stackrel{\mathclap{\normalfont\mbox{\tiny{iid}}}}{\sim}}\mathcal{N}_1(1,1),\quad t=1,\dots T$$ with $\theta_{\star,1}= -2$ and $\theta_{\star,2}(u)=1+0.2\sin(10 u/T)$ for all $u\geq 0$. The model that we consider in this subsection is therefore misspecified since the true underlying parameter $\theta_{\star,2}$ slowly varies over time (periodic effect), see Figure \[fig:NS\]. The sample mean of the $z_t$’s is approximatively 0.31
We let $N=K=1\,000$ and, as for the last three examples, we let $(\Delta,\alpha)=(1,0.5)$. The running time of IBIS was 26 minutes, against 10.5 minutes to compute $\tilde{\pi}_T^N$ and 12 minutes to compute both $\tilde{\pi}_T^N$ and $\bar{\pi}_T^{N,K}$. Figure \[fig:NS\]) shows the evolution of $\theta_{t,2}^N$, $\bar{\theta}^N_{t,2}$ and $\tilde{\theta}^N_{t,2}$ as a function of $t$. We observe that the first two quantities evolve in a very similar way, providing another example where $\bar{\theta}_t$ gives a good approximation of the posterior mean of $\theta$. However, these two estimates fail to capture the evolution of $\theta_{\star,2}(t)$ and seem to stabilize over time. By contrast, $\tilde{\theta}^N_{t,2}$ follows closely the evolution of $\theta_{\star,2}(t)$. Figure \[fig:NS\]) shows the evolution of $\bar{\theta}_{t,1}^N$ and of $\theta_{t,1}^N$ over time (results for $\tilde{\theta}^N_{t,1}$ are omitted to make the plot readable). We observe that these two estimates are very close to the true parameter value, although $\bar{\theta}_{t,1}^N$ is always closer to $\theta_{\star,1}$ than $\theta_{t,1}^N$.
This example suggests that a non-stationary data generating process is more easily detected from the sequence $(\tilde{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 1}$ than from the sequences $(\bar{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 1}$ and $(\pi_t)_{t\geq 1}$, and that like SGD [@watanabe1975robbins], the former sequence of distributions may be useful for online learning in non-stationary environments. This greater ability of $\tilde{\pi}_t$ to adapt to changes in the distribution of the data is intuitive, since informally speaking the past observations $\{Y_s\}_{s=1}^{t-1}$ have less weights in the definition of $\tilde{\pi}_t$ than in the definition of $\bar{\pi}_t$ and of $\pi_t$.
Conclusion\[sec:conclusion\]
============================
In its simplest form the approach for online approximate Bayesian learning introduced in this paper reduces to using a particle filter algorithm to approximate a sequence of filtering distributions associated to a particular state-space model. When this is the case, for sake of simplicity we approximate, in Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\_online\], the sequence of filtering distribution $(\tilde{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ using the simplest type of PF algorithms, known as bootstrap PF algorithms. However, the literature on particle filtering is abundant, and the proposed approach can leverage the several extensions of the bootstrap PF algorithm that have been proposed since its introduction by @Gordon. For instance, the auxiliary particle filter [@PittShep] is a popular alternative to the bootstrap particle filter, in which the observation $Y_t$ is used to generate the sample $\{\theta_t^n\}_{n=1}^N$. Let us also mention the sequential quasi-Monte Carlo algorithm of @MR3351446, whose error converges at a faster rate than that of PF algorithms when the dimension of the state variable is small, and the nested sequential Monte Carlo sampler of @naesseth2015nested that can be used for some high dimensional filtering problems. The convergence results established in this work have the advantage to rely on mild assumptions on the sequence $(\tilde{\pi}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ and on the statistical model. However, further research is needed to understand precisely the convergence properties of the proposed approach. Notably, simulation results suggest that the point estimate $\bar{\theta}_t$ usually converges at the optimal $t^{-1/2}$ rate, and future research should aim at establishing conditions under which this convergence behaviour happens. Establishing the link between the convergence rate of $\tilde{\pi}_t$ and that of $h_t$ is another important problem to solve in order to understand how quickly the error we make when approximating $\pi_t$ by $\tilde{\pi}_t$, or by $\bar{\pi}_t$, vanishes as $t$ tends to infinity. More research is also needed to understand the predictive performance of Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\_online\] in online learning environments. Notably, based on the results of @cherief2019generalization obtained for online variational methods, we conjecture that Algorithm \[algo:pi\_tilde\_online\] should lead to small prediction errors when the value of its $\alpha$ parameter is set to 0.5. The example of Section \[sub:online\] supports this supposition and its theoretical validation is an interesting open problem.
Proofs
=======
Additional notation and conventions
-----------------------------------
Below we use the convention that empty sums equal zero and empty products equal one, and let $\mathbb{N}_0=\{0\}\cup\mathbb{N}$, ${\mathbb{R}}_{\geq 0}=[0,+\infty)$ and ${\mathbb{R}}_{> 0}=(0,+\infty)$. For a real-valued function $\varphi$ we let $\|\varphi\|_\infty=\sup_x|\varphi(x)|$.
Let $(\tilde{U}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ be a sequence of independent random variables such that, for all $t\geq 0$, $\tilde{U}_t\sim m_t(u){\mathrm{d}}u$, and let $U_t=h_t\tilde{U}_t$ for all $t\geq 0$, note that $U_t\sim\mu_t$ for all $t\geq 0$.
For integers $0\leq k< t$ we define $$u_{k:t}=(u_{k},\dots, u_{t}),\quad [u_{k:t}]= \max_{k\leq s<t}\big\|\sum_{i=s}^{t-1}u_i\big\|,\quad \forall (u_{k},\dots, u_{t})\in{\mathbb{R}}^{d(t-k+1)}$$ and let $$\Theta_{\epsilon,k:t}=\big\{u_{k:t}\in {\mathbb{R}}^{d(t-k+1)}:\,[u_{(k+1):t}]<\epsilon\big\},\quad\epsilon>0.$$
For every $t\geq 0$ we let ${\mathcal{F}}_t$ be the $\sigma$-algebra generated by $(Y_1,\dots, Y_t)$ (with the convention ${\mathcal{F}}_0={\varnothing}$) and, for every $0\leq k<t $ and $A\in\mathcal{B}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$, we let $$\pi'_{k,t}(A)=\frac{\int_{A} (\mu_{k}*\tilde{\pi}_{k})\big(\theta-\sum_{s=k+1}^{t-1}U_s\big)\prod_{s=k+1}^{t} \tilde{f}_{\theta-\sum_{i=s}^{t-1}U_i}(Y_s){\mathrm{d}}\theta}{\int_{\Theta}{\mathbb{E}}\big[ (\mu_{k}*\tilde{\pi}_{k})\big(\theta-\sum_{s=k+1}^{t-1}U_s\big)\prod_{s=k+1}^{t} \tilde{f}_{\theta-\sum_{i=s}^{t-1}U_i}(Y_s)\big|{\mathcal{F}}_{k}\big]{\mathrm{d}}\theta}.$$
Preliminary results
-------------------
\[lemma:new\] Assume \[new\] and let $A_\star\in \mathcal{B}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ and $\tilde{A}_\star\in \mathcal{B}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ be as in \[new\]. Then, there exists a set $A'_\star\in \mathcal{B}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$, with $A'_\star\subsetneq \tilde{A}_\star$, that contains a neighbourhood of $A_\star$ and such that, for every sequence $(\gamma'_t)_{t\geq 1}$ in ${\mathbb{R}}_{\geq 0}$ such that $\gamma'_t\rightarrow 0$m and every sequence $(s_t)_{t\geq 1}$ in $\mathbb{N}_0$ such that $\inf_{t\geq 1}(t-s_t)\geq 1$ and such that $(t-s_t)\rightarrow+\infty$, there exists a sequence $(\delta_t)_{t\geq 1}$ in ${\mathbb{R}}_{> 0}$ such that $\delta_t\rightarrow 0$ and such that $${\mathbb{P}}\Big(\sup_{(u_{s_t:t},\theta)\in \Theta_{\gamma_t',s_t:t}\times (A'_\star\cap\Theta)}\prod_{s=s_t+1}^t (\tilde{f}_{\theta-\sum_{i=s}^{t-1} u_i}/f_{\theta}) (Y_s)<e^{(t-s_t)\delta_{t}}\Big)\rightarrow 1.$$
The proof of this result is given in Section \[p-lemma:new\].
The following results rewrite the probability measure $\tilde{\pi}_t$ in a more convenient way.
\[lemma:pi\] With ${\mathbb{P}}$-probability one we have, for all $t\geq 0$ and all $A\in\mathcal{B}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$, $$\tilde{\pi}_t(A)=\frac{\int_A {\mathbb{E}}\big[ (\mu_0*\tilde{\pi}_0) \big(\theta-\sum_{s=1}^{t-1}U_s\big)\prod_{s=1}^{t} \tilde{f}_{\theta -\sum_{i=s}^{t-1}U_i}(Y_s)\big|{\mathcal{F}}_t\big]{\mathrm{d}}\theta}{\int_{\Theta} {\mathbb{E}}\big[ (\mu_0*\tilde{\pi}_0) \big(\theta-\sum_{s=1}^{t-1}U_s\big)\prod_{s=1}^{t} \tilde{f}_{\theta -\sum_{i=s}^{t-1}U_i}(Y_s)\big|{\mathcal{F}}_t\big]{\mathrm{d}}\theta}.$$
The proof of this result is given in Section \[p-lemma:pi\].
The next result builds on @MR1790007 [Lemma 8.1] and will be used to control the denominator of $\tilde{\pi}_t(\theta)$.
\[lemma:denom\] Assume \[m\_star\]-\[taylor\] and let $\delta_\star>0$ be as in these two assumptions. Then, there exists a constant $\tilde{C}_{\star}\in{\mathbb{R}}_{> 0}$ such that, for every $\epsilon\geq 0$, sequence $(s_t)_{t\geq 1}$ in $\mathbb{N}_0$ with $\inf_{t\geq 1}(t-s_t)\geq 1$, every constants $\delta\geq \tilde{\delta} >0$ such that $\delta+\tilde{\delta}<\delta_\star$ and every probability measure $\eta\in\mathcal{P}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ we have, for all $t\geq 1$ and with $C^\eta_{\delta, \tilde{\delta}}=\inf_{v\in B_{\tilde{\delta}}(0)}\eta(B_\delta(\theta_\star-v))$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}\bigg(&\int_{\Theta}{\mathbb{E}}\Big[\eta\big(\theta-\sum_{s=s_t+1}^{t-1}U_s\big)\prod_{s=s_t+1}^{t} (\tilde{f}_{\theta-\sum_{i=s}^{t-1}U_i}/f_{\theta_\star})(Y_s)\big|{\mathcal{F}}_{t}\Big] {\mathrm{d}}\theta \leq \frac{{\mathbb{P}}(U_{s_t:t}\in \Theta_{\tilde{\delta},s_t:t}) }{e^{(t-s_t)(2 (\tilde{C}_\star \delta)^2+\epsilon)}}C^\eta_{\delta, \tilde{\delta}}\bigg)\\
& \leq \big((t-s_t)\big((\tilde{C}_\star\delta)+(\tilde{C}_\star\delta)^{-1}\epsilon\big)^2\big)^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$
The proof of this result is given in Section \[p-lemma:denom\].
The next result will be used to control the numerator of $\tilde{\pi}_t(\theta)$.
\[lemma:test\] Assume \[test\]-\[new\] and let $(\gamma_t)_{t\geq 1}$ be a sequence in ${\mathbb{R}}_{\geq 0}$ such that $\gamma_t\rightarrow 0$ and $(s_t)_{t\geq 1}$ be a sequence in $\mathbb{N}_0$ such that $\inf_{t\geq 1}(t-s_t)\geq 1$ and $(t-s_t)\rightarrow+\infty$. Then, for every $\epsilon>0$ there exist a constant $ \tilde{D}_\star \in{\mathbb{R}}_{>0}$ and a sequence of measurable functions $(\phi_t)_{t\geq 1}$, $\phi_t:{\mathsf{Y}}^t\rightarrow\{0,1\}$, such that ${\mathbb{E}}[\phi_t(Y_{1:t})]\rightarrow 0$ and, for $t$ large enough, $$\sup_{(\theta,u_{s_t:t})\in V_\epsilon\times \Theta_{\gamma_t,s_t:t}}{\mathbb{E}}\Big[(1-\phi_t(Y_{1:t}))\prod_{s=s_t+1}^t(\tilde{f}_{\theta-\sum_{i=s}^{t-1}u_i}/f_{\theta_\star})(Y_s)\big|\,{\mathcal{F}}_{s_t}\Big]\leq e^{-(t-s_t) \tilde{D}_\star}.$$
The proof of this result is given in Section \[p-lemma:test\].
The next lemma builds on @Kleijn2012 [Theorem 3.1]
\[lemma:part\_1\] Assume \[m\_star\]-\[new\]. Let $\epsilon>0$, $(\gamma_t)_{t\geq 1}$ be a sequence in ${\mathbb{R}}_{\geq 0}$ such that $\gamma_t\rightarrow 0$ and $(s_t)_{t\geq 1}$ be a sequence in $\mathbb{N}_0$ such that $\inf_{t\geq 1}(t-s_t)\geq 1$ and $(t-s_t)\rightarrow+\infty$. Then, there exist constants $(C_1,C_2)\in{\mathbb{R}}_{>0}^2$ such that, for every constants $\delta\geq \tilde{\delta}>0$ such that $\delta+\tilde{\delta}<\delta_\star$ (with $\delta_\star>0$ as in Lemma \[lemma:denom\]), there exists a sequence of measurable functions $(\phi'_t)_{t\geq 1}$, $\phi'_t:{\mathsf{Y}}^t\rightarrow\{0,1\}$, such that ${\mathbb{E}}[\phi'_t(Y_{1:t})]\rightarrow 0$ and such that, for $t$ large enough, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}\big[(1-\phi'_t(Y_{1:t})){\mathds{1}}_{ \Theta_{\gamma_t,s_t:t}}&(U_{s_t:t}) \pi'_{s_t,t}(V_{\epsilon})|{\mathcal{F}}_{s_t}\big]\\
&\leq \frac{ e^{-(t-s_t)( C_1^{-1}-C_2\delta^2)}}{{\mathbb{P}}(U_{s_t:t}\in \Theta_{\tilde{\delta},s_t:t})\, \inf_{v\in B_{\tilde{\delta}}(0)}(\mu_{s_t}*\tilde{\pi}_{s_t})(B_{\delta}(\theta_\star-v))},\quad{\mathbb{P}}-a.s.\end{aligned}$$
The proof of this result is given in Section \[p-lemma:part\_1\].
\[lemma:tech\_conv\] Let $\{(X^n, Z^n)\}_{n=1}^N$ be ${\mathbb{R}}^{d_x}\times {\mathbb{R}}^{d_z}$ valued random variables, $G:{\mathbb{R}}^{d_x}\rightarrow(0,+\infty)$ and $\tilde{G}:{\mathbb{R}}^{d_z}\rightarrow(0,+\infty)$ be two measurable mappings, $p_X^N=N^{-1}\sum_{n=1}^N\delta_{X^n}$ and, for every $n\in \{1,\dots,N\}$, let $$W^n=\frac{G(X^n)}{\sum_{m=1}^N G(X^m)},\quad \tilde{W}^n=\frac{\tilde{G}(Z^n)}{\sum_{m=1}^N \tilde{G}(Z^m)}\quad \pi^N=\sum_{n=1}^N W^n\delta_{X^n},\quad \mu^N=\sum_{n=1}^N \tilde{W}^n\delta_{Z^n}.$$ Assume that $\|G\|<+\infty$ and that there exist a constant $C_\star\in(0,+\infty)$ and probability measures $p_X\in\mathcal{P}({\mathbb{R}}^{d_x})$, $\pi\in\mathcal{P}({\mathbb{R}}^{d_x})$ and $\mu\in\mathcal{P}({\mathbb{R}}^{d_z})$ such that $${\mathbb{E}}\Big[\Big(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d_x}} G(x)(p_X^N-p_X)({\mathrm{d}}x)\Big)^2\Big]\leq \frac{C_\star}{N}$$ and such that $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{|\varphi|\leq 1}{\mathbb{E}}\Big[\Big(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d_x}} \varphi(x)(\pi^N-\pi)({\mathrm{d}}x)\Big)^2\Big]\leq \frac{C_\star}{N},\quad \sup_{|\varphi|\leq 1}{\mathbb{E}}\Big[\Big(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d_z}} \varphi(z)(\mu^N-\mu)({\mathrm{d}}z)\Big)^2\Big]\leq \frac{C_\star}{N}.\end{aligned}$$ Then, there exists a constant $\tilde{C}_\star\in(0,+\infty)$ such that $$\sup_{|\varphi|\leq 1}{\mathbb{E}}\Big[\Big(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d_x}\times {\mathbb{R}}^{d_z}} \varphi(x,z)(\pi^N\otimes\mu^N-\pi\otimes\mu)({\mathrm{d}}x,{\mathrm{d}}z)\Big)^2\Big]\leq \frac{\tilde{C}_\star}{N}.$$
The proof of this result is given in Section \[p-lemma:tech\_conv\].
Proof of Proposition \[prop:continuity\]\[p-prop:continuity\]
-------------------------------------------------------------
Let $t\geq 1$ and ${\mathsf{Y}}_t\in{\mathcal{Y}}^{\otimes t}$ be such that (i) ${\mathbb{P}}(Y_{1:t}\in{\mathsf{Y}}_t)=1$, (ii) the mapping $\theta\mapsto f_\theta(y_s)$ is continuous on $\Theta$ for all $s\in 1:t$ and all $y_{1:t}\in{\mathsf{Y}}_t$, (iii) $\sup_{1\leq s\leq t}\sup_{\theta\in\Theta} \tilde{f}_\theta(y_s)<+\infty$ for all $y_{1:t}\in{\mathsf{Y}}_t$ and (iv) for all $y_{1:t}\in{\mathsf{Y}}_t$ the conclusion of Lemma \[lemma:pi\] holds.
Remark that such a set ${\mathsf{Y}}_t$ exists under the assumptions of the proposition. Let $\varphi:\Theta\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$ be a measurable and bounded function. Then, for all $y\in{\mathsf{Y}}_t$ we have $$\label{eq:thmcont_1}
\begin{split}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}\varphi(\theta) {\mathbb{E}}\Big[ (\mu_{0}*\tilde{\pi}_0) &\big(\theta- \sum_{s=1}^{t-1}h_s\tilde{U}_s\big)\prod_{s=1}^{t} \tilde{f}_{\theta- \sum_{i=s}^{t-1}h_i\tilde{U}_i}(y_s) \Big]{\mathrm{d}}\theta\\
&\leq\big(\sup_{1\leq s\leq t}\sup_{\theta\in\Theta} \tilde{f}_\theta(y_s)\big)^t{\mathbb{E}}\Big[\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}\varphi(\theta) (\mu_{0}*\tilde{\pi}_0) \Big(\theta- \sum_{s=1}^{t-1}h_s\tilde{U}_s\Big){\mathrm{d}}\theta \Big]\\
&\leq \|\varphi\|_\infty\Big(\sup_{1\leq s\leq t}\sup_{\theta\in\Theta} \tilde{f}_\theta(y_s)\Big)^t
\end{split}$$ while $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:thmcont_2}
{\mathbb{P}}\Big(\lim_{\max\{h_k\}_{k=0}^{t-1}}\prod_{s=1}^{t} \tilde{f}_{\theta-\sum_{i=s}^{t-1}h_i\tilde{U}_i}(y_s) =\prod_{s=1}^{t} \tilde{f}_{\theta}(y_s)\Big)=1,\quad \forall y\in{\mathsf{Y}}_t,\quad\forall\theta\in{\mathbb{R}}^d.\end{aligned}$$ In addition, using the assumptions on $\tilde{\pi}_0$ and the dominated convergence theorem, $$\label{eq:thmcont_3}
\begin{split}
{\mathbb{P}}\Big(\lim_{\max\{h_i\}_{i=0}^{t-1}\searrow 0}& (\mu_0*\tilde{\pi}_0)\big(\theta- \sum_{s=1}^{t-1}h_s\tilde{U}_s\big) =\tilde{\pi}_0(\theta)\Big) \\
&={\mathbb{P}}\Big(\lim_{\max\{h_i\}_{i=0}^{t-1}\searrow 0}{\mathbb{E}}\Big[\tilde{\pi}_0\big(\theta- \sum_{s=0}^{t-1}h_s\tilde{U}_s\big)\Big]=\tilde{\pi}_0(\theta)\Big)\\
&=1.
\end{split}$$
Therefore, using - and the dominated convergence theorem, for all $y\in{\mathsf{Y}}_t$ we have $$\label{eq:PPx}
\begin{split}
\lim_{\max\{h_i\}_{i=0}^{t-1}\searrow 0}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}\varphi(\theta) {\mathbb{E}}\big[(\mu_0*\tilde{\pi}_0)\big(\theta- \sum_{s=1}^{t-1}h_s\tilde{U}_s\big)&\prod_{s=1}^{t} \tilde{f}_{\theta- \sum_{i=s}^{t-1}h_i\tilde{U}_i}(y_s) \big]{\mathrm{d}}\theta\\
&= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}\varphi(\theta) \prod_{s=1}^{t} \tilde{f}_{\theta }(y_s) \tilde{\pi}_0 ({\mathrm{d}}\theta ).
\end{split}$$ To complete the proof let $(\varphi_k)_{k\geq 1}$, with $\varphi_k:\Theta\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$ measurable, continuous and bounded for all $k$, be such that if $${\mathbb{P}}\Big(\lim_{\max\{h_i\}_{i=0}^{t-1}\searrow 0}\tilde{\pi}_t(\varphi_k)=\pi_t(\varphi_k),\,\forall k\geq 1\Big)=1\implies {\mathbb{P}}\Big(\lim_{\max\{h_i\}_{i=0}^{t-1}\searrow 0}\tilde{\pi}_t=\pi_t\Big)=1.$$
Let $k\in\mathbb{N}$. Then, by Lemma \[lemma:pi\] we have, ${\mathbb{P}}$-a.s., $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\pi}_t(\varphi_k)=\frac{\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}\varphi_k(\theta) {\mathbb{E}}\big[ (\mu_0*\tilde{\pi}_0) \big(\theta-\sum_{s=1}^{t-1}U_s\big)\prod_{s=1}^{t} \tilde{f}_{\theta -\sum_{i=s}^{t-1}U_i}(Y_s)\big|{\mathcal{F}}_t\big]{\mathrm{d}}\theta}{\int_{\Theta} {\mathbb{E}}\big[ (\mu_0*\tilde{\pi}_0) \big(\theta-\sum_{s=1}^{t-1}U_s\big)\prod_{s=1}^{t} \tilde{f}_{\theta -\sum_{i=s}^{t-1}U_i}(Y_s)\big|{\mathcal{F}}_t\big]{\mathrm{d}}\theta}\end{aligned}$$ and thus, using with $\varphi=\varphi_k$ and with $\varphi={\mathds{1}}_{\Theta}$, it follows that, for all $k\in\mathbb{N}$, ${\mathbb{P}}\big(\lim_{\max\{h_i\}_{i=0}^{t-1}\searrow 0}\tilde{\pi}_t(\varphi_k)=\pi_t(\varphi_k)\big)=1$. The result follows.
Proof of Proposition \[prop:gaussian\_toy\]\[p-prop:gaussian\_toy\]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
We first show that $\tilde{\sigma}^2_t\rightarrow 0$. To this aim recall that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:piece0}
\tilde{\sigma}_t^2= \frac{\tilde{\sigma}_{t-1}^2+h_{t-1}^2}{\tilde{\sigma}^2_{t-1}+h_{t-1}^2+1}\in(0,1),\quad \forall t\geq 1\end{aligned}$$ and let $\bar{c}:=\limsup_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\tilde{\sigma}_t^2$. Assume that $\bar{c}>0$ and let $(\tilde{\sigma}_{t_k}^2)_{k\geq 1}$ be a subsequence such that $\tilde{\sigma}_{t_k}^2\rightarrow \bar{c}$. Then, by and since $h_t\rightarrow 0$, $$\lim_{k\rightarrow+\infty} \tilde{\sigma}_{t_k+1}^2=\bar{c}':=\frac{\bar{c}}{1+\bar{c}}.$$ Then, repeating these computations with $(\tilde{\sigma}_{t_k}^2)_{k\geq 1}$ replaced by $(\tilde{\sigma}_{t_k+1}^2)_{k\geq 1}$ and $\bar{c}$ by $\bar{c}'$ yields $$\lim_{k\rightarrow+\infty} \tilde{\sigma}_{t_k+2}^2=\frac{\bar{c}'}{1+\bar{c}'}=\frac{\bar{c}}{1+2\bar{c}}$$ and similarly we show that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:limmm}
\lim_{k\rightarrow+\infty} \tilde{\sigma}_{t_k+i}^2=\frac{\bar{c}}{1+i\bar{c}},\quad \forall i\in\mathbb{N}.\end{aligned}$$ To proceed further let $\epsilon\in(0,1)$ and $t_1\in\mathbb{N}$ be such that $h_{t-1}^2\leq \epsilon^2/(1-\epsilon)$ for all $t\geq t_1$. Notice that such a $t_1\in\mathbb{N}$ exists since $h_t\rightarrow 0$. Next, let $t_2>t_1$ be such that $\sigma^2_{t_2-1}\leq \epsilon$. Remark that such a $t_2>t_1$ exists by and that, using , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:limmm55}
\sigma^2_{t}\leq \epsilon\Leftrightarrow \sigma^2_{t-1}+h^2_{t-1}\leq\frac{\epsilon}{1-\epsilon},\quad\forall t\geq 1.\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, under ours assumptions on $t_2$ we have $$\sigma^2_{t_2-1}+h_{t_2-1}^2\leq \epsilon+\frac{\epsilon^2}{1-\epsilon}=\frac{\epsilon}{1-\epsilon}$$ and thus, by , it follows that $\sigma^2_{t_2}\leq \epsilon$. This shows that for all $t\geq t_2$ we have $\sigma^2_t\leq \epsilon$, and thus that $\limsup_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\tilde{\sigma}^2_t\leq \epsilon$. Since $\epsilon>0$ is arbitrary this shows that $\tilde{\sigma}_t^2\rightarrow 0$.
To now show that $\tilde{\theta}_t\rightarrow {\mathbb{E}}[Y_1]$ in ${\mathbb{P}}$-probability. To this aim remark first that for every $t\geq 1$ we have, with the convention that empty products equal 1, $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\theta}_t&=\tilde{\sigma}_t^2 Y_t + (1-\tilde{\sigma}_t^2)\tilde{\theta}_{t-1}\\
&= \tilde{\sigma}_t^2 Y_t + (1-\tilde{\sigma}_t^2)\tilde{\sigma}^2_{t-1}Y_{t-1}+(1-\tilde{\sigma}_t^2)(1-\tilde{\sigma}_{t-1}^2)\tilde{\theta}_{t-2}\\
&=\sum_{s=1}^t Y_s\tilde{\sigma}_s^2\prod_{j=s+1}^t(1-\tilde{\sigma}^2_j)+\tilde{\theta}_0\prod_{s=1}^t(1-\tilde{\sigma}_s^2)\\
&=\frac{1}{b_t}\big(\tilde{\theta}_0+\sum_{s=1}^t \tilde{\sigma}_s^2 b_s Y_s\big)\end{aligned}$$ where $b_s=\big(\prod_{j=1}^s(1-\tilde{\sigma}^2_j)\big)^{-1}$ for all $s\geq 1$.
It is easily checked that $\tilde{\sigma}_t^2$ is minimized when $h_s=0$ for all $s\{1,\dots,t-1\}$, in which case it is well-known and easily checked that $\liminf_{t\rightarrow+\infty} t\tilde{\sigma}_t^2>0$. Thus, $\sum_{t=1}^\infty\tilde{\sigma}_t^2=+\infty$ implying that $b_t\rightarrow +\infty$. Consequently, to prove that $\tilde{\theta}_t\rightarrow {\mathbb{E}}[Y_1]$ in ${\mathbb{P}}$-probability we only need to show that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:piece3}
X_t:=\frac{1}{b_t}\sum_{s=1}^t \tilde{\sigma}_s^2 b_s Y_s\rightarrow{\mathbb{E}}[Y_1],\quad\mathrm{in}\,\,{\mathbb{P}}-\mathrm{probability.}\end{aligned}$$ Remark that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:piece33}
X_t=\frac{\sum_{s=1}^t \tilde{\sigma}_s^2 b_s}{b_t}\sum_{s=1}^t \frac{\tilde{\sigma}_s^2 b_s}{\sum_{s=1}^t \tilde{\sigma}_s^2 b_s } Y_s,\quad \frac{\sum_{s=1}^t \tilde{\sigma}_s^2 b_s}{b_t}=1-\frac{1}{b_t},\quad\forall t\geq 1\end{aligned}$$ so that, as $b_t\rightarrow +\infty$, to show we only need to show that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:piece4}
\sum_{s=1}^t \frac{\tilde{\sigma}_s^2 b_s}{\sum_{s=1}^t \tilde{\sigma}_s^2 b_s} Y_s\rightarrow{\mathbb{E}}[Y_1],\quad\mathrm{in}\,\,{\mathbb{P}}-\mathrm{probability.}\end{aligned}$$ By , and using the fact that $b_t\rightarrow+\infty$ while $\tilde{\sigma}_t^2\rightarrow 0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\lim_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\sum_{s=1}^t\tilde{\sigma}_s^2 b_s=\lim_{t\rightarrow+\infty} b_t(1-1/b_t)=+\infty\\
&\lim_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{ \tilde{\sigma}_t^2 b_t}{\sum_{s=1}^t \tilde{\sigma}_s^2 b_s} =\lim_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{ \tilde{\sigma}_t^2}{1-1/b_t}=0
\end{aligned}$$ and therefore holds by @jamison1965 [Theorem 1], which concludes to show that $\tilde{\theta}_t\rightarrow{\mathbb{E}}[Y_1]$ in ${\mathbb{P}}$-probability.
We are now in position to prove the first part of the proposition. Let $\epsilon>0$ and $Z\sim\mathcal{N}_1(0,1)$ be independent of $(Y_t)_{t\geq 1}$. Then, using Markov’s inequality, for all $t\geq 1$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\pi}_t(V_\epsilon)&={\mathbb{P}}\Big( \Big|Z-\frac{\theta_\star-\tilde{\theta}_t}{\tilde{\sigma}_t}\Big|\geq \frac{\epsilon}{\tilde{\sigma}_t}\,\Big|\sigma(\tilde{\theta}_t)\Big)\\
& \leq\tilde{\sigma}_t^2\frac{{\mathbb{E}}\Big[\Big(Z-\frac{\theta_\star-\tilde{\theta}_t}{\tilde{\sigma}_t}\Big)^2\,\big|\sigma(\tilde{\theta}_t)\Big]}{\epsilon^2}\\
&=\frac{\tilde{\sigma}_t^2+(\theta_\star-\tilde{\theta}_t)^2}{\epsilon^2},\quad{\mathbb{P}}-a.s.\end{aligned}$$ As shown above, $\tilde{\theta}_t\rightarrow{\mathbb{E}}[Y_1]$ in ${\mathbb{P}}$-probability and thus there exists a sequence $(\gamma_t)_{t\geq 1}$ in $(0,+\infty)$ such that $\gamma_t\rightarrow 0$ and such that ${\mathbb{P}}(|\theta_\star-\tilde{\theta}_t|>\gamma_t)\rightarrow 0$. Therefore, since $\tilde{\sigma}_t^2\rightarrow 0$ as shown above, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{t\rightarrow+\infty}{\mathbb{E}}[\tilde{\pi}_t(V_\epsilon)]&\leq \limsup_{t\rightarrow+\infty}{\mathbb{P}}(|\theta_\star-\tilde{\theta}_t|>\gamma_t)+\limsup_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\Big(\frac{\tilde{\sigma}_t^2}{\epsilon}+\frac{\gamma_t^2}{\epsilon^2}\Big)=0\end{aligned}$$ which, together with Proposition \[prop:conv\_proba\], completes the proof of the first part of the proposition.
To prove the last part of the proposition let $v_t=\tilde{\sigma}_t^2/h_t^2$, $\epsilon>0$ and $\delta=(1-\epsilon)/(1-\epsilon/2)$. Then, under the assumptions on $(h_t)_{t\geq 1}$, there exists a $t_\epsilon\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $ h^2_{t-1}/ h^2_t\geq \delta$ for all $t\geq t_{\epsilon}$. Let $$\epsilon_t=\frac{\tilde{\sigma}^2_{t-1}+h^2_{t-1}}{\tilde{\sigma}^2_{t-1}+h^2_{t-1}+1},\quad\forall t\geq 1$$ so that, for all $t\geq t_\epsilon$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
v_t&= \frac{1+v_{t-1}}{\tilde{\sigma}^2_{t-1}+h_{t-1}^2+1}\,\frac{h_{t-1}^2}{h_t^2}\geq \frac{\delta(1+v_{t-1})}{\tilde{\sigma}^2_{t-1}+h_{t-1}^2+1}\geq \delta(1+v_{t-1})(1-\epsilon_t)\end{aligned}$$ As shown above, $\tilde{\sigma}^2_t\rightarrow 0$ so that $\epsilon_t\rightarrow0$. Hence, there is exists a $t'_\epsilon\geq t_\epsilon$ such that, for $t>t'_\epsilon$ and recalling that $\delta=(1-\epsilon)/(1-\epsilon/2)$ $$\begin{aligned}
v_t\geq (1-\epsilon/2)\delta(1+v_{t-1})=(1-\epsilon)(1+v_{t-1})\geq \sum_{s=t_\epsilon+1}^t(1-\epsilon)^{s-t_\epsilon}+(1-\epsilon)^{t-t_\epsilon}v_{t_\epsilon}.\end{aligned}$$ This shows that $\liminf_{t\rightarrow+\infty} v_t\geq 1/\epsilon$ and thus, since $\epsilon\in(0,1)$ is arbitrary, it follows that $v_t\rightarrow+\infty$.
To prove the fourth part of the proposition remark that, for every $t\geq 1$, $$\label{eq:rate_h}
\begin{split}
\tilde{\sigma}_t^2 =\frac{\tilde{\sigma}^2_{t-1}+h^2_{t-1}}{\tilde{\sigma}^2_{t-1}+h_{t-1}^2+1} &\Leftrightarrow\tilde{\sigma}_t^2\tilde{\sigma}^2_{t-1}+\tilde{\sigma}_t^2(h_{t-1}^2+1)=\tilde{\sigma}^2_{t-1}+h^2_{t-1}\\
&\Leftrightarrow h^2_{t-1}= \frac{\tilde{\sigma}_t^2\tilde{\sigma}^2_{t-1}+\tilde{\sigma}_t^2-\tilde{\sigma}_{t-1}^2}{1-\tilde{\sigma}_t^2}.
\end{split}$$ As shown above, $\tilde{\sigma}_t^2\rightarrow 0$, which implies that $\tilde{\sigma}_t^2\leq \tilde{\sigma}_{t-1}^2$ for infinitely may $t$. Thus, by , for infinity many $t$ we have $h^2_{t-1}\leq (\tilde{\sigma}_t^2\tilde{\sigma}^2_{t-1})/(1-\tilde{\sigma}_t^2)$ showing that, if $h_t\sim c t^{-\alpha}$ then, for all $p\geq 1$ a necessary condition to have $t^{1/p} \tilde{\sigma}_t^2={\mathcal{O}}(1)$ is that $\alpha\geq 1/p$.
To prove the rest of the proposition remark that ${\mathbb{P}}(\tilde{\pi}_t\Rightarrow \delta_{{\mathbb{E}}[Y_1]})=1$ if and only if ${\mathbb{P}}(\tilde{\theta}_t\rightarrow {\mathbb{E}}[Y_1])=1$ which, using the above computations, holds if and only if $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:john}
\sum_{s=1}^t \frac{\tilde{\sigma}_s^2 b_s}{\sum_{s=1}^t \tilde{\sigma}_s^2 b_s} Y_s\rightarrow{\mathbb{E}}[Y_1],\quad{\mathbb{P}}-a.s.\end{aligned}$$ Remark that since $$(\tilde{\theta}_t-{\mathbb{E}}[Y_1])=\tilde{\sigma}_t^2 (Y_t-{\mathbb{E}}[Y_1]) + (1-\tilde{\sigma}_t^2)(\tilde{\theta}_{t-1}-{\mathbb{E}}[Y_1]),\quad\forall t\geq 1$$ we can without loss of generality assume that ${\mathbb{E}}[Y_1]=0$.
Let $
T(x)=\#\big\{t\in\mathbb{N}:\,(\tilde{\sigma}_t^2 b_t)^{-1}\big(\sum_{s=1}^t \tilde{\sigma}_s^2 b_s\big)\leq x\big\}$ for every $x>0$. Then, we show below that, for $h_t\sim c t^{-\alpha}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Tx}
\limsup_{x\rightarrow+\infty} T(x)/x^p<+\infty\Leftrightarrow t^{1/p} \tilde{\sigma}_t^2={\mathcal{O}}(1),\quad \forall p\in[1,2].\end{aligned}$$ Showing will show the second part of the proposition since, for $p\in[1,2)$, the condition $\limsup_{x\rightarrow+\infty} T(x)/x^p<+\infty$ is necessary and sufficient for to hold for every sequence $(Y_t)_{t\geq 1}$ such that ${\mathbb{E}}[|Y_t|^p]<\infty$, (see [@jamison1965], Theorem 3, for the case $p=1$ and [@chen1996], Theorem 2, for the case for $p\in(1,2)$). In addition, showing will also establish the third part of the proposition since, as shown in @chen1996 [Remark 2], for $p=2$ the condition $\limsup_{x\rightarrow+\infty} T(x)/x^p<+\infty$ is necessary but not sufficient for to hold for every sequence $(Y_t)_{t\geq 1}$ such that ${\mathbb{E}}[Y_t^2]<\infty$.
To show let $t\geq 1$ and remark that, since $b_t^{-1}\sum_{s=1}^t \tilde{\sigma}_s^2 b_s=1-\frac{1}{b_t}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\sum_{s=1}^t \tilde{\sigma}_s^2 b_s}{\tilde{\sigma}_t^2 b_t}\leq x&\Leftrightarrow \frac{1}{\tilde{\sigma}_t^2}(1-b_t^{-1})\leq x,\quad\forall x>0\end{aligned}$$ where, as shown above, $b_t\rightarrow+\infty$. Let $t_0\in\mathbb{N}$ be such that $(1-b_t^{-1})\geq 0.5$ for all $t\geq t_0$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:tt_1}
T(x)\leq t_0+\#\big\{t\in\mathbb{N}:\, t>t_0,\,\, \tilde{\sigma}_t^{-2}\leq 2x\big\},\quad \forall x>0.\end{aligned}$$ Assume now that $ \tilde{\sigma}_t^2\leq C t^{-1/p}$ for some constant $C<+\infty$ and all $t\geq 1$. Then, $$\#\{t\in\mathbb{N}:\, t>t_0,\,\, \tilde{\sigma}_t^{-2}\leq 2x\}\leq \#\{t\in\mathbb{N}:\, t\leq (2 Cx)^p\}= (2C x)^p,\quad\forall x\geq 1/(2C)$$ which, together with , shows that if $t^{1/p} \tilde{\sigma}_t^2={\mathcal{O}}(1)$ then $\limsup_{x\rightarrow+\infty} T(x)/x^p<+\infty$.
Assume now that $\limsup_{t\rightarrow+\infty}t^{1/p}\tilde{\sigma}_t^2=+\infty$. Then, using by and the fact that $h_t\sim c t^{-\alpha}$, it is easily checked that, in this case, we have $t^{1/p}\tilde{\sigma}_t^2\rightarrow+\infty$. Next, let $C>0$ and $t_C\in\mathbb{N}$ be such that $t^{1/p}\tilde{\sigma}_t^2\geq C$ for all $t\geq t_C$. Then, using the fact that $(1-b_t^{-1})\leq 1$ for all $t$, for all $x$ such that $x>(t_C/C)^{1/p}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
T(x)\geq \#\{t\in\mathbb{N}:\, \tilde{\sigma}_t^{-2}\leq x\}&\geq \#\{t\in\mathbb{N}:\, t>t_C,\, t\leq (C x)^p\}= (C x)^p-t_C+1\end{aligned}$$ showing that $\limsup_{x\rightarrow+\infty} T(x)/x^p\geq C^p$. Since $C>0$ arbitrary this shows that $\limsup_{x\rightarrow+\infty} T(x)/x^p=+\infty$ whenever $\limsup_{t\rightarrow+\infty}t^{1/p}\tilde{\sigma}_t^2=+\infty$, which concludes to show .
Proof of Proposition \[prop:conv\_algo\] {#p-prop:conv_algo}
----------------------------------------
To simplify the notation we assume below that $q_t(\theta|\theta')= h_{t-1}^{-1} m_{t-1}((\theta'-\theta)/h_{t-1})$ for all $t\geq 1$ such that $h_{t-1}>0$ and for all $(\theta,\theta')\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2d}$. The generalization of the computations that follows to arbitrary proposals distributions $(q_t(\cdot|\theta))_{t\geq 1,\theta\in\Theta}$ satisfying the assumptions of the proposition is immediate.
### Preliminaries
For every $\theta\in\Theta$ we let $G_0(\theta)=\tilde{\pi}_0(\theta)/q_0(\theta)$ and $G_t(\theta)=f_\theta(Y_t)$, for every $t\geq 1$. For every $t\geq 0$ we use the shorthand ${\mathbb{E}}_t[\cdot]={\mathbb{E}}[\cdot|{\mathcal{F}}_t]$, $\mu^N_{t,J}({\mathrm{d}}\theta_{1:J})=\otimes_{j=1}^J\tilde{\pi}_{k_t}^N({\mathrm{d}}\theta_j)$ and $\mu_{t,J}({\mathrm{d}}\theta_{1:J})=\otimes_{j=1}^J\tilde{\pi}_{k_t}({\mathrm{d}}\theta_j)$, where $a:b=\{a,\dots,b\}$ for every integers $b\geq a$.
Next, for every $t\geq 1$ such that $k_t\geq 0$ and $h_{t-1}=0$ we let, for every $s\in(t-1):t$, and $(\theta_{s}, \theta_{s,J})\in{\mathbb{R}}^d\times {\mathbb{R}}^{dJ}$, $$g_{t,J}(\theta_s,\theta_{s,J})=\sum_{j=1}^Jm_{k_t}\big((\theta_s-\theta_{s,j})/h_{k_t}),$$
$$\alpha_t(\theta_{t-1}, \theta _{t-1,J}; \theta_{t}, \theta_{t,J})=\frac{q_t(\theta_{t-1}|\theta_t)g_{t,J}(\theta_t,\theta_{t,J})\prod_{s=k_t+1}^{t-1} f_{\theta_t}(Y_s)}{q_t(\theta_{t}|\theta_{t-1})g_{t,J}(\theta_{t-1},\theta_{t-1,J})\prod_{s=k_t+1}^{t-1} f_{\theta_{t-1}}(Y_s)}\wedge 1.$$ and, using the shorthand $\tilde{\Theta}={\mathbb{R}}^d$, we define $$\begin{aligned}
& \tilde{K}_t^N((\theta_{t-1} ,\theta_{t-1,J}),{\mathrm{d}}(\theta_t,\theta_{t,J}))\\
& \,\,\,=\alpha_t(\theta_{t-1}, \theta _{t-1,J}; \theta_{t}, \theta_{t,J})\mu^N_{t,J}({\mathrm{d}}\theta_{t,J})\otimes q_t(\theta_t|\theta_{t-1}){\mathrm{d}}\theta_t\\
& \,\,\,+\delta_{(\theta_{t-1},\theta_{t-1,J})}({\mathrm{d}}\theta_t,{\mathrm{d}}\theta_{t,J})\Big(1-\int_{\tilde{\Theta}^{J+1}}\alpha_t(\theta_{t-1}, \theta _{t-1,J}; \theta_{t}, \theta_{t,J})\mu^N_{t,J,}({\mathrm{d}}\theta_{t,J})\otimes q_t(\theta_t|\theta_{t-1}){\mathrm{d}}\theta_t\Big),\\
\vspace{0.2cm}
& \tilde{K}_t((\theta_{t-1} ,\theta_{t-1,J}),{\mathrm{d}}(\theta_t,\theta_{t,J}))\\
& \,\,\,=\alpha_t(\theta_{t-1}, \theta _{t-1,J}; \theta_{t}, \theta_{t,J})\mu_{t,J}({\mathrm{d}}\theta_{t,J})\otimes q_t(\theta_t|\theta_{t-1}){\mathrm{d}}\theta_t\\
& \,\,\,+\delta_{(\theta_{t-1},\theta_{t-1,J})}({\mathrm{d}}\theta_t,{\mathrm{d}}\theta_{t,J})\Big(1-\int_{\tilde{\Theta}^{J+1}}\alpha_t(\theta_{t-1}, \theta _{t-1,J}; \theta_{t}, \theta_{t,J})\mu_{t,J}({\mathrm{d}}\theta_{t,J})\otimes q_t(\theta_t|\theta_{t-1}){\mathrm{d}}\theta_t\Big),\\
\vspace{0.2cm}
&K^N_t( \theta_{t-1},{\mathrm{d}}\theta_t)=\int_{\tilde{\Theta}^{J}}\Big(\int_{\tilde{\Theta}^{J}}\tilde{K}_t^N\big((\theta_{t-1},\theta_{t-1,J}),{\mathrm{d}}(\theta_t,\theta_{t,J})\big)\Big)\mu_{t,J}^N({\mathrm{d}}\theta_{t-1,J}),\\
\vspace{0.2cm}
&K_t(\theta_{t-1},{\mathrm{d}}\theta_t)=\int_{\tilde{\Theta}^J}\Big(\int_{\tilde{\Theta}^J}\tilde{K}_t((\theta_{t-1},\theta_{t-1,J}),{\mathrm{d}}(\theta_t,\theta_{t,J}))\Big)\mu_{t,J}({\mathrm{d}}\theta_{t-1,J}).\end{aligned}$$ Next, for every $t\geq 1$ such that $k_t=-1$ and $h_{t-1}=0$ we let $K'_t(\theta_{t-1},{\mathrm{d}}\theta_t)$ be the Metropolis-Hastings kernel with invariant distribution $\pi_t$ and proposal distribution $q_t$.
Lastly, for all $t\geq 1$ we let $$\begin{aligned}
L_t(\theta_{t-1},{\mathrm{d}}\theta_t)&=q_t(\theta_t|\theta_{t-1}){\mathds{1}}_{{\mathbb{R}}_{>0}}(h_{t-1})+K_t(\theta_{t-1},{\mathrm{d}}\theta_t){\mathds{1}}_{\mathbb{N}_0\times \{0\}}(k_t,h_{t-1})\\
&+K'_t(\theta_{t-1},{\mathrm{d}}\theta_t){\mathds{1}}_{\{-1\}\times \{0\}}(k_t,h_{t-1})\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
L^N_t(\theta_{t-1},{\mathrm{d}}\theta_t)&=q_t(\theta_t|\theta_{t-1}){\mathds{1}}_{{\mathbb{R}}_{>0}}(h_{t-1})+K^N_t(\theta_{t-1},{\mathrm{d}}\theta_t){\mathds{1}}_{\mathbb{N}_0\times \{0\}}(k_t,h_{t-1})\\
&+K'_t(\theta_{t-1},{\mathrm{d}}\theta_t){\mathds{1}}_{\{-1\}\times \{0\}}(k_t,h_{t-1}).\end{aligned}$$
\[lemma:int\_prop\] Let $t\geq 1$ and assume that, for all $s\in 0:(t-1)$ there exists a $(0,+\infty)$-valued random variable $C_s$ such that, ${\mathbb{P}}$-almost surely and with the convention $L_s(\theta_{s-1},{\mathrm{d}}\theta_s)\tilde{\pi}_{s-1}({\mathrm{d}}\theta_{s-1})=\delta_{\theta_{s-1}}({\mathrm{d}}\theta_s)\tilde{\pi}_{0}({\mathrm{d}}\theta_{s-1})$ when $s=0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Prop_show1}
\sup_{|\varphi|\leq 1}{\mathbb{E}}_s\Big[\Big(\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=1}^N\varphi(\theta_s^n)-\int_{\tilde{\Theta}} \Big\{\int_{\tilde{\Theta}} \varphi(\theta_s)L_s(\theta_{s-1},{\mathrm{d}}\theta_s)\Big\}\tilde{\pi}_{s-1}({\mathrm{d}}\theta_{s-1})\Big)^2\Big]\leq \frac{C_s}{N}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Prop_show2}
\sup_{|\varphi|\leq 1}{\mathbb{E}}_s\Big[\Big( \sum_{n=1}^N W_s^n\varphi(\theta_s^n)-\int_{\tilde{\Theta}} \varphi(\theta_s) \tilde{\pi}_{s}({\mathrm{d}}\theta_{s})\Big)^2\Big]\leq \frac{C_s}{N}.\end{aligned}$$ Then, under the assumptions of Proposition \[prop:conv\_algo\], there exists a random variable $\tilde{C}_t$ taking its values in $(0,+\infty)$ such that $$\begin{split}
\sup_{|\varphi|\leq 1}{\mathbb{E}}_t\Big[\Big(\sum_{n=1}^N W^n_{t-1} \int_{\tilde{\Theta}}\varphi(\theta_t)\big\{L^N_t(\theta^n_{t-1},{\mathrm{d}}\theta_t)-L_t(\theta^n_{t-1},{\mathrm{d}}\theta_t)\big\}\Big)^2\Big]\leq \frac{\tilde{C}_t}{N},\quad{\mathbb{P}}-a.s.
\end{split}$$
Remark that the result trivially trivially holds if $h_{t-1}>0$ or if $h_{t-1}=0$ and $k_t=-1$. Hence, below we assume that $h_{t-1}=0$ and $k_t\geq 0$.
Let $$\tilde{\alpha}_t(\varphi,\theta_{t-1}, \theta _{t-1,J}; \theta_{t,J})=\int_{\tilde{\Theta}} \varphi(\theta_t) \alpha_t(\theta_{t-1}, \theta _{t-1,J}; \theta_{t}, \theta_{t,J})q_t({\mathrm{d}}\theta_t|\theta_{t-1})$$ and we first show that there exists a ${\mathbb{P}}$-a.s. finite random variable $\tilde{C}_{t,1}$ such that, ${\mathbb{P}}$-a.s., $$\label{eq:BB3_p1}
\begin{split}
&\sup_{|\varphi|\leq 1}{\mathbb{E}}_t\Big[\Big(\int_{\tilde{\Theta}^{2J+1}} \tilde{\alpha}_t(\varphi,\theta_{t-1}, \theta _{t-1,J}; \theta_{t,J})\\
& \big(\mu_{t,J}^{N}\otimes \mu_{t,J}^{N}-\mu_{t,J}\otimes \mu_{t,J}\big)({\mathrm{d}}\theta_{t,J},{\mathrm{d}}\theta_{t-1,J})(\tilde{\pi}_{t-1}^N-\tilde{\pi}_{t-1})({\mathrm{d}}\theta_{t-1})\Big)^2\Big]\leq \frac{\tilde{C}_{t,1}}{N}.
\end{split}$$ To this aim let $\varphi$ be such that $|\varphi|\leq 1$ and remark that $$\begin{split}
&\int_{\tilde{\Theta}^{2J+1}}\tilde{\alpha}_t(\varphi,\theta_{t-1}, \theta _{t-1,J}; \theta_{t,J})\big(\mu_{t,J}^{N}\otimes \mu_{t,J}^{N}-\mu_{t,J}\otimes \mu_{t,J}\big)({\mathrm{d}}\theta_{t,J},{\mathrm{d}}\theta_{t-1,J})(\tilde{\pi}_{t-1}^N-\tilde{\pi}_{t-1})({\mathrm{d}}\theta_{t-1})\\
&= \int_{\tilde{\Theta}^{2J+1}} \tilde{\alpha}_t(\varphi,\theta_{t-1}, \theta _{t-1,J}; \theta_{t,J})\big(\mu_{t,J}^{N}\otimes \mu_{t,J}^{N}\otimes\tilde{\pi}_{t-1}^N-\mu_{t,J}\otimes \mu_{t,J}\otimes\tilde{\pi}_{t-1}\big)({\mathrm{d}}\theta)\\
&+\int_{\tilde{\Theta}^{2J}} \Big(\int_{\tilde{\Theta}} \tilde{\alpha}_t(\varphi,\theta_{t-1}, \theta _{t-1,J}; \theta_{t,J}) \tilde{\pi}_{t-1}({\mathrm{d}}\theta_{t-1})\Big)\big(\mu_{t,J}\otimes \mu_{t,J}-\mu_{t,J}^{N}\otimes \mu_{t,J}^{N}\big)({\mathrm{d}}\theta)\\
&+\int_{\tilde{\Theta}} \Big(\int_{\tilde{\Theta}^{2J}} \tilde{\alpha}(\theta_{t-1}, \theta _{t-1,J}; \theta_{t,J}) \mu_{t,J}\otimes \mu_{t,J}({\mathrm{d}}\theta)\Big)\big(\tilde{\pi}_{t-1}-\tilde{\pi}_{t-1}^N\big)({\mathrm{d}}\theta).
\end{split}$$ Then, since $\|\alpha_t\|_{\infty}\leq 1$, ${\mathbb{P}}$-a.s., and because we are assuming that - hold for all $s\in 0:(t-1)$, applying first $2J$ times Lemma \[lemma:tech\_conv\] with $\pi^N=\tilde{\pi}_{k_t}^N$ and then one time with $\pi^N=\tilde{\pi}_{t-1}^N$ shows .
To proceed further we let $$\alpha'_t(\varphi,\theta_{t-1}, \theta _{t-1,J}; \theta_{t,J})= \varphi(\theta_{t-1}) \int_{\tilde{\Theta}}\alpha_t(\theta_{t-1}, \theta _{t-1,J}; \theta_{t}, \theta_{t,J}) q_t({\mathrm{d}}\theta_t|\theta_{t-1}){\mathrm{d}}\theta_t$$ so that, by repeating the above computation with $\tilde{\alpha}_t$ replaced by $\alpha'_t$, it follows for some ${\mathbb{P}}$-a.s. finite random variable $\tilde{C}_{t,2}$ we have $$\begin{split}
\sup_{ |\varphi|\leq 1}&{\mathbb{E}}_t\Big[\Big(\int_{\tilde{\Theta}^{2J+1}} \alpha'_t(\varphi,\theta_{t-1}, \theta _{t-1,J}; \theta_{t,J})\\
& \big(\mu_{t,J}^{N}\otimes \mu_{t,J}^{N}-\mu_{t,J}\otimes \mu_{t,J}\big)({\mathrm{d}}\theta_{t,J},{\mathrm{d}}\theta_{t-1,J})(\tilde{\pi}_{t-1}^N-\tilde{\pi}_{t-1})({\mathrm{d}}\theta_{t-1})\Big)^2\Big]\leq \frac{\tilde{C}_{t,2}}{N},\quad{\mathbb{P}}-a.s.
\end{split}$$ which, together with , shows that under the assumptions of the lemma we have, for some ${\mathbb{P}}$-a.s. finite random variable $\tilde{C}_{t,3}$ $$\label{eq:BB3_2}
\begin{split}
\sup_{|\varphi|\leq 1}{\mathbb{E}}_t\Big[\Big(\int_{\tilde{\Theta}^2}\varphi(\theta_t)\big\{L^N_t(\theta_{t-1},{\mathrm{d}}\theta_t) -L_t(\theta_{t-1},{\mathrm{d}}\theta_t)\big\}(\tilde{\pi}^N_{t-1}&-\tilde{\pi}_{t-1})({\mathrm{d}}\theta_{t-1})\Big)^2\Big]\\
&\leq \frac{\tilde{C}_{t,3}}{N},\quad{\mathbb{P}}-a.s.
\end{split}$$ Lastly, since $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathbb{E}}_t\Big[\Big(\int_{\tilde{\Theta}}\varphi(\theta_t)\big\{L^N_t(\theta_{t-1},{\mathrm{d}}\theta_t) -L_t(\theta_{t-1},{\mathrm{d}}\theta_t)\big\}\tilde{\pi}_{t-1}({\mathrm{d}}\theta_{t-1})\Big)^2\Big]^{1/2}\\
&\leq {\mathbb{E}}_t\Big[\Big(\int_{\tilde{\Theta}^{2J}}\Big\{\int_{\tilde{\Theta}}\tilde{\alpha}_t(\varphi,\theta_{t-1}, \theta _{t-1,J}; \theta_{t,J})\tilde{\pi}_{t-1}({\mathrm{d}}\theta_{t-1})\Big\}\big(\mu_{t,J}^{N}\otimes \mu_{t,J}^{N}-\mu_{t,J}\otimes \mu_{t,J}\big)({\mathrm{d}}\theta_{t,J},{\mathrm{d}}\theta_{t-1,J})\Big)^2\Big]^{1/2}\\
&+{\mathbb{E}}_t\Big[\Big(\int_{\tilde{\Theta}^{2J}}\Big\{\int_{\tilde{\Theta}} \alpha'_t(\varphi,\theta_{t-1}, \theta _{t-1,J}; \theta_{t,J})\tilde{\pi}_{t-1}({\mathrm{d}}\theta_{t-1})\Big\}\big(\mu_{t,J}^{N}\otimes \mu_{t,J}^{N}-\mu_{t,J}\otimes \mu_{t,J}\big)({\mathrm{d}}\theta_{t,J},{\mathrm{d}}\theta_{t-1,J})\Big)^2\Big]^{1/2}\end{aligned}$$ it follows that under the assumptions of the lemma and by Lemma \[lemma:tech\_conv\] there exists ${\mathbb{P}}$-a.s. finite random variable $\tilde{C}_{t,4}$ such that $$\begin{split}
\sup_{|\varphi|\leq 1}{\mathbb{E}}_t\Big[\Big(\int_{\tilde{\Theta}}\varphi(\theta_t)\big\{L^N_t(\theta_{t-1},{\mathrm{d}}\theta_t) -L_t(\theta_{t-1},{\mathrm{d}}\theta_t)\big\}\tilde{\pi}_{t-1}({\mathrm{d}}\theta_{t-1})\Big)^2\Big]\leq \frac{\tilde{C}_{t,4}}{N},\quad{\mathbb{P}}-a.s.
\end{split}$$ which, together with , completes the proof of the lemma.
### Proof of the proposition
We start by proving the first part of the proposition, which is done by showing that - hold for all $s\geq 0$.
To this aim we first recall the following two simple well-known results: for all $t\geq 1$ we have $$\label{eq:BB0}
\begin{split}
\sup_{|\varphi|\leq 1}{\mathbb{E}}_t\Big[\Big(\frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^N\varphi(\theta_t^n)-\sum_{n=1}^N W_{t-1}^n \int_{\tilde{\Theta}}\varphi(\theta_t)L^N_t( \theta^N_{t-1},{\mathrm{d}}\theta_t)\Big)^2\Big]\leq\frac{1}{N},\quad{\mathbb{P}}-a.s.
\end{split}$$ and $$\label{eq:BB1}
\begin{split}
\sup_{|\varphi|\leq 1}{\mathbb{E}}_t\Big[&\Big(\sum_{n=1}^NW_{t}\varphi(\theta_{t}^n) -\frac{\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=1}^N G_t(\theta_t^n)\varphi(\theta_t^n)}{\int_{\tilde{\Theta}}\big\{\int_{\tilde{\Theta}} G_t(\theta_t) L_t(\theta_{t-1},{\mathrm{d}}\theta_t )\big\} \tilde{\pi}_{t}({\mathrm{d}}\theta_{t-1})}\Big)^2\Big]\\
&\leq {\mathbb{E}}_t\Big[\Big(\frac{\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=1}^N G_t(\theta_t^n)}{\int_{\tilde{\Theta}}\big\{\int_{\tilde{\Theta}} G_t(\theta_t) L_t(\theta_{t-1},{\mathrm{d}}\theta_t )\big\} \tilde{\pi}_{t}({\mathrm{d}}\theta_{t-1})}-1\Big)^2\Big],\quad{\mathbb{P}}-a.s.
\end{split}$$
Next, we show - by induction on $s\geq 0$.
It is direct to see that holds for $s=0$ with $C_0$ such that ${\mathbb{P}}(C_0=1)=1$. Assume now that holds at time $t\geq 0$ and note that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=1}^N W_t^n\varphi(\theta_t^n)-\tilde{\pi}_t(\varphi)&=\sum_{n=1}^N W_t^n\varphi(\theta_t^n)-\frac{\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=1}^N G_t(\theta_t^n)\varphi(\theta_t^n)}{\int_{\tilde{\Theta}}\big\{\int_{\tilde{\Theta}} G_t(\theta_t) L_t(\theta_{t-1},{\mathrm{d}}\theta_t )\big\} \tilde{\pi}_{t}({\mathrm{d}}\theta_{t-1})}\\
&+\frac{\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=1}^N G_t(\theta_t^n)\varphi(\theta_t^n)}{\int_{\tilde{\Theta}}\big\{\int_{\tilde{\Theta}} G_t(\theta_t) L_t(\theta_{t-1},{\mathrm{d}}\theta_t )\big\} \tilde{\pi}_{t}({\mathrm{d}}\theta_{t-1})}-\tilde{\pi}_t(\varphi)\end{aligned}$$ where the mean squared error (MSE) of the second term can be bounded using while the MSE of the first term can be bounded by first using and then applying . This shows that if holds at time $t$ then also holds at time $t$.
To conclude the proof it remains to show that, if for some $t\geq 1$ holds for all $s\in 0:(t-1)$ then holds at time $t$. To this aim note that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=1}^N\varphi(\theta_t^n)&-\int_{\tilde{\Theta}} \Big\{\int_{\tilde{\Theta}} \varphi(\theta_t)L_t(\theta_{t-1},{\mathrm{d}}\theta_t)\Big\}\tilde{\pi}_{t-1}({\mathrm{d}}\theta_{t-1})\\
&=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=1}^N\varphi(\theta_t^n)-\sum_{n=1}^N W_{t-1}^n \int_{\tilde{\Theta}} \varphi(\theta_t)L^N_t(\theta^n_{t-1},{\mathrm{d}}\theta_t)\\
&+\sum_{n=1}^N W_{t-1}^n\int_{\tilde{\Theta}} \varphi(\theta_t)\big\{L^N_t(\theta^n_{t-1},{\mathrm{d}}\theta_t)-L_t(\theta^n_{t-1},{\mathrm{d}}\theta_t)\big\}\\
&+\sum_{n=1}^N W_{t-1}^n \int_{\tilde{\Theta}} \varphi(\theta_t)L_t(\theta^n_{t-1},{\mathrm{d}}\theta_t)-\int_{\tilde{\Theta}} \Big\{\int_{\tilde{\Theta}} \varphi(\theta_t)L_t(\theta_{t-1},{\mathrm{d}}\theta_t)\Big\}\tilde{\pi}_{t-1}({\mathrm{d}}\theta_{t-1})\end{aligned}$$ where the MSE of the first term is bounded using , the MSE of the last term is bounded using at time $s=t-1$ while the MSE of the second term is bounded using Lemma \[lemma:int\_prop\]. Remark that Lemma \[lemma:int\_prop\] can indeed be used since, as shown above, if holds for $s\in 0:(t-1)$ then also holds for $s\in 0:(t-1)$. The proof of the first part of the proposition is complete.
To prove the second part of the proposition remark that, ${\mathbb{P}}$-a.s., $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{|\varphi|\leq 1}&{\mathbb{E}}_t\big[(\bar{\pi}_t^{N,K}(\varphi) -\bar{\pi}_t(\varphi))^2\big]^{\frac{1}{2}}\\
&\leq \sup_{|\varphi|\leq 1}{\mathbb{E}}_t\Big[\Big(\bar{\pi}_t^{N,K}(\varphi)-\frac{1}{t+1}\sum_{s=0}^T\tilde{\pi}^N_s(\varphi)\Big)^2\Big]^{\frac{1}{2}}+\sup_{|\varphi|\leq 1}\frac{1}{t+1}\sum_{s=0}^t{\mathbb{E}}_t\big[((\tilde{\pi}_s^N-\tilde{\pi}_s)(\varphi))^2\big]^{\frac{1}{2}}\\
&\leq \sup_{|\varphi|\leq 1}{\mathbb{E}}_t\Big[\Big(\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K\varphi(\bar{\theta}_t^k)-\frac{1}{t+1}\sum_{s=0}^T\tilde{\pi}^N_s(\varphi)\Big)^2\Big]^{1/2}+\frac{\frac{1}{t+1}\sum_{s=0}^tC_s}{N}\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality holds by the first part of Proposition \[prop:conv\_algo\].
Using a proof by induction on $s\geq 0$ it is easily verified that $\bar{\theta}_t^{1:K}{\stackrel{\mathclap{\normalfont\mbox{\tiny{iid}}}}{\sim}}\frac{1}{t+1}\sum_{s=0}^T\tilde{\pi}^N_s$ and thus, ${\mathbb{P}}$-a.s, $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{|\varphi|\leq 1}{\mathbb{E}}_t\Big[\Big(\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K\varphi(\bar{\theta}_t^k)&-\frac{1}{t+1}\sum_{s=0}^T\tilde{\pi}^N_s(\varphi)\Big)^2\Big]\\
&=\frac{1}{K}\sup_{|\varphi|\leq 1}{\mathbb{E}}_t\Big[{\mathrm{Var}}\big(\varphi(\bar{\theta}_t^1)|\,{\mathcal{F}}_t,\,\sigma(\theta_{0:t}^{1:N})\big) \Big]\\
&\leq \frac{1}{K}\end{aligned}$$ and the proof is complete.
Proof of Proposition \[prop:assumption\]\[p-prop:assumption\]
-------------------------------------------------------------
The proof of the second part of the proposition is similar to that of first part and to save place only this latter is given below.
For every $C\in{\mathbb{R}}_{>0}$ let $A_{C}=\{(\mu,\sigma^2)\in{\mathbb{R}}^2:\, |\sigma^2|< C,\,|\mu|<C\}$. We first show that if $C$ is large enough then \[new\] holds for $A_\star=A_{C_\star}$.
Let $B_{1,C}=\{(\mu,\sigma^2)\in\Theta:\, \sigma^2\geq C\}$ and $B_{2,C}=\{(\mu,\sigma^2)\in\Theta:\,|\mu|\geq C\}$ so that $A^c_C\cap\Theta=B_{1,C}\cup B_{2,C}$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:p_a1}
{\mathbb{E}}[\sup_{\theta \not\in A_C}\log (\tilde{f}_{\theta})]\leq {\mathbb{E}}[\sup_{\theta \in B_{1,C}}\log (f_{\theta})]+{\mathbb{E}}[\sup_{\theta \in B_{2,C}}\log (f_{\theta})]\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:p_a2}
{\mathbb{E}}[\sup_{\theta \in B_{1,C}}\log (\tilde{f}_{\theta})]\leq -\frac{1}{2}\log( 2\pi C).\end{aligned}$$
To proceed further let $\theta\in B_{2,C}$, $y\in{\mathbb{R}}$ and note that $$\begin{aligned}
f_\theta(y)&= f_\theta(y){\mathds{1}}(|y|\geq C/2)+ f_\theta(y){\mathds{1}}(|y|< C/2)\\
&\leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\underline{\sigma}^2}}{\mathds{1}}(|y|\geq C/2)+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\sigma^2}}e^{-\frac{(y-C)^2}{2\sigma^2}}{\mathds{1}}(|y|< C/2)\\
&\leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\underline{\sigma}^2}}{\mathds{1}}(|y|\geq C/2)+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\sigma^2}}e^{-\frac{C^2}{8\sigma^2}}{\mathds{1}}(|y|< C/2)\\
&\leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\underline{\sigma}^2}}{\mathds{1}}(|y|\geq C/2)+\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi C^2/2}}e^{-\frac{1}{2}}{\mathds{1}}(|y|< C/2).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}[\sup_{\theta \in B_{2,C}}\log (f_{\theta})]&\leq -\frac{1}{2}\log(2\pi\underline{\sigma}^2){\mathbb{P}}(|Y_1|\geq C/2)-\frac{1}{2}\log(\pi C^2/2){\mathbb{P}}(|Y_1|< C/2)\end{aligned}$$ which, together with and , shows that $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}[\sup_{\theta \not\in A_C}\log (\tilde{f}_{\theta})]&\leq -\frac{1}{2}\log( 2\pi C)-\frac{1}{2}\log(2\pi\underline{\sigma}^2){\mathbb{P}}(|Y_1|\geq C/2)-\frac{1}{2}\log(\pi C^2/2){\mathbb{P}}(|Y_1|< C/2).\end{aligned}$$ Since the r.h.s. converges to $-\infty$ as $C\rightarrow+\infty$ it follows that \[new\].\[A41\]) holds for $A_\star=A_{C_\star}$, for a sufficiently large constant $C_\star\in{\mathbb{R}}_{>0}$.
To show the second part of \[new\] let $\tilde{A}_\star$ be an arbitrary compact set that contains a neighbourhood of $A_{C_\star}$. Note that $\tilde{A}_\star\cap\Theta$ is compact and that the mapping $\theta\mapsto f_\theta(y)$ is continuous on $\tilde{A}_\star\cap\Theta$ for all $y\in{\mathbb{R}}$. Then, since for all $(\tilde{\theta},\theta)\in\Theta^2$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\log\big( (f_{\tilde{\theta}}/f_\theta)(y)\big)=\frac{1}{2}\log( \sigma^2/\tilde{\sigma}^2)-\frac{1}{2}\Big(\frac{\sigma^2-\tilde{\sigma}^2}{\sigma^2\tilde{\sigma^2}}y^2+\frac{\tilde{\mu}^2}{\tilde{\sigma}^2}-\frac{\mu^2}{\sigma^2}-2y\frac{\tilde{\mu}\sigma^2-\mu\tilde{\sigma}^2}{\sigma^2\tilde{\sigma^2}}\Big)\end{aligned}$$ it follows that the second part of \[new\] holds since ${\mathbb{E}}[Y_1^4]<+\infty$ by assumption. This concludes to show that \[new\] holds
To show that \[new1\].\[A53\] holds it suffices to remark that $f_\theta(y)\leq (2\pi\underline{\sigma}^2)^{-1/2}$ for all $\theta\in\Theta$ and $y\in{\mathsf{Y}}$.
We now show that \[new2\] holds. To this aim let $\theta_\star=(\mu_\star,\sigma_\star^2)\in\Theta$ and note that, for all $\sigma^2\in{\mathbb{R}}_{>0}$ and $\delta\neq 0$, we have $$\label{eq:CC}
\begin{split}
{\mathbb{E}}\Big[\exp\Big(-\frac{(Y_1-(\mu_\star+\delta))^2}{2\sigma^2}
\Big)\Big]&\leq e^{- \delta^2/(8\sigma^2)}+ {\mathbb{P}}\big(|Y_1-\mu_\star|\geq |\delta|/2 \big)\\
&\leq e^{- \delta^2/(8\sigma^2)} +\frac{2 {\mathbb{E}}[|Y_1-\mu_\star|]}{|\delta|}.
\end{split}$$ where the last inequality uses Markov’s inequality.
Let $\theta_C\in V_C$, $$\epsilon_1=\frac{ |\sigma_C^2-\sigma_\star^2|}{C},\quad \epsilon_2=\frac{ |\mu_C-\mu_\star|}{C}$$ and remark that $\epsilon_1\vee \epsilon_2\geq 1/\sqrt{2}$. Assume first that $\epsilon_2\geq 1/\sqrt{2}$. Then, using with $\delta=\mu_C-\mu_\star$, we have $$\label{eq:CC1}
\begin{split}
{\mathbb{E}}[f_{\theta_C}(Y_1)]&\leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\underline{\sigma}^2}}\bigg(\exp\Big(- \frac{\epsilon_2^2 C^2}{8\sigma_C^2}\Big) +\frac{2 {\mathbb{E}}[|Y_1-\mu_\star|]}{\epsilon_2 C}\bigg)\\
&\leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\underline{\sigma}^2}}\bigg(\exp\Big(- \frac{ C^2}{16 \underline{\sigma}^2}\Big) +\frac{2^{3/2} {\mathbb{E}}[|Y_1-\mu_\star|]}{ C}\bigg).
\end{split}$$ Assume now that $\epsilon_2< 1/\sqrt{2}$, so that $\epsilon_1\geq 1/\sqrt{2}$. Note that, for $C> 2^{3/2}\sigma^2_\star$ we have $$\sigma_C^2=\big|\sigma^2_\star-\sigma^2_C-\sigma^2_\star\big|\geq \epsilon_1 C -\sigma^2_\star\geq C/\sqrt{2}-\sigma^2_\star\geq \sigma^2_\star>0.$$ Therefore, for $C> 2^{3/2}\sigma^2_\star$ we have $$\label{eq:CC2}
\begin{split}
{\mathbb{E}}[f_{\theta_C}(Y_1)]&\leq \Big(2\pi(\sigma^2_\star-\sigma^2_C-\sigma^2_\star)\Big)^{-1/2}\leq \Big(2\pi(C/\sqrt{2}-\sigma_\star^2)\Big)^{-1/2}.
\end{split}$$ Then, using -, it follows that there exists a constant $C'\in{\mathbb{R}}_{>0}$ such that, for $C>0$ large enough we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{\theta\in V_C}{\mathbb{E}}[f_{\theta}(Y_1)]&\leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\underline{\sigma}^2}}\bigg(\exp\Big(- \frac{ C^2}{16 \underline{\sigma}^2}\Big) +\frac{2^{3/2} {\mathbb{E}}[|Y_1-\mu_\star|]}{ C}\bigg)+\Big(2\pi(C/\sqrt{2}-\sigma_\star^2)\Big)^{-1/2}\\
&\leq \frac{C'}{C^{1/2}}\end{aligned}$$ showing that $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{C\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{\log\big(\sup_{\theta\in V_C}{\mathbb{E}}[f_{\theta}(Y_1)]\big)}{\log (C)}\leq \limsup_{C\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{\log(C')-\frac{1}{2}\log(C)}{\log (C)}=-\frac{1}{2}<0.\end{aligned}$$ Hence the first part of \[new2\].\[A63\] holds. In addition, since $$|\log(f_{\theta_\star}(y))|^{p}\leq 2^{p-1}\Big|\frac{1}{2}\log(2\pi\sigma_\star^2)\Big|^{p}+\frac{|y-\mu_\star|^{2p}}{2(\sigma_\star^2)^p},\quad\forall p\in\mathbb{N},$$ it follows that the second part of \[new2\].\[A63\] holds for every $k_\star\in\mathbb{N}$ since, by assumption, ${\mathbb{E}}[e^{c |Y_1|}]<+\infty$ for some constant $c>0$. The proof is complete.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:online\]\[p-thm:online\]
-----------------------------------------------
Theorem \[thm:online\] is a direct consequence of Proposition \[prop:conv\_proba\] and of the following three lemmas.
\[lemma:online1\] Consider the set-up of Theorem \[thm:online\]. Then, ${\mathbb{E}}[\tilde{\pi}_{t_p}(V_{\epsilon })]\rightarrow 0$ for all $\epsilon>0$.
See Section \[p-lemma:online1\] for the proof.
\[lemma:online2\]
Consider the set-up of Theorem \[thm:online\] and assume that the conclusion of Lemma \[lemma:online1\] holds. Let $(v_p)_{p\geq 1}$ be a sequence in $\mathbb{N}$ such that $t_{p-1}\leq v_p<t_p$ for all $p\geq 1$ and such that $(v_p-t_{p-1})\rightarrow+\infty$, and let $(\tau_k)_{k\geq 1}$ be a strictly increasing sequence in $\mathbb{N}$ such that $(\tau_k)_{k\geq 1}=\{t\in\mathbb{N}:\,\exists p\geq 1,\, v_p\leq t< t_p\}$. Then, $ {\mathbb{E}}[\tilde{\pi}_{\tau_k}(V_{\epsilon})]\rightarrow 0$ for all $\epsilon>0$.
See Section \[p-lemma:online2\] for the proof.
\[lemma:online3\]
Consider the set-up of Theorem \[thm:online\] and assume that the conclusion of Lemma \[lemma:online1\] holds. Then, there exists a sequence $(v_p)_{p\geq 1}$ verifying the conditions of Lemma \[lemma:online2\] such that, with $(\tau'_q)_{q\geq 1}$ the strictly increasing sequence in $\mathbb{N}$ verifying $$(\tau'_q)_{q\geq 1}=\{t\in\mathbb{N}:\,\exists p\geq 1,\, t_{p-1}<t\leq v_p\},$$ we have ${\mathbb{E}}[\tilde{\pi}_{\tau'_q}(V_{\epsilon})]\rightarrow 0$ for all $\epsilon>0$.
See Section \[p-lemma:online3\] for the proof.
### Proof of Lemma \[lemma:online1\]\[p-lemma:online1\]
Below $C\in(0,+\infty)$ is a constant whose value can change from one expression to another.
We first remark that, by Doob’s martingale inequality and under the assumptions on $(\mu_t)_{t\geq 0}$, $$\limsup_{p\rightarrow+\infty}{\mathbb{P}}\big([U_{(t_{p-1}+1):t_p}]\geq \gamma\big)\leq C \gamma^{-2}\limsup_{p\rightarrow+\infty} \sum_{s=t_{p-1}+1}^{t_{p}-1}h_s^2=0,\quad\forall \gamma>0$$ showing that there exists a sequence $(\gamma_t)_{t\geq 1}$ in ${\mathbb{R}}_{>0}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:gamma_t}
\gamma_t\rightarrow 0, \quad {\mathbb{P}}\big([U_{(t_{p-1}+1):t_p}]\geq \gamma_{t_p}\big)\rightarrow 0.\end{aligned}$$
Let $(\gamma_t)_{t\geq 1}$ be as in and $(s_t)_{t\geq 1}$ be a sequence in $\mathbb{N}_0$ such that $\inf_{t\geq 1}(t-s_t)\geq 1$, $(t-s_{t})\rightarrow+\infty$ and $s_{t_p}=t_{p-1}$ for every $p\geq 1$. Remark that such a sequence $(s_t)_{t\geq 1}$ exists under the assumptions of the lemma.
To proceed further let $(C_1,C_2)\in{\mathbb{R}}_{>0}^2$ be as in Lemma \[lemma:part\_1\]. Without loss of generality we assume below that $2\sqrt{1/(2C_1 C_2)}<\delta_\star$, with $\delta_\star>0$ as in Lemma \[lemma:denom\]. Let $\tilde{\delta}=\delta=\sqrt{1/(2C_1 C_2)} $, $(\phi'_t)_{t\geq 1}$ be as in Lemma \[lemma:part\_1\] and, for every $t\geq 1$, let $\tilde{\phi}_{t}(Y_{1:t})$ be such that $\tilde{\phi}_t(Y_{1:t})=1$ whenever $\tilde{\pi}_{t} (V_{c/h^\beta_{t}})\geq \beta^{-1}$ and such that $\tilde{\phi}_t(Y_{1:t})=0$ otherwise, with $(c,\beta)\in (1,+\infty)$ as in . Notice that ${\mathbb{E}}[\tilde{\phi}_{t_p}(Y_{1:t_p})]\rightarrow 0$ by while ${\mathbb{E}}[\phi'_{t_p}(Y_{1:t_p})]\rightarrow 0$ by Lemma \[lemma:part\_1\].
Therefore, using Lemma \[lemma:pi\], Tonellli’s theorem and the shorthand $ \Theta_{t_p}= \Theta_{\gamma_{t_p},t_{p-1}:t_p}$, $$\label{eq:inquality1}
\begin{split}
&\limsup_{p\rightarrow+\infty} {\mathbb{E}}[\tilde{\pi}_{t_p}(V_{\epsilon})]\\
& \leq \limsup_{p\rightarrow+\infty}{\mathbb{E}}[(1-\phi'_{t_p}(Y_{1:t_p}))(1-\tilde{\phi}_{t_{p-1}}(Y_{1:t_{p-1}}))\tilde{\pi}_{t_p}(V_{\epsilon})]\\
&\leq \limsup_{p\rightarrow+\infty}{\mathbb{E}}\big[(1-\phi'_{t_p}(Y_{1:t_p}))(1-\tilde{\phi}_{t_{p-1}}(Y_{1:t_{p-1}})){\mathds{1}}_{ \Theta_{t_p}}(U_{t_{p-1}:t_p}) \pi'_{t_{p-1},t_p}(V_{\epsilon})\big]\\
&+\limsup_{p\rightarrow+\infty}{\mathbb{E}}\Big[(1-\phi'_{t_p}(Y_{1:t_p}))(1-\tilde{\phi}_{t_{p-1}}(Y_{1:t_{p-1}})){\mathds{1}}_{ \Theta^c_{t_p}}(U_{t_{p-1}:t_p}) \pi'_{t_{p-1},t_p}(V_{\epsilon_{t_p}}) \big]
\end{split}$$ where, by Lemma \[lemma:part\_1\] and for $p$ large enough we have, ${\mathbb{P}}$-a.s., $$\label{eq:inquality_int1}
\begin{split}
{\mathbb{E}}\big[(1-\phi'_{t_p}&(Y_{1:t_p})) {\mathds{1}}_{ \Theta_{t_p}}(U_{t_{p-1}:t_p}) \pi'_{t_{p-1},t_p}(V_{\epsilon_{t_p}})|{\mathcal{F}}_{t_{p-1}}\big]\\
&\leq \frac{e^{-(t_p-t_{p-1}) C^{-1}}}{{\mathbb{P}}(U_{t_{p-1}:t_p}\in\Theta_{\delta,t_{p-1}:t_p})\, \inf_{v\in B_{\delta}(0)}(\mu_{t_{p-1}}*\tilde{\pi}_{t_{p-1}})(B_{\delta}(\theta_\star-v))}.
\end{split}$$
To proceed further let $v\in B_{\delta}(0)$, $f_{t_{p-1}}$ be the density of $\mu_{t_{p-1}}$ and remark that for all $p\geq 1$ we have (using Tonelli’s theorem for the second equality) $$\label{eq:lower_t}
\begin{split}
(\mu_{t_{p-1}}*\tilde{\pi}_{t_{p-1}})&(B_{\delta}(\theta_\star-v))\\
&=\int_{B_{\delta}(\theta_\star-v)} \int_{\Theta} f_{t_{p-1}}(\theta-u)\tilde{\pi}_{t_{p-1}}({\mathrm{d}}u) {\mathrm{d}}\theta\\
&=\int_{\Theta} \int_{B_{\delta}(\theta_\star-v)} f_{t_{p-1}}(\theta-u){\mathrm{d}}\theta \,\tilde{\pi}_{t_{p-1}}({\mathrm{d}}u)\\
&\geq \tilde{\pi}_{t_{p-1}}\big(B_{c h_{t_{p-1}}^{-\beta}}(\theta_\star)\big)\inf_{u\in B_{c h_{t_{p-1}}^{-\beta}}(\theta_\star)}\mu_{t_{p-1}}\big(B_{\delta}(\theta_\star-v+u)\big).
\end{split}$$ Recall that $\mu_{t_{p-1}}({\mathrm{d}}u)$ is the $t_{d,\nu}(0, h_{t_{p-1}}^2\Sigma_{t_{p-1}})$. Then, under the assumptions on $(\Sigma_t)_{t\geq 0}$, and using , it is easily checked that, with the shorthand $\nu_1=\beta(\nu+d)+\nu$, $$\label{eq:lower_C}
{\mathbb{P}}\Big( \inf_{v\in B_{\delta}(0)}(\mu_{t_{p-1}}*\tilde{\pi}_{t_{p-1}})(B_{\delta}(\theta_\star-v))\geq C^{-1} h_{t_{p-1}}^{\nu_1} \big|\tilde{\phi}_{t_{p-1}}(Y_{1:t_{p-1}})=0 \Big)=1,\quad\forall p\geq 1.$$ Consequently, using and for $p$ large enough, we have $$\label{eq:inquality2}
\begin{split}
{\mathbb{E}}\big[(1-\phi'_{t_p}(Y_{1:t_p}))(1- \tilde{\phi}_{t_{p-1}} (Y_{1:t_{p-1}})){\mathds{1}}_{ \Theta_{t_p}}& (U_{t_{p-1}:t_p}) \pi'_{t_{p-1},t_p}(V_{\epsilon})\big]\\
&\leq C h_{t_{p-1}}^{-\nu_1}\frac{e^{-(t_p-t_{p-1}) C^{-1}}}{{\mathbb{P}}(U_{t_{p-1}:t_p}\in\Theta_{\delta,t_{p-1}:t_p})}.
\end{split}$$
To proceed further remark that, by Lemma \[lemma:denom\] and using , we can without loss of generality assume that $(\phi'_t)_{t\geq 1}$ is such that, for all $p\geq 1$, $$\label{eq:psi1}
\begin{split}
&{\mathbb{P}}\bigg(\int_{\Theta}{\mathbb{E}}\Big[ (\mu_{t_{p-1}}*\tilde{\pi}_{t_{p-1}}) \Big(\theta-\sum_{s=t_{p-1}+1}^{t_p-1}U_s\Big)\prod_{s=t_{p-1}+1}^{t_p} (\tilde{f}_{\theta-\sum_{i=s}^{t_{p}-1}U_i}/f_{\theta_\star})(Y_s)\big|{\mathcal{F}}_{t_p}\Big] {\mathrm{d}}\theta \\
&> C^{-1} h_{t_{p-1}}^{\nu_1}{\mathbb{P}}(U_{t_{p-1}:t_p}\in\Theta_{\delta,t_{p-1}:t_p})\,e^{-(t_p-t_{p-1}) C \delta^2}\big|\phi'_{t_{p}}(Y_{1:t_{p}})\vee \tilde{\phi}_{t_{p-1}}(Y_{1:t_{p-1}})=0\bigg)\\
&=1
\end{split}$$ while, by the law of large numbers, we can also without loss of generality assume that $(\phi'_t)_{t\geq 1}$ is such that $$\label{eq:psi2}
{\mathbb{P}}\Big(-\frac{1}{t-s_t}\sum_{s=s_t+1}^t\log( f_{\theta_\star}(Y_s))\leq 1-{\mathbb{E}}[\log (f_{\theta_\star})]\,\,\big| \phi'_t(Y_{1:t})=0\Big)=1,\quad\forall t\geq 1.$$
We now show that, under \[new1\] we have, for $p$ large enough, $$\label{eq:inquality3}
\begin{split}
{\mathbb{E}}\big[ (1-\phi'_{t_p} (Y_{1:t_p}))(1-\tilde{\phi}_{t_{p-1}}&(Y_{1:t_{p-1}})) {\mathds{1}}_{ \Theta^c_{t_p}} (U_{t_{p-1}:t_p}) \pi'_{t_{p-1},t_p}(V_{\epsilon} )\big]\\
&\leq \frac{Ce^{(t_p-t_{p-1})C}}{{\mathbb{P}}(U_{t_{p-1}:t_p}\in\Theta_{\delta,t_{p-1}:t_p})}h_{t_{p-1}}^{-\nu_1}{\mathbb{P}}\big(U_{t_{p-1}:t_p}\not\in \Theta_{t_p}\big).
\end{split}$$
Assume first that \[new1\].\[A51\] holds. In this case, by the law of large numbers, we can without loss of generality assume that $(\phi'_t)_{t\geq 1}$ is such that $$\label{eq:psi3}
{\mathbb{P}}\Big(\frac{1}{t-s_t}\sum_{s=s_t+1}^t\sup_{\theta\in\Theta}\log (f_{\theta}(Y_s))\leq 1+{\mathbb{E}}[\sup_{\theta\in\Theta}\log (f_\theta)] \,\big| \phi'_t(Y_{1:t})=0\Big)=1,\quad\forall t\geq 1$$ in which case directly follows from , and .
Assume now that \[new1\].\[A52\] holds. Then, holds since, for all $p\geq 1$, $$\begin{split}
{\mathbb{E}}\big[ &(1-\phi'_{t_p} (Y_{1:t_p}))(1-\tilde{\phi}_{t_{p-1}}(Y_{1:t_{p-1}})) {\mathds{1}}_{ \Theta^c_{t_p}} (U_{t_{p-1}:t_p}) \pi'_{t_{p-1},t_p}(V_{\epsilon} )\big]\\
&\leq \frac{Ce^{(t_p-t_{p-1})C}}{{\mathbb{P}}(U_{t_{p-1}:t_p}\in\Theta_{\delta,t_{p-1}:t_p})}h_{t_{p-1}}^{-\nu_1} {\mathbb{E}}\Big[{\mathds{1}}_{ \Theta^c_{t_p}} (U_{t_{p-1}:t_p})\\
&\qquad \times \int_{V_{\epsilon}} (\mu_{t_{p-1}}*\tilde{\pi}_{t_{p-1}}) \Big(\theta-\sum_{s=t_{p-1}+1}^{t_p-1}U_s\Big)\prod_{s=t_{p-1}+1}^{t_p}{\mathbb{E}}\big[ \tilde{f}_{\theta-\sum_{i=s}^{t_{p}-1}U_i}/f_{\theta_\star})(Y_s)\big| U_{t_{p-1}:t_p}\big] {\mathrm{d}}\theta \Big]\\
&\leq \frac{Ce^{(t_p-t_{p-1})C}}{{\mathbb{P}}(U_{t_{p-1}:t_p}\in\Theta_{\delta,t_{p-1}:t_p})}h_{t_{p-1}}^{-\nu_1} \big(\sup_{\theta\in\Theta}{\mathbb{E}}\big[f_\theta/f_{\theta_\star} \big]\big)^{t_p-t_{p-1}}{\mathbb{P}}\big(U_{t_{p-1}:t_p}\not\in \Theta_{t_p}\big)\\
&\leq \frac{C e^{(t_p-t_{p-1})C}}{{\mathbb{P}}(U_{t_{p-1}:t_p}\in\Theta_{\delta, t_{p-1}:t_p})}h_{t_{p-1}}^{-\nu_1}{\mathbb{P}}\big(U_{t_{p-1}:t_p}\not\in \Theta_{t_p}\big)
\end{split}$$ where the last inequality holds since $\sup_{\theta\in\Theta}{\mathbb{E}}[f_\theta/f_{\theta_\star}]<+\infty$ under \[new1\].\[A52\].
Lastly, assume that \[new1\].\[A53\] holds. Then, holds since, for all $p\geq 1$, $$\begin{split}
{\mathbb{E}}\big[ &(1-\phi'_{t_p} (Y_{1:t_p}))(1-\tilde{\phi}_{t_{p-1}}(Y_{1:t_{p-1}})) {\mathds{1}}_{ \Theta^c_{t_p}} (U_{t_{p-1}:t_p}) \pi'_{t_{p-1},t_p}(V_{\epsilon} )\big]\\
&\leq \frac{Ce^{(t_p-t_{p-1})C}}{{\mathbb{P}}(U_{t_{p-1}:t_p}\in\Theta_{\delta, t_{p-1}:t_p})}h_{t_{p-1}}^{-\nu_1} {\mathbb{E}}\Big[{\mathds{1}}_{ \Theta^c_{t_p}} (U_{t_{p-1}:t_p})\\
&\times \int_{V_{\epsilon}} (\mu_{t_{p-1}}*\tilde{\pi}_{t_{p-1}}) \Big(\theta-\sum_{s=t_{p-1}+1}^{t_p-1}U_s\Big)\prod_{s=t_{p-1}+1}^{t_p} {\mathbb{E}}\big[ \tilde{f}_{\theta-\sum_{i=s}^{t_{p}-1}U_i} (Y_s)\big| U_{t_{p-1}:t_p}\big]{\mathrm{d}}\theta \Big]\\
&\leq \frac{C e^{(t_p-t_{p-1})C}}{{\mathbb{P}}(U_{t_{p-1}:t_p}\in\Theta_{\delta,t_{p-1}:t_p})}h_{t_{p-1}}^{-\nu_1} \big(\sup_{\theta\in\Theta}{\mathbb{E}}\big[f_\theta\big]\big)^{t_p-t_{p-1}}{\mathbb{P}}\big(U_{t_{p-1}:t_p}\not\in \Theta_{t_p}\big)\\
&\leq \frac{C e^{(t_p-t_{p-1})C}}{{\mathbb{P}}(U_{t_{p-1}:t_p}\in\Theta_{\delta,t_{p-1}:t_p})}h_{t_{p-1}}^{-\nu_1}{\mathbb{P}}\big(U_{t_{p-1}:t_p}\not\in \Theta_{t_p}\big)
\end{split}$$ where the last inequality holds since $\sup_{\theta\in\Theta}{\mathbb{E}}[f_\theta]<+\infty$ under \[new1\].\[A53\]. This concludes to show that holds under \[new1\].
Using , and , to conclude the proof it is enough to show that, as $p\rightarrow+\infty$, $$\begin{aligned}
&h_{t_{p-1}}^{-\nu_1}e^{-(t_p-t_{p-1})C^{-1}}\rightarrow 0\label{eq:lim1}\\
&h_{t_{p-1}}^{-\nu_1}e^{(t_p-t_{p-1})C}{\mathbb{P}}\big(U_{t_{p-1}:t_p}\not\in \Theta_{\gamma_{t_p},:t_{p-1},t_p}\big)\rightarrow 0\label{eq:lim2}\\
&\liminf_{p\rightarrow+\infty}{\mathbb{P}}(U_{t_{p-1}:t_p}\in\Theta_{\delta,t_{p-1}:t_p})>0.\label{eq:lim3}\end{aligned}$$
By assumptions, $\log(1/h_{t_{p-1}})(t_p-t_{p-1})^{-1}\rightarrow 0$ and therefore holds.
To establish note that, using Doob’s martingale inequality and the fact that $(\tilde{U} _s)_{s=t_{p-1}+1}^{t_p-1}$ are independent Gaussian random variables, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Doob_gauss}
{\mathbb{P}}\big([U_{(t_{p-1}+1):t_p}]\geq \gamma \big)\leq C \exp\Big(-\frac{\gamma^2}{C \sum_{s=t_{p-1}+1}^{t_p-1}h_s^2}\Big),\quad\forall \gamma>0,\quad\forall p\geq 1\end{aligned}$$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}\big(U_{t_{p-1}: t_p}\not\in \Theta_{\gamma_{t_p}, t_{p-1}:t_p}\big)={\mathbb{P}}\big([U_{(t_{p-1}+1):t_p}]\geq\gamma_{t_p}\big)\leq C \exp\Big(-\frac{\gamma_{t_p}^2}{C\sum_{s=t_{p-1}+1}^{t_p-1}h_s^2}\Big),\quad\forall p> 1.\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, for all $p> 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\log\Big(&h_{t_{p-1}}^{-\nu_1}\, e^{(t_p-t_{p-1})C}\, {\mathbb{P}}\big(U_{t_{p-1}: t_p}\not\in \Theta_{\gamma_{t_p}, t_{p-1}:t_p}\big)\Big)\\
&\leq -\nu_1 \log (h_{t_{p-1}})+C(t_p-t_{p-1})+\log(C)-C^{-1}\gamma_{t_p}^2\Big(\sum_{s=t_{p-1}+1}^{t_p-1}h_s^2\Big)^{-1}\\
&=-(t_p-t_{p-1})\bigg(-\frac{ \log(C)}{t_p-t_{p-1}}-C+\frac{C^{-1}\gamma_{t_p}^2-\nu_1\log(1/h_{t_{p-1}})\sum_{s=t_{p-1}+1}^{t_p-1}h_s^2}{(t_p-t_{p-1})\sum_{s=t_{p-1}+1}^{t_p-1}h_s^2}\bigg)\end{aligned}$$ where, under the assumptions of the lemma and by taking $(\gamma_t)_{t\geq 1}$ such that $\gamma_{t_p}\rightarrow 0$ sufficiently slowly $$\bigg(-\frac{ \log(C)}{t_p-t_{p-1}}-C+\frac{C^{-1}\gamma_{t_p}^2-\nu_1\log(1/h_{t_{p-1}})\sum_{s=t_{p-1}+1}^{t_p-1}h_s^2}{(t_p-t_{p-1})\sum_{s=t_{p-1}+1}^{t_p-1}h_s^2}\bigg)\rightarrow+\infty$$ so that holds.
Lastly, to show it suffices to remark that, since $\gamma_p\rightarrow 0$, $$\liminf_{p\rightarrow+\infty}{\mathbb{P}}(U_{t_{p-1}:t_p}\in\Theta_{\delta, t_{p-1}:t_p})\geq\liminf_{p\rightarrow+\infty} {\mathbb{P}}(U_{t_{p-1}:t_p}\in\Theta_{\gamma_p, t_{p-1}:t_p})=1$$ where the equality holds since holds. The proof is complete.
### Proof of Lemma \[lemma:online2\] {#p-lemma:online2}
Below $C\in(0,+\infty)$ is a constant whose value can change from one expression to another.
We first remark that under the assumptions of the lemma there exists a $p_1\in\mathbb{N}$ such that we have both $t_p-t_{p-1}>1$ and $v_p-t_{p-1}>0$ for all $p\geq p_1$. To simplify the presentation of the proof we assume without loss of generality that $p_1=1$ in what follows.
For every $k\geq 1$ let $p_k=\sup\{p\geq 0:\, t_p<\tau_k\}$ and let $(s_t)_{t\geq 1}$ be a sequence in $\mathbb{N}_0$ such that $\inf_{t\geq 1}(t-s_t)\geq 1$, $(t-s_t)\rightarrow+\infty$ and $s_{\tau_k}=t_{p_k}$ for every $k\geq 1$. Remark that such a sequence $(s_t)_{t\geq 1}$ exists since $(\tau_k-s_{\tau_k})\geq 1$ for all $k\geq 1$ by construction while, by assumption, $$\liminf_{k\rightarrow+\infty}(\tau_k-s_{\tau_k})\geq \liminf_{k\rightarrow+\infty} (v_{p_k+1}-t_{p_k})=+\infty.$$
Remark now that, by Doob’s martingale inequality and under the assumptions on $(\mu_t)_{t\geq 0}$ we have, for every $\gamma>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{k\rightarrow+\infty}{\mathbb{P}}\big([U_{(s_{\tau_k}+1):\tau_k}]\geq \gamma\big)\leq C\limsup_{k\rightarrow+\infty}\gamma^{-2} \sum_{s=t_{p_k}+1}^{\tau_k-1}h^2_s \leq C\limsup_{k\rightarrow+\infty} \sum_{s=t_{p_k}+1}^{t_{p_{k+1}}-1}h^2_s =0\end{aligned}$$ showing that there exists a sequence $(\gamma_t)_{t\geq 1}$ in ${\mathbb{R}}_{>0}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:gamma_t2}
\gamma_t\rightarrow 0,\quad {\mathbb{P}}\big([U_{(s_{\tau_k}+1):\tau_k}]\geq \gamma_{\tau_k}\big)\rightarrow 0.\end{aligned}$$
Let $(\gamma_t)_{t\geq 1}$ be as in and $(C_1,C_2)\in(0,+\infty)^2$ be as in Lemma \[lemma:part\_1\]. Without loss of generality we assume below that $2\sqrt{1/(2C_1 C_2)}<\delta_\star$, with $\delta_\star>0$ as in Lemma \[lemma:denom\].
Let $\kappa=\sqrt{1/(12C_1 C_2)}$, $\delta= 3\kappa$, $\tilde{\delta}=\kappa$ and remark that, for every $t\geq 1$ and $v \in B_{\tilde{\delta}}(0)$ we have, with $\theta_{s_t}:\Omega\rightarrow\Theta$ such that $\theta_{s_t}\sim\tilde{\pi}_{s_t}({\mathrm{d}}\theta)$ under ${\mathbb{P}}$, $$\label{eq:lower_1}
\begin{split}
{\mathbb{P}}\big(\|\theta_{s_t}+U_{s_t}-\theta_\star+v\|&\geq \delta |\,\theta_{s_t}\in B_{\kappa}(\theta_\star)\big)\\
&\leq {\mathbb{P}}\big(\|\theta_{s_t}-\theta_\star\|+\|U_{s_t}\|+\|v\|\geq \delta |\,\theta_{s_t}\in B_{\kappa}(\theta_\star)\big)\\
&\leq {\mathbb{P}}\big( U_{s_t}\not\in B_{ \delta-\tilde{\delta}-\kappa}(0)\big)\\
&\leq {\mathbb{P}}\big( U_{s_t}\not\in B_{ \kappa}(0)\big).
\end{split}$$ Then, since $h_{s_{t-1}}\rightarrow 0$, it is easily checked using that, under the assumptions on $(\mu_t)_{t\geq 0}$ and with $C^{\mu_{s_t}*\tilde{\pi}_{s_t}}_{\delta, \tilde{\delta}}$ as defined in Lemma \[lemma:denom\], for $t$ large enough we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Ct}
C^{\mu_{s_t}*\tilde{\pi}_{s_t}}_{\delta, \tilde{\delta}}\geq {\mathbb{P}}\big( U_{s_t} \in B_{\kappa}(0)\big)\tilde{\pi}_{s_t}(B_{\kappa}(\theta_\star))\geq C^{-1} \tilde{\pi}_{s_t}(B_{\kappa}(\theta_\star)),\quad{\mathbb{P}}-a.s.\\end{aligned}$$
Let $(\phi'_t)_{t\geq 1}$ be as in Lemma \[lemma:part\_1\], $\beta\in(0,1)$ and, for every $t\geq 1$, $\tilde{\phi}_t(Y_{1:t})$ be such that $\tilde{\phi}_t(Y_{1:t})=1$ whenever $\tilde{\pi}_{t} (V_{\kappa})\geq \beta^{-1}$ and such that $\tilde{\phi}_t(Y_{1:t})=0$ otherwise. Notice that ${\mathbb{E}}[\phi'_{\tau_k}(Y_{1:\tau_k})]\rightarrow 0$ by Lemma \[lemma:part\_1\] while ${\mathbb{E}}[\tilde{\phi}_{s_{\tau_k}}(Y_{1:s_{\tau_k}})]\rightarrow 0$ by Lemma \[lemma:online1\].
Therefore, using the shorthand $\Theta_{\tau_k}=\Theta_{\gamma_{\tau_k}, s_{\tau_k}:\tau_k}$, $$\label{eq:inquality11}
\begin{split}
&\limsup_{k\rightarrow+\infty} {\mathbb{E}}[\tilde{\pi}_{\tau_k}(V_{\epsilon})]\\
&\leq \limsup_{k\rightarrow+\infty}{\mathbb{E}}\big[(1-\phi'_{\tau_k}(Y_{1:\tau_k}))(1-\tilde{\phi}_{s_{\tau_k}}(Y_{1:s_{\tau_k}})){\mathds{1}}_{\Theta_{\tau_k}}(U_{s_{\tau_k}:\tau_k}) \pi'_{s_{\tau_k},\tau_k}(V_{\epsilon}) \big]\\
&+\limsup_{k\rightarrow+\infty}{\mathbb{E}}\big[(1-\phi'_{\tau_k}(Y_{1:\tau_k}))(1-\tilde{\phi}_{s_{\tau_k}}(Y_{1:s_{\tau_k}})){\mathds{1}}_{\Theta^c_{\tau_k}}(U_{s_{\tau_k}:\tau_k}) \pi'_{s_{\tau_k},\tau_k}(V_{\epsilon})\big].
\end{split}$$
We now remark that, using Lemma \[lemma:online1\], and Lemma \[lemma:denom\], and because $s_{\tau_k}=t_{p_k}$ for all $k\geq 1$, we can without loss of generality assume that $(\phi'_t)_{t\geq 1}$ is such that, for all $k\geq 1$, $$\label{eq:psi11}
\begin{split}
{\mathbb{P}}\Big(\int_{\Theta}{\mathbb{E}}\Big[&(\mu_{t_{p_k}}*\tilde{\pi}_{t_{p_k}}) \big(\theta-\sum_{s=s_{\tau_k}+1}^{\tau_k-1}U_s\Big)\prod_{s=s_{\tau_k}+1}^{\tau_k} (\tilde{f}_{\theta-\sum_{i=s}^{\tau_{k}-1}U_i}/f_{\theta_\star})(Y_s)\big|{\mathcal{F}}_{\tau_k}\Big] {\mathrm{d}}\theta \\
&> C^{-1} {\mathbb{P}}(U_{s_{\tau_k}:\tau_k}\in\Theta_{\tilde{\delta}, s_{\tau_k}:\tau_k})\,e^{-C(\tau_k-s_{\tau_k}) \delta^2}\big| \phi'_{\tau_k}(Y_{1:\tau_k})=0\Big)=1.
\end{split}$$
Then, following the computations in the proof of Lemma \[lemma:online1\], with used in place of , we obtain for $k$ large enough $$\label{eq:inquality22}
\begin{split}
{\mathbb{E}}\big[(1-\phi'_{\tau_k}(Y_{1:\tau_k}))(1-\tilde{\phi}_{s_{\tau_k}} (Y_{1:s_{\tau_k}}))&{\mathds{1}}_{\Theta_{\tau_k}}(U_{s_{\tau_k}:\tau_k}) \pi'_{s_{\tau_k},\tau_k} (V_{\epsilon})\big]\\
&\leq \frac{C e^{-(\tau_k-s_{\tau_k})C^{-1}}}{{\mathbb{P}}(U_{s_{\tau_k}:\tau_k}\in\Theta_{\tilde{\delta}, s_{\tau_k}:\tau_k}) }
\end{split}$$ and $$\label{eq:inquality33}
\begin{split}
{\mathbb{E}}\big[ (1-\phi'_{\tau_k} (Y_{1:\tau_k}))(1-\tilde{\phi}_{s_{\tau_k}} (Y_{1:s_{\tau_k}})) &{\mathds{1}}_{\Theta^c_{\tau_k}} (U_{s_{\tau_k}:\tau_k}) \pi'_{s_{\tau_k},\tau_k}(V_{\epsilon} )\big]\\
&\leq \frac{C e^{(\tau_k-s_{\tau_k})C}}{{\mathbb{P}}(U_{s_{\tau_k}:\tau_k}\in\Theta_{\tilde{\delta},s_{\tau_k}:\tau_k})} {\mathbb{P}}\big(U_{s_{\tau_k}:\tau_k}\not\in \Theta_{\tau_k}\big).
\end{split}$$
Therefore, using , and , to conclude the proof it is enough to show that $$\begin{aligned}
&e^{-(\tau_k-s_{\tau_k}) C^{-1}}\rightarrow 0\label{eq:lim11}\\
&e^{(\tau_k-s_{\tau_k})C}{\mathbb{P}}\big(U_{s_{\tau_k}:\tau_k}\not\in \Theta_{\gamma_{\tau_k}, s_{\tau_k}:\tau_k}\big)\rightarrow 0\label{eq:lim22}.
$$ Since $\liminf_{k\rightarrow+\infty}(\tau_k-s_{\tau_k})\geq \liminf_{k\rightarrow+\infty}(v_{p_k+1}-t_{p_k})= +\infty$ it follows that holds. To show remark that $$\begin{aligned}
e^{(\tau_k-s_{\tau_k})C}{\mathbb{P}}\big(U_{s_{\tau_k}:\tau_k}\not\in \Theta_{\gamma_{\tau_k}, s_{\tau_k}:\tau_k}\big)&=e^{(\tau_k-s_{\tau_k})C}{\mathbb{P}}\big([U_{(s_{\tau_k}+1):\tau_k}]\geq \gamma_{\tau_k} \big)\\
&\leq C e^{(t_{p_k+1}-t_{p_k})C}\exp\Big(-\frac{\gamma_{\tau_k}}{C\sum_{s=t_{p_k}+1}^{\tau_k-1}h_s^2}\Big)\\
&\leq C e^{(t_{p_k+1}-t_{p_k})C}\exp\Big(-\frac{\gamma_{\tau_k}}{C\sum_{s=t_{p_k}+1}^{t_{p_k+1}-1}h_s^2}\Big)\end{aligned}$$ where the first inequality uses . As shown in the proof of Lemma \[lemma:online1\], the term on the r.h.s. of the last inequality sign converges to 0 as $k\rightarrow+\infty$ when $\gamma_{\tau_k}\rightarrow 0$ sufficiently slowly, and thus holds. The proof is complete.
### Proof of Lemma \[lemma:online3\]\[p-lemma:online3\]
Below $C\in(0,+\infty)$ is a constant whose value can change from one expression to another.
For every $p\geq 1$ let $$\begin{aligned}
&\xi_p=1\wedge\Bigg(\frac{\log(h_{t_p}^{-\nu})^{1/2}\wedge (t_p-t_{p-1})^{1/2}}{\log(h_{t_p}^{-\nu})}\Bigg)\\
&v_p=t_{p-1}+ \lfloor \log(h_{t_{p-1}}^{-\nu\xi_{p-1}})\rfloor \wedge (t_{p}-t_{p-1}-1)\end{aligned}$$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:xi_p}
\xi_p\rightarrow 0,\quad \log(h_{t_{p-1}}^{-\nu\xi_{p-1}})\rightarrow+\infty,\quad \frac{ \log(h_{t_{p-1}}^{-\nu\xi_{p-1}})}{t_p-t_{p-1}}\rightarrow 0\end{aligned}$$ while $(v_p)_{p\geq 1}$ verifies the conditions of Lemma \[lemma:online2\].
For every $q\geq 1$ let $p_q=\sup\{p\geq 0:\, t_p<\tau'_q\}$ and note that, using ,
$$\label{eq:st}
\begin{split}
\liminf_{q\rightarrow+\infty}(\tau'_q-v_{p_q})&\geq \liminf_{q\rightarrow+\infty}(t_{p_q}-v_{p_q})\\
&= \liminf_{p\rightarrow+\infty}(t_p-v_p)\\
&\geq \liminf_{p\rightarrow+\infty} (t_p-t_{p-1})\Big(1-\frac{\log(h^{-\nu\xi_{p-1}}_{t_{p-1}})}{t_p-t_{p-1}}\Big)\\
&=+\infty.
\end{split}$$
Note also that, under the assumptions of the lemma, there exists a $p_1\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $$\label{eq:st1}
\log(h_{t_{p-1}}^{-\nu})^{1/2}>1,\quad\forall p\geq p_1.$$ To simplify the presentation of the proof we assume without loss of generality that $p_1=1$ in what follows.
We now let $(s_t)_{t\geq 0}$ be a sequence in $\mathbb{N}_0$ such that $\inf_{t\geq 1}(t-s_t)\geq 1$, $(t-s_t)\rightarrow+\infty$ and $$s_{\tau'_q}=\big(\tau'_q- \lfloor \log(h_{t_{p_q}}^{-\nu})^{1/2}\rfloor\big)\vee v_{p_q},\quad \forall q\geq 1.$$ Notice that such a sequence $(s_t)_{t\geq 0}$ exists by and because we are assuming that holds with $p_1=1$. Note also that $(s_t)_{t\geq 1}$ is such that $v_{p_q}\leq s_{\tau'_q}\leq t_{p_q}$ for all $q\geq 1$.
We now show that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:gamma_cond}
{\mathbb{P}}\big([U_{(s_{\tau'_q}+1):\tau'_q}]\geq \gamma\big)\rightarrow 0,\quad\forall \gamma>0.\end{aligned}$$ To this aim let $\gamma>0$ and remark that $$\label{eq:split_prob}
\begin{split}
{\mathbb{P}}\big([U_{(s_{\tau'_q}+1):\tau'_q}] \geq \gamma\big)&\leq {\mathbb{P}}\big(\max_{s_{\tau'_q}<s< \tau'_q}\big\|\sum_{i=s}^{\tau'_q-1} U_i-U_{t_{p_q}}{\mathds{1}}(s\leq t_{p_q})\|\geq \gamma/2\big)\\
&+{\mathbb{P}}\big( \|U_{t_{p_q}}\|\geq \gamma/2\big)
\end{split}$$ where ${\mathbb{P}}\big( \|U_{t_{p_q}}\|\geq \gamma/2\big)\rightarrow 0$ since $h_t\rightarrow 0$. In addition, by Doob’s martingale inequality and under the assumptions on $(\mu_t)_{t\geq 0}$, $$\begin{aligned}
&\limsup_{q\rightarrow+\infty}{\mathbb{P}}\Big(\max_{s_{\tau'_q}<s<\tau'_q}\big\|\sum_{i=s}^{\tau'_q-1} U_i-U_{t_{p_q}}{\mathds{1}}(s\leq t_{p_q})\|\geq \frac{\gamma}{2}\Big)\leq C\limsup_{q\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{\sum_{s=t_{p_q-1}+1}^{t_{p_{q+1}}-1}h_s^2}{(\gamma/2)^2}=0.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, holds showing that there exists a sequence $(\gamma_t)_{t\geq 1}$ in ${\mathbb{R}}_{>0}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:gamma_t22}
\gamma_t\rightarrow 0,\quad {\mathbb{P}}\big([U_{(s_{\tau'_q}+1):\tau'_q}]\geq \gamma_{\tau'_q}\big)\rightarrow 0.\end{aligned}$$
Let $(\gamma_t)_{t\geq 1}$ be as in , $(\tau_k)_{k\geq 1}$ be as defined in Lemma \[lemma:online2\], $(\tilde{\tau}_r)_{r\geq 1}$ be a strictly increasing sequence in $\mathbb{N}_0$ such that $(\tilde{\tau}_r)_{r\geq 1}= (\tau_k)_{k\geq 1}\cup(t_p)_{p\geq 0}$ and note that, by Lemmas \[lemma:online1\]-\[lemma:online2\] , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:conv_sub2}
{\mathbb{E}}[\tilde{\pi}_{\tilde{\tau}_r}(V_{\kappa})]\rightarrow 0,\quad\forall\kappa>0.\end{aligned}$$
Remark also that, by construction, $(s_{\tau'_q})_{q\geq 1}\subset (\tilde{\tau}_r)_{r\geq 1}$ so that we can now follow the computations in the proof of Lemma \[lemma:online2\]. As in this latter let $\tilde{\delta}=\kappa$ for some sufficiently small $\kappa>0$ (see the proof of Lemma \[lemma:online2\] for the expression of $\kappa$). Then, as shown in the proof of Lemma \[lemma:online2\] we have, $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{q\rightarrow+\infty}{\mathbb{E}}[\tilde{\pi}_{\tau'_q}(V_{\epsilon})]&\leq \limsup_{q\rightarrow+\infty} \frac{C\,e^{-(\tau'_q-s_{\tau'_q}) C^{-1}}}{{\mathbb{P}}(U_{s_{\tau'_q}:\tau'_q}\in\Theta_{\tilde{\delta}, s_{\tau'_q}:\tau'_q}) }\\
&+\limsup_{q\rightarrow+\infty} \frac{C\, e^{(\tau'_q-s_{\tau'_q})C}}{{\mathbb{P}}(U_{s_{\tau'_q}:\tau'_q}\in\Theta_{\tilde{\delta},s_{\tau'_q}:\tau'_q})} {\mathbb{P}}\big(U_{s_{\tau'_q}:\tau'_q}\not\in \Theta_{\gamma_{\tau'_q},s_{\tau'_q}:\tau'_q}\big)\end{aligned}$$ so that to conclude the proof it is enough to show that $$\begin{aligned}
&e^{(\tau'_q-s_{\tau'_q})C^{-1}}\rightarrow 0\label{eq:lim111}\\
&e^{(\tau'_q-s_{\tau'_q})C}{\mathbb{P}}\big(U_{(s_{\tau'_q}+1):\tau'_q}\not\in \Theta^{\gamma_{\tau'_q}}_{s_{\tau'_q},\tau'_q}\big)\rightarrow 0\label{eq:lim222}.
$$ Since $(\tau'_q-s_{\tau'_q})\rightarrow +\infty$ it follows that holds.
To show remark that $$\label{eq:decomp_final}
\begin{split}
e^{(\tau'_q-s_{\tau'_q})C}{\mathbb{P}}\big(U_{s_{\tau'_q}:\tau'_q}&\not\in \Theta_{\gamma_{\tau'_q},s_{\tau'_q}:\tau'_q}\big)\\
&=e^{(\tau'_q-s_{\tau'_q})C}{\mathbb{P}}\big([U_{(s_{\tau'_q}+1):\tau'_q}]\geq \gamma_{\tau'_q}\big) \\
&\leq e^{(\tau'_q-s_{\tau'_q})C} {\mathbb{P}}\big(\max_{s_{\tau'_q}<s< \tau'_q}\big\|\sum_{i=s}^{\tau'_q-1} U_i-U_{t_{p_q}}{\mathds{1}}(s\leq t_{p_q})\|\geq \gamma_{\tau'_q}/2\big)\\
&+e^{(\tau'_q-s_{\tau'_q})C}{\mathbb{P}}\big( \|U_{t_{p_q}}\|\geq \gamma_{\tau'_q}/2\big).
\end{split}$$ In addiiton, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:in_st}
\tau'_q-s_{\tau'_q}\leq \log(h_{t_{p_q}}^{-\nu\xi_{p_q}}) \leq 2(t_{p_q+1}-t_{p_{q}}),\end{aligned}$$ where the second inequality holds by and for $q$ large enough.
Therefore, using , $$\label{eq:decomp_final1}
\begin{split}
\limsup_{q\rightarrow+\infty} &\,e^{(\tau'_q-s_{\tau'_q})C}{\mathbb{P}}\big(\max_{s_{\tau'_q}<s< \tau'_q}\big\|\sum_{i=s}^{\tau'_q-1} U_i-U_{t_{p_q}}{\mathds{1}}(s\leq t_{p_q})\|\geq \gamma_{\tau'_q}/2\big)\\
&\leq C \limsup_{q\rightarrow+\infty} e^{(t_{p_q+1}-t_{p_{q}})C}\exp\bigg(-\frac{\gamma_{\tau'_q}}{C\sum_{s=t_{p_q-1}+1}^{t_{p_q+1}-1}h_s^2}\bigg)\\
&=0
\end{split}$$ where the equality holds assuming without loss of generality that $\gamma_{\tau'_q}\rightarrow 0$ sufficiently slowly and uses the fact that, by assumption, $$\limsup_{p\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{t_{p+2}-t_{p+1}}{ t_{p+1}-t_{p}}<+\infty.$$
Next, using standard tails estimate for the Student’s $t$-distribution, and recalling that we are assuming $\nu>1$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}\big( \|U_{t_{p}}\|\geq \gamma\big) \leq C \frac{\nu}{\nu-1}\frac{h_{t_p}}{ \gamma}\Big(1+\frac{ \gamma^2}{h_{t_p}^2\nu}\Big)^{-\frac{\nu-1}{2}} \leq C\Big(\frac{h_{t_p}}{ \gamma}\Big)^\nu,\quad\forall p\geq 1,\quad\forall \gamma>0.\end{aligned}$$ Remark also that, using the first inequality in and recalling that $\xi_p\rightarrow 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{p\rightarrow+\infty} h_{t_{p_q}}^\nu e^{(\tau'_p-s_{\tau'_p})C}&\leq\limsup_{p\rightarrow+\infty} h_{t_{p_q}}^{\nu(1-C \xi_{p_q})}=0
\end{aligned}$$ and therefore, assuming without loss of generality that $\gamma_{\tau'_q}\rightarrow 0$ sufficiently slowly, $$\limsup_{p\rightarrow+\infty} e^{(\tau'_q-s_{\tau'_q})C} {\mathbb{P}}\big( \|U_{t_{p_q}}\|\geq \gamma_{\tau'_q}/2\big)=0.$$ Together with and this last result shows that holds. The proof is complete.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:lower\_bound\_1\]\[p-thm:lower\_bound\_1\]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
We first show the following simple result.
\[lemma:simple\] Let $(t_p)_{p\geq 0}$ be a subsequence of $\mathbb{N}_0$ and $g:{\mathsf{Y}}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$ be a measurable function such that ${\mathbb{E}}[|g(Y_1)]|<+\infty$. Then, as $p\rightarrow+\infty$, $${\mathbb{P}}\Big(\max_{0<i\leq p}\frac{1}{t_i-t_{i-1}}\Big|\sum_{s=t_{i-1}+1}^{t_i}\big(g(Y_s)-{\mathbb{E}}[g(Y_1)]\big)\Big|\geq t^\delta_{p}\Big)\rightarrow 0,\quad\forall \delta>1.$$
Let $\delta>1$ so that, using Markov’s inequality for the second inequality, $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{p\rightarrow+\infty}{\mathbb{P}}\Big(&\max_{0< i\leq p}\frac{1}{t_i-t_{i-1}}\Big|\sum_{s=t_{i-1}+1}^{t_i}\big(g(Y_s)-{\mathbb{E}}[g(Y_1)]\big)\Big|\geq t^\delta_{p}\Big)\\
&\leq \limsup_{p\rightarrow+\infty}\sum_{i=1}^p{\mathbb{P}}\Big( \frac{1}{t_i-t_{i-1}}\Big|\sum_{s=t_{i-1}+1}^{t_i}\big(g(Y_s)-{\mathbb{E}}[g(Y_1)]\big)\Big|\geq t^\delta_{p}\Big)\\
&\leq \limsup_{p\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{2{\mathbb{E}}[|g(Y_1)|]}{t^{\delta-1}_{p}}\\
&=0.\end{aligned}$$
We also recall the following result [@ferger2014 Theorem 1.2].
\[lemma:mean\_p\] Let $(X_i)_{i\geq 1}$ be a sequence of i.i,d. random variables such that ${\mathbb{E}}[X_1]=0$ and ${\mathbb{E}}[X_1^{2p}]<+\infty$ for some $p\in\mathbb{N}$. Then ${\mathbb{E}}\big[(\sum_{i=1}^n X_i)^{2p}\big]={\mathcal{O}}(n^p)$.
Let $\beta>\max( \beta_\star,1/\alpha)$ and $D_p= h_{t_{p}}^{-\beta}$ for all $p\geq 1$.
We first establish the result of the theorem under \[new2\].\[A61\], and start by showing that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:conv_max}
{\mathbb{P}}\Big(\max_{0< i\leq p} e^{-(t_i-t_{i-1})\zeta(D_p)/2}\prod_{s=t_{i-1}+1}^{t_i}\sup_{\theta_s\in V_{D_p}}(\tilde{f}_{\theta_{s}}/f_{\theta_\star})(Y_s)< 1\Big)\rightarrow 1.\end{aligned}$$
Let $p_1\in\mathbb{N}$ be such that $\zeta(D_p)<0$ for all $p\geq p_1$; notice that such a $p_1$ exists under \[new2\].\[A61\]. Then, for every $p\geq p_1$ we have $$\label{eq:conv_max_1}
\begin{split}
{\mathbb{P}}\Big(& \max_{0< i\leq p} e^{-(t_i-t_{i-1})\zeta(D_p)/2}\prod_{s=t_{i-1}+1}^{t_i}\sup_{\theta_s\in V_{D_p}}(\tilde{f}_{\theta_{s}}/f_{\theta_\star})(Y_s)\geq 1\Big)\\
&={\mathbb{P}}\Big(\max_{0< i\leq p} \sum_{s=t_{i-1}+1}^{t_i}\Big\{\sup_{\theta_s\in V_{D_p}}\log \Big(\frac{\tilde{f}_{\theta_{s}}}{f_{\theta_\star}}(Y_s)\Big)-\zeta(D_p)+\frac{\zeta(D_p)}{2}\Big\}\geq 0\Big)\\
&\leq \sum_{i=1}^p{\mathbb{P}}\Big( \sum_{s=t_{i-1}+1}^{t_i}\Big(\sup_{\theta_s\in V_{D_p}}\log \Big(\frac{\tilde{f}_{\theta_{s}}}{f_{\theta_\star}}(Y_s)\Big)- \zeta(D_p )\Big)> (t_i-t_{i-1})|\zeta(D_p)|/2\Big)\\
&=\sum_{i=1}^p{\mathbb{P}}\Big(\frac{1}{t_i-t_{i-1}} \sum_{s=t_{i-1}+1}^{t_i}\Big(\sup_{\theta_s\in V_{D_p}}\log \Big(\frac{\tilde{f}_{\theta_{s}}}{f_{\theta_\star}}(Y_s)\Big)- \zeta(D_p )\Big)> |\zeta(D_p)|/2\Big).
\end{split}$$ Using Markov’s inequality, \[new2\].\[A61\] and Lemma \[lemma:mean\_p\], there exists a constant $C\in(0,+\infty)$ such that, for all $i\in 1:p$, $$\label{eq:conv_max_2}
\begin{split}
{\mathbb{P}}\Big(&\frac{1}{t_i-t_{i-1}} \sum_{s=t_{i-1}+1}^{t_i}\Big(\sup_{\theta_s\in V_{D_p}}\log \Big(\frac{\tilde{f}_{\theta_{s}}}{f_{\theta_\star}}(Y_s)\Big)- \zeta(D_p )\Big)> |\zeta(D_p)|/2\Big)\\
&\leq 2^{2k_\star}\frac{{\mathbb{E}}\Big[\Big|\frac{1}{t_i-t_{i-1}} \sum_{s=t_{i-1}+1}^{t_i}\big(\sup_{\theta_s\in V_{D_p}}\log\big( (\tilde{f}_{\theta_{s}}/f_{\theta_\star})(Y_s)\big)- \zeta(D_p) \big)\Big|^{2k_\star}\Big]}{ \zeta(D_p)^{2 k_\star}}\\
&\leq \frac{C }{ (t_i-t_{i-1})^{k_\star{\mathds{1}}_{\mathbb{N}}(k_\star)} |\zeta(D_p)|^{2k_\star}}.
\end{split}$$ By assumptions, $|\zeta(D_p)|^{-2 k_\star}\sum_{i=1}^p (t_i-t_{i-1})^{-k_\star{\mathds{1}}_{\mathbb{N}}(k_\star)}\rightarrow 0$ which, together with and , implies .
To proceed further let $\tilde{C}_{\star}\in(0,+\infty)$ be as in Lemma \[lemma:denom\], $\delta_p=t_p^{-\gamma}$ for some $\gamma>\max(\alpha,1/2)$, $\delta>0$ and, for all $i\geq 1$ and $s\in t_{i-1}:(t_i-1)$, let $V_{i,s}=\sum_{j=s}^{t_i-1}U_j$.
Under \[m\_star\]-\[taylor\] and by Lemma \[lemma:denom\], for $p$ large enough (i.e. for $\delta_p$ small enough) and all $i\in 1:p$, we have $$\begin{split}
g_{i}(Y_{1:t_i})&:=\int_{\Theta} {\mathbb{E}}\big[ (\mu_{t_{i-1}}*\tilde{\pi}_{t_{i-1}})(\theta-V_{i,t_{i-1}+1})\prod_{s=t_{i-1}+1}^{t_i}(\tilde{f}_{\theta-V_{i,s}}/f_{\theta_\star})(Y_s)\big|{\mathcal{F}}_{t_i}\big]{\mathrm{d}}\theta\\
&\leq \frac{{\mathbb{P}}( U_{ t_{i-1}:t_i} \in\Theta_{\delta_p, t_{i-1}:t_i})}{ e^{(t_i-t_{i-1})(2(\delta_p\tilde{C_\star})^2+\delta)}} \inf_{v\in B_{\delta_p}(0)}(\mu_{t_{i-1}}*\tilde{\pi}_{t_{i-1}})(B_{\delta_p}(\theta_\star-v))\\
&=:\tilde{g}_{i,p}(Y_{1:t_i})
\end{split}$$ with probability at most $p_{i,p}:=\big( (t_i-t_{i-1})\big\{ (\tilde{C}_{\star} \delta_p) +(\tilde{C}_{\star} \delta_p)^{-1} \delta \big\}^{2}\big)^{-1}$.
Then, noting that $\sum_{i=1}^p (t_i-t_{i-1})^{-1}\leq t_p$, it follows that $$\label{eq:conv_den2}
\begin{split}
\limsup_{p\rightarrow+\infty}{\mathbb{P}}\Big(\min_{1\leq i\leq p}\frac{g_{i}(Y_{1:t_i})}{\tilde{g}_{i,p}(Y_{1:t_i})} \leq 1\Big)& \leq \limsup_{p\rightarrow+\infty} \sum_{i=1}^p p_{i,p}\\
&\leq \limsup_{p\rightarrow+\infty} \frac{\delta_p^{2}\, \tilde{C}_{\star}^2}{\delta^2}\sum_{i=1}^p (t_i-t_{i-1})^{-1}\\
& \leq \frac{ \tilde{C}_{\star}^2}{\delta^2} \limsup_{p\rightarrow+\infty} t_p^{-2\gamma} t_p\\
&=0
\end{split}$$ where the last equality holds since $\gamma>1/2$.
Therefore, by and , there exists a sequence $({\mathsf{Y}}_p)_{p\geq 1}$, with ${\mathsf{Y}}_p\subset{\mathcal{Y}}^{\otimes t_p}$ for all $p\geq 1$, such that ${\mathbb{P}}(Y_{1:t_p}\in{\mathsf{Y}}_p)\rightarrow 1$ and such that, for all $p\geq 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\max_{0< i\leq p} e^{-(t_i-t_{i-1})\zeta(D_p)/2}\prod_{s=t_{i-1}+1}^{t_i}\sup_{\theta_s\in V_{D_p}}\frac{\tilde{f}_{\theta_{s}}}{f_{\theta_\star}}(y_s)< 1,\quad \min_{1\leq i\leq p}\frac{g_{i}(y_{1:t_i})}{\tilde{g}_{i,p}(y_{1:t_i})}>1,\quad \forall y_{1:t_p}\in{\mathsf{Y}}_p.\end{aligned}$$
To proceed further let $\epsilon\in(0,1)$ and note that, since ${\mathbb{P}}(Y_{1:t_p}\in{\mathsf{Y}}_p)\rightarrow 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:res_1}
\limsup_{p\rightarrow+\infty}{\mathbb{P}}(\tilde{\pi}_{t_p}(V_{2D_p})\geq \epsilon)\leq \limsup_{p\rightarrow+\infty}{\mathbb{P}}\big(\{\tilde{\pi}_{t_p}(V_{2D_p})\geq \epsilon\}\cap \{Y_{1:t_p}\in{\mathsf{Y}}_p\}\big)\end{aligned}$$ so that to prove the theorem under \[new2\].\[A61\] it remains to show that $$\limsup_{p\rightarrow+\infty}{\mathbb{P}}\big(\{\tilde{\pi}_{t_p}(V_{2D_p})\geq \epsilon\}\cap \{Y_{1:t_p}\in{\mathsf{Y}}_p\}\big)=0.$$
To this aim let $p_0\in\mathbb{N}$ and, for every $p>p_0$, let $({\mathsf{Y}}_{i,p})_{i=0}^p$ be a sequence in ${\mathcal{Y}}^{\otimes t_p}$ such that ${\mathsf{Y}}_{0,p}={\mathsf{Y}}^{t_p}$, ${\mathsf{Y}}_{p,p}={\mathsf{Y}}_p$ and such that, for every $i\in 1:p$, ${\mathsf{Y}}_{i,p}\subset \cap_{j=0}^{i-1}{\mathsf{Y}}_{j,p}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\max_{0< j\leq i} e^{-(t_j-t_{j-1})\zeta(D_p)/2}\prod_{s=t_{j-1}+1}^{t_j}\sup_{\theta_s\in V_{D_p}}\frac{\tilde{f}_{\theta_{s}}}{f_{\theta_\star}}(y_s)< 1,\quad \min_{1\leq j\leq i}\frac{g_{j}(y_{1:t_j})}{\tilde{g}_{j,p}(y_{1:t_j})}>1,\quad \forall y_{1:t_p}\in{\mathsf{Y}}_{i,p}.\end{aligned}$$ Let $A_{i,p}=\{\tilde{\pi}_{t_i}(V_{2D_p})\geq \epsilon\}\cap\{Y_{1:t_p}\in Y_{i,p}\}$ and $\tilde{A}_{i,p}=\{\tilde{\pi}_{t_i}(V_{2D_p}){\mathds{1}}_{{\mathsf{Y}}_{i,p}}(Y_{1:t_i})\geq \epsilon\}$ for all $p>p_0$ and all $i\in 1:p$.
Then, for every $p>p_0$ we have $$\label{eq:p_split1}
\begin{split}
{\mathbb{P}}\big(\{\tilde{\pi}_{t_p}(V_{2D_p})\geq \epsilon\} \cap \{Y_{1:t_p}\in{\mathsf{Y}}_p\}\big)&={\mathbb{P}}(A_{p,p})\\
&\leq {\mathbb{P}}(A_{p,p}| A^c_{p-1,p})+{\mathbb{P}}(A_{p-1,p})\\
&\leq \sum_{i=p_0+1}^p {\mathbb{P}}(A_{i,p}| A^c_{i-1,p})+{\mathbb{P}}(A_{p_0,p})\\
&= \sum_{i=p_0+1}^p {\mathbb{P}}(\tilde{A}_{i,p}| A^c_{i-1,p})+{\mathbb{P}}(A_{p_0,p})
\end{split}$$ and we now study ${\mathbb{P}}(\tilde{A}_{i,p}| A^c_{i-1,p})$ for all $i\in (p_0+1):p$.
Let $i\in (p_0+1):p$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&X_{i,p}^{(1)}= \int_{V_{2D_p}} {\mathbb{E}}\Big[{\mathds{1}}([U_{(t_{i-1}+1):t_i}]<D_p) (\mu_{t_{i-1}}*\tilde{\pi}_{t_{i-1}})(\theta-V_{i,t_{i-1}+1})\prod_{s=t_{i-1}+1}^{t_i} \frac{\tilde{f}_{\theta-V_{i,s}}}{f_{\theta_\star}}(Y_s)\big|{\mathcal{F}}_{t_i}\Big]{\mathrm{d}}\theta\\
&X_{i,p}^{(2)}= \int_{V_{2D_p}} {\mathbb{E}}\Big[{\mathds{1}}([U_{(t_{i-1}+1):t_i}]\geq D_p) (\mu_{t_{i-1}}*\tilde{\pi}_{t_{i-1}})(\theta-V_{i,t_{i-1}+1})\prod_{s=t_{i-1}+1}^{t_i} \frac{\tilde{f}_{\theta-V_{i,s}}}{f_{\theta_\star}}(Y_s)\big|{\mathcal{F}}_{t_i}\Big]{\mathrm{d}}\theta\end{aligned}$$ so that, by Lemma \[lemma:pi\], $$\tilde{\pi}_{t_i}(V_{2D_p})=\frac{X_{i,p}^{(1)}+X_{i,p}^{(2)}}{g_i(Y_{1:t_i})},\quad{\mathbb{P}}-a.s.$$ Then, by Markov’s inequality and using the definition of ${\mathsf{Y}}_{i,p}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}(\tilde{A}_{i,p}| A^c_{i-1,p})&\leq \epsilon^{-1}{\mathbb{E}}\bigg[\frac{(X_{i,p}^{(1)}+X_{i,p}^{(2)}){\mathds{1}}_{{\mathsf{Y}}_{i,p}}(Y_{1:t_p})}{g_i(Y_{1:t_i})}\big|A^c_{i-1,p}\bigg]\\
& \leq\epsilon^{-1}{\mathbb{E}}\bigg[\frac{(X_{i,p}^{(1)}+X_{i,p}^{(2)}){\mathds{1}}_{{\mathsf{Y}}_{i,p}}(Y_{1:t_p})}{\tilde{g}_{i,p}(Y_{1:t_i})}\big|A^c_{i-1,p}\bigg]\\
&=\epsilon^{-1}{\mathbb{E}}\bigg[\frac{(X_{i,p}^{(1)}+X_{i,p}^{(2)}){\mathds{1}}_{{\mathsf{Y}}_{i,p}}(Y_{1:t_p})}{\tilde{g}_{i,p}(Y_{1:t_i})}\big|\, \tilde{\pi}_{t_{i-1}}(V_{2D_p})<\epsilon\bigg]\end{aligned}$$ where the equality uses the definition of $ A_{i-1,p}$ and the fact that $Y_{i,p}\subset Y_{i-1,p}$.
Following similar computations as in the proof of Lemma \[lemma:online1\] (see ), it is readily checked that there exists a constant $C_1\in(0,+\infty)$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}\Big(\inf_{v\in B_{\delta_p}(0)}(\mu_{t_{i-1}}*\tilde{\pi}_{t_{i-1}})(B_{\delta_p}(\theta_\star-v)) \geq C_1^{-1} \delta_p^d h_{t_{i-1}}^\nu h_{t_{p-1}}^{\beta(\nu+d)}\big|\, \tilde{\pi}_{t_{i-1}}(V_{2D_p})<\epsilon\Big)=1\end{aligned}$$ and thus $$\label{eq:p_split2}
\begin{split}
{\mathbb{P}}(\tilde{A}_{i,p}| A^c_{i-1,p})&\leq \frac{C_1 \delta_p^{-d} h_{t_{i-1}}^{-\nu} h_{t_{p-1}}^{-\beta(\nu+d)}e^{(t_i-t_{i-1})(2(\delta_p\tilde{C_\star})^2+\delta)}}{\epsilon\,{\mathbb{P}}( U_{ t_{i-1}:t_i} \in\Theta_{\delta_p, t_{i-1}:t_i})}\\
&\qquad\times {\mathbb{E}}\big[ (X_{i,p}^{(1)}+X_{i,p}^{(2)}) {\mathds{1}}_{{\mathsf{Y}}_{i,p}}(Y_{1:t_i})|\, \tilde{\pi}_{t_{i-1}}(V_{2D_p})<\epsilon\big].
\end{split}$$ Next, noting that $X_{i,p}^{(1)}\leq \prod_{s=t_{i-1}+1}^{t_i}\sup_{\theta_s\in V_{D_p}}(\tilde{f}_{\theta_s}/f_{\theta_\star})(Y_s)$, ${\mathbb{P}}$-a.s., it follows, by the definition of ${\mathsf{Y}}_{i,p}$, that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:p_split3}
{\mathbb{E}}[X_{i,p}^{(1)}{\mathds{1}}_{{\mathsf{Y}}_{i,p}}(Y_{1:t_i})|\, \tilde{\pi}_{t_{i-1}}(V_{2D_p})<\epsilon ]\leq e^{(t_i-t_{i-1})\zeta(D_p)/2}.\end{aligned}$$
We now show that under \[new1\] there exists a constant $C_2\in(0,+\infty)$ such that $$\label{eq:p_split4}
\begin{split}
{\mathbb{E}}[X_{i,p}^{(2)}{\mathds{1}}_{{\mathsf{Y}}_{i,p}}(Y_{1:t_i})| \, \tilde{\pi}_{t_{i-1}}(V_{2D_p})<\epsilon]\leq C_2 e^{-C^{-1}_2(t_i-t_{i-1})D_p^2}.
\end{split}$$
As preliminary computations to establish remark that, under the assumptions on $(\mu_t)_{t\geq 0}$ and for some constant $C_3\in(0,+\infty)$ we have, by , $$\label{eq:p_split5}
\begin{split}
{\mathbb{P}}\big([U_{(t_{i-1}+1):t_i}]\geq D_p\big)&\leq C_3\exp\Big(-\frac{D_p^2}{C_3\sum_{j=t_{i-1}+1}^{t_i-1}h_j^2}\Big)\\
&=C_3\exp\Big(-\frac{(t_i-t_{i-1})D_p^2}{C_3(t_i-t_{i-1})\sum_{j=t_{i-1}+1}^{t_i-1}h_j^2}\Big)\\
&\leq C_4\exp\big(-C_4^{-1}(t_i-t_{i-1})D_p^2\big)
\end{split}$$ where the last inequality holds for some constant $C_4\in(0,+\infty)$ since, by assumption, $(t_p-t_{p-1})\sum_{i=t_{p-1}+1}^{t_p-1}h_i^2\rightarrow 0$.
Assume first \[new1\].\[A51\] and recall that $\beta$ is such that $\beta\alpha>1$. Then, by Lemma \[lemma:simple\], for $p_0$ large enough, we can without loss of generality assume that, for all $p'>p_0$ and $j\in (p_0+1):p'$, the set ${\mathsf{Y}}_{j,p'}$ is such that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{s=t_{j-1}+1}^{t_j}\sup_{\theta\in\Theta}\log\big((\tilde{f}_\theta/f_{\theta_\star})(y_s)\big) \leq (t_j-t_{j-1}) D_{p'},\quad\forall y_{1:t_{p'}}\in{\mathsf{Y}}_{j,p'}.\end{aligned}$$ Then, using , $$\begin{split}
{\mathbb{E}}[X_{i,p}^{(2)}{\mathds{1}}_{{\mathsf{Y}}_{i,p}}(Y_{1:t_i})| \, \tilde{\pi}_{t_{i-1}}(V_{2D_p})<\epsilon]&\leq {\mathbb{P}}\big([U_{(t_{i-1}+1):t_i}]\geq D_p\big)e^{ (t_i-t_{i-1}) D_p}\\
& \leq C_4 e^{-(t_i-t_{i-1})(C_4^{-1}D^2_p- D_p)}
\end{split}$$ which establishes .
Assume now \[new1\].\[A52\] and let $c_\star=\log\big(\sup_{\theta\in\Theta}{\mathbb{E}}[f_\theta/f_{\theta_\star}]\big)<+\infty$. Then, using we have, ${\mathbb{P}}$-a.s. $$\begin{split}
{\mathbb{E}}[X_{i,p}^{(2)}|{\mathcal{F}}_{t_{i-1}}]&\leq {\mathbb{P}}\big([U_{(t_{i-1}+1):t_i}]\geq D_p\big)\big(\sup_{\theta\in\Theta}{\mathbb{E}}[f_{\theta}/f_{\theta_\star}]\big)^{t_i-t_{i-1}}\\
&= C_4 e^{-(t_i-t_{i-1})(C_4^{-1}D_p^2-c_\star)}
\end{split}$$ which shows .
Lastly, assume \[new1\].\[A53\]. Let $c_\star=\log(\sup_{\theta\in\Theta}{\mathbb{E}}[ f_{\theta}])<+\infty$ and note that, by Lemma \[lemma:simple\], for $p_0$ large enough we can without loss of generality assume that, for all $p'>p_0$ and $j\in (p_0+1):p'$, the set ${\mathsf{Y}}_{j,p'}$ is such that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{s=t_{j-1}+1}^{t_j}\log (f_{\theta_\star}(y_s))\geq - (t_j-t_{j-1})D_{p'},\quad\forall y_{1:t_{p'}}\in{\mathsf{Y}}_{j,p'}.\end{aligned}$$ Then, using we have, ${\mathbb{P}}$-a.s. $$\begin{split}
{\mathbb{E}}[X_{i,p}^{(2)}|{\mathcal{F}}_{t_{i-1}}]&\leq e^{D_p(t_i-t_{i-1})}{\mathbb{P}}\big([U_{(t_{i-1}+1):t_i}]\geq D_p\big)\big(\sup_{\theta\in\Theta}{\mathbb{E}}[ f_{\theta}]\big)^{t_i-t_{i-1}}\\
&= C_4 e^{-(t_i-t_{i-1})(C_4^{-1}D_p^2-D_p-c_\star)}
\end{split}$$ showing . This concludes to show that holds under \[new1\].
Then, using -, we have $$\label{eq:p_split6}
\begin{split}
{\mathbb{P}}(\tilde{A}_{i,p}| A^c_{i-1,p})&\leq C_1 \delta_p^{-d} h_{t_{i-1}}^{-\nu} h_{t_{p-1}}^{-\beta(\nu+d)}\frac{ e^{(t_i-t_{i-1})(2(\delta_p\tilde{C}_\star)^2+\delta+\zeta(D_p)/2)}}{\epsilon\,{\mathbb{P}}( U_{ t_{i-1}:t_i} \in\Theta_{\delta_p, t_{i-1}:t_i})}\\
&+C_1 C_2 \delta_p^{-d} h_{t_{i-1}}^{-\nu} h_{t_{p-1}}^{-\beta(\nu+d)}\frac{e^{(t_i-t_{i-1})(2(\delta_p\tilde{C}_\star)^2+\delta-C_2^{-1}D_p^2)}}{\epsilon\,{\mathbb{P}}( U_{ t_{i-1}:t_i} \in\Theta_{\delta_p, t_{i-1}:t_i})}.
\end{split}$$
We now find a lower bound for ${\mathbb{P}}( U_{ t_{i-1}:t_i} \in\Theta_{\delta_p, t_{i-1}:t_i})$. To this aim remark that, using the shorthand $\tilde{\delta}_p:=d^{-1/2}\delta_p$, $$\label{eq:int_p}
\begin{split}
{\mathbb{P}}(& U_{ t_{i-1}:t_i} \in\Theta_{\delta_p, t_{i-1}:t_i})\\
&={\mathbb{P}}\Big(\big\|\sum_{j=s}^{t_i-1}U_s\big\|<\delta_p,\,\forall s\in t_{i-1}:(t_i-1)\Big)\\
&\geq {\mathbb{P}}\Big(\big\|\sum_{j=s}^{t_i-1}U_s\big\|_\infty<\tilde{\delta}_p,\,\forall s\in t_{i-1}:(t_i-1)\Big)\\
&={\mathbb{P}}\big(\big\|U_{t_{i}-1}\big\|_\infty<\tilde{\delta}_p\big) \prod_{s=t_{i-1}}^{t_{i}-2} {\mathbb{P}}\Big(\big\|U_s+\sum_{j=s+1}^{t_i-1}U_s\big\|_\infty<\tilde{\delta}_p\,\Big|\,\big\|\sum_{j=s+1}^{t_i-1}U_s\big\|_\infty<\tilde{\delta}_p\Big).
\end{split}$$
Recall now that $\delta_p=t_p^{-\gamma}$ with $\gamma>\alpha$, implying that $\delta_p/h_{t_p}\rightarrow 0$. Hence, under the assumptions on $(\mu_t)_{t\geq 0}$ there exists a constant $c_1>0$ such that, for every $s\in 1:p$ such that $h_s\neq 0$ and every $ v \in{\mathbb{R}}^d$ such that $\|v \|_\infty<\tilde{\delta}_p$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}\Big(\big\|U_s +\sum_{j=s+1}^{t_i-1}U_s\big\|_\infty<\tilde{\delta}_p\,\Big|\,\big\|\sum_{j=s+1}^{t_i-1}U_s\big\|_\infty=v\Big)&={\mathbb{P}}( \|U_s+v\|_\infty<\tilde{\delta}_p)\\
&={\mathbb{P}}(-\tilde{\delta}_p\leq U_{s}+v <\tilde{\delta}_p)\\
&={\mathbb{P}}\Big(-\frac{\tilde{\delta}_p+v}{h_s}\leq \tilde{U}_s <\frac{\delta_p-v}{h_s}\Big)\\
&\geq c_1\,(\tilde{\delta}_p/h_s)^d.\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, for every $s\in t_{i-1}:(t_i-2)$ such that $h_s\neq 0$ we have $$\label{eq:int_p1}
\begin{split}
{\mathbb{P}}\Big(\big\|U_s +\sum_{j=s+1}^{t_i-1}U_s\big\|_\infty<\tilde{\delta}_p\,\Big|\,\big\|\sum_{j=s+1}^{t_i-1}U_s\big\|_\infty<\tilde{\delta}_p\Big) &\geq c_1\,(2\tilde{\delta}^2_p/h_s)^d.
\end{split}$$ Using the above computations we also have ${\mathbb{P}}\big(\|U_{t_{i}-1}\|_\infty<\tilde{\delta}_p\big)\geq c'_1\,(\tilde{\delta}_p/h_{t_i-1})^d$ for some constant $c_1'>0$ which, together with -, shows that for some constant $c_2>0$, $$\label{eq:p_split7}
{\mathbb{P}}( U_{ t_{i-1}:t_i} \in\Theta_{\delta_p, t_{i-1}:t_i}) \geq (c_2 \delta^{2d}_p)^{t_i-t_{i-1}}\prod_{s=t_{i-1}}^{t_i-1} \big(h_s^{-d}\wedge 1/c_2\big)\geq \delta_p^{2d(t_i-t_{i-1})}$$ where the second inequality assumes without loss of generality that $p_0$ is such that $h^d_s<c_2$ for all $s>t_{p_0}$.
Combining and , and recalling that $\delta_p\rightarrow 0$, that $|\zeta(D_p)|\rightarrow+\infty$ and that $h_{t_{p}}<h_{t_{p-1}}$, it follows that for $p_0$ large enough we have, for all $p>p_0$ and all $i\in(p_0+1):p$, $$\label{eq:p_split8}
\begin{split}
{\mathbb{P}}(\tilde{A}_{i,p} | A^c_{i-1,p})&\leq C_1\epsilon^{-1} h_{t_{i-1}}^{-\nu} h_{t_{p}}^{-\beta(\nu+d)} e^{-(t_i-t_{i-1})(|\zeta(D_p)|/4-3d\log(\delta_p))} \\
&+C_1 C_2\epsilon^{-1} h_{t_{i-1}}^{-\nu} h_{t_{p}}^{-\beta(\nu+d)} e^{-(t_i-t_{i-1})(C_2^{-1}D_p^2/2-3d\log(\delta_p))}.
\end{split}$$
To proceed further we first note that, under \[new2\] and the assumptions on $(h_t)_{t\geq 0}$, there exist constants $c'_\zeta>c_\zeta>0$ such that, for $p_0$ is large enough, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:zeta}
|\zeta(D_p)|\geq c'_\zeta \log(D_p) =-c'_\zeta\,\beta \log(h_{t_p})\geq c_\zeta\,\beta\alpha \log(t_p).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, recalling that $\delta_p=t_p^{-\gamma}$ with $\gamma> \max(1/2,\alpha)$, for $p_0$ large enough we have, for all $p>p_0$ and all $i\in(p_0+1):p$, $$\begin{aligned}
-(t_i-t_{i-1})\big( &|\zeta(D_p)|/4-3d\log(1/\delta_p)\big)\leq -\log(t_p)(t_i-t_{i-1})\big(c_\zeta \beta\alpha/4 -3d\gamma ).\end{aligned}$$ Next, let $\tilde{c}>4\alpha\nu$ be sufficiently large so that $$\beta':=\frac{4(\tilde{c}+3d\gamma)}{c_\zeta \alpha}\geq \max(\beta_\star,1/\alpha).$$ Then, the above computations show that, for every $\beta\geq \beta'$ and $p_0$ large enough we have, for all $p>p_0$ and all $i\in(p_0+1):p$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:beta_1}
-(t_i-t_{i-1})\big( |\zeta(D_p)|/4-3d\log(1/\delta_p)\big)\leq -\tilde{c}\log(t_p)(t_i-t_{i-1}),\,\,\forall i\in (p_0+1):p.\end{aligned}$$
We now take $p_0$ sufficiently large so that $$t_i-t_{i-1}>\frac{\alpha\beta(\nu+d)+1}{\tilde{c}}+\frac{1}{2},\quad\forall i>p_0.$$ Then, using and under the assumptions on $(h_t)_{t\geq 0}$, and for $p_0$ large enough, there exists a constant $C_3\in(0,+\infty)$ such that, for all $p>p_0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:beta_2}
h_{t_{p}}^{-\beta(\nu+d)} e^{-(t_i-t_{i-1})(|\zeta(D_p)|/4-3d\log(1/\delta_p))}\leq C_3t_p^{-\tilde{c}/2-1},\quad \forall i\in (p_0+1):p.\end{aligned}$$
On the other hand, if $p_0$ is large enough then, using , $C_2^{-1} D^2_p>c_\zeta\,\beta\alpha\log(t_p)/2$ for all $p>p_0$ and therefore the above computations imply that, for $p_0$ large enough and all $p>p_0$, $$\label{eq:beta_3}
\begin{split}
h_{t_{p}}^{-\beta(\nu+d)} e^{-(t_i-t_{i-1})(C_2^{-1}D_p^2/2-3d\log(\delta_p))}&\leq C_3 t_p^{-\tilde{c}/2-1},\quad \forall i\in (p_0+1):p.
\end{split}$$
Then, by combining , and , and recalling that $\tilde{c}>4\alpha\nu$, it follows that, for $p_0$ large enough and some constant $C_3'\in(0,+\infty)$, for all $p>p_0$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=p_0+1}^p {\mathbb{P}}(\tilde{A}_{i,p}| A^c_{i-1,p})&\leq C_3 C_1(1+C_2)\epsilon^{-1} t_p^{-\tilde{c}/2-1}\sum_{i=p_0+1}^p h_{t_{i-1}}^{-\nu}\\
&\leq C_3' \epsilon^{-1} t_p^{-\tilde{c}/2+\nu\alpha}\\
&\leq C_3'\epsilon^{-1} t_p^{-\nu\alpha}\end{aligned}$$ and therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lim_sum}
\limsup_{p\rightarrow+\infty}\sum_{i=p_0+1}^p {\mathbb{P}}(\tilde{A}_{i,p}| A^c_{i-1,p})&\leq \limsup_{p\rightarrow+\infty} C_3' \epsilon^{-1} t_p^{-\nu\alpha}=0.\end{aligned}$$
We now show that ${\mathbb{P}}(A_{p_0,p})\rightarrow 0$. To this aim remark that $$0\leq {\mathds{1}}_{V_{2D_p}}(\theta){\mathbb{E}}[\tilde{\pi}_{t_{p_0}}(\theta)]\leq {\mathbb{E}}[\tilde{\pi}_{t_{p_0}}(\theta)],\quad\forall \theta\in{\mathbb{R}}^d,\quad\forall p\geq 1$$ and that, using Tonelli’s theorem, $$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}{\mathbb{E}}[\tilde{\pi}_{t_{p_0}}(\theta)]{\mathrm{d}}\theta={\mathbb{E}}[\tilde{\pi}_{t_{p_0}}({\mathbb{R}}^d)]=1.$$ Therefore, by the reverse Fatou lemma we have (and using Tonelli’s theorem for the first equality) $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{p\rightarrow+\infty}{\mathbb{E}}[\tilde{\pi}_{t_{p_0}}(V_{2D_p})]&=\limsup_{p\rightarrow+\infty}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}{\mathds{1}}_{V_{2D_p}}(\theta){\mathbb{E}}[\tilde{\pi}_{t_{p_0}}(\theta)]{\mathrm{d}}\theta\\
&\leq \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}\limsup_{p\rightarrow+\infty}\Big({\mathds{1}}_{V_{2D_p}}(\theta){\mathbb{E}}[\tilde{\pi}_{t_{p_0}}(\theta)]\Big){\mathrm{d}}\theta\\
&=0\end{aligned}$$ and thus, using Markov’s inequality, $$\label{eq:lim_sum2}
\begin{split}
\limsup_{p\rightarrow+\infty}{\mathbb{P}}(A_{p_0,p} )&\leq \limsup_{p\rightarrow+\infty}{\mathbb{P}}(\tilde{\pi}_{t_{p_0}}(V_{2D_p})\geq\epsilon)\leq \limsup_{p\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{{\mathbb{E}}[\tilde{\pi}_{t_{p_0}}(V_{2D_p})]}{\epsilon}=0.
\end{split}$$ Then, combining , , and proves the theorem under \[new2\]\[A61\].
We now prove the theorem under \[new2\].\[A63\]. Let $p$ be such that $\zeta(D_p)<0$ and remark first that, for some constant $C\in(0,+\infty)$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}\Big(&\min_{1\leq i\leq p} e^{ -(t_i-t_{i-1})\zeta(D_p)/2}\prod_{s=t_{i-1}+1}^{t_i} f_{\theta_\star}(Y_s)\leq 1 \Big)\\
&={\mathbb{P}}\Big(\min_{1\leq i\leq p} \sum_{s=t_{i-1}+1}^{t_i} \big(\log (f_{\theta_\star}(Y_s))-\zeta(D_p)/2\big)\leq 0\Big)\\
&={\mathbb{P}}\Big(-\min_{1\leq i\leq p} \sum_{s=t_{i-1}+1}^{t_i} \big(\log( f_{\theta_\star}(Y_s))-\zeta(D_p)/2\big)\geq 0\Big)\\
&={\mathbb{P}}\Big( \max_{1\leq i\leq p} \sum_{s=t_{i-1}+1}^{t_i} \big(\zeta(D_p)/2-\log (f_{\theta_\star}(Y_s))\big)\geq 0\Big)\\
&\leq \sum_{i=1}^p{\mathbb{P}}\Big( \frac{1}{t_i-t_{i-1}}\sum_{s=t_{i-1}+1}^{t_i} \big({\mathbb{E}}[\log (f_{\theta_\star}) ]- \log (f_{\theta_\star}(Y_s))\big)\geq |\zeta(D_p)|/2+{\mathbb{E}}[\log (f_{\theta_\star}) ]\Big)\\
&\leq \frac{C}{ (t_i-t_{i-1})^{k_\star{\mathds{1}}_{\mathbb{N}}(k_\star)} |\zeta(D_p)|^{2 k_\star}}\end{aligned}$$ where the second inequality uses \[new2\].\[A63\], Lemma \[lemma:mean\_p\] and Markov’s inequality.
Therefore, under the assumptions of the theorem, there exists a sequence $({\mathsf{Y}}_p)_{p\geq 1}$, with ${\mathsf{Y}}_p\subset{\mathcal{Y}}^{\otimes t_p}$ for all $p\geq 1$, such that ${\mathbb{P}}(Y_{1:t_p}\in{\mathsf{Y}}_p)\rightarrow 1$ and such that $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{1\leq i\leq p} e^{ -(t_i-t_{i-1})\zeta(D_p)/2}\prod_{t_{i-1}+1}^{t_i} f_{\theta_\star}(y_s)> 1,\quad \min_{1\leq i\leq p}\frac{g_{i}(y_{1:t_i})}{\tilde{g}_{i,p}(y_{1:t_i})}>1,\quad \forall y_{1:t_p}\in{\mathsf{Y}}_p,\quad\forall p\geq 1.\end{aligned}$$
Then, using the computations done to prove the theorem under \[new2\].\[A61\], to prove the theorem under \[new2\].\[A63\] we only need to show that, for $p_0\in\mathbb{N}$ large enough and every $p>p_0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:To_show_den22}
{\mathbb{E}}[X_{i,p}^{(1)}{\mathds{1}}_{{\mathsf{Y}}_{i,p}}(Y_{1:t_i})| \, \tilde{\pi}_{t_{i-1}}(V_{2D_p})<\epsilon ]\leq e^{(t_i-t_{i-1})\zeta(D_p)/2},\quad \forall i\in (p_0+1):p,\end{aligned}$$ where, for every $p>p_0$, $({\mathsf{Y}}_{i,p})_{i=0}^p$ is a sequence in ${\mathcal{Y}}^{\otimes t_p}$ such that ${\mathsf{Y}}_{0,p}={\mathsf{Y}}^{t_p}$, ${\mathsf{Y}}_{p,p}={\mathsf{Y}}_p$ and such that, for every $i\in 1:p$, we have ${\mathsf{Y}}_{i,p}\subset \cap_{j=0}^{i-1}{\mathsf{Y}}_{j,p}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{1\leq j\leq i} e^{-(t_j-t_{j-1})\zeta(D_p)/2}\prod_{t_{j-1}+1}^{t_j} f_{\theta_\star}(y_s)\geq 1,\quad \min_{1\leq j\leq i}\frac{g_{j}(y_{1:t_j})}{\tilde{g}_{j,p}(y_{1:t_j})}>1,\quad \forall y_{1:t_p}\in{\mathsf{Y}}_{i,p}.\end{aligned}$$
Using the definitions of $\zeta(D_p)$ under \[new2\].\[A63\] and the above definition of $Y_{i,p}$ under \[new2\].\[A63\], we have for $p_0$ large enough and all $p>p_0$, $$\begin{split}
{\mathbb{E}}[X_{i,p}^{(1)}{\mathds{1}}_{{\mathsf{Y}}_{i,p}}(Y_{1:t_i})| \, \tilde{\pi}_{t_{i-1}}(V_{2D_p})<\epsilon ]&\leq e^{-\zeta(D_p)/2(t_j-t_{j-1})} \big(\sup_{\theta\in V_{D_p}}{\mathbb{E}}[\tilde{f}_\theta]\big)^{t_i-t_{i-1}}\\
&= e^{(t_i-t_{i-1})\zeta(D_p)/2}.
\end{split}$$ This shows and the proof of the theorem under \[new2\].\[A63\] is complete.
Lastly, we prove the theorem under \[new2\].\[A62\], where $\zeta(D_p)= \log(\sup_{\theta\in V_{D_p}}{\mathbb{E}}[\tilde{f}_{\theta}/f_{\theta_\star}])$. Following the computations of the proof of the theorem under \[new2\].\[A61\], to prove the theorem under \[new2\].\[A62\] we only need to show that, $p_0\in\mathbb{N}$ large enough we have, for all $p>p_0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:To_show_den}
{\mathbb{E}}[X_{i,p}^{(1)}{\mathds{1}}_{{\mathsf{Y}}_{i,p}}(Y_{1:t_i})|\, \tilde{\pi}_{t_{i-1}}(V_{2D_p})<\epsilon ]\leq e^{(t_i-t_{i-1})\zeta(D_p)/2},\quad \forall i\in (p_0+1):p\end{aligned}$$ where, for every $p>p_0$, $({\mathsf{Y}}_{i,p})_{i=0}^p$ is a sequence in ${\mathcal{Y}}^{\otimes t_p}$ such that ${\mathsf{Y}}_{0,p}={\mathsf{Y}}^{t_p}$, ${\mathsf{Y}}_{p,p}={\mathsf{Y}}_p$ and such that, for every $i\in 1:p$, ${\mathsf{Y}}_{i,p}\subset \cap_{j=0}^{i-1}{\mathsf{Y}}_{j,p}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{1\leq j\leq i}\frac{g_{j}(y_{1:t_j})}{\tilde{g}_{j,p}(y_{1:t_j})}>1,\quad \forall y_{1:t_p}\in{\mathsf{Y}}_{ji,p}.\end{aligned}$$ Using the definition of $\zeta(D_p)$ and the above definition of $Y_{i,p}$ under \[new2\]\[A62\] we have $$\begin{split}
{\mathbb{E}}[X_{i,p}^{(1)}{\mathds{1}}_{{\mathsf{Y}}_{i,p}}(Y_{1:t_i})|A^c_{i-1,p} ]&\leq \big(\sup_{\theta\in V_{D_p}}{\mathbb{E}}\big[\tilde{f}_{\theta}/f_{\theta_\star}\big]\big)^{t_i-t_{i-1}}= e^{(t_i-t_{i-1})\zeta(D_p)}.
\end{split}$$ This shows and the proof of the theorem under \[new2\].\[A62\] is complete.
Proof of Propositions \[prop:h\_t\]
-----------------------------------
Under the assumptions of the proposition there exist constants $C_1,C_2\in(0,+\infty)$ such that, for $p$ large enough, $$\begin{aligned}
(t_p-t_{p-1}) \sum_{s=t_{p-1}+1}^{t_p-1}h_s^2&\leq (t_p-t_{p-1})^2h^2_{t_{p-1}}\\
&\leq C_1 (t_p-t_{p-1})^2 t_{p-1}^{-2\alpha}\\
&\leq C_2 \log(t_{p_{-1}})^2\big) t_{p-1}^{-2(\alpha-\varrho)}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, since $\varrho\in(0,\alpha)$, we have $
(t_p-t_{p-1}) \sum_{s=t_{p-1}+1}^{t_p-1}h_s^2\rightarrow 0$ as required. Together with the fact that$(t_{p+1}-t_p)\rightarrow+\infty$, this shows that Condition \[thm1.2\] of Theorem \[thm:online\] holds.
To show that Condition \[thm1.3\] of Theorem \[thm:online\] holds as well remark first that $(t_p-t_{p-1})^{-1} \log(1/h_{t_{p-1}})\rightarrow 0$ as required. In addition, with $c\in(0,1)$ as in the statement of the proposition, we have for $p$ large enough $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:bound_varrpho}
\frac{t_{p+2}-t_{p+1}}{t_{p+1}-t_{p}}&\leq \frac{ C_{p+1} \log(t_{p+1})}{C_{p} \log(t_{p})-1}\leq \frac{ t_{p+1}^\varrho \log(t_{p+1}) }{c^2 t_{p}^\varrho \log(t_{p})-c}\leq \frac{2}{c^2}\frac{t^\varrho_{p+1}\log(t_{p+1})}{t^\varrho_{t_p}\log(t_{p})}\end{aligned}$$ where, for $p$ large enough, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:bound_varrpho2}
\frac{\log(t_{p+1})}{\log(t_{p})}\leq 1+\frac{t_{p+1}-t_p}{t_p\log(t_p)}\leq 1+\frac{t_{p+1}}{t_p}.\end{aligned}$$ Next, recalling that $\varrho\in(0,1)$, for $p$ large enough we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{t_{p+1}}{t_p}\leq 1+\frac{t_p^{\varrho} \log(t_p)}{c\,t_p}\leq 1+(2/c)\end{aligned}$$ with, together with and , shows that $\limsup_{p\rightarrow+\infty}(t_{p+2}-t_{p+1})/(t_{p+1}-t_{p})<+\infty$. This concludes to show that Condition \[thm1.3\] of Theorem \[thm:online\] holds.
To show the second part of the proposition note that there exists a constant $c'>0$ such that $(t_p-t_{p-1})\geq c' t_{p-1}^{\varrho} $ for all $p\geq 1$. By assumption, $k_\star>1/\varrho+1$, and thus $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{p\rightarrow+\infty}\sum_{i=1}^p (t_i-t_{i-1})^{-k_\star}\leq (1/c') \limsup_{p\rightarrow+\infty}\sum_{i=1}^p t_{i-1}^{-k_\star\varrho} \leq (1/c') \limsup_{p\rightarrow+\infty} \sum_{i=1}^\infty t_{i }^{-(1+\varrho)}<+\infty.\end{aligned}$$ The result follows.
Proof of the preliminary results
--------------------------------
### Proof of Lemma \[lemma:new\]\[p-lemma:new\]
We first show the following simple lemma.
\[lemma:simple0\] Let $(s_t)_{t\geq 1}$ be a sequence in $\mathbb{N}_0$ such that $\inf_{t\geq 1}(t-s_t)\geq 1$ and $(t-s_t)\rightarrow+\infty$, $(X_t)_{t\geq 1}$ be a sequence of independent real-valued random variables such that ${\mathbb{E}}[X_n]\rightarrow m$ for some $m\in{\mathbb{R}}$ and such that $\sup_{s\geq 1}{\mathrm{Var}}(X_s)<+\infty$. Then, we have $(t-s_t)^{-1}\sum_{s=s_t+1}^t X_s\rightarrow m$ in ${\mathbb{P}}$-probability.
For every $t\geq 1$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sum}
\frac{1}{t-s_t}\sum_{s=s_t+1}^t X_s-m=\frac{1}{t-s_t}\sum_{s=s_t+1}^t( X_s-{\mathbb{E}}[X_s])+\Big(\frac{1}{t-s_t}\sum_{s=s_t+1}^t {\mathbb{E}}[X_s]-m\big).\end{aligned}$$ Let $\epsilon>0$ and $s_\epsilon\in\mathbb{N}$ be such that $|{\mathbb{E}}[X_s]-m|\leq \epsilon$ for all $s\geq s_\epsilon$. Then, for all $t$ such that $s_t\geq s_\epsilon$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Big|\frac{1}{t-s_t}\sum_{s=s_t+1}^t {\mathbb{E}}[X_s]-m\Big|\leq \frac{1}{t-s_t}\sum_{s=s_t+1}^t| {\mathbb{E}}[X_s]-m|\leq \epsilon\end{aligned}$$ showing that $(t-s_t)^{-1}\sum_{s=s_t+1}^t {\mathbb{E}}[X_s]\rightarrow m$. Hence, by , to complete the proof it remains to show that $
(t-s_t)^{-1}\sum_{s=s_t+1}^t( X_s-{\mathbb{E}}[X_s])\rightarrow 0$ in ${\mathbb{P}}$-probability. Using Markov’s inequality, for every $\epsilon>0$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{t\rightarrow+\infty}{\mathbb{P}}\Big(\big|\frac{1}{t-s_t}\sum_{s=s_t+1}^t( X_s-{\mathbb{E}}[X_s])\big|\geq \epsilon\Big)&\leq \limsup_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{\sum_{s=s_t+1}^t{\mathrm{Var}}(X_s)}{\epsilon^2(t-s_t)^2}\\
&\leq \limsup_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{\sup_{s\geq 1}{\mathrm{Var}}(X_s)}{\epsilon^2 (t-s_t)}\\
&=0\end{aligned}$$ and the proof is complete.
Let $A_\star$ and $\tilde{A}_\star$ be as in \[new\] and $A'_\star\in\mathcal{B}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ be such that $A'_\star$ contains a neighbourhood of $A_\star$ and such that $\tilde{A}_\star$ contains a neighbourhood of $A'_\star$. Let $B'_\star=A'_\star\cap \Theta$, $\tilde{B}_\star=\tilde{A}_\star\cap \Theta$, and remark that we can without loss of generality assume that the sequence $(\gamma_t')_{t\geq 1}$ is non-increasing. Below we denote by $\bar{B}$ the closure of the set $B\subset{\mathbb{R}}^d$.
Let $(\delta_t)_{t\geq 1}$ be a sequence in ${\mathbb{R}}_{>0}$ and let $W_s=\overline{B_{\gamma'_s}(0)}$ for all $s\geq 1$. Then, for all $t\geq 1$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}\Big(\sup_{(u_{s_t:t},\theta)\in \Theta_{\gamma_t',s_t:t}\times B'_\star} \prod_{s=s_t+1}^t & (\tilde{f}_{\theta-\sum_{i=s}^{t-1} u_i}/f_{\theta})(Y_s)\geq e^{(t-s_t)\delta_{t}} \Big)\\
&\leq {\mathbb{P}}\Big(\sup_{\theta\in B'_\star}\prod_{s=s_t+1}^t \sup_{v_s\in \overline{B_{\gamma'_t}(0)}} (\tilde{f}_{\theta+v_s}/f_{\theta}) (Y_s)\geq e^{(t-s_t)\delta_{t}}\Big)\\
&\leq {\mathbb{P}}\Big( \prod_{s=s_t+1}^t \sup_{(\theta,w_s)\in B'_\star\times\mathsf{W}_s} (\tilde{f}_{\theta+w_s}/f_{\theta}) (Y_s)\geq e^{(t-s_t)\delta_{t}}\Big)\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality uses the fact that the sequence $(\gamma'_t)_{t\geq 1}$ is non-increasing. Consequently, to prove the lemma it is enough to show that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:toShow_a4}
\frac{1}{t-s_t}\sum_{s=s_{t}+1}^{t}\sup_{(\theta,w_s)\in B'_\star\times \mathsf{W}_s}\log \big((\tilde{f}_{\theta+w_s}/f_{\theta})(Y_s)\big)\rightarrow0,\quad\text{in ${\mathbb{P}}$-probability}.\end{aligned}$$
To establish we define, for every $s\geq 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
X_s=\sup_{(\theta,w_s)\in B'_\star\times \mathsf{W}_s}\log \big((\tilde{f}_{\theta+w_s}/f_{\theta})(Y_s)\big),\quad m^{(1)}_s={\mathbb{E}}[X_s],\quad m_s^{(2)}={\mathbb{E}}[X_s^2]\end{aligned}$$ and show below that there exists a $\underline{t}\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Kol}
\lim_{t\rightarrow+\infty}m^{(1)}_{ \underline{t}+t}\rightarrow 0,\quad \sup_{s\geq s_{\underline{t}}}m_s^{(2)}\leq m_{s_{\underline{t}}}^{(2)}<+\infty.\end{aligned}$$ Then, will follow by Lemma \[lemma:simple0\].
To show remark first that for all $s\geq 1$ we have $m^{(1)}_s={\mathbb{E}}[\tilde{X}_s]$, where $$\tilde{X}_s=\sup_{(\theta,w_s)\in B'_\star\times \mathsf{W}_s}\log \big((\tilde{f}_{\theta+w_s}/f_{\theta})(Y_1)\big).$$ Next, let $\tilde{\Omega}\in{\mathcal{F}}$ be such that ${\mathbb{P}}(\tilde{\Omega})=1$ and such that the mapping $\theta\mapsto f_\theta(Y_1(\omega))$ is continuous on the compact set $\tilde{B}_\star$, for all $\omega\in\tilde{\Omega}$, notice that such a set $\tilde{\Omega}$ exists under \[new\]. Let $\underline{s}\in\mathbb{N}$ be such that $\theta+w\in \tilde{B}_\star$ for all $(\theta,w)\in B'_\star\times W_{\underline{s}}$ such that $\theta+w\in\Theta$. Then, recalling that $\gamma'_{s+1}\leq \gamma'_{s}$ for all $s\geq 1$, it follows that $$\tilde{X}_s\leq \sup_{(\theta,\theta')\in \tilde{B}^2_\star :\,\|\theta-\theta'\|\leq \gamma'_s }\log \big((f_{\theta'}/f_{\theta})(Y_1)\big),\quad\forall s\geq \underline{s}.$$ Then, by Weierstrass’s theorem we have, for all $\omega\in \tilde{\Omega}$ and $s\geq\underline{s}$ we have $$\begin{split}
\tilde{X}_s(\omega)&\leq \log\Big( \big(f_{h_{\gamma'_s}(\omega)}/f_{g_{\gamma'_s}(\omega)}\big) \big(Y_1(\omega)\big)\Big)
\end{split}$$ for some (measurable) functions $h_{\gamma'_s}: \tilde{\Omega} \rightarrow \tilde{B}_\star$ and $g_{\gamma'_s}: \tilde{\Omega}\rightarrow \tilde{B}_\star$ such that we have $\|h_{\gamma'_s}(\omega)-h_{\gamma'_s}(\omega)\|\leq\gamma'_s$ for all $\omega\in \tilde{\Omega}$.
By the maximum theorem, we can assume that, for all $s\geq \underline{s}$ and every $\omega\in\tilde{\Omega}$ the mappings $\gamma\mapsto h_{\gamma}(\omega)$ and $\gamma\mapsto g_{\gamma}(\omega)$ are continuous on $[0,\gamma'_{\underline{s}}]$. Therefore, since $h_{0}(\omega)=g_{0}(\omega)$ for all $\omega\in\tilde{\Omega}$, we have $$\label{eq:lim}
\begin{split}
0\leq \limsup_{s\rightarrow+\infty}\tilde{X}_{\underline{s}+s}(\omega)&\leq \limsup_{s\rightarrow +\infty}\log\Big( \big(f_{h_{\gamma'_s}(\omega)}/f_{g_{\gamma'_s}(\omega))}\big) \big(Y_1(\omega)\big)\Big)\\
&=\log\Big( \big(f_{h_{0}(\omega)}/f_{g_{0}(\omega)}\big) \big(Y_1(\omega)\big)\Big)\\
&=0,\qquad\qquad \forall \omega\in\tilde{\Omega}.
\end{split}$$
To proceed further remark that since $W_s\subseteq W_{\underline{s}}$ for all $s\geq \underline{s}$, it follows that for all $s\geq \underline{s}$ we have $\tilde{X}_s\leq \tilde{X}_{\underline{s}}$, ${\mathbb{P}}$-a.s. Let $\tilde{\delta}>0$ be as in . Then, under this latter assumption, and taking $\underline{s}\in\mathbb{N}$ sufficiently large so that $\gamma'_{\underline{s}}\leq \tilde{\delta}$, we have ${\mathbb{E}}[\tilde{X}_{\underline{s}}]<+\infty$. Then, by the dominated convergence theorem, $\lim_{s\rightarrow+\infty} m^{(1)}_{\underline{s}+s}= 0$, showing the first part of . To show the second part of it suffices to remark that $m^{(2)}_{s}\leq m^{(2)}_{\underline{s}}$ for all $s\geq \underline{s}$ where, under , $m^{(2)}_{\underline{s}}<+\infty$.
### Proof of Lemma \[lemma:pi\]\[p-lemma:pi\]
Let $t \geq 0$ and $A\in\mathcal{B}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$. Then, if $\mu_t\neq \delta_{\{0\}}$ we have, ${\mathbb{P}}$-a.s., $$\begin{aligned}
(\mu_{t}*\tilde{\pi}_{t})(A)
&=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d\times {\mathbb{R}}^d} {\mathds{1}}_A(\theta) \tilde{\pi}_{t} (\theta-u_{t}) \mu_{t}({\mathrm{d}}u_{t}) {\mathrm{d}}\theta =\int_{A} {\mathbb{E}}\big[\tilde{\pi}_{t} (\theta-U_{t}) |{\mathcal{F}}_t\big]{\mathrm{d}}\theta\end{aligned}$$ while, if $\mu_t= \delta_{\{0\}}$ we have, ${\mathbb{P}}$-a.s., $$\begin{aligned}
(\mu_{t}*\tilde{\pi}_{t})(A)
=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d\times {\mathbb{R}}^d} {\mathds{1}}_A(\theta+u_t) \mu_{t}({\mathrm{d}}u_{t})\tilde{\pi}_t(\theta){\mathrm{d}}\theta =\int_{A} \tilde{\pi}_t(\theta){\mathrm{d}}\theta.\end{aligned}$$ Recall that ${\mathbb{P}}(\cap_{t\geq 0}\Omega_t)=1$ if ${\mathbb{P}}(\Omega_t)=1$ for all $t\geq 0$ and that two probability measures $\nu_1,\nu_2\in\mathcal{P}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ are such that $\nu_1=\nu_2$ if $\nu_1(E_i)=\nu_2(E_i)$ for all $i\geq 1$, with $(E_i)_{i\geq 1}$ a dense subset of ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ such that $E_i\in \mathcal{B}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ for all $i\geq 1$.
Therefore, the above computations imply that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:density}
(\mu_{t}*\tilde{\pi}_{t})(A)=\int_A {\mathbb{E}}\big[\tilde{\pi}_{t} (\theta-U_{t}) |{\mathcal{F}}_t\big]{\mathrm{d}}\theta,\quad\forall t\geq 0,\quad\forall A\in\mathcal{B}({\mathbb{R}}^d),\quad{\mathbb{P}}-a.s.\end{aligned}$$ We now prove the result of the lemma by induction on $t\geq 1$.
The result trivially holds for $t=1$ and we now assume that it holds for some $t\geq 1$. Then, ${\mathbb{P}}$-a.s., $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\pi}_{t+1}({\mathrm{d}}\theta)&\propto \tilde{f}_\theta(Y_{t+1})(\mu_t*\tilde{\pi}_t)({\mathrm{d}}\theta)\\
&= \tilde{f}_\theta(Y_{t+1}){\mathbb{E}}\big[\tilde{\pi}_{t} (\theta-U_{t}) |{\mathcal{F}}_t\big]{\mathrm{d}}\theta\\
&\propto \tilde{f}_\theta(Y_{t+1}){\mathbb{E}}\Big[ (\mu_0*\tilde{\pi}_0) \big(\theta-\sum_{s=1}^{t}U_s\big)\prod_{s=1}^{t} \tilde{f}_{\theta-\sum_{i=s}^{t}U_i}(Y_s)\big|{\mathcal{F}}_{t}\Big]{\mathrm{d}}\theta\\
&= {\mathbb{E}}\Big[ (\mu_0*\tilde{\pi}_0) \big(\theta-\sum_{s=1}^{t}U_s\big)\prod_{s=1}^{t+1} \tilde{f}_{\theta-\sum_{i=s}^{t}U_i}(Y_s)\big|{\mathcal{F}}_{t+1}\Big]{\mathrm{d}}\theta\end{aligned}$$ where the first equality uses and the second line the inductive hypothesis. The proof is complete.
### Proof of Lemma \[lemma:denom\] {#p-lemma:denom}
Let $t\geq 1$, $p_t={\mathbb{P}}(U_{s_t:t}\in \Theta_{\tilde{\delta},s_t:t})$, $C_\star\in{\mathbb{R}}_{>0}$ be as in \[taylor\], $\tilde{C}_\star=2 ({\mathbb{E}}[m^2_\star]+C_\star)^{1/2}$ and note that, under \[m\_star\]-\[taylor\] and for all $\theta\in B_{\delta_{\star}}(\theta_\star)$, $$\label{eq:Bound_KL_1}
\max\bigg(-{\mathbb{E}}\big[\log(\tilde{f}_{\theta}/f_{\theta_\star})\big], {\mathbb{E}}\big[\big(\log(\tilde{f}_{\theta}/f_{\theta_\star})\big)^2\big]\Big)\leq \big({\mathbb{E}}[m_\star^2]+C_\star\big)\|\theta-\theta_\star\|^2.$$
Remark now that if $p_t=0$ then the result of the lemma trivially holds and henceforth we therefore assume that $p_t>0$. To simplify the notation let ${\mathbb{E}}_{Y_1}[\cdot]$ denote expectations w.r.t. the distribution of $Y_1$, ${\mathbb{E}}^{\tilde{\delta}}_{t,\mu}[\cdot]$ denote expectations w.r.t. the restriction of $\otimes_{s=s_t}^t\mu_t$ to the set $\Theta_{\tilde{\delta},s_t:t}$, and let $V_t:=(U_s)_{s=s_t+1}^t$.
For every $u_{(s_t+1):t}\in\Theta^{t-s_t}$ let $\tilde{\eta}({\mathrm{d}}\theta, u_{s_t:t})$ be the probability measure on $B_\delta(\theta_\star)$ with density function $\tilde{\eta}(\cdot, u_{(s_t+1):t})$ defined by $$\tilde{\eta}(\theta, u_{(s_t+1):t})=\frac{\eta\big(\theta-\sum_{s=s_t+1}^{t-1}u_s\big)}{\eta\big(B_\delta(\theta_\star-\sum_{s=s_t+1}^{t-1}u_s)\big)},\quad\theta\in B_\delta(\theta_\star).$$ Then, using the shorthand $a_t=(t-s_t)(2(\tilde{C}_\star \delta)^2+\epsilon)$, $$\label{eq:p1}
\begin{split}
\tilde{{\mathsf{Y}}}_t&:=\bigg\{y_{s_t:t}:
\int_{\Theta}{\mathbb{E}}\Big[\eta\big(\theta-\sum_{s=s_t+1}^{t-1}U_s\big)\prod_{s=s_t+1}^{t} (\tilde{f}_{\theta-\sum_{i=s}^{t-1}U_i}/f_{\theta_\star})(y_s)\Big]
{\mathrm{d}}\theta \leq p_t\, C^\eta_{\delta,\tilde{\delta}}\, e^{-a_t}\bigg\}\\
&=\bigg\{y_{s_t:t}:
{\mathbb{E}}\Big[\int_{\Theta}\eta\big(\theta-\sum_{s=s_t+1}^{t-1}U_s\big)\prod_{s=s_t+1}^{t} (\tilde{f}_{\theta-\sum_{i=s}^{t-1}U_i}/f_{\theta_\star})(y_s)
{\mathrm{d}}\theta\Big] \leq p_t\, C^\eta_{\delta,\tilde{\delta}}\, e^{-a_t}\bigg\}\\
&\subset \bigg\{y_{s_t:t}:\,{\mathbb{E}}^{\tilde{\delta}}_{t,\mu}\Big[\int_{B_{\delta}(\theta_\star)}\eta\big(\theta-\sum_{s=s_t+1}^{t-1}U_s\big)\prod_{s=s_t+1}^{t} (\tilde{f}_{\theta-\sum_{i=s}^{t-1}U_i})/(f_{\theta_\star})(y_s)
{\mathrm{d}}\theta\Big]\leq C^\eta_{\delta,\tilde{\delta}}\, e^{-a_t}\bigg\}\\
&\subset \bigg\{y_{s_t:t}:\,{\mathbb{E}}^{\tilde{\delta}}_{t,\mu}\Big[\int_{B_{\delta}(\theta_\star)}\prod_{s=s_t+1}^{t} (\tilde{f}_{\theta-\sum_{i=s}^{t-1}U_i}/f_{\theta_\star})(y_s)\tilde{\eta}({\mathrm{d}}\theta,V_t)\Big] \leq e^{-a_t}\bigg\}\\
&\subset \bigg\{y_{s_t:t}: {\mathbb{E}}^{\tilde{\delta}}_{t,\mu}\Big[\sum_{s=s_t+1}^t \int_{B_{\delta}(\theta_\star)} \log\big((\tilde{f}_{\theta-\sum_{i=s}^{t-1}U_i}/f_{\theta_\star})(y_s)\big)\,\tilde{\eta}({\mathrm{d}}\theta, V_t)\Big]\leq -a_t\bigg\}
\end{split}$$ where the equality uses Tonelli’s theorem, the second inclusion uses the definition of $ C^\eta_{\delta,\tilde{\delta}}$ and the last inclusion uses twice Jensen’s inequality.
To simplify the notation in what follows we define, for every $t\geq s\geq 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:g}
g_\theta(u_{s:t},y)=\log\big( (\tilde{f}_{ \theta-\sum_{i=s}^{t-1}u_i}/f_{\theta_\star})(y)\Big),\quad (\theta,u_{s:t})\in\Theta^{t-s+2},\,\,y\in{\mathsf{Y}}.\end{aligned}$$
Remark now that, by and using the inequality $\|a+b\|^2\leq 2(\|a\|^2+\|b\|^2)$ for all $a,b\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$, $$\label{eq:Bound_KL}
\begin{split}
-&\sum_{s=s_t+1}^t{\mathbb{E}}[g_\theta(u_{s:t},Y_1)]\leq (t-s_t)(\tilde{C}_\star \delta)^2,\quad\forall \theta \in B_{\delta}(\theta_\star),\quad\forall u_{s_t:t}\in\Theta_{\tilde{\delta},s_t:t}\\
&\sum_{s=s_t+1}^t {\mathbb{E}}[g_\theta(u_{s:t},Y_1)^2]\leq (t-s_t)(\tilde{C}_\star \delta)^2,\quad\forall \theta \in B_{\delta}(\theta_\star),\quad\forall u_{s_t:t}\in\Theta_{\tilde{\delta},s_t:t}.
\end{split}$$
Therefore, using and , we have $$\label{eq:p2}
\begin{split}
&{\mathbb{P}}(Y_{s_t:t}\in \tilde{{\mathsf{Y}}}_t)\\
&\leq {\mathbb{P}}\Big({\mathbb{E}}^{\tilde{\delta}}_{t,\mu}\Big[\sum_{s=s_t+1}^t\int_{B_{\delta}(\theta_\star)} g_{\theta}(U_{s:t},Y_s)\tilde{\eta}({\mathrm{d}}\theta, V_t)\Big] \leq -a_t\Big)\\
&= {\mathbb{P}}\Big({\mathbb{E}}^{\tilde{\delta}}_{t,\mu}\Big[\frac{1}{t-s_t}\sum_{s=s_t+1}^t\Big\{\int_{B_{\delta}(\theta_\star)} g_\theta(U_{s:t},Y_s)-\int_{B_{\delta}(\theta_\star)}{\mathbb{E}}_{Y_1}\big[g_\theta(U_{s:t},Y_1)\big]\Big\}\tilde{\eta}({\mathrm{d}}\theta, V_t)\\
& \,\,\,\,\,\qquad +\frac{1}{t-s_t}\sum_{s=s_t+1}^t\int_{B_{\delta(\theta_\star)}} {\mathbb{E}}_{Y_1}\big[g_\theta(U_{s:t},Y_1)\big]\tilde{\eta}({\mathrm{d}}\theta, V_t)\Big]\leq -2(\tilde{C}_\star \delta)^2-\epsilon \Big)\\
&\leq {\mathbb{P}}\Big({\mathbb{E}}^{\tilde{\delta}}_{t,\mu}\bigg[\frac{1}{t-s_t}\sum_{s=s_t+1}^t\Big\{\int_{B_{\delta}(\theta_\star)}g_\theta(U_{s:t},Y_s)-\int_{B_{\delta}(\theta_\star)}{\mathbb{E}}_{Y_1}\big[g_\theta(U_{s:t},Y_1)\big]\bigg\}\tilde{\eta}({\mathrm{d}}\theta, V_t)\Big]\\
& \,\,\,\,\,\qquad \leq -(\tilde{C}_\star \delta)^2-\epsilon \Big).
\end{split}$$
We now show that $$\label{eq:Fub3}
\begin{split}
{\mathbb{E}}^{\tilde{\delta}}_{t,\mu}\Big[ \int_{B_{\delta}(\theta_\star)}{\mathbb{E}}_{Y_1}\big[ g_\theta(U_{s:t},Y_1) \big]&\tilde{\eta}({\mathrm{d}}\theta, V_t)\Big] \\
&={\mathbb{E}}_{Y_1}\Big[ {\mathbb{E}}^{\tilde{\delta}}_{t,\mu}\Big[ \int_{B_{\delta}(\theta_\star)}g_\theta(U_{s:t},Y_1)\tilde{\eta}({\mathrm{d}}\theta, V_t)\Big]\Big].
\end{split}$$ By , there exists a constant $C_t\in{\mathbb{R}}_{\geq 0}$ such, that for every $u_{s_t:t}\in \Theta_{\tilde{\delta},s_t:t}$, $$\label{eq:Fub0}
\begin{split}
\int_{B_{\delta}(\theta_\star)}{\mathbb{E}}_{Y_1}\big[|g_\theta(u_{s:t},Y_1)|\big]\tilde{\eta}({\mathrm{d}}\theta, u_{s_t:t})&\leq \int_{B_{\delta}(\theta_\star)}{\mathbb{E}}_{Y_1}\big[g_\theta(u_{s:t},Y_1)^2\big]^{\frac{1}{2}}\tilde{\eta}({\mathrm{d}}\theta, u_{s_t:t})\\
&\leq C_t
\end{split}$$ and thus by, Fubini-Tonelli’s theorem, $$\label{eq:Fub1}
\begin{split}
{\mathbb{E}}^{\tilde{\delta}}_{t,\mu}\Big[\int_{B_{\delta}(\theta_\star)}{\mathbb{E}}_{Y_1}\big[ g_\theta(U_{s:t},Y_1) \big]&\tilde{\eta}({\mathrm{d}}\theta, V_t)\Big]\\
&= {\mathbb{E}}^{\tilde{\delta}}_{t,\mu}\Big[{\mathbb{E}}_{Y_1}\Big[ \int_{B_{\delta}(\theta_\star)} g_\theta(U_{s:t},Y_1) \tilde{\eta}({\mathrm{d}}\theta, V_t)\Big]\Big].
\end{split}$$ Using , we also have $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}^{\tilde{\delta}}_{t,\mu}\Big[ {\mathbb{E}}_{Y_1}\Big[\Big|\int_{B_{\delta}(\theta_\star)}g_\theta(U_{s:t},Y_1)\tilde{\eta}({\mathrm{d}}\theta, V_t)\Big|\Big]\Big] &\leq {\mathbb{E}}^{\tilde{\delta}}_{t,\mu} \Big[{\mathbb{E}}_{Y_1}\Big[ \int_{B_{\delta}(\theta_\star)}|g_\theta(U_{s:t},Y_1)|\tilde{\eta}({\mathrm{d}}\theta,V_t)\Big]\Big] \\
&= {\mathbb{E}}^{\tilde{\delta}}_{t,\mu}\Big[ \int_{B_{\delta}(\theta_\star)}{\mathbb{E}}_{Y_1}\big[|g_\theta(U_{s:t},Y_1)|\big]\tilde{\eta}({\mathrm{d}}\theta, V_t)\Big]\Big]\\
&\leq C_t,\end{aligned}$$ where the equality uses Tonelli’s theorem. By Fubini-Tonelli’s theorem we therefore have $$\label{eq:Fub2}
\begin{split}
{\mathbb{E}}^{\tilde{\delta}}_{t,\mu}\Big[ {\mathbb{E}}_{Y_1}\Big[ \int_{B_{\delta}(\theta_\star)}g_\theta(U_{s:t},Y_1)&\tilde{\eta}({\mathrm{d}}\theta,V_t) \Big]\Big]\\
&={\mathbb{E}}_{Y_1} \Big[{\mathbb{E}}^{\tilde{\delta}}_{t,\mu}\Big[ \int_{B_{\delta}(\theta_\star)}g_\theta(U_{s:t},Y_1)\tilde{\eta}({\mathrm{d}}\theta, V_t)\Big]\Big]
\end{split}$$ and follows from and .
Consequently, using and , we have $$\label{eq:moments0}
\begin{split}
{\mathbb{P}}(Y_{s_t:t}\in \tilde{{\mathsf{Y}}}_t)&\leq {\mathbb{P}}\Big( \frac{1}{t-s_t}\sum_{s=s_t+1}^t\bigg\{{\mathbb{E}}^{\tilde{\delta}}_{t,\mu}\Big[ \int_{B_{\delta}(\theta_\star)}g_\theta(U_{s:t},Y_s)\tilde{\eta}({\mathrm{d}}\theta, V_t)\Big]\\
&\,\,\,\,\,\qquad- {\mathbb{E}}_{Y_1}\Big[{\mathbb{E}}^{\tilde{\delta}}_{t,\mu}\Big[\int_{B_{\delta}(\theta_\star)} g_\theta(U_{s:t},Y_1)\tilde{\eta}({\mathrm{d}}\theta, V_t)\Big]\Big]\bigg\} \leq -(\tilde{C}_\star \delta)^2-\epsilon \Big)\\
&\leq {\mathbb{P}}\Big(\Big|\frac{1}{t-s_t}\sum_{s=s_t+1}^t\bigg\{{\mathbb{E}}^{\tilde{\delta}}_{t,\mu}\Big[ \int_{B_{\delta}(\theta_\star)}g_\theta(U_{s:t},Y_s)\tilde{\eta}({\mathrm{d}}\theta, V_t)\Big]\\
&\,\,\,\,\,\qquad- {\mathbb{E}}_{Y_1}\Big[{\mathbb{E}}^{\tilde{\delta}}_{t,\mu}\Big[\int_{B_{\delta}(\theta_\star)} g_\theta(U_{s:t},Y_1)\tilde{\eta}({\mathrm{d}}\theta, V_t)\Big]\Big]\bigg\}\Big|\geq (\tilde{C}_\star \delta)^2+\epsilon\Big)
\end{split}$$ and we finally upper bound the last term using Markov’s inequality.
To this aim remark that $$\label{eq:moments}
\begin{split}
\sum_{s=s_t+1}^t{\mathbb{E}}_{Y_1}\Big[ {\mathbb{E}}^{\tilde{\delta}}_{t,\mu}\Big[ \int_{B_{\delta}(\theta_\star)}&g_\theta(U_{s:t},Y_1)\tilde{\eta}({\mathrm{d}}\theta, V_t)\Big]^2\Big]\\
&\leq \sum_{s=s_t+1}^t{\mathbb{E}}_{Y_1}\Big[ {\mathbb{E}}^{\tilde{\delta}}_{t,\mu}\Big[\Big(\int_{B_{\delta}(\theta_\star)}g_\theta(U_{s:t},Y_1)\tilde{\eta}({\mathrm{d}}\theta,V_t)\Big)^2\Big]\Big]\\
&\leq \sum_{s=s_t+1}^t{\mathbb{E}}_{Y_1}\Big[ {\mathbb{E}}^{\tilde{\delta}}_{t,\mu}\Big[\int_{B_{\delta}(\theta_\star)}g_\theta(U_{s:t},Y_1)^2\tilde{\eta}( \theta, V_t){\mathrm{d}}\theta \Big]\Big]\\
&= \sum_{s=s_t+1}^t{\mathbb{E}}^{\tilde{\delta}}_{t,\mu}\Big[ {\mathbb{E}}_{Y_1}\Big[\int_{B_{\delta}(\theta_\star)}g_\theta(U_{s:t},Y_1)^2\tilde{\eta}({\mathrm{d}}\theta, V_t) \Big]\Big]\\
&= \sum_{s=s_t+1}^t{\mathbb{E}}^{\tilde{\delta}}_{t,\mu}\Big[ \int_{B_{\delta}(\theta_\star)}{\mathbb{E}}_{Y_1}\big[g_\theta(U_{s:t},Y_1)^2\big]\tilde{\eta}( {\mathrm{d}}\theta, V_t)\Big]\\
&\leq (t-s_t)(\tilde{C}_\star \delta)^2
\end{split}$$ where the last inequality uses , the first two inequalities use Jensen’s inequality and the two equalities hold by Tonelli’s theorem.
Therefore, using , and Markov’s inequality, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}(Y_{s_t:t}\in \tilde{{\mathsf{Y}}}_t)& \leq \frac{\frac{1}{(t-s_t)^2}\sum_{s=s_t+1}^t{\mathrm{Var}}\Big({\mathbb{E}}^{\tilde{\delta}}_{t,\mu}\big[ \int_{B_{\delta}(\theta_\star)}g_\theta(U_{s:t},Y_s)\tilde{\eta}({\mathrm{d}}\theta, V_t)\big]\Big)}{((\tilde{C}_\star\delta)^2+\epsilon)^2}\\
&\leq \frac{\frac{1}{(t-s_t)^2}\sum_{s=s_t+1}^t{\mathbb{E}}_{Y_1} \Big[ {\mathbb{E}}^{\tilde{\delta}}_{t,\mu}\big[ \int_{B_{\delta}(\theta_\star)}g_\theta(U_{s:t},Y_1)\tilde{\eta}({\mathrm{d}}\theta, V_t)\big]^2\Big]}{((\tilde{C}_\star\delta)^2+\epsilon)^2}\\
&\leq \frac{1}{(t-s_t) ((\tilde{C}_\star\delta)+(\tilde{C}_\star\delta)^{-1}\epsilon)^2}.\end{aligned}$$ The proof is complete.
### Proof of Lemma \[lemma:test\]\[p-lemma:test\]
We first recall the following result due to @Kleijn2012 [Lemma 3.3].
\[lemma:test\_K\] Assume \[test\]. Then, for every compact set $W\in\mathcal{B}(\Theta)$ such that $\theta_\star\in W$ and every $\epsilon>0$ there exist a sequence of measurable functions $(\psi_t)_{t\geq 1}$, with $\psi_t:{\mathsf{Y}}^t\rightarrow\{0,1\}$, and a constant $ D_\star\in{\mathbb{R}}_{> 0} $ such that ${\mathbb{E}}[\psi_t(Y_{1:t})]\rightarrow 0$ and such that, for $t$ large enough, $$\sup_{\theta\in V_\epsilon\cap\Theta}{\mathbb{E}}\Big[\big(1-\psi_t(Y_{1:t})\big)\prod_{s=1}^t (f_{\theta}/f_{\theta_\star})(Y_s)\Big]\leq e^{-tD_\star}.$$
*Proof of Lemma \[lemma:test\]* Let $A_\star$ and $\tilde{A}_\star$ be as in \[new\], $A'_\star\subsetneq\tilde{A}_\star$ be as in Lemma \[lemma:new\] and $W=\tilde{A}_\star\cap \Theta$. Remark that $W$ is a compact set under \[new\] and that $A'_\star\cap\Theta\subset W$. Let $(\psi_t)_{t\geq 1}$ be as in Lemma \[lemma:test\_K\] and $(\delta_t)_{t\geq 1}$ be as in Lemma \[lemma:new\] for the sequence $(\gamma'_t)_{t\geq 1}$ defined by $\gamma'_t=2\gamma_t$, $\forall t\geq 1$. Without loss of generality we assume below that $\epsilon>0$ is such that $B_{\epsilon}(\theta_\star)\subset A'_\star$. Indeed, since $\theta_\star\in A_\star$ and $A'_\star$ contains an open set that contains $A_\star$, it follows that $B_{\delta}(\theta_\star)\subset A'_\star$ for $\delta>0$ small enough. Let $t_1\in\mathbb{N}$ be such that for all $t\geq t_1$ we have $\theta'-\sum_{i=s}^{t-1} u'_i\not\in A_\star$ for all $\theta'\not\in A'_\star$ and all $u'_{s_t:t}\in \Theta_{\gamma_t,s_t:t}$. Notice that such a $t_1\in\mathbb{N}$ exists since $A_\star'$ contains a neighbourhood of $A_\star$.
We first show the lemma assuming \[new\].\[A41\]). To this aim, for every, $t\geq 1$ we define ${\mathsf{Y}}_t= {\mathsf{Y}}^{(1)}_t\cap {\mathsf{Y}}^{(2)}_t$ where $$\begin{split}
&{\mathsf{Y}}^{(1)}_t=\Big\{y_{1:t}\in{\mathsf{Y}}^t:\,\sup_{(u_{s_t:t},\,\theta)\in \Theta_{\gamma_t,s_t:t}\times (A'_\star\cap\Theta)}\prod_{s=s_t+1}^t (\tilde{f}_{\theta-\sum_{i=s}^{t-1} u_i}/f_{\theta}) (y_s)<e^{(t-s_t)\delta_{t}}\Big\}\\
&{\mathsf{Y}}^{(2)}_t=\Big\{y_{1:t}\in{\mathsf{Y}}^t:\,\sum_{s=s_t+1}^t\sup_{\theta\not\in A_\star}\log \big(\tilde{f}_{\theta}(y_s)\big)<\sum_{s=s_t+1}^t \log \big(f_{\theta_\star}(y_s)\big)-c_{\mathrm{A4}} \Big\}
\end{split}$$ where $c_{\mathrm{A4}}>0$ is such that ${\mathbb{E}}[\sup_{\theta\not\in A_\star}\log (\tilde{f}_{\theta})]< {\mathbb{E}}[ \log (f_{\theta_\star})]-2c_{\mathrm{A4}}$. Notice that such a constant $c_{\mathrm{A4}}>0$ exists under \[new\].\[A41\]).
For every $t\geq 1$, let $\phi_t(Y_{1:t})={\mathds{1}}_{{\mathsf{Y}}_t^c}(Y_{1:t})+\psi_{t-s_t}(Y_{(s_t+1):t}){\mathds{1}}_{{\mathsf{Y}}_t}(Y_{1:t})$ and remark that under \[new\].\[A41\]), and by Lemmas \[lemma:new\] and \[lemma:test\_K\], $ {\mathbb{E}}[\phi_t(Y_{1:t})]\rightarrow 0$, as required.
To show the second part of the lemma let $\theta\in V_\epsilon$, $u_{s_t:t}\in \Theta_{\gamma_t,s_t:t}$. Remark that $1-\phi_t(Y_{1:t})=\big(1-\psi_{t-s_t}(Y_{(s_t+1):t})\big){\mathds{1}}_{{\mathsf{Y}}_t}(Y_{1:t})$ for all $t\geq 1$, and assume first that $\theta\in (A'_\star\cap\Theta)$. Then, $$\label{eq:test_int_1}
\begin{split}
{\mathbb{E}}\Big[(1 -\phi_t(Y_{1:t})) &\prod_{s=s_t+1}^t (\tilde{f}_{\theta-\sum_{i=s}^{t-1}u_i}/f_{\theta_\star})(Y_s)\big|\,{\mathcal{F}}_{s_t}\Big]\\
&\leq e^{(t-s_t)\delta_{t}}{\mathbb{E}}\Big[\big(1-\psi_{t-s_t}(Y_{(s_t+1):t})\big)\prod_{s=s_t+1}^t (f_{\theta}/f_{\theta_\star})(Y_s)\Big]\\
&\leq e^{-(t-s_t)(D_\star - \delta_{t})}\\
&\leq e^{-(t-s_t)\frac{D_\star}{2}}
\end{split}$$ where the first inequality uses the definition of ${\mathsf{Y}}^{(1)}_t$, the second inequality uses Lemma \[lemma:test\_K\] and holds for $t$ large enough, while the last inequality holds for $t$ sufficiently large since $\delta_t\rightarrow 0$. Notice that if $\theta\not\in\Theta$ we have ${\mathbb{E}}\big[(1 -\phi_t(Y_{1:t})) \prod_{s=s_t+1}^t (\tilde{f}_{\theta-\sum_{i=s}^{t-1}u_i}/f_{\theta_\star})(Y_s)\big|\,{\mathcal{F}}_{s_t}\big]=0$ and thus also holds if $\theta\in (A'_\star\cap\Theta^c)$.
Assume now that $ \theta \not\in A'_\star$. Then, $$\label{eq:test_int_2}
\begin{split}
{\mathbb{E}}\Big[(1-\phi_t(Y_{1:t})) \prod_{s=s_t+1}^t \frac{\tilde{f}_{\theta-\sum_{i=s}^{t-1}u_i}}{f_{\theta_\star}}(Y_s)\big|\,{\mathcal{F}}_{s_t}\Big]&\leq {\mathbb{E}}\Big[{\mathds{1}}_{{\mathsf{Y}}^{(2)}_t}(Y_{1:t})\prod_{s=s_t+1}^t \sup_{\theta \not\in A_\star} \frac{\tilde{f}_{\theta}}{f_{\theta_\star}}(Y_s)\Big]\\
&\leq e^{- (t-s_t) c_{\mathrm{A4}}}
\end{split}$$ where the first inequality holds for $t\geq t_1$. Together with , shows that the result of the lemma holds under \[new\].\[A41\]) with $\tilde{D}_\star= D_\star/2\vee c_{\mathrm{A4}}$.
We now show the result of the lemma assuming under \[new\].\[A42\]) and \[new\].\[A43\]). To do so remark that, using the above computations, we only need to find a set ${\mathsf{Y}}_t^{(2)}\in{\mathcal{Y}}^{\otimes t}$ such that ${\mathbb{P}}(Y_{1:t}\in{\mathsf{Y}}_t^{(2)})\rightarrow 1$ and such that there exists a constant $c_{\mathrm{A4}}>0$ for which, for $t$ large enough, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:c_stareq}
\sup_{\theta\not\in A'_\star}{\mathbb{E}}\big[(1-\phi_t(Y_{1:t}))\prod_{s=s_t+1}^t \frac{\tilde{f}_{\theta-\sum_{i=s}^{t-1}u_i}}{f_{\theta_\star}}(Y_s)\big|\,{\mathcal{F}}_{s_t}\big]\leq e^{-(t-s_t)c_{\mathrm{A4}}},\quad\forall u_{s_t:t}\in \Theta_{\gamma_t,s_t:t}.\end{aligned}$$
Assume \[new\].\[A42\]), let ${\mathsf{Y}}_t^{(2)}={\mathsf{Y}}^t$ (so that ${\mathbb{P}}(Y_{1:t}\in{\mathsf{Y}}_t^{(2)})=1$ for all $t$), $\theta\not\in A'_\star$ and $u_{s_t:t}\in \Theta_{\gamma_t,s_t:t}$. Then, $$\label{eq:test_int_22}
\begin{split}
{\mathbb{E}}\Big[(1-\phi_t(Y_{1:t})) \prod_{s=s_t+1}^t \frac{\tilde{f}_{\theta-\sum_{i=s}^{t-1}u_i}}{f_{\theta_\star}}(Y_s)\big|\,{\mathcal{F}}_{s_t}\Big]&\leq {\mathbb{E}}\Big[\prod_{s=s_t+1}^t \frac{\tilde{f}_{\theta-\sum_{i=s}^{t-1}u_i}}{f_{\theta_\star}}(Y_s)\big|\,{\mathcal{F}}_{s_t}\Big]\\
&=\prod_{s=s_t+1}^t{\mathbb{E}}\Big[ \frac{\tilde{f}_{\theta-\sum_{i=s}^{t-1}u_i}}{f_{\theta_\star}}(Y_s)\big|\,{\mathcal{F}}_{s_t}\Big]\\
&\leq \big(\sup_{\theta\not\in A_\star}{\mathbb{E}}[\tilde{f}_\theta/f_{\theta_\star}]\big)^{t-s_t}
\end{split}$$ where the last equality holds $t\geq t_1$. Under \[new\].\[A42\]), $\sup_{\theta \not\in A_\star}{\mathbb{E}}[\tilde{f}_\theta/f_{\theta_\star}]<1$ and therefore shows that holds with $c_{\mathrm{A4}}=-\log\big(\sup_{\theta \not\in A_\star}{\mathbb{E}}[\tilde{f}_\theta/f_{\theta_\star}]\big)$.
Lastly, assume \[new\].\[A43\]) and remark that under this condition there exists a constant $c>0$ such that $\log( \sup_{\theta \not\in A_\star}{\mathbb{E}}[\tilde{f}_\theta])< {\mathbb{E}}[\log f_{\theta_\star}] -c$, and let $${\mathsf{Y}}^{(2)}_t=\Big\{y_{1:t}\in{\mathsf{Y}}^t:\,\frac{1}{t-s_t}\sum_{s=s_t+1}^t \log\big(f_{\theta_\star}(y_s)\big)>{\mathbb{E}}[\log (f_{\theta_\star})]-c\Big\}.$$ Then, by the law of large numbers, ${\mathbb{P}}(Y_{1:t}\in {\mathsf{Y}}^{(2)}_t)\rightarrow 1$ while, for every $\theta\not\in A'_\star$ and $u_{s_t:t}\in \Theta_{\gamma_t,s_t:t}$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}\Big[{\mathds{1}}_{{\mathsf{Y}}^{(2)}_t} (Y_{1:t})\prod_{s=s_t+1}^t & (\tilde{f}_{\theta-\sum_{i=s}^{t-1}u_i}/f_{\theta_\star})(Y_s) {\mathds{1}}_{{\mathsf{Y}}^{(2)}_t}(Y_{1:t})\Big]\\
&\leq e^{(t-s_t)(c-{\mathbb{E}}[\log (f_{\theta_\star})])}\prod_{s=s_t+1}^t{\mathbb{E}}\big[ \tilde{f}_{\theta-\sum_{i=s}^{t-1}u_i} (Y_s)\big|\,{\mathcal{F}}_{s_t}\big]\\
&\leq e^{(t-s_t)(c-{\mathbb{E}}[\log (f_{\theta_\star})])}\big(\sup_{\theta\not\in A_\star}{\mathbb{E}}[\tilde{f}_\theta]\big)^{t-s_t}\\
&=e^{-(t-s_t)\big({\mathbb{E}}[\log f_{\theta_\star}]-c-\log(\sup_{\theta\not\in A_\star} {\mathbb{E}}[\tilde{f}_\theta])\big)}\end{aligned}$$ where the second equality holds for $t\geq t_1$. This shows that holds with $c_{\mathrm{A4}}={\mathbb{E}}[\log (f_{\theta_\star})]-c-\log (\sup_{\theta\not\in A_\star} {\mathbb{E}}[ \tilde{f}_\theta] )>0$.
The proof of the lemma is complete.
### Proof of Lemma \[lemma:part\_1\]\[p-lemma:part\_1\]
Let $(\phi_t)_{t\geq 1}$ and $ \tilde{D}_\star\in {\mathbb{R}}_{>0}$ be as Lemma \[lemma:test\], $\tilde{C}_\star\in {\mathbb{R}}_{>0}$ be as in Lemma \[lemma:denom\]. For every $t\geq 1$, let $C^{(\mu_{s_t}*\tilde{\pi}_{s_t})}_{\delta, \tilde{\delta}}$ be as defined in Lemma \[lemma:denom\] and let $$\begin{aligned}
A_{t}=& \Big\{y_{1:t}\in{\mathsf{Y}}^t:\int_{\Theta}{\mathbb{E}}\Big[(\mu_{s_t}*\tilde{\pi}_{s_t})\big(\theta-\sum_{s=s_t+1}^{t-1}U_s\big)\prod_{s=s_t+1}^{t} \frac{\tilde{f}_{\theta-\sum_{i=s}^{t-1}U_i}}{f_{\theta_\star}}(Y_s)\big| Y_{1:t}=y_{1:t}\Big] {\mathrm{d}}\theta\\
&\leq {\mathbb{P}}(U_{s_t:t}\in \Theta_{\tilde{\delta},s_t:t}) C^{(\mu_{s_t}*\tilde{\pi}_{s_t})}_{\delta , \tilde{\delta} } e^{-2(t-s_t) (\tilde{C}_\star \delta)^2}\Big\}.\end{aligned}$$
Let $\phi'_t(Y_{1:t})={\mathds{1}}_{A _{t}}(Y_{1:t})\vee \phi_t(Y_{1:t})$ and note that by, Lemmas \[lemma:denom\]-\[lemma:test\], $$\label{eq:den}
\begin{split}
\limsup_{t\rightarrow+\infty}{\mathbb{E}}\big[\phi'_t(Y_{1:t})\big]&\leq \limsup_{t\rightarrow+\infty}{\mathbb{E}}\big[\phi_t(Y_{1:t})\big]+\limsup_{t\rightarrow+\infty}{\mathbb{P}}\big(Y_{1:t} \in A_t\big)\\
&\leq \limsup_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{1}{\delta^2 (t-s_t) \tilde{C}^2_\star }\\
&=0
\end{split}$$ as required.
On the other hand we have, ${\mathbb{P}}$-a.s. $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathbb{E}}\big[(1-\phi'_t(Y_{1:t})){\mathds{1}}_{ \Theta_{\gamma_t,s_t:t}}(U_{s_t:t})\pi'_{s_t,t}(V_{\epsilon})|{\mathcal{F}}_{s_t}\big]\\
&\leq \frac{e^{2(t-s_t) (\tilde{C}_\star \delta)^2}}{{\mathbb{P}}(U_{s_t:t}\in \Theta_{\tilde{\delta},s_t:t}) C^{(\mu_{s_t}*\tilde{\pi}_{s_t})}_{\delta, \tilde{\delta}}}\\
&\times {\mathbb{E}}\Big[{\mathds{1}}_{ \Theta_{\gamma_t,s_t:t}}(U_{s_t:t})\int_{V_{\epsilon}}(1-\phi_t(Y_{1:t}))(\mu_{s_t}*\tilde{\pi}_{s_t})\Big(\theta-\sum_{s=s_t+1}^{t-1}U_s\Big)\prod_{s=s_t+1}^{t} \frac{\tilde{f}_{\theta-\sum_{i=s}^{t-1}U_i}}{f_{\theta_\star}}(Y_s) {\mathrm{d}}\theta\Big|{\mathcal{F}}_{s_t}\Big] \\
&\leq \frac{e^{-(t-s_t)(\tilde{D}_\star -2 \tilde{C}^2_\star \delta^2)})}{{\mathbb{P}}(U_{s_t:t}\in \Theta_{\tilde{\delta},s_t:t}) C^{(\mu_{s_t}*\tilde{\pi}_{s_t})}_{\delta, \tilde{\delta}}}\end{aligned}$$ where the second inequality holds for $t$ large enough and uses Tonelli’s theorem and Lemma \[lemma:test\]. This complete the proof of the lemma with $ C_1=\tilde{D}_\star^{-1}$ and $C_2=2\tilde{C}^2_\star$.
### Proof of Lemma \[lemma:tech\_conv\] {#p-lemma:tech_conv}
Let $\varphi:{\mathbb{R}}^{d_x}\times{\mathbb{R}}^{d_z}\rightarrow [-1,1]$ and, for every $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^{d_x}$, let $\varphi_N(x)=\sum_{m=1}^N\tilde{W}^m f(x,Z^m)$ and $\varphi_X(x)=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d_z}} f(x,z)\mu({\mathrm{d}}z)$. Then, $$\label{eq:setp1}
\begin{split}
{\mathbb{E}}\Big[\Big( &\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d_x}\times {\mathbb{R}}^{d_z}} \varphi(x,z)( \pi^N\otimes\mu^N-\pi\otimes\mu)({\mathrm{d}}x,{\mathrm{d}}z)\Big)^2\Big]^{1/2}\\
&={\mathbb{E}}\Big[\Big(\sum_{n=1}^N W^n\sum_{m=1}^N \tilde{W}^m \varphi(X^n,Z^m)-\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d_x}\times{\mathbb{R}}^{d_z}} \varphi(x,z)\pi\otimes \mu({\mathrm{d}}x,{\mathrm{d}}z)\Big)^2\Big]^{1/2}\\
&= {\mathbb{E}}\Big[\Big(\sum_{n=1}^N W^n \varphi_N(X^n)-\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d_x}} \varphi_X(x)\pi({\mathrm{d}}x)\Big)^2\Big]^{1/2}\\
&\leq {\mathbb{E}}\Big[\Big(\sum_{n=1}^N W^n \varphi_X(X^n)-\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d_x}} \varphi_X(x)\pi({\mathrm{d}}x)\Big)^2\Big]^{1/2}\\
&+{\mathbb{E}}\Big[\Big(\sum_{n=1}^N W^n \big(\varphi_N(X^n)-\varphi_X(X^n)\big)\Big)^2\Big]^{1/2}\\
&\leq \frac{C^{1/2}_\star}{N^{1/2}}+ {\mathbb{E}}\Big[\sum_{n=1}^NW^n \big(\varphi_N(X^n)-\varphi_X(X^n)\big)^2\Big]^{1/2}
\end{split}$$ where the last inequality uses Jensen’s inequality.
To control the expectation on the r.h.s. of remark that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=1}^N{\mathbb{E}}\Big[W^n \big(\varphi_N(X^n)&-\varphi_X(X^n)\big)^2\Big]\\
&=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=1}^N{\mathbb{E}}\Big[\frac{G(X^n)}{p^N_X(G)} \big(\varphi_N(X^n)-\varphi_X(X^n)\big)^2\Big]\\
&=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=1}^N{\mathbb{E}}\Big[\frac{G(X^n)}{p^N_X(G)} \big(\varphi_N(X^n)-\varphi_X(X^n)\big)^2{\mathds{1}}\big(p^N_X(G)\geq p_X(G)/2\big)\Big]\\
&+\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=1}^N{\mathbb{E}}\Big[\frac{G(X^n)}{p^N_X(G)} \big(\varphi_N(X^n)-\varphi_X(X^n)\big)^2{\mathds{1}}\big( p^N_X(G)<p_X(G)/2\big)\Big]\\
&\leq \frac{2\|G\|_\infty}{p_X(G)}\,\sup_{x\in{\mathbb{R}}^{d_x}}{\mathbb{E}}\big[ \big(\varphi_N(x)-\varphi_X(x)\big)^2]+4{\mathbb{P}}\big(p^N_X(G)<p_X(G)/2\big)\\
&\leq \frac{2 C_\star \|G\|_\infty}{N p_X(G)}+4{\mathbb{P}}\big(|p^N_X(G)-p_X(G)|>p_X(G)/2\big)\\
&\leq \frac{2 C_\star \|G\|_\infty}{N p_X(G) }+16\frac{{\mathbb{E}}[(p^N_X(G)-p_X(G))^2]}{p_X(G)^2}\\
&\leq \frac{2 C_\star \|G\|_\infty}{N\,p_X(G) }+\frac{16 C_\star}{ Np_X(G)^2}\end{aligned}$$ where the penultimate inequality uses Markov’s inequality. The proof is complete.
[^1]: available at: <https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/covertype>
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We address the question of the stability of the (fractional) quantum Hall effect (QHE) in presence of pseudomagnetic disorder generated by mechanical deformations of a graphene sheet. Neglecting the potential disorder and taking into account only strain-induced random pseudomagnetic fields, it is possible to write down a Laughlin-like trial ground-state wave function explicitly. Exploiting the Laughlin plasma analogy, we demonstrate that in the case of fluctuating pseudomagnetic fluxes of relatively small amplitude both the integer and fractional quantum Hall effects are always stable upon the deformations. By contrast, in the case of bubble-induced pseudomagnetic fields in graphene on a substrate (a small number of large fluxes) the disorder can be strong enough to cause a glass transition in the corresponding classical Coulomb plasma, resulting in the destruction of fractional quantum Hall regime and in a quantum phase transition to a non-ergodic state of the lowest Landau level.'
author:
- 'Andrey A. Bagrov'
- Alessandro Principi
- 'Mikhail I. Katsnelson'
title: 'Fractional quantum Hall effect in strained graphene: stability of Laughlin states in disordered (pseudo)magnetic fields'
---
[*Introduction*]{}—Massless Dirac fermions were discovered [@massless_dirac1; @massless_dirac2] in graphene via the observation of an unusual (“half-integer”) quantum Hall effect (QHE) [@massless_dirac1; @massless_dirac2; @r1; @r2; @r3; @Goerbig; @Katsnelson:book] which is a manifestation of the existence of a topologically protected zero-energy Landau level [@massless_dirac1; @r2; @Katsnelson:book]. This means that this level is not broaden by any inhomogeneity of the magnetic field. It was realized very soon after this discovery [@Morozov:2006] that inhomogeneities of the effective magnetic field are unavoidable in graphene, due to the effect of pseudomagnetic fields induced by strain (for a review, see Refs. [@Katsnelson:book; @Vozmediano1; @Vozmediano2]). In earlier works [@Morozov:2006; @KG2008] random pseudomagnetic fields created by defects (such as intrinsic and extrinsic ripples) were considered. Later it was theoretically predicted [@GKG1; @GKG2] and experimentally confirmed [@Levy:2010] that (pseudo) Landau level quantization and valley quantum Hall effect can be created in graphene by external smooth deformation with a trigonal symmetry, and that effective fields as high as hundreds of Tesla may be easily reached in this way (an order of magnitude stronger than what may be observed in conventional high-field magnetic laboratories).
The fractional quantum Hall effect (FQHE) has been experimentally discovered in graphene and its observation reported in Ref. [@Du:2009; @Bolotin:2009]. A very natural and interesting question is whether this state is also protected, to some extent, with respect to inhomogeneities of the (pseudo)magnetic field or not. Here we answer this question within a framework of a model with random pseudomagnetic fields but assuming the absence of potential disorder. In terms of deformations this means strong shear deformations and no dilatation [@Katsnelson:book]. It was shown recently [@Morpurgo] that at least in some graphene samples random strain-induced pseudomagnetic fields is indeed the main source of electron scattering and therefore the model may be quite realistic.
[*The model of pseudomagnetic disorder*]{}—We neglect intervalley scattering and model graphene as two independent massless-Dirac-fermion systems, associated to the valleys ${\bm K}$ and ${\bm K}'$ at the corner of its hexagonal Brillouin zone. The two valleys differ for the sign of the strain-induced pseudomagnetic field they experience. A trial wave function for the zero-energy Landau level of a system of massless Dirac fermions in the presence of magnetic disorder can be constructed using the Aharonov-Casher solution [@Aharonov:1979]. We will briefly recall this construction. Consider a single electron in the presence of an arbitrary static magnetic field in the direction orthogonal to the graphene plane, ${\bm B}({\bm r}) = B({\bm r}){\hat {\bm z}}$, and with support over a finite region of the two-dimensional (2D) space \[here ${\bm r} = (x,y)$ is a 2D vector\]. For given spin and valley quantum numbers, its Hamiltonian reads $$H = v{\bm \sigma}\cdot \left[-i\hbar {\bm \nabla} -\frac{e}{c}{\bm A}({\bm r})\right]$$ where ${\bm \sigma}=(\sigma_x,\sigma_y)$ are Pauli matrices, $v \approx c/300$ is the Fermi velocity (here $c$ is the speed of light in vacuum), and ${\bm \nabla}\times {\bm A}({\bm r}) = {\bm B}({\bm r})$[@r3; @Katsnelson:book; @Goerbig]. In the Coulomb gauge \[$\nabla {\bm A}({\bm r}) = 0$\], introducing a “magnetic scalar potential” $\phi({\bm r})$ we rewrite $ A_j({\bm r}) = - \partial_j \phi({\bm r})$, where $j=x,y$ denotes spatial directions. The magnetic scalar potential obeys the equation $$\label{eq:harmonic_phi}
\nabla^2 \phi({\bm r}) = B({\bm r})
~.$$ The off-diagonal component of the matrix Dirac equation for an electron in the zero-energy Landau level thus becomes $$\label{eq:Dirac_10_zero_energy}
\left( \partial_x + i\partial_y+
\frac{ie}{\hbar c}\partial_x \phi({\bm r}) +\frac{e}{\hbar c}\partial_y \phi({\bm r}) \right)\psi({\bm r}) = 0.$$ where $\psi$ is one of the two components of Dirac spinor. We remind the reader that the second component is exactly zero, since states in the zero-energy Landau level are fully pseudospin-polarized. Substituting the [*Ansatz*]{} $$\psi({\bm r}) = e^{-\frac{e}{\hbar c} \phi({\bm r})} f({\bm r}),$$ Eq. (\[eq:Dirac\_10\_zero\_energy\]) reduces to $
\left(\partial_x + i\partial_y \right) f({\bm r}) =0,
$ whose linearly independent solutions are simply the polynomials $
f({\bm r}) = (x+iy)^\alpha
$ with $\alpha$ a positive integer. The magnetic potential $\phi({\bm r})$ satisfies the Poisson-like Eq. (\[eq:harmonic\_phi\]) and can therefore be written in terms of the 2D Green’s function ($\propto \ln(r)$) as $$\phi({\bm r}) = \frac{1}{2\pi}\int d{\bm r}^\prime B({\bm r}^\prime) \ln \left(\frac{|{\bm r}-{\bm r}^\prime|}{r_0}\right)
~.$$ Here $r_0$ is an arbitrary length scale. For our purposes, it is sufficient to study the case of a magnetic flux localized within a small region. From now on we will use the complex notation to denote the particle and flux position, [*i.e.*]{} given ${\bm r} = (x,y)$ we define the complex position $z=x+i y$. Then a spin-polarized electron in the presence of a single flux located at $z_0 = x_0 + i y_0$ is described (up to a normalization constant) by the following wavefunction $$\psi(z)=|z-z_0|^{-\frac{\Phi}{\Phi_0}}z^\alpha \label{eq:SingleAC}$$ for distances bigger than the characteristic flux size $r_0$, [*i.e.*]{} ${|z-z_0|\gg r_0}$. Here $\Phi$ is the total value of the flux, $\Phi_0=\frac{2\pi\hbar c}{e}$ is the magnetic flux quantum, and $\alpha = 0, 1, \ldots$ parametrizes the angular momentum of the particle ($\alpha$ is constrained to be smaller than $\Phi/\Phi_0$ for the wave function to have a proper behavior at infinity). The effect of different fluxes on the single-particle wave function is clearly multiplicative.
The single-particle solution of makes it clear how to incorporate quenched (pseudo)magnetic fluctuations into the structure of the many-body Laughlin-like wave function [@Laughlin:1983]. The quenched (pseudo)magnetic field $\delta {\bm B}({\bm r})$ can be decomposed as a set of random fluxes situated at the points $\tilde{z}_j$, $j=1,\ldots, N_{\Phi}$ superimposed to the uniform magnetic field ${\bm B}_0 = B_0{\hat {\bm z}}$ which is responsible for the formation of the fractional state. In what follows we will take the magnetic length $l_B=\sqrt{\hbar c/eB_0}$ to be the unit of length. Hence, $$\Psi(z_1,\dots z_N)=\prod\limits_{i}^N\prod\limits_{j}^{N_\Phi} |z_i - \tilde{z}_j |^{M_j} \prod\limits_{k<l}^N (z_k - z_l)^m e^{-\frac14 \sum\limits_n |z_n|^2}
~, \label{eq:LLWF}$$ where $m$ is an odd positive integer. Any continuum distribution of the (pseudo)magnetic field can be described in this way in the limit $\Phi_j \rightarrow 0,N_\Phi \rightarrow \infty$.
The square of this wave function can be viewed as the partition function of a 2D Coulomb plasma moving on a background of randomly distributed (quenched) point charges, [*i.e.*]{} ${\cal Z} = \int dz_1\dots dz_N e^{- {\cal H}/m}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
% {\cal Z}=\int dz_1\dots dz_N|\psi(z_1,\dots z_N)|^2=\\ \int dz_1\dots dz_N e^{-\frac{1}{m} {\cal H}},\nonumber \\
{\cal H}&=&-2m^2\sum\limits_{k<l}^N \ln|z_k-z_l|+\frac{m}{2}\sum\limits_n^N |z_n|^2
\nonumber\\
&+&
2m\sum\limits_i^N\sum\limits_j^{N_\Phi}\frac{\Phi_j}{\Phi_0}\ln|z_i-\tilde{z}_j|
% \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
It was shown experimentally [@Morpurgo] that in many cases the sources of pseudomagnetic field can be considered as randomly distributed centers of deformations, in a qualitative agreement with the ripple model [@KG2008]. The typical size of these centers is much smaller than the distances between them, so we can effectively treat them as point-like objects. The quenched pseudomagnetic disorder therefore emerges in a form of a set of highly localized fluxes, and our problem reduces to the study of properties of a correlated electron gas in presence of a random flux distribution coexisting with a homogeneous background magnetic field.
A disorder of a similar geometrical structure can be observed in graphene sheet put on a substrate, e.g. platinum surface [@Levy:2010]. When epitaxial graphene is grown on such a substrate, bubbles of characteristic width about $10 \mbox{nm}$ and height $2\mbox{nm}$ tend to form. In this case, the number of fluxes is much smaller and the value of each flux is much larger than in the case of rippled graphene. For the sake of simplicity we assume that all pseudomagnetic fluxes have the same value $\Phi_j=\Phi$.
A few comments are now in order. While the two aforementioned types of disorder can be described by the same formal model, they are pretty different on a phenomenological level. First of all, inhomogeneities of pseudomagnetic field in rippled graphene are normally not very strong, with deviations $|\delta {\bm B}| \sim 1\mbox{T}$ on a length scale of $l \sim 1 \mbox{nm}$ [@Morozov:2006], resulting in very moderate flux values $\Phi\simeq 10^{-3} \Phi_0$. In contrast, nanobubbles observed in graphene on a metal substrate lead to very strong pseudomagnetic fields, of the order of $|\delta {\bm B}| \sim 300\mbox{T}$, localized within regions of characteristic size $\sim (5-10) \mbox{nm}$ [@Levy:2010]. Hence, the corresponding fluxes are of the order of $\Phi \sim 10-15 \Phi_0$. Another fundamental difference is that out-of-plane deformations of freely suspended graphene (ripples) can occur in both direction, hence the signs of $\Phi_j$ fluxes are randomly distributed, and each of them acts as local repulsive or attractive potential on the particles of the associated classical plasma. On the other hand, the fluxes due to nanobubbles are all of the same sign, making the potential landscape for the Laughlin plasma either purely repulsive or purely attractive (depending on the relative sign of the background magnetic field and of the fluxes). In what follows we mainly perform computations for the second case and demonstrate that a transition of the liquid plasma to a glass state is possible. The first case turns out to be more trivial due to the weakness of the disorder, and it will be clear that both integer and quantum Hall effects are insensitive to deformations of this kind.
![The static structure factor $S_{00}(q)$ of short-range (blue) and long-range (red) correlated pseudomagnetic disorder at packing ratio $\eta=0.07$. \[fig:Sq00\]](BackgroundSq.pdf){width="0.99\columnwidth"}
[*Discussion of the model*]{}—Great care should be taken here. Since charge carriers belong to two different valleys [@Katsnelson:book], the same bubble deformation of the graphene sheet induces a flux co-directed with the background magnetic field in one valley (which result in an attractive potential for the classical plasma), and oppositely directed in the other valley. In the latter case it enters as a quenched repulsive potential in the action of the classical plasma. Since we allow for strong variations of (pseudo)magnetic field, to stay within the regime of validity of the model we need to make sure that these inhomogeneities never lead to mixing between Landau levels (LLs). In the valley where fluxes are co-directed with the background field the problem is not expected to occur: while the lowest Landau level (LLL) is protected upon variations of the magnetic field, the gap between it and the next LL is bounded from below by the corresponding homogeneous value. In the other valley the situation is potentially more dangerous, as the presence of oppositely directed large magnetic fluxes may imply the existence of zero-magnetic field lines in the sample and, possibly, regions where LL merge. However, since the corresponding regions act on classical particles in the Laughlin plasma as strong repulsive potentials, on the quantum level we expect the system to avoid occupying states within these domains, and the effect of level mixing should be mild. Another potentially problematic aspect related to the existence of $B=0$ lines is the possibility of percolation through the bulk of the sample that destroys the quantization of the Hall conductivity [@Mirlin:1998]. But since we consider only the case of small packing ratio $\eta \equiv \rho_0 l_B^2$, and the distance between any two fluxes is much bigger than their characteristic size, such a line is an isolated loop circumventing a flux, and there is no chance of percolation.
![Static structure factors $S(q)$ and pair correlation functions $g(r)$ (insets) of Laughlin plasma in presence of short-range correlated magnetic disorder: the cases of repulsive (top) and attractive (bottom) flux potentials.[]{data-label="fig:SqIncompressible"}](SqRepulsiveIncompressible.pdf "fig:"){width="0.99\columnwidth"} ![Static structure factors $S(q)$ and pair correlation functions $g(r)$ (insets) of Laughlin plasma in presence of short-range correlated magnetic disorder: the cases of repulsive (top) and attractive (bottom) flux potentials.[]{data-label="fig:SqIncompressible"}](SqAttractiveIncompressible.pdf "fig:"){width="0.99\columnwidth"}
[*Plasma static structure factor*]{}—Having defined the model, we can numerically calculate the static structure factor of the Coulomb plasma, in the presence of a number of static (disorder) charges, by means of the replica Ornstein-Zernike equations derived for a partly quenched two-component fluid in Ref. [@Given:1994]. Referring the reader to the original paper for a detailed discussion, hereafter we just briefly quote the idea. In this language, the potential landscape provided by pseudomagnetic fluxes can be implemented as a frozen “liquid” whose direct ($c_{00}$) and full ($h_{00}$) pair correlation functions (and thus the static structure factor $S_{00}=1+\rho_0 h_{00}$) are fixed. The correlation functions of the annealed component can be obtained by solving the replicated system of equations $$\begin{gathered}
h_{01}=c_{01}+\rho_0 c_{00}\otimes h_{01}+\rho_1 c_{01}\otimes (h_{11}-h_{12}), \label{eq:ROZ}\\
h_{11}=c_{11}+\rho_0 c_{01}\otimes h_{01}+\rho_1 c_{11}\otimes h_{11} - \rho_1 c_{12}\otimes h_{12},\nonumber \\
h_{12}=c_{12}+\rho_0 c_{01}\otimes h_{01}+\rho_1 c_{11}\otimes h_{12} + \nonumber \\ \rho_1 c_{12}\otimes h_{11}-2\rho_1 c_{12}\otimes h_{12}, \nonumber\end{gathered}$$ where the $\otimes$ symbol stands for convolution $f\otimes g = \int f({\bm r}-{\bm r'})g({\bm r'})d^2{\bm r'}$. Here the index $0$ denotes the quenched component ([*i.e.*]{} the magnetic fluxes), while $1$ and $2$ refer to two replicas of the annealed one (the electron liquid). These equations are to be supplemented by the closure relations. We use the hypernetted chain closure [@Laughlin:1983; @Balescu:book], which has been proven to give very accurate results for quantum Hall plasmas $$h_{ij}(r)=\exp\left( h_{ij}(r)-c_{ij}(r) - \beta v_{ij}(r)\right)-1,$$ where $\beta v_{ij}(r)$ are radially symmetric interaction potentials ($\beta=m$ is the inverse temperature of the classical plasma), and replicas are required not to interact with each other directly, [*i.e.*]{} $v_{12}(r)=0$. Here $\rho_0$ is the density of pseudomagnetic fluxes which can be estimated as follows. The typical background magnetic field which is required to develop a $\nu=\frac{1}{3}$ FQHE state is $B_0\simeq 15\mbox{T}$ [@Bolotin:2009], hence $l_B\simeq 6\, \mbox{nm}$. In experiments on graphene on a platinum substrate, a density of nanobubbles of about $5$ per $2500\,\mbox{nm}^2$ [@Levy:2010] was observed, which in rescaled units would correspond to $\rho_0\simeq 0.07 \,{l_B}^{-2}$. The particle density of itinerant electrons is instead fixed to $\rho_1=1/(2\pi l_B^2 m)$ in a Laughlin state with the corresponding filling factor $\nu=1/m$. Hereafter we set the magnetic length $l_B=1$ for convenience.
Before proceeding with solving we have to fix the static structure factor $S_{00}(q)$ of the pseudomagnetic disorder. While it is not known at all momentum scales, there are two qualitatively distinct cases that correspond to different behavior at small wave vectors. Inhomogeneities of the pseudomagnetic field can be long- or short-range correlated. In the former case the correlator of pseudomagnetic vector potential $\langle|{\bm A}_{\bm q}|^2 \rangle$ behaves as $1/q^2$ [@Morpurgo; @KG2008] for $q\to 0$, resulting in the correlator of pseudomagnetic fields $S_{00}(q) \propto q^2 \langle|{\bm A}_{\bm q}|^2\rangle$ to approach a non-vanishing constant at $q=0$. This kind of pseudomagnetic disorder is relevant for ripple-scattering dominated electronic transport [@Katsnelson:book; @Morpurgo; @KG2008]. At the same time, short-range disorder with $\langle|{\bm A}_{\bm q}|^2\rangle$ approaching a constant at $q \rightarrow 0$ should always exist but does not lead to any appreciable contribution to the electron mobility at zero magnetic field. However, as we will see in what follows, it can substantially effect the FQHE. In this case $S_{00}(q)\propto q^2$ at $q \rightarrow 0$. A natural way to generate such model structure factors is to imagine for a second that, prior to being quenched, the fluxes themselves were released to anneal as a liquid. If we assume that they interact with each other via a two-dimensional Coulomb potential, we will end up with a structure factor corresponding to short-range disorder (represented by blue curve in Fig. \[fig:Sq00\]). If the “annealing” potential is taken to be of the hard-sphere type, we instead obtain a model of long-range disorder (red curve in Fig. \[fig:Sq00\]). Since real correlation functions of pseudomagnetic fields are unknown (and may be very different for different samples and substrates) we use those obtained from these two models.This is enough to demonstrate a qualitative difference between long-range and short-range correlated disorder.
The solutions of the replica Ornstein-Zernike equations in the two aforementioned cases are shown in Figs. \[fig:SqIncompressible\] and \[fig:SqCompressible\], respectively. We can see that the two types of pseudomagnetic disorder lead to very different physical effects. The structure factor $S_{11}(q)$ of a quantum Hall plasma in the presence of a short-range disorder remains vanishing at $q\rightarrow 0$ whatever the strength of pseudomagnetic fluxes is. We can also check that the incompressibility sum rule is always satisfied: $\frac{1}{2\pi}\int (g(r)-1) d^2r =-1$ [@Prange:book]. On the other hand, long-range correlations in the pseudomagnetic disorder already at small strength $\Phi$ lead to a change in the small-$q$ behavior of the QHE plasma structure factor, making it compressible and thus destroying the quantum Hall effect.
In the next section we will show that the high peak that emerges in $S_{11}(q)$ if the magnetic disorder is strong enough is a precursor of a glass phase transition of the Laughlin plasma, which might be interpreted as a breakdown of ergodicity in the corresponding quantum ground state.
![Static structure factors $S(q)$ and pair correlation functions $g(r)$ (insets) of Laughlin plasma in presence of long-range correlated magnetic disorder: the cases of repulsive (top) and attractive (bottom) flux potentials.[]{data-label="fig:SqCompressible"}](SqRepulsiveCompressible.pdf "fig:"){width="0.99\columnwidth"} ![Static structure factors $S(q)$ and pair correlation functions $g(r)$ (insets) of Laughlin plasma in presence of long-range correlated magnetic disorder: the cases of repulsive (top) and attractive (bottom) flux potentials.[]{data-label="fig:SqCompressible"}](SqAttractiveCompressible.pdf "fig:"){width="0.99\columnwidth"}
[*Liquid-glass transition from mode coupling theory*]{}—We use the mode-coupling theory [@Goetze_paper] to describe the liquid-glass transition. It has been shown that this approach gives reliable results in proximity of the liquid-glass transition and that they agree with results obtained with the replica trick [@Goetze_Book]. Moreover, it has been recently shown [@Zamponi_paper; @Zamponi_paper_2] that similar equations can be derived for a replicated hard-sphere system, assuming that glassiness is self-induced and that the replica symmetry is spontaneously broken. It has been shown that the mode-coupling approximation captures some of the higher-order effects which are much more difficult to include in the replica formulation [@Zamponi_paper; @Zamponi_paper_2].
A glass is in general identified by the impossibility of relaxing local density fluctuations even in the long-time limit. It is indeed a disorder system that gets (spontaneously or artificially) stuck in a certain configuration upon freezing, and does not relax to the equilibrium state as a consequence of the exponentially large number of metastable minima. The idea of the mode-coupling theory is to directly calculate the density relaxation function, $\phi(q,t) \equiv \langle \rho_{{\bm q}}(t) \rho_{-{\bm q}}\rangle/S_q$, and to show that it does not decay to zero in the limit of $t\to \infty$. Here $\langle\ldots\rangle$ is the average over the classical equilibrium distribution and $S(q) = \langle \rho_{{\bm q}} \rho_{-{\bm q}}\rangle/N$ is the static structure factor of the liquid.
In general, the Fourier transform of the density relaxation function, $\phi(q,\omega)$, can be rewritten in terms of the memory function $M(\omega)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\phi(q,\omega) = -\frac{1}{\omega - \Omega_q^2/[\omega + M(\omega)]}
~.\end{aligned}$$ Here $\Omega_q = q^2 v_{\rm th}/S_q$, and $v_{\rm th} = k_{\rm B} T/m$ is the thermal velocity. The memory function is microscopically defined in terms of the force-force correlation function, [*i.e.*]{} $\langle F_{\bm q}(t) F_{-{\bm q}} \rangle$, where the time evolution of the force fluctuation $F_{\bm q}(t)$ occurs in the space orthogonal to the density and the longitudinal current (in the sense of the Zwanzig-Mori scalar product [@Goetze_Book; @Zwanzig_paper; @Mori_paper]). Essentially, the role of projection is to freeze the dynamics of single-density fluctuations from the force-force correlator, treating them as static, and leave only the contribution of correlated fluctuations. The memory function $M(t)$ is then split into two components, $M_{\rm reg}(t)$ and $M_{\rm MC}(t)$ [@Goetze_Book]. The former is obtained by projecting the dynamic evolution in the space orthogonal to pair [*density*]{} fluctuations, [*i.e.*]{} treating them as frozen, while the latter contains only the contribution of these lowest-order correlated fluctuations. It is then reasonably assumed that $M_{\rm reg}(t)$ does not contribute to the long-time dynamics of the system, and hence the main contribution to glass formation comes from $M_{\rm MC}(t)$. The mode-coupling expression is then obtained by decoupling four-point density correlators in terms of two-point ones, [*i.e.*]{} $\langle \rho_{{\bm q}_1}(t) \rho_{{\bm q}_2}(t) \rho_{{\bm q}_3} \rho_{{\bm q}_4}\rangle \simeq \langle \rho_{{\bm q}_1}(t) \rho_{{\bm q}_3}
\rangle \langle \rho_{{\bm q}_2}(t) \rho_{{\bm q}_4}\rangle$ (and permutations) [@Goetze_Book]. This is the fundamental step of the mode-coupling approximation, by which correlated multi-pair fluctuations are expressed as convolutions (in momentum) of simple pair fluctuations. The convolution ensures the conservation of total momentum.
Finally, the mode-coupling contribution to the relaxation function in the limit $t\to \infty$ \[${\bar \phi}(q) \equiv \lim_{t\to \infty} \phi(q,t)$\] reads [@Goetze_Book; @Goetze_paper] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:MC_main}
\frac{{\bar \phi}(q)}{1 - {\bar \phi}(q)} &=& \frac{n S(q)}{2 q^2} \int \frac{d^2{\bm k}}{(2\pi)^2} \big| V({\bm q}, {\bm k}) \big|^2 S(k) S(|{\bm k}-{\bm q}|)
\nonumber\\
&\times&
{\bar \phi}(k) {\bar \phi}(|{\bm k}-{\bm q}|)
~,\end{aligned}$$ where $V({\bm q}, {\bm k}) = {\bm q}\cdot{\bm k} c(k) + {\bm q}\cdot({\bm k} -{\bm q}) c(|{\bm k} - {\bm q}|)$, and $c(k) = [1 - n S(k)]^{-1}$ is the direct correlation function. Eq. (\[eq:MC\_main\]) must be solved self-consistently. In the range of parameters where Eq. (\[eq:MC\_main\]) has non-trivial solutions the liquid can undergo a glass transition upon undercooling.
Using the structure factors computed in the previous section and plotted in Figs. \[fig:SqIncompressible\] and \[fig:SqCompressible\] as an input for , we can straightforwardly evaluate the late time relaxation function $\bar{\phi}(q)$ to see if the quantum Hall plasma exhibits a non-ergodic behavior. An example of $\bar{\phi}(q)$ for a packing ratio $\eta = 0.07$ and flux value $\Phi=15\Phi_0$ (above the phase transition threshold) is shown in Fig. \[fig:Relaxation\].
![Long-time relaxation function $\bar{\phi}(q)$ in the glassy phase (for packing ratio $\eta=0.07$ and flux strength $\Phi=15\Phi_0$).[]{data-label="fig:Relaxation"}](RelaxAttractive_F=15.pdf){width="0.99\columnwidth"}
Having performed these calculation for single-sign pseudomagnetic disorder corresponding to graphene on a substrate, we can immediately conclude that no glass formation can be expected in a model with smooth disorder. Although we can not exclude that the interplay of positive and negative magnetic fluxes can in principle enhance a bit the phase transition, the flux values are much smaller (by several orders of magnitude) than what is required for it to occur.
[*Interpretation of the phase transition*]{}—It is well known that inhomogeneous ground states can be realized in fractional quantum Hall systems at filling factors between those corresponding to incompressible states. [@Efros_prb_1992; @Koulakov_prl_1996; @Fogler_prb_1996; @Fogler_prb_1997; @MacDonald_prb_2000; @Spivak_prb_2003; @Spivak_prb_2004; @Goerbig_prb_2004] Striped or bubble phases have been predicted to have energies of the order of the homogenous (liquid) ground state, and to appear at intermediate filling factors whenever long-range interactions are present. [@Efros_prb_1992; @Spivak_prb_2003; @Spivak_prb_2004] Striped phases are especially favorited by non-isotropic or dipolar-like interactions (like, e.g., those resulting from the screening of the Coulomb potential by nearby metal plates). [@Efros_prb_1992] A characteristic hallmark of such phases is, for example, a non-homogeneous Hall conductivity. [@Lilly_prl_1999; @Cooper_prb_1999; @Eisenstein_prl_2002; @Fradkin_ann_rev_cmp_2010; @Xia_nature_physics_2011] In clean systems and at low temperature such phases usually exhibit a long-range order.
An incompressible state in the presence of quenched magnetic disorder will exhibit a somewhat similar phenomenology. Local fluctuations of the filling factor will result in the formation of chaotic patterns. Although the pattern looks at a first sight completely chaotic, a careful study can reveal the hidden typical length scale, corresponding to a sharp maximum of the structure factor. Such patterns can, in general, be thought as stripe or bubble glass phases. [@Schmalian_prl_2000; @Principi_prb_2016] Their origin is due to the fact that the system finds itself frustrated by the presence of disorder, and wants to modulate with a period corresponding to the typical length scale but in all possible directions at the same time. [@Schmalian_prl_2000; @Principi_prb_2016]
We predict a phase transition as a function of the strength of the magnetic disorder. At all strengths the structure factor will exhibit a liquid-like behavior at small momentum ([*i.e.*]{} $S(q)\to q^2$ in the limit of $q\to 0$). A sharp peak develops at finite wavevectors, and grows with the strength of the quenched magnetic disorder $\Phi/\Phi_0$. This structure of $S(q)$ is crucial and leads to the emergence of a glassy behavior. The latter is revealed by the presence of non-decaying density fluctuations, encoded in the finiteness of the long-time part of the dynamical structure factor. Below the critical value of the strength of the quenched magnetic disorder, $S(q,t)\to 0$ at large time. However, above this critical value of $\Phi/\Phi_0$ it remains finite, signaling that density fluctuations do not decay over time. This behavior is typical for frozen systems.
We infer the presence of a phase transition from the behavior of the classical plasma associated to the deformed Laughlin wavefunction in the presence of quenched magnetic disorder. It is less clear what is the phenomenology of the quantum electron liquid above the critical value of the strength of the disorder. What seems to be clear is that the glass transition can be associated with a breakdown of the liquid-like behavior of the electron liquid, and therefore of the quantum Hall effect. This is analogous to the formation of a Wigner crystal at small filling fraction. In our case the transition is driven not by the small density but by the presence of magnetic disorder and, depending on the strength of it, can occur at all filling fractions.
[*Summary and conclusions*]{}—In this paper we address the problem of the stability of a fractional quantum Hall state in the presence of pseudomagnetic disorder. Such a state find a natural realization in graphene subject to both a constant (large) magnetic field and strain fluctuations. Mechanical deformations of the graphene lattice can indeed generate disordered pseudomagnetic potentials with strengths up to hundreds of Teslas. To simplify our model we focused on this type of disorder, neglecting the potential contribution and the hybridization of Landau levels. In these conditions is it possible to write a trial ground-state by smoothly deforming the Laughlin wave function in the spirit of Aharonov and Casher [@Aharonov:1979; @Katsnelson:book].
We treat this problem by means of the classical-plasma analogy. The square of the (deformed) Laughlin wave function is indeed formally identical to the action of a classical plasma, in which magnetic fluctuations play the role of quenched long-range (Coulomb) disorder. As in the classical theory of fluids, such a problem can be studied by numerically solving the replicated Ornstein-Zernike equations. [@Given:1994] The disorder is represented as a quenched liquid with a given static structure factor, while the classical particles are treated as a fluid embedded into this disorder matrix. Two models of pseudomagnetic disorder are discussed, namely with long- and short-range correlations. Long-range correlated disorder occurs in the presence of ripples, and is characterized by structure factor which does not vanish in the limit $q\to 0$. [@Katsnelson:book] Its effect on the fractional quantum Hall state turns out to be dramatic. Even for small concentrations of a weak disorder, the structure factor of the annealed component ([*i.e.*]{} the electron liquid) does not vanish in the limit of $q\to 0$. This in turn implies that the liquid becomes compressible and the fractional quantum Hall state is completely destroyed. [@Laughlin:1983]
On the other hand the short-range disorder, whose quenched structure factor resemble that of a normal liquid, has a more subtle effect on the fractionalized state. Such disorder occurs, for example, in graphene on metals, where few bubbles due to the substrate can induce very localized and strong pseudomagnetic fluctuations. [@Levy:2010] In this case, although the static structure factor resemble that of a liquid ([*i.e.*]{} with a $q^2$-like behavior at small momenta), it can develop strong peaks at finite wavevector. Such peaks can in turn induce a glass transition in the system, [@Goetze_paper] which is signaled by the infinite stiffness of the system towards relaxing local density fluctuations. In this case the long-time structure factor, which normally vanishes in a liquid, remains finite. This phase transition occurring in the Coulomb plasma can be associated with a destruction of the fractional quantum Hall regime of the electron liquid, which enters into a non-ergodic state of the lowest Landau level.
[*Acknowledgments*]{}—The authors acknowledge support from the ERC Advanced Grant 338957 FEMTO/NANO and from the NWO via the Spinoza Prize.
[100]{}
K. S. Novoselov et al. (2005) [*Two-dimensional gas of massless Dirac fermions in graphene*]{}, [ Nature 438(197)](http://http://www.doi.org/10.1038/nature04233).
Y. Zhang, Y. W. Tan, H. L. Stormer, P. Kim (2005) [*Experimental observation of the quantum Hall effect and Berry’s phase in graphene*]{}, [Nature 438 (201)](http://http://www.doi.org/10.1038/nature04235).
A. K. Geim, and K. S. Novoselov (2007) [*The rise of graphene*]{}, [ Nature Materials 6(183).](http://http://www.doi.org/10.1038/nmat1849)
M. I. Katsnelson (2007) [*Graphene: carbon in two dimensions*]{}, [Materials Today 10(20).](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1369-7021(06)71788-6)
A. H. Castro Neto, F. Guinea, N. M. R. Peres, K. S. Novoselov, and A. K. Geim (2009), [*The electronic properties of graphene*]{}, [Rev. Mod. Phys. 81(109).](https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.81.109)
M. O. Goerbig (2011) [*Electronic properties of graphene in a strong magnetic field*]{}, [Rev. Mod. Phys. 83(1193).](https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.83.1193)
M. I. Katsnelson (2012) [*Graphene: Carbon in Two Dimensions*]{}, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
S. V. Morozov et al. (2006) [*Strong suppression of weak localization in graphene*]{}, [Phys. Rev. Lett. 97(1): 016801.](http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.016801)
M. A. H. Vozmediano, M. I. Katsnelson, F. Guinea (2010) [*Gauge fields in graphene*]{}, [Phys. Rep. 496(109).](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2010.07.003)
B. Amorim et al. (2016) [*Novel effects of strains in graphene and other two dimensional materials*]{}, [Phys. Rep. 617(3): 1-54.](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2015.12.006)
M. I. Katsnelson, and A. K. Geim (2008) [*Electron scattering on microscopic corrugations in graphene*]{}, [Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. A 366(195).](https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2007.2157)
F. Guinea, M. I. Katsnelson, A. K. Geim (2010) [*Energy gaps and a zero-field quantum Hall effect in graphene by strain engineering*]{}, [Nature Physics 6(30).](https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys1420)
F. Guinea, A. K. Geim, M. I. Katsnelson, K. S. Novoselov (2010) [*Generating quantizing pseudomagnetic fields by bending graphene ribbons*]{}, [Phys. Rev. B 81: 035408.](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.81.035408)
N. Levy et al. (2010) [*Strain-induced pseudo–magnetic fields greater than 300 tesla in graphene nanobubbles*]{}, [Science 329(5991): 544-547.](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/329/5991/544)
X. Du, I. Skachko, F. Duerr, A. Luican, E. Y. Andrei (2009) [*Fractional quantum Hall effect and insulating phase of Dirac electrons in graphene*]{}, [Nature 462: 192-195.](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7270/abs/nature08522.html)
K. I. Bolotin et al. (2009) [*Observation of the fractional quantum Hall effect in graphene*]{}, [Nature 462(7270): 196-199.](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7270/abs/nature08582.html)
N. J. G. Couto et al. (2014) [*Random Strain Fluctuations as Dominant Disorder Source for High-Quality On-Substrate Graphene Devices*]{}, [Phys. Rev. X 4, 041019.](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.4.041019)
Y. Aharonov, and A. Casher (1979) [*Ground state of a spin-1/2 charged particle in a two-dimensional magnetic field*]{}, [Phys. Rev. A 19(6): 2461.](http://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.19.2461)
R. B. Laughlin (1983) [*Anomalous quantum Hall effect: an incompressible quantum fluid with fractionally charged excitations*]{}, [Phys. Rev. Lett. 50(18): 1395.](http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.50.1395)
Ch. 7 by R.B. Laughlin, [*The quantum Hall effect*]{}, eds. R. E. Prange, and S. M. Girvin, Springer Science $\&$ Business Media, 2012.
A. D. Mirlin, D. G. Polyakov, and P. Wölfle (1998) [*Composite fermions in a long-range random magnetic field: Quantum Hall effect versus Shubnikov–de Haas oscillations*]{}, [Phys. Rev. Lett. 80(11): 2429.](http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.2429)
J. A. Given, and G. R. Stell (1994) [*The replica Ornstein-Zernike equations and the structure of partly quenched media*]{}, [ Physica A: Stat. Mech. and its App. 209(3-4): 495-510.](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0378437194902003)
R. Balescu (1975) [*Equilibrium and nonequilibrium statistical mechanics*]{}, NASA STI/Recon Technical Report A 76: 32809.
U. Bengtzelius, W. Götze, and A. Sjolander (1984) [*Dynamics of supercooled liquids and the glass transition*]{}, [ J. Phys. C: Solid state physics 17(33): 5915.](http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0022-3719/17/33/005/meta)
W. Götze (2008) [*Complex dynamics of glass-forming liquids: A mode-coupling theory*]{}, vol. 143 OUP Oxford.
G. Parisi, and D. Zamponi (2005) [*The ideal glass transition of hard spheres*]{}, [J. Chem. Phys. 123, 144501](http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.2041507)
G. Parisi, and D. Zamponi (2010) [*Mean-field theory of hard sphere glasses and jamming*]{}, [Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 789](https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.82.789)
R. Zwanzig (1961) [*Memory effects in irreversible thermodynamics*]{}, [Phys. Rev. 124(4): 983.](http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.124.983)
H. Mori (1965) [*Transport, collective motion, and Brownian motion*]{}, [[Prog. Theor. Phys. 33(3): 423-455.](http://ptp.oxfordjournals.org/content/33/3/423.short)]{}
A. L. Efros (1992) [*Homogeneous and inhomogeneous states of a two-dimensional electron liquid in a strong magnetic field*]{}, [Phys. Rev. B 45, 11354-11357.](http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.45.11354)
A. A. Koulakov, M. M. Fogler, and B. I. Shklovskii (1996) [*Charge Density Wave in Two-Dimensional Electron Liquid in Weak Magnetic Field*]{}, [Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 499-502.](http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.76.499)
M. M. Fogler, A. A. Koulakov, and B. I. Shklovskii (1996) [*Ground state of a two-dimensional electron liquid in a weak magnetic field*]{}, [Phys. Rev. B 54, 1853-1871.](http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.54.1853)
M. M. Fogler, A. A. Koulakov (1997) [*Laughlin liquid to charge-density-wave transition at high Landau levels*]{}, [Phys. Rev. B 55, 9326-9329](http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.55.9326)
A. H. MacDonald, and M. P. A. Fisher (2000) [*Quantum theory of quantum Hall smectics*]{}, [Phys. Rev. B, 61 5724-5733.](http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.61.5724)
B. Spivak (2003) [*Phase separation in the two-dimensional electron liquid in MOSFET’s*]{}, [Phys. Rev. B 67, 125205.](http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.67.125205)
B. Spivak, and S. A. Kivelson (2004) [*Phases intermediate between a two-dimensional electron liquid and Wigner crystal*]{}, [Phys. Rev. B 70, 155114.](http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.70.155114)
M. O. Goerbig, P. Lederer, and C. M. Smith, (2004) [*Competition between quantum-liquid and electron-solid phases in intermediate Landau levels*]{}, [Phys. Rev. B 69, 115327.](http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.69.115327)
M. P. Lilly, K. B. Cooper, J. P. Eisenstein, L. N. Pfeiffer, and K. W. West (1999) [*Evidence for an Anisotropic State of Two-Dimensional Electrons in High Landau Levels*]{}, [Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 394-397](http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.394)
K. B. Cooper, M. P. Lilly, J. P. Eisenstein, L. N. Pfeiffer, and K. W. West (1999) [*Insulating phases of two-dimensional electrons in high Landau levels: Observation of sharp thresholds to conduction*]{}, [Phys. Rev. B 60, R11285-R11288](http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.60.R11285)
J. P. Eisenstein, K. B. Cooper, L. N. Pfeiffer, and K. W. West (2002) [*Insulating and Fractional Quantum Hall States in the First Excited Landau Level*]{}, [Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 076801](http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.076801)
E. Fradkin, S. A. Kivelson, M. J. Lawler, J. P. Eisenstein, and A. P. Mackenzie (2010) [*Nematic Fermi Fluids in Condensed Matter Physics*]{}, [Ann. Rev. of Cond. Mat. Phys. 1, 153-178.](http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-070909-103925)
J. Xia, J. P. Eisenstein, L. N. Pfeiffer, and K. W. West (2011) [*Evidence for a fractionally quantized Hall state with anisotropic longitudinal transport*]{}, [Nature Physics 7, 845-848.](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys2118)
J. Schmalian, and P. G. Wolynes (2000) [*Stripe Glasses: Self-Generated Randomness in a Uniformly Frustrated System*]{}, [Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 836](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.836)
A. Principi, and M.I. Katsnelson (2016) [*Stripe glasses in ferromagnetic thin films*]{}, [Phys. Rev. B 93, 054410](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.93.054410)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We define wreath products of cocommutative Hopf algebras, and show that they enjoy a universal property of classifying cleft extensions, analogous to the Kaloujnine-Krasner theorem for groups.
We show that the group ring of a wreath product of groups is the wreath product of their group rings, and that (with a natural definition of wreath products of Lie algebras) the universal enveloping algebra of a wreath product of Lie algebras is the wreath product of their enveloping algebras.
We recover the aforementioned result that group extensions may be classified as certain subgroups of a wreath product, and that Lie algebra extensions may also be classified as certain subalgebras of a wreath product.
address: 'Mathematisches Institut, Georg-August Universität, Göttingen, Germany'
author:
- Laurent Bartholdi
- Olivier Siegenthaler
- Todd Trimble
date: 15 July 2014
title: Wreath products of cocommutative Hopf algebras
---
Introduction
============
Let $A,Q$ be cocommutative Hopf algebras. We construct the *wreath product* $A\wr Q$ of $A$ and $Q$, and show that it satisfies a universal property with respect to containing all extensions of $A$ by $Q$. The definition is very simple, in terms of *measuring algebras*, see §\[ss:measuring\]: $$A\wr Q := A^Q\#Q.$$
Our first main result is that the wreath product of Hopf algebras classifies their extensions:
\[thm:KK\] There is a bijection between, on the one hand, cleft extensions $E$ of $A$ by $Q$, up to isomorphism of extensions, and, on the other hand, Hopf subalgebras $E$ of $A\wr Q$ with the property that $E$ maps onto $Q$ via the natural map $A^Q\#Q\to Q$ and $E\cap A^Q\cong
A$ via the evaluation map $A^Q\to A,f\mapsto f@1$, up to conjugation in $A\wr Q$.
Extensions of groups — and of Hopf algebras — with *abelian* kernel are classified by the cohomology group $H^2(Q,A)$; see [@singer:extensions]. Kaloujnine and Krasner considered wreath products as a means to classify arbitrary extensions.
There are two fundamental examples of cocommutative Hopf algebras: the group ring $\Bbbk{{\mathfrak G}}$ of a group ${{\mathfrak G}}$, with coproduct $\Delta(g)=g\otimes g$ for all $g\in{{\mathfrak G}}$; and the universal enveloping algebra $\U({{\mathfrak g}})$ of a Lie algebra ${{\mathfrak g}}$, with coproduct $\Delta(x)=x\otimes1+1\otimes x$ for all $x\in{{\mathfrak g}}$.
Wreath products of groups were already considered since the beginnings of group theory [@jordan:subs]\*[§II.I.41]{}. The wreath product ${{\mathfrak A}}\wr{{\mathfrak Q}}$ may be defined as the semidirect product ${{\mathfrak A}}^{{\mathfrak Q}}\rtimes{{\mathfrak Q}}$; its universal property of containing all extensions of ${{\mathfrak A}}$ by ${{\mathfrak Q}}$ is known as the Kaloujnine-Krasner theorem. We show that the group ring of ${{\mathfrak A}}\wr{{\mathfrak Q}}$ is the wreath product of the group rings of ${{\mathfrak A}}$ and ${{\mathfrak Q}}$, recovering in this manner the Kaloujnine-Krasner theorem:
\[thm:G\] If $A=\Bbbk{{\mathfrak A}}$ and $Q=\Bbbk{{\mathfrak Q}}$ be group rings, then $A\wr Q\cong
\Bbbk({{\mathfrak A}}\wr{{\mathfrak Q}})$ qua Hopf algebras.
\[cor:Gkk\] There is a bijection between, on the one hand, group extensions ${{\mathfrak E}}$ of ${{\mathfrak A}}$ by ${{\mathfrak Q}}$, up to isomorphism of extensions, and, on the other hand, subgroups ${{\mathfrak E}}$ of ${{\mathfrak A}}\wr{{\mathfrak Q}}$ with the property that ${{\mathfrak E}}$ maps onto ${{\mathfrak Q}}$ via the natural map ${{\mathfrak A}}^{{\mathfrak Q}}\rtimes{{\mathfrak Q}}\to{{\mathfrak Q}}$ and ${{\mathfrak E}}\cap{{\mathfrak A}}^{{\mathfrak Q}}\cong{{\mathfrak A}}$ via the evaluation map ${{\mathfrak A}}^{{\mathfrak Q}}\to{{\mathfrak A}},f\mapsto f(1)$, up to conjugation in ${{\mathfrak A}}\wr{{\mathfrak Q}}$.
Special cases of wreath products of Lie algebras were considered in various places in the literature [@jurman:glamc3; @caranti-m-n:glamc1; @netreba-s:wreath; @dipietro:phd; @shmelkin:wreath; @sullivan:wreath; @bondarenko:wreath]. In case $\Bbbk$ is a field of positive characteristic, then by “Lie algebra” we always mean “restricted Lie algebra”, and by “universal enveloping algebra” we always mean “restricted universal enveloping algebra”.
The wreath product ${{\mathfrak a}}\wr{{\mathfrak q}}$ may be defined as ${\mathbf{Vect}}(\U({{\mathfrak q}}),{{\mathfrak a}})\rtimes{{\mathfrak q}}$. An analogue of the Kaloujnine-Krasner theorem was proven in [@petrogradsky-r-s:wreath]. We show that the universal enveloping algebra of ${{\mathfrak a}}\wr{{\mathfrak q}}$ is the wreath product of universal enveloping algebras of ${{\mathfrak a}}$ and ${{\mathfrak q}}$, recovering in this manner the Kaloujnine-Krasner theorem:
\[thm:L\] If $A=\U({{\mathfrak a}})$ and $G=\U({{\mathfrak q}})$ be universal enveloping algebras, then $A\wr G\cong\U({{\mathfrak a}}\wr{{\mathfrak q}})$ qua Hopf algebras.
\[cor:Lkk\] There is a bijection between, on the one hand, Lie algebra extensions ${{\mathfrak e}}$ of ${{\mathfrak a}}$ by ${{\mathfrak q}}$, up to isomorphism of extensions, and, on the other hand, subalgebras ${{\mathfrak e}}$ of ${{\mathfrak a}}\wr{{\mathfrak q}}$ with the property that ${{\mathfrak e}}$ maps onto ${{\mathfrak q}}$ via the natural map ${\mathbf{Vect}}(\U({{\mathfrak q}}),{{\mathfrak a}})\rtimes{{\mathfrak q}}\to{{\mathfrak q}}$ and ${{\mathfrak e}}\cap{\mathbf{Vect}}(\U({{\mathfrak q}}),{{\mathfrak a}})\rtimes{{\mathfrak q}}\cong{{\mathfrak a}}$ via the evaluation map ${\mathbf{Vect}}(\U({{\mathfrak q}}),{{\mathfrak a}})\rtimes{{\mathfrak q}}\to{{\mathfrak a}},f\mapsto f(1)$, up to conjugation in ${{\mathfrak a}}\wr{{\mathfrak q}}$.
Assumptions
-----------
All algebras are assumed to be defined over the commutative ring $\Bbbk$. All Hopf algebras are cocommutative, and all extensions of Hopf algebras are cleft. We assume that $\Bbbk$ is sufficiently well behaved that the Poincaré-Birkhoff-Witt theorem holds for Lie algebras. If $\Bbbk$ has positive characteristic, we consider restricted Lie algebras, and their restricted universal envelopes.
As references for Hopf algebras, we based ourselves on [@sweedler:ha] and [@milnor-moore:hopf]. For extensions of Hopf algebras, we consulted [@montgomery:haaar].
Thanks
------
(check with Todd) We are very grateful to Todd Trimble for numerous enlightening explanations on the measuring coalgebra.
The measuring coalgebra {#ss:measuring}
=======================
Let $C,D$ be coalgebras over a field $\Bbbk$. There is a coalgebra $D^C$, which fulfills the role of an internal ‘${\operatorname{Hom}}(C,D)$’, in the category of coalgebras. It comes equipped with an evaluation map $D^C\otimes C\to D$, conveniently written $D^C\otimes C\ni f\otimes
c\mapsto f@c\in D$.
Sometimes $D^C$ is called the “measuring coalgebra” from $C$ to $D$. It may be described in two manners, one purely categorical and one more concrete.
The category of coalgebras ${\mathbf{Coalg}}$ is equivalent to the category of left-exact functors ${\mathbf{Lex}}({\mathbf{fdRing}},{\mathbf{Set}})$ from finite-dimensional $\Bbbk$-algebras to sets. The equivalence takes the coalgebra $C$ to the left-exact functor $R\mapsto{\mathbf{Coalg}}(R^*,C)$, with $R^*$ denoting the $\Bbbk$-dual of $R$, namely the coalgebra of linear maps $R\to\Bbbk$.
Conversely, let $F$ be a left-exact functor ${\mathbf{fdRing}}\to{\mathbf{Set}}$, and consider the set $\bigsqcup_{R\in{\mathbf{fdRing}}}\{R^*\}\times F(R)$. It is a directed set, with a morphism $(R^*,f)\to(S^*,g)$ for each ring morphism $\phi:S\to R$ satisfying $F(\phi)(f)=g$. Then associate with $F$ the colimit of the coalgebras $R^*$ along this directed set.
It is maybe psychologically reassuring to restrict oneself to “injective” markings $f\in F(R)$. One may at leisure consider the set $$\begin{gathered}
\Big\{ (R^*,f) \colon R\in{\mathbf{fdRing}}, f\in F(R),\text{ and }
\\\forall S\in{\mathbf{fdRing}},\forall\phi,\psi\colon S\to R\big(\phi^*f=\psi^*f\text{
if and only if }\phi=\psi\big)\Big\}.\end{gathered}$$
It is also a directed set. At the heart of these constructions lies the fact that every coalgebra is the colimit of its finite-dimensional subcoalgebras, see [@sweedler:ha]\*[Theorem 2.2.1]{}.
The fact that these transformations define an equivalence of categories is the content of Gabriel-Ulmer duality [@adamek-rosicky:lpac]. This duality canonically represents any left-exact functor as a filtered colimit of representable functors ${\operatorname{Hom}}(-,C_i)$ for some finite-dimensional coalgebras $C_i$; the coalgebra associated with the functor is simply the filtered colimit of the $C_i$.
The natural property of an internal ‘${\operatorname{Hom}}$’ states $D^{B\otimes
C}=(D^C)^B$; so, in particular, ${\mathbf{Coalg}}(B\otimes
C,D)={\mathbf{Coalg}}(B,D^C)$. Therefore, the measuring coalgebra $D^C$ represents the functor $R\mapsto{\mathbf{Coalg}}(R^*\otimes C,D)$. Let us omit the “$R\mapsto$” from the descriptions of the functors, remembering that $R$ is a placeholder for a ring that must be treated functorially. The coalgebra structure is given by coproduct $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{Coalg}}(R^*\otimes C,D)&\to{\mathbf{Coalg}}(R^*\otimes C,D)\times{\mathbf{Coalg}}(R^*\otimes C,D)\\
f&\mapsto \Delta(f) := (f,f),
\end{aligned}$$ and counit $${\mathbf{Coalg}}(R^*\otimes C,D)\to{\mathbf{Coalg}}(R^*,\Bbbk),\qquad f\mapsto \varepsilon(f) := \varepsilon.$$ The evaluation map is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{Coalg}}(R^*\otimes C,D)\times C&\to{\mathbf{Coalg}}(R^*,D)\\
(f,c)&\mapsto f@c := f(-\otimes c),
\end{aligned}$$ or even more categorically by $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{Coalg}}(R^*\otimes C,D)\times{\mathbf{Coalg}}(R^*,C)&\to{\mathbf{Coalg}}(R^*,D)\\
(f,g)&\mapsto f@g := (R^*\ni\xi\mapsto \sum f(\xi_1\otimes g(\xi_2))).
\end{aligned}$$
The measuring coalgebra may also be constructed more directly, following Fox [@fox:ceac] and Sweedler [@sweedler:ha]\*[Theorem 7.0.4]{}. Let $U$ denote the free coalgebra on ${\mathbf{Vect}}(C,D)$, and consider $D^C$ the maximal subcoalgebra of $U$ that interlaces the counit and coproduct of $C$ with that of $D$; namely, there is an evaluation map $@\colon U\otimes C\to D$ coming from $U$’s universal property, and we consider the sum of all coalgebras $E\le U$ with $\varepsilon(u@c)=\varepsilon(u)\varepsilon(c)$ and $\Delta(u@c)=\Delta(u)@(\Delta(c))$ for all $u\in E,c\in C$.
This description can be made more concrete as follows. Firstly, $U$ is naturally a subset of the set of power series over ${\mathbf{Vect}}(C,D)$; this follows from the description, by Sweedler, of the free (not yet cocommutative) coalgebra as $U=T({\mathbf{Vect}}(C,D)^*)^\circ$. Elements of $U$ may be written $$u=\sum_{n\ge0}\sum_{\text{some }\phi_1,\dots,\phi_n\colon C\to
D}\phi_1\cdots\phi_n.$$ This shows that $U$ naturally sits inside ${\operatorname{grHom}}(\operatorname{Sym}C,\operatorname{Sym}D)$: to such an expression $u$, we associate the graded map $$(c_1\otimes\cdots\otimes c_m)\mapsto\sum_{n=m}\sum_{\text{those
}\phi_1,\dots,\phi_n\colon C\to D}\phi_1(c_1)\otimes\cdots\otimes\phi_n(c_n).$$
We embedded $U$ into far too big a space, but now we trim it down. We still call $u$ the graded map $\operatorname{Sym}C\to\operatorname{Sym}D$. The counit on ${\operatorname{grHom}}(\operatorname{Sym}C,\operatorname{Sym}D)$ is $\varepsilon(u)=u(1)$; the coproduct $\Delta(u)(b_1\otimes\cdots\otimes b_m,c_1\otimes\cdots\otimes c_n)$ is obtained by computing $u(b_1\otimes\cdots\otimes b_m\otimes
c_1\otimes\cdots\otimes c_n)$ and cutting at the ‘$\otimes$’ between positions $m$ and $m+1$. The evaluation is $u@c=u(c)$. The requirement that these maps satisfy $\varepsilon(u@c)=\varepsilon(u)\varepsilon(c)$ and $\Delta(u@c)=\Delta(u)@(\Delta(c))$ gives a concrete model for $D^C$.
Aside: an illustration on group-like coalgebras
-----------------------------------------------
Let us consider, even though this is not logically necessary for the sequel, the special case $C=\Bbbk X$ and $D=\Bbbk Y$ finite-dimensional group-like coalgebras ($\Delta(x)=x\otimes x$ for $x\in X$, etc.), and let us try to determine $D^C$ in that case, using its description as a subspace of ${\operatorname{grHom}}(\operatorname{Sym}C,\operatorname{Sym}D)$. Consider $u\in D^C$. From the counit relation, we get $u(1)\varepsilon(c)=\varepsilon(u(c))$. Considering $c=x\in X$, we get $u(1)=\varepsilon(u(x))$ for all $x\in X$. Writing $u(x)=\sum
\alpha_yy$, we get $u(1)=\sum_{y\in Y}\alpha_y$. More generally, for any $x_1,\dots,x_n\in X$ and $i\in\{1,\dots,n\}$, we get $$u(x_1\otimes\widehat{x_i}\otimes x_n)=\text{remove $i$th $Y$-letter
from }u(x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes x_n).$$ This means that $u(x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes x_n)$ is determined by the value of $u$ on any elementary tensor that contains at least the letters $x_1,\dots,x_n$.
Consider then the coproduct. Writing again $u(x)=\sum\alpha_yy$, this means $u(x\otimes x)=\sum\alpha_y(y\otimes y)$; and, more generally, $$u(x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes x_i\otimes x_i\otimes\cdots\otimes
x_n)=\text{ double $i$th $Y$-letter in }u(x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes
x_n).$$ This means that $u(x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes x_n)$ is determined by the value of $u$ on the word obtained from $x_1\cdots x_n$ by removing duplicates.
Consider now an arbitrary $f\colon X\to Y$. Associate with it the following graded map $u_f\colon\operatorname{Sym}C\to\operatorname{Sym}D$: $$u_f(x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes x_n)=f(x_1)\otimes\cdots\otimes
f(x_n).$$ Clearly, this is an element of $(C,D)_{comm}$: its coproduct is $\Delta(u_f)=u_f\otimes u_f$ and $\varepsilon(u_f)=1$, so it spans a $1$-dimensional subcoalgebra.
All in all, if $X=\{x_1,\dots,x_n\}$, then $u$ is determined by its value on $x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes x_n$. If we write $u(x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes x_n)=\sum_{y=(y_1,\dots,y_n)\in
Y^n}\alpha_yy$ and identify $(y_1\dots,y_n)\in Y^n$ with $f\colon
X\to Y$ given by $f(x_i)=y_i$, we have expressed $u$ as $\sum_{f\colon
X\to Y}\alpha_yu_f$. This shows that, $\{u_f\colon (f\colon X\to
Y)\}$ is a basis of $D^C$, and one has $(\Bbbk Y)^{\Bbbk X}=\Bbbk(Y^X)$.
Hopf algebra structure
----------------------
Fox observed in [@fox:tpha] that when $C$ and $D$ are Hopf algebras, the construction yields a natural Hopf algebra structure on $D^C$. In fact, Fox’s formula does not use the Hopf algebra structure of $C$, but only that of $D$.
In the categorical language, the multiplication in $D^C$ is given by a map $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{Coalg}}(R^*\otimes C,D)\times{\mathbf{Coalg}}(R^*\otimes C,D)&\to{\mathbf{Coalg}}(R^*\otimes C,D)\\
(f,g)&\mapsto\big(\xi\mapsto \sum f(\xi_1)g(\xi_2)\big),
\end{aligned}$$ the unit is the map $${\mathbf{Coalg}}(R^*,\Bbbk)\to{\mathbf{Coalg}}(R^*\otimes C,D),\qquad
\varepsilon\mapsto 1:=\big(\xi\otimes c\mapsto\varepsilon(\xi)\varepsilon(c)1\big),$$ and the antipode is the map $${\mathbf{Coalg}}(R^*\otimes C,D)\to{\mathbf{Coalg}}(R^*\otimes C,D),\qquad
f\mapsto S(f):=\big(\xi\otimes c\mapsto S(f(\xi\otimes c))\big).$$
There is also a Hopf algebra action of $C$ on $D^C$, namely a coalgebra morphism $C\otimes D^C\to D^C$, given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{Coalg}}(R^*,C)\times{\mathbf{Coalg}}(R^*\otimes C,D)&\to{\mathbf{Coalg}}(R^*\otimes C,D)\\
(f,g)&\mapsto\big(\xi\otimes c\mapsto\sum g(\xi_1\otimes c f(\xi_2))\big).
\end{aligned}$$ It satisfies the properties given in –.
In the more concrete description, we have the convolution product $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{Vect}}(C,D)\otimes{\mathbf{Vect}}(C,D)&\to{\mathbf{Vect}}(C,D)\\
f\otimes g&\mapsto f\cdot g:=m_D\circ(f\otimes g)\circ\Delta_C,
\end{aligned}$$ which induces by the universal property of $U$ a map $D^C\otimes
D^C\to D^C$; the same arguments give a unit and antipode to $D^C$, and make $D^C$ an algebra $C$-module.
Extensions of Hopf algebras
===========================
Let $A,Q$ be Hopf algebras. An *extension* of $A$ by $Q$ is a Hopf algebra $E$, given with morphisms $\iota\colon A\hookrightarrow E$ and $\pi\colon E\twoheadrightarrow Q$, such that ${\operatorname{Hker}}(\pi)=\iota(A)$. Here $$\label{eq:hker}
{\operatorname{Hker}}(\pi)=\{e\in E\mid \sum e_1\otimes\pi(e_2)=e\otimes 1\}$$ is a normal Hopf subalgebra of $E$, and $Q\cong E/(E{\operatorname{Hker}}(\pi)^+)$.
Note that $\iota$ turns $E$ into an $A$-module, and $\pi$ turns $E$ into a $Q$-comodule; explicitly, the $A$-module structure on $E$ is $A\otimes E\to E$ given by $a\otimes e\mapsto\iota(a)e$, and the $Q$-comodule structure on $E$ is $E\to E\otimes Q$ given by $e\mapsto
e_1\otimes \pi(e_2)$.
An *isomorphism* between two extensions $E,E'$ is a triple of isomorphisms $\alpha\colon A\to A,\phi\colon E\to E',\omega\colon Q\to Q$ with $\phi\iota=\iota'\alpha$ and $\omega\pi=\pi'\phi$: $$\xymatrix{{\Bbbk}\ar[r] & {A}\ar[d]^{\alpha}\ar[r]^{\iota} &
{E}\ar[d]^{\phi}\ar[r]^{\pi} & {Q}\ar[d]^{\omega}\ar[r] & {\Bbbk}\\
{\Bbbk}\ar[r] & {A}\ar[r]^{\iota'} & {E'}\ar[r]^{\pi'} & {Q}\ar[r] & {\Bbbk}.}$$
The usual setting, in the literature, is to consider the extension of an algebra by a Hopf algebra. Here we assume both kernel and quotient are Hopf algebras; the only difference amounts to, in appropriate places, replace “linear map” by “coalgebra map”.
Smash and wreath products
-------------------------
An important special case of extension, for which the operations can be written out explicitly, is the *smash product*. Let $H,Q$ be Hopf algebras, and assume that $H$ is a Hopf $Q$-module; namely, there is a coalgebra morphism $\star\colon Q\otimes H\to H$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
q\star 1 &= \varepsilon(q)1, & q\star(hk) &= \sum(q_1\star h)(q_2\star k),\label{eq:hopfaction:1}\\
1\star h &= h, & \qquad q\star (r\star h) &= qr\star h.\label{eq:hopfaction:2}\end{aligned}$$ The *smash* product $H\#Q$ is, as a coalgebra, $H\otimes Q$; its elements are written as sums of elementary tensors $h\#q$, and $\Delta(h\#q)=\sum h_1\#q_1\otimes h_2\#q_2$ and $\varepsilon(h\#q)=\varepsilon(h)\varepsilon(q)$ in Sweedler notation. The multiplication in $H\#Q$ is defined by $$(h\#q)(k\#r)=\sum h(q_1\star k)\#q_2r,$$ and the antipode is $S(h\#q)=(S(q_1)\star S(h))\#S(q_2)$. The identity map $\theta\colon H\otimes Q\to H\#Q$ is an $H$-module, $Q$-comodule isomorphism. See [@molnar:sdp] for details.
The smash product is the Hopf algebra analogue to semidirect products of groups and Lie algebras. We use it to define the wreath product: $$A\wr Q=A^Q\#Q.$$ We write $\tau\colon A\wr Q\to Q$ the natural map $h\#q\mapsto\varepsilon(h)q$, so that we have an exact sequence $$\xymatrix{{\Bbbk}\ar[r] & {A^Q}\ar[r] & {A\wr Q}\ar[r]^{\tau} & {Q}\ar[r] & {\Bbbk}}.$$
If only condition is satisfied, we say $Q$ *measures* $H$. Assume now that there is given a convolution-invertible map $\sigma\in{\mathbf{Vect}}(Q\otimes Q,H)$; its convolution inverse is a map $\delta\colon Q\otimes Q\to H$ such that $m\circ(\sigma\otimes\delta)\circ(\Delta\otimes\Delta)=\eta(\varepsilon\otimes\varepsilon)$. The *crossed product* $H\#_\sigma Q$ is, as a coalgebra, $H\otimes
Q$; its multiplication is given, in the same notation as above, by $$(h\#q)(k\#r)=\sum h(q_1\star k)\sigma(q_2,r_1)\#q_3r_2.$$ As we shall see the crossed product is the Hopf algebra analogue to general extensions of groups and Lie algebras.
Cleft extensions
----------------
The next class of extensions we consider are the *cleft* extensions; these are the closest to group and Lie algebra extensions. We return to the general notation of an extension $E$ of $A$ by $Q$, $$\xymatrix{{\Bbbk}\ar[r] & {A}\ar[r]^{\iota} & {E}\ar[r]^{\pi} & {Q}\ar[r] & {\Bbbk}}.$$
The extension $E$ is *cleft* if there exists a $Q$-comodule, coalgebra morphism $\gamma\colon Q\to E$ that is convolution-invertible, see [@montgomery:haaar]\*[§7.2]{}. Such a map $\gamma$ is called a *cleavage*, and we often write it $q\mapsto\widetilde q$. It is convolution-invertible if it has a convolution inverse, namely if there exists a linear (not necessarily $Q$-comodule!) map $\kappa\colon Q\to
E$ such that $\sum \kappa(q_1)\gamma(q_2)=\epsilon(q)1$.
Recall that an extension $E$ is *Hopf-Galois* if the natural map $\beta\colon E\otimes_AE\to E\otimes Q$, given by $e\otimes f\mapsto\sum
ef_1\otimes\pi(f_2)$, is bijective. By [@doi-takeuchi:cleft] (see also [@montgomery:haaar]\*[Theorem 8.2.4]{}), the extension $E$ is cleft if and only if it is Hopf-Galois and $E\cong A\otimes Q$ qua (left $A$-module, right $Q$-comodule).
Let us write $\theta\colon A\otimes Q\to E$ such an isomorphism. We relate the two notations as follows. Given a cleavage $\gamma$ with inverse $\kappa$, we define an inverse for the canonical map $\beta\colon E\otimes_AE\to E\otimes Q$ by $e\otimes q\mapsto \sum
e\kappa(q_1)\otimes\gamma(q_2)$, and an $A$-module, $Q$-comodule isomorphism $\theta\colon A\otimes Q\to E$ by $a\otimes q\mapsto
a\gamma(q)$. On the other hand, given $\theta\colon A\otimes Q\to E$, define a cleavage by $q\mapsto\theta(1\otimes q)$, and note that it is convolution-invertible. We refer to [@schauenburg:extensions] for details on various other notions of Hopf algebra extensions.
\[thm:cleft\] Let $E$ be an extension of $A$ by $Q$. The following are equivalent:
1. the extension is cleft;
2. the extension is Hopf-Galois and there exists an $A$-module, $Q$-comodule isomorphism $E\to A\otimes Q$;
3. the algebra $Q$ measures $A$ and there is a $2$-cocycle $\sigma\colon Q\otimes Q\to A$, such that $E$ is of the form $A\#_\sigma
Q$.
It suffices to carry previously known results from the (algebra-extension-by-Hopf algebra) setting to the (Hopf algebra-extension-by-Hopf algebra) setting. The equivalence (i)$\Leftrightarrow$(ii) is [@montgomery:haaar]\*[Theorem 8.2.4]{}; the equivalence (i)$\Leftrightarrow$(iii) is [@montgomery:haaar]\*[Theorem 7.2.2]{}.
The Kaloujnine-Krasner theorem for cleft extensions
===================================================
We are ready to prove that cleft extensions of $A$ by $Q$ are classified by certain subalgebras of $A\wr Q$. Recall the short exact sequence $$\xymatrix{{\Bbbk}\ar[r] & {A^Q}\ar[r] & {A\wr Q}\ar[r]^{\tau} & {Q}\ar[r] & {\Bbbk}}.$$
Proof of Theorem \[thm:KK\], ($\Leftarrow$)
-------------------------------------------
Consider a subalgebra $E$ of $A\wr Q$ which maps onto $Q$ via $\tau$, and with $E\cap A^Q\cong A$ via evaluation at $1\in Q$. We then have Hopf algebra maps $\pi=\tau_{|E}\colon E\twoheadrightarrow Q$ and $\iota\colon A\hookrightarrow E$, with ${\operatorname{Hker}}(\pi)=E\cap A^Q=\iota(A)$, so $E$ is an extension of $A$ by $Q$. Furthermore, the map $\theta^{-1}\colon E\to A\otimes Q$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
E&\to A^Q\#Q\to A\otimes Q\\
e&\mapsto\sum f\#q\to\sum (f@1)\otimes q
\end{aligned}$$ is a $Q$-comodule isomorphism. Using it, define the $Q$-comodule map $\gamma\colon q\mapsto\theta(1\otimes q)$. To see that it is a cleavage, consider $\kappa\colon Q\to E$ by $\kappa(q)=\theta(1\otimes S(q))$, and note that it is a convolution inverse of $\gamma$. Therefore, $E$ is a cleft extension.
Assume now that two subalgebras $E,E'$ of $A\wr Q$ are conjugate, say by an element $x\in A\wr Q$; so we have $E'={^x}E=\sum\{x_1eS(x_2)\colon
e\in E\}$. Define then the following maps: $$\phi\colon E\to E',\qquad e\mapsto {^x}e:=\sum x_1eS(x_2),$$ and $\alpha\colon A\to A$ by $\alpha(a)=({^x}\iota(a))@1$ and $\omega(q)={^{\tau(x)}}q$. It is easy to see that $(\alpha,\phi,\omega)$ is an isomorphism of extensions.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:KK\], ($\Rightarrow$)
--------------------------------------------
Consider a cleft extension $E$ of $A$ by $Q$: $$\xymatrix{{\Bbbk}\ar[r] & {A}\ar[r]^{\iota} & {E}\ar[r]^{\pi} & {Q}\ar[r] & {\Bbbk}},$$ with a cleavage $\gamma\colon q\mapsto\widetilde q$.
Define then the following map $\alpha\colon E\to A\wr Q$, again expressing coalgebras as functors ${\mathbf{fdRing}}\to{\mathbf{Set}}$: $$\alpha(e)=\sum \beta(e_1)\#\pi(e_2),$$ where $\beta\colon E\to A^Q$ represents the natural transformation $${\mathbf{Coalg}}(R^*,E)\to{\mathbf{Coalg}}(R^*\otimes Q,A)$$ given by $$(f\colon R^*\to E)\mapsto\Big(\xi\otimes q\mapsto\sum\widetilde{q_1}f(\xi)_1S(\widetilde{q_2\pi(f(\xi)_2)})\Big).$$
First check that $\beta(e)$ belongs to $A^Q$ for all $e\in E$, or equivalently that $\sum\widetilde{q_1} e_1S(\widetilde{q_2\pi(e_2)})$ belongs to $A$ for all $e:=f(\xi)\in E$ and all $q\in Q$. This follows immediately from .
Then check that $\alpha$ is a homomorphism of Hopf algebras. For this, consider $e,e'\in E$, and compute $$\alpha(ee')=\sum\beta(e_1e'_1)\#\pi(e_2e'_2),\qquad\alpha(e)\alpha(e')=\sum\beta(e_1)(\pi(e_2)\star\beta(e'_1))\#\pi(e_3)\pi(e'_2);$$ so it suffices to prove $\beta(ee')=\sum\beta(e_1)(\pi(e_2)\star\beta(e'))$. Now represent $e$ by the functor $f\colon R^*\to E$ and represent $e'$ by the functor $f'$. We get $$\begin{aligned}
\beta(ee') &= \big(\xi\otimes q\mapsto\sum\widetilde{q_1}f(\xi)_1f'(\xi)_2S(\widetilde{q_2\pi(f(\xi)_3f'(\xi)_4)})\big),\\
\sum\beta(e_1)(\pi(e_2)\star\beta(e')) &= \big(\xi\otimes q\mapsto\sum\widetilde{q_1}f(\xi)_1S(\widetilde{q_2\pi(f(\xi)_2)})\widetilde{q_3\pi(f(\xi)_3)}\\
&\hspace{35mm} f'(\xi)_4S(\widetilde{q_2\pi(f(\xi)_5)\pi(f'(\xi)_6)})\big),\end{aligned}$$ and both terms are equal.
Next, check that $\alpha$ is injective. If $e=\iota(a)$ for some $a\in
A$, then $\beta(e)@1=a$, so certainly $\alpha$ is injective on $\iota(A)$. On the other hand, $E/\iota(A)\cong Q$ under the map $\pi$, so $\ker(\alpha)$ is contained in $A$.
Finally, check that the two constructions above are inverses of each other: if $E$ is simultaneously a subalgebra of $A\wr Q$ and an extension of $A$ by $Q$, then $\alpha(E)$ is conjugate to $E$. The proof of Theorem \[thm:KK\] is complete.
Groups
======
We recall the universal property of wreath products of groups mentioned in the introduction:
Let ${{\mathfrak E}}$ be an extension of ${{\mathfrak A}}$ by ${{\mathfrak Q}}$: $$\xymatrix{{1}\ar[r] & {{{\mathfrak A}}}\ar[r] & {{{\mathfrak E}}}\ar[r]^{\pi} & {{{\mathfrak Q}}}\ar[r] & {1}}.$$ Then ${{\mathfrak E}}$ is a subgroup of ${{\mathfrak A}}\wr{{\mathfrak Q}}$.
Conversely, if ${{\mathfrak E}}$ is a subgroup of ${{\mathfrak A}}\wr{{\mathfrak Q}}$ which maps onto ${{\mathfrak Q}}$ by the natural map $\rho\colon {{\mathfrak A}}\wr{{\mathfrak Q}}\to{{\mathfrak Q}}$, and such that $\ker\rho\cap{{\mathfrak E}}$ is isomorphic to ${{\mathfrak A}}$ via $f\mapsto f(1)$, then ${{\mathfrak E}}$ is an extension of ${{\mathfrak A}}$ by ${{\mathfrak Q}}$.
Although the proof is classical, we cannot resist including it, since it is particularly short, and is essentially the proof of Theorem \[thm:KK\]:
Let $q\mapsto\widetilde q\colon {{\mathfrak Q}}\to{{\mathfrak E}}$ be a (set-theoretic) section of $\pi$. We define $\phi\colon {{\mathfrak E}}\to{{\mathfrak A}}\wr{{\mathfrak Q}}$ by $$\phi(e)=\left(q\mapsto \widetilde q e(\widetilde{q\pi(e)})^{-1},\pi(e)\right).$$ It is clear that $\phi$ is injective, and an easy check shows that $\phi$ is a homomorphism. Conversely, if ${{\mathfrak E}}$ is a subgroup of ${{\mathfrak A}}\wr{{\mathfrak Q}}$ as in the statement of the theorem, then $\pi=\tau|_{{\mathfrak E}}$ defines the extension.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:G\]
--------------------------
The wreath product of groups ${{\mathfrak A}},{{\mathfrak Q}}$ is the semidirect product ${{\mathfrak A}}^{{\mathfrak Q}}\rtimes{{\mathfrak Q}}$; and the group ring of a semidirect product is a smash product of the group rings. It is therefore sufficient to prove that the group ring of ${{\mathfrak A}}^{{\mathfrak Q}}$ is the measuring coalgebra $(\Bbbk{{\mathfrak A}})^{\Bbbk{{\mathfrak Q}}}$. In fact, the group structures are defined naturally from the sets ${{\mathfrak A}},{{\mathfrak Q}}$ to ${{\mathfrak Q}}^{{\mathfrak Q}}$, so Theorem \[thm:G\] follows from the
Let $X,Y$ be sets, and let $\Bbbk X,\Bbbk Y$ be their group-like coalgebras, with $\Delta(x)=x\otimes x$ and $\varepsilon(x)=1$ for all $x\in X$; and similarly for $Y$.
Then the coalgebras $(\Bbbk Y)^{\Bbbk X}$ and $\Bbbk(Y^X)$ are isomorphic.
Todd Trimble generously contributed the following proof:
The coalgebra $\Bbbk Y$ represents the functor $R\mapsto{\mathbf{Coalg}}(R^*,\Bbbk Y)$, again abbreviated ${\mathbf{Coalg}}(R^*,\Bbbk
Y)$. Assume for a moment that $Y$ is finite. Then ${\mathbf{Coalg}}(R^*,\Bbbk
Y)={\mathbf{Alg}}(\Bbbk^Y,R)$, the set of algebra morphisms from the product of $Y$ copies of $\Bbbk$ to $R$. Such an algebra morphism $\Bbbk^Y\to R$ picks out $\#Y$ many mutually orthogonal idempotents in $R$ which sum to $1$. Therefore, $\Bbbk Y$ represents the functor that takes $R$ to the set of functions $e\colon Y\to R$ such that $\{e(y)\}_{y\in Y}$ are mutually orthogonal idempotents summing to $1$.
For $Y$ infinite, the coalgebra $\Bbbk Y$ is the union, or filtered colimit, of $\Bbbk Y_i$ with $Y_i$ ranging over finite subsets of $Y$. Consequently, $\Bbbk Y$ represents the functor which takes $R$ to the set of functions $e\colon Y\to A$ with finite support, and again where the $e(y)$ are mutually orthogonal idempotents summing to $1$. Let us call such functions “distributions”, although “quantum probability distribution” might be more accurate.
Now $(\Bbbk Y)^{\Bbbk X}$ represents the functor $${\mathbf{Coalg}}(R^*\otimes\Bbbk X,\Bbbk Y)=\prod_{x\in X}{\mathbf{Coalg}}(R^*,\Bbbk Y),$$ which takes $R$ to $X$-tuples of $Y$-indexed distributions in $R$. In this language, there is a natural map between $X$-tuples of $Y$-indexed distributions and $Y^X$-indexed distributions, essentially given by currying: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{Coalg}}(R^*,\Bbbk Y^X) &\to \prod_{x\in X}{\mathbf{Coalg}}(R^*,\Bbbk Y)\\
(e\colon Y^X\to R) &\mapsto \left(x\mapsto e_x\colon Y\to R, e_x(y) :=
\sum_{\phi\colon Y\to X,x\mapsto y}e(\phi)\right)\\
\left(\phi\mapsto\prod_{x\in X}e_x(\phi(x))\right) &\mapsfrom (x\mapsto e_x)
\end{aligned}$$
defines a natural bijection between the functors associated with $(\Bbbk Y)^{\Bbbk X}$ and $\Bbbk(Y^X)$.
(The sum and product in the bijection above range over infinite arguments, but they are in fact finite sums and products, because the finite-dimensional algebra $R$ has only finitely many distinct idempotents.)
Proof of Corollary \[cor:Gkk\]
------------------------------
By $\mathscr G(A)$ we denote the *group-like* elements of a Hopf algebra $A$, defined as $$\mathscr G(A)=\{x\in A\colon \Delta(x)=x\otimes x\text{ and }\varepsilon(x)=1\}.$$
Let $A$ be a Hopf algebra. Then $\mathscr G(A)$ is linearly independent in $A$. The following are equivalent:
1. $A$ is a group algebra;
2. $A\cong\Bbbk\mathscr G(A)$;
3. $\mathscr G(A)$ is a linear basis of $A$.
Let $x_1,\dots,x_n$ be linearly independent in $\mathscr G(A)$, and consider $x=\sum_i c_ix_i\in\mathscr G(A)$. Then $$\sum_i c_i x_i\otimes x_i = \Delta(x) = x\otimes x = \sum_{i,j}c_ic_j x_i\otimes x_j.$$ Therefore $c_ic_j=0$ for all $i\neq j$, and $c_i^2=c_i$ for all $i$, so $x\in\{x_1,\dots,x_n\}$. The equivalence follows immediately.
\[cor:gprings\] Let $A,Q$ be the group rings of groups ${{\mathfrak A}},{{\mathfrak Q}}$ respectively. Then there is a bijection between cleft extensions of $A$ by $Q$ and group extensions of ${{\mathfrak A}}$ by ${{\mathfrak Q}}$, which relates each extension of ${{\mathfrak A}}$ by ${{\mathfrak Q}}$ to its group ring.
Consider first an extension $$\xymatrix{{1}\ar[r] & {{{\mathfrak A}}}\ar[r]^{\iota} & {{{\mathfrak E}}}\ar[r]^{\pi} & {{{\mathfrak Q}}}\ar[r] & {1}},$$ and set $E=\Bbbk{{\mathfrak E}}$. Then the natural maps $\Bbbk\iota\colon A\to E$ and $\Bbbk\pi\colon E\to Q$ turn $E$ into an extension of $A$ by $Q$, which is cleft because $\Bbbk\pi$ is split qua coalgebra map.
Conversely, consider a cleft extension $$\label{eq:gprings:1}
\xymatrix{{\Bbbk}\ar[r] & {A}\ar[r]^{\iota} & {E}\ar[r]^{\pi} &
{Q}\ar[r] & {\Bbbk}},$$ and set ${{\mathfrak E}}=\mathscr G(E)$. Then the restriction $\overline\iota\colon {{\mathfrak A}}\to{{\mathfrak E}}$ is injective because $\iota$ is injective, and the restriction $\overline\pi\colon {{\mathfrak E}}\to{{\mathfrak Q}}$ is surjective because $\pi$ is split qua coalgebra map. We certainly have $\overline\pi\circ\overline\iota=1$, because is exact. Finally, consider $e\in\ker(\overline\pi)\cap{{\mathfrak E}}$; then $e\in{\operatorname{Hker}}(\pi)\cap{{\mathfrak E}}=\iota({{\mathfrak A}})$, so $$\xymatrix{{1}\ar[r] & {{{\mathfrak A}}}\ar[r]^{\overline\iota} &
{{{\mathfrak E}}}\ar[r]^{\overline\pi} & {{{\mathfrak Q}}}\ar[r] & {1}}$$ is exact.
Corollary \[cor:Gkk\] now follows from Theorems \[thm:KK\] and \[thm:G\], and Corollary \[cor:gprings\].
Lie algebras
============
Let ${{\mathfrak a}}$ and ${{\mathfrak q}}$ be Lie algebras. Their wreath product is $${{\mathfrak a}}\wr{{\mathfrak q}}={\mathbf{Vect}}(\U({{\mathfrak q}}),{{\mathfrak a}})\rtimes{{\mathfrak q}},$$ where the semidirect product is defined by the action $(q\star f)(u)=f(uq)=-f(qu)$ on $f\colon \U({{\mathfrak q}})\to{{\mathfrak a}}$. If elements be represented as pairs $f\oplus q$, then the Lie bracket can be given explicitly by the formula $$\label{eq:wrbracket}
[f\oplus q,g\oplus r]
=\left(u\mapsto\sum[f(u_1),g(u_2)]+f(ur)-g(uq)\right)\oplus[q,r],$$ where we write $\Delta(u)=\sum u_1\otimes u_2$ in the classical Sweedler notation.
As in the case of groups, we have a “Kaloujnine-Krasner”-type embedding result for Lie algebras:
\[thm:kklie\] Let ${{\mathfrak e}}$ be an extension of ${{\mathfrak a}}$ by ${{\mathfrak q}}$: $$\xymatrix{{0}\ar[r] & {{{\mathfrak a}}}\ar[r] & {{{\mathfrak e}}}\ar[r]^{\pi} &
{{{\mathfrak q}}}\ar[r] & {0}}.$$ Then ${{\mathfrak e}}$ is a subalgebra of ${{\mathfrak a}}\wr{{\mathfrak q}}$.
Conversely, if ${{\mathfrak a}}$ is a subalgebra of ${{\mathfrak a}}\wr{{\mathfrak q}}$ which maps onto ${{\mathfrak q}}$ by the natural map $\rho\colon {{\mathfrak a}}\wr{{\mathfrak q}}\to{{\mathfrak q}}$, and such that $\ker\rho\cap{{\mathfrak e}}$ is isomorphic to ${{\mathfrak a}}$ via $f\mapsto f(1)$, then ${{\mathfrak e}}$ is an extension of ${{\mathfrak a}}$ by ${{\mathfrak q}}$.
Proof
-----
We include the proof for directness, though in the end we will also deduce it from Theorem \[thm:KK\]. We start by choosing a linear section $q\mapsto\widetilde q\colon {{\mathfrak q}}\to{{\mathfrak e}}$ of $\pi\colon {{\mathfrak e}}\to{{\mathfrak q}}$.
\[lem:kk:coalghom\] The map $q\mapsto\widetilde q$ extends to a map $u\mapsto\widetilde
u\colon \U{{\mathfrak q}}\to{{\mathfrak e}}$ which is a coalgebra morphism.
Take an ordered basis $V=\{v_1<v_2<\dots\}$ of ${{\mathfrak q}}$; then, by the Poincaré-Birkhoff-Witt theorem, a basis of $\U{{\mathfrak q}}$ may be chosen as $\{w_1w_2\cdots w_n\colon w_i\in V,w_1\le w_2\le\dots\le w_n\}$. Set $$\widetilde{w_1\cdots w_n} = \widetilde{w_1}\cdots\widetilde{w_n}.\qedhere$$
We may now define $\phi\colon {{\mathfrak e}}\to{{\mathfrak a}}\wr{{\mathfrak q}}$ by $$e^\phi = \left(u\mapsto\sum\widetilde{u_1}S(\widetilde{u_2e^\pi}-\widetilde{u_2}e)\right)\oplus e^\pi=:(\alpha,e^\pi),$$ where $S$ is the antipode. Clearly $\phi$ is injective.
$\alpha(u)\in{{\mathfrak a}}$ for all $u\in\U{{\mathfrak q}}$.
Clearly $\alpha(u)\in\U{{\mathfrak e}}$. We readily compute $$\alpha(u)^\pi=\sum u_1S(u_2e^\pi-u_2e^\pi)=0,$$ so $\alpha(u)\in\U{{\mathfrak a}}$. We also compute $\Delta\alpha(u)$, using freely the facts that $\U{{\mathfrak q}}$ is cocommutative, and that $\Delta$ commutes with $S$ and $q\mapsto\widetilde q$: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta\alpha(u) &= \Delta\sum\widetilde{u_1}S(\widetilde{u_2e^\pi})
-\Delta\sum\widetilde{u_1}eS(\widetilde{u_2})\\
&=\sum\widetilde{u_{11}}S(\widetilde{u_{21}e^\pi})\otimes
\widetilde{u_{12}}S(\widetilde{u_{22}})
+\sum\widetilde{u_{11}}S(\widetilde{u_{21}})\otimes
\widetilde{u_{12}}S(\widetilde{u_{22}e^\pi})\\
&\kern1cm- \sum\widetilde{u_{11}}S(\widetilde{u_{21}}e)\otimes
\widetilde{u_{12}}S(\widetilde{u_{22}})
-\sum\widetilde{u_{11}}S(\widetilde{u_{21}})\otimes
\widetilde{u_{12}}S(\widetilde{u_{22}}e)\\
&= \alpha(u)\otimes1+1\otimes\alpha(u),
\end{aligned}$$ since $\sum\widetilde{u_{12}}S(\widetilde{u_{22}})$ and $\sum\widetilde{u_{11}}S(\widetilde{u_{21}})$ vanish except when $u_{1*}=u_{2*}=1$, in which case they are equal to $1$. It follows that $\alpha(u)\in{{\mathfrak e}}\cap\U{{\mathfrak a}}={{\mathfrak a}}$ as required.
To check that $\phi$ is a Lie homomorphism, we will need the
\[lem:kk:cancel\] For all $q\in{{\mathfrak q}}$ and $u\in\U{{\mathfrak q}}$ we have $$\sum\widetilde{u_1}S(\widetilde{u_2q})\widetilde{u_3}=-\widetilde{uq}.$$
Set $v=\widetilde{uq}$. We then have $$\begin{aligned}
v &= \mu(\eta\varepsilon\otimes1)\Delta v=\mu(\mu\otimes1)(1\otimes
S\otimes 1)(\Delta\otimes1)\Delta v =\sum v_1S(v_2)v_3\\
&= \sum\widetilde{u_1q}S(\widetilde{u_2})\widetilde{u_3}
+\sum\widetilde{u_1}S(\widetilde{u_2q})\widetilde{u_3}
+\sum\widetilde{u_1}S(\widetilde{u_2})\widetilde{u_3q}\\
&= v+\sum\widetilde{u_1} S(\widetilde{u_2q})\widetilde{u_3}+v.\qedhere
\end{aligned}$$
Let us now write $[e^\phi,f^\phi]=(\alpha,[e^\pi,f^\pi])$; we have $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha(u) &=
\sum\left[\widetilde{u_{11}}S\left(\widetilde{u_{12}e^\pi}-
\widetilde{u_{12}}e\right),\widetilde{u_{21}}
S\left(\widetilde{u_{22}f^\pi}-\widetilde{u_{22}}f\right)\right]\\
&\kern1cm -\sum\widetilde{(uf^\pi)_1}
S\left(\widetilde{(uf^\pi)_2e^\pi}-\widetilde{(uf^\pi)_2}e\right)\\
&\kern1cm +\sum\widetilde{(ue^\pi)_1}
S\left(\widetilde{(ue^\pi)_2f^\pi}-\widetilde{(ue^\pi)_2}f\right)\\
&= \underbrace{\sum\left[\widetilde{u_{11}}S(\widetilde{u_{12}e^\pi}),\widetilde{u_{21}}S(\widetilde{u_{22}f^\pi})\right]}_A
-\underbrace{\sum\left[\widetilde{u_{11}}S(\widetilde{u_{12}}e),\widetilde{u_{21}}S(\widetilde{u_{22}f^\pi})\right]}_B\\
&\kern1cm -\underbrace{\sum\left[\widetilde{u_{11}}S(\widetilde{u_{12}e^\pi}),\widetilde{u_{21}}S(\widetilde{u_{22}}f)\right]}_C
+\sum\big[\widetilde{u_{11}}S(\widetilde{u_{12}}e),\widetilde{u_{21}}S(\widetilde{u_{22}}f)\big]\\
&\kern0cm -\underbrace{\sum\widetilde{u_1f^\pi}S(\widetilde{u_2e^\pi})}_A
-\sum\widetilde{u_1}S(\widetilde{u_2f^\pi e^\pi})
+\underbrace{\sum\widetilde{u_1}S(\widetilde{u_2f^\pi}e)}_B
+\underbrace{\sum\widetilde{u_1f^\pi}S(\widetilde{u_2}e)}_B\\
&\kern0cm +\underbrace{\sum\widetilde{u_1e^\pi}S(\widetilde{u_2f^\pi})}_A
+\sum\widetilde{u_1}S(\widetilde{u_2e^\pi f^\pi})
-\underbrace{\sum\widetilde{u_1}S(\widetilde{u_2e^\pi}f)}_C
-\underbrace{\sum\widetilde{u_1e^\pi}S(\widetilde{u_2}f)}_C;\end{aligned}$$ the terms $A$, $B$, $C$ cancel by Lemma \[lem:kk:cancel\], leaving $$[e^\phi,f^\phi] = \sum\widetilde{u_1}S\left(\widetilde{u_2[e^\pi,f^\pi]}\right)-\sum\widetilde{u_1}S(\widetilde{u_2}[e,f])\oplus[e^\pi,f^\pi] =
[e,f]^\phi.$$
Proof of Theorem \[thm:L\]
--------------------------
The wreath product of Lie algebras ${{\mathfrak a}},{{\mathfrak q}}$ is the semidirect product ${\mathbf{Vect}}(\U({{\mathfrak q}}),{{\mathfrak a}})\rtimes{{\mathfrak q}}$; and the universal enveloping algebra of a semidirect product is a smash product of the universal enveloping algebras. It is therefore sufficient to prove that the universal enveloping algebra of ${\mathbf{Vect}}(\U({{\mathfrak q}}),{{\mathfrak a}})$ is the measuring coalgebra $(\U{{\mathfrak a}})^{\U{{\mathfrak q}}}$. In fact, the Lie algebra structures are defined naturally from the vector spaces ${{\mathfrak a}},{{\mathfrak q}}$ to ${\mathbf{Vect}}(\U({{\mathfrak q}}),{{\mathfrak a}})$, and the coalgebra structure on $\U({{\mathfrak g}})$ is that of $\operatorname{Sym}{{\mathfrak g}}$, so Theorem \[thm:L\] follows from the
Let $X,Y$ be vector spaces, and let $\operatorname{Sym}X,\operatorname{Sym}Y$ be their symmetric algebras, with $\Delta(x)=x\otimes 1+1\otimes x$ and $\varepsilon(x)=0$ for all $x\in X$; and similarly for $Y$.
Then the coalgebras $(\operatorname{Sym}Y)^{\operatorname{Sym}X}$ and $\operatorname{Sym}({\mathbf{Vect}}(\operatorname{Sym}X,Y))$ are isomorphic.
Todd Trimble generously contributed the following proof:
The coalgebra $\operatorname{Sym}Y$ represents the functor $R\mapsto{\mathbf{Coalg}}(R^*,\operatorname{Sym}Y)$, again abbreviated ${\mathbf{Coalg}}(R^*,\operatorname{Sym}Y)$. As a first step, take $Y$ to be $1$-dimensional. Then $\operatorname{Sym}Y=\Bbbk[y]$ with deconcatenation $\Delta(y^n)=\sum_{i+j=n}y^i\otimes
y^j$. It is the filtered colimit of the finite-dimensional subcoalgebras spanned by $\{1,y,\dots,y^{n-1}\}$. The dual of this coalgebra is the algebra $\Bbbk[y]/(y^n)$. Therefore, the functor represented by $\operatorname{Sym}Y$ is the colimit of the functors ${\mathbf{Alg}}(\Bbbk[y]/(y^n),R)$; such a functor chooses a nilpotent element in $R$. Therefore, $\operatorname{Sym}\Bbbk$ represents the functor $\mathscr J$, computing the nil-radical of $R$; equivalently, $$R\mapsto {\mathbf{Coalg}}(R^*,\operatorname{Sym}\Bbbk)={\mathbf{Vect}}(\mathscr J(R)^*,\Bbbk).$$
Consider then finite-dimensional $Y$; say $Y=\Bbbk\{y_1,\dots,y_n\}$. Then $\operatorname{Sym}Y=\bigotimes_{i=1}^n\operatorname{Sym}(\Bbbk y_i)$ represents $$R\mapsto {\mathbf{Coalg}}(R^*,\operatorname{Sym}Y)=(\mathscr J(R))^Y={\mathbf{Vect}}(\mathscr J(R)^*,Y),$$ since tensor products of coalgebras correspond to Cartesian products. Finally, for arbitrary $Y$, we write $Y$ as a filtered colimit of finite-dimensional spaces $Y_i$. Since $\operatorname{Sym}(-)$ and ${\mathbf{Coalg}}(R^*,-)$ both preserve filtered colimits, we get the same statement in general.
Now $(\operatorname{Sym}Y)^{\operatorname{Sym}X}$ represents the functor $$\begin{aligned}
R &\mapsto {\mathbf{Coalg}}(R^*,(\operatorname{Sym}Y)^{\operatorname{Sym}X})={\mathbf{Coalg}}(R^*\otimes\operatorname{Sym}X,\operatorname{Sym}Y)\\
&={\mathbf{Vect}}(\mathscr J(R)^*\otimes\operatorname{Sym}X,Y)={\mathbf{Vect}}(\mathscr
J(R)^*,{\mathbf{Vect}}(\operatorname{Sym}X,Y))\\
&={\mathbf{Coalg}}(\mathscr J(R)^*,\operatorname{Sym}({\mathbf{Vect}}(\operatorname{Sym}X,Y)))
\end{aligned}$$ so $(\operatorname{Sym}Y)^{\operatorname{Sym}X}$ and $\operatorname{Sym}({\mathbf{Vect}}(\operatorname{Sym}X,Y))$ represent the same functor and thus are isomorphic.
Proof of Corollary \[cor:Lkk\]
------------------------------
By $\mathscr P(A)$ we denote the *primitive* elements of a Hopf algebra $A$, defined as $$\mathscr P(A)=\{x\in A^-\colon \Delta(x)=x\otimes 1+1\otimes x\}.$$
Let $A$ be a Hopf algebra, and let $x_1,\dots,x_n$ be linearly independent in $\mathscr P(A)$. Then $\{x_{i_1}\cdots x_{i_s}\colon
1\le i_1\le\cdots\le i_s\le n\}$ is linearly independent. The following are equivalent:
1. $A$ is a universal enveloping algebra;
2. $A\cong\U\mathscr P(A)$;
3. $\mathscr P(A)$ generates $A$.
Let $x=\sum c_ix_{k(i,1)}\cdots x_{k(i,s_i)}=0$ be a linear dependence among the ordered monomials $\{x_{i_1}\cdots
x_{i_s}\}$. Assume that this linear dependence is such that $s=\max\{s_i\}$ is minimal among all linear dependencies. Then $\Delta(x)=0$; this expression has two summands $1\otimes x$ and $x\otimes 1$, and all other summands are of the form $\sum v\otimes
v'$ for ordered monomials $v,v'$ of length $\lneqq s$. They are therefore linearly independent, and must all vanish. We deduce $s\le1$; and this is impossible since $\{x_i\}$ are linearly independent. The equivalence follows immediately.
\[cor:lierings\] Let $A,Q$ be the universal enveloping algebras of Lie algebras ${{\mathfrak a}},{{\mathfrak q}}$ respectively. Then there is a bijection between cleft extensions of $A$ by $Q$ and Lie algebra extensions of ${{\mathfrak a}}$ by ${{\mathfrak q}}$, which relates each extension of ${{\mathfrak a}}$ by ${{\mathfrak q}}$ to its universal enveloping algebra.
Consider first an extension $$\xymatrix{{0}\ar[r] & {{{\mathfrak a}}}\ar[r]^{\iota} & {{{\mathfrak e}}}\ar[r]^{\pi} & {{{\mathfrak q}}}\ar[r] & {0}},$$ and set $E=\U({{\mathfrak e}})$. Then the natural maps $\U(\iota)\colon A\to E$ and $\U(\pi)\colon E\to Q$ turn $E$ into an extension of $A$ by $Q$, which is cleft because $\U(\pi)$ is split qua coalgebra map, by Lemma \[lem:kk:coalghom\].
Conversely, consider a cleft extension $$\label{eq:uea:1}
\xymatrix{{\Bbbk}\ar[r] & {A}\ar[r]^{\iota} & {E}\ar[r]^{\pi} &
{Q}\ar[r] & {\Bbbk}},$$ and set ${{\mathfrak e}}=\mathscr P(E)$. Then the restriction $\overline\iota\colon {{\mathfrak a}}\to{{\mathfrak e}}$ is injective because $\iota$ is injective, and the restriction $\overline\pi\colon {{\mathfrak e}}\to{{\mathfrak q}}$ is surjective because $\pi$ is split qua coalgebra map. We certainly have $\overline\pi\circ\overline\iota=0$, because is exact. Finally, consider $e\in\ker(\overline\pi)\cap{{\mathfrak e}}$; then $e\in{\operatorname{Hker}}(\pi)\cap{{\mathfrak e}}=\iota({{\mathfrak a}})$, so $$\xymatrix{{0}\ar[r] & {{{\mathfrak a}}}\ar[r]^{\overline\iota} &
{{{\mathfrak e}}}\ar[r]^{\overline\pi} & {{{\mathfrak q}}}\ar[r] & {0}}$$ is exact.
Corollary \[cor:Lkk\] now follows from Theorems \[thm:KK\] and \[thm:L\], and Corollary \[cor:lierings\].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Extracting common narratives from multi-author dynamic text corpora requires complex models, such as the Dynamic Author Persona (DAP) topic model. However, such models are complex and can struggle to scale to large corpora, often because of challenging non-conjugate terms. To overcome such challenges, in this paper we adapt new ideas in approximate inference to the DAP model, resulting in the DAP Performed Exceedingly Rapidly (DAPPER) topic model. Specifically, we develop Conjugate-Computation Variational Inference (CVI) based variational Expectation-Maximization (EM) for learning the model, yielding fast, closed form updates for each document, replacing iterative optimization in earlier work. Our results show significant improvements in model fit and training time without needing to compromise the model’s temporal structure or the application of Regularized Variation Inference (RVI). We demonstrate the scalability and effectiveness of the DAPPER model by extracting health journeys from the CaringBridge corpus — a collection of 9 million journals written by 200,000 authors during health crises.'
author:
-
-
bibliography:
- 'dapper\_2018\_arxiv.bib'
title: 'DAPPER: Scaling Dynamic Author Persona Topic Model to Billion Word Corpora'
---
at (current page.south);
topic modeling, graphical model, regularized variational inference, healthcare, text mining, approximate inference, non-conjugate models
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
address:
- |
Jacobs University Bremen[^1]\
School of Engineering and Science, Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
- |
Department of Mathematics\
State Pedagogical University\
Respublikanskaya Str. 108 150 000 Yaroslavl, Russia
author:
- Ivan Penkov
- 'Alexander S. Tikhomirov'
title: 'Rank 2 vector bundles on ind-grassmannians'
---
----------------------------------
To Yuri Ivanovich Manin
on the occasion of his 70$^{th}$
birthday
----------------------------------
Introduction {#Introduction}
============
The simplest example of an ind-Grassmannian is the infinite projective space $\mathbf P^\infty$. The Barth-Van de Ven-Tyurin (BVT) Theorem, proved more than 30 years ago [@BV], [@T], [@Sa] (see also a recent proof by A. Coandă and G. Trautmann, [@CT]), claims that any vector bundle of finite rank on $\mathbf
P^\infty$ is isomorphic to a direct sum of line bundles. In the last decade natural examples of infinite flag varieties (or flag ind-varieties) have arisen as homogeneous spaces of locally linear ind-groups, [@DPW], [@DiP]. In the present paper we concentrate our attention to the special case of ind-Grassmannians, i.e. to inductive limits of Grassmannians of growing dimension. If $V=\displaystyle\bigcup_{n>k}
V^n$ is a countable-dimensional vector space, then the ind-variety $\mathbf G(k;V)=\displaystyle\lim_\to G(k;V^n)$ (or simply $\mathbf G(k;\infty)$) of $k$-dimensional subspaces of $V$ is of course an ind-Grassmannian: this is the simplest example beyond $\mathbf
P^\infty=\mathbf G(1;\infty)$. A significant difference between $\mathbf G(k;V)$ and a general ind-Grassmannian $\mathbf X=\displaystyle\lim_\to G(k_i;V^{n_i})$ defined via a sequence of embeddings $$\label{eq1}
G(k_1;V^{n_1})\stackrel{{\varphi}_1}{\longrightarrow}G(k_2;V^{n_2})
\stackrel{{\varphi}_2}{\longrightarrow}\dots\stackrel{{\varphi}_{m-1}}{\longrightarrow}G(k_m;V^{n_m})
\stackrel{{\varphi}_m}{\longrightarrow}\dots,$$ is that in general the morphisms ${\varphi}_m$ can have arbitrary degrees. We say that the ind-Grassmannian $\mathbf X$ is *twisted* if $\deg{\varphi}_m>1$ for infinitely many $m$, and that $\mathbf X$ is *linear* if $\deg{\varphi}_m=1$ for almost all $m$.
\[con1\] Let the ground field be ${\mathbb {C}}$, and let $\mathbf E$ be a vector bundle of rank $r\in{\mathbf {Z}}_{>0}$ on an ind-grasmannian $\mathbf X=\displaystyle\lim_\to G(k_m;V^{n_m})$, i.e. $\mathbf E=\displaystyle\lim_\gets E_m$, where $\{E_m\}$ is an inverse system of vector bundles of (fixed) rank $r$ on $G(k_m;V^{n_m})$. Then
- $\mathbf E$ is semisimple: it is isomorphic to a direct sum of simple vector bundles on $\mathbf X$, i.e. vector bundles on $\mathbf X$ with no non-trivial subbundles;
- for $m\gg0$ the restriction of each simple bundle $\mathbf
E$ to $G(k_m,V^{n_m})$ is a homogeneous vector bundle;
- each simple bundle $\mathbf E'$ has rank 1 unless $\mathbf
X$ is isomorphic $\mathbf G(k;\infty)$ for some $k$: in the latter case $\mathbf E'$, twisted by a suitable line bundle, is isomorphic to a simple subbundle of the tensor algebra $T^{\cdot}(\mathbf S)$, $\mathbf S$ being the tautological bundle of rank $k$ on $\mathbf G(k;\infty)$;
- each simple bundle $\mathbf E$ (and thus each vector bundle of finite rank on $\mathbf X$) is trivial whenever $\mathbf X$ is a twisted ind-Grassmannian.
The BVT Theorem and Sato’s theorem about finite rank bundles on $\mathbf G(k;\infty)$, [@Sa], [@Sa2], as well as the results in [@DP], are particular cases of the above conjecture. The purpose of the present note is to prove Conjecture \[con1\] for vector bundles of rank 2, and also for vector bundles of arbitrary rank $r$ on linear ind-Grassmannians $\mathbf X$.
In the 70’s and 80’s Yuri Ivanovich Manin taught us mathematics in (and beyond) his seminar, and the theory of vector bundles was a reoccuring topic (among many others). In 1980, he asked one of us (I.P.) to report on A. Tyurin’s paper [@T], and most importantly to try to understand this paper. The present note is a very preliminary progress report.
**Acknowledgement.** We acknowledge the support and hospitality of the Max Planck Institute for Mathematics in Bonn where the present note was conceived. A. S. T. also acknowledges partial support from Jacobs University Bremen. Finally, we thank the referee for a number of sharp comments.
Notation and Conventions
========================
The ground field is ${\mathbb {C}}$. Our notation is mostly standard: if $X$ is an algebraic variety, (over ${\mathbb {C}}$), ${\mathcal{O}}_X$ denotes its structure sheaf, $\Omega^1_X$ (respectively $T_X$) denotes the cotangent (resp. tangent) sheaf on X under the assumption that $X$ is smooth etc. If $F$ is a sheaf on $X$, its cohomologies are denoted by $H^i( F)$, $h^i(F):=\dim H^i(F)$, and $\chi(F)$ stands for the Euler characteristic of $F$. The Chern classes of $F$ are denoted by $c_i(F)$. If $f:X\to Y$ is a morphism, $f^*$ and $f_*$ denote respectively the inverse and direct image functors of ${\mathcal{O}}$-modules. All vector bundles are assumed to have finite rank. We denote the dual of a sheaf of $\mathcal O_X$-modules $F$ (or that of a vector space) by the superscript $^\vee$. Furthermore, in what follows for any ind-Grassmannian $\mathbf X$ defined by [(\[eq1\])]{}, no embedding ${\varphi}_i$ is an isomorphism.
We fix a finite dimensional space $V$ and denote by $X$ the Grassmannian $G(k;V)$ for $k<\dim V$. In the sequel we write sometimes $G(k;n)$ indicating simply the dimension of $V$. Below we will often consider (parts of) the following diagram of flag varieties: $$\label{eqDiag}
\xymatrix{
&&Z:={Fl}(k-1,k,k+1;V) \ar[ld]_{\pi_1} \ar[dr]^{\pi_2} & \\
&Y:={Fl}(k-1,k+1;V)\ar[ld]_{p_1}\ar[rd]^{p_2}&&X:=G(k;V), \\
Y^1:=G(k-1;V)&&Y^2:=G(k+1;V)&\\
}$$ under the assumption that $k+1<\dim V$. Moreover we reserve the letters $X,Y,Z$ for the varieties in the above diagram. By $S_k$, $S_{k-1}$, $S_{k+1}$ we denote the tautological bundles on $X$,$Y$ and $Z$, whenever they are defined ($S_k$ is defined on $X$ and $Z$, $S_{k-1}$ is defined on $Y^1$, $Y$ and $Z$, etc.). By $\mathcal O_X(i)$, $i\in {\mathbf {Z}}$, we denote the isomorphism class (in the Picard group ${\operatorname{Pic}\nolimits}X$) of the line bundle $(\Lambda^k(S_k^\vee))^{\otimes i}$, where $\Lambda^k$ stands for the $k^{th}$ exterior power (in this case maximal exterior power as ${\text{rk}}S_k^\vee=k$). The Picard group of $Y$ is isomorphic to the direct product of the Picard groups of $Y^1$ and $Y^2$, and by ${\mathcal{O}}_Y(i,j)$ we denote the isomorphism class of the line bundle $p_1^*(\Lambda^{k-1}(S_{k-1}^\vee))^{\otimes i}
\otimes_{{\mathcal{O}}_Y}p_2^*(\Lambda^{k+1}(S_{k+1}^\vee))^{\otimes j}$.
If ${\varphi}:X=G(k;V)\to X':=G(k;V')$ is an embedding, then ${\varphi}^*{\mathcal{O}}_{X'}(1)\simeq {\mathcal{O}}_X(d)$ for some $d\in{\mathbf {Z}}_{\geq 0}$: by definition $d$ is the *degree* $\deg{\varphi}$ of ${\varphi}$. We say that ${\varphi}$ is linear if $\deg{\varphi}=1$. By a *projective subspace* (in particular a *line*, i.e. a 1-dimensional projective subspace) of $X$ we mean a linearly embedded projective space into $X$. It is well known that all such are Schubert varieties of the form $\{V^k\in X| V^{k-1}\subset V^k\subset V^t\}$ or $\{V^k\in X|
V^i\subset V^k\subset V^{k+1}\}$, where $V^k$ is a variable $k$-dimensional subspace of $V$, and $V^{k-1}$, $V^{k+1}$, $V^t$, $V^i$ are fixed subspaces of $V$ of respective dimensions $k-1$, $k+1$, $t$, $i$. (Here and in what follows $V^t$ always denotes a vector space of dimension $t$). In other words, all projective subspaces of $X$ are of the form $G(1;V^t/V^{k-1})$ or $G(k-i, V^{k+1}/V^i)$. Note also that $Y={Fl}(k-1,k+1;V)$ is the variety of lines in $X=G(k;V)$.
The linear case
===============
We consider the cases of linear and twisted ind-Grassmannians separately. In the case of a linear ind-Grassmannian, we show that Conjecture \[con1\] is a straightforward corollary of existing results combined with the following proposition. We recall, [@DP], that a *standard extension* of Grassmannians is an embedding of the form $$\label{eq31}
G(k;V)\to G(k+a;V\oplus \hat W), \quad \{ V^k\subset
{\mathbb {C}}^n\}\mapsto\{V^k\oplus W\subset V\oplus\hat W\},$$ where $W$ is a fixed $a$-dimensional subspace of a finite dimensional vector space $\hat W$.
\[linear embed\] Let ${\varphi}:X=G(k;V)\to X':=G(k';V')$ be an embedding of degree 1. Then ${\varphi}$ is a standard extension, or ${\varphi}$ factors through a standard extension ${\mathbb{P}}^r\to G(k';V')$ for some $r$.
We assume that $k\leq n-k$, $k\leq n'-k'$, where $n=\dim V$ and $n'=\dim V'$, and use induction on $k$. For $k=1$ the statement is obvious as the image of ${\varphi}$ is a projective subspace of $G(k';V')$ and hence ${\varphi}$ is a standard extension. Assume that the statement is true for $k-1$. Since $\deg {\varphi}=1$, ${\varphi}$ induces an embedding ${\varphi}_Y:Y\to Y'$, where $Y={Fl}(k-1,k+1;V)$ is the variety of lines in $X$ and $Y\:={Fl}(k'-1,k'+1;V')$ is the variety of lines in $X'$. Moreover, clearly we have a commutative diagram of natural projections and embeddings $$\xymatrix{
&Z\ar[rrr]^{{\varphi}_Z}\ar[dl]_{\pi_1}\ar[dr]^{\pi_2}&&&Z'\ar[dl]_{\pi_1'}\ar[dr]^{\pi_2'}&
\\
Y\ar[dr]&&X\ar[dr]&Y'&&X',\\
&\ar[r]_{{\varphi}_Y}&\ar[ur]&\ar[r]_{{\varphi}}&\ar[ur]&
}$$ where $Z:={Fl}(k-1,k,k+1;V)$ and $Z':={Fl}(k'-1,k',k'+1;V')$.
We claim that there is an isomorphism $$\label{eqLE1}
{\varphi}^*_Y{\mathcal{O}}_{Y'}(1,1)\simeq{\mathcal{O}}_Y(1,1).$$ Indeed, ${\varphi}^*_Y{\mathcal{O}}_{Y'}(1,1)$ is determined up to isomorphism by its restriction to the fibers of $p_1$ and $p_2$ (see diagram [(\[eqDiag\])]{}), and therefore it is enough to check that $$\label{eqLE2}
{\varphi}^*_Y{\mathcal{O}}_{Y'}(1,1)_{|p_1^{-1}(V^{k-1})}\simeq{\mathcal{O}}_{p_1^{-1}(V^{k-1})}(1),$$ $$\label{eqLE21}
{\varphi}^*_Y{\mathcal{O}}_{Y'}(1,1)_{|p_2^{-1}(V^{k+1})}\simeq
{\mathcal{O}}_{p_2^{-1}(V^{k+1})}(1)$$ for some fixed subspaces $V^{k-1}\subset V$, $V^{k+1}\subset V$. Note that the restriction of ${\varphi}$ to the projective subspace $G(1;V/V^{k-1})\subset X$ is simply an isomorphism of $G(1;V/V^{k-1})$ with a projective subspace of $X'$, hence the map induced by ${\varphi}$ on the variety $G(2;V/V^{k-1})$ of projective lines in $G(1;V/V^{k-1})$ is an isomorphism with the Grassmannian of 2-dimensional subspaces of an appropriate subquotient of $V'$. Note furthermore that $p_1^{-1}(V^{k-1})$ is nothing but the variety of lines $G(2;V/V^{k-1})$ in $G(1;V/V^{k-1})$, and that the image of $G(2;V/V^{k-1})$ under ${\varphi}$ is nothing but ${\varphi}_Y(p_1^{-1}(V^{k-1}))$. This shows that the restriction of ${\varphi}^*_Y{\mathcal{O}}_{Y'}(1,1)$ to $G(2;V/V^{k-1})$ is isomorphic to the restriction of ${\mathcal{O}}_Y(1,1)$ to $G(2;V/V^{k-1})$, and we obtain [(\[eqLE2\])]{}. The isomorphism [(\[eqLE21\])]{} follows from a very similar argument.
The isomorphism [(\[eqLE1\])]{} leaves us with two alternatives: $$\label{eqLE3}
{\varphi}^*_{Y}{\mathcal{O}}_{Y'}(1,0)\simeq{\mathcal{O}}_Y \mathrm{~or~}
{\varphi}_Y^*{\mathcal{O}}_{Y'}(0,1)\simeq {\mathcal{O}}_Y,$$ or $$\label{eqLE4}
{\varphi}^*_{Y}{\mathcal{O}}_{Y'}(1,0)\simeq{\mathcal{O}}_Y(1,0) \mathrm{~or~}
{\varphi}_Y^*{\mathcal{O}}_{Y'}(1,0)\simeq {\mathcal{O}}_Y(0,1).$$ Let [(\[eqLE3\])]{} hold, more precisely let ${\varphi}_Y^*{\mathcal{O}}_{Y'}(1,0)\simeq{\mathcal{O}}_Y$. Then ${\varphi}_Y$ maps each fiber of $p_2$ into a single point in $Y'$ (depending on the image in $Y^2$ of this fiber), say $({(V')}^{k'-1}\subset {(V')}^{k'+1})$, and moreover the space ${(V')}^{k'-1}$ is constant. Thus ${\varphi}$ maps $X$ into the projective subspace $G(1;V'/{(V')}^{k'-1})$ of $X'$. If ${\varphi}_Y^*{\mathcal{O}}_{Y'}(0,1)\simeq{\mathcal{O}}_Y$, then ${\varphi}$ maps $X$ into the projective subspace $G(1;{(V')}^{k'+1})$ of $X'$. Therefore, the Proposition is proved in the case [(\[eqLE3\])]{} holds.
We assume now that [(\[eqLE4\])]{} holds. It is easy to see that [(\[eqLE4\])]{} implies that ${\varphi}$ induces a linear embedding ${\varphi}_{Y^1}$ of $Y^1:=G(k-1;V)$ into $G(k'-1;V')$ or $G(k'+1;V')$. Assume that ${\varphi}_{Y^1}:Y^1\to {(Y')}^1:=G(k'-1;V')$ (the other case is completely similar). Then, by the induction assumption, ${\varphi}_{Y^1}$ is a standard extension or factors through a standard extension ${\mathbb{P}}^r\to {(Y')}^1$. If ${\varphi}_{Y^1}$ is a standard extension corresponding to a fixed subspace $W\subset \hat W$, then ${\varphi}_{Y^1}^* S_{k'-1}\simeq S_{k-1}\oplus
\left(W\otimes_{\mathbb {C}}{\mathcal{O}}_{Y^1}\right)$ and we have a vector bundle monomorphism $$\label{eqLE5}
0\to\pi_1^*p_1^*{\varphi}_{Y^1}^*S_{k'-1}\to \pi_2^*{\varphi}^*S_{k'}.$$ By restricting [(\[eqLE5\])]{} to the fibers of $\pi_1$ we see that the quotient line bundle $\pi_2^*{\varphi}^*S_{k'}/\pi_1^*p_1^*{\varphi}_{Y^1}^*S_{k'-1}$ is isomorphic to $S_k/S_{k-1}\otimes \pi_1^*p_1^*{\mathcal{L}}$, where ${\mathcal{L}}$ is a line bundle on $Y^1$. Applying $\pi_{2*}$ we obtain $$\label{eqLE6}
0\to W\otimes_{\mathbb {C}}{\mathcal{O}}_X\to\pi_{2*}(\pi_2^*{\varphi}^*S_{k'})={\varphi}^*S_{k'}\to
\pi_{2*}((S_k/S_{k-1})\otimes\pi_1^*p_1^*{\mathcal{L}}) \to 0.$$ Since ${\text{rk}}{\varphi}^*S_{k'}=k'$ and $\dim W=k'-k$, ${\text{rk}}\pi_{2*}((S_k/S_{k-1})\otimes\pi_1^*p_1^*{\mathcal{L}})=k$, which implies immediately that ${\mathcal{L}}$ is trivial. Hence [(\[eqLE6\])]{} reduces to $0\to
W\otimes_{{\mathbb {C}}}{\mathcal{O}}_X\to{\varphi}^*S_{k'}\to S_k\to 0$, and thus $$\label{eqLE7}
{\varphi}^*S_{k'}\simeq S_k\oplus \left(W\otimes_{\mathbb {C}}{\mathcal{O}}_X\right)$$ as there are no non-trivial extensions of $S_k$ by a trivial bundle. Now [(\[eqLE7\])]{} implies that ${\varphi}$ is a standard extension.
It remains to consider the case when ${\varphi}_{Y^1}$ maps $Y^1$ into a projective subspace ${\mathbb{P}}^s$ of ${(Y')}^1$. Then ${\mathbb{P}}^s$ is of the form $G(1;V'/{(V')}^{k'-2})$ for some ${(V')}^{k'-2}\subset V'$, or of the form $G(k'-1;{(V')}^{k'})$ for some ${(V')}^{k'}\subset V'$. The second case is clearly impossible because it would imply that ${\varphi}$ maps $X$ into the single point ${(V')}^{k'}$. Hence ${\mathbb{P}}^s=G(1;V'/{(V')}^{k'-2})$ and ${\varphi}$ maps $X$ into the Grassmannian $G(2;V'/{(V')}^{k'-2})$ in $G(k';V')$. Let $S_2'$ be the rank 2 tautological bundle on $G(2;V'/{(V')}^{k'-2})$. Then its restriction $S'':={\varphi}^*S_2'$ to any line $l$ in $X$ is isomorphic to ${\mathcal{O}}_{l}\oplus{\mathcal{O}}_{l}(-1)$, and we claim that this implies one of the two alternatives: $$\label{eqLE8}
S''\simeq{\mathcal{O}}_X\oplus{\mathcal{O}}_X(-1)$$ or $$\label{eqLE9}
S''\simeq S_2 \text{~and~} k=2,\text{~or~} S''\simeq(V\otimes_{\mathbb {C}}{\mathcal{O}}_X)/S_2\text{~and~}k=n-k=2.$$ Let $k\geq 2$. The evaluation map $\pi_1^*\pi_{1*}\pi_2^*S''\to
\pi_2^*S''$ is a monomorphism of the line bundle $ \pi_1^*{\mathcal{L}}:=\pi_1^*\pi_{1*}\pi_2^*S''$ into $\pi_2^*S''$ (here ${\mathcal{L}}:=\pi_{1*}\pi_2^*S''$). Restricting this monomorphism to the fibers of $\pi_2$ we see immediately that $\pi_1^*{\mathcal{L}}$ is trivial when restricted to those fibers and is hence trivial. Therefore ${\mathcal{L}}$ is trivial, i.e. $\pi_1^*{\mathcal{L}}={\mathcal{O}}_Z$. Push-down to $X$ yields $$\label{eqLE10}
0\to{\mathcal{O}}_X\to S''\to{\mathcal{O}}_X(-1)\to 0,$$ and hence [(\[eqLE10\])]{} splits as ${\operatorname{Ext}\nolimits}^1({\mathcal{O}}_X(-1),{\mathcal{O}}_X)=0$. Therefore [(\[eqLE8\])]{} holds. For $k=2$, there is an additional possibility for the above monomorphisms to be of the form $\pi_1^*{\mathcal{O}}_Y(-1,0)\to\pi_2^*S$ (or of the form $\pi_1^*{\mathcal{O}}_Y(0,-1)\to\pi_2^*S$ if $n-k=2$) which yields the option [(\[eqLE9\])]{}.
If [(\[eqLE8\])]{} holds, ${\varphi}$ maps $X$ into an appropriate projective subspace of $G(2;V'/{(V')}^{k'-2})$ which is then a projective subspace of $X'$, and if [(\[eqLE9\])]{} holds, ${\varphi}$ is a standard extension corresponding to a zero dimensional space $W$. The proof is now complete.
We are ready now to prove the following theorem.
Conjecture \[con1\] holds for any linear ind-Grassmannian $\mathbf X$.
Assume that $\deg {\varphi}_m=1$ for all $m$, and apply Proposition \[linear embed\]. If infinitely many ${\varphi}_m$’s factor through respective projective subspaces, then $\mathbf X$ is isomorphic to $\mathbf P^\infty$ and the BVT Theorem implies Conjecture \[con1\]. Otherwise, all ${\varphi}_m$’s are standard extensions of the form [(\[eq31\])]{}. There are two alternatives: $\displaystyle\lim_{m\to\infty}
k_{m}=\lim_{m\to\infty}(n_{m}-k_{m})=\infty$, or one of the limits $\displaystyle\lim_{m\to \infty}k_{m}$ or $\displaystyle\lim_{m\to \infty}(n_{m}-k_{m})$ equals $l$ for some $l\in {\mathbf {N}}$. In the first case the claim of Conjecture \[con1\] is proved in [@DP]: Theorem 4.2. In the second case $\mathbf X$ is isomorphic to $\mathbf G(l;\infty)$, and therefore Conjecture \[con1\] is proved in this case by E. Sato in [@Sa2].
Auxiliary results
=================
In order to prove Conjecture \[con1\] for rank 2 bundles $\mathbf E$ on a twisted ind-Grassmannian $\mathbf X=\displaystyle \lim_\to G(k_m;V^{n_m})$, we need to prove that the vector bundle $\mathbf E=\displaystyle\lim_{\gets}E_m$ of rank 2 on $\mathbf X$ is trivial, i.e. that $E_m$ is a trivial bundle on $G(k_m;V^{n_m})$ for each $m$. From this point on we assume that none of the Grassmannians $G(k_m;V^{n_m})$ is a projective space, as for a twisted projective ind-space Conjecture 1.1 is proved in [@DP] for bundles of arbitrary rank $r$.
The following known proposition gives a useful triviality criterion for vector bundles of arbitrary rank on Grassmannians.
\[prop31\] A vector bundle $E$ on $X=G(k;n)$ is trivial iff its restriction $E_{|l}$ is trivial for every line $l$ in $G(k;n)$, $l\in Y={Fl}(k-1,k+1;n)$.
We recall the proof given in [@P]. It uses the well known fact that the Proposition holds for any projective space, \[OSS, Theorem 3.2.1\]. Let first $k=2$, $n=4$, i.e. $X=G(2;4)$. Since $E$ is linearly trivial, $\pi_2^*E$ is trivial along the fibers of $\pi_1$ (we refer here to diagram [(\[eqDiag\])]{}). Moreover, $\pi_{1*}\pi_2^*E$ is trivial along the images of the fibers of $\pi_2$ in $Y$. These images are of the form ${\mathbb{P}}_1^1\times{\mathbb{P}}_2^1$, where ${\mathbb{P}}_1^1$ (respectively ${\mathbb{P}}_2^1$) are lines in $Y^1:=G(1;4)$ and $Y^2:=G(3;4)$. The fiber of $p_1$ is filled by lines of the form ${\mathbb{P}}^1_2$, and thus $\pi_{1*}\pi_2^*E$ is linearly trivial, and hence trivial along the fibers of $p_1$. Finally the lines of the form ${\mathbb{P}}_1^1$ fill $Y^1$, hence ${p_1}_*\pi_{1*}\pi_2^*E$ is also a trivial bundle. This implies that $E=\pi_{2*}\pi_1^*p_1^*(p_{1*}\pi_{1*}\pi_2^*E)$ is also trivial.
The next case is the case when $k=2$ and $n$ is arbitrary, $n\geq 5$. Then the above argument goes through by induction on $n$ since the fiber of $p_1$ is isomorphic to $G(2;n-1)$. The proof is completed by induction on $k$ for $k\geq 3$: the base of $p_1$ is $G(k-1;n)$ and the fiber of $p_1$ is $G(2;n-1)$.
If $C\subset N$ is a smooth rational curve in an algebraic variety $N$ and $E$ is a vector bundle on $N$, then by a classical theorem of Grothendieck, $\displaystyle E_{|C}$ is isomorphic to $\bigoplus_i{\mathcal{O}}_C(d_i)$ for some $d_1\geq d_2\geq\dots\geq d_{{\text{rk}}E}$. We call the ordered ${\text{rk}}E$-tuple $(d_1,\dots,d_{{\text{rk}}E})$ *the splitting type* of $E_{|C}$ and denote it by $\mathbf{d}_E(C)$. If $N=X=G(k;n)$, then the lines on $N$ are parametrized by points $l\in Y$, and we obtain a map $$Y\to {\mathbf {Z}}^{{\text{rk}}E}\ :\ l\mapsto \mathbf{d}_E(l).$$ By semicontinuity (cf. [@OSS Ch.I, Lemma 3.2.2]), there is a dense open set $U_E\subset Y$ of lines with minimal splitting type with respect to the lexicographical ordering on ${\mathbf {Z}}^{{\text{rk}}E}$. Denote this minimal splitting type by $\mathbf{d}_E$. By definition, $U_E=\{l\in Y|~
\mathbf{d}_E(l)=\mathbf{d}_E\}$ is the set of *non-jumping* lines of $E$, and its complement $Y\setminus U_E$ is the proper closed set of *jumping* lines.
A coherent sheaf $F$ over a smooth irreducible variety $N$ is called $normal$ if for every open set $U\subset N$ and every closed algebraic subset $A\subset U$ of codimension at least 2 the restriction map ${F}(U)\to {F}(U\smallsetminus A)$ is surjective. It is well known that, since $N$ is smooth, hence normal, a normal torsion-free sheaf $F$ on $N$ is reflexive, i.e. $F^{\lor\lor}=F$. Therefore, by [@OSS Ch.II, Theorem 2.1.4] $F$ is necessarily a line bundle (see [@OSS Ch.II, 1.1.12 and 1.1.15]).
\[thSubbdl\] Let $E$ be a rank $r$ vector bundle of splitting type $\mathbf{d}_E=(d_1,...,d_r),\ d_1\ge...\ge d_r,$ on $X=G(k;n)$. If $d_s-d_{s+1}\ge2$ for some $s<r$, then there is a normal subsheaf $F\subset E$ of rank $s$ with the following properties: over the open set $\pi_2(\pi_1^{-1}(U_E))\subset X$ the sheaf $F$ is a subbundle of $E$, and for any $l\in U_E$ $$F_{|l}\simeq\overset{s}{\underset{i=1}\bigoplus}\mathcal{O}_{l}(d_i).$$
It is similar to the proof of Theorem 2.1.4 of [@OSS Ch.II]. Consider the vector bundle $E'=E\bigotimes\mathcal{O}_X(-d_s)$ and the evaluation map $\Phi:\pi_1^*\pi_{1*}\pi_2^*E'\to \pi_2^*E'$. The definition of $U_E$ implies that $\Phi_{|\pi_1^{-1}(U_E)}$ is a morphism of constant rank $s$ and that its image ${\rm {\operatorname{Im}\nolimits}}\Phi\subset \pi_2^*E'$ is a subbundle of rank $s$ over $\pi_1^{-1}(U_E)$. Let $M:=\pi_2^*E'/{\rm im}\Phi$, let $T(M)$ be the torsion subsheaf of $M$, and $F':=\ker(\pi_2^*E'\to M':=M/T(M))$. Consider the singular set ${\operatorname{Sing}\nolimits}F'$ of the sheaf $F'$ and set $A:=Z\smallsetminus{\operatorname{Sing}\nolimits}F'$. By the above, $A$ is an open subset of $Z$ containing $\pi_1^{-1}(U_E)$ and $f={\pi_2}_{|A}:A\to
B:=\pi_2(A)$ is a submersion with connected fibers.
Next, take any point $l\in Y$ and put $ L:=\pi_1^{-1}(l)$. By definition, $L\simeq\mathbb{P}^1$, and we have $$\label{tangent}
{T_{Z/X}}_{|L}\simeq\mathcal{O}_{L}(-1)^{\oplus(n-2)},$$ where $T_{Z/X}$ is the relative tangent bundle of Z over X. The construction of the sheaves $F'$ and $M$ implies that for any $l\in U_E$: ${F'}^{\vee}_{|{L}}=\oplus_{i=1}^s\mathcal{O}_{L}(-d_i+d_s),\ \
{M'}_{|{L}} =\oplus_{i=s+1}^r\mathcal{O}_{L}(d_i-d_s)$. This, together with (\[tangent\]) and the condition $d_s-d_{s+1}\ge2,$ immediately implies that $H^0(\Omega^1_{A/B}\otimes{F'}^{\vee}\otimes M'_{|{L}})=0$. Hence $H^0(\Omega^1_{A/B}\otimes{F'}^{\vee}\otimes M'_{|\pi_1^{-1}(U_E)})=0$, and thus, since $\pi_1^{-1}(U_E)$ is dense open in $Z$, ${\operatorname{Hom}\nolimits}(T_{A/B},\mathcal H om(F',M'_{|A}))=
H^0(\Omega^1_{A/B}\otimes{F'}^{\vee}\otimes M'_{|A})=0.$ Now we apply the Descent Lemma (see [@OSS Ch.II, Lemma 2.1.3]) to the data $(f_{|\pi_1^{-1}(U_E)}:\pi_1^{-1}(U_E)\to V_E,\ F'_{|\pi_1^{-1}(U_E)}
\subset E'_{|\pi_1^{-1}(U_E)})$. Then $F:=(\pi_{2*}F')\otimes\mathcal{O}_X(-d_s)$ is the desired sheaf.
The case ${\text{rk}}{\mathbf{E}}=2$
====================================
In what follows, when considering a twisted ind-Grassmannian $\mathbf
X=\displaystyle\lim_\to G(k_m;V^{n_m})$ we set $G(k_m;V^{n_m})=X_m$. [Theorem \[thSubbdl\]]{} yields now the following corollary.
\[d=(0,0)\] Let $\displaystyle\mathbf{E}=\lim_{\gets}E_m$ be a rank 2 vector bundle on a twisted ind-Grassmannian $\displaystyle\mathbf{X}=\lim_{\to}X_m$. Then there exists $m_0\ge1$ such that $\mathbf{d}_{E_m}=(0,0)$ for any $m\ge m_0.$
Note first that the fact that $\mathbf X$ is twisted implies $$\label{c_1=0}
c_1(E_m)=0,\ m\ge1.$$ Indeed, $c_1(E_m)$ is nothing but the integer corresponding to the line bundle $\Lambda^2(E_m)$ in the identification of ${\operatorname{Pic}\nolimits}X_m$ with ${\mathbf {Z}}$. As $\mathbf X$ is twisted, $c_1(E_m)=\deg{\varphi}_m\deg{\varphi}_{m+1}\dots\deg{\varphi}_{m+k}c_1(E_{m+k+1})$ for any $k\geq 1$, in other words $c_1(E_m)$ is divisible by larger and larger integers and hence $c_1(E_m)=0$ (cf. [@DP Lemma 3.2]). Suppose that for any $m_0\ge1$ there exists $m\ge
m_0$ such that $\mathbf{d}_{E_m}=(a_m,-a_m)$ with $a_m>0$. Then Theorem \[thSubbdl\] applies to $E_m$ with $s=1$, and hence $E_m$ has a normal rank-1 subsheaf $F_m$ such that $$\label{F|l}
F_{m|l}\simeq\mathcal{O}_{l}(a_m)$$ for a certain line $l$ in $X_m$. Since $F_m$ is a torsion-free normal subsheaf of the vector bundle $E$, the sheaf $F_m$ is a line bundle, i.e. $F_m\simeq{\mathcal{O}}_{X_m}(a_m)$. Therefore we have a monomorphism: $$\label{injectn}
0\to\mathcal{O}_{X_m}(a_m)\to E_m,\ \ \ a_m\ge1.$$ This is clearly impossible. In fact, this monomorphism implies in view of (\[c\_1=0\]) that any rational curve $C\subset X_m$ of degree $\delta_m:=\deg{\varphi}_1\cdot...\cdot\deg{\varphi}_{m-1}$ has splitting type $\mathbf{d}_{E_m}(C)=(a'_m,-a'_m)$, where $a'_m\ge a_m\delta_m\ge\delta_m$. Hence, by semiconinuity, any line $l\in X_1$ has splitting type $\mathbf{d}_{E_1}(l)=(b,-b),\ \ b\ge\delta_m$. Since $\delta_m\to\infty$ as $m_0\to\infty,$ this is a contradiction.
We now recall some standard facts about the Chow rings of $X_m=G(k_m;V^{n_m}),$ (see, e.g., [@F 14.7]):
- $A^1(X_m)={\operatorname{Pic}\nolimits}(X_m)=\mathbb{Z}[\mathbb{V}_m]$, $A^2(X_m)=\mathbb{Z}[\mathbb{W}_{1,m}]\oplus\mathbb{Z}[\mathbb{W}_{2,m}]$, where $\mathbb{\mathbb{V}}_m,\mathbb{W}_{1,m},\mathbb{W}_{2,m}$ are the following Schubert varieties: $\mathbb{V}_m:=\{V^{k_m}\in X_m|\ \dim(V^{k_m}\cap V_0^{n_m-k_m})\ge1$ for a fixed subspace $V_0^{n_m-k_m-1}$ of $V^{n_m}\}$, $\mathbb{W}_{1,m}:=\{V^{k_m}\in X_m| $ $\dim (V^{k_m}\cap
V_0^{n_m-k_m-1})\ge1$ for a fixed subspace $V_0^{n_m-k_m-1}$ in $V^{n_m}\}$, $\mathbb{W}_{2,m}:=\{{V}^{k_m}\in X_m|\ \dim({V}^{k_m}\cap
V_0^{n_m-k_m+1})\ge2$ for a fixed subspace $V_0^{n_m-k_m+1}$ of $V^{n_m}\}$;
- $[\mathbb{V}_m]^2=[\mathbb{W}_{1,m}]+[\mathbb{W}_{2,m}]$ in $A^2(X_m)$;
- $A_2(X_m)=\mathbb{Z}[\mathbb{P}^2_{1,m}]\oplus\mathbb{Z}[\mathbb{P}^2_{2,m}]$, where the projective planes $\mathbb{P}^2_{1,m}$ (called *$\alpha$-planes*) and $\mathbb{P}^2_{2,m}$ (called *$\beta$-planes*) are respectively the Schubert varieties $\mathbb{P}^2_{1,m}:=\{V^{k_m}\in X_m|\ V_0^{k_m-1}\subset
{V}^{k_m}\subset V_0^{k_m+2}$ for a fixed flag $V_0^{k_m-1}\subset V_0^{k_m+2}$ in $V^{n_m}\}$, $\mathbb{P}^2_{2,m}:=\{V^{k_m}\in X_m|\ V_0^{k_m-2}\subset {V}^{k_m}\subset
V_0^{k_m+1}$ for a fixed flag $V_0^{k_m-2}\subset V_0^{k_m+1}$ in $V^{n_m}\};$
- the bases $[\mathbb{W}_{i,m}]$ and $[\mathbb{P}^2_{j,m}]$ are dual in the standard sense that $[\mathbb{W}_{i,m}]\cdot[\mathbb{P}^2_{j,m}]=\delta_{i,j}.$
\[c\_2(E\_m)=0\] There exists $m_1\in{\mathbf {Z}}_{>0}$ such that for any $m\ge m_1$ one of the following holds:
- $c_2({E_m}_{|\mathbb{P}^2_{1,m}})>0,$ $c_2({E_m}_{|\mathbb{P}^2_{2,m}})\le0$,
- $c_2({E_m}_{|\mathbb{P}^2_{2,m}})>0,$ $c_2({E_m}_{|\mathbb{P}^2_{1,m}})\le0$,
- $c_2({E_m}_{|\mathbb{P}^2_{1,m}})=0$, $c_2({E_m}_{|\mathbb{P}^2_{2,m}})=0$.
According to (i), for any $m\ge1$ there exist $\lambda_{1m},\lambda_{2m}\in{\mathbf {Z}}$ such that $$\label{c_2(E_m)}
c_2(E_m)=\lambda_{1m}[\mathbb{W}_{1,m}]+\lambda_{2m}[\mathbb{W}_{2,m}].$$ Moreover, (iv) implies $$\label{lambda_jm}
\lambda_{jm}=c_2({E_m}_{|\mathbb{P}^2_{j,m}}),\ \ j=1,2.$$ Next, (i) yields: $$\label{abcd}
{\varphi}_m^*[\mathbb{W}_{1,m+1}]=a_{11}(m)[\mathbb{W}_{1,m}]+a_{21}(m)[\mathbb{W}_{2,m}],\
\
{\varphi}_m^*[\mathbb{W}_{2,m+1}]=a_{12}(m)[\mathbb{W}_{1,m}]+a_{22}(m)[\mathbb{W}_{2,m}],$$ where $a_{ij}(m)\in\mathbb{Z}$. Consider the $2\times2$-matrix $A(m)=(a_{ij}(m))$ and the column vector $\Lambda_m=(\lambda_{1m},\lambda_{2m})^t.$ Then, in view of (iv), the relation (\[abcd\]) gives: $\Lambda_m=A(m)\Lambda_{m+1}$. Iterating this equation and denoting by $A(m,i)$ the $2\times2$-matrix $A(m)\cdot A(m+1)\cdot...\cdot A(m+i),\ i\ge1,$ we obtain $$\label{Lambda_m}
\Lambda_m=A(m,i)\Lambda_{m+i+1}.$$ The twisting condition ${\varphi}_m^*[\mathbb{V}_{m+1}]=\deg{\varphi}_m[\mathbb{V}_{m}]$ together with (ii) implies: ${\varphi}_m^*([\mathbb{W}_{1,m+1}]+[\mathbb{W}_{2,m+1}])=(\deg{\varphi}_m)^2([\mathbb{W}_{1,m}]+[\mathbb{W}_{2,m}])$. Substituting (\[abcd\]) into the last equality, we have: $a_{11}(m)+a_{12}(m)=a_{21}(m)+a_{22}(m)=(\deg{\varphi}_m)^2,\ \ \ m\ge1.$ This means that the column vector ${v}=(1,1)^t$ is an eigenvector of $A(m)$ with eigenvalue $(\deg{\varphi}_m)^2$. Hence, it is an eigenvector of $A(m,i)$ with the eigenvalue $d_{m,i}=(\deg{\varphi}_m)^2(\deg{\varphi}_{m+1})^2...(\deg{\varphi}_{m+i})^2:$ $$\label{eigen}
A(m,i){v}=d_{m,i}{v}.$$ Notice that the entries of $A(m),\ m\ge1,$ are nonnegative integers (in fact, from the definition of the Schubert varieties $\mathbb{W}_{j,m+1}$ it immediately follows that ${\varphi}_m^*[\mathbb{W}_{j,m+1}]$ is an effective cycle on $X_m$, so that (\[abcd\]) and (iv) give $0\le{\varphi}_m^*[\mathbb{W}_{i,m+1}]\cdot[\mathbb{P}^2_{j,m}]=a_{ij}(m)$); hence also the entries of $A(m,i),\ m,i\ge1,$ are nonnegative integers). Besides, clearly $d_{m,i}\to\infty$ as $i\to\infty$ for any $m\ge1$. This, together with (\[Lambda\_m\]) and (\[eigen\]), implies that, for $m\gg1$, $\lambda_{1m}$ and $\lambda_{2m}$ cannot both be nonzero and have the same sign. This together with (\[lambda\_jm\]) is equivalent to the statement of the Lemma.
In what follows we denote the $\alpha$-planes and the $\beta$-planes on $X=G(2;4)$ respectively by ${\mathbb{P}}_\alpha^2$ and ${\mathbb{P}}_\beta^2$.
\[not exist\] There exists no rank 2 vector bundle $E$ on the Grassmannian $X=G(2;4)$ such that:
- $c_2(E)=a[\mathbb{P}^2_{\alpha}],\ \ a>0,$
- $E_{|\mathbb{P}^2_{\beta}}$ is trivial for a generic $\beta$-plane $\mathbb{P}^2_{\beta}$ on $X$.
Now assume that there exists a vector bundle $E$ on $X$ satisfying the conditions (a) and (b) of the Proposition. Fix a $\beta$-plane $P\subset X$ such that $$\label{E|Y}
E_{|P}\simeq\mathcal{O}_{P}^{\oplus2}.$$ As $X$ is the Grassmannian of lines in $\mathbb{P}^3$, the plane $P$ is the dual plane of a certain plane $\tilde P$ in $\mathbb{P}^3$. Next, fix a point $x_0\in\mathbb{P}^3\smallsetminus\tilde P$ and denote by $S$ the variety of lines in ${\mathbb{P}}^3$ which contain $x_0$. Consider the variety $Q=\{(x,l)\in\mathbb{P}^3\times X\ |\ x\in l\cap\tilde P\}$ with natural projections $p:Q\to S:(x,l)\mapsto{\text{Span}}(x,x_0)$ and $\sigma:Q\to X:(x,l)\mapsto l$. Clearly, $\sigma$ is the blowing up of $X$ at the plane $P$, and the exceptional divisor $D_P=\sigma^{-1}(P)$ is isomorphic to the incidence subvariety of $P\times\tilde{P}$. Moreover, one easily checks that $Q\simeq\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{O}_{S}(1)\oplus T_{S}(-1))$, so that the projection $p:Q\to S$ coincides with the structure morphism $\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{O}_{S}(1)\oplus T_{S}(-1))\to S$. Let $\mathcal{O}_Q(1)$ be the Grothendieck line bundle on $Q$ such that $p_*\mathcal{O}_Q(1)=\mathcal{O}_{S}(1)\oplus T_{S}(-1)$. Using the Euler exact triple on $Q$ $$\label{Euler}
0\to\Omega^1_{Q/S}\to p^*(\mathcal{O}_{S}(1)\oplus T_{S}(-1))
\otimes\mathcal{O}_Q(-1)\to\mathcal{O}_Q\to 0,$$ we find the $p$-relative dualizing sheaf $\omega_{Q/S}:=\det(\Omega^1_{Q/S})$: $$\label{rel dual}
\omega_{Q/S}\simeq\mathcal{O}_Q(-3)\otimes p^*\mathcal{O}_{S}(2).$$
Set $\mathcal{E}:=\sigma^*E$. By construction, for each $y\in S$ the fiber $Q_y=p^{-1}(y)$ is a plane such that $l_y=Q_y\cap D_P$ is a line, and, by (\[E|Y\]), $$\label{triv on l}
\mathcal{E}_{|l_y}\simeq\mathcal{O}_{l_y}^{\oplus2}.$$ Furthermore, $\sigma(Q_y)$ is an $\alpha$-plane in $X$, and from (\[triv on l\]) it follows clearly that $h^0(\mathcal{E}_{|Q_y}(-1))=\mathcal{E}^\vee_{|Q_y}(-1))=0$. Hence, in view of condition (a) of the Proposition, the sheaf $\mathcal{E}_{|Q_y}$ is the cohomology sheaf of a monad $$\label{eqMonad}
0\to\mathcal{O}_{Q_y}(-1)^{\oplus
a}\to\mathcal{O}_{Q_y}^{\oplus(2a+2)}\to
\mathcal{O}_{Q_y}(1)^{\oplus a}\to0$$ (see [@OSS Ch. II, Ex. 3.2.3]). This monad immediately implies the equalities $$\label{cohomology}
h^1(\mathcal{E}_{|Q_y}(-1))=h^1(\mathcal{E}_{|Q_y}(-2))=a,\ \
h^1(\mathcal{E}_{|Q_y}\otimes\Omega^1_{Q_y})=2a+2,$$ $$h^i(\mathcal{E}_{|Q_y}(-1))=h^i(\mathcal{E}_{|Q_y}(-2))=
h^i(\mathcal{E}_{|Q_y}\otimes\Omega^1_{Q_y})=0,\ \ i\ne1.$$ Consider the sheaves of $\mathcal{O}_{S}$-modules $$\label{E_i}
E_{-1}:=R^1p_*(\mathcal{E}\otimes\mathcal{O}_Q(-2)\otimes
p^*\mathcal{O}_{S}(2)),\ \ \
E_0:=R^1p_*(\mathcal{E}\otimes\Omega^1_{Q/S}), \ \ \
E_1:=R^1p_*(\mathcal{E}\otimes\mathcal{O}_Q(-1)).$$ The equalities (\[cohomology\]) together with Cohomology and Base Change imply that $E_{-1},\ E_1$ and $E_0$ are locally free $\mathcal{O}_{S}$-modules, and ${\text{rk}}(E_{-1})={\text{rk}}(E_1)=a,$ and ${\text{rk}}(E_0)=2a+2$. Moreover, $$\label{R_i}
R^ip_*(\mathcal{E}\otimes\mathcal{O}_Q(-2))=
R^ip_*(\mathcal{E}\otimes\Omega^1_{Q/S})=R^ip_*(\mathcal{E}\otimes\mathcal{O}_Q(-1))=0$$ for $i\ne 1$. Note that $\mathcal{E}^\vee\simeq\mathcal{E}$ as $c_1(\mathcal{E})=0$ and ${\text{rk}}\mathcal{E}=2$. Furthermore, (\[rel dual\]) implies that the nondegenerate pairing ($p$-relative Serre duality) $R^1p_*(\mathcal{E}\otimes\mathcal{O}_Q(-1))\otimes
R^1p_*(\mathcal{E}^\vee\otimes\mathcal{O}_Q(1)\otimes \omega_{Q/S})\to
R^2p_*\omega_{Q/S}=\mathcal{O}_{S}$ can be rewritten as $E_1\otimes
E_{-1}\to\mathcal{O}_{S}, $ thus giving an isomorphism $$\label{isom dual}
E_{-1}\simeq E_1^\vee.$$ Similarly, since $\mathcal{E}^\vee\simeq\mathcal{E}$ and $\Omega^1_{Q/S}\simeq
T_{Q/S}\otimes\omega_{Q/S}$, $p$-relative Serre duality yields a nondegenerate pairing $E_0\otimes E_0=R^1p_*(\mathcal{E}\otimes\Omega^1_{Q/S})\otimes
R^1p_*(\mathcal{E}\otimes\Omega^1_{Q/S})=
R^1p_*(\mathcal{E}\otimes\Omega^1_{Q/S})\otimes
R^1p_*(\mathcal{E}^\vee\otimes T_{Q/S}\otimes\omega_{Q/S})
\to R^2p_*\omega_{Q/S}=\mathcal{O}_{S}$. Therefore $E_0$ is self-dual, i.e. $E_0\simeq E_0^\vee$, and in particular $c_1(E_0)=0$.
Now, let $J$ denote the fiber product $Q\times_{S}Q$ with projections $Q\overset{pr_1}\leftarrow J\overset{pr_2}\to Q$ such that $p\circ
pr_1=p\circ pr_2$. Put $F_1\boxtimes F_2:=pr_1^*F_1\otimes pr_2^*F_2$ for sheaves $F_1$ and $F_2$ on $Q$, and consider the standard $\mathcal{O}_J$-resolution of the structure sheaf $\mathcal{O}_{\Delta}$ of the diagonal $\Delta\hookrightarrow J$ $$\label{resoln of diag}
0\to\mathcal{O}_Q(-1)\otimes
p^*\mathcal{O}_{S}(2)\boxtimes\mathcal{O}_Q(-2)\to
{\Omega^1}_{Q/S}(1)\boxtimes\mathcal{O}_Q(-1)\to\mathcal{O}_J\to
\mathcal{O}_{\Delta}\to0.$$ Twist this sequence by the sheaf $(\mathcal{E}\otimes\mathcal{O}_Q(-1))\boxtimes\mathcal{O}_Q(1)$ and apply the functor $R^ipr_{2*}$ to the resulting sequence. In view of (\[E\_i\]) and (\[R\_i\]) we obtain the following monad for $\mathcal{E}$: $$\label{monad1}
0\to p^*E_{-1}\otimes\mathcal{O}_Q(-1)\overset{\lambda}\to
p^*E_0\overset{\mu}
\to p^*E_1\otimes\mathcal{O}_Q(1)\to0,\ \ \ \ \ \ker(\mu)/{\rm
im}(\lambda)=\mathcal{E}.$$ Put $R:=p^*h$, where $h$ is the class of a line in $S$. Furthermore, set $H:=\sigma^*H_X$, $[\mathbb{P}_\alpha]:=\sigma^*[\mathbb{P}^2_\alpha]$, $[\mathbb{P}_\beta]:=\sigma^*[\mathbb{P}^2_\beta]$, where $H_X$ is the class of a hyperplane section of $X$ (via the Plücker embedding), and respectively, $[\mathbb{P}^2_\alpha]$ and $[\mathbb{P}^2_\beta]$ are the classes of an $\alpha$- and $\beta$-plane. Note that, clearly, $\mathcal{O}_Q(H)\simeq\mathcal{O}_Q(1)$. Thus, taking into account the duality (\[isom dual\]), we rewrite the monad (\[monad1\]) as $$\label{monad2}
0\to p^*E_1^\vee\otimes\mathcal{O}_Q(-H)\overset{\lambda}\to
p^*E_0\overset{\mu}\to p^*E_1\otimes\mathcal{O}_Q(H)\to0,\ \ \ \ \ \
\ker(\mu)/{\rm im}(\lambda)\simeq\mathcal{E}.$$ In particular, it becomes clear that [(\[monad1\])]{} is a relative version of the monad [(\[eqMonad\])]{}.
As a next step, we are going to express all Chern classes of the sheaves in (\[monad2\]) in terms of $a$. We start by writing down the Chern polynomials of the bundles $p^*E_1\otimes\mathcal{O}_Q(H)$ and $p^*E_1^\vee\otimes\mathcal{O}_Q(-H)$ in the form $$\label{Chern1}
c_t(p^*E_1\otimes\mathcal{O}_Q(H))=\prod_{i=1}^a(1+(\delta_i+H)t),\ \ \
c_t(p^*E_1^\vee\otimes\mathcal{O}_Q(-H))=\prod_{i=1}^a(1-(\delta_i+H)t),$$ where $\delta_i$ are the Chern roots of the bundle $p^*E_1$. Thus $$\label{c,d}
cR^2=\sum_{i=1}^a\delta_i^2,\ \ dR=\sum_{i=1}^a\delta_i.$$ for some $c,d\in\mathbb{Z}$. Next we invoke the following easily verified relations in $A^\cdot(Q)$: $$\label{rel in A(Q)}
H^4=RH^3=2[pt],\ \ \ R^2H^2=R^2[\mathbb{P}_\alpha]=
RH[\mathbb{P}_\alpha]=H^2[\mathbb{P}_\alpha]=RH[\mathbb{P}_\beta]=H^2[\mathbb{P}_\beta]=[pt],$$ $$[\mathbb{P}_\alpha][\mathbb{P}_\beta]=R^2[\mathbb{P}_\beta]=R^4=R^3H=0,$$ where $[pt]$ is the class of a point. This, together with (\[c,d\]), gives $$\label{sums}
\sum_{1\le i<j\le a}\delta_i^2\delta_j^2=
\sum_{1\le i<j\le a}(\delta_i^2\delta_j+\delta_i\delta_j^2)H=0,
\sum_{1\le i<j\le a}\delta_i\delta_jH^2=\frac{1}{2}(d^2-c)[pt],
\sum_{1\le i\le a}(\delta_i+\delta_j)H^3=2(a-1)d[pt].$$ Note that, since $c_1(E_0)=0$, $$\label{Chern2}
c_t(p^*E_0)=1+bR^2t^2$$ for some $b\in\mathbb{Z}$. Furthermore, $$\label{c_t(E)}
c_t(\mathcal{E})=1+a[\mathbb{P}_\alpha]t^2$$ by the condition of the Proposition. Substituting (\[Chern2\]) and (\[c\_t(E)\]) into the polynomial $f(t):=c_t(\mathcal{E})c_t(p^*E_1\otimes\mathcal{O}_Q(H))
c_t(p^*E_1^\vee\otimes\mathcal{O}_Q(-H))$, we have $f(t)=(1+a[\mathbb{P}_\alpha]t^2)\prod_{i=1}^a(1-(\delta_i+H)^2t^2)$. Expanding $f(t)$ in $t$ and using (\[c,d\])-(\[sums\]), we obtain $$\label{f(t)2}
f(t)=1+(a[\mathbb{P}_\alpha]-cR^2-2dRH-aH^2)t^2+e[pt]t^4,\ \ $$ where $$\label{e}
e=-3c-a(2d+a)+(a-1)(a+4d)+2d^2.$$ Next, the monad (\[monad2\]) implies $f(t)=c_t(p^*E_0)$. A comparison of (\[f(t)2\]) with (\[Chern2\]) yields $$\label{c_2}
c_2(\mathcal{E})=a[\mathbb{P}_\alpha]=(b+c)R^2+2dRH+aH^2,$$ $$\label{c_4}
e=c_4(p^*E_0)=0.$$ The relation (\[c\_4\]) is the crucial relation which enables us to express the Chern classes of all sheaves in (\[monad2\]) just in terms of $a$. More precisely, (\[c\_2\]) and (\[rel in A(Q)\]) give $0=c_2(\mathcal{E})[\mathbb{P}_\beta]=2d+a$, hence $a=-2d$. Substituting these latter equalities into (\[e\]) we get $e=-a(a-2)/2-3c$. Hence $c=-a(a-2)/6$ by (\[c\_4\]). Since $a=-2d$, (\[c,d\]) and the equality $c=-a(a-2)/6$ give $c_1(E_1)=-a/2,\ \ c_2(E_1)=(d^2-c)/2=a(5a-4)/24$. Substituting this into the standard formulas $e_k:=c_k(p^*E_1\otimes\mathcal{O}_Q(H))=\sum_{i=0}^2\binom{a-i}{k-i}R^iH^{k-i}c_i(E_1),
\ \ 1\le k\le4$, we obtain $$\label{ee_i}
e_1=-aR/2+aH,\ \ e_2=(5a^2/24-a/6)R^2+(a^2-a)(-RH+H^2)/2,$$ $$e_3=(5a^3/24-7a^2/12+a/3)R^2H+(-a^3/4+3a^2/4-a/2)RH^2+(a^3/6-a^2/2+a/3)H^3,$$ $$e_4=(-7a^4/144+43a^3/144-41a^2/72+a/3)[pt].$$ It remains to write down explicitely $c_2(p^*E_0)$: (\[rel in A(Q)\]), (\[c\_2\]) and the relations $a=-2d$, $c=-a(a-2)/6$ give $a=c_2(\mathcal{E})[\mathbb{P}_\alpha]=b+c,$ hence $$\label{c_2(E_0)}
c_2(E_0)=b=(a^2+4a)/6$$ by (\[Chern2\]).
Our next and final step will be to obtain a contradiction by computing the Euler characteristic of the sheaf $\mathcal{E}$ and two different ways. We first compute the Todd class ${\rm td}(T_Q)$ of the bundle $T_Q$. From the exact triple dual to (\[Euler\]) we find $c_t(T_{Q/S})=1+(-2R+3H)t+(2R^2-4RH+3H^2)t^2$. Next, $c_t(T_Q)=c_t(T_{Q/S})c_t(p^*T_S)$. Hence $c_1(T_Q)=R+3H,\ c_2(T_Q)=-R^2+5RH+3H^2,\ c_3(T_Q)=-3R^2H+9H^2R,\
c_4(T_Q)=9[pt].$ Substituting into the formula for the Todd class of $T_Q$, ${\rm
td}(T_Q)=1+\frac{1}{2}c_1+\frac{1}{12}(c_1^2+c_2)+\frac{1}{24}c_1c_2
-\frac{1}{720}(c_1^4-4c_1^2c_2-3c_2^2-c_1c_3+c_4)$, where $c_i:=c_i(T_Q)$ (see, e.g., [@H p.432]), we get $$\label{td(T_Q)}
{\rm
td}(T_Q)=1+\frac{1}{2}R+\frac{3}{2}H+\frac{11}{12}RH+H^2+\frac{1}{12}HR^2+
\frac{3}{4}H^2R+\frac{3}{8}H^3+[pt].$$ Next, by the hypotheses of Proposition $c_1(\mathcal{E})=0,\ c_2(\mathcal{E})=a[{\mathbb{P}}_{\alpha}],\
c_3(\mathcal{E})=c_4(\mathcal{E})=0$. Substituting this into the general formula for the Chern character of a vector bundle $F$, $${\rm
ch}(F)={\text{rk}}(F)+c_1+(c_1^2-2c_2)/2+(c_1^3-3c_1c_2-3c_3)/6+(c_1^4-4c_1^2c_2+4c_1c_3+2c_2^2-4c_4)/24, \ $$ $c_i:=c_i(F)$ (see, e.g., [@H p.432]), and using (\[td(T\_Q)\]), we obtain by the Riemann-Roch Theorem for $F=\mathcal{E}$ $$\label{chi(E)}
\chi(\mathcal{E})=\frac{1}{12}a^2-\frac{23}{12}a+2.$$ In a similar way, using (\[ee\_i\]), we obtain $$\label{chi(E1)+chi(E-1)}
\chi(p^*E_1\otimes\mathcal{O}_Q(H))+\chi(p^*E_1^\vee\otimes\mathcal{O}_Q(-H))=
\frac{5}{216}a^4-\frac{29}{216}a^3-\frac{1}{54}a^2+\frac{113}{36}a.$$ Next, in view of (\[c\_2(E\_0)\]) and the equality $c_1(E_0)=0$ the Riemann-Roch Theorem for $E_0$ easily gives $$\label{chi(E_0)}
\chi(p^*E_0)=\chi(E_0)=-\frac{1}{6}a^2+\frac{4}{3}a+2.$$ Together with (\[chi(E)\]) and (\[chi(E1)+chi(E-1)\]) this yields $$\Phi(a):=\chi(p^*E_0)-(\chi(\mathcal{E})+
\chi(p^*E_1\otimes\mathcal{O}_Q(H))+\chi(p^*E_1^\vee\otimes\mathcal{O}_Q(-H)))=
-\frac{5}{216}a(a-2)(a-3)(a-\frac{4}{5}).$$ The monad (\[monad2\]) implies now $\Phi(a)=0.$ The only positive integer roots of the polynomial $\Phi(a)$ are $a=2$ and $a=3$. However, (\[chi(E)\]) implies $\chi(\mathcal{E})=-\frac{3}{2}$ for $a=2$, and (\[chi(E\_0)\]) implies $\chi(p^*E_0)=\frac{9}{2}$ for $a=3$. This is a contradiction as the values of $\chi(\mathcal{E})$ and $\chi(p^*E_0)$ are integers by definition.
We need a last piece of notation. Consider the flag variety $Fl(k_m-2,k_m+2;V^{n_m})$. Any point $u=(V^{k_m-2},V^{k_m+2})\in {Fl}(k_m-2,k_m+2;V^{n_m})$ determines a standard extension $$\label{i_z}
i_{u}:\ X=G(2;4)\hookrightarrow X_m,$$ $$\label{eq}
W^2\mapsto V^{k_m-2}\oplus W^2\subset V^{k_m+2}\subset
V^{n_m}=V^{k_m-2}\oplus W^4\subset V^{n_m},$$ where $W^2\in X=G(2;W^4)$ and an isomorphism $V^{k_m-2}\oplus W^4\simeq
V^{k_m+2}$ is fixed (clearly $i_{u}$ does not depend on the choice of this isomorphism modulo ${\text{Aut}}(X_m)$). We clearly have isomorphisms of Chow groups $$\label{isomChow}
i_{u}^*:\ A^2(X_m)\overset{\sim}\to A^2(X),\ \ \
i_{u*}:\ A_2(X)\overset{\sim}\to A_2(X_m),$$ and the flag variety $Y_m:=Fl(k_m-1,k_m+1;V^{n_m})$ (respectively, $Y:=Fl(1,3;4)$) is the set of lines in $X_m$ (respectively, in $X$).
\[th56\] Let $\displaystyle{\mathbf{X}}= \lim_{\to}X_m$ be a twisted ind-Grassmannian. Then any vector bundle $\displaystyle{\mathbf{E}}=\lim_{\gets}E_m$ on ${\mathbf{X}}$ of rank 2 is trivial, and hence Conjecture \[con1\](iv) holds for vector bundles of rank 2.
Fix $m\ge\max\{m_0,m_1\},$ where $m_0$ and $m_1$ are as in Corollary \[d=(0,0)\] and Lemma \[c\_2(E\_m)=0\]. For $j=1,2$, let $E^{(j)}$ denote the restriction of $E_m$ to a projective plane of type $\mathbb{P}^2_{j,m}$, $T^j\simeq{Fl}(k_m-j,k_m+3-j,V^{n_m})$ be the variety of planes of the form $\mathbb{P}^2_{j,m}$ in $X_m$, and $\Pi^j:=\{\mathbb{P}^2_{j,m}\in T^j|\
{E_m}_{|\mathbb{P}^2_{j,m}}$ is properly unstable (i.e. not semistable)$\}.$ As semistability is an open condition, $\Pi^j$ is a closed subset of $T^j$.
\(i) Assume that $c_2(E^{(1)})>0$. Then, since $m\ge m_1$, Lemma \[c\_2(E\_m)=0\] implies $c_2(E^{(2)})\le0$.
(i.1) Suppose that $c_2(E^{(2)})=0$. If $\Pi^2\ne T^2$, then for any $\mathbb{P}^2_{2,m}\in T^2\smallsetminus \Pi^2$ the corresponding bundle $E^{(2)}$ is semistable, hence $E^{(2)}$ is trivial as $c_2(E^{(2)})=0$, see [@DL Prop. 2.3,(4)]. Thus, for a generic point $u\in
Fl(k_m-2,k_m+2;V^{n_m})$, the bundle $E=i_{u}^*E_m$ on $X=G(2;4)$ satisfies the conditions of Proposition \[not exist\], which is a contradiction.
We therefore assume $\Pi^2=T^2$. Then for any $\mathbb{P}^2_{2,m}\in
T^2$ the corresponding bundle $E^{(2)}$ has a maximal destabilizing subsheaf $0\to\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^2_{2,m}}(a)\to E^{(2)}.$ Moreover $a>0$. In fact, otherwise the condition $c_2(E^{(2)})=0$ would imply that $a=0$ and $E^{(2)}/\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^2_{2,m}}=\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^2_{2,m}}$, i.e. $E^{(2)}$ would be trivial, in particular semistable. Hence $$\label{a,-a}
\mathbf{d}_{E^{(2)}}=(a,-a).$$ Since any line in $X_m$ is contained in a plane $\mathbb{P}^2_{2,m}\in
T^2$, (\[a,-a\]) implies $\mathbf{d}_{E_m}=(a,-a)$ with $a>0$ for $m>m_0$, contrary to Corollary \[d=(0,0)\].
(i.2) Assume $c_2(E^{(2)})<0$. Since $E^{(2)}$ is not stable for any $\mathbb{P}^2_{2,m}\in T^2$, its maximal destabilizing subsheaf $0\to\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^2_{2,m}}(a)\to E^{(2)}$ clearly satisfies the condition $a>0$, i.e. $E^{(2)}$ is properly unstable, hence $\Pi^2=T^2$. Then we again obtain a contradiction as above.
\(ii) Now we assume that $c_2(E^{(2)})>0$. Then, replacing $E^{(2)}$ by $E^{(1)}$ and vice versa, we arrive to a contradiction by the same argument as in case (i).
\(iii) We must therefore assume $c_2(E^{(1)})=c_2(E^{(2)})=0$. Set $D(E_m):=\{l\in Y_m|~\mathbf{d}_{E_m}(l)\ne(0,0)\}$ and $D(E):=\{l\in
Y|~\mathbf{d}_E(l)\ne(0,0)\}$. By Corollary \[d=(0,0)\], $\mathbf{d}_{E_m}=(0,0),$ hence $\mathbf{d}_E=(0,0)$ for a generic embedding $i_u:X\hookrightarrow X_m$. Then by deformation theory [@B], $D(E_m)$ (respectively, $D(E)$) is an effective divisor on $Y_m$ (respectively, on $Y$). Hence, $\mathcal{O}_Y(D(E))=p_1^*\mathcal{O}_{Y^1}(a) \otimes
p_2^*\mathcal{O}_{Y^2}(b)$ for some $a,b\ge0$, where $p_1$, $p_2$ are as in diagram [(\[eqDiag\])]{}. Note that each fiber of $p_1$ (respectively, of $p_2$) is a plane $\tilde{\mathbb{P}}^2_{\alpha}$ dual to some $\alpha$-plane $\mathbb{P}^2_{\alpha}$ (respectively, a plane $\tilde{\mathbb{P}}^2_{\beta}$ dual to some $\beta$-plane $\mathbb{P}^2_{\beta}$). Thus, setting $D(E_{|\mathbb{P}^2_{\alpha}}):=\{l\in\tilde{\mathbb{P}}^2_{\alpha}|~\mathbf{d}_E(l)\ne(0,0)\}$, $D(E_{|\mathbb{P}^2_{\beta}}):=\{l\in\tilde{\mathbb{P}}^2_{\beta}|~\mathbf{d}_E(l)\ne(0,0)\}$, we obtain $\mathcal{O}_{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}^2_{\alpha}}(D(E_{|\mathbb{P}^2_{\alpha}}))=
\mathcal{O}_Y(D(E))_{|\tilde{\mathbb{P}}^2_{\alpha}}=
\mathcal{O}_{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}^2_{\alpha}}(b),\ \ \
\mathcal{O}_{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}^2_{\beta}}(D(E_{|\mathbb{P}^2_{\beta}}))=
\mathcal{O}_Y(D(E))_{|\tilde{\mathbb{P}}^2_{\beta}}=
\mathcal{O}_{\tilde{\mathbb{P}}^2_{\beta}}(a).$ Now if $E_{|\mathbb{P}^2_{\alpha}}$ is semistable, a theorem of Barth [@OSS Ch. II, Theorem 2.2.3] implies that $D(E_{|\mathbb{P}^2_{\alpha}})$ is a divisor of degree $c_2(E_{|\mathbb{P}^2_{\alpha}})=a$ on $\mathbb{P}^2_{\alpha}$. Hence $a=c_2(E^{(1)})=0$ for a semistable $E_{|\mathbb{P}^2_{\alpha}}$. If $E_{|\mathbb{P}^2_{\alpha}}$ is not semistable, it is unstable and the equality $\mathbf{d}_E(l)=(0,0)$ yields $\mathbf{d}_{E_{|\mathbb{P}^2_{\alpha}}}=(0,0)$. Then the maximal destabilizing subsheaf of $E_{|\mathbb{P}^2_{\alpha}}$ is isomorphic to $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^2_{\alpha}}$ and, since $c_2(E_{|\mathbb{P}^2_{\alpha}})=0,$ we obtain an exact triple $0\to\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^2_{\alpha}}\to
E_{|\mathbb{P}^2_{\alpha}}\to \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^2_{\alpha}}\to
0$, so that $E_{|\mathbb{P}^2_{\alpha}}\simeq\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^2_{\alpha}}^{\oplus2}$ is semistable, a contradiction. This shows that $a=0$ whenever $c_2(E^{(1)})=c_2(E^{(2)})=0$. Similarly, $b=0$. Therefore $D(E_m)=\emptyset$, and Proposition \[prop31\] implies that $E_m$ is trivial. Therefore $\mathbf{E}$ is trivial as well.
In [@DP] Conjecture \[con1\] (iv) was proved not only when $\mathbf{X}$ is a twisted projective ind-space, but also for finite rank bundles on special twisted ind-Grassmannians defined through certain homogeneous embeddings ${\varphi}_m$. These include embeddings of the form $$G(k;n)\to G(ka;nb)$$ $$V^k\subset V\mapsto V^k\otimes W^a\subset V\otimes W^b,$$ where $W^a\subset W^b$ is a fixed pair of finite-dimensional spaces with $a>b$, or of the form $$G(k;n)\to G\left(\frac{k(k+1)}{2};n^2\right)$$ $$V^k\subset V\mapsto S^2(V^k)\subset V\otimes V.$$ More precisely, Conjecture \[con1\] (iv) was proved in [@DP] for twisted ind-Grassmannians whose defining embeddings are homogeneous embeddings satisfying some specific numerical conditions relating the degrees $\deg{\varphi}_m$ with the pairs of integers $(k_m,n_m)$. There are many twisted ind-Grassmannians for which those conditions are not satisfied. For instance, this applies to the ind-Grassmannians defined by iterating each of the following embeddings: $$\begin{aligned}
G(k;n)\to G\left(\frac{k(k+1)}{2};\frac{n(n+1)}{2}\right)\\
V^k\subset V\mapsto S^2(V^k)\subset S^2(V), \\
G(k;n)\to G\left(\frac{k(k-1)}{2};\frac{n(n-1)}{2}\right)\\
V^k\subset V\mapsto \Lambda^2(V^k)\subset \Lambda^2(V).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore the resulting ind-Grassmannians $\mathbf G(k,n,S^2)$ and $\mathbf G (k,n,\Lambda^2)$ are examples of twisted ind-Grassmannians for which [Theorem \[th56\]]{} is new.
[MMMMM]{}
, On the geometry in codimension 2 in Grassmann manifolds, Lecture Notes in Math. 412 (1974), 1-35.
, Über holomorphe $\mathbb{P}_n$-bündel über $\mathbb{P}_1$, Math. Ann. [**157**]{} (1967), 351-382.
I. Coandă, G. Trautmann, The splitting criterion of Kempf and the Babylonian tower theorem, arXiv:math.AG/0411636 v1 29 Nov 2004.
, Ind-varieties of generalized flags as homogeneous spaces for classical ind-groups, IMRN 2004, no 55, 2935-2953
, Fibrés stables et fibrés exceptionnels sur $\mathbb{P}_2$, Ann. Sci. Ec. Norm. Supér. IV. Sér. [**18**]{} (1985), 193-243.
, [ Finite rank vector bundles on inductive limits of Grassmannians]{}, IMRN 2003, no 34, 1871-1887.
, [ A Bott-Borel-Weil theorem for direct limits of algebraic groups.]{} Amer. J. of Math. **124** (2002), 955-998.
, [ Intersection Theory,]{} Springer, Berlin, 1998.
, [ Algebraic Geometry,]{} Springer, New York, 1977.
, [ Vector Bundles on Complex Projective Spaces]{}, Birkhäuser, 1980.
I. Penkov, The Penrose transform on general Grassmannians, C. R. Acad. Bulg. des Sci. **22** (1980), 1439-1442.
, [On the decomposability of infinitely extendable vector bundles on projective spaces and Grassmann varieties,]{} J. Math. Kyoto Univ. **17** (1977), 127-150.
E. Sato, On infinitely extendable vector bundles on G/P, J. Math. Kyoto Univ. **19** (1979), 171-189.
A. N. Tyurin, Vector bundles of finite rank over infinite varieties, Math. USSR Izvestija **10** (1976), 1187-1204.
[^1]: International University Bremen prior to Spring 2007
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The low mass of the $\Lambda(1405)$ hyperon with $j^P = 1/2^-$, which is higher than the ground state $\Lambda(1116)$ mass by 290 MeV, is difficult to understand in quark models. We analyze the hyperon spectrum in the bound state approach of the Skyrme model that successfully describes both the $\Lambda(1116)$ and the $\Lambda(1405)$. This model predicts that several hyperon resonances of the same spin but with opposite parity form parity doublets that have a mass difference of around 300 MeV, which is indeed realized in the observed hyperon spectrum. Furthermore, the existence of the $\Xi(1620)$ and the $\Xi(1690)$ of $j^P=1/2^-$ is predicted by this model. Comments on the $\Omega$ baryons and heavy quark baryons are made as well.'
author:
- Yongseok Oh
date: 'Received: date / Accepted: date'
title: 'Hyperons analogous to the $\Lambda(1405)$'
---
Introduction
============
The low mass of the $\Lambda(1405)$ hyperon has been a puzzle when it is described as a $P$-wave three-quark state [@IK78a; @AMS94]. Instead, interpreting the $\Lambda(1405)$ as a $\bar{K}N$ bound state has been successful to understand various properties of the $\Lambda(1405)$ [@DT59; @AS62; @VJTB85]. It is then natural to search for other hyperons that have similar structure as the $\Lambda(1405)$. In this paper, we investigate hyperon spectrum in the bound state approach in the Skyrme model to search for the hyperons analogous to the $\Lambda(1405)$. We will also make a short comment on the heavy-flavored analog of the $\Lambda(1405)$.
In the bound state approach to the Skyrme model [@CK85], hyperons are described as bound states of the soliton and mesons carrying strangeness quantum number such as the kaon and the $K^*$ vector mesons. The underlying dynamics between the soliton and kaon is described by the Lagrangian of meson degrees of freedom. As shown in Ref. [@CK85], the Wess-Zumino term in an SU(3) chiral Lagrangian pushes up the $S=+1$ state and pulls down the $S=-1$ state. As a result, the $S=+1$ pentaquark $\Theta^+$ cannot be a bound state, while the $S=-1$ states correspond to the normal hyperons. We refer to Ref. [@PRM04] for further discussions on the $\Theta^+$ in this model. Furthermore, this model renders two kinds of bound state, one in $P$-wave and one in $S$-wave. The $P$-wave state is strongly bound and, when quantized, it gives the ground states of hyperons with $j^P = 1/2^+$ and $3/2^+$. On the other hand, the $S$-wave state is an excited state and, when quantized, it corresponds to the $\Lambda(1405)$ with $j^P = 1/2^-$. Therefore, this model gives a natural way to describe both the $\Lambda(1116,1/2^+)$ and the $\Lambda(1405,1/2^-)$ on the same ground [@SSG95].
Here, we present the results on the hyperon spectrum based on this approach. We found that there exists a pattern in the hyperon spectrum, which can be verified by the measured hyperon masses. In particular, the predicted $\Xi$ and $\Omega$ spectra are very different from the quark model predictions and can explain several puzzles in hyperon spectrum, which can be further tested by experiments at current accelerator facilities.
Hyperon Spectrum
================
There have been many models on the structure of hyperons, mostly based on quark dynamics. As shown in Table \[tab:xi-omega\], the hyperon mass spectrum have been predicted by various models. It reveals that the predictions are highly model-dependent and all these quark models leave a puzzle on the low mass of the $\Xi(1620)$ and the $\Xi(1690)$, which is very similar to the puzzle of the $\Lambda(1405)$. In the bound state approach in the Skyrme model, the mass of a hyperon with isospin $i$ and spin $j$ is written as [@Oh07] $$\begin{aligned}
M(i,j,j_m^{}) &=& M_{\rm sol} + n_1^{} \omega_1^{} + n_2^{} \omega_2^{}
\nonumber \\ && \mbox{}
+ \frac{1}{2\mathcal{I}} \Biggl\{
i(i+1) + c_1^{} c_2^{} j_m^{}(j_m^{}+1)
+ (\bar{c}_1^{} - c_1^{} c_2^{}) j_1^{}(j_1^{}+1)
+ (\bar{c}_2^{} - c_1^{} c_2^{}) j_2^{}(j_2^{}+1)
\nonumber \\ && \mbox{} \qquad +
\frac{c_1^{}+c_2^{}}{2} [j(j+1) - j_m^{}(j_m^{}+1) - i(i+1)]
+ \frac{c_1^{} - c_2^{}}{2} \, \vec{R} \cdot (\vec{J}_1 - \vec{J}_2)
\Biggr\},
\label{eq:mass0}\end{aligned}$$ where $\vec{J}_1$ and $\vec{J}_2$ are the grand spins of the $P$-wave and $S$-wave kaon, respectively, and $\vec{J}_m = \vec{J}_1 + \vec{J}_2$. The total spin of the system is then given by $\vec{J} = \vec{J}_{\rm sol} + \vec{J}_m$, where $\vec{J}_{\rm sol}$ is the soliton spin. The number and energy of the bound kaons are $n_i$ and $\omega_i$, respectively, and $c_i$ are the hyperfine splitting constants of the bound states. This mass formula consists of three parts. The soliton mass $M_{\rm sol}$ is of $O(N_c)$, where $N_c$ is the number of color, the energy of the bound kaon is of $O(N_c^0)$, and the hyperfine term is of $O(1/N_c)$. Therefore, the mass splitting between the $\Lambda(1405)$ and the $\Lambda(1116)$ mainly comes from the energy difference between the $P$-wave kaon and the $S$-wave kaon, In the simple model of Ref. [@CK85], $\omega_2 - \omega_1$ was estimated to be about 200 MeV [@SSG95], while its empirical value is about 300 MeV.
-------------------------- -------- -------- -------- ------------- -------- -------- --------
State CIK CI GR Large-$N_c$ BIL QCD-SR PR
\[3pt\] $\Xi(\frac12^+)$ $1325$ $1305$ $1320$ $1334$ $1320$ $1325$
$1695$ $1840$ $1798$ $1825$ $1727$ $1891$
$1950$ $2040$ $1947$ $1839$ $1932$ 2014
$\Xi(\frac32^+)$ $1530$ $1505$ $1516$ $1524$ $1520$
$1930$ $2045$ $1886$ $1854$ $1878$ $1934$
$1965$ $2065$ $1947$ $1859$ $1979$ $2020$
$\Xi(\frac12^-)$ $1785$ $1755$ $1758$ $1780$ $1869$ $1550$ $1725$
$1890$ $1810$ $1849$ $1922$ $1932$ $1811$
$1925$ $1835$ $1889$ $1927$ $2076$
$\Xi(\frac32^-)$ $1800$ $1785$ $1758$ $1815$ $1828$ $1840$ $1759$
$1910$ $1880$ $1849$ $1973$ $1869$ $1826$
$1970$ $1895$ $1889$ $1980$ $1932$
$\Omega(\frac12^+)$ $2190$ $2220$ $2068$ $2408$ $2085$ $2175$
$2210$ $2255$ $2166$ $2219$ $2191$
$\Omega(\frac32^+)$ $1675$ $1635$ $1651$ $1670$ $1656$
$2065$ $2165$ $2020$ $1922$ $1998$ $2170$
$2215$ $2280$ $2068$ $2120$ $2219$ $2182$
$\Omega(\frac12^-)$ $2020$ $1950$ $1991$ $2061$ $1989$ $1923$
$\Omega(\frac32^-)$ $2020$ $2000$ $1991$ $2100$ $1989$ $1953$
-------------------------- -------- -------- -------- ------------- -------- -------- --------
: \[tab:xi-omega\] Low-lying $\Xi$ and $\Omega$ baryon spectrum of spin $1/2$ and $3/2$ predicted by the non-relativistic quark model of Chao et al. (CIK) [@CIK81], relativized quark model of Capstick and Isgur (CI) [@CI86], Glozman-Riska model (GR) [@GR96b], large $N_c$ analysis [@CC00; @SGS02; @GSS03; @MS04b; @MS06b], algebraic model (BIL) [@BIL00], QCD sum rules (QCD-SR) [@LL02], and the recent nonrelativistic quark model of Pervin and Roberts (PR) [@PR07]. The mass is given in the unit of MeV.
In principle, the mass parameters in Eq. (\[eq:mass0\]) should be calculated for a given dynamics of the meson-soliton system. However, this is highly nontrivial because of the complexity of the hadron dynamics. Instead, we fit the parameters to some known hyperon masses and predict the masses of other hyperons. The results obtained in this way are given in Table \[tab:mass\]. In this model, the parity of a hyperon changes if the $P$-wave kaon is replaced by the $S$-wave kaon. Since the energy difference between the two kaons is about 300 MeV, there are pairs of hyperons of having same spin and the opposite parity having a mass difference of about 300 MeV. Since the mass of the ground state of the $\Xi(1/2^+)$ is 1318 MeV, we can expect to have a $\Xi(1/2^-)$ state at a mass of about 1618 MeV. In our model, there exist two $\Xi$ states of this mass. This is because the two kaons, one in $P$-wave and one in $S$-wave, can make either $j_m = 0$ or $j_m = 1$. When combined with the soliton spin $j_{\rm sol} = 1/2$, these states give two $j=1/2$ states and one $j=3/2$ state. This explains naturally the existence of two $\Xi$ baryons with $j^P = 1/2^-$ that have similar masses. In fact, there are candidates for these two $\Xi$ baryons in PDG [@PDG10]: the one-star rated $\Xi(1620)$ and the three-star rated $\Xi(1690)$. However, since the observation of the $\Xi(1620)$ at early 1980s [@HACN81], there is no other experimental confirmation of this state. Instead, several experiments reported no signal of this state [@PDG10]. Therefore, it is strongly required to resolve this issue urgently at current experimental facilities. (See Ref. [@CLAS07b] for a recent experiment for $\Xi$ baryons.)
----------------------- -------------------- -----------------
Particle Name Mass (MeV) Assigned State
\[3pt\] $N$ $\underline{939}$
$\Delta$ $\underline{1232}$
$\Lambda (\frac12^+)$ $\underline{1116}$ $\Lambda(1116)$
$\Lambda (\frac12^-)$ $\underline{1405}$ $\Lambda(1405)$
$\Sigma (\frac12^+)$ $1164$ $\Sigma(1193)$
$\Sigma (\frac32^+)$ $\underline{1385}$ $\Sigma(1385)$
$\Sigma (\frac12^-)$ $1475$ $\Sigma(1480)?$
$\Sigma (\frac32^-)$ $1663$ $\Sigma(1670)$
$\Xi (\frac12^+)$ $\underline{1318}$ $\Xi(1318)$
$\Xi (\frac32^+)$ $1539$ $\Xi(1530)$
$\Xi (\frac12^-)$ $1616(1614*)$ $\Xi(1620)?$
$\Xi (\frac12^-)$ $1658(1660*)$ $\Xi(1690)?$
$\Xi (\frac32^-)$ $\underline{1820}$ $\Xi(1820)$
$\Xi (\frac12^+)$ $1932$ $\Xi(1950)?$
$\Xi (\frac32^+)$ $\underline{2120}$ $\Xi(2120)?$
$\Omega (\frac32^+)$ $1694$ $\Omega(1672)$
$\Omega (\frac12^-)$ $1837$
$\Omega (\frac32^-)$ $1978$
$\Omega (\frac12^+)$ $2140$
$\Omega (\frac32^+)$ $2282$ $\Omega(2250)?$
$\Omega (\frac32^-)$ $2604$
----------------------- -------------------- -----------------
: \[tab:mass\] Mass spectrum of our model. The underlined values are used to determine the mass parameters. The values with the $*$ symbol are obtained by considering the mixing effect. The question mark after the particle name means that the spin-parity quantum numbers are not identified by the Particle Data Group (PDG).
The above analysis reveals that the $\Xi(1620)$ and the $\Xi(1690)$ are analogue states of the $\Lambda(1405)$. Recently, the BABAR Collaboration claimed that the spin-parity of the $\Xi(1690)$ is $1/2^-$ [@BABAR08], which supports our prediction. On the other hand, by replacing two $P$-wave kaons in the $\Xi(1382)$ and in the $\Xi(1530)$, we predict that the $\Xi(1950)$ has $j^P=1/2^+$ and the $\Xi(2120)$ has $j^P=3/2^+$. Their spin-parity quantum numbers are not known yet and should be identified by future experiments.
Comparing the predictions presented in Tables \[tab:xi-omega\] and \[tab:mass\] shows that our prediction on the $\Omega$ hyperon spectrum is drastically different from the quark model predictions. In quark models, the second lowest $\Omega$ hyperon has a mass of around 2 GeV. In our model, the second state has a mass of around 1840 MeV and $j^P = 1/2^-$. Again, we can find that this low mass of the $\Omega$ excited state can hardly be explained by quark models. Thus, it is very interesting to see whether such low mass $\Omega$ hyperon really exists. Furthermore, most quark models predict that the lowest $\Omega$ baryon with $j^P=1/2^-$ is degenerate or almost degenerate in mass with the lowest $\Omega$ baryon with $j^P = 3/2^-$, which is in contradiction to our predictions. These inconsistency with quark model predictions can be tested by future experiments.
If we extend our model to heavy quark baryons [@RRS92], we can also find a similar pattern in charm and bottom baryon spectra. Here, one should take into account the center-of-mass problem because of the heavy mass of the charm or bottom meson. In Ref. [@OP97], the binding energies of the soliton–heavy-meson system were calculated in the rest frame of the heavy meson, which shows that the energy difference between the positive parity state and the negative parity state is again close to 300 MeV, which can explain the observed mass difference between the $\Lambda_c(2286)$ of $j^P = 1/2^+$ and the $\Lambda_c(2595)$ of $j^P = 1/2^-$. In quark models, the mass difference between the two states are estimated to be $250 \sim 350$ MeV depending on the details of the model on the quark dynamics [@CI86; @RP08]. Therefore, more detailed studies are needed to clarify the structure of the $\Lambda_c(2595)$.
Summary
=======
We have analyzed hyperon excited states in the bound state approach in the Skyrme model. This model can explain both the $\Lambda(1116)$ and the $\Lambda(1405)$ on the same footing. We found that the $\Xi(1620)$ and the $\Xi(1690)$ can be regarded as the analogous states of the $\Lambda(1405)$. This model also gives predictions on $\Omega$ hyperons that are very different from quark model predictions. However, there is almost no experimental information on the spectrum of $\Omega$ baryons. Therefore, detailed studies on the excited states of $\Xi$ and $\Omega$ baryons at current experimental facilities are highly required.
The author is grateful to B.-Y. Park for fruitful discussions. This work was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (Grant 2010-0009381).
[10]{}
Isgur, N., Karl, G.: $P$–wave baryons in the quark model. Phys. Rev. D **18**, 4187 (1978). Arima, M., Matsui, S., Shimizu, K.: $\Lambda(1405)$ and meson-baryon interactions in a quark model. Phys. Rev. C **49**, 2831 (1994). Dalitz, R. H., Tuan, S. F.: Possible resonant state in pion-hyperon scattering. Phys. Rev. Lett. **2**, 425 (1959). Arnold, R. C., Sakurai, J. J.: Vector mesons and the $KN$, $\bar{K}N$ interactions. Phys. Rev. **128**, 2808 (1962). Veit, E. A., Jennings, B. K., Thomas, A. W., Barrett, R. C.: $S$-wave meson-nucleon scattering in an SU(3) cloudy bag model. Phys. Rev. D **31**, 1033 (1985). Callan, C. G., Klebanov, I.: Bound-state approach to strangeness in the Skyrme model. Nucl. Phys. B **262**, 365 (1985). Park, B.-Y., Rho, M., Min, D.-P.: Kaon-soliton bound state approach to pentaquark states. Phys. Rev. D **70**, 114026 (2004). Schat, C. L., Scoccola, N. N., Gobbi, C.: $\Lambda(1405)$ in the bound-state soliton model. Nucl. Phys. A **585**, 627 (1995). Oh, Y.: $\Xi$ and $\Omega$ baryons in the Skyrme model. Phys. Rev. D **75**, 074002 (2007). Chao, K.-T., Isgur, N., Karl, G.: Strangeness $-2$ and $-3$ baryons in a quark model with chromodynamics. Phys. Rev. D **23**, 155 (1981). Capstick, S., Isgur, N.: Baryons in a relativized quark model with chromodynamics. Phys. Rev. D **34**, 2809 (1986). Glozman, L. ., Riska, D. O.: The spectrum of the nucleons and the strange hyperons and chiral dynamics. Phys. Rep. **268**, 263 (1996). Carlson, C. E., Carone, C. D.: Predictions for decays of radially excited baryons. Phys. Lett. B **484**, 260 (2000). Schat, C. L., Goity, J. L., Scoccola, N. N.: Masses of the $70^-$ baryons in large $N_c$ QCD. Phys. Rev. Lett. **88**, 102002 (2002). Goity, J. L. , Schat, C., Scoccola, N. N.: Analysis of the $[56,2^+]$ baryon masses in the $1/N_c$ expansion. Phys. Lett. B **564**, 83 (2003). Matagne, N., Stancu, .: The $[56,4^+]$ baryons in the $1/N_c$ expansion. Phys. Rev. D **71**, 014010 (2005). Matagne, N., Stancu, .: Masses of $[70,\ell^+]$ baryons in the $1/N_c$ expansion. Phys. Rev. D **74**, 034014 (2006). Bijker, R., Iachello, F., Leviatan, A.: Algebraic models of hadron structure. Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) **284**, 89 (2000). Lee F. X., Liu, X.: Predictive ability of QCD sum rules for excited baryons. Phys. Rev. D **66**, 014014 (2002). Pervin M., Roberts, W.: Strangeness $-2$ and $-3$ baryons in a constituent quark model. Phys. Rev. C **77**, 025202 (2008). Hassall, J. K., et al.: Production of $S = -2$ and $-3$ baryon states in $6.5$-GeV/$c$ $K^-p$ interactions. Nucl. Phys. B **189**, 397 (1981). Nakamura, K., et al. (Particle Data Group): Review of particle physics. J. Phys. G **37**, 075021 (2010). Guo, L., et al. (CLAS Collaboration): Cascade production in the reactions $\gamma p \to K^+K^+(X)$ and $\gamma p \to K^+K^+\pi^-(X)$. Phys. Rev. C **76**, 025208 (2007). Aubert, B., et al. (BABAR Collaboration): Measurement of the spin of the $\Xi(1530)$ resonance. Phys. Rev. D **78**, 034008 (2008). Rho, M., Riska, D. O., Scoccola, N. N.: The energy levels of the heavy flavour baryons in the topological soliton model. Z. Phys. A **341**, 343 (1992). Oh, Y., Park, B.-Y.; Solitons bound to heavy mesons. Z. Phys. A **359**, 83 (1997). Roberts, W., Pervin, M.: Heavy baryons in a quark model. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A **23**, 2817 (2008).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Although various limits on the predicability of physical phenomena as well as on physical knowables are commonly established and accepted, we challenge their ultimate validity. More precisely, we claim that fundamental limits arise only from our limited imagination and fantasy. To illustrate this thesis we give evidence that the well-known Turing incomputability barrier can be trespassed via quantum indeterminacy. From this algorithmic viewpoint, the “fine tuning” of physical phenomena amounts to a “(re)programming” of the universe.'
author:
- 'Cristian S. Calude'
- Karl Svozil
title: |
Is Feasibility in Physics Limited by Fantasy Alone?[^1]
\
---
Take a few moments for some anecdotal recollections. Nuclear science has made true the ancient alchemic dream of producing gold from other elements such as mercury through nuclear reactions. A century ago, similar claims would have disqualified anybody presenting them as quack. Medical chemistry discovered antibiotics which cure Bubonic plague, tuberculosis, syphilis, bacterial pneumonia, as well as a wide range of bacterial infectious diseases which were considered untreatable only one hundred years ago. For contemporaries it is hard to imagine the kind of isolation, scarcity in international communication, entertainment and transportation most of our ancestors had to cope with.
This historic anecdotal evidence suggests that what is considered tractable, operational and feasible depends on time. One could even extend speculations to the point where everything that is imaginable is also feasible. In what follows, we shall concentrate on some physical issues which might turn out to become relevant in the no–so–distant future, and which might affect the life of the generations succeeding ours to a considerable degree. In particular, we shall consider the connections between time, space and the limit velocity of light in vacuum; we shall ponder upon measurement; and we shall discuss physical indeterminism and randomness, and its relations to the possibility of trespassing the Turing incomputability barrier.
Space-time
==========
One of the findings of special relativity theory is the impossibility to trespass the speed of light barrier “from below;” i.e., by starting out with subluminal speed. This fundamental limit applies also to communication and information transfer. Amazingly, this holds true even when quantum mechanics and “nonlocal quantum correlations” are taken into account, stimulating a notion of “peaceful coexistence” between quantum mechanics and special relativity theory. Thereby, superluminal particles, as well as the inclusion of field theoretic effects such as an index of refraction smaller than unity, supercavitation in the quantum ether, or general relativistic effects by locally rotating masses, wormholes or local contraction and expansion of space-time, possibly also related to time travel, to name but a few, cannot be excluded [*a priory.*]{}
Recent operational definitions of space-time and velocity, in order to physically represent the former, conventionalised the latter: Initially, the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuum in all reference frames was treated as an empirical fact. Since 1983 it has been frame-invariantly standardised by [*Resolution Number 1*]{} of the [*17th Conf[é]{}rence G[é]{}n[é]{}rale des Poids et Mesures (CGPM)*]{} in which the following SI [*(International System of Units)*]{} operational definition of the meter has been adopted: [*“The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.”*]{} As a result, the empirical fact associated with this convention, as predicted by relativity theory, is the proposition that the length of a solid body depends neither on its spatial orientation, nor on the inertial frame where that body is at rest [@peres-84].
Indeed, by a theorem of incidence geometry [@lester], linear Lorenz-type transformations follow from the frame-invariant standardisation of the velocity of light alone and appear to be a formal consequence of the conventions adopted by the SI. In such an approach, the physics resides in the invariance of Maxwell’s equations and the equations of motion in general, as well as in the invariance of all physical measures based on matter stabilised by them, such as the length or duration of a space or time scale. This, after all, suits the spirit of Einstein’s original 1905 paper, which starts out with conventions defining simultaneity and then proceeds with kinematics and by unifying electric and magnetic phenomena. Of course, for the sake of principle, everybody is free to choose other “limiting speeds,” thereby implicitly sacrificing the form invariant representation of the equations of motion in inertial frames dominated and stabilised by electromagnetic interactions. In this way it would also not be difficult to adopt special relativity to findings of higher signalling and travel speeds than the velocity of light in vacuum.
Since antiquity, natural philosophers and scientists have pondered about the (in)finite divisibility of space-time, about its (dis)continuity, and about the (im)possibility of motion. In more recent times, the ancient Eleatic arguments ascribed to Parmenides and Zeno of Elea have been revived to “construct” accelerated computations [@weyl:49] which serve as one of the main paradigms of the fast growing field of hypercomputation.
The most famous argument ascribed to Zeno is the impossibility for “Achilles” to overtake a turtle if the turtle is granted to start some finite distance ahead of Achilles, even though the turtle moves, say, one hundred times slower than Achilles: for in the finite time it takes Achilles to reach the turtle’s start position, it has already moved away from it and is still a (tenth of the original) finite distance apart from Achilles. Now, if Achilles tries to reach that new point in space, the turtle has made its way to another point and is still apart from Achilles. Achilles’ vain attempts to reach and overtake the turtle could be considered [*ad infinitum*]{}; with him coming ever closer to the turtle but never reaching it. By a similar argument, there could not be any motion, because in order to move from one spatial point to another, one would have first to cross half-distance; and in order to be able to do this, the half-distance of the half-distance, $\ldots$ again [*ad infinitum.*]{} It might seem that because of the infinite divisibility of space, unrestricted motion within it is illusory because of this impossibility.
The modern-day “solution” of this seemingly impossible endeavour to move ahead of a slower object resides in the fact that it takes Achilles an ever decreasing outer (extrinsic, exterior) time to reach the turtle’s previous position; so that if one takes “the limit” by summing up all infinitely many outer space and time intervals, Achilles meets (and overtakes) the turtle in finite outer time, thereby approaching an infinity of space-time points. Of course, Achilles’ approach is even then modelled by an infinite number of steps or trip segments, which can be used to create an inner (intrinsic) discrete temporal counter. If this inner counter could in some form be associated with the cycle of an otherwise conventional universal computer such as a universal Turing machine or a universal cellular automaton [@zuse-67; @wolfram-2002], then these “machines” might provide “oracles” for “infinite computations.” In this respect, the physics of space and time, and computer science intertwine.
The accelerated Turing machine (sometimes called Zeno machine) is a Turing machine working in a computational space analogue to Zeno’s scenario. More precisely, an accelerated Turing machine is a Turing machine that operates in a universe with two clocks: for the exterior clock each step is executed in a unit of time (we assume that steps are in some sense identical except for the time taken for their execution) while for the inner clock it takes $2^{-n}$ units of time (say seconds) to perform its $n$th step. Accelerated Turing machines have been implicitly described by Weyl in 1927 and studied in many papers and books.
Because an accelerated Turing machine can run an infinite number of steps (as measured by the exterior clock) in one unit of time (according to the inner clock), such a mechanism may compute incomputable functions, for example, the characteristic function of the halting problem.
How feasible are these types of computation? This is not an easy question, so not surprisingly there is no definitive answer. One way to look at this question is to study the relation between computational time and space. As expected, there is a similarity between computational time and space; however, this parallel is not perfect. For example, it is not true that an accelerated Turing machine which uses unbounded space has to use an infinite space for some input. An accelerated Turing machine that uses a finite space (not necessarily bounded) for all inputs computes a [*computable function*]{} (the function is not necessarily computed by the same machine) [@calude-staiger-09]. Hence, if an accelerated Turing machine computes an incomputable function, then the machine has to use an infinite set of configurations for infinitely many inputs. Re-phrasing, going beyond Turing barrier with an accelerated Turing machine requires an infinite computational space (even if the computational time is finite); the computational space can be bounded (embedded in the unit interval), but cannot be made finite. Do we have such a space? It seems that relativistic computation offers a physical model.
Measurement
===========
Another challenging question has emerged in the quantum mechanical context but it equally applies for all reversible systems: what is an irreversible measurement? Because if the quantum evolution is uniformly unitary and thus strictly reversible, what is to be considered the separated “measurement object” and the “measurement apparatus” can be “wrapped together” in a bigger system containing both, together with the “Cartesian cut;” i.e., the environment supporting communication between these two entities. Any such bigger system is then uniformly describable by quantum mechanics, resulting in total reversibility of whatever might be considered intrinsically and subjectively as a “measurement.” This in turn results in the principal impossibility of any irreversible measurement (not ruling out decoherence “fapp;” i.e., for all practical purposes); associated with the possibility to “reconstruct” a physical state prior to measurement; and to “undo” the measurement [@hkwz]. The quantum state behaves just as in Schrödinger’s interpretation of the $\Psi$ function as a [*catalogue of expectation values:*]{} this catalogue can only be “opened and read” at a single page; yet it may be “closed” again by “using up” all knowledge obtained so far, and then reopened at another page.
Two related types of unknowables which have emerged in the quantum context are complementarity and value indefiniteness. [*Complementarity*]{} is the impossibility to measure two or more observables instantaneously with arbitrary accuracy: in the extreme case, measurement of one observable annihilates the possibility to measure another observable, and [*vice versa.*]{} Despite attempts to reduce this feature to a “completable” incompleteness of the quantum formalism, and thus to temporary epistemological deficiencies, the hypothetical “quantum veil,” possibly hiding the “physical existence” of the multitude of all conceivable (complementary) observables, has maintained its impermeability until today.
As new evidence emerged, the lack of classical comprehensibility has gotten even worse: whereas quasi-classical systems—such as generalised urn or finite automaton models [@svozil-2008-ql]—feature complementarity, some quantised systems with more than two measurement outcomes cannot be thought of as possessing any global “truth function.” As the Kochen-Specker theorem [@specker-60; @kochen1] shows, they are [*value indefinite*]{} in the sense that there exist (even finite) sets of observables which, under the hypothesis of non-contextuality, cannot have definite values independent of the type of measurement actually being performed. The contradiction can be pinned down to the fact that quantum mechanical observables need not be commutative, making it impossible to embed, under the given assumption, the algebra of these observables in a commutative algebra. Some prefer a resolution in terms of [*contextual*]{} realism: measurement values “exist” irrespective of their “actual measurement,” but they depend on what other observables are measured alongside of them. Another possibility is to abandon classical omniscience and assume that an “elementary” quantum system is only capable of expressing a [*single*]{} bit (or dit for $d$ potential measurement outcomes) [@zeil-99] or context; all other conceivable measurements are mediated by a measurement apparatus capable of context translation.
Indeterminacy and hypercomputability
====================================
In 1926, Max Born stated that (cf. [@born-26-1 p. 866], English translation in [@wheeler-Zurek:83 p. 54])
> [*“From the standpoint of our quantum mechanics, there is no quantity which in any individual case causally fixes the consequence of the collision; but also experimentally we have so far no reason to believe that there are some inner properties of the atom which condition a definite outcome for the collision. Ought we to hope later to discover such properties \[\[$\ldots$\]\] and determine them in individual cases? Or ought we to believe that the agreement of theory and experiment — as to the impossibility of prescribing conditions? I myself am inclined to give up determinism in the world of atoms.”* ]{}
Born’s departure from the [*principle of sufficient reason*]{} — stating that every phenomenon has its explanation and cause — by postulating irreducible randomness [@zeil-05_nature_ofQuantum] in the physical sciences did not specify formally the type of “indeterminism” involved. More recent findings related to the Boole-Bell, Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger as well as Kochen-Specker theorems for Hilbert spaces of dimension three onwards derive physical indeterminism from value indefiniteness.
Since indeterminism and randomness are defined by algorithmic “lawlessness” and “incompressibility” [@chaitin:01] any physical system featuring indeterminism and randomness cannot be simulated by a universal computer; it “outperforms” any known computing machinery in terms of unpredictability. Physical value indefiniteness and randomness can thus be seen as valuable resources capable of serving as “oracles” for example, for Monte Carlo methods and primality testing requiring them. Indeterminism becomes an [*asset*]{} rather than a deficiency.
Contemporary realisations of quantum random number generators involve beam splitters. Thereby it should be noted that lossless beam splitters are reversible devices formalised by unitary transformations, and that the single photons used constitute a two-dimensional Hilbert space which may be “protected” from cryptanalytic attacks “lifting the hypothetic quantum veil” by quantum complementarity only.
Imperfections in measurements are typically corrected with von Neumann’s procedure of normalisation — “compressing” a bit sequence [*via*]{} the map $00$,$11 \mapsto \{\}$ (00 and 11 are discarded), $01 \mapsto 0$, and $10 \mapsto 1$. The algorithm works under the hypotheses of independence and stationarity of the original sequence, conditions which may not be satisfied in beam splitting experiments—for instance due to multiparticle statistics like the Hanbury Brown and Twiss effect.
Some quantum systems are protected by value indefiniteness grounded in the Kochen-Specker theorem from Hilbert space dimensions three onwards. As the Kochen-Specker theorem requires complementarity, but the converse implication is not true, it follows that a system of two entangled photons in a singlet state or systems with three or more measurement outcomes may be more suitable for generating quantum random bits. Getting more than two outcomes is not problematic as, if in a sequence of random elements drawn from an alphabet with $n>2$ symbols a fixed symbol is systematically removed, the resulting sequence is still random (over an alphabet of $n-1$ symbols).
Reprogramming the universe
==========================
In the Pythagorean tradition, the universe computes. Thus any method and measure to change its behaviour amounts to (re)programming. If one remains within this metaphor, the character and “plasticity” of the “substratum” software and hardware needs to be exploited. Presently, the Church-Turing thesis confines the universe to universal computability formalised by recursion theory, but is it conceivable that some physical processes transcend this realm?
Arguably, the most (in)famous result in theoretical computer science is Turing’s theorem saying that it is undecidable to determine whether a general computer program will halt or not. This is formally known as the *halting problem*. More precisely, there is no computer program [halt]{} which given as input an arbitrary program [p]{} runs a finite-time computation and returns 1 if [p]{} eventually stops and 0 if [p]{} never stops (here we use a fixed universal Turing machine to run programs).
There are two essential conditions imposed on [halt]{}: a) [halt]{} has to stop on every input, b) [halt]{} returns the correct answer. It is easy to construct a program [halt]{} that satisfies the above two conditions for many very, very large sets of programs, even for infinite sets of programs, but [*not*]{}, as Turing proved, for [*all*]{} programs.
So, one way to trespass the Turing barrier is to provide a a physical mechanism which computes the function [halt]{} discussed above. There are many proposals for such devices.. Let’s first present a negative result: using an information-theoretic argument, the possibility of having access to a time-travel machine would not solve the halting problem, unless one could travel back and forth in time at a pace exceeding the growth of any computable function.
Would some quantum processes transcend the Turing barrier? Surprisingly, the answer is yes [@2008-cal-svo], and the main reason is the incomputability of quantum randomness.
Quantum randomness appears to occur in two different scenarios: (i) the complete impossibility to predict or explain the occurrence of certain [*single*]{} events and measurement outcomes from any kind of operational causal connection; the hidden “parameter models” for the quantum phenomena which have been proposed so far do not provide more insight for the predictions of intrinsic observers embedded in the system; and (ii) the concatenation of such single quantum random events forms sequences of random bits which can be expected to be equivalent stochastically to white noise. White noise carries the least correlations, as the occurrence of a particular bit value in a binary expansion does not depend on previous or future bits of that expansion. We concentrate on the second scenario and assume the following hypotheses:
- The single outcome, from which quantum random sequences are formed, occurs unbiased; i.e., for the $i$th outcome $x_{i}$, there is a 50:50 probability for either 0 or 1: $$\begin{array}{l}
\textrm{Prob}(x_i=0)
=
\textrm{Prob}(x_i=1)
={1\over 2}\raisebox{0.5ex}{.}
\end{array}$$
- There is a total independence of previous history, such that no correlation exists between $x_i$ and previous or future outcomes. This means that the system carries no memories of previous or expectations of future events. All outcomes are temporally “isolated” and free from control, influence and determination. They are both unbiased and self-contained.
Assume that we have a quantum experiment which at each stage produces a quantum random bit, and we assume that this experiment is run for ever generating an infinite binary sequence: $$\label{qrand}
X =x_1x_2x_3\cdots x_i \cdots$$
In this scenario, the first condition shows that the limiting frequency of 0 and 1 in the sequence $X$ is $1/2$. Locally, we might record significant deviations, i.e., $X$ may well start with a million of 1’s, but in the limit these discrepancies disappear.
The “lack of correlations” postulated above is more difficult to understand. First, [*finite correlations*]{} will always exist, because of the asymptotic nature of “randomness”. Secondly, even [*infinite correlations*]{} cannot be eliminated because they have been proven to exist in [*every infinite sequence*]{}; for example Ramsey-type correlations. So, what type of correlations should be prohibited? There are many possible choices, but the ones which come naturally in the “lab”-context are “computable defined correlations.” In other terms, correlations—finite or infinite—which can be detected in an effective/algorithmic way, should be excluded.
[*A quantum process protected by Kochen-Specker theorem and satisfying the above two conditions generates an incomputable sequence*]{} (\[qrand\]). Even more, the sequence (\[qrand\]) is not only incomputable, but also bi-immune, i.e. there is no algorithm capable of computing infinitely many bits of it. In other words, any algorithmic prediction is capable of correctly predicting only finitely many scattered bits of (\[qrand\]). This property is a weak form of algorithmic randomness, so the main open question is [*whether (\[qrand\]) is indeed algorithmic random?*]{}
Does the process producing the sequence (\[qrand\]) trespass the Turing barrier? The answer is yes. Can a Turing machine, using as an oracle unboundedly, but finitely many bits of (\[qrand\]), solve the halting problem? The problem is open.
Final remarks {#final-remarks .unnumbered}
=============
There are exciting times ahead of us. The limits which seem to be imposed upon us by various constraints might decay into “thin air” as the conditions upon which these constraints are founded will lose their applicability and necessity, or even lose their operational validity. Thus, we perceive physical tractability and feasibility wide open, positive, and full of unexpected opportunities. Indeed, we just quiver at the extension of our imaginable ignorance; let alone the possibilities which we even lack to fantasise. Any further scientific exploration of this realm has to be strongly encouraged.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
We thank A. Abbott and E. Calude for useful comments and criticism.
[10]{}
A. Peres, “Defining length,” Nature [**312,**]{} 10 (1984).
J. A. Lester, “Distance Preserving Transformations,” in [*Handbook of Incidence Geometry*]{} (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1995).
H. Weyl, [*Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science*]{} (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1949).
K. Zuse, “[R]{}echnender [R]{}aum,” Elektronische Datenverarbeitung pp. 336–344 (1967).
S. Wolfram, [*A New Kind of Science*]{} (Wolfram Media, Inc., Champaign, IL, 2002).
C. S. Calude and L. Staiger, “A Note on Accelerated Turing Machines”, [C]{}DMTCS preprint nr. 350, 7 p. (unpublished).
T. J. Herzog, P. G. Kwiat, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger, “Complementarity and the quantum eraser,” Physical Review Letters [**75,**]{} 3034–3037 (1995).
K. Svozil, “Contexts in quantum, classical and partition logic,” in [ *Handbook of Quantum Logic and Quantum Structures*]{}, K. Engesser, D. M. Gabbay, and D. Lehmann, eds., (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2008), pp. 551–586.
E. Specker, “[D]{}ie [L]{}ogik nicht gleichzeitig entscheidbarer [A]{}ussagen,” Dialectica [**14,**]{} 239–246 (1960), reprinted in [@specker-ges pp. 175–182]; [E]{}nglish translation: [*The logic of propositions which are not simultaneously decidable*]{}, reprinted in [@hooker pp. 135-140].
S. Kochen and E. P. Specker, “The Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics,” Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics (now Indiana University Mathematics Journal) [**17,**]{} 59–87 (1967), reprinted in [@specker-ges pp. 235–263].
A. Zeilinger, “A Foundational Principle for Quantum Mechanics,” Foundations of Physics [**29,**]{} 631–643 (1999).
M. Born, “Zur [Q]{}uantenmechanik der [S]{}to[ß]{}vorg[ä]{}nge,” Zeitschrift f[ü]{}r Physik [**37,**]{} 863–867 (1926).
J. A. Wheeler and W. H. Zurek, [*Quantum Theory and Measurement*]{} (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1983).
A. Zeilinger, “The message of the quantum,” Nature [**438,**]{} 743 (2005).
G. J. Chaitin, [*Exploring Randomness*]{} (Springer Verlag, London, 2001).
C. S. Calude and K. Svozil, “Quantum Randomness and Value Indefiniteness,” Advanced Science Letters [**1,**]{} 165–168 (2008).
E. Specker, [*Selecta*]{} (Birkh[ä]{}user Verlag, Basel, 1990).
C. A. Hooker, [*The Logico-Algebraic Approach to Quantum Mechanics. [V]{}olume [I]{}: Historical Evolution*]{} (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1975).
[^1]: Contribution to an essay contest by the Foundational Questions Institute (FQXi) on “What is Ultimately Possible in Physics?”
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'This paper investigates thin-shell wormholes in Born-Infeld theory supported by generalized Cosmic Chaplygin gas (GCCG). We study their stability via radial perturbations for distinct values of charge and Born-Infeld parameter. The comparison of wormhole solutions corresponding to generalized Chaplygin gas, modified Chaplygin gas with GCCG quation of state is established. It is found that similar type of wormhole solutions exists for small value of charge and Born-Infeld parameter for all type of equation of state, while some extra stable as well as unstable solution are found corresponding to large value of charge and Born-Infeld parameter. Thus, it is concluded that GCCG and large value of charge may responsible for such extra solutions.'
author:
- |
M. Azam [^1]\
Division of Science and Technology, University of Education,\
Township Campus, Lahore-54590, Pakistan.
title: '**Born-Infeld Thin-shell Wormholes Supported by Generalized Cosmic Chaplygin Gas**'
---
[**Keywords:**]{} Thin-shell wormholes; Born-Infeld electrodynamics; Stability.\
[**PACS:**]{} 04.20.Gz; 04.20.-q; 04.40.Nr; 04.70.Bw.
Introduction
============
A wormhole (WH) is a hypothetical object in spacetime which behaves like a smooth bridge between two different universes or smooth shortcut between remote parts of a single universe (Visser, 1989). Recently, WH physics has been taken as hot cake due to its interesting features. The first traversable WH was obtained by Morris and Thorn (1988) with two asymptotically flat regions which are joined by a minimal surface area known as WH throat. For WH to be traversable, it is necessary that the WH throat must satisfies the flare out condition (Lobo, 2008), i.e., matter threading the WH throat should violate the null energy condition. Such matter is known as exotic matter. However, physical viability of such WHs was a big issue. In this scenario, Visser (2003) showed that the amount of exotic matter located around the throat can be reduced by taking an appropriate choice of WH geometry.
It is well known that the existence of exotic matter (violation of null energy condition) is always accompanied by WH solutions. In this context, one can construct thin-shell WH through cut and paste technique to confine the exotic matter at WH throat (Lobo, 2008). This is an elegant and efficient procedure used to minimize the violation of null energy condition through thin-shell formalism. Poisson and Visser (1995) were the pioneer who constructed Schwarzschild thin-shell WH and investigated its stability through radial perturbations. After that, many authors (Lobo, 2005; Lemos and Lobo, 2008; Rahaman et al. 2009; Goncalo, 2010; Rahaman et al. 2012) have constructed thin-shell WHs with this procedure and used Darmois-Israel junction conditions (Darmois, 1927; Israel, 1966, ibid. 1967) to explore WH dynamics. In recent years, some authors (Eiroa and Simeone, 2005; Eiroa, 2008; Rahaman et al. 2010; Bejarano and Eiroa, 2011) constructed spherical thin-shell WHs in this theory and investigated their linearized stability under radial perturbations.
The selection of equation of state (EoS) for dynamical analysis of matter present at the shell has an important role in the existence and stability of WH solutions. Thus, many authors have taken account different EoS in search of viable thin-shell WHs. In this context, family of Chaplygin gas (Chaplygin (1939); Von Karman (1941)) has been used successfully in describing various astronomical phenomenon (wormholes, cosmological evolution of the early and present Universe). Eiroa and Simeone (2007) found stable static WH solutions with Chaplygin gas corresponding to fixed values of parameters. Later on, Bandyopadhyay et al. (2009) carried out this work with simple modified Chaplygin gas (MCG) EoS and found some more stable WH solutions. Eiroa (2009) have constructed thin-shell WHs numerically supported with generalize Chaplygin gas (GCG) and shows that some extra solution can exists. This indicates that choice of EoS may play a significant role in the existence of WH solutions. Also, Gorini et al. (2008, 2009) found WH like solutions by using Chaplygin gas and GCG. We have also studied thin-shell WHs with family of Chaplygin gas and found distinct solutions corresponding to distinct EoS (Sharif and Azam, 2013a, 2013b, 2013c).
Since GCCG is less constrained as compared to MCG and GCG and is capable of adapting itself to any domain of cosmology, depending upon the choice of parameters. Thus it has a more universal character and the big-rip singularity can easily be avoided in this model. For instance, many authors have used GCCG to; discuss the evolution of the universe from dust era to $\Lambda$CDM (Chakraborty et al. 2007), studied the background dynamics of GCCG in brane world gravity (Rudra, 2012), presented a singularity free model for an expanding universe undergoing a late acceleration (Ratul et al. 2013), studied the role of GCCG in accelerating universe (Prabir, 2013), discussed FRW universe in loop Quantum gravity with GCCG as dark energy candidate (Ranjit and Debnath, 2014), studied GCCG inflationary universe model for a flat FRW geometry (Sharif and Rabia, 2014), found stable traversable WHs (Sharif and Jawad, 2014), found stable and unstable Schwarzschild de-sitter and anti-de-sitter thin-shell WHs (Sharif and Mumtaz, 2014).
The nonlinear electrodynamics (NED) theory which is considered as the most outstanding viable theory among all the NED theories introduced by Born-Infeld (BI) in $1934$ (Born and Infeld, 1934). It has a therapeutic power for singularities appear in Maxwell theory. Hoffmann (1935) found spherically symmetric solution by coupling general relativity with BI electrodynamics theory which describes the gravitational field of a charged object. It was shown that Maxwell and BI theories possess the property of duality invariance like electric and magnetic fields (Gibbons and Rasheed, 1995). The use of BI action in the low energy string theory has been interesting to study such NED theories (Fradkin and Tseytlin, 1985; Bergshoeff et al. 1987; Metsaev et al. 1987; Tseytlin, 1997; Brecher et al. 1998). It was argued that trajectories of photons are not null geodesics of the background metric in curved spacetimes within BI electrodynamics (Plebañski, 1970) but rather follows null geodesics of a physical geometry influenced by the nonlinearities of electromagnetic field. Bret´on (2002) examined the geodesic structure of BI black holes.
The Born-Infeld action in four-dimension associated with Einstein gravity is given by $$\label{1a}
\mathcal{S}=\int{d^4x}\sqrt{g}\left(\frac{R}{16\pi}+L_{BI}\right),$$ where $g,~R$ and $L$ correspond to the determinant of the metric tensor, Ricci scalar and non-linear Lagrangian coupled with electromagnetic field tensor defined as $$\label{2a}
L_{BI}=\frac{1}{4\pi{b^2}}\left(1-\sqrt{1+\frac{1}{2}F_{\sigma\nu}F^{\sigma\nu}b^2-
\frac{1}{4}{^\ast}F_{\sigma\nu}F^{\sigma\nu}b^4}\right),$$ where $F_{\sigma\nu}=\partial_{\sigma}A_{\nu}-\partial_{\nu}A_{\sigma}$ and $^{\ast}{F_{\sigma\nu}}=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{-g}\epsilon_{\gamma\delta\sigma\nu}F^{\gamma\delta}$ are electromagnetic field tensor and Hodge dual of $F_{\sigma\nu}$, respectively and $\epsilon_{\gamma\delta\sigma\nu}$ is the Levi-Civita symbol. The value of BI parameter $b$ will make a comparison between Born-Infeld and Maxwell electrodynamics, i.e., BI Lagrangian will approach to Maxwell Lagrangian in the limit $b\rightarrow{0}$. The variation of action with respect to $g_{\mu\nu}$ and $A_\nu$ yields Einstein field equations whose solution corresponds to vacuum spherically symmetric solution (Gibbons and Rasheed, 1995; Bret´on, 2002) given by $$\label{1}
ds^2=-H(r)dt^{2}+H^{-1}(r)dr^{2}+r^2(d\theta^{2}
+\sin^2\theta{d\phi^2}),$$ with $$\label{2}
H(r)=1-\frac{2M}{r}+\frac{2}{3b^2}\left\{r^2-\sqrt{r^4+b^2Q^2}+
\frac{\sqrt{|bQ|^3}}{r}F\left[{\arccos}\left(\frac{r^2-|bQ|}{r^2+|bQ|}\right),\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}\right]\right\},$$ where elliptic integral of the first kind $F(\gamma,k)$ is defined by $$F(\gamma,k)=\int^{\text{sin}{\gamma}}_0[(1-y^2)(1-k^2y^2)]^{\frac{-1}{2}}dy=
\int^{\text{sin}{\gamma}}_0(1-k^2sin^2{\phi})^{\frac{-1}{2}}d\phi,$$ and $M,~Q$ represent mass and charge of the BI black hole. The horizons of (\[1\]) can be found numerically by setting $H(r)=0$. A regular event horizon is obtained for a given value of $b$ and small value of charge, i.e., $0\leq{\frac{|Q|}{M}}\leq{\omega_1}$, where $\omega_1=(\frac{9|b|}{M})^\frac{1}{3}[F(\pi,\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2})]^\frac{-2}{3}$. For $\omega_1<{\frac{|Q|}{M}}<{\omega_2}$, there exist two regular horizons inner and outer similar to Reissner-Nordström geometry. However, for $\frac{|Q|}{M}=\omega_2$ and $\frac{|Q|}{M}>\omega_2$, there exists one degenerate horizon and naked singularity respectively, where $\omega_2$ can be obtained numerically through the condition $H(r)=0=H'(r)$ (see details (Eiroa and Aguirre, 2012). It is easy to check that in the limit $b\rightarrow{0}$ (Reissner-Nordström case), $\omega_1=0$ and $\omega_2=1$.
Recently, much interest in non-linear electrodynamics theories has been aroused in application to WH geometries and cosmological phenomena (Mazharimousavi and Halilsoy, 2015; Gullu et al. 2015; Jana and Kar, 2015; Gullu et al. 2015; Mazharimousavi et al. 2013). In this scenario, Baldovin et al. (2000) showed that a certain field configuration in Born-Infeld electromagnetism in flat spacetime can be interpreted as a WH. Arellano et al. (2009) studied some properties for the evolving WH solutions in non-linear electrodynamics. Richarte and simeone (2009, 2010) studied the spherically symmetric thin-shell WHs in the scenario of Born-Infeld gravity and analyzed the mechanical stability of WH configurations. Rahaman et al. (2010) construct and discuss various aspects of thin-shell WHs from a regular charged black hole in the framework of non-linear electrodynamics. Eiroa and Simeone (2011) investigated the mechanically stability of thin-shells both in Einstein Maxwell and Born Infeld theory. Mazharimousavi et al. (2011) used the Hoffman-Born-Infeld Lagrangian to construct the black holes and viable thin-shell WHs. In particular, they investigate the stability of thin-shell WHs supported by normal matter. Halilsoy et al. (2014) constructed thin-shell WHs from the regular Hayward black hole with linear, logarithmic, Chaplygin etc., equation of states and found that Hayward parameter makes thin-shell WHs more stable.
In this work, we have construct BI thin-shell WHs and investigate their stability supported with GCCG. We have compared our results with recent work supported with GCG (Eiroa and Aguirre, 2012) and MCG (Sharif and Azam, 2014). The paper is planned as: Section **2** deals with the basic equations for the construction of spherical thin-shell WHs with GCCG. In section **3**, we present the general procedure to investigate stability of static WH solutions. In section **4**, we apply the general formalism developed in section **2** and **3** to construct and explore stability of BI thin-shell WHs. We summarize our results in the last section.
Thin-Shell Wormhole Construction: Fundamental Equations
=======================================================
In this section, we will work out basic equations for BI thin-shell WH with GCCG. We take two copies $,\mathcal{S}^{\pm}=\{x^{\mu}=(t,r,\theta,\phi)/r\geq{a}\},$ of the BI black hole (\[1\]) each with $r\geq{a}$ in such a way that these geometries are prevented from horizons and singularities, where $`a`$ is a constant. The joining of these geometries at the timelike hypersurfaces $\Sigma=\Sigma^\pm=\{x^\mu/r-a=0\}$, to form a new manifold (geodesically complete) $\mathcal{S}^{\pm}=\mathcal{S}^{+}\cup\mathcal{S}^{-}$ representing a WH having two regions connected by a junction surface (throat of the WH).
For the dynamical analysis of this traversable WH, we shall adopt the Darmois-Israel formalism. This formalism is one of the basic formulation used to study the dynamics of the matter field located at the WH throat, providing a set of equations correspond to field equations. The synchronous timelike hypersurface which is throat of the WH (junction surface) is defined by the coordinates $\varsigma^i=(\tau,\theta,\phi)$. Thus the intrinsic metric to the hpersurface $\Sigma$ can be written as $$\label{4}
ds^2=-d\tau^2+a^2(\tau)(d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta{d\phi^2}),$$ where $\tau$ is the proper time. Following the Darmois-Israel formalism, the explicit expression for the extrinsic curvature (second fundamental forms) connected with two sides of the shell is defined as $$\label{5}
K^{\pm}_{ij}=-n^{\pm}_{\gamma}\left(\frac{{\partial}^2x^{\gamma}_{\pm}}
{{\partial}{\varsigma}^i{\partial}{\varsigma}^j}+{\Gamma}^{\gamma}_{{\mu}{\nu}}
\frac{{{\partial}x^{\mu}_{\pm}}{{\partial}x^{\nu}_{\pm}}}
{{\partial}{\varsigma}^i{\partial}{\varsigma}^j}\right),\quad(i,~j=\tau,\theta,\phi),$$ where the superscripts $\pm$ stands for exterior and interior geometry, respectively. The outwards unit 4-normals to $\Sigma$ with ,$n^{\gamma}n_{\gamma}=+1$, are given by $$\label{6}
n^{\pm}_{\gamma}=\pm\left|g^{\mu\nu}\frac{\partial{f}}{\partial{x^{\mu}}}
\frac{\partial{f}}{\partial{x^{\nu}}}\right|^{-\frac{1}{2}}\frac{\partial{f}}{\partial{x^\gamma}}
=\left(-\dot{a},\frac{\sqrt{H(r)+\dot{a}^2}}{H(r)},0,0\right).$$ Using Eqs. (\[4\]) and (\[5\]), we obtain the non-vanishing components for geometry (\[1\]) as follows $$\label{7}
K^{\pm}_{\tau\tau}=\mp\frac{H'(a)+2\ddot{a}}{2\sqrt{H(a)+\dot{a}^2}},
\quad
K^{\pm}_{\theta\theta}=K^{\pm}_{\phi\phi}={\pm}\frac{1}{a}\sqrt{H(a)+\dot{a}^2},$$ where prime and dot corresponds to $\frac{d}{dr}$ and $\frac{d}{d\tau}$, respectively.
The surface stresses, i.e., surface energy density $\sigma$ and surface pressures $p=p_\theta=p_\phi$, are determined by the surface stress-energy tensor $S_{ij}=\text{diag}(\sigma,p_{\theta},p_{\phi})$ and Einstein equations or Lanczos equations on the shell are given by $$\label{8}
S_{ij}=\frac{1}{8\pi}\left\{g_{ij}K-[K_{ij}]\right\},$$ where $$[K_{ij}]=K^{+}_{ij}-K^{-}_{ij},\quad
K=tr[K_{ij}]=[K^{i}_{i}].$$ From Eqs. (\[7\]) and (\[8\]), the surface stresses of the shell turns out as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{9}
\sigma&=&-\frac{\sqrt{H(a)+\dot{a}^2}}{2\pi{a}},\\\label{10}
p&=&p_{\theta}=p_{\phi}=\frac{\sqrt{H(a)+\dot{a}^2}}{8\pi}
\left[\frac{2\ddot{a}+H'(a)}{H(a)+\dot{a}^2}+\frac{2}{a}\right].\end{aligned}$$ From the above equation, the negativity of surface energy density will insure the presence of exotic matter at the throat. To discuss the physical aspects of this exotic matter, we choose GCCG (González-Diaz, 2003) EoS because the free parameter in it can encompass different types of matter defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{10a}
p=-\frac{1}{\sigma^{\beta}}\left[L+(\sigma^{1+\beta}-L)^{-\omega}\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $L=\frac{D}{1+\omega}-1$, $D\in(-\infty,\infty)$ and $-D<\omega<0$. Here, we take $D$ to be positive constant other than unity. Also, the above equation reduces to GCG in the limit $\omega\rightarrow{0}$.
For the dynamical analysis of thin-shell WH, we develop a second order differential equation (equation of motion) by using Eqs.(\[9\]) and (\[10\]) in (\[10a\]) given by $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&&\left\{\left[2\ddot{a}+H'(a)\right]a^2+\left[H(a)+\dot{a}^2
\right]2a\right\}\left[2a\right]^{\beta}-2
(4\pi{a^2})^{1+\beta}\left[H(a)+\dot{a}^2\right]^\frac{1-\beta}{2}\\\label{11}
&\times&\left[L+\left\{(2\pi{a})^{-(1+\beta)}
(H(a)+\dot{a}^2)^{\frac{(1+\beta)}{2}}-L\right\}^{-\omega}\right]
=0.\end{aligned}$$ This equation provides full understanding of the thin-shell WH satisfied by the throat radius with GCCG in BI theory.
Stability Analysis of Static Solutions: A Standard Approach
===========================================================
In this section, we follow the standard approach to investigate the stability of static BI WH solutions with GCCG under radial perturbations (Bejarano and Eiroa, 2011). From Eqs.(\[9\]), (\[10\]) and (\[11\]), the static configuration of surface energy density, surface pressure and evolution equation of BI WH takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{13}
\sigma_0=-\frac{\sqrt{H(a_0)}}{2\pi{a_0}},\quad
p_0=\frac{2H(a_0)+a_0H'(a_0)}{8\pi{a_0}\sqrt{H(a_0)}},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&&\left[a^2_0H'(a_0)+2a_0H(a_0)
\right]\left[2a_0\right]^{\beta}-2(4\pi{a_0^2})^{1+\beta}\left[H(a_0)\right]^\frac{1-\beta}{2}\\\label{14}&\times&
\left[L+\left\{(2\pi{a_0})^{-(1+\beta)}
\left(H(a_0)\right)^{\frac{(1+\beta)}{2}}-L\right\}^{-\omega}\right]=0.\end{aligned}$$ The law of conservation of energy on the WH throat can be defined with Eqs.(\[9\]) and (\[10\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{15}
\frac{d}{d\tau}(\sigma{\Omega})+p\frac{d\Omega}{d\tau}=0,\end{aligned}$$ where $\Omega=4\pi{a^2}$ is known as area of WH throat. This equation describes that the sum of rate of change of WH throat’s internal energy and work done by the internal forces is equal to zero. The above equation can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{16}
\dot{\sigma}=-2(\sigma+p)\frac{\dot{a}}{a},\end{aligned}$$ and using ${\sigma}'=\frac{\dot{\sigma}}{\dot{a}}$, it yields $$\label{17}
a{\sigma}'=-2(\sigma+p).$$ The integral solution of Eq.(\[16\]) provides the full understanding of WH dynamics given as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{17a}
\ln\frac{a}{a(\tau_0)}=-\frac{1}{2}\int^\sigma_{\sigma(\tau_0)}{\frac{d\sigma}{\sigma+p(\sigma)}},\end{aligned}$$ and can then be inverted to obtain $\sigma=\sigma(a)$. Thus, Eq.(\[9\]) takes the form $$\label{18}
\dot{a}^2+\phi(a)=0,$$ where $\phi(a)$ is the potential function $$\label{19}
\phi(a)=H(a)-\left[2\pi{a}{\sigma(a)}\right]^2.$$ Taking the derivative of above equation and using (\[17\]), we have $$\label{19a}
\phi'(a)=H'(a)+8{\pi}^2a\sigma(a)\left[\sigma(a)+p(a)\right].$$ This potential function is used to discuss the linearized stability analysis of static solution under radial perturbations. For this purpose, we apply Taylor expansion to potential function upto second order around $a=a_0$ to provides $$\begin{aligned}
\label{20}
\phi(a)=\phi(a_0)+\phi'(a_0)(a-a_0)+\frac{1}{2}\phi''(a_0)(a-a_0)^2+O[(a-a_0)^3].\end{aligned}$$ The first derivative of EoS takes the form $$\label{21}
p'(a)=\sigma'(a)\left[\omega(1+\beta)(\sigma(a)^{1+\beta}-L)^{-1-\omega}-\frac{\beta{p}}{\sigma}\right],$$ which further can be written as $$\label{22}
\sigma'(a)+2p'(a)=\sigma'(a)\left[1+2\omega(1+\beta)(\sigma(a)^{1+\beta}-L)^{-1-\omega}
-\frac{2\beta{p(a)}}{\sigma(a)}\right].$$ The stability of static WH solutions needs conditions $\phi(a_0)=0=\phi'(a_0)$, also stable and unstable WH solutions corresponds to $\phi''(a_0)>0$ and $\phi''(a_0)<0$, respectively. It can be easily verified that $\phi(a_0)=0=\phi'(a_0)$ by using Eq.(\[13\]) in Eqs.(\[19\]) and (\[19a\]). Now, the second derivative of the potential function with Eq.(\[22\]) can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\phi''(a)&=&H''(a)-8{\pi}^2\left\{[\sigma(a)+2p(a)]^2+2\sigma(a)
(\sigma(a)+p(a))\left[\left(1-2\beta\frac{p}{\sigma}\right)\right.\right.
\\\label{24}&+&\left.\left.+2\omega(1+\beta)(\sigma^{1+\beta}-L)^{-1-\omega}\right]\right\},\end{aligned}$$ and using Eq.(\[13\]) in the above equation, it leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\phi''(a_0)&=&H''(a_0)+\frac{(\beta-1)[{H'(a_0)}]^2}{2H(a_0)}+\frac{H'(a_0)}{a_0}
\left\{1-2\omega(1+\beta)\right.\\\nonumber&\times&\left.
\left[\left(\frac{\sqrt{H(a_0)}}{2\pi{a_0}}\right)^{1+\beta}+L\right]^{-1-\omega}\right\}
-\frac{2H(a_0)(1+\beta)}{a^2_0}\\\label{25}&\times&\left\{1-2\omega
\left[\left(\frac{\sqrt{H(a_0)}}{2\pi{a_0}}\right)^{1+\beta}+L\right]^{-1-\omega}\right\}.\end{aligned}$$
Born-Infeld Thin-Shell Wormholes
================================
This section deals with the possible existence of BI thin-shell WHs with GCCG corresponding to various values of $M$, $Q$, BI parameter $b$ of BI black hole and constant $L$. Each numerical solution of Eq.(\[14\]) for $a_0$ will represent a BI thin-shell WH. We replace these solutions in Eq.(\[25\]) to investigate its stability. For this purpose, the whole region is divided into three parts: if the contour lies in the regions where $a_0>r_h$ and $\phi''(a_0)>0$ or $\phi''(a_0)<0$ will correspond to the stable (light green) or unstable (light yellow) static solution and will be non-physical zone (grey) if $a_0\leq{r_h}$, where $r_h$ is event horizon of BI black hole.
It is noted that static solutions have an important change around $\frac{Q_c}{M}$ depending upon the BI parameter $\frac{b}{M}$, where $Q_c$ is the critical charge associated with $Q$ for which the given metric has no horizon. We have chosen those values of $\frac{Q_c}{M}$ for plotting for which $H(r_h)=0=H'(r_h)$ (obtained numerically). We find that event horizon radius $\frac{a_0}{M}$ decreases as charge increases and finally disappear when $\frac{Q}{M}>\frac{Q_c}{M}$ (Figures **1**-**6**). The results of Eqs.(\[14\]) and (\[25\]) for different parametric values of $\frac{b}{M}=1,~2,~5$, $\beta=0.2,~1$, charge and constant $L$ are summarizes as follows.
- [Figure **1, 2, 3**, shows static WH solutions corresponding to gas exponent $\beta=0.2$, different values of charge and BI parameter $\frac{b}{M}=1,2,5$. We see that there exist one unstable solution for each case corresponding to $|Q|=0$ and $|Q|=0.7Q_c$ with $\frac{b}{M}=1,2,5$. When $\frac{b}{M}=1,2$, we observe that there are two unstable and one stable solutions corresponds to $|Q|=0.9999Q_c$ and two (unstable and stable) solutions corresponds to $|Q|=1.1Q_c$, while for $\frac{b}{M}=5$ only stable and unstable solutions are exist corresponding to $|Q|=0.9999Q_c$ and $|Q|=1.1Q_c$, respectively. In each case, the critical charge has different value when $\beta=0.2$, i.e., $\frac{Q_c}{M}=1.02526,~1.10592,~1.148468$ for $\frac{b}{M}=1,2,5$, respectively. Moreover, the horizon of the original manifold decreases continuously for increasing value of charge and eventually disappears for large value of $\frac{b}{M}$ and $|Q|>Q_c$, where both unstable and stable solutions are exists.]{}
- [Figures **4, 5, 6**, represents static WH solutions with $\beta=1$, $\frac{b}{M}=1,2,5$ and different values of charge. The possible solutions are similar to the above case for $|Q|=0,~0.7Q_c$ and $\frac{b}{M}=1,2,5$, while both stable and unstable solutions exist when $\frac{b}{M}=1,2$ and $|Q|=0.9999Q_c$. Also, similar solutions appears to the above case when $\frac{b}{M}=1$ and $|Q|=1.1Q_c$, while one less stable and unstable exist when $\frac{b}{M}=2$ and $|Q|=1.1Q_c$. However, for $\frac{b}{M}=5$, same solutions are found either we take $\beta=0.2$ or $\beta=1$ with $|Q|=0.9999Q_c$ and $|Q|=1.1Q_c$. Also a similar behavior of horizon radius is observed.]{}
Discussion and Conclusions
==========================
In this work, we have formulated BI thin-shell WHs supported with GCCG and look into their linearize stability analysis via radial perturbations (preserve the symmetry). We have solved evolution equation (\[14\]) of static WHs numerically and used in (\[24\]) to investigate their stability. We have found static WHs solutions corresponding to different values of charge, gas exponent $\beta=0.2,~1$, BI parameter $\frac{b}{M}=1,~2,~5$, $\omega=-5$ and constants involve in the model. The results are shown in Figures **1-6**. The solutions in the light (green and yellow) regions are represented as (stable and unstable) solutions respectively.
[**[Table 1]{}**]{} [**Comparison of BI Static WH Solutions with GCG, MCG and GCCG EoS**]{}
[**Value of $\beta$**]{} [**EoS**]{} [$\frac{b}{M}=$]{} [**$\frac{|Q|}{M}=0$**]{} [**$\frac{|Q|}{M}=0.7$**]{} [**$\frac{|Q|}{M}=0.999$**]{} [**$\frac{|Q|}{M}=1.1$**]{}
-------------------------- ------------- -------------------- --------------------------- ----------------------------- ------------------------------- -----------------------------
$\beta=0.2$ $GCG$ $1$ $1U$ $1U$ $2U,1S$ $2U,1S$
$\beta=0.2$ $MCG$ $1$ $1U$ $1U$ $2U,1S$ $2U,1S$
$\beta=0.2$ $GCCG$ $1$ $1U$ $1U$ $2U,1S$ $2U,2S$
$\beta=0.2$ $GCG$ $2$ $1U$ $1U$ $2U,1S$ $2U,1S$
$\beta=0.2$ $MCG$ $2$ $1U$ $1U$ $2U,1S$ $1U$
$\beta=0.2$ $GCCG$ $2$ $1U$ $1U$ $2U,1S$ $2U,2S$
$\beta=1$ $GCG$ $1$ $1U$ $1U$ $1U,1S$ $2U,1S$
$\beta=1$ $MCG$ $1$ $1U,1S$ $1U,1S$ $1U,1S$ $1U$
$\beta=1$ $GCCG$ $1$ $1U$ $1U$ $1U,1S$ $2U,2S$
$\beta=1$ $GCG$ $2$ $1U$ $1U$ $1U,1S$ $1U$
$\beta=1$ $MCG$ $2$ $1U,1S$ $1U,1S$ $1U,1S$ $1U$
$\beta=1$ $GCCG$ $2$ $1U$ $1U$ $1U,1S$ $1U,1S$
$\beta=0.2$ $GCG$ $5$ $1U$ $1U$ $1U$ $1U$
$\beta=0.2$ $MCG$ $5$ $1U$ $1U$ $1U$ $1U$
$\beta=0.2$ $GCCG$ $5$ $1U$ $1U$ $2U$ $1U,1S$
$\beta=1$ $GCG$ $5$ $ 1U$ $1U$ $1U$ $1U$
$\beta=1$ $MCG$ $5$ $1U,1S$ $1U,1S$ $1U$ $1U$
$\beta=1$ $GCCG$ $5$ $1U$ $1U$ $2U$ $1U,1S$
In order to see the role played by the GCCG EoS in the existence and stability of static WH solutions, a comparison of static WH solutions between GCCG, MCG and GCG is given in the table **1**. Eiroa and Aguirre (2012) shows that for small values $b$ and charge, there exists similar results to the Reissner-Nordström case (Eiroa, 2009). However, for large value of $b$, the Einstein-Born-Infeld theory deviating from the Einstein-Maxwell theoryu, the stable regions are disappear and only unstable solutions are possible. Sharif and Azam (2014) extended this work with MCG and found stable as well unstable static WH solutions even for large value of BI parameter.
In this work, we have constructed the BI thin-shell WHs in the vicinity of GCCG and their stability. We can see a similar behavior of static solutions from table **1** when $|Q|$ is not very close to $Q_c$ ($0\leq|Q|<{Q_c}$) and for different values of charge and BI parameter, i.e., only unstable WH solution exists all considered EoS, except the case of MCG, we have one extra stable solution for $\beta=1$ corresponding distinct values of $b$. However, we have found one extra stable static WH solution corresponding to distinct values of $\beta$ and $b$ with GCCG when $|Q|\geq{Q_c}$. This fact supports the consistency of results that extra solutions are present for large value of charge with GCCG (Sharif and Azam, 2013d). Thus, it is concluded that GCCG and large value of charge are the most critical factors for the existence of such extra stable WH solutions.
[40]{}
Arellano, A.V.B., Bretón, N. and R. Garcýa-Salcedo, R.: Gen. Relativ. Gravit. **41**, 1853 (2009)\
Born, M. and Infeld, L.: Proc. Roy. Soc. **A144**, 425 (1934)\
Breton, N.: Class. Quantum Grav. **19**, 601 (2002)\
Bandyopadhyay, T., Baveja, A. and Chakraborty, S.: Int. J. Mod. Phys. D **13**, 1977 (2009)\
Bejarano, C. and Eiroa, E.F.: Phys. Rev. D **84**, 064043 (2011)\
Baldovin, F., Novello, M., Bergliaffa, S.P. and Salim, J.M.: Class. Quantum Grav. **17**, 3265 (2000)\
Chaplygin, S.: Sci. Mem. Moscow Univ. Math. Phys. **21**, 1 (1904); S-Tien, H.: J. Aeron Sci. **6**, 399 (1939); von Karman, T.: J. Aeron Sci. **8**, 337 (1941)\
Chakraborty, W., Debnath, U. and Chakraborty, S.: Grav. Cosmol. **13**, 294 (2007)\
Darmois, G.: Memorial des Sciences Mathematiques (Gautheir-Villars, 1927) Fasc. 25; Israel, W.: Nuovo Cimento B **44S10**, 1 (1966); ibid. Erratum **B48**, 463 (1967)\
Eiroa, E.F. and Simeone, C.: Phys. Rev. D **71**, 127501 (2005); Eiroa, E.F.: Phys. Rev. D **78**, 024018 (2008); Rahaman, F., Rahman, Sk.A., Rakib, A. and Kuhfitting, Peter K.F.: Int. J. Theor. Phys. **49**, 2364 (2010); Bejarano, C. and Eiroa, E.F.: Phys. Rev. D **84**, 064043 (2011)\
Eiroa, E.F. and Simeone, C.: Phys. Rev. D **76**, 024021 (2007)\
Eiroa, E.F.: Phys. Rev. D **80**, 044033 (2009)\
Eiroa, E.F. and Aguirre, F.G.: Eur. Phys. J. C **72**, 2240 (2012)\
Fradkin, E.S. and Tseytlin, A.A.: Phys. Lett. B **163**, 123 (1985); Bergshoeff, E., Sezgin, E., Pope, C.N. and Townsend, P.K.: Phys. Lett. B **188**, 70 (1987); Metsaev, R.R., Rahmanov, M.A. and Tseytlin, A.A.: Phys. Lett. B **193**, 207 (1987); Tseytlin, A.A.: Nucl. Phys. B **501**, 41 (1997); Brecher, D. and Perry, M.J.: Nucl. Phys. B **527**, 121 (1998)\
Gibbons, G.W. and Rasheed, D.A.: Nucl. Phys. B **454**, 185 (1995)\
González-Diaz, P.F.: Phys. Rev. D **68**, 021303 (2003)\
Gorini, V., Moschella, U., Kamenshchik, A.Yu., Pasquier, V. and Starobinsky, A.A.: Phys. Rev. D **78**, 064064 (2008); Gorini, V., Kamenshchik, A.Yu., Moschella, U., Piattella, O.F. and Starobinsky, A.A.: Phys. Rev. D **80**, 104038 (2009)\
Gullu, I., Sisman, T.C. and Tekin, B.: Phys. Rev. **91**, 044007 (2015)\
Gullu, I., Sisman, T.C. and Tekin, B.: Phys. Rev. **92**, 104014 (2015)\
Hoffmann, B.: Phys. Rev. **47**, 877 (1935)\
Jana, S. and Kar, S.: Phys. Rev. **92**, 084004 (2015)\
Lobo, F.S.N.: Phys. Rev. D **71**, 124022 (2005); Richarte, M.G. and Simeone, C.: Phys. Rev. D **76**, 087502 (2007); Lemos, J.P.S. and Lobo, F.S.N.: Phys. Rev. D **78**, 044030 (2008); Rahaman, F. et al.: Acta Phys. Polon. B **40**, 1575 (2009); Goncalo, A.S. et al.; Phys. Rev. D **82**, 084023 (2010); Rahaman, F. et al.: Int. J. Theor. Phys. **51**, 901 (2012)\
Lobo, F.S.N.: *Classical and Quantum Gravity Research* (Nova Sci. Pub., 2008)\
Morris, M. and Thorne, K.: Am. J. Phys. **56**, 395 (1988)\
Mazharimousavi, S.H., Halilsoy, M. and Amirabi, Z.: Phys. Lett. A **375**, 3649 (2011)\
Mazharimousavi, S.H. and Halilsoy, M.: Phys. Lett. B **697**, 497 (2011)\
Mazharimousavi, S.H., Halilsoy, M. and Gurtug, O.: Eur. Phys. J. C **74**, 2735 (2014)\
Mazharimousavi, S.H. and Halilsoy, M.: Mod. Phys. Lett. A **30**, 1550177 (2015)\
Plebañski, J.F.: *Lectures on Nonlinear Electrodynamics* (Nordita, Copenhagen, 1970)\
Poisson, E. and Visser, M.: Phys. Rev. D **52**, 7318 (1995)\
Richarte, M. and Simeone, C.: Phys. Rev. D **80**, 104033 (2009); ibid. **81**, 109903(E) (2010); Eiroa, E.F. and Simeone, C.: Phys. Rev. D **83**, 104009 (2011)\
Rahaman, F., Rahman, K.A., Rakib, S.A. and Kuhfittig P.K.F.: Int. J. Theor. Phys. **49**, 2346 (2010)\
Rudra, P: Astrophys. Space Sci. **342**, 579 (2012)\
Ratul, C. and Rudra, P.: Int. J. Theor. Phys. **52**, 489 (2013)\
Rudra, P.: Mod. Phys. Lett. A **28**, 350102 (2013)\
Ranjit, C. and Debnath, U.: Astrophys. Space Sci. **354**, 2126 (2014)\
Sharif, M. and Azam, M.: JCAP **04**, 023 (2013a); ibid. **05**, 025 (2013b); Eur. Phys. J. C **73**, 2407 (2013c)\
Sharif, M. and Azam, M.: Eur. Phys. J. C **73**, 2544 (2013d)\
Sharif, M. and Azam, M.: Phys. Lett. A **378**, 2737 (2014)\
Sharif, M. and Saleem, R.: Eur. Phys. J. C **74**, 2943 (2014)\
Sharif, M. and Jawad, A.: Eur. Phys. J. Plus **129**, 15 (2014)\
Sharif, M. and Mumtaz, S.: Advances in High Energy Physics **2014**, 639759 (2014)\
Visser, M.: Nucl. Phys. B **328**, 203 (1989); *Lorentzian Wormholes From Einstein to Hawking* (AIP Press, 1996)\
Visser, M., Kar, S. and Dadhich, N.: Phys. Rev. Lett. **90**(2003)201102\
[^1]: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Maheswar, G. , Chang Won Lee , Sami Dib'
bibliography:
- 'myref.bib'
date: 'Received — / Accepted —'
title: Distances to dense cores that contain Very Low Luminosity Objects
---
[To estimate distances to dense molecular cores that harbour Very Low Luminosity Objects (VeLLO) detected by Spitzer Space Telescope and to confirm their VeLLO nature.]{} [The cloud distances are estimated using near-IR photometric method. We use a technique that provides spectral classification of stars lying towards the fields containing the clouds into main sequence and giants. In this technique, the observed ($J-H$) and ($H-K_{s}$) colours are dereddened simultaneously using trial values of $A_{V}$ and a normal interstellar extinction law. The best fit of the dereddened colours to the intrinsic colours giving a minimum value of $\chi^{2}$ then yields the corresponding spectral type and $A_{V}$ for the star. The main sequence stars, thus classified, are then utilized in an $A_{V}$ versus distance plot to bracket the cloud distances. The typical error in the estimation of distances to the clouds are found to be $\sim18\%$.]{} [We estimated distances to seven cloud cores, IRAM04191, L1521F, BHR111, L328, L673-7, L1014, and L1148 using the above method. These clouds contain VeLLO candidates. The estimated distances to the cores are found to be $127\pm25$ pc (IRAM04191), $136\pm36$ pc (L1521F), $355\pm65$ pc (BHR111), $ 217\pm30 $ pc (L328), $ 240\pm45 $ pc (L673-7), $258\pm50 $ pc (L1014), and $301\pm55$ pc (L1148). We re-evaluated the internal luminosities of the VeLLOs discovered in these seven clouds using the distances estimated from this work. Except for L1014$-$IRS ($L_{int}=0.15$ $L_{\odot}$), all other VeLLO candidates are found to be consistent with the definition of a VeLLO ($L_{int}\leq0.1L_{\odot}$). In addition to the cores that harbour VeLLO candidates, we also obtained distances to the clouds L323, L675, L676, CB 188, L1122, L1152, L1155, L1157 and L1158 which are located in the directions of the above seven cores. Towards L1521F and L1148 we found evidence of the presence of multiple dust layers.]{}
Introduction
============
Some of the important physical parameters that are required to elucidate the still mysterious processes involved in the formation and evolution of both molecular clouds and pre-main sequence (PMS) stars depend crucially on the accurate determination of their distances. But distances to most of the star forming and starless molecular clouds, especially those that are relatively isolated, are highly uncertain . Furthermore, the need to determine accurate distances to cloud cores can be understood from the recent discoveries of embedded sources having luminosities less than $0.1L_{\odot}$ called, very low luminous objects (VeLLOs), in a number of dense cores that were previously considered as starless [@2004ApJS..154..396Y; @2005AN....326..878K; @2006ApJ...651..945D; @2006ApJ...649L..37B; @2009ApJ...693.1290L; @2010ApJ...721..995D]. But, because the luminosity depends on distance squared, small errors in distance are effectively doubled. Therefore the above conclusions on the status of these objects as VeLLOs depend crucially on the distances to the parent clouds, which are highly uncertain (in some cases by over a factor of 2). For example, the authors who carried out studies on the VeLLO in L1014 have assumed a distance of 200 pc to the cloud . But recently, @2006PASJ...58L..41M have quoted a distance of 400-900 pc for L1014. Then the VeLLO, with luminosity of $L\sim0.09L_{\odot}$ (calculated using the assumed distance of 200 pc to the cloud), becomes $0.36-1.8 L_{\odot}$ and ceases to be a VeLLO.
Dense cores were previously considered to be starless if they do not contain an *Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS)* point source to a sensitivity of $L\sim0.1L_{\odot}(d/140)^{2}$. But Spitzer observations of L1014, considered as a starless core, as a part of Spitzer Legacy program “From Molecular Cores to Planet Forming Disks” [or c2d; @2003PASP..115..965E] came as a surprise! L1014 was found to contain an embedded source, L1014$-$IRS, with a very low luminosity of $L\sim0.09 L_{\odot}$ [@2004ApJS..154..396Y; @2005ApJ...633L.129B; @2006ApJ...640..391H]. Currently, the VeLLOs in fourteen more cores are identified in the full c2d sample [@2008ApJS..179..249D]. Of these, five of them (including L1014$-$IRS) have been studied in detail so far: IRAM 04191$+$1522 [@2006ApJ...651..945D], L1521F$-$IRS [@2006ApJ...649L..37B; @2009ApJ...696.1918T], L328$-$IRS [@2009ApJ...693.1290L], L673-7$-$IRS [@2010ApJ...721..995D] and L1014$-$IRS [@2004ApJS..154..396Y; @2006ApJ...649L..37B; @2006ApJ...640..391H]. Sources with such low luminosities are hard to explain on the basis of the standard model of as the observed luminosities are found to be more than an order of magnitude lower than what is expected from the model assuming a spherical mass accretion onto a protostellar object located on the stellar/substellar boundary [@2006ApJ...651..945D]. Thus, the discoveries of VeLLOs in dense cores can pose a formidable challenge to our understanding of star formation. Recently, @2010ApJ...710..470D showed that the luminosity problem can be resolved and bring the model predictions in better agreement with the observations if the episodic mass accretion based on the simulation by @2006ApJ...650..956V is included in the evolutionary models of @2005ApJ...627..293Y. Then the sources with lowest luminosities are those that are observed in quiescent accretion states.
A number of methods have been applied by various authors in the past to determine distances to clouds that are either associated with large complexes or are relatively isolated . Among the methods, the trigonometric parallaxes measured using multi-epoch very long baseline array observations of radio-emitting young stars that are associated with the clouds give distances to the corresponding clouds with a precision of about 1-4% [@2007ApJ...671..546L; @2008ApJ...675L..29L; @2009ApJ...698..242T]. However, this method can be applied only to those clouds that harbour radio-emitting young stars. Most of the other methods, mentioned above, are in general extremely tedious and demanding in terms of telescope time. @2004MNRAS.355.1272M in an earlier study utilized optical and Two Micron all Sky Survey (2MASS) data to determine distance to Cometary Globule, CG12. One can combine the optical data from the Naval Observatory Merged Astrometric Dataset (NOMAD) and the 2MASS data in the method given by @2004MNRAS.355.1272M to estimate distances to molecular clouds. The NOMAD database is basically a merge of data from the Hipparcos [@1997ESASP1200.....P], Tycho-2 , UCAC-2 [@2004AJ....127.3043Z] and USNO-B1 [@2003AJ....125..984M] catalogues, supplemented by photometric data from the 2MASS. But the data available in this catalog is heterogeneous as the observations were carried at different epochs and also the accuracy of the photometry required by the method is high ($\leq0.1$ mag) in $BVR$. Therefore it would be highly useful if we could develop a method that utilizes the vast homogeneous $JHK_{s}$ photometric data produced by the 2MASS, already available for the entire sky, to determine distances of the clouds. The near-IR photometric method presented in a previous pilot study to estimate the cloud distances was such an endeavour. This method gives distances to clouds that are relatively closer ($\lesssim500$ pc) with a precision of $\sim20\%$.
In this paper we estimate distances to seven cloud cores namely, IRAM04191[^1], L1521F, BHR 111, L328, L673-7, L1014, and L1148, which are identified to harbour VeLLO candidates [@2008ApJS..179..249D], using near-IR photometric method . Of the seven cloud cores, two of them, IRAM04191 and L1521F are assocated with the Taurus molecular cloud complex for which very accurate distance measurements are available [@2007ApJ...671..546L; @2007ApJ...671.1813T; @2009ApJ...698..242T]. We included them in order to ascertain the reliability of the method. For the remaining five cores, most authors have used distances that are either guessed or assumed. The distance estimates available in the literature for each cloud core, prior to this study, are discussed along with our results in section \[sec:result\]. This paper is organized in the following manner: a brief description of the method and the data used to estimate cloud distances is given in section \[sec:data\]. The estimated distances of the clouds are presented in section \[sec:result\]. The consequences of the new distance estimates from this work on the status of the VeLLO candidates are discussed in section \[sec:vello\]. In section \[sec:conclude\], we conclude the paper with a summary of our results.
--------------------- ---------------------------- --------------------------------------------
Core Identification Right Ascension Declination
($^{\circ}$ $^{m}$ $^{s}$) ($^{\circ}$ $^{\prime}$ $^{\prime\prime}$)
IRAM04191 04 21 56.9 $+$15 29 47
L1521F 04 30 50.3 $+$23 00 09
BHR 111 15 42 20.0 $-$52 49 06
L328 18 17 00.0 $-$18 01 54
L673 19 20 54.4 $+$11 13 12
L1014 21 24 05.9 $+$49 59 07
L1148 20 41 10.8 $+$67 20 35
--------------------- ---------------------------- --------------------------------------------
: The J2000 coordinates of the cores as obtained from SIMBAD.[]{data-label="tab:cord"}
The data and the method {#sec:data}
=======================
Below we present a brief discussion on the method[^2]. We extracted $J$, $H$ and $K_{s}$ magnitudes of stars from the 2MASS all-Sky Catalog of Point Sources [@2003tmc..book.....C] that satisfied the following criteria, (a) photometric uncertainty[^3] $\sigma\leq0.035$ in all the three filters and (b) photometric quality flag of “AAA” in all the three filters, i.e., signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) $>10$. We then selected the stars with their ($J-K_{s}$)$\leq0.75$ to eliminate M-type stars from the analysis as unreddened M-type stars located across the reddening vectors of A0-K7 dwarfs make it difficult to differentiate the reddened A0-K7 dwarfs from the unreddened M-type stars. Also, the classical T Tauri stars (CTTSs), often found to be associated with the molecular clouds, occupy a well defined locus in the near infrared colour-colour (NIR-CC) diagram (Meyer et al. 1997) as shown in Fig. \[fig:CC\] which intercepts with the main sequence loci at ($J-K_{s}$)$\approx0.75$. Thus the criterion of ($J-K_{s}$)$\leq0.75$ would allow us to eliminate most of the CTTSs as well.
A set of dereddened colours for each star were produced from their observed colours by using a range of trial values of $A_{V}$ (0-10 mag) and the Rieke & Lebofsky (1985) reddening law. The choice of photometric uncertainty, $\sigma\leq0.035$, ensures that the stars are selected from relatively low extinction regions of the cloud where the Rieke & Lebofsky (1985) reddening law is most applicable . The computed sets of dereddened colours of a star were then compared with the intrinsic colours of the normal main sequence stars. The intrinsic colours of the main sequence stars in the spectral range A0-K7 were taken from . The best match giving a minimum value of $\chi^{2}$ then yielded the spectral type and $A_{V}$ corresponding to that intrinsic colour. Once the spectral types and $A_{V}$ values of the stars were known, their distances were estimated using the distance equation, $d~(pc) = 10^{(K_{s}-M_{K}+5-A_{K})/5}$. Only those stars that were classified as dwarfs were considered for the determination of distances as the absolute magnitudes of giants are highly uncertain. The whole procedure is illustrated in Fig.\[fig:CC\] where we plot the NIR-CC diagram for stars (with $A_{V}\geq1$) chosen from the region F1 towards the direction of IRAM04191 (see Fig. \[fig:IRAMimg\]). The arrows are drawn from the observed data points to the corresponding dereddened colours estimated using the method. The maximum extinction values that can be measured using the method are those for A0V type stars ($\approx4$ magnitude). The extinction traced by stars will fall as we move towards more late type stars.
In order to estimate distance to a cloud (not just by eye estimation), we first grouped the stars, classified as dwarfs, into distance bins of $bin~width = 0.18\times distance$. The centers of each bin were kept at a separation of half of the bin width. Because there exist very few stars at smaller distances, the mean value of the distances and the $A_{V}$ of the stars in each bin were calculated by taking 1000 pc as the initial point and proceeded towards smaller distances. The mean distance of the stars in the bin at which a significant drop in the mean of the extinction occurred was taken as the distance to the cloud and the average of the uncertainty in the distances of the stars in that bin was taken as the final uncertainty of the determined distance of the cloud (see Figs. \[fig:taurus\_hist\] and \[fig:hist\]). The vertical dashed line in the $A_{V}$ vs. $d$ plots, used to mark the cloud distance, is drawn at a distance deduced from the above procedure. The error in the mean values of $A_{V}$ were calculated using the expression, $standard~deviation/\sqrt[]{N}$, where $N$ is the number of stars in each bin. The $A_{V}$ values were found to be uncertain by $\sim0.6$ magnitude. The typical errors in our distance estimates for the clouds were found to be $\sim18\%$ .
One of the prominent features of the molecular cloud structure is that it is hierarchical. The extinction maps produced towards a number of regions in our Galaxy, using optical and near infrared techniques, have shown that the high-density features are invariably contained inside an extended low-density envelope . Our method utilizes the background stars shining through the outer low-extinction ($A_{V}\lesssim4$ magnitude) regions of the cores to estimate their distances. In case of the presence of a single dust layer in the line of sight, we expect a sharp increase in the extinction for the stars that are located behind that dust layer in an $A_{V}$ vs. $d$ plot. The distance at which the sharp increase in the extinction occurs is considered as the distance to that dust layer. But if there exist more than one dust layer along the line of sight, we expect steep but step-like increase in the extinction at distances at which the dust layers are located. This, however, happens only if the foreground dust layers contribute a constant extinction values. In case of patchy foreground dust layer(s), this method can give distance only to the first layer as the sharp step-like features get smeared by the non-uniform extinction caused by the foreground dust layer.
In a recent work, [@2010arXiv1006.3676K], using the 2MASS data, has presented a similar method to estimate distances to molecular clouds. Instead of using the main sequence stars in the spectral range from A0-K7 as in our work, [@2010arXiv1006.3676K] utilized three spectral groups: O-G6 as primary sources, M4-T as secondary sources and G6-M0 as teritary sources in the estimation of the cloud distances. The absolute magnitude in J-band were calibrated using Hipparcos stars. Following a rigorous statistical approach, the jump in the extinction in the A$_{V}$ vs. distance plot was obtained to determine the distance. In the pilot study, [@2010arXiv1006.3676K] estimated distances to a number of nearby clouds that includes Chamaeleon I and Lupus 3 which were included in also. The distance estimates in both the works are found to be in good agreement within the error (the typical error in the distance estimates of [@2010arXiv1006.3676K] is found to be $\sim8\%$).
[lccclr]{}\#&Area &$l$ &$b$ &Total &Stars classified\
&selected&&&stars &as Dwarfs\
&($^{\circ}$)&($^{\circ}$) &($^{\circ}$) &&\
\
1 &1.5 &178.7968 &$-$23.9180 &403 &277\
2 &1.0 &180.2393 &$-$23.9180 &438 &270\
& & & Total &841 &547\
\
1& 1.0&172.5343 &$-$13.5645&199&155\
2& 1.0&171.5169 &$-$13.5645&444&331\
3& 1.0&171.5170 &$-$14.5545&160&120\
4& 1.0&172.5388 &$-$14.5545&144&97\
5& 1.0&171.8592 &$-$15.5445&368&243\
6& 1.0&170.8327 &$-$15.5445&285&197\
7& 1.0&170.8294 &$-$16.5345&558&386\
8& 1.0&171.8610 &$-$16.5345&438&280\
& & & Total &2596 &1809\
\
1&0.5&327.3478 & $+$1.9000&327&271\
2&0.5&327.1521 & $+$1.4000&286&250\
3&0.5&327.2173 & $+$0.9000&265&220\
& & & Total & 878&741\
\
1& 0.3&12.9344 & $-$0.8481&74 &62\
2& 0.5&12.5573 & $-$0.5035&328&285\
& & & Total & 402 &347\
\
1& 0.5& 46.1434 & $-$1.3152&34 &22\
2& 0.5& 46.4786 & $-$0.8260&108&88\
3& 0.5& 45.9856 & $-$0.8260&111&89\
& & & Total & 253 &199\
\
1& 0.4& 92.3377 & $-$0.2672 &253&209\
2& 0.4& 92.7318 & $-$0.0560 &229&191\
& & & Total & 482 &400\
\
1 &0.7&102.5346 &$+$15.2936&191&144\
2 &0.7&101.7809 &$+$15.1666&205&151\
3 &0.7&102.5360 &$+$16.0555&196&145\
4 &0.7&101.7795 &$+$15.9285&208&149\
& & & Total & 800 &589\
Results and Discussion
======================
Distances to the cloud cores IRAM04191, L1521F, BHR111, L328, L673-7, L1014, and L1148\[sec:result\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We applied the method on seven dense cores, namely, IRAM04191, L1521F, BHR111, L328, L673-7, L1014, and L1148. We divided the fields containing the cores into small sub-fields to avoid complications created by the erroneous classifications of giants into dwarfs. While the rise in the extinction due to the presence of a cloud should occur almost at the same distance in all the fields, if the whole cloud is located at the same distance, the wrongly classified stars in the sub-fields would show high extinction not at the same but at random distances . In the case of cores that have small angular sizes, we included fields containing additional cores that are located spatially closer and show similar radial velocities (obtained, for example, from CO observations), in order to have sufficient number of stars to infer their distances. Here we assume that the cores that are spatially closer and have similar velocities are located at almost the same distances. Table \[tab:details\] summarizes the area of the fields (in degree) chosen towards the cores studied here, the galactic coordinates of the center of the fields, the total number of stars selected after applying all the selection criteria ($\sigma\leq0.035$, $SNR>10$, & ($J-K_{s}$)$\leq0.75$) and the number of stars classified as dwarfs by our method towards each field. Below we present results and discussion on individual clouds. In the $A_{V}$ vs. $d$ plots presented for the cores studied, the dash-dotted curve shows the increase in the extinction towards the clouds’ galactic latitude as a function of distance produced using the expressions given by @1980ApJS...44...73B (BS80, hereafter). The dashed vertical line(s) is drawn at the cloud distance(s) inferred from the procedure described in §\[sec:data\] (see Figs. \[fig:taurus\_hist\] and \[fig:hist\]).
### IRAM04191
We show the $3^{\circ}\times2^{\circ}$ extinction map [^4] produced by @2005PASJ...57S...1D of the region containing IRAM04191 in Fig. \[fig:IRAMimg\]. The contours are drawn at 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 and 1.0 magnitude levels. We selected two fields, F 1 and F2, each covering an area of $1^{\circ}\times1^{\circ} $ as shown in Fig. \[fig:IRAMimg\]. The stars, classified as dwarfs, that are used for determining the distance to the cloud are identified using circles.
In Fig. \[fig:allIRAMdist\] we present the $A_{V}$ vs. $d$ plot for the stars from both F1 (filled circles) and F2 (open circles) combined together. The dashed vertical line is drawn at 127 pc. The jump in the extinction values significantly above of that expected from the expression of BS80 is found to occur, in both fields, at $\sim127$ pc. Beyond this distance, the stars with high extinction are found to be distributed almost continuously in distance as one would expect since the cloud will act as a dense sheet of dust layer dimming the stars shining through it. Using 541 stars that are classified as main sequence stars, we estimated a distance of $127\pm25$ pc to the cloud IRAM04191.
Very accurate distance determinations ($\lesssim1\%$) are available for a number of naked T Tauri stars associated with the Taurus molecular cloud complex from the trigonometric parallax measurements made using the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) multi-epoch observations carried out by detecting their non-thermal 3.6 cm radio continuum emission. These stars include, HDE 283572, Hubble 4, T Tau and HP Tau/G2. They are found to be located at distances of $128.5\pm0.6$ pc [@2007ApJ...671.1813T], $ 132.8\pm0.5 $ pc [@2007ApJ...671.1813T], $ 147.6\pm0.6 $ pc [@2007ApJ...671..546L] and $ 161.2\pm0.9 $ pc [@2009ApJ...698..242T] respectively. As of now, from the distances determined for these four stars, it is apparent that the clouds in the Taurus molecular cloud complex are distributed in space in distances ranging from $\sim128$ pc to $\sim161$ pc. From the mean parallax obtained from the above four stars @2009ApJ...698..242T determined a mean distance of $141.2$ pc to the Taurus cloud complex. At a distance of $127\pm25$ pc, IRAM04191 could possibly located at the front end of the Taurus cloud complex. In all the previous studies of IRAM04191, this cloud was considered to be associated with the Taurus cloud complex and assigned a distance of 140 pc [@1994AJ....108.1872K]. The distance estimate presented here is the first independent confirmation of the association of IRAM04191 with the Taurus cloud complex.
### L1521F
Figure \[fig:1521img\] shows the $\sim3^{\circ}\times4^{\circ}$ extinction map of the region containing L1521F. The contours are drawn at 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0 magnitude levels. We divided the region containing L1521F into eight fields, F1-8, as shown in Fig. \[fig:1521img\]. Each field covers an area of $1^{\circ}\times1^{\circ} $. The stars, classified as dwarfs, that are used for determining distance to the cloud are identified using circles. The cloud L1521F is located in the field F3.
In Fig. \[fig:all1521dist\], we present $A_{V}$ vs. $d$ plot for the stars from all the fields (F1-8) combined together. The dashed vertical lines are drawn at 116 and 156 pc. Though, in Fig. \[fig:all1521dist\], only one component of dust layer is apparent, we could notice the presence of two dust layers in Fig. \[fig:taurus\_hist\] as it shows a sharp rise in the mean values of extinction occurring at two distances, one at 116 pc and another at 156 pc. In the $A_{V}$ vs. $d$ plots of individual fields, we found that the presence of a dust layer at 116 pc is more conspicuous towards the fields F1-4, than towards the fields F5-8. In Fig. \[fig:1521dist\], we present the $A_{V}$ vs. $d$ plot for the stars from the fields F1-4 (upper panel) and F5-8 (lower panel) separately to show the dominance of the two components of dust layers in these two regions. In Fig. \[fig:taurus\_hist\] we show the distances determined using the stars from F1-4 and F5-8 independently. The two dust layers are found to be at distances $118\pm22$ and $155\pm29$ pc and $114\pm21$ and $156\pm29$ pc towards the fields F1-4 and F5-8 respectively. The distances estimated for the two dust components using stars from separate sets of fields are found to be in good agreement. These results ascertain the fact that the technique employed here in estimating distances to dust layers in a direction is capable of picking them consistently even though the fields ($1^{\circ}\times1^{\circ} $ each) used for selecting the stars are located relatively far (3-4$^{\circ}$ in this case) apart.
The dust layer at $\sim156$ pc seems to be present in all the eight fields. Also, the $A_{V}$ vs. $d$ plot produced for the sources from F5-8 do contain a number of stars that show high extinction at distances smaller than $\sim156$ pc. This could be due to the contribution from the dust component at $\sim114$ pc. One of the limitations of the method is that in case of multiple jumps in extinction in an $A_{V}$ vs. $d$ plot, it is difficult to associate a particular jump with any of the dust layer. In fact, this is true for all methods that utilize the rise in the extinction as a way to estimate distances.
The above findings encouraged us to estimate distances to the entire Taurus molecular cloud complex. We found the presence of four dust components at distances $85\pm16$, $114\pm20$, $ 138\pm25 $ and $168\pm31$ pc towards it. The results will be presented in a forthcoming paper. The presence of the dust component at $\sim85$ pc, though, is found to be less evident towards the entire cloud complex. Based on the fact that the dust layer at $\sim118$ pc is found to be dominant towards F3, the field in which L1521F is located, we associate the jump at $\sim118\pm22$ pc to the cloud L1521F. But adopting a mean value of $136\pm36$ pc (error in this case is $\sqrt{21^{2}+29^{2}}$) to L1521F would be more appropriate as it is closer to the distances of two sources, HDE 283572 and Hubble 4, found to be located nearer ($<2^{\circ}$) to L1521F and are at distances $128.5\pm0.6$ pc and $ 132.8\pm0.5 $ pc respectively [@2009ApJ...698..242T].
### BHR 111
In Fig. \[fig:BHRimg\], we present the $\sim1.5^{\circ}\times1.5^{\circ}$ extinction map of the region containing BHR 111 (DC 3272+18). The contours are drawn at 2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 magnitude levels. The size of the cloud is only $10^{\prime}\times4^{\prime}$ [@1995MNRAS.276.1052B]. We included two additional fields F2 and F3 apart from the field F1, which contains BHR 111, as shown in Fig. \[fig:BHRimg\]. Unfortunately, no velocity information is available on the regions selected except for BHR 111 [@1995MNRAS.276.1052B]. The stars, classified as dwarfs, that are used for determining the cloud distance are identified using circles.
In Fig. \[fig:allBHRdist\] we present the $A_{V}$ vs. $d$ plot for the stars from all the fields (F1-3) combined together. The dashed vertical line is drawn at 355 pc. There are a number of stars that exhibit relatively high extinction values at distances smaller than 355 pc. Inspection of Fig. \[fig:BHRdist\], which presents the $A_{V}$ vs. $d$ plot for stars from the individual fields separately, shows that the jump in the extinction values consistently occurs at or beyond 355 pc. The presence of a foreground dust layer is suspected. On the basis of 741 stars classified as dwarfs by the method, we estimate a distance of $355\pm65$ pc to BHR 111.
Distance to BHR 111 was first determined by @1995MNRAS.276.1067B from a plot of stellar reddening of stars, selected from a circular region about the object, as against their distances corrected for reddening. They selected stars that had MK spectral types and colours available. They estimated a distance of 250 pc to BHR 111. Using the same method, @2009ApJ...703.1444R also estimated a distance of 250 pc to BHR 111. @1995MNRAS.276.1067B used a search radius of $5^{\circ}$ about the cloud to obtain stars with MK spectral types and colours. If not enough stars were available within $5^{\circ}$, they increased the search radius to $7.5^{\circ}$ or $10^{\circ}$. @2009ApJ...703.1444R used a search radius of $3^{\circ}$ about the cloud to select the stars. In Fig. \[fig:BHRimg\], it can be noticed that the cloud is not isolated but is surrounded by diffused dust clouds. In Fig. \[fig:BHRdist\] we noticed the evidence of more intervening dust layers towards the line-of-sight which is more conspicuous towards F3. It could be possible that the large search radius used by both @1995MNRAS.276.1067B and @2009ApJ...703.1444R might have picked the nearer dust layer possibly located at 250 pc.
### L328 {#res:l328}
In Fig. \[fig:328img\] we present the $1^{\circ}\times1^{\circ}$ extinction map of the region containing L328. The contours are drawn at 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0 magnitude levels. We divided the region containing L328 into two fields, F1 and F2, as shown in Fig. \[fig:328img\]. The angular extend of L328 ($\sim1^{\prime}$) is found to be too small to divide the field containing the cloud further into smaller sub-fields with sufficient number of stars for the analysis. Therefore we included the field containing an another molecular core, L323, located in the close vicinity ($\sim20^{\prime}$) of L328. Both the cores, L328 and L323, are found to have similar radial velocities of 6.6 and 6.4 km s$^{-1}$ respectively [@1988ApJS...68..257C]. The locations of the cores and the fields chosen are identified and labelled in the Fig. \[fig:328img\]. The stars, classified as dwarfs, that are used to estimate the core distance are identified using circles.
In Fig. \[fig:328alldist\] we show the $A_{V}$ vs. $d$ plot for the stars from all the fields (F1-2) combined together. The stars from F1 and F2 are represented using open and filled circles respectively. The field containing L328 is small when compared to F2 due to the small angular extend of the cloud. The stars showing high extinction at/or beyond 217 pc are present in both the fields. There exist two stars with $A_{V}\geq1$ magnitude at distances smaller than 217 pc. Both stars are found to be located towards F2 at different distances. On the basis of 347 sources classified as main sequence stars from the two fields, we estimated a distance of $217\pm30$ pc to both L328 and L323.
Earlier estimates of distances to L323 (and L328) were by @1974AJ.....79...42B who assumed a distance of 200 pc based on the number of stars brighter than $m_{pg}=21$ mag projected on the cloud in their photographic plate. Later, several authors have assigned 200 pc assuming that the clouds, L328 and L323, are located in between the Ophiuchus cloud and the Aquila Rift [e.g., @2009ApJ...693.1290L]. Using photometry in *Vilnius* system, estimated a distance of $225\pm55$ pc to the front edge of the Aquila Rift with a possible depth of 80 pc to the cloud complex. If L328 and L323 are physically associated with the Aquila Rift, then possibly, the clouds are located to the front edge of it.
### L673-7
In Fig. \[fig:673img\] we present the $1.5^{\circ}\times1.5^{\circ}$ extinction map towards the direction of L673-7. The contours are drawn at 4.0 and 5.0 magnitude levels. We divided the region containing L673-7 into three fields, F1, F2 and F3, as shown in Fig. \[fig:673img\]. L673-7 is part of the L673 cloud complex from the @1962ApJS....7....1L catalog. @1999ApJS..123..233L identified 11 cores within this complex including L673-7. The radial velocity of L673 complex in CO line is shown to range from 6.71 - 7.30 km s$^{-1}$ [@1983ApJ...265..766K]. Some more clouds are found to be associated with the region selected around L673 namely, L675, L676 from the @1962ApJS....7....1L catalog and CB188 from @1988ApJS...68..257C. These three clouds also show similar radial velocities of 7.5, 7.6 and 7.1 km s$^{-1}$ respectively [@1988ApJS...68..257C] as that of L673 complex. We therefore assume that the regions selected around L673 are all associated and included in our analysis. The stars, classified as dwarfs, that are used for determining the cloud distance are identified using circles.
In Fig. \[fig:all673dist\] we present the $A_{V}$ vs. $d$ plot for the stars from all the fields (F1-3) combined together. A jump in the extinction values significantly above the values expected from the expression of BS80 is evident at/or beyond $\sim240$ pc. The stars showing high extinction are distributed almost uniformly beyond $\sim240$ pc. In Fig. \[fig:673dist\], we show the $A_{V}$ vs. $d$ plot for the stars from the individual fields F1, F2 and F3. In all the three fields, the jump in the extinction is evidently occurring at $\sim240$ pc. Using 199 sources classified as main sequence stars from the three fields, we estimated a distance of $240\pm45$ pc to L673-7.
Previous determination of distances to L673-7 were highly uncertain. @1983AJ.....88.1040H used a distance of 300 pc, based on proper motion studies. Others assumed a distance of either 200 pc or 300 pc in their studies . @1982ApJ...261..151E used a distance of 150 pc based on the assumption that L673 is a part of Gould’s belt and characterized it as the minimum distance to the cloud. Because L673, L675, L676 and CB188 show similar radial velocities, we assign a distance of $240\pm45$ pc to all these clouds.
### L1148
The fields used to determine the distance to L1148 are shown on the extinction map in Fig. \[fig:1148img\]. The contours are drawn at 0.7, 1.0 and 2.0 magnitude levels. We divided the region containing L1147/48 into four fields, F1, F2, F3 and F4, as identified on Fig. \[fig:1148img\]. The stars, classified as dwarfs, that were used to determine the cloud distance are identified using circles.
In Fig. \[fig:all1148dist\] we present the $A_{V}$ vs. $d$ plot for the stars from all the fields (F1-4) combined together. A jump in the extinction values significantly above the values expected from the expression of BS80 is evident at 168 pc. But if we compare the $A_{V}$ vs. $d$ plots of IRAM04191 and L1521F, which are both located within 200 pc distance, with that of L1148, we can notice that the stars with high extinction towards L1148 are not distributed continuously beyond 168 pc. The angular size of the cloud (inferred from the extinction map shown in Fig. \[fig:1148img\]) is large enough to have shown a continuous distribution of stars with high extinction beyond 168 pc if the cloud would have been located at this distance. The lack of such an effect is clearly seen in Fig. \[fig:1148dist\] where we show the $A_{V}$ vs. $d$ plot for the stars from the individual fields F1 (open circles) and F2 (filled cicles) in the upper panel and F3 (filled circles) and F4 (open circles) in the lower panel. Only few stars are seen with high extinction especially towards the fields F3 and F4. On the contrary, a wall of high extinction stars are seen beyond $\sim300$ pc towards all the four fields. Using the stars from F3 and F4 alone we estimated a distance of $301\pm55$ pc to this dust component.
The L1148 core is located in a cloud complex towards the direction of Cepheus. The most widely quoted distance to L1147/48/55 is $325\pm13$ pc [@1992BaltA...1..149S]. They used the Vilnius photometric system to classify the stars and also to get the interstellar reddening. They obtained a distance of $325\pm13$ pc to L1147/1158 by taking an average of ten stars showing $A_{V}\geq0.45$ which were distributed in the range 240-380 pc. @1981ApJS...45..121S obtained a distance of 250 pc to L1147 based on the $A_{V}$ vs. $d$ plot produced using the stars from a region of $20^{\circ}\times20^{\circ}$ centred on the cloud that had both optical photometry and MK spectral classification. @1998ApJS..115...59K showed the presence of three dust components at characteristic distances: 200, 300, and 450 pc, based on cumulative distribution of field star distance moduli in Wolf diagrams. A complex velocity structure was reported by towards the direction of L1147/48, L1152, L1157 and L1155/58 cloud complex. They found the presence of two distinct velocity components in $^{13}$CO and C$^{18}$O line profiles. The blueshifted component ($ V_{LSR}\approx1.5$ km s$^{-1} $) was found to be limited to smaller extend whereas the redshifted component ($V_{LSR}\approx2-4$ km s$^{-1} $) was found to be extended over the whole cloud area. Based on the velocity structure found over the whole cloud, they suggested the presence of two cloud components along the line of sight.
The radial velocities measured for the cores L1148, L1155C-1 and L1155C-2 of the cloud complex are found to be 2.56, 2.58 and 1.35 km s$^{-1} $ respectively [@2004ApJS..153..523L]. Another cloud, L1167/1174, which also showed similar radial velocity [2.67 km s$^{-1}$, @2002ApJ...572..238C; @1997ApJS..110...21Y] as that of L1147/48 is found to be located at $\sim2^{\circ}$ south-east of L1147/48/55 cloud complex (see Fig. \[fig:1148img\]). @1992BaltA...1..149S estimated a distance of $288\pm25$ pc to the L1167/1174 again by taking an average distance of four considerably reddened stars. They preferred a distance of 275 pc to HD 200775, a Herbig Be star found associated with NGC 7023 and responsible for the reflection nebulosity, by assuming it to be a B3Ve star. , using the same method as employed in this work, have estimated a distance of $408\pm76$ pc to NGC 7023 . In the direction of NGC 7023, they also found evidence for two additional dust components one at $\sim200$ pc and another at 305 pc which were in good agreement with those inferred by @1998ApJS..115...59K. In Fig. \[fig:7023dist\] we show the $A_{V}$ vs. $d$ plot for the stars from the fields F5 and F6 which contain L1167/1174 complex (see Fig. \[fig:1148img\]). Step-like features at 310 and 408 pc are clearly visible in the plots. The component at 408 pc seems to be more conspicuous towards F5 where L1174 cloud is located. A continuous distribution of stars with high extinction is apparent beyond 408 pc. HD 200775 is probably associated with this cloud component. Towards F6, the dust component found at 310 pc seems to be dominant. There are a number of stars both towards F5 and F6 that show high extinction even at distances smaller that 310 pc. Presence of a third dust layer in the line of sight could be the reason.
About $2^{\circ}$ south-west of the L1147/48 cloud complex, there exist one more Lynds cloud, L1122. This cloud showed a radial velocity of $4.8$ km s$^{-1}$ [@1997ApJS..110...21Y]. No earlier distance estimates are available for the cloud. We estimated distance to this cloud by selecting stars from a region of $1^{\circ}\times1^{\circ}$ (see Fig. \[fig:1148img\]) centred on the cloud. In Fig. \[fig:1122dist\], we show the $A_{V}$ vs. $d$ plot for the stars towards L1122. A sudden jump in the extinction is visible at 220 pc. We assigned the distance of the first star that showed $A_{V}>1$ as the distance to this cloud. It should be noticed that the dust components which were seen at 310 and 408 pc towards L1167/1174 are absent towards L1122. The location of this cloud at a smaller distance proves that there exist dust components that are as close as 200 or even less as we found towards L1148. We therefore believe that the dust component seen towards L1147/48 cloud complex is a foreground layer and that the actual layer is associated with the dust component inferred at 301 pc.
### L1014
In Fig. \[fig:1014img\] we identify the fields used for selecting stars on the $1.2^{\circ}\times1.2^{\circ}$ extinction map of L1014. The contours are drawn at 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 magnitude levels. The stars, classified as dwarfs, that are used for determining the cloud distance are identified using circles. Each field covers an area of $ 0.4^{\circ}\times0.4^{\circ} $. The angular extend of L1014-2, which contains the VeLLO, L1014$-$IRS, is only $\approx2^{\prime}$. Therefore we included another cloud L1014-1 which is located $\sim10^{\prime}$ north-east of L1014-2. The cloud L1014-1 is better known as B362. Both L1014-1 and L1014-2 are found to have similar radial velocities .
In Fig. \[fig:all1014dist\] we present the $A_{V}$ vs. $d$ plot for the stars from all the fields F1 (filled circles) and F2 (open circles) combined together. In Fig. \[fig:hist\], the steep rise in the mean values of extinction are found to happen at distances 221 and 258 pc. But from Fig. \[fig:all1014dist\] it is evident that the steep rise in the extinction at 221 pc is occurring mainly due to two stars that are located in the field, F2 alone. On the contrary, the steep rise in the mean value of extinction at 258 pc (see Fig. \[fig:all1014dist\]) is caused due to the stars from both fields, F1 and F2 (filled and open circles). Therefore we associate the jump in the extinction at 258 pc to the presence of the cores L1014-1/2. Also, beyond this distance the high extinction stars are distributed almost regularly. However, we found only two stars with low extinction values lying foreground to L1014-1/2 that are essential to have a complete census of the dust layers in the direction. In order to include more cores in the vicinity of L1014-1/2 that share similar radial velocities, we looked at the large-scale maps of the clouds produced by @1994ApJS...95..419D based on $^{13}$CO (with a $2.7^{\prime}$ angular resolution) survey towards the Cygnus region. L1014-1, the cloud which was detected in their survey, is found to be isolated with no cloud components, at least, within a radius of $2^{\circ}$ in the velocity range of $3<V_{LSR}<4.5~km~s^{-1}$ (see Fig. $5i$ of their publication).
[@1985ApJ...297..751D] have assigned a distance of 800 pc to L1014 assuming it to be part of Cyg OB7 [see @1994ApJS...95..419D]. [@1978ApJ...221L.117H] adopted a distance of 200 pc for B362. @2006PASJ...58L..41M assigned a distance of 400-900 pc to L1014 by assuming possible association of identified T Tauri stars with the cloud. No reliable estimate of distance to L1014-2 is available in the literature. In most of the studies carried out on L1014-2, the authors have adopted a distance of 200 pc to it [e.g., @1999ApJS..123..233L] by assuming that both B362 and L1014-2 are located at same distance. Using a total of 400 sources classified as main sequence stars from the two fields, we estimated a distance of $258\pm50$ pc to L1014.
Are VeLLOs really VeLLOs?\[sec:vello\]
--------------------------------------
----------- --------------- --------------- ------ ---------------- ---------------
Cores $d^{\dagger}$ $L_{int}$ Ref. $d^{\ddagger}$ $L_{int}$
(pc) ($L_{\odot}$) (pc) $(L_{\odot}$)
IRAM04191 140 0.08 1 $127\pm25$ $0.07 $
L1521F 140 0.05 2 $136\pm36$ $0.05 $
BHR 111 250 0.04 3 $355\pm65$ $0.08 $
L328 200 0.06 4 $217\pm30$ $0.07 $
L673-7 300 0.04 5 $240\pm45$ $0.03 $
L1014 200 0.09 6 $258\pm50$ $0.15 $
L1148 325 0.10 7 $301\pm55$ $0.09 $
----------- --------------- --------------- ------ ---------------- ---------------
: On the status of the VeLLOs.[]{data-label="tab:vello"}
$^{\dagger}$Distances used by authors to evaluate internal luminosities of the VeLLOs prior to this work. $^{\ddagger}$Distance estimates from this work.\
1. @2006ApJ...651..945D; 2. @2006ApJ...649L..37B; 3. @2008ApJS..179..249D; 4. @2009ApJ...693.1290L; 5. @2010ApJ...721..995D; 6. @2004ApJS..154..396Y; 7. @2005AN....326..878K;
Using the distances estimated to the seven cores in this work we re-evaluate the internal luminosities of the VeLLO candidates. In Table \[tab:vello\] we list the distances used in earlier studies and the internal luminosities calculated using those distances of the VeLLOs in columns 2 and 3 respectively. The re-evaluated internal luminosities of the VeLLOs are given in column 6 of the Table \[tab:vello\]. The previously determined internal luminosities of the VeLLOs in the cores L328, L673-7 and L1014 were calculated using distances that were highly uncertain. However, we find that these distances are very close to the values we have determined in this work. As we can see from the Table \[tab:vello\] that the re-estimation of internal luminosities of six VeLLO candidates with our reliable distance measurements confirm them to be consistent with the definition of the VeLLOs. The VeLLO associated with L1014-2 core is found to be $L_{int}=0.15$ $L_{\odot}$. However, this source is still interesting and could be called as VeLLO-like since the luminosity is still an order of magnitude less than the accretion luminosity of $L_{acc}\sim1.7$ $L_{\odot}$ estimated for a 0.08 $M_{\odot}$ protostar using an accretion rate of $\sim2\times10^{-6}$ $M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ and 3 $R_{\odot}$ stellar radius in the expression, $L_{acc}=3.13\times10^{7}~M\dot{M}_{acc}/R$ $L_{\odot}$.
Conclusions {#sec:conclude}
===========
We estimated distances to seven dark clouds IRAM04191, L1521F, BHR111, L328, L673, L1014, and L1148 which are found to harbour VeLLO candidates, discovered in the Spitzer Legacy program $ - $ *From Molecular Cores to Planet Forming Disks*, using near-IR photometric method. In this method, first the 2MASS $JHK_{s}$ photometry are used to produce the ($J-H$) and ($H-K_{s}$) colours of the stars projected on the field containing each cloud. These observed colours are then dereddened simultaneously using trial values of $A_{V}$ and a normal interstellar extinction law. The best fit of the dereddened colours to the intrinsic colours giving a minimum value of $\chi^{2}$ then yields the corresponding spectral type and $A_{V}$ for the star. The main sequence stars, thus classified, are then utilized in an $A_{V}$ versus distance plot to bracket the cloud distances. The typical error in the estimation of distances to the clouds are found to be $\sim18\%$. Our distance estimates are: $127\pm25$ pc (IRAM04191), $136\pm36$ pc (L1521F), $355\pm65$ pc (BHR111), $ 217\pm30 $ pc (L328), $ 240\pm45 $ pc (L673), $ 258\pm50 $ pc (L1014), and $ 301\pm55 $ pc (L1148). Using these distance estimates, we re-evaluated the internal luminosities of the VeLLO candidates discovered in these cores. Except L1014$-$IRS ($L_{int}=0.15$ $L_{\odot}$), all other VeLLO candidates are found to be consistent with the definition of a VeLLO.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We express our gratitude to the anonymous referee for insightful and thoughtful comments and suggestions that have helped us to improved the paper substantially. This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (2010-0011605). This publication makes use of data products from the Two Micron all Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science Foundation. This research has also made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France.
[^1]: IRAM 04191$+$1522 is the name of the protostar found associated with a cloud core not listed in the catalogue by @1962ApJS....7....1L. This core was detected in the H$^{13}$CO$^{+}$ J=1-0 survey by @2002ApJ...575..950O. The two cloud condensations identified by them towards this region are named as \[OMK2002\] 18a and \[OMK2002\] 18b. In this paper, hereafter, we call the core that harbour IRAM 04191$+$1522 as IRAM04191.
[^2]: A more rigorous discussion on the errors and limitations of the method are presented in
[^3]: The photometric errors considered in this work in the $J$, $H$, & $K_{s}$ magnitudes from the 2MASS database include the corrected band photometric uncertainty, nightly photometric zero point uncertainty, and flat-fielding residual errors (Cutri et al. 2003).
[^4]: The extinction map, covering the entire region in the galactic latitude range $|b|\leq40^{\circ}$ derived using the optical database “Digitized Sky Survey I” and the traditional star-count technique, was produced in two angular resolutions of $6^{\prime}$ and $18^{\prime}$ (Dobashi et al. 2005). In this paper, we used the maps with $6^{\prime}$ angular resolution.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Feld’s friendship paradox states that “your friends have more friends than you, on average.” This paradox arises because extremely popular people, despite being rare, are overrepresented when averaging over friends. Using a sample of the Twitter firehose, we confirm that the friendship paradox holds for >98% of Twitter users. Because of the directed nature of the follower graph on Twitter, we are further able to confirm more detailed forms of the friendship paradox: everyone you follow or who follows you has more friends and followers than you. This is likely caused by a correlation we demonstrate between Twitter activity, number of friends, and number of followers. In addition, we discover two new paradoxes: the *virality paradox* that states “your friends receive more viral content than you, on average,” and the *activity paradox*, which states “your friends are more active than you, on average.” The latter paradox is important in regulating online communication. It may result in users having difficulty maintaining optimal incoming information rates, because following additional users causes the volume of incoming tweets to increase super-linearly. While users may compensate for increased information flow by increasing their own activity, users become information overloaded when they receive more information than they are able or willing to process. We compare the average size of cascades that are sent and received by overloaded and underloaded users. And we show that overloaded users post and receive larger cascades and they are poor detector of small cascades.'
author:
- |
Nathan O. Hodas\
USC Information Sciences Institute\
4676 Admiralty Way\
Marina del Rey, CA 90292\
`[email protected]`\
Farshad Kooti\
USC Information Sciences Institute\
4676 Admiralty Way\
Marina del Rey, CA 90292\
`[email protected]`\
Kristina Lerman\
USC Information Sciences Institute\
4676 Admiralty Way\
Marina del Rey, CA 90292\
`[email protected]`
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'Friendship Paradox Redux: Your Friends Are More Interesting Than You'
---
Introduction
============
The so-called “Friendship Paradox" or Feld’s Paradox, states that, on average, your friends have more friends than you do. This is due to the overrepresentation of extremely popular individuals in the average of friends [@Feld91]. The paradox has been empirically demonstrated both online, such as Facebook [@Ugander11], and offline [@Feld91; @zuckerman2001makes] social networks. Because people use their local network to assess themselves and as sources of information about the greater world [@zuckerman2001makes; @sgourev2006lake; @wolfson2000students; @yoganarasimhan2012impact; @kanai2012brain], the friendship paradox leads to systematic biases in our perceptions. For example, a majority of people believe they possess above average driving skill [@McKenna199145; @groeger1989assessing]. Furthermore, many personal characteristics correlate with high network degree, such as the incidence of drug and alcohol use [@tucker2011substance; @tucker2012temporal], wealth [@morselli2004criminal; @amuedo2007social; @van2003network], and extraversion [@pollet2011extraverts; @quercia2012personality], which may further effect our perceptions. Interestingly, your friends’ superior social connectivity puts them at a greater risk, in aggregate, of an infection by a biological pathogen. This fact has been used as a principle for establishing epidemiological early-warning networks, because your friends will be more heavily exposed to pathogens in aggregate [@Christakis10]. Managing one’s social network requires cognitive effort, which has been linked directly to physiological attributes within the brain [@dunbar1993coevolution; @powell2012orbital; @bickart2012intrinsic; @kanai2012online]. However, the effect of the friendship paradox on our cognitive limitations is not well examined.
In online social networks, the friendship paradox has a surprising twist. If we wish to receive more information, we can usually choose to incorporate more individuals into our online social networks, e.g., by following them on Twitter. However, as we grow our social network, we dramatically increase the volume of incoming information, since, as we show in this paper, not only are your friends better connected than you, they also tend to be more active, producing more information on average than you are willing to consume. Thus, increase in information flow collides with our innate cognitive limitations and does not increase our ability to appreciate the totality of our relationships. By increasing the incoming flow of information, we dilute our attention and reduce the visibility of any individual tweet [@Hodas12socialcom]. Receiving too much information may exceed our ability and desire to maintain existing social connections, even if they are unreciprocated [@kwak2011fragile]. Thus, users will naturally attempt to regulate the amount of incoming information by tuning the number of users they follow.
In the present work, we consider the evidence for and the consequences of the friendship paradox on Twitter, which, as a directional network, presents an opportunity to study the paradox in more detail. In the first part, we demonstrate the present evidence that the friendship paradox holds, as expected, on Twitter. We expand this analysis to other properties of the friendship network, presenting a full reciprocity friendship paradox: your friends (followees) and followers have more friends and followers than you do. We then document new behavioral paradoxes. The friend *activity paradox* states that your friends tend to be more active than you are. Thus, the behavioral traits that lead one to be well connected will also have direct influence on information overload. Your friends also send and receive content that has higher virality than you do, what we call the *virality paradox*. These facts together suggest the glib expression “your friends are more interesting than you are”. In the second part, we explore how the relative information load caused by the activity paradox alters user behavior, comparing underloaded users with overloaded users. We show that, compared to underloaded users, overloaded users both post and receive more viral URLs and are less sensitive to smaller outbreaks of less popular URLs.
A Variety of Paradoxes on Twitter {#sec:paradox}
=================================
The friendship paradox, as formulated by Feld, is applicable to offline relationships, which are undirected, and it has also been observed in the undirected social network of Facebook [@Ugander11]. We demonstrate empirically that the friend paradox also exists on Twitter. Unlike the friendship relations of the offline world and Facebook, the relations on Twitter are directed. When user $a$ follows the activity of user $b$, he or she can see the posts tweeted by $b$ but not vice versa. We refer to user $a$ as the *follower* of $b$, and $b$ as a *friend* or followee of $a$. Note that here friendship is a directed relationship.
![*An example of a directed network of a social media site with information flow links. Users receive information from their friends and broadcast information to their followers.*[]{data-label="fig:directed"}](directed.pdf){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
Figure \[fig:directed\] illustrates a directed social network of a social media site, such as Twitter. The *user* receives information from *friends* and, in turn, posts information to her or his *followers*. The friends may themselves receive broadcasts from their friends, whom we call *friends-of-friends* and post tweets to their own followers, whom we call *followers-of-friends*.
Data
----
We use the Twitter dataset presented by [@Yang2011wsdm], which contains 476 million tweets that are 20-30% of all tweets posted from June to December 2009. We also used the Twitter social network gathered by Kwak et al. (2010), which includes links between all users who joined Twitter before August 2009. Since we need both tweets and social links, we only consider users who have posted at least one tweet. The subgraph of such users includes 5.8M users and 193.9M links between them. This graph is used for showing the friendship paradox on Twitter.
Friendship Paradox
------------------
The friendship paradox can be stated in four different ways on a directed graph:
- *On average, your friends (followees) have more friends than you do.*
- *On average, your followers have more friends than you do.*
- *On average, your friends have more followers than you do.*
- *On average, your followers have more followers than you do.*
------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------
{width="0.5\columnwidth"} {width="0.5\columnwidth"} {width="0.5\columnwidth"} {width="0.5\columnwidth"}
{width="0.5\columnwidth"} {width="0.5\columnwidth"} {width="0.5\columnwidth"} {width="0.5\columnwidth"}
($i$) ($ii$) ($iii$) ($iv$)
------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------
We empirically validate each statement above. The first statement says that, on average, a user’s friends are better connected than he or she is, i.e., they follow more people than he or she does. To validate this statement, for each user in the dataset we count how many friends she has, i.e., how many other users she follows. Then, for each friend, we count how many other users the friend follows, and average over all friends. Top Figure \[fig:friend\_paradox\]($i$) plots the average number of friends-of-friends (ordinate axis) vs the number of friends (abscissa) a user follows for the users with fewer than 1000 friends. About 99.7% of users had fewer than 1000 friends. The line of unit slope shows equality of connectedness. The probability density function (PDF) of the ratio of the average friend’s connectivity to a user’s connectivity, shown in bottom Figure \[fig:friend\_paradox\]($i$), is $>1$ for 98% of the users, peaking around 10. In other words, in the Twitter follower graph, a typical friend of a user is ten times better connected than the user.
Not only are a user’s friends better connected, but so are the user’s followers. Top Figure \[fig:friend\_paradox\]($ii$) plots the average number of friends a user’s followers have vs the number of friends the user has for users with fewer than 1000 followers (99.6% of all users). Bottom Figure \[fig:friend\_paradox\]($ii$) shows the PDF of the ratio of the friends-of-followers to user’s friends. Again, for 98% of users, this ratio is above one, indicating that the average follower is better connected than the user. In fact, a typical follower is almost 20 times better connected than the user is.
The last two variants of the friendship paradox deal with user’s popularity, i.e., the number of followers he or she has. It appears that on Twitter, user’s both friends and followers are more popular than the user himself of herself. This is shown in Figures \[fig:friend\_paradox\]($iii$) and \[fig:friend\_paradox\]($iv$). In our data set, 99% and 98% of users were respectively less popular than their friends and followers. While a typical follower is about 10 times more popular than the user (Fig. \[fig:friend\_paradox\]($iv$) bottom), the ratio of the friend’s average popularity to the user’s popularity shows a bimodal distribution (Fig. \[fig:friend\_paradox\]($iii$) bottom). While some of a user’s friends are ten times more popular, some friends are about 10,000 times more popular, showing a tendency of Twitter users to follow highly popular celebrities.
Friend Activity Paradox
-----------------------
In addition to connectivity and popularity paradoxes, we also demonstrate a novel activity paradox on Twitter.
> *Friend activity paradox: On average, your friends are more active than you are.*
\
To empirically validate this paradox, we measure user activity, i.e., the number of tweets posted by a user during a given time period; we exclude users who joined Twitter after the start of the time period. After windowing by a two-months time period we are left with 37M tweets from 3.4M users and 144.5M links among these users. Note that the dataset contains a random sample of all tweets; therefore, the number of tweets posted by the user in our sample is an unbiased measure of his or her overall activity. At the same time, we measure the number of sampled tweets posted by user’s friends during the same time interval. Figure \[fig:friend\_tweet\_ave\] shows the average activity (number of posted tweets ) per friend of users who each have same level of activity, i.e., mean average friend activity as a function of user activity. The unit slope $y=x$ line is shown for comparison. 88% of all users are less active than their typical friend. Figure \[fig:friend\_tweet\_pdf\] shows the probability distribution of the ratio of average per friend activity over user activity. For the vast majority of users, the friend activity paradox holds: their friends are more active than they are.
It is known that some users become inactive after some time. To ensure that our results are not affected by inactive users, we checked the same paradox for a shorter time period of one week, during which time fewer users may have become inactive. Activity paradox still holds. In fact, a much larger fraction of users are in the paradox regime: 99% of users are less active than their friends. Also, note that in all the analyses that we are comparing users with their friends (followers) we exclude users who don’t have any friends (followers), because there is no one for the comparison.
Virality Paradox
----------------
Your friends’ superior social connectivity puts them in a better position to monitor, in aggregate, the flow of information, thereby mediating the information you receive via the social network. Perhaps this also puts them in a position to receive higher quality content. As a measure of quality, we investigate virality of URLs tweeted by users, i.e., number of times a URL was posted by any user over some time period.
> *Virality paradox: On average, your friends spread more highly viral content than you do.*
\
To confirm this paradox, we calculate average size of posted URL cascades for each user and compare this value with the average size of posted cascades of friends. We observe that $32\%$ of users haven’t posted any URLs (average cascade size of $0$), while their friends did. Therefore, these inactive users have posted fewer viral cascades than their friends. For the remaining $68\%$ of users, Figure \[fig:post\_friend\_size\_pdf\] shows the probability distribution of the ratio of average size of cascades posted by friends to the average size of cascades posted by user. We find that $79\%$ of users have ratio of greater than 1, which means that their friends have posted more viral content. Considering the users who haven’t post any URLs, $86\%$ of all users have posted less viral content than their friends.
Users not only post less popular URLs than their friends, but also receive less viral content than their friends do, on average. Figure \[fig:rec\_friend\_size\_pdf\] shows the probability distribution of the ratio of the average size of cascades friends receive to the average size of cascades received by the user. Here again $76\%$ of users receive smaller (less viral) cascades than their friends ($15\%$ of users have received URLs with same level of virality as their friends).
Spam Filtering
--------------
One trivial explanation of our results could be the presence of spammers in our sample. Spammers generate more tweets than normal users, so their presence in our sample could bias our estimates of user activity.
To validate that the paradoxes don’t exist because of the spammers, we eliminated spammers from the dataset in two different ways. First, we use the set of spammers from [@www2012ghosh]. These users’ profile was suspended by Twitter authorities and also the users posted at least one blacklisted URL. Second, we took the approach of [@Ghosh11snakdd] and classified users as spammers based on entropy of content generated and entropy of time intervals between tweets (spammers tend to have low entropy of content and tweeting time intervals).
In both cases, after removing all spammers from the network and excluding their tweets, all paradoxes still hold. In fact, in some cases the paradox becomes even stronger. For example, if we exclude users based on their content and activity entropy, 93% of users would be less active than their friends (instead 88% before spam filtering).
\
\
Friend Paradox and Information Overload {#sec:cognitiveload}
=======================================
The friend activity paradox in directed social networks of online social media is not a mere statistical curiosity — it has surprising implications for how social media users process information. As social media users become more active on the site, they may want to grow their social networks to receive more novel information. Clearly, adding more friends will increase the amount of information a user has to process. However, according to the friend activity paradox, an average new friend is more active than the user is herself; therefore, the volume of new information in a user’s stream will grow super-linearly as new connections are added. Sometimes the volume of new information will exceed user’s ability to process it, pushing the user into information overload regime. Overloaded users are less sensitive detectors of information.
User Activity and Incoming Information Volume
---------------------------------------------
We study how the *volume of incoming information*, measured by the number of tweets received by a user, grows with the size of a user’s social network. Figure \[fig:friend\_rec\] shows the average number of tweets received by users who follow a given number of friends. The data is shown for users with up to 2000 friends, and has surprisingly low dispersion. This data is best fit by an power-law function with exponent 1.14 ($R^2=0.9865$). The best linear fit has slope of 71 ($R^2 = 0.8915$), while the best quadratic fit has slope of 60 ($R^2=0.8930$). The lines in Figure \[fig:friend\_rec\] show the best power-law and linear fits, where the linear fit was shifted down vertically for clarity. These data show that the average volume of information received by a user grows super-linearly with the number of friends! Regardless of the precise functional form, the volume of incoming information increases quickly with user’s connectivity: for every new friend, users receive hundreds of new posts in their stream.[^1]
Users can compensate for the increased volume of incoming information by increasing their own activity, e.g., visiting Twitter more frequently. While we cannot directly observe when a user visits Twitter to read friends’ posts, we can indirectly estimate user activity by counting the number of tweets he or she posts within the time period. Figure \[fig:rec\_tweet\] shows that users who receive more information are also more active, though after about 500 posted tweets (over a two month period) the relationship between incoming volume of information and user activity becomes very noisy. These extremely active users (posting 50 or more tweets a day, on average, accounting for our 20% sample), who are not limiting how much information they receive, could be spammers. We include them, because their activity impacts the information load of people who choose to follow them.
--------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------
{width="0.5\columnwidth"} {width="0.5\columnwidth"} {width="0.5\columnwidth"} {width="0.5\columnwidth"}
{width="0.5\columnwidth"} {width="0.5\columnwidth"} {width="0.5\columnwidth"} {width="0.5\columnwidth"}
0 {width="0.5\columnwidth"} {width="0.5\columnwidth"} {width="0.5\columnwidth"} {width="0.5\columnwidth"}
($i$) ($ii$) ($iii$) ($iv$)
--------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------
Finally, we look at the correlation between user activity and the number of friends and followers. Figure \[fig:activity3\] shows user activity, measured by the number of tweets posted during the time interval, as a function of the number of followers and friends the user has. There is a significant correlation between user’s activity, connectivity, and popularity (p-value < 0.01). The correlation between user activity and the number of followers appears especially strong. This correlation could, in fact, explain the friend activity paradox, because highly active users contribute to the average friend activity of their many followers, causing overrepresentation when averaging over friend’s activity. The detailed mechanism for this correlation is not yet clear. It is conceivable that as the user becomes more active, she begins to follow more and more people. Being active leads her to acquire new followers as her posts become visible to others, for example, by being retweeted. This will lead to a correlation between the number of friends and followers that goes beyond simple reciprocation of links. We leave these questions for future research.
Information Overload
--------------------
In the section above, we showed that the volume of incoming information in a user’s stream quickly increases with the number of friends the user follows. While the user may attempt to compensate for this growth by increasing her own activity, this may not be enough. As a result, the user may receive more posts than she can read or otherwise process. We say that such users are in the *information overload* regime. In this section, we compare the behavior of users who are overloaded with those who are not.
We consider number of tweets posted by users during some time period (here first two months of the dataset) as a measure of the amount of effort they are willing to allocate to their Twitter activities, and categorize users into four classes based on this measure. We only consider users who joined Twitter before June 2009, so that the duration of potential activity for all users is identical. The four classes are as follows: users who posted ($i$) fewer than five tweets, ($ii$) 5–19 tweets, ($iii$) 20– 59 tweets, and ($iv$) 60 or more tweets (average of one tweet per day in the sample). Then, in each group we ranked users based on number of tweets they received. We consider the top one third of users who received the most tweets to be information overloaded, and the bottom one third are taken as underloaded users.
We compare the average size of cascades that are sent (posted) and received by overloaded and underloaded users. Each cascade is associated with a unique URL, and its size is simply the number of times that URL was posted or retweeted in our data sample during the two months period. Top line of Figure \[fig:overloaded\_post\_rec\] compares the average size of posted cascades of overloaded and underloaded users. (If the user receives the same URL multiple times, we take into account all appearances of that cascade during averaging.) The average cascade size of URLs tweeted by overloaded users is somewhat larger than those tweeted by underloaded users. Across all four groups overloaded users tweeted cascades of larger mean size, suggesting that overloaded users participate in viral cascades more frequently than underloaded users.
\[b!\]
The bottom line of Figure \[fig:overloaded\_post\_rec\] shows the difference in the average size of URL cascades received by overloaded and underloaded users. Across all four groups, a typical overloaded user receives larger cascades, as shown in Table \[table:over\_under\_rec\_size\], but overloaded users see far fewer small cascades. In other words, overloaded will be poor detectors of small, developing cascades. They seem to only know about the information spreading in a cascade when everyone else in their social network knows about it. Surprisingly, overloaded users also less likely to have their stream dominated by viral cascades than underloaded users. This could happen because globally popular URLs tend to be less popular within a user’s local network [@Lerman08wosn], so that their few occurrences in the user’s stream are drowned out by other tweets. No matter the explanation, it appears that overloaded users are only good detectors for information of mid-range interestingness — most likely the information that their friends already know.
Related Work {#sec:relatedwork}
============
The friendship paradox describes the phenomenon that most people have fewer friends than their friends have [@Feld91]. The paradox exists because people who have more friends are more likely to be observed among other’s friends; therefore, they contribute more frequently to the average. Interestingly, most people think they have more friends than their friends do [@zuckerman2001makes].
Besides being an interesting phenomenon, the friendship paradox has some practical applications. E.g., in [@Christakis10] and [@garcia2012using] authors use the paradox for early detection of contagious outbreaks, both virtual and pathogenic. Studies have shown that people with more friends are more likely to get infected early on. So, if we consider a random sample and check the friends of the random sample for the outbreak, we will have higher chance in detecting the outbreak in early days.
In this paper, we confirm the friendship paradox exists in Twitter, i.e. a user’s friends have more friends on average than the user itself, which has also been observed by Garcia-Herranz et al. [@garcia2012using]. Complimenting the work by Garcia-Herranz et al., we indirectly explain why early detection is possible on Twitter. Tweets are not pathogens, i.e., a tweet must be actively propagated to become a viral meme, unlike the flu or other live pathogens which propagate without any conscious effort by the host vector. Hence, network structure alone is insufficient to develop a robustly successful application of the friendship paradox to understanding social contagion. We report that the missing connection is the high correlation between activity and connectivity.
We also demonstrate that a new paradox also exists regarding activity of users: the vast majority of users are less active than their friends. Although the original friendship paradox can be derived solely from the properties of the network structure, the activity paradox is not *a priori* true; it will hold true any time there is a high correlation between user activity and connectivity, as we have shown for Twitter. The high correlation between activity and degree suggests that most friends are discovered via Twitter, on average. This fact will cause users who have more friends to receive even more tweets per friend, leading to a super-linear growth in incoming information. Receiving a surplus of tweets reduces the visibility of each tweet and also it divides users’ attention across different topics. Hodas and Lerman show that visibility and divided attention play a considerable role in social contagion [@Hodas12socialcom].
The present work demonstrates that a clear model of how users discover friends and manage existing friendships is essential for mitigating any undesirable consequences of the high correlation between activity and connectivity. For example, among children, this can result in “popular" kids having undue influence on others regarding the perception of peer alcohol and drug abuse [@tucker2011substance; @wolfson2000students]. Furthermore, better understanding the activity paradox can help online social networks identify and recommend interesting users to follow that will account for any undesired information overload.
Conclusion
==========
The present work has demonstrated that the friendship paradox exists on Twitter for over 98% of users, although this is not surprising, given the underlying mathematical foundation developed by Feld [@Feld91]. However, we have demonstrated a new paradox, the activity paradox, whereby your friends are more active than you are. They also receive more viral content than you, on average, and send out more viral content than you. We have shown a large correlation between activity and both in- and out- degree in the follower graph on Twitter. Hence, we propose that the activity paradox is not a fluke particular to Twitter; it results from active users generating more visibility for themselves, leading to more followers. Active users are also more interested in consuming content, on average, causing them to follow more users as they grow more active. For the putative user choosing whom to follow, it is not surprising that active users are more likely to appear in the feed via retweets of others. Hence, the key relationship can be hypothesized to be that activity causes connectivity, leading to the more detailed friendship paradox we report: your friends and followers have more friends and followers than you do.
If you have ever felt like your friends are more interesting or more active than you are, it seems the statistics confirm this to be true for the vast majority of us. The consequence, beyond the psychological implication of comparing oneself to one’s friends, is that we will receive more incoming information than we prefer, i.e., information overload. We make contacts with people who are easiest to discover – who are the most active – but we have a finite budget for communication. The present work shows that the resulting super-linear increase in information arising from following additional users could be a significant cognitive load [@Sweller98cognitivearchitecture].
Those users who become overloaded, measured by receiving far more incoming messages than they send out, are contending with more tweets than they can handle. Controlling for activity, they are more likely to participate in viral cascades, likely due to receiving the popular cascades multiple times. Any individual tweet’s visibility is greatly diluted for overloaded users, because overloaded users receive so many more tweets than they can handle. Because of the connection between cognitive load and managing information overload, the present results suggest that users will dynamically adjust their social network to maintain some optimal individual level of information flux. Future work will elucidate how the activity paradox can be used to model the dynamics of growing and shrinking our social networks over time.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
This material is based upon work supported in part by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research under Contract Nos. FA9550-10-1-0569, by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. CIF-1217605, and by DARPA under Contract No. W911NF-12-1-0034.
[^1]: This total is over the course of two months. Our dataset is a 20% sample, so the total numbers should be scaled accordingly.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The excitation spectrum of a $S=1/2$ 2D triangular quantum antiferromagnet is studied using $1/S$ expansion. Due to the non-collinearity of the classical ground state significant and non-trivial corrections to the spin wave spectrum appear already in the first order in $1/S$ in contrast to the square lattice antiferromagnet. The resulting magnon dispersion is almost flat in a substantial portion of the Brillouin zone. Our results are in quantitative agreement with recent series expansion studies by Zheng, Fjærestad, Singh, McKenzie, and Coldea \[, 057201 (2006) and cond-mat/0608008\].'
author:
- 'Oleg A. Starykh$^1$, Andrey V. Chubukov$^2$, and Alexander G. Abanov$^3$'
title: Flat spin wave dispersion in a triangular antiferromagnet
---
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[[\#1]{} [**\#2**]{}, \#3 (\#4)]{}
Triangular antiferromagnets occupy a special niche in the studies of quantum magnetism. Ising antiferromagnet on triangular lattice has a finite zero-temperature entropy, which reflects an extensive degeneracy of the ground state manifold [@wannier]. Classical Heisenberg model on a triangular lattice represents the textbook example of the full $SU(2)$ symmetry breaking and noncollinear [*spiral*]{} spin ordering in the ground state - the $120^\circ$ spin structure. For a quantum $S=1/2$ antiferromagnet on a triangular lattice, Anderson proposed back in 1973 the disordered [*resonating valence bond*]{} (RVB) ground state [@rvb]. This suggestion stimulated extensive research for over 25 years. An RVB ground state on a triangular lattice has been found recently [@qdm-rvb], albeit for a quantum dimer model. It was also established, by large-N and gauge theory approaches, that a disordered ground state of a triangular antiferromagnet must possess unconfined massive spinon excitations [@read-sachdev].
On the experimental side, several novel materials with triangular structure have attracted substantial interest over the last few years. $Na_xCoO_2$, in which $Co$ atoms form a layered hexagonal structure [@nacoo], was suggested to be in close proximity to a spin liquid [@lee]. Another potential candidate for a spin liquid is $\kappa-(ET)_2Cu_2(CN)_3$ at small pressures [@kanoda]. Finally, there is an intensive theoretical debate [@veillette1; @veillette2; @dalidovich; @alicea] on the structure of the ground state of a spatially anisotropic triangular $S=1/2$ antiferromagnet $Cs_2CuCl_4$ [@coldea2001].
The ideas about the disordered ground state of unconfined spinons, however, could [*not*]{} be immediately applied to the most studied Heisenberg model of quantum $S=1/2$ spins on a triangular lattice, as both perturbative $1/S$ and numerical calculations point that the classical, $120^\circ$ spin structure survives quantum fluctuations. Quantum fluctuations do reduce the average value of a sublattice magnetization to $50\%$ of its classical value [@css]. This renormalization is generally comparable to that for a $S=1/2$ antiferromagnet on the square lattice [@igarashi]. For the latter, calculations to order $1/S^2$ for the spectrum do show that the overall scale of the spin-wave dispersion is renormalized by quantum fluctuations, but the dispersion retains almost the same functional form as in the quasiclassical limit, and obviously is better described by magnons rather than by deconfined spinons.
For a triangular antiferromagnet, Chubukov et al [@css] computed $1/S$ corrections to the two spin-wave velocities, and found that these corrections are quite small, even for $S=1/2$. No $1/S$ calculations of the full spin-wave dispersion have been reported in the literature but, based on the results for the velocities, it was widely believed that the functional form of the dispersion for $S=1/2$ antiferromagnet should also be close to that in the quasiclassical, large $S$ limit, i.e., that the spin-wave description can be extended to $S=1/2$. Recent series expansion study [@rajiv_1], however, uncovered remarkable changes in the functional form of the dispersion in the isotropic quantum $S=1/2$ antiferromagnet on triangular lattice compared to $S=\infty$ limit. In particular, the dispersion for the $S=1/2$ case possesses local minima (“rotons") at the mid-points of faces of the hexagonal Brillouin zone (BZ). The classical dispersion does not have such local minima.
The authors of Ref. [@rajiv_1] conjectured that the qualitative changes between the actual dispersion for $S=1/2$ and the classical dispersion may imply that at energies comparable to the exchange integral $J$, the system is better described in terms of pairs of deconfined spinons rather than magnons (the latter in such description are bound states of spinons). In other words, they argued that the spinon description, valid for the disordered state, may adequately describe high-energy excitations of the ordered state.
In this communication, we propose another explanation for the series expansion results, alternative to the one proposed in Ref. [@rajiv_1]. We argue that regular 1/S corrections, extended to $S=1/2$, strongly modify the form of the magnon dispersion in a triangular antiferromagnet, and the renormalized dispersion has “roton" minima at the faces of the BZ, in agreement with [@rajiv_1]. But we also found a more drastic effect – the renormalized dispersion turns out to be almost flat in a wide range of momenta. The flat renormalized dispersion has not been reported in [@rajiv_1] where the numerical data have been presented only along special high-symmetry directions in the BZ. The subsequent, more detailed series expansion studies [@rajiv_2], carried out in parallel with our research, did find the regions of flat dispersion. The analytical and series expansion results are in good qualitative and quantitative agreement, which indicates that the flat regions are likely present in the actual dispersion, and that a first order in $1/S$ provides fairly accurate description of a triangular antiferromagnet even at high energies, comparable to the exchange $J$.
The point of departure for the $1/S$ calculation is the Heisenberg antiferromagnet on a triangular lattice = J \_[<i,j>]{} [**S**]{}\_i [**S**]{}\_j . \[1\] Using Holstein-Primakoff transformation to bosons, assuming the $120^\circ$ spin structure in the ground state, and diagonalizing the quadratic form in bosons one can re-write Eq. (\[1\]) as [@css] = 3 JS , \[2\] where dots stand for higher order terms in $1/S$, and E\_k = = , \[3\_1\] where A\_k &=& 1 + , B\_k = - \_k,\
\_k &=& ( + 2 ). \[3\] The BZ is presented in Fig. \[fig:bz\]. The magnon energy $E_k$ vanishes at the center of the zone, $k=0$, where $\nu_k = 1$, and at the corners of the BZ (e.g. at points Q and C), where $\nu_k = -1/2$.
![(Color online) BZ of a triangular antiferromagnet. Thin lines indicate the directions along which the “cuts" of dispersion are taken. Coordinates of the points are: P$(2\pi/3,0)$, A$(\pi,0)$, Q$(4\pi/3,0)$, B$(\pi,\pi/\sqrt{3})$, C$(2\pi/3,2\pi/\sqrt{3})$, F$(0,2\pi/\sqrt{3})$, and E$(0,\pi/\sqrt{3})$. ${\text{Im}}\Sigma^{(S)}_k \neq 0$ inside the shaded star-shaped area.[]{data-label="fig:bz"}](fig1.eps){width="3.0cm"}
In a square-lattice antiferromagnet, ${\cal H}_3$ term is absent, and $1/S$ corrections to the dispersion come from the decoupling of the four-boson term. These corrections do not affect the functional form of the dispersion [@igarashi]. The corrections to the dispersion then appear at $1/S^2$ order, from ${\cal H}_6$ term in the magnon Hamiltonian and from the second-order perturbation in ${\cal H}_4$, both are very small numerically. In triangular antiferromagnets, ${\cal H}_3$ term is present due to the [*non-collinearity*]{} of the classical spin configuration ($120^\circ$ structure) and, taken at the second order, gives rise to non-trivial corrections to the dispersion already at the order $1/S$. The expressions for ${\cal H}_3$ and ${\cal H}_4$ have been obtained in [@css] and we refer to that work for the derivation. Decoupling the four-magnon term in a standard way and adding the result to the quadratic form we obtain, to order $1/S$, = 3 JS , \[4\] where ${\bar E}_k$ represents dispersion renormalized by quartic terms (coming from ${\cal H}_4$ [@css]) \_k\^[2]{} = E\_k\^2 (1+c\_1/S) + (1-\_k)c\_2/S , \[5\] where $c_1=1-I_0 - I_1/4 + 5I_2/4 ,~c_2=3(I_2-I_1)/4$ and $I_{n} = \frac{1}{N}\sum_k \nu_k^n/E_k$. The cubic part reads &&[H]{}\_3 = i()\^[1/2]{} \_[1,2]{} ( c\^\_1 c\^\_2 c\_[k]{} \_1 (1,2,k) \_[1+2-k]{}\
&& + c\^\_1 c\^\_2 c\^\_[k]{} \_2 (1,2,k) \_[1+2+k]{} + ) . Here $1 = k_1$, $2 = k_2$, and summation is over the BZ. The vertices $\Phi_{1,2} (1,2,k) = {\tilde \Phi}_{1,2} (1,2,k)/\sqrt{E_1 E_2 E_k}$, where &&\_[1,2]{} (1,2,3) = [|]{}\_1 f\^[(1)]{}\_[-]{} ( f\^[(2)]{}\_[+]{} f\^[(3)]{}\_[+]{} f\^[(2)]{}\_[-]{} f\^[(3)]{}\_[-]{}) + [|]{}\_2 f\^[(2)]{}\_[-]{}\
&& ( f\^[(1)]{}\_[+]{} f\^[(3)]{}\_[+]{} f\^[(1)]{}\_[-]{} f\^[(3)]{}\_[-]{}) + [|]{}\_3 f\^[(3)]{}\_[-]{} ( f\^[(1)]{}\_[+]{} f\^[(2)]{}\_[+]{} - f\^[(1)]{}\_[-]{} f\^[(2)]{}\_[-]{}) \[7\] are expressed in terms of $f^{(i)}_{\pm} = \sqrt{A_{k_i} \pm B_{k_i}}$ and \_k = ( - ). \[8\] The ${\cal H}_3$ term gives rise to a $k$-dependent magnon self-energy to order $1/S$ \_k\^[(S)]{} &=& - ( \_[1+2 =k]{}\
&& + \_[1+2 =-k]{} ) . \[9\] Note that at this order $\Phi_{1,2}$ and $E_k$ are expressed via bare ($S=\infty$) quantities. Collecting the corrections from three-magnon and four-magnon processes and restoring the pre-factor $3JS$ (see Eq. \[4\]), we obtain for the full renormalized dispersion E\_ (k) = 3JS . \[10\] Expanding (\[10\]) to first order in $1/S$ we finally obtain E\_ (k) = 3 J S . \[11\]
It was shown in [@css] that the renormalized dispersion preserves zeros at $k=0$ and at the corners of the BZ, i.e., locations of Goldstone modes are not affected by $1/S$ corrections. Below we compute the full spin-wave dispersion (\[11\]) and apply the results to $S=1/2$.
We used the Mathematica[©]{} software to calculate the self-energy $\Sigma_k$, (\[9\]). Two-dimensional momentum integrals were regularized by replacing energy denominators with $E+i\delta$, where $\delta = 10^{-4}$, and taking the real part of the resulting expression. The imaginary part was calculated using the “bell approximation" for the delta function: $\delta(x) = \sqrt{t/\pi} e^{-t x^2}$. We found that $t=10^3$ gives stable and consistent results.
[ \[fig:3d-a\] ![(Color online) Classical and renormalized spin wave dispersions. Left panels – three-dimensional plots, right panels – color density plots. The dispersions are shown in the OQCF quadrant of the BZ and are set to zero outside this region to ease the viewing. The classical dispersion, figures (a,b), is $1.5 E_k$. The real part of renormalized dispersion $E_{\text{ren}} (k)$ (Eq. \[11\]) is shown in figures (c) and (d). The flat dispersion is in the blue (dark) region in (d). The imaginary part of the renormalized dispersion is shown in figures (e, f). Observe that it is numerically small throughout the BZ, and is zero outside the “star” region, see also Fig \[fig:bz\]. []{data-label="fig:3d"}](fig2a.eps "fig:"){width="4cm"} ]{} [ \[fig:3d-b\] ![(Color online) Classical and renormalized spin wave dispersions. Left panels – three-dimensional plots, right panels – color density plots. The dispersions are shown in the OQCF quadrant of the BZ and are set to zero outside this region to ease the viewing. The classical dispersion, figures (a,b), is $1.5 E_k$. The real part of renormalized dispersion $E_{\text{ren}} (k)$ (Eq. \[11\]) is shown in figures (c) and (d). The flat dispersion is in the blue (dark) region in (d). The imaginary part of the renormalized dispersion is shown in figures (e, f). Observe that it is numerically small throughout the BZ, and is zero outside the “star” region, see also Fig \[fig:bz\]. []{data-label="fig:3d"}](fig2b.eps "fig:"){width="4cm"} ]{} [ \[fig:3d-c\] ![(Color online) Classical and renormalized spin wave dispersions. Left panels – three-dimensional plots, right panels – color density plots. The dispersions are shown in the OQCF quadrant of the BZ and are set to zero outside this region to ease the viewing. The classical dispersion, figures (a,b), is $1.5 E_k$. The real part of renormalized dispersion $E_{\text{ren}} (k)$ (Eq. \[11\]) is shown in figures (c) and (d). The flat dispersion is in the blue (dark) region in (d). The imaginary part of the renormalized dispersion is shown in figures (e, f). Observe that it is numerically small throughout the BZ, and is zero outside the “star” region, see also Fig \[fig:bz\]. []{data-label="fig:3d"}](fig2c.eps "fig:"){width="4cm"} ]{} [ \[fig:3d-d\] ![(Color online) Classical and renormalized spin wave dispersions. Left panels – three-dimensional plots, right panels – color density plots. The dispersions are shown in the OQCF quadrant of the BZ and are set to zero outside this region to ease the viewing. The classical dispersion, figures (a,b), is $1.5 E_k$. The real part of renormalized dispersion $E_{\text{ren}} (k)$ (Eq. \[11\]) is shown in figures (c) and (d). The flat dispersion is in the blue (dark) region in (d). The imaginary part of the renormalized dispersion is shown in figures (e, f). Observe that it is numerically small throughout the BZ, and is zero outside the “star” region, see also Fig \[fig:bz\]. []{data-label="fig:3d"}](fig2d.eps "fig:"){width="4cm"} ]{} [ \[fig:3d-e\] ![(Color online) Classical and renormalized spin wave dispersions. Left panels – three-dimensional plots, right panels – color density plots. The dispersions are shown in the OQCF quadrant of the BZ and are set to zero outside this region to ease the viewing. The classical dispersion, figures (a,b), is $1.5 E_k$. The real part of renormalized dispersion $E_{\text{ren}} (k)$ (Eq. \[11\]) is shown in figures (c) and (d). The flat dispersion is in the blue (dark) region in (d). The imaginary part of the renormalized dispersion is shown in figures (e, f). Observe that it is numerically small throughout the BZ, and is zero outside the “star” region, see also Fig \[fig:bz\]. []{data-label="fig:3d"}](fig2e.eps "fig:"){width="4cm"} ]{} [ \[fig:3d-f\] ![(Color online) Classical and renormalized spin wave dispersions. Left panels – three-dimensional plots, right panels – color density plots. The dispersions are shown in the OQCF quadrant of the BZ and are set to zero outside this region to ease the viewing. The classical dispersion, figures (a,b), is $1.5 E_k$. The real part of renormalized dispersion $E_{\text{ren}} (k)$ (Eq. \[11\]) is shown in figures (c) and (d). The flat dispersion is in the blue (dark) region in (d). The imaginary part of the renormalized dispersion is shown in figures (e, f). Observe that it is numerically small throughout the BZ, and is zero outside the “star” region, see also Fig \[fig:bz\]. []{data-label="fig:3d"}](fig2f.eps "fig:"){width="4cm"} ]{}
Our results are shown as three-dimensional plots in Fig \[fig:3d\]. For comparison we also plotted the classical dispersion $3JS E_k = 1.5J E_k$. For clarity, we only plot the dispersion over a quarter of the BZ, and set it to zero outside this quarter. Observe that the renormalized dispersion vanishes at $k=0$ and at the corners of the BZ hexagon. Spin wave velocity at $k=0$ decreases in comparison to the classical result, while the one at the corners of the BZ increases (see Fig \[fig:OQ\] below) [@css].
We clearly see from Fig \[fig:3d\] that the actual dispersion is rather different from $1.5 E_k$. The key difference is that the renormalized dispersion $E_{\text{ren}} (k)$ has a plateau at around $0.8 J$ over a wide range of momenta. This is most clearly seen in Fig \[fig:3d-c\] and \[fig:3d-d\]. The dispersion also possesses a roton-like minimum near the faces of the BZ, as is best seen along the cut FC, Fig \[fig:FC\].
In Fig \[fig:3d-e\] and \[fig:3d-f\] we show the imaginary part of $E_{\text{ren}} (k)$ from three-magnon processes. In distinction to a square-lattice antiferromagnet, the imaginary part of the dispersion in our case appears already at the order $1/S$. As follows from (\[9\]), it is present when one-particle excitation (magnon) with momentum $\vec{k}$ can decay into the two-particle continuum, i.e., when $E_{\vec{q}} + E_{\vec{k} - \vec{q}} = E_{\vec{k}}$ for some $\vec{q}\in$ BZ. This condition defines star-shaped region, shown in light gray shading in Fig \[fig:bz\] (see also Fig \[fig:3d-f\]): inside it ${\text{Im}}\Sigma^{(S)}_k$ is nonzero. While ${\text{Im}}\Sigma^{(S)}_k \neq 0$ (and, hence, ${\text{Im}}E_{\text{ren}} (k) \neq 0$) in most of the BZ, we found that ${\text{Im}}E_{\text{ren}} (k)$ does not exceed $0.26 J$, and is much smaller than ${\text{Re}}E_{\text{ren}} (k)$. Nonetheless, a finite imaginary part is important as it responsible for dampening excitations at wavevectors where variations of ${\text{Re}}E_{\text{ren}} (k)$ in Fig \[fig:3d-c\] and \[fig:3d-d\] are maximal.
Observe that the maxima of ${\text{Im}}E_{\text{ren}} (k)$ in Fig \[fig:3d-e\] occur exactly where the variation of ${\text{Re}}E_{\text{ren}} (k)$ is the strongest, see also Figs \[fig:FC-OF\]-\[fig:AB-EB\] below. In other words, the sharp features in the $1/S$ dispersion are not artefacts of numerical calculations, but are real features of the excitation spectrum at this order. Observe also that ${\text{Im}}E_{\text{ren}} (k)$ vanishes at momenta where ${\text{Re}}E_{\text{ren}} (k)$ stays almost constant. This implies that nearly immobile magnons have infinite lifetime, i.e., are true excited states of the system.
[ \[fig:FC\] ![(Color online) Classical and renormalized dispersions (ordinate) along (a) FC and (b) OF directions (abscissa). Red dashed line - classical dispersion. Black solid line – the real part of the renormalized dispersion $E_{\text{ren}} (k)$, Eq. (\[11\]). Blue dotted line - the imaginary part of $E_{\text{ren}} (k)$. The black dots are series expansion data from [@rajiv_2]. No fitting parameter is involved in the comparison with the data.[]{data-label="fig:FC-OF"}](fig_fc.eps "fig:"){width="4cm"} ]{} [ \[fig:OF\] ![(Color online) Classical and renormalized dispersions (ordinate) along (a) FC and (b) OF directions (abscissa). Red dashed line - classical dispersion. Black solid line – the real part of the renormalized dispersion $E_{\text{ren}} (k)$, Eq. (\[11\]). Blue dotted line - the imaginary part of $E_{\text{ren}} (k)$. The black dots are series expansion data from [@rajiv_2]. No fitting parameter is involved in the comparison with the data.[]{data-label="fig:FC-OF"}](fig_of.eps "fig:"){width="4cm"} ]{}
[ \[fig:OQ\] ![(Color online) Same as in Fig. \[fig:FC-OF\] but along (a) OQ and (b) PC directions.[]{data-label="fig:OQ-PC"}](fig_oq.eps "fig:"){width="4cm"} ]{} [ \[fig:PC\] ![(Color online) Same as in Fig. \[fig:FC-OF\] but along (a) OQ and (b) PC directions.[]{data-label="fig:OQ-PC"}](fig_pc.eps "fig:"){width="4cm"} ]{}
[ \[fig:AB\] ![(Color online) Same as in Fig. \[fig:FC-OF\] but along (a) AB and (b) EB directions.[]{data-label="fig:AB-EB"}](fig_ab.eps "fig:"){width="4cm"} ]{} [ \[fig:EB\] ![(Color online) Same as in Fig. \[fig:FC-OF\] but along (a) AB and (b) EB directions.[]{data-label="fig:AB-EB"}](fig_eb.eps "fig:"){width="4cm"} ]{}
To better display the new features and for comparison with series expansion studies, we show in Figs \[fig:FC-OF\]-\[fig:AB-EB\] the dispersion $E_{\text{ren}} (k)$ along six different cuts through the BZ (black lines). The directions of particular cuts are shown in Fig \[fig:bz\]. In each of the plots, we also show the classical dispersion (dashed red lines). The flat regions are clearly seen in the cuts along FC, OF, PC, and EB directions, and the roton minimum is seen in the cut along FC direction. Note that in accordance with Fig \[fig:bz\], the local minimum near point F (Fig \[fig:FC\]) corresponds to a truly stable excitation, ${\text{Im}}E_{\text{ren}} (k) = 0$ there. The maximum of the renormalized dispersion is at $1.2 J$ which is substantially smaller than $1.6 J$ for the classical dispersion.
We now compare in some detail our results to series expansion studies of Zheng et al [@rajiv_1; @rajiv_2]. First, series expansion studies have found that the dispersion has a bandwidth of about $J$ (see series data in Fig \[fig:PC\]), which is substantially smaller than $1.6J$ for a classical dispersion. This is in agreement with our results (see Figs. \[fig:FC-OF\]-\[fig:AB-EB\]). Note that this difference is much larger than one might expect by comparing the spin-wave velocities which are renormalized only by about 10% [@css]. Second, series expansion studies found “roton" minima near points F and B in the BZ, Fig \[fig:bz\]. Our cuts along FC and OF also show a minumum near point F (see Fig \[fig:FC-OF\]). Third, recent series expansion studies [@rajiv_2] found the regions of flat dispersion at $0.8J$ along FC, PC, and EB directions. Our results for $E_{\text{ren}} (k)$ also show the regions of flat dispersion at around $0.8-0.9 J$. The flat regions are clearly seen on the density plot in Fig \[fig:3d-d\], as well as in Figs \[fig:FC\], \[fig:PC\], and in Fig \[fig:EB\] (near points E and B).
The near-flat regions of the magnon dispersion have a large density of states and can be probed by Raman scattering. The two-magnon Raman intensity in a square-lattice antiferromagnet is peaked slightly below twice the frequency at which the magnon density of states diverges. In our case, the density of states is peaked at around $0.8J$, and we expect that the two-magnon Raman intensity will be peaked somewhat below $1.6J$.
To conclude, in this paper we used $1/S$ expansion, extended it to $S=1/2$, and obtained the renormalized magnon dispersion for a Heisenberg antiferromagnet on triangular lattice. We found that the renormalized dispersion is qualitatively different from the classical one – it is almost flat over a wide range of momenta in the BZ, and has roton-like minuma near the mid-points of faces of the BZ. These results are in full agreement with recent series expansion studies.
We are thankful to R.R.P. Singh for valuable discussion and to R.R.P. Singh and W. Zheng for sending us series expansion results prior to publication. OAS acknowledges the donors of the American Chemical Society Petroleum Research Fund for support (PRF43219-AC10). AVC and AGA are supported by NSF via grants No. DMR-0240238 and DMR-0348358, respectively. The authors thank the Theory Institute at Brookhaven National Laboratory where this work has initiated.
[*Note added:*]{} after submission of our manuscript we learned of a closely related study of magnon decays in triangular antiferromagnets [@sasha-misha].
G.H. Wannier, Phys. Rev. [**79**]{}, 357-364 (1950). P.W. Anderson, Mater. Res. Bull. [**8**]{}, 153 (1973); P. Fazekas and P.W. Anderson, Philos. Mag. [**30**]{}, 423 (1974). R. Moessner and S.L. Sondhi, , 1881 (2001). N. Read and S. Sachdev, , 1773 (1991); A.V. Chubukov, S. Sachdev, and T. Senthil, Nucl. Phys. B [**426**]{}, 601 (1994). K. Takada, H. Sakurai, E. Takayama-Muromachi, F. Izumi, R.A. Dilanian, and T. Sasaki, Nature [**422**]{}, 53 (2003). S. Zhou, M. Gao, H. Ding, P.A. Lee, and Z. Wang, , 206401 (2005). Y. Shimizu, K. Miyagawa, K. Kanoda, M. Maesato, and G. Saito, , 107001 (2003). R. Coldea, D.A. Tennant, A.M. Tsvelik, and Z. Tylczynski, , 1335 (2001). M.Y. Veillette, J.T. Chalker, and R. Coldea, , 214426 (2005). M.Y. Veillette, A.J.A. James, and F.H.L. Essler, , 134429(2005). D. Dalidovich, R. Sknepnek, A.J. Berlinsky, J. Zhang, and C. Kallin, , 184403 (2006). J. Alicea, O.I. Motrunich, and M.P.A. Fisher, , 247203 (2005). W. Zheng, J.O. Fjærestad, R.P.P. Singh, R.H. McKenzie, and R. Coldea, , 057201 (2006). W. Zheng, J.O. Fjærestad, R.P.P. Singh, R.H. McKenzie, and R. Coldea, cond-mat/0608008. A.V. Chubukov, S. Sachdev, and T. Senthil, J.Phys.: Condensed Matter [**6**]{}, 8891 (1994). J. Igarashi, , 10763 (1992); J. Igarashi and T. Nagao, , 014403 (2005). A.L. Chernyshev and M.E. Zhitomirsky, , 207202 (2006).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We use Gaia Data Release 2 to identify 13,928 white dwarfs within 100 pc of the Sun. The exquisite astrometry from Gaia reveals for the first time a bifurcation in the observed white dwarf sequence in both Gaia and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) passbands. The latter is easily explained by a helium atmosphere white dwarf fraction of 36%. However, the bifurcation in the Gaia colour-magnitude diagram depends on both the atmospheric composition and the mass distribution. We simulate theoretical colour-magnitude diagrams for single and binary white dwarfs using a population synthesis approach and demonstrate that there is a significant contribution from relatively massive white dwarfs that likely formed through mergers. These include white dwarf remnants of main-sequence (blue stragglers) and post-main sequence mergers. The mass distribution of the SDSS subsample, including the spectroscopically confirmed white dwarfs, also shows this massive bump. This is the first direct detection of such a population in a volume-limited sample.'
author:
- |
Mukremin Kilic$^{1,2}$, N. C. Hambly$^2$, P. Bergeron$^3$, C. Genest-Beaulieu$^3$, N. Rowell$^2$\
$^1$Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Oklahoma, 440 W. Brooks St., Norman, OK, 73019, USA\
$^2$Institute for Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Royal Observatory, Blackford Hill, Edinburgh EH9 3HJ, UK\
$^3$Département de Physique, Université de Montréal, C.P. 6128, Succ. Centre-Ville, Montréal, QC H3C 3J7, Canada\
bibliography:
- 'master.bib'
date: Submitted
title: Gaia Reveals Evidence for Merged White Dwarfs
---
\[firstpage\]
stars: fundamental parameters — stars: evolution — Hertzsprung-Russell and colour-magnitude diagrams — white dwarfs — Galaxy: disc — Galaxy: stellar content
Introduction
============
Since the detection of the companion of Sirius in 1862, we have been able to create a complete census of white dwarfs (WDs) only to within 13 pc of the Sun [@holberg08; @holberg09]. This sample contains 43 stars, which corresponds to a WD space density of $4.8 \pm 0.5 \times 10^{-3}$ pc$^{-3}$. @holberg16 and @limoges15 extended the local sample to 25 and 40 pc, respectively, with the latter containing nearly 500 stars. However, the current sample of WDs with reliable parallax measurements is limited to about 250 objects [@bergeron01; @gianninas15; @bedard17]. The lack of distance measurements severely limits our understanding of the local WD population.
The fraction of binary WDs in the local 20 pc sample is 26% [@holberg16]. @toonen17 used a population synthesis approach to explain this relatively low binary fraction compared to main-sequence stars ($\sim$50%). Based on the $\approx100$ stars in the 20 pc sample, they found that the low binary fraction is mostly caused by mergers in binary systems. Their binary population synthesis models predict that $\sim56$% of WDs come from single star evolution in isolation, $\sim$7-23% come from single WDs that formed as a result of mergers in binary systems, and the rest are in (un)resolved double WD or WD + main-sequence star binaries.
The European Space Agency (ESA)’s [*Gaia*]{} mission provides an unprecedented opportunity to assemble the first reliable Hertzsprung-Russell diagram for nearby field WDs. The [*Gaia*]{} Data Release 2 (DR2) presents $G$ passband photometry, integrated magnitudes in the blue (BP, 330-680 nm) and red (RP, 640-1000 nm) passbands, and the five-parameter astrometric solution for more than 1.3 billion sources. Now that [*Gaia*]{} Data Release 2 has increased the local WD sample size by two orders of magnitude [@gaia18], we can look for the signatures of a merger population directly in the [*Gaia*]{} colour-magnitude diagrams.
Here we use a population synthesis approach to study the observed [*Gaia*]{} WD sequence. In §2 we describe our source selection and filtering of the [*Gaia*]{} data, and in §3 we present our synthetic colour-magnitude diagrams and discuss the He atmosphere WD fraction, and the bifurcation in the Gaia and SDSS passbands. We discuss the WD mass distribution and the results from binary population synthesis studies in §4, and conclude in §5.
Gaia Sample Selection
=====================
In order to derive a clean sample within 100 pc of the Sun we follow the recommendations outlined in [@lindegren18] to remove non-Gaussian outliers in colour and absolute magnitude. We made cuts on BP, RP and parallax signal–to–noise of 10 or greater and employed the astrometric and photometric quality cuts outlined in Appendix C of [@lindegren18]. A simple cut in $(G_{\rm BP} - G_{\rm RP}, M_{\rm G})$ space keeping only those sources fainter than the line joining (-1,5) and (5, 25) was used to net the clearly subluminous stellar objects relative to the main sequence. This selection is optimized for reliability rather than completeness; it keeps isolated WDs and unresolved double WDs, but removes WD + main-sequence binaries from the sample, which make up about 20% of the local WD sample [@holberg08]. The query executed on the [*Gaia*]{} archive is available as supplementary data; it returns 13,928 sources, which corresponds to a space density of $3.3 \times 10^{-3}$ pc$^{-3}$. This is significantly lower than the local WD space density of $4.5 \pm 0.4 \times 10^{-3}$ pc$^{-3}$ as measured from the Gaia 20 pc WD sample [@hollands18]. However, taking into account the missing WD + main-sequence binaries in the 100 pc sample brings the space density up to within $1\sigma$ of the estimate from the Gaia 20 pc sample. About 4.4% of the WDs in our sample appear overluminous or undermassive ($M<0.5 M_{\odot}$, see §3.3); these are likely unresolved double degenerate binary systems. This fraction is comparable to the 6% double degenerate fraction found in the 20 pc sample [@holberg08].
Analysis
========
Single Star Population Synthesis
--------------------------------
![Synthetic colour-magnitude diagrams for H (top panels) and He (bottom panels) atmosphere WDs for a 10 Gyr old disc population and assuming a constant star formation rate (left panels) or an initial single burst of star formation (right panels). Each panel displays 5,000 WDs that evolved in isolation. The solid lines show the appropriate model sequences for 0.5 and $1.0 M_{\odot}$ WDs for each composition.[]{data-label="fig:single"}](f1.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
The canonical age estimate for the thin and thick discs are about 8-10 Gyr [@leggett98; @kilic17]. To model the disc populations, we assume a constant star formation rate and generate 100 main-sequence stars at every 1 Myr time step with masses randomly drawn between 0.8 and 8from a Salpeter mass function [@salpeter55]. We assume solar metallicity and use the main-sequence + giant-branch lifetimes from @hurley00 to decide if a star evolves into a WD within the model age. We calculate the final WD masses based on the initial-final mass relation (IFMR) from @kalirai08. Given the total age and the main-sequence lifetime of each star, we estimate its WD cooling age. Combined with the final WD mass, the cooling age enables us to calculate the expected colours and magnitudes [@bergeron95; @holberg06] of a given star in the [*Gaia*]{} passbands. Here we use the Gaia DR2 passbands that were used to calculate the published DR2 values [@evans18].
To explore the effects of the star formation history of the disc on our simulations, we calculate another set of models where we assume a single burst of star formation that lasts 1 Gyr. We also assume a metallicity of \[Fe/H\] = $-0.7$ [@ivezic08], which is appropriate for an old population like the thick disc. We use the evolutionary lifetimes from @hurley00 for that metallicity, and follow the same procedure as above to estimate the final WD mass, cooling age, [*Gaia*]{} magnitudes and colours.
Figure \[fig:single\] shows the synthetic colour-magnitude diagrams for 10 Gyr old disc WD populations assuming either a constant star formation rate or a single burst. A constant star formation rate leads to the formation of WDs with a variety of masses (and therefore absolute magnitudes) at any given age. On the other hand, all of the intermediate-mass stars in the 10 Gyr old single burst disc population have already evolved into cool WDs and this population is currently forming only $M\sim0.5 M_{\odot}$ WDs, creating a narrow band of stars at the bright end of the WD sequence.
The He atmosphere WD Fraction
-----------------------------
![SDSS WDs within 100 pc of the Sun (blue points) and our synthetic model for a 10 Gyr old disc WD population (black points). Model sequences for pure H (black line, $T_{\rm eff}\geq7000$ K) and pure He atmosphere (magenta for $T_{\rm eff}>11,000$ K and red between 7000-11,000 K) are also shown. He lines disappear below about 11,000 K. Hence, pure He atmosphere WDs below that temperature would be classified as DC spectral type.[]{data-label="fig:he"}](f2.pdf){width="3in"}
Figure \[fig:he\] shows a colour-magnitude diagram for the SDSS WDs in the 100 pc sample. There is a clear split of the WD sequence into H and He atmosphere WDs in the narrower SDSS passbands [@gaia18], which are more sensitive to the atmospheric composition. H-rich WDs suffer from the Balmer jump. Their ultraviolet fluxes are suppressed compared to their He-rich counterparts, and they have redder $u-g$ colours. The bifurcation due to atmospheric composition is visible for $M_u<14$ mag, which corresponds to $T_{\rm eff}\approx 7000$ K.
To estimate the He atmosphere WD fraction, we create synthetic colour magnitude diagrams for a variety of ages (6-10 Gyr) and He atmosphere WD fractions (10-50%). We then divide the observed colour-magnitude diagram into 80 boxes within the range $M_u=10$-14 and $u-g=-0.4$ to +0.6 mag, and compare the relative number densities of each model with the data to find the best model that reproduces the observed number densities. This is similar to the analysis done on the globular cluster WD sequences of M4, NGC 6397, and 47 Tuc [@hansen07; @hansen13]. We then perform a Monte Carlo analysis where we replace the observed magnitudes with $G + g \sigma_G$ where $g$ is a Gaussian deviate with zero mean and unit variance. For each set of the modified data, we find the best-fitting model, and take the range in parameters that encompasses 68% of the probability distribution function as the $1\sigma$ uncertainties. We constrain the fraction of He atmosphere WDs to $36 \pm 2$% in this colour and magnitude range.
The ratio of He- to H-atmosphere WDs is strongly temperature dependent because of convective mixing and dilution. The evolution of the atmospheric composition due to these effects is not well understood [@bergeron01; @chen12]. Hence, our results are only valid in the $M_u=10$-14 mag range. Further insight into the He atmosphere WD fraction of the 100 pc population will have to await a detailed model atmosphere analysis that relies on spectroscopy and near-infrared photometry to distinguish between H and He atmosphere WDs.
The Bifurcation in the Gaia Passbands
-------------------------------------
![Observed (left panel) and synthetic colour-magnitude diagrams for the 100 pc WD sample in the Gaia passbands. Model sequences for $0.6 M_{\odot}$ H (red) and He (magenta) atmosphere WDs are shown in the left panel. The middle and right panels show the predicted sequences for a 10 Gyr old disc population assuming either a constant star formation rate or a single burst of star formation. The bifurcation in the Gaia data is not matched by our simulations based on single star population synthesis and pure H and pure He WD model atmospheres.[]{data-label="fig:gaia"}](f3.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Figure \[fig:gaia\] shows the Gaia 100 pc WD sequence (left panel) and our synthetic colour-magnitude diagrams based on single star population synthesis and a He atmosphere WD fraction of 36%. As noted in @gaia18, there is a clear bifurcation of the observed sequence below $G=12$ mag, but this is not reproduced by our simulations including a large fraction of pure He atmosphere WDs. To explore the source of this bifurcation, we cross-matched the SDSS subsample with the Montreal White Dwarf Database [@dufour17] and found 800 spectroscopically confirmed WDs with $T_{\rm eff} \geq 6000$ K. Since H$\alpha$ is still visible at these temperatures for H atmosphere WDs, this temperature selection enables us to define relatively clean samples of DA and non-DA white dwarfs.
Figure \[fig:spec\] shows Gaia and SDSS colour magnitude diagrams for the spectroscopically confirmed WDs in the SDSS subsample. DA and DB WDs follow the pure H or pure He atmosphere model predictions relatively well in both the SDSS and Gaia passbands. However, most of the DC, DQ, and DZ WDs fall to the left of the $0.6 M_{\odot}$ pure He atmosphere model predictions in the Gaia colour-magnitude diagram (left panel). Since DQ and DZ WDs show absorption features that are not included in the pure He atmosphere models, their bluer colours are not surprising, and therefore atmospheric composition can partly explain the bifurcation seen in the Gaia bands. However, DC WDs should follow the pure He atmosphere models, unless they are, on average, more massive than expected. Furthermore, there is a large number of spectroscopically confirmed DA WDs that also fall on the lower sequence observed in the Gaia passbands. Hence, the bifurcation in the Gaia passbands is not due to atmospheric composition alone; the mass distribution also plays a role.
![Gaia (left panel) and SDSS (right panel) colour-magnitude diagrams for the spectroscopically confirmed white dwarfs with $T_{\rm eff}\geq 6000$ K in the SDSS subsample. Model sequences for H (black line) and He (red line) atmosphere WDs are also shown.[]{data-label="fig:spec"}](f4.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
The top panel in Figure \[fig:ugriz\] shows the mass distributions of the DA, DB, and DC WDs in the SDSS subsample using pure H (for DA) and pure He (for DB and DC spectral types) atmosphere models. The DA mass distribution peaks at $0.6 M_{\odot}$ but displays a significant contribution from massive WDs. The DC WDs are also relatively massive. @liebert05 discuss the volume effect for detecting different mass WDs in magnitude-limited surveys. Massive WDs are intrinsically fainter, hence the effective survey volume for such WDs is significantly smaller. Hence, the total number of massive WDs are significantly underestimated in magnitude-limited spectroscopic surveys like the SDSS.
![[*Top panel:*]{} The mass distributions for the spectroscopically confirmed DA (black), DB (magenta), and DC (red) WDs shown in Figure \[fig:spec\]. [*Bottom panel:*]{} The mass distribution for the 100 pc WDs with $T_{\rm eff}\geq 6000$ K based on pure H atmosphere model fits to their $ugriz$ photometry and Gaia parallaxes. The dotted and dashed lines show the best-fit pseudo-Voigt profiles to the two populations with mean masses of 0.60 and $0.80 M_{\odot}$, respectively, and the red line shows the combined fit. The blue line shows the predicted mass distribution for a disc population with a constant star formation rate.[]{data-label="fig:ugriz"}](f5.pdf){width="3in"}
The bottom panel in Figure \[fig:ugriz\] shows the mass distribution of all 100 pc SDSS WDs ($\approx$80% lack spectroscopy) with $T_{\rm eff}\geq 6000$ K based on our pure H atmosphere model fits to the $ugriz$ photometry and Gaia parallaxes. Clearly the mass distribution of the WDs in the solar neighborhood is bimodal with two significant peaks at 0.6 and $0.8 M_{\odot}$, respectively. Using pure He atmosphere models gives similar results: if we take the high mass objects with $M=0.7-1 M_{\odot}$ and fit them with He atmosphere models, 65% of the stars still remain in the massive WD sample.
The blue line in the bottom panel shows the predicted mass distribution for a disc population of single WDs. Normalizing the disc model to match the observed mass distribution in the 0.5-$0.7 M_{\odot}$ range, we find that the secondary peak at $0.8 M_{\odot}$ contributes 25% of the stars in the 0.7-$1 M_{\odot}$ range. We use the spectroscopically confirmed WDs to estimate the contamination rate of this massive bump from non-DA WDs. There are 163 DA, 32 DB, 109 DC, 46 DQ, and 31 DZ WDs for which our H atmosphere model fits place them in the massive bump. @kleinman13 present spectroscopic fits to 99 of these DAs, which have a median $\log{g}=8.43$. Hence, $\geq43$% of the spectroscopically confirmed WDs in the secondary peak are bonafide massive DA WDs, implying that $\sim$11% of the WDs in the 100 pc sample are massive.
In order to verify that this bimodal mass distribution is consistent with the SDSS colour-magnitude diagrams, we fit the Gaia $G$ and $G_{\rm BP} - G_{\rm RP}$ photometry and parallaxes of our 100 pc WD sample with pure H and pure He atmosphere models. Given the estimated masses and cooling ages for each WD, we then calculate their predicted colours and magnitudes in the SDSS passbands. We add random noise to their predicted magnitudes based on the SDSS observations. We call these simulations “the Gaia model”.
Figure \[fig:colour\] shows two sets of SDSS color-magnitude diagrams. The left panels show the predicted SDSS photometry of our Gaia sample, based on the masses and cooling ages derived from Gaia photometry and parallaxes (the Gaia model). The middle panels show the observed sample of 4016 WDs with SDSS photometry, and the right panels show our synthetic colour-magnitude diagrams for single WDs in a 10 Gyr old disc. For a fair comparison, we randomly select 4016 stars from the Gaia and the disc models. This figure demonstrates that both models agree fairly well with the observed WD sequence in the $M_u$ versus $u-g$ diagram. They both match the bifurcation at the bright end due to the atmospheric composition, but any potential bifurcation at fainter magnitudes is lost in the noise. Hence, given the relatively large photometric errors in the $u-$band, it is easy to hide a bifurcated mass distribution (as in our Gaia model predictions) in this colour-magnitude diagram.
![Color-magnitude diagrams in the SDSS passbands. The left panels show the predicted colours of our 100 pc sample of WDs based on the masses and cooling ages derived from Gaia photometry and parallaxes. The middle panels show the observed WD sequence and the spectroscopically confirmed WDs from Figure \[fig:spec\], and the right panels show the synthetic sequences for a 10 Gyr old disc population of single stars with a smooth mass distribution.[]{data-label="fig:colour"}](f6a.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"} ![Color-magnitude diagrams in the SDSS passbands. The left panels show the predicted colours of our 100 pc sample of WDs based on the masses and cooling ages derived from Gaia photometry and parallaxes. The middle panels show the observed WD sequence and the spectroscopically confirmed WDs from Figure \[fig:spec\], and the right panels show the synthetic sequences for a 10 Gyr old disc population of single stars with a smooth mass distribution.[]{data-label="fig:colour"}](f6b.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
The observed WD sequence in the $M_g$ versus $g-i$ colour-magnitude diagram shows a slight bifurcation between $M_g = 12$-14 mag. This is similar to the bifurcation seen in the Gaia passbands, $G$ versus $BP-RP$. The disc model, which includes a 36% He atmosphere WD fraction and a smooth mass distribution, does not match this bifurcation. On the other hand, the Gaia model shows a similar bifurcation in the same magnitude range as the observations, though the bifurcation is somewhat lost in the noise. Hence, there is evidence for a mass bifurcation even in the SDSS $M_g$ versus $g-i$ colour-magnitude diagram, but the evidence is not as significant due to the large errors in the SDSS observations.
Discussion
==========
There is considerable interest in understanding the field WD mass distribution. @tremblay16 used 97 stars from the local 20 pc sample and 715 stars from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey spectroscopy sample to study the field WD mass distribution and concluded that there is no evidence of a population of double WD mergers in the observed mass distribution. @hollands18 revisited the 20 pc sample using Gaia parallaxes, and found a mass distribution in agreement with the @tremblay16 results. However, given the small number statistics, their mass distribution can still be fit with a secondary peak at $0.8 M_{\odot}$ as long as the fraction of massive WDs in their sample is $<30$% (M. Hollands 2018, private communication). This is consistent with @liebert05, who attribute a high mass bump seen in the Palomar-Green survey WD sample to a 15% contribution from merged WDs. Similarly, @limoges15 find an excess of massive WDs at low temperatures in the 40 pc local WD sample. @maoz18 discuss potential reasons why massive WDs might have been excluded from the 20 pc sample and the @tremblay16 study, and uses two different radial velocity surveys to argue that 8.5-11 % of all WDs formed through mergers.
We use a binary population synthesis approach to study the frequency of mergers. We create 100,000 main-sequence binaries with primary masses randomly drawn between 0.8 and 8 from a Salpeter mass function and the secondary masses drawn from a uniform mass ratio distribution between 0 and 1 [@duchene13]. As in @toonen17, we assume a Lognormal period distribution with $\log{P}=5.03 \pm 2.28$ d and up to $\log{P}=10$ d. We assume a uniform eccentricity distribution between 0 and 1, except for the closest binaries with $P<12$ days for which we assume $e=0$ [@raghavan10]. We follow the evolution of these systems over 10 Gyr using the binary-star evolution (BSE) algorithm of @hurley02. By 10 Gyr, about 15% of the 100,000 binaries merge either on the main-sequence or post-main sequence and evolve into single WDs, and another 19% form double WDs. @toonen17 demonstrated that the numbers of merged and double WDs are sensitive to the input assumptions and that the number of merged systems heavily depends on the initial period distribution, affecting their space density by a factor of 2.
For comparison, a single burst 10 Gyr old disc population converts 77% of its main-sequence stars into WDs. Hence, for a main-sequence binary fraction of 50%, a sample of 100 initial systems would produce 38.5 single disc WDs, 7.5 single WDs from mergers, and 9.5 double WDs; the fraction of single WDs that form through mergers in binary systems is $\approx$14%, with a factor of 2 uncertainty. In addition, the merger products are predicted to have $M= 0.74 \pm 0.19 M_{\odot}$. Hence, a combination of single WDs that evolve in isolation in a 10 Gyr old disc and single WDs that form through mergers in binary systems can naturally explain both the number and mass distribution of the 100 pc Gaia WD sample.
@elbadry18 present an alternative explanation for the large numbers of massive WDs by fine-tuning the IFMR. Their piece-wise fit has 8 free parameters, and it requires an IFMR that is significantly flatter in the initial mass range 3.5-5.5 $M_{\odot}$ compared to the IFMR derived from open cluster WDs [@kalirai08; @williams09]. Even though, a flattened IFMR is plausible, it cannot explain the large difference between the binary fractions of main-sequence stars (50%) and their descendant WDs [26%, @holberg16].
Conclusions
===========
We use the local 100 pc sample of WDs to demonstrate that a significant fraction of the single WDs in the solar neighborhood are massive. Thanks to the exquisite astrometry from Gaia, this population reveals itself through a bifurcation in mass (and absolute magnitude) in the Gaia colour-magnitude diagrams, which are also affected by the atmospheric composition. Our single and binary population synthesis calculations show that the overall properties of the massive WDs are consistent with formation through mergers in binary sytems.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work is supported in part by the NASA grant NNX14AF65G, the NSERC Canada, and by the Fund FRQ-NT (Québec). Kilic thanks the University of Edinburgh’s Institute for Astronomy Wide Field Astronomy Unit staff for their hospitality during his sabbatical visit. This work presents results from the European Space Agency (ESA) space mission Gaia. Gaia data are being processed by the Gaia Data Processing and Analysis Consortium (DPAC). Funding for the DPAC is provided by national institutions, in particular the institutions participating in the Gaia MultiLateral Agreement (MLA). The Gaia mission website is https://www.cosmos.esa.int/gaia. The Gaia archive website is https://archives.esac.esa.int/gaia.
\[lastpage\]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The properties of the first generation of black-hole seeds trace and distinguish different models of formation of cosmic structure in the high-redshift universe. The observational challenge lies in identifying black holes in the mass range $\sim 100 - 1000\,M_\odot$ at redshift $z\sim 10$. The typical frequencies of gravitational waves produced by the coalescence of the first generation of light seed black-hole binaries fall in the gap between the spectral ranges of low-frequency space-borne detectors (e.g., LISA) and high-frequency ground-based detectors (e.g., LIGO, Virgo and GEO 600). As such, these sources are targets for proposed third-generation ground-based instruments, such as the Einstein Telescope which is currently in design study. Using galaxy merger trees and four different models of black hole accretion — which are meant to illustrate the potential of this new type of source rather than to yield precise event-rate predictions — we find that such detectors could observe a few to a few tens of seed black-hole merger events in three years and provide, possibly unique, information on the evolution of structure in the corresponding era. We show further that a network of detectors may be able to measure the luminosity distance to sources to a precision of $\sim30\%$, allowing us to be confident of the high-redshift nature of the sources.'
author:
- 'Alberto Sesana, Jonathan Gair, Ilya Mandel& Alberto Vecchio'
title: Observing gravitational waves from the first generation of black holes
---
\#1[to 0pt[\#1]{}]{}
Introduction
============
An ability to probe the nature of the first massive black-hole (MBH) seeds at medium-to-high redshift is fundamental to understanding the hierarchical assembly scenario, to discriminate between different models of structure formation in the high-redshift universe and to explore the link between black holes residing at the centre of galaxies and their hosts (Sesana, Volonteri & Haardt 2007). If MBH seeds are *massive* (i.e., $\sim 10^5\msun$), the future space-borne gravitational wave (GW) detector LISA (Bender et al. 1998) will probe the first epoch of mergers between these seeds at high redshift. However, if MBH seeds are *light* (i.e., $\sim 100\msun$), the GWs from these mergers will fall between the sensitive frequency band of LISA and of currently operating and planned Advanced versions of ground-based instruments — LIGO, Virgo and GEO 600 (see Sigg et al. 2008, Acernese et al. 2008 and Grote et al. 2008 for recent status reports). In this *Letter* we show that third-generation laser interferometers may be able to fill this gap by directly probing the first mergers between light MBH seeds and will thus provide complementary information to other instruments.
If seed black holes (BHs) are the remnants of Pop III stars with mass $\sim 100\msun$ (Madau & Rees 2001; see Sesana, Volonteri & Haardt 2007 for a short review of this and alternative scenarios) we expect dozens of MBH binary (MBHB) coalescences per year in the mass range $\sim10^2-10^6\msun$ (Sesana et al. 2004) (NB we will use MBHB liberally to refer to any binary formed between black holes in the centres of merging dark-matter halos). Most of the MBHB events occur at redshift $z \gtrsim 3$, with the consequence that LISA will be able to detect MBHBs down to $\sim 10^3\msun$ with a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) $\gtrsim10$, but will not probe lower masses. To probe the $10^2-10^3\msun$ range, a new GW telescope with optimal sensitivity in the frequency window $0.1-10$ Hz is needed. This could be achieved either by a second generation space-based detector, such as the Big Bang Observer (Phinney et al. 2003), ALIA (Bender et al. 2005) or DECIGO (Kawamura et al. 2006), or by the third generation of ground-based laser interferometers, for which the target is $\sim$ ten-fold strain sensitivity increase over Advanced LIGO and a low frequency cut-off at $\sim 1$ Hz (the ET target sensitivity is compared to other instruments in Fig. \[f:shvsh\]). In this *Letter*, we focus on third-generation ground-based instruments as these are presently undergoing conceptual design studies, and for reference we use the specific example of the Einstein gravitational-wave Telescope (ET) (see e.g., Freise et al 2009). We demonstrate that instruments such as the ET can detect seed black-hole binaries, albeit at likely rates of no more than a handful a year, and discuss whether such observations can uniquely identify these events as produced by light remnants of Pop III stars.
Models for Pop III seed growth
==============================
The astrophysical scenario that we consider in this *Letter* assumes that seed black holes of mass $\sim 100\msun$ are produced by the first generation of supernovae in the very high-redshift Universe at $z \approx 20$. These black holes are efficient at accreting mass and hierarchically merge following mergers between their host halos. We can trace the merger hierarchy by means of Monte-Carlo merger-tree realizations based on the extended Press-Schechter formalism (Press & Schechter 1974), assuming a standard $\Lambda$CDM cosmology with the 1-year [*WMAP*]{} cosmological parameters (Spergel et al. 2003); technical details are given in Volonteri, Haardt & Madau (2003; VHM) and Volonteri, Salvaterra & Haardt (2006; VSH). We consider four variants of this model, which have the same merger history for the dark-matters halos, but different prescriptions for the mass-distribution and accretion efficiency of the seeds: (i) [*VHM,ems*]{} (VHM with equal-mass seeds) is based on equal $150\msun$ seeds accreting at the Eddington limit during each merger episode; (ii) [*VHM,smd*]{} (VHM with seed-mass distribution) differs from [*VHM,ems*]{} only in the seed-mass distribution, which is log-normal in the range $10-600\msun$; (iii) [*Shank*]{} has black-hole seeds with flat mass distribution in the range $150-600\msun$ and *redshift-dependent* accretion efficiency, following Shankar et al. 2004; (iv) [*Hopk*]{} again assumes black-hole seeds with flat mass-distribution in the range $150-600\msun$ and accretion efficiency that is [*luminosity-dependent*]{} according to the prescription given by Hopkins et al. 2005. Integrated over cosmic history, all these models reproduce the X-ray and optical quasar luminosity function at $z<3$, the observed faint X-ray counts of AGNs (see VSH), and, integrated over all MBH masses, predict about $50-70$ black-hole coalescences per year in the Universe. This range is statistical and does not include uncertainties in assumptions about, e.g., cosmology, that go into the merger trees, which could change the number of predicted events by a factor of a few in either direction. The accretion models considered here have been tuned to reproduce observations at low redshift, $z \lesssim 3$, rather than accretion onto seed black holes at [**$z \gtrsim 5$**]{}. Recent work has indicated that accretion onto $100M_{\odot}$ black holes is inefficient (Alvarez et al. 2008, Milosavljevic et al. 2008) and generally sub-Eddington. This adds further uncertainties to the light seed scenario, but we emphasize that our choice of models is guided by the goal of illustrating the science potential of this new class of observations rather than an attempt to provide solid predictions for event rates.
{width="3.2in"}
Waveform and detector models
============================
To compute the sensitivity of the ET to GWs generated during the coalescence of seed MBH binaries, we model the gravitational wave emission with the phenomenological waveform family (IMR) introduced by Ajith et al. (2008). This describes radiation from a non-spinning black-hole binary and includes in a self-consistent manner the inspiral, merger and ring-down phases; these phases are marked in Fig. \[f:shvsh\], which shows a typical frequency-domain gravitational waveform $\tilde h(f)=A(f) e^{i\psi(f)}$. Fig. \[f:shvsh\] also indicates that a significant fraction of the signal is contributed by the merger and ringdown, so an inspiral-only waveform would be inadequate. Exact expressions for the amplitude $A(f)$ and the phase $\psi(f)$ of the IMR waveforms are provided by Eqs. (4.17), (4.18) and (4.19) and Table I of Ajith et al. (2008). The strain at the detector depends on the total redshifted mass $M_z \equiv (1+z)M$, the symmetric mass ratio $\eta$, a fiducial time of arrival parameter $t_0$, and six extrinsic parameters — two sky-position angles, the orbital phase at time $t_0$, the wave polarization angle $\psi$, the source inclination angle with respect to the line of sight $\iota$, and the luminosity distance to the source $D_L$. The optimal signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) at the instrument is SNR$^2 = 4\int_0^\infty df |\tilde h(f)|^2/S_n (f)$, where $S_n (f)$ is the one-sided noise power spectral density of the interferometer, as shown in Fig. \[f:shvsh\]. For a network of detectors, the total network SNR is obtained by adding the SNRs of the individual instruments in quadrature. We report SNRs averaged over the sky location of the source and its orbital-plane orientation.
As a check, we also computed the SNR for some events using the effective-one-body-numerical-relativity (EOBNR) waveform family introduced by Buonanno et al. (2007). The SNRs predicted by the EOBNR waveforms are typically somewhat higher (by up to $\sim25\%$) for equal-mass events, and are comparable for all events except those with very asymmetric mass ratios, $\eta \ll 1$, where neither waveform family has been shown to be valid.
The currently favoured design for the Einstein Telescope calls for a 10km triangular facility containing three 60$^{\circ}$ detectors (Freise et al. 2009); we refer to this design as a “single ET”. We use the noise power spectral density defined in Hild et al. (2008) for a single right-angle 10km detector. The angle-averaged sensitivities achieved by two right-angle detectors and three 60$^{\circ}$ detectors (single ET) are factors of $\sqrt{2}$ and $3/2$ higher, respectively, than for one right-angle 10km instrument.
Detection-rate estimates
========================
For each of the four scenarios described in Section 2, we have generated 1000 independent realisations of the galaxy merger history and computed the SNR of all coalescences that take place over a time span of 3 years, representative of a typical data-taking period for a third-generation instrument. Figure \[f:nvssnr\] shows the number of events that would be seen by the third generation network in three years as a function of the SNR in a single right-angle 10km detector within the network, for each of the four models. Assuming that a network SNR of $8$ would be required for detection, the SNR in one 10km detector would be 5.3 for a single ET or 4.4 (3.9, 3.1) if one (two, three) additional 10km detector(s) were added. Figure \[f:nvssnr\] indicates that in all models except [*Shank*]{}, we could expect to detect a few to a few tens of events over three years. The [*Shank*]{} model predicts fewer than one event in a single ET.
{width="2.8in"}
The ET will be sited underground, which should make it possible to suppress seismic gravity-gradient noise (Hughes & Thorne 1998) and achieve sensitivity at frequencies as low as $\sim 1$ Hz (cf. Advanced LIGO, Fig. \[f:shvsh\]); however, it is not currently clear whether it will be possible to mitigate this noise source below $\sim 3$ Hz. In addition, the ET may suffer a confusion background in the $1$–$5$Hz range due to cosmological compact-binary systems (Regimbau & Hughes 2009). The impact of such a background on Pop III event rates needs to be properly quantified, but we have checked this crudely. The preceding results assumed a low-frequency cut-off of $1$Hz (which is also the cut-off we use for parameter estimation), but we found that only $\sim 25\%$ of the events were lost with a higher cut-off at $5$Hz. We conclude that design changes or a confusion background should not affect our qualitative conclusions.
Figure \[f:nvsMz\] indicates the distribution of masses and redshifts for the events that would be detected under each scenario. We see that most events have intrinsic masses of a few hundred $M_\odot$ (down to a few tens in the [*VHM,smd*]{} model), although a few events with $M \gtrsim 1000\msun$ might also be observed. Many of the events will be at medium-to-high redshift, $5\lesssim z \lesssim 10$, except in the [*VHM,smd*]{} model which predicts a distribution peaked around $z \sim 4$ with a long tail extending to $z>12$. Most of the observable events are related to the hierarchical assembly of small–to–medium size parent halos (masses in the range $10^{11}-10^{13}\msun$ at $z=0$). In such halos, seeds are less likely to experience coalescences accompanied by major accretion episodes at high redshift, and they are more likely to have $M \lesssim1000\msun$ at $z=10$, leaving them in the band accessible to third generation detectors.
The number of events and their redshift distribution may provide constraints on both the mass function and accretion history of seed black holes in the early Universe. Considering our example scenarios, in the [*Shank*]{} model seeds are born quite massive ($150-600\msun$) and they accrete at the Eddington limit at high redshift \[see equation (2) in VSH\]; in this model, most of the seeds grow above $1000\msun$ by $z=10$, making detection with ground-based detectors difficult. In the [*Hopk*]{} model, accretion is on average less efficient and many of the seeds are still in the few-hundred solar-mass range at $z<10$, making detection easier. The initial seed mass distribution may also leave a detectable signature on the observed events. The [*VHM,ems*]{} and [*VHM,smd*]{} models are characterised by the same Eddington-limited accretion prescription; nonetheless, their mass and redshift distributions are significantly different. In the [*VHM,ems*]{} model most of the $150\msun$ seeds grow at high $z$, radiating outside the $1$–$1000$Hz band; only the ‘tail’ of $\lesssim 10^3\msun$ black holes left behind at $z<10$ is detectable. In the [*VHM,smd*]{} model, there are many $<100\msun$ seeds which would be observable at very high redshift ($z>10$). Many of them will grow inefficiently, and still have masses $\sim100\msun$ at low redshift, making them perfect targets for ET; however, it may be impossible to discriminate between coalescences involving these low-$z$ Pop III remnants and those involving intermediate-mass BHs (IMBHs) formed at low redshift. IMBHs might form via runaway collisions of massive stars in globular clusters (Portegies-Zwart et al. 1999; but see Glebbeek et al. 2009), and scenarios have been proposed in which IMBH binaries also form (Fregeau et al. 2006). The IMBH masses considered there, $\sim 10^3M_{\odot}$, are somewhat higher than seed black hole masses, $\sim$few$\times100M_{\odot}$. Therefore, if we observe an IMBH merger at $z\gtrsim 5$ with masses $\sim100M_{\odot}$, we can be fairly confident that the constituent black holes are Pop III seeds. Further work will be needed to identify what observational signature(s) provide the best discriminating power between these two formation channels.
{width="3.0in"}
This current work indicates that, while probing seeds mostly at $z<10$, third-generation detectors may provide useful insights into the properties and accretion history of seed black holes at higher redshift. LISA will be able to probe deeper in redshift, since ground-based detectors are limited at low frequency by a gravity-gradient ‘noise wall’ at 1Hz. However, LISA will not be able to observe seed black-hole mergers because it is not sufficiently sensitive in the relevant frequency range (see Fig. \[f:shvsh\]). LISA will only provide indirect constraints on seed black-hole populations through observations of subsequent mergers of black holes in the mass-range $10^4$–$10^6\ M_\odot$.
Parameter-estimation results
============================
In order to identify an event as a seed black-hole merger, we must be able to determine the redshift and mass of the system. As mentioned earlier, events at low redshift $z \lesssim 3$ might not involve primordial black holes. A gravitational-wave observation determines the redshifted total mass $(1+z)\,M$ and luminosity distance $D_L(z)$, but not the redshift $z$ independently. It is unlikely that electromagnetic counterparts to ET events will be observed, but if we assume a concordance cosmology inferred from other observations, we can determine the redshift from the luminosity distance. The fractional redshift error is then comparable to the fractional luminosity-distance error, plus an $O(10\%)$ error from uncertainties in the cosmology.
We used the Fisher information matrix to evaluate the parameter-estimation errors. We carried out a Monte Carlo simulation over the extrinsic parameters for fixed choices of the intrinsic parameters, $M_z$ and $\eta$. We note that this approach may overstate the precision of parameter estimation at low SNRs (Vallisneri 2008); a more rigorous study of parameter-estimation accuracy would require the computation of the full posterior probability density function and is beyond the scope of the present paper.
The intrinsic parameters, $M_z$ and $\eta$, are determined by the waveform phase evolution and so we expect to measure them well. The extrinsic parameters, by contrast, affect only the relative amplitudes of the signal. A single ET makes four independent measurements (two quadratures in two detectors) and so at least one additional interferometer is needed to determine the six extrinsic parameters. We computed parameter-estimation errors for several network configurations consisting of an ET at the location of Virgo and additional interferometers at Hanford and Livingston. At a fixed network SNR of $8$, we found that for all networks $M_z$ and $\eta$ would be determined to a fractional accuracy better than $1\%$ for all but the most massive systems ($M_z \sim 1000 M_\odot$). The distance, and hence redshift, will be determined less accurately. One ET plus a second 10km interferometer will be enough to determine the distance to better than $\sim40\%$ in $68\%$ of cases. The addition of a third 10km detector will improve this distance precision to $\sim30\%$. Upgrading the 10km detectors to ETs leads to further modest improvements, but would also increase the SNR accumulated from a source at a fixed distance. We also explored siting the second detector in Perth, Australia, instead of Hanford, but found little net difference in parameter-estimation accuracy. The error in the source-frame mass is dominated by the error in $z$ rather than that in $M_z$, and so is also $\sim40\%$. Therefore, we should be able to say confidently that a source at $z\sim 5$ *is* at high redshift and has $M\sim 100\msun$, and hence is most likely a seed black-hole merger.
Discussion
==========
Information about seed black holes is extremely difficult to obtain using present or future electromagnetic observations. The only direct means to study seed black holes is via gravitational-wave observations of mergers. If seed black holes are remnants of Pop III stars at high redshift, then LISA may not be able to probe the early stages of their evolution. In this paper we have analyzed the ability of third-generation ground-based interferometers, such as the proposed Einstein Telescope, to detect the coalescences of $100-1000\msun$ seed black-hole binaries for a range of seed properties and accretion histories.
We have found that third-generation detectors will be able to detect $\sim1$–$30$ events over a 3-year observation, depending on the selected model and on the assumed telescope configuration. The distribution of detected masses, ranging from a few$\times10\msun$ to a few$\times 1000\msun$, is complementary to the range probed by LISA, making the detection of low-mass seeds possible. The noise wall at 1 Hz will preclude the detection of sources at very high redshift, although in the case of a seed-mass spectrum that extends down to $10\msun$ (i.e., the [*VHM,smd*]{} model), some detections may be possible at $z>10$. The mass and redshift distribution of detected events may be useful in reconstructing the accretion history of the first seeds. We have also shown that a detector network with at least two sites will be able to determine the (redshifted) masses and luminosity distances of the majority of events to accuracies of $\lesssim1\%$ and $\lesssim 40\%$ respectively. This should be sufficient for us to say with confidence that the merger is occurring at high redshift between low-mass seeds.
Previous work (Wyithe & Loeb 2004) indicated that Adv. LIGO might detect pop III seeds. That work used a semi-analytic model for structure growth and our current work contradicts this, suggesting that their model significantly over-predicted the number of mergers occurring at low redshift. There are various sources of uncertainty in our analysis. Our waveform model ignored the effects of black-hole spin and higher gravitational-wave harmonics, which tend to enhance the SNR and increase the event rate. These effects also help to break degeneracies between parameters, improving the validity of the Fisher Matrix approach to computing parameter accuracies used in this paper. However, the SNR threshold of $8$ may be optimistic when source confusion and realistic instrumental noise are taken into account. The merger-tree models have various uncertainties, such as the choice of cosmological parameters, e.g., $\sigma_8$, which could change the rates by a factor of a few in either direction. More work is also needed to understand how to distinguish IMBH binaries formed in globular clusters from seed black holes. Despite these uncertainties, this [*Letter*]{} is a proof of concept which clearly demonstrates that third-generation ground-based instruments have the capability to detect seed black holes, allowing us to confirm (or discard) the hypothesis that MBH seeds are light remnants of Pop III stars, and suggests that this could be one of the science drivers for these instruments.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank M. Volonteri for useful discussions and for providing the Monte-Carlo realisations of the halo and MBH merger hierarchy. AS acknowledges support from NSF Grant No.s PHY 06-53462 and PHY 05-55615, and NASA Grant No. NNG05GF71G, awarded to The Pennsylvania State University. AV is partially supported by the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council. JG’s work is supported by the Royal Society. IM is partially supported by NASA ATP Grant NNX07AH22G to Northwestern University.
Acernese F. et al., 2008, Class. Quantum Grav. 25, 114045 Ajith P. et al., 2008, Phys.Rev.D, 77, 104017 Alvarez M. A., Wise J. H. & Abel T., 2008, arXiv0811.0820 Bender P. et al., 1998 [*LISA Pre-Phase A Report; Second Edition*]{}, MPQ 233 Bender P. L., Armitage, P. J., Begelman, M. C. & Pema, R., 2005, [*Massive Black Hole Formation and Growth*]{}, White Paper submitted to the NASA SEU Roadmap Committee. Buonanno A. et al., 2007, Phys.Rev.D 76, 104049 Fregeau J. M., Larson S. L., Miller M. C., O’Shaughnessy R. & Rasio F., 2006, ApJ, 646, L135 Freise A., Chelkowski S., Hild S., Del Pozzo W., Perreca A. & Vecchio A., 2009, Class. Quantum Grav., accepted, arXiv0804.1036 Glebbeek E., Gaburov E., de Mink S. E., Pols O. R., & Portegies Zwart S. F., 2009, arXiv0902.1753 Grote H. et al., 2008, Class. Quantum Grav. 25, 114043. Hild S., Chelkowski S. & Freise A., 2008, arXiv:0810.0604 Hopkins P. F., Hernquist L., Cox T. J., Di Matteo T., Robertson B., Springel V., 2005, ApJ, 632, 81 Hughes S. A. & Thorne K. S., 1998, Phys. Rev. D 58, 122002 Kawamura S. et al., 2006, Class. Quantum Grav., 23, S125 Madau P. & Rees M. J., 2001, ApJ, 551, L27 Milosavljevic M., Couch S. M. & Bromm V., 2008, arXiv0812.2516 Phinney E. S., et al. 2003, The Big Bang Observer, NASA Mission Concept Study Portegies Zwart S. F., Makino J., McMillan S. L. W. & Hut P., 1999, A&A, 348, L17 Portegies Zwart S. F. & McMillan S. L. W., 2002, ApJ, 576, 899 Press W. H. & Schechter P., 1974, ApJ, 187, 425 Regimbau T. & Hughes S. A., 2009, arXiv:0901.2958 Sesana A., Haardt F., Madau P. & Volonteri M., 2004, ApJ, 611, 623 Sesana A., Volonteri M. & Haardt F., 2007, MNRAS, 377, 1711 Shankar F., Salucci P., Granato G. L., De Zotti G., Danese L., 2004, MNRAS, 354, 1020 Sigg D. et al., 2008, Class. Quantum Grav. 25, 114041 Spergel D. N. et al, 2003, ApJS, 148, 175 Vallisneri M., 2008, Phys. Rev. D 77, 042001 Volonteri M., Haardt F. & Madau P., 2003, ApJ, 582, 599 Volonteri M., Salvaterra R. & Haardt F., 2006, MNRAS, 373, 121 Wyithe J. S. B. & Loeb, A., 2004, ApJ, 612, 597
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present a revised catalog of 2106 Galactic stars, selected without kinematic bias, and with available radial velocities, distance estimates, and metal abundances in the range $0.0 \le \feh \le -4.0$. This update of the Beers & Sommer-Larsen (1995) catalog includes newly-derived homogeneous photometric distance estimates, revised radial velocities for a number of stars with recently obtained high-resolution spectra, and refined metallicities for stars originally identified in the HK objective-prism survey (which account for nearly half of the catalog) based on a recent re-calibration. A subset of 1258 stars in this catalog have available proper motions, based on measurements obtained with the [*Hipparcos*]{} astrometry satellite, or taken from the updated Astrographic Catalogue (AC 2000; second epoch positions from either the Hubble Space Telescope Guide Star Catalog or the [*Tycho*]{} Catalogue), the Yale/San Juan Southern Proper Motion (SPM) Catalog 2.0, and the Lick Northern Proper Motion (NPM1) Catalog. Our present catalog includes 388 RR Lyrae variables (182 of which are newly added), 38 variables of other types, and 1680 non-variables, with distances in the range 0.1 to 40 kpc.'
author:
- 'Timothy C. Beers'
- Masashi Chiba
- Yuzuru Yoshii
- Imants Platais
- 'Robert B. Hanson'
- Burkhard Fuchs
- Silvia Rossi
title: 'Kinematics of Metal-Poor Stars in the Galaxy. II. Proper Motions for a Large Non-Kinematically Selected Sample'
---
Introduction
============
Studies of the kinematics of various stellar populations in the Galaxy, in particular the thick disk and the nascent halo, have long been limited by the availability of large samples of stars with measurements of velocities, distances, and metallicities. Such a database is required in order to constrain plausible scenarios for the formation and evolution of the Milky Way and other large spiral galaxies like it. Current issues which might be addressed with such data include: (a) the rotational character of the thick disk and halo (see, e.g., Beers & Sommer-Larsen 1995, hereafter BSL, and references therein), (b) the existence and the observed lower limit on the metal abundance of stars in the so-called metal-weak thick disk (MWTD) (Morrison, Flynn, & Freeman 1990, hereafter MFF; BSL; Carney et al. 1996; Chiba & Yoshii 1998; Martin & Morrison 1998) (c) a dual-component (flattened plus spherical) halo population in the Galaxy (Hartwick 1987; Sommer-Larsen & Zhen 1990; Norris 1994; Kinman, Suntzeff, & Kraft 1994; Sommer-Larsen et al. 1997), (d) quantitative estimates of the local density of thick disk and halo stars (Yoshii 1982; Preston, Shectman, & Beers 1991; Morrison 1993), (e) tests for the existence of a putative “counter-rotating” halo component beyond 4–5 kpc from the plane (Majewski 1992; Wilhelm 1995; Carney et al. 1996; Wilhelm et al. 1996; Zinn 1996; Carney 1999), (f) measures of the local halo velocity ellipsoid for comparison with the derived ellipsoid for more distant halo stars (Sommer-Larsen et al. 1997), and (g) derivation of a reliable RR Lyrae absolute magnitude estimate based on statistical parallax analyses (Layden et al. 1996; Fernley et al. 1998; Popowski & Gould 1998). As more extensive searches are carried out for evidence of past (and present) mergers of smaller galaxies with the Milky Way (e.g., Preston, Beers, & Shectman 1994; Harding et al. 1998; Helmi & White 1999; Majewski 1999), it is of equal importance to obtain secure knowledge of the “global” Galactic kinematic properties, so that deviations from the expected behavior can be reliably assessed.
To confidently address the above issues (and many others) stars chosen as kinematic tracers should be identified in a manner which does [*not*]{} depend on a kinematic selection criterion itself. Although it may be possible to statistically correct for an input selection bias of this nature (Bahcall & Casertano 1986; Ryan & Norris 1991a; Carney et al. 1994; Carney 1999), one is left with lingering doubt concerning the derived kinematic parameters based on post-facto modifications of the results. It is similarly important that the tracer stars cover a wide range of metallicities and distances (over both northern and southern Galactic hemispheres), so that correlations of kinematics as a function of these parameters can be investigated.
Although hints of the impact of a kinematic selection criterion are evident in the work of Yoshii & Saio (1979), the first [*large*]{} database suitable for exploration of many of these issues was that of Norris (1986), which included some 400 spectroscopically and/or photometrically selected stars with abundances $\feh \le -0.6$, and with available radial velocities and distance estimates. In Paper I of this series BSL extended the Norris catalog by inclusion of some 900 stars identified from the HK object objective-prism survey of Beers & colleagues (Beers, Preston, & Shectman 1985; Beers, Preston, & Shectman 1992a; Beers et al. 1992b), as well as some 600 additional stars from other smaller samples which appeared in the literature subsequent to the publication of the Norris catalog, obtaining a total sample of 1936 stars.
In this paper we present a revision of the BSL catalog of Paper I, based on additional observational information which has recently become available. In addition to revisions of metallicities for the published HK survey stars, new photometric distance estimates have been made for the entire BSL catalog based on an internally self-consistent methodology, and in some cases, new photometry. Radial velocities have been updated based on recently-obtained high-resolution data for a number of stars. Much more accurate positional information for the stars in our revised catalog has been obtained by comparison with astrometric positions available for many of the brighter stars in our sample, plus improved information from automated scans of wide-field photographic plates, such as compiled in USNO-A V2.0 (Monet et al. 1998), NPM1 (Klemola, Hanson, & Jones 1993), and SPM 2.0 (Platais et al. 1998). We have also added 182 RR Lyrae variables from the recent work of Layden (1994), Layden et al. (1996), and Fernley et al. (1998), so that useful comparisons of the kinematics of these stars with the non-variables (which presumably sample the same Galactic phase space) can be carried out.
The [*major*]{} difference between the present catalog and the BSL catalog is the addition of proper motions, from a variety of sources, for over half of the stars in our catalog. In §2 we discuss the assemblage of the present catalog. Revisions of radial velocities and abundances, and in particular, distance estimates, are discussed in §3. In §4 we present the new proper motion information, and discuss the averaging we have carried out in order to minimize statistical errors. In §5 we discuss the observed characteristics of the stars in the revised catalog, and derive estimates of space motions and orbital parameters for the subset of stars with complete kinematical information . In the accompanying analysis paper (Chiba & Beers 2000; Paper III) we use this wealth of new information to consider many of the questions put forth above.
Additions and Subtractions from the Beers & Sommer-Larsen (1995) Catalog
========================================================================
The BSL catalog of Paper I contained 1936 stars with available abundances, distances, and radial velocities. As it was our intent to use this catalog as the starting point in searches for stars with measured proper motions, the first requirement was to obtain updated positions for the stars of as high an accuracy as possible. A small number of fainter stars in the BSL catalog with crude positions (and no finding charts) were eliminated entirely. The remaining stars were then compared with the positions listed in the SIMBAD database. A first search was done on the star name, followed by a search on the reported position in the BSL catalog, with the requirement that the magnitude reported in SIMBAD be commensurate with that of the target star. Many of the brighter stars from the BSL catalog now have astrometric positions from [*Hipparcos*]{}, which are accurate at the milli-arcsecond (mas) level. For the stars of intermediate and fainter magnitudes, searches were conducted on the BSL positions by comparison with the USNO-A 2.0 catalog, again with the requirement that the magnitudes be commensurate. The typical accuracy of stellar positions for USNO-A 2.0 is at the 025 (one-sigma) level (Deutsch 1999). Further searches were conducted within the catalogs we use below to find proper motions – NPM1, SPM 2.0, STARNET, and ACT – which resulted in positional accuracies on the order of 02, 30 mas, 03, and 25 mas, respectively. For a small number of stars no improved positional information could be found, hence we retained the positions in the original BSL catalog.
The [*Hipparcos*]{}, [*Tycho*]{}, NPM1, and SPM 2.0 catalogs included a number of “targeted” RR Lyrae stars which were not included in the BSL catalog, some of which have radial velocity and abundance estimates available in the literature. We thus added a total of 182 RR Lyrae stars to our revised catalog, including many with metallicities greater than the nominal cutoff of the BSL catalog. A small number of non-variables which were not included in the BSL catalog, but which have available radial velocities and abundance estimates, were also added. As a result of the revised abundances, described in more detail below, a small number of HK survey stars which were originally assigned metallicities $\feh \le -0.6$ presently have values above this limit. These stars are noted in the revised catalog.
Column (1) of Table 1A lists the star names. We have endeavored to follow the IAU-recommended nomenclature, but in a few cases had to abbreviate the star name in order to save space. In any case, the positional identification is usually unambiguous. All adopted positions were updated to the ICRS (2000.0) system. Columns (2) and (3) of Table 1A list the right ascension and declination of the adopted positions, respectively. The source of the position is indicated in column (4).
Revisions of Abundance Estimates, Velocities, and Distances
===========================================================
Revisions of Abundance Estimates
--------------------------------
Roughly 45 % of the stars in the revised catalog were originally identified during the course of the HK objective-prism survey. In the BSL catalog the abundance estimates for these stars were obtained from a calibration of the strength of the CaII K line as a function of $(B-V)_o$ color described in Beers et al. (1990). This calibration is now known to suffer from several deficiencies, the most worrisome of which is the fact that assigned abundances in the range $\feh > -1.5$ are less than optimal as a result of the saturation of the CaII K line, in particular at cooler temperatures. Stars in the metallicity regime $-2.0 \le \feh \le -1.0$ represent the transition between the halo and thick disk populations, and in particular, may be members of the MWTD component of the Galaxy, hence it is important that the abundances be correctly estimated. At the low end of the metallicity scale ($\feh < -2.5
$), the lack of available calibrators in the Beers et al. (1990) treatment resulted in stellar abundance estimates which were, on the whole, somewhat lower than has proven to be justified on the basis of recent high-resolution spectroscopy, in particular for the hotter stars near the main-sequence turnoff of an old halo population.
The re-calibration of metallicity estimates based on medium resolution spectroscopy described by Beers et al. (1999) avoids, to a great extent, the above difficulties. This re-calibration makes use of an additional metallicity estimator based on the Auto-Correlation Function of metallic lines in a stellar spectrum (originally described by Ratnatunga & Freeman 1989), which provides a superior estimate of abundance to CaII K in the regime $\feh >
-1.0$. The combination of the CaII K and ACF approaches implemented in Beers et al. (1999) results in metallicity estimates over the interval $-4.0 \le \feh
\le 0.0$ with typical errors on the order of 0.1-0.2 dex, and no significant systematic offsets.
Figure 1 is a comparison of the abundance determinations of the HK survey stars in the revised catalog based on the new and old calibration. Note that the broad sloping region about the one-to-one line, which is dominated by stars with $0.3 \le (B-V)_o \le 0.5$, indicates that the revised abundances for the hotter HK survey stars are generally higher at the low metallicity end of the scale, and lower at the high metallicity end of the scale, as compared to the old calibration. The abundance estimates for the cooler stars with $0.5 <
(B-V)_o \le 1.2$ have changed relatively less.
As part of the re-calibration effort, Table 7 of Beers et al. (1999) lists averaged high-resolution abundance determinations from the literature for 551 stars. For stars which also appear in the revised catalog, we adopted these averaged abundance determinations.
The catalog of Cayrel de Strobel et al. (1997) provides detailed information on abundances for stars with determinations based on high-resolution spectroscopy. Suitably averaged abundances for stars which did not appear in Beers et al. (1999) were adopted for the revised catalog listing. A number of stars from MFF have been shown by Ryan & Lambert (1995) to suffer from mis-estimated abundances (generally too low) arising from a faulty calibration of DDO photometry. For MFF stars with high-resolution abundances obtained by Ryan & Lambert, we simply adopt their values. For other MFF stars which are included in the revised catalog, the abundances should be considered uncertain.
Metallicity estimates for the revised catalog are reported in column (5) of Table 1A. The source of the metallicity estimate is indicated in column (6). Uncertain abundances are indicated with a ’:’ appended to the reported .
Revision of Radial Velocities
-----------------------------
Radial velocities of improved accuracy have been reported for a number of stars in our revised catalog based on high-resolution spectroscopic follow-up, in particular for the HK survey stars (McWilliam et al. 1995; Norris, Ryan, & Beers 1996). The adopted radial velocities are reported in column (7) of Table 1A. Errors on the radial velocity measurements are reported in column (8), and the source of the radial velocity estimate is provided in column (9). For the HK survey stars with only medium-resolution spectroscopy available, we adopt a conservative error estimate of 10 (based on previous comparisons). For non-variable stars where the original authors did not report an error on the velocity determination, we have adopted an error of 10 . For RR Lyrae variables without reported radial velocity errors, we assign an error of 30 , which accounts for the uncertainty in the systemic velocity arising from limited phase coverage in spectra for a given variable (Smith 1995).
Revision of Distance Estimates
------------------------------
We have determined new photometric estimates of stellar distances for stars in our catalog based on $M_V$ [*vs.*]{} $(B-V)_o$ relations for non-variable stars, as described below, and an adopted $M_V$ [*vs.*]{} $\feh$ relation for RR Lyrae variables.
### Apparent Magnitudes and Colors
Our primary source of $V$-band apparent magnitudes and $B-V$ colors for non-variable stars is the photometry obtained during the course of the HK survey, if available (with typical accuracy in $V$ magnitudes and $B-V$ colors in the range 0.005 to 0.01, respectively). Additional photometric information was taken from the SIMBAD database, the [*Hipparcos*]{} Catalogue, and the calibrated photographic photometry of SPM 2.0, and GSC 1.2.
There are several hundred HK survey stars in our catalog which presently lack measured photometry. For these stars we have estimated the $V$ magnitudes and $B-V$ colors in the following manner. An estimate of the $B$ magnitude is obtained from GSC 1.2, where available. An approximate de-reddened $(B-V)_o$ color is obtained from available medium resolution spectroscopy, based on the calibration of the Balmer line index $HP2$ described by Beers et al. (1999). This is then reddened using the listed estimated to reddening in the direction toward the star, and the resulting $B-V$ is obtained. This color is then used to convert the GSC $B$ magnitude estimate to an approximate $V$ magnitude. Given the multiple approximations in these procedures, these estimates should be regarded with appropriate caution – these stars are indicated in Table 1A with parentheses around the $V$ and $B-V$ magnitude estimates. In a few cases, apparent magnitudes for HK survey stars that were not found in the GSC are estimated from the intensity of the spectrum on the original prism plate, and are indicated as such with brackets around the $V$ and $B-V$ magnitudes in the table.
For a number of stars, $V$ magnitudes and $b-y$ colors are available from Schuster et al. (1996), Schuster et al. (2000), or Anthony-Twarog et al. (2000). For these stars, we have listed an approximate $B-V$ color obtained by adopting the transformation $B-V= 1.35\; (b-y)$, and indicate these cases with parentheses about the approximate $B-V$ color in . For RR Lyrae variables, the intensity-averaged $V$ magnitudes, where available, are taken from either Layden (1994), Layden et al. (1996), or Fernley et al. (1998). The adopted photometric quantities are reported in columns (10) and (11) of Table 1A; the source of the photometry is given in column (12); a reddening estimate (as described below) is listed in column (13).
### Estimates of Reddening
Our primary source of total reddening in the directions of the sample stars is the new map of Schlegel, Finkbeiner, & Davis (1998, hereafter SFD) based on [*COBE*]{} and [*IRAS*]{} measurements of dust emission in the Galaxy. The SFD map is superior to the widely used map of Burstein & Heiles (1982, hereafter BH) in its spatial resolution and its zero point (see also Gould & Popowski 1998 for arguments in favor of the SFD map). Note, however, that Arce & Goodman (1999) caution that the SFD map overestimates the reddening values when the color excess $E_{B-V}$ is more than about 0.15 mags, where SFD’s calibration from dust column density to reddening may no longer be accurate. For the small number of stars where this large reddening applies, we have adopted estimates from the BH map, where available. The few program stars in such highly reddened directions are generally located at small distances from the Sun, so that the effects of correction for reddening on distance estimates are small.
We adopt a $V$-band absorption $A_V = 3.1 E_{B-V}$ and assume that the dust layer has a scale height $h = 125$ pc. The reddening to a given star at distance $D$ is reduced compared to the total reddening by a factor $\exp[- |D
\sin b|/h ]$, where $b$ is the galactic latitude. An iteration procedure is employed to obtain consistent values of $E_{B-V}$ and $D$. The final adopted reddening is listed in column (13) of Table 1A.
### Classification of Stellar Types
Column (14) of Table 1A lists the classification of each stellar type. We follow the coding of BSL – D: main-sequence dwarf star; A: main-sequence A-type star; TO: main-sequence turnoff star; SG: subgiant star; G: giant star; AGB: asymptotic giant branch star; FHB: field horizontal-branch star; V: variable stars other than the RR Lyrae type. For the RR Lyraes, we use a code ’RRV’ to distinguish them from other types of variable stars. Most of the classifications are taken from the BSL catalog, with the exception of a few stars where we have adopted the classifications from Norris, Bessel, & Pickles (1995) (HD 13359: G; HD 17233: SG; HD 219221: D; HD 217808: G; CPD-62 394: G) and Anthony-Twarog & Twarog (1994) (HD 161770: TO; BD-01 1792: G; HD 17072: AGB; HD 41667: G). These revised classifications provide photometric distance estimates which are more consistent with the [*Hipparcos*]{} parallaxes, as described below. Revised classifications are also provided for a number of the HK survey stars, based on more recent observations.
There still remains some uncertainty in the classification of a number of stars with relatively blue colors \[$0.3 \le (B-V)_o \le 0.5$\]. If the corresponding stars have $(U-B)_o$ color data from the HK survey, the stars are classified as FHB if $(U-B)_o > -0.1$, or TO if $(U-B)_o \le -0.1$ (Wilhelm, Beers, & Gray 1999). This crude discrimination scheme is adequate for stars with abundances $\feh<-1.5$. For more metal-rich stars, we also consider the alternative classification as possible, and assign a classification of FHB/TO.
### Templates for Distance Estimation
RR Lyrae distance scales have been reconsidered extensively subsequent to the release of the [*Hipparcos*]{} Catalogue, based on a variety of methods including main-sequence fitting, the Baade-Wesselink method, and statistical parallax. Combining all of the results, Chaboyer (1999) proposed the following $M_V$ [*vs.*]{} $\feh$ relation:
$$M_V (RR) = 0.23 ( \feh + 1.6 ) + 0.56 \ ,$$
where $M_V (RR)$ denotes the absolute magnitude of RR Lyrae stars. We adopt this relation to estimate the distances of our RR Lyrae sample.
For non-variable stars, we first calibrate fiducial points in the $M_V$ vs $(B-V)_o$ relation, using published data from various Galactic globular clusters and the Hyades and Pleiades open clusters to cover large ranges of colors and metal abundances. The globular clusters we use include M92 ($\feh=-2.24$), M15 ($-2.15$), M3 ($-1.66$), M13 ($-1.65$), NGC 6752 ($-1.54$), NGC 362 ($-1.27$), and 47 Tuc ($-0.71$) (Sandage 1970; Buonanno, Corsi, & Fusi Pecci 1989; Durrell & Harris 1993; Penny & Dickens 1986; Harris 1982; Hesser et al. 1987), where metal abundances and extinctions are taken from the compilation of Chaboyer, Demarque, & Sarajedini (1996). The absolute magnitude of the horizontal branch in each cluster is scaled according to Eqn. (1). For the Hyades cluster ($\feh=+0.12$), we adopt the work of Perryman et al. (1998), which utilized the [*Hipparcos*]{} parallaxes to determine the distances to the cluster stars. Using their Figure 21, we read off the fiducial $M_V$ vs $(B-V)_o$ relation for the stars which are not classified as double or multiple in the [*Hipparcos*]{} Catalogue. For the Pleiades cluster ($\feh=+0.11$, essentially identical to the Hyades abundance), we adopt the $M_V$ vs $(B-V)_o$ relation published by Mermilliod (1981).
Next, polynomial fits to the $M_V$ vs $(B-V)_o$ relation are made for each type of star; the fitting formula and the coefficients of the fits are provided in Table 2. For G, SG, and AGB stars with abundances $\feh < -2.5$, we use the tabulated relation for $\feh=-2.5$. For D stars we employ an interpolation/extrapolation procedure among the tabulated relations. Figure 2a demonstrates the adopted $M_V$ vs $(B-V)_o$ relations of G, SG, and AGB stars at metal abundances appropriate for M92$+$M15 ($\feh=-2.20$), M13 ($-1.65$) and 47 Tuc ($-0.71$), whereas Figure 2b shows those of D stars for M92$+$M15, 47 Tuc, and Hyades. Unfortunately, there remains some additional uncertainty for TO stars, due to their positions at the “curved” part of the adopted $M_V$ vs $(B-V)_o$ relation. We employ the following approximate method. For a given $(B-V)_o$ color, $M_V$’s assuming both a D and SG classification are first estimated. If $\mvd$ is brighter than $\mvsg$, $\mvd$ is adopted as $\mvto$. If this is not the case, the intermediate $M_V$ which locates between $\mvd$ and $\mvsg$ is calibrated using the formula given in Table 2. This formula is designed to reproduce the turnoff point from neighboring points of the isochrones used in Beers et al. (1999).
In order to estimate distances for the hotter main-sequence gravity A-type stars (i.e., those with colors $-0.10 \le (B-V)_o \le 0.34$) we apply a small vertical shift to the $M_V$ vs $(B-V)_o$ relation for the Pleiades so that it matches that of the Hyades at $(B-V)_o = 0.34$. To account for the expected decline in luminosity with decreasing abundance, the adjusted Pleiades line is corrected by applying shifts of the same size as those derived for the cooler stars on the main sequence of the metal-poor globulars as compared to the Hyades. We note that this is only one of several choices we could have made, and it may not be the optimal one, but it should serve for the present purpose.
Taking all of the above information into account, distances are then estimated by means of an iteration procedure which includes modification of the interstellar reddening. These distances, $D_{pho}$, are indicated in column (2) of Table 1B. In some cases there was no reliable photometry or classification available, and, occasionally, our iteration scheme failed to converge. In these circumstances we made use of the distances provided in the original BSL catalog (who, in such cases, adopted the distance estimates of the authors who provided the abundance and radial velocity information), listed as $D_{BSL}$ in column (5) of Table 1B. For the stars with ambiguous luminosity classifications, we list two alternative distances in column (2).
The small number of stars with uncertain type classifications (either due to the FHB/TO ambiguity noted above, or for the TO stars that appear too blue for their adopted type designation when compared with an old isochrone) are noted as such in column 12 of Table 1B, and are ultimately excluded from further analyses.
### [*Comparison of Photometric and Astrometric Distance Scales*]{}
There are 508 stars in our present catalog which were observed with the [*Hipparcos*]{} astrometric satellite (ESA 1997). To assess the reliability of our photometric distances, $D_{pho}$, obtained above, we plot in Figure 3 the [*Hipparcos*]{} trigonometric parallaxes, $\pi_{HIP}$, versus our photometric parallaxes, $\pi_{pho}=1/D_{pho}$, for 508 stars with available photometric distances. Plotting parallaxes, rather than distances, in Figure 3 has several advantages. All the trigonometric parallaxes, even small or negative values, can be used in an unbiased way (see the discussion on pp. 27–28 of Arenou & Luri 1999). Systematic errors in the data can be detected; an incorrect photometric distance scale would be seen as a slope not equal to unity; a zero-point error in the trigonometric parallaxes as a non-zero intercept. For clarity, we have not plotted error bars in Figure 3; the mean error of $\pi_{HIP}$ is $\sim 1.6$ mas; the mean error of $\pi_{pho}$ is $\leq 20\%$ of $\pi_{pho}$.
The general trend of the data in Figure 3 seems to fall slightly below the 45-degree line, indicating that $\pi_{pho}$ may be $\sim 20\%$ too large for the nearer stars in the BSL sample. This largely reflects the fact that these nearby stars have the largest errors in $\pi_{pho}$. The bulk of the data, especially the more distant stars, with smaller $\pi_{pho}$ errors, falls closer to the 45-degree line. Thus we conclude from Figure 3 that there is not any significant systematic error in our photometric distance scale. It is also worth noting that Figure 3 shows very few outliers, [*i.e.*]{} cases where $\pi_{pho}$ and $\pi_{HIP}$ badly disagree. The large spread in $\pi_{HIP}$ near $\pi_{pho} = 0$ is due to the large errors in $\pi_{HIP}$ (up to 7 mas) for these faint, distant stars.
For the 424 stars with non-negative [*Hipparcos*]{} parallaxes, Table 1B lists in column (3) the [*Hipparcos*]{} distance estimates $D_{HIP} = 1/\pi_{HIP}$ and in column (4) their relative precisions $\sigma_{\pi_{HIP}}/\pi_{HIP}$. Because the photometric distances for the nearest stars in our catalog have lower precision than the trigonometric parallaxes, we chose to adopt the [*Hipparcos*]{} distances for 44 stars with $\sigma_{\pi_{HIP}}/\pi_{HIP} < 0.12$. The final adopted distance estimates for our program stars are listed as $D_{adopt}$ in column (6) of Table 1B.
Proper Motions
==============
Sources of Proper Motions
-------------------------
### The [*Hipparcos*]{} Catalogue
The [*Hipparcos*]{} Catalogue is the primary result of the first space mission dedicated to astrometry (ESA 1997), and it provides high accuracy proper motions for 118,218 stars with $V < 12.5$ mag covering the entire sky. In the present sample, 508 stars are included in this catalog with average accuracies of 1.61 mas yr$^{-1}$ in $\mu_{\alpha^\ast}$ ($=\mu_\alpha \cos\delta$) and 1.29 mas yr$^{-1}$ in $\mu_\delta$. Kinematical analyses for a subset of these [*Hipparcos*]{} stars are reported in Chiba & Yoshii (1998) and Chiba, Yoshii, & Beers (1999).
### The SPM Catalog 2.0
The Yale/San Juan Southern Proper Motion (SPM) Catalog 2.0 provides positions, absolute proper motions and photographic $B,V$ magnitudes for 321,608 objects with $5 < V < 18.5$, mainly in the declination zone from $-37\deg$ to $-27\deg$, except within the Galactic zone of avoidance. In this declination zone an effort was made to measure [*all*]{} HK survey stars from a database provided by T. Beers prior to undertaking measurements of the plates. A total of 505 of our program stars have proper motions extracted from the SPM 2.0 Catalog, using a 10 search radius centered on the catalogued positions, and satisfying the requirement that the apparent magnitudes be within 1 mag in $B$ or $V$ of those adopted in Table 1A. The description of the catalog properties can be find in Platais et al. (1998), however, this paper addresses only the separate catalog at the South Galactic Pole. For additional details of the SPM Catalog 2.0, the reader is referred to the World Wide Web at URL [http://www.astro.yale.edu/astrom/]{}. The average accuracy of SPM proper motions for the subset of 508 stars is 2.9 mas yr$^{-1}$.
### The Lick NPM1 Catalog
The Lick Northern Proper Motion (NPM) program (Hanson 1997) is a photographic survey measuring absolute proper motions, on an inertial system defined by 50,000 faint galaxies, for over 300,000 stars with $8 < B < 18$, covering the northern two-thirds of the sky ($\delta > -23\deg $). Part I of the NPM program (“NPM1”), outside the disk of the Milky Way ($|b| > 10$ deg), was completed in 1993; the Lick NPM1 Catalog (Klemola, Hanson, and Jones 1993) contains 148,940 stars, with proper motions accurate to 5 mas/yr, and positions accurate to 02 or better. Part II of the NPM program (“NPM2”), in the Milky Way sky, will be completed in roughly three years.
We searched for program stars within a $\pm 10\arcsec \times 10\arcsec $ error box, centered on the NPM1 catalog positions (updated to epoch 2000.0 using the NPM1 proper motions). This procedure found matches for 241 stars; 95 % of these comprise a tight core with RMS position difference 05 in each coordinate, and can be considered unambiguous matches. The remaining 5 % can be considered highly probable matches; agreement between the cataloged and NPM1 apparent magnitudes (better than $\pm \sim 1$ mag) confirms these.
NPM1 proper motions for an additional 58 RR Lyrae stars, from the list of Layden et al. (1996), were added to our catalogue, making a total of 299 stars with NPM1 proper motion data.
### The STARNET Catalog
The proper motions of the STARNET (STN) catalog were determined using the Astrographic Catalogue (AC) as the first epoch positional source, and the astrometrically upgraded Guide Star Catalog (GSC 1.2) as the second epoch source. The AC has been made available in machine readable form by Nesterov et al. (1990). Its reduction to the FK5 system was performed by S. Röser at the Astronomisches Rechen-Institut (ARI). The astrometrical upgrading of the Guide Star Catalog is described in detail by Morrison et al. (1996). GSC 1.2 is presently available at the Astronomical Data Center. The result of combining both catalogs is the STARNET catalog of proper motions (Röser 1996). It contains about 4.3 million stars with an average density of 100 stars per square degree. The median magnitudes of the stars are $B = 12.0$ mag in the southern hemisphere and $V = 11.5$ in the northern hemisphere, respectively, with the faintest stars reaching $B,V \sim 13.5$. The present rms accuracy of STARNET positions is 03. The accuracy of the proper motions, which have been determined simply from combining the estimated positional errors at both epochs, are about 5 mas yr$^{-1}$. The catalog is reduced to the FK5 reference system and thus contains some small systematic differences with respect to ICRS (see Vol. 3, Chapter 19 of the Hipparcos and Tycho Catalogues, ESA 1997), in addition to some residual offsets still present in the GSC 1.2 positions. STARNET is as yet unpublished, but is accessible upon request at ARI.
We performed searches for our program stars in STARNET using windows of 40 diameter centered on the sample stars, and obtained 774 identifications in STARNET, with an average accuracy of the proper motions of 4.7 mas yr$^{-1}$ in each component, respectively. Since the STARNET catalogue may contain mis-identifications of stars from first epoch to second, proper motions larger than 200 mas yr$^{-1}$ in one component may be suspect. We therefore inspected such proper motions individually. As it turned out all but one of these stars were listed in the Hipparcos Catalogue; the remaining star could be found in the PPM catalog (Röser and Bastian 1991; Bastian et al. 1993). The agreement between the STARNET motions and the other measurements is usually quite good, with deviations of the order of the expected accuracy of the proper motions.
### The ACT Reference Catalog
This recently completed catalog by the USNO contains positions and proper motions for 988,758 stars with $V < 11 \sim 11.5$ mag covering the entire sky (Urban, Corbin, & Wycoff 1998a). Accurate proper motions were calculated by combining the positions from the [*Tycho*]{} Catalogue (ESA 1997) with those from new reductions of the Astrographic Catalogue, referred to as AC 2000 (Urban et al. 1998b). We performed a search of our sample stars within a $10''$ radius centered at the positions of the cataloged stars, and obtained unambiguous matches for 525 stars. Average accuracies in proper motions are 3.1 mas yr$^{-1}$ and 2.9 mas yr$^{-1}$ in $\mu_{\alpha^\ast}$ and $\mu_\delta$, respectively.
Comparison of Proper Motions for Stars with Multiple Measures
-------------------------------------------------------------
To assess the quality of the adopted proper motions, Figure 4 shows the difference between the [*Hipparcos*]{} Catalogue and other ground-based measurements for each proper-motion component, for the stars in common between the catalogs. While the [*Hipparcos*]{} errors are smallest in general, the figures show that there is an overall agreement with proper motion measurements from the additional sources, without any clearly systematic differences as compared with [*Hipparcos*]{}. It is worth noting that for several stars, the proper motion accuracy in the SPM 2.0 Catalog is better than that in the [*Hipparcos*]{} Catalogue.
For the stars which have been independently measured in two or more catalogs it is possible, by combining all measurements, to reduce the statistical errors as well as minimize any small remaining systematic errors in the individual catalogs, as was argued in Martin & Morrison (1998). For these stars, we estimate average proper motions, $<\mu>$, and their errors, $<\sigma_\mu>$, weighted by the inverse variances, as
$$\begin{aligned}
<\mu> &=& (\sum_{i=1}^{n} \mu_i/\sigma_{\mu_i}^2)
/ (\sum_{i=1}^{n} 1/\sigma_{\mu_i}^2) \ , \\
<\sigma_\mu> &=& (\sum_{i=1}^{n} 1/\sigma_{\mu_i}^2)^{-1/2} \ ,\end{aligned}$$
where $n$ denotes the number of measurements. In this manner, the proper motions for 691 stars in the present sample are improved. Our adopted proper motions are listed in columns (7) and (8) of Table 1B; the associated errors are listed in columns (9) and (10). The sources of the proper motions are listed in column (11).
We emphasize the large number of the stars having proper motion data in the present catalog: $N = 1258$ (1214 with $\feh \le -0.6$). This is the [*largest*]{} such dataset among any non-kinematically selected samples, and is substantially larger than a number of recent samples selected on the basis of their high proper motions alone (Ryan & Norris 1991a: $N = 727$ with $\feh\le-0.6$; Carney et al. 1994: $N = 689$ with $\feh\le-0.6$). Furthermore, the quality of the proper motion data has been improved in a meaningful manner, compared with that of earlier studies, due to the continuous improvement of astrometric observations from the ground as well as from space. As a consequence the current database allows us to elucidate a great deal of information concerning the space motions of the metal-poor populations of the Milky Way with a lowest-to-date observational error.
The Revised Catalog and its Characteristics
===========================================
The Catalog
-----------
Tables 1A and 1B present the final revised catalog for 2106 stars. With a constraint of $\feh \le -0.6$, the present catalog contains 2041 stars, including 356 RR Lyrae variables (168 of which are newly added as compared to the BSL catalog of Paper I), 38 variables of other types, and 1647 non-variables. Proper motions are available for 1214 stars with $\feh
\le -0.6$.
Characteristics of the Revised Catalog
--------------------------------------
Figure 5a illustrates the distribution of apparent magnitudes for stars in the present catalog. The relatively small number of stars with magnitudes $V >
15$, which, for the giants of metal-poor populations, are located at distances in excess of 10 kpc from the Sun, clearly points to the need for future work. The distribution of $(B-V)_o$ colors for our catalog stars is shown in Figure 5b. The dominance of D and MS stars is clear, pointing out the need for additional studies of redder G and AGB stars of the thick disk and halo, as well as the need for the inclusion of blue FHB stars.
Figure 5c shows the distribution of adopted distances for stars in the present catalog. Stars populating the inner few kpc from the Sun are well represented, with a rather sharp decline beyond 3 kpc from the Sun. The distribution of revised stellar abundances shown in Figure 5d underscores the fact that we have included a large number of stars with abundances [*below*]{} the peak metallicity of the halo metallicity distribution function (\[Fe/H\] $\simeq -1.6$, Laird et al. 1988; Ryan & Norris 1991b). Future work which supplements this sample with additional stars in the intermediate abundance range $-1.5 \le \feh \le -0.6$ is clearly needed.
The dashed histograms in Figures 5a-d indicate the distribution of the above observables for the subset of stars with available proper motions. As is evident from inspection of Figure 5a, the great majority of the brighter stars have measured proper motions, but the completeness falls from about 50% to roughly 30% for the stars in the magnitude range $12 \le V \le 16$. Figure 5c shows that the fraction of stars with available proper motions is roughly a constant $\sim$ 60% out to distances on the order of 4–5 kpc, with no strong dependence on distance.
In Figures 6a and 6b we show the distribution of adopted radial velocities (for all catalog stars with \[Fe/H\] $\le -0.6$) and measured proper motions (where available) as a function of the stellar abundances. The largest radial velocities and proper motions are observed near the center of the abundance distribution, but this is presumably a result of the (presently unavoidable) fact that the relatively rare large observed motions will occur with greatest frequency among the stars which are most commonly represented in the catalog.
The referee has raised the question of whether we have “imported” a kinematic bias into the sample of stars with measured proper motions by the addition of information from the sources we have drawn on. This is demonstrably [*not*]{} the case. None of the five catalogs we have used in our assemblage of proper motion information have lower limits on their proper motions (as do, for example, many older catalogs such as those from Giclas and Luyten). The stars in each of these catalogs are chosen in advance of measuring their proper motions, hence a given star is not rejected if its measured proper motion turns out to be small, even if it is consistent with zero. Furthermore, since the proper motions we have included are measured in two [*independent*]{} coordinates, each of which can be individually negative, zero, or positive, errors in the measured proper motions do not result in a net bias away from zero. This bias does exist in many of the older catalogs (where selection was based on the [*always positive*]{} length of a tangential motion vector), but it does not apply to the catalogs we have used for our proper motions.
Since the above biases could lead, in effect, to a distance-related bias in the resulting kinematics, we have performed a simple diagnostic to demonstrate that this is not the case for our sample of stars (other tests are described in Paper III). Figure 6c shows a plot of the estimated tangential velocity of our sample stars as a function of distance from the Sun. Superposed on this figure are lines of constant proper motion, corresponding to 10 mas/yr and 1 mas/yr, respectively. There does not appear to be any obvious changes in the distribution of predicted tangential velocity ($V_t = 4.74\; \mu \; D$, where $D$ is the distance in kpc, and $\mu$ is in mas/yr) that correlate with increasing distance from the Sun, as might be expected if there were any “hidden” kinematic bias in the sample of stars with measured proper motions.
The spatial distribution of the sample in $(R,Z)$ plane is shown in Figure 7, where filled circles and crosses indicate the stars with and without available proper motions, respectively. Below the Galactic plane there are many remote stars with available proper motions, mainly provided by SPM 2.0.
Full Space Motions and Orbital Parameters
-----------------------------------------
We now obtain estimates of the full space motions for the subsample of stars for which proper motions are available, and derive parameters of their orbital motions in a given gravitational potential. The results are summarized in Table 3. Note that two of the stars in this subsample were judged not to have sufficiently accurate distance estimates to derive space motions, V\* KR Vir and BPS CS 29512-0032, so these stars are not included in Table 3. Column (1) lists the star name. Column (2) recalls the adopted metallicity from Table 1A. Columns (3) and (4) list the positions of the stars in the meridional plane $(R,Z)$, adopting $R_\odot = 8.5$ kpc as the Galactocentric distance for the Sun. Columns (5)-(7) list the three-dimensional velocities $U$, $V$, and $W$, directed to the Galactic anticenter, the rotational direction, and the north pole, respectively. These velocity components are corrected for the solar motion $(U_\odot,V_\odot,W_\odot)=(-9,12,7)$ km s$^{-1}$ with respect to the local standard of rest (LSR) (Mihalas & Binney 1981). Figure 8 is a plot of the $U,V,W$ velocity components for the sample of stars with complete velocity information and $\feh \le -0.6$, as a function of .
Columns (8) and (9) of Table (3) list the velocity components $(V_R,V_\phi)$ in the cylindrical rest frame $(R,\phi)$, respectively, on the assumption that the rotational speed of the LSR around the Galactic center is $V_{LSR} = 220$ km s$^{-1}$. Note that for the stars for which accurate distances are not available, columns (2)-(9) contain no data.
To estimate the orbital parameters for these stars, we adopt the analytic Stäckel-type mass model developed by Sommer-Larsen & Zhen (1990), which consists of a flattened, oblate disk and a nearly spherical massive halo. This model reproduces a flat rotation curve beyond $R=4$ kpc and the local mass density at $R_\odot$ in a reasonable manner. Its analytic form has the great advantage of maintaining clarity in further analyses (see, e.g., Chiba & Yoshii 1998). Columns (10) and (11) list the estimated apogalactic distances, $R_{ap}$, and the estimated perigalactic distances, $R_{pr}$ along the Galactic plane, respectively. Column (12) lists the maximum distance above (or below) the plane, $Z_{max}$, explored by each star in the course of its orbital motion. In column (13) we list the characteristic eccentricities of the orbits, defined as $e = (r_{ap}-r_{pr})/(r_{ap}+r_{pr})$, where $r_{ap}$ and $r_{pr}$ stand for the apogalactic and perigalactic distances from the Galactic center, respectively. We note that the current mass model of the Galaxy fails to gravitationally bind the 16 stars which lack the data of orbital parameters in columns (10)-(13). These stars probably correspond to those in the “error tail” of overestimated photometric distances, thereby having overestimated transverse velocities.
In the accompanying analysis paper (Chiba & Beers 2000; Paper III), we make use of the kinematic information in Table 3, and the radial velocity and distance information for the stars presently without available proper motions, to investigate a number of questions concerning the nature of the kinematics of the Galaxy.
Future Samples
--------------
Exploration of the kinematic properties of the Galaxy is very much a work in progress. New and extensive samples of several thousand additional non-kinematically selected metal-deficient stars with available velocity, distance, and abundance measurements are expected to become available within the next year (Beers et al. 2000; Cayrel et al. 2000; Norris et al. 2000; Rebolo et al. 2000). Roughly 30% of these stars already have available proper motions; completing the search for HK survey stars with proper motions awaits the extension of the SPM catalog to other areas of the southern Galactic hemisphere.
Samples of intermediate distance ($2 \le d \le 15$ kpc) FHB and other A-type stars (e.g., Wilhelm et al. 1999), supplemented with observations of more distant metal-poor dwarfs, giants, and FHB and A-type stars from the Hamburg/ESO survey ($10 \le d \le 25$ kpc; Christlieb 1999), and from other sources (e.g., the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, Pier 1999), will provide useful extensions of our catalog.
A project to refine systemic radial velocity measurements for the RR Lyraes with poorly determined values is already underway. Additional $UBV$ and/or Strömgren photometry is required in order to resolve ambiguities in stellar classifications which remain in the catalog, and to obtain more precise estimates of distances, especially for the stars with available proper motions.
We are grateful to the referee, Bruce Carney, for a careful reading of this manuscript, and for a number of thoughtful comments.
TCB acknowledges support for this work from grant AST 95-29454 from the National Science Foundation. MC and YY acknowledge partial support from Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (09640328) and COE Research (07CE2002) of the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan. MC thanks Hideyuki Saio for his help in distance estimates for the current catalog stars. The SPM program is supported by grants from the NSF to Yale University and the Yale Southern Observatory, Inc. IP thanks T. Girard, V. Kozhurina-Platais, and W. van Altena for their expertise and contribution to the SPM program. RBH thanks the National Science Foundation for its long-term support of the Lick Northern Proper Motion program. Current work on the NPM program is supported by NSF grant AST 95-30632. RBH thanks A. Klemola for his help in providing identifications for the Lick NPM1 Catalog stars. BF thanks to S. Röser and S. Frink for help with the STARNET catalog. SR acknowledges partial support for this work from grant 200068/95-4 CNPq, Brazil, and from the Brazilian Agency FAPESP.
This work made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France.
Anthony-Twarog, B.J., & Twarog, B.A. 1994, , 107, 1577
Anthony-Twarog, B.J., Sarajedini, A., Twarog, B.A., & Beers, T.C. 2000, , submitted
Arce, H.G., & Goodman, A.A. 1999, , 512, L135
Arenou, F., & Luri, X. 1999, in Harmonizing Cosmic Distance Scales in a Post-Hipparcos Era, eds. D. Egret & A. Heck (San Francisco: ASP), Vol. 167, p. 13
Bahcall, J.N., & Casertano, S. 1986, , 308, 347
Bastian, U. et al. 1993, PPM Star Catalogue, Vols. III and IV (Heidelberg: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag)
Beers, T.C., & Sommer-Larsen, J. 1995, , 96, 175 (BSL; Paper I)
Beers, T.C., Preston, G.W., & Shectman S.A. 1985, , 90, 2089
Beers, T.C., Preston, G.W., & Shectman, S.A. 1992a, , 103, 1987
Beers, T.C., Preston, G.W., Shectman, S.A., & Kage, J.A. 1990, , 100, 849
Beers, T.C., Preston, G.W., Shectman, S.A., Doinidis, S.P., & Griffin, K.E. 1992b, , 103, 267
Beers, T.C., Rossi, S., Norris, J.E., Ryan, S.G., & Shefler, T. 1999, , 117, 981.
Beers, T.C., Rossi, S., Anthony-Twarog, B., Twarog, B., Hawley, S., Rhee, J., Tourtelot, J., Wilhelm, R., & Sarajedini, A. 2000, in preparation
Bonifacio, P., Centurion, M., & Molaro, P. 1999, , 309, 533
Buonanno, R., Corsi, C.E., & Fusi Pecci, F. 1989, , 216, 80
Burstein, D., & Heiles, C. 1982, , 87, 1165
Carney, B.W. 1999, in The Third Stromlo Symposium: The Galactic Halo, eds. B.K. Gibson, T.S. Axelrod, & M.E. Putman, (San Francisco: ASP), Vol. 165, p. 230
Carney, B.W., Laird, J.B., Latham, D.W., & Aguilar, L.A. 1996, , 112, 668
Carney, B.W., Latham, D.W., Laird, J.B., & Aguilar, L.A. 1994, , 102, 2240
Cayrel, R., Beers, T.C., Nissen, P.E., Andersen, J., Nördstrom, B., Rossi, S., Spite, M., Spite, F., & Barbuy, B. 2000, in preparation
Cayrel de Strobel, G., Soubiran, C., Friel, E.D., Ralite, N., & Francois, P. 1997, , 124, 299
Chaboyer, B., Demarque, P., & Sarajedini, A. 1996, , 459, 558
Chaboyer, B. 1999, in Post-Hipparcos Cosmic Candles, eds. A. Heck & F. Caputo, (Dordrecht: Kluwer), p. 111
Chiba, M., & Yoshii, Y. 1998, , 115, 168
Chiba, M., Yoshii, Y., & Beers, T.C. 1999, in The Third Stromlo Symposium: The Galactic Halo, eds. B.K. Gibson, T.S. Axelrod, & M.E. Putman, (San Francisco: ASP), Vol. 165, p. 273
Chiba, M., & Beers, T.C. 2000, , submitted (Paper III)
Christlieb, N., Wisotzki, L., Reimers, D., Gehren, T., Reetz, J., & Beers, T.C. 1999, in The Third Stromlo Symposium: The Galactic Halo, eds. B.K. Gibson, T.S. Axelrod, & M.E. Putman, (San Francisco: ASP), Vol. 165, p. 259
Deutsch, E.W. 1999, , 118, 1882
Durrell, P.R., & Harris, W.E. 1993, , 105, 1420
ESA. 1997, The Hipparcos and Tycho Catalogues (ESA SP-1200) (Noordwijk: ESA)
Fernley, J., Barnes, T.G., Skillen, I., Hawley, S.L., Hanley, C.J., Evans, D.W., Solano, E., & Garrido, R. 1998, , 330, 515
Gould, A., & Popowski, P. 1998, , 508, 844
Hanson, R.B. 1997, in Proper Motions and Galactic Astronomy, ed. R.M. Humphreys, (San Francisco: ASP), Vol. 127, p. 23
Harding, P., Freeman, K.C., Mateo, M., Morrison, H.L., Olszewski, E., & Norris, J.E. 1998, BAAS, 193, 10507
Harris, W.E. 1982, , 50, 573
Hartwick, F.D.A. 1987, Mem. S.A.It., 54, 51
Helmi, A., & White, S.D.M. 1999, , 307, 495
Hesser, J.E., Harris, W.E., Vandenberg, D.A., Allwright, J.W.B., & Stetson, P.B. 1987, , 99, 739
Kinman, T.D., Suntzeff, N.B., & Kraft, R.P. 1994, , 108, 1722
Klemola, A.R., Hanson, R.B., & Jones, B.F. 1993, Lick Northern Proper Motions Program: NPM1 Catalog (NSSDC A1199), (Washington: NASA)
Laird, J.B., Carney, B.W., Rupen, M.P., & Latham, D.W. 1988, , 96, 1908
Layden, A.C. 1994, , 108, 1016
Layden, A.C., Hanson, R.B., Hawley, S.L., Klemola, A.R., & Hanley, C.J. 1996, , 112, 2110
Majewski, S.R. 1992, , 78, 87
Majewski, S.R. 1999, in The Third Stromlo Symposium, eds. B. Gibson, T. Axelrod, & M. Putman, (San Francisco: ASP), Vol. 165, p. 76
Martin, J.C., & Morrison, H.L. 1998, , 116, 1724
McWilliam, A., Preston, G.W., Sneden, C., & Searle, L. 1995, , 109, 2757
Mermilliod, J.C. 1981, , 97, 235.
Mihalas, D., & Binney, J. 1981, Galactic Astronomy (2d ed.; San Francisco: Freeman)
Monet, D., Bird, A., Canzian, B., Dahn, C., Guetter, H., Harris, H., Henden, A., Levine, S., Luginbuhl, C., Monet, A.K.B., Rhodes, A., Riepe, B., Sell, S., Stone, R., Vrba, F., & Walker, R 1998, see [ http://ftp.nofs.navy.mil/projects/pmm/USNOSA2doc.html]{}
Morrison, H.L. 1993, , 106, 578
Morrison, H.L., Flynn, C., & Freeman, K.C. 1990, , 100, 1191 (MFF)
Morrison, J.E., Röser, S., Lasker, B.M., Smart, R.L., & Taff, L.G. 1996, , 111, 1405
Nesterov, V.V., Kislyuk, V.S., & Potter, Kh.I. 1990, in IAU Symposium No. 141, eds. J.H. Lieske & V.K. Abalakin, (Dordrecht: Kluwer), p. 482
Norris, J. 1986, , 61, 667
Norris, J.E. 1994, , 431, 645
Norris, J., Bessell, M.S., & Pickles, A.J. 1985, , 58, 463
Norris, J.E., Ryan, S.G., & Beers, T.C. 1996, , 107, 391
Norris, J.E., Beers, T.C., Ryan, S.G., & Rossi, S. 2000, in preparation
Penny, A.J., & Dickens, R.J. 1986, , 220, 845
Perryman, M.A.C., Brown, A.G.A., Lebreton, Y., Gomez, A., Turon, C., de Strobel, G.C., Mermilliod, J.C., Robichon, N., Kovalevsky, J., & Crifo, F. 1998, , 331, 81
Pier, J.R., in The Third Stromlo Symposium: The Galactic Halo, eds. B. Gibson, T. Axelrod, & M. Putman, (San Francisco: ASP), Vol. 165, p. 274
Platais, I., Girard, T.M., Kozhurina-Platais, V., Van Altena, W.F., Lopez, C.E., Mendez, R.A., Ma, W., Yang, T., MacGillivray, & Yentis, D.J. 1998, , 116, 2556
Popowski, P., & Gould, A. 1998, , 506, 271
Preston, G.W., Beers, T.C., & Shectman, S.A. 1994, , 108, 538
Preston, G.W., Shectman, S.A., & Beers, T.C. 1991, , 375, 121
Ratnatunga, K.U., & Freeman, K.C. 1989, , 339, 126
Rebolo, R., Beers, T.C., Allende Prieto, C., Garcia Lopez, R., Molaro, P., Bonifacio, P., & Rossi, S. 2000, in preparation
Röser, S., & Bastian, U. 1991, PPM Star Catalogue, Vols. I and II (Heidelberg: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag)
Röser, S. 1996, in IAU Symposium No. 172, eds S. Ferraz–Mello et al., (Dordrecht: Kluwer), p. 481
Ryan, S.G., & Lambert, D.L. 1995, , 109, 2068
Ryan, S.G., Norris, J.E., & Beers, T.C. 1996, , 471, 254
Ryan, S.G., & Norris, J.E. 1991a, , 101, 1835
Ryan, S.G., & Norris, J.E. 1991b, , 101, 1865
Sandage, A. 1970, , 162, 841
Schlegel, D.J., Finkbeiner, D.P., & Davis, M. 1998, , 500, 525
Schuster, W.J., Nissen, P.E., Parrao, L., Beers, T.C., & Overgaard, L.P. 1996, 103, 443
Schuster, W.J., Beers, T.C., Nissen, P.E., Parrao, L., & Franco, A. 2000, in preparation
Smith, H.A. 1995, “RR Lyrae Stars,” Cambridge Astrophysics Series (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
Sommer-Larsen, J., & Zhen, C. 1990, , 242, 10
Sommer-Larsen, J., Beers, T.C., Flynn, C., Wilhelm, R., & Christensen, P.R., 1997 , 481,775
Urban, S.E., Corbin, T.E., & Wycoff, G.L. 1998a, , 115, 2161
Urban, S.E., Corbin, T.E., Wycoff, G.L., Morton, J.C., Jackson, E.S., Zacharias, MI, & Hall, D.M. 1998b, , 115, 1212
Wilhelm, R. 1995, Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University
Wilhelm, R., Beers, T.C., & Gray, R. 1999, , 117, 2308
Wilhelm, R., Beers, T.C., Kriessler, J.R., Pier, J.R., Sommer-Larsen, J., & Layden, A.C. 1996, in Formation of the Galactic Halo – Inside and Out, eds. H. Morrison & A. Sarajedini (San Francisco: ASP), Vol. 92, p. 171
Wilhelm, R., Beers, T.C., Sommer-Larsen, J., Pier, J.R., Layden, A.C., Flynn, C., Rossi, S., & Christensen, P.R. 1999, , 117, 2329
Yoshii, Y. 1982, Pub. Astron. Soc. J., 34, 365
Yoshii, Y., & Saio, H. 1979, Pub. Astron. Soc. J., 31, 339
Zinn, R. 1996, in Formation of the Galactic Halo – Inside and Out, eds. H. Morrison & A. Sarajedini (San Francisco: ASP), Vol. 92, p. 211
=0.9
=0.9
=0.9
=0.9
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'To bring their innovative ideas to market, those embarking in new ventures have to raise money, and, to do so, they have often resorted to banks and venture capitalists. Nowadays, they have an additional option: that of crowdfunding. The name refers to the idea that funds come from a network of people on the Internet who are passionate about supporting others’ projects. One of the most popular crowdfunding sites is Kickstarter. In it, creators post descriptions of their projects and advertise them on social media sites (mainly Twitter), while investors look for projects to support. The most common reason for project failure is the inability of founders to connect with a sufficient number of investors, and that is mainly because hitherto there has not been any automatic way of matching creators and investors. We thus set out to propose different ways of recommending investors found on Twitter for specific Kickstarter projects. We do so by conducting hypothesis-driven analyses of pledging behavior and translate the corresponding findings into different recommendation strategies. The best strategy achieves, on average, 84% of accuracy in predicting a list of potential investors’ Twitter accounts for any given project. Our findings also produced key insights about the whys and wherefores of investors deciding to support innovative efforts.'
author:
- |
Jisun An[^1]\
\
Daniele Quercia\
\
Jon Crowcroft\
\
title:
- |
Recommending Investors for Crowdfunding Projects\
$[$Please cite the WWW’14 version of this paper$]$
- Recommending Investors for Crowdfunding Projects
---
Introduction
============
Kickstarter is a crowdfunding website where a founder proposes a project (e.g., smart watch, documentary, video game) and asks the Internet crowd for money. Its use has been growing exponentially: “The amount pledged on Kickstarter alone grew from \$28m in 2010 to \$320m in 2012” [@economist@2012]. However, not all projects are successfully financed. One of the most common reasons for failure is that project founders fail to build a community around them and attract investors. A recent study has indeed found that “the majority of failed project creators cited the inability to successfully leverage an online audience as a main reason for failing.” [@hui@cscw2014]. That is why we set out to propose automatic ways of matching Kickstarter founders with Twitter investors. In so doing, we make the following main contributions:
{width=".45\textwidth"}
\[fig:framework\]
- We derive a set of well-grounded hypotheses related to pledging behavior (Section \[sect:framework\]).
- We crawl data from Kickstarter, including detailed project descriptions and lists of investors, for a period of 3 months (Section \[sect:dataset\]). Also, since we need to recommend investors from Twitter, we gather all the tweets related to the projects we previously crawled.
- Upon those two datasets, we test a set of of the hypotheses (Section \[sect:analysis\]). We find that investors behave differently depending on whether they are frequent or occasional supporters on the site. As opposed to occasional investors (51% of the investor base supported less than 4 projects), frequent ones (11% supported more than 32 projects) tend to fund efforts that are well-managed and match their own interests. By contrast, occasional investors pay less attention to any of those aspects and thus act as donors, mainly on art-related projects.
- Upon the quantitative analysis, we build a statistical model to recommend potential investors from Twitter (Section \[sect:prediction\]). Our model achieves 84% of accuracy in predicting an unordered list of investors, and an average percentile-ranking of 0.32 (i.e., a 36% gain over the random baseline) in predicting an ordered list. Also, in situations of investor cold start (no previous information about an investor is available), we are still able to predict who funds what with an accuracy of 69% from Twitter-derived activity features, and an average percentile-ranking of 0.40 (20% gain over the random baseline).
We conclude by discussing the theoretical and practical implications of our findings (Section \[sect:discussion\]).
Related work {#sect:related_work}
============
The first crowdfunding site started in 2001 and now there are more than 450 of such sites. They together have raised \$2.8 billion and successfully funded more than 1 million projects only in 2012 [@massolution@2013]. Kickstarter is the largest site in USA. In it, a founder proposes a project by posting information about the project’s purposes, monetary goals, time left to reach those goals, the way funds will be used, and potential rewards (e.g., the founder might offer a signed CD in exchange of a donation). To increase his/her likelihood of success, the founder usually posts videos and pictures to visually explain the project. (S)he also connects the project’s page to dedicated social-networking accounts [@mollick@ssrn2012]. As crowdfunding sites have emerged, small entrepreneurs without an access to traditional venture capital’s fundings have benefited from this new source of cash flow.
Crowdfunding has recently attracted the attention of researchers in various disciplines, from business and economics to computer science. Economists have investigated pleading behavior and they, for example, found that crowdfunding eliminates distance-related economic frictions, yet initial findings tend often to come from family, friends and acquaintances [@agrawal@2011].
Most of the work by computer scientists has focused, instead, on predicting whether projects will be successfully funded or not. Mollick found that variables under two categories - preparedness (e.g., existence of video, spelling check, number of updates) and social capital (e.g., number of the founder’s Facebook friends) - are strongly related to the success of a project [@mollick@ssrn2012]. Greenberg *et al.* found that SVM could predict, at the time of launch, whether a project will fail or succeed with a roughly 68% accuracy [@greenberg@chi2013]. More recently, based only on the use of language in project descriptions, Gilbert *et al.* were able to predict failure or success - they indeed found that there are specific phrases that are powerful predictors of success [@gilbert@cscw2014]. These phrases are mainly related to six general persuasion principles: 1) reciprocity, 2) scarcity, 3) social proof, 4) social identity, 5) liking, and 6) authority. After launch, one could also track features that change as the project evolves. In this vein, upon the time series of money pledged and tweets, Etter *et al.* were able to predict success/failure with an accuracy of 85% at early stages - that is, just after 15% of the entire duration of a campaign has passed [@etter@cosn2013].
Hui *et al.* conducted a throughout qualitative analysis based on 45 interviews and found that the work behind setting up a crowdfunding project unfolds in five main steps: 1) prepare; 2) test; 3) publicize; 4) follow through; and 5) contribute. They then went on recommending which tools computer scientists could build for supporting each of the steps [@hui@cscw2014]. The most difficult step was identified to be the third one: founders repeatedly failed to build a community and attract potential investors: “The majority of failed project creators cited the inability to successfully leverage an online audience as a main reason for failing.” [@hui@cscw2014]\
Based on this literature review, we might conclude that an automatic way of matching projects with investors is needed. To propose such a way, we carry out an analysis that unfolds in three steps: derive few hypotheses concerning pledging behavior; 2) collect data from Kickstarter and Twitter to test those hypotheses; and 3) based on the findings, propose and evaluate models that match projects with potential investors.
**Hypothesis**
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*\[H1\] A project is likely to be financed by frequent investors if its founder:*
*\[H1.1\] frequently updates the project after launching it.*
*\[H1.2\] answers the potential investors’ requests.*
*\[H1.3\] allows for fine-grained funding levels.*
*\[H1.4\] sets a dedicated web site.*
*\[H2\] A project with a high goal is likely to be financed by frequent investors.*
*\[H3\] A local project is likely to be supported by occasional investors.*
*\[H4\] A fast-growing project is likely to be financed by frequent investors.*
*\[H5\] Active investors tend to fund projects that match their own interests.*
Investors vs. Donors {#sect:framework}
====================
Pledging behavior might well differ from one investor to another. It has been found that 20-40% of *initial* fundings in Kickstarter come from family and friends [@economist@2012-2]. These individuals tend to be newcomers or occasional investors who support projects because of their personal relationships with the founders. By contrast, users who are very active in Kickstarter are passionate about the community and fund a project for different reasons. To test the extent to which this distinction impacts pledging behavior, we differentiate investors depending on whether they are occasional (they have supported, say, less than 4 projects) or frequent (they have supported more than 32 projects), and formulate a set of hypotheses, which Table \[tab:summary\_hypothesis\] collates for convenience. We expect that the more active a supporter has been, the more (s)he will behave as an investor, and the less as a friend donating money. More specifically, as opposed to occasional investors, frequent ones are expected to:\
**Pay Attention to Founder Skills**. Successful venture founders are good managers as well: “Many entrepreneurs make the mistake of thinking that venture capitalists are looking for good ideas when, in fact, they are looking for good mangers in particular industry segments.” [@zider@hbr1998] We expect that frequent investors will pay attention to the way a project is managed. Since management of a Kickstarter project translates into frequent updates after launch and audience interactions, our first hypothesis is: *\[H1\] A project is likely to be financed by frequent investors if its founder:* *\[H1.1\] frequently *updates* the project after launching it* (i.e., (s)he spends extra effort to make it happen [@mullins@hbr2007]); *\[H1.2\] answers the potential investors’ requests* (i.e., she interacts with the audience); *\[H1.3\] allows for fine-grained funding levels*; and *\[H1.4\] sets a dedicated web site*.\
**Invest in “High Capital” Projects**. Since Kickstarter follows “all-or-nothing” model (i.e., projects that do not reach their pledging goals do not receive a penny), founders tend to set realistic goals for the amount to be raised. It is reasonable to assume that projects with high goals are ambitious (e.g., bringing a new video game to market) and thus tend to be preferentially financed by frequent and experienced investors [@sahlman@hbr1997]: *\[H2\] A project with a high goal is likely to be financed by frequent investors.*\
**Invest in Geographically Global Projects**. Since friends and acquaintances tend to be geographically close, we expect that those who support (geographically) local projects are occasional investors, while frequent ones would also support global projects [@agrawal@2011]. We define the geographic dispersion of project $p$ as: $${G_p}= \frac{1}{N_p} \sum_{b \in B_p} {{D(l_f,l_b)}}$$ which measures the mean distance for all pledges of a project (distance between a project $p$ and an investor $b$). In Kickstarter, founders and investors tend to reveal their location in terms of city. We thus convert city names into geographic coordinates of the corresponding centroids (latitude and longitude) and measure the Harvesine distance $D$ between the founder’s location ($l_f$) and each investor’s location ($l_b$). $N_p$ is number of all investors for project $p$. With this definition, low geographic dispersion is associated with projects with investors who live close to the founder, while high dispersion is associated with investors who live far away. The corresponding hypothesis then reads: *\[H3\] A local project is likely to be supported by occasional investors.*\
**Pay Attention to Fast Growing Projects**. As opposed to occasional investors, frequent ones are familiar with the site and are thus expected to be able to quickly spot fast-growing opportunities [@sahlman@hbr1997; @stancill@hbr1981]: *\[H4\] A fast-growing project is likely to be financed by frequent investors*.\
[{width=".49\textwidth"}]{}
\[fig:hist-category\]
**Invest in Project Categories of Interest**. When deciding whether to fund a project or not, frequent investors might well be looking for projects that match their own interests, while occasional investors do not concern that as they, for example, tend to support a friend. *\[H5\] Active investors tend to fund projects that match their own interests.* To capture each investor’s interests, we keep track of: 1) which project categories (s)he supports, and 2) the topics classified using LDA topic modeling [@blei@2003; @griffiths@2004; @steyvers@2007] (s)he mentions on Twitter.\
Dataset {#sect:dataset}
=======
Since Kickstarter is not accessible from an API, we need to build a crawler running on University servers on which we run our data analysis as well. We gather all the projects featured on the *Recently Launched*[^2] Kickstarter page between July 2013 and October 2013. Once a new campaign is identified, we crawl its category (e.g., Film, Dance, Art, Design and Technology), funding goal, and deadline. We then regularly check each project’s page for any change in the amount of pledged money and total number of investors. To have a comparable dataset of projects, we have eliminated 345 Kickstarter projects that happened to be outside USA. In so doing, we have collected information about 1,149 projects that were funded by 78,460 investors with a total number of 177,882 pledges. These projects are classified in 13 categories, and the most popular ones are Film, Music, Publishing, and Art (Figure \[fig:hist-category\]).
**Successful** **Failed** **Total**
-------------- ---------------- ------------ ------------
Projects 520 629 1,149
Proportion 45.3% 54.7% 100%
Investors - - 78,460
Pledges 148,257 29,625 177,882
Pledged (\$) 10,517,919 1,872,741 12,390,660
Tweets 49,943 21,372 71,315
: Statistics for the Kickstarter dataset.[]{data-label="tab:global_statistics"}
**Successful** **Failed** **Total**
--------------------- ---------------- ------------ -----------
Goal (\$) 11,033.90 30,716.86 20,875.38
Duration (days) 28.56 29.25 28.91
Number of investors 285.11 47.09 166.10
Pledge (\$) 79.71 60.13 68.99
Final amount 168.93% 19.51% 94.22%
Number of tweets 101.93 44.43 73.18
: Statistics for the Kickstarter projects. All reported are the average of each measure for Kickstarter projects.[]{data-label="tab:project_statistics"}
During the same period of time, we collected all tweets[^3] containing the keyword “*kickstarter*” from the publicly available Twitter search API. If a tweet matches one of our Kickstarter projects (if a tweet contains project title or shortened url directing to the project page), we match the tweet’s content with the project, resulting in a total of 71,315 tweets.
Table \[tab:global\_statistics\] reports general statistics of our Kickstarter dataset, and Table \[tab:project\_statistics\] reports statistics specifically about the projects. The numbers in Table \[tab:project\_statistics\] are the average of all projects. Out of our 1,149 projects, \$12.3M were pledged and 520 projects (45.2%) were successfully funded (i.e., they met their pledging goals). This success rate is similar to the general one published by Kickstarter itself[^4]: 43.85%. On average, as opposed to unsuccessful projects, the ones that are successfully funded tend to have lower financial goals (\$11,033 *vs.* \$30,716); have more investors (285 *vs.* 47), raise more funds than their goals would require (169% *vs.* 19%), and generate more tweets (101 *vs.* 44) (Table \[tab:project\_statistics\]). In our dataset, 85% of donations get into successful projects (this is 86% in Kickstarter). The average duration of a successful campaign is 28.9 days; however, it takes just few days (13 days) to be fully financed. On the other hand, unsuccessful campaigns, which are 54.8%, take just 19.5% of the required investment (this was 20% by Kickstarter in 2012 [@economist@2012-3]). Since the previous statistics in our dataset match those in the larger sample, we conclude that our dataset is fairly representative.
\[fig:hist\_activity\]
[{width=".45\textwidth"}]{}
\[fig:distribution\]
People who back a project for the first time often go on to back other projects. Among 78,460 people who have backed one of projects in our dataset, 22K (28%) people have backed two or more projects (Kickstarter has reported 29% of all backers as repeat backers). On average, investors in our dataset supported three projects. We segment them into two groups - occasional investors who funded less than 4 projects (51%), and frequent ones who funded more than 32 projects (11%). Figure \[fig:hist\_activity\] displays the frequency distribution of their activity levels. We also display distribution of each project feature in Table \[fig:distribution\]. Since the distributions of the features are skewed, we shown their log-transformed distributions if it is necessary.
\[fig:prob\_all\_numinvestors\]
Pledging Behavior {#sect:analysis}
=================
Having this dataset at hand, we are now able to quantitatively analyze investors’ pledging behavior. To do so, we will often resort to the probability that a investor of type $B$ (e.g., occasional) will fund a project of type $P$ (e.g., projects of smart watches):
$$\textrm{p}(B | P ) = {\frac{p(B \cap P )}{p(P)}}$$
We compute this probability by counting the fraction of investors of type $B$ who funded projects of type $P$ (e.g., occasional investors who funded projects of smart watches) out of all investors who backed projects of type $P$ (e.g., investors of any type who funded projects of smart watches). When testing our hypotheses, we will compute the probability of funding a project $P$ for different investor types, and type is defined depending on the level of pledging activity: from occasional investors who supported less than four projects, to investors who supported less than 8, up to frequent investors who supported more than 32. One of the probabilities $\textrm{p}(B | P )$ could then be $\textrm{p}(occasional | P )$, which is the probability of an occasional investor to fund project $P$. After clarifying our notation, we are now ready to test each of the main five hypotheses one by one.
\
*\[H1\]* *A project is likely to be financed by frequent investors if the project founder:*
*\[H1.1\] frequently *updates* the project after launching it*;
*\[H1.2\] answers the potential investors’ requests*;
*\[H1.3\] allows for fine-grained funding levels*;
*\[H1.4\] sets a dedicated web site*.
We find that frequent investors are more likely to pledge projects with frequent updates (Figure \[fig:group\_numbacked\_all\_prob\_numupdates\]) and higher level of founder engagement (number of comments) (Figure \[fig:group\_numbacked\_all\_prob\_numcomments\]). As the number of comments increases by an order of 2, the pledging probability increases by 10%. Funding levels (Figure \[fig:group\_numbacked\_all\_prob\_rewardlevel\]) and dedicated web sites do matter, but to a lesser extent compared to the previous two features. We also compute the Pearson’s correlation coefficients between a management strategy and investor’s activity levels. These coefficients range from -1 (strongest negative correlation) to 1 (strongest positive correlation), and are 0 when there is no correlation. Frequent investors seem to decide whether to fund a project or not depending on the number of updates done by the founder ($r = 0.26, p < 0.05$) and on the number of comments the project has received ($r = 0.19, p < 0.05 $). The presence of different reward levels ($r = 0.05, p < 0.05$) and of a dedicated web site ($r = 0.10, p < 0.05$) are considered by occasional and frequent investors alike. Overall, the first hypothesis is supported.
\
*\[H2\] A project with high pledging goal is likely to be financed by frequent investors.*
By dividing projects into 5 categories depending on their pleading goals, we find that, the higher a project’s goal, the less likely occasional investors support it. By contrast, frequent investors are more likely to fund high-goal projects (Figure \[fig:group\_numbacked\_all\_prob\_goal\]). The correlation between investor activity and the pledging goals of supported projects is indeed positive: $r = 0.21, p < 0.05$. Hence the second hypothesis is also confirmed. From the perspective of a recommender system that matches investors with projects, this result suggests that high-goal projects should be preferentially matched with frequent investors.
\
*\[H3\] A local project is likely to be financed by occasional investors.*
As we mentioned in Section \[sect:framework\], we compute the average geographic span of a project’s investors to measure the extent to which a project attracts local *vs.* global fundings. We then plot the pledging probability as a function of geographic span (Figure \[fig:group\_numbacked\_all\_prob\_geo\_span\]) and find that occasional investors largely fund projects with low geographic span (i.e., local projects), while frequent investors fund projects with high span. The correlation coefficient between investor activity and geographic span is $r = 0.32, p < 0.05 $, and that supports the third hypothesis. For a recommender system, this result means that local projects should be matched with local Kickstarter users who tend to be occasional investors.
\
*\[H4\] A fast-growing project is likely to be financed by frequent investors*.
We confirm this hypothesis as well since we find that frequent investors tend to indeed support high-growth projects (Figure \[fig:group\_numbacked\_all\_prob\_growthrate\]). By contrast, occasional investors do not select the projects to support depending on growth rate - they just happen to support the majority of projects that are characterized by limited growth. The correlation between investor activity and project growth is positive and is $r = 0.17, p < 0.05$.
\
*\[H5\] Frequent investors tend to support projects that match their own interests.*
To test this hypothesis, we consider investors who are on Twitter and crawl 200 tweets (at most) for each of them using the Twitter Public API. To compute the topical similarity between a project’s description and an investor’s tweets, we run the topic model Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) on the tweets and the project descriptions. As a result, each project is represented by a topic vector, and each investor’s Twitter account is represented by another topic vector. To assess whether a project’s description matches an investor’s interests, we simply compute the cosine similarity between the project’s topical vector and the investor’s. We do so for all project-investor pairs and find that frequent investors do indeed support projects that match their own interests, while occasional investors’ topical interests are not really matching to projects they supported. We also find that frequent investors fund projects in a variety of categories, while occasional ones tend to stick with the same category, if they happen to fund more than one project. The correlation between investor activity and project-investor cosine similarity is positive: $r = 0.20, p < 0.05$. In practice, this suggests that topical matching between projects and investors tends to work better for frequent investors than for occasional ones.
Summary
-------
We find that frequent investors are likely to fund projects that are well-managed; have high pledging goals; are global; grow quickly; and match their interests. Occasional investors, instead, do not seem to base their decisions on those aspects. We might thus infer that those who have supported a considerable number of projects act in ways similar to how investors would do, while occasional supporters appear to be behaving as charitable donors. As hinted by a news article [@economist@2012-2], we suspect that occasional investors are lured into Kickstarter by their own friends and family members who might happen to be on Facebook. We thus expect that, to be successful, projects funded by occasional investors should be characterized by a considerable number of Facebook friends. To see whether this is the case, we plot the probability that an investor supports a project as a function of the number of the project founder’s Facebook friends (Figure \[fig:group\_numbacked\_all\_prob\_facebookfriend\]), and indeed find that projects whose founders have many Facebook friends tend to attract occasional investors, while founders with moderate numbers of Facebook friends attract frequent investors, partly confirming our expectation.
[![Probability that investor $B$ funds project $P$ as a function of the number of the project founder’s Facebook friends.[]{data-label="fig:group_numbacked_all_prob_facebookfriend"}](group_numbacked_all_prob_facebookfriend "fig:"){width=".35\textwidth"} \[fig:group\_numbacked\_all\_prob\_facebookfriend\]]{}
Recommending Investors {#sect:prediction}
======================
Based on the previous results, we are now able to recommend potential investors for a specific project. We do so by using logistic regression (LR) and Support Vector Machine (SVM). We use three different SVM kernels: linear, polynomial, and RBF (Radial Basis Function). The latter is more flexible and general than the first two as it copes with situations in which the relationships between features are non-linear.
To recommend potential investors who are on Twitter, we need to link Kickstarter users to their Twitter accounts first. We do so by matching the names of Kickstarter users interested in a project with Twitter users mentioning the project. In so doing, we end up with 7,429 investors who are on Twitter, and with 891 projects they had funded. To preliminarily test the accuracy of such matching, we randomly select 200 matching and manually inspect them: the resulting accuracy is 92%.
Experimental Setup {#sect:experimental_setup}
------------------
We initially formulate the task of predicting who funds what as a binary classification problem. For each project-investor pair, we predict whether the investor supports the project (prediction is 1) or not (prediction is 0). That translates into having, for each project, an unordered list of Twitter users who are likely to fund it.
We run those predictions on input of features that are both *static* and *dynamic*. Static features are permanently set at the start of the campaign and include a project’s pledging goal, reward level, and category. They also include an investor’s past supported project categories and his/her interests expressed on Twitter. Dynamic features, instead, change as the campaign unfolds and include pledge growth rate, number of project updates, geographic dispersion of investors, and the number of comments exchanged between the founder and the community.
Since our data only includes positive cases – that is, the set of pledges that actually happened – we need to augment our dataset with negative cases (by under-sampling them): we do so by adding an equal number of negative cases – that is, with a set of random project-investor pairs. By construction, the resulting sample is balanced (the response variable is split 50-50), and the accuracy of a random prediction model would thus be 50%.
To evaluate the performance of the logistic regression and SVM without running into the problem of over-fitting, we perform 5-fold cross validation. That is, we randomly split the projects into two subsets: the first contains 80% of the projects and is used for training; the second set contains 20% of the projects and is used for testing. We repeat this split for 5 rounds and average the performance results across those rounds.
As evaluation metrics, we resort to those that are widely-used in classification problems: Accuracy (ACC), Precision, Recall, F-score, and Area Under the receiver-operator characteristic Curve (AUC).
Experimental Results
--------------------
Before training any of the models, we compute the (Pearson) correlation coefficient between each pair of project features (Table \[table:correlation\]). We find that few features are correlated with each other (i.e., there are high positive correlations (where $r > 0.50$) between the pledging goal, the number of updates and the number of comments). Since it is not useful to simultaneously use all the features in the classification task, the input for the LR will include only the features that are not strongly correlated with each other (i.e., we only include the number of comments among those three features).\
[0.9]{}[r l l l l l l ]{} & & & & & &\
**\#Comments** & **0.67** $\ast$ & & & & &\
**Reward level** &0.12 & 0.03 & & & &\
**Goal** & **0.60** $\ast$ & **0.85** $\ast$ & 0.19 & & &\
**Growth rate** & 0.34 & 0.12 & 0.33 & 0.11 & &\
**Geo-D** & 0.12 & 0.21 & 0.16 & 0.23 & 0.13 &\
\
**Activity level** & 0.26 & 0.19 & 0.05 & 0.21 & 0.32 & 0.17\
**Model** **Features** **ACC** **P** **R** **$F_1$** **AUC**
------------- -------------- ---------- ------- ------- ----------- ----------
LR Static 0.57 0.57 0.55 0.56 0.57
Dynamic 0.57 0.58 0.55 0.56 0.57
SVM-linear Static 0.58 0.60 0.51 0.55 0.58
Dynamic 0.58 0.60 0.50 0.55 0.58
SVM-poly Static 0.80 0.81 0.75 0.79 0.80
Dynamic 0.68 0.76 0.54 0.63 0.68
**SVM-RBF** Static **0.82** 0.79 0.83 0.82 [0.81]{}
Dynamic **0.73** 0.75 0.68 0.71 [0.73]{}
: Prediction results with the **balanced** test dataset (50/50 split).
\[tab:svm-classification-model\]
[![Model trained with different subsets of features[]{data-label="fig:feature_selection"}](feature_selection "fig:"){width=".4\textwidth"}]{}
**Prediction with balanced dataset.** Table \[tab:svm-classification-model\] shows the results for our prediction models for balanced dataset on input of both static and dynamic features. We find that SVM with polynomial and RBF kernels work best, suggesting that our data points are not linearly separated in the hyperplane. Interestingly, on input of static features, the best classifier achieves 82% accuracy (ACC); on input of dynamic features, the accuracy slightly degrades (73%); while, as one expects, on input of both types of feature, the accuracy slightly increases to 84%.
These predictions are done upon the complete set of uncorrelated features. However, to know which feature individually matters and which does not, we re-run our classifications on input of different combinations of the following features: number of comments (C), reward levels (R), geographic span (S), growth rate (G), category matching (E) and topic similarity (TS). Again, we exclude two features: pledging goal and number of updates as they are both strongly correlated with the number of comments. Figure \[fig:feature\_selection\] shows the corresponding prediction accuracies: all features individually help to predict pledging behavior, but adding category matching and topical similarity results in considerable performance improvements. We can then confirm that by visual inspection of Figure \[fig:group\_numbacked\_all\_prob\_category\_bar\]. This plots the probability that an investor with a given level of activity funds a project in a given category. We see that occasional investors (red bar segments) support music projects, while active investors (purple bar segments) support projects with high pledging goals in, say, the gaming industry.\
**Prediction with imbalanced dataset.** Our evaluation has so far assumed a 50-50 split between positive and negative cases. As this might not always be the case, we create an alternative test set with a 20/80 split (positive/negative): we train our models still on the balanced set but test them on the newly created unbalanced test set. We find that the results are similar to those obtained before (Table \[tab:svm-classification-model-imbalanced\]), yet with a minor degrade in precision. However, the accuracy (ACC) still remains as high as 82%.
Ranking investors
-----------------
To go beyond binary classifications, we now set out to *rank* investors. So the problem is now, given a project, to return a ranked list of investors.
As evaluation metrics, we resort to two measures widely-used in ranking problems: MeanRR (Mean Reciprocal Rank) and MaxRR (Maximum Reciprocal Rank). We denote $rank_{i,p}$ the percentile-ranking of investor $i$ within the ordered list of investors predicted for project $P$: $rank_{i,P}$ = 0% if investor $i$ is predicted to be the most desirable for project $P$. Starting from this definition of rank, we can then formulate the total average percentile-ranking as:
$${\overline{rank}} = {\frac{\sum\limits_{i,P}{funded_{i,P}} \dot {rank_{i,P}}} {\sum\limits_{i,P}{rank_{i,P}}}}$$
where $funded_{i,P}$ is a flag that reflects whether investor $i$ has supported project $P$: it is 0, if $i$ did not support it; otherwise, it is 1. The lower a list’s $\overline{rank}$, the better the list’s quality. For random predictions, the expected value for $\overline{rank}$ is 0.5. Therefore, a $\overline{rank}$ < 0.5 is associated with an algorithm better than random. Given a ranked list, MeanRR returns the average rank score for the “correct” investors (i.e., investors who actually supported the project), while MaxRR returns the score of the highest ranked correct investor (i.e., highest ranked among the investors who actually supported the project). The lower these two metrics, the better the ranking.
**Model** **Features** **ACC** **AUC**
------------- -------------- ---------- ----------
LR Static 0.56 0.57
Dynamic 0.57 0.57
SVM-linear Static 0.60 0.58
Dynamic 0.61 0.59
SVM-poly Static 0.81 0.80
Dynamic 0.77 0.70
**SVM-RBF** Static **0.82** [0.81]{}
Dynamic **0.74** [0.73]{}
: Prediction results with the **imbalanced** test set (20/80 split).[]{data-label="tab:svm-classification-model-imbalanced"}
**Model** **Features** **MeanRR** **MaxRR**
----------- -------------- ------------ -----------
Random - 0.50 0.87
SVM-RBF Static 0.34 0.39
Dynamic 0.37 0.40
**All** **0.32** **0.38**
: Ranking Results.
\[tab:recommending-model\]
{width=".9\textwidth"}
\[fig:group\_numbacked\_all\_prob\_category\_bar\]
To ranking investors, we opt for the model that previously showed the best performance: SVM with RBF kernel. This model returns the probability of the outcome to be “1” (i.e., the probability that an investor $B$ will support a project $P$). Upon our test set, for each project, we sort all users (a union set of training and test sets, which is the total number of 7,429 Twitter users) by this probability and recommend those who score the highest. In this way, it is similar to content-based recommendation. Table \[tab:recommending-model\] compares SVM’s ranking accuracy with random model’s. We can see that based only on static features, we can achieve percentile ranking of 0.34, which is lower than random model.
Discussion {#sect:discussion}
==========
We now discuss the theoretical and practical implications of our work.
Theoretical Implications
------------------------
There is a debate about the motives of crowdfunding investors. Initially, they were seen as donors [@lehner@2013; @ordanini@2011]: “Some crowdfunding efforts, such as art or humanitarian projects, view their funders as patrons or philanthropists, who expect nothing in return.” [@belleflamme@core2011]. In the same vein, Gerber *et al.* listed the following motivations for investors: seek (non-financial) rewards, support creators and causes, engage and contribute to a trusting and creative community [@gerber@cscw2012]. More recently however, crowdfunding sites have been increasingly attracting a variety of founders: from small entrepreneurs who traditionally relied on the 3Fs (friends, family, and fools [@belleflamme@2010]) to big companies that now use those sites as marketing tools. In line with these changes over the years, we have found that investors also tend to be of different types: pledging behavior of frequent investors is very different from that of occasional ones. The former act as proper investors, while the latter act as donors. They generally support different projects: art projects (e.g., music, dance) are largely funded by occasional investors, while projects on technology, games, and comics are funded by frequent ones. This suggests that pledging campaigns need to identify the right target investors to be successful. Artistic projects should rely on the traditional 3Fs (friends, family, and fools), perhaps employing social media sites to efficiently reach them. By contrast, technology projects should broaden their search and look for active and frequent investors.
Practical Implications
----------------------
The good news is that we have shown that it is possible to identify and recommend frequent investors. However, it might not be sustainable to simply recommend investors only out of Kickstarter users: such an investor pool would limited and we could consequently end up recommending the same investors over and over again. To see whether we could expand the investor pool, it might be beneficial to study whether we could match unknown investors (who are not on Kickstarter but only on Twitter) with projects to be funded. To this end, we combine both static and dynamic *project* features (Section \[sect:experimental\_setup\]) with *Twitter*-derived features to test whether we can predict potential investors for each project. The Twitter-derived features are widely-used to measure activity, status [@leskovec@www2010], and influence [@cha_icwsm10], and they are three: 1) the logarithm of the total number of tweets (activity); 2) the logarithm of the total number of followers divided by the number of followees (status); and 3) the sum of the average number of retweets, favorites, and mentions of the account’s tweets (influence).
Using cross validation on our data in a way similar to what we have already done in Section \[sect:experimental\_setup\], we train the SVM-RBF model, which previously showed the best performance, solely on project and Twitter-derived features. We learn that this model achieves 68% of accuracy (ACC in Table \[tab:svm-classification-model-twitter\]) and an average percentile ranking of 0.4 (Table \[tab:recommending-model\]), making it partly possible to recommend investors in cold-start situations and, as such, considerably expanding the investor pool.
**Model** **Features** **ACC** **P** **R** **$F_1$** **AUC**
------------- -------------- ---------- ------- ------- ----------- ----------
[SVM-RBF]{} Static **0.68** 0.71 0.61 0.66 [0.68]{}
Dynamic **0.67** 0.72 0.58 0.64 [0.67]{}
: Prediction results for Twitter+Project features.[]{data-label="tab:svm-classification-model-twitter"}
**model** **Features** **MeanRR** **MaxRR**
----------- -------------- ------------ -----------
Random - 0.50 0.87
SVM-RBF Static 0.44 0.47
Dynamic 0.44 0.46
**All** **0.40** **0.41**
: Ranking results for Twitter+Project features.[]{data-label="tab:recommending-model"}
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
Everyday there are on average 39 new projects in Kickstarter: not only artists or entrepreneurs are profiting from this new way of raising funds, but also city councils and political organizations have joined the fray. This is the first study to characterize the pledging behavior of micro-funders. We have established that investors behave quite differently depending on whether they are very active in the community or not. Frequent investors are attracted by ambitious projects, yet they carefully diversify their investment portfolios. By contrast, occasional investors act as donors, mainly in art-related projects.
We have also shown that it is possible to match new projects with willing investors, and that is extremely important, not least because the most common reason for failure in Kickstarter is the inability of founders to reach out to the right investors.
We are currently working on a website that, on input of a Kickstarter project’s url, will recommend a list of potential investors’ Twitter accounts. We will then test the extent to which Kickstarter founders find this application useful. As for additional analysis, we are planning to look at exogenous factors, as this study has focused mainly on endogenous ones.
Acknowledgment
==============
Jisun An is supported in part by the Google European Doctoral Fellowship in Social Computing. We thank Nicola Barbieri, Martin Saveski, Alan Said, and Haewoon Kawk for their valuable comments on earlier versions of the draft. This work was done during an internship at Yahoo Labs in Barcelona.
[10]{} A. K. Agrawal, C. Catalini, and A. Goldfarb. The geography of crowdfunding. NBER Working Papers 16820, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, 2011.
P. Belleflamme, T. Lambert, and A. Schwienbacher. Crowdfunding: An industrial organization perspective. In [*Proceedings of Workshop of Digital Business Models: Understanding Strategies conference*]{}, 2010.
P. Belleflamme, T. Lambert, and A. SCHWIENBACHER. Crowdfunding: tapping the right crowd. CORE Discussion Papers 2011032, 2011.
D. M. Blei, A. Y. Ng, and M. I. Jordan. Latent dirichlet allocation. , 2003.
M. Cha, H. Haddadi, F. Benevenuto, and K. Gummadi. Measuring user influence in [T]{}witter: The million follower fallacy. In [*Proceedings of ICWSM*]{}, 2010.
Economist. Crowdfunding: Micro no more. 2012. .
Economist. Is it unfair for famous people to use kickstarter? 2012. .
Economist. The new thundering herd. 2012. .
V. Etter, M. Grossglauser, and P. Thiran. . In [*Proceedings of COSN*]{}, 2013.
E. Gerber, J. Hui, and P. yi Kuo. Crowdfunding: Why people are motivated to post and fund projects on crowdfunding platforms. In [*Proceedings of the workshop on Design Influence and Social Technologies: Techniques, Impacts and Ethics*]{}, 2012.
E. Gilbert. . In [*Proceedings of CSCW*]{}, 2014.
M. D. Greenberg, B. Pardo, K. Hariharan, and E. Gerber. Crowdfunding support tools: predicting success & failure. In [*Proceedings of CHI (EA)*]{}, 2013.
T. L. Griffiths and M. Steyvers. Finding scientific topics. In [*Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101*]{}, 2004.
J. Hui, M. Greenberg, and E. Gerber. Understanding the role of community in crowdfunding work. In [*Proceedings of CSCW*]{}, 2014.
O. M. Lehner. Crowdfunding social ventures: a model and research agenda. , 15(4):289–311, 2013.
J. Leskovec, D. Huttenlocher, and J. Kleinberg. Predicting positive and negative links in online social networks. In [*Proceedings of WWW*]{}, 2010.
Massolution. 2013CF Crowdfunding Industry Reports. 2013. .
E. R. Mollick. The dynamics of crowdfunding: Determinants of success and failure. , 2012.
J. W. Mullins. Good money after bad? , Mar. 2007.
A. Ordanini, L. Miceli, M. Pizzetti, and A. Parasuraman. Crowd-funding: Transforming customers into investors through innovative service platforms. , 22(4):443–470, 2011.
W. A. Sahlman. How to write a great business plan. , July 1997.
J. M. Stancill. Realistic criteria for judging new ventures. , Nov. 1981.
M. Steyvers and T. L. Griffiths. Probabilistic topic models. , 427(7):424-440, 2007.
B. Zider. How venture capital works. , Nov. 1998.
[^1]: This work was conducted when the author was in University of Cambridge.
[^2]: <http://www.kickstarter.com/discover/recently-launched>
[^3]: A server located at Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge was used to collect Twitter data.
[^4]: <http://www.kickstarter.com/help/stats.> All statistics reported are retrieved on 3rd November 2013.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The aim of this work is to analyze the dynamical behavior of relativistic infinite axial-symmetric shells with flat interior and a radiation filled curved exterior spacetimes. It will be proven, by the use of conservation equations of Israel, that the given configuration does not let expansion or collapse of the shell which was proposed before, but rather the shell stays at constant radius. The case of null-collapse will also be considered in this work and it will be shown that the shell collapses to zero radius, and moreover, if cylindrical flatness is imposed a boundary layer is obtained still contrary to previous works.'
author:
- Burak Himmetoglu
title: 'Analysis of Dynamic Axial-Symmetric Shells'
---
Introduction
============
Dynamic relativistic shells were studied by many authors for many different applications. Israel, who first formulated the tools for analyzing shell models [@I] also worked on the collapse of spherically symmetric shells [@I2] that separate an interior Minkowski spacetime with an exterior Schwarzschild spacetime and the possible violations of casuality in such systems. Later Barrabés and Israel [@Ba]- [@BaI] developed the null shell formalism and considered collapse of spherically symmetric shells along with Poisson [@Po]. Later, Olea and Crisóstomo treated the dynamics of shell models by the use of the Hamiltonian formalism and considered collapse of spherically symmetric shells [@CO]. Recently, Jezierski [@JJ] studied the geometry of crossing null shells which is another important application. Similar dynamic shell models prove to be very important in wormhole constructions and such models are extensively studied by Visser and he collected and summarized these in his book [@Viss]. These wormhole models were constructed by the so called *cut and paste technique* where two copies of the same spacetime are identified on a hypersurface which is the boundary of two regions cut from the spacetimes. This junction hypersurface in the spherically symmetric case that forms the throat of the wormhole was given a radial degree of freedom in order to minimize the use of stress-energy which violates the weak energy condition. Recently, Eiroa and Simeone analyzed the case of cylindrical cut and paste wormholes [@ES] which is the direct generalization of Visser’s approach to axial-symmetric spacetimes. Axial-symmetric dynamic shells were also studied by Gersl, Klepác and Horský who considered a charged cylindrical shell that separates an interior Bonnor-Melvin Universe and an exterior Datta-Raychaudhuri spacetime [@GKH]. Other examples of dynamic axial-symmetric shells were studied by Pereira and Wang [@PW] and then later by Seriu [@MS], who considered an axial-symmetric dynamic shell which separates an interior flat spacetime and an exterior radiation-filled curved spacetime.
Our consideration is based on the same configuration analyzed by Pereira, Wang [@PW] and Seriu [@MS] before. Since the most recent one is the work by Seriu, let us recall this work [@MS]. First he considered a general axial-symmetric spacetime and calculated the elements of the second fundamental form and the surface stress-energy tensor from the Israel equations. Then he considered the more special case analyzed before by Pereira and Wang and obtained dynamical equations concerning the motion of the shell from the components of the surface stress-energy tensor. By analyzing these dynamical equations he concluded with the result that the configuration at hand does not let the collapse of the shell even in the limits where the radial velocity of the shell approaches to the speed of light. (i.e. the null limit) Finally he compared his work with the previous one by Pereira and Wang.
In our work we also use the same configuration used previously by Pereira-Wang [@PW] and Seriu [@MS], but the method we use to obtain the dynamical equations concerning the motion of the shell is totally different. After we calculate the elements of the second fundamental form for both the interior and exterior spacetimes, we directly use the conservation equations of Israel and we prove that in the given configuration the shell stays at constant radius and does not move at all. We also compare our results with those obtained by Seriu in two ways. We first use the null-shell formalism [@BaI]- [@Po]- [@Ba] directly and show that the results obtained are different from those obtained by him. Secondly, we showed that his results are inconsistent with the conservation equations.
Our work possesses the use of conservation equations for determining the dynamical behavior of thin shells which has a non-vacuum exterior spacetime for the first time. Previously, only the vacuum conservation equations were used by Israel [@I]- [@I2] for considering dynamic spherical shells, so this work is an example where the full conservation equations are used.
In section II, we start directly by considering the null shell limit in the configuration given by Seriu, Pereira and Wang [@MS]- [@PW]. We first calculate the elements of the transverse curvature in both spacetimes and then apply the Barrabés-Israel null shell formalism and obtain the surface stress-energy tensor. We show that in this case the shell collapses to zero radius, which is contrary to the recent work by Seriu [@MS]. Moreover, when cylindrical flatness is imposed, the shell turns into a boundary layer which is also contrary to the above mentioned work.
In section III, we analyze the timelike case by using the Israel formalism directly. We first calculate the elements of the second fundamental form in both spacetimes and then use them in the conservation equations which proves that the shell must stay stationary at some constant radius. In addition, we compare our results with the previous ones and show that the previous ones do not reach the conclusions they made, when conservation equations are used.
In section IV, we give a conclusion of our results.
Through out this work, we use the sign conventions of MTW [@MTW] except the sign of the second fundamental form and transverse curvature is Israel’s [@I]- [@Po]. We use $\Sigma$ to denote timelike hypersurfaces and $\Xi$ to denote null hypersurfaces. ${\mathbf}{k}$ denotes the normal vector to $\Xi$, ${\mathbf}{N}$ denotes the the transverse vector, $\sigma_{AB}$ denotes the intrinsic metric on $\Xi$, $y^{a}=(\lambda,\theta^{C})$ denotes the intrinsic coordinates on $\Xi$, $C_{ab}$ denotes the transverse curvature and finally upper case Latin indices runs from 2 to 3.
Cylindrical Shells: The Lightlike Limit
=======================================
We will work on the two spacetimes $\mathcal{M}^{-}$ and $\mathcal{M}^{+}$ given in [@MS] separated by the hypersurface $\Sigma$ in the lightlike limit. Let us give the metrics corresponding to $\mathcal{M}^{-}$ and $\mathcal{M}^{+}$: $$\begin{aligned}
ds_{+}^{2} &=&
e^{2\gamma(t_{+}-r)}(-dt^{2}_{+}+dr^{2})+dz^{2}+r^{2}d\phi^{2}
\label{-manif} \\ ds_{-}^{2} &=&
-dt_{-}^{2}+dr^{2}+dz^{2}+r^{2}d\phi^{2} \label{+manif}\end{aligned}$$ In our case, the shell moves only radially so with respect to $\mathcal{M}^{\pm}$, the null shell $\Xi$ is defined by the equation $r=\rho(t_{\pm})$. Since the shell moves at the speed of light, the radial component of 4-velocity satisfies, $$\nonumber
\frac{d\rho}{d\eta}=-1$$ where $\eta$ is an affine parameter for the null geodesic of our interest. The minus sign reflects the fact that the shell is collapsing. Therefore, in $\mathcal{M}^{-}$, the collapsing shell satisfies the equation, $$\nonumber
t_{-}+\rho=\vartheta_{-}=\textrm{constant}$$ On the other hand, in $\mathcal{M}^{+}$ the equation for the null geodesic that describes the collapsing shell $\Xi$ can be calculated by solving the *Euler-Lagrange Equations*. Defining, $$\label{2K}
2K\equiv{e^{2\gamma}t_{+}^{\circ2}-e^{2\gamma}\rho^{\circ2}}=0$$ where $q^{\circ}$ denotes $\frac{dq}{d\eta}$. The Euler-Lagrange equations are given by, $$\label{EL}
\frac{\partial{K}}{\partial{q}}-\frac{d}{d\eta}\frac{\partial{K}}{\partial{q^{\circ}}}=0$$ where $q$ represents the coordinates $t_{+},r,z,\phi$. Solving this equation for $q=t_{+}$, $$\nonumber
\dot{\gamma}(\underbrace{t_{+}^{\circ2}-\rho^{\circ2}}_{0})-\frac{d}{d\eta}(e^{2\gamma}t_{+}^{\circ})=0$$ where $\dot{\gamma}$ represents $\frac{d\gamma}{dt_{+}}$. Then we are left only with the term $e^{2\gamma}t_{+}^{\circ}$ which is equal to a constant $C$ because its derivative with respect to $\eta$ is zero. Then we have, $$\label{tdot}
t_{+}^{\circ}=Ce^{-2\gamma}$$ Using the above equality in (\[2K\]) we get, $$\label{rdot}
\rho^{\circ}={\pm}Ce^{-2\gamma} \rightarrow
\rho^{\circ}=-Ce^{-2\gamma} \quad (\textrm{since we are
considering collapse})$$ Then noting the following relation, $$\frac{\rho^{\circ}_{+}}{t^{\circ}}=\frac{d\rho}{dt_{+}}=-1$$ where in the last step we used (\[tdot\]) and (\[rdot\]). Solving this trivial equation gives the equation of $\Xi$ in $\mathcal{M}^{+}$ as, $$\nonumber
t_{+}+\rho=\vartheta_{+}=\textrm{constant}$$ similar to its counterpart in $\mathcal{M}^{-}$. If we assume that as $r{\rightarrow}{\infty}$, $\mathcal{M}^{+}$ approaches to the flat Minkowski metric (i.e as $r{\rightarrow}{\infty}$, $\gamma{\rightarrow}0$ so $e^{2\gamma}{\rightarrow}1$), the constant C should be chosen as 1. This case we refer to as the cylindrically flat exterior spacetime.
Now let us use the *Null-Shell Formalism* for the current case:
Transverse Curvature in [$\mathcal{M}^{-}$]{}
---------------------------------------------
Since $\frac{d\rho}{d\eta}=-1$ let us choose the parameter $\lambda$ that describes the shell’s null character as $\lambda=\eta$, then intrinsic metric on the hypersurface $\Xi$ is given by, $$\label{-metric}
ds_{\Xi}^{2}=dz^{2}+\lambda^{2}d\phi^{2}$$ so $\Xi$ is described by the equation, $$\begin{aligned}
t_{-} &=& \lambda + \vartheta_{-} \nonumber \\
r &=& -\lambda \nonumber \\
z &=& z \nonumber \\
\phi &=& \phi \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where in the above equations, right hand sides correspond to intrinsic coordinates on $\Xi$, while the left hand sides show their relation to coordinates in $\mathcal{M}^{-}$, so they together define $\Xi$. Therefore, the tangent-normal vector of $\Xi$ is given by, $$\label{k-}
k_{-}^{\alpha}=\frac{\partial{x_{-}^{\alpha}}}{\partial{\lambda}}=(1,-1,0,0)$$ by using the equations we derived above that describes $\Xi$. Now following [@Po], we have to find the transverse vector ${\mathbf}{N}$ that points out of $\Xi$ and different from ${\mathbf}{k}$ which must satisfy the following equations,
- $N_{\alpha}^{-}k^{\alpha}_{-}=-1$
- $N_{\alpha}^{-}N_{-}^{\alpha}=0$
- $
N_{\alpha}^{-}e_{A}^{\alpha}=0$
Then the $3^{rd}$ condition indicates a form $N_{\alpha}=(x,y,0,0)$ where $x$ and $y$ are to be found by solving conditions 1 and 2 by using (\[k-\]), which gives, $$\label{trans-}
N_{\alpha}=(-\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},0,0)$$ Then using the definition of *Transverse Curvature*, $$\begin{aligned}
C_{ab} &=& -{\mathbf}{N}\cdot{}^{(4)}\nabla_{a}{\mathbf}{e_{b}} =
-N_{\alpha}e^{\beta}_{a}{}^{(4)}\nabla_{\beta}e_{b}^{\alpha}
\nonumber \\ &=&
-N_{\alpha}(\frac{\partial^{2}{x^{\alpha}}}{\partial{y^{a}}\partial{y^{b}}}+\Gamma_{\beta\gamma}^{\alpha}\frac{\partial{x^{\beta}}}{\partial{y^{a}}}\frac{\partial{x^{\gamma}}}{\partial{y^{b}}})
\label{openextrinsic}\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the only non-vanishing component the transverse curvature becomes, $$\nonumber
C_{\phi\phi}^{-}=-N_{r}\Gamma_{\phi\phi}^{r}=\frac{r}{2}=\frac{r^{2}}{2r}=\frac{\sigma_{\phi\phi}}{2r}$$ Therefore, $$\label{phiphi-}
C_{\phi\phi}^{-}\mid_{\Xi}=\frac{\sigma_{\phi\phi}}{2\rho}$$
Transverse Curvature in ${\mathcal{M}^{+}}$
-------------------------------------------
The treatment in $\mathcal{M}^{+}$ is totally similar. We again set $\lambda=\eta$. The intrinsic metric on $\Xi$ is given in $\mathcal{M}^{+}$ as, $$\nonumber
ds_{\Xi}^{2}=dz^{2}+\lambda^{2}d\phi^{2}$$ since $e^{2\gamma}(-dt_{+}^{2}+d\rho^{2})=0$, same with (\[-metric\]) as it should be since the continuity of the metric must be satisfied. Therefore $\Xi$ is described by the set of equations, $$\begin{aligned}
t_{+} &=& -\rho(\lambda)+\vartheta_{+} \nonumber \\
r &=& \rho(\lambda) \nonumber \\
z &=& z \nonumber \\
\phi &=& \phi \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Then the tangent-normal vector $k^{\alpha}$ is given as, $$\nonumber
k^{\alpha}=\frac{\partial{x_{+}^{\alpha}}}{\partial{\lambda}}=(-\frac{d\rho}{d\lambda},\frac{d\rho}{d\lambda},0,0)$$ Since we calculated $\frac{d\rho}{d\lambda}$ in (\[rdot\]) as $\rho^{\circ}=-Ce^{-2\lambda}$, $k^{\alpha}$ becomes, $$\label{k+}
k_{+}^{\alpha}=Ce^{-2\gamma}(1,-1,0,0)$$ Again we have to find the transverse vector ${\mathbf}{N}$ by the before given properties, $$\nonumber
N_{\alpha}^{+}N_{+}^{\alpha}=0 \quad
N_{\alpha}^{+}k_{+}^{\alpha}=-1 \quad
N_{\alpha}^{+}e_{A}^{\alpha}=0$$ which can also in view of $3^{rd}$ equation can be found as putting $N_{\alpha}^{+}=(x,y,0,0)$ into the first two equations which yields, $$\label{trans+}
N_{\alpha}^{+}=\frac{e^{2\gamma}}{2C}(-1,1,0,0)$$ Then the non-vanishing components of the transverse curvature are found also by (\[openextrinsic\]). $$\begin{aligned}
C_{\lambda\lambda}^{+} &=&
-N_{t}^{+}\{\frac{\partial^{2}{t_{+}}}{\partial{\lambda^{2}}}+\Gamma_{tt}^{t}(\frac{\partial{t_{+}}}{\partial{\lambda}})^{2}+\Gamma_{rr}^{t}(\frac{\partial{r}}{\partial{\lambda}})^{2}+2\Gamma_{rt}^{t}(\frac{\partial{r}}{\partial{\lambda}})(\frac{\partial{t_{+}}}{\partial{\lambda}})\}
\nonumber \\ &+&
-N_{r}^{+}\{\frac{\partial^{2}{r}}{\partial{\lambda^{2}}}+\Gamma_{tt}^{r}(\frac{\partial{t_{+}}}{\partial{\lambda}})^{2}+\Gamma_{rr}^{r}(\frac{\partial{r}}{\partial{\lambda}})^{2}+2\Gamma_{rt}^{r}(\frac{\partial{r}}{\partial{\lambda}})(\frac{\partial{t_{+}}}{\partial{\lambda}})\}
\label{C-ll1}\end{aligned}$$ Now using the fact that $\gamma\equiv{\gamma(t_{+}-r)}$, we have $\dot{\gamma}=-\gamma^{\prime}$ where prime denotes differentiation with respect to $r$. So the Christoffel symbols become for (\[+manif\]), $$\label{C2}
\Gamma_{rr}^{r}=-\Gamma_{tt}^{t}=\Gamma_{tr}^{t}=-\Gamma_{rr}^{t}=\Gamma_{tt}^{r}=-\Gamma
_{tr}^{r}=\gamma^{\prime}$$ Now since we have $\frac{\partial{t_{+}}}{\partial{\lambda}}=-\frac{\partial{r}}{\partial{\lambda}}=Ce^{-2\lambda}$, we get, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial^{2}{t_{+}}}{\partial{\lambda^{2}}} &=&
-2\frac{d\gamma}{d\lambda}Ce^{-2\gamma}=-2C(\frac{d{\gamma}}{dr}\frac{dr}{d{\lambda}}+\frac{d{\gamma}}{dt_{+}}\frac{dt_{+}}{d{\lambda}})e^{-2\gamma}
\nonumber \\ &=&
4C^{2}\gamma^{\prime}e^{-4\gamma}=-\frac{\partial^{2}{r}}{\partial{\lambda^{2}}}
\label{2nder}\end{aligned}$$ Thus putting (\[2nder\]) and (\[C2\]) into (\[C-ll1\]) one gets simply, $$\label{C-ll}
C_{\lambda\lambda}^{+}=0$$ The only non-vanishing component of $C_{ab}^{+}$ then becomes, $$\nonumber
C_{\phi\phi}^{+}=-N_{r}^{+}\Gamma_{\phi\phi}^{r}=\frac{r^{2}}{2rC}$$ Thus, $$\label{phiphi+}
C_{\phi\phi}^{+}\mid_{\Xi}=\frac{\sigma_{\phi\phi}}{2\rho{C}}$$ Then we have, $$\begin{aligned}
\mu &=& -\frac{1}{8\pi}\sigma^{AB}[C_{AB}] \nonumber \\
j^{A} &=& -\frac{1}{8\pi}\sigma^{AB}[C_{\lambda{B}}] \nonumber \\
p &=& -\frac{1}{8\pi}[C_{\lambda\lambda}]\end{aligned}$$ with the surface stress-energy tensor given as, $$\label{surface}
S^{\alpha\beta}={\mu}k^{\alpha}k^{\beta}+j^{A}(k^{\alpha}e_{A}^{\beta}+k^{\beta}e_{A}^{\alpha})+p\sigma^{AB}e_{A}^{\alpha}e_{B}^{\beta}$$ Since $$\nonumber
[C_{\lambda\lambda}]=0, \quad [C_{\lambda{B}}]=0, \quad
[C_{\phi\phi}]=\frac{\sigma_{\phi\phi}}{2\rho}(\frac{1-C}{C})$$ We have, $$\label{mu}
\mu=\frac{C-1}{16{\pi}C\rho}$$ Therefore, $$\nonumber
S^{\alpha\beta}=\frac{C-1}{16{\pi}C\rho}k^{\alpha}k^{\beta}$$ From the above equations, we see that $C^{\pm}_{\lambda\lambda}=0$ which proves that the parameter chosen is affine both in $\mathcal{M}^{+}$ and in $\mathcal{M}^{-}$ by [@Po]. So we get a null shell with nonzero energy density, which collapses with the speed of light to zero radius. On the other hand, if cylindrical flatness (i.e. as $r{\rightarrow}{\infty}$, $\gamma{\rightarrow}0$) is imposed as a special case (C=1), then we get $\mu=\j^{A}=p=0$ so the hypersurface $\Xi$ becomes a boundary layer rather than a thin shell.
Collapse of Cylindrical Shell in Timelike Case
==============================================
In this section, we will work again on the spacetime described by the metrics (\[-manif\]) and(\[+manif\]) but this time the hypersurface connecting $\mathcal{M}^{-}$ and $\mathcal{M}^{+}$ will be timelike (i.e its normal vector ${\mathbf}{n}$ is spacelike), so will be denoted by $\Sigma$. Again $\Sigma$ is defined by the equation $\Sigma: \ r=\rho_{\pm}(t_{pm})$, which gives the induced metric on $\Sigma$ as, $$\label{induced}
d_{\Sigma}^{2}=-d\tau^{2}+dz^{2}+r^{2}d\phi^{2}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{propertime}
d\tau^{2} &=& e^{2\gamma}(1-\dot{\rho_{+}}^{2})dt_{+}^{2}
\nonumber \\ &=& (1-\dot{\rho_{-}}^{2})dt_{-}^{2} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ again dot represents derivative with respect to $t_{+}$ or $t_{-}$. Defining the quantity $\Delta^{-1}\equiv{\frac{dt_{+}}{dt_{-}}}$ and noting that $\dot{\rho_{-}}=\Delta^{-1}\dot{\rho_{+}}$, we find from the above equation, $$\begin{aligned}
e^{2\gamma}(1-\dot{\rho_{+}}^{2})\Delta^{-2} &=&
1-\Delta^{-2}\dot{\rho_{+}}^{2} \nonumber \\ \Delta^{-1} &=&
[(1-e^{2\gamma})\dot{\rho_{+}}^{2}+e^{2\gamma}]^{-1/2}
\label{delta}\end{aligned}$$ by imposing the continuity of the metric at $\Sigma$. In the future, we will need to write $\ddot{\rho_{-}}$ in terms of the quantities of $\mathcal{M}^{+}$. For this purpose, we know derive some useful equations as follows(remember that $\gamma^{\prime}=-\dot{\gamma}$) :
From equation (\[delta\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt_{+}}\Delta &=&
\frac{1}{2}\Delta^{-1}\{2(1-e^{2\gamma})\dot{\rho_{+}}\ddot{\rho_{+}}+2\gamma^{\prime}e^{2\gamma}\dot{\rho_{+}}^{2}-2\gamma^{\prime}e^{2\gamma}\}
\nonumber \\ &=&
\frac{1}{\Delta}\dot{\rho_{+}}\ddot{\rho_{+}}-\frac{e^{2\gamma}}{\Delta}[\dot{\rho_{+}}\ddot{\rho_{+}}+\gamma^{\prime}(1-\dot{\rho_{+}}^{2})]
\label{ddelta}\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\nonumber
\ddot{\rho_{-}} = \frac{d}{dt_{-}}(\rho_{-})$$ Using (\[ddelta\]) above we get $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt_{-}}(\rho_{-}) &=&
\Delta^{-1}\frac{d}{dt_{+}}(\Delta^{-1}\dot{\rho_{+}}) \nonumber
\\ &=&
\frac{\ddot{\rho_{+}}}{\Delta^{2}}-\frac{\ddot{\rho_{+}}}{\Delta^{4}}\{\underbrace{\dot{\rho_{+}}^{2}(1-e^{2\gamma})+e^{2\gamma}}_{\Delta^{2}}\}-\frac{\ddot{\rho_{+}}}{\Delta^{4}}\{-e^{2\gamma}+\gamma^{\prime}(1-\dot{\rho_{+}}^{2})\dot{\rho_{+}}e^{2\gamma}\}
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $$\label{rhodotdot}
\ddot{\rho_{-}}=\frac{e^{2\gamma}}{\Delta^{4}}[\ddot{\rho_{+}}+\gamma^{\prime}(1-\dot{\rho_{+}}^{2})\dot{\rho_{+}}]$$ Now let us look at the behavior of $\Sigma$ by first calculating its 4-velocity$(u^{\alpha})$ and then the normal vectors ${\mathbf}{n_{\pm}}$. Clearly in $\mathcal{M}^{+}$ $u^{\alpha}=(X_{+},\dot{\rho_{+}},0,0)$ where $X_{+}\equiv{\frac{dX_{+}}{d\tau}}$. Then from $u^{\alpha}u_{\alpha}=-1$ we get, $$\label{X}
e^{2\gamma}X^{2}(1-\dot{\rho_{+}}^{2})=1 \rightarrow
X=\frac{e^{-\gamma}}{\sqrt{1-\dot{\rho_{+}}^{2}}}$$ where we chose the plus sign for $X$. Then the normal vector ${\mathbf}{n_{+}}$ pointing from $\mathcal{M}^{-}$ to $\mathcal{M}^{+}$ can be found by letting $n^{+}_{\alpha}=(k,l,0,0)$ and inserting this to the equations which ${\mathbf}{n_{+}}$ must satisfy which are, $$\nonumber
n_{+}^{\alpha}n^{+}_{\alpha}=1, \quad n^{+}_{\alpha}u^{\alpha}=0$$ which then gives, $$\label{n+}
n_{\alpha}^{+}=e^{2\gamma}X_{+}(-\dot{\rho_{+}},1,0,0)$$ Since we are looking for surface stress-energy on $\Sigma$, we now will calculate the *Second Fundamental Forms* in $\mathcal{M}^{-}$ and $\mathcal{M}^{-}$. Recall that, $$\nonumber
K_{ab}=
-n_{\alpha}(\frac{\partial^{2}{x^{\alpha}}}{\partial{\xi^{a}}\partial{\xi^{b}}}+\Gamma_{\beta\gamma}^{\alpha}\frac{\partial{x^{\beta}}}{\partial{\xi^{a}}}\frac{\partial{x^{\gamma}}}{\partial{\xi^{b}}})$$ where $\xi^{a}=\{\tau,z,\phi\}$ are the intrinsic coordinates on $\Sigma$. The non-vanishing components of the Christoffel symbols in $\mathcal{M}^{-}$ is given by, $$\Gamma_{\phi\phi}^{r}=-r, \quad
\Gamma_{{\phi}r}^{\phi}=\frac{1}{r}$$ and the non-vanishing components of the Christoffel symbols in $\mathcal{M}^{+}$ is given by, $$\Gamma_{rr}^{r}=-\Gamma_{tt}^{t}=\Gamma_{tr}^{t}=-\Gamma_{rr}^{t}=\Gamma_{tt}^{r}=-\Gamma
_{tr}^{r}=\gamma^{\prime}, \quad
\Gamma_{\phi\phi}^{r}=-\frac{r}{e^{2\gamma}}, \quad
\Gamma_{r{\phi}}^{\phi}=\frac{1}{r}$$ Thus, the non-vanishing components of $K_{ab}^{+}$ is given by, $$\label{Kpp+}
K_{\phi\phi}^{+}=X_{+}r, \rightarrow
K_{\hat{\phi}\hat{\phi}}^{+}\mid_{\Sigma}=\frac{X_{+}}{\rho_{+}},
\quad K_{\hat{z}\hat{z}}^{+}=0$$ Note that we convert our tensorial quantities to their counterparts in local Minkowski frame by $K_{\hat{a}\hat{b}}=K_{ab}e_{\hat{a}}^{a}e_{\hat{b}}^{b}$. Now calculation of $K_{\tau\tau}^{+}$ is a little tedious, but straightforward. Using the definition, $$\begin{aligned}
K_{\tau\tau}^{+} &=&
-n_{t}^{+}\{\frac{\partial^{2}{t_{+}}}{\partial{\tau^{2}}}+\Gamma_{tt}^{t}(\frac{\partial{t_{+}}}{\partial{\tau}})^{2}+\Gamma_{rr}^{t}(\frac{\partial{r}}{\partial{\tau}})^{2}+2\Gamma_{rt}^{t}(\frac{\partial{r}}{\partial{\tau}})(\frac{\partial{t_{+}}}{\partial{\tau}})\}
\nonumber \\ &-&
n_{r}^{+}\{\frac{\partial^{2}{r}}{\partial{\tau^{2}}}+\Gamma_{tt}^{r}(\frac{\partial{t_{+}}}{\partial{\tau}})^{2}+\Gamma_{rr}^{r}(\frac{\partial{r}}{\partial{\tau}})^{2}+2\Gamma_{rt}^{r}(\frac{\partial{r}}{\partial{\tau}})(\frac{\partial{t_{+}}}{\partial{\tau}})\}
\nonumber \\ &=&
e^{2\gamma}X_{+}\{\frac{dX_{+}}{d\tau}-\gamma^{\prime}X_{+}^{2}+2\gamma^{\prime}X_{+}^{2}\dot{\rho_{+}}-\gamma_{\prime}X_{+}^{2}\dot{\rho_{+}}^{2}\}
\nonumber \\ &-&
e^{2\gamma}X_{+}\{\frac{d(\dot{\rho_{+}}X_{+})}{d\tau}+\gamma^{\prime}X_{+}^{2}-2\gamma^{\prime}X_{+}^{2}\dot{\rho_{+}}+\gamma_{\prime}X_{+}^{2}\dot{\rho_{+}}^{2}\}
\nonumber \\ &=&
e^{2\gamma}X_{+}\{\underbrace{\dot{\rho_{+}}\frac{dX_{+}}{d\tau}-\frac{d(\dot{\rho_{+}}X_{+})}{d\tau}}_{-X_{+}^{2}\ddot{\rho_{+}}}+\gamma^{\prime}X_{+}^{2}[\dot{\rho_{+}}^{2}(1-\dot{\rho_{+}})-(1-\dot{\rho_{+}})]\}
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where in the last line we used $u_{\alpha}u^{\alpha}=e^{2\gamma}X_{+}^{2}(\dot{\rho_{+}}^{2}-1)=-1$.Thus finally, $$\label{Ktt+}
K_{\tau\tau}^{+}=-e^{2\gamma}X_{+}^{3}\ddot{\rho_{+}}-\gamma^{\prime}X_{+}(1-\dot{\rho})$$ We have calculated the components of the second fundamental form in $\mathcal{M}^{+}$, let us now calculate its components in $\mathcal{M}^{-}$. To do this we have to first find ${\mathbf}{n_{-}}$. Clearly the 4-velocity of the shell $u^{\alpha}$ is the same in $\mathcal{M}^{+}$ and $\mathcal{M}^{-}$, but the normal vectors clearly change sign, since second fundamental form is a measure of how the normal vector pointing towards the desired spacetime changes on the hypersurface. Therefore with the same considerations that lead us to (\[n+\]) with the sign reversed, we get, $$\label{n-}
n_{\alpha}^{-}=X_{-}(\dot{\rho_{-}},-1,0,0)$$ (Note that $X_{-}$ has the same sign with $X_{+}$ since $X_{-}={\Delta}X_{+}$ and $\Delta>0$) Thus the from the Christoffel symbols we calculated for $\mathcal{M}^{-}$ above, the non-vanishing components of the second fundamental form becomes, $$\label{Kpp-}
K_{\phi\phi}^{-}=-X_{-}r \rightarrow
K_{\hat{\phi}\hat{\phi}}^{-}\mid_{\Sigma}=\frac{{\Delta}X_{+}}{\rho_{+}},
\quad K_{\hat{z}\hat{z}}^{-}=0$$ The important term $K_{\tau\tau}^{-}$ becomes, $$\begin{aligned}
K_{\tau\tau}^{-} &=&
-n_{t}^{-}\frac{\partial^{2}{t_{-}}}{\partial{\tau^{2}}}-n_{r}^{-}\frac{\partial^{2}{r}}{\partial{\tau^{2}}}
\nonumber \\ &=&
-X_{-}(\underbrace{\dot{\rho_{-}}\frac{dX_{-}}{d\tau}-\frac{d(\dot{\rho_{-}}X_{-})}{d\tau}}_{-X_{-}^{2}\ddot{\rho_{-}}})
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\nonumber
K_{\tau\tau}^{-}=X_{-}^{3}\ddot{\rho_{-}}$$ Now using $X_{-}={\Delta}X_{+}$ and (\[rhodotdot\]), the above equation becomes, $$\begin{aligned}
K_{\tau\tau}^{-} &=&
{\Delta}^{3}X_{+}^{3}[\frac{e^{2\gamma}}{\Delta^{4}}(\ddot{\rho_{+}}+\gamma^{\prime}\dot{\rho_{+}}(1-\dot{\rho_{+}}^{2}))]
\nonumber \\ &=&
\frac{X_{+}^{3}}{\Delta}e^{2\gamma}\ddot{\rho_{+}}+\frac{\gamma^{\prime}}{\Delta}X_{+}\dot{\rho_{+}}\underbrace{e^{2\gamma}X_{+}^{2}(1-\dot{\rho_{+}}^{2})}_{=1}
\nonumber \\ &=&
\frac{X_{+}^{3}}{\Delta}e^{2\gamma}\ddot{\rho_{+}}+\frac{\gamma^{\prime}}{\Delta}X_{+}\dot{\rho_{+}}
\label{Ktt-}\end{aligned}$$ where in the $2^{nd}$ line we used again $u_{\alpha}u^{\alpha}=e^{2\gamma}X_{+}^{2}(\dot{\rho_{+}}^{2}-1)=-1$. Thus in summary,
- $K_{\tau\tau}^{+}=-e^{2\gamma}X_{+}^{3}\ddot{\rho_{+}}-\gamma^{\prime}X_{+}(1-\dot{\rho_{+}}),
\quad
K_{\tau\tau}^{-}=\frac{X_{+}^{3}}{\Delta}e^{2\gamma}\ddot{\rho_{+}}+\frac{\gamma^{\prime}}{\Delta}X_{+}\dot{\rho_{+}}$
- $
K_{\hat{\phi}\hat{\phi}}^{+}\mid_{\Sigma}=\frac{X_{+}}{\rho_{+}},
\quad
K_{\hat{\phi}\hat{\phi}}^{-}\mid_{\Sigma}=-\frac{{\Delta}X_{+}}{\rho_{+}}$
- $K_{\hat{z}\hat{z}}^{-}=0, \quad
K_{\hat{z}\hat{z}}^{+}=0$
since we have now finished the calculation of second fundamental forms, now we can use the famous formula connecting $[K_{ab}]$ to the surface stress-energy $S_{ab}$ where $[{\quad}]$ represents for an quantity $\Psi$, we have $[\Psi]=\Psi^{+}-\Psi^{-}$. $$\label{Sij}
S_{ab}=-\frac{1}{8\pi}\{[K_{ab}]-g_{ab}[K]\}$$ Therefore, from the second fundamental forms we obtained above, we see that the surface stress-energy tensor is diagonal with its elements $S_{\hat{a}\hat{b}}=diag[S_{\tau\tau},S_{\hat{\phi}\hat{\phi}},S_{\hat{z}\hat{z}}]$. Calculation of these elements are trivial. The traces of the second fundamental forms and the discontinuity is given by, $$\begin{aligned}
K^{+} &=& -K_{\tau\tau}^{+}+K_{\hat{\phi}\hat{\phi}}^{+} \nonumber \\
K^{-} &=& -K_{\tau\tau}^{-}+K_{\hat{\phi}\hat{\phi}}^{-} \nonumber \\
{[K]} &=& -[K_{\tau\tau}]+[K_{\phi\phi}] \label{K}\end{aligned}$$ Then using (\[K\]) in (\[Sij\]), we have the following equations, $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\tau\tau} &=& -\frac{[K_{\hat{\phi}\hat{\phi}}]}{8\pi} \label{Stt} \\
S_{\hat{\phi}\hat{\phi}} &=& -\frac{[K_{\tau\tau}]}{8\pi}
\label{Spp} \\ S_{\hat{z}\hat{z}} &=&
-\frac{1}{8\pi}\{[K_{\tau\tau}]-[K_{\hat{\phi}\hat{\phi}}]\}
\label{Szz}\end{aligned}$$ Thus in full from by letting $S_{\tau\tau}=\epsilon, \
S_{\hat{\phi}\hat{\phi}}=p_{\phi}, \ S_{\hat{z}\hat{z}}=p_{z}$, we have,
- $\epsilon=-\frac{1}{8\pi}\frac{X_{+}}{\rho_{+}}(\Delta+1)$
- $p_{\phi}=\frac{1}{8\pi}\{e^{2\gamma}X_{+}^{3}\ddot{\rho_{+}}(1+\frac{1}{\Delta})+\gamma^{\prime}X_{+}\}$
- $p_{z}=\frac{1}{8\pi}\{e^{2\gamma}X_{+}^{3}\ddot{\rho_{+}}(1+\frac{1}{\Delta})+\gamma^{\prime}X_{+}+\frac{X_{+}}{\dot{\rho_{+}}}(\Delta+1)\}$
Instead of following the route of [@MS] and [@PW], in which the dynamical behavior of the above equations are investigated to see how $\ddot{\rho_{+}}$ changes to comment on whether the shell collapses or not, we will consider conservation equations of Israel [@I] which were derived for vacuum and in [@MK] for arbitrary spacetimes. The conservation equations are,
- $\widetilde{K}^{b}_{a|b}-\widetilde{K}_{|a}=
8\pi{\widetilde{(T_{\alpha\beta}e_{a}^{\alpha}n^{\beta})}}$
- $S_{a|b}^{b} =
-{[T_{\alpha\beta}e_{a}^{\alpha}n^{\beta}]}$
- $S^{ab}\widetilde{K}_{ab} = [T_{\alpha\beta}n^{\alpha}n^{\beta}]$
- ${}^{(3)}R+\widetilde{K}_{ab}\widetilde{K}^{ab}-\widetilde{K}^{2}
= -\frac{1}{4}(8\pi)^{2}(S_{ab}S^{ab}-\frac{S^{2}}{2}) -
8\pi{\widetilde{(T_{\alpha\beta}n^{\alpha}n^{\beta})}}$
Let us consider the $3^{rd}$ conservation equation which will prove an incredible result. Since the right hand side of this equation contains the discontinuity of the stress-energy tensor on $\mathcal{M}^{+}$ and $\mathcal{M}^{-}$ we have to calculate it from the Einstein Field Equations $G^{\pm}_{\alpha\beta}=8{\pi}T^{\pm}_{\alpha\beta}$. The interior spacetime $\mathcal{M}^{-}$ is flat therefore making $T^{-}_{\alpha\beta}=0$. On the other hand we have, $$\label{einstein}
G_{\alpha\beta}^{+}=\frac{\gamma^{\prime}}{r}\zeta_{\alpha}\zeta_{\beta}$$ where $\zeta_{\alpha}=(1,-1,0,0)$ is a null vector. This clearly represents a spacetime with radiation of null-particles. Therefore, the stress-energy tensors become, $$\begin{aligned}
T^{+}_{\alpha\beta} &=&
\frac{\gamma^{\prime}}{8{\pi}r}\zeta_{\alpha}\zeta_{\beta}
\label{T+} \\ T^{-}_{\alpha\beta} &=& 0 \label{T-}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, given (\[n+\]) and (\[T+\]) we get, $$\label{Tn}
[T_{\alpha\beta}n^{\alpha}n^{\beta}]=\frac{\gamma^{\prime}}{8{\pi}\rho_{+}}X_{+}^{2}(\dot{\rho_{+}}-1)^{2}$$ The left hand side of the $3^{rd}$ conservation equations can be calculated by just inserting the equations (\[Ktt+\])-(\[Ktt-\])-(\[Kpp+\])-(\[Kpp-\]) and (\[Stt\])-(\[Spp\]) just derived above yielding, $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{K}_{\hat{a}\hat{b}}S^{\hat{a}\hat{b}} &=&
\widetilde{K}_{\tau\tau}S^{\tau\tau}+\widetilde{K}_{\hat{\phi}\hat{\phi}}S^{\hat{\phi}\hat{\phi}}
\nonumber \\ &=&
\frac{1}{16\pi}(K^{+}_{\tau\tau}+K^{-}_{\tau\tau})(K^{-}_{\hat{\phi}\hat{\phi}}-K^{+}_{\hat{\phi}\hat{\phi}})+\frac{1}{16\pi}(K^{+}_{\hat{\phi}\hat{\phi}}+K^{-}_{\hat{\phi}\hat{\phi}})(K^{-}_{\tau\tau}-K^{+}_{\tau\tau})
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Thus we have, $$\label{cons}
-K^{+}_{\tau\tau}K^{+}_{\hat{\phi}\hat{\phi}}+K^{-}_{\tau\tau}K^{-}_{\hat{\phi}\hat{\phi}}=\frac{\gamma^{\prime}X_{+}^{2}(\dot{\rho_{+}}-1)^{2}}{\rho_{+}}$$ Thus, inserting (\[Ktt+\])-(\[Ktt-\])-(\[Kpp+\])-(\[Kpp-\]) in the above equation we get, $$\nonumber
\{e^{2\gamma}X_{+}^{3}\ddot{\rho_{+}}+\gamma^{\prime}X_{+}(1-\dot{\rho_{+}})\}(\frac{X_{+}}{\rho_{+}})-(\frac{{\Delta}X_{+}}{\rho_{+}})\frac{1}{\Delta}\{e^{2\gamma}X_{+}^{3}\ddot{\rho_{+}}+\gamma^{\prime}X_{+}\dot{\rho_{+}}\}=\frac{\gamma^{\prime}X_{+}^{2}(\dot{\rho_{+}}-1)^{2}}{\rho_{+}}$$ Then we get the trivial solution for $\dot{\rho_{+}}$ (note that $\gamma^{\prime}{\ne}0$ is assumed, otherwise both metrics would be flat), $$\label{resultrho}
\dot{\rho_{+}}=0$$ Thus the shell never collapses and just stays at constant radius. This means that there can not be a shell motion, which is contrary to the results of [@MS]- [@PW].
The results we obtained above can also be obtained by the use of Hamiltonian formalism as done by Olea and Crisóstomo [@CO] for the spherically symmetric case. The variation of the gravitational action yields the Hamiltonian and the momentum constraints which can be calculated for both $\mathcal{M}^{+}$ and $\mathcal{M}^{-}$. Then by integrating these constraints across $r=\rho_{+}$ one obtains the same equations that have been obtained above by the conservation equations so both approaches yield the same results. (Actually the conservation equations of Israel are obtained by adding and subtracting the Hamiltonian and momentum constraints corresponding to $\mathcal{M}^{+}$ and $\mathcal{M}^{-}$. The distinction is that in Israel formalism, these constraints are obtained by the Gauss-Codazzi Equations rather than the variational principle).
Now let us look at the $2^{nd}$ conservation equation. First of all, the right hand side is given by using $u^{\alpha}=(X_{+},\dot{\rho_{+}},0,0)$ and equation (\[n+\]) $$\begin{aligned}
T_{\alpha\beta}^{+}e_{a}^{\alpha}n_{+}^{\beta} &=&
\frac{\gamma^{\prime}}{8{\pi}r}(\zeta_{\beta}n^{\beta})(\zeta_{\alpha}u^{\alpha})=-\frac{\gamma^{\prime}X_{+}^{2}}{8{\pi}\rho_{+}}
\quad \textrm{for} \ a=\tau \nonumber \\ &=& 0 \quad \textrm{for}
\ a=\phi,z \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ since $e_{\phi}^{\alpha}\zeta_{\alpha}=e_{z}^{\alpha}\zeta_{\alpha}=0$ and $\dot{\rho_{+}}=0$. Then the nontrivial part of $2^{nd}$ conservation equation becomes, $$\nonumber
S_{\tau|b}^{b}=S_{\tau|\tau}^{\tau}=\frac{\gamma^{\prime}X_{+}^{2}}{8{\pi}\rho_{+}}$$ Using (\[Stt\]) we have $$\nonumber
S_{\tau}^{\tau}=\frac{[K_{\hat{\phi}\hat{\phi}}]}{8\pi}=\frac{X_{+}(1+\Delta)}{8{\pi}\rho_{+}}$$ Note that from (\[delta\]) when we have for $\dot{\rho_{+}}=0$ we get $\Delta=e^{\gamma}$ and from (\[X\]), we have $X_{+}=e^{-\gamma}$.Therefore, noting that the intrinsic covariant derivative becomes just the ordinary derivative for $\tau$-component from (\[induced\]), we get, $$\nonumber
S_{\tau|\tau}^{\tau}=\{\frac{e^{-\gamma}+1}{8{\pi}\rho_{+}}\}_{|\tau}=\frac{\gamma^{\prime}e^{-2\gamma}}{8{\pi}\rho_{+}}$$ Where we used the fact that $\frac{d\gamma}{d\tau}=X_{+}\dot{\gamma}=-e^{-\gamma}\gamma^{\prime}$ since we had $\gamma^{\prime}=-\dot{\gamma}$. Thus finally we get $$\label{trivial}
S_{\tau|\tau}^{\tau}=\frac{\gamma^{\prime}e^{-2\gamma}}{8{\pi}\rho_{+}}=-{[T_{\alpha\beta}e_{a}^{\alpha}n^{\beta}]}$$ by which we get trivially $1=1$ which justifies our calculations.
Now we have not used the $1^{st}$ and $4^{th}$ conservation equations, since the $1^{st}$ one when applied results in equation (\[trivial\]) and the $4^{th}$ one results in equation (\[resultrho\]).
Clearly, we can not go to the null limit as was done in [@MS] since we have found that the shell is stationary. Therefore, we can state that the null case must be directly considered by the null-shell formalism separately as we did, rather than looking at the null limit of the timelike case.
Here we would like to remark that we are at a variance of the results in [@MS]-[@PW]. For example in [@MS], it was found that both in the timelike case and in the lightlike limit, the shell first approaches to a minimum radius and then expands infinitely. However, we found out that in the timelike case the shell is stationary and in the lightlike limit we get a collapsing shell. In addition, if we impose cylindrical flatness, for the null case we get a boundary layer so the shell is lost.
The difference of our work and previous ones is due to the fact that they did not considered the conservation equations at all and some difference in the calculated values of the second fundamental forms. We can compare our results with the results of [@MS] now since it is the most recent work. The extrinsic curvatures for the spacetimes (\[-manif\]) and (\[+manif\]) joined at $\Sigma$ was found as, $$\begin{aligned}
K_{\tau\tau}^{+} &=&
-X_{+}^{3}e^{2\gamma}\ddot{\rho_{+}}+\gamma^{\prime}X_{+}^{3}\dot{\rho_{+}}^{2}(1-\dot{\rho_{+}})
\label{mist1} \\ K_{\tau\tau}^{-} &=&
-X_{-}^{3}\ddot{\rho_{-}}=-\frac{X_{+}^{3}}{\Delta}e^{2\gamma}\ddot{\rho_{+}}-\frac{\gamma^{\prime}}{\Delta}X_{+}^{3}e^{2\gamma}(1-\dot{\rho_{+}}^{2})\dot{\rho_{+}}
\label{mist2} \\ K_{\tau\tau}^{\pm} &=& 0 \nonumber \\
K^{+}_{\hat{\phi}\hat{\phi}} &=& \frac{X_{+}}{\rho_{+}} \label{mist3} \\
K_{\hat{\phi}\hat{\phi}}^{-} &=& \frac{{\Delta}X_{+}}{\rho_{+}}
\label{mist4}\end{aligned}$$ Using the fact that $X_{+}^{2}e^{2\gamma}(1-\dot{\rho_{+}}^{2})=1$, equation (\[mist2\]) reduces to $K_{\tau\tau}^{-}=
-\frac{X_{+}^{3}}{\Delta}e^{2\gamma}\ddot{\rho_{+}}-\frac{\gamma^{\prime}}{\Delta}X_{+}\dot{\rho_{+}}$. First of all, one can see the most apparent difference with our results with Seriu’s [@MS] is that the sign of the normal vector ${\mathbf}{n}{\perp}\Sigma$ is taken to be $(+)$ in both $\mathcal{M}^{+}$ and in $\mathcal{M}^{-}$ (note that $X_{+},X_{-}>0$) which the correct selections should be as ours (i.e negative sign in $\mathcal{M}^{-}$ and positive sign in $\mathcal{M}^{+}$). Secondly, the equation for $K_{\tau\tau}^{+}$ is different as can be compared with our previous calculations. Let us show that these results lead to a contradiction in the conservation equations. Putting these values in (\[cons\]) we get, $$\nonumber
[e^{2\gamma}X_{+}^{3}\ddot{\rho_{+}}-\gamma^{\prime}X_{+}^{3}e^{2\gamma}\dot{\rho_{+}}^{2}(1-\dot{\rho_{+}})](\frac{X_{+}}{\rho_{+}})-(\frac{{\Delta}X_{+}}{\rho_{+}})\frac{1}{\Delta}[e^{2\gamma}X_{+}^{3}\ddot{\rho_{+}}+\gamma^{\prime}X_{+}\dot{\rho_{+}}]=\frac{\gamma^{\prime}X_{+}^{2}(\dot{\rho_{+}-1})^{2}}{\rho_{+}}$$ which reduces to $$\label{mist5}
-(X_{+}^{2}e^{2\gamma}\dot{\rho_{+}}^{2}(1-\dot{\rho_{+}})+\dot{\rho_{+}})=\frac{(\dot{\rho_{+}}-1)^{2}}{\rho_{+}}$$ Now using $X_{+}^{2}e^{2\gamma}(1-\dot{\rho_{+}}^{2})=1$ once more in the above equation we get, $$\label{fin}
\frac{\dot{\rho_{+}}^{2}}{1+\dot{\rho_{+}}}+\dot{\rho_{+}}=-\frac{(\dot{\rho_{+}}-1)^{2}}{\rho_{+}}$$ In principle, the above expression can be rewritten by solving the cubic equation for $\dot{\rho_{+}}$, then this equation can be integrated. Doing so will prove to be very difficult, since the integral to be evaluated is very complicated. Rather than doing this, we can analyze the equation (\[fin\]) without solving it. Clearly, we must have ${\mid}{\dot{\rho_{+}}}{\mid}<1$ since the shell is assumed to be timelike. For the expansion of the shell, $0<\dot{\rho_{+}}<1$, there is no solution, since the right hand side is always negative, but the left hand side is always positive which is contradictory. For the collapsing shell $-1<\dot{\rho_{+}}<0$, the contradiction can only be removed if $-1<\dot{\rho_{+}}<-0.5$ is imposed. However, this result is a contradiction since the only possible solution Seriu [@MS] obtains is the expanding shell, where $\dot{\rho_{+}}>0$.
Conclusion
==========
In this work we considered an axial-symmetric hypersurface separating an interior flat and an exterior curved radiation filled spacetimes both in the null and the timelike cases. We found that in the null case the shell collapses to zero radius at the speed of light but when cylindrical flatness is imposed the shell is lost (i.e. surface stress-energy becomes identically zero). and a boundary layer is obtained. For the timelike case, we used the full conservation equations to determine the dynamical behavior of a thin shell for the first time, and showed that the axial-symmetric shell in consideration stays stationary at some constant radius. The Hamiltonian formalism presented in [@CO] for spherically symmetric shells, also gives the same results when used for the configuration we analyze.
With these results, we are at a variance with the predictions of [@PW] and [@MS] since we considered the conservation equations to determine the dynamical behavior rather than the equations on stress-energy. Seriu [@MS] found that in the timelike case and its null limit, the shell first contracts to a minimum nonzero radius and then expands infinitely. Pereira and Wang [@PW] also obtained similar, but they also found collapsing shell configurations in some special cases. Both of these results are different from ours for the reasons we discussed above. However, one should consider the conservation equations when analyzing the dynamical behavior of thin shells since they are powerful constraints on the equations that are obtained from the surface stress-energy.
Acknowledgments
===============
It is a pleasure to express my indebtedness to Professor Metin Gürses who stimulated my interest in axial-symmetric shells.
[EMG]{} W. Israel, “*Singular Hypersurfaces and Thin Shells in General Relativity*”, (Nuovo Cimento. B[**44**]{}, 1(1966)) W. Israel, “*Gravitational Collapse and Causalty*”, (Phys. Rev. [**153**]{} (5) 25 January 1967) C. Barrabés, “*Singular hypersurfaces in general relativity: a unified description*”,(Class. Quantum Grav. [**6**]{}, (581-588), 15 February 1991) C. Barrabés, W. Israel, “*Thin shells in general relativity and cosmology: The lightlike limit*”, (Phys. Rev. D [**43**]{} (4), 15 February 1991) E. Poisson, “*A reformulation of Barrabés-Israel null-shell formalism*”, (arxiv:gr-qc/0207101 v1. 25 July 2002) J. Crisóstomo, R. Olea “*Hamiltonian Treatment of the Gravitational Collapse of Thin Shells*” (Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{},104023 (2004)) J. Jezierski “*Geometry of crossing null shells*”, (arxiv:gr-qc/0406084 v1 21 June 2004) M. Visser, “*Lorentzian Wormholes: From Einstein to Hawking*”, (American Institute of Physics, New York, 1995) E. F. Eiroa, C. Simeone, “*Cylindrical thin-shell wormholes*”, (Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{},044008 (2004)) J. Gersl, P. Klepác, J. Horský, “*A Charged Rotating Cylindrical Shell*”, (General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol.36, No. 6, June 2004) P. R.C.T Pereira, A. Wang “*Gravitational Collapse of Cylindrical Shells Made of Counter-Rotating Dust Particles*”, (Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 124001 (2000))-Erratum (Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{}, 129902 (2003)) M. Seriu, “*Dynamical evolution of a cylindrical shell with rotational pressure*”, (Phys. Rev. D[**69**]{}, 124030(2004) ) C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne and J. A. Wheeler, “*Gravitation*”, (Freeman, San Fransisco, 1973.) R. Mansouri, K. Khorrami, “*The equivalence of Darmois-Israel and distributional method for thin shells in general relativity*”, (J. Math. Phys [**37**]{} (11), November 1996)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Developing personal robots that can perform a diverse range of manipulation tasks in unstructured environments necessitates solving several challenges for robotic grasping systems. We take a step towards this broader goal by presenting the first RL-based system, to our knowledge, for a mobile manipulator that can (a) achieve targeted grasping generalizing to unseen target objects, (b) learn complex grasping strategies for cluttered scenes with occluded objects, and (c) perform active vision through its movable wrist camera to better locate objects. The system is informed of the desired target object in the form of a single, arbitrary-pose RGB image of that object, enabling the system to generalize to unseen objects without retraining. To achieve such a system, we combine several advances in deep reinforcement learning and present a large-scale distributed training system using synchronous SGD that seamlessly scales to multi-node, multi-GPU infrastructure to make rapid prototyping easier. We train and evaluate our system in a simulated environment, identify key components for improving performance, analyze its behaviors, and transfer to a real-world setup.'
author:
- |
Yasuhiro Fujita, Kota Uenishi, Avinash Ummadisingu, Prabhat Nagarajan,\
Shimpei Masuda, and Mario Ynocente Castro [^1]
bibliography:
- 'IEEEabrv.bib'
- 'citations.bib'
title: '**Distributed Reinforcement Learning of Targeted Grasping with Active Vision for Mobile Manipulators** '
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Background {#sec:background}
==========
Problem Description and Formulation {#sec:formulation}
===================================
System {#sec:system}
======
Experiments {#sec:experiments}
===========
Related Work {#sec:relatedwork}
============
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
We have presented a distributed deep reinforcement learning system for targeted grasping with active vision that can grasp unseen objects in dense clutter. We have shown that some of our proposed extensions and the large-scale distributed training are key to learning efficiently on this challenging task.
While we also have shown a proof-of-concept demonstration of real-world transfer, simulation-to-real (sim2real) transfer of a vision-based manipulation system is a difficult challenge in itself. We expect our system can benefit from recent advances in sim2real transfer to improve its performance in the real-world setup.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
We thank Koichi Ikeda, Kunihiro Iwamoto, and Takashi Yamamoto from Toyota Motor Corporation for their support of the HSR robots, and Kentaro Imajo for his help in designing and implementing the distributed training software.
[^1]: All authors are with Preferred Networks, Inc., Tokyo, Japan. [@preferred.jp]{}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The production factor, or broad band averaged cross-section, for solar wind charge-exchange with hydrogen producing emission in the [[*ROSAT*]{}]{} [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} (R12) band is $(3.8\pm0.2) \times 10^{-20}$ count degree$^{-2}$ cm$^4$. This value is derived from a comparison of the Long-Term (background) Enhancements in the [[*ROSAT*]{}]{} All-Sky Survey with magnetohysdrodynamic simulations of the magnetosheath. This value is 1.8 to 4.5 times higher than values derived from limited atomic data, suggesting that those values may be missing a large number of faint lines. This production factor is important for deriving the exact amount of [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} band flux that is due to the Local Hot Bubble, for planning future observations in the [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} band, and for evaluating proposals for remote sensing of the magnetosheath. The same method cannot be applied to the [$\frac{3}{4}$ keV]{} band as that band, being composed primarily of the oxygen lines, is far more sensitive to the detailed abundances and ionization balance in the solar wind. We also show, incidentally, that recent efforts to correlate [[*XMM-Newton*]{}]{} observing geometry with magnetosheath solar wind charge-exchange emission in the oxygen lines have been, quite literally, misguided. Simulations of the inner heliosphere show that broader efforts to correlate heliospheric solar wind charge-exchange with local solar wind parameters are unlikely to produce useful results.'
author:
- |
K. D. Kuntz, Y. M. Collado-Vega, M. R. Collier, H. K. Connor, T. E. Cravens, D. Koutroumpa,\
F. S. Porter, I. P. Robertson, D. G. Sibeck, S. L. Snowden, N. E. Thomas & B. M. Walsh
title: 'The Solar Wind Charge-Exchange Production Factor for Hydrogen'
---
Introduction
============
Motivation
----------
Solar wind charge-exchange (SWCX) occurs when a high charge state ion in the solar wind charge-exchanges with a neutral; the resultant ion is in an excited state and in the transition to the ground state a photon is produced in either the soft X-ray or extreme ultraviolet. Since the solar wind is temporally variable in density, speed, elemental abundance, and ionization fraction, the observed SWCX emission varies as a function of time, look direction, and observatory location. The charge-exchange spectrum has the same transitions, from the same ions, with nearly the same strengths, as a purely recombining plasma, and thus makes a strong contribution to the lines used for astrophysical plasma diagnostics [See, for example, the discussion in @wbb2008]. Because the SWCX emission will be smooth over the FOV of any recent, current, or near future X-ray instrument, and since it has no unique spectral signatures, it is a particularly problematic foreground to remove from observations of any diffuse emission that also fills the FOV, such as that expected from the Local Hot Bubble, the Galactic bulge and halo, and the Warm-Hot Intergalactic Medium. It is also problematic for many observations of clusters of galaxies, nearby galaxies, local supernova remnants, and super bubbles.
Indeed, the uncertainty in the strength of the SWCX emission in the [[*ROSAT*]{}]{} [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} band has led to significant controversy over the existence of the Local Hot Bubble (LHB). The clearest evidence for the soft X-ray emission from the LHB is significant emission in front of nearby ($\sim60$ pc) molecular clouds [e.g., @smv1993]. The distribution of hot gas was derived from an all-sky anti-correlation analysis [@sea_lhb] which showed a rather hourglass shaped distribution where the waist is in the Galactic plane, and the bulges extend towards the Galactic poles. If, however, the bulk of the emission attributed to the LHB were actually due to SWCX, then the LHB might not exist, and the distribution of the remaining hot gas could be explained in other ways [@wea1999]. Various other data, such as the pressure difference between the hot gas and the local interstellar clouds [@jenkins2009], the distribution of [^1] emission from the LHB-cool cloud interfaces [@wl2008 among others], the shape of the local cavity [@sfeir1999], and the magnetic field in the wall of the LHB [@ap2006] were variously deployed to argue both for and against the existence of the LHB. While it was generally recognized that some part of the soft X-ray emission previously attributed to the LHB is indeed due to SWCX, estimates of the fraction of the emission due to SWCX varied greatly [compare, for example @dk2009; @ir2009]. Further confusion arose because the more reliable calculations for the SWCX emission were made in the [$\frac{3}{4}$ keV]{} band, which is dominated by a few strong lines, while the bulk of the LHB emission is in the [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} band where SWCX calculations are both difficult and highly uncertain. That uncertainty arises from the lack of reliable charge-exchange cross-sections for the multitude of faint lines that form the bulk of the [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} band emission.
In the intervening years, observational verification of calculations of SWCX emission [e.g., @dk2012] has focussed on the and lines because those lines are accessible to [[*Chandra*]{}]{}, [[*XMM-Newton*]{}]{}, and [[*Suzaku*]{}]{}, while the [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} band is not. While such work has explored issues concerning the distribution of the neutral material with which the solar wind charge-exchanges and the structure of the solar wind itself, progress on the validation of our calculation of the SWCX emission in the [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} band has been minimal. While the number of measured or calculated charge-exchange cross-sections has grown [@ebit2014 and several other studies in preparation], these do not yet form a sufficient database with which to calculate reliably the SWCX emission in the [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} band. However, even if all of the contributing charge-exchange cross sections and branching ratios were well known, modeling of the SWCX emission would still be problematic because of the lack of sufficiently detailed abundance and ionization state information for the solar wind.
The DXL sounding rocket observation [@dxl2014] of the He focussing cone (the region where the Sun gravitationally focuses the interstellar He flowing through the solar system) in the Wisconsin C-band allows a more empirical approach; the ratio of the observed X-ray emission to the model emission measure provides a broad-band abundance-weighted cross-section, or production factor. Although the Wisconsin C-band is not exactly the [[*ROSAT*]{}]{} [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} band, they are sufficiently similar that scaling from one to the other does not introduce significant uncertainties. However, DXL only provides the production factor for SWCX with He (the IS H being strongly depleted near the He focussing cone), whereas a comparable emission is expected from SWCX with H, both from the interstellar H flowing through the solar system and the exospheric H in the Earth’s magnetosheath. Here we derive a [[*ROSAT*]{}]{} [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} band production factor for SWCX with H that requires no more than existing data and the application of relatively off-the-shelf magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulations.
This work has implications beyond the LHB. Study of the Earth’s magnetosheath has been carried out through [*in situ*]{} measurements of the particle populations and magnetic fields. However, there has been no means of imaging the entire magnetosheath at the timescales necessary for capturing the driving physical processes[^2]. Imaging of the magnetosphere in the soft X-rays produced by SWCX with either a wide-field imager in Earth orbit, or a more traditional instrument in solar orbit can cover the entire magnetosphere [@storm2012]. The primary issue with such an imager is the effective cadence, which can be determined only in the light of the expected flux. Given that the magnetosheath SWCX is due primarily to charge-exchange with H, and given that that emission is primarily in the [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} band, then the production factor derived in this paper is essential for such calculation.
Terminology
-----------
Since there are multiple sites of SWCX, besides comets and the atmospheres and surfaces of other planets, it is useful to define three different types of SWCX emission based on location and phenomenology.
The [*Magnetosheath[^3] SWCX*]{} is due to the solar wind plasma interacting with the neutrals, primarily H, in the Earth’s extended atmosphere, or exosphere. The terrestrial magnetic field is an obstacle to the charged particles that form the solar wind. The [*magnetopause*]{} is the surface where the ram pressure of the solar wind is balanced by the pressure of the terrestrial magnetic field. Since the solar wind is supersonic and super-Alfvenic, a roughly parabolic bow shock forms upstream of the magnetopause. The [*magnetosheath*]{}, the region between the magnetopause and the bow shock, contains shocked solar wind plasma. Behind the nose of the bow shock, that plasma has a density roughly four times higher than that in the free-flowing solar wind; as the plasma flows away from the nose into the flanks of the magnetosheath, its density decreases and its velocity increases. The typical [*stand-off*]{} distance of the magnetopause in the direction of the Sun is $\sim10$ R$_E$ from the Earth, but varies with the solar wind ram pressure as $(nv^2)^{-(\frac{1}{6})}$. The magnetosheath has a thickness of a few R$_E$ that varies with solar wind parameters. As the solar wind flux increases, the magnetopause is pushed deeper into the exosphere, so that the increased solar wind flux interacts with a higher neutral density, and the X-ray emissivity increases drastically. The continuous compression and expansion of the magnetosphere causes the magnetosheath SWCX to be strongly time-variable. Because the magnetosheath plasma fluxes decrease with distance from the nose of the bowshock, the observed magnetosheath SWCX emission is also strongly dependent on the observation geometry. Simulations of the soft X-ray emissivity in the GSE-XZ[^4] plane are shown in Figure \[fig:ms\_demo\].
The [*Local Heliospheric SWCX* ]{} is due to the interaction of the solar wind with the neutral interstellar medium (ISM) flowing through the solar system. Due to ionization and solar wind pressure, the H component of the ISM is mostly excluded from the inner solar system, leaving predominately the He component. The emissivity declines with distance from the Sun, due to the $R^{-2}$ dependence of the solar wind density, so the heliospheric emission will be dominated by more local emission. Although the solar wind is highly variable, it is, in the absence of a strong coronal mass ejection (CME), strongly ordered in the Parker spiral pattern. Thus, the local heliospheric emission is temporally variable and dependent on the look direction, but not so strongly as the magnetospheric emission. A simulation of the soft X-ray emissivity in the Earth’s orbital plane is shown in Figure \[fig:plane\_demo\].
The [*Distant Heliospheric SWCX* ]{} is due to the solar wind interacting with both interstellar H and He. The pathlengths are long, so the time variability is strongly reduced, but should reflect the solar cycle. Due to the roughly parabolic shape of the heliosphere, the strength must depend upon the look direction. The “upwind” direction is roughly $\ell=5\fdg1,b=19\fdg6$ [@lea2005] which suggests that the ISM flow is due both to the solar peculiar motion as well as either radial gas motion in the Galaxy or expansion from the Loop I superbubble [see the review by @frisch2011]. In the following, this component will be taken as temporally constant.
For completeness, it should be noted that there will be SWCX due to the heliopause, but this will be a minor component. Using the @dk2006 model for the distribution of interstellar neutrals in the heliosphere and the O$^{+7}$ cross-section therein, one can show that the fraction of O$^{+7}$ ions reaching a nominal heliopause at $\sim100$ au is $\sim50$%. If one makes the (unlikely) assumption that all the remaining ions charge-exchange in the heliopause, the ratio of heliopause emission to the total heliospheric emission is $\sim0.03$. Assuming cross-sections of a similar order of magnitude for all of the species emitting in the [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} band, the heliopause is not a significant contributor to the heliospheric SWCX.
Recent efforts have attempted to determine which of the temporally variable components dominates the SWCX “contamination” of [[*XMM-Newton*]{}]{} or [[*Chandra*]{}]{} observations [@ks2008; @csr2011; @hs2012; @wargelin2014]. The results have been equivocal and suggest that both components of the emission [*can*]{} be important in different situations. The simulations required to determine the SWCX production factor bring new insights to this issue and will be discussed below.
Methodological Overview
-----------------------
The SWCX emission in a single emission line is given by the integral along the line of sight: $$F = \int_{0}^{\infty} (n_{n} n_{swp} v_{rel} \langle \sigma \rangle f b) \frac{d\Omega}{4\pi} dl$$ where $n_{n}$ is the density of neutral targets, $n_{swp}$ is the solar wind proton density $v_{rel}$ is the relative velocity of the neutrals and the ions, $f$ is the ratio of the density of the ion producing the line to the proton density, $\langle\sigma\rangle$ is the velocity-weighted interaction cross-section, and $b$ is the fraction of interactions that produce a photon in the line of interest. It is necessary to use an averaged interaction cross-section since the interaction cross-section is velocity dependent. However, the velocity dependence is generally small over the range of velocities found in the solar wind, so the uncertainty introduced by the need to weight by the velocity distribution is generally on the order of the uncertainty in the cross-section itself [see, for example, the catalogue of cross-sections in @bodewits]. The relative velocity of the ions and the neutrals is given by $$v_{rel}=(v_{swp}^2+v_{therm}^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$ where $v_{therm}\sim3kT/m_p$ for the solar wind.
Semi-empirical models of the distribution of the neutral material within the line of sight exist [@fahr1971; @hodges1994], as do semi-empirical models for the solar wind [@odstrcil2003] and measurements of the solar wind at the Earth. Thus, one should be able to calculate the SWCX emission within a given line of sight at a given time, though only to within the rather large uncertainty inherent in the models. However, the primary problem is that the interaction cross-sections, $\langle\sigma\rangle$, and branching ratios, $b$, are poorly measured, particularly in the energy range of astrophysical interest [see the extensive discussion of alternative methods in @smith2014]. However, some important single lines, such as and have been somewhat characterized. The vast number of faint blended lines that contribute to the [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} band, however, have not. Since, with the notable exception of the Diffuse X-ray Spectrometer [@dxs] and X-ray Quantum Calorimeter [@xqc], the [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} band has not been observed with sufficiently high spectral resolution to identify line complexes, let alone individual lines, we must deal with the aggregate of all of these lines. In such a case the [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} band emission can be written as $$F = \int_{0}^{\infty} (n_{n} n_{swp} v_{rel} \varsigma) dl$$ where $$\varsigma = \frac{d\Omega}{4\pi} \sum\limits_{i}^{} \langle \sigma_i \rangle f_i b_i$$ is the [*production factor*]{} for the energy band, summing over all of the different species emitting in the band. It is the aim of this paper to determine $\varsigma$ for the [[*ROSAT*]{}]{} [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} band. The above expression is often simplified to $$F = \varsigma Q$$ where $$Q \equiv \int_{0}^{\infty} (n_{n} n_{swp} v_{rel}) dl.$$ This expression assumes that the ionization structure is constant along the line of sight. Although such an assumption is surely incorrect, we will see the degree to which it is immaterial; the magnetosheath is smaller than the spatial/temporal scales upon which we can currently measure the changes in the ionization structure while the heliosphere is so large that the variations disappear when integrating along the line of sight.
Our primary source for [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} data is the [[*ROSAT*]{}]{} All-Sky Survey (RASS). In the course of constructing the maps from the survey, it was realized that there was a temporally variable component of the soft X-ray background whose frequencies ranged from hours to days. Longer-term variations could not be characterized with the RASS, while shorter term variations were identified with other phenomena, such as aurorae, and discarded. @mf_swcx1998 first suggested that these Long-Term Enhancements [LTE, @sea1994] were correlated with the solar wind and @crs2001 demonstrated the correlation more concretely. Since the foreground rate towards the dark Moon was roughly consistent with the LTE rate at the time of the observation [@collier2014], it would seem that the LTE were due to SWCX in the magnetosheath where the neutral species charge-exchanging with the solar wind is predominately H. In this case, one should be able to use an MHD model of the magnetosphere for the spatial distribution of the solar wind ions in the near Earth environment, a model of the H distribution in the exosphere, and measurements of the local solar wind flux to calculate the quantity $$\int_0^{\infty}(n_{en} n_{swp} v_{rel})dl \equiv Q_M.$$ Here, $n_{en}$ is the density of exospheric neutral H and $Q_M$ is the $Q$ for the magnetosheath alone. The ratio between the observed LTE rate and $\frac{d\Omega}{4\pi}Q_M$ should yield the production factor, $\varsigma$, for the [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} band for solar wind charge-exchange with neutral H.
There are, of course, a number of complications to be considered. The primary complication is the local heliospheric SWCX emission, which is due to the interaction of the solar wind with (predominately) neutral interstellar He flowing through the solar system. If the LTE flux were correlated with the local heliospheric SWCX emission, we would need to remove the variation due to the local heliosphere from the LTE light-curve before determining the production rate from the magnetosheath. In the following, we will use a MHD model of the solar wind and a semi-empirical model of the interplanetary distribution of neutral H and He to measure the correlation between the local heliospheric SWCX emission and the local solar wind flux. We will show that the local heliospheric emission provides a negligible contribution to the LTE rate.
To address the issue of the existence of the LHB requires more than the H production factor (derived here), and the He production factor derived by @dxl2014, it requires careful understanding of the shape of the heliosphere and the extent of emission from the heliopause. Both of these issues are beyond the scope of this work and will be addressed in the future.
In the following, §2 describes the LTE data, the solar wind data, the MHD model of the magnetosphere, the MHD model of the solar wind for $R<10$ au, the semi-empirical model of the interplanetary distribution of neutral H and He, and the semi-empirical model of the Earth’s exosphere. Section 3.1 describes the correlation between the local solar wind flux ($n_{swp}v_{swp}$) and the magnetosheath emissivity while §3.2 describes the correlation between the [[*ROSAT*]{}]{} LTE and the local solar wind flux. Section 3.3 demonstrates that the local heliospheric SWCX emission does not contribute significantly to the $n_{swp}v_{swp}$-LTE correlation. The discussion in §4 explores the implications of the SWCX production factor. That section also discusses the implications of the heliospheric correlation analysis for observation and mission planning, as well as the question of the relative importance of the magnetosheath and heliosphere to SWCX “contamination”.
Data
====
X-ray Data
----------
[*Orbit:* ]{} [[*ROSAT*]{}]{} was launched 1 June 1990 into a nearly circular 96-minute orbit with an inclination of 53$\arcdeg$. The RASS observations began 11 July 1990 and continued, with some interruptions, for roughly six months. During the All-Sky Survey observations, the spacecraft was spun on an axis perpendicular to the optical axis. The spin axis was set to be within $\sim13\arcdeg$ of the Sun and precessed at $\sim4\arcmin$ per orbit, nearly the same rate as the Earth revolves about the Sun. The spin period was nearly the same as the spacecraft’s orbital period about the Earth. Thus, over the course of a single orbit, the spacecraft observed a great circle roughly perpendicular to the Earth-Sun line passing through the ecliptic poles[^5]. Over the course of the bulk of the survey, the spin axis drifted to within $\sim7\arcdeg$ of the Sun.
[*LTE Isolation:* ]{} The [[*ROSAT*]{}]{} Position Sensitive Proportional Counter (PSPC, the instrument with which the RASS was executed) FOV had a diameter of 2, while successive scans were offset by roughly 4. Thus, each location on the sky could be observed for up to 30 consecutive orbits at the ecliptic plane and for many more orbits toward the ecliptic poles. Comparison of measurements of the same location on the sky from successive orbits allowed the detection and measurement of the time-varying background component called the Long-Term Enhancements (LTE). The details of the identification and measurement of the LTE in the RASS are given in @sea1994 [@rass1995]. This time-varying component was removed from the RASS, although some residual LTE contamination remains and can be identified as stripes along lines of constant ecliptic longitude. Any non-temporally variable component due to the SWCX remains in the RASS, and it is the strength of this component that has been problematic and controversial [compare, for example, @rl2004; @ir2009; @dk2009; @wea1999].
[*Binning:* ]{} The [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} band, C band, or R12 band LTE light-curve is shown in Figure \[fig:c\_lc\]. The light-curve is discontinuous because the observations used for the RASS were not entirely continuous, mostly due to passage of the satellite through the radiation belts and the South Atlantic Anomaly. A portion of the [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} LTE light-curve, roughly days 270 to 300, was used by @crs2001 to demonstrate that the LTE were correlated with the solar wind flux (as measured by [[*IMP 8*]{}]{} ), and thus were due to SWCX. For this work we will use the entire light-curve, though the contributions past day 400 do not contribute significantly. The data were originally binned into $\sim5$ minute intervals with a mean count rate of 0.7 count s$^{-1}$. No uncertainty was assigned in the original measure of the LTE rates and it is clear, given the way the values were derived, that the systematic uncertainties must be larger than the Poisson statistics. We have rebinned the data into a uniform 95-minute spacing and have taken the uncertainty of each bin to be $\sigma/\surd\overline{N}$ where $\sigma$ is the RMS variation of the data points contributing to an individual bin. Bins containing fewer than two data points were discarded. The bin spacing was chosen so that each bin contains roughly a single orbit of data and that adjacent data points cover nearly the same part of the sky. Thus, any systematic effects due to the cosmic background will vary by a small amount over a day and a half, rather than producing large variations between adjacent data points.
{width="5.5cm"}
[*Cusp Removal:* ]{} For the bulk of each orbit, the line of sight passed through the flanks of the magnetosheath where the SWCX emission is relatively low. However, in some seasons, the line of sight scanned near the magnetospheric cusps, where SWCX should be strongly elevated, as shown in Figure \[fig:ms\_demo\]. The cusps are relatively narrow throats of magnetic field lines just poleward of the last closed field line on the Earth’s day side where the Earth’s magnetic field lines are open and thus they are the regions where the solar wind plasma can have direct access to the upper atmosphere. The cusps are threaded by the field lines undergoing or having recently undergone reconnection, and the particle population is determined by kinematic effects not included in MHD theory. Due to this limitation of MHD models, the density structures within the cusps are not properly characterized, and so need to be excluded from the analysis. Typically, the cusp extends 3-4 degrees in magnetic latitude [@zhou2000; @palmroth2001] and 2-3 hours in longitude [@merka2002] at a given altitude. Due to the curved magnetic field lines threading the cusp, a low altitude spacecraft can observe lines of sight through the cusp over $\sim15\arcdeg$ in latitude, meaning that the spacecraft will scan across it in less than five minutes. In the RASS processing, short-term enhancements (STE) lasting just a few minutes when the line of sight passed near the Earth’s pole were attributed, at the time, to auroral emission but may have been due to the cusps. These STE periods were removed from processing, and thus are not included in the LTE data.
Removal of the STE periods does not guarantee the removal of cusp periods. We have attempted to identify periods when the line of sight passes through the cusp. This is not a trivial matter as the location of the cusp varies with diurnal motion, the annual motion, the direction of the interplanetary magnetic field, and the strength of the solar wind flux. We have used the @ts04 model of the Earth’s magnetic field to determine the magnetic field geometry along the line of sight, that is, whether the magnetic field lines through which the lines of sight pass are closed, open, or interplanetary.
We first compared the LTE light-curve with a representation of the magnetic field geometry along the line of sight and saw no obvious correlation. We further checked time intervals for which viewing through the cusp was most likely: when the spacecraft was on the dayside and the line of sight was within $2\arcdeg$ of the GSE-Z axis, or when we might expect to be under(over) the northern(southern) cusp and to be looking up(down) through it. For each time interval meeting these criteria and for which there were both LTE and solar wind data, we calculated the difference, $\Delta_2$, between the LTE rate at that time and the LTE rate at $\pm10$ minutes. Since the scan rate is $~3\fdg75$ minute$^{-1}$, the cusp should fall in the center bin while the bins 10 minutes away should be free of the cusp. The histogram of the values of $\Delta_2$ is peaked at -0.05 count FOV$^{-1}$ s$^{-1}$, has a $\sigma=0.25$ count FOV$^{-1}$ s$^{-1}$. There is a slight positive asymmetry, with an excess of events with 0.5 to 1.0 FOV$^{-1}$ s$^{-1}$, and with a values extending to 1.3 count FOV$^{-1}$ s$^{-1}$. Time intervals with particularly high $\Delta_2$ did not show any particular distribution in spacecraft coordinates. Since STEs were removed from the LTE data and our search for enhancements at times likely to contain cusp emission did not reveal systematic increases in emission, we can confidently state that the residual contribution by the cusp to the LTE light-curve is small.
[*The [$\frac{3}{4}$ keV]{} Band:* ]{} The M band, or R45 band LTE light-curve is shown in Figure \[fig:m\_lc\]. The [$\frac{3}{4}$ keV]{} band data were treated in the same manner as the C-band data. Comparison to Figure \[fig:c\_lc\] shows that the LTE in the two bands are rather different. The differences are due to the SWCX spectrum. Although the details of the SWCX spectrum are poorly understood, the overall shape of the spectrum is set by the ion abundances in the solar wind and the location of their principal recombination lines. The [$\frac{3}{4}$ keV]{} band is dominated by the and lines with occasional significant contributions from and [see, for example, @cs2008]. Rather than a few strong lines, the [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} band contains a large number of faint lines from many different species. Thus, the [$\frac{3}{4}$ keV]{} band light-curve strongly depends upon the relative abundance of oxygen (compared to protons) and the relative ionization states of that oxygen. Conversely, since the [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} band contains such a multitude of lines, none of which dominates the band, the abundance and ionization variations average out.
Solar Wind Data
---------------
Solar wind data for the period of the RASS are somewhat sparse for two reasons. First, the only satellite monitoring the solar wind at that time was [[*IMP 8*]{}]{}. Since [[*IMP 8*]{}]{} was launched to study not only the solar wind, but the magnetospheric boundary and the magnetotail, it was exposed to the free-flowing solar wind for only a portion of its orbit. [[*IMP 8*]{}]{} did not have a means of recording data, and telemetry coverage was only 65% to 80% in this period. Thus, the solar wind parameters are measured for only a portion of the period for which we have LTE data. The solar wind data themselves were drawn from the NASA OMNI compilation[^6] as that data set has been cleaned of inappropriate data periods and other data artifacts, as well as time shifted in a standardized manner. From these data we derive the “local solar wind flux”, that is, the solar wind flux, the product of the proton density and the proton speed, in the neighborhood of the Earth.
Magnetospheric Simulations
--------------------------
[lcrrrrr]{} SWPC\_SWMF\_052811\_2 & v20110131 & -32.50 & 2006/12/14 & 1 & 2190 & $\Diamond$\
Marc\_Kornbleuth\_120513\_3 & v20110131 & -31.60 & 2002/12/19 & 10 & 37 & $\times$\
Marc\_Kornbleuth\_111213\_3 & v20110131 & -26.26 & 2004/11/06 & 10 & 6 & $\Box$\
Ankush\_Bhaskar\_050612\_1 & v20110131 & -25.81 & 2012/01/08 & 5 & 139 & +\
Yaireska\_Collado-Vega\_112812\_1 & v20110131 & -2.50 & 1991/03/24 & 1 & 601 & $\Diamond$\
SWADESH\_PATRA\_040412\_2 & v8.01 & -2.06 & 2002/03/24 & 4 & 510 & $\Box$\
Lur\_Zizare\_032112\_1 & v8.01 & -0.45 & 2012/03/12 & 4 & 511 & $\times$\
tao\_huang\_082814\_6 & v20140611 & -0.17 & 2008/02/23 & 4 & 76 & $\triangle$\
Ilja\_Honkonen\_073014\_2 & v20130129 & 2.15 & 2005/08/22 & 4 &1258 & +\
Yuni\_Lee\_012610\_3 & v8.01 & 19.00 & 2001/06/01& 5 & 132 & $\triangle$\
SWPC\_SWMF\_060411\_6 & v20110131 & 29.50 & 2005/05/14 & 12 & 388 & $\cdot$\
Steven\_Snowden\_011212\_1 & v8.01 & 28.66 & 2006/06/04 & 5 & 337 & $\Box$\
Yaireska\_Colladovega\_091112\_1 & v20110131 & 28.88 & 2007/05/20 & 1 & 50 & $\Diamond$\
Chigomezyo\_Ngwira\_022014\_1 & v20130129 & 29.83 & 2013/06/28 & 1 & 1200 & $\times$\
Brian\_Walsh\_030413\_1 & v20130129 & 30.04 & 2000/07/15 & 1 & 338 & +\
\[tab:runs\]
We represent the ion density of the magnetosheath with simulations using the [[BATS-R-US]{}]{} (Block-Adaptive-Tree Solar Wind Roe-Type Upwind Scheme)[^7] code [@toth2005; @powell1999]. [[BATS-R-US]{}]{} solves the three-dimensional MHD equations for the region surrounding the Earth, simulating the response of the magnetosphere to the temporally variable solar wind. [[BATS-R-US]{}]{} is one of several standard MHD models of the magnetosphere in common use. Validation of these models by comparison with [*in situ*]{} spacecraft measurements is an ongoing effort among many institutions [e.g. @raeder2003 among others] and a new intercomparison of models is in progress (Collado-Vega & Sibeck, in preparation, 2015).
It should be noted that the magnetosheath is sensitive not only to the solar wind flux and the IMF but also to the recent history of those parameters. This dependence is due, in part, to the time required for a solar wind impulse to move from the nose of the bowshock past the Earth ($\sim3$ minutes) and down the tail. The dependence is also due to the finite time for the magnetosphere to respond to changes in the solar wind. Thus MHD models are superior to analytic models, such as that of @ssa1966, which have been used for previous SWCX studies [@csr2011; @ks2008]. In comparison to @ssa1966 we find that [[BATS-R-US]{}]{} produces consistently different positions for the magnetopause and the bowshock (see §4.2). [[BATS-R-US]{}]{} also models the asymmetry of the magnetosheath.
Each [[BATS-R-US]{}]{} simulation is sampled at a predetermined cadence, usually every few minutes. Each sample produces proton density, speed, and temperature values for each point in a three-dimensional grid whose spacing is optimized to provide high resolution of strong gradients. One disadvantage of the [[BATS-R-US]{}]{} code is that it does not distinguish between protons originating in the solar wind, and those much lower energy protons originating in the plasmasphere closer to the Earth. However, the amount of solar wind plasma within the magnetosphere is relatively low [@christon1994]. Thus, one can isolate the solar wind protons by removing regions that lie within the Earth’s closed field lines. This method has difficulties around the cusps, but as the cusps are problematic with MHD models, and have been removed from the LTE light-curves, this issue is not significant for this analysis. (However, see §3.1.)
Running [[BATS-R-US]{}]{} for the roughly 200 days of the RASS would be a significant effort, particularly without continuous solar wind data. At the LTE sample rate of five minutes, we would accumulate 57600 samples, at roughly 75Mb each. Even sampling once per orbit would produce 3200 samples. While such sampling would be ideal, it is beyond the scope of this work. We have, however, accumulated a series of [[BATS-R-US]{}]{} simulations from other projects that cover a variety of solar wind conditions. The runs and their relevant parameters are listed in Table \[tab:runs\]. The validity of using representative simulations rather than dedicated simulations of the RASS epochs will become apparent in the analysis.
The Model of the Exospheric Neutral Distribution
------------------------------------------------
The neutral density in the magnetosphere is taken from the model of @hodges1994. This static model was originally calculated for a variety of values of insolation as measured by f10.7[^8] at both solstice and equinox. For any particular set of conditions and dates, we interpolate among the available model states. The model is valid from 1.05 [R$_E$]{}to 9.75 [R$_E$]{}; at larger distances the model is extrapolated as $R^{-3}$. Comparison of the Hodges model calculations with Lyman $\alpha$ column brightnesses for the antisolar point [@oea2003] suggests that the Hodges model is compatible with the limited observations.
Heliospheric Simulations
------------------------
We represent the ion density in the heliosphere with output from the ENLIL[^9] code [@odstrcil2003]. ENLIL solves the three-dimensional MHD equations for the inner heliosphere. The inner boundary conditions of the solar wind density, speed, and temperature are derived from solar magnetograms. The inner boundary is taken to be 21.5 R$_{\sun}$ where the solar wind becomes supersonic.
The ENLIL simulation used for this work was specially requested of the CCMC. The first sampled time step of the simulation is 1990-09-28 12:18 UT. The simulation was sampled with a time step of 90 minutes (roughly the [[*ROSAT*]{}]{} orbital period) for a total of 529 samples, or slightly over a month of simulation, corresponding to the period studied by @crs2001. The simulations were run over a standard region; 21.5 R$_{\sun} < R < 10$ au and $60\arcdeg < \theta < 120\arcdeg$ where $\theta$ is the angle from the north solar rotational pole. The restriction to within 30 of the solar equator will not be of great concern for the correlation analysis to be done in §\[sec:enlil\].
The Model of the Heliospheric Neutral Distribution
--------------------------------------------------
The neutral density in the heliosphere is represented by the model developed by @dk2006 based on the classical hot model calculations of @lbd1985, @lbk1985, and @lrv2004. The model was calculated for solar maximum conditions such as those that would have been experienced during the [[*ROSAT*]{}]{} All-Sky Survey observations. The ratio of photon pressure to gravitational force on H, $\mu$, is set to 1.46, while the total equatorial ionization rate (including CX with protons, photoionization and maybe electron impact) derived from the SWAN data [@quemerais2006] is $6.54\times10^{-7}$ s$^{-1}$. The H ISM parameters used for constructing these models are taken from @lea2005: upwind $(\lambda,\beta)=(252\fdg3,8\fdg5)$, $T=13,000$K, $v_0=21.0$ km s$^{-1}$, and $n_0=0.1$ cm$^{-3}$. The equatorial electron impact factor for He is given by the rates in @rucinski1989 multiplied by 2.05, the factor estimated by @lrv2004 to account for the increase during solar maximum. The He ISM parameters are taken from @mobius2004 and @witte2004: upwind $(\lambda,\beta)=(254\fdg7,5\fdg2)$, $T=6300$K, $v_0=26.3$ km s$^{-1}$, and $n_0=0.015$ cm$^{-3}$. The H and He contributions are calculated separately as the ion-neutral interaction cross-sections are different for the two species.
Analysis
========
We will first determine the relation between the local solar wind flux, $n_{swp}v_{swp}$ and the $Q_M\equiv\int n_{en}n_{swp}v_{rel} dl$ for the magnetosheath. It is expected that this relation should be non-linear; as the solar wind flux increases, the bowshock is pushed closer to the Earth, where the neutral density is higher. We must determine what part of this relation is comparable to the relation between $n_{swp}v_{swp}$ and the [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} LTE rate. By combining the two relations, we then get a direct relation between $Q_{M}$ and the [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} LTE rate, and thus the [[*ROSAT*]{}]{} [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} band flux.
The Q$_M$ - Solar Wind Flux Relation
------------------------------------
In order to understand the magnetosheath SWCX flux that [[*ROSAT*]{}]{} ought to have observed during the All-Sky Survey, we sampled a number of magnetospheric simulations with lines of sight typical of the RASS. It is important to bear in mind that the LTE data with which we are to compare the results of simulations are binned to intervals of roughly one orbit. Thus we wish to extract from the simulations the equivalent to what [[*ROSAT*]{}]{} would have observed over a single great circle scan. We begin with a “reference” scan, a great circle, centered on the Earth, passing through the ecliptic poles, and rotated $12\arcdeg$ about the GSE-Z axis from the GSE-YZ plane. For each time step of each simulation we calculated integrated emissivity, $Q_M$, for 360 lines of sight uniformly distributed over this great circle. From those we then calculated the mean integrated emissivity $\overline{Q_M}$ for the scan. Since this reference scan passes through the ecliptic poles (the GSE-Z axis) it avoids the cusps except for times around the solstices. Once we understand the behavior of $\overline{Q_M}$ for the reference scan, we will explore the effects on $\overline{Q_M}$ of using more realistic scans.
As noted in §2.3, the [[BATS-R-US]{}]{} simulations do not distinguish between solar wind protons and the cold plasmaspheric protons, while the SWCX emission can be associated with only solar wind protons. We thus need to remove the plasmasphere from the simulation before calculating $Q_M$. Since these scans avoid the cusps, the proton density for any direction on a scan is peaked at the Earth, declines with increasing radius to some relative minimum, and then shows another peak at the magnetosheath. The plasmasphere can be crudely but rather efficiently defined as the region inside the relative minimum in proton density, though the plasmasphere by no means fills that region. Figure \[fig:yz\_demo\] shows the proton density for a GSE YZ slice through one step of a simulation, as well as the boundary of the “plasmaspheric” region to be removed. This cleaning algorithm works well when the cusp does not enter the scan.
In the top two panels of Figure \[fig:q\_nv\], each plot point represents the $\overline{Q_M}$ for an individual time step of a simulation listed in Table \[tab:runs\]. The points have been color-coded by season and, where possible, symbol-coded by simulation. The top panel shows the bulk of the parameter space covered by the simulations, while the middle panel covers only the values of $n_{swp}v_{swp}$ found in the LTE data periods. The bottom panel shows the values binned into $\Delta n_{swp}v_{swp}=0.2\times10^8$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ wide bins. The colored symbols are points from individual simulations while the black points are summed over all the simulations. The standard deviations are shown for bins containing more that five values.
As one might expect, as the solar wind flux increases, the value of $Q_M$ increases non-linearly. The relation between $\overline{Q}$ and $n_{swp}v_{swp}$ becomes steeper as $n_{swp}v_{swp}$ increases. Below $n_{swp}v_{swp}=6\times10^8$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ the relation is relatively linear, or at least any non-linearity is obscured by the intrinsic variation. The bottom panel of Figure \[fig:q\_nv\] shows a linear fit to the values with $n_{swp}v_{swp}<6\times10^8$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ and that fit seems adequate. The values do not deviate significantly from the linear fit until $n_{swp}v_{swp}\sim10\times10^8$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. There is a significant dispersion in $\overline{Q_M}$ at any given value of $n_{swp}v_{swp}$ for a single simulation, and clear systematic differences between simulations. At $n_{swp}v_{swp}>10\times10^8$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ there are fewer simulation points and the behavior of the relation becomes quite uncertain.
The first source of variation in $\overline{Q_M}$ at a given $n_{swp}v_{swp}$ is the inherent difficulty of defining the solar wind pressure acting upon the magnetosheath. The solar wind takes roughly three minutes to move from the nose of the bowshock to a plane passing through the center of the Earth. Each portion of the magnetosphere responds to the ambient pressure at its location, and the response propagates rapidly throughout the magnetosheath. Thus, setting a single characteristic $n_{swp}v_{swp}$ for a time step is inherently inaccurate. There is, as well, the difficulty of propagating strongly variable solar wind conditions from their point of measurement to the (moving) magnetopause or bowshock. Thus, there is an intrinsic error in setting $n_{swp}v_{swp}$, particularly when the solar wind conditions are changing rapidly. Since high $n_{swp}v_{swp}$ periods tend to be periods with strong, rapid variation in $n_{swp}v_{swp}$, the variation in $\overline{Q_M}$ increases with $n_{swp}v_{swp}$. The simulations with slower changes in the solar wind show significantly less scatter.
A second source of variation is the asymmetry of the magnetosheath, which depends not so much on the $n_{swp}v_{swp}$ of the solar wind, but upon the variation in the direction of the solar wind momentum vector and the direction of the interplanetary magnetic field. The asymmetry can be seen in Figure \[fig:yz\_demo\]. Nor is the neutral density spherically symmetric; rather it is squashed at the poles, which leads to a rather asymmetric distribution of emission. Since the scan path is rotated by 12 around the GSE-Z axis with respect to the YZ plane, it samples the magnetosheath at much closer distances on one side than it does on the other, which leads to even more extreme asymmetries. The asymmetry in the emission for a typical scan, after removal of the plasmasphere, is shown in the right-hand panel of Figure \[fig:yz\_demo\]. The average of the integrated magnetospheric emissivity over a great circle scan, $\overline{Q_M}$, depends on the direction and amplitude of the rotation of the scan plane with respect to the underlying asymmetry. Thus, for any given value of $n_{swp}v_{swp}$, one would expect a variation in $\overline{Q_M}$ due to the variation in the asymmetry. Using a representative set of simulations, reversing the sense of the rotation of the scan path with respect to the GSE-YZ plane changed the $\overline{Q_M}$ for individual time steps from -20% to +10%, with a mean change of -7%. This variation might be reduced if the [@hodges1994] model overestimates the equatorial bulge of the exosphere.
A third source of variation is seasonal variation. As the Earth nods, the cusp latitude changes, bringing the cusps closer or further from the scan path. However, as indicated in Figure \[fig:q\_nv\], this variation seems to be small compared to the intrinsic differences between simulations.
The combined effect of all of these variations produce that scatter seen in Figure \[fig:q\_nv\]. We have calculated the fractional variance as a function of $n_{swp}v_{swp}$. Using values for all of the simulations, we calculated the mean $\overline{Q}$ for $\Delta n_{swp}v_{swp}=0.2\times10^8$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ wide bins (the black boxes in the bottom panel of Figure \[fig:q\_nv\]). The standard deviation of the values in each bin is shown as the black histogram. For $n_{swp}v_{swp}<8\times10^8$ cm$^{-2}$, the standard deviation in $\overline{Q}$, $\sigma_{\overline{Q}}$, is roughly 40% of the mean ${\overline{Q}}$ and is relatively independent of $n_{swp}v_{swp}$.
By fitting the data in the last panel of Figure \[fig:q\_nv\] we find that $$\left[\frac{n_{swp}v_{swp}}{10^8}\right] = (0.037 \pm 0.189) + (20.68 \pm 0.41) \left[\frac{\overline{Q_M}}{10^{20}}\right]$$ where $n_{swp}v_{swp}$ is in cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ and $\overline{Q_M}$ is in cm$^{-4}$ s$^{-1}$. The correlation is fitted from the values binned over all simulations (the black boxes in the bottom panel of Figure \[fig:q\_nv\]) since the individual values derived from each time-step of each simulation have no intrinsic uncertainties. The measured standard deviation of each point was used as the uncertainties in the fit. We fit only the values below $n_{swp}v_{swp}<6\times10^8$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ where the relation is most clearly linear. We have used a fitting method [@ab1996] that minimizes the uncertainty perpendicular to the fit, and determines the uncertainties in the fit parameters using a bootstrap technique. Note that the uncertainty in the intercept is significantly larger than the intercept itself, thus the intercept is not significantly different from zero.
Any intrinsic scatter in the $n_{swp}v_{swp}$-$\overline{Q_M}$ relation translates directly into a scatter in the $n_{swp}v_{swp}$-LTE relation. Besides the scatter explored above, there is also scatter due to the difference between the geometry of the reference scan and real [[*ROSAT*]{}]{} scans. Over the course of an orbit, the spacecraft will move from $\sim1.09$ R$_E$ on the day side of the Earth to $\sim1.09$ R$_E$ on the night side of the Earth; the scan path moves correspondingly with respect to the reference scan. As the emission increases towards the sub-solar point of the magnetosheath, the more sunward the scan, the higher the emission. A real [[*ROSAT*]{}]{} scan will sample the magnetosheath on both sides of the reference scan, but since the emission is not linear with distance from the sub-solar point, the effects do not cancel.
To measure the difference between realistic scans and the reference scan, we constructed four test scans for a single (rather unrealistic) test orbit lying in the GSE-XY plane. Each test scan was constructed such that the line of sight is towards the north ecliptic pole when the spacecraft is at one of the cardinal directions, dawn, dusk, noon, or midnight. These four test scans sample, however sparsely, the possible range of orbit attitudes. We have compared the $\overline{Q_M}$ for these test scans to the $\overline{Q_M}$ for the reference scan. The result for a simulation near summer solstice when the solar wind flux spanned the bulk of the expected range is shown in Figure \[fig:q\_orbit\]; the bulk of the differences between the real scans and the reference scan lie between -10% and +20%.
The LTE - Solar Wind Flux Relation
----------------------------------
The correlation of the [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} band LTE flux with the local solar wind flux is shown in Figure \[fig:c\_nv\] (Left) where, as in the light-curve, the data have been binned in 95 minute bins. The uncertainties shown are the RMS variations of the data being binned. As can be seen from the histogram of the solar wind data for the periods for which there is LTE data (Figure \[fig:c\_nv\]) the bulk of the data is for $n_{swp}v_{swp}<5\times10^8$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. Above that value of the local solar wind flux the data become increasingly sparse, tailing off by $~10^9$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. The bulk of the LTE observations were made when $n_{swp}v_{swp}$ was well within the range for which the $n_{swp}v_{swp}$-$\overline{Q_M}$ relation is linear, and only the most extreme values fall in the regime where the linearity is dubious. We have fitted the correlation for $n_{swp}v_{swp}<6\times10^8$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$using the bootstrap method of @ab1996. We find $$LTE = (0.0012 \pm 0.0353) + (0.291 \pm 0.014) \left[\frac{n_{swp}v_{swp}}{10^8}\right]$$ where LTE is in count s$^{-1}$ FOV$^{-1}$ and $n_{swp}v_{swp}$ is in cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$.
The scatter in the $n_{swp}v_{swp}$-LTE relation is not unexpected. The measured scatter in the $n_{swp}v_{swp}$-$\overline{Q_M}$ relation is roughly 40%. The difference between the reference scan path and a “real” scan path is roughly 10%. Assuming that these variations are independent, that suggests a roughly 50% variation. The blue lines in Figure \[fig:c\_nv\] show this variation. It encompasses the bulk of the data points, suggesting that there is no significant extra source of variation in the $n_{swp}v_{swp}$-LTE relation.
We further note the lack of a significant intercept in the $n_{swp}v_{swp}$-LTE relation. This result is actually rather unexpected. The measurement of the LTE rate was done without reference to the solar wind flux as that relation was unknown at the time. One might expect the LTE rate to be systematically underestimated or over-estimated and indeed, there are a number of bright streaks in the LTE-subtracted RASS that suggest that the LTE was underestimated in this process. The lack of an intercept in the $n_{swp}v_{swp}$-LTE relation suggests that the estimation of the LTE, while imperfect for some scans, was not systematically low or high.
Therefore, we find that $$C_{R12} \propto (6.02 \pm 0.31)\times10^{-20} \mathrm{(count~FOV^{-1}~cm^{4})}Q
\label{eqn:nv_lte}$$ where $C_{R12}$ is the [[*ROSAT*]{}]{} [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} band (or R12 band) count rate in count s$^{-1}$ FOV$^{-1}$ and $Q$ has its usual units of cm$^{-4}$ s$^{-1}$. The vignetting of the [[*ROSAT*]{}]{} PSPC produces an effective area for the FOV of 1.56 square degrees [@sea2015]. (This value can be found directly from the [[*ROSAT*]{}]{} detector map for the R12 band.) Therefore we find that $$\varsigma=(3.86 \pm 0.20)\times10^{-20} \mathrm{count~degree^{-2}~cm^{4}}$$
![The [$\frac{3}{4}$ keV]{} LTE flux as a function of the local solar wind flux. The [*dashed*]{} line is the best fit. This fit was used for scaling the solar wind flux to the LTE data in Figure \[fig:m\_lc\]. \[fig:m\_nv\]](m_nv.pdf){width="8.0cm"}
The situation for the [$\frac{3}{4}$ keV]{} band is rather different. Figure \[fig:m\_nv\] shows the correlation of the [$\frac{3}{4}$ keV]{} LTE flux and the local solar wind flux. Although there are more low LTE flux data points at low local solar wind values, there is little correlation between the two values, and the Pearson correlation coefficient is only 0.45. In comparison, the Pearson correlation coefficient between the [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} LTE flux and the solar wind flux is 0.74. The Pearson correlation coefficient between the [$\frac{3}{4}$ keV]{} and [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} band LTEs is only 0.14, so the [$\frac{3}{4}$ keV]{} band LTE emission is better correlated with the local solar wind flux than it is with the LTE emission in the [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} band. The overall LTE flux in the [$\frac{3}{4}$ keV]{} band is a factor of seven to eight lower than in the [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} band, so the uncertainties must consequently be larger. However, we note that the RMS/mean for the [$\frac{3}{4}$ keV]{} band is similar to that of the [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} band (33.06 [*versus*]{} 34.67) so the decrease in the correlation coefficient is not due to an increase in an intrinsic scatter in the [$\frac{3}{4}$ keV]{} band. The lack of correlation in the [$\frac{3}{4}$ keV]{} band, compared to the [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} band, suggests that the oxygen lines that dominate the [$\frac{3}{4}$ keV]{} are less well correlated with the solar wind flux than the aggregate of the many lines that produce the [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} band. This is not unreasonable since the oxygen lines will be sensitive to the variation in the oxygen abundance and ionization fraction in the solar wind, while the aggregate of lines in the [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} lines should be less sensitive.
The Q$_H$ - Solar Wind Flux Relation\[sec:enlil\]
-------------------------------------------------
Combining the $n_{swp}v_{rel}$-LTE and $n_{swp}v_{rel}$-$\overline{Q}$ relation to get the production factor is only valid if the only contribution to the correlation between LTE emission and the local solar wind is the magnetosheath emission. So long as it is not correlated with the local solar wind flux, the heliospheric SWCX will introduce only noise to the relation. Thus, we must investigate the possible correlation of the heliospheric SWCX with the local solar wind flux.
The heliospheric emission along the line of sight is $Q_{H}=\int (n_{ipH}+\mathcal{F}n_{ipHe})n_{swp}v_{rel} dl$, where $n_{ipH}$ is the interplanetary H density, $n_{ipHe}$ is the interplanetary He density, and $\mathcal{F}$ is the ratio of the He charge-exchange cross-section to the H charge-exchange cross-section. Since He cross-sections are usually only a factor of a few smaller than those for H [see the compilation in @dk2006], we have set $\mathcal{F}=0.5$. The solar wind proton density was extracted from the ENLIL models while the density of the interplanetary neutrals was taken from the model of @dk2006. Since the ENLIL model was calculated only to 10 au from the Sun within $30\arcdeg$ of the solar equator, we can calculate a line of sight from Earth to 9 au for only a limited number of directions. The distance of 9 au is sufficient for determining the correlation between the heliospheric SWCX and the local solar wind flux: if we assume a heliopause distance of 100 au, then 70% of the total observed heliospheric emission occurs within the first 9 au. There is some variation between the upwind and downwind directions, but we have calculated this as an average over angle from the upwind direction.
For the region for which we can measure the heliospheric properties over lines of sight 9 au long, we have calculated $Q_{H}$ at $5\arcdeg$ spacing in both ecliptic latitude and ecliptic longitude for each ENLIL time step. For each line of sight we calculated the Pearson correlation coefficient between the $Q_{H}$ and the local $n_{swp}v_{swp}$, as recorded in the model at the location of the Earth. Figure \[fig:corr\_map\] shows the correlation coefficient as a function of ecliptic latitude and angle from the Sun along the ecliptic. The pattern shown in this map is reasonably independent of the details of the recent solar wind history and the time of year.
The strongest correlations are found between $100\arcdeg$ and $130\arcdeg$ from the Sun, measuring in a positive sense around the ecliptic, or 50to 80from the anti-sun as seen in Figure \[fig:corr\_map\]. This is the region where one is looking along the Parker spiral beyond the Earth’s orbit. Similarly, angles further than $-130\arcdeg$ from the anti-sun have high correlations because one is looking down the Parker spiral within the Earth’s orbit. The curvature of the spiral is stronger within the Earth’s orbit than without, so there is a shorter distance at which the line of sight is tangent to the spiral. Only a small part of the Parker spiral region is accessible to either [[*ROSAT*]{}]{} or [[*XMM-Newton*]{}]{}, so one should not expect a strong correlation between the local solar wind and the heliospheric SWCX. This statement excludes, of course, strong CMEs.
The restriction to within 30of the solar equator is not of great concern for the correlation analysis. As can be seen from the diagrams in @mccomas2003, during solar minimum, the solar wind between the equator and $\sim30\arcdeg$ is characterized by a dense, slow “equatorial” flow, while at higher latitudes, the there is a faster, more tenuous “polar” flow. As can be seen in Figure \[fig:plane\_demo\_side\] there are coherent structures extending out of the plane. However, unlike the Parker spiral, these structures have a wide range of tilts, so the direction in which one looks along the structure is not fixed. Further, for a line of sight towards the poles, the equatorial flow accounts for only $\sim30$% of the heliospheric SWCX flux, assuming an emissivity that declines as $r^{-2}$ as measured from the Sun. Thus, in general, the correlation between the local solar wind and the SWCX observed towards the ecliptic poles should be weak, though SWCX emission will be correlated with the local solar wind for some limited directions at some times. During the solar maximum, which is more relevant for the RASS observations, the differentiation between equatorial and polar flows is missing, and the solar wind speeds and densities are strongly variable in both regions. In this case we again do not expect correlation between the locally measured solar wind and the solar wind at the higher solar latitudes not covered by the ENLIL model.
Discussion
==========
On the production factor
------------------------
In §3.1 and §3.2 we fitted the $n_{swp}v_{swp}$-LTE relation and the $n_{swp}v_{swp}$-$\overline{Q_M}$ relation, and used the slopes of those relations to determine the [[*ROSAT*]{}]{} [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} count rate as a function of $Q_M$, and thus the [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} production factor. Further, we have shown that the scatter in the $n_{swp}v_{swp}$-LTE relation is comparable to that in the $n_{swp}v_{swp}$-$\overline{Q_M}$ relation.
@ir2009 calculated [[*ROSAT*]{}]{} production factors for a “slow” solar wind from the available atomic data. The slow solar wind conditions [see @vons2010 for definition] are appropriate for the equatorial flow at solar minimum. Although the solar wind experienced by the Earth at solar maximum is a complex mixture of slow and fast solar wind, the distribution of velocities during the time of the RASS is consistent with the slow wind, and it is common practice to approximate the equatorial solar wind, even at solar maximum, with the slow solar wind ion/abundance ratios. The calculated [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} production factor from @ir2009 for charge-exchange with H is $23.64\times10^{-25}$ count arcmin$^{-2}$ cm$^4$, ($0.851\times10^{-20}$ count degree$^{-2}$ cm$^4$) which is a factor of 4.5 lower than that derived here.
This disagreement is not altogether surprising given the uncertainty in the atomic data. A comparison, for example, of the soft X-ray SWCX spectrum shown in @ir2009 with that of @klrk2009 shows strong differences despite a reliance on similar atomic data. A conversion of the @klrk2009 spectrum into a production factor yields $2.13 \times10^{-20}$ count degree$^{-2}$ cm$^4$, which is a factor of only 1.79 lower than that empirically obtained from the LTE data. Addition of further lines to the theoretical spectrum will decrease this difference.
We do not find any combination of systematic uncertainties that could push the measured production factor, $\varsigma$, significantly lower. Had there been a heliospheric contribution to the $n_{swp}v_{swp}$-LTE relation, then the derived $\varsigma$ would have been an upper limit. However, as shown in §3.3, the heliospheric emission does not contribute to the $n_{swp}v_{swp}$-LTE correlation. Conversely, if the plasmaspheric contribution in the [[BATS-R-US]{}]{} simulations were not completely removed, then the derived $\varsigma$ would be a lower limit. As can be seen in Figure \[fig:yz\_demo\], the region removed for the plasmasphere, while adequate for that purpose, does not extend all the way to the magnetopause. An alternate cleaning which removes both the plasmasphere and the bulk of the low density region interior to the heliopause does not significantly change the calculated $\overline{Q_M}$, though some individual lines of sight changed significantly. Thus, the plasmasphere removal method does not significantly change the derived production factor. Similarly, if the @hodges1994 model overestimates the exospheric density, as suggested by @oea2003, then the derived $\varsigma$ would again be a lower limit.
The derived production factor is also a lower limit as we have not accounted for the loss of ions due to charge-exchange as they travel through the exosphere. This is, however, a negligible effect. Assuming a path through the magnetosheath in the GSE-XY plane from the sub-solar point around the Earth to roughly $120\arcdeg$ from the sub-solar point (a path-length of $\sim55$ R$_E$) and the O$^{+7}$ charge-exchange cross-section for a slow solar wind from @dk2006 ($\sigma=3.4\times10^{-15}$ cm$^2$), we find that less than a tenth of a percent of the ions recombine, and we have not even corrected this value for the number of O$^{+8}$ ions that will have charge-exchanged to form O$^{+7}$ ions. Thus, correction of the ion density for the effects of charge-exchange is inconsequential.
On the relative contributions of the magnetosheath and the heliosphere to SWCX “contamination”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efforts to understand the SWCX in the [[*Chandra*]{}]{}[[*XMM-Newton*]{}]{} era have been primarily driven by the problem of removing the SWCX emission from observations of diffuse emission. @ks2008 used multiple [[*XMM-Newton*]{}]{} observations with the same pointing but different epochs and observing geometries to show that SWCX emission is not solely a function of the local solar wind flux; some observations with low local solar wind flux showed SWCX emission while the majority of the observations at those solar wind fluxes did not. Further, the observations that showed SWCX emission when the local solar wind flux was low often had lines of sight that avoided the high emissivity regions of the magnetosheath. However, they found no high local solar wind flux observations ($nv\gtrsim10^9 \flux $) without SWCX emission. Finally, there were a number of observations that should have had lines of sight passing through the highest emissivity regions of the magnetosheath which showed no elevated SWCX emission, while other such observations did. Thus @ks2008 concluded that high local solar wind flux was necessary but not sufficient to predict SWCX emission. Although that SWCX emission observed when the local solar wind was low was probably due to local heliospheric emission, they could not exclude magnetospheric production.
@cs2008 and @csr2011 combed the [[*XMM-Newton*]{}]{} archive for observations affected by SWCX. They searched for observations where the 0.5-0.7 keV band containing the oxygen lines showed variation not seen in a 2.5-5.0 keV “continuum” band. Their results were similar to those of @ks2008, finding that observations containing SWCX emission tended to occur when [[*XMM-Newton*]{}]{} was between the Earth and the Sun, but were not limited to such lines of sight. For each observation they also compared the expected magnetosheath flux, as calculated from a static model of the magnetosheath and the [[*ACE*]{}]{} solar wind data. They found very poor correlation between the two values, suggesting both magnetosheath and heliospheric contributions.
Both @ks2008 and @csr2011 used the @ssa1966 model for the size of the magnetosheath given the solar wind density, speed, and temperature. We have compared the magnetopause distance and the bowshock distance of the @ssa1966 model with that found in the [[BATS-R-US]{}]{} simulations. The bowshock distance in the [[BATS-R-US]{}]{} simulations was set to be the radius along the GSE-X axis at which the pressure drops to less than a tenth of the maximum pressure. The magnetopause distance was set to be the maximum radius along the GSE-X axis at which the magnetic field lines are closed. Figure \[fig:spreiter\] compares the @ssa1966 and [[BATS-R-US]{}]{} values; the @ssa1966 consistently underestimates the magnetopause and bowshock distances compared to those found by [[BATS-R-US]{}]{} . In the case of the bowshock, the underestimate is often 2-3 R$_E$, while the magnetopause is usually off by $\sim1$ R$_E$. Thus, it is likely that both @ks2008 and @csr2011 found a poor correlation between lines of sight passing through the nose of the magnetosheath and SWCX contamination because the lines of sight were actually passing several R$_E$ behind the region of substantial emission. @hs2010 [@hs2012] extracted “blank sky” spectra from all possible [[*XMM-Newton*]{}]{} observations in order to study the Galactic halo. To study the SWCX emission they considered the oxygen line fluxes for cases of multiple observations of the same target. They looked, in particular, at the difference between the flux of any particular observation and the minimum flux for that direction. This quantity showed little correlation with the $Q$ from the magnetosheath, in part because their model of the magnetosheath [@ssa1966] had a stand-off distance fixed to 10 R$_E$ without regard to the solar wind flux; their analysis suffered from a more extreme form of the problem suffered by @ks2008.
Thus we conclude that many studies seeking SWCX emission from the sub-solar point of the magnetosheath have been looking in the wrong location. Whether the enhanced SWCX emission is observed when looking at the correct location has not yet been determined; a study of SWCX emission in the [[*XMM-Newton*]{}]{} archive using MHD models is currently ongoing at the University of Leicester.
@hs2010 [@hs2012] also found “no universal association between enhanced SWCX emission and increased solar wind flux", a finding consistent with previous studies. Given the lack of correlation between the local solar wind flux and $Q_{H}$ shown in §3.3, this is not surprising. (Note that [[*XMM-Newton*]{}]{} observes only a slightly larger region of the sky than was accessible to [[*ROSAT*]{}]{} .) However, since we have shown that the magnetosheath emission produces a strong correlation between the [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} LTE flux and the local solar wind, but does [*not*]{} produce as strong a correlation between the [$\frac{3}{4}$ keV]{} LTE flux (dominated by the emission from the and lines) and the local solar wind flux, then the [$\frac{3}{4}$ keV]{} LTE flux must be governed by some additional parameter, most likely the oxygen ion abundances in the solar wind. If the ion abundance variation is enough to remove the bulk of the correlation seen from the magnetosheath, then one would expect even less correlation with local heliospheric emission. Unfortunately, the O$^{+8}$ abundance is poorly measured by [[*ACE*]{}]{} , and the O$^{+7}$ is not much better measured, so it will be difficult to study this issue.
In summary, the question of the relative contributions of the magnetosheath and the heliosphere, in general, to SWCX emission events is ill-posed, and studies in the oxygen lines are problematic. There should be a strong correlation between the local solar wind flux and magnetosheath SWCX emission, even if previous attempts to verify that correlation failed due to incorrect expectations for the location of the magnetosheath, and the use of the intrinsically more poorly correlated oxygen lines. Such correlation is not expected, in general, for heliospheric SWCX emission.
On SWCX emission prediction and SWCX emission removal
-----------------------------------------------------
Since the discovery of the Hubble Deep Field SWCX emission event by @sck2004, significant effort has been placed on SWCX emission identification in [$\frac{3}{4}$ keV]{} band observations, either to remove SWCX “contamination” for astrophysical reasons, or to identify observations “blessed” with SWCX emission for heliospheric reasons. @ks2008 thought it a lost cause to determine whether any arbitrary observation were effected by SWCX without repeated observations of the same field, while @cs2008 showed if an observation was sufficiently long, then SWCX affected intervals could be identified through differential light-curve analysis. @hs2012 applied a local solar wind flux limit to remove SWCX emission affected observations. However, given the correlation analysis for the part of the sky observed by [[*XMM-Newton*]{}]{} , and excepting CME issues, this limit is as likely to exclude data without significant heliospheric SWCX emission enhancements as it is to include data with significant heliospheric SWCX emission enhancements.
A second method to deal with SWCX emission is [*ex post facto*]{} modeling of the SWCX emission. Efforts to characterize the emission from the LHB have concentrated on repeated observations of nearby X-ray dark clouds to model and remove the SWCX emission [e.g. @dk2011; @gupta2009]. @dk2012 has shown, in particular, that modeling the SWCX emission for a line of sight falling entirely within the equatorial flow yields reasonably reliable results, while modeling the SWCX emission for a line of sight dominated by the (poorly characterized) polar flow yields rather disappointing results. We note, however, that these results were obtained at solar maximum when the distinction between polar and equatorial flows becomes problematic. At solar minimum, those flows are much more cleanly distinguished and the polar flow should be much more stable and amenable to modeling.
A third method to deal with SWCX emission is to plan observations in order to minimize (or maximize!) its impact. Reference to Figure \[fig:corr\_map\] suggests that to model the SWCX emission for an object within $\sim30\arcdeg$ of the ecliptic plane, one would want repeated observations of the object when it lies in the direction of the Parker spiral in order to optimize the correlation between the local solar wind flux and the SWCX emission that is actually observed; observations in other directions will have significantly poorer correlations and thus poorer SWCX emission removal. Conversely, one might wish to observe in such a way as to minimize the variation in the heliospheric flux. This would be particularly useful for shadowing observations where the shadow and the background it is absorbing have to be observed separately. Figure \[fig:vari\_map\] shows a map of the root mean square of the variation in $Q_H$ normalized by the mean of $Q_H$. Although $\sigma_{Q_H}/\overline{Q_H}$ appears to vary more from simulation to simulation than does the correlation, some features are consistent. The highest variation is perpendicular to the Earth-Sun line in the same quadrant as the Parker spiral beyond the Earth. The opposite direction does not have an elevated variation. Thus it should be noted that high variability region is part of the sky accessible to [[*XMM-Newton*]{}]{} and [[*Chandra*]{}]{} , so SWCX variation can be reduced by specifying the part of the year in which the observations are to be made.
On remote sensing of the magnetosheath
--------------------------------------
One of the prime motivations of this work is to pursue a suggestion first made in @csk2005, that SWCX emission from the magnetosheath could be used for remote sensing of the magnetosheath. This suggestion has spawned a number of mission proposals to observe the magnetosheath, including [*STORM*]{} [@storm2012] and [*AXIOM*]{} [@axiom2012], as well as smaller proposals to observe the cusps [@cuspcube2009]. This is a particularly well posed problem as the SWCX production factor for hydrogen can be derived directly from measurements of the object that we desire to study, albeit in the flanks of the magnetosheath rather than in the much brighter region of interest.
As shown in Figure \[fig:ms\_demo\], the magnetosheath “breathes” in and out as the solar wind flux varies. Figure \[fig:storm\] demonstrates what would be seen with an X-ray imager 30 R$_E$ from the Earth, along the GSE-Y axis, looking back at the nose of the magnetosheath. The magnetopause and bowshock are clearly defined, as is emission beyond the bowshock due to the exosphere interacting with the free-flowing solar wind. There is a large literature exploring a wide variety of MHD phenomena that should occur within the magnetosheath, such as Kelvin-Helmholtz instabilities and flux-transfer events which may be observable in the X-ray [@sun2015]. Whether these structures can be observed depends critically on the count-rate and cadence of such an imager.
![The magnetosheath emission from a line of sight through the peak emission on the (projected) GSE-X axis as a function of the solar wind flux. The [*horizontal line*]{} is the mean [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} background level. \[fig:peak\]](peak.pdf){width="9.0cm"}
As a first-order demonstration of the potential utility of such an instrument, we can determine the flux from the magnetosheath and compare it to that of the soft X-ray background. We have calculated the magnetosheath emission as seen from a GSE coordinate (10,-30,0) R$_E$, which produces images such as that seen in Figure \[fig:storm\]. For a characteristic value we calculated the emission along a line of sight through the peak emission on the projected GSE-X axis. On the GSE-X axis the emission at the bowshock is roughly 20% of that of the GSE-X peak flux. We note that the magnetosheath closer to the dominant cusp tends to be even brighter than the “subsolar” flux. We have calculated the characteristic value for a number of simulations and have plotted the result in Figure \[fig:peak\]. These simulation values can be compared the background.
![The distribution of [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} surface brightness from the RASS. The conversion from [[*ROSAT*]{}]{} counts to fluxes was made using the spectrum of the soft X-ray background towards the Galactic pole. \[fig:rass\]](rass.pdf){width="8.5cm"}
As Figure \[fig:rass\] shows, the mean [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} band (R12 band) flux over the entire sky is $6.16\times10^{-4}$ count s$^{-1}$ arcmin$^{-2}$ (2.22 count s$^{-1}$ degree$^{-2}$) while the mode is $3.75\times10^{-4}$ count s$^{-1}$ arcmin$^{-2}$ (1.35 count s$^{-1}$ degree$^{-2}$). These background values are significantly below the “subsolar” flux for all but the very calmest solar winds. Thus, imaging the magnetosheath is eminently feasible, given an instrument with a large field of view and modest collecting area.
Summary
=======
In this work we have calculated the X-ray production factor for solar wind charge-exchange with H. The value is somewhat higher than theoretically calculated values, perhaps because the calculated values did not include all of the faint lines contributing to the emission in the [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} band. This value is rather robust, being based on the ratio of observed flux to the $Q$ derived from [[BATS-R-US]{}]{} simulations; it is [*particularly*]{} robust for use with other [[BATS-R-US]{}]{} simulations being sampled for different observation geometries. As a result, we have shown that remote sensing of the magnetosheath from high Earth orbit, looking back at the magnetosheath, is particularly promising.
On the way to deriving the production factor, we may have resolved a few issues concerning SWCX emission. We have shown how previous models of the magnetosheath SWCX emission are unlikely to agree with [[*XMM-Newton*]{}]{} observations, simply due to the magnetosheath not being in the expected location. We have also shown why analyses correlating SWCX emission in the and lines with the local solar wind flux have found little correlation; the correlation between the local solar wind and any heliospheric SWCX emission will [*only*]{} occur in limited portions of the sky [*and*]{} the oxygen line emission is poorly correlated with the solar wind proton flux due to their sensitivity to abundance and ionization fraction effects. We have also proposed a number of methods to reduce the impact of SWCX emission on various types of observations.
Finally, it must be reiterated that study of SWCX emission in the [$\frac{3}{4}$ keV]{} band provides little information about the SWCX emission in the [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} band; the two bands are very poorly correlated because they are produced in very different ways. The [$\frac{3}{4}$ keV]{} band is due to a small number of lines generated by parent ions with strongly variable abundances. The [$\frac{1}{4}$ keV]{} band is produced by (currently) innumerable lines from many species. Many of those lines are from L-shell charge exchange for which there is no operational theory [@frankel2009]. Until wide-field high spectral resolution imaging becomes common, careful band-averaged studies such as this one will be a far more powerful tool than line studies in the [$\frac{3}{4}$ keV]{} band for understanding the bulk of the SWCX emission.
The initial studies that led to this work funded KDK and MRC through National Aeronautics and Space Administration ADAP grant 06-ADP06-32. MRC was partially funded by NASA under grant LSSO06-0032 issued through the Science Mission Directorate’s Planetary Science Division. KDK was funded in part through the [[*XMM-Newton*]{}]{} Guest Observer Facility. KDK would also like to thank the Chemical Heritage Foundation for the hospitality of their reading room for the creation of the first draft of this work.
Part of this work was performed while the primary author and many of the coauthors were attending the International Space Science Institute (ISSI) workshop on solar wind charge-exchange in October 2013 in Bern, Switzerland. Many of the coauthors also attended the ISSI workshop on solar wind charge-exchange in January 2013.
We are deeply grateful to ISSI for these very productive workshops. Our thanks also to the Community Coordinated Modeling Center at Goddard Space Flight Center for producing the extended ENLIL run, and for providing the large number of [[BATS-R-US]{}]{} runs used for this work. The [[BATS-R-US]{}]{} and ENLIL simulation results were provided by the CCMC through their public “Runs on Request” system (http://ccmc.gsfc.nasa.gov). The CCMC is a multi-agency partnership between NASA, AFMC, AFOSR, AFRL, AFWA, NOAA, NSF and ONR.
Even with the large number of authors, a study of this type does not occur in a vacuum. We would like to thank all those who, through discussion, argument, and spirited altercations, helped make this a better paper.
, M. G., & [Bershady]{}, M. A. 1996, , 470, 706
, B.-G., & [Potter]{}, S. B. 2006, , 640, L51
, G. L., [Beiersdorfer]{}, P., [Brown]{}, G. V., [Kelley]{}, R. L., [Kilbourne]{}, C. A., [Koutroumpa]{}, D., [Leutenegger]{}, M. A., & [Porter]{}, F. S. 2014, , 90, 052723
, D. 2007, Ph.D. thesis, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 72, 9700 AB Groningen, The Netherlands
, G., & [Mercier]{}, F. 2009, in European Planetary Science Congress 2009, 693
, G., et al. 2012, Experimental Astronomy, 33, 403
, J. A., & [Sembay]{}, S. 2008, , 489, 837
, J. A., [Sembay]{}, S., & [Read]{}, A. M. 2011, , 527, A115
, S. P., [Hamilton]{}, D. C., [Gloeckler]{}, G., & [Eastmann]{}, T. E. 1994, , 99, 13465
, M. R., [Moore]{}, T. E., [Snowden]{}, S. L., & [Kuntz]{}, K. D. 2005, Advances in Space Research, 35, 2157
, M. R., et al. 2012, Astronomische Nachrichten, 333, 378
, M. R., et al. 2014, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 119, 1459
, H. K., [Sibeck]{}, D. G., [Collier]{}, M., [Kuntz]{}, K., & [Raeder]{}, J. 2014, in SM51H-08, AGU Fall Meeting, San Francisco, California, December 2014
, T. E., [Robertson]{}, I. P., & [Snowden]{}, S. L. 2001, , 106, 24883
, H. J. 1971, , 14, 263
, M., [Beiersdorfer]{}, P., [Brown]{}, G. V., [Gu]{}, M. F., [Kelley]{}, R. L., [Kilbourne]{}, C. A., & [Porter]{}, F. S. 2009, , 702, 171
, M. J. 1998, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, Vol. 506, IAU Colloq. 166: The Local Bubble and Beyond, ed. D. [Breitschwerdt]{}, M. J. [Freyberg]{}, & J. [Truemper]{}, 113
, P. C., [Redfield]{}, S., & [Slavin]{}, J. D. 2011, , 49, 237
, S. A., et al. 2010, , 37, 13101
, M., et al. 2014, , 512, 171
, A., [Galeazzi]{}, M., [Koutroumpa]{}, D., [Smith]{}, R., & [Lallement]{}, R. 2009, , 707, 644
, M. A. 1992, , 40, 711
, D. B., & [Shelton]{}, R. L. 2010, , 187, 388
, D. B., & [Shelton]{}, R. L. 2012, , 202, 14
, R. R., Jr. 1994, , 99, 23229
, E. B. 2009, , 143, 205
, D. 2012, Astronomische Nachrichten, 333, 341
, D., [Lallement]{}, R., & [Kharchenko]{}, V. 2009, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1156, American Institute of Physics Conference Series, ed. R. K. [Smith]{}, S. L. [Snowden]{}, & K. D. [Kuntz]{}, 62
, D., [Lallement]{}, R., [Kharchenko]{}, V., [Dalgarno]{}, A., [Pepino]{}, R., [Izmodenov]{}, V., & [Qu[é]{}merais]{}, E. 2006, , 460, 289
, D., [Lallement]{}, R., [Raymond]{}, J. C., & [Kharchenko]{}, V. 2009, , 696, 1517
, D., [Smith]{}, R. K., [Edgar]{}, R. J., [Kuntz]{}, K. D., [Plucinsky]{}, P. P., & [Snowden]{}, S. L. 2011, , 726, 91
, K. D., & [Snowden]{}, S. L. 2008, , 478, 575
, R. 2004, , 422, 391
, R., [Bertaux]{}, J. L., & [Dalaudier]{}, F. 1985, , 150, 21
, R., [Bertaux]{}, J. L., & [Kurt]{}, V. G. 1985, , 90, 1413
, R., [Qu[é]{}merais]{}, E., [Bertaux]{}, J. L., [Ferron]{}, S., [Koutroumpa]{}, D., & [Pellinen]{}, R. 2005, Science, 307, 1447
, R., [Raymond]{}, J. C., [Vallerga]{}, J., [Lemoine]{}, M., [Dalaudier]{}, F., & [Bertaux]{}, J. L. 2004, , 426, 875
, D., et al. 2002, , 576, 188
, D. J., [Elliott]{}, H. A., [Schwadron]{}, N. A., [Gosling]{}, J. T., [Skoug]{}, R. M., & [Goldstein]{}, B. E. 2003, , 30, 1517
, J., [Safr[á]{}nkov[á]{}]{}, J., & [Nemecek]{}, Z. 2002, Annales Geophysicae, 20, 311
, E., et al. 2004, , 426, 897
, D. 2003, Advances in Space Research, 32, 497
, N., [Mende]{}, S. B., [Frey]{}, H. U., [Gladstone]{}, G. R., & [Lauche]{}, H. 2003, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 108, 1300
, M., [Laakso]{}, H., & [Pulkkinen]{}, T. I. 2001, , 106, 21109
, S. M., et al. 2011, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 116, 7203
, K. G., [Roe]{}, P. L., [Linde]{}, T. J., [Gombosi]{}, T. I., & [de Zeeuw]{}, D. L. 1999, Journal of Computational Physics, 154, 284
, E., [Lallement]{}, R., [Ferron]{}, S., [Koutroumpa]{}, D., [Bertaux]{}, J.-L., [Kyr[ö]{}L[ä]{}]{}, E., & [Schmidt]{}, W. 2006, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 111, 9114
, J. 2003, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, Vol. 615, Space Plasma Simulation, ed. J. [B[ü]{}chner]{}, C. [Dum]{}, & M. [Scholer]{}, 212
, I. P., [Kuntz]{}, K. D., [Collier]{}, M. R., [Cravens]{}, T. E., & [Snowden]{}, S. L. 2009, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1156, American Institute of Physics Conference Series, ed. R. K. [Smith]{}, S. L. [Snowden]{}, & K. D. [Kuntz]{}, 52
, D., & [Fahr]{}, H. J. 1989, , 224, 290
, W. T., [Edgar]{}, R. J., [Kraushaar]{}, W. L., [McCammon]{}, D., & [Morgenthaler]{}, J. P. 2001, , 554, 694
, D. M., [Lallement]{}, R., [Crifo]{}, F., & [Welsh]{}, B. Y. 1999, , 346, 785
, R. K., [Foster]{}, A. R., [Edgar]{}, R. J., & [Brickhouse]{}, N. S. 2014, , 787, 77
, S. L., [Collier]{}, M. R., & [Kuntz]{}, K. D. 2004, , 610, 1182
, S. L., [Egger]{}, R., [Finkbeiner]{}, D. P., [Freyberg]{}, M. J., & [Plucinsky]{}, P. P. 1998, , 493, 715
, S. L., et al. 1995, , 454, 643
, S. L., [Heiles]{}, C., [Koutroumpa]{}, D., [Kuntz]{}, K. D., [Lallement]{}, R., [McCammon]{}, D., & [Peek]{}, J. E. G. 2015, , submitted
, S. L., [McCammon]{}, D., [Burrows]{}, D. N., & [Mendenhall]{}, J. A. 1994, , 424, 714
, S. L., [McCammon]{}, D., & [Verter]{}, F. 1993, , 409, L21
, J. R., [Summers]{}, A. L., & [Alksne]{}, A. Y. 1966, , 14, 223
, T. R., [Wang]{}, C., [Wei]{}, F., & [Sembay]{}, S. 2015, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 120, 266
, G., et al. 2005, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 110, 12226
, N. A., & [Sitnov]{}, M. I. 2005, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 110, 3208
, R., [Zurbuchen]{}, T. H., & [McComas]{}, D. J. 2010, , 37, 22101
, B. J., [Beiersdorfer]{}, P., & [Brown]{}, G. V. 2008, Canadian Journal of Physics, 86, 151
, B. J., [Kornbleuth]{}, M., [Martin]{}, P. L., & [Juda]{}, M. 2014, , 796, 28
, B. Y., & [Lallement]{}, R. 2008, , 490, 707
, B. Y., [Sfeir]{}, D. M., [Sirk]{}, M. M., & [Lallement]{}, R. 1999, , 352, 308
, M. 2004, , 426, 835
, X. W., [Russell]{}, C. T., [Le]{}, G., [Fuselier]{}, S. A., & [Scudder]{}, J. D. 2000, , 105, 245
[^1]: We will use to refer to the emission line, while we will use O$^{+6}$ to refer to the parent ion.
[^2]: Imaging of the magnetosheath with energetic neutral atoms (ENA) is possible, but only with exposures of 0.5 to 2 days [@petrinec2011; @fuselier2010] See also the discussion by @connor2014.
[^3]: The term magnetospheric SWCX has also been used (even by this author) but is inaccurate. Further, even among heliosphericists, there is some ambiguity in the meaning and application of “magnetosphere”, so readers should be cautious.
[^4]: All coordinates for the magnetosheath and related regions will be given in geocentric solar ecliptic (GSE) coordinates. In this right-handed coordinate system, the X-axis is the Earth-Sun line, the Z-axis is the ecliptic pole, and the Y-axis is defined by the right-handedness. The positive Y-axis is opposite to the direction of the Earth’s motion around the Sun. See @hapgood for further explication.
[^5]: Since the orbit precesses by $\sim18\arcmin$ per orbit while the plane of the look direction is fixed in GSE coordinates, the relation between location of the spacecraft and the look direction is continuously changing. The one constant is that the look direction is at roughly +(-)GSE-Z when the spacecraft is at its maximum(minimum) GSE-Z. Similarly for GSE-Y. GSE-X however is more complicated. It should also be noted that the spin vector was reversed on a number of occasions to keep the spacecraft from scanning the Earth.
[^6]: ftp://spdf.gsfc.nasa.gov/pub/data/omni/high\_res\_omni/
[^7]: Simulation results have been provided by the Community Coordinated Modeling Center at Goddard Space Flight Center. The BATS$-$R$-$US model was developed by Dr. Tamas Gombosi at the Center for Space Environment Modeling, University of Michigan.
[^8]: The 10.7 cm (2800 MHz) solar flux as measured by the Penticton observatory.
[^9]: Simulation results have been provided by the Community Coordinated Modeling Center at Goddard Space Flight Center. ENLIL was developed by Dusan Odstrcil at the University of Colorado at Boulder. ENLIL is not an acronym, despite its nonstandard capitalization, but the name of the Sumerian god of winds and storms.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We investigate generalized potentials for a mean-field density functional theory of a three-phase contact line. Compared to the symmetrical potential introduced in our previous article [@lin2012mean], the three minima of these potentials form a small triangle located arbitrarily within the Gibbs triangle, which is more realistic for ternary fluid systems. We multiply linear functions that vanish at edges and vertices of the small triangle, yielding potentials in the form of quartic polynomials. We find that a subset of such potentials has simple analytic far-field solutions, and is a linear transformation of our original potential. By scaling, we can relate their solutions to those of our original potential. For special cases, the lengths of the sides of the small triangle are proportional to the corresponding interfacial tensions. For the case of equal interfacial tensions, we calculate a line tension that is proportional to the area of the small triangle.'
author:
- 'Chang-You Lin'
- Michael Widom
- 'Robert F. Sekerka'
bibliography:
- 'capillarity.bib'
title: 'Generalized Potentials for a Mean-field Density Functional Theory of a Three-Phase Contact Line'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
In our previous article [@lin2012mean], we treated a three-phase contact line by a mean-field density functional that involves a symmetric potential. This potential allows us to find analytical far-field solutions because one of the mole fractions is constant for any two-phase transition. In order to develop a phenomenological model for a non-symmetric potential, which is more realistic for ternary fluid systems, we need a more general potential that has three minima in arbitrary locations within the Gibbs triangle. In this article, we introduce a flexible approach to construct such generalized potentials.
![\[fig:realgibbscompare\] Schematic diagram for the mapping between physical space and the Gibbs triangle (briefly, the Gibbs space). Sketch of our system consisting of three bulk phases $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $\gamma$, divided by three interfaces $\alpha \beta$, $\beta \gamma$ and $\gamma \alpha$. The interfaces, if extrapolated, are each perpendicular to sides of the dashed triangle (illustrative computational domain) and meet at a three-phase contact line. The corresponding dihedral angles are $\theta_{\alpha}$, $\theta_{\beta}$, and $\theta_{\gamma}$ and $(x,y)$ are Cartesian coordinates in physical space. The region within three solid curves represents approximately the diffuse region of the interfaces and the contact line. The Gibbs space, in which the three bulk phases are located at three points and $(u,v)$ are Cartesian coordinates in units of mole fractions. The three curved lines that connect pairs of points for bulk phases are trajectories of two-phase transitions. Slice of an interface in a cuboid far from the contact line. $s$ is a coordinate perpendicular to the $\alpha\beta$-interface and $w$ is the width of the cuboid in a direction perpendicular to the contact line.](realgibbscompare.eps)
As illustrated geometrically in Fig. \[subfig:realspace\], a three-phase contact line is modeled for a ternary fluid system having three bulk phases $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $\gamma$, which subtend dihedral angles $\theta_{\alpha}$, $\theta_{\beta}$, and $\theta_{\gamma}$ as sketched in Fig. \[subfig:realspace\]. Each of the interfaces $\alpha \beta$, $\beta \gamma$ and $\gamma \alpha$, if extrapolated far from the contact line, is perpendicular to a side of the dashed triangle, which is illustrative of our much larger actual computational domain. The contact line is where the three interfaces appear to meet. We assume the system to be translationally invariant along the vertical direction perpendicular to this figure, thus reducing this problem to two dimensions. Compared to the homogeneous bulk phases, the inhomogeneity arises from the formation of interfaces and a contact line, which are actually diffuse regions.
Based on the thermodynamic method introduced by Gibbs [@gibbs1928collected p. 228], the inhomogeneity is treated by means of an excess grand potential $\Omega_{xs}$, which, by convention [@rowlinson2002molecular ch. 8], can be expressed by $$\label{eq:omegaxsconvention}
\Omega_{xs} = L \tau + L R_{\alpha \beta} \sigma_{\alpha \beta} + L R_{\beta \gamma} \sigma_{\beta \gamma} + L R_{\gamma \alpha} \sigma_{\gamma \alpha}.$$ Here, $L$ is the length of the contact line and $R_{ij}$ is the distance from the contact line along interface $ij$ toward the boundary. In the limit of all $R_{ij}\rightarrow \infty$, the line tension $\tau$ is defined as the excess grand potential per unit length associated with the contact line while each of the three interfacial tensions $\sigma_{ij}$ (excess grand potentials per unit area) is associated with an interface $ij$ in the far-field limit. A classical result [@neumann1894] shows that $$\label{eq:eqangle}
\frac{\sin \theta_{\alpha }}{\sigma_{\beta \gamma}} = \frac{\sin \theta_{\beta}}{\sigma_{\alpha \gamma}} = \frac{\sin \theta_{\gamma}}{\sigma_{\alpha \beta}}.$$ According to this result, the boundary is actually a Neumann triangle since the three sides are proportional to three interfacial tensions.
Besides extensive studies of interfacial tensions (See [@adamson1997physical]), the line tension of a contact line plays a crucial role in a broad range of physical phenomena such as the equilibrium shapes of small droplets [@gaydos1987dependence; @drelich1993effect], microfluidics [@grunze1999driven; @weigl1999microfluidic], heterogeneous nucleation [@hienola2007estimation], cell adhesion [@sackmann2002cell], the dynamics of a drop spreading on a liquid thin film [@fukai1995wetting; @bonn2009wetting] and the behavior of line tension at wetting transitions [@indekeu2010wetting]. For a review for both experimental and theoretical aspects of line tension, see [@amirfazli2004status], and for a conceptual review, see [@schimmele2007conceptual].
Mean-field Density Functional Theory {#sec:mfdft}
------------------------------------
According to the mean-field density functional theory introduced in our earlier work [@lin2012mean], the excess grand potential for a ternary fluid system is $$\label{eq:omegaxsgeneral}
\Omega_{xs} = B L \int_A \left[ f + g \right] \mathrm{d}A,$$ where $f$ is a potential function and $g$ is a gradient energy of the chemical constituents. In this article, we assumed that the dominant intermolecular forces in our system are short range, so physical quantities can be formulated in terms of local densities. Based on the assumption of uniform molar volume, we change the variables of $f$ and $g$ from number densities to mole fractions $X_i$, and $\sum_{i=1}^{3} X_i=1$ (see [@lin2012mean sec. II] for details). For reviews of the general mean-field density functional method of interfaces, see [@rowlinson2002molecular; @anderson1998diffuse].
In this phenomenological theory, there is no definite form of the potential $f$ for the excess grand potential $\Omega_{xs}$ in . The specific form that we used in earlier work [@lin2012mean] is $$\label{eq:potential0}
f=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}(X_i-a)^2(X_i-b)^2 \equiv f^o,$$ where $0 \leq a \leq 1$ is a constant and $b=(1-a)/2$, is a symmetric quartic function that allowed us to obtain asymptotic analytical solutions in the far-field. This form is an extension of the potential used in the Landau’s phenomenological theory [@LandauLifshitz1935; @umantsev2012field]. Similar two-density quartic potentials have been used in [@szleifer1992surface; @koga2010first] for line tension and for a first order wetting transition. Sixth order polynomials have been used for second and higher order transitions [@koga2008mean; @koga2010first; @koga2010infinite]. In this article, we focus on potentials of quartic form.
Compared to other two-density models, our model is actually pseudo-binary since it formulates the potential in terms of three mole fractions $\{X_i\}_{i=1,2,3}$ by the assumption of uniform molar volume. Because of the constraint $\sum_{i=1}^{3} X_i=1$, there are two independent mole fractions, so our potential can be described in terms of two independent variables, although we sometimes display all three mole factions to illustrate its symmetry.
Note that the gradient energy $g$ in the functional of the excess grand potential $\Omega_{xs}$ is specified by $$g=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{3} \frac{\ell_i^2}{2} \left| \nabla X_i \right|^2,$$ where $\{\ell_i\}_{i=1,2,3}$ are constants. For cases with equal $\ell_i$ (isotropic gradient energy), the three-fold symmetric potential leads to three-fold symmetry of the physical domain. To resolve this special geometry, we employed a triangular grid to obtain numerical solutions over the entire domain (for details, see [@lin2012mean sec. III]).
Mapping from Physical Space to the Gibbs Space {#sec:mapping}
----------------------------------------------
In our mean-field density functional theory of a three-phase contact line for a ternary fluid system (summarized in Sec. \[sec:mfdft\]; for details, see [@lin2012mean sec. II] ), the functional of the excess grand potential consists of a potential function and a gradient energy. Since we use three mole fractions as variables, there is a connection between the physical space and the space of the Gibbs triangle (briefly, the Gibbs space). This connection depends on the specific choice of potential and the coefficients of the gradient energy. Fig. \[fig:realgibbscompare\] illustrates a mapping between the physical space of our system \[subfig:realspace\] and the Gibbs space \[subfig:gibbsspace\]. In general, the three bulk phases of the physical system are represented by the three minima of a given potential, which are located at three points within the Gibbs triangle.
The curved lines within the Gibbs triangle (Fig. \[subfig:gibbsspace\]) are the trajectories of the two phase-transitions in the far-field regime between any pair of bulk phases in the physical space (Fig. \[subfig:realspace\]). The far-field regime is located at a distance that is far from the contact line compared to the interfacial widths (or the size of the central core region associated to the contact line). In the far-field regime, a slice of interface can be contained in a cuboid (Fig. \[subfig:sliceinterface\]) and the interfacial width is constant. For a two-phase transition between any pair of bulk phases, the change of mole fractions from one bulk phase to another maps to a curved line connecting two potential minima within the Gibbs triangle. At equilibrium, these trajectories minimize the excess grand potential according to the form of the potential and the coefficients of the gradient energy. Since the interfacial tensions are excess grand potentials per unit area, their values depend on these trajectories.
According to the form of the excess grand potential, the line tension is the residue of excess potential in which we subtract the contribution from the far-field interfacial tensions. In physical space (Fig. \[subfig:realspace\]), it relates to the core of the diffuse region centered at the contact line as if we subtract the cuboids of the interfaces extended from the far-field until they meet at the “contact line”. This core region corresponds to three-phase transitions among all three bulk phases in the physical space. It can be mapped to a region within the Gibbs triangle (Fig. \[subfig:gibbsspace\]) surrounded by the three trajectories of the two-phase transitions. Similar to the interfacial tensions, the line tension is the excess grand potential per unit length. Its value depends on the form of the potential within this core area and, of course, the coefficients of gradient energy.
In this article, we extend our previous model to more realistic systems. Specifically, we use geometrical reasoning to construct generalized quartic potentials with three minima arbitrarily located within the Gibbs triangle. For a subset of these potentials, the resulting potential is a linear transformation of our original potential and we can obtain simple analytic far-field solutions. We connect these solutions to our original potential by scaling. For some special cases, we relate interfacial tensions and line tension to the lengths of the sides and the area of the small triangle formed by the three minima.
Generalized Quartic Potentials {#sec:gpqf}
==============================
To find more general quartic potentials with arbitrary mimina, while maintaining the condition of constant molar density, we start with a discussion of quartic functions with two independent variables that correspond to two independent mole fractions. In general, a two-variable quartic polynomial can be expressed by $$\label{eq:fxy}
f(X,Y)=\sum\limits_{n=0}^{4} \sum\limits_{i=0}^{n} a_{i,n-i} X^i Y^{n-i},$$ which contains 15 independent parameters $a_{i,n-i}$. However, we need a form such that $f$ is positive except for $f=0$ at the three minima, which gives us three equations relating the coefficients. At each of the minima, we require $\partial f/\partial X = \partial f/\partial Y=0$, which amounts to six conditions. Furthermore, in order to have parabolic potential wells, we need the second derivatives of $f$ to satisfy the following inequalities at the three minima: $\partial^2 f/\partial X^2>0$ (or $\partial^2 f/\partial Y^2 > 0$) and $(\partial^2 f/\partial X^2)(\partial^2 f/\partial Y^2)-(\partial^2 f/\partial X\partial Y)^2 >0$. This gives us six inequalities. In general, we have $15-3-6=6$ free parameters together with six additional constraints.
In this framework, our original potential in is a special case which has only one parameter, $a$, representing the size or orientation (magnification or inversion) of the equilateral triangle formed by the three minima [@lin2012mean sec. II.A, discussion after eq. 14]. In the development to follow, we obtain a positive potential by assuming it to be a sum of squares of various expressions. We break the symmetry of our original potential by locating the three minima at the vertices of a small triangle having any shape and orientation within the Gibbs triangle. In the following discussion, we use the term a “small triangle” to denote an inner triangle formed by the three minima of a given potential within the Gibbs triangle.
First Generalization
--------------------
At first, we explore the structure of our original potential $f^o$ in . $X_i$ can be expressed as a function of two independent Cartesian variables $u$ and $v$, i.e. $X_i=X_i(u,v)$ as illustrated in Fig. \[subfig:gibbsspace\]. In [@lin2012mean], we showed that $f^o$ can be scaled to the form $$\label{eq:finxcorner}
\tilde{f}= \frac{f^o}{(a-b)^4}=\sum\limits_{i=1}^3 Y_i(u,v)^2(Y_i(u,v)-1)^2,$$ where $Y_i(u,v)=(X_i(u,v)-b)/(a-b)$ are scaled mole fractions, and $\sum_{i=1}^{3} Y_i=1$. This form is equivalent to $f^o$ when $a=1$. For simplicity, we mainly compare new potentials to $\tilde{f}$.
As illustrated in Fig. \[subfig:gibbsminimacornerwithyi\], we specify explicitly the Cartesian coordinates $(u,v)$ for $Y_i(u,v)$ $$\label{eq:xtouv}
\begin{split}
Y_1(u,v) &=-\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} u - \frac{v}{2} +1 \\
Y_2(u,v) &=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} u - \frac{v}{2} \\
Y_3(u,v) &= v.
\end{split}$$ In , the symbols $u$ and $v$ bear the same relationship to the scaled mole fractions $Y_i$ as $u$ and $v$ in Fig \[subfig:gibbsspace\] do to the unscaled mole fractions $X_i$. The three minima of the potential $\tilde{f}$ in , namely $\alpha=(u_1^0,v_1^0)=(0,0)$, $\beta=(u_2^0,v_2^0)=(2/\sqrt{3},0)$, and $\gamma=(u_3^0,v_3^0)=(1/\sqrt{3},1)$ are located at the three corners of the Gibbs triangle as in Fig. \[subfig:gibbsminimacornerwithyi\], consistent with the contour plot in Fig. \[subfig:gibbsminimacornersample\]. Note that $Y_i(u_j^0,v_j^0)=Y_i(u_k^0,v_k^0)=0$ for $j \neq k \neq i$, and $Y_i(u_i^0,v_i^0)=1$.
If we define two sets of linear functions $L_i^0(u,v)\equiv Y_i(u,v)$ and $I_i^0(u,v) \equiv Y_i(u,v)-1 = L_i^0(u,v)-1$, the form of the potential $\tilde{f}$ can be expressed as $$\label{eq:finLI}
\tilde{f}=\sum\limits_{i=1}^3 L_i^0(u,v)^2 I_i^0(u,v)^2.$$ As shown in Fig. \[subfig:gibbsminimacornerwithyi\], $L_i^0=0$ is a line in the Gibbs space that passes through two minima $(u_j^0,v_j^0)$ and $(u_k^0,v_k^0)$, where $j \neq k \neq i$, and $I_i^0=0$ is a line parallel to $L_i=0$ that passes through the remaining minimum $(u_i^0,v_i^0)$. For each minimum of $\tilde{f}$, there are three intersecting lines.
Based on the geometrical interpretation of the form of the potential $\tilde{f}$, we can generalize its structure by allowing these pairs of parallel lines to move and requiring the intersections of three lines to be located within the Gibbs triangle. To generate a potential function with the desired properties, we locate the three minima arbitrarily, $\alpha=(u_1,v_1)$, $\beta=(u_2,v_2)$, and $\gamma=(u_3,v_3)$, within the Gibbs triangle the potential . Then, we define two sets of linear functions $L_i(u,v)$ and $I_i(u,v)$, where $L_i(u,v)=0$ is a line passing through two minima $(u_j,v_j)$ and $(u_k,v_k)$ for $j \neq k \neq i$, and $I_i(u,v)=0$ is a line parallel to $L_i(u,v)=0$ and passing through the remaining minimum $(u_i,v_i)$.
As illustrated in Fig. \[subfig:gibbsminimatlt\], the line $L_i=0$ coincides with the side of the small triangle opposite to the vertex $i$, while the line $I_i=0$ passes through the vertex $i$ and is parallel to the line $L_i=0$. Thus, a generalized potential with arbitrary mimina is given by $$\label{eq:finLIgeneralized}
f_g=\sum\limits_{i=1}^3 d_i^2 L_i(u,v)^2 I_i(u,v)^2,$$ where the $d_i$ are nonzero weighting coefficients that relate to the curvatures along the lines that connect each pair of potential wells. For each term, $L_i(u,v)^2 I_i(u,v)^2$ represents a positive quartic function that vanishes along two parallel lines $L_i(u,v)=0$ and $ I_i(u,v)=0$. We need all three terms to produce a positive quartic function that vanishes at the three points $(u_i,v_i)_{i=1,2,3}$ which are the intersections of three lines chosen from the three pairs of parallel lines. Contours for such a potential are illustrated in Fig. \[subfig:gibbsminimatltsample\].
The choice of $L_i(u,v)$ and $I_i(u,v)$ for the potential $f_g$ in is somewhat arbitrary but we use specific forms of $L_i(u,v)$ and $I_i(u,v)$ and a weighting coefficient for each term to maintain generality. The specific forms of $L_i(u,v)$ and $I_i(u,v)$ that we use are $$\label{eq:LiIi}
\begin{split}
L_i(u,v) & \equiv C_{ijk}[(u-u_j)v_{jk} - (v-v_j)u_{jk}] \\
& = C_{ijk}[(u-u_k)v_{jk} - (v-v_k)u_{jk}] \\
I_i(u,v) & \equiv L_i(u,v) -h \\
& = C_{ijk} [(u-u_i)v_{jk} - (v-v_i)u_{jk}] ,
\end{split}$$ where $C_{ijk} \equiv (\epsilon_{ijk}+\lvert \epsilon_{ijk} \rvert)/2$, $\epsilon_{ijk}$ is the Levi-Civita symbol for three dimensions, $u_{jk} \equiv u_j-u_k$ and $v_{jk} \equiv v_j-v_k$; moreover, $h= L_i(u_i,v_i) = 2 A$, and $A$ is the area of the small triangle. For simplicity, we require the indices of the three vertices to be numbered counterclockwise. Note that $$\label{eq:h}
h = \sum\limits_{(i,j,k)\in \lbrace 1,2,3\rbrace} \epsilon_{ijk}u_jv_k
= \left\lvert \begin{array}{ccc} 1 & 1 & 1 \\ u_1 & u_2 & u_3 \\ v_1 & v_2 & v_3 \end{array} \right\rvert.$$
If we express $L_i$ and $h$ in terms of two independent mole fractions $Y_1$ and $Y_2$, we obtain $$\begin{split}
L_i & = \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}C_{ijk}\left[(Y_1-Y_1^{(k)})Y_2^{(jk)} - (Y_2-Y_2^{(k)})Y_1^{(jk)} \right] \\
h & = \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}\sum\limits_{(i,j,k)\in \lbrace 1,2,3\rbrace} \epsilon_{ijk}Y_1^{(j)}Y_2^{(k)},
\end{split}$$ in which we have defined $Y_i^{(jk)} \equiv Y_i^{(j)} - Y_i^{(k)}$ and expressed the three minima $(u_i,v_i)_{i=1,2,3}$ in terms of $(Y_1^{(i)},Y_2^{(i)})_{i=1,2,3}$ by using the relation of $(u,v)$ and $Y_i$.
The form of the potential $f_g$ has three coefficients $d_i$ and six parameters $(u_i,v_i)$ that locate the positions of the three minima, nine parameters in total. One could take out a common factor without changing the nature of the potential. From the discussion in Page for the desired properties of a general quartic potential given by , we know that there are six free parameters, which means there are three parameters that might be able to be merged with others.
From the forms and of the potential $\tilde{f}$, our original potential $f^o$ divided by a factor $(a-b)^4$ can be viewed as a special case of the potential $f_g$ given by , in which the three minima form an equilateral small triangle with one parameter $a$ related to its size. With this parameter, we can scale the small triangle from the Gibbs triangle to its center point with zero area. To add degrees of freedom to allow this equilateral small triangle to move around within the Gibbs triangle, we can add two extra parameters corresponding to translations in two perpendicular directions. For arbitrary shape and orientation of the small triangle, we need a parameter corresponding to rotation and two parameters for distortion, such as changes of two inner angles. In general, these operations correspond to a linear transformation with six free parameters, which will be discussed in Section \[sec:lineartransform\].
The general properties of the potential $f_g$ in have been tested by performing calculations of its first and second derivatives with respect to $u$ and $v$. For details, see [@lin2012meanthesis sec. 5.1.1]. From these calculations, we prove that $f_g$, which is a generalization of potential $\tilde{f}$ in , satisfies our desired properties of a quartic polynomial, as discussed in the beginning of Sec. \[sec:gpqf\]. We also calculated the eigenvalues of the Hessian matrix $H$, which is the matrix in terms of the second derivatives of $f_g$ with respect to $u$ and $v$. These eigenvalues $\lambda_{\pm}$ are the principle curvatures at the mimina, i.e. $$\label{eq:eigenvalueshessianfg}
\begin{split}
\lambda_{\pm}= & h^2 \left\lbrace \sum\limits_{i=1}^{3} d_i^2 S_i^2 \right. \\
\pm & \left. \sqrt{ \left(\sum\limits_{i=1}^{3} d_i^2 S_i^2 \right)^2 - 4 h^2 \sum\limits_{(i,j,k) \in \{ 1,2,3\}} C_{i,j,k} d_j^2 d_k^2 } \right\rbrace,
\end{split}$$ where $S_i\equiv C_{ijk} \sqrt{u_{jk}^2 + v_{jk}^2}$ is the length of the side of the small triangle opposite to the vertex $(u_i,v_i)$, as in Fig. \[fig:gibbsminimasigmageometry\]. Note that both of its eigenvalues $\lambda_{\pm}$ are positive. For the case that all $d_i=1$ and $S_1=S_2=S_3=(2/\sqrt{3})(a-b)$, the eigenvalues of $H$ in reduce to $$\lambda_{\pm} = \frac{2}{3} (a-b)^6 (2 \pm \sqrt{3})$$ which connects to our original potential $f^o$ in . When $a=b=1/3$, these two eigenvalues vanish, which means the curvatures vanish. This is equivalent to the bulk criticality for $f^o$, for which the three minima merge to a one minimum located at the center of the Gibbs triangle. In this case, the three mole fractions are uniform throughout the physical space, i.e. $X_i=1/3$. The resulting intefacial and line tensions at the vicinity of this critical value scale consistently with previously determined results in our earlier work [@lin2012mean], in which the ratio of their exponents in terms of $\lvert X_i-1/3 \rvert$ satisfies the mean-field approximation in [@varea1992statistical].
Second Generalization
---------------------
The potential $f_g$ in can be generalized by replacing $I_i$ with an arbitrary linear function that passes through a point $(u_i,v_i)$, which is not necessarily parallel ot $L_i$. For details, see Appendix \[sec:appendixA\]. We also observed that $I_i(u,v)^2$ of $f_g$ does not have to vanish on a line $I_i(u,v)=0$. It can be replaced by a positive quadratic function $K_i(u,v)$ which is a paraboloid in three dimensional space that vanishes only at the point $(u_i,v_i)$. In general, $K_i(u,v)$ can be expressed as $$\label{eq:ki}
K_i (u,v) \equiv [a_i(u-u_i) + b_i(v-v_i)]^2 + c_i^2 (v-v_i)^2,$$ where $a_i$, $b_i$, and $c_i$ are three coefficients, and $c_i \ne 0$. Then a more general potential, as illustrated in Fig. \[subfig:gibbsminimageneral\], can be expressed in the form $$\label{eq:finLK}
f_G=\sum\limits_{i=1}^3 L_i(u,v)^2 K_i(u,v).$$
$f_G$ in is the most general potential we have explored. It has nine coefficients and six parameters $(u_i,v_i)$ for the positions of the three minima. Thus, it has 15 coefficients in total. We note that when $a_i = C_{ijk} d_i v_{jk}$, $b_i = -C_{ijk} d_i u_{jk}$, and $c_i=0$, $f_G$ reduces to the potential $f_g$ in . Therefore, $f_g$ is a subset of $f_G$, where $f_G$ has six extra parameters corresponding to the orientations of the three potential wells, as well as the general shape of the potential. Recall the properties for the desired potential: the potential has to be positive throughout the entire domain and has three minima at zero potential; at these minima, the first derivatives vanish and the Hessien matrices for second derivatives are positive definite. These properties have been tested in [@lin2012meanthesis sec. 5.1.2].
![Schematic representation of the generalization from a potential $\tilde{f}$ in to the potential $f_g$ in of similar form and to the more general potential $f_G$ in . At the LHS of this figure, there are three pairs of two parallel lines. The three minima of $\tilde{f}$ are located at the three nodes where lines intersect and form a small equilateral triangle. In the middle of this figure, we generalize $\tilde{f}$ to $f_g$ by allowing the three minima of $f_g$ to be at arbitrary locations. In this case, the three pairs of parallel lines determine the three minima. The RHS of this figure shows a further generalization in which each minimum of $f_G$ is located by two lines and a point. []{data-label="fig:gibbsminimaevolution"}](gibbsminimaevolution.eps)
Fig. \[fig:gibbsminimaevolution\] presents a schematic summary of the generalization from the quartic potential $\tilde{f}$ in (equivalent to our original potential $f^o$ in $\eqref{eq:potential0}$ when $a=1$) to a similar form of the potential $f_g$ and to a more general quartic form of the potential $f_G$. In the LHS of Fig. \[fig:gibbsminimaevolution\], we see that the three minima of $\tilde{f}$ form an equilateral small triangle and each minimum is located at an intersection of three lines. These lines consist of three pairs of two parallel lines. For each pair, there is a line passing through two minima and a parallel line passing through the remaining minimum. Each line corresponds to a paraboloid that vanishes at this line, and each pair of parallel lines corresponds to the minima of a quartic function. Thus, $\tilde{f}$ is a sum of three quartic function. As a generalization, in the middle of Fig. \[fig:gibbsminimaevolution\], the three minima of $f_g$ form a small triangle of arbitrary shape. The rules of selecting parallel pairs of lines and constructing corresponding quartic functions for $f_g$ are the same as for $\tilde{f}$. The RHS of Fig. \[fig:gibbsminimaevolution\] shows a further generalized potential $f_G$, where each minimum is not located at an intersection of three lines but two lines and a point. In this case, each pair of parallel lines in $f_g$ is transformed to a line passing through two minima and a point at the remaining minimum. To compose $f_G$, we need two sets of quadratic functions. The one in first set vanishes along a line and the one in the second set vanishes at a point.
Generalized Potentials with Analytic Far-field Solutions
========================================================
Straight line trajectory of two-phase transition {#sec:straightlinetrajectory}
------------------------------------------------
In section \[sec:gpqf\], we introduced a systematic way to find quartic generalized potentials by means of geometric considerations. In order to find the asymptotic solutions for two-phase transitions in physical space for each of the three interfaces in the regions far from the three-phase contact line, we need to know the corresponding trajectories for transitions between the pairs of wells of a given potential within the Gibbs triangle. According to the discussion in [@lin2012meanthesis sec. 2.4.1], the property of our original potential that leads us to simple far-field analytic solutions is that the trajectory of a transition between any two phases follows a straight line within the Gibbs triangle. From a geometric aspect, this straight line lies along a valley connecting a pair of minima; as one goes along this valley, the potential rises from a minimum, goes over a saddle point, and decreases, to another minimum. The first derivative and the second derivative of the potential with respect to the normal of this straight line in the Gibbs space are zero and positive, respectively. For the subset of generalized potentials that share this common property, we can find analytical far-field solutions. As shown in Appendix \[sec:appendixBformwithanalyticsoln\], the form of this subset is actually equivalent to the form of the generalized potential $f_g$.
Linear transformation {#sec:lineartransform}
---------------------
According to the geometric representation in section \[sec:gpqf\], as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:gibbsminimaevolution\], the form of the potential $\tilde{f}$ can be generalized to a similar quartic potential $f_g$ in with arbitrary minima $(u_1,v_1)$, $(u_2,v_2)$, and $(u_3,v_3)$ by choosing proper linear functions $L_i(u,v)$ and $I_i(u,v)$. In this way, the obtained potential has six parameters $\lbrace u_i,v_i \rbrace_{i=1,2,3}$ and three weighting coefficients $\lbrace d_i \rbrace_{i=1,2,3}$, which match our earlier reasoning about using six parameters that correspond to operations such as scaling, translation, rotation, and distortion. Furthermore, we notice that these operations may be represented by linear transformations of our original potential.
To construct a linear transformation that maps the three minima from the corners of the Gibbs triangle to three arbitrary internal points $(u_1,v_1)$, $(u_2,v_2)$, and $(u_3,v_3)$ as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:gibbsminimalineartransf\], we write $$\begin{bmatrix}
u' \\ v'
\end{bmatrix}
= \begin{bmatrix}
\alpha & \beta \\ \gamma & \delta
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
u \\ v
\end{bmatrix}
+
\begin{bmatrix}
\xi \\ \eta
\end{bmatrix},$$ where $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$, $\delta$, $\xi$, and $\eta$ are six undetermined parameters. By substituting $(u_1,v_1)$, $(u_2,v_2)$, and $(u_3,v_3)$ for $(u',v')$, and the corresponding three corners $(0,0)$, $(2/\sqrt{3},0)$, and $(1/\sqrt{3},1)$ for $(u,v)$, we solve $$\begin{bmatrix}
u' \\ v'
\end{bmatrix}
= \begin{bmatrix}
-\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}u_{12}& \frac{1}{2}u_{12} +u_{31} \\ -\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}v_{12}& \frac{1}{2}v_{12} + v_{31}
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
u \\ v
\end{bmatrix}
+
\begin{bmatrix}
u_1 \\ v_1
\end{bmatrix},$$ where $u_{ij}\equiv u_i- u_j$ and $ v_{ij}\equiv v_i- v_j$. Then, by matrix inversion, we find $$\label{eq:uvtouvprime}
\begin{bmatrix}
u \\ v
\end{bmatrix}
= \frac{2}{\sqrt{3} h}\begin{bmatrix}
\frac{1}{2}v_{12} + v_{31} & - \frac{1}{2}u_{12} - u_{31} \\ \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}v_{12}& -\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}u_{12}
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
u'-u_1 \\ v'-v_1
\end{bmatrix},$$ where $h \neq 0$ is twice the area of the small triangle, defined in and .
![Schematic linear transformation from the three corners of the Gibbs triangle to three arbitrary internal points $(u_1,v_1)$, $(u_2,v_2)$, and $(u_3,v_3)$ within it.[]{data-label="fig:gibbsminimalineartransf"}](gibbsminimalineartransf.eps)
A generalization of the potential $\tilde{f}$ in with weighting coefficients $e_i$ can be expressed in terms of two independent Cartesian mole fractions $u$ and $v$ as follows: $$\label{eq:fdaggerinuv}
\begin{split}
f^{\dagger}(u,v) & \equiv f^{\dagger}(Y_1(u,v), Y_2(u,v),Y_3(u,v)) \\
& \equiv \sum\limits_{i=1}^{3} e_i^2 Y_i(u,v)^2 (Y_i(u,v)-1)^2.
\end{split}$$ To construct a new potential with three minima located at $(u_1,v_1)$, $(u_2,v_2)$, and $(u_3,v_3)$, we replace $Y_i(u,v)$ in by $$Z_i(u',v')\equiv Y_i(u(u',v'),v(u',v')),$$ where the linear transformation from $(u',v')$ to $(u,v)$ has been used. Then (see [@lin2012meanthesis] for details), we find (after dropping the primes) $$\label{eq:zi}
Z_i(u,v) = \frac{L_i(u,v)}{h},$$ where, as defined in , $L_i$ is a linear function that satisfies $L_i(u_j,v_j)=0$ and $L_i(u_k,v_k)=0$ for $(j \neq k \neq i)$; whereas $L_i(u_i,v_i)=h$, which leads to $Z_i(u_i,v_i)=1$. Note that $\sum_{i=1}^3 Z_i =1$. Thus, the new potential is defined as $$\label{eq:fast}
\begin{split}
f^{\ast}(u,v) & \equiv f^{\dagger}(Z_1(u,v),Z_2(u,v),Z_3(u,v)) \\
& = \sum_{i=1}^3 e_i^2 Z_i(u,v)^2(Z_i(u,v)-1)^.
\end{split}$$
With the definition of the new potential $f^{\ast}$, we find that $\{f^{\ast}(u_i,v_i)=0\}_{i=1,2,3}$, which shows that the three mimina of $f^{\ast}$ are located at $\lbrace(u_i,v_i)\rbrace_{i=1,2,3}$. By expressing $f^{\ast}$, which relates to the potential $f^{\dagger}$ in (generalized from the potential $\tilde{f}$ in ) by a linear transformation, in terms of $L_i$, i.e. $$f^{\ast} = \sum_{i=1}^3 \frac{e_i}{h^4}^2 L_i^2(L_i-h)^2 = \sum_{i=1}^3 d_i^2 L_i^2I_i^2 = f_g,$$ where $d_i \equiv e_i/h^2$, we obtain exactly the potential $f_g$ in . Thus, $f_g$ is a linear transformation from the original potential $\tilde{f}$ with extra weighting coefficients. This is the reason that $\tilde{f}$ and $f_g$ share a common property: the two-phase transitions in the physical domain follow straight lines in the Gibbs space.
Notice that the structure of the two-density quartic potential used by Widom *et al* [@szleifer1992surface; @koga2010first] actually belongs to the general category indicated by the form of the potential $f_g$. The two relative densities of their potential can be treated as our two Cartesian mole fractions $u$ and $v$. We can scale their potential in terms of three dimensionless quantities similar to the $Z_i$ in our expression and obtain a form similar to $f_g$. However, their systems do not follow the assumption of uniform molar volume. Therefore, in their systems, the sum of the quantities $\sum_{i=1}^3 Z_i \neq 1$ and cannot be mapped into our potentials.
Scaling {#sec:scaling}
-------
From Sec. \[sec:lineartransform\], we know that the potential $f_g$ in and the potential $\tilde{f}$ in can be connected by a linear transformation. In general, a problem involved $f_g$ can be solved by scaling into a form like $\tilde{f}$, which we studied in [@lin2012mean sec. IV.C]. As an example, we consider the excess grand potential given by but with $f \rightarrow f_g$, namely $$\label{eq:omegaxsuv}
\hat{\Omega}_{xs} = B L \int_A \left[ f_g(u,v) + g( \nabla u, \nabla v) \right] \mathrm{d}A.$$ We express the gradient energy in terms of two Cartesian mole fractions $u$ and $v$, $$\label{eq:ginuv}
g(\nabla u, \nabla v)=\epsilon_u \lvert \nabla u \rvert^2+ \epsilon_v \lvert \nabla v \rvert^2 + \epsilon_{uv} (\nabla u \cdot \nabla v),$$ where $\epsilon_u= (3/8)(\ell_1^2 + \ell_2^2)$, $\epsilon_v= (1/8)(\ell_1^2 + \ell_2^2) + (1/2)\ell_3^2$, and $\epsilon_{uv}=(\sqrt{3}/4)(\ell_1^2 - \ell_2^2)$. For isotropic gradient energy, $\ell_i \equiv \ell$, we have $\epsilon_u = \epsilon_v = (3/4)\ell^2$ and $\epsilon_{uv}=0$. According to the scaling from $(u,v)$ to $L_i$, we can express $\hat{\Omega}_{xs}$ as $$\label{eq:omegaxsuvh}
\begin{split}
\hat{\Omega}_{xs} & = B L \int_A \left[\sum_{i=1}^3 d_i^2 L_i^2 I_i^2 + g(\nabla u, \nabla v) \right] \mathrm{d}A \\
& = B L h^4 \int_A \sum_{i=1}^3 \left[ d_i^2 Z_i^2(Z_i-1)^2 + \frac{\hat{\ell}_i^2}{2} \lvert \nabla Z_i\rvert^2 \right] \mathrm{d}A,
\end{split}$$ where $$\label{eq:ellinuv}
\begin{split}
\hat{\ell}_1^2 & = - \frac{2}{h^4}[\epsilon_u u_{12} u_{31} + \epsilon_v v_{12} v_{31} + \frac{\epsilon_{uv}}{2} (u_{12} v_{31} + v_{12} u_{31} )]\\
\hat{\ell}_2^2 & = - \frac{2}{h^4}[\epsilon_u u_{23} u_{12} + \epsilon_v v_{23} v_{12} + \frac{\epsilon_{uv}}{2} (u_{23} v_{12} + v_{23} u_{12} )]\\
\hat{\ell}_3^2 & = - \frac{2}{h^4}[\epsilon_u u_{31} u_{23} + \epsilon_v v_{31} v_{23} + \frac{\epsilon_{uv}}{2} (u_{31} v_{23} + v_{31} u_{23} )].
\end{split}$$
### Case: $d_i=1$
Consider a special case of the potential $f_g$ in when all of the weighting coefficients are equal to one, i.e. $d_i=1$. According to the asymptotic analysis in our previous work [@lin2012mean sec. II.C], we know how to obtain analytical solutions for two-phase transitions in a region far from the three-phase contact line for the form of the excess grand potential $\hat{\Omega}_{xs}$. These solutions show that the interfacial tension $\hat{\sigma}_{\alpha \beta}$ is proportional to $\sqrt{\hat{\ell}_1^2 + \hat{\ell}_2^2}$, and the similar relations applied to $\hat{\sigma}_{\gamma \alpha}$ and $\hat{\sigma}_{\beta \gamma}$ (see [@lin2012mean eq. 25]). So we can express the relation of the dihedral angles and the interfacial tensions as following: $$\label{eq:sinthetaintildeell}
\frac{\sin \theta_{\alpha}}{\sqrt{\hat{\ell}_2^2 + \hat{\ell}_3^2}} = \frac{\sin \theta_{\beta}}{\sqrt{\hat{\ell}_3^2 + \hat{\ell}_1^2}} = \frac{\sin \theta_{\gamma}}{\sqrt{\hat{\ell}_1^2 + \hat{\ell}_2^2}},$$ in which the denominators can be obtained by calculating the sums of pairs of $\hat{\ell}_i^2$ in , $$\label{eq:twotildeellsq}
\begin{split}
\hat{\ell}_1^2 +\hat{\ell}_2^2& = \frac{2}{h^4}[\epsilon_u u_{12}^2 + \epsilon_v v_{12}^2 + \epsilon_{uv} u_{12} v_{12}]\\
\hat{\ell}_2^2 +\hat{\ell}_3^2& = \frac{2}{h^4}[\epsilon_u u_{23}^2 + \epsilon_v v_{23}^2 + \epsilon_{uv} u_{23} v_{23}]\\
\hat{\ell}_3^2 +\hat{\ell}_1^2& = \frac{2}{h^4}[\epsilon_u u_{31}^2 + \epsilon_v v_{31}^2 + \epsilon_{uv} u_{31} v_{31}].
\end{split}$$
### Case: $d_i=1$ and $\ell_i=\ell$ {#sec:dieq1ellieqell}
Following by the discussion in Sec. \[sec:dieq1ellieqell\] for the special case with equal weighting coefficients $d_i=1$ of the potential $f_g$ in , a subset of this special case posses an interesting property. This subset is specified by assuming the gradient energy $g$ in is isotropic, given by $\ell_i=\ell$. Then, the sums of pairs of $\hat{\ell}_i^2$ in become $$\label{eq:twotildeellsqsimple}
\begin{split}
\hat{\ell}_1^2 +\hat{\ell}_2^2& = \frac{3\ell^2}{2h^4}[u_{12}^2 + v_{12}^2]=\frac{3\ell^2}{2h^4}S_3^2\\
\hat{\ell}_2^2 +\hat{\ell}_3^2& = \frac{3\ell^2}{2h^4}[u_{23}^2 + v_{23}^2]=\frac{3\ell^2}{2h^4}S_1^2\\
\hat{\ell}_3^2 +\hat{\ell}_1^2& = \frac{3\ell^2}{2h^4}[u_{31}^2 + v_{31}^2]=\frac{3\ell^2}{2h^4}S_2^2,
\end{split}$$ where $S_i$ is the length of the side of the small triangle opposite to the vertex $(u_i,v_i)$, defined earlier in the expression for the eigenvalues $\lambda_{\pm}$ of the Hessian matrix of $f_g$. Then, the relation of dihedral angles in reduces to $$\label{eq:sinthetainsi}
\frac{\sin \theta_{\alpha}}{S_1} = \frac{\sin \theta_{\beta}}{S_2} = \frac{\sin \theta_{\gamma}}{S_3}.$$ Therefore, for this special case, the sine of each dihedral angle of a bulk phase is proportional to the length of the side of the small triangle opposite to the vertex corresponding to the given bulk phase. This is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:gibbsminimasigmageometry\] and will be revisited in Sec. \[sec:caseequalweightisotropic\].
Notice that, in general, $\hat{\ell}_1 \neq \hat{\ell}_2 \neq \hat{\ell}_3$ in , which leads to the lengths $S_i$ of the three edges of the small triangle unequal. According to the relation of the dihedral angles and $S_i$, the three dihedral angles are different. Therefore, $f_g$ is capable of representing an asymmetric three-phase contact line with isotropic gradient energy
Asymptotic far-field solutions {#sec:fgasymptoticsolution}
------------------------------
Alternatively, we can find the relationship of the dihedral angles of a system specified by the potential $f_g$ in directly. We consider a transition from phase $\beta=(u_2,v_2)$ to phase $\alpha=(u_1,v_1)$, which follows a straight line $L_3=0$ within the Gibbs triangle as illustrated in Fig. \[subfig:gibbsminimatlt\]. In the far-field limit, the transition occurs in a regime far from the three-phase contact line in the physical space. In this regime, the three mole fractions $Y_i$ satisfy the boundary condition $\nabla Y_i \cdot \hat{n}=0$. By assuming $u_{12} \neq 0$, we can interchange $v$ with $u$ according to $L_3=0$, i.e. $v-v_2=(v_{12}/u_{12})(u-u_2)$ and $v-v_1=(v_{12}/u_{12})(u-u_1)$. Then the problem is essentially a one-dimensional problem. The excess grand potential $\hat{\Omega}_{xs}$ in reduces to the form $$\label{eq:omegaxs1dL12}
\hat{\Omega}_{xs} = BLw \left(\frac{h}{u_{12}}\right)^4 \mathlarger{\int} \left[ H(u) + \hat{\epsilon}_{uv} \left( \frac{\mathrm{d}u}{\mathrm{d}s} \right)^2 \right] \mathrm{d}s,$$ where $s$ is a coordinate perpendicular to the $\alpha \beta$-interface measured from $\beta$ to $\alpha$ and $w$ is the width of an area in the far field regime as illustrated in the bottom of Fig. \[fig:realgibbscompare\] (for details, see [@lin2012mean fig. 4]), $H(u)\equiv (d_1^2 + d_2^2)(u-u_1)^2(u-u_2)^2$, and $\hat{\epsilon}_{uv}=(u_{12}^2/h^4)(\epsilon_u u_{12}^2 + \epsilon_v v_{12}^2 + \epsilon_{uv} u_{12} v_{12})$. The limits of integration are effectively from $-\infty$ to $\infty$.
Following the variational method introduced in [@lin2012mean sec. II.C] (details in [@lin2012meanthesis sec. 5.2.3]), we obtain the far-field solution for $u$ at the $\alpha \beta$-interface, $$\label{eq:uint12}
u(s)=\frac{u_1+u_2}{2} + \frac{u_1-u_2}{2} \tanh \left[\frac{s}{\delta_{int,\alpha \beta}} \right],$$ where we choose $s=0$ as $u=(u_1+u_2)/2$ and define the interfacial width parameter of the $\alpha \beta$-interface as $$\label{eq:intwidth12u}
\delta_{int,\alpha \beta} \equiv \frac{2}{\lvert u_{12} \rvert} \sqrt{\frac{ \hat{\epsilon}_{uv}}{(d_1^2 + d_2^2)}} = \sqrt{2}\sqrt{\frac{\hat{\ell}_1^2 +\hat{\ell}_2^2}{d_1^2 + d_2^2}}.$$ Alternatively, if $u_{12}=0$, we can use the relation of $L_3=0$ to obtain $v(s)$ for the $\alpha \beta$-interface $$v(s)=\frac{v_1+v_2}{2} + \frac{v_1-v_2}{2} \tanh \left[\frac{s}{\delta_{int,\alpha \beta}} \right].$$ Fig. \[fig:xfarplotfgalphabeta\] illustrates the analytic far-field solutions for the mole fraction $Y_i$ at the $\alpha \beta$-interface for the special case in which all of the weighting coefficient are constants $d_i=1$ and the gradient energy is isotropic $\ell_i= 1$ ($\epsilon_u=\epsilon_v=3/4$ and $\epsilon_{uv}=0$). Compared to the similar analytic far-field solutions for our original potential $f^o$ given by in [@lin2012mean fig. 5], the mole fraction $Y_3$ is no longer a constant and, in general, the solutions for $Y_1$ and $Y_2$ are not symmetric with respect to the interface.
![Analytic far-field solutions for the mole fraction $Y_i$ for a special case of the potential $f_g$ in at the $\alpha \beta$-interface. In this special case, $d_i=1$ and $\ell_i=1$ ($\epsilon_u=\epsilon_v=3/4$ and $\epsilon_{uv}=0$). The three minima of $f_g$ are $(u_1,v_1)=(0.3087,0.1667)$, $(u_2,v_2)=(0.9060,0.1167)$, and $(u_3,v_3)=(0.4974,0.6667)$.[]{data-label="fig:xfarplotfgalphabeta"}](xfarplotfgalphabeta.eps)
The interfacial tension of the $\alpha \beta$-interface in the far-field limit is given by $$\label{eq:gamma12u}
\hat{\sigma}_{\alpha \beta} = \frac{\sqrt{(d_1^2 + d_2^2)\hat{\epsilon}_{uv}}}{3\lvert u_{12} \rvert} B h^4 = \frac{\sqrt{(d_1^2 + d_2^2)(\hat{\ell}_1^2 +\hat{\ell}_2^2)}}{3 \sqrt{2}} B h^4.$$ We can calculate the interfacial tensions of the $\beta \gamma $-interface and the $\gamma \alpha$-interface by the same method. Compared to the previous result of the equilibrium dihedral angles for a system with potential $f_g$, a more general relation obeys $$\begin{split}
\frac{\sin \theta_{\alpha}}{\sqrt{(d_2^2 + d_3^2)(\hat{\ell}_2^2 +\hat{\ell}_3^2)}} &=\frac{\sin \theta_{\beta}}{\sqrt{(d_3^2 + d_1^2)(\hat{\ell}_3^2 +\hat{\ell}_1^2)}} \\
& =\frac{\sin \theta_{\gamma}}{\sqrt{(d_1^2 + d_2^2)(\hat{\ell}_1^2 +\hat{\ell}_2^2)}}.
\end{split}$$
Geometry of Interfacial Tension and Line Tension
================================================
Recall the discussion of the mapping from the physical space to the Gibbs space in the Sec. \[sec:mapping\]. In a ternary fluid system with three phases, the interfacial tensions associated with the three interfaces correspond to curved lines (trajectories) within the Gibbs triangle, that connect the three minima of a given potential. Each trajectory can be obtained by minimizing the excess grand potential for a two-phase transition in a far-field limit. These trajectories bound a region of the Gibbs space that associates with three-phase transitions. Consequently, the line tension associated with the three-phase contact line is determined by the excess grand potential within this region. This mapping implies a geometrical relationship among the values of interfacial and line tensions and the size and shape of the core area.
Here, we demonstrate this geometrical connection by some special cases of the specific potential $f_g$ given by , in which the core area is the small triangle formed by the minima of the potential within the Gibbs triangle.
Case: $d_i=1$ and $\ell_i=\ell$ {#sec:caseequalweightisotropic}
-------------------------------
As shown in the Sec. \[sec:straightlinetrajectory\], for the potential $f_g$ in , the trajectory for a two-phase transition follows a straight line. In the special case of $f_g$ discussed in Sec. \[sec:dieq1ellieqell\], all of the weighting coefficients $d_i=1$ and the gradient energy is isotropic, $\ell_i=\ell$. Compared to the form of the classical result, in which the sine of a dihedral angle is proportional to a corresponding interfacial tension, the relation in indicates that the sine of a dihedral angle is proportional to the length of the side of the small triangle, within the Gibbs triangle, opposite to the vertex for the corresponding bulk phase. This leads to the fact that the three interfacial tensions are proportional to the three lengths of the sides of the small triangle. It also implies that the small triangle is a Neumann triangle, which is similar to the computational boundary of the physical domain (see Fig. \[subfig:realspace\] and Fig. \[fig:gibbsminimasigmageometry\]).
![\[fig:gibbsminimasigmageometry\] Geometry of the three interfacial tensions in the Gibbs space for a special case of the potential $f_g$ given by , in which the weighting coefficients are equal to one $d_i=1$ and the gradient energy is isotropic $\ell_i=1$. The three vertices 1, 2, and 3 correspond to the three minima $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $\gamma$ of $f_g$. The length of the side of the small triangle opposite to the vertex $i$ is labeled by $S_i$, and the area of the small triangle is $A$. The interfacial tension of the $\alpha\beta$-interface $\hat{\sigma}_{\alpha \beta}$ is proportional to the length of the side of the small triangle that connects $\alpha$ and $\beta$, i.e. $S_3$. Similarly, $\hat{\sigma}_{\beta\gamma} \propto S_1$ and $\hat{\sigma}_{\gamma \alpha} \propto S_2$. $\theta_{\alpha}$, $\theta_{\beta}$, and $\theta_{\gamma}$ are the three dihedral angles corresponding to the three-phase contact line.](gibbsminimasigmageometry.eps)
To prove this property explicitly, we substitute $\hat{\ell}_1^2 +\hat{\ell}_2^2$ from into to obtain $$\hat{\sigma}_{\alpha \beta} = \frac{B \ell}{\sqrt{6}} h^2 S_3.$$ Similarly, for the $\beta \gamma$-interface and $\gamma \alpha$-interfaces, the tensions are $$\hat{\sigma}_{\beta \gamma} = \frac{B \ell}{\sqrt{6}} h^2 S_1 \mbox{ and } \hat{\sigma}_{\gamma \alpha} = \frac{B \ell}{\sqrt{6}} h^2 S_2.$$
Case: $d_i=1$, $\ell_i=\ell$, and $S_i = S$
-------------------------------------------
We consider a subset of the case treated in Sec. \[sec:caseequalweightisotropic\], in which the small triangle formed by the three minima of the potential $f_g$ in is equilateral, i.e. $S_i\equiv S$. Then, the area of the small triangle is $$\label{eq:area}
A=\frac{h}{2}=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{4}S^2.$$ From the relation between the sums of pairs of $\hat{\ell}_i^2$ and $S_i$, we find that $$\label{eq:elli}
\hat{\ell}^2_i \equiv \hat{\ell}^2=\frac{3\ell^2}{2h^4}\frac{S^2}{2}=\frac{3\ell^2}{2h^4} \frac{h}{\sqrt{3}}=\frac{\sqrt{3}\ell^2}{2h^3}.$$
According to the form of the excess grand potential $\hat{\Omega}_{xs}$, we use the Kerins-Boiteux formula [@KBpaper] to obtain a line tension associated with the three-phase contact line, $$\label{eq:taufg}
\begin{split}
\hat{\tau} & = B \int_A \left[ -f_g(u,v) + g( \nabla u, \nabla v) \right] \mathrm{d}A \\
& = B h^4 \int_A \sum_{i=1}^3 \left[ - Z_i^2(Z_i-1)^2 + \frac{\hat{\ell}^2}{2} \lvert \nabla Z_i\rvert^2 \right] \mathrm{d}A \\
& = Bh^4\hat{\ell}^2 \tilde{\tau},
\end{split}$$ where $\tilde{\tau}$ is the dimensionless quantity introduced in [@lin2012mean eq. 53]. Then, from the expressions for area $A$ in and $\hat{\ell}^2$ in , we find $$\label{eq:tauarea}
\hat{\tau} = \sqrt{3} A B\ell^2\tilde{\tau},$$ which is proportional to the area of the small triangle, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:gibbsminimataugeometry\].
![\[fig:gibbsminimataugeometry\] Geometry of the line tension in the Gibbs triangle for a special case of $f_g$ with equal weighting coefficients $d_i=1$, isotropic gradient energy $\ell_i=\ell$, and the small triangle formed by the three minima is equilateral. The line tension and the interfacial tensions are proportional to the area $A$ and the lengths of the sides of the small triangle, respectively.](gibbsminimataugeometry.eps)
From above cases, the small triangle in the Gibbs space not only tells us the compositions of the three bulk phases in terms of mole fractions from the locations of its three vertices; its size and shape also give us information about the equilibrium dihedral angles and the relative strengths of the interfacial tensions. Moreover, the line tension is proportional to the area of this small triangle.
Summary and Conclusions
=======================
We are interested in potentials that are positive semi-definite that vanish only at three mimima. Moreover, we choose to deal with potentials that vary quadratically around the three minima. We seek potentials in the form of quartic polynomials. Our original potential [@lin2012mean] is the sum of three quartic polynomials, each of which vanishes along two parallel lines in the Gibbs triangle. The three minima of our potential are located at the intersections of any three among these six lines. By recognizing this geometrical structure, we can construct generalized quartic potentials with three minima arbitrarily located at the vertices of a small triangle within the Gibbs triangle.
As a first generalization, for each vertex, we can choose a linear function that vanishes along a line that passes through a pair of vertices and another linear function that vanishes along a parallel line that passes through the remaining vertex. The squares of these two linear functions form paraboloids that vanish at these two lines. We use the product of these two paraboloids to construct one of the three quartic polynomials whose sum is the generalized potential. By performing similar constructions at the other two vertex pairs, we can build a potential which is the sum of three quartic polynomials that vanishes at only three points. Our original potential belongs to a subset of this generalization where the two “vanishing lines” of each quartic polynomials are parallel. To construct a potential in this subset, we need six parameters, namely the coordinates of the three minima and three weighting coefficients for each quartic polynomials. However, we find that each paraboloid that vanishes at a line passing through one vertex can be generalized to another paraboloid that only vanishes at a point, the vertex. By means of this second generalization, we construct another potential with nine parameters related to the shapes of the new paraboloids, and containing six parameters to characterize the three minima. We check the properties of these generalized potentials by studying their first and second derivatives.
Generalized potentials in which the valleys connecting any of the two minima follow straight lines in the Gibbs triangle have simple analytic far-field solutions. We prove that this subset of generalized potentials is a special case of our first generalization that was constructed by three pairs of parallel lines. Analytic far-field solutions of this subset are presented. Moreover, we find that this subset is a linear transformation of our original potential. By scaling, we can relate their solutions to those for our original potential. When the weighting coefficients of the potentials in this subset are equal and the gradient energy is isotropic, the lengths of the sides of the small triangle formed by the three minima are proportional to the corresponding interfacial tensions. For the case of equal interfacial tensions, we are able to calculate a line tension that is proportional to the area of the small triangle.
We appreciate the resources and the financial support for this work from the Department of Physics, Carnegie Mellon University. Financial support for C.-Y. Lin by KU Leuven Grant OT/11/063 and for Michael Widom from ONR-MURI under grant N00014-11-1-0678 is gratefully acknowledged.
{#sec:appendixA}
We can generalize the potential $f_g$ in by replacing $I_i$ with an arbitrary linear function $J_i$ that passes through $(u_i,v_i)$. If $J_i(u,v) \equiv a_i (u-u_i) + b_i (v-v_i)$, where $a_i$ and $b_i$ are arbitrary constants, we can obtain a generalized potential $$\label{eq:f1}
f_1=\sum\limits_{i=1}^3 L_i(u,v)^2 J_i(u,v)^2,$$ as illustrated in Fig. \[subfig:gibbsminimaf1\]. In this case, $J_i=0$ and $L_i=0$ do not need to be parallel.
For the special case in which $J_1$, $J_2$, and $J_3$ match with $L_2$, $L_3$, and $L_1$, we can define a potential that employs only three lines, namely $$\label{eq:f2}
\begin{split}
f_2 = & d_{12}^2 L_1(u,v)^2 L_2(u,v)^2 \\
& + d_{23}^2 L_2(u,v)^2 L_3(u,v)^2 + d_{31}^2 L_3(u,v)^2 L_1(u,v)^2,
\end{split}$$ where $d_{12}$, $d_{23}$, and $d_{31}$ are weighting coefficients. At each minimum, only two lines meet as illustrated in Fig. \[subfig:gibbsminimaf2\]. The contours of potential $f_2$ are shown in Fig. \[subfig:gibbsminimaf2sample\].
Note that $f_1$ in and $f_2$ in are special cases of the potential $f_G$ defined in .
{#sec:appendixBformwithanalyticsoln}
To study the general form of the subset of generalized potentials in which any two-phase transition follows a straight line, we explore the transition between two phases by means of a potential $f_{2D}$ that is a quartic function of three mole fractions having three minima $(u_1,v_1)$, $(u_2,v_2)$, and $(u_3,v_3)$ located at the three vertices of the Gibbs triangle. The potential function along any two of the three wells actually reduces to a one-dimensional potential $f_{1D}$. Consider the transition from $(u_1,v_1)$ to $(u_2,v_2)$ that follows a straight line $L_3=0$. We let $$\left. f_{2D} \right\rvert _{L_3=0} (u,v) = f_{1D}.$$ where $f_{1D}$ is a positive quartic potential function having two minima at $(u_1,v_1)$ and $(u_2,v_2)$. Since $f_{1D}$ follows a straight line $L_3=0$ within the Gibbs triangle, we can express $f_{1D}$ as a function of one variable. Then, we let $$f_{1D}(u) = (u-u_1)(u-u_2)g(u),$$ where $g(u)$ is a quadratic function of $u$. By requiring $\partial f_{1D}/ \partial u = 0$ at $u_1$ and $u_2$ and $\partial^2 f_{1D}/ \partial u^2 > 0$, we obtain $$f_{1D}(u) \propto (u-u_1)^2(u-u_2)^2.$$
We can generalize the contribution of $f_{1D}(u)$ to $f_{2D}(u,v)$, which is denoted as $f^{(1)}_{2D}$ by combination of $L_1(u,v)$ and $K_1(u,v)$, i.e. $$f^{(1)}_{2D} = L_1^2(u,v)K_1(u,v),$$ similar to the potential $f_G$ in , which vanishes at the three minima. However, if the transition between $(u_1,v_1)$ and $(u_2,v_2)$ follows the straight line $L_3=0$, we need $$\label{eq:dLKdhatL3eq0}
\left. \frac{\partial L_1^2(u,v)K_1(u,v)}{\partial \hat{L}_3}) \right\rvert_{L_3=0},$$ where $\hat{L}_3 \equiv (v_{12} , -u_{12})$ is a normal vector perpendicular to $L_3=0$ in the Gibbs space. Thus, we calculate $$\begin{split}
\frac{\partial (L_1^2 K_1)}{\partial \hat{L}_3} & \left.\right\rvert_{L_3=0}
= 2 \left(\frac{h}{v_{12}} \right) (v-v_1)(v-v_2)
\\
\times & \left\{ (v_{12})^2 \left[ \left(a_1 \frac{u_{12}}{v_{12}} +b_1 \right)^2 +c_1^2 \right] (v-v_1) \right.\\
& \;\; \left. - u_{12} \left(\frac{h}{v_{12}}\right) \left[ a_1 b_1 \frac{u_{12}}{v_{12}} + b_1^2 +c_1^2 \right] (v-v_2) \right\},
\end{split}$$ in which we substitute $(u-u_1)=(u_{12}/v_{12})(v-v_1)$ for $L_3=0$ by assuming $v_{12} \neq 0$. In general, $h \neq 0$, $u_{12} \neq 0$, $(v-v_1) \neq 0$, and $(v-v_2) \neq 0$. The nontrivial solution for is $a_1=v_{12}$, $b_1=-u_{12}$, and $c_1=0$. Then, $f^{(1)}_{2D}$ reduces to $$f^{(1)}_{2D} = L_1(u,v)^2 I_1(u,v)^2.$$
Similarly, we can apply this same analysis to the transitions of $(u_2,v_2) \leftrightarrow (u_3,v_3)$ and $(u_3,v_3) \leftrightarrow (u_1,v_1)$. Thus, we conclude that $$f_{2D} = f_g.$$ In Section \[sec:gpqf\], we have shown that the potential $f_g$ has our desired properties. Moreover, the two-phase transitions of $f_g$ follow straight lines in the space of the Gibbs triangle, which allows us to find analytical solutions in the far-field.
[^1]: Corresponding author
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We establish Marstrand-type as well as Besicovich-Federer-type projection theorems for closest-point projections onto hyperplanes in the normed space ${\mathbb{R}}^{n}$. In particular, we prove that if a norm on ${\mathbb{R}}^{n}$ is $C^{1,1}$-regular, then the analogues of the well-known statements from the Euclidean setting hold. On the other hand, we construct an example of a $C^{1}$-regular norm in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ for which Marstrand-type theorems fail. These results are obtained by comparison arguments.'
address: 'Mathematisches Institut, Universität Bern, Sidlerstrasse 5, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland'
author:
- Annina Iseli
bibliography:
- 'literature\_projections.bib'
title: 'Marstrand-type projection theorems for linear projections and in normed spaces'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
This paper is concerned with the behavior of Hausdorff measure and Hausdorff dimension under projections along linear foliations of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ and in finite dimensional normed spaces. Let $A\in {\mathbb{R}}^2$ be a Borel set. By $\dim A$ denote its Hausdorff dimension and by ${\mathscr{H}}^s$ its Hausdorff $s$-measure where $s>0$. For every angle $\theta\in [0,\pi)$ consider the orthogonal projection $P^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\,$\mathbb{E}$}}}_\theta:{\mathbb{R}}^2\to L_\theta$ of ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ onto the line $L_\theta=\{r(\cos\theta, \sin \theta):r\in {\mathbb{R}}\}\subset {\mathbb{R}}^2$. From the facts that $L_\theta$ is a set of dimension $1$ and that the projection $P^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\,$\mathbb{E}$}}}_\theta$ is a [$1$-Lipschitz]{} mapping, one easily deduces that $\dim P^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\,$\mathbb{E}$}}}_\theta A\leq \min\{1,\dim A\}$ for all $\theta\in [0,\pi)$. In 1954, Marstrand [@Marstrand1954] proved that given a Borel set $A\in {\mathbb{R}}^2$, the orthogonal projection of $A$ onto the line $L_\theta$ is a set of Hausdorff dimension $$\dim P^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\,$\mathbb{E}$}}}_{L_\theta}A=\min\{1,\dim A\}$$ for ${\mathscr{H}}^1$-a.e $\theta\in [0,\pi)$, i.e., given a Borel set $A$, there exists an ${\mathscr{H}}^1$-zero set $E\subset [0,\pi)$ such that $\dim P^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\,$\mathbb{E}$}}}_\theta A= \min\{1,\dim \}$ for all angles $\theta\in [0,\pi){\backslash}E$. This theorem marked the start of a long sequence of results in the same spirit. They are known as Marstrand-type projection theorems and we summarize some of them in Theorem \[thm\_euclidean\] below. In order to formally make sense of Theorem \[thm\_euclidean\] recall the following definitions. For positive integers $m<n$ we denote by $G(n,m)$ the Grass-mannian manifold, i.e. the family of $m$-dimensional linear subspaces ($m$-planes) of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. For every $m$-plane $V\in G(n,m)$, let $P^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\,$\mathbb{E}$}}}_V:{\mathbb{R}}^n\to V$ be the orthogonal projection of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ onto $V$. We will refer to the set $\{P^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\,$\mathbb{E}$}}}_V:V\in G(n,m)\}$ as the family of orthogonal projections (onto $m$-planes). Notice that the Grassmannian $G(n,m)$ is equipped with a natural measure $\sigma_{n,m}$ which is induced by the action of $O(n)$ on $G(n,m)$ and the invariant Haar measure on $O(n)$; see [@Mattila1995 Chapter3]. Moreover, since $G(n,m)$ carries a (smooth) manifold structure the notion of Hausdorff dimension of subsets of $G(n,n-1)$ is well-defined.\
The following Theorem is a summary of results due to Marstrand [@Marstrand1954], Kaufman [@Kaufman1968], Mattila [@Mattila1975], Falconer [@Falconer1982], and Peres-Schlag [@PS2000].
\[thm\_euclidean\] For each $m$-plane $V\in G(n,m)$ denote by $P^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\,$\mathbb{E}$}}}_V:{\mathbb{R}}^n\to V$ the orthogonal projection of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ onto $V$. Then, for all Borel sets $A\subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^n$, the following hold:
1. If $\dim A \leq m$, then
1. $\dim P^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\,$\mathbb{E}$}}}_V A= \dim A$ for $\sigma_{n,m}$-a.e. $V\in G(n,m)$,
2. For $0<\alpha\leq\dim A$, $\dim\,\{V\in G(n,m): \dim(P^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\,$\mathbb{E}$}}}_V A)<\alpha\}\leq (n-m-1)m+\alpha$.
2. If $\dim A > m$, then
1. ${\mathscr{H}}^m P^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\,$\mathbb{E}$}}}_V A>0$ for $\sigma_{n,m}$-a.e. $V\in G(n,m)$,
2. $ \dim\,\{V\in G(n,m): \mathscr{{\mathscr{H}}}^m(P^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\,$\mathbb{E}$}}}_V A)=0\}\leq (n-m)m+m-\dim A$.
3. If $\dim A>2m$, then
1. $P^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\,$\mathbb{E}$}}}_V A\subset {\mathbb{R}}^m$ has non-empty interior for $\sigma_{n,m}$-a.e. $V\in G(n,m)$,
2. $\dim\, \{V\in G(n,m): \text{the interior of } P^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\,$\mathbb{E}$}}}_V A \text{ is empty } \} \leq (n-m)m-\dim A +2m$
Many of the above statements are proven to be sharp; see e.g. [@KaufMat1975; @Falconer1982; @Falconer1885_book]. Similar problems have been studied in various settings such as the Heisenberg groups [@BFMT2012; @BDCFMT2013; @Hovila2014] and Riemannian surfaces [@BaloghIseli2018_2; @BaloghIseli2016; @Brazilian2016]. Moreover, for an overview on the numerous works on the topic of projection theorems, we recommend the textbooks [@Mattila1995; @Falconer_Book; @Mattila2015] as well as the survey articles [@Mattila2004; @Mattila_Arx2017].\
Another important projection theorem with a rather different flavor relates the size of sets under projections to their rectifiability properties. Recall that a subset $A$ of a metric space $(X,d)$ is called $m$-rectifiable if there exist a collection of at most countably many Lipschitz mappings $f_i:{\mathbb{R}}^m\to X$ such that ${\mathscr{H}}^m\Big(A\, {\backslash}\bigcup_i f_i({\mathbb{R}}^m)\Big)=0.$ On the other hand, a set $E\subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^n$ is called purely $m$-unrectifiable, if ${\mathscr{H}}^m(E\cap A)=0$ for every $m$-rectifiable set $A\subseteq{\mathbb{R}}^n$. The following theorem is due to Besicovitch [@Besic1939] and Federer [@Federer1947]; see also [@Mattila1995]
\[thm\_besfed\] An ${\mathscr{H}}^m$-measurable set $A\subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^n$ with ${\mathscr{H}}^m(A)<\infty$ is purely $m$-unrectifiable if and only if ${\mathscr{H}}^m(P_V^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\,$\mathbb{E}$}}}(A))=0$ for $\sigma_{n,m}$-a.e. $V\in G(n,m)$.
Theorem \[thm\_besfed\] has been generalized to other settings such as families of transversal projections in metric spaces [@HJJL2012] and families of projections in the Heisenberg group [@Hovila2014].\
In this paper, we establish versions of the above Theorems for families of linear and surjective projections and families of closest-point projections with respect to sufficiently regular norms on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. These results improve parts of the results in [@BaloghIseli2018] jointly achieved with Balogh.\
We call a family of mappings $\{P_V: V\in G(n,m)\}$ a family of linear and surjective projections (onto $m$-planes), if for every $V\in G(n,m)$, $P_V:{\mathbb{R}}^n\to V$ is a linear and surjective mapping. Notice that the family of orthogonal projections $\{P^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\,$\mathbb{E}$}}}_V:V\in G(n,m)\}$ is a family of linear and surjective projections. Moreover, every linear and surjective projection $P_V:{\mathbb{R}}^n\to V$ is a Lipschitz mapping. Hence it is a natural question whether Marstrand-type projection theorems generalize to families of linear and surjective projections.\
Many families of linear and surjective projections $\{P_V:V\in (n,m)\}$ are given in terms of linear foliations. Namely, if for $V\in G(n,m)$, we have $P_V(P_Vx)=P_Vx$ for all $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$, then there exists an $(n-m)$-plane $W\in G(n,n-m)$ with $V\cap W=\{0\}$ such that for all $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$, $P_Vx=a$, where $x=a+w$, $a\in V$ and $w\in W$. The affine $m$-planes $a+W$ with $a\in V$ are fibers of the foliation of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ induced by $V$ and $W$, and it follows that $\ker P_V=W$. It is straightforward to see that there exist families of linear and surjective projections for which Marstrand-type theorems must fail. Namely, consider $V_0\in G(n,m)$ and $W_0\in G(n,n-1)$ with $V_0\cap W_0=\{0\}$. Let $\mathcal{U}$ a small open neighbourhood of $V_0$ such that $V\cap W_0=\{0\}$ for all $V\in \mathcal{U}$. Now, for each $V\in \mathcal{U}$ define $P_V$ to be the projection onto $V$ along the fibers $a+W_0$, i.e., $P_Vx=a$ where $x=a+w$, $a\in V$ and $w\in W_0$. Then, whenever the measure or dimension of a Borel set $A$ is decreased under $P_{V_0}$, then the same is true for all $V\in\mathcal{U}$. Hence, Marstrand-type results must fail.\
On the other hand, we shall prove that given a family $\{P_V:V\in G(n,m)\}$ of linear and surjective projections, if for every $V_0\in G(n,m)$ we can control the size of the set of $m$-planes $V\in G(n,m)$ for which $P_V$ and $P_{V_0}$ are projections along the same foliation, then Marstrand-type as well as Besicovitch-Federer-type theorems hold for this family. Define the mapping ${\mathscr{G}}:G(n,m) \to G(n,m)$ associated with the family $\{P_V:V\in G(n,m)\}$ by $$\label{def_g(V)}
{\mathscr{G}}(V)=(\ker P_V)^\perp.$$ This notation allows us to state the following analog of classical Marstrand-type projection theorems for families of linear and surjective projections.
\[thm\_lin\_proj\] Let $\{P_V:V\in G(n,m)\}$ be a family of linear and surjective projections whose associate mapping ${\mathscr{G}}$ is dimension non-decreasing and maps $\sigma_{n,m}$-positive sets to $\sigma_{n,m}$-positive sets. Then, the following hold for all Borel sets $A\subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^n$.
1. If $\dim A \leq m$, then
1. $\dim P_V A= \dim A$ for $\sigma_{n,m}$-a.e. $V\in G(n,m) $,
2. For $0<\alpha\leq\dim A$,\
$\dim\,\{V\in G(n,m) : \dim(P_V A)<\alpha\}\leq (n-m-1)m+\alpha$.
2. If $\dim A > m$, then
1. ${\mathscr{H}}^m (P_V A)>0$ for $\sigma_{n,m}$-a.e. $V\in G(n,m) $,
2. $\dim\,\{V\in G(n,m) : \mathscr{H}^m(P_V A)=0\}\leq (n-m)m+m-\dim A$.
3. If $\dim A>2m$, then
1. $P_V A\subseteq V\simeq {\mathbb{R}}^m$ has non-empty interior for $\sigma_{n,m}$-a.e. $V\in G(n,m)$,
2. $\dim\,\{V\in G(n,m): (P_VA)^\circ \neq {\varnothing}\}\leq (n-m)m+2m -\dim A.$
By the same methods we also obtain a Besicovitch-Federer-type projection theorem.
\[thm\_besfed\_lin\] Let $\{P_V:V\in G(n,m)\}$ be a family of linear and surjective projections such that for all $E\subset G(n,m)$, $\sigma_{n,m}({\mathscr{G}}^{-1}(E))=0$ if and only if $\sigma_{n,m}(E)=0$. Then, an ${\mathscr{H}}^m$-measurable set $A\subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^n$ with ${\mathscr{H}}^m(A)<\infty$ is purely $m$-unrectifiable if and only if ${\mathscr{H}}^m(P_V(A))=0$ for $\sigma_{n,m}$-a.e. $V\in G(n,m)$.
Although Theorems \[thm\_lin\_proj\] and \[thm\_besfed\_lin\] are interesting in their own right (see Section \[sec\_not\_norm\]) we are particularly interested in applying them to the setting of normed spaces. Let ${\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|}$ be a strictly convex norm on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, i.e., a norm whose unit sphere $S_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}^{n-1}=\{x\in {\mathbb{R}}^n:\|x\|=1\}$ is the boundary of a strictly convex set. Then for every $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$ and every $m$-plane $V\in G(n,m)$, there exists a unique point $q\in V$ that realizes the distance between $x$ and $V$ with respect to ${\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|}$, i.e., $\|x-q\|={\mathrm{dist}}_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}(x,V)\coloneqq\inf\{\|x-y\|:y\in V\}$. We call the mapping $P^{\text{\scalebox{0.7}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}_V:{\mathbb{R}}^n\to V$ given by $P_Vx=q$, where $\|x-q\|={\mathrm{dist}}_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}(x,V)$, the closest-point projection with respect to ${\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|}$ onto $V$. Obviously, in case that ${\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|}$ is the standard Euclidean norm $|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}|$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ we have $P^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\,$\mathbb{E}$}}}_V=P^{\text{\scalebox{0.7}{$|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}|$}}}_V$, for all $V\in G(n,m)$. We denote the unit sphere with respect to $|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}|$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ by $S^{n-1}$.\
If $m=n-1$ and ${\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|}$ is a strictly convex norm on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, then one can check that $\{P_V^{\text{\scalebox{0.7}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}:V\in G(n,m)\}$ is a family of linear and surjective projections (see Section \[sec\_norm\]). If in addition, ${\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|}$ is assumed to be $C^1$-regular (i.e. continuously differentiable outside of $\{0\}$), then at every point $x$ in the hypersurface $S^{n-1}_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}$, the unit outward normal $G(x)\in S^{n-1}$ in well-defined. This yields a mapping $G:S^{n-1}_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}\rightarrow S^{n-1}$ that we call the Gauss map of ${\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|}$. As we will show in Lemma \[lem\_Gauss\], the mapping ${\mathscr{G}}$ associated with the family $\{P_V{\text{\scalebox{0.7}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}:V\in G(n,n-1) \}$ of linear and surjective projections can be expressed in terms of the inverse of $G$. This will allow us to prove the following results for families of projections onto hyperplanes.
\[thm\_norm\] Let ${\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|}$ be a strictly convex $C^1$-regular norm on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. If the Gauss map $G$ is dimension non-increasing and maps ${\mathscr{H}}^{n-1}$-zero sets to ${\mathscr{H}}^{n-1}$-zero sets, then the following hold for all Borel sets $A\subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^n$.
1. If $\dim A \leq n-1$, then
1. $\dim (P_{w^\perp} A)= \dim A$ for ${\mathscr{H}}^{n-1}$-a.e. $w\in S^{n-1}$,
2. For $0<\alpha\leq\dim A$, $\dim\,\{w\in S^{n-1} : \dim (P_{w^\perp} A)<\alpha\}\leq \alpha$.
2. If $\dim A > n-1$, then
1. ${\mathscr{H}}^{n-1} (P_{w^\perp} A)>0$ for ${\mathscr{H}}^{n-1}$-a.e. $w\in S^{n-1}$,
2. $\dim\,\{w\in S^{n-1} : \mathscr{H}^{n-1}(P_{w^\perp} A)=0\}\leq 2(n-1)-\dim A$.
\[thm\_besfed\_norm\] Let ${\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|}$ be a strictly convex $C^1$-regular norm on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ such that for all $E\subset G(n,n-1)$, $\sigma_{n,n-1}(G(E))=0$ if and only if $\sigma_{n,n-1}(E)=0$. Then, an ${\mathscr{H}}^{n-1}$-measurable set $A\subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^n$ with ${\mathscr{H}}^{n-1}(A)<\infty$ is purely $m$-unrectifiable if and only if ${\mathscr{H}}^{n-1}(P^{\text{\scalebox{0.7}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}_V(A))=0$ for $\sigma_{n,n-1}$-a.e. $V\in G(n,n-1)$.
Note that if ${\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|}$ is $C^{1,1}$-regular, then the Gauss map $G$ (which essentially is the gradient of the norm) is locally Lipschitz and hence the requirements of Theorem \[thm\_norm\] are satisfied. Thus the following corollary is a direct consequence of Theorem \[thm\_norm\].
\[cor\_norm\] If ${\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|}$ is a strictly convex $C^{1,1}$-regular norm on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, then the conclusions of Theorem \[thm\_norm\] hold for the projections $P_{w^\perp}^{\text{\scalebox{0.7}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}:{\mathbb{R}}^n\to w^\perp$, $w\in S^{n-1}$.
Exploiting the arguments from the proof of Theorem \[thm\_lin\_proj\] allows the construction of a $C^1$-regular norm on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ for which Theorem \[thm\_norm\] fails.
\[thm\_counter\] There exists a $C^1$-regular norm ${\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|}$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ and a Borel set $A\subset {\mathbb{R}}^2$ with $\dim A\leq 1$ such that ${\mathscr{H}}^1(\{w\in S^{n-1} : \dim(P^{\text{\scalebox{0.7}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}_{w^\perp} A)<\dim A\})>0.$ Thus, in particular, Conclusion 1 of Theorem \[thm\_norm\] fails for ${\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|}$. Analogously, there exists a $C^1$-regular norm on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ for which Conclusion 2 of Theorem \[thm\_norm\] fails.
Theorem \[thm\_counter\] shows that Marstrand-type projection theorems do not trivially hold for families of projections induced by a norm unless the norm is induced by a scalar product; see Section \[sec\_final\]. Thereby, it underlines the importance of Theorem \[thm\_norm\] and in some sense shows the sharpness of the regularity condition for the norm ${\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|}$ in Theorem \[thm\_norm\]. Comparing Corollary \[cor\_norm\] with Theorem \[thm\_norm\] raises the question whether or not Marstrand-type theorems hold for $C^{1,\delta}$-regular norms in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ (i.e. derivatives of ${\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|}$ of first order are locally $\delta$-Hölder). Surprisingly, the answer to this question is related to the study of the structure of exceptional sets for Euclidean projections. We will address this relation in Section \[sec\_final\].\
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec\_linear\], we prove Theorems \[thm\_lin\_proj\] and \[thm\_besfed\_lin\]. In Section \[sec\_norm\], we prove Theorems \[thm\_norm\] and \[thm\_besfed\_norm\] by applying Theorems \[thm\_lin\_proj\] and \[thm\_besfed\_lin\] respectively. Section \[sec\_not\_norm\] is for Propositions and Examples underlining the independent interest of Theoremd \[thm\_lin\_proj\] and \[thm\_besfed\_lin\]. In Section \[sec\_counter\], we explicitly construct a $C^1$-regular norm in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ for which Theorem \[thm\_norm\] fails and thereby prove Theorem \[thm\_counter\]. Section \[sec\_final\] is for final remarks.
Linear projections {#sec_linear}
==================
In this section we prove Theorem \[thm\_lin\_proj\]. Consider a family of linear and surjective projections $\{P_V: V\in G(n,m)\}$. Recall that we defined the mapping ${\mathscr{G}}:G(n,m)\to G(n,m)$ by $${\mathscr{G}}(V)=(\Ker P_V)^\perp.$$ The following two lemmas will be used to compare the images of a Borel set under $P_V$ and $P^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\,$\mathbb{E}$}}}_{{\mathscr{G}}(V)}$.
\[lem\_linear\_1\] Let $f:{\mathbb{R}}^n\to{\mathbb{R}}^d$ and $g:{\mathbb{R}}^n\to {\mathbb{R}}^m$ be linear mappings with $\Ker f=\Ker g$. Then, there exists a bijective linear mapping $h:f({\mathbb{R}}^n)\to g({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ such that for all $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$, $h(f(x))=g(x)$.
In case $U\coloneqq \Ker f=\Ker g$ equals ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ or $\{0\}$, the Lemma is trivial. Therefore, we may assume without loss of generality that $0<k\coloneqq\dim(U)<n.$ Let $u_1,\ldots,u_k$ be a basis of $U$ and extend it to a basis $u_1,\ldots,u_k,w_1,\ldots,w_{n-k}$ of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. Then, $f(w_1),\ldots,f(w_{n-k})$ is a basis of $f({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ and $g(w_1),\ldots,g(w_{n-k})$ is a basis of $g({\mathbb{R}}^n)$. Define a linear mapping $h:f({\mathbb{R}}^n)\to g({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ by setting $h(f(w_j))=g(w_j)$ for all $j=1,...,n-k$. Then, $h$ is a bijection and for every $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$, $h(f(x))=g(x).$
The following Lemma is a trivial consequence of Lemma \[lem\_linear\_1\]. It can be considered the key ingredient in the proofs of Theorem \[thm\_lin\_proj\] and Theorem \[thm\_besfed\_lin\]
\[lem\_linear\] Let $f:{\mathbb{R}}^n\to{\mathbb{R}}^d$ and $g:{\mathbb{R}}^n\to {\mathbb{R}}^m$ be linear mappings with $\Ker f=\Ker g$ and $A\subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^n$ a Borel sest. Then, $\dim f(A)=\dim g(A)$, and ${\mathscr{H}}^{m}( f(A))=0$ if and only if ${\mathscr{H}}^{m}( g(A))=0$.
Let $A\subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^n$ be a Borel set and $0<\alpha\leq \dim(A)\leq m$. We know that 1.a) and 1.b) of Theorem \[thm\_lin\_proj\] hold for $\{P_V^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\,$\mathbb{E}$}}}:V\in V\}$, that is, $$\label{know_1}
\sigma_{n,m} (\{ W\in G(n,m): \dim P^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\,$\mathbb{E}$}}}_W(A)< \alpha\} )=0$$ $$\label{know_2}
\dim\, \{W\in G(n,m): \dim P^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\,$\mathbb{E}$}}}_W(A)< \alpha\}\leq \alpha.$$ By Lemma \[lem\_linear\] with $f=P_V$ and $g=P_{{\mathscr{G}}(V)}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\,$\mathbb{E}$}}}$, it follows that, for all $V\in G(n,m)$, $$\label{eq_dim_equal}
\dim P_V(A)=\dim P^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\,$\mathbb{E}$}}}_{{\mathscr{G}}(V)}(A),$$
On the other hand, notice that $$\label{eqn_proof_lin}\begin{split}
& \sigma_{n,m} ({\mathscr{G}}\{V\in G(n,m): \dim P^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\,$\mathbb{E}$}}}_{{\mathscr{G}}(V)}(A)< \alpha\})\\
&=\sigma_{n,m} (\{{\mathscr{G}}(V)\in G(n,m): \dim P^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\,$\mathbb{E}$}}}_{{\mathscr{G}}(V)}(A)< \alpha\})\\
& \leq \sigma_{n,m} (\{W\in G(n,m): \dim P^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\,$\mathbb{E}$}}}_W(A)< \alpha\})\\
\end{split}$$
Thus, by , and the fact that ${\mathscr{G}}$ does not map $\sigma_{n,m}$-positive sets to $\sigma_{n,m}$-zero sets it follows that $ \sigma_{n,m} (\{V\in G(n,m): \dim P_V(A)< \alpha\})=0.$ This proves 1.a).\
Furthermore, combining and with the fact that ${\mathscr{G}}$ is dimension non-decreasing, yields $$\begin{split}
\dim\,\{V\in G(n,m): \dim P_V(A)< \alpha\}&=\dim \,\{V\in G(n,m): \dim P^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\,$\mathbb{E}$}}}_{{\mathscr{G}}(V)}(A)< \alpha\}\\
&\leq \dim\,{\mathscr{G}}\{V\in G(n,m): \dim P^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\,$\mathbb{E}$}}}_{{\mathscr{G}}(V)}(A)< \alpha\}\\
&=\dim\,\{{\mathscr{G}}(V)\in G(n,m): \dim P^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\,$\mathbb{E}$}}}_{{\mathscr{G}}(V)}(A)< \alpha\}\\
& \leq \dim \,\{W\in G(n,m): \dim P^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\,$\mathbb{E}$}}}_W(A)< \alpha\}\, \leq \alpha.
\end{split}$$ This proves 1.b). The proofs of 2 and 3 are analogous.
Let $A\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ be ${\mathscr{H}}^m$-measurable and ${\mathscr{H}}^m(A)<\infty$. Let $$\begin{aligned}
E=\{V\in G(n,m):{\mathscr{H}}^m(P_V(A))>0\}\\
F=\{V\in G(n,m):{\mathscr{H}}^m(P^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\,$\mathbb{E}$}}}_V(A))>0\}\end{aligned}$$ Recall that by Lemma \[lem\_linear\] with $f=P_V$ and $g=P_V^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\,$\mathbb{E}$}}}$ we have ${\mathscr{H}}^m(P_V(A))=0$ if and only if ${\mathscr{H}}^m(P^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\,$\mathbb{E}$}}}_V(A))=0$. Thus, it follows that $E$ equals the preimage $g^{-1}(F)$. Hence Theorem \[thm\_besfed\_lin\] follows from Theorem \[thm\_besfed\].
The above proof reveals that the conditions for Theorem \[thm\_besfed\_lin\] can be slightly weakened. Namely, the following condition on ${\mathscr{G}}$ suffices for the conclusion of Theorem \[thm\_besfed\_lin\] to hold: For every ${\mathscr{H}}^m$-measurable set $A\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ with ${\mathscr{H}}^m(A)<\infty$, the set $F_A:=\{V\in G(n,m):{\mathscr{H}}^m(P^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\,$\mathbb{E}$}}}_V(A))>0\}$ is a $\sigma_{n,m}$-zero set if and only if $g^{-1}(F_A)$ is a $\sigma_{n,m}$-zero set.
Codimension-one projections in normed spaces {#sec_norm}
============================================
In this Section, we consider closest-point projections onto hyperplanes of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ (i.e. $m=n-1$) that are induced by a norm.\
Recall that for a strictly convex norm ${\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|}$ for every linear subspace $V\in G(n,m)$ the closest-point projection $P_V^{\text{\scalebox{0.7}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}:{\mathbb{R}}^n\to V$ given by $\| P_vx-x\|={\mathrm{dist}}_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}(x,V)$. $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$, is well-defined. Notice, that for every point $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$ the point $P_Vx$ can be characterized as the unique point in the intersection $S^{n-1}_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}(x,r)\cap V$, where $r={\mathrm{dist}}_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}(V,x)$. Now, in addition, assume that ${\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|}$ is $C^1$-regular. Then, the unit sphere $S^{n-1}_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}$ with respect to ${\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|}$ is a compact $C^1$-hypersurface of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ that admits an unit outward normal $G(x)\in S^{n-1}$ at every point $x\in S^{n-1}_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}$. We call the map $G:S^{n-1}_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}\to S^{n-1}$, $x\mapsto G(x)$ the Gauss map of ${\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|}$. Notice that by the assumption of $C^1$-regularity of ${\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|}$, $G$ is continuous. Moreover, it has the following properties.
\[lem\_Gauss\] Let ${\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|}$ be a strictly convex $C^1$-regular norm on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. Then the Gauss map $G:S^{n-1}_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}\to S^{n-1}$ is a homeomorphism, $G(-v)=-G(v)$ and $\langle v, G(v)\rangle\neq 0$ for all $v\in S^{n-1}$.
Injectivity of $G$ follows immediately from strict convexity. To see this, assume that $G$ is not injective, thus, there exist two points $v,w\in S^{n-1}_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}$, $v\neq w$, with $G(v)=G(w)$. Hence for the tangent planes we have $T_vS^{n-1}_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}=T_wS^{n-1}_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}=:H$. Assume without loss of generality that $w$ lies on the same side of $H$ (if not, replace $w$ by $-w$). In case that $v+H=w+H$, strict convexity implies that $v=w$ which contradicts the choice of $v$ and $w$. Consider the case when $v+H\neq w+H$. Then, $H$, $v+H$ and $w+H$ are three parallel hyperplanes in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. Moreover, by the assumption that $v$ and $w$ lie on the same side of $H$, $H$ is not the middle one of these three hyperplanes. Assume that $v+H$ is the middle one (the other case is analogous). Since $S^{n-1}_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}\backslash \{v\}$ is a continuum containing $w$ and $-w$, the affine plane $v+H$ must intersect $S^{n-1}_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}$ in more than one point. This contradicts strict convexity. Hence, it follows that $G$ is injective.\
Now, consider a direction $u\in S^{n-1}$ and let $V$ be its orthogonal complement. Since $S_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}^{n-1}$ is compact, the set $\{t>0: S_{{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}}^{n-1}\cap (tu+V)\neq{\varnothing}\}$ has a maximum $t_0>0$. Thus, $H:=t_0u+V$ is the (affine) tangent plane of $S_{{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}}^{n-1}$ at the point $x$ where $S_{{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}}^{n-1}$ intersects $L_u=\{tu:t\in {\mathbb{R}}\}$. Moreover, since $V$ was chosen to be orthogonal to $u$, it follows that $G(x)=u$. Hence, $G$ is surjective.\
Finally, notice that by antipodal symmetry of ${\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|}$, that is $\|v\|=\|-v\|$ for all $v\in S^{n-1}$, it follows that $G(-v)=-G(v)$ for all $v\in S^{n-1}$.
We will prove Theorem \[thm\_norm\] by applying Theorem \[thm\_lin\_proj\]. Therefore, the following lemma is essential.
\[lem\_norm\_lin\] For a strictly convex $C^1$-norm ${\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|}$, $\{P_V^{\text{\scalebox{0.7}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}:V\in G(n,n-1)\}$ is a family of linear and surjective projections. Moreover, for all $V\in G(n,n-1)$, $${\mathscr{G}}(V)=\big( G^{-1}(w)\big)^\perp,$$ where $w=w(V)\in S^{n-1}$ orthogonal to $V$.
Let $V\in G(n,n-1)$. First, recall that for all $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^n{\backslash}V$, $P^{\text{\scalebox{0.7}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}_V(x)$ is the unique point in the intersection $S_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}^{n-1}(x,r)\cap V$, where $r={\mathrm{dist}}_{{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}}(x,V)$. Therefore, $V$ must be the tangent plane of $S_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}^{n-1}(x,r)$ at $P^{\text{\scalebox{0.7}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}_V(x)$; see Figure \[fig\_gauss\_proj\].
However, this implies that the unit outward normal of $S_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}^{n-1}(x,r)$ at $P^{\text{\scalebox{0.7}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}_V(x)$ is orthogonal to $V$, or, equivalently (see Figure \[fig\_gauss\_proj\]), that $G(u)\perp V$, where $$u=\frac{P^{\text{\scalebox{0.7}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}_V(x)-x}{\|P^{\text{\scalebox{0.7}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}_V(x)-x\|}.$$ Let $w=w(V)\in S^{n-1}$ be a direction that is orthogonal to $V$, then for some $\lambda\in\{-1,1\}$, we have $ G(u)=\lambda w.$ Using the fact that $G$ is invertible and antipodally symmetric yields $u=\lambda G^{-1}(w). $ Thus, for every $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$, the projection direction $P_Vx-x$ is collinear with $u=G^{-1}(w)$ and $u$ does not depend on $x$ but only on $V$. Moreover, by Lemma \[lem\_Gauss\], $u=G^{-1}(w)$ is not contained in $V$. Hence, $P^{\text{\scalebox{0.7}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}_V(x)$ is the unique intersection point of the affine line $x+L_u$ with the $m$-plane $V$ (recall that $L_v:=\{rv:r\in {\mathbb{R}}\}$ for all $v\in {\mathbb{R}}^n{\backslash\{0\}}$). This proves that $P^{\text{\scalebox{0.7}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}_V:{\mathbb{R}}^n \to V$ is a linear and surjective mapping. Moreover, $(P^{\text{\scalebox{0.7}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}_V)^{-1}(\{0\})=L_u$, and thus, ${\mathscr{G}}(V)=u^\perp=(G^{-1}(w))^\perp.$
**
**
Notice that in order to prove Theorem \[thm\_norm\] it suffices to check that the map ${\mathscr{G}}$ associated with the family of closest-point projections with respect to ${\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|}$ is dimension non-increasing and maps $\sigma_{n,n-1}$-positive sets to $\sigma_{n,n-1}$-positive sets. The main ingredient for this will be Lemma \[lem\_norm\_lin\]. Lemma \[lem\_norm\_lin\] states that the associated mapping ${\mathscr{G}}:G(n,n-1)\to G(n,n-1)$ basically equals the inverse Gauss map $G^{-1}:S^{n-1}\to S^{n-1}_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}$, once we identify hyperplanes $V\in G(n,n-1)$ by the outward normals $\{w,-w\}\subset S^{n-1}$. However, by our assumptions on $G$, the inverse Gauss map $G^{-1}$ has all the desired properties. In the below proof we carry out the details of this strategy.
Let $F\subseteq G(n,n-1)$ measurable. We will show that $\dim({\mathscr{G}}(F))\geq \dim F$ and thereby establish that ${\mathscr{G}}$ is dimension non-decreasing. Recall from the introduction that the notion of ${\mathscr{H}}^s$-zero sets on $G(n,n-1)$ can be understood in terms of smooth chart maps for the Grassmannian manifold $G(n,n-1)$. From this fact, one easily deduces that a set $A\subset G(n,n-1)$ is an ${\mathscr{H}}^s$-zero set in $G(n,n-1)$ if and only if $\{v\in S^{n-1}:v^\perp \in A\}$ is an ${\mathscr{H}}^s$-zero set in $S^{n-1}$. Moreover, as a consequence of this equivalence, $\dim A =\dim \{v\in S^{n-1}:v^\perp \in A\}$. Thus, for our set $F$ it follows that $$\label{eqn1}
\dim {\mathscr{G}}(F)=\dim \{v\in S^{n-1}:v^\perp\in {\mathscr{G}}(F)\}.$$
Recall that any norm on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ is bi-Lipschitz equivalent to the Euclidean norm. In particular, so is our norm ${\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|}$. This is equivalent to the fact that the mapping $S^{n-1}\to S_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}^{n-1}$, $v\mapsto \frac{v}{\|v\|}$ is bi-Lipschitz equivalent (with respect to the Euclidean norm $|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}|$). Hence, for all sets $A\subset S^{n-1}$, it follows that ${\mathscr{H}}^s(A)=0$ if and only if ${\mathscr{H}}^s(\{\frac{v}{\|v\|}\in S_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}^{n-1}:v\in A\})=0$, for all $s>0$. Therefore, in particular, $\dim A=\dim \{\frac{v}{\|v\|}\in S_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}^{n-1}:v\in A\}$. Combining this equality with yields $$\label{eqn2}
\dim {\mathscr{G}}(F)=\dim \{u\in S_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}^{n-1}:u^\perp\in {\mathscr{G}}(F)\}.$$
The condition that $u^\perp \in {\mathscr{G}}(F)$ in is equivalent to the existence of a hyperplane $V\in F$ for which $u^\perp ={\mathscr{G}}(V)$. However, by Lemma \[lem\_norm\_lin\], the equality $u^\perp={\mathscr{G}}(F)$ is equivalent to the equality $u=G^{-1}(w)$ where $w\in S^{n-1}$ with $w^\perp =V$. Plugging this into yields $$\label{eqn3}\begin{split}
\dim {\mathscr{G}}(F)&=\dim \{G^{-1}(w)\in S_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}^{n-1}:w^\perp\in F)\}\\
&=\dim (G^{-1}\{w\in S^{n-1}:w^\perp\in F)\}).
\end{split}$$
By Lemma \[lem\_Gauss\], $G$ is a homeomorphism and by our assumption it is dimension non-increasing. Thus, $G^{-1}$ is dimension non-decreasing homeomorphism. Hence, from and the argument above , it follows that $$\dim {\mathscr{G}}(F)\geq \dim \{w\in S^{n-1}:w^\perp\in F)\} = \dim F.$$ This proves that ${\mathscr{G}}$ is dimension non-decreasing.\
Now we prove that ${\mathscr{G}}$ maps [$\sigma_{n,n-1}$-positive]{} sets to $\sigma_{n,n-1}$-positive sets. Let $F\subset G(n,n-1)$ be measurable. It follows from the definition of $\sigma_{n,n-1}$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{n,n-1} (F)&= &{\mathscr{H}}^{n-1}(\{ v\in S^1: v^\perp \in F \})\\\
\sigma_{n,n-1} ({\mathscr{G}}(F))&=& {\mathscr{H}}^{n-1}(\{ v\in S^1: v^\perp \in {\mathscr{G}}(F) \})\end{aligned}$$ Then, by the arguments given above equations and , we may conclude $$\label{eqn6}\begin{split}
\sigma_{n,n-1} ({\mathscr{G}}(F))&={\mathscr{H}}^{n-1}( \{u\in S_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}^{n-1}:u^\perp\in {\mathscr{G}}(F)\})\\
&={\mathscr{H}}^{n-1}(G^{-1}\{w\in S^{n-1}:w^\perp\in F)\}).
\end{split}$$ Recall that $G$ is a homeomorphism that maps ${\mathscr{H}}^{n-1}$-zero sets to ${\mathscr{H}}^{n-1}$-zero sets. Hence, in case $\sigma_{n,n-1} (F)>0$ it follows that $$\sigma_{n,n-1} ({\mathscr{G}}(F))={\mathscr{H}}^{n-1}(G^{-1}(\{w\in S^{n-1}:w^\perp\in F\}))>0.$$
**
Given the above proof of Theorem \[thm\_norm\], in order to prove Theorem \[thm\_besfed\_norm\], it suffices to check that ${\mathscr{G}}$ maps $\sigma_{n,n-1}$-zero sets to $\sigma_{n,n-1}$-zero sets. Let $F\subset G(n,n-1)$ be a $\sigma_{n,n-1}$-zero set. Since zero sets are measurable, by , it follows that $$\label{eqn7}
\sigma_{n,n-1} ({\mathscr{G}}(F))={\mathscr{H}}^{n-1}(G^{-1}\{w\in S^{n-1}:w^\perp\in F)\}).$$ Recall that $G$ is a homeomorphism and that by assumption the preimages of zero sets under $G^{-1}$ are zero sets. Thus, by , it follows that $\sigma_{n,n-1} ({\mathscr{G}}(F))=0$.
Linear projections that are not induced by a norm {#sec_not_norm}
=================================================
In this section we emphasize the independent interest of Theorems \[thm\_lin\_proj\] and \[thm\_besfed\_lin\]. Namely, we will show that there exist many families of linear and surjective projections onto hyperplanes satisfying the conditions of Theorem \[thm\_lin\_proj\] that cannot be induced by a norm. First of all, notice that Theorems \[thm\_lin\_proj\] and \[thm\_besfed\_lin\] apply in all codimensions (i.e. for all $1\leq m<n$) while Theorems \[thm\_norm\] and \[thm\_besfed\_norm\] only apply for codimension $1$ (i.e. $m=n-1$). Indeed, projections induced by a norm are in general not linear if the codimension is larger that $1$; see Section \[sec\_final\]. In the sequel of this section, we will show that also for codimension $1$ there are many natural families of linear and surjective projections that are not induced by a norm.\
Given a mapping ${\mathscr{G}}:G(n,m)\to G(n,m)$ we may define a family of linear and surjective projections $$\label{def_P_of_g}
P_V(x)=P_{{\mathscr{G}}(V)}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\,$\mathbb{E}$}}}(x),$$ $V\in G(n,m)$. Then, the associated mapping for this family of projections $\{P_V: V\in G(n,m)\}$ is the given mapping ${\mathscr{G}}$. Thus, if ${\mathscr{G}}$ is dimension non-decreasing and does not map $\sigma_{n,m}$-positive sets to $\sigma_{n,m}$-zero sets, then Theorem \[thm\_lin\_proj\] applies to the family $\{P_V: V\in G(n,m)\}$. Notice that in order for a mapping ${\mathscr{G}}:G(n,n-1)\to G(n,n-1)$ to satisfy these conditions, properties such as continuity or injectivity are not required. However, for families of linear and surjective projections that are induced by a strictly convex $C^1$-norm it is known that ${\mathscr{G}}$ is given by the inverse Gauss map $G^{-1}$. Recall from Lemma \[lem\_Gauss\] that $G^{-1}$ is known to be a homeomorphism in this setting. Therefore, we may conclude the following proposition.
\[prop1\] Every dimension non-decreasing mapping ${\mathscr{G}}:G(n,n-1)\to G(n,n-1)$ that does not map $\sigma_{n,n-1}$-positive sets to $\sigma_{n,n-1}$-zero sets and fails to be continuous and injective induces a family of linear and surjective projections that satisfies Theorem \[thm\_lin\_proj\] and is not given by a strictly convex norm on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$.
Moreover, as the following Lemma shows, any mapping ${\mathscr{G}}:G(n,n-1)\to G(n,n-1)$ that is given in terms of the inverse Gauss map of a strictly convex $C^1$-norm possesses at least two fixed points.
\[lem\_g\_fixed\] There exist two vectors $v,w\in S^{n-1}_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}$, $v\notin\{w,-w\}$, such that $G(v)=\frac{v}{|v|}$ and $G(w)=\frac{w}{|w|}$.
Let $v_0\in S^{n-1}_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}$ be a point that maximizes the Euclidean distance to the origin among all $v\in S^{n-1}_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}$. Let ${\gamma:(-\epsilon,\epsilon)\to S^{n-1}_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}}$ be a $C^1$-curve for which $\gamma(0)=v_0$. Thus, $\dot{\gamma}(0)\in T_{v_0} S^{n-1}_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}$. Moreover, by choice of $v_0$ and the product rule for derivations, it follows that $$0=\frac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t}\langle \gamma(t), \gamma(t) \rangle\,|_{t=0}=2\langle \dot{\gamma}(0), \gamma(0) \rangle.$$ Since $G(v_0)$ is orthogonal to $T_{v_0}S^{n-1}_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}$ it follows that $G(v_0)=\pm \frac{v_0}{|v_0|}$. Since $G(v_0)$ points outward of $S^{n-1}_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}$ at $v_0$, hence $G(v_0)=\frac{v_0}{|v_0|}$. Analogously, one proceeds for a point $w_0$ that minimizes the Euclidean distance to the origin among all $w\in S^{n-1}_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}$. Then, unless ${\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|}$ equals the Euclidean norm ${|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}|}$, we have $v_0\neq w_0$. Notice that for ${\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|}={|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}|}$ the lemma is trivially true.
Lemma \[lem\_g\_fixed\] immediately implies the following proposition.
\[prop2\] Every dimension non-decreasing mapping ${\mathscr{G}}:G(n,n-1)\to G(n,n-1)$ that does not map $\sigma_{n,n-1}$-positive sets to $\sigma_{n,n-1}$-zero sets and fails to have two fixed points, by induces a family of linear and surjective projections that satisfies Theorem \[thm\_lin\_proj\] and is not given by a strictly convex norm on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$.
Propositions \[prop1\] and \[prop2\] allow the construction of many families of linear and surjective projections that are not induced by a norm and for which Theorem \[thm\_lin\_proj\] holds. In particular, it is easy to explicitly define and illustrate such families in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. Consider the following simple example. For every line $L\in G(2,1)$, let $\alpha(L)\in (0,\pi)$ be some angle and define $h(L)\in G(2,1)$ to be the line that makes a counter-clockwise angle $\alpha(L)$ with $L$. By definition of $h$, for every $L\in G(2,1)$ and every $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^2$, there exist unique unique $x_L\in L$ and $x_{h(L)}\in h(L)$ such that $x=x_L+x_{h(L)}$. Define $P_L:{\mathbb{R}}^2\to L$ by $P_Lx=x_L$; see Figure \[fig\_ex\_linear\]. Notice that then ${\mathscr{G}}(L)=(h(L))^\perp$. Hence a line $L\in G(2,1)$ is a fixed point of ${\mathscr{G}}$ if and only if $\alpha(L)=\frac{\pi}{2}$. Therefore, if $\alpha(L)\neq \frac{\pi}{2}$ for all $L\in G(2,1)$, by Proposition \[prop2\], the family $\{P_L:L\in (2,1)\}$ is not induced by a norm. In particular, if $\alpha$ is constant and not equal to $\frac{\pi}{2}$, then the family $\{P_L:L\in (2,1)\}$ is not induced by a norm and trivially satisfies Theorem \[thm\_lin\_proj\].
A norm for which Marstrand-type theorems fail {#sec_counter}
=============================================
It is easy to construct families of linear and surjective projections for which Marstrand-type projection theorem fails. Similar examples are obtained from norms for which the Gauss map is not defined or multivalued for some points; see [@BaloghIseli2018 Figures4and6]. This raises the natural question, whether there exists a $C^1$- regular norm on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ for which Marstrand-type theorems fail for projections onto hyperplanes. In this section, we will construct such a norm on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ and thereby prove Theorem \[thm\_counter\].\
The following lemmas will be used in the proof of Theorem \[thm\_counter\].
\[lem\_counter\_1\] For $0<d<2$, there exists a Borel set $A\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ of dimension $\dim A=d$ whose exceptional set $E=\{w\in S^1: \dim P^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\,$\mathbb{E}$}}}_{w^\perp} A< \min \{\dim A, 1\}$ for the family of orthogonal projections is a set of dimension $\dim E =d$
Let $0<d< 1$. As established in [@KaufMat1975] ($0<d<1$), there exists a compact set $A\subset {\mathbb{R}}^2$ of dimension $d$ such that the exceptional set $E=\{w\in S^1: \dim(P^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\,$\mathbb{E}$}}}_{w^\perp}(A))< d\}$ is a set of dimension $\dim (E)=d$. Moreover, by [@Kaufman1968] $E$ is a Borel set and by Marstrand’s theorem it follows that ${\mathscr{H}}^1(E)=0$. Let $1\leq d<2$, then by [@Falconer1982], there exists a compact set $A\subset {\mathbb{R}}^2$ of dimension $d$ such that the exceptional set $E=\{w\in S^1: {\mathscr{H}}^1 (P^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\,$\mathbb{E}$}}}_{w^\perp}(A))=0 \}$ is a set of dimension $\dim (E)=2-d>0$. Again, this set $E$ is a Borel set and by Marstrand’s theorem it follows that ${\mathscr{H}}^1(E)=0$.
\[lem\_counter\_2\] Let ${\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|}$ be a strictly convex $C^1$-regular norm on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. Consider closest-point projections $P^{\text{\scalebox{0.7}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}_{w^\perp}:{\mathbb{R}}^n \to w^\perp$, $w\in S^{n-1}$ and the Gauss map $G:S_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}^1\to S^1$ . Let $0<d<1$ (resp. $1\leq d<2$) and let $A\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ and $E\subset S^1$ be the sets from Lemma \[lem\_counter\_1\]. Let $E'=\{u\in S^1_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}: \frac{u}{\|u\|}\in E\}$ Then, whenever ${\mathscr{H}}^1 (G(E'))>0$, Conclusion 1 (resp. Conclusion 2) of Theorem \[thm\_norm\] fails for ${\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|}$.
The proof of Lemma \[lem\_counter\_2\] is very similar to the proofs of Theorem \[thm\_lin\_proj\] and Theorem \[thm\_norm\].
Consider the case when $0<d<1$. By Lemma \[lem\_linear\] (applied as in the proof of Theorem \[thm\_lin\_proj\]) and Lemma \[lem\_norm\_lin\] we have $$\begin{split}
{\mathscr{H}}^1(\{v\in S^1:\dim P^{\text{\scalebox{0.7}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}_{v^\perp}A< \dim A\})
&= {\mathscr{H}}^1(\{w\in S^1:\dim P_{(G^{-1}(w))^\perp}A< \dim A\})\\
&= {\mathscr{H}}^1(\{G(u)\in S^1:\dim P_{u^\perp}A< \dim A\})\\
&= {\mathscr{H}}^1(G(\{u\in S_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}^1:\dim P_{u^\perp}A< \dim A\}))\\
&= {\mathscr{H}}^1(G(E'))>0.\\
\end{split}$$ Hence, Conclusions 1.a) and 1.b) of Theorem \[thm\_norm\] fail. The case when $1\leq d<2$ is analogous. Then, Conclusions 2.a and 2.b of Theorem \[thm\_norm\] fail.
The following two lemmas outsource some technicalities from the proof of Theorem \[thm\_counter\].
\[lem\_cov\_arg\] Consider an interval $I\subset {\mathbb{R}}$ and two continuous curves $\alpha:I\to {\mathbb{R}}^m$ and $\beta:I\to {\mathbb{R}}^n$. Suppose that there exists a constant $M>0$ for which $$\label{eq18}
|\beta(s)-\beta (s')|\leq M|\alpha(s)-\alpha(s')|,$$ for all $s,s'\in I$. Then, for all Borel sets $F\subseteq [0,1]$ and for all $t>0$, $$\label{eq19}
{\mathscr{H}}^t(\beta(F)) \leq (2M)^t{\mathscr{H}}^t(\alpha(F)).$$ In particular, if follows that if ${\mathscr{H}}^1(\beta(F))>0$, then ${\mathscr{H}}^1(\alpha(F))>0$.
We prove Lemma \[lem\_cov\_arg\] by applying a straightforward covering argument based on the definition of the Hausdorff measure..
Let $t>0$ and $F\subseteq I$ a Borel set. In the case when ${\mathscr{H}}^t(\alpha(F))=\infty$, holds trivially. Therefore, we assume that ${\mathscr{H}}^t(\alpha(F))=c$ where $0\leq c<\infty$. Let $\delta>0$. Then, there exists an open covering $\mathcal{A}:=\{A_i\}_{i=1}^N$ of $\alpha(F)$ where $N\in {\mathbb{N}}\cup\{\infty\}$ for which ${\mathrm{diam}}A_i\leq \delta $, for all $i=1,\ldots,N$ and $\sum_{i=1}^N{\mathrm{diam}}A_i^t\leq c+\delta $. Without loss of generality, assume that $A_i\cap \alpha(F)\neq {\varnothing}$ for all $i=1,\ldots,N$. Let $s_i\in I$ such that $\alpha(s_i)\in A_i\cap \alpha(F)$. Then, by , the family of closed balls $B_i$ with center $\beta(s_i)$ and radius $M{\mathrm{diam}}A_i$ covers $\beta(F)$ and ${\mathrm{diam}}B_i =2M{\mathrm{diam}}A_i \leq 2M\delta$ for all $i=1,\ldots,N$. This yields $${\mathscr{H}}^t_{2M\delta} (\beta(F)) \leq \sum_{i=1}^N({\mathrm{diam}}B_i)^t\leq (2M)^t \sum_{i=1}^N({\mathrm{diam}}A_i)^t\leq (2M)^t(c+\delta),$$ and hence ${\mathscr{H}}^t((\beta(I))\leq (2M)^t\,c$.
The following lemma is an application of Lemma \[lem\_cov\_arg\].
\[lem\_apply\_covlem\] Let $b\in (0,\infty]$ and let ${f,g:[0,b]\to [0,\infty)}$ be two strictly increasing functions. Define $h(t):=f(t)g(t)$ for all $t\in[0,b]$. Then, for all Borel sets $F\subseteq [0,b]$, if ${\mathscr{H}}^1(f(F))>0$, then ${\mathscr{H}}^1(h(F))>0$.
Let $F\subseteq [0,b]$ be a Borel set with ${\mathscr{H}}^1(f(F))>0$. Then, by sub-additivity of ${\mathscr{H}}^1$ and the fact that $f$ is increasing, there exists a number $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$ with $n>\tfrac{1}{b}$, such that for $F_n:=F\cap [\tfrac{1}{n},b]$, we have ${\mathscr{H}}^1(f(F_n))>0$. For $s<s'\in [\tfrac{1}{n},b]$, we have $$h(s')-h(s)=f(s')g(s')-f(s)g(s)\geq (f(s')-f(s))g(s')\geq g(\tfrac{1}{n}) f(s)-f(s')>0.$$ Applying Lemma \[lem\_cov\_arg\] for $\alpha=f:[\tfrac{1}{n},b]\to [0,\infty)$, $\beta=h:[\tfrac{1}{n},b]\to [0,\infty)$, and $M=\frac{1}{g(\frac{1}{n})}$, yields ${\mathscr{H}}^1(h(F))\geq{\mathscr{H}}^1(h(F_n))>0$.
Our strategy for the proof of Theorem \[thm\_counter\] goes as follows. For $0<d<1$ consider the Borel set $A\subset {\mathbb{R}}^2$ from Lemma \[lem\_counter\_1\] and its exceptional set $E=\{v\in S^1: \dim (P_{v^\perp} A) < \dim A\}$. We construct the norm ${\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|}$ such that the Gauss map for ${\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|}$ blows up the exceptional set $E$ to a set of positive ${\mathscr{H}}^1$-measure. Thus, by Lemma \[lem\_counter\_2\], Conclusion 1 of Theorem \[thm\_norm\] fails for ${\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|}$. The construction of such a norm ${\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|}$ roughly goes as follows. Identify $S^1$ with the interval $[0,2\pi)$. This identification will be denoted by $\alpha^{-1}:S^1\to [0,2\pi)$. We consider a suitable subset $K\subset \alpha^{-1}(E)$ and construct a strictly increasing and continuous function $f$ that blows up the set $K$ to a set of positive length. Then, the integral $F$ of $f$ will be strictly convex and $C^1$. Now, we roll the graph of $F$ back up with $\alpha$ (resp. its extension $h$); see Figure \[fig\_counterex\_1\]. Thus, the image $\Gamma$ of the graph of $F$ will be a piece of the boundary of a strictly convex set which defines a norm ${\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|}$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$, see Figure \[fig\_counterex\_4\]. We will show that the Gauss map of this norm restricted to $\Gamma$, will still behave like the function $f$ in terms of its measure theoretic properties. (The case where $1\leq d<2$ is analogous.)
Let $0<d<1$ and consider the Borel set $A\subset {\mathbb{R}}^2$ from Lemma \[lem\_counter\_1\] and its exceptional set $E=\{v\in S^1: \dim (P_{v^\perp} A) < \dim A\}$. Consider the parameterization $\alpha:[0,2\pi)\to S^1$ given by $\alpha(t):=(\cos(t),\sin(t))$. Since $\alpha$ is locally bi-Lipschitz, it follows that $\dim (\alpha^{-1}(E))=d$. Let $0<s<d$. Then, by definition of the Hausdorff dimension, ${\mathscr{H}}^s(\alpha^{-1}(E))=\infty$. Therefore, by [[@Mattila1995 Theorem8.13]]{}, there exists a compact set $$\label{eq20}
K\subset \alpha^{-1}(E)= (\{ t\in [0,1]: \dim P^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\,$\mathbb{E}$}}}_{\alpha(t)^\perp}(A)<\dim A\}).$$ with $0<{\mathscr{H}}^s(K)<\infty$. We assume without loss of generality that $K\subset [0,1]$.\
Now, define $f:[0,1]\to [0,1]$ by $$\label{eq_f_in_counterex}
f(t):=\frac{1}{2}\Big(\frac{1}{{\mathscr{H}}^s(K)}{\mathscr{H}}^s\big([0,t]\cap K\big)+t\Big).$$ Notice that $t\mapsto {\mathscr{H}}^s([0,t])$ is non-decreasing and continuous. (In case $K$ is the triadic Cantor set the function then $t\mapsto {\mathscr{H}}^s([0,t]\cap K$ is the triadic Cantor staircase function). Thus, $f$ is a strictly increasing homeomorphism. Furthermore, since $K$ is compact, $[0,1]{\backslash}K$ consists of countably many (relatively) open intervals in $[0,1]$. On each interval in $[0,1]{\backslash}K$, $f$ is linear with slope $\frac{1}{2}$. Hence, ${\mathscr{H}}^1(f([0,1]{\backslash}K))=\frac{1}{2}$ and it follows that ${\mathscr{H}}^1(f(K))=\tfrac{1}{2}>0$.\
Define the mapping $F:[0,1]\to [0,1]$ by $$F(u):=\frac{1}{4}\int_0^u f(t) {\mathrm{d}}t.$$
Then, $F:[0,1]\to [0,1]$ is an injective and strictly convex $C^1$-mapping with $F(1)\leq \frac{1}{4}$. Define $S\subset {\mathbb{R}}^2$ by $S:=\{r\left(\begin{smallmatrix}\cos(t)\\ \sin(t)\end{smallmatrix}\right):t\in [0,1], \, r\geq 0\}$. Moreover, we define the mapping $h:[0,1]\times[0,1]\to S$ by $h(x,y):=(1-y)\left(\begin{smallmatrix}\cos(x)\\ \sin(x)\end{smallmatrix}\right)$, and the curve $\gamma:[0,1]\to S$ by $\gamma(t):=h(t,F(t))$. Thus, the curve $\gamma$ parameterizes the arc $h(\mathrm{Graph}(F))$; see Figure \[fig\_counterex\_1\].
Observe that for all $t\in [0,1]$, $$\alpha(t)=\frac{\gamma(t)}{|\gamma(t)|}.$$ Moreover, $\gamma$ is a regular $C^1$-curve and $\dot\gamma$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\gamma}(t) & =& \left( \begin{matrix}
-(1-F(t))\sin (t) & -\cos(t) \\
(1-F(t))\cos(t)& -\sin(t) \\
\end{matrix} \right) \left( \begin{matrix}
1\\
\frac{1}{4}f(t) \\
\end{matrix} \right)\\
\label{eq21}
& =& (1-F(t))\left( \begin{matrix}
\cos (t+\frac{\pi}{2}) & -\sin (t+\frac{\pi}{2}) \\
\sin (t+\frac{\pi}{2})& \cos (t+\frac{\pi}{2}) \\
\end{matrix} \right) \left(\begin{matrix}
1\\
\frac{1}{4(1-F(t))}f(t) \\
\end{matrix}\right)_\cdot
\end{aligned}$$ Notice that since $0\leq F(t)\leq \tfrac{1}{4}$, it follows that $4(1-F(t))\geq 3$ and $$\label{eqn_new}
\tfrac{1}{4(1-F(t))}\leq \tfrac{1}{3}.$$
Consider the curve $\beta:[0,1]\to S^1$, defined by $\beta(t):=\frac{\dot{\gamma}(t)}{|\dot{\gamma}(t)|}$. As we will establish later, $\beta$ has the following properties:
1. $\beta:[0,1]\to S^1$ is an injective curve that travels in $S^1$ in counterclockwise direction from $\beta(0)=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}0\\ 1 \end{smallmatrix}\right)$ to $\beta(1)$ where $\beta(1)=(\cos(s),\sin(s))$, with $s\in(\tfrac{\pi}{2},\pi)$.
2. ${\mathscr{H}}^1(\beta(K))>0$.
Denote the image of $[0,1]$ under $\gamma$ by $\Gamma$. From our bounds for the values of $\beta$ at $t=0$ and $t=1$ from property (P1), it follows that we can extend the union $\Gamma\cup (-\Gamma)$ to the image of a closed $C^1$-curve $\bar{\Gamma}$, by gluing arcs $R$ and $-R$ to $\Gamma$ and $-\Gamma$, such that the tangential directions at the gluing points agree, as illustrated in Figure \[fig\_counterex\_4\].
Recall that by property (P1), $\beta$ is injective. Thus, $\bar{\Gamma}$ is a simply closed curve that bounds a strictly convex, antipodally symmetric subset of ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ with non-empty interior. Hence, $\bar{\Gamma}$ defines a norm ${\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|}$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ by setting $S_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}^{1}:=\bar{\Gamma}$. Moreover, since $\beta(t)$ is tangential to $\bar{\Gamma}$ at $\gamma(t)\in \bar{\Gamma}$ for $t\in [0,1]$, the Gauss map $G:S^1_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}\to S^1$ of the norm ${\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|}$ in such points is given by $$\label{eq22}
G(\gamma(t))=R_{\tfrac{\pi}{2}}\beta(t),$$ where $R_{\tfrac{\pi}{2}}$ denotes the counterclockwise rotation about the angle $\tfrac{\pi}{2}$. Recall that by property (P2), ${\mathscr{H}}^1(\beta (K))>0$. Thus, implies that ${\mathscr{H}}^1 G(\gamma(t))>0$, where $G$ denotes the Gauss map of the arc $\Gamma$ parameterized by $\gamma$. This proves Theorem \[thm\_counter\] given properties (P1) and (P2) for $\beta$.\
Thus, we are left to prove that $\beta$ actually does satisfy properties (P1) and (P2). Let us begin by defining shorter notations for the objects appearing in . For $t\in [0,1]$, we write $$M(t):= \left( \begin{matrix}
\cos (t+\frac{\pi}{2}) & -\sin (t+\frac{\pi}{2}) \\
\sin (t+\frac{\pi}{2})& \cos (t+\frac{\pi}{2}) \\
\end{matrix} \right)$$ and $$v(t):= \left(\begin{matrix}
1\\
\frac{1}{4(1-F(t))}f(t) \\
\end{matrix}\right)_\cdot$$ Hence, $M(t)\in O(2)$, $v(t)\in (\{1\}\times [0,\tfrac{1}{3}])\subset {\mathbb{R}}^2$ (see ) and $\dot{\gamma}(t)=(1-F(t))M(t)v(t)$, for all $t\in [0,1]$. Set $w(t):=\frac{v(t)}{|v(t)|}$ for $t\in [0,1]$. Then, by , and the fact that $M(t)\in O(2)$ for all $t\in[0,1]$, it follows that $\beta(t)=M(t)w(t)$.
Recall that the functions $f:[0,1]\to [0,1]$ as well as $F:[0,1]\to [0,\tfrac{1}{4}]$ are strictly increasing. Thus, in particular, $t\mapsto \tfrac{1}{4(1-F(t))}$ is strictly increasing. Also, recall that ${\mathscr{H}}^1(f(K))>0$. Hence, the mapping $\psi:[0,1]\to [0,\tfrac{1}{3}]$, defined by $$\psi(t):= \frac{1}{4(1-F(t))}f(t)$$ is strictly increasing as well. Moreover, Lemma \[lem\_apply\_covlem\] implies that ${\mathscr{H}}^1( \psi(K))>0$.\
Note that ${\mathbb{R}}\to (\{1\}\times {\mathbb{R}})\subset {\mathbb{R}}^2,x\mapsto \left(\begin{smallmatrix}1\\x\end{smallmatrix}\right) $ is an isometric embedding (i.e. a $1$-bi-Lipschitz mapping) and $v(t)= \left(\begin{smallmatrix}1\\\psi(t)\end{smallmatrix}\right)$. Therefore, $v:[0,1]\to \{1\}\times[0,\tfrac{1}{3}]$ is injective with $v(0)=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}1\\0\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ and $v(1)=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}1\\1/(4(1-F(1)))\end{smallmatrix}\right)$, and ${\mathscr{H}}^1(v(K))>0$.\
Recall that $w(t)=\tfrac{v(t)}{|v(t)|}$, for $t\in [0,1]$. Thus, $w:[0,1]\to S^1$ is an injective curve that travels from $w(0)=v(0)=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}1\\0\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ to $w(1)$, see Figure \[fig\_counterex\_2\].\
For $t\in [0,1]$, denote by $\theta(t)\in [0,2\pi)$ the counterclockwise angle from the $x$-axis to $w(t)$, thus $$\label{eq20c}
w(t)= \left(\begin{matrix}\cos(\theta(t))\\ \sin(\theta(t))\end{matrix}\right).$$
Recall that $v(1)=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}1\\1/4(1-F(1)))\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ and notice that $$\frac{1}{1/(4(1-F(1)))}=4(1-F(1))\geq 3 > \frac{\cos(\frac{\pi}{2}-1)}{\sin(\frac{\pi}{2}-1)}_\cdot$$ Therefore, it follows that $w(1)=\frac{v(1)}{|v(1)|}=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}\cos(\theta(1))\\\sin(\theta(1))\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ with $\theta(1)\in(0,\tfrac{\pi}{2}-1)$. Moreover, from the fact that $(\{1\}\times [0,\tfrac{1}{3}])\to S^1$, $x\mapsto \tfrac{x}{|x|}$ is a bi-Lipschitz mapping, it follows that ${\mathscr{H}}^1(w(K))>0$.\
Now, consider the curve $\beta:[0,1]\to S^1, \ t\mapsto M(t)w(t)$. The matrix $M(t)$ is the matrix of the counterclockwise rotation about the angle $t+\tfrac{\pi}{2}$.
Thus, it follows that $$\label{eq20d}
\beta(t)=\left(\begin{matrix}\cos(t+\tfrac{\pi}{2}+\theta(t))\\ \sin(t+\tfrac{\pi}{2}+\theta(t))\end{matrix}\right).$$
This makes $\beta:[0,1]\to S^1$ an injective curve that travels in $S^1$ in counterclockwise direction from $\beta(0)= \left(\begin{smallmatrix}0\\1\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ to $\beta(1)= \left(\begin{smallmatrix}\cos(s)\\ \sin(s)\end{smallmatrix}\right),$ where $s:=1+\tfrac{\pi}{2}+\theta(1)$ and thus $s\in ( 1+\tfrac{\pi}{2}, \pi)$; see Figure \[fig\_counterex\_3\]. This proves property (P1).
Moreover, it follows from and that $|\beta(t)-\beta(t')|\geq |w(t)-w(t')|$, for all $t,t'\in [0,1]$. Thus, by Lemma \[lem\_cov\_arg\] and the fact that ${\mathscr{H}}^1(w(K))>0$, it follows that ${\mathscr{H}}^1(\beta(K))>0$. This proves property (P2).
Final Remarks {#sec_final}
=============
Codimension greater than 1
--------------------------
As pointed out in the introduction, for every strictly convex norm ${\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|}$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ and for every $1\leq m<n$, the family $P^{\text{\scalebox{0.7}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}_V: {\mathbb{R}}^n\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^n$, $V\in G(n,m)$ of closest-point projections with respect to ${\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|}$ is well-defined. Nevertheless, Theorem \[thm\_norm\] only covers the case when $m=n-1$. We strongly believe that a statement similar to Theorem \[thm\_euclidean\] holds for general codimension, i.e., for all $1\leq m<n$. However our methods do not allow a proof yet. One can check that, in general, for strictly convex norms (even if they have a good differentiable regularity) projections onto plane of codimension greater than one ($m<n-1$) are not linear mappings and therefore Theorem \[thm\_lin\_proj\] is not applicable. For example, a simple calculation (see [@AnninaPhD Section5.5]) shows that projections onto lines induced by the $L_p$-norm on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ for $n\geq 3$ are linear mappings if and only if $p=2$ (recall that the $L_2$ norm on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ is the standard Euclidean norm).\
On the other hand, as we shall prove now, in case that a norm ${\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|}$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ is induced by an inner product space then all Euclidean projection theorems stated in the introduction hold for the family $\{P_V:V\in G(n,m)\}$ for all $1\leq m<n$. For this, denote the Euclidean inner product (the scalar product) in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ by $\langle {{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}, {{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\rangle$. Let $e_1,\ldots,e_n$ be the standard basis of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ which is an orthonormal basis with respect to $\langle {{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}, {{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\rangle$. Moreover, let ${\text{\scalebox{0.5}[1.4]{$\prec$}}\,{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}},{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\,\text{\scalebox{0.5}[1.4]{$\succ$}}}$ be an inner product on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ and $b_1,\ldots,b_n$ an orthonormal basis of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ with respect to ${\text{\scalebox{0.5}[1.4]{$\prec$}}\,{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}},{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\,\text{\scalebox{0.5}[1.4]{$\succ$}}}$. Then, the linear mapping $\Psi: ({\mathbb{R}}^n, {\text{\scalebox{0.5}[1.4]{$\prec$}}\,{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}},{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\,\text{\scalebox{0.5}[1.4]{$\succ$}}}) \to ({\mathbb{R}}^n, \langle {{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}, {{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\rangle)$ defined by $\Psi(b_i)=e_i$ for all $i=1,\ldots,n$, is an isometry in the sense that ${\text{\scalebox{0.5}[1.4]{$\prec$}}\,}x,y{\,\text{\scalebox{0.5}[1.4]{$\succ$}}}=\langle \Psi(x), \Psi(y)\rangle$ for all $x,y\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$. Let $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$ and $V\in G(n,m)$, then by definition of $P^{\text{\scalebox{0.7}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}$, we have $\| x-P^{\text{\scalebox{0.7}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}_V(x)\|={\mathrm{dist}}_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}(V,x) $. Since $\Psi$ is an isometry, this implies that $|\Psi(x)-\Psi(P^{\text{\scalebox{0.7}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}_V(x))|= {\mathrm{dist}}_{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\,$\mathbb{E}$}}}(\Psi(x),\Psi(V))$, and hence, by definition of the Euclidean projection, $P^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\,$\mathbb{E}$}}}_{\Psi(V)}(\Psi(x))=\Psi(P^{\text{\scalebox{0.7}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}_V(x))$. Hence, it follows that $$P^{\text{\scalebox{0.7}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}_V(x)=\psi^{-1}\circ P^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{\,$\mathbb{E}$}}}_{\Psi(V)}\circ \Psi(x),$$ for all $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$ and $V\in G(n,m)$. Therefore, in particular, the projection $P_V^{\text{\scalebox{0.7}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}:{\mathbb{R}}^n \to V$ is linear and surjective for all ${V\in G(n,m)}$. Moreover, the mapping ${\mathscr{G}}$ associated with the family $P^{\text{\scalebox{0.7}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}_V:{\mathbb{R}}^n\to {\mathbb{R}}^n$, $V\in G(n,m)$ is given by $\Psi$. Since, $\Psi$ is a linear bijection, ${\mathscr{G}}:G(n,m)\to G(n,m)$ is a smooth diffeomorphism of manifolds and thus preserves zero-sets and Hausdorff dimension. Therefore, Theorem \[thm\_lin\_proj\] and Theorem \[thm\_besfed\_lin\] apply.
Possibility for a generalization of Theorem \[thm\_counter\]
------------------------------------------------------------
The main reason why we cannot state Theorem \[thm\_counter\] in any greater generality is lack of knowledge about the structure of exceptional sets for orthogonal projection. Notice that the Gauss map $G:S^{1}_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}\to S^{1}$ of the norm ${\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|}$ constructed in the proof of Theorem \[thm\_counter\] might turn out to be a $\delta$-Hölder mapping for some $\delta>0$ depending on the geometry of $K$. This would then imply that there exists a $C^{1,\delta}$-regular norm for which Conclusions 1 and 2 of Theorem \[thm\_lin\_proj\] fail. For example, if $K$ happened to be the triadic cantor set, the mapping $f:[0,1]\to [0,1]$ defined in and therefore also the Gauss map $G:S^1_{{{}^{\text{\scalebox{0.8}{$\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|$}}}}}\to S^1$ would be [$\tfrac{\log(2)}{\log(3)}$-Hölder]{} mappings. The question about the geometry of the exceptional sets is in general open. In particular, we do not know, whether a set like the triadic Cantor set appears as a subset of such exceptional sets. For a more detailed account on the study of the structure of exceptional sets for orthogonal projections we refer to the works [@JJLL2008; @FaessOrp2014; @OrpVen_Arx2017; @Chen_Arx2017] and references therein.\
Furthermore, we do not know whether Theorem \[thm\_counter\] generalizes to families of projections $P_V:{\mathbb{R}}^n\to V$, onto $(n{-}1)$-planes $V\in G(n,n-1)$. The main obstacle is that we do not have a suitable analog of the function $f$ given in equation if $n\neq 2$. Notice that it is of great importance for the construction of $f$ that the continuity of $t \mapsto {\mathscr{H}}^s([0,t]\cap K)$ is independent of the structure of $K$. However, the tentative higher-dimensional analog of this is not true. For example, if $K\subset [0,1]^2$ contains an isolated line segment parallel to an axis then the mapping $(t,r)\mapsto {\mathscr{H}}^1\left( ([0,t]\times[0,r])\cap K\right)$ is not continuous.\
It is an interesting question whether Theorem \[thm\_besfed\_norm\] holds for the $C^1$-regular norms constructed in the proof of Theorem \[thm\_counter\]. In order to approach this question, we suggest to study the rectifiability properties of the set sets $A$ of Lemma \[lem\_counter\_1\]. As pointed out in the proof of Lemma \[lem\_counter\_1\], the construction of these sets are due to [@KaufMat1975]. They are based on the number theoretic considerations in [@Eggleston].
Projection theorems via differentiable transversality
-----------------------------------------------------
Peres and Schlag [@PS2000] establish a very general projection theorem for families of (abstract) projections from compact metric spaces to Euclidean space. Their result states that if a sufficiently regular family of projections satisfies a certain transversality condition, then this yields bounds for the Sobolev dimension of the push-forward (by the projections) of certain measures. All the classical Marstrand-type projection theorems for orthogonal projection in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ can be deduced as corollaries from their result; see [@PS2000 Section 6] and [@Mattila2015 Section 18.3]. Moreover, Hovila et. al. [@HJJL2012] has proven that if a family of abstract projections satisfies transversality with sufficiently good transversality constants ,then this yields a Besicovitch-Federer-type projection theorem for this family of projections. This makes differentiable transversality a very powerful method in establishing projection theorems in various settings. In particular, the works [@Hovila2014] (Heisenberg groups) and [@BaloghIseli2016] (Riemannian surfaces of constant curvature) are based on Peres and Schlag’s notion of transversality.\
In fact, one can check that if a strictly convex norm ${\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|}$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ is $C^{2,\delta}$-regular for some $\delta>0$ then the induced family of closest-point projections satisfies differentiable transversality. Also, the better the regularity of the norm, the better the transversality constant. This is worked out in detail in [@AnninaPhD]. Notice that the transversality constants affect the bounds for the size of the exceptional sets for Marstrand-type theorems deduced from transversality. Therefore, whenever ${\|{{\mkern 2mu\cdot\mkern 2mu}}\|}$ fails to be $C^\infty$-regular the Marstrand-type theorems that can be obtained by establishing differentiable transversality are worse than Theorem \[thm\_norm\]. On the other hand, the fact that families of projections induced by a sufficiently regular norm are transversal to some extend can be considered a result of interest independent of projection theorems. Note that for example, families of closest-point projections in infinity dimensional Banach spaces fail to be transversal [@Bate2017].
[^1]: This research was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation Grant Nr. 200020 165507 .
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In ‘J. Schwenk.(2018) [@schwenk2000correct] What is the Correct Way to Seed a Knockout Tournament? Retrieved from The American Mathematical Monthly’ , Schwenk identified a surprising weakness in the standard method of seeding a single elimination (or knockout) tournament. In particular, he showed that for a certain probability model for the outcomes of games it can be the case that the top seeded team would be less likely to win the tournament than the second seeded team. This raises the possibility that in certain situations it might be advantageous for a team to intentionally lose a game in an attempt to get a more optimal (though possibly lower) seed in the tournament. We examine this question in the context of a four team league which consists of a round robin “regular season” followed by a single elimination tournament with seedings determined by the results from the regular season [@vu2011fair]. Using the same probability model as Schwenk we show that there are situations where it is indeed optimal for a team to intentionally lose. Moreover, we show how a team can make the decision as to whether or not it should intentionally lose. We did two detailed analysis. One is for the situation where other teams always try to win every game. The other is for the situation where other teams are smart enough, namely they can also lose some games intentionally if necessary. The analysis involves computations in both probability and (multi-player) game theory.'
author:
- |
Zijie Zhou\
\
\
\
\
Mentor: Jonathon Peterson\
\
\
bibliography:
- 'research\_essay\_0521.bib'
title: Best Strategy for Each Team in The Regular Season to Win Champion in The Knockout Tournament
---
Introduction
============
In contemporary society, sport competitions such as NBA, NCAA basketball, baseball are more and more prevalent and attracting. In most of these competitions, every team in the knockout tournament has to play head-to-head matches to eliminate the rival and finally tries best to win the tournament. Whether the knockout tournament is fair and what strategy each team has under the knockout tournament is sparking argue between fans every day. In this article, we use the single elimination tournament model created by J. Schwenk.(2018) [@schwenk2000correct]. We assume that there are four teams in the playoff: $a_1$, $a_2$, $a_3$, and $a_4$. Each of them has a weight, $v_1$, $v_2$, $v_3$, $v_4$, respectively, which shows the strength of a team. The larger weight, the stronger the team is. Suppose that $v_1 \geq v_2 \geq v_3 \geq v_4$, here $a_1$ is the best team in the knockout tournament and we will give the best strategy for it. Let the probability team $v_i$ beats $v_j$ be $\frac{v_i}{v_i+v_j}$. The schedule of the knockout tournament is in figure \[fig:table\]. In the first round, the first seed plays against the fourth seed. The second seed plays against the third seed. In the second round, the winner between the first seed and the fourth seed plays against the winner between the second seed and the third seed. According to the model created by J. Schwenk [@schwenk2000correct], he showed that under some specific situation it is possible for a lower seeded team to enter the tournament with a larger probability to win the tournament than the highest seeded team. This implies that a team might intentionally lose a game during the regular season to become a lower seed to enter the tournament. If all other teams try to become higher-seeded team, it is not hard for us to make a strategy which we can enter the tournament with the proper seed which has the highest probability to win the champion. However, it is more interesting that if all other teams also lose some games intentionally to maximize the probability to win the tournament. In this situation, we are faced with a game theory problem. We will show how to find the best strategy in this situation and whether every team can maximize the probability to win the tournament respectively.
![The schedule of the tournament model[]{data-label="fig:table"}](1.JPG){width="2.5in" height="2.5in"}
Main Contributions
------------------
We build a regular season model with four teams and conduct a detailed analysis of the best team’s strategy, which can help the best team to decide whether to win or lose intentionally in every week in the regular season. It is noteworthy that this model is based on assumption that other teams try their best to win every match, or we can say other teams are not smart enough. We called this Four Teams Regular Season with Not Smart Enough Rivals Model (FRNS). However, in the real world, every professional team is smart enough. Every team has intelligent people to make decisions for them. Thus, we build another model, which assumes that all teams are smart enough and are able to make the most correct decision for them. We call this Four Teams Regular Season with Smart Enough Rivals Model (FRS). More importantly, FRS can get strategy for every team in the regular season.
In game theory, we define pure strategy as a strategy which determines the move a player will make for any situation they could face. We define mixed strategy as an assignment of probability to each pure strategy. In the FRNS model, undoubtedly, the strategy we give to the best team in each week depends on other teams’ weights and the current performance of each team. We define the $\pi_i$ as the action variable for team $a_i$. That is $\pi_i=\alpha$ represents team $a_i$ tries to win with probability $\alpha$ and loses intentionally with probability $1-\alpha$, where $\alpha \in [0,1]$. We define $\Pi$ as the collection of vectors $\pi=(\pi_1,\pi_2,\pi_3,\pi_4)$, i.e. $\Pi = [0,1]^4$. We also define $P_{\pi}^{(i)}(m,W,V)$ as the probability for team $a_i$ to win the champion under action vector $\pi \in \Pi$, team weight vector $V$ and performance vector $W$ in week $m$. The team weight vector $V=[v_1, v_2, v_3, v_4]$ which contains team weights for all team. The performance vector $W=[W_1,W_2,W_3,W_4]$, where $W_i$ represents the number of winning games before week $m$ for team $a_i$. Thus, our objective is to find $\sup_{\pi = (\alpha,1,1,1)}P_{\pi}^{(1)}(m,W,V)$ for every $m$, $W$ and $V$. We claim that: under the FRNS model, for all $m$, $W$ and possible $V$, $\operatorname*{argmax}_{\pi = (\alpha,1,1,1)}P_{\pi}^{(1)}(m,W,V) \in \{(0,1,1,1),(1,1,1,1)\}$, which shows that the best strategy for the best team in every week is pure strategy. Intuitively, the reason is that other teams’ strategies are fixed, i.e. $\pi_2, \pi_3, \pi_4 = 1$.
However, in the FRS model, the action of every team is not fixed due to all teams are smart enough. Our objective is to find $\sup_{\pi \in \Pi}P_{\pi}^{(i)}(m,W,V)$ for every $m$, $W$, $V$ and $ i \in \{1,2,3,4\}$. To our surprise, the final result shows that the best strategy of every team is not mixed strategy, but pure strategy for almost all possible team weight. Every team can have mixed strategy only in a special case where team $a_1$ is as strong as $a_2$, at the same time team $a_3$ is as strong as $a_4$.
\[frs\] Under the FRS model, for all $m$, $W$, $\pi=(\pi_1,\pi_2,\pi_3,\pi_4)$ satisfies that for each $i \in \{1,2,3,4\}$, $P_\pi^{(i)}(m,W,V) \geq P_{\pi^{'}}^{(i)}(m,W,V)$ for $\forall \pi^{'}$ s.t. $\pi_j^{'}=\pi_j$, $j \neq i$ is a mixed strategy, i.e. $\pi \in (0,1)^4$ if and only if $v_1=v_2$, $v_3=v_4$. Otherwise, $\pi$ is a pure strategy, i.e. $\pi \in \{0,1\}^4$.
Analysis for the FRNS Model
===========================
Description and Assumption of FRNS Model
----------------------------------------
In this section, we want to analyze the ‘regular season’ to get a strategy for the best team to decide whether to try to win or lose intentionally in each game. Our logic is that first to analyze the last game in the ‘regular season’, second to analyze the last two games, third to analyze the last three games, and so on. Before doing the analysis, we will first introduce our FRNS model.
The FRNS model is that we have four teams, $a_1$, $a_2$, $a_3$, $a_4$. Their weight is $V=[v_1,v_2,v_3,v_4]$. Assume that $v_1 \geq v_2 \geq v_3 \geq v_4$, so we will help team $a_1$ to get a strategy $\pi_1 \in [0,1]$. The winning probability in a single game between $a_i$ and $a_j$ is $p_{ij}=\frac{v_i}{v_i+v_j }$ [@schwenk2000correct]. We suppose that except $a_1$, other teams will try their best to win for every match, i.e. $\pi_2=\pi_3=\pi_4=1$. Define the subset $(\alpha,1,1,1)=\hat{\Pi} \subseteq \Pi$, where $\alpha \in [0,1]$, then $\pi_1$ is such that $(\pi_1,1,1,1)=\operatorname*{argmax}_{\pi \in \hat{\Pi}}P_{\pi}^{(1)}(m,W,V)$ such that for any week $m$, performance vector $W$, and possible $V$. In addition, we build a particular schedule for last three weeks (see figure \[fig:sch1\]).
![A particular schedule for last three weeks[]{data-label="fig:sch1"}](3.JPG){width="4in" height="1.5in"}
Since there are four teams, there are $4!=24$ seedings in the knockout tournament. However, there exists three types of knockout tournaments, we ignore the exact rank of each team and we only care that which two teams will have a battle in the first week (see figure \[fig:sch2\]). Here we need another assumption:
If the number of winning games of two teams is the same, then they will flip a fair coin to decide their seeding in the knockout tournament.
For example, if finally $a_1$ and $a_2$ win $2$ games, $a_3$ and $a_4$ win 1 game, then in this situation, $a_1$ and $a_2$ will have same probability, $50\%$, to be the first and the second seed. $a_3$ and $a_4$ will have same probability, $50\%$, to be the third and the fourth seed. If finally $a_1$ wins $3$ games and all of $a_2$, $a_3$ and $a_4$ win 1 game, then, $a_1$ is the first seed and $a_2$, $a_3$ and $a_4$ will have same probability, $33.33\%$, to be the second, third, and the fourth seed.
![three kind of knockout tournaments[]{data-label="fig:sch2"}](41.JPG "fig:"){width="2in" height="3in"} ![three kind of knockout tournaments[]{data-label="fig:sch2"}](42.JPG "fig:"){width="2in" height="3in"} ![three kind of knockout tournaments[]{data-label="fig:sch2"}](43.JPG "fig:"){width="2in" height="3in"}
An interesting idea is that we find the probability for $a_1$ to win the champion in tournament $A$ is always larger than the one in tournament B and tournament C, no matter what vector $V$ is. Suppose that the probability for $a_1$ to win the champion in tournament $A$, $B$, $C$ is $T_A$, $T_B$, $T_C$, respectively.
\[thm:ordertourn\] For any weight vector $V$, subject to $v_1 \geq v_2 \geq v_3 \geq v_4$, we have $$T_A \geq T_B \geq T_C$$
The proof of theorem \[thm:ordertourn\] can be found in appendix $A.1$.
We have introduced that our logic is to first analyze the strategy in last week. In the last week, there exists fifteen different $W$ vectors: $[2,2,0,0]$, $[2,1,0,1]$, $[2,1,1,0]$, $[2,0,1,1]$, $[1,1,1,1]$, $[1,2,0,1]$, $[1,2,1,0]$, $[1,1,2,0]$, $[1,0,2,1]$, $[1,1,0,2]$, $[1,0,1,2]$, $[0,1,1,2]$, $[0,0,2,2]$, $[0,1,2,1]$, $[0,2,1,1]$. In the next part, we will pick one specific $W$ vector to do analysis as an example.
Example $W=[2,2,0,0]$
---------------------
If at the beginning of last week, the performance vector $W$ is $[2,2,0,0]$, we first consider the game $a_3$ vs $a_4$. There are two possible results: $a_3$ wins or $a_4$ wins. If $a_3$ wins, $W$ will become $[2,2,1,0]$. If $a_4$ wins, $W$ will become $[2,2,0,1]$. Then we will analyze the match $a_1$ vs $a_2$. If $a_1$ tries to win, two situations may happen: $a_1$ wins and a$_1$ loses. However, if $a_1$ wants to lose intentionally, the only possible result is $a_1$ loses. Assume that $a_3$ defeats $a_4$ and $W=[2,2,1,0]$, if $a_1$ defeats $a_2$, $W$ will become $[3,2,1,0]$, which leads to tournament $A$. If $a_2$ defeats $a_1$, $W$ will become $[2,3,1,0]$, which leads to tournament $B$.
Now we can calculate the probability for $a_1$ to win the tournament based on different strategy $\pi_1$ in last match. Recall that $a_3$ defeats $a_4$ with probability $p_{34}$, and if it happens, $W$ will become $[2,2,1,0]$. $a_4$ defeats $a_3$ with probability $p_{43}$, and if it happens, $W$ will become $[2,2,0,1]$.
$$W=
\left\{
\begin{array}{lr}
$[2,2,1,0]$, & \text{with probability $p_{34}$} \\
$[2,2,0,1]$, & \text{with probability $p_{43}$}
\end{array}
\right.$$
If $a_1$ tries to win the last match, the analysis is in table \[tab:table2\]. Thus, the total probability for $a_1$ to win the champion if $a_1$ tries to win in the last match is $P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,[2,2,0,0],V)=p_{12}p_{34}T_A+p_{12}p_{43}T_B+p_{21}p_{34}T_B+p_{21}p_{43}T_A$. If $a_1$ loses intentionally, then the analysis is in table \[tab:table3\]. Thus, the total probability for $a_1$ to win the champion if $a_1$ loses intentionally in the last match is $P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,[2,2,0,0],V)=p_{34}T_B+p_{43}T_A$. Under particular weight vector $V=[v_1,v_2,v_3,v_4]$, we compare $P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,[2,2,0,0],V)$ and $P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,[2,2,0,0],V)$, the larger one represents the strategy for $a_1$.
\[1\][D..[\#1]{}]{}
[| m[0.5in]{} | m[0.5in]{}| m[1in]{}| m[1in]{}| m[2in]{} |]{} a$_1$ & a$_3$ & Win Vector (W) & Tournament & Probability for team $a_1$ to win champion\
Win & Win & $[3,2,1,0]$ & A & $p_{12}p_{34}T_A$\
Win & Lose & $[3,2,0,1]$ & B & $p_{12}p_{43}T_B$\
Lose & Win & $[2,3,1,0]$ & B & $p_{21}p_{34}T_B$\
Lose & Lose & $[2,3,0,1]$ & A & $p_{21}p_{43}T_A$\
[| m[0.5in]{} | m[0.5in]{}| m[1in]{}| m[1in]{}| m[2in]{} |]{} a$_1$ & a$_3$ & Win Vector (W) & Tournament & Probability for team $a_1$ to win champion\
Lose & Win & $[2,3,1,0]$ & B & $p_{34}T_B$\
Lose & Lose & $[2,3,0,1]$ & A & $p_{43}T_A$\
\[alwayswin\] Under $W=[2,2,0,0]$ at the beginning of the last week, $a_1$ should always try to win no matter what weight vector $V$ is.
The proof of theorem \[alwayswin\] can be found in appendix $A.2$. Next, we will show the analytical results for all $W$.
Analytical Results
------------------
We assume that $v_1 = 1$, $v_2$, $v_3$, $v_4$ are in $(0,1)$, and $v_2 \geq v_3 \geq v_4$. We let $v_2$ be the $x$ axis, $v_3$ be the $y$ axis, $v_4$ be the $z$ axis. The region in the plots is the set $\{V=(1,v_2,v_3,v_4) | P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,W,V)-P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,W,V) \geq 0, v_2 \geq v_3 \geq v_4\}$ for given $W$. Here are the results.
For $W=[2,2,0,0]$, $[2,1,1,0]$, $[1,1,2,0]$, $[1,1,1,1]$, $[1,0,2,1]$, $[0,2,1,1]$, $[0,1,2,1]$, $[0,0,2,2]$, since we have completed the analysis of the situation where $W=[2,2,0,0]$ by theorem \[alwayswin\], the analysis of rest seven situations of $W$ is similar to the $W=[2,2,0,0]$ example. After some calculation, we can know that for every $V$, $P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,W,V)-P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,W,V) \leq 0$. Thus, it is always sensible for $a_1$ to try to win the last match if these eight situations happen.
For $W=[2,1,0,1]$, $[2,0,1,1]$, $[1,1,0,2]$, $[1,0,1,2]$, by the similar method, we find that $P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,W,V)-P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,W,V) \geq 0$ holds for every $V$. We can conclude that the region in figure \[fig:f6\] is the whole region, i.e. $\{V=(1,v_2,v_3,v_4) | v_2 \geq v_3 \geq v_4\}$. Thus, it is always sensible for $a_1$ to lose the last match intentionally if these four situations happen.
![the 3d region plot for the difference of two values in $[2,1,0,1]$, $[2,0,1,1]$, $[1,1,0,2]$, $[1,0,1,2]$[]{data-label="fig:f6"}](6.jpg){width="1.5in" height="1.5in"}
For $[1,2,0,1]$ and $[0,1,1,2]$, similarly, we can find that the strategy for $a_1$ to decide whether to try to win or lose intentionally in the last match depends on the team weight vector $V=(1,v_2,v_3,v_4)$. Different team weight leads to different strategy.
\[1201t\] Under a specific team weight vector $V=(1,v_2,v_3,v_4)$, $W=[1,2,0,1]$ or $[0,1,1,2]$, then $a_1$ should try to win if and only if the following inequality holds. Otherwise, $a_1$ should lose intentionally. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1201}
& 3v_2v_3v_4^2+2v_2v_4^3+6v_2^2v_3^2v_4+v_2v_3^2v_4+v_3^3v_4+2v_3v_4^3+10v_3^2v_4^2-3v_2^2v_3^3 \\ & -
v_2^2v_3v_4^2-2v_2^2v_4^3-v_2v_3^4-3v_2v_3^3v_4-2v_2v_3^2v_4^2-v_3^4v_4-6v_3^3v_4^2-6v_3^2v_4^3 \leq 0\end{aligned}$$
The proof of theorem \[1201t\] can be found in appendix $A.3$. The plot of this region is figure \[fig:f7\], which is made by Mathematica.
![the 3d region plot for the difference of two values in $[1,2,0,1]$ and $[0,1,1,2]$[]{data-label="fig:f7"}](7.jpg){width="1.5in" height="1.5in"}
For $[1,2,1,0]$, we can find that the strategy for $a_1$ to decide whether to try to win or lose intentionally in the last match depends on the team weight vector $V=(1,v_2,v_3,v_4)$. Different team weight leads to different strategy. Next theorem will show the relationship between the strategy and vector $V$:
\[1210t\] Under a specific team weight vector $V=(1,v_2,v_3,v_4)$, $W=[1,2,1,0]$, then $a_1$ should try to win if and only if the following inequality holds. Otherwise, $a_1$ should lose intentionally. $$\begin{aligned}
& 3v_2^2v_3^2v_4+v_2v_3^4+v_2v_3^3v_4+v_3^3v_4^2+4v_3^3v_4+4v_3^2v_4^2+5v_2v_3v_4 \\ & -4v_2^2v_3v_4^2-5v_2^2v_4^3-4v_3^4v_4-2v_2v_3v_4^2-v_3^2v_4-v_3v_4^2 \leq 0\end{aligned}$$
The proof of theorem \[1210t\] can be found in appendix $A.4$. The plot of this region is in figure \[fig:f8\], which is made by Mathematica.
![the 3d region plot for the difference of two values in $[1,2,1,0]$[]{data-label="fig:f8"}](8.jpg){width="1.5in" height="1.5in"}
Analysis for the Second Week
----------------------------
After completing the analysis of the last week, we want to analyze for the second week. Our idea is that given a winning vector $W^{*}$ at the beginning of the second week and the team weight vector $V$, if team $a_1$ tries to win, then four situations may happen on the second week: $a_1$ defeats $a_3$, $a_2$ defeats $a_4$ with probability $p_{13}p_{24}$; $a_1$ defeats $a_3$, $a_4$ defeats $a_2$ with probability $p_{13}p_{42}$; $a_3$ defeats $a_1$, $a_2$ defeats $a_4$ with probability $p_{31}p_{24}$; $a_3$ defeats $a_1$, $a_4$ defeats $a_2$ with probability $p_{31}p_{42}$. Assume these four situations bring $W^{*}$ to $W_1$, $W_2$, $W_3$, $W_4$ respectively, since we have completed the analysis of the last week, then we can get
$$\begin{aligned}
P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(2,W^{*},V)&=p_{13}p_{24}\max\{P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,W_1,V),P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,W_1,V)\} \\ & +p_{13}p_{42}\max\{P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,W_2,V),P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,W_2,V)\} \\ & +p_{31}p_{24}\max\{P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,W_3,V),P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,W_3,V)\} \\ & +p_{31}p_{42}\max\{P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,W_4,V),P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,W_4,V)\}\end{aligned}$$
If $a_1$ loses intentionally in the second week, then two situations may happen on the second week: $a_3$ defeats $a_1$, $a_2$ defeats $a_4$ with probability $p_{24}$; $a_3$ defeats $a_1$, $a_4$ defeats $a_2$ with probability $p_{42}$. These two situations bring $W^{*}$ to $W_3$, $W_4$ respectively, then we can get
$$\begin{aligned}
P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(2,W^{*},V)&=p_{24}\max\{P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,W_3,V),P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,W_3,V)\} \\ & +p_{42}\max\{P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,W_4,V),P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,W_4,V)\}\end{aligned}$$
\[secondwin\] Suppose the winning vector is $W^{*}$ at the beginning of the second week, then if $$P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(2,W^{*},V) \geq P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(2,W^{*},V)$$ $a_1$ should try to win in the second week. Otherwise, $a_1$ should lose intentionally.
Next, we take $W^{*}=[1,1,0,0]$ as an example.
### Example: $W^{*}=[1,1,0,0]$
Suppose that after the first week, $W^{*}=[1,1,0,0]$, then if $a_1$ tries to win in the second week, after the second week, $W{*}$ may become the following four vectors:
$$\left\{
\begin{array}{lr}
$[2,2,0,0]$, & \text{with probability $p_{13}p_{24}$} \\
$[2,1,0,1]$, & \text{with probability $p_{13}p_{42}$} \\
$[1,2,1,0]$, & \text{with probability $p_{31}p_{24}$} \\
$[1,1,1,1]$, & \text{with probability $p_{31}p_{42}$} \\
\end{array}
\right.$$
Since we have already found the best strategy under $W_1=[2,2,0,0]$, $W_2=[2,1,0,1]$, $W_3=[1,2,1,0]$, $W_4=[1,1,1,1]$, recall that $P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}^{1}(2,W^{*},V)$ is the probability for $a_1$ to win the champion under $W^{*}=[1,1,0,0]$ at the beginning of the second week if $a_1$ tries to win in the second week, then by theorem \[secondwin\] , we can get
$$\begin{aligned}
P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(2,[1,1,0,0],V)&=p_{13}p_{24}\max\{P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,[2,2,0,0],V),P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,[2,2,0,0],V)\} \\ & +p_{13}p_{42}\max\{P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,[2,1,0,1],V),P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,[2,1,0,1],V)\} \\ & +p_{31}p_{24}\max\{P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,[1,2,1,0],V),P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,[1,2,1,0],V)\} \\ & +p_{31}p_{42}\max\{P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,[1,1,1,1],V),P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,[1,1,1,1],V)\}\end{aligned}$$
Similarly, recall that $P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}^{1}(2,W^{*},V)$ is the probability for $a_1$ to win the champion under $W^{*}=[1,1,0,0]$ at the beginning of the second week if $a_1$ loses intentionally in the second week, note the $W^{*}$ may become the following two vectors:
$$\left\{
\begin{array}{lr}
$[1,2,1,0]$, & \text{with probability $p_{24}$} \\
$[1,1,1,1]$, & \text{with probability $p_{42}$} \\
\end{array}
\right.$$
Then, $P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(2,W^{*},V)$ can be calculated by theorem \[secondwin\].
$$\begin{aligned}
P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(2,[1,1,0,0],V)&=p_{24}\max\{P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,[1,2,1,0],V),P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,[1,2,1,0],V)\} \\ & +p_{42}\max\{P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,[1,1,1,1],V),P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,[1,1,1,1],V)\}\end{aligned}$$
Now, it is natural to compare the difference between $P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(2,[1,1,0,0],V)$ and $P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(2,[1,1,0,0],V)$ to get the best strategy in the second week. We will show the result in the following subsection.
### Analytical Results
We assume that $v_1 = 1$, $v_2$, $v_3$, $v_4$ are in $(0,1)$, and $v_2 \geq v_3 \geq v_4$. We let $v_2$ be the $x$ axis, $v_3$ be the $y$ axis, $v_4$ be the $z$ axis. It is worth mentioning that in this section, we only provide the plots by Mathematica for the set $\{V=(v_2,v_3,v_4) | P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}(2,W,V)-P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}(2,W,V) \geq 0\}$ for given $W$ instead of giving an analytical formula for the region, because the analytical formula is consisted of several extremely complicated polynomial, which is hard to write it out explicitly.
For $W=[1,1,0,0]$, the result is in figure \[fig:f9\]. The region in the plot is the set
$\{V=(v_2,v_3,v_4) | P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}(2,W,V)-P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}(2,W,V) \geq 0\}$ where $W=[1,1,0,0]$.
![values of $v_2$, $v_3$, $v_4$ such that $P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}(2,W,V)-P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}(2,W,V) \geq 0$ under $W=[1,1,0,0]$[]{data-label="fig:f9"}](9.jpg){width="1.5in" height="1.5in"}
We can also get the region plot by Mathematica under $W=[1,0,1,0]$, $[0,1,0,1]$, $[0,0,1,1]$, the results are in figure \[fig:f99\].
![Left:values of $v_2$, $v_3$, $v_4$ such that $P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}(2,W,V)-P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}(2,W,V) \geq 0$ under $W=[1,0,1,0]$. Middle:values of $v_2$, $v_3$, $v_4$ such that $P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}(2,W,V)-P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}(2,W,V) \geq 0$ under $W=[0,1,0,1]$. Right:values of $v_2$, $v_3$, $v_4$ such that $P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}(2,W,V)-P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}(2,W,V) \geq 0$ under $W=[0,0,1,1]$[]{data-label="fig:f99"}](10.jpg "fig:"){width="1.5in" height="1.5in"} ![Left:values of $v_2$, $v_3$, $v_4$ such that $P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}(2,W,V)-P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}(2,W,V) \geq 0$ under $W=[1,0,1,0]$. Middle:values of $v_2$, $v_3$, $v_4$ such that $P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}(2,W,V)-P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}(2,W,V) \geq 0$ under $W=[0,1,0,1]$. Right:values of $v_2$, $v_3$, $v_4$ such that $P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}(2,W,V)-P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}(2,W,V) \geq 0$ under $W=[0,0,1,1]$[]{data-label="fig:f99"}](11.jpg "fig:"){width="1.5in" height="1.5in"} ![Left:values of $v_2$, $v_3$, $v_4$ such that $P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}(2,W,V)-P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}(2,W,V) \geq 0$ under $W=[1,0,1,0]$. Middle:values of $v_2$, $v_3$, $v_4$ such that $P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}(2,W,V)-P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}(2,W,V) \geq 0$ under $W=[0,1,0,1]$. Right:values of $v_2$, $v_3$, $v_4$ such that $P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}(2,W,V)-P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}(2,W,V) \geq 0$ under $W=[0,0,1,1]$[]{data-label="fig:f99"}](12.jpg "fig:"){width="1.5in" height="1.5in"}
Thus, $a_1$ can decide to try to win or lose intentionally in the second week from the figure \[fig:f9\], \[fig:f99\]. Now we move to analyze the strategy for $a_1$ in the first week!
Analysis for the First Week
---------------------------
After completing the analysis of the second week, we want to analyze for the first week. In the first week, if $a_1$ tries to win, winning vector $W$ may go to these four situations:
$$\left\{
\begin{array}{lr}
$[1,1,0,0]$, & \text{with probability $p_{14}p_{23}$} \\
$[1,0,1,0]$, & \text{with probability $p_{14}p_{32}$} \\
$[0,1,0,1]$, & \text{with probability $p_{41}p_{23}$} \\
$[0,0,1,1]$, & \text{with probability $p_{41}p_{32}$} \\
\end{array}
\right.$$
Since we have already found the best strategy under $[1,1,0,0]$, $[1,0,1,0]$, $[0,1,0,1]$, $[0,0,1,1]$, recall that $P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}^{1}(1,[0,0,0,0],V)$ is the probability for $a_1$ to win the champion at the beginning of the first week if $a_1$ tries to win, similar to the analysis for the second week, we can get:
$$\begin{aligned}
P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}^{1}(1,[0,0,0,0],V)&=p_{14}p_{23}\max\{P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(2,[1,1,0,0],V),P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(2,[1,1,0,0],V)\} \\ & +p_{14}p_{32}\max\{P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(2,[1,0,1,0],V),P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(2,[1,0,1,1],V)\} \\ & +p_{41}p_{23}\max\{P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(2,[0,1,0,1],V),P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(2,[0,1,0,1],V)\} \\ & +p_{41}p_{32}\max\{P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(2,[0,0,1,1],V),P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(2,[0,0,1,1],V)\}\end{aligned}$$
If $a_1$ loses intentionally, winning vector $W$ may go to these two situations:
$$\left\{
\begin{array}{lr}
$[0,1,0,1]$, & \text{with probability $p_{23}$} \\
$[0,0,1,1]$, & \text{with probability $p_{32}$} \\
\end{array}
\right.$$
Then, $P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(1,[0,0,0,0],V)$ can be written as
$$\begin{aligned}
P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(1,[0,0,0,0],V)&=p_{23}\max\{P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(2,[0,1,0,1],V),P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(2,[0,1,0,1],V)\} \\ & +p_{32}\max\{P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(2,[0,0,1,1],V),P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(2,[0,0,1,1],V)\}\end{aligned}$$
Next we can compare the difference and due to the huge amount of calculation, the Mathematica cannot provide a nice 3d region plot, instead, we use Python to make the 3d scatter plot, which can also provide some information of the rough shape of the region. We let $v_2$ be the $x$ axis, $v_3$ be the $y$ axis, $v_4$ be the $z$ axis. The points in the plots is the set of point $\{V=(v_2,v_3,v_4) | P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}^{1}(1,[0,0,0,0],V)-P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}^{1}(1,[0,0,0,0],V) \geq 0\}$ for given $W$. Here is the result.
![the list points of $[v_2, v_3, v_4]$ when it is better for $a_1$ to lose intentionally in week $1$[]{data-label="fig:10"}](13.JPG){width="3in" height="2.5in"}
Thus, $a_1$ can investigate the team weight of $a_2$, $a_3$, $a_4$ at the beginning of the first week. If their team weight is in figure \[fig:10\], $a_1$ should lose intentionally in the first week. Otherwise, $a_1$ should try to win. Hence, we have fully analyzed this FRNS model and in the next part we will analyze the FRS model.
Analysis for the FRS Model
==========================
Description and Assumption of FRS Model
---------------------------------------
In this part, all assumptions are as same as the model in previous section except for the strategies of the other three teams. Recall that in the FRNS model, we assume that other teams try to win every game, i.e. $\pi_2=\pi_3=\pi_4=1$. However, in this part, we assume that other three teams are smart enough to lose some games intentionally to maximize their winning probability of the tournament. Hence, the strategy for one particular game may not be pure strategy. Instead, every team may have a mixed strategy for each game. In this model, $\pi_i \in [0,1]$ for $i \in \{1,2,3,4\}$. Note that the boundary point $0$ represents the strategy to lose intentionally and $1$ represents the strategy to try to win. If $\pi_i \notin \{0,1\}$, it means team $a_i$ tries to win with probability $\pi_i$ and loses intentionally with probability $1-\pi_i$. We assume that while two teams $a_i$ and $a_j$ are playing a game, if both of them try to win, then $a_i$ has probability $p_{ij}=\frac{v_i}{v_i+v_j}$ to win. If one of them tries to win and the other loses intentionally, then we assume that the one who tries to win will have 100% probability to win this game. If both of them loses intentionally, then the game is decided by flipping a fair coin. In the game theory problem with mixed strategy, we usually have to find the Nash equilibrium. The Nash equilibrium is a concept of game theory where the optimal outcome of a game is one where no player has an incentive to deviate from his chosen strategy after considering an opponent’s choice. Hence, in this model, in week $m$, given winning vector $W$ and weight vector $V$, $\pi=(\pi_1,\pi_2,\pi_3,\pi_4)$ is a Nash equilibrium if for each $i \in \{1,2,3,4\}$, $P_\pi^{(i)}(m,W,V) \geq P_{\pi^{'}}^{(i)}(m,W,V)$ for $\forall \pi^{'}$ s.t. $\pi_j^{'}=\pi_j$,$j \neq i$.
Example $W=[1,2,0,1]$
---------------------
### Analysis for $(\pi_1, \pi_2, \pi_3, \pi_4)$
Similar with the analysis of FRNS model, we still first analyze the last game. Take $W=[1,2,0,1]$ as an example, recall that in our FRNS model, we denote $T_A$, $T_B$, $T_C$ as the probability for $a_1$ to win the champion in tournament $A$, $B$, $C$ respectively. In this section, we define $T_{ij}$ as the probability team $a_i$ to win the champion in the tournament $j$, where $i \in \{1,2,3,4\}$, $j \in \{A,B,C\}$. By Theorem \[thm:ordertourn\], we know that $T_{1A} \geq T_{1B} \geq T_{1C}$ when $v_1 \geq v_2 \geq v_3 \geq v_4$. Since in our FRS model, we not only analyze the strategy of $a_1$, but also analyze the strategies of $a_2$, $a_3$, $a_4$. Next, we will introduce a lemma to show the relationship between $T_{ij}$.
\[T1\] If $v_1 \geq v_2 \geq v_3 \geq v_4$, then $$T_{1A} \geq T_{1B} \geq T_{1C}$$ $$T_{2B} \geq T_{2A} \geq T_{2C}$$ $$T_{3C} \geq T_{3A} \geq T_{3B}$$ $$T_{4C} \geq T_{4B} \geq T_{4A}$$
The proof of lemma \[T1\] can be found in the appendix $A.5$. We just simply calculate all these variables and find the difference between each of them.
In addition, we assume that in week $3$, $a_1$ vs $a_2$, $a_3$ vs $a_4$ happen simultaneously. Thus, before playing the game, any team cannot know the result of the other game. We introduce two variables: $A_{12}$, $A_{34}$, which represent the real probability for $a_1$ defeats $a_2$, and $a_3$ defeats $a_4$. The real probability of $A_{12}$ is the sum of winning probability for $a_1$ under four situations: $a_1$ tries to win and $a_2$ tries to win, $a_1$ tries to win and $a_2$ loses intentionally, $a_1$ loses intentionally and $a_2$ tries to win, $a_1$ loses intentionally and $a_2$ loses intentionally. Recall that in this section, we still assume that if both team lose intentionally, we can flip a fair coin to decide who wins the game. Thus, the formula of $A_{12}$ is: $$A_{12}=v_{12}\pi_1\pi_2+\pi_1(1-\pi_2)+\frac{1}{2}(1-\pi_1)(1-\pi_2)$$ Similarly, $$A_{34}=v_{34}\pi_3\pi_4+\pi_3(1-\pi_4)+\frac{1}{2}(1-\pi_3)(1-\pi_4)$$
Next, we define the payoff function as the probability to win the champion under given strategy. Define $Q_{ij}$, $i \in \{1,2,3,4\}$, $j \in \{a,b,c,d\}$ as the probability for $a_i$ to win the tournament under condition $j$, such that $Q_{1a}$, $Q_{2a}$, represents the probability for $a_1$, $a_2$ to win the champion if both $a_1$ and $a_2$ tries to win, respectively. $Q_{1b}$, $Q_{2b}$, represents the probability for $a_1$, $a_2$ to win the champion if $a_1$ loses intentionally and $a_2$ tries to win, respectively. $Q_{1c}$, $Q_{2c}$, represents the probability for $a_1$, $a_2$ to win the champion if $a_1$ tries to win and $a_2$ loses intentionally, respectively. $Q_{1d}$, $Q_{2d}$, represents the probability for $a_1$, $a_2$ to win the champion if both $a_1$ and $a_2$ loses intentionally, respectively. Similarly, we define $Q_{3a}$, $Q_{4a}$ as the probability for $a_3$, $a_4$ to win the champion if both $a_3$ and $a_4$ tries to win, respectively. $Q_{3b}$, $Q_{4b}$, represents the probability for $a_3$, $a_4$ to win the champion if $a_3$ loses intentionally and $a_4$ tries to win, respectively. $Q_{3c}$, $Q_{4c}$, represents the probability for $a_3$, $a_4$ to win the champion if $a_3$ tries to win and $a_4$ loses intentionally, respectively. $Q_{3d}$, $Q_{4d}$, represents the probability for $a_3$, $a_4$ to win the champion if both $a_3$ and $a_4$ loses intentionally, respectively.
To calculate the payoff functions, we show some examples. For example, to calculate $Q_{1a}$, we notice that if $a_3$ defeats $a_4$, then $W=[1,2,1,1]$. If both $a_1$ and $a_2$ tries to win and if $a_1$ wins, then $W=[2,2,1,1]$, recall our flipping coin assumption, $a_1$ has $\frac{1}{2} (T_{1A}+T_{1B} )$ probability to win the champion. If $a_2$ wins, then $W=[1,3,1,1]$, $a_1$ has $\frac{1}{3} (T_{1A}+T_{1B}+T_{1C} )$ probability to win the champion. Otherwise, if $a_4$ defeats $a_3$, then $W=[1,2,0,2]$, then if $a_1$ wins, $W=[2,2,0,2]$, $a_1$ has $\frac{1}{3} (T_{1A}+T_{1B}+T_{1C} )$ probability to win the champion. If $a_2$ wins, $W=[1,3,0,2]$, $a_1$ will enter tournament $A$, and has $T_{1A}$ probability to win the champion. Thus, $$Q_{1a}=A_{34}(v_{12}\frac{1}{2} (T_{1A}+T_{1B} )+(1-v_{12} )\frac{1}{3} (T_{1A}+T_{1B}+T_{1C} ))+(1-A_{34} )(v_{12}\frac{1}{3}((T_{1A}+T_{1B}+T_{1C} )+(1-v_{12})T_{1A})$$
Notice that if $i=1,2$, $Q_{ij}$ is a function with parameter $v_1$, $v_2$, $v_3$, $v_4$, $A_{34}$. Since $A_{34}$ is a function with parameter $\pi_3$, $\pi_4$, $$Q_{ij} = F_{ij}(v_1, v_2, v_3, v_4, \pi_3, \pi_4)$$ Similarly, if $i = 3,4$, $$Q_{ij} = F_{ij}(v_1, v_2, v_3, v_4, \pi_1, \pi_2)$$
![The game theory table for four teams[]{data-label="fig:game1"}](161.JPG "fig:"){width="2in" height="2in"} ![The game theory table for four teams[]{data-label="fig:game1"}](162.JPG "fig:"){width="2in" height="2in"}
Now, we want to introduce our method to calculate $\pi=(\pi_1,\pi_2,\pi_3,\pi_4)$. In our algorithm, the main logic is to write the probability for each team to win the champion as a function with variable $\pi$ and $Q_{ij}$. By the definition of the Nash equilibrium, if all teams own mixed strategy, then the partial derivatives of probability for team $a_i$ to win the champion with respect to the variable $\pi_i$ all equal to $0$. If not, the teams will have pure strategy. Thus, we calculate the partial derivative of the probability for each team to win the champion respect to the team $i$’s strategy $\pi_i$ and get the solutions of $\pi$. We will expand the analysis of how to solve $\pi$ now. Recall that in our main logic, firstly, we have to find the probability of each team to win the champion. Let $E_1$, $E_2$, $E_3$, $E_4$ be probability of team $a_1$, $a_2$, $a_3$, $a_4$ to win the tournament, respectively. Recall that $Q_{ij}$, $i \in \{1,2,3,4\}$, $j \in \{a,b,c,d\}$ is the probability for $a_i$ to win the champion under condition $j$. Define $P(j)$ as the probability of event $j$. Here for team $a_i$, we have $$\label{esum}
E_i=\sum_{j \in \{a,b,c,d\}}Q_{ij}P(j)$$
For example, recall that $Q_{1a}$, $Q_{1b}$, $Q_{1c}$, $Q_{1d}$ represents the probability for $a_1$ to win the tournament if both $a_1$ and $a_2$ tries to win, if $a_1$ loses intentionally and $a_2$ tries to win, if $a_1$ tries to win and $a_2$ loses intentionally, and if both $a_1$ and $a_2$ loses intentionally, respectively. Then by equation \[esum\], we have $E_1=\pi_1\pi_2Q_{1a}+(1-\pi_1)\pi_2Q_{1b}+\pi_1(1-\pi_2)Q_{1c}+(1-\pi_1)(1-\pi_2)Q_{1d}$. Similarly, we can write the following equation system.
$$\label{expectation}
\left\{ \begin{array}{lr} E_1=\pi_1\pi_2Q_{1a}+(1-\pi_1)\pi_2Q_{1b}+\pi_1(1-\pi_2)Q_{1c}+(1-\pi_1)(1-\pi_2)Q_{1d}, & \\ E_2=\pi_1\pi_2Q_{2a}+(1-\pi_1)\pi_2Q_{2b}+\pi_1(1-\pi_2)Q_{2c}+(1-\pi_1)(1-\pi_2)Q_{2d}, \\ E_3=\pi_3\pi_4Q_{3a}+(1-\pi_3)\pi_4Q_{3b}+\pi_3(1-\pi_4)Q_{3c}+(1-\pi_3)(1-\pi_4)Q_{3d}, \\ E_4=\pi_3\pi_4Q_{4a}+(1-\pi_3)\pi_4Q_{4b}+\pi_3(1-\pi_4)Q_{4c}+(1-\pi_3)(1-\pi_4)Q_{4d}, & \end{array} \right.$$
Secondly, we want to see how each team’s strategy effects their winning probability. We calculate the partial derivative for each probability in equation system \[expectation\] with respect to the variable $\pi_i$, recall that $Q_{1j}$, $Q_{2j}$ only depend on $\pi_3$ and $\pi_4$, $Q_{3j}$, $Q_{4j}$ only depend on $\pi_1$ and $\pi_2$, then, we can get $$\label{pderivE}
\left\{ \begin{array}{lr}
\frac{\partial E_1}{\partial \pi_1}=\pi_2(Q_{1a}-Q_{1b}-Q_{1c}+Q_{1d})+Q_{1c}-Q_{1d}, & \\ \frac{\partial E_2}{\partial \pi_2}=\pi_1(Q_{2a}-Q_{2b}-Q_{2c}+Q_{2d})+Q_{2b}-Q_{2d}, \\ \frac{\partial E_3}{\partial \pi_3}=\pi_4(Q_{3a}-Q_{3b}-Q_{3c}+Q_{3d})+Q_{3c}-Q_{3d}, \\ \frac{\partial E_4}{\partial \pi_4}=\pi_3(Q_{4a}-Q_{4b}-Q_{4c}+Q_{4d} )+Q_{4b}-Q_{4d}, & \end{array} \right.$$
From equation system \[pderivE\], we notice that $\frac{\partial E_i}{\partial \pi_i}$ is linearly related to the strategy variable $\pi_j$, where $a_j$ is the rival of $a_i$ in the last week. Hence, we can draw the following conclusion:
If $\frac{\partial E_i}{\partial \pi_i} \neq 0$, then team $a_i$ should make a pure strategy. Moreover, if $\frac{\partial E_i}{\partial \pi_i} > 0$, team $a_i$ should try to win. If $\frac{\partial E_i}{\partial \pi_i} < 0$, team $a_i$ should lose intentionally.
Notice that if $\frac{\partial E_i}{\partial \pi_i} > 0$, then $\frac{\partial E_i}{\partial \pi_i}$ is a linear function with positive slope. We get the maximum of $E_i$ if $\pi_i$ achieves its maximum, which is $1$. Similarly, if $\frac{\partial E_i}{\partial \pi_i} < 0$, then we get the maximum of $E_i$ if $\pi_i$ achieves its minimum, which is $0$.
Now, we focus on finding the Nash equilibrium. We first apply the Nash’s Existence Theorem to show the existence of the Nash equilibrium $\pi$.
\[Nash’s Existence Theorem\] \[exis\] [@MR46638] If we allow mixed strategies (where a pure strategy is chosen at random, subject to some fixed probability), then every game with a finite number of players in which each player can choose from finitely many pure strategies has at least one Nash equilibrium.
In our problem setting, the number of players is finite, each player has two pure strategies: win or lose. Hence, we know that the Nash equilibrium exists in our problem setting. The next proposition shows that the teams can have mixed strategies if and only if all partial derivatives of winning probabilities equals to zero.
\[propp\] For all $m$, $W$, and possible $V$, $\pi=(\pi_1,\pi_2,\pi_3,\pi_4)$ is the Nash equilibrium if and only if $$\left\{ \begin{array}{lr} \frac{\partial E_1}{\partial \pi_1}=0, \\ \frac{\partial E_2}{\partial \pi_2}=0, \\\frac{\partial E_3}{\partial \pi_3}=0, \\ \frac{\partial E_4}{\partial \pi_4}=0, & \end{array} \right.$$ \[par\]
Recall that we have mentioned that at this moment, we do not know the value of $\pi=(\pi_1,\pi_2,\pi_3,\pi_4)$, hence we solve the equation system in proposition \[par\] without expanding $A_{12}$ and $A_{34}$, we can get
$$\label{prob}
\left\{ \begin{array}{lr} A_{34}=\frac{4T_{1A}-2T_{1B}-2T_{1C}}{5T_{1A}-T_{1B}-4T_{1C}}, \\ A_{34}=\frac{4T_{2A}-2T_{2B}-2T_{2C}}{5T_{2A}-T_{2B}-4T_{2C}}, \\ A_{12}=\frac{4T_{3A}-2T_{3C}-2T_{3B}}{5T_{3A}-T_{3B}-4T_{3C}}, \\ A_{12}=\frac{4T_{4A}-2T_{4C}-2T_{4B}}{5T_{4A}-T_{4B}-4T_{4C}}, & \end{array} \right.$$
From equation system \[prob\], we know that the Nash equilibrium follows $$\label{e1}
A_{34}=\frac{4T_{1A}-2T_{1B}-2T_{1C}}{5T_{1A}-T_{1B}-4T_{1C}}=\frac{4T_{2A}-2T_{2B}-2T_{2C}}{5T_{2A}-T_{2B}-4T_{2C}}$$ $$\label{e2}
A_{12}=\frac{4T_{3A}-2T_{3C}-2T_{3B}}{5T_{3A}-T_{3B}-4T_{3C}}=\frac{4T_{4A}-2T_{4C}-2T_{4B}}{5T_{4A}-T_{4B}-4T_{4C}}$$
We have to solve these two equations. We know that the strategy is related to all team weights. Next, we claim the following theorem:
\[solution\] The only solution of \[e1\], \[e2\] is that $v_1=v_2=1$, $v_3=v_4\leq 1$.
By theorem \[solution\], we know that the only situation where all teams have mixed strategies is when $a_2$ is as strong as $a_1$, $a_3$ is as strong as $a_4$. Next, we will give a proof of theorem \[solution\].
Equation \[e1\] implies that $$\label{e3}
T_{1B}T_{2C}-T_{1B}T_{2A}+T_{1C}T_{2A}+T_{1A}T_{2B}-T_{1A}T_{2C}-T_{1C}T_{2B}=0$$
We can write \[e3\] as $$\label{e4}
T_{1A}(T_{2B}-T_{2C})+T_{1B}(T_{2C}-T_{2A} )+T_{1C}(T_{2A}-T_{2B})=0$$
To solve \[e4\], we have to introduce the Chebyshev’s sum inequality [@MR0046395]
If $a_1 \geq a_2 \geq ... \geq a_n$, $b_1 \geq b_2 \geq ... \geq b_n$, then $$\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=1}^n a_kb_k \geq (\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=1}^n a_k)(\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=1}^n b_k)$$
Recall lemma \[T1\], $T_{1A}\geq T_{1B}\geq T_{1C}$,$T_{2B}\geq T_{2A}\geq T_{2C}$, if $(T_{2C}-T_{2A})\geq (T_{2A}-T_{2B})$, then by Chebyshev’s sum inequality, $$\label{e5}
T_{1B}(T_{2C}-T_{2A} )+T_{1C}(T_{2A}-T_{2B}) \geq \frac{1}{2}(T_{1B}+T_{1C})(T_{2C}-T_{2A}+T_{2A}-T_{2B})=\frac{1}{2}(T_{1B}+T_{1C} )(T_{2C}-T_{2B})$$
Applying \[e5\] to \[e4\], we get $$0\geq T_{1A}(T_{2B}-T_{2C})+\frac{1}{2}(T_{1B}+T_{1C} )(T_{2C}-T_{2B})=(T_{1A}-\frac{T_{1B}+T_{1C}}{2})(T_{2B}-T_{2C})$$
This only happens when $T_{1A}=T_{1B}=T_{1C}$. Otherwise, $$\label{e6}
T_{2C}-T_{2A} \leq T_{2A}-T_{2B}$$
We can also write equation \[e3\] as $T_{2B}(T_{1A}-T_{1C})+T_{2A}(T_{1C}-T_{1B})+T_{2C}(T_{1B}-T_{1A})=0$. By applying Chebyshev’s sum inequality, we know that if $T_{1C}-T_{1B} \geq T_{1B}-T_{1A}$, the only possible solution is that $T_{2A}=T_{2B}=T_{2C}$. Otherwise,
$$\label{e7}
T_{1C}-T_{1B} \leq T_{1B}-T_{1A}$$
Similarly, we apply the same method to equation \[e2\]. We get $$\label{e8}
T_{4A}-T_{4B} \leq T_{4B}-T_{4C}$$ $$\label{e9}
T_{3B}-T_{3A} \leq T_{3A}-T_{3C}$$
By solving \[e6\], \[e7\], \[e8\], \[e9\], we get that the only solution is that $v_1=v_2=1$, $v_3=v_4\leq 1$.
Now, we know that if $v_1=v_2=1$, $v_3=v_4\leq 1$, every team has mixed strategy. Next, we want to find what the mixed strategy is. In this situation,
$$\label{e10}
T_{1A}= T_{1B}= T_{2A}= T_{2B} \geq T_{1C}= T_{2C}$$
$$\label{e11}
T_{3C}= T_{4C}=1-T_{1C}$$
$$\label{e12}
T_{3A}= T_{3B}= T_{4A}= T_{4B}=1-T_{1A}$$
We re-calculate $A_{12}$ and $A_{34}$ by plugging \[e10\], \[e11\], \[e12\] to equation \[e1\], \[e2\], we can get $$\label{e13}
A_{34}=\frac{4T_{1A}-2T_{1B}-2T_{1C}}{5T_{1A}-T_{1B}-4T_{1C}}=\frac{2T_{1A}-2T_{1C}}{4T_{1A}-4T_{1C}}=\frac{1}{2}$$
Similarly, $A_{12} = \frac{1}{2}$.
\[xyzw\] Under the situation where $v_1=v_2=1$, $v_3=v_4\leq 1$, the mixed strategy $(\pi_1,\pi_2,\pi_3,\pi_4)$ satisfies $\pi_1=\pi_2$, $\pi_3=\pi_4$
By expanding $A_{34}$, $$A_{34}=v_{34}\pi_3\pi_4+\pi_3(1-\pi_4)+\frac{1}{2}(1-\pi_3)(1-\pi_4)=\pi_3\pi_4+2\pi_3-2\pi_3\pi_4+\frac{1}{2}-\pi_3-\pi_4+\pi_3\pi_4=\frac{1}{2}$$ We can get $\pi_3 = \pi_4$, similarly, by expanding $A_{12}$, we can also get $\pi_1 = \pi_2$.
Next, we re-calculate the probability for each team to win the champion, $E_i$, $i=\{1,2,3,4\}$, under $\pi_1=\pi_2$, $\pi_3=\pi_4$.
Under $\pi_1=\pi_2$, $\pi_3=\pi_4$, the probability for each team to win the champion, $E_i$, does not depend on $\pi=(\pi_1,\pi_2,\pi_3,\pi_4)$.
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{e14}
E_1&=\pi_1\pi_2Q_{1a}+(1-\pi_1)\pi_2Q_{1b}+\pi_1(1-\pi_2)Q_{1c}+(1-\pi_1)(1-\pi_2)Q_{1d}\\ &=\pi_1^2(Q_{1a}-Q_{1b}-Q_{1c}+Q_{1d})+\pi_1(Q_{1b}+Q_{1c}-2Q_{1d})+Q_{1d}\end{aligned}$$
Due to $T_{1A}= T_{1B}$, also by equation \[e13\] we know $A_{12}=A_{34}=\frac{1}{2}$, we can get $$\label{e15}
Q_{1a}-Q_{1b}-Q_{1c}+Q_{1d}=0$$ $$\label{e16}
Q_{1b}+Q_{1c}-2Q_{1d}=0$$ Thus, $E_1=Q_{1d}$. Similarly, we can get $E_2=Q_{2d}$,$E_3=Q_{3d}$,$E_4=Q_{4d}$. This proves that $E_i$ is independent with the strategy variable $\pi$.
Hence, we can draw the following conclusion:
[Conclusion]{} \[concl\]\
If $v_1=v_2=1$, $v_3=v_4\leq 1$, then all $\pi_1=\pi_2$, $\pi_3=\pi_4$ are Nash equilibriums. Otherwise, all teams should use pure strategy.
Now, we want to raise a question: How to compute the Nash equilibrium if $\pi_1 \neq \pi_2$ or $\pi_3 \neq \pi_4$? From theorem \[concl\], we know that all teams have pure strategy if $\pi_1 \neq \pi_2$ or $\pi_3 \neq \pi_4$, i.e. $\pi \in \{0,1\}^4$. Since $card(\{0,1\}^4)=2^4=16$, we can plug all these 16 possible $\pi$ to the verification process: given a vector $\pi$, we can calculate all $Q_{ij}$ and draw the game theory table. Then, we can check whether the game theory problem has dominant strategy or not. By theorem \[exis\], we know that there exists some solutions among the 16 possible $\pi$.
If we are the coach of a sport team, to determine whether to try to win the next game or to lose intentionally, we can use our algorithm to get the answer. We first approximate the team weights $v_1$, $v_2$, $v_3$, $v_4$ by previous data. If the win vector before the next game is $W$, by applying our algorithm, we can get the strategy $\pi=(\pi_1,\pi_2,\pi_3,\pi_4)$ and the probability of winning the champion of each team $E_1$, $E_2$, $E_3$, $E_4$.
Future Works
============
One important question is that whether theorem \[concl\] holds when there are eight teams. A big difference between the four-team model and eight-team model is that under the four-team model, lemma \[T1\] holds for any $v_1 \geq v_2 \geq v_3 \geq v_4$. However, under the eight-team model, according to the model created by J. Schwenk [@schwenk2000correct], he showed that under some specific situations, the second seed has larger probability than the first seed to win the tournament, which implies that we cannot generalize lemma \[T1\] for the eight-team model. Hence, one of the future work is to find the Nash equilibrium under the eight-team model. One possible method is following the definition of Nash equilibrium, proposition \[propp\], to solve the equation system. However, without lemma \[T1\], we may not draw the conclusion that all teams should use pure strategy for most cases.
Proofs for FRNS Model
=====================
Proof of Theorem \[thm:ordertourn\]
-----------------------------------
$$\begin{aligned}
T_A &= \frac{v_1}{v_1+v_4} \left(\frac{v_1}{v_1+v_2}\frac{v_2}{v_2+v_3}+\frac{v_1}{v_1+v_3}\frac{v_3}{v_2+v_3} \right)=\frac{v_1^2 [v_2 (v_1+v_3 )+v_3 (v_1+v_2 )]}{(v_1+v_4 )(v_1+v_2 )(v_1+v_3 )(v_2+v_3 )} \\
T_B &= \frac{v_1}{v_1+v_3} \left(\frac{v_1}{v_1+v_2} \frac{v_2}{v_2+v_4}+\frac{v_1}{v_1+v_4} \frac{v_4}{v_2+v_4} \right)=\frac{v_1^2 [v_2 (v_1+v_4 )+v_3 (v_2+v_4 )]}{(v_1+v_4 )(v_1+v_2 )(v_1+v_3 )(v_2+v_4 )} \\
T_C &= \frac{v_1}{v_1+v_2} \left(\frac{v_1}{v_1+v_3} \frac{v_3}{v_3+v_4}+\frac{v_1}{v_1+v_4} \frac{v_4}{v_3+v_4}\right)=\frac{v_1^2 [v_3 (v_1+v_4 )+v_4 (v_1+v_3 )]}{(v_1+v_4 )(v_1+v_2 )(v_1+v_3 )(v_3+v_4 )} \end{aligned}$$
Compare $P_A$ and $P_B$, we compute $$\begin{aligned}
T_A-T_B &= \left(\frac{v_1^2}{(v_1+v_4 )(v_1+v_2 )(v_1+v_3)} \right)\left(\frac{v_2 (v_1+v_3 )+v_3 (v_1+v_2 )}{v_2+v_3}-\frac{v_2 (v_1+v_4 )+v_3 (v_2+v_4 )}{v_2+v_4} \right)\\
&=\left(\frac{v_1^2}{(v_1+v_4 )(v_1+v_2 )(v_1+v_3)} \right)(v_1 v_2+2v_2 v_3+v_1 v_3 )(v_2+v_4 )-(v_1 v_2+v_2 v_3+v_2 v_4+v_3 v_4 )(v_2+v_3 )\\&=\left(\frac{v_1^2}{(v_1+v_4 )(v_1+v_2 )(v_1+v_3)} \right)(2v_2 v_3^2-2v_3^2 v_4)=\left(\frac{v_1^2}{(v_1+v_4 )(v_1+v_2 )(v_1+v_3)} \right)(2v_3^2 (v_2-v_4))\end{aligned}$$ $\because$ $v_1 \geq v_2 \geq v_3 \geq v_4$, $\therefore$ $T_A-T_B\geq 0$
Then, compare T$_B$ and T$_C$, we compute $$\begin{aligned}
T_B-T_C&= \left(\frac{v_1^2}{(v_1+v_4 )(v_1+v_2 )(v_1+v_3 )} \right)\left(\frac{v_2 (v_1+v_4 )+v_3 (v_2+v_4 )}{v_2+v_4}-\frac{v_3 (v_1+v_4 )+v_4 (v_1+v_3 )}{v_3+v_4} \right)\\&= \left(\frac{v_1^2}{(v_1+v_4 )(v_1+v_2 )(v_1+v_3 )} \right)\left((v_1 v_2+v_2 v_4+v_2 v_3+v_3 v_4 )(v_3+v_4 )-(v_1 v_3+v_1 v_4+2v_3 v_4 )(v_2+v_4 ) \right)\\&=\left(\frac{v_1^2}{(v_1+v_4 )(v_1+v_2 )(v_1+v_3 )} \right)\left((v_3^2 v_4-v_3 v_4^2 )+(v_2 v_3^2-v_2 v_3 v_4 )+(v_1 v_2 v_4-v_1 v_3 v_4) \right) \\&= \left(\frac{v_1^2}{(v_1+v_4 )(v_1+v_2 )(v_1+v_3 )} \right)\left(v_3v_4(v_3-v_4)+v_2v_3(v_2-v_4)+v_1v_4(v_2-v_3) \right)\end{aligned}$$ $\because$ $v_1 \geq v_2 \geq v_3 \geq v_4$, $\therefore$ $T_B-T_C\geq 0$
Thus, $T_A\geq T_B\geq T_C$ for any $v_1$, $v_2$, $v_3$, $v_4$, subject to $v_1 \geq v_2 \geq v_3 \geq v_4$.
Proof of Theorem \[alwayswin\]
------------------------------
$$\begin{aligned}
P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,W,V)-P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,W,V)&=\left(p_{12}p_{34}T_A+p_{12}p_{43}T_B+p_{21}p_{34}T_B+p_{21}p_{43}T_A \right)\\&-\left(p_{34}T_A+p_{43}T_B \right)\\&= T_Ap_{12}(2p_{34}-1)+T_Bp_{12}(1-2p_{34})\\&=(T_A-T_B)p_{12}(2p_{34}-1)\end{aligned}$$
$\because$ $T_A \geq T_B, p_{34} \geq \frac{1}{2}$, i.e. $2p_{34}-1\geq 0$, $\therefore$ $P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,W,V) \geq P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,W,V)$ for all $V=[v_1, v_2, v_3, v_4]$.
This implies that it is always sensible for $a_1$ to try to win if the performance vector $W$ of first two week is $[2,2,0,0]$.
Proof of Theorem \[1201t\]
--------------------------
Under $W=[1,2,0,1]$ or $[0,1,1,2]$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,W,V)-P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,W,V)&=(p_{21}-1)p_{34}T_A+(p_{21}-1)p_{43}\frac{1}{3}(T_A+T_B+T_C)\\&\ \ \ \ +p_{12}p_{43}\frac{1}{3}(T_A+T_B+T_C)+ p_{21}p_{43}\frac{1}{2}(T_A+T_B)\\& = p_{12}\left(-\frac{2}{3}T_A+\frac{1}{3}T_B+\frac{1}{3}T_C+p_{34}(\frac{5}{6}T_A-\frac{1}{6}T_B-\frac{2}{3}T_C)\right)\end{aligned}$$
Since we want to find $V=(v_1,v_2,v_3,v_4)$ such that $P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,W,V)-P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,W,V) \geq 0$, which is equal to solve for $p_{34} \geq \frac{4T_A-2T_B-2T_C}{5T_A-T_B-4T_C}$. Hence, we want to solve the following inequality:
$$\frac{v_3}{v_3+v_4} \geq \frac{4T_A-2T_B-2T_C}{5T_A-T_B-4T_C}$$
By expanding the right side of the inequality, we can get $$\begin{aligned}
& 3v_2v_3v_4^2+2v_2v_4^3+6v_2^2v_3^2v_4+v_2v_3^2v_4+v_3^3v_4+2v_3v_4^3+10v_3^2v_4^2-3v_2^2v_3^3 \\ & -
v_2^2v_3v_4^2-2v_2^2v_4^3-v_2v_3^4-3v_2v_3^3v_4-2v_2v_3^2v_4^2-v_3^4v_4-6v_3^3v_4^2-6v_3^2v_4^3 \leq 0\end{aligned}$$ which leads to theorem \[1201t\].
Proof of Theorem \[1210t\]
--------------------------
Under $W=[1,2,1,0]$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,W,V)-P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,W,V)&=(p_{21}-1)p_{34}T_B+(p_{21}-1)p_{43}\frac{1}{3}(T_A+T_B+T_C)\\&\ \ \ \ +p_{12}p_{34}\frac{1}{2}(T_A+T_B)+ p_{12}p_{43}\frac{1}{3}(T_A+T_B+T_C)\\& = p_{12}\left(\frac{1}{6}T_A+\frac{1}{6}T_B-\frac{1}{3}T_C+p_{34}(\frac{1}{6}T_A-\frac{5}{6}T_B+\frac{2}{3}T_C)\right)\end{aligned}$$
Since we want to find $V=(v_1,v_2,v_3,v_4)$ such that $P_{\pi=(1,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,W,V)-P_{\pi=(0,1,1,1)}^{(1)}(3,W,V) \geq 0$, which is equal to solve for $p_{34} \geq \frac{T_A+T_B-2T_C}{-T_A+5T_B-4T_C}$. Hence, we want to solve the following inequality:
$$\frac{v_3}{v_3+v_4} \geq \frac{T_A+T_B-2T_C}{-T_A+5T_B-4T_C}$$
By expanding the right side of the inequality, we can get $$\begin{aligned}
& 3v_2^2v_3^2v_4+v_2v_3^4+v_2v_3^3v_4+v_3^3v_4^2+4v_3^3v_4+4v_3^2v_4^2+5v_2v_3v_4 \\ & -4v_2^2v_3v_4^2-5v_2^2v_4^3-4v_3^4v_4-2v_2v_3v_4^2-v_3^2v_4-v_3v_4^2 \leq 0\end{aligned}$$ which leads to theorem \[1210t\].
Proof of Lemma \[T1\]
---------------------
By theorem \[thm:ordertourn\], we know that if $v_1 \geq v_2 \geq v_3 \geq v_4$, then $$T_{1A} \geq T_{1B} \geq T_{1C}$$
Similar to theorem \[thm:ordertourn\], we calculate $T_{2A}$, $T_{2B}$, $T_{2C}$, $$\begin{aligned}
T_{2A} &= \frac{v_2}{v_2+v_3} \left(\frac{v_2}{v_1+v_2}\frac{v_1}{v_1+v_4}+\frac{v_2}{v_2+v_4}\frac{v_4}{v_1+v_4} \right)=\frac{v_2^2 [v_1 (v_2+v_4 )+v_4 (v_1+v_2 )]}{(v_1+v_2 )(v_1+v_4 )(v_2+v_3 )(v_2+v_4 )} \\
T_{2B} &= \frac{v_2}{v_2+v_4} \left(\frac{v_2}{v_1+v_2}\frac{v_1}{v_1+v_3}+\frac{v_2}{v_2+v_3}\frac{v_3}{v_1+v_3} \right)=\frac{v_2^2 [v_1 (v_2+v_3 )+v_3 (v_1+v_2 )]}{(v_1+v_2 )(v_1+v_3 )(v_2+v_3 )(v_2+v_4 )} \\
T_{2C} &= \frac{v_2}{v_1+v_2} \left(\frac{v_2}{v_2+v_3}\frac{v_3}{v_3+v_4}+\frac{v_2}{v_2+v_4}\frac{v_4}{v_3+v_4} \right)=\frac{v_2^2 [v_3 (v_2+v_4 )+v_4 (v_2+v_3 )]}{(v_1+v_2 )(v_3+v_4 )(v_2+v_3 )(v_2+v_4 )}\end{aligned}$$
Compare $T_{2B}$ and $T_{2A}$, we compute $$\begin{aligned}
T_{2B}-T_{2A} &= \left(\frac{v_2^2}{(v_1+v_2 )(v_2+v_3 )(v_2+v_4)} \right)\left(\frac{v_1 (v_2+v_3 )+v_3 (v_1+v_2 )}{v_1+v_3}-\frac{v_1 (v_2+v_4 )+v_4 (v_1+v_2 )}{v_1+v_4} \right)\\
&=\left(\frac{v_2^2}{(v_1+v_2 )(v_2+v_3 )(v_2+v_4)} \right)(v_1 v_2+2v_1 v_3+v_2 v_3 )(v_1+v_4 )-(v_1 v_2+2v_1 v_4+v_2 v_4 )(v_1+v_3 )\\&=\left(\frac{v_1^2}{(v_1+v_4 )(v_1+v_2 )(v_1+v_3)} \right)(2v_1^2 v_3-2v_1^2 v_4)=\left(\frac{v_1^2}{(v_1+v_4 )(v_1+v_2 )(v_1+v_3)} \right)(2v_1^2 (v_3-v_4))\end{aligned}$$ $\because$ $v_1 \geq v_2 \geq v_3 \geq v_4$, $\therefore$ $T_{2B}-T_{2A}\geq 0$
Then, compute $T_{2A}-T_{2C}$, we can get $$\begin{aligned}
T_{2A}-T_{2C} &= \left(\frac{v_2^2}{(v_1+v_2 )(v_2+v_3 )(v_2+v_4)} \right)\left(\frac{v_1 (v_2+v_4 )+v_4 (v_1+v_2 )}{v_1+v_4}-\frac{v_3 (v_2+v_4 )+v_4 (v_2+v_3 )}{v_3+v_4} \right)\\
&=\left(\frac{v_2^2}{(v_1+v_2 )(v_2+v_3 )(v_2+v_4)} \right)(v_1 v_2+2v_1 v_4+v_2 v_4 )(v_3+v_4 )-(v_2 v_3+v_2 v_4+2v_3 v_4 )(v_1+v_4 )\\&=\left(\frac{v_1^2}{(v_1+v_4 )(v_1+v_2 )(v_1+v_3)} \right)(2v_1 v_4^2-2v_3 v_4^2)=\left(\frac{v_1^2}{(v_1+v_4 )(v_1+v_2 )(v_1+v_3)} \right)(2v_4^2 (v_1-v_3))\end{aligned}$$ $\because$ $v_1 \geq v_2 \geq v_3 \geq v_4$, $\therefore$ $T_{2A}-T_{2C}\geq 0$
Hence, we can draw the conclusion that $$T_{2B} \geq T_{2A} \geq T_{2C}$$
Next, we calculate $T_{3A}$, $T_{3B}$, $T_{3C}$, $$\begin{aligned}
T_{3A} &= \frac{v_3}{v_2+v_3} \left(\frac{v_3}{v_1+v_3}\frac{v_1}{v_1+v_4}+\frac{v_3}{v_3+v_4}\frac{v_4}{v_1+v_4} \right)=\frac{v_3^2 [v_1 (v_3+v_4 )+v_4 (v_1+v_3 )]}{(v_1+v_3 )(v_1+v_4 )(v_2+v_3 )(v_3+v_4 )} \\
T_{3B} &= \frac{v_3}{v_1+v_3} \left(\frac{v_3}{v_2+v_3}\frac{v_2}{v_2+v_4}+\frac{v_3}{v_3+v_4}\frac{v_4}{v_2+v_4} \right)=\frac{v_3^2 [v_2 (v_3+v_4 )+v_4 (v_2+v_3 )]}{(v_1+v_3 )(v_2+v_3 )(v_2+v_4 )(v_3+v_4 )} \\
T_{3C} &= \frac{v_3}{v_3+v_4} \left(\frac{v_3}{v_1+v_3}\frac{v_1}{v_1+v_2}+\frac{v_3}{v_2+v_3}\frac{v_2}{v_1+v_2} \right)=\frac{v_3^2 [v_1 (v_2+v_3 )+v_2 (v_1+v_3 )]}{(v_1+v_2 )(v_1+v_3 )(v_2+v_3 )(v_3+v_4 )}\end{aligned}$$
Compare $T_{3C}$ and $T_{3A}$, we compute $$\begin{aligned}
T_{3C}-T_{3A} &= \left(\frac{v_3^2}{(v_1+v_3 )(v_2+v_3 )(v_3+v_4)} \right)\left(\frac{v_1 (v_2+v_3 )+v_2 (v_1+v_3 )}{v_1+v_2}-\frac{v_1 (v_3+v_4 )+v_4 (v_1+v_3 )}{v_1+v_4} \right)\\
&=\left(\frac{v_3^2}{(v_1+v_3 )(v_2+v_3 )(v_3+v_4)} \right)(2v_1 v_2+v_1 v_3+v_2 v_3 )(v_1+v_4 )-(v_1 v_3+2v_1 v_4+v_3 v_4 )(v_1+v_2 )\\&=\left(\frac{v_1^2}{(v_1+v_4 )(v_1+v_2 )(v_1+v_3)} \right)(2v_1^2 v_2-2v_1^2 v_4)=\left(\frac{v_3^2}{(v_1+v_3 )(v_2+v_3 )(v_3+v_4)} \right)(2v_1^2 (v_2-v_4))\end{aligned}$$ $\because$ $v_1 \geq v_2 \geq v_3 \geq v_4$, $\therefore$ $T_{3C}-T_{3A}\geq 0$
Then, we compare $T_{3A}$ and $T_{3B}$, $$\begin{aligned}
T_{3A}-T_{3B} &= \left(\frac{v_3^2}{(v_1+v_3 )(v_2+v_3 )(v_3+v_4)} \right)\left(\frac{v_1 (v_3+v_4 )+v_4 (v_1+v_3 )}{v_1+v_4}-\frac{v_2 (v_3+v_4 )+v_4 (v_2+v_3 )}{v_2+v_4} \right)\\
&=\left(\frac{v_3^2}{(v_1+v_3 )(v_2+v_3 )(v_3+v_4)} \right)((v_1 v_3+2v_1 v_4+v_3 v_4 )(v_2+v_4 )-(v_2 v_3+2v_2 v_4+v_3 v_4 )(v_1+v_4 )\\&=\left(\frac{v_1^2}{(v_1+v_4 )(v_1+v_2 )(v_1+v_3)} \right)(2v_1 v_4^2-2v_2 v_4^2)=\left(\frac{v_3^2}{(v_1+v_3 )(v_2+v_3 )(v_3+v_4)} \right)(2v_4^2 (v_1-v_2))\end{aligned}$$ $\because$ $v_1 \geq v_2 \geq v_3 \geq v_4$, $\therefore$ $T_{3A}-T_{3B}\geq 0$
Hence, we can draw the conclusion that $$T_{3C} \geq T_{3A} \geq T_{3B}$$
Finally, we calculate $T_{4A}$, $T_{4B}$, $T_{4C}$, $$\begin{aligned}
T_{4A} &= \frac{v_4}{v_1+v_4} \left(\frac{v_4}{v_2+v_4}\frac{v_2}{v_2+v_3}+\frac{v_4}{v_3+v_4}\frac{v_3}{v_2+v_3} \right)=\frac{v_4^2 [v_2 (v_3+v_4 )+v_3 (v_2+v_4 )]}{(v_1+v_4 )(v_2+v_4 )(v_2+v_3 )(v_3+v_4 )} \\
T_{4B} &= \frac{v_4}{v_2+v_4} \left(\frac{v_4}{v_1+v_4}\frac{v_1}{v_1+v_3}+\frac{v_4}{v_3+v_4}\frac{v_3}{v_1+v_3} \right)=\frac{v_4^2 [v_1 (v_3+v_4 )+v_3 (v_1+v_4 )]}{(v_1+v_4 )(v_1+v_3 )(v_2+v_4 )(v_3+v_4 )} \\
T_{4C} &= \frac{v_4}{v_3+v_4} \left(\frac{v_4}{v_1+v_4}\frac{v_1}{v_1+v_2}+\frac{v_4}{v_2+v_4}\frac{v_2}{v_1+v_2} \right)=\frac{v_4^2 [v_1 (v_2+v_4 )+v_2 (v_1+v_4 )]}{(v_1+v_2 )(v_1+v_4 )(v_2+v_4 )(v_3+v_4 )}\end{aligned}$$
Compare $T_{4C}$ and $T_{4B}$, we compute $$\begin{aligned}
T_{4C}-T_{4B} &= \left(\frac{v_4^2}{(v_1+v_4 )(v_2+v_4 )(v_3+v_4)} \right)\left(\frac{v_1 (v_2+v_4 )+v_2 (v_1+v_4 )}{v_1+v_2}-\frac{v_1 (v_3+v_4 )+v_3 (v_1+v_4 )}{v_1+v_3} \right)\\
&=\left(\frac{v_4^2}{(v_1+v_4 )(v_2+v_4 )(v_3+v_4)} \right)(2v_1 v_2+v_1 v_4+v_2 v_4 )(v_1+v_3 )-(2v_1 v_3+v_1 v_4+v_3 v_4 )(v_1+v_2 )\\&=\left(\frac{v_4^2}{(v_1+v_4 )(v_2+v_4 )(v_3+v_4)} \right)(2v_1^2 v_2-2v_1^2 v_3)=\left(\frac{v_4^2}{(v_1+v_4 )(v_2+v_4 )(v_3+v_4)} \right)(2v_1^2 (v_2-v_3))\end{aligned}$$ $\because$ $v_1 \geq v_2 \geq v_3 \geq v_4$, $\therefore$ $T_{4C}-T_{4B}\geq 0$
Then, we compare $T_{4B}$ and $T_{4A}$, $$\begin{aligned}
T_{4B}-T_{4A} &= \left(\frac{v_4^2}{(v_1+v_4 )(v_2+v_4 )(v_3+v_4)} \right)\left(\frac{v_1 (v_3+v_4 )+v_3 (v_1+v_4 )}{v_1+v_3}-\frac{v_2 (v_3+v_4 )+v_3 (v_2+v_4 )}{v_2+v_3} \right)\\
&=\left(\frac{v_4^2}{(v_1+v_4 )(v_2+v_4 )(v_3+v_4)} \right)(2v_1 v_3+v_1 v_4+v_3 v_4 )(v_2+v_3 )-(2v_2 v_3+v_2 v_4+v_3 v_4 )(v_1+v_3 )\\&=\left(\frac{v_4^2}{(v_1+v_4 )(v_2+v_4 )(v_3+v_4)} \right)(2v_1 v_3^2-2v_2 v_3^2)=\left(\frac{v_4^2}{(v_1+v_4 )(v_2+v_4 )(v_3+v_4)} \right)(2v_3^2 (v_1-v_2))\end{aligned}$$ $\because$ $v_1 \geq v_2 \geq v_3 \geq v_4$, $\therefore$ $T_{4B}-T_{4A}\geq 0$
Hence, we can draw the conclusion that $$T_{4C} \geq T_{4B} \geq T_{4A}$$
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Improving the energy-efficiency of heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems has the potential to realize large economic and societal benefits. This paper concerns the system identification of a hybrid system model of a building-wide HVAC system and its subsequent control using a hybrid system formulation of learning-based model predictive control (LBMPC). Here, the learning refers to model updates to the hybrid system model that incorporate the heating effects due to occupancy, solar effects, outside air temperature (OAT), and equipment, in addition to integrator dynamics inherently present in low-level control. Though we make significant modeling simplifications, our corresponding controller that uses this model is able to experimentally achieve a large reduction in energy usage without any degradations in occupant comfort. It is in this way that we justify the modeling simplifications that we have made. We conclude by presenting results from experiments on our building HVAC testbed, which show an average of 1.5MWh of energy savings per day (p = 0.002) with a 95% confidence interval of 1.0MWh to 2.1MWh of energy savings.'
address: 'Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720 USA (e-mail: {aaswani,tomlin}@eecs.berkeley.edu, [email protected], {taneja,krioukov,culler}@cs.berkeley.edu).'
author:
- Anil Aswani
- Neal Master
- Jay Taneja
- Andrew Krioukov
- David Culler
- Claire Tomlin
bibliography:
- 'ifacconf.bib'
title: 'Energy-Efficient Building HVAC Control Using Hybrid System LBMPC '
---
Model-based control; adaptive control; methodology; evaluation.
Introduction
============
Nearly 10% of greenhouse gas emissions and 25% of the electricity used in the United States is due to heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems in buildings [@BEDB2009; @mcquade2009]. This has driven research into better control methods (e.g., [@nghiem2011; @kelman2011; @frauke2012; @liao2012; @aswani2011_proc; @ma2012]) that can help mitigate the negative externalities due to the large energy consumption of HVAC, while still ensuring the comfort of building occupants. But the heterogeneity of HVAC equipment with respect to their physical modalities makes it difficult to develop a control design methodology that scales to many types of equipment.
Even when new HVAC controllers are designed, experimentally comparing their efficiency and comfort in relation to existing controllers is difficult because of the large temporal variability in weather and occupancy conditions. Identifying energy models of HVAC equipment can be difficult because some equipment is designed to operate most efficiently at certain temperatures or settings, which requires extensive measurement to characterize. Moreover, not all buildings have equipment to directly measure the energy consumption of only HVAC equipment.
Experiments with HVAC Controllers
---------------------------------
@siroky2011 showed that a linear model predictive controller (MPC) could provide a 10-20% reduction in energy usage of a ceiling radiant heating system, as compared to the default, manufacturer-provided controller. The temperature difference between a water set point and the outside air temperature (OAT) was used to approximate the energy usage of each controller.
@aswani2011_proc designed a new controller for an air-conditioner on a single-room testbed, which achieved up to 30% savings on warm days and up to 70% savings on cool days. Mathematical models of the temperature dynamics of different control schemes and their energy characteristics were constructed in order to allow comparisons between different controllers of experimentally measured HVAC energy usage to simulations over identical weather and occupancy conditions.
A 20% improvement in performance of thermal storage for campus-wide building cooling was achieved by @ma2012 using better control methods. Direct energy measurements of the equipment along with a regression model of baseline performance were used to compare controllers. This analysis approach requires direct measurements, because it can only statistically distinguish large differences.
Overview
--------
This paper describes our design methodology for an energy-efficient controller of a building-wide HVAC system that is able to maintain comfortable occupant conditions. We begin by describing our HVAC testbed, before explaining the modeling procedure (cf. [@aswani_2012hvac]) that was used to identify the thermal dynamics of the building and the HVAC system. Next, we describe a hybrid system [@tomlin00] version of learning-based model predictive control (LBMPC) [@aswani2011_safe].
LBMPC is a robust form of adaptive MPC. Compared to linear parameter-varying MPC [@kothare2000; @falcone2008], LBMPC differs in that it provides robustness to model changes using tube MPC (e.g., [@chisci2001]). Furthermore, the robust, adaptive MPC in [@Fukushima2007301; @adetola2011] use an adaptive model with an uncertainty measure to ensure robustness, while LBMPC uses an adaptive model to improve performance and a nominal model with an uncertainty measure to provide robustness.
We conclude by experimentally comparing, on a building-wide HVAC system, our hybrid system LBMPC controller to the default controller. This is done using the comparison methodology described in [@aswani2012_compare], which uses nonparametric methods that can compute and compare quantitative metrics of energy usage and occupant comfort for different HVAC controllers.
BRITE-S Testbed
===============
![\[fig:sdh\]Sutardja Dai Hall is 141,000-square-foot building, and is part of our BRITE-S testbed.](sdh.jpg){width="3.4in"}
The Berkeley Retrofitted and Inexpensive HVAC Testbed for Energy Efficiency in Sutardja Dai Hall (BRITE-S) platform [@krioukov2011; @aswani_2012hvac] is a building-wide HVAC system that maintains the indoor environment of a 141,000-square-foot building, shown in Fig. \[fig:sdh\], that is divided between a four-floor nanofabrication laboratory (NanoLab) and seven floors of general space (including office space, classrooms, and a coffee shop). The building automation equipment can be measured and actuated through a BACnet protocol interface.
The HVAC system uses a 650-ton chiller to cool water. Air-handler units (AHUs) with variable-frequency drive fans distribute air cooled by the water to variable air volume (VAV) boxes throughout the building. Since the NanoLab must operate within tight tolerances, our control design can only modify the operation of the general space AHUs and VAV boxes, with no modification of chiller settings that are shared between the NanoLab and general space.
The default, manufacturer-provided controller in BRITE-S uses PID loops to actuate the VAV boxes and keeps a constant supply air temperature (SAT) within the AHUs. Conventional SAT reset control is not possible because several VAV boxes provide maximum air flow rates throughout the day for nearly the entire range of SATs. These zones are often dominated by heating from computer equipment.
Identifying Thermal Dynamics
============================
For the purpose of modeling and control, we will assume that data is sampled every 15 minutes; angle brackets (i.e., $\langle\cdot\rangle$) denote measurements sampled at this rate. Let $T_s\langle k \rangle$ and $T_o \langle k \rangle$ be the SAT and OAT, respectively, at time $k$. Similarly, $T_j\langle k \rangle$ is the temperature in the $j$-th zone of the building at time $k$, for $j = 1,\ldots,Z$ zones. The VAV box in the $j$-th zone controls the zone temperature $T_j$ by modulating the amount of cool air sent to the zone $F_j\langle k \rangle$ and the amount that the air is reheated $R_j\langle k \rangle$.
In general, the thermal dynamics of each zone are $$\begin{gathered}
T_j\langle k+1 \rangle = f_j\Big(T_1\langle k \rangle, \ldots, T_Z\langle k \rangle, F_1\langle k \rangle,\ldots,F_Z\langle k \rangle, \\
R_1\langle k \rangle, \ldots, R_Z\langle k \rangle, T_o\langle k \rangle, T_s\langle k \rangle, O, X\Big),\end{gathered}$$ where $f_j(\cdot)$ is some unknown nonlinear function, $O$ are variables related to occupancy, and $X$ are variables related to other effects like the use of equipment, solar heating, etc. Some simplifying assumptions are typically made by (a) considering the physical adjacency of different zones [@kelman2011; @frauke2012; @liao2012], and (b) assuming that the effect of occupancy and other factors enters additively into the dynamics [@aswani2011_proc; @aswani_2012hvac]. After these assumptions, the model is $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:nonlinear}
T_j\langle k+1 \rangle = f_j\Big(T_{n_1}\langle k \rangle, \ldots, T_{n_q}\langle k \rangle, F_j\langle k \rangle,R_j\langle k \rangle, \\
T_o\langle k \rangle, T_s\langle k \rangle\Big) + O + X,\end{gathered}$$ where $\{n_1,\ldots,n_q\}$ is the set of zones adjacent to $j$. Additional assumptions allow further modeling simplifications. We assume that the zone temperatures do not vary significantly throughout the day, since their temperature is in principle being controlled by the HVAC system. Furthermore, we assume that the additive influence of the occupancy and other effects can be modeled by a single term $q_j\langle k \rangle$. Even after making these assumptions, the model to be identified is nonlinear since the SAT $T_s$ affects the thermal dynamics in a bilinear form [@kelman2011; @frauke2012].
We take a hybrid system approach by forcing the SATs to belong to a finite set of values $\mathcal{M} = \{T_{s_1},\ldots,T_{s_p}\}$, where $p$ is the number of modes [@aswani_2012hvac]. This allows us to consider multiple linearizations of (\[eqn:nonlinear\]). In our application to the BRITE-S testbed, we took $p = 3$ and $\mathcal{M} = \{52^\circ\text{F},58^\circ\text{F},62^\circ\text{F}\}$. For the $m_i$-th mode (for $m_i \in \{1, \ldots, p\}$) of fixed SAT $T_{s_{m_i}}$, the model is given by $$\begin{gathered}
T_j\langle k+1 \rangle = a_{n_1}^{m_i}T_{n_1}\langle k \rangle + \ldots a_{n_q}^{m_i}T_{n_q}\langle k \rangle \\
+ b_j^{m_i}F_j\langle k \rangle + c_j^{m_i}R_j\langle k \rangle + d_j^{m_i} T_o\langle k \rangle + q_j\langle k \rangle,\end{gathered}$$ where the coefficients are unknown scalars and $q_j$ is an unknown function of time $k$. The purpose of the system identification is to compute these unknown values.
Experiments for System Identification
-------------------------------------
In [@aswani_2012hvac], we used one week of data with a fixed SAT to identify a model. Identifying a hybrid system model where the SAT is able to change is more challenging, because identifying a model of equal fidelity would require three weeks (since we have three modes) of experimental data. As a result, we modified our modeling approach. We conducted experiments in which a small amount of data was gathered by cycling through all of the SATs in $\mathcal{M}$ so as to cover all of the modes of our hybrid system.
Our experiment was as follows: Starting at midnight, we set the SAT to $T_{s_1} = 52^\circ$F for two hours. We next set the SAT to $T_{s_2} = 58^\circ$F for two hours. After this, the SAT was changed to $T_{s_3} = 64^\circ$F for two hours. During these six, consecutive hours, the other HVAC configuration was kept fixed. The reason for picking a relatively quick horizon for all three experiments is that the heating load is roughly constant over a short time span.
Initial Parameter Identification
--------------------------------
We used a small amount of training data to construct an approximate initial model that was used to do control. To improve the controller performance, we have the option to re-identify the model using the semiparametric regression approach discussed in [@aswani_2012hvac].
The approximate initial model was constructed as follows: We begin by making additional modeling simplifications. Specifically, the exogenous heating load term $q_j\langle k \rangle$ was changed to also include the effects of OAT and adjacent zone temperatures. For modeling purposes, we assume that the heating load term does not change significantly over a short time. This was ensured by conducting the experiments for modeling within a quick time span. We know *a priori* that this last assumption is only approximate, but it serves to provide an initial model for which additional measurements can then be used to improve it.
Suppose we have (a) measurements for the $m_i$-th mode at times $k$ such that $L_{m_i} \leq k \leq U_{m_i}$; and (b) prior distributions for the coefficients $a_j^{m_i} \sim \mathcal{N}(\overline{a}_j^{m_i},\tilde{a}_j^{m_i}$), $b_j^{m_i} \sim \mathcal{N}(\overline{b}_j^{m_i},\tilde{b}_j^{m_i})$, $c_j^{m_i} \sim \mathcal{N}(\overline{c}_j^{m_i},\tilde{c}_j^{m_i})$, where the notation $\mathcal{N}(\mu,\Sigma)$ denotes a jointly Gaussian random variable with mean $\mu$ and covariance $\Sigma$. Our initial model is given by $$\label{eqn:dynamics}
T_j\langle k+1 \rangle = a_j^{m_i}T_j\langle k \rangle + b_j^{m_i}F_j\langle k \rangle + c_j^{m_i}R_j\langle k \rangle + q_j\langle k \rangle,$$ and the coefficients can be identified by solving the following Bayesian, constrained least squares problem $$\begin{aligned}
\min & \textstyle\sum_{m_i=1}^p\textstyle\sum_{k = L_{m_i}}^{U_{m_i}-1} (T_j\langle k+1 \rangle - a_j^{m_i}T_j\langle k \rangle \\
&\qquad - b_j^{m_i}F_j\langle k \rangle - c_j^{m_i}R_j\langle k \rangle - q_j\langle k \rangle)^2 \nonumber\\
&\qquad \quad + (a_j^{m_i} - \overline{a}_j^{m_i})^2/\tilde{a}_j^{m_i} \nonumber + (b_j^{m_i} - \overline{b}_j^{m_i})^2/\tilde{b}_j^{m_i} \\
&\qquad \qquad + (c_j^{m_i} - \overline{c}_j^{m_i})^2/\tilde{c}_j^{m_i} \nonumber\\
\text{s.t. } & a_j^r = a_j^s, \qquad\forall r,s \in \{1,\ldots,p\} \label{eqn:timeconstant}\\
& b_j^{r+1} < (T_{s_{r+1}}/T_{s_r})\cdot b_j^r, \qquad\forall r \in \{1,\ldots,p-1\} \label{eqn:cooling}\\
& c_j^r = c_j^s, \qquad\forall r,s \in \{1,\ldots,p\} \label{eqn:heating}\\
& q_j\langle k \rangle = q_j\langle q \rangle, \qquad\forall k,q \in \textstyle\bigcup_{r \in \{1,\ldots,p\}}[L_r,U_r] \label{eqn:occupancy}\end{aligned}$$
The constraints in the optimization problem reflect constraints between different hybrid modes of the HVAC system. Constraint (\[eqn:timeconstant\]) ensures that the time-constants of the thermal dynamics are constant for each mode of the hybrid system, while constraint (\[eqn:cooling\]) encodes the fact that cooler temperatures will provide greater amounts of cooling in each zone. Constraint (8) reflects that the re-heating capability of each VAV box is relatively constant across different SATs. Lastly, constraint (\[eqn:occupancy\]) represents the approximation that the occupancy is fixed over a short window of time.
Modeling the VAV Box Control
----------------------------
Each VAV box uses air flow $F_j$ and reheat amount $R_j$ to modulate the temperature of the $j$-th zone. The VAV boxes use a PID controller (note that the use of a PID controller in zone control is typical for building HVAC systems [@honeywell]), and so we approximate this as a proportional controller. This is not restrictive because the “learning” portion of our LBMPC controller can compensate for the unmodeled integrator portion of this control. We will discuss this in the next section.
Let $e_j\langle k \rangle = T_j\langle k \rangle - S_j\langle k \rangle$ be the difference between the zone temperature and the temperature set point for the $j$-th zone ($S_j$). Then, we use the following model for the control of reheat amount $$\label{eqn:reheat}
R_j\langle k \rangle = \begin{cases} 100, & \text{if } e_j\langle k \rangle < -1^\circ\text{F} \\ -100\cdot e_j\langle k \rangle, & \text{if } -1^\circ\text{F} \leq e_j\langle k \rangle < 0^\circ\text{F} \\ 0, & \text{if } e_j\langle k \rangle \geq 0^\circ\text{F}
\end{cases}.$$ We assumed that each VAV box has the same controller, and so this controller model was identified by fitting a piecewise linear model to the observed data points $(e_j\langle k \rangle, R_j\langle k \rangle)$ over all zones. A comparison of the data points for a single zone and the fitted model is shown in Fig. \[fig:reheat\].
A similar model is used for the air flow amount $$\label{eqn:flow}
F_j\langle k \rangle = \begin{cases} \alpha_j, & \text{if } e_j\langle k \rangle < 0^\circ\text{F} \\ (\omega_j - \alpha_j)\cdot e_j\langle k \rangle + \alpha_j, & \text{if } 0^\circ\text{F} \leq e_j\langle k \rangle < 1^\circ\text{F} \\ \omega_j, & \text{if } e_j\langle k \rangle \geq 1^\circ\text{F}
\end{cases},$$ where $\alpha_j$ and $\omega_j$ are the minimum and maximum amount of air flow allowed in the $j$-th zone. These values are configured by the building manager.
![\[fig:reheat\] A scatter plot of data taken from a single zone of temperature error and reheat amount in percentage is shown, along with the model (solid line) that we use for the VAV box controller. The discrepancy is largely due to the integrator term that we leave unmodeled; our approach is to “learn” the value of the integrator term as we are doing control.](reheat.pdf)
The Hybrid System LBMPC Controller {#sect:hl}
==================================
Several inputs can be used for control: The reheat $R_j$ and air flow $F_j$ in each zone can be explicitly actuated, or they can be implicitly actuated by varying the set point $S_j$. Here, we only actuate the SAT; our methodology can be extended to also utilize the other inputs.
For the sake of argument, suppose that the sequence of SATs is fixed over a horizon of length $N$ and starting at time $k = 1$. So if the mode sequence of SATs is $M = m_1,\ldots,m_N$, then the corresponding SATs are $T_s\langle 1 \rangle = T_{s_{m_1}},\ldots,T_s\langle N \rangle = T_{s_{m_N}}$. Consequently, the temperature in each zone at time $k$ can be computed by just “running” or simulating the model forward in time; no optimization is needed to compute the values of $F_j$,$R_j$,$T_j$, etc.
As a result, minimizing our cost function subject to the thermal dynamics and system constraints requires optimization over *only* the set of possible sequences. In other words, our optimization problem is an integer program. Fortunately, there is a constraint that greatly reduces the computational complexity: The SAT can only change once every hour; the reason for this constraint is that large, frequent changes to the SAT can damage the HVAC equipment. So if the horizon is $N = 16$, which corresponds to four hours when sampling at 15 minute intervals, then there are 3621 different combinations.
In order to further simplify the computational complexity, we make use of a heuristic that further reduces the computation. We specify that the mode is fixed over the span of every hour. For our setup — where we have three modes and four possible mode changes — this means that we have to compute the cost for $3^4 = 81$ different combinations. This is a low number of combinations that can be computed under one second on a desktop computer because, as mentioned earlier, we do not need to optimize over other variables. For future extensions where other variables are used to do control, we would only need to solve 81 convex optimization problems (specifically quadratic programs), which can be reasonably solved.
Energy Modeling
---------------
Before we present the optimization formulation of the controller, we provide some intuition into the form of the cost function we use. A building HVAC system typically has several individual pieces of equipment that contribute to the overall energy usage. Within BRITE-S, most of the energy consumption is due to three elements: the fans in the AHU, the chiller that cools water and indirectly cools air, and the reheating that occurs each zone’s VAV box.
Even though parameterizations of the energy usage of the equipment are known [@kelman2011; @frauke2012], modeling these features is difficult because individual energy measurements are usually not available. There is another subtle point regarding the energy models and their relationship to our cost function. Let $E_1(\cdot),E_2(\cdot),E_3(\cdot)$ be the energy due to fans, chiller, and reheating. One possible cost is $\textstyle\sum_j (T_j - S_j)^2 + \lambda E_1(\cdot) + \mu E_2(\cdot) + \gamma E_3(\cdot)$, where $\lambda,\mu,\gamma \in \mathbb{R}$ are constants. There are two reasons for weighting energy usage based on type: First, the energy usage of the equipment is often related to the mechanical and physical stress on the equipment, and so differential weighting allows a finer level of regulation with respect to such considerations. Second, the energy usage of equipment sometimes comes from different energy sources. For example, heating is provided by steam while the fans are powered by electricity in BRITE-S.
Because the cost function weights each energy usage function, we really only need to know the energy model up to a constant, unknown scaling factor, because this gets subsumed into the scaling in the cost function. This simplifies the energy modeling that we do for the purpose of control. We use the following energy models: The fan energy usage is $E_1 \sim (\sum_j F_j)^3$ and the chiller energy is $E_2 \sim (T_o-T_s)\cdot\sum_j F_j$ [@kelman2011; @frauke2012], while the reheat energy is $E_3 \sim \sum_j R_j$.
Optimization Formulation
------------------------
We can now present the optimization formulation of the hybrid system LBMPC controller. The basic intuition behind LBMPC [@aswani2011_safe] is that two models of the system are kept. The first is a nominal model that is used with respect to the constraints, and the second model is used in the cost function and is updated using data gathered during control. This maintains robustness while improving performance through model updates.
Without loss of generality, we assume that the control action is being computed for time $k = 1$; also recall that we do control at a rate of every 15 minutes. If $\overline{T}_j\langle 1 \rangle, \overline{R}_j\langle 1 \rangle, \overline{F}_j\langle 1 \rangle$ are the predictions of the linear model from time $k = 0$, then let $\hat{q}_j \langle i \rangle = T_j\langle 1 \rangle - \overline{T}_j \langle 1 \rangle$, $\hat{f}_j \langle i \rangle = F_j\langle 1 \rangle - \overline{F}_j \langle 1 \rangle$, $\hat{r}_j \langle i \rangle = R_j\langle 1 \rangle - \overline{R}_j \langle 1 \rangle$. The intuition is that these terms with hats represent corrections to the predictions of the MPC and provide the adaptation inherent in the controller [@aswani2011_proc]. Specifically, $\hat{q}_j$ represents an estimate of the heating load due to occupants, weather, solar heating, and equipment; $\hat{f}_j$ represents the integrator term in the PID control of air flow in the $j$-th VAV box; and $\hat{r}_j$ represents the integrator term in the PID control of reheat amount in the $j$-th VAV box.
The control action is given by the minimizer to $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{m_1,\ldots,m_N} & \textstyle\sum_{i = 1}^N \bigg(\textstyle\sum_j (\tilde{T}_j\langle i+1 \rangle - S_j\langle i+1 \rangle)^2 \\
&\qquad \qquad + \lambda (\textstyle\sum_j \tilde{F}_j\langle i \rangle)^3 + \gamma \textstyle\sum_j \tilde{R}_j\langle i \rangle \nonumber\\
& \qquad \qquad \quad + \mu (T_o\langle i \rangle-T_s\langle i \rangle)\cdot\textstyle\sum_j \tilde{F}_j\langle i \rangle \bigg)\nonumber \\
\text{s.t.} & (\ref{eqn:dynamics}), (\ref{eqn:reheat}), (\ref{eqn:flow}) \nonumber\\
& \tilde{F}_j = F_j + \hat{f}_j;\ \tilde{R}_j = R_j + \hat{r}_j \nonumber \\
& \tilde{T}_j\langle i+1 \rangle = a_j^{m_i}\tilde{T}_j\langle i \rangle + b_j^{m_i}\tilde{F}_j\langle i \rangle + c_j^{m_i}\tilde{R}_j\langle i \rangle \nonumber \\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad + \hat{q}_j\langle i \rangle \nonumber \\
& T_s\langle i \rangle = T_{m_i} \nonumber \\
& T_s\langle 4q+r \rangle = T_s\langle 4q+s \rangle, \ \forall r,s \in \{1,\ldots,4\} \label{eqn:switching} \\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \wedge q \in \{0,\ldots,\lceil N/4\rceil-1\} \nonumber \\
& T_j\langle i \rangle \in [66^\circ\text{F},78^\circ\text{F}], \ \forall j \in \{1,\ldots,Z\} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Note that constraint (\[eqn:switching\]) allows the SAT $T_s$ to switch value only once an hour, which reduces the computational complexity of the controller as discussed previously.
A desktop computer took an average of under one second to solve this optimization problem for BRITE-S. Furthermore, we used values of $\lambda = 6.7\text{e}4/(\sum_j \alpha_j)^3$, $\mu = 1.3\text{e$-$}3$, and $\gamma = 6.7$. These values were picked using an iterative process in which (a) the control was computed but not used for actuation; (b) the control and predictions were analyzed for if SAT stayed at higher values, the reheat amount was low, and the air flow remained at moderate levels; (c) the coefficients $\lambda,\mu,\gamma$ were changed and the process starting at (a) was repeated until (b) was satisfied.
Measuring Efficiency
====================
Separate energy measurements of the general space HVAC system are not available in BRITE-S. Instead, we only have access to measurements of both the general space HVAC and the NanoLab HVAC. We denote these energy measurements as $E[i]$ for $i = 1,\ldots,D$, where the index $i$ is over hourly intervals. Furthermore, we have measurements of the OAT that correspond to the energy usage measurements: $T_o[i]$ for $i = 1,\ldots,D$.
The general model describing the relationship between energy usage, OAT, occupancy $O$, and other factors (e.g., solar effects, equipment, etc.) $X$ is $E = f(T_o, O, X)$, where $f(\cdot,\cdot,\cdot)$ is an unknown, nonlinear relationship. But because occupancy and other factors are generally not directly measured, it is typically only possible to consider the energy usage averaged over occupancy and other factors $E_{o,x}(T_o) = \mathbb{E}\big[f(T_o, O, X) \big| T_o\big]$. This can be estimated using nonparametric regression [@gyorfi2002], and it is a curve that describes the relationship between the OAT and the average energy consumption. Intuitively, if the data points $(T_o[i], E[i])$ for $i = 1,\ldots,D$ represent a scatter plot of energy usage versus OAT; then $\hat{E}_{o,x}(T_o)$ represents the smoothed version of the scatter plot.
The average amount of energy used in one hour is therefore $E_{g} = \mathbb{E}_{g}\big(E_{o,x}(T_o)\big) = \mathbb{E}_{g}\big[\mathbb{E}\big[f(T_o, O, X) \big| T_o\big]\big]$, where $g(T_o)$ is a probability distribution of OATs. This notation allows us to define the average amount of energy used in one day as $E_{day} = \sum_{i = 1}^{24} E_{g_i}$, where $g_i(T_o)$ is the probability distribution of OAT during the $i$-th hour of the day. For simplicity, we assume a uniform distribution for the OAT.
This allows us to compare the energy efficiency of two controllers. We can compute the quantities defined above for each controller, and a nonparametric methodology [@boostrap2007] can be used to determine whether the differences are statistically significant.
Measuring Occupant Comfort
==========================
In order to define a quantification of comfort that is both tractable and will scale to many buildings, we focus on a measure that is only dependent on temperature. We assume that the average temperature for the $j$-th zone is measured at hourly intervals $T_j[i]$ for $i = 1,\ldots,D$.
Let $(x)_+$ be the thresholding function, which is defined so that $(x)_+ = 0$ if $x < 0$ and $(x)_+ = x$ otherwise. We define our quantification of comfort using soft thresholding as $C = 1/Z \cdot \textstyle\sum_{j=1}^Z \textstyle\int_0^1 (|T_j - S_j|-B_j)_+ dt$, where the integral with respect to $dt$ is over one hour of time, $S_j$ is the set point of the zone, and $B_j$ is the amount of temperature deviation for which the building has been configured. The intuition is that this quantity increases whenever $T_j$ exceeds $S_j$ by more than $B_j$, and the amount of increase in this quantity is proportional to the amount and duration of temperature deviation. The BRITE-S building is configured for $B_j \equiv 1^\circ$F for all zones and times.
Experimental Results
====================
The hybrid system LBMPC controller was used to control the SAT in BRITE-S for 8 days that spanned both weekdays and weekends, and this was compared to 22 days in which the default, manufacturer-provided controller was used. Recall that our comparison methods implicitly account for variations in energy usage due to occupancy, and this is made explicit in the 95% confidence interval for estimated values. The building and HVAC configurations were kept identical for when both controllers were used, and this configuration has been in use for over one year.
For notational reasons, we use a superscript 1 to refer to the default controller, and superscript 2 denotes the hybrid system LBMPC controller. Also, we define the quantity $\Delta\hat{E}^{2,1} = \hat{E}_{day}^2-\hat{E}_{day}^1$ to be the estimated difference between the average energy usage over a day of the LBMPC controller and that of the default controller. The value $\Delta\hat{C}^{2,1} = \hat{C}_{day}^2-\hat{C}_{day}^1$ is an analogous quantity of the estimated difference in average comfort over a day.
The estimated energy characteristics $\hat{E}_{o,x}^1(T_0),\hat{E}_{o,x}^2(T_0)$ are shown in Fig. \[fig:lbmpc\_energy\], and their differences are statistically significant $(p = 0.002)$. The estimated difference in average energy usage over one day $\Delta \hat{E}^{2,1} = -1.53$MWh is statistically significant $(p=0.002)$. And the 95% confidence interval is $\Delta \hat{E}^{2,1} \in [-2.07,-1.02]$MWh.
The estimated comfort characteristics $\hat{C}_{o,x}^1(T_0),\hat{C}_{o,x}^2(T_0)$ are shown in Fig. \[fig:lbmpc\_comfort\], and their differences are not statistically significant $(p = 0.8)$. Furthermore, the estimated difference in average comfort over one day $\Delta \hat{C}^{2,1} = -0.75^\circ$F is not statistically significant $(p=0.5)$, meaning that there is not enough evidence to exclude that $\Delta C^{2,1} = 0^\circ$F.
The LBMPC controller provides modest energy savings at most OATs, which sum up to significant savings over a day. And because the difference in comfort characteristics is not statistically significant, this suggests that the LBMPC and default controllers provides comparable levels of comfort.
Conclusion
==========
We have presented a hybrid model of building HVAC and described its control using hybrid system LBMPC. Experiments show substantial savings, and future directions for further energy savings were discussed. More broadly speaking, our experiments on BRITE-S, and previously on BRITE, show that the LBMPC methodology can provide significant energy savings for a wide variety of HVAC systems operating using different physical modalities.
The authors thank Domenico Caramagno and Stephen Dawson-Haggerty for their assistance.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We demonstrate numerically a method of focusing two-photon field inside one-dimensional random media. The approach is based on coherent control of backscattering achieved by adaptive spectral pulse shaping. The spectral phases of a femtosecond laser pulse are adjusted for the constructive interference of its backward-traveling components, resulting in an enhanced reflection from within the random system. A delayed forward-propagating second pulse overlaps with the controlled reflection, increasing the inter-pulse multi-photon field at a location determined by the delay between the two pulses. The technique is shown to be robust against the variations of the disorder, and to work with realistic pulse shaping parameters, hence enabling applications in controlling random lasing and multi-photon imaging in scattering materials.'
author:
- 'Alex C. Han and Valery Milner'
bibliography:
- 'han\_milner.bib'
title: Nonlinear Spatial Focusing in Random Layered Media by Spectral Pulse Shaping
---
Introduction
============
Focusing of light in random media is of interest from both the fundamental and applied perspectives. One important application of light focusing in disordered materials relates to the controllability of coherent light amplification known as random lasing [@Letokhov1968; @Cao2003; @Wiersma2008]. Lasing action in the presence of random light scattering has been theoretically analyzed and experimentally studied in multiple materials and spatial geometries [@Genack1994; @Lawandy1994; @Sha1994; @Noginov1995; @Wiersma1995; @Cao1999; @Frolov1999; @Jiang2000]. The very nature of random lasing implies uncertainty in the characteristics of the lasing modes [@Andreasen2011]. The ability to control the lasing frequency of a random laser has therefore been actively investigated and accomplished, for example, by changing the temperature of the scattering medium [@Wiersma2001], its structure [@Wiersma2008; @Gottardo2008; @Bardoux2011] and absorption properties [@ElDardiry2011], the wavelength [@Shojaie2014] and the location of local pumping [@Cao1999; @Wu2007; @Bachelard2012; @Hisch2013]. The latter approach is particularly appealing in the regime of strong scattering, when the emission modes are localized in space and can be selectively excited by choosing the location of the pump which best overlaps the target lasing mode [@Vanneste2001; @Sebbah2002].
Local pumping requires optical access to different parts of the gain material. This can be achieved by applying an external pump laser to different areas on the surface of a three-dimensional sample [@Cao1999]. However, for systems of lower dimensionality (especially one-dimensional (1D) random lasers [@Burin2002; @Milner2005], where the regime of light localization is most easily established), local pumping implies the ability to focus the pump light *inside* the scattering medium. It has recently been implemented by pumping a 1D random structure from the side, i.e. perpendicularly to the direction of the disorder [@Bachelard2012; @Bachelard2014]. Such pumping geometry, however, may not always be available, either because of the lack of optical access or due to the microscopic size of the sample.
Here, we propose an alternative approach, in which local pumping of a random layered medium is accomplished by means of spectral shaping of femtosecond pump pulses. The concept is similar to the spatio-temporal focusing of ultrashort laser pulses in three-dimensional scattering media [@Aulbach2011; @Katz2011; @Mosk2012]. There, controlling the spatial degrees of freedom of the incident wave has proven successful in simultaneous focusing of multiply-scattered light both in space and time. However, similarly to the pumping from the side of a sample, spatial shaping may not always be available for 1D structures with an optical access to their front layer only. In this situation, spectral shaping can be used as a powerful tool for controlling light propagation through, and interaction with, scattering materials [@VanBeijnum2011]. The success of using the spectral degree of freedom has been recently demonstrated in the linear regime of spatio-temporal focusing [@McCabe2011]. Optical nonlinearity, such as two-photon absorption (TPA), offers higher degree of controllability in random media due to the process of multi-photon intra-pulse interference [@Meshulach1998; @Delacruz2004].
![(color online) (**a**) Illustration of the proposed strategy for multi-photon focusing inside a one-dimensional “random stack”, consisting of alternating layers of random thickness (dielectric blue slabs and air gaps). Spectral shaping of the control pulse (blue) is used to initiate strong localized backscattering from within the stack. The focusing of a two-photon field occurs at the location, where the backscattered control pulse meets a forward-propagating pump (red, drawn off-axis from the control pulse for clarity) (**b,c**) Field distribution inside an almost periodic stack (**b**, $\epsilon=0.1\%$) and a random stack (**c**, $\epsilon=20\%$) at different wavelengths. Band-edge and localized modes are visible inside a periodic and disordered sample, respectively, and are reflected by the peaks in the corresponding transmission spectra shown in the right panels.[]{data-label="mode_scan"}](1_modes.pdf)
The one-dimensional photonic structure of our choice is illustrated in Fig. \[mode\_scan\]**a**. Known as a “random stack”, it consists of a series of layers with alternating refractive indices $n$: here, 100 dielectric layers with $n=1.1$ separated by air gaps ($n=1.0$). The layers are of uniform but random thickness, distributed in the range $[L(1-\epsilon), L(1+\epsilon)]$, where $L$ is 10 microns for dielectric layers and 1 micron for air layers, and $\epsilon $ is the dimensionless disorder parameter. Random layer thickness results in the complete phase scrambling of multiply scattered waves, whereas their interference in one dimension brings about the well known effect of light localization [@Berry1997]. Field intensity distributions inside two stacks, one with low and another with high degree of disorder are shown in Fig. \[mode\_scan\] **b** and **c**, respectively, together with the corresponding transmission spectra (right panels).
The case of $\epsilon=0.1\%$ represents the photonic crystal limit with a stop band around 1500 nm. Localized edge modes can be seen around the boundaries between the pass and stop bands, but most of them are not sufficiently localized to be used in the proposed technique. When the degree of disorder is increased to $\epsilon=20\%$, one can see the appearance of strongly localized modes associated with the randomly distributed transmission peaks. The parameters of the stack are chosen so as to result in the average mode line width of about 1 nm, about ten times larger than the resolution of a typical spectral pulse shaper [@Weiner2000]. Together with the ability to cover a number of localized modes under the spectrum of a typical femtosecond pulse, individual control of the spectral phases within each excited mode is essential for the proposed focusing scheme described below.
By inspecting the intensity distribution inside a random stack (Fig. \[mode\_scan\]**c**), one notes an obvious way of focusing light at different locations within the layered structure by means of narrowing the spectrum of a broadband excitation pulse and making it resonant with a single localized mode. However, such *amplitude shaping* implies much lower peak intensities and correspondingly higher average power required to cross the lasing threshold [@Drane2015].
An alternative *phase-only shaping* is preferable from the standpoint of making use of the full bandwidth of an ultrashort pump pulse. Yet in the linear absorption regime, changing the spectral phases of the pulse amounts to altering its temporal profile but does not affect the total absorbed power [@Meshulach1999]. We therefore turn to a nonlinear optical process, such as two-photon absorption, as the enabling mechanism for the controlled focused excitation. Similarly to the well known colliding-pulse mode-locking scheme [@vanderZiel1981], we propose to create a local TPA centre inside a random stack by overlapping two counter-propagating pulses: a backscattered “control pulse” and a forward-propagating “pump pulse”. The two pulses meet at the location easily controlled by the time delay between them. Backscattering is necessary due to the assumed restricted optical access to the random sample, limited to its front layer only (left most layer in Fig.\[mode\_scan\]**a**). As we demonstrate below, spectral shaping is capable of creating the required strong backscattered pulse originating deep inside a disordered one-dimensional structure by controlling the phases of its localized modes. Furthermore, we show that the latter phases can be determined by means of an adaptive search algorithm which uses the energy of the pulse reflected from the front layer as the only feedback parameter.
Two-photon Field Focusing
=========================
The proposed technique achieves spatial focusing of the two-photon field in two steps. First, a control pulse, incident on the random stack along its axial direction, is spectrally shaped so as to backscatter from around the centre of the random sample. Then, a time-delayed pump pulse is injected along the same path. The central frequencies of the two pulses, $\omega _{c}$ and $\omega _{p}$, are assumed to be separated by more than the pulse bandwidths, as shown by their combined spectrum in the wavelength domain in Fig. \[spec\]**a**. When the two pulses overlap in space and time, their two-photon field will acquire an inter-pulse sum-frequency component situated between the two individual second harmonics (shaded band in Fig. \[spec\]**b**). The spatial focusing of this sum-frequency component within the random stack is determined by the delay between the two pulses, and can be used for the two-photon pumping of a gain medium, provided the latter absorbs light at frequency $\omega _{c}+\omega _{p}$.
Controlled Backscattering
-------------------------
At any position $z$ inside the stack, the field amplitude of the control pulse at frequency $\omega $ is a sum of the forward and backward-propagating components: $
E(\omega,z) = a_j(\omega) e^{ik_jz} + b_j(\omega) e^{-ik_jz},
$ where $k_j = \omega n_j/c$ and $j$ is the layer number. For a transform-limited control pulse incident on the stack, all spectral amplitudes $a_0(\omega)$ are in-phase, but multiple random scattering results in a significant phase scrambling between $a_j(\omega)$ \[and hence, $b_j(\omega)$\] amplitudes at locations deep inside the stack, causing dispersed reflection. However, if one constructs a spectral phase mask to pre-shape $a_0(\omega)$ before the control pulse enters the stack, such that the backward components acquire identical phases at a target location, a localized wave packet in the backward propagation direction can be generated.
To demonstrate the level of control over the backscattered pulse, we investigate one *feedforward*-based method and two *feedback*-based methods of finding the required pre-shaping mask. In the feedforward approach, the complex spectral amplitudes at the location of each layer are first calculated using the transfer matrix method [@Pendry1994] and *a priori* knowledge about the random stack parameters. The required phase mask is the one that flattens the phases of the backscattered amplitudes $b_j(\omega)e^{-ik_jz}$ at a particular location $z$ (e.g. midpoint of layer $j$). The ease of finding such a mask stems from the fact that all pairs of $a_j$ and $b_j$ amplitudes are linearly dependent on the incident amplitude $a_0$, at any given frequency [^1].
In practice, however, the the geometry of the stack structure, i.e. the exact layer thicknesses and refractive indices, is usually unknown. In this case, the pre-shaping mask can be found by means of an adaptive feedback loop optimizing the backscattered field intensity $
|\int_\omega b_j(\omega)e^{-i\omega (t-t_0)}e^{-ik_jz}d\omega|^2
$ either inside or outside the disordered sample. The internal field optimization may, again, be impractical. It will be analyzed below to serve as a reference for evaluating the performance of the second method based on optimizing the backward propagating field at the surface of the very front layer at a given time delay after the entrance of the control pulse. In what follows, we demonstrate how the three shaping methods produce the desired focusing of the two-photon field and analyze its dependence on several key physical quantities: the degree of disorder, the location of the focus within the stack, and the resolution of the pulse shaper.
Note that the central frequency of the control field was deliberately chosen in the middle of the stop band (cf. Fig. \[mode\_scan\] and \[spec\]) to analyze our focusing technique in the periodic limit. Pump and control pulses had the same bandwidth, with pump being 4 times more intense in order to compensate for the weakening amplitude of the backscattered control light. The initial resolution of the pulse shaper was set at 0.07 nm.
![One-photon (**a**) and two-photon (**b**) power spectra of control (centered at 1500nm) and pump (centered at 1480nm) pulses. The shaded area indicates the frequency range of the two-photon field used in the proposed focusing technique. It is calculated for the case of the transform-limited control and pump pulses overlapping in space and time. []{data-label="spec"}](2_specs.pdf)
Analysis of the Focusing Results
--------------------------------
### Dependence on the degree of disorder
The performance of the three focusing methods discussed above is illustrated in Figures \[ff\], \[fb100\] and \[fb0\]. In the upper row we plot the trajectory of a control pulse, i.e. the one-photon field intensity distribution as a function of the propagation time. Time zero corresponds to the arrival time of an *unshaped* control pulse at the front layer. The bottom row of plots shows the two-photon intensities for the shaded frequency band of Fig. \[spec\]**b**, as a function of the control-pump delay time. Pairs of such plots (different columns) are then compared across different degrees of randomness expressed as a relative variation of thickness ($\epsilon $) of both the dielectric layers and the air gaps. Each plot is averaged over 10 realizations of the disorder.
In the feedforward shaping method, the phases of the backward propagating components are made equal at the midpoint of the 50th air layer. As can be seen in the upper row of Fig. \[ff\], the pre-shaping is reflected by the smearing of the control pulse in time prior to its entrance to the stack. The successful generation of a backscattered pulse from the middle of the stack is clearly visible across moderate to large layer thickness variations ($\epsilon$=20%, 60%, 90%). The applied shaping also results in the temporal focusing, limited only by the bandwidth of the control pulse. The influence of the exact value of $\epsilon $ appears to be rather insignificant, except for the periodic limit ($\epsilon=0.1\%$) where the penetration of the control pulse inside the sample is largely prohibited.
The calculated two-photon field intensities are shown in the lower plots of Fig. \[ff\] for different arrival times of the pump pulse at the front layer, relative to the arrival time of the unshaped control pulse. For delay times earlier than around 2 ps, the two-photon intensity is not spatially localized, since the pump pulse overlaps largely with the forward traveling portion of the shaped control field. However, as soon as the pump is sufficiently delayed, its overlap with the backward propagating control results in a focused two-photon intensity (thin bright trace at the lower half of the plot). The lower limit of the spatial size of the focused two-photon intensity is again determined by the frequency bandwidth of the pump and control pulses. The focusing location can be tuned continuously across the front half of the sample. The target point of backscattering sets an upper limit for the position of the nonlinear focus. In the periodic limit, no control over the two-photon field can be achieved due to the inhibited light penetration into the stack.
Very similar one-photon control field trajectories and two-photon signal maps are plotted in Figures \[fb100\] and \[fb0\] using the two feedback-based shaping methods. In Fig. \[fb100\], we optimize the phase mask so as to maximize the intensity of the backward propagating control field at the location of the 50th air layer. In Fig. \[fb0\], the same adaptive optimization is then repeated with a more practical feedback parameter - the intensity of the backscattered control pulse as it exists the very front layer after a fixed delay of 6 ps, set in accordance with the results of the feedforward scheme. Note that the exact value of this delay is of little importance since the arrival time is easily controlled by adding a linear spectral phase tilt to the adaptive shaping mask. For both optimization methods, we used the “minimize" algorithm from SciPy’s “optimize" library. The results demonstrate that both methods are capable of generating the backscattered pulse and producing the desired two-photon focusing similarly to the feedforward-based procedure. Furthermore, the methods proved equally successful for many different realizations of the stack geometry, indicating their robustness with respect to the randomness of the system.
### Depth of Focusing and Shaping Resolution
Since the enhanced backscattering, described above, is achieved via constructive interference of backward propagating waves at a target location, its efficiency should depend on the availability and strength of localized modes at that location. One would therefore expect the efficiency of our method to decrease when the reflection point of control pulses is pushed deeper into the stack (cf. Fig. \[mode\_scan\]**c**). This trend is apparent in Fig. \[jtar\] for a stack with $\epsilon=90\%$: as we move the target location from 30th to 45th, 60th and finally 75th air layer, the reflection point follows along, but the backscattered intensity is dropping. Hence, the control range for the focused two-photon field can be extended only at the expense of its lower strength.
Arranging for constructive interference within localized modes also depends on the spectral resolution, with which individual spectral phases can be varied. To analyze this dependence, we implement our feedforward method and change the resolution of a numerical pulse shaper from 0.07 nm to 0.33, 0.67, 1 and 1.3 nm, the latter being of the order of the average wavelength separation of the localized modes. The results are shown in Fig. \[res\] for a random stack with $\epsilon=20\%$. The detrimental effects of insufficient resolution to control individual spectral components within each single localized mode are clearly seen through the disappearance of the backscattered wave in the right most plot.
Conclusion
==========
In conclusion, we have developed a systematic technique to achieve spatial focusing of a multi-photon field inside a 1D layered random medium. Our approach relies on creating a strong backscattered pulse originating from inside the random sample by means of the spectral pulse shaping. The method is demonstrated numerically for random stacks whose parameters are known *a priori*, as well as using adaptive optimization algorithms that maximize the backward-propagating light intensity, either internally or at the very front layer of samples with unknown geometry. By colliding the controlled backscattered pulse with a time-delayed forward-propagating pump, spatially localized two-photon field is established in a range of target locations.
We have demonstrated the robustness of the proposed technique with respect to the degree of disorder. It works well both on a single-realization level and when statistically averaged over many realizations of the random medium. The location of the focused two-photon field can be easily controlled within (but not much beyond) the first half of the sample, as determined by an optimum reflection point for the spectrally shaped control pulse. This limit originates from the fundamental phenomenon of light localization in one-dimensional random structures. We also show that the required resolution of the spectral pulse shaping is dictated by the average frequency bandwidth of the localized modes. When the shaping resolution falls below this limit, the ability to control the interference of backward-propagating components is lost, and the efficiency of the proposed focusing method deteriorates.
One direct application, which served as a motivation for this study, is to induce and control local pumping inside a 1D random laser by means of the spectral pulse shaping and with no optical access other than the front layer of the sample. This ability should allow selective excitation of different lasing modes at different spatial locations, and would therefore provide control over the lasing frequencies. Other potential applications may include two-photon fluorescence imaging in layered structures, and can be extended to other scenarios of multi-photon light-matter interaction in random media.
[^1]: The field amplitudes at the entrance and exit sides are related via $
( a_0 \quad b_0 )^\text{T} = M ( a_N \quad b_N )^\text{T}
$, where $M = (T_{N-1}\dots T_1T_0)^{-1}$ involves the transfer matrices $T_j$ connecting layer $j$ and $j+1$ by $
( a_{j+1} \quad b_{j+1} )^\text{T} = T_j ( a_j \quad b_j )^\text{T}
$. If all fields are incident to the front layer ($j=1$), then $b_N=0$, and it gives us $
a_N = a_0/M_{11},\quad
b_0 = M_{21} a_N = (M_{21}/M_{11}) a_0.
$
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Vincent P. Flynn'
- 'Emilio Cobanera,'
- Lorenza Viola
title: Restoring number conservation in quadratic bosonic Hamiltonians with dualities
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
Duality transformations provide a powerful tool for relating seemingly very different physical systems or very different regimes (thermodynamic phases) of a single system [@savit; @BAD]. Generally, they are highly non-local transformations of the microscopic degrees of freedom, which preserve, in a suitable sense, the locality structure and spectral properties of the original Hamiltonian [@DPRL] – though possibly nothing else. A duality can change drastically the symmetries of a system in that, for example, a global symmetry of the original system may be mapped to a boundary symmetry of its dual or, a broken number conservation symmetry may be mapped to a broken translation symmetry [@GaussianD]. Of all the typical, but not quite defining, features of duality transformations (non-locality, mapping microscopic to topological degrees of freedom, mapping strongly-coupled systems to weakly-coupled dual systems), this phenomenon of *symmetry transmutation* is arguably their most universal feature.
In this paper, we show that a large class of number-non-conserving quadratic bosonic Hamiltonians (QBHs) are dual to number-conserving QBHs in a conceptually and practically useful sense: one can always recast and simulate these QBHs, which feature “pairing” or “parametric amplification”, in terms of unitarily equivalent QBHs, which *feature only hopping terms*, by properly adjusting their amplitudes. In the process, the total number operator undergoes the transmutation typical of dualities. Our dualities are akin to the *Gaussian dualities* connecting free-fermion topological insulators and superconductors [@GaussianD; @PRB2]. The specification of the class of QBHs that admit number-conserving duals is in itself remarkable. Unlike free fermions, a QBH can be thermodynamically unstable by failing to be bounded below and/or it can be dynamically unstable by inducing non-periodic, unbounded time evolution of some observables. The class of number-non-conserving QBHs that are dual to number-conserving ones is precisely the class of *dynamically stable QBHs*. A QBH can show transitions between dynamically stable and unstable regimes as a function of Hamiltonian parameters and, as we showed in [@decon], these transitions are characterized by the breaking of a generalized parity-time ($\mathcal{PT}$) symmetry, with sharp features emerging in the thermodynamic limit. Thus, the notion of “dynamical phase diagram” is granted for bosons and distinct from the usual notion of thermodynamic phase diagram. Our dualities identify number-conserving dual QBHs within the dynamical phase diagrams of number-non-conserving QBHs.
Beside introducing the general construction and elucidating basic features of our duality transformation, we provide two paradigmatic examples, namely, the number-conserving duals of a gapped harmonic chain and the bosonic Kitaev-Majorana chain of under various boundary conditions [@clerkBKC; @decon]. Furthermore, we highlight two important applications of our duality. First, we derive a formula that relates the geometric phase and other topological invariants of number-non-conserving QBHs to the corresponding (Berry) invariants of the dual number-conserving system. Second, we outline an approach for realizing the $\mathcal{P}\mathcal{T}$-symmetric dynamics characteristic of many relevant semiclassical open systems with balanced gain and loss in terms of number-conserving QBHs, thereby bypassing the need for engineering pairing/parametric amplification while still avoiding the introduction of non-unitary noise [@clerkPT]. We believe this approach could offer significant advantages for analog quantum simulation [@nori], and for furthering the exploration of the remarkable physical phenomena associated with non-Hermitian systems [@PT].
Background: The effective BdG Hamiltonian {#background}
=========================================
The class of QBHs we consider are of the form $$\label{genham}
\widehat{H}=\sum_{i,j=1}^N \left[K_{ij} a_i^\dag a_j + \frac{1}{2}\left(\Delta_{ij} a_i^\dag a_j^\dag + \Delta_{ij}^*a_ja_i\right)\right],$$ where $a_i$ ($a_i^\dag$) is the bosonic annihilation (creation) operator for mode $i$, with $[a_i,a_j]=0$, $[a_i,a_j^\dag]=\delta_{ij} 1_F$, and $1_F$ being the identity on the bosonic Fock space. Hermiticity of $\widehat{H}$ implies that $K^\dag=K$ and bosonic commutation rules allow us to take $\Delta^T=\Delta$. By introducing a Nambu array $\hat{\Phi}\equiv [a_1,a_1^\dag,\ldots,a_N,a_N^\dag]^T$, we may formally define a Hermitian single-particle Hamiltonian (SPH) $H$ such that $$\label{genham2}
\widehat{H} = \frac{1}{2}\hat{\Phi}^\dag H \hat{\Phi}-\frac{1}{2}\text{tr} K, \quad
[H]_{ij}= \begin{bmatrix}
K_{ij} & \Delta_{ij} \\ \Delta^*_{ij} & K^*_{ij} .
\end{bmatrix},$$ The QBH $\widehat{H}$ is bounded below (thermodynamically stable) if and only if $H$ is positive-semidefinite [@Derezinski17].
Let $\ket{\alpha(t)}$ denote a vector in the Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}\equiv (\mathbb{C}^{2N},\braket{\cdot|\cdot})$ and $\tau_j\equiv\mathds{1}_N\otimes \sigma_j$ in terms of the usual Pauli matrices. The Heisenberg equations of motion for an operator of the form $\widehat{\alpha}(t)\equiv \bra{\alpha(t)}\tau_3 \hat{\Phi}(0)$ are $$\label{Heis}
i\frac{d}{dt}\widehat{\alpha}(t) = - [\widehat{H},\widehat{\alpha}(t)] = \widehat{G\alpha}(t),\quad G\equiv\tau_3 H,$$ which further reduces to the linear time-invariant system $\ket{\dot{\alpha}(t)} = iG\ket{\alpha(t)}$. Hence, the
*effective Bogoliubov-de Gennes (BdG) SPH* $G$ completely characterizes the dynamics of physical observables.
The matrix $G$ is Hermitian if and only if the pairing amplitudes $\Delta_{ij}$, which break the conservation of the total number operator $\widehat{N}\equiv\sum_{i=1}^Na_i^\dagger a_i$, vanish. Nonetheless, $G$ has two built-in symmetries: (i) $\tau_3$*-pseudo-Hermiticity*[^1] ($\tau_3$-PH), that is, $G^\dag = \tau_3 G\tau_3$, and (ii) *charge conjugation symmetry*, that is, $G=-\mathcal{C}G\mathcal{C}^{-1}$, with $\mathcal{C}=\tau_1\mathcal{K}=\mathcal{C}^{-1}$ and $\mathcal{K}$ complex conjugation. As a consequence, the eigenvalues of $G$ come generically in quartets, $\{\omega, -\omega^*, -\omega, \omega^*\}$. One can understand these features geometrically. On the one hand, because of $\tau_3$-PH, $G$ is ‘Hermitian’ in the indefinite inner-product *Krein space* ${\mathscr K}_{\tau_3} \equiv\left( \mathbb{C}^{2N},\braket{\cdot|\tau_3|\cdot}\right)$[@baldesflow]. On the other hand, given two operators $\widehat{\alpha}=\bra{\alpha}\tau_3 \hat{\Phi}$ and $\widehat{\beta}=\bra{\beta}\tau_3\hat{\Phi}$, we have that $[\widehat{\alpha},\widehat{\beta}^\dag ] =\braket{\alpha|\tau_3|\beta}$. Therefore, the commutation relations of the normal modes of $\widehat{H}$ are also determined by the $\tau_3$-inner product along with the identity $\widehat{\alpha}^\dag = -\widehat{\mathcal{C}\alpha}$ in terms of the charge-conjugation operation ${\cal C}$.
The focus of this paper is on QBHs such that the effective SPH $G$ is [*diagonalizable with a real spectrum*]{}. These conditions imply that the time evolution of the normal modes of Eq. is bounded (quasi-periodic) and so the system is *dynamically stable* – see [@decon] for an in-depth analysis of the dynamical phases and the corresponding phase boundaries in general QBHs. With these assumptions, we are guaranteed the existence of an eigenbasis $\{\ket{\psi_n}\}$ of $G$, with corresponding eigenvalues $\omega_n\in\mathbb{R}$, that can be chosen to satisfy (i) $\ket{\psi_{n+N}} = \ket{\overline{\psi}_n} = \mathcal{C}\ket{\psi_n}$, and (ii) $\braket{\psi_n|\tau_3|\psi_m}=\delta_{nm}$ for $n\leq N$ and $-\delta_{nm}$ for $n>N$ [@ripka; @RK]. The many-body Hamiltonian $\widehat{H}$ can thus be cast as a sum of independent simple harmonic oscillators $$\label{decoupled}
\widehat{H} = \sum_{n=1}^N \omega_n \Big(\widehat{\psi}_n^\dag \widehat{\psi}_n+\frac{1}{2}\Big)-\frac{1}{2}\text{tr}K ,$$ where $\widehat{\psi}_n = \bra{\psi_n}\tau_3\hat{\Phi}$, $[\widehat{\psi}_n ,\widehat{\psi}_m^\dag] = \delta_{nm}$ and . The quasi-particle vacuum can be constructed in the standard manner [@ripka; @RK] and coincides with a ground state of $\widehat{H}$ provided that the $\omega_n\geq 0$. We do not require that this should be the case.
Restoring Hermiticity of the effective BdG Hamiltonian {#Smatrix}
======================================================
Drawing from general results on PH operators [@ali], it follows that dynamical stability guarantees the existence of a *positive-definite matrix $S$* with the property $G=S^{-1}G^\dag S$. Thus, a dynamically stable effective BdG Hamiltonian *is* Hermitian when regarded as an operator on the Hilbert space ${\cal H}_S\equiv (\mathbb{C}^{2N},\braket{\cdot|S|\cdot})$. This Hermitian inner product can be characterized in terms of the eigenbasis $\{\ket{\psi_n}\}_{n=1}^{2N}$ described right above Eq., according to the explicit formula $$\label{S}
S = \sum_{n=1}^{2N}\tau_3 \ket{\psi_n}\bra{\psi_n}\tau_3.$$ Together with the $\tau_3$-PH property, the above expression implies that $[G,\tau_3 S]=0$. Hence, by the spectral theorem, there exists a simultaneous eigenbasis of $G$ and $\tau_3 S$ which is orthonormal with respect to the $S$-inner product. The basis $\{\ket{\psi_n}\}_{n=1}^{2N}$ is precisely this basis.
To better appreciate the role played by of dynamical stability, it is useful to notice that $ {\text{tr}\,}S =\sum_{n=1}^{2N} r_n^{-1} $ in terms of the *Krein phase rigidities* $r_n\equiv \braket{\psi_n|\psi_n}^{-1}$ of the eigenvectors of $G$. As we showed in [@decon], there exists an $n$, such that $r_n\to 0$ as the system approaches a dynamical instability. Owing to the positivity of $S$, ${\text{tr}\,}S\to \infty$ in the same limit and, since it follows from Eq. that ${\text{tr}\,}S^{-1} = {\text{tr}\,}\tau_3 S \tau_3 = {\text{tr}\,}S$, we conclude that there exists an eigenvalue of $S$ that tends to zero. In other words, $S$ becomes ill-defined as a dynamically unstable regime is approached.
Restoring number conservation with duality transformations {#dualitysec}
==========================================================
We are now in a position to construct the desired duality transformation. Given that $S$ is a positive-definite matrix, there is a well-defined, positive-definite square root $R\equiv S^{1/2}$. Since $R$ is unique, it inherits several properties from $S$ itself. Firstly, owing to the positive-definiteness, $R$ is necessarily Hermitian. Secondly, since $S^{-1}=\tau_3 S\tau_3$, taking the unique positive-definite square root of each side implies that $R^{-1}=\tau_3 R \tau_3$. In agreement with the mathematical framework of [@aliexact], $R^{-1}$ is a Hilbert space isomorphism when viewed as a map from $\mathcal{H}$ to $\mathcal{H}_S$. Finally, rewriting $S$ in the form $$S = \sum_{n=1}^{N} \tau_3\, (\ket{\psi_n}\bra{\psi_n} + \ket{\overline{\psi}_n}\bra{\overline{\psi}_n})\,\tau_3$$ shows that $S^* = \tau_1 S \tau_1$. Again, taking the unique positive-definite square root of each side yields $R^* = \tau_1 S \tau_1$.
The above properties allow us to conclude that the map $\hat{\Phi}\mapsto \hat{\Theta}_S\equiv R^{-1}\hat{\Phi}=S^{-1/2}\hat{\Phi}$ is a (linear) unitary, canonical transformation [@ripka]. That is, the operators $\hat{\Theta}_S=[b_1,b_1^\dag,\ldots,b_N,b_N^\dag]^T$ satisfy the bosonic commutation relations $[b_i,b_j^\dag ]=\delta_{ij}1_F$, $[b_i,b_j]=0$. By the Stone-von Neumann theorem [@hallQM], there exists a unitary operator $\widehat{U}$ on Fock space, such that $R^{-1}\hat{\Phi} \equiv \widehat{U}\hat{\Phi}\widehat{U}^\dag$. This unitary operator acts on the many-body Hamiltonian as $$\widehat{H}^D\equiv \widehat{U}\widehat{H}\widehat{U}^\dag =\frac{1}{2}\hat{\Phi}^\dag (\tau_3 G^D ) \hat{\Phi},\quad G^D = RGR^{-1}.$$ Since the effective BdG Hamiltonian $G^D$ is Hermitian, $$G^D{}^\dag = R^{-1}G^\dag R = R^{-1} S G S^{-1} R = RG R^{-1} = G^D ,$$ it follows that the [*pairing amplitudes $\Delta^D_{ij}$ of $\widehat{H}^D$ vanish*]{}: the dual QBH $\widehat{H}^D\equiv \widehat{U}\widehat{H}\widehat{U}^\dag$ satisfies $[\widehat{H}^D,\widehat{N}]=0$. One can also check that, under our duality transformation, the total number operator for the quasiparticles of $\widehat{H}$ in Eq., $ \sum_{n=1}^N \widehat{\psi}_n^\dag \widehat{\psi}_n $, is mapped to $\widehat{N} $.
It is instructive to notice the fate of the dual Hamiltonian when pairing vanishes to begin with. In this case, $G$ already commutes with $\tau_3$. Thus, one can construct an orthonormal basis consisting of simultaneous eigenvectors of $G$ given by $\{\ket{\psi_n^\pm}\}_{n=1}^N$, with $\tau_3 \ket{\psi^\pm_n}=\pm \ket{\psi^\pm_n}$ and $\ket{\psi^\pm_n} = \mathcal{C}\ket{\psi^{\mp}_n}$. A straightforward calculation of the positive-definite metric $S$ in Eq. shows that $S= \mathds{1}_{2N}$. Hence, $R=\mathds{1}_{2N}$ and the dual effective BdG Hamiltonian is $G^D=RGR^{-1} = G$, implying that number-conserving QBHs are invariant under our duality map.
A few important remarks are in order. First, there is a “trivial” sense in which any dynamically stable QBH $\widehat{H}$ is unitarily equivalent to a number-conserving dual: simply take the unitary that maps the normal modes $\widehat{\psi}_n$ to the bosonic operators $a_n$. Of course, to construct such a unitary, one must fully diagonalize $G$. In general, however, our duality does *not* return the fully diagonalized Hamiltonian, as evidenced by the fact that arbitrary number-conserving QBHs are a fixed point of the transformation. Furthermore, despite the definition of $S$ including the complete set of eigenvectors of $G$, a full diagonalization of $G$ is *not* always needed to identify $\widehat{H}^D$ in practice, as we will demonstrate by example in the next section.
Second, it is natural to ask whether an analogous matrix to $S$ may be constructed for quadratic *fermionic* Hamiltonians and, if so, whether it also allows to remove pairing. Two lines of reasoning could be envisioned: (i) since $\tau_3$ is replaced by $\mathds{1}_{2}$ for fermionic SPHs (i.e., $G=H$ is Hermitian, and no instabilities occur), the spectral theorem implies $S=\mathds{1}_{2N}$; (ii) if, on top of Hermiticity, we demand $\tau_3$-PH for a fermionic SPH, then it necessarily commutes with $\tau_3$ and hence cannot contain any pairing to begin with. Either ways, the construction used for bosons does *not* allow for pairing removal in the fermionic case. Lastly, it is not *a priori* clear how the locality properties of the original Hamiltonian $\widehat{H}$ transmute into those of $\widehat{H}^D$. The examples that follow illustrate that $\widehat{H}^D$ may or may not be of finite range even if $\widehat{H}$ is.
Example 1: A gapped harmonic chain
----------------------------------
Consider the following one-dimensional Hamiltonian under periodic boundary conditions (PBCs), $$\label{ghcham}
\widehat{H} = \sum_{j=1}^N\Big(\frac{p_j^2}{2m} + \frac{{C_\text{o}}}{2} x_j^2 + \frac{{C_\text{nn}}}{2}\left( x_{j+1}-x_j\right)^2\Big) ,$$ where $x_j$ ($p_j$) is the position (momentum) operator at site $j$, $m>0$ is the uniform mass, and are onsite and nearest-neighbor (NN) stiffness constants, respectively. Defining $\Omega\equiv \sqrt{(2{C_\text{nn}}+{C_\text{o}})/m}$, $J\equiv {C_\text{nn}}/m\Omega$, and the bosonic annihilation operator $a_j \equiv \sqrt{m\Omega/2}\left(x_j+ip_j/m\Omega\right)$ gives the QBH $$\label{original1}
\widehat{H} = \sum_{j=1}^N \Omega\Big( a_j^\dag a_j + \frac{1}{2}\Big)
- \frac{J}{2}\Big(a_{j+1}^\dag a_j + a_{j+1}^\dag a_j^\dag + \text{H.c.}\Big),$$ which explicitly breaks $a$-boson number conservation. We focus in the following on the dynamically stable parameter regime[^2] ${C_\text{o}}>0, {C_\text{nn}}\geq 0$.
By moving to the Fourier basis $b_k\equiv N^{-1/2}\sum_{j=1}^N e^{-ikj}a_j$, with $k$ in the first Brillouin zone (BZ), one obtains the Bloch effective BdG Hamiltonian $G_k$, which is a $k$-dependent $2\times 2$ matrix. The bosonic normal modes $\beta_k, \beta_k^\dagger$ are calculated by the method sketched in the background section, leading to $$\begin{aligned}
\ \widehat{H}=\!\!\sum_{k\in\text{B.Z.}} \omega_k \beta_k^\dag \beta_k,
\ \ \omega_k\equiv[({C_\text{o}}+4{C_\text{nn}}\sin^2(k/2))/m]^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ Recall that our duality is designed to remove the pairing terms in the effective BdG Hamiltonian. For the $2\times 2$ matrix $G_k$, this goal is equivalent to diagonalizing $G_k$. Accordingly, the induced many-body transformation is simply $\beta_k\mapsto b_k$, that is, $\widehat{H}^D = \sum_{k\in\text{B.Z.}}\omega_k b_k^\dag b_k$, which indeed commutes with $\widehat{N}$. In real space, $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{H}^D = \sum_{j=1}^N\sum_{r=1}^{N-j} \left( K^D_{r}a_{j+r}^\dag a_{j} + \text{H.c.}\right)+K_0^D\widehat{N},\end{aligned}$$ in terms of $K^D_r \equiv N^{-1}\sum_{k\in\text{B.Z.}} \omega_k e^{ikr}$. Hence, the effect of pairing in the original NN Hamiltonian of Eq. is mimicked in $\widehat{H}^D$ by rapidly decaying (see below and Fig.\[Kvr\]) but non-finite-range hopping amplitudes.
Notice that $K^D_r=\Omega \delta_{r0}$ in the number-conserving limit ${C_\text{nn}}=m\Omega J=0$ \[see Eq.\], and so the original and the dual system coincide, as expected on general grounds. By contrast, as soon as ${C_\text{nn}}>0$ and ${C_\text{o}}>0$, the hopping amplitudes of the dual model are no longer of finite range. The exact value of the dual hopping amplitudes in the limit $N\to\infty$ can be evaluated analytically at the point ${C_\text{o}}=0$, where the gap closes and the system is no longer dynamically stable. By letting $\Omega_\text{nn}\equiv 2\sqrt{{C_\text{nn}}/m}$, we find $$\label{exact}
K^\text{TL,0}_r \equiv \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^\pi \left(\omega_k|_{{C_\text{o}}=0}\right) e^{ikr}\,dk = \frac{2}{\pi}\frac{\Omega_\text{nn}}{1-4r^2} .$$ As seen in Fig.\[Kvr\](a), this $1/r^2$-type limiting value appears to bound the exact hopping amplitudes (calculated numerically) for finite system size. So, how well does $\widehat{H}^D$ approximates $\widehat{H}$ if we truncate the hopping range to some finite value $r_\text{max}\equiv \varrho$? Let $\widehat{H}^D(\varrho)$ denote the truncated Hamiltonian and $\omega^\varrho_k$ the corresponding band structure. A plot of $\omega^\varrho_k$ is given for $\varrho=0,1,2,3$ in Fig.\[trunc\]. Note that the quasiparticle gap is present for each $\varrho$ despite the lack of pairing-like terms in the truncated Hamiltonian.
![(Color online) (a) Rescaled hopping strength $|K^D_r|/\Omega_\text{nn}$, for varying onsite stiffness ${C_\text{o}}$. In all cases $m=1,{C_\text{nn}}=2$ and $N=30$. The exact expression for the hopping amplitude in the thermodynamic limit \[TL, Eq. (\[exact\])\] is also shown for ${C_\text{o}}=0$. (b) The band structure $\omega_k$, with the same normalization and same parameter values, for varying ${C_\text{o}}$. The color coding is the same as in (a). Note that the duality transformation is not strictly valid for ${C_\text{o}}=0$ due to loss of diagonalizability.[]{data-label="Kvr"}](Fig1.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
![(Color online) The band structure of the Hamiltonian $\widehat{H}^D(\varrho)$ with the real-space coupling range truncated at $\varrho=0,1,2,3$. The exact band structure is also shown for comparison. All remaining parameters are the same as in Fig. \[Kvr\].[]{data-label="trunc"}](Fig2.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
We emphasize that the procedure we carried out in this example generalizes to *any* translationally-invariant, dynamically stable QBH without internal degrees of freedom, regardless of the space dimensionality. Given that the band structure is delocalized in momentum space, the hopping amplitudes of $\widehat{H}^D$ will generically be “short-range”, i.e., exponentially decaying in real space. Truncation will then produce a finite-range number-conserving QBH which is approximately isospectral to the original Hamiltonian with small error.
Example 2: A bosonic analogue of Kitaev’s Majorana chain
--------------------------------------------------------
In this example our duality transformation does not change the range of the hopping amplitudes. The original model is a bosonic chain motivated by a certain analogy to the fermionic Majorana chain of Kitaev [@clerkBKC; @decon]. The QBH is of the form $\widehat{H}\equiv \widehat{H}_O + s\widehat{W}(\varphi)$, with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{BKC}
\begin{split}
\widehat{H}_O &\equiv \!\!& \frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{N-1} \left(it a_{j+1}^\dag a_j+i\Delta a_{j+1}^\dag a_{j}^\dag + \text{H.c.}\right),
\cr
\widehat{W}(\varphi) &\equiv \!\!\!& \frac{1}{2}\left(it e^{i\varphi} a_{1}^\dag a_N+i\Delta e^{i\varphi} a_{1}^\dag a_{N}^\dag + \text{H.c.}\right).
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\widehat{H}_O$ represents the system under open boundary conditions (OBCs), $\widehat{W}(\varphi)$ introduces $\varphi$-twisted boundary conditions ($\varphi$-TBCs), and the parameters $t,\Delta>0$, $s\in[0,1]$, $\varphi\in[0,\pi]$. Analytical solutions reveal that in the hopping-dominated regime, $t>\Delta$, the system is *dynamically stable* for both OBCs and $\pi/2$-TBCs with $s=1$; likewise, numerics indicate stability in a small region in the $(\varphi,s)$-plane surrounding the line $\varphi=\pi/2$ for all $N$ in addition to the line $s=0$ for $N$ even, which shrinks exponentially as $N$ increases [@decon]. Instead, the system is dynamically unstable in the pairing-dominated regime, $\Delta>t$ (see Fig.\[dynstab\] for a representative dynamical phase diagram as a function of boundary parameters). Since our duality transformation is only defined for dynamically stable QBHs, we limit ourselves to the case $t>\Delta$.
![(Color online) A dynamical phase diagram for the Hamiltonian in Eq. with $t=1, \Delta=0.25$, $N=20$. Here $\omega_m$ denotes the $m$-th eigenvalue of the effective SPH. Note that the regions of stability ($\max\textup{Im}(\omega_m)=0$) are concentrated around the lines $\varphi=\pi/2$ and $s=0$.[]{data-label="dynstab"}](Fig3.pdf){width=".36\textwidth"}
Utilizing the analytical solutions for the basis $\{\ket{\psi_n}\}$ derived in [@decon], we can determine the positive-definite matrix $S$ for $s=1$ and $\varphi=\pi/2$, by using Eq.. We find $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\pi/2}(r) &\!\!\!=\!\!\!& \sum_{j=1}^N\ket{j}\bra{j}\otimes S_j(r) ,
\cr
S_j(r) &\!\!\!\equiv\!\!\!& \begin{bmatrix}
\cosh[2(j-j_0)r] & -\sinh[2(j-j_0)r]
\\
-\sinh[2(j-j_0)r] & \cosh[2(j-j_0)r]
\end{bmatrix} ,\end{aligned}$$ with $j_0\equiv (N+2)/2)$ and $r\equiv (1/2)\ln\left[(t+\Delta)/(t-\Delta)\right]$. Noting that $R^{-1}(r)\equiv S^{-1/2}_{\pi/2}(r) = S_{\pi/2}(-r/2)$, it follows that the desired duality transformation is given by $$a_j\mapsto \cosh[(j-j_0)r]a_j + \sinh[(j-j_0)r]a_j^\dag,
\label{BKmap}$$ which yields the number-conserving dual QBH $$\widehat{H}^D = \frac{i\tilde{t}}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{N-1}\! \left(a_{j+1}^\dag a_j - \text{H.c.}\right) -\frac{s\tilde{t}}{2}\left(a_1^\dag a_N + \text{H.c.}\right),
\label{BKCD}$$ where $\tilde{t}\equiv\sqrt{t^2-\Delta^2}$. The first term in Eq. (\[BKCD\]), which we shall denote $\widehat{H}^D_O$, is the image, under the transformation, of the bulk Hamiltonian $\widehat{H}_O$, whereas the second term is the image of the boundary term $s\widehat{W}(\pi/2)$. We see that as $\Delta\to t$, the QBH $\widehat{H}^D$ approaches the zero Hamiltonian and $\widehat{H}$ approaches a dynamical instability. We also see that, although constructed for $s=1$, our duality holds unchanged for *any* $s\in[0,1]$ at $\varphi=\pi/2$. Thus, by leveraging exact solutions at a single point, we have constructed the duality map for a non-trivial region in parameter-space.
The special case of this duality with $s=0$ was discovered “by inspection” in [@clerkBKC], upon leveraging insight about the physics of squeezing. As it turns out, for OBCs only, our duality maps $\widehat{H}_O$ to $\widehat{H}^D_O$, *regardless* of the choice of $j_0$ in Eq. (\[BKmap\]); $j_0$ may even vary spatially as a function of $j$. This parametric freedom, also noticed to an extent in [@clerkBKC], can be explained within our framework as a consequence of the chiral ($+/-$) symmetry in the quasi-particle *excitation* energy spectrum of $\widehat{H}_O$ [@decon].
Notably, a proposal to use $\widehat{H}_O$ for generating multipartite entangled states was also put forward in [@clerkBKC], taking advantage of the fact that $\widehat{H}^D_O$ can be thought of as a beam-splitter network and, thanks to the locality properties of the mapping $\widehat{H}_O \leftrightarrow \widehat{H}^D_O$, non-trivial entanglement properties of output states remain unchanged in the process. Through the lens of our more general duality transformation, such an application is always possible when the map is locality-preserving – in which case, one may show that the duality takes precisely the form of a generalized local squeezing transformation. As for dualities which are not strictly local but remain “quasi-local” (that is, the dual couplings affect, exactly or approximately, a finite number of subsystems), one can still consider generating states that are non-trivially entangled relative to a suitably generalized notion of entanglement. Specifically, by considering entanglement relative to a coarse-grained (e.g., bi-local) lattice partition to accommodate the locality structure of the duality transformation [@GE], one can imagine generating generalized entangled states with easily implementable dynamically stable bosonic systems.
Duality and topological invariants
==================================
QBHs can display non-trivial bands characterized in terms of topological invariants. On the one hand, the topological invariants of number-conserving QBHs coincide with the well-established ones for fermions[@ProdanBook], even though the many-body interpretation of these quantities can change drastically [@Xu]. On the other hand, for number-non-conserving QBHs the appropriate topological invariants are defined with respect to the indefinite metric of the Krein space ${\mathscr{K}}_{\tau_3}$ on which the effective BdG Hamiltonian acts [@Shindou]. Here, we will show how our duality handles the translation between these, *a priori* very different, bulk invariants. In particular, this result makes it possible to use the bulk-boundary correspondence for number-non-conserving bosons [@baldespeano], along with the standard one for the number-conserving dual, to relate aspects of the respective edge-mode physics, without the need to explicitly compute the duality for OBCs. We also note that a related mapping from *thermodynamically stable* bosonic BdG SPHs to Hermitian ones was identified in [@LeinSato], where it was argued that topological classification of the Hermitian Hamiltonian is equivalent to that of the corresponding pseudo-Hermitian one. With a similar philosophy in mind, we examine the extent to which this holds.
Let us first recall the formula for the indefinite $\tau_3$-inner product equivalent of the Berry connection [@Shindou], by focussing on the Abelian case for simplicity. Let $G(\mathbf{k})$ denote an effective BdG Hamiltonian that depends on a vector of parameters $\mathbf{k}$. Suppose further that $G(\mathbf{k})$ is dynamically stable, with a complete basis of eigenstates $\ket{n(\mathbf{k})}$ satisfying $\braket{n(\mathbf{k})|\tau_3|m(\mathbf{k})}=\lambda_n \delta_{nm}$, $\lambda_n$ being either $+1$ or $-1$. Following the usual assumptions of adiabatic evolution for the dynamics genereted by $G(\mathbf{k})$ [@Xu], one finds that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{KB}
A_{\mathscr{K}}(\mathbf{k})\equiv i\lambda_n\braket{n(\mathbf{k})|\tau_3\nabla_\mathbf{k}|n(\mathbf{k})}\end{aligned}$$ is the connection for parallel transport in ${\mathscr K}_{\tau_3}$. The dual (Hermitian by construction) BdG Hamiltonian is $G^D (\mathbf{k})\equiv R(\mathbf{k})G(\mathbf{k})R^{-1}(\mathbf{k})$, where $R(\mathbf{k})$ is the unique positive-definite square root of the metric $S(\mathbf{k})$ defined in Eq.. A complete basis of eigenvectors of $G^D (\mathbf{k})$ is then given by $\ket{n^D(\mathbf{k})} = R(\mathbf{k})\ket{n(\mathbf{k})}$ and can be chosen to satisfy $\braket{n^D(\mathbf{k})|m^D (\mathbf{k})}=\delta_{nm}$. In this context, the usual Berry connection reads $$A_{\mathscr{B}}(\mathbf{k}) = i\braket{n^D (\mathbf{k})|\nabla_\mathbf{k}|n^D (\mathbf{k})}.$$
What is the relationship between these two connections and, more importantly, the associated topological invariants? Utilizing the explicit form of the eigenstates of $G^D (\mathbf{k})$, the Berry connection can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
A_{\mathscr{B}}(\mathbf{k}) &\!\!\!=\!\!\!& i\braket{n(\mathbf{k})|R(\mathbf{k})\left(\nabla_\mathbf{k} R(\mathbf{k})\right)|n(\mathbf{k})}
\\ & \!\!\!+\!\!\! & i \braket{n(\mathbf{k})|S(\mathbf{k})\nabla_\mathbf{k}|n(\mathbf{k})}.\end{aligned}$$ From the background section, we can ensure that $\ket{n(\mathbf{k})}$ is a simultaneous eigenvector of both $G$ and $\tau_3 S(\mathbf{k})$, with $\tau_3 S(\mathbf{k})\ket{n(\mathbf{k})} = \lambda_n \ket{n(\mathbf{k})}$. Therefore, the second term in the above expression can be rewritten as $i \braket{n(\mathbf{k})|S(\mathbf{k})\nabla_\mathbf{k}|n(\mathbf{k})} = i \lambda_n\braket{n(\mathbf{k})|\tau_3\nabla_\mathbf{k}|n(\mathbf{k})} = A_\mathscr{K}(\mathbf{k}).$ In conclusion, $$A_\mathscr{B}(\mathbf{k})-A_\mathscr{K}(\mathbf{k})=
i\braket{n(\mathbf{k})|R(k)\left(\nabla_\mathbf{k} R(\mathbf{k})\right)|n(\mathbf{k})}.$$ One can determine from this identity how various topological invariants are related. One can show (see Appendix) that $A_\mathscr{B}=A_\mathscr{K}$ if $[R(\mathbf{k}),\nabla_\mathbf{k} R(\mathbf{k})]=0$. Despite lacking (as of now) a clear physical interpretation, this condition gives a straightforward way for determining when these connections, and hence the associated invariants, coincide.
Duality and quantum simulation {#apps}
==============================
Suppose we wish to experimentally realize a set of $N$, parametrically driven (or paired) bosons. The Hamiltonian will generically take the form Eq. (\[genham\]), with $\Delta_{ij}$ not all zero. While there exists ways to implement these terms in experimental settings [@clerkBKC; @hafazi], the need for precisely tuned parametric amplification may introduce extra complications. As we have seen, in a dynamically stable regime, our duality transformation can unitarily maps the original Hamiltonian to one that lacks any driving terms. When this transformation is local, one can experimentally access properties of the original system by directly implementing the dual. If the dual possesses arbitrary-range couplings that drop off exponentially with distance, finite-range truncation can faithfully reproduce the spectral properties of the original system. Thus, generically, the stable dynamics of parametrically driven systems can be faithfully realized in a system comprising only short-range hopping amplitudes.
This leads naturally to the possibility of identifying Hermitian, number-conserving QBHs whose spectral properties well approximate (or even exactly replicate) those of truly [*non-Hermitian, $\mathcal{P}\mathcal{T}$-symmetric*]{} systems, as actively investigated across photonic, optomechanical, and cavity QED settings [@PT; @wiersig]. Motivated by the fact that typical implementations in open (dissipative) systems with balanced gain and loss also entail unavoidable introduction of noise, a related question was addressed in [@clerkPT]: under which conditions can a $\mathcal{P}\mathcal{T}$-symmetric Hamiltonian be realized in a non-dissipative quantum system of free bosons? The authors found a class of $\mathcal{P}\mathcal{T}$-symmetric systems whose dynamics can be unitarily mapped to those of a non-dissipative QBH. Our duality transformation allows us to say something more about this class: specifically, since the $\mathcal{P}\mathcal{T}$-unbroken phases of these models must possess an entirely real spectra [@decon], the resulting QBHs will be dynamically stable. Hence, the $\mathcal{P}\mathcal{T}$-unbroken regimes can be faithfully recreated *without* the need for parametric driving in the non-dissipative bosonic system, thereby reducing the complexity of experimental implementation.
Conclusion
==========
We have shown that terms that break number conservation in dynamically stable QBHs can always be removed by a Hamiltonian-dependent but fully-specified duality transformation. Conceptually, our analysis fully exposes the significance that dynamical stability carries for non-interacting bosonic systems, further highlighting key differences from their fermionic counterparts. Identifying general mathematical conditions under which our duality transformation may be constructed without requiring complete diagonalization, or may be guaranteed to obey specified locality constraints, are well-worth (conceivably related) questions for further investigation. From a practical perspective, our dualities may find immediate application in analog quantum simulation, by providing new means for realizing $\mathcal{P}\mathcal{T}$-symmetric systems and their rich physics in non-dissipative quantum settings. Since, once calculated, our dualities can be repurposed by applying them to the same original QBH modified by interactions and disorder or, possibly, couplings to an external (e.g., Markovian) environment, they may ultimately prove a valuable tool for pushing the simulation in yet unexplored dynamical regimes.
Work at Dartmouth was partially supported by the US NSF through Grant No. PHY-1620541 and the Constance and Walter Burke Special Projects Fund in Quantum Information Science. E.C. acknowledges partial support from a 2019 seed grant from Suny Poly Research Office.
[100]{}
; .
.
.
; .
.
.
.
.
.
; ; .
.
.
; .
.
.
; .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
**Appendix: Sufficient condition for the equality of Berry connections**
We derive here the condition for the Berry phase associated to a dynamically stable, number-non-conserving QBH with effective SPH $G$ to coincide with the standard Berry phase associated with the Hermitian dual $G^D$. As shown in the main text, $$A_\mathscr{B}(\mathbf{k})-A_\mathscr{K}(\mathbf{k})=i\braket{n(\mathbf{k})|R(k)\left(\nabla_\mathbf{k} R(\mathbf{k})\right)|n(\mathbf{k})} .$$ Now, if we assume that $[R(\mathbf{k}),\nabla_\mathbf{k} R(\mathbf{k})]=0$, then $R(k)\left(\nabla_\mathbf{k} R(\mathbf{k})\right) = \frac{1}{2}\nabla_\mathbf{k} S(\mathbf{k})$. Furthermore, $$\begin{aligned}
&&\braket{n(\mathbf{k})|\left(\nabla_\mathbf{k} S(\mathbf{k})\right)|n(\mathbf{k})} = \nabla_\mathbf{k}\left(\braket{n(\mathbf{k})|S(\mathbf{k})|n(\mathbf{k})}\right) - \\
&& \left(\nabla_\mathbf{k} \bra{n(\mathbf{k})}\right)S(\mathbf{k})\ket{n(\mathbf{k})} - \bra{n(\mathbf{k})}S(\mathbf{k}) \nabla_\mathbf{k}\ket{n(\mathbf{k})} .\end{aligned}$$ The first term is zero by virtue of $\ket{n(\mathbf{k})}$ providing an $S(\mathbf{k})$-orthonormal basis. Again, utilizing the fact that $\tau_3 S(\mathbf{k})\ket{n(\mathbf{k})} = \lambda_n \ket{n(\mathbf{k})}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&\braket{n(\mathbf{k})|\left(\nabla_\mathbf{k} S(\mathbf{k})\right)|n(\mathbf{k})} = - \lambda_n\left(\nabla_\mathbf{k} \bra{n(\mathbf{k})}\right)\tau_3\ket{n(\mathbf{k})} - \\
&& \lambda_n\bra{n(\mathbf{k})}\tau_3\nabla_\mathbf{k}\ket{n(\mathbf{k})} = -\lambda_n\nabla_\mathbf{k}\left(\braket{n(\mathbf{k})|\tau_3|n(\mathbf{k})}\right) = 0 ,\end{aligned}$$ where we have used $\braket{n(\mathbf{k})|\tau_3|n(\mathbf{k})}=\lambda_n$. Altogether, $$\begin{aligned}
A_\mathscr{B}(\mathbf{k})-A_\mathscr{K}(\mathbf{k}) &\!\!\!=\!\!\!&i\braket{n(\mathbf{k})|R(k)\left(\nabla_\mathbf{k} R(\mathbf{k})\right)|n(\mathbf{k})} \\
&\!\!\!=\!\!\!& \frac{i}{2}\braket{n(\mathbf{k})|\left(\nabla_\mathbf{k} S(\mathbf{k})\right)|n(\mathbf{k})} = 0.\end{aligned}$$ We conclude that if $[R(\mathbf{k}),\nabla_\mathbf{k} R(\mathbf{k})]=0$, then $A_\mathscr{B}(\mathbf{k})=A_\mathscr{K}(\mathbf{k})$, as stated.$\Box$
[^1]: Recall that a matrix $M$ is called $\eta$-pseudo-Hermitian if there exists a Hermitian, invertible matrix $\eta$ such that $M = \eta M^\dag \eta^{-1}$ [@ali].
[^2]: When $C_\text{o}=0$, $\widehat{H}$ is the standard one-dimensional phonon chain, that possesses a free-particle excitation at zero energy corresponding to the conserved total momentum. This manifests as a loss of diagonalizability in $G$ and hence the onset of instability.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'E.F. del Peloso'
- 'K. Cunha'
- 'L. da Silva'
- 'G.F. Porto de Mello'
bibliography:
- 'referencias.bib'
date: 'Received 16 Mars 2005 / Accepted 22 June 2005'
title: 'Abundances of Mn, Co and Eu in a sample of 20 F–G disk stars: the influence of hyperfine structure splitting [^1][^2]'
---
Introduction
============
Accurate stellar abundance determinations are fundamental for numerous astrophysical studies, like those of Galactic and stellar structure, evolution, and nucleosynthesis. In order to study the behavior of certain elements like Mn, Co, and Eu with metallicity, it is a well-known fact that it is crucial to consider hyperfine structure (HFS) splitting in the calculations using strong lines, because otherwise the computed abundances are bound to be erroneous. Moreover, abundance results computed adopting HFSs from different sources can produce trends with metallicity that are significantly different, as shown, for example, by .
PM00 investigated the importance of HFS on abundance determinations of Mn and Sc. In their study, they find that an incorrect treatment for HFS can lead to abundances that are significantly in error. For Mn, in particular, they discuss the results of @nissenetal00 [NCSZ00], who used the HFS components published by @steffen85 [S85] which, in turn, are based on the work of @biehl76. PM00 pointed out that S85 grouped together nearby hfs components and applied old, inaccurate splitting constants, and that such simplifications introduce significant errors in the obtained Mn abundances, producing spurious abundance trends with metallicity.
The purpose of this work is to investigate the behavior of Mn, Co, and Eu from a sample of 20 F–G dwarfs and subgiants with metallicities typical of the Galactic disk (in the range $-0.8\le\mathrm{[Fe/H]}\le+0.3$), focussing on the evaluation of the influence of HFS in the abundance determinations and abundance trends. Concerning the latter, the main questions that we seek to answer 1) How large are the differences between abundances obtained using HFS components from different sources? and 2) How large are the inaccuracies introduced when simplifications like the grouping together of close-by components are used? In order to accomplish this goal, two sets of Mn and Co abundances were calculated for our sample: one with the HFS data from S85, and another with HFS data from R.L. Kurucz’s website (hereafter referred to as KLL) For the lines, two additional sets of calculations were also obtained: one without HFS and one using HFSs calculated by us with interaction factors $A$ and $B$ taken from the literature ($A$ and $B$ are the magnetic dipole and electric quadrupole coupling constants, respectively). In addition, Eu abundances for the sample stars (from @delpelosoetal05a) which were derived adopting HFS’s calculated with interaction factors from the literature, in a similar manner as for Co I lines, will be discussed and compared to abundance results from the literature.
Sample selection, observations, data reduction and atmospheric parameter determination
======================================================================================
The detailed description of sample selection, observations, data reduction, and atmospheric parameter determination is given in @delpelosoetal05a; in what follows, we provide here only a brief overview of these topics.
The sample was originally selected to determine the age of the Galactic thin disk through Th/Eu nucleocosmochronology. It is composed of 20 dwarfs and subgiants of F5 to G8 MK spectral types with $-0.8\le\mathrm{[Fe/H]}\le+0.3$, located less than 40 pc away.
All objects were observed with the Fiber-fed Extended Range Optical Spectrograph [FEROS; @kauferetal99] coupled to the 1.52 m European Southern Observatory (ESO) telescope, as a part of the ESO-Observatório Nacional, Brazil, agreement. The obtained spectra have high nominal resolving power (R = 48000), signal-to-noise ratio ($\mbox{S/N}\ge300$ in the visible) and coverage (3500 Å to 9200 Å spread over 39 echelle orders). Additional observations, centered around the line at 4129.72 Å, were carried out with the Coud' e Échelle Spectrograph (CES) fiber-fed by ESO’s Coudé Auxiliary Telescope (CAT). The obtained spectra have high nominal resolving power (R = 50000) and signal-to-noise ratio ($\mbox{S/N}\sim300$); coverage is 18 Å.
A set of homogeneous, self-consistent atmospheric parameters was determined for the sample stars. Effective temperatures were determined from photometric calibrations and H$\alpha$ profile fitting; surface gravities were obtained from $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$, stellar masses and luminosities; microturbulence velocities and metallicities were obtained from detailed, differential spectroscopic analysis, relative to the Sun, using equivalent widths (EWs) of and lines.
Abundance determinations
========================
Manganese and cobalt {#sec:mn_co_abund}
--------------------
Mn and Co abundances were determined using EWs of 6 and 8 lines measured in FEROS spectra. As mentioned above, two sets of abundance calculations for Mn and Co were obtained, with HFS data from S85 and KLL. For the lines, two additional sets were also obtained, without HFS and with HFS calculated with Casimir’s equation [@casimir_63]: $$W_F=W_J+\frac{AK}{2}+\frac{3BK(K+1)-4I(I+1)J(J+1)}{8I(2I-1)J(2J-1)},$$ where $W_F$ is the energy of the hyperfine level, $W_J$ is the energy of the fine-structure level of quantum number $J$, $I$ is the nuclear spin, $K$ is defined as $$K=F(F+1)-I(I+1)-J(J+1),$$ and $F$ is the quantum number associated with the total angular momentum of the atom, $$F=I+J;I+J-1;\ldots;|I-J|.$$ HFS transitions are governed by the following selection rules: $\Delta F=0;\pm1$, but not $F=0\leftrightarrow F'=0$.
The energies of the fine-structure levels were taken from , and the $A$ and $B$ constants from and @pickering96. Intensities of the components were obtained by distributing the total $\log
gf$ values according to the relative weights tabulated in 1933 by White & Eliason . The Co HFSs derived are presented in Table \[tab:Co\_hfs\_1\]. Solar $\log gf$ values were used for all Mn and Co lines. These were determined by forcing the abundances obtained with solar spectra to match those from ($\log\varepsilon(\mbox{Mn})=5.39$ and $\log\varepsilon(\mbox{Co})=4.92$).
The adopted metallicities (\[Fe/H\]) were taken from @delpelosoetal05a. Table \[tab:Mn\_abundances\] presents a sample of the \[Mn/H\] results on a line-by-line basis. Its complete content, composed of the abundances of all measured lines, for all sample stars, obtained with all HFS sources employed, is only available in electronic form at the CDS. Column 1 lists the HD number of the object. Subsequent columns present the \[Mn/H\] abundance ratios. Table 3, which contains the line-by-line \[Co/H\] abundance ratios, is formatted in this same manner and is also only available electronically.
--------------- ---- --------------- ---------- --------------- ----- --------------- ---- ----- ---------- ---- -----
$\lambda$ (Å) $\lambda$ (Å) $\lambda$ (Å) $\lambda$ (Å)
4749.616 19 850 5212.595 1 732 5280.562 0 256 5301.014 4 517
4749.634 16 321 5212.622 2 842 5280.569 2 088 5301.023 22 584
4749.650 13 266 5212.646 3 409 5280.586 0 426 5301.032 6 836
4749.665 10 635 5212.653 20 168 5280.591 3 386 5301.040 11 529
4749.678 8 370 5212.668 3 513 5280.606 0 533 5301.046 7 393
4749.684 1 408 5212.673 14 745 5280.608 21 318 5301.049 4 517
4749.691 6 498 5212.687 3 145 5280.609 4 025 5301.054 4 517
4749.694 2 343 5212.691 10 487 5280.623 0 533 5301.058 6 365
4749.702 4 940 5212.704 2 498 5280.625 20 773 5301.062 6 836
4749.703 2 817 5212.705 7 255 5280.637 4 007 5301.064 0 859
4749.710 2 916 5212.717 4 917 5280.638 12 786 5301.068 4 016
4749.712 3 748 5212.726 3 347 5280.647 2 876 5301.071 7 438
4749.716 2 702 5212.732 1 732 5280.649 9 500 5301.076 2 212
4749.721 2 161 5212.733 2 442 5280.653 1 831 5301.077 6 365
4749.724 1 330 5212.738 2 359 5280.656 6 804 5301.080 4 016
4749.743 0 139 5212.742 2 842 5280.661 6 155
4749.746 0 218 5212.749 3 409 5280.662 2 702
4749.747 0 119 5212.754 3 513
4749.748 0 218 5212.755 2 498
5212.756 3 145
--------------- ---- --------------- ---------- --------------- ----- --------------- ---- ----- ---------- ---- -----
--------------- ---- --------------- ---------- --------------- ----- --------------- ---- ---------- ---------- ----- -----
$\lambda$ (Å) $\lambda$ (Å) $\lambda$ (Å) $\lambda$ (Å)
5342.699 6 071 5454.551 2 003 5647.212 31 657 6188.925 4 517
5342.700 10 870 5454.553 3 941 5647.225 19 296 6188.938 22 584
5342.702 13 099 5454.555 4 061 5647.237 10 034 6188.968 6 836
5342.705 15 676 5454.557 3 662 5647.243 7 473 6188.979 11 529
5342.707 1 136 5454.560 2 888 5647.248 3 643 6188.991 4 517
5342.708 18 545 5454.568 2 727 5647.251 10 826 6189.002 7 393
5342.710 1 876 5454.569 8 388 5647.258 1 139 6189.012 4 517
5342.712 21 839 5454.571 12 124 5647.264 7 319 6189.023 6 836
5342.713 2 335 5454.572 17 047 5647.269 1 013 6189.030 6 365
5342.718 2 531 5454.575 23 316 5647.272 2 719 6189.038 0 859
5342.719 0 065 5454.577 2 888 5647.274 4 881 6189.048 7 393
5342.722 2 400 5454.580 3 662 6189.052 4 016
5342.724 0 109 5454.583 4 061 6189.057 0 045
5342.728 1 964 5454.587 3 941 6189.064 6 365
5342.731 0 131 5454.592 3 286 6189.069 2 212
5342.734 1 178 5454.597 2 003 6189.075 4 016
5342.738 0 109
5342.745 0 065
--------------- ---- --------------- ---------- --------------- ----- --------------- ---- ---------- ---------- ----- -----
[Note: “W” stands for weight.]{}
-------- ------------ -- ------------ ---------- ---------- ----------
HD 4739.113 Å 5394.670 Å $\cdots$
martin martin steffen martin
2151 $-$0.08 $-$0.12 $\cdots$ $-$0.14 $-$0.13
9562 +0.22 +0.10 $\cdots$ +0.12 +0.12
$\vdots$ $\vdots$ $\vdots$ $\vdots$ $\vdots$
199288 $-$0.75 $-$0.78 $\cdots$ $-$0.79 $-$0.78
203608 $-$0.75 $-$0.72 $\cdots$ – –
-------- ------------ -- ------------ ---------- ---------- ----------
: A sample of the \[Mn/H\] abundance ratios, line-by-line. Abundances are presented for all HFS sources, for all measured lines. The complete content of this table is only available in electronic form at the CDS, along with a similar table for \[Co/H\] abundance ratios. For a description of the columns, see text (Sect. \[sec:mn\_co\_abund\]).[]{data-label="tab:Mn_abundances"}
Note: Column labels indicate the source of the HFS: martin – @martinetal88, steffen – @steffen85, kurucz – @kurucz90.
Europium
--------
Eu abundances were taken from @delpelosoetal05a. They were obtained from spectral synthesis of the line at 4129.72 Å. HFS was calculated by us in exactly the same way as for Co, using data from @beckeretal93, @molleretal93, , and @brostrometal95. Isotope shift was taken into account, using data from @brostrometal95 and the solar abundance isotopic ratio $\varepsilon(\mbox{\element[][151]{Eu}})/\varepsilon(\mbox{\element[][153]{Eu}})=1.00\pm0.29$ [@lawleretal01]. The complete HFSs obtained for both Eu isotopes are presented in Table \[tab:Eu\_hfs\].
$\lambda_{151}$(Å) $\lambda_{153}$(Å)
-------------------- -------------------- ---- -----
4129.615 4129.695 0 923
4129.618 4129.698 2 792
4129.632 4129.702 1 462
4129.636 4129.705 3 170
4129.640 4129.708 0 922
4129.657 4129.712 1 664
4129.662 4129.715 4 285
4129.667 4129.719 1 462
4129.690 4129.727 1 531
4129.696 4129.730 6 053
4129.702 4129.733 1 663
4129.731 4129.747 0 993
4129.738 4129.748 8 590
4129.744 4129.751 1 531
4129.788 4129.773 11 966
4129.795 4129.774 0 993
: HFSs of the line.[]{data-label="tab:Eu_hfs"}
Note: $\lambda_{151}$ and $\lambda_{153}$ are the central wavelengths of components for $^{151}$Eu and $^{153}$Eu, respectively. ‘W’’ stands for the weight of each component and each isotope.
We kept the $\log gf$ value fixed at the laboratory value provided by @komarovskii91 and derived a solar abundance using solar spectrum. Abundances for the sample stars were obtained relative to this solar value.
Abundance results obtained with HFS from different sources
==========================================================
Manganese {#sec:mn_line_by_line}
---------
Of the 6 lines used in this study, 4 of them (5399.479 Å, 5413.684 Å, 5420.350 Å, and 5432.548 Å) have HFS data available from both S85 and KLL. Note that KLL assembles data from multiple sources; for the lines studied here, they come from @martinetal88 and @kurucz90. For these 4 lines, the structures of S85, although simplified by the grouping together of close-by components, are very similar to those from KLL. We note, however, that the HFSs for the three lines used in the studies of NCSZ00 and PM00 (6013.513 Å, 6016.673 Å, and 6021.819 Å) are, on the other hand, quite different in S85 and KLL. The differences in the HFSs offer an explanation for the fact that our abundances obtained with HFS from S85 do not match those from NCSZ00, although taken from the same reference. This is because, while the HFSs from S85 for the six lines used by us appear to have been accurately calculated, those for the three lines used in NCSZ00 appear to contain important deviations when compared to KLL.
In Figure \[fig:mn\_st\_minus\_mn\_ku\] we show the differences between average \[Mn/H\] abundance ratios obtained for our sample with the two adopted HFSs, from S85 and KLL. The abundances are very similar at roughly solar metallicities and down to roughly $\mathrm{[Fe/H]}=-0.2$, but the differences are larger at lower metallicities, reaching a maximum value of 0.10 dex. This dependance of the abundance differences with metallicity (although reaching only the modest level of 0.10 dex) would create a spurious trend in the run of Mn abundance with metallicity that is only due to choice of HFS.
Cobalt
------
Of the 8 lines studied here, 5 have HFS data available from both S85 and KLL (4749.662 Å, 5212.691 Å, 5342.708 Å, 5454.572 Å, and 5647.234 Å). In Fig. \[fig:hfs\_co\_sem\_abund\] we compare these HFSs with those calculated in this study. Note that we have employed newer, more accurate laboratory values for the $A$ and $B$ interaction factors, and our calculations are thus expected to be more reliable than the previous ones. It can be seen that there is not good agreement between the three HFS sets. This constitutes further evidence of the very heterogeneous character of the S85 and KLL databases: while the HFSs of some of the lines contained in those works have been very well calculated (like the line near 5400 Å– see Sect. \[sec:mn\_line\_by\_line\]), some present very strong inconsistencies. For the other 3 lines, two of them, at 5280.629 Å and 5301.047 Å, have HFSs from KLL that disagree strongly with our calculations. However, for the Co line at 6188.996 Å there is good agreement between our calculations and those from KLL. This offers yet another indication of the heterogeneity of KLL: even coming from one single source [@fuhretal88], there are data with different levels of accuracy.
{width="16.54cm"}
A \[Co/Fe\] vs. \[Fe/H\] diagram containing our four sets of abundance results, obtained without HFS and with the HFS data from S85, KLL, and our own HFS calculations, is presented in Fig. \[fig:co\_fe\_fe\_h\_todos\]. It is clear that the Co abundances are not very sensitive to the inclusion of HFS: the difference between determinations carried out with and without HFS is at most 0.10 dex. This small influence of the HFS on the derived abundances is a consequence of the small EWs of the lines in our sample stars – $\overline{\mbox{EW(\ion{Co}{i})}}=(23\pm15)~\mbox{m\AA}$, even if we find quite pronounced differences in the HFS, as discussed above. For cooler stars, with stronger lines, the effect of HFS would be considerably more pronounced. The differences in the average abundances obtained with HFS from different sources are small, being at most 0.07 dex.
Abundance trends and comparisons with results from the literature
=================================================================
Manganese {#manganese}
---------
In Fig. \[fig:mn\_fe\_fe\_h\_todos\] we present a \[Mn/Fe\] vs. \[Fe/H\] diagram which compares our derived manganese abundances (from the HFS data in S85 and KLL) with the abundances obtained in the studies of NCSZ00 and PM00, both of which include HFS in their abundance calculations; NCSZ00 adopted HFS from S85, while PM00 used KLL. Inspection of this figure indicates the \[Mn/Fe\] abundances derived in this study overlap well with the results from PM00, but not with NCSZ00. NCSZ00 Mn abundances typically fall below all other abundance results. This apparent inconsistency can be explained by inhomogeneities in the database of S85: the HFSs of the lines used here (near 5400 Å) seem to have been accurately calculated, agreeing well with the HFSs from KLL, while those employed by NCSZ00 (near 6000 Å) seem to present important discrepancies. As noted before, HFSs for different lines, although from the same source, can have quite different levels of reliability.
The origin of Mn has been associated with its production in SN Ia or SN II, with the yields in SN II being strongly metallicity dependant. The Mn results from PM00, which were obtained from a sample of 119 F and G main-sequence stars from the thin disk, thick disk, and the halo, indicated that SN Ia’s are the preferred source for Mn mainly because the run of \[Mn/Fe\] versus \[Fe/H\] showed a discontinuity at roughly $-0.7$ in \[Fe/H\]; this metallicity representing the transition between the thin disk and the thick dick/ halo. The overlap of our derived Mn abundances with those from PM00 would support the idea that SN Ia are effective Mn producers, with no need to invoke production from metallicity dependant yields in SN II.
Cobalt
------
It is interesting to compare the cobalt abundance trends indicated by our data with the results from other studies in the literature that have analysed larger samples of stars. This is shown in Fig. \[fig:co\_literature\], where we plot the \[Co/Fe\] abundances from the study of @reddyetal03 (RTLAP03, top panel) and @allendeprietoetal04 (APBLC04, bottom panel). The cobalt results from this study in the figure are those which were obtained with our HFS calculations.
Inspection of the top panel of Fig. \[fig:co\_literature\] indicates that the abundances obtained from our sample are roughly coincident with the upper envelope of the RTLAP03 distribution (for metallicities roughly between solar and $-0.4$). In fact, as indicated by the lower metallicity stars in our sample and by the thick line depicted in the figure, our Co abundances would seem to exhibit a flat behaviour with nearly-solar values ($\overline{\mathrm{[Co/Fe]}}=+0.02\pm0.03$) for stars with $\mathrm{[Fe/H]}\ge-0.30$, but increase linearly for the more metal-poor objects, reaching $\mathrm{[Co/Fe]}=+0.22$ at $\mathrm{[Fe/H]}=-0.80$. We note that RTLAP03 did not include HFS in their Co abundance calculations and that they used EWs of three lines, only one of which (at 5342 Å) was used in this study. Also, it seems that RTLAP03 tend to find \[Co/Fe\] lower than the solar value for stars around solar metallicities.
APBLC04 determined their Co abundances from EWs of six lines, three of which (at 5212 Å, 5280 Å, and 6188 Å) were also analyzed here. They did not employ HFSs. Their abundance pattern is very similar to ours, seeming to exhibit the same flattening for objects with $\mathrm{[Fe/H]}\ge-0.30$ and the same increase for more metal-poor objects. One major difference, however, is evident (although we have a much lower number of stars in our sample): APBLC04 data exhibit a strong increase in the \[Co/Fe\] abundance ratios for the objects with metallicities higher than the Sun, with a large abundance dispersion. This behaviour has also been reported by and @bodagheeetal03. The discrepancy may be explained by the lack of HFS in their analyses. Note that the large majority of the stars with $\mathrm{[Fe/H]}>+0.1$ in APBLC04 have $T_{\mathrm{eff}}\sim5000~\mathrm{K}$, resulting in stronger Co lines. For this reason, the lack of HFS would lead to an incorrect increase in the Co abundances of metal-rich objects. The authors of stellar abundance analyses often take into account the HFS of elements like Mn, Eu, and Ba, but usually neglect Co HFS, leading to erroneous conclusions. We hope that, by virtue of the results here presented, future studies will always include Co HFS in their abundance determinations.
Comparing Fig. \[fig:co\_fe\_fe\_h\_todos\] to Fig. \[fig:mn\_fe\_fe\_h\_todos\] we can see that the behavior of Co with metallicity is clearly distinct from that of Mn. The origin of cobalt, however, again involves production from both SN II and SN Ia, with the relative contributions still uncertain. \[Co/Fe\] rises from roughly solar metallicity to $\sim+0.2$, with a behaviour that is reminiscent of an alpha-element.
Europium
--------
In Fig. \[fig:eu\_literature\] we compare our \[Eu/Fe\] abundance ratios to results from four other works: and – upper panel; @woolfetal95 [WTL95] and – lower panel. Such a comparison is also of interest because it can ultimately provide us with some additional check on our HFS calculations.
MG00 and MG01 obtained Eu abundances for samples of halo and disk stars, taking into account a non-local thermodynamical equilibrium (NLTE) line formation. For comparison with our results, we have retained only the disk stars with metallicities $\mathrm{[Fe/H]}\ge-1.00$ and with accurate determinations of Eu abundances (i.e., those not marked by “:” in their Tables). HFSs were calculated by the authors using data from @beckeretal93 and @brostrometal95, as we did, but they simplified the adopted structure by grouping close-by components together, like S85. Spectral synthesis was employed to analyse the same line we used. Our results agree well with theirs for stars with $\mathrm{[Fe/H]}\ge-0.50$, but seem to be lower for the more metal-poor objects.
The Eu abundances from WTL95 and KE02 were determined by spectral synthesis using the same line we used, following a procedure fundamentally identical to ours. The HFS used by WTL95 was taken from , who group close-by components together, arriving at a total of 6 components per Eu isotope. KE02 calculated their own HFS based on data taken from @brostrometal95, also used here, retaining the complete, detailed structure (16 components per isotope). NLTE effects are minimal, because they are partially canceled out in the differential analysis (as also happens in our work). KE02 merged their database with that from WTL95 by means of a simple linear conversion, obtained by intercomparison. Our abundances exhibit a behaviour virtually identical to that of WLT95/KE02, but with considerably lower scatter, as evident in the lower panel of Fig. \[fig:eu\_literature\]. Concerning the origin of Eu we refer the reader to the thorough discussion of WTL95, where they conclude that low-mass type II supernovae are favoured as the main *r*-process site (97% of all Eu is produced by the *r*-process, according to @burrisetal00).
Conclusions
===========
We present Mn, Co, and Eu abundances for a sample of 20 disk dwarfs and subgiants of F5 to G8 MK spectral types with $-0.8\le\mathrm{[Fe/H]}\le+0.3$. Our abundance trends for Mn with metallicity are found to confirm the abundance results from , although both studies used different sets of Mn I lines in the analyses, so this represents an independent confirmation of the trend obtained in their study, which favours type Ia supernovae as the main astrophysical site of Mn nucleosynthesis. In particular, our Mn results are in disagreement with the trends previously found by @nissenetal00, due to uncertainties in the HFS adopted in their study. For Co, our results find a good agreement with the trends with metallicity delineated by @allendeprietoetal04 for objects with $\mathrm{[Fe/H]}<0.0$, but significant discrepancy is found for those with higher-than-solar metallicity. The increase in Co abundances and high dispersion found by APBLC04 for the latter objects has been previously reported by and @bodagheeetal03. We believe this behaviour may be attributed to the lack of HFS in their analyses. A comparison of our Co results with those by @reddyetal03 indicates that our Co abundances fall mostly in the upper envelope of their distribution, for metallicities lower than solar. The underabundance of their results may also be connected to the lack of HFS in their analysis. Our Eu trend with \[Fe/H\] was found to be in excellent agreement with other studies in the literature (particularly with @woolfetal95 and ).
In order to investigate the influence of HFS on the Mn and Co abundances derived from our sample lines, we conducted calculations with different HFS’s from the literature, as well as with HFSs calculated by us. For Mn, we find that for the four lines around 5400 Å, the approximative HFS calculations of S85 lead to nearly the same Mn abundances as obtained with HFS from KLL. There are, however, large differences in the Mn abundances calculated from the Mn I lines around 6000 Å, as pointed out by . The Co abundances in this study (which were obtained from weak lines) are weakly sensitive to HFS, presenting a 0.10 dex maximum difference between determinations with and without HFS; they also are weakly dependent on some details of the HFS calculations, such as small variations between the selected $A$ and $B$ interaction factors and grouping of close-by components. However, it is important to note that the HFS’s from different sources differ significantly and the differences vary in magnitude for different lines. These inconsistencies in the HFS data for different lines reported here, would suggest that great care has to be taken when considering the abundance of certain elements that require HFS calculations.
We thank the referee for constructive criticism and comments that led to a better paper. The authors wish to thank the staff of the European Southern Observatory, La Silla, Chile. EFP acknowledges financial support from CAPES/PROAP, FAPERJ/FP (grant E-26/150.567/2003), and CNPq/DTI (grant 382814/2004-5). KC thanks Andy McWilliam for helpful discussions. LS thanks the CNPq, Brazilian Agency, for the financial support 453529.0.1 and for the grant 301376/86-7. GFPM acknowledges financial support from CNPq/Conteúdos Digitais, CNPq/Institutos do Milênio/MEGALIT, FINEP/PRONEX (grant 41.96.0908.00), FAPESP/Temáticos (grant 00/06769-4), and FAPERJ/APQ1 (grant E-26/170.687/2004).
[^1]: Based on observations collected at the European Southern Observatory, La Silla, Chile, under the ESO programs and the ESO-Observatório Nacional, Brazil, agreement.
[^2]: Full Tables \[tab:Mn\_abundances\] and 3, which contain line-by-line Mn and Co abundances (respectively), are only available in electronic form at the CDS via anonymous ftp to [cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr (130.79.128.5)]{} or via [http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/qcat?]{}.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We generalize the Schrieffer-Wolff transformation to periodically driven systems using Floquet theory. The method is applied to the periodically driven, strongly interacting Fermi-Hubbard model, for which we identify two regimes resulting in different effective low-energy Hamiltonians. In the nonresonant regime, we realize an interacting spin model coupled to a static gauge field with a nonzero flux per plaquette. In the resonant regime, where the Hubbard interaction is a multiple of the driving frequency, we derive an effective Hamiltonian featuring doublon association and dissociation processes. The ground state of this Hamiltonian undergoes a phase transition between an ordered phase and a gapless Luttinger liquid phase. One can tune the system between different phases by changing the amplitude of the periodic drive.'
author:
- Marin Bukov
- Michael Kolodrubetz
- Anatoli Polkovnikov
bibliography:
- 'Floquet\_bib.bib'
title: 'Schrieffer-Wolff Transformation for Periodically Driven Systems: Strongly Correlated Systems with Artificial Gauge Fields'
---
The Schrieffer-Wolff transformation (SWT) [@schrieffer_66; @zhang_88; @bravyi_11; @barthel_09] is a generic procedure to derive effective low-energy Hamiltonians for strongly-correlated many-body systems. It allows one to eliminate high-energy degrees of freedom via a canonical transform. The SWT has proven useful for studying systems with a hugely degenerate ground-state manifold, such as the strongly-interacting limit of the Fermi-Hubbard model (FHM) [@zhang_88], without resorting to conventional perturbation theory.
Treating interactions in such a non-perturbative way is difficult in periodically-driven systems [@dalessio_13; @dalessio_14; @lazarides_14; @lazarides_14_2; @ponte_15; @bukov_15_erg], which have received unprecedented attention following the realisation of dynamical localisation [@dunlap_86; @lignier_07; @zenesini_09; @creffield_10; @gong_09], artificial gauge fields [@eckardt_10; @struck_11; @struck_13; @aidelsburger_13; @miyake_13; @atala_14; @kennedy_15], models with topological [@oka_09; @kitagawa_11; @grushin_14; @jotzu_14; @aidelsburger_14; @flaeschner_15] and state-dependent [@jotzu_15] bands, and spin-orbit coupling [@galitski_13; @jimenez-garcia_15]. In this paper, we consider strongly-interacting periodically-driven systems and show how the SWT can be extended to derive effective static Hamiltonians of non-equilibrium setups. The parameter space of such models, to which we add the driving amplitude and frequency, opens up the door to new regimes. We use this to propose realisations of nontrivial Hamiltonians, including spin models in artificial gauge fields and the Fermi-Hubbard model with enhanced doublon association and dissociation processes.
![\[fig:basic\_process\] Similarity between renormalisation of tunnelling, an interference effect induced virtually by an off-resonant drive (a), and Heisenberg interactions induced by virtual off-resonant interaction processes (b).](SWT_vs_HFE2.pdf){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
*SWT from the High-Frequency Expansion—*Intuitively, the high-frequency expansion for periodically-driven systems (HFE) and the SWT share the same underlying concept: they allow for the elimination of virtually-populated high-energy states to provide a dressed low-energy description, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:basic\_process\]. For a system driven off-resonantly (Fig. \[fig:basic\_process\]a), virtual absorption of a photon renormalises tunnelling. Similarly, non-driven fermions develop Heisenberg interactions via off-resonant (virtual) tunnelling processes (Fig. \[fig:basic\_process\]b). In this paper we combine the HFE and SWT into a single framework allowing one to treat both resonantly and non-resonantly driven systems on equal footing. Let us illustrate the connection by deriving the SWT using the HFE. Consider the non-driven FHM: $$H = -J_0\sum_{\langle ij\rangle,\sigma}c^\dagger_{i\sigma}c_{j\sigma} + U\sum_j n_{j\uparrow}n_{j\downarrow},
\label{eq:FHM_nondriven}$$ where $J_0$ is the bare hopping and $U$ is the fermion-fermion interaction. We are interested in the strongly-correlated regime $J_0\ll U$. Going to the rotating frame $|\psi^\text{rot}(t)\rangle = V^\dagger(t)|\psi(t)\rangle$ w.r.t. the operator $V(t) = \exp\left(-i U t \sum_j n_{j\uparrow}n_{j\downarrow} \right)$ eliminates the energy $U$ in favor of fast oscillations. If $i \mathrm{d}_t |\psi^\text{rot}\rangle= H^\text{rot}(t) |\psi^\text{rot}\rangle$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\! H^\text{rot}(t)&=&\!\!-\!J_0\!\sum_{\langle ij\rangle,\sigma}\!\left[g_{ij\sigma}\!+\!\left( e^{i Ut}h^\dagger_{ij\sigma} \!+\! \text{h.c.}\right)\right],\\
h^\dagger_{ij\sigma} &=& n_{i\bar\sigma}c^\dagger_{i\sigma}c_{j\sigma}(1 - n_{j\bar\sigma}),\nonumber\\
g_{ij\sigma} &=& (1 - n_{i\bar\sigma})c^\dagger_{i\sigma}c_{j\sigma}(1 - n_{j\bar\sigma}) + n_{i\bar\sigma}c^\dagger_{i\sigma}c_{j\sigma}n_{j\bar\sigma},\nonumber
\label{eq:eq:Hrot_HFM}\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar\uparrow = \downarrow$ and vice-versa. The first term $g_{ij\sigma}$ models the hopping of doublons and holons, while the second term $h^\dagger_{ij\sigma}$ represents the creation and annihilation of doublon-holon pairs. Since $H^\text{rot}(t)$ is time-periodic with frequency $U$, we can apply Floquet’s theorem [@floquet_83]. Thus, the evolution of the system at integer multiples of the driving period $T_U = 2\pi/U$ \[i.e. stroboscopically\] is governed by the effective Floquet Hamiltonian $H_\mathrm{eff}$. If we write $H^\text{rot}(t)=\sum_\ell H^\text{rot}_\ell e^{i \ell U t}$, the HFE gives an operator expansion for $H_\mathrm{eff}=H^\text{rot}_0 + \sum_{\ell > 0} [H^\text{rot}_{\ell}, H^\text{rot}_{-\ell}] / \ell U + O(U^{-2})$ [@rahav_03_pra; @goldman_14; @goldman_14_res; @eckardt_15; @itin_15; @mikami_15]. The zeroth-order term $H_\mathrm{eff}^{(0)} = H^\text{rot}_0$ is the period-averaged Hamiltonian \[here the doublon-holon hopping $g$\], while the first-order term is proportional to the commutator $H^{(1)}_\mathrm{eff}\sim J_0^2[h^\dagger,h]/U$, cf. Fig. \[fig:basic\_process\]b:
$$H_\text{eff} \approx -J_0\sum_{\langle ij \rangle,\sigma}g_{ij\sigma} + \frac{4J_0^2}{U}\sum_{\langle ij \rangle} \left( {\bf S}_{i}\cdot {\bf S}_{j} - \frac{n_in_j}{4} \right).
\label{eq:XXZ_FHM}$$
This effective Hamiltonian is in precise agreement with the one from the standard SWT [^1]. At half-filling, doublons and holons are suppressed in the ground state and this reduces to the Heisenberg model. Away from half-filling this Hamiltonian reduces to the $t-J$ model [@zhang_88; @keeling_notes].
Using the HFE to perform the SWT offers a few advantages: (i) the SW generator comes naturally out of the calculation, (ii) one can systematically compute higher-order corrections [@rahav_03_pra; @goldman_14; @bukov_14; @goldman_14_res; @eckardt_15; @itin_15; @mikami_15], and (iii) the HFE allows for obtaining not only the effective Hamiltonian but also the kick operator, which keeps track of the mixing between orbitals and describes the intra-period dynamics [@goldman_14; @bukov_14]. This is important for identifying the fast timescale associated with the large frequency $U$ in dynamical measurements [@trotzky_08], and expressing observables through creation and annihilation operators dressed by orbital mixing [@bukov_14].
*Generalisation to Periodically-Driven Systems.—*The HFE allows us to extend the SWT to time-periodic Hamiltonians. Related approaches have been used to study non-interacting Floquet topological insulators [@nakagawa_14] and ultrafast dynamical control of the spin exchange coupling [@mentink_15] in fermionic Mott insulators [@bermudez_15]. Let us add to the FHM an external periodic drive: $$\begin{aligned}
H(t) \!=\! \!-\!J_0\!\sum_{\langle ij\rangle,\sigma}\!c^\dagger_{i\sigma}c_{j\sigma} \!+\! U\!\sum_j n_{j\uparrow}n_{j\downarrow}\!+\!\sum_{j\sigma}\! f_{j\sigma}(t)n_{j\sigma}.
\label{eq:FHM_driven}\end{aligned}$$ The driving protocol $f_{j\sigma}(t)$ with frequency $\Omega$ encompasses experimental tools such as mechanical shaking, external electromagnetic fields, and time-periodic chemical potentials, relevant for the recent realisations of novel Floquet Hamiltonians. In the following, we work in the limit $J_0\ll U,\Omega$ and assume that the amplitude of the periodic modulation also scales with $\Omega$ [@bukov_14].
Since both the interaction strength $U$ and the driving amplitude are large, we go to the rotating frame w.r.t. $V(t) = e^{-i\left[ U t \sum_j n_{j\uparrow}n_{j\downarrow} + \sum_{j,\sigma} F_{j\sigma}(t)n_{j\sigma}\right] }$, where $F_{j\sigma}(t) = \int^t f_{j\sigma}(t')\mathrm{d}t'$. The drive induces phase shifts to the hopping: $$\begin{aligned}
\! H^\text{rot}\!(t)\!=\!\!-\!J_0\!\sum_{\langle ij\rangle,\sigma}\! \left[ e^{i\delta F_{ij\sigma}(t) }g_{ij\sigma}\!+\!\left(\!e^{i\left[\delta F_{ij,\sigma}(t) \!+\! Ut\right]}h^\dagger_{ij\sigma} \!+\! \text{h.c.}\!\right) \right] \!\nonumber
\label{eq:Hrot_driven}\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta F_{ij,\sigma}(t) = F_{i\sigma}(t) - F_{j\sigma}(t)$. Notice that now there are two frequencies in the problem: $U$ and $\Omega$. Hence, $H^\text{rot}(t)$ is not strictly periodic in either. To circumvent this difficulty, we choose a common frequency $\Omega_0$ by writing $\Omega = k\Omega_0$ and $U = l\Omega_0$ where $k$ and $l$ are co-prime integers. Then $H^\text{rot}(t)$ becomes periodic with period $T_{\Omega_0} = 2\pi/\Omega_0$, and we can proceed using the HFE. Alternatively, before going to the rotating frame, we could decompose the interaction strength as $U = l\Omega + \delta U$, where $\delta U$ acts as a detuning, and can continue without including the term proportional to $\delta U$ in $V(t)$.
*Non-resonant Driving.—* Let us first assume $k, l \gg 1$ such that resonance effects can be ignored. We begin by Fourier-expanding the drive $e^{i \delta F_{i j \sigma}(t)} = \sum_\ell A^{(\ell)}_{i j \sigma} e^{i \ell \Omega t}$. If opposite spin species are driven out-of-phase, we have $A^{(\ell)}_{i j \bar \sigma} = (A^{(-\ell)}_{i j \sigma})^\ast$. Similarly, flipping the direction of the bond flips the sign of $\delta F$, so $A^{(\ell)}_{j i \sigma} = (A^{(-\ell)}_{i j \sigma})^\ast$. We now apply the generalised SWT with frequency $\Omega_0$. At half-filling and for off-resonant driving double occupancies are suppressed, and the dominant term in the effective Hamiltonian is $H_\mathrm{eff}^{(1)}=\sum_{\ell > 0} [H^\text{rot}_{\ell}, H^\text{rot}_{-\ell}] / \ell \Omega_0$. Two types of commutators occur in this sum: the first comes from terms that have no oscillation with frequency $U$, giving commutators of the form: $\left[ \sum_{ij\sigma} A^{(\ell)}_{ij\sigma} g_{i j \sigma}, \sum_{i'j'\sigma'} A^{(\ell)}_{i'j'\sigma'} g_{i' j' \sigma'}\right]$; all of these commutators vanish. The second type are the same commutators relevant for the SWT: $\left[ \sum_{ij\sigma} A^{(\ell)}_{ij\sigma} h^\dagger_{i j \sigma}, \sum_{i'j'\sigma'} A^{(-\ell)}_{i'j'\sigma'} h_{j' i' \sigma'} \right]$, but note the presence of all higher-order harmonics induced by the drive. These involve terms rotating with $e^{i (U + \ell \Omega) t}$, and thus will be suppressed by a $(U + \ell \Omega)$–denominator. The commutators are explicitly done in the Supplemental material [@supplementary_SWT], giving $$H_\mathrm{eff}^{(1)} \!=\! \sum_{\langle ij\rangle,\ell} \frac{J_0^2}{U \!+\! \ell \Omega} \!\left(\! \alpha_{ij}^{(\ell)} S_i^+ S_j^- \!+\! \alpha_{ij}^{(\ell) \ast} S_i^- S_j^+ \!+\! 2 \beta_{ij}^{(\ell)} S_i^z S_j^z \!\right)\!,
\nonumber$$ where $\alpha_{ij}^{(\ell)} \equiv A_{i j \uparrow}^{(\ell)} A_{i j \uparrow}^{(-\ell)}$ and $\beta_{ij}^{(\ell)} \equiv |A_{i j \uparrow}^{(\ell)}|^2$.
One can Floquet-engineer the Heisenberg model with a uniform magnetic flux per plaquette $\Phi_\square$, see Fig. \[fig:offresonant\]. To this end, we choose the spin-dependent driving protocol $f_{j,\sigma}(t) = \sigma\left[A\cos\left(\Omega t + \phi_{j}\right) + \Omega m \right]$ (c.f. Fig. \[fig:offresonant\], inset), where $\phi_j = \phi_{mn} = \Phi_\square(m+n)$, $\sigma \in \{ \uparrow,\downarrow \} \equiv \{1,-1\}$, and we denote the square-lattice position by ${\bf r}_j = (m,n)$. Such spin-sensitive drives are realised in experiments via the Zeeman effect using a periodically-modulated [@jotzu_15] and static [@aidelsburger_13; @miyake_13] magnetic-field gradients which couple to atomic hyperfine states. For this protocol, $$\begin{aligned}
A_{(m,n),(m,n+1)\uparrow}^{(\ell)} \equiv A_{y\uparrow}^{(\ell)} &=& e^{i \ell \phi_{mn}} \mathcal{J}_\ell (2 \zeta_\Phi) \\
A_{(m,n),(m+1,n)\uparrow}^{(\ell)} \equiv A_{x\uparrow}^{(\ell)} &=& e^{i (\ell+1) \phi_{mn}} \mathcal{J}_{\ell+1} (2 \zeta_\Phi) ~,\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{J}_\ell$ is the Bessel function of the first kind, $\zeta = A/\Omega$ is the dimensionless driving strength, and $\zeta_\Phi = \zeta \sin(\Phi_\square / 2)$ is the flux-modified strength [^2].
There are two physically interesting limits. For $U \ll \Omega$ only $\ell=0$ survives and we get
$$\nonumber
H_\text{eff}^{U\ll\Omega} = \sum_{m,n } \Bigg(J^\text{ex,x}_\text{eff}\left[ S^z_{m+1,n}S^z_{mn} + \frac{1}{2}\left(e^{2i\phi_{mn} }S^+_{m+1,n}S^-_{mn} + \text{h.c.}\right)\right] + J^\text{ex,y}_\text{eff}\left[ S^z_{m,n+1}S^z_{mn} + \frac{1}{2}\left(S^+_{m,n+1}S^-_{mn} + \text{h.c.}\right)\right]\Bigg), \label{eq:Heis_gauge}$$
where $J^\text{ex,x/y}_\text{eff} = 4\left[J{{\color{violet}{_0}}}\mathcal{J}_{1/0}\left(2 \zeta_\Phi \right)\right]^2/U$. For $\Omega \ll U$, we can set $U + l \Omega \to U$ and sum over $l$ to obtain $$\nonumber
H_\text{eff}^{\Omega\ll U} = \frac{4J_0^2}{U}\sum_{m,n } \Bigg[ S^z_{m+1,n}S^z_{mn} + \frac{\mathcal{J}_2(4 \zeta_\Phi)}{2}\left(e^{2i\phi_{mn} }S^+_{m+1,n}S^-_{mn} + \text{h.c.}\right) + S^z_{m,n+1}S^z_{mn} + \frac{\mathcal{J}_0(4 \zeta_\Phi)}{2}\left(S^+_{m,n+1}S^-_{mn} + \text{h.c.}\right)\Bigg]~.$$
The exchange strengths depend on $\Omega$ and $U$, but both limits give spin Hamiltonians with phases along $x$. This phase physically appears on the flip-flop and not the Ising term because the drive is spin-dependent. Thus a phase difference only occurs if the electron virtually hops as one spin and returns as the other.
Let us discuss the regime $J_0\ll\Omega\ll U$ a bit more. This spin Hamiltonian can be identified with the Heisenberg model in the presence of an artificial gauge field with flux $\Phi_\square$ per plaquette. Whenever the $S^zS^z$-interaction is small, the Hamiltonian reduces to the fully-frustrated XY model in 2D, in which one cannot choose a spin configuration minimizing the spin-exchange energy for all XY-couplings. In the classical limit, similarly to a type-II superconductor, the minimal energy configuration is known to be the Abrikosov vortex lattice [@teitel_83; @ryu_97]. The realisation of the deep XY-regime with this particular driving protocol is limited, since $|\mathcal{J}_2(4 \zeta_\Phi)|< 1$ but, at finite $S^zS^z$–interaction a semi-classical study showed that vortices persist and can be thought of as half-skyrmion configurations of the Neél field [@lindner_09; @lindner_10; @wu_04]. Another interesting feature of the spin Hamiltonian is that it exhibits a Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya (DM) interaction term [@cai_12; @radic_12; @cole_12; @piraud_14], ${\bf D}_{mn}\cdot \left( {\bf S}_{m+1,n}\times {\bf S}_{mn}\right)$. The DM coupling is spatially-dependent, polarised along the $z$-direction ${\bf D}_{mn} = \sin(\phi_{mn})\mathcal{J}_2(4 \zeta_\Phi )\hat{\bf n}_z/2$, and present only along the $x$-lattice direction.
![\[fig:offresonant\] In the presence of a spin-dependent drive off-resonant with the interaction strength $U$ (inset), the stroboscopic physics of the strongly-driven, strongly-correlated Fermi-Hubbard model is governed by an effective spin Hamiltonian in the presence of a gauge field.](nonresonant.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Finally, let us mention that spin-$1/2$ systems are equivalent to hard-core bosons. In this respect, $H_\text{eff}^{U\ll\Omega}$ and $H_\text{eff}^{\Omega\ll U}$ model hard-core bosons with strong nearest-neighbour interactions in the presence of a gauge field. For a flux of $\Phi_\square = \pi/2$ the non-interacting model has four topological Hofstadter bands. If we then consider the strongly-interacting model, and half-fill the lowest Hofstadter band ($S^z_\mathrm{tot} = -3 N_\mathrm{site}/8$), the Heisenberg model supports a fractional quantum Hall ground state [@wang_11; @regnault_11; @hafezi_07; @grushin_14]. Away from half-filling of the fermions, doublon and holon hopping terms appear in the effective Hamiltonian, cf. Suppl. [@supplementary_SWT] and it would be interesting to study the effect of such correlated hopping terms [@kourtis_15] on this topological phase.
*Resonant Driving.—*Novel physics arises in the resonant-driving regime $J_0\ll U =l\Omega$. To illustrate this, we choose a one-dimensional system with the driving protocol $f_{j\sigma}(t) = jA\cos\Omega t$, which was realised experimentally by mechanical shaking [@lignier_07; @lignier_07; @zenesini_09; @creffield_10]. Unlike off-resonant driving, resonance drastically alters the effective Hamiltonian by enabling the lowest-order term $H^\text{{(0)}}_\text{eff}$: on resonance, the doublon-holon (dh) creation/annihilation terms $h^\dagger$ survive the time-averaging, and the leading-order effective Hamiltonian reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Heff_resonant}
H_\text{eff}^{(0)} = \sum_{\langle ij\rangle,\sigma} \left[ - J_\text{eff} g_{ij\sigma} - K_\text{eff}\!\left( (-1)^{l\eta_{ij}} h^\dagger_{ij\sigma} + \text{h.c.}\right)\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta_{ij} = 1$ for $i>j$, $\eta_{ij} = 0$ for $i<j$, $J_\text{eff} = J_0\mathcal{J}_0(\zeta)$, and $K_\text{eff} = J_0\mathcal{J}_l(\zeta)$. The first term, $g_{ij\sigma}$, is familiar from the static SWT, with a renormalised coefficient $J_\text{eff}$. The term proportional to $h^\dagger_{ij\sigma}$ appears only in the presence of the resonant periodic drive and is the source of new physics in this regime. By adjusting the drive strength, one can tune $J_\text{eff}$ and $K_\text{eff}$ to a range of values, including zeroing out either one. Starting from a state with unpaired spins, dh pairs are created via resonant absorption of drive photons. Hence, holons and doublons become dynamical degrees of freedom governed by $H^\text{{(0)}}_\text{eff}$, with the Heisenberg model as a subleading correction. The dh production rates and further properties of the system have been investigated both experimentally and theoretically [@kollath_06; @huber_09; @tokuno_11; @tokuno_12; @greif_11; @sensarma_09; @strohmaier_10; @hassler_09; @balzer_14; @mentink_15; @werner_15; @bello_15]. A DMFT study found that the AC field can flip the band structure, switching the interaction from attractive to repulsive [@tsuji_11].
![\[fig:resonant\] Resonant driving of the Fermi-Hubbard model enables doublon creation and dissociation processes (inset). The many-body gap $\Delta$ shows a phase transition from a gapless Luttinger liquid to gapped translation-invariance-broken phase. The doublon/holon hopping and creation coefficients $J_\mathrm{eff}$ and $K_\mathrm{eff}$ are controlled by varying the driving amplitude. ](resonant3.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Such correlated hopping models have been proposed to study high-$T_c$ superconductivity [@arrachea_94; @aligia_00; @aligia_99]. To get an intuition about the effect of the new terms, we use the ALPS DMRG and MPS tools [@bauer_11; @dolfi_14] to calculate the ground state of $H^\text{{(0)}}_\text{eff}$ at half-filling. The many-body gap in the thermodynamic limit $\Delta$ is extracted from simulations of even-length chains with open boundary conditions by extrapolation in the system size: $\Delta(L) = const/L + \Delta$. We numerically confirm that the model features a transition between a symmetry-broken ordered phase and a gapless Luttinger liquid phase [@arrachea_94; @aligia_00; @aligia_99] as follows [^3]. For $K_\mathrm{eff} > J_\mathrm{eff}$, the physics is dominated by the dh creation/annihilation processes. In this regime, fermions can hop along the lattice by forming and destroying dh pairs. Thus, for *$l$ even* the ground state exhibits bond-wave order with order parameter $B_j = \sum_{\sigma}c^\dagger_{j+1,\sigma}c_{j\sigma} + \text{h.c.}$, while the corresponding order parameter for $l$ odd is not yet known. This order breaks translation invariance with a 2-site unit cell, and thus yields a many-body gap for even-length chains with open boundary conditions (cf. Fig. \[fig:resonant\]). For $K_\mathrm{eff} < J_\mathrm{eff}$, renormalization group arguments show that bond ordering terms become irrelevant, leading to a gapless Luttinger liquid [@japaridze_99]. At $K_\mathrm{eff} = J_\mathrm{eff}$ and *for $l$ even*, one surprisingly finds that the system is equivalent to free fermions. The existence of such a non-interacting point is rather striking, since it means that a strongly-driven, strongly-interacting system can effectively behave as if the fermions were free. This phenomenon can be understood by noticing that double occupancies, effectively forbidden in the absence of the drive by strong interactions, are re-enabled by the resonant driving term. As a result, whenever the amplitude of the driving field matches a special value to give $K_\text{eff}=J_\text{eff}$, the matrix element for creation of doublons and holes becomes equal to their hopping rate and the effect of the strong interaction is completely compensated by the strong driving field. We emphasize that this is a highly non-perturbative effect since it requires a large drive amplitude $A\sim U = l\Omega$.
It bears mention that all regimes of the model are accessible using present-day cold atoms experiments [@greif_11]. We propose a loading sequence into the ground state of $H_\mathrm{eff}^{(0)}$ in the Supplemental material [@supplementary_SWT]. Moreover, by tuning the frequency away from resonance, one can write $U = \delta U + l\Omega$ and go to the rotating frame w.r.t. the $l\Omega$-term, keeping a finite on-site interaction $\delta U$ in the effective Hamiltonian. This is required if one wants to capture important photon-absorption avoided crossings in the exact Floquet spectrum. Including artificial gauge fields is also straightforward in higher dimensions, see Suppl. [@supplementary_SWT] and expected to produce novel topological phases. By utilizing resonance phenomena, this scheme only requires shaking of the on-site potentials, which is easier in practice than other schemes which have suggested modulating the interaction strength to realize similar Hamiltonians [@di_liberto_14; @greschner_14].
*Discussion/Outlook.—*It becomes clear from the discussion above how to generalise the SWT to arbitrary strongly-interacting periodically-driven models: First, we identify the large energy scale denoted by $\lambda$ (e.g., $\lambda = U$) and write the Hamiltonian as $H = H_0 + \lambda H_1 +H_\mathrm{drive}(t)$. Second, we go to the rotating frame using the transformation $V(t)=\exp\left(-i\lambda t H_1 -i\int^t H_\mathrm{drive}(t')\mathrm{d}t' \right)$ to get a new time-dependent Hamiltonian with frequencies [^4] $\lambda$ and $\Omega$: $H^\text{rot}(t) = V^\dagger(t)H_0V(t)$. Finally, depending on whether we want to discuss resonant or nonresonant coupling, we apply the HFE to obtain the effective Hamiltonian $H_\text{eff}$ order by order in $\lambda^{-1}$ and $\Omega^{-1}$. This procedure will generally work if a closed-form evaluation of $H^{\rm rot}(t)$ is feasible. For instance, $H_1$ can be a local Hamiltonian or can be written as a sum of local commuting terms. The method also works if the interaction strength is periodically modulated [@di_liberto_14; @greschner_14; @wang_14].
Although isolated interacting Floquet systems are generally expected to heat up to infinite temperature at infinite time [@dalessio_13; @dalessio_14; @lazarides_14; @lazarides_14_2; @ponte_15; @roy_15], the physics of such systems at experimentally-relevant timescales is well-captured by the above effective Hamiltonians; indeed, it was recently argued that typical heating rates at high frequencies are suppressed exponentially [@abanin_15; @kuwahara_15; @mori_15; @abanin_15_2], and long-lived pre-thermal Floquet steady states have been predicted [@canovi_15; @bukov_15_prl; @kuwahara_15; @abanin_15_2]. In particular, rigorous mathematical proofs [@kuwahara_15; @mori_15; @abanin_15_2] supported by numerical studies [@bukov_15_erg] showed that the mistake in the dynamics due to the approximative character of the HFE is under control for the large frequencies and the experimentally-relevant times considered. Our work paves the way for studying such strongly-driven, strongly-correlated systems. Both the resonant and non-resonant regimes that we analyse for the FHM yield systems directly relevant to the study of high-temperature superconductivity. More generally, we show that by using the generalised SWT, one can Floquet-engineer additional knobs controlling the model parameters of strongly-correlated systems, such as the spin-exchange coupling. Our methods are readily extensible to strongly-interacting bosonic systems, as well as many other systems under active research.
We thank L. D’Alessio, E. Altman, W. Bakr, E. Demler, M. Eckstein, A. Grushin, M. Heyl, D. Huse, A. Iaizzi, G. Jotzu, R. Kaul, S. Kourtis, M.Piraud, A. Sandvik and R. Singh for insightful and interesting discussions. We are especially grateful to M. Dolfi and all contributors to the ALPS project [@bauer_11; @dolfi_14] for developing the ALPS MPS and DMRG tools used in this work. We thank A. Rosch for pointing out to us the potential connection between the HFE and the SWT. This work was supported by AFOSR FA9550-13-1-0039, NSF DMR-1506340, and ARO W911NF1410540. M. K. was supported by Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) funding from Berkeley Lab, provided by the Director, Office of Science, of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.
Supplemental Material
=====================
The High-Frequency Expansion.
=============================
We open up the discussion by briefly reviewing the basic tool used in the main text – the (van Vleck) High-Frequency Expansion (HFE). For a more-detailed description, consult Refs. [@rahav_03_pra; @goldman_14; @bukov_14; @goldman_14_res; @eckardt_15; @itin_15; @mikami_15]. Consider a time-periodic Hamiltonian $H(t+T) = H(t)$. According to Floquet’s theorem, the evolution operator $U(t_2,t_1)=\mathcal T\left[ \mathrm{exp}(-i\int_{t_1}^{t_2} H(t) \mathrm{d}t) \right]$, where $\mathcal T$ denotes time ordering, can be cast in the form $$U(t_2,t_1) = \exp\left[-iK_\text{eff}(t_2)\right]\exp\left[-iH_\text{eff}(t_2-t_1)\right]\exp\left[iK_\text{eff}(t_1)\right],$$ with the time-independent effective Hamiltonian $H_\text{eff}$ governing the slow dynamics and the $T=2\pi/\Omega$-periodic kick operator $K_\text{eff}(t)$ describing the micromotion, i.e. the fast dynamics within a period. In the high-frequency limit, one can calculate perturbatively the kick operator and the effective Hamiltonian as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
H_\text{eff}^{(0)} &=& H_0 = \frac{1}{T}\int_0^T\mathrm{d}t\,H(t),\nonumber\\
H_\text{eff}^{(1)} &=& \frac{1}{\hbar\Omega}\sum_{\ell=1}^\infty \frac{1}{\ell} [H_\ell,H_{-\ell}] = \frac{1}{2!Ti\hbar}\int_{0}^{T}\mathrm{d}t_1\int_{0}^{t_1}\mathrm{d}t_2\, f(t_1-t_2) [H(t_1),H(t_2)],\nonumber\\
K_\text{eff}^{(0)}(t) &=& \bm{0},\nonumber\\
K_\text{eff}^{(1)}(t) &=& \frac{1}{i\hbar\Omega}\sum_{\ell\neq 0}\frac{\mathrm{e}^{i\ell\Omega t}}{\ell} H_\ell = -\frac{1}{2\hbar}\int_{t}^{T+t}\mathrm{d}t'H(t')g(t-t'),
\label{eq:kick_operator_HFE}\end{aligned}$$ where we Fourier-decomposed the Hamiltonian as $H(t) = \sum_{\ell=-\infty}^\infty H_\ell e^{i\ell\Omega t}$ with operator-valued coefficients $H_\ell$ and the functions $f(x) = (1-2x/T)$ and $g(x) = (1+2x/T)$, $x\in[0,T]$ in the integrands are understood periodic with period $T$ [@eckardt_15]. Since we are interested in the low-energy spectrum of the Floquet Hamiltonian, it suffices to calculate $H_\text{eff}$ only. However, we remark that the effective kick operator is crucial for the correct description of the dynamics – both stroboscopic and non-stroboscopic [@bukov_14_pra; @bukov_14].
Applying the Schrieffer-Wolff Transformation to the driven Fermi-Hubbard Model.
===============================================================================
. The strongly-interacting Fermi-Hubbard model with an artificial gauge field. ](SW_largest_Omega.pdf){width="0.5\columnwidth"}
In this section, we give the details of the calculation of the effective Hamiltonian in the periodically-driven Fermi-Hubbard model (FHM). The starting point is the Hamiltonian: $$\begin{aligned}
H(t) = -J_0\sum_{\langle ij\rangle,\sigma}c^\dagger_{i\sigma}c_{j\sigma} + U\sum_j n_{j\uparrow}n_{j\downarrow}+ \sum_{j,\sigma} f_{j\sigma}(t)n_{j\sigma}.
\label{eq:rotframe_H}\end{aligned}$$ Going to the rotating frame is equivalent to a re-summation of two infinite lab-frame inverse-frequency subseries [@bukov_14]. The first subseries leads to a non-perturbative renormalisation of the hopping amplitude by resumming single-particle terms, while the second subseries contains the many-body nn-interaction-dependent hopping terms. Using the change-of-reference-frame transformation $V(t)=e^{-i U t \sum_j n_{j\uparrow}n_{j\downarrow}}e^{-i\sum_{j,\sigma} F_{j\sigma}(t)n_{j\sigma} }$, we arrive at the Hamiltonian in the rotating frame: $$\begin{aligned}
H^\text{rot}(t) = -J_0\sum_{\langle ij \rangle,\sigma}\left[ 1 - n_{i\bar{\sigma}}(1-e^{iUt}) \right]e^{i\delta F_{ij,\sigma}(t)}c^\dagger_{i\sigma}c_{j\sigma}\left[ 1 - n_{j\bar{\sigma}}(1-e^{-iUt}) \right],\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $F_{j\sigma}(t)$ is the anti-derivative of $f_{j\sigma}(t)$ and $\delta F_{ij,\sigma} = F_{i\sigma}(t) - F_{j\sigma}(t)$. It is convenient to cast this expression in the following form $$\begin{aligned}
H^\text{rot}(t) &=& - J_0\sum_{\langle ij\rangle,\sigma} e^{i\delta F_{ij,\sigma}(t) }g_{ij\sigma}
-J_0\sum_{\langle ij\rangle,\sigma} e^{i\left[\delta F_{ij,\sigma}(t) + Ut\right]}h^\dagger_{ij\sigma} + \text{h.c.},\nonumber\\
h^\dagger_{ij\sigma} &=& n_{i\bar\sigma}c^\dagger_{i\sigma}c_{j\sigma}(1 - n_{j\bar\sigma}),\nonumber\\
g_{ij\sigma} &=& (1 - n_{i\bar\sigma})c^\dagger_{i\sigma}c_{j\sigma}(1 - n_{j\bar\sigma}) + n_{i\bar\sigma}c^\dagger_{i\sigma}c_{j\sigma}n_{j\bar\sigma}.
\label{eq:FHM_rot_frame}\end{aligned}$$ The first term in $g_{ij\sigma}$ gives rise to the hopping of holons, while the second one yields hopping of doublons. The term in $h^\dagger_{ij\sigma}$ is, in turn, responsible for creation of doublons and holes. We draw the reader’s attention to the fact that the overall sign of the function $\delta F_{ij,\sigma}$ in the Hamiltonian above depends on the direction of hopping. For instance, for a one-dimensional chain with drive $f_{j\sigma}(t) = j\Omega\zeta\cos\Omega t$ the Hamiltonian , when fully written out, reads $$\begin{aligned}
H^\text{rot}(t) &=& - J_0\sum_{j,\sigma} e^{i\zeta\sin\Omega t } g_{j+1,j,\sigma} + e^{-i\zeta\sin\Omega t } g_{j,j+1,\sigma} \nonumber\\
&& - J_0\sum_{j,\sigma} e^{iUt}\left( e^{i\zeta\sin\Omega t } h^\dagger_{j+1,j,\sigma} + e^{-i\zeta\sin\Omega t } h^\dagger_{j,j+1,\sigma} \right) + \mathrm{h.c.}\end{aligned}$$ Note also that while $g_{j+1,j,\sigma} = g^\dagger_{j,j+1,\sigma}$, $h_{j+1,j,\sigma} \neq h^\dagger_{j,j+1,\sigma}$; in other words destroying a doublon to the left $h_{21,\downarrow}|\cdot,\uparrow\downarrow\rangle=|\uparrow,\downarrow\rangle$ is different from creating a doublon to the left $h^\dagger_{12,\downarrow}|\uparrow,\downarrow\rangle=-|\uparrow\downarrow,\cdot\rangle$.
*Non-driven case.* Let us pause for a moment and check the non-driven case, i.e. $F_{ij,\sigma} = 0$. Then the terms proportional to $h^\dagger_{ij\sigma}$ vanish in $H_\text{eff}^{(0)}$ after time-averaging over one period $T = 2\pi/U$, cf. Eq. . On the other hand, the $g_{ij\sigma}$-terms do not have a time-dependent pre-factor and hence they give rise to the leading-order Hamiltonian. $$\begin{aligned}
H_\text{eff}^{(0)}&=&- J_0\sum_{\langle ij\rangle,\sigma} g_{ij\sigma} = - J_0\sum_{\langle ij\rangle,\sigma} P_{i\bar\sigma} c^\dagger_{i\sigma}c_{j\sigma} P_{j\bar\sigma},\nonumber\\
P_{i\bar{\sigma}} c^\dagger_{i\sigma}c_{j\sigma}P_{j\bar{\sigma}} &\equiv&
n_{i\bar\sigma}c^\dagger_{i\sigma}c_{j\sigma}n_{j\bar\sigma}+
(1 - n_{i\bar\sigma})c^\dagger_{i\sigma}c_{j\sigma}(1 - n_{j\bar\sigma}),
\label{eq:Pi}\end{aligned}$$ where the above expression is understood as the defining relation for the projector $P_{i\sigma}$ which projects out the subspace of doubly-occupied states. The $U^{-1}$-correction as given by Eq. is proportional to the commutator $H_\text{eff}^{(1)}\sim J_0^2U^{-1}\sum_{\langle ij\rangle,\sigma}\sum_{\langle kl\rangle,\sigma'}[h_{ij\sigma}^\dagger,h_{kl\sigma'}]$, and results in the familiar Heisenberg spin exchange. Notice that already at this level the calculation for the static model reduces exactly to the standard SW calculation.
*Driven case.* Now let us turn on the periodic drive again. Pay attention how the zeroth order Hamiltonian changes, since the terms proportional to $h^\dagger_{ij\sigma}$, which average to zero in the non-driven case, now remain finite after averaging over one period. These are precisely the doublon association and dissociation processes in the resonant limit $J_0\ll U=l\Omega$ whose physics we discuss in the main text.
The Strongly-Interacting Periodically-Driven Fermi-Hubbard-Model Away from Half-Filling.
==========================================================================================
In this section, we give the details of the calculations for the resonant and non-resonant driving regimes, for which we derive the low-energy effective Hamiltonian. In the non-resonant case, we use two consecutive SW transformations, applied in the limits $U\ll\Omega$ and $\Omega\ll U$ \[these two limits are reconciled in the next section\]. We label the lattice sites by $r_j = (m,n)$.
*(i) Non-resonant Driving Limit.* In this regime, we choose spin-dependent periodic driving of the type used to engineer the Harper-Hofstadter Hamiltonian [@aidelsburger_13; @miyake_13]: $$f_{j,\sigma}(t) = \sigma\left[A\cos\left(\Omega t + \phi_{j}\right) + \Omega \vec{e}_x\cdot\vec{r}_j\right],
\label{eq:driving_prot1}$$ where $\sigma$ is the fermion spin, and $\phi_j = \phi_{mn} = \Phi_{\square}(m+n)$. In this section, we choose $\Phi_\square = \pi/2$, which results in a quarter flux quantum per plaquette. From the definition of the drive, it becomes clear that opposite spin species are subject to opposite gradient potentials. Notice that spin-exchange processes along the $x$-direction are enabled by a resonant absorption of two photons, leading to an effective gauge field for the Heisenberg model at half-filling. We denote by $\zeta = A/\Omega$ the dimensionless interaction strength.
Let us first focus on the regime $J_0\ll\Omega\ll U$ and show the derivation of the effective Hamiltonian comprising the Heisenberg model in an artificial gauge field. We can identify the largest frequency in the problem to be the interaction strength $U$, followed by the driving frequency $\Omega$. Time-scale separation allows us to first perform a SW transformation to the Hamiltonian in Eq. w.r.t. the fast period $T_U = 2\pi/U$. In doing so we treat the time-fluctuations in the Hamiltonian due to the driving protocol at frequency $\Omega$ as slow variables, and apply the HFE expansion with the fast period $T_U$ only. This allows us to effectively take the $T_\Omega$-oscillating terms out of the integrals in the HFE, which results in the familiar $t-J$ model in a presence of a $T_\Omega$-periodic drive. The remaining effective dynamics induced by the drive happens at time-scales $T_\Omega$ and, in the rotating frame, it is governed by the following intermediate Hamiltonian: $$\begin{aligned}
H^\text{rot}_\text{intermediate}(t) &=& -J_0\sum_{mn,\sigma}P_{m+1,n\bar\sigma} \left( e^{i\delta F_{m+1,n\sigma}(t) }c^\dagger_{m+1,n\sigma}c_{mn\sigma} + \text{h.c.}\right) P_{mn\bar\sigma}\nonumber\\
&& -J_0\sum_{mn,\sigma}P_{m,n+1,\bar\sigma}\left( e^{i\delta F_{m,n+1,\sigma}(t) }c^\dagger_{m,n+1,\sigma}c_{mn\sigma} + \text{h.c.}\right) P_{mn\bar\sigma}\nonumber\\
&& + \frac{4J_0^2}{U}\sum_{m,n } \left[ S^z_{m+1,n}S^z_{mn} + \frac{1}{2}\left(e^{i2\delta F_{m+1,n\sigma}(t) }S^+_{m+1,n}S^-_{mn} + \text{h.c.}\right) - \frac{n_{m+1,n}n_{mn}}{4}\right] \nonumber\\
&& + \frac{4J_0^2}{U}\sum_{m,n } \left[ S^z_{m,n+1}S^z_{mn} + \frac{1}{2}\left(e^{i2\delta F_{m,n+1,\sigma}(t) }S^+_{m,n+1}S^-_{mn} + \text{h.c.}\right) - \frac{n_{m,n+1}n_{mn}}{4} \right],
\label{eq:XXZ_rot1}\end{aligned}$$ where, again we drop the holon hopping term to order $J_0^2/U$, as it will be a minor correction to the order-$J_0$ hopping above [@keeling_notes]. If we consider the system away from half-filling, double occupancies are not suppressed and the spin part of the Hamiltonian is merely a correction. The leading effective Hamiltonian away from half-filling after applying the HFE once again with period $T_\Omega$ reads $$\begin{aligned}
H_\text{eff}^{(0)} &=&-J_0\mathcal{J}_1(2 \zeta_\Phi )\sum_{mn,\sigma}P_{m+1,n,\bar\sigma}\left( e^{i\phi_{mn}}c^\dagger_{m+1,n,\sigma}c_{mn\sigma} + \text{h.c.}\right) P_{mn\bar\sigma}\nonumber\\
&& -J_0\mathcal{J}_0(2 \zeta_\Phi )\sum_{mn,\sigma}P_{m,n+1,\bar\sigma}\left( c^\dagger_{m,n+1,\sigma}c_{mn\sigma} + \text{h.c.}\right) P_{mn\bar\sigma}.\end{aligned}$$ Notice the presence of a gauge field in the hopping of doublons and holons.
We now switch to half filling. Then one can safely neglect the terms in Eq. containing the projectors $P$, as well as the terms proportional to $n_{m+1,n}n_{mn}/4$, similarly to the case for the static SW transformation. Now we apply the HFE again with the slow frequency $\Omega$. Since the leading correction term scales as $J_0^3/(\Omega U)$ we can safely neglect it to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
H_\text{eff} &\approx& \frac{4J_0^2}{U}\sum_{m,n } \Big[ S^z_{m+1,n}S^z_{mn} + \frac{\mathcal{J}_2(4 \zeta_\Phi)} {2}\left(e^{2i\phi_{mn} }S^+_{m+1,n}S^-_{mn} + \text{h.c.}\right) + S^z_{m,n+1}S^z_{mn} + \frac{\mathcal{J}_0(4 \zeta_\Phi)}{2}\left(S^+_{m,n+1}S^-_{mn} + \text{h.c.}\right) \big].\nonumber
$$ We thus see that in the regime $J_0\ll \Omega\ll U$, applying the SW transformation at half filling leads to the Heisenberg model in an artificial gauge field. We stress that the effective dynamics of the system is best governed by the above effective Hamiltonian for times $t \lesssim \Omega U/J_0^3$, set by the magnitude of the next-order correction term. Furthermore, choosing $\Omega$ and $U$ to be incommensurate will lead to suppression of resonant effects, thus enhancing the time interval for which time-scale separation holds. This is possible because the spectra of both $H_\text{int}$ and $H_\text{drive}$ are discrete and commensurate.
Let us also briefly discuss the other non-resonant case $J_0\ll U\ll\Omega$. This time the fastest frequency in the problem is the driving frequency $\Omega$, followed by the interaction strength $U$. Thus, we go to the rotating frame w.r.t. the driving term first: $$\begin{aligned}
H^\text{rot}_\text{intermediate}(t) &=& -J_0\sum_{mn,\sigma} \left( e^{i\delta F_{m+1,n\sigma}(t) }c^\dagger_{m+1,n\sigma}c_{mn\sigma} + \text{h.c.}\right) \nonumber\\
&& -J_0\sum_{mn,\sigma}\left( e^{i\delta F_{m,n+1,\sigma}(t) }c^\dagger_{m,n+1,\sigma}c_{mn\sigma} + \text{h.c.}\right) + U\sum_{mn}n_{mn,\uparrow}n_{mn,\downarrow}.\end{aligned}$$ Once again we make use of time-scale separation; applying the HFE with period $T_\Omega$ results in the intermediate Hamiltonian to order $\Omega^{0}=1$: $$\begin{aligned}
H_\text{intermediate}^{(0)} &=& -J_0\mathcal{J}_1\left(2 \zeta_\Phi \right)\sum_{mn,\sigma}\left( e^{i\phi_{mn}}c^\dagger_{m+1,n,\sigma}c_{mn\sigma} + \text{h.c.}\right) \nonumber\\
&& -J_0\mathcal{J}_0\left(2 \zeta_\Phi \right)\sum_{mn,\sigma}\left( c^\dagger_{m,n+1,\sigma}c_{mn\sigma} + \text{h.c.}\right) \nonumber\\
&& +U\sum_{mn}n_{mn,\uparrow}n_{mn,\downarrow}.\end{aligned}$$ To complete the derivation, all one has to do is to apply the static SW transformation with frequency $U$. This mimics the static SW transformation and directly leads to the following Heisenberg model at any filling $$\begin{aligned}
H_\text{eff} &\approx&
-J_0\mathcal{J}_1\left(2 \zeta_\Phi \right)\sum_{mn,\sigma}P_{m+1,n,\bar\sigma}\left( e^{i\phi_{mn}}c^\dagger_{m+1,n,\sigma}c_{mn\sigma} + \text{h.c.}\right) P_{mn\bar\sigma} \nonumber\\
&& -J_0\mathcal{J}_0\left(2 \zeta_\Phi \right)\sum_{mn,\sigma}P_{m,n+1,\bar\sigma}\left( c^\dagger_{m,n+1,\sigma}c_{mn\sigma} + \text{h.c.}\right) P_{mn\bar\sigma} \nonumber\\
&& +J_\text{eff}^{\mathrm{ex},x}\sum_{mn} \Big[ S^z_{m+1,n}S^z_{mn} + \frac{1}{2}\left(e^{2i\phi_{mn}}S^+_{m+1,n}S^-_{mn} + \text{h.c.}\right) - \frac{n_{m+1,n}n_{mn}}{4} \Big] \nonumber\\
&& +J_\text{eff}^{\mathrm{ex},y}\sum_{mn} [ S^z_{m,n+1}S^z_{mn} + \frac{1}{2}\left(S^+_{m,n+1}S^-_{mn} + \text{h.c.}\right) - \frac{n_{m,n+1}n_{mn}}{4} \Big],\end{aligned}$$ with the effective exchange interactions $J^\text{ex,y}_\text{eff} = 4\left[J_0\mathcal{J}_0\left(2 \zeta_\Phi \right)\right]^2/U$ and $J^\text{ex,x}_\text{eff} = 4\left[J_0\mathcal{J}_1\left( 2 \zeta_\Phi \right)\right]^2/U$. Notice that since $U\ll\Omega$ the leading $\Omega^{-1}$-correction succumbs to the leading $U^{-1}$-Heisenberg model, so our assumption to drop the former is justified.
*(ii) Resonant Driving Limit.* Last, let us focus on the commensurate case $J_0\ll U=\Omega$. Unlike in the main text, we choose the same driving protocol as in Eq. which allows us to show how to engineer doublon-holon physics in the presence of a gauge field. In this regime, the Hamiltonian $H^\text{rot}$ in Eq. is indeed periodic with the single frequency $\Omega = U$. Locking the driving frequency to the interaction strength leads to resonances which drastically change the behaviour of the system. Here, we show that they are captured by the HFE, beyond linear response theory. Moreover, this procedure does not suffer from vanishing denominators as is the case in conventional perturbation theory. To this end, we average Eq. over one period which is equivalent to keeping only the leading order term in the effective Hamiltonian: $$\begin{aligned}
H^\text{{(0)}}_\text{eff} &=& -J_\text{eff}^x\sum_{mn,\sigma}P_{m+1,n\sigma} \left( e^{i\phi_{mn} }c^\dagger_{m+1,n\sigma}c_{mn\sigma} + \text{h.c.}\right) P_{mn\bar\sigma} -J_\text{eff}^y\sum_{mn,\sigma}P_{m,n+1,\sigma} \left( c^\dagger_{m,n+1,\sigma}c_{mn\sigma} + \text{h.c.}\right) P_{mn\bar\sigma},\nonumber\\
&& -\sum_{mn,\sigma}\left(K^{L,x}_\text{eff}n_{m,n\bar\sigma}e^{i\phi_{mn}}c^\dagger_{mn\sigma}c_{m+1,n\sigma}(1-n_{m+1,n\bar\sigma}) +
K^{R,x}_\text{eff}n_{m+1,n\bar\sigma}e^{i\phi_{mn}}c^\dagger_{m+1,n\sigma}c_{mn\sigma}(1 - n_{mn\bar\sigma}) + \text{h.c.} \right) \nonumber\\
&&
- K^y_\text{eff}\sum_{mn,\sigma}\left(n_{mn\bar\sigma}c^\dagger_{mn,\sigma}c_{m,n+1\sigma}(1 - n_{m,n+1,\bar\sigma}) -
n_{m,n+1,\bar\sigma}c^\dagger_{m,n+1,\sigma}c_{mn\sigma}(1 - n_{mn\bar\sigma}) +\text{h.c.} \right),
\label{eq:supp_DH}\end{aligned}$$ with $K^{R,x}_\text{eff} = J_0\mathcal{J}_2(2 \zeta_\Phi)$, $K^{L,x}_\text{eff} = J_0\mathcal{J}_0(2 \zeta_\Phi)$ and $K^y_\text{eff} = J_0\mathcal{J}_1(2 \zeta_\Phi)$. If the resonant periodic drive couples to the interaction strength instead, one can realise homogeneous doublon-holon creation amplitudes along the $x$-direction $K^{L,x}_\text{eff} = K^{R,x}_\text{eff} = J_0\mathcal{J}_2(2 \zeta_\Phi)$, as well as equal-sign doublon-holon amplitudes along the $y$-direction $K^y_\text{eff} = J_0\mathcal{J}_1(2 \zeta_\Phi)$. Note how the resonance condition $U=\Omega$ brings in additional terms in the effective Hamiltonian even in the leading order, which would not be there in the absence of the drive, i.e. for $A=0$. Hence, these terms are dominant, compared to the Heisenberg model appearing at order $U^{-1}$, and lead to a fundamentally different physics. In fact, they are responsible for enhancing the probability amplitude for doublon association and dissociation processes, in which two particles, initially populating neighbouring sites, are put on top of each other, or vice-versa. The necessary energy $U$ is provided by one driving quantum $\Omega$. We stress that this is a description beyond linear response theory, since the effective Hamiltonian governs the slow dynamics over a multitude of periods, depending on how well the time-scale separation is pronounced.
The presence of double occupancies in strongly-interacting fermions in periodically-modulated optical lattices is intimately related to energy absorption [@kollath_06; @huber_09]. It has been shown that the doublon production rate is the same as the energy absorption rate [@tokuno_11; @tokuno_12]. The former has been measured in a recent experiment [@greif_11] and a linear increase in time was found for weak driving amplitudes. In general, lattice modulation spectroscopy can be employed to determine the value of the interaction strength in the strongly-interacting limit. Furthermore, the weight of the double occupancy peak contains information about the spin ordering in the system. For example, an anti-ferromagnetic state is more amenable to formation of doublons, compared to a ferromagnetic or a paramagnetic state. Near half-filling, doublon formation has been proposed as a tool to detect an AFM state, expected to appear in the phase diagram of the FHM with repulsive interactions at low temperatures [@sensarma_09]. Previous work studying similar models focused on the weak-driving limit and employed time-dependent perturbation theory to second order \[the linear-response term vanishes averaged over one cycle of the drive\] [@kollath_06; @sensarma_09; @huber_09; @strohmaier_10], and Fermi’s Golden rule [@hassler_09]. The effective Floquet Hamiltonian in Eq. is clearly non-perturbative and, therefore, allows for an accurate description of the dynamics over multiple cycles of the drive and in the regime of strong amplitudes, $\zeta \gtrsim 1$. For a better precision, one can compute the first leading correction. Micromotion effects can be understood by studying the kick operator.
Spin Models from the Fermi-Hubbard Model for Generic Off-Resonant Drive.
=========================================================================
In this section, we show how the previous results for off-resonant drive can be derived from the generalised SW transformation described in the main text in greater detail. We show how the two off-resonant limits $U\ll\Omega$ and $\Omega\ll U$ discussed above can be reconciled into one non-resonant regime. In particular, we prove the validity of consecutive application of SW transformations in models with clear time-scale separation, as presented in the previous section.
Consider a generic driving protocol, which gives the rotating frame Hamiltonian in Eq. : $$\begin{aligned}
H^\text{rot}(t) &=& - J_0\sum_{\langle ij\rangle,\sigma} e^{i\delta F_{ij,\sigma}(t) }g_{ij\sigma}
-J_0\sum_{\langle ij\rangle,\sigma} e^{i\left[\delta F_{ij,\sigma}(t) + Ut\right]}h^\dagger_{ij\sigma} + \text{h.c.},\nonumber\\
h^\dagger_{ij\sigma} &=& n_{i\bar\sigma}c^\dagger_{i\sigma}c_{j\sigma}(1 - n_{j\bar\sigma}),\nonumber\\
g_{ij\sigma} &=& (1 - n_{i\bar\sigma})c^\dagger_{i\sigma}c_{j\sigma}(1 - n_{j\bar\sigma}) + n_{i\bar\sigma}c^\dagger_{i\sigma}c_{j\sigma}n_{j\bar\sigma} ~.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Since $\delta F_{i j \sigma}$ is $\Omega$-periodic, we can most generally write it in terms of Fourier coefficients: $$e^{i \delta F_{i j \sigma}(t)} = \sum_\ell A^{(\ell)}_{i j \sigma} e^{i \ell \Omega t} ~.
\label{eq:FT_F_ijs}$$ As with the remainder of the paper, we will consider $\Omega = k \Omega_0$ and $U=l \Omega_0$ with $k$ and $l$ relatively prime and $\Omega_0 \gg J_0$. Furthermore, assume that $k, l \gg 1$ such that resonance effects can be ignored and that the state of the system at half-filling has no doublons or holons which, as we have seen, will not be dynamically generated at low orders in the high-frequency expansion. Then the leading correction is of order $1/\Omega_0$ and we will only be interested in the singly-occupied conserving (a.k.a. spin) terms in the expansion.
Before expanding in powers of $1/\Omega_0$, let us quickly comment on properties of the Fourier coefficients $A^{(\ell)}_{i j \sigma}$. While not necessary for all driving protocols, it will be useful in driving spin Hamiltonians to demand that spin up and down are driven oppositely, i.e., $\delta F_{i j \sigma} = -\delta F_{i j \bar \sigma}$. In terms of the Fourier transform, Eq. , this implies that $A^{(\ell)}_{i j \bar \sigma} = (A^{(-\ell)}_{i j \sigma})^\ast$. Similarly, flipping the direction of the bond flips the sign of $\delta F$, so $A^{(\ell)}_{j i \sigma} = (A^{(-\ell)}_{i j \sigma})^\ast$.
The leading correction to the effective Hamiltonian is $H_\mathrm{eff}^{(1)} = \sum_{\ell > 0} [H_\mathrm{rot}^{(\ell)},H_\mathrm{rot}^{(-\ell)}] / \ell \Omega_0$. There are two types of commutators that occur in this sum. The first comes from terms that have no oscillation with frequency $U$, giving commutators of the form: $$\left[ \sum_{ij\sigma} A^{(\ell)}_{ij\sigma} g_{i j \sigma}, \sum_{i'j'\sigma'} A^{(\ell)}_{i'j'\sigma'} g_{i' j' \sigma'}\right] ~.$$ One can readily check that all of these commutators vanish. The second class of commutators are those that are relevant for the Schrieffer-Wolff transformation: $$\left[ \sum_{ij\sigma} A^{(\ell)}_{ij\sigma} h_{i j \sigma}^\dagger, \sum_{i'j'\sigma'} A^{(-\ell)}_{i'j'\sigma'} h_{j' i' \sigma'} \right] ~.$$ These involve terms rotating with $e^{i (U + \ell \Omega) t}$, and thus will be suppressed by a $(U + \ell \Omega)$ denominator. The commutators vanish if $i$, $i'$, $j$, and $j'$ are all different. For $i=i'$ and $j\neq j'$, the non-vanishing commutators correspond to next-neighbor doublon/holon hopping which is suppressed at half filling. Therefore, the only relevant commutators come from $i=i'$ and $j=j'$ or $i=j'$ and $j=i'$. Note that these are the same commutators that were implicitly used in the previous appendices; we explicitly write them out here for clarity. There are four cases.
- [**$i'=i$, $j'=j$, $\sigma'=\sigma$:** ]{} The commutator vanishes trivially.
- [**$i'=i$, $j'=j$, $\sigma'=\bar \sigma$:** ]{} The commutator gives $$\nonumber
\mathcal C_1 = A_{ij\sigma}^{(\ell)} A_{ij\bar \sigma}^{(-\ell)} c_{i\sigma}^\dagger c_{j \sigma} c_{i \bar \sigma}^\dagger c_{j \bar \sigma} \left[ (1-n_{i\bar \sigma}) n_{j \bar \sigma} (1-n_{i \sigma}) n_{j \sigma} - n_{i \sigma} (1-n_{j\sigma}) n_{i \bar \sigma} (1-n_{j \bar \sigma}) \right]~.$$ Using properties of $A^{(\ell)}$ discussed above, the coefficient may be rewritten as $|A_{i j \sigma}^{(\ell)}|^2$.
- [**$i'=j$, $j'=i$, $\sigma'=\sigma$:** ]{} The commutator gives $$\nonumber
\mathcal C_2 = A_{ij\sigma}^{(\ell)} A_{j i \sigma}^{(-\ell)} (n_{i \sigma} - n_{j \sigma}) n_{i \bar \sigma} (1-n_{j \bar \sigma}) ~.$$ The coefficient may be rewritten to $|A_{i j \sigma}^{(\ell)}|^2$.
- [**$i'=j$, $j'=i$, $\sigma'=\bar \sigma$:** ]{} The commutator gives $$\nonumber
\mathcal C_3 = A_{ij\sigma}^{(\ell)} A_{j i \bar \sigma}^{(-\ell)} c_{i\sigma}^\dagger c_{j \sigma} c_{j \bar \sigma}^\dagger c_{i \bar \sigma} \left[ (1-n_{i\bar \sigma}) n_{j \bar \sigma} (1-n_{j \sigma}) n_{i \sigma} - n_{j \sigma} (1-n_{i\sigma}) n_{i \bar \sigma} (1-n_{j \bar \sigma}) \right]~.$$ The coefficient may be rewritten $A_{i j \sigma}^{(\ell)} A_{i j \sigma}^{(-\ell)}$.
For later convenience, we define the above coefficients for $\sigma = \uparrow$ as $$\alpha_{ij}^{(\ell)} \equiv A_{i j \uparrow}^{(\ell)} A_{i j \uparrow}^{(-\ell)} ~,~\beta_{ij}^{(\ell)} \equiv |A_{i j \uparrow}^{(\ell)}|^2 ~.$$
The first term, $\mathcal C_1$, yields doublon-holon exchange ($|\uparrow \downarrow,0\rangle \leftrightarrow |0,\uparrow \downarrow\rangle$) and is therefore irrelevant at half filling. Up to a constant energy shift, $\mathcal C_2$ and $\mathcal C_3$ correspond to Ising and exchange terms respectively. Thus the effective spin Hamiltonian may be written $$H_\mathrm{eff}^{(1)} = \sum_{\langle ij\rangle,\ell} \frac{J_0^2}{U + \ell \Omega} \left[ \alpha_{ij}^{(\ell)} S_i^+ S_j^- + (\alpha_{ij}^{(\ell)})^\ast S_i^- S_j^+ + 2 \beta_{ij}^{(\ell)} S_i^z S_j^z \right] ~.$$ Hence, we see that the general result is an interacting spin-1/2 Hamiltonian where hopping of the spins is accompanied by a phase that depends on properties of the driving. One can now see how to simply take the limits $U \gg \Omega$ and $\Omega \gg U$. First, if $\Omega \gg U$, then only the $\ell=0$ term in the sum survives: $$H_\mathrm{eff}^{\Omega \gg U} = \frac{J_0^2}{U} \sum_{\langle ij\rangle} \left[ \alpha_{ij}^{(0)} S_i^+ S_j^- + (\alpha_{ij}^{(0)})^\ast S_i^- S_j^+ + 2 \beta_{ij}^{(0)} S_i^z S_j^z \right] ~.$$ In the opposite limit, $U \gg \Omega$, not only do all the $\ell$’s contribute, but they contribute with equal weight $1/(U + \ell \Omega) \approx 1/U$: $$H_\mathrm{eff}^{U \gg \Omega} = \frac{1}{U} \sum_{\langle ij\rangle, \ell} \left[ \alpha_{ij}^{(\ell)} S_i^+ S_j^- + (\alpha_{ij}^{(\ell)})^\ast S_i^- S_j^+ + 2 \beta_{ij}^{(\ell)} S_i^z S_j^z \right] ~.$$ This approximation is technically only valid if the sum is dominated by $\ell \ll U / \Omega$. This condition will generally hold because higher $\ell$’s corresponds to higher harmonics of the drive, which have amplitudes $A^{(\ell)}$ that are exponentially suppressed in $\ell$.
Finally, let us apply this formulation to the drive discussed in the main text, $$f_{m n \sigma} = \sigma [A \cos(\Omega t + \Phi_\square(m+n)) + \Omega m]~.
\label{eq:f_mn_sigma}$$ From the second term in Eq. we see that bonds in the $x$-direction and $y$-direction behave differently. In particular, hopping in the positive $x$-direction gives $$e^{i \delta F_\uparrow^x} \equiv e^{i(F_{m,n,\uparrow} - F_{m+1,n,\uparrow})} = e^{-i \Omega t} e^{i \zeta (\sin(\Omega t + \Phi_\square(m + n)) - \sin(\Omega t + \Phi_\square(m + n + 1)))} = e^{-i \Omega t} e^{i \delta F_\uparrow^y}~.$$ Fourier-transforming this simple harmonic driving, one can readily check that $$A_{y \uparrow}^{(\ell)} = e^{i \ell (\phi_{mn} + (\Phi_\square + \pi)/2)} \mathcal{J}_\ell (2 \zeta_\Phi) ~,$$ from which it is clear that $A_x$ is just shifted by one harmonic: $$A_{x \uparrow}^{(\ell)} = e^{i (\ell+1) (\phi_{mn} + (\Phi_\square + \pi)/2)} \mathcal{J}_{\ell+1} (2 \zeta_\Phi) ~.$$ This gives coefficients on the spin Hamiltonian of $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber \alpha_y^{(\ell)} &=& A_y^{(\ell)} A_y^{(-\ell)} = \mathcal{J}_{\ell}(2 \zeta_\Phi) \mathcal{J}_{-\ell}(2 \zeta_\Phi)
\\ \nonumber \alpha_x^{(\ell)} &=& e^{2 i (\phi_{mn} + (\Phi_\square + \pi)/2)} \mathcal{J}_{\ell+1}(2 \zeta_\Phi) \mathcal{J}_{-\ell + 1}(2 \zeta_\Phi)
\\ \nonumber \beta_y^{(\ell)} &=& \left[\mathcal{J}_{\ell}(2 \zeta_\Phi) \right]^2
\\ \beta_x^{(\ell)} &=& \left[\mathcal{J}_{\ell+1}(2 \zeta_\Phi) \right]^2 ~.\end{aligned}$$ The overall phase factor $\Phi_\square + \pi$ in $\alpha_x$ is irrelevant to the global physics, so we gauge it away by rotating $S^+_{m n} \to S^+_{mn} e^{i m (\Phi_\square + \pi)}$. Then, for $\Omega \gg U$ the Hamiltonian reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber H_\mathrm{eff}^{\Omega \gg U} & = & \frac{2 J_0^2}{U} \sum_{mn} \Big[ [\mathcal{J}_1(2 \zeta_\Phi)]^2 ( e^{2 i \phi_{mn}} S_{m,n}^+ S_{m+1,n}^- + e^{-2 i \phi_{mn}} S_{m,n}^- S_{m+1,n}^+ + 2 S_{m,n}^z S_{m+1,n}^z)
\\ && ~~~~~~~~ + [\mathcal{J}_0(2 \zeta_\Phi)]^2 ( S_{m,n}^+ S_{m,n+1}^- + S_{m,n}^- S_{m,n+1}^+ + 2 S_{m,n}^z S_{m,n+1}^z) \Big] ~.
\label{eq:supp_U<<Omega}\end{aligned}$$ The $U \gg \Omega$ limit can be obtained by using sum rules for the Bessel functions: $\sum_\ell \alpha_x^{(\ell)} = \mathcal{J}_2(4 \zeta_\Phi)$, $\sum_\ell \alpha_y^{(\ell)} = \mathcal{J}_0(4 \zeta_\Phi)$, and $\sum_\ell \beta_{x/y}^{(\ell)} = 1$. Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber H_\mathrm{eff}^{U \gg \Omega} & = & \frac{2 J_0^2}{U} \sum_{mn} \Big[ \mathcal{J}_2(4 \zeta_\Phi) ( e^{2 i \phi_{mn}} S_{m,n}^+ S_{m+1,n}^- + e^{-2 i \phi_{mn}} S_{m,n}^- S_{m+1,n}^+)
\\ && ~~~~~~~~ + \mathcal{J}_0(4 \zeta_\Phi) ( S_{m,n}^+ S_{m,n+1}^- + S_{m,n}^- S_{m,n+1}^+) + 2 S_{m,n}^z S_{m+1,n}^z + 2 S_{m,n}^z S_{m,n+1}^z \Big] ~.
\label{eq:supp_Omega<<U}\end{aligned}$$
Reconciling the Resonant and Off-Resonant Limits. Crossover Regime.
=====================================================================
Since the argument we used in the main text for the Floquet realisation of strongly-correlated condensed matter models relies on a clear time-scale separation, it is interesting to explore how the three limits of (i) high-frequency $J_0\ll U\ll \Omega$, (ii) strong interactions $J_0\ll \Omega \ll U$, and (iii) resonant driving $J_0\ll U=l\Omega$ can be reconciled to reproduce the stroboscopic dynamics of the system in the presence of the drive. To illustrate this, it suffices to consider the driven two-site Hubbard model. Thus, we also leave aside the gauge fields which would only obscure the equations. The Hamiltonian is $$\begin{aligned}
H(t) = -J_0\sum_{\sigma}\left(c^\dagger_{1\sigma}c_{2\sigma} + \text{h.c.}\right) + A\cos(\Omega t)n_2 + U(n_{1\uparrow}n_{1\downarrow} + n_{2\uparrow}n_{2\downarrow} ).\end{aligned}$$ Following the discussion and notation of Eq. , we find the following rotating-frame Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
H^\text{rot}(t) &=& - J_0\sum_{\sigma}\left( \gamma^*(t) g_{12\sigma} + \text{h.c.} \right)
-J_0\sum_{\sigma}\left( \chi_R^*(t)h^\dagger_{21\sigma} + \chi_L^*(t)h^\dagger_{12\sigma} + \text{h.c.} \right),\nonumber\\
\gamma^*(t) &=& e^{i \zeta\sin\Omega t }, \ \ \ \ \chi_R^*(t) = e^{i(\zeta\sin\Omega t + Ut)}, \ \ \ \ \chi_L^*(t) = e^{-i(\zeta\sin\Omega t - Ut)},\end{aligned}$$ where the operators $h^\dagger_{ij\sigma}$ and $g_{ij\sigma}$ are defined in Eq. , and $\zeta = A/\Omega$.
As already mentioned in the main text, in general the Hamiltonian $H^\text{rot}(t)$ is neither periodic with the frequency $\Omega$, nor with the frequency $U$. In order to apply the high-frequency expansion, we first find two co-prime integers $l$ and $k$ such that $\Omega = k\Omega_0$ and $U = l\Omega_0$, where $\Omega_0 = 2\pi/T_{\Omega_0}$ is the common frequency, such that $H(t+T_{\Omega_0}) = H(t)$. We first need to Fourier-expand the functions $\gamma^*(t)$ and $\chi^*(t)$ in this common frequency $\Omega_0$. Note that, in principle, in order to apply the HFE, one needs to make sure that $J_0\ll \Omega_0$ which may not be true. However, as we shall see shortly, this condition is somewhat artificial since $\Omega_0$ is not a physical scale but rather a mathematical construct. From the Jacobi-Anger identity it follows that $\chi_R^*(t) = \sum_{\ell=-\infty}^\infty \mathcal{J}_\ell(\zeta)e^{i(\ell k+l)\Omega_0 t}\equiv\sum_{\ell=-\infty}^\infty a^R_\ell e^{i\ell\Omega_0 t}$ and similarly for $\chi_L^*(t)$. Clearly, $\chi_R^*(t)$ has a non-zero time average. On the other hand, one can convince oneself that the coefficient $a_0$ is nonzero if and only if $l=-\ell k$. However, since $l$ and $k$ are co-prime, this can only hold true for $k=1$ which means $U=l\Omega$. Physically, this condition is a manifestation of the conservation of quasienergy, saying that the doublon-holon creation term $h^\dagger_{ij\sigma}$ is non-zero at the level of the time-average Hamiltonian only when the interaction strength matches a multiple of the driving frequency.
We therefore focus only on the resonant case $U=l\Omega$, for which we find $a^R_\ell = \mathcal{J}_{\ell-l}(\zeta)$ and $a^L_\ell = \mathcal{J}_{-\ell-l}(\zeta)$. Fourier-decomposing the Hamiltonian in the rotating frame immediately leads to $$\begin{aligned}
H_\ell = - J_0\sum_{\sigma} \Big[ \mathcal{J}_{\ell}(\zeta)g_{12\sigma} + \mathcal{J}_{-\ell}(\zeta)g^\dagger_{12\sigma} + \mathcal{J}_{\ell-l}(\zeta)h^\dagger_{21\sigma} + \mathcal{J}_{-\ell+l}(\zeta)h^\dagger_{12\sigma} + \mathcal{J}_{-\ell-l}(\zeta)h_{21\sigma} + \mathcal{J}_{\ell+l}(\zeta)h_{12\sigma} \Big]. \end{aligned}$$ Following Eq. , all leading correction terms can be obtained from $H^{(1)}_\text{eff} = \sum_{\ell\neq 0}[H_\ell,H_{-\ell}]/\ell\Omega_0$. For simplicity let us concentrate on the spin exchange term only, which is proportional to the commutator $[h^\dagger_{ij\sigma},h_{ji\bar\sigma}]$ [@keeling_notes]. One can shift the index of the Bessel functions in the sum over $\ell$, and after some algebra we obtain the resonant drive-renormalised exchange interaction $J^\text{ex}_\text{eff}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
J^\text{ex}_\text{eff} = 4\frac{J_0^2}{\Omega_0}\sum_{\substack{\ell=-\infty \\ \ell\neq-l }}^{\infty} \frac{\mathcal{J}^2_\ell(\zeta)}{l+\ell} = 4\frac{J_0^2}{U}\sum_{\substack{\ell=-\infty \\ \ell\neq-l }}^{\infty} \frac{\mathcal{J}^2_\ell(\zeta)}{1+\ell/l} = 4\frac{J_0^2}{U}\sum_{\substack{\ell=-\infty \\ \ell\neq-l }}^{\infty} \frac{\mathcal{J}^2_\ell(\zeta)}{1+\ell\Omega/U},
\label{eq:exchange_renormalised}\end{aligned}$$ where in the second and third equalities we used $U = l\Omega_0 = l\Omega$ on resonance. We can now analytically continue $U/\Omega$ from an integer to the entire real axis. In doing so, note that the restriction in the summation $\ell\neq -l$ is superfluous for all non-integer values of $U/\Omega$, i.e. everywhere away from resonance. This expression was first derived in Ref. [@mentink_15] using an extended Hilbert space approach, which is different but equivalent [@eckardt_15] to the one presented in our work. We note in passing that the renormalisation of the spin-exchange coupling is the same, no matter whether the periodic driving couples to the density (as in our case) or to the interaction strength. The general validity of this type of analytic continuation is a subject of current investigation. It is clear that it will fail for nearly-resonant drives, but these cases can be treated introducing a small detuning $\delta$ to separate out the resonant part already in the lab frame. Nevertheless, we have verified that this procedure produces the correct answer also in the derivation of the Kondo model from the Anderson model where the two incommensurate energy scales are given by the interaction strength $U$ for two electrons occupying the impurity level, and the relative shift $V$ of the impurity level w.r.t. the Fermi sea.
Let us now briefly discuss the three limits of interest from the point of view of the general expression, Eq. . Consider first $J_0\ll \Omega\ll U$. In this case, we can safely drop the restriction on the summation and, using the ‘trigonometric’ identity $\sum_\ell \mathcal{J}^2_\ell(\zeta) = 1$, we find the same exchange interaction as in the non-driven model, $J^\text{ex}_\text{eff} = 4J_0^2/U$. This is consistent with first doing the SW transformation w.r.t $U$ and then applying the FHE w.r.t $\Omega$, as explained in the main text. The Bessel functions which appear in front of the $S^+S^-$ terms in Eqs. and are due to the spin-dependent drive and are not present for spin-independent protocols as the one considered in this section. In the high-frequency regime $J_0\ll U\ll \Omega$, only the $\ell=0$ term contributes, and we find $J^\text{ex}_\text{eff} = 4J_\text{eff}^2/U$, with $J_\text{eff} = J_0\mathcal{J}_0(\zeta)$. Again, this is exactly what one would expect from first applying the HFE to obtain the FHM with renormalised hopping amplitude, and subsequently doing the SW transformation (see main text). Last, the resonant case $J_0\ll U=l\Omega$ is clear from the derivation above. Note, however, that the exchange physics is of order $1/\Omega$, and hence it succumbs entirely to the doublon-holon physics in this regime.
Loading Sequence for the Ground State of the Effective Doublon-Holon model on Resonance.
==========================================================================================
Let us briefly comment on a possible procedure to load the system in the ground state of the effective Floquet Hamiltonian $H_\mathrm{eff}^{(0)}$, describing the doublon-holon model for resonant driving: $$\begin{aligned}
H_\text{eff}^{(0)} = \sum_{\langle ij\rangle,\sigma} \left[ - J_\text{eff} g_{ij\sigma} - K_\text{eff}\!\left( (-1)^{l\eta_{ij}} h^\dagger_{ij\sigma} + \text{h.c.}\right)\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta_{ij} = 1$ for $i>j$, $\eta_{ij} = 0$ for $i<j$, $J_\text{eff} = J_0\mathcal{J}_0(\zeta)$, $K_\text{eff} = J_0\mathcal{J}_l(\zeta)$, and $U=l\Omega$. In the following, we concentrate on the case $l=2$ which, as we have shown in the main text, contains a free-fermion point for $J_\mathrm{eff} = K_\mathrm{eff}$.
While most experimental realisations of Floquet Hamiltonians use an adiabatic ramp up of the driving protocol by gradually switching on the drive amplitude [@pweinberg_15], we follow a slightly different approach, which we find to be more efficient in this case. To minimise heating effects due to resonant absorption from the drive, we use a multi-step loading procedure similar to the one proposed in Ref. [@tsuji_11]. First, at time $t=0$ we prepare the system in the ground state of free fermions. Then we suddenly quench-start the drive \[including the interactions\] with an amplitude corresponding to the free fermion point: $\zeta = A/\Omega \approx 1.8412$. This procedure preserves the state to leading order in the HFE. Second, we ramp down the driving amplitude smoothly into the Luttinger liquid phase for a total of forty driving periods and stop whenever the amplitude reaches a value such that $K_\mathrm{eff}/(K_\mathrm{eff}+J_\mathrm{eff})\approx 0.2$. Last, we evolve the system at this constant final amplitude for five more driving periods. We note in passing that a similar procedure works when the amplitude is instead increased and the system enters the gapped bond density wave phase.
![ Stroboscopic time evolution of the diagonal entropies for the ramp into the Luttinger Liquid phase on resonance for a chain of $L=8$ sites. The dashed vertical line marks the end point of the ramp, after which the evolution continues at a constant driving amplitude. Unity on the $y$-axis corresponds to maximum entropy while zero – to minimum. The parameters are $U/J_0=40, U=2\Omega$, $A_i/\Omega = 1.8412\ [J_\mathrm{eff}=K_\mathrm{eff}]$ and $A_f/\Omega = 1.2\ [K_\mathrm{eff}/(J_\mathrm{eff}+K_\mathrm{eff})\approx 0.2$\].[]{data-label="fig:ramp_entropy"}](ramp_S_strobo_U=40_mR=40.png){width="45.00000%"}
To measure the amount of non-adiabaticity introduced during the ramp process, we compute numerically the diagonal entropy in the Floquet eigenbasis, which effectively measures occupation of higher-energy Floquet states. Let us denote by $|\psi(t)\rangle$ the state, exactly evolved with the full lab-frame time-dependent Hamiltonian $H(t)$, whose driving amplitude is ramped down smoothly. Further, we denote the set of eigenstates of the leading-order Floquet Hamiltonian $H_\mathrm{eff}^{(0)}$ by $\{|\nu\rangle\}$, and the probability to be in each of these states at the stroboscopic times $t=lT$ is given by $p^\mathrm{eff}_{\nu\psi}(lT) = |\langle\psi(lT)|\nu\rangle|^2$. While calculating the fidelity requires the unique identification of the Floquet ground state \[more precisely the adiabatically-connected Floquet state\] at each point of time, we choose to look at the stroboscopic Floquet diagonal entropy $S_\mathrm{eff}(lT) = -\sum_{\nu}p^\mathrm{eff}_{\nu\psi}(lT)\log p^\mathrm{eff}_{\nu\psi}(lT)$, which measures the spread of the initial state over the basis of the approximate Floquet Hamiltonian as a function of time [@pweinberg_15]. A small value of the entropy automatically means that the system predominantly occupies a single state without the need of identifying it.
Since the Hamiltonian $H_\mathrm{eff}^{(0)}$ is just the zeroth order term in the HFE, and because any realistic experimental set-up requires a finite frequency, it is also interesting to study the effect of the higher-order terms. This can be done along the same lines by defining the exact Floquet states $\{|n\rangle \}$, and the corresponding probabilities $p_{n\psi}(lT) = |\langle\psi(lT)|n\rangle|^2$ and diagonal entropy $S(lT) = -\sum_{n}p_{n\psi}(lT)\log p_{n\psi}(lT)$. The entropy $S_\mathrm{eff}$ shows how close the state is to the desired ground state of the Hamiltonian $H_\mathrm{eff}^{(0)}$, while the entropy $S$ shows how close the state is to the ground state of the exact instantaneous, i.e. stroboscopic, Floquet Hamiltonian $H_F$, which knows about the higher-order correction terms.
Figure \[fig:ramp\_entropy\] shows the two entropies during the ramp. Notice that the nonadiabatic (and hence heating) rates are minimal. This plot also implies that the exact Floquet ground state is very close to the ground state of the approximate Floquet Hamiltonian $H_{\rm eff}^0$. We have verified that a longer ramp duration corresponds to smaller heating rates. We also checked that the mismatch between the two entropies decreases with increasing the drive frequency, according to expectations. While we cannot numerically verify the feasibility of such a loading scheme for larger systems, based on the DMFT results of Ref. [@tsuji_11] where a similar procedure has been employed, we believe that this protocol should be robust even in thermodynamic limit, as the heating effects due to the drive are at most exponentially slow in frequency [@kuwahara_15; @abanin_15; @abanin_15_2; @mori_15] and should not play any role during the finite-time loading process. Therefore, we anticipate that such a protocol will allow one to load larger systems into a low-entropy state which is close enough to the desired Floquet ground state in order to detect the corresponding Luttinger liquid physics.
[^1]: The approximate sign in Eq. is used since we neglected part of the correction terms, cf. Ref. [@keeling_notes].
[^2]: There is an overall phase factor $(\Phi_\square + \pi)/2$ in $A_{x/y \uparrow}$ which is irrelevant to the global physics, so we gauge it away by rotating $S^+_{m n} \to S^+_{mn} e^{i m (\Phi_\square + \pi)}$, see Suppl. [@supplementary_SWT].
[^3]: Periodically-driven Luttinger liquids were studied in Ref. [@bukov_12].
[^4]: Formally, the identification of a well-defined frequency $\lambda$ in the rotating frame requires that the spectrum of $H_1$ is commensurate, which is the case whenever $H_1$ is a density-density interaction.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'A new event mixing constraint, namely invariant-mass/energy hierarchy correspondence (IMEHC) cut, is introduced for the low-multiplicity event mixing technique for the purpose of measuring Bose-Einstein correlations (BEC) in exclusive reactions with $\pi \pi X$ final state particles. The mixing cut is relevant to the hierarchy of the invariant mass of $\pi X$ system and two bosons’ energy hierarchy. Numerical tests are performed to check the validity of the new mixing method. As long as the measurements of BEC parameters $r_0$ and $\lambda_2$ are considered, this new mixing method is effective to observe BEC effects and the systematic bias of $r_0$ and $\lambda_2$ are smaller than the previously proposed mixing cut.'
address: 'Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics (NUAA), Nanjing 210016, China'
author:
- 'Q. He [^1]\'
title: 'An event mixing method with invariant-mass/energy hierarchy correspondence cut for Bose-Einstein correlations in $\pi \pi X$ system'
---
Introduction
============
Bose-Einstein correlations (BEC) [@Weiner1999; @Boal1990], generally applied in high-energy elementary particle collisions and relativistic heavy ion collisions for measuring space-time properties of particle production volume [@Csorgo2006; @Utyuzh2007; @Ma2007; @Xu2017; @Liu2012; @Brown2007; @Heister2004; @Khachatryan2010], can also be used in exclusive reactions with low multiplicity to measure the spatial extension of excited baryons generally decayed back to the ground states with two-meson emission, such as the reaction $\gamma p\to N^*\to \pi^0 \pi^0 p$ at incident photon energies around 1 GeV. However, such studies are still unavailable, because the event mixing method [@Kopylov1972_15; @Kopylov1974] used for BEC measurement for low multiplicity reactions is strongly disturbed by global conservation laws and resonance decays [@Klaja2010; @Chaje2008] which may lead to significant non-BEC kinematical correlations of final state particles and make the BEC observation more complicated.
It is still a challenging work to find appropriate event mixing method to suppress the influence of kinematical correlations arising from global conservation laws and intermediate resonances. In 2016, a mixing technique with two mixing cuts, named missing mass consistency (MMC) cut and pion energy (PE) cut, is proposed for $\pi^0 \pi^0$ BEC measurement in the $\gamma p\to \pi^0 \pi^0 p$ reaction at incident photon energies $E_{\gamma}$ around 1 GeV (a non-perturbative QCD region) [@He2016]. The MMC cut that requires the missing mass in the mixed event should be identical to that of the original event, was introduced for the sake of energy momentum conservation in the mixed events. The PE cut that rejects some events with boson energy beyond a certain level, is used to avoid two-pion energy sum exceeding physically allowed limits. Because the PE cut results in sample reduction (about 40% proportion) and hence leads to a worse analysis accuracy, a new cut, named the energy sum order (ESO) cut [@He2018] was proposed later to replace the PE cut, which has no requirement on discarding original events. However, as long as the fit BEC parameters are considered, the ESO cut has big systematic errors for BEC parameter measurement.
In this work, a new mixing constraint, named invariant-mass/energy hierarchy correspondence (IMEHC) cut is introduced to improve the accuracy of BEC parameter measurement. The IMEHC cut employs the hierarchy of the invariant mass of $\pi X$ system and two bosons’ energy hierarchy to control the mixing process. Extensive numerical tests are carried out to test the ability of the new mixing cut IMEHC to observe BEC effects.
Event mixing method with invariant-mass/energy hierarchy correspondence cut
===========================================================================
To employ BEC effects to investigate the space-time properties of subatomic reacting volume emitting identical bosons, one needs to measure a two-particle correlation function [@Alexander2003; @Goldhaber1960] $$C_{BEC} (p_1,p_2 )=\frac{P_{BEC} (p_1,p_2)}{P_0 (p_1,p_2)}=1+|f(q)|^2,
\label{eqn1}$$ where $P_{BEC} (p_1,p_2)$ stands for the probability of emitting two identical bosons with momenta $p_1$ and $p_2$ with BEC effects, and $P_0 (p_1,p_2 )$ the probability of so-called “reference sample” without BEC effects. $f(q)$ is the Fourier transform of the emitter source distribution, where $q=p_1-p_2$ ( $p_1$ and $p_2$ are two bosons’ momenta). If the emitter source has a Gaussian density distribution, Eq. (\[eqn1\]) is parametrized in terms of a “source radius” $r_0$ and a “chaoticity parameter” $\lambda_2$: $$C_{BEC} (p_1,p_2 )=C_{BEC} (Q)=N(1+\lambda_2 e^{-r_0^2 Q^2}),
\label{eqn2}$$ where $Q$ is a measurement of the relative momentum between two bosons defined by $Q^2=-q^2=-(p_1-p_2)^2$, which is a Lorentz invariant parameter widely used in many of the two-boson one-dimensional BEC analyses. The parameter $N$ is the normalization factor. In this parametrization, the parameter $r_0$ is generally similar ($r_0 \sim$ 0.5-1 fm) for all hadronic interactions (excluding heavy ion interactions), while the parameter $\lambda_2$, a measurement of the boson-emitting chaoticity, varies from 0 to 1 depending upon the method of fit and experimental factors in measuring data sample such as particle misidentification and detecting resolution [@Andersson1998].
The reference sample free of BEC effects is generally produced from the original data sample through the event mixing technique [@Kopylov1972_15; @Kopylov1974], which eliminates the BEC effects via selecting two bosons’ momenta from two random events in the original data sample under prescribed cut conditions. But the application of event mixing method to exclusive reactions with only two identical bosons is still challenging because it is strongly interfered by non-BEC factors such as global conservation laws and resonance decays. In this case, in order to make a valid reference sample identical to the real data in all aspects but free of BEC effects, special mixing constraints are required in event mixing. With an ideal event mixing method a reference sample should have identical $Q$ distribution to the original one and hence obtain a flat correlation function.
The knowledge of kinematical correlations between final state particles in original samples may provide useful information for appropriate constraints to govern event mixing process. Inspired by the idea in Ref. [@He2016] that one pion with relatively higher/lower energy can only be swapped with another pion from another event with relatively higher/lower energy in order to maintain the original kinematical correlations of two pions in the sequential decay reactions $\gamma p \to \pi^0 \Delta \to \pi^0 \pi^0 p$, in this work a new mixing constraint, named invariant-mass/energy hierarchy correspondence (IMEHC) cut, is proposed for measuring BEC effects in exclusive reactions with $\pi \pi X$ final states.
The IMEHC constraint contains two sub-cuts. The first sub-cut is relevant to the invariant mass of $\pi X$ system among the final state $\pi \pi X$, defined by $m^2 (\pi,X)=(p_\pi+p_X)^2$. It requires to exchange two pions both with lower/higher invariant mass $m^2 (\pi,X)$ from two different events. The second sub-cut governs the mixing procedure in terms of the energy of pion. It requires one pion with relatively higher/lower energy can only be swapped with another pion from another event with relatively higher/lower energy. In mixing procedure at a time, only one sub-cut of the IMEHC constraint is randomly selected with equal probability to govern the event mixing, while another is temporarily in active. In other words, the two bosons being swapped should be equal in invariant mass $m(\pi,X)$ hierarchy at a time or in energy hierarchy at another time. In the new mixing method, the MMC cut [@He2016] and the energy sum order (ESO) cut [@He2018] are still included in the mixing method. The ESO cut is expressed by the definition $min(E_{sum}^{(ori,1)},E_{sum}^{(ori,2)} )<E_{sum}^{mix}<max(E_{sum}^{(ori,1)},E_{sum}^{(ori,2)})$ [@He2018], where $E_{sum}^{(ori,1)}$ and $E_{sum}^{(ori,2)}$ are the two-boson energy sums in the two original events, $E_{sum}^{mix}$ the same value in the mixed event.
Numerical verification
======================
Numerical simulation is performed to test the mixing cut IMEHC for measuring two-pion Bose-Einstein correlations in reactions with $\pi \pi X$ final state particles. In the simulation, the reaction $\gamma p\to \pi^0 \pi^0 p$ with and without BEC effects is taken as an example to demonstrate the event mixing method. The event samples are generated using a ROOT [@Brun1997] utility named “TGenPhaseSpace” [@James1968]. The details of the event generation can be found elsewhere [@He2016]. Totally six $\gamma p\to \pi^0 \pi^0 p$ event samples with and without BEC effects at incident photon energies of 1.0 GeV, 1.03 GeV, 1.06 GeV, 1.09 GeV, 1.12 GeV, and 1.15 GeV respectively are generated.
Although the obtained correlation functions of the non-BEC samples have not any enhancements at $Q=0$ and have a semi-flat distribution averagely as shown in Fig. \[Fig1\] (a), they exhibit a $Q^2$ dependent pattern. Thus the quadratic function $f(Q)=N(1+αQ^2)$ is used to fit the non-BEC correlation functions. Because of the $Q^2$ dependent pattern of the non-BEC sample correlation functions has a strong association with the BEC-samples correlation function fitting, the later should be fitted by a modified Eq. (\[eqn2\]): $$C_{BEC} (Q)=N(1+\alpha Q^2)(1+\lambda_2 e^{-r_0^2 Q^2}),
\label{eqn3}$$
The ability of the proposed mixing method to measure BEC effects is tested using the six BEC samples with input BEC parameters typically set to be $r_0=0.8$ fm and $\lambda_2=$1.0. As shown in Fig. \[Fig1\] (a), the BEC effects can be successfully observed in the obtained correlation functions using the proposed mixing method.
![(a) Correlation functions of the mixed events ($N_{BEC} (Q)/N_{Mix} (Q)$). For comparison, the correlation functions of the generated BEC samples ($N_{BEC} (Q)/N_{noBEC} (Q)$) and those of the non-BEC samples ($N_{noBEC} (Q)/N_{Mix} (Q)$) are also presented. (b) Fitted BEC parameters of $r_0$ obtained by the proposed event mixing method at six incident photon energies $E_{\gamma}$=1.0, 1.03, 1.06, 1.09, 1.12, and 1.15 GeV for the $\gamma p \to \pi^0 \pi^0 p$ events. (c) Fitted BEC parameters of $\lambda_2$. For comparison, the values of $r_0$ and $\lambda_2$ for the generated sample with BEC effects are also shown. []{data-label="Fig1"}](fig1_a.eps "fig:"){width="0.57\linewidth"} ![(a) Correlation functions of the mixed events ($N_{BEC} (Q)/N_{Mix} (Q)$). For comparison, the correlation functions of the generated BEC samples ($N_{BEC} (Q)/N_{noBEC} (Q)$) and those of the non-BEC samples ($N_{noBEC} (Q)/N_{Mix} (Q)$) are also presented. (b) Fitted BEC parameters of $r_0$ obtained by the proposed event mixing method at six incident photon energies $E_{\gamma}$=1.0, 1.03, 1.06, 1.09, 1.12, and 1.15 GeV for the $\gamma p \to \pi^0 \pi^0 p$ events. (c) Fitted BEC parameters of $\lambda_2$. For comparison, the values of $r_0$ and $\lambda_2$ for the generated sample with BEC effects are also shown. []{data-label="Fig1"}](fig1_b_c.eps "fig:"){width="0.43\linewidth"}
The BEC parameters $r_0$ and $\lambda_2$ determined from the proposed mixing method are found to be consistent with the input values of the generated BEC samples within error bars at most energy bins, as shown in Fig. \[Fig1\] (b) and (c). Because of the event mixing induced $Q^2$ dependent pattern of the non-BEC sample correlation functions, the BEC parameters from event mixing are determined by fitting Eq. (\[eqn3\]) to the event mixing obtained correlation function ($N_{BEC} (Q)/N_{Mix} (Q)$). As not involved in event mixing, the input BEC parameters used for comparison are obtained by fitting Eq. (\[eqn2\]) to the correlation functions of the generated BEC samples ($N_{BEC}(Q)/N_{noBEC} (Q)$). No dependence on the incident photon energy is found for both $r_0$ and $\lambda_2$. Summing over the six energy bins, the error weighted mean value of $r_0$ is determined to be $0.84\pm0.03$, about 8% overestimated compared to the mean value of the input one, $0.78\pm0.01$, and that of $\lambda_2$ is found to be $0.78\pm0.03$, about 18% underestimated compared to the mean value of the input one, $0.95\pm0.02$.
By comparing the mean values of the BEC parameters obtained with the mixing method with those from the previously proposed mixing method using only the MMC and ESO cuts [@He2018], it is found that the $r_0$ remains the same as the previously proposed method, while the mean value of $\lambda_2$ is closer to the input one. Compared to the previously proposed mixing method, this new mixing method reduces the systematic bias of $\lambda_2$ from 22% to 18% as shown in Fig. \[Fig2\]. As for the uncertainties of the BEC parameters, $r_0$ has a smaller uncertainty compared to that from the previously proposed mixing method, while the $\lambda_2$ uncertainty remains the same. From this point, the improvement of this new method is still very limited, and further improvement is needed in the future studies.
![Comparing input BEC parameters with those from the proposed mixing method. For comparison, the results from the mixing method using the MMC and ESO cuts [@He2018] are also presented. []{data-label="Fig2"}](fig2_a.eps "fig:"){width="0.5\linewidth"} ![Comparing input BEC parameters with those from the proposed mixing method. For comparison, the results from the mixing method using the MMC and ESO cuts [@He2018] are also presented. []{data-label="Fig2"}](fig2_b.eps "fig:"){width="0.5\linewidth"}
Although the IMEHC cut improves the systematic bias for BEC parameters fitting, this method still introduces systematic bias somehow. The fit BEC parameters $r_0$ and $\lambda_2$ obtained by the proposed mixing method should also be corrected in practical application. In addition, the $Q^2$ dependent fitting problem still remains. Therefore future efforts should concentrate on improving the accuracy and searching new mixing cuts to bypass the $Q^2$ dependent fitting procedure.
Summary
=======
Because general event mixing techniques developed for inclusive reactions at high energies with a large multiplicity cannot be directly applied to exclusive reactions at low energies with a very limited multiplicity, in this work an event mixing technique equipped with a new constraint, named invariant-mass/energy hierarchy correspondence (IMEHC) cut, is proposed especially for Bose-Einstein correlations (BEC) effects measurements in reactions with $\pi \pi X$ final state particles. The accuracy of BEC parameters observation with this new mixing cut is verified using numerical simulations with $\gamma p\to \pi^0 \pi^0 p$ events with and without BEC effects. It is found that the extracted mean value of $r_0$ is about 8% overestimated and $\lambda_2$ is averagely about 18% underestimated for typical input BEC parameters $r_0$=0.8 fm and $\lambda_2=$ 1.0. The systematic bias of $\lambda_2$ is smaller than the previously proposed mixing cut using only the MMC and ESO cuts [@He2018] (reduced from 22% to 18%). Future efforts are still needed to improve the accuracy and to find new mixing cuts aiming to avoid the $Q^2$ dependent fitting procedure in order to get rid of additional fitting parameter to fit the $Q^2$ dependent pattern.
Acknowledgements
================
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 11805099) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Nos. 1006-XAA18059, 1006-YAH17063).
[90]{}
R. M. Weiner, Introduction to Bose-Einstein Correlations and Subatomic Interferometry (Wiley, Chichester, 1999). D. Boal, C.-K. Gelbke, and B. Jennings, Rev. Mod. Phys. 62, 553 (1990). T. Cs[ö]{}rg[ö]{}, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 50, 259 (2006). O. Utyuzh, G. Wilk, and Z. W[ł]{}odarczyk, Phys. Rev. D 75, 074030 (2007). Y. G. Ma et al., Nucl. Phys. A 790, 299c (2007). H. Xu, D. Li, G. Chen, and L. Li, Eur. Phys. J. A 53, 202 (2017). J. Liu, J. Cheng, and X. L. Huang, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 52, 1 (2012). D. Brown, R. Soltz, J. Newby, and A. Kisiel, Phys. Rev. C 76, 044906 (2007). A. Heister, Eur. Phys. J. C 36, 147 (2004). V. Khachatryan et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 032001 (2010). G. I. Kopylov and M. I. Podgoretskii, Yad. Fiz. 15, 392 (1972). G. I. Kopylov, Phys. Lett. B 50, 472 (1974). P. Klaja et al., J. Phys. G Nucl. Part. Phys. 37, 055003 (2010). Z. Chaj[ȩ]{}cki and M. Lisa, Phys. Rev. C 78, 064903 (2008). Q.-H. He et al., Chinese Phys. C 40, 114002 (2016). Q.-H. He, Chinese Phys. C 42, 074004 (2018). G. Alexander, Reports Prog. Phys. 66, 481 (2003). G. Goldhaber, S. Goldhaber, W. Lee, and A. Pais, Phys. Rev. 120, 300 (1960). B. Andersson and M. Ringn[é]{}r, Nucl. Phys. B 513, 627 (1998). R. Brun and F. Rademakers, Nucl. Instruments Methods Phys. Res. Sect. A Accel. Spectrometers, Detect. Assoc. Equip. 389, 81 (1997). F. E. James, Monte Carlo Phase Space - CERN Document Server (Geneva, 1968).
[^1]: Corresponding author: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The structure of a sample of high-redshift ($z \sim 2$), rotating galaxies with high star formation rates and turbulent gas velocities of $\sigma \approx 40-80$ km/s is investigated. Fitting the observed disk rotational velocities and radii with a [@mo98] (MMW) model requires unusually large disk spin parameters $\lambda_d > 0.1$ and disk-to-dark halo mass fractions of m$_d \approx 0.2$, close to the cosmic baryon fraction. The galaxies segregate into dispersion-dominated systems with $1 \leq v_{max}/\sigma \leq 3$, maximum rotational velocities $v_{max} \leq $ 200 km/s and disk half-light radii $r_{1/2} \approx$ 1-3 kpc and rotation-dominated systems with $v_{max} > $ 200 km/s, $v_{max}/\sigma > 3$ and $r_{1/2} \approx$ 4-8 kpc. For the dispersion-dominated sample radial pressure gradients partly compensate the gravitational force, reducing the rotational velocities. Including this pressure effect in the MMW model, dispersion-dominated galaxies can be fitted well with spin parameters of $\lambda_d = 0.03-0.05$ for high disk mass fractions of m$_d \approx 0.2$ and with $\lambda_d = 0.01-0.03$ for m$_d \approx 0.05$. These values are in good agreement with cosmological expectations. For the rotation-dominated sample however pressure effects are small and better agreement with theoretically expected disk spin parameters can only be achieved if the dark halo mass contribution in the visible disk regime ($2-3 \times r_{1/2}$) is smaller than predicted by the MMW model. We argue that these galaxies can still be embedded in standard cold dark matter halos if the halos did not contract adiabatically in response to disk formation. In this case, the data favors models with small disk mass fractions of m$_d = 0.05$ and disk spin parameters of $\lambda_d \approx 0.035$. It is shown that the observed high turbulent gas motions of the galaxies are consistent with a Toomre instability parameter Q=1 which is equal to the critical value, expected for gravitational disk instability to be the major driver of turbulence. The dominant energy source of turbulence is then the potential energy of the gas in the disk.'
author:
- 'A. Burkert, R. Genzel, N. Bouché, G. Cresci, S. Khochfar, J. Sommer-Larsen, A. Sternberg, T. Naab, N. Förster Schreiber, L. Tacconi, K. Shapiro, E. Hicks, D. Lutz, R. Davies, P. Buschkamp, S. Genel'
title: 'High-Redshift Star-Forming Galaxies: Angular Momentum and Baryon Fraction, Turbulent Pressure Effects and the Origin of Turbulence'
---
Introduction
============
Deep surveys have become efficient in detecting star-forming galaxy populations at z $\sim$ 1.5-3.5, near the peak of cosmic star formation, the assembly of massive galaxies and QSO activity (e.g. [@ste96; @ste04; @fra03; @dad04b]). Large samples are now available, based on their rest-frame UV, or optical, magnitude/color properties. These high-redshift galaxies have star formation rates of 10-300 M$_{\odot}$/yr, with a range of ages (10 Myrs - 3 Gyrs), stellar masses of M$_* \sim 10^9 - 10^{11.5}$ M$_{\odot}$ [@sha05; @foe06; @erb06a; @erb06b; @dad04a; @dad04b] and high gas fractions [@tac10]. They contribute a large fraction of the cosmic star formation activity and stellar mass density at z $\sim$ 2 [@red05; @rud06; @van06; @gra07; @per08]. The majority of these galaxies appears to form stars with high rates over a significant fraction of the z $\sim$ 1.5-3 redshift range [@dad07; @noe07]. This requires an efficient and semi-continuous replenishment of fresh gas, perhaps delivered by cold flows/streams from the halo [@dek06; @dek09a; @dek09b; @ker05; @ocv08; @gen08; @elm10; @aum10].
High resolution near-infrared integral field spectroscopy of H$\alpha$ line emission has shown that most of these high-z star forming galaxies are clumpy and exhibit large ionized gas velocity dispersions of 30-120 km/s [@foe06; @foe09; @gen06; @gen08; @law07; @law09; @wri07; @wri09; @van08; @sta08; @bou08; @epi09; @cre09]. About one third appear to be rotating disks, one third are dispersion dominated systems and one third show clear evidence for interactions and major mergers [@sha08; @foe09]. The fraction of large, clumpy rotating disks increases with mass. The ratio of the rotational to random velocities ranges between 1 and 6, quite in contrast to z $\sim$ 0 disk galaxies where v/$\sigma \sim$ 10-20 [@dib06]. Many high-z disks are turbulent and geometrically thick (e.g. [@elm06]). Important questions are what drives and maintains these large turbulent velocities and how turbulence is connected to the clumpy disk substructure and the high star formation rates [@imm04a; @imm04b; @bou07; @bou08; @dek09a; @dek09b; @kho09].
In addition to the unusual kinematics and structure of high-redshift disks, their global physical parameters appear to be puzzling and inconsistent with theoretical expectations. [@bou07] found that many high-z galaxies lie in a similar part of the rotation velocity versus disk radius plane as late-type z $\sim$ 0 disks [@cou07] which is not expected according to the standard [@mo98] (MMW) model of galactic disk structure. [@foe09] compared the derived dynamical masses with the stellar masses (from spectral energy distribution analysis) and gas masses (from an application of the Kennicutt-Schmidt star formation relation). They found disk masses that are remarkably and perhaps implausibly high.
The MMW model neglects galactic disk turbulence which is reasonable for present day disks with v/$\sigma \sim$ 20. The situation is however different at high redshifts where turbulence can strongly affect the disk structure. This paper discusses the impact of large turbulent motions on the interpretation of the dynamical data of disk galaxies. We show that, including turbulent pressure, the disk spin parameters and disk mass fractions of dispersion-dominated galaxies are reduced to values that are consistent with theoretical expectations. The situation is different for rotation-dominated galaxies where pressure effects play a minor role. As already suggested by numerous studies at low redshifts (e.g. [@mo00; @dut07]), we argue that the observed high-redshift galaxies are in better accord with cosmological models if it is assumed that their dark-matter halos did not contract adiabatically. Finally we propose an explanation for why large turbulence might be more common in many high-z disks and what the energy source of turbulence in these disks might be.
Rotation Curves of Pressurized, Turbulent Galactic Disks
========================================================
Let us consider a turbulent galactic gas disk. We analyse its rotational velocity $v_{rot}$ in the midplane, applying the hydrostatic equation
$$\frac{v_{rot}^2}{r} = f_g(r) + \frac{1}{\rho} \frac{dp}{dr}$$
where $r$ is the distance from the galactic center and $f_g$ is the value of the gravitational force. $p$ is the pressure which consists of a turbulent (kinetic) and thermal part, $p = \rho (\sigma^2 + c_s^2)$ with $\rho$ the gas density, $\sigma$ the characteristic 1-dimensional velocity dispersion of the gas which we assume to be isotropic and $c_s$ its sound speed. We define the zero-pressure velocity curve $v_0(r)$ as the rotational velocity of the gas if pressure gradients are negligible, i.e. dp/dr=0: $v_0^2 \equiv f_g \times r$. Equation 1 then reduces to
$$v_{rot}^2=v_0^2+\frac{r}{\rho} \frac{dp}{dr}=v_0^2+\frac{1}{\rho} \frac{d}{d ln r} \left( \rho \sigma^2 \right) .$$
Here we have neglected the thermal pressure term as the sound speed is in general much smaller than the turbulent velocity. Equation 2 is the most general form, without specifying the radial dependence of $\sigma$ and $\rho$. It demonstrates that a negative radial pressure gradient reduces the rotational velocity of the gas as part of the gravitational force is balanced by the pressure force.
To illustrate the possible importance of pressure effects, let us now assume that $\sigma$ is independent of $r$. Then
$$v_{rot}^2 = v_0^2+\sigma^2 \frac{d ln \rho}{d ln r} .$$
If $\sigma$ is also independent of height $z$ above the disk’s equatorial plane, the vertical density distribution is given by the vertical hydrostatic Spitzer solution (Spitzer 1942; Binney & Tremaine 08, page chapter 4, p. 390)
$$\rho (z) = \rho_0 sech^2 (z/h)$$
with $\rho_0$(r) the density in the midplane (z=0) at radius r and
$$h=\frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{2 \pi G \rho_0}}$$
the scale height. The total mass surface density $\Sigma(r)$ of such a disk is (Binney & Tremaine 2008)
$$\Sigma =2 \rho_0 h$$
so that
$$\rho_0 = \frac{\pi G \Sigma^2}{2 \sigma^2}$$
The equations 5-7 offer an interesting future observational test of our assumptions as for an exponential disk (equation 10) with constant velocity dispersion the scale height h should increase exponentially with radius
$$h=\frac{\sigma^2}{\pi G \Sigma_0} \exp \left( \frac{r}{r_d} \right)$$
Inserting $\rho_0$ from equation 7 into equation 3, the rotation curve in the equatorial plane of a pressurized gas disk is
$$v_{rot}^2 = v_0^2 + 2 \sigma^2 \frac{d ln \Sigma}{d ln r}$$
For example, for an exponential disk profile with scale length $r_d$
$$\Sigma (r) = \Sigma_0 \times \exp \left(- \frac{r}{r_d} \right)$$
Equation 9 leads to
$$v_{rot}^2=v_0^2-2 \sigma^2 \left(\frac{r}{r_d} \right)$$
Note that v$_{rot}$ is the actually observable rotational velocity of the gas, while v$_0$ is the rotation expected if pressure effects are negligible ($\sigma = 0$). For $v_{rot}/\sigma \lesssim$ 3 the rotational velocity is significantly reduced by turbulent pressure effects for $r \gtrsim r_d$. A very similar equation holds for stellar disks as a special form of the Jeans equation (Binney & Tremaine 2008). Equation 11 was derived for an exponential surface density distribution and a constant velocity dispersion. In general, the situation is more complex as parts of the disk might have constant surface densities while other parts might show a steep gradient. In addition, the velocity dispersion might change with radius. In this case one would have to solve equation (1) directly. The best-resolved high-redshift disk galaxies show roughly constant velocity dispersion profiles (Genzel et al. 2008) and exponentially decreasing H$\alpha$-surface brightness distributions of the star-forming gas with scale lengths similar to the stellar disks within 1-3 disk scale lengths (Cresci et al. 2009; Bouché et al., in preparation). This is also the region where the rotation curves are flat and achieve their maximum values $v_{max}$ (Fig. 3). $v_{max}$ will be used in the following to compare the observations with theory.
For the purpose of this analyses we adopt equation 11 in order to calculate the pressure corrected rotation curves. For simplicity we will also assume that gas and stars have similar disk scale lengths, equal to the sizes as derived for the star-forming gas from the H$\alpha$ measurements. Note however that there are theoretical reasons why the scale radius of the gaseous disk component, including the part that is not forming stars violently, should be larger than the scale length of the stellar disk (e.g. Sales et al. 2009; Dutton et al. 2010, Guo et al. 2010). This could systematically bias the derived rotational properties of the disk if the mass fraction of the extended gaseous component is large.
Galactic Disk Model
===================
We adopt the model by Mo, Mao & White (1998) of an exponential disk, embedded in a NFW (Navarro et al. 1997) dark matter halo with density distribution
$$\rho_{DM}(r) = \frac{4 \rho_c}{(r/r_s)(1+r/r_s)^2}$$
where $r_s$ is the halo scale radius and $\rho_c$ is the dark matter density at $r_s$. The scale radius is related to the virial radius $r_{200}$ via $r_s=r_{200}/c$ where $c$ is the halo concentration parameter. The dark halo rotation curve corresponding to equation 12 is
$$v_{DM}^2(r)=V_{200}^2 \left( \frac{r_{200}}{r} \right) \frac{ln(1+r/r_s)-(r/r_s)/(1+r/r_s)}{ln(1+c)-c/(1+c)}.$$
High-resolution numerical Cold dark matter (CDM) simulations (e.g. Zhao et al. 2009) show that c depends strongly on cosmological redshift. While c decreases with halo virial mass $M_{200}$ at low redshifts, the concentration is roughly constant with $c \approx 4$ and independent of halo mass at $z \approx 2$. The halo virial parameters $r_{200}$ and $M_{200}$ are related to each other through the virial velocity $V_{200}$ (Mo, Mao & White 1998)
$$\begin{aligned}
r_{200}(z) = \frac{V_{200}(z)}{10 H(z)}, \ \ \ \ \ \
M_{200}(z) = \frac{V_{200}^3(z)}{10 G H(z)}\end{aligned}$$
$H$ is the Hubble parameter that depends on cosmological redshift z:
$$H = H_0 \left[ \Omega_{\Lambda} + (1-\Omega_{\Lambda} -
\Omega_M)(1+z)^2 + \Omega_M(1+z)^3 \right]^{1/2} .$$
We adopt a standard $\Lambda$CDM cosmology with $H_0$ = 73 km/s/Mpc, $\Omega_M$ = 0.238 and $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.762$.
The galactic disk is assumed to follow an exponential surface density profile (equation 10). Its surface density at $r=0$, $\Sigma_0$, is determined by the total disk mass $M_d = m_d \times M_{200}$ with $m_d$ the disk mass fraction of the galaxy
$$\Sigma_0 = m_d \frac{M_{200}}{2 \pi r_{d}^2} .$$
The circular velocity curve of an exponential disk is (Freeman 1970)
$$v_{disk}^2(r) = 4 \pi G \Sigma_0 \ r_{d} y^2 [I_0(y) K_0(y) - I_1(y) K_1(y)]$$
with $y = r/(2 r_{d})$ and the $I_n$ and $K_n$ denoting the modified Bessel functions (Binney & Tremaine 2008).
We will neglect a bulge because we are interested in the outer disk parts where the bulge contribution to the rotation curve is in general negligible. In addition, several of the best resolved SINS galaxies show no evidence for the presence of a significant bulge component (Genzel et al. 2008). In this case and including adiabatic contraction (Blumenthal et al. 1986; Jesseit et al. 2002) of the dark halo, the zero-pressure rotation curve is determined from the implicit equation
$$\begin{aligned}
v_0^2(r) & = & v_{disk}^2(r) + v_{DM}^2(r') \\
r' & = & r \left[ 1+\frac{r \times v_{disk}^2(r)}{r' \times v_{DM}^2(r')} \right] .\end{aligned}$$
Given $v_0(r)$ the pressure-corrected rotation curve $v_{rot}(r)$ can be calculated from equation 2 or 11. This is easily done in an iterative process. One first determines the disk rotation curve, neglecting pressure as discussed in MMW. Adopting a value of $v_{\max}/\sigma$, its maximum rotational velocity provides a first guess for $\sigma$ which leads to a revised rotation curve and a corresponding new value of v$_{max}$ and $\sigma$. We find that this procedure converges quickly after 10-20 iterations. In the following we will call $v_{rot}(r)$ the pressure corrected MMW rotation curve. It can be compared directly with observations (section 4.2). In addition we can calculate the total disk angular momentum $J_{d} = 2 \pi \int \Sigma v_{rot} rdr$ that will be used in the next section in order to derive the disk spin parameter $\lambda_d$.
Angular Momentum and Baryon Content of High-Z Galaxies
======================================================
Figure 1 shows the half-light radii $r_{1/2}$ of the SINS high-redshift galaxies versus their maximum rotational velocity $v_{max}$. The data points and potential uncertainties are discussed in Förster-Schreiber et al. (2009), Cresci et al. (2009) and Law et al. (2009). The errors in $r_{1/2}$ and $v_{max}$ are of order 1-2 kpc and 20-30 km/s, respectively. We take $r_{1/2}$ instead of the exponential disk scale length as it is independent of any assumption about the light profile. $v_{max}$ is in general a good approximation of the disk’s rotational velocities outside of $r_{1/2}$. The SINS galaxies segregate strongly into two distinct classes at a critical value of $v_{max}/\sigma \approx 3$. We therefore empirically define [*dispersion-dominated*]{} galaxies (open triangles and stars in figure 1) as objects with $v_{max}/\sigma \leq 3$. For these galaxies turbulent pressure gradients have to be included in the interpretation of the rotation curve. In contrast, for [*rotation-dominated*]{} galaxies (filled triangles), defined by $v_{max}/\sigma > 3$, pressure effects are small. Note that $\sigma$ refers to the intrinsic velocity dispersion in the disk, not to the observed line-of-sight or galaxy-integrated dispersion. Figure 1 shows that most of the dispersion-dominated galaxies have radii of order 1-3 kpc while the radii of rotationally dominated galaxies are on average a factor of 2-3 larger. In addition, the dispersion-dominated systems have rotational velocities of order 100 km/s while rotation-dominated galaxies rotate with 250 km/s.
The specific angular momentum of a dark halo is usually specified by the dimensionless spin parameter (Bullock et al. 2001; Burkert 2009)
$$\lambda = \frac{J_{200}}{\sqrt{2} M_{200} V_{200} r_{200}}$$
where $J_{200}$ is the total angular momentum of the halo. $\lambda$ follows a log-normal distribution with a median of $\lambda = 0.035$ and a dispersion of 0.55 (Bullock et al. 2001; Hetznecker & Burkert 2006). Cosmological simulations indicate that in the early phases of protogalactic collapse the gas and dark matter are well mixed, acquiring similar specific angular momenta (Peebles 1969; Fall & Efstathiou 1980; White 1984). If angular momentum were conserved during gas infall and all the gas would settle into the disk, the resulting disk’s specific angular momentum $J_{d}/M_{d}$ would be similar to the specific angular momentum of the surrounding dark halo. We cannot measure $\lambda$ directly, but instead can estimate the disk spin parameter, defined as
$$\lambda_d = \frac{J_{d}}{ \sqrt{2} M_{d} V_{200} r_{200}} = \lambda \frac{j_d}{m_d}$$
with j$_d \equiv $J$_d$/J$_{200}$. If the specific angular momentum of the infalling gas and the resulting disk is equal to the dark halo’s specific angular momentum it follows that $\lambda_d = \lambda$.
Numerical simulations of galaxy formation find substantial angular momentum loss of the infalling gas component (for a review see e.g. Burkert, 2009). Its origin is not completely clear up to now and might be attributed to numerical problems or missing physics (for a review see e.g. Mayer et al. 2008). If the numerical calculations are however correct, galactic disks should have specific angular momenta and values of $\lambda_d$ that are smaller than those of dark matter halos, i.e. on average $\lambda_d \leq 0.035$.
In the following we will investigate disk properties for redshift z=2.2 galaxies with dark halo concentrations of c=4 and for given values of $\lambda_d$, $m_d$ and $v_{\max}/\sigma$. We start with a first guess of the dark matter virial mass (typically $M_{200}=10^{12}$ M$_{\odot}$). Given $m_d$ and by this M$_{d}$ and assuming a disk scale radius r$_d$ and a $v_{\max}/\sigma$ the procedure discussed in the previous section gives the corresponding disk rotation curve and by this the corresponding $\lambda_d$. In an additional iterative step r$_d$ is now varied till the required value of $\lambda_d$ is achieved.
Red dashed lines in figure 1 show the standard MMW model predictions without correcting for pressure effects for a given disk spin parameter $\lambda_d$ (red labels), adopting a high disk mass fraction, equal to the cosmic baryon fraction (m$_d$ = M$_d$/M$_{200}$ = 0.2) in the left panel and a low value of m$_d=0.05$ in the right panel. $r_{1/2}$ is determined from the known disk scale length: $r_{1/2} = 1.68 \times r_d$. Stars and open triangles correspond to dispersion-dominated systems, filled triangles to rotation-dominated galaxies. Here we assume that the observed half-light radius, traced by H$\alpha$, is similar to the half-mass radius of the disk. For m$_d = 0.2$ especially the rotation-dominated galaxies require very large spin parameters, $\lambda_d \approx 0.1-0.2$ which are not in agreement with the theoretical expectations of $\lambda_d \leq 0.035$. Adopting m$_d = 0.05$ improves the situation considerably. The red dashed lines in the right panel of figure 1 show that, now, MMW models with $\lambda_d \approx 0.03 - 0.07$ fit even the fast rotators, consistent with the upper half of the dark halo $\lambda$ distribution.
The observed baryonic disk masses provide an additional constraint for theoretical models. The symbols in figure 2 show the sum of the stellar mass (from spectral energy distribution analysis) and gas mass (from an application of the Kennicutt-Schmidt star formation relation) of our galaxy sample, plotted as function of $v_{max}$. McGaugh et al. (2000) and McGaugh (2005) find a remarkably tight correlation between baryonic mass and the circular velocity v$_{circ}$ at a radius where the rotation curve becomes flat (baryonic Tully Fisher relation): M$_{d}$/M$_{\odot}$ = 50 $\times (v_{circ}/(km/s))^4$. Interestingly, the high-redshift data shown in figure 2 deviates strongly from this correlation. The red dashed curves show the expected correlation between disk mass and $v_{max}$ for different values of $\lambda_d$ and for large (m$_d = 0.2$, left panel) and small (m$_d = 0.05$, right panel) disk mass fractions according to the MMW model, neglecting pressure effects. According to figure 1, spin parameters of $\lambda_d \approx 0.05$ are required for m$_d = 0.05$. The right panel of figure 2 however demonstrates that these values are not consistent with the observed disk masses. On the other hand, the left panels of figure 1 and figure 2 show that large disk mass fractions of m$_d=0.2$ and spin parameters of $\lambda_d \approx 0.1-0.2$ are consistent with the observations. While disk mass fractions close to the cosmic baryon fraction are reasonable for these young galaxies where galactic winds might not yet have removed measurable amounts of gas, the required large spin parameters are not consistent with the expectation of $\lambda_d \leq \lambda$, as discussed earlier.
Dispersion-Dominated Galaxies and the Importance of Pressure Effects
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In section 2 we demonstrated that pressure gradients can significantly affect the rotation curves of galaxies when the ratio or rotational velocity to velocity dispersion, characterized e.g. by $v_{max}/\sigma$, is sufficiently small. In order to compare the theoretical model with observations we will use the maximum velocity instead of an average velocity, e.g. $v_{2.2}$, measured at 2.15 disk scale lengths. In general this could be dangerous as $v_{max}$ could occur anywhere in the disk at radii that are not observed. However, as demonstrated by figure 3 for the case of BzK-15504, we find that the rotation curves in general show an extended flat plateau with the maximum at 1-2 disk scale lengths which is in the observed radius regime. In this case, $v_{max}$ is a good approximation of the typical velocity within the flat part of the rotation curve.
The blue dotted lines in figure 1 show the correlation between $r_{1/2}$ and $v_{max}$ for a MMW model with pressure correction (equation 11), assuming $v_{max}/\sigma =2$ which is consistent with the dispersion-dominated galaxy sample. The rotation curves are calculated by adopting an exponential disk with a given half-light radius r$_{1/2}=1.68 \times $r$_d$ (equation 10) and then calculating iteratively the corresponding rotation curve as discussed in section 3. Note that $v_{max}$ is now the maximum of the pressure corrected rotation curve which is smaller than the value, neglecting pressure effects. With pressure correction most of the pressure-dominated galaxies lie in the regime $0.02 \leq \lambda_d \leq 0.05$ for m$_d = 0.2$ and $0.01 \leq \lambda_d \leq 0.03$ for m$_d = 0.05$ which is in good agreement with theoretical expectations.
A significant pressure contribution reduces significantly v$_{max}$ for a given disk mass M$_d$. The blue dotted lines in figure 2 demonstrate this effect. Like in figure 1, they correspond to disks with $v_{max}/\sigma =2$. Now, the observed masses of pressure-supported SINS galaxies, represented by open triangles, are consistent with spin parameters $\lambda \approx 0.03 - 0.1$, independent of the adopted value of m$_d$.
The stars in figure 2 show galaxies with $v_{max}/\sigma \leq 1.5$. These galaxies are characterised by exceptionally low values of v$_{max} \leq 100$ km/s despite their large masses of M$_d \approx 10^{10}$ M$_{\odot}$ as expected from equation (11) due to the large pressure contribution.
Rotation-Dominated Galaxies and Adiabatic Halo Contraction
----------------------------------------------------------
The rotation-dominated SINS sample is characterized by average values of $v_{max}/\sigma \approx 5$. The problem of unusually high spin parameters and baryon fractions therefore cannot be solved by consideration of pressure gradients. A typical representative of this group is BzK-15504 which has been observed with high angular resolution (Genzel et al. 2006). BzK-15504 is an actively star-forming $z =2.4$ galaxy with a stellar disk mass of $10.9^{+2.7}_{-0.1} \times 10^{10}$ M$_{\odot}$, adopting a Chabrier (2003) initial mass function and a gas mass that varies between $2.8 \pm 0.6 \times 10^{10}$ M$_{\odot}$ and $4.9 \pm 1.3 \times 10^{10}$ M$_{\odot}$, depending on the extinction correction applied to the H$\alpha$ line luminosity (Förster-Schreiber et al. 2009). The total disk mass is then $M_d \approx 1.4 \times 10^{11} M_{\odot}$. The radial H$\alpha$ gas surface brightness and the rest-frame optical stellar light distributions are both consistent with an exponential profile with scale length of 4.1 kpc.
The observed line width indicates irregular gas motions of $\sigma \approx 45 \pm 20$ km/s that are constant throughout the disk outside of the central 3 kpc where a bar and an active galactic nucleus (AGN) strongly affect the gas kinematics. The maximum rotational velocity is $v_{max}=258 \pm 25$ km/s, so that $v_{max}/\sigma$ = 5.7. The dark matter virial mass is not well constrained. A minimum value can be inferred if one adopts a disk mass fraction, close to the cosmic baryon fraction $f_b = 0.2$: $M_{200} \geq M_d/f_b \approx 8 \times 10^{11} M_{\odot}$.
The dotted red and blue curves in the left panel of figure 3 show the disk and dark matter rotation curves, respectively, adopting a MMW model with the above mentioned disk parameters and M$_{200} = 8 \times 10^{11}$ M$_{\odot}$. Both components are equally important with peak rotational velocities at r $\approx$ 10 kpc of 250 km/s and 280 km/s. The upper black curve shows the resulting combined rotation curve, neglecting pressure effects. It peaks at 370 km/s and is clearly inconsistent with the observations (red open circles) that peak at $\sim$ 260 km/s. Including turbulent pressure with $\sigma$ = 45 km/s does not significantly change the rotation curve (black points). A test calculation, adopting $\sigma$ = 45 km/s shows that increasing M$_{200}$ (decreasing m$_d$) makes the problem even worse while decreasing M$_{200}$ would require that the galxy has a baryon fraction larger that the cosmic value.
Is this disagreement an observational problem? The uncertainty in the measured disk velocity dispersion is large, of order 20 km/s. However a dispersion of even 65 km/s (dashed black curves in figure 3) makes no big difference. The uncertainties in the determination of the rotation curve are of order 25 km/s, too small compared with the disagreement of almost 100 km/s. The only possible solution appears to be a strong reduction of either the baryonic or the dark matter mass within the inner 10 kpc. A test calculation shows that the baryonic disk mass would have to be reduced by a factor of 2 to $\sim 7 \times 10^{10} M_{\odot}$ for a pressure corrected MMW model with velocity dispersion of 65 km/s to fit the observations. The estimates of the stellar and gas masses are subject to many uncertainties and systematics. Spectral energy distribution fitting for BzK-15504 using the Maraston (2005) models yields stellar masses of $M_* = 9.4 (+2.6/-0.2) \times 10^{10} M_{\odot}$ and gas masses of $M_{gas} = 3.1 (+0.6/-0.6) \times 10^{10} M_{\odot}$ using the Schmidt-Kennicutt relation from Bouché et al. (2007) and the same extinction towards HII regions as towards the stars. The gas masses would be a factor of 2 higher if the extinction towards HII regions is a factor of 2 higher than towards stars (Calzetti et al. 2004). The best-fit Bruzual & Charlot (2003) model gives $M_* = 10.9 (+2.7/-0.1) \times 10^{10} M_{\odot}$ and $M_{gas} = 2.8 (+0.5/-0.6) \times 10^{10} M_{\odot}$. Unless the stellar initial mass function is bottom-light or top-heavy it therefore seems difficult to decrease substantially the baryonic disk mass of the galaxy.
Another possibility is a smaller dark halo mass in the disk region. One critical assumption that enters the MMW model is that the dark halo reacts to the formation of the galactic disk by contracting adiabatically. The right panel of figure 3 shows the situation for a MMW model, neglecting dark halo contraction. A comparison with the left panel demonstrates the strong effect of adiabatic contraction. Although the dark matter virial parameters in both cases are the same, without adiabatic contraction the contribution of the dark halo (blue dashed line) within the disk region is small, leading to much better agreement of the model with the observations, especially if we take into account a turbulent pressure, corresponding to a velocity dispersion of $\sigma$ = 65 km/s (upper dashed black line), that is still within the observed uncertainties and expected if the disk velocity dispersion tensor would be anisotropic (Aumer et al. 2010).
The problem discussed for BzK 15504 exists for all rotation-dominated galaxies that are represented in the figures 1 and 2 by black filled triangles. Due to their large values of $v_{max}/\sigma \approx 5$ the effect of pressure gradients is small. The galaxies are therefore represented well by the dashed red lines in both figures which indicate that even for large disk spin parameters $\lambda_d = 0.1$ the maximum rotational velocity exceeds the observations for given M$_d$. The solid black lines in both figures show the strong effect of neglecting adiabatic dark halo contraction. According to figure 1, the observed disk radi require $\lambda_d \approx 0.07$ for m$_d = 0.2$ and $\lambda_d = 0.035$ for m$_d = 0.05$. Figure 2 shows that these spin values are also consistent with the observed disk masses.
Origin of Gas Turbulence in High-Redshift Disk Galaxies
=======================================================
The MMW models also provide insight into the origin of the observed gas turbulence. Let us propose that the main driver of clumpiness and turbulence in gas-rich high-redshift disks is gravitational disk instability. Then we expect gas-rich disks to stay close to the gravitational stability line because of the following reason. A disk that is kinematically too cold with small velocity dispersions is highly gravitationally unstable. Gravitational instabilites generate density and velocity irregularities that drive turbulence and heat the system kinematically. As a result, the gas velocity dispersion increases till it approaches the stability limit where kinetic driving by gravitational instabilities saturates. A disk with even higher velocity dispersions would be stable. Here the turbulent energy would dissipate efficiently and the velocity dispersion would decrease again until it crosses the critical velocity dispersion limit where gravitational instabilities become efficient again in driving turbulent motions. In summary, galactic disks should settle close to the gravitational stability line that is determined by the Toomre criterion (Toomre 1964; Wang & Silk 1994)
$$Q \equiv \frac{\kappa}{\pi G} \left( \frac{\Sigma_g}{\sigma_g} + \frac{\Sigma_*}{\sigma_*}
\right)^{-1} \leq Q_c.$$
$\kappa$ is the epicyclic frequency that is related to the local angular circular velocity $\Omega$ at radius r through $\kappa^2 = r d \Omega^2/dr+4 \Omega^2$ and $Q_c$ is the critical value which is of order unity (Goldreich & Lynden-Bell 1965; Dekel et al. 2009b). $\Sigma_*$ and $\sigma_*$ are the stellar surface density and velocity dispersion, respectively. As a test, let us focus again on BzK 15504. As most of the stars in BzK 15504 are likely to have formed during the presently observed star burst we can assume that the stellar velocity dispersion is similar to the observed turbulent gas velocity, i.e. $\sigma_* \approx \sigma_g$. In addition, the observations show that both components have similar exponential disk scale lengths. If the disk is close to the instability line, its turbulent gas velocity dispersion at any point r is then
$$\sigma = \frac{\pi G \Sigma}{\kappa}$$
where $\Sigma (r)$ is the local baryonic (gas+stars) disk surface density. The lower black dot-dashed curve in the right panel of figure 3 shows the predicted gas velocity dispersion for BzK-15504. It is indeed almost independent of radius and within the uncertainty in agreement with the observed, radially constant value of 45 $\pm$ 25 km/s. We thus conclude that BzK-15504 is a marginally unstable star-forming disk (Genzel et al. 2006), driven by gravitational instabilities.
We calculated the velocity dispersion profile for all SINS galaxies with $v_{max}/\sigma \geq 2$ using a pressure corrected MMW model with a dark halo concentration c=4 and neglecting adiabatic halo contraction. The disk mass was taken from the observed stellar and gas masses. The dark halo mass and by this m$_d$ was constrained by fitting the observed maximum velocity of the galaxies. In all cases the theoretically derived velocity dispersion $\sigma_{theo}$, adopting equation 23, is almost constant within 1 and 2 disk scale radii. Figure 4 compares the average value of $\sigma_{theo}$ within 1 and 2 r$_d$ with the observed velocity dispersion $\sigma_{obs}$. Dispersion-dominated (open triangles) and rotation-dominated (filled triangles) systems have similar gas velocity dispersions, indicating that the difference in $v_{max}/\sigma$ is due to a difference in rotational velocities and not a result of differences in the turbulent gas velocity. Despite the large uncertainties, the theoretical and observed velocity dispersions agree well, strengthening the suggestion that gravitational instabilities are the major driver of turbulence in high-redshift star-forming galaxies.
Summary and Discussion
======================
We have shown that pressure gradients in turbulent galactic disks can significantly affect their rotation curves. This effect is well-known for thick stellar disks, leading e.g. to an asymmetric drift of kinematically hot stellar populations in the Galaxy (Binney & Tremaine 2008). A similar effect is found in models of dust growth in protoplanetary disks where dust particles on ballistic orbits rotate faster than the disk gas which rotates sub-Keplerian due to pressure gradients, leading to fatal dust migration into the central star (e.g. Takeuchi & Artymowicz 2001).
We analysed the SINS sample of dispersion-dominated high-redshift star-forming galaxies. Including pressure effects and adopting an exponential gas disk with scale length similar to the stellar disk, the models can explain the properties of the dispersion-dominated SINS galaxies very well, with disk spin parameters of $\lambda_d \approx 0.025 - 0.05$ and disk mass fractions of $m_d \approx 0.05-0.2$. The strong pressure effect on the structure of dispersion-dominated galaxies depends critically on the assumption of a gas pressure gradient in their disks. The best resolved SINS galaxies indicate a radially constant turbulent velocity dispersion and an exponential decline of the surface density of star-forming gas with scale length similar to the stellar disk (Bouché et al., in preparation). It is however not clear whether all high-redshift galaxy have such a structure. More high-resolution observations are required in order to clarify this point.
For rotation-dominated galaxies, defined by $v_{max}/\sigma \geq 3$, pressure gradients cannot strongly affect the rotational velocities. Analysing as a test case the galaxy BzK 15504 we showed that its rotation curve allows no significant contribution of dark matter within the visible disk region. This can be achieved with a standard NFW halo that did not contract adiabatically in response to the formation of the galactic disk. The MMW models of the rotation-dominated sample, neglecting adiabatic dark halo contraction, lead to reasonable values of $\lambda_d \approx 0.035$ if the disk mass fraction is low (m$_d \approx 0.05$) while in the case of high mass fraction (m$_d \approx 0.2$), the spin parameters would again be extrem ($\lambda_d \approx 0.1$).
We assumed that high disk spin parameters of $\lambda_d \geq 0.1$ are unreasonable. Scenarios have however been constructed that could lead to disks with higher $\lambda_d$ values then their dark matter halos. One of the most promising suggestions are selective galactic outflows of especially low-angular momentum gas from galactic centers (e.g. Maller & Dekel 2002; Dutton & van den Bosch 2009).
Sales et al. (09) compared MMW model predictions with the SINS high-redshift disk galaxies and found a good agreement in the rotational velocity versus disk scale length plane (similar to Fig. 1) for reasonable spin parameters $\lambda_d \approx 0.04 - 0.06$. They assumed values of $m_d = 0.05$ and included dark halo contraction. Unfortunately, Sales et al. do not compare their predicted disk masses with observations. In addition, they argue that the observed gas disk radii are a factor $\kappa_r = 1.8$ larger than the corresponding stellar disk. They then multiply the disk scale radii resulting from their MMW model for a given $\lambda_d$ by this factor in order to compare their model with observations. This implicitly assumes that the gas component has a negligible mass as otherwise it would affect $\lambda_d$. The assumption of a low gas-to-star fraction is not supported by the SINS observations which typically indicate disk gas fraction of order 30-60% (Tacconi et al. 2010). In addition, for those cases where stellar data is also available Cresci et al. (2009) find similar scale radii for the stars and gas with $\kappa_r \approx 1$, justifying our assumption. Still, more complex multi-component MMW models might be interesting in order to better understand the physical properties of systems with stellar and gaseous disks that are characterised by different scale radii.
The problem that adiabatic halo contraction leads to compact galactic disks with scaling relations that are not in agreement with observations has been discussed for low-redshift galaxies e.g. by Dutton et al. (2007, with references therein) who advocate a model in which the dark halo actually expands rather than contracting. We find that this effect is important also for high-redshift galaxies. Several solutions are currently being discussed. Gnedin et al. (2004) and Gustafsson et al. (2006) argue that the circular orbit adiabatic contraction model (Barnes & White 1984) considerably overestimates the amount of dark matter contraction. The numerical simulations of Jesseit et al. (2002) however find good agreement with the analytical expression. The dark matter mass fraction in the disk region could also be reduced if one assumes cored dark matter halos (Burkert 1995; Salucci & Burkert 2000), resulting e.g. from dark matter annihilation, dark matter particle scattering or dynamical interaction. Halo expansion could be triggered by dynamical interaction with massive subclumps or molecular clouds in the disk (El-Zant et al. 2001; Dutton et al. 2007, Mashchenko et al. 2006; Johansson et al. 2009, Abadi et al. 2010; Jardel & Sellwood 2009) or with bars (e.g. Weinberg & Katz 2002; Sellwood 2008). Rapid outflows of gas would also lead to halo expansion (Navarro, Eke & Frenk 1996; Gnedin & Zhao 2002; Read & Gilmore 2005).
Whatever the origin, our result demonstrates that the problem of inefficient dark halo contraction is related to the earliest phases of galaxy formation. Although not required in order to produce reasonable spin parameters and disk mass fractions, the processes that suppressed adiabatic halo contraction in rotation-dominated galaxies might also have been active in dispersion-dominated systems. In this case, most dispersion-dominated systems would be characterized by even smaller spin parameters of $\lambda_d = 0.01 - 0.03$.
We have analysed the origin of turbulence in high-redshift disk galaxies. Assuming that the disks are marginally unstable we can explain the observed velocity dispersion. This indicates that turbulence is driven and regulated by gravitational instabilites, combined with turbulent energy dissipation. We argued that in this case galactic disks will tend to stay close to a state of marginal gravitational stability which for gas-rich disks corresponds to a velocity dispersion of order 40 - 80 km/s. The energetic source of the turbulent driver is then the potential energy of the disks’ gas (Krumholz & Burkert 2010) which, coupled with viscous forces releases potential energy by spiraling inwards, generating at the end bulge-dominated galaxies as suggested e.g. by Elmegreen et al. (2008) and Dekel et al. (2009a,b). Other energy sources like stellar feedback or accretion energy from infalling gas would then play a minor role because if these processes were dominant the velocity dispersion would likely differ from the value expected for a marginally unstable disk. Note, that within the framework of this scenario the observed velocity dispersion is a signature of global gas motions that affect the global disk structure and not just the result of local stellar energy feedback, generating HII regions and driving local outflows of ionized gas. This conclusion is consistent with the finding of Elmegreen & Elmegreen (2006) that the stellar z-scale heights of high-redshift star-forming galaxies are of order 1 kpc, which translates to a global velocity dispersion of order 50 km/s. Whether gas-rich galactic disks naturally evolve towards a state of marginal stability through gravitational driving of turbulence, combined with turbulent energy dissipation is an interesting question that should be explored in greater details.
[**Acknowledgments:**]{} A.B. is partly supported by a Max-Planck-Fellowship. This work was supported by the DFG Cluster of Excellence “Origin and Structure of the Universe”. The Dark Cosmology Centre is funded by the Danish National Research Foundation. We thank A. Dekel, J. Navarro and L. Sales for useful discussions. We thank the referee for a detailed and constructive report that greatly improved the quality of our paper.
[99]{}
Abadi, M.G., Navarro, J., Fardal, M., Babul, A. & Steinmetz, M. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 435
Aumer, M., Burkert, A., Johansson, P. & Genzel, R. 2010, ApJ, 719, 1230
Barnes, J. & White, S.D.M. 1984, MNRAS, 211, 753
Binney, J. & Tremaine, S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics (Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 2008)
Blumenthal, G.R., Faber, S.M., Flores, R. & Primack, J.R. 1986, ApJ, 301, 27
Bouché, N. et al. 2007, ApJ, 671, 303
Bournaud, F., Elmegreen, B.G. & Elmegreen, D.M. 2007, ApJ, 670, 237
Bournaud, F. et al. 2008, A&A, 486, 741
Bruzual, G. & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000
Bullock, J.S. et al. 2001, ApJ, 555, 240
Burkert, A. 1995, ApJ, 447, L25
Burkert, A. 2009, in IAU Symp. 254, The Galaxy Disk in Cosmological Context, ed. J. Andersen et al. (Cambridge Univ. Press), 437
Calzetti, D., Harris, J., Gallagher, J.S., Smith, D.A., Conselice, C.J., Homeier, N. & Kewley, L. 2004, AJ, 127, 1403
Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763
Courteau et al. 2007, ApJ, 671, 203
Cresci, G. et al. 2009, ApJ, 697, 115
Daddi, E. et al. 2004a, ApJ, 600, L127
Daddi, E., Cimatti, A., Renzini, A., Fontana, A., Mignoli, M., Pozetti, L., Tozzi, P. & Zamorani, G. 2004b, ApJ, 617, 746
Daddi, E. et al. 2007, ApJ, 670, 156
Dekel, A. & Birnboim, Y. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 2
Dekel, A. et al. 2009a, Nature, 457, 451
Dekel, A., Sari,, R. & Ceverino, D. 2009b, ApJ, 703, 785
Dib, S., Bell, E. & Burkert, A. 2006, ApJ, 638, 797
Dutton, A.A., van den Bosch, F.C., Dekel, A. & Courteau, S. 2007, ApJ, 654, 27
Dutton, A.A. & van den Bosch, F.C. 2009, MNRAS, 396, 141
Dutton, A.A. et al. 2010, MNRAS in press, astro-ph/1006.3558
Elmegreen, D.M. & Elmegreen, B.G. 2006, ApJ, 650, 644
Elmegreen, D.M., Elmegreen, B.G., Ravindranath, S. & Cox, D.A. 2007, ApJ, 658, 763
Elmegreen, B.G,, Bournaud, F. & Elmegreen, D. 2008, ApJ, 688, 67
Elmegreen, D.M. & Burkert, A. 2010, ApJ, 712, 294
Elmegreen, B.G., Bournaud, F. & Elmegreen, D.M. 2008, ApJ, 688, 67
El-Zant, A., Shlosman, I. & Hoffman, Y. 2001, ApJ, 560, 636
Epinat et al. 2009, A&A, 504, 789
Erb, D. K., Steidel, C. C., Shapley, A. E., Pettini, M., Reddy, N. A. & Adelberger, K. L. 2006a ApJ, 646,107
Erb, D. K., Steidel, C. C., Shapley, A. E., Pettini, M., Reddy, N. A. & Adelberger, K. L. 2006b, ApJ, 647,128
Fall, S.M. & Efsthatiou, G. 1980, MNRAS, 193, 189
Förster Schreiber, N. M. et al. 2006, ApJ, 645, 1062
Förster Schreiber, N. M. et al. 2009, ApJ, 706, 1364
Franx, M., et al. 2003, ApJ, 587, L79
Freeman, K.C. 1970, ApJ, 160, 811
Genel, S. et al. 2008, ApJ, 688, 789
Genzel, R. et al. 2006, Nature, 442, 786
Genzel, R. et al. 2008, ApJ, 687, 59
Gnedin, O.Y. & Zhao, H. 2002, MNRAS, 333, 299
Gnedin, O,Y., Kravtsov, A.V., Klypin, A.A. & Nagai, D. 2004, ApJ, 616, 16
Goldreich, P. & Lynden-Bell, D. 1965, MNRAS, 130, 125
Grazian, A. et al. 2007, A&A, 465, 393
Guo, Q. et al. 2010, submitted to MNRAS, astro-ph/1006.0106
Gustafsson, M., Fairbairn, M. & Sommer-Larsen, J. 2006, Phys. Rev. D., 74, 3522
Hetznecker, H. & Burkert, A. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 1905
Jardel, J.R & Sellwood, J.A. 2009, ApJ, 691, 1300
Immeli, A., Samland, M. Gerhard, O. & Westera, P. 2004a, A&A, 413, 547
Immeli, A., Samland, M. Westera, P. & Gerhard, O. 2004b, ApJ, 611, 20
Jesseit, R., Naab, T. & Burkert, A. 2002, ApJ, 571, 89
Johansson, P.H., Naab, T.& Ostriker, J.P. 2009, ApJ, 697, L38
Khochfar, S. & Silk, J. 2009, ApJ, 700, L21
Keres D., Katz, N., Weinberg, D.H. & Davé, R. 2005, MNRAS, 363, 2
Krumholz, M. & Burkert, A. 2010, ApJ, 724, 895
Law, D., Steidel, C.C., Erb, D.K., Larkin, J.E., Pettini, M., Shapley, A.E. & Wright, S.A. 2007, ApJ, 669, 929
Law, D. et al. 2009, ApJ, 697, 2057
Maller,A.H. & Dekel, A. 2002, MNRAS, 335, 487
Maraston, C. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 799
McGaugh, S.S., Schombert, J.M., Bothun, G.D. & de Blok, W.J.G. 2000, ApJ, 533, L99
McGaugh, S.S. 2005, ApJ, 632, 859
Mo, H.J., Mao, S. & White, S.D.M. 1998, MNRAS, 295, 319
Mo,H.J. & Mao, S. 2000, MNRAS 318, 163
Mashchenko, S., Couchman, H.M.P. & Wadsley, J. 2006, Nature, 442, 7102
Navarro, J.F., Eke, V.R. & Frenk, C.S. 1996, MNRAS 283, L72
Mayer, L., Governato, F. & Kaufmann, T. 2008, ASL, 1, 7
Navarro, J.F., Frenk, C.S. & White, S.D.M. 1997, ApJ, 490, 493
Noeske, K.G. et al. 2007, ApJ, 660, L43
Ocvirk, P., Pichon, C. & Teyssier, R. 2008, MNRAS, 390, 1326
Peebles, P.J.E. 1969, ApJ, 155, 393
Pérez-Gonzalez, P.G. et al. 2008, ApJ, 675, 234
Read, J.I. & Gilmore, G. 2005, MNRAS, 356, 107
Reddy, N. A., Erb, D. K.,Steidel, C. C., Shapley, A. E., Adelberger, K. L., & Pettini, M. 2005, ApJ, 633, 748
Rudnick, G. et al. 2006, ApJ, 650, 624
Sales, L.V. et al. 2009, MNRAS, 399, L64
Salucci, P. & Burkert, A. 2000, ApJ, 537, 9
Sellwood, J.A. 2008, ApJ, 679, 379
Shapiro, K.L. et al. 2008, ApJ, 682, 231
Shapley, A.E. et al. 2005, ApJ, 626, 698
Spitzer, L. 1942, ApJ, 95, 329
Stark et al. 2008, Nature, 455, 775
Steidel, C.C., Giavalisco, M., Pettini, M., Dickinson, M. & Adelberger, K.L. 1996, ApJ, 462, L17
Steidel, C.C., Shapley, A.E., Pettini, M., Adelberger, K.L., Erb, D.K., Reddy, N.A., & Hunt, M.P. 2004, ApJ, 604, 534
Tacconi, L. et al. 2010, Nature, 463, 781
Takeuchi, T. & Artymowicz, P. 2001, ApJ, 557, 990
Toomre, A. 1964, ApJ, 139, 1217
van Dokkum, P.G. et al. 2006, ApJ, 638, L59
Van Starkenburg, L., van der Werf, R.P., Franx, M., Labb’[e]{}, I., Rudnick, G. & Wuyts, S. 2008, A&A, 488, 99
Wang, B. & Silk, J. 1994, ApJ, 427, 759
Weinberg, M.D. & Katz, N. 2002, ApJ, 580, 627
White, S.D.M. 1984, MNRAS, 286, 38
Wright, S.A. et al. 2007, ApJ, 658, 78
Wright, S.A. et al. 2009, ApJ, 699, 421
Zhao, D.H., Jing, Y.P., Mo, H.J. & Boerner, G. 2009, ApJ, 707, 354
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Marginally specified models have recently become a popular tool for discrete longitudinal data analysis. Nonetheless, they introduce complex constraint equations and model fitting algorithms. Moreover, there is a lack of available software to fit these models. In this paper, we propose a three-level marginally specified model for analysis of multivariate longitudinal binary response data. The implicit function theorem is introduced to approximately solve the marginal constraint equations explicitly. Furthermore, the use of *probit* link enables direct solutions to the convolution equations. We propose an R package **pnmtrem** to fit the model. A simulation study is conducted to examine the properties of the estimator. We illustrate the model on the Iowa Youth and Families Project data set.'
author:
- |
Özgür Asa$\mbox{r}^{ \ a, *}$ [^1], Ozlem Il$\mbox{k}^{ \ b}$\
\
$^a$ CHICAS, Lancaster Medical School, Lancaster University, UK\
$^b$ Department of Statistics, Middle East Technical University, Turkey
title: Marginally specified models for analyzing multivariate longitudinal binary data
---
[**Keywords:**]{} correlated data, implicit differentiation, link functions, maximum likelihood estimation, random effects, transition models.\
\
Introduction
============
Longitudinal data include repeated observations across time which belong to the same subjects/units and which are typically dependent on each other. Often, multiple longitudinal responses, such as multiple health outcomes or distress variables, are of interest. These types of responses involve two types of dependencies: 1) within-response (serial) dependence, and 2) multivariate response dependence at a given time point. Both of these should be taken into account to draw valid statistical inferences, although they might not be of primary interest.
Traditional longitudinal data models can be threefold: marginal, transition and random effects models (Diggle et al., 2002). Each of these has their pros and cons, and the decision regarding which model to use depends on the scientific interest, i.e., none of them is the best (Gardiner et al., 2009). Recently, marginally specified models (or simply marginalized models) have become popular for discrete longitudinal data analysis which combine the underlying properties of the aforementioned traditional models. Heagerty and Zeger (2000) defined such a model as a re-parameterized version of a model (transition and/or random effects models here) in terms of the marginal mean and additional dependence parameters. The seminal works of Heagerty (1999, 2002) considered likelihood based models by marginalizing the random effects and transition models, respectively. They were two-level logistic regression models that incorporated the marginal covariate effects in the first level, and captured serial dependence in the second level via random effects and transition parameters, respectively. Hence, they permitted multiple inferences at the same time and likelihood based inference for marginal mean parameters. Moreover, in these models marginal regression parameters were shown to be less sensitive to misspecification of dependence structure compared to their traditional counterparts, such as random effects models (Heagerty and Kurland, 2001). The marginalized modeling paradigm were primarily developed for binary longitudinal data (Schildcrout and Heagerty, 2007; Ilk and Daniels, 2007; Lee et al., 2009; along with the aforementioned works of Heagerty), and it has been extended later to ordinal (Caffo and Griswold, 2006; Lee and Daniels, 2007; Lee et al., 2013), count (Lee et al., 2011; Iddi and Molenberghs, 2012) and nominal longitudinal data (Lee and Mercante, 2010). Among these works, Ilk and Daniels (2007) proposed a three-level marginalized model (marginalized transition random effects models, MTREM) for multivariate longitudinal binary data. While the marginal covariate effects were accommodated in the first level, serial and multivariate response dependencies were captured in the second and third levels via transition parameter and random effects, respectively. In this paper, we propose a marginally specified model for multivariate longitudinal binary data by extending MTREM in terms of link functions, i.e., from *logit* to *probit*, and parameter estimation methodology, i.e., from *Bayesian methods* (BM) to *maximum likelihood estimation* (MLE).
[*probit*]{} and [*logit*]{} are two widely used link functions in regression analysis of categorical data. While the former is defined as the inverse of the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of standard normal distribution, the latter is defined as the inverse of the CDF of standard logistic distribution. They reflect similar behavior of placing probabilities and are almost indistinguishable except for very low and very high probabilities; [*logit*]{} lets higher probability in the tails (Hedeker and Gibbons, 2006). Often, large amounts of high quality data are needed to detect substantial differences between the conclusions drawn from the regression models with those link functions (Doksum and Gakso, 1990, cited in Hedeker and Gibbons, 2006, pp. 153). While [*logit*]{} yields direct interpretation of the regression coefficients, e.g., change in the natural logarithm of the odds ratios, this is more challenging with [*probit*]{}. However, approximate transitions between [*logit*]{} and [*probit*]{} regression parameter estimates are possible (Agresti, 2002; Griswold, 2005). For instance, Johnson et al. (1995, pp. 113-163, cited in Griswold, 2005, pp.85-96) proposed a constant (JKB constant) between these estimates: $\beta_{logit} \cong c*\beta_{probit}$ where $c=(15/16)(\pi/\sqrt{3})$. On the other hand, [*probit*]{} link usually provides explicit linkage between the levels of marginalized models (Griswold, 2005). However, this is not possible with [*logit*]{} link. Caffo and Griswold (2006) also discussed the computational advantages of [*probit*]{} link when it was accompanied with normally distributed components. Multivariate probit modeling literature dates back to the seminal work by Ashford and Sowden (1970). Some recent examples utilizing [*probit*]{} link in the concept of longitudinal data mixed modeling could be found in Hedeker and Gibbons (2006), Liu and Hedeker (2006), Varin and Czado (2010), Hutmacher and French (2011) among others.
Semi-parametric methods, namely generalized estimating equations (GEE; Liang and Zeger, 1986), have been widely used for marginal models, especially for discrete response. Nonetheless, they are often inefficient compared to the full likelihood based methods such as MLE and BM. Moreover, a key condition for the consistency of estimates obtained by GEE often fails for transition models (Pepe and Anderson, 1994). BM are also common in longitudinal data literature and have their own properties. Some distinguishing differences are that MLE requires less computational times, and related procedures are more automatized compared to BM (Efron, 1986). In this paper, we consider MLE to avoid the computational burden and possible inconsistencies in a complicated three-level model, for which one of these levels is a transition model.
Marginally specified models with transition structures introduce marginal constraint equations (Heagerty, 2002; Schildcrout and Heagerty, 2007; Ilk and Daniels, 2007; Lee and Mercante, 2010). Common literature solve these constraints via optimization methods such as Newton-Raphson (N-R) algorithm, which are computationally cumbersome and might yield convergence problems. In this paper, we consider approximately explicit solutions of such constraint equations and propose the use of the *implicit function theorem* for the first time in the scope of marginally specified models.
There is a lack of available software for analyzing multivariate longitudinal binary data. Limited literature include the works of Shelton et al. (2004), Asar (2012) and Asar and Ilk (2013). Among these, while the former proposed a SAS macro for multivariate longitudinal binary data, the latter proposed two R (R Core Development Team, 2013) packages for multivariate longitudinal data. In this study, we propose an R package **pnmtrem** for marginalized modeling of multivariate longitudinal binary data. The package is available from the Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN) at http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=pnmtrem. Empirical Bayesian estimates of random effects coefficients are also derived, and implementation is included in this package. These estimates allow making subject specific inferences and detecting interesting subjects in the study.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we introduce the proposed model and discuss its features. In Section 3, we consider the related parameter estimation procedure. While Section 4 considers a simulation study on the proposed model, Section 5 illustrates its application on a real life data set and discusses the parameter interpretation. We end the paper with the discussion and conclusion part provided in Section 6.
Model
=====
General probit normal marginalized transition random effects models, PNMTREM(p)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let $Y_{itj}$ be the $j$th ($j=1, \ldots ,k$) response for the $i$th ($i=1, \ldots ,n$) subject at time $t$ ($t=1, \ldots ,T$) and $\boldsymbol X_{itj}$ be the associated set of covariates. $\boldsymbol X_{itj}$ might include time-variant and/or time-invariant covariates. Also let $\Phi(.)$ be the CDF of the standard normal distribution. Use of inverse [*probit*]{} link yields the following representation of the model:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:pnmtremg1}
&& P_{itj}^m \equiv P(Y_{itj}=1|\boldsymbol X_{itj})=\Phi(\boldsymbol X_{itj} \boldsymbol \beta ), \\
\label{eq:pnmtremg2}
&& P_{itj}^t \! \equiv \! P(Y_{itj}=1|y_{i,t-1,j},..,y_{i,t-p,j},
\boldsymbol X_{itj})\!=\!\Phi(\Delta_{itj}+\sum\limits_{m=1}^p \gamma_{itj,m} y_{i,t-m,j}), \\
\label{eq:pnmtremg3}
&& P_{itj}^r \equiv P(Y_{itj}=1|y_{i,t-1,j},...,y_{i,t-p,j},
\boldsymbol X_{itj},b_{it})=\Phi(\Delta_{itj}^*+\lambda_j b_{it}).\end{aligned}$$
In the first level of the model , $\boldsymbol \beta$ are the marginal regression coefficients that directly account for the covariate effects on the mean responses, i.e., the covariate effects are not conditioned on either the response history or the random effects. They allow comparing sub-groups of covariates such as females vs. males. Although it is assumed that the intercept and the slopes (covariate effects) are shared by different responses (same $\boldsymbol \beta$ for different responses), the inclusion of response indicator variables as covariates allow different responses to have their own intercepts. Similarly, the inclusion of the interactions of response indicator variables and covariates allow different responses have different slopes. This construction provides model flexibility: it allows one to fit a more parsimonious model when the covariate effects on multiple responses do not differ, which might yield parameter estimates with lower variances. Typical setup of the model assumes that only the covariates at time $t$ have significant effects on the responses at that time point, i.e., $P(Y_{itj}=1|\boldsymbol X_{i1j}, \ldots ,\boldsymbol X_{itj})$ = $P(Y_{itj}=1|\boldsymbol X_{itj})$. Nevertheless, lagged covariates might be included in the model via the design matrix.
In the second level of the model , the within-subject associations are captured by a Markov model of order $p$. Here the [*m*]{}th transition parameters, $\gamma_{itj,m}$, can be expressed in terms of covariates. Specifically, $\gamma_{itj,m}= \boldsymbol \alpha_{t,m} \boldsymbol Z_{itj,m}=\alpha_{t1,m} Z_{itj1,m}+...+\alpha_{tl,m} Z_{itjl,m}$ for $m=1,\ldots ,p$, where $\alpha_{tf,m}$ $(f=1, \ldots, l)$ is the time/covariate/order specific transition parameter which accommodates the effect of the past response on the current one by taking into account the interaction between the past response and a subset of covariates as well; $p$ is the order of the transition model and $\boldsymbol Z_{itj}$ are typically a subset of covariates with [*l*]{} independent variables. Note that $\boldsymbol Z_{itj}$ have the form of a design matrix, i.e., include 1’s on the first column. Choices of $\boldsymbol Z_{itj}$ permit various association structures between the current and past responses. For example, if the effects of the lag-1 responses on the current ones are expected to be different for males and females, then gender could be included in $\boldsymbol Z_{itj,1}$. Similar to the first level, although the transition parameters, $\boldsymbol \alpha_{t,m}$ are shared across multiple responses (common parameters for different responses), the inclusion of interaction(s) between the response indicator variables and the response history allow(s) these parameters to differ for multiple responses.
In the third level of the model , the multivariate response dependence and individual variations are accounted by a random effects model. It is possible to observe variations in responses of two subjects even if they have exactly the same observed covariates and past responses. In such cases, marginal and transition models are inadequate in capturing this subject specific differences. The $b_{it}$ in measures this unobserved heterogeneity between the subjects at time $t$. $\lambda_j$ is response specific parameter that scales the random effects with respect to response $j$ and accommodates the multivariate response dependence. An approximate correlation among different responses, as a function of $\Delta_{itj}^*$, $\lambda_j$ and $\sigma_{t}^{2}$, can be found in Ilk and Daniels (2007). The $b_{it}$ is subject/time specific random effects coefficient and it is assumed that $b_{it}$ $\sim$ N(0, $\sigma_{t}^{2}$). $b_{it}$ can be rewritten as $b_{it}$=$\sigma_t$ $z_i$ where $z_i$ is a standard normal random variable; this version of $b_{it}$ is useful in numerical integration which will be introduced later. For identifiability, $\lambda_1$ is set to 1. Note that by allowing the random effects to change over time, i.e., by having index $t$ in $b_{it}$, the model accommodates different multivariate response dependencies at different time points.
$\Delta_{itj}$ in is subject/time/response specific intercept that takes the non-linear relationship between the marginal and transition probabilities into account ($P_{itj}^m$ and $P_{itj}^t$, respectively). Similarly, $\Delta_{itj}^*$ in is the subject/time/response specific intercept that captures the non-linear relationship between the transition and random effects probabilities ($P_{itj}^t$ and $P_{itj}^r$, respectively).
This three-level model specification of PNMTREM completes the multivariate distribution of the multivariate longitudinal binary data. One of the inherited features of PNMTREM from the original setup of MTREM is that the conditional mean of the responses given all set of covariates is equal to the conditional mean of the responses given the covariate history, i.e., $E(Y_{itj}|\boldsymbol X_{iqj},q=1, \ldots, T)=E(Y_{itj}|\boldsymbol X_{isj}, s \leq t)$. This assumption is vital for the validity of the marginal constraint equation which will be introduced later while linking the levels of the model. However, the assumption is meaningful for exogenous covariates (covariates which do not depend on response history at time $t$) but not meaningful for the endogenous ones (covariates which depend on response history at time $t$).
First order probit normal marginalized transition random effects models, PNMTREM(1)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here, we discuss first order model, PNMTREM(1), which is a specialized form of the general model, PNMTREM(p). PNMTREM(1) considers only the effects of lag-1 responses on the current ones in the second level of the model formulation and the related modeling framework is given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:pnmtrem11}
&& P_{itj}^m \equiv P(Y_{itj}=1|\boldsymbol X_{itj})=\Phi(\boldsymbol X_{itj} \boldsymbol \beta), \\
\label{eq:pnmtrem12}
&& P_{itj}^t \equiv P(Y_{itj}=1|y_{i,t-1,j},\boldsymbol X_{itj})\!=\!\Phi(\Delta_{itj}+\gamma_{itj,1} y_{i,t-1,j}), \\
\label{eq:pnmtrem13}
&& P_{itj}^r \equiv P(Y_{itj}=1|y_{i,t-1,j},\boldsymbol X_{itj},b_{it})=\Phi(\Delta_{itj}^*+\lambda_j b_{it}),\end{aligned}$$
where $b_{it}$ $\sim$ N(0, $\sigma_{t}^{2}$) and $b_{it}$=$z_i$ $\sigma_t$, $z_i$ $\sim$ N(0,1); $\lambda_1$=1. Again, $\gamma_{itj,1}=\boldsymbol \alpha_{t,1} \boldsymbol Z_{itj,1}=\alpha_{t1,1} Z_{itj1,1}+...+\alpha_{tl,1} Z_{itjl,1}$ where $\boldsymbol Z_{itj,1}$ are a subset of covariates. Note that throughout we call this model as the $t \geq 2$ model.
Since for baseline $(t=1)$ no history data are available, the second level of PNMTREM(1) is not valid anymore. Additionally, it is common in longitudinal studies that baseline data reflect more or less variability and have different covariate effects compared to later time points. In the light of these arguments, a separate model is constructed for $t=1$. The baseline model is given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:pnmtremb1}
&& P_{i1j}^m \equiv P(Y_{i1j}=1|\boldsymbol X_{i1j})=\Phi(\boldsymbol X_{i1j} \boldsymbol \beta^*), \\
\label{eq:pnmtremb2}
&& P_{i1j}^r \equiv P(Y_{i1j}=1|\boldsymbol X_{i1j},b_{i1})=\Phi(\Delta_{i1j}^*+\lambda_j^* b_{i1}).\end{aligned}$$
Here, $b_{i1}$ $\sim$ N(0, $\sigma_{1}^{2}$) and $b_{i1}$=$z_i$ $\sigma_1$, $z_i$ $\sim$ N(0,1); $\lambda_1^*$=1. Note that throughout we call this model as the [*baseline*]{} model.\
### Linking levels of PNMTREM(1) for t $\geq$ 2 model
To be a valid probabilistic model, the levels of PNMTREM(1) are connected to each other by a set of constraint equations.\
**Linking first and second levels of PNMTREM(1)**\
Level 1 and level 2 of PNMTREM(1) are linked via the marginal constraint equation,
$$\label{eq:margconst1}
P(Y_{itj}=1|\boldsymbol X_{itj})= \sum\limits_{y_{i,t-1,j}} P(Y_{itj}=1|y_{i,t-1,j},\boldsymbol X_{itj}) P(y_{i,t-1,j}|\boldsymbol X_{i,t-1,j}),$$
which is equivalent to
$$\label{eq:margconst2.5}
\Phi(\boldsymbol X_{itj} \boldsymbol \beta) = \sum\limits_{y_{i,t-1,j}=0}^1 \Phi(\Delta_{itj}+\gamma_{itj,1} y_{i,t-1,j}) (\Phi(\boldsymbol X_{i,t-1,j} \boldsymbol \beta))^{y_{i,t-1,j}} (1-\Phi(\boldsymbol X_{i,t-1,j} \boldsymbol \beta))^{(1-y_{i,t-1,j})},$$
or, in a simpler form, equivalent to,
$$\label{eq:margconst3}
\Phi(\boldsymbol X_{itj} \boldsymbol \beta) = \Phi(\Delta_{itj}) (1-\Phi(\boldsymbol X_{i,t-1,j} \boldsymbol \beta)) + \Phi( \Delta_{itj}+ \gamma_{itj,1}) \Phi(\boldsymbol X_{i,t-1,j} \boldsymbol \beta).$$
Note that for $t=2$, $\boldsymbol \beta^*$ replace $\boldsymbol \beta$ as the multiplier of lag-1 covariates in the marginal constraint equation and yields
$$\label{eq:margconst4}
\Phi(\boldsymbol X_{i2j} \boldsymbol \beta) = \Phi(\Delta_{i2j}) (1-\Phi(\boldsymbol X_{i,1,j} \boldsymbol \beta^*)) + \Phi( \Delta_{i2j}+ \gamma_{i2j,1}) \Phi(\boldsymbol X_{i,1,j} \boldsymbol \beta^*).$$
Although the rest of the discussion will be based on , we take the difference into account when necessary. The non-linear equation given in does not permit writing $\Delta_{itj}$ in terms of $\boldsymbol \beta$ and $\gamma_{itj,1}$ (or $\boldsymbol \alpha_{t,1}$), explicitly. Luckily, the implicit function theorem (IFT; Krantz and Parks, 2003) allows us finding an explicit solution of , though an approximate one, for $\Delta_{itj}$ in terms of $\boldsymbol \beta$ and $\boldsymbol \alpha_{t,1}$.\
**Application of IFT to PNMTREM(1)**\
Let F be a function of $\boldsymbol X_{itj}$, $\boldsymbol X_{it-1j}$, $\boldsymbol \beta$, $\Delta_{itj}$, $\boldsymbol \alpha_{t,1}$ and $\boldsymbol Z_{itj,1}$ such that (by rewriting ) $$\label{eq:Fift}
F(\boldsymbol X_{itj}, \boldsymbol X_{it-1j}, \boldsymbol \beta, \Delta_{itj}, \boldsymbol \alpha_{t,1}, \boldsymbol Z_{itj,1})= \\
\Phi(\boldsymbol X_{itj} \boldsymbol \beta) - \Phi(\Delta_{itj}) (1-\Phi(\boldsymbol X_{i,t-1,j} \boldsymbol \beta)) - \Phi(\Delta_{itj}+\boldsymbol \alpha_{t,1} \boldsymbol Z_{itj,1}) \Phi(\boldsymbol X_{i,t-1,j} \boldsymbol \beta)=0.$$ Then, by IFT and first order implicit differentiation (first order approximation), $\Delta_{itj}$ could be obtained by
$$\label{eq:deltaexpl}
\Delta_{itj} = - \frac{\frac{\partial F}{\partial \boldsymbol \beta} \Big |_{(\boldsymbol \beta_0,\boldsymbol \alpha_{t,10},\Delta_{itj0})}} {\frac{\partial F}{\partial \Delta_{itj}} \Big |_{(\boldsymbol \beta_0,\boldsymbol \alpha_{t,10},\Delta_{itj0})}} (\boldsymbol \beta- \boldsymbol \beta_0) -\frac{\frac{\partial F}{\partial \boldsymbol \alpha_{t,1}} \Big |_{(\boldsymbol \beta_0,\boldsymbol \alpha_{t,10},\Delta_{itj0})}} {\frac{\partial F}{\partial \Delta_{itj}} \Big |_{(\boldsymbol \beta_0,\boldsymbol \alpha_{t,10},\Delta_{itj0})}} (\boldsymbol \alpha_{t,1}- \boldsymbol \alpha_{t,10}),$$
where
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fpartial1}
\frac{\partial F}{\partial \boldsymbol \beta} &=\boldsymbol X_{itj} \phi(\boldsymbol X_{itj} \boldsymbol \beta) + \Phi(\Delta_{itj})(\phi(\boldsymbol X_{i,t-1,j}\boldsymbol \beta)) \boldsymbol X_{i,t-1,j}
- \Phi(\Delta_{itj}+ \boldsymbol \alpha_{t,1} \boldsymbol Z_{itj,1}) \phi(\boldsymbol X_{i,t-1,j} \boldsymbol \beta) \boldsymbol X_{i,t-1,j}, \nonumber \\
\frac{\partial F}{\partial \Delta_{itj}} &= - \phi(\Delta_{itj})(1-\Phi(\boldsymbol X_{i,t-1,j} \boldsymbol \beta)) - \phi(\Delta_{itj}+ \boldsymbol \alpha_{t,1} \boldsymbol Z_{itj,1})(\Phi(\boldsymbol X_{i,t-1,j} \boldsymbol \beta)), \nonumber\\
\frac{\partial F}{\partial \boldsymbol \alpha_{t,1}} &= - \phi(\Delta_{itj}+ \boldsymbol \alpha_{t,1} \boldsymbol Z_{itj}) \Phi(\boldsymbol X_{i,t-1,j} \boldsymbol \beta) \boldsymbol Z_{itj,1} .\end{aligned}$$
Here, $\phi(.)$ is the probability density function of the standard normal distribution and $\boldsymbol \beta_{0}, \boldsymbol \alpha_{t,10}$ and $\Delta_{itj0}$ are the components of $\boldsymbol P_0$ around which IFT searches for solution. For $t=2$, $\boldsymbol \beta^*$ replace $\boldsymbol \beta$ as the multiplier of lag-1 covariates.
From and , it can be seen that $\Delta_{itj}$ is explicit and deterministic function of $\boldsymbol X_{itj}$, $\boldsymbol X_{it-1j}$, $\boldsymbol \beta$, $\boldsymbol \alpha_{t,1}$ and $\boldsymbol Z_{itj,1}$, i.e., $\Delta_{itj}$=$\Delta_{itj}(\boldsymbol X_{itj}, \boldsymbol X_{it-1j}, \boldsymbol \beta, \boldsymbol \alpha_{t,1}, \boldsymbol Z_{itj,1})$. Here, we shall note that $\Delta_{i2j}$ is function of both $\boldsymbol \beta$ and $\boldsymbol \beta^*$. The $\boldsymbol \beta_0$ and $\boldsymbol \alpha_{t,10}$ components of $\boldsymbol P_0$ for PNMTREM are taken to be $\boldsymbol 0$, since the hypothesis tests about the significances of $\boldsymbol \beta$ and $\boldsymbol \alpha_{t,1}$ place null hypotheses which assume the equality of those parameters to be $\boldsymbol 0$. $\Delta_{itj0}$ is obtained by solving when $\boldsymbol \beta_0$ and $\boldsymbol \alpha_{t,10}$ are equal to $\boldsymbol 0$. This yields $\Delta_{itj0}=0$ when $t > 2$. We only employ N-R to obtain $\Delta_{i2j0}$. This has very fast convergence based on our experience, due to the simple form of the related function, given in .\
**Linking second and third levels of PNMTREM(1)**\
Level 2 and level 3 of PNMTREM(1) are linked via a convolution equation given by
$$\label{eq:convolution1}
P(Y_{itj}=1|y_{i,t-1,j},\boldsymbol X_{itj})= \int P(Y_{itj}=1|y_{i,t-1,j},\boldsymbol X_{itj},b_{it})dF(b_{it}),$$
which is equivalent to
$$\label{eq:convolution3}
\Phi(\Delta_{itj}+ \boldsymbol \alpha_{t,1} \boldsymbol Z_{itj,1} y_{i,t-1,j}) = \int \Phi(\Delta_{itj}^*+\lambda_j b_{it}) f(b_{it}) db_{it}.$$
Following Griswold (2005), we can obtain
$$\label{eq:deltastarexpl}
\Delta_{itj}^*=\sqrt{1+\lambda_j^2 \sigma_t^2} \; (\Delta_{itj}+ \boldsymbol \alpha_{t,1} \boldsymbol Z_{itj,1} y_{i,t-1,j}).$$
Related proof can be found in Appendix A. From , it can be seen that $\Delta_{itj}^*$ is explicit and deterministic function of $\Delta_{itj}$ (hence, $\Delta_{itj}^*$ is function of $\boldsymbol X_{itj}$, $\boldsymbol X_{i,t-1,j}$ and $\boldsymbol \beta$), $\boldsymbol \alpha_{t,1}$ $\boldsymbol Z_{itj,1}$, $y_{it-1j}$, $\lambda_j$ and $\sigma_{t}$, i.e., $\Delta_{itj}^*=\Delta_{itj}^*(\boldsymbol X_{itj}, \boldsymbol X_{i,t-1,j}, \boldsymbol \beta, \Delta_{itj}, \boldsymbol \alpha_{t,1}, \boldsymbol Z_{itj,1}, y_{it-1j}, \lambda_j, \sigma_{t})$.
### Linking levels of PNMTREM(1) for the baseline model
The levels of the baseline model are linked to each other via the following convolution equation:
$$\label{eq:convolution1b}
P(Y_{i1j}=1|\boldsymbol X_{i1j})= \int P(Y_{i1j}=1|\boldsymbol X_{i1j},b_{i1})dF(b_{i1}).$$
Again, following Griswold (2005), we can obtain $\Delta_{i1j}^*$ as an explicit function of $\boldsymbol X_{i1j}$, $\boldsymbol \beta^*$, $\lambda^*_j$ and $\sigma_1$ such that
$$\label{eq:deltastar1expl}
\Delta_{i1j}^* = \sqrt{1+{\lambda_{j}^*}^{2} \sigma_1^2} \; \boldsymbol X_{i1j} \boldsymbol \beta^*.$$
Related proof is very similar to the one for $t \geq 2$ model and can be easily adapted from it.
Unlike [*logit*]{} link, the use of [*probit*]{} link in MTREM allows us directly writing the levels in terms of each other. This allows us maximizing the likelihood and obtaining the maximum likelihood estimates (MLE) of the parameters without taking the derivatives of $\Delta_{i1j}^*$, $\Delta_{itj}$ and $\Delta_{itj}^*$ $(t \geq 2)$ with respect to former level parameters. This eases the related MLE derivations and decreases computational time. We will discuss these aspects later.
Estimation
==========
Likelihood function of PNMTREM(1)
---------------------------------
We assume two different models for a given multivariate longitudinal binary data set in the PNMTREM framework: baseline and $t \geq 2$ models. The related likelihood function of PNMTREM(1) is the product of two likelihood functions belonging to these models. Rewriting the random effects $b_{i1}$ and $b_{it}$ as $b_{i1}=\sigma_1 z_i$ and $b_{it}=\sigma_t z_i$ yields this likelihood to be
$$\label{eq:mtremlik2}
L(\boldsymbol \theta|\boldsymbol y) = L_1(\boldsymbol \theta_1|\boldsymbol y_1) L_2(\boldsymbol \theta_2|\boldsymbol y_2),$$
where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:baselinelik}
L_1(\boldsymbol \theta_1|\boldsymbol y_1) &=\prod_{i=1}^{N} \int \prod_{j=1}^{k} \left(P^{r}_{i1j}\right)^{y_{i1j}} \left(1-P^{r}_{i1j}\right)^{1-y_{i1j}}\phi(z_i)dz_i,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:mainlik}
L_2(\boldsymbol \theta_2|\boldsymbol y_2) &=\prod_{i=1}^{N} \prod_{t=2}^{T} \int \prod_{j=1}^{k} \left(P^{r}_{itj}\right)^{y_{itj}} \left(1-P^{r}_{itj}\right)^{1-y_{itj}}\phi(z_i)dz_i.\end{aligned}$$
Here, $\boldsymbol \theta=(\boldsymbol \theta_1, \boldsymbol \theta_2)$, where $\boldsymbol \theta_1=(\boldsymbol \beta^*, \boldsymbol \lambda^*, \sigma_1^2)$ with $\boldsymbol \lambda^*=(\lambda_2^*, \ldots, \lambda_k^*)$ and $\boldsymbol \theta_2=(\boldsymbol \beta, \boldsymbol \alpha_{t,1},\boldsymbol \lambda, \boldsymbol \sigma^2)$ with $\boldsymbol \lambda=(\lambda_2, \ldots, \lambda_k)$ and $\boldsymbol \sigma^2=(\sigma_2^2, \ldots, \sigma_T^2)$, are parameter vectors for baseline and $t \geq 2$ models, respectively; $\boldsymbol y_1$ and $\boldsymbol y_2$ are the observed response matrices at baseline and $t \geq 2$ time points, respectively. Although these two likelihoods seem to be independent, they are connected to each other via the estimates of $\boldsymbol \beta^*$, i.e., $\hat{\boldsymbol \beta^*}$, for $t=2$ due to the marginal constraint equation (see ). We consider the estimation of $log(\sigma_t)$ for $t=1,\ldots,T$, instead of directly estimating $\sigma_t$ or $\sigma_t^2$, due to computational aspects, since taking logarithm of the variance components extends the related parameter space from the interval of $[0,+\infty)$ to $(-\infty,+\infty)$. Turning back to the estimates of $\sigma_t$ or $\sigma_t^2$ is possible by the invariance property of maximum likelihood estimates (MLE), and the related variance estimates could be obtained by the delta method.
Maximizing the likelihood function given in needs numerical methods while taking one-dimensional integrals over the standard normal distribution. It is well known that for approximating one-dimensional integrals, e.g., for constant random effects over time or independent random effects over time, Gauss-Hermite quadrature is a successful method (Agresti, 2002; McCulloch et al., 2008). It is reported that a 20-point Gauss-Hermite quadrature is usually enough to achieve an accurate approximation for likelihood functions (McCulloch et al., 2008, pp. 329; Lesaffre and Spiessens, 2001). Note that Ilk and Daniels (2007) considered BM, specifically Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods, for MTREM as the parameter estimation methodology, which did not require taking integrals over the random effects distribution in likelihoods. However, this method yielded the parameter estimation process taking long time.
First partial derivatives of the log-likelihood functions of PNMTREM do not permit obtaining explicit solutions to the MLE of the parameters. Therefore, optimization techniques are needed. N-R requires the calculation of first and second partial derivatives of the log-likelihood functions. However, for PNMTREM(1) even the first partial derivatives of the log-likelihoods have very complex forms, hence the use of N-R is not appropriate. Luckily, Fisher-Scoring Algorithm (F-S) solves the log-likelihood functions by using only the first partial derivatives (Hedeker and Gibbons, 2006, pp. 162-165). Another great feature of F-S is that the inverse of the expected information matrix at convergence is a consistent estimator of the large sample variance-covariance matrix of the model parameters.
Maximum likelihood estimation of the baseline parameters ($\boldsymbol \theta_1$)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximizing the log-likelihood function of the baseline model, $L_1(\boldsymbol \theta_1|\boldsymbol y_1)$, with respect to $\boldsymbol \theta_1$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:apploglik1}
\frac{\partial \mbox{log} \left(L_1(\boldsymbol \theta_1|\boldsymbol y_1)\right)}{\partial \boldsymbol \theta_1} \approx \sum_{i=1}^{N} \frac {1}{h(Y_{i1}|\boldsymbol \theta_1)} \frac{\partial h(Y_{i1}|\boldsymbol \theta_1)}{\partial \boldsymbol \theta_1},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:apph1}
h(Y_{i1}|\boldsymbol \theta_1) \approx \sum_{q=1}^{20} w_q \; \underbrace{ exp \left[ \sum_{j=1}^k \left( Y_{i1j} \mbox{log} \left(\Phi(d_{i1jq})\right) + (1-Y_{i1j}) \mbox{log}\left(1-\Phi(d_{i1jq})\right) \right)\right]}_{\ell(Y_{i1}|\boldsymbol \theta_1)},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:apphd1}
\frac{\partial h(Y_{i1}|\boldsymbol \theta_1)}{\partial \boldsymbol \theta_1} \approx \sum_{q=1}^{20} w_q \; \left\{ \ell(Y_{i1}|\boldsymbol \theta_1) \left\{ \sum_{j=1}^{k} \left[ \frac{\partial d_{i1jq} }{\partial \boldsymbol \theta_1} \phi(d_{i1jq}) \left( \frac{Y_{i1j}-\Phi(d_{i1jq})}{\left(\Phi(d_{i1jq}) \right) \left( 1-\Phi(d_{i1jq})\right)} \right) \right] \right\}\right\},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:appd1}
d_{i1jq}=\sqrt{1+{\lambda_j^*}^2 e^{2c_1}} \; (\boldsymbol X_{i1j} \boldsymbol \beta^*)+\lambda_j^*e^{c_1}\sqrt{2}\;z_q.\end{aligned}$$
Here $log(\sigma_1)$ is equated to $c_1$ for simplicity of notation and $(z_q, w_q)$ for $q=1,\ldots,20$ are Gauss-Hermite quadrature points and weights, respectively which are available in Abramowitz and Stegun (1972). Details of $\frac{\partial d_{i1jq} }{\partial \boldsymbol \theta_1}$ can be found in Appendix B.1.
Maximum likelihood estimation of the $t \geq 2$ parameters ($\boldsymbol \theta_2$)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar to the baseline model, maximizing the log-likelihood function of the $t \geq 2$ model with respect to $\boldsymbol \theta_2$ yields
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:apploglik2}
\frac{\partial log\left(L_2(\boldsymbol \theta_2|\boldsymbol y_2)\right)}{\partial \boldsymbol \theta_2} \approx \sum_{i=1}^{N} \sum_{t=2}^{T} \frac {1}{h(Y_{it}|\boldsymbol \theta_2)} \frac{\partial h(Y_{it}|\boldsymbol \theta_2)}{\partial \boldsymbol \theta_2},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:apph2}
h(Y_{it}|\boldsymbol \theta_2) \approx \sum_{q=1}^{20} w_q \; \underbrace{exp \left[ \sum_{j=1}^k \left( Y_{itj}log\left(\Phi(d_{itjq})\right) + (1-Y_{itj}) log\left(1-\Phi(d_{itjq})\right) \right)\right]}_{\ell(Y_{it}|\boldsymbol \theta_2)},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:apphd2}
\frac{\partial h(Y_{it}|\boldsymbol \theta_2)}{\partial \boldsymbol \theta_2} \approx \sum_{q=1}^{20} w_q \; \left\{ \ell(Y_{it}|\boldsymbol \theta_2) \left\{ \sum_{j=1}^{k} \left[ \frac{\partial d_{itjq} }{\partial \boldsymbol \theta_2} \phi(d_{itjq}) \left( \frac{Y_{itj}-\Phi(d_{itjq})}{\left(\Phi(d_{itjq}) \right) \left( 1-\Phi(d_{itjq})\right)} \right) \right] \right\}\right\},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:appd2}
d_{itjq}=\sqrt{1+\lambda_j^2 e^{2c_t}}\left(\Delta_{itj}+\boldsymbol \alpha_{t,1} \boldsymbol Z_{itj} y_{it-1j}\right) +\lambda_je^{c_t} \sqrt{2} z_q.\end{aligned}$$
Here $c_t=log(\sigma_t)$ for $t \geq 2$, and $(z_q,w_q)$ for $q=1,\ldots,20$ are Gauss-Hermite quadrature points and weights. Also note that explicit solution of $\Delta_{itj}$ is given in . Details of $\frac{\partial d_{itjq} }{\partial \boldsymbol \theta_2}$ can be found in Appendix B.2.
Application of Fisher-Scoring algorithm
---------------------------------------
As stated earlier, the MLEs of the parameters are obtained iteratively by Fisher-Scoring Algorithm (F-S) and the related algorithm is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fst1}
\boldsymbol \theta_s^{(m+1)}=\boldsymbol \theta_s^{m}+I(\boldsymbol \theta_s^m)^{-1} \frac{\partial log\left(L_s(\boldsymbol \theta_s^m|\boldsymbol y_s)\right)}{\partial \boldsymbol \theta_s^m},\end{aligned}$$
where $\boldsymbol s=(1,2)$; $s=1$ corresponds to the baseline model and $s=2$ corresponds to the $t \geq 2$ model; $m$ represents the F-S step and $I(\boldsymbol \theta_s)$ is an empirical and consistent estimator of the information matrix. $I(\boldsymbol \theta_s)$ can be calculated by
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{inft1}
I(\boldsymbol \theta_1)=\sum_{i=1}^{N} h(Y_{i1j}|\boldsymbol \theta_1)^{-2} \left( \frac{\partial h(Y_{i1j}|\boldsymbol \theta_1)}{\partial \boldsymbol \theta_1}\right) \left( \frac{\partial h(Y_{i1j}|\boldsymbol \theta_1)}{\partial \boldsymbol \theta_1}\right)^T\end{aligned}$$
and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{inftgeq2}
I(\boldsymbol \theta_2)=\sum_{i=1}^{N} \left(\sum_{t=2}^{T} \frac {1} {h(Y_{itj}|\boldsymbol \theta_2)} \frac{\partial h(Y_{itj}|\boldsymbol \theta_2)}{\partial \boldsymbol \theta_2} \right) \left(\sum_{t=2}^{T} \frac {1} {h(Y_{itj}|\boldsymbol \theta_2)} \frac{\partial h(Y_{itj}|\boldsymbol \theta_2)}{\partial \boldsymbol \theta_2} \right)^{T}.\end{aligned}$$
Since $c_1$ is time specific and $\lambda^*_j$ is response specific for baseline and $c_t$ and $\boldsymbol \alpha_{t,1}$ are time specific and $\lambda_j$ is response specific for $t \geq 2$, the forms of $I(\boldsymbol \theta_1)$ and $I(\boldsymbol \theta_2)$ are quite different compared to the ones for $\boldsymbol \beta^*$ and $\boldsymbol \beta$ for baseline and $t \geq 2$ models, respectively. Details can be found in the supplementary material to this article.
Empirical Bayesian estimation of random effects coefficients
------------------------------------------------------------
To calculate the individual probabilities such as $P(Y_{i1j}=1|\boldsymbol X_{i1j},b_{i1})$ and $P(Y_{itj}=1|\boldsymbol X_{itj},y_{it-1j},b_{it})$ for $t \geq 2$, we need the estimates of $\Delta_{i1j}^*$, $\lambda_j^*$, $b_{i1}=\sigma_1 z_i$ for the baseline model and $\Delta_{itj}^*$, $\lambda_j$, $b_{it}=\sigma_t z_i$ for the $t \geq 2$ model.
Given the MLEs of $\boldsymbol \theta_1=(\boldsymbol \beta^*, \boldsymbol \lambda^*, c_1=log(\sigma_1))$ and $\boldsymbol \theta_2=(\boldsymbol \beta, \boldsymbol \alpha_{t,1}, \boldsymbol \lambda, \boldsymbol c=log(\boldsymbol \sigma))$, we can obtain the Empirical Bayes estimators of $b_{it}$, $\tilde{b}_{it}$ ($t=1,\ldots,T$) by solving the posterior score equations of $z_i$ (Heagerty, 1999). The posterior distribution of $z_i$ is proportional to the conditional distribution of the observed data given $z_i$, $[Y_i|z_i]$, times the prior distribution of $z_i$, and $\hat{z}_i$ can be obtained as the mode of log-posterior distribution. This requires equating the first partial derivative of the natural logarithm of the posterior distribution of $z_i$ with respect to $z_i$ to 0 and then solving the score equations for $z_i$. The related score equation is given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:empbay}
\left\{ \sum_{t=1}^{T} \sum_{j=1}^{k} \frac{\hat{\lambda}_j \hat{\sigma}_{t} \phi(\hat{d}_{itj})\left(Y_{itj}-\Phi(\hat{d}_{itj})\right)}{\Phi(\hat{d}_{itj})\left(1-\Phi(\hat{d}_{itj}) \right)} \right\}-z_i=0,\end{aligned}$$
where $\hat{d}_{itj}=\hat{\Delta}_{itj}^{*}+\hat{\lambda}_j \hat{\sigma}_{t} z_i$ and $\hat{\Delta}_{itj}^{*}$ are obtained by using the MLEs of $\boldsymbol \theta_1$ and $\boldsymbol \theta_2$. Since does not permit closed solutions for $z_i$, N-R algorithm is utilized.
Simulation study
================
We conducted a Monte Carlo simulation study to examine the bias and variance of the marginal mean parameters. In each replications, we simulated data sets under PNMTREM(1) which included bivariate binary responses and two associated covariates for 250 subjects with 4 follow-ups. We considered different sets of covariates for baseline and $t \geq 2$ time points. Moreover, we considered varying effects of the covariates for these time points, i.e., $\boldsymbol \beta^* \nequiv \boldsymbol \beta$.
For $t=1$, we considered true parameter settings of $\boldsymbol \beta^*=(\beta_0^*, \beta_1^*) = (-1, 1.9)$, $\boldsymbol \lambda^*=(\lambda_1^*, \lambda_2^*)=(1, 1.07)$ and $b_{i1} \sim N(0,\sigma_1^2)$, $\sigma_1=0.7$. $X_1$ was generated from $Uniform(0,1)$. On the other hand, for $t \geq 2$, we considered parameter settings of $\boldsymbol \beta=(\beta_0, \beta_1, \beta_2) = (-1, 2, 0.2)$, $\boldsymbol \alpha_{t,1}=(\alpha_{21,1}, \alpha_{31,1}, \alpha_{41,1})= (0.5, 0.7, 0.9)$, $\boldsymbol \lambda=(\lambda_1, \lambda_2)=(1, 1.05)$ and $b_{it} \sim N(0,\sigma^2_t)$, $\boldsymbol \sigma=(\sigma_2, \sigma_3, \sigma_4)=(0.66, 0.63, 0.60)$. $X_1$ was assumed to be a time independent variable. $X_2$ was taken as a response indicator variable for which while the first response took 1, the second one took 0. By the inclusion of response indicator as a covariate, we allowed bivariate responses to have different intercepts, i.e., while the intercept was $\beta_0+\beta_2 = -1+0.2 = - 0.8$ for the first response, it was $\beta_0 = -1$ for the second response. Additionally, the effect of $X_1$ was assumed to be shared across the responses, since interaction between $X_1$ and $X_2$ was not included in the model. Moreover, we assumed that the transition parameters were shared across responses, since $\boldsymbol Z_{itj}$ did not include response indicator variables, i.e., $Z_{itj}=[ \ 1 \ ]$.
We replicated the simulation study 200 times. Analysis of one simulated data (the last one) by PNMTREM(1) took 8.9 minutes on a PC with 4.00 GB RAM and 3.00 GHz processor. A simulated data set and the related procedure to analyze them can be found in the user manual of the [**pnmtrem**]{} package.
The simulation results are displayed in Table \[tab:mtrem.sim.res\]. Mean, bias, standard error of the parameter estimates (SE), mean of the standard error of the parameter estimates (meSE) and percentage coverage probabilities of the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CP%) were calculated and reported. The marginal mean parameters of both baseline and $t \geq 2$ models were estimated very well. Put another way, the empirical biases of the parameter estimates were negligible: absolute biases lie between 0.005 (for $\beta_1^*$) and 0.014 (for $\beta_1$). The standard errors of the parameter estimates and the means of the standard error estimates were close to each other, e.g., these quantities were found identical for $\beta_2$ as 0.066. Moreover, the coverage probabilities were close to the nominal level 0.95, which indicate that the true values of the parameters were covered at the expected rate.
Example: Iowa Youth and Families Project data set
=================================================
Data
----
The data set used to illustrate our model came from the Iowa Youth and Families Project (IFYP; Elder and Conger, 2000; Ilk, 2008). This project aimed to investigate the long term effects of the farm crisis, began in 1980’s in America, on the well being of the family members living in the rural parts of the country. 451 families from eight rural parts of north central Iowa were selected. The focus was on 7th graders with two alive and biological parents and a sibling within 4 years of age. The study was started in 1989. Whereas it was conducted yearly until 1992, it was continued at 1994, 1995, 1997 and 1999. At each year, both the parents and the children of the aforementioned 451 families were surveyed. In the beginning of the study, the 7th graders were at average age of 12.7 years and 48% of them were male (Ilk, 2008). Young people were followed during their adolescent period as well by this 11-year follow-up.
The emotional statuses of young people were measured by three main distress variables, anxiety, hostility and depression (Table \[tab:iyfpvar2\]). These variables were collected by a symptom check list, including nervousness, shakiness, an urge to break things and feeling low in energy etc, and dichotomized later according to whether having at least one of the distress symptoms (Ilk, 2008). It was observed that young people were highly distressed. For instance, almost 93% of them reported at least one depression symptom at 1989 (Table \[tab:resp.perc\]). It was also observed that young people tended to report higher depression compared to anxiety and hostility. Moreover the latter distress variables seemed to have close prevalences. A set of explanatory variables, which were thought to be related with these emotional variables, were also collected (Table \[tab:iyfpvar2\]). These variables included gender, degree of negative life event experiences of the young people (such as having a close friend moved away permanently), financial cutbacks (such as moving to a cheaper residence) and negative economical event experiences of their families (such as changing job for a worse one). The main aim of collecting the family information was to measure the indirect effects of the farm crisis on the well-being of young people as well, e.g., due to harsh parenting. Among the explanatory variables, while gender was time-invariant, the others were time-varying.
Transition model in the second level of PNMTREM required the use of equally spaced time points. We considered the first 4-year follow-up of the IYFP study, i.e., years 1989 to 1992, in our analyses, since this was a fully constrained portion of the whole data set (Ilk, 2008). Response and time indicator variables were included as additional explanatory variables, and dummy variables were created for all the categorical covariates (Table \[tab:iyfpvar2\]). We coded the binary explanatory variables as 0 vs. 1 in our initial data analyses. However, an alternative coding, i.e., -1 vs. 1, was used due to convergence problems during model fittings with the initial analyses. The data set is available upon request from the authors.
Relating data with the model
----------------------------
PNMTREM(1) enables us to answer several questions on both the comparison of the sub-groups of young people and/or their families and on some specific young persons. Moreover, it permits drawing different statistical inferences for $t=1989$ and $t \geq 1990$ periods. For instance, we can compare the distress levels of males and females by the first levels of both baseline and $t \geq 2$ models. The inclusion of the interaction between gender and response indicator variables in the design matrices permits response specific comparison of the gender, i.e., comparison of anxiety, hostility and depression levels of males and females separately. We can measure the effect of the past year’s distress status on the current ones by the second level of $t \geq 2$ model. The inclusion of the interaction between lag-1 responses and response indicator variables allows us to have response specific inferences about the transition probabilities. For instance, we can measure the relationship between the anxiety status of young people at 1990 and the ones at 1991. Furthermore, we can draw subject-specific inferences by using the last levels of the models. For instance, we can calculate the probability of being anxious for subject $223$ at year $1992$. Note that this probability is subject, time and response specific.
Results
-------
We specifically built two different PNMTREM(1)’s. While the marginal regression parameters of these models were same, they differed in terms of separating the effects of the distress status histories on the current distress status for multiple responses. Put another way, the first model (Model 1 in Table \[tab:mtrem.iyfp.tgeq2\]) included only ones in the design matrix $\boldsymbol Z_{itj}$, i.e., $Z_{itj}=[ \ 1 \ ]$. On the other hand, the second model (Model 2 in Table \[tab:mtrem.iyfp.tgeq2\]) included response indicator variables in the design matrix $\boldsymbol Z_{itj}$, i.e., $\boldsymbol Z_{itj}=[ \ 1 \ \ resp1 \ \ resp2 \ ]$. Since the baseline models were same for Model 1 and Model 2, we presented only one baseline result in Table \[tab:mtrem.iyfp.baseline\]. Results for $t \geq 2$ models are presented in Table \[tab:mtrem.iyfp.tgeq2\]. In these tables, results of the generalized linear models (GLM) with *probit* link are presented as well. Note that GLM ignored the within and multivariate response dependencies and the related results were actually used to start the Fisher-Scoring (F-S) algorithms.
Since Model 1 and Model 2 are nested models, we can compare them by the likelihood ratio test (LRT). The corresponding maximized log-likelihoods were the summation of the ones for baseline and $t \geq 2$ models: -1236.78 $(=-210.78-1026)$ and -1234.49 $(=-210.78-1023.71)$ for Models 1 and 2, respectively. The LRT statistic for the comparison of these models was 4.58 $(=-2*(-1026-(-1023.71)))$ with a p-value of 0.60 which indicated that there was not enough evidence to conclude that Model 2 explained the IYFP data better compared to Model 1 with 95% confidence level $(\chi^2_{6,0.95}=12.59)$. Therefore, throughout we only considered Model 1 while making interpretations about the parameter estimates.
We checked the existence of possible multicollinearity problems via variance inflation factor (VIF). Results (not shown here) showed that there was no such problem in our models; the largest VIF was 1.17. Here, we also point out that Ilk and Daniels (2007) confirmed the exogeneity of the time-varying covariates in the IFYP data set.
Baseline results (Table \[tab:mtrem.iyfp.baseline\]) indicated that only the intercept, one of the negative life event indicators (NLE2) and one of the response indicators (resp2) were significant at 95% confidence level in 1989. The estimate of intercept ($\hat{\beta}_0^*=1.33$) indicated that young people had high probability of distress at 1989. Additionally, the estimate of the second response indicator variable ($\hat{\beta}_{resp2}^*=0.29$) indicated that young people were more likely to report depression compared to anxiety and hostility. Moreover, the insignificance of the first response indicator variable (p-value=0.99) indicated that there was not enough evidence towards differences in terms of reporting anxiety and hostility. These conclusions were indeed in agreement with our expectations, since the percentages of distress presences were fairly high for each response variables, and these percentages were higher for depression compared to anxiety and hostility (Table \[tab:resp.perc\]). Moreover, it was found that young people who had many negative life events were more likely to be distressed ($\hat{\beta}_{NLE2}^*=0.41$). There was not enough evidence to say that the pairwise correlations between anxiety, hostility and depression were significantly different; corresponding p-values of $\lambda_{hostility}^*$ and $\lambda_{depression}^*$ were 0.91 and 0.96. The standard deviation of the random effects distribution was estimated as 0.66 $(=exp(-0.41))$ with a standard error of 0.27 ($=\sqrt{0.41^{2}*exp(-0.41*2)}$, by the delta method). This parameter was found highly significant with a p-value of 0.007. Of note, the calculation of this p-value was modified by following Molenberghs and Verbeke (2007), since the related hypothesis test introduced the equality of the parameter at its lower boundary. Although the marginal mean results of PNMTREM(1) and probit GLM seemed to be in agreement, the significant difference between the maximized log-likelihoods of these models (-210.78 and -511.98, respectively) indicated that fitting a marginalized random effects model explained the 1989 data better.
For the later time points $(1990-1992)$, intercept, gender, both negative life event indicators (NLE1, NLE2), negative economical events experience (NEE), one of the cutbacks indicators (cut1), one of the response indicators (resp2), one of the time indicators (time2) and the interaction between gender and second response indicator (gender\*resp2) were significant at 95% confidence level (Table \[tab:mtrem.iyfp.tgeq2\]). Similar to the baseline results, the estimate of the intercept indicated that young people had high probability of distress ($\hat{\beta}_{0}=0.96$). However, the distress probabilities tended to be lower than baseline ($\hat{\beta}_{0}^* > \hat{\beta}_{0}$). Females were more likely to be distressed compared to males ($\hat{\beta}_{gender}=0.18$). Moreover, they were more likely to be depressed ($\hat{\beta}_{gender*resp2}=0.07$) compared to them being anxious or hostile. Note that gender was found insignificant at 1989, and this result was supported by Ge et al. (2001, cited in Ilk, 2008) and Ilk (2008). Young people who experienced many negative life events and whose families experienced any negative economical events were found more likely to be distressed ($\hat{\beta}_{NLE1}=0.14$, $\hat{\beta}_{NLE2}=0.38$ and $\hat{\beta}_{NEE}=0.08$). Young people were more likely to be depressed compared to being anxious or hostile ($\hat{\beta}_{resp2}=0.22$). On the other hand, there was no significant difference between being anxious and hostile (p-value of $\beta_{resp1}=0.78$). While the distress levels were lower at 1992 compared to 1990 and 1991 ($\hat{\beta}_{time2}=-0.09$), there was no significant difference between 1990 and 1991 (p-value of $\beta_{resp1}=0.08$). However, the decrease in 1992 was not significantly different with respect to a specific response variable; p-values for ${\beta}_{resp1*time2}$ and ${\beta}_{resp2*time2}$ were found to be 0.92 and 0.25, respectively.
We can also interpret our [*probit*]{} marginal mean parameters as in the case of [*logit*]{} estimates, i.e., in terms of odds-ratios by using the JKB constant. This offers an approximate relationship between the [*probit*]{} and [*logit*]{} estimates, i.e., $\beta_{logit} \cong c*\beta_{probit}$ where $c=(15/16)(\pi/\sqrt{3})=1.700437$. For instance, the influence of the degree of negative life events on the probability of being distressed can be interpreted as follows: young people who experienced many negative life events were approximately 2.26 $(=exp(1.700437*((-1*0.14+ 1*0.38)-(1*0.14-1*0.38))))$ times more likely to be distressed compared to those with some negative life events, and individuals in the latter group were 1.60 $(=exp(1.700437*((1*0.14-1*0.38)-(-1*0.14-1*0.38))))$ times more likely to be distressed compared to those with no negative life events.
The positive (and significant) transition parameter estimates indicated that young people who were distressed at year $t-1$ were more likely to be distressed at year $t$ compared to the ones who were not distressed at year $t-1$, i.e., $\hat{\alpha}_{21,1}=0.76$, $\hat{\alpha}_{31,1}=0.87$, $\hat{\alpha}_{41,1}=0.90$ with p-values $< 1 \times 10^{-10}$. Moreover, these transition parameter estimates were shared across anxiety, hostility and depression. As for the baseline model, there was not enough evidence to say that the pairwise correlations between anxiety, hostility and depression were significantly different; corresponding p-values were 0.94 and 0.68 for hostility and depression, respectively. The estimates of the standard deviations of the random effects distributions were found to be 0.62 $(=exp(-0.48))$, 0.54 $(=exp(-0.62))$ and 0.54 $(=exp(-0.62))$, respectively at 1990, 1991 and 1992. Related standard errors were 0.16, 0.14 and 0.14, respectively, and all of these parameters were found to be highly significant with p-values $<$ 0.0001. These results indicated that the individual variations were decreasing across time (recall that $\hat{\sigma}_1$=0.66) and close to each other at 1991 and 1992. Similar to the baseline results, $t \geq 2$ results indicated that PNMTREM(1) yielded a great improvement compared to GLM, which was apparent from the comparisons of the log-likelihoods, -1026 vs. -1989.23.
Our PNMTREM(1) results for the IYFP data set mostly coincided with the ones reported by Ilk (2008). We observed that Model 1 and Model 2 produced equal or nearly same marginal regression parameter estimates, Z statistics and p-values. This is natural due to the fact that marginalized models are less sensitive to the misspecification of the dependence structures (Heagerty and Kurland, 2001). Moreover, Heagerty (2002) and Lee and Mercante (2010) proved that the parameters of the first and second levels of marginalized transition models (MTM) were orthogonal. Since the first and the second levels of PNMTREM are equivalent to MTM with *probit* links, we expect the same property to hold for PNMTREM as well.
Up to here, we have drawn population-averaged inferences. Besides, we can draw individual-level inferences by using PNMTREM(1). To illustrate, we calculated the success probabilities regarding anxiety, hostility and depression of each person at each year by using the last levels of baseline and $t \geq 2$ models. In addition to these random effects probabilities, we calculated marginal probabilities for comparison purposes. These probabilities are summarized in Figure \[fig:depr.cond.vs.marg\]. Due to page limits, we only included the figures for depression here; others could be found in the supplementary material. In these graphics, the observed values were labeled by 0 and 1 for absence and presence of a distress variable, respectively. Whereas the conditional probabilities ranged almost between the lower and upper probability bounds, the marginal counterparts ranged in a narrower interval. For instance, while the marginal probabilities of being depressed at the period of 1990-1992 took only the values in the interval of (0.576, 0.971), the conditional probabilities ranged between 0.118 and 0.999. This means that even the young people who had actually no depression for that period were assigned more probability of being depressed by the marginal models which would yield wrong decisions. This will be verified by two different accuracy measures at the end of this subsection. On the other hand, the conditional probabilities were spread widely and they yielded higher rates of correct decisions. For instance, in Figure \[fig:depr.cond.vs.marg\], the 0’s (observing no depression for a young person) were associated with lower conditional probabilities. The associated box-plots reflected the location and scale information of these marginal and conditional probabilities as well. For instance, whereas the box-plot of the conditional probabilities reflected a spread distribution and many outlying probabilities, the marginal counterparts reflected a stacked and narrow distribution. Marginal models only rely on how well the covariates explain the variation of the responses and ignore the individual characteristics. Put another way, two young people with same covariates but different unobserved features would have the same probability of being depressed based on the results of marginal models. However, in random effects models these individual features are accounted by the random effects parameters in addition to the covariate effects. The reason that marginal probabilities were stacked in a narrower interval and tended to assign high probabilities to the cases in which distress variables were absent was most probably due to these facts.
We built simple linear regression models considering the probit of the conditional probabilities, $\Phi^{-1}(P^r(Y_{itj}))$, as dependent variables and the probit of the marginal probabilities, $\Phi^{-1}(P^m(Y_{itj}))$, as independent ones to measure how much the variation in the responses were explained by the covariates. R-squares of these models are presented in Table \[tab:rsquared.marg.cond\]. We observed that covariates in the IYFP data did not explain the individual characteristics well, since only up to 33% of the individual variations were explained by the covariates.
Interactive graphics, for instance the ones obtained by GGobi software (Cook and Swayne, 2007), might help to identify interesting people. For instance, we detected a young person with ID=223 who was a female with some negative life event experiences, no negative economical event experiences and cutbacks between 1 and 5 (except in 1992 at which her family did not experience any cutbacks) and who actually never reported any distress at the period of 1989-1992 (Table \[tab:individual.prob\]). For this person, whereas the marginal model (Marginal in Table \[tab:individual.prob\]) indicated high probabilities of being distressed, conditional models (Conditional) indicated low probabilities. This means that the latter is more likely to yield correct inferences and the advantage of it is due to the estimation of individual characteristics. For instance, the Empirical Bayes estimate of $z_{223}$ was found to be $-2.45$. This indicates that this person was less likely to report distress compared to an average person.
$
\begin{array}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=3.4in]{depr_89_black.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=3.4in]{depr_90_92_black.pdf}
\end{array}$
Conditional probabilities can also be calculated by assuming that the person is an average person ($\mbox{Conditional}^*$), i.e., $b_{it}=0$ and $P^r(Y_{itj}=1|\boldsymbol X_{itj},y_{it-1j},b_{it}=0)=\Phi(\Delta_{itj}^*)$. These are still subject/time/response specific probabilities, since $\Delta_{itj}^*$ holds subject/time/response specific information. For instance, whereas at 1992 the probability of having anxiety for the young person with ID=223 was estimated as 0.64 by the marginal model, this probability was calculated as 0.08 by the conditional model. Moreover, the conditional probability assuming that the person was an average person was estimated as 0.46. However, as expected, the latter probabilities were not as successful as the conditional probabilities, yet they seemed to be better than the marginal probabilities.
Longitudinal binary data sets almost surely include subjects who constantly report absence (0) or presence (1) of a binary variable at all time points. For instance, in the IYFP data set, these subjects were the ones who reported absence or presence of anxiety, hostility and/or depression through all the follow-ups. Note that the subject with ID=223 constantly reported the absence of all distress variables. We identified such subjects in the IYFP data set in terms of three distress variables one-by-one and altogether. The counts and related percentages are given in Table \[tab:stayer.table\]. There were considerable amount of subjects who reported the same answer through all study years. For instance, 29.7% of the subjects reported 1 for all the three distress variables at all the time points. We calculated marginal and conditional probabilities for these subjects and summarized these probabilities in spagetti plots. Due to page limits, only the spagetti plot for the anxiety probability of subjects who reported the same answer for all three distress variables was included here (Figure \[fig:depr.stayers.all\]). In this figure, while the gray lines represent the subjects who always reported 1, the black lines represent the ones who always reported 0. It was observed that the predictions were unsuccessful when a marginal model was used. With this model, the probability of distress was estimated high for all the young people who stayed at a single answer. In other words, the model was unable to distinguish the subjects who reported no stress over all years from the ones who reported stress through all follow-ups. On the other hand, our conditional probabilities were very successful at correctly assigning the success probabilities for these subjects; higher probabilities for subjects reporting 1 and lower probabilities for those who reported 0. Other spagetti plots indicated similar inferences (see the supplementary material).
![Spagetti plots of predicted marginal (left panel) and conditional (right panel) anxiety probabilities for subjects who reported the same answer for all distress variables at all time points. While gray lines represent subjects who reported 1, the black lines represent subjects who reported 0.[]{data-label="fig:depr.stayers.all"}](anx_stayer_all_resp_bg.pdf){width="5.6in" height="2.6in"}
Finally, we considered two different accuracy measures to summarize the predicted probabilities. These measures are expected proportion of correct prediction (Herron, 1999) and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC). Results (not shown here) showed that the inferences drawn from conditional models outperformed the ones drawn from the marginal models. This difference was apparent especially in terms of AUROC. For instance, while the value of the AUROC value for response=depression at 1990-1992 was found to be 0.684 for marginal models, this value was found to be 0.864 for the conditional models.
Discussion and conclusion
=========================
In this paper, we proposed a marginalized model for multivariate longitudinal binary data. The use of MLE and [*probit*]{} link facilitated the computations over BM and [*logit*]{} link. We proposed the use of implicit function theorem to solve the marginal constraint equations directly. To the best of our knowledge, this application was proposed for the first time here in marginalized structured models. An R package [**pnmtrem**]{} was proposed to fit PNTREM(1), which was tested under different conditions with small studies. For the details and usage of the related function and examples, we refer the researchers to the package manual. The estimation of random effect coefficients within this package also allowed subject specific comparisons. We illustrated our model on the IYFP data set and discussed related parameter interpretations as well as subject specific inferences through the predicted probabilities.
A natural extension of our work here would be fitting higher order PNMTREM, PNMTEM(p) with $p > 1$. The variances of random effects could be modified by a subset of covariates, i.e., $\mbox{log}(\sigma_t)=\boldsymbol M_{itj} \ \boldsymbol \omega_{t}$ where $\boldsymbol M_{itj}$ is a possible subset of covariates and $\boldsymbol \omega_t$ are the related parameters. Also, the random effects might be assumed to have a multivariate normal distribution, i.e., $b_{it} \sim N(0, \boldsymbol D)$ where $\boldsymbol D$ is a $T \times T$ matrix. However, all of these possible extensions require intensive new derivations and implementations; hence, they are left as future work.\
\
\
** Appendices**\
**A. Linking second and third levels of PNMTREM(1)**\
While linking second and third levels of the PNMTREM(1), we claim the following
$\int \Phi(\Delta_{itj}^*+\lambda_j b_{it}) f(b_{it}) db_{it}=\Phi \left(\frac {\Delta_{itj}^*} {\sqrt{1+\lambda_j^{2}\sigma_t^{2}}} \right)$
where $b_{it} \sim N(0,\sigma_{t}^2)$ and $b_{it}=z_i \sigma_t$, $z_i \sim N(0,1)$.\
The related proof, which is modified from Griswold (2005), is given below.\
Let $W_i \bot z_i$, where $W_i \sim N(0,1)$, then,
$W_i/(\lambda_j \sigma_t) \sim N (0,(\lambda_j \sigma_t)^{-2})$\
$W_i/(\lambda_j \sigma_t)-z_i \sim N (0,1+(\lambda_j \sigma_t)^{-2})$\
$\frac {W_i/(\lambda_j \sigma_t)-z_i} {\sqrt{1+(\lambda_j \sigma_t)^{-2}}} \sim N(0,1) $
and
$$\begin{aligned}
\int \Phi(\Delta_{itj}^*+\lambda_j b_{it}) f(b_{it}) db_{it} &=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \Phi(\Delta_{itj}^*+\lambda_j z_i \sigma_t) \phi(z_i) dz_i\\
&= \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} P(W_i \leq \Delta_{itj}^*+\lambda_j z_i \sigma_t) \phi(z_i) dz_i \\
&= \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} P\left(\frac {W_i/(\lambda_j \sigma_t)-z_i} {\sqrt{1+(\lambda_j \sigma_t)^{-2}}} \leq \frac{\Delta_{itj}^*/ (\lambda_j \sigma_t)} {\sqrt{1+(\lambda_j \sigma_t)^{-2}}}\right) \phi(z_i) dz_i \\
&= P\left(\frac {W_i/(\lambda_j \sigma_t)-z_i} {\sqrt{1+(\lambda_j \sigma_t)^{-2}}} \leq \frac{\Delta_{itj}^*/ (\lambda_j \sigma_t)} {\sqrt{1+(\lambda_j \sigma_t)^{-2}}}\right)
= \Phi \left(\frac {\Delta_{itj}^*} {\sqrt{1+(\lambda_j \sigma_t)^{2}}} \right)\end{aligned}$$
**B. Details of first partial derivatives**\
**B.1 Baseline model**\
The derivatives of $d_{i1jq}$ with respect to $\boldsymbol \theta_1=(\boldsymbol \beta^*, \boldsymbol \lambda^*, c_1)$ with $\boldsymbol \lambda^*=(\lambda_2^*, \ldots, \lambda_k^*)$ are given below.
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial d_{i1jq}}{\partial \boldsymbol \beta^*}&=\sqrt{1+{\lambda_j^*}^2e^{2c_1}} (\boldsymbol X_{i1j}) \nonumber \\
\frac{\partial d_{i1jq}}{\partial \lambda_j^*}&=({1+{\lambda_j^*}^2e^{2c_1}})^{-1/2} \lambda_j^* e^{2c_1} (\boldsymbol X_{i1j} \boldsymbol \beta^*) + e^{c_1} \sqrt{2} z_q \nonumber \\
\frac{\partial d_{i1jq}}{\partial c_1}&=({1+{\lambda_j^*}^2e^{2c_1}})^{-1/2} {\lambda_j^*}^2 e^{2c_1} (\boldsymbol X_{i1j} \boldsymbol \beta^*) + \lambda^*_j e^{c_1} \sqrt{2} z_q\end{aligned}$$
**B.2 $t \geq 2$ model**\
The derivatives of $d_{itjq}$ with respect to $\boldsymbol \theta_2=(\boldsymbol \beta, \boldsymbol \alpha_{t,1}, \boldsymbol \lambda, \boldsymbol c)$ with $\boldsymbol \lambda= (\lambda_2, \ldots, \lambda_k)$ and $\boldsymbol c= (c_2, \ldots, c_T)$ are given below. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:parderivtgeq2}
\frac{\partial d_{itjq}}{\partial \boldsymbol \beta}&=\sqrt{1+{\lambda_j}^2e^{2c_t}} (\boldsymbol A_{itj}) \nonumber\\
\frac{\partial d_{itjq}}{\partial \boldsymbol \alpha_{t,1}}&=\sqrt{1+{\lambda_j}^2e^{2c_t}} (\boldsymbol B_{itj}+\boldsymbol Z_{itj}y_{it-1j}) \nonumber\\
\frac{\partial d_{itjq}}{\partial \lambda_j}&=({1+{\lambda_j}^2e^{2c_t}})^{-1/2} \lambda_j e^{2c_t} \left(-(\boldsymbol A_{itj}\boldsymbol \beta_0+\boldsymbol B_{itj} \boldsymbol \alpha_{t,10})+\boldsymbol A_{itj} \boldsymbol \beta+ \boldsymbol \alpha_{t,1}(\boldsymbol B_{itj}+\boldsymbol Z_{itj}y_{it-1j})\right) + e^{c_t} \sqrt{2} z_q\nonumber\\
\frac{\partial d_{itjq}}{\partial c_t}&=({1+{\lambda_j}^2e^{2c_t}})^{-1/2} {\lambda_j}^2 e^{2c_t} \left(-(\boldsymbol A_{itj} \boldsymbol \beta_0+ \boldsymbol B_{itj} \boldsymbol \alpha_{t,10})+\boldsymbol A_{itj} \boldsymbol \beta+\boldsymbol \alpha_{t,1}(\boldsymbol B_{itj}+\boldsymbol Z_{itj}y_{it-1j})\right) + \lambda_j e^{c_t} \sqrt{2} z_q\end{aligned}$$
where $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol A_{itj}=- \frac{\frac{\partial F}{\partial \boldsymbol \beta} \Big |_{(\boldsymbol \beta_0, \boldsymbol \alpha_{t,10},\Delta_{itj0})}} {\frac{\partial F}{\partial \Delta_{itj}} \Big |_{(\boldsymbol \beta_0,\boldsymbol \alpha_{t,10},\Delta_{itj0})}},
\; \; \boldsymbol B_{itj}=-\frac{\frac{\partial F}{\partial \boldsymbol \alpha_{t,1}} \Big |_{(\boldsymbol \beta_0,\boldsymbol \alpha_{t,10},\Delta_{itj0})}} {\frac{\partial F}{\partial \Delta_{itj}} \Big |_{(\boldsymbol \beta_0,\boldsymbol \alpha_{t,10},\Delta_{itj0})}}\end{aligned}$$
[1]{}
Abramowitz, K. M. and Stegun, I. A. (1972) [*Handbook of mathematical functions*]{}. New York: Dover Publications.
Agresti, A. (2002) [*Categorical data analysis*]{}, 2nd edition. New Jersey: John Wiley $\&$ Sons.
Asar, Ö. (2012). [*On multivariate longitudinal binary data models and their applications in forecasting*]{}. M.S. Thesis, Middle East Technical University.
Asar, Ö. and Ilk, Ö. (2013) mmm: an R package for analyzing multivariate longitudinal data with multivariate marginal models. [*Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine*]{}, [**112**]{}, 649–654.
Ashford, J. and Sowden, R. (1970) Multivariate probit analysis. [*Biometrics*]{}, [**26(3)**]{}, 535–546.
Caffo, B. and Griswold, M. (2006) User-friendly introduction to link-probit-normal models. [*American Statistician*]{}, [**60 (2)**]{}, 139–145.
Cook, D. and Swayne, D. F. (2007) [*Interactive and dynamic graphics for data analysis with R and GGobi*]{}. New York: Springer - Verlag.
Diggle, P. J., Heagerty, P., Liang, K. -Y. and Zeger, S. L. (2002) [*Analysis of longitudinal data*]{}, 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Doksum, K. A. and Gasko, M. (1990) On a correspondence between models in binary regression analysis and in survival analysis. [*International Statistical Review*]{}, [**58**]{}, 243–252.
Efron, B. (1986) Why isn’t everyone a Bayesian? [*The American Statistician*]{}, [**40(1)**]{}, 1–5.
Elder, G. H. and Conger, R. (2000) [*Children of the land*]{}. The University of Chicago Press.
Gardiner, J. C., Luo, Z. and Roman, L. A. (2009) Fixed effects, random effects and GEE: what are the differences?. [*Statistics in Medicine*]{}, [**28**]{}, 221–239.
Ge, X., Conger, R. D. and Elder, G. H. (2001) Pubertal transition, stressful life events, and the emergence of gender differences in adolescent depressive symptoms. [*Developmental Psychology*]{}, [**37(3)**]{}, 404–417.
Griswold, M. (2005) [*Complex distributions, hmmmm... hierarchical mixtures of marginalized multilevel models*]{}. Ph.D. Thesis, Johns Hopkins University.
Heagerty, J. P. (1999) Marginally specified logistic-normal models for longitudinal binary data. [*Biometrics*]{}, [**45(3)**]{}, 688–698.
Heagerty, P. and Zeger, S. L. (2000) Marginalized multilevel models and likelihood inference (with comments and a rejoinder by the authors). [Statistical Science]{}, [**15(1)**]{}, 1–26.
Heagerty, J. P. and Kurland, B. F. (2001) Misspecified maximum likelihood estimates and generalised linear mixed models. [*Biometrika*]{}, [**88(4)**]{}, 973–985.
Heagerty, J. P. (2002) Marginalized transition models and likelihood inference for longitudinal categorical data. [*Biometrics*]{}, [**58**]{}, 342–351.
Hedeker, D. and Gibbons, R. D. (2006) [*Longitudinal data analysis*]{}. New Jersey: John Wiley $\&$ Sons.
Herron, M. (1999) Postestimation uncertainty in limited dependent variable models. [*Political Analysis*]{}, [**8**]{}, 83–98.
Hutmacher, M. M. and French, J. L. (2011) Extending the latent variable model for extra correlated longitudinal dichotomous responses. [*Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics*]{}, [**38**]{}, 833–859.
Iddi, S. and Molenberghs, G. (2012) A combined overdispersed and marginalized multilevel model. [*Computational Statistics and Data Analysis*]{}, [**56**]{}, 1944–151.
Ilk, Ö. and Daniels, M. J. (2007) Marginalized transition random effects models for multivariate longitudinal binary data. [*The Canadian Journal of Statistics*]{}, [**35**]{}, 105–123.
Ilk, Ö. (2008) [*Multivariate longitudinal data analysis: models for binary response and exploratory tools for binary and continuous response*]{}. Saarbr[ü]{}cken: Verlag Dr. M[ü]{}ller (VDM).
Johnson, N. L., Kotz, S. and Balakrishnan, N. (1995) [*Continuous univariate distributions, volume 2*]{}, 2nd edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Krantz, S. G. and Parks, H. R. (2003) [*The implicit function theorem: history, theory and applications*]{}. Boston: Birkh$\ddot{a}$user.
Lee, K. and Daniels, M. J. (2007) Marginalized models for longitudinal ordinal data with application to quality of life studies. [*Statistics in Medicine*]{}, [**27**]{} 4359–4380.
Lee, K., Joo, Y., Yoo, J. K. and Lee, J. (2009) Marginalized random effects models for multivariate longitudinal binary data. [*Statistics in Medicine*]{}, [**28**]{}, 1284–1300.
Lee K and Mercante D (2010) Longitudinal nominal data analysis using marginalized models. [*Computational Statistics and Data Analysis*]{}, [**54**]{}, 208–218.
Lee, K., Joo, Y., Song, J. J. and Harper, D. W. (2011) Analysis of zero-inflated clustered count data: a marginalized model approach. [*Computational Statistics and Data Analysis*]{}, [**55**]{}, 824–837.
Lee, K., Daniels, M. J. and Joo, Y. (2013) Flexible marginalized models for bivariate longitudinal ordinal data. [*Biostatistics*]{}, [**14(3)**]{}, 462–476.
Lesaffre, E. and Spiessens, B. (2001) On the effect of the number of quadrature points in a logistic random-effects model: an example. [*Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series C, Applied Statistics*]{}, [**50(3)**]{}, 325–335.
Liang, K. -Y. and Zeger, S. L. (1986) Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. [*Biometrika*]{}, [**73(1)**]{}, 13–22.
Liu, L. C. and Hedeker D (2006) A mixed-effects regression model for longitudinal multivariate ordinal data. [*Biometrics*]{}, [**62**]{}, 261–268.
McCulloch, C. E., Searle, S. R. and Neuhaus, J. M. (2008) [*Generalized, linear, and mixed models*]{}, 2nd edition. New Jersey: John Wiley $\&$ Sons.
Molenberghs, G. and Verbeke, G. (2007) Likelihood ratio, score, and wald tests in a constrained parameter space. [*The American Statistician*]{}, [**61(1)**]{}, 22–27.
Pepe, M. S. and Anderson, G. L. (1994) A cautionary note on inference for marginal regression models with longitudinal data and general correlated response data. [*Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation*]{}, [**23(4)**]{}, 939–951.
R Core Development Team (2012) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org/.
Schildcrout, J. S. and Heagerty, P. (2007) Marginalized models for moderate to long series of longitudinal binary response data. [*Biometrics*]{}, [**63**]{}, 322–331.
Shelton, B. J., Gilbert, G. H., Liu, B. and Fisher, M. (2004) A SAS macro for the analysis of multivariate longitudinal binary outcomes. [*Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine*]{}, [**76**]{}, 163–175.
Varin, C. and Czado, C. (2010) A mixed autoregressive probit model for ordinal longitudinal data. [*Biostatistics*]{}, [**11(1)**]{}, 127–138.
[^1]: Corresponding author: Özgür Asar, E-mail address: [email protected], Tel.: +44 (0) 1524 593519.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Einstein’s General Relativity predicts that pressure, in general stresses, play a similar role to energy density, $\epsilon=\rho c^2$ (with $\rho$ being corresponding mass density), in generating gravity. The source of gravitational field, the active gravitational mass density, sometimes referred to as Whittaker’s mass density, is $\rho_{grav}=\rho+3p/c^2$, where $p$ is pressure in the case of an ideal fluid. Whittaker’s mass is not conserved, hence its changes can propagate as monopole gravitational waves. Such waves can be generated only by astrophysical sources with varying gravitational mass. Here we show that relativistic fireballs, considered in modelling gamma-ray burst phenomena, are likely to radiate monopole gravitational waves from high-pressure plasma with varying Whittaker’s mass. Also, ejection of a significant amount of initial mass-energy of the progenitor contributes to the monopole gravitational radiation. We identify monopole waves with $h^{11}+h^{22}$ waves of Eddington’s classification which propagate (in the z-direction) together with the energy carried by massless fields. We show that the monopole waves satisfy Einstein’s equations, with a common stress-energy tensor for massless fields. The polarization mode of monopole waves is $\Phi_{22}$, i.e. these are perpendicular waves which induce changes of the radius of a circle of test particles only (breathing mode). The astrophysical importance of monopole gravitational waves is discussed.'
date: 'Accepted 2003 July 24. Received 2003 July 17; in original form 2003 Janurary 12'
title: 'Monopole gravitational waves from relativistic fireballs driving gamma-ray bursts'
---
\[firstpage\]
gravitational waves – gamma-rays: bursts
Introduction
============
The coupling of pressure (stresses) to gravity follows from Einstein’s field equation, $R_{\mu \nu}-g_{\mu \nu}R/2=8 \pi G T_{\mu \nu}/c^4$, where the left-hand side (the Ricci tensor, $R_{\mu \nu}$, the metric tensor, $g_{\mu \nu}$, and the curvature scalar, $R$) describes the geometry of space-time, and the right-hand side describes the energy density and stresses of the matter distribution in terms of the energy momentum tensor. For an ideal fluid, the latter is diagonal in the rest frame of the fluid, $T_{\mu \nu}=diag(\rho c^2,
p,p,p)$. Whittaker (1935) has shown that the source of gravitational field is $\rho_{grav}=\rho+\Sigma_i T^{ii}/c^2$, where the latter term is $3p/c^2$ for an ideal fluid. Under local conditions in the Solar system, mass density always dominates, $\rho>> p/c^2$, and the pressure effects are not noticed. The gravitational role of pressure is perhaps the greatest in cosmology (Peebles 1993), where the evolution of the scalefactor of the Universe, $a(t)$, is governed by Whittaker’s mass density, $3{\ddot a}/a= -4\pi G(\rho + 3p/c^2)$. In cosmology, pressure and energy density are comparable, and sometimes it is pressure that dominates, as is believed to happen presently in our Universe (albeit with negative pressure)(Garnavich et al. 1998). Tolman (1934) in his classic book pointed out that the gravitational attraction of the photon gas is twice as big as the gravity of matter of the same total energy density. This conclusion follows from Whittaker’s formula for the photon gas with pressure $p=\rho c^2/3$.
Pressure as a source of gravity of relativistic fireballs
=========================================================
The high-pressure regime of General Relativity has not been considered thoroughly yet (Carlip 1998). Here we study the gravitational role of pressure for astrophysical objects with weak gravitational field. In order for pressure to play any noticeable role, the system under consideration should obey a relativistic equation of state, i.e. the pressure should be comparable to the energy density, as e.g. for the photon gas. In such a case, all diagonal components of the stress-energy tensor are of the same order, $T_{00}\approx3T_{11} \approx 3T_{22} \approx
3T_{33}$. The most promising astrophysical system in this regard seems to be a high-temperature thermal pair plasma, $e^+,e^-,\gamma$, invoked in models of gamma-ray bursts (Paczyński 1986, Goodman 1986). However, the relativistic equation of state is only a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for pressure to contribute to Whittaker’s active gravitational mass density. In massive stars, very hot pair plasma comprises the inner core but its presence is not expected to affect the gravitational mass. This is because stars are in hydrostatic equilibrium and the pressure gradient is exactly balanced by gravitational forces. The virial theorem ensures that the integral of the sum of pressure and gravitational stresses vanishes, $\int(3p+\Sigma_i T^{ii}_{grav})dV=0$, as the gravitational stress contribution is $\int \Sigma_i T^{ii}_{grav}dV=E_{grav} $ and $3\int pdV=
-E_{grav}$. As the net contribution of stresses vanishes, the active gravitational mass is the total energy divided by $c^2$, in spite of very high pressure in stars. As shown by Landau & Lifshitz (1975), the virial theorem is fulfilled also in a more general situation, namely for any system executing bounded motion. From conservation of the stress-energy tensor, which in the weak-field limit of General Relativity reads, $\partial_{\mu} T^{\mu \nu} = 0 $, it follows that $ \int \partial_0
T^{0i}dV=-\int \partial_k T^{ki}dV=-\oint T^{ki} d\sigma_k =0$ as the last surface integral vanishes by virtue of the finite extent of the system. Multiplying the conservation equation by $x_k$ and integrating over the volume we find, after time-averaging, $\int \Sigma_i(T^{ii}_s+ T^{ii}_b )dV=0$, where $T^{ii}_s$ and $T^{ii}_b$ are, respectively, diagonal stresses due to all particles (including radiation) in the system and due to “walls” constraining their motion.
This somewhat abstract discussion shows that gravitational effects of pressure could show up only for systems not obeying the virial theorem. Physically, one should consider non-stationary systems with unbalanced stresses, such as e.g. relativistic pair-plasma fireballs. In recent years, astrophysicists studied such fireballs intensively, such as in models of gamma-ray bursts (Kobayashi, Piran & Sari 1999). We consider here fireballs of spherical symmetry. Promising models of gamma-ray bursts assume as the initial process the quick deposition of a huge amount of electromagnetic energy in a small volume in the form of thermal pair plasma. The fireball is also loaded with some amount of baryons. High temperature plasma forms a fluid as it is opaque to photons as a result of Thomson scattering off electrons and positrons. The fireball starts to expand slowly at $t=0$ and then accelerates, expanding at a still higher rate. Meanwhile the temperature of the plasma drops and accelerated expansion ceases when the temperature is low enough for the $e^+,
e^-$ pairs to annihilate. According to the estimate given by Goodman (1986), plasma becomes transparent to photons at $t=t_t$ when the termal energy is $k_B T/m_ec^2 \approx 0.03-0.05$. The pressure drops very fast and vanishes when the photons can freely escape.
For fireballs modelling gamma-ray bursts, some baryon load is required. The acceleration time, $t_z$, depends on the initial energy per baryon, referred to as the random Lorentz factor of baryons in the fireball, $\eta$ (Kobayashi et al. 1999), $t_z=\eta
R_0/c$. At time $t_z$ the fireball enters a coasting phase. For baryon-deficient fireballs, $\eta>>1$ and $t_z \approx t_t$. Further expansion and interactions with the interstellar medium, while crucial for producing the observed gamma rays, will not concern us here. The gravitational pressure effects occur in the early acceleration phase.
In the following we discuss for simplicity baryon-free (i.e. pure radiation) fireballs, as the presence of baryons does not affect our conclusions, and we disregard any surrouding medium, assuming fireballs to be in empty space. Assuming the initial fireball state to be a uniform plasma at rest with initial energy density $T_{00} = \rho_{in} c^2$, the initial pressure is $p_{in}=\rho_{in} c^2/3=T_{ii}, i=1,2,3 $. The active gravitating mass of the fireball at $t=0$ is thus $M_{grav}(0)=V_{in}(\rho_{in}+3p_{in}/c^2)=M_{\gamma}+M_p \approx
2M_{\gamma}$, where $M_{\gamma}=V_{in}\rho_{in}$ and $M_p \approx
V_{in}\rho_{in}$ are, respectively, the mass of plasma in the fireball of initial volume $V_{in}$, and the pressure contribution to the gravitational mass.
The gain of a significant amount of active gravitational mass during the formation period is a direct consequence of Whittaker’s formula. It is the pressure-generated contribution that grows rapidly and eventually levels off. The other contribution to the gravitational mass is provided by the total energy of the fireball, which, as a conserved quantity, remains unchanged. Before the formation of the fireball this energy is included in the progenitor mass. Hence the gravitational mass of the fireball, composed equally of energy density and pressure contributions, is not a conserved quantity. This has profound consequences as it implies emission of monopole gravitational waves. We parametrize the changing pressure contribution to Whittaker’s mass as $M_p =M_{\gamma}F_p(t)$, where the function $F_p(t)\ge 0$ reflects the time evolution of diagonal components of the stress-energy tensor of the fireball.
Monopole gravitational waves resulting from an electromagnetic energy burst
===========================================================================
The effects of non-conservation of pressure-generated gravitational mass, $M_p$, are accompanied by gravitational effects of the mass-energy ejection of the fireball resulting from vigorous expansion. At the end of the acceleration period the fireball in the observer’s frame forms a thin spherical shell of pure radiation expanding with the velocity of light $c$. The thickness of the shell is about the initial radius of the fireball, $R_0$ (Kobayashi et al. 1999). For an observer at a distance $r$ from the centre of the fireball, the total energy inside the sphere of radius $r$ changes when the radiation debris leaves the sphere. This change of gravitational mass propagates as a spherical wave. We denote the mass of the progenitor of the fireball by $M_0$. The energy of the shell is $E_{shell}=M_{\gamma}c^2$ and this energy flows out of the sphere of radius $r$ in time $\Delta t=R_0/c$. We can parametrize the change of mass-energy in the sphere of radius $r$ as a function of time in the form $\Delta M=M_{\gamma}F_m(t-r/c)$, since the shell is a pure electromagnetic impulse. The change of mass is $\Delta M=0$ for $t-r/c<-\Delta t$, and $\Delta M=-M_{\gamma}$ for $t-r/c>\Delta t$, and thus we have $F_m(\tau)=0$ for $\tau<-\Delta t$, and $F_m(\tau)=-1$ for $\tau>\Delta t$. Since the passage time,$\Delta t$, is of the order of 1 s, we can approximate $F_m(\tau) \approx -\Theta(\tau)$, where $\Theta(\tau)=1$ for $\tau>0$ and zero otherwise. Let us note that $F_m(\tau) \le 0$.
The gravitational field at a distance $r$ from the centre of the progenitor star is given by the Schwarzschild metric in the weak-field limit, $ds^2=(-1+2GM_0/rc^2)dt^2+(1+2GM_0/rc^2)dr^2+r^2d\Omega^2$. Birkhoff’s theorem ensures that, until time $t=r/c-\Delta t$, the metric at distance $r$ remains still the same Schwarzschild metric. When the expanding shell passes the observer at $r$, at time $t=r/c+\Delta t$, the metric changes, as now the mass remaining in a sphere of radius $r$ is $M_r=M_0-M_{\gamma}$. We can write the metric in the form $$ds^2=(-1+{2GM_0 \over rc^2}+\gamma^{00})dt^2
+(1+{2GM_0 \over \/
rc^2}+\gamma^{ii})dr^2+r^2d\Omega^2,$$ where $$\gamma^{00} =\gamma^{ii}=-{2GM_{\gamma} \over c^2} {1 \over r}$$ are corrections due to the loss of mass. We are forced to conclude that around the time $t=r/c$ a perturbation of the metric has passed by the observer at $r$ which somewhat “ironed out” the space-time ($M_r<M_0$). We assume that $2GM_0/rc^2 <<1$ is a small perturbation of the Minkowski metric in order to obtain the form of the wave analytically, as in the linear approximation gravitational fields can be added to one another. However, the above argument based on Birkhoff’s theorem is valid for a general Schwarzschild metric. We can express the propagating metric perturbation in a simple form, $h_m^{\mu \nu}(r,t)=\delta^{\mu \nu}(2GM_{\gamma}/c^2)F_m(t-r/c)/r$. Here the diagonal components $h_m^{\mu \mu}$ are such that, for $t>r/c+\Delta t$, $h_m^{\mu \mu}(r,t)=\gamma^{\mu \mu}(r)$ from the metric (1). The perturbation $h_m^{\mu \nu}(r,t)$ is a spherical wave. Using isotropic coordinates and introducing new fields ${\bar h}_m^{\mu \nu}= h_m^{\mu \nu}-1/2 \eta^{\mu \nu}h_{\alpha}^{\alpha}$, we find the diagonal components to be $${\bar h}_m^{\mu \nu}(r,t)=\delta^{\mu 0}\delta^{\nu 0} {4GM_{\gamma} \over
c^2} {F_m(t-r/c) \over r}.$$ The only non-zero diagonal field is ${\bar h}_m^{00}(r,t)$. It corresponds to a monopole wave resulting from sperically-symmetric ejection of a part of the mass-energy of a gravitating body in the form of an electromagnetic burst.
Monopole gravitational waves from changing Whittaker’s mass
===========================================================
The shell of ejected mass-energy will be preceded by the monopole wave resulting from the change of Whittaker’s mass in the formation phase of the fireball. The models of gamma-ray bursts do not specify the nature of the engine that energizes the fireball. It could be collapse of the core of a massive star to a Kerr black hole, with the initial fireball energy extracted from the rotational energy of the black hole by magnetic fields (Mac Fadyen & Woosley 1999). In any case, the engine is a massive object with mass, $M_{bh}$, of a few solar masses, which after formation of the fireball is assumed not to change. For actual estimates we use fireball parameters from Kobayashi et al. (1999). The initial size of the fireball is $R_0=300000$ km (about one light-second). Suppose that the total fireball energy deposited in this volume corresponds to 1/10 of a solar mass, $M_{\gamma}=0.1 M_{\odot}$. The mean mass density is $\rho=1.8$ g/cm$^3$. This is a rather low mass density and certainly the gravity of the fireball is weak. The total gravitational mass of the fireball progenitor, including the mass of the engine, is thus $M_0=M_{bh}+M_{\gamma}$, which is the active gravitational mass before the formation of the fireball. At $t=0$, when the fireball is formed, the initial pressure contribution to the gravitational mass becomes comparable to the fireball mass, $M_{\gamma}$, for baryon-free fireballs. It is difficult to assess how closely this value is approached, as it depends on the formation process. However, if the formation process of the pair plasma is rapid enough for a sufficiently high density of $e^+, e^-$ charges to be produced in the whole initial volume, the photons are trapped and initially the bulk of the plasma is essentially at rest, except of the surface layer of thickness of the order of the photon mean free path. The active gravitational mass of such a fireball at rest, from Whittaker’s formula, is about $2M_{\gamma}$. Thus the gravitational mass of the host star and the fireball grows to $M_{grav}(0)=M_0+M_{\gamma} = M_{bh}+2M_{\gamma}$ on a formation time-scale. The pressure contribution reaches the maximum value at the formation, and remains later at the same level, even after the fireball ceases to accelerate at $t=t_z$. To see this let us remember that the pressure-generated mass is, for expanding fireball, given by an integral of the sum of diagonal stresses, $$M_p= {1 \over c^2} \int\Sigma_iT^{ii}
dV=\int[(\rho+{p \over c^2})\gamma^2 {v^2 \over c^2}+{3p \over c^2}]dV,$$ where $v$ and $\gamma=1/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$ are, respectively, the radial expansion velocity and the Lorentz factor of the expanding fluid element. At $t=0, v=0$ and $M_p=M_{\gamma}$. At the end of the acceleration phase, $t=t_z$, pressure vanishes, $p=0$, and $M_p(t_z)=\int\rho \gamma^2v^2/c^2 dV
\approx \int \rho \gamma^2 dV=\int T^{00}dV/c^2=M_{\gamma}$.
Whittaker’s mass varies as $M_{grav}(t)=M_0+F_p(t)M_{\gamma}$, where the function $F_p(t)$ is introduced to describe the evolution of the active gravitational mass of the system. By definition, $F_p(t)=0$ for $t<0$ as the gravitational mass is then $M_0$. Near $t=0$ the function steeply grows to its maximum, $F_p(0)=1$. Model fireball calculations (Kobayashi et al. 1999, Goodman 1986) set as their initial conditions a step-like behaviour of the function $F_p(t)$ at $t=0$. In reality, there will be some formation time of the fireball, corresponding to steep but continuous growth of $F_p(t)$. This changing Whittaker’s mass generates gravitational waves, which can be calculated from the field equation $\partial_{\sigma}\partial^{\sigma} {\bar
h}^{\mu \nu}_p=-16\pi G T^{\mu \nu}/c^4$ (Wald 1984). For a spherical monopole wave one can easily obtain the solution. A general form of such a gravitational wave is $${\bar h^{\mu \nu}}_p=A^{\mu \nu} {f_p(t-r/c) \over r}.$$
The spherical monopole wave (5) that satisfies the wave equation in an empty space, $T^{\mu \nu}=0$, far from the source, is also a solution of the nonuniform wave equation $$A^{\mu \nu}\partial_{\sigma}\partial^{\sigma}{f_p(t-r/c) \over
r}=T^{\mu \nu}({\bf r},t),$$ with the source $$T^{\mu \nu}({\bf r},t) = B^{\mu \nu}M_{\gamma}c^2F_p(t)\delta^{(3)}({\bf r}),$$ located at $r=0$, where $B^{00}=0$, $B^{\mu \nu}=0$ for $\mu \ne \nu$, and $B^{ii}=1/3$. We can identify the source function, $F_p(t)$, with the function describing the time evolution of the active gravitational mass of the fireball. Any change of the active gravitational mass propagates with the velocity of light, $c$, and hence the function $F_p(t)$ generates a spherical wave $f_p(t-r/c)/r$. In equation (6) the fireball is approximated by a point-like source with time-depended gravitational mass. We define it to be the mass within a few initial radii of the fireball $R \sim R_0$. The source of gravitational radiation switches off, $F_p=0$, when the sum of diagonal stresses vanishes there, $\Sigma_iT^{ii}=0$. This happens when the radiation debris leave the sphere of radius $R$. We estimate the duration of the source activity to be $T \sim t_f+t_a+R_0/c$, where $t_f$ is the formation time and $t_a$ is the acceleration time for plasma to acquire relativistic velocities (we neglect any time-dilation effects due to motion of the fireball progenitor). After all debris from the fireball leaves the sphere $R$, the metric becomes that of the remnant of the star with gravitational mass $M_{grav}=M_{bh}$, corresponding to $F_m=-1$. The duration of the gravitational impulse is of the order of $\Delta t$, $T \sim R_0/c$. For $R_0$ used above, $\Delta t=1 s$.
The solution of the wave equation (6) for a point-like source is found to be $f_p(t-r/c)=F_p(t-r/c)$. Since the total energy is conserved, there is no time-dependent contribution to the $\mu=\nu=0$ component of the perturbation, ${\bar h}_p^{00}=0$. The space components are $${\bar h}_p^{ij}(r,t)={1 \over 3}{4GM_{\gamma} \over c^2}{\delta^{ij} \over r}
F_p(t-r/c), i,j=1,2,3,$$ and the trace is ${\bar h}_{p \alpha}^{\alpha}=
(4GM_{\gamma}/c^2)F_p(t-r/c)/r$. The perturbation of the Schwarzschild metric due to changing pressure contribution to Whittaker’s mass, $h_p^{\mu \nu}(r,t)$, is a spherical wave, $$h_p^{00}(r,t)={2GM_{\gamma} \over c^2} {F_p(t-r/c) \over r},$$ $$h_p^{ii}(r,t)=-{1 \over 3}{2GM_{\gamma} \over c^2} {F_p(t-r/c) \over r},
i=1,2,3.$$ The total gravitational impulse is described by both pressure-generated and mass-loss components, and the resulting perturbation of the metric (1) is $\gamma^{\mu \nu}= h_p^{\mu
\nu}(r,t)+h_m^{\mu \nu}(r,t)$. Let us remark, that the wave (3) obtained purely on physical grounds, is a solution of the wave equation (6) with the source function $T^{\mu \nu}({\bf r},t) = \delta^{\mu 0}\delta^{\nu
0}M_{\gamma}c^2F_m(t)\delta^{(3)}({\bf r})$.
We wish to emphasize that non-conservation of Whittaker’s active gravitational mass does not violate any conservation law. Energy and momentum are strictly conserved, as the divergence of the stress-energy tensor vanishes, $\partial_{\mu} T^{\mu \nu}=0$, but stresses, such as kinetic energy and pressure, are not conserved separately. In contrast, the ejection of matter, which gives rise to $h_m^{\mu \nu}(r,t)$, conserves the energy: the gravitational mass within a given radius changes by the amount taken out by fireball debris moving out of the sphere that we consider. The latter example provides a physical proof that the wave is not an artefact which can be removed by changing gauge. One can imagine a gedanken experiment, which is perhaps more suggestive. Let us consider small quantity of hydrogen gas of mass $M$, in a container of negligibly small mass. The metric around this body is everywhere given by a weak-field Schwarzschild formula. Let half of the initial mass be replaced by the same amount of antihydrogen, initially separated from hydrogen. The gravity of antimatter is thought to be the same as that of matter and the metric still corresponds to the same mass $M$. Then at $t=0$ the separating mechanism is switched off, with matter and antimatter annihilating each other. A fireball of pure radiation of energy $Mc^2$ is formed. Assuming spherical symmetry and efficient annihilation, the fireball becomes a thin shell of radiation, similar to that discussed in Section 3. Clearly, a monopole gravitational wave generated during the formation of the fireball travels together with the expanding electromagnetic shell that erases the Schwarzschild matric. The space-time, after passing the wave, becomes a flat one.
Monopole waves propagating with radiation of massless fields: a unified approach
================================================================================
The energy conservation condition $${\partial \over \partial t} \int T^{00} dV = -{1 \over 2} \int T_{\mu \nu}
{\partial h^{\mu \nu}_p \over \partial t}dV$$ shows that the fireball, during the pressure build-up, radiates energy by gravitational waves, irrespective of the geometry. This is a major difference in comparison with oscillating non-relativistic sources, where spherically-symmetric motion does not generate any gravitational radiation. However, to find the nature of emitted waves we must first consider the question of coherence.
Far from the source, the gravitational impulse can be represented by a superposition of plane waves with weights given by the Fourier transform of the signal envelope, $F_p+F_m$. As is well known, for waves propagating in the vacuum there exist only two independent amplitudes (Wald 1984), corresponding to two polarizations of transverse tidal oscillations. Let us focus on the pressure contribution (8) and consider the wave propagating in the z-direction. We can write the wave in the transverse-traceless (TT) gauge in the form $$h^{\mu \nu}_{TT}(z,t)={1 \over 2}[{\bar h}^{11}_p(z,t)-{\bar h}^{22}_p(z,t)]{\bf e}^{\mu
\nu}_+,$$ where the matrix ${\bf e}^{\mu \nu}_+$ is the unit tensor of the “plus” polarization. Formally, this sum is identically zero, as all the diagonal components ${\bar h}^{ii}_p$ in equation (8) are the same. Physically, however, we can notice that the amplitude (12) vanishes as a result of exact cancellation of two waves of precisely opposite polarizations, $h^{\mu \nu}_{TT}=A_+{\bf e}^{\mu \nu}_++(-A_+){\bf e}^{\mu \nu}_+$. This can happen only when the radiation generation is fully coherent. Since then no energy is emitted, we conclude that the energy must be radiated away by incoherent gravitational radiation.
In the case of violent explosion, we do not expect much coherence, in particular at short wavelenghts, as this would require suppression of any randomness in the formation of the fireball. Thus at high frequencies $\nu>>{\bar \nu}$, much higher than ${\bar \nu}$, a typical frequency ${\bar \nu} \sim 1/\Delta t \sim$1 Hz, we expect the gravitationl radiation to be incoherent. The presence of high frequencies (short wavelegths) depends on the time behaviour of the fireball formation. Very rapid formation could be approximated by an instantaneous process, with the time dependence of the source energy-momentum tensor (7) given by $F_p(t)=\Theta(t)$. The Fourier transform of $T^{\mu \nu}({\bf r},t)$ is $S^{\mu \nu}({\bf k}, \omega) \sim i/(2\pi \omega)$. The corresponding energy distribution of the emitted radiation in frequency and angle is then (Adler & Zeks 1975) $${dE \over d\Omega d\omega} \sim \omega^2 S_{ik}^*({\bf k}, \omega)S^{ik}({\bf k}, \omega) \sim
const.$$ Clearly, the $F_p(t)=\Theta(t)$ behaviour is unrealistic, as the total energy of gravitational waves is infinite. It shows, however, that the more rapid the formation the higher frequencies are involved. Also, total energy radiated away as gravitational waves grows for more rapid formation processes (Adler & Zeks 1975). The physical function $F_p(t)$ provides a natural cut-off frequency.
When the short-wavelenght gravitational waves are produced abundantly, one should not regard the emitted gravitational radiation as propagating in a vacuum. In this case, as shown by Isaacson (1968), we can treat high-frequency perturbation in the geometrical optics limit,$h_{\mu\nu}\approx
A_{\mu\nu}\exp(ik_{\alpha}x^{\alpha})$ with suitably defined $A_{\mu\nu}$ and $k$. The energy of high-frequency gravitational waves should be included as a source term through an effective “graviton” stress-energy tensor $$T^{\mu \nu}_{gw}=\Sigma_{\bf k}q({\bf k})^2 k^{\mu} k^{\nu},$$ where $q({\bf k})^2=\epsilon^2 A_{\mu\nu}^*({\bf k})A^{\mu\nu}({\bf k})c^4/32\pi G$. The low-frequency waves would thus satisfy the Einstein equation $$R^{\mu \nu}-{1 \over 2}g^{\mu \nu}R={8\pi G \over c^4} T^{\mu \nu}_{gw}$$ which is not the empty space equation. Its form is the same as for gravitational waves associated with the electromagnetic shell considered in Section 3, when the photon stress-energy tensor is treated in the geometrical optics approximation, $T^{\mu \nu}_{\gamma}=\Sigma_{{\bf k}}q({\bf k})^2 k^{\mu} k^{\nu}$ (Lindquist, Schwartz & Misner 1965). The same stress-energy tensor can also be used to describe the gravitational waves travelling together with the neutrino burst from a supernova explosion (Misner 1965), for neutrinos assumed to be massless particles.
Monopole gravitational waves propagating together with the radiation of massless fields are thus described in a unified way by equation (15), for any type of radiation. For massless fields, the wave vectors in the stress-energy tensor are null, $k_{\mu}k^{\mu}=0$, and the curvature scalar in (15) is $R=0$. When the radiation propagates in the z-direction, the only components of the stress-energy tensor are $T_{00}, T_{0z}$, and $T_{zz}$. Classification of polarization modes of gravitational waves, given by Eardley, Lee & Lightman (1973) shows that in this case the mode $\Phi_{22}=-R_{x0x0}-R_{y0y0}$ is non-zero, where $R_{i0j0}$ are the so-called electric components of the Riemann tensor. This is a monopole breathing mode which can be identified with the $h^{11}+h^{22}$ wave of Eddington’s classification (Eddington 1960). The monopole polarization differs from “plus” and “cross” polarizations of vacuum gravitational waves, and corresponds to a circle of test particles changing its radius and preserving circular shape in the plane perpendicular to the propagation direction of the wave.
Discussion
==========
The monopole radiation arising from the time-dependent pressure contribution to the gravitational mass would probe the general relativity sector not yet tested empirically, in which foundations of cosmology are rooted. This radiation would also encode valuable astrophysical information, transmitted directly from inside the relativistic fireballs formed in gamma-ray burst sources.
It is expected that in other phenomena involving relativistic fireballs, monopole gravitational waves are also emitted. In supernova explosions, high-pressure neutrino fireballs are formed, which would emit gravitational waves in a very similar manner to the plasma fireballs discussed here. One should keep in mind that, in astrophysical phenomena where gravitational waves are thought to be produced, usually a lot of energy is radiated away by massless fields, photons, neutrinos, and high-frequency gravitons. This could make generation of pure vacuum gravitational waves with only “plus” and “cross” polarizations less frequent than expected and the real gravitational signal could involve a significant monopole $\Phi_{22}$ contribution.
The monopole polarization that we have discussed is the same as predicted in scalar-tensor theories. The structure of the Ricci tensor in equation (15), for gravitational waves in the radiation background, is the same as for vacuum gravitational waves in Brans-Dicke theory (Brans & Dicke 1961). The stress-energy tensor for photons, neutrinos, and Isaacson’s effective stress-energy tensor for gravitons play the same role in equation (15) as the scalar field term in the Brans-Dicke theory for gravitational waves propagating in a vacuum. This fact would make testing Brans-Dicke theory more difficult.
When some major inhomogeneity is involved in the formation of the fireball, resulting in the anisotropy of pressure, then the diagonal stresses, $B^{ii}$, equation (6), can differ from one another, say $B^{11}_p>B^{22}_p$. A coherent TT-wave can then be emitted, $$h^{11}_{TT}=-h^{22}_{TT}= {1 \over 2} ({\bar h}^{11}_p-{\bar h}^{22}_p ).$$ This amplitude is formally the same as that for a time-dependend mass quadrupole. The gravitational wave detector response to such a gravitational wave would be similar to that for quadrupole waves of the same amplitude and frequency.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This research was partially supported by the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research under grants nos. PBZ-KBN-054/P03/02 and 2P03B 110 24, and through a research grant from the Institute of Physics of Jagiellonian University. The author is grateful to the anonymous referee for pointing out the problem of polarization of monopole waves.
[99]{} Adler R. J., Zeks B., 1975, Phys. Rev. D, 12, 3007 Brans C., Dicke R. H., 1961, Phys. Rev., 124, 925 Carlip S., 1998, Am. J. Phys., 65, 409 Eardley D. M., Lee D. L., Lightman A. P., 1973, Phys. Rev. D, 8, 3308 Eddington A. S., 1960, The Mathematical Theory of Relativity. University Press, Cambridge, UK Garnavich P. M. et al., 1998, ApJ, 509, 74 Goodman J., 1986, ApJ, 308, L47 Isaacson R. A., 1968, Phys. Rev., 166, 1272 Kobayashi S., Piran T., Sari R., 1999, ApJ, 513, 669 Landau L. D., Lifshitz E.M.,1975, The Classical Theory of Fields. Pergamon, Oxford, UK Lindquist R. W., Schwartz R. A., Misner C. W., 1965, Phys. Rev., 137, B1364 Mac Fadyen A. I.,Woosley S. E., 1999, ApJ, 524, 262 Misner C. W., 1965, Phys. Rev., 137, B1360 Paczyński B., 1986, ApJ, 308, L43 Peebles P. J. E., 1993, Principles of Physical Cosmology. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ Tolman R. C., 1934, Relativity, Thermodynamics and Cosmology. Clarendon, Oxford, UK Wald R. M., 1984, General Relativity. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL Whittaker E. T., 1935, Proc. Roy. Soc., A 149, 384
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We introduces the *umodules*, a generalisation of the notion of graph module. The theory we develop captures among others undirected graphs, tournaments, digraphs, and $2-$structures. We show that, under some axioms, a unique decomposition tree exists for umodules. Polynomial-time algorithms are provided for: non-trivial umodule test, maximal umodule computation, and decomposition tree computation when the tree exists. Our results unify many known decomposition like modular and bi-join decomposition of graphs, and a new decomposition of tournaments.'
author:
- $^1$
- $^2$
- $^2$
- $^2$
bibliography:
- 'ShortUmodule.bib'
title: Unifying two Graph Decompositions with Modular Decomposition$^0$
---
Introduction
============
In graph theory modular decomposition is now a well-studied notion [@Gal67; @CHM81; @MR84; @ER90; @EhrenfeuchtHR99], as well as some of its generalisations [@Cun73; @HMC03; @MontgolfierRaoICGT2005]. As having been rediscovered in other fields, the notion also appears under various names, including intervals, externally related sets, autonomous sets, partitive sets, and clans. Direct applications of modular decomposition include tractable constraint satisfaction problems,computational biology,graph clustering for network analysis, and graph drawing.
Besides, in the area of social networks, several vertex partitioning have been introduced in order to catch the idea of putting in the same part vertices acknowledging similar behaviour, in other words finding regularities [@WhiteR83]. Modular decomposition provides such a partitioning, yet seemingly too restrictive for real life applications. The concept of a role [@EverettB91] on the other hand seems promising, however its computation unfortunately is $NP-$hard [@FP03]. As a natural consequence, there is need for the search of *relaxed*, but *tractable*, variations of the modular decomposition scheme. A step following this direction has generalised graph modules to those of larger combinatorial structures, so-called homogeneous relations [@BuixuanHLdM06; @wg06; @odsa2006]. This paper follows the same research stream, and weakens the definition of module in order to further decompose. Fortunately we obtain a new tractable variation of modular decomposition, that we now introduce.
Modular decomposition is based on *modules*, a vertex subset with no *splitter*. In graphs, a splitter of a vertex subset is linked with some, but not all, vertices of this subset. We shall see how this definition can be extended to homogeneous relations. The “outside” of a module constitutes therefore, for all vertices of the module, the same ordered partition. For instance, all vertices of an undirected graph module have the same neighbourhood. We here address unordered-modules, so-called *umodules* for short: the outside of a umodule constitutes for all vertices of the umodule the same unordered partition. For graph, the umodules are the *bijoins* (see Fig. \[fig\_mod\_umod\_1\] and Section \[sec\_appli\]). As there are clearly more umodules than modules, this allows deeper decomposition. We shall see that this decomposition is tractable.
After comparing umodule to previous notions in the topic, we display its tractability by giving an $O(|X|^4\log|X|)$ time computation of the maximal umodules of a given homogeneous relation over a finite set $X$, and show how this can also be used as a non-trivial umodule existence test. The structure of the family of umodules is then investigated under different scenarios. We focus on a particular case, and provide a potent tractability theorem which makes use of the so-called *Seidel-switching* graph operation [@Seidel76]. Fortunately enough, undirected graphs and tournaments fit into the latter formalism. We then deepen the study and address total decomposability issues, namely when any “large enough” sub-structure is decomposable. Surprisingly enough, this shows how our theory provides a very natural manner to obtain several results on *round tournaments* , including characterisation, recognition, and isomorphism testing (see e.g. [@BJG01] for more detailed information), as well as further computational results, such as the *feedback vertex set* computation.
Umodule, an enlarged notion of module
=====================================
Let $X$ be a finite set. The family of all subsets of $X$ is denoted by $\mP(X)$. A *reflectless* triple is $(x,y,z)\subseteq X^3$ with $x\ne y$ and $x\ne z$, which will be denoted by $(x|yz)$ instead of $(x,y,z)$ since the first element plays a particular role. Let $H$ be a boolean relation over the reflectless triples of $X$. Then, $H_x$ denotes the binary relation on $X\setminus\{x\}$ such that $H_x(y,z)\Leftrightarrow H(x|yz)$.
\[def1\][@BuixuanHLdM06; @wg06; @odsa2006] $H$ is a *homogeneous relation on $X$* if, for all $x\in X$, $H_x$ is an equivalence relation on $X\setminus\{x\}$ A subset $M\subseteq X$ is a *module* of $H$ if $H(x|mm')$ for all $m,m' \in M$ and $x\in X\setminus M$.
Equivalently, a homogeneous relation $H$ can be seen as a mapping from each $x\in X$ to a partition of $X\setminus\{x\}$, namely the equivalence classes of $H_x$. This generalises graphs and *2-structures*, where modular decomposition still applies under the different but equivalent name of *clan decomposition* [@EhrenfeuchtHR99; @ER90]. Roughly, a $2-$structure $G=(X,C)$ is a ground set $X$ and an edge colouration $C:X^2\rightarrow\mathbb{N}$ [@EhrenfeuchtHR99; @ER90]. Thus, a digraph is a $2-$structure using two colours, denoting the existing (when $C(x,y)=1$) and absent arcs (when $C(x,y)=0$). There is no need of the concept of *adjacency* nor *neighbourhood* nor *incidence* in a homogeneous relation! But a homogeneous relation is canonically derived from graphs and $2-$structures as follows.
\[def:standard\][@BuixuanHLdM06; @wg06; @odsa2006] The *standard homogeneous relation* $H(G)$ of a 2-structure $G=(X,C)$ is $H(G)(x|uv) \ \iff \ \ C(x,u)=C(x,v)\ \mathrm{and}\ C(u,x)=C(v,x).$
\[propo:standard\] Let $G$ be a graph, or a tournament, or an oriented graph, or a directed graph, or a $2-$structure. The modules of $H(G)$ exactly are the modules of $G$ in the usual sense (see definitions in [@Gal67; @MR84; @EhrenfeuchtHR99]).
We now introduce the central notion of this paper which, thanks to Proposition \[prop\_triviale\] (below), can be seen at the same time as a proper generalisation of the classical modules/clans (in the sense of [@Gal67; @MR84; @EhrenfeuchtHR99]), and a dual notion to the generalised modules (in the sense of [@BuixuanHLdM06; @wg06; @odsa2006]).
\[def:umodul\] A subset $U$ of $X$ is a *umodule* of $H$ if\
$\forall u,u' \in U, \ \ \forall x,x'\in X\setminus U, \ \ H(u|xx') \Longleftrightarrow H(u'|xx').$
Roughly, elements of a umodule come from the same “school of thinking”: if one element of a umodule differentiates, resp. mixes together, some exterior elements, so does every element of the umodule (Fig. \[fig\_mod\_umod\]). A umodule $U$ is *trivial* if $|U|\le 1$ or if $|U|\ge|X|-1$. The family of umodules of $H$ is denoted by $\mU_H$, and $\mU$ when no confusion occurs. $H$ is *umodular prime* if all umodules of $H$ are trivial. The following proposition links umodules to the $1$-intersecting families framework as defined in [@HM85]. The subsequent one tells how far umodules may generalise modules.
\[propu\] For any two umodules $U,U'$ of a homogeneous relation $H$, if $U\cap U'\ne\emptyset$ then $U\cup U'$ is also a umodule of $H$.
\[prop\_triviale\] If $H$ is a standard homogeneous relation (see Definition \[def:standard\]), then any module of $H$ is a umodule of $H$. If $H$ is an arbitrary homogeneous relation over a finite set $X$, then any module $M$ of $H$ is such that $X\setminus M$ is a umodule of $H$.
In case of graphs, a natural question arises [@DC07]: for which graphs the notions of module and umodule coincide? The following result, which can also be seen as a relaxed converse of Proposition \[prop\_triviale\], solves this problem. As with modules, let the umodules of a graph refer to those of its standard homogeneous relation. Notice here in a graph that the complementary of a umodule also is a umodule. A *threshold graph* is one that can be constructed from the single vertex by repeated additions of a single isolated or dominating vertex.
\[prop\_threshold\] $G$ is a threshold graph if and only if in all induced subgraph of $G$, every umodule is either a module or the complementary of a module (or both).
Threshold graphs are known to be one of the smallest graph classes (see e.g. [@BLS99]). Therefore for most graphs umodules and modules differ, and Section \[sec\_appli\] is devoted to the umodular graph decomposition. However, before deepening decomposition issues, let us first display umodule tractability.
Algorithmic Tractability for the general case {#sec_quotient}
=============================================
As far as we are aware, there is no evidence of a decomposition scheme for arbitrary umodules. The first valuable objects to compute thus seem to be the maximal umodules with respect to some cut. Using this, we also provide a polynomial time algorithm computing the *strong* umodules (see definition afterwards).
Maximal Umodules with respect to a cut
--------------------------------------
Partitions will be ordered with respect to the usual partition lattice: $\mP=\{P_1,\dots,P_p\}$ is *coarser* than $\mQ=\{Q_1,\dots,Q_q\}$, and $\mQ$ is *thinner* than $\mP$, if every part $Q_i$ is contained in some $P_j$. It is noted $\mQ\leq\mP$ and $\mQ<\mP$ if the partitions are different. Let $S$ be a subset of $X$. As the umodule family $\mU$ is closed under union of intersecting members (Proposition \[propu\]), the inclusionwise maximal umodules included in either $S$ or $X\setminus S$ form a partition of $X$, denoted by $MU(S)=MU(X\setminus S)$. In other words, this is the coarsest partition of $X$ into umodules of $H$, which is thinner than $\{S, X\setminus S\}$. Roughly, it gives an indication on how the umodules are structured with respect to $S$: a umodule either is included in a umodule of $MU(S)$, or properly intersects $S$, or properly intersects $X\setminus S$, or trivial.
Let $H$ be a homogeneous relation over $X$. Let $C\subseteq X$. The relation $R_C$ on $C$ is defined as:
$ \forall x,y \in C,R_C(x,y) \ if \ \forall a,b \in (X\setminus C) \ \ H(x|ab) \Longleftrightarrow H(y|ab).$
This clearly is an equivalence relation on $C$. Furthermore, $C$ is a umodule if and only if $R_C$ only has one equivalence class. Let us define a *refinement* operation, the main algorithmic tool for constructing $MU(S)$.
Let $\mP$ be a partition of $X$ and $C$ a part of $\mP$. Let $C_1,\ldots,C_k$ be the equivalence classes of $R_C$. $Refine(\mP,C)$ is the partition obtained from $\mP$, by replacing part $C$ by the parts $C_1,\ldots,C_k$. A partition $\mP$ is *refinable* by $C$ if $Refine(\mP,C)\ne \mP$. $\mP$ is *unrefinable* if for every part $C$ of $\mP$, we have $\mP=Refine(\mP,C)$.
\[lemf2\] Let $H$ be a homogeneous relation over $X$, $U$ a umodule of $H$, and $\mP$ a partition of $X$. If $U$ is included in a part of $\mP$, then for any part $C$ of $\mP$, $U$ is included in a part of $Refine(\mP,C)$. Moreover, a part $C$ of $\mP$ is a umodule if and only if $\mP$ is not refinable by $C$.
$\mP \gets \{S,X\setminus S\}$
Correctness of Algorithm \[algo:Refinement\] follows from Lemma \[lemf2\] and the invariant: *There is no umodule partition $\mQ$ such that $\mP < \mQ < \{S, X\setminus S\}$*. So, starting from $\{S, X\setminus S\}$ the algorithm constructs a strictly decreasing chain of partitions of $X$ ending at $MU(S)$. Let us see how to implement it efficiently.
\[lemf3\] It is possible to compute $Refine(\mP,C)$ in $O(|X|^2)$ time.
We first show how to test for $R_C(x,y)$. Compute, for every element $x$ of $C$, a partition $\mH(x,C)=\{P_x^1,\ldots,P_x^{k(x)}\}$ of $X\setminus C$. It is the restriction of $H_x$ to $X\setminus C$, i.e $P_x^i=H_x^i \setminus C$. It is easy to build in $O(|X|)$ time for each element of $C$. Then we have $R_C(x,y)$ if and only if $H(x,C)$ is exactly the same partition than $H(y,C)$. It can be tested in $O(|X|)$ time, but performing this for each couple of elements of $C$ would lead to an $O(|X|^3)$ time implementation of $Refine(\mP,C)$. Let us instead consider $\mH(x,C)$ as a $b$ bit vectors (with $b=|X\setminus
C|=O(|X|)$). Looking for duplicates among these vectors can be performed easily, by bucket sorting them on their first bit, then the second, and so on. A scan of all vectors (i.e. of all elements of $C$) compute the pairwise equal vectors, i.e the $R_C$ equivalent elements of $C$. It is then easy to split $C$ and to update $\mP$, in $O(|X|^2)$ time.
The lemma above leads to an $O(|X|^3)$ time implementation of Algorithm \[algo:Refinement\]. However,
\[ThMU\] For every $S \subseteq X$, $MU(S)$, the coarsest umodule partition thinner than $\{S, X-S\}$ can be computed in $O(|X|^2 \log|X|)$ time.
Using the well-known Hopcroft’s partition refinement rule it is possible to improve the above algorithm. The idea is to avoid at each step to consider the biggest part, see [@MR917035]. Thus, to compute $MU(S)$ assuming that $|S| \leq |X-S|$, we first partition $X-A$ using the “neighbourhoods lists” of all $a \in A$. If we assume a data structure which links each edge $ay$ to its opposite edge $ya$. We can associate in the meantime to each element $a \in A$ a bitvector representing how $X-A$ sees $a$. These $|A|$ bitvectors of size $|X-A|$ can be sorted in $O(|X|.|X-A|) \in O(|X|^2)$. Using Hopcroft’s rule, a vertex $a$ can only be explored at most $O(\log|X|)$ time, which yields the announced complexity.
Strong Umodules: Maximal Umodules Computation and Primality Test
----------------------------------------------------------------
A umodule is *strong* if it overlap no other umodules, where two subsets overlap if none of the intersection and differences are empty. As two strong umodules are either disjoint, or one contains another, they can be ordered by inclusion into a tree (see e.g. laminar families in [@Schrijver03]).
\[thprim\] There exists an $O(|X|^4 \log|X|)$ algorithm to compute the inclusion tree of strong umodules.
Consider a non-trivial strong umodule $M$. For each pairwise distinct $x,y\notin M$ (at least two of them exists since $M$ is not trivial), $M$ is contained in exactly one set of $MU(\{x,y\})$. The intersection of all these sets is exactly $M$. Indeed if it where $M'$ such that $M\subsetneq M'$ then there would exist $x\in M'\setminus M$. For $y
\notin M$, $MU(\{x,y\})$ contains a umodule $M''$ smaller than $M'$ but containing $M$, a contradiction. Then the algorithm is as follow. For every pair $\{x,y\}$ compute $MU(\{x,y\})$ in $O(|X|^2 \log|X|)$ time (Theorem \[ThMU\]). That gives a family of at most $|X|^3$ umodules. Add the trivial modules to the family. Greedily compute the intersection of overlapping umodules of the family. It is possible in $O(|X|^4 \log|X|)$ time: for each triple $(a,b,c)$ look for the umodules containing exactly two of them, they overlap. Then we have all strong umodules. We finally just have to order them into a tree.
This answers both maximal umodule computation and primality test since a non-trivial umodule exists if and only if a non-trivial strong umodule exists.
Two Decomposition Scenarios
===========================
Of course, the number of umodules may be as large as $2^{|X|}$. But we shall now focus on certain umodule families having a compact (polynomial-size) representation. Umodules of local congruence 2 relations, on the first hand, and self-complemented umodules families, on the second hand, have such properties. They can be stored in $O(|X|^2)$ and $O(|X|)$ space, respectively.
Local Congruence and Crossing Families {#sectlc2}
--------------------------------------
Let $H$ be a homogeneous relation on $X$. For $x\in X$, the *congruence* of $x$ is the maximal number of elements that $x$ pairwise distinguishes. In other words, it is the number of equivalence classes of $H_x$. The *local congruence* of $H$ is the maximum congruence of the elements of $X$.
The standard homogeneous relation of an undirected graph or a tournament has local congruence 2. This value is 3 for an antisymmetric directed graph or a directed acyclic graph. The value is 4 for digraphs.
When the local congruence of $H$ is $2$, so-call *LC2 condition* for short, we obtain the following structural property on its umodule family.
$\mathcal{F}\subseteq2^X$ is a crossing family if, for any $A, B \in \mathcal{F}$, that $A \cap B \neq \emptyset$ and $A \cup B \neq X$ implies $A \cap B \in \mathcal{F}$ and $A \cup B \in \mathcal{F}$ (see e.g. [@Schrijver03] for further details).
Crossing families commonly arise as the minimisers of a submodular function. For instance, the minimum $s,t-$cuts of a network form a crossing family. Gabow proved that a crossing family admits a compact representation in $O(|X|^2)$ space using a tree representation [@Gabow93].
The umodules of a homogeneous relation with local congruence $2$ form a crossing family, and can thus be stored in $O(|X|^2)$ space.
Self-complementarity and Bipartitive Families {#sec_self}
---------------------------------------------
A consequence of previous proposition is that standard homogeneous relations of graphs and tournaments have crossing umodules families. But they have stronger properties, which we will use to show a linear-space structure coding the umodule family.
\[four\] $H$ fulfils the *four elements condition* if $$\begin{aligned}
\forall~m,m',x,x'\in X,~~
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
H(m|xx')\wedge H(m'|xx')\wedge H(x|mm') \Rightarrow H(x'|mm') \\
\neg H(m|xx') \wedge \neg H(m'|xx')\wedge \neg H(x|mm') \Rightarrow \neg H(x'|mm')
\end{array}\right..\end{aligned}$$
\[prop\_stand\_4EC\] Standard homogeneous relations of undirected graphs and tournaments satisfy the four elements condition.
This is a light regularity condition, allowing to avoid examples similar to that of Fig. \[fig\_mod\_umod\_2\]. Surprisingly enough, it suffices to make the umodule family behave in a very tractable manner (Proposition \[propo\_4\_self\] and Corollary \[coro\_SC\] below).
A family $\mF$ of subsets of $X$ is *self-complemented* if for every subset $A$, $A\in\mF$ implies $X\setminus A\in\mF$.
\[propo\_4\_self\] If a homogeneous relation $H$ fulfils the four elements condition then the family $\mU$ of umodules of $H$ is self-complemented.
The *four elements condition* is quite convenient since it allows to shrink a umodule, hence apply the divide and conquer paradigm to solve optimisation problems. However, as far as umodules are concerned, the *self-complementary* relaxation is sufficient to describe a tree-decomposition theorem as can be seen in the following section. Finally, notice that the converse of Proposition \[propo\_4\_self\] does not necessarily hold. The characterisation of relations having a self-complemented umodule family by a local axiom, such as the four elements condition, actually appears to be more difficult.
### Tree Decomposition Theorem
The following results on bipartitions can be found in [@Cun73] under the name of “decomposition frame with the intersection and transitivity properties”, in [@M03] under the name of “bipartitive families” (the formalism used in this paper), and in [@HMC03] under the name of “unrooted set families”.
We call $\{X_i^1,X_i^2\}$ a *bipartition* of $X$ if $X_i^1\cup X_i^2=X$ and $X_i^1\cap X_i^2=\emptyset$. Two bipartitions $\{X_i^1,X_i^2\}$ and $\{X_j^1,X_j^2\}$ *overlap* if for all $a,b=1,2$ the four intersections $X_i^a\cap X_j^b$ are not empty. A bipartition is *trivial* if one of the two parts is of size $1$. Let $\mB=\{\{X_i^1,X_i^2\}_{i\in 1,\ldots,k}\}$ be a family of $k$ bipartitions of $X$. The *strong* bipartitions of $\mB$ are those that do not overlap any other bipartition of $\mB$. For instance, the trivial bipartitions of $\mB$ are strong bipartitions of $\mB$.
If $\mB$ contains all trivial bipartitions of $X$, then there exists a unique tree $T(\mB)$
- with $|X|$ leaves, each leaf being labelled by an element of $X$.
- such that each edge $e$ of $T(\mB)$ correspond to a strong bipartition of $\mB$: the leaf labels of the two connected components of $T-e$ are exactly the two parts of a strong bipartition, and the converse also holds.
Let $N$ be a node of $T(\mB)$ of degree $k$. The labels of the leaves of the connected components of $T-N$ form a partition $X_1,\ldots,X_k$ of $X$. For $I\subseteq\{1,\ldots,k\}$ with $1<|I|<k$, the bipartition $B(I)$ is $\{\cup_{i\in I} X_i, X\setminus \cup_{i\in I}X_i\}$.
A family of bipartitions is a *bipartitive family* if it contains all the trivial bipartitions and if, for two overlapping bipartitions $\{X_i^1,X_i^2\}$ and $\{X_j^1,X_j^2\}$, the four bipartitions $\{X_i^a\cup X_j^b, X\setminus (X_i^a\cup X_j^b)\}$ (for all $a,b=1,2$) belong to $\mB$.
\[thbip\][@M03] If $\mB$ is a bipartitive family, the nodes of $T(\mB)$ can be labelled *complete*, *circular* or *prime*, and the children of the *circular* nodes can be ordered in such a way that:
- If $N$ is a complete node, for any $I\subseteq \{1,\ldots,k\}$ such that $1<|I|<k$, $B(I)\in\mB$.
- If $N$ is a circular node, for any interval $I=[a,\ldots,b]$ of $\{1,\ldots,k\}$ such that $1<|b-a|<k$, $B(I)\in\mB$.
- If $N$ is a prime node, for any element $I=\{a\}$ of $\{1,\ldots,k\}$ $B(I)\in\mB$.
- There are no more bipartitions in $\mB$ than the ones described above.
For a bipartitive family $\mB$, the labelled tree $T(\mB)$ is an $O(|X|)$-sized representation of $\mB$, while the family can have up to $2^{|X|-1}-1$ bipartitions of $|X|$ elements each. This allows to efficiently perform algorithmic operations on $\mB$. Notice that any self-complemented subset family can be seen as a family of bipartitions.
\[theorem\_SC\] The members of a self-complemented umodule family form a bipartitive family.
\[coro\_SC\] There is a unique $O(|X|)$-sized tree that gives a description of all possible umodules of a homogeneous relation $H$ fulfilling the self-complementary condition. This tree is henceforth called *umodular decomposition tree*. Notice that it is an unrooted tree, unlike the modular decomposition tree.
### Tree Decomposition Algorithm
Let $H$ be a self-complemented homogeneous relation, $T(H)$ its umodular decomposition tree, and $U$ a nontrivial strong umodule (if any). Let us examine some consequences of Theorem \[thbip\]. Notice that two umodules overlap if and only if they are incident to the same node of $T(H)$. As $H$ is self-complemented the union of two overlapping umodules is a umodule (Proposition \[propu\]) but also their intersection. The strong umodule $U$ is an edge in $T(H)$ incident with two nodes $A$ and $B$.
- If one of them, say $A$, is labelled prime then for any $x,y\notin U$ such that the least common ancestor of them in $T(H)$ is $A$, then $U\in
MU(\{x,y\})$.
- If one of them, say $A$, is labelled circular then for any $x$ belonging to the subtree rooted in the successor of $U$ in the ordered circular list of $A$, and for any $y$ belonging to the subtree rooted in the predecessor of $U$, then $U\in MU(\{x,y\})$.
- If one of them, say $A$, is labelled complete then the intersection, for all $x,y\notin U$ whose least common ancestor is $A$, the intersection of all parts of $MU(\{x,y\})$ containing $U$ is exactly $U$.
Theorem \[thprim\] then can be used to compute the strong umodule inclusion tree. After this, typing the nodes and ordering their sons according to the above definition is straightforward. Hence,
There exists an $O(|X|^4 \log(|X|))$ algorithm to compute the unique decomposition tree for a self complemented umodule family.
Seidel-switching Theorem, a potent Tractability
===============================================
Standard homogeneous relations of graphs and tournaments are of local congruence 2, and their umodule families are self-complemented. Firstly this means we can either decompose those families using the crossing families decomposition or using the bipartitive decomposition. Moreover, relations that satisfy both the self-complementary and *LC2* properties seem to own stronger potential. In particular, let us show a nice local transformation from the umodules of such a relation to the modules of another relation. This operation was first introduced in J. Seidel in [@Seidel76] on undirected graphs. It was later studied by several authors interested in some computational aspects [@ColbournC80; @KratochvilNZ92] and structural properties [@Hayward96; @Hertz99] and recently in [@MontgolfierRaoICGT2005]. The operation is referred to as *Seidel switch* in [@Hertz99], and we will adopt this terminology. We generalise it to homogeneous relations but take a restricted case of switch, with the slight difference that we remove from the transformation an element (see Fig. \[fig:SeidelSwitchExemple\]). For convenience, if $H$ is a homogeneous relation on $X$ and $s\in X$, we also refer to the equivalence classes of $H_s$ as $H_s^1,\dots,H_s^k$.
\[def:SeidelSwitch\] Let $H$ be a homogeneous relation of local congruence $2$ on $X$, and $s$ an element of $X$. The *Seidel switch* at $s$ transforms $H$ into the homogeneous relation $H(s)$ on $X\setminus\{s\}$ defined as follows. $$\forall x\in X\setminus\{s\}, H(s)^1_x=(H_x^1\Delta H_s^j)\setminus\{s\} \ and \ H(s)^2_x=(H_x^2\Delta H_s^j)\setminus\{s\}$$ with $j$ such that $x \notin H_{s}^{j}$. where $A\Delta B$ denotes the symmetric difference of $A$ and $B$.
\[thmain\] Let $H$ be a homogeneous relation of local congruence $2$ on $X$ such that $\mU_H$ is self-complemented. Let $s$ be a member of $X$, and $U\subseteq X$ a subset containing $s$. Then, $U$ is a umodule of $H$ if and only if $M=X\setminus U$ is a module of the Seidel switch $H(s)$.
\[corX\] The umodular decomposition tree of a self-complemented homogeneous relation of local congruence $2$ on $X$ can be computed in $O(|X|^2)$ time.
Using a Seidel switch on any element will result in a relation having the so-called *modular quotient* property [@BuixuanHLdM06]: every module of the relation also is a umodule. Then, the $O(|X|^2)$-time modular decomposition algorithm for modular quotient relations depicted in [@BuixuanHLdM06]. As two complemented strong umodules $M, X\setminus M$ of $H$, for $s\notin M$, correspond to a strong module $M$ of $H(s)$, then the strong umodules of $H$ can be found trivially from the strong modules of $H(s)$. Typing and ordering their sons is then easy.
Notice that the modular decomposition tree of $H$ can be trivial, while the one of its Seidel switch at $s$ may be not. Besides, there is no real need to type and order the sons of a node, as so-called *linear* nodes of the modular decomposition tree give circular nodes of the umodular decomposition tree with the same ordering of their sons, complete nodes of $H(s)$ give complete nodes of $H$ and prime nodes of $H(s)$ give prime nodes of $H$. The correspondence is straightforward but modular decomposition of homogeneous relations will not be discussed here, the reader should refer to [@BuixuanHLdM06].
Umodular Decomposition of Graphs and Tournaments {#sec_appli}
================================================
Let us now apply umodular decomposition to two well-known combinatorial objects: undirected graphs and tournaments. In this section we always implicitly refer to their standard homogeneous relations, for instance “the umodules of the graph $G$” stands for “the umodules of the standard homogeneous relation $H(G)$ of the graph $G$” and so on. And “graph” stands for “undirected graph”. As we have seen, graphs and tournaments fulfil the four elements conditions, are of local congruence two, and their umodule family is self-complemented.
Bijoin decomposition
--------------------
Let us call *bijoin* a umodule of a graph or of a tournament. From definition, one can see what bijoins are (Fig.\[figbij\]). In a graph, $B$ is a bijoin if $X\setminus B$ can be partitioned in two sets $C$ and $D$ such that for each $x\in B$, either $N(x)\cap C = \emptyset$ and $D\subseteq N(x)$, or $N(x)\cap D = \emptyset$ and $C\subseteq N(x)$. For a tournament, same definition with $C\subseteq N^+(x)$ and $D\subseteq N^-(x)$, or $D\subseteq N^+(x)$ and $C\subseteq N^-(x)$.
Bijoins of graphs where studied in [@MontgolfierRaoICGT2005] as a new graph decomposition, generalising modular decomposition. The Seidel switch was used to derive most of the properties claimed, especially a decomposition tree (with no *circular* nodes), a linear-time decomposition algorithm, a characterisation of the two kinds of *complete* nodes, and characterisation of *totally decomposable* graphs (see below).
Bijoins of tournaments form a new decomposition. The first important property is:
The umodular (bijoin) decomposition tree computation time of a tournament is $O(|X|^2)$.
The tree exists thanks to Corollary \[coro\_SC\], since the bijoins form a self-complemented $LC2$ family. The computation algorithm is from Corollary \[corX\].
The umodular (bijoin) decomposition tree of a tournament has no *complete node*. And there exists a circular ordering of the vertices of the tournament such that every umodule of the tournament is a factor (interval) of this circular ordering.
The first assumption can be checked by reader: it is impossible to build tournaments with more than four elements such that every vertex subset is a bijoin. The second is a consequence of the first, and of definitions in Theorem \[thbip\]. As a consequence, there are $O(|X|^2)$ bijoins in a tournament (the exponential growth of a bipartitive family comes from *complete* nodes).
Total Decomposability
---------------------
Given a graph decomposition scheme, is often worth to consider the totally decomposable graphs with respect to that scheme, namely the graphs in which every “large enough” subgraph admits a non trivial decomposition. In general this leads to the definition of very interesting class of graphs, such as cographs with modular decomposition or distance hereditary graphs with split decomposition. Let us now see how the graphs and tournaments totally decomposable with respect to bijoin decomposition behave.
[@MontgolfierRaoICGT2005] The totally decomposable graph with respect to bijoin decomposition are the ($C_5$,bull,gem,co-gem)-free graphs, and also exactly the graphs that can be obtained from a single vertex by a sequence of (twin,antitwin)-extensions.
A *diamond* is one of the induced subgraph described in Figure \[fig:PrimeConfTour\]. A tournament $T$ is *locally transitive* if for each vertex $x \in V(T)$, $T_{[N^{+}{(x)}]}$ and $T_{[N^{-}{(x)}]}$ are transitive tournaments. Two vertices $x$ and $y$ of a tournaments are *twins* if $N^+(x)\setminus\{y\} = N^+(y)\setminus\{x\}$ and *antitwins* if $N^+(x)\setminus\{y\} = N^-(y)\setminus\{x\}$. An *extension* of a vertex $x$ of $T$ by a twin (resp. antitwin) $y$ consists in adding a new vertex $y$ to $T$ and making $y$ twin (resp. antitwin) of $x$.
Let $T$ be a tournament. The following propositions are equivalent:
1. $T$ is diamond-free (no induced subgraph is a diamond)
2. $T$ is locally transitive
3. $T$ is totally decomposable with respect to bijoin decomposition
4. $T$ can be obtained from a single vertex by a sequence of (twin,antitwin)-extensions.
As the in- and out-diamond are prime with respect to umodular decomposition, and total decomposability is an hereditary property, Point 3 implies Point 1. Let us sketch the proof that Point 2 implies Point 3. If $T$ is locally transitive then a Seidel switch of $T$ at any vertex $s$ produces a transitive tournament $T(s)$. Every subgraph of a transitive tournament contains a module. So, according to Theorem \[thmain\], every subgraph of $T$ contains a umodule: $T$ is totally decomposable. Besides, the equivalence between Point 3 and Point 4 comes from the fact that, if $T$ is totally decomposable, then it contains a umodule of two vertices. Such umodules are made either with two twins or with two antitwins. Equivalence between 1 and 2 can be found in [@BJG01].
![ Forbidden subgraphs of a totally decomposable tournament with respect to umodular decomposition: the in-diamond(left) and the out-diamond(right). []{data-label="fig:PrimeConfTour"}](PrimeTournamentsA "fig:") ![ Forbidden subgraphs of a totally decomposable tournament with respect to umodular decomposition: the in-diamond(left) and the out-diamond(right). []{data-label="fig:PrimeConfTour"}](PrimeTournamentsB "fig:")
It is not hard to check that, as the umodular decomposition tree of a totally decomposable tournament may have no *prime* node, and since two *circular* node may not be adjacent, then the umodular decomposition tree of a totally decomposable tournament has only a single *circular* node. The ordering of the vertices along this node is known as *circular ordering*. This ordering is such that, for each vertex $x$, the vertices of $N^+(x)$ follow consecutively; and so do vertices from $N^-(x)$. This, combined to the above theorem, could be seen as a sketched proof of the characterisation of *round tournaments* by local transitivity (see e.g. [@BJG01] for further information).
In the extended version [@BuixuanHLdM07a], we present an $O(n^2)$ recognition algorithm, making an intensive use of this ordering property, and computing this ordering. It allows us to solve the isomorphism problem for the class of such tournament in $O(n^2)$ time, like in [@Clarou96]. We also propose the first linear-time algorithm for the feedback vertex set problems (NP-complete for tournaments). The basic idea is to find a vertex of highest outgoing degree, and output the tournament composed of this vertex and its outgoing neighbourhood.
Extensions and further developments
===================================
We have presented the umodules and homogeneous relations focusing on graph theory field. But umodules may be found in many other objects. For instance, if we take a commutative ring and define\
$H_\times(x|yz) \ \iff \ xy = xz,$
then the principal ideals of the ring are umodules. In this paper we study umodular decomposition applied to graphs, when the local congruence is 2, the next challenge is now to understand umodular decomposition of directed graphs or directed acyclic graphs, starting with the self-complemented case first.
Our computation of strong umodules is polynomial, but its asymptotic complexity of $O(|X|^4. \log(|X|))$ can surely be reduced, especially when applied to particular combinatorial objects.
We have noticed here the great importance of the Seidel switch operation, and following the notion of vertex minor as defined in [@Oum05a], let us called $H$ a *Seidel minor* of a graph $G$, if $H$ can be obtained from $G$ by the two following operations:
- delete a vertex,
- choose a vertex and do a Seidel switch on this vertex
It could be of interest to study such Seidel minors.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Existing e-commerce search engines typically support search only over objective attributes, such as price and locations, leaving the more desirable subjective attributes, such as romantic vibe and work-life balance unsearchable. We found that this is also the case for Recruit Group, which operates a wide range of online booking and search services, including jobs, travel, housing, bridal, dining, beauty, and where each service is among the biggest in Japan, if not internationally.
In this paper, we present our progress towards productionizing a recent subjective search prototype (OpineDB) developed by Megagon Labs for Recruit Group. Several components within OpineDB are enhanced to satisfy production demands, including adding a BERT language model pre-trained on massive hospitality domain review corpora. We also found that the challenges of productionizing the system are beyond enhancing the components. In particular, an important requirement in production quality systems is to instrument a proper way of measuring the search quality, which is extremely tricky when the results of such search systems are subjective. This led to the creation of a high-quality benchmark dataset from scratch, involving over 600 queries by user interviews and a collection of more than 120,000 query-entity relevancy labels. Also, we found that the existing search algorithms do not meet the search quality standard required by production systems. Consequently, we enhanced the ranking model by fine-tuning several search algorithms and combining them under a learning-to-rank framework. The model achieves 5%-10% overall precision improvement and 90+% precision on more than half of the benchmark testing queries making these queries ready for AB-testing. While some enhancements to OpineDB can be immediately applied to other verticals, our experience so far reveals that obtaining the benchmark dataset and fine-tuning ranking algorithms are specific to each domain and cannot be avoided.
author:
- Aaron Feng
- Shuwei Chen
- Yuliang Li
- Hiroshi Matsuda
- Hidekazu Tamaki
- 'Wang-Chiew Tan'
bibliography:
- 'paper.bib'
title: Towards Productionizing Subjective Search Systems
---
@affilsepx
@affilsep[\
]{}
@affilsepx[\
]{}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Traditionally, rotation numbers for toroidal billiard flows are defined as the limiting vectors of average displacements per time on trajectory segments. Naturally, these creatures live in the (commutative) vector space $\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^n$, if the toroidal billiard is given on the flat $n$-torus. The billiard trajectories, being curves, often getting very close to closed loops, quite naturally define elements of the fundamental group of the billiard table. The simplest non-trivial fundamental group obtained this way belongs to the classical Sinai billiard, i.e. the billiard flow on the 2-torus with a single, strictly convex obstacle (with smooth boundary) removed. This fundamental group is known to be the group $\textbf{F}_2$ freely generated by two elements, which is a heavily noncommutative, hyperbolic group in Gromov’s sense. We define the homotopical rotation number and the homotopical rotation set for this model, and provide lower and upper estimates for the latter one, along with checking the validity of classically expected properties, like the density (in the homotopical rotation set) of the homotopical rotation numbers of periodic orbits.
The natural habitat for these objects is the infinite cone erected upon the Cantor set $\text{Ends}(\textbf{F}_2)$ of all “ends” of the hyperbolic group $\textbf{F}_2$. An element of $\text{Ends}(\textbf{F}_2)$ describes the direction in (the Cayley graph of) the group $\textbf{F}_2$ in which the considered trajectory escapes to infinity, whereas the height function $t$ ($t \ge 0$) of the cone gives us the average speed at which this escape takes place.
The main results of this paper claim that the orbits can only escape to infinity at a speed not exceeding $\sqrt{2}$, and any direction $e\in\text{Ends}(F_2)$ for the escape is feasible with any prescribed speed $s$, $0\leq s\leq \sqrt{2}/2$. This means that the radial upper and lower bounds for the rotation set $R$ are actually pretty close to each other.
address:
- |
The University of Alabama at Birmingham\
Department of Mathematics\
1300 University Blvd., Suite 452\
Birmingham, AL 35294 U.S.A.
- |
The University of Alabama at Birmingham\
Department of Mathematics\
1300 University Blvd., Suite 452\
Birmingham, AL 35294 U.S.A.
author:
- 'Lee M. Goswick and Nándor Simányi'
bibliography:
- 'rotation2bib.bib'
title: Homotopical Complexity of 2D Billiard Orbits
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
The concept of rotation number finds its origin in the study of the average rotation around the circle $S^1$ per iteration, as classically defined by H. Poincaré in the 1880’s, when one iterates an orientation-preserving circle homeomorphism $f:S^1 \rightarrow S^1$. This is equivalent to studying the average displacement $(1/n)(F^n(x)-x)$ ($x \in \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}$) for the iterates $F^n$ of a lifting $F:\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}\rightarrow \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}$ of $f$ on the universal covering space $\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}$ of $S^1$. The study of fine homotopical properties of geodesic lines on negatively curved, closed surfaces goes back at least to Morse [@Mor24]. As far as we know, the first appearance of the concept of homological rotation vectors (associated with flows on manifolds) was the paper of Schwartzman [@Sch57], see also Boyland [@Boy00] for further references and a good survey of homotopical invariants associated with geodesic flows. Following an analogous pattern, in [@BMS06] we defined the (still commutative) rotation numbers of a $2D$ billiard flow on the billiard table $\mathbb{T}^2 =
\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^2/\operatorname{\mathbb{Z}}^2$ with one convex obstacle (scatterer) $\mathcal{O}$ removed. Thus, the billiard table (configuration space) of the model in [@BMS06] was $\mathcal{Q} = \mathbb{T}^2\setminus\mathcal{O}$. Technically speaking, we considered trajectory segments $\{x(t) | 0 \le t \le T\} \subset
\mathcal{Q}$ of the billiard flow, lifted them to the universal covering space $\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^2$ of $ \mathbb{T}^2$ (not of the configuration space $\mathcal{Q}$), and then systematically studied the rotation vectors as limiting vectors of the average displacement $(1/T)(\tilde{x}(T)-\tilde{x}(0)) \in \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^2$ of the lifted orbit segments $\{\tilde{x}(t)|0 \le t \le T\}$ as $T
\rightarrow \infty$. These rotation vectors are still “commutative”, for they belong to the vector space $\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^2$.
Despite all the advantages of the homological (or “commutative”) rotation vectors (i. e. that they belong to a real vector space, and this provides us with useful tools to construct actual trajectories with prescribed rotational behaviour), in our current view the “right” lifting of the trajectory segments $\{x(t)|0 \le t \le T\} \subset \mathcal{Q}$ is to lift these segments to the universal covering space of $\mathcal{Q} =
\mathbb{T}^2\setminus\mathcal{O}$, not of $\mathbb{T}^2$. This, in turn, causes a profound difference in the nature of the arising rotation “numbers”, primarily because the fundamental group $\pi_1(\mathcal{Q})$ of the configuration space $\mathcal{Q}$ is the highly complex group $\textbf{F}_2$ freely generated by two generators (see section 2 below or [@Mas91]). After a bounded modification, trajectory segments $\{x(t)| 0 \le t
\le T\} \subset \mathcal{Q}$ give rise to closed loops $\gamma_T$ in $\mathcal{Q}$, thus defining an element $g_T = [\gamma_T]$ in the fundamental group $\pi_1(\mathcal{Q}) = \textbf{F}_2$. The limiting behavior of $g_T$ as $T \rightarrow \infty$ will be investigated, quite naturally, from two viewpoints:
1. The direction “$e$” is to be determined, in which the element $g_T$ escapes to infinity in the hyperbolic group $\textbf{F}_2$ or, equivalently, in its Cayley graph $\mathcal{G}$, see section 2 below. All possible directions $e$ form the horizon or the so called ideal boundary $\text{Ends}(\textbf{F}_2)$ of the group $\textbf{F}_2 =
\pi_1(\mathcal{Q})$, see [@CoP93].
2. The average speed $s = \lim_{T \rightarrow \infty}
(1/T)\text{dist}(g_T, 1)$ is to be determined, at which the element $g_T$ escapes to infinity, as $T \rightarrow \infty$. These limits (or limits $\lim_{T_n \rightarrow \infty}
(1/T_n)\text{dist}(g_{T_n}, 1)$ for sequences of positive reals $T_n \nearrow \infty$) are nonnegative real numbers.
The natural habitat for the two limit data $(s,e)$ is the infinite cone $$C = ([0, \infty) \times \text{Ends}(\textbf{F}_2))/(\{0\} \times \text{Ends}(\textbf{F}_2))$$ erected upon the set $\text{Ends}(\textbf{F}_2)$, the latter supplied with the usual Cantor space topology. Since the homotopical “rotation numbers” $(s,e)
\in C$ (and the corresponding homotopical rotation sets) are defined in terms of the noncommutative fundamental group $\pi_1(\mathcal{Q}) = \textbf{F}_2$, these notions will be justifiably called homotopical or noncommutative rotation numbers and sets.
In accordance with [@BMS06], we will focus on systems with a so-called “small obstacle”, i.e., when the sole obstacle $\mathcal{O}$ is contained by some circular disk of radius less than $\sqrt{2}/4$. Furthermore, again following [@BMS06], most of the time we will restrict our attention to the so-called *admissible orbits*, see the paragraph right after the proof of Lemma \[bounded\_dif\] in [@BMS06]. The corresponding rotation set will be the so-called admissible homotopical rotation set $AR \subset C$. The homotopical rotation set $R$ defined without the restriction of admissibility will be denoted by $R$. Plainly, $AR \subset R$ and these sets are closed subsets of the cone $C$.
The main results of this paper are theorems \[upper\_bnd\] and \[lower\_bnd\]. The former claims that the set $R$ is contained in the closed ball $B(0,\,\sqrt{2})$ of radius $\sqrt{2}$ centered at the vertex $0 = \{0\} \times \text{Ends}(\textbf{F}_2)$ of the cone $C$. In particular, both sets $AR$ and $R$ are compact. The latter result claims that the set $AR$ contains the closed ball $B(0,\sqrt{2}/2)$ of $C$, provided that the radius $r_0$ of the sole circular obstacle is less than $\sqrt{5}/10$. Thus, these two results provide a pretty detailed description of the homotopical complexity of billiard orbits: Any direction $e\in\text{Ends}(F_2)$ is feasible for the trajectory to go to infinity, the speed of escape $s$ cannot be bigger than $\sqrt{2}$, whereas any speed $s$, $0\leq s\leq
\sqrt{2}/2$, is achievable in any direction $e\in\text{Ends}(F_2)$. Example \[sharp\_exmp\] shows that, in sharp contrast with the expectations and the analogous results for the commutative rotation numbers in [@BMS06], the star-shaped set $R$ is not contained in the unit ball $B(0,1)$ of $C$: it contains some radii of length $\sqrt{2}$, thus the upper estimate of Theorem \[upper\_bnd\], at least as a direction independent upper bound for the radial size of $R$, is actually sharp.
Finally, in the concluding Section \[conc\_sec\] we present a corollary (Theorem \[htop\_thm\]) of the proofs of Section \[main\_sec\] and make a few remarks. The theorem provides an effective constant as an upper bound for the topological entropy $h_{top}(r_0)$ of the billiard flow, where $r_0$ is the radius of the sole circular obstacle. The upper bound we obtain is explicit, unlike the one obtained in [@BFK98] for the topological entropy of the flow.
Remark \[periodic\_rem\] asserts what is always expected for “decent” dynamical systems regarding the relation between homotopical rotation sets and periodic orbits: the homotopical rotation numbers of periodic admissible orbits form a dense subset in $AR$.
Finally, remarks \[n\_obs\_rem\]–\[dim\_rem\] briefly outline the possibilities of some interesting follow-up research, namely the investigation and understanding of the homotopical rotation numbers for $2D$ toroidal billiards with $N$ round obstacles.
Main Results {#main_sec}
============
Lower Estimate for the Homotopical Rotation Set {#lower-estimate-for-the-homotopical-rotation-set .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------------------
The configuration space $\mathcal{Q}$ (the billiard table) of our system is the punctured $2D$-torus $\mathcal{Q} = \mathbb{T}^2\setminus \mathcal{O}$, where the removed obstacle $\mathcal{O}$ is the open disk of radius $r_0$, $0
< r_0 < \sqrt{2}/4$, centered at the origin $(0, 0)$. (For simplicity we assume that the obstacle is a round disk, though this is only an unimportant technical condition, see Remark \[arb\_obs\_rem\] below.) The upper bound of $\sqrt{2}/4$ is exactly the condition of having a so-called “small obstacle” in the sense of [@BMS06].
The fundamental group $\pi_1(\mathcal{Q})$ of $\mathcal{Q}$ is classically known to be the group $\textbf{F}_2 = \langle a, b
\rangle$, freely generated by the elements $a$ and $b$, see, for example, [@Mas91]. Perhaps the simplest way to see this is to consider a simply connected fundamental domain $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Q} &=& \{ x = (x_1, x_2) \in \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^2 | 0 \le x_1, x_2 \le
1, \ \text{dist}(x, \operatorname{\mathbb{Z}}^2) \ge r_0 \},\end{aligned}$$ where the upper and lower horizontal sides of this domain are identified via the equivalence relation $(x_1, 0) \sim (x_1, 1)$, $r_0 \le x_1 \le 1-r_0$, and the left and right vertical sides are similarly identified via $(0, x_2)
\sim (1, x_2)$ for $r_0 \le x_2 \le 1-r_0$.
{width="60.00000%" height="0.3\textheight"}
\[Figure 1\]
The domain $\mathcal{Q}$ is obtained by identifying the opposite sides $A-A$ and $B-B$, just as the arrows indicate. This space is homeomorphic to the topological space that we obtain by gluing together two copies of a closed strip $S^1 \times [-1,1]$ by identifying the rectangle $R_1 = [-1/10,
1/10] \times [-1,1]$ (in the first copy) with the same rectangle $R_2
= R_1$ (in the second copy) via the map $(x,y) \mapsto (y/10, 10x)$, $|x| \le 1/10$, $|y| \le 1$, see Fig. 2.
{width="60.00000%" height="0.25\textheight"}
\[Figure 2\]
The space $\mathcal{Q}$ is homotopically equivalent to the “bouquet” of two circles, see the right part of Fig. 2. The fundamental group of the latter space is classically known to be (see [@Mas91]) the group $\textbf{F}_2 =
\langle a, b \rangle$ freely generated by two elements “$a$” and “$b$”, so that “$a$” corresponds to making a loop along the first circle (in some selected direction), whereas the generator “$b$” corresponds to making a similar loop along the other circle. Clearly, these two generators correspond to the so-called $x$- and $y$-crossings of curves (see Fig. 1). An $x$-crossing “$a$” occurs when a smooth curve $\gamma(t) = (\gamma_1(t),
\gamma_2(t))$ intersects a line $\gamma_1(t) = k$ ($k \in \operatorname{\mathbb{Z}}$) with $\dot{\gamma_1}(t) > 0$, while a $y$-crossing “$b$” takes place when $\gamma(t) = (\gamma_1(t), \gamma_2(t))$ intersects a line $\gamma_2(t) = k$ ($k \in \operatorname{\mathbb{Z}}$) with $\dot{\gamma_2}(t) > 0$. The “inverse crossings” $a^{-1}$ and $b^{-1}$ occur when the corresponding derivatives are negative. We may assume that all these crossings are transversal. More precisely, we may restrict our studies to such curves.
Our general goal is to study the large scale behavior of “admissible” billiard orbit segments $\pi(x(t)) = \pi((x_1(t), x_2(t)))$, $0 \le t \le T$, $\text{dist}(x(0), (0,0)) = r_0$, as $T \rightarrow \infty$. Here, “admissibility” is understood in the sense of [@BMS06], which means the following: Denote by $\textbf{k}_0, \textbf{k}_1, \ldots, \textbf{k}_n \in
\operatorname{\mathbb{Z}}^2$ the centers of the obstacles $\mathcal{O}_{\textbf{k}_i}$ at whose boundaries the lifted orbit segment $x(t)$, $0 \le t \le T$, is reflected, listed in time order. Admissibility means that the following three conditions are satisfied:
1. $\textbf{k}_0 = (0,0)$,
2. for any $1 \le i \le n$, only the obstacles $\mathcal{O}_{\textbf{k}_{i-1}}$ and $\mathcal{O}_{\textbf{k}_i}$ intersect the convex hull of these two obstacles,
3. for any $1 \le i \le n-1$, the obstacle $\mathcal{O}_{\textbf{k}_i}$ is disjoint from the convex hull of $\mathcal{O}_{\textbf{k}_{i-1}}$ and $\mathcal{O}_{\textbf{k}_{i+1}}$.
A crucial result of [@BMS06], Theorem 2.2 claims the existence of orbits with any prescribed (finite or infinite) admissible itinerary $\left(\textbf{k}_n\right)_{n=N_1}^{N_2}$.
In this paper we always consider the obstacles to be closed, i.e., containing their boundaries. Whenever dealing with the so called admissible orbits, we shall restrict ourselves to studying only
1. special admissible billiard orbit segments, the so called strongly admissible orbit segments, for which the above discrete itinerary $$(\textbf{k}_0, \textbf{k}_1, \ldots, \textbf{k}_n)$$ has the additional property that $\text{dist}(\textbf{k}_{i-1}, \textbf{k}_i) \leq \sqrt{2}$ for $i = 1, 2, \ldots, n$.
We are primarily interested in discovering the asymptotic behavior of the above segments $\{\pi(x(t))| 0 \le t \le T\}$ from the viewpoint of the fundamental group $\pi_1(\mathcal{Q})$, as $T \rightarrow \infty$. The first question that arises here is how to measure the large-scale motion in $\pi_1(\mathcal{Q})$ that is naturally associated with $\{\pi(x(t))| 0 \le t
\le T\}$? In order to answer this question, we first consider the so-called Cayley graph $\mathcal{G} = (\mathcal{V}, \mathcal{E})$ of the group $\pi_1(\mathcal{Q}) = \textbf{F}_2$ determined by the symmetric system of generators $\mathcal{A} = \{a, a^{-1}, b, b^{-1}\}$. The vertex set $\mathcal{V}$ of the Cayley graph $\mathcal{G}$ is, by definition, the underlying set of the group $\textbf{F}_2$. We say that an oriented edge of type $l\in \mathcal{A}$ goes from the element $w_1 \in \mathcal{V}$ to the element $w_2 \in \mathcal{V}$ if $w_1l = w_2$. The arising oriented graph consists of pairs of oppositely oriented edges $l, l^{-1}$. Other than the these cycles of length 2, there are no cycles in the Cayley graph $\mathcal{G}$. If we identify the opposite edges, then, obviously, we obtain a tree in which every vertex has degree 4 (a so-called 4-regular tree). The graph $\mathcal{G}$ is considered a rooted tree with root $1\in\mathcal{V}$. (The identity element $1$ of the group $F_2$.)
On the set $\mathcal{V} = \textbf{F}_2$ a natural way to measure the distance $d(x,y)$ between two vertices $x, y$ is to use the graph distance, i.e., the length of the shortest path (the only simple path) connecting $x, y$. Two facts are immediately clear about this distance $d(\cdot, \cdot)$:
1. $d(1, w) = \|w\|$ is the so-called length of the word $w$, i.e., the overall number of letters $l \in \mathcal{A}$ that are needed to express $w$ in its shortest form,
2. the metric $d(\cdot, \cdot)$ is left-invariant (for the whole Cayley graph $\mathcal{G}$ is invariant under the left regular action of $\textbf{F}_2$ on $\mathcal{V} = \textbf{F}_2$).
Secondly, the correct way to define the direction in which a trajectory in $\mathcal{V}$ goes to infinity is to use the so-called “ends” of the hyperbolic group $\textbf{F}_2$ (see [@CoP93]). An end of $\textbf{F}_2$ is an infinite, simple (not self-intersecting) path, i.e., an infinite branch $W =
(w_0, w_1, w_2, \ldots)$ where $w_i \in \textbf{F}_2$, $w_0 = 1$, $l_k =
w^{-1}_{k-1}w_k \in \mathcal{A}$, $k = 1, 2, \ldots$, $w_k \neq w_l$ for $k
\neq l$, or, equivalently, $l_k^{-1} \neq l_{k+1}$ for all $k \in \operatorname{\mathbb{N}}$. The set of all ends $\text{Ends}(\textbf{F}_2)$ of $\textbf{F}_2$ will be denoted by $E$. The elements $W$ of $E$ (as above) are uniquely determined by the infinite sequence $(l_1, l_2, \ldots) \in \mathcal{A}^{\operatorname{\mathbb{N}}}$, where $l_k^{-1}
\neq l_{k+1}$ for all $k \in \operatorname{\mathbb{N}}$. In this way the set $E =
\text{Ends}(\textbf{F}_2)$ is identified with a closed subset of the product space $\mathcal{A}^{\operatorname{\mathbb{N}}}$ and inherits from $\mathcal{A}^{\operatorname{\mathbb{N}}}$ its natural product space (a Cantor set) topology. The set $E=\text{Ends}(\textbf{F}_2)$ with this topology is also called the *horizon*, or the *ideal boundary* of the group $\textbf{F}_2$.
The large-scale behavior of the projected orbit segment $$\{\pi(x(t)) = \pi(x_1(t), x_2(t)) | 0 \le t \le T\} \subset \mathcal{Q}$$ will be discovered by understanding
1. in what direction $\pi(x(T))$ goes to $\infty$, when $\pi(x(T))$ is appropriately interpreted as an element of $\textbf{F}_2 = \pi_1(\mathcal{Q})$,
2. at what speed $\pi(x(T))$ goes to infinity in $\textbf{F}_2$, i.e., how fast the distance $d(1, \pi(x(T)))$ tends to infinity as a function of $T$.
The natural phase space that incorporates the data of both (a) and (b) is the cone $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cone_eq}
C &=& ([0, \infty) \times E)/(\{0\} \times E)\end{aligned}$$ erected upon the base $E$ that can be obtained from the product space $[0,
\infty) \times E$ by pinching together all points of the form $(0, e)$, $e \in
E$. The cone $C$ is clearly an open and dense subset of the compact metrizable cone $\overline{C}$, in which the half open time interval $[0, \infty)$ is replaced by the compact interval $[0, \infty]$. This means that the topology of the cone $C$ can be induced by some complete separable metric (cf. Theorem 4.3.23 in [@Eng89]), thus $C$ is a so-called Polish space. We will not use any such actual metric inducing the topology of $C$, but will only measure the distances of points from the vertex $0$ of $C$ by using the parameter function $t$.
It is obvious that a subset $X$ of $C$ is compact if and only if $X$ is closed and bounded, where boundedness of $X$ means the boundedness of the distance function $t$ on $X$.
The Homotopical Rotation Set $R \subset C$ and the Admissible Homotopical Rotation Set $AR \subset C$ {#the-homotopical-rotation-set-r-subset-c-and-the-admissible-homotopical-rotation-set-ar-subset-c .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we stated above, we shall study the asymptotic homotopical behavior of the billiard trajectory segments $\pi(x(t)) = \pi(x_1(t), x_2(t))$, $0 \le t \le
T$, $x(0) \in \partial\mathcal{O}_{(0,0)}$, i.e., $d(x(0), (0,0)) = r_0$, $x(T) \in \partial\mathcal{O}_{\textbf{k}_n}$, as $T \rightarrow \infty$. Denote by $0 = t_0 < t_1 < t_2 < \cdots < t_n = T$ the times when $d(x(t), \operatorname{\mathbb{Z}}^2) = r_0$, and let $x(t_i) \in \partial\mathcal{O}_{\textbf{k}_i}$, $i = 0, 1, \ldots, n$, $\textbf{k}_0 = (0,0)$. With this orbit segment $(x(0), \dot{x}(0), n)$ we naturally associate an element $w = w(x(0),\dot{x}(0), n)\in\textbf{F}_2$ of the fundamental group $\pi_1(\mathbb{T}^2\setminus\mathcal{O})=\textbf{F}_2$ in the following way: We record the times $0 < \tau_1 < \tau_2 < \cdots < \tau_k < T$ when at least one of the two coordinates $x_1(\tau), x_2(\tau)$ is an integer. If $x_1(\tau_i) \in \operatorname{\mathbb{Z}}$ and $\varepsilon_i =\text{sgn}\left[\left(d/d\tau\right)\,x_1(\tau)|_{\tau=\tau_i}\right]$, then we take $w_i = a^{\varepsilon_i}$, while for $x_2(\tau_i) \in \operatorname{\mathbb{Z}}$ and $\varepsilon_i = \text{sgn}\left[\left(d/d\tau\right)\,x_2(\tau)|_{\tau=\tau_i}\right]$ we take $w_i = b^{\varepsilon_i}$. The first crossing will be called an $x$-crossing $a^{\varepsilon_i}$, while the second crossing will be called a $y$-crossing $b^{\varepsilon_i}$, see also Fig. 1. The word $w = w(x(0), \dot{x}(0), T)$ is then defined as the product $w = w_1w_2\ldots w_k$. We can now make the following observation:
The billiard orbit segment $(x(0), \dot{x}(0), n) =
\{\pi(x(t))|0 \le t \le T\}$ can be made a closed curve (a loop) in $\mathbb{T}^2\setminus\mathcal{O}$ by adding to it a bounded extension (beyond $T$). This bounded addition will only modify the word $w = w_1w_2\ldots w_k = w(x(0), \dot{x}(0), n)$ (defined above) by a bounded right multiplier, but all modifications have no effect on the asymptotic behavior of $w$ as $T \rightarrow
\infty$, see Lemma \[bounded\_dif\] below.
\[lim\_pt\_df\] Let $x_i = \{x_i(t)|0 \le t \le T_i \}$ (i =1, 2, 3, …) be an infinite sequence of piecewise smooth continuous curves in $\mathbb{T}^2\setminus\mathcal{O}$ with all transversal $x$- and $y$-crossings and $\lim_{i \rightarrow \infty} T_i = \infty$. We say that the point $(t,e) \in C$ of the cone $C$ is the limiting point of the sequence $(x_i)_{i = 1}^{\infty}$ if
1. $w(x_i) \rightarrow e$, as $i \rightarrow \infty$, and
2. $\lim_{i \rightarrow \infty} (1/T_i)\|w(x_i)\| = t$.
\[bounded\_dif\] Let $x_i = \{x_i(t)|0 \le t \le T_i \}$ and $y_i = \{y_i(t)|0 \le t \le
\tilde{T}_i \}$ be two infinite sequences of piecewise smooth continuous curves fulfilling the conditions of Definition \[lim\_pt\_df\], in particular, with $\lim_{i \rightarrow \infty}T_i=\lim_{i \rightarrow \infty}\tilde{T}_i=\infty$. Assume that $x_i$ and $y_i$ differ only by a bounded terminal segment, i.e., there exists a bound $K > 0$ such that $|T_i -\tilde{T}_i| \le K$ and $x_i(t)
\neq y_i(t)$ imply $T_i - t \le K$. Finally, assume that $(t,e) \in C$ is the limiting point of the sequence $(x_i)_{i=1}^{\infty}$. Then $(t,e)$ is also the limiting point of the sequence $(y_i)_{i=1}^{\infty}$.
Our boundedness hypothesis implies that there are words $w_i \in \textbf{F}_2$ and a constant $K_1$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
w(y_i) = w(x_i)w_i \label{seq_mult} \\
\|w_i\| \le K_1, \label{seq_bound}
\end{aligned}$$ for $i = 1, 2, 3, \ldots$. The assumed relation $w(x_i)
\rightarrow e$ and – imply that $w(y_i) \rightarrow e$, as $i \rightarrow \infty$. Similarly, the sequences $(\|w(x_i)\| - \|w(y_i)\|)_{i = 1}^{\infty}$ and $(T_i -
\tilde{T}_i)_{i=1}^{\infty}$ are bounded, hence the relation $$\lim_{i \rightarrow \infty} (1/T_i)\|w(x_i)\| = t$$ implies $$\lim_{i \rightarrow \infty} (1/\tilde{T}_i)\|w(y_i)\| = t.$$
\[admis\_def\] The homotopical rotation set $R \subset C$ is defined as all possible limiting points of sequences of orbit segments $x_i =
\{x_i(t)| 0 \le t \le T_i\}$ with $T_i \rightarrow \infty$. Similarly, the admissible homotopical rotation set $AR \subset C$ is the set of all possible limiting points of sequences of admissible billiard orbit segments. It is clear that $AR \subset R$ and both are closed subsets of the cone $C$.
For a given forward orbit $x = \{x(t)| t \ge 0\}$ the homotopical rotation set $R(x)$ of $x$ is defined as the set of all possible limiting points $(t,e) \in
C$ of sequences of orbit segments $x_i = \{x(t)| 0 \le t \le T_i \}$ (these are initial segments of $x$) with $\lim_{i \rightarrow \infty} T_i = \infty$. Plainly, $R(x)$ is a closed subset of the cone $C$. Theorem \[upper\_bnd\] below will ensure that $R(x)$ is a non-empty, compact set. In the case $|R(x)| = 1$, i.e., when $R(x)$ is a singleton, the sole element of $R(x)$ will be called the homotopical rotation number of the forward orbit $x$.
For the definition of admissible billiard orbits, please see the above definition in this section or the definition of admissibility immediately preceding Theorem 2.2 in [@BMS06]. Also, please compare the definition of $R$ and $AR$ here with the analogous definitions at the beginning of section 3 of [@BMS06].
We also note that any symbolic admissible itinerary $(k_0, k_1, \ldots)$ (finite or infinite) can actually be realized by a genuine billiard orbit. Please see Theorem 2.2 in [@BMS06].
The first result of this paper is a uniform upper bound for the radial size of the full homotopical rotation set $R$.
\[upper\_bnd\] The homotopical rotation set $R$ is contained in the closed ball $B(0,\sqrt{2})$ centered at the vertex $0$ of the cone $C$ with radius $\sqrt{2}$. In particular, the set $R$ is compact.
Throughout this proof we will be dealing exclusively with orbit segments $x(t)=\left(x_1(t),x_2(t)\right)$ ($0\le t\le T$) lifted to the covering space $$\tilde{\mathcal{Q}}
=\left\{x\in\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^2\big|\; \rm{dist}(x,\mathbb{Z}^2)\ge r_0\right\}$$ of the configuration space $\mathcal{Q}$. The trivial, periodic orbits bouncing back and forth horizontally (vertically) between two neighboring obstacles (i. e. two obstacles with their centers at unit distance from each other) will be excluded from our considerations.
First of all, we make a simple observation:
Let $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$ ($0\le\tau_1<\tau_2\le T$) be the time moments of two consecutive $x$-crossings of the orbit segment $x(t)=\left(x_1(t),x_2(t)\right)$ ($0\le t\le T$). We claim that $$\int_{\tau_1}^{\tau_2}\left|\dot{x}_1(t)\right|dt \ge 1.$$
Without loss of generality we may assume that $\dot{x}_1(\tau_1)>0$. Let $x_1(\tau_1)=k\in\operatorname{\mathbb{Z}}$. Then $x_1(\tau_2)=k+1$ or $x_1(\tau_2)=k$. In the former case we are done, so we assume that $x_1(\tau_1)=k=x_1(\tau_2)$. Clearly, in this case $\dot{x}_1(\tau_2)<0$. In order for the particle to change its positive horizontal momentum $\dot{x}_1(\tau_1)$ to the negative value of $\dot{x}_1(\tau_2)$, it is necessary for the particle to cross the median $x_1=k+1/2$ of the vertical strip $k\le x_1\le k+1$, for any collision on the left side of this strip can only increase the horizontal momentum. This observation yields the claimed lower estimate.
The counterpart of the lemma providing a similar lower estimate $$\int_{\tau_1}^{\tau_2}\left|\dot{x}_2(t)\right|dt \ge 1$$ between two consecutive $y$-crossings is also true, obviously.
Denote by $N$ the overall number of $x$- and $y$-crossings (counted without the sign) on the considered orbit segment $\left\{x(t)=\left(x_1(t),x_2(t)\right)\big|\; 0\le t\le T\right\}$. The above lemma gives us the upper estimate $$N \le \int_0^T
\left(\left|\dot{x}_1(t)\right|+\left|\dot{x}_2(t)\right|\right)dt+2$$ for the number $N$. Since $\left|\dot{x}_1(t)\right|+\left|\dot{x}_2(t)\right|\le\sqrt{2}$, we get that $N\le\sqrt{2}T+2$, that is, $N/T\le\sqrt{2}+2/T$, and this proves the theorem.
\[sharp\_exmp\] The upper bound $\sqrt{2}$ for the radial size of $R$ cannot be improved uniformly for all directions $e\in\rm{Ends}(\textbf{F}_2)$, as the following example shows: The “smallness” condition $r_0< \sqrt{2}/4$ precisely means that the corridor (strip) $$S_0=\left\{x=(x_1,x_2)\in\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^2\big|\; \sqrt{2}r_0\le x_2-x_1\le
1-\sqrt{2}r_0\right\}$$ is free of obstacles in the covering space $$\tilde{\mathcal{Q}}
=\left\{x\in\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^2\big|\; \rm{dist}(x,\operatorname{\mathbb{Z}}^2)\ge r_0\right\}.$$ In this corridor $S_0$, for any natural number $n$ we construct the periodic orbit (periodic after projecting it into $\mathcal{Q}$) $$\left\{x^{(n)}(t)=\left(x^{(n)}_1(t),\, x^{(n)}_2(t)\right)\big|\; t\in\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}\right\}$$ that has consecutive reflections at the points $$\left(\dots,\,P_{-1},\,Q_{-1},\,P_0,\,Q_0,\,P_1,\,Q_1,\dots\right)$$ (written in time order), where $$\aligned
P_k&=v_0+k(2n+1,\,2n+1), \\
Q_k&=-v_0+(n,\,n+1)+k(2n+1,\,2n+1)
\endaligned$$ ($k\in\mathbb{Z}$) with $v_0=\left(-r_0/\sqrt{2},\,r_0/\sqrt{2}\right)$. The period length $T_n$ of of $x^{(n)}$ is $$T_n=2\left||(n,\,n+1)-2v_0\right||=
2\left(2n^2+2n+1+4r_0^2-2\sqrt{2}r_0\right)^{1/2}=2\sqrt{2}n+O(1),$$ whereas this periodic orbit makes exactly $2n+1$ $x$-crossings $a$ and $2n+1$ $y$-crossings $b$ during one period. Thus, the word length $$\left||w\left(\left\{x^{(n)}(t)\big|\; 0\le t\le T_n\right\}\right)\right||$$ is equal to $4n+2$, therefore $$\frac{\left||w\left(\left\{x^{(n)}(t)\big|\;
0\le t\le T_n\right\}\right)\right||}
{T_n}=\frac{4n+2}{2\sqrt{2}n+O(1)},$$ and this quantity tends to $\sqrt{2}$, as $n\to\infty$.
The main result of this paper is an effective lower bound for the set $AR$ and, consequently, for the full rotation set $R$:
\[lower\_bnd\] Assume that the radius $r_0$ of the sole obstacle is less than $\sqrt{5}/10$. We claim that the admissible rotation set $AR$ contains the closed ball $B(0,\,\sqrt{2}/2)\subset C$ of radius $\sqrt{2}/2$ centered at the vertex $0$ of the cone $C$.
The proof of this lemma will be subdivided into a few lemmas and observations. First of all, we observe
The imposed condition $r_0<\sqrt{5}/10$ is equivalent to requiring that the circular scatterer $\mathcal{O}_{(0,0)}$ does not intersect the convex hull of the scatterers $\mathcal{O}_{(-1,-1)}$ and $\mathcal{O}_{(0,1)}$. Therefore, under our condition of $r_0<\sqrt{5}/10$ the following statements hold true:
1. Every integer vector $\mathbf{k}\in\mathbb{Z}^2$ of length $1$ or $\sqrt{2}$ is a vertex of the admissibility graph $G$ (please see the first paragraph after the proof of Lemma 2.5 in [@BMS06]), i. e. the passage $\mathbf{k}$ is admissible;
2. If $\mathbf{k}$ and $\mathbf{l}$ are two distinct integer vectors with norms $1$ or $\sqrt{2}$, then there is an oriented edge $\mathbf{k}\to\mathbf{l}$ in the admissibility graph $G$, that is, in an admissible itinerary a passage $\mathbf{l}$ is permitted to follow a passage $\mathbf{k}$.
The above statements are easily checked by an elementary inspection.
At the core of the proof (of the theorem) is
\[cons\_obs\_lm\] Suppose that $n\ge 0$ is an integer and $\mathbf{k}_0,\mathbf{k}_1,\dots,\mathbf{k}_{n+2}$ ($\in\mathbb{Z}^2$) are centers of obstacles that are consecutively visited by the segment $S^{[0,T]}x$ of a strongly admissible orbit $S^{(-\infty,\infty)}x$, so that they are having the following properties:
1. The passage vectors $\mathbf{l}_i=\mathbf{k}_{i+1}-\mathbf{k}_i$ are equal to $(1,\,(-1)^{i+1})$ for $i=1,\dots,n$;
2. The “initial connector” passage vector $\mathbf{l}_0=\mathbf{k}_1-\mathbf{k}_0$ is either $(1,0)$, or $(0,-1)$;
3. The “terminal connector” $\mathbf{l}_{n+1}=\mathbf{k}_{n+2}-\mathbf{k}_{n+1}$ is either $(1,0)$, or $(0,(-1)^n)$;
4. If $\mathbf{l}_0=(0,-1)$, then the passage vector $\mathbf{l}_{-1}$ (directly preceding $\mathbf{l}_0$ in the itinerary of $x$) has positive first coordinate and, if $\mathbf{l}_{n+1}=(0,(-1)^n)$, then the passage vector $\mathbf{l}_{n+2}$ has positive first coordinate;
5. $S^0x=x_0=x$ corresponds to the collision at $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbf{k}_0}$, while $x_T=S^Tx$ corresponds to the collision at $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbf{k}_{n+2}}$.
(Note that, by admissibility, $\mathbf{l}_0=\mathbf{l}_{n+1}=(1,0)$ is not permitted in the case $n=0$.)
We claim that the orbit segment $S^{[0,T]}x$ makes $n+1$ $x$-crossings “$a$” and no $y$-crossings at all, with the only (possible) exception that the initial connector $\mathbf{l}_0=(1,0)$ (if it is $(1,0)$) may make a $y$-crossing $b$, just as the terminal connector $\mathbf{l}_{n+1}=(1,0)$ may make a $y$-crossing $b$ (when $n$ is odd), or $\mathbf{l}_{n+1}=(1,0)$ may make a $y$-crossing $b^{-1}$ (when $n$ is even).
The lemma is proved by an elementary inspection, see also Figure 3 below.
{width="100.00000%" height="0.3\textheight"}
\[Figure 3\]
An admissible orbit segment $S^{[0,T]}x$ (described in the lemma above) will be called an “$a^{n+1}$-passage” with the connectors $\mathbf{l}_0$ and $\mathbf{l}_{n+1}$, where the first connector is called the “initial connector”, while the latter one is called the “terminal connector”. Observe that in this $a^{n+1}$-passage $S^{[0,T]}x$ the $x$-crossings “$a$” are in a natural, one-to-one correspondence with the reflections at the boundaries of $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbf{k}_1},\dots,\mathcal{O}_{\mathbf{k}_{n+1}}$, respectively. These reflections will be called the “eigenreflections” of the $a^{n+1}$-passage $S^{[0,T]}x$. The two reflections at the boundaries of $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbf{k}_0}$ and $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbf{k}_{n+2}}$ will not be considered as eigenreflections of this $a^{n+1}$-passage: The first one of them will actually be the last eigenreflection of a $b^m$-passage ($m\ne 0$) directly preceding the considered $a^{n+1}$-passage, while the second one will be the first eigenreflection of the $b^p$-passage ($p\ne 0$) directly following the $a^{n+1}$-passage $S^{[0,T]}x$. The shared passage vectors $\mathbf{l}_0$ and $\mathbf{l}_{n+1}$ will serve as connectors between the neighboring $a$- and $b$-passages. All passage vectors $\mathbf{l}_i$, used in this construction, have length $1$ or $\sqrt{2}$. We will say that the sequence of passage vectors $\sigma=(\mathbf{l}_0,\mathbf{l}_1,\dots,\mathbf{l}_{n+1})$ is the *symbolic code* of the considered $a^{n+1}$-passage $S^{[0,T]}x$.
Clearly, similar statements are true on $a^m$-passages ($m<0$) and $b^m$-passages ($m\ne 0$). Also, in its current form of the lemma on $a^{n+1}$-passages, the first non-connector passage vector $\mathbf{l}_1=(1,1)$ could have been $(1,-1)$, by appropriately reflecting all other passage vectors about the $x$-axis.
A few words are due here about the possible “exceptional” $b$ or $b^{-1}$ crossings of the initial and/or terminal connectors, mentioned at the end of the claim of the lemma: If the initial connector $\mathbf{l}_0=(1,0)$ happens to make an “exceptional” $y$-crossing $b$, then this crossing will be counted as the last $y$-crossing of the $b^m$-passage ($m>0$) preceding the considered $a^{n+1}$-passage. Similar statement can be said (mutatis mutandis) about a possible “exceptional” $y$-crossing ($b$ or $b^{-1}$) of the terminal connector $\mathbf{l}_{n+1}=(1,0)$.
If $n>0$, then there are exactly $8$ different combinatorial possibilities for the symbolic code $\sigma=(\mathbf{l}_0,\mathbf{l}_1,\dots,\mathbf{l}_{n+1})$ of an $a^{n+1}$-passage: The $x$ coordinates of the connectors $\mathbf{l}_0$ and $\mathbf{l}_{n+1}$ can be $0$ or $1$ independently, whereas $\mathbf{l}_1$ can be $(1,1)$ or $(1,-1)$, also independently chosen from $\mathbf{l}_0$ and $\mathbf{l}_{n+1}$. However, for $n=0$ there are only $6$ possibilities for $\sigma=(\mathbf{l}_0,\mathbf{l}_1)$:
1. $\mathbf{l}_0=(0,1)$, $\mathbf{l}_1=(0,-1)$;
2. $\mathbf{l}_0=(0,-1)$, $\mathbf{l}_1=(0,1)$;
3. $\mathbf{l}_0=(1,0)$, $\mathbf{l}_1=(0,1)$;
4. $\mathbf{l}_0=(1,0)$, $\mathbf{l}_1=(0,-1)$;
5. $\mathbf{l}_0=(0,1)$, $\mathbf{l}_1=(1,0)$;
6. $\mathbf{l}_0=(0,-1)$, $\mathbf{l}_1=(1,0)$.
Consider an arbitrary element $w_\infty=\prod_{i=1}^\infty a^{n_i}b^{m_i}$ (an infinite word) of the set $\rm{Ends}(F_2)$. For any natural number $N$ we want to construct a finite, admissible orbit segment $S^{[0,T_N]}x_N=x^{(N)}$, the associated word $w(x^{(N)})$ of which is $\prod_{i=1}^N a^{n_i}b^{m_i}:=w_N$, such that $$\limsup_{N\to\infty}\frac{||w_N||}{T_N}\ge\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}.$$ By symmetry, we may assume that the considered word $w_\infty$ begins with a power of “$a$” (as the notations above indicate), and that $n_1>0$. We shall use Lemma \[cons\_obs\_lm\] by successively concatenating the $a^{n_i}$- and $b^{m_i}$-passages ($i=1,\dots,N$) to obtain the admissible orbit segment $x^{(N)}=S^{[0,T_N]}x_N$ with the associated word $$w(x^{(N)})=w_N=\prod_{i=1}^N a^{n_i}b^{m_i}.$$ This will be achieved by constructing first the symbolic, admissible itinerary of $x^{(N)}$ containing only passage vectors $\mathbf{l}_j=\mathbf{k}_{j+1}-\mathbf{k}_j\in\mathbb{Z}^2$ of length $1$ and $\sqrt{2}$.
For simplicity (and by symmetry) we assume that $n_1>0$. First we construct the symbolic itinerary $(\mathbf{l}_0,\dots,\mathbf{l}_{n_1})$ of an $a^{n_1}$-passage by taking $\mathbf{l}_0=(1,0)$, $\mathbf{l}_j=(1,\,(-1)^{j+1})$ for $j=1,2,\dots,n_1-1$. The terminal connector $\mathbf{l}_{n_1}$ will be carefully chosen, depending on the parity of $n_1$ and the sign of the integer $m_1$. By symmetry we may assume that $\mathbf{l}_{n_1-1}=(1,\,-1)$, i. e. that $n_1$ is an odd number. In the construction of the terminal connector $\mathbf{l}_{n_1}$ and the symbolic itinerary $(\mathbf{l}_{n_1},\mathbf{l}_{n_1+1},\dots,\mathbf{l}_{n_1+|m_1|})$ of the subsequent $b^{m_1}$-passage we will distinguish between two, essentially different cases.
Case I. $m_1>0$ {#case-i.-m_10 .unnumbered}
---------------
In this case we take $\mathbf{l}_{n_1}=(0,1)$ and, furthermore, $\mathbf{l}_j=((-1)^{j},\,1)$ for $j=n_1+1,n_1+2,\dots,n_1+|m_1|-1$. The terminal connector $\mathbf{l}_{n_1+|m_1|}$ of this $b^{m_1}$-passage will be carefully chosen by a coupling process (similar to the one that we are just describing here) to couple the $b^{m_1}$-passage with the subsequent $a^{n_2}$-passage.
Case II. $m_1<0$ {#case-ii.-m_10 .unnumbered}
----------------
In this case we take $\mathbf{l}_{n_1}=(1,0)$, $\mathbf{l}_j=((-1)^{j+1},\,-1)$ for $j=n_1+1,n_1+2,\dots,n_1+|m_1|-1$. Again, the terminal connector $\mathbf{l}_{n_1+|m_1|}$ of this $b^{m_1}$-passage will be carefully chosen by a coupling process to couple the $b^{m_1}$-passage with the subsequent $a^{n_2}$-passage.
It is clear that the above process can be continued (by changing whatever needs to be changed, according to the apparent mirror symmetries of the system) to couple together the subsequent $a^{n_1}$-, $b^{m_1}$-, $a^{n_2}$-, $b^{m_2}$-,$\dots$, $a^{n_N}$-, and $b^{m_N}$-passages. In this way we obtain the admissible symbolic itinerary $(\mathbf{l}_0,\mathbf{l}_1,\dots,\mathbf{l}_{||w_N||})$ of a potential admissible orbit segment $x^{(N)}$ with the associated word $$w(x^{(N)})=w_N=\prod_{i=1}^N a^{n_i}b^{m_i}.$$ The existence of such an admissible orbit segment $x^{(N)}$ is guaranteed by Theorem 2.2 of [@BMS06], using an orbit length minimizing principle in the construction. This means that a required orbit segment $x^{(N)}$ can be obtained by minimizing the length of all piecewise linear curves (broken lines) $P_0P_1\dots P_{L+1}$ ($L=||w_N||=\sum_{i=1}^N(|n_i|+|m_i|)$) for which the corner points $P_j$ belong to the obstacle (the closed disk) $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbf{k}_j}$ ($j=0,1,\dots,L+1$) with $\mathbf{k}_j=\sum_{i=0}^{j-1}\mathbf{l}_i$. Clearly, the length $T_N$ of the arising orbit segment $x^{(N)}$ is less than the length of the broken line connecting the consecutive centers $\mathbf{k}_j$ ($0\le j\le L+1$) of the affected obstacles, and this latter number is $\sum_{j=0}^L||\mathbf{l}_j||\le\sqrt{2}(L+1)$. Thus, we get that $$\frac{||w_N||}{T_N}>\frac{L}{\sqrt{2}(L+1)},$$ and this proves Theorem \[lower\_bnd\].
We note that if a point $(t,e)$ turns out to be a limiting point of a sequence of admissible orbit segments with passage vectors of length $1$ or $\sqrt{2}$, then any other point $(t_1, e) \in C$ with $0 \le t_1 \le t$ is also such a limiting point. Indeed, by inserting the necessary amount of “idle sequences” $\alpha\alpha^{-1}\alpha\alpha^{-1}\cdots$ in the itinerary, we can decrease the ratios $\|w(\sigma)\|/T(\sigma)$ (and their limits) as we wish. This finishes the proof of the theorem.
An immediate consequence of the last argument is
The set $AR$ is star-shaped from the view point $(0,0)\in C$, i.e., $(t,e) \in AR$ and $0 \le t_1 \le t$ imply that $(t_1, e) \in AR$.
The concluding result of this section shows that the lower estimate $\sqrt{2}/2$ for the radial size of $AR$ is actually sharp, at least in some directions $w_\infty\in\rm{Ends}(\textbf{F}_2)$ and in the *small obstacle limit* $r_0\to 0$.
Consider the direction $$w_\infty=aba^{-1}b^{-1}aba^{-1}b^{-1}\dots \in\rm{Ends}(\textbf{F}_2),$$ i. e. the “infinite power” of the commutator element $[a,b]=aba^{-1}b^{-1}$. We claim that the radial size $$\sigma=\sigma(r_0,w_\infty)=\sup\left\{t\in\mathbb{R}_+\big|\;
(t,\,w_\infty)\in R\right\}$$ of the full rotation set $R$ in the direction of $w_\infty$ has the limiting value $\sqrt{2}/2$, as $r_0\to 0$. In particular, similar statement holds true for the radial size of the smaller, admissible rotation set $AR$ in the same direction. Thus, the lower estimate $\sqrt{2}/2$ for the radial size of $AR$ (of $R$) in this direction cannot be improved in the small obstacle limit $r_0\to 0$. We recall that, according to Theorem \[lower\_bnd\] above, $\sigma(r_0, e)\ge \sqrt{2}/2$ for all $r_0$ and all $e\in\rm{Ends}(\textbf{F}_2)$.
Consider an infinite sequence $(x_n)_{n=1}^\infty$ of orbit segments $$x_n=\left\{x_n(t)\big|\; 0\le t\le T_n\right\}$$ with $T_n\nearrow\infty$, $w(x_n)=(aba^{-1}b^{-1})^{k_n}$, $k_n\nearrow\infty$, and $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{4k_n}{T_n}=\sigma(r_0,\, w_\infty).$$ We may assume that the relevant $x$-crossings “$a$” of $x_n$ (relevant in the sense that their symbol $a$ remains in the associated word $w(x_n)$ after all possible shortenings) take place between the obstacles at $(0,0)$ and $(0,-1)$, the relevant $y$-crossings “$b$” occur between the obstacles at $(0,0)$ and $(1,0)$, the relevant $x$-crossings “$a^{-1}$” happen between the obstacles at $(0,0)$ and $(0,1)$ and, finally, the relevant $y$-crossings “$b^{-1}$” take place between the obstacles at $(0,0)$ and $(-1,0)$, i. e. $x_n$ circles around the central obstacle $\mathcal{O}_{(0,0)}$ counterclockwise. The proof of the inequality $$\limsup_{r_0\to 0} \sigma(r_0,\, w_\infty)\le\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}$$ will be based on the following, elementary geometric observation:
Let $N$ be a natural number and $$\Gamma=\left\{\gamma(t)\big|\; 0\le t\le T\right\}$$ be a piecewise linear curve (a broken line) in $\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^2$ parametrized with the arc length, enjoying the following properties:
1. every vertex (corner) of $\Gamma$ is an integer point;
2. $(0,0)\not\in\Gamma$;
3. $\Gamma$ winds around the origin at least $N$ times, i. e. $$\int_0^T \dot{\omega}(t)dt\ge 2\pi N,$$ where $\omega(t)$ is the angular polar coordinate of $\gamma(t)$.
We claim that $T\ge 4\sqrt{2}N$, and the equation holds if and only if $\Gamma$ connects the lattice points $(1,0)$, $(0,1)$, $(-1,0)$, and $(0,-1)$ in this cyclic order.
Since the proof of this result is a simple, elementary geometric argument (though with a little bit tedious investigation of a few cases), we omit it, and immediately turn to the proof of the proposition.
For $n=1,2,\dots$ we define a broken line $\Gamma_n$, fulfilling all conditions of the previous lemma with $N=k_n$, by
1. considering all centers $c_1,c_2,\dots,c_m$ ($c_i\in\mathbb{Z}^2$) of the obstacles visited by $x_n$ in the time order $x_n$ visits them;
2. dropping the possible appearances of the origin from the above sequence $c_1,c_2,\dots,c_m$;
3. constructing $\Gamma_n$ by connecting the lattice points $c_1,c_2,\dots,c_m$ (in this order) and, by adding a bounded extension to $\Gamma_n$ if necessary, ensuring that $\Gamma_n$ winds around the origin at least $k_n$ times.
Observe that the length $|AB|$ of any billiard orbit segment, connecting two consecutive collisions, is always between $d-2r_0$ and $d$, where $d$ is the distance between the centers of the obstacles affected by the collisions. Therefore, by the previous lemma we get the following inequality for the length $T_n$ of $x_n$: $$\frac{T_n}{1-2r_0}+C\ge 4\sqrt{2}k_n$$ with some constant $C>0$. This inequality implies $$\sigma(r_0,\, w_\infty)=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{4k_n}{T_n}\le
\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2(1-2r_0)},$$ thus $$\limsup_{r_0\to 0}\sigma(r_0,w_\infty)\le\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2},$$ as claimed by the proposition.
Corollaries and Concluding Remarks {#conc_sec}
==================================
The first corollary listed in this section is a byproduct of the proof of Theorem \[upper\_bnd\]. It provides a positive constant as the upper estimate for the topological entropy $h_{\text{top}}(r_0)$ of our considered $2D$ billiard flow with one obstacle.
\[htop\_thm\] For the topological entropy $h_{\text{top}}(r_0)$ of the billiard flow studied in this paper we have the following upper estimate $$h_{\text{top}}(r_0)\le 6\sqrt{2}\ln2=5.8815488\dots$$
The above corollary should be compared to (and explained in the framework of) some earlier results by Burago-Ferleger-Kononenko. In [@BFK98], the authors also enumerate all possible homotopical-combinatorial types of trajectories, and they prove the existence of a limit $$0 < \lim_{r_0 \rightarrow 0} h_{\text{top}} (r_0) = c_0 < \infty.$$ along with the lower estimate $\ln 3 \le c_0$ and an implicit upper bound in terms of the similar entropy limit for the $3D$ Lorentz gas. In Theorem \[htop\_thm\] we obtained a concrete upper bound for $c_0$.
We subdivide the periodic billiard table $\mathcal{Q}$ (the configuration space) into five pairwise disjoint domains $\mathcal{D}_1, \mathcal{D}_2^\pm,
\mathcal{D}_3^\pm$ with piecewise linear boundaries as depicted in the figure below. The domains $\mathcal{D}_k^+$ ($k=2,3$) consist of all points $(x_1, x_2) \in \mathcal{Q}$ for which the fractional part $\{x_{k-1}\}$ of $x_{k-1}$ satisfies the inequality $\{x_{k-1}\}\le\varepsilon_0$ (for some fixed, small $\varepsilon_0
> 0$), the domains $\mathcal{D}_k^-$ ($k=2,3$) consist of all points $(x_1,
x_2) \in \mathcal{Q}$ for which $\{x_{k-1}\}\ge 1-\varepsilon_0$, while $\mathcal{D}_1$ is the closure $\overline{\mathcal{Q}\setminus(\mathcal{D}_2^-\cup\mathcal{D}_2^+\cup
\mathcal{D}_3^-\cup\mathcal{D}_3^+)}$ of the set $\mathcal{Q}\setminus(\mathcal{D}_2^-\cup\mathcal{D}_2^+\cup
\mathcal{D}_3^-\cup\mathcal{D}_3^+)$.
{width="40.00000%" height="0.4\textheight"}
\[Figure 4\]
The union $\mathcal{Q} =\mathcal{D}_1\cup\mathcal{D}_2^-\cup\mathcal{D}_2^+\cup
\mathcal{D}_3^-\cup\mathcal{D}_3^+$ is an almost disjoint one: these domains only intersect at their piecewise linear boundaries. Thus, from the dynamical viewpoint $\mathcal{Q}=\mathcal{D}_1\cup\mathcal{D}_2^-\cup\mathcal{D}_2^+\cup
\mathcal{D}_3^-\cup\mathcal{D}_3^+$ is a partition $\Pi$.
We claim that $\Pi$ is a generating partition, meaning that the supremum (the coarsest common refinement) $\bigwedge_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}S^{-n\epsilon_0}(\Pi)$ of the partitions $S^{-n\epsilon_0}(\Pi)$ is the trivial partition into the singletons, modulo the zeroe-measured sets. Indeed, if two phase points $x = (q_1, v_1)$ and $y
= (q_2, v_2)$ ($q_1, q_2 \in \mathcal{Q}$, $v_i \in \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^2$, $\|v_i\| = 1$) share the same symbolic future itineraries (recorded at $n\epsilon_0$ moments of time) with respect to the partition $\Pi$, then, as an elementary inspection shows, $S^{\tau}y$ and $x$ belong to the same local stable curve, where $\tau \in \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}$ is a time-synchronizing constant. Similar results apply to the shared symbolic itineraries in the past and the unstable curves. These facts imply that $x = S^{\tau}y$ (with some $\tau \in \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}$), whenever $x$ and $y$ share identical $\Pi$-itineraries in both time directions, i.e. $x=y$ for a typical pair $(x,y)$, so $\Pi$ is a generating partition.
For any time $T > 0$ ($T$ will eventually go to infinity) denote by $N(T)$ the number of all possible $\Pi$-itineraries of trajectory segments $S^{[0,T]}x$, $x \in \mathcal{M}$. It follows from the generating property of $\Pi$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{htop_lim}
h_{\text{top}} = \lim_{T \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{T}\ln N(T).
\end{aligned}$$ It is clear that any orbit segment $\left\{x(t)| 0\le t\le T\right\}$ alternates between the domains $\mathcal{D}_1$ and $\mathcal{D}^*=\overline{\mathcal{Q}\setminus\mathcal{D}_1}$. Consider an orbit segment $x=\left\{x(t)\big|\; 0\le t\le T\right\}$ lifted to the covering space $\tilde{\mathcal{Q}}$ of $\mathcal{Q}$. Let $\tau_1$ be a time when $x$ leaves the domain $D_2^+$ ($D_2^-$), and $\tau_2$ be the time when $x$ re-enters the same domain $D_2^+$ ($D_2^-$) the next time, $0\le\tau_1<\tau_2\le T$. The proof of the lemma following Theorem \[upper\_bnd\] shows that $$\int_{\tau_1}^{\tau_2}\left|\dot{x}_1(t)\right|dt \ge 1-\varepsilon_0.$$ Therefore, the number of times the orbit segment $x$ visits the domain $D_2^+$ ($D_2^-$) is at most $$\frac{1}{1-\varepsilon_0}\cdot\int_0^T \left|\dot{x}_1(t)\right|dt+1.$$ Applying this upper estimate to $D_2^+$ and $D_2^-$, then the analogous upper estimates for the number of visits to $D_3^\pm$, and, finally, taking the sum of the arising four estimates, we get that the total number of visits by $x$ to the four domains $D_2^\pm$, $D_3^\pm$ is at most $$\frac{2}{1-\varepsilon_0}\cdot\int_0^T \left(\left|\dot{x}_1(t)\right|+
\left|\dot{x}_2(t)\right|\right)dt+4\le\frac{2\sqrt{2}T}{1-\varepsilon_0}+4.$$ Since $x$ alternates between $D_1$ and the union of the other four domains, the total number of times $x$ visits $D_1$ is at most $$f(T,\,\varepsilon_0):=\frac{2\sqrt{2}T}{1-\varepsilon_0}+5.$$ After entering any of the domains $\mathcal{D}_2^\pm$, $\mathcal{D}_3^\pm$, the orbit segment $\sigma$ has two sides of this domain (i. e. two combinatorial possibilities) to exit it, whereas, after entering the domain $\mathcal{D}_1$, it has four sides of $\mathcal{D}_1$ to leave it. This argument immediately yields the upper estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{NT_bnd}
N(T) \le 8^{f(T,\,\varepsilon_0)}
\end{aligned}$$ for the number $N(T)$ of all possible symbolic types of orbit segments of length $T$. In light of , the above inequality proves the upper estimate of Theorem \[htop\_thm\], once we take the natural logarithm of , take the limit as $T\to\infty$, and, finally, the limit as $\varepsilon_0\to0$.
For the topological entropy $h_{\text{top}}(r_0)$ of the billiard flow (with one circular obstacle of radius $r_0$ inside $\mathbb{T}^2$) we have the lower estimate $$h_{\text{top}}(r_0) \geq \frac{\ln 3}{\sqrt{2}} \approx 0.776836199\dots$$
(A sketch.) Theorem \[lower\_bnd\] says that the words $w\left(\left\{x(t)|\; 0\leq t\leq T\right\}\right)$ corresponding to all orbits $\left\{x(t)|\; 0\leq t\leq T\right\}$ of length $T$ fill in the ball of radius $T/\sqrt{2}$ in the Cayley graph of the group $F_2$. Hence the number of different homotopy types of these orbits $\left\{x(t)|\; 0\leq t\leq T\right\}$ is at least $\text{const}\cdot 3^{T/\sqrt{2}}$. Take the natural logarithm of this lower estimate, divide by $T$, and pass to the limit as $T\to \infty$ to get the claim of the corollary.
Let $x_{T_0}=\left\{x(t)|\; 0\leq t\leq T_0\right\}$ be a periodic orbit with period $T_0$, and $w_0=w\left(x_{T_0}\right)\in F_2(a,b)$ the symbolic word corresponding to it. Finally, let $w_\infty = w_0w_0w_0\dots \in \text{Ends}(F_2)$ be the infinite power of $w_0$. It is clear that the homotopical rotation number $(t,\, e)=(t,\, w_\infty)\in C$ of the full (periodic) orbit $x$ exists, i. e. $$t=\lim_{T\to \infty} \frac{\left\Vert w\left(\left\{x(t)|\; 0\leq t\leq T\right\}\right)\right\Vert}{T}
= \frac{||w_0||}{T_0},$$ $$e=w_\infty =\lim_{T\to \infty} w\left(\left\{x(t)|\; 0\leq t\leq T\right\}\right).$$ Note that $t=0$ if and only if $w_0=1$. In this case the directional component $e=w_\infty \in \text{Ends}(F_2)$ of the rotation number is undefined.
\[periodic\_rem\] We observe that in Definition \[admis\_def\] of the admissible homotopical rotation set $AR \subset C$ we can select the approximating orbit segments $x_i = \{x_i(\tau)|0 \le \tau \le T_i\}$ to be periodic with period $T_i$ (see Theorem 2.2 of [@BMS06]). Thus, the homotopical rotation numbers $(t,e) \in C$ $$e = \lim_{T \rightarrow \infty} w(\{x(\tau)|0 \le \tau \le T\}) \in \text{Ends}(F_2),$$ $$t = \lim_{T \rightarrow \infty} \frac{\|w(\{x(\tau)|0 \le \tau \le
T\})\|}{T},$$ corresponding to admissible periodic orbits $\{x(\tau)|\tau \in \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}\}$ form a dense subset in $AR$.
\[n\_obs\_rem\] The problem of defining and thoroughly studying the analogous homotopical rotation numbers in the case of $N$ round obstacles in $\mathbb{T}^2$ $(N \ge 2)$ is much more complex than the case $N=1$. Indeed, the fundamental group $G = \pi_1(\mathcal{Q})$ turns out to be the group $\textbf{F}_{N+1}$ freely generated by $N+1$ elements $a_1, a_2, \ldots, a_{N+1}$ (see [@Mas91]). The complexity of the problem is partially explained by the following fact: the “abelianized” version $G/G^{\prime}$ (where $G^{\prime} = [G,G]$ is the commutator subgroup of $G$) is isomorphic to $\operatorname{\mathbb{Z}}^{N+1}$. In the case $N=1$ the group $\operatorname{\mathbb{Z}}^{N+1} = \operatorname{\mathbb{Z}}^2$ coincides with the lattice group of periodicity of the billiard system, and this coincidence establishes a strong connection between the newly introduced homotopical (non-commutative) rotation number $(t,e) \in C$ of a trajectory $\{x(\tau)|\tau \in \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}\}$, $$e = \lim_{T \rightarrow \infty} w(\{x(\tau)|0 \le \tau \le T\}) =
\lim_{T \rightarrow \infty} w_T$$ $$t = \lim_{T \rightarrow \infty} \frac{\|w(\{x(\tau)|0 \le \tau \le
T\})\|}{T} = \lim_{T \rightarrow \infty} \frac{\|w_T\|}{T}$$ and the traditional (commutative) rotation vector $\rho$ of the same trajectory as follows: $$\rho = \lim_{T \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{T} \pi(w_T) \in \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^2,$$ where $\pi: G \rightarrow G/G^{\prime} = \operatorname{\mathbb{Z}}^2$ is the natural projection. Clearly, there is no such straightforward correspondence between the two types of rotation numbers (vectors) in the case $N \ge 2$.
\[arb\_obs\_rem\] If one carefully studies all the proofs and arguments of this paper, it becomes obvious that the round shape of the sole obstacle $\mathcal{O}$ was essentially not used. Thus, all the above results carry over to any other billiard table model on $\mathbb{T}^2$ with a single strictly convex obstacle with smooth boundary $\partial\mathcal{O}$, provided that $\mathcal{O}$ is small in the sense of [@BMS06], i.e., $\mathcal{O}$ is contained in a disk of radius $r_0$, $r_0 < \sqrt{2}/4$. (And $r_0 < \sqrt{5}/10$ for Theorem \[lower\_bnd\].)
\[dim\_rem\] One can ask similar questions (regarding the noncommutative rotation numbers/sets) for toroidal billiards in the configuration space $\mathcal{Q}$, where $$\mathcal{Q} = \mathbb{T}^d\setminus\bigcup_{i=1}^N \mathcal{O}_i,$$ with $d \ge 3$ and $N$ mutually disjoint, compact, strictly convex obstacles $\mathcal{O}_i$ with smooth boundaries. Such a space $\mathcal{Q}$ is, obviously, homotopically equivalent to the $d$-torus $\mathbb{T}^d$ with $N$ points removed from it (a “punctured torus”); however, due to the assumption $d \ge 3$, the fundamental group $\pi_1(\mathcal{Q})$ of such a space is naturally isomorphic to $\pi_1(\mathbb{T}^d) \cong \operatorname{\mathbb{Z}}^d$, for the homotopical deformations of loops can always avoid the removed $N$ points. Thus, for such a system the homotopical rotation numbers and sets coincide with the usual commutative notions, studied in [@BMS06].
[^1]: The second author was partially supported by NSF grants DMS 0457168 and DMS 0800538.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present the analytical solutions for the evolution of matter density perturbations, for a model with a constant dark energy equation of state $w$ but when the effects of the dark energy perturbations are properly taken into account. We consider two cases, the first when the sound speed of the perturbations is zero $c_s^2=0$ and the general case $0<c_s^2 \leq 1$. In the first case our solution is exact, while in the second case we found an approximate solution which works to better than $0.3\%$ accuracy for $k>10 H_0$ or equivalently $k/h>0.0033 \textrm{Mpc}^{-1}$. We also estimate the corrections to the growth index $\gamma(z)$, commonly used to parametrize the growth-rate. We find that these corrections due to the DE perturbations affect the growth index $\gamma$ at the $3\%$ level. We also compare our new expressions for the growth index with other expressions already present in the literature and we find that the latter are less accurate than the ones we propose here. Therefore, our analytical calculations are necessary as the theoretical predictions for the fundamental parameters to be constrained by the upcoming surveys need to be as accurate as possible, especially since we are entering in the precise cosmology era where parameters will be measured to the percent level.'
author:
- 'Savvas Nesseris$^{1}$'
- 'Domenico Sapone$^{2}$'
title: Accuracy of the growth index in the presence of dark energy perturbations
---
Introduction
============
Under the assumptions that the Universe at large scales is homogeneous and isotropic, that it can be described by General Relativity or some other modified gravity theory, such as $f(R)$ or any other metric theory whose effects at the perturbations level can be taken into account by the effective Newtonian constant $\Geff(a)$, see Refs. [@Amendola:2007rr; @Tsujikawa:2007gd; @Nesseris:2008mq; @Nesseris:2009jf], and finally under the subhorizon approximation ($k\gg aH$), then it can be shown that the growth of matter is governed by the second order differential equation: ”(a)+(3a + )’(a)-32 =0, \[ode\] where $\delta=\frac{\delta \rho_m}{\rho_m}$ is the matter density contrast that describes the growth of matter (known as the growth factor), $H(a)$ is the Hubble parameter, $\Omega_{m_0}$ is the matter density today and $H_0$ is the Hubble constant.
Making the assumption that the dark energy component can be described by a constant equation of state $w$ and negligible dark energy perturbations, i.e. $\Geff(a)/G_N=1$, then Eq. (\[ode\]) can be easily solved analytically. The differential equation (\[ode\]) has in general two solutions that correspond to two different physical modes, a decaying and a growing one, that in a matter dominated Universe in GR behave as $\delta=a^{-3/2}$ and as $\delta=a$ respectively. Since we are only interested in the latter, we demand that at early times $a_{in}\ll1$, usually during matter domination, the initial conditions have to be chosen as $\delta(a_{in})\simeq a_{in}$ and $\delta'(a_{in})\simeq1$. When $\Geff(a)/G_N=1$ we get GR as a subcase, while in general for modified gravity theories, the term $\Geff$ can be scale and time dependent.
For a flat GR model with a constant dark energy equation of state $w$, the exact solution of Eq. (\[ode\]) for the growing mode, neglecting the dark energy perturbations, is given by [@Belloso:2011ms; @Silveira:1994yq; @Percival:2005vm] (a)&=& a \_2F\_1\[Da1\]\
&&H(a)\^2/H\_0\^2= \_[m\_0]{} a\^[-3]{}+(1-\_[m\_0]{})a\^[-3(1+w)]{},where ${}_2F_1(a,b;c;z)$ is a hypergeometric function, see Ref. [@handbook] for more details. In more general cases, for instance admitting that the dark energy equation of state parameter is a function of time, it is impossible to find a closed form analytical solution for Eq. (\[ode\]).
However, when we take into account the effect of the dark energy perturbations, even though the effect is small, the analytical solution (\[Da1\]) is no longer valid. The reason for this is that, as shown in Ref. [@Sapone:2009mb], the dark energy perturbations can be included effectively as a $\Geff$ in Eq. (\[ode\]), given by: (a,k)/G\_N=1+(1+w) .\[geffde\] Depending on the values of the equation of state parameter $w$ and sound speed $\cs$ the density contrast of the dark energy can be of the order of $\Delta_{de}\sim 0.06 \Delta_m$ and of the order of $\Delta_{de}\sim 0.01 \Delta_m$, for $w=-0.8$ and $w=-0.95$ respectively (of course if $w=-1$ we are dealing with a cosmological constant and hence, by definition it has no perturbations).
As mentioned before, the dark energy fluid considered in this paper should be thought as an effective dark energy component, so the values of the equation of state $w$ and sound speed $\cs$ are effective parameters, hence not always they have a physical meaning but rather they are a representation of the particular model taken into consideration. In practice, considering for instance a value of $\cs =0$ does not necessarily means that we are dealing with a dark energy fluid that behaves like dark matter but it might be due to a particular modified gravity model expressed in terms of fluid parameters which has a value of $\cs$ equal to zero (or very small), see [@KunzCA]. It is also worth mentioning that the Eq. (\[geffde\]) has been evaluated under the condition of constant in time sound speed, however the sound speed can depend on the scale. The paper is organized as followed: in Section \[sec:solutions\] we find exact analytical expressions for the evolution of the matter density contrast sourced by the dark energy perturbations and in Section \[sec:comparison\] we compare them to numerical solutions and test their accuracy; in Section \[sec:growth-index\] we find the new growth index $\gamma$ and we compare it with other parameterizations, while in Section \[sec:conclusions\] we present our conclusions.
The solution for the matter density contrast \[sec:solutions\]
==============================================================
In what follows we will find the analytic solution to the matter density contrast when dark energy perturbation are properly taken into account. To solve the second order differential equation for $\delta_{m}$ we will consider two different limits: first when the sound speed is effectively zero ($\cs =0$), and second when the sound speed is $0<\cs\leq 1$.
We start by rewriting Eq. (\[ode\]) in terms of $G(a)$ defined as $\delta(a) \equiv a G(a)$, the dimensionless Hubble parameter $E(a)\equiv H(z)/H_0$ and the parameter $Q(a,k) \equiv \Geff(a,k)/G_N$, so Eq. (\[ode\]) becomes &&a\^2G”(a)+aG’(a)\
&&+G(a)=0. \[eq:ode-G\] We need to express the function $Q(a,k)$ which accounts for the dark energy perturbations[^1]. In this paper we use the expressions found in [@saponeMB]. In the latter the authors solved analytically the full system of differential equations for dark matter and dark energy. In order to find analytic solutions to matter and dark energy density contrasts, some assumptions had to be made, in particular that the equation of state parameter $w$ and the sound speed of the dark energy component have to be constant in time or at least slowly varying (however the sound speed can depend on the scale $k$). Once the analytic solutions for matter and dark energy were found then it was possible to express the quantity $Q(a,k)$ which is defined as the ratio Q(a, k) = 1+. which is a phenomenological function that takes into account the relative growth of the dark energy perturbations. This function enters directly into the gravitational potential $k^2\phi = -4\pi G a^2Q(a,k)\rho_m\Delta_m$, that is the reason why $Q(a,k)$ enters only in third term into Eq. (\[eq:ode-G\]).
Another interesting issue is the initial conditions for matter and dark energy. In our case dark energy perturbations are sourced by the dark matter perturbations via the gravitational potential; because we are in linear order perturbation theory then all $k$-modes evolve independently and as a consequence each $k$-mode depends linearly on a normalization factor which is constant in time however it depends on $k$, say $\delta_0(k)$. The value of this constant is given by inflation at very early times. In this scenario, setting the initial conditions means to set the constant $\delta_0$. However, as stated, the factor $\delta_0$ enters as multiplicative factor to both dark matter and dark energy, hence the quantity $Q(a,k)$, which is the main concern of this paper, has no direct dependence on $\delta_0$. A detailed analysis on the initial conditions for the dark energy perturbations and the decaying modes of the solutions can be found in [@saponeMB]. The general solution, see Ref. [@saponeMB], is: Q(a,k) &=& 1+ (1+w) \[eq:q-below1\] where $\cs$ is the sound speed of dark energy.
The case $\cs=0$
----------------
When the dark energy sound speed is equal to zero, then the $Q(a,k)$ parameter which gives us the amount of the dark energy perturbations can be written as Q= 1+Q\_0a\^[-3w]{} where Q\_0 = . Before inserting the above equation into Eq. (\[eq:ode-G\]), we can make the following change of variables to simplify the problem even more. Let us consider the new variable u = a\^[-3w]{}a=-3wu then the Eq. (\[eq:ode-G\]) becomes &&u\^2+ +\
&&+u G=0 \[eq:ode-G-u\] where $q_0 = (1+w)/(1-3w)$. Eq. (\[eq:ode-G-u\]) can be solved analytically and the solution is G(a) &=& \_2F\_1\[eq:solcs2-0\] where B=. \[eq:B1-solcs2-0\]
The case $\cs\neq 0$
--------------------
If the dark energy sound speed is not zero, then the dark energy will have a sound horizon below which perturbations cannot grow. The modification to the Newtonian potential will be, see [@saponeMB]: Q(a)-1 &=& (1+w)\
&& (1-)32 (1+w)a\^[-1-3w]{}, \[eq:q-below\] where we have used the fact that we work in the subhorizon approximation ($k\gg aH$). As it can be seen, the $Q(a)$ term is suppressed by a term $a^{-1}$ the lack of growth of the dark energy perturbations when they enter the sound horizon. However, inserting Eq. (\[eq:q-below\]) into Eq. (\[eq:ode-G\]) and making the change of variable $a\rightarrow u$, we cannot find an analytic solution to the matter density contrast because of the extra dependence $a^{-1}$ in the expression of $Q(a,k)$. In order to solve Eq. (\[eq:ode-G\]) we make the approximation: Q(a) =1+ Q\_0a\^[-1-3w]{}1+Q\_0 a\^[-3w]{}, where $Q_0 = (1-\om)\frac32 \left(1+w\right)\frac{H_0^2}{c_s^2 k^2}$; then the differential equation that we need to solve will look exactly as Eq. (\[eq:q-below\]) where now we have a new $q_0$ for modes below the sound horizon: $q_0=\frac32 \left(1+w\right)\frac{H_0^2\om}{c_s^2 k^2}$. In this case we are overestimating the amount of dark energy perturbations below the sound horizon as we are taking out the term $a^{-1}$ which lowers the clustering of the perturbations.
Then the solution to the Eq. (\[eq:q-below\]) is G(a) &=& \_2F\_1\[eq:solcs2-1\] where B= . \[eq:B1-solcs2-1\]
The growth-rate
---------------
In the previous section we have found the solution to the matter density contrast in terms of the hypergeometric function: (a) &=& a \_2F\_1\[eq:solcs2-10\] where B = and the parameter $\delta B$ can accommodate all different cases if defined as B &=& 0 ,\
B &=& ( c\_s\^2=0),\
B &=& (1+w) ( c\_s\^2>0). Then, the growth rate $f(a)$ is f(a) &=& a =1 +\
&+&a where the coefficients are && 14-+B,\
&& 14--B,\
&& 12++. It is interesting to notice that the hypergeometric function can be simplified making use of the relation between hypergeometric functions and Legendre polynomial $P_\nu^\mu(x)$. Using Eqs. (15.4.12) and (15.4.21) and Eqs. (8.5.3) and (8.5.5) of Ref. [@handbook] we find f(a) = 1+3w(1-). \[eq:growthrate-legendre\] If dark energy perturbations are switched to zero we have f(a) = , in agreement with the expression found in Ref. [@Belloso:2011ms].
Joint solution
--------------
Alternatively, we can also find a joint solution to the equations in order to have one single solution. The difference in the two solutions comes in the coefficients of the hypergeometric functions which then account for the dark energy perturbations, i.e. the coefficients $B$ in Eqs. (\[eq:B1-solcs2-0\]) and (\[eq:B1-solcs2-1\]). Hence we can think to join these two coefficients directly. We found that B\_[c\_s\^2>0]{} &=&\
&=&\
B\_[c\_s\^2=0]{}&=&\
&=& for scales above and below the sound horizon, respectively. Joining only the parts that account for dark energy perturbations we find &&B\_[joint]{} = =\
&&= \[eq:total-b\] We can also add an $a$ dependence to the coefficient. The reason is that the second term in the square root is exactly $Q$ used, hence the dark energy perturbations, and we have &&B\_[joint]{} = =\
&& = . \[eq:total-b-a\] However, in this paper we consider Eq. (\[eq:total-b\]) for two main reasons: the presence of the scale factor does not change the solution for $f\sigma_8$ (the difference between the two is of the order of $10^{-8}$, and second it is not really clear how to deal, in the hypergeometric function, with coefficients that depend on the variable.
The expression found will be very useful for instance to speed up the code for forecasts, analytic estimates of $\gamma$ or fitting the data. The growth index $\gamma$ will be shown in the next section to be the same, except that we have to use now the new $\delta B = 24\frac{1+w}{1-3w+\frac{2}{3}\frac{k^2}{H_0^2\om}\cs}$.
The growth index \[sec:growth-index\]
=====================================
Here we present the corrections to the growth index $\gamma(a)$ due to the dark energy perturbations. In Ref. [@Wang:1998gt] it was shown that the growth rate $f(a)\equiv \frac{d ln \delta}{dlna}$, in the case of no DE perturbations, can be approximated as f(a)&=&(a)\^[(a)]{} \[fg\]\
(a)&&\
(a) &=&+\[eq:wst1\] When we want to include the DE perturbations, one way to do it is via the semianalytic approach of Ref. [@Linder:2007hg], where it was shown that the growth index depends on $\Geff$ as &=& \[linder\],\
A()&=&. For other approaches that explore the effects of the dark energy perturbations or modified gravity in general on the growth index, see Ref. [@Basilakos:2014yda; @Mehrabi:2015hva; @Dossett:2013npa; @Piattella:2014lba; @Burrage:2015lla]. However, here we will follow a more straight-forward approach by using the analytic expressions found in the previous sections. In what follows we will use the shorthand of $\Omega$ to mean $\om(a)$ in order to simplify the notation. Then using the ansatz $f(\Omega)=\Omega^{\gamma(\Omega)}$ we find that the growth index up to first order can be written as &&=\
&&=-\
&& +\
&& \[eq:new-gamma\] The reason we perform the series expansion of $\gamma$ in terms of $\Omega$ is that it allows us to extract the zero-th order part of $\gamma$, which in the $\Lambda$CDM model is 6/11, but also the first order correction. As a result we can compare with the other expressions commonly found in the literature, eg Eq. (\[eq:wst1\]), and compare their accuracy.
It is instructive to split the contributions to the growth index to two parts: =\_m+\_[DE]{}, \[eq:gammaeq\] where &&\_m = + +,\
&&\_[DE]{}= +(-1)( --.\
&& . )+, where the first term $\gamma_m$ corresponds to the well known result from Ref. [@Wang:1998gt] and the second term $\gamma_{DE}$ corresponds to the extra contribution of the DE perturbations.
Alternatively, we can follow the procedure of Ref. [@Wang:1998gt] to evaluate the growth rate. We can do this by changing variables from $a$ to $\Omega$ and replacing the growth factor $\delta(a)$ with the growth rate $f(\Omega)=a\frac{\delta'(a)}{\delta(a)}$. Doing that we arrive at a differential equation for $f(\Omega)$ in terms of $\Omega$: && 3 w (1-) f’()+f() (- w (1-))+\
&&f()\^2- ()=0. Using the ansatz $f(\Omega)=\Omega^{\gamma(\Omega)}$ we arrive to the same result as in Eq. (\[eq:gammaeq\]).
The case $\cs = 0$
------------------
In the case when the sound speed is zero, we can use Eq. (\[eq:gammaeq\]) with $\delta B = \frac{(w+1)}{1-3 w}$ to find ()&=& +\
&&(-1)\
\[gammaDE1\]
Also, we separate the effects of the matter and dark energy perturbations on $\gamma$ as =\_m+\_[DE]{}, where \_m &=& + , \[eq:gammam1\]\
\_[DE]{}&=& -+\
&&(-1).\
&& \[eq:gammade1\] We can also compute the ratio of the two quantities $\gamma_{DE}/\gamma_m$ in order to estimate the effect of neglecting the DE perturbations on the measurement of $\gamma$ in up-coming surveys. We find that the ratio can be written as &=&-+\
&&+.\
\[ratiogammas\]
In Fig. \[fig:ratio\] we show the percent difference of the effect of the DE perturbations as part of the total and as a function of the equation of state $w$. In practice we plot $100*\frac{\gamma_{DE}}{\gamma_m}$, with the latter given by Eq. (\[ratiogammas\]). For $w=-1$ Eq. (\[gammaDE1\]) gives the expected result $\gamma=6/11$, but for $w\neq-1$ there are substantial differences, eg for $w=-0.8$ we have $\gamma=0.533$ which is a $3.4\%$ difference from the result $\gamma=0.551$ found when neglecting DE perturbations. These differences can be important as cosmology has moved into a high precision era and percent accuracies will be sought after in the cosmological parameters by the upcoming surveys like DES, LSST and Euclid, where the relative errors on the growth index $\gamma$ are of the order of $0.5-3\%$ depending if combined probes are used, see [@Belloso:2011ms], [@Abell:2009aa], [@AmendolaYS], [@HutererXKY]. In Fig. \[fig:gammas\] we show a comparison of all the different expressions for $\gamma$ for $(c_s^2,w,\om)=(0,-0.8,0.3)$. The solid black line corresponds to the expression for the analytic solution of Eq. (\[gammaDE1\]), the dashed black line to the numerical solution from CAMB, the dotted line to the wCDM model with no DE perturbations, the dot-dashed black line to the semianalytic expression of Eq. (\[linder\]), while the red and dashed-red lines correspond to the zero-order terms for expansions for $\gamma$ without and with DE perturbations respectively.
Clearly, our analytic solution in this case is in excellent agreement with the numerical one and by far superior to the semianalytic one. Specifically, the expression of Eq. (\[linder\]), which is the dot-dashed curve in Fig. \[fig:gammas\], differs by more than $\sim 6\%$ at $z\sim0$. The reason for this is that it is a semianalytic approximation derived at high $z$ and as a result at low redshifts it is significantly different from both the exact and numerical solutions. Therefore, we find that it is not suitable for use in Fisher Matrix analysis or data fitting when the DE perturbations are taken into account.
Finally, we should mention that we have checked that using the growth index $\gamma$ of Eq. (\[eq:new-gamma\]) to calculate the growth-rate $f$ and $f\sigma_8$ by using and integrating Eq. (\[fg\]) respectively, is in agreement to better than $0.1\%$ compared to using the full analytical solution of Eq. (\[eq:solcs2-0\]).
The case $\cs\neq 0$
--------------------
When the sound speed $c_s^2$ is different from zero, we can again use Eq. (\[eq:gammaeq\]) with $\delta B = \frac{36}{24} \kappa (1+w)$, where we have set $\kappa \equiv \frac{\Omega_{m,0} H_0^2}{k^2 c_s^2}$, to find ()&=& -\
&&(27 (4 w\^2+w-3)-6 w+4)\
&&(3 +(3 +2) w-2)+. \[gammaDEcs21\] As mentioned earlier in this section and in order to simplify the notation, by writing $\Omega$ we actually mean $\om(a)$ and $\Omega_{m,0}\equiv \om(a=1)$.
Also, we can separate the effects of the matter and dark energy perturbations on $\gamma$ as =\_m+\_[DE]{}, where \_m &=& + , \[eq:gammamcs21\]\
\_[DE]{}&=& -\
&& (27 (4 w\^2+w-3)+12 w (6 w-11)+58).\
&& \[eq:gammadecs21\] We can also compute the ratio of the two quantities $\gamma_{DE}/\gamma_m$ in order to estimate the effect of neglecting the DE perturbations on the measurement of $\gamma$ in up-coming surveys. We find that the ratio can be written as &=&-27(-1)(w+1)\
&&+.\
\[ratiogammas1\]
Comparison with the numerical solution \[sec:comparison\]
=========================================================
Here we compare our analytical solution of Eq. (\[eq:solcs2-1\]) with the parameter $B$ given by Eqs. (\[eq:B1-solcs2-0\]) and Eqs. (\[eq:B1-solcs2-1\]), with the numerical one for various choices of parameters and for both cases. Since the data are given in terms of the parameter $f\sigma_8(a)\equiv f(a) \sigma(a)=\frac{\sigma_{8,0}}{\delta(1)} a \delta'(a)$, we will prefer to compare that and the growth rate $f(a)=\frac{d\ln(\delta)}{d\ln a}$.
In Fig. \[fig:comparison1\] (left) we show a comparison of the analytical solution for $f\sigma 8 (z)$ (dashed line) vs the numerical solution of the full system of differential equations for the DE perturbations by CAMB (solid black line), the case with no DE perturbations (dotted line) and the $\oma(a)^\gamma$ parametrization with $\gamma$ given by Eq. (\[linder\]) (dot-dashed line) for $c_s^2=0$, $k=200H_0$ and $(w,\om,\sigma_{8,0})=(-0.8,0.3,0.8)$. The gray points correspond to mock $f\sigma8$ data based on the specifications of an LSST-like survey [@Abate:2012za], as it was done in Ref. [@Nesseris:2014qca]. As can be seen, the difference between the cases where we include (black solid or dashed lines) or neglect DE perturbations (dotted line) can be significant compared to the small error bars of the expected data from Euclid or LSST and might bias the results.
In Fig. \[fig:comparison1\] (right) we show of the analytical solution (black dashed line) vs the numerical solution (solid black line) of the ODE of Eq. (\[ode\]) for $c_s^2=1$ and $k=10H_0$. In this case, we also test the effect of the different scale $k$ but also the non-zero sound speed and we see that the difference can be smaller. Our analytical solutions either exact or approximate were found to be in excellent agreement with the numerical ones. In Fig. \[fig:comparisonpc\] we show the percent difference between the analytical solution and the numerical one from CAMB, for various values of the sound speed $c_s^2$ and the scale $k$ and as it can be seen, in all cases we find agreement better than $0.5\%$.
Forecasts
=========
In this section we test the new expression for the growth index $\gamma$ given by Eq. (\[eq:new-gamma\]) in order to constrain the cosmological parameters with the upcoming surveys and we compare the results with the constraints obtained using the growth index given by Eq. (\[linder\]). To constrain the cosmological parameters such as the equation of state parameter $w$ and the sound speed $\cs$, we adopt the Fisher matrix technique having in mind a set up similar to LSST experiment [@Abell:2009aa]. The LSST is capable of exploring the universe in a range in redshifts of $z \in [0,2]$ covering an area of about $20000\,{\rm deg}^2$. The error on redshift is $\sigma_z = 0.02(1+z)$ which corresponds to the goal of the LSST; the galaxies are distributed with $n(z) \propto z^\alpha\exp\left[-(z/z_1)^\beta\right]$ where $\alpha = 2$, $z_1 = 0.5$ and $\beta = 1$.
In order to avoid non-linearity problems (both in the spectrum and in the bias), we evaluate the Fisher matrix up to a limiting $k_{max}(z)$ at each $z$: we choose values from $0.11h/$Mpc for low-$z$ bins to $0.3h/$Mpc for the highest $z$-bins, see Ref. [@saponeJN; @saponeDEP2; @Sapone:2013wda] for more details on the Fisher matrix calculations. For the Fisher matrix we consider the following parameters: $\theta = \left[\omega_m, \omega_b, \tau, n_s, \Omega_{m,0}, w, \cs, P_{shot}\right]$, where $\omega_m = \om h^2$, $\omega_b = \Omega_{{\rm b}_0}h^2$ and $P_{shot}$ the shot noise. The reference cosmology used in the analysis is the best-fit given by Planck [@planck] with the exception of $w = -0.8$ and the sound speed $\cs$ for which we used first a value $\cs =0$ and then $\cs=1$.
For a sound speed of $c_s^2=0$ we find: $\{\sigma_{w},\sigma_{\cs}\} = \{0.0089, 1.67\times 10^{-6}\}$ and $\{\sigma_{w},\sigma_{\cs}\} = \{0.0104, 3.69\times 10^{-6}\}$, for that of Eq. (\[linder\]) and our expression respectively. For a sound speed $c_s^2=1$ we find: $\{\sigma_{w},\sigma_{\cs}\} = \{0.0052, 76.63\}$ and $\{\sigma_{w},\sigma_{\cs}\} = \{0.0058, 94.00\}$, for the semianalytic expression and the analytic expression respectively.
Using the expression for the growth index given by Eq. (\[eq:new-gamma\]), the errors on the parameters are increased of about $50\%$ for the sound speed and of about $15\%$ for the equation of state parameter, for the $\cs=0$ case. The reason can be found looking at the Fig. \[fig:gammas\]. The semianalytic expression for $\gamma(a)$ especially at low redshifts is smaller than the full numerical result: the growth rate $f(a)$ (and also the growth of matter $G(a)$) are proportional to $\Omega_{m}(a)^{\gamma(a)}$ and so do the derivatives with respect to the cosmological parameters. The matter density parameter $\Omega_{m}(a)$ is always lower the unity (it is equal to $1$ only at very high redshifts during matter domination era), consequently if the growth index $\gamma$ is decreased the overall effect on the growth rate is increased and this is reflected in Fig. \[fig:comparison1\]. Hence, using the semianalytic expression overestimates (i.e. reduce) the errors.
Conclusions \[sec:conclusions\]
===============================
In Ref. [@Sapone:2009mb] it was shown that the effect of the dark energy perturbations on the matter density perturbations is to induce a $\Geff(a,k)$, as shown in Eqs. (\[ode\]) and (\[geffde\]). In this work we have found the analytical solution to Eq. (\[ode\]) for constant $w$ when $c_s^2=0 $ and we have explicitly shown that not only is the solution different from the one when the DE perturbations are neglected, see Eq. (\[Da1\]), but the difference is actually large enough to affect the results of future surveys like Euclid or LSST, see Fig. \[fig:comparison1\] (right). In the case of $0<c_s^2\leq1$ we presented analytic approximations that are in excellent agreement with the numerical solution to Eq. (\[ode\]).
Furthermore, we also found analytical expressions for the growth index $\gamma$ used commonly to parameterize the growth as $f(a)=\om(a)^{\gamma}$. This parameter is given by $\gamma\simeq \frac{3 -3 w}{5-6 w}$ for a DE model with constant $w$ in GR when the DE perturbations are ignored and is 6/11 for ($w=-1$), but when the DE perturbations are properly taken into account it is given by $\gamma\simeq \frac{3 w (3 w-5)}{(3 w-1) (6 w-5)}$ when $c_s^2=0 $, which however again becomes 6/11 for $w=-1$ since does not have DE perturbations.
In the case when the DE sound speed is non-zero we found that the growth index is given by $\gamma\simeq \frac{3 (3 \kappa +(3 \kappa +2) w-2)}{2 (6 w-5)}$, where $\kappa \equiv \frac{\Omega_{m,0} H_0^2}{k^2 c_s^2}$ and has an explicit scale dependence. Our expression is different but at the same time more accurate than other expressions that have appeared in the literature. We found that it works to better than $0.3\%$ accuracy for $k>10 H_0$ or equivalently $k/h>0.0033 \textrm{Mpc}^{-1}$, thus making it extremely useful for use in forecasts for future surveys. We have also compared our new expressions to that one of Eq. (\[linder\]), via a Fisher Matrix approach, and we found that the latter significantly overestimates the errors compared to the more accurate growth index of Eq. (\[eq:new-gamma\]) we presented for the first time in this paper.
In conclusion, we have shown that using less accurate expressions for the growth index, such as the one of Eq. (\[linder\]), or more importantly neglecting completely the DE perturbations can lead to misleading estimations of the growth index $\gamma$ to the percent level, something which is highly relevant as cosmology today has moved into a high precision era and percent accuracies will be sought after in the next generation surveys.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors would like to thank M. Kunz and I. Sawicky for useful discussions. SN acknowledges financial support from the Swiss National Science Foundation. DS acknowledges financial support from the Fondecyt project number 11140496 and from the “Anillo” project ACT1122 founded by the “Programa de Investigación asociativa”.
L. Amendola, M. Kunz and D. Sapone, JCAP [**0804**]{} (2008) 013 \[arXiv:0704.2421 \[astro-ph\]\]. S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{} (2007) 023514 \[arXiv:0705.1032 \[astro-ph\]\]. S. Nesseris, Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 044015 (2009) \[arXiv:0811.4292 \[astro-ph\]\]. S. Nesseris and A. Mazumdar, Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 104006 (2009) \[arXiv:0902.1185 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. D. Sapone and M. Kunz, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 083519 (2009) \[arXiv:0909.0007 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. A. B. Belloso, J. Garcia-Bellido and D. Sapone, JCAP [**1110**]{} (2011) 010 \[arXiv:1105.4825 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. V. Silveira and I. Waga, Phys. Rev. D [**50**]{}, 4890 (1994). W. J. Percival, Astron. Astrophys. [**443**]{}, 819 (2005) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0508156\]. Abramowitz, Milton; Stegun, Irene A., eds. (1972), *Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables*, New York: Dover Publications, ISBN 978-0-486-61272-0
M. Kunz and D. Sapone, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 121301 (2007). \[astro-ph/0612452\]. D. Sapone and M. Kunz, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 083519 (2009). \[arXiv:0909.0007 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
L. M. Wang and P. J. Steinhardt, Astrophys. J. [**508**]{}, 483 (1998) \[astro-ph/9804015\]. S. Nesseris, D. Sapone and J. Garcia-Bellido, arXiv:1410.0338 \[astro-ph.CO\]. A. Abate [*et al.*]{} \[LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration\], arXiv:1211.0310 \[astro-ph.CO\]. E. V. Linder and R. N. Cahn, Astropart. Phys. [**28**]{}, 481 (2007) \[astro-ph/0701317\]. S. Basilakos, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**449**]{}, 2151 (2015) \[arXiv:1412.2234 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. A. Mehrabi, S. Basilakos and F. Pace, arXiv:1504.01262 \[astro-ph.CO\]. J. Dossett and M. Ishak, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, no. 10, 103008 (2013) \[arXiv:1311.0726 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. O. F. Piattella, D. L. A. Martins and L. Casarini, JCAP [**1410**]{}, no. 10, 031 (2014) \[arXiv:1407.4773 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. C. Burrage, D. Parkinson and D. Seery, arXiv:1502.03710 \[astro-ph.CO\]. P. A. R. Ade [*et al.*]{} \[Planck Collaboration\], Astron. Astrophys. (2014). \[arXiv:1303.5076 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. P. A. Abell [*et al.*]{} \[LSST Science and LSST Project Collaborations\], arXiv:0912.0201 \[astro-ph.IM\]. D. Sapone and L. Amendola, \[arXiv:0709.2792 \[astro-ph\]\]. D. Sapone, M. Kunz and L. Amendola, Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{}, 103535 (2010). \[arXiv:1007.2188 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. D. Sapone, E. Majerotto, M. Kunz and B. Garilli, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{} (2013) 043503 \[arXiv:1305.1942 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. L. Amendola [*et al.*]{} \[Euclid Theory Working Group Collaboration\], Living Rev. Rel. [**16**]{}, 6 (2013). \[arXiv:1206.1225 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. D. Huterer, D. Kirkby, R. Bean, A. Connolly, K. Dawson, S. Dodelson, A. Evrard and B. Jain [*et al.*]{}, Astropart. Phys. [**63**]{}, 23 (2015). \[arXiv:1309.5385 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
[^1]: we would like to remind the reader the $G_{eff}$ and $Q$ are the same, hence we use them interchangeably
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We consider the observational effects of a deficit angle, $w$, in the topology of the solar system and in the ‘double pulsar’ system PSR J0737-3039A/B. Using observations of the perihelion precession of Mercury, and the gravitational deflection of light due to the Sun, we constrain the magnitude of such a deficit angle in the solar system to be $2\pi (1-w)$, with $0\leq
(1-w)<10^{-9}$ at $95\%$ confidence. We calculate the effects of a deficit angle on the periastron advance, geodetic precession rate and inclination angle of the double pulsar system and use the observational data to obtain the constraint $0\leq
(1-w)<2.4\times 10^{-8}$ at $95\%$ confidence. Although this result is weaker than the solar system bound, it is in a very different physical environment, where accumulating data is likely to lead to tighter constraints in the future.
author:
- 'Timothy Clifton$^{1}$[^1] and John D. Barrow$^{2}$[^2]'
date: 'March 10, 2010'
title: Observational Constraints on the Completeness of Space near Astrophysical Objects
---
Introduction
============
Metric-based gravity theories, like Einstein’s and its close relatives, are routinely tested using observations of astrophysical systems where gravitational fields are strong and non-Newtonian. Following Eddington’s introduction of a parameterised form of the metric in 1922 [@edd], and Nordvedt’s extension to more general configurations by including further parameters [@nord], a sophisticated frame-work has been devised [Will]{}, and a large number of careful observations made, in order to place stringent constraints on the geometry of space-time. However, most of these studies have assumed that the astrophysical systems they consider should have a trivial space-time topology. Under such an assumption, it is possible to make strong statements about the magnitude of any deviations from the predictions of general relativity. Here we take a different approach: We assume a geometry that is locally isometric to the predictions of general relativity, but which permits non-trivial global topologies. The astrophysical observations can then be used to constrain the topology of the systems in question. Of particular interest for this study is the recently discovered ‘double pulsar’ system, PSR J0737-3039A/B [@dp; @dp2].
Non-trivial topologies can exist in a number of astrophysically interesting situations, including magnetic monopoles, cosmic strings, domain walls and textures [@shellard], all of which can arise in phase transitions in the early universe [@kibble]. A tell-tale sign of such topological defects is the existence of a ‘deficit angle’, whereby a wedge of space-time appears to have been removed, and the surfaces that remain have been identified. A simple example of this feature, first found by Marder in 1959 [@marder], is the line-element $$ds^{2}=-\alpha dt^{2}+\frac{dr^{2}}{\alpha }+r^{2}d\theta
^{2}+w^{2}r^{2}\sin ^{2}\theta d\phi ^{2}, \label{schw1}$$where $\alpha =1-2GM/r$ and $w\in ( 0,1\rbrack$ is a constant. This is well known as the exact solution of a point-like mass on an infinitely thin cosmic string [@marder; @vilenkin]. It is clearly locally isometric to the Schwarzschild solution, but if we allow $\phi $ to run from $0$ to $2\pi $, then we see it has a different topology.
The line-element (\[schw1\]) may initially appear a trivial manipulation of the Schwarzschild solution. The effect of introducing such a topological defect, however, has non-trivial consequences for the geodesic equations. For the metric above, these equations have recently been solved completely by Hackmann et al. [@hack]. The missing wedge of space-time causes new behaviour that is not present in the Schwarzschild solution, such as a precession of the angular momentum vector about the axis of the string [masar]{}. By using observational constraints on such phenomena we can therefore constrain the amplitude of any possible deficit angle, and hence place constraints on the topologies of astrophysical systems.
In Section \[ss\] we summarise how deficit angles affect the geodesic equations, and observations of gravitational phenomena in the solar system. in Section \[pulsar\], we proceed to consider the double pulsar. This over-constrained system has a large number of well measured observables, and provides an excellent laboratory to perform the type of test we are considering. In Section \[conc\] we give our conclusions.
Solar system constraints {#ss}
========================
If we choose coordinates so that the orbit we consider is in a plane of constant elevation ($\theta =\pi/2$), then the effect of a deficit angle on the equations of motion enters only through the azimuthal coordinate, $\phi $. To include such a defect, we can then write the range of $\phi $ as $$0\leq \phi \leq 2\pi -\Delta \varphi$$where $\Delta \varphi \in \lbrack 0,2\pi )$ is the deficit angle. Alternatively, we can change variables so that $\Delta \varphi =2\pi (1-w)$. Now, $\phi $ covers the range $$0\leq \phi \leq 2\pi w,$$which is equivalent to a simple coordinate redefinition $$\phi \rightarrow w\phi . \label{redef}$$
Time-like orbits
----------------
Using the redefinition (\[redef\]), the geodesic equations become $$u^{\prime \prime }+w^{2}u=\frac{GM}{L^{2}}+3GMw^{2}u^{2} \label{tl}$$where $u=1/r$, and where primes denote differentiation with respect to $\phi $. The angular momentum constant, $L$, is given by $$L=r^{2}\sin (\theta _{0})\frac{d\phi }{d\lambda }, \label{am}$$where $\lambda $ parameterises distance along the curve. The solution to (\[tl\]) is then given by $$u=w^{-2}u_{GR}(w\phi ),$$where $u_{GR}(\phi )$ is the usual general relativistic solution that occurs when $w=1$. Therefore, we have $$u=\frac{1}{r}=\frac{GM}{w^{2}L^{2}}\left[ 1+e\cos \{w(\phi -\phi _{0}-\Delta
\phi _{0})\}\right] \label{tlprec}$$where $e$ is the eccentricity of the orbit, $\phi _{0}$ specifies the phase, and $\Delta \phi _{0}$ gives the correction due to relativistic perihelion precession.
It can now be seen from (\[tlprec\]) that the perihelion shift per orbital revolution is $$w\Delta \phi =\frac{6\pi G^{2}M^{2}}{w^{2}L^{2}}\ +2\pi (1-w).$$If we now write $$w=1-\delta w, \label{w}$$where $\delta w\in \lbrack 0,1)$ is small, then to first order we should expect the precession to be $$\Delta \phi \simeq \Delta \phi _{GR}+2\pi \delta w,$$where $\Delta \phi _{GR}=\{\Delta \phi \}_{w=1}$ is just the usual general relativistic prediction with no defect. The precision of the agreement with the current data therefore gives a bound on $\delta w$, and hence on $w$.
In order to gain observations of $\Delta \phi $ from the precession of the orbit of Mercury, with respect to the vernal equinox of the Sun, it is necessary to take into account the precession of the equinoxes on the coordinate system (about 5025$^{\prime\prime}$ per century), the perturbing effects of the other planets (about 531$^{\prime\prime}$ per century) and the effect of the quadrupole moment of the Sun (about 0.025$^{\prime\prime}$ per century), on the perihelion precession of the objects that orbit it. These challenges can be addressed in a variety of different ways, and the result is authors claiming slightly different observational bounds on the residual $\Delta \phi $. Rather than favoring any particular method here, we prefer to quote a number of different precise calculations, obtained by various authors. These are displayed in Table \[prec\]. For further details the reader is referred to the original papers, and references therein. For an overview of the issues involved the reader is referred to [@precpub].
--------------------------- -------------------------------- ---------------------------
Source $\Delta \phi-\Delta \phi_{GR}$ $10^{10} \times \delta w$
(arcsec/century) ($2\sigma $ upper bound)
Anderson *et al.* [@91] $-0.04 \pm 0.20$ 6.7
Anderson *et al.* [@92] $+0.15 \pm 0.14$ 8.0
Krasinsky *et al.* [@93a]
EPM$1988$ $+0.004 \pm 0.061$ 2.3
DE$200$ $-0.003 \pm 0.061$ 2.2
Pitjeva [@93b]
EPM$1988$ $-0.017 \pm 0.052$ 1.6
DE$200$ $-0.011 \pm 0.052$ 1.7
--------------------------- -------------------------------- ---------------------------
: The value of the perihelion precession of Mercury obtained from observations by various authors, and the resulting $2\protect\sigma $ upper bound on the permissible values of $\protect\delta w$. The acronyms EPM$1988$ and DE$200$ refer to different numerical ephemerides, which are reviewed in [@pit01]. We take the sidereal period of Mercury to be $0.24$ years [@allen].[]{data-label="prec"}
It can be seen from Table \[prec\] that placing a constraint on $\delta w$ is not a clear-cut matter, and depends both on the data used, and how it is treated. However, all of the results in Table \[prec\] are consistent with the conservative statement that the $2\sigma $ bound on $\delta w$ from observations of the perihelion precession of Mercury is within the range $$0\leq \delta w<10^{-9}. \label{tlbound}$$
Null orbits
-----------
The geodesic equation for light rays is transformed in a similar way, but there is now no $L$. Under the redefinition (\[redef\]), we therefore have simply $$u^{\prime \prime }+w^{2}u=3GMw^{2}u^{2},$$which has the solution $$u=u_{GR}(w\phi ),$$ where, again, $u_{GR}(\phi )$ is the usual general relativistic solution with $w=1$. Taking this, together with $\phi =\pi +\delta \phi $, we obtain $$u=\frac{1}{r}=\frac{4GM}{R^{2}}-\frac{w\delta \phi }{R}+\frac{\pi }{R}(1-w),$$where $R$ is the impact parameter. The total deflection is then $$w\delta \phi =\frac{4GM}{R}+\pi (1-w)= \frac{4GM}{\ R}+\pi \delta w,$$and the deflection caused by the defect is $$\delta \phi \simeq \delta \phi _{GR}+\pi \delta w, \label{def}$$where $\delta \phi _{GR}=\{\delta \phi \}_{w=1}$ is the usual general relativistic prediction. The bound on $\delta w$, and hence $w$, can now be obtained by comparing (\[def\]) with observed deflections.
The best results available on light bending in gravitational fields are those of Shapiro, Davis, Lebach and Gregory [@sdlg]. These authors use almost 2 million observations of 541 radio sources by 87 Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) sites to calculate the deflection caused by the gravitational field of the Sun. Their result is $$\delta \phi =\left( 0.99992\pm 0.00023\right) \delta \phi _{GR},$$which gives us a $2\sigma $ bound on $\delta w$ of $$0\leq \delta w<9.9\times 10^{-10}, \label{llbound}$$where we have taken the general relativistic prediction of light bending for an object whose light ray grazes the Sun’s limb to be $1.75^{\prime \prime}$. This is almost exactly the same bound as was achieved for the time-like case [^3].
Pulsar constraints {#pulsar}
==================
The recent discovery of the ‘double pulsar’ system [@dp; @dp2], PSR J$0737$-$3039$A/B, provides new opportunities for testing ideas in relativistic gravity [@1; @2]. These binary neutron stars are known to orbit each other with a period of $~$2.45 hours, with much higher velocities and accelerations than those found in other binary pulsar systems. By good fortune, this system is also relatively near to the Sun, and oriented so that we observe it nearly edge-on, at an inclination angle of about $89^{\circ }$. Most importantly, however, and unique to PSR J$0737$-$3039$A/B, is the feature that both neutron stars are detectable as radio pulsars, with periods of $22$ms and $2.7$s, respectively for PSR J$0737$-$3039$A and PSR J$0737$-$3039$B. These properties make the double pulsar an excellent tool for constraining the type of deviant gravitational phenomena we are considering in this article.
To proceed further, we model the space-time geometry as $$ds^{2}=-(1-2U)dt^{2}+(1+2U)\tilde{\delta}_{ij}dx^{i}dx^{j} \label{geo}$$where $\tilde{\delta}_{ij}$ specifies the static geometry of the 3-space. We can now assign orders of smallness in the usual way, so that the Newtonian potential $U$ is $O(2)$ small, time derivatives add an $O(1)$ of smallness, and the 3-velocity $v^{i}$ is $O(1)$ small.
We will now consider relativistic effects that are good candidates for constraining the existence of any deficit angle in the double pulsar, before comparing our predictions with the observational data.
Spin Precession
---------------
Geodetic precession of a body’s spin vector about its orbital angular momentum vector is a well known prediction of relativistic gravity, and has already been studied in some binary pulsar systems [@2; @8; @9; @wt; @10; @cw]. However, while it took over a decade for geodetic precession to be observed in the Hulse-Taylor pulsar, PSR B$1913$+$16$ [@9], it has already been reported in the double pulsar [@2]. We expect this effect to be particularly sensitive to the existence of a deficit angle, as it involves integration over an orbit. We shall therefore calculate its influence below, before proceeding to infer constraints from observational data later in the section.
First, we want the pulsar spin vector, $Y^{\mu }$, to be orthogonal to the world-line of a particle, $u^{\mu }$, and to be parallel propagated along that curve, so that $$\frac{dY_{\mu }}{d\tau }=g^{\lambda \sigma }\Gamma _{\sigma \mu \nu
}Y_{\lambda }\frac{dx^{\nu }}{d\tau }=\Gamma _{\sigma \mu \nu }Y^{\sigma }\frac{dx^{\nu }}{d\tau },$$where $\Gamma _{\mu \nu \sigma }=g_{\mu \rho }{\Gamma ^{\rho }}_{\nu \sigma
},$ and $\tau $ is proper time along the particle’s world-line. The orthogonality condition then gives $$Y_{0}=-v^{i}Y_{i}+O(3),$$where $v^{i}$ is the 3-velocity of the particle. Multiplying through by $d\tau /dt$ we find that the spatial component of $Y^{\mu }$ obeys $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dY_{i}}{dt} &=&\Gamma _{0i0}v^{j}Y_{j}+\Gamma _{ji0}Y^{j}+\Gamma
_{kij}v^{j}Y^{k}+O(5) \\
&=&\tilde{\delta}_{ij}U_{,0}Y^{j}+(2\tilde{\delta}_{kj}U_{,i}+\tilde{\delta}_{ik}U_{,j}-\tilde{\delta}_{ij}U_{,k})v^{j}Y^{k} \nonumber \\
&&+(1+2U)\tilde{\Gamma}_{kij}v^{j}Y^{k}+g_{0[k,i]}Y^{k}+O(5),\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{\Gamma}_{ijk}=\frac{1}{2}(\tilde{\delta}_{ij,k}+\tilde{\delta}_{ik,j}-\tilde{\delta}_{jk,i})$. The magnitude of the 4-vector $Y^{\mu }$ should remain constant along the curve specified by $u^{\mu }$, so that $$\frac{d}{d\tau }\left( g^{\mu \nu }Y_{\mu }Y_{\nu }\right) =0,$$or, up to $O(2)$, $$-(v^{i}Y_{i})^{2}+(1-2U)\tilde{\delta}^{ij}Y_{i}Y_{j}=\text{constant}.$$This implies that a spin 3-vector, $S^{i}$, with constant magnitude, $\tilde{\delta}^{ij}S_{i}S_{j}$, is given by $$Y_{i}=(1+U)S_{i}+\frac{1}{2}\tilde{\delta}_{ij}v^{j}v^{k}S_{k}+O(4).$$Alternatively, inverting this expression gives $$\begin{aligned}
S_{i} &=&(1-U)Y_{i}-\frac{1}{2}\tilde{\delta}_{ij}v^{j}v^{k}Y_{k}+O(4)
\nonumber \\
&=&(1+U)\tilde{\delta}_{ij}Y^{j}-\frac{1}{2}\tilde{\delta}_{ij}\tilde{\delta}_{km}v^{j}v^{k}Y^{m}+O(4),\end{aligned}$$which can now be differentiated with respect to $t$, and $dY_{i}/dt$ can be substituted from above, to give $$\frac{dS_{i}}{dt}=\left[ 3v^{j}\tilde{\delta}^{km}\tilde{\delta}_{j[k}U_{,i]}+\tilde{\delta}^{km}g_{0[k,i]}+{\tilde{\Gamma}^{m}}_{ij}v^{j}\right] S_{m}+O(4).$$where we have used $$\frac{dv^{i}}{dt}=\tilde{\delta}^{ij}U_{j}-{\tilde{\Gamma}^{i}}_{jk}v^{j}v^{k}.$$For shorthand, one can also write $$\hat{\Omega}_{ki}\equiv 3v^{j}\tilde{\delta}_{j[k}U_{,i]}+g_{0[k,i]}$$and $$\Omega ^{j}\equiv \frac{1}{2}\epsilon ^{jki}\hat{\Omega}_{ki}$$so that $$\frac{dS_{i}}{dt}=\left[ \Omega ^{j}\epsilon _{jki}\tilde{\delta}^{km}+{\tilde{\Gamma}^{m}}_{ij}v^{j}\right] S_{m}+O(4). \label{spin}$$This is the general expression for spin precession in the geometry (\[geo\]).
To see the effect of a deficit angle on spin precession we can now consider a 3-metric that is locally isometric to Euclidean 3-space under the coordinate redefinition (\[redef\]). For an elliptic orbit in a plane of constant $\theta$, and with a potential of the form $U=U(r)$, we then have $v^{\theta }=0$ and $U_{,\theta }=U_{,\phi }=0$. From (\[spin\]), we then find $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dS_{r}}{dt} &=&\frac{3}{2}v^{\phi }U_{,r}S_{\phi }+\frac{v^{\phi }}{r}S_{\phi } \\
\frac{dS_{\phi }}{dt} &=&-\frac{3}{2}v^{\phi
}r^{2}w^{2}U_{,r}S_{r}-rw^{2}v^{\phi }S_{r}+\frac{v^{r}}{r}S_{\phi }.\end{aligned}$$If we now define two new quantities, $\tilde{S}_{\phi }\equiv S_{\phi }/(rw)$ and $X\equiv (3v^{\phi }rU_{,r}/2+v^{\phi })w,$ these equations reduce to $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dS_{r}}{dt} &=&X\tilde{S}_{\phi } \\
\frac{d\tilde{S}_{\phi }}{dt} &=&-XS_{r},\end{aligned}$$which have the solutions $$\begin{aligned}
S_{r} &=&A\sin \left\{ \int Xdt\right\} \\
\tilde{S}_{\phi } &=&A\cos \left\{ \int Xdt\right\}\end{aligned}$$where $A$ is a constant of integration. If we now use (\[w\]), with $\delta w$ being $O(2)$ small, then we find that the precession rate integrated over an orbit is $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega &=& 2\pi -\int Xdt \nonumber \\
&=& 2\pi -\frac{3}{2}\int v^{\phi }rU_{,r}dt-(1-\delta w)\int v^{\phi }dt
\nonumber \\
&=& \Omega _{GR}+2\pi \delta w,\end{aligned}$$where $\Omega _{GR}$ is the general relativistic precession rate, when $w=0$. The extra precession per orbit due to the deficit angle is therefore $2\pi
\delta w$.
This result can be seen to be straightforwardly generalisable to more complicated orbits if we note that $w$ always enters as a multiplicative factor in the $O(2)$ terms in (\[spin\]). The lowest-order effect of $w$ then occurs when it multiplies the $O(0)$ terms, which are independent of gravitational potentials and velocities.
Orbital Inclination
-------------------
Binary pulsar observations are sensitive to the $sine$ of the inclination of the orbital plane with respect to the line of sight of the observer: $$s=\sin i=\frac{x}{a},$$where $a$ is the semi-major axis of the elliptical orbit, and $x$ is the ‘projected’ semi-major axis. Although the value of this quantity itself is not dependent on integration over an orbit, it is usually determined in terms of another quantity that is: The orbital period.
In the Newtonian 2-body problem the orbital period is given by $$\label{Pb}
P_{b}=2\pi \sqrt{\frac{a^{3}}{m}},$$where $m=m_{p}+m_{c}$ is the total mass of the pulsar and its companion (another pulsar, in the case of the double pulsar). If there is a deficit angle then we should expect this period to be reduced by a factor of $w$, due to the shorter path length, so that $$P_{b}=2\pi w\sqrt{\frac{a^{3}}{m}}.$$Using this to eliminate $a$ in (\[Pb\]) we then find that $$s=w^{2/3}\left( \frac{2\pi }{P_{b}}\right) ^{2/3}x_{p}\frac{(m_{p}+m_{c})^{2/3}}{m_{c}},$$where we have also used $x_{p}=xm_{c}/(m_{p}+m_{c})$, which is a directly measurable quantity.
Constraints
-----------
The constraints on periastron advance, inclination angle and geodetic precession rate obtained in [@1] and [@2] for the double pulsar system are displayed in Table \[pulsres\]. The first two of these are based on observations made between April 2003 and January 2006 using the 64m Parkes radio telescope in New South Wales, the 76m Lovell radio telescope at the Jodrell Bank Observatory, and the 100m Green Bank telescope in West Virginia. The observations of geodetic precession were made between December 2003 and November 2007 using the Green Bank telescope.
Parameter Observed value
-------------------------------------- --------------------------------
Periastron advance, $\dot{\omega}$ 16.89947 (68) $^{\circ}$/year
Orbital inclination, $s=\sin i$ 0.99974 (+16,-39)
Geodetic precession rate, $\Omega_B$ 4.77 (+66,-65) $^{\circ}$/year
: Observational constraints on the periastron advance, $\dot{\protect\omega}$, orbital inclination, $s=\sin i$, and geodetic precession rate of PSR J$0737$-$3039$B, $\Omega _{B}$, from [@1] and [@2]. []{data-label="pulsres"}
Using the expressions found above, together with the usual general relativistic ($\delta w = 0$) results, we can now write down the periastron advance, inclination angle and geodetic precession rates as $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\omega} &=&3\left( \frac{2\pi }{P_{b}}\right) ^{5/3}\frac{(m_{p}+m_{c})^{2/3}}{(1-e^{2})}+\left( \frac{2\pi }{P_{b}}\right) \delta w,
\\
s &=&\left( 1-\frac{2}{3}\delta w\right) \left( \frac{2\pi }{P_{b}}\right)
^{2/3}x_{p}\frac{(m_{p}+m_{c})^{2/3}}{m_{c}},\end{aligned}$$and $$\Omega _{B}=\left( \frac{2\pi }{P_{b}}\right) ^{5/3}\frac{1}{(1-e^{2})}\frac{m_{c}(4m_{p}+3m_{c})}{2(m_{p}+m_{c})^{4/3}}+\left( \frac{2\pi }{P_{b}}\right) \delta w.$$In all of these expressions $P_{b}$, $x_{B}$ and $e$ can be measured directly, and are given in [@1]. The ratio of masses $m_{A}/m_{B}$ is also known [@1], but not the individual masses themselves. We therefore need two observations to obtain a constraint on the deficit angle. The first will give enough information to find the two masses, and the second can be used to compare predicted and observed values of a relativistic effect. We choose to use $\dot{\omega}$ as the first observable in each case, as it is known to greatest accuracy.
Using the additional constraint from geodetic precession, $\Omega _{B}$, then gives the $2\sigma $ bound [^4] $$0\leq \delta w<1.5\times 10^{-6}.$$Alternatively, we can use the inclination angle, $s$, to get the stronger $2\sigma $ bound $$0\leq \delta w<2.4\times 10^{-8}.$$
Discussion {#conc}
==========
We have considered the effects of a deficit angle, $w$, in the space-time metric for the solar system and the double pulsar system. Using observations of the perihelion precession of Mercury and the gravitational deflection of light we constrain the magnitude of such a deficit angle in the solar system to be $2\pi (1-w)$, with $$0\leq (1-w)<10^{-9}$$to $95\%$ confidence. Similarly, we have used observations of periastron advance and inclination angle in the double pulsar system PSR J$0737$-$3039$A/B to gain the constraint $$0\leq (1-w)<2.4\times 10^{-8},$$also to $95\%$ confidence. Although this result is weaker than the solar system bound, it is in a very different physical environment, where accuracy is likely to improve in the future, as observational data on the double pulsar accumulates.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We are grateful to Michael Kramer for helpful information. TC acknowledges the support of Jesus College, Oxford and the BIPAC.
[99]{}
A. S. Eddington, *The Mathematical Theory of Relativity*, Cambridge UP, Cambridge (1922).
K. Nordtvedt, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} **169**, 1017 (1968); and [*Phys. Rev.*]{} **180**, 1293 (1969).
C. M. Will, *Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics, rev. ed.*, Cambridge UP, Cambridge (1993).
M. Burgay *et al.*, *Nature* **426**, 531 (2003).
A. G. Lyne *et al.*, *Science* **303**, 1153 (2004).
A. Vilenkin & P. Shellard, *Cosmic strings and other topological defects*, Cambridge UP, Cambridge (1994).
T. W. B. Kibble, [*J. Phys. A*]{} **9**, 1387 (1976).
L. Marder, [*Proc. Roy. Soc. A*]{} **252**, 45 (1959).
M. Aryal, L. Ford & A. Vilenkin, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} **34**, 2263 (1986).
E. Hackmann, B. Hartmann, C. Lämmerzahl & P. Sirimachan, arXiv:0912.2327 \[gr-qc\] (2009).
D. Gal’tsov & E. Masar, *Class. Quant. Grav.* **6**, 1313 (1989).
E. V. Pitjeva., *Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron.* **80**, 249 (2001).
C. W. Allen, *Allen’s Astrophysical Quantities, 4th edition,* ed. A. N. Cox, Springer, New York (2000).
J. D. Anderson *et al.*, *IAU Proceedings* ** 9**, 324 (1991).
J. D. Anderson *et al.*, in *Proceedings of the 6th Marcel Grossman Meeting on General Relativity* eds. H. Sato & T. Nakamura, World Scientific, Singapore (1992). pp. 353-355.
G. A. Krasinsky *et al.*, *Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron.* **55**, 1 (1993).
E. V. Pitjeva, *Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron.* **55**, 313 (1993).
S. Pireaux, J. P. Rozelot & S. Godier, *Astrophys. Sp. Sci.* **284**, 1159 (2003).
S. S. Shapiro, J. L Davis, D. E. Lebach & J. S. Gregory, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **92**, 121101 (2004).
M. Kramer *et al.*, *Science* **314**, 97 (2006).
R. P. Breton *et al.*, *Science* **321**, 104 (2008).
J. M. Weisberg, R. W. Romani & J. H. Taylor, *Astrophys. J.* **347**, 1030 (1989).
M. Kramer, *Astrophys. J.* **509**, 856 (1998).
J. M. Weisberg & J. H. Taylor, *Astrophys. J.* **576**, 942 (2002).
A. W. Hotan, M. Bailes & S. M. Ord, *Astrophys. J.* **624**, 906 (2005).
T. Clifton & J. M. Weisberg, *Astrophys. J.* **679**, 687 (2008).
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
[^3]: Note that these bounds are weaker than those of [@hack], who appear to have erroneously used constraints on post-Newtonian parameters derived from the Nordvedt effect and the Shapiro effect to constrain perihelion precession and light bending.
[^4]: In order to combine asymmetric errors we have assumed they are Gaussian distributed on each branch, with different variances.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'This paper introduces a novel paradigm for designing the physical and medium access control (MAC) layers of mobile ad hoc or peer-to-peer networks formed by half-duplex radios. A node equipped with such a radio cannot simultaneously transmit and receive useful signals at the same frequency. Unlike in conventional designs, where a node’s transmission frames are scheduled away from its reception, each node transmits its signal through a randomly generated on-off [*duplex mask (or signature)*]{} over every frame interval, and receive a signal through each of its own off-slots. This is called [*rapid on-off-division duplex (RODD)*]{}. Over the period of a single frame, every node can transmit a message to some or all of its peers, and may simultaneously receive a message from each peer. Thus RODD achieves virtual full-duplex communication using half-duplex radios and can simplify the design of higher layers of a network protocol stack significantly. The throughput of RODD is evaluated under some general settings, which is significantly larger than that of ALOHA. RODD is especially efficient in case the dominant traffic is simultaneous broadcast from nodes to their one-hop peers, such as in spontaneous wireless social networks, emergency situations or on battlefield. Important design issues of peer discovery, distribution of on-off signatures, synchronization and error-control coding are also addressed.'
author:
-
title:
- 'Rapid-On-Off-Division Duplex for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks[^1]'
- 'Virtual Full-Duplex Wireless Communication via Rapid On-Off-Division Duplex[^2]'
---
Ad hoc network, half-duplex, multiaccess channel, neighbor discovery, random access, wireless peer-to-peer networks.
Introduction {#s:int}
============
In spite of decades of advances in wireless and networking technologies, to design a functional and reliable mobile ad hoc or peer-to-peer network remains enormously challenging [@AndJin08CM]. The main roadblocks include the difficult nature of the wireless medium and the mobility of wireless terminals, among others. A crucial constraint on wireless systems is the [*half-duplex*]{} nature of affordable radios, which prevents a radio from receiving any useful signal at the same time and over the same frequency band within which it is transmitting. The physical reason is that during transmission, a radio’s own signal picked up by its receive antenna is typically orders of magnitude stronger than the signals from its peers, such that the desired signals are lost due to the limited dynamic range of the radio frequency (RF) circuits. The half-duplex constraint has far-reaching consequences in the design of wireless networks: The uplink and downlink transmissions in any cellular-type network are separated using time-division duplex (TDD) or frequency-division duplex (FDD); standard designs of wireless ad hoc networks schedule transmission frames of a node away from the time and frequency slot over which the node receives data [@XuSaa01CM].
In this work, the half-duplex constraint is addressed at a fundamental level, which is that the received signal of a half-duplex node is [*erased*]{} during periods of its own active transmission. We recognize that, it is neither necessary nor efficient to separate the transmission slots and listening slots of a node in the timescale of a frame of hundreds or thousands of symbols as in TDD. We propose for the first time a technique called [*rapid on-off-division duplex (RODD)*]{}. The key idea is to let each node transmit according to a unique [ *on-off duplex mask (or signature)*]{} over a frame of symbols or slots, so that the node can receive useful signals from its peers during the [*off-slots*]{} interleaved between its [*on-slot*]{} transmissions. Importantly, all nodes may send (error-control-coded) information simultaneously over a frame interval, as long as the masks of peers are sufficiently different, so that a node receives enough signals during its off-slots to decode information from its peers. Over the period of a single frame, every node simultaneously broadcasts a message to some or all other nodes in its neighborhood, and may receive a message from every neighbor at the same time.
Switching the carrier on and off at the timescale of one or several symbols is feasible, thanks to the sub-nanosecond response time of RF circuits. In fact, on-off signaling over sub-millisecond slots is used by time-division multiple-access (TDMA) cellular systems such as GSM. Time-hopping impulse radio transmits on and off at nanosecond intervals [@WinSch00TC], which is orders of magnitude faster than needed by RODD (in microseconds). Moreover, receiving signals during one’s own off-slots avoids self-interference and circumvents the dynamic range issue which plagues other full-duplex schemes, such as code-division duplex (CDD) [@AsaSat96IEICE; @Lee02CM].
Ad hoc networks using rapid on-off-division duplex have unique advantages:
RODD enables virtual full-duplex transmission and greatly simplifies the design of higher-layer protocols. In particular, “scheduling” is carried out in a microscopic timescale over the slots, so that there is no need to separate transmitting and listening frames;
RODD signaling takes full advantage of the superposition and broadcast nature of the wireless medium. As we shall see, the throughput of a RODD-based network is greater than that of ALOHA-type random access, and is more than twice as large as that of slotted ALOHA in many cases;
RODD signaling is particularly efficient when the traffic is predominantly peer-to-peer broadcast, such as in mobile systems used in local advertising, spontaneous social networks, emergency situations or on battlefield;
Communication overhead usually comes as an afterthought in network design, whereas RODD enables extremely efficient exchange of a small amount of state information amongst neighbors;
Because nodes simultaneously transmit, the channel-access delay is typically smaller and more stable than in conventional reservation or scheduling schemes.
This paper presents a preliminary study of several aspects of RODD. Related work and technologies are discussed in Section \[s:related\]. Mathematical models of a network of nodes with synchronous RODD signaling is presented in Sections \[s:model\]. Assuming mutual broadcast traffic, the throughput of a fully-connected, synchronized, RODD-based network is studied in Section \[s:capacity\]. Design issues such as duplex mask assignment, peer discovery, error-control codes and synchronization are discussed in Sections \[s:peer\]–\[s:sync\]. We conclude the paper with a discussion of applications of RODD in Section \[s:con\].
Related Work {#s:related}
============
There have been numerous works on the design of physical and MAC layers for wireless networks (see the surveys and references therein). Two major challenges need to be addressed: One is the half-duplex constraint; the other is the broadcast and superposition nature of the wireless medium, so that simultaneous transmissions interfere with each other at a receiver. State-of-the-art designs either schedule nodes orthogonally ahead of transmissions, or apply an ALOHA-type random access scheme, or use a mixture of random access and scheduling reservation [@MohKri05]. Typically, the [*collision model*]{} is assumed, where if multiple nodes simultaneously transmit, their transmissions fail due to collision at the receiver. Under such a model, random access leads to poor efficiency (e.g., ALOHA’s efficiency is less than $1/e$). On the other hand, scheduling node transmissions is often difficult and subject to the hidden terminal and exposed terminal problems. Despite the half-duplex constraint, it is neither necessary nor efficient to separate a node’s transmission slots and listening slots in the timescale of a frame. In fact, time-sharing can fall considerably short of the theoretical optimum. For example, it has been shown that the capacity of a cascade of two noiseless binary bit pipes through a half-duplex relay is 1.14 bits per channel use [@LutHau08ISIT; @LutKra10ISIT], which far exceeds the 0.5 bit achieved by TDD and even the 1 bit upper bound on the rate of binary signaling. This is because non-transmission can be regarded as an additional symbol for signaling (besides 0 and 1), whose positions can be used to communicate information (see also [@Kramer07]).
Several recent works on the implementation of physical and MAC layers break away from the collision model and single-user transmission. For example, superposition coding for degraded broadcast channels has been implemented using software-defined radios [@GanGon10ICC]. Analog network coding has also been implemented based on 802.11 technology [@KatGol07Sigcomm], where, when two senders transmit simultaneously, their packets collide, or more precisely, superpose at the receiver, so that if the receiver already knows the content of one of the packets, it can cancel the interference and decode the other packet. Similar ideas have been proven feasible in some other contexts to achieve interference cancellation in unmanaged ZigBee networks [@HalAnd08Mobicom], ZigZag decoding for 802.11 in [@GolKat08Sigcomm], and interference alignment and cancellation in [@GolPer09Sigcomm].
Rapid on-off-division duplex is related to code-division duplex, which was proposed in the context of code-division multiple access (CDMA) [@AsaSat96IEICE]. In CDD, orthogonal (typically antipodal) spreading sequences are allocated to uplink and downlink communications, so that a receiver ideally cancels self-interference by matched filtering with its own receive spreading sequence. Despite the claimed higher spectral efficiency than that of TDD and FDD in [@Lee02CM], CDD is not used in practice because it is difficult to maintain orthogonality due to channel impairments and suppress self-interference which is orders of magnitude stronger than the desired signal. In RODD, the desired signal is sifted through the off-slots of the transmission frame, so that the leakage of the transmit energy into the received signal is kept to the minimum.
RODD can also be viewed as (very fast) TDD with irregular symbol-level transition between transmit and receive slots as well as coding over many slots. Although on-off signaling can in principle be applied to the frequency domain, it would be much harder to implement sharp band-pass filters to remove self-interference.
The RODD signaling also has some similarities to that of time-hopping impulse radio [@Scholt93Milcom; @WinSch98CL]. Both schemes transmit a sequence of randomly spaced pulses. There are crucial differences: Each on-slot (or pulse) in RODD spans one or a few data symbols (in microseconds), whereas each pulse in impulse radio is a baseband monocycle of a nanosecond or so duration. Moreover, impulse radio is carrier-free and spreads the spectrum by many orders of magnitude, whereas RODD uses a carrier and is not necessarily spread-spectrum.
Models and RODD Signaling {#s:model}
=========================
Consider an ad hoc network consisting of $K$ nodes, indexed by $1,\dots,K$. Suppose all transmissions are over the same frequency band. Suppose for simplicity each slot is of one symbol interval and all nodes are perfectly synchronized over each frame of $M$ slots. Let the binary on-off duplex mask of node $k$ over slots $1$ through $M$ be denoted by $\s_k=[s_{k1},\dots, s_{kM}]$. During slot $m$, node $k$ may transmit a symbol if $s_{km}=1$, whereas if $s_{km}=0$, the node listens to the channel and emits no energy.
The Fading Channel Model
------------------------
The physical link between any pair of nodes is modeled as a fading channel. Let the path loss satisfy a power law with exponent $\alpha$. The received signal of node $k$ during each slot $m\in\{1,\dots,M\}$ is described by $$\label{eq:MAC} Y_{km} = (1-s_{km}) \sum_{j\ne k} \sqrt{\gamma_j} d_{kj}^{-\alpha/2}
h_{kj} s_{jm} X_{jm} + W_{km}$$ where $d_{kj}$ denotes the distance between nodes $k$ and $j$, $h_{kj}$ denotes the fading coefficient, $X_{jm}$ denotes the transmitted symbol of node $j$ at time slot $m$, $W_{km}$ denotes additive noise, and $\gamma_j$ denotes the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of node $j$ at unit distance without fading. The received signal of each node over its own off-slots is the superposition of the signals from its peers over those slots (in addition to noise). Thus RODD forms fundamentally a [*multiaccess channel with erasure*]{}.
Let us also assume that the signaling of each node is subject to unit average power constraint, i.e., for every $k=1,\dots,K$, every codeword $(x_{k1},\dots,x_{kM})$ satisfies $\sum^M_{m=1} s_{km} x^2_{km} \le M$. The SNR of the link from node $j$ to node $k$ can be regarded as $\gamma_{kj} = \gamma_j\, d_{kj}^{-\alpha} |h_{kj}|^2$. We say node $j$ is a (one-hop) [*neighbor*]{} or a [*peer*]{} of node $k$ if $\gamma_{kj}$ exceeds a given threshold.[^3] Let the set of neighbors (or peers) of $k$ be denoted as $\partial k$, which is also called its [ *neighborhood*]{}. We are only interested in communication over links between neighbors. The model can be reduced to $$\label{eq:MAC1} Y_{km} = (1-s_{km}) \sum_{j\in \partial k} \sqrt{\gamma_j}
d_{kj}^{-\alpha/2} h_{kj} s_{jm} X_{jm} + V_{km}$$ where $V_{km}$ consists of the additive noise $W_{km}$ as well as the aggregate interference caused by non-neighbors.
Note that and model the half-duplex constraint at a fundamental level: If node $k$ transmits during a slot, then its received signal during the slot is erased.
A Deterministic Model
---------------------
It is instructive to consider a simplification of the preceding models by assuming noiseless non-coherent reception and energy detection. That is, as long as some neighbor transmits energy during an off-slot of node $k$, a “1” is observed in the slot, whereas if no neighbor emits energy during the slot, a “0” is observed. This can be described as an [*inclusive-or*]{} multiaccess channel (referred to as OR-channel) with erasure: $$\label{eq:ORMAC} \hat{Y}_{km} = (1-s_{km}) \left( \operatorname{\vee}_{j\in\partial k} (s_{jm} Z_{jm}) \right)$$ for $m=1,\dots,M$, where the binary inputs $Z_{jm}$ and outputs $\hat{Y}_{km}$ take values from $\{0,1\}$. Since the output is a deterministic function of the inputs, belongs to the family of [*deterministic models*]{}, which have been found to be a very effective tool in understanding multiuser channels (see, e.g, [@ElGCos82IT; @AveDig09]). Despite its simplicity, it captures the superposition nature of the physical channel, while ignoring the effect of noise and interference, although those impairments can also be easily included in the model.
(0,0) (15,4)[$\ZZZ_1$]{} (15,18)[$\YYY_1$]{} (15,38)[$\ZZZ_2$]{} (15,53)[$\ZZZ_3$]{} (15,68)[$\ZZZ_4$]{}
(245,85)(-24,0) ![RODD signaling over an OR-channel with erasure.[]{data-label="f:Superpose"}](Superpose "fig:"){width="3in"}
Fig. \[f:Superpose\] illustrates a snapshot of RODD signals of four nodes taken over 50 slots. Here $\ZZZ_1,\dots,\ZZZ_4$ represent the transmitted signals of node 1 through node 4, respectively, where the solid lines represent on-slots and the dotted lines represent off-slots. The received signal of node 1 through its off-slots is $\YYY_1$, which is the superposition of $\ZZZ_2$, $\ZZZ_3$, and $\ZZZ_4$ with erasures at its own on-slots (represented by blanks). Over the period of a single RODD frame, every node can “simultaneously” broadcast a message to its neighbors and receive a message from every neighbor at the same time.
Throughput Results {#s:capacity}
==================
Suppose each node has a message to broadcast to all its (one-hop) neighbors by transmitting a frame over $M$ slots. An $M$-slot frame is regarded as being successful for a given node if its message is decoded correctly by all neighbors; otherwise the frame is in error. A rate tuple for the $K$ nodes is achievable if there exists a code using which the nodes can transmit at their respective rates with vanishing error probability in the limit where the frame length $M\to\infty$.
The achievable rates obviously depends on the network topology and the duplex masks. It is assumed that every node has complete knowledge of the duplex masks of all peers (see Section \[s:peer\] on neighbor discovery). For simplicity, in Sections \[s:det\] and \[s:gau\], we first consider a symmetric network of $K$ nodes who are neighbors of each other, where the gain between every pair of nodes is identical. Suppose the elements $s_{km}$ of the duplex masks are independent identically distributed (i.i.d.) Bernoulli random variables with $\Prob(s_{km}=1) = q$.
In the simplest scenario, all nodes use randomly generated i.i.d. codebooks dependent on the parameters $(K,M,q)$ but independent of the duplex masks otherwise. Such a code is called a [ *signature-independent code*]{}. Alternatively, nodes may use [*signature-dependent codes*]{}, where the codebooks may depend on the signature pattern $\S_m=\{s_{1m},s_{2m},\dots,s_{Km}\}$ in every slot $m$. Since all nodes are symmetric, dependence on the signatures is only through the weight of the pattern $\S_m$.
The amount of information that a node can transmit during a frame is an increasing function of the number of on-slots, which in turn has a negative impact on the amount of information it can collect. If the amount of information a node receives is several times of the amount of information it transmits, its signature should consist of many more off-slots than on-slots, i.e., it is somewhat sparse.
In case all messages from different nodes are of the same number of bits, the rate tuple collapses to a single number. The maximum achievable such rate by using signature-independent (resp. signature-dependent) codes is called the [*symmetric rate*]{} (resp. [*symmetric capacity*]{}).
The Deterministic Model {#s:det}
-----------------------
Consider the OR-channel described by . A node’s codeword is basically erased by its own signature mask before transmission.
The symmetric rate and the symmetric capacity of the OR-channel are $$\begin{aligned}
R &= \max_{p \in [0,1]}\frac{1}{K-1}\sum_{n=1}^{K-1}
\binom{K-1}{n} q^n(1-q)^{K-n} H_2(p^n) \label{eq:RateOR} \\
C &= \frac{1}{K-1}\big[(1-q)-(1-q)^K\big] \label{eq:CapaOR}
\end{aligned}$$ where $H_2(p)=-p\log p-(1-p)\log(1-p)$ is the binary entropy function.
The detailed proof is omitted due to space limitations. The symmetric rate is achieved by random codebooks with i.i.d.Bernoulli$(1-p)$ entries where $p$ maximizes . To see this, consider any given signature pattern $\S_m=\s$ in slot $m$, in which $n$ nodes transmit while the remaining $K-n$ of them listen, the contribution of the slot to the achievable rate is then given by the mutual information between the binary received signal $Y$ and the transmitted symbols $\ZZZ$ in the slot: $$\begin{aligned}
I(\ZZZ;Y|\S_m=\s) &= H(Y|\S_m=\s) - H(Y|\ZZZ,\S_m=\s) \nonumber \\
&= H(Y|\S_m=\s) \\
&= H_2(p^n)\end{aligned}$$ where the second equality is due to the deterministic nature of the model.
The symmetric capacity is higher than the symmetric rate because there is gain to adapt the codebooks to the signatures. Basically the codebook entries at each slot are generated as independent Bernoulli random variables whose mean value depends on the number of transmitting nodes in the slot (aka the weight of $\S_m$). The parameters of the Bernoulli variables can be optimized for achieving the capacity.
![Comparison of the throughput of RODD and ALOHA over OR-channel.[]{data-label="f:comp"}](RODDvsALOHA_OR){width="1.1\columnwidth"}
We next compare the throughput of a RODD-based scheme with that of ALOHA-type random access schemes over the same channel , where the throughput is defined as the sum rate of all nodes. During each frame interval (or contention period), every node in ALOHA independently chooses either to transmit (with probability $q$) or to listen (with probability $1-q$) and the choices are independent across contention periods. A node successfully broadcasts its message to all other nodes if the frame is the only transmission during a given frame interval. It is easy to see that the throughput of the system with ALOHA is $Kq(1-q)^{K-1}$, which achieves the maximum $(1-1/K)^{K-1}$ with $q=1/K$.
For three different node populations ($K=3,5,20$), the comparison between RODD and ALOHA is shown in Fig. \[f:comp\]. The sum symmetric rate achieved by signature-independent codes is plotted for RODD. Clearly, the maximum throughput of RODD is much higher than that of ALOHA, where the gap increases as the number of nodes increases. In fact the throughput of RODD exceeds that of ALOHA for all values of $q$. In case of a large number of nodes, the throughput of ALOHA approaches $1/e$. On the other hand, with $p=1-2^{-\frac1{(K-1)q}}$, the total throughput achieved by using RODD signaling approaches $1-q$ as $K\to\infty$, which is also the asymptotic sum capacity of RODD achieved by signature-dependent codes.
The reason for the inferior performance of ALOHA is largely due to packet retransmissions after collision. Even if multi-packet reception is allowed, the throughput of ALOHA is still far inferior compared to RODD signaling due to the half-duplex constraint. This is because, in the case of broadcast traffic studied here, if two nodes simultaneously and successfully transmit their packets to all other nodes, they still have to exchange their messages using at least two additional transmissions.
The Gaussian Multiaccess Channel {#s:gau}
--------------------------------
![Comparison of the throughput of RODD and ALOHA over Gaussian multiaccess channel at SNR $\gamma=20$ dB.[]{data-label="f:Gau"}](RODDvsALOHA_Gauss){width="1.1\columnwidth"}
Consider now a (non-fading) Gaussian multiaccess channel described by , where $d_{kj}=1$, $h_{kj}=1$ for all $k,j$, and $\{W_{ji}\}$ are i.i.d. Gaussian random variables.
For simplicity, let all nodes be of the same SNR, $\gamma_j=\gamma$. Let the average power of each transmitted codeword be 1. Since each node only transmits over about $qM$ slots, the average SNR during each active slot is essentially $\gamma/q$.
It is easy to see that the throughput of ALOHA over the Gaussian channel is $K q(1-q)^{K-1} g(\gamma/q)$, where $g(x)=\frac{1}{2}\log(1+x)$. Similar to the results for the deterministic model, we can show that the symmetric rate and the symmetric capacity for the Gaussian multiaccess channel are achieved with Gaussian codebooks by signature-independent codes and signature-dependent codes, respectively:
The symmetric rate and the symmetric capacity of the non-fading Gaussian multiaccess channel described by are $$\begin{aligned}
R &= \frac{1}{K-1} \sum_{m=1}^{K-1} \binom{K-1}{m} q^m(1-q)^{K-m}
g\left(\frac{m\gamma}{q}\right) \label{eq:RateG} \\
C &= \frac{1}{K-1} \sum_{m=1}^{K-1} \binom{K-1}{m} q^m(1-q)^{K-m}
g(w_m) \label{eq:CapaG}
\end{aligned}$$ where $w_m=\max(\frac{K-m}{K-1}v-1,0)$ and $v$ is chosen to satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:1}
\frac{1}{K}\sum_{m=1}^{K-1}\binom{K}{m}q^m(1-q)^{K-m}w_m=\gamma \ .\end{aligned}$$
The case of signature-dependent codes can be regarded as allocating different powers to different signature patterns in a parallel Gaussian multiaccess model. As is shown in Fig. \[f:Gau\], the throughput of RODD with signature-independent codes is higher than that of ALOHA for all number of nodes and every value of $q$. The more nodes in the network, the more advantage of RODD signaling.
The Achievable Asymmetric Rates
-------------------------------
In many applications, the amount of data different nodes transmit/broadcast can be very different. In random access schemes, nodes with more data will contend for more resources. The data rate, transmit power and modulation format of a RODD-based codebook can be adapted to the amount of data to be transmitted.
Suppose the elements $s_{km}$ of node $k$’s signature are i.i.d. Bernoulli random variables with $\Prob(s_{km}=1) = q_k$. Here we study the asymmetric rate region of RODD achieved by signature-independent codes under the fading channel model described in .
The rate tuple $(R_1,\dots,R_K)$ is achievable over the fading channel if $$R_k \leq \min_{i \neq k}(1-q_i)\sum_{\mathcal{A} \subseteq \mathcal{K}\setminus\{i\}, k \in \mathcal{A}}\frac{\gamma_{ik}}{q_kh_{\mathcal{A}}^i} g(h_{\mathcal{A}}^i)\prod_{j \in \mathcal{A}}q_j\prod_{l \notin \mathcal{A}}(1-q_l) \label{eq:RateFading}$$ for $1 \leq k \leq K$, where $\mathcal{K}=\{1,2,\dots,K\}$ and $h_{\mathcal{A}}^i$ is defined as $h_{\mathcal{A}}^i=\sum_{j\in \mathcal{A}}\frac{\gamma_{ij}}{q_j}$.
Similar as discussed in the case for the Gaussian Multiaccess channel, the asymmetric rate tuple given in can be achieved by signature-independent codes with random Gaussian codebooks.
Signature Distribution and Peer Discovery {#s:peer}
=========================================
It is not necessary to directly distribute the set of $K$ duplex masks to each node in the network. It suffices to let nodes generate their signatures using the same pseudo-random number generator or some other deterministic function with their respective unique network interface address (NIA) as the seed. Every node can in principle reconstruct all signatures by enumerating all NIAs.
Before establishing data links, a node needs to acquire the identities or NIAs of its neighbors. This is called [*neighbor discovery*]{}. Conventional discovery schemes are based on random access, where each node transmits its NIA many times with random delay, so that after enough transmissions, every neighbor receives it at least once without collision [@BorEph07AdhocNet; @VasTow09ICMCN; @NiSri10SigMet]. As we shall see next, network-wide full-duplex discovery is achievable using RODD signaling, where all nodes simultaneously send their (sparse) on-off signatures and make measurements through their respective off-slots.
The linear multiaccess channel model applies to the neighbor discover problem if $X_{jm}$, $m=1,\dots,M$, are replaced by the same indicator variable $B_j$, where $B_j=1$ if node $j$ is present in the neighborhood, and $B_j=0$ otherwise. The signal each node $k$ transmits over the entire discovery period to identify itself is then the signature $\s_k$ (this signature need not be the same or of the same length as the one used for data communication). Take node 1, for example, whose observation made through its off-slots can be expressed (using a simplification of model ) as a vector $$\begin{aligned}
\textstyle \Y = \sum_{k=2}^K X_k \s_k + \W\end{aligned}$$ where $X_k$ (which incorporates fading and path loss) is zero or is close to zero except if node $k$ is in the neighborhood of node $1$ and transmits $\s_k$ during the off-slots of user 1. The vector $[X_1,\dots,X_K]$ is typically extremely sparse.
In [@LuoGuo08Allerton; @LuoGuo09Allerton], Luo and Guo have pointed out that to identify a small number of neighbors out of a large collection of nodes based on the signal received over a linear channel is fundamentally a [*compressed sensing (or sparse recovery)*]{} problem, for which a small number of measurements (channel uses) suffice [@Donoho06IT; @CanTao06IT].[^4] Using [*pseudo-random on-off signatures*]{} for neighbor discovery was proposed in [@LuoGuo08Allerton; @LuoGuo09Allerton] along with a group testing algorithm. The key observation is that, from one node’s viewpoint, for each slot with (essentially) no energy received, all nodes who would have transmitted a pulse during that slot cannot be a neighbor. A node basically goes through every off-slot and eliminates nodes incompatible with the measurement; the surviving nodes are then regarded as neighbors. The compressed neighbor discovery scheme requires only noncoherent energy detection and has been shown to be effective and efficient at moderate SNRs; moreover, it requires many fewer symbol transmissions than conventional neighbor discovery schemes.
With improvement over the algorithms of [@LuoGuo09Allerton], numerical examples show that in a network of $N=\;$10,000 Poisson-distributed nodes, where each node has on average 50 neighbors, 99% discovery accuracy is achieved using 2,500-bit signatures at moderate SNR, less than half of that needed by random access discovery to achieve the same accuracy. Only one frame of transmission is needed here, as opposed to many frames in the case of random access, thus offering significant additional reduction of timing and error-control overhead embedded in each frame.
Since RODD transmission and neighbor discovery share the same linear channel model, it is possible for a new node in a neighborhood to carry out neighbor discovery solely based on a frame of data transmission by all peers over the multiaccess channel, without an explicit neighbor discovery phase.
Channel Coding for RODD {#s:coding}
=======================
Capacity-achieving Codes
------------------------
From individual receiver’s viewpoint, the channel with RODD is a multiaccess channel with erasure at known positions. All good codes for multiaccess channels are basically good for RODD. Coding schemes for the OR multiaccess channel have been studied, e.g., in [@GriCas06ISIT] and [@GriCas06GC]. In particular, the nonlinear trellis codes of [@GriCas06GC] achieves about 60% of the sum-capacity.
Coding for the Gaussian multiaccess channel is well-understood. In particular, Gaussian codebooks achieve the capacity. In practice, however, QAM or PSK signaling is often used depending on the SNR. Practical codes have been shown to be effective in [@SanPel05IT; @HarRaj09ISIT; @BraAul01ICC]. For example, the codes of [@SanPel05IT] is based on LDPC codes, where it is pointed out that degree optimization for the multiuser scenario is important in this case. Reference [@BraAul01ICC] is based on trellis-coded multiple access, which can be particularly suitable for higher constellations. There has also been study on rateless codes for multiaccess channels, e.g., [@NieEre06GC; @UppHos07ISIT].
Also relevant is a large body of works on channel codes for code-division multiple access (CDMA). By regarding spreading and channel code as the inner and outer codes, respectively, turbo decoding has been found to be highly effective for such systems [@RasGra09]. In the case of RODD, the on-off signatures and individual node’s channel code and can be viewed as inner and outer codes, which suggests that turbo decoding can be highly effective.
A Simple, Short Code Based on Sparse Recovery
---------------------------------------------
A simple channel code for RODD is proposed in [@GuoZha11Infocom], which does not achieve the capacity but is simple and efficient if the messages exchanged between peers consist of a relatively small number of bits.
As in the peer discovery problem, decoding of this simple code is essentially via sparse recovery. Consider the simplest case, where each node has one bit to broadcast to all other nodes. Let node $k$ be assigned two on-off signatures so that the node transmits $\s_{k,1}$ to send message “1,” and transmits $\s_{k,0}$ to send message “0.” All nodes transmit their signatures simultaneously, and listen to the channel through their respective off-slots. Clearly, this is similar to the neighbor discovery problem, except that each node tries to identify which signature from [*each*]{} neighbor was transmitted so as to recover 1 bit of information from the node.
The preceding coding scheme can be easily extend to the case where the message $m_k$ from node $k$ is chosen from a small set of messages $\{1,\dots,\mu\}$. In this case, node $k$ is assigned $\mu$ distinct on-off signatures, and transmit the signature corresponding to its message. All signatures are known to all nodes. The problem is now for each node to identify, out of a total of $\mu K$ messages (signatures) from all nodes, which $K$ messages (signatures) were selected. For example, in case of 10 nodes each with a message of 10 bits, the problem is to identify $10$ out of $10\times2^{10}=$10,240 signatures. A rich set of efficient and effective decoding algorithms are studied in [@GuoZha11Infocom].
Synchronization {#s:sync}
===============
In order to decode the messages from the neighboring nodes, it is crucial not only to acquire their signatures, but also their timing (or relative delay). Acquisition of timing is in general a prerequisite to decoding data regardless of what physical- and MAC-layer technologies are used, thus RODD is not at a disadvantage compared to other schemes. In a RODD system, nodes with data may transmit over every frame, providing abundant cues for timing acquisition and synchronization. Timing acquisition and decoding are generally easier if the frames arriving at a receiver are fully synchronous locally within each neighborhood. To maintain synchronicity in a dynamic network requires extra overhead. Synchronization is, however, not a necessity. Synchronous or not, each node collects essentially the same amount of information through its own off-slots.
Synchronous RODD
----------------
Synchronicity has been studied extensively in the context of ad hoc and sensor networks. Various distributed algorithms for reaching consensus [@SchRib08TSP; @SchGia08TSP] can be applied to achieve local synchronicity, e.g., by having each node shift its timing to the “center of gravity” of the timings of all nodes in the neighborhood. The timing still fluctuates over the network, but is a smooth function geographically. The accuracy of synchronization is limited by two factors: the channel impairments and the propagation delay. Synchronization is easy if a RODD slot can be much longer than the propagation delay across the diameter of a neighborhood. For example, a slot interval of 100 $\mu$s would be 100 times the propagation time of 1 $\mu$s over a 300-meter range. For high-rate communication, a RODD symbol can be in the form of an orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) symbol.
Local synchronicity can also be achieved using a common reference, such as a strong beacon signal. A possible shortcut is to have all nodes synchronized using GPS or via listening to base stations in an existing cellular network, if applicable.
Asynchronous RODD
-----------------
In an asynchronous design, the relative delay can be arbitrary, so that the off-slot of a node is in general not aligned with the on-slot of its neighbors. Techniques for decoding asynchronous signals developed in the context of multiuser detection/decoding [@Verdu98; @CotMul10IT] are generally applicable to RODD-based systems.
The algorithms for timing acquisition and synchronization should account for the fact that an active node can only observe each frame partially through its off-slots. To infer about the delays of neighbors based on partial observations is fundamentally the filtering of a hidden Markov process.
Concluding Remarks {#s:con}
==================
Proposed and studied in this paper is the novel [*rapid on-off-division duplex*]{} scheme, which suggests a radically different design than conventional FDD and TDD systems. On-off signaling has been used since the early days of telegraphy, and is also the basis for a simple modulation scheme known as on-off keying. Frequency-hopping multiple-access can be regarded as a form of on-off signaling in the frequency domain. Recently, transmission through a random on-off mask has been suggested to control the amount of interference caused to other nodes in an interference channel [@MosKha10ISIT]. RODD is unique in that it exploits on-off signaling to achieve virtual full-duplex communication using half-duplex radios.
It is interesting to note that FDD and TDD suffice in cellular networks because uplink and downlink transmissions can be assigned regular orthogonal resources. This absolute separation of uplink and downlink does not apply to peer-to-peer networks because, in such a network, one node’s downlink resource has to be matched with its peer’s uplink. The prevalence of FDD- and TDD-like scheduling schemes in current ad hoc networks is in part inherited from the more mature technologies of wired and cellular networks, and due to the difficulty of separating superposed signals. Advances in multiuser detection and decoding (e.g., [@Honig09]) and recent progress in sparse recovery have enabled new technologies that break away from the model of packet collisions, and hence set the stage for RODD-based systems.
A rich class of results and techniques in network information theory apply to RODD-based systems. Moreover, almost all technological advances in the wireless communications are also applicable to such systems, including OFDM, multiple antennas, relay, cooperation, to name a few. In particular, RODD signaling enables virtual full-duplex relaying, where a relay forwards each received symbol in the next available on-slot. The queueing delay at a relay can be all but eliminated. This is in contrast to the store-and-forward scheme used by half-duplex relays, where the queueing delay at a relay is of the length of one or several frames.
We conclude this paper by describing a specific advantage of RODD for network state information exchange. Many advanced wireless transmission techniques require knowledge of the state of communicating parties, such as the power, modulation format, beamforming vector, code rate, acknowledgment (ACK), queue length, etc. Conventional schemes often treat such [*network state information*]{} similarly as data, so that exchange of such information require a substantial amount of overhead and, in ad hoc networks, often many retransmissions. In a highly mobile network, the overhead easily dominates the data traffic [@AndJin08CM]. By creating a virtual full-duplex channel, RODD is particularly suitable for nodes to efficiently broadcast local state information to their respective neighbors. In fact RODD can be deployed as a new sub-layer of the protocol stack, solely devoted to (virtual full-duplex) state information exchange. One potential application of this idea is to assist distributed scheduling by letting each node choose whether to transmit based on its own state and the states of its neighbors. We have shown that a simple distributed protocol lead to an efficient network-wide TDMA schedule, which typically doubles the throughput of ALOHA [@HuiGuo10ISIT]. Another application is distributed interference management by exchanging interference prices as studied in [@SchShi09SPM].
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
The authors would like to thank Martin Haenggi for useful discussions.
[10]{}
J. Andrews, N. Jindal, M. Haenggi, R. Berry, S. Jafar, D. Guo, S. Shakkottai, R. [Heath Jr]{}, M. Neely, S. Weber, A. Yener, and P. Stone, “Rethinking information theory for mobile ad hoc networks,” [*IEEE Communication Magazine*]{}, vol. 46, pp. 94–101, Dec. 2008.
S. Xu and T. Saadawi, “Does the [IEEE]{} 802.11 [MAC]{} protocol work well in multihop wireless ad hoc networks?,” [*IEEE Communication Magazine*]{}, vol. 39, pp. 130–137, June 2001.
M. Z. Win and R. A. Scholtz, “Ultra-wide bandwidth time-hopping spread-spectrum impulse radio for wireless multiple-access communications,” [*[IEEE]{} Trans. Commun.*]{}, vol. 48, pp. 679 –689, Apr 2000.
H. Asada, K. Satou, T. Yamazato, M. Katayama, and A. Ogawa, “A study on code division duplex ([CDD]{}) for distributed [CDMA]{} networks,” [*Technical Report of IEICE*]{}, pp. 89–94, 1996.
W. C. Y. Lee, “The most spectrum-efficient duplexing system: [CDD]{},” [ *IEEE Communication Magazine*]{}, pp. 163–166, 2002.
S. Shakkottai, T. S. Rappaport, and P. C. Karlsson, “Cross-layer design for wireless networks,” [*IEEE Communication Magazine*]{}, vol. 41, pp. 74–80, Oct. 2003.
S. Kumar, V. S. Raghavan, and J. Deng, “Medium access control protocols for ad hoc wireless networks: A survey,” [*Ad Hoc Networks*]{}, vol. 4, pp. 326–358, May 2006.
M. G. Rubinstein, I. M. Moraes, M. Campista, L. Costa, and O. Duarte, [*A Survey on Wireless Ad Hoc Networks*]{}, vol. 211 of [*IFIP International Federation for Information Processing*]{}. Springer Boston, Nov 2006.
P. Mohapatra and S. Krishnamurthy, [*[AD HOC NETWORKS: technologies and protocols]{}*]{}. Springer Verlag, 2005.
T. Lutz, C. Hausl, and R. Kötter, “Coding strategies for noise-free relay cascades with half-duplex constraint,” in [*Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Inform. Theory*]{}, pp. 2385–2389, Toronto, ON, Canada, July 2008.
T. Lutz, G. Kramer, and C. Hausl, “Capacity for half-duplex line networks with two sources,” in [*Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Inform. Theory*]{}, pp. 2393–2397, Austin, TX, USA, June 2010.
G. Kramer, “Communication strategies and coding for relaying,” [*Wireless Networks*]{}, vol. 143 of The IMA Volumes in Mathematics and its Applications, pp. 163–175, 2007.
R. K. Ganti, Z. Gong, M. Haenggi, C. Lee, S. Srinivasa, D. Tisza, S. Vanka, and P. Vizi, “Implementation and experimental results of superposition coding on software radio,” in [*Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun.*]{}, Cape Town, South Africa, 2010.
S. Katti, S. Gollakota, and D. Katabi, “Embracing wireless interference: analog network coding,” in [*Proc. ACM SIGCOMM*]{}, pp. 397–408, Aug 2007.
D. Halperin, T. Anderson, and D. Wetherall, “Taking the sting out of carrier sense: interference cancellation for wireless lans,” in [*Proc. ACM Mobicom*]{}, pp. 339–350, Sep 2008.
S. Gollakota and D. Katabi, “Zigzag decoding: combating hidden terminals in wireless networks,” in [*Proc. ACM SIGCOMM*]{}, pp. 159–170, Aug 2008.
S. Gollakota, S. D. Perli, and D. Katabi, “Interference alignment and cancellation,” in [*Proc. ACM SIGCOMM*]{}, pp. 159–170, Aug 2009.
R. A. Scholtz, “Multiple access with time-hopping impulse modulation,” in [*Proc. IEEE MILCOM*]{}, Bedford, MA, USA, 1993.
M. Z. Win and R. A. Scholtz, “Impulse radio: [H]{}ow it works,” [*[IEEE]{} Commun. Lett.*]{}, vol. 2, pp. 36–38, 1998.
A. [El Gamal]{} and M. H. M. Costa, “The capacity region of a class of deterministic interference channels (corresp.),” [*IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory*]{}, vol. 28, pp. 343–346, Mar 1982.
A. S. Avestimehr, S. N. Diggavi, and D. N. C. Tse, “Wireless network information flow: A deterministic approach,” [*To appear in IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory*]{}. http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.5394.
S. A. Borbash, A. Ephremides, and M. J. McGlynn, “An asynchronous neighbor discovery algorithm for wireless sensor networks,” in [*Ad Hoc Networks*]{}, vol. 5, pp. 998–1016, Sep 2007.
S. Vasudevan, D. Towsley, D. Goeckel, and R. Khalili, “Neighbor discovery in wireless networks and the coupon collector’s problem,” in [*Proc. 15th Annual Int’l Conf. Mobile Comput, Network..*]{}, pp. 181–192, Beijing, China, 2009.
J. Ni, R. Srikant, and X. Wu, “Coloring spatial point processes with applications to peer discovery in large wireless networks,” in [ *SIGMETRICS*]{}, pp. 167–178, June 2010.
J. Luo and D. Guo, “Neighbor discovery in wireless ad hoc networks based on group testing,” in [*Proc. Allerton Conf. Commun., Control, & Computing*]{}, Monticello, IL, USA, 2008.
J. Luo and D. Guo, “Compressed neighbor discovery for wireless ad hoc networks: the [R]{}ayleigh fading case,” in [*Proc. Allerton Conf. Commun., Control, & Computing*]{}, Monticello, IL, USA, Oct. 2009.
D. L. Donoho, “Compressed sensing,” [*IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory*]{}, vol. 52, pp. 1289–1306, Apr 2006.
E. J. Candes and T. Tao, “Near-optimal signal recovery from random projections: Universal encoding strategies?,” [*IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory*]{}, vol. 52, pp. 5406–5425, Dec. 2006.
D. D. Lin and T. J. Lim, “Subspace-based active user identification for a collision-free slotted ad hoc network,” [*[IEEE]{} Trans. Commun.*]{}, vol. 52, pp. 612–621, Apr. 2004.
D. Angelosante, E. Biglieri, and M. Lops, “Neighbor discovery in wireless networks: A multiuser-detection approach,” in [*Proc. Inform. Theory Appl. Workshop*]{}, pp. 46–53, Jan 29-Feb 2 2007.
D. Angelosante, E. Biglieri, and M. Lops, “A simple algorithm for neighbor discovery in wireless networks,” in [*Proc. IEEE Int’l Conf. Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing*]{}, vol. 3, pp. 169–172, April 2007.
M. Griot, A. Casado, W.-Y. Weng, H. Chan, J. Basak, E. Yablonovitch, I. Verbauwhede, B. Jalali, and R. Wesel, “Trellis codes with low ones density for the [OR]{} multiple access channel,” in [*Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Inform. Theory*]{}, pp. 1817–1821, July 2006.
M. Griot, A. Vila Casado, and R. Wesel, “Non-linear turbo codes for interleaver-division multiple access on the [OR]{} channel,” in [*Proc. IEEE GLOBECOM*]{}, pp. 1–6, Nov 27-Dec 1 2006.
A. Sanderovich, M. Peleg, and S. Shamai, “[LDPC]{} coded [MIMO]{} multiple access with iterative joint decoding,” [*IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory*]{}, vol. 51, pp. 1437–1450, Apr 2005.
J. Harshan and B. S. Rajan, “Coding for two-user [G]{}aussian [MAC]{} with [PSK]{} and [PAM]{} signal sets,” in [*Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Inform. Theory*]{}, pp. 1859–1863, June 28-July 3 2009.
F. Brannstrom, T. Aulin, and L. Rasmussen, “Iterative multi-user detection of trellis code multiple access using a posteriori probabilities,” in [ *Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun.*]{}, vol. 1, pp. 11–15, June 2001.
U. Niesen, U. Erez, D. Shah, and G. Wornell, “Rateless codes for the [G]{}aussian multiple access channel,” in [*Proc. IEEE GLOBECOM*]{}, pp. 1–5, Nov 27-Dec 1 2006.
M. Uppal, A. Host-Madsen, and Z. Xiong, “Practical rateless cooperation in multiple access channels using multiplexed raptor codes,” in [*Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Inform. Theory*]{}, pp. 671–675, June 2007.
L. K. Rasmussen and A. Grant, “Iterative techniques,” in [*Advances in Multiuser Detection*]{} (M. Honig, ed.), ch. 2, Wiley-IEEE Press, 2009.
D. Guo and L. Zhang, “Peer-to-peer broadcast in wireless networks via sparse recovery,” [*submitted to Proc. IEEE INFOCOM*]{}.
I. D. Schizas, A. Ribeiro, and G. B. Giannakis, “[Consensus in ad hoc WSNs with noisy links-part I: Distributed estimation of deterministic signals]{},” [*IEEE Trans. Signal Process.*]{}, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 350–364, 2008.
I. D. Schizas, G. B. Giannakis, S. I. Roumeliotis, and A. Ribeiro, “[Consensus in ad hoc WSNs with noisy links-part II: Distributed estimation and smoothing of random signals]{},” [*IEEE Trans. Signal Process.*]{}, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 1650–1666, 2008.
S. Verd[ú]{}, [*Multiuser Detection*]{}. Cambridge University Press, 1998.
L. Cottatellucci, R. R. M[ü]{}ller, and M. Debbah, “[Asynchronous CDMA Systems with Random Spreading–Part II: Design Criteria]{},” [*IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory*]{}, vol. 56, pp. 1498–1520, 2010.
K. Moshksar and A. K. Khandani, “On the achievable rates in decentralized networks with randomized masking,” in [*Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Inform. Theory*]{}, pp. 420–424, Austin, TX, USA, 2010.
M. L. Honig, ed., [*Advances in Multiuser Detection*]{}. Wiley-IEEE Press, 2009.
K. H. Hui, D. Guo, and R. A. Berry, “Medium access control via nearest neighbor interactions for regular wireless networks,” in [*Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Inform. Theory*]{}, Austin, TX, USA, 2010.
D. A. Schmidt, C. Shi, R. A. Berry, M. L. Honig, and W. Utschick, “Pricing algorithms for power control and beamformer design in interference networks,” [*[IEEE]{} Signal Processing Mag.*]{}, vol. 26, pp. 53–63, 2009.
[^1]: This work was supported by DARPA under grant W911NF-07-1-0028.
[^2]: This work was supported by DARPA under grant W911NF-07-1-0028.
[^3]: The neighbor relationship is not necessarily reciprocal because $\gamma_j
|h_{kj}|^2$ and $\gamma_k |h_{jk}|^2$ need not be identical.
[^4]: Several authors have studied user activity problem in cellular networks using multiuser detection techniques [@LinLim04TC; @AngBig07ITA; @AngBig07ICASSP]. These works assume channel coefficients are known to the receiver, which is not the case in most networks.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Tensor network states and parton wave functions are two pivotal methods for studying quantum many-body systems. This work connects these two subjects as we demonstrate that a variety of parton wave functions, such as projected Fermi sea and projected fermionic or bosonic paired states, can be represented using tensor networks that consist of sequential operations of matrix product operators on certain initial states. The results can be compressed into matrix product states with moderate bond dimensions so various physical quantities that characterize the parton wave functions can be computed efficiently. For the projected Fermi sea, the single-particle orbitals can be recombined to form maximally localized Wannier orbitals. This greatly reduces the amount of entanglement in intermediate steps and helps to achieve high fidelity compressions. It is demonstrated that our method has a great potential using several paradigmatic parton wave functions for spin-1/2 systems.'
author:
- 'Ying-Hai Wu'
- Lei Wang
- 'Hong-Hao Tu'
bibliography:
- 'Parton.bib'
title: Tensor network representations of parton wave functions
---
[*Introduction*]{} — The complexity of quantum many-body systems has posed considerable challenges for physicists since the dawn of quantum mechanics. One fundamental curse is that the Hilbert space of a composite system grows exponentially with the number of its constituents. While perturbative methods have been very successful in studying weak interactions, the vast arena of strongly correlated quantum matter remain elusive in many aspects. Analytical and numerical progresses have been made along various directions. The subjects of this paper are tensor network states [@verstraete2008; @Cirac2009; @schollwock2011; @stoudenmire2012; @orus2014; @orus2018] and parton wave functions [@anderson1987; @arovas1988; @Jain1989; @WenXG1991b], which share the common feature of trying to encode quantum many-body states using a moderate amount of resources.
Tensor network states are designed to capture special quantum entanglement patterns that are present in the low-energy eigenstates of many physical Hamiltonians. The wave functions are expressed as contraction of tensors (i.e., multi-index number arrays). If a system is divided into two subsystems, the entanglement entropy of one subsystem is bounded by the number of virtual indices on their boundary. In many cases, the scaling of entanglement entropy ensures that the number of parameters stays constant or grows polynomially, so the approximation is very useful. The success of this approach begins with the invention of the density-matrix renormalization group (DMRG) algorithm [@white1992] and has produced very impressive analytical and numerical results ever since.
The idea of parton was originally conceived to address some phenomena in particle physics but has also been very successful in condensed matter physics. In this approach, the basic constituents such as particles or spins are represented using slave particles (bosons or fermions) which reside in enlarged Hilbert spaces. It is hoped that the strongly correlated states of physical degrees of freedom can be approximated as suitable “mean field" states of the slave particles whose unphysical components in the enlarged Hilbert spaces are removed by some kind of projection. While this method may appear to be [*ad hoc*]{} at first sight, it does provide very valuable insights into many problems. The ground states of some exactly solvable models, such as the Haldane-Shastry model [@haldane1988; @shastry1988] and the Kitaev honeycomb model [@kitaev2006b], can be expressed as Gutzwiller projected parton states. In the studies of high-$T_{c}$ superconductors [@anderson2004; @LeePA2006; @edegger2007], fractional quantum Hall states [@McGreevy2012; @LuYM2012; @WuYH2017; @KimY2019], and quantum spin liquids [@WenXG2002; @Savary2016; @zhou2017], parton wave functions have been used extensively as variational ansatz.
It is usually possible to deduce some properties of parton wave functions based on their structures. The low-energy effective field theories can also be constructed in many cases to probe the physics [@LeePA2006; @WenXG2002]. Nevertheless, numerical results are very much desired for quantitative assessment of parton wave functions. For example, the best variational parameters for the ground state of a system requires energy minimization with respect to the given Hamiltonian. Monte Carlo methods are widely used for computing expectation values such as energy [@RanY2007; @Grover2010; @Tay2011; @Iqbal2011; @Nataf2016; @HuWJ2016]. This is relatively simple when the target state is made of fermionic determinants and/or Pfaffians but rather challenging if bosonic permanents are involved. The computation of entanglement entropy and entanglement spectrum [@kitaev2006a; @levin2006; @LiH2008; @QiXL2012; @Dubail2012], which have been used extensively to characterize many-body states, is still quite demanding for generic parton wave functions [@ZhangY2011a; @PeiJ2013; @LiuZX2014; @ShaoJ2015; @Wildeboer2017].
In this work, we prove that generic parton wave functions can be expressed as local tensor networks in a straightforward manner. The explicit representations of projected Fermi sea and projected fermionic or bosonic paired states correspond to sequential operations of matrix product operators (MPO) on simple initial states. It is possible to compress such tensor networks into matrix product states (MPS) and various physical quantities can be evaluated efficiently using standard MPS techniques. Furthermore, if a parton wave function is a good variational ansatz, its MPS representation may be used as an initial input in DMRG simulations to speedup convergence. For the project Fermi sea, an optimized basis transformation using maximally localized Wannier orbitals is proposed, which greatly reduces the amount of entanglement in intermediate steps and helps to achieve high fidelity compressions.
[*Tensor network representation*]{} — The method proposed here can be applied to any spin, bosonic, or fermionic systems, but we shall use spin-1/2 lattice models to illustrate it \[see Fig. \[Figure1\] (a)\]. The lattice sites are labeled by $j\in[1,N]$ and the spin operators are denoted as $S^{a}_{j}$ $(a=x,y,z)$. In the Abrikosov fermion representation, $$\begin{aligned}
S^{a}_{j} = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\alpha\beta} c^{\dag}_{j\alpha} \tau^{a}_{\alpha\beta} c_{j\beta},\end{aligned}$$ where $c^{\dag}_{j\alpha}$ ($c_{j\alpha}$) are fermionic creation (annihilation) operators at site $j$, $\alpha=\uparrow,\downarrow$ is the spin index, and $\tau^a$ are Pauli matrices. This is an overcomplete representation with unphysical states (empty and doubly occupied) that need to be removed by the single-occupancy constraint $\sum_{\alpha} c^{\dag}_{j\alpha} c_{j\alpha} = 1$. The Schwinger boson representation is very similar, where the fermionic operators are replaced by their bosonic counterparts.
The projected Fermi sea is a popular class of trial wave functions for quantum spin models. It is defined as $$|\Psi\rangle = P_{\rm G} \prod^{N}_{m=1} d^{\dag}_{m} |0\rangle,
\label{eq:ProjFS}$$ where $|0\rangle$ is the vacuum, the $d^\dag_{m}$’s are single-particle orbitals of the partons, $P_{\rm G}=\prod^{N}_{j=1} P_{j}$ is a product of projectors on each site that impose the single-occupancy constraints. In general, the single-particle orbitals can be written as $$d^{\dag}_{m} = \sum^{N}_{j=1} \sum_{\alpha=\uparrow,\downarrow} A_{m,j\alpha} c^{\dag}_{j\alpha} = \sum^{2N}_{l=1} A_{ml} c^{\dag}_{l},$$ where $l=(j,\alpha)$ is introduced for ease of notation. The $2N$ degrees of freedom labeled by $l$ are called interleaved sites. The $N{\times}2N$ matrix $A_{ml}$ that parametrizes the occupied orbitals is usually obtained by solving some “mean-field” Hamiltonians that are quadratic in the parton operators.
![(a) Schematics of parton construction for spin-1/2 lattice models. (b) Schematics of the tensor network representation of the projected Fermi sea in Eq. (\[eq:ProjFS\]).[]{data-label="Figure1"}](Figure1.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
The central result of this paper is that the projected Fermi sea in Eq. (\[eq:ProjFS\]) has a very natural tensor network representation. More importantly, it can be compressed into MPS with moderate bond dimensions, which allows for efficient computation of various quantites such as variational energy, correlation functions, and entanglement measures. The key observation that leads to the tensor network representation is that the single-particle orbital $d^{\dag}_{m}$ can be converted to an MPO with bond dimension $D=2$ as $$\begin{aligned}
d^{\dag}_{m} =
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}
\left[
\prod^{2N}_{l=1}
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
A_{ml} c^{\dag}_{l} & 1
\end{pmatrix}
\right]
\begin{pmatrix}
1 \\
0
\end{pmatrix}
.
\label{eq:orbitalMPO1}\end{aligned}$$ One dummy column and one dummy row are appended in the expression to ensure that the MPOs on all lattice sites have the same form. If the dummy vectors are multiplied with their neighboring matrices, we recover a usual MPO with open boundary condition. It is then straightforward to find the tensor network representation of Eq. (\[eq:ProjFS\]): 1) apply the $N$ MPOs corresponding to the $d^{\dag}_m$’s to the fermionic vacuum; 2) apply the projector $P_{\rm G}$ to the Fermi sea with each term $P_j$ acting on two neighboring interleave sites. This two-step procedure is illustrated in Fig. \[Figure1\] (b). Further technical details that are useful in practical calculations are discussed in Ref. [@supple].
In the same spirit, tensor network representations of projected fermionic or bosonic paired states can be obtained using MPOs that create fermionic or bosonic pairs [@supple]. It should be emphasized that our prescription converts parton wave functions to rectangular-shaped two-dimensional tensor networks, regardless of the dimensionality and geometry of the original system. This is in sharp contrast to previous works that construct (possibly non-local) tensor networks for parton wave functions [@gu2010] or their norms [@beri2011] on the original lattice.
[*Compressing into MPS*]{} — Although the representation derived above is [*exact*]{}, physical quantities cannot be computed simply in such a tensor network. In fact, it is well known that the exact contraction of a two-dimensional tensor network with closed loops is exponentially difficult [@Cirac2009; @orus2014]. This makes it imperative to develop an approximation scheme that would enable actual calculations. An obvious choice is to sequentially act the MPOs on the MPS (with fermionic vacuum as the initial input) to generate another MPS. However, the bond dimension of the MPS increases exponentially with the number of MPOs, so it is impossible to carry out the procedure for more than $\sim 12$ MPOs. To this end, we need to truncate the MPS at intermediate steps such that its bond dimension $D$ never exceeds some fixed values. The simplest truncation method is the singular value decomposition (SVD), where one converts the MPS into the so-called mixed canonical form and small singular values are discarded [@schollwock2011]. The efficiency of this method is determined by the entanglement properties of the target state and its error is quantified by the norm of the discarded singular values.
If the $A_{ml}$’s in $d^{\dag}_{m}$ have similar magnitudes, it would substantially modify the matrices on all lattice sites when acting on an MPS, then the truncation is likely to introduce considerable errors. This is often the case when $d^\dag_m$ are eigenmodes of parton “mean-field” Hamiltonians, where the $A_{ml}$’s describe spatially extended Bloch waves (for periodic boundary conditions) or standing waves (for open boundary conditions). The maximally localized Wannier orbitals [@Wannier1937; @Kohn1959; @kivelson1982; @qi2011b; @Marzari2012] is adopted to facilitate the truncation. The basic idea is to convert the wave function in Eq. (\[eq:ProjFS\]) to $$|\Psi\rangle = P_{\rm G} \prod^{N}_{r=1} \zeta^{\dag}_{r} |0\rangle,
\label{eq:ProjFS_zeta}$$ where the $\zeta^{\dag}_{r}$’s are linear combinations of the $d^{\dag}_{m}$’s. The entanglement entropy grows much slower when using the MPOs built from the $\zeta^{\dag}_{r}$’s because each one of them only causes appreciable changes (i.e., entanglement increase) in the vicinity of a particular lattice site. This is possible when the $\zeta^{\dag}_{r}$’s are designed to mimic the maximally localized Wannier orbitals. To be specific, the position operator $X=\sum^{N}_{j=1} \sum_{\alpha=\uparrow,\downarrow} jc^{\dag}_{j\alpha} c_{j\alpha}$ is expressed as a matrix [^1] $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{X}_{mn} = \langle 0 | d_{m} X d^{\dag}_{n} | 0\rangle\end{aligned}$$ in the subspace spanned by the $d^{\dag}_{m}$’s. Its eigenvectors are denoted using a matrix $B$ such that $B^{\dag}\widetilde{X}B$ is diagonal. The transformed orbital $\zeta^{\dag}_{r}$ is defined using $B_{mr}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\zeta^{\dag}_{r} = \sum^{N}_{m=1} B_{mr} d^{\dag}_{m} = \sum^{2N}_{l=1} (B^T A)_{rl} c^{\dag}_{l}.\end{aligned}$$ The parton wave function is unchanged because the $\zeta^{\dag}_{r}$’s are just linear combinations of the same set of orbitals. In many cases, the $d^{\dag}_{m}$’s do not mix partons with different spins, so they can be separated to two groups that are transformed using the spin-up and spin-down position operators, respectively. As the order of the $\zeta^{\dag}_{r}$’s in Eq. (\[eq:ProjFS\_zeta\]) does not matter, the truncation error can be further reduced by a “left-meet-right" strategy: alternately act the operator localized at the left or right edge and gradually move toward the center.
$D$ energy deviation
-------- ---------------- ----------------------
$1000$ $-41.14354115$ $3.7{\times}10^{-4}$
$2000$ $-41.14387956$ $3.4{\times}10^{-5}$
$3000$ $-41.14390614$ $7.2{\times}10^{-6}$
$4000$ $-41.14391112$ $2.2{\times}10^{-6}$
$5000$ $-41.14391248$ $8.6{\times}10^{-7}$
: Energy of the MPO-MPS results for the Haldane-Shastry model with $N=100$ at several different bond dimenions. The deviation is computed with respect to the exact ground state energy $-41.14391334$.[]{data-label="Table1"}
![(a) The absolute difference $F$ between the numerical and exact values of the spin-spin correlation function in the $N=100$ system. (b) The evolution of the von Neumann entanglement entropy $S_{c}$ at the center of the $N=100$ system during the calculation. Three methods are compared: (1) use the original modes in Eq. (\[eq:HS-parton\]) (red dots); (2) use the Wannier transformed modes from left to right (blue squares); (3) use the Wannier transformed modes and the left-meet-right strategy (magenta hexagons).[]{data-label="Figure2"}](Figure2.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
[*Numerical results 1*]{} — The first example that we have investigated is the Haldane-Shastry model [@haldane1988; @shastry1988] with the Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rm HS} = \sum_{p<q} \frac{\pi^{2} \; {\mathbf S}_{p} \cdot {\mathbf S}_{q}}{N^{2}\sin^{2}\frac{\pi}{N}(p-q)} .
\label{eq:HS-PBC}\end{aligned}$$ Its ground state for even $N$ is a Gutzwiller projected half-filled Fermi sea $$\begin{aligned}
|\Psi_{\rm HS} \rangle = P_{\rm G} \prod_{m} \prod_{\alpha=\uparrow,\downarrow} d^{\dag}_{m\alpha} |0\rangle,
\label{eq:HS-parton}\end{aligned}$$ where $d^{\dag}_{m\alpha}=N^{-1/2}\sum^{N}_{j=1} e^{-i(jm)} c^{\dag}_{j\alpha}$ is the creation operator in momentum space and the occupied momenta are $m=\frac{2\pi}{N}s$ with $$\begin{aligned}
s=\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
0,{\pm}1,\ldots,\pm(\frac{N}{4}-1),\frac{N}{4} \\
0,{\pm}1,\ldots,\pm\frac{N-2}{4}
\end{array}
\right.\left.
\begin{array}{c}
\text{if } N \; {\rm mod} \; 4 = 0 \\
\text{if } N \; {\rm mod} \; 4 = 2
\end{array}
\right. .\end{aligned}$$ The ground-state energy is $-\pi^{2}(N+5N^{-1})/24$ and the spin-spin correlation function in the ground state is [@kuramotoBook; @nielsen2011] $$\begin{aligned}
\langle {\mathbf S}_{p} \cdot {\mathbf S}_{p+q} \rangle = \frac{ \sum^{N/2}_{a=1} \frac{3(-1)^{q}}{2a-1} \sin \left[ \frac{\pi}{N} (2a-1) q \right] }{ 2N \sin\frac{\pi}{N}q}.\end{aligned}$$
The parton state Eq. (\[eq:HS-parton\]) has been constructed using our MPO-MPS method in the $N=100$ system for bond dimension $D$ up to $5000$. The comparision between the energy values in Table \[Table1\] and the spin-spin correlation function in Fig. \[Figure2\] (a) clearly demonstrates the success of our method. This level of accuracy is very difficult to achieve using Monte Carlo methods. The evolution of the von Neumann entanglement entropy at the center of the system during the calculation is presented in Fig. \[Figure2\] (b). It is apparent that the Wannier mode transformation and the left-meet-right strategy are both very useful as they can significantly reduce the amount of entanglement. The Haldane-Shastry model is difficult to study using direct DMRG method due to its gapless nature and the long-range interaction. Indeed, we have checked that such calculations will take much longer time (and produce more accurate results at the same bond dimension) than the MPO-MPS method.
![(a) Schematics of the parton Hamiltonian of the chiral spin liquid model. Each unit cell contains two lattice sites labeled as $A$ and $B$. The signs of $t_{ij}$ are indicated using $\pm$ along the bonds. The signs of $\Delta_{jk}$ are indicated using arrows along the colored lines. (b) The parton energy spectrum of the system with $N_{x}=16$ and $N_{y}=10$ on the cylinder with $\Theta_{y}=\pi$. There are two exact zero modes $d^{\dag}_{L\alpha}$ and $d^{\dag}_{R\alpha}$ for each spin that are localized at the left and right edges. (c,d) The entanglement spectrum of $|\Psi_{1}\rangle$ and $|\Psi_{2}\rangle$. The dashed lines indicate two sets of conformal towers in the two panels.[]{data-label="Figure3"}](Figure3.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
[*Numerical results 2*]{} — The second example that we have investigated is a chiral spin liquid model [@ZhangY2011a] that has the same topological order as the $\nu=1/2$ Laughlin quantum Hall state [@Laughlin1983; @kalmeyer1987]. It is defined on a square lattice with $N_{x}$ and $N_{y}$ sites along the two directions. The spin-up and spin-down partons are described by the Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rm CI} = \sum_{\langle{jk}\rangle,\alpha} t_{jk} c^{\dag}_{j\alpha} c_{k\alpha} + \sum_{\langle\langle{jk}\rangle\rangle,\alpha} i \Delta_{jk} c^{\dag}_{j\alpha} c_{k\alpha},\end{aligned}$$ where $\langle{jk}\rangle$ ($\langle\langle{jk}\rangle\rangle$) indicates nearest (next-nearest) neighbors. The hopping amplitudes satisfy $|t_{jk}|=1.0$ and $|\Delta_{jk}|=0.5$ and their signs are chosen as follows: $t_{jk}$ is negative along the $x$ direction, $t_{jk}$ is negative (positive) on odd (even) columns along the $y$ direction, $\Delta_{jk}$ is negative (positive) along (against) the arrows in Fig. \[Figure3\] (a). Each unit cell contains two lattice sites along the $x$ direction due to the difference between odd and even columns. If the system is placed on a torus that is periodic along both directions, we have two bands with Chern numbers ${\pm}1$. The chiral spin liquid ground state is Gutzwiller projection of the state in which the lower parton bands of both spins are completely filled. By choosing $0$ or $\pi$ boundary twist angles on the torus, two degenerate ground states can be obtained as required by the topological order of our system [@zhang2012]. An important choice of basis for the ground states is the minimally entangled states (MES) because topological information can be extracted most efficiently using them [@Keski1993; @zhang2012; @Cincio2013; @Zaletel2013; @tu2013b; @ZhuW2015].
We aim to compute the entanglement spectrum of the chiral spin liquid. This is almost impossible to do for generic parton wave functions using current Monte Carlo methods and unambiguously demonstrates the power of our method. Instead of the torus, it is preferable to do this on the cylinder that is only periodic along the $y$ direction (with boundary twist angle $\Theta_{y}$) [@LiuZ2012]. The system is divided into two parts, the reduced density matrix of the left half is computed, and the entanglement spectrum (i.e., the negative logarithm of the eigenvalues of the reduced density matrix) is plotted versus the good quantum numbers. While many systems have been studied using our method, the numerical results quoted below are from the case with $N_{x}=16$ and $N_{y}=10$. The MES on a finite cylinder can be constructed if $N_{y}$ is a multiple of two (but not four) and $\Theta_{y}=\pi$ or if $N_{y}$ is a multiple of four and $\Theta_{y}=0$. For such systems, the energy spectrum of $H_{\rm CI}$ contains four exact zero modes $d^{\dag}_{L\alpha}$ and $d^{\dag}_{R\alpha}$ \[see Fig. \[Figure3\] (b)\], which reside at the left and right boundaries of the cylinder. The many-body state in which the negative energy single-particle orbitals are fully populated is denoted as $|\Phi\rangle$. The zero modes can be occupied in four different ways to generate the chiral spin liquid ground states $$\begin{aligned}
&& |\Psi_{1}\rangle = P_{\rm G} d^{\dag}_{L\uparrow} d^{\dag}_{L\downarrow} |\Phi\rangle, \quad |\Psi_{2}\rangle = P_{\rm G} d^{\dag}_{L\uparrow} d^{\dag}_{R\downarrow} |\Phi\rangle, \nonumber \\
&& |\Psi_{3}\rangle = P_{\rm G} d^{\dag}_{R\uparrow} d^{\dag}_{L\downarrow} |\Phi\rangle, \quad |\Psi_{4}\rangle = P_{\rm G} d^{\dag}_{R\uparrow} d^{\dag}_{R\downarrow} |\Phi\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ The overlaps between them have been computed at $D=8000$ and the only appreciable one is $|\langle\Psi_{1}|\Psi_{4}\rangle|=0.9237$ (others are smaller than $10^{-8}$). The MPO-MPS results are consistent with the previous claim that $|\Psi_{1}\rangle=|\Psi_{4}\rangle$ [@tu2013b], and further suggest that there are three rather than two linearly independent states. This makes the choice of MES a subtle issue, but it turns out that either $|\Psi_{1,2}\rangle$ or $|\Psi_{1,3}\rangle$ can be used as the two MESs [@supple]. The entanglement spectra of $|\Psi_{1}\rangle$ and $|\Psi_{2}\rangle$ at $D=9000$ are shown in Fig. \[Figure3\] (c) and (d). The accuracy of an MPS is quantified by its many-body momentum $K_{y}$. If there is no truncation error, $\exp[iK_{y}N_{y}/(2\pi)]$ would be $1$ for all the $|\Psi_{i}\rangle$’s. The numerical value of $\exp[iK_{y}N_{y}/(2\pi)]$ is $0.9714$ for $|\Psi_{1}\rangle$ and $0.9955$ for $|\Psi_{2}\rangle$ at $D=9000$. The good quantum numbers for the entanglement levels are the $z$-component spin $S^{L}_{z}$ and the momentum $K^{L}_{y}$ of the left half. The characteristic chiral boson counting $1,1,2,3,5,\ldots$ are observed in all cases. The lowest entanglement eigenvalue of $|\Psi_{1}\rangle$ is smaller than that of $|\Psi_{2}\rangle$, so the former is the identity sector and the latter is the semion sector. The total countings agree with those of the SU(2)$_1$ Wess-Zumino-Witten model: $1,3,4,7,\cdots$ in the identity sector and $2,2,6,8,\cdots$ in the semion sector [@francesco1997]. The topological spin $h$ of the semion can be computed using $$\begin{aligned}
h = \frac{\xi_{0,{\rm s}}-\xi_{0,{\rm I}}}{\Delta},\end{aligned}$$ where $\xi_{0,{\rm I}}$ ($\xi_{0,{\rm s}}$) is the lowest entanglement eigenvalue in the identity (semion) sector and $\Delta$ is the spacing between the first two entanglement levels in the identity sector \[see Fig. \[Figure3\] (c)\]. Its numerical value $0.2617$ is reasonably close to the theoretical value $1/4$.
[*Conclusion and discussion*]{} — In summary, we have constructed an exact tensor network representation for generic parton wave functions. This tensor network representation takes the form of sequential operations of matrix product operators on product states and can be conveniently compressed into matrix product states. This allows to characterize parton wave functions using powerful MPS techniques and greatly expands the utility of parton wave functions as variational ansatz. The parton wave functions studied in this paper have no free parameters. An immediate next step is to consider parton wave functions with variational parameters and search for their optimal values. The tensor network automatic differentiation method is well-adapted for this purpose [@LiaoHJ2019; @Hubig2019; @WanZQ2019]. The parton wave functions could be supplied as initial inputs to speedup DMRG simulations. Besides the ground states, our method is also capable for studying excitations. The numerical prospect of parton wave functions in the age of tensor networks deserves further investigations and we hope to report other interesting results in future works.
[*Acknowledgment*]{} — We are grateful to Jan Carl Budich, Jan von Delft, Geza Giedke, Seung-Sup Lee, David Luitz, and Román Orús for stimulating discussions. This work was supported by the NSFC under grant No. 11804107 and startup grant of HUST (YHW), Ministry of Science and Technology of China under the Grant No.2016YFA0302400 (LW), and the DFG through project A06 (HHT) of SFB 1143 (project-id 247310070).
Appendix A: Further technical details
=====================================
This section provides more technical details that are helpful in practical calculations. The fermionic creation and annihilation operators are not convenient to handle in tensor networks due to their anticommutation relation. To this end, the fermionic orbitals are converted to spin-1/2 degrees of freedom $\sigma_{l}$ (not to be confused with the original spin-1/2’s) using the Jordan-Wigner transformation $c^{\dag}_{l} =\sigma^{z}_{1} \cdots \sigma^{z}_{l-1} \sigma^{+}_{l}$. The MPO for $d^{\dag}_{m}$ becomes $$\begin{aligned}
d^{\dag}_m =
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}
\left[
\prod^{2N}_{l=1}
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
A_{ml} \sigma^{+}_{l} & \sigma^{z}_l
\end{pmatrix}
\right]
\begin{pmatrix}
1 \\
0
\end{pmatrix},
\label{eq:orbitalMPO2}\end{aligned}$$ and the fermionic vacuum changes to $|\downarrow\downarrow\ldots\downarrow\rangle$ where all spins point down. In the projected Fermi sea state, the number of partons is a good quantum number and it translates to the total $z$-component spin after the Jordan-Wigner transformation. The vacuum has no parton and acting one $d^{\dag}_{m}$ increases the number of partons by $1$. For the two examples studied in the main text, the spin-up and spin-down modes are not mixed in any step, so the intermediate states have a U(1)$\times$U(1) symmetry corresponding to the numbers of partons with spin-up and spin-down. This symmetry can be exploited to significantly improve the computational speed. In principle, the Gutzwiller projection should be implemented after the whole unprojected state has been generated. However, if only the ground state is concerned (as in the main text), all double occupancy in the intermediate steps can be removed immediately since they would not survive in the final projection. The spin-up and spin-down partons were placed on neighboring sites in the interleave representation, but the removal of doubly occupied states can be performed most easily [*without*]{} using such a representation. In fact, one can merge two neighboring interleaved sites such that each site hosts one spin-up mode and one spin-down mode. The local Hilbert space dimension is $4$ if there is no constraint. One can simply discard the doubly occupied state and reduce the dimension to $3$.
Appendix B: Projected fermionic or bosonic paired states
========================================================
Another important class of parton wave functions is projected fermionic or bosonic paired states. The bosonic paired state has the general form $$|\Psi\rangle = P_{\rm G} \exp \left[ \left( \sum_{k{\neq}l} g_{kl} b^{\dag}_{k} b^{\dag}_{l} \right) \right] |0\rangle,
\label{eq:ProjBCS1}$$ where $k,l$ denote interleave sites, $g_{kl}$ is the pairing function between them, and $b^{\dag}_{k}$ is the creation operator for the $k$-th bosonic mode. As for the projected Fermi sea in Eq. (2) of the main text, the unprojected paired states in Eq. (\[eq:ProjBCS1\]) are usually obtained by solving some “mean-field” Hamiltonians of the partons with pairing terms.
The state in Eq. (\[eq:ProjBCS1\]) also has a natural tensor network representation. We again consider the spin-1/2 case for illustrating the method. Because of the single-occupancy constraint imposed by the Gutzwiller projector, Eq. (\[eq:ProjBCS1\]) can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
|\Psi\rangle = P_{\rm G} \prod^{2N}_{k=1} \prod^{2N}_{l=1({\neq}k)} \left( 1+g_{kl} b^{\dag}_{k} b^{\dag}_{l} \right) |0\rangle = P_{\rm G} \prod^{2N}_{k=1} W_{k} |0\rangle,
\label{eq:ProjBCS2}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
W_{k} = 1 + \sum^{2N}_{l=1({\neq}k)} g_{kl} b^{\dag}_{k} b^{\dag}_{l} =
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\left[
\prod^{k-1}_{l=1}
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & g_{kl} b^{\dag}_{l} \\
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}
\right]
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & b^{\dag}_k \\
b^{\dag}_k & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\left[
\prod^{2N}_{l=k+1}
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
g_{kl} b^{\dag}_{l} & 1
\end{pmatrix}
\right]
\begin{pmatrix}
1 \\
0
\end{pmatrix}.
\label{eq:WMPO1}\end{aligned}$$ is explicitly expressed as an MPO with bond dimension $2$. The projected bosonic paired state can be obtained by successively applying $2N$ MPOs to the bosonic vacuum and performing Gutzwiller projection at the end. It is worth noting that the bosonic operators in Eq. (\[eq:WMPO1\]) actually create hardcore bosons due to the presence of $P_{\rm G}$. The role of $W_{k}$ is to create valence-bond singlets between site $k$ and other sites.
The bosonic partons in Eq. (\[eq:ProjBCS1\]) can be replaced by fermionic partons and the result can also be converted to a tensor network. For the fermionic paired state, we have the operator $$\begin{aligned}
W_{k} &=&
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\left[
\prod^{k-1}_{l=1}
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & g_{kl} c^{\dag}_{l} \\
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}
\right]
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & c^{\dag}_k \\
-c^{\dag}_k & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\left[
\prod^{2N}_{l=k+1}
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
g_{kl} c^{\dag}_{l} & 1
\end{pmatrix}
\right]
\begin{pmatrix}
1 \\
0
\end{pmatrix}
\label{eq:WMPO2}\end{aligned}$$ for creating fermionic valence bonds. As for the projected Fermi sea, it is also convenient to perform a Jordan-Wigner transformation and use $$\begin{aligned}
W_{k} &=&
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\left[
\prod^{k-1}_{l=1}
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & g_{kl} \sigma^{+}_l \\
0 & \sigma^{z}_l
\end{pmatrix}
\right]
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & -\sigma^{+}_k \\
\sigma^{+}_k & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\left[
\prod^{2N}_{l=k+1}
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
g_{kl} \sigma^{+}_l & \sigma^{z}_l
\end{pmatrix}
\right]
\begin{pmatrix}
1 \\
0
\end{pmatrix}.
\label{eq:WMPO}\end{aligned}$$
Appendix C: Minimally entangled states on the cylinder
======================================================
This section provides more details about the minimally entangled states (MESs) of the chiral spin liquid on the cylinder. For topologically ordered systems, the ground state is not unique on certain mainfolds. This brings out the problem of choosing a suitable basis for multiple degenerate ground states. The MESs constitute an important basis because they minimize the entanglement entropy of non-contractible regions on the mainfold [@zhang2012]. In the present setup, the region is half of the cylinder.
As we have explained in the main text, filling the boundary zero modes in the parton energy spectrum results in three orthogonal states $$\begin{aligned}
|\Psi_{1}\rangle = P_{\rm G} d^{\dag}_{L\uparrow} d^{\dag}_{L\downarrow} |\Phi\rangle, \quad |\Psi_{2}\rangle = P_{\rm G} d^{\dag}_{L\uparrow} d^{\dag}_{R\downarrow} |\Phi\rangle, \quad
|\Psi_{3}\rangle = P_{\rm G} d^{\dag}_{R\uparrow} d^{\dag}_{L\downarrow} |\Phi\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ The orthogonality has been checked by computing their overlaps using standard MPS techniques. It is easy to see that $|\Psi_{1}\rangle$ is a spin-singlet. In contrast, $|\Psi_{2}\rangle$ and $|\Psi_{3}\rangle$ do not have definite total spins. One can use their linear combinations to form a spin-singlet $$\begin{aligned}
|{\widetilde\Psi}_{s}\rangle = P_{\rm G} (d^{\dag}_{L\uparrow} d^{\dag}_{R\downarrow} + d^{\dag}_{L\downarrow} d^{\dag}_{R\uparrow}) |\Phi\rangle\end{aligned}$$ and a spin triplet (within the $S_{z}=0$ subspace) $$\begin{aligned}
|{\widetilde\Psi}_{t}\rangle = P_{\rm G} (d^{\dag}_{L\uparrow} d^{\dag}_{R\downarrow} - d^{\dag}_{L\downarrow} d^{\dag}_{R\uparrow}) |\Phi\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ If the cylinder is wrapped to be a torus, $|\Psi_{1}\rangle$ and $|{\widetilde\Psi}_{s}\rangle$ would adiabatically evolve to the two degenerate ground states. The physical picture for $|{\widetilde\Psi}_{s}\rangle$ is that $d^{\dag}_{L\alpha}$ ($d^{\dag}_{R\alpha}$) creates a semion with spin projection $\alpha$ at the left (right) boundary, which ensures that $|{\widetilde\Psi}_{s}\rangle$ has a well-defined semion flux inside the cylinder.
For a system with chiral topological order, Ref. [@QiXL2012] found that the reduced density matrix of an MES on the half-cylinder is a thermal state of a chiral conformal field theory (CFT) $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{a} \propto e^{-H_{\rm CFT}}|_{a}.\end{aligned}$$ The subscript $a$ labels the anyon flux in the MES as well as the CFT primary field associated with the anyon. This result helps us to identify the MESs of the chiral spin liquid. As shown in Fig. 3 (c) of the main text, the level counting in the entanglement spectrum of $|\Psi_{1}\rangle$ agrees with the identity sector of the SU(2)$_1$ Wess-Zumino-Witten (WZW) model, so we conclude that $|\Psi_{1}\rangle$ is the MES in the identity sector.
For the semion sector, some subtle issues arise when we try to find the MES. The entanglement spectrum of $|{\widetilde\Psi}_{s}\rangle$ does [*not*]{} exhibit the conformal towers of the spin-1/2 primary of the SU(2)$_1$ WZW model but turns out to be a tensor product of two identical copies of that. This is somewhat confusing at first sight but not really surprising. The two semions at the left and right edges in $|{\widetilde\Psi}_{s}\rangle$ have opposite spins and form a singlet. However, the MES in the semion sector should break this nonlocal entanglement by fixing the $S_z$ quantum number of the distant semions. This can only be achieved by mixing $|{\widetilde\Psi}_{s}\rangle$ and $|{\widetilde\Psi}_{t}\rangle$ properly to break down their SU(2) symmetry to U(1) symmetry. The MES in the semion sector can be chosen as $|\Psi_{2}\rangle$ or $|\Psi_{3}\rangle$. As shown in Fig. 3 (d) of the main text, the level counting in the entanglement spectrum of $|\Psi_{2}\rangle$ agrees with the semion sector of the SU(2)$_1$ WZW model. This is also the case for $|\Psi_{3}\rangle$.
The situation encountered here is reminiscent of the spin-1 AKLT model on an open chain with finite length. This system has four degenerate ground states (one singlet and one triplet) due to two emergent spin-1/2 edge states. The entanglement spectrum of the singlet state on a half-chain has four quasi-degenerate levels, which is twice as much as the two-fold degeneracy expected for the spin-1 Haldane phase. To reveal the two-fold degeneracy, we need to project the two edge states to subspaces with fixed $S_{z}$ quantum numbers and then compute the entanglement spectrum. This can be done using a linear combination of the singlet and the triplet with $S_{z}=0$.
Appendix D: Permanents from tensor network states
=================================================
![(a) Nonzero elements in the tensor network representation of permanents. (b) One term in the tensor contraction of permanents, e.g., $A_{11}A_{22}A_{34}A_{43}$.[]{data-label="FigureA1"}](FigureA1.pdf){width="80.00000%"}
As a byproduct of our method, a tensor network representation of permanents can be designed. The permanent of a $N{\times}N$ matrix $A$ can be encoded using $N$ bosonic modes described by creation (annihilation) operators $b^{\dag}_{k}$ ($b_{k}$) with $k=1,2,\cdots,N$. Let us consider the many-body wave function $$\begin{aligned}
|\Psi\rangle = d^{\dag}_{1} d^{\dag}_{2} \cdots d^{\dag}_{N} |0\rangle,
\label{eq:bosonperm}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
d^{\dag}_{m} = \sum^{N}_{j=1} A_{m,j} b^{\dag}_{j}, \qquad (1\leq m \leq N) .\end{aligned}$$ The permanent ${\rm Per}(A)$ is the overlap $$\begin{aligned}
\langle 0 | b_{N} b_{N-1} \cdots b_{1} |\Psi\rangle = \langle 0 | b_{N}b_{N-1} \cdots b_{1} \; d^{\dag}_{1} d^{\dag}_{2} \cdots d^{\dag}_{N} |0\rangle.
\label{eq:overlap}\end{aligned}$$ It is apparent that the one-mode overlap $\langle 0| b_{j} d^{\dag}_{m} |0 \rangle = A_{m,j}$. The Wick’s theorem tells us that the right hand side of Eq. (\[eq:overlap\]) can be expressed using the one-mode overlap as $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{p{\in}S_{N}} A_{1,p(1)}A_{2,p(2)} \cdots A_{N,p(N)}.\end{aligned}$$ It consists of all possible combinations of the $b_{j}$’s and the $d^{\dag}_{m}$’s ($S_{N}$ is the permutation group of $N$ elements), which is precisely the definition of the permanent of $A$. The bosonic mode $d^{\dag}_{m}$ can be converted to an MPO as we have done for the fermionic mode in the main text. This helps us to find the tensor network representation of $|\Psi\rangle$. The overlap is the contraction of $|\Psi\rangle$ with the MPS $\langle 0| b_{N} b_{N-1} \cdots b_{1}$. The hardcore condition can be imposed on each site because the configurations with more than one boson on any site do not contribute to the permanent. This means that the physical legs of the MPO always have dimension $2$.
The tensor network representation of permanents has an appealing geometric picture that reveals its connection to the counting of perfect matching [@moorebook2011]. As shown in Fig. \[FigureA1\] (a), the local tensor has only five nonzero elements, whose values are either $1$ or $A_{mj}$. The $m,j$ indices label the location of the tensor in the network. The binary indices are denoted using red solid and blue dashed lines, so they acquire geometric meaning of world lines. The tensor network for ${\rm Per}(A)=\langle 0| b_{N} b_{N-1} \cdots b_{1} |\Psi\rangle$ assembles local tensors into the form of Fig. \[FigureA1\](b). One recognizes that the tensor contraction amounts to count the weighted sum of perfect matchings. In cases where all matrix elements are non-negative, there can be efficient stochastic algorithm to estimate the permanent by sampling the permutation of the world lines. The tensor network method can even deal with the cases where $A$ is a complex matrix. Moreover, suppose that one changes the tensor element of the first diagram in Fig. \[FigureA1\](a) from $1$ to $-1$, the tensor contraction would then evaluate the matrix determinant instead of permanent. This is also intuitive from the picture since the tensor element corresponds to the crossing of the world lines.
After extensive numerical experiments, we conclude that this method is not as fast as the Ryser’s algorithm with gray code. Nevertheless, we hope that this observation could be useful in some different settings, such as designing efficient algorithms for approximating permanents.
[^1]: It is assumed that the $d^\dag_m$’s have been orthogonalized to form a set of orthonormal modes with $\{d_m,d^\dag_n\}=\delta_{mn}$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present a simple quantum network, based on the controlled-SWAP gate, that can extract certain properties of quantum states without recourse to quantum tomography. It can be used used as a basic building block for direct quantum estimations of both linear and non-linear functionals of any density operator. The network has many potential applications ranging from purity tests and eigenvalue estimations to direct characterization of some properties of quantum channels. Experimental realizations of the proposed network are within the reach of quantum technology that is currently being developed.'
author:
- 'Artur K.'
- Carolina
- 'Daniel K. L.'
- 'Micha[ł]{}'
- 'Pawe[ł]{}'
- 'L. C.'
title: 'Direct estimations of linear and non-linear functionals of a quantum state'
---
Certain properties of a quantum state $\varrho$, such as its purity, degree of entanglement, or its spectrum, are of significant importance in quantum information science. They can be quantified in terms of linear or non-linear functionals of $\varrho$. Linear functionals, such as average values of observables $\{A\}$, given by ${\mbox{Tr} \, A }\varrho$, are quite common as they correspond to directly measurable quantities. Non-linear functionals of state, such as the von Neumann entropy $-{\mbox{Tr} \, \varrho }\ln\varrho$, eigenvalues, or a measure of purity ${\mbox{Tr} \, \varrho }^2$, are usually extracted from $\varrho$ by classical means i.e. $\varrho$ is first estimated and once a sufficiently precise classical description of $\varrho$ is available, classical evaluations of the required functionals can be made. However, if only a limited supply of physical objects in state $\varrho$ is available, then a direct estimation of a specific quantity may be both more efficient and more desirable [@direct]. For example, the estimation of purity of $\varrho$ does not require knowledge of all matrix elements of $\varrho$, thus any prior state estimation procedure followed by classical calculations is, in this case, inefficient. However, in order to bypass tomography and to estimate non-linear functionals of $\varrho$ more directly, we need quantum networks [@Deu89; @BBC95+] performing quantum computations that supersede classical evaluations.
In this paper, we present a simple quantum network which can be used as a basic building block for direct quantum estimations of both linear and non-linear functionals of any $\varrho$. The network can be realized as multiparticle interferometry. While conventional quantum measurements, represented as quantum networks or otherwise, allow the estimation of ${\mbox{Tr} \, A }\varrho$ for some Hermitian $A$, our network can also provide a direct estimation of the overlap of any two unknown quantum states $\varrho_a$ and $\varrho_b$, i.e. ${\mbox{Tr} \, \varrho }_a\varrho_b$. Here, and in the following, we use terminology developed in quantum information science. For a comprehensive overview of this terminology, including quantum logic gates and quantum networks see, for example, [@NielsenChuang].
In order to explain how the network works, let us start with a general observation related to modifications of visibility in interferometry. Consider a typical interferometric set-up for a single qubit: Hadamard gate, phase shift $\varphi$, Hadamard gate, followed by a measurement in the computational basis. We modify the interferometer by inserting a controlled-$U$ operation between the Hadamard gates, with its control on the qubit and with $U$ acting on a quantum system described by some unknown density operator $\rho$, as shown in Fig. \[figint\]. The action of the controlled-$U$ on $\rho$ modifies the interference pattern by the factor [@SPEAEOV2000], $${\mbox{Tr} \, \rho } U = {\text{v}}e^{i\alpha},
\label{eqvisi}$$ where ${\text{v}}$ is the new visibility and $\alpha$ is the shift of the interference fringes, also known as the Pancharatnam phase [@Pancha56]. The observed modification of the visibility gives an estimate of ${\mbox{Tr} \, U }\rho$, i.e. the average value of the unitary operator $U$ in state $\rho$. Let us mention in passing that this property, among other things, allows to estimate an unknown quantum state $\rho$ as long as we can estimate ${\mbox{Tr} \, U }_k\rho$ for a set of unitary operators $U_k$ which form a basis in the vector space of density operators.
Let us now consider a quantum state $\rho$ of two separable subsystems, such that $\rho =\varrho_{a}\otimes\varrho_{b}$. We choose our controlled-$U$ to be the controlled-$V$, where $V$ is the swap operator, defined as, $V{\left | \, \alpha \right\rangle}_{A}{\left | \, \beta \right\rangle}_{B}={\left | \, \beta \right\rangle}_{A}{\left | \, \alpha \right\rangle}_{B}$, for any pure states ${\left | \, \alpha \right\rangle}_{A}$ and ${\left | \, \beta \right\rangle}_{B}$. In this case, the modification of the interference pattern given by Eq. (\[eqvisi\]) can be written as, $${\text{v}}={\mbox{Tr} \, V }\left(\varrho _{a}\otimes\varrho _{b}\right)={\mbox{Tr} \, \varrho }_{a}\varrho _{b}.$$ which is easily proved using the spectral decomposition of $\varrho_a$ and $\varrho_b$. Since ${\mbox{Tr} \, \varrho }_{a}\varrho _{b}$ is real, we can fix $\varphi=0$ and the probability of finding the qubit in state ${\left | \, 0 \right\rangle}$ at the output, $P_0$, is related to the visibility by $
{\text{v}}=2\,P_0-1$. This construction, shown in Fig. (\[figdev\]), provides a direct way to measure ${\mbox{Tr} \, \varrho }_{a}\varrho _{b}$ (c.f. [@Filip2001] for a related idea).
There are many possible ways of utilizing this result. For pure states $\varrho_a={{\left | \, \alpha \right\rangle}{\left \langle \alpha \, \right |}}$ and $\varrho_b={{\left | \, \beta \right\rangle}{\left \langle \beta \, \right |}}$ the formula above gives ${\mbox{Tr} \, \varrho }_a\varrho_b
=|{\left\langle\, \alpha\,|\,\beta\,\right\rangle}|^2$ i.e. a direct measure of orthogonality of ${\left | \, \alpha \right\rangle}$ and ${\left | \, \beta \right\rangle}$. If we put $\varrho_a=\varrho_b=\varrho$ then we obtain an estimation of ${\mbox{Tr} \, \varrho }^2$. In the single qubit case, this measurement allows us to estimate the length of the Bloch vector, leaving its direction completely undetermined. For qubits ${\mbox{Tr} \, \varrho }^2$ gives the sum of squares of the two eigenvalues which allows to estimate the spectrum of $\varrho$.
In general, in order to evaluate the spectrum of any $d \times d$ density matrix $\varrho$ we need to estimate $d-1$ parameters ${\rm Tr}\varrho^2$, ${\rm Tr}\varrho^3$,... ${\rm Tr}\varrho^d$. For this we need the controlled-shift operation, which is a generalization of the controlled-swap gate. Given $k$ systems of dimension $d$ we define the shift $V^{(k)}$ as $$V^{(k)} {\left | \, \phi_1 \right\rangle}{\left | \, \phi_2 \right\rangle}...{\left | \, \phi_k \right\rangle} =
{\left | \, \phi_k \right\rangle}{\left | \, \phi_1 \right\rangle}...{\left | \, \phi_{k-1} \right\rangle},$$ for any pure states ${\left | \, \phi \right\rangle}$. Such an operation can be easily constructed by cascading $k-1$ swaps $V$. If we extend the network and prepare $\rho=\varrho^{\otimes k}$ at the input then the interference will be modified by the visibility factor, $${\text{v}}= {\rm Tr}\, V^{(k)}\varrho^{\otimes k} = {\rm Tr}\,
\varrho^k = \sum_{i=1}^m {\lambda_i}^k. \label{powers}$$ Thus measuring the average values of $V^{(k)}$ for $k=2,3...d$ allows us to evaluate the spectrum of $\varrho$ [@direct]. Although we have not eliminated classical evaluations, we have reduced them by a significant amount. The average values of $V^{(k)}$ for $k=2,3...d$ provide just enough information to evaluate the spectrum of $\varrho$ but certainly not enough to estimate the whole density matrix.
So far we have treated the two inputs, $\varrho_a$ and $\varrho_b$ in a symmetric way. However, there are several interesting applications in which one of the inputs, say $\varrho_a$, is predetermined and the other is unknown. For example, projections on a prescribed vector ${\left | \, \psi \right\rangle}$, or on the subspace perpendicular to it, can be implemented by choosing $\varrho_a={{\left | \, \psi \right\rangle}{\left \langle \psi \, \right |}}$. By changing the input state ${\left | \, \psi \right\rangle}$ we effectively “reprogram” the action of the network which then performs different projections. This property can be used in quantum communication, in a scenario where one carrier of information, in state ${\left | \, \psi \right\rangle}$, determines the type of detection measurement performed on the second carrier. N.B. as the state ${\left | \, \psi \right\rangle}$ of a single carrier cannot be determined, the information about the type of the measurement to be performed by the detector remains secret until the moment of detection.
Another interesting application is the estimation of the extremal eigenvalues and eigenvectors of $\varrho_{b}$ without reconstructing the entire spectrum. In this case, the input states are of the form ${{\left | \, \psi \right\rangle}{\left \langle \psi \, \right |}}\otimes\varrho_{b}$ and we vary ${\left | \, \psi \right\rangle}$ searching for the minimum and the maximum of ${\text{v}}={\left \langle \psi \, \right |}\varrho_{b}{\left | \, \psi \right\rangle}$. This, at first sight, seems to be a complicated task as it involves scanning $2(d-1)$ parameters of $\psi$. The visibility is related to the overlap of the reference state ${\left | \, \psi \right\rangle}$ and $\varrho_{b}$ by, $$\begin{aligned}
{\text{v}}_{\psi}&=&{\mbox{Tr} \, \left }({{\left | \, \psi \right\rangle}{\left \langle \psi \, \right |}}\sum_{i}\lambda_{i}{{\left | \, \eta_{i} \right\rangle}{\left \langle \eta_{i} \, \right |}}\right)\nonumber\\
&=&\sum_{i}\lambda_{i}\left|{\left\langle\, \psi\,|\,\eta_{i}\,\right\rangle}\right|^2=\sum_{i}\lambda_{i}p_{i},\end{aligned}$$ where $\sum_{i}p_{i}=1$. This is a convex sum of the eigenvalues of $\varrho_{b}$ and is minimized (maximized) when ${\left | \, \psi \right\rangle}={\left | \, \eta_{min} \right\rangle}\;\left({\left | \, \eta_{max} \right\rangle}\right)$. For any ${\left | \, \psi \right\rangle}\neq{\left | \, \eta_{min} \right\rangle}\;\left({\left | \, \eta_{max} \right\rangle}\right)$, there exists a state, ${\left | \, \psi' \right\rangle}$, in the neighbourhood of ${\left | \, \psi \right\rangle}$ such that ${\text{v}}_{\psi'}<{\text{v}}_{\psi}$ (${\text{v}}_{\psi'}>{\text{v}}_{\psi}$), thus this global optimization problem can easily be solved using standard iterative methods, such as steepest decent [@Gill1981].
Estimation of extremal eigenvalues plays a significant role in the direct detection [@direct] and distillation [@Horodeckis1997] of quantum entanglement. For example, in a special case if two qubits described by the density operator $\varrho_{b}$, such that the reduced density operator of one of the qubits is maximally mixed, we can test for the separability of $\varrho_{b}$ by checking whether the maximal eigenvalue of $\varrho_{b}$ does not exceed $\frac{1}{2}$ [@xor].
Finally, we may want to estimate an unknown state, say a $d\times
d$ density operator, $\varrho_{b}$. Such an operator is determined by $d^2-1$ real parameters. In order to estimate matrix elements ${\left \langle \psi \, \right |}\varrho_{b}{\left | \, \psi \right\rangle}$, we run the network as many times as possible (limited by the number of copies of $\varrho_{b}$ at our disposal) on the input ${{\left | \, \psi \right\rangle}{\left \langle \psi \, \right |}}\otimes\varrho_{b}$, where ${\left | \, \psi \right\rangle}$ is a pure state of our choice. For a fixed ${\left | \, \psi \right\rangle}$, after several runs, we obtain an estimation of, $${\text{v}}={\left \langle \psi \, \right |}\varrho_{b}{\left | \, \psi \right\rangle}.$$ In some chosen basis $\{{\left | \, n \right\rangle}\}$ the diagonal elements ${\left \langle n \, \right |}\varrho_{b}{\left | \, n \right\rangle}$ can be determined using the input states ${{\left | \, n \right\rangle}{\left \langle n \, \right |}}\otimes\varrho_{b}$. The real part of the off-diagonal element ${\left \langle n \, \right |}\varrho_{b}{\left | \, k \right\rangle}$ can be estimated by choosing ${\left | \, \psi \right\rangle}=({\left | \, n \right\rangle}+{\left | \, k \right\rangle})/\sqrt{2}$, and the imaginary part by choosing ${\left | \, \psi \right\rangle}=({\left | \, n \right\rangle}+i
{\left | \, k \right\rangle})/\sqrt{2}$. In particular, if we want to estimate the density operator of a qubit, we can choose the pure states, ${\left | \, 0 \right\rangle}$ (spin +$z$), $\left({\left | \, 0 \right\rangle}+{\left | \, 1 \right\rangle}\right)/\sqrt{2}$ (spin +$x$) and $\left({\left | \, 0 \right\rangle}+i {\left | \, 1 \right\rangle}\right)/\sqrt{2}$ (spin +$y$), i.e. the three components of the Bloch vector.
Needless to say, quantum tomography can be performed in many other ways, the practicalities of which depend on technologies involved. However, it is worth stressing that our scheme is based on a network of a fixed architecture which is controlled only by input data, a feature that can be useful in some quantum communication scenarios.
We can extend the procedure above to cover estimations of expectation values of arbitrary observables. This can be done with the network shown in Fig. \[figdev\] because estimations of mean values of *any* observable can always be reduced to estimations of a binary two-output POVMs [@PH].We shall apply the technique developed in Refs. [@SPA; @direct]. As $A'=\gamma\id+A$ is positive if $-\gamma$ is the minimum negative eigenvalue of $A$, we can construct the state $\varrho_{a}=\varrho_{A'}=\frac{A'}{{\mbox{Tr} \, ( }A')}$ and apply our interference scheme to the pair $\varrho_{A'}\otimes\varrho_{b}$. The visibility gives us the mean value of V, $${\text{v}}=\langle V\rangle_{\varrho_{A'}\otimes\varrho_{b}}
={\mbox{Tr} \, \left }(\frac{A'}{{\mbox{Tr} \, ( }A')}\varrho_{b}\right),$$ which leads us to the desired value, $$\langle A\rangle_{\varrho_{b}}\equiv{\mbox{Tr} \, ( }\varrho_{b} A)={\text{v}}{\mbox{Tr} \, A }+\gamma({\text{v}}d-1),$$ where ${\mbox{Tr} \, \id }=d$.
Any technique that allows direct estimations of properties of quantum states can be also used to estimate certain properties of quantum channels. Recall that, from a mathematical point of view, a quantum channel is a trace preserving linear map, $\varrho\rightarrow\Lambda(\varrho)$, which maps density operators into density operators, and whose trivial extensions, $\mathcal{I}_{k}\otimes\Lambda$ do the same, i.e. $\Lambda$ is a completely positive map. In a chosen basis the action of the channel on a density operator $\varrho=\sum_{kl}\varrho_{kl}{{\left | \, k \right\rangle}{\left \langle l \, \right |}}$ can be written as $$\Lambda (\varrho) = \Lambda
\left(\sum_{kl}\varrho_{kl}{{\left | \, k \right\rangle}{\left \langle l \, \right |}}\right) =
\sum_{kl}\varrho_{kl}\Lambda\left({{\left | \, k \right\rangle}{\left \langle l \, \right |}}\right).$$ Thus the channel is completely characterized by operators $\Lambda\left({{\left | \, k \right\rangle}{\left \langle l \, \right |}}\right)$. In fact, with every channel $\Lambda$ we can associate a quantum state $\varrho_{\Lambda}$ which provides a complete characterization of the channel. For if we prepare a maximally entangled states of two particles described by the density operator $P_{+}=\frac{1}{d}\sum_{kl}{{\left | \, k \right\rangle}{\left \langle l \, \right |}}\otimes{{\left | \, k \right\rangle}{\left \langle l \, \right |}}$, and if we send only one particle through the channel, as shown in Fig. \[figchan\], then we obtain $$\label{varrholambda}
P_{+}\rightarrow\left[\mathcal{I}\otimes\Lambda\right]
P_{+}=\varrho_{\Lambda},$$ where $$\varrho_{\Lambda}=\frac{1}{d}\sum_{kl}{{\left | \, k \right\rangle}{\left \langle l \, \right |}}\otimes\Lambda\left({{\left | \, k \right\rangle}{\left \langle l \, \right |}}\right).$$
We may interpret this as mapping the ${{\left | \, k \right\rangle}{\left \langle l \, \right |}}^{th}$-element of an input density matrix to the output matrix, $\Lambda\left({{\left | \, k \right\rangle}{\left \langle l \, \right |}}\right)$. Thus, knowledge of $\varrho_{\Lambda}$ allows us to determine the action of $\Lambda$ on an arbitrary state, $\varrho\rightarrow\Lambda(\varrho)$. If we perform a state tomography on $\varrho_{\Lambda}$ we effectively perform a quantum channel tomography. If we choose to estimate directly some functions of $\varrho_{\Lambda}$ then we gain some knowledge about specific properties of the channel without performing the full tomography of the channel.
For example, consider a single qubit channel. Suppose we are interested in the maximal rate of a reliable transmission of qubits per use of the channel, which can be quantified as the channel capacity. However, unlike in the classical case, quantum channels admit several capacities [@Horodeckis2000; @huge], because users of quantum channels can also exchange classical information. We have then the capacities $Q_{C}$ where $C=\o,\leftarrow, \rightarrow, \leftrightarrow$, stands for zero way, one way and two way classical communication. In general, it is very difficult to calculate the capacity of a given channel. However, our extremal eigenvalue estimation scheme provides a simple necessary and sufficient condition for a one qubit channel to have non-zero two-way capacity. Namely, $Q_{\leftrightarrow}>0$ iff $\varrho_{\Lambda}$ has maximal eigenvalue greater than $\frac{1}{2}$. (Clearly, this a necessary condition for the other three capacities to be non-zero).
This result becomes apparent by noticing that if we trace $\varrho_{\Lambda}$ over the qubit that went through the channel $\Lambda$ (particle 2 in Fig. \[figchan\]), we obtain the maximally mixed state. Furthermore, the two qubit state, $\varrho_{\Lambda}$, is two-way distillable iff the operator $\frac{\id}{2} \otimes\id - \varrho_{\Lambda}$ has a negative eigenvalue (see [@xor] for details), or equivalently, when $\varrho_{\Lambda}$ has the maximal eigenvalue greater than $\frac{1}{2}$. This implies $Q_{\leftrightarrow}(\Lambda)>0$ because two-way distillable entanglement, which is non-zero iff given state is two way distillable, is the lower bound for $Q_{\leftrightarrow}(\Lambda)$ [@huge].
In summary, we have described a simple quantum network which can be used as a basic building block for direct quantum estimations of both linear and non-linear functionals of any density operator $\varrho$. It provides a direct estimation of the overlap of any two unknown quantum states $\varrho_a$ and $\varrho_b$, i.e. ${\mbox{Tr} \, \varrho }_a\varrho_b$. Its straightforward extension can be employed to estimate functionals of any powers of density operators. The network has many potential applications ranging from purity tests and eigenvalue estimations to direct characterization of some properties of quantum channels.
Finally let us also mention that the controlled-SWAP operation is a direct generalization of a Fredkin gate [@FT82] and can be constructed out of simple quantum logic gates [@BBC95+]. This means that experimental realizations of the proposed network are within the reach of quantum technology that is currently being developed (for an overview see, for example, [@BEZ]).
A.K.E. and L.C.K. acknowledge financial support provided under the NSTB Grant No. 012-104-0040. P.H. and M.H. would like to acknowledge support from the Polish Committee for Scientific Research and the European Commission. C.M.A. is supported by the Funda[ç]{}[ã]{}o para a Ci[ê]{}ncia e Tecnologia (Portugal) and D.K.L.O would like to acknowledge the support of CESG (UK) and QAIP (contract no. IST-1999-11234).
[9]{} P. Horodecki, A. Ekert, quant-ph/0111064 D. Deutsch, *Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A* [**425**]{} 73 (1989). A. Barenco, C. H. Bennett, R. Cleve, D. P. DiVincenzo, N. Margolus, P. W. Shor, T. Sleator, J. Smolin and H.Weinfurter, *Phys. Rev. A* [**52**]{} 3457 (1995). M. Nielsen, I. Chuang, [*Quantum Computation and Quantum Information*]{}, (Cambridge University Press 2000) E. Sjoqvist,A. K. Pati, A. K. Ekert, J. S. Anandan, M. Ericsson, D. K. L. Oi, V. Vedral, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**85**]{} 2845 (2000) S. Pancharatnam. Generalized theory of interference and its applications. , XLIV(5):247–262, (1956). R. Filip, quant-ph/0108119 P. E. Gill,W. Murray, M. H.Wright, *Practical Optimization* (Academic Press, Inc., London, 1981) M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, R. Horodecki, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**78**]{}, 574 (1997); P. Horodecki, quant-ph/0111082 M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. A [**59**]{}, 4206 (1999) P. Horodecki, unpublished M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, R. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 433 (2000) C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin and W. K. Wooters, Phys. Rev. A [**54**]{}, 3824 (1996) P. Horodecki, quant-ph/0111036 E. Fredkin and T. Toffoli, Int. J. Theor. Phys. [**21**]{}, 219 (1982) . Springer, New York, 2000. Dirk Bouwmeester, Artur K. Ekert, Anton Zeilinger (eds.).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- |
J. Stogin$^a$, T. Sen$^b$ [^1] , R.S. Moore$^b$\
Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA\
Fermilab, PO Box 500, Batavia, IL 60510, USA\
Email:
title: Longitudinal dynamics and tomography in the Tevatron
---
Introduction
============
Tomographic techniques are used to reconstruct the phase space based on one dimensional profiles measured by profile monitors. Transverse and longitudinal tomography have been used to study the development of beam tails and the onset of instabilities in several accelerators. Here we will focus on longitudinal dynamics of beams in the Tevatron as revealed by the changes in longitudinal distributions and by tomographic reconstruction using data from a wall current monitor.
Bunches are coalesced in the Main Injector and fed into the Tevatron at an energy of 150 GeV. First protons are injected, then electrostatic separators are turned on to place them on a helical orbit which is designed to separate them from the anti-protons that are subsequently injected onto a separate helical orbit. Anti-proton bunches are injected four bunches at a time into gaps between the three proton bunch trains. After each group of 3 anti-proton transfers, the gaps are cleared for the subsequent set of transfers by “cogging” the antiprotons - changing the antiproton RF cavity frequency to let them slip longitudinally relative to the protons. After acceleration to 980 GeV, the 36 proton and 36 anti-proton bunches are brought into head-on collisions at two high energy physics detectors CDF and D0. In addition to the head-on collisions, each bunch experiences 70 long-range interactions with bunches of the other beam around the ring. As a consequence of these beam-beam interactions, there is beam loss and emittance growth. The effects on the transverse dynamics has been well studied and documented [@Sen; @Shiltsev; @Sen_ICFA]. Here we will study the impact of these beam-beam interactions on the longitudinal dynamics via longitudinal tomography. The effects of the long-range interactions may be seen by comparing the longitudinal phase space and momentum distributions of protons before and after the anti-protons are injected. Effects of the head-on collisions may be found by investigating the phase space and momentum distributions of both protons and anti-protons before and after collisions are initiated. Table \[table: tev\_param\] shows some of the main parameters of the Tevatron beams.
Parameter & Value\
Top energy \[GeV\] & 980\
Number of bunches per beam & 36\
Proton bunch intensity & 2.9$\times 10^{11}$\
Anti-proton bunch intensity & 0.9$\times 10^{11}$\
Proton transverse normalized 95 % emittance \[mm-mrad\] & 18\
Anti-proton transverse normalized 95 % emittance \[mm-mrad\] & 8\
$\bt^*$ at IP \[m\] & 0.28\
Proton rms bunch length at 980 GeV \[nsec\] & 1.7\
Anti-proton rms bunch length at 980 GeV \[nsec\] & 1.5\
The beam-beam force has a longitudinal component due to the coupling of the transverse motion to the electric field. This has been estimated to lead to an energy change for a test particle per interaction [@Danilov; @Hogan] to be E\_[bb]{} = - = - \[[e V]{}\] \[eq: dE\_bb\] where $N$ is the bunch intensity of the opposing bunch, $\alp^*,\bt^*$ are the Twiss parameters at the IP. Substituting values for the parameters in the Tevatron, $N_p = 2.9\times 10^{11}$,$N_{\bar{p}} = 0.9\times 10^{11}$, $\bt^* = 0.28$m, we have $${\rm Anti-protons :} \;\; \Dl E_{bb} = -1.5\alp^* {\rm [keV]}, \;\;\;\;
{\rm Protons:} \;\; \Dl E_{bb} = -0.5\alp^* {\rm [keV]}$$ $\alp^*$ can be in the range $\pm (0.1 - 1)$, so the energy change per particle per kick is of the order of keV. The relative energy change at 980 GeV is of the order of $10^{-6}$ per kick, this is small when compared to the energy spread in the beam, around $10^{-4}$. This is a very simple estimate and there are other sources of energy change from beam-beam interactions including beams crossing at an angle and the 70 long-range interactions. It is possible that these effects are cumulative and may have an observable effect on the bunch properties. In this paper we will test this hypothesis by observing the longitudinal dynamics subsequent to the beam-beam interactions.
Measurements of longitudinal profiles {#sec: measure}
=====================================
The longitudinal beam profiles are obtained via a resistive wall monitor in the Tevatron. This device consists of a short ceramic vacuum pipe with eighty 120 $\Omega$ resistors across it. A copper casing enclosing the ceramic break is filled with ferrite to provide a low impedance bypass for DC currents while forcing AC currents to flow through the resistors. These signals are summed into a single intensity signal which is input to a LeCroy DL7200 digital oscilloscope for data acquisition. The longitudinal beam profile was sampled at a rate of 1 GHz with periodic triggers synchronized to the RF system provided by custom electronics. These triggers were set to integer multiples of “turns” (beam revolutions) where 1 turn $\approx 21 \mu$s in the Tevatron. The depth of the oscilloscope’s internal data buffer limited the number of recorded triggers and the length of each digitized waveform. For our data samples, we recorded either 128 triggers of 10 $\mu$s duration (enough for 12 bunches of both beams) or 1024 triggers of 1 $\mu$s duration (enough for 5 bunches total). The digitized waveform data was read from the oscilloscope in ASCII format via an ethernet interface.
Data was taken on two days: store 7949 on July 14 2010 and store 8146 on October 6, 2010. The data was captured at different stages during injection and at top energy. The intent was to observe the effects of beam injection, acceleration and bringing the beams into collision on the longitudinal dynamics. In store 7949, data was captured at the following stages: 1) All 36 proton bunches injected and circulating on their helical orbit and four anti-proton bunches in each train injected and cogged. In the first train, anti-proton bunches A1-A4 are circulating. 2) After eight anti-proton bunches in each train (bunches A1-A8 in the first train) have been injected and cogged or moved towards the head of the proton train. 3) After all 12 anti-proton bunches in each train have been injected and cogged. This is the stage just before acceleration. 4) After acceleration to 980 GeV and final cogging and before the beta squeeze 5) After the beta squeeze and during initial collisions. 6) Beginning of data taking for high energy physics. Between stages 5 and 6, the transverse beam halo is removed using movable collimators. 7) 1 hour and 47 minutes after stage 6. At each stage, the profiles were recorded from all 12 bunches of the first train in each beam over 128 turns with some number of delays between each captured turn.
In store 8146 data was captured at the following stages: 1) Just after injecting all 36 proton bunches and opening the helix. Only protons are circulating. 2) After injecting first set of anti-protons and first cogging. There are 12 proton bunches and 4 anti-proton bunches in each train. 3) After the second set of anti-protons are injected and second cogging. 4) After the third set of anti-protons and third cogging and before acceleration. 5) After the acceleration to 980 GeV and final cogging and before beta squeeze. 6) Just after the beta squeeze and before collisions are initiated. 7) Just after initiating collisions. 8) 2 hours and 12 mins after start of collisions. At each stage the profiles were captured for 1024 turns, again with some number of delays between captured turns. The increased amount of data and the limited buffer size in the oscilloscope allowed storing data only from the first three proton bunches P1-P3 and two anti-proton bunches A2 and A3 in the first train.
Figure \[fig:data\_7949\] shows a mountain range view of the profiles of a proton bunch and an anti-proton bunch in store 7949. The profiles do not show any evidence of low frequency bunch oscillations. Earlier in Run II, such oscillations or “dancing” were observed with uncoalesced bunches[@Moore]. Longitudinal dampers reduced the centroid oscillations at the synchrotron frequency.
![Part of the data from Store 7949 captured from the wall current monitor at energy 150 GeV just before acceleration. On the left is a proton bunch and on the right is an anti-proton bunch. The entire data set contains 12 proton and 12 anti-proton bunches. The initial profiles are at the bottom while the last profiles are at the top.[]{data-label="fig:data_7949"}](fig1.eps)
![Store 7949: Longitudinal profile of proton bunch 1 (left) and anti- proton bunch 11 (right) at different stages from 150 GeV to 980 GeV.[]{data-label="fig: prot1_pbar11_7949"}](fig2a.eps "fig:") ![Store 7949: Longitudinal profile of proton bunch 1 (left) and anti- proton bunch 11 (right) at different stages from 150 GeV to 980 GeV.[]{data-label="fig: prot1_pbar11_7949"}](fig2b.eps "fig:")
Figure \[fig: prot1\_pbar11\_7949\] shows the profiles of proton bunch 1 and anti-proton bunch 11 at different stages in store 7949.
The distributions can be characterized by their root mean square (rms) length and the excess kurtosis which is defined as k = - 3 where $\sg_4$ is the fourth moment and $\sg_2$ is the second moment. The kurtosis measures the length of the tails relative to the core. This kurtosis is zero for a Gaussian, so a positive value indicates that the tails are longer than in a Gaussian distribution.
![Evolution of the bunch length (left) and kurtosis (right) for the 5 bunches during Store 8146. In this store, acceleration occurs after stage 4.[]{data-label="fig: sigt_kurt_8146"}](fig3a.eps "fig:") ![Evolution of the bunch length (left) and kurtosis (right) for the 5 bunches during Store 8146. In this store, acceleration occurs after stage 4.[]{data-label="fig: sigt_kurt_8146"}](fig3b.eps "fig:")
![Evolution of the bunch length (left) and kurtosis (right) for the 5 bunches during Store 8146. In this store, acceleration occurs after stage 4.[]{data-label="fig: sigt_kurt_8146"}](fig4a.eps "fig:") ![Evolution of the bunch length (left) and kurtosis (right) for the 5 bunches during Store 8146. In this store, acceleration occurs after stage 4.[]{data-label="fig: sigt_kurt_8146"}](fig4b.eps "fig:")
![Evolution of the bunch length (left) and kurtosis (right) for the 5 bunches during Store 8146. In this store, acceleration occurs after stage 4.[]{data-label="fig: sigt_kurt_8146"}](fig5a.eps "fig:") ![Evolution of the bunch length (left) and kurtosis (right) for the 5 bunches during Store 8146. In this store, acceleration occurs after stage 4.[]{data-label="fig: sigt_kurt_8146"}](fig5b.eps "fig:")
Figure \[fig: sigt\_7949\] shows the evolution of the bunch length of protons and anti-protons in store 7949. The proton bunches are more intense, longer and fuller in the bucket and thus more likely to be lost from the bucket. At injection energy, we see clear evidence that the bunch length of protons shrinks while the anti-proton bunch length stays nearly constant. Following the acceleration to top energy and decrease in size due to adiabatic damping, the bunch length of both species subsequently increases, primarily due to intra-beam scattering. The increase is the largest during the 2 hours between stages 6 and 7. Figure \[fig: kurt\_7949\] shows the excess kurtosis of both species. At injection energy, the protons have negative kurtosis implying that their tails are shorter than for a Gaussian but the kurtosis gradually approaches that of a Gaussian. Following acceleration there is a rapid increase in the kurtosis even though the bunch itself is shorter, suggesting that the beam tails have grown at the expense of the core. At flat top, the kurtosis stays nearly constant for most bunches (except for a couple of bunches) until stage 6, the start of collisions, after which the kurtosis drops with time. The kurtosis of the anti-protons has a very different behaviour - they start at negative values after injection and they keep decreasing. There is no sharp rise in the kurtosis during acceleration and the decrease in kurtosis continues with time suggesting that the core is broadening at the expense of the tails.
Figure \[fig: sigt\_kurt\_8146\] shows the evolution of the rms bunch length of protons and anti-protons in store 8146. The statistical errors are smaller here since the data was averaged over 1024 samples compared to 128 samples for store 7949. Much the same conclusions on the bunch length and kurtosis apply to the behaviour in this store as well. The bunch length of protons decreases at injection energy and grows at flat top during the store for both species. Again, acceleration to top energy increases the kurtosis sharply for protons but not for the anti-protons. At flat top during the store, the kurtosis drops for both species but more quickly for protons.
During store 8130 we obtained data for the same five bunches at one stage about 12 hrs into the store. We find that the kurtosis of the 3 proton bunches had dropped to a range between 0.1 - 0.2 while the kurtosis of the anti-protons had fallen to -0.6. The proton distributions appear to approach a Gaussian distribution over long times while the distribution of the anti-protons continues to become more non-Gaussian over time with a larger core relative to the tails.
FFT of centroid motion {#sec: fft}
======================
The longitudinal profiles will be used for reconstruction of the phase space as well to analyze the motion of the centroid. Good resolution of the phase space structure requires faster sampling for as many turns with as little delay as possible between turns, preferably turn by turn. On the other hand the frequency resolution of the FFT of the centroid motion is given by f = = 2 where $N$ is the number of samples, $\Dl t$ is the time delay between samples and $f_{max} = 1/(2 \Dl t)$ is the maximum frequency that can be measured. If the number of samples is fixed, a larger delay $\Delta t$ improves the frequency resolution but worsens the phase space resolution.
In Store 7949 the data was captured at a rate of 1 GHz for 128 turns. At 150 GeV, the time delay between each of the 128 samples was 6 turns while at 980 GeV, the delay between samples was 11 turns. In store 8146 data was captured at the same sampling rate but over 1024 turns with a delay between samples of 6 turns at 150 GeV and 11 turns at 980 GeV. Table \[table:FFT\_spec\] shows the frequency resolution and the maximum frequency that could be measured and the number of synchrotron periods sampled in the two stores.
Store & Energy \[GeV\] & No. of samples & Delay between samples & $\Dl f$ & $f_{max}$ & $N_{synch}$\
7949 & 150 & 128 & 6 turns & 62.1 Hz & 3976 Hz & 1.5\
& 980 & 128 & 11 turns & 33.9 Hz & 2169 Hz & 1.1\
8146 & 150 & 1024 & 6 turns & 7.8 Hz & 3976 Hz & 11.9\
& 980 & 1024 & 11 turns & 4.2 Hz & 2169 Hz & 8.6\
Analysis shows that the Fourier spectrum of all 12 proton bunches is almost the same. There is a little more variation amongst the anti-proton bunches. These observations are valid at each of the seven stages. Between stages, the spectrum does change. The stage by stage evolution is shown in Figure \[fig:1st\_moment\].
![FFT of the centroid motion of the three proton bunches (left) and two anti-proton bunches (right) in store 8146. []{data-label="fig: fft_8146"}](fig6a.eps "fig:") ![FFT of the centroid motion of the three proton bunches (left) and two anti-proton bunches (right) in store 8146. []{data-label="fig: fft_8146"}](fig6b.eps "fig:")
![FFT of the centroid motion of the three proton bunches (left) and two anti-proton bunches (right) in store 8146. []{data-label="fig: fft_8146"}](fig7a.eps "fig:") ![FFT of the centroid motion of the three proton bunches (left) and two anti-proton bunches (right) in store 8146. []{data-label="fig: fft_8146"}](fig7b.eps "fig:")
The surprising feature is the presence of a high frequency line in each spectrum. For every bunch, the dominant frequency at 150 GeV is $3322$ Hz and for the first three stages at 980 GeV is 1744 Hz. Between the third and fourth stages (corresponding to an elapsed time of roughly 1 hr 47 mins) at 980 GeV, the dominant frequency drops by one resolution unit to $1710$ Hz. It is also worth noting that the spike at the dominant frequency seems to widen at the start of initial collisions.
Figure \[fig: fft\_8146\] shows the spectra of the centroid motion of bunches from store 8146. While the number of bunches is less, we again observe the high frequency spike and that the centroid of each bunch has the same frequency content at each stage. All bunches show a downward shift in the centroid frequency after 2 hours into colliding mode.
It is interesting to compare the observed frequencies with some of the natural frequencies of a beam. The incoherent small amplitude synchrotron frequency is given by f\_s = f\_0 where $f_0$ is the revolution frequency, $h$ is the harmonic number, $\eta$ is the slip factor, $V_{rf}$ is the peak rf voltage, $\bt$ is the kinematic factor and $E_0$ is the synchronous energy. At 150 GeV, the small amplitude synchrotron frequency is 92.7 Hz and at 980 GeV it is 36.5 Hz. More relevant is the frequency of the coherent small amplitude dipole oscillations which is the frequency when the bunch oscillates as a rigid unit. It is given by [@Sen_coh] f\_c = f\_0 \^[1/2]{} \[eq: omegac\_all\] for a bunch with a longitudinal density distribution $\lm(\phi)$, normalized to unity $\int \lm(\phi)d\phi = 1$, $V(\phi)$ is the rf voltage as a function of phase and $\phi_1, \phi_2$ are the endpoints of the bunch. For a Gaussian bunch and for Tevatron parameters, this frequency at 980 GeV is 32.7 Hz which is close to the incoherent frequency of 36.5 Hz.
Store & Energy \[GeV\] & Stage & Frequency \[Hz\] & Frequency/$f_{c}$\
7949 & 150 & 1 & 3322 & 101.7\
& 150 & 2 & 3322 & 101.7\
& 150 & 3 & 3322 & 101.7\
& 980 & 4 & 1744 & 53.4\
& 980 & 5 & 1744 & 53.4\
& 980 & 6 & 1744 & 53.4\
& 980 & 7 & 1710 & 52.4\
8146 & 150 & 1 & 3020 & 92.5\
& 150 & 2 & 3020 & 92.5\
& 150 & 3 & 3012 & 92.5\
& 150 & 4 & 2996 & 91.7\
& 980 & 5 & 1312 & 40.2\
& 980 & 6 & 1329 & 40.7\
& 980 & 7 & 1316 & 40.1\
& 980 & 8 & 1269 & 38.9\
Table \[table: FFTvalues\] shows the dominant frequency observed from the FFTs of the bunch centroid motion in the two stores and the ratio of these frequencies to the coherent frequency. The existence of this high frequency line is quite unexpected and the source of these frequencies is not clear. Since the observed high frequency drops with increased energy, it suggests that it is associated with synchrotron motion. We expect that the frequency should scale as $\propto 1/\sqrt{E}$. Using this scaling, a frequency of 3322 Hz observed in the first two stages at 150 GeV in store 7949 should scale to 1300 Hz at 980 GeV. This is lower than the frequencies observed during the four stages at 980 GeV in store 7949. Similarly scaling 2996 Hz results in a frequency of 1172 Hz, also lower than the observed value in store 8146. Assuming that the frequency does scale with a power of the energy, data from store 7949 imply a scaling $E^{-0.34}$ while the data from store 8146 imply a scaling $E^{-0.44}$. Given that there is greater uncertainty with the data from the first store due to the lower resolution, perhaps these scalings are not entirely inconsistent.
The changes in the dominant frequency at the same energy in a store may reflect changes in the beam distribution and hence changes in the coherent frequencies. It is possible that the same harmonic of the coherent dipole frequency is excited at each stage but the coherent dipole frequency changes with the distribution.
The amplitude of oscillation in the proton bunches increases with time at 150 GeV, stays nearly constant after acceleration and then gradually decreases at 980 GeV. The amplitude is larger in the anti-proton bunches but it shows a similar behaviour with time at 980 GeV. Figure \[fig: fft\_maxamp\] shows the evolution of the amplitude of the dominant frequency for each bunch in store 8146. The origin of these high frequencies is unknown. Since all bunches in both beams have nearly the same frequencies and these lines persist for long periods of time (e.g several hours at 980 GeV) an external source associated with the rf is probably driving both beams. The fact that these high frequencies do not resonate with any of the low harmonics of the synchrotron frequency or the coherent frequency likely explains why the bunches are not perturbed by these driving frequencies.
![Amplitude of the dominant frequency in the spectrum of each bunch as it evolves during the different stages in store 8146. []{data-label="fig: fft_maxamp"}](fig8.eps)
Phase space reconstruction
==========================
We use the phase reconstruction method discussed in reference [@Hancock]. It uses a hybrid method combining algebraic reconstruction techniques (ART) and particle tracking using the difference synchrotron equations of motion. The tracking generates the coefficients in each phase space cell required during back projection from the profiles to phase space.
Representative phase space plots for store 7949 are shown in Figures \[fig:prot\_1\_psp\_7949\] to \[fig:pbar\_11\_psp\_7949\].
![Anti-proton bunch 11 in Store 7949: at 150 GeV(top) and 980 GeV (bottom). The stages are the same as in Figure 9.[]{data-label="fig:pbar_11_psp_7949"}](fig9a.eps "fig:") ![Anti-proton bunch 11 in Store 7949: at 150 GeV(top) and 980 GeV (bottom). The stages are the same as in Figure 9.[]{data-label="fig:pbar_11_psp_7949"}](fig9b.eps "fig:") ![Anti-proton bunch 11 in Store 7949: at 150 GeV(top) and 980 GeV (bottom). The stages are the same as in Figure 9.[]{data-label="fig:pbar_11_psp_7949"}](fig9c.eps "fig:") ![Anti-proton bunch 11 in Store 7949: at 150 GeV(top) and 980 GeV (bottom). The stages are the same as in Figure 9.[]{data-label="fig:pbar_11_psp_7949"}](fig9d.eps "fig:") ![Anti-proton bunch 11 in Store 7949: at 150 GeV(top) and 980 GeV (bottom). The stages are the same as in Figure 9.[]{data-label="fig:pbar_11_psp_7949"}](fig9e.eps "fig:") ![Anti-proton bunch 11 in Store 7949: at 150 GeV(top) and 980 GeV (bottom). The stages are the same as in Figure 9.[]{data-label="fig:pbar_11_psp_7949"}](fig9f.eps "fig:") ![Anti-proton bunch 11 in Store 7949: at 150 GeV(top) and 980 GeV (bottom). The stages are the same as in Figure 9.[]{data-label="fig:pbar_11_psp_7949"}](fig9g.eps "fig:")
![Anti-proton bunch 11 in Store 7949: at 150 GeV(top) and 980 GeV (bottom). The stages are the same as in Figure 9.[]{data-label="fig:pbar_11_psp_7949"}](fig10a.eps "fig:") ![Anti-proton bunch 11 in Store 7949: at 150 GeV(top) and 980 GeV (bottom). The stages are the same as in Figure 9.[]{data-label="fig:pbar_11_psp_7949"}](fig10b.eps "fig:") ![Anti-proton bunch 11 in Store 7949: at 150 GeV(top) and 980 GeV (bottom). The stages are the same as in Figure 9.[]{data-label="fig:pbar_11_psp_7949"}](fig10c.eps "fig:") ![Anti-proton bunch 11 in Store 7949: at 150 GeV(top) and 980 GeV (bottom). The stages are the same as in Figure 9.[]{data-label="fig:pbar_11_psp_7949"}](fig10d.eps "fig:") ![Anti-proton bunch 11 in Store 7949: at 150 GeV(top) and 980 GeV (bottom). The stages are the same as in Figure 9.[]{data-label="fig:pbar_11_psp_7949"}](fig10e.eps "fig:") ![Anti-proton bunch 11 in Store 7949: at 150 GeV(top) and 980 GeV (bottom). The stages are the same as in Figure 9.[]{data-label="fig:pbar_11_psp_7949"}](fig10f.eps "fig:") ![Anti-proton bunch 11 in Store 7949: at 150 GeV(top) and 980 GeV (bottom). The stages are the same as in Figure 9.[]{data-label="fig:pbar_11_psp_7949"}](fig10g.eps "fig:")
These show the phase space of proton bunch 1 and anti-proton bunch 11 in store 7949.
![Phase space plots of anti-proton bunch 2 in Store 8146 at the 4th stage of injection (top) and at 4 stages at 980 Gev (bottom).[]{data-label="fig: pbar2-8146"}](fig11a.eps "fig:") ![Phase space plots of anti-proton bunch 2 in Store 8146 at the 4th stage of injection (top) and at 4 stages at 980 Gev (bottom).[]{data-label="fig: pbar2-8146"}](fig11b.eps "fig:") ![Phase space plots of anti-proton bunch 2 in Store 8146 at the 4th stage of injection (top) and at 4 stages at 980 Gev (bottom).[]{data-label="fig: pbar2-8146"}](fig11c.eps "fig:") ![Phase space plots of anti-proton bunch 2 in Store 8146 at the 4th stage of injection (top) and at 4 stages at 980 Gev (bottom).[]{data-label="fig: pbar2-8146"}](fig11d.eps "fig:") ![Phase space plots of anti-proton bunch 2 in Store 8146 at the 4th stage of injection (top) and at 4 stages at 980 Gev (bottom).[]{data-label="fig: pbar2-8146"}](fig11e.eps "fig:") ![Phase space plots of anti-proton bunch 2 in Store 8146 at the 4th stage of injection (top) and at 4 stages at 980 Gev (bottom).[]{data-label="fig: pbar2-8146"}](fig11f.eps "fig:") ![Phase space plots of anti-proton bunch 2 in Store 8146 at the 4th stage of injection (top) and at 4 stages at 980 Gev (bottom).[]{data-label="fig: pbar2-8146"}](fig11g.eps "fig:") ![Phase space plots of anti-proton bunch 2 in Store 8146 at the 4th stage of injection (top) and at 4 stages at 980 Gev (bottom).[]{data-label="fig: pbar2-8146"}](fig11h.eps "fig:")
![Phase space plots of anti-proton bunch 2 in Store 8146 at the 4th stage of injection (top) and at 4 stages at 980 Gev (bottom).[]{data-label="fig: pbar2-8146"}](fig12a.eps "fig:") ![Phase space plots of anti-proton bunch 2 in Store 8146 at the 4th stage of injection (top) and at 4 stages at 980 Gev (bottom).[]{data-label="fig: pbar2-8146"}](fig12b.eps "fig:") ![Phase space plots of anti-proton bunch 2 in Store 8146 at the 4th stage of injection (top) and at 4 stages at 980 Gev (bottom).[]{data-label="fig: pbar2-8146"}](fig12c.eps "fig:") ![Phase space plots of anti-proton bunch 2 in Store 8146 at the 4th stage of injection (top) and at 4 stages at 980 Gev (bottom).[]{data-label="fig: pbar2-8146"}](fig12d.eps "fig:") ![Phase space plots of anti-proton bunch 2 in Store 8146 at the 4th stage of injection (top) and at 4 stages at 980 Gev (bottom).[]{data-label="fig: pbar2-8146"}](fig12e.eps "fig:")
Figure \[fig: prot1-8146\] and \[fig: pbar2-8146\] show the phase space of proton bunch 1 and anti-proton bunch 2 during different stages of store 8146. As mentioned in Section \[sec: measure\], anti-proton bunches numbered 1-4 are injected during the first stage of injection but at locations closer to the tail of the proton train. They are then moved towards the head of the proton train in subsequent coggings. Consequently in store 8146, we have longitudinal profiles and phase space reconstruction at only the third stage at injection energy for the profiles of anti-proton bunches A2, A3.
The phase space plots of proton bunches at 150 GeV in both stores show small blobs at the edges and these move around in bunch phase space. These blobs are formed during coalescing of seven bunches in the Main Injector to form one Tevatron bunch. The existence of these blobs shows that the bunch is not yet in equilibrium at 150 GeV. We have found these blobs to exist in all proton bunches recorded in both stores. The more intense proton bunches nearly fill the bucket at injection and we also observe beam loss and some longitudinal clipping, e.g. in Figure \[fig: sigt\_kurt\_8146\].
The anti-proton bunches in the Tevatron are formed by the coalescing of five lower intensity anti-proton bunches in the Main Injector. The data from store 8146 allowed a finer resolution of phase space due to the greater number of projection angles. Substructure or blobs are not seen in the phase space of either of the two anti-proton bunches captured in this store and there is no observable longitudinal clipping on anti-protons at 150 GeV.
At 980 GeV, the bunches are smaller in the bucket and neither protons or anti-protons appear to have any structure or distortions from the expected shapes. The differences between stages are not easily discernible.
There are, of course, errors in the reconstructed phase space. Some of the errors are fundamental to the reconstruction process, others arise in the particle tracking since we assume design values for machine parameters, only the ideal rf voltage is used, and no perturbations are included in the tracking.
Momentum distributions
======================
The momentum distributions can be obtained by projecting the phase space distribution onto the momentum axis.
![Momentum profiles of the first proton bunch (left) and the first anti-proton bunch (right) during the different stages from injection to 3 hours after start of collisions in Store 8146. The bottom four stages for the proton bunch and the bottom stage for the anti-proton bunch are at injection energy.[]{data-label="fig: momdistrib_8146"}](fig13a.eps "fig:") ![Momentum profiles of the first proton bunch (left) and the first anti-proton bunch (right) during the different stages from injection to 3 hours after start of collisions in Store 8146. The bottom four stages for the proton bunch and the bottom stage for the anti-proton bunch are at injection energy.[]{data-label="fig: momdistrib_8146"}](fig13b.eps "fig:")
Figure \[fig: momdistrib\_8146\] shows representative momentum profiles constructed for a proton bunch and an anti-proton bunch over different stages from 150 GeV to 980 GeV in store 8146. As expected, the proton bunches have a larger momentum spread at all stages.
![Evolution of the rms momentum spread (left) and kurtosis (right) during the different stages for all 5 bunches monitored in store 8146.[]{data-label="fig: sigp_kurtosis_8146"}](fig14a.eps "fig:") ![Evolution of the rms momentum spread (left) and kurtosis (right) during the different stages for all 5 bunches monitored in store 8146.[]{data-label="fig: sigp_kurtosis_8146"}](fig14b.eps "fig:")
![Evolution of the rms momentum spread (left) and kurtosis (right) during the different stages for all 5 bunches monitored in store 8146.[]{data-label="fig: sigp_kurtosis_8146"}](fig15a.eps "fig:") ![Evolution of the rms momentum spread (left) and kurtosis (right) during the different stages for all 5 bunches monitored in store 8146.[]{data-label="fig: sigp_kurtosis_8146"}](fig15b.eps "fig:")
![Evolution of the rms momentum spread (left) and kurtosis (right) during the different stages for all 5 bunches monitored in store 8146.[]{data-label="fig: sigp_kurtosis_8146"}](fig16a.eps "fig:") ![Evolution of the rms momentum spread (left) and kurtosis (right) during the different stages for all 5 bunches monitored in store 8146.[]{data-label="fig: sigp_kurtosis_8146"}](fig16b.eps "fig:")
Figures \[fig: sigp\_kurtosis\_7949\] and \[fig: sigp\_kurtosis\_pbar\_7949\] show the evolution of the rms momentum spread and the kurtosis of twelve proton and twelve anti-proton bunches in store 7949. Since we obtain a single momentum distribution for each bunch from the phase space, the errors in the calculation of these moments are larger than those in the calculations of moments of the longitudinal profiles. The sharp changes in momentum spread seen at injection energy for both beams are likely a consequence of the reconstruction errors and not physical. The large drop in the rms spread occurs as the bunch shrinks when the bunches are accelerated to 980 GeV. At top energy, the momentum spread increases gradually for all bunches and both beams. The kurtosis of protons is negative at injection and keeps decreasing suggesting shorter tails than for a Gaussian. Acceleration increases the proton momentum kurtosis as it does for the proton longitudinal kurtosis. In general, the kurtosis increases for most bunches until collisions begin but during the store it decreases, implying that the momentum distribution does not approach a Gaussian at long times. The kurtosis of the anti-protons has a similar behaviour. We note however that the error in these kurtosis calculations which involve the fourth moment are larger than in the rms momentum spread calculations.
In store 8146, the data was collected over 1024 turns so the phase space reconstruction and hence the momentum distributions are expected to be more accurate. At injection the rms spread of the proton bunches stays nearly constant or fluctuates by small amounts. After acceleration, the momentum spread does not change much during the beta squeeze or the onset of collisions but then grows between 3-8% during the 2 hours of the store. The right plot in Figure \[fig: sigp\_kurtosis\_8146\] shows that the momentum distribution of the protons generally develop shorter tails at injection energy as the kurtosis decreases. During acceleration from stage 4 to stage 5 the kurtosis of all bunches increases. the behaviour after reaching 980 GeV varies from bunch to bunch. For protons the kurtosis fluctuates in a range between -0.5:-0.6 even two hours into the store. The momentum distributions of the two anti-proton bunches tend towards a Gaussian distribution until stage 6 but thereafter the kurtosis drops sharply for one bunch indicating a shortening of the tails while it fluctuates for the other bunch. These bunch by bunch differences are seen in several observables such as intensity loss and emittance growth and are often related to the individual tunes of the bunches which differ due to beam-beam effects [@Sen].
Analysis of the data at the end of store 8130 shows that the rms energy spread for the three proton bunches and two anti-proton bunches are about the same and have grown to about 325 MeV since the start of the store. This shows that the energy spread of the anti-protons has grown much more rapidly than for protons, since the protons had a larger spread at the start of the store. The excess kurtosis of these five bunches are in the range -1.3 to -1.4 showing that the momentum distribution at long times for both species has a much shorter tail compared to a Gaussian.
Intensity loss
==============
In this section we will consider the beam loss at different stages in the cycle. Since the bunch intensity is proportional to the area under the longitudinal profile, relative changes in intensity can be calculated.
![Bunch intensity losses not related to luminosity at the end of store 7949 for the first twelve bunches in each train. the 11th bunch in each train suffered the largest losses in accordance with the results in Figure 17 in Store 7949.[]{data-label="fig:NLloss_7949"}](fig18a.eps "fig:") ![Bunch intensity losses not related to luminosity at the end of store 7949 for the first twelve bunches in each train. the 11th bunch in each train suffered the largest losses in accordance with the results in Figure 17 in Store 7949.[]{data-label="fig:NLloss_7949"}](fig18b.eps "fig:")
Figure \[fig:particleloss\_7949\] shows the relative beam loss computed from changes in the area for store 7949 during the three transitions at 980 GeV. The first transition is from before the beta squeeze to after the squeeze. The second transition occurs to the start of data taking following removal of the beam halo. The third transition is to the stage about 2 hours into the store. We observe that the beta squeeze causes some loss (about 2%) of protons but negligible losses for most anti-proton bunches. The removal of beam halo seems to reduce the beam intensity by similar amounts in both beams. The largest losses occur during the 2 hours into the store with bunch to bunch variations in both beams. It is interesting that bunches P11 and A11 have the largest losses during the store and also during the removal of beam halo. This could be due to a combination of several factors including tunes closer to the 7/12 resonance, larger emittances and intensities. The major source of beam loss is the inelastic collisions suffered by the beams at B0 and D0. The beam loss due to beam dynamics, the so-called non-luminous loss, can be obtained by subtracting the luminosity loss (determined by the instantaneous luminosity and the inelastic cross-section) from the total loss. Figure \[fig:NLloss\_7949\] shows the non-luminous loss at the end of the store for proton bunches P1-P12 and anti-proton bunches A1-A12. It is interesting that some of the bunch to bunch variation seen from the changes in bunch area are also reproduced in the non-luminous loss. Thus for example, bunches P11 and A11 suffer the largest loss in bunch area and the largest non-luminous loss. A12 has the lowest beam loss seen among the anti-protons in both figures but the relative non-luminous loss for A12 is much smaller compared to the loss from the change in bunch area.
![Bunch intensity losses not related to luminosity at the end of store 8146 for the first twelve bunches in each train. Note that the proton non-luminous losses were significantly higher than the anti-proton losses.[]{data-label="fig:NLloss_8146"}](fig19.eps)
![Bunch intensity losses not related to luminosity at the end of store 8146 for the first twelve bunches in each train. Note that the proton non-luminous losses were significantly higher than the anti-proton losses.[]{data-label="fig:NLloss_8146"}](fig20a.eps "fig:") ![Bunch intensity losses not related to luminosity at the end of store 8146 for the first twelve bunches in each train. Note that the proton non-luminous losses were significantly higher than the anti-proton losses.[]{data-label="fig:NLloss_8146"}](fig20b.eps "fig:")
Figure \[fig: partloss\_8146\] shows the particle loss from the change in bunch area for store 8146. Here the first transition at 980 GeV is from before the beta squeeze to after the beta squeeze. The second transition is to a stage just before collisions are initiated. The third transition is to a stage about 2 hours after collisions started. Consistent with the data in store 7949, the beta squeeze causes about a 2% loss in the proton bunches but much less in the anti-protons. The second transition expectedly does not cause much loss in any but one anti-proton bunch A3 for unknown reasons. Again, the dominant loss occurs during the 2 hours into the store. Comparison with the non-luminous losses in Figure \[fig:NLloss\_8146\] reproduces some of the bunch to bunch variations. For example, losses are the highest in P1 among protons and in A3 among anti-protons in both figures.
Conclusions
===========
We have used the longitudinal profile of protons and anti-protons captured over many turns to study the dynamics of the beams during different stages in the Tevatron cycle. These multiple turn data sets were subsequently used for tomographic reconstructions of the longitudinal phase space which allowed us to also study the momentum distribution.
At injection energy we find that the proton bunches continue to shorten over time with some beam loss. This longitudinal clipping and beam loss is due to the larger proton emittance which nearly fills the bucket and internal motion which is also seen in the tomographic phase space reconstruction. The longitudinal beam-beam effects which should be increasing as more anti-proton bunches are injected, likely have only a minor impact. The shape of the proton distribution, as indicated by the excess kurtosis, becomes more Gaussian during injection. After acceleration, the bunch lengths decrease but the kurtosis of the proton bunches rises sharply to a maximum value of 2 for many bunches, suggesting that the tails have increased relative to the core. After circulating for several hours during a luminosity store, the proton longitudinal distribution again approaches a Gaussian. The anti-proton bunches which have a smaller intensity and smaller longitudinal emittance behave rather differently. At injection energy, their bunch length stays nearly constant, suggesting that the long-range beam-beam effects have negligible impact. Unlike protons, their kurtosis does not increase during acceleration but instead keeps decreasing from negative values in the range (-0.25:-0.4) at injection to about -0.6 several hours into the store implying that the core keeps growing relative to the tails.
Analysis of the Fourier spectra revealed the presence of a high frequency line in both beams in both stores. This frequency which changes with energy was found to be the same for all bunches analyzed. In store 7949, this high frequency line was at 3.3 kHz at 150 GeV and it dropped to 1.7 kHz at 980 GeV while in store 8146, the line was at 3.0 kHz at 150 GeV and dropped to 1.3 kHz at 980 GeV. The amplitudes of these lines grow during injection and only start to drop a few hours after collisions start. The fact that all bunches had the same frequency and that the line persists over several hours suggests that an external source such as the rf cavity may be responsible. Since these lines are at high harmonics of the coherent synchrotron frequency, they appear to not have much impact on the beam.
The reconstructed phase space profiles show that at injection there is some substructure in the proton bunches but less so in the anti-proton bunches. Proton bunches are more intense and larger, and there may be coherent motion of smaller bunchlets within the main bunch. These bunchlets are known to be created during coalescing in the Main Injector. This motion may also be responsible for the proton beam loss observed during injection. At top energy, the phase space structure of both beams is smooth and unremarkable, at least on the resolution of our data.
The phase space distributions are used to construct a single momentum distribution for a bunch at each stage. Based on these projections, we find that the momentum distributions of both beams have shorter tails compared to Gaussian distributions and the distributions become more non-Gaussian over time. The momentum spread of the anti-protons grows at a faster rate than that of the protons. These conclusions are tentative, since the statistical error of the results obtained for the momentum distributions is significant.
Intensity losses were computed from the change in area under the longitudinal bunch profile. Stage by stage comparisons showed that the beta squeeze induces about 2% loss in protons and less so in the anti-protons. The losses during a store vary from bunch to bunch and these variations are qualitatively similar to the variations in the non-luminous losses due to beam dynamics.
We have shown that longitudinal profiles gathered over a few synchrotron periods can be used to reveal the richness of beam dynamics and they have the potential to be equally useful in other accelerators.
This study was begun when the first author was an undergraduate intern in the Lee Teng summer internship program of 2010 at Fermilab. We thank the program for its support.
[99]{} T. Sen et al, Phys. Rev. ST-AB, [**7** ]{}, 041001 (2004)
V. Shiltsev et al, Phys. Rev. ST-AB, [**8**]{}, 101001 (2005)
T. Sen, ICFA Beam Dynamics Newsletter, Aug 2010, pg 14
V.V. Danilov et al, Proc of 1991 Part. Acc. Conf., pg 526 (1991)
M. Hogan and J. Rosenzweig, Proc of 1993 Part. Acc. Conf., pg 3494 (1993)
R. Moore et al, Proc of 2003 Part. Acc. Conf., pg 1751 (2003)
T. Sen et al, Fermilab preprint FERMILAB-TM-2431-APC (2009)
S. Hancock et al,Phys. Rev. ST-AB, [**3**]{}, 124202 (2000)
[^1]: Corresponding author
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We propose a theoretical scheme to realize tailorable couplings between a cantilever and a superconducting charge qubit. By tuning the controllable parameters of the qubit, both linear and nonlinear couplings between the cantilever and the qubit can be achieved. Based on these couplings, we show the preparation of the cantilever into some interesting quantum states, such as superposed coherent states and squeezed states, via manipulating and detecting the qubit. We also study the influence of the environment on quantum states of the cantilever. It is indicated that decoherence induced by the environment can drive the cantilever from superposed coherent states into the steady coherent state. It is also found that the environment can induce the steady-state position squeezing of the cantilever under a critical temperature. These results will shed new light on production of nonclassical effects of the cantilever.'
author:
- 'Jie-Qiao Liao'
- 'Le-Man Kuang[^1]'
title: |
Tailorable couplings of a cantilever with a superconducting charge qubit:\
Quantum state engineering
---
\[introduction\]Introduction
============================
As is well known, it is of very significance to couple a mechanical object to an electronic system since the electronics may be used to measure the quantum nature of the mechanical object while quantum effects in electronic systems may be measured by mechanics. Cantilevers, as important components of magnetic resonance force microscopy (MRFM) [@Sidles1995; @Mamin2003; @Bermangroup], have attracted much attention of both theorists and experimentalists in many fields of physics such as condensed matter physics and quantum information science [@Cleland2003; @Blencowe2004; @Schwab2005]. For example, MRFM has been recently proposed as a qubit readout device for spin-based quantum computers [@DiVincenzo1995; @Berman2000]. As one kind of nanomechanical resonators, the cantilever can also be used as a platform to study some fundamental problems in quantum mechanics such as quantum measurement [@Schwab2004], quantum decoherence [@Zurek1991], the boundary between quantum and classical communities [@Katz2007], and test of quantum mechanics in macroscopic scales [@Armour2002; @Bouwmeester2003]. By far, with the high-speed development of modern micro-fabrication techniques, the preparation of nanomechanical resonators with high frequency and high quality factor [@Knobel2003; @Huang2003; @Gaidarzhy2005] has become possible. At the same time, efficient cooling technologies [@Imamoglu2004; @Karrai2004; @Zhang2005; @Naik2006; @Zeilinger2006; @Heidmann2006; @Bouwmeester2006; @Poggio2007; @Wilson2007; @Marquardt2007; @Xue2007B; @Yi2008; @Wang2009; @Ouyang2009] drive nanomechanical resonators approaching quantum realm. Therefore, it is expected to observe quantum evidences [@Quantumevidence] in nanomechanical resonators such as cantilevers. As a precondition, it is an interesting topic that how to generate some nonclassical states [@Xue2007A; @Liao2008; @Jacobs2007; @Siewert2005; @Tian2005; @Rabl2004; @Ruskov2005; @Zhou2006; @Zhang2009; @Hou2007; @Buks2007; @Eisert2004; @Bos2005; @Vitali2007] such as Fock states, superposed states, squeezed states, and entangled states in cantilevers. In addition, from the viewpoint of MRFM, cantilevers play the role of probers to read out the states of a single spin, therefore the preparation of cantilevers into some states with position squeezing can improve the measurement precision [@Scully1997].
For manipulation of the vibrational states of nanomechanical resonators, many schemes have been proposed by coupling nanomechanical resonators with various physical systems such as superconducting qubits [@Armour2002; @Irish2005; @Schwab2009; @Sun2006; @Xue2007C], superconducting transmission line resonators [@Blencowe2007; @Rocheleau2009; @Hertzberg2009], cold ions, atoms and molecules [@Tian2004; @Treutlein2007; @Treutlein2010; @Meystre2010], and quantum dots [@Liao2008; @Lambert2008; @Lambert2008B; @Bennett2010]. These considered physical systems play the role of indirectly assistant controller [@Jacobs2007B]. Therefore, they should be of well controllability and readability. For example, during the latest decade, great advances in quantum information processing based on superconducting charge qubits have been made [@Makhlin2001; @You2005]. It has been shown that superconducting charge qubits have well controllability and readability [@Nakamura1999]. Stimulated by these, in this paper, we propose a new scheme to couple a cantilever with a superconducting charge qubit [@Makhlin1999]. We can manipulate the cantilever through tuning and measuring the qubit as an indirect controller. Both linear and nonlinear couplings [@Zhou2006] between the cantilever and the qubit can be obtained. Especially, we emphasize that the obtained *nonlinear*-type coupling for a *cantilever* is one of the main results in this work. Based on these couplings, we show how to create superposed coherent states and squeezed states of the cantilever by manipulation of the qubit. The preparation of superposed coherent states shows the appearance of quantum superposition in the cantilever. And the squeezing in the cantilever not only shows nonclassical evidence but also has wide potential for practical application.
This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[physicalmodel\], we introduce the physical model and present correspondent Hamiltonian. In Sec. \[supercoherentstate\], we show how to generate superposed coherent states of the cantilever, and investigate the influence of decoherence induced by environment on superposed coherent states of the cantilever. In Sec. \[dynamicsqueezing\], we show how to obtain a dynamical squeezing of the cantilever, especially it is indicated that there exists a steady-state position squeezing. We conclude this paper with some discussions in the last section. Finally, we present two Appendixes \[appenA\] and \[appendixb\] for derivation of evolution equations of the cantilever in an environment.
\[physicalmodel\]Physical model and Hamiltonian
===============================================
We start with introducing the physical setup as illustrated in Fig. \[scheme\], a cantilever is fabricated above a superconducting charge qubit which is formed by an SQUID-based Cooper-pair box [@Makhlin1999].
![(Color online) Setup of a cantilever mounted with a magnetic tip coupling with an SQUID-based charge qubit. The magnetic field generated by the magnetic tip threads through the superconducting loop of the charge qubit. Since the generated magnetic field depends on the vibration amplitude $z$ of the cantilever, and the magnetic flux in the loop is a controllable parameter of the qubit, therefore a coupling between the cantilever and the qubit is induced.[]{data-label="scheme"}](setup.eps){width="3.2"}
A ferromagnetic particle mounted on the cantilever tip produces a magnetic field [@Xue2007] $$\begin{aligned}
B_{\textrm{tip}}=\frac{\mu_{0}}{4\pi
r^{3}}\left[3\left(\vec{n}\cdot\vec{m}\right)\vec{n}-\vec{m}\right],\end{aligned}$$ threading the superconducting loop of the qubit, where $\mu_{0}$ is the vacuum magnetic conductance, $\vec{n}$ is the unit vector pointing to the direction from the tip to the center of the loop. Here we assume that the magnetic tip is right on top of the center of the loop. The vector $\vec{m}$ is the magnetic moment of the magnetic tip pointing to the $z$ direction, and $r$ is the distance between the tip and the center of the loop. For a tiny vibration of the cantilever, the magnetic field threading the loop of the qubit can be approximated as $$\begin{aligned}
B_{\textrm{tip}}\approx B_{0}-Cz,\end{aligned}$$ where $B_{0}=\mu_{0}m/(2\pi r^{3})$ and $C=3\mu_{0}m/(2\pi r^{4})$ with $m=|\vec{m}|$. Since the generated magnetic field depends on the position $z$, then couplings between the cantilever and the qubit can be induced as follows: The vibration of the cantilever leads to a change of the magnitude for the magnetic field threading the loop of the qubit. As a result, the corresponding magnetic flux will be changed. At the same time, since the magnetic flux is a controllable parameter of the qubit, therefore the vibration can induce a coupling between the cantilever and the qubit.
As for the SQUID-based charge qubit [@Makhlin1999], its Hamiltonian reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:H_cpb}
H_{q}=4E_{C}\left(n_{g}-\frac{1}{2}\right)\sigma_{z}-E_{J}\cos\left(\frac{\pi\Phi_{e}}{\Phi_{0}}\right)\sigma_{x},\end{aligned}$$ where $E_{C}=e^{2}/[2(2C_{J}+C_{g})]$ is the single-electron charging energy, $C_{J}$ and $C_{g}$ are, respectively, the capacitances of each Josephson junction and the gate capacitance in the qubit; $n_{g}=C_{g}V_{g}/2e$ is the gate charge number with $V_{g}$ being gate voltage; $E_{J}$ is the Josephson coupling energy; $\Phi_{e}$ and $\Phi_{0}$ are the externally biasing flux and flux quanta, respectively. The Pauli operators introduced in Eq. (\[eq:H\_cpb\]) are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{z}&=&|0\rangle\langle0|-|1\rangle\langle1|,\hspace{0.5 cm}
\sigma_{x}=|0\rangle\langle1|+|1\rangle\langle0|,\end{aligned}$$ where the states $|0\rangle$ and $|1\rangle$ represent that there is no and one extra cooper pair on the inland, respectively.
We consider a case that the externally biasing magnetic flux $\Phi_{e}$ is composed of two parts. One is generated by the magnetic tip, and the other is generated by an externally controllable electric current. We can express the total biasing magnetic flux as $\Phi_{e}=(B_{\textrm{tip}}+B_{x})S$, where $B_{x}$ is the magnetic field generated by the externally controllable electric current, $S$ is the area of the superconduting loop. For a tiny vibration, the cantilever can be modeled as a quantum harmonic oscillator, which is depicted by the usual Bosonic creation and annihilation operators $a^{\dagger}$ and $a$, satisfying the commutative relation $[a,a^{\dagger}]=1$. Then the magnetic field generated by the magnetic tip can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
B_{\textrm{tip}}\approx B_{0}-Cz_{0}(a^{\dagger}+a),\end{aligned}$$ where $z_{0}=1/\sqrt{2\mu\omega}$ (with $\hbar=1$) is zero-point uncertainty for the ground state of the cantilever, $\mu$ and $\omega$ are the mass and frequency of the cantilever, respectively.
The Hamiltonian of the total system including the cantilever and the charge qubit reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:H_tot} H=\frac{\omega_{0}}{2}\sigma_{z}+\omega
a^{\dagger}a
-E_{J}\cos[\phi_{0}+\phi(a^{\dagger}+a)]\sigma_{x},\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega_{0}=8E_{C}(n_{g}-1/2)$ and $\omega$ are, respectively, the frequencies of the qubit and the cantilever. We also introduce two parameters $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{0}=\pi S(B_{0}+B_{x})/\Phi_{0},\hspace{0.5 cm} \phi=-\pi
SCz_{0}/\Phi_{0}.\end{aligned}$$ Hamiltonian (\[eq:H\_tot\]) obviously shows a nonlinear coupling between the cantilever and the charge qubit. A coupling of similar form between a bosonic mode and a two-level system has been obtained in a trapped-ion system [@Monroe2005]. A recent scheme has been proposed to obtain a nonlinear interaction between a doubly-clamped beam and a superconducting charge qubit [@Zhou2006]. However, the method proposed in Ref. [@Zhou2006] is not valid for a cantilever.
Hamiltonian (\[eq:H\_tot\]) is very useful in quantum information processing. Many useful interactions can be tailored from Eq. (\[eq:H\_tot\]) by choosing proper parameters. For example, we tune the externally controllable current such that $\cos\phi_{0}=0$, then Eq. (\[eq:H\_tot\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e3} H_{1}=\omega a^{\dagger}a+\frac{\omega_{0}}{2}\sigma_{z}
+E_{J}\sin[\phi(a^{\dagger}+a)]\sigma_{x},\end{aligned}$$ which can be reduced to the well-known Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian without rotating wave approximation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e4} H_{1}\approx\frac{\omega_{0}}{2}\sigma_{z}+\omega
a^{\dagger}a+g(a^{\dagger}+a)\sigma_{x},\end{aligned}$$ by expanding the sine function up to the first order of parameter $\phi$, where we introduce the coupling strength $g=E_{J}\phi$.
On the other hand, if we choose the external magnetic flux to ensure $\cos\phi_{0}=1$, then Eq. (\[eq:H\_tot\]) reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e5} H_{2}=\omega a^{\dagger}a+\frac{\omega_{0}}{2}\sigma_{z}
-E_{J}\cos[\phi(a^{\dagger}+a)]\sigma_{x},\end{aligned}$$ which can be further simplified by expanding the cosine function up to the second order of $\phi$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e6} H_{2}\approx\omega
a^{\dagger}a+\frac{\omega_{0}}{2}\sigma_{z}-E_{J}\sigma_{x}
-g'(a^{\dagger}+a)^{2}\sigma_{x},\end{aligned}$$ where $g'=E_{J}\phi^{2}/2$ is a nonlinear coupling strength between the cantilever and the qubit. These two kinds of couplings given in Eqs. (\[e4\]) and (\[e6\]) are very useful in quantum optics and quantum information processing. As examples, in the following two sections, we will study quantum state engineering based on these couplings.
\[supercoherentstate\]Preparation of superposed coherent states
===============================================================
Superposed coherent states are typical quantum states which exhibit nonclassical properties. In this section, we show how to prepare the cantilever into superposed coherent states with the above obtained Hamiltonian (\[e4\]). We also study the decoherence of the created superposed coherent states when the cantilever is subjected to an environment.
Generation of superposed coherent state
---------------------------------------
Firstly, we consider an ideal situation in which there is no dissipation for the cantilever. Since the state preparation can be realized in a very short time interval, it is reasonable to neglect the dissipation during the state preparation process. We tune the gate voltage $V_{g}$ such that $n_{g}=1/2$, that is $\omega_{0}=0$, then Eq. (\[e4\]) reduces to the conditional displacement harmonic oscillator (CDHO) Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e7} H_{\textrm{CDHO}}=\omega
a^{\dagger}a+g(a^{\dagger}+a)\sigma_{x}.\end{aligned}$$ Corresponding to the qubit in states $|\pm\rangle$, the displacement terms are $\pm g(a^{\dagger}+a)$, respectively, where states $|\pm\rangle$ are the eigenstates of Pauli operator $\sigma_{x}$, with the respective eigenvalues $\pm1$.
For generation of superposed coherent states, we suppose the total system consisting of the cantilever and the qubit is initially prepared in a state $|\varphi(0)\rangle=|\alpha_{i}\rangle\otimes|0\rangle_{q}$, where $|\alpha_{i}\rangle$ is the usual Glauber coherent state, which is defined as the eigenstate of annihilation operator $a$, i.e., $a|\alpha_{i}\rangle=\alpha_{i}|\alpha_{i}\rangle$, and $|0\rangle$ is defined by $|0\rangle=(|+\rangle+|-\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$. Making use of Hamiltonian (\[e7\]), the state of the total system at time $t$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e8}|\varphi(t)\rangle&=&\exp\left(-itH_{\textrm{CDHO}}\right)|\varphi(0)\rangle\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{1}{2}\left[\left(e^{i\theta_{+}}|\alpha_{+}\rangle+e^{i\theta_{-}}|\alpha_{-}\rangle\right)|0\rangle\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.+\left(e^{i\theta_{+}}|\alpha_{+}\rangle-e^{i\theta_{-}}|\alpha_{-}\rangle\right)|1\rangle\right],\end{aligned}$$ where we introduce the parameters
\[e9\] $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{\pm}&=\alpha_{i} e^{-i\omega t}\pm \frac{g}{\omega}(e^{-i\omega t}-1),\\
\theta_{\pm}&=\frac{g}{\omega}\left[gt-\left(\frac{g}{\omega}\pm\alpha_{i}\right)\sin(\omega
t)\right].\end{aligned}$$
During the derivation of Eq. (\[e8\]), we have used the following formula [@Liao2007], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e10}
e^{[\theta(\beta_{1}a+\beta_{2}a^{\dag}a+\beta_{3}a^{\dag})]}
=e^{f_{1}a^{\dag}}e^{f_{2}a^{\dag}a}e^{f_{3}a}e^{f_{4}}\end{aligned}$$ with
\[e11\] $$\begin{aligned}
f_{1}&=\beta_{3}\left(e^{\beta_{2}\theta}-1\right)/\beta_{2},\\
f_{2}&=\beta_{2}\theta,\\
f_{3}&=\beta_{1}\left(e^{\beta_{2}\theta}-1\right)/\beta_{2,}\\
f_{4}&=\beta_{1}\beta_{3}\left(e^{\beta_{2}\theta}-\beta_{2}\theta-1\right)/\beta_{2}^{2}.\end{aligned}$$
The action of the operator given in Eq. (\[e10\]) on a coherent state $|\alpha_{i}\rangle$ yields [@Liao2007]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e12}
e^{[\theta(\beta_{1}a+\beta_{2}a^{\dag}a+\beta_{3}a^{\dag})]}|\alpha_{i}\rangle=e^{\varepsilon}\left|f_{1}+\alpha_{i}
e^{f_{2}}\right\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ where $\varepsilon$ is given by the following expression $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e13}
\varepsilon&=&f_{4}+f_{3}\alpha_{i}+\left(|\alpha_{i}
\exp(f_{2})|^{2}-|\alpha_{i}|^{2}+|f_{1}|^{2}\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.+2\textrm{Re}[f_{1}\alpha_{i}^{*}\exp(f_{2}^{*})]\right)/2.\end{aligned}$$
From Eq. (\[e8\]), it is obvious to prepare the cantilever into superposed coherent states through measuring the qubit. Corresponding to the states $|0\rangle$ and $|1\rangle$ of the qubit are measured, the cantilever collapses to the following superposed coherent states $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e14}
|\psi_{\pm}\rangle=\mathcal{N}_{\pm}\left(e^{i\theta_{+}}|\alpha_{+}\rangle\pm
e^{i\theta_{-}}|\alpha_{-}\rangle\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{N}_{\pm}^{-2}=2\{1\pm\textrm{Re}[\exp(-i(\theta_{+}-\theta_{-}))\langle\alpha_{+}|\alpha_{-}\rangle]\}$ are normalization constants.
For a special case, we suppose the cantilever is initially prepared in a vacuum state, i.e., $\alpha_{i}=0$, then the states of the cantilever at time $t$ are the so-called Schrödinger cat states [@Gerry] $$\begin{aligned}
|\varphi_{\pm}\rangle=\mathcal{M}_{\pm}\left(|\beta\rangle\pm
|-\beta\rangle\right),\label{schrcatstate}\end{aligned}$$ with $\beta=g[\exp(-i\omega t)-1]/\omega$ and $\mathcal{M}_{\pm}^{-2}=2[1\pm \exp(-2\beta^{2})]$.
When the qubit is detected in states $|0\rangle$ or $|1\rangle$, the coupling term $g(a^{\dagger}+a)\sigma_{x}$ between the qubit and the cantilever will entangle them. Therefore, from the experimental viewpoint, we should decouple the cantilever and the qubit, as long as the superposed coherent states are prepared. The method to decoupling is making the second measurement on the qubit in states $|\pm\rangle$. Since states $|\pm\rangle$ are eigenstates of the operator $\sigma_{x}$, then the qubit will stay in states $|\pm\rangle$ forever, and the dynamics of the cantilever is governed by the displaced harmonic oscillator (DHO) Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\textrm{DHO}}=\omega a^{\dagger}a+g_{s}(a^{\dagger}+a),\end{aligned}$$ where $g_{s}=\pm g$ corresponding to the qubit in states $|\pm\rangle$.
Decoherence of superposed coherent states
-----------------------------------------
In this subsection, we investigate the decoherence of superposed coherent states produced in the previous subsection. As a practical physical system, the cantilever couples inevitably with its external environment. Therefore, the cantilever prepared in superposed coherent states will loss its coherence and energy. We suppose that the preparation time for this initial state is very short, thus we neglect the decoherence in the course of the initial state preparation process.
The dynamics of the cantilever is governed by the quantum master equation $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\rho}=i[\rho,H_{\textrm{DHO}}]+\mathcal{L}[\rho],\label{mastereqT}\end{aligned}$$ where the decoherence of the cantilever is phenomenologically represented by the superoperator $\mathcal{L}$. At a temperature of $T$, this superoperator can be written as [@Scully1997] $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}[\rho]&=&\frac{\gamma}{2}(\bar{n}_{th}+1)(2a\rho
a^{\dagger}-a^{\dagger}a\rho -\rho a^{\dagger}a)\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{\gamma}{2}\bar{n}_{th}(2a^{\dagger}\rho
a-aa^{\dagger}\rho -\rho aa^{\dagger}),\label{dissipator}\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma$ is decay rate, and $\bar{n}_{th}=1/[\exp(\omega/T)-1]$ is average thermal excitation number of the thermal bath at frequency $\omega$. Equation (\[mastereqT\]) shows that there are three kinds of actions on the cantilever. The free Hamiltonian $\omega
a^{\dagger}a$ rotates the system in phase space. The driving term $g_{s}(a^{\dagger}+a)$ displaces the cantilever in phase space. And the dissipation term $\mathcal{L}$ decreases the coherence and energy of the system.
To see the evolution of the cantilever, we need to solve quantum master equation (\[mastereqT\]). In order to do this, we introduce the following transform,
\[transforms\] $$\begin{aligned}
\rho^{(2)}(t)&=D^{\dagger}(\alpha(t))R^{\dagger}(\theta(t))\rho(t)
R(\theta(t))D(\alpha(t)),\\
R(\theta(t))&=\exp(-i\theta(t) a^{\dagger }a),\\
D(\alpha(t))&=\exp(\alpha(t) a^{\dagger }-\alpha^{\ast }(t) a),\end{aligned}$$
with
$$\begin{aligned}
\theta(t) &=\omega t,\\
\alpha(t)
&=\frac{ig_{s}}{\frac{\gamma}{2}+i\omega}\left(e^{-\frac{\gamma
t}{2}}-e^{i\omega t}\right),\end{aligned}$$
then quantum master equation (\[mastereqT\]) can be transformed to a standard form $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\rho}^{(2)} &=&\frac{\gamma
}{2}(\bar{n}+1)(2a\rho^{(2)}a^{\dagger }-a^{\dagger
}a\rho^{(2)} -\rho
_{s}^{(2)}a^{\dagger }a)\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{\gamma }{2}\bar{n}(2a^{\dagger }\rho^{(2)}
a-aa^{\dagger
}\rho^{(2)}-\rho^{(2)}aa^{\dagger}),\label{transformedmastereq}\end{aligned}$$ which describes the evolution for a harmonic oscillator in a heat bath. The detailed derivation of quantum master equation (\[transformedmastereq\]) will be presented in Appendix \[appenA\].
The operators $R(\theta)$ and $D(\alpha)$ in Eq. (\[transforms\]) are, respectively, the usual rotation and displacement operators for a harmonic oscillator in phase space. In principle, the solution for quantum master equation (\[transformedmastereq\]) can be obtained with the superoperator method. However, for simplicity, we only give the analytical solutions for the zero temperature case in the following.
Based on the above discussions, the dynamical evolution of the cantilever can be obtained as follows: When the cantilever is initially prepared in an initial state $\rho(0)$, then the state $\rho(t)$ of the cantilever at time $t$ can be obtained through the processes $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(0)\rightarrow\rho^{(2)}(0)\rightarrow\rho^{(2)}(t)\rightarrow\rho(t).\end{aligned}$$ The two processes $\rho(0)\rightarrow\rho^{(2)}(0)$ and $\rho^{(2)}(t)\rightarrow\rho(t)$ are determined by the transform given in Eq. (\[transforms\]) and its inverse transform, and the evolution process $\rho^{(2)}(0)\rightarrow\rho^{(2)}(t)$ is governed by quantum master equation (\[transformedmastereq\]) in the transformed representation.
We assume that the initial state of the cantilever is $$\left\vert \psi \left( 0\right) \right\rangle
=\mathcal{N}_{\varphi}\left( \left\vert \beta \right\rangle
+e^{i\varphi }\left\vert -\beta \right\rangle
\right),\label{initialstate}$$ where $\mathcal{N}_{\varphi}=[2(1+\exp(-2\beta ^{2}) \cos \left(
\varphi \right))]^{-1/2}$ is the normalization constant. Then the state of the cantilever at time $t$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(t)&=&\mathcal{N}_{\varphi}^{2}\left(\vert\beta_{+}\rangle\langle
\beta _{+}\vert +\vert\beta_{-}\rangle\langle \beta _{-}\vert
+e^{-i\varphi }\exp(\Delta _{r}+i\Delta
_{i})\vert\beta_{+}\rangle\langle \beta
_{-}\vert\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.+e^{i\varphi }\exp(\Delta _{r}-i\Delta _{i})\vert
\beta_{-}\rangle \langle \beta _{+}\vert \right),\label{stateatt}\end{aligned}$$ where the parameters are defined as
$$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{r}&=2\vert\beta\vert ^{2}(e^{-\gamma t}-1),\\
\Delta_{i}&=2\textrm{Im}\left( \alpha(t) \beta ^{\ast }e^{-
\frac{\gamma t}{2}}\right),\\
\beta_{\pm} &=\left(\alpha(t)\pm\beta e^{-\frac{\gamma t}{2}}\right)
e^{-i\omega t}.\end{aligned}$$
The detailed derivation from state (\[initialstate\]) to state (\[stateatt\]) will be given in Appendix \[appendixb\]. From Eq. (\[stateatt\]), we can see that $\beta_{+}(\infty)=\beta_{-}(\infty)=-ig_{s}/(\gamma/2+i\omega)$ at the long time limit. Therefore the steady state of the cantilever is a coherent state $\left|-ig_{s}/(\gamma/2+i\omega)\right\rangle$, which is resulted from the net actions of the free evolution, the coherent driving, and the decoherence. When $g_{s}=0$, the steady state reduces to vacuum state $|0\rangle$, which implies the cantilever approaching an equilibrium with the zero temperature environment.
For seeing clearly the decoherence of the generated superposed coherent states, we address the evolution of the Wigner function for these states. The definition of the Wigner function [@Burnett] of a density operator $\rho$ is $$W(\xi)=2\textrm{Tr}\left[D(-\xi)\rho D(\xi )e^{i\pi a^{\dagger
}a}\right].$$ For the state given in Eq. (\[stateatt\]), the Wigner function is obtained as $$\begin{aligned}
W(\xi)&=&2\mathcal{N}_{\varphi}^{2}\left(\exp\left(-2\vert\xi-\beta_{+}\vert^{2}\right)
+\exp\left(-2\vert\xi-\beta_{-}\vert^{2}\right)\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.+2\textrm{Re}\left[e^{-i\varphi
}\exp(\Delta_{r}+i\Delta_{i}+\Theta)\right]\right),\label{wingerfunction}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Theta$ is given by the following expression $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta=2\left(\xi\beta_{-}^{\ast}+\xi^{\ast}\beta_{+}-|\xi|^{2}\right)
-\frac{1}{2}\left(|\beta _{+}|^{2}+|\beta _{-}|^{2}+2\beta
_{-}^{\ast }\beta _{+}\right).\end{aligned}$$
{width="6.4"}
In Fig. \[wingerfun\], we plot the Wigner function given in Eq. (\[wingerfunction\]) at different times for the case of $\varphi=0$ and $g_{s}=g$. When $t=0$, the Wigner function is right for the state $|\varphi_{+}\rangle$ given in Eq. (\[schrcatstate\]) with $\beta=3$. This state is the so-called even Schrödinger cat state. We can see from Fig. \[wingerfun\](a) that there is some coherence in state (\[schrcatstate\]). This is because the Wigner function in Fig. \[wingerfun\](a) exhibits some interference fringes (namely some oscillations), and these oscillations imply quantum coherence in the state. With the increase of the time $t$, we can find that the oscillations decrease gradually. At the same time, the positions of the two main peaks of the Wigner function rotate on the phase plain and move gradually to a point. This point corresponds approximately to the steady state of quantum master equation (\[mastereqT\]) for $T=0$. In fact, this steady state is a coherent state $|-ig_{s}/(\gamma/2+i\omega)\rangle\approx|2.999+0.015i\rangle$, which is obtained from Eq. (\[stateatt\]) by taking the long time limit. Moreover, with the dissipative evolution, the negative values of the Wigner function will disappear gradually, which implies that the nonclassical properties of the cantilever decreases with the decoherence. Therefore, the actions of the environment and the driving force will destroy the coherence of the superposed coherent states and drive the cantilever into a steady coherent state.
\[dynamicsqueezing\]Dynamical squeezing
=======================================
In the above section, we have study the creation of superposed coherent states based on the obtained linear Hamiltonian. In this section, we study the creation of dynamical squeezing as an application of the nonlinear Hamiltonian. The created squeezed state not only exhibits nonclassical properties, but also is useful for precise measurement.
Dynamical squeezing without dissipation
---------------------------------------
From Hamiltonian (\[e6\]), we control the gate voltage $V_{g}$ such that $\omega_{0}=0$, then Hamiltonian (\[e6\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e16}H=\omega
a^{\dagger}a-\left[E_{J}+g'(a^{\dagger}+a)^{2}\right]\sigma_{x}.\end{aligned}$$ It can be seen from Hamiltonian (\[e16\]) that if the qubit is initially prepared in one of the two eigenstates $|\pm\rangle$ of $\sigma_{x}$, then the qubit will stay in this state forever. Corresponding to the cases of the qubit in $|\pm\rangle$, the conditional Hamiltonians of the cantilever are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e17}H_{k}=\omega_{k}a^{\dagger}a+g_{k}\left(a^{\dagger2}+a^{2}\right),\hspace{0.5
cm}k=\pm1,\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega_{k}=\omega+2g_{k}$ and $g_{k}=-k\times g'$.
To diagonalize Hamiltonian (\[e17\]), we introduce a unitary operator [@Wagner1986] $$\begin{aligned}
\exp(-S_{k})=\exp\left[-\lambda_{k}\left(a^{2}-a^{\dag2}\right)\right].\label{defitransf}\end{aligned}$$ Using the commutative relations $[a,S_{k}]=-2\lambda_{k} a^{\dag}$ and $[a^{\dag},S_{k}]=-2\lambda_{k} a$, we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
e^{-S_{k}}ae^{S_{k}}&=a\cosh(2\lambda_{k})-a^{\dag}\sinh(2\lambda_{k}),\\
e^{-S_{k}}a^{\dag}e^{S_{k}}&=a^{\dag}\cosh(2\lambda_{k})-a\sinh(2\lambda_{k}).\end{aligned}$$
Application of the transform defined in Eq. (\[defitransf\]) on Hamiltonian (\[e17\]) leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e20}\tilde{H}_{k}&\equiv&\exp(-S_{k})H_{k}\exp(S_{k})\nonumber\\
&=&\Omega_{k}a^{\dag}a+\Lambda_{k}\left(a^{\dag2}+a^{2}\right)+C_{k},\end{aligned}$$ where we introduce the following parameters
$$\begin{aligned}
\Omega_{k}&=\omega_{k}\cosh(4\lambda_{k})-2g_{k}\sinh(4\lambda_{k}),\\
\Lambda_{k}&=-\omega_{k}\sinh(4\lambda_{k})/2+g_{k}\cosh(4\lambda_{k}),\\
C_{k}&=\omega_{k}\sinh^{2}(2\lambda_{k})-g_{k}\sinh(4\lambda_{k}).\end{aligned}$$
By choosing proper parameter $\lambda_{k}$ to ensure $\Lambda_{k}=0$, namely $\tanh(4\lambda_{k})=2g_{k}/\omega_{k}$, then we may choose $$\begin{aligned}
\sinh(4\lambda_{k})&=&\frac{2g_{k}}{\Omega_{k}},\hspace{0.5 cm}
\cosh(4\lambda_{k})=\frac{\omega_{k}}{\Omega_{k}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\Omega_{k}=\sqrt{\omega_{k}^{2}-4g_{k}^{2}}$. Therefore we obtain the diagonalized Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e24}\tilde{H}_{k}=\Omega_{k} a^{\dag}a, \hspace{0.5
cm}k=\pm1.\end{aligned}$$ The unitary evolution operator relating to Hamiltonian (\[e24\]) is $V_{k}(t)=\exp(-i\tilde{H}_{k}t)$. Notice that in Eq. (\[e24\]) we have discarded the constant term $C_{k}$.
![(Color online) Plot the relative fluctuation $(\Delta
z)_{-1}^{2}/z_{0}^{2}$ given in Eq. (\[e30\]) against the scaled evolution time $\zeta=\omega t$. Other parameter are set as $g'/\omega=0.0115$. The relative fluctuation $(\Delta
z)_{-1}^{2}/z_{0}^{2}<1$ means a squeezing of the position $z$ for the cantilever.[]{data-label="squeezing"}](squeezing1.eps){width="3.2"}
For investigation of the squeezing of the cantilever, we assume the cantilever is initially prepared in a coherent state $|\alpha\rangle$ and the qubit in states $|\pm\rangle$, where the coherent amplitude $\alpha$ is assumed to be a real number for simplicity. After a coherent evolution of a time $t$, the cantilever evolves into state $$\begin{aligned}
|\Phi_{k}(t)\rangle=e^{S_{k}}V_{k}(t)e^{-S_{k}}|\alpha\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Using the equation $a|\alpha\rangle=\alpha|\alpha\rangle$ and $|\alpha\rangle=e^{S_{k}}V^{\dagger}_{k}(t)e^{-S_{k}}|\Phi_{k}(t)\rangle$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
e^{S_{k}}V_{k}(t)e^{-S_{k}}ae^{S_{k}}V_{k}^{\dag}(t)e^{-S_{k}}|\Phi_{k}(t)\rangle=\alpha
|\Phi_{k}(t)\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ which can be further written as $$\begin{aligned}
A_{k}(t)|\Phi_{k}(t)\rangle=\alpha |\Phi_{k}(t)\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e28}A_{k}(t)&\equiv&e^{S_{k}}V_{k}(t)e^{-S_{k}}ae^{S_{k}}V_{k}^{\dag}(t)e^{-S_{k}}\nonumber\\
&=&[\cos(\Omega_{k} t)+i\cosh(4\lambda_{k})\sin(\Omega_{k}
t)]a\nonumber\\
&&+i\sinh(4\lambda_{k})\sin(\Omega_{k} t)a^{\dag}.\end{aligned}$$
The evolution of the cantilever follows the eigenstate of the quasi-excitation operator $A_{k}(t)$ with eigenvalue $\alpha$. According to Eq. (\[e28\]), we can express the operators $a$ and $a^{\dag}$ in terms of $A_{k}(t)$ and $A^{\dag}_{k}(t)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e29}a&=&[\cos\Omega_{k}t+i\cosh(4\lambda_{k})\sin(\Omega_{k}t)]A_{k}(t)\nonumber\\
&&+i\sinh(4\lambda_{k})\sin(\Omega_{k}t)A^{\dag}_{k}(t).\end{aligned}$$ Based on Eq. (\[e29\]), the fluctuation $(\Delta
z)_{k}^{2}=\langle z^{2}\rangle_{k}-\langle z\rangle_{k}^{2}$ of the coordinator $z$ for the cantilever is obtained as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e30}(\Delta z)_{k}^{2}(t)
&=&z_{0}^{2}\left[\cosh(4\lambda_{k})-\sinh(4\lambda_{k})\right]^{2}\sin^{2}(\Omega_{k}t)\nonumber\\
&&+\cos^{2}(\Omega_{k}t).\end{aligned}$$
From Eq. (\[e30\]), we find that, only in the case of $k=-1$, the squeezing of the position $z$ of the cantilever occurs. In Fig. \[squeezing\], we plot the relative fluctuation $(\Delta
z)_{-1}^{2}/z_{0}^{2}$ as a function of the scaled evolution time $\zeta=\omega t$. Figure \[squeezing\] shows a periodic squeezing with the scaled evolution time $\zeta$.
Dynamical squeezing with dissipation
------------------------------------
In the above subsection, we study the dynamical squeezing for the ideal case in which there is no dissipation. However, any systems will couple inevitably with the environment. In this subsection, we consider the dynamical squeezing of the cantilever by taking the environment into account. In the presence of an environment, the evolution of the cantilever is governed by the following quantum master equation $$\dot{\rho}=i\left[ \rho \left( t\right),H_{k}\right]
+\mathcal{L}\rho \left( t\right),\label{mastereqsqueezing}$$ where the Hamiltonian $H_{k}$ has been given in Eq. (\[e17\]), and the superoperator has been given in Eq. (\[dissipator\]). Based on quantum master equation (\[mastereqsqueezing\]), we can obtain the following equations of motion,
\[Lequatoins\] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt}\langle a\rangle &=-i\omega _{k}\langle a\rangle
-2ig_{k}\langle a^{\dagger }\rangle -\frac{\gamma
}{2}\langle a\rangle,\\
\frac{d}{dt}\langle a^{\dagger }\rangle &=i\omega _{k}\langle
a^{\dagger }\rangle +2ig_{k}\langle a\rangle -\frac{\gamma
}{2}\langle a^{\dagger
}\rangle,\\
\frac{d}{dt}\langle a^{2}\rangle &=-( \gamma +2i\omega _{k}) \langle
a^{2}\rangle -4ig_{k}\langle a^{\dagger
}a\rangle -2ig_{k},\\
\frac{d}{dt}\langle a^{\dagger 2}\rangle &=-( \gamma -2i\omega
_{k})\langle a^{\dagger 2}\rangle
+4ig_{k}\langle a^{\dagger }a\rangle +2ig_{k},\\
\frac{d}{dt}\langle a^{\dagger }a\rangle &=-\gamma \langle
a^{\dagger }a\rangle -2ig_{k}\langle a^{\dagger 2}\rangle
+2ig_{k}\langle a^{2}\rangle +\gamma \bar{n}_{th}.\end{aligned}$$
According to the definition of $z=z_{0}(a+a^{\dagger})$, the relative fluctuation of the coordinator operator $z$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{(\Delta z(t))_{k}^{2}}{z_{0}^{2}} &=&\left(\langle
a^{2}\rangle -\langle a\rangle ^{2}+\langle a^{\dagger 2}\rangle
-\langle a^{\dagger }\rangle ^{2}\right.\nonumber\\&&\left.+2\langle
a^{\dagger }a\rangle -2\langle a^{\dagger }\rangle \langle a\rangle
+1\right).\label{flucdissi}\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, under a given initial condition, we can obtain the solutions of Eq. (\[Lequatoins\]), and then the evolution of the fluctuation $(\Delta z)^{2}(t)$ can be obtained. In the following we suppose the cantilever is initially prepared in a vacuum state $\vert 0\rangle$.
In principle, the solutions of Eq. (\[Lequatoins\]) can be obtained. However, we do not present the solutions here since there are very complicate. In Fig. \[squeezing2\], we plot the relative fluctuation $(\Delta z)_{-1}^{2}(t)/z_{0}^{2}$ against the time $t$ for different temperatures.
![(Color online) (a) Plot of the relative fluctuation $(\Delta z)_{-1}^{2}/z_{0}^{2}$ given in Eq. (\[flucdissi\]) vs the scaled evolution time $\zeta=\omega t$ for different temperatures: $T/\omega=0$ (dotted line), $T/\omega=1$ (dashed line), $T/\omega=3$ (solid line). (b) Amplificatory plot of figure (a) from $\zeta=0$ to $20$. Other parameters are set as $\gamma/\omega=0.01$, and $g'/\omega=0.0115$.[]{data-label="squeezing2"}](squeezing2.eps){width="3.2"}
It can be seen from Fig. \[squeezing2\] that the relative fluctuation $(\Delta z)_{-1}^{2}/z_{0}^{2}$ evolves gradually approaching a steady-state value with the increase of the time $t$. For a short time, the relative fluctuation evolves with some oscillations. At the same time, the relative fluctuation increases with the increase of the bath temperature $T$. Therefore, we can obtain a conclusion that the high temperature $T$ can destroy the squeezing for the position $z$ of the cantilever.
For obtaining the steady-state properties of the squeezing, we obtain the steady-state solution of Eq. (\[Lequatoins\]) as
$$\begin{aligned}
\langle a(\infty)\rangle&=\langle
a^{\dagger}(\infty)\rangle=0,\\
\langle
a^{2}(\infty)\rangle&=-\frac{2g_{k}(2\bar{n}_{th}+1)(2\omega_{k}+i\gamma)}{\gamma^{2}+4\omega_{k}^{2}-16g_{k}^{2}},\\
\langle
a^{\dagger2}(\infty)\rangle&=-\frac{2g_{k}(2\bar{n}_{th}+1)(2\omega_{k}-i\gamma)}{\gamma^{2}+4\omega_{k}^{2}-16g_{k}^{2}},\\
\langle
a^{\dagger}a(\infty)\rangle&=\bar{n}_{th}+\frac{8g_{k}^{2}(2\bar{n}_{th}+1)}{\gamma^{2}+4\omega_{k}^{2}-16g_{k}^{2}}.\end{aligned}$$
Then the steady-state fluctuation is $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{(\Delta z(\infty))_{k}^{2}}{z_{0}^{2}}
&=&\frac{(2\bar{n}_{th}+1)[\gamma^{2}+4\omega_{k}(\omega_{k}-2g_{k})]}{\gamma^{2}+4\omega_{k}^{2}-16g_{k}^{2}}.\label{flucdissi}\end{aligned}$$ In Fig. \[squeezing3\], we plot the steady-state relative fluctuation $(\Delta z(\infty))_{-1}^{2}/z_{0}^{2}$ as a function of the temperature $T$. It can be seen from Fig. \[squeezing3\] that the steady-state relative fluctuation increases with the increase of the temperature $T$. We can see a transition from squeezing to nonsqueezing when the temperature across a critical temperature $T_{\textrm{c}}$, which can be obtained from Eq. (\[flucdissi\]) for the case of $k=-1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{T_{\textrm{c}}}{\omega}=\frac{1}{\ln\left(\frac{\gamma^{2}}{4\omega
g'}+\frac{\omega}{g'}+3\right)}.\end{aligned}$$ According to the parameters, we calculate the critical temperature in Fig. \[squeezing3\] is $T_{\textrm{c}}/\omega=0.222$.
![(Color online) Plot of the steady-state relative fluctuation $(\Delta z(\infty))_{-1}^{2}/z_{0}^{2}$ against the scaled temperature $T/\omega$. Other parameters are set as those in Fig. \[squeezing2\]. Figure shows a transition from squeezing to nonsqueezing with the increase of the temperature of the environment.[]{data-label="squeezing3"}](squeezing3.eps){width="3.2"}
\[parameterestimation\]Discussions and conclusions
==================================================
We note that the two types of subsystems in our scheme, the superconducting charge qubit and the cantilever, have been well prepared in current experiments. Hence, it is possible to experimentally realize the scheme proposed in this paper within the reach of present-day techniques. Here we give a possible estimation of coupled-system parameters based on these published experimental parameters of the charge qubit and the cantilevers. The most important parameters in our model are the two coupling strengths $g$ and $g'$ given in Eqs. (\[e7\]) and (\[e16\]), respectively. According to the current experimental conditions [@Sidles1995; @Mamin2007], we take the following parameters. As an example, we choose a cantilever with a fundamental frequency $\omega\approx2\pi\times2$ MHz, $\gamma=2\pi\times20$ kHz, and $z_{0}\approx5\times10^{-13}$ m. A magnetic tip produces a magnetic gradient of $|\partial B_{z}/\partial z|\approx10^{-7}$ T/m at an approximate distance $50$ nm above the superconducting loop. Then we obtian $C=|\partial B_{z}/\partial
z|z_{0}\approx5\times10^{-6}$ T. We choose the area of the superconducting loop $S\approx10^{-12}$ m$^{2}$, and $E_{J}\approx5$ GHz. Then we get $\phi\approx2.4\pi\times10^{-3}$, which is suitable for making the approximations of expanding the sine and cosine functions up to the first and second orders, respectively. Accordingly, the coupling strengths $g\approx-2\pi\times6$ MHz and $g'\approx2\pi\times23$ kHz. Notice that the figures in the above sections are plotted in terms of these parameters.
In conclusion, we have designed a theoretical scheme to realize tailorable couplings between a cantilever and a superconducting charge qubit. By choosing proper parameters, both linear and nonlinear couplings can be achieved. We have also shown how to generate superposed coherent states and dynamical squeezing in the cantilever based on the obtained couplings. We have investgated the influence of the environment on quantum states of the cantilever. It has been indicated that decoherence induced by the environment can drive the cantilever from superposed coherent states into the steady coherent state. When the cantilever is initially in a coherent state, we have shown that there exists periodic position squeezing for the cantilever. Especially, it is found that under the action of the environment the cantilever can evolve from the vacuum state to a steady state with position squeezing under a critical temperature of the environment. Therefore, the environment can induce the steady-state position squeezing of the cantilever. This reveals a new mechanism to create the steady-state squeezing and sheds new light on production of nonclassical effects of the cantilever. Finally, it should be emphasized that the experimental realization of the scheme proposed in the present paper deserves further investigation.
This work is supported in part by NSFC Grant No. 10775048, NFRPC Grant No. 2007CB925204, and the Education Committee of Hunan Province under Grant No. 08W012.
\[appenA\]Derivation of quantum master equation (\[transformedmastereq\])
=========================================================================
In this Appendix, we give a detailed derivation of the transform from quantum master equation (\[mastereqT\]) to equation (\[transformedmastereq\]). Starting from the quantum master equation $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\rho}&=&i[\rho,\omega a^{\dagger}a+g_{s}(a^{\dagger
}+a)]\nonumber\\ &&+\frac{\gamma }{2}(\bar{n}+1)(2a\rho a^{\dagger
}-a^{\dagger }a\rho -\rho
a^{\dagger }a) \nonumber\\
&&+\frac{\gamma }{2}\bar{n}(2a^{\dagger }\rho a-aa^{\dagger }\rho
-\rho aa^{\dagger }),\label{appenA1}\end{aligned}$$ we first make a rotation transform, $$\begin{aligned}
\rho^{\left( 1\right) }=R^{\dagger }\left( \theta \right) \rho
R\left( \theta \right), \hspace{0.5 cm}R\left( \theta
\right)=e^{-i\theta a^{\dagger }a},\end{aligned}$$ then we obtain $\rho =R\left( \theta \right) \rho^{\left( 1\right)
} R^{\dagger }\left( \theta \right)$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\rho} &=&-i\dot{\theta}a^{\dagger }aR\left( \theta \right)
\rho^{\left( 1\right) }R^{\dagger }\left( \theta \right) +R\left(
\theta \right) \dot{\rho}^{\left( 1\right) } R^{\dagger }\left(
\theta \right)\nonumber\\&& +i\dot{\theta}R\left( \theta \right)
\rho^{\left( 1\right) } a^{\dagger }aR^{\dagger }\left( \theta
\right).\label{paudots}\end{aligned}$$ Substitution of Eq. (\[paudots\]) into quantum master equation (\[appenA1\]) leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\rho}^{\left( 1\right) } &=&i(\omega -\dot{ \theta})
\rho^{\left( 1\right) }a^{\dagger }a-i( \omega -\dot{\theta})
a^{\dagger }a\rho^{\left(
1\right) } \nonumber \\
&&+ig_{s}\rho^{\left( 1\right) }\left( a^{\dagger }e^{i\theta
}+ae^{-i\theta }\right) -ig_{s}\left( a^{\dagger }e^{i\theta
}+ae^{-i\theta }\right) \rho^{\left( 1\right) }\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{\gamma }{2}\left( \bar{n}+1\right)\left(2a\rho^{(1)}
a^{\dagger }-a^{\dagger }a\rho^{(1)}-\rho^{(1)}
a^{\dagger }a\right)\nonumber \\
&&+\frac{\gamma }{2}\bar{n}\left(2a^{\dagger }\rho^{(1)}
a-aa^{\dagger }\rho^{(1)}-\rho^{(1)}aa^{\dagger }\right),\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the relations
$$\begin{aligned}
\left[ R\left( \theta \right) ,a^{\dagger }a\right] &=\left[
R^{\dagger
}\left( \theta \right) ,a^{\dagger }a\right] =0,\\
R^{\dagger }\left( \theta \right) a^{\dagger }R\left( \theta \right)
&=e^{i\theta a^{\dagger }a}a^{\dagger }e^{-i\theta a^{\dagger
}a}=a^{\dagger }e^{i\theta },\\
R^{\dagger }\left( \theta \right) aR\left( \theta \right)
&=e^{i\theta a^{\dagger }a}ae^{-i\theta a^{\dagger
}a}=ae^{-i\theta}.\end{aligned}$$
We choose a proper $\theta$ to ensure $\omega -\dot{\theta}=0$. Under the initial condition $\theta(0)=0$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\theta(t) =\omega t.\end{aligned}$$ Then we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\rho}^{(1) }&=&ig_{s}\left[\rho^{(1)} ,a^{\dagger }e^{i\omega
t}+ae^{-i\omega t}\right] \nonumber\\
&&+\frac{\gamma }{2}(\bar{n}+1)\left(2a\rho ^{(1)}a^{\dagger
}-a^{\dagger }a\rho^{(1)
}-\rho^{(1)}a^{\dagger }a\right) \nonumber\\
&&+\frac{\gamma }{2}\bar{n}\left( 2a^{\dagger }\rho^{(1)
}a-aa^{\dagger }\rho^{(1)}-\rho^{(1) }aa^{\dagger
}\right).\label{rottransformed}\end{aligned}$$ Since the first term at the right-hand side of Eq. (\[rottransformed\]) is a driving term, in the following, we make a displacement transform $$\begin{aligned}
\rho^{\left( 2\right)} &=&D^{\dagger }\left( \alpha \right)
\rho^{\left( 1\right)}D\left( \alpha \right),\hspace{0.5 cm} D\left(
\alpha \right)=e^{\alpha a^{\dagger }-\alpha ^{\ast }a},\end{aligned}$$ then we obtain $\rho^{\left( 1\right) }=D\left( \alpha \right)
\rho^{\left( 2\right) } D^{\dagger }\left( \alpha \right)$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\rho}^{\left( 1\right) } &=&\dot{D}\left( \alpha \right)
\rho^{\left( 2\right) } D^{\dagger }\left( \alpha \right) +D\left(
\alpha \right) \dot{\rho}^{\left( 2\right) } D^{\dagger }\left(
\alpha \right)\nonumber\\&& +D\left( \alpha \right) \rho^{\left(
2\right) }\left( t\right) \dot{D}^{\dagger }\left( \alpha
\right).\label{paudot}\end{aligned}$$ Here we need to calculate the expressions for $\dot{D}\left( \alpha
\right)$ and $\dot{D}^{\dagger }\left( \alpha \right)$. Making use of $D\left( \alpha \right) =e^{-\frac{%
\left\vert \alpha \right\vert ^{2}}{2}}e^{\alpha a^{\dagger
}}e^{-\alpha ^{\ast }a}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{D}\left( \alpha \right) &=&\frac{d}{dt}\left( e^{-\frac{\left\vert \alpha \right\vert ^{2}}{2}%
}\right) e^{\alpha a^{\dagger }}e^{-\alpha ^{\ast
}a}+e^{-\frac{\left\vert \alpha \right\vert
^{2}}{2}}\frac{d}{dt}\left( e^{\alpha a^{\dagger
}}\right) e^{-\alpha ^{\ast }a}\nonumber\\
&&+e^{-\frac{\left\vert \alpha \right\vert ^{2}%
}{2}}e^{\alpha a^{\dagger }}\frac{d}{dt}\left( e^{-\alpha ^{\ast
}a}\right)
\nonumber\\
&=&-\frac{1}{2}( \dot{\alpha}\alpha ^{\ast }+\alpha
\dot{\alpha}^{\ast }) D(\alpha) +\dot{\alpha}D(\alpha) e^{\alpha
^{\ast }a}a^{\dagger
}e^{-\alpha ^{\ast }a}\nonumber\\
&&-\dot{\alpha}^{\ast
}D(\alpha) a \nonumber\\
&=&-\frac{1}{2}\left(\alpha \dot{\alpha}^{\ast }-\dot{\alpha}\alpha
^{\ast }\right)D(\alpha)+D(\alpha) (\dot{\alpha} a^{\dagger
}-\dot{\alpha}^{\ast
}a),\label{Ddot}\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the formula $e^{\alpha ^{\ast }a}a^{\dagger
}e^{-\alpha ^{\ast }a}=a^{\dagger }+\alpha ^{\ast }$. Similarly, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{D}^{\dagger }(\alpha) &=&-\frac{1}{2}(\dot{\alpha}\alpha
^{\ast}-\alpha \dot{\alpha}^{\ast }) D^{\dagger
}(\alpha)+(\dot{\alpha}^{\ast}a-
\dot{\alpha}a^{\dagger})D^{\dagger }(\alpha).\label{Ddaggerdot}\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$
Substitution of Eqs. (\[paudot\]), (\[Ddot\]), and (\[Ddaggerdot\]) into Eq. (\[rottransformed\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\rho}^{(2)}&=&\frac{\gamma }{2}(\bar{n}+1)\left( 2a\rho^{(2)}
a^{\dagger}-a^{\dagger }a\rho^{(2)}-\rho^{(2)}a^{\dagger}a\right)\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{\gamma }{2}\bar{n}\left(2a^{\dagger }\rho^{(2)}
a-aa^{\dagger
}\rho^{(2)}-\rho^{(2)} aa^{\dagger}\right)\nonumber\\
&&+\left(\dot{\alpha}^{\ast }-ig_{s}e^{-i\omega t}+\frac{\gamma
}{2}\alpha
^{\ast }\right)\left( a\rho^{(2)}(t)-\rho_{s}^{(2)}a\right)\nonumber\\
&&-\left(\dot{\alpha}+ig_{s}e^{i\omega t}+\frac{\gamma
}{2}\alpha\right)\left( a^{\dagger }\rho^{(2)}-\rho^{(2)}a^{\dagger
}\right).\end{aligned}$$
Therefore, if we choose a proper $\alpha $ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\alpha}+ig_{s}e^{i\omega t}+\frac{\gamma }{2}\alpha
&=&0,\label{alphaequation}\end{aligned}$$ then we obtain the quantum master equation (\[transformedmastereq\]). The solution of Eq. (\[alphaequation\]) can be obtained as $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha(t)&=&\frac{ig_{s}}{\frac{\gamma }{2}+i\omega }\left(
e^{-\frac{\gamma t}{2}}-e^{i\omega t}\right)\end{aligned}$$ under the initial condition $\alpha(0)=0$.
\[appendixb\]Derivation of Eq. (\[stateatt\])
=============================================
In this Appendix, we derive in detail the evolution of the cantilever governed by quantum master equation (\[mastereqT\]). For an initial state $\rho(0)$, the state of the cantilever at time $t$ can be obtained through the processes $\rho(0)\rightarrow\rho^{(2)}(0)\rightarrow\rho^{(2)}(t)\rightarrow\rho(t)$. The relationship between states $\rho(0)$ and $\rho^{(2)}(0)$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\rho^{(2)}(0)&=&D^{\dagger}(\alpha(0))R^{\dagger}(\theta(0))\rho(0)R(\theta(0))D(\alpha(0))\nonumber\\
&=&\rho(0).\end{aligned}$$ For the initial state $$\vert \psi(0)\rangle =\mathcal{N}_{\varphi}(\vert \beta\rangle
+e^{i\varphi}\vert -\beta\rangle),$$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\rho^{(2)}(0)&=&\mathcal{N}_{\varphi}^{2}(\vert \beta\rangle
+e^{i\varphi }\vert -\beta\rangle) (\langle \beta\vert
+e^{-i\varphi}\langle -\beta\vert ).\label{eqb3}\end{aligned}$$
The evolution process from state $\rho ^{\left( 2\right) }\left(
0\right) $ to $\rho ^{\left( 2\right) }\left( t\right) $ is governed by the quantum master equation $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\rho}^{(2)}(t)&=&\frac{\gamma }{2}(\bar{n}+1)\left(2a\rho
^{\left(
2\right) }(t)a^{\dagger }-a^{\dagger }a\rho ^{(2)}(t)-\rho^{(2) }(t)a^{\dagger }a\right)\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{\gamma }{2}\bar{n}\left(2a^{\dagger}\rho^{\left(
2\right)}a-aa^{\dagger }\rho ^{\left( 2\right) }\left( t\right)
-\rho^{\left(2\right)}(t) aa^{\dagger }\right).\end{aligned}$$ In principle, the above master equation can be solved by the superoperator method [@Burnett]. However, for simplicity, we only consider the zero temperature case in the following. At zero temperature, the master equation reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\rho}^{(2)}&=&\frac{\gamma }{2}\left(2a\rho ^{(2)}(t)
a^{\dagger }-a^{\dagger }a\rho^{(2)}(t) -\rho^{(2)}(t) a^{\dagger
}a\right).\end{aligned}$$ Denoting the two superoperators
$$\begin{aligned}
J\rho^{(2)}(t)&=a\rho^{(2)}(t) a^{\dagger },\\
L\rho^{(2)}(t)&=-\frac{1}{2}\left(a^{\dagger }a\rho^{(2)}(t)
+\rho^{(2)}(t)a^{\dagger }a\right),\end{aligned}$$
then the map from initial state $\rho^{(2)}(0)$ to $\rho^{(2)}(t)$ at time $t$ is determined by $$\rho^{(2)}(t)=\exp(\gamma tL)\exp[(1-\exp(-\gamma
t))J]\rho^{(2)}(0).$$
According to the initial state given in Eq. (\[eqb3\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\rho ^{\left( 2\right) }\left(
t\right)&=&\mathcal{N}_{\varphi}^{2}\left( \left\vert \beta e^{-
\frac{\gamma t}{2}}\right\rangle \left\langle \beta e^{-\frac{\gamma
t}{2} }\right\vert +e^{-i\varphi }e^{\Delta_{r}}\left\vert \beta
e^{-\frac{\gamma t}{2}}\right\rangle \left\langle -\beta
e^{-\frac{\gamma t}{
2}}\right\vert\right.\nonumber\\&&\left.+e^{i\varphi
}e^{\Delta_{r}}\left\vert -\beta e^{-\frac{\gamma
t}{2}}\right\rangle \left\langle \beta e^{-\frac{
\gamma t}{2}}\right\vert +\left\vert -\beta e^{-\frac{\gamma t}{2}%
}\right\rangle \left\langle -\beta e^{-\frac{\gamma
t}{2}}\right\vert \right),\nonumber\\\label{B10}\end{aligned}$$ where we introduce the parameter $\Delta _{r}=2\vert\beta\vert
^{2}(e^{-\gamma t}-1)$. During the derivation of the above equation (\[B10\]), we have used the formulas
$$\begin{aligned}
\exp[xJ]|r\rangle\langle s|&=\exp[ x r s^{\ast
}]\vert r\rangle\langle s\vert,\\
\exp(\gamma tL)\vert r \rangle \langle s \vert &=\exp[-(\vert
r\vert^{2}+\vert s\vert^{2})(
1-e^{-\gamma t})/2]\nonumber\\
&\times \left\vert r e^{-\frac{\gamma t}{2}}\right\rangle
\left\langle s e^{-\frac{\gamma t}{2}}\right\vert,\end{aligned}$$
for coherent states $|r\rangle$ and $|s\rangle$.
For obtaining the state in the Schrödinger picture at time $t$, we use the relation $\rho^{(1)}(t)=D(\alpha(t))\rho^{(2)}(t)D^{\dagger}(\alpha(t))$ to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&&D\left(\alpha \left( t\right) \right) \rho ^{\left( 2\right)
}\left( t\right) D^{\dagger }\left(\alpha \left( t\right)
\right)\nonumber\\
=&&\mathcal{N}_{\varphi}^{2}\left(
\left\vert \alpha \left( t\right) +\beta e^{-\frac{\gamma t}{2}
}\right\rangle \left\langle \alpha \left( t\right) +\beta
e^{-\frac{\gamma t }{2}}\right\vert
\right.\nonumber\\&&\left.+\left\vert \alpha \left( t\right) -\beta
e^{-\frac{\gamma t }{2}}\right\rangle \left\langle \alpha \left(
t\right) -\beta e^{-\frac{ \gamma t}{2}}\right\vert
\right.\nonumber\\&&\left.+e^{-i\varphi }e^{\Delta _{r}+i\Delta
_{i}}\left\vert \alpha \left( t\right) +\beta e^{-\frac{\gamma t}{2}
}\right\rangle \left\langle \alpha \left( t\right) -\beta
e^{-\frac{\gamma t }{2}}\right\vert
\right.\nonumber\\&&\left.+e^{i\varphi }e^{\Delta _{r}-i\Delta
_{i}}\left\vert \alpha \left( t\right) -\beta e^{-\frac{\gamma
t}{2}}\right\rangle \left\langle \alpha \left( t\right) +\beta
e^{-\frac{\gamma t}{2}}\right\vert \right)\end{aligned}$$ where we introduce the parameter $\Delta _{i}=2\textrm{Im}(
\alpha(t) \beta ^{\ast }\exp(-\gamma t/2))$. Here we have used the formula $$\begin{aligned}
D(\alpha)\vert\beta\rangle =e^{i\textrm{Im}(\alpha \beta ^{\ast
})}\vert\alpha+\beta\rangle\end{aligned}$$ for coherent state $\vert \beta\rangle$. And then we use the relation $\rho(t)=R(\theta)\rho^{(1)}(t)R^{\dagger}(\theta)$ to obtain the state $$\begin{aligned}
\rho \left( t\right) &=&\mathcal{N}_{\varphi}^{2}\left( \left\vert
\beta _{+}\right\rangle \left\langle \beta _{+}\right\vert
+e^{-i\varphi }e^{\Delta _{r}+i\Delta _{i}}\left\vert \beta
_{+}\right\rangle \left\langle \beta
_{-}\right\vert \right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.+e^{i\varphi }e^{\Delta _{r}-i\Delta _{i}} \left\vert \beta
_{-}\right\rangle \left\langle \beta _{+}\right\vert +\left\vert
\beta _{-}\right\rangle \left\langle \beta _{-}\right\vert\right),\end{aligned}$$ where we introduce the following two parameters $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_{\pm}=\left(\alpha(t)\pm\beta e^{-\frac{\gamma t}{2}}\right)
e^{-i\omega t}.\label{parameters}\end{aligned}$$
J. A. Sidles, J. L. Garbinni, K. J. Bruland, D. Rugar, O. Züger, S. Hoen, and C. S. Yannoni, Rev. Mod. Phys. **67**, 249 (1995). H. J. Mamin, R. Budakian, B. W. Chui, and D. Rugar, Phys. Rev. Lett. **91**, 207604 (2003); D. Rugar, R. Budakian, H. J. Mamin, and B. W. Chui, Nature (London) **430**, 329 (2004). G. P. Berman, F. Borgonovi, V. N. Gorshkov, and V. I. Tsifrinovich, *Magnetic Resonance Force Microscopy and a Single-Spin Measurement* (World Scientific, Singapore, 2006). A. N. Cleland, *Foundations of Nanomechanics: From Solid-State Theory to Device Applications* (Springer, Berlin, 2003). M. P. Blencowe, Phys. Rep. **395**, 159 (2004). K. C. Schwab and M. L. Roukes, Phys. Today **58**, 36 (2005). D. P. DiVincenzo, Phys. Rev. A **51**, 1015 (1995). G. P. Berman, G. D. Doolen, P. C. Hammel, and V. I. Tsifrinovich, Phys. Rev. B **61**, 14694 (2000). M. LaHaye, O. Buu, B. Camarota, and K. Schwab, Science **304**, 74 (2004). W. H. Zurek, Phys. Today **44**(10), 36 (1991). I. Katz, A. Retzker, R. Straub, and R. Lifshitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. **99**, 040404 (2007). A. D. Armour, M. P. Blencowe, and K. C. Schwab, Phys. Rev. Lett. **88**, 148301 (2002). W. Marshall, C. Simon, R. Penrose, and D. Bouwmeester, Phys. Rev. Lett. **91**, 130401 (2003). X. M. H. Huang, C. A. Zorman, M. Mehregany, and M. L. Roukes, Nature (London) **421**, 496 (2003). R. G. Knobel and A. N. Cleland, Nature (London) **424**, 291 (2003). A. Gaidarzhy, G. Zolfagharkhani, R. L. Badzey, and P. Mohanty, Phys. Rev. Lett. **94**, 030402 (2005). I. Wilson-Rae, P. Zoller, and A. Imamoglu, Phys. Rev. Lett. **92**, 075507 (2004). C. H. Metzger and K. Karrai, Nature (London) **432**, 1002 (2004). P. Zhang, Y. D. Wang, and C. P. Sun, Phys. Rev. Lett. **95**, 097204 (2005). A. Naik, O. Buu, M. D. LaHaye, A. D. Armour, A. A. Clerk, M. P. Blencowe, and K. C. Schwab, Nature (London) **443**, 193 (2006). S. Gigan, H. R. Böhm, M. Paternostro, F. Blaser, G. Langer, J. B. Hertzberg, K. C. Schwab, D. Bäuerle, M. Aspelmeyer, and A. Zeilinger, Nature (London) **444**, 67 (2006). O. Arcizet, P. F. Cohadon, T. Briant, M. Pinard, and A. Heidmann, Nature (London) **444**, 71 (2006). D. Kleckner and D. Bouwmeester, Nature (London) **444**, 75 (2006). M. Poggio, C. L. Degen, H. J. Mamin, and D. Rugar, Phys. Rev. Lett. **99**, 017201 (2007). I. Wilson-Rae, N. Nooshi, W. Zwerger, and T. J. Kippenberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. **99**, 093901 (2007); F. Marquardt, J. P. Chen, A. A. Clerk, and S. M. Girvin, Phys. Rev. Lett. **99**, 093902 (2007). F. Xue, Y. D. Wang, Y. X. Liu, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. B **76**, 205302 (2007). Y. Li, Y. D. Wang, F. Xue, and C. Bruder, Phys. Rev. B **78**, 134301 (2008). Y. D. Wang, Y. Li, F. Xue, C. Bruder, and K. Semba, Phys. Rev. B **80**, 144508 (2009). S. H. Ouyang, J. Q. You, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. B **79**, 075304 (2009). L. F. Wei, Y. X. Liu, C. P. Sun, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. Lett. **97**, 237201 (2006); Y. B. Gao, S. Yang, Y. X. Liu, C. P. Sun, and F. Nori, arXiv:0902.2512; Y. X. Liu, A. Miranowicz, Y. B. Gao, C. P. Sun, and F. Nori, arXiv:0910.3066. F. Xue, Y. X. Liu, C. P. Sun, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. B **76**, 064305 (2007). J. Q. Liao and L. M. Kuang, Eur. Phys. J. B **63**, 79 (2008). K. Jacobs, P. Lougovski, and M. Blencowe, Phys. Rev. Lett. **98**, 147201 (2007). J. Siewert, T. Brandes, and G. Falci, Phys. Rev. B **79**, 024504 (2009). L. Tian, Phys. Rev. B **72**, 195411 (2005). P. Rabl, A. Shnirman, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. B **70**, 205304 (2004). R. Ruskov, K. Schwab, and A. N. Korotkov, Phys. Rev. B **71**, 235407 (2005). X. X. Zhou and A. Mizel, Phys. Rev. Lett. **97**, 267201 (2006). J. Zhang, Y. X. Liu, and Franco Nori, Phys. Rev. A **79**, 052102 (2009). W. Y. Huo and G. L. Long. Appl. Phys. Lett. **92**, 133102 (2008). R. Almog, S. Zaitsev, O. Shtempluck, and E. Buks, Phys. Rev. Lett. **98**, 078103 (2007). J. Eisert, M. B. Plenio, S. Bose, and J. Hartley, Phys. Rev. Lett. **93**, 190402 (2004). S. Bose and G. S. Agarwal, New J. Phys. **8**, 34 (2005). D. Vitali, P. Tombesi, M. J. Woolley, A. C. Doherty, and G. J. Milburn, Phys. Rev. A **76**, 042336 (2007). M. O. Scully and M. S. Zubairy, *Quantum Optics* (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1997). E. K. Irish, J. Gea-Banacloche, I. Martin, and K. C. Schwab, Phys. Rev. B **72**, 195410 (2005). C. P. Sun, L. F. Wei, Y. X. Liu, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. A **73**, 022318 (2006). F. Xue, Y. D. Wang, C. P. Sun, H. Okamoto, H. Yamaguchi, and K. Semba, New J. Phys. **9**, 35 (2007). M. D. LaHaye, J. Suh, P. M. Echternach, K. C. Schwab, and M. L. Roukes, Nature (London) **459**, 960 (2009). M. P. Blencowe and E. Buks, Phys. Rev. B **76**, 014511 (2007). T. Rocheleau, T. Ndukum, C. Macklin, J. B. Hertzberg, A. A. Clerk, and K. C. Schwab, Nature **463**, 72 (2009). J. B. Hertzberg, T. Roucheleau, T. Ndukum, M. Savva, A. A. Clerk, and K. C. Schwab, Nature Physics **6**, 213 (2009). L. Tian and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. **93**, 266403 (2004). P. Treutlein, D. Hunger, S. Camerer, T. W. Hänsch, and J. Reichel, Phys. Rev. Lett. **99**, 140403 (2007). D. Hunger, S. Camerer, T. W. Hänsch, D. Kö¡§nig, J. Kotthaus, J. Reichel, and P. Treutlein, Phys. Rev. Lett. **104**, 143002 (2010). R. Kanamoto and P. Meystre, Phys. Rev. Lett. **104**, 063601 (2010). N. Lambert, I. Mahboob, M. Pioro-Ladrière, Y. Tokura, S. Tarucha, and H. Yamaguchi, Phys. Rev. Lett. **100**, 136802 (2008). N. Lambert and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. B **78**, 214302 (2008). S. D. Bennett, L. Cockins, Y. Miyahara, P. Gr¨¹tter, and A. A. Clerk, Phys. Rev. Lett. **104**, 017203 (2010); L. Cockinsa, Y. Miyaharaa, S. D. Bennetta, A. A. Clerka, S. Studenikinb, P. Pooleb, A. Sachrajdab, and P. Gruttera, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences **107**, 9496 (2010) K. Jacobs, Phys. Rev. Lett. **99**, 117203 (2007). Y. Makhlin, G. Schön, and A. Shnirman, Rev. Mod. Phys. **73**, 357 (2001). J. Q. You and F. Nori, Phys. Today **58**(11), 42 (2005). Y. Nakamura, Y. A. Pashkin, and J. S. Tsai, Nature (London) **398**, 786 (1999). Y. Makhlin, G. Schoen, and A. Shnirman, Nature (London) **398**, 305 (1999). F. Xue, L. Zhong, Y. Li, and C. P. Sun, Phys. Rev. B **75**, 033407 (2007). P. C. Haljan, K. A. Brickman, L. Deslauriers, P. J. Lee, and C. Monroe, Phys. Rev. Lett. **94**, 153602 (2005). J. Q. Liao and L. M. Kuang, J. Phys. B **40**, 1845 (2007). C. C. Gerry and P. L. Knight, *Introductory Quantum Optics* (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004). S. M. Burnett and P. M. Radmore, *Methods in Theoretical Quantum Optics* (Clarendon press, Oxford, 1997). M. Wagner, *Unitary Transformations in Solid State Physics* (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1986). H. J. Mamin, M. Poggio, C. L. Degen, and D. Rugar, Nat. Nanotechnol. **2**, 301 (2007).
[^1]: Corresponding author
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'K-means is undoubtedly the most widely used partitional clustering algorithm. Unfortunately, due to its gradient descent nature, this algorithm is highly sensitive to the initial placement of the cluster centers. Numerous initialization methods have been proposed to address this problem. Many of these methods, however, have superlinear complexity in the number of data points, making them impractical for large data sets. On the other hand, linear methods are often random and/or order-sensitive, which renders their results unrepeatable. Recently, Su and Dy proposed two highly successful hierarchical initialization methods named Var-Part and PCA-Part that are not only linear, but also deterministic (non-random) and order-invariant. In this paper, we propose a discriminant analysis based approach that addresses a common deficiency of these two methods. Experiments on a large and diverse collection of data sets from the UCI Machine Learning Repository demonstrate that Var-Part and PCA-Part are highly competitive with one of the best random initialization methods to date, i.e., k-means++, and that the proposed approach significantly improves the performance of both hierarchical methods.'
address:
- |
Department of Computer Science\
Louisiana State University, Shreveport, LA, USA\
- |
School of Electrical and Computer Engineering\
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA\
author:
- 'M. Emre Celebi'
- 'Hassan A. Kingravi'
title: 'Deterministic Initialization of the K-Means Algorithm Using Hierarchical Clustering'
---
Introduction {#sec_intro}
============
Clustering, the unsupervised classification of patterns into groups, is one of the most important tasks in exploratory data analysis [@Jain99]. Primary goals of clustering include gaining insight into data (detecting anomalies, identifying salient features, etc.), classifying data, and compressing data. Clustering has a long and rich history in a variety of scientific disciplines including anthropology, biology, medicine, psychology, statistics, mathematics, engineering, and computer science. As a result, numerous clustering algorithms have been proposed since the early 1950s [@Jain10].
Clustering algorithms can be broadly classified into two groups: hierarchical and partitional [@Jain10]. Hierarchical algorithms recursively find nested clusters either in a top-down (divisive) or bottom-up (agglomerative) fashion. In contrast, partitional algorithms find all the clusters simultaneously as a partition of the data and do not impose a hierarchical structure. Most hierarchical algorithms have quadratic or higher complexity in the number of data points [@Jain99] and therefore are not suitable for large data sets, whereas partitional algorithms often have lower complexity.
Given a data set ${{\mathcal X}}= \{ {{\bf x}}_1, {{\bf x}}_2, \dotsc, {{\bf x}}_N \}$ in $\mathbb{R}^D$, i.e., $N$ points (vectors) each with $D$ attributes (components), hard partitional algorithms divide ${{\mathcal X}}$ into $K$ exhaustive and mutually exclusive clusters $\mathcal{P} = \{ P_1, P_2, \dotsc, P_K \},$ $\;\; \bigcup\nolimits_{i = 1}^K {P_i = {{\mathcal X}}},$ $\;\; P_i \cap P_j = \emptyset$ for $1 \leq i \neq j \leq K$. These algorithms usually generate clusters by optimizing a criterion function. The most intuitive and frequently used criterion function is the Sum of Squared Error (SSE) given by: $$\label{eq_sse}
\mbox{SSE} = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^K {\sum\limits_{{{\bf x}}_j \in P_i} {\left\| {{{\bf x}}_j - {{\bf c}}_i } \right\|_2^2 } }$$ where $\| . \|_2$ denotes the Euclidean ($\mathcal{L}_2$) norm and ${{\bf c}}_i =
{1 \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {1 {\left| P_i \right|}}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\left| P_i \right|}}\sum\nolimits_{{{\bf x}}_j \in P_i} {{{\bf x}}_j}$ is the centroid of cluster $P_i$ whose cardinality is $\left| P_i \right|$. The optimization of is often referred to as the minimum SSE clustering (MSSC) problem.
The number of ways in which a set of $N$ objects can be partitioned into $K$ non-empty groups is given by Stirling numbers of the second kind: $$\label{eq_num_parts}
\mathcal{S}(N,K) =
\frac{1}
{{K!}}\sum\limits_{i = 0}^K {( - 1)^{K - i} \left( \begin{gathered}
K \hfill \\
i \hfill \\
\end{gathered} \right)} i^N$$ which can be approximated by $K^N/K!$ It can be seen that a complete enumeration of all possible clusterings to determine the global minimum of is clearly computationally prohibitive except for very small data sets [@Kaufman90]. In fact, this non-convex optimization problem is proven to be NP-hard even for $K = 2$ [@Aloise09] or $D = 2$ [@Mahajan12]. Consequently, various heuristics have been developed to provide approximate solutions to this problem [@Tarsitano03]. Among these heuristics, Lloyd’s algorithm [@Lloyd82], often referred to as the (batch) k-means algorithm, is the simplest and most commonly used one. This algorithm starts with $K$ arbitrary centers, typically chosen uniformly at random from the data points. Each point is assigned to the nearest center and then each center is recalculated as the mean of all points assigned to it. These two steps are repeated until a predefined termination criterion is met.
The k-means algorithm is undoubtedly the most widely used partitional clustering algorithm [@Jain10]. Its popularity can be attributed to several reasons. First, it is conceptually simple and easy to implement. Virtually every data mining software includes an implementation of it. Second, it is versatile, i.e., almost every aspect of the algorithm (initialization, distance function, termination criterion, etc.) can be modified. This is evidenced by hundreds of publications over the last fifty years that extend k-means in various ways. Third, it has a time complexity that is linear in $N$, $D$, and $K$ (in general, $D \ll N$ and $K \ll N$). For this reason, it can be used to initialize more expensive clustering algorithms such as expectation maximization [@Bradley98], DBSCAN [@Dash01], and spectral clustering [@Chen11]. Furthermore, numerous sequential [@Kanungo02; @Hamerly10] and parallel [@Chen10] acceleration techniques are available in the literature. Fourth, it has a storage complexity that is linear in $N$, $D$, and $K$. In addition, there exist disk-based variants that do not require all points to be stored in memory [@Ordonez04]. Fifth, it is guaranteed to converge [@Selim84] at a quadratic rate [@Bottou95]. Finally, it is invariant to data ordering, i.e., random shufflings of the data points.
On the other hand, k-means has several significant disadvantages. First, it requires the number of clusters, $K$, to be specified in advance. The value of this parameter can be determined automatically by means of various internal/relative cluster validity measures [@Vendramin10]. Second, it can only detect compact, hyperspherical clusters that are well separated. This can be alleviated by using a more general distance function such as the Mahalanobis distance, which permits the detection of hyperellipsoidal clusters [@Mao96]. Third, due its utilization of the squared Euclidean distance, it is sensitive to noise and outlier points since even a few such points can significantly influence the means of their respective clusters. This can be addressed by outlier pruning [@Zhang03] or using a more robust distance function such as City-block ($\mathcal{L}_1$) distance. Fourth, due to its gradient descent nature, it often converges to a local minimum of the criterion function [@Selim84]. For the same reason, it is highly sensitive to the selection of the initial centers [@Celebi13a]. Adverse effects of improper initialization include empty clusters, slower convergence, and a higher chance of getting stuck in bad local minima [@Celebi11]. Fortunately, except for the first two, these drawbacks can be remedied by using an adaptive initialization method (IM).
A large number of IMs have been proposed in the literature [@Pena99; @He04; @Celebi11; @Celebi13a]. Unfortunately, many of these have superlinear complexity in $N$ [@Lance67; @Astrahan70; @Hartigan79; @Kaufman90; @Likas03; @AlDaoud05; @Redmond07; @AlHasan09; @Cao09; @Kang09], which makes them impractical for large data sets (note that k-means itself has linear complexity). In contrast, linear IMs are often random and/or order-sensitive [@Forgy65; @Jancey66; @MacQueen67; @Ball67; @Tou74; @Spath77; @Bradley98; @Arthur07], which renders their results unrepeatable. Su and Dy proposed two divisive hierarchical initialization methods named Var-Part and PCA-Part that are not only linear, but also deterministic and order-invariant [@Su07]. In this study, we propose a simple modification to these methods that improves their performance significantly.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section \[sec\_init\_methods\] presents a brief overview of some of the most popular linear, order-invariant k-means IMs and the proposed modification to Var-Part and PCA-Part. Section \[sec\_exp\] presents the experimental results, while Section \[sec\_disc\] analyzes these results. Finally, Section \[sec\_conc\] gives the conclusions.
Linear, Order-Invariant Initialization Methods for K-Means {#sec_init_methods}
==========================================================
Overview of the Existing Methods
--------------------------------
Forgy’s method [@Forgy65] assigns each point to one of the $K$ clusters uniformly at random. The centers are then given by the centroids of these initial clusters. This method has no theoretical basis, as such random clusters have no internal homogeneity [@Anderberg73].
MacQueen [@MacQueen67] proposed two different methods. The first one, which is the default option in the Quick Cluster procedure of IBM SPSS Statistics [@Norusis11], takes the first $K$ points in ${{\mathcal X}}$ as the centers. An obvious drawback of this method is its sensitivity to data ordering. The second method chooses the centers randomly from the data points. The rationale behind this method is that random selection is likely to pick points from dense regions, i.e., points that are good candidates to be centers. However, there is no mechanism to avoid choosing outliers or points that are too close to each other [@Anderberg73]. Multiple runs of this method is the standard way of initializing k-means [@Bradley98]. It should be noted that this second method is often mistakenly attributed to Forgy [@Forgy65].
The maximin method [@Gonzalez85] chooses the first center ${{\bf c}}_1$ arbitrarily and the $i$-th ($i \in \{2, 3, \dotsc, K\}$) center ${{\bf c}}_i$ is chosen to be the point that has the greatest minimum-distance to the previously selected centers, i.e., ${{\bf c}}_1, {{\bf c}}_2, \dotsc, {{\bf c}}_{i-1}$. This method was originally developed as a $2$-approximation to the $K$-center clustering problem[^1].
The k-means++ method [@Arthur07] interpolates between MacQueen’s second method and the maximin method. It chooses the first center randomly and the $i$-th ($i \in \{ 2, 3, \dotsc, K \}$) center is chosen to be ${{\bf x}}' \in {{\mathcal X}}$ with a probability of $\frac{{md\left( {{{\bf x}}'} \right)^2 }}{{\sum\nolimits_{j = 1}^N {md({{\bf x}}_j)^2 }}}$, where $md({{\bf x}})$ denotes the minimum-distance from a point ${{\bf x}}$ to the previously selected centers. This method yields an $\Theta(\log{K})$ approximation to the MSSC problem.
The PCA-Part method [@Su07] uses a divisive hierarchical approach based on PCA (Principal Component Analysis) [@Hotelling36]. Starting from an initial cluster that contains the entire data set, the method iteratively selects the cluster with the greatest SSE and divides it into two subclusters using a hyperplane that passes through the cluster centroid and is orthogonal to the principal eigenvector of the cluster covariance matrix. This procedure is repeated until $K$ clusters are obtained. The centers are then given by the centroids of these clusters. The Var-Part method [@Su07] is an approximation to PCA-Part, where the covariance matrix of the cluster to be split is assumed to be diagonal. In this case, the splitting hyperplane is orthogonal to the coordinate axis with the greatest variance.
Figure \[fig\_varpart\_ruspini\] illustrates the Var-Part procedure on a toy data set with four natural clusters [@Ruspini70]. In iteration $1$, the initial cluster that contains the entire data set is split into two subclusters along the Y axis using a line (one-dimensional hyperplane) that passes through the mean point ($92.026667$). Between the resulting two clusters, the one above the line has a greater SSE. In iteration $2$, this cluster is therefore split along the X axis at the mean point ($66.975000$). In the final iteration, the cluster with the greatest SSE, i.e., the bottom cluster, is split along the X axis at the mean point ($41.057143$). In Figure \[part\_d\], the centroids of the final four clusters are denoted by stars.
\
Proposed Modification to Var-Part and PCA-Part {#sec_mod}
----------------------------------------------
Su and Dy [@Su07] demonstrated that, besides being computationally efficient, Var-Part and PCA-Part perform very well on a variety of data sets. Recall that in each iteration these methods select the cluster with the greatest SSE and then project the $D$-dimensional points in this cluster on a partitioning axis. The difference between the two methods is the choice of this axis. In Var-Part, the partitioning axis is the coordinate axis with the greatest variance, whereas in PCA-Part it is the major axis. After the projection operation, both methods use the *mean* point on the partitioning axis as a ‘threshold’ to divide the points between two clusters. In other words, each point is assigned to one of the two subclusters depending on which side of the *mean* point its projection falls to. It should be noted that the choice of this threshold is primarily motivated by computational convenience. Here, we propose a better alternative based on discriminant analysis.
The projections of the points on the partitioning axis can be viewed as a discrete probability distribution, which can be conveniently represented by a histogram. The problem of dividing a histogram into two partitions is a well studied one in the field of image processing. A plethora of histogram partitioning, a.k.a. thresholding, methods has been proposed in the literature with the early ones dating back to the 1960s [@Sezgin04]. Among these, Otsu’s method [@Otsu79] has become the method of choice as confirmed by numerous comparative studies [@Sahoo88; @Lee90; @Trier95; @Sezgin04; @Medina05; @Celebi13b].
Given an image represented by $L$ gray levels $\left\{ 0, 1, \dotsc, L - 1\right\}$, a thresholding method partitions the image pixels into two classes $\mathcal{C}_0 = \left\{ 0, 1, \dotsc, t \right\}$ and $\mathcal{C}_1 = \{ t + 1, t + 2,$ $\dotsc, L - 1 \}$ (object and background, or vice versa) at gray level $t$. In other words, pixels with gray levels less than or equal to the threshold $t$ are assigned to $\mathcal{C}_0$, whereas the remaining pixels are assigned to $\mathcal{C}_1$.
Let $n_i$ be the number of pixels with gray level $i$. The total number of pixels in the image is then given by $n = \sum\nolimits_{i = 0}^{L - 1}{n_i}$. The normalized gray level histogram of the image can be regarded as a probability mass function: $$p_i = \frac{n_i}{n},\quad p_i \ge 0,\quad \sum\limits_{i = 0}^{L - 1} {p_i} = 1$$
Let $p_0(t) = \sum\nolimits_{i = 0}^t {p_i}$ and $p_1(t) = 1 - p_0(t)$ denote the probabilities of $\mathcal{C}_0$ and $\mathcal{C}_1$, respectively. The means of the respective classes are then given by: $$\begin{array}{l}
\mu _0 (t) = {{\mu (t)} \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{\mu (t)} {p_0 (t)}}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {p_0 (t)}} \\
\mu _1 (t) = {{\left( {\mu _T - \mu (t)} \right)} \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{\left( {\mu _T - \mu (t)} \right)} {p_1 (t)}}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {p_1 (t)}} \\
\end{array}$$ where $\mu(t) = \sum\nolimits_{i = 0}^t {ip_i}$ and $\mu_T = \mu(L - 1)$ denote the first moment of the histogram up to gray level $t$ and mean gray level of the image, respectively.
Otsu’s method adopts between-class variance, i.e., $\sigma_B^2(t) = p_0(t) p_1(t) \left[ {\mu_0(t) - \mu_1(t)} \right]^2$, from the discriminant analysis literature as its objective function and determines the optimal threshold $t^*$ as the gray level that maximizes $\sigma_B^2(t)$, i.e., $t^* = \mathop {{\mathop{\rm argmax}\nolimits} }\limits_{t \in \left\{0,1,\dotsc,L - 1 \right\}} \sigma_B^2(t)$. Between-class variance can be viewed as a measure of class separability or histogram bimodality. It can be efficiently calculated using: $$\sigma_B^2(t) = \frac{{\left[ {\mu_T p_0(t) - \mu(t)} \right]^2 }}{{p_0(t) p_1(t)}}$$
It should be noted that the efficiency of Otsu’s method can be attributed to the fact that it operates on histogrammed pixel gray values, which are non-negative integers. Var-Part and PCA-Part, on the other hand, operate on the projections of the points on the partitioning axis, which are often fractional. This problem can be circumvented by linearly scaling the projection values to the limits of the histogram, i.e., $0$ and $L-1$. Let $y_i$ be the projection of a point ${{\bf x}}_i$ on the partitioning axis. $y_i$ can be mapped to histogram bin $b$ given by: $$b = \left\lfloor {\frac{{L\left( {y_i - \mathop {\min }\limits_j y_j } \right)}}{{\mathop {\max }\limits_j y_j - \mathop {\min}\limits_j y_j }}} \right\rfloor$$ where $\lfloor z \rfloor$ is the floor function which returns the largest integer less than or equal to $z$.
The computational complexities of histogram construction and Otsu’s method are $\mathcal{O}(N_i)$ ($N_i$: number of points in the cluster) and $\mathcal{O}(L)$, respectively. $L$ is constant in our experiments and therefore the proposed modification does not alter the linear time complexity of Var-Part and PCA-Part.
Figure \[fig\_histo\] shows a histogram where using the mean point as a threshold leads to poor results. This histogram is constructed during the first iteration of PCA-Part from the projections of the points in the Shuttle data set (see Table \[tab\_data\_set\]). As marked on the figure, the mean point of this histogram is $61$, whereas Otsu’s method gives a threshold of $105$. The SSE of the initial cluster is $1,836$. When the mean point of the histogram is used a threshold, the resulting two subclusters have SSE’s of $408$ and $809$. This means that splitting the initial cluster with a hyperplane orthogonal to the principal eigenvector of the cluster covariance matrix at the mean point results in approximately $34$% reduction in the SSE. On the other hand, when Otsu’s threshold is used, the subclusters have SSE’s of $943$ and $101$, which translates to about $43$% reduction in the SSE. In the next section, we will demonstrate that using Otsu’s threshold instead of the mean point often leads to significantly better initial clusterings on a variety of data sets.
![\[fig\_histo\] Comparison of mean point and Otsu’s thresholds](otsupca_shuttle_histo){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
Experimental Results {#sec_exp}
====================
The experiments were performed on $24$ commonly used data sets from the UCI Machine Learning Repository [@Frank12]. Table \[tab\_data\_set\] gives the data set descriptions. For each data set, the number of clusters ($K$) was set equal to the number of classes ($K'$), as commonly seen in the related literature [@He04; @Arthur07; @Su07; @Redmond07; @AlHasan09; @Cao09; @Kang09; @Onoda12].
In clustering applications, normalization is a common preprocessing step that is necessary to prevent attributes with large ranges from dominating the distance calculations and also to avoid numerical instabilities in the computations. Two commonly used normalization schemes are linear scaling to unit range (min-max normalization) and linear scaling to unit variance (z-score normalization). Several studies revealed that the former scheme is preferable to the latter since the latter is likely to eliminate valuable between-cluster variation [@Milligan88; @Su07]. As a result, we used min-max normalization to map the attributes of each data set to the $[0,1]$ interval.
ID Data Set $N$ $D$ $K'$
---- ------------------------------------ -------- ----- ------
1 Abalone 4,177 7 28
2 Breast Cancer Wisconsin (Original) 683 9 2
3 Breast Tissue 106 9 6
4 Ecoli 336 7 8
5 Glass Identification 214 9 6
6 Heart Disease 297 13 5
7 Ionosphere 351 34 2
8 Iris (Bezdek) 150 4 3
9 ISOLET 7,797 617 26
10 Landsat Satellite (Statlog) 6,435 36 6
11 Letter Recognition 20,000 16 26
12 MAGIC Gamma Telescope 19,020 10 2
13 Multiple Features (Fourier) 2,000 76 10
14 Musk (Clean2) 6,598 166 2
15 Optical Digits 5,620 64 10
16 Page Blocks Classification 5,473 10 5
17 Pima Indians Diabetes 768 8 2
18 Shuttle (Statlog) 58,000 9 7
19 Spambase 4,601 57 2
20 SPECTF Heart 267 44 2
21 Wall-Following Robot Navigation 5,456 24 4
22 Wine Quality 6,497 11 7
23 Wine 178 13 3
24 Yeast 1,484 8 10
: \[tab\_data\_set\] Data Set Descriptions ($N$: \# points, $D$: \# attributes, $K'$: \# classes)
The performance of the IMs was quantified using two effectiveness (quality) and two efficiency (speed) criteria:
- [**Initial SSE**]{}: This is the SSE value calculated after the initialization phase, before the clustering phase. It gives us a measure of the effectiveness of an IM by itself.
- [**Final SSE**]{}: This is the SSE value calculated after the clustering phase. It gives us a measure of the effectiveness of an IM when its output is refined by k-means. Note that this is the objective function of the k-means algorithm, i.e., .
- [**Number of Iterations**]{}: This is the number of iterations that k-means requires until reaching convergence when initialized by a particular IM. It is an efficiency measure independent of programming language, implementation style, compiler, and CPU architecture.
- [**CPU Time**]{}: This is the total CPU time in milliseconds taken by the initialization and clustering phases.
All of the methods were implemented in the `C` language, compiled with the `gcc` v4.4.3 compiler, and executed on an Intel Xeon E5520 2.26GHz machine. Time measurements were performed using the `getrusage` function, which is capable of measuring CPU time to an accuracy of a microsecond. The MT19937 variant of the Mersenne Twister algorithm was used to generate high quality pseudorandom numbers [@Matsumoto98].
The convergence of k-means was controlled by the disjunction of two criteria: the number of iterations reaches a maximum of $100$ or the relative improvement in SSE between two consecutive iterations drops below a threshold, i.e., $ {{\left( {\mbox{SSE}_{i - 1} - \mbox{SSE}_i} \right)} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\left( {\mbox{SSE}_{i - 1} - \mbox{SSE}_i} \right)} {\mbox{SSE}_i}}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\mbox{SSE}_i}} \leq \varepsilon $, where $\mbox{SSE}_i$ denotes the SSE value at the end of the $i$-th ($i \in \{ 1, 2, \dotsc, 100 \}$) iteration. The convergence threshold was set to $\varepsilon = 10^{-6}$.
In this study, we focus on IMs that have time complexity linear in $N$. This is because k-means itself has linear complexity, which is perhaps the most important reason for its popularity. Therefore, an IM for k-means should not diminish this advantage of the algorithm. The proposed methods, named Otsu Var-Part (`OV`) and Otsu PCA-Part (`OP`), were compared to six popular, linear, order-invariant IMs: Forgy’s method (`F`), MacQueen’s second method (`M`), maximin (`X`), k-means++ (`K`), Var-Part (`V`), and PCA-Part (`P`). It should be noted that among these methods `F`, `M`, and `K` are random, whereas `X`[^2], `V`, `P`, `OV`, and `OP` are deterministic.
We first examine the influence of $L$ (number of histogram bins) on the performance of `OV` and `OP`. Tables \[tab\_num\_bins\_var\] and \[tab\_num\_bins\_pca\] show the initial and final SSE values obtained by respectively `OV` and `OP` for $L = 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024$ on four of the largest data sets (the best values are [underlined]{}). It can be seen that the performances of both methods are relatively insensitive to the value of $L$. Therefore, in the subsequent experiments we report the results for $L = 256$.
ID Criterion $L=64$ $L=128$ $L=256$ $L=512$ $L=1024$
---- ------------- ------------ ----------- ------------ ----------- -----------
9 Initial SSE [143859]{} 144651 144658 144637 144638
Final SSE 118267 119127 [118033]{} 118033 118034
10 Initial SSE 1987 1920 [1919]{} 1920 1920
Final SSE [1742]{} [1742]{} [1742]{} [1742]{} [1742]{}
11 Initial SSE 3242 [3192]{} 3231 3202 3202
Final SSE 2742 [2734]{} [2734]{} [2734]{} [2734]{}
15 Initial SSE [17448]{} 17504 17504 17504 17504
Final SSE [14581]{} [14581]{} [14581]{} [14581]{} [14581]{}
: \[tab\_num\_bins\_var\] Influence of $L$ on the effectiveness of Otsu Var-Part ($L$: \# histogram bins)
ID Criterion $L=64$ $L=128$ $L=256$ $L=512$ $L=1024$
---- ------------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------ -----------
9 Initial SSE 123527 123095 [122528]{} 123129 123342
Final SSE 118575 118577 119326 [118298]{} 118616
10 Initial SSE 1855 [1807]{} 1835 1849 1848
Final SSE [1742]{} [1742]{} [1742]{} [1742]{} [1742]{}
11 Initial SSE 2994 2997 2995 2995 [2991]{}
Final SSE [2747]{} [2747]{} [2747]{} [2747]{} [2747]{}
15 Initial SSE 15136 15117 15118 [15116]{} 15117
Final SSE [14650]{} [14650]{} [14650]{} [14650]{} [14650]{}
: \[tab\_num\_bins\_pca\] Influence of $L$ on the effectiveness of Otsu PCA-Part ($L$: \# histogram bins)
In the remaining experiments, each random method was executed a $100$ times and statistics such as *minimum*, *mean*, and *standard deviation* were collected for each performance criteria. The *minimum* and *mean* statistics represent the *best* and *average* case performance, respectively, while *standard deviation* quantifies the *variability* of performance across different runs. Note that for a deterministic method, the *minimum* and *mean* values are always identical and the *standard deviation* is always $0$.
Tables \[tab\_init\_sse\]–\[tab\_cpu\_time\] give the performance measurements for each method with respect to initial SSE, final SSE, number of iterations, and CPU time, respectively. For each of the initial SSE, final SSE, and number of iterations criteria, we calculated the ratio of the *minimum*/*mean*/*standard deviation* value obtained by each method to the best (least) *minimum*/*mean*/*standard deviation* value on each data set. These ratios will be henceforth referred to as the ‘normalized’ performance criteria. For example, on the Abalone data set (1), the *minimum* initial SSE of `F` is $424.92$ and the best *minimum* initial SSE is $21.57$ and thus the normalized initial SSE is about $20$. This simply means that on this data set `F` obtained approximately $20$ times worse *minimum* initial SSE than the best method. We then averaged[^3] these normalized values over the $24$ data sets to quantify the *overall* performance of each method with respect to each statistic (see Table \[tab\_summary\]). Note that we did not attempt to summarize the CPU time values in the same manner due to the sparsity of the data (see Table \[tab\_cpu\_time\]). For convenient visualization, Figure \[fig\_boxplots\] shows box plots of the normalized performance criteria. Here, the bottom and top end of the whiskers of a box represent the *minimum* and *maximum*, respectively, whereas the bottom and top of the box itself are the $25$th percentile (*Q1*) and $75$th percentile (*Q3*), respectively. The line that passes through the box is the $50$th percentile (*Q2*), i.e., the *median*, while the small square inside the box denotes the *mean*.
Discussion {#sec_disc}
==========
Best Case Performance Analysis
------------------------------
With respect to the *minimum* statistic, the following observations can be made:
- [**Initial SSE**]{}: `OP` is the best method, followed closely by `P`, `OV`, and `V`. On the other hand, `F` is the worst method, followed by `X`. These two methods give $2$–$3$ times worse *minimum* initial SSE than the best method. It can be seen that multiple runs of random methods do not produce good initial clusterings. In contrast, only a single run of `OP`, `P`, `OV`, or `V` often gives very good results. This is because these methods are approximate clustering algorithms by themselves and thus they give reasonable results even without k-means refinement.
- [**Final SSE**]{}: `X` is the worst method, while the remaining methods exhibit very similar performance. This homogeneity in performance is because k-means can take two disparate initial configurations to similar (or even identical) local minima. Given the abundance of local minima even in data sets of moderate size and/or dimensionality and the gradient descent nature of k-means, it is not surprising that the deterministic methods (except `X`) perform slightly worse than the random methods as the former methods were executed only once, whereas the latter ones were executed a $100$ times.
- [**Number of Iterations**]{}: `K` is the best method, followed by `M` and `F`. `X` is the worst method. As in the case of final SSE, random methods outperform deterministic methods due to their multiple-run advantage.
Average Case Performance Analysis
---------------------------------
With respect to the *mean* statistic, the following observations can be made:
- [**Initial SSE**]{}: `OP` is the best method, followed closely by `P`, `OV`, and `V`. The remaining methods give $1.7$–$3.2$ times worse *mean* initial SSE than any of these hierarchical methods. Random methods exhibit significantly worse *average* performance than the deterministic ones because the former methods can produce highly variable results across different runs (see the standard deviation values in Table \[tab\_init\_sse\]).
- [**Final SSE**]{}: This is similar to the case of *minimum* final SSE, with the difference that deterministic methods (except `X`) are now slightly better than the random ones. Once again, this is because random methods can produce highly variable results due to their stochastic nature.
- [**Number of Iterations**]{}: The ranking of the methods is similar to the case of *mean* final SSE.
Consistency Analysis
--------------------
With respect to the *standard deviation* statistic, `F` is significantly better than both `M` and `K`. If, however, the application requires absolute consistency, i.e., exactly the same clustering in every run, a deterministic IM should be used.
CPU Time Analysis
-----------------
It can be seen from Table \[tab\_cpu\_time\] that, on about half of the data sets, each of the IMs require less than a few milliseconds of CPU time. On the other hand, on large and/or high-dimensional data sets efficiency differences become more prominent. It should be noted that each of the values reported in this table corresponds to a single k-means ‘run’. In practice, a random method is typically executed $R$ times, e.g., in this study $R=100$, and the output of the run that gives the least final SSE is taken as the result. Therefore, the total computational cost of a random method is often significantly higher than that of a deterministic method. For example, on the ISOLET data set, which has the greatest $N \times D \times K$ value among all the data sets, `K` took on the average $3,397$ milliseconds, whereas `OP` took $12,460$ milliseconds. The latter method, however, required about $27$ times less CPU time than the former one since the former was executed a total of $100$ times.
Relative Performance Analysis
-----------------------------
We also determined the number of data sets (out of 24) on which `OV` and `OP` respectively performed $\{$worse than/same as/better than$\}$ `V` and `P`. Tables \[tab\_rel\_var\] and \[tab\_rel\_pca\] present the results for `OV` and `OP`, respectively. It can be seen that, with respect to initial SSE and number of iterations criteria, `OV` outperforms `V` more often than not. On the other hand, `OP` frequently outperforms `P` with respect to both criteria. As for final SSE, `OP` performs slightly better than `P`, whereas `OV` performs slightly worse than `V`. It appears that Otsu’s method benefits `P` more than it benefits `V`. This is most likely due to the fact that histograms of projections over the major axis necessarily have a greater dynamic range and variability and thus are more amenable to thresholding compared to histograms of projections over any coordinate axis.
Recommendations for Practitioners
---------------------------------
Based on the analyses presented above, the following recommendations can be made:
- In general, `X` should not be used. As mentioned in Section \[sec\_init\_methods\], this method was not designed specifically as a k-means initializer [@Gonzalez85]. It is easy to understand and implement, but is mostly ineffective and unreliable. Furthermore, despite its low overhead, this method does not offer significant time savings since it often results in slow k-means convergence.
- In applications that involve small data sets, e.g., $N < 1,000$, `K` should be used. It is computationally feasible to run this method hundreds of times on such data sets given that one such run takes only a few milliseconds.
- In time-critical applications that involve large data sets or applications that demand determinism, the hierarchical methods should be used. These methods need to be executed only once and they lead to reasonably fast k-means convergence. The efficiency difference between `V`/`OV` and `P`/`OP` is noticeable only on high dimensional data sets such as ISOLET ($D=617$) and Musk ($D=166$). This is because `V`/`OV` calculates the direction of split by determining the coordinate axis with the greatest variance (in $\mathcal{O}(D)$ time), whereas `P`/`OP` achieves this by calculating the principal eigenvector of the cluster covariance matrix (in $\mathcal{O}(D^2)$ time using the power method [@Hotelling36]). Note that despite its higher computational complexity, `P`/`OP` can, in some cases, be more efficient than `V`/`OV` (see Table \[tab\_cpu\_time\]). This is because the former converges significantly faster than the latter (see Table \[tab\_summary\]). The main disadvantage of these methods is that they are more complicated to implement due to their hierarchical formulation.
- In applications where an approximate clustering of the data set is desired, the hierarchical methods should be used. These methods produce very good initial clusterings, which makes it possible to use them as standalone clustering algorithms.
- Among the hierarchical methods, the ones based on PCA, i.e., `P` and `OP`, are preferable to those based on variance, i.e., `V` and `OV`. Furthermore, the proposed `OP` and `OV` methods generally outperform their respective counterparts, i.e., `P` and `V`, especially with respect to initial SSE and number of iterations.
Conclusions {#sec_conc}
===========
In this paper, we presented a simple modification to Var-Part and PCA-Part, two hierarchical k-means initialization methods that are linear, deterministic, and order-invariant. We compared the original methods and their modified versions to some of the most popular linear initialization methods, namely Forgy’s method, Macqueen’s second method, maximin, and k-means++, on a large and diverse collection of data sets from the UCI Machine Learning Repository. The results demonstrated that, despite their deterministic nature, Var-Part and PCA-Part are highly competitive with one of the best random initialization methods to date, i.e., k-means++. In addition, the proposed modification significantly improves the performance of both hierarchical methods. The presented Var-Part and PCA-Part variants can be used to initialize k-means effectively, particularly in time-critical applications that involve large data sets. Alternatively, they can be used as approximate clustering algorithms without additional k-means refinement.
Acknowledgments
===============
This publication was made possible by grants from the Louisiana Board of Regents (LEQSF2008-11-RD-A-12) and National Science Foundation (0959583, 1117457).
[10]{}
A. K. Jain, M. N. Murty, and P. J. Flynn, “[Data Clustering: A Review]{},” [ *ACM Computing Surveys*]{}, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 264–323, 1999.
A. K. Jain, “[Data Clustering: 50 Years Beyond K-Means]{},” [*Pattern Recognition Letters*]{}, vol. 31, no. 8, pp. 651–666, 2010.
L. Kaufman and P. Rousseeuw, [*[Finding Groups in Data: An Introduction to Cluster Analysis]{}*]{}. Wiley-Interscience, 1990.
D. Aloise, A. Deshpande, P. Hansen, and P. Popat, “[NP-Hardness of Euclidean Sum-of-Squares Clustering]{},” [*Machine Learning*]{}, vol. 75, no. 2, pp. 245–248, 2009.
M. Mahajan, P. Nimbhorkar, and K. Varadarajan, “[The Planar k-Means Problem is NP-hard]{},” [*Theoretical Computer Science*]{}, vol. 442, pp. 13–21, 2012.
A. Tarsitano, “[A Computational Study of Several Relocation Methods for K-Means Algorithms]{},” [*Pattern Recognition*]{}, vol. 36, no. 12, pp. 2955–2966, 2003.
S. Lloyd, “[Least Squares Quantization in PCM]{},” [*IEEE Transactions on Information Theory*]{}, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 129–136, 1982.
P. S. Bradley and U. Fayyad, “[Refining Initial Points for K-Means Clustering]{},” in [*Proc. of the 15th Int. Conf. on Machine Learning*]{}, pp. 91–99, 1998.
M. Dash, H. Liu, and X. Xu, “[’$1 +1 > 2$’: Merging Distance and Density Based Clustering]{},” in [*Proc. of the 7th Int. Conf. on Database Systems for Advanced Applications*]{}, pp. 32–39, 2001.
W. Y. Chen, Y. Song, H. Bai, C. J. Lin, and E. Y. Chang, “[Parallel Spectral Clustering in Distributed Systems]{},” [*IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence*]{}, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 568–586, 2011.
T. Kanungo, D. Mount, N. Netanyahu, C. Piatko, R. Silverman, and A. Wu, “[An Efficient K-Means Clustering Algorithm: Analysis and Implementation]{},” [ *IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence*]{}, vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 881–892, 2002.
G. Hamerly, “[Making k-means Even Faster]{},” in [*Proc. of the 2010 SIAM Int. Conf. on Data Mining*]{}, pp. 130–140, 2010.
T. W. Chen and S. Y. Chien, “[Bandwidth Adaptive Hardware Architecture of K-Means Clustering for Video Analysis]{},” [*IEEE Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI) Systems*]{}, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 957–966, 2010.
C. Ordonez and E. Omiecinski, “[Efficient Disk-Based K-Means Clustering for Relational Databases]{},” [*IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering*]{}, vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 909–921, 2004.
S. Z. Selim and M. A. Ismail, “[K-Means-Type Algorithms: A Generalized Convergence Theorem and Characterization of Local Optimality]{},” [*IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence*]{}, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 81–87, 1984.
L. Bottou and Y. Bengio, “[Convergence Properties of the K-Means Algorithms]{},” in [*[Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 7]{}*]{} (G. Tesauro, D. S. Touretzky, and T. K. Leen, eds.), pp. 585–592, MIT Press, 1995.
L. Vendramin, R. J. G. B. Campello, and E. R. Hruschka, “[Relative Clustering Validity Criteria: A Comparative Overview]{},” [*Statistical Analysis and Data Mining*]{}, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 209–235, 2010.
J. Mao and A. K. Jain, “[A Self-Organizing Network for Hyperellipsoidal Clustering (HEC)]{},” [*IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks*]{}, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 16–29, 1996.
J. S. Zhang and Y.-W. Leung, “[Robust Clustering by Pruning Outliers]{},” [ *IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics – Part B*]{}, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 983–999, 2003.
M. E. Celebi, H. Kingravi, and P. A. Vela, “[A Comparative Study of Efficient Initialization Methods for the K-Means Clustering Algorithm]{},” [*Expert Systems with Applications*]{}, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 200–210, 2013.
M. E. Celebi, “[Improving the Performance of K-Means for Color Quantization]{},” [*Image and Vision Computing*]{}, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 260–271, 2011.
J. M. Pena, J. A. Lozano, and P. Larranaga, “[An Empirical Comparison of Four Initialization Methods for the K-Means Algorithm]{},” [*Pattern Recognition Letters*]{}, vol. 20, no. 10, pp. 1027–1040, 1999.
J. He, M. Lan, C. L. Tan, S. Y. Sung, and H. B. Low, “[Initialization of Cluster Refinement Algorithms: A Review and Comparative Study]{},” in [ *Proc. of the 2004 IEEE Int. Joint Conf. on Neural Networks*]{}, pp. 297–302, 2004.
G. N. Lance and W. T. Williams, “[A General Theory of Classificatory Sorting Strategies - II. Clustering Systems]{},” [*The Computer Journal*]{}, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 271–277, 1967.
M. M. Astrahan, “[Speech Analysis by Clustering, or the Hyperphoneme Method]{},” Tech. Rep. AIM-124, Stanford University, 1970.
J. A. Hartigan and M. A. Wong, “[Algorithm AS 136: A K-Means Clustering Algorithm]{},” [*Journal of the Royal Statistical Society C*]{}, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 100–108, 1979.
A. Likas, N. Vlassis, and J. Verbeek, “[The Global K-Means Clustering Algorithm]{},” [*Pattern Recognition*]{}, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 451–461, 2003.
M. Al-Daoud, “[A New Algorithm for Cluster Initialization]{},” in [*Proc. of the 2nd World Enformatika Conf.*]{}, pp. 74–76, 2005.
S. J. Redmond and C. Heneghan, “[A Method for Initialising the K-Means Clustering Algorithm Using kd-trees]{},” [*Pattern Recognition Letters*]{}, vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 965–973, 2007.
M. Al Hasan, V. Chaoji, S. Salem, and M. Zaki, “[Robust Partitional Clustering by Outlier and Density Insensitive Seeding]{},” [*Pattern Recognition Letters*]{}, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 994–1002, 2009.
F. Cao, J. Liang, and G. Jiang, “[An Initialization Method for the K-Means Algorithm Using Neighborhood Model]{},” [*Computers and Mathematics with Applications*]{}, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 474–483, 2009.
P. Kang and S. Cho, “[K-Means Clustering Seeds Initialization Based on Centrality, Sparsity, and Isotropy]{},” in [*Proc. of the 10th Int. Conf. on Intelligent Data Engineering and Automated Learning*]{}, pp. 109–117, 2009.
E. Forgy, “[Cluster Analysis of Multivariate Data: Efficiency vs. Interpretability of Classification]{},” [*Biometrics*]{}, vol. 21, p. 768, 1965.
R. C. Jancey, “[Multidimensional Group Analysis]{},” [*Australian Journal of Botany*]{}, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 127–130, 1966.
J. MacQueen, “[Some Methods for Classification and Analysis of Multivariate Observations]{},” in [*Proc. of the 5th Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability*]{}, pp. 281–297, 1967.
G. H. Ball and D. J. Hall, “[A Clustering Technique for Summarizing Multivariate Data]{},” [*Behavioral Science*]{}, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 153–155, 1967.
J. T. Tou and R. C. Gonzales, [*[Pattern Recognition Principles]{}*]{}. Addison-Wesley, 1974.
H. Späth, “[Computational Experiences with the Exchange Method: Applied to Four Commonly Used Partitioning Cluster Analysis Criteria]{},” [*European Journal of Operational Research*]{}, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 23–31, 1977.
D. Arthur and S. Vassilvitskii, “[k-means++: The Advantages of Careful Seeding]{},” in [*Proc. of the 18th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms*]{}, pp. 1027–1035, 2007.
T. Su and J. G. Dy, “[In Search of Deterministic Methods for Initializing K-Means and Gaussian Mixture Clustering]{},” [*Intelligent Data Analysis*]{}, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 319–338, 2007.
M. R. Anderberg, [*[Cluster Analysis for Applications]{}*]{}. Academic Press, 1973.
M. J. Norušis, [*[IBM SPSS Statistics 19 Statistical Procedures Companion]{}*]{}. Addison Wesley, 2011.
T. Gonzalez, “[Clustering to Minimize the Maximum Intercluster Distance]{},” [*Theoretical Computer Science*]{}, vol. 38, no. 2–3, pp. 293–306, 1985.
H. Hotelling, “[Simplified Calculation of Principal Components]{},” [ *Psychometrika*]{}, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 27–35, 1936.
E. H. Ruspini, “[Numerical Methods for Fuzzy Clustering]{},” [*Information Sciences*]{}, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 319–350, 1970.
M. Sezgin and B. Sankur, “[Survey over Image Thresholding Techniques and Quantitative Performance Evaluation]{},” [*Journal of Electronic Imaging*]{}, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 146–165, 2004.
N. Otsu, “[A Threshold Selection Method from Gray Level Histograms]{},” [ *IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics*]{}, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 62–66, 1979.
P. K. Sahoo, S. Soltani, and A. K. C. Wong, “[A Survey of Thresholding Techniques]{},” [*Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing*]{}, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 233–260, 1988.
S. U. Lee, S. Y. Chung, and R. H. Park, “[A Comparative Performance Study of Several Global Thresholding Techniques]{},” [*Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing*]{}, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 171–190, 1990.
O. D. Trier and T. Taxt, “[Evaluation of Binarization Methods for Document Images]{},” [*IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence*]{}, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 312–315, 1995.
R. Medina-Carnicer, F. J. Madrid-Cuevas, N. L. Fernandez-Garcia, and A. Carmona-Poyato, “[Evaluation of Global Thresholding Techniques in Non-Contextual Edge Detection]{},” [*Pattern Recognition Letters*]{}, vol. 26, no. 10, pp. 1423–1434, 2005.
M. E. Celebi, Q. Wen, S. Hwang, H. Iyatomi, and G. Schaefer, “[Lesion Border Detection in Dermoscopy Images Using Ensembles of Thresholding Methods]{},” [*Skin Research and Technology*]{}, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. e252–e258, 2013.
A. Frank and A. Asuncion, “[UCI Machine Learning Repository]{}.” <http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml>, 2012. .
T. Onoda, M. Sakai, and S. Yamada, “[Careful Seeding Method based on Independent Components Analysis for k-means Clustering]{},” [*Journal of Emerging Technologies in Web Intelligence*]{}, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 51–59, 2012.
G. Milligan and M. C. Cooper, “[A Study of Standardization of Variables in Cluster Analysis]{},” [*Journal of Classification*]{}, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 181–204, 1988.
M. Matsumoto and T. Nishimura, “[Mersenne Twister: A 623-Dimensionally Equidistributed Uniform Pseudo-Random Number Generator]{},” [*ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation*]{}, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 3–30, 1998.
[c|c|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r]{} & & `F` & `M` & `K` & `X` & `V` & `P` & `OV` & `OP`\
& min & 425 & 33 & 29 & 95 & 24 & 23 & 23 & [22]{}\
& mean & 483 $\pm$ 20 & 46 $\pm$ 10 & 34 $\pm$ 2 & 95 $\pm$ 0 & 24 $\pm$ 0 & 23 $\pm$ 0 & 23 $\pm$ 0 & [22]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & 534 & 318 & 304 & 498 & 247 & 240 & 258 & [239]{}\
& mean & 575 $\pm$ 15 & 706 $\pm$ 354 & 560 $\pm$ 349 & 498 $\pm$ 0 & 247 $\pm$ 0 & 240 $\pm$ 0 & 258 $\pm$ 0 & [239]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & 20 & 11 & 9 & 19 & 8 & 8 & 8 & [7]{}\
& mean & 27 $\pm$ 3 & 20 $\pm$ 8 & 13 $\pm$ 2 & 19 $\pm$ 0 & 8 $\pm$ 0 & 8 $\pm$ 0 & 8 $\pm$ 0 & [7]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & 54 & 26 & 26 & 48 & 20 & [19]{} & [19]{} & 20\
& mean & 61 $\pm$ 2 & 40 $\pm$ 7 & 33 $\pm$ 5 & 48 $\pm$ 0 & 20 $\pm$ 0 & [19]{} $\pm$ 0 & [19]{} $\pm$ 0 & 20 $\pm$ 0\
& min & 42 & 24 & 25 & 45 & 21 & 20 & 21 & [18]{}\
& mean & 48 $\pm$ 2 & 40 $\pm$ 9 & 32 $\pm$ 5 & 45 $\pm$ 0 & 21 $\pm$ 0 & 20 $\pm$ 0 & 21 $\pm$ 0 & [18]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & 372 & 361 & 341 & 409 & 249 & 250 & 249 & [244]{}\
& mean & 396 $\pm$ 8 & 463 $\pm$ 58 & 450 $\pm$ 49 & 409 $\pm$ 0 & 249 $\pm$ 0 & 250 $\pm$ 0 & 249 $\pm$ 0 & [244]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & 771 & 749 & 720 & 827 & 632 & [629]{} & 636 & [629]{}\
& mean & 814 $\pm$ 12 & 1246 $\pm$ 463 & 1237 $\pm$ 468 & 827 $\pm$ 0 & 632 $\pm$ 0 & [629]{} $\pm$ 0 & 636 $\pm$ 0 & [629]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & 26 & 9 & 9 & 18 & 8 & 8 & [7]{} & [7]{}\
& mean & 34 $\pm$ 4 & 28 $\pm$ 23 & 16 $\pm$ 6 & 18 $\pm$ 0 & 8 $\pm$ 0 & 8 $\pm$ 0 & [7]{} $\pm$ 0 & [7]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & 218965 & 212238 & 210387 & 221163 & 145444 & 124958 & 144658 & [122528]{}\
& mean & 223003 $\pm$ 1406 & 224579 $\pm$ 5416 & 223177 $\pm$ 4953 & 221163 $\pm$ 0 & 145444 $\pm$ 0 & 124958 $\pm$ 0 & 144658 $\pm$ 0 & [122528]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & 7763 & 2637 & 2458 & 4816 & 2050 & 2116 & 1919 & [1835]{}\
& mean & 8057 $\pm$ 98 & 4825 $\pm$ 1432 & 3561 $\pm$ 747 & 4816 $\pm$ 0 & 2050 $\pm$ 0 & 2116 $\pm$ 0 & 1919 $\pm$ 0 & [1835]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & 7100 & 4203 & 4158 & 5632 & 3456 & 3101 & 3231 & [2995]{}\
& mean & 7225 $\pm$ 30 & 4532 $\pm$ 165 & 4501 $\pm$ 176 & 5632 $\pm$ 0 & 3456 $\pm$ 0 & 3101 $\pm$ 0 & 3231 $\pm$ 0 & [2995]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & 4343 & 3348 & 3296 & 4361 & 3056 & 2927 & 3060 & [2923]{}\
& mean & 4392 $\pm$ 13 & 5525 $\pm$ 1816 & 5346 $\pm$ 1672 & 4361 $\pm$ 0 & 3056 $\pm$ 0 & 2927 $\pm$ 0 & 3060 $\pm$ 0 & [2923]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & 4416 & 5205 & 5247 & 4485 & 3354 & 3266 & 3315 & [3180]{}\
& mean & 4475 $\pm$ 25 & 5693 $\pm$ 315 & 5758 $\pm$ 283 & 4485 $\pm$ 0 & 3354 $\pm$ 0 & 3266 $\pm$ 0 & 3315 $\pm$ 0 & [3180]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & 53508 & 56841 & 56822 & 54629 & 37334 & 37142 & 37282 & [36375]{}\
& mean & 54312 $\pm$ 244 & 82411 $\pm$ 14943 & 75532 $\pm$ 12276 & 54629 $\pm$ 0 & 37334 $\pm$ 0 & 37142 $\pm$ 0 & 37282 $\pm$ 0 & [36375]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & 25466 & 25492 & 24404 & 25291 & 17476 & 15714 & 17504 & [15118]{}\
& mean & 25811 $\pm$ 99 & 28596 $\pm$ 1550 & 27614 $\pm$ 1499 & 25291 $\pm$ 0 & 17476 $\pm$ 0 & 15714 $\pm$ 0 & 17504 $\pm$ 0 & [15118]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & 633 & 275 & 250 & 635 & 300 & 230 & 232 & [222]{}\
& mean & 648 $\pm$ 6 & 423 $\pm$ 74 & 372 $\pm$ 72 & 635 $\pm$ 0 & 300 $\pm$ 0 & 230 $\pm$ 0 & 232 $\pm$ 0 & [222]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & 152 & 144 & 141 & 156 & 124 & 122 & 123 & [121]{}\
& mean & 156 $\pm$ 1 & 216 $\pm$ 44 & 219 $\pm$ 61 & 156 $\pm$ 0 & 124 $\pm$ 0 & 122 $\pm$ 0 & 123 $\pm$ 0 & [121]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & 1788 & 438 & 328 & 1818 & 316 & 309 & 276 & [268]{}\
& mean & 1806 $\pm$ 6 & 946 $\pm$ 290 & 494 $\pm$ 115 & 1818 $\pm$ 0 & 316 $\pm$ 0 & 309 $\pm$ 0 & 276 $\pm$ 0 & [268]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & 834 & 873 & 881 & 772 & 782 & 783 & 792 & [765]{}\
& mean & 838 $\pm$ 1 & 1186 $\pm$ 386 & 1124 $\pm$ 244 & 772 $\pm$ 0 & 782 $\pm$ 0 & 783 $\pm$ 0 & 792 $\pm$ 0 & [765]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & 269 & 295 & 297 & 277 & 232 & 222 & 225 & [214]{}\
& mean & 281 $\pm$ 4 & 384 $\pm$ 88 & 413 $\pm$ 159 & 277 $\pm$ 0 & 232 $\pm$ 0 & 222 $\pm$ 0 & 225 $\pm$ 0 & [214]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & 10976 & 11834 & 11829 & 11004 & 8517 & 7805 & 8706 & [7802]{}\
& mean & 11082 $\pm$ 34 & 14814 $\pm$ 1496 & 14435 $\pm$ 1276 & 11004 $\pm$ 0 & 8517 $\pm$ 0 & 7805 $\pm$ 0 & 8706 $\pm$ 0 & [7802]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & 719 & 473 & 449 & 733 & 386 & 361 & 364 & [351]{}\
& mean & 729 $\pm$ 4 & 601 $\pm$ 59 & 567 $\pm$ 64 & 733 $\pm$ 0 & 386 $\pm$ 0 & 361 $\pm$ 0 & 364 $\pm$ 0 & [351]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & 78 & 76 & 70 & 87 & 51 & 53 & [50]{} & 51\
& mean & 87 $\pm$ 3 & 113 $\pm$ 22 & 101 $\pm$ 20 & 87 $\pm$ 0 & 51 $\pm$ 0 & 53 $\pm$ 0 & [50]{} $\pm$ 0 & 51 $\pm$ 0\
& min & 144 & 89 & 83 & 115 & 77 & [63]{} & 73 & [63]{}\
& mean & 149 $\pm$ 2 & 110 $\pm$ 8 & 101 $\pm$ 9 & 115 $\pm$ 0 & 77 $\pm$ 0 & [63]{} $\pm$ 0 & 73 $\pm$ 0 & [63]{} $\pm$ 0\
[c|c|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r]{} & & `F` & `M` & `K` & `X` & `V` & `P` & `OV` & `OP`\
& min & [21]{} & 22 & [21]{} & 25 & [21]{} & [21]{} & [21]{} & [21]{}\
& mean & 23 $\pm$ 1 & 22 $\pm$ 1 & 22 $\pm$ 0 & 25 $\pm$ 0 & [21]{} $\pm$ 0 & [21]{} $\pm$ 0 & [21]{} $\pm$ 0 & [21]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & [239]{} & [239]{} & [239]{} & [239]{} & [239]{} & [239]{} & [239]{} & [239]{}\
& mean & [239]{} $\pm$ 0 & [239]{} $\pm$ 0 & [239]{} $\pm$ 0 & [239]{} $\pm$ 0 & [239]{} $\pm$ 0 & [239]{} $\pm$ 0 & [239]{} $\pm$ 0 & [239]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & [7]{} & [7]{} & [7]{} & [7]{} & [7]{} & [7]{} & 8 & [7]{}\
& mean & 8 $\pm$ 1 & 9 $\pm$ 1 & 8 $\pm$ 1 & [7]{} $\pm$ 0 & [7]{} $\pm$ 0 & [7]{} $\pm$ 0 & 8 $\pm$ 0 & [7]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & [17]{} & [17]{} & [17]{} & 19 & [17]{} & 18 & 18 & 18\
& mean & 19 $\pm$ 1 & 19 $\pm$ 2 & 19 $\pm$ 1 & 19 $\pm$ 0 & [17]{} $\pm$ 0 & 18 $\pm$ 0 & 18 $\pm$ 0 & 18 $\pm$ 0\
& min & [18]{} & [18]{} & [18]{} & 23 & 19 & 19 & 20 & [18]{}\
& mean & 20 $\pm$ 1 & 21 $\pm$ 2 & 20 $\pm$ 2 & 23 $\pm$ 0 & 19 $\pm$ 0 & 19 $\pm$ 0 & 20 $\pm$ 0 & [18]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & [243]{} & [243]{} & [243]{} & 249 & 248 & [243]{} & 248 & [243]{}\
& mean & 252 $\pm$ 8 & 252 $\pm$ 8 & 252 $\pm$ 8 & 249 $\pm$ 0 & 248 $\pm$ 0 & [243]{} $\pm$ 0 & 248 $\pm$ 0 & [243]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & [629]{} & [629]{} & [629]{} & 826 & [629]{} & [629]{} & [629]{} & [629]{}\
& mean & [629]{} $\pm$ 0 & 643 $\pm$ 50 & 641 $\pm$ 47 & 826 $\pm$ 0 & [629]{} $\pm$ 0 & [629]{} $\pm$ 0 & [629]{} $\pm$ 0 & [629]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & [7]{} & [7]{} & [7]{} & [7]{} & [7]{} & [7]{} & [7]{} & [7]{}\
& mean & 8 $\pm$ 1 & 8 $\pm$ 2 & [7]{} $\pm$ 1 & [7]{} $\pm$ 0 & [7]{} $\pm$ 0 & [7]{} $\pm$ 0 & [7]{} $\pm$ 0 & [7]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & 117872 & 117764 & [117710]{} & 135818 & 118495 & 118386 & 118033 & 119326\
& mean & 119650 $\pm$ 945 & 119625 $\pm$ 947 & 119536 $\pm$ 934 & 135818 $\pm$ 0 & 118495 $\pm$ 0 & 118386 $\pm$ 0 & [118033]{} $\pm$ 0 & 119326 $\pm$ 0\
& min & [1742]{} & [1742]{} & [1742]{} & [1742]{} & [1742]{} & [1742]{} & [1742]{} & [1742]{}\
& mean & [1742]{} $\pm$ 0 & [1742]{} $\pm$ 0 & 1744 $\pm$ 28 & [1742]{} $\pm$ 0 & [1742]{} $\pm$ 0 & [1742]{} $\pm$ 0 & [1742]{} $\pm$ 0 & [1742]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & 2723 & 2718 & [2716]{} & 2749 & 2735 & 2745 & 2734 & 2747\
& mean & 2772 $\pm$ 29 & 2757 $\pm$ 19 & 2751 $\pm$ 19 & 2749 $\pm$ 0 & 2735 $\pm$ 0 & 2745 $\pm$ 0 & [2734]{} $\pm$ 0 & 2747 $\pm$ 0\
& min & [2923]{} & [2923]{} & [2923]{} & [2923]{} & [2923]{} & [2923]{} & [2923]{} & [2923]{}\
& mean & [2923]{} $\pm$ 0 & [2923]{} $\pm$ 0 & [2923]{} $\pm$ 0 & [2923]{} $\pm$ 0 & [2923]{} $\pm$ 0 & [2923]{} $\pm$ 0 & [2923]{} $\pm$ 0 & [2923]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & [3127]{} & 3128 & 3128 & 3316 & 3137 & 3214 & 3143 & 3153\
& mean & 3166 $\pm$ 31 & 3172 $\pm$ 29 & 3173 $\pm$ 35 & 3316 $\pm$ 0 & [3137]{} $\pm$ 0 & 3214 $\pm$ 0 & 3143 $\pm$ 0 & 3153 $\pm$ 0\
& min & [36373]{} & [36373]{} & [36373]{} & [36373]{} & [36373]{} & [36373]{} & [36373]{} & [36373]{}\
& mean & 37296 $\pm$ 1902 & 37163 $\pm$ 1338 & 37058 $\pm$ 1626 & [36373]{} $\pm$ 0 & [36373]{} $\pm$ 0 & [36373]{} $\pm$ 0 & [36373]{} $\pm$ 0 & [36373]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & [14559]{} & [14559]{} & [14559]{} & 14679 & 14581 & 14807 & 14581 & 14650\
& mean & 14687 $\pm$ 216 & 14752 $\pm$ 236 & 14747 $\pm$ 245 & 14679 $\pm$ 0 & [14581]{} $\pm$ 0 & 14807 $\pm$ 0 & [14581]{} $\pm$ 0 & 14650 $\pm$ 0\
& min & [215]{} & [215]{} & [215]{} & 230 & 227 & [215]{} & 229 & 216\
& mean & 217 $\pm$ 4 & 216 $\pm$ 2 & 220 $\pm$ 7 & 230 $\pm$ 0 & 227 $\pm$ 0 & [215]{} $\pm$ 0 & 229 $\pm$ 0 & 216 $\pm$ 0\
& min & [121]{} & [121]{} & [121]{} & [121]{} & [121]{} & [121]{} & [121]{} & [121]{}\
& mean & [121]{} $\pm$ 0 & 122 $\pm$ 5 & 122 $\pm$ 5 & [121]{} $\pm$ 0 & [121]{} $\pm$ 0 & [121]{} $\pm$ 0 & [121]{} $\pm$ 0 & [121]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & [235]{} & [235]{} & [235]{} & 726 & [235]{} & 274 & 274 & [235]{}\
& mean & 317 $\pm$ 46 & 272 $\pm$ 23 & 260 $\pm$ 31 & 726 $\pm$ 0 & [235]{} $\pm$ 0 & 274 $\pm$ 0 & 274 $\pm$ 0 & [235]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & [765]{} & [765]{} & [765]{} & [765]{} & 778 & 778 & 778 & [765]{}\
& mean & 778 $\pm$ 3 & 779 $\pm$ 14 & 785 $\pm$ 19 & [765]{} $\pm$ 0 & 778 $\pm$ 0 & 778 $\pm$ 0 & 778 $\pm$ 0 & [765]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & [214]{} & [214]{} & [214]{} & [214]{} & [214]{} & [214]{} & [214]{} & [214]{}\
& mean & [214]{} $\pm$ 0 & 215 $\pm$ 5 & [214]{} $\pm$ 0 & [214]{} $\pm$ 0 & [214]{} $\pm$ 0 & [214]{} $\pm$ 0 & [214]{} $\pm$ 0 & [214]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & [7772]{} & [7772]{} & [7772]{} & [7772]{} & 7774 & 7774 & 7774 & [7772]{}\
& mean & 7799 $\pm$ 93 & 7821 $\pm$ 124 & 7831 $\pm$ 140 & [7772]{} $\pm$ 0 & 7774 $\pm$ 0 & 7774 $\pm$ 0 & 7774 $\pm$ 0 & [7772]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & [334]{} & [334]{} & [334]{} & 399 & 335 & [334]{} & 335 & 335\
& mean & 335 $\pm$ 1 & 336 $\pm$ 3 & 336 $\pm$ 3 & 399 $\pm$ 0 & 335 $\pm$ 0 & [334]{} $\pm$ 0 & 335 $\pm$ 0 & 335 $\pm$ 0\
& min & [49]{} & [49]{} & [49]{} & 63 & [49]{} & [49]{} & [49]{} & [49]{}\
& mean & [49]{} $\pm$ 0 & [49]{} $\pm$ 2 & [49]{} $\pm$ 2 & 63 $\pm$ 0 & [49]{} $\pm$ 0 & [49]{} $\pm$ 0 & [49]{} $\pm$ 0 & [49]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & [58]{} & [58]{} & [58]{} & 61 & 69 & 59 & 69 & 59\
& mean & 64 $\pm$ 6 & 69 $\pm$ 6 & 63 $\pm$ 5 & 61 $\pm$ 0 & 69 $\pm$ 0 & [59]{} $\pm$ 0 & 69 $\pm$ 0 & [59]{} $\pm$ 0\
[c|c|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r]{} & & `F` & `M` & `K` & `X` & `V` & `P` & `OV` & `OP`\
& min & 59 & 29 & [22]{} & 100 & 50 & 43 & 31 & 38\
& mean & 90 $\pm$ 11 & 68 $\pm$ 19 & 48 $\pm$ 17 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 50 $\pm$ 0 & 43 $\pm$ 0 & [31]{} $\pm$ 0 & 38 $\pm$ 0\
& min & 4 & 4 & 4 & 8 & 4 & 4 & 5 & [3]{}\
& mean & 5 $\pm$ 0 & 6 $\pm$ 1 & 6 $\pm$ 1 & 8 $\pm$ 0 & 4 $\pm$ 0 & 4 $\pm$ 0 & 5 $\pm$ 0 & [3]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & 5 & 5 & [3]{} & 7 & 6 & 7 & 5 & [3]{}\
& mean & 10 $\pm$ 2 & 9 $\pm$ 3 & 7 $\pm$ 2 & 7 $\pm$ 0 & 6 $\pm$ 0 & 7 $\pm$ 0 & 5 $\pm$ 0 & [3]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & 8 & [6]{} & 7 & 14 & 17 & 7 & 12 & [6]{}\
& mean & 15 $\pm$ 6 & 15 $\pm$ 5 & 14 $\pm$ 5 & 14 $\pm$ 0 & 17 $\pm$ 0 & 7 $\pm$ 0 & 12 $\pm$ 0 & [6]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & 6 & 5 & [4]{} & 6 & 6 & 5 & 9 & [4]{}\
& mean & 10 $\pm$ 3 & 11 $\pm$ 4 & 9 $\pm$ 3 & 6 $\pm$ 0 & 6 $\pm$ 0 & 5 $\pm$ 0 & 9 $\pm$ 0 & [4]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & 5 & 5 & 5 & 12 & [3]{} & 4 & [3]{} & 4\
& mean & 11 $\pm$ 3 & 10 $\pm$ 3 & 9 $\pm$ 3 & 12 $\pm$ 0 & [3]{} $\pm$ 0 & 4 $\pm$ 0 & [3]{} $\pm$ 0 & 4 $\pm$ 0\
& min & 4 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 4 & [2]{}\
& mean & 5 $\pm$ 1 & 7 $\pm$ 2 & 8 $\pm$ 2 & 3 $\pm$ 0 & 3 $\pm$ 0 & 3 $\pm$ 0 & 4 $\pm$ 0 & [2]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & 4 & 4 & [3]{} & 6 & 4 & 4 & 6 & [3]{}\
& mean & 9 $\pm$ 3 & 8 $\pm$ 2 & 7 $\pm$ 3 & 6 $\pm$ 0 & 4 $\pm$ 0 & 4 $\pm$ 0 & 6 $\pm$ 0 & [3]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & 18 & 19 & [14]{} & 32 & 82 & 45 & 59 & 39\
& mean & 43 $\pm$ 15 & 40 $\pm$ 14 & 36 $\pm$ 13 & [32]{} $\pm$ 0 & 82 $\pm$ 0 & 45 $\pm$ 0 & 59 $\pm$ 0 & 39 $\pm$ 0\
& min & 12 & 12 & 11 & 53 & 28 & 27 & [10]{} & 23\
& mean & 28 $\pm$ 8 & 33 $\pm$ 10 & 29 $\pm$ 9 & 53 $\pm$ 0 & 28 $\pm$ 0 & 27 $\pm$ 0 & [10]{} $\pm$ 0 & 23 $\pm$ 0\
& min & 39 & 37 & [31]{} & 73 & 100 & 83 & 67 & 85\
& mean & 75 $\pm$ 19 & 72 $\pm$ 18 & 76 $\pm$ 18 & 73 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 83 $\pm$ 0 & [67]{} $\pm$ 0 & 85 $\pm$ 0\
& min & [9]{} & 10 & 10 & 35 & 25 & 10 & 26 & [9]{}\
& mean & 18 $\pm$ 5 & 18 $\pm$ 5 & 20 $\pm$ 6 & 35 $\pm$ 0 & 25 $\pm$ 0 & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 26 $\pm$ 0 & [9]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & [13]{} & 14 & [13]{} & 37 & 14 & 25 & 17 & [13]{}\
& mean & 29 $\pm$ 10 & 30 $\pm$ 10 & 30 $\pm$ 11 & 37 $\pm$ 0 & 14 $\pm$ 0 & 25 $\pm$ 0 & 17 $\pm$ 0 & [13]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & 4 & 4 & 4 & 8 & 5 & 5 & 5 & [3]{}\
& mean & 6 $\pm$ 1 & 6 $\pm$ 1 & 6 $\pm$ 1 & 8 $\pm$ 0 & 5 $\pm$ 0 & 5 $\pm$ 0 & 5 $\pm$ 0 & [3]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & [12]{} & [12]{} & 14 & 36 & 16 & 22 & 15 & 59\
& mean & 31 $\pm$ 13 & 33 $\pm$ 14 & 30 $\pm$ 10 & 36 $\pm$ 0 & 16 $\pm$ 0 & 22 $\pm$ 0 & [15]{} $\pm$ 0 & 59 $\pm$ 0\
& min & 14 & 12 & [9]{} & 27 & 25 & 15 & 19 & 16\
& mean & 27 $\pm$ 9 & 31 $\pm$ 14 & 24 $\pm$ 11 & 27 $\pm$ 0 & 25 $\pm$ 0 & 15 $\pm$ 0 & 19 $\pm$ 0 & [16]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & 8 & [4]{} & [4]{} & 19 & 11 & 10 & 8 & 5\
& mean & 13 $\pm$ 2 & 12 $\pm$ 5 & 11 $\pm$ 4 & 19 $\pm$ 0 & 11 $\pm$ 0 & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 8 $\pm$ 0 & [5]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & 10 & 8 & 9 & 22 & 30 & 16 & [7]{} & 27\
& mean & 25 $\pm$ 9 & 25 $\pm$ 11 & 23 $\pm$ 9 & 22 $\pm$ 0 & 30 $\pm$ 0 & 16 $\pm$ 0 & [7]{} $\pm$ 0 & 27 $\pm$ 0\
& min & 6 & [3]{} & [3]{} & 5 & 9 & 10 & 12 & [3]{}\
& mean & 12 $\pm$ 5 & 14 $\pm$ 6 & 12 $\pm$ 7 & 5 $\pm$ 0 & 9 $\pm$ 0 & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 12 $\pm$ 0 & [3]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & 6 & 5 & 4 & 7 & 7 & 7 & 6 & [2]{}\
& mean & 8 $\pm$ 1 & 8 $\pm$ 2 & 7 $\pm$ 2 & 7 $\pm$ 0 & 7 $\pm$ 0 & 7 $\pm$ 0 & 6 $\pm$ 0 & [2]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & 9 & 11 & 11 & 24 & 20 & [8]{} & 21 & 19\
& mean & 20 $\pm$ 8 & 22 $\pm$ 8 & 20 $\pm$ 8 & 24 $\pm$ 0 & 20 $\pm$ 0 & [8]{} $\pm$ 0 & 21 $\pm$ 0 & 19 $\pm$ 0\
& min & [15]{} & 17 & 18 & 20 & 62 & 50 & 33 & 49\
& mean & 41 $\pm$ 20 & 42 $\pm$ 18 & 40 $\pm$ 18 & [20]{} $\pm$ 0 & 62 $\pm$ 0 & 50 $\pm$ 0 & 33 $\pm$ 0 & 49 $\pm$ 0\
& min & [4]{} & [4]{} & [4]{} & 9 & 5 & 7 & 5 & 5\
& mean & 7 $\pm$ 2 & 8 $\pm$ 3 & 7 $\pm$ 3 & 9 $\pm$ 0 & [5]{} $\pm$ 0 & 7 $\pm$ 0 & [5]{} $\pm$ 0 & [5]{} $\pm$ 0\
& min & [13]{} & [13]{} & 15 & 73 & 33 & 21 & 28 & 32\
& mean & 29 $\pm$ 10 & 31 $\pm$ 11 & 29 $\pm$ 10 & 73 $\pm$ 0 & 33 $\pm$ 0 & [21]{} $\pm$ 0 & 28 $\pm$ 0 & 32 $\pm$ 0\
[c|c|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r]{} & & `F` & `M` & `K` & `X` & `V` & `P` & `OV` & `OP`\
& min & 20 & 10 & 10 & 40 & 20 & 20 & 20 & 10\
& mean & 43 $\pm$ 7 & 33 $\pm$ 10 & 24 $\pm$ 9 & 40 $\pm$ 0 & 20 $\pm$ 0 & 20 $\pm$ 0 & 20 $\pm$ 0 & 10 $\pm$ 0\
& min & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\
& mean & 0 $\pm$ 1 & 0 $\pm$ 1 & 0 $\pm$ 2 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0\
& min & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\
& mean & 0 $\pm$ 1 & 0 $\pm$ 1 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0\
& min & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\
& mean & 0 $\pm$ 2 & 0 $\pm$ 1 & 0 $\pm$ 2 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0\
& min & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\
& mean & 0 $\pm$ 1 & 0 $\pm$ 1 & 0 $\pm$ 1 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0\
& min & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\
& mean & 0 $\pm$ 1 & 0 $\pm$ 2 & 1 $\pm$ 2 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0\
& min & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\
& mean & 0 $\pm$ 2 & 0 $\pm$ 2 & 0 $\pm$ 2 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0\
& min & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\
& mean & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 1 & 0 $\pm$ 1 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0\
& min & 1690 & 1630 & 1580 & 2570 & 6920 & 12160 & 5040 & 12460\
& mean & 3691 $\pm$ 1229 & 3370 $\pm$ 1178 & 3397 $\pm$ 1055 & 2570 $\pm$ 0 & 6920 $\pm$ 0 & 12160 $\pm$ 0 & 5040 $\pm$ 0 & 12460 $\pm$ 0\
& min & 0 & 10 & 10 & 50 & 30 & 50 & 10 & 50\
& mean & 30 $\pm$ 9 & 32 $\pm$ 11 & 32 $\pm$ 10 & 50 $\pm$ 0 & 30 $\pm$ 0 & 50 $\pm$ 0 & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 50 $\pm$ 0\
& min & 380 & 350 & 320 & 670 & 960 & 790 & 620 & 810\
& mean & 710 $\pm$ 174 & 673 $\pm$ 168 & 724 $\pm$ 166 & 670 $\pm$ 0 & 960 $\pm$ 0 & 790 $\pm$ 0 & 620 $\pm$ 0 & 810 $\pm$ 0\
& min & 10 & 10 & 10 & 40 & 20 & 10 & 30 & 20\
& mean & 19 $\pm$ 7 & 19 $\pm$ 7 & 21 $\pm$ 6 & 40 $\pm$ 0 & 20 $\pm$ 0 & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 30 $\pm$ 0 & 20 $\pm$ 0\
& min & 20 & 20 & 20 & 60 & 20 & 80 & 30 & 40\
& mean & 52 $\pm$ 17 & 52 $\pm$ 17 & 57 $\pm$ 20 & 60 $\pm$ 0 & 20 $\pm$ 0 & 80 $\pm$ 0 & 30 $\pm$ 0 & 40 $\pm$ 0\
& min & 10 & 10 & 10 & 30 & 30 & 210 & 20 & 200\
& mean & 22 $\pm$ 7 & 21 $\pm$ 5 & 25 $\pm$ 8 & 30 $\pm$ 0 & 30 $\pm$ 0 & 210 $\pm$ 0 & 20 $\pm$ 0 & 200 $\pm$ 0\
& min & 50 & 50 & 50 & 140 & 60 & 140 & 70 & 280\
& mean & 122 $\pm$ 50 & 126 $\pm$ 53 & 124 $\pm$ 41 & 140 $\pm$ 0 & 60 $\pm$ 0 & 140 $\pm$ 0 & 70 $\pm$ 0 & 280 $\pm$ 0\
& min & 0 & 0 & 0 & 10 & 10 & 10 & 10 & 10\
& mean & 9 $\pm$ 5 & 11 $\pm$ 6 & 8 $\pm$ 5 & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 10 $\pm$ 0\
& min & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\
& mean & 0 $\pm$ 2 & 1 $\pm$ 2 & 1 $\pm$ 2 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0\
& min & 40 & 30 & 30 & 50 & 100 & 70 & 30 & 100\
& mean & 87 $\pm$ 27 & 87 $\pm$ 37 & 79 $\pm$ 26 & 50 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0 & 70 $\pm$ 0 & 30 $\pm$ 0 & 100 $\pm$ 0\
& min & 0 & 0 & 0 & 10 & 10 & 30 & 10 & 20\
& mean & 11 $\pm$ 5 & 12 $\pm$ 6 & 11 $\pm$ 8 & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 30 $\pm$ 0 & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 20 $\pm$ 0\
& min & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\
& mean & 0 $\pm$ 2 & 0 $\pm$ 2 & 0 $\pm$ 2 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0\
& min & 10 & 10 & 10 & 20 & 20 & 20 & 20 & 30\
& mean & 21 $\pm$ 9 & 20 $\pm$ 8 & 20 $\pm$ 8 & 20 $\pm$ 0 & 20 $\pm$ 0 & 20 $\pm$ 0 & 20 $\pm$ 0 & 30 $\pm$ 0\
& min & 10 & 20 & 20 & 10 & 60 & 50 & 40 & 40\
& mean & 40 $\pm$ 19 & 40 $\pm$ 18 & 38 $\pm$ 17 & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 60 $\pm$ 0 & 50 $\pm$ 0 & 40 $\pm$ 0 & 40 $\pm$ 0\
& min & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\
& mean & 0 $\pm$ 1 & 0 $\pm$ 1 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0\
& min & 0 & 0 & 0 & 10 & 0 & 0 & 10 & 0\
& mean & 6 $\pm$ 5 & 6 $\pm$ 5 & 6 $\pm$ 5 & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0 & 10 $\pm$ 0 & 0 $\pm$ 0\
Statistic Criterion `F` `M` `K` `X` `V` `P` `OV` `OP`
----------- ------------ ----------- -------- ----------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -----------
Min Init. SSE 2.968 1.418 1.348 2.184 1.107 1.043 1.067 [1.002]{}
Final SSE 1.001 1.003 [1.000]{} 1.163 1.019 1.018 1.031 1.005
\# Iters. 1.488 1.284 [1.183]{} 2.978 2.469 2.013 2.034 1.793
Mean Init. SSE 3.250 2.171 1.831 2.184 1.107 1.043 1.067 [1.002]{}
Final SSE 1.047 1.049 1.032 1.161 1.017 1.016 1.029 [1.003]{}
\# Iters. 2.466 2.528 2.314 2.581 2.057 1.715 1.740 [1.481]{}
Stdev Init. SSE [1.000]{} 13.392 12.093 – – – – –
Final SSE [1.013]{} 1.239 1.172 – – – – –
\# Iters. [1.000]{} 1.166 1.098 – – – – –
: \[tab\_summary\] Overall performance comparison of the initialization methods
Criterion Worse than `V` Same as `V` Better than `V`
------------ ---------------- ------------- -----------------
Init. SSE 6 3 15
Final SSE 6 16 2
\# Iters. 8 3 13
: \[tab\_rel\_var\] Performance of Otsu Var-Part relative to Var-Part (`V`)
Criterion Worse than `P` Same as `P` Better than `P`
------------ ---------------- ------------- -----------------
Init. SSE 1 2 21
Final SSE 4 14 6
\# Iters. 6 1 17
: \[tab\_rel\_pca\] Performance of Otsu PCA-Part relative to PCA-Part (`P`)
\
\
[^1]: Given a set of $N$ points in a metric space, the goal of $K$-center clustering is to find $K$ representative points (centers) such that the maximum distance of a point to a center is minimized. Given a minimization problem, a *$2$-approximation* algorithm is one that finds a solution whose cost is at most twice the cost of the optimal solution.
[^2]: The first center is chosen as the centroid of the data set.
[^3]: Due to outliers, the ‘median’ statistic rather than the ‘mean’ was used to summarize the normalized standard deviation values.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The hierarchy of Green functions for (quasi)degenerate systems, presented in cond-mat/0308058, is calculated in detail for the case of a system with closed shells plus a single electron in a two-fold degenerate level. The complete hierarchy is derived explicitly, in terms of Green functions and of Feynman diagrams.'
author:
- Christian Brouder
title: 'Many-body theory of degenerate systems: A simple example'
---
Introduction
============
In reference [@BrouderKB], hereafter referred to as I, a many-body theory of degenerate or quasidegenerate systems was presented, using quantum group methods. In particular, a hierarchy of Green function was derived and formulated in terms of reduced coproducts. In this paper, the general formula is written explicitly in terms of Green functions and Feynman diagrams. The case we consider is that of a system with closed shells and a two-fold degenerate level occupied by a single electron. This does not look like a very interesting example, but we shall see that the hierarchy involves $n$-body Green functions with $n$ up to 5. In the general case of a $M$-fold degenerate level, the Green functions involved go up to $n=3M-1$. In practice, such complicated Green functions are not usable, and the hierarchy is stopped after the first terms. The hierarchy we give here contains the first terms of the general hierarchy.
Quantum group concepts are not (yet) familiar in solid-state physics, so the pace will be slow and the calculations will be presented in full detail.
Calculation of $W^1_\rho$
=========================
The simplest case is one electron ($N=1$) in a twofold degenerate level ($M=2$). The two degenerate levels are denoted by $1$ and $2$. The density matrix is $$\begin{aligned}
{{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}&=&
\left( \begin{array}{cc}
\rho_{11} & \rho_{12} \\
\rho_{21} & \rho_{22} \end{array}\right),\end{aligned}$$ with ${{\mathrm{tr}}}({{\boldsymbol{\rho}}})= \rho_{11}+ \rho_{22}=1$.
The moment generating function $\rho({{\bar{\alpha}}},\alpha)$ is defined in equation (\[rho(baraalpha)\]) of I. In our case, $N=1$ and $\rho({{\bar{\alpha}}},\alpha)=\rho_0({{\bar{\alpha}}},\alpha)+\rho_1({{\bar{\alpha}}},\alpha)$. According to equation (\[rhoN\]) of I (with $N=1$, $i_1=1$ or $2$, $j_1=1$ or $2$) $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_1({{\bar{\alpha}}},\alpha) &=& \rho_{11} {{\bar{\alpha}}}_1\alpha_1 +
\rho_{12} {{\bar{\alpha}}}_1\alpha_2 +
\rho_{21} {{\bar{\alpha}}}_2\alpha_1 +
\rho_{22} {{\bar{\alpha}}}_2\alpha_2.\end{aligned}$$ Using now equation (\[rhok\]) of I with $k=1$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_0({{\bar{\alpha}}},\alpha) &=& {{\mathrm{tr}}}({{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}) = \rho_{11}+\rho_{22}=1.\end{aligned}$$ According to equation (\[rhoc(baraalpha)\]) of I, the cumulant generating function $\rho^c({{\bar{\alpha}}},\alpha)$ is obtained from $$\begin{aligned}
\log\big(\rho({{\bar{\alpha}}},\alpha)\big) &=&
\log\big(1+\rho_1({{\bar{\alpha}}},\alpha)\big)
=
\rho_1({{\bar{\alpha}}},\alpha) +\rho^c({{\bar{\alpha}}},\alpha),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\rho^c({{\bar{\alpha}}},\alpha) &=& \rho^c_2({{\bar{\alpha}}},\alpha)
=-\frac{\rho_1({{\bar{\alpha}}},\alpha)^2}{2 }
=-\det({{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}) {{\bar{\alpha}}}_1\alpha_1{{\bar{\alpha}}}_2\alpha_2
=
-(\rho_{11}\rho_{22}-\rho_{12}\rho_{21})
{{\bar{\alpha}}}_1\alpha_1{{\bar{\alpha}}}_2\alpha_2.\end{aligned}$$ According to equation (\[Wrho0fin\]) of I, this enables us to calculate $W^0_\rho$. But we saw in section \[W0W1\] of I that $W^1_\rho=W^0_\rho$, thus $$\begin{aligned}
W_\rho^1 &=&
-i\int {{\bar{\eta}}}(x) G^0_\rho(x,y)\eta(y){{\mathrm{d}}}x{{\mathrm{d}}}y
+\rho^c_2({{\bar{\alpha}}},\alpha),
\label{Wrho1}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
G^0_\rho(x,y) &=& G^0_0(x,y)
+i \Big(\sum_{m=1}^C u_m(x) {{\bar{u}}}_m(y)+
\sum_{k=1}^2\sum_{l=1}^2 \rho_{lk} u_k(x) {{\bar{u}}}_l(y)
\Big) M,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
M &=& \left( \begin{array}{cc}
1 & -1 \\
-1 & 1 \end{array}\right).\end{aligned}$$ The expression for the $2\times 2$ matrix $G^0_0(x,y)$ is given in equation (\[freeGreen\]) of I.
For later convenience, we give the identities $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\delta^2 {{\bar{\alpha}}}_1\alpha_1{{\bar{\alpha}}}_2\alpha_2}
{\delta \eta_{\epsilon'}(y)
\delta {{\bar{\eta}}}_{\epsilon}(x)}
&=&\epsilon\epsilon'
(u_1(x){{\bar{\alpha}}}_2-u_2(x){{\bar{\alpha}}}_1)
({{\bar{u}}}_1(y)\alpha_2-{{\bar{u}}}_2(y)\alpha_1).\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\delta^4 \rho^c_2({{\bar{\alpha}}},\alpha)}
{\delta {{\bar{\eta}}}_{\epsilon_1}(x_1)
\delta {{\bar{\eta}}}_{\epsilon_2}(x_2)
\delta \eta_{\epsilon'_1}(y_1)
\delta \eta_{\epsilon'_2}(y_2)}
&=&-\epsilon_1\epsilon_2\epsilon'_1\epsilon'_2
r(x_1,x_2,y_1,y_2),
\label{delta4}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
r(x_1,x_2,y_1,y_2) &=&
-\det({{\boldsymbol{\rho}}})
(u_1(x_1) u_2(x_2)-u_2(x_1) u_1(x_2))
({{\bar{u}}}_1(y_1){{\bar{u}}}_2(y_2)-{{\bar{u}}}_2(y_1){{\bar{u}}}_1(y_2)).\end{aligned}$$
Hierarchy
=========
For one electron in a two-fold degenerate state, equation (\[reduit\]) of I stops at $n=3$ because $M=2$ and we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\delta Z_\rho}{\delta\beta} &=&
\frac{\delta W^1_\rho}{\delta\beta} Z_\rho
-i \sum (-1)^{|D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(1')}}|} \big(D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(1')}}
\frac{\delta W^1_\rho}{\delta\beta}\big)
\big(D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(2')}} Z_\rho \big)
- \frac{1}{2}
\sum (-1)^{|D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(1')}}^{2}|} \big(D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(1')}}^{2}
\frac{\delta W^1_\rho}{\delta\beta}\big)
\big(D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(2')}}^{2} Z_\rho\big)
\\&&
+ \frac{i}{6}
\sum (-1)^{|D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(1')}}^{3}|} \big(D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(1')}}^{3}
\frac{\delta W^1_\rho}{\delta\beta}\big)
\big(D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(2')}}^{3} Z_\rho\big).\end{aligned}$$ To obtain the Green function, we put $\beta={{\bar{\eta}}}_\epsilon(x)$, we make a functional derivative with respect to $\eta_{\epsilon'}(y)$ and we set all fermion sources to zero (in particular, this implies $Z_\rho=1$). We use also the fact that a functional derivative of $Z_\rho$ or $W^1_\rho$ with respect to an odd number of fermion sources is zero if the sources are set to zero. This enables us to calculate the signs $(-1)^{|D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(1')}}^{n}|}$. $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\delta^2 Z_\rho}{\delta\eta_{\epsilon'}(y) \delta{{\bar{\eta}}}_\epsilon(x)} &=&
\frac{\delta^2 W^1_\rho}{\delta\eta_{\epsilon'}(y)
\delta{{\bar{\eta}}}_\epsilon(x)}
-i \sum
\big(D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(1')}} \frac{\delta^2 W^1_\rho}{\delta\eta_{\epsilon'}(y)
\delta{{\bar{\eta}}}_\epsilon(x)}\big)
\big(D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(2')}} Z_\rho \big)
-i \sum \big(D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(1')}}
\frac{\delta W^1_\rho}{\delta{{\bar{\eta}}}_\epsilon(x)}\big)
\big(D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(2')}} \frac{\delta Z_\rho}{\delta\eta_{\epsilon'}(y)} \big)
\nonumber\\&&
- \frac{1}{2}
\sum \big(D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(1')}}^{2}
\frac{\delta^2 W^1_\rho}{\delta\eta_{\epsilon'}(y)
\delta{{\bar{\eta}}}_\epsilon(x)}\big)
\big(D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(2')}}^{2} Z_\rho\big)
- \frac{1}{2}
\sum \big(D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(1')}}^{2}
\frac{\delta W^1_\rho}{\delta{{\bar{\eta}}}_\epsilon(x)}\big)
\big(D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(2')}}^{2} \frac{\delta Z_\rho}{\delta\eta_{\epsilon'}(y)} \big).
\nonumber\\&&
+ \frac{i}{6}
\sum \big(D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(1')}}^{3}
\frac{\delta W^1_\rho}{\delta{{\bar{\eta}}}_\epsilon(x)}\big)
\big(D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(2')}}^{3} \frac{\delta Z_\rho}{\delta\eta_{\epsilon'}(y)} \big).
\label{reduit2}\end{aligned}$$
Coproduct
---------
The non-relativistic interacting Hamiltonian is $$\begin{aligned}
\int H^{{\mathrm{int}}}(t) {{\mathrm{d}}}t &=&
\frac{e^2}{2} \int {{\bar{\psi}}}(t,{{\mathbf{r}}}) {{\bar{\psi}}}(t,{{\mathbf{r}}}')
\frac{1}{|{{\mathbf{r}}}-{{\mathbf{r}}}'|}\psi(t,{{\mathbf{r}}}') \psi(t,{{\mathbf{r}}})
{{\mathrm{d}}}t {{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathbf{r}}}{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathbf{r}}}'.
\label{Hamil}\end{aligned}$$ To simplify the notation, we define $x_1=(t,{{\mathbf{r}}})$, $x'_1=(t',{{\mathbf{r}}}')$ and $v(x_1-x'_1)=\delta(t-t')e^2/|{{\mathbf{r}}}-{{\mathbf{r}}}'|$, so that $$\begin{aligned}
\int H^{{\mathrm{int}}}(t) {{\mathrm{d}}}t &=& \frac{1}{2} \int v(x_1-x'_1)
{{\bar{\psi}}}(x_1) {{\bar{\psi}}}(x'_1)\psi(x'_1) \psi(x_1)
{{\mathrm{d}}}x_1 {{\mathrm{d}}}x'_1.\end{aligned}$$ To define the interacting operator $D$ (i.e. the functional differential form of $\int H^{{\mathrm{int}}}(t) {{\mathrm{d}}}t$), we make the substitutions $\psi(x_1)\rightarrow -i\delta/\delta{{\bar{\eta}}}(x_1)$ and ${{\bar{\psi}}}(x_1)\rightarrow i\delta/\delta\eta(x_1)$ and we use the simplified notation $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{1_\pm}&=&\frac{\delta}{\delta \eta_\pm(x_1)},
\quad
\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}_\pm}=\frac{\delta}{\delta {{\bar{\eta}}}_\pm(x_1)},
\quad
\delta_{1'_\pm}=\frac{\delta}{\delta \eta_\pm(x'_1)},
\quad
\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}_\pm}=\frac{\delta}{\delta {{\bar{\eta}}}_\pm(x'_1)}.\end{aligned}$$ This gives us $D=D_+-D_-$ with $$\begin{aligned}
D_\pm &=& \frac{1}{2} \int v(x_1-x'_1)
\delta_{1_\pm}\delta_{1'_\pm}
\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}_\pm}\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}_\pm} {{\mathrm{d}}}x_1 {{\mathrm{d}}}x'_1.
\label{Dpm}\end{aligned}$$ Thus $$\begin{aligned}
D &=& \frac{1}{2} \int {{\mathrm{d}}}x_1{{\mathrm{d}}}x'_1 v(x_1-x'_1)
\Big(
\delta_{1_+}\delta_{1'_+}\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}_+} \delta_{{{\bar{1}}}_+}
- \delta_{1_-}\delta_{1'_-}\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}_-} \delta_{{{\bar{1}}}_-}
\Big),\end{aligned}$$ To further simplify the notation, we replace $\delta_{1_\pm}$ by $\delta_1$ and $x_1$ by $1$ and $x'_1$ by $1'$. The interacting operator becomes $$\begin{aligned}
D &=& \frac{1}{2} \int {{\mathrm{d}}}1{{\mathrm{d}}}1' v(1-1')
\sum_{\pm} \pm \delta_{1}\delta_{1'}\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}} \delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}.\end{aligned}$$
To calculate the coproduct of $D$, we start from the coproduct of the basic functional derivatives $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \delta_{1} &=& \delta_{1}\otimes {{\mathbf{1}}}+ {{\mathbf{1}}}\otimes \delta_{1},\quad
\Delta \delta_{1'} = \delta_{1'}\otimes {{\mathbf{1}}}+ {{\mathbf{1}}}\otimes \delta_{1'},\quad
\Delta \delta_{{{\bar{1}}}} = \delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}\otimes {{\mathbf{1}}}+ {{\mathbf{1}}}\otimes \delta_{{{\bar{1}}}},\quad
\Delta \delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}} = \delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\otimes {{\mathbf{1}}}+ {{\mathbf{1}}}\otimes \delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}.\end{aligned}$$ Then we use equation (\[DeltaDD’\]) of I to calculate the coproduct of $ \delta_{1} \delta_{1'}$ and $\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \delta_{1} \delta_{1'}
&=& \delta_{1} \delta_{1'} \otimes {{\mathbf{1}}}+ \delta_{1}\otimes \delta_{1'}
- \delta_{1'}\otimes \delta_{1}
+ {{\mathbf{1}}}\otimes \delta_{1} \delta_{1'},\quad
\Delta \delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}
= \delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}} \otimes {{\mathbf{1}}}+ \delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\otimes\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}
- \delta_{{{\bar{1}}}} \otimes \delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}
+ {{\mathbf{1}}}\otimes \delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}.\end{aligned}$$ We use equation (\[DeltaDD’\]) of I again to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \delta_{1} \delta_{1'}
\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}
&=& \delta_{1} \delta_{1'}
\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}} \otimes {{\mathbf{1}}}+ {{\mathbf{1}}}\otimes \delta_{1} \delta_{1'}
\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}
+ \delta_{1} \delta_{1'}
\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\otimes\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}
- \delta_{1} \delta_{1'}
\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}} \otimes \delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}
+ \delta_{1} \delta_{1'} \otimes
\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}
+ \delta_{1} \delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}
\otimes \delta_{1'}
\nonumber\\&&
- \delta_{1}\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\otimes
\delta_{1'}\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}
+ \delta_{1} \delta_{{{\bar{1}}}} \otimes
\delta_{1'} \delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}
+ \delta_{1}\otimes \delta_{1'}
\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}
- \delta_{1'}\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}
\otimes \delta_{1}
+ \delta_{1'} \delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}} \otimes
\delta_{1} \delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}
- \delta_{1'} \delta_{{{\bar{1}}}} \otimes
\delta_{1} \delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}
\nonumber\\&&
- \delta_{1'}\otimes \delta_{1}
\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}
+ \delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}} \otimes
\delta_{1} \delta_{1'}
+ \delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\otimes \delta_{1}
\delta_{1'}\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}
- \delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}\otimes \delta_{1}
\delta_{1'} \delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}.
\label{coprodD}\end{aligned}$$ The reduced coproduct with respect to $D$ is obtained by its definition $\Delta'D=\Delta D-
D\otimes {{\mathbf{1}}}- {{\mathbf{1}}}\otimes D$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta' D &=& \frac{1}{2} \int {{\mathrm{d}}}1{{\mathrm{d}}}1' v(1-1')
\sum_{\pm} \pm \Big(
\delta_{1} \delta_{1'}
\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\otimes\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}
- \delta_{1} \delta_{1'}
\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}} \otimes \delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}
+ \delta_{1} \delta_{1'} \otimes
\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}
+ \delta_{1} \delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}
\otimes \delta_{1'}
\nonumber\\&&
- \delta_{1}\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\otimes
\delta_{1'}\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}
+ \delta_{1} \delta_{{{\bar{1}}}} \otimes
\delta_{1'} \delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}
+ \delta_{1}\otimes \delta_{1'}
\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}
- \delta_{1'}\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}
\otimes \delta_{1}
+ \delta_{1'} \delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}} \otimes
\delta_{1} \delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}
- \delta_{1'} \delta_{{{\bar{1}}}} \otimes
\delta_{1} \delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}
\nonumber\\&&
- \delta_{1'}\otimes \delta_{1}
\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}
+ \delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}} \otimes
\delta_{1} \delta_{1'}
+ \delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\otimes \delta_{1}
\delta_{1'}\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}
- \delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}\otimes \delta_{1}
\delta_{1'} \delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\Big).
\label{coprodpD}\end{aligned}$$ Notice that, in $\Delta'D=\sum D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(1')}}\otimes D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(2')}}$, each term $D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(1')}}$ or $D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(2')}}$ contains between one and three functional derivatives.
Expansion of equation (\[reduit2\])
-----------------------------------
Now we are going to examine each term of equation (\[reduit2\]). We define the $n$-body Green function as $$\begin{aligned}
G_{\epsilon_1\dots\epsilon_n\epsilon'_1\dots\epsilon'_n}
(x_1,\dots,x_n,y'_1,\dots,y'_n)
&=&
(-i)^n \frac{\delta^{2n} Z_\rho }
{\delta{{\bar{\eta}}}_{\epsilon_1}(x_1)\cdots \delta{{\bar{\eta}}}_{\epsilon_n}(x_n)
\delta\eta_{\epsilon'_1}(y_1)\cdots \delta\eta_{\epsilon'_n}(y_n)}.
\label{nbodyG}\end{aligned}$$ The right hand side is taken at zero external sources. To simplify the notation, we write $i$ for $x_i$ and $i'$ for $y_i$, we consider that $\epsilon_i$ goes with the variable $x_i$, $\epsilon'_i$ with $y_i$, so the $\epsilon$ are now implicit and we have $$\begin{aligned}
G(1,\dots,n,1',\dots,n')
&=&
(-i)^n \,\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}\dots \delta_{{{\bar{n}}}}
\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\dots \delta_{{{\bar{n}'}}}
Z_\rho.\end{aligned}$$ With this notation, the left hand side of equation (\[reduit2\]) is now $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\delta^2 Z_\rho}{\delta\eta_{\epsilon'}(y) \delta{{\bar{\eta}}}_\epsilon(x)} &=&
-\frac{\delta^2 Z_\rho}{\delta{{\bar{\eta}}}_\epsilon(x)\delta\eta_{\epsilon'}(y)}=
-i G(x,y).\end{aligned}$$ More explicitly $G(x,y)=G_{\epsilon\epsilon'}(x,y)$. In the following we shall calculate in detail all the terms of the right hand side of equation (\[reduit2\]).
First term of equation (\[reduit2\])
------------------------------------
The first term of (\[reduit2\]) is very simple. From equation (\[Wrho1\]), we know that $W_\rho^1$ is the sum of a term of degree two and a term of degree four in the external sources. The first term in the right hand side of equation (\[reduit2\]) contains only two functional derivatives. Thus, at zero sources, the second term of $W_\rho^1$ does not contribute. By definition of functional derivatives, the first term gives us $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\delta^2 W^1_\rho}{\delta\eta_{\epsilon'}(y)
\delta{{\bar{\eta}}}_\epsilon(x)} &=& -i
G^0_{\rho\epsilon\epsilon'}(x,y).\end{aligned}$$
Second term of equation (\[reduit2\])
-------------------------------------
The second term of equation (\[reduit2\]) is $$\begin{aligned}
-i \sum
\big(D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(1')}} \delta_y \delta_{{\bar{x}}}W^1_\rho\big)
\big(D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(2')}} Z_\rho \big),\end{aligned}$$ where we wrote $\delta_y$ for $\delta/\delta\eta_{\epsilon'}(y)$ and $\delta_{{\bar{x}}}$ for $\delta/\delta{{\bar{\eta}}}_{\epsilon}(x)$. According to equations (\[coprodpD\]), each term $D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(1')}}$ contains at least one functional derivative. Therefore, the first term of $W^1_\rho$ does not contribute because it is of degree 2. The second term of $W^1_\rho$ is of degree four, and it contains two sources $\eta$ and two sources ${{\bar{\eta}}}$. The functional derivatives are evaluated at zero sources, thus $D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(1')}}$ must be the product of a derivative with respect to a source $\eta$ and a derivative with respect to a source ${{\bar{\eta}}}$. According to equation (\[coprodpD\]), there are four terms with this property in $\Delta'D$: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2} \int {{\mathrm{d}}}1{{\mathrm{d}}}1' v(1-1')
\sum_{\pm} \pm \Big(
- \delta_{1}\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\otimes
\delta_{1'}\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}
+ \delta_{1} \delta_{{{\bar{1}}}} \otimes
\delta_{1'} \delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}
+ \delta_{1'} \delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}} \otimes
\delta_{1} \delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}
- \delta_{1'} \delta_{{{\bar{1}}}} \otimes
\delta_{1} \delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\Big).\end{aligned}$$
The second term of equation (\[reduit2\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
&&
-\frac{i}{2} \int {{\mathrm{d}}}1 {{\mathrm{d}}}1' v(1-1') \sum_{\pm}
\pm\Big(
-\big(\delta_{1}\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\delta_{y}
\delta_{{{\bar{x}}}} W^1_\rho\big)
\big(\delta_{1'}\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}} Z_\rho\big)
+\big(\delta_{1}\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}\delta_{y}
\delta_{{{\bar{x}}}} W^1_\rho\big)
\big(\delta_{1'}\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}} Z_\rho\big)
+\big(\delta_{1'}\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\delta_{y}
\delta_{{{\bar{x}}}} W^1_\rho\big)
\big(\delta_{1}\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}} Z_\rho\big)
\nonumber\\&&\hspace*{43mm}
-\big(\delta_{1'}\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}\delta_{y}
\delta_{{{\bar{x}}}} W^1_\rho\big)
\big(\delta_{1}\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}} Z_\rho\big)\Big).
\label{secondterm}\end{aligned}$$ Let us now consider the first term of (\[secondterm\]). According to (\[nbodyG\]), $\delta_{1'}\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}} Z_\rho=-iG(1,1')$. According to (\[delta4\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{1}\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\delta_{y} \delta_{{{\bar{x}}}} W^1_\rho
&=& \delta_{{{\bar{x}}}}\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\delta_{1}\delta_{y} W^1_\rho
= -\epsilon\epsilon' r(x,1',1,y).\end{aligned}$$ For the second term of (\[secondterm\]) we have $\delta_{1'}\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}} Z_\rho = -i G(1',1')$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{1}\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}\delta_{y} \delta_{{{\bar{x}}}} W^1_\rho
&=& \delta_{{{\bar{x}}}}\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}\delta_{1}\delta_{y} W^1_\rho
= -\epsilon\epsilon' r(x,1,1,y).\end{aligned}$$ Interchanging the variables $1$ and $1'$, we see that the third term of (\[secondterm\]) is equal to the first one, and the fourth term is equal to the second one. Finally, the second term of (\[reduit2\]) becomes the sum of $$\begin{aligned}
&&
-\epsilon\epsilon' \int {{\mathrm{d}}}1 {{\mathrm{d}}}1' v(1-1') r(x,1',1,y)
\sum_{\pm} \pm G(1,1'),\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon\epsilon' \int {{\mathrm{d}}}1 {{\mathrm{d}}}1' v(1-1') r(x,1,1,y)
\sum_{\pm} \pm G(1',1').\end{aligned}$$
Third term of equation (\[reduit2\])
------------------------------------
The third term is $$\begin{aligned}
-i \sum \big(D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(1')}}
\delta_{{\bar{x}}}W^1_\rho\big) \big(D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(2')}} \delta_y Z_\rho\big).\end{aligned}$$ For this term, two kinds of $D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(1')}}\otimes D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(2')}}$ intervene: with one or three products in $D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(1')}}$. For the first kind of terms, the relevant coproducts are $\delta_{1}\otimes \delta_{1'}\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}
\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}
-\delta_{1'}\otimes \delta_{1}\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}
\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}$ and the result is $$\begin{aligned}
&&-\frac{i}{2}\int {{\mathrm{d}}}1 {{\mathrm{d}}}1' v(1-1') \sum_{\pm}\pm\Big(
\big(\delta_{1}\delta_{{{\bar{x}}}} W^1_\rho)
\big(\delta_{1'}\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}
\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}\delta_{y} Z_\rho\big)
- \big(\delta_{1'}\delta_{{{\bar{x}}}} W^1_\rho)
\big(\delta_{1}\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}
\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}\delta_{y} Z_\rho\big)\Big)
\\&&=
-i\int {{\mathrm{d}}}1 {{\mathrm{d}}}1' v(1-1') \sum_{\pm}\pm
\big(\delta_{1}\delta_{{{\bar{x}}}} W^1_\rho)
\big(\delta_{1'}\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}
\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}\delta_{y} Z_\rho\big).\end{aligned}$$ We have interchanged the variables $1$ and $1'$ to obtain the last line. We use now $\delta_{1}\delta_{{{\bar{x}}}} W^1_\rho=-iG^0_\rho(x,1)$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{1'}\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}} \delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}\delta_{y} Z_\rho
&=& - \delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\delta_{1'}\delta_{y} Z_\rho
= G(1,1',1',y),\end{aligned}$$ to get $$\begin{aligned}
-\int {{\mathrm{d}}}1 {{\mathrm{d}}}1' v(1-1') \sum_{\pm}\pm
G^0_\rho(x,1)G(1,1',1',y).\end{aligned}$$ For the second kind of terms, the relevant coproducts are $\delta_{1}\delta_{1'}\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\otimes
\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}
- \delta_{1}\delta_{1'}\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}\otimes
\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}$. Again, interchanging $1$ and $1'$ shows that these two terms give the same contribution and the result is $$\begin{aligned}
&&i\int {{\mathrm{d}}}1 {{\mathrm{d}}}1' v(1-1') \sum_{\pm} \pm
\big(\delta_{1}\delta_{1'}\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}
\delta_{{{\bar{x}}}} W^1_\rho)
\big(\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\delta_{y} Z_\rho\big).\end{aligned}$$ We calculate $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{1}\delta_{1'}\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}} \delta_{{{\bar{x}}}} W^1_\rho
&=& -\delta_{{{\bar{x}}}}\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}\delta_{1}\delta_{1'}W^1_\rho
= \pm\epsilon r(x,1,1,1'),\end{aligned}$$ and $\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\delta_{y} Z_\rho= i G(1',y)$. The contribution of the second kind of terms becomes $$\begin{aligned}
-\epsilon\int {{\mathrm{d}}}1 {{\mathrm{d}}}1' v(1-1') r(x,1,1,1')\sum_{\pm}
G(1',y).\end{aligned}$$
Fourth term of equation (\[reduit2\])
-------------------------------------
The fourth term of equation (\[reduit2\]) is $$\begin{aligned}
- \frac{1}{2}
\sum \big(D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(1')}}^{2}
\delta_y \delta_{{\bar{x}}}W^1_\rho \big)
\big(D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(2')}}^{2} Z_\rho\big).\end{aligned}$$ Here we meet something new because we must use the reduced coproduct $\Delta' D^2$. According to the general formula (\[Delta’def\])of I, this reduced coproduct is obtained by multiplying $\Delta'D$ by itself. The spacetime variables of the first $\Delta'D$ will still be denoted by $1$ and $1'$, while the spacetime variables of the second $\Delta'D$ will be denoted by $2$ and $2'$. Moreover, the $\pm$ variable of the second $\Delta'D$ will be written $\pm'$. Each term $D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(1')}}$ of $\Delta'D$ is at least of degree 1, so each term of $D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(1')}}^2$ is at least of degree 2. Therefore, the only term of $W^1_\rho$ that contributes to $D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(1')}}^{2} \delta_y \delta_{{\bar{x}}}W^1_\rho$ is $\rho^c({{\bar{\alpha}}},\alpha)$. We use again the fact that $\rho^c({{\bar{\alpha}}},\alpha)$ is a product of two sources $\eta$ and two sources ${{\bar{\eta}}}$ to deduce that $D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(1')}}^2$ must be the product of a functional derivative with respect to $\eta$ and a functional derivative with respect to ${{\bar{\eta}}}$. The eight terms $D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(1')}}^2$ that satisfy this condition are $\delta_{1}\delta_{{{\bar{2}}}}$, $\delta_{1}\delta_{{{\bar{2}'}}}$, $\delta_{1'}\delta_{{{\bar{2}}}}$, $\delta_{1'}\delta_{{{\bar{2}'}}}$, $\delta_{1}\delta_{{{\bar{2}}}}$, $\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}\delta_{2}$, $\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}\delta_{2'}$, $\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\delta_{2}$ and $\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\delta_{2'}$. This gives us eight terms which are all identical if we interchange 1 with 1’ or 2 with 2’ or (1,1’) with (2,2’). Thus, the fourth term of equation (\[reduit2\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
-\int {{\mathrm{d}}}1{{\mathrm{d}}}1'{{\mathrm{d}}}2{{\mathrm{d}}}2' v(1-1') v(2-2')\sum_{\pm\pm'} \pm\pm'
\big(\delta_{1}\delta_{{{\bar{2}}}}
\delta_{y}\delta_{{{\bar{x}}}} W^1_\rho\big)
\big(\delta_{1'}\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}
\delta_{2}\delta_{2'}\delta_{{{\bar{2}'}}}
Z_\rho\big).\end{aligned}$$ We have just to calculate $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{1}\delta_{{{\bar{2}}}} \delta_{y}\delta_{{{\bar{x}}}} W^1_\rho
&=& \delta_{{{\bar{x}}}}\delta_{{{\bar{2}}}}\delta_{1} \delta_{y} W^1_\rho
= -\epsilon\epsilon'\pm\pm' r(x,2,1,y),\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{1}\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}
\delta_{2}\delta_{2'}\delta_{{{\bar{2}'}}}
Z_\rho
&=& \delta_{{{\bar{2}'}}}\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}
\delta_{2}\delta_{2'}\delta_{1'} Z_\rho
= -iG(2',1,1',2,2',1').\end{aligned}$$ The final expression for the fourth term is then $$\begin{aligned}
-i\epsilon\epsilon'\int {{\mathrm{d}}}1{{\mathrm{d}}}1'{{\mathrm{d}}}2{{\mathrm{d}}}2' v(1-1') v(2-2')
r(x,2,1,y) \sum_{\pm\pm'} G(2',1,1',2,2',1').\end{aligned}$$
Fifth term of equation (\[reduit2\])
------------------------------------
The fifth term of equation (\[reduit2\]) is $$\begin{aligned}
- \frac{1}{2}
\sum \big(D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(1')}}^{2} \delta_{{\bar{x}}}W^1_\rho\big)
\big(D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(2')}}^{2} \delta_y Z_\rho\big).\end{aligned}$$ To give nonzero contributions, $D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(1')}}^{2}$ must contain three functional derivatives: one functional derivative with respect to a ${{\bar{\eta}}}$ and two with respect to $\eta$. This gives us three kinds of terms: (i) the argument of ${{\bar{\eta}}}$ does not come from the same $D$ as the arguments of the two $\eta$, as in $D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(1')}}^2=\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\delta_{2}\delta_{2'}$ (ii) the argument of ${{\bar{\eta}}}$ is the same as that of one of the two $\eta$, for example $D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(1')}}=\delta_{1}\delta_{2'}\delta_{{{\bar{2}'}}}$ (iii) the argument of ${{\bar{\eta}}}$ comes from the same $D$ as the argument of one of the two $\eta$ but they are not identical, for example $D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(1')}}=-\delta_{1}\delta_{2}\delta_{{{\bar{2}'}}}$. In $\Delta' D^2$ there are four terms of type (i), eight terms of type (ii) and eight terms of type (iii). All the terms of each class give the same contribution. We calculate now the contribution of the three kinds of terms
### Terms of kind (i)
The sum of the terms of type (i) is $$\begin{aligned}
-\frac{1}{2}\int {{\mathrm{d}}}1 {{\mathrm{d}}}1' {{\mathrm{d}}}2 {{\mathrm{d}}}2' v(1-1') v(2-2')
\sum_{\pm,\pm'} \pm\pm'
\big( \delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\delta_{2}\delta_{2'}
\delta_{{{\bar{x}}}} W^1_\rho\big)
\big( \delta_{1}\delta_{1'}
\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}
\delta_{{{\bar{2}'}}}\delta_{{{\bar{2}}}}
\delta_{y} Z_\rho\big).\end{aligned}$$ We compute $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\delta_{2}\delta_{2'}
\delta_{{{\bar{x}}}} W^1_\rho
&=& - \delta_{{{\bar{x}}}}\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\delta_{2}
\delta_{2'} W^1_\rho
= \pm\epsilon r(x,1',2,2'),\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{1}\delta_{1'}
\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}
\delta_{{{\bar{2}'}}}\delta_{{{\bar{2}}}}
\delta_{y} Z_\rho
&=& - \delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}\delta_{{{\bar{2}}}}\delta_{{{\bar{2}'}}}
\delta_{1}\delta_{1'}\delta_{y} Z_\rho
= i G(1,2,2',1,1',y)\end{aligned}$$ to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
-\frac{i}{2}\epsilon\int {{\mathrm{d}}}1 {{\mathrm{d}}}1' {{\mathrm{d}}}2 {{\mathrm{d}}}2' v(1-1') v(2-2')
r(x,1',2,2') \sum_{\pm,\pm'} \pm' G(1,2,2',1,1',y).\end{aligned}$$
### Terms of kind (ii)
The sum of the terms of type (ii) is $$\begin{aligned}
-\int {{\mathrm{d}}}1 {{\mathrm{d}}}1' {{\mathrm{d}}}2 {{\mathrm{d}}}2' v(1-1') v(2-2')
\sum_{\pm,\pm'} \pm\pm'
\big(\delta_{1}\delta_{2'}\delta_{{{\bar{2}'}}}
\delta_{{{\bar{x}}}} W^1_\rho\big)
\big( \delta_{1'}\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}
\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}
\delta_{2}\delta_{{{\bar{2}}}}
\delta_{y} Z_\rho\big).\end{aligned}$$ We use $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{1}\delta_{2'}\delta_{{{\bar{2}'}}}
\delta_{{{\bar{x}}}} W^1_\rho
&=& - \delta_{{{\bar{x}}}}\delta_{{{\bar{2}'}}}\delta_{1}\delta_{2'}W^1_\rho
=\pm\epsilon r(x,2',1,2'),\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{1'}\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}
\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}
\delta_{2}\delta_{{{\bar{2}}}}
\delta_{y} Z_\rho
&=&
-\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\delta_{{{\bar{2}}}}
\delta_{1'} \delta_{2}\delta_{y} Z_\rho
= i G(1,1',2,1',2,y).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the fifth term of type (ii) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
-i\epsilon\int {{\mathrm{d}}}1 {{\mathrm{d}}}1' {{\mathrm{d}}}2 {{\mathrm{d}}}2' v(1-1') v(2-2')
r(x,2',1,2')
\sum_{\pm,\pm'} \pm' G(1,1',2,1',2,y).\end{aligned}$$
### Terms of kind (iii)
The sum of the terms of type (iii) is $$\begin{aligned}
\int {{\mathrm{d}}}1 {{\mathrm{d}}}1' {{\mathrm{d}}}2 {{\mathrm{d}}}2' v(1-1') v(2-2')
\sum_{\pm,\pm'}\pm\pm'
\big(\delta_{1}\delta_{2}\delta_{{{\bar{2}'}}}
\delta_{{{\bar{x}}}} W^1_\rho\big)
\big( \delta_{1'}\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}
\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}
\delta_{2'}\delta_{{{\bar{2}}}}
\delta_{y} Z_\rho\big).\end{aligned}$$ We have $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{1}\delta_{2}\delta_{{{\bar{2}'}}}
\delta_{{{\bar{x}}}} W^1_\rho
&=&\delta_{{{\bar{x}}}}\delta_{{{\bar{2}'}}}\delta_{1}\delta_{2}W^1_\rho
=\mp\epsilon r(x,2',1,2),\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{1'}\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}
\delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}
\delta_{2'}\delta_{{{\bar{2}}}}
\delta_{y} Z_\rho
&=&
- \delta_{{{\bar{1}}}}\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\delta_{{{\bar{2}}}}
\delta_{1'} \delta_{2'} \delta_{y} Z_\rho
= i G(1,1',2,1',2',y).\end{aligned}$$ The fifth term of type (iii) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
-i\epsilon \int {{\mathrm{d}}}1 {{\mathrm{d}}}1' {{\mathrm{d}}}2 {{\mathrm{d}}}2' v(1-1') v(2-2')
r(x,2',1,2)
\sum_{\pm,\pm'}\pm' G(1,1',2,1',2',y).\end{aligned}$$
Sixth term of equation (\[reduit2\])
------------------------------------
The sixth term of equation (\[reduit2\]) is $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{i}{6}
\sum \big(D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(1')}}^{3} \delta_{{\bar{x}}}W^1_\rho\big)
\big(D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(2')}}^{3} \delta_y Z_\rho \Big).\end{aligned}$$ It looks complicated because we have now $\Delta' D^3=(\Delta'D)(\Delta'D)(\Delta'D)$. The third $\Delta'D$ will have the variables $3$, $3'$ and $\pm''$. Again, we need one derivative with respect to ${{\bar{\eta}}}$ and two derivatives with respect to $\eta$ in $D{{}_{\scriptscriptstyle(1')}}^{3}$. There are 24 terms of this kind in $\Delta' D^3$, and they all give the same contribution as $\delta_{{\bar{1}}}\delta_2\delta_3\otimes
\delta_1\delta_{1'}\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\delta_{2'}\delta_{{{\bar{2}'}}}
\delta_{{{\bar{2}}}} \delta_{3'}\delta_{{{\bar{3}'}}} \delta_{{{\bar{3}}}}$. Thus, the sixth term is $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{i}{2}\int {{\mathrm{d}}}1 {{\mathrm{d}}}1' {{\mathrm{d}}}2 {{\mathrm{d}}}2' {{\mathrm{d}}}3 {{\mathrm{d}}}3'
v(1-1') v(2-2') v(3-3') \sum_{\pm\pm'\pm''}\pm\pm'\pm''
\big(\delta_{{\bar{1}}}\delta_2\delta_3\delta_{{\bar{x}}}W^1_\rho\big)
\big(\delta_1\delta_{1'}\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\delta_{2'}\delta_{{{\bar{2}'}}}
\delta_{{{\bar{2}}}} \delta_{3'}\delta_{{{\bar{3}'}}} \delta_{{{\bar{3}}}}
\delta_y Z_\rho\big).\end{aligned}$$ We compute $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{{\bar{1}}}\delta_2\delta_3\delta_{{\bar{x}}}W^1_\rho
&=& - \delta_{{\bar{x}}}\delta_{{\bar{1}}}\delta_2\delta_3 W^1_\rho
= \pm\pm'\pm''\epsilon r(x,1,2,3),\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_1\delta_{1'}\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\delta_{2'}\delta_{{{\bar{2}'}}}
\delta_{{{\bar{2}}}} \delta_{3'}\delta_{{{\bar{3}'}}} \delta_{{{\bar{3}}}}
\delta_y Z_\rho
&=&
\delta_{{{\bar{1}'}}}\delta_{{{\bar{2}}}}\delta_{{{\bar{2}'}}}\delta_{{{\bar{3}}}}
\delta_{{{\bar{3}'}}}\delta_1\delta_{1'}\delta_{2'}\delta_{3'}
\delta_y Z_\rho
=
i G(1',2,2',3,3',1,1',2',3',y).\end{aligned}$$ The last term of equation (\[reduit2\]) is then $$\begin{aligned}
&&-\frac{1}{2}\epsilon\int {{\mathrm{d}}}1 {{\mathrm{d}}}1' {{\mathrm{d}}}2 {{\mathrm{d}}}2' {{\mathrm{d}}}3 {{\mathrm{d}}}3'
v(1-1') v(2-2') v(3-3') r(x,1,2,3)
\sum_{\pm\pm'\pm''} G(1',2,2',3,3',1,1',2',3',y).\end{aligned}$$
The Green function hierarchy
----------------------------
If we gather all the previous results, we obtain the Green function hierarchy $$\begin{aligned}
G(x,y) &=& G_{\epsilon\epsilon'}(x,y) =
G^0_{\rho\epsilon\epsilon'}(x,y)
-i\int {{\mathrm{d}}}1 {{\mathrm{d}}}1' v(1-1') \sum_{\pm}\pm
G^0_\rho(x,1)G(1,1',1',y)
\nonumber\\&&
-i\epsilon\epsilon' \int {{\mathrm{d}}}1 {{\mathrm{d}}}1' v(1-1') r(x,1',1,y)
\sum_{\pm} \pm G(1,1')
+ i\epsilon\epsilon' \int {{\mathrm{d}}}1 {{\mathrm{d}}}1' v(1-1') r(x,1,1,y)
\sum_{\pm} \pm G(1',1')
\nonumber\\&&
-i\epsilon\int {{\mathrm{d}}}1 {{\mathrm{d}}}1' v(1-1') r(x,1,1,1')\sum_{\pm}
G(1',y)
\nonumber\\&&
+\frac{1}{2}\epsilon\int {{\mathrm{d}}}1 {{\mathrm{d}}}1' {{\mathrm{d}}}2 {{\mathrm{d}}}2' v(1-1') v(2-2')
r(x,1',2,2') \sum_{\pm,\pm'} \pm' G(1,2,2',1,1',y)
\nonumber\\&&
+\epsilon \int {{\mathrm{d}}}1 {{\mathrm{d}}}1' {{\mathrm{d}}}2 {{\mathrm{d}}}2' v(1-1') v(2-2')
r(x,2',1,2)
\sum_{\pm,\pm'}\pm' G(1,1',2,1',2',y).
\nonumber\\&&
+\epsilon\epsilon'\int {{\mathrm{d}}}1{{\mathrm{d}}}1'{{\mathrm{d}}}2{{\mathrm{d}}}2' v(1-1') v(2-2')
r(x,2,1,y) \sum_{\pm\pm'} G(2',1,1',2,2',1')
\nonumber\\&&
+\epsilon\int {{\mathrm{d}}}1 {{\mathrm{d}}}1' {{\mathrm{d}}}2 {{\mathrm{d}}}2' v(1-1') v(2-2')
r(x,2',1,2')
\sum_{\pm,\pm'} \pm' G(1,1',2,1',2,y).
\nonumber\\&&
-\frac{i}{2}\epsilon\int {{\mathrm{d}}}1 {{\mathrm{d}}}1' {{\mathrm{d}}}2 {{\mathrm{d}}}2' {{\mathrm{d}}}3 {{\mathrm{d}}}3'
v(1-1') v(2-2') v(3-3') r(x,1,2,3)
\sum_{\pm\pm'\pm''} G(1',2,2',3,3',1,1',2',3',y).
\label{hierarchie}\end{aligned}$$
In terms of the Feynman diagrams of nonequilibrium quantum field theory [@Hall], these terms can be rewritten as in figure 1. The order of the terms is the same in equation (\[hierarchie\]) and in figure 1.
![Diagrammatic representation of equation (\[hierarchie\]).](diag1.eps)
Conclusion
==========
The hierarchy of Green functions presented here is an important step in the effective calculation of degenerate systems. However, the practical implementation of this hierarchy requires an approximation to close it. The GW approximation [@Hedin; @GW; @Arya] is a well-known and powerful way of closing the hierarchy. It has to be adapted to our more complicated hierarchy. For the calculation of the optical properties of allochromatic crystals, it will also be necessary to adapt the Bethe-Salpeter approach [@Onida] to our setting.
Moreover, a functional derivation of the energy with respect to the density matrix provides equations that enable us to unify the Green-function formalism and the diagonalization method of many-body theory. This will be presented in a forthcoming publication [@BrouderX].
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[1]{}
Ch. Brouder. Many-body theory of degenerate systems. 2003. arXiv:cond-mat/0309558.
A.G. Hall. Non-equilibrium [G]{}reen functions: Generalized [W]{}ick’s theorem and diagrammatic perturbation theory with initial correlations. , 8:214–25, 1975.
L. Hedin. New method for calculating the one-particle [G]{}reen’s function with application to the electron-gas problem. , 139:796–823, 1965.
F. Aryasetiawan and O. Gunnarson. The [GW]{} method. , 61:237–312, 1998.
F. Aryasetiawan. The [GW]{} approximation and vertex corrections. In V.I. Anisimov, editor, [*Strong [C]{}oulomb correlations in electronic structure calculations*]{}, pages 1–95, Amsterdam, 2000. Gordon and Breach.
G. Onida, L. Reining, and A. Rubio. Electronic excitations: density-functional versus many-body [G]{}reen’s-function approaches. , 74:601–59, 2002.
Ch. Brouder. Many-body approach to crystal field theory. 2003. arXiv:cond-mat/0308058.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
UCSD/PTH 92-29\
August 1992\
\
University of California at San Diego\
Department of Physics-0319\
9500 Gilman Drive\
La Jolla, CA 92093-0319\
USA\
Introduction
============
In a recent paper [@david] a new method for simulating chiral fermions on a lattice was suggested. The proposal uses the fact that by introducing a domain wall in an odd dimensional – and therefore vectorlike– theory one finds zero modes bound to this domain wall [@jarebbi; @gw; @caha]. Regarding the domain wall as a lower (even) dimensional world it was demonstrated in [@david] that for the infinite lattice these zero modes are chiral fermions and that the resulting theory on the domain wall exhibits the desired anomaly structure.
The same features have been shown to survive on a finite lattice where boundary conditions require one to consider a wall/anti-wall pair. For low energies a chiral fermion is bound to one of the domain walls with its chiral partner of opposite chirality living on the other domain wall. In addition, it has been demonstrated that in the presence of weak external gauge fields the divergence of the gauge current satisfies the [*continuum*]{} anomaly equation [@karl]. This surprising result has been explained as being a consequence of the fact that on the lattice the divergence of the Goldstone-Wilczek current [@gw; @caha] has the same form as in the continuum [@gojaka].
One of the most important properties of the domain wall method is that the fermions are only chiral in the low energy limit. For the special choice of the Wilson coupling $r=1$ it was shown in [@david] that there exists a critical value of the momentum $p_c$ for which the fermions cease to be chiral. However, it is expected that also for other choices of the Wilson coupling such critical momenta exist. This was confirmed on the finite lattice where the existence of the critical momentum could be demonstrated for an $r=1.8$ [@karl].
Here we want to perform a systematic study of the values of the critical momenta for which one will find chiral modes. We compare the analytical results obtained on the infinite lattice with the spectrum of the finite lattice Hamiltonian. Aside from the theoretical interest of this question, our results are of practical importance for future numerical simulations of this system.
Zeromodes on the Infinite Lattice
=================================
To be specific we will first discuss the zeromodes for the case of a 3-dimensional model, though our results will be generalized to arbitrary dimensions at the end. We start with the Dirac-Wilson operator on an infinite lattice with lattice spacing $a=1$
$$K_{3D} =\sum_{\mu=1}^3\sigma_\mu\partial_\mu
+m\theta(s)+\frac{r}{2}\sum_{\mu=1}^3\Delta_\mu
\label{eq:diracco}$$
where $\partial$ denotes the lattice derivative $\partial_\mu = \frac{1}{2}\left[\delta_{z,z+\mu} - \delta_{z,z-\mu}\right] $, $\Delta$ the lattice Laplacian $\Delta_\mu = \left[\delta_{z,z+\mu} + \delta_{z,z-\mu}-2\delta_{z,z}\right] $, the $\sigma_\mu$ are the usual Pauli matrices and $r$ the Wilson coupling. We will denote by $s$ the extra dimension along which the mass defect appears, while $x,t$ are the 2-dimensional coordinates. The domain wall is taken to be a step function $\theta$, $$\theta(s) = \left\{ \begin{array}{lll}
-1 & s < 0 \\
0 & s=0\\
+1 & s > 0
\end{array} \right.
\label{eq:theta}$$ where the height of the domain wall is given by the mass parameter $m$ which we will choose to be positive throughout this paper.
We are looking for solutions which are plane waves in the $(x,t)$-plane $$\Psi^{\pm} = e^{i(p_tt+p_xx)}\Phi(s)u^{\pm}
\label{eq:psi}$$ where $u^\pm$ are the eigenspinors of $\sigma_3$ $$\sigma_3 u^\pm = \pm u^\pm .
\label{eq:spinors}$$ With this ansatz the Dirac operator becomes $$K_{3D} =\sum_{i=1}^2i\sigma_i\sin(p_i)+ \sigma_3\partial_s
+m\theta(s)+r(\sum_{i=1}^2(\cos(p_i)-1)+\frac{r}{2}\Delta_s \;\; .
\label{eq:diracmom}$$ Our final goal is to diagonalize the 3 dimensional Dirac operator in such a way that it reduces to the 2 dimensional Dirac operator for free massless fermions, $$K_{3D}\Psi = K_{2D}\Psi$$ where $K_{2D}$ acting on $\Psi$ is given by $$K_{2D} = \sum_{\mu=1}^2\sigma_\mu\partial_\mu = i(\sigma_1 \sin(p_t)
+\sigma_2 \sin(p_x))\;.
\label{eq:e1}$$ Hence the equation to solve is $$\left[\sigma_3\partial_s + m\theta(s) -rF
+\frac{r}{2}\Delta_s\right]\Phi u^\pm =0
\label{eq:problem}$$ where $$F=\sum_{i=t,x}(1-\cos(p_i)) .
\label{eq:F}$$ Following [@david] we choose an exponential ansatz for $\Phi$ away from the domain wall $$\Phi(s+1)=z\Phi(s) .
\label{eq:ansatz}$$ Inserting this into (\[eq:problem\]) one finds four solutions $$z =\frac{r-m_{eff}\pm\sqrt{m_{eff}(m_{eff}-2r)+1}}{r\pm1}
\label{eq:roots}$$ where $m_{eff} = m\theta(s)-rF$, the $\pm$ in the nominator stand for the two roots and the $\pm$ in the denominator stand for the chirality. Note that in the limit $r=1$ eq.(\[eq:roots\]) can be reduced to the corresponding expressions in [@david].
We have to impose the condition that the solutions are normalizable to obtain sensible wavefunctions. This means that $|z|>1$ for $s<0$ and $|z|<1$ for $s>0$. The boundaries of the regions where chiral solutions exist are obtained by setting $|z|=1$. Explicit matching of the normalizable solutions for positive and negative $s$ at $s=0$ enables us to determine the regions with chiral fermions. We find that existence and chirality of the solutions is independent of the sign of $r$ and that a negative $m$ leads to opposite chiralities. Depending on the values of $m/r$ we get $m =rF$ and $m =r(F+2)$ as the boundaries for the critical momenta where $F$ is defined as above in eq.(\[eq:F\]).
The results are summarized in fig.1. We show the Brillouin zone $-\pi\le p_t \le \pi$, for different ratios of $m/r$. The white areas indicate the region in momentum space where chiral fermions exist. Starting with $m/r=0$ we find no chiral fermions. For increasing $m/r>0$ the region where chiral modes exist grows from a small circle around $\vec{p} =(0,0)$ until it hits the boundary of the Brillouin zone for $m/r =2$. The boundary of the circle, i.e. the upper critical momenta, is given by $m=rF$. Increasing $m/r$ further opens up the two “doubler” modes at $\vec{p} =(0,\pi)$ and $\vec{p} =(\pi,0)$ which have flipped chirality, while the original mode at $\vec{p} =(0,0)$ disappears. Here the boundaries of the white regions are given by $m=rF$ for the lower and $m=r(F+2)$ for the upper critical momenta. For $m/r>4$ the two “doublers” disappear and we get a zero mode at $\vec{p} =(\pi,\pi)$ with the same chirality as the mode at $\vec{p} =(0,0)$. The boundary for the lower critical momenta is given by $m=r(F+2)$. This mode is finally also lost as $m/r$ is increased to $m/r \ge 6$.
We want to remark that this spectrum stems from $\Psi^+$ solutions only, and that there are no $\Psi^-$ solutions for positive $m$. The change of the chirality is the usual reinterpretation of the chirality at different corners of the Brillouin zone.
The generalization to arbitrary dimensions $d=2n+1$ consists merely in replacing the function $F$ in eq.(\[eq:F\]) by $$F=\sum_i^{d-1} (1-\cos(p_i))\;\;.
\label{generalf}$$ We find in $d$ dimensions that for $2k <|m/r|<2k+2$ ($0\le k <d-1$), the number of chiral zero modes $N_{zm}$ bound to the $d-1$ dimensional domain wall is given by $$N_{zm}= \left( \begin{array}{c}
d-1 \\ k \end{array} \right)
\label{eq:nzm}$$ and their chirality is $(-1)^k$.
The regions of chiral fermions as found here correspond exactly to the values of $m/r$ where the lattice Chern-Simons current induced by Wilson fermions changes its value [@gojaka] giving contributions to the Goldstone-Wilczek current. The calculation of the Chern-Simons current in [@gojaka] uses the observation that the fermion propagator in momentum space can be interpreted as a map from the torus to the sphere ($T^{d}\rightarrow S^{d}$). The winding number of this map is closely related to the zeromode spectrum and changes only at particular values of $m/r$ which agree exactly with our results for the values of $m/r$ where the number of zeromodes changes.
Finite Size Effects
===================
Any numerical work on this system will necessarily involve finite lattices, and so we now compare the critical momenta obtained on the infinite system with the ones of a finite lattice. On the finite lattice we have to choose some boundary conditions which generate a second anti-domain wall. The mass term is therefore modified to be $m\theta_L(s)$ with $$\theta_L(s) = \left\{ \begin{array}{lll}
-1 & 2\le s \le \frac{L_s}{2} \\
+1 & \frac{L_s}{2}+2 \le s \le L_s \\
0 & s=1, \frac{L_s}{2}+1
\end{array} \right. \;\; .
\label{eq:m0}$$
We searched for the zeromodes on the finite lattice by solving the Hamiltonian problem numerically. If we again assume plane waves in the $x$-direction the Hamiltonian is given by [@karl] $$H =-\sigma_1\left[i\sigma_2\sin(p_x) + \sigma_3\partial_s
+m\theta_L(s)+r(\cos(p_x)-1) +\frac{r}{2}\Delta_s) \right] \;\; .
\label{eq:hamiltonian}$$
We computed the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian eq.(\[eq:hamiltonian\]) numerically [^1]. Choosing the Hamiltonian instead of the Dirac operator reduces the numerical effort substantially as we only have to search for a single critical momentum instead of a pair. To find the critical momenta we studied the ratio $$R=\frac{\psibar\Psi}{\psibar\sigma_1\Psi}
\label{eq:R}$$ which is a normalized measure for whether the fermions are chiral or not. It is zero if the fermions are chiral and $R>0$ for non-chiral modes (see fig.2b in [@karl]). To determine whether we still have chiral fermions we defined a threshold value for R. If $R < 0.01$ we regarded the fermions to be chiral.
We show the critical momenta as functions of $r$ at three different values of $m$ in Fig.2. As discussed above we should find two boundary curves for the critical momenta. Note that because we now use the Hamiltonian, the function $F$ is only one dimensional $F=1-\cos(p_x)$. For $m/r<2$ the chiral fermions appear for momenta bounded by $m=rF$. This is the solid line in Fig.2. For $2<m/r<4$ the momenta for which chiral fermions appear are given by $m=rF$ for the lower and $m=r(F+2)$ for the upper critical momenta. We plot the curve for the upper critical momenta as a dashed line in Fig.2.
We compare the results from the infinite system with our finite lattice calculations. The crosses correspond to a system size of $L=100$ and the open circles to a size of $L=20$. We find that the $L=100$ lattice is practically indistinguishable from the infinite system. For $L=20$, a lattice size realistic for simulations, a small shift occurs. Fixing $m$ and $r$ we find for $m/r<2$ a smaller value and for $2<m/r<4$ a larger value of the critical momentum. Note, that for $m=0.4$ the circles belong only to the solid curve. We did not find the momenta which correspond to the dashed line as our resolution in the numerical computation was not fine enough.
In conclusion, we find the differences between $L=\infty$ and $L=20$ to be small. This means that the lattice has not to be too large to reproduce the basic features of the model at $L=\infty$ which makes the domain wall model feasible for numerical investigations. Therefore we have shown that the domain wall model can be used for numerical simulations on realistic lattices. We also give the values of the domain wall mass $m$ and the Wilson coupling $r$ with which numerical simulations should eventually be performed.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We want to thank J. Kuti and D. Kaplan for numerous helpful discussions. This work is supported by DOE grant DE-FG-03-90ER40546.
[99]{}
D.B. Kaplan, [*A Method for Simulating Chiral Fermions on the Lattice*]{}, UCSD preprint, UCSD/PTH 92-16, to appear in Phys.Lett.B.
R.Jackiw and C. Rebbi, Phys.Rev.D 13 (1976) 3398.
J. Goldstone and F. Wilczek, Phys.Rev.Lett. 47 (1981) 986.
C.G. Callan, Jr. and J.A. Harvey, Nucl.Phys. B250 (1985) 427.
K. Jansen, [*Chiral Fermions and Anomalies on a Finite Lattice*]{}, UCSD preprint, UCSD/PTH 92-18, to appear in Phys.Lett.B.
M.F.L. Golterman, K. Jansen and D. Kaplan, [*Chern-Simons Currents and Chiral Fermions on the Lattice*]{}, UCSD preprint, UCSD/PTH 92-28.
Figure Caption {#figure-caption .unnumbered}
==============
[**Fig.1**]{} We plot the regions within the Brillouin zone , where chiral fermions exist (white areas) as a function of $m/r$ with $m$ the domain wall mass and $r$ the Wilson coupling. For the different cases $0<m/r<2$, $2<m/r <4$ and $4<m/r<6$ we have one chiral fermion with positive chirality, two chiral fermions with negative chirality and again one chiral fermion with postive chirality, respectively. For $m/r<0$ and $m/r>6$ there exist no chiral fermions.
[**Fig.2**]{} We plot the two lines which give the upper and lower critical momenta on the infinite system, $m=rF$ (solid lines) and $m=r(F+2)$ dashed lines, where $F=1-\cos(p_x)$. We show these lines at three different values of the domain wall mass $m$ as a function of the Wilson coupling $r$. We compare the curves from the infinite system with results from finite lattice calculations with lattice sizes $L=100$ (crosses) and $L=20$ (open circles). For $m=0.4$ our resolution in the numerical computations was not fine enough to find the critical momenta corresponding to the dashed line. Note that though a shift in the critical momenta on the finite lattice is visible we find the same structure as for the infinite system.
[^1]: In principle it is, of course, possible to perform a similar analysis as in the infinite system. However, on the finite lattice one also has to take into account solutions which are non-normalizable in the infinite system. In addition, on the finite lattice the modes are not exactly chiral. A mode bound to one of the walls always gets an exponentially suppressed contribution from the mode on the other wall. These features render analytic calculations on the finite lattice quite intractable.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Under consideration is the hyperbolic relaxation of a semilinear reaction-diffusion equation, $$\varepsilon u_{tt}+u_{t}-\Delta u+f(u)=0,$$on a bounded domain $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^{3}$, with $\varepsilon \in
(0,1]$ and the prescribed dynamic condition, $$\partial _{\mathbf{n}}u+u+u_{t}=0,$$on the boundary $\Gamma :=\partial \Omega $. We also consider the limit parabolic problem ($\varepsilon =0$) with the same dynamic boundary condition. Each problem is well-posed in a suitable phase space where the global weak solutions generate a Lipschitz continuous semiflow which admits a bounded absorbing set. Because of the nature of the boundary condition, fractional powers of the Laplace operator are not well-defined. The precompactness property required by the hyperbolic semiflows for the existence of the global attractors is gained through the approach of [Pata&Zelik06]{}. In this case, the optimal regularity for the global attractors is also readily established. In the parabolic setting, the regularity of the global attractor is necessary for the semicontinuity result. After fitting both problems into a common framework, a proof of the upper-semicontinuity of the family of global attractors is given at $\varepsilon =0$. Finally, we also establish the existence of a family of exponential attractors.
address:
- 'Ciprian G. Gal, Department of Mathematics, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199, USA'
- 'Joseph L. Shomberg, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Providence College, Providence, RI 02918, USA'
author:
- 'Ciprian G. Gal and Joseph L. Shomberg'
date: today
title: Hyperbolic Relaxation of Reaction Diffusion Equations with Dynamic Boundary Conditions
---
Introduction
============
Let $\Omega $ be a bounded domain in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ with boundary $\Gamma
:=\partial \Omega $ of class $C^{2}$. We consider the *hyperbolic* relaxation of a semilinear reaction diffusion equation, $$\varepsilon u_{tt}+u_{t}-\Delta u+f(u)=0, \label{eq:pde-h-1}$$in$~~(0,\infty )\times \Omega ,$ where $\varepsilon \in \lbrack 0,1]$. The equation is endowed with the dynamic boundary condition, $$\partial _{\mathbf{n}}u+u+u_{t}=0, \label{eq:pde-h-2}$$on$~~(0,\infty )\times \Gamma ,$ and with the initial conditions, $$u(0,x)=u_{0}(x),~~u_{t}(0,x)=u_{1}(x)~~\text{in}~\Omega . \label{eq:pde-h-3}$$
For the nonlinear term $f$, we assume, $f\in C^{2}(\mathbb{R})$ and that there is a constant, $\ell \geq 0$, such that, for all $s\in \mathbb{R}$, the following growth and sign conditions are satisfied, $$|f^{\prime \prime }(s)|\leq \ell (1+|s|), \label{eq:assumption-f-1}$$and $$\liminf_{|s|\rightarrow \infty }\frac{f(s)}{s}>-\lambda ,
\label{eq:assumption-f-2}$$where $\lambda >0$ is the best Sobolev/Poincaré type constant $$\lambda \int_{\Omega }u^{2}\mathrm{d}x\leq \int_{\Omega }|\nabla u|^{2}\mathrm{d}x+\int_{\Gamma }u^{2}\mathrm{d}S. \label{eq:Poincare-type}$$Finally, assume that there is $\vartheta >0$ such that for all $s\in \mathbb{R}$, $$f^{\prime }(s)\geq -\vartheta . \label{eq:assumption-f-3}$$Notice that the derivative $f=F^{^{\prime }}$ of the double-well potential, $F(u)=\frac{1}{4}u^{4}-ku^{2}$, $k>0$, satisfies assumptions ([eq:assumption-f-1]{}), (\[eq:assumption-f-2\]) and (\[eq:assumption-f-3\]). The first two assumptions made here on the nonlinear term, ([eq:assumption-f-1]{}) and (\[eq:assumption-f-2\]), are the same assumptions made on the nonlinear term in [@CEL02], [@MPZ07] and [Wu&Zheng06]{}, for example ([@MPZ07] additionally assumes $f(0)=0$). The third assumption (\[eq:assumption-f-3\]) appears in [@CGG11], [Frigeri10]{}, [@GM12] and ; the bound is utilized to obtain the precompactness property for the semiflow associated with evolution equations when dynamic boundary conditions present a difficulty (e.g., here, fractional powers of the Laplace operator subject to ([eq:pde-h-2]{}) are undefined). It is worth mentioning that ([eq:assumption-f-2]{}) can be also replaced by a less general (but still widely used in the literature) condition$$\liminf_{|s|\rightarrow \infty }f^{^{\prime }}(s)\geq -\lambda$$in which case, (\[eq:assumption-f-3\]) is automatically satisfied. Furthermore, assumption (\[eq:assumption-f-1\]) implies that the growth condition for $f$ is the critical case since $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^{3}$. Such assumptions are common when one is investigating the existence of a global attractor or the existence of an exponential attractor for a partial differential equation of evolution.
Of course, when (\[eq:pde-h-1\]) is equipped with Dirichlet, Neumann or periodic boundary conditions, (\[eq:Poincare-type\]) simplifies. Moreover, if (\[eq:pde-h-1\]) is equipped with a Robin boundary condition, then an estimate like (\[eq:Poincare-type\]) holds, but $\lambda $ possesses an explicit description as the first eigenvalue of the Laplacian with respect to the Robin boundary condition. The relation between the dynamic condition (\[eq:pde-h-2\]) with the acoustic boundary condition is discussed below. The hyperbolic equation (\[eq:pde-h-1\]) is a well-known nonlinear wave equation motivated from (relativistic) quantum mechanics (cf., e.g [Babin&Vishik92,Chepyzhov&Vishik02,Ladyzhenskaya91,Temam88]{}). However, as mentioned, most sources study the asymptotic behavior of (\[eq:pde-h-1\]) with a static boundary condition such as Dirichlet, Neumann, periodic or Robin. One of the goals of this paper is to extend some results concerning the asymptotic behavior of (\[eq:pde-h-1\]), now with the dynamic boundary condition (\[eq:pde-h-2\]). The corresponding linear case for ([eq:pde-h-1]{})-(\[eq:pde-h-3\]) is treated in [@PRB04]. The existence of the global attractor for a linear damped wave equation with a nonlinear dynamic boundary condition is considered in [@Z]. More general systems, with supercritical nonlinear sources on both the interior and the boundary, are considered in [@B1; @BL1; @BL2; @BL3; @BL4]. These contributions mainly devote their attention to issues like, Hadamard local wellposedness, global existence, blow-up and non-existence theorems, as well as estimates on the uniform energy dissipation rates for the appropriate classes of solutions. We also refer the reader to [@BRT] for a unified overview of these results.
Our main goal is to compare the hyperbolic relaxation problem ([eq:pde-h-1]{})-(\[eq:pde-h-3\]) with that of the limit parabolic equation where, for $\varepsilon =0$, we have the reaction-diffusion equation, $$u_{t}-\Delta u+f(u)=0, \label{eq:pde-p-1}$$in$~~(0,\infty )\times \Omega ,$ with the dynamic boundary condition, $$\partial _{\mathbf{n}}u+u+u_{t}=0, \label{eq:pde-p-2}$$on$~~(0,\infty )\times \Gamma $, and the initial conditions$$u(0,x)=u_{0}(x)~~\text{in}~~\Omega ,\text{ }u(0,x)=\gamma _{0}(x)~~\text{on}~\Gamma . \label{eq:pde-p-3}$$For the sake of simplicity, we shall restrict our attention only to linear boundary conditions of the form (\[eq:pde-p-2\]) even though our framework can easily allow for a complete treatment of nonlinear dynamic boundary conditions (see Remark \[nonlinear\_bc\]; cf. also [@CGG11], [Frigeri10]{}, [@GM12]).
Because of its importance in the physical sciences and the development of mathematical physics, the reaction-diffusion equation (\[eq:pde-p-1\]) and its asymptotic behavior are well-known to the literature. Many of the books referenced above contain a treatment on the parabolic semilinear reaction-diffusion equation (\[eq:pde-p-1\]) with *static* boundary conditions. In particular, the Chaffee-Infante reaction-diffusion equation, with $f(u)=u^3-ku$, $k>0$ and Dirichlet boundary conditions can be found in [@Robinson01 Section 11.5]. A discussion on the structure of the associated global attractor can also be found there. Additionally, the Chaffee-Infante equation and its hyperbolic relaxation, again with Dirichlet boundary conditions, are discussed in .
Recently there has been a great amount of research taking place in the area of partial differential equations of evolution type, subject to dynamic boundary conditions. Boundary conditions of the form (\[eq:pde-p-2\]) arise for many known equations of mathematical physics. This can especially be seen by the many applications given to heat control problems, phase-transition phenomena, Stefan problems, some models in climatology, and many others. Without being too exhaustive we refer the reader to [Gal12-2,Gal12,Gal&Warma10]{} for more details about the system ([eq:pde-p-1]{})-(\[eq:pde-p-3\]) and a more complete list of references. A version of equation (\[eq:pde-h-2\]), but with nonlinear dissipation on the boundary, already appears in the literature, we refer to [CEL02,CEL04-2,CEL04]{}. There, the authors are able to show the existence of a global attractor without the presence of the weak interior damping term $u_{t},$ by assuming that $f$ is *subcritical*. One motivation for considering a boundary condition like (\[eq:pde-h-2\]) comes from mechanical considerations: there is frictional damping on the boundary $\Gamma $ that is linearly proportional to the velocity $u_{t}$. In [Wu&Zheng06]{}, the convergence, as time goes to infinity, of unique global strong solutions of (\[eq:pde-h-1\])-(\[eq:pde-h-3\]) to a single equilibrium is established provided that $f$ is also real analytic. Note that the set of equilibria for (\[eq:pde-h-1\])-(\[eq:pde-h-3\]) may form a continuum so that, in general, guaranteeing this convergence is a highly nontrivial matter. The second motivation comes from thermodynamics. Suppose that we want to consider heat flow in a metal. The standard derivation of the heat equation is always based on the idea that heat in equals heat out over a region $\overline{\Omega }$. But the classical approach ignores the contribution of heat sources located on the boundary $\Gamma $, by taking into account only heat sources/sinks which are present inside the region (in our case, $-f\left( u\right) $ is treated as a source within $\Omega $). A new derivation of the heat equation in the presence of heat sources/sinks located at $\Gamma ,$ assuming the Fourier law of cooling states (i.e., the heat flux $\overrightarrow{q}$ is directly proportional to the temperature gradient, $\overrightarrow{q}=-\nabla u$) was given in [@Gold], and it has lead to the precise formulation of the system in (\[eq:pde-p-1\])-([eq:pde-p-3]{}). However, the derivation in [@Gold] suffers from an important drawback which cannot be ignored: initial perturbations in ([eq:pde-p-1]{}) propagate with infinite speed. This means that the presence of a heat source located at $\Gamma $ is instantaneously felt by all observers in $\Omega $, no matter how far away from $\Gamma $ they happen to be. This behavior can be traced to the paraboliccharacter of Fourier’s law. Thus, in many relevant phenomena the system ([eq:pde-p-1]{})-(\[eq:pde-p-3\]) can become a bad approximation (see, e.g., [@APR], [@HP], for many examples). In order to overcome these problems, a generalization of the standard Fourier law must be considered, leading to a new formulation for which the heat flux $\overrightarrow{q}$ obeys the so-called Maxwell–Cattaneo heat conduction law:$$\varepsilon \partial _{t}\overrightarrow{q}+\overrightarrow{q}=-\nabla u,
\label{MClaw}$$in $\left( 0,\infty \right) \times \Omega .$ Note that the Fourier law is obtained from (\[MClaw\]) when $\varepsilon =0$. This expression for the heat flux $\overrightarrow{q}$ leads to the hyperbolic equation ([eq:pde-h-1]{}), which entails that $u$ propagates at finite speed. It is also worth mentioning that one can write (\[MClaw\]) in the equivalent form of$$\overrightarrow{q}\left( t,x\right) =-\int_{0}^{\infty }\Theta _{\varepsilon
}\left( t-s\right) \nabla u\left( s,x\right) \mathrm{d}s,\text{ }\Theta
_{\varepsilon }\left( t\right) :=\frac{1}{\varepsilon }e^{-\frac{t}{\varepsilon }}. \label{MClaw2}$$This points to a situation in which the (past) thermal memory of the material plays a role, but its relevance goes down quickly as we move to the past. Finally, it may be worth mentioning that the form of flux $\overrightarrow{q}$ assumed in (\[MClaw2\]), in which $\Theta
_{\varepsilon }$ is assumed to be a *generic* memory kernel, also yields the following problem:$$u_{t}=\int_{0}^{\infty }\Theta _{\varepsilon }\left( t-s\right) \left(
\Delta u\left( s\right) -f\left( u\left( s\right) \right) \right) \mathrm{d}s. \label{mem-eq}$$In this case, $\Theta _{\varepsilon }\left( s\right) =\varepsilon
^{-1}\Theta \left( s/\varepsilon \right) $ and $\Theta :\left( 0,\infty
\right) \rightarrow \left( 0,\infty \right) $ is a given (smooth) summable and convex (hence decreasing) relaxation kernel. A complete treatment of equation (\[mem-eq\]), endowed with the dynamic boundary condition ([eq:pde-p-2]{}), will be the subject of further investigation in the future.
It may also be interesting to note that the dynamic boundary condition given in (\[eq:pde-h-2\]) can be recovered, in some sense, from the linear acoustic boundary condition, $$\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
m\delta _{tt}+\delta _{t}+\delta =-u_{t} & \text{on}~~(0,T)\times \Gamma \\
\partial _{\mathbf{n}}u=\delta _{t} & \text{on}~~(0,T)\times \Gamma .\end{array}\right. \label{eq:acoustic}$$Here the unknown $\delta =\delta (t,x)$ represents the *inward* displacement of the boundary $\Gamma $ reacting to a pressure described by $-u_{t}$. The first equation ([eq:acoustic]{})$_{1}$ describes the spring-like effect in which $\Gamma $ (and $\delta $) interacts with $-u_{t}$, and the second equation ([eq:acoustic]{})$_{2}$ is the continuity condition: velocity of the boundary displacement $\delta $ agrees with the normal derivative of $u$. Together, (\[eq:acoustic\]) describes $\Gamma $ as a locally reactive surface. The term $m=m(x)$ represents mass, so in a mass*less* system, the inertial term disappears. In the case when $\delta $ can be modelled by $u$ near the boundary; i.e., if $\delta \sim u$ near $\Gamma $, then we arrive at the boundary condition described by (\[eq:pde-h-2\]). In applications, the unknown $u$ may be taken as a velocity potential of some fluid or gas in $\Omega $ that was disturbed from its equilibrium. The acoustic boundary condition was rigorously described by Beale and Rosencrans in [@Beale76] and . Various recent sources investigate the wave equation equipped with acoustic boundary conditions, [CFL01,GGG03,Mugnolo10,Vicente09]{}. However, more recently, it has been introduced as a dynamic boundary condition for problems that study the asymptotic behavior of weakly damped wave equations, see [@Frigeri10] and .
The aim of this paper is to extend the asymptotic results for dissipative wave equations (\[eq:pde-h-1\]) and reaction-diffusion equations ([eq:pde-p-1]{}) with the dynamic boundary condition (\[eq:pde-h-2\]), in terms of a perturbation problem, and ultimately discuss the continuity of the attracting sets generated by these problems. Due to the nature of the boundary condition imposed for the model problem (\[eq:pde-h-1\]), we are unable to prove the existence of global attractors for the hyperbolic relaxation problem through the compactness argument which is typical for damped wave equations with static boundary conditions, such as Dirichlet, Neumann, periodic, or Robin boundary conditions (cf. e.g. [Milani&Koksch05,Temam88,Zheng04]{}). The problem arises from our lack to define fractional powers of the Laplacian with respect to the boundary condition (\[eq:pde-h-2\]). This situation takes place because of the permanence of the $u_{t}$ term on $\Gamma $, which in turn means the Laplacian is not self-adjoint. Thus, for example, the model problem does not enjoy an explicit Poincaré inequality found with a Fourier series, nor the existence of a local weak solution found with a typical Galerkin basis. Local solutions will be sought with semigroup methods that rely on monotone operators techniques as in [CEL02]{}. Then estimates are applied to extend the local solutions to global ones and the existence of an absorbing set is determined. For the hyperbolic relaxation problem (\[eq:pde-h-1\])-(\[eq:pde-h-3\]), we obtain the relatively compact part in the decomposition of the solution by following the approach in .
The main novelties of the present paper with respect to previous results on the damped wave equation (\[eq:pde-h-1\]) are the following:
- We extend the results on the existence of global attractors $\left\{
\mathcal{A}_{\varepsilon }\right\} _{\varepsilon \in (0,1]}$ for the damped wave equation (\[eq:pde-h-1\]) with a critical nonlinearity and a “dynamic” boundary condition instead of the usual Dirichlet boundary condition (see, e.g., , [@Hale88]). This is achieved through the decomposition method exploited in which allows us to establish that $\mathcal{A}_{\varepsilon }$ has also *optimal* regularity (see Theorem \[t:global-attractors-h\]).
- We show that a certain family $\left\{ \widetilde{\mathcal{A}}_{\varepsilon }\right\} _{\varepsilon \in \left[ 0,1\right] }$ of compact sets, which is topologically conjugated to $\left\{ \mathcal{A}_{\varepsilon
}\right\} _{\varepsilon \in \left[ 0,1\right] }$ in a precise way, is also upper-semicontinuous as $\varepsilon $ goes to zero. Roughly speaking, we show that these sets $\widetilde{\mathcal{A}}_{\varepsilon }$ converge to the lifted global attractor $\widetilde{\mathcal{A}}_{0}$ associated with the parabolic problem. The argument utilizes the sequential characterization of the global attractor (cf., e.g. ). The main difficulty comes from the fact that the phase spaces for the perturbed and unperturbed equations are not the same; indeed, solutions of the hyperbolic problem are defined for $\left( u_{0},u_{1}\right) \in H^{s+1}\left( \Omega \right) \times
H^{s}\left( \Omega \right) $, $s\in \left\{ 0,1\right\} $, while solutions of the parabolic problem make sense only in spaces like $L^{2}\left( \Omega \right) \times L^{2}\left( \Gamma \right) $ and $H^{s+1}\left( \Omega \right) \times H^{s+1/2}\left( \Gamma \right) ,$ respectively (see (\[eq:pde-p-3\])). Thus, previous constructions obtained for parabolic equations with Dirichlet boundary conditions cannot be applied and have to be adapted.
- We prove the existence of a family of exponential attractors $\left\{
\mathcal{M}_{\varepsilon }\right\} ,$ $\varepsilon \in (0,1]$, which entails that $\mathcal{A}_{\varepsilon }$ is also finite dimensional even in the critical case. We recall that the same result was shown in [@CEL02] for the wave equation (i.e., (\[eq:pde-h-1\]) without any damping in $\Omega $) subject to the boundary condition (\[eq:pde-p-2\]) only in the subcritical case. Unfortunately, we are unable to show that this dimension is uniform with respect to $\varepsilon >0$ as $\varepsilon $ goes to zero. Some other open questions are formulated at the end of the article.
The article is organized as follows. The limit ($\varepsilon =0$) reaction-diffusion problem is discussed in Section \[s:parabolic\]. The section is mostly devoted to citing the already known main results of the parabolic problem: the existence and uniqueness of global solutions in an appropriate phase space (see Theorem \[t:parabolic-weak-solutions\]), the definition of the (Lipschitz) semiflow, the existence and regularity of the global attractor (see Theorem \[t:global-attractor-and-regularity-p\]). Section \[s:hyperbolic\] contains our treatment of the hyperbolic relaxation problem, for all $\varepsilon \in (0,1]$. We discuss the existence and uniqueness of solutions defined for all positive times in Section \[well-posed\] (see Theorem \[t:hyperbolic-weak-solutions\]). The solutions generate a semiflow on the phase space, and thanks to the continuous dependence estimate, we know that the semiflow is locally Lipschitz continuous. The existence of a bounded absorbing set is also shown (see Lemma \[t:bounded-absorbing-set-h\]). The global attractor and its properties are established in Section \[global-hyper\], while the upper-semicontinuous result is established in Section \[s:continuity\]. The existence of exponential attractors for the hyperbolic problem is presented in Section \[s:exponential-attractors\]. The statement of a Grönwall-type inequality, used frequently in the estimates, is included in the Appendix.
The limit parabolic problem {#s:parabolic}
===========================
In this short section, we recall some results for the limit parabolic problem (\[eq:pde-p-1\])-(\[eq:pde-p-3\]), i.e., (\[eq:pde-h-1\])-([eq:pde-h-3]{}) with $\varepsilon =0$. Unlike the hyperbolic problem, a full general treatment of the limit parabolic problem with dynamic boundary conditions already appears in the literature (cf., e.g., [Gal12-2,Gal12,Gal&Warma10, Mey10]{} and references there in); in particular, this section will summarize some of the main results from [@Gal12]. It should be noted for the interest of the reader that all formal calculations made with the weak solutions of the parabolic problem can be rigorously justified using the Galerkin discretization scheme that appears, for instance, in . Indeed, it is through the use of the Galerkin approximations that the existence of weak solutions for the parabolic problem is shown. The solution operator associated with the parabolic problem generates a locally Lipschitz continuous semiflow on the appropriate phase space. We also know that this semiflow admits a connected global attractor that is bounded in a more *regular* phase space. It follows that solutions, when restricted to the global attractor, are in fact strong solutions, exhibiting further regularity that will become *essential* when we later consider the continuity properties of the family of global attractors produced by the hyperbolic relaxation problem ($\varepsilon >0$) and the limit parabolic problem ($\varepsilon =0$).
We need to introduce some notations and definitions. From now on, we denote by $\Vert \cdot \Vert $, $\Vert \cdot \Vert _{k}$, the norms in $L^{2}(\Omega )$, $H^{k}(\Omega )$, respectively. We use the notation $\langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle $ and $\langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle _{k}$ to denote the products on $L^{2}(\Omega )$ and $H^{k}(\Omega )$, respectively. For the boundary terms, $\Vert \cdot \Vert _{L^{2}(\Gamma )}$ and $\langle
\cdot ,\cdot \rangle _{L^{2}(\Gamma )}$ denote the norm and, respectively, product on $L^{2}(\Gamma )$. We will require the norm in $H^{k}(\Gamma )$, to be denoted by $\Vert \cdot \Vert _{H^{k}(\Gamma )}$, where $k\geq 1$. The $L^{p}(\Omega )$ norm, $p\in (0,\infty ]$, is denoted $|\cdot |_{p}$. The dual pairing between $H^{1}(\Omega )$ and its dual $(H^{1}(\Omega ))^{\ast }$ is denoted by $(u,v)$. We denote the measure of the domain $\Omega $ by $|\Omega |$. In many calculations, functional notation indicating dependence on the variable $t$ is dropped; for example, we will write $u$ in place of $u(t)$. Throughout the paper, $C\geq 0$ will denote a *generic* constant, while $Q:\mathbb{R}_{+}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{+}$ will denote a *generic* increasing function. All these quantities, unless explicitly stated, are *independent* of $\varepsilon .$ Further dependencies of these quantities will be specified on occurrence.
The following inequalities are straight forward consequences of the Poincaré type inequality (\[eq:Poincare-type\]) and assumptions ([eq:assumption-f-2]{}) and (\[eq:assumption-f-3\]). From ([eq:assumption-f-2]{}) it follows that, for some constants $\mu \in (0,\lambda
]$ and $c_{1}=c_{1}(f,|\Omega |)\geq 0$, and for all $\xi \in H^{1}(\Omega )$,$$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle f\left( \xi \right) ,\xi \right\rangle & \geq -\left( \lambda
-\mu \right) \left\Vert \xi \right\Vert ^{2}-c_{1}
\label{eq:consequence-f-1} \\
& \geq -\frac{\left( \lambda -\mu \right) }{\lambda }\left( \left\Vert
\nabla \xi \right\Vert ^{2}+\left\Vert \xi \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( \Gamma
\right) }^{2}\right) -c_{1}. \notag\end{aligned}$$Let $F(s)=\int_{0}^{s}f(\sigma )\mathrm{d}\sigma $. For some constant $c_{2}=c_{2}(f,|\Omega |)\geq 0$, and for all $\xi \in H^{1}(\Omega )$, $$\begin{aligned} \int_\Omega F(\xi)\mathrm{d} x & \geq
-\frac{\lambda-\mu}{2}\|\xi\|^2 - c_2 \\ & \geq
-\frac{\lambda-\mu}{2\lambda}\|\xi\|^2_1 - c_2. \label{eq:consequence-F-1}
\end{aligned}$$See [@CEL02 page 1913] for an explicit proof of ([eq:consequence-F-1]{}). The proof of (\[eq:consequence-f-1\]) is similar. Finally, using (\[eq:assumption-f-3\]) and integration by parts on $F(s)=\int_{0}^{s}f(\sigma )\mathrm{d}\sigma $, we have the upper-bound $$\begin{aligned} \int_\Omega F(\xi)\mathrm{d} x & \leq \langle f(\xi),\xi
\rangle + \frac{\vartheta}{2}\|\xi\|^2 \\ & \leq \langle f(\xi),\xi \rangle
+ \frac{\vartheta}{2\lambda}\|\xi\|^2_1. \label{eq:consequence-F-2}
\end{aligned}$$
The natural energy phase space for the limit parabolic problem ([eq:pde-p-1]{})-(\[eq:pde-p-3\]) is the space $$Y=L^{2}(\Omega )\times L^{2}(\Gamma ),$$which is Hilbert when equipped with the norm whose square is given by, for all $\zeta =(u,\gamma )\in Y$, $$\Vert \zeta \Vert _{Y}^{2}:=\Vert u\Vert ^{2}+\Vert \gamma \Vert
_{L^{2}(\Gamma )}^{2}.$$It is well-known that the Dirichlet trace map $\mathrm{tr_{D}}:C^{\infty
}\left( \overline{\Omega }\right) \rightarrow C^{\infty }\left( \Gamma
\right) ,$ defined by $\mathrm{tr_{D}}\left( u\right) =u_{\mid \Gamma }$ extends to a linear continuous operator $\mathrm{tr_{D}}:H^{r}\left( \Omega
\right) \rightarrow H^{r-1/2}\left( \Gamma \right) ,$ for all $r>1/2$, which is onto for $1/2<r<3/2.$ This map also possesses a bounded right inverse $\mathrm{tr_{D}^{-1}}:H^{r-1/2}\left( \Gamma \right) \rightarrow H^{r}\left(
\Omega \right) $ such that $\mathrm{tr_{D}}\left( \mathrm{tr_{D}^{-1}}\psi
\right) =\psi ,$ for any $\psi \in H^{r-1/2}\left( \Gamma \right) $. Identifying each function $\psi \in C\left( \overline{\Omega }\right) $ with the vector $V=\left( \psi ,\mathrm{tr_{D}}\left( \psi \right) \right) \in
C\left( \overline{\Omega }\right) \times C\left( \Gamma \right) $, it follows that $C\left( \overline{\Omega }\right) $ is a dense subspace of $Y=L^{2}\left( \Omega \right) \times L^{2}\left( \Gamma \right) $ (see, e.g., [@DR Lemma 2.1]). Also, we introduce the subspaces of $H^{r}\left(
\Omega \right) \times H^{r-1/2}\left( \Gamma \right) $, for every $r>1/2$,$$\mathcal{V}^{r}:=\left\{ \left( u,\gamma \right) \in H^{r}\left( \Omega
\right) \times H^{r-1/2}\left( \Gamma \right) :\gamma =\mathrm{tr_{D}}\left(
u\right) \right\} ,$$and note that we have the following dense and compact embeddings $\mathcal{V}^{r_{1}}\hookrightarrow \mathcal{V}^{r_{2}},$ for any $r_{1}>r_{2}>1/2$. The linear subspace $\mathcal{V}^{r}$ is densely and compactly embedded into $Y,$ for any $r>1/2$. We emphasize that $\mathcal{V}^{r}$ is not a product space and that, due to the boundedness of the trace operator $\mathrm{tr_{D}}$, the space $\mathcal{V}^{r}$ is topologically isomorphic to $H^{r}\left(
\Omega \right) $ in the obvious way. Thus, we can identify each $u\in
H^{r}\left( \Omega \right) $ with a pair $\left( u,\mathrm{tr_{D}}\left(
u\right) \right) \in \mathcal{V}^{r}$. Finally, note that both spaces $H^{r}\left( \Omega \right) $ and $\mathcal{V}^{r}$ are normed spaces with equivalent norms.
The following definition of weak solution to problem (\[eq:pde-p-1\])-([eq:pde-p-3]{}) is taken from (see, e.g., [@Gal12-2 Definition 2.1], for the more general case).
\[weak-par\]Let $T>0$ and $(u_{0},\gamma _{0})\in Y=L^{2}(\Omega )\times
L^{2}(\Gamma )$. The pair $\zeta (t)=(u(t),\gamma (t))$ is said to be a (global) *weak solution* of (\[eq:pde-p-1\])-(\[eq:pde-p-3\]) on $[0,T]$ if, for almost all $t\in (0,T]$, $\gamma (t)=u_{\mid \Gamma }(t),$ and $\zeta $ fulfills$$\begin{aligned}
\zeta &\in &C\left( \left[ 0,T\right] ;Y\right) \cap L^{2}\left( 0,T;\mathcal{V}^{1}\right) , \\
\partial _{t}\zeta &\in &L^{2}(0,T;\left( \mathcal{V}^{1}\right) ^{\ast }),\text{ }u\in H_{\mathrm{loc}}^{1}\left( (0,T];L^{2}\left( \Omega \right)
\right) , \\
\gamma &\in &H_{\mathrm{loc}}^{1}\left( (0,T];L^{2}\left( \Gamma \right)
\right) ,\end{aligned}$$such that the following identity holds, for almost all $t\in \lbrack 0,T]$ and for all $\xi =(\chi ,\psi )\in \mathcal{V}^{1}$, $$\left( \partial _{t}\zeta ,\xi \right) _{\left( \mathcal{V}^{1}\right)
^{\ast },\mathcal{V}^{1}}+\langle \nabla u,\nabla \chi \rangle +\langle
f(u),\chi \rangle +\left\langle u,\psi \right\rangle _{L^{2}\left( \Gamma
\right) }=0. \label{weakf-par}$$Moreover,$$\zeta (0)=(u_{0},\gamma _{0})=:\zeta _{0}\text{ a.e. in }Y.$$The map $\zeta =(u,\gamma )$ is a weak solution on $[0,\infty )$ (i.e. *a global weak solution*) if it is a weak solution on $[0,T]$, for all $T>0$.
It is important to observe, for the weak solutions of Definition [weak-par]{}, that $\gamma _{0}=u_{\mid \Gamma }\left( 0\right) $ need not be the trace of $u_{0}=u_{\mid \Omega }\left( 0\right) $ at the boundary, and so in this context the boundary equation (\[eq:pde-p-2\]) is interpreted as an additional parabolic equation, now acting on the boundary $\Gamma $. However, the weak solution does fulfill $\gamma (t)=\mathrm{tr_{D}}u(t)$, for almost all $t>0.$
The existence part of the (global) weak solutions is from [Gal&Warma10]{}, and the continuous dependence with respect to the initial data $\zeta _{0}$, local Lipschitz continuity on $Y$, uniformly in $t$ on compact intervals, and the uniqueness of the weak solutions follow from \[Proposition 2.8\][Gal12-2]{} (cf. also ).
\[t:parabolic-weak-solutions\] Assume (\[eq:assumption-f-1\]), ([eq:assumption-f-2]{}) and (\[eq:assumption-f-3\]) hold. For each $\zeta
_{0}=(u_{0},\gamma _{0})\in Y$, there exists a unique global weak solution in the sense of Definition \[weak-par\]. Moreover, the following estimate holds, for all $t\geq 0$, $$\Vert \zeta (t)\Vert _{Y}^{2}+\int_{t}^{t+1}\Vert \zeta (s)\Vert _{\mathcal{V}^{1}}^{2}\mathrm{d}s\leq C\Vert \zeta _{0}\Vert _{Y}^{2}e^{-\rho t}+C,
\label{dissip-par}$$for some positive constants $\rho ,C>0$. Furthermore, let $\zeta
(t)=(u(t),\gamma (t))$ and $\theta (t)=(\chi (t),\psi (t))$ denote the corresponding weak solutions with initial data $\zeta _{0}=(u_{0},\gamma
_{0})$ and $\theta _{0}=(\chi _{0},\psi _{0})$, respectively. Then, for all $t\geq 0$, $$\Vert \zeta (t)-\theta (t)\Vert _{Y}\leq Ce^{\theta t}\Vert \zeta
_{0}-\theta _{0}\Vert _{Y}, \label{eq:continuous-dependence-p}$$where $C=C\left( R\right) >0$ is such that $\left\Vert \zeta _{0}\right\Vert
_{Y}\leq R,\left\Vert \theta _{0}\right\Vert _{Y}\leq R.$
Since the proofs in , [@Gal12-2], [@Gal12] involve quite different assumptions on the nonlinearity other than the ones in the statement of the theorem, we will sketch a short proof of (\[dissip-par\]). This is the main estimate on which the proof for the existence of a weak solution is based on (of course, (\[dissip-par\]) can be rigorously justified using a suitable Galerkin discretization scheme). To this end, testing (\[weakf-par\]) with $\zeta $, and appealing to ([eq:consequence-f-1]{}), we deduce the following inequality$$\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\left\Vert \zeta \left( t\right)
\right\Vert _{Y}^{2}+\left( 1-\frac{\lambda -\mu }{\lambda }\right) \left(
\left\Vert \nabla u\left( t\right) \right\Vert ^{2}+\left\Vert u\left(
t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( \Gamma \right) }^{2}\right) \leq C,
\label{ineq-par}$$for all $t\geq 0$, where we recall that $\mu \in \left( 0,\lambda \right] .$ Exploiting now the continuous embedding $\mathcal{V}^{1}\hookrightarrow Y$, (\[dissip-par\]) follows from the application of Gronwall’s inequality (see Proposition \[GL\], Appendix) to (\[ineq-par\]). The claim is proven.
Theorem (\[t:parabolic-weak-solutions\]) still holds if we keep ([eq:assumption-f-3]{}) and we drop the assumptions (\[eq:assumption-f-1\]), (\[eq:assumption-f-2\]), and replace them by the following:$$\eta _{1}\left\vert y\right\vert ^{p}-C_{f}\leq f\left( y\right) y\leq \eta
_{2}\left\vert y\right\vert ^{p}+C_{f}, \label{n2}$$for some $\eta _{1}$, $\eta _{2}>0,$ $C_{f}\geq 0$ and any $p>2$. In this case, the same weak formulation (\[weakf-par\]) must be satisfied a.e. on $\left[ 0,T\right] $, for all $\xi =(\chi ,\psi )\in \mathcal{V}^{1},$ with $\chi \in L^{p}\left( \Omega \right) $ (see, e.g., [@Gal12; @Gal12-2]). Finally, we note that without assumption (\[eq:assumption-f-3\]), the uniqueness of weak solutions (given in Definition \[weak-par\]) is not known in general (see [@Gal12-2]).
Let the assumptions of Theorem \[t:parabolic-weak-solutions\] be satisfied. We can define a strongly continuous semigroup$$S_{0}\left( t\right) :Y\rightarrow Y$$by setting, for all $t\geq 0,$ $$S_{0}(t)\zeta _{0}:=\zeta \left( t\right)$$where $\zeta \left( t\right) =(u\left( t\right) ,{u}_{\mid \Gamma }\left(
t\right) )$ is the unique weak solution to problem (\[eq:pde-p-1\])-([eq:pde-p-3]{}).
The existence of a bounded absorbing set in $\mathcal{V}^{1}$ was shown for the first time in and the existence of the global attractor for (\[eq:pde-p-1\])-(\[eq:pde-p-3\]) can be found in [@Gal12-2], [@Gal12]. The following theorem concerns the existence and regularity of the global attractor $\mathcal{A}_{0}$ admitted by the semiflow $S_{0}$ and is taken from [@Gal12 Theorem 2.3]. The proof relies on a uniform estimate which states that problem (\[eq:pde-p-1\])-(\[eq:pde-p-3\]) possesses the $Y-\mathcal{V}^{2}$ smoothing property and exploits (\[dissip-par\]).
\[t:global-attractor-and-regularity-p\] The semiflow $S_{0}$ possesses a connected global attractor $\mathcal{A}_{0}$ in $Y$, which is a bounded subset of $\mathcal{V}^{2}$. The global attractor $\mathcal{A}_{0}$ contains only strong solutions. Finally, $S_{0}$ also admits an exponential attractor $\mathcal{M}_{0}$ which is bounded $\mathcal{V}^{2}$ and compact in $Y.$
The boundedness of $\mathcal{A}_{0}$ in $\mathcal{V}^{2}$, shown in [@Gal12 Theorem 2.3], is essential for the proof of the continuity property at $\varepsilon =0$ of the global attractors associated with problem ([eq:pde-h-1]{})-(\[eq:pde-h-3\]). The last assertion follows from results in [@GM09 Theorem 4.2], where (\[eq:pde-p-1\])-(\[eq:pde-p-3\]) is a special case of a phase-field system endowed with dynamic boundary conditions.
The hyperbolic relaxation problem {#s:hyperbolic}
=================================
In this section, we study the hyperbolic relaxation problem (\[eq:pde-h-1\])-(\[eq:pde-h-3\]) with $\varepsilon \in (0,1]$. Our first goal is to prove the existence of a global attractor for (\[eq:pde-h-1\])-([eq:pde-h-3]{}). As indicated in , semigroup methods are applied to obtain local mild solutions whereby a suitable estimate is used to extend the solution to a global one. We will offer a detailed presentation on the well-posedness of the hyperbolic relaxation problem in this section for the reader’s convenience. The solution operators define a semiflow on the phase space and because of the continuous dependence estimate on the solutions, the semiflow is locally Lipschitz continuous, uniformly in $t$ on compact intervals. Further estimates are used to establish the existence of an absorbing set for the semiflow. As discussed above, we will follow the decomposition method in to obtain the existence of the global attractor in $H^1(\Omega)\times
L^2(\Omega)$ for the corresponding semiflow $S_{\varepsilon }$, for each $\varepsilon \in (0,1]$. The (optimal) regularity result for the global attractors $\mathcal{A}_{\varepsilon }$ and a proof of their continuity properties conclude the section.
The functional framework {#s:notation}
------------------------
Here, we consider the functional setup associated with problem ([eq:pde-h-1]{})-(\[eq:pde-h-3\]). The finite energy phase space for the hyperbolic relaxation problem is the space $$\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }=H^{1}(\Omega )\times L^{2}(\Omega ).$$The space $\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$ is Hilbert when endowed with the $\varepsilon $-weighted norm whose square is given by, for $\varphi =(u,v)\in
\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }=H^{1}(\Omega )\times L^{2}(\Omega )$, $$\Vert \varphi \Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}^{2}:=\Vert u\Vert
_{1}^{2}+\varepsilon \Vert v\Vert ^{2}=\left( \Vert \nabla u\Vert ^{2}+\Vert
u\Vert _{L^{2}(\Gamma )}^{2}\right) +\varepsilon \Vert v\Vert ^{2}.$$
As introduced in (cf. also [@CEL02]), $\Delta _{\mathrm{R}}:L^{2}(\Omega )\rightarrow L^{2}(\Omega )$ is the Robin-Laplacian operator with domain $$D(\Delta _{\mathrm{R}})=\{u\in H^{2}(\Omega ):\partial _{\mathbf{n}}u+u=0~\text{on}~\Gamma \}.$$Easy calculations show that the operator $\Delta _{\mathrm{R}}$ is self-adjoint and positive. The Robin-Laplacian is extended to a continuous operator $\Delta _{\mathrm{R}}:H^{1}(\Omega )\rightarrow \left( H^{1}(\Omega
)\right) ^{\ast }$, defined by, for all $v\in H^{1}(\Omega )$, $$(-\Delta _{\mathrm{R}}u,v)=\langle \nabla u,\nabla v\rangle +\langle
u,v\rangle _{L^{2}(\Gamma )}.$$Next, also define the Robin map $R:H^{s}(\Gamma
)\rightarrow H^{s+(3/2)}(\Omega )$ by $$Rp=q~\text{if and only if}~\Delta q=0~\text{in}~\Omega ,~\text{and}~\partial
_{\mathbf{n}}q+q=p~\text{on}~\Gamma .$$The adjoint of the Robin map satisfies, for all $v\in H^{1}(\Omega )$, $$R^{\ast }\Delta _{\mathrm{R}}v=-v~\text{on}~\Gamma .$$
Define the closed subspace of $H^{2}(\Omega )\times H^{1}(\Omega )$, $$\mathcal{D}_{\varepsilon }:=\{(u,v)\in H^{2}(\Omega )\times H^{1}(\Omega
):\partial _{\mathbf{n}}u+u=-v~\text{on}~\Gamma \}.$$endowed with norm whose square is given by, for all $\varphi =\left(
u,v\right) \in \mathcal{D}_{\varepsilon }$, $$\Vert \varphi \Vert _{\mathcal{D}_{\varepsilon }}^{2}:=\Vert u\Vert
_{2}^{2}+\Vert v\Vert _{1}^{2}.$$Let $D(A_{\varepsilon })=\mathcal{D}_{\varepsilon }$ (note that $\varepsilon
$-dependance does not enter through the norm of $\mathcal{D}_{\varepsilon },$ but rather in the definition of $A_{\varepsilon }$ below). Define the linear unbounded operator $A_{\varepsilon }:D(A_{\varepsilon })\rightarrow \mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$ by $$A_{\varepsilon }:=\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1 \\
\frac{1}{\varepsilon }\Delta _{\mathrm{R}} & \frac{1}{\varepsilon }(\Delta _{\mathrm{R}}R~\mathrm{tr_{D}}-1)\end{pmatrix},$$where $\mathrm{tr_{D}}$ denotes the Dirichlet trace operator (i.e., $\mathrm{tr_{D}}(v)=v|_{\Gamma }$). Notice that if $(u,v)\in \mathcal{D}_{\varepsilon
}$, then $u+R\mathrm{tr_{D}}(v)\in D(\Delta _{\mathrm{R}})$. By the Lumer-Phillips theorem (cf., e.g., [@Pazy83 Theorem I.4.3]) and the Lax-Milgram theorem, it is not hard to see that, for all $\varepsilon \in
(0,1]$, the operator $A_{\varepsilon }$, with domain $\mathcal{D}_{\varepsilon }$, is an infinitesimal generator of a strongly continuous semigroup of contractions on $\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$, denoted $e^{A_{\varepsilon }t}$.
Define the map $\mathcal{F}:\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }\rightarrow \mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$ by $$\mathcal{F}(\varphi ):=\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\
-\frac{1}{\varepsilon }f(u)\end{pmatrix}$$for all $\varphi =(u,v)\in \mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$. Since $f:H^{1}(\Omega )\rightarrow L^{2}(\Omega )$ is locally Lipschitz continuous [@Zheng04 cf., e.g., Theorem 2.7.13], it follows that the map $\mathcal{F}:\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }\rightarrow \mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$ is as well.
The hyperbolic relaxation problem (\[eq:pde-h-1\])-(\[eq:pde-h-3\]) may be put into the abstract form in $\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$, for $\varphi
(t)=(u(t),u_{t}(t))^{\mathrm{tr}}$,$$\displaystyle\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\varphi (t)=A_{\varepsilon
}\varphi (t)+\mathcal{F}(\varphi (t));~~\varphi (0)=\begin{pmatrix}
u_{0} \\
u_{1}\end{pmatrix}. \label{eq:abstract-hyperbolic-problem}$$
For each $\varepsilon \in (0,1]$, the adjoint of $A_{\varepsilon }$, denoted $A_{\varepsilon }^{\ast }$, is given by $$A_{\varepsilon }^{\ast }:=-\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1 \\
\frac{1}{\varepsilon }\Delta _{\mathrm{R}} & -\frac{1}{\varepsilon }(\Delta
_{\mathrm{R}}R~\mathrm{tr_{D}}-1)\end{pmatrix},$$with domain $$D(A_{\varepsilon }^{\ast }):=\{(\chi ,\psi )\in H^{2}(\Omega )\times
H^{1}(\Omega ):\partial _{\mathbf{n}}\chi +\chi =-\psi ~\text{on}~\Gamma \}.$$
The proof is a calculation similar to, e.g., [@Ball04 Lemma 3.1].
Well-posedness for the hyperbolic relaxation problem {#well-posed}
----------------------------------------------------
The notion of weak solution to problem (\[eq:pde-h-1\])-(\[eq:pde-h-3\]) is as follows (see, [@Ball77]).
\[mild\]A function $\varphi =(u,u_{t}):[0,T]\rightarrow \mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$ is a weak solution of (\[eq:abstract-hyperbolic-problem\]) on $[0,T],$ if and only if $\mathcal{F}(\varphi (\cdot ))\in L^{1}(0,T;\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon })$ and $\varphi $ satisfies the variation of constants formula, for all $t\in \lbrack 0,T]$, $$\varphi (t)=e^{A_{\varepsilon }t}\varphi _{0}+\int_{0}^{t}e^{A_{\varepsilon
}(t-s)}\mathcal{F}(\varphi (s))\mathrm{d}s.$$
It can be easily shown that the notion of weak solution given in Definition \[mild\] is also equivalent to the following notion of a weak solution (see, e.g., [@Ball04 Definition 3.1 and Proposition 3.5]).
\[explicit\]Let $T>0$ and $(u_{0},u_{1})\in \mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$. A map $\varphi =(u,u_{t})\in C([0,T];\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon })$ is a *weak solution* of (\[eq:abstract-hyperbolic-problem\]) on $[0,T],$ if for each $\theta =(\chi ,\psi )\in D(A_{\varepsilon }^{\ast })$ the map $t\mapsto \langle \varphi (t),\theta \rangle _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}$ is absolutely continuous on $[0,T]$ and satisfies, for almost all $t\in
\lbrack 0,T]$, $$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\langle \varphi (t),\theta \rangle _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}=\langle \varphi (t),A_{\varepsilon }^{\ast }\theta \rangle
_{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}+\langle \mathcal{F}(\varphi (t)),\theta
\rangle _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}. \label{expf}$$The map $\varphi =(u,u_{t})$ is a weak solution on $[0,\infty )$ (i.e., a *global weak solution*) if it is a weak solution on $[0,T]$, for all $T>0$.
The above definitions are equivalent to the to the standard concept of a weak (distributional) solution to (\[eq:pde-h-1\])-(\[eq:pde-h-3\]).
\[weak\]Let $\varepsilon \in (0,1]$. A function $\varphi
=(u,u_{t}):[0,T]\rightarrow \mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$ is a weak solution of (\[eq:abstract-hyperbolic-problem\]) (and, thus of (\[eq:pde-h-1\])-(\[eq:pde-h-3\])) on $[0,T],$ if$$\varphi =(u,u_{t})\in C(\left[ 0,T\right] ;\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }),\text{
}u_{t}\in L^{2}(\left[ 0,T\right] \times \Gamma ),$$and, for each $\psi \in H^{1}\left( \Omega \right) ,$ $\left( u_{t},\psi
\right) \in C^{1}\left( \left[ 0,T\right] \right) $ with$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\left( \varepsilon u_{t}\left( t\right) ,\psi
\right) +\left\langle \nabla u\left( t\right) ,\nabla \psi \right\rangle
+\left\langle u_{t}\left( t\right) ,\psi \right\rangle +\left\langle
u_{t}\left( t\right) +u\left( t\right) ,\psi \right\rangle _{L^{2}\left(
\Gamma \right) }=-\left\langle f\left( u\left( t\right) \right) ,\psi
\right\rangle , \label{weakf}$$for almost all $t\in \left[ 0,T\right] .$
Indeed, by [@Ball04 Lemma 3.3] we have that $f:H^{1}\left( \Omega
\right) \rightarrow L^{2}\left( \Omega \right) $ is sequentially weakly continuous and continuous, on account of the assumptions ([eq:assumption-f-1]{})-(\[eq:assumption-f-2\]). Moreover, $\left( \varphi
_{t},\theta \right) \in C^{1}\left( \left[ 0,T\right] \right) $ for all $\theta \in D\left( A_{\varepsilon }^{\ast }\right) $, and (\[expf\]) is satisfied. The assertion in Definition \[weak\] follows then from the explicit characterization of $D\left( A_{\varepsilon }^{\ast }\right) $ and from [@Ball04 Proposition 3.4].
Finally, the notion of strong solution to problem (\[eq:pde-h-1\])-([eq:pde-h-3]{}) is as follows.
\[d:regularity-property\] \[strong\]Let $\varphi _{0}=\left(
u_{0},u_{1}\right) \in \mathcal{D}_{\varepsilon }$, $\varepsilon >0$, i.e., $(u_{0},u_{1})\in H^{2}(\Omega )\times H^{1}(\Omega )$ such that it satisfies the compatibility condition$$\partial _{\mathbf{n}}u_{0}+u_{0}+u_{1}=0,~\text{on}~\Gamma .$$A* function* $\varphi \left( t\right) =\left( u\left( t\right)
,u_{t}\left( t\right) \right) $* is called a (global) strong solution if it is a weak solution in the sense of Definition \[weak\], and if it satisfies the following regularity properties:*$$\begin{array}{l}
\varphi \in L^{\infty }(0,\infty ;\mathcal{D_{\varepsilon }})\text{, }\varphi_{t}\in L^{\infty }(0,\infty ;\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }), \\
~u_{tt}\in L^{\infty }(0,\infty ;L^{2}(\Omega )),\text{ }u_{tt}\in
L^{2}(0,\infty ;L^{2}(\Gamma )).\end{array}
\label{eq:regularity-property}$$Therefore, $\varphi \left( t\right) =\left( u\left( t\right) ,u_{t}\left(
t\right) \right) $ satisfies the equations (\[eq:pde-h-1\])-([eq:pde-h-3]{}) almost everywhere, i.e., is a strong solution.
We can now state the main theorems of this section.
\[t:hyperbolic-weak-solutions\] Assume (\[eq:assumption-f-1\]) and (\[eq:assumption-f-2\]) hold. For each $\varepsilon \in (0,1]$ and $\varphi
_{0}=(u_{0},u_{1})\in \mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$, there exists a unique global weak solution $\varphi =(u,u_{t})\in C([0,\infty );\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon })$ to (\[eq:pde-h-1\])-(\[eq:pde-h-3\]). In addition, $$\partial _{\mathbf{n}}u\in L_{\mathrm{loc}}^{2}([0,\infty )\times \Gamma )~~\text{and}~~u_{t}\in L_{\mathrm{loc}}^{2}([0,\infty )\times \Gamma ).
\label{eq:bounded-boundary-1}$$For each weak solution, the map $$t\mapsto \Vert \varphi (t)\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon
}}^{2}+2\int_{\Omega }F(u(t))\mathrm{d}x \label{eq:C1-map}$$is $C^{1}([0,\infty ))$ and the energy equation$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\left\{ \Vert \varphi (t)\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}^{2}+2\int_{\Omega }F(u(t))\mathrm{d}x\right\} =-2\Vert
u_{t}(t)\Vert ^{2}-2\Vert u_{t}(t)\Vert _{L^{2}(\Gamma )}^{2}
\label{eq:energy-1}$$holds (in the sense of distributions) a.e. on $[0,\infty )$. Furthermore, let $\varphi (t)=(u(t),u_{t}(t))$ and $\theta (t)=(v(t),v_{t}(t))$ denote the corresponding weak solution with initial data $\varphi
_{0}=(u_{0},u_{1})\in \mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$ and $\theta
_{0}=(v_{0},v_{1})\in \mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$, respectively, such that $\left\Vert \varphi _{0}\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}\leq R,$ $\left\Vert \theta _{0}\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}\leq R.$ Then there exists a constant $\nu _{1}=\nu _{1}(R)>0$, such that, for all $t\geq
0 $,$$\begin{aligned}
& \Vert \varphi (t)-\theta (t)\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon
}}^{2}+\int_{0}^{t}\left( \Vert u_{t}\left( \tau \right) -v_{t}\left( \tau
\right) \Vert ^{2}+\Vert u_{t}\left( \tau \right) -v_{t}\left( \tau \right)
\Vert _{L^{2}(\Gamma )}^{2}\right) \mathrm{d}\tau
\label{eq:continuous-dependence} \\
& \leq e^{\nu _{1}t}\Vert \varphi _{0}-\theta _{0}\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}^{2}. \notag\end{aligned}$$
\[strong-sol-hyper\]For each $\varepsilon \in (0,1]$ and $(u_{0},u_{1})\in \mathcal{D}_{\varepsilon }$, problem (\[eq:pde-h-1\])-(\[eq:pde-h-3\]) possesses a unique global strong solution in the sense of Definition \[strong\].
The proof of Theorem \[strong-sol-hyper\] is outlined in (cf., also [@CEL02]) when $\varepsilon =1$.
We only give a sketch of the proof.
*Step 1.* As discussed in the previous section, for each $\varepsilon
\in (0,1]$, the operator $A_{\varepsilon }$ with domain $D(A_{\varepsilon })=\mathcal{D}_{\varepsilon }$ is an infinitesimal generator of a strongly continuous semigroup of contractions on $\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$, and the map $\mathcal{F}:\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }\rightarrow \mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$ is locally Lipschitz continuous. Therefore, by [@Zheng04 Theorem 2.5.4], for any $\varepsilon \in (0,1]$ and for any $\varphi _{0}=(u_{0},u_{1})\in \mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$, there is a $T^{\ast }=T^{\ast }(\Vert \varphi _{0}\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }})>0$, such that the abstract problem (\[eq:abstract-hyperbolic-problem\]) admits a unique local weak solution on $[0,T^{\ast })$ satisfying $$\varphi \in C([0,T^{\ast });\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }).$$
The next step is to show that $T^{\ast }(\Vert \varphi _{0}\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }})=\infty $. Since the map (\[eq:C1-map\]) is absolutely continuous on $[0,T^{\ast })$ (cf., e.g., [@Ball04 Theorem 3.1]), then integration of the energy equation (\[eq:energy-1\]) over $(0,t)$ yields, for all $t\in \lbrack 0,T^{\ast })$, $$\begin{aligned}\label{eq:hyperbolic-energy-4}
\|\varphi(t)\|^2_{\mathcal{H}_\varepsilon} & + 2\int_\Omega F(u(t)) {\rm{d}}
x + 2\int_0^t \|u_t(\tau)\|^2 {\rm{d}} \tau + 2\int_0^t
\|u_t(\tau)\|^2_{L^2(\Gamma)} {\rm{d}} \tau \\ & =
\|\varphi_0\|^2_{\mathcal{H}_\varepsilon} + 2\int_\Omega F(u_0) {\rm{d}} x.
\end{aligned}$$Applying inequality (\[eq:consequence-F-1\]) to ([eq:hyperbolic-energy-4]{}) and applying (\[eq:consequence-F-2\]) to the integral on the right hand side, we find that there is a function $Q(\Vert
\varphi _{0}\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }})>0$, such that, for all $t\in \lbrack 0,T^{\ast })$, $$\Vert \varphi (t)\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_\varepsilon }\leq Q(\Vert \varphi
_{0}\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}). \label{eq:hyperbolic-bound-1}$$Since the bound on the right hand side of (\[eq:hyperbolic-bound-1\]) is independent of $t\in \lbrack 0,T^{\ast })$, $T^{\ast }(\Vert \varphi
_{0}\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }})$ can be extended indefinitely, and therefore, for each $\varepsilon \in (0,1]$, we have that $T^{\ast }(\Vert
\varphi _{0}\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }})=\infty $.
We now show the boundary property (\[eq:bounded-boundary-1\]). Applying (\[eq:consequence-F-1\]), (\[eq:consequence-F-2\]) and ([eq:hyperbolic-bound-1]{}) to identity (\[eq:hyperbolic-energy-4\]), we obtain a bound of the form, for all $\varphi _{0}\in \mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$ and $t\geq 0$, in which $$\int_{0}^{t}\Vert u_{t}(\tau )\Vert _{L^{2}(\Gamma )}^{2}\mathrm{d}\tau \leq
Q(\Vert \varphi _{0}\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}).$$It follows that $u_{t}\in L_{\mathrm{loc}}^{2}([0,\infty )\times \Gamma )$. By the trace theorem, $u\in L^{\infty }(0,\infty ;H^{1}(\Omega
))\hookrightarrow L^{\infty }(0,\infty ;L^{2}(\Gamma ))$, so $u\in L_{\mathrm{loc}}^{2}([0,\infty )\times \Gamma )$. Comparison in ([eq:pde-h-2]{}) yields that $\partial _{\mathbf{n}}u\in L_{\mathrm{loc}}^{2}([0,\infty )\times \Gamma )$.
*Step 2.* To show that the continuous dependence estimate ([eq:continuous-dependence]{}) holds, consider the difference $z(t):=u(t)-v(t)$, $t\geq 0$. We easily get$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\Vert (z,z_{t})\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}^{2}+2\Vert z_{t}\Vert ^{2}+2\Vert z_{t}\Vert _{L^{2}(\Gamma
)}^{2}=2\langle f(v)-f(u),z_{t}\rangle . \label{eq:dependence-2}$$Since $f:H^{1}(\Omega )\rightarrow L^{2}(\Omega )$ is locally Lipschitz continuous, then $$2|\langle f(v)-f(u),z_{t}\rangle |\leq Q(R)\Vert z\Vert _{1}^{2}+\Vert
z_{t}\Vert ^{2}, \label{eq:dependence-3}$$where $R>0$ is such that $\left\Vert \varphi _{0}\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}\leq R,$ $\left\Vert \theta _{0}\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}\leq R.$ Combining (\[eq:dependence-2\]) and ([eq:dependence-3]{}) produces, for almost all $t\geq 0$, $$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\Vert (z,z_{t})\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}^{2}\leq Q(R)\Vert (z,z_{t})\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon
}}^{2}. \label{diff-ineq}$$Hence, (\[eq:continuous-dependence\]) follows immediately from ([diff-ineq]{}), using the standard Gronwall lemma. This completes the proof of the theorem.
In view of Theorem \[t:hyperbolic-weak-solutions\], the following is immediate.
Let the assumptions of Theorem \[t:hyperbolic-weak-solutions\] be satisfied. Then, for each each $\varepsilon \in (0,1]$ we can define a strongly continuous semigroup$$S_{\varepsilon }\left( t\right) :\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }\rightarrow
\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon },$$by setting, for all $t\geq 0,$ $$S_{\varepsilon }\left( t\right) \varphi _{0}=\varphi \left( t\right) =\left(
u\left( t\right) ,u_{t}\left( t\right) \right) ,$$where $\varphi \left( t\right) $ is the unique weak solution to problem ([eq:pde-h-1]{})-(\[eq:pde-h-3\]).
The global attractor $\mathcal{A}_{\protect\varepsilon }$ in $\mathcal{H}_{\protect\varepsilon }$ {#global-hyper}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we aim to show the existence of a global attractor, and prove some additional regularity properties. We point out that all the computations we will perform below can be rigorously justified by means of an approximation procedure which relies upon the result in Theorem [strong-sol-hyper]{}. Indeed, one shall use the usual procedure of approximating weak solutions by strong solutions, and then pass to the limit by using density theorems in the final estimates (see, also, [@CEL02]). Thus, in what follows we can proceed formally.
We begin our analysis with a uniform estimate for the weak solutions of Theorem \[t:hyperbolic-weak-solutions\]. The estimate provides the existence of a bounded absorbing set $\mathcal{B}_{\varepsilon }\subset
\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon },$ for the semiflow $S_{\varepsilon }$, for each $\varepsilon \in (0,1]$.
\[t:bounded-absorbing-set-h\] For all $\varepsilon \in (0,1]$ and $\varphi _{0}=(u_{0},u_{1})\in \mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$, there exist a positive function $Q$, constants $\omega _{0}>0$, $P_{0}>0$, all independent of $\varepsilon ,$ such that $\varphi (t)$ satisfies, for all $t\geq 0$, $$\left\Vert \varphi \left( t\right) \right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon
}}^{2}\leq Q(\Vert \varphi _{0}\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon
}})e^{-\omega _{0}t}+P_{0}. \label{eq:decay-1}$$Consequently, the ball $\mathcal{B}_{\varepsilon }$ in $\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$, $$\mathcal{B}_{\varepsilon }:=\{\varphi \in \mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }:\Vert
\varphi \Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}\leq P_{0}+1\} \label{absorbing}$$is a bounded absorbing set in $\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$ for the dynamical system $\left( S_{\varepsilon }\left( t\right) ,\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon
}\right) .$
Let $\varepsilon \in (0,1]$ and $\varphi _{0}=(u_{0},u_{1})\in \mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$. For $\alpha >0$ yet to be chosen, multiply ([eq:pde-h-1]{}) by $\alpha u$ in $L^{2}(\Omega )$. Adding the result to the energy equation (\[eq:energy-1\]) above yields the differential identity, which holds for almost all $t\geq 0$, $$\begin{aligned} \frac{{ {\rm{d}} }}{{ {\rm{d}} }t} & \left\{
\|\varphi\|^2_{\mathcal{H}_\varepsilon} + \alpha\varepsilon\langle u_t,u
\rangle + 2\int_\Omega F(u) ~ {\rm{d}} x \right\} + \\ & +
(2-\varepsilon\alpha)\|u_t\|^2 + \alpha\langle u_t,u \rangle +
\alpha\|u\|^2_1 + \\ & + 2\|u_t\|^2_{L^2(\Gamma)} + \alpha\langle u_t,u
\rangle_{L^2(\Gamma)} + \alpha\langle f(u),u \rangle = 0.
\label{eq:energy-2} \end{aligned}$$
For each $\varepsilon \in (0,1]$, define the functional, $E_{\varepsilon }:\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, by $$E_{\varepsilon }(\varphi \left( t\right) )=\Vert \varphi \left( t\right)
\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}^{2}+\alpha \varepsilon \langle
u_{t}\left( t\right) ,u\left( t\right) \rangle +2\int_{\Omega }F(u\left(
t\right) )\mathrm{d}x. \label{eq:functional-E-1}$$It is not hard to see that the map $t\mapsto E_{\varepsilon }(\varphi (t))$ is $C^{1}([0,\infty ))$; this essentially follows from equation ([eq:C1-map]{}) of Theorem \[t:hyperbolic-weak-solutions\]. First, we estimate, for all $\eta >0$, $$\alpha |\langle u_{t},u\rangle _{L^{2}(\Gamma )}|\leq \alpha \eta \Vert
u_{t}\Vert _{L^{2}(\Gamma )}^{2}+\frac{\alpha }{4\eta }\Vert u\Vert
_{L^{2}(\Gamma )}^{2}, \label{eq:estimate-1}$$and with (\[eq:consequence-f-1\]), we have, $$\alpha |\langle f(u),u\rangle |\geq -\frac{\alpha (\lambda -\mu )}{\lambda }\Vert u\Vert _{1}^{2}-\alpha C. \label{eq:estimate-2}$$Combining (\[eq:energy-2\]) with (\[eq:estimate-1\])-(\[eq:estimate-2\]) gives$$\begin{aligned}
& \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}E_{\varepsilon }+(2-\alpha )\varepsilon
\Vert u_{t}\Vert ^{2}+\alpha \langle u_{t},u\rangle \label{eq:estimate-5} \\
& +\alpha \left( 1-\frac{1}{4\eta }-\frac{\lambda -\mu }{\lambda }\right)
\Vert u\Vert _{1}^{2}+\left( 2-\alpha \eta \right) \Vert u_{t}\Vert
_{L^{2}(\Gamma )}^{2} \notag \\
& \leq \alpha C \notag\end{aligned}$$Hence, for any $\eta >\frac{\lambda }{4\mu }$ and any $0<\alpha <\min \{2,\frac{2}{\eta }\}$, then $2-\eta >0$ and $2-\alpha \eta >0$, $$\omega _{0}:=\min \left\{ 2-\alpha ,\alpha \left( \frac{\mu }{\lambda }-\frac{1}{4\eta }\right) \right\} >0,$$and estimate (\[eq:estimate-5\]) becomes, for almost all $t\geq 0$, $$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}E_{\varepsilon }+\omega _{0}E_{\varepsilon
}+(2-\alpha \eta )\Vert u_{t}\Vert _{L^{2}(\Gamma )}^{2}\leq C_{\alpha }.
\label{eq:estimate-6}$$Applying Gronwall’s inequality (see, e.g., ; cf. also Proposition \[GL\], Appendix) to (\[eq:estimate-6\]) produces, for all $t\geq 0$,$$E_{\varepsilon }\left( \varphi \left( t\right) \right) \leq E_{\varepsilon
}\left( \varphi \left( 0\right) \right) e^{-\omega _{0}t}+C.
\label{eq:estimate-7}$$
We now apply (\[eq:consequence-F-1\]) to (\[eq:functional-E-1\]) to attain the bound, $$E_{\varepsilon }\left( \varphi \right) \geq \varepsilon \left( 1-\frac{\alpha }{2}\right) \Vert u_{t}\Vert ^{2}+\left( 1-\frac{\alpha }{2\lambda }-\frac{\lambda -\mu }{\lambda }\right) \Vert u\Vert _{1}^{2}-C.
\label{eq:estimate-3}$$After updating the smallness condition on $\alpha $ to $0<\alpha <\min \{2,\frac{2}{\eta },2\mu \}$, we see that for $$\omega _{1}:=\min \left\{ 1-\frac{\alpha }{2},1-\frac{\alpha }{2\lambda }-\frac{\lambda -\mu }{\lambda }\right\} >0,$$then, for all $t\geq 0$, $$E_{\varepsilon }(\varphi (t))\geq \omega _{1}\Vert \varphi (t)\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}^{2}-C. \label{eq:E-bound-lower}$$On the other hand, by estimating in a similar fashion, using ([eq:consequence-F-1]{}), there holds for all $t\geq 0,$$$E_{\varepsilon }(\varphi (t))\leq Q\left( \Vert \varphi (t)\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}\right) . \label{eq:E-bound-upper}$$Thus, estimate (\[eq:decay-1\]) follows now from (\[eq:E-bound-lower\]), (\[eq:E-bound-upper\]) and (\[eq:estimate-7\]). The assertion ([absorbing]{}) is an immediate consequence of (\[eq:decay-1\]). This concludes the proof.
\[r:bound\] The following bounds are an immediate consequence of estimate (\[eq:decay-1\]):$$\limsup_{t\rightarrow \infty }\Vert \varphi (t)\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}^{2}\leq P_{0} \label{eq:uniform-bound-u}$$and$$\int_{0}^{\infty }\left( \left\Vert u_{t}\left( \tau \right) \right\Vert
^{2}+\left\Vert u_{t}\left( \tau \right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( \Gamma
\right) }^{2}\right) \mathrm{d} \tau \leq Q\left( \left\Vert \varphi
_{0}\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}\right) .
\label{eq:uniform-bound-dissipation-integral}$$The last bound is found by integrating the energy equation (\[eq:energy-1\]) with respect to $t$ over $(0,\infty )$ and estimating the result with ([eq:assumption-f-1]{}), (\[eq:assumption-f-2\]), (\[eq:consequence-F-1\]), (\[eq:consequence-F-2\]) and (\[eq:uniform-bound-u\]).
\[r:rate-1\] Note that the last assumption (\[eq:assumption-f-3\]) (which is, $f^{^{\prime }}\left( s\right) \geq -\theta ,$ for all $s\in
\mathbb{R}$) is nowhere needed in the proofs of Theorem [t:hyperbolic-weak-solutions]{}, Theorem \[strong-sol-hyper\] (cf. ) and Lemma [t:bounded-absorbing-set-h]{}. It will only become important later (see ([eq:beta]{})) when we establish the optimal regularity of the global attractor for the hyperbolic problem (\[eq:pde-h-1\])-(\[eq:pde-h-3\]).
The semiflow $S_{\varepsilon }$ admits a bounded absorbing set $\mathcal{B}_{\varepsilon }$ in $\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$. To obtain a global attractor, it suffices to prove that the semiflow admits a decomposition into the sum of two operators, $S_{\varepsilon }=Z_{\varepsilon
}+K_{\varepsilon }$, where $Z_{\varepsilon }=(Z_{\varepsilon }(t))_{t\geq 0}$ and $K_{\varepsilon }=(K_{\varepsilon }(t))_{t\geq 0}$ are not necessarily semiflows, but, operators that are uniformly decaying to zero, and uniformly compact for large $t$, respectively. To obtain the compactness property for the operator $K_{\varepsilon }$, recall that, when fractional powers of the Laplacian are well-defined, one usually multiplies the PDE by the solution and a suitable fractional power of the Laplacian; i.e., $(-\Delta )^{s}u$ for some $s>0$, then estimates using a stronger norm while keeping in mind the uniform bound on $u$ and the null initial conditions. However, in our case, the dynamic boundary condition does not allow us to proceed with the usual argument to obtain the relative compactness of $K_{\varepsilon }$. This is because the Laplacian equipped with the dynamic boundary condition (\[eq:pde-h-2\]) is not self-adjoint nor positive. In turn, we cannot apply the standard spectral theory to define fractional powers of the Laplacian. So to obtain the relative compactness of $K_{\varepsilon }$, we follow the approach in . The main tool is to differentiate the equations with respect to time, and obtain uniform estimates for the new equations. Such strategies also proved useful when dealing with a damped wave equation with acoustic boundary conditions [@Frigeri10], or a wave equation with a nonlinear dynamic boundary condition [@CEL02], and hyperbolic relaxation of a Cahn-Hilliard equation with dynamic boundary conditions [@CGG11], [@GM12].
Following an approach similar to the one taken in the above references, first define $$\psi (s):=f(s)+\beta s \label{eq:beta}$$for some constant $\beta \geq \vartheta $ to be determined later (in this case, $\psi ^{\prime }(s)\geq 0$ thanks to assumption ([eq:assumption-f-3]{})). Set $\Psi (s):=\int_{0}^{s}\psi (\sigma )\mathrm{d}\sigma $. Let $\varphi _{0}=(u_{0},u_{1})\in \mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$. Then rewrite the hyperbolic relaxation problem into the system of equations in $v$ and $w$, where $v+w=u$, $$\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\varepsilon v_{tt}+v_{t}-\Delta v+\psi (u)-\psi (w)=0 & \text{in}~~(0,\infty
)\times \Omega , \\
\partial _{\mathbf{n}}v+v+v_{t}=0 & \text{on}~~(0,\infty )\times \Gamma , \\
v(0)=u_{0},~~v_{t}(0)=u_{1}+f\left( 0\right) -\beta u_{0} & \text{in}~~\Omega ,\end{array}\right. \label{eq:pde-v}$$and $$\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\varepsilon w_{tt}+w_{t}-\Delta w+\psi (w)=\beta u & \text{in}~~(0,\infty
)\times \Omega , \\
\partial _{\mathbf{n}}w+w+w_{t}=0 & \text{on}~~(0,\infty )\times \Gamma , \\
w(0)=0,~~w_{t}(0)=-f\left( 0\right) +\beta u_{0} & \text{in}~~\Omega .\end{array}\right. \label{eq:pde-w}$$In view of Lemmas \[t:uniform-bound-w\] and \[t:uniform-decay\] below, we define the one-parameter family of maps, $K_{\varepsilon }(t):\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }\rightarrow \mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$, by $$K_{\varepsilon }(t)\varphi _{0}:=\left( w(t),w_{t}(t)\right) ,$$where $\left( w,w_{t}\right) $ is a solution of (\[eq:pde-w\]). With such $w$, we may define a second function $\left( v,v_{t}\right) $ as the solution of (\[eq:pde-v\]). Through the dependence of $v$ on $w$ and $\varphi
_{0}=(u_{0},u_{1})$, the solution of (\[eq:pde-v\]) defines a one-parameter family of maps, $Z_{\varepsilon }(t):\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon
}\rightarrow \mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$, defined by $$Z_{\varepsilon }(t)\varphi _{0}:=\left( v(t),v_{t}(t)\right) .$$Notice that if $v$ and $w$ are solutions to (\[eq:pde-v\]) and ([eq:pde-w]{}), respectively, then the function $u:=v+w$ is a solution to the original hyperbolic relaxation problem (\[eq:pde-h-1\])-(\[eq:pde-h-3\]).
The first lemma shows that the operators $K_{\varepsilon }$ are bounded in $\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$, uniformly with respect to $\varepsilon $. The result essentially follows from the existence of a bounded absorbing set $\mathcal{B}_{\varepsilon }$ in $\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$ for $S_{\varepsilon }$ (recall (\[eq:uniform-bound-u\])).
\[t:uniform-bound-w\] Assume (\[eq:assumption-f-1\]), ([eq:assumption-f-2]{}) and (\[eq:assumption-f-3\]) hold. For each $\varepsilon \in (0,1]$ and $\varphi _{0}=(u_{0},u_{1})\in \mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$, there exists a unique global weak solution $(w,w_{t})\in
C([0,\infty );\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon })$ to problem (\[eq:pde-w\]) satisfying $$\partial _{\mathbf{n}}w\in L_{\mathrm{loc}}^{2}([0,\infty )\times \Gamma )~~\text{and}~~w_{t}\in L_{\mathrm{loc}}^{2}([0,\infty )\times \Gamma ).
\label{eq:bounded-boundary-2}$$Moreover, for all $\varphi _{0}\in \mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$ with $\left\Vert \varphi _{0}\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}\leq R$ for all $\varepsilon \in (0,1]$, there holds for all $t\geq 0$, $$\Vert K_{\varepsilon }(t)\varphi _{0}\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}\leq
Q(R). \label{eq:uniform-bound-w}$$
The following result will be useful later on.
\[t:Gronwall-bound\] For all $\varepsilon \in (0,1]$ and $\eta >0$, there is a function $Q_{\eta }\left( \cdot \right) \sim \eta ^{-1}$, such that for every $0\leq s\leq t$ and $\varphi _{0}=(u_{0},u_{1})\in \mathcal{B}_{\varepsilon }$,$$\int_{s}^{t}\left( \Vert w_{t}(\tau )\Vert ^{2}+\Vert u_{t}(\tau )\Vert
^{2}\right) \mathrm{d}\tau \leq \frac{\eta }{2}(t-s)+Q_{\eta }\left(
R\right) , \label{eq:Gronwall-bound-0}$$where $R>0$ is such that $\left\Vert \varphi _{0}\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}\leq R,$ for all $\varepsilon\in(0,1]$.
Let $\varepsilon \in (0,1]$ and $\varphi _{0}=(u_{0},u_{1})\in \mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$, with $\left\Vert \varphi _{0}\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}\leq R.$ Adding the identity $$-2\beta \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\langle u,w\rangle =-2\beta \langle
u_{t},w\rangle -2\beta \langle u,w_{t}\rangle$$to equation$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\left\{ \Vert (w,w_{t})\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}^{2}+2\int_{\Omega }\Psi (w)\mathrm{d}x\right\} +2\Vert
w_{t}\Vert ^{2}+\Vert w_{t}\Vert _{L^{2}(\Gamma )}^{2}=2\beta \langle
u,w_{t}\rangle \label{eq:uniform-bound-w-2}$$produces, for almost all $t\geq 0$, $$\begin{aligned} \frac{{ {\rm{d}} }}{{ {\rm{d}} }t}\left\{
\|(w,w_t)\|^2_{\mathcal{H}_\varepsilon} + 2\int_\Omega \Psi(w) {\rm{d}} x -
2\beta\langle u,w \rangle \right\} & + 2\|w_t\|^2 + \|w_t\|^2_{L^2(\Gamma)}
\\ & = -2\beta\langle u_t,w \rangle. \end{aligned}
\label{eq:Gronwall-bound-1}$$Using (\[eq:uniform-bound-w\]), we estimate, for all $\eta >0$, $$2\beta |\langle u_{t},w\rangle |\leq \eta +Q_{\eta }\left( R\right) \Vert
u_{t}\Vert ^{2}. \label{eq:Gronwall-bound-3}$$For each $\varepsilon \in (0,1]$, define the functional $W_{\varepsilon
}:H^{1}(\Omega )\times H^{1}(\Omega )\times L^{2}(\Omega )\rightarrow
\mathbb{R}$, $$W_{\varepsilon }(t):=\Vert (w(t),w_{t}(t))\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon
}}^{2}+2\int_{\Omega }\Psi (w(t))\mathrm{d}x-2\beta \langle u(t),w(t)\rangle
.$$Because of (\[eq:consequence-F-2\]), (\[eq:assumption-f-1\]), ([eq:assumption-f-2]{}), (\[eq:beta\]), (\[eq:uniform-bound-u\]) and ([eq:uniform-bound-w]{}), we can easily check that for all $t\geq 0$ and $\varepsilon \in (0,1]$, $$|W_{\varepsilon }(t)|\leq Q\left( R\right) . \label{eq:Gronwall-bound-4}$$We now combine (\[eq:Gronwall-bound-1\]) and (\[eq:Gronwall-bound-3\]) together as, for all $\eta >0$ and for almost all $t\geq 0$, $$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}W_{\varepsilon }+2\Vert w_{t}\Vert ^{2}+\Vert
w_{t}\Vert _{L^{2}(\Gamma )}^{2}+2\Vert u_{t}\Vert ^{2}\leq \eta +\left(
Q_{\eta }\left( R\right) +2\right) \Vert u_{t}\Vert ^{2}.
\label{eq:Gronwall-bound-2}$$Integrating (\[eq:Gronwall-bound-2\]) over $(0,t)$, and recalling ([eq:Gronwall-bound-4]{}), (\[eq:uniform-bound-dissipation-integral\]), gives the desired estimate in (\[eq:Gronwall-bound-0\]). This proves the claim.
The next result shows that the operators $Z_{\varepsilon }$ are uniformly decaying to zero in $\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$.
\[t:uniform-decay\] Assume (\[eq:assumption-f-1\]), ([eq:assumption-f-2]{}) and (\[eq:assumption-f-3\]) hold. For each $\varepsilon \in (0,1]$ and $\varphi _{0}=(u_{0},u_{1})\in \mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$, there exists a unique global weak solution $(v,v_{t})\in
C([0,\infty );\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon })$ to problem (\[eq:pde-v\]) satisfying $$\partial _{\mathbf{n}}v\in L_{\mathrm{loc}}^{2}([0,\infty )\times \Gamma )~~\text{and}~~v_{t}\in L_{\mathrm{loc}}^{2}([0,\infty )\times \Gamma ).
\label{eq:bounded-boundary-3}$$Moreover, for all $\varphi_0\in\mathcal{D}_\varepsilon$ with $\left\Vert
\varphi _{0}\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}\leq R$ for all $\varepsilon \in (0,1]$, there exists $\omega >0 $, independent of $\varepsilon $, such that, for all $t\geq 0$, $$\Vert Z_{\varepsilon }(t)\varphi _{0}\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}\leq
Q(R)e^{-\omega t}. \label{eq:uniform-decay}$$
In a similar fashion to the arguments in Section \[well-posed\], the existence of a global weak solution as well as (\[eq:bounded-boundary-3\]) can be found. Because of (\[eq:uniform-bound-u\]) and ([eq:uniform-bound-w]{}), we know that the functions $(u(t),u_{t}(t))$ and $(w(t),w_{t}(t))$ are uniformly bounded in $\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$ with respect to $t$ and $\varepsilon $. It remains to show that ([eq:uniform-decay]{}) holds.
Let $\varepsilon \in (0,1]$ and $\varphi _{0}=(u_{0},u_{1})\in \mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$, with $R>0$ such that $\left\Vert \varphi _{0}\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}\leq R$. Observe that, $$\begin{aligned}\label{eq:uniform-decay-1} 2\langle \psi(u)-\psi(w),v_t
\rangle = \frac{{ {\rm{d}} }}{{ {\rm{d}} }t} & \left\{ 2\langle \psi(u)-\psi(w),v \rangle
- \langle \psi'(u)v,v \rangle \right\} - \\ & - 2\langle
(\psi'(u)-\psi'(w))w_t,v \rangle + \langle \psi''(u)u_t,v^2 \rangle.
\end{aligned}$$Multiply the first equation of (\[eq:pde-v\]) by $2v_{t}+\alpha v$ in $L^{2}(\Omega )$, for $\alpha >0$ to be chosen later. We find that, with ([eq:uniform-decay-1]{}), $$\begin{aligned} \frac{{ {\rm{d}} }}{{ {\rm{d}} }t} & \left\{ \varepsilon\|v_t\|^2 +
\alpha\varepsilon\langle v_t,v \rangle + \|v\|^2_1 + 2\langle
\psi(u)-\psi(w),v \rangle - \langle \psi'(u)v,v \rangle \right\} + \\ & +
(2-\alpha\varepsilon)\|v_t\|^2 + \alpha\langle v_t,v \rangle +
\alpha\|v\|^2_1 + 2\|v_t\|^2_{L^2(\Gamma)} + \alpha\langle v_t,v
\rangle_{L^2(\Gamma)} + \\ & + \alpha\langle \psi(u)-\psi(w),v \rangle =
2\langle (\psi'(u)-\psi'(w))w_t,v \rangle - \langle \psi''(u)u_t,v^2
\rangle. \label{eq:zero-decay-1} \end{aligned}$$
For each $\varepsilon \in (0,1]$, define the functional$$V_{\varepsilon }:H^{1}(\Omega )\times H^{1}(\Omega )\times H^{1}(\Omega
)\times L^{2}(\Omega )\rightarrow \mathbb{R},$$by$$\begin{aligned} V_\varepsilon(t):= & \varepsilon\|v_t(t)\|^2 +
\alpha\varepsilon\langle v_t(t),v(t) \rangle + \|v(t)\|^2_1 + \\ & +
2\langle \psi(u(t))-\psi(w(t)),v(t) \rangle - \langle \psi'(u(t))v(t),v(t)
\rangle. \end{aligned}$$As with the functional $E_{\varepsilon }$ above, the map $t\mapsto
V_{\varepsilon }(t)$ is $AC(\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0};\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0})$. We now will show that, given $(u,u_{t}),(w,w_{t})\in \mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$ are uniformly bounded with respect to $t$ and $\varepsilon $, there are constants, $C_{1},C_{2}>0$, independent of $t$ and $\varepsilon $ (possibly depending on $R>0$), in which, for all $(v,v_{t})\in \mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$,$$C_{1}\Vert (v,v_{t})\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}^{2}\leq
V_{\varepsilon }\leq C_{2}\Vert (v,v_{t})\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon
}}^{2}. \label{assy}$$We begin by estimating the products in $V_{\varepsilon }$ that involve $\psi
$; with (\[eq:assumption-f-1\]), (\[eq:assumption-f-2\]), the embedding $H^{1}(\Omega )\hookrightarrow L^{6}(\Omega )$ and (\[eq:uniform-bound-u\]), there holds$$\begin{aligned} |\langle \psi ^{\prime }(u)v,v\rangle | & \leq C_{\Omega
}\left( 1+\Vert u\Vert _{1}^{2}\right) \Vert v\Vert _{1}\Vert v\Vert \\ &
\leq \frac{1}{2}\Vert v\Vert _{1}^{2}+Q(R)\Vert v\Vert ^{2}.
\label{eq:zero-decay-5} \end{aligned}$$From assumption (\[eq:assumption-f-3\]) and the definition of $\psi ,$ cf. (\[eq:beta\]), $$2\langle \psi (u)-\psi (w),v\rangle \geq 2(\beta -\vartheta )\Vert v\Vert
^{2}. \label{eq:zero-decay-51}$$Hence, for $\beta $ sufficiently large, $\beta \geq \left( C\left( R\right)
+2\vartheta \right) /2$, the combination of (\[eq:zero-decay-5\]) and ([eq:zero-decay-51]{}) produces, $$\begin{aligned} 2\langle \psi(u)-\psi(w),v \rangle - \langle \psi'(u)v,v
\rangle & \geq 2(\beta-\vartheta)\|v\|^2-\frac{1}{2}\|v\|^2_1-C(R)\|v\|^2 \\
& \geq -\frac{1}{2}\|v\|^2_1. \end{aligned}$$Then we attain the lower bound on $V_{\varepsilon }$, $$V_{\varepsilon }\geq \left( 1-\frac{\alpha }{2}\right) \varepsilon \Vert
v_{t}\Vert ^{2}+\left( \frac{1}{2}-\frac{\alpha }{2\lambda }\right) \Vert
v\Vert _{1}^{2}.$$So for $0<\alpha <\min \{2,\lambda \}$, set $$\omega _{2}:=\min \left\{ 1-\frac{\alpha }{2},\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\alpha }{2\lambda }\right\} >0,$$then, for all $t\geq 0$, we have that $$V_{\varepsilon }(t)\geq \omega _{2}\Vert (v(t),v_{t}(t))\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}^{2}. \label{eq:zero-decay-8}$$Now by the (local) Lipschitz continuity of $f,$ and the uniform bounds on $u$ and $w$, it is easy to check that$$2\langle \psi (u)-\psi (w),v\rangle \leq 2\Vert \psi (u)-\psi (w)\Vert \Vert
v\Vert \leq Q(R)\Vert v\Vert _{1}^{2}.$$Also, using (\[eq:assumption-f-1\]), (\[eq:assumption-f-2\]) and the bound (\[eq:uniform-bound-u\]), there also holds$$|\langle \psi ^{\prime }(u)v,v\rangle |\leq Q(R)\Vert v\Vert _{1}^{2}.
\label{eq:zero-decay-11}$$Thus, the assertion in (\[assy\]) holds. Exploiting the fact that$$\alpha |\langle v_{t},v\rangle _{L^{2}(\Gamma )}|\leq \frac{\alpha }{2}\Vert
v_{t}\Vert _{L^{2}(\Gamma )}^{2}+\frac{\alpha }{2}\Vert v\Vert
_{L^{2}(\Gamma )}^{2},$$we see that (\[eq:zero-decay-1\]) becomes$$\begin{aligned} \frac{{ {\rm{d}} }}{{ {\rm{d}} }t} & V_\varepsilon +
(2-\alpha)\varepsilon\|v_t\|^2 + \alpha\langle v_t,v \rangle +
\alpha\|\nabla v\|^2 + \frac{\alpha}{2}\|v\|^2_{L^2(\Gamma)} + \\ & +
(2-\frac{\alpha}{2})\|v_t\|^2_{L^2(\Gamma)} + \alpha\langle
\psi(u)-\psi(w),v \rangle - \langle \psi'(u)v,v \rangle \\ & \leq -\langle
\psi'(u)v,v \rangle + 2\langle (\psi'(u)-\psi'(w))w_t,v \rangle - \langle
\psi''(u)u_t,v^2 \rangle. \label{eq:zero-decay-3} \end{aligned}$$Recall that $0<\alpha <\min \{2,\lambda \}$, so when we set $$\omega _{3}:=\min \left\{ 2-\alpha ,1,\frac{\alpha }{2}\right\} >0,$$we write (\[eq:zero-decay-3\]) as $$\begin{aligned} \frac{{ {\rm{d}} }}{{ {\rm{d}} }t} & V_\varepsilon + \omega_3
V_\varepsilon \leq -\langle \psi'(u)v,v \rangle + 2\langle
(\psi'(u)-\psi'(w))w_t,v \rangle - \langle \psi''(u)u_t,v^2 \rangle.
\label{eq:zero-decay-4} \end{aligned}$$Using the uniform bound on $u$ and $w$ (recall assumptions ([eq:assumption-f-1]{}), (\[eq:assumption-f-2\]), (\[eq:uniform-bound-u\]) and (\[eq:uniform-bound-w\])), there is a positive function $Q_{\eta
}(R)>0 $, depending on $\eta $, such that, for all $\eta >0$,$$\begin{aligned}
\left\vert \left\langle \left( \psi ^{\prime }(u)-\psi ^{^{\prime }}\left(
w\right) \right) w_{t},v\right\rangle \right\vert & \leq C_{\Omega }\left(
1+\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{1}+\left\Vert w\right\Vert _{1}\right)
\left\Vert w_{t}\right\Vert \left\Vert v\right\Vert _{1}^{2}
\label{eq:zero-decay-6} \\
& \leq \frac{\eta }{2}\left\Vert v\right\Vert _{1}^{2}+Q_{\eta }\left(
R\right) \left\Vert w_{t}\right\Vert ^{2}V_{\varepsilon }. \notag\end{aligned}$$The last inequality in the above estimate follows from (\[eq:zero-decay-8\]). In a similar fashion we estimate using assumption (\[eq:assumption-f-1\]) and the bound (\[eq:uniform-bound-u\]),$$\begin{aligned}
|\langle \psi ^{^{\prime \prime }}(u)u_{t},v^{2}\rangle |& \leq C_{\Omega
}\left( 1+\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{1}\right) \left\Vert u_{t}\right\Vert
\left\Vert v\right\Vert _{1}^{2} \label{eq:zero-decay-7} \\
& \leq \frac{\eta }{2}\left\Vert v\right\Vert _{1}^{2}+Q_{\eta }\left(
R\right) \left\Vert u_{t}\right\Vert ^{2}V_{\varepsilon }. \notag\end{aligned}$$Applying (\[eq:zero-decay-5\]) to (\[eq:zero-decay-4\]) and inserting (\[eq:zero-decay-6\]) and (\[eq:zero-decay-7\]) into ([eq:zero-decay-4]{}), we then have$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}V_{\varepsilon }+\omega _{3}V_{\varepsilon
}-\eta \Vert v\Vert _{1}^{2}\leq Q_{\eta }\left( R\right) \left( \Vert
u_{t}\Vert ^{2}+\Vert w_{t}\Vert ^{2}\right) V_{\varepsilon }.
\label{eq:zero-decay-9}$$There is a sufficiently small $\eta $, precisely, $0<\eta <\omega _{3}/2$, so that (\[eq:zero-decay-9\]) becomes $$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}V_{\varepsilon }+\eta V_{\varepsilon }\leq
Q_{\eta }\left( R\right) \left( \Vert u_{t}\Vert ^{2}+\Vert w_{t}\Vert
^{2}\right) V_{\varepsilon }. \label{eq:zero-decay-10}$$At this point, we remind the reader of Lemma \[t:Gronwall-bound\]. Applying a suitable Gronwall type inequality (see, e.g., [Pata&Zelik06]{}; cf. also Proposition \[GL\], Appendix) to ([eq:zero-decay-10]{}) yields$$V_{\varepsilon }(t)\leq V_{\varepsilon }(0)e^{Q_{\eta }\left( R\right)
}e^{-\eta t/2}. \label{eq:zero-decay-10bis}$$By virtue of (\[assy\]), for all $\varepsilon \in (0,1],$$$\begin{aligned}
V_{\varepsilon }(0) &\leq &Q\left( R\right) \Vert (v\left( 0\right)
,v_{t}\left( 0\right) )\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}^{2} \\
&\leq &Q\left( R\right) \left( \left\Vert u_{0}\right\Vert
_{1}^{2}+\varepsilon \left\Vert u_{1}+f\left( 0\right) -\beta
u_{0}\right\Vert ^{2}\right) \\
&\leq &Q\left( R\right) ,\end{aligned}$$for some positive function $Q$ independent of $\varepsilon $. Therefore ([eq:zero-decay-10bis]{}) shows that the operators $Z_{\varepsilon }$ are uniformly decaying to zero.
The following lemma establishes the uniform compactness of the operators $K_{\varepsilon }$.
\[t:uniform-compactness\] For all $\varphi _{0}=(u_{0},u_{1})\in
\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$ such that $\left\Vert \varphi _{0}\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}\leq R$ for all $\varepsilon \in (0,1]$, the following estimate holds: $$\Vert K_{\varepsilon }(t)\varphi _{0}\Vert _{\mathcal{D}_{\varepsilon }}\leq
Q(R),$$for all $t\geq 0.$ Furthermore, the operators $K_{\varepsilon }$ are uniformly compact in $\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$.
Let $\varepsilon \in (0,1]$ and let $\varphi _{0}=(u_{0},u_{1})\in \mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$ with $R>0$ such that $\left\Vert \varphi _{0}\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}\leq R$. Differentiate (\[eq:pde-w\]) with respect to $t$ and set $h=w_{t}.$ Then $h$ satisfies the equations$$\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\varepsilon h_{tt}+h_{t}-\Delta h+\psi ^{\prime }(w)h=\beta u_{t} & \text{in}~~(0,\infty )\times \Omega , \\
\partial _{\mathbf{n}}h+h+h_{t}=0, & \text{on}~~(0,\infty )\times \Gamma ,
\\
h(0)=w_{t}\left( 0\right) ,~~h_{t}(0)=w_{tt}\left( 0\right) & \text{in}~~\Omega .\end{array}\right. \label{eq:pde-diff-w}$$Note that, by the choice of data in (\[eq:pde-w\]), we actually have $h\left( 0\right) =-f\left( 0\right) +\beta u_{0}$ and $h_{t}\left( 0\right)
=0.$ Multiply the first equation of (\[eq:pde-diff-w\]) by $2h_{t}+\alpha
h $, where $\alpha >0$ is yet to be determined, and integrate over $\Omega $. Adding the result to the identity $$2\langle \psi ^{\prime }(w)h,h_{t}\rangle =\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\langle \psi ^{\prime }(w)h,h\rangle -\langle \psi ^{\prime \prime
}(w)w_{t},h^{2}\rangle$$produces$$\begin{aligned} \frac{{ {\rm{d}} }}{{ {\rm{d}} }t} & \left\{ \varepsilon\|h_t\|^2 +
\alpha\varepsilon\langle h_t,h \rangle + \|h\|^2_1 + \langle \psi'(w)h,h
\rangle \right\} + \\ & + (2-\alpha\varepsilon)\|h_t\|^2 + \alpha\langle
h_t,h \rangle + \alpha\|h\|^2_1 + \\ & + 2\|h_t\|^2_{L^2(\Gamma)} +
\alpha\langle h_t,h \rangle_{L^2(\Gamma)} + \alpha\langle \psi'(w)h,h
\rangle \\ & = \langle \psi''(w)w_t,h^2 \rangle + 2\beta\langle u_t,h_t
\rangle + \alpha\beta \langle u_t,w_t \rangle. \label{eq:diff-w-1}
\end{aligned}$$For each $\varepsilon \in (0,1]$, define the functional$$\Psi _{\varepsilon }:H^{1}(\Omega )\times H^{1}(\Omega )\times L^{2}(\Omega
)\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$$by$$\Psi _{\varepsilon }(t):=\varepsilon \Vert h_{t}(t)\Vert ^{2}+\alpha
\varepsilon \langle h_{t}(t),h(t)\rangle +\Vert h(t)\Vert _{1}^{2}+\langle
\psi ^{\prime }(w(t))h(t),h(t)\rangle . \label{eq:diff-w-2}$$The map $t\mapsto \Psi _{\varepsilon }(t)$ is $AC(\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0};\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0})$. Because of the bound given in Lemma [t:uniform-bound-w]{}, we obtain the estimate similar to ([eq:zero-decay-11]{}), $$\alpha |\langle \psi ^{\prime }(w)h,h\rangle |\leq \alpha Q(R)\Vert h\Vert
_{1}^{2}. \label{eq:diff-w-3}$$Obviously, we have$$\alpha \varepsilon |\langle h_{t},h\rangle |\leq \frac{\alpha \varepsilon }{2}\Vert h_{t}\Vert ^{2}+\frac{\alpha }{2\lambda }\Vert h\Vert _{1}^{2}.
\label{eq:diff-w-10}$$After combining (\[eq:diff-w-2\])-(\[eq:diff-w-10\]), we find $$\Psi _{\varepsilon }\geq \left( 1-\frac{\alpha }{2}\right) \varepsilon \Vert
h_{t}\Vert ^{2}+\left( 1-\frac{\alpha }{2\lambda }-\alpha Q(R)\right) \Vert
h\Vert _{1}^{2}.$$Hence, when $$0<\alpha <\min \left\{ 2,\left( \frac{1}{2\lambda }+Q(R)\right)
^{-1}\right\} ,$$then, $$\omega _{4}(R):=\min \left\{ 1-\frac{\alpha }{2},1-\frac{\alpha }{2\lambda }-\alpha Q(R)\right\} >0,$$thus, for all $t\geq 0$ $$\Psi _{\varepsilon }(t)\geq \omega _{4}\Vert (h(t),h_{t}(t))\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}^{2}. \label{eq:diff-lower}$$On the other hand, again with (\[eq:diff-w-3\]), $$\Psi _{\varepsilon }\leq \left( 1+\frac{\alpha }{2}\right) \varepsilon \Vert
h_{t}\Vert ^{2}+\left( 1+\frac{\alpha }{2\lambda }+\alpha Q(R)\right) \Vert
h\Vert _{1}^{2},$$and with $$\omega _{5}(R):=\max \left\{ 1+\frac{\alpha }{2},1+\frac{\alpha }{2\lambda }+\alpha Q(R)\right\} ,$$an upper-bound for $\Psi _{\varepsilon }$ is given by, for all $t\geq 0$, $$\Psi _{\varepsilon }(t)\leq \omega _{5}\Vert (h(t),h_{t}(t))\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}^{2}. \label{eq:diff-upper}$$Using the bounds found in (\[eq:uniform-bound-u\]) and ([eq:uniform-bound-w]{}), we estimate the following terms from ([eq:diff-w-1]{}), for all $\eta >0$, $$\alpha |\langle h_{t},h\rangle _{L^{2}(\Gamma )}|\leq \alpha \eta \Vert
h_{t}\Vert _{L^{2}(\Gamma )}^{2}+\frac{\alpha }{4\eta }\Vert h\Vert
_{L^{2}(\Gamma )}^{2}, \label{eq:diff-w-4}$$and $$\begin{aligned}\label{eq:diff-w-5} 2\beta|\langle u_t,h_t \rangle| +
\alpha\beta|\langle u_t,w_t \rangle| & \leq Q(R)\|h_t\|+Q(R) \\ & \leq
\eta\|h_t\|^2+Q_\eta(R). \end{aligned}$$Also, similar to (\[eq:zero-decay-7\]), but when we now employ ([eq:diff-lower]{}), we have that, for all $\eta >0$, $$\langle \psi ^{\prime \prime }(w)w_{t},h^{2}\rangle \leq Q_{\eta }(R)\Vert
w_{t}\Vert \Psi _{\varepsilon }. \label{eq:diff-w-6}$$Combine (\[eq:diff-w-4\])-(\[eq:diff-w-6\]) with (\[eq:diff-w-1\]) and obtain the following estimate (note that when $2-\alpha -\eta >0$, we have $(2-\alpha -\eta )\varepsilon <2-\alpha \varepsilon -\eta $):$$\begin{aligned} \frac{{ {\rm{d}} }}{{ {\rm{d}} }t} & \Psi_\varepsilon +
(2-\alpha-\eta)\varepsilon\|h_t\|^2 + \alpha\langle h_t,h \rangle +
\alpha\|\nabla h\|^2 + \alpha\left( 1-\frac{1}{4\eta}
\right)\|h\|^2_{L^2(\Gamma)} + \\ & + (2-\alpha\eta)\|h_t\|^2_{L^2(\Gamma)}
+ \alpha\langle \psi'(w)h,h \rangle \leq Q_\eta(R)\|w_t\|\Psi_\varepsilon +
Q_\eta(R). \label{eq:diff-w-7} \end{aligned}$$With some $\frac{1}{4}<\eta <2$ now fixed, then, for $$0<\alpha <\min \left\{ 2-\eta ,1,\frac{2}{\eta }\right\} \text{ and }\omega
_{6}:=1-\frac{1}{4\eta },$$we have$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\Psi _{\varepsilon }+\omega _{6}\Psi
_{\varepsilon }+(2-\alpha \eta )\Vert h_{t}\Vert _{L^{2}(\Gamma )}^{2}\leq
Q\left( R\right) \Vert w_{t}\Vert \Psi _{\varepsilon }+Q(R).
\label{eq:diff-w-20}$$An immediate consequence of (\[eq:uniform-bound-dissipation-integral\]) is the bound on the following integral$$\int_{0}^{\infty }\Vert w_{t}(\tau )\Vert ^{2}\mathrm{d}\tau \leq Q\left(
R\right) .$$Applying a suitable version of the Gronwall inequality (see, e.g., [@GP Lemma 2.2]; cf. also Proposition \[GL\], Appendix) it follows that $$\Psi _{\varepsilon }(t)\leq Q\left( R\right) \Psi _{\varepsilon
}(0)e^{-\omega _{6}t/2}+Q\left( R\right) . \label{eq:for-C1}$$Using (\[eq:diff-lower\]) and (\[eq:diff-upper\]), and the fact that $\Psi _{\varepsilon }(0)\leq \omega _{5}\Vert (h(0),h_{t}(0))\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}^{2}\leq Q\left( R\right) $, we arrive at the bound$$\Vert w_{t}(t)\Vert _{1}^{2}+\varepsilon \Vert w_{tt}(t)\Vert ^{2}\leq
Q\left( R\right) , \label{eq:wt-bounds}$$for all $t\geq 0$, $\varepsilon \in (0,1]$ and $\varphi _{0}\in \mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$, with $R>0$ such that $\left\Vert \varphi _{0}\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}\leq R.$
In order to bound $\Vert (w,w_{t})\Vert _{\mathcal{D}_{\varepsilon }}$, we need to bound the term $\Vert w\Vert _{2}$. We have owing to standard elliptic regularity theory (see, e.g., ), that$$\Vert w(t)\Vert _{2}\leq C\left( \Vert \Delta w(t)\Vert +\Vert \partial _{\mathbf{n}}w(t)\Vert _{H^{1/2}(\Gamma )}\right) . \label{eq:H2-regularity}$$Thus, using the first equation of (\[eq:pde-w\])$,$ the bounds ([eq:uniform-bound-u]{}), (\[eq:uniform-bound-w\]) and (\[eq:wt-bounds\]), and also (\[eq:assumption-f-1\]), (\[eq:assumption-f-2\]) and ([eq:beta]{}), we have $$\Vert \Delta w\left( t\right) \Vert \leq \sqrt{\varepsilon }\Vert
w_{tt}\left( t\right) \Vert +\Vert w_{t}\left( t\right) \Vert +\Vert \psi
(w\left( t\right) )\Vert +\beta \Vert u\left( t\right) \Vert \leq Q(R).
\label{eq:wt-bounds-1}$$Also, by (\[eq:wt-bounds\]), we have that $w_{t}\in L^{\infty }\left(
\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0},H^{1/2}(\Gamma )\right) $. Thus, from the second equation of (\[eq:pde-w\]), $$\Vert \partial _{\mathbf{n}}w\left( t\right) \Vert _{H^{1/2}(\Gamma )}\leq
\Vert w\left( t\right) \Vert _{H^{1/2}(\Gamma )}+\Vert w_{t}\left( t\right)
\Vert _{H^{1/2}(\Gamma )}\leq Q(R). \label{eq:wt-bounds-3}$$Combining (\[eq:wt-bounds-1\]) and (\[eq:wt-bounds-3\]) with ([eq:H2-regularity]{}), and also applying (\[eq:wt-bounds\]), proves that for all $t\geq 0$, $$\Vert (w(t),w_{t}(t))\Vert _{\mathcal{D}_{\varepsilon }}\leq Q(R).$$
It follows that the operators $K_{\varepsilon }$ are uniformly compact (with $t_{c}=0$).
Next, we will discuss regularity properties of the weak solutions.
\[t:exponential-attraction-h\] For each $\varepsilon \in (0,1]$, there exists a closed and bounded subset $\mathcal{C}_{\varepsilon }\subset
\mathcal{D}_{\varepsilon } $, such that for every nonempty bounded subset $B\subset \mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$,$$\mathrm{dist}_{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}(S_{\varepsilon }(t)B,\mathcal{C}_{\varepsilon })\leq Q(\left\Vert B\right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon
}})e^{-\omega t}, \label{eq:transitivity}$$where $Q$ and $\omega >0$ are independent of $\varepsilon .$
Let $\varepsilon \in (0,1]$. Define the subset $\mathcal{C}_{\varepsilon }$of $\mathcal{D}_{\varepsilon }$ by$$\mathcal{C}_{\varepsilon }:=\left\{ \varphi \in \mathcal{D}_{\varepsilon
}:\Vert \varphi \Vert _{\mathcal{D}_{\varepsilon }}\leq Q(R)\right\} ,$$where $Q(R)>0$ is the function from Lemma \[t:uniform-compactness\], and $R>0$ is such that $\Vert \varphi _{0}\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}\leq
R.$ Let now $\varphi _{0}=(u_{0},u_{1})\in \mathcal{B}_{\varepsilon }$ (endowed with the same topology of $\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$). Then, for all $t\geq 0$ and for all $\varphi _{0}\in \mathcal{B}_{\varepsilon }$, $S_{\varepsilon }(t)\varphi _{0}=Z_{\varepsilon }(t)\varphi
_{0}+K_{\varepsilon }(t)\varphi _{0}$, where $Z_{\varepsilon }(t)$ is uniformly and exponentially decaying to zero by Lemma \[t:uniform-decay\], and, by Lemma \[t:uniform-compactness\], $K_{\varepsilon }(t)$ is uniformly bounded in $\mathcal{D}_{\varepsilon }.$ In particular, there holds$$\mathrm{dist}_{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}(S_{\varepsilon }(t)\mathcal{B}_{\varepsilon },\mathcal{C}_{\varepsilon })\leq Q(R)e^{-\omega t}.$$(Recall, $\omega >0$ is independent of $\varepsilon $ due to Lemma [t:uniform-decay]{}).
Recall that, by Lemma \[t:bounded-absorbing-set-h\], we already know that for each $\varepsilon \in (0,1]$ and for every nonempty bounded subset $B$ of $\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$, $$\mathrm{dist}_{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}(S_{\varepsilon }(t)B,\mathcal{B}_{\varepsilon })\leq Q(R)e^{-\omega _{0}t},$$for all $t\geq 0$. In light of these estimates, (\[eq:transitivity\]) can now be accomplished by appealing to the transitivity property of the exponential attraction (see, e.g., [@FGMZ04 Theorem 5.1]). Note that (\[eq:transitivity\]) entails that $\mathcal{C}_{\varepsilon }$ is a compact attracting set in $\mathcal{H}_\varepsilon$ for $S_{\varepsilon }(t)$. The proof is finished.
By standard arguments of the theory of attractors (see, e.g., [@Hale88; @Temam88]), the existence of a compact global attractor $\mathcal{A}_{\varepsilon }\subset \mathcal{C}_{\varepsilon }$ for the semigroup $S_{\varepsilon }(t)$ follows.
\[t:global-attractors-h\] For each $\varepsilon \in (0,1]$, the semiflow $S_{\varepsilon }$ generated by the solutions of the hyperbolic relaxation problem (\[eq:pde-h-1\])-(\[eq:pde-h-3\]) admits a unique global attractor$$\mathcal{A}_{\varepsilon }=\omega (\mathcal{B}_{\varepsilon
}):=\bigcap_{s\geq t}{\overline{\bigcup_{t\geq 0}S_{\varepsilon }(t)\mathcal{B}_{\varepsilon }}}^{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}$$in $\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$. Moreover, the following hold:
\(i) For each $t\geq 0$, $S_{\varepsilon }(t)\mathcal{A}_{\varepsilon }=\mathcal{A}_{\varepsilon }$, and
\(ii) For every nonempty bounded subset $B$ of $\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$,$$\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty }\mathrm{dist}_{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon
}}(S_{\varepsilon }(t)B,\mathcal{A}_{\varepsilon })=0. \label{gl_attraction}$$
\(iii) The global attractor $\mathcal{A}_{\varepsilon }$ is bounded in $\mathcal{D}_{\varepsilon }$ and trajectories on $\mathcal{A}_{\varepsilon }$ are strong solutions.
\[nonlinear\_bc\]We can extend all the results in Sections [well-posed]{}-\[global-hyper\] (with the appropriate modifications, see [@CGG11; @GM12]) to the case when the linear boundary condition ([eq:pde-h-2]{}) is replaced by$$\partial _{\mathbf{n}}u+g\left( u\right) +u_{t}=0,\text{ on }\left( 0,\infty
\right) \times \Gamma ,$$such that $g\in C^{2}\left( \mathbb{R}\right) $ satisfies$$|g^{^{\prime \prime }}\left( s\right) |\leq C_{g}\left( 1+\left\vert
s\right\vert ^{2}\right) ,\text{ }g^{^{\prime }}\left( s\right) \geq -\theta
_{g},\text{ }g\left( s\right) s\geq s^{2}-C_{g}^{^{\prime }},$$for all $s\in \mathbb{R}$, and some constants $C_{g}>0,$ $C_{g}^{^{\prime
}}\geq 0.$
The upper-semicontinuity of $\mathcal{A}_{\protect\varepsilon }$ for the singularly perturbed problem {#s:continuity}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This section contains one of the main results of the paper, the proof of the upper-semicontinuity of the family of global attractors given by the model problems for $\varepsilon \in \lbrack 0,1]$. Recall that in the case $\varepsilon =0$, the limit parabolic problem, admits a global attractor $\mathcal{A}_{0}$ that is bounded in $\mathcal{V}^{2}$. Naturally, we will study the continuity at $\varepsilon =0$. For $\varepsilon \in (0,1]$, we know that the hyperbolic relaxation problem admits a global attractor $\mathcal{A}_{\varepsilon }$ in $\mathcal{D}_{\varepsilon }$. However, the spaces involved with the parabolic problem invoke the trace of the solution on the boundary $\Gamma $, whereas the spaces involved with the hyperbolic relaxation problem do *not* contain prescribed traces. Before we lift the global attractor $\mathcal{A}_{0}$ for the parabolic problem into the finite energy phase space for the hyperbolic relaxation problem, we need to make an extension of $\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$ so that it also includes the information of the traces of $u$ and $u_{t}$.
To begin, we recall that the natural phase space for the parabolic problem (\[eq:pde-p-1\])-(\[eq:pde-p-3\]) is $Y=L^{2}(\Omega )\times L^{2}(\Gamma
),$ while the finite energy phase space for the hyperbolic relaxation problem (\[eq:pde-h-1\])-(\[eq:pde-h-3\]) is $\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon
}=H^{1}(\Omega )\times L^{2}(\Omega )$. Thus, we need to find a suitable extension of the phase space for the hyperbolic relaxation problem so that, when we lift the parabolic problem, both problems will be situated in the *same* framework. A natural way to make this extension is to introduce the space $$\mathcal{X}_{0}=H^{1}(\Omega )\times L^{2}(\Gamma ),$$then the *extended* phase space for the hyperbolic relaxation problem$$\mathcal{X}_{\varepsilon }=\mathcal{X}_{0}\times Y=H^{1}(\Omega )\times
L^{2}(\Gamma )\times L^{2}(\Omega )\times L^{2}(\Gamma ).$$The space $\mathcal{X}_{\varepsilon }$ is Hilbert when endowed with the $\varepsilon $-weighted norm whose square is given by, for all $\zeta
=(u,\gamma ,v,\delta )\in \mathcal{X}_{\varepsilon }$, $$\Vert \zeta \Vert _{\mathcal{X}_{\varepsilon }}^{2}:=\Vert u\Vert
_{1}^{2}+\Vert \gamma \Vert _{L^{2}(\Gamma )}^{2}+\varepsilon \Vert v\Vert
^{2}+\varepsilon \Vert \delta \Vert _{L^{2}(\Gamma )}^{2}.$$It is then in the space $\mathcal{X}_{\varepsilon }$ that we can lift $\mathcal{A}_{0}$ and estimate the Hausdorff semidistance between (an extension of) $\mathcal{A}_{\varepsilon }$ and $\mathcal{L}\mathcal{A}_{0}$ (for a proper lifting map $\mathcal{L}$) with the new extended topology. However, it must be noted that the lifted attractor $\mathcal{L}\mathcal{A}_{0}$ is *not* necessarily a global attractor when set in the extended phase space. Finally, the topology that we will use to show the convergence of the attractors at $\varepsilon =0$ will be defined with the four-component norm of $\mathcal{X}_{\varepsilon }$.
For both problems, we also recall that trajectories on the attractor are strong solutions due to the regularity results obtained in Sections [s:parabolic]{} and \[global-hyper\] (see Theorems [t:global-attractor-and-regularity-p]{} and \[t:exponential-attraction-h\]). The regularized phase space $\mathcal{D}_{\varepsilon }$ for the hyperbolic relaxation problem is isomorphically extended to$$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}_{\varepsilon }& :=\left\{ \left( u,\gamma ,v,\delta
\right) \in H^{2}\left( \Omega \right) \times H^{3/2}\left( \Gamma \right)
\times H^{1}\left( \Omega \right) \times H^{1/2}\left( \Gamma \right)
:\gamma =\mathrm{tr_{D}}\left( u\right) ,\right. \label{extended_ph} \\
& \left. \delta =\mathrm{tr_{D}}\left( v\right) ,\text{ }\partial _{\mathbf{n}}u+\gamma =-\delta \text{ on }\Gamma \right\} . \notag\end{aligned}$$Of course, $\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}_{\varepsilon }\subset \mathcal{V}^{2}\times \mathcal{V}^{1}$ and the injection $\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}_{\varepsilon }\hookrightarrow \mathcal{X}_{\varepsilon }$ is compact. Recall that, for each $\left( u_{0},u_{1}\right) \in \mathcal{D}_{\varepsilon }$, problem (\[eq:pde-h-1\])-(\[eq:pde-h-3\]) generates a dynamical system $\left( S_{\varepsilon }\left( t\right) ,\mathcal{D}_{\varepsilon }\right) $ of strong solutions (cf., Theorem [strong-sol-hyper]{}; see also ). By appealing once more to the continuity of the trace map $\mathrm{tr_{D}}:H^{s}\left( \Omega \right)
\rightarrow H^{s-1/2}\left( \Gamma \right) $, $s>1/2$, and exploiting the results in Section \[well-posed\], it is not difficult to realize that we can extend the semiflow $S_{\varepsilon }\left( t\right) $ to a strongly continuous semigroup$$\widetilde{S}_{\varepsilon }\left( t\right) :\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}_{\varepsilon }\rightarrow \widetilde{\mathcal{D}}_{\varepsilon },
\label{lifted-semigroup}$$such that $\widetilde{S}_{\varepsilon }\left( t\right) $ is also Lipschitz continuous in $\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}_{\varepsilon },$ endowed with the metric topology of $\mathcal{V}^{2}\times \mathcal{V}^{1}$ (see Lemma [Lipsch\_higher]{} below). Recall that, by definition for $p,q\geq 1$,$$\mathcal{V}^{p}\times \mathcal{V}^{q}=\left\{ \left( u,\gamma ,v,\delta
\right) \in H^{p}\left( \Omega \right) \times H^{p-1/2}\left( \Gamma \right)
\times H^{q}\left( \Omega \right) \times H^{q-1/2}\left( \Gamma \right)
:\gamma =\mathrm{tr_{D}}\left( u\right) ,\delta =\mathrm{tr_{D}}\left(
v\right) \right\} ,$$see Section \[s:parabolic\] (as before, $\mathcal{V}^{p}\times \mathcal{V}^{q}$ is topologically isomorphic to $H^{p}\left( \Omega \right) \times
H^{q}\left( \Omega \right) $).
\[Lipsch\_higher\]Let $\varphi _{0},\theta _{0}\in \widetilde{\mathcal{D}}_{\varepsilon }$ such that $\left\Vert \varphi _{0}\right\Vert _{\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}_{\varepsilon }}\leq R,$ $\left\Vert \theta _{0}\right\Vert _{\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}_{\varepsilon }}\leq R,$ for every $\varepsilon \in
(0,1]$. Then the following estimate holds:$$\left\Vert \widetilde{S}_{\varepsilon }\left( t\right) \varphi _{0}-\widetilde{S}_{\varepsilon }\left( t\right) \theta _{0}\right\Vert _{\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}_{\varepsilon }}\leq \frac{Q\left( R\right) }{\sqrt{\varepsilon }}e^{\nu _{1}t}\left\Vert \varphi _{0}-\theta _{0}\right\Vert _{\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}_{\varepsilon }}, \label{lipschitzest2}$$where $Q\left( R\right) >0$ and $\nu _{1}>0$ are independent of $\varepsilon
>0.$
Let $\varphi (t)=(u_{1}(t),u_{1\mid \Gamma }\left( t\right) ,\partial
_{t}u_{1}(t),\partial _{t}u_{1\mid \Gamma }(t))$ and $\theta
(t)=(u_{2}(t),u_{2\mid \Gamma }\left( t\right) ,\partial
_{t}u_{2}(t),\partial _{t}u_{2\mid \Gamma }(t))$ denote the corresponding strong solutions with initial data $\varphi _{0}$ and $\theta _{0}$, respectively. Then the difference $u\left( t\right) :=u_{1}\left( t\right)
-u_{2}\left( t\right) $ satisfies$$\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
-\Delta u\left( t\right) =f^{^{\prime }}\left( u_{2}\left( t\right) \right)
-f^{^{\prime }}\left( u_{1}\left( t\right) \right) -u_{t}\left( t\right)
-\varepsilon u_{tt}\left( t\right) , & \text{a.e. in }\mathbb{R}_{+}\times
\Omega , \\
\partial _{\mathbf{n}}u\left( t\right) +u\left( t\right) =-u_{t}\left(
t\right) , & \text{a.e. in }\mathbb{R}_{+}\times \Gamma ,\end{array}\right. \label{sys1}$$subject to the initial condition$$u\left( 0\right) =u_{1}\left( 0\right) -u_{2}\left( 0\right) .$$Setting $v:=\partial _{t}u_{1}-\partial _{t}u_{2}$, we have $\left(
v_{t},\psi \right) \in C^{1}\left( \left[ 0,T\right] \right) $ for every $\psi \in H^{1}\left( \Omega \right) $ (see the definition of strong solution). Then $v$ solves the following identity$$\begin{aligned}
& \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\left( \varepsilon v_{t}\left( t\right)
,\psi \right) +\left\langle \nabla v\left( t\right) ,\nabla \psi
\right\rangle +\left\langle v_{t}\left( t\right) ,\psi \right\rangle
+\left\langle v_{t}\left( t\right) +v\left( t\right) ,\psi \right\rangle
_{L^{2}\left( \Gamma \right) } \\
& =-\left\langle f^{^{\prime }}\left( u_{1}\left( t\right) \right)
-f^{^{\prime }}\left( u_{2}\left( t\right) \right) u_{1}\left( t\right)
,\psi \right\rangle -\left\langle f^{^{\prime }}\left( u_{2}\left( t\right)
\right) u\left( t\right) ,\psi \right\rangle ,\end{aligned}$$for almost all $t\in \left[ 0,T\right] .$ Testing with $\psi =v_{t}$, we obtain$$\begin{aligned}
& \frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\left\{ \varepsilon \left\Vert
v_{t}\right\Vert ^{2}+\left\Vert \nabla v\right\Vert ^{2}+\left\Vert
v\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( \Gamma \right) }^{2}\right\} +\left\Vert
v_{t}\right\Vert ^{2}+\left\Vert v_{t}\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( \Gamma
\right) }^{2} \label{lip2} \\
& =-\left\langle f^{^{\prime }}\left( u_{1}\right) -f^{^{\prime }}\left(
u_{2}\right) u_{1},v_{t}\right\rangle -\left\langle f^{^{\prime }}\left(
u_{2}\right) u,v_{t}\right\rangle . \notag\end{aligned}$$We can bound the terms on the right-hand side in a standard way,$$\begin{aligned}
& \left\langle f^{^{\prime }}\left( u_{1}\right) -f^{^{\prime }}\left(
u_{2}\right) u_{1},v_{t}\right\rangle +\left\langle f^{^{\prime }}\left(
u_{2}\right) u,v_{t}\right\rangle \\
& \leq Q\left( |u_{i}|_{\infty }\right) \left\Vert u\right\Vert ^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\left\Vert v_{t}\right\Vert ^{2}\end{aligned}$$(which follows easily on the account of the fact that $\left\Vert
(u_{i}\left( t\right) ,\partial _{t}u_{i}\left( t\right) )\right\Vert _{\mathcal{D}_{\varepsilon }}\leq R,$ $i=1,2,$ and the embedding $H^{2}\left(
\Omega \right) \hookrightarrow C^{0}\left( \overline{\Omega }\right) $), then insert them into (\[lip2\]). By virtue of ([eq:continuous-dependence]{}) we get$$\begin{aligned}
& \varepsilon \left\Vert v_{t}\left( t\right) \right\Vert ^{2}+\left(
\left\Vert \nabla v\left( t\right) \right\Vert ^{2}+\left\Vert v\left(
t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( \Gamma \right) }^{2}\right) \label{lip3}
\\
& \leq Q\left( R\right) e^{\nu _{1}t}\left\Vert \varphi _{0}-\theta
_{0}\right\Vert _{\mathcal{X}_{\varepsilon }}^{2}+\varepsilon \left\Vert
v_{t}\left( 0\right) \right\Vert ^{2}+\left( \left\Vert \varphi _{0}-\theta
_{0}\right\Vert _{\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}_{\varepsilon }}^{2}\right) ,
\notag\end{aligned}$$for almost all $t\in \left[ 0,T\right] .$ It remains to notice that, from (\[sys1\]), there holds for every $\varepsilon \in (0,1],$$$\begin{aligned}
\varepsilon \left\Vert v_{t}\left( 0\right) \right\Vert ^{2}& \leq \frac{1}{\varepsilon }\left( \left\Vert \Delta u\left( 0\right) \right\Vert
^{2}+\left\Vert f^{^{\prime }}\left( u_{2}\left( 0\right) \right)
-f^{^{\prime }}\left( u_{1}\left( 0\right) \right) \right\Vert
^{2}+\left\Vert u_{t}\left( 0\right) \right\Vert ^{2}\right) \label{lip4}
\\
& \leq \frac{Q\left( R\right) }{\varepsilon }\left\Vert \varphi _{0}-\theta
_{0}\right\Vert _{\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}_{\varepsilon }}^{2} \notag\end{aligned}$$Summing up, we obtain from (\[lip3\])-(\[lip4\]), that$$\varepsilon \left\Vert v_{t}\left( t\right) \right\Vert ^{2}+\left\Vert
v\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{1}^{2}\leq \frac{Q\left( R\right) }{\varepsilon }e^{\nu _{1}t}\left\Vert \varphi _{0}-\theta _{0}\right\Vert _{\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}_{\varepsilon }}^{2}. \label{lip5}$$We can now bound the term $\Vert u_{1}\left( t\right) -u_{2}\left( t\right)
\Vert _{2}$. As before, owing to standard elliptic regularity theory, we have in (\[sys1\]), using (\[lip5\]), that$$\begin{aligned}
\Vert u\left( t\right) \Vert _{2}^{2} &\leq &C\left( \varepsilon
^{2}\left\Vert v_{t}\left( t\right) \right\Vert ^{2}+\left\Vert f^{^{\prime
}}\left( u_{2}\left( t\right) \right) -f^{^{\prime }}\left( u_{1}\left(
t\right) \right) \right\Vert ^{2}+\left\Vert v\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{1}^{2}\right) \label{lip6} \\
&\leq &Q\left( R\right) \left\Vert \varphi _{0}-\theta _{0}\right\Vert _{\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}_{\varepsilon }}^{2}. \notag\end{aligned}$$Finally, (\[lip5\])-(\[lip6\]) together with the fact that the trace map $H^{s}\left( \Omega \right) \rightarrow H^{s-1/2}\left( \Gamma
\right) $, $s>1/2$, is bounded yields the desired inequality ([lipschitzest2]{}).
By Lemma \[Lipsch\_higher\], the family of global attractors $\left\{
\mathcal{A}_{\varepsilon }\right\} _{\varepsilon \in (0,1]}\subset \mathcal{D}_{\varepsilon }$ can be naturally extended to the family of compact sets $\left\{ \widetilde{\mathcal{A}}_{\varepsilon }\right\} _{\varepsilon \in
(0,1]},$$$\widetilde{\mathcal{A}}_{\varepsilon }=\left\{ \left( u,\gamma ,v,\delta
\right) \in \widetilde{\mathcal{D}}_{\varepsilon }:\left( u,v\right) \in
\mathcal{A}_{\varepsilon }\right\} \label{conj_gl}$$which are bounded in $\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}_{\varepsilon }$ and compact in $\mathcal{X}_{\varepsilon }$. Note that we do not claim that $\widetilde{\mathcal{A}}_{\varepsilon }$ is a global attractor for $(\widetilde{S}_{\varepsilon }\left( t\right) ,\mathcal{X}_{\varepsilon })$, see Remark [rem\_notglob]{} below. Also, it is in the space $\mathcal{V}^{2}\times
Y\subset \mathcal{X}_{\varepsilon }$ where we lift the parabolic problem. Since the global attractor $\mathcal{A}_{0}$ for (\[eq:pde-p-1\])-([eq:pde-p-3]{}) is a bounded subset of the space $\mathcal{V}^{2}\subset
C\left( \overline{\Omega }\right) \times C\left( \Gamma \right) $ (since $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^{3}$), the canonical extension map$$\mathcal{E}:\mathcal{V}^{2}\rightarrow Y
\label{eq:canonical-extension-map-1}$$is well-defined with $$(u,u_{\mid \Gamma })\mapsto (\Delta u-f(u),-\partial _{\mathbf{n}}u-u_{\mid
\Gamma }), \label{eq:canonical-extension-map-2}$$and so the corresponding lift map$$\mathcal{L}:\mathcal{V}^{2}\rightarrow \mathcal{V}^{2}\times Y
\label{eq:lift-map-1}$$is defined by$$(u,u_{\mid \Gamma })\mapsto (u,u_{\mid \Gamma },\Delta u-f(u),-\partial _{\mathbf{n}}u-u_{\mid \Gamma }). \label{eq:lift-map-2}$$
Let $\mathcal{A}_{0}$ denote the global attractor of the limit parabolic problem (see Theorem \[t:global-attractor-and-regularity-p\]) and let $\widetilde{\mathcal{A}}_\varepsilon$, $\varepsilon\in(0,1]$, be the sets defined in (\[conj\_gl\]). Define the family of compact sets in $\mathcal{X}_{\varepsilon }$ by$$\mathbb{A}_{\varepsilon }:=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\widetilde{\mathcal{A}}_{0}:=\mathcal{L}\mathcal{A}_{0} & \text{for}~\varepsilon =0 \\
\widetilde{\mathcal{A}}_{\varepsilon } & \text{for}~\varepsilon \in (0,1].\end{array}\right. \label{eq:family}$$
\[rem\_notglob\]The compact set $\widetilde{\mathcal{A}}_{\varepsilon }$is *not* a global attractor for $\widetilde{S}_{\varepsilon }\left(
t\right) $ acting on the phase-space $\mathcal{X}_{\varepsilon }$ since traces of functions in $L^{2}\left( \Omega \right) $ are not well-defined in $L^{2}\left( \Gamma \right) $. By construction (\[conj\_gl\]), $\widetilde{\mathcal{A}}_{\varepsilon }$ is only topologically conjugated to the global attractor $\mathcal{A}_{\varepsilon }$ associated with the dynamical system $\left( S_{\varepsilon },\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }\right) .$
The main result of this section can be now stated as follows.
\[t:upper-continuity\] The family $\left\{\mathbb{A}_{\varepsilon
}\right\}_{\varepsilon \in \lbrack 0,1]},$ defined by (\[eq:family\]), is upper-semicontinuous at $\varepsilon =0$ in the topology of $\mathcal{X}_{1}$. More precisely, there holds $$\lim_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0}\mathrm{dist}_{\mathcal{X}_{1}}(\mathbb{A}_{\varepsilon },\mathbb{A}_{0}):=\lim_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0}\sup_{a\in
\widetilde{\mathcal{A}}_{\varepsilon }}\inf_{b\in \widetilde{\mathcal{A}}_{0}}\Vert a-b\Vert _{\mathcal{X}_{1}}=0. \label{eq:upper-semicontinuity}$$
Our proof essentially follows the classical argument in [Hale&Raugel88,Hale88]{} and also . Of course, modifications are required to account for the terms on the boundary. Let $\zeta =(u,\gamma ,v,\delta )\in \widetilde{\mathcal{A}}_{\varepsilon }$ and $\bar{\zeta}=(\bar{u},\bar{\gamma},\bar{v},\bar{\delta})\in \widetilde{\mathcal{A}}_{0}$. We need to show that $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:upper-1}
\sup_{(u,\gamma,v,\delta)\in\widetilde{\mathcal{A}}_\varepsilon}\inf_{(\bar
u,\bar \gamma,\bar v,\bar \delta)\in\widetilde{\mathcal{A}}_0} & \left(
\|u-\bar u\|^2_1 + \|\gamma-\bar \gamma\|^2_{L^2(\Gamma)} + \right. \\ &
\left. + \|v-\bar v\|^2 + \|\delta-\bar \delta\|^2_{L^2(\Gamma)}
\right)^{1/2} \rightarrow 0 ~\text{as}~ \varepsilon\rightarrow 0.
\end{aligned}$$Assuming to the contrary that (\[eq:upper-1\]) did not hold, then there exist $\eta _{0}>0$ and sequences $(\varepsilon _{n})_{n\in \mathbb{N}}\subset (0,1]$, $(\zeta _{n})_{n\in \mathbb{N}}=((u_{n},\gamma
_{n},v_{n},\delta _{n}))_{n\in \mathbb{N}}\subset \widetilde{\mathcal{A}}_{\varepsilon _{n}}$, such that $\varepsilon _{n}\rightarrow 0$ and for all $n\in \mathbb{N}$, $$\inf_{(\bar{u},\bar{\gamma},\bar{v},\bar{\delta})\in \widetilde{\mathcal{A}}_{0}}\left( \Vert u_{n}-\bar{u}\Vert _{1}^{2}+\Vert \gamma _{n}-\bar{\gamma}\Vert _{L^{2}(\Gamma )}^{2}+\Vert v_{n}-\bar{v}\Vert ^{2}+\Vert \delta _{n}-\bar{\delta}\Vert _{L^{2}(\Gamma )}^{2}\right) \geq \eta _{0}^{2}.
\label{eq:upper-2}$$By Theorem \[t:exponential-attraction-h\], the compact sets $\widetilde{\mathcal{A}}_{\varepsilon _{n}}$ are bounded in the space $\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}_{1}$ (see (\[extended\_ph\]) with $\varepsilon=1$) and we have the following uniform bound, for some positive constant $C>0$ independent of $n$, $$\Vert u_{n}\Vert _{2}^{2}+\Vert \gamma _{n}\Vert _{H^{3/2}(\Gamma
)}^{2}+\Vert v_{n}\Vert _{1}^{2}+\Vert \delta _{n}\Vert _{H^{1/2}(\Gamma
)}^{2}\leq C.$$This means that there is a weakly converging subsequence of $(\zeta
_{n})_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ (not relabelled) that converges to some $(u^{\ast
},\gamma ^{\ast },v^{\ast },\delta ^{\ast })$ weakly in $\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}_{1}$. By the compactness of the embedding $\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}_{1}\hookrightarrow \mathcal{X}_{1}$, the subsequence converges strongly in $\mathcal{X}_{1}$. It now suffices to show that $(u^{\ast },\gamma ^{\ast
},v^{\ast },\delta ^{\ast })\in \widetilde{\mathcal{A}}_{0},$ since this is a contradiction to (\[eq:upper-2\]).
With each $\zeta _{n}=(u_{n},\gamma _{n},v_{n},\delta _{n})\in \widetilde{\mathcal{A}}_{\varepsilon _{n}}$, then, for each $n\in \mathbb{N}$, there is a complete orbit $$(u^{n}(t),u^{n}_{\mid \Gamma }(t),u_{t}^{n}(t),u^{n}_{t\mid \Gamma
}(t))_{t\in \mathbb{R}}=(\widetilde{S}_{\varepsilon _{n}}(t)(u_{n},\gamma
_{n},v_{n},\delta _{n}))_{t\in \mathbb{R}}$$contained in $\widetilde{\mathcal{A}}_{\varepsilon _{n}}$ and passing through $(u_{n},\gamma _{n},v_{n},\delta _{n})$ where $$(u^{n}(0),u^{n}_{\mid \Gamma }(0),u_{t}^{n}(0),u^{n}_{t\mid \Gamma
}(0))=(u_{n},\gamma _{n},v_{n},\delta _{n})$$(cf., e.g., ).
In view of the regularity $\widetilde{\mathcal{A}}_{\varepsilon _{n}}\subset
\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}_{1}$ (see (\[eq:regularity-property\])), we obtain the uniform bounds:$$\varepsilon _{n}\Vert u_{tt}^{n}(t)\Vert ^{2}+\Vert u_{t}^{n}(t)\Vert
_{1}^{2}+\Vert u_{t}^{n}(t)\Vert _{H^{1/2}(\Gamma )}^{2}+\Vert u^{n}(t)\Vert
_{2}^{2}+\Vert u^{n}(t)\Vert _{H^{3/2}(\Gamma )}^{2}\leq C,
\label{eq:upper-3}$$where the constant $C>0$ is independent of $t$ and $\varepsilon _{n}$. Now, for all $T>0$, the functions $u^{\varepsilon _{n}}$, $u_{\mid \Gamma
}^{\varepsilon _{n}}$, $u_{t}^{\varepsilon _{n}}$, $u_{t\mid \Gamma
}^{\varepsilon _{n}}$ and $\sqrt{\varepsilon _{n}}u_{tt}^{\varepsilon _{n}}$ are, respectively, bounded in $L^{\infty }(-T,T;H^{2}(\Omega ))$, $L^{\infty
}(-T,T;H^{3/2}(\Gamma ))$, $L^{\infty }(-T,T;H^{1}(\Omega ))$, $L^{\infty
}(-T,T;H^{1/2}(\Gamma ))$ and $L^{\infty }(-T,T;L^{2}(\Omega ))$. Thus, there is a function $u$ and a subsequence (not relabelled), in which, $$u^{\varepsilon _{n}}\rightharpoonup u~\text{in}~L^{\infty
}(-T,T;H^{2}(\Omega ))~(\text{weakly*}), \label{eq:conv-1}$$$$u_{\mid \Gamma }^{\varepsilon _{n}}\rightharpoonup u_{\mid \Gamma }~\text{in}~L^{\infty }(-T,T;H^{3/2}(\Gamma ))~(\text{weakly*}), \label{eq:conv-2}$$$$u_{t}^{\varepsilon _{n}}\rightharpoonup u_{t}~\text{in}~L^{\infty
}(-T,T;H^{1}(\Omega ))~(\text{weakly*}), \label{eq:conv-3}$$$$u_{t\mid \Gamma }^{\varepsilon _{n}}\rightharpoonup u_{t\mid \Gamma }~\text{in}~L^{\infty }(-T,T;H^{1/2}(\Gamma ))~(\text{weakly*}), \label{eq:conv-4}$$$$\varepsilon _{n}u_{tt}^{\varepsilon _{n}}\rightarrow 0~\text{in}~L^{\infty
}(-T,T;L^{2}(\Omega ))~(\text{strongly}). \label{eq:conv-5}$$
The above convergence properties yield$$u^{\varepsilon _{n}}\rightarrow u~\text{in}~C(-T,T;H^{1}(\Omega ))~(\text{strongly}) \label{eq:conv-6}$$owing to the following embedding$$\{u\in L^{\infty }(-T,T;H^{2}(\Omega )):u_{t}\in L^{\infty
}(-T,T;H^{1}(\Omega ))\}\hookrightarrow C(-T,T;H^{2-\eta }(\Omega )),
\label{eq:injection-1}$$which is compact for every $\eta \in \left( 0,1\right) $ (see, e.g., [Lions69]{}). The strong property (\[eq:conv-6\]) allows us to identify the correct limit in the nonlinear term when $\varepsilon _{n}\rightarrow 0.$ Moreover, from (\[eq:conv-1\]) and the fact that $H^{2}\left( \Omega
\right) \hookrightarrow C^{0}\left( \overline{\Omega }\right) $, it follows that$$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{t\in \left[ -T,T\right] }\left\Vert f\left( u^{\varepsilon
_{n}}\right) -f\left( u\right) \right\Vert ^{2}& \leq \sup_{t\in \left[ -T,T\right] }Q_{\ast }\left( \left\vert u^{\varepsilon _{n}}\left( t\right)
\right\vert _{\infty },\left\vert u\left( t\right) \right\vert _{\infty
}\right) \left\Vert u^{\varepsilon _{n}}\left( t\right) -u\left( t\right)
\right\Vert ^{2} \\
& \leq C\left( \Omega \right) \sup_{t\in \left[ -T,T\right] }\left\Vert
u^{\varepsilon _{n}}\left( t\right) -u\left( t\right) \right\Vert ^{2},
\notag\end{aligned}$$for some positive (increasing) function $Q_{\ast }:\mathbb{R}_{+}\times
\mathbb{R}_{+}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{+}$, independent of $n$ and $\varepsilon _{n}.$ By virtue of (\[eq:conv-6\]) it is then easy to see that$$f(u^{\varepsilon _{n}})\rightarrow f(u)~\text{in}~C(-T,T;L^{2}\left( \Omega
\right) )~(\text{strongly}).$$
It follows that $u$ is a weak solution of the limit parabolic problem on $\mathbb{R}$. In particular, $(u_{n},\gamma _{n})=(u^{n}(0),u^{n}_{\mid
\Gamma }(0))\rightarrow (u(0),u_{\mid \Gamma }(0))$ in $\mathcal{V}^{1}$. Hence, we have that $(u(0),u_{\mid \Gamma }(0))=(u^{\ast },\gamma ^{\ast })$, and therefore $(u(0),u_{\mid \Gamma }(0))\in \mathcal{V}^{2}$. As $(u,u_{\mid\Gamma})$ is a complete orbit through $(u^{\ast },\gamma ^{\ast })$, it follows that $(u^{\ast },\gamma ^{\ast })\in \mathcal{A}_{0}$. It remains to show that $v^{\ast }=\Delta u^{\ast }-f(u^{\ast })$ and $\delta
^{\ast }=-\partial _{\mathbf{n}}\gamma ^{\ast }-\gamma ^{\ast }$, in which case $(u^{\ast },\gamma ^{\ast },v^{\ast },\delta ^{\ast })\in \widetilde{\mathcal{A}}_{0}$.
Now by (\[eq:conv-5\]) and (\[eq:upper-3\]), it follows that $$\|\varepsilon_n u^n_{tt}(0)\|=\sqrt{\varepsilon_n}\|\sqrt{\varepsilon_{n}}u_{tt}^{n}(0)\| \leq \sqrt{\varepsilon _{n}}C,$$ and so $\varepsilon _{n}u_{tt}^{n}(0)\rightarrow 0$ in $L^{2}(\Omega )$ as $\varepsilon _{n}\rightarrow 0$. With this at hand, $$\begin{aligned} u^n_t(0) & = - \varepsilon_n u^n_{tt}(0) + \Delta u^n(0) -
f(u^n(0)) \\ & = - \varepsilon_n u^n_{tt}(0) + \Delta u^* - f(u^*),
\end{aligned}$$so that $$u_{t}^{n}(0)\rightharpoonup \Delta u^{\ast }-f(u^{\ast })~\text{in}~L^{2}(\Omega )~(\text{weakly}). \label{eq:upper-4}$$Since $u_{t}^{n}(0)=v^{n}$, then with (\[eq:upper-4\]) we have that $$v^{\ast }=\Delta u^{\ast }-f(u^{\ast }). \label{eq:upper-5}$$Similarly, since $$u_{t\mid \Gamma }^{n}(0)=-\partial _{\mathbf{n}}u^{n}(0)-u_{\mid \Gamma
}^{n}(0)$$and since $u_{\mid \Gamma }^{n}(0)=\gamma ^{\ast }$ and $u_{t\mid \Gamma
}^{n}(0)=\delta ^{\ast }$, then $$\delta ^{\ast }=-\partial _{\mathbf{n}}\gamma ^{\ast }-\gamma ^{\ast }.
\label{eq:upper-6}$$We know $(u^{\ast },\gamma ^{\ast })\in \mathcal{A}_{0}$, so ([eq:upper-5]{}) and (\[eq:upper-6\]) imply that $(u^{\ast },\gamma ^{\ast
},v^{\ast },\delta ^{\ast })\in \widetilde{\mathcal{A}}_{0},$ in contradiction to (\[eq:upper-2\]). This proves the assertion and completes the proof.
Exponential attractors {#s:exponential-attractors}
======================
Exponential attractors (sometimes called, inertial sets) are positively invariant sets possessing finite fractal dimension that attract bounded subsets of the phase space exponentially fast. It can readily be seen that when both a global attractor $\mathcal{A} $ and an exponential attractor $\mathcal{M}$ exist, then $\mathcal{A}\subseteq \mathcal{M}$, and so the global attractor is also finite dimensional. The existence of an exponential attractor depends on certain properties of the semigroup; namely, the smoothing property for the difference of any two trajectories and the existence of a more regular bounded absorbing set in the phase space (see, e.g., [@EFNT95], [@EMZ00]).
The main result of this section is the following.
\[t:exponential-attractors-h\] For each $\varepsilon \in (0,1]$, the dynamical system $\left( S_{\varepsilon },\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }\right) $ associated with (\[eq:pde-h-1\])-(\[eq:pde-h-3\]) admits an exponential attractor $\mathcal{M}_{\varepsilon }$ compact in $\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon
},$ and bounded in $\mathcal{C}_{\varepsilon }.$ Moreover, there hold:
\(i) For each $t\geq 0$, $S_{\varepsilon }(t)\mathcal{M}_{\varepsilon
}\subseteq \mathcal{M}_{\varepsilon }$.
\(ii) The fractal dimension of $\mathcal{M}_{\varepsilon }$ with respect to the metric $\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$ is finite, namely,$$\dim _{F}\left( \mathcal{M}_{\varepsilon },\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }\right)
\leq C_{\varepsilon }<\infty ,$$for some positive constant $C_{\varepsilon }$ which *depends* on $\varepsilon .$
\(iii) There exist $\varrho >0$ and a positive nondecreasing function $Q_{\varepsilon }$ such that, for all $t\geq 0$, $$\mathrm{dist}_{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}(S_{\varepsilon }(t)B,\mathcal{M}_{\varepsilon })\leq Q_{\varepsilon }(\Vert B\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }})e^{-\varrho t},$$for every nonempty bounded subset $B$ of $\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }.$
Above,$$\dim _{\mathrm{F}}(\mathcal{M}_{\varepsilon },\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon
}):=\limsup_{r\rightarrow 0}\frac{\ln \mu _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}(\mathcal{M}_{\varepsilon },r)}{-\ln r}<\infty ,$$where, $\mu _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}(\mathcal{Z},r)$ denotes the minimum number of $r$-balls from $\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$ required to cover $\mathcal{Z}\subset \mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$.
There holds$$\dim _{\mathrm{F}}(\mathcal{A}_{\varepsilon },\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon
})\leq \dim _{\mathrm{F}}(\mathcal{M}_{\varepsilon },\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }).$$As a consequence, $\mathcal{A}_{\varepsilon }$ has finite fractal dimension which depends on $\varepsilon >0$.
Unfortunately, we cannot show that the fractal dimension of $\mathcal{M}_{\varepsilon }$ is uniform with respect to $\varepsilon >0$ (see the subsequent lemmas).
The proof of Theorem \[t:exponential-attractors-h\] follows from the application of an abstract result tailored specifically to our needs (see, e.g., [@EMZ00 Proposition 1], [@FGMZ04], [@GGMP05]; cf. also Remark \[rem\_att\] below).
\[abstract1\]Let $\left( S_{\varepsilon },\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon
}\right) $ be a dynamical system for each $\varepsilon >0$. Assume the following hypotheses hold:
1. There exists a bounded absorbing set $\mathcal{B}_{\varepsilon
}^{1}\subset \mathcal{D}_{\varepsilon }$ which is positively invariant for $S_{\varepsilon }\left( t\right) .$ More precisely, there exists a time $t_{1}>0,$ which *depends* on $\varepsilon >0$, such that$$S_{\varepsilon }(t)\mathcal{B}_{\varepsilon }^{1}\subset \mathcal{B}_{\varepsilon }^{1}$$for all $t\geq t_{1}$ where $\mathcal{B}_{\varepsilon }^{1}$ is endowed with the topology of $\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }.$
2. There is $t^{\ast }\geq t_{1}$ such that the map $S_{\varepsilon
}(t^{\ast })$ admits the decomposition, for each $\varepsilon \in (0,1]$ and for all $\varphi _{0},\theta _{0}\in \mathcal{B}_{\varepsilon }^{1}$, $$S_{\varepsilon }(t^{\ast })\varphi _{0}-S_{\varepsilon }(t^{\ast })\theta
_{0}=L_{\varepsilon }(\varphi _{0},\theta _{0})+R_{\varepsilon }(\varphi
_{0},\theta _{0})$$where, for some constants $\alpha ^{\ast }\in (0,\frac{1}{2})$ and $\Lambda
^{\ast }=\Lambda ^{\ast }(\Omega ,t^{\ast })\geq 0$ with $\Lambda ^{\ast }$ depending on $\varepsilon >0$, the following hold:$$\Vert L_{\varepsilon }(\varphi _{0},\theta _{0})\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}\leq \alpha ^{\ast }\Vert \varphi _{0}-\theta _{0}\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }} \label{eq:difference-decomposition-L}$$and$$\Vert R_{\varepsilon }(\varphi _{0},\theta _{0})\Vert _{\mathcal{D}_{\varepsilon }}\leq \Lambda ^{\ast }\Vert \varphi _{0}-\theta _{0}\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}. \label{eq:difference-decomposition-K}$$
3. The map$$(t,U)\mapsto S_{\varepsilon }(t)U:[t^{\ast },2t^{\ast }]\times \mathcal{B}_{\varepsilon }^{1}\rightarrow \mathcal{B}_{\varepsilon }^{1}$$is Lipschitz continuous on $\mathcal{B}_{\varepsilon }^{1}$ in the topology of $\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$.
Then, $\left( S_{\varepsilon },\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }\right) $ possesses an exponential attractor $\mathcal{M}_{\varepsilon }$ in $\mathcal{B}_{\varepsilon }^{1}.$
We now show that the assumptions (C1)-(C3) hold for $\left( S_{\varepsilon
}\left( t\right) ,\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }\right) $. We begin with a higher-order dissipative estimate in the norm of $\mathcal{D}_{\varepsilon
}. $
\[t:to-H1\] Condition (C1) holds for fixed $\varepsilon \in (0,1]$.
The proof is very similar to the proof of Lemma \[t:uniform-compactness\]. Indeed, let $\varepsilon \in (0,1]$, $\varphi _{0}=(u_{0},u_{1})\in \mathcal{D}_{\varepsilon }$ and $\varphi \left( t\right) =S_{\varepsilon }\left(
t\right) \varphi _{0}$. In this setting, we differentiate (\[eq:pde-h-1\])-(\[eq:pde-h-3\]) with respect to $t$ and let $h=u_{t}$. We set $\beta $ in (\[eq:beta\]) to be $\beta =\vartheta $ where we recall that $\vartheta
>0$ is due to assumption (\[eq:assumption-f-3\]). Then we easily obtain the analogue of the differential inequality (\[eq:for-C1\]) except that the size of the initial data now depends on the norm of $\mathcal{D}_{\varepsilon }$, i.e., $\varphi _{0}=(u_{0},u_{1})\in \mathcal{D}_{\varepsilon }$ (here the initial conditions are not necessarily equal to zero). Thus, after applying (\[eq:diff-lower\]) and (\[eq:diff-upper\]), there exist a positive and nondecreasing function $Q$ and a constant $C>0$ such that$$\left\Vert \left( h(t),h_{t}(t)\right) \right\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}^{2}\leq Q(\Vert \left( h(0),h_{t}(0)\right) \Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }})e^{-\omega _{6}t/2}+C\left( R\right)
\label{eq:uniform-reg-bound}$$($Q$, $\omega _{6}$ and $C$ are independent of $\varepsilon $) with $R>0$ such that $\Vert \varphi _{0}\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}\leq R$. Arguing as in Theorem \[t:uniform-compactness\] by exploiting $H^{2}$-elliptic regularity theory, we also deduce$$\left\Vert \varphi \left( t\right) \right\Vert _{\mathcal{D}_{\varepsilon
}}^{2}\leq Q_{\varepsilon }(\Vert \varphi _{0}\Vert _{\mathcal{D}_{\varepsilon }})e^{-\omega _{6}t/2}+C\left( R\right) , \label{unif_h2}$$for some new function $Q_{\varepsilon }$ which depends on $\varepsilon >0$. Indeed, using the equations (\[eq:pde-h-1\])-(\[eq:pde-h-3\]), it is not difficult to show that there holds $\Vert \left( h(0),h_{t}(0)\right) \Vert
_{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}\leq \frac{C}{\sqrt{\varepsilon }}\Vert \varphi
_{0}\Vert _{\mathcal{D}_{\varepsilon }}$, whence (\[unif\_h2\]). Consequently, there exists $R_{1}>0$ (independent of time, $\varepsilon >0$ and initial data) such that $S_{\varepsilon }\left( t\right) $ possesses an absorbing ball $\mathcal{B}_{\varepsilon }^{1}=B_{\mathcal{D}_{\varepsilon
}}\left( R_{1}\right) $ of radius $R_{1}$ centered at $0$, which is bounded in $\mathcal{D}_{\varepsilon }$. This establishes condition (C1).
\[r:reg-exp-attr\] \[expo\_att\_set\]Unfortunately, the bound in the space $\mathcal{D}_{\varepsilon }$ is not uniform as $\varepsilon
\rightarrow 0^{+}$. Indeed the function $Q_{\varepsilon }\left( \cdot
\right) $ in (\[unif\_h2\]) blows up as $\varepsilon \rightarrow 0^{+}$. Finally, arguing in a standard way as in Theorem [t:exponential-attraction-h]{}, $\mathcal{B}_{\varepsilon }^{1}$ is in fact exponentially attracting in $\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$.
\[t:to-C2\] Condition (C2) holds for each fixed $\varepsilon \in (0,1]$.
Let $\varepsilon \in (0,1]$. Let $\varphi _{0},\theta _{0}\in \mathcal{B}_{\varepsilon }^{1}$. Define the pair of trajectories, for $t\geq 0$, $\varphi (t)=S_{\varepsilon }(t)\varphi _{0}=(u(t),u_{t}(t))$ and $\theta
(t)=S_{\varepsilon }(t)\theta _{0}=(v(t),v_{t}(t))$. For each $t\geq 0$, decompose the difference $\bar{\zeta}(t):=\varphi (t)-\theta (t)$ with $\bar{\zeta}_{0}:=\varphi _{0}-\theta _{0}$ as follows:$$\bar{\zeta}(t)=\bar{\varphi}(t)+\bar{\theta}(t)$$where $\bar{\varphi}(t)=(\bar{u}(t),\bar{u}_{t}(t))$ and $\bar{\theta}(t)=(\bar{v}(t),\bar{v}_{t}(t))$ are solutions of the problems:$$\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\varepsilon \bar{u}_{tt}+\bar{u}_{t}-\Delta \bar{u}=0 & \text{in}~(0,\infty
)\times \Omega \\
\partial _{\mathbf{n}}\bar{u}+\bar{u}+\bar{u}_{t}=0 & \text{on}~(0,\infty
)\times \Gamma \\
\bar{\varphi}(0)=\varphi _{0}-\theta _{0} & \text{in}~\Omega\end{array}\right. \label{eq:diff-decomp-u}$$and $$\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\varepsilon \bar{v}_{tt}+\bar{v}_{t}-\Delta \bar{v}=f(v)-f(u) & \text{in}~(0,\infty )\times \Omega \\
\partial _{\mathbf{n}}\bar{v}+\bar{v}+\bar{v}_{t}=0 & \text{on}~(0,\infty
)\times \Gamma \\
\bar{\theta}(0)=0 & \text{in}~\Omega .\end{array}\right. \label{eq:diff-decomp-v}$$
By estimating along the usual lines, multiplying (\[eq:diff-decomp-u\])$_1$ by $2\bar{u}_{t}+\bar{u}$ in $L^{2}(\Omega )$, we easily obtain the differential inequality, for almost all $t\geq 0$, $$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\mathcal{N}_{\varepsilon }+\omega_7\mathcal{N}_{\varepsilon }\leq 0, \label{eq:diff-decomp-1}$$for some positive constant $\omega_7$ sufficiently small and independent of $\varepsilon$, and for $$\label{eq:H-equivalent-norm}
\mathcal{N}_{\varepsilon }=\mathcal{N}_{\varepsilon }(\bar{\varphi}(t)):=\varepsilon \Vert \bar{u}_{t}(t)\Vert ^{2}+\varepsilon\langle \bar{u}_{t}(t),\bar{u}(t)\rangle +\Vert \nabla \bar{u}(t)\Vert ^{2}+\Vert \bar{u}(t)\Vert _{L^{2}(\Gamma )}^{2}.$$Obviously, $\mathcal{N}_{\varepsilon }$ is the square of an equivalent norm on $\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$, i.e., there is a constant $C>0$, independent of $\varepsilon $, such that $$C^{-1}\Vert \bar{\varphi}\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}^{2}\leq
\mathcal{N}_{\varepsilon }(\bar{\varphi})\leq C\Vert \bar{\varphi}\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}^{2}. \label{eq:diff-decomp-2}$$Following (\[eq:diff-decomp-1\]) and (\[eq:diff-decomp-2\]), we have that, for all $t\geq 0$, $$\label{eq:to-C2-L}
\Vert \bar{\varphi}(t)\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}^{2}\leq C\Vert
\bar{\varphi}_{0}\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}^{2}e^{-\omega_7 t}.$$Set $t^{\ast }:=\max \{t_{1},\frac{1}{\omega_7}\ln \left( 4C\right) \}$. Then, for all $t\geq t^{\ast }$, (\[eq:difference-decomposition-L\]) holds with $L_{\varepsilon }=\bar{\varphi}(t^{\ast })$ and $$\alpha ^{\ast }=Ce^{-\omega_7 t^{\ast }}<\frac{1}{2}.$$
We now show (\[eq:difference-decomposition-K\]) holds for some $\Lambda
^{\ast }\geq 0$. First we observe that $$\begin{aligned}\label{eq:v-bar-identity-2} 2\langle f(v)-f(u),\bar v_{tt}
\rangle_{L^2(\Gamma)} & = \frac{{ {\rm{d}} }}{{ {\rm{d}} }t}2\langle f(v)-f(u),\bar v_t
\rangle_{L^2(\Gamma)} - \\ & - 2\langle (f'(v)-f'(u))v_t,\bar v_t
\rangle_{L^2(\Gamma)} + 2\langle f'(u)z_t,\bar v_t \rangle_{L^2(\Gamma)}.
\end{aligned}$$Next we differentiate the second equation of (\[eq:diff-decomp-v\]) with respect to $t,$ multiply the first equation of (\[eq:diff-decomp-v\]) by $2(-\Delta )\bar{v}_{t}$ in $L^{2}(\Omega )$ and insert ([eq:v-bar-identity-2]{}) into the result to produce the differential identity, which holds for almost all $t\geq 0$, $$\begin{aligned}\label{eq:v-bar-identity-1} \frac{{ {\rm{d}} }}{{ {\rm{d}} }t} & \left\{
\varepsilon\|\bar v_t\|^2_1 + \|\bar v_t\|^2_{L^2(\Gamma)} + \|\Delta\bar
v\|^2 + 2\langle f(u)-f(v),\bar v_t \rangle_{L^2(\Gamma)} \right\} + \\ & +
2\varepsilon\|\bar v_{tt}\|^2_{L^2(\Gamma)} + 2\|\bar v_t\|^2_1 \\ & =
2\langle (f'(v)-f'(u))\nabla v,\nabla\bar v_t \rangle - 2\langle f'(u)\nabla
z,\nabla\bar v_t \rangle + \\ & + 2\langle f(v)-f(u), \bar v_{t}
\rangle_{L^2(\Gamma)} - 2\langle (f'(v)-f'(u))v_t,\bar v_t
\rangle_{L^2(\Gamma)} + 2\langle f'(u)z_t,\bar v_t \rangle_{L^2(\Gamma)}.
\end{aligned}$$Recall that $z:=u-v$ denotes the difference of any two weak solutions of (\[eq:pde-h-1\])-(\[eq:pde-h-3\]) and is estimated in ([eq:continuous-dependence]{}). Arguing, for instance, as in [@Frigeri10 (6.11)-(6.13)], we estimate the products on the right hand side of ([eq:v-bar-identity-1]{}), for all $t\in (0,t^{\ast })$, using ([eq:assumption-f-1]{}), Lemma \[t:to-H1\], and the embedding $H^{2}(\Omega
)\hookrightarrow C^{0}(\overline{\Omega })$, as follows: $$\begin{aligned} 2|\langle (f'(u)-f'(v))\nabla v,\nabla\bar v_t \rangle| &
\leq C \left( 1+\|u\|_1 + \|v\|_1 \right)\|z\|_1 \|v\|_2 \|\nabla \bar v_t\|
\\ & \leq C_\varepsilon(t^*) \|\bar{\zeta}_0\|^2_{\mathcal{H}_\varepsilon} +
\frac{1}{4}\|\nabla \bar v_t\|^2, \label{eq:v-bar-estimate-1} \end{aligned}$$$$\begin{aligned} 2|\langle f'(u)\nabla z,\nabla\bar v_t \rangle| & \leq
C\left( 1+\|u\|^2_2 \right) \|\nabla z\| \|\nabla \bar v_t\| \\ & \leq
C_\varepsilon(t^*) \|\bar{\zeta}_0\|^2_{\mathcal{H}_\varepsilon} +
\frac{1}{4}\|\nabla \bar v_t\|^2, \label{eq:v-bar-estimate-2}\end{aligned}$$$$\begin{aligned} 2 |\langle f(u)-f(v),\bar v_t \rangle_{L^2(\Gamma)}| & \leq
C \|z\|_1 \|\bar v_t\|_{L^2(\Gamma)} \\ & \leq
C(t^*)\|\bar{\zeta}_0\|^2_{\mathcal{H}_\varepsilon} + \frac{1}{4}\|\bar
v_t\|^2_{L^2(\Gamma)}, \label{eq:v-bar-estimate-3} \end{aligned}$$$$\begin{aligned} 2|\langle (f'(u)-f'(v))v_t,\bar{v}_t \rangle_{L^2(\Gamma)}|
& \leq C\left( 1+ \|u\|_{C^0(\Gamma)} + \|v\|_{C^0(\Gamma)}
\right)\|z\|_{C^0(\Gamma)}\|v_t\| _{L^2(\Gamma)}\|\bar v_t\|_{L^2(\Gamma)}
\\ & \leq C(t^*)\|\bar{\zeta}_0\|^2_{\mathcal{H}_\varepsilon} +
\frac{1}{4}\|\bar v_t\|^2_{L^2(\Gamma)} \label{eq:v-bar-estimate-4}
\end{aligned}$$and $$\begin{aligned} 2|\langle f'(u)z_t,\bar v_t \rangle_{L^2(\Gamma)}| & \leq
C\left( 1+ \|u\|^2_{C^0(\Gamma)} \right)\|z_t\|_{L^2(\Gamma)}\|\bar
v_t\|_{L^2(\Gamma)} \\ & \leq
C(t^*)\|\bar{\zeta}_0\|^2_{\mathcal{H}_\varepsilon} + \frac{1}{4}\|\bar
v_t\|^2_{L^2(\Gamma)}. \label{eq:v-bar-estimate-5} \end{aligned}$$We emphasize again that by Lemma \[t:to-H1\] the constants $C=C_{\varepsilon }(t^{\ast })$ in estimates (\[eq:v-bar-estimate-1\]) and (\[eq:v-bar-estimate-2\]) depend on $\varepsilon >0$. After combining ([eq:v-bar-estimate-1]{})-(\[eq:v-bar-estimate-5\]) with the identity ([eq:v-bar-identity-1]{}), we arrive at the differential inequality, $$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\left\{ \varepsilon \Vert \bar{v}_{t}\Vert
_{1}^{2}+\Vert \bar{v}_{t}\Vert _{L^{2}(\Gamma )}^{2}+\Vert \Delta \bar{v}\Vert ^{2}+2\langle f(u)-f(v),\bar{v}_{t}\rangle _{L^{2}(\Gamma )}\right\}
\leq C_{\varepsilon }(t^{\ast })\Vert \bar{\zeta}_{0}\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}^{2} \label{eq:v-bar-estimate-6}$$(Recall that by the definition of a strong solution in Definition [d:regularity-property]{}, $\bar{v}_{tt}\in L^{2}(0,\infty ;L^{2}(\Gamma ))$). Now by integrating (\[eq:v-bar-estimate-6\]) over $(0,t^{\ast })$ and once again applying the estimate (\[eq:v-bar-estimate-3\]), we are left with the bound$$\varepsilon \Vert \bar{v}_{t}(t^{\ast })\Vert _{1}^{2}+\Vert \Delta \bar{v}(t^{\ast })\Vert ^{2}\leq C_{\varepsilon }(t^{\ast })\Vert \bar{\zeta}_{0}\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}^{2}.$$By standard $H^{2}$-elliptic regularity estimates (see (\[eq:wt-bounds-1\]) and (\[eq:wt-bounds-3\]) above), we obtain $$\Vert \bar{\theta}(t^{\ast })\Vert _{\mathcal{D}_{\varepsilon }}\leq
C_{\varepsilon }(t^{\ast })\Vert \bar{\zeta}_{0}\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}. \label{eq:to-C2-R}$$Inequality (\[eq:difference-decomposition-K\]) now follows with $R_{\varepsilon }=\bar{\theta}(t^{\ast })$ and $\Lambda ^{\ast
}=C_{\varepsilon }(t^{\ast })\geq 0$. This finishes the proof.
\[t:to-C3\] Condition (C3) holds.
We proceed exactly as in the proof of Lemma \[t:to-H1\], differentiating (\[eq:pde-h-1\])-(\[eq:pde-h-3\]) with respect to $t$ and letting $h=u_{t} $. This time we obtain the bound $$\Vert \varphi _{t}(t)\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}\leq Q_{\varepsilon
}(R)$$for $\varphi _{t}=(u_{t},u_{tt})$, and some function $Q_{\varepsilon }$, depending on $\varepsilon >0$, where the size of the initial data now depends on the norm of $\mathcal{B}_{\varepsilon }^{1}$. Hence, on the compact interval $[t^{\ast },2t^{\ast }]$, the map $t\mapsto S_{\varepsilon
}(t)\varphi _{0}$ is Lipschitz continuous for each fixed $\varphi _{0}\in
\mathcal{B}_{\varepsilon }^{1}$; i.e., there is a constant $L_{\varepsilon
}=L_{\varepsilon }(t^{\ast })>0$ (which depends on $\varepsilon >0$) such that$$\Vert S_{\varepsilon }(t_{1})\varphi _{0}-S_{\varepsilon }(t_{2})\varphi
_{0}\Vert _{\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }}\leq L_{\varepsilon }(t^{\ast
})|t_{1}-t_{2}|.$$Together with the continuous dependence estimate ([eq:continuous-dependence]{}), (C3) follows.
\[rem\_att\] According to Proposition \[abstract1\], the semiflow $S_{\varepsilon }:\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }\rightarrow \mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$ possesses an exponential attractor $\mathcal{M}_{\varepsilon }\subset \mathcal{B}_{\varepsilon }^{1}$, which attracts bounded subsets of $\mathcal{B}_{\varepsilon }^{1}$ exponentially fast (in the topology of $\mathcal{H}_{\varepsilon }$). In order to show that the attraction property in Theorem \[t:exponential-attractors-h\], (iii) also holds, we can appeal once more to the transitivity of the exponential attraction [@FGMZ04 Theorem 5.1] and the result of Theorem [t:exponential-attraction-h]{} (also see Remark \[expo\_att\_set\]).
In contrast to the standard case of Dirichlet boundary conditions, where we have a complete treatment, due to References [@FGMZ04; @MPZ07], the situation with boundary condition (\[eq:pde-h-2\]) remains essentially less clear. The following important questions remain open:
- Higher-order dissipative estimates which are uniform with respect to $\varepsilon >0.$
- Finite-dimensionality of the exponential attractor $\mathcal{M}_{\varepsilon }$ (and global attractor $\mathcal{A}_{\varepsilon }$) which is uniform in $\varepsilon >0.$
- Existence of a robust (Holder continuous in $\varepsilon \in \left[ 0,1\right] $) family of exponential attractors $\left\{ \mathcal{M}_{\varepsilon }\right\} .$
Appendix
========
To make the paper reasonably self-contained, we include the statement of a frequently used Grönwall-type inequality .
\[GL\]Let $\Lambda :\mathbb{R}_{+}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{+}$ be an absolutely continuous function satisfying $$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\Lambda (t)+2\eta \Lambda (t)\leq h(t)\Lambda
(t)+k,$$where $\eta >0$, $k\geq 0$ and $\int_{s}^{t}h(\tau )\mathrm{d}\tau \leq \eta
(t-s)+m$, for all $t\geq s\geq 0$ and some $m\geq 0$. Then, for all $t\geq 0$, $$\Lambda (t)\leq \Lambda (0)e^{m}e^{-\eta t}+\frac{ke^{m}}{\eta }.$$
[99]{} A. Anile, D. Pavón, and V. Romano, *The case for hyperbolic theories of dissipation in relativistic fluids*, (1998) \[gr-qc/9810014\]; D. Pavón, in Relativity and Gravitation in General, ed. J.Martin et al. (World Scientific, Singapore, 1999).
L. Bociu, *Local and global wellposedness of weak solutions for the wave equation with nonlinear boundary and interior sources of supercritical exponents and damping*, Nonlin. Anal. TMA 71 (2009), 560–575.
A. V. Babin and M. I. Vishik, *Attractors of evolution equations*, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1992.
J. M. Ball, *Strongly continuous semigroups, weak solutions, and the variation of constants formula*, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. **63** (1977), no. 2, 370–373.
, *Global attractors for damped semilinear wave equations*, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. **10** (2004), no. 2, 31–52.
J. T. Beale, *Spectral properties of an acoustic boundary condition*, Indiana Univ. Math. J. **25** (1976), 895–917.
J. T. Beale and S. I. Rosencrans, *Acoustic boundary conditions*, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. **80** (1974), 1276–1278.
Veronica Belleri and Vittorino Pata, *Attractors for semilinear strongly damped wave equations on $\mathbb{R}^{3}$*, Discrete Contin. Dynam. Systems **7** (2001), no. 4, 719–735.
L. Bociu, I. Lasiecka, *Uniqueness of weak solutions for the semilinearwave equations with supercritical boundary/interior sources and damping*, Discr. Contin. Dyn. Syst. 22 (2008) 835–860.
L. Bociu, I. Lasiecka, *Hadamard wellposedness for nonlinear wave equations with supercritical sources and damping*, J. Differ. Eq. 249 (2010), 654–683.
L. Bociu, I. Lasiecka, *Blow-up of weak solutions for the semilinear wave equations with nonlinear boundary and interior sources and damping*, Appl. Math. 35 (2008) 281–304.
L. Bociu, M. Rammaha, D. Toundykov, *On a wave equation with supercritical interior and boundary sources and damping terms*, Math. Nachr. 284 (2011), 2032–2064.
L. Bociu, M. Rammaha, D. Toundykov, *Wave equations with super-critical interior and boundary nonlinearities*, Math. Comput. Simulation 82 (2012), 1017–1029.
Cecilia Cavaterra, Ciprian Gal, and Maurizio Grasselli, *[C]{}ahn-[H]{}illiard equations with memory and dynamic boundary conditions*, Asymptot. Anal. **71** (2011), no. 3, 123–162.
Vladimir V. Chepyzhov and Mark I. Vishik, *Attractors for equations of mathematical physics*, Colloquium Publications - Volume 49, American Mathematical Society, Providence, 2002.
Igor Chueshov, Matthias Eller, and Irena Lasiecka, *On the attractor for a semilinear wave equation with critical exponent and nonlinear boundary dissipation*, Comm. Partial Differential Equations **27** (2002), no. 9-10, 1901–1951.
, *Attractors and their structure for semilinear wave equations with nonlinear boundary dissipation*, Bol. Soc. Parana. Mat. **22** (2004), no. 1, 38–57.
, *Finite dimensionality of the attractor for a semilinear wave equation with nonlinear boundary dissipation*, Comm. Partial Differential Equations **29** (2004), no. 11-12, 1847–1876.
A. T. Cousin, C. L. Frota, and N. A. Larkin, *Global solvability and asymptotic behaviour of a hyperbolic problem with acoustic boundary conditions*, Funkcialaj Ekvacioj **44** (2001), 471–485.
A. Eden, C. Foias, B. Nicolaenko, and R. Temam, *Exponential attractors for dissipative evolution equations*, Research in Applied Mathematics, John Wiley and Sons Inc., 1995.
Messoud Efendiev, Alain Miranville, and Sergey Zelik, *Exponential attractors for a nonlinear reaction-diffusion system in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$*, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. I Math. **330** (2000), no. 8, 713–718.
P. Fabrie, C. Galusinski, A. Miranville, and S. Zelik, *Uniform exponential attractors for singularly perturbed damped wave equations*, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. **10** (2004), no. 2, 211–238.
Sergio Frigeri, *Attractors for semilinear damped wave equations with an acoustic boundary condition*, J. Evol. Equ. **10** (2010), no. 1, 29–58.
Ciprian G. Gal, *On a class of degenerate parabolic equations with dynamic boundary conditions*, J. Differential Equations **253** (2012), 126–166.
, *Sharp estimates for the global attractor of scalar reaction-diffusion equations with a [W]{}entzell boundary condition*, J. Nonlinear Sci. **22** (2012), no. 1, 85–106.
Ciprian G. Gal, Gisèle Ruiz Goldstein, and Jerome A. Goldstein, *Oscillatory boundary conditions for acoustic wave equations*, J. Evol. Equ. **3** (2003), 623–635.
Ciprian G. Gal and M. Grasselli, *Singular limit of viscous [C]{}ahn-[H]{}illiard equations with memory and dynamic boundary conditions*, DCDS-S, to appear.
, *On the asymptotic behavior of the [C]{}aginalp system with dynamic boundary conditions*, Commun. Pure Appl. Anal. **8** (2009), no. 2, 689–710.
Ciprian G. Gal and Mahamadi Warma, *Well posedness and the global attractor of some quasi-linear parabolic equations with nonlinear dynamic boundary conditions*, Differential Integral Equations **23** (2010), no. 3-4, 327–358.
S. Gatti, M. Grasselli, A. Miranville, and V. Pata, *A construction of a robust family of exponential attractors*, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. **134** (2006), no. 1, 117–127.
G. R. Goldstein, *Derivation and physical interpretation of general boundary conditions*, Adv. in Diff. Eqns. **11** (2006), 457–480.
M. Grasselli and V. Pata, *Asymptotic behavior of a parabolic-hyperbolic system*, Commun. Pure Appl. Anal. **3** (2004), 849–881.
J. Hale and G. Raugel, *Upper semicontinuity of the attractor for a singularly perturbed hyperbolic equation*, J. Differential Equations **73** (1988), no. 2, 197–214.
Jack K. Hale, *Asymptotic behavior of dissipative systems*, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs - No. 25, American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1988.
L. Herrera and D. Pavón, *Hyperbolic theories of dissipation: Why and when do we need them?*, Phys. A **307** (2002), 121–130.
Olga Ladyzhenskaya, *Attractors for semigroups and evolution equations*, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991.
J. L. Lions, *Quelques méthodes de résolution des problèmes aux limites non linéaires*, Dunod, Paris, 1969.
J. L. Lions and E. Magenes, *Non-homogeneous boundary value problems and applications*, vol. I, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1972.
M. Meyries, *Maximal regularity in weighted spaces, nonlinear boundary conditions, and global attractors*, Ph.D. thesis, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), 2010.
Albert J. Milani and Norbert J. Koksch, *An introduction to semiflows*, Monographs and Surveys in Pure and Applied Mathematics - Volume 134, Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, 2005.
Alain Miranville, Vittorino Pata, and Sergey Zelik, *Exponential attractors for singularly perturbed damped wave equations: A simple construction*, Asymptot. Anal. **53** (2007), no. 1, 1–12.
Delio Mugnolo, *Abstract wave equations with acoustic boundary conditions*, Math. Nachr. **279** (2006), no. 3, 299–318.
D. Mugnolo, S. Romanelli, *Dirichlet forms for general Wentzell boundary conditions, analytic semigroups, and cosine operator functions*, Electron. J. Differential Equations 118 (2006), 20 pp. (electronic).
Vittorino Pata and Sergey Zelik, *A remark on the damped wave equation*, Commun. Pure Appl. Anal. **5** (2006), no. 3, 611–616.
Amnon Pazy, *Semigroups of linear operators and applications to partial differential equations*, Applied Mathematical Sciences - Volume 44, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1983.
Lumini[ţ]{}a Popescu and An[í]{}bal Rodriguez-Bernal, *On a singularly perturbed wave equation with dynamic boundary conditions*, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh A **134** (2004), 389–413.
James C. Robinson, *Infinite-dimensional dynamical systems*, Cambridge Texts in Applied Mathematics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001.
Joseph L. Shomberg and Sergio Frigeri, *Global attractors for damped semilinear wave equations with a [R]{}obin-acoustic boundary perturbation*, in preparation.
Roger Temam, *Infinite-dimensional dynamical systems in mechanics and physics*, Applied Mathematical Sciences - Volume 68, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1988.
André Vicente, *Wave equations with acoustic/memory boundary conditions*, Bol. Soc. Paran. Mat. **27** (2009), no. 1, 29–39.
Hao Wu and Songmu Zheng, *Convergence to equilibrium for the damped semilinear wave equation with critical exponent and dissipative boundary condition*, Quart. Appl. Math. **64** (2006), no. 1, 167–188.
Songmu Zheng, *Nonlinear evolution equations*, Monographs and Surveys in Pure and Applied Mathematics - Volume 133, Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, 2004.
Chaosheng Zhu, *Global attractor of the weakly damped wave equation with nonlinear boundary conditions*, Commun. Korean Math. Soc. 27 (2012), no. 1, 97–106.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Grasping in cluttered scenes is challenging for robot vision systems, as detection accuracy can be hindered by partial occlusion of objects. We adopt a reinforcement learning (RL) framework and 3D vision architectures to search for feasible viewpoints for grasping by the use of hand-mounted RGB-D cameras. To overcome the disadvantages of photo-realistic environment simulation, we propose a large-scale dataset called *Real Embodied Dataset* (RED), which includes full-viewpoint real samples on the upper hemisphere with *amodal annotation* and enables a simulator that has **real visual** feedback. Based on this dataset, a practical 3-stage transferable active grasping pipeline is developed, that is adaptive to unseen clutter scenes. In our pipeline, we propose a novel mask-guided reward to overcome the sparse reward issue in grasping and ensure category-irrelevant behavior. The grasping pipeline and its possible variants are evaluated with extensive experiments both in simulation and on a real-world UR-5 robotic arm.'
author:
- 'Xiangyu Chen$^{*}$, Zelin Ye$^{*}$, Jiankai Sun, Yuda Fan, Fang Hu, Chenxi Wang, and Cewu Lu$^{\dagger}$[^1] [^2] [^3]'
bibliography:
- 'egbib.bib'
title: '**Transferable Active Grasping and Real Embodied Dataset**'
---
Acknowledgement
===============
This work is supported by Program of China, No. 2017YFA0700800, National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grants 61772332 and Shanghai Qi Zhi Institute.
[^1]: $^{*}$ These authors contribute equally to the work.
[^2]: $^{\dagger}$ Cewu Lu is the corresponding author.
[^3]: All authors are with the Department of Computer Science at Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. `cxy_1997 \mid h_e_r_o \mid jiankai \mid kurodakanbei \mid hu-fang \mid wcx1997 \mid lucewu @ sjtu.edu.cn`
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We investigate the current-current correlations in a four-terminal Al-AlOx-Al tunnel junction where shot noise dominates. We demonstrate that cross-correlations in the presence of two biasing sources of the Hanbury–Brown and Twiss type are much stronger (approximately twice) than an incoherent sum of correlations generated by single sources. The difference is due to voltage fluctuations of the central island that give rise to current-current correlations in the four contacts of the junction. Our measurements are in close agreement with results obtained using a simple theoretical model based on the theory of shot noise in multi-terminal conductors, generalized here to arbitrary contacts.'
author:
- Jayanta Sarkar
- Ciprian Padurariu
- Antti Puska
- Dmitry Golubev
- 'Pertti J. Hakonen'
title: 'Hanbury–Brown and Twiss exchange effects in a four-terminal tunnel junction'
---
Introduction
============
Shot noise arises due to the discrete nature of elementary charge carriers [@M.1997; @Blanter2000]. An example of a classical shot noise system is the vacuum diode where electron emission events from the cathode are uncorrelated. The time interval between successive current pulses is random and is well described by a Poisson distribution. In general, the shot noise power is given by $S_I=F 2e \braket{I}$ where $F$ is the Fano factor and $\braket{I}$ is the average current. Uncorrelated transport is described by Fano factor $F=1$. In mesoscopic conductors, quantum interference gives rise to finite correlations between individual transport events. These quantum effects produce non-classical shot noise that typically depends on the transparency of electron transport channels. For a conductor with $n$ channels characterized by transmission eigenvalues $T_n$, the Fano factor is given by [@nazarov] $F= \sum_n T_n(1-T_n)/\sum_n T_n$. Additional correlations in nano-sized conductors are commonly due to the Coulomb interaction or the Pauli exclusion principle [@Buttiker1990; @Jong1995; @Bocquillon2013]. These correlations may give rise to the bunching[@Kiesslich2008] ($F>1$) or the anti-bunching[@Henny1999a] of electrons ($F<1$).
For a two terminal conductor the shot noise at zero-frequency is given by[@Blanter2000] $$\begin{aligned}
S=\frac{e^2}{\pi \hbar} \sum_n \int dE &\left\{T_n(E) \left[f_L(1- f_L)+f_R(1- f_R)\right] + \right. \notag\\
\ &\left. T_n(E) \left[1-T_n(E)\right] (f_L-f_R)^2\right\} , \label{shotnoise}\end{aligned}$$ where $f_L$ and $f_R$ denote the Fermi distribution functions of electrons in the left and the right leads, respectively. The first two terms describe noise in equilibrium, while the third term is the out-of-equilibrium contribution depending on the bias via $(f_L - f_R)^2$.
Two terminal measurements of shot noise are often insufficient to uniquely identify the details of the transport regime and distinguish between predictions of different theoretical models [@Langen1997; @Sukhorukov1999; @Gutman2001]. For this reason, four-terminal measurements in the Hanbury–Brown and Twiss (HBT) configuration [@HanburyBrown1956], where current can be injected into two terminals simultaneously, have proven useful [@Oliver1999; @Oberholzer2000; @Kiesel2002; @Jeltes2007].
In this work, we have investigated HBT correlations generated by a four-terminal junction with tunnel contacts. Weak transmission of the contacts may lead to the expectation of uncorrelated transport [@Kumar1996], which is the case for the shot noise generated by each contact, $F=1$, but not for the HBT current correlations. On the contrary, HBT correlations reach close to the maximum theoretical value for our sample [@Langen1997]. We have compared our experimental results with calculations using a simple theoretical model where HBT correlations arise due to the fluctuations of voltage in the junction region. Our data match closely the theoretical predictions, thereby confirming the assumption that the junction region is characterized by an out-of-equilibrium distribution function.
In Sec. \[sec:exp\] we describe the setup and experimental techniques. Sec. \[sec:HBT\] outlines the theoretical model, derives the expression of HBT current-current correlations, and presents the comparison between measured data and the theoretical prediction. Sec. \[sec:concl\] presents our conclusions.
Experimental techniques {#sec:exp}
=======================
The experiments were performed using a cross-correlation spectrometer illustrated in Fig. \[setup\]. In the measurement configuration all the four terminals of the sample are connected to bias-T components, marked with red dotted lines in Fig. \[setup\], allowing to apply bias to all terminals. In the present experiments, bias voltage has been applied via terminals 1 and 3 while the cross-correlation was measured between terminal 2 and 4. The cold amplifiers provided a gain of about 12 dB over the band $600 - 900$ MHz. The spectrometer had a system noise temperature of $\sim 15$ K. The circulators provided an isolation of 18 dB which was sufficient to cut down the cross talk between the channels originating from the back action noise of the preamplifiers.
![(Color online.) Schematic of the experimental setup for cross-correlation measurements. The above schematic is wired for the biasing case where only terminal 1 is biased and terminals 2-4 are grounded at low frequencies. The cross-correlation spectrum is detected across terminals 2 and 4. There are two circulators in the rf lines which cuts down the back action noise coming from the cooled preamplifiers. After the amplification by room temperature amplifiers the signals are taken through 900 MHz low pass and 600 MHz high pass filters and fed into a Le Croy oscilloscope.[]{data-label="setup"}](setup.eps){width="0.85\linewidth"}
The cross-correlation was calculated for two band pass filtered noise signals ($f=600 -900$ MHz) in time domain. The gains of the two channels were 104 dB and the traces were digitized using a 6 GHz Le Croy oscilloscope with (over)sampling rate of 5GS/s. The electrical length of the channels were adjusted as nearly equal which allowed us to calculate the cross-correlation as a direct array product using zero time offset in the numerical calculation. It is known that for signals with band width $BW$, the cross-correlation is influenced by the time offset $\delta t$ only if the difference would approach $1/BW$. In our experiments, $\delta t << 1/BW$.
HBT in a four-terminal tunnel junction {#sec:HBT}
======================================
Theoretical predictions
-----------------------
The HBT exchange correction factor is defined in accordance to Ref. as $ \Delta S_{nm}=|S^C_{nm}|-(|S^A_{nm}|+|S^B_{nm}|) $, where $S^A_{nm}$, $S^B_{nm}$, and $S^C_{nm}$ $(n\neq m)$ are the cross-correlated noise powers in three different configurations [*A, B*]{} and [*C*]{} as depicted in Fig. \[tunneljunctionlangen\]. In a normal metallic system all cross-correlations are negative, $S^A_{nm},S^B_{nm},S^C_{nm}< 0$ for $(n\neq m)$. However, the sign and magnitude of $ \Delta S_{nm}$ will vary depending on the details of the transport [@Tan2016].
It has been predicted that the HBT effect leads to large values of $\Delta S_{nm}$ for junctions in the classical shot noise regime, reaching the maximal value $(|S^A_{nm}|+|S^B_{nm}|)$. This was first considered by van Langen and Büttiker[@Langen1997] as a limiting case in their work on current correlations in a chaotic quantum dot. We have used a similar approach to generalize their result to arbitrary contacts.
![(Color online.) Above. Definition of the three bias configurations used in the HBT experiments with $V_2=V_4=0$ and $A$) $V_1=V$, $V_3=0$; $B$) $V_1=0$, $V_3=V$; and $C$) $V_1=V_3=V$. Below. The model, similar to Ref. , showing the equivalent circuit representation of the four-terminal junction with electric potential $U$ on the central metallic island and uncorrelated noise sources $i_{n,j}$ in each arm.[]{data-label="tunneljunctionlangen"}](measABC.eps "fig:"){width="47.00000%"}\
![(Color online.) Above. Definition of the three bias configurations used in the HBT experiments with $V_2=V_4=0$ and $A$) $V_1=V$, $V_3=0$; $B$) $V_1=0$, $V_3=V$; and $C$) $V_1=V_3=V$. Below. The model, similar to Ref. , showing the equivalent circuit representation of the four-terminal junction with electric potential $U$ on the central metallic island and uncorrelated noise sources $i_{n,j}$ in each arm.[]{data-label="tunneljunctionlangen"}](tunnelcrosssimple.eps "fig:"){width="38.00000%"}
The junction area is represented in our model as a metallic island with negligible level spacing connected to four macroscopic leads by contacts labeled $j=\{1,2,3,4\}$. The intrinsic resistance of the island is neglected in comparison to the resistances of the contacts. To model noise, we add to each contact a source of random current $i_{n,j}$, as in Fig. \[tunneljunctionlangen\]. The added noise is uncorrelated across the junction, $\langle{i_{n,j}(0)i_{n,k}(t)}\rangle=0$ for $k \neq j$. The spectral density of noise at zero frequency and for low temperature, $eV\gg k_BT$, is given by the two-terminal shot noise formula, Eq. \[shotnoise\]. $$\begin{aligned}
S_j= & \int dt \langle{i_{n,j}(0)i_{n,j}(t)}\rangle= G_j F_j \int dE (f_j-f_c)^2 +\notag\\
\ & G_j \int dE \left[f_j(1- f_j)+f_c(1- f_c)\right].
\label{barenoise}\end{aligned}$$ Here we have ignored the energy dependence of the transmission coefficients and expressed the shot noise in terms of the contact conductance, $G_j=(e^2/\pi\hbar)\sum_n T_n^{(j)}$, and the Fano factor, $F_j=\sum_n T_n^{(j)}(1-T_n^{(j)})/(\sum_n T_n^{(j)})$. The distribution function of terminal $j$ is given by, $f_j=(1+\exp[(E-eV_j)/k_BT])^{-1}$, and the out-of-equilibrium distribution function of the central metallic island is obtained by the weighted average, $f_c=\sum_j G_j f_j/G_{\Sigma}$, with $G_{\Sigma}=\sum_j G_j$. Integrating Eq. \[barenoise\] over energy in the limit of low temperature we find, $$\begin{aligned}
S_j=\ & eF_jG_j\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^{4} \frac{G_k}{G_{\Sigma}}|V_k-V_j|+ \label{S_j} \\
\ & e(1-F_j)G_j\displaystyle\sum_{k,l=1}^4\frac{G_kG_l}{2G_{\Sigma}^2}|V_k-V_l|. \notag\end{aligned}$$
The measured correlations of current fluctuations $\delta I$ correspond to the total current flowing in each terminal, $S_{nm}= \int dt \langle{\delta I_{n}(0)\delta I_{m}(t)}\rangle$. At low frequencies, charging dynamics of the junction capacitance play no role. The fluctuations of the total current are solely due to the added random currents $i_{n,j}$ and the fluctuations $\delta U$ of the electric potential of the metallic island, $$\begin{aligned}
\delta I_{j} = -G_j \delta U + i_{n,j}, \quad \delta U = G_{\Sigma}^{-1}\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{4} i_{n,j},\end{aligned}$$ where the potential fluctuations $\delta U$ are obtained from imposing current conservation, $\sum_j\delta I_{j}=0$. Current-current correlations can now be expressed in terms of the uncorrelated shot noise contributions, $$\begin{aligned}
S_{kl} = S_k \delta_{kl} - \frac{(G_kS_l+G_lS_k)}{G_{\Sigma}} + \frac{G_kG_l}{G^2_{\Sigma}}\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{4} S_j.
\label{totalnoise}\end{aligned}$$
In the limit of identical tunnel contacts $G_j=G$ and Poisson shot noise $F_j=1$, we recover the noise correlations in a classical circuit of resistors [@Langen1997], $$S_{kl}=\frac{e G}{8} \sum_{m=1}^4 [1+4(2 \delta_{kl}-1)(\delta_{mk}+\delta_{ml})] |V_m-U|,
\label{langeneqn}$$ with average value of the metallic island potential $U=\sum_j V_j/4$.
In the limit of contacts formed by diffusive wires where transport is characterized by Fano factors $F_j=1/3$, Eq. \[totalnoise\] recovers the result obtained in Ref. , given below for the case of interest $k\neq l$, $$S_{kl}=-\frac{e}{3}\frac{G_kG_l}{G^2_{\Sigma}} \sum_{m=1}^4 G_m \left(|V_m-V_k|+|V_m-V_l|\right).
\label{sukhorukoveqn}$$
Throughout this paper we discuss cross-correlations between terminals $k=2$ and $l=4$, and hence for convenience, we omit the subscript and denote $-S^{\sigma}_{24}$ by $S^{\sigma} (\sigma=A,B,C)$ for biasing configurations $A$, $B$ and $C$, respectively. Since in our junction the cross-correlations are negative, the minus sign ensures that $S^{\sigma}$ is positive. The HBT exchange correction factor is given by $\Delta S = S^C-(S^A+S^B)$. We have used Eq. \[totalnoise\] to calculate the current-current correlations and compare with the measurements.
Experimental results
--------------------
A scanning electron microscope image of our four-terminal tunnel junction is displayed in Fig. \[tunneljunctionexch\] together with its connection to the cross-correlation measurement system; a reminder of the experimental configurations $A$, $B$, and $C$ is displayed in Fig. \[tunneljunctionlangen\]. The sample was fabricated on sapphire wafer using standard shadow mask e-beam lithography techniques with two-angle evaporation of Aluminum. Each of the four arms contains an overlay tunnel junction of area $100 \times 100$ nm$^2$.
![(Color online.) Scanning electrom micrograph image of the four-terminal tunnel junction and its connection to the cross-correlation measurement system. The purple areas indicate the tunnel junctions with area $100 \times 100$ nm$^2$.[]{data-label="tunneljunctionexch"}](tunnelcrossscheme.eps){width="0.85\linewidth"}
The sample is slightly asymmetric in the four arms, with resistances given in Table \[tunnelR\]. The Fano factor of a separate single tunnel contact was measured and $F = 1$ was observed. Hence, our tunnel junctions provide excellent classical shot noise generators. The thickness of Al was $20-40$ nm and the diffusion constant was estimated to be $D=\frac{1}{2} v_F \ell \sim 80$ ${\rm cm^2}/s$ where $v_F=1.6 \times 10^6$ m/s and $\ell \simeq 8$ nm are the Fermi velocity and elastic mean free path of electrons, respectively. The mean free path was calculated from the measured resistivity of Aluminum at 4.2 K. Because of the small volume, the electron phonon coupling is not sufficient to thermalize the electrons, and the distribution will become non-equilibrium [@Giazotto2006]. Depending on the electron-electron scattering rates, the distribution on the island may be either a two-step distribution [@Pothier1997], for negligible scattering, as assumed in our theoretical model, or a quasi-equilibrium state [@Steinbach1996] for stronger scattering.
[llll]{} $R_1$ & $R_2$ & $R_3$ & $R_4$\
49 k$\Omega$ & 53 k$\Omega$ & 37 k$\Omega$ & 40 k$\Omega$\
![(Color online.) Cross-correlation data obtained for the four-terminal tunnel junction biased in configurations $A$, $B$, $C$, and the corresponding HBT effect $\Delta S$. Theoretical curves match within few $\%$ the measurement. The fitting parameter amounts to rescaling the $y$-axis, accounting for a scaling of $\beta=0.9$ compared to the theoretical values obtained using Eq. \[fitnoise\]. []{data-label="tunneljunction"}](finalfittunnelcross.eps){width="0.85\linewidth"}
Cross-correlation expressions for our junction are obtained from Eq. \[totalnoise\] by setting $F_j=1$, $$\begin{aligned}
S^C=&2eV\frac{G_2G_4}{G^2_{\Sigma}}\frac{\left(G_1+G_3\right)^2}{G_{\Sigma}},\label{fitnoise}\\
S^A=&S^C \frac{G_1^2}{\left(G_1+G_3\right)^2},\quad S^B=S^C \frac{G_3^2}{\left(G_1+G_3\right)^2}.\notag\end{aligned}$$ For symmetric arm resistances, $S^C/S^{A,B}=4$ follows from Eqs. \[langeneqn\] and \[fitnoise\]. The asymmetry in the measured sample leads to modified cross-correlation ratios, e.g. $S^C/S^A$ increases to $5.6$ in the experiment. Using Eq. \[fitnoise\] we find $(S^C/S^A)_\text{theory}=(1+G_3/G_1)^2=5.40$, within $4\%$ of the measured value. The measured ratio $S^C/S^B$ is $3.1$, matching the theoretical value $(S^C/S^B)_\text{theory}=(1+G_1/G_3)^2=3.08$ within $1\%$. The ratio $S^C/(S^A+S^B)=(G_1+G_3)^2/(G_1^2+G_3^2)$ is maximal for identical contacts [@Langen1997], where it reaches the value $2$. For our asymmetric sample the measured value is $2.0$ with the theoretical result given by $1.96$. The characteristic HBT ratio is $\Delta S/ (S^A+S^B)=1.0$, in close agreement with the theoretical value.
The measured data is depicted as a function of bias voltage in Fig. \[tunneljunction\]. The theoretical calculations are based on Eq. \[fitnoise\], including a dimensionless scaling used as fitting parameter. The dimensional scaling is given by $\beta=S_\text{exp}/S_\text{theory}=0.9$, accounting for a small difference between the calculated value and the calibration of the measurement scheme.
The measurement has been performed for a wide range of voltage bias. At zero bias, the measured cross-correlation was negligible. At large bias, the I-V curve becomes non-linear giving rise to the weak non-linearity observed in Fig. \[tunneljunction\]. Good agreement between our theoretical model and the measurement suggests that even for large applied voltage, inelastic processes in the junction remain weak, insufficient to relax the distribution function of the metallic island to its equilibrium value.
Conclusion {#sec:concl}
==========
We have measured the Hanbury–Brown and Twiss exchange correlations in an asymmetric four-terminal tunnel junction using three biasing configurations. We demonstrate that although contacts are classical shot noise generators, the current cross-correlations are large, reaching close to their theoretical maximum. Our measurements agree closely to predictions of a simple theoretical model where cross-correlations arise due to fluctuations of the electric potential of the metallic island. The current experiment and theoretical framework provide an important benchmark for future investigations of noise in junctions with higher transparency contacts. For such contacts, our model predicts that quantum shot noise characterized by Fano factor $F<1$ gives rise to a reduction of the HBT signal $\Delta S$ from the value $(S^A+S^B)$ measured here. The HBT ratio $\Delta S/(S^A+S^B)$ may be significantly reduced and can become negative for shot noise characterized by Fano factor $F<1/3$.
We acknowledge fruitful discussions with Ya. Blanter, T. Elo, C. Flindt, G. Lesovik, T. Heikkilä, P. Virtanen and M. Wiesner. Our work was supported by the Academy of Finland (contract 250280, Centre of Excellence LTQ), Finnish National Doctoral Programme in Nanoscience (NGS-NANO) and National Doctoral Programme in Materials Physics (NGSMP). This research project made use of the Aalto University OtaNano/LTL infrastructure.
[99]{} Ya. M. Blanter and M. Büttiker, Phys. Rev. B **56**, 2127 (1997). Ya. M. Blanter and M. Büttiker, Physics Reports **336**, 1 (2000). Yu. V. Nazarov and Ya. M. Blanter, *Quantum Transport: Introduction to Nanoscience* (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009). M. Büttiker, Phys. Rev. Lett. **65**, 2901 (1990). M. J. M. de Jong and C. Beenakker, Phys. Rev. B **51**, 867 (1995). E. Bocquillon, V. Freulon, J.-M. Berroir, P. Degiovanni, B. Plaçais, A. Cavanna, Y. Jin, and G. Fève, Science **339**, 1054 (2013). G. Kiesslich, E. Schöll, F. Hohls, R. J. and Haug, Physica Status Solidi (c) **5**, 166 (2008). M. Henny, S. Oberholzer, C. Strunk, T. Heinzel, K. Ensslin, M. Holland, and C. Schönenberger, Science **284**, 296 (1999). S. A. van Langen and M. Büttiker, Phys. Rev. B **56**, R1680 (1997). E. V. Sukhorukov and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. B **59**, 13054 (1999). D. Gutman and Y. Gefen, Phys. Rev. B **64**, 205317 (2001). R. Hanbury Brown and R. Q. Twiss, Nature (London) **177**, 27 (1956). W. D. Oliver, J. Kim, R. C. Liu, and Y. Yamamoto, Science **284**, 299 (1999). S. Oberholzer, M. Henny, C. Strunk, C. Schönenberger, T. Heinzel, K. Ensslin, and M. Holland, Phys. E **6**, 314 (2000). H. Kiesel, A. Renz, and F. Hasselbach, Nature **418**, 392 (2002). T. Jeltes, J. M. McNamara, W. Hogervorst, W. Vassen, V. Krachmalnicoff, M. Schellekens, A. Perrin, H. Chang, D. Boiron, A. Aspect, and C. I. Westbrook, Nature **445**, 402 (2007). A. Kumar, L. Saminadayar, D. C. Glattli, Y. Jin, and B. Etienne, Phys. Rev. Lett. **76**, 2778 (1996). Z. Tan, T. Nieminen, A. Puska, J. Sarkar, P. Lähteenmäki, F. Duerr, C. Gould, L. Molenkamp, K. Nagaev, and P. J. Hakonen, arXiv:1602.00290 (2016). F. Giazotto, T. T. Heikkilä, A. Luukanen, A. M. Savin, and J. P. Pekola, Rev. of Mod. Phys. **78**, 217 (2006). H. Pothier, S. Guéron, N. O. Birge, D. Esteve, and M. H. Devoret, Phys. Rev. Lett. **79**, 3490 (1997). A. H. Steinbach, J. M. Martinis, and M. H. Devoret, Phys. Rev. Lett. **76**, 3806 (1996).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Heterogeneous nucleation is studied by Monte Carlo simulations and phenomenological theory, using the two-dimensional lattice gas model with suitable boundary fields. A chemical inhomogeneity of length $b$ at one boundary favors the liquid phase, while elsewhere the vapor is favored. Switching on the bulk field $H_b$ favoring the liquid, nucleation and growth of the liquid phase starting from the region of the chemical inhomogeneity is analyzed. Three regimes occur: for small fields, $H_b < H_b^{crit}$, the critical droplet radius is so large that a critical droplet having the contact angle $\theta_c$ required by Young’s equation in the region of the chemical inhomogeneity does not yet “fit” there, since the baseline length of the circle-cut sphere droplet would exceed $b$. For $ H_b^{crit} < H_b <H_b^{\ast}$, such droplets fit inside the inhomogeneity, and are indeed found in simulations with large enough observation times, but these droplets remain pinned to the chemical inhomogeneity when their baseline has grown to the length $b$. Assuming that these pinned droplets have a circle cut shape and effective contact angles $\theta_{eff}$ in the regime $ \theta_c < \theta_{eff} < \pi/2$, the density excess due to these droplets can be predicted, and is found to be in reasonable agreement with the simulation results. On general grounds one can predict that the effective contact angle $\theta_{eff}$ as well as the excess density of the droplets, scaled by $b^2$, are functions of the product $ b H_b$, but do not depend on both variables separately. Since the free energy barrier for the “depinning” of the droplet (i.e., growth of $\theta_{eff}$ to $\pi - \theta_c$ ) vanishes when $\theta_{eff}$ approaches $\pi/2$, in practice only angles $\theta_{eff}$ up to about $\theta_{eff}^{max} \simeq 70^{\circ}$ were observed. For larger fields ($H_b > H_b^{*}$) the droplets nucleated at the chemical inhomogeneity grow to the full system size. While the relaxation time for the growth scales as $\tau_G \propto H_b^{-1}$, the nucleation time $\tau_N$ scales as $\ln \tau_N \propto H_b^{-1}$. However, the prefactor in the latter relation, as evaluated for our simulations results, is not in accord with an extension of the Volmer-Turnbull theory to two-dimensions, when the theoretical contact angle $\theta_c$ is used.'
author:
- |
Marta L. Trobo\
*Instituto de Física de Líquidos y Sistemas Biológicos (IFLYSIB). CCT-CONICET La Plata,*\
*UNLP. Calle 59 Nro. 789, (1900) La Plata, Argentina and*\
*Departamento de Ciencias Básicas, Facultad de Ingeniería,* *Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Argentina.*\
Ezequiel V. Albano\
*Instituto de Física de Líquidos y Sistemas Biológicos (IFLYSIB). CCT-CONICET La Plata,*\
*UNLP. Calle 59 Nro. 789, (1900) La Plata, Argentina and*\
*Departamento de Física, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas,* *Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Argentina.*\
Kurt Binder\
*Institut für Physik, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz*\
*Staudinger Weg 7, D-55099 Mainz, Germany,*
title: |
Heterogeneous Nucleation of a Droplet Pinned at a Chemically Inhomogeneous Substrate:\
A Simulation Study of the Two-dimensional Ising Case
---
INTRODUCTION
============
When thermodynamic variables such as temperature $T$, pressure $p$, or external fields (e.g. a magnetic field $H$) are varied, discontinuous changes in the state of matter can occur. Examples of such so called first-order phase transitions [@1h; @2h] range from the condensation of water, melting of ice, crystal formation in solidifying melts, etc., to the magnetization reversal of ferromagnetic devices. These phenomena are of great importance not only for condensed matter physics, but also for the atmospheric sciences, geosciences and material science, as well as for numerous technical applications. However, a common feature of all these phase changes is that they are triggered by nucleation events, i.e. on the background of the old (metastable) phase a nanoscopically small nucleus of the new phase needs to be formed, and such nucleation phenomena are rare events since a high free energy barrier needs to be crossed [@2h; @3h; @4h; @5h; @6h]. Actually, for most conditions of practical interest the spontaneous formation of nuclei by statistical fluctuations, i.e the so called “homogeneous nucleation”, involves too high barriers and cannot happen. In contrast, “heterogeneous nucleation” at defects, e.g. condensation of water droplets on dust particles in the atmosphere, or surface-induced crystallization starting at the walls of a container, etc., occurs much more frequently. Also, processes such as the formation of dew droplets on car windows or plants are familiar from everyday life [@6hb]. However, the nanoscopic size of the nucleus, which typically contains only a few hundred of atoms or molecules, is a stumbling block already for the theoretical description of homogeneous nucleation [@2h; @3h; @4h; @5h; @6h]. The large variety of defects that can cause heterogeneous nucleation makes a comprehensive description even more difficult, see e.g. [@7h]. Thus theoretical work on heterogeneous nucleation is rather scarce [@7hb; @8h; @9h; @10h; @11h; @12h; @13h; @14h; @15h; @16h; @17h; @18h; @19h; @20h; @21h; @22h; @23h; @24h; @25h; @26h; @27h; @28h; @29h; @30h], while theoretical work on homogeneous nucleation is abundant, see e.g.[@31h] for an overview of work done for Ising/lattice gas models.
In this paper, we reconsider the problem of heterogeneous nucleation on flat substrates by focusing on a chemically inhomogeneous surface, where nucleation preferentially occurs in a region of finite (nanoscopic) linear dimension $b$, c.f. Figure \[fig1\]. There are several motivations for such a choice: i) chemically structured surfaces are useful for many applications in nanotechnology such as the fabrication of nanodevices, for the processing of nanoscopic amounts of matter (“lab in a chip”), etc. [@32h; @33h]. ii) Since $b$ is comparable to the size of the nucleus formed in a single heterogeneous nucleation event, it is straightforward to study the characteristics of such isolated nucleation events by computer simulation in great detail. In contrast, when one studies nucleation in a system with a homogeneous macroscopic surface, surface-attached nuclei can occur anywhere on this substrate, and one easily reaches conditions where several nuclei form and compete during their growth. This case is familiar from studies of homogeneous nucleation (e.g. [@3h; @31h; @34h; @36h; @37h]) and observing the lifetime of metastable states in this limit of multi-nuclei formation and growth allows only rather indirect conclusions on the nucleation rates and nucleation barriers. iii) Due to the fact that dust or soot particles at which nucleation happens in the atmosphere are often of $\mu m$ size only and have irregular shapes and need not be chemically homogeneous, it is of practical interest to study cases where conditions favorable for heterogeneous nucleation are limited to regions of nanoscopic extent. Of course, also other types of localized defects are suitable to study isolated heterogeneous nucleation events, e.g. in square lattices with free boundary conditions nucleation starts at the corners of the square [@37hb].
Of course, for this problem there occurs a challenging interplay between surface effects due to the substrate and interfacial effects of the material forming the nucleus, also statistical fluctuations and finite-size effects play a role. Therefore, the development of an analytical theory for the treatment of such problems is very difficult [@38h; @39h; @40h]. In the present work, we hence restrict our attention to an approach by Monte Carlo simulation [@41h] of a simple model, namely the Ising/lattice gas model. As has been discussed elsewhere[@31h], even this simple model presents severe difficulties due to the incomplete knowledge of the anisotropy of the interfacial tension between bulk coexisting phases. Also understanding of wetting phenomena, e.g. contact angles of macroscopic sessile droplets at walls [@42h], is a problem in the three-dimensional case (see e.g. [@43h; @44h; @45h]). Thus, we focus here on the lattice gas/Ising model in $d = 2$ dimensions, for which both bulk and interfacial phenomena including wetting behavior [@46h; @47h; @48h; @49h; @50h; @51h; @52h] are well understood. Recently, we have already studied droplets pinned at chemically heterogeneous substrates under conditions of bulk phase coexistence [@53h]. This knowledge also is useful for the present work where we consider such droplets under out-of-equilibrium conditions, and the dynamics of the resulting growth process during nucleation events.
The outline of our paper is as follows: in Section II, we precisely characterize the model and the simulation method, in Section III, we present our results for wall-attached precursors droplets, which are in metastable equilibrium during the “observation time” of the simulation. Furthermore, we discuss a scaling description in terms of the variables $b$ (spatial extent of the inhomogeneity) and bulk magnetic field $H_b$ (which characterizes the “distance” of the metastable state from phase coexistence that occurs in the bulk at $H_b = 0$, of course). In Section IV, we present a phenomenological theory of pinned metastable droplets, which have a baseline $b$ and a non-equilibrium contact angle controlled by the bulk magnetic field. We discuss the stability limit of these droplets, where they depin from the chemical inhomogeneity and grow beyond it, causing a fast phase transformation. In Section V, we analyze the dynamics of nucleation events, characterizing both the growth process of a single nucleus from nanoscopic to macroscopic sizes, and the distribution of nucleation times. Also, we compare these results to previous findings for single-droplet nucleation in the bulk [@36h; @54h; @35h]. Finally, Section VI summarizes our conclusions. The extension of the classical theory of heterogeneous nucleation of Volmer and Turnbull [@7hb; @8h; @9h; @10h] to the two-dimensional case is given in Appendix A. In Appendix B the depinning of droplets from a chemical heterogeneity in $d = 3$ dimensions is briefly discussed.
Model and simulation details
============================
The chosen model is similar to our previous work [@53h] where a two-dimensional Ising/lattice gas model on the square lattice in $L \times M$ geometry was studied at phase coexistence (bulk field $H_b =0$). We apply periodic boundary conditions in $x-$direction only, while free boundaries are used in $y-$direction, and the Ising spins in the first ($i = 1$) and last ($i = L$) rows experience boundary fields, c.f. Figure \[fig1\].
![\[fig1\] Schematic description of the system geometry. We choose a rectangular $M \times L$ lattice with periodic boundary conditions in the $x$-direction, and surface fields acting on the first and last row of spins in the $y$-direction. The sign of the surface fields is indicated by the arrows. The surface field on the top row $(H_{w1}$) and outside the inhomogeneity at the bottom row $(H_{w2})$ are both chosen negative, so that a negative magnetization in the bulk of the system is stable, (thus this area is left in white and the wide arrow indicates the negative magnetization). The strength $H_{w1}$ of the surface field on top is chosen smaller $(|H_{w1}|=|H_{w2}|/4)$, but for the large linear dimensions chosen the precise choice of $H_{w1}$ does not matter with respect to the properties of the droplet. Also, for $b$ sites at the bottom row a positive field $H_{w3}=|H_{w2}|$ is chosen, and a positive bulk field is applied throughout the sample that favors the heterogeneous nucleation of the droplets within the wall inhomogeneity (the droplet area is colored and surround a wide arrow pointing up showing the prevalent positive magnetization in the pinned droplet). ](Figure1.eps){width="10cm" height="6cm"}
At the upper boundary, we choose a homogeneous boundary field $H_{w1} = -0.225$ throughout, which hence favors the minus spins, $S(i,j) = -1$; in lattice gas language, the local density variable $\rho(i,j) = (1 + S(i,j))/2$ at a lattice site with coordinates $i$ ($i=1,...,L$) in $y-$direction and $j$ ($j=1,...,M$) in $x-$direction then is $\rho(i,j) = 0$. At the lower boundary, $i=1$, we choose the boundary field inhomogeneous: from the site $j = (M-b)/2 + 1$ to the site $j = (M+b)/2$ we choose a positive boundary field $H_{w3} = +0.90$, to favor along a line of length $b$ ($b$ is a large odd integer) the liquid phase. Outside this region, the boundary field in the first row is $H_{w2} = -0.90$ throughout, to ensure for the chosen total linear dimensions that in the absence of a bulk field $H_b$ the vapor phase (or phase with negative magnetization, respectively) is the stable phase, for all choices of $b$ that were considered.
The temperature $T$ is measured in units of the critical temperature $T_{cb}$ of the bulk; i.e. [@46h] $k_BT_{cb}/J=2/\ln (1+ \sqrt{2}) \approx 2.27$, where $k_B$ is Boltzmann’s constant, and $J$ the exchange constant, respectively. Boundary and bulk fields $H_{w1}$, $H_{w2}$, $H_{w3}$, $H_b$ are measured in units of $J$. Thus, the used Hamiltonian is
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqh1}
&& \mathcal{H} =-J \sum\limits_{i=1}^L \sum\limits_{j=1}^M S \Big(i,j\Big) \Big[S\Big(i+1,j\Big) + S\Big(i-1,j\Big) + S\Big(i,j +1 \Big) + S\Big(i, j-1 \Big) \Big]/2 \nonumber\\
&&-H_{w1} \sum\limits_{j=1}^M S \Big(L,j \Big) - \sum\limits^M_{j=1} H_w \Big(j \Big) S\Big(1,j \Big) -
H_b \sum\limits_{i=1}^L \sum\limits_{j=1}^M S \Big(i,j\Big) \quad ; \quad S \Big(i,j \Big) = \pm1 \quad,\end{aligned}$$
where $H_w(j) = H_{w2}$ for $1 \leq j \leq (M-b)/2$ and $(M+b)/2 + 1 \leq j \leq M$, while $H_w (j)=H_{w3}$ for $(M-b)/2 + 1 \leq j \leq (M +b)/2$. Also, $S(i,j)=0$ is taken for missing neighbors.
The chosen value of $H_{w3}=0.90$ leads to a wetting critical temperature $t_w=T_w/T_{cb} \simeq 0.4866$ [@48h]. Furthermore heterogeneous nucleation is studied for $T < T_w$, so that the order within the bulk domains is almost perfect, and the correlation length in the bulk is of the order of the lattice spacing. For all temperatures $T < T_w$ we have a nonzero contact angle $\theta_c < 90^{\circ}$ in the region where $H_{w3}$ acts, while due to the antisymmetric choice $H_{w2} = -H_{w3}$ the contact angle is $\pi -\theta_c$ in the region where $H_{w2}$ acts.
For all simulations we choose $M = 453$ and $L = 300$ to make sure that there are no finite size effects associated with interfacial fluctuations. Also, in order to make it easier for the reader to establish the connection to fluid droplets, we will describe all our results in terms of local densities defined via $\rho(i,j)=(\langle S(i,j) \rangle +1 )/2$. Monte Carlo simulations were carried out with standard single spin-flip algorithms [@41h], which as is well known [@41h], can be interpreted as a simulation of a stochastic process, where (in a lattice gas terminology) particles are randomly adsorbed at, or desorbed from, the sites of the lattice; the rates of these processes satisfy the detailed balance condition with the Hamiltonian, Equation (\[eqh1\]). Note that the density in the considered lattice gas is not a conserved variable, of course; hence the physical situation that is simulated is a two-dimensional substrate in equilibrium with an ideal gas reservoir, at the specified temperature and chemical potential, corresponding to the chosen bulk magnetic field. Of course, the Monte Carlo process has no intrinsic time units for the rates of Monte Carlo moves: so time is measured in units of “attempted Monte Carlo steps per spin \[MCS\]” rather than any physical time units. Simulations are started with an initial condition where all spins are taken as $S(i,j)=-1$, i.e. $\rho(i,j) = 0$ in accord with the nonwet ground state of the system. Then, the system is equilibrated up to $5\times 10^{6}$ MCS by taking $H_b = 0$, and subsequently is “quenched” to $H_b > 0$ in order to observe nucleation. Runs are performed for additional $2\times 10^{7}$ MCS, and averages are taken after disregarding $1\times
10^{7}$ MCS.
Wall Attached Precursor Droplets in Metastable Equilibrium.
===========================================================
In our system, at least in the limit $M \rightarrow \infty$, $L \rightarrow \infty$, the vapor phase is the true equilibrium phase only for $H_b \leq 0$. But when we consider a situation where equilibrium in the bulk has been established for $H_b = 0$, and at the time of the Monte Carlo sampling that we take as the origin of time ($\tau = 0$) the field $H_b$ is instantaneously switched to a small positive value, the vapor phase in the bulk may reach a state of metastable equilibrium, with a “lifetime” larger than the observation time $\tau_{obs}$ of the simulation. This metastability can be understood qualitatively already by the classical theory of heterogeneous nucleation due to Volmer and Turnbull [@7hb; @8h; @9h; @10h], see the Appendix A.
In this region where the time $\tau_{N}$ to observe nucleation satisfies the condition $\tau_N \gg \tau_{obs}$, one may observe the formation of wall-attached precursor droplets in the part of the sample where the surface field $H_{w3}$ acts, Figure \[fig1\]. Note that we restrict attention to temperatures $T$ distinctly lower than $T_{w}$, i.e. when partial wetting of the wall occurs. To avoid confusion, we stress that we denote the boundaries at $i = 1$ and $i = L$ in our system as “walls” although they are one-dimensional lines only, Figure 1. If we would choose $T > T_{w}$, i.e. the case of complete wetting of the wall for $b \rightarrow \infty$, there would no longer occur any nucleation barrier, the liquid wetting layer that occurs then at the wall already for $H_b = 0$ would immediately grow by increasing its thickness as soon as $H_b > 0$. For finite $b$ the interface of the liquid droplet still is pinned to the walls near the sites where the boundary field changes from $H_{w3}$ to $H_{w2}$. In our previous work [@53h] we have verified a prediction of Jakubczyk et al. [@55h; @56h] for the case $H_b = 0$ and $T > T_w$, based on the solid-on-solid (SOS) model in terms of the interface Hamiltonian approach for the excess density $\Delta \rho$ due to the droplet, given by
$$\label{eqh2}
\Delta \rho=\Big(\rho^{\rm coex}_\ell - \rho^{\rm coex}_v \Big) \frac{1}{4} b^{3/2} \sqrt{\pi/2 \Sigma (T)} \quad ,
\quad b \rightarrow \infty \quad .$$
In Equation (\[eqh2\]), $\rho^{\rm coex}_\ell$ and $\rho^{\rm coex}_v$ are the coexisting liquid and vapor densities in the bulk, respectively. Note that $\rho^{\rm coex}_\ell - \rho^{\rm coex}_v = m^{\rm coex}$, the spontaneous magnetization of the Ising model [@47h]. Also, $ \Sigma (T)$ is the interfacial stiffness of the Ising model [@57h]. Equation (\[eqh2\]) implies that the average droplet shape is a semi-ellipse, with small axis proportional to $b^{1/2}$ for $b \rightarrow \infty$. For large $b$ even this small axis can easily exceed the critical droplet radius $R^{*}$ for homogeneous nucleation in the bulk (see Appendix A), and thus it is plausible that for large but finite $b$ the nucleation barrier will be very small. Although a study of the phase transformation for $T > T_{w}$ and not so large $b$ may be interesting in its own right, we here fixed the attention to $T < T_{w}$, where the linear dimension in the $y-$direction of the wall-attached droplet for $H_b = 0$ remains finite for $b \rightarrow \infty$. We have also shown [@53h] that the density in the mid-point $j_{half} = (M+1)/2$ of the inhomogeneity of the boundary is compatible with an exponential decay with the distance $y$ from the wall ($y$ is only defined at the discrete lattice indices $i$, of course),
$$\label{eqh3}
\rho (i, j_{half}) = A_0(t) \exp (-y/\xi_\bot (b,t)) , \quad H_b = 0 \quad .$$
[**Note that in the context of various theoretical concepts on interfaces in this constrained geometry the use of a continuum description (in terms of coordinates $x$, $y$) is mandatory; but for a precise characterization of the simulation setup on the lattice, discrete indices of the lattice points ($j$ in $x-$direction, $i$ in $y-$direction) have also to be used.**]{} Here, $A_0(t)$ is an amplitude factor, $t = T/T_{cb}$ must be less than $t_w = T_w/T_{cb}$, and the decay length $\xi_\bot (b,t)$ converges to the standard transverse correlation length $\xi_\bot (t)$ familiar from the theory of critical wetting [@49h] in $d = 2$ dimensions, with $\xi_\bot (t) \propto (t_w - t)^{-1}$. In order to avoid critical fluctuations associated with the second-order wetting transition, we consider here only temperatures distinctly lower than $t_w$, namely $t = 0.30, 0.35$, and $0.40$ (recall that $t_w = 0.4866$ for our choice of $h_{w3}$ [@48h; @49h]).
![\[fig2\] Snapshot configurations of the heterogeneous nucleation of a droplet in an external field ($H_b$). Note that unlike Figure \[fig1\], the boundaries are oriented along the ordinate direction, and the $y-$coordinate along the abscissa. Data obtained for $t = 0.40$, and $b = 51$ (note the double arrow in the left-hand side of the figure indicating the length $b$ of the heterogeneity). Each snapshot corresponds to different realizations obtained with the same parameters but using different seeds in the random number generator. The simulated systems have size $L = 300$, and $M = 453$, while the snapshots only show the central part, horizontal (vertical) length $20$ lattice units ($60$ lattice units), where the droplets develop. Note that the same length scale has been used for both sides of the panels in order to display the actual shape of the droplets. The system was equilbrated at $H_b = 0$ during $5\times 10^{6}$ MCS, subsequently “quenched” to $H_b = 0.030$, [ **and all the snapshots are obtained for $\tau = 2\times 10^{7}$ MCS.**]{} ](Figure2.eps){width="6cm"}
When we now consider metastable phases with small but nonzero $H_b > 0$, we find that the actual droplet configurations are strongly fluctuating (Figure \[fig2\]) even though the average profile $\rho(i, j = j_{half})$ is a smooth function (Figure \[fig3\](a)). We note that for small enough $H_b$ (such as $H_b \leq 0.02$) the decay of the profile with the distance $y$ from the boundary still is compatible with Equation (\[eqh3\]), and both the amplitude $A_0(t)$ and the decay length $\xi_\bot (b,t)$ increases with $H_b$ only very slowly. However, when we reach the apparent limit of metastability $H_{b}^{max}$, where for the chosen observation time $\tau_{obs} = 2 \times 10^{7}$ MCS nucleation becomes observable, which in the case of Figure \[fig3\](a) is $H_{b}^{max} \approx 0.033$, the behavior changes: In the regime $0.02 \leq H_{b} \leq 0.032$ the profiles change from a simple exponential decay to sigmoidal, and $A_0(t)$ moves towards $\rho^{\rm coex}_\ell$, which on the scale of Figure \[fig3\](a) is indistinguishable from unity, while $\rho^{\rm coex}_v$ is not distinguishable from zero here. Thus we have defined an effective droplet height $h_{eff}(t,H_b)$ by measuring the distance $y$ of the inflection point from the coordinate origin (Figure \[fig3\](b)). The increase of $h_{eff}(t,H_b)$ with $H_b$ is clearly faster than a straight line through the origin. An intriguing feature is the fact that the ratio $h_{eff}(t,H_b) / b$ seems to be a function of the scaling combination $b H_b$ only (Figure \[fig3\](c)).
![\[fig3\] a) Plots of the density profiles measured at the center of the sample ($\rho (i, j = j_{Half})$) [*versus*]{} the distance to the wall $y$, here $j_{Half} = (\frac{M}{2} + 1) = 227$. Of course, on the lattice only discrete distances $y = 1, 2, 3,...$ are possible, so the continuous curves are guides to the eye only. Data corresponding to $t = 0.40$, $b = 51$, and different values of the bulk field, as indicated. b) Plot of the effective height ($h_{eff}$) of the droplet as estimated by measuring the distance from the wall ($i = 1$) to the inflection point of the density profile. Symbols at $H_b = 0$ correspond to the decay length $\xi_\bot (b,t)$ obtained by fitting the profiles with the aid of Equation (\[eqh3\]) [@53h], namely $\xi_\bot (101,0.40) = 0.8506$, $\xi_\bot (75,0.40) = 0.8379$, and $\xi_\bot (51,0.40) = 0.7338$. Data obtained for $t = 0.40$ and three choices of $b$, as indicated. The rightmost point for each choice of $b$ corresponds to the value $H_b = H_{b}^{max}$, since for slightly larger choices of $H_b$ no metastable droplets could be observed. c) Scaling plot of $h_{eff}/b$ [it versus]{} $b H_b$ as obtained with the data already shown in panel b). ](Figure3a.eps "fig:"){width="6cm" height="6cm"} ![\[fig3\] a) Plots of the density profiles measured at the center of the sample ($\rho (i, j = j_{Half})$) [*versus*]{} the distance to the wall $y$, here $j_{Half} = (\frac{M}{2} + 1) = 227$. Of course, on the lattice only discrete distances $y = 1, 2, 3,...$ are possible, so the continuous curves are guides to the eye only. Data corresponding to $t = 0.40$, $b = 51$, and different values of the bulk field, as indicated. b) Plot of the effective height ($h_{eff}$) of the droplet as estimated by measuring the distance from the wall ($i = 1$) to the inflection point of the density profile. Symbols at $H_b = 0$ correspond to the decay length $\xi_\bot (b,t)$ obtained by fitting the profiles with the aid of Equation (\[eqh3\]) [@53h], namely $\xi_\bot (101,0.40) = 0.8506$, $\xi_\bot (75,0.40) = 0.8379$, and $\xi_\bot (51,0.40) = 0.7338$. Data obtained for $t = 0.40$ and three choices of $b$, as indicated. The rightmost point for each choice of $b$ corresponds to the value $H_b = H_{b}^{max}$, since for slightly larger choices of $H_b$ no metastable droplets could be observed. c) Scaling plot of $h_{eff}/b$ [it versus]{} $b H_b$ as obtained with the data already shown in panel b). ](Figure3b.eps "fig:"){width="6cm" height="6cm"} ![\[fig3\] a) Plots of the density profiles measured at the center of the sample ($\rho (i, j = j_{Half})$) [*versus*]{} the distance to the wall $y$, here $j_{Half} = (\frac{M}{2} + 1) = 227$. Of course, on the lattice only discrete distances $y = 1, 2, 3,...$ are possible, so the continuous curves are guides to the eye only. Data corresponding to $t = 0.40$, $b = 51$, and different values of the bulk field, as indicated. b) Plot of the effective height ($h_{eff}$) of the droplet as estimated by measuring the distance from the wall ($i = 1$) to the inflection point of the density profile. Symbols at $H_b = 0$ correspond to the decay length $\xi_\bot (b,t)$ obtained by fitting the profiles with the aid of Equation (\[eqh3\]) [@53h], namely $\xi_\bot (101,0.40) = 0.8506$, $\xi_\bot (75,0.40) = 0.8379$, and $\xi_\bot (51,0.40) = 0.7338$. Data obtained for $t = 0.40$ and three choices of $b$, as indicated. The rightmost point for each choice of $b$ corresponds to the value $H_b = H_{b}^{max}$, since for slightly larger choices of $H_b$ no metastable droplets could be observed. c) Scaling plot of $h_{eff}/b$ [it versus]{} $b H_b$ as obtained with the data already shown in panel b). ](Figure3c.eps "fig:"){width="6cm" height="6cm"}
In order to characterize the droplet shape more precisely, also density profiles $\rho(i, j)$ in the $x-$direction parallel to the boundary were taken (Figure \[fig4\]). It is clear that in the shown example the droplet has considerable extent in the $x-$direction, comparable to $b$, as long as the distance $i$ from the boundary is clearly less than $h_{eff}$. Thus we have introduced a characteristic length of the wall-attached droplet in the $x-$direction, defining its “baseline” $b_{eff}$ as the area below the density profile for $i = 1$, namely $$\label{eqh4}
b_{eff} = \sum\limits_{j = (M-b)/2 + 1}^{(M +b)/2} \rho(i = 1, j) \quad.$$
![\[fig4\] Density profiles $\rho(i,j)$ measured in the $x-$direction parallel to the wall, and for different values of the distance $i-$ perpendicular to the wall, as indicated. Data correspond to $b = 51$, $t = 0.40$, and $H_b = 0.032$. ](Figure4.eps){width="6cm"}
Figure \[fig5\](a) shows a plot of $b_{eff}/b$ for three choices of $b$ as a function of $H_b$. One can see that for $H_b \ll H_{b}^{max}$ $b_{eff}/b$ is small, but saturates at unity when $H_b$ approaches $H_{b}^{max}$. Again the data for the three choices of $b$ almost superimpose on a master curve when one plots $b_{eff}/b$ as a function of the product $bH_b$ (Figure \[fig5\](b)); we shall discuss this scaling behavior of the characteristic lengths $h_{eff}$ and $b_{eff}$ below.
![\[fig5\] a) Plots of the normalized effective length of the droplet in contact with the wall (i.e. the “baseline”) ($b_{eff}/b$) [*versus*]{} $H_b$, as measured for the regime of wall-attached metastable droplets (precursor of the actual nucleation that takes place for $H_b > H_b^{max}$. Results obtained for $t = 0.40$, and different values of $b$, as indicated. b) Scaling plot $b_{eff}/b$ [*versus*]{} $b H_b$, of the data already shown in panel a). ](Figure5a.eps "fig:"){width="6cm"} ![\[fig5\] a) Plots of the normalized effective length of the droplet in contact with the wall (i.e. the “baseline”) ($b_{eff}/b$) [*versus*]{} $H_b$, as measured for the regime of wall-attached metastable droplets (precursor of the actual nucleation that takes place for $H_b > H_b^{max}$. Results obtained for $t = 0.40$, and different values of $b$, as indicated. b) Scaling plot $b_{eff}/b$ [*versus*]{} $b H_b$, of the data already shown in panel a). ](Figure5b.eps "fig:"){width="6cm"}
When the ratio $b_{eff}/b$ is no longer small, one can still use density profiles such as those shown in Figure \[fig4\] to evaluate the effective length of the droplet parallel to the boundary but evaluated at a distance $i > 1$ from the wall (e.g. by performing the corresponding summation of Equation (\[eqh4\])) and characterize the average shape of the droplet (note that this procedure is equivalent to the construction of contours of constant density), see Figure \[fig6\]. The slope of these contours can be used to extract estimates for the effective contact angle $\theta_{eff}(H_b)$ from the part of the contours at small $i$ values, where these contours representing the coarse grained interface positions reach the wall. Figure \[fig6\] exploits this idea for the case $t = 0.40$, $b = 51$, and several choices of $H_b$. By fitting straight lines to these contours in the region close to the wall (i.e. for $i = 1, 2, 3$), estimates of $\theta_{eff}(H_b)$ can be extracted (Figure \[fig7\](a)). It is seen that for choices of $H_b$ for which $b_{eff} (H_b)$ is distinctly smaller than $b$, $\theta_{eff}(H_b)$ is essentially independent of $H_b$, and of the order of $\theta_{eff} \approx 10 \pm 2^{\circ}$ in this case. However, when $b_{eff} (H_b)$ starts to saturate at $b$, the ratio $h_{eff} / b$ as well as the effective contact angle $\theta_{eff}$ both start to increase rather distinctly. As Figure \[fig7\](b) demonstrates, this increase of $\theta_{eff}$ starts at $b H_b \approx 1$. Metastable precursor droplets are found up to angles of $\theta_{eff}^{max} \approx 70^{\circ}$ when $H_b$ reaches $H_{b}^{max}$.
![\[fig6\] Plot of the effective (half) length of the droplets ($l_{eff}/2$) as obtained from the integration of the density profiles as shown in figure \[fig4\] (horizontal axis), [*versus*]{} the distance to the wall where the inhomogeneity is placed (vertical axis). Data obtained for $t = 0.40$, $b = 51$, and different values of the bulk field, as indicated. The double arrow at the left-hand side of the figure shows the effective height of the droplet ($h_{eff}$) as measured for $H_b = 0.032$ (see figure \[fig3\](b).) The full straight line at the right-hand side of the figure shows the asymptotic slope of the droplet contour that is used to determine the effective contact angle $\theta_{eff}$ (see also figure \[fig7\]). ](Figure6.eps){width="6cm"}
![\[fig7\] a) Plots of the effective contact angle of the droplets ($\theta_{eff}$) [*versus*]{} $H_b$, as measured for the regime of metastable wall-attached droplets (precursor of the actual nucleation) that takes place for $H_b < H_b^{max}$, where $H_b^{max}$ is the value of the field where the transition to the liquid phase covering the whole sample is observed in the simulations. Results obtained for $t = 0.40$, and different values of $b$, as indicated. b) Scaling plot $\theta_{eff}$ [*versus*]{} $b H_b$, of the data already shown in panel a). ](Figure7a.eps "fig:"){width="6cm"} ![\[fig7\] a) Plots of the effective contact angle of the droplets ($\theta_{eff}$) [*versus*]{} $H_b$, as measured for the regime of metastable wall-attached droplets (precursor of the actual nucleation) that takes place for $H_b < H_b^{max}$, where $H_b^{max}$ is the value of the field where the transition to the liquid phase covering the whole sample is observed in the simulations. Results obtained for $t = 0.40$, and different values of $b$, as indicated. b) Scaling plot $\theta_{eff}$ [*versus*]{} $b H_b$, of the data already shown in panel a). ](Figure7b.eps "fig:"){width="6cm"}
A related conclusion can be drawn with even less ambiguity, since it does not require an analysis of the shape of the precursor droplet, when we simply record the excess density $\Delta \rho$ in the system due to the droplet (Figure \[fig8\]). In fact, Figure \[fig8\](a) shows plots of $\Delta \rho$ [*versus*]{} $H_b$ at three choices of $t$ for $b = 51$, while Figure \[fig8\](b) shows plots of $\Delta \rho$ [*versus*]{} $H_b$ for $t = 0.40$ and various choices of $b$, as indicated. Note that in both cases the states where the transition to the liquid in the simulated system has occurred are included, namely all the data points with $\Delta \rho = 1$ implies that the whole simulation box is filled uniformly by a liquid. The excess density of the precursor droplet in these plots is normalized by dividing the “excess mass” $\Delta m$ contained in the precursor droplet by the total number of lattice sites, $N = L \times M = 300 \times 453 = 135900$. Recall that the excess density is the difference between the density measured in the presence of the inhomogeneity in the wall and that obtained for an homogeneous wall. Figure \[fig8\](a) implies that the value of $\Delta m$ where the precursor droplet is large enough to trigger nucleation of the liquid phase in the system depends only weakly on temperature; it is $\Delta m \approx 400$ for $b = 51$, and the choice $H_{w2} = 0.90$ that was made here. But again there is a pronounced dependence of $\Delta \rho$ (or $\Delta m$, respectively) at the transition on the choice of $b$ (Figure \[fig8\](b)).
![\[fig8\] a) Log-linear plot of the total density excess $\Delta \rho$ plotted [*versus*]{} $H_b$ for three choices of $t$, as indicated. Data obtained for $b = 51$. b) Log-linear plot of $\Delta \rho$ [*versus*]{} $H_b$ obtained at temperature $t = 0.40$, and different values of $b$, as indicated. The dashed (full) curve is a plot of $R^{*^{2}} \pi f_{VT} /LM$ (see Equation (\[eqh5\]) noting $\Delta \rho = \Delta m/(LM)$) [*versus* ]{} $H_b$ as obtained by assuming $\theta_c = 34.155^{\circ}$ ($\theta_c = \theta_{eff}^{max} = 70^{\circ}$) in the evaluation of $f_{VT}$. More details on the text. ](Figure8a.eps "fig:"){width="7cm" height="7cm"} ![\[fig8\] a) Log-linear plot of the total density excess $\Delta \rho$ plotted [*versus*]{} $H_b$ for three choices of $t$, as indicated. Data obtained for $b = 51$. b) Log-linear plot of $\Delta \rho$ [*versus*]{} $H_b$ obtained at temperature $t = 0.40$, and different values of $b$, as indicated. The dashed (full) curve is a plot of $R^{*^{2}} \pi f_{VT} /LM$ (see Equation (\[eqh5\]) noting $\Delta \rho = \Delta m/(LM)$) [*versus* ]{} $H_b$ as obtained by assuming $\theta_c = 34.155^{\circ}$ ($\theta_c = \theta_{eff}^{max} = 70^{\circ}$) in the evaluation of $f_{VT}$. More details on the text. ](Figure8b.eps "fig:"){width="7cm" height="7cm"}
At this point it is interesting to make contact with the classical theory of heterogeneous nucleation as formulated in $d = 3$ dimensions by Volmer and Turnbull [@7hb; @8h; @9h; @10h]. A simple adaptation of this theory to $d = 2$ (see Appendix A) implies that a critical droplet on a homogeneous substrate with contact angle $\theta_{c}$ involves an excess density mass given by $$\label{eqh5}
\Delta m = \Big(\rho^{\rm coex}_\ell - \rho^{\rm coex}_v \Big) (R^{*})^{2} \pi f_{VT}(\theta_{c}) \quad .$$ Here, $R^{*}$ is the critical radius of homogeneous nucleation, which in the classical theory simply is $$\label{eqh6}
R^{*} = \frac{f_{int}}{2 ( \rho^{\rm coex}_\ell - \rho^{\rm coex}_v ) H_b} \quad ,$$ with $f_{int}$ being the interfacial tension between coexisting bulk phases separated by a flat interface. As discussed in the Appendix A, Equations (\[eqh5\],
\[eqh6\]) ignore the anisotropy of the interfacial tension, assuming a circular droplet in the bulk, and a circle cut shape of the droplet at the boundary, where the coarse-grained interface makes an angle $\theta_{c}$. The Volmer-Turnbull function $f_{VT}(\theta_{c})$ measures the reduction of the droplet area of the circle cut relative to the full circle, and in this approximation (see Appendix A) is given by $$\label{eqh7}
f_{VT}(\theta) = \frac{1}{\pi} \Big( \theta - \frac{sin(2\theta)}{2} \Big) \quad .$$
The upper curve in Figure \[fig8\](b) shows $\Delta \rho = \Delta m /LM$ as obtained according to Equations (\[eqh5\]-\[eqh7\]) by using the “observed” contact angle $\theta_{c} = \theta_{eff}^{max} \approx 70^{\circ}$ just at the transition to the liquid phase. However, by using a theoretical estimate of the contact angle in thermal equilibrium obtained by means of a SOS approximation $\theta_{c}$ due to Abraham et al. [@50h] would imply $\theta_{c} \approx 34^{\circ}$, predicting hence distinctly smaller critical droplets (Figure \[fig8\](b)). However, for both choices of $\theta_{c}$ our results (Figures \[fig5\], \[fig7\]) imply that $b_{eff}$ is of the same order as $b$ when nucleation occurs. Since the baseline length $b_{drop}^{*}$ of the circle cut critical droplet satisfies the geometrical relationship $$\label{eqh8}
b_{drop}^{*} = 2 R^{*} sin(\theta_c) \quad,$$ we can eliminate $R^{*}$ in Equations (\[eqh5\], \[eqh6\]) in favor of $ b_{drop}^{*} = b$, and in this way the two theoretical curves in Figure \[fig8\](b) were obtained. Figure \[fig9\](a) shows then the scaling plot of $\Delta \rho /b^{2}$ [*versus*]{} $b H_b$, validating the idea that $\Delta m$ scales like $b^{2}$ and is a function of the product $b H_b$, as $b_{eff}$ and $h_{eff}$ (Figures \[fig3\](c) and \[fig5\](b)). Both figures \[fig7\] and \[fig8\] show that two regimes exist: for $bH_b \lesssim 1$, $\theta_{eff}$ is very small, $l_{eff} < b$ (Figure \[fig8\]), $\Delta \rho$ increases slowly with $bH_b$, and the droplet density profile (Figure \[fig3\](a) ) decays with the distance from the inhomogeneity like an exponential. All these properties change for $bH_b \gtrsim 1$. Note that \[fig9\](a) includes both the regime $bH_b \lesssim 1$, where scaling is not expected hold, as well as the true scaling regime $bH_b \gtrsim 1$. Of course, for $H_b = 0$ in the nonwet regime the excess density $\Delta \rho$ only scales like $\Delta \rho \propto b$; thus in the regime of small $bH_b$ a crossover from $\Delta \rho \propto b$ to $\Delta \rho \propto b^{2}$ with increasing $bH_b$ must occur.
![\[fig9\] a) Scaling plot of the total density excess, $\Delta \rho /b^{2}$ [*versus*]{} $b H_b$, according to Equation (\[eqhqyq\]). Data taken from figure \[fig8\](b). The vertical arrow at the right-hand side of the figure indicates the asymptotic value [**$b H_b^{max} \simeq 1.71$**]{} for the observation of nucleation, which yields [**$\theta_c^{max} \approx 70^{°}$**]{} as it follows from Equations (\[eqh6\]) and (\[eqh8\]). b) Log-linear plot of the total density excess, $\Delta \rho$ plotted [*versus*]{} $H_b$, for the case $t = 0.40$, $b = 51$, and 4 choices of the observation time $\tau_{obs}$ of the metastable state, as indicated. ](Figure9a.eps "fig:"){width="7cm"} ![\[fig9\] a) Scaling plot of the total density excess, $\Delta \rho /b^{2}$ [*versus*]{} $b H_b$, according to Equation (\[eqhqyq\]). Data taken from figure \[fig8\](b). The vertical arrow at the right-hand side of the figure indicates the asymptotic value [**$b H_b^{max} \simeq 1.71$**]{} for the observation of nucleation, which yields [**$\theta_c^{max} \approx 70^{°}$**]{} as it follows from Equations (\[eqh6\]) and (\[eqh8\]). b) Log-linear plot of the total density excess, $\Delta \rho$ plotted [*versus*]{} $H_b$, for the case $t = 0.40$, $b = 51$, and 4 choices of the observation time $\tau_{obs}$ of the metastable state, as indicated. ](Figure9b.eps "fig:"){width="7cm"}
In order to give a physical interpretation of the simple scaling of all quantities ($b_{eff}$, $h_{eff}$, and $\Delta \rho$) with the product $b H_b$, we recall the description of droplets at chemical inhomogeneous substrates in $d = 2$ dimensions in terms of the interface Hamiltonian proposed by Jakubczyk et al.[@55h; @56h]. In this description in the spirit of a Solid on Solid (SOS) model, the problem is described by a one-dimensional degree of freedom, namely the distance $y = \ell (x)$ of the (locally sharp) interface from the boundary at $y = 0$ (involving a continuum approximation). So the effective (coarse-grained) Hamiltonian is, absorbing a factor $\frac{1}{k_{B}T}$ here, $$\label{eqhxx}
\mathcal{H} \Big[\ell(x) \Big] =\int\limits^{+M/2}_{-M/2}\, dx \Big[\frac{\Sigma (T)}{2} \Big(\frac{d \ell}{dx}\Big)^2 + V(x, \ell) \Big] ,$$ where both fluctuations in the bulk and overhangs of the interface are neglected, $V(x, \ell)$ being the effective potential acting on the interface. Recall that in the SOS treatment the interfacial stiffness $\Sigma (T)$ [@57h] of the one dimensional interface is considered, instead of the actual interfacial tension $f_{int}$ of the Ising model [@46h]. For the considered situation, for $|x| > b/2$ the boundary at $y = 0$ strongly favors the vapor phase, so we have essentially $\ell (x) = 0$ there, as one can verify from Figure \[fig4\]. So, Equation (\[eqhxx\]) can be reduced to $$\label{eqhyy}
\mathcal{H} \Big[\ell(x) \Big] =- \int\limits^{+b/2}_{-b/2}\, dx \Big[\frac{\Sigma (T)}{2} \Big(\frac{d \ell}{dx}\Big)^2 + V(x, \ell) \Big] .$$ Note that Equations (\[eqhxx\], \[eqhyy\]) also assume $|\frac{d \ell}{dx}| \ll 1$ everywhere, an assumption that is somewhat questionable in view of the actual snapshots of the interfacial configurations (Figure \[fig2\]), at least near $x = \pm \frac{b}{2}$; however since no actual calculations on the basis of Equations (\[eqhxx\], \[eqhyy\]) are done here, this problem does not matter.
Now the effective potential $V(x, \ell)$ can be written as $$\label{eqhzz}
V(x, \ell) = \Big[V_{0}(x, \ell) - \ell \Big(\rho^{\rm coex}_\ell - \rho^{\rm coex}_v \Big) H_b\Big] /k_BT \quad ,$$ where $V_{0}(x, \ell)$ is the potential binding the interface to the wall for $H_b = 0$. Only this latter case has been considered by Jakubczyk et al.[@55h; @56h]. Applying a field $H_b > 0$ favors the liquid phase, and thus the potential decreases proportional to $\ell H_b$.
Now the key observation is that the dependence on $b$ is elucidated when we rescale all distances by $b$, namely $$\label{eqhww}
x = b x ' \quad, \ell = b \ell ' \quad ,$$ which yields $\mathcal{H} = b\mathcal{H}'$ with $$\label{eqhss}
\mathcal{H}' \Big[\ell'(x') \Big] =- \int\limits^{+1}_{-1}\, dx' \Big[\frac{\Sigma (T)}{2} \Big(\frac{d \ell'}{dx'}\Big)^2 + V(x', \ell') \Big] ,$$ with $$\label{eqhqq}
V(x', \ell') = V_{0}(x', \ell') - \ell' \Big(\rho^{\rm coex}_\ell - \rho^{\rm coex}_v \Big) b H_b \quad .$$ Now the partition function needs to be evaluated as a path integral, $$\label{eqhrr}
\mathcal{Z} = \int \mathcal{D}\ell' exp\Big(-b\mathcal{H}' \Big) \quad,$$ and from Equations (\[eqhss\])-(\[eqhqq\]) we conclude that the boundary excess free energy $\Delta F = -k_{B} T ln (\mathcal{Z})$ due to the droplet depends on the variables $b, t$, and $H_b$ in the following scaled form, $f(t, bH_b)$ being the free energy density per length unit along the boundary $$\label{eqhquq}
\Delta F = b f(t, bH_b) \quad .$$
The excess density due to the droplet is obtained from Equation (\[eqhquq\]) via a derivative with respect to $H_b$, i.e. $$\label{eqhqyq}
\Delta \rho = b^{2} \tilde M(t, b H_b) \quad ,$$ where $\tilde M$ is the resulting scaling function of the excess mass. Equation (\[eqhqyq\]) hence justifies the choice of scaling variables for Figure \[fig9\](a).
This scaling property is subtle, of course, due to the requirement of metastable equilibrium: it is implied also by Equation(\[eqhzz\]), that there cannot be for $H_b > 0$ a true equilibrium at any finite value of $\ell$, so Equation (\[eqhrr\]) makes sense only for a suitably constrained partition function.
So the droplets studied so far can only be found in a suitable “window” of observation times $\tau_{obs}$. In fact, $\tau_{obs}$ must be large enough to allow that the wall-attached droplet reaches local equilibrium in spite of the slow and sluggish fluctuations of the interface configuration (Figure \[fig2\]). But at the same time, $\tau_{obs}$ must be small enough that nucleation events (where the droplet grows fast to the full size of the system, see Section V) still are negligible.
This consideration is exemplified in Figure \[fig9\](b): here a log-log plot of the excess density in the system [*versus*]{} $H_b$ is shown, for four choices of $\tau_{obs}$. For very small $H_b$, such as $H_b = 0.0025$ the dependence on $\tau_{obs}$ is negligible since the time $\tau_{N}$ needed to nucleate is astronomically large, and the wall attached droplet is very tightly bound to the wall (cf. Figure \[fig3\](a)), so it is rather easily equilibrated. However, for $H_b = 0.01$ we see that data for $\tau_{obs} = 2 \times 10^{5}$ and $\tau_{obs} = 2 \times 10^{6}$ perfectly agree, nucleation is not yet possible; but the result for $\tau_{obs} = 2 \times 10^{4}$ is clearly smaller, this observation time was insufficient to sample fluctuations such as those seen in Figure \[fig2\] exhaustively. For $H_b = 0.018$ however, there is also a systematic difference between $\tau_{obs} = 2 \times 10^{5}$ and $\tau_{obs} = 2 \times
10^{6}$: for the latter time, nucleation typically has occurred, while for the former time, the metastable boundary-attached droplet still is visible.
Since Figure \[fig5\] suggests that we can (for the choices of $b$ used here) observe metastable boundary attached droplets up to $b_{eff} \approx b$, we have also tested as a possible hypothesis that these boundary-attached droplets with $b_{eff} = b$ can be described by the Volmer-Turnbull theory of heterogeneous nucleation (see the Appendix A). This theory assumes that the critical droplet causing nucleation is a cut from a sphere (circle in our $d =
2$ case) with radius $R^{*}$ \[Equation (\[eqh6\])\], the angle of the sphere cut with the straight line representing the boundary being the contact angle $\theta_c$. Geometry then implies $b_{eff} = b$ as quoted in Equation (\[eqh8\]), and combining Equations (\[eqh6\]), (\[eqh8\]) yields a relationship between $b$ and $H_{b}$ $$\label{eqhaa}
b_{drop}^{*} = b = f_{int} sin(\theta_c) / \Big(\rho^{\rm coex}_\ell - \rho^{\rm coex}_v \Big) H_{b}^{crit} \quad ,$$ where $H_{b}^{crit}$ is the prediction of standard theory of heterogeneous nucleation for the critical field at the onset of nucleation of the liquid phase when the length of the baseline of the droplet is $b_{drop}^{*} = b$. This result is plotted in Figure \[fig10\], using for $f_{int}$ the Onsager result [@46h] for the interface tension of a straight interface oriented perpendicular to the lattice axis. For the contact angle $\theta_c$ we use results derived for Abraham et al. [@50h] in the SOS approximation, namely $$\label{eqang}
tan [\theta_c(T_w,T)] = sinh \Big[2 (K - K_w \Big] / \Big[ cosh(K) - cosh[2(K -
K_w)] \Big] \quad ,$$ where $K = J/k_B T$ and $K_w = J/k_B T_w$, respectively.
![\[fig10\] Log-log plot of $b_{drop}^{*} = 2 R^{*} sin(\theta_c)$ [*versus*]{} $H_b$ corresponding to different temperatures as indicated. Full lines correspond to the theoretical prediction (Equation (\[eqhaa\])) that follows by considering the values of $\theta_{c}$ given by a SOS calculation (Equation (\[eqang\])). The straight lines have slope $-1$. Numerical data corresponding to $ t = 0.40$ are shown by full triangles. The dashed line is a fit of the numerical data, obtained by assuming a slope $-1$, which yields $\theta_{c}^{max} = \theta_{eff}^{max} = 67.5^{\circ}$ if Equation (\[eqhaa\]) is invoked for the numerical simulation data. At each temperature the full straight lines are the theoretical curves where nucleation according to the Volmer-Turnbull theory is predicted to occur when the baseline of the critical droplet equals $b$, so that they are the boundary between the region where metastable precursor droplets are observed (lower left-hand side of the panel), and the liquid phase (upper right-hand side of the panel). More details on the text. ](Figure10.eps){width="7cm"}
For our choice of $H_{w3}$ implying $T_w = 0.4866 T_{cb}$, Equation (\[eqang\]) yields $\theta_c \approx 67,11^{\circ}$, $50,05^{\circ}$ and $34,11^{\circ}$, for $t = T/T_{cb} = 0.30, 0.35$ and $0.40$, respectively. The resulting straight lines in the log-log plot for $b$ [*versus*]{} $H_{b}$ \[Equation (\[eqhaa\])\] are compared to the estimates for the actual critical field $H_b^{max}$ where the onset of nucleation of the liquid phase has been observed in the simulations \[Figure \[fig10\]\]. For each temperature, these lines correspond to the theoretical conditions where nucleation on the inhomogeneity of length $b$ becomes possible. The actual data points included in Figure \[fig10\] separate the region of parameters where metastable precursor droplets are found, and the liquid phase that already takes the whole simulation box. It is seen that the actual critical fields, measured for $t = 0.40$ always are larger than the predictions based on Equations (\[eqhaa\]), (\[eqang\]). So, if we would fit the numerical data to equation (\[eqhaa\]) we would obtain the “observed” contact angle $\theta_{c}^{max} = \theta_{eff}^{max} \approx 67.5^{\circ}$, in excellent agreement with our previous estimations, e.g. showing that metastable precursor droplets are found up to angles of $\theta_{eff}^{max} \approx 70^{\circ}$ (Figure \[fig7\](b)), as well from the scaling plot of Figure \[fig9\] that also yields $\theta_{eff}^{max} \approx 70^{\circ}$
. The main reason for the difference between the field $H_b^{crit}$, predicted by the standard theory for heterogeneous nucleation and defined from equation (\[eqhaa\]) and calculated by using the contact angle $\theta_c$ obtained by means of the SOS approximation (equation (\[eqang\])), and the actual critical field found in the simulations $H_b^{max}$ is that in the regime $H_b^{crit} < H_b < H_b^{max}$ the droplets nucleated at the inhomogeneity are pinned, see Section IV, i.e., their baseline cannot grow beyond $b$. However, it should be stressed that within this regime the area of the droplets actually grows by simultaneously increasing the contact angle and decreasing their radius. Only for $H_b > H_b^{max}$ droplets “depin” and further growth is possible, with $b_{drop} > b$ and $\theta = \pi - \theta_c$, see also below. These pinned droplets should not be mistaken for the droplets described by the standard Volmer-Turnbull theory of heterogeneous nucleation, as discussed in the Appendix A. In Section IV, we shall attempt a theoretical estimation of the field $H_b^{max}$. We also note that for $H_b < H_b^{crit}$ only subcritical nuclei ($R < R^{*}$) can form on the inhomogeneity, i.e. transient fluctuations occur whose average effect shows up in the exponentially decaying density profiles for $H_b \leq 0.022$ in figure \[fig3\](a).
Furthermore, it is worth discussing that Equation (\[eqhaa\]) is not expected to be quantitatively accurate for several reasons: (i) The interface tension for a straight interface $f_{int}$ is used here, neglecting possible corrections due to the curvature of the droplet interface. (ii) Due to the anisotropy of the interfacial tension of the Ising lattice model, the actual shape of a large droplet of the liquid coexisting with surrounding vapor is not a circle, it rather resembles a square with rounded corners at low temperatures [@60h; @61h] (see also the largest droplet in Figure \[fig11\], left-hand side panel). For heterogeneous nucleation, the droplet shape resulting from the appropriate Winterbottom construction [@62h] is then nontrivial to find, and the Volmer-Turnbull theory as presented in the Appendix A needs to be extended to account for this anisotropy. For not very large droplets, also the “point” where the droplet interface meets the boundary can play a role, modifying Equation(\[eqhaa\]) further, in analogy with the effect of the line tension of the sphere-cap shaped droplet on the contact angle in $d = 3$ dimensions [@90]. In view of all these shortcomings of the existing theories, a more quantitative analysis of our numerical data for the boundary-attached droplets (Figures \[fig3\] - \[fig9\]) suffers from the incomplete knowledge of both the droplet shape and the equilibrium contact angle. Nevertheless, we attempt a phenomenological analysis of pinned droplets and their depinning in the next section.
![\[fig11\] Snapshot configurations of the heterogeneous nucleation of a droplet in an external field ($H_b$). Data obtained for $t = 0.40$, $b = 51$ (note the double arrow in the right-hand side of each panel indicating the length of the heterogeneity), $L = 300$, and $M = 453$. The system was equilbrated at $H_b = 0$ during $5\times 10^{6}$ MCS, and subsequently “quenched” to $H_b = 0.034$. The snapshot is recorded when the density of the nucleated droplet reaches the different values, which are identified by different colors. The simulation times ($\tau$) in MCS, necessary to reach each density are also listed between bracket. Then, going from high to low density the values and colors are: Panel a) 0.556 \[172094\] (blue), 0.493 \[171124\] (red), 0.420 \[169948\] (green), 0.260 \[167043\] (yellow), 0.221 \[166148\] (magenta), 0.153 \[164171\] (brown), 0.100 \[162312\] (grey), and 0.052 \[159035\] (violet). Panel b) 0.052 \[159035\] (i.e. last value and color from panel a), 0.044 \[158518\] (red), 0.037 \[157165\] (green), 0.022 \[152678\] (magenta), 0.010 \[74795\] (yellow), 0.0075 \[31525\] (brown), 0.0050 \[12212\] (grey), 0.0025 \[1773\] (violet), 0.0010 \[932\] (cyan), 0.0008 \[845\] (magenta), and 0.0006 \[787\] (orange). Note the different scales for abscissa and ordinate in both panels; while a) shows the full system, b) only shows a subpart of the system that contains the wall inhomogeneity plus attached droplet. More details in the text. [**Warning. In the final editing process the ratio H/W = High/Width of each panel must be kept at $H/W = 3/2$.**]{} ](Figure11.eps){width="14cm"}
Droplets pinned at chemical inhomogeneities and their “depinning transition”.
=============================================================================
When one deals with heterogeneous nucleation at homogeneous substrates, the nucleation barrier $\Delta F_{het}^{*}$ (Equation (\[A13\])) corresponding to the droplet having the critical radius $R^{*}$ (equation (\[eqh6\]) or (\[A13\]), respectively) is all what matters: when such a droplet (of circle cut shape, with contact angle $\theta_c$) corresponding to the top of the free energy $\Delta F_{drop}(R)$ (equation (\[A12\])) has been formed by a (rare) statistical fluctuation, with $50 \%$ probability this drop will grow with time $\tau$ after the nucleation event. For small fields $H_b$ the growth velocity is small, and then we have “local equilibrium” of the growing droplet at the contact line; this means, at any instant of time growing droplets with $R > R^{*}$ are still described by equation (\[A12\]), and, in particular, their contact angle has the equilibrium value $\theta_c$.
However, this description cannot apply when we have a substrate with a chemical inhomogeneity of extent $b$ (c.f. figure \[fig1\]). We assume here conditions (corresponding to our actual choice of the boundary fields $H_{w1}$, $H_{w2}$, and $H_{w3}$) where nucleation rates in the region where wall fields $H_{w1}$, $H_{w2}$ act are negligibly small; so only nucleation within the region of the chemical inhomogeneity needs to be considered, i.e. circle-cut shaped droplets with baseline $b_{drop} = 2 R sin(\theta_c)$ (equation (\[A1\])) smaller than $b$. Such droplets can grow at constant contact angle with time only until $b_{drop} = b_{drop}^{*} = b$, and then either get pinned and grow in area and angle up to some nontrivial values, which we shall study in this section or they “depin” and grow with baseline $b_{drop} > b$, $b_{drop} = 2 R sin(\pi - \theta_c)$.
Thus we turn to an analysis of the regime where $b_{drop} \simeq b$. In this regime we have to use Equation (\[A9\]) for the area of the droplet, and hence write the free energy of the droplet as $$\label{A16}
\Delta F_{drop} = constant + f_{int} 2 R \theta - 2 m_{coex} H_b R^{2}[\theta - \frac{1}{2} sin(2 \theta)] \quad ,$$ where the constant is fixed by the requirement that for $\theta = \theta_c$ and $b_{drop} = b$ the previous expression for $\Delta F_{drop}$ (equation (\[A12\])) results, i.e. $constant = -b f_{int} cos(\theta_c)$. Note that now $R$ is not $R^{*}$ but rather $R = b/(2 sin(\theta))$ from geometry (see Figure \[FigA2\] in Appendix A). Thus we obtain, eliminating $R$ in favor of $b/(2 sin(\theta))$, $$\label{A17}
\Delta F_{drop} /b f_{int} = -cos(\theta_c) + \frac{\theta}{sin(\theta)} - \frac{m_{coex} H_b b}{2 f_{int}} [\frac{\theta}{sin^{2}(\theta)} - \frac{cos(\theta)}{sin(\theta)}] \quad .$$
Now the angle $\theta$ is found from the condition $$\label{A18}
\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta} (\Delta F_{drop}/bf_{int}) = 0 \quad ,$$ which after simple algebra yields the minimum of the free energy for $$\label{A19}
sin(\theta_{min}) = m_{coex} H_b b /f_{int} \quad , \quad \theta_c < \theta_{min} < \pi/2 \quad ,$$ while the angle $\theta_{max} = \pi - \theta_{min}$ also is a solution of equation (\[A18\]), but corresponds to the maximum of the free energy. Note that the condition $\theta_c < \theta_{min} $ has been added since equation (\[A17\]) makes sense only for $\theta > \theta_{c}$.
![\[FigA4\] a) Plots of $\theta$ [*versus*]{} $\Delta \rho /b^{2}$, comparing Equation (\[A9\]) to the simulation data, obtained for $t = 0.40$, in the regime $20^{\circ} < \theta < 70^{\circ}$. b) The full line shows a plot of $\theta$ [*versus*]{} $b H_b$, according to equation (\[A19\]) taken $f_{int} = 1.7987$ for $t = 0.40$ [@46h]. The dashed horizontal line shows the estimate of $\theta_c$ from the SOS approximation Equation (\[eqang\]). Also, simulation results of $\theta_{eff}^{max}$ obtained for different values of $b$ are shown by mean of symbols. ](Figure12a.eps "fig:"){width="9cm"} ![\[FigA4\] a) Plots of $\theta$ [*versus*]{} $\Delta \rho /b^{2}$, comparing Equation (\[A9\]) to the simulation data, obtained for $t = 0.40$, in the regime $20^{\circ} < \theta < 70^{\circ}$. b) The full line shows a plot of $\theta$ [*versus*]{} $b H_b$, according to equation (\[A19\]) taken $f_{int} = 1.7987$ for $t = 0.40$ [@46h]. The dashed horizontal line shows the estimate of $\theta_c$ from the SOS approximation Equation (\[eqang\]). Also, simulation results of $\theta_{eff}^{max}$ obtained for different values of $b$ are shown by mean of symbols. ](Figure12b.eps "fig:"){width="9cm"}
Using this result it is straightforward to evaluate the area $A$ of the droplet and hence the excess density $\Delta \rho$ due to the droplet. Figure \[FigA4\] a) presents plots of $\theta$ [*versus*]{} $\Delta \rho /b^{2}$, comparing Equation (\[A9\]) to the simulation data in the regime $20^{\circ} < \theta < 70^{\circ}$. The agreement is reasonable, in particular since no adjustable parameter whatsoever is present. Note that the knowledge of the contact angle $\theta_c$ is not needed here (apart from defining the range on which this relationship should be used).
Figure \[FigA4\] b) presents a plot of $\theta$ [*versus*]{} $b H_b$. The dashed horizontal line shows the estimate of $\theta_c$ from the SOS approximation Equation (\[eqang\]). The actual variation of $\theta$ with $b H_b$ (Figure \[fig7\]b ) should be compared to this figure only for $b H_b > 1$, since for small fields, where the excess mass due to the droplet is small, the assumptions of the above quasi-macroscopic analysis clearly are inapplicable. At least, for $b H_b \ge 1.5$ the prediction is close to the observations from the simulations (Figure \[fig7\] b), furthermore the values of $\theta_{eff}^{max}$ obtained for the larger inhomogeneities, i.e. $51 \leq b \leq 101$, are in full agreement with the theoretical result given by equation (\[A19\]) taken $f_{int} = 1.7987$ for $t = 0.40$ [@46h] ($f_{int}$ is taken in units of $J$).
![\[fig13\] Plots of the free energy $\Delta F / b f_{int} + cos(\theta_c)$ given by equation (\[A17\]) as function of $\theta$ for various values of the parameters $b H_b$, as indicated. Plots obtained for $\theta_c = 34^{\circ}$ and $f_{int} = 1.7987$, which correspond to $t = 0.4$. The dashed (dotted) line shows the location of the minimum (maximum) of equation (\[A17\]), as given by equation (\[A19\]). Note that both lines merge at $\theta = \pi/2$ such that $\theta_{min} = \theta_{max}$. The double arrow shows the free energy barrier $\Delta F_2 / b f_{int}$ given by equation(\[A20a\]), for the choice $b H_b = 1.6$. ](Figure13.eps){width="14cm"}
It really is illuminating to plot the free energy given by equation (\[A17\]) as function of $\theta$ for various values of $b H_b$, as shown in figure \[fig13\]. In fact, both the minimum and the maximum of the free energy can clearly be observed. Furthermore, the free energy difference between the maximum and the minimum ($ \Delta F_2 / b f_{int}$) monotonically decreases when $b H_b$ increases, and finally vanish where $\theta_{min}$ and $\theta_{max}$ merge at $\theta_{min} = \theta_{max} = \frac{\pi}{2}$. A more quantitative evaluation of the free energy barrier can be performed by reinserting Equation (\[A19\]) in the free energy $\Delta F_{drop}$ (equation (\[A17\])), obtaining the following relationships for the minimum $$\label{A20}
\Delta F_{drop}^{min} /b f_{int} = -cos(\theta_c) + \frac{1}{2}[\frac{\theta_{min}}{sin(\theta_{min})} + cos(\theta_{min})] \quad ,$$ and the maximum $$\label{A20b}
\Delta F_{drop}^{max} /b f_{int} = -cos(\theta_c) + \frac{1}{2}[\frac{\pi - \theta_{min}}{sin(\theta_{min})} - cos(\theta_{min})] \quad ,$$ respectively. Then, the difference between the maximum and the minimum is given by $$\label{A20a}
\Delta F_2 / b f_{int} = \frac{(\frac{\pi}{2} - \theta_{min})}{sin(\theta_{min})} - cos(\theta_{min}) \quad ,$$ which provides the height of the barrier preventing that the system can move from the angle $\theta_c$ to the angle $\pi - \theta_c$, which is needed for the droplet to subsequently grow increasing its baseline beyond $b$ at fixed angle $\pi - \theta_c$. Expanding equation (\[A20a\]) in terms of the angle $\pi/2 - \theta_{min} = \alpha$, one gets $\Delta F_2 / b f_{int} \simeq \frac{2}{3} (\alpha^{3})$. For $\theta_{min} = 70^{\circ}$ ($\alpha = 20^{\circ}$) this leads to a barrier (in units of $k_B T$) of about $2.6$.
Actually, when $m_{coex} b H_b$ approaches $f_{int}$, then the angles where the minimum and maximum of the free energy occur, merge at $\theta = 90^{\circ}$ (c.f. figure \[fig13\] for $b H_b = 1.8$). However, already at a smaller field (keeping $b$ constant) the barrier caused by the free energy maximum, $\Delta F_{2}$ given by equation (\[A20a\]), will be small enough so that the second nucleation event by which the angle grows from $\theta_c$ to $\pi - \theta_c$ can take place. Note that the analytical formula for the barrier can also be extracted from equations (\[A17\]), (\[A19\]), and figure \[fig13\] shows that long before $\theta$ reaches $90^{\circ}$ it will be of order of a few $k_B T$ only. This argument also explains why the temperature dependence of the apparent angle (close to $70^{\circ}$) where the depinning transition occurs is rather weak (see Table I): the scale for the barrier is simply set by $b f_{int}$, and this quantity does not vary strongly with $T$ for the choices we have made. Thus when this barrier is small enough the instability that would occur for $\theta = 90^{\circ}$ (where $\theta_{min}$ and $\theta_{max}$ merge) is preempted by the jump of the angle $\theta$ from $\theta_{c}$ to $\pi - \theta_c$ .
[XXXX]{} $t$ & $f_{int}$ & $H_b^{max}$ & $\theta_{min}$ Eq.(\[A19\])\
0.30 & 1.92780 & 0.0354(2) & 69.5$^{\circ}$\
0.325 & 1.90190 & 0.0350(2) & 69.8$^{\circ}$\
0.350 & 1.87168 & 0.0339(2) & 67.5$^{\circ}$\
0.375 & 1.80873 & 0.0334(2) & 70.4$^{\circ}$\
0.3875 & 1.81848 & 0.0326(2) & 66.1$^{\circ}$\
0.4000 & 1.79873 & 0.0330(2) & 70.0$^{\circ}$\
0.425 & 1.75625 & 0.0315(2) & 66.2$^{\circ}$\
0.430 & 1.74728 & 0.0308(2) & 64.0$^{\circ}$\
0.440 & 1.72851 & 0.0304(2) & 63.8$^{\circ}$\
0.445 & 1.71954 & 0.0302(2) & 63.6$^{\circ}$\
On the other hand, one can change the height of the barrier by around one order of magnitude just by taking a fixed temperature ($ t = 0.4$), such as $f_{int} = 1.79873$, but varying the length of the inhomogeneity $13 \leq b \leq 101$. In this way an increment of the apparent angle of about $20^{\circ}$ is observed, as shown in Table II. It is also obvious from equation (\[A19\]) that solutions for $\theta_{min}$, corresponding to pinned droplets, exist only for $m_{coex} H_b b /f_{int} < 1$ : for larger fields droplet growth with time is not hindered by any barriers, after they have been nucleated.
[XXXX]{} $b$ & $b f_{int}$ & $H_b^{max}$ & $\theta_{min}$ Eq.(\[A19\])\
13 & 23.38346 & 0.110(5) & 52.7$^{\circ}$\
17 & 30.57838 & 0.088(3) & 55.8$^{\circ}$\
21 & 37.77329 & 0.075(3) & 61.1$^{\circ}$\
25 & 44.96820 & 0.062(2) & 59.5$^{\circ}$\
31 & 55.76057 & 0.051(2) & 61.5$^{\circ}$\
39 & 70.15039 & 0.040(2) & 60.1$^{\circ}$\
45 & 80.94276 & 0.036(2) & 64.2$^{\circ}$\
51 & 91.73513 & 0.033(2) & 70.0$^{\circ}$\
75 & 134.90475 & 0.023(2) & 73.5$^{\circ}$\
101 & 181.67173 & 0.017(2) & 72.7$^{\circ}$\
The smooth variation of $\theta$ from $\theta_c$ to $\pi - \theta_c$ with increasing droplet area as predicted by Lipowsky et al. [@66h; @67h; @68h] is a special consequence of the canonical ensemble, where the droplet volume (in $d = 3$) or the droplet area (in $d = 2$) is taken as a fixed independent variable. In contrast, only part of the variation is realizable as a metastability effect in the grandcanonical ensemble, where $H_b$ is given. According to the theory outlined above, metastable pinned droplets should exist only up to a “spinodal” where $\theta_{min} = \frac{\pi}{2}$. The spinodal field is then $H_b^{spin} = f_{int}/b m_{coex}$, such that $H_b^{spin} / H_b^{crit} = 1/sin(\theta_c)$ (see also equations (\[eqhaa\]) and (\[A19\])). However, it should be kept in mind that for systems with short-range interactions “spinodals” are a somewhat ill defined concept [@2h] and cannot be reached in practice. In the context of nucleation phenomena, the present case of a grandcanonical ensemble is the physically meaningful choice, of course.
For the understanding of the results observed in the simulations, it is hence crucial to consider the combined effects of the primary nucleation event of the wall-attached droplet and a further growth of this droplet.
We have made the hypothesis, that for this growth a “local equilibrium” assumption holds, in particular near the point where the droplet-vapor interface meets the substrate. This implies, for the case where the length $b_{drop}$ of the growing droplet still is less than $b$, that we have $\theta = \theta_c$ for the contact line of the growing droplet (see Figure \[FigA2\] in Appendix A, top panel). However, for droplets that have $b_{drop} > b$, we have $\theta = \pi - \theta_c$ (see Figure \[FigA2\] in Appendix A, lower panel). For fields $H_b < H_b^{spin} = f_{int}/(b m_{coex})$ metastable pinned droplets are predicted, and a barrier $\Delta F_2$ for the “depinning” of these droplets could be estimated (Equation (\[A20a\])). The actual limit of stability of metastable pinned droplets, as seen in Figures \[fig7\], \[fig8\], is somewhat smaller than $H_b^{spin}$: this happens because when the barrier $\Delta F_2$ is small, it can be overcome in a second nucleation event.
Of course, a perfect quantitative agreement of the predictions based on our phenomenological theory for pinned droplets with the corresponding simulation results should not be expected: (i) the mean-field like treatment of equations (\[eqang\])-(\[A19\]) disregards the huge statistical fluctuations that are present (Figure \[fig2\]), (ii) the anisotropy of the interfacial free energy should lead to some deviations of the shape of the pinned droplets from the circle cut, which should cause some systematic deviations from the free energy plotted in figure \[fig13\]. Also, the curvature of the interface may modify the effective surface tension.
Nucleation Kinetics and Droplet Growth.
=======================================
Already in earlier work on studies of homogeneous nucleation in bulk Ising models (see e.g. [@31h] for a recent review) it has been shown for conditions where the phase transformation is caused by nucleation and growth of a single droplet one needs to distinguish two very different time scales: The typical lifetime of the metastable state, which is then simply inversely proportional to the nucleation rate; and the time needed for the nucleated droplet to grow and essentially occupy the total volume of the simulation box. However, often these processes are somewhat confused by the crossover to the regime where during the phase transformation many droplets are nucleated in different parts of the system and the lifetime of the metastable state then is limited by this competitive growth of many droplets. This latter regime is dominant when the simulation volume is relatively large and $H_b$ is not so small, so nucleation becomes relatively easy [@2h].
In the present work, conditions were chosen such that homogeneous nucleation is not observable at all, and heterogeneous nucleation is restricted to the boundary region of length $b$. It then is rather straightforward to follow the growth of the single droplet (Figure \[fig11\]), and it turns out that the time intervals between the snapshots of the growing droplet are indeed very small in comparison with the nucleation times. In order to give further insight on the involved times as well as on the growing and nucleation process of the droplets, Figure \[fig14\] shows plots of the time evolution of both the total excess density $\Delta \rho$ due to the droplet (upper panel) and the linear density excess $\Delta \rho_{\bot}$ measured in the direction perpendicular to the wall just at the center of the droplet. Each curve is the average over several hundred individual time evolutions of the system.
![\[fig14\] a) Linear-log plot of the density [*versus*]{} time ($\tau$) as obtained for $t = 0.40$, $b = 51$, and different choices of the bulk field $H_b$, as indicated. The horizontal lower and upper double arrows indicate the average times required to achieve the metastable state and the nucleation time, $\tau_{MS} \simeq
10^4$ MCS, and $\tau_N \simeq 4\times 10^4$ MCS, respectively. Also, the vertical arrow shows a single growth event of an already nucleated droplet with a characteristic growth time given by $\tau_G \simeq 10^4$ MCS. Note that the fields $H_b$ included here are all slightly less than the predicted “spinodal” (ultimate stability limit) $H_{b}^{spin} \simeq 0.0353$: hence here droplet growth involves the second nucleation event, in which the (small) barrier $\Delta F_{2}$ is overcome (see Equation (\[A20a\]) and Figure \[fig13\]). b) Linear-log plot of the linear density as measured at the center of the sample and in the direction perpendicular to the wall ($\Delta \rho_{\bot}$) [*versus*]{} time as obtained for the same parameters as in (a). The horizontal double arrow shows the average time needed to cover the whole sample for $H_b = 0.034$ with the liquid phase, $\tau_{LP} \simeq 8 \times 10^5$ MCS. Averages were taken over $386$, $453$ and $318$ different realizations for $H_b = 0.030$, $H_b = 0.032$, and $H_b = 0.034$, respectively. More details in the text. ](Figure14.eps){width="10cm"}
In Figure \[fig14\](a) one can roughly estimate the average time required by the system to achieve the metastable state ($\tau_{MS}$), which for the case shown (i.e. $t = 0.40$ and $b = 51$) is $\tau_{MS} \simeq 10^{4}$ MCS. Choosing $H_b = 0.030$ no nucleation events are detected during the observation time ($\tau_{obs} = 10^6$), and the curve remains flat after achieving the metastable state. For $H_b = 0.032$ few nucleation events are detected, and each of them shows up as an upward step in the corresponding plot. The height of each individual step simply is the inverse of the number of runs, since in each run when nucleation has occurred the droplet grows fast (on the scale of $\tau_{N}$) to fill the available area. Here, one can estimate the typical growth time ($\tau_G$) required for each already nucleated droplet to expand over the whole sample, namely $\tau_G \simeq 10^4$ MCS. However, for $H_b = 0.034$ nucleation is dominant and one can estimate $\tau_N \simeq 4\times 10^4$ (also by discounting $\tau_{MS}$ one can get $\tau_N \simeq 3\times 10^4$ MCS). On the other hand, the time evolution of the density per unit length as measured in the direction perpendicular to the sample (Figure \[fig14\](b)), which shows the development of the droplet in that direction, is fully consistent with the above discussed scenario. Furthermore, here one can also estimate the average time elapsed between the onset of nucleation and the achievement of a full liquid phase covering the whole sample, $\tau_{LP} \simeq 8\times 10^5$ MCS. Note that this averaged time results from the contribution of many growing events of already nucleated droplets, occurring at different times over a wide time interval, (actually 318 events for $H_b = 0.034$) each of them having a short lifetime of the order of $\tau_G \simeq 10^4$ MCS, as already discussed.
The individual nucleation events seen in figure \[fig14\] actually all relate to overcoming the barrier $\Delta F_2$ discussed in Figure \[fig13\], since the fields $H_b$ all are slightly below the stability limit $H_b^{spin}$.
For a more quantitative analysis, we have also recorded both the nucleation time distribution ($P(\tau_N)$) and the growth time distribution ($P(\tau_G)$) for the case $t = 0.40$, $b = 51$, and for different choices of $H_b$, as shown in Figures \[fig15\] (a) and (b), respectively.
These choices all refer to $H_b > H_b^{spin}$, and hence for them the barrier $\Delta F_2$ does no longer occur. A simple comparison of both figures indicates that the characteristic times, as estimated from the location of the peaks of the distributions, are roughly of the same order for larger fields ($H_b \ge 0.08$), while $\tau_N > \tau_G$ in the opposite limit. In fact, figure \[fig16\] (a) shows the monotonic increase of the ratio $\tau_G / \tau_N$ when it is plotted [*versus*]{} $H_b$, spanning the range $0.25 \leq \tau_G / \tau_N \leq 1$.
2.00cm
1.00cm
Also, Figure \[fig16\] (b) shows a plot of $\tau_N$ [*versus*]{} $1/H_b$. Nucleation theory predicts $$\label{eqtau}
ln(\tau_N) \propto \frac{\Delta F^{*}}{k_B T} = \frac{\pi}{2} f_{int}^{2}
\frac{1} {\Big(\rho^{\rm coex}_\ell - \rho^{\rm coex}_v \Big) H_{b}}
\frac{f_{VT}}{k_B T}
\quad .$$ However, the curvature of the log-linear plot indicates that only part of the chosen region of fields is in the regime where the barrier due to the heterogeneous nucleation on the inhomogeneity controls the kinetic exclusively; in fact, when $H_b$ approaches $H_b^{spin}$ a slowing down related to the barrier $\Delta F_2$ that occurs for $H_b < H_b^{spin}$ may be present. The best fit of the data of Figure \[fig16\] (b), within the linear regime, yields $\frac{\Delta F^{*} H_b }{k_B T} = 0.111 $. This number is smaller than the theoretical expectation given by $ \frac{\pi}{2} f_{int}^{2} \frac{1} {\Big(\rho^{\rm coex}_\ell - \rho^{\rm coex}_v \Big)} \frac{f_{VT}}{k_B T}$ (see equation (\[eqtau\])), obtained by taking $f_{int} = 1.7987$ [@46h], which yields $\frac{\Delta F^{*} H_b }{k_B T} = 0.231$ for $\theta_c = 34^{\circ}$ in the Volmer-Turnbull factor (Equation (\[A15\])). It is a subtle issue to understand where this discrepancy of about a factor two in the effective barrier height comes from. On inmediate thought concerns the curvature dependence of the interfacial free energy $f_{int}(R)$. In $d = 2$ there is evidence from field theoretical calculations [@x1], Monte Carlo simulations of cluster-size distributions [@x2], and analysis of the two-phase coexistence [@x3] that $$\frac{f_{int}(R)}{f_{int}(\infty)} = 1 + \frac{5}{4\pi f_{int}(\infty)} \frac{\ln(R)}{R} +
\frac{const}{R} \quad ,$$ where the constant in the last term on the right-hand side is non-universal, while the prefactor $ \frac{5}{4\pi}$ of the logarithmic term is universal. If only this correction would be taken into account, the interfacial tension be enhanced by a factor $1 + 0.221 \frac{\ln(R)}{R}$, which for typical values of $R$ (e.g. $R = 16$) is an enhancement of about $4\%$. Neither the magnitude nor the sign of this effect can account for the observed discrepancy. Actually a more plausible assumption is that our estimate of the contact angle $\theta_c$ and hence the factor $f_{VT}(\theta_c)$ is an overestimate. Since $f_{VT}(\theta_c) \approx \frac{4}{3 \pi} \theta^3$ a decrease of $\theta_c$ by a few degrees already suffies to reduce $f_{VT}(\theta_c)$ by a factor of two, e.g. $f_{VT}(27^{\circ})/f_{VT}(34^{\circ}) \simeq 0.51$. Moreover the equation for $f_{VT}(\theta_c)$ holds only for circle-cut shaped droplets, and the effect of anisotropy cuasing somewhat non-circular shapes (see figure \[FigA1\] in the Appendix A) of the droplet on $f_{VT}(\theta_c)$ still needs to be clarified. Also, the curvature of the plot shown in figure \[fig16\] b) may be taken as an indication that it is questionable whether the asymptotic region where the theory holds has been reached. Thus clearly the conclusion emerges that in spite of the simplicity of the Ising model still more work is needed to understand there heterogeneous nucleation quantitatively.
Figure \[fig16\] c) shows a log-log plot of $\tau_G$ [*versus*]{} $H_b$ to show that the growth time $\tau_G$ scales inversely with $H_b$, as expected. On the other hand, figure \[fig17\] shows log-linear plots of $P(\tau_N)$ [*versus* ]{} $\tau_N$, for different choices of the length of the inhomogeneity $b$ and the bulk field $H_b$, demonstrating an exponential distribution for the long times, as theoretically expected [@35h; @54h].
Of course, it would be interesting to explore the kinetics of heterogeneous nucleation systematically for a wide range of $b$, but due to excessive needs for computer time this has not been attempted. So, we have only studied one other choice, $b = 25$. For $b = 25$ one has $H_b^{spin}/J \simeq 0.060$, so the measurements performed slightly above $H_b^{spin}$ indicate that $\tau_N$ depends strongly on $H_b$, and decrease for larger values of $H_b$, as expected. The fact that $\tau_N$ for $b= 51$ and $H_b/J = 0.034$ is smaller than for the case $b = 25$ and $H_b/J = 0.064$ means that one has smaller nucleation times for larger inhomogeneities, since the larger the inhomogeneity is, the less tendency is found that the nucleated droplet gets pinned.
Conclusions.
============
In this work, we have considered the effect of a chemical inhomogeneity on heterogeneous nucleation on a flat substrate. As a generic case, we have considered the simple Ising lattice gas system in $d=2$ dimensions, where the flat substrate is just a straight line, and the chemical inhomogeneity is represented by a positive boundary field $H_{w3}$ (favoring the liquid phase of the lattice gas) acting on a part of this line of length $b$, while in the remaining part of this lower boundary of the system a boundary field $H_{w2} = - H_{w3}$ is applied favoring the vapor phase of the lattice gas. For the Monte Carlo simulations of our model, we choose a boundary with finite length $M$ and periodic boundary condition in the direction parallel to this boundary, while in the direction perpendicular to this boundary a finite linear dimension $L$ is used, and at the upper boundary a negative field $H_{w1} = H_{w2}/4$ acts, to stabilize the vapor as a bulk phase of the system in the absence of a bulk field, $H_b = 0$. For conditions of partial wetting, the density inhomogeneity in the lattice gas caused by the chemical inhomogeneity then extends only over a distance of the order of one lattice spacing, for $H_b = 0$ (Fig.\[fig3\] a)). However, when a small field $H_b > 0$ is applied, the vapor phase chosen as the initial state of the system becomes metastable, and the structure of the density inhomogeneity caused by the chemical inhomogeneity, Figs. \[fig3\]-\[fig9\], as well as the decay rate of the metastable state due to nucleation of a boundary-attached droplet and its growth Figs. \[fig10\]-\[fig16\], are the subjects of investigation. Conditions are chosen such that neither homogeneous nucleation in the bulk nor nucleation starting in the boundary regions favoring the vapor phase can ever be observed.
We perform for each choice of temperature, width $b$ of the chemical inhomogeneity, and fields $H_b$, many hundred equivalent Monte Carlo runs, differing by the pseudorandom numbers used to realize the time evolution of the Monte Carlo sampling process. By using over $20 \times 10^6$ Monte Carlo steps (MCS) per site, we are able to reliably estimate various relaxations times and their distributions (Figs. \[fig15\]-\[fig17\]) over $6$ decades of time. The initial stages of the relaxation process are characterized by the equilibration of the metastable state, after the field $H_b$ has been switched on at time $\tau = 0$, taking a time $\tau_{MS}$. If $H_b$ is small enough, e.g. $H_b \leq 0.030$ for the choice $t=0.40$, $b=51$, no decay of the metastable state is observed, which implies that the nucleation time $\tau_N$ exceeds the observation time $\tau_{obs}$.
If we would study heterogeneous nucleation on a chemically homogeneous boundary of linear dimension $M$, the nucleation time (for the regime of fields where single-droplet nucleation matters) would be related to the nucleation rate $J^{het}$ by $\tau_N = (M J^{het})^{-1})$. When a nucleation event has occurred, it takes a time $\tau_G$ for the critical droplet to grow until the whole (finite) system has transformed; only when $\tau_N \gg \tau_G$ is the phase transformation triggered by single nuclei the dominant process. In the regime where $\tau_N$ and $\tau_G$ are comparable the simultaneous growth of multiple nucleated droplets needs to be considered, making separate estimations of $\tau_N$ and $\tau_G$ difficult. By choosing our geometry with a chemical inhomogeneity, we extend the regime where the transformation triggered by single nuclei is the dominant process: note that the baseline of the critical droplet is $b_{drop}^{\ast} = 2 R^{\ast} \sin(\theta_c)$, where $R^{\ast}$ is the critical droplet radius and $\theta_c$ the contact angle, assuming droplets of circle-cut shape; only when $b_{drop} \ll b$, phase transformations affected by nucleation of multiple droplets and their competitive growth could matter. The detailed analysis of our observed phase transformation events has allowed us a separate analysis of the distributions of $\tau_N$ and $\tau_G$; as theoretically expected, the growth rate of supercritical droplets is proportional to $H_b$, and hence $\tau_G \propto 1/H_b$ (Fig. \[fig16\]c) ), while $\tau_N$ varies exponentially with $1/H_b$, $\ln \tau_N \propto 1/H_b$ (Fig.\[fig16\]b)), as expected from nucleation theory in $d=2$ dimensions. Unfortunately, only a very small range of $H_b$, much less than a decade (Fig.\[fig16\] b)), is available when the time scales for nucleation and growth are well separated.
Very interesting behavior was found for the metastable regime, where during observation time $\tau_{obs}$ no phase transformation occurs. On general grounds one can predict that then the chemical inhomogeneity causes an excess density $ \Delta \rho$ in the system, which exhibits a scaling behavior $ \Delta \rho = b^2 \tilde{M}(t, bH_b)$, Eq.(\[eqhqyq\]), the effective droplet height $h_{eff}/b$ similarly is a function of the product $b H_b$ only (Fig. \[fig3\] c)), as well as the effective contact angle $\theta_{eff}$ (Fig. \[fig7\] b)). We hence identified two regimes: for very small values of $H_b$ such that $b_{drop} > b$, nucleation of droplets with the contact angle $\theta_c$ “ preferred “ by the chemical inhomogeneity still is geometrically impossible, it does not matter how large observation times are chosen. In fact, in this regime critical droplets would have the shape as shown in Fig. \[FigA2\] (lower part), their baseline $b_{drop}$ extending beyond $b$ and the contact angle being $\pi - \theta_c$, but the corresponding nucleation barriers correspond to astronomically large nucleation times, and hence are of no interest here. In this regime, thermal fluctuations allow only the occasional formation of subcritical nuclei with $R < R^{\ast}$, of circle cut shape with contact angle $\theta_c$. Thus the average effect of such fluctuations is measured by the scaling function $\tilde{M}(t, b H_b)$ for $H_b < H_b^{crit}$, where $H_b^{crit}$ can be estimated as $H_b^{crit} = \sin(\theta_c) f_{int}/(b m_{coex})$, when we ignore anisotropy effects on the interfacial tension in the lattice gas model. In any cases $H_b^{crit}$ is the smallest field where a droplet with the correct contact angle $\theta_c$ fits to the chemical inhomogeneity. For $H_b^{crit} < H_b < H_b^{spin}$ we may encounter pinned droplets, having a baseline of length $b$, with contact angles exceeding the equilibrium value, $\theta_c < \theta < \pi/2$ (cf. Fig. \[FigA2\]). Assuming that these droplets still have circle cut shape, we have predicted that these droplets become unstable for $H_b^{spin} = f_{int}/(b m_{coex})$, and we have obtained an approximation for $\tilde{M}(t, bH_b)$ in this regime (Figure \[fig9\] a)). Note that further growth of the droplets with baseline $b_{drop} > b$ requires that the contact angle grows up to $\pi - \theta_c$, and in the regime $H_b^{crit} < H_b < H_b^{spin}$ this is hindered by a free energy barrier $\Delta F_2$, see Figure \[fig13\] and Equation (\[A20a\]). Since this barrier is only of the order of a few $k_BT$ when $\theta$ has reached about $70^{\circ}$, pinned droplets with $70^{\circ} < \theta < \pi/2$ actually were not observed; droplets with a shape as sketched in the lower part of Figure \[FigA2\] then appear in a second nucleation event, and grow to complete the phase transformation. So the actual limit of metastability $H_b^{max}$ of pinned droplets is somewhat smaller than $H_b^{spin}$, e.g. (for $b = 51$) $H_b^{max} b \simeq 1.71$ while $H_b^{spin} b \simeq 1.7987$.
![\[fignew\] See figure caption below.](Figure18a.eps "fig:"){width="6cm" height="5cm"} ![\[fignew\] See figure caption below.](Figure18b.eps "fig:"){width="7cm" height="8cm"} ![\[fignew\] See figure caption below.](Figure18c.eps "fig:"){width="5cm" height="7cm"} ![\[fignew\] See figure caption below.](Figure18d.eps "fig:"){width="5cm" height="5cm"}
Figure \[fignew\] Caption. Sketches summarizing qualitatively the different regions of wall-attached droplets for the case of an inhomogeneity of linear extension $b$ identified in this work. Case a) shows the range where the bulk field $H_b$ is very small, namely $H_b < H_b^{crit}$, ( $H_b^{crit} = f_{int}sin(\theta_c)/(b m_{coex}$)). Then the critical droplet having a contact angle $\theta_c$ would require a baseline larger than $b$, since then $R^*$ exceeds $b/(2 sin(\theta_c))$, see the case $H_b = 0.030$ in part d). No nucleation then is possible, and due to the average effect of subcritical droplets a density excess $\Delta \rho \propto b \xi_{\bot}$ occurs on the inhomogeneity. Case b) shows the regime $H_b^{crit} < H_b < H_b^{spin}$ ($H_b^{spin} = f_{int}/(b m_{coex}$)), where critical droplets of radius $R^*$ and contact angle $\theta_c$ with baseline $b_{drop}^* < b$ are nucleated, and their radius grows until their baseline is equal to $b$. Then these droplets can lower their free energy further by increasing their contact angle from $\theta_c$ to $\theta_{min}$. These metastable pinned droplets are characterized by $sin(\theta_{min}) = m_{coex} H_b b/f_{int}$. The case $H_b = 0.075$ in part d) illustrate the corresponding $\Delta F(R)$ in the regime where $\theta = \theta_c$. Case c) shows the behavior for $H_b^{spin} < H_b$, e.g. the case $H_b = 0.20$ in part d), where the critical droplet nucleates with contact angle $\theta_c$ has such a small radius $R^*$ and corresponding baseline, that after growth to the baseline $b$ the increase of the contact angle is no longer pinned, and when the contact angle $\pi - \theta_c$ has been reached, the droplet can grow further with this contact angle and increasing thereby its contact line $b_{drop}(\tau)$ beyond $b$ with increasing time. Thus, the two critical fields $H_b^{crit}$ and $H_b^{spin}$ simply correspond to the cases $R^* = b/(2 sin(\theta_c))$ and $R^* = b/2$, respectively. Note that in panel c) the length of the inhomogeneity in the upper sketch was taken a factor two larger than in the medium and lower sketches for the sake of clarity. Panel d) shows plots of the excess free energy relative to the wall without droplet $\Delta F(R)$ [*vs*]{} $R$ (see equation (\[A12\]), as obtained for different fields corresponding to the regimes shown in panels a)-c). Theoretical curves are obtained by taken $\theta_c = 35^{\circ}$ and $f_{int} = 1.7987$ in order to illustrate the expected behavior for $t = 0.40$. The chosen fields are then suitable to describe the case of an inhomogeneity of extension $b = 21$, such that $b/(2 sin(\theta_c)) = 18.31$, see the vertical dashed line. The values of $R^*$ corresponding to the selected fields are shown along the horizontal axis. More details in the text.
Thus, an unexpectedly rich behavior concerning nucleation at a chemically inhomogeneous substrate has been found within the context of the grandcanonical ensemble used in our calculations (i.e. when the pressure of the fluid or equivalently the magnetic field of the Ising model is given as a control parameter). We have shown that this scenario differs from that corresponding to the canonical ensemble (i.e. when the volume in $d = 3$ or the area in $d = 2$ of the droplets is taken as a control parameter). In order to acquaint the reader with a clear description of the relevant findings reported in this paper, we have summarized and discussed our results in figure \[fignew\]. In this way we addressed the relevant regimes encuntered in our study performed in the framework of the grandcanonical ensemble: a) The regime $H_b < H_b^{crit}$ where no nucleation is possible. b) The regime $H_b^{crit} < H_b < H_b^{spin}$, where the droplet grows with contact angle $\theta_c$ until its baseline matches the length of the inhomogeneity, and then subsequently grows by keeping its baseline constant but increasing the contact angle. Finally, the regime c) corresponds to larger fields $H_b > H_b^{spin}$ that lie beyond the stability limit, so that the droplets can grow with baseline larger than the length of the inhomogeneity and contact angle $\pi - \theta_c$. Furthermore, all these three regimes are properly identified with the corresponding free energy functions $F(R)$ shown in panel d) of figure \[fignew\].
![\[FigA1\] The full line shows the shape of the droplet given by the equation (\[A6\]), while the dashed line shows the inscribed circle of radius $R_{in}$ given by equation (\[A7\]) and evaluated at $t = T/T_{cb} = 0.40$, i.e. $R_{in} = 1.98094$. The horizontal dashed-dotted line shows the location of the circle cut line placed at a distance $y^{*}_{cut}/R_{in} = cos(\theta_c)$ from the origin. The contact angle of the droplet at the intersection between the circle and the cut line, which is the angle that the droplet makes with the substrate, is also shown (notice that $\theta_c = 35^{\circ}$ has been the choice in this example). ](Figure19.eps){width="14cm"}
![\[FigA2\] Sketches of droplets corresponding to the three relevant regimes considered by Lipowsky et al. [@66h; @67h; @68h], conveniently adapted to our two-dimensional case, namely: I) $b_{drop} < b$ (upper panel); II) $b_{drop} = b$ (medium panel); and III) $b_{drop} > b$ (lower panel), where $b_{drop}$ is the baseline of the droplet in contact with the substrate, $b$ is the length of the heterogeneity, and $\theta_c$ is the contact angle. More details in the text. ](Figure20a.eps "fig:"){width="7cm" height="4cm"} ![\[FigA2\] Sketches of droplets corresponding to the three relevant regimes considered by Lipowsky et al. [@66h; @67h; @68h], conveniently adapted to our two-dimensional case, namely: I) $b_{drop} < b$ (upper panel); II) $b_{drop} = b$ (medium panel); and III) $b_{drop} > b$ (lower panel), where $b_{drop}$ is the baseline of the droplet in contact with the substrate, $b$ is the length of the heterogeneity, and $\theta_c$ is the contact angle. More details in the text. ](Figure20b.eps "fig:"){width="7cm" height="4cm"} ![\[FigA2\] Sketches of droplets corresponding to the three relevant regimes considered by Lipowsky et al. [@66h; @67h; @68h], conveniently adapted to our two-dimensional case, namely: I) $b_{drop} < b$ (upper panel); II) $b_{drop} = b$ (medium panel); and III) $b_{drop} > b$ (lower panel), where $b_{drop}$ is the baseline of the droplet in contact with the substrate, $b$ is the length of the heterogeneity, and $\theta_c$ is the contact angle. More details in the text. ](Figure20c.eps "fig:"){width="7cm" height="4cm"}
![\[figB1\] Geometrical description used to construct a spherical cap droplet, where $\theta$ is the angle that the droplet makes with the substrate. More details in the text. ](Figure21.eps){width="14cm"}
![\[figB2\] Comparison of the free energy barrier of the depinning transition of pinned droplets for the two- and the three-dimensional cases shown in panels a) and b), respectively. For $d = 3$ we assume $b = 2 r$, see figure \[figB1\]. The left ordinate scales refer to the scaled free energy barrier and the right scales refer to $h/r$, respectively. More details in the text. ](Figure22a.eps "fig:"){width="6cm"} ![\[figB2\] Comparison of the free energy barrier of the depinning transition of pinned droplets for the two- and the three-dimensional cases shown in panels a) and b), respectively. For $d = 3$ we assume $b = 2 r$, see figure \[figB1\]. The left ordinate scales refer to the scaled free energy barrier and the right scales refer to $h/r$, respectively. More details in the text. ](Figure22b.eps "fig:"){width="6cm"}
Heterogeneous nucleation on homogeneous and chemically inhomogeneous substrates: Phenomenological Theory.
=========================================================================================================
We consider here a fluid in $d = 2$ dimensions exposed to a (one-dimensional) flat wall, under conditions of partial wetting. For simplicity, we shall consider explicitly only the nearest-neighbor lattice gas (Ising) model and the wall is then oriented along the $x-$direction of the lattice; the Ising spins adjacent to this wall then have a row of missing neighbors but experience a surface field $H_{w3}$ chosen such that the liquid phase of the lattice gas model is favored; unlike Figure \[fig1\] we consider first the case where this boundary field is homogeneous independent of the coordinate $x$. In the semi-infinite system at zero bulk field $H_b = 0$, the vapor phase can be stable (due to a suitable boundary field at $y = L \rightarrow \infty$), and near the boundary where $H_{w3}$ acts only a liquid film of the average thickness of order $\xi_{\bot}$ is stabilized; $\xi_{\bot}$is the perpendicular correlation length of the wetting transition, and in the regime of partial wetting this is a microscopic length, i.e. of the order of the lattice spacing in the lattice gas model.
Note that in the grandcanonical ensemble (temperature $T$ and bulk field $H_b$ chosen as control variables) liquid droplets in full thermal equilibrium can exist neither in the bulk nor attached to the wall, even if a nonzero bulk field favoring the liquid phase is switched on. However, metastable droplets can exist only for a finite “lifetime”, and we shall address this case using concepts of the theory of heterogeneous nucleation. Thus, it is useful to recall that stable liquid droplets of macroscopic size do exist when we consider the canonical ensemble, choosing the density of the vapor $\rho$ in between the density of coexisting vapor ($\rho_v$) and liquid ($\rho_{\it l}$) phases. The area fraction of the liquid then is given by the lever rule, $X = (\rho - \rho_v)/(\rho_{\it l} - \rho_v)$, and the shape of the liquid domain does depend on the choice of boundary conditions. In our case, for small $X$ we obtain a wall attached droplet having the shape of a circle cut with baseline $b_{drop}$ given in terms of the droplet radius $R$ and contact angle $\theta_c$ by $$\label{A1}
b_{drop} = 2 R sin (\theta_c)$$ and the contact angle for an isotropic interface tension $f_{int}$ between the coexisting vapor and liquid phases is given by Youngs equation, namely $$\label{A2}
f_{int} cos(\theta_c) = f_{wv} - f_{w{\it l}} \quad ,$$ where $f_{wv}$, $f_{w{\it l}}$ are the surface excess free energy densities of the vapor phase ($f_{wv}$) and liquid phase ($f_{w{\it l}}$) due to the wall. Actually, Equation (\[A2\]) is valid for a fluid in continuous space, but not for the lattice gas model, where the interface tension $f_{int}(\theta)$ depends on the angle $\theta$ between the interface normal and the $x$ axis of the lattice. Then Equation (\[A2\]) needs to be replaced by $$\label{A3}
f_{int}(\theta_c) cos(\theta_c) - sin(\theta_c) \frac{df_{int}(\theta_c)}{d\theta_c}|_{\theta = \theta_c} = f_{wv} - f_{w{\it l}} \quad .$$
While in the isotropic case straightforward geometric considerations yield the area ($A$) of the circle cut as $$\label{A4}
A = R^{2} (\theta_c -\frac{1}{2} sin(2 \theta_c)) = \frac{1}{4} b_{drop}^{2} (\frac{\theta_c}{sin^{2}(\theta_c)} -\frac{cos(\theta_c)}{sin(\theta_c)}) \quad ,$$ and the length of the vapor-liquid interface line is $$\label{A5}
{\it l}_{{\it l}v} = 2 R \theta_c = b_{drop} \frac{\theta_c}{sin(\theta_c)} \quad ,$$ finding the droplet shape for the anisotropic case is less straightforward.
In the bulk this problem is solved in terms of the well known Wulff construction, which for the $d = 2$ Ising model can be worked out explicitly, and the shape of the droplet is given by the equation [@60h; @61h] $$\label{A6}
cosh(\tilde x) + cosh(\tilde y) = cosh(2J/k_B T)/tanh(2J/k_B T) \quad ,$$ where $\tilde x$ and $\tilde y$ are the $x, y$ coordinates of the curve describing the droplet shape. Equation (\[A6\]) interpolates smoothly between a square shape (for $T \rightarrow 0$) and a circle (for $T \rightarrow T_{cb}$). When we inscribe a circle that touches the actual shape at $\tilde x = 0$ and at $\tilde y = 0$, it has a radius $R_{in}$ given by $$\label{A7}
R_{in} = arcosh [cosh(2J/k_B T)/tanh(2J/k_B T) -1 ] \quad .$$ As an example we hence plotted Equation (\[A6\]), in figure \[FigA1\], together with the inscribed circle of radius $R_{in}$ evaluated at $t = T/T_{cb} = 0.40$, since for this choice of the reduced temperature most of our simulations were made. We found that the deviations from the spherical shape are already rather minor, and this justifies our neglect of these anisotropy effects, at least as a first approximation. The solution of Equation (\[A6\]), reduces to the equation of a circle near $T_{cb}$, where $\tilde x \rightarrow 0$ and $\tilde y \rightarrow 0$ and hence $$\label{A8}
\tilde x^2 + \tilde y^2 = 2 cosh(2J/k_B T)/tanh(2J/k_B T) - 4 \quad ,$$ recalling that $cosh(2J/k_B T_{cb}) = 2^\frac{1}{2}$, $sinh(2J/k_B T_{cb}) = 1$, and hence $R_{in} \rightarrow 0$ as well. The solution for the wall-attached droplet then is given by the Winterbotton construction [@62h], i.e. we have to cut the droplet shown in figure \[FigA1\] by an horizontal straight line such that the angle of the tangent is $\theta_c$ as given by Equation (\[A3\]). The linear dimensions $\tilde y_{cut}$ and $R_{in}$ then follow from the condition that the area above the cut yields the desired area fraction $X$.
However, for the sake of simplicity we shall ignore these anisotropy effects in the following, working with droplets of circular shape only. But even then there is one fundamental problem: there is no physical reason for the $x-$coordinate of the center of mass of the droplet to coincide with the origin of the coordinate system. In fact, this center of mass coordinate can be anywhere on the $x-$axis when the boundary field is homogeneous, independent of $x$. Even in the inhomogeneous case the droplets are only on average centered in the middle of the inhomogeneity, as e.g. can be qualitatively observed in the snapshots of Figure \[fig2\]. This fact creates a translational entropy contribution $k_B T ln(M)$ for the droplet, where $1 \le x \le M$ in our finite lattice of length $M$ in the homogeneous case. Similar translational entropy contributions are known to hamper the numerical study of interfacial free energies [@64h; @65h]. Thus, in a straightforward simulation study of the present problem the droplet would diffuse along the $x-$axis and its density profile $\rho(x,y)$ would be completely smeared out, until only the average translationally invariant density profile $\rho_{av}(y)$ is left, containing little information on the droplet. Thus a “demon” would be needed to constrain the sampling of configurations such, that in each microstate of the system that is sampled the droplet center of mass has its $x-$coordinate in the origin. Practical implementation of such a constraint is not completely trivial, since the size and the shape of the droplet due to their nanoscale dimensions is strongly fluctuating (c.f. figure \[fig2\]).
We now consider the main subject of interest of the present paper, namely a boundary condition of the type shown in Figure \[fig1\], where the surface field $H_{w3}$ acts only over a distance $b$ along the $x-$axis, while in the remaining boundary a field $H_{w2} = -|H_{w3}|$ acts, and hence the contact angle $\theta^{'}_{c} = \pi - \theta_{c}$ applies.
In $d = 3$ dimensions in the canonical ensemble, this situation has already been considered by Lipowsky et al. [@66h; @67h; @68h]. They pointed out that three regimes need to be distinguished, namely: (I) $b_{drop} < b$; (II) $b_{drop} = b$; and (III) $b_{drop} > b$, see Figure \[FigA2\] adapted to our $d = 2$ dimensional case. Here the area $A$ of the wall attached droplet is the control parameter that is varied: For sufficiently small area taken by the liquid baseline $b_{drop}$ that will result from $A$ and $\theta_c$ via Equation (\[A4\]) will be in the regime I, and the $x-$coordinate of the center of mass of the droplet can be anywhere in the interval from $x = -(b-b_{drop})/2$ to $x = +(b-b_{drop})/2$. Unlike Lipowsky et al. [@66h; @67h; @68h] we do not assume that the droplet is exactly centered at $x = 0$, the center of the inhomogeneity of the wall, which is our origin. This center certainly is the most probable position, but there will be a broad probability distribution for this center of mass coordinate, and when we consider the average density profile $\rho(x,y)$ obtained by convoluting the density profile of the droplet with baseline $b_{drop}$ and contact angle $\theta_c$ with this probability distribution, a density distribution $\rho_{ave}(x,y)$ must result that is considerably flattened in comparison with $\rho(x,y)$. From $\rho_{ave}(x,y)$ one would obtain an effective contact angle $\theta_c^{eff}$ that clearly will be much smaller than the correct one, if $b_{drop} \ll b$. This entropic effect was disregarded by Lipowsky et al. [@66h; @67h; @68h], but clearly must be present in our simulations and thus hampers their interpretation. It is tempting to associate the small values of $\theta_{eff}$ in figures \[fig6\] and \[fig7\] observed for ${\it l}_{eff} < b$ with this flattened profiles due to the fluctuations in the center of mass position of small wall-attached droplets.
The most interesting situations of course, are found when $b_{drop}$ as given by Equations (\[A1\]), (\[A4\]) has reached the value $b_{drop} = b$: then the prediction is that further increase of $A$ does not cause a further growth of $b_{drop}$. Rather, what happens is a growth of the contact angle $\theta$ of the droplet from the value $\theta_c$ given by the Young’s equation to a larger value, satisfying an equation analogous to Equation (\[A4\]), namely $$\label{A9}
A = \frac{1}{4} b^{2} (\frac{\theta}{sin^{2}(\theta)} -\frac{cos(\theta)}{sin(\theta)} ) \quad ,
\theta_c < \theta < \theta_c^{'} \quad .$$ Thus in a sense the interface between liquid and vapor is pinned at the points $x = \pm b/2$ when $A$ has increased up to the value where Equation (\[A9\]) yields $\theta = \theta_c^{'}$ ($= \pi - \theta_c$, in our case), depinning of the interface from the inhomogeneities of the boundary occurs, and $\theta$ stays at $\theta_c^{'}$, while $b_{drop} > b$. Again Lipowsky et al. [@66h; @67h; @68h] have assumed that the $x-$coordinate of the center of mass of the droplet is at $x = 0$, but we maintain that again fluctuations will occur. However, the region $b_{drop}$ in between the two contact points of the interface will always encompass the region of the inhomogeneity, from $x = -b/2$ to $x = +b/2$, and the average position of the center of mass of the droplet will hence have $x-$coordinate $x = 0$.
When we now turn to the description in the grandcanonical ensemble, we note that a correspondence to the droplet configurations discussed for the canonical ensemble can exist only when the droplet configurations in the grandcanonical ensemble are still metastable.
For the problem without boundary inhomogeneity we have the standard problem of heterogeneous nucleation at the wall. The free energy cost of the forming droplet is written as the excess free energy relative to the wall without droplet, namely $$\label{A10}
\Delta F_{drop} = -2 m_{coex} H_b A + \Delta F_{int}$$ where $m_{coex}$ is the spontaneous magnetization of the Ising model, and $A$ is given by Equation (\[A4\]) and $\Delta F_{int}$ becomes, $$\label{A11}
\Delta F_{int} = 2 R f_{int} \theta_c + (f_{wl} - f_{wv}) 2 R sin(\theta_c) =
2 f_{int} R[\theta_c - \frac{1}{2} sin(2 \theta_c)] \quad ,$$ where Equation (\[A2\]) was used. Equations (\[A10\]) and (\[A11\]) yield $$\label{A12}
\Delta F_{drop} = [\theta_c - \frac{1}{2} sin(2 \theta_c)][- 2 m_{coex} H_b R^{2} + 2 f_{int} R].$$
Minimizing $\Delta F_{drop}$ with respect to $R$ yields $$\label{A13}
R^{*} = f_{int} / (2 m_{coex} H_b) \quad , \Delta F^{*}_{het} = \Delta F^{*}_{homo} f_{VT} (\theta_c) \quad ,$$ where $\Delta F^{*}_{homo}$ is the standard result for the free energy barrier against homogeneous nucleation in $d = 2$ dimensions $$\label{A14}
\Delta F^{*}_{homo} = \frac{\pi}{2} f_{int}^{2} /(m_{coex} H_b) \quad ,$$ and $ f_{VT} (\theta_c)$ is the analog of the well-known Volmer-Turnbull function in $d = 2$ dimensions, given by $$\label{A15}
f_{VT} (\theta_c) = \frac{1}{\pi} [\theta_c - \frac{1}{2} sin(2 \theta_c)] \quad .$$
Note that $f_{VT} (\theta_c) \approx \frac{2}{3 \pi} \theta_c^{3}$ for $\theta_c \rightarrow 0$, when complete wetting begins. It turns out, of course, that use of $R^{*} = f_{int} / (2 m_{coex} H_b) $ in Equation (\[A1\]) yields $b_{drop} \ll b$ only for rather large fields. All the data where the metastable droplets are encountered do not fall in this regime, as expected.
Pinned droplets: Comparing the two- and the three-dimensional cases.
====================================================================
While the numerical simulation work exclusively has addressed the case of a two-dimensional system with a one-dimensional boundary where the positive surface field (favoring the liquid phase of the lattice gas) acts on a length $b$, it is also instructive to consider the three-dimensional case, where the positive surface field acts on a circular heterogeneity with radius $r$. For the sake of clarity, the geometry of the pinned droplet is sketched in Figure \[figB1\].
The radius of curvature of the sphere-cap shaped droplet is $R$. Then
$$\label{PD1}
r = R sin (\theta), \quad h = R(1 - cos(\theta)) \quad ,$$
where it is convenient to express all quantities in terms of the height $h$ of the droplet above the substrate. The angle $\theta$ that the droplet makes with the substrate can be in the range
$$\label{DP2}
\theta_c \leq \theta \leq \pi - \theta_c \quad ,$$
where $\theta_c$ is the contact angle given by Young’s equation. Notice that only for angles in the quoted range droplets with basal radius $r$ exist; however, only for $\theta \leq \pi/2$ such droplets are metastable, while for $\pi /2 \leq \theta \leq \pi - \theta_c$ they are unstable.
Now the volume of the sphere cap is
$$\label{DP3}
V = \frac{\pi h}{6} (3 r^2 + h^2) \quad ,$$
also the basis surface is $\pi r^2$, while the upper surface is
$$\label{DP4}
A_u = \pi (r^2 + h^2) \quad .$$
So, the free energy difference of the droplet of height $h$ relative to a disk-shaped droplet of radius $r$ and height $h = 0$ is (the choice of this reference state is arbitrary, of course)
$$\label{DP5}
\Delta F = f_{int} A_u - 2 m_{coex} H_b V \quad ,$$
where $H_b$ is the bulk field. Then, by using Equations (\[DP3\]) and (\[DP4\]) one obtains
$$\label{DP6}
\Delta F = f_{int} \pi (r^2 + h^2) - m_{coex} H_b \frac{\pi}{3} h (3 r^2 + h^2) \quad .$$
It is convenient to find the extrema of $\Delta F$ simply as a function of $h$; then
$$\label{DP7}
(\partial (\Delta F) / \partial h)_{H_b} = 0 \quad ,$$
yields
$$\label{DP8}
h^2 - 2h \frac{f_{int}}{m_{coex} H_b} + r^2 = 0 \quad ,$$
such that in terms of $\tilde H_b = H_b r m_{coex} / f_{int}$ one finds for $\tilde H_b < 1$ two solutions, namely
$$\label{DP9}
\frac{h}{r} = \tilde H_b^{-1} \pm \sqrt{(\tilde H_b^{-2} - 1)} \quad .$$
The minus sign yields the free energy minimum, corresponding to the pinned droplet, while the plus sign corresponds to a surface free energy maximum, and the corresponding angle $\theta$ can be read off from $$\label{DP10}
tan(\frac{\theta}{2}) = \frac{1 - cos(\theta)}{sin(\theta)} = \frac{h}{r} \quad .$$
The limiting case $\tilde H_b = 1$ means $h/r = 1$, $\theta = \pi/2$, i.e. a semispherical droplet. The free energy function can be written as $$\label{DP11}
\Delta F / f_{int} \pi r^2 = \frac{2}{3} (\tilde H_b^{-2} \pm \tilde H_b^{-1} \sqrt{(\tilde H_b^{-2} - 1)} \mp \tilde H_b \sqrt{(\tilde H_b^{-2} - 1)} ) \quad ,$$ and hence the barrier for the depinning transition of the pinned droplet becomes $$\label{DP12}
\Delta F_2 / f_{int} \pi r^2 = \frac{4}{3} \tilde H_b (\tilde H_b^{-2} -1)^{3/2} \quad .$$ From this calculation it is obvious that the mathematics in $d = 3$ is even simpler than in $d = 2$, since the use of $h$ instead of the angle $\theta$ makes the description of $\Delta F$ (c.f. Equation (\[DP5\])) very simple. In $d = 2$, equation (\[DP10\]) also holds, but equation (\[A16\]) shows that both $\theta$ and $sin(2\theta)$ enter in the free energy expression, so no simple formula for $\Delta F(h)$ in $d = 2$ can be written down. When one works out $h/r$ and $\Delta F_2$ in both $d = 2$ and $d = 3$, one notes a very similar behavior: near the point $\tilde H_b = 1$ the barrier vanishes like $(1 - \tilde H_b^{-1})^{3/2}$, i.e. with a vanishing slope, and $h/r$ reaches the semicircle or semisphere configuration with a square-root cusp. Figure \[figB2\] shows a comparison of the free energy barrier of the depinning transition of pinned droplets for the two- and the three-dimensional cases.
: E.V.A. is grateful to the Alexander von Humboldt foundation and to the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, SFB TRR 146) for partial support of his research stays at the Institut für Physik of the Johannes Gutenberg Universität Mainz. Also, M.L.T. and E.V.A are grateful to the CONICET and UNLP (Argentina) for financial support.
[99]{}
L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, [*Statistical Physics*]{}, (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1958).
K.Binder, Rep. Progr. Phys. [**50**]{}, 783 (1987)
A. C. Zettlemoyer (ed.), [*Nucleation*]{}, (M. Debber, New York, 1969).
P. G. Debenedetti, [*Metastable Liquids*]{}, (Princenton University Press, Princenton, 1996).
D. Kashchiev, [*Nucleation: Basic Theory with Applications*]{}, (Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 2000).
S. Balibar and J. Villain (eds.) [*Nucleation*]{}, C. R. Phys. [**7**]{}, fascicule 9-10, (special issue, 2006).
D. Beysens, C. R. Phys. [**7**]{}, 1082 (2006); D. Beysens, V. Pruvost, and B. Pruvost, J. Arid Env. [**135**]{}, 90 (2016).
H. Biloni, in [*Physical Metallurgy*]{}. (R. W. Cahen and P. Haasen, eds.) p. 477 (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1983).
M. Volmer, [*Kinetik der Phasenbildung*]{}, (Th.Steinkopff, Dresden and Leipzig, 1939).
D. Turnbull, J. Appl. Phys.[**21**]{}, 1022 (1950).
D. Turnbull, J. Chem. Phys.[**18**]{}, 198 (1950).
D. Turnbull and B. Vonnegut, Ind. Eng. Chem. [**44**]{}, 1292 (1952).
N. H. Fletcher, J. Chem. Phys.[**29**]{}, 572 (1958).
N. H. Fletcher, J. Chem. Phys. [**31**]{}, 1136 (1959).
N. H. Fletcher, J. Chem. Phys. [**38**]{}, 237 (1963).
V. Talanquer and D. W. Oxtoby, J. Chem. Phys. [**104**]{}, 1483 (1996).
V. Talanquer and D. W. Oxtoby, J. Chem. Phys. [**114**]{}, 2793 (2001).
T. V. Bykov and X. C. Zheng, J. Chem. Phys. [**117**]{}, 1851 (2002).
R. P. Sear, J. Phys. Condens. Matter [**14**]{}, 3693 (2002).
S. Auer and D. Frenkel, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 015703 (2003).
A. Cacciuto, S. Auer and D. Frenkel, Nature [**428**]{}, 404 (2004).
A. Cacciuto, and D. Frenkel, Phys. Rev. E. [**72**]{}, 041604 (2005).
E. A. Ustinov, and D. D. Do, J. Phys. Chem. [**109**]{}, 11653 (2005).
R. P. Sear, J. Phys. Chem. B. [**110**]{}, 4985 (2006).
T. V. Bykov and X. C. Zheng, J. Chem. Phys. [**125**]{}, 144515 (2006).
A. J. Page and R. P. Sear, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 065701 (2006).
R. P. Sear, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter. [**19**]{}, 033101 (2007).
D. Winter, P. Virnau, and K. Binder, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter. [**21**]{}, 464118 (2009).
D. Winter, P. Virnau, and K. Binder, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**103**]{}, 225703 (2009).
D. Deb, A. Winkler, P. Virnau, and K. Binder, J. Chem. Phys. [**136**]{}, 134710 (2012).
F. Schmitz, P. Virnau, and K. Binder, Phys. Rev. E. [**87**]{}, 053302 (2013).
K. S. Singha, P. K. Das, and B. Maiti. J. Chem. Phys. [**142**]{}, 104706 (2015).
K. Binder, and P. Virnau, J. Chem. Phys. [**145**]{}, 211701 (2016).
K.D. Sattler (ed.) [*Handbook of Nanophysics. Principles and Methods.*]{} CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2011. (Wiley, New York 1995)
Th. Ondarçuhu and J.-P. Aimé (eds.) [*Nanoscale Liquid Interfaces: Wetting, Patterning, and Force Microscopy at the Molecular Scale.*]{} Pan Stanford Publ. Pte. Ltd., Stanford 2013.
K. Binder, and D. Stauffer, Adv. Phys. [**25**]{}, 343 (1976).
P. A. Rikvold, H. Tomita, S. Miyashita, and S. W.Sides, Phys. Rev. E. [**49**]{}, 5080 (1994).
B. A. Berg, and S. Dubey, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 165702 (2008).
E. N. M. Cirillo, and J. L. Lebowitz, J. Stat. Phys. [**90**]{}, 211 (1998).
M. Rauscher and S. Dietrich, Ann. Rev. Mater. Sci. [**38**]{}, 143 (2008)
M. Rauscher and S. Dietrich, in Ref. [@32h], Chapter 11.
S. Dietrich, M. Rauscher and M. Napiorkowski, in Ref. [@33h], Chapter 3.
K. Binder and D.W. Heermann, [*Monte Carlo Simulation in Statistical Physics. An Introduction. 5th Edition*]{} (Springer, Berlin, 2010)
D. Bonn, J.Eggers, J. Indekeu, J. Meunier, and E. Rolley, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**81**]{}, 739 (2009).
K. Binder, D. P. Landau, and S. Wansleben. Phys. Rev. B [**40**]{}, 6971 (1989).
E. V.Albano, and K. Binder. Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 036101 (2012).
P. Bryk, and K. Binder. Phys. Rev. E. [**88**]{}, 030401 (2013).
L. Onsager, Phys. Rev. [**65**]{}, 117 (1944).
C.N. Yang, Phys. Rev. [**85**]{}, 808 (1952).
D.B. Abraham, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**44**]{}, 1165 (1980).
D.B. Abraham, in [*Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena, Vol. 10*]{} (C. Domb and J.L. Lebowitz, eds.) Academic Press, London, 1986, Ch. 1.
D.B. Abraham, J. De Coninck and F. Dunlop, Phys. Rev. B. [**39**]{}, 4708 (1989).
M.E. Fisher, J. Stat. Phys. [**34**]{}, 667 (1984).
X.-T. Wu, D.B. Abraham and J. O. Indekeu, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**116**]{}, 046101 (2016).
M. L. Trobo, E. V. Albano, and K. Binder, Phys. Rev. E. [**93**]{}, 052805 (2016).
K. Brendel, G. T. Barkema, and H. van Beijeren, Phys. Rev. E. [**71**]{}, 031601 (2005).
H. Tomita, and S. Miyashita, Phys. Rev. B. [**46**]{}, 8886 (1992).
P. Jakubczyk, M. Napiórkowski, and A.O. Parry, Phys. Rev. E [**74**]{}, 031608 (2006).
P. Jakubczyk and M. Napiórkowski, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. [**40**]{}, 2363 (2007).
M. P. A. Fisher, D. S. Fisher, and J. D. Weeks, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**48**]{}, 368 (1982).
R. P. K. Zia, and J. E. Avron, Phys. Rev. B [**25**]{}, 2042 (1982).
C. Rottman, and M. Wortis, Phys. Rep. [**103**]{}, 59 (1984).
W. L. Winterbottom, Acta Metall. [**15**]{}, 303 (1967).
L. Schimmele, M. Napiórkowski and S. Dietrich, J. Chem. Phys. [**127**]{}, 164715 (2007).
P. Lenz and R. Lipowsky. Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 1920 (1998).
R. Lipowsky, P. Lenz and P. S. Swain. Coll. & Surf. [**161**]{}, 3 (2000).
R. Lipowsky, M. Brinkmann, R. Dimova, T. Franke, J. Kierfeld and X. Zhang, J. Phys. Cond. Matt. [**17**]{}, S537 (2005).
N. J. G$\ddot{u}$nther, D. A. Nicole and D. J. Wallance, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**13**]{}, 1755 (1980).
S. Ryu and W. Cai. Phys. Rev. E. [**81**]{}, 030601(R) (2010).
A. Tr$\ddot{o}$ster, F. Schmitz, P. Virnau and K. Binder. J. Phys. Chem. B. (Submitted).
F. Schmitz, P. Virnau, and K. Binder, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**112**]{}, 126701 (2014).
F. Schmitz, P. Virnau, and K. Binder, Phys. Rev. E. [**90**]{}, 012128 (2014).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
[**Theorem**]{}. *If $W$ is a smooth complex projective variety with $h^1({\mathcal{O}}_W)=0$, then a sufficiently ample smooth divisor $X$ on $W$ cannot be a hyperplane section of a Calabi-Yau variety, unless $W$ is itself a Calabi-Yau*.
[**Corollary**]{}. *A smooth hypersurface of degree $d$ in $\mathbb{P}^n$ ($n\geq 2$) is a hyperplane section of a Calabi-Yau variety iff $n+2\leq d\leq 2n+2$*.
The method is to construct out of the variety $W$ a universal family of all varieties $Z$ for which $X$ is a hyperplane section with normal bundle $K_X$, and examine the “bad” singularities of such $Z$.
It was proved in \[W1\] that if a smooth curve lies on a $K$-3 surface, its Gaussian-Wahl map $\Phi_K$ is not surjective.
[**Theorem**]{}. *The following smooth curves do not lie on a $K$-3, even though $\Phi_K$ is not surjective: plane curves of degree $\geq 7$; bielliptic curves of genus $\geq 11$; curves on $\mathbb{F}_n$ of degree $\geq 5$ over $\mathbb{P}^1$*.
address: |
Department of Mathematics\
University of North Carolina\
Chapel Hill, NC 27599–3250
author:
- Jonathan Wahl
title: 'Hyperplane Sections of Calabi-Yau Varieties'
---
0. Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
===============
A [*Calabi-Yau variety*]{} shall mean a complex projective variety $Y$ with trivial dualizing sheaf $K_Y \cong {\mathcal{O}}_Y$ and $h^1({\mathcal{O}}_Y)=0$, with only isolated canonical (i.e. rational) singularities. When $\dim Y=2$, $Y$ is a $K$-3 surface, possibly with rational double points. If $X$ is a smooth hyperplane section of a Calabi-Yau, by the adjunction formula $K_X$ is very ample; if $\dim Y\geq 3$ also $h^1({\mathcal{O}}_X)=0$.
Conversely, given a canonically polarized $(X,K_X)$, one asks if it can be a hyperplane section of a Calabi-Yau. Expected finiteness results for families of Calabi-Yaus suggest such $(X,K_X)$ should be quite special. For instance, there is a 19-dimensional family of $K$-3 surfaces with a hyperplane section of genus $g$, hence only a $(g+19)$-dimensional family of such curves \[MoM\]. Still, $K$-3 curves can be Brill-Noether-Petri general \[L\].
By considering deformations of the affine cone $A$ over a canonical curve, we showed in \[W1\] that a curve $X$ on a $K$-3 has non-surjective Gaussian-Wahl map $\Phi_K: \Lambda^2(K)\rightarrow
\Gamma (K^{\otimes 3})$; the relevant part of the tangent space to the deformations of $A$ must be non-$0$. Curves with surjective $\Phi_K$ include most complete intersections and the generic curve of genus 10 or $\geq 12$ \[CHM\]; such $X$ could not be on a $K$-3. Conversely, it is conjectured in \[W2\] that a Brill-Noether-Petri general curve with $\Phi_K$ non-surjective does indeed lie on a $K$-3.
This paper shows many $X$ are [*not*]{} hyperplane sections of a Calabi-Yau, even when there are “interesting” deformations of the cone. For instance, smooth plane curves of degree $\geq 7$ cannot lie on a $K$-3 \[GL\], although $\Phi_K$ has corank 10. For $\dim X\geq 2$, the relevant tangent space is $H^1(X,\Theta_X\otimes K_X^{-1})$, which is always non-0 for $X\subset {\mathbb{P}}^n$ a smooth hypersurface; but we prove that for degree $>2n+2$, such an $X$ can not lie on a Calabi-Yau. Our method is to describe explicitly [*all*]{} deformations of the cone.
We actually adopt the point of view of [*extensions*]{} of a subvariety $V\subset{\mathbb{P}}^n$ rather than deformations of the cone: consider $W\subset{\mathbb{P}}^{n+k}$ for which a codimension $k$ transversal linear section gives $V$. Any projective variety is an extension of its hyperplane section. There is the notion of a “universal extension” of a given $V$ which in good cases is governed by a Kodaira-Spencer map. Combining Theorem 2.8 with Remark 1.10.1 gives
Suppose $V\subset{\mathbb{P}}^n$ satisfies $(N_2)$, $V\not \cong {\mathbb{P}}^1$, and $W\subset{\mathbb{P}}^{n+k}$ is an extension. From the normal bundle sequence of $V$ in $W$ consider the coboundary map $$\gamma : \Gamma (N_{V/W}(-1))\rightarrow H^1(\Theta_V(-1)).$$ Assume either
1. $\dim V =1$ and ${\operatorname{crk}}\gamma = {\operatorname{crk}}\Phi(K_V,{\mathcal{O}}_V(1))$ ($\Phi$ a Gaussian)
2. $\dim V \geq 2$ and $\gamma$ is an isomorphism.
Then $W$ is a [**universal**]{} extension of $V$, in an appropriate sense.
As remarked in (1.10.4), this result may be used to deduce Mukai’s classification of Gorenstein Fano 3-folds of genus 7, 8, or 9 from his earlier results on curves \[M2\]. In \[BM\], it is shown that for a hyperplane section of a $K$-3 surface, $\gamma\neq 0$ (i.e., the normal sequence is non-split) unless there is an involution fixing the section.
Next we give a general method for constructing extensions of a canonically polarized $(X,K_X)$, in case $X$ is a divisor on a variety $Z$ (usually Fano). We attribute this method to DuVal \[D\], though a similar use of adjoint linear systems goes back to del Pezzo. We illustrate by considering a plane curve $C$ of degree $d\geq $4 (cf. \[E\], \[W2\]). Let $D$ be a smooth cubic intersecting $C$ transversally, with $Z=C\cap D$. The linear system of curves of degree $d$ containing $Z$ defines a morphism on the blow-up $B\rightarrow {\mathbb{P}}^2$ of $Z$; this restricts to the canonical embedding of the proper transform of $C$, and is an embedding except for collapsing the proper transform of $D$ to a point. The image of $B$ is a normal surface with trivial dualizing sheaf and one simple elliptic singularity, for which $C$ is a hyperplane section. If $d\geq 7$, keeping track of the normal sequence one can show all extensions of $C\subset{\mathbb{P}}^{g-1}$ arise from varying $D\in
|-K_{{\mathbb{P}}^2}|$, with possibly worse (hence still non-rational) singularities. Since no such is a $K$-3, $C$ lies on no $K$-3.
This method generalizes greatly to large divisors on an arbitrary $X$ (Corollary 3.12); one knows [*all*]{} extensions of the canonical embedding. Combining (3.12) and (3.13) yields the chief result of this paper:
Let $Z$ be a projective variety with isolated Gorenstein singularities and $h^1({\mathcal{O}}_Z)=0$. Then for sufficiently ample smooth divisors $X$ on $Z$, $X$ does not sit on a Calabi-Yau, unless $Z$ is already a Calabi-Yau.
There is a much sharper statement when $\dim{Z}=2$ (Theorem 4.5). We also remark that Theorem B is fairly easy in case $-K_Z$ has no global sections; in that case the only extensions of $X$ are cones.
[**Corollary 4.5:**]{} [*A smooth hypersurface of degree $d$ in ${\mathbb{P}}^n$ is a hyperplane section of a Calabi-Yau variety iff $n+1\leq d\leq 2n+2$*]{}.
In $\S$1, we introduce the (first) Kodaira-Spencer map of an extension and prove (Theorem 1.9) that it can be used to prove a given extension is universal. We relate this map to the normal bundle sequence of an extension in $\S$2. In $\S$3, start with $X\subset Y$ a divisor, with $h^1({\mathcal{O}}_Y)=0$; for an effective divisor $D\subset Y$, we construct an extension of $X$ embedded via ${\mathcal{O}}_Y(X-D)\otimes {\mathcal{O}}_X$, by using the rational map of $Y$ given by sections of $\Gamma (Y,{\mathcal{I}}_{X\cap D}(X))$. One can do this as well for a family of $D$’s; using $\S$2, one has criteria that a universal extension has been constructed. These results are applied to canonical embeddings of curves in Theorem 4.5, yielding the universal extension for all complete intersection curves, most curves on the Hirzebruch surfaces ${\mathbb{F}}_n$, and bielliptic curves of genus $\geq 11$. In particular, we find that only the “obvious” complete intersection curves actually lie on a $K$-3. Finally, in $\S$5, we give some necessary conditions for a smooth complete intersection in ${\mathbb{P}}^n$ of dimension at least 2 to be a hyperplane section of a Calabi-Yau.
It should be clear that a more accurate (though much more cumbersome) title for this paper would have been “Varieties which are *not* hyperplane sections of Calabi-Yau manifolds”.
This research was partially supported by an NSF Grant.
Extensions of subvarieties
==========================
Let $V\subset{\mathbb{P}}^n$ be a non-degenerate subvariety. Identify ${\mathbb{P}}^n$ with a linear subspace $H$ of ${\mathbb{P}}^{n+k}$. A [*($k$-step) extension*]{} of $V$ is a subvariety $W$ of ${\mathbb{P}}^{n+k}$ so that $V=W\cap H$, transversally; thus, ${\operatorname{codim}}(V,W)=k$, and the defining equations of $H$ form locally a regular sequence in $W$ (cf. \[Lv\]). Two extensions $(V,H,W,{\mathbb{P}}^r)$ and $(V,H',W',{\mathbb{P}}^r)$ are [*isomorphic*]{} if there is an isomorphism of ${\mathbb{P}}^r$ sending $H$ onto $H'$, $W$ onto $W'$, and equal to the identity on $V$; in particular, extensions $W$ and $W'$ of $V\subset
H\subset{\mathbb{P}}^{n+k}$ are isomorphic if they differ by an automorphism of ${\mathbb{P}}^{n+k}$ which is the identity on $H$. From $W\subset{\mathbb{P}}^{n+k}$, one may form a [*sub-extension*]{} $(V,H,W\cap
L,L)$, where $H\subset L\subset{\mathbb{P}}^{n+k}$, as well as a [*cone*]{} over $W$ in ${\mathbb{P}}^{n+k+1}$. When $V\subset{\mathbb{P}}^n$ is linearly normal, one may speak of an extension of $(V,{\mathcal{O}}_V(1))$.
Consider $V\subset H\subset {\mathbb{P}}^{n+1}$, and a projective cone $C(V)$ of $V$ over a point in ${\mathbb{P}}^{n+1}-H$; so $C(V)\cap H=V$. There is a relation between extensions of $V\subset H$; part of the Hilbert scheme of $C(V)\subset{\mathbb{P}}^{n+1}$; and deformations of non-positive weight of the affine cone of $V$ in ${\mathbb{C}}^{n+1}$. For instance, suppose $W$ is a fibre in a deformation of $C(V)$ in ${\mathbb{P}}^{n+1}$ which keeps fixed a hyperplane section: $W\cap H=C(V)\cap H=V$; then $(V,H,W,{\mathbb{P}}^{n+1})$ is an extension of $V$. Conversely, if $(V,H,W,{\mathbb{P}}^{n+1})$ is a 1-step extension, then by a well-known construction (e.g., \[P\]) $W$ degenerates in ${\mathbb{P}}^{n+1}$ to a projective cone over a hyperplane section $W\cap H=V$. On the other hand, it is a bit tricky to construct appropriate deformation theories from the point of view of the Hilbert scheme with fixed hyperplane section, or for the negative weight deformations of the affine cone.
A $k$-step extension $W$ of $V$ is *universal* if every extension of $V$ is equivalent to a (possibly trivial) projective cone over a unique subextension. Such a $W$ has the weaker property (cf. \[Lv\]) that any extension of it is a cone. A universal extension need not exist. We give a criterion for a given extension of $V$ to be universal, using a Kodaira-Spencer map.
For $(V,H,W,{\mathbb{P}}={\mathbb{P}}^{n+k})$ a $k$-step extension, there is a natural [*Kodaira-Spencer map*]{} $$KS: \Gamma ({\mathbb{P}}, {\mathcal{I}}_H(1))^* \rightarrow
\Gamma (V,N_{V/H}(-1))/\Gamma (H,\Theta_H(-1)).$$ Here, ${\mathcal{I}}_H$ is the ideal sheaf of $H$ in ${\mathbb{P}}$ and $N$ represents the normal sheaf. For, use the short exact sequence $$0 \rightarrow \Gamma ({\mathcal{O}}_H(1))^*
\rightarrow \Gamma ({\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbb{P}}}(1))^*
\rightarrow \Gamma ({\mathcal{I}}_H(1))^* \rightarrow 0,$$ the sequence of maps $$\Gamma ({\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbb{P}}}(1))^* \cong \Gamma (\Theta_{{\mathbb{P}}}(-1))
\rightarrow \Gamma (\Theta_{{\mathbb{P}}|W}(-1))
\rightarrow \Gamma (N_{W/{\mathbb{P}}}(-1)) \rightarrow \Gamma (N_{V/H}(-1)),$$ and the isomorphism $$\Gamma ({\mathcal{O}}_H(1))^* \cong \Gamma (\Theta_H(-1)).$$ (The map $N_{W/{\mathbb{P}}}\rightarrow N_{V/H}$ arises from ${\mathcal{I}}_{W/{\mathbb{P}}}\otimes{\mathcal{O}}_H \cong {\mathcal{I}}_{V/H}$ because the equations of $H$ give a regular sequence in $W$.) The $KS$ map of a sub-extension factors via the natural inclusion $$\Gamma (L,{\mathcal{I}}_{H/L}(1))^* \subset \Gamma
({\mathbb{P}},{\mathcal{I}}_{H/{\mathbb{P}}}(1))^*.$$
One can define higher-order Kodaira-Spencer maps. For example, writing $KS_{1}$ for the map above, one may consider $$KS_{2}: {\operatorname{Ker}}KS_{1} \to \Gamma (N_{V/H}(-2)),$$ arising from considering the kernel of $$N_{W/{\mathbb{P}}}(-1) \to N_{V/H}(-1).$$
Suppose $Z\subset{\mathbb{P}}^n = H$ is a smooth non-degenerate subvariety, and $V=Z\cap Q$ is the transversal intersection with a quadric hypersurface. Choose coordinates $x_0,\cdots ,x_n$, $t$ on ${\mathbb{P}}^{n+1}$ so that $H=\{ t=0\}$. Let $W\subset {\mathbb{P}}^{n+1}$ be the intersection of the projective cone over $Z$ with the quadric $\{
t^2=q(x_0,\cdots ,x_n)\}$, where $q$ defines $Q$. Then $W$ is a 1-step extension of $V$; the Kodaira-Spencer map $KS$ is 0; $\Gamma
(N_{V/H}(-2))\neq 0$; and the higher-order map $${\operatorname{Ker}}KS \to \Gamma (N_{V/H}(-2))$$ is injective.
Let $V=\{ F(x_0,\cdots ,x_n)=0\} \subset H={\mathbb{P}}^n$ be a non-singular hypersurface of degree $d$. Let $M_1,\cdots ,M_N$ be a set of monomials giving a basis of the polynomials of degree $<d$ in ${\mathbb{C}}[x_0, \cdots ,x_n]/\Bigl( \frac{\partial F}{\partial
x_i}\Bigr)$. Let $d_i=\deg M_i$. Then in ${\mathbb{P}}^{n+N}$, with coordinates $x_0,\cdots ,x_n, t_1,\cdots ,t_N$, a universal extension $V$ is given by $$\Bigl\{ F+\sum t_i^{d-d_i} M_i =0\Bigr\} .$$ In this case, the Kodaira-Spencer maps are surjections, including the $d-1$ higher-order ones, with target spaces $\Gamma
(N_{V/H}(-i))$, $i=2,\cdots ,d$.
It will simplify matters to work with equations defining a variety, so we will assume from now on that $$\begin{matrix} V\subset H={\mathbb{P}}^n \mbox{ is normal and
projectively normal},\\
\mbox{with homogeneous coordinate ring } A=P/I(V)=P/I. \end{matrix}
\tag{$\ast$}$$ This assumption guarantees that for an extension $W$ of $V$, elements of $I(V)$ lift to $I(W)$. Further, the target spaces of the Kodaira-Spencer maps are identified from the following well-known facts:
1. For all $i$, $\Gamma (V,N_{V/H}(i))=i^{\mbox{th}}$ graded piece of ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{P/I}(I/I^2, P/I)$. \[1.6.1\]
2. $\Gamma (\Theta_H(-1)) \to \Gamma (N_{V/H}(-1))$ is given by differentiation. \[1.6.2\]
Now suppose $V\subset H\subset {\mathbb{P}}^{n+k}={\mathbb{P}}$, and choose coordinates $x_0,x_1,\cdots, x_n,\break t_1, t_2,\cdots ,t_k$ so that $H$ is defined by $\{ t_1=\cdots =t_k=0\}$. By ($*$), a $k$-step extension $W\subset{\mathbb{P}}$ of $V$ gives a flat lifting of $I$ to $I(W)\subset
{\mathbb{C}}[x_0,\cdots ,x_n,t_1,\cdots ,t_k]$. The $KS$ map of $W$ maps $\partial /\partial t_i$ in $\Gamma ({\mathcal{I}}_H(1))^*$ to a degree $-1$ homomorphism $I\to P/I$ \[1.6.1\]: if $f\in I$, lift to an $F\in
I(W)$, and map to the image $(\partial F/\partial t_i)\equiv g_i$ in $P/I$. A coordinate change $x_{\gamma} \mapsto x_{\gamma} +\sum
a_{\gamma\delta} t_{\delta}$ ($\gamma =0,\cdots ,n; \delta =1,\cdots
,k$) replaces $g_i$ by $g_i+(\sum a_{\delta i}\partial /\partial
x_{\gamma})f$. So $KS(\partial /\partial t_i)=[g_i]$ in $\Gamma
(N_V(-1))/\Gamma (\Theta_H(-1))$. (Thus $KS$ is essentially the Kodaira-Spencer map of a weight $-1$ deformation of the affine cone $A=P/I$.) Higher-order Kodaira-Spencer maps will involve higher-order terms in variables $t_{i}$ in ${\operatorname{Ker}}{KS}$.
The following ought to be well known.
\[th1.9\] Let $V\subset{\mathbb{P}}^n=H$ be a normal and projectively normal subvariety, which satisfies $$H^0(V, N_{V/H}(-2)) =0. \tag{1.9.1} \label{1.9.1}$$ Then
1. A $k$-step extension $W\subset{\mathbb{P}}^{n+k}$ is uniquely determined (up to equivalence) by its Kodaira-Spencer map.
2. A $k$-step extension $W$ with $KS$ an isomorphism is a [**universal**]{} extension, in that every extension is isomorphic to a (cone over a) unique sub-extension of $W$.
Choose coordinates as in (1.7). Encode generators of $I(V)$ in a $1\times \kappa$ row vector $f$. Let $r$ be a $\kappa\times\ell$ matrix of forms of $P$ whose columns generate the module of relations for $f$.
fr &=0\
fr’ &= 0, .
Let $W\subset{\mathbb{P}}^{n+k}$ be an extension of $V$. $W$ is defined by equations $F=f+\sum t^Ig^I$, where $I=(i_1,\cdots ,i_k)$, $|I|=i_1+\cdots +i_k$, and $t^I = t_1^{i_1}t_2^{i_2} \cdots
t_k^{i_k}$; relations are determined by $R=r+\sum t^Iu^I$, with $F\cdot R=0$. Writing the $t$-linear part of $F$ as $\sum g_it_i$, the $KS$ map sends $\partial /\partial t_i$ to the class of $g_i$ in ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{P/I}(I/I^2,
P/I)$ mod derivations.
Suppose $\bar{W}\subset {\mathbb{P}}^{n+k}$ is another extension, with equations and relations given by $\bar{F}, \bar{g}^I, \bar{R},
\bar{u}^I$, and with the same $KS$ map. For each $i$ the classes of $g_i$ and $\bar{g}_i$ are the same, so there are derivations $D_i=\sum a_{i\alpha}\partial /\partial z_{\alpha}$ for which $$g_i-\bar{g}_i = D_if + b_i\cdot f, \mbox{ where $b_i$ is a
$\kappa\times\kappa$ matrix}.$$ (Note that if the generators of $I$ have the same degree, then each $b_i$ is 0.) Replace $\bar{F}$ by $\bar{F}+\sum t_ib_i\cdot\bar{F}$, then apply the coordinate change $x_{\alpha}$ goes to $x_{\alpha}-\sum
a_{i\alpha}t_i$; one obtains an extension equivalent to $\bar{W}$, with $g_i=\bar{g}_i$, all $i$.
Assume inductively that for all $I$ with $|I|\leq m$, $g^I=\bar{g}^I$ and for all $I$ with $|I| <m$, $u^I=\bar{u}^I$. Writing the coefficient of $g^I$ in the equations $F\cdot R=\bar{F}\cdot\bar{R}
=0$, one deduces $$f\cdot u^I + (\cdots ) =0 \mbox{ and } f\cdot\bar{u}^I + (\cdots
)=0,$$ where the expressions in parentheses are the same. Therefore, $f\cdot (u^I-\bar{u}^I)=0$, so that $$u^I - \bar{u}^I = r\cdot b^I.$$ Thus, replacing $\bar{R}$ by $\bar{R}+\sum t^I\bar{R}\cdot b^I$ (sum over all $I$ with $|I|=m$) gives another relation vector, now with $u^I=\bar{u}^I$, all $|I|\leq m$. Next fix an $I$ with $|I| =m+1$. Again, one has equations $$f\cdot u^I + (\cdots ) + g^I\cdot r = 0 \mbox{ and }
f\cdot\bar{u}^I + (\cdots ) + \bar{g}^I\cdot r = 0,$$ where the expressions in parentheses are equal to each other, by the inductive hypothesis. Thus, $$(g^I-\bar{g}^I)\cdot r = f\cdot v^I,$$ whence $g^I-\bar{g}^I$ defines a homomorphism of $I$ into $P/I$ of degree $-(m+1)$. But the hypothesis $\Gamma (N_{V/H}(-2))= 0$ implies also that $\Gamma (N_{V/H}(-i))=0$, $i\geq 2$, whence (1.6.1) a homomorphism $I\to P/I$ of degree $\leq -2$ must be 0. Thus, one can write $$g^I-\bar{g}^I = f\cdot w^I.$$ Replacing $\bar{F}$ by $\bar{F}+\sum t^I\bar{F}\cdot w^I$ (over all $I$ with $|I|=m+1$), one may assume $g^I=\bar{g}^I$, all such $I$, so the induction may continue. In this way, since the sum is finite by degree considerations, one may conclude that $W$ and $\bar{W}$ are equivalent.
Next, fix a $k$-step extension $W$ with $KS$ an isomorphism; represent it as above by equations $$F = f+\sum t_ig_i + \sum t^Ig^I.$$ Consider an arbitrary $j$-step extension $W'$, with linear section defined by the vanishing of coordinates $s_1, s_2, \cdots ,s_j$. Since the classes $[g_i]$ form a basis, one can after allowable linear coordinate changes in ${\mathbb{P}}^{n+j}$ write the equations for $W'$ as $$\bar{F} = f+\sum' s_ig_i + \sum s^Ih^I,$$ where the first sum involves only the first $j'$ variables (some $j'\leq j$). Using $W$, one may write down another extension in ${\mathbb{P}}^{n+j}$ with the same $KS$ map; it is the cone over the subextension in ${\mathbb{P}}^{n+j'}$ $$F^* = f + \sum' s_ig_i + \sum' s^Ig^I,$$ where both sums involve only the first $j'$ variables. By (a), this extension is isomorphic to $W'$.
\[1.10.1\] It is proved in (\[W1\], (2.8)) that the vanishing condition (1.9.1) is automatic when $V\subset {\mathbb{P}}^n$ is smooth and satisfies ($N_2$): that is, when $I(V)$ is generated by quadrics and the relations are generated by linear ones.
\[1.10.2\] Presumably one could prove a universality result for an extension $V\subset W$ without assuming (1.9.1). One should require then that if $\Gamma(N_V(-i))=0$, all $i>d$, then the Kodaira-Spencer maps $KS_{i}$ are surjective for all $i<d$, and an isomorphism for $i\geq d$. (Compare (1.5.2).) However, this would need to be worked out.
\[1.10.3\] For $n\geq3$ the Segre embedding ${\mathbb{P}}^{1}\times{\mathbb{P}}^{n-1}\subset{\mathbb{P}}^{2n-1}$ gives an extension of the twisted rational curve of degree $n$; it is universal for $n\neq4$, but the Kodaira-Spencer map is not surjective once $n>3.$
\[1.10.4\] This Theorem allows a somewhat simpler proof of $S$. Mukai’s classification \[M2\] of Gorenstein Fano 3-folds $X$, with $-K$ a generator of Pic($S$), and with $g=7,8,$ or 9: they are linear sections of an appropriate homogeneous space. Mukai shows that for the anticanonical embedding of $X$, the general linear section of codimension 2 is a canonical curve $C$, which (by his earlier work) is a linear section of a certain $G/P\subset{\mathbb{P}}^N$. One claims that $X$ is also a linear section of $G/P$, as will follow from 1.9 applied to the extension $C\subset G/P$. That the canonical embedding of $C$ satifies (1.9.1) follows, e.g., from (4.1.2) below plus results of \[M1\]. $G/P$ is smooth, hence not a cone, so the $KS$ map of this extension of $C$ is injective (by 1.9). But $KS$ is in fact bijective, by a dimension count; $\dim (G/P)-1$ is the corank of the Gaussian map — cf. \[CM\], (\[W2\], (6.5)).
$KS$ and the normal bundle sequence
===================================
We frequently compose the Kodaira-Spencer map with a coboundary, because of the simple
Let $V\subset H={\mathbb{P}}^n$ be a smooth linearly normal subvariety, and $V\neq{\mathbb{P}}^{1}$. Then the coboundary map associated to the normal bundle sequence $$\delta: \Gamma (V,N_{V/H}(-1))/\Gamma (H,\Theta_H(-1)) \rightarrow
H^1(\Theta_V(-1))$$ is injective.
By the usual long exact sequence in cohomology of the normal bundle sequence for $V\subset H$, it suffices to show that $$\Gamma(\Theta_H(-1))\cong\Gamma(\Theta_H(-1) \otimes {\mathcal{O}}_V).$$ By the standard presentation of $\Theta_H$, this isomorphism is equivalent to the injectivity of a map $$H^1( {\mathcal{O}}_V(-1)) \rightarrow H^1({\mathcal{O}}_V^{n+1}).$$ When $\dim(V)\geq 2$, the first group is $0$ by Kodaira vanishing. When $\dim(V)=1$, by duality (and linear normality) one needs the surjectivity on the curve $V$ of $$\Gamma(K_V) \otimes \Gamma({\mathcal{O}}(1)) \rightarrow \Gamma(K_V(1)),$$ which is a well-known result of Petri when $V\neq{\mathbb{P}}^{1}$.
Similarly, one can show that the coboundary $\delta$ is an isomorphism when $H^1({\mathcal{O}}_V)=0$ and either $\dim(V)\geq 3$, or $\dim(V)=2$ and $\Gamma(K_V) \otimes \Gamma({\mathcal{O}}(1)) \rightarrow \Gamma(K_V(1))$ is surjective.
We conclude that the Kodaira-Spencer map for an extension of a linearly normal subvariety $V\subset {\mathbb{P}}^n$ has rank at most $h^1(\Theta_V(-1))$.
We can now relate the Kodaira-Spencer map of an extension to the class of the normal bundle sequence of $V\subset W$. Assume $V\subset H={\mathbb{P}}$ is smooth and projectively normal, and $(V,H,W,{\mathbb{P}}^{n+k})$ is a k-step extension.
The normal bundle of $V$ in $W$ is the restriction of the normal bundle of $H\subset{\mathbb{P}}$; tensoring the surjection $$\Gamma ({\mathcal{I}}_H(1)) \otimes {\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbb{P}}}(-1) \twoheadrightarrow
{\mathcal{I}}_H$$ with ${\mathcal{O}}_H$, dualizing, and restricting, one has $$N_{V/W} \cong \Gamma ({\mathcal{I}}_H(1))^* \otimes {\mathcal{O}}_V(1).$$ So, one has an identification $$\Gamma(N_{V/W}(-1))\cong\Gamma({\mathcal{I}}_H(1))^*.$$ The normal bundle sequence of $V$ in $W$ $$0 \to \Theta_V \to \Theta_W\otimes{\mathcal{O}}_V \to N_{V/W} \to 0$$ is therefore determined as a bundle extension by a map $$\gamma: \Gamma ({\mathcal{I}}_H(1))^* \to H^1(\Theta_V(-1)).$$
Let $V\subset {\mathbb{P}}^n=H$ be smooth and projectively normal ($V\not\cong{\mathbb{P}}^1$), $W\subset{\mathbb{P}}^{n+k} = {\mathbb{P}}$ a $k$-step extension. Then the bundle extension map $\gamma$ above is the negative of the composed map $\delta \cdot KS$.
Choose coordinates as before, with $I\subset P$, and let $\bar{I} = I+(t_1,\cdots ,t_k)\subset \bar{P} = P[t_i]$. From the exact sequence
1. \[1.12.1\] $\qquad\qquad 0 \to N_{V/H} \to N_{V/{\mathbb{P}}} \to
N_{H/{\mathbb{P}}} \otimes {\mathcal{O}}_V \to 0$
and \[1.6.1\], one deduces that $\Gamma (N_{V/{\mathbb{P}}}(-1))$ consists of degree $-1$ homomorphisms $\bar{I}/\bar{I}^2 \to \bar{P}/\bar{I} =
P/I$. The subspace $\Gamma (N_{V/H}(-1))$ consists of homomorphisms for which the $t_i$ go to 0.
For an extension $W\subset{\mathbb{P}}$, each $f\in I$ lifts to $F\in
I(W)\subset \bar{I}$, where $F=f+\sum t_ig_i + \cdots$. Thus, $KS(\partial /\partial t_{\mu})$ is the class of the homomorphism in $\Gamma (N_{V/{\mathbb{P}}}(-1))$ sending $f$ to $g_{\mu}$, and every $t_i$ to 0.
The map $\gamma$ factors through $\Gamma ({\mathcal{I}}_H(1))^*\cong
\Gamma (N_{V/W}(-1))\subset \Gamma (N_{V/{\mathbb{P}}}(-1))$ (an extension provides a splitting of [2.6.1]{}). Now, $\partial /\partial
t_{\mu}$ sends $t_{\nu}$ to $\delta_{\nu\mu}$; since $$f = -\sum t_ig_i - \cdots$$ on $W$, $\partial /\partial t_{\mu}$ sends $f$ to $-g_{\mu}$.
Thus $(\gamma + \delta \cdot KS)(\partial /\partial t_{\mu})$ is represented in $\Gamma(N_{V/{\mathbb{P}}}(-1))$ by a map sending each $f\in I$ to 0 and $t_i$ to $\delta_{i\mu}$. This is exactly the image of the element “$\partial /\partial t_{\mu}$” via $$\Gamma (\Theta_{{\mathbb{P}}}(-1)) \to \Gamma
(\Theta_{{\mathbb{P}}}\otimes{\mathcal{O}}_V(-1)) \to \Gamma (N_{V/{\mathbb{P}}}(-1)).$$ Since the cokernel of the last map is contained in $H^1(\Theta_V(-1))$, we have the assertion of the Proposition.
Let us denote the composed Kodaira-Spencer map $\delta \cdot KS$ by $\overline{KS}$; this map has target space $H^1(\Theta_V(-1))$. We shall also abuse notation and not distinguish between $\overline{KS}$ and its negative $\gamma$.
Suppose $V\subset{\mathbb{P}}^n$ is a projectively normal embedding of a smooth variety ($V\not\cong{\mathbb{P}}^{1}$), for which $\Gamma(N_{V/{\mathbb{P}}^n}(-2))=0$. Let $W\subset {\mathbb{P}}^{n+k}$ be an extension. From the normal sequence of $V$ in $W$ consider the coboundary map $$\gamma : \Gamma (N_{V/W}(-1))\rightarrow H^1(\Theta_V(-1)).$$ Assume either
1. $\dim V =1$ and ${\operatorname{crk}}\gamma = {\operatorname{crk}}\Phi(K_V,{\mathcal{O}}_V(1))$ ($\Phi$ a Gaussian)
2. $\dim V \geq 2$ and $\gamma$ is an isomorphism.
Then $W$ is a [**universal**]{} extension of $V$.
By Theorem 1.9, one must show that $KS$ is an isomorphism; composing with the injective coboundary map $\delta$, via (2.6) it suffices to consider $\gamma$. It remains necessary only to add that for a projectively normal curve, the coboundary map $\delta$ has the same corank as the Gaussian $\Phi(K_V,{\mathcal{O}}_V(1))$, by e.g. \[CM\], (1.2).
A Du Val-type construction of extensions
========================================
For $E\subset X$ a smooth Cartier divisor on a projective variety, the [*normal class*]{} is the element in $H^1(\Theta_E(-E))$ given by extension class of the normal bundle sequence $$0 \to \Theta_E \to \Theta_X\otimes{\mathcal{O}}_E \to {\mathcal{O}}_E(E) \to 0.$$ Let $Z\subset E$ be an effective Cartier divisor, $\pi : \tilde{X} =
Bl_ZX \to X$ be the blow-up of the ideal sheaf ${\mathcal{I}}_Z$ of $Z$ in $X$, $\tilde{Z}\subset\tilde{X}$ the exceptional divisor, and $\tilde{E}\subset\tilde{X}$ the proper transform of $E$. Via the isomorphism $$\pi |_{\tilde{E}}: \tilde{E} \cong E,$$ one can identify the normal bundles $$N_{\tilde{E}/\tilde{X}} \cong N_{E/X}(-Z).$$ In particular, the normal sequences are comparable: $$\begin{aligned}
{3}
0 \to &\Theta_{\tilde{E}} \to &\Theta_{\tilde{X}} &\otimes
{\mathcal{O}}_{\tilde{E}} \to &{\mathcal{O}}_E &(E-Z) \to 0 \\
&\| &&\cap &\;\cap \\
0 \to &\Theta_E \to &\Theta_X &\otimes{\mathcal{O}}_E \to &{\mathcal{O}}_E &(E)
\rightarrow 0.
\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the normal classes of $E\subset X$ and $\tilde{E}\subset
\tilde{X}$ are related via $$H^1(\Theta_E(-E)) \to H^1(\Theta_E(-(E-Z))) =
H^1(\Theta_{\tilde{E}}(-\tilde{E})).$$
For a line bundle $L$ on $X$ one has an exact sequence $$0 \to L(-E) \to {\mathcal{I}}_Z\cdot L \to L\otimes{\mathcal{O}}_E(-Z) \to 0.$$ If the linear system associated to $W\equiv \Gamma ({\mathcal{I}}_ZL)\subset
\Gamma (L)$ has base scheme exactly $Z$, then the rational map $X- \,
- \, \to {\mathbb{P}}(W^*)$ becomes a morphism $$\rho : \tilde{X} \to {\mathbb{P}}(W^*)$$ associated to the line bundle $\pi^*(L)(-\tilde{Z})$. The linear system defining $\rho|_{\tilde{E}}$ is given by the image of $W$ in $\Gamma (E,L\otimes{\mathcal{O}}_E(-Z))$.
Assuming $L={\mathcal{O}}(E)$, ${\mathcal{O}}_E(E-Z)$ is very ample, and $H^1({\mathcal{O}}_X)=0$, one has the exact sequence
1. \[3.3.1\] $\qquad\qquad 0\to \Gamma ({\mathcal{O}}_X) \to \Gamma
({\mathcal{I}}_Z{\mathcal{O}}(E)) \to \Gamma (E, {\mathcal{O}}_E(E-Z)) \to 0.$
It follows that $Z$ is the base scheme associated to $\Gamma
({\mathcal{I}}_ZL)$. Note $H^1({\mathcal{O}}_{\tilde{X}})=0$ and ${\mathcal{O}}_{\tilde{E}}(\tilde{E}) \cong {\mathcal{O}}_E(E-Z)$ is very ample.
\[lem3.4\] Let $A$ be a smooth divisor on a projective variety $B$ with $H^1({\mathcal{O}}_B)=0$. Suppose ${\mathcal{O}}_A(A)$ is very ample. Then ${\mathcal{O}}(A)$ is basepoint-free and gives a birational morphism $\rho : B\to{\mathbb{P}}(\Gamma (B,{\mathcal{O}}(A))^*)$. $\rho$ is an isomorphism in a neighborhood of $A$, and maps $A$ isomorphically to a hyperplane section $\bar{A}$ of $\rho (B) \equiv
\bar{B}$.
The morphism associated to ${\mathcal{O}}(A)$ clearly separates points of $A$ from points off $A$ and, as $\Gamma ({\mathcal{O}}(A))\twoheadrightarrow \Gamma ({\mathcal{O}}_A(A))$, from other points on $A$. By hypothesis tangent vectors on $A$ are separated; since $A$ is smooth, tangent vectors of $X$ at points of $A$ are separated.
\[prop3.5\] Let $E\subset X$ be a smooth Cartier divisor on a projective variety with $h^1({\mathcal{O}}_X)=0$, $Z\subset E$ a divisor with ${\mathcal{O}}_E(E-Z)$ very ample. Then
1. the linear system $\Gamma ({\mathcal{I}}_Z{\mathcal{O}}(E))$ gives a (1-step) extension $\bar{X}$ of $(E, {\mathcal{O}}_E({E-Z}))$
2. the normal class of $E\subset\bar{X}$ is the image of the normal class of $E\subset X$ via $H^1(E,\Theta_E(-E))\to
H^1(E,\Theta_E(-(E-Z)))$, or arising from $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathcal{O}}_E \\[-2ex]
&\,\cap \\[-2ex]
0 \to \Theta_E(-(E-Z)) \to \Theta_X\otimes{\mathcal{O}}_E(-(E-Z)) \to
{\mathcal{O}}_E &(Z) \to 0.
\end{aligned}$$
In case $X={\mathbb{P}}^2$, $E$ is a smooth cubic, and $Z\subset E$ is a scheme of length $\leq 6$, the construction above gives a Del Pezzo surface, viewed as an extension of $E$.
The sequence \[3.3.1\] shows that the domain of the $KS$ map for the extension in (3.5.ii) is isomorphic to $\Gamma
({\mathcal{O}}_X)^*$, hence has a natural basis element. Thus, in case ${\mathcal{O}}_E(E-Z)$ is projectively normal, the $\overline{KS}$ map is described by the (negative of the) normal class of $E\subset\bar{X}$.
\[cor3.7\] Let $E$ and $F$ be effective Cartier divisors on a projective variety $X$, with $E$ smooth and $h^1({\mathcal{O}}_X)=0$. Suppose ${\mathcal{O}}_X(E-F)$ is very ample. Then denoting $Z=E\cap F$:
1. \[3.7.1\] The linear system of $\Gamma ({\mathcal{I}}_Z{\mathcal{O}}(E))$ has base scheme $Z$ and defines an isomorphism off ${\operatorname{Supp}}(F)$.
2. \[3.7.2\] $\rho :\tilde{X} = Bl_ZX\to {\mathbb{P}}(\Gamma
({\mathcal{I}}_Z{\mathcal{O}}(E))^*)$ is an isomorphism off $\tilde{F}$, the proper transform of $F$, and collapses $\tilde{F}$ to a 0-dimensional scheme.
3. $E\subset\rho (\tilde{X}) =\bar{X}\subset{\mathbb{P}}(\Gamma
({\mathcal{I}}_Z{\mathcal{O}}(E))^*)$ is an extension of $E$ embedded by the very ample line bundle ${\mathcal{O}}_E(E-F)$. \[3.7.3\]
4. The $\overline{KS}$ map (2.7) for the extension $E\subset\rho (\tilde{X})$ is given by the composition \[3.7.4\] $$\Gamma ({\mathcal{O}}_E) \to \Gamma ({\mathcal{O}}_E(F)) \to
H^1(E,\Theta_E(-(E-F))).$$
Since the linear system of $\Gamma ({\mathcal{I}}_Z {\mathcal{O}}(E))$ is generated by $E$ and $F+D$, where $D$ runs through the very ample system $|E-F|$, \[3.7.1\] follows.
For \[3.7.2\], let $U=\mbox{Spec }R\subset X$ be an affine open neighborhood, with $E, F$ defined locally by $f,g\in R$, respectively. On $U$, the rational map may be written as $$[f,g, gh_1, \cdots ,gh_s],$$ where $(h_1, \cdots ,h_s): U\to {\mathbb{C}}^s$ is an embedding. The complement of $\tilde{F}$ in $\pi^{-1}(U)$ is an affine $\tilde{U}\subset\tilde{X}$, with coordinate ring $R[t]/f-tg$, with $\tilde{E}$ defined by $t, \tilde{Z}$ by $g$. On $\tilde{U}$, the rational map becomes a morphism $$[t,1,h_1,\cdots ,h_s];$$ as this gives an embedding on ${\mathbb{C}}\times U$, which contains $\tilde{U}$, the first assertion follows. Note also that ${\mathcal{I}}_Z{\mathcal{O}}(E)$ restricted to $F$ is $\cong {\mathcal{O}}_F$. The remaining claims follow from Proposition 3.5.
One may form $k$-step extensions in the DuVal-type construction above by considering the complete linear system of $Z$ on $E$. Let $Y$ be a projective variety with $h^1({\mathcal{O}}_Y)=0$, $D\subset Y$ a smooth Cartier divisor, $M$ a line bundle on $D$ so that ${\mathcal{O}}_D(D-M)$ is very ample, and $V\subset\Gamma (D,M)$ a non-0 linear subspace. The linear system associated to $V$ is represented by $Z\subset D\times{\mathbb{P}}(V)$, a relatively effective Cartier divisor over ${\mathbb{P}}(V)$. In the previous notation, let
$$\begin{aligned}
X &= Y\times {\mathbb{P}}(V) \\
E &= D\times {\mathbb{P}}(V) \\
Z &\subset D\times {\mathbb{P}}(V) \mbox{ as above }\\
L &= {\mathcal{O}}_Y(D)\boxtimes {\mathcal{O}}(1).
\end{aligned}$$
Note that ${\mathcal{O}}_E(Z) \cong {\mathcal{O}}_D(M)\boxtimes{\mathcal{O}}(1)$. The restriction of ${\mathcal{I}}_ZL$ to $E$ is $$L\otimes{\mathcal{O}}_E(-Z) \cong \pi_1^*{\mathcal{O}}_D(D-M).$$ Since $H^1(X,L(-E)) \cong H^1(Y,{\mathcal{O}}_Y)\otimes H^0({\mathbb{P}}(V), {\mathcal{O}}(1))=0$, one has the exact sequence $$0 \to \Gamma (\pi^*_2{\mathcal{O}}(1)) \to \Gamma ({\mathcal{I}}_ZL) \to \Gamma
(\pi_1^*{\mathcal{O}}_D(D-M)) \to 0.$$ The first subspace is canonically $V^*$, and yields divisors of the form $E+\pi_2^{-1}H$, where $H\subset{\mathbb{P}}(V)$ is a hyperplane; so $\Gamma ({\mathcal{I}}_ZL)$ has no base points off $E$. ${\mathcal{O}}_D(D-M)$ is very ample, hence free, so there are no base points on $E$ except along $Z$. The map $\rho : \tilde{X} \to {\mathbb{P}}(\Gamma
({\mathcal{I}}_ZL)^*)={\mathbb{P}}^N$ restricted to $\tilde{E}\cong E=D\times{\mathbb{P}}(V)$ is the projection map to $D$ followed by the embedding given by ${\mathcal{O}}_D(D-M)$. Intersecting the linear space ${\mathbb{P}}(V)\subset{\mathbb{P}}^N$ with $\rho (\tilde{X})$ and pulling back to $\tilde{X}$ is (as a scheme) the intersection of the divisors $E+\pi_2^{-1}H$, which equals $E$. We conclude that the smooth variety $\rho (\tilde{E})$ equals $\rho (\tilde{X})\cap{\mathbb{P}}(V)$. In particular, $\rho$ is birational onto its image, which is a $(\dim
V)$-step extension of $\rho (\tilde{E})\cong D$, embedded via ${\mathcal{O}}_D(D-M)$. Note finally that $V$ is naturally isomorphic to $\Gamma ({\mathcal{I}}_{{\mathbb{P}}(V)}(1))^*$. We change notation and summarize in the
Let $E\subset X$ be a smooth Cartier divisor on a projective variety with $h^1({\mathcal{O}}_X)=0$, $M$ a line bundle on $E$ with ${\mathcal{O}}_E(E-M)$ very ample.
1. Then for every non-0 $\;V\subset \Gamma (E,M)$, there is a $(\dim V)$-step extension $\bar{X}$ of $E$ embedded by ${\mathcal{O}}_E(E-M)$.
2. Assume further ${\mathcal{O}}_E(E-M)$ is projectively normal. Then the $\overline{KS}$ map of the extension $\bar{X}$ is the composition $$V\subset\Gamma (E,M) \to H^1(E,\Theta_E(-E)\otimes {\mathcal{O}}(M)),$$ the second map arising from the normal sequence of $E\subset X$.
\[cor3.10\] Let $E\subset X$ be a smooth Cartier divisor on a normal projective variety with $h^1({\mathcal{O}}_X)=0$. Assume $M$ a line bundle on $X$ so that
1. ${\mathcal{O}}_X(E)\otimes M^{-1}$ is very ample
2. ${\mathcal{O}}_X(E)\otimes M^{-1}\otimes {\mathcal{O}}_E$ is projectively normal.
Then there is a $h^0(M)$-step extension of $(E,{\mathcal{O}}_E(E)\otimes
M^{-1})$, whose 1-step sub-extensions are formed by blowing up $X$ at $E\cap F$ (where $F$ is effective, ${\mathcal{O}}(F) \cong M$), and blowing down each component of $\tilde{F}$.
If further $$H^0(\Theta_X\otimes{\mathcal{O}}_E(-E)\otimes M))=0,$$ then the Kodaira-Spencer map of the extension is injective.
By the Kodaira vanishing theorem for a normal variety, $h^i(X,{\mathcal{O}}_E(-E)\otimes M)=0$, $i=0,1$, so $\Gamma
(X,M)\cong \Gamma (E,M\otimes {\mathcal{O}}_E)$. The normal sequence of $E$ in $X$ gives the exact $$H^0(E,\Theta_X\otimes{\mathcal{O}}_E(-E)\otimes M) \to H^0(E,M\otimes{\mathcal{O}}_E)
\to H^1(E,\Theta_E(-E)\otimes M).$$ Now all assertions follow from the Theorem.
An extension constructed as in Corollary \[cor3.10\] has a non-rational singularity if $h^{n-1}({\mathcal{O}}_F)\neq 0$ ($n=\dim
X$). For, one blows up $X$ along $F\cap E$ and blows down $\tilde{F}
\cong F$ via $\rho$, to a finite set of points. In the notation above, $R^{n-1}\rho_*{\mathcal{O}}_{\tilde{X}} \twoheadrightarrow
H^{n-1}({\mathcal{O}}_{\tilde{F}}) \neq 0$.
Suppose $(E,{\mathcal{O}}_E(E)\otimes M^{-1})$ satisfies ($N_2$) (or just (\[1.9.1\])). A dimension count plus Corollary 3.10 can be used to show the constructed extension is universal. This is of special interest when $M=-K_X$.
\[cor3.12\] Let $E\subset X$ be a smooth Cartier divisor on a normal Gorenstein projective variety with $h^1({\mathcal{O}}_X)=0$. Assume
1. $K_X+E$ is very ample, and $K_E$ is projectively normal
2. $h^0(E,\Theta_X(-(K_X+E))\otimes {\mathcal{O}}_E)=0$
3. For the embedding $E\subset{\mathbb{P}}= {\mathbb{P}}(\Gamma
(K_E)^*)$ given via $K_E$, $$\begin{aligned}
\dim \Gamma &(N_{E/{\mathbb{P}}}(-1))/ \Gamma (\Theta_{{\mathbb{P}}}(-1)) = h^0(-K_X)
\\
\Gamma &(N_{E/{\mathbb{P}}}(-2)) = 0.
\end{aligned}$$
Then the construction in (3.8) gives a universal extension of ($E,K_E$). Any non-conical 1-step extension of $(E,K_E)$ is constructed from an anti-canonical divisor $F$ on $X$, by blowing up $E\cap F$, and blowing down $\tilde{F}$. In particular, if $K_X\not\cong{\mathcal{O}}_X$, then every extension of $(E,K_E)$ has a non-rational singularity.
If $h^0(-K_X)=0$, by (c) the $KS$ map of any extension is 0; by Theorem \[th1.9\], it must be a cone over $(E, K_E)$ (necessarily non-rational, as $K_E$ ample implies $h^{n-1}({\mathcal{O}}_E)\neq 0$).
If $h^0(-K_X)\neq 0$, Corollary \[cor3.10\] applied to $M=-K_X$ gives an extension of $(E,K_E)$ with $KS$ an isomorphism (via (c)). By (\[th1.9\]), it is universal, and every extension is obtained by blowing up $X$ along $E\cap F$, where $F\in |-K_X|$ is an anticanonical divisor. If $K_X\cong {\mathcal{O}}_X$, one obtains that $X$ is the essentially unique extension of $(E,K_E)$. If $K_X\cong{\mathcal{O}}_X(-F)$, with $F\neq 0$, then $$0 \to K_X \to {\mathcal{O}}_X \to {\mathcal{O}}_F \to 0$$ and the equalities $h^n({\mathcal{O}}_X)=h^0(K_X)=0$, $h^n(K_X)=1$ imply that $h^{n-1}({\mathcal{O}}_F)\neq 0$. Applying Remark (3.11.1), one has a non-rational singularity on every 1-step extension.
It is important to note that the conditions of Corollary 3.12 hold for sufficiently ample $E$ on $X$; that is, for $D$ is ample and $n$ sufficiently large, a smooth $E$ in $|nD|$ satisfies (a)–(c). This is clear for (a) and (b), since $h^1({\mathcal{O}}_X)=0$ implies the surjectivity of $$\Gamma (X,K_X+E) \rightarrow \Gamma (E,K_E).$$ For (c), it follows e.g. from \[I\] that for large $E$, $K_X+E$ satisfies the syzygy condition ($N_2$). So it remains to check the dimension claim. If $\dim{X}\geq 3$, by (2.3.2) we need only show that for large E $$\dim{H^1(\Theta_E(-K_E))}=h^0(-K_X).$$ The normal bundle sequence for $E\subset X$ makes clear that for $E$ large the first term is $h^0(E,-K_{E})$, which in turn equals the second term for $E$ large. When $\dim{X}=2$, the result is well-known (e.g., \[DM\] or (4.4) below).
The case of curves
==================
If $C$ is a smooth non-hyperelliptic curve of genus $g\geq 3$, then $K_C$ is very ample, and the canonical embedding $C\subset{\mathbb{P}}^{g-1}={\mathbb{P}}$ is projectively normal (Noether’s theorem). An extension $W\subset{\mathbb{P}}^g$ of $C$ is a normal Gorenstein surface with $K_W\cong{\mathcal{O}}_W$ and $h^1({\mathcal{O}}_W)=0$ (a “canonically trivial surface.”) To apply Corollary \[cor3.12\], note
1. \[3.1.1\] $\dim H^0(N_{{\mathbb{P}}}(-1))/H^0(\Theta_{{\mathbb{P}}}(-1))
= {\operatorname{crk}}\; \Phi_K: \Lambda^2\Gamma (K) \to \Gamma (K^{\otimes 3}) =
$ corank of Gaussian-Wahl map \[W1\].
2. \[3.1.2\] $H^0(N_{C/{\mathbb{P}}}(-i))=0$, $i\geq 2$, unless $C$ is trigonal of genus $\leq 10$; the intersection of a del Pezzo surface in ${\mathbb{P}}^{g-1}$ with a quadric ($g\leq 10$); or is bielliptic.
(4.1.2) asserts the Gaussian $\Phi(K,K^{\otimes i})$ is surjective for $i\geq 2$ except in these cases. When the Clifford index $\geq
3$, one has property $(N_2)$ (by \[S\], \[V\]); so recall \[1.10.1\]. The other cases can be deduced via \[CM\]; \[T\], p. 161; and \[W2\], $\S$5.8.
Conditions (b) and (c) in Corollary \[cor3.12\] arise dually in the
\[prop3.3\] (cf. \[DM\]). Let $C\subset X$ be a smooth Cartier divisor on a normal Gorenstein surface with $h^1({\mathcal{O}}_X)=0$. Assume
1. $H^1(\Omega^1_X (2K_X+2C)\otimes{\mathcal{O}}_C) = 0$
2. $K_X+C$ is ample
3. The Gaussian $\Phi_{K_X +C}$ is surjective
4. $H^1(\Omega^1_X (2K_X +C))=0$.
Then $${\operatorname{corank}}\Phi_K = h^0(-K_X),$$ i.e., “$X$ computes the Gaussian of $C$.”
A straightforward diagram chase as in \[DM\], Lemma 2.6, except that one uses $h^i(X,{\mathcal{O}}_X(-(K_X+C)))=0$ ($i=0,1$), by Kodaira Vanishing for a normal surface.
Of course sufficiently ample $C$ on $X$ satisfy conditions (a)–(d) of the Proposition. We paraphrase Corollary \[cor3.12\] as follows:
\[th3.5\] Suppose $X$ is a Gorenstein projective surface with $h^1({\mathcal{O}}_X)=0$. Let $C\subset X$ be a smooth Cartier divisor, not one of the special curves of genus $\leq 10$ of \[3.1.2\], nor bielliptic. Assume
1. $K_X+C$ is very ample
2. $X$ computes the Gaussian of $C$.
Then every extension of the canonical embedding of $C$ is constructed as in $\S$3 from an anti-canonical divisor on $X$. In particular, $C$ does not sit on a $K$-3 surface, unless $X$ is a $K$-3 surface.
In the moduli space ${\mathcal{M}}_g$, there are generally many irreducible components of the locus of curves with Gaussian corank 1, besides the $(g+19)$-dimensional stratum of $K$-3 curves. For instance, let $X\subset{\mathbb{P}}^{g'}$ be the cone over a general canonical curve $C'$ of genus $g'\geq 12$. By the Theorem, a smooth hypersurface section $C$ of degree $d$ large has genus $g=d^2(g' -1)+1$ and Gaussian corank 1, and uniquely determines $X$ (hence $C$). Varying $C'$ and the hypersurface section gives a $(g+2g'-3)$-dimensional locus in ${\mathcal{M}}_g$, with Gaussian corank 1.
One can say precisely which complete intersection curves sit on $K$-3 surfaces, and more generally describe the canonically trivial surfaces of which they are hyperplane sections. Let $C\subset{\mathbb{P}}^n$ be a complete intersection curve of multidegree $2\leq d_1\leq d_2 \cdots \leq d_{n-1} \equiv d$; assume $g\geq 2$, so $\kappa =\sum d_i-(n+1)>0$ and $K_C={\mathcal{O}}_C(\kappa )$. Let $X$ be a general complete intersection surface of multidegree $d_1\leq
d_2\leq \cdots \leq d_{n-2}$ which contains $C$ ($X$ is unique unless $d_{n-2}=d_{n-1}$); then $K_X={\mathcal{O}}_X(\kappa -d)$. By Theorem 6.2 of \[W1\], $\kappa >d$ implies the Gaussian of $C$ is surjective, so the canonical embedding of $C$ has only conical extensions.
\[lem3.8\] $X$ computes the Gaussian of $C$, except in the following cases:
1. \[3.8.1\] $n=2, \quad d_1\leq 6$
2. \[3.8.2\] $n=3, \quad d_1\leq d_2 \leq 4$
3. \[3.8.3\] $n=4, \quad (d_1,d_2,d_3) = (2,2,2),\;
(2,2,3),\; (2,3,3)$
4. \[3.8.4\] $n=5, \quad \mbox{\rmfamily all }d_i =2.$
${\mathcal{O}}_X(C)={\mathcal{O}}_X(d)$, and $K_X+C={\mathcal{O}}_X(\kappa )$ is very ample. By (\[prop3.3\]), it suffices to check that except in the cases above, the Gaussian of ${\mathcal{O}}_X(\kappa )$ is surjective and $$H^1(\Omega^1_X(2\kappa )\otimes{\mathcal{O}}_C) = H^1(\Omega^1_X(2\kappa
-d))=0.$$ As in \[W1\], 6.6, the first condition follows from the surjectivity of non-trivial Gaussians on ${\mathbb{P}}^n$ plus surjectivity of the composition $$\Gamma ({\mathbb{P}}^n, \Omega^1_{{\mathbb{P}}}(2\kappa )) \to \Gamma
(X,\Omega^1_{{\mathbb{P}}}(2\kappa )\otimes{\mathcal{O}}_X) \to \Gamma
(X,\Omega^1_X(2\kappa )).$$
If $n\geq 2$, in all above examples $X$ is a canonically trivial surface (a $K$-3, if smooth), but it is not unique; thus $C$ could not have Gaussian of ${\operatorname{corank}}\; 1=h^0(-K_X)$.
\[th3.10\] Let $C\subset {\mathbb{P}}^n$ be a smooth complete intersection curve. Aside from \[3.8.1\]–\[3.8.4\], the only $C$ which could lie on a $K$-3 surface are the “obvious ones,” with multi-indices
1. \[3.10.1\] $n=3, \; (4,d_2), d_2 > 4$
2. \[3.10.2\] $n=4, \; (2,3,d_3), d_3 > 3$
3. \[3.10.3\] $n=5, \; (2,2,2,d_4), d_4>2.$
In these cases, the surface $X$ is a $K$-3 (if smooth) and is a universal extension of the canonical curve.
\[3.10.1\]–\[3.10.3\] are exactly the cases with $\kappa =d>d_{n-2}$; the other $\kappa =d$ examples are covered by (\[lem3.8\]). So Theorem \[th3.5\] applied to $X$ gives the result, once we show the special curves of \[3.1.2\] are included in (\[lem3.8\]). For instance, it suffices to check that the Gaussians $\Phi (K,K^{\otimes i})$ on $C$ are surjective, all $i\geq
2$. Restricting from ${\mathbb{P}}^n$ as in (\[lem3.8\]), one needs that the composition $$\Gamma ({\mathbb{P}}^n,\Omega^1_{{\mathbb{P}}^n}((i+1)\kappa )) \to \Gamma
(C,\Omega^1_{{\mathbb{P}}^n}((i+1)\kappa )\otimes{\mathcal{O}}_C) \to \Gamma
(C,\Omega^1_C((i+1)\kappa ))$$ is surjective for $i\geq 2$; a standard computation gives this once $2\kappa >d$. But the cases with $2\kappa\leq d$ are included in (\[lem3.8\]).
Taking double covers, smooth plane curves of degree 4, 5, or 6 lie on a $K$-3 (possibly with rational double points) — cf. the proof of (\[cor4.5\]) below.
Green-Lazarsfeld \[GL\] already had shown that a plane curve of degree $d\geq 7$ does not lie on a $K$-3; they argue that the $g^2_d$ would be induced by a divisor on the $K$-3 , from which a contradiction follows.
\[prop3.12\] Let $C$ be a smooth curve on the rational ruled surface ${\mathbb{F}}_n$, linearly equivalent to $pB+qF$ (where $B$ is the section with $B\cdot B=-n$, $F$ is a fibre). Assume that $p\geq 5$, and
1. if $n=0$, then $q\geq 5$
2. if $n=1$, then $q\geq p+4$
3. if $n=2$, then $q\geq 2p+2$.
Then ${\mathbb{F}}_n$ computes the Gaussian of $C$, with $h^0({\mathbb{F}}_n,{\mathcal{O}}(-K)) =n+6$ if $n\geq 3$ (and $=9$ for $n\leq 3$). Every extension of the canonical embedding of $C$ arises from blowing up ${\mathbb{F}}_n$ and blowing down an anti-canonical divisor. In particular, $C$ does not sit on a $K$-3 surface.
The first assertion is Theorem 5.5 of \[DM\]. Since $K=-2B-(n+2)F$, and $rB+sF$ is very ample iff $r\geq 1$ and $s>rn$, we conclude that $K+C$ is very ample. Theorem \[th3.5\] applies once we note $C$ can be neither trigonal, nor on a del Pezzo, nor bielliptic, as seen by comparing the genera and corank of the Gaussian of such curves from \[Br\], \[CM\] with the formulas above when $C\subset{\mathbb{F}}_n$.
Blowing up ${\mathbb{P}}^2$ at a point of a smooth curve $C$, the proper transform on ${\mathbb{F}}_1$ is very ample but with Gaussian of corank 10, not 9—thus the restrictions above for small $n$.
When $n\geq 3$, $-K$ has $B$ as base curve. One sees that a generic extension of $C\subset {\mathbb{P}}^{g-1}$ has a non-smoothable cusp singularity with two exceptional curves in the minimal resolution.
Now suppose $C$ is bielliptic, of genus $\geq 6$. Then $C\subset{\mathbb{P}}^{g-1}$ is the complete intersection of a quadric $Q$ with $X$, a projective cone over an elliptic curve $D$ of degree $g-1$ in ${\mathbb{P}}^{g-2}$ \[CM\]. It is known that $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
&\dim H^0(C,N_{C/{\mathbb{P}}}(-1))/\Gamma (\Theta_{{\mathbb{P}}}(-1)) &&= 2g-2 \\
&\dim H^0(C,N_{C/{\mathbb{P}}}(-i)) &&= 1 \qquad\qquad i=2 \\
& &&=0 \qquad\qquad i\geq 3.
\end{aligned}$$ $D\subset {\mathbb{P}}^{g-2}$ satisfies $(N_2)$; it is defined by quadratic equations $f_1,\cdots ,f_N$, in variables $x_2,\cdots ,x_g$. We may assume coordinates chosen in ${\mathbb{P}}^{g-1}$ so that $C$ is defined by these equations plus another of the form $h=x^2_1 - A(x_2,\cdots
,x_g)$, where $A$ is also quadratic.
\[th3.15\] (cf. \[Re\]). Suppose $C$ is bielliptic of genus $g\geq 11$. Then there is a unique nontrivial extension of the canonical embedding of $C$, a birationally ruled surface with two simple elliptic singularities of degree $(g-1)$. In particular, $C$ does not sit on a $K$-3 surface.
$C$ is defined by $f_1,\cdots ,f_N$, and $h$, and the relations are generated by the linear relations among the $f_i$, plus the trivial relations $f_i\cdot h-h\cdot f_i =0$ (since $h$ is not a 0-divisor mod the $f_i$). Let $W\subset{\mathbb{P}}^g$ be an extension of $C\subset{\mathbb{P}}^{g-1}$, defined by $t=0$. Then liftings of the equations $f_i$ induce an extension of $X$ as well. But it is well-known (\[P\]) that the cone over an elliptic curve of degree $\geq 10$ has no non-trivial extensions; thus, when $g-1 \geq 10$, after changing coordinates one may assume the equations defining $W$ are given by $f_1,\cdots f_N, h+t\alpha +t^2\beta$. Given the form of $h$, replacing $x_1$ by $x_1-t\alpha /2$ changes only the last equation, to $h+t^2\beta$, where $\beta\in{\mathbb{C}}$. If $\beta =0$, one has a cone; otherwise, replacing $t$ by $t/\sqrt{\beta}$, one has the unique non-trivial extension of $C$ (with $\beta =1$). This is described geometrically via Corollary \[cor3.7\]. Noting $K_X
\cong {\mathcal{O}}_X(1)$, let $E=C$ and $F\cong D$ a smooth hyperplane section of $X\subset{\mathbb{P}}^{g-1}$. Blowing up the $2(g-1)$ points of $C\cap D$, then blowing down the proper transform of $D$, gives an extension of $C$ with a second elliptic singularity, also of degree $g-1$. Note that the $KS$ map is 0 for this extension.
Complete intersections which lie on Calabi-Yaus
===============================================
Let $X\subset{\mathbb{P}}^n$ be a smooth complete intersection subvariety of dimension $r\geq 2$, of multidegree $2\leq
d_1\leq \cdots \leq d_{n-r}$. Assume $\kappa =\sum d_i-(n+1) >0$, so that $X$ has very ample canonical bundle ${\mathcal{O}}_X(\kappa )$. Let $Y_{\alpha}\supset X$ be a general complete intersection defined by the same equations as $X$ except for one of degree $d_{\alpha}$. Then $K_{Y_{\alpha}} \cong {\mathcal{O}}_{Y_{\alpha}} (\kappa -d_{\alpha})$. Thus, if $\kappa =d_{\alpha}$ for some $\alpha$, then $X$ is a hyperplane section of a Calabi-Yau, assuming $Y_{\alpha}$ can be chosen to have rational singularities. More generally,
\[prop4.2\] Let $X$ be a complete intersection so that $\kappa$ divides $d_{\alpha}$, for some $\alpha$. Suppose $Y=Y_{\alpha}$ can be chosen to have at most rational singularities. Then there is a cyclic branched cover of $Y$ which is a Calabi-Yau variety and on which $X$ is a hyperplane section.
If $m\kappa =d_{\alpha}$, then ${\mathcal{O}}_Y(X)={\mathcal{O}}_Y(m\kappa )$; form the $m$-fold cyclic branched cover of $Y$ along $X$. It is easy to check $Y$ is a Calabi-Yau variety, and the reduced ramification divisor $X'\cong X$ is very ample.
If $\kappa$ is large compared to the $d_{\alpha}$, then $X$ cannot sit on a Calabi-Yau, as is proved for curves in (\[th3.10\]). Specifically,
\[th4.4\] Let $X\subset{\mathbb{P}}^n$ be a smooth complete intersection, with multidegree $d_1\leq \cdots \leq
d_{n-r-1} \leq d_{n-r}=d$, and with $\kappa =\sum d_i-(n+1) > 0$.
1. If $\kappa >d$, then $(X,K_X)$ has no extensions.
2. If $d>\kappa >\frac{d}{2}$ and $\kappa >d_{n-r-1}$, then $(X,K_X)$ has non-trivial extensions, but all have non-rational singularities.
\[cor4.5\] A smooth hypersurface $X\subset
{\mathbb{P}}^n$ of degree $d$ is a hyperplane section of a Calabi-Yau variety iff $n+1 \leq d\leq 2n+2$.
\[cor4.6\] Let $X\subset{\mathbb{P}}^n$ be a smooth complete intersection of type $(d' ,d)$, with $d'\leq d$. Then
1. if $d\leq n+1$, $X$ sits on a smooth Calabi-Yau hypersurface.
2. if $d>n+2$ and $\frac{d}{2} +d' >n+1$, then $X$ cannot sit on a Calabi-Yau variety unless $d' =n+1$.
3. if $\frac{d}{2} +d' =n+1$, then the generic complete intersection variety of type $(d',d)$ sits on a Calabi-Yau.
We assume $2\kappa >d$. Standard cohomological arguments yield, $$\begin{aligned}
H^1(\Theta_X(-i\kappa )) &=0, \vspace{2.3in} i\geq 2, \\
H^1(\Theta_X(-\kappa )) &\cong \oplus \Gamma ({\mathcal{O}}_X(d_i-\kappa )).
\end{aligned}$$ It follows from the normal bundle sequence that the canonical embedding of $X$ satisfies $\Gamma (N(-2))=0$. (a) follows easily from (1.9) and (2.3.2). Further, $\kappa>d_{n-r-1}$ implies $$H^1(\Theta_X(-\kappa )) \cong \Gamma ({\mathcal{O}}_X(d-\kappa )).$$ With $Y=Y_{n-r}$ as above, this last term equals $h^0(Y,-K_Y)$, and one easily finds that $H^0(\Theta_Y(-(K_Y+X))\otimes{\mathcal{O}}_X)=0$. Now apply Corollary \[cor3.12\].
If $d=2n+2$, Proposition 4.2 applies; so it remains to show that $X$ is on a Calabi-Yau variety when $n+1 < d < 2n+2$. Let $X'$ be a smooth hypersurface of degree $d' =2n+2-d$ intersecting $X$ transversally. Let $Z\to {\mathbb{P}}^n$ be the blow-up along $X\cap X'$, with $\bar{X}$ and $\bar{X}'$ the proper transforms; take the double cover $Y\to Z$ branched along $\bar{X}\cup \bar{X}'$. Then $Y$ is a Calabi-Yau variety, with a divisor $\tilde{X}$ isomorphic to $X$, for which the normal bundle is $K_X$. In particular, ${\mathcal{O}}_Y(\tilde{X})$ is very ample in a neighborhood of $\tilde{X}$, and defines a morphism $Y\to
Y^*$ which collapses $\tilde{X}'$ to a rational singular point (since $d' < n+1$). We can view $X$ as a hyperplane section of the singular Calabi-Yau $Y^*$ (cf. Lemma 3.4).
If $d\leq n+1$, by Bertini’s Theorem the general hypersurface of degree $n+1$ containing $X$ is smooth, and is a Calabi-Yau. (b) follows easily from (\[th4.4\]), since $\kappa =d' +d-(n+1)$. The condition in (c) may be written $2\kappa
=d$, so (\[prop4.2\]) applies.
[1000]{}
A. Beauville and J.-Y. Mérindol, *Sections hyperplanes des surfaces K3*, Duke Math. J. [**55**]{} (1987), 873–878. J. Brawner, *The Gaussian-Wahl map for trigonal curves*, Proc. A.M.S. [**123**]{} (1995), 1357–1361. C. Ciliberto, J. Harris, and H.P. Miranda, *On the surjectivity of the Wahl map*, Duke Math. J. [**57**]{} (1988), 829–858. C. Ciliberto and H.P. Miranda, *On the Gaussian map for canonical curves of low genus*, Duke Math. J. [**61**]{} (1990), 417–443. J. Duflot and H.P. Miranda, *The Gaussian map for rational ruled surfaces*, Trans. A.M.S. [**330**]{} (1992), 447–459. P. Du Val, *On rational surfaces whose prime sections are canonical curves*, Proc. London Math. Soc. [**35**]{}, series 2 (1933), 1–13. D.H.J. Epema, *Surfaces with canonical hyperplane sections*, CWI Tract, I, Stichtung Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam (1983), ix+105 pp. M. Green and R. Lazarsfeld, *Special divisors on curves on a K3 surface*, Invent. Math. [**89**]{} (1987), 357–370. S.P. Inamdar, *On syzygies of projective varieties*, Pacific J. Math. [**177**]{} (1997), no. 1, 71–76. R. Lazarsfeld, *Brill-Noether-Petri without degeneration*, J. Diff. Geom. [**23**]{} (1986), 299–307. S. L’vovsky, *Extensions of projective varieties and deformations, I, II*, Mich. Math. J. [**39**]{} (1992), 41–70. S. Mori and S. Mukai, *The uniruledness of the moduli spaces of curves of genus 11*, in Lecture Notes in Mathematics [**1016**]{}, Springer-Verlag (1983), 334–353. S. Mukai, *Curves, K-3 surfaces, and Fano 3-folds of genus 10*, in Algebraic Geometry and Commutative Algebra in Honour of M. Nagata (1987), 357–377. S. Mukai, *New development of theory of Fano 3-folds: vector bundle method and moduli problem*, to appear, available at http://www.math.nagoya-u.ac.jp. H. Pinkham, *Deformations of algebraic varieties with $\mathbb{G}\sb{m}$ action*, Astérisque [**20**]{} (1974), 1-131. M. Reid, *Special linear systems on curves on a K3 surface*, J. London Math. Soc. (2) [**13**]{} (1976), 454–458. F.-O. Schreyer, *Syzygies of canonical curves and special linear series*, Math. Ann. [**275**]{} (1986), 105–137. S. Tendian, *Surfaces of degree d with sectional genus g in ${\mathbb{P}}^{d+1-g}$ and deformations of cones*, Duke Math. J. [**65**]{} (1992), 157–185. C. Voisin, *Courbes tetragonals et cohomologie de Koszul*, J. Reine Angew. Math. [**387**]{} (1988), 111–121. J. Wahl, *The Jacobian algebra of a graded Gorenstein surface singularity*, Duke Math. J. [**55**]{} (1987), 843–871. J. Wahl, *On cohomology of the square of an ideal sheaf*, J. of Alg. Geom. [**6**]{} (1997), 481–511.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We study scenarios in which the goal is to ensure that some information will propagate through a large network of nodes. In these scenarios all nodes that are aware of the information compete for the same prize, and thus have an incentive [*not*]{} to propagate information. One example for such a scenario is the 2009 DARPA Network Challenge (finding red balloons). We give special attention to a second domain, Bitcoin, a decentralized electronic currency system.
Bitcoin, which has been getting a large amount of public attention over the last year, represents a radical new approach to monetary systems which has appeared in policy discussions and in the popular press [@NY11; @technology-review]. Its cryptographic fundamentals have largely held up even as its usage has become increasingly widespread. We find, however, that it exhibits a fundamental problem of a different nature, based on how its incentives are structured. We propose a modification to the protocol that can fix this problem.
Bitcoin relies on a peer-to-peer network to track transactions that are performed with the currency. For this purpose, every transaction a node learns about should be transmitted to its neighbors in the network. As the protocol is currently defined and implemented, it does not provide an incentive for nodes to broadcast transactions they are aware of. In fact, it provides a strong incentive not to do so. Our solution is to augment the protocol with a scheme that rewards information propagation. We show that our proposed scheme succeeds in setting the correct incentives, that it is Sybil-proof, and that it requires only a small payment overhead, all this is achieved with iterated elimination of dominated strategies. We provide lower bounds on the overhead that is required to implement schemes with the stronger solution concept of Dominant Strategies, indicating that such schemes might be impractical.
author:
- 'Moshe Babaioff[^1]'
- 'Shahar Dobzinski[^2]'
- 'Sigal Oren [^3]'
- 'Aviv Zohar[^4]'
bibliography:
- 'bitcoin.bib'
title: On Bitcoin and Red Balloons
---
Introduction
============
In 2009 DARPA announced the DARPA Network Challenge, in which participants competed to find ten red weather balloons that were dispersed across the United States [@red_balloon]. Faced with the daunting task of locating balloons spread across a wide geographical area, participating teams attempted to recruit individuals from across the country to help. The winning team from MIT [@Pickard10], incentivized balloon hunters to seek balloons by offering them rewards of $\$2000$ per balloon. Furthermore, after recognizing that notifying individuals from all over the US about these rewards is itself a difficult undertaking, the MIT team cleverly offered additional rewards of $\$1000$ to the person who directly recruited a balloon finder, a reward of $\$500$ to his recruiter, and so on. These additional payments created the incentive for participants to spread the word about MIT’s offer of rewards and were instrumental in the team’s success. In fact, the additional rewards are necessary: each additional balloon hunter competes with the participants in his vicinity, and reduces their chances of getting the prize.
MIT’s scheme still requires further improvement. As it is, a participant can create a fake identity, invite the fake identity to participate, and use that identity to recruit others. By doing so he increases his prize by 50%.[^5] Thus the reward scheme should be carefully designed so it does not create an incentive for such a Sybil attack. Our goal is to design reward schemes that incentivize *information propagation* and counter the dis-incentive that arises from the competition from other nodes, and are *Sybil proof* (robust against Sybil attacks) while having a *low overhead* (a total reward that is not too high).
A related setting is a raffle, in which people purchase numbered tickets in hopes of winning some luxurious prize. Each ticket has the same probability of winning, and the prize is always allocated. As more tickets are sold, the probability that a certain ticket will win decreases. In this case again, there is a clear tension between the organizer of the raffle, who wants as many people to find out about the raffle, and the participants who have already purchased tickets and want to increase their individual chances of winning. The lesson here is simple, to make raffles more successful participants should be incentivized to spread the word. One example of a raffle already implementing this is Expedia’s “FriendTrips” in which the more friends you recruit the bigger your probability of winning.
As apparent from the previous examples, the tension between information propagation and an increased competition is a general problem. We identify an instantiation of this tension in the Bitcoin protocol, our main example for the rest of the paper. Bitcoin is a decentralized electronic currency system proposed by Satoshi Nakamoto in $2008$ as an alternative to current government-backed currencies.[^6] Bitcoin has been actively running since $2009$. Its appeal lies in the ability to quickly transfer money over the internet, and in its relatively low transaction fees.[^7] As of November 2011, it has 7.5 million coins in circulation (called *Bitcoins*) which are traded at a value of approximately 3 USD per bitcoin. Below, we give a brief explanation of the Bitcoin protocol, and then explain where the incentives problem appears. We give a more comprehensive description of the protocol in Appendix \[sec-bitcoin\].
Bitcoin relies on a peer-to-peer network to verify and authorize all transactions that are performed with the currency. Suppose that Alice wants to reserve a hotel room for $30$ bitcoins. Alice cryptographically signs a transaction to transfer $30$ bitcoins from her to the hotel, and sends the signed transaction to a small number of nodes in the network. Each node in the network propagates the transaction to its neighbors. A node that receives the transaction verifies that Alice has signed it and that she does indeed own the bitcoins she is attempting to transfer. The node then tries to “authorize” the transaction[^8] by attempting to solve a computationally hard problem (basically inverting a hash function). Once a node successfully authorizes a transaction, it sends the “proof” (the inverted hash) to all of its neighbors. They in turn, send the information to all of their neighbors and so on. Finally, all nodes in the network “agree” that Alice’s bitcoins have been transferred to the hotel.
In compensation for their efforts, nodes are offered a payment in bitcoins for successful authorizations. The system is currently in its initial stages, in which nodes are paid a predetermined amount of bitcoins that are created “out of thin air”. This also slowly builds up the bitcoins supply. But Bitcoin’s protocol specifies an exponentially decreasing rate of money creation that effectively sets a cap on the total number of bitcoins that will be in circulation. As this payment to nodes is slowly phased out, bitcoin owners that want their transactions approved are supposed to pay fees to the authorizing nodes.
This is where the incentive problem manifests itself. A node in the network has an incentive to keep the knowledge of any transaction that offers a fee for itself, as any other node that becomes aware of the transaction will compete to authorize the transaction first and claim the associated fee. For example, if only a single node is aware of a transaction, it can eliminate competition altogether by not distributing information further. With no competition, the informed node will eventually succeed in authorizing and collect the fee. The consequences of such behavior may be devastating: as only a single node in the network works to authorize each transaction, authorization is expected to take a very long time.[^9]
We stress that false identities are a prominent concern in Bitcoin. In fact, the Bitcoin protocol is built around the assumption that nodes can create false identities, and considers a transaction fully approved only once nodes that control a majority of the CPU power in the network have accepted it, rather than just a majority of the nodes. The latter is vulnerable to Sybil attacks. Therefore any reward scheme for transaction distribution must discourage such attacks.
### A Simplified Model {#a-simplified-model .unnumbered}
We present the model in the framework of Bitcoin. The presentation here is a bit informal, see Appendix \[sec-prelim\] for a formal model. For simplicity assume that only one transaction needs to be authorized. We model the authorization process as divided into two phases: the first phase is a distribution phase. The second one is a computation phase, in which every node that has received the transaction is attempting to authorize it. In general, it is common to think of an efficient peer to peer network as a random graph, in which messages propagate quickly, multiplying the number of recipients as the message is sent to each additional layer. Since we are not able to solve for the general case of random graphs, we will further simplify that and assume that the network consists of a forest of $d$-ary directed trees, each of them of height $H$.[^10] In the beginning of the *distribution phase* the buyer sends the details of the transaction to the $t$ roots of the trees (which we shall term *seeds*). We think of the trees as directed, since the information (about the transaction) flows from the root towards the leaves. Let $n=t\cdot \frac {d^{H}-1} {d-1}$ be the total number of nodes.
In the distribution phase, each node $v$ can send the transaction to any of its neighbors after adding any number of fake identities of itself before sending to that neighbor. All $v$’s fake identities are connected to the same set of children. A node can condition its behavior only on the *length* of the chain above it, which can possibly include false identities that were produced by its ancestors.
In the *computation phase* each node that is aware of the transaction tries to authorize it. If there are $k$ such nodes, each of them has the same probability of $\frac 1 k$ to authorize it first.
When a node $p_h$ succeeds in authorizing a transaction we have a [*winning chain*]{} $p_1,\ldots, p_h$, where $p_1$ is one of the seeds. Each node on the path in the tree from the seed to the authorizer appears on this chain (nodes are not able to remove their predecessors from the chain due to the use of cryptographic signatures), so the observed chain is a superset of the real path in the tree (it potentially includes duplicates). For allocating rewards on the “winning” chain we look at it in reverse order, reward $r_1$ is allocated to the authorizing node and $r_h$ to the seed. We assume that there exists a minimal payment $c$ that at least covers the expected computation cost for a single node to authorize the transaction by itself such that any node that is promised a reward of $c$ will attempt to authorize the transaction. Thus, we require that the authorizer reward $r_1$ is at least $c$.[^11] For a smaller reward, nodes will refuse to participate in the first place (due to individual rationality). We normalize $c$ to be $1$.
Every reward scheme we consider in this paper is completely defined by non-negative rewards $r_{i,h}^s$ for every seed $s$ and every $1\leq i\leq
h$. The reward $r_{i,h}^s$ is the reward given to the $i$-th identity on the winning chain of length $h$ that starts at the authorizing node. A reward scheme is *individually rational* for $\mathcal H$ in a tree rooted by $s$ if for every $1\leq h\leq\mathcal H$ we have that $r^s_{1,h}\geq 1$.
We want rewarding schemes that will incentivize *information propagation* and *no duplication*. That is, it will be in a node’s best interest to distribute the transaction to all its children without duplicating itself, as well as never duplicating when it authorizes. Our goal is to have information of the transaction reach the majority of the nodes in the network. We want to achieve this with small rewards, while minimizing the number of seeds (so the burden of the initial distribution is as low as possible).
### Our Results {#our-results .unnumbered}
We start by introducing a new family of schemes: almost uniform schemes. Each member in the family is parameterized by a height parameter $\mathcal H$ and a reward parameter $\beta$. Let $v$ be the node that authorized the transaction and suppose that $v$ is the $l$’th node in the chain. If $l>\mathcal H$ no node is rewarded (so nodes “far” from the seed will not attempt to authorize the transaction). Otherwise, each node in the chain except $v$ gets a reward of $\beta$, and $v$ gets a reward of $1+(\mathcal
H-l+1)\beta$. We show that if there are $\Omega (\beta^{-1})$ seeds, only strategy profiles that exhibit information propagation and no duplication survive every order of iterated removal of dominated strategies. Furthermore, there exists an order in which no other strategy profiles survive (see a discussion of this solution concept below).
This gives us two interesting schemes, for two different values of $\beta$. The first is when $\beta=1$. In this case the $(1,\mathcal H)$-almost-uniform scheme requires only a constant number of seeds and the total payment is always $O(\mathcal H)$. The second scheme is the $(\frac 1 {\mathcal
H},\mathcal H)$-almost-uniform scheme. This scheme works if the number of seeds is $\Omega(\mathcal H)$. Its total payment is $2$.
We combine both schemes to create a reward scheme that has *both* a constant number of seeds and a constant overhead. The *Hybrid Scheme* first distributes the transaction to a constant number of seeds using the *$(1,1+ \log_d H)$-almost-uniform scheme*. Then we can argue that at least $H$ nodes are aware of the transaction. This fact enables us to further argue that the $(\frac 1 H, H)$-almost uniform scheme guarantees that the transaction is distributed to trees of height $H$. At the end of the distribution phase, most of the nodes that are aware of the transaction receive a reward of $\frac 1 H$ if they are in the successful chain, so the expected overhead is low. We have the following (imprecisely stated) theorem:
[**Theorem:**]{} In the hybrid rewarding scheme, if the number of seeds $t \geq 14$, the only strategies that always survive iterated elimination of dominated strategies exhibit information propagation and no duplication. In addition, there exists an elimination order in which the only strategies that survive exhibit information propagation and no duplication. Furthermore, the expected total sum of payments is at most $3$.
Notice that this scheme exhibits in equilibrium low overhead, Sybil proofness, and provides the nodes with an incentive to propagate information.
Iterated removal of dominated strategies is the following common technique for solving games: first the set of surviving strategies of each player is initiated to all its strategies. Then at each step, a strategy of one of the players is eliminated from the set. The strategy that is eliminated is one that is dominated by some other strategy of the same player (with respect to the strategies in the surviving sets of all other players). This process continues until there is no strategy that can be removed. The solution concept prescribes that each player will only play some strategy from his surviving set. In general the surviving sets can depend on the order in which strategies are eliminated. Yet, we show that in our case, regardless of the order of elimination, profiles of strategies in which every node propagates information and never duplicates, survive. Moreover, for a specific order of elimination they are the only strategies that survive. The intuition behind the elimination process is that decreasing competition by your own descendants might be unprofitable due to the distribution rewards. Consider one particular node. If the amount of external competition from non-descendent nodes is small, it prefers not to distribute the transaction, and thus increase the probability that it receives the reward for authorization. However, if sufficiently many non-descendent nodes are aware of the transaction, the node prefers to duplicate itself one less time, and thus distribute the transaction to its children and increase its potential distribution reward. Once all nodes increase distribution, the arms race begins: the competition each node faces is greater, and again it prefers to duplicate itself one less time and distribute all the way to its grand-children. As this process continues, all nodes eventually prefer to distribute fully and never to duplicate.
Iterated removal of dominated strategies is a strong solution concept, but ideally we would like our rewarding scheme to achieve all desired properties in the stronger notion of dominant strategies equilibrium. However, we show that in every dominant strategy scheme either the amount that the scheme must pay in equilibrium is huge, or the number of initial seeds $t$ must be very large.
[**Theorem:**]{} Every individually rational reward scheme that propagates information to at least half of the network, and in which no-duplication and information-propagation are a dominant strategy for all nodes, has expected payment of at least $\frac{1}{10}\left(\frac{2^{H-4}}{t^2} +
\frac{1}{t}\cdot\left(\frac{H-3}{t\cdot e}\right)^{H-3}\right)$, where $t$ is the number of seeds.
Notice that for the sum of total rewards to be constant the number of seeds $t$ has to be a significant part of the network. This implies that dominant strategy schemes are quite impractical.
### Related Work {#related-work .unnumbered}
The paper describing Bitcoin’s principles was originally published as a white paper by Satoshi Nakamoto [@Satoshi]. The protocol was since developed in an open-source project. To date, no formal document describes the protocol in its entirety, although the open source community maintains wiki pages devoted to that purpose [@wiki]. Some research has been conducted with regards to its privacy [@Reid11]. Krugman discusses some related economic concerns [@K].
The subject of incentives for information dissemination, especially in the context of social and peer-to-peer networks has received some attention in recent years. Kleinberg and Raghavan [@Kleinberg05] consider incentivizing nodes to search for information in a social network. A node that possesses the information is rewarded for relaying it back, as are nodes along the path to it. A key difference between their model and ours, is that nodes either posses the sought-after information or do not. If they do, then there is no need for further propagation, and if they do not, they cannot themselves generate the information, and so do not compete with nodes they transmit to (they do however compete for the propagation rewards with other unrelated nodes).
Emek *et. al.* [@Emek11] consider reward schemes for social advertising scenarios. In their model, the goal of the scheme is to advertise to as many nodes as possible, while rewarding nodes for forwarding the advertisement. Unlike their scenario, in our case the scheme is eventually only aware of a chain that results in a successful authorization, and only awards nodes on the path to the successful authorizer.
Other works consider propagation in social networks without the aspect of incentives. For example [@Dyagilev10], which considers ways to detect propagation events and examines data from cellular call data.
### Future Research {#future-research .unnumbered}
In this work we propose a novel low cost reward scheme that incentivizes information propagation and is Sybil proof. Currently we assume that the network is modeled as a forest of $t$ $d$-ary trees. A challenging open question is to consider the setting where the network is modeled as a random $d$-regular graph. Another interesting extension to consider is one in which nodes have different computation power. That is, each node $v$ has a computation power $CPU_v$, then the probability of a node $v$ that is aware of the transaction to authorize it is $\frac {CPU_v} {\Sigma_uCPU_u}$. We leave the analysis of these models, as well as the implementation and empirical experimentation, to future research.
New Reward Schemes
==================
Our main result is the Hybrid scheme, a reward scheme that requires only a constant number of seeds and a constant overhead. We will show that the only strategies that always survive iterated removal of dominated strategies are ones that exhibit information propagation and no duplication. The basic building blocks for this construction is a family of schemes, almost-uniform schemes, with less attractive properties. However, we will show that combining together two almost-uniform schemes enables us to obtain the improved properties of the Hybrid scheme.
The Basic Building Blocks: Almost-Uniform Schemes
-------------------------------------------------
The $(\beta,\mathcal H)$-almost-uniform scheme pays the authorizing node in a chain of length $h$ a reward of $1+\beta \cdot (\mathcal H-h+1)$. The rest of the nodes in the chain get a reward of $\beta$. If the chain length is greater than $\mathcal H$ no node receives a reward. The idea behind giving the authorizing node a reward of $1+\beta \cdot (\mathcal H-h+1)$ is to mimic the reward that the node would have gotten if it duplicated itself $\mathcal H-h$ times. Therefore, we can assume that no node duplicates itself before trying to authorize the transaction, and focus only on duplication before sending to its children.
\[thm-almost-uniform\] Let $d\geq 3$. Suppose that the number of seeds is $t\geq 7$ and in addition there are initially at least $2\beta^{-1}+ 6$ nodes except the $t$ seeds that are aware of the transaction. Then, information propagation and no duplication are the only strategies that always survive iterated removal of weakly dominated strategies in the $(\beta,\mathcal H)$-almost-uniform scheme, for every node at depth $\mathcal H$. Furthermore, there is an elimination order in which these strategies are the only ones that survive. The total payment is $1+\mathcal H\cdot \beta$.
While the $2\beta^{-1}+ 6$ additional nodes that are aware the transaction are not necessarily seeds, for now, one can think about them as additional seeds. The Hybrid scheme will exploit this extra flexibility to simultaneously obtain low overhead and small number of seeds. Before proving the theorem, let us mention two of its applications:
1. In the $(\frac 1 {\mathcal H}, \mathcal H)$-almost uniform scheme, if the number of seeds is at least $2\mathcal H + 13$, Then, information propagation and no duplication are the only strategies that always survive iterated removal of weakly dominated strategies in the $(\beta,\mathcal H)$-almost-uniform scheme. Furthermore, there is an elimination order in which these strategies are the only ones that survive. The total payment is $2$.
2. In the $(1,\mathcal H)$-almost uniform scheme, if the number of seeds is at least $15$, Then, information propagation and no duplication are the only strategies that always survive iterated removal of weakly dominated strategies in the $(\beta,\mathcal
H)$-almost-uniform scheme. Furthermore, there is an elimination order in which these strategies are the only ones that survive. The total payment is $\mathcal H + 1$.
Both parts of the corollary are direct applications of the theorem, by making sure that the number of initial seeds is at least $2\beta^{-1}+ 13$. Later we introduce the Hybrid scheme that combines between two almost uniform schemes, one with $\beta=1$ and one with $\beta=\frac 1 {\mathcal H}$, to obtain a scheme that uses both a constant number of seeds and its total expected payment is a small constant that does not depend on $\mathcal H$. The next subsection explains how to combine them together to obtain the Hybrid scheme.
The rest of the section is organized as follows. In Subsection \[subsec-almost-uniform-proof\] we prove our Theorem \[thm-almost-uniform\]. The next subsection presents the Hybrid scheme. Finally, Subsection \[subsec-implementation\] discusses how to implement the Hybrid scheme within the framework of the Bitcoin protocol.
The Final Construction: The Hybrid Scheme
-----------------------------------------
We now present our main construction, the Hybrid scheme. The scheme works as follows: we run the $(\frac 1 H,H)$-almost uniform scheme with a set of $A$ seeds ($|A|=a$) and simultaneously run the $(1,1+\log H)$-almost uniform scheme with a set of $B$ seeds ($|B|=b$).
If it holds that $a\geq b\geq 7$, Then, information propagation and no duplication are the only strategies that always survive iterated removal of weakly dominated strategies in the $(\beta,\mathcal H)$-almost-uniform scheme (for every node of depth at most $H$ in trees rooted by seeds in $A$, and $1+\log H$ for every node rooted by seeds in $B$). Furthermore, there is an elimination order in which these strategies are the only ones that survive. The total payment is in expectation at most $3$, and $2+\log H$ in the worst case. A fraction of at least $\frac a {a+b}$ of the network is aware of the transaction after the distribution phase.
The theorem is a consequence of Theorem \[thm-almost-uniform\]: all nodes up to depth $\log H$ in trees rooted by nodes in $B$ will propagate information and will not duplicate themselves. Thus, when considering the nodes in $A$, there are at least $7\cdot \frac{d\cdot d^{\log H}-1}{d-1}\geq
7H\geq 2H+6$ nodes that are aware of the transaction, which are not part of the trees rooted by nodes in $A$. Thus we can apply again Theorem \[thm-almost-uniform\] to claim each seed in $A$ roots a full tree of height $H$.
Notice that the worst case payment is $1+\log H$ (because of the use of the $(1,1+\log H)$-almost uniform scheme). The expected payment is $\dfrac
{a\cdot \frac{d^H-1}{d-1}\cdot 2 + b\cdot \frac{dH-1}{d-1}\cdot (1+\log H)}
{a\cdot \frac{d^H-1}{d-1}+b\cdot \frac{dH-1}{d-1}} \leq 3$. As for the number of nodes that are aware of the transaction at the end of the distribution phase: all trees rooted by nodes in $A$ are fully aware of the transaction. These nodes are a fraction of $\frac a {a+b}$ of the network (notice that we conservatively ignored nodes rooted by seeds in $B$ that are aware of the transaction).
Proof of Theorem \[thm-almost-uniform\] {#subsec-almost-uniform-proof}
---------------------------------------
We start with the following definition. The formal definition of the subgame uses the formal notation of Appendix \[sec-prelim\]. The intuition is that in a $\varphi$-subgame a node that has $H-l$ ancestors (including clones), does not clone itself and propagates information if $l\leq \varphi+1$. Otherwise for every child it duplicates itself at most $l-\varphi-1$ times.
The *$\varphi$-subgame* is the original game with restricted strategy spaces: the strategy space of node $v$ includes only strategies such that for every remanning strategy profile of the rest of the players, every $i$ and $l(v)$: $c^{l(v),v}_i \leq \max \{ l(v) -\varphi-1, 0 \}$.
The technical core of the proof is the following lemma:
\[lemma-main\] In the $\varphi$-subgame, suppose that there are at least $7$ seeds, and at least $2 \beta^{-1} + 6$ additional nodes are aware of the transaction. Then, any strategy $(c^{l(v),v}_1,\ldots, c^{l(v),v}_d)$ of node $v$ such that some $c^{l(v),v}_i=l(v) -\varphi-1$ is dominated by the strategy $(c^{l(v)}_1,\ldots, c^{l(v),v}_{i-1},c^{l(v),v}_i-1,c^{l(v),v}_{i+1},\ldots
,c^{l(v),v}_d)$.
The proof of the lemma is in Subsection \[subsec-lemma-main\]. Let us show how to use the lemma in order to prove the theorem. First, we observe that the $0$-subgame is simply the original game. If the conditions of the lemma hold, we can apply the lemma to eliminate all strategies $(c^{l(v),v}_1,\ldots, c^{l(v),v}_d)$ such that some $c^{l(v),v}_i=l(v) -1$. Notice that now we have a $1$-subgame. Applying the lemma again we get a $2$-subgame. Similarly, we repeatedly apply the lemma until we get a $(\mathcal H-1)$-subgame. Notice that the only surviving strategy of each node is $(0,\ldots, 0)$ for every $l(v)$: that is each node propagates information and does not duplicate. This shows that there exists an elimination order in which every node propagates information and does not duplicate. Next, we prove that the strategy profile in which all nodes propagate information and do not duplicate survives *every* order of iterated elimination of dominated strategies process (proof in the appendix):
\[lemma-uniquness\] Let $T$ be a sub-game that is reached via iterated elimination of dominated strategies in the $(\beta, \mathcal H)$-almost-uniform scheme, and suppose that there are at least $7$ seeds, and at least $2 \beta^{-1} + 6$ additional nodes are aware of the transaction. Then there exists a strategy profile $s \in T$ in which every node at depth at most $\mathcal H$ fully propagates and do not duplicate.
### Proof of Lemma \[lemma-main\] {#subsec-lemma-main}
Now, let us observe a node $v$ and fix $l=l(v)$. The non-trivial case is when $l\geq \varphi +1$. For convenience, we drop the superscript $(l(v),v)$ and denote a strategy by ($c_1,\ldots, c_d)$. Without loss of generality we assume $c_1 \leq c_2 \leq \ldots \leq c_d$. It will also be useful to define $y_i=l-c_i-1$. Note that our previous assumption implies that $y_1 \geq y_2
\geq \ldots \geq y_d$.
Let $s_{-v}$ be a strategy profile of all other nodes except $v$, and denote by $A_{s_{-v}}(y_i)$ the size of the subtree rooted at the $i$’th child of $v$ that learns of the transaction. The utility of $v$ is then:
$$U_v^{s_{-v}}(y_1, \ldots, y_d) = \underbrace{\frac{1 + \beta \cdot l}{k + \sum_{i=1}^d A_{s_{-v}}(y_i)}}_{v \hbox{ authorizes}} +\underbrace{\frac{ \sum_{i=1}^d \beta (l-y_i)\cdot A_{s_{-v}}(y_i)}{k + \sum_{i=1}^d A_{s_{-v}}(y_i)}}_{\hbox{a decedent of $v$ authorizes}}$$
where $k$ is the number of nodes which are aware of the transaction outside the subtree which $v$ is the root of (this number includes $v$ itself). We show that $(c_1,\ldots, c_d)$, where $c_d=l(v) -\varphi-1$ is dominated by $(c_1,\ldots ,c_d-1)$. For this purpose, it is sufficient to show the following claim:
\[claim\_internal\] Let $T_{-v}$ be the set of strategy profiles of all nodes other than $v$ in which:
1. The subtree rooted at $v$’s $d$’th child spans a complete $d$-ary tree of height $y_d$ when $v$ duplicates itself $c_d$ times, or of a height $y_d+1$ when $v$ duplicates itself $c_d-1$ times.
2. There are at least $k \geq 2\beta^{-1}+6d \frac{d^{y_d}-1}{d-1} +6$ nodes that are not descendants of $v$ that are aware of the transaction.
Then: $ \displaystyle \forall s_{-v} \in T_{-v} \quad U_v^{s_{-v}}
(c_1,\ldots ,c_d-1) > U_v^{s_{-v}}(c_1,\ldots ,c_d) $
Notice, that in any $\varphi$-subgame, both of the conditions for the lemma hold in every profile: in a $\varphi$-subgame we have that if node $v$ clones itself at most $l(v) -\varphi-2$ times then his child will span a tree that contains a full $d$-ary tree of height $\varphi$, and we are guaranteed $k$ nodes that are aware of the transaction.
We therefore turn to prove the claim.
The new strategy $(c_1,\ldots ,c_d-1)$ in effect distributes the message to one additional layer of the subtree rooted at the $d$’th child of $v$. That extra layers contains $d^{y_d}$ nodes. The utility of this strategy is therefore:
$$U_v^{s_{-v}}(y_1, \ldots,y_{d-1}, y_d+1) = \frac{1 + \beta \cdot l + \sum_{i=1}^{d-1} \beta (l-y_i)\cdot A_{s_{-v}}(y_i) + \beta(l-y_d-1)(A_{s_{-v}}(y_d)+d^{y_d})}{k+ \sum_{i=1}^d A_{s_{-v}}(y_i) +d^{y_d}}$$
So we have to show that: $$\forall s_{-v} \quad U_v^{s_{-v}}(y_1, \ldots,y_{d-1}, y_d+1) > U_v^{s_{-v}}(y_1, \ldots, y_d)$$
For convenience, we will drop the index $s_{-v}$, but remember that we must check for every possible strategy profile of the other nodes that: $$\frac{1 + \beta \cdot l + \sum_{i=1}^{d-1} \beta (l-y_i)\cdot A(y_i) + \beta(l-y_d-1)(A(y_d)+d^{y_d})}{k+ \sum_{i=1}^d A(y_i) +d^{y_d}} >
\frac{1 + \beta \cdot l + \sum_{i=1}^d \beta (l-y_i)\cdot A(y_i)}{k+ \sum_{i=1}^d A(y_i)}$$ multiplying by the denominator and dividing both sides by $\beta$: $$\left(k+ \sum_{i=1}^d A(y_i)\right)\cdot (l-y_d-1)(A(y_d)+d^{y_d})>
\left(k+ \sum_{i=1}^d A(y_i)\right)(l-y_d)\cdot A(y_d) + d^{y_d} \cdot \left(\beta^{-1}+ l + \sum_{i=1}^d (l-y_i)\cdot A(y_i) \right)$$
$$\left(k+ \sum_{i=1}^d A(y_i)\right)\cdot (l-y_d-1) \cdot d^{y_d} - \left(k+ \sum_{i=1}^d A(y_i)\right) \cdot A(y_d)>
d^{y_d} \cdot \left(\beta^{-1}+ l + \sum_{i=1}^d (l-y_i)\cdot A(y_i) \right)$$
$$\left(k+ \sum_{i=1}^d A(y_i)\right) \cdot \left( l-y_d-1-\frac{A(y_d)}{d^{y_d}} \right) >
\left(\beta^{-1}+ l + \sum_{i=1}^d (l-y_i)\cdot A(y_i) \right)$$
Note that $l-y_d-1-\frac{A(y_d)}{d^{y_d}}>0$ since $l-y_d\geq 2$ and $\frac{A(y_d)}{d^{y_d}}<1$. Therefore we can divide by $l-y_d-1-\frac{A(y_d)}{d^{y_d}}$, after some rearranging we get that:
$$k > \frac{\beta^{-1}+ l + \sum_{i=1}^d (l-y_i)\cdot A(y_i)}{l-y_d-1-\frac{A(y_d)}{d^{y_d}}} -\sum_{i=1}^d A(y_i)$$
$$k > \frac{\beta^{-1} + l + \sum_{i=1}^d (l-y_i -l+y_d+1+\frac{A(y_d)}{d^{y_d}})\cdot A(y_i) }{ l-y_d-1-\frac{A(y_d)}{d^{y_d}}}$$
$$\label{eqn_toBound}
k\cdot(l-y_d-1-\frac{A(y_d)}{d^{y_d}}) > \beta^{-1}+ l + \sum_{i=1}^d (-y_i+y_d+1+\frac{A(y_d)}{d^{y_d}})\cdot A(y_i) = (*)$$
Recall that that the $d$’s child spans a full tree of height $y_d$: $A(y_d) =
\frac{d^{y_d}-1}{d-1}$. We bound the right hand side of Equation \[eqn\_toBound\] as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
(*) \leq \beta^{-1}+l
&+ \displaystyle \sum_{i:y_i=y_d}^d \left(1+\frac{A(y_d)}{d^{y_d}}\right)\cdot A(y_i)
+ \displaystyle \sum_{i:y_i=y_d+1}^d \left(\frac{A(y_d)}{d^{y_d}}\right)\cdot A(y_i)\\
&+ \displaystyle \sum_{i:y_i>y_d+1}^d \left(-1+\frac{A(y_d)}{d^{y_d}}\right)\cdot A(y_i)\end{aligned}$$
The last summation is negative because $\frac{A(y_d)}{d^{y_d}}<1$, and once we substitute $A(y_d)$ into the expression we have that:
$$(*) \leq \beta^{-1}+l
+ \displaystyle \sum_{i:y_i=y_d}^d \left(1+\frac{A(y_d)}{d^{y_d}}\right)\cdot A(y_d)
+ \displaystyle \sum_{i:y_i=y_d+1}^d \frac{A(y_d)}{d^{y_d}}\cdot A(y_d+1)$$
Now notice that:
$$\left( 1+\frac{A(y_d)}{d^{y_d}} \right)\cdot A(y_d) = \frac{A(y_d)+d^{y_d}}{d^{y_d}} \cdot A(y_d) = \frac{A(y_d+1)\cdot A(y_d)}{d^{y_d}}$$
and so we can write: $$\begin{aligned}
(*) \leq \beta^{-1}+l + \displaystyle\sum_{i: y_i=y_d \lor y_i = y_d+1} (1+\frac{A(y_d)}{d^{y_d}})\cdot A(y_d) &\leq
\beta^{-1}+l + \displaystyle\sum_{i: y_i=y_d \lor y_i = y_d+1} 2\cdot A(y_d) \\
&\leq \beta^{-1}+l + 2\cdot d \cdot A(y_d)
\label{eqn_cases}\end{aligned}$$
Therefore, we are looking for $k$ such that: $$k > \frac{ \beta^{-1}+l + 2\cdot d \cdot A(y_d)}{l-y_d-1-\frac{A(y_d)}{d^{y_d}}}=(**)$$
We now divide into two cases.
#### Case I:
[ $l \geq 2y_d +4$]{}. In this case By using the fact $\frac{A(y_d)}{d^{y_d}}<1$ and continuing from Equation (\[eqn\_cases\]) we can write:
$$(**) < \frac{\beta^{-1}+l + 2\cdot d \cdot A(y_d) }{ l-y_d-2} \leq \frac{\beta^{-1}+l + 2\cdot d \cdot A(y_d) }{ \frac{l}{2}} \leq
\frac{2 \cdot \beta^{-1}}{l} +2 +\frac{4\cdot d \cdot A(y_d)}{l} \leq \frac{1}{2} \cdot \beta^{-1} +2 + d \cdot A(y_d)$$
where the last transition relies on the fact that $l \geq 4$.
#### Case II:
[ $l \leq 2y_d +3$]{}. Notice that by definition $l$ is always at least $y_d+2$. Therefore, by continuing from Equation (\[eqn\_cases\]) we have:
$$(**) \leq \frac{\beta^{-1}+l + 2\cdot d \cdot A(y_d) }{2-1-\frac{A(y_d)}{d^{y_d}}} \leq
\frac{\beta^{-1}+l + 2\cdot d \cdot A(y_d) }{1-\frac{1}{d-1}} =
\frac{d-1}{d-2} \left( \beta^{-1}+l + 2\cdot d \cdot A(y_d) \right)$$
where for the second transition we used:
$$\frac{A(y_d)}{d^{y_d}} = \frac{d^{y_d}-1}{(d-1)d^{y_d}} < \frac{1}{d-1}$$
Notice that $A(y_d) \geq y_d $, hence, $l\leq 2A(y_d)+3$. Recall that $d\geq
3$ we can continue to bound $(**)$:
$$(**)\leq \frac{d-1}{d-2} \left( \beta^{-1} + (2 \cdot d+2)\cdot A(y_d) +3 \right) \leq 2 \cdot \beta^{-1} + 6 \cdot d\cdot A(y_d) +6$$
From Case I, and case II combined, we have that:
$$(**)\leq 2 \beta^{-1} + 6 d\cdot A(y_d) +6$$
Thus, if $k\geq 2 \beta^{-1} + 6 d\cdot A(y_d) +6$, for any node $v$ the strategy of choosing $c_i=l(v) -\varphi-1$ for some child $i$ is dominated by the strategy $(c_1,\ldots, c_{i-1},c_i-1,c_{i+1},\ldots ,c_d)$. Since $k$ is the number of nodes outside the tree rooted by $v$ then for the lemma to hold it is sufficient to have 7 seeds (each with $d$ children that span trees at height $y_d$), and $2\beta^{-1}+6$ additional nodes.
A Lower Bound on Dominant Strategy Schemes
==========================================
In the previous sections, we presented several reward schemes and analyzed their behavior in equilibrium. The solution concept we analyzed was iterated removal of dominated strategies. Although iterated removal of dominated strategies is a strong solution concept, a natural goal is to seek good reward schemes that use even stronger solution concepts. We now show that there does not exist reward schemes that guarantee both low overhead and low payment, if the solution concept is dominant strategies.
\[thm-no-dominant\] Fix any $\mathcal H_s\leq H$ for each seed $s$. Let $R$ be a reward scheme such that no duplication and information propagation is a dominant strategy equilibrium for every node up to depth $\mathcal H_s$ that is in a tree rooted by a seed $s$. Suppose that at least half of the nodes are aware of the transaction at the end of the distribution phase. The expected payment of $R$ is at least $\frac{1}{10}\left(\frac{2^{H-4}}{t^2} +
\frac{1}{t}\cdot\left(\frac{H-3}{t\cdot e}\right)^{H-3}\right)$ where $t$ is the number of initial seeds.
As a corollary we get that for the total payment to be constant then the number of seeds must be $\Omega(2^{\frac H 2})$. Moreover, for a constant $t$ and large $H$ the payment will be huge, at least $\Omega((H/c)^{H-3})$ for some constant $c$.
Proof of Theorem \[thm-no-dominant\]
------------------------------------
Consider a reward scheme as in the statement. We claim that in a dominant strategy equilibrium, at least $\frac 1 {10}$ of the nodes that are aware of the transaction are in trees rooted by a seed $s$ such that $\mathcal H_s\geq
H-2$. Otherwise, the number of nodes that are aware of the transaction is at most:
$$\frac {t}{10} \cdot \frac{d^H-1}{d-1} + \frac{9t}{10} \cdot \frac{d^{H-3}-1}{d-1} < \frac{t}{2} \cdot \frac{d^{H}-1}{d-1}$$
A contradiction to the assumption that at least half of the nodes are aware of the transaction. We will show that the expected payment (conditioned on a node in this tree hashing the transaction) of every tree with $H\geq \mathcal
H_s\geq H-2$ is at least $\frac{2^{{{\mathcal H_s}}-2}}{t^2} + \frac{1}{t}\cdot\left(\frac{{{\mathcal H_s}}-1}{t\cdot
e}\right)^{{{\mathcal H_s}}-1}\geq \frac{2^{H-4}}{t^2} +
\frac{1}{t}\cdot\left(\frac{H-3}{t\cdot e}\right)^{H-3} $, and the theorem will follow. From now on we fix such a tree and denote its payment simply by $r_{i,h}$ (dropping the superscript $s$). We start with several claims.
\[claim\_pascal\] $r_{i,h}\geq r_{i,h+1}+ r_{i+1,h+1} $.
Consider a node $v$ and suppose that every child of $v$ uses the strategy of cloning itself $(h-i-1)$ times and does not distribute the message to its children. In case one of $v$’s children authorizes the transaction, the child declares that its last clone was the authorizer. Then, by Sybil proofness, $v$ must not gain by duplicating itself another time and then sending the transaction to its children.
In the appendix we prove the following two claims. The first statement is similar to Pascal’s triangle.
\[claim\_binom\] $r_{1,1} \geq \sum_{i=0}^{\mathcal H_s-1} \binom{\mathcal H_s-1}{i} \cdot
r_{i+1,\mathcal H_s}$
\[claim\_dist\] Let $v$ be some node at position $h<\mathcal H_s$ that received the transaction. Let $w$ be the number of nodes that are not descendants of $v$ that are aware of the transaction. If $v$ has a dominant strategy of transmitting the transaction without duplication then for every $1\leq k \leq \mathcal H_s-h$, $\frac{r_{1,h}}{w} \leq r_{1+k,h+k}$.
In the appendix we use Claim \[claim\_pascal\] and Claim \[claim\_dist\] to prove the following lemma:
\[lem:rmH\] For any $m\geq 1$ it holds that: $\displaystyle{r_{m,\mathcal H_s}\geq
\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{t-1} + \frac{(m-1)!}{(t-1)^{m-1}}\right)}$
We are now ready to prove Theorem \[thm-no-dominant\]. Let $t$ be the number of seeds. Suppose that $t-1$ of them do not distribute the transaction, and consider the tree of the only seed that does distribute the transaction. By Lemma \[lem:rmH\] it holds that for any $i\geq 1$ it holds that $ \displaystyle r_{i,\mathcal H_s}\geq
\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{t-1} + \frac{(i-1)!}{(t-1)^{i-1}}\right) $. Now, by Claim \[claim\_binom\]
$$\begin{aligned}
r_{1,1} &\geq& \sum_{i=0}^{\mathcal H_s-1} \binom{\mathcal H_s-1}{i} \cdot r_{i+1,\mathcal H_s}
\geq \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i=0}^{\mathcal H_s-1} \binom{\mathcal H_s-1}{i} \cdot \left(\frac{1}{t-1} + \frac{i!}{(t-1)^{i}}\right)
\geq \frac{1}{2} \left(\frac{2^{\mathcal H_s-1}}{t} + \frac{({{\mathcal H_s}}-1)!}{t^{{{\mathcal H_s}}-1}}\right)\\
&\geq& \frac{2^{\mathcal H_s-2}}{t} + \frac{\sqrt{2 \pi ({{\mathcal H_s}}-1)}}{2}\cdot \left(\frac{{{\mathcal H_s}}-1}{t\cdot e}\right)^{{{\mathcal H_s}}-1}
\geq \frac{2^{\mathcal H_s-2}}{t} + \left(\frac{{{\mathcal H_s}}-1}{t\cdot e}\right)^{{{\mathcal H_s}}-1}\end{aligned}$$
By applying Claim \[claim\_dist\], we get that $ \displaystyle
\forall l \quad r_{h,h} \geq \frac{r_{1,1}}{t} \geq \frac{2^{\mathcal H_s-2}}{t^2} +
\frac{1}{t}\cdot\left(\frac{{{\mathcal H_s}}-1}{t\cdot e}\right)^{{{\mathcal H_s}}-1} $
$r_{h,h}$ is the payment to the root in case the length of the winning chain was $h$, and so is a lower bound on the overall payment of the scheme in that case.
### Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
We thank Jon Kleinberg for helpful discussions and valuable comments.
A Formal Model {#sec-prelim}
==============
In our game, one transaction needs to be authorized. There are $n=t\cdot \frac {d^{H}-1} {d-1}$ nodes (players), organized in $t$ complete $d$-ary trees each of height $H$, that are all directed towards the leaves. We call each root of a tree a [*seed*]{}. The [*depth*]{} of a node is the number of nodes on the path from the root of the node’s tree to the node (the depth of the root is 1).
In the most general definition of the strategy space, a strategy of a node $v$ is to specify for each $x\geq 1$ two things. First it specifies $\tilde{p}^{x,v}\geq 0$, the number of fake identities (duplicates) of itself $v$ has added before trying to authorize the transaction with the last identity (it pretends that a node in a lower level succeeds in authorizing the transaction). Secondly, for every child $i$ it specifies a pair $(b^{x,v}_i, \tilde{c}^{x,v}_i)$. The meaning of the pair is that if $v$ received the transaction from his parent and had $x-1$ predecessors (including clones): $b^{x,v}_i\in\{0,1\}$ specifies whether $v$ sends the transaction to its $i$’th child or not. In case $v$ does send the transaction to its $i$-th child, $\tilde{c}^{x,v}_i\geq 0$ specifies how many fake identities of itself $v$ has added before sending the transaction.
Given a strategy profile $S$, a player $v$ is *aware of the transaction* if $v$ is a seed, or if $v$ is the $i$’the child of $u$ that has $x-1$ predecessors, $u$ is aware of the transaction, and pass it to $v$, that is $b^{x,u}_i=1$. Once a node authorizes the transaction it determines the [*winning chain*]{}, this is a sequence of identities on the path from a root node to the authorizing identity. Every reward scheme is completely defined by non-negative rewards $r_{i,h}^s$ for every seed $s$ and every $1\leq i\leq
h$. The reward $r_{i,h}^s$ is the reward given to the $i$-th identity on the winning chain of length $h$ that starts at authorizing node.
In this paper we consider reward schemes in which we want to motivate nodes not to duplicate themselves. Therefore, from now on we restrict our attention to schemes that never reward nodes with more than $H$ predecessors, effectively implying that we only need to consider $x \leq H$. Hence, we can define a more concise representation of the strategy space that will be used throughout the paper.
Formally, the strategy $S_v$ of a node $v$ is represented as follows: for every $1\leq l\leq H$, there is a tuple $S_v(l)=(c^{l,v}_1,\ldots,
c^{l,v}_d)$ where $0 \leq c^{l,v}_i \leq l-1$. In addition, for every $1\leq
l\leq H$ each node has a number $0 \leq p^{l,v} \leq l-1$. We say that a node $v$ *propagates information and does not duplicate* at $l$ in strategy profile $S$ if $S_v(l)=(0,\ldots, 0)$ and $p^{l,v}=0$.
Given a strategy profile $S$, define the [*level*]{} $l(v)$ of a node $v$ that is the $i$’th child of $u$ in the tree in a recursive way: if $l(u)=0$ then $l(v)=0$, and if $l(u)>0$ then $l(v)=l(u)-1-c^{l(u),u}_i$ (note that $c^{l(u),u}_i$ is the $i$’s element of $S_u(l)$). The level of each seed is defined to be $H$. Informally, if $v$ is aware of the transaction, then $H-l(v)+1$ is the length of the chain from the seed to $v$ (including clones).
Given a strategy profile $S$ and a reward scheme we can define the utility of each node. An authorizer $w$ is chosen uniformly at random among the players that are aware of the transaction and try to authorize it. Then, we allocate rewards to $w$ and its ancestors. For each ancestor $u$ of $w$ let $q(u)$ be the number of duplicates of $u$ in the path leading to $w$ from the seed (that is for $u$ which its $i$’th child is in the path: $q(u)=c^{l(u),u}_i$). For $w$, let $q(w)=p^{l(w),w}$. Let $c(w)=H-l(w)+q(w)+1$. The reward of any $u$ in the path to $w$ (including $w$) is $\Sigma_{i=0}^{q(u)}r^s_{c(w)-(i+H-l(u)+1),c(w)}$, where $s$ is the seed that roots the subtree that $w$ belongs to.
A reward scheme is *individually rational* for $\mathcal H$ in a tree rooted by $s$ if for every $1\leq h\leq\mathcal H$ we have that $r^s_{1,h}\geq 1$. We assume that all players are expectation maximizers, so the utility of a player in a given profile is its expected utility, where expectation is taken over the selection of the authorizer $w$.
All logarithms in this paper have base $d$, so throughout the paper we write $\log\ H$ to denote $\log_d\ H$.
A Brief Overview of Bitcoin {#sec-bitcoin}
===========================
In this section we give a brief overview of the Bitcoin protocol. This is by no means a complete description. The main purpose of this section is to help understanding our modeling choices, and why our proposed reward schemes can be implemented within the context of the existing protocol. The reader is referred to [@Satoshi; @wiki] for a complete description.
Signing Transactions and Public Key Cryptography
------------------------------------------------
The basic setup of electronic transactions relies on public key cryptography. When Alice wants to transfer $50$ coins to Bob, she signs a transaction using her private key. Hence, everyone can verify that Alice herself initiated this transaction (and not someone else). Bob, in turn, is identified as the target of the transfer using his public key. For the money to be actually transferred from Alice’s account to Bob’s account, some entity has to keep track of the lastest owner of the coins, and to change this owner from Alice to Bob. Otherwise, Alice could “double spend” her money – First transfer the coins to Bob, then transfer the same coins again to Charlie. Traditionally, this role was fulfilled by banks. In return, banks tended to charge high fees, for example in international transfers.
Agreeing on the History by Majority of CPU power
------------------------------------------------
Bitcoin suggests a different solution to this problem. A peer to peer network is used to validate all transactions. Nodes in the network agree on a common history using a “majority of CPU power mechanism”. A mechanism can not rely on a numerical majority of the nodes, as it is relatively easy to create additional identities in a network, for example by spoofing IP addresses. We first describe the protocol that the network implements and then explain why the history is accepted only if it is agreed upon by nodes that together control a majority of the CPU power.
Let us assume again that Alice wants to transfer $50$ coins to Bob. Alice will send her signed transaction to some of the nodes in the network. Next, these nodes will forward the transaction to all of their neighbors in the network and so on. A node that receives the transaction first verifies that this is a valid transaction (e.g. that the money being transferred indeed belongs to Alice). If successful, the node adds this transaction to the block of transactions it attempts to authorize (the specific details on the structure of this block are omitted). To authorize a block, a node has to solve an inverse Hash problem. More specifically, its goal is to add some bits (nonce) to the block such that the Hash value of the new block begins with some predefined number of zeroes.
The number of zeroes is adjusted such that the average time it takes the network to sign a block is fixed. The protocol uses a clever method to aggregate transactions (a Merkle tree) which assures that the size of the block to be hashed is also fixed. Additional information that is included in the block is the hash of the previously authorized block. So, in fact, the authorized blocks form a chain in which each block identifies the one the preceded it.
When a node authorizes a block it broadcasts to the network the new block and the proof of work (the string which is added to the block to get the desired hash). If a node receives two different authorized blocks it adopts the one which is part of the longer chain.
Let us argue briefly and informally why the history is determined by the majority of the CPU power ([@Satoshi]). That is, the probability that a group of malicious nodes manages to change the history decreases as the fraction of CPU they control decreases. Assume that a group of malicious nodes, that does not have the majority of the CPU power, wants to change the chain that has currently been adopted by the other nodes. Since the malicious nodes own less CPU power, their authorization rate is slower than the authorization rate of the majority of the network, which is honest. Therefore, the longer chains will be signed by the majority of the network (with high probability) and these are the ones that will be adopted by the honest nodes in the network. In fact, once a block has been accepted into the chain, the probability that a longer chain that displaces it will appear decreases exponentially with time (as the chain that follows it grows longer it is harder to manufacture a longer alternative one). See [@Satoshi] for a more formal argument.
Transaction Fees
----------------
To incentivize nodes to participate in the peer to peer network and invest effort in authorizing transactions, rewards have to be allocated. Currently, in the initial stages of the protocol this is done by giving the authorizer of a block a fixed amount of bitcoins (this also the only method for printing new bitcoins). This fixed amount will be reduced every few years at a rate determined by the protocol. As the money creation is slowly phased out, there will be a need to reward the nodes differently. The protocol has been designed with this in mind. It already allows the transaction initiator to specify a fee for authorizing her transaction. As we explained in the introduction this introduces an incentive problem since nodes prefer to keep the transaction to themselves instead of broadcasting it.
On Implementing the Hybrid Scheme {#subsec-implementation}
---------------------------------
We start with a rough description of how fees for authorizing transactions in Bitcoin are currently implemented. Alice produces a transaction record in which she transfers some of her coins to Bob. She specifies the fee (if any) for authorizing this transaction in a field in the transaction record, and then cryptographically signs this record. When Victor authorizes a transaction, the implication is that Alice transferred some amount of money to Bob, and some amount of money (specified in the fee field) to Victor.
Any $(\beta,\mathcal H)$-almost uniform scheme can be implemented similarly (and thus, the Hybrid scheme can be implemented similarly). Alice produces a different transaction record for every seed, in which she specifies $\beta$, $\mathcal H$, and some amount of coins $f$ (we normalized $f=1$ in the previous sections – the total fee if a node in tree rooted by the seed authorizes the transaction will be $(1+\beta\cdot \mathcal H)\cdot f$). We modify the protocol so that every node that transfers the transaction to its children cryptographically signs the transaction, and specifically identifies the child to whom the information is being sent using that child’s public key. The transaction information, therefore includes a “chain of custody” for the message which will be different for every node that tries to authorize the transaction. The implication of Victor authorizing a transaction is that Alice transferred some amount of money to Bob, a fee of $f\cdot \beta$ to every node in the path (as it appears in the authorized message), and a fee of $f+\beta \cdot (\mathcal H-h+1)\cdot f$ to Victor if the path was of length $h\leq \mathcal H$. Payments will not be awarded if the “chain of custody” is not a valid chain that leads from Alice to Victor.
Missing Proofs
==============
Missing Proof of Lemma \[lemma-uniquness\]
------------------------------------------
Let us assume that some elimination order ends with a sub-game that does not contain any profile with full propagation and no duplication. Let $T'$ be the last sub-game in the elimination order for which there is still a profile with full propagation and no duplication for every node at depth at most $\mathcal H$. It must be that for some player $i$ in $T'$, the strategy $s_i$ of full propagation and no duplication is dominated by another strategy $s_i'$ in which this player either duplicates or does not fully distribute. In particular, let us fix the behavior of the other players to be the profile $s_{-i}$ in which they fully distribute and do not duplicate (such a profile exists in $T'$ by assumption). For $s'_i$ to dominate $s_i$, it must be that $u_i(s_i,s_{-i}) \leq u_i(s_i',s_{-i})$.
We will however show that the opposite holds, and thereby reach a contradiction. We define a series of strategies $s_i^1, s_i^2, s_i^3, \ldots
,s_i^m$ such that $s_i^1 = s_i'$, and $s_i^m = s_i$ for which we shall show:
$u_i(s_i',s_{-i}) = u_i(s_i^1,s_{-i})< u_i(s_i^2,s_{-i})<\ldots <
u_i(s_i^m,s_{-i}) = u_i(s_i,s_{-i})$. Note, that the strategies $s_i^2,
s_i^3, \ldots ,s_i^{m-1}$ may or may not be in $T'$, and that we are merely using them to establish the utility for $s_i, s_i'$.
The strategy $s_i^{j+1}$ is simply the strategy $s_i^j$, with one change: player $i$ replicates itself one less time to one of its children. Specifically, if player $i$ replicates itself $(c_1,\ldots ,c_d)$ times correspondingly for each of its $d$ children, let $\nu = argmax_j (c_j)$ it will instead replicate itself $(c_1,\ldots,c_\nu-1,\ldots ,c_d)$ times in the new strategy.
We establish the fact that $u_i(s_i^j,s_{-i})< u_i(s_i^{j+1},s_{-i})$ by a direct application of Claim \[claim\_internal\]. The claim shows that replicating one less time is better given sufficient external computation power, and given that the node’s children fully distribute with no replication. Both of these are guaranteed in the profile $s'$.
Missing Proof of Claim \[claim\_binom\]
---------------------------------------
By induction on ${\mathcal H_s}$. The base case is trivial $r_{1,1} \geq r_{1,1}$. Next we assume that the claim holds for $\mathcal H_s$ and show it also holds for $\mathcal H_{s+1}$. By the induction hypothesis, we have that: $r_{1,1} \geq \sum_{i=0}^{\mathcal
H_s-1} \binom{\mathcal H_s-1}{i} \cdot r_{i+1,\mathcal H_s}$. We can now use Claim \[claim\_pascal\] to extend it to $\mathcal H_{s+1}$. We have that for every $i$: $r_{i,\mathcal H_s}\geq r_{i,\mathcal H_s+1}+ r_{i+1,\mathcal
H_s+1} $ and also $r_{i-1,\mathcal H_s}\geq r_{i-1,\mathcal H_s+1}+
r_{i,\mathcal H_s+1} $. This implies that the coefficient of $r_{i, \mathcal
H_{s+1}}$ equals the sum of coefficients of $r_{i, \mathcal H_{s}}$ + $r_{i-1, \mathcal H_{s}}$ which we have by the induction assumption. Hence, the coefficient of $r_{i, \mathcal H_{s+1}}$ is $\binom{\mathcal H_s-1}{i-2}
+ \binom{\mathcal H_s-1}{i-1} = \binom{\mathcal H_s}{i-1}$ and the claim follows.
Missing Proof of Claim \[claim\_dist\]
--------------------------------------
If $v$ does not distribute the transaction then it alone competes with $w$ other nodes. If it does distribute to all of its children, the children use the following strategy: each child duplicates itself exactly $k-1$, and does not distribute the transaction further. In case a child $u$ hashes the transaction then $u$ declares itself as the end of a chain of length $h+k$: $h$ nodes of $v$ and $k$ nodes that belong to $u$. In this case, the reward of $v$ is $r_{1+k,h+k}$. Therefore, by the assumption that for every $k$, $v$ prefers to distribute to all of his children even if they use the above strategies we have that: $\frac{r_{1,h}}{w} \leq \frac{r_{1,h}+d \cdot
r_{1+k,h+k}}{w+d}$. By rearranging the previous inequality we have that $\frac{r_{1,h}}{w} \leq r_{1+k,h+k}$.
Missing Proof of Lemma \[lem:rmH\]
----------------------------------
The proof is by induction on $m$. Recall that $r_{1,{{\mathcal H_s}}}\geq 1$ then the claim holds trivially for $m=1$. We assume for smaller values of $m$ and prove for $m+1$. Our proof relies on the following claim:
\[clm:tbound\] For any $h\le {{\mathcal H_s}}$:
- $r_{{{\mathcal H_s}}-h+1,{{\mathcal H_s}}} \geq \frac{1}{t-1}\sum_{j=1}^{{{\mathcal H_s}}-h} r_{j,h+j}$
- $r_{1,h} \geq 1+\frac{1}{t-1}\sum_{j=1}^{{{\mathcal H_s}}-h} r_{j,h+j}$
By Claim \[claim\_dist\] for any $k$ such that $h+k\leq {{\mathcal H_s}}$ it holds that $$r_{1+k,h+k} \geq \frac{r_{1,h}}{t}.$$ which implies that $$t\cdot r_{{{\mathcal H_s}}-h+1,{{\mathcal H_s}}}\geq r_{1,h}.$$ By Claim \[claim\_pascal\] for any $i\leq h<{{\mathcal H_s}}$ it holds that $$\label{eq:pascal}
r_{i,h}\geq r_{i+1,h+1} + r_{i,h+1}$$ which implies that $$r_{1,h} \geq \sum_{j=1}^{{{\mathcal H_s}}-h} r_{j,h+j} + r_{{{\mathcal H_s}}-h+1,{{\mathcal H_s}}}
$$ Now we can combine the above and derive that $$t\cdot r_{{{\mathcal H_s}}-h+1,{{\mathcal H_s}}} \geq r_{1,h} \geq \sum_{j=1}^{{{\mathcal H_s}}-h} r_{j,h+j} + r_{{{\mathcal H_s}}-h+1,{{\mathcal H_s}}}
$$ and thus $$r_{{{\mathcal H_s}}-h+1,{{\mathcal H_s}}} \geq \frac{1}{t-1}\sum_{j=1}^{{{\mathcal H_s}}-h} r_{j,h+j}$$ and additionally by recalling that for every $h$, $r_{1,h}\geq 1$ $$r_{1,h} \geq 1+ r_{{{\mathcal H_s}}-h+1,{{\mathcal H_s}}} \geq 1+ \frac{1}{t-1}\sum_{j=1}^{{{\mathcal H_s}}-h} r_{j,h+j}$$
We are now ready to prove Lemma \[lem:rmH\]. By Claim \[clm:tbound\] we have that: $${r_{m+1,{{\mathcal H_s}}} \geq \frac{1}{t-1}\sum_{j=1}^{m} r_{j,{{\mathcal H_s}}-m+j}}$$ Notice that for all $0\leq j \leq m$: $ r_{j,{{\mathcal H_s}}-m+j} \geq r_{m,{{\mathcal H_s}}}$, by a simple generalization of the sybil proofness of Claim \[claim\_pascal\]. We can now use the induction hypothesis and get that: $$\label{eq_rm}
r_{m+1,{{\mathcal H_s}}} \geq \frac{1}{t-1} \left(r_{1,{{\mathcal H_s}}-m+1} +(m-1)\left(\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{t-1} + \frac{(m-1)!}{(t-1)^{m-1}}\right) \right) \right)$$ Also by using the second part of Claim \[clm:tbound\] we have that $\displaystyle{r_{1,{{\mathcal H_s}}-m+1 }}\geq
\left(1+\frac{1}{t-1}\right)\sum_{j=1}^{m-1} r_{j,{{\mathcal H_s}}-m+1+j}$. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_r1}
r_{1,{{\mathcal H_s}}-m+1 } &\geq 1+ \frac{1}{t-1} (m-1) \left( \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{t-1} + \frac{(m-2)!}{(t-1)^{m-2}}\right) \right) \\
&\geq 1+ \left( \frac{1}{2}\left( \frac{(m-1)!}{(t-1)^{m-1}}\right) \right) \nonumber
$$ By plugging in the bound from (\[eq\_r1\]) in (\[eq\_rm\]) we get that: $$\begin{aligned}
r_{m+1,{{\mathcal H_s}}} &\geq \frac{1}{t-1} \left( 1+ \left( \frac{1}{2}\left( \frac{(m-1)!}{(t-1)^{m-1}}\right) \right) + (m-1)\left(\frac{1}{2}\left( \frac{(m-1)!}{(t-1)^{m-1}}\right) \right) \right) \\
&\geq \frac{1}{t-1} \left( 1+ \frac{1}{2}\left( \frac{m!}{(t-1)^{m-1}}\right) \right) \\
&\geq \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{t-1} + \frac{m!}{(t-1)^{m}}\right)\end{aligned}$$
[^1]: Microsoft Research, Silicon Valley. [email protected]
[^2]: Department of Computer Science, Cornell University. [email protected]
[^3]: Department of Computer Science, Cornell University. [email protected]
[^4]: Microsoft Research, Silicon Valley. [email protected]
[^5]: Indeed, we have no evidence of such attacks in the DARPA challenge. If no such attacks were made, one possible explanation is the short time span of the challenge and its non-commercial, scientific essence. It seems quite plausible that if the challenge is repeated several times such attacks will become common.
[^6]: The real identity of Satoshi Nakamoto remains a mystery. A recent *New Yorker* article [@NY11] attempts to identify him.
[^7]: There are additional properties that some consider as benefits: Bitcoins are not controlled by any government, and its supply will eventually be fixed. Additionally, it offers some degree of anonymity (although this fact has been contested [@Reid11]).
[^8]: In fact, a node authorizes a set of several transactions together. To keep the presentation simple, this simplified description considers only a single transaction. Our proposed solution applies to the case of multiple transactions as well.
[^9]: Bitcoin’s difficulty level is adjusting automatically to account for the total amount of computation in the network. The expected time of a single machine to authorize a transaction is currently on the order of $60$ days, instead of the $10$ minutes it is expected to take if the entire network competes to authorize.
[^10]: The intuition for this simplification is that when $d$ is small relatively to the number of nodes $n$, message propagation in a random graph resembles a tree. In some sense, the case of trees is harder than general graphs as each node monopolizes the flow of information to its descendants.
[^11]: In the actual Bitcoin protocol many transactions are authorized together, and thus the minimum reward $r_1$ per transaction is relatively small since the computation cost is split between many transactions.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The *Neutron Star Interior Composition Explorer* ([*NICER*]{}) has extensively monitored the August 2019 outburst of the 401 Hz millisecond X-ray pulsar SAX J1808.4–3658. In this Letter, we report on the detection of a bright helium-fueled Type I X-ray burst. With a bolometric peak flux of $(2.3\pm0.1){\ensuremath{\times 10^{-7}} }$[[erg[s$^{-1}$]{}[cm$^{-2}$]{}]{}]{}, this was the brightest X-ray burst among all bursting sources observed with [*NICER*]{}to date. The burst shows a remarkable two-stage evolution in flux, emission lines at $1.0$ keV and $6.7$ keV, and burst oscillations at the known pulsar spin frequency, with $\approx4$% fractional sinusoidal amplitude. We interpret the burst flux evolution as the detection of the local Eddington limits associated with the hydrogen and helium layers of the neutron star envelope. The emission lines are likely associated with Fe, due to reprocessing of the burst emission in the accretion disk.'
author:
- Peter Bult
- 'Gaurava K. Jaisawal'
- 'Tolga G[ü]{}ver'
- 'Tod E. Strohmayer'
- Diego Altamirano
- Zaven Arzoumanian
- 'David R. Ballantyne'
- Deepto Chakrabarty
- Jérôme Chenevez
- 'Keith C. Gendreau'
- Sebastien Guillot
- 'Renee M. Ludlam'
title: 'A NICER thermonuclear burst from the millisecond X-ray pulsar SAX J1808.4–3658'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The proto-typical accreting millisecond X-ray pulsar (AMXP) SAX J1808.4–3658 (hereafter [SAX J1808]{}), was first discovered through the detection of a thermonuclear (Type I) X-ray burst with the *BeppoSAX* satellite in September 1996 [@Zand1998]. With X-ray outbursts recurring every $2-4$ years, this source has been extensively monitored ever since, leading to the first detection of accretion-powered millisecond pulsations [@Wijnands1998a], and the confirmation that X-ray burst oscillations correspond with the stellar spin frequency [@Chakrabarty2003].
In each of the eight outbursts from [SAX J1808]{}that occurred between 1996 and 2015, at least one X-ray burst has been detected [@Zand2001a; @Bult2015b; @Patruno2017b; @Sanna2017c]. The majority of these bursts showed burst oscillations [@Bilous2019] and were observed near peak luminosity of their respective outbursts, when the accretion rate was $\approx(3-5){\ensuremath{\times 10^{-10}} }$[$M_{\odot}$]{}[yr$^{-1}$]{} [@Bult2015b]. Detailed modelling of a well sampled burst train observed with the *Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer* ([*RXTE*]{}) in October 2002 [@Galloway2006] demonstrated that these events are examples of X-ray bursts in the “delayed helium" regime [@Narayan2003; @Galloway2017]. In brief, these bursts are due to a thermonuclear flash in a nearly pure helium layer of the neutron star envelope. This layer of helium builds up on a timescale of one to a few days, through a stable $\beta$-limited CNO cycle at the base of a hydrogen layer. The hydrogen layer, in turn, is replenished by the continuous accretion of gas supplied by a hydrogen-rich brown dwarf companion star, which resides in a 2.01 hour orbit around the pulsar [@Chakrabarty1998; @Bildsten2001].
The X-ray bursts of [SAX J1808]{}have also reliably shown photospheric radius expansion (PRE; see, e.g., @Galloway2008, for a review). Such PRE may drive the ejection of burning ashes, whose presence could cause discrete spectral features in the burst emission [@Weinberg2006; @Yu2018]. Measuring such spectral lines gives a window into the thermonuclear burning reactions, and can potentially be used to constrain the neutron star compactness. Additionally, a large fraction of the burst emission is expected to be intercepted and reprocessed by the accretion disk [@Ballantyne2005; @Degenaar2018; @Fragile2018], providing an opportunity to characterize the state of the accretion disk through the spectrum of the reflected burst emission.
Launched in June 2017, the *Neutron Star Interior Composition Explorer* ([*NICER*]{}; @Gendreau2017) combines good spectral resolution with superb time-resolution and high throughput in the ${0.2-12}$[[keV]{}]{}energy band. These properties make [*NICER*]{}an ideal instrument to study the evolution of PRE in Type I X-ray bursts [see, e.g., @Keek2018b; @Keek2018a; @Jaisawal2019], and search for discrete spectral features [@Strohmayer2019]. Hence, when [SAX J1808]{}began a new outburst in August 2019 [@ATelRussell19; @ATelGoodwin19; @ATelParikh19c; @ATelBult19c], we triggered an extensive [*NICER*]{}monitoring campaign. During this campaign we detected two X-ray bursts; the first occurred on August 9 and was relatively faint, the second was seen on August 21 and was much brighter. In this Letter we report on the unusual properties of the August 21 X-ray burst. The detailed analysis of the earlier burst and the full [*NICER*]{}campaign will be presented elsewhere.
Observations {#sec:observations}
============
On 2019 August 21 at 02:04 UTC, [*NICER*]{}observed a bright X-ray burst from [SAX J1808]{}. These data are available under the [*NICER*]{}ObsID 2584010501. We processed the data using <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">nicerdas</span> v6a, which is packaged with <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">heasoft</span> v6.26. We applied standard screening criteria, keeping only those time intervals when the pointing offset was $<54\arcsec$, the Earth limb elevation angle was $>15\arcdeg$, the elevation angle with respect to the bright Earth limb was $>30\arcdeg$, and the instrument was outside of the geographic region of the South Atlantic Anomaly. Additionally, standard background screening criteria were applied, which reject all epochs where the rate of saturating particle events (overshoots) is greater than $1$[ct[s$^{-1}$]{}]{}[detector$^{-1}$]{}, or greater than 1.52 \* <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">cor\_sax</span>$^{-0.633}$, where <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">cor\_sax</span>[^1] gives the cut-off rigidity of the Earth’s magnetic field, in units of GeV[c$^{-1}$]{}. We then applied the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">barycorr</span> tool to correct the observed event times to the Solar System barycenter, where we used the JPL DE405 planetary ephemeris [@Standish1998] and the optical coordinates of @Hartman2008. Finally, we estimated the background contributions to our data from [*NICER*]{}observations of the [*RXTE*]{}blank-field regions [@Jahoda2006].
Analysis and Results {#sec:results}
====================
The X-ray burst onset, $t_0$, occurred on MJD 58716.089362 TDB, which was $442{{\rm\,s}\xspace}$ into a $1063{{\rm\,s}\xspace}$ continuous exposure. In the following we focus our analysis on this exposure and express all times with respect to the noted onset time.
Light curve and phenomenology
-----------------------------
At $t_0$ the $0.3-10$ keV count-rate increased rapidly from an averaged $125$ [ct[s$^{-1}$]{}]{}to $\approx34,000$[ct[s$^{-1}$]{}]{}over a timespan of $\approx4.3{{\rm\,s}\xspace}$. The peak rate was maintained for $\approx3.6{{\rm\,s}\xspace}$, before the burst began to decay. The subsequent decay progressed on a minute-long time scale: at $t\simeq64{{\rm\,s}\xspace}$ the burst rate had dropped to below 5% of the peak rate, and by the end of the available exposure, at $t=621{{\rm\,s}\xspace}$, the source flux had fallen to $172$ [ct[s$^{-1}$]{}]{}. [ While this rate was slightly higher than the averaged preburst rate, the preburst light curve showed a modest upward trend. If we fit this trend with a linear function, then we find that the burst rate decayed to the extrapolated intensity at $t\simeq580{{\rm\,s}\xspace}$. ]{}
Two unusual features stand out in the burst light curve (Figure \[fig:lc\]). First, it shows a pronounced double peaked structure, with a local minimum of $\approx15,000$[ct[s$^{-1}$]{}]{}at $t\simeq13.1{{\rm\,s}\xspace}$ and a secondary peak of $\approx16,500$[ct[s$^{-1}$]{}]{}at $t\simeq15.5{{\rm\,s}\xspace}$. While double-peaked X-ray bursts have commonly been observed, these structures are usually caused by PRE: the temperature of the photosphere temporarily shifts out of the instrument passband, causing an apparent dip in the observed X-ray rate [@Grindlay1980]. Given its low-energy coverage, [*NICER*]{}is able to follow the temperature of the photosphere throughout the PRE phase, so any observed dip in the light curve is likely due to a dip in bolometric flux [@Keek2018b; @Jaisawal2019]. We investigate this in Section \[sec:time resolved\].
Second, there is a noticeable pause during the rise to the first peak. Initially the flux increases rapidly; however, between $t\simeq0.6{{\rm\,s}\xspace}$ and $t\simeq1.3{{\rm\,s}\xspace}$, this rise briefly stalls, with the count-rate remaining constant at $\approx13,600$[ct[s$^{-1}$]{}]{}. After this pause, the rate continues to increase toward the maximum, albeit at a slightly slower pace (Figure \[fig:lc\], inset of top panel). Simultaneously, the hardness ratio (the $3-10$[[keV]{}]{}rate over the $0.3-1$[[keV]{}]{}rate) evolves dramatically. As the count-rate begins to rise, the hardness ratio spikes. Subsequently, the hardness briefly dips, and then stabilizes. It is during the dip that the pause in count-rate is observed. Additionally, the previously mentioned dip in count-rate (at $t\simeq13{{\rm\,s}\xspace}$), coincides with a similar dip in the hardness ratio, suggesting these two features are related.
![ Top: light curve of the X-ray burst from [SAX J1808]{} at $0.1{{\rm\,s}\xspace}$ time-resolution in the $0.3-10$ keV energy band. Bottom: hardness ratio, defined as the $3-10$ keV rate divided by the $0.3-1$ keV rate. Inset: first four seconds of the same data, with the light curve in black (connected line, units of $\times10^{4}$[ct[s$^{-1}$]{}]{}) and the hardness ratio in red (vertical dashes). All panels are relative to $t_0=58716.089362$TDB. Vertical gray lines were added to guide the eye. []{data-label="fig:lc"}](burst-light-curve.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Pre-burst emission {#sec:preburst}
------------------
We extracted a spectrum from $400{{\rm\,s}\xspace}$ prior to the burst and modelled it in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">xspec</span> v12.10 [@Arnaud1996]. Following @DiSalvo2019, we find that the spectrum could be well described with the model
> `tbabs( diskbb + nthcomp )`,
where the `tbabs` interstellar absorption model [@Wilms2000] was used with the photoelectric cross-sections of @Verner1996, `diskbb` [@Makishima1986] is a multi-color disk blackbody component, and `nthcomp` [@Zdziarski1996; @Zycki1999] is a thermal Comptonization component. We used an absorption column density of $N_H =
2.1{\ensuremath{\times 10^{21}} }$[cm$^{-2}$]{} [@Papitto2009; @DiSalvo2019], and electron temperature of [30]{}keV [@DiSalvo2019]. We further tied the `nthcomp` photon seed temperature to the disk temperature. Our best-fit had a reduced $\chi^2$ ([$\chi^2_r$]{}) of 1.04 for 375 degrees of freedom (dof), yielding an inner disk temperature of $kT=0.70\pm0.07$ keV and a power-law photon index of $\Gamma=2.0\pm0.4$. Using the `cflux` model we further measured the unabsorbed $1-10$ keV flux to be $(2.85 \pm
0.05){\ensuremath{\times 10^{-10}} }\,{{\rm erg{\,s\ensuremath{^{-1}}\xspace}{\,cm\ensuremath{^{-2}}\xspace}}\xspace}$, from which we extrapolate a bolometric flux ($0.01-100$keV) of [$(4.7 \pm 0.5){\ensuremath{\times 10^{-10}} }\,{{\rm erg{\,s\ensuremath{^{-1}}\xspace}{\,cm\ensuremath{^{-2}}\xspace}}\xspace}$]{}. Assuming a distance of $3.5$kpc [@Galloway2006], a 1.4[$M_{\odot}$]{}neutron star mass, and a 10km radius, this corresponds to a mass accretion rate of $\dot M =
2.9{\ensuremath{\times 10^{-11}} }\,{\ensuremath{M_{\odot}}\xspace}$[yr$^{-1}$]{}, which is $\approx0.3\%$ of the Eddington rate.
Burst spectroscopy {#sec:spectra}
------------------
![ Top: burst spectra at four epochs during the X-ray burst. Bottom: the residuals of the best fit models, showing the ratio of the data over the model prediction. In each case we have set the normalization of the emission line components to zero, which highlights these lines in the residuals. []{data-label="fig:spectra"}](burst-spectral-comparison.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
We investigated the spectral shape of the burst emission by extracting a spectrum from a $4{{\rm\,s}\xspace}$ interval at the peak of the burst (Figure \[fig:spectra\]). We first attempted to model this spectrum by adding a blackbody component to the preburst spectrum model, holding all parameters except for those of the blackbody constant. At a ${\ensuremath{\chi^2_r}\xspace}$ of $28$ for 631 dof, this model failed to account for a large excess below 1.5 keV and above 5 keV.
In an attempt to account for the residuals we applied a free scaling factor to the components describing the preburst spectrum [@Worpel2013], so that our model was
> `tbabs(bbodyrad + f(diskbb + nthcomp))`,
where `bbodyrad` is a blackbody component with its normalization proportional to surface area. At a [$\chi^2_r$]{}of 5.4 for 630 dof, this model failed to remove the large residuals. Additionally, at $f=159$, the magnitude of the obtained scaling factor is not realistic, as it is much larger than the ${f\sim2-10}$ that is typically observed [@Worpel2013].
In an alternative approach to account for the large soft excess, we adopted a model consisting of the fixed preburst model plus two blackbody components. This model provided a much better description of the data ([$\chi^2_r$]{}of 1.11 for 628), yielding a blackbody with $0.233\pm0.003$keV and $318\pm5$km for the soft excess, and $1.83\pm0.03$keV and $14.7\pm0.3$km for the higher energy emission (presumably the photosphere). Some structure still remained in the residuals, most prominently at 1.0keV and 6.5keV. The fit was significantly improved ([$\chi^2_r$]{}of 1.07 for 624 dof) by adding a `diskline` component [@Fabian1989] at $6.7_{-0.3}^{+0.1}$keV, along with a Gaussian line at $1.05\pm0.02$keV. The signal strength of the `diskline` was insufficient to reliably constrain the disk radius and inclination, giving respective limits of $<13\,r_g$ and $>65\arcdeg$. Instead, we fixed the inner radius to $11\,r_g$, which is the approximate magnetospheric radius [@Bult2015b], and the inclination to $65\arcdeg$, which is within the range allowed by modelling of the FeK line in the persistent emission of [SAX J1808]{}. We further note that while this inclination is inconsistent with the $\leq30\arcdeg$ limit derived by @Galloway2006, a more sophisticated analysis of the same burst data yield $69_{-2}^{+4}\arcdeg$ [@Goodwin2019]. With these parameters held constant, we obtained a line normalization of $0.62\pm0.16$[[ph[cm$^{-2}$]{}[s$^{-1}$]{}]{}]{}. Meanwhile, the 1[[keV]{}]{}Gaussian line had a normalization of $0.27\pm0.07$[[ph[cm$^{-2}$]{}[s$^{-1}$]{}]{}]{}and standard deviation of $0.05_{-0.02}^{+0.07}$keV.
In an attempt to apply a physical foundation to our modelling of these data, we also fit the spectrum using the reflection models of @Ballantyne2004b. This overall model is summarized as
> `tbabs( bbodyrad + diskbb + nthcomp + rdblur*atable{reflection} )`
where `rdblur` is a convolution component that applies the relativistic effects associated with an accretion disk around a compact object, and the `reflection` component tabulates reflection spectra calculated for a hydrogen density of $n_H=10^{18}\,{\rm cm}^{-3}$, using a grid in temperature ($kT$), ionization ($\log \xi$), and Fe abundance ($\log
{\rm Fe}$). As before, we kept the parameters for the absorption column and preburst components fixed. The temperature parameter of the reflection table was linked to the blackbody temperature, and the `rdblur` parameters were identical to those of the `diskline` component discussed above. This model yielded a reasonable description of the continuum ([$\chi^2_r$]{}of 1.2 for 628 dof), but left a large residual at 1 keV. Adding in a Gaussian component gave a good fit to the data at a [$\chi^2_r$]{}of 0.95 for 633 dof, with a normalization of $0.86\pm0.15$[[ph[cm$^{-2}$]{}[s$^{-1}$]{}]{}]{}and standard deviation $0.09\pm0.02$[[keV]{}]{}. The best-fit parameters for the reflection component were $\log \xi=3.79_{-0.08}^{+0.11}$, $\log {\rm Fe}=0.51_{-0.24}^{+0.10}$, and an unabsorbed bolometric reflection flux of $(1.87\pm0.13){\ensuremath{\times 10^{-7}} }$[[erg[s$^{-1}$]{}[cm$^{-2}$]{}]{}]{}, indicating the reflection fraction is $F_{\rm refl} / F_{\rm bb} \approx2.3$. Finally, we note that in this model, the photosphere blackbody had a temperature of $2.05\pm0.06$keV and a radius of $6.6\pm0.7$km. While the temperature is consistent with the double blackbody model, the radius is significantly smaller.
The double blackbody and reflection models both provide a statistically acceptable description of the spectrum, and give a roughly equivalent interpretation. Since the double blackbody model is phenomenologically simpler, it can be fit robustly to much shorter integration times, yielding a higher time resolution view of the spectral evolution in the burst. In the following we will therefore focus our analysis on this model.
We extracted spectra from three other distinct time intervals during the burst: the pause (0.6[[s]{}]{}), the dip (0.7[[s]{}]{}), and the second peak (2[[s]{}]{}). Each spectrum could be described with the double blackbody spectrum plus $6.7$[[keV]{}]{}`diskline` component. The second peak additionally required an emission line at 1 keV. These spectra are shown in Figure \[fig:spectra\] and their best-fit parameters are listed in Table \[tab:spectra\].
[ l l l C C C C ]{} & & & & & &\
Soft blackbody & temperature & keV & 0.2330.003 & 0.2280.007 & 0.2100.005 & 0.220.01\
Soft blackbody & normalization & km & 318 5 & 24017 & 29718 & 23631\
Hard blackbody & temperature & keV & 1.830.03 & 2.50.2 & 2.520.14 & 1.990.11\
Hard blackbody & normalization & km & 14.70.3 & 6.20.5 & 6.80.4 & 10.50.7\
Gaussian line & line energy & keV & 1.050.02 & & & 1.050.02\
Gaussian line & standard deviation& keV & 0.05\_[-0.02]{}\^[+0.07]{}& & & 0.070.02\
Gaussian line & normalization & [[ph[cm$^{-2}$]{}[s$^{-1}$]{}]{}]{}& 0.270.07 & & & 0.260.07\
diskline & line energy & keV & 6.7\_[-0.3]{}\^[+0.1]{} & 6.70.1 & 6.70.1 & 6.80.1\
diskline & inclination & degrees & 65 & 65 & 65 & 65\
diskline & inner radius & GM/c$^2$& 11 & 11 & 11 & 11\
diskline & normalization & [[ph[cm$^{-2}$]{}[s$^{-1}$]{}]{}]{}& 0.620.16 & 0.470.14 & 0.50.2 & 0.450.16\
[$\chi^2_r$]{}/ dof & & & 1.07/624 & 1.13/182 & 1.05/264 & 1.17/487\
Time-resolved spectroscopy {#sec:time resolved}
--------------------------
To investigate the full spectral evolution of the X-ray burst, we applied high-resolution time-resolved spectroscopy. We extracted [133]{} spectra from dynamically allocated intervals. Each interval was constructed to have at least [0.125[[s]{}]{}]{} of exposure, and was increased as needed to include a minimum of [2000]{} counts. Each spectrum was then fit using the double blackbody model. For simplicity we did not include emission line components, giving in slightly poorer fit statistics. The resulting evolution in spectral parameters is shown in Figure \[fig:time resolved\].
The time resolved spectroscopy demonstrates that the hot ($\approx2$keV) blackbody in our model can be understood as the emission from a neutron star photosphere that undergoes PRE between $t\simeq1{{\rm\,s}\xspace}$ and $t\simeq13{{\rm\,s}\xspace}$. The radius expansion is moderate, reaching a maximum radius of $\approx15$km. The cool ($\approx0.2$keV) blackbody, on the other hand, maintains a stable temperature through the burst, with its emitting area closely tracking the evolution of the overall flux. This trend further supports the idea that the soft excess tracks an interaction between the burst emission and the neutron star environment, such as the disk reflection model discussed in Section \[sec:spectra\].
Considering the bolometric flux, we see that the burst emission reaches a stable peak of $(2.40\pm0.12){\ensuremath{\times 10^{-7}} }$[[erg[s$^{-1}$]{}[cm$^{-2}$]{}]{}]{}when the photosphere is at its largest extent. As the photosphere begins to contract, the flux begins to decrease. This cooling trend, however, is interrupted at $t\simeq15.5$. In the following $\approx3{{\rm\,s}\xspace}$, we see the bolometric flux holding constant, causing an excess over the cooling trend that coincides exactly with the second peak observed in the light curve. Hence, the spectroscopy confirms that the dip and second peak seen in the light curve are indeed astrophysical in origin rather than a passband effect.
Finally, we note a peculiar feature in the spectroscopic results: the temperature evolution of the photosphere shows two peaks, marking the start and end of the PRE phase. These start and end times coincide with the pause and the dip, respectively. Furthermore, both the pause and the dip have the same bolometric flux level of $(1.43\pm0.09){\ensuremath{\times 10^{-7}} }$[[erg[s$^{-1}$]{}[cm$^{-2}$]{}]{}]{}.
![ Time-resolved spectroscopy of the X-ray burst using a double blackbody model. The top panel shows the estimated bolometric flux, the middle four panels show the time evolution of the spectral parameters describing the burst emission (radii were calculated using a distance of 3.5kpc), and the bottom panel gives the reduced $\chi^2$ fit statistic. The grey band indicates the time interval where burst oscillations were detected. See text for further details. []{data-label="fig:time resolved"}](time-resolved-spectroscopy.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Burst oscillations {#sec:oscillations}
------------------
To search for burst oscillations, we constructed a $1/8192{{\rm\,s}\xspace}$ time-resolution light curve in the $0.3-10$ keV energy band. We then searched for coherent oscillations in a [10]{}Hz region centered on the known 401Hz pulsar spin frequency by applying a sliding window search method [see, e.g., @Bilous2019 and references therein]. Specifically, we used window sizes of $T=1,2,{\rm~and~} 4{{\rm\,s}\xspace}$, with strides of $T/10{{\rm\,s}\xspace}$. For each window position, we computed a power spectrum and searched for a signal power in excess of the expected noise distribution [@Klis1989]. We detected a significant oscillation ($>3\sigma$) in all windows between $t=17.7{{\rm\,s}\xspace}$ and $t=24.6{{\rm\,s}\xspace}$. The fractional sinusoidal amplitude[^2] of the burst oscillation was $(4.0\pm0.6)\%$, while the oscillation frequency was $401$Hz and did not show any significant drift.
Given the stability of the burst oscillation frequency, we folded the event times within the noted epoch on the pulsar spin period to obtain a waveform for the burst oscillation. For comparison, we also extracted the waveform of the persistent pulsations from the full ObsID, excluding the burst emission (see @ATelBult19c for a preliminary ephemeris). Both waveforms are shown in Figure \[fig:bo\]. The burst oscillation has a similar profile and amplitude as the persistent pulsation, but appears to lead the pulse by $34\arcdeg\pm7\arcdeg$.
[ To resolve the burst oscillation with respect to photon energy, we applied a sliding window to the instrument energy channel space, using a window size of 100 channels and strides of 10 channels. At each window position, we folded the selected data and measured the burst oscillation amplitude and phase. We then repeated this method for the non-burst data. The resulting amplitude spectra are shown in Figure \[fig:bo-spectrum\]. Although the averaged profiles are similar, the energy dependence of the burst oscillation is very different from that of the pulsar. Particularly notable is that the burst oscillation amplitude is mostly constant below $\approx5$keV, but rises sharply at $6-7$keV. ]{}
![ Waveform of the burst oscillation observed in [SAX J1808]{}, compared to the waveform of the accretion-powered pulsation as seen outside the X-ray burst interval. []{data-label="fig:bo"}](bo-waveform.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
![ Top: energy dependence of the burst oscillation waveform. Bottom: same for the persistent pulsation observed outside the X-ray burst interval. Note that these data were computed using a sliding window, so adjacent points are correlated. Additionally, in order to look for decohering noise, we plot the waveform phase even if the amplitude is not formally significant. See text for further details. []{data-label="fig:bo-spectrum"}](dynamic-energy-spectra.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
We detected a bright X-ray burst from [SAX J1808]{}with [*NICER*]{}. The burst showed a peculiar light curve, with a notable pause during the rise and a double-peaked structure. Additionally, we detected significant burst oscillations in the cooling tail of the burst and emission features in the burst spectrum. We now discuss each of these findings.
Reflection
----------
We find that the burst spectrum shows a strong excess at the lowest energies that requires the inclusion of a second blackbody in the spectral model. A similar strong soft excess was previously observed in [SAX J1808]{}by @Zand2013. In contrast to that work, however, we also observe emission features at 1 keV and 6.7keV. A similar complex of emission features has been seen in the intermediate-duration X-ray bursts from IGR J17062–6143 [@Degenaar2013; @Keek2017], which were associated with ionized FeL and FeK emission lines. Thus, the detection of these lines provides strong evidence that we are seeing the burst emission reflected from the accretion disk. Applying a physically motivated disk reflection model to our data (Section \[sec:spectra\]) indicates that such a reflection component provides a satisfactory description of the soft excess, but cannot fully account for the emission feature observed at 1keV. We suggest that this may be due to the presence of additional elements not currently incorporated in these models (e.g. Ne). Additionally, this model fit indicated a strong reflection signal, which may indicate that the accretion disk structure is significantly impacted by the burst [@He2016; @Fragile2018].
Spectral evolution
------------------
The X-ray burst light curve shows a double-peaked structure. Given that the second peak in count-rate occurs after the PRE phase, and that this peak is reproduced (albeit less prominently) in the bolometric flux, we conclude that this feature is astrophysical in origin. A very similar double-peaked structure in an X-ray burst from 4U 1608–52 was recently observed with [*NICER*]{}[@Jaisawal2019]. Although that burst showed a hotter photosphere and lacked the strong soft excess that we detect in [SAX J1808]{}, the rebrightening phase is nearly identical in both bursts. In each case, the end of the PRE phase coincides with a pronounced dip in count-rate, and is followed by a secondary peak.
@Jaisawal2019 considered a number of plausible origins for the rebrightening of the burst flux, including the ignition of fresh material [@Keek2017b], stalled thermonuclear flame spreading [@Bhattacharyya2006], and waiting points in the rp-process [@Fisker2004]. Our observation of rebrightening in the X-ray burst from [SAX J1808]{}does not rule out any of these proposed explanations. It does, however, add two new perspectives: first, in [SAX J1808]{}the rebrightening coincides with the onset of burst oscillations, which may be difficult to reconcile a flame spreading model. Second, in [SAX J1808]{}the dip appears related to the pause during the rise. If this relation is real, then whatever physical mechanism underpins these features may also be related to the rebrightening.
Burst Oscillations {#burst-oscillations}
------------------
We found that the X-ray burst shows burst oscillations at the expected 401 Hz spin frequency. Comparing these oscillations with the accretion-powered pulsations, we find that the two waveforms are remarkably similar, but the burst oscillations lead the pulsations by [$34\arcdeg\pm7\arcdeg$]{}. Similar results were reported from [*RXTE*]{}observations of burst oscillations in [SAX J1808]{}observed during the cooling phase of an X-ray burst [@Chakrabarty2003]. The fact that the burst oscillations are so closely matched to the persistent pulsations in terms of their waveform, suggests that both must arise from geometrically similar, if not the same, confined emitting region (hot-spot) on the stellar surface. With this in mind, it is interesting to note that the [*NICER*]{}data indicate the waveform energy dependence of the burst oscillations is quite different from that of the persistent pulsations. Some of the difference may simply arise from the strong reflection component, which is likely not pulsed, and thus is expected to dilute the measured burst oscillation amplitude at low energies. A detailed spectral-timing analysis may be able to determine how much each of the spectral components is oscillating. Such an analysis, however, is beyond the scope of this initial work.
Eddington limits
----------------
Finally, we note that our analysis of the light curve, the spectral evolution, and the timing behavior all indicate that each time interval where the [*NICER*]{}count-rate of [SAX J1808]{}is between 13,000 [ct[s$^{-1}$]{}]{}and 14,000 [ct[s$^{-1}$]{}]{}is somehow special. At these count rates, the burst rise pauses, the dip reaches its minimum, and burst oscillations appear. The bolometric flux measured at these times was $(1.43\pm0.09){\ensuremath{\times 10^{-7}} }$[[erg[s$^{-1}$]{}[cm$^{-2}$]{}]{}]{}, which corresponds to a luminosity of $(2.08\pm0.13){\ensuremath{\times 10^{38}} }$[[erg[s$^{-1}$]{}]{}]{}. We note that this luminosity is consistent with the expected local Eddington limit of a hydrogen envelope of a neutron star [@Lewin1993].
For spherically symmetric emission, the Eddington luminosity as measured by the observer is predicted as [@Lewin1993; @Suleimanov2017] $$L_{\rm edd} = \frac{4\pi GMc}{\kappa_{\rm T}}\frac{1}{(1+z)},$$ where $M$ is the neutron star mass, $G$ the gravitational constant, $c$ the speed of light, and $z$ the gravitational redshift. Finally, $\kappa_{\rm T}=0.2(1+X)\,{\rm cm}^2$[g$^{-1}$]{} is the Thomson electron scattering opacity, with $X$ the hydrogen abundance in the atmospheric layer. Hence, we expect that the flux level at which PRE occurs differs depending on the material composition of the neutron star envelope. For a hydrogen layer with cosmic abundances ($X=0.73$), the predicted luminosity is $\approx2.0{\ensuremath{\times 10^{38}} }$[[erg[s$^{-1}$]{}]{}]{}, whereas the luminosity of a pure helium layer ($X=0$) is larger by a factor of 1.73. In [SAX J1808]{}, the ratio in bolometric flux between the peak and pause/dip is $1.68\pm0.13$.
The following scenario now emerges for the X-ray burst evolution. As the critical ignition point is reached in the helium layer, the flame front quickly spreads across the stellar surface and an intense radiation field starts to diffuse outward. After about 0.5[[s]{}]{}, the radiation pressure reaches the local Eddington limit of the hydrogen layer, causing that layer to expand. Meanwhile, the intensity of the radiation field continues to increase, either expelling or diluting the hydrogen layer, so that the observed spectrum becomes dominated the PRE of the helium layer. Over the following 10[[s]{}]{}, we observe the full helium PRE cycle, causing the photosphere to cool and then heat, as the envelope expands and then contracts. Once the envelope touches back down on the stellar surface, the burst flux is still comparable to hydrogen Eddington limit, although at the time this touchdown occurs, there will likely have been some mixing of the atmospheric layers. Subsequently, the photosphere cools, while the radius grows, and then, after about $4-5{{\rm\,s}\xspace}$, the rebrightening mechanism activates and quickly thereafter the burst oscillations appear. The photosphere continues to cool, and after about 10[[s]{}]{}both the rebrightening and oscillations switch off.
The flux levels of the pause and peak are highly suggestive that we are seeing both the hydrogen and helium Eddington limits in a single X-ray burst. The evolution of the hardness ratio around the pause further supports the interpretation that this stall in the rise is related to the expanding hydrogen layer. The link between the pause and the dip is weaker, but highly suggestive, and may yet provide the insight required to uncover the physics behind intrinsic rebrightening during the tail of an X-ray burst.
This work was supported by NASA through the [*NICER*]{}mission and the Astrophysics Explorers Program, and made use of data and software provided by the High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (HEASARC). P.B. was supported by an NPP fellowship at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. D.A. acknowledges support from the Royal Society.
, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. [Jacoby]{} & J. [Barnes]{}, [](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ASPC..101...17A)
, D. R. 2004, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07767.x), [](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.351...57B)
, D. R., & [Everett]{}, J. E. 2005, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/429860), [](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...626..364B)
, S., & [Strohmayer]{}, T. E. 2006, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/500199), [](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...636L.121B)
, L., & [Chakrabarty]{}, D. 2001, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/321633), [](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...557..292B)
, A. V., & [Watts]{}, A. L. 2018, [](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv181210684B)
, P., & [van der Klis]{}, M. 2015, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/90), [](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...806...90B)
, P. M., [Gendreau]{}, K. C., [Arzoumanian]{}, Z., [et al.]{} 2019, , [](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ATel13001....1B)
, E. M., [Altamirano]{}, D., [Patruno]{}, A., [et al.]{} 2009, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/694/1/L21), [](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...694L..21C)
, D., & [Morgan]{}, E. H. 1998, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/28561), [](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998Natur.394..346C)
, D., [Morgan]{}, E. H., [Muno]{}, M. P., [et al.]{} 2003, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature01732), [](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003Natur.424...42C)
, N., [Miller]{}, J. M., [Wijnands]{}, R., [Altamirano]{}, D., & [Fabian]{}, A. C. 2013, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2041-8205/767/2/L37), [](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...767L..37D)
, N., [Ballantyne]{}, D. R., [Belloni]{}, T., [et al.]{} 2018, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11214-017-0448-3), [](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018SSRv..214...15D)
, T., [Sanna]{}, A., [Burderi]{}, L., [et al.]{} 2019, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty2974), [](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483..767D)
, A. C., [Rees]{}, M. J., [Stella]{}, L., & [White]{}, N. E. 1989, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/238.3.729), [](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989MNRAS.238..729F)
, J. L., [Thielemann]{}, F.-K., & [Wiescher]{}, M. 2004, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/422215), [](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...608L..61F)
, P. C., [Ballantyne]{}, D. R., [Maccarone]{}, T. J., & [Witry]{}, J. W. L. 2018, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/aaeb99), [](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...867L..28F)
, D. K., & [Cumming]{}, A. 2006, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/507598), [](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...652..559G)
, D. K., [Goodwin]{}, A. J., & [Keek]{}, L. 2017, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/pasa.2017.12), [](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASA...34...19G)
, D. K., [Muno]{}, M. P., [Hartman]{}, J. M., [Psaltis]{}, D., & [Chakrabarty]{}, D. 2008, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/592044), [](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJS..179..360G)
, K., & [Arzoumanian]{}, Z. 2017, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41550-017-0301-3), [](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017NatAs...1..895G)
, A. J., [Galloway]{}, D. K., [Heger]{}, A., [Cumming]{}, A., & [Johnston]{}, Z. 2019, [](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190700996G)
, A. J., [Russell]{}, D. M., [Galloway]{}, D. K., [et al.]{} 2019, , 12993, [](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ATel12993....1G)
, J. E., [Marshall]{}, H. L., [Hertz]{}, P., [et al.]{} 1980, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/183337), [](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...240L.121G)
, J. M., [Patruno]{}, A., [Chakrabarty]{}, D., [et al.]{} 2008, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/527461), [](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...675.1468H)
, C. C., & [Keek]{}, L. 2016, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/0004-637X/819/1/47), [](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...819...47H)
, J. J. M., [Heise]{}, J., [Muller]{}, J. M., [et al.]{} 1998, , [](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A%26A...331L..25I)
, J. J. M., [Galloway]{}, D. K., [Marshall]{}, H. L., [et al.]{} 2013, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201321056), [](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A%26A...553A..83I)
, J. J. M., [Cornelisse]{}, R., [Kuulkers]{}, E., [et al.]{} 2001, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20010546), [](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...372..916I)
, K., [Markwardt]{}, C. B., [Radeva]{}, Y., [et al.]{} 2006, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/500659), [](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJS..163..401J)
, G. K., [Chenevez]{}, J., [Bult]{}, P., [et al.]{} 2019, [](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190803373J)
, L., & [Heger]{}, A. 2017, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aa7748), [](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...842..113K)
, L., [Iwakiri]{}, W., [Serino]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2017, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/111), [](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...836..111K)
, L., [Arzoumanian]{}, Z., [Chakrabarty]{}, D., [et al.]{} 2018, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/aab904), [](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...856L..37K)
, L., [Arzoumanian]{}, Z., [Bult]{}, P., [et al.]{} 2018, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/aab104), [](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...855L...4K)
, W. H. G., [van Paradijs]{}, J., & [Taam]{}, R. E. 1993, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00196124), [](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993SSRv...62..223L)
, K., [Maejima]{}, Y., [Mitsuda]{}, K., [et al.]{} 1986, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/164534), [](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...308..635M)
, R., & [Heyl]{}, J. S. 2003, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/379211), [](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...599..419N)
, A., [Di Salvo]{}, T., [D’A[ì]{}]{}, A., [et al.]{} 2009, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:200811401), [](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A%26A...493L..39P)
, A. S., & [Wijnands]{}, R. 2019, , 13000, [](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ATel13000....1P)
, A., [Jaodand]{}, A., [Kuiper]{}, L., [et al.]{} 2017, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aa6f5b), [](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...841...98P)
, D. M., [Goodwin]{}, A. J., [Galloway]{}, D. K., [et al.]{} 2019, , 12964, [](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ATel12964....1R)
, A., [Di Salvo]{}, T., [Burderi]{}, L., [et al.]{} 2017, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx1588), [](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.471..463S)
, E. M. 1998,
, T. E., [Altamirano]{}, D., [Arzoumanian]{}, Z., [et al.]{} 2019, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ab25eb), [](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...878L..27S)
, V. F., [Poutanen]{}, J., [N[ä]{}ttil[ä]{}]{}, J., [et al.]{} 2017, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw3132), [](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466..906S)
, M. 1989, in NATO ASI Series, Vol. 262, Timing Neutron Stars, ed. H. [[Ö]{}gelman]{} & E. P. J. [van den Heuvel]{} (Dordrecht: Kluwer), [](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ASIC..262...27V)
, D. A., [Ferland]{}, G. J., [Korista]{}, K. T., & [Yakovlev]{}, D. G. 1996, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/177435), [](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...465..487V)
, N. N., [Bildsten]{}, L., & [Schatz]{}, H. 2006, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/499426), [](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...639.1018W)
, R., & [van der Klis]{}, M. 1998, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/28557), [](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998Natur.394..344W)
, J., [Allen]{}, A., & [McCray]{}, R. 2000, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/317016), [](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...542..914W)
, H., [Galloway]{}, D. K., & [Price]{}, D. J. 2013, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/94), [](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...772...94W)
, H., & [Weinberg]{}, N. N. 2018, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aad045), [](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...863...53Y)
, A. A., [Johnson]{}, W. N., & [Magdziarz]{}, P. 1996, , [](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996MNRAS.283..193Z)
, P. T., [Done]{}, C., & [Smith]{}, D. A. 1999, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02885.x), [](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.309..561Z)
[^1]: The <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">cor\_sax</span> parameter is based on a model for the cut-off rigidity that was originally developed for the *BeppoSAX* satellite, and has no specific relation to [SAX J1808]{}.
[^2]: Sinusoidal amplitudes are a factor of $\sqrt{2}$ larger than fractional rms amplitudes.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- |
Vasiliki A. Mitsou[^1]\
On behalf of the ATLAS Collaboration
title: Highlights from SUSY searches with ATLAS
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Supersymmetry (SUSY) [@Nilles:1983ge] is an extension of the Standard Model (SM) which assigns to each SM field a superpartner field with a spin differing by a half unit. SUSY provides elegant solutions to several open issues in the SM, such as the hierarchy problem, the identity of dark matter, and grand unification.
SUSY searches in collider experiments typically focus on events with high transverse missing energy () which can arise from (weakly interacting) Lightest Supersymmetric Particles (LSPs), in the case of $R$-parity conserving SUSY, or from neutrinos produced in LSP decays, when $R$-parity is broken. Hence, the event selection criteria of inclusive channels are based on large , no or few leptons ($e$, $\mu$), many jets and/or $b$-jets, $\tau$-leptons and photons. The exact sets of cuts (“signal regions”, SRs) are a compromise between the necessity to suppress events coming from known SM processes while maintaining sufficient number of surviving SUSY events. Typical SM backgrounds are top-quark production —including single-top—, $W$/$Z$ in association with jets, dibosons and QCD multi-jet events. These are estimated using semi- or fully data-driven techniques. Although the various analyses are motivated and optimised for a specific SUSY scenario, the interpretation of the results are extended to various SUSY models or topologies.
A brief summary of recent results (as of June 2012) on searches for SUSY with and without $R$-parity conservation and for long-lived massive superpartners is presented. The reported results are based on up to 4.7 of data from $pp$ collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\rts = 7\TeV$ recorded in 2010 – 2011 by ATLAS [@Aad:2008zzm] at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) [@Evans:2008zzb].
Inclusive channels {#sec:RPC}
==================
Analyses exploring $R$-parity conserving (RPC) SUSY models are currently divided into inclusive searches for: (a) squarks and gluinos, (b) third-generation fermions, and (c) electroweak production ($\tilde{\chi}^0$, $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}$, $\tilde{\ell}$). Recent results from each category of ATLAS searches are presented in this Section. It is stressed that, although these searches are designed to look for RPC SUSY, interpretation in terms of $R$-parity violating models is also possible (cf. Sec. \[sec:RPV\]).
Squarks and gluinos {#sec:strong}
-------------------
Strong SUSY production is searched in events with large jet multiplicities and large missing transverse momentum, with and without leptons. Various channels fall into this class of searches; here two cases are highlighted: the 0-lepton plus jets plus and the lepton(s) plus jets plus .
In the 0-lepton search [@:2012rz], events are selected based on a jet+ trigger, applying a lepton veto, requiring a minimum number of jets (two to six), $\MET > 160\GeV$, and large azimuthal separation between the and reconstructed jets, in order to reject multi-jet background. Events are analysed in five SRs based on jet multiplicity, which are further divided to an overall of eleven channels by using different $m\mathrm{_{eff}(incl.)}$ thresholds. The latter variable is defined as the scalar sum of the transverse momenta of jets with $\pt > 40\GeV$ plus the . The most important sources of background are estimated with data-driven methods, by using measurements in control regions (CRs) and Monte Carlo (MC) predictions for SRs and CRs, applying similar techniques as for the one/two-leptons search described below. The $m\mathrm{_{eff}(incl.)}$ distributions for data, for various background processes before and after fitting to CR observations and for two MSUGRA/CMSSM benchmark model points with $m_0 = 500\GeV$, $m_1/2 = 570\GeV$, $A_0 = 0$, $\tan\beta = 10$ and $\mu > 0$ and with $m_0 = 2500\GeV$, $m_1/2 = 270\GeV$, $A_0 = 0$, $\tan\beta = 10$ and $\mu > 0$ are shown in Fig. \[fig:0lepton\] (left).
Limits for squark and gluino production are set in the absence of deviations from SM predictions. Figure \[fig:0lepton\] (right) illustrates the 95% confidence level (CL) limits set under the mSUGRA/CMSSM framework. Exclusion limits are obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. In the MSUGRA/CMSSM case, the limit on $m_{1/2}$ reaches 300 at high $m_{0}$ and 640 for low values of $m_0$. Squarks and gluinos with equal masses below 1360 are excluded in this scenario.
![0-lepton plus jets plus analysis. [*Left:*]{} Observed $m\mathrm{_{eff}(incl.)}$ distribution for the two-jets plus MET analysis (channel A) [@:2012rz]. In the top panel, the histograms show the SM background expectations, both before (black open histogram) and after (medium (red) open histogram) use of a fit to scale the expectations to CR observations. The bottom panel shows the fractional deviation of the data from the total unscaled background estimate (black points), together with the fractional deviation of the total scaled background estimate from the total unscaled background estimate (medium (red) line). [*Right:*]{} The 95% CL exclusion limits on the ($m_0, m_{1/2}$) plane of MSUGRA/CMSSM for $\tan\beta = 10$, $A_0 = 0$ and $\mu > 0$. The black dashed lines show the expected limits, with the light (yellow) bands indicating the $1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental uncertainties. Observed limits are indicated by medium (maroon) curves, where the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.[]{data-label="fig:0lepton"}](fig01a.pdf "fig:"){width="0.49\linewidth"} ![0-lepton plus jets plus analysis. [*Left:*]{} Observed $m\mathrm{_{eff}(incl.)}$ distribution for the two-jets plus MET analysis (channel A) [@:2012rz]. In the top panel, the histograms show the SM background expectations, both before (black open histogram) and after (medium (red) open histogram) use of a fit to scale the expectations to CR observations. The bottom panel shows the fractional deviation of the data from the total unscaled background estimate (black points), together with the fractional deviation of the total scaled background estimate from the total unscaled background estimate (medium (red) line). [*Right:*]{} The 95% CL exclusion limits on the ($m_0, m_{1/2}$) plane of MSUGRA/CMSSM for $\tan\beta = 10$, $A_0 = 0$ and $\mu > 0$. The black dashed lines show the expected limits, with the light (yellow) bands indicating the $1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental uncertainties. Observed limits are indicated by medium (maroon) curves, where the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.[]{data-label="fig:0lepton"}](fig01b.pdf "fig:"){width="0.49\linewidth"}
The one- and two-leptons search [@:2012ms] is motivated by models with SUSY decay chains with intermediate $\tilde{\chi}^0$, $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}$, $\tilde{\ell}$, for which isolated leptons are a clean signature. The SRs are divided into those which require exactly one lepton and three or four jets and those with at least two leptons and two or four jets. Within this search, ATLAS also performs a soft-lepton analysis which enhances the sensitivity of the search in the difficult kinematic region where the neutralino and gluino masses are close to each other forming the so-called “compressed spectrum”. Further cuts are applied on , $m_{\mathrm{T}}$, $m\mathrm{_{eff}(incl.)}$ and $\MET/m_{\mathrm{eff}}$, where $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ is defined as the scalar sum of the and the transverse momenta of the selected leptons and jets.
The major backgrounds ($t\bar{t}$, $W$+jets, $Z$+jets) are estimated by isolating each of them in a dedicated control region, normalising the simulation to data in that control region, and then using the simulation to extrapolate the background expectations into the signal region. The multijet background is determined from the data by a matrix method. All other (smaller) backgrounds are estimated entirely from the simulation, using the most accurate theoretical cross sections available. To account for the cross-contamination of physics processes across control regions, the final estimate of the background is obtained with a simultaneous, combined fit to all control regions.
Apart from other theoretical models (mSUGRA, GMSB), results are also interpreted under simplified-model assumptions. Figure \[fig:12lepton\] (left) illustrates the diagrams of two of the topologies used for the interpretation: a one-step $\tilde{q}_L$-pair and a two-step $\tilde{g}$-pair production. In Fig. \[fig:12lepton\] (right), the excluded cross sections at 95% confidence level for the one-step simplified model of gluino pair-production with $\tilde{g} \rightarrow q \bar{q}' \tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm} \rightarrow q \bar{q}' W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ are shown. The plots are from the combination of the hard and soft single-lepton channels.
![Leptons plus jets plus analysis. [*Left:*]{} Representative diagrams for different SUSY models: one-step simplified model with $pp \rightarrow \tilde{q}_L \tilde{q}_L^*$ and subsequent decay via charginos (top); two-step simplified model with $pp \rightarrow\tilde{g}\tilde{g}$ and subsequent decays via charginos and sleptons or sneutrinos (bottom). [*Right:*]{} Excluded cross sections at 95% confidence level for the one-step simplified model of gluino pair-production with $\tilde{g} \rightarrow q \bar{q}' \tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm} \rightarrow q \bar{q}' W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ [@:2012ms]. The chargino mass is set to be halfway between gluino and LSP masses. The band around the median expected limit shows the $\pm 1\sigma$ variations on the median expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties on the signal. The dotted lines around the observed limit indicate the sensitivity to $\pm 1\sigma$ variations on these theoretical uncertainties. The numbers indicate the excluded cross section in femtobarns. []{data-label="fig:12lepton"}](fig02aa.pdf "fig:"){width="0.88\linewidth"} ![Leptons plus jets plus analysis. [*Left:*]{} Representative diagrams for different SUSY models: one-step simplified model with $pp \rightarrow \tilde{q}_L \tilde{q}_L^*$ and subsequent decay via charginos (top); two-step simplified model with $pp \rightarrow\tilde{g}\tilde{g}$ and subsequent decays via charginos and sleptons or sneutrinos (bottom). [*Right:*]{} Excluded cross sections at 95% confidence level for the one-step simplified model of gluino pair-production with $\tilde{g} \rightarrow q \bar{q}' \tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm} \rightarrow q \bar{q}' W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ [@:2012ms]. The chargino mass is set to be halfway between gluino and LSP masses. The band around the median expected limit shows the $\pm 1\sigma$ variations on the median expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties on the signal. The dotted lines around the observed limit indicate the sensitivity to $\pm 1\sigma$ variations on these theoretical uncertainties. The numbers indicate the excluded cross section in femtobarns. []{data-label="fig:12lepton"}](fig02ab.pdf "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
![Leptons plus jets plus analysis. [*Left:*]{} Representative diagrams for different SUSY models: one-step simplified model with $pp \rightarrow \tilde{q}_L \tilde{q}_L^*$ and subsequent decay via charginos (top); two-step simplified model with $pp \rightarrow\tilde{g}\tilde{g}$ and subsequent decays via charginos and sleptons or sneutrinos (bottom). [*Right:*]{} Excluded cross sections at 95% confidence level for the one-step simplified model of gluino pair-production with $\tilde{g} \rightarrow q \bar{q}' \tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm} \rightarrow q \bar{q}' W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ [@:2012ms]. The chargino mass is set to be halfway between gluino and LSP masses. The band around the median expected limit shows the $\pm 1\sigma$ variations on the median expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties on the signal. The dotted lines around the observed limit indicate the sensitivity to $\pm 1\sigma$ variations on these theoretical uncertainties. The numbers indicate the excluded cross section in femtobarns. []{data-label="fig:12lepton"}](fig02b.pdf){width="0.49\linewidth"}
Third-generation squarks {#sec:third}
------------------------
The mixing of left- and right-handed gauge states which provides the mass eigenstates of the scalar quarks and leptons can lead to relatively light 3$^\mathrm{rd}$ generation particles. Stop ($\tilde{t}_1$) and sbottom ($\tilde{b}_1$) with a sub-TeV mass are favoured by the naturalness argument, while the stau ($\tilde{\tau}_1$) is the lightest slepton in many models. Therefore these could be abundantly produced either directly or through gluino production and decay. Such events are characterised by several energetic jets (some of them $b$-jets), possibly accompanied by light leptons, as well as high .
The first analysis presented here [@:2012pq] comprises the full 2011 dataset of 4.7 and adopts an improved selection that requires large , no electron or muon and at least three jets identified as originating from $b$-quarks ($b$-jets) in the final state. Results are interpreted in simplified models where sbottoms or stops are the only squarks produced in the gluino decays, leading to final states with four $b$-quarks.
The gluino-sbottom model is an MSSM scenario where the $\tilde{b}_1$ is the lightest squark, all other squarks are heavier than the gluino, and $m_{\tilde{g}} > m_{\tilde{b}_1} > m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$, so the branching ratio for $\tilde{g}\rightarrow\tilde{b}_1 b$ decays is 100%. Sbottoms are produced via $\tilde{g}\tilde{g}$ or by $\tilde{b}_1\tilde{b}_1$ direct pair production and are assumed to decay exclusively via $\tilde{b}_1\rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}_1^0$, where $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ is set to 60 . Exclusion limits are presented in the $(m_{\tilde{g}},m_{\tilde{b}_1})$ plane in Fig. \[fig:glu-med\] (left).
![Results from searches for gluino-mediated third-generation squarks. The dashed black and solid bold red lines show the 95% CL expected and observed limits respectively, including all uncertainties except the theoretical signal cross-section uncertainty. The shaded (yellow) band around the expected limit shows the impact of the experimental uncertainties while the dotted red lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross section by $1\sigma$ theoretical uncertainty. [*Left:*]{} Exclusion limits in the $(m_{\tilde{g}},m_{\tilde{b}_1})$ plane for the gluino-sbottom model [@:2012pq]. Also shown for reference are the previous CDF, D0 and ATLAS analyses. [*Right:*]{} Exclusion limits in the $(m_{\tilde{g}},m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0})$ plane for the Gtt model [@:2012pq]. Also shown for reference are the previous ATLAS analyses.[]{data-label="fig:glu-med"}](fig03a.pdf "fig:"){width="0.49\linewidth"} ![Results from searches for gluino-mediated third-generation squarks. The dashed black and solid bold red lines show the 95% CL expected and observed limits respectively, including all uncertainties except the theoretical signal cross-section uncertainty. The shaded (yellow) band around the expected limit shows the impact of the experimental uncertainties while the dotted red lines show the impact on the observed limit of the variation of the nominal signal cross section by $1\sigma$ theoretical uncertainty. [*Left:*]{} Exclusion limits in the $(m_{\tilde{g}},m_{\tilde{b}_1})$ plane for the gluino-sbottom model [@:2012pq]. Also shown for reference are the previous CDF, D0 and ATLAS analyses. [*Right:*]{} Exclusion limits in the $(m_{\tilde{g}},m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0})$ plane for the Gtt model [@:2012pq]. Also shown for reference are the previous ATLAS analyses.[]{data-label="fig:glu-med"}](fig03b.pdf "fig:"){width="0.49\linewidth"}
A simplified scenario (“Gtt model”), where $\tilde{t}_1$ is the lightest squark but $m_{\tilde{g}} < m_{\tilde{t}_1}$, is considered. Pair production of gluinos is the only process taken into account since the mass of all other sparticles apart from the $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ are above the scale. A three-body decay via off-shell stop is assumed for the gluino, yielding a 100% BR for the decay $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The stop mass has no impact on the kinematics of the decay and the exclusion limits are presented in the $(m_{\tilde{g}},m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0})$ plane in Fig. \[fig:glu-med\] (right).
Furthermore, a search for light top squarks has been performed in the dilepton final state: $ee$, $\mu\mu$ and $e\mu$ with 4.7 [@:2012tx]. The leading lepton is required to be less than 30 , a $Z$-veto is imposed ($|m_{\ell\ell}-m_Z|>10\GeV$) and $\MET>20\GeV$ is required. Good agreement is observed between data and the SM prediction in all three flavour channels. The results are interpreted in the $(m_{\tilde{t}_1}, m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0})$ plane, shown in Fig. \[fig:light-stop\] with the chargino mass set to 106 , and with the assumption that the decay $\tilde{t}_1\rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}$ occurs 100% of the time, followed by decay via a virtual $W$ ($\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\rightarrow W^{*}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$) with an 11% branching ratio (per flavour channel) to decay leptonically. A lower limit at 95% confidence level is set on the stop mass in this plane using the combination of flavour channels. This excludes stop masses up to 130 (for neutralino masses between 1 and 70 ).
Direct weak-gaugino production {#sec:gaugino}
------------------------------
Signatures with multiple charged leptons can arise at the LHC through cascade decays of charginos and neutralinos. These weak gauginos can either be produced directly or can result from decays of squarks and gluinos. The analysis presented here [@:2012cwa] consists of a search for direct production of weak gauginos in final states with three leptons and at $\rts = 7\TeV$ with 2.06 .
In one of the theoretical scenarios considered, the phenomenological minimal supersymmetric Standard Model (pMSSM), a series of simplifying assumptions reduces the 105 parameters of the $R$-parity conserving MSSM to 19. These assumptions include no new sources of $CP$ violation and degenerate 1$^\mathrm{st}$ and 2$^\mathrm{nd}$ generation sfermion masses. This analysis made further assumptions, e.g. $\tan\beta=6$ to ensure the same leptonic branching fraction for each flavour, to reduce the number of parameters to three: the $U(1)$ gaugino mass $M_1$, the $S\!U(2)$ gaugino mass $M_2$, and the higgsino mass $|\mu|$.
The baseline event selection requires three leptons with $\pt > 10\GeV$, $\MET > 50\GeV$, and at least one same-flavour, opposite-charge (SFOC) lepton pair. Two signal regions have been considered, both vetoing jets identified as originating from $b$-quarks. SR1 is defined by requiring that the invariant mass of the SFOC pair be further than 10 from the $Z$ mass. Conversely, SR2 is defined by requiring the SFOC mass to be within 10 of the $Z$ mass. The SR1 and SR2 selections target SUSY events with intermediate slepton or on-mass-shell $Z$-boson decays, respectively.
In SR1 (SR2), 32 (95) events are observed in data. The total SM prediction is $26\pm5$ ($72\pm12$) events. The background-only $p$-value is found to be 19% (6%). 95% CL limits are set on the parameter space of pMSSM, as shown in Fig. \[fig:gaugino\]. An upper bound of 9.9 fb (23.8 fb) at 95% CL has been placed on the visible cross section in SR1 (SR2).
$R$-parity violating SUSY {#sec:RPV}
=========================
Searches are also performed in ATLAS for several signatures associated with the violation of $R$-parity (RPV). In one of them, a term $W_\mathrm{RPV} = \lambda'_{ijk}\tilde{u}_j \bar{d}_k l_i$ is introduced into the SUSY Lagrangian, which in turn permits a process $d\bar{d} \rightarrow e^- \mu^+$ via $t$-channel top squark exchange. In 2.1 of data, ATLAS has performed the first search for continuum production of a muon and electron of opposite sign [@Aad:2012yw], finding no excess above the SM expectation. As demonstrated in Fig. \[fig:RPV\] (left), for a coupling parameter product of $|\lambda'_{131}\lambda'_{231}|=|\lambda'_{132}\lambda'_{232}|=0.05$, such processes are ruled out at 95% CL for $m_{\tilde{t}} < 200\GeV$.
![[*Left:*]{} The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow e\mu)$ through the RPV $t$-channel exchange of a scalar top quark as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ [@Aad:2012yw]. The expected limits are also shown together with the $\pm 1$ and $\pm 2$ standard-deviation uncertainty bands. The theoretical cross section for $|\lambda_{131}^{\prime}\lambda_{231}^{\prime}|=|\lambda_{132}^{\prime}\lambda_{232}^{\prime}|=0.05$ is also shown. [*Right:*]{} Excluded region at 95% CL as a function of $m_{1/2}$ and $\tan\beta$ obtained with the four-leptons analysis [@stauLSP]. The expected exclusion and its $\pm 1\sigma$ variations are indicated by dashed lines. The other solid shaded areas are excluded from this analysis by LEP results on the Higgs mass or because $m_{\tilde{\tau}_1} < 80\GeV$. []{data-label="fig:RPV"}](fig06a.pdf "fig:"){width="0.46\linewidth"} ![[*Left:*]{} The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow e\mu)$ through the RPV $t$-channel exchange of a scalar top quark as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ [@Aad:2012yw]. The expected limits are also shown together with the $\pm 1$ and $\pm 2$ standard-deviation uncertainty bands. The theoretical cross section for $|\lambda_{131}^{\prime}\lambda_{231}^{\prime}|=|\lambda_{132}^{\prime}\lambda_{232}^{\prime}|=0.05$ is also shown. [*Right:*]{} Excluded region at 95% CL as a function of $m_{1/2}$ and $\tan\beta$ obtained with the four-leptons analysis [@stauLSP]. The expected exclusion and its $\pm 1\sigma$ variations are indicated by dashed lines. The other solid shaded areas are excluded from this analysis by LEP results on the Higgs mass or because $m_{\tilde{\tau}_1} < 80\GeV$. []{data-label="fig:RPV"}](fig06b.pdf "fig:"){width="0.52\linewidth"}
A search requiring four or more leptons (electrons or muons) in the final state [@4leptons] is sensitive to various supersymmetric models including pair-production of strongly interacting SUSY particles with $R$-parity breaking decays of a $\tilde{\tau}_1$ LSP [@stauLSP]. Moderate missing transverse momentum is expected in the final state due to the presence of neutrinos originating in the decay of the LSP.
Isolated electrons (muons) with $\pt > 10\GeV$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta| < 2.47$ ($|\eta| < 2.4$) are considered. A signal region selecting events with at least four leptons, $\MET> 50\GeV$ and a veto on events containing a $Z$-boson candidate is defined. At least one of the selected leptons has to be in the efficiency plateau ($\pt^{e} >25\GeV$ and $\pt^{\mu} >20\GeV$) and match a lepton firing the trigger.
With 2.06 of $pp$ collision data, zero events are observed, while $0.7\pm0.8$ events are expected from SM processes. Observed (expected) upper limits of 1.5 (1.5) fb set on the visible cross-sections for new phenomena are subsequently used to constrain the mSUGRA/CMSSM scenario with $m_0=A_0=0$, $\mu > 0$, and one $R$-parity lepton flavour violating parameter $\lambda_{121}=0.032$ at $m_\mathrm{GUT}$. In this scenario, the RPV coupling is small enough so that the SUSY particle pair production dominates, and large enough that the $\tilde{\tau}_1$ LSP decays promptly. Values of $m_{1/2} <800\GeV$ are excluded at 95% CL if $\tan\beta <40$ and $m_{\tilde{\tau}_1} >80\GeV$, as demonstrated in Fig. \[fig:RPV\] (right). These are the first limits from the LHC experiments on a model with a $\tilde{\tau}_1$ as the lightest supersymmetric particle.
Meta-stable particles {#sec:LL}
=====================
We discuss here the results of a search for the decay of a heavy long-lived particle producing a multi-track displaced vertex (DV) that contains a high- muon at a distance between millimeters and tens of centimeters from the $pp$ interaction point [@Aad:2011zb]. The results are interpreted in the context of an RPV SUSY scenario, where such a final state occurs in the decay $\tilde{\chi}_1^0\rightarrow\mu q\bar{q}' $, allowed by the non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda'_{2ij}$.
Events that pass a single-muon trigger of $\pt^{\mu} > 40\GeV$ are selected. The reconstruction of a DV begins with the selection of high-impact-parameter tracks with $\pt > 1\GeV$. At least four tracks in the DV are required, to suppress background from random combinations of tracks and from material interactions. Background due to particle interactions with material is further suppressed by requiring $m_\mathrm{DV} > 10\GeV$, where $m_\mathrm{DV}$ is the invariant mass of the tracks originating from the DV. High-$m_\mathrm{DV}$ background arise from random spatial coincidence of such a low-$m_\mathrm{DV}$ vertex with a high- track is suppressed by vetoing vertices that are reconstructed within regions of high-density material.
Figure \[fig:DV\] (left) shows the distribution of $m_\mathrm{DV}$ versus $N\mathrm{^{trk}_{DV}}$ for vertices in the selected data events, including vertices that fail the requirements on $m_\mathrm{DV}$ and $N\mathrm{^{trk}_{DV}}$, overlaid with the signal distribution for a signal sample with $m_{\tilde{q}} = 700\GeV$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0} = 494\GeV$. Fewer than 0.03 background events are expected in the data sample of 33 , and no events are observed. Based on this null observation, upper limits are set on the supersymmetry production cross-section $\sigma\times B$ of the simulated signal decay chain for different combinations of squark and neutralino masses and for different values of $c\tau$, where $\tau$ is the neutralino lifetime (cf. Fig. \[fig:DV\], right).
![[*Left:*]{} Vertex mass ($m_\mathrm{DV}$) versus vertex track multiplicity ($N^\mathrm{trk}_\mathrm{DV}$) for displaced vertices that pass the event selection requirements except the $m_\mathrm{DV}$ and $N^\mathrm{trk}_\mathrm{DV}$ requirements, which are not applied [@Aad:2011zb]. Shaded bins show the distribution for signal MC, and data are shown as filled ellipses, with the area of the ellipse proportional to the number of events in the corresponding bin. [*Right:*]{} Upper limits at 95% CL on the production cross-section times branching fraction versus the neutralino proper decay length for different combinations of squark and neutralino masses, based on the observation of zero events satisfying all criteria in a 33 data sample [@Aad:2011zb]. The horizontal lines show the cross-sections calculated from PROSPINO for squark masses of 700 and 150 . []{data-label="fig:DV"}](fig07a.pdf "fig:"){width="0.48\linewidth"} ![[*Left:*]{} Vertex mass ($m_\mathrm{DV}$) versus vertex track multiplicity ($N^\mathrm{trk}_\mathrm{DV}$) for displaced vertices that pass the event selection requirements except the $m_\mathrm{DV}$ and $N^\mathrm{trk}_\mathrm{DV}$ requirements, which are not applied [@Aad:2011zb]. Shaded bins show the distribution for signal MC, and data are shown as filled ellipses, with the area of the ellipse proportional to the number of events in the corresponding bin. [*Right:*]{} Upper limits at 95% CL on the production cross-section times branching fraction versus the neutralino proper decay length for different combinations of squark and neutralino masses, based on the observation of zero events satisfying all criteria in a 33 data sample [@Aad:2011zb]. The horizontal lines show the cross-sections calculated from PROSPINO for squark masses of 700 and 150 . []{data-label="fig:DV"}](fig07b.pdf "fig:"){width="0.48\linewidth"}
In another search for long-lived particles, SUSY is looked for through disappearing tracks, motivated by anomaly-mediated symmetry breaking (AMSB) models where the chargino can live long enough to be detected within the inner detector volume. Since the chargino and the neutralino are almost degenerate in mass in these models, the charged particle ($\pi^{\pm}$) from the decay of this chargino is too soft to be reconstructed, therefore a disappearing track is expected. Events are selected based on large , high jet multiplicity and a lepton veto. Chargino candidates are selected among good-quality tracks before the TRT (outer part of the inner detector with a radius between 56 to 108 cm) and less than five hits in the TRT outer module. A comparison of the number of hits in the TRT outer volume between the signal, the SM background and the data is presented in Fig. \[fig:kinked\] (left). Constraints on the AMSB chargino mass and lifetime were set with 1.02 ; a chargino having $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}} < 92\GeV$ and $0.5 < \tau_{\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}} < 2~\mathrm{ns}$ was excluded at 95% CL, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:kinked\] (right).
![[*Left:*]{} The number of hits in the TRT outer module ($N_\mathrm{TRT}^\mathrm{outer}$) for data and LL01 signal events ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}} \simeq 1$ ns) with the high- isolated track selection [@ATLAS:2012ab]. The selection boundary is indicated by the arrow. The expectation from SM MC events, normalised to the number of observed events, is also shown. When charginos decay before reaching the TRT outer module, $N_\mathrm{TRT}^\mathrm{outer}$ is expected to have a value near zero; conversely, SM charged particles traversing the TRT typically have $N_\mathrm{TRT}^\mathrm{outer} \simeq 15$. [*Right:*]{} The observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the signal cross section as a function of chargino lifetime for $m_\mathrm{chargino} = 90.2\GeV$ [@ATLAS:2012ab]. The bands indicate the $\pm1\sigma$ and $\pm2\sigma$ variations on the median expected limit (dotted line) due to uncertainties. []{data-label="fig:kinked"}](fig08a.pdf "fig:"){width="0.48\linewidth"} ![[*Left:*]{} The number of hits in the TRT outer module ($N_\mathrm{TRT}^\mathrm{outer}$) for data and LL01 signal events ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}} \simeq 1$ ns) with the high- isolated track selection [@ATLAS:2012ab]. The selection boundary is indicated by the arrow. The expectation from SM MC events, normalised to the number of observed events, is also shown. When charginos decay before reaching the TRT outer module, $N_\mathrm{TRT}^\mathrm{outer}$ is expected to have a value near zero; conversely, SM charged particles traversing the TRT typically have $N_\mathrm{TRT}^\mathrm{outer} \simeq 15$. [*Right:*]{} The observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the signal cross section as a function of chargino lifetime for $m_\mathrm{chargino} = 90.2\GeV$ [@ATLAS:2012ab]. The bands indicate the $\pm1\sigma$ and $\pm2\sigma$ variations on the median expected limit (dotted line) due to uncertainties. []{data-label="fig:kinked"}](fig08b.pdf "fig:"){width="0.48\linewidth"}
Summary {#sec:summ}
=======
Supersymmetry signals have been sought after by the ATLAS experiment, motivated by various models and topologies: strong production, $3^\mathrm{rd}$ generation fermions, mass degeneracies, $R$-parity violation, among others. They lead to a wide spectrum of signatures: + jets + leptons / photons / $b$-jets / $\tau$-leptons, displaced vertices, not possible to cover all of them here; analyses based on photons and $\tau$-leptons are detailed in Refs. [@ATLAS:2012ag; @Aad:2012rt] and [@Aad:2011zj], respectively. No deviation from known SM processes has been observed so far with $\sim 5~\ifb$ at $\rts = 7\TeV$. As both techniques and strategy keep evolving, ATLAS will keep looking for supersymmetry with the new data that become available at the LHC.
The author acknowledges support by the Spanish MINECO under the project FPA2009-13234-C04-01 and by the Spanish Agency of International Cooperation for Development under the PCI project A1/035250/11.
[16]{}
H.P. Nilles, Phys.Rept. **110**, 1 (1984)
ATLAS Collaboration, JINST **3**, S08003 (2008)
L. Evans (ed.), P.J. Bryant (ed.), JINST **3**, S08001 (2008)
ATLAS Collaboration (2012), `arXiv:1208.0949`
ATLAS Collaboration (2012), Phys.Rev. **D**, to appear, `arXiv:1208.4688`
ATLAS Collaboration (2012), Eur.Phys.J. **C**, to appear, `arXiv:1207.4686`
ATLAS Collaboration (2012), `arXiv:1208.4305`
ATLAS Collaboration, Phys.Rev.Lett. **108**, 261804 (2012), `arXiv:1204.5638`
ATLAS Collaboration, Eur.Phys.J. **C72**, 2040 (2012), `arXiv:1205.0725`
(2012), `ATLAS-CONF-2012-035`, `http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1432202`
(2012), `ATLAS-CONF-2012-001`, `http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1418920`
ATLAS Collaboration, Phys.Lett. **B707**, 478 (2012), `arXiv:1109.2242`
ATLAS Collaboration, Eur.Phys.J. **C72**, 1993 (2012), `arXiv:1202.4847`
ATLAS Collaboration, Phys.Lett. **B714**, 180 (2012), `arXiv:1203.6580`
ATLAS Collaboration, Phys.Lett. **B714**, 197 (2012), `arXiv:1204.3852`
ATLAS Collaboration, Phys.Lett. **B710**, 519 (2012), `arXiv:1111.4116`
[^1]:
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
FPGAs excel in low power and high throughput computations, but they are challenging to program. Traditionally, developers rely on hardware description languages like Verilog or VHDL to specify the hardware behavior at the register-transfer level. High-Level Synthesis (HLS) raises the level of abstraction, but still requires FPGA design knowledge. Programmers usually write pragma-annotated C/C++ programs to define the hardware architecture of an application. However, each hardware vendor extends its own C dialect using its own vendor-specific set of pragmas. This prevents portability across different vendors. Furthermore, pragmas are not first-class citizens in the language. This makes it hard to use them in a modular way or design proper abstractions.
In this paper, we present , a library to synthesize FPGA designs in a modular and abstract way. resorts to standard programming language features such as types and higher-order functions to accomplish this as follows: First, partial evaluation specializes and optimizes the user application based on a library of abstractions. Ultimately, the backend of generates vendor-specific HLS code for Intel and Xilinx FPGAs. To validate the effectiveness of our approach, we implemented an image processing library on top of . We show that this library’s performance is on par with or exceeds the one achieved with existing full-blown domain-specific compilers.
author:
- 'M. Akif Özkan'
- 'Arsène Pérard-Gayot'
- Richard Membarth
- Philipp Slusallek
- Roland Leißa
- Sebastian Hack
- Jürgen Teich
- Frank Hannig
title: 'AnyHLS: High-Level Synthesis with Partial Evaluation'
---
let sobel_x = @|img, x, y|
-1 * img.read(x-1, y-1) + 1 * img.read(x+1, y-1) +
-2 * img.read(x-1, y ) + 2 * img.read(x+1, y ) +
-1 * img.read(x-1, y+1) + 2 * img.read(x+1, y+1);
let input = make_img_mem1d("sandiego.jpg");
let output = make_img_mem1d("output.jpg");
let operator = make_local_op(sobel_x);
with generate(vhls) { operator(input, output) }
-- -- --
-- -- --
\
This work is supported by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) as part of the Metacca and ProThOS projects, and the Intel Visual Computing Institute (IVCI) as well as the Cluster of Excellence on Multimodal Computing and Interaction (MMCI) at Saarland University.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'A four-way coupling scheme for the direct numerical simulation of particle-laden flows is developed and analyzed. It employs a novel adaptive multi-relaxation time lattice Boltzmann method to simulate the fluid phase efficiently. The momentum exchange method is used to couple the fluid and the particulate phase. The particle interactions in normal and tangential direction are accounted for by a discrete element method using linear contact forces. All parameters of the scheme are studied and evaluated in detail and precise guidelines for their choice are developed. The development is based on several carefully selected calibration and validation tests of increasing physical complexity. It is found that a well-calibrated lubrication model is crucial to obtain the correct trajectories of a sphere colliding with a plane wall in a viscous fluid. For adequately resolving the collision dynamics it is found that the collision time must be stretched appropriately. The complete set of tests establishes a validation pipeline that can be universally applied to other fluid-particle coupling schemes providing a systematic methodology that can guide future developments.'
address:
- 'Chair for System Simulation, Friedrich–Alexander–Universität Erlangen–Nürnberg, Cauerstraße 11, 91058 Erlangen, Germany'
- 'CERFACS, 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis, 31057 Toulouse Cedex 1, France'
author:
- Christoph
- Ulrich
bibliography:
- 'Library.bib'
title: 'An efficient four-way coupled lattice Boltzmann - discrete element method for fully resolved simulations of particle-laden flows'
---
Direct numerical simulation,Particle-laden flow,Lattice Boltzmann method,Discrete element method,Lubrication hydrodynamics,Contact modeling
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors would like to thank Bernhard Vowinckel, Sebastian Eibl, and Ramandeep Jain for valuable discussions. Furthermore, we gratefully acknowledge the compute resources provided by the Erlangen Regional Computing Center (RRZE).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
[Random objects arrive sequentially and must be divided among a fixed set of $n$ agents upon arrival:]{} the distribution [$\mu $ of the]{} profile of utilities is IID across periods, but arbitrary across agents. We consider [a class of online]{} division rules that take, as an input, only the realized utility profile, and from $\mu$ the individual expected utilities. They have no record from past realized utilities, and do not know either if and how many new objects will appear in the future. [ We call such rules *prior-independent*.]{}
A rule is fair if each agent, ex ante, expects at least $1/n$-th of his utility for the object if it is a good, at most $1/n$-th of his disutility for it if it is a bad. Among fair prior-independent rules to divide goods (bads) we uncover those collecting the largest (lowest) total expected (dis)utility. There is exactly one fair rule for bads that is optimal in this sense. However, for goods the set of optimal fair rules is one dimensional. Both in the worst case and in the asymptotic sense, our optimal rules perform much better than the natural Proportional rule (for goods or for bads), and not much worse than the optimal [ fair *prior-dependent* rule that knows the full distribution $\mu $]{} in addition to realized utilities.
author:
- '**Anna Bogomolnaia**$^{\blacklozenge \clubsuit }$, **Hervé Moulin**$^{\blacklozenge \clubsuit }$, **Fedor Sandomirskiy**$^{\bigstar \clubsuit }\smallskip $'
- '$\blacklozenge $: University of Glasgow, UK'
- '$\clubsuit $: Higher School of Economics, St Petersburg, Russia'
- '$\bigstar $: Technion, Haifa, Israel'
title: '[A Simple Online Fair Division Problem[^1]]{}'
---
Introduction
============
#### Motivation: combining fairness and efficiency in online problems
A rule to allocate resources in an intertemporal context is *online*[^2] if the allocation taking place in each period relies only on the information available at this particular time [ and possibly on the record of past allocations, but not on any precise expectations about the future periods.]{}
[The existing literature is focused on achieving only one of the two objectives: either economic efficiency or fairness. However, most of the real problems need both:]{} think of a dispatcher distributing randomly arriving customers across a fleet of taxis, or more generally, to a fixed set of specialists serving the customers one at a time. For efficiency, she wishes to assign customers where they generate the most benefit, while fairness requires that each member of the cooperative be guaranteed a significant share of total business. Online allocation rules may well be the only feasible rules here. Symmetrically, the online distribution of workloads is compelling if we send emergency care patients to different hospitals, refugees to various shelters and so on. Here the concern is to minimize costs while making sure no one receives an unduly large burden of tasks. See more examples in the literature review.
[Our goals are:]{}
- [*Finding the most efficient rules given fairness as a constraint.* If the object is a desirable good the design goal is to maximize the expected *Relative Utilitarian Welfare*]{} while ensuring that each participant [receives]{} a *Fair Share* of the resources: that is, an agent’s expected utility is no less than $\frac{1}{n}$-th of his expected utility for the full object. [^3] If the object is a non-disposable “bad” (chore) we wish symmetrically to minimize total relative disutility while ensuring that no one gets to cover more than a fair share of the chore.
- [*Understanding how the performance of the rule depends on the amount of statistical information available.* Since acquiring the information about the prior distribution is potentially difficult and/or costly, it is desirable to have rules that use possibly less information while providing good efficiency and fairness guarantees.]{}
[In order to achieve these ambitious goals, we make the simplifying assumption that *objects (goods or bads) are IID across periods*: they arrive one at a time and the random profiles of individual utilities are independent and identically distributed across periods (but typically not across agents) according to some prior distribution. Upon arrival, an object must be divided (physically, or by means of a lottery if it is indivisible) between a fixed set of agents.]{}
#### Our results: prior-independent rules are almost as good as prior-dependent
[We compare two extreme cases with respect to the information available to the rule:]{}
— *History-Independent* rules that know only one simplest statistic of the prior: the expected utility level of each agent. These rules can be treated as prior-independent within the class of distributions with fixed expectations or *Prior-Independent* for short.
— *Prior-Dependent* rules: the best rules that an omniscient manager – with full knowledge of the past and the best available statistical information about the future – can design.
[One could expect that the performance of fair prior-independent rules must be low compared to that of [prior-dependent]{}. Surprisingly the difference is small. In the first group of results we construct fair prior-independent rules with the highest welfare (our Top Heavy and Bottom Heavy rules for goods and for bads, respectively); the second group of results demonstrates that these rules are close by performance to optimal prior-dependent. This provides a strong argument in favor of the history- and prior-independent rules: they are simple and easier to implement as they eschew the potentially difficult and/or costly acquisition and processing of complex information and are also robust to modeling assumptions. ]{}
*Optimal History- and Prior-independent Fair rules: Top Heavy and Bottom Heavy.*\
Equal split rule is the simplest way to ensure Fair Shares **(FS)**. It is easy to guarantee FS and achieve a much higher total relative (dis)utility than Equal Split does. The simplest method is the * Proportional* rule, where the probability that an agent gets the good (resp. bad) is proportional (resp. inversely proportional) to her relative utility (resp. disutility): Proposition 1 from Section 2.
Many other prior-independent rules guarantee FS, and some of them have a better performance than the Proportional one. Our main results, Theorems 1 and 2 in Sections 3 and 4, describe the *optimal* ones. Optimality here is the following (strong) ex-post statement: if a [ prior-independent]{} division rule $\varphi $ guaranteeing FS is not optimal, there is at least one optimal rule $\varphi ^{\ast }$ such that, in every realization of the profile of relative utilities (for a good), $\varphi $ collects (weakly) less total relative utility than $\varphi ^{\ast }$; and the inequality is sometimes strict. These inequalities are of course reversed for a bad.
The set of optimal prior-independent rules to divide goods is infinite and one-dimensional for [$n\geq 3$]{}; it is given in closed form by Theorem 1. We call these rules *Top Heavy* because they put as much weight on the agents with high relative utility as permitted by the Fair Shares constraint. For two-agent problems, and only those, there is a *single* Top Heavy rule as follows: if the relative utilities of the agents for the good are $x_{1},x_{2}$ and $x_{1}\leq x_{2}$, the shares $(y_{1},y_{2})$ are $(0,1)$ if $\frac{x_{1}}{x_{2}}\leq \frac{1}{2}$ and $(1-\frac{x_{2}}{2x_{1}},\frac{ x_{2}}{2x_{1}})$ if $\frac{1}{2}\leq \frac{x_{1}}{x_{2}}\leq 1$.
[When we divide bads, we speak of a *Bottom Heavy* rule described in Theorem 2. In contrast to the case of goods, the Bottom Heavy rule is unique for any number of agents.[^4] ]{}
*Comparing the optimal Prior-independent and Prior-Dependent rules*
First, in Section 5, we use the relevant worst case performance index to compare rules. For brevity call the expected total relative utility collected by a rule for goods, whether[ prior-independent or prior-dependent]{}, its *relative gain*; in the case of bads the *relative loss* is similarly the expected total relative disutility collected by the rule.
Fix a prior-independent rule ${\varphi }$ to divide goods and meeting Fair Shares. Its [*Competitive Ratio*(CR)]{} is the largest possible ratio of the relative gain of a prior-dependent rule meeting FS, to that of ${\varphi }$. If a rule ${\varphi }$ (either prior-independent or prior-dependent) meets FS, its *Price of Fairness* (PoF) is the largest ratio of the optimal relative gain unconstrained by FS[^5] to the relative gain of ${\varphi }$. [The CR and PoF for bads are given by inverse ratios.]{} We observe first that the two indices CR and PoF coincide for any [ prior-independent]{} rule, for goods or for bads: Lemma 1.
Proposition 4 looks at the division of goods. Between two agents ($n=2$), the CR=PoF of the Proportional rule is $121\%$, that of the Top Heavy rule is $109\%$, and the PoF of the best prior-dependent rule is $108\%$. As $n$ grows, the PoF of the best prior-dependent rule grows as $\frac{\sqrt{ n}}{2}$, see [@Caragianis2009]; this is also the growth rate of the PoF for the Proportional rule and for some of the Top Heavy rules (for other TH rules, the rate is faster). This rate is much slower than $n$, which is the CR=PoF of the Equal Split rule, the worst possible among all [ prior-independent]{} rules meeting FS.
In Proposition 5 we divide bads. Between two agents, the CR=PoF of Equal Split is unbounded, that of the Proportional rule is $2$, but for the optimal Top Heavy rule it is $112.5\%$, exactly like the PoF of the best [ prior-dependent]{} rule. As $n$ grows, the CR=PoF of the Proportional rule is $n$, the CR=PoF the optimal Bottom Heavy rule increases as $\frac{n}{4}$, just like the PoF of the best prior-dependent rule.
In Section 6, we discuss asymptotic probabilistic results, assuming that individual (dis)utilities are statistically independent and drawn from familiar distributions: uniform, exponential, etc. [While the worst-case results of Section 5 show that fairness becomes extremely costly for large $n$, in the setting of Section 6 the Top Heavy and Bottom Heavy rules collect, independently of $n$,]{} a constant fraction of the maximal relative gain (or minimal relative loss) bounded away from zero. For example, when $n$ is large the maximal gain is only 132% more than the gain captured by the Top Heavy rule for the uniform distribution and $288\%$ for the exponential.
We conclude that the collection of detailed statistical information in our simple fair division problem brings little utilitarian gain, when compared with the performance of the prior-independent rules we discovered: the best [prior-dependent]{} rule typically [ garners]{} not much more utilitarian surplus than the best fair [prior-independent]{} rule. This conclusion translates to [history-dependent prior-independent rules]{}[^6] as well. Such a rule can improve upon [history-and-prior-independent]{} rules but cannot outperform the best prior-dependent rule in an IID environment. Therefore, dependence on history gives only a tiny improvement over our history-independent Top Heavy (for goods) and Bottom Heavy (for bads) rules.
#### Literature review
Problems of dynamic (online) resource-allocation have attracted some attention in the computer science and economic communities, but the literature is still sparse.
An early and influential reference on the efficiency aspect of online resource allocation is [@KarpVazirani1990] in the matching context; follow-up work include [@Feldman2009], and [@Devanur2019]. The fairness aspect was touched only recently. In the food bank problem of [Aleksandrov2015]{}, like in our setting, objects are arriving online and are allocated to a fixed population of agents, under a fairness constraint and toward the efficiency objective. Thanks to the simplifying assumption that agents have dichotomous preferences, i.e., they either like or dislike the kind of food delivered right now, the space of possible rules is finite-dimensional and they find some with appealing properties. In the algorithmic paper [@Benade2018] agents have additive valuations over indivisible objects and fairness is achieved without lotteries by a complicated derandomization technique; the resulting algorithm provides no welfare guarantees.
The study of a dual setting where the resources to allocate are known in advance but agents arrive online was initiated by the model of online fair cake-cutting of [@Walsh2011]. The division of a single unit of durable resource (unlike here) between agents randomly arriving and departing is discussed in [@Friedman15] and [Friedman17]{}, where the goal is to maintain approximate fairness while disrupting the allocation of as few agents as possible in each period. When allocating several computational resources in a cloud among different clients [@Hao2017] it is natural to assume agents have Leontief preferences (they need CPU and memory in a given proportion): online algorithms ensuring fairness for such preferences are constructed by [Kash2014]{}. Then [@Bo2018] discusses the case of additive preferences.
In economics, the impact of changing the set of agents entitled to a share of a fixed bundle of resources has been discussed extensively since [Thomson1983]{} in the static and deterministic version of fair division.
Our approach to online fair division is methodologically close to the design of [ prior-independent [@Devanur2011] and prior-free auctions [Hartline2001]{}]{} and the applications of robust-optimization to contract theory [@Caroll2015]. There, as here, in contrast to the classical Bayesian approach where the designer knows the prior distribution, [either no information about prior is available at all or it is known that the prior belongs to a certain wide class of distributions. Hence]{} the optimal worst-case behavior becomes the design objective.
[Measuring]{} the trade-off between fairness and the utilitarian objective by the Price of Fairness (PoF) was suggested by [@Caragianis2009] and [Bertsimas2011]{} in the context of offline cake cutting and bargaining, respectively. [A similar idea of comparing online and offline rules (the latter with full information about the future and the past) by the worst-case ratio of collected welfare is known as competitive analysis [BorodinYaniv2005]{}.]{}
The model
=========
Definitions 1 to 6 apply to the division of a good or a bad.
**Definition 1** *A fair division problem* $\mathcal{P}=(N,\mu ,X)$ *is described by the fixed set* $N$* of* $n$* agents, the probability distribution* $\mu \in \Delta (\mathbb{R}
_{+}^{N})$*, and the random variable* $X$* in* $\mathbb{R}
_{+}^{N}$* with distribution* $\mu $. *We always assume that the expectations* $\mathbb{E}_{\mu }(X_{i})$ *are bounded and positive for each* $i$.
We interpret $X_{i},\ i\in N$, as agent $i$’s random utility or disutility for the object realized at a certain period. We impose no additional restriction on the probability space or the distribution of $X$: (dis)utilities $X_{i}$ may be arbitrarily correlated across agents.
[ We write $X_{i}^{r}=\frac{1}{ \mathbb{E}_{\mu }(X_{i})}X_{i}$ for agent $i$’s relative utility or disutility. The relative (dis)utility is an important tool of normative economics going back to the concept of Egalitarian Equivalence [@PaznerS1978; @DhillonMertens1999]. Interpersonal comparison of absolute (dis)utilities is not always meaningful, but comparing relative (dis)utilities always is.]{}
[We assume that upon the arrival of each object, the corresponding profile of relative (dis)utilities, $X^r=X_{i}^{r}, \ i\in N$, is revealed: it is the input of our division rules. In other words, the rule learns how lucky or unlucky each agent would be to receive the object that just appeared. ]{}
**Definition 2** *A (prior-dependent) division rule $\varphi$ is a collection of measurable mappings* [$\varphi ^{\mu}: \mathbb{R}
_{+}^{N}\rightarrow \Delta (N)$*, one for each prior distribution* $\mathcal{\mu}$. *Given a division problem $\mathcal{P}=(N,\mu,X)$* and a realization]{} $x^{r}\in
\mathbb{R}
_{+}^{N}$* of the relative (dis)utility profile* $X^{r}$*, agent* $i$* gets the share* $\varphi _{i}^\mu(x^{r})$* of the object.*
Here dividing the object can be interpreted either literally if the object is divisible, or as assigning probabilistic shares, or time shares.
[**Definition 3** *A division rule $\varphi$ is prior-independent[^7] if it does not depend on $\mu$, i.e, $\varphi^\mu=\varphi^{\mu'}$ for all distributions $\mu$ and $\mu'$. For prior-independent rules we will drop the superscript $\mu$.*]{}
[We focus on those rules that treat agents similarly, i.e., satisfy symmetry.]{}
[**Definition 4** *A rule is symmetric if a permutation of the agents permutes their shares accordingly.*]{}
The fairness constraint of our division rules sets a lower (resp. upper) bound on every agent’s expected utility (resp. disutility).
**Definition 5** *The division rule* $\varphi$ * guarantees Fair Shares (FS) if every agent’s expected (dis)utility is at least (at most)* $\frac{1}{n}$*-th of his expected (dis)utility for the entire object.*
*If the object is a good, this means [for each division problem $\mathcal{P}$ and each agent $
i\in N$]{}* $$\mathbb{E}_{\mu }(\varphi _{i}^\mu(X^{r})\cdot X_{i})\geq \frac{1}{n}\mathbb{E}_{\mu }(X_{i}). \label{12}$$*The inequality is reversed if we divide a bad.*
Our design goal, conditional upon meeting Fair Shares, is to maximize the expected relative utilitarian welfare $$\sum_{i\in N}\frac{\mathbb{E}_{\mu
}(\varphi _{i}^\mu(X^{r})\cdot X_{i})}{\mathbb{E}_{\mu }(X_{i})}$$ in case of a good, or to minimize this quantity in case of a bad.
**Definition 6*** We call the problem* $\mathcal{P}$ *normalised if* $\mathbb{E}_{\mu }(X_{i})=1$ *for all* $i\in N$.
In the rest of the paper, it is very convenient and causes no confusion to restrict attention to such problems, where absolute and relative (dis)utilities coincide. All proofs are given for normalised problems and extend automatically to general problems by replacing everywhere $X_{i}$ by $X_{i}^{r}=\frac{1}{\mathbb{E}_{\mu }(X_{i})}X_{i}$.
Three benchmark [prior-independent rules]{} {#subsect_benchmark_rules}
-------------------------------------------
[If $S\subseteq N$ we use repeatedly the notation $z_{S}=\sum_{j\in S}z_{j}$, and $e^{S}$ for the vector $e_{i}^{S}=1$ if $i\in S$ and $e_{i}^{S}=0$ if $i\notin S$. Finally $x\gg y$ means $x_{i}>y_{i}$ for all $i$.]{}
The *Equal Split* rule, $\varphi^{es}(x)=\frac{1}{n}e^{N}$ for all $x $, is the simplest prior-independent rule of all, and it implements Fair Shares. [Not surprisingly its utilitarian performance is poor.]{}
[On the other extreme, we have the *Utilitarian rule* $\varphi^{ut}(x)=\frac{e^S}{|S|}$, where $S=\{i\in N:\, x_i=\max_{j\in N} x_j\}$ for a good and $S=\{i\in N:\, x_i=\min_{j\in N} x_j\}$ for a bad. This rule achieves the optimal welfare level by allocating the object among agents with highest (lowest) (dis)utilities. However, it drastically violates FS: in a two-agent normalized problem with a good, where $X=(1,1+\varepsilon)$ with probability $(1-\varepsilon)$ and $(1,\varepsilon)$ with probability $\varepsilon$, the expected utility of the first agent $\mathbb{E} \left(\varphi^{ut}_1(X)X_1\right)=\varepsilon $ is below his fair share of $\frac{1}{2}$ for any $\varepsilon\in\left(0,\frac{1}{2}\right)$.]{}
[A natural compromise between these two rules is the *Proportional rule* which is defined as $$\mbox{for a good:} \ \ \varphi _{i}^{pro}(x)=\frac{x_{i}}{x_{N}}, \ \ \mbox {if} \ x\neq 0,
\quad\mbox{and } \ \ \varphi^{pro}(0)=\frac{e^N}{n}$$ $$\mbox{for a bad:} \ \ \varphi _{i}^{pro}(x)=
\frac{\frac{1}{x_{i}}}{\sum_{j\in N}\frac{1}{x_{j}}}, \ \ \mbox{if } \ x\gg 0,
\quad\mbox{and } \ \ \varphi ^{pro}(x)=\frac{e^S}{|S|}, \ \mbox{where } S=\{i\in N: x_i=0\}\ne\varnothing.$$]{} [The next proposition shows that the Proportional rule also guarantees FS and generates a higher relative welfare than $\varphi^{es}$ in the following strong ex-post sense.]{}
[**Definition 7:** *Fix two prior-independent rules* $\varphi$* and* $\psi$. We say that $\varphi$* dominates* $\psi$* if it always collects, ex-post (for every realization of the relative utilities) at least as much utilitarian surplus, and sometimes strictly more. Formally, in case of a good*$$\sum_{i\in N}\psi _{i}(x)\cdot x_{i}\leq \sum_{i\in N}\varphi
_{i}(x)\cdot x_{i}\mbox{ for all }x\in
\mathbb{R}
_{+}^{N}\mbox{ , with a strict inequality for some }x. \label{17}$$ *In case of a bad, the inequalities are reversed.*]{}
**Proposition 1** [*The Proportional rule guarantees Fair Shares and dominates the Equal Split both for a good and for a bad.*]{}
**Proof.** *A good.* Suppose $\mathcal{P}$ is normalised. [To prove FS,]{} apply the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality to the two variables $\frac{X_{i}^{2}}{X_{N}}$ and $X_{N}$: $\mathbb{E}_{\mu }\left(\frac{X_{i}^{2}}{X_{N}}\right)\cdot \mathbb{E}_{\mu }(X_{N})\geq
(\mathbb{E}_{\mu }X_{i})^{2}.$ Now the left-most expectation is simply $\mathbb{E}_{\mu }(\varphi
_{i}^{pro}(X)\cdot X_{i})$, agent $i$’s expected utility, while by the normalisation the other two terms are respectively $n$ and $1$. [The condition of domination is equivalent to $\frac{x_N}{n}\leq \frac{\sum_{i\in N} x_i^2}{x_N}$ and follows from the inequality between arithmetic and quadratic means: $\frac{x_N}{n}\leq \sqrt{\frac{\sum_{i\in N} x_i^2}{n}}$.]{}
*A bad*. Agent $i$’s expected utility under $\varphi ^{pro}$ is now $\mathbb{E}_{\mu }\left(\varphi _{i}^{pro}(X)\cdot X_{i}\right)=\mathbb{E}_{\mu }\left(\frac{1}{\sum_{j\in N}\frac{1}{X_{j}}}\right)=\frac{1}{n}\mathbb{E}_{\mu }(\widetilde{X}),$ where [$\widetilde{x}$ denotes the harmonic mean of the $x_{i}$-s.]{} [FS then]{} follows from the inequality $\widetilde{x}\leq \frac{x_N}{n}$ between harmonic and arithmetic means [and the domination boils down to the inequality.]{} $\blacksquare \smallskip $
[For a good, there are utility profiles ]{}$x$ where $\frac{\sum_{i\in N}\varphi _{i}^{pro}(x)\cdot x_{i}}{\sum_{i\in
N}\varphi _{i}^{es}(x)\cdot x_{i}}=n$, while for a bad the ratio $\frac{\sum_{i\in N}\varphi _{i}^{es}(x)\cdot
x_{i}}{\sum_{i\in N}\varphi _{i}^{pro}(x)\cdot x_{i}}$ can be arbitrarily large. Indeed, it is enough to take $x=e^{1}$ for a good and $x=\varepsilon e^{1}+e^{N\diagdown 1}$, where $\varepsilon $ is arbitrarily small, for a bad.
[One can try to improve efficiency of the Proportional rule in our utilitarian sense, ]{}by assigning probabilities to agents in proportion (or inverse proportion) to some strictly higher power $q>2$ of their relative (dis)utilities but such rules fail FS.[^8] [In the next section we construct fair prior-independent rules with higher performance than $\varphi^{pro}$. ]{}
Goods: the family of optimal prior-independent rules
====================================================
Our first main result (Theorem 1 below) [describes the set of undominated prior-independent rules in a sense of Definition 7.]{}
[Characterizing fairness for a good]{}
--------------------------------------
The key step toward Theorem 1 characterizes the restriction imposed by Fair Shares on any prior-independent rule $\varphi $. Given a vector $x$ in $\mathbb{R}
_{+}^{N}$, we write its arithmetic average as $\overline{x}=\frac{x_N}{n}$.
**Proposition 2** *The [symmetric]{} prior-independent rule* $\varphi $*dividing a good satisfies Fair [Shares]{} if and only if there exists a number* $\theta, \ 0\leq \theta \leq 1$*, such that*$$\varphi _{i}(x)\geq \max \left\{\frac{1}{n}+\frac{\theta }{n-1}\left(1-\frac{\overline{x}}{x_{i}}\right), \ 0\right\}\mbox{ for all }i\in N\mbox{ and }x\in
\mathbb{R}
_{+}^{N} \label{10}$$*(where we use* $\frac{1}{0}=+\infty $*)*.
**Proof**
*Statement* **if:** Assume the division rule $\varphi $ for a good satisfies (\[10\]), that implies$$\varphi _{i}(x)\cdot x_{i}\geq \frac{1}{n}x_{i}+\frac{\theta }{n-1}(x_{i}-\overline{x}) \ \ \mbox{ for all } \ x.$$For an arbitrary normalised problem $\mathcal{P}$ (Definition 4) we have $\mathbb{E}_{\mu }(X_{i}-\overline{X})=0$ so the inequality (\[12\]) follows. If $\mathcal{P}$ is not normalised the random variables $X_{i}^{r} $ define a normalised problem and we are done.
*Statement* **only** **if:** Assume the rule $\varphi $ meets Fair Shares and define the real valued function $f(x)=\varphi
_{1}(x)\cdot x_{1}$. Symmetry of $\varphi $ implies $f(e^{N})=\frac{1}{n}$. Consider a convex combination in $\mathbb{R}
_{+}^{N}$, with an arbitrary number of terms, such that $\sum_{k=1}^{K}\mu
_{k}y^{k}=e^{N}$. The problem $\mathcal{P}$ in which $X=y^{k}$ with probability $\mu _{k}$ is normalised and FS implies$$\sum_{k=1}^{K}\mu _{k}f(y^{k})\geq \frac{1}{n}=f(e^{N})$$The convexification $g$ of $f$ at $x$ is $g(x)=\inf \big\{\sum_{k=1}^{K}\mu
_{k}f(y^{k})\big\}$, over all convex combinations such that $\sum_{k=1}^{K}\mu
_{k}y^{k}=x$, see [@Laraki2004].
The inequality above says $g(e^{N})\geq f(e^{N})$ and the opposite inequality is true by the definition of $g$, so $g(e^{N})=f(e^{N})$. Because $g$ is convex and finite at $e^{N}$ there exists a vector $\alpha \in
\mathbb{R}
^{N}$ supporting its graph at $(e^{N},g(e^{N}))$, i.e., such that for all $x\in
\mathbb{R}
_{+}^{N}$: $
g(x)\geq g(e^{N})+\alpha \cdot (x-e^{N})$. [Therefore, $$f(x)=\varphi
_{1}(x)\cdot x_{1}\geq \frac{1}{n}+\alpha \cdot (x-e^{N}).$$]{}
-0.5 cm
Apply the inequality above to $x=\lambda e^{N}$ for any $\lambda >0$. By symmetry of $\varphi $ we get$$\frac{1}{n}\lambda \geq \frac{1}{n}+(\lambda -1)\alpha \cdot e^{N}\mbox{ for
any }\lambda >0$$implying $\alpha \cdot e^{N}=\frac{1}{n}$; therefore $\varphi _{1}(x)\cdot
x_{1}\geq \alpha \cdot x$ for all $x$.
Again symmetry of $\varphi $ implies that we can take $\alpha _{j}=\alpha
_{i}$ for all $i,j\geq 2$. Indeed if $x^{\prime }$ results from $x$ by permuting coordinates $i,j$ we have$$\varphi _{1}(x)\cdot x_{1}=\varphi _{1}(x^{\prime })\cdot x_{1}\geq \frac{1}{
2}(\alpha \cdot x+\alpha \cdot x^{\prime })=\widetilde{\alpha }\cdot x$$where $\widetilde{\alpha }_{i}=\widetilde{\alpha }_{j}$ and $\widetilde{
\alpha }\cdot e^{N}=\frac{1}{n}$ is preserved.
Set $\beta =\alpha _{i}$ for all $i\geq 2$ and note that $\beta \leq 0$ because of the inequality $x_{1}\geq \varphi _{1}(x)\cdot x_{1}\geq \alpha
_{1}x_{1}+\beta x_{N\diagdown 1}$. Combining this with $\alpha \cdot e^{N}=\frac{1}{n}$ we see that there is a non-negative constant $\gamma $ such that$$\varphi _{1}(x)\cdot x_{1}\geq \alpha \cdot x=\frac{1}{n}x_{1}+\gamma
{\large (}(n-1)x_{1}-x_{N\diagdown 1}{\large )}$$Changing the parameter $\gamma $ to $\delta =n\gamma $ gives$$\varphi _{i}(x)\geq \frac{1}{n}+\delta \left(1-\frac{
\overline{x}}{x_{i}}\right)\mbox{ for all }i\in N\mbox{ and }x\in
\mathbb{R}
_{+}^{N}$$
It remains to find the bounds on $\gamma $ derived from the fact that $\varphi (x)$ is in $\Delta (N)$. For all $x\gg 0$ the inequality above and $\varphi (x)\geq 0$ imply $$\sum_{i\in N}\max \left\{\frac{1}{n}+\delta \left(1-\frac{\overline{x}}{x_{i}}\right),0\right\}\leq 1\mbox{ for all }x\in
\mathbb{R}
_{+}^{N} \label{13}$$which is equivalent to the following property:$$\mbox{for all }S\subseteq N: \ \sum_{i\in S}\frac{1}{n}+\delta \left(1-\frac{\overline{x}}{x_{i}}\right)=|S|\left(\frac{1}{n}+\delta \right)-\delta \overline{x}\left(\sum_{i\in S}\frac{1}{x_{i}}\right)\leq 1 \ \mbox{ for all }x\in
\mathbb{R}
_{+}^{N}$$The infimum of $\overline{x}(\sum_{i\in S}\frac{1}{x_{i}})$ is $\frac{|S|^{2}}{n}$, achieved for any $x$ parallel to $e^{S}$; therefore$$|S|\left(\frac{1}{n}+\delta \right)\leq 1+\delta \frac{|S|^{2}}{n}\Longleftrightarrow
\left(1-\frac{|S|}{n}\right)(\delta |S|-1)\leq 0$$and we conclude that $\delta \leq \frac{1}{n-1}$. This gives the desired inequality (\[10\]) by setting $\theta =(n-1)\delta $.$\blacksquare
\medskip $
[Optimal rules for a good: the Top Heavy family]{}
--------------------------------------------------
Armed with Proposition 2, it is now easy to identify the undominated [prior-independent]{} division rules (Definition 7) meeting FS for goods.
For any $x\in
\mathbb{R}
_{+}^{N}$ we write $x^{\ast }=(x^{\ast 1},\cdots ,x^{\ast n})$ for the order statistics of $x$,[^9] and [$\tau (x)=\{i\in N|x_{i}=x^{\ast n}\}$]{} for the set of agents with the largest utility.
[We fix $\theta, \ 0<\theta \leq 1$ and define the *Top Heavy* rule $\varphi^\theta$ by placing as much weight on the agents from $\tau(x)$ as inequalities (\[10\]) permit.]{}
[**Definition 8:** *For $0<\theta\leq 1$ the Top Heavy (TH) rule $\varphi^\theta$ is given by* $$\varphi _{i}^{\theta }(x)=\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
{\displaystyle \max \left\{\frac{1}{n}+\frac{\theta }{n-1}\left(1-\frac{\overline{x}}{x_{j}}\right),\ 0\right\},} & i\in N\diagdown \tau (x)\\
{\displaystyle\frac{1}{|\tau (x)|}\left(1-\sum_{j\in
N\diagdown \tau (x)}\varphi _{j}^{\theta }(x)\right),} & i\in
\tau (x)
\end{array}
\right.
\label{16}$$]{}
Inequality (\[13\]) guarantees that the highest share above is non-negative. It also implies that the $i$-sequence of shares $\varphi
_{i}^{\theta }(x)$ is co-monotonic with that of utilities $x_{i}$.[^10]
The rule $\varphi ^{\theta }$ converges to Equal Split when $\theta $ goes to zero, but Equal Split is clearly dominated by *any* rule $\varphi
^{\theta }$ for $\theta >0$. This is why we excluded $0$ from the range of $\theta $.
Note that all rules $\varphi ^{\theta }$ are discontinuous at any $x$ where at least two agents have the highest utility ($x^{\ast (n-1)}=x^{\ast n}$).
*Example: the TH rule $\varphi^1$ for $n=2$.* For two agent problems the rule $\varphi ^{1}$ has a simple expression. By symmetry it is enough to define it when $x_{1}\leq x_{2}$:$$\varphi ^{1}(x)=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}
(0,1), & \ \frac{x_{1}}{x_2}\leq \frac{1}{2}\\
\left(1-\frac{
x_{2}}{2x_{1}}, \ \frac{x_{2}}{2x_{1}}\right), & \frac{1}{2}\leq \frac{x_{1}}{x_2}\leq 1
\end{array}\right. \label{23}$$ The dependence of $\varphi_1^1$ on $\frac{x_1}{x_2}$ is depicted on Figure \[fig2\].
-0.5 cm [![The amount of a good received by the first agent under the TH rule $\varphi^1$ for two agents as a function of the ratio $t=\frac{x_1}{x_2}$. If the ratio is below $\frac{1}{2}$ or above $2$, the TH rule coincides with the Utilitarian one, which gives the whole good to an agent with the highest value. If the relative values are closer, both agents receive a non-zero amount of the good: $\varphi_1=1-\frac{1}{2t} $ on $\left[\frac{1}{2},1\right]$ and $\varphi_1=\frac{1}{2}t $ on $\left[1,2\right]$.[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig_TH_edited.pdf "fig:"){width="6cm"}]{}
**Theorem 1 (for goods)**
$i)$* If* $n=2$* the Top Heavy rule* $\varphi ^{1}$* dominates every other [symmetric]{} prior-independent rule meeting Fair Shares.*
$ii)$* If* $n\geq 3$*: every [symmetric]{} [prior-independent]{} rule meeting Fair Shares is dominated by, or equal to, one Top Heavy rule* $\varphi ^{\theta }$*,* $0<\theta \leq 1$*; the Top Heavy rules themselves are undominated.*
$iii)$ *[For $n\geq 3$,]{} the Proportional rule is dominated by the Top Heavy rule* $\varphi ^{\frac{n-1}{n}}$*, but not by any other rule* $
\varphi ^{\theta }$*.*
**Proof**
*Statement* $i)$ Fix $\theta <\theta ^{\prime }$ and $x_{1}\leq x_{2}$. The formula (\[16\]) implies $\varphi _{1}^{\theta
}(x)\geq \varphi _{1}^{\theta ^{\prime }}(x)$ because the coefficient of $\theta $ in $\varphi _{1}^{\theta }(x)$ is $\frac{1}{2}(1-\frac{x_{2}}{x_{1}})\leq 0$. Therefore $\varphi _{2}^{\theta }(x)\leq \varphi _{2}^{\theta
^{\prime }}(x)$ and inequality (\[17\]) follows; both can be strict as well. Note that this argument does not extend to the case $n\geq 3$ because if agent $i$’s utility is neither the smallest nor the largest, the sign of the coefficient of $\theta $ in $\varphi _{i}^{\theta }(x)$ is ambiguous.
Thus $\varphi ^{1}$ dominates $\varphi ^{\theta }$ for $\theta <1$. The fact that it also dominates other prior-independent rules meeting FS follows from the proof of Statement ii).
*Statement* $ii)$ Fix a prior-independent rule $\varphi
$ satisfying FS. There is a $\theta, \ 0\leq \theta \leq 1$, s. t. the inequalities (\[10\]) hold for all $i$ and $x$ (Proposition 2). If $\theta
=0$, our rule is Equal Split, which we already noticed is dominated by each rule $\varphi ^{\theta }$. If $\theta >0$, these inequalities imply $\varphi
_{i}(x)\geq \varphi _{i}^{\theta }(x)$ for all $x$ and all $i\notin \tau (x)$. Hence $(\varphi _{i}(x)-\varphi _{i}^{\theta }(x))x_{i}\leq (\varphi
_{i}(x)-\varphi _{i}^{\theta }(x))x^{\ast n}$ for all $i\notin \tau (x)$. Summing up these inequalities and adding $\sum_{j\in \tau (x)}(\varphi
_{i}(x)-\varphi _{i}^{\theta }(x))x_{j}$ on both sides gives the desired weak inequalities in (\[17\]). If none of the inequalities in (\[17\]) is strict, we deduce $\varphi _{i}(x)=\varphi _{i}^{\theta }(x)$ for all $x$ and all $i\notin \tau (x)$ s. t. $x_{i}>0$. If there is some $i$ s. t. $x_{i}=0$ and $\varphi _{i}(x)>0$ (while $\varphi _{i}^{\theta }(x)=0$) then $\varphi (x)$ has less weight to distribute on $\tau (x)$ than $\varphi
^{\theta }$, contradicting our assumption. Because $\varphi $ is symmetric, we conclude $\varphi (x)=\varphi ^{\theta }(x)$.
We check now that no TH rule $\varphi ^{\theta }$ dominates another TH rule $\varphi ^{\theta ^{\prime }}$. Assume $0<\theta <\theta ^{\prime }$ and consider first the profile $x_{i}=\frac{3}{4}$ if $i\neq n$ and $x_{n}=1+\frac{n-1}{4}$. Then $\overline{x}=1$ and all coordinates of $\varphi
_{i}^{\theta }(x)$ and $\varphi _{i}^{\theta ^{\prime }}(x)$ are strictly positive. Compute $\varphi _{i}^{\theta }(x)-\varphi _{i}^{\theta ^{\prime
}}(x)=\frac{\theta ^{\prime }-\theta }{3(n-1)}>0$ for all $i\neq n$, so that $\varphi ^{\theta ^{\prime }}$ collects more surplus at $x$ than $\varphi
^{\theta }$.
To show an instance of the reverse comparison, we choose $x_{1}=\frac{\theta }{3}$, $x_{i}=1+\frac{\frac{3}{4}-\frac{\theta }{3}}{n-2}$ for $2\leq i\leq n-2,$ and $x_{n}=\frac{5}{4}.$ Thus $\overline{x}=1$ and $\overline{x}<x_{i}<x_{n}$ for $2\leq i\leq n-2$. This implies $\varphi _{1}^{\theta }(x)=\varphi _{1}^{\theta ^{\prime
}}(x)=0 $, $\varphi _{i}^{\theta }(x)<\varphi _{i}^{\theta ^{\prime }}(x)$, and $\varphi _{n}^{\theta }(x)>\varphi _{i}^{\theta ^{\prime }}(x)$.
*Statement* $iii)$ In the previous proof we showed that the rule $\varphi $ is dominated by $\varphi ^{\theta }$ if it satisfies inequalities (\[10\]). Thus the rule $\varphi ^{pro}$ is dominated by the TH rule $\varphi ^{\frac{n-1}{n}}$ if for all $x\in
\mathbb{R}
_{+}^{N}$ we have$$\frac{x_{1}^{2}}{x_{N}}\geq \frac{1}{n}+\frac{1}{n}\left(1-\frac{\overline{x}}{x_{i}}\right)\Longleftrightarrow \frac{x_{1}^{2}}{x_{N}}+\frac{x_{N}}{n^{2}}\geq
\frac{2}{n}x_{1}$$and the latter inequality is easily checked.
To check for instance that $\varphi ^{pro}$ is not dominated by the TH rule $\varphi ^{1}$, we pick a profile $x=(0,a,a,\cdots ,a,b)$ in $\mathbb{R}
_{+}^{N}$ such that $a<b$ and$$\varphi _{2}^{pro}(x)=\frac{a}{(n-2)a+b}<\varphi _{2}^{1}(x)=\frac{1}{n}+\frac{1}{n-1}\left(1-\frac{(n-2)a+b}{na}\right).$$[If $a=2,b=3$, then $\varphi ^{pro}$ puts less weight than $\varphi ^{1}$ on each $x_{i}, \ 2\leq i\leq n-1$, and more on $x_{n}=b$. The argument for other values of $\theta$ is similar.]{} $\blacksquare $
Bads: the unique optimal prior-independent rule
===============================================
[We adapt the approach developed in the previous section in order to characterize the undominated (Definition 7) prior-independent rules for a bad guaranteeing Fair Shares. ]{}
[Surprisingly, in case of a bad, the dominating rule turns out to be unique even for $n\geq 3$ and the construction becomes more complicated than for a good.]{}
[Characterizing fairness for a bad]{}
-------------------------------------
[The following proposition is an analog of Proposition 2 about goods and its proof can be found in Appendix A.]{}
**Proposition 3** *The [symmetric]{} [ prior-independent]{} rule* $\varphi $*dividing a bad satisfies Fair Shares if and only if there exists a number* $\theta, \ 0\leq \theta \leq 1$*, such that*$$\varphi _{i}(x)\leq \min \left\{\frac{1}{n}+\frac{\theta }{n-1}\left(\frac{\overline{x}}{x_{i}}-1\right),\ 1\right\}\mbox{ for all }i\in N\mbox{ and }x\in
\mathbb{R}
_{+}^{N} \label{22}$$*(where we use $\frac{1}{0}=+\infty $)*
[Optimal Bottom Heavy rule for a bad]{}
---------------------------------------
We can now use inequality (\[22\]) to construct, as in the previous section, the canonical *Bottom Heavy* rule $\varphi ^{1}$, which corresponds to $\theta=1$. The construction relies on the same order statistics $x^{\ast }$, but is slightly more involved. We write $\sigma (x;t)=\{i\in N\mid x_{i}=x^{\ast t}\}$ (so $\sigma (x;n)=\tau (x)$) and use the convention [$x^{\ast 0}=-\infty$ and $\sigma(x,t)=\varnothing $ for $t>n$.]{}
The BH rule places as much weight on the smallest disutilities as permitted by (\[22\]). For $\theta=1$, the right-hand side of (\[22\]) can be simplified as $\frac{1}{n}+\frac{\theta}{n-1}(\frac{\overline{x}}{x_{i}}-1)=\frac{1}{n(n-1)}\frac{x_{N\diagdown i}}{x_{i}}$ and we get the following expression.
[**Definition 9:** *The Bottom Heavy (BH) rule $\varphi^1$ is defined by $$\varphi _{i}^{1}(x)=\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n(n-1)}\frac{x_{N\diagdown i}}{x_{i}}, } & i: \ x_{i}\leq x^{\ast \widetilde{t}} \\
{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|\sigma (x;\widetilde{t}+1)|}\left( 1-\frac{1 }{n(n-1)}\sum_{i:\,x_{i}\leq x^{\ast \widetilde{t}}}\frac{x_{N\diagdown i}}{x_{i}}\right),} & i\in\sigma (x;\widetilde{t}+1)\\
0, & \mbox{otherwise}
\end{array}
\right.
\label{18}$$* *where $\widetilde{t}$ is the maximal $t=0,1,2..n$ such that $\frac{1 }{n(n-1)}\sum_{i:\,x_{i}\leq x^{\ast {t}}}\frac{x_{N\diagdown i}}{x_{i}}\leq 1$.* ]{}
Note that for all vectors $x$ except those parallel to $e^{N}$ the sum $\frac{1}{n(n-1)}\sum_{i\in N}\frac{x_{N\diagdown i}}{x_{i}}>1$ and thus $\widetilde{t}\leq n-1$. Indeed, the minimum of $\sum_{i\in N}\frac{x_{N\diagdown i}}{x_{i}}$ over $\mathbb{R}_{+}^{N}$ is $n(n-1)$, and is achieved by any $x$ parallel to $e^{N}$, and only by those: for such a vector, $\widetilde{t}=n$ and $\varphi^{1}(x)=\frac{e^N}{n}.$
If $\widetilde{t}=0$ the only agents with a positive share are those in $\sigma (x;1)$, who have the smallest disutility, so $\varphi ^{1}$ selects an optimal utilitarian allocation.
[Analogously to the case of goods,]{} the sequence of shares $\varphi _{i}^{1}(x)$ is anti-monotonic to the sequence of disutilities $x_{i}$.
*Example: the BH rule $\varphi^1$ for two agents.* If $n=2$, the BH rule $\varphi ^{1}$ for bads is the mirror image of the dominant TH rule $\varphi ^{1}$ (\[23\]): $$\varphi ^{1}(x)=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}
(1,0), & \ \frac{x_{1}}{x_2}\leq \frac{1}{2}\\
\left(\frac{ x_{2}}{2x_{1}},\ 1-\frac{x_{2}}{2x_{1}}\right), & \frac{1}{2}\leq
\frac{x_1}{x_2}\leq 1
\end{array}\right.$$
-0.5 cm [![The share of the first agent under the BH rule $\varphi^1$ for two agents as a function of $\frac{x_1}{x_2}$.[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig_BH_edited.pdf "fig:"){width="6cm"}]{}
**Theorem 2 (for bads)** *For any* $n\geq 2$*, the Bottom Heavy rule* $\varphi ^{1}$* dominates every other [symmetric]{} prior-independent rule for bads meeting Fair Shares.*
The proof of Theorem 2 proves more difficult than in the case of goods, see Appendix A. [There we define a family of BH rules $\varphi^{\theta}, \ \theta\in[0,1]$ and first show, as in the case of goods, that any other rule is dominated by some $\varphi^\theta$ and then check that $\varphi^1$ dominates $\varphi^\theta$ for $\theta<1$.]{}
Worst-case performances
=======================
*Notation.* [We write $\Phi$ for the set of symmetric prior-dependent rules $\varphi$, $\Phi(FS)$ for rules $\varphi\in \Phi$ meeting Fair Shares, and $\Phi_{ind}(FS)$ for the set of symmetric prior-independent rules $\varphi $ meeting FS. So $\Phi_{ind}(FS)\subset \Phi(FS)\subset\Phi$. Next ${\Pi}_{n}$ is the set of normalised problems with $n$ agents. Finally the relative gain (or loss) of a rule $\varphi\in\Phi$ for a good (a bad) in a problem $\mathcal{P}\in\Pi_n$ is $$\pi (\varphi ,\mathcal{P})=\mathbb{E}_{\mu }\left(\sum_{i\in N}\varphi
_{i}^\mu(X)\cdot X_{i}\right).$$ ]{} **Definition 10** [*The Competitive Ratio[^11] (CR) of a prior-independent rule $\varphi\in \Phi_{ind}(FS)$ is*]{} $$\mbox{a good: } \ CR_{n}(\varphi )=\sup_{\mathcal{P}\in
{\Pi }_{n}}\sup_{\psi \in \Phi(FS)}\frac{\pi (\psi ,\mathcal{P})}{\pi (\varphi ,\mathcal{P})} \qquad\quad
\mbox{a bad: } \ CR_{n}(\varphi )=\sup_{\mathcal{P}\in
{\Large \Pi }_{n}}\sup_{\psi \in \Phi(FS)}\frac{\pi (\varphi ,\mathcal{P})}{\pi (\psi ,\mathcal{P})}$$[The CR identifies the worst-case loss in welfare caused by prior-independence.]{}
[*For a good, the utilitarian performance of the rule* ]{}$\varphi \in
\Phi (FS)$ [*at a problem* ]{} $\mathcal{P}$ [* is the ratio of the optimal unconstrained relative gain achieved by the Utilitarian rule to the gain collected by* ]{}$\varphi $. *For a bad, it is the ratio of the relative loss generated by* $\varphi $ *to the optimal relative loss:*[[$$\mbox{a good: } UP(\varphi,\mathcal{P})=\frac{\mathbb{E}_{\mu }\left(\max_{i}X_{i}\right)}{\pi (\varphi ,\mathcal{P})}\ \ \mbox{a bad: }\ UP(\varphi ,\mathcal{P})=\frac{\pi (\varphi ,\mathcal{P})}{\mathbb{E}_{\mu }\left(\min_{i}X_{i}\right)}.$$]{} ]{}
*The [Price of Fairness (PoF)]{} of* $\varphi
\in \Phi (FS)$ *is its worst-case utilitarian performance* $$PoF_{n}(\varphi )={\inf_{\mathcal{P}\in \Pi_{n}}UP(\varphi ,\mathcal{P})}\geq 1.$$
**Lemma 1** *If the [prior-independent]{} rule* $\varphi \in \Phi_{ind}
(FS)$* divides [a good]{}, we have*$$CR_{n}(\varphi )=PoF_{n}(\varphi )=\sup_{x\in
\mathbb{R}
_{+}^{N}}\frac{\max_{i}x_{i}}{\sum_{i\in N}\varphi _{i}(x)\cdot x_{i}}$$*If* $\varphi \in \Phi_{ind}(FS)$* divides [a bad]{}, we have*$$CR_{n}(\varphi )=PoF_{n}(\varphi )=\sup_{x\in
\mathbb{R}
_{+}^{N}}\frac{\sum_{i\in N}\varphi _{i}(x)\cdot x_{i}}{\min_{i}x_{i}}$$
**Proposition** **4 (for goods)**
$i)$ *The* $CR_{n}$* of any rule* $\varphi \in
\Phi_{ind} (FS)$* is at most* $n$*; the $CR_n$ of Equal Split is exactly* $n$*.*
$ii)$*The* $CR_{n}$* of the Proportional rule is* [$\frac{\sqrt{n}}{2}+\frac{1}{2}$]{}*; for instance* $121\%$* for* $n=2$.
$iii)$ *The* $CR_{n}$* of the Top Heavy rule* $\varphi ^{\theta }$* is decreasing in* $\theta $. *Moreover:*$$CR_{n}(\varphi ^{1})=\frac{n}{2\sqrt{n}-1}=\frac{\sqrt{n}}{2}+\frac{1}{4}+O\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\right)$$$$CR_{n}(\varphi ^{\theta })=\frac{n}{2\sqrt{(n-1+\theta )\theta }+1-2\theta }\geq CR_{n}(\varphi ^{1})$$
*For instance* $CR_{2}(\varphi ^{1})\simeq 109\%$*for* $n=2$*.*
$iv)$ *The smallest* $PoF_{n}$* of a [prior-dependent]{} rule in* $\Phi (FS)$* is such that*$$\frac{n}{2\sqrt{n}-1}\geq \inf_{\varphi\in \Phi(FS)}PoF_{n}(\varphi )\geq \frac{n}{2\sqrt{n}-\frac{1}{2}}=\frac{\sqrt{n}}{2}+\frac{1}{8}+O\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\right)$$
*For* $n=2$* it is* $108\%$*.*
Statements $iii)$ and $iv)$, together with Lemma 1, make clear that the PoF$_{n}$ of the TH rule $\varphi ^{1}$ is essentially the best $CR_{n}$ of any fair prior-dependent rule*.*
**Proposition 5 (for bads)**
$i)$ *The* $CR_{n}$* of Equal Split is unbounded (for any fixed* $n$*); that of the Proportional rule is* $n$;
$ii)$* The CR*$_{n}$*of the Bottom Heavy rule* $\varphi ^{1}$* is such that*$$\frac{n}{4}+\frac{5}{4}\geq CR_{n}(\varphi ^{1})\geq \frac{n}{4}+\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{4n}$$*It is* $109\%$* for* $n=2$*.*
$iii)$* The smallest* $PoF_{n}$*of a prior-dependent rule in* $\Phi(FS)$* is*$$\inf_{\varphi \in \Phi(FS)}PoF_{n}(\varphi )=\frac{n}{4}+\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{4n}$$*For* $n=2$* it is* $108\%$*.*
Again, the last two statements and Lemma 1 imply that the PoF$_{n}$ of the BH rule $\varphi ^{1}$ is essentially the best PoF$_{n}$ of any fair [prior-dependent]{} rule.
All three results (Lemma 1 and Propositions 5,6) are proved in Appendix B.
Asymptotic performance for standard distributions
=================================================
We evaluate the utilitarian performance of the TH, the BH, and the Proportional rules in the benchmark setting, where the number of agents is large and their values are given by independent identically distributed (IID) random variables.
Fix a distribution ${\nu }\in \Delta (\mathbb{R}_{+})$ with unit mean and assume that the vector $X=(X_{i})_{i=1,..,n}$ of values is distributed according to $\mu =\otimes _{i=1}^{n}\nu $, i.e., the values are independent random variables with distribution $\nu $. The corresponding problem $\mathcal{P}_{n}(\nu )$ is both normalised and symmetric.
In Appendix C we derive the somewhat cumbersome general formulas describing the utilitarian performance $UP(\varphi ,\mathcal{P}_{n}(\nu ))$ for these three rules when $n$ is large. Here we discuss examples and corollaries of the general results.
A good
------
### Bounded support: $\protect\nu $ is the uniform distribution on $[0,1]$.
In this case the TH rule $\varphi ^{1}$ and the Proportional rule $\varphi
^{pro}$ have similar utilitarian performances.
For $n=2$, the TH almost achieves the optimal welfare level. The Proportional rule is $10\%$ behind: simple computations show that $UP(\varphi ^{1},\mathcal{P}_{2}(\mathrm{uni}[0,1]))=\frac{8}{5+4\ln 2}\approx 1.03$ and $UP(\varphi ^{pro},\mathcal{P}_{2}(\mathrm{uni}[0,1]))=\frac{2}{\ln2 -1}\approx 1.13$. Compare these numbers with the worst-case guarantees from Proposition 4: ${PoF_{2}(\varphi
^{pro})}=\frac{\sqrt{2}+1}{2}\approx 1.21$ and ${PoF_{2}(\varphi
^{1})}=\frac{2}{2\sqrt{2}-1}\approx 1.09$. We see that the Proportional rule captures less welfare for the uniform distribution than the TH rule for *any* distribution.
For $n\rightarrow \infty $, Proposition 6 from Appendix C and Lemma 3 below imply that the utilitarian performances of our two rules converge [and the limit values are]{} $$UP(\varphi ^{1},\mathcal{P}_{\infty }(\mathrm{uni}[0,1]))=\frac{1}{\frac{1}{16}+\ln
2}\approx 1.32\ \ \mbox{and}\ \ UP(\varphi ^{pro},\mathcal{P}_{\infty }(\mathrm{uni}[0,1]))= 1.5$$
This result is in sharp contrast with the worst-case behavior (Section 7): there are problems $\mathcal{P}$ with $n$ agents such that the TH rule collects only a $2/\sqrt{n}$ fraction of the optimal relative gain. Our next result generalizes this observation.
### The TH rule keeps a positive fraction of the optimal relative gain.
This holds in general, not just in the above example. Fix a distribution $\nu $ with mean $1$ and with non-zero average absolute deviation $D(\nu )=\int
|x-1|d\nu (x)$. Note that $D(\nu)$ is at most $2$.
**Lemma 2:** *If $\nu $ has mean $1$ and a finite moment $\int_{\mathbb{R}_{+}}x^{\beta }d\nu (x)<0$ for some $\beta >2$, then the utilitarian performance of the TH rule converges to a limit value which satisfies the following upper bound $$UP(\varphi ^{1},\mathcal{P}_{\infty }(\nu))\leq \frac{2}{D}+\frac{4}{D^2}
\label{lowerbound}$$If in addition $\nu $ has unbounded support, then*$$UP(\varphi ^{1},\mathcal{P}_{\infty }(\nu))\geq \frac{1}{D} \label{upper bound}$$
Proof is in Appendix C. For instance if $\nu $ is the exponential distribution we find$$UP(\varphi ^{1},\mathcal{P}_{\infty }(\mathrm{exp}))=\frac{1}{1-2e^{-\frac{1}{2}}-\mathrm{Ei}(-1/2)}\approx 2.88$$where $\mathrm{Ei}$ stands for a special function, the exponential integral. Contrast this with the situation for the Proportional rule.
**Lemma 3:** * Under the assumptions of Lemma 2* $$UP(\varphi ^{{pro}},\mathcal{P}_{n}(\nu ))=\frac{\mathbb{E}_{\mu }\left(\max_{i}X_{i}\right)}{\mathbb{E}_{\nu }(X_{1})^{2}}(1+o(1)),\quad \mbox{ as }n\rightarrow
\infty$$ *(where* $a_{n}=o(1)$* means that* $a_{n}\rightarrow 0$*, as* $n\rightarrow \infty $*).*
Indeed, by the law of large numbers $$\pi (\varphi ^{{pro}},\mathcal{P}_{n}(\nu ))=\mathbb{E}_{\mu }\left(\sum_{i\in
N}X_{i}\varphi _{i}^{{pro}}(X)\right)=n\cdot \mathbb{E}_{\mu }\left(\frac{(X_{1})^{2}}{\sum_{i\in N}X_{i}}\right)\longrightarrow \mathbb{E}_{\mu }\left(\frac{(X_{1})^{2}}{\mathbb{E}_{\mu }X_{1}}\right)=\mathbb{E}_{\nu }(X_{1})^{2}.$$
Lemma 3 implies that $UP(\varphi ^{{pro}},\mathcal{P}_{\infty }(\nu ))$ tends to $+\infty$ if $\nu $ has unbounded support, because $\mathbb{E}_{\mu
}\max_{i}X_{i}$ tends to infinity. For instance $UP(\varphi ^{pro},\mathcal{P}_{n}(\mathrm{exp}))=\frac{\ln n}{2}(1+o(1))$.
Of course, this limit is finite if the support of $\nu $ is bounded.
A bad
-----
When a bad is divided, the performance of the BH and the Proportional rules is determined by the behaviour of the distribution at the left-most point of the support. Both rules generate a bounded multiple of the optimal relative loss when $0$ does not belong to the support of $\nu $; the BH rule does also well when $\nu $ has a non-zero density at $0$. However, both rules have poor performance if the support touches $0$ but $\nu $ has not enough “weight” near $0$. Here we give three examples to illustrate the general asymptotic results of Appendix C.
### The support does not touch zero: $\protect\nu $ is uniform on $[\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2}]$.
By Proposition 7 in Appendix C, the utilitarian performances of the BH and the Proportional rules converge to limit values which are pretty close to each other:$$UP\left(\varphi^{1},\mathcal{P}_{\infty }\left(\mathrm{uni}\left[\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2}\right]\right)\right)={e-1}\approx 1.72\ \ \mbox{and}\ \ UP\left(\varphi ^{pro},\mathcal{P}_{\infty
}\left(\mathrm{uni}\left[\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2}\right]\right)\right)=\frac{2}{\ln 3}\approx 1.82$$
### The support touches zero but there is not enough weight around it: $\protect\nu $ has density $\frac{3}{4}x(2-x)$ on $[0,2]$.
For this distribution the optimal relative loss tends to zero while the losses of the BH and the Proportional rules remain positive. Proposition 7 shows that the utilitarian performances of both rules tend to infinity at the speed of $\sqrt{n}$ while their ratio converges to $\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\approx 0.58$:$$UP(\varphi ^{1},\mathcal{P}_{n}(\nu ))=\frac{2}{3\sqrt{\pi }}{\sqrt{n}}(1+o(1))= UP(\varphi ^{pro},\mathcal{P}_{n}(\nu ))\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(1+o(1))$$
### The distribution has non-zero density at $0$ (e.g., $\protect\nu $ is uniform on $[0,2]$).
In this case, the BH rule outperforms the Proportional one in the limit.
**Lemma 4:** *Assume the distribution $\nu $ has a continuous density $f$ on an interval $[0,a]$ and $f(0)>0$. Then $UP(\varphi
^{1},\mathcal{P}_{n}(\nu ))$ converges to a finite limit as $n$ becomes large, whereas $UP(\varphi ^{pro},\mathcal{P}_{n}(\nu ))=\Omega\left( \frac{n}{\ln (n)}\right) $ as $n\rightarrow \infty $.[^12]*
A similar result for the case when the density is infinite at $x=0$ is the subject of Lemma 5 in Appendix C.
The statement about the BH rule follows from the asymptotic result for the order statistic: the expected values of $X^{\ast k}$ for small numbers $k$ are equal to $\frac{k}{f(0)\cdot n}(1+o(1))$ as $n\rightarrow \infty $.[^13] Therefore, on average only a bounded number of agents with smallest $X_{i}$ receive a non-zero portion of a bad, which implies that the utilitarian performance is bounded away from infinity.
For the Proportional rule, we have $\pi(\varphi^{pro},\mathcal{P}_n(\nu))=n\cdot\mathbb{E}\left(\frac{1}{\sum_k \frac{1}{X^{*k}}}\right)$. For large $n$, we can estimate the denominator from below by the harmonic series; taking into account that $\mathbb{E} (X^{*1})=\frac{1}{f(0)\cdot n}(1+o(1))$ we get the desired asymptotic formula.
Concluding comments
===================
#### Envy-Freeness
An alternative, much more demanding interpretation of fairness in our model is (ex ante) *Envy-Freeness*, which means, in the case of a good:$$\mathbb{E}_{\mu }(\varphi _{i}^\mu(X^{r})\cdot X_{i})\geq \mathbb{E}_{\mu
}(\varphi _{j}^\mu(X^{r})\cdot X_{i}) \ \mbox{ for all } \ i,j \ \mbox{ and } \ \mathcal{P}=(N,\mu,X).$$The critical Proposition 2 can be adapted as follows. Set $g(x)=(\varphi
_{1}(x)-\varphi _{2}(x))\cdot x_{1}$ so that Envy-Freeness [for a symmetric prior-independent rule is equivalent to]{} $\mathbb{E}_{\mu }(g(X))\geq g(e^{N})=0$ whenever $\mathbb{E}_{\mu }(X)=e^{N}$, and deduce in the same way that there is a vector $\beta \in
\mathbb{R}
^{n}$ such that $(\varphi _{1}(x)-\varphi _{2}(x))\cdot x_{1}\geq \beta
\cdot (x-e^{N})$ for all $x$. Symmetry of $\varphi $ and $\varphi (x)\in
\Delta (N)$ imply promptly the existence of $\theta \geq 0$ such that, for any $x$ with weakly increasing coordinates: $$\theta \left(1-\frac{x_{i-1}}{x_{i}}\right)\leq \varphi _{i}(x)-\varphi _{i-1}(x)\leq
\theta \left(\frac{x_{i}}{x_{i-1}}-1\right)\mbox{ for all }i=1,\cdots,n.$$Applying this when $x_{i}$ is a geometric sequence with a large exponent gives $\theta \leq \frac{2}{n(n-1)}$, and by choosing $\theta ^{\ast }=\frac{2}{n(n-1)}$ and defining $\varphi $ appropriately, we guarantee a worst-case utilitarian performance of [the order of $n$, comparable]{} to the [minimal]{} Price of Envy-Freeness for prior-dependent rules: [@Caragianis2009].
[For a bad, Envy-Freeness is defined with the opposite sign in the inequality.]{} Similarly, we find that if the coordinates of $x$ are weakly increasing, an Envy-Free rule $\varphi $ is such that$$\theta \left(1-\frac{x_{i-1}}{x_{i}}\right)\leq \varphi _{i-1}(x)-\varphi _{i}(x)\leq
\theta \left(\frac{x_{i}}{x_{i-1}}-1\right)\mbox{ for all }i=1,\cdots,n$$where again the parameter $\theta $ is at most $\frac{2}{n(n-1)}$. However, this time the utilitarian performance of such a rule is fairly poor, as one can see with $\theta ^{\ast }=\frac{2}{n(n-1)}$ and the disutility profile $x_{i}=2^{i-1}$ for all $i$. The most efficient profile of [shares]{} is then $\varphi _{i}(x)=(n-i)\theta ^{\ast }$ and the ratio $\frac{1}{x_{1}}(\sum_{1}^{n}\varphi _{i}(x)x_{i})$ is then in the order of $\frac{2^{n}}{n^{2}}$!
#### Asymmetric [ownership rights]{}
If the agents are endowed with unequal ownership rights on the object, captured by the shares $\lambda \in \Delta (N)$, it is natural to adapt Fair Shares as follows (for goods): $\mathbb{E}_{\mu }(\varphi _{i}(X^{r})\cdot
X_{i})\geq \lambda _{i}\mathbb{E}_{\mu }(X_{i})$ for all $i$. We can again adapt the argument in Proposition 2 to characterize this constraint by the existence, for each $i$, of a linear form lower bounding the function $x\rightarrow \varphi _{i}(x)\cdot x_{i}$. But [we cannot use arguments based on symmetry in order to reduce the number of free parameters]{} and the characterization of the undominated fair rules is much more difficult.
[99]{} M Aleksandrov, H Aziz, S Gaspers, T Walsh. *Online fair division: analysing a food bank problem*. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence IJCAI, 2540-2546 (2015).
G Benade, AM Kazachkov, AD Procaccia, A Psomas. *How to make envy vanish over time*. EC-18: Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (2018).
D Bertsimas, VF Farias, N Trichakis. *The price of fairness*. Operations Research, 59(1), 17-31 (2011).
D Bertsimas, VF Farias, N Trichakis. *On the efficiency-fairness trade-off.* Management Science 58(12), 2234-2250 (2012).
L Bo, L Wenyang, L Yingka. *Dynamic fair division problem with general valuations.* arXiv:1802.05294v2 \[cs.GT\] (2018).
A Bogomolnaia, H Moulin, F Sandomirskiy, E Yanovskaya. *Competitive division of a mixed manna*. Econometrica. 85(6), 1847-1871 (2017). A Bogomolnaia, H Moulin, F Sandomirskiy, E Yanovskaya. *Dividing bads under additive utilities*. Social Choice and Welfare 52(3), 395-417 (2019).
I Caragiannis, C Kaklamanis, P Kanellopoulos, M Kyropoulou. *The efficiency of fair division*. Proceedings of the International Conference on Web and Internet Economics (WINE), 475-482 (2009).
G Carroll. *Robustness and linear contracts*. American Economic Review 105(2), 536-563 (2015).
A Dhillon, JF Mertens. *Relative utilitarianism.* Econometrica 67(3), 471-98 (1999).
N Devanur, K Jain, B Sivan,CA Wilens. *Near optimal online algorithms and fast approximation algorithms for resource allocation problems*. Journal of the ACM (JACM) 66(1), 7 (2019).
J Feldman, A Mehta, V Mirrokni, S Muthukrishnan. *Online stochastic matching: beating 1-1/e*. Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’09), 117-126 (2009). E Friedman, C-A Psomas, S Vardi. *Dynamic fair division with minimal disruptions*. EC-15: Proceedings of the 16th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, 697-713 (2015).
E Friedman, C-A Psomas, S Vardi.*Controlled dynamic fair division.* EC-17: Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, 461-478 (2017).
F Hao, M Kodialam, TV Lakshman. *Online Allocation of Virtual Machines in a Distributed Cloud.* IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 25(1), 238-249 (2017).
J Hartline, A Goldberg, A Wright. *Competitive auctions and digital goods*. Proceedings of the 12th ACM-Siam Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), (2001).
RM Karp, UV Vazirani, and VV Vazirani. *An optimal algorithm for on-line bipartite matching*. Proceedings of the twenty-second annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing (STOC), 352-358 (1990).
I Kash, AD Procaccia, N Shah. *No agent left behind: dynamic fair division of multiple resources*. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 51, 579-603 (2014).
EA Pazner, D Schmeidler. *Egalitarian equivalent allocations: a new concept of economic equity.* The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 92(4), 671-87 (1978).
H Steinhaus. *The problem of fair division*. Econometrica 16, 101-104 (1948).
W Thomson. *The fair division of a fixed supply among a growing population.* Mathematics of Operations Research, 8(3), 319-326 (1983).
T Walsh. *Online cake cutting*. International Conference on Algorithmic Decision Theory, (2011).
Proofs for Section 6
====================
Proof of Proposition 3
----------------------
*Statement* **if:** The proof is the same as in Proposition 2 for goods, upon reversing inequalities.
*Statement* **only if:** Again the proof mimics that of the only if statement in Proposition 2. Fix a prior-independent rule $\varphi $ meeting FS and define $f(x)=\varphi _{1}(x)\cdot x_{1}$; by symmetry $f(e^{N})=\frac{1}{n}$. For any coefficients $\mu \in \Delta
(K)$ and convex combination $\sum_{k=1}^{K}\mu _{k}y^{k}=e^{N}$ in $\mathbb{R}
_{+}^{N}$, we apply FS to the normalised problem in which $X=y^{k}$ with probability $\mu _{k}$ and obtain $\sum_{k=1}^{K}\mu _{k}f(y^{k})\leq
f(e^{N})$. Therefore the concavification $g$ of $f$ coincides with $f$ at $e^{N}$, and there is some $\alpha \in
\mathbb{R}
^{N}$ supporting its graph at $(e^{N},g(e^{N}))$, which means$$\varphi _{1}(x)\cdot x_{1}\leq \alpha \cdot (x-e^{N})+\frac{1}{n}\mbox{ for
all }x\in
\mathbb{R}
_{+}^{N}$$The same symmetry arguments show that $\alpha $ takes the form $\alpha
=(\alpha _{1},\beta ,\beta ,\cdots ,\beta )$ and $\alpha \cdot e^{N}=\frac{1}{n}$. This time the inequality $0\leq \varphi _{1}(x)\cdot x_{1}\leq \alpha
_{1}x_{1}+\beta x_{N\diagdown 1}$ implies $\alpha \geq 0$. Setting $\delta
=n\beta $ and rearranging we get finally:$$\varphi _{i}(x)\leq \frac{1}{n}+\delta \left(\frac{\overline{x}}{x_{i}}-1\right)\mbox{
for all }i\in N\mbox{ and }x\in
\mathbb{R}
_{+}^{N}.$$
Because $\frac{\overline{x}}{x_{i}}\geq \frac{1}{n}$ the inequality $\varphi
_{i}(x)\geq 0$ holds everywhere if it holds at $x=e^{\{i\}}$, and there it implies the bound $\delta \leq \frac{1}{n-1}$. Then the change of parameters $\theta =(n-1)\delta $ implies the desired inequality (\[22\]).
Proof of Theorem 2
------------------
[*Step 1.* First we define the whole family of Bottom Heavy rules for $\theta\in[0,1]$ by $$\varphi _{i}^{\theta }(x)=\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}+\frac{\theta }{n-1}\left(\frac{\overline{x} }{x_{i}}-1\right),} & i: \ x_{i}\leq x^{\ast \widetilde{t}} \\
{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|\sigma (x;\widetilde{t}+1)|}\left( 1-\sum_{i:x_{i}\leq x^{\ast \widetilde{t}}}\varphi _{i}^{\theta }(x)\right),} & i\in\sigma (x;\widetilde{t}+1)\\
0, & \mbox{otherwise}
\end{array}
\right.
$$ [where $\widetilde{t}$ is the maximal $t=0,1,2,\dots,n$ such that $\sum_{i:\,x_{i}\leq x^{\ast {t}}}\large \left(\frac{1}{n}+\frac{\theta
}{n-1}\left(\frac{\overline{x}}{x_{i}}-1\right)\right)\leq 1$.]{} The definition is correct since $ \frac{1}{n}+\frac{\theta }{n-1}\left(\frac{\overline{x} }{x_{i}}-1\right)$ is always non-negative and $\sum_{i\in N} \frac{1}{n}+\frac{\theta }{n-1}\left(\frac{\overline{x}}{x_{i}}-1\right)\geq 1$ with strict inequality for $x$ non-parallel to $e^N$ and $\theta\ne 0$. ]{}
*Step 2.* Next we prove that if the prior-independent rule $\varphi $ meets inequalities (\[22\]) for some $\theta,\ 0\leq \theta
\leq 1$, then $\varphi ^{\theta }$ dominates $\varphi $ or equals $\varphi $. In Step 3 we show that $\varphi ^{1}$ dominates $\varphi ^{\theta }$ if $\theta <1$.
First, for $\theta =0$, inequalities (\[22\]) imply that $\varphi $ itself is Equal Split, i.e., $\varphi ^{0}$. From now on, we assume $\theta >0$.
Along the ray through $e^{N}$ the rules $\varphi $ and $\varphi ^{\theta }$ coincide by symmetry. Now we fix $x\in
\mathbb{R}
_{+}^{N}$ not parallel to $e^{N}$ and let $\widetilde{t}$ be defined as above. From (\[22\]) we get $\varphi _{i}(x)\leq \varphi _{i}^{\theta }(x)$ for all $i$, s.t., $x_{i}\leq x^{\ast \widetilde{t}}$, hence$$\sum_{i:\,x_{i}\leq x^{\ast \widetilde{t}}}(\varphi _{i}(x)-\varphi
_{i}^{\theta }(x))x_{i}\geq \sum_{i:\,x_{i}\leq x^{\ast \widetilde{t}}}(\varphi _{i}(x)-\varphi _{i}^{\theta }(x))x^{\ast (\widetilde{t}+1)}
\label{19}$$Next we have $\sum_{i:\,x_{i}\geq x^{\ast (\widetilde{t}+1)}}\varphi
_{i}^{\theta }(x)x_{i}=\sum_{i:\,x_{i}\geq x^{\ast (\widetilde{t}+1)}}\varphi
_{i}^{\theta }(x)x^{\ast (\widetilde{t}+1)}$ because $\varphi _{i}^{\theta
}(x)=0$ if $x_{i}>x^{\ast (\widetilde{t}+1)}$. Thus$$\sum_{i:\,x_{i}\geq x^{\ast (\widetilde{t}+1)}}(\varphi _{i}(x)-\varphi
_{i}^{\theta }(x))x_{i}\geq \sum_{i:\,x_{i}\geq x^{\ast (\widetilde{t}+1)}}(\varphi _{i}(x)-\varphi _{i}^{\theta }(x))x^{\ast (\widetilde{t}+1)}
\label{20}$$Summing up these two inequalities gives the corresponding weak inequality (\[17\]).
Assume finally that all inequalities (\[17\]) are equalities. If at least one $x_{i}$ is zero, (\[22\]) implies that $\varphi (x)$ does not put any weight outside $\sigma (x,1)$, so $\varphi (x)=\varphi ^{\theta }(x)$. If each $x_{i}$ is strictly positive, our assumption implies that (\[19\]) is an equality; but the definition of $\widetilde{t}$ implies $x^{\ast \widetilde{t}}<x^{\ast (\widetilde{t}+1)}$. Therefore $\varphi _{i}(x)=\varphi _{i}^{\theta }(x)$ as long as $x_{i}\leq x^{\ast \widetilde{t}}$. Now (\[20\]) cannot be an equality if $\varphi (x)$ puts any weight on agents with disutilities larger than $x^{\ast (\widetilde{t}+1)}$, and we conclude $\varphi (x)=\varphi
^{\theta }(x)$ by symmetry of $\varphi $.
*Step 3*. We show that $\varphi ^{\theta ^{+}}$ dominates $\varphi ^{\theta ^{-}}$ if $\theta ^{+}>\theta ^{-}>0$. We write these rules as $\varphi ^{+}$ and $\varphi ^{-}$ for simplicity, and fix $x\in
\mathbb{R}
_{+}^{N}$. For $\varepsilon =+,-$, denote $\widetilde{t}$ for $\varphi ^{\varepsilon }(x)$ by $t^{\varepsilon }$.
We use the notation$$\delta _{i}=\frac{1}{n-1}\left(\frac{\overline{x}}{x_{i}}-1\right)\mbox{ and }\psi
_{i}^{\varepsilon }=\frac{1}{n}+\theta ^{\varepsilon }\delta _{i}$$
We prove inequality (\[17\]) between $\varphi ^{+}$ and $\varphi ^{-}$ for a vector $x$ with no two equal coordinates. This will be enough because each mapping $\varphi ^{\theta }$ is only discontinuous at $x$ if $|\sigma (x,\widetilde{t}+1)|>1$, and the total disutility $\sum_{i\in N}\varphi _{i}^{\theta
}(x)x_{i}$ is continuous at such points.
Finally we label the coordinates of $x$ increasingly, so that $x_{i}=x^{\ast
i}$ for all $i$, and the definition of $\varphi ^{\varepsilon }(x)$ is notationally simpler: $\varphi _{i}^{\varepsilon }(x)=\psi _{i}^{\varepsilon
}>0$ for $1\leq i\leq t^{\varepsilon }$; $0\leq \varphi _{t^{\varepsilon
}+1}^{\varepsilon }(x)<\psi _{t^{\varepsilon }+1}^{\varepsilon }$ ; $\varphi
_{j}^{\varepsilon }(x)=0$ for $j>t^{\varepsilon }+1$.
We claim first $t^{+}\leq t^{-}$, and if $t^{+}=t^{-}=t$ then $\lambda =\frac{\varphi _{t^{+}+1}^{+}(x)}{\psi _{t^{+}+1}^{+}}<\mu =\frac{\varphi
_{t^{-}+1}^{-}(x)}{\psi _{t^{-}+1}^{-}}$ where $0\leq \lambda ,\mu <1$. To prove this we compute$$1=\sum_{1}^{t^{+}}\psi _{i}^{+}+\lambda \psi _{t^{+}+1}^{+}=\frac{t^{+}+\lambda }{n}+\theta ^{+}(\delta _{\{1,\cdots ,t^{+}\}}+\lambda \delta
_{t^{+}+1})$$As $\frac{t^{+}+\lambda }{n}<1$, this implies $\delta _{\{1,\cdots
,t^{+}\}}+\lambda \delta _{t^{+}+1}>0$; therefore$$1>\frac{t^{+}+\lambda }{n}+\theta ^{-}(\delta _{\{1,\cdots ,t^{+}\}}+\lambda
\delta _{t^{+}+1})$$However, by repeating the computation above for $\varphi ^{-}(x)$ we get$$1=\frac{t^{-}+\mu }{n}+\theta ^{-}(\delta _{\{1,\cdots ,t^{-}\}}+\mu \delta
_{t^{-}+1})$$We see that $t^{-}<t^{+}$ brings a contradiction between the last two statements. Also, if $t^{-}=t^{+}=t$ they imply $\lambda \psi _{t+1}^{-}<\mu
\psi _{t+1}^{-}$ so $\lambda <\mu $ because $\psi _{i}^{-}>0$ for all $i$. The claim is proved.
Now we evaluate the difference $\Delta $ in total disutility collected by our two rules:$$\Delta =\sum_{N}{\large (}\varphi _{i}^{+}(x)-\varphi _{i}^{-}(x){\large )}x_{i}$$$$=\sum_{1}^{t^{+}}(\psi _{i}^{+}-\psi _{i}^{-})x_{i}+(\lambda \psi
_{t^{+}+1}^{+}-\psi _{t^{+}+1}^{-})x_{t^{+}+1}-\sum_{t^{+}+2}^{t^{-}}\psi
_{i}^{-}x_{i}-\mu \psi _{t^{-}+1}^{-}x_{t^{-}+1}$$where we have assumed $t^{+}<t^{-}$; if instead $t^{+}=t^{-}=t$ the last three terms of the sum reduce to $(\lambda \psi _{t+1}^{+}-\mu \psi
_{t+1}^{-})x_{t^{+}+1}$. As $x_{i}$ increases in $i$ we have$$\Delta \leq \sum_{1}^{t^{+}}(\psi _{i}^{+}-\psi _{i}^{-})x_{i}+\lambda \psi
_{t^{+}+1}^{+}x_{t^{+}+1}-(\psi _{\{t^{+}+1,\ldots ,t^{-}\}}^{-}+\mu \psi
_{t^{-}+1}^{-})x_{t^{+}+1}$$and from $\varphi _{N}^{+}(x)=\varphi _{N}^{-}(x)$ we get $\psi
_{\{t^{+}+1,\ldots ,t^{-}\}}^{-}+\mu \psi
_{t^{-}+1}^{-}=\sum_{1}^{t^{+}}(\psi _{i}^{+}-\psi _{i}^{-})+\lambda \psi
_{t^{+}+1}^{+}$. Rearranging the right-hand term in the inequality above, and going back to the definition of $\psi _{i}^{\varepsilon }$ this gives$$\Delta \leq \sum_{1}^{t^{+}}(\psi _{i}^{+}-\psi
_{i}^{-})(x_{i}-x_{t^{+}+1})=(\theta ^{+}-\theta ^{-})\sum_{1}^{t^{+}}\delta
_{i}(x_{i}-x_{t^{+}+1})$$We show finally that the right-hand term above is strictly negative, as desired.
The sequence $\delta _{i}$ is (strictly) decreasing and initially positive. As $\delta _{\{1,\cdots ,t^{+}\}}+\lambda \delta _{t^{+}+1}>0$, we have $\delta _{\{1,\cdots ,t^{+}\}}>0$. The sequence $\gamma
_{i}=x_{t^{+}+1}-x_{i} $ is positive and (strictly) decreasing. These facts imply that $\sum_{1}^{t^{+}}\delta _{i}\gamma _{i}$ is strictly positive. Let $\delta _{i^{\ast }}$ be the first strictly negative term in the sequence $\delta _{i}$: we have $\sum_{1}^{i^{\ast }-1}\delta _{i}\gamma _{i}\geq
\sum_{1}^{i^{\ast }-1}\delta _{i}\gamma _{i^{\ast }}$ as all terms are non-negative and $\gamma _{i}$ decreases; also $\sum_{i^{\ast }}^{t^{+}}\delta
_{i}\gamma _{i}>\sum_{i^{\ast }}^{t^{+}}\delta _{i}\gamma _{i^{\ast }}$ as $\delta _{i}<0$ and $\gamma _{i}<\gamma _{i^{\ast }}$. Thus $-\Delta
=\sum_{1}^{t^{+}}\delta _{i}\gamma _{i}>\delta _{\{1,\cdots ,t^{+}\}}\gamma
_{i^{\ast }}$.
Proofs for Section 7
====================
Proof of Lemma 1
----------------
*Step 1. For goods*. The inequality $CR_{n}(\varphi )\leq
PoF_{n}(\varphi )$ is clear. Next, for any $\mathcal{P}\in {\Large \Pi }_{n}$, not necessarily symmetric, there exists some $x\in
\mathbb{R}
_{+}^{N}$ such that$$\frac{\mathbb{E}_{\mu }(\max_{i}X_{i})}{\pi (\varphi ,\mathcal{P})}\leq
\frac{\max_{i}x_{i}}{\sum_{i\in N}\varphi _{i}(x)\cdot x_{i}}$$This proves $PoF_{n}(\varphi )\leq \sup_{x\in
\mathbb{R}
_{+}^{N}}\frac{\max_{i}x_{i}}{\sum_{i\in N}\varphi _{i}(x)\cdot x_{i}}$. Now we pick an arbitrary $x\in
\mathbb{R}
_{+}^{N}$ and check the inequality $\frac{\max_{i}x_{i}}{\sum_{i\in
N}\varphi _{i}(x)\cdot x_{i}}\leq CR_{n}(\varphi )$, thus completing the proof.
Consider the symmetric problem $\mathcal{P}\in {\Large \Pi }_{n}$ that selects each of the $n!$ permutations of $\frac{1}{\overline{x}}x$ with equal probability $\frac{1}{n!}$. By Symmetry of $\varphi $ we have $\pi
(\varphi ,\mathcal{P})=\sum_{i\in N}\varphi _{i}(x)\cdot x_{i}$. It will be enough to construct a rule $\psi \in \Phi (FS)$ such that $\pi (\psi ,\mathcal{P})=\max_{i}x_{i}$, because $\frac{\pi (\psi ,\mathcal{P})}{\pi (\varphi ,\mathcal{P})}\leq CR_{n}(\varphi )$. To this end, we note that the utilitarian rule $\varphi^{ut}$ violates FS in general (see example in Subsection \[subsect\_benchmark\_rules\]) but not if the problem $\mathcal{P}$ is symmetric (the distribution $\mu $ is symmetric in all variables $x_{i}$).[^14] Thus, we can pick $\psi $ that is equal to $\varphi^{ut}$ for symmetric problems, and meets FS elsewhere.
The similar argument for bads is omitted.
Proof of Proposition 4
----------------------
*Statement* $i)$ Pick $\varphi \in \Phi_{ind}(FS)$ and $\mathcal{P}\in {\Large \Pi }_{n}$. The FS property implies$$\pi (\varphi ,\mathcal{P})=\sum_{i\in N}\mathbb{E}_{\mu }(\varphi
_{i}(X)\cdot X_{i})\geq \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i\in N}\mathbb{E}_{\mu }(X_{i})\geq
\frac{1}{n}\mathbb{E}_{\mu }(\max_{i}X_{i})$$and the first claim follows. If $\varphi $ is the Equal Split rule, the first inequality above is an equality, and the second one is an equality if the random variable $X$ is uniform over the coordinate profiles $e^{\{i\}}$.
*Statement* $ii)$ By Lemma 1 we must evaluate $\sup_{x\in
\mathbb{R}
_{+}^{N}\diagdown 0}\frac{\sum_{i\in N}x_{i}}{\sum_{i\in N}x_{i}^{2}}\max_{i}x_{i}$. By rescaling $x$ we can assume $x_{1}=1=\max_{i\geq 2}x_{i}$; then we must show$$\sup \frac{1+\sum_{2}^{n}x_{i}}{1+\sum_{2}^{n}x_{i}^{2}}=\frac{\sqrt{n}+1}{2}$$where the supremum is on all $x_{2},\cdots ,x_{n}\in \lbrack 0,1]$. We omit the straightforward argument.
*Statement* $iii)$ We fix $\theta,\ 0<\theta \leq 1$, set $N=\{1,\cdots ,n\}$ and rewrite inequalities (\[10\]) as
$$\varphi _{i}^{\theta }(x)\geq \max \left\{\left(\frac{1}{n}+\frac{\theta }{n-1}\right)-\frac{\theta }{n(n-1)}\frac{x_{N}}{x_{i}},\ 0\right\}\mbox{ for all }i\mbox{ and }x\in
\mathbb{R}
_{+}^{N}.$$By Lemma 1 we must evaluate the smallest feasible value of $\frac{1}{x^{\ast
n}}\{\sum_{i=1}^{n}\varphi _{i}^{\theta }(x)\cdot x_{i}\}$ in $\mathbb{R}
_{+}^{N}$. This function is continuous in $x$ (even though $\varphi ^{\theta }$ itself is not at those profiles where several agents have the highest utility) so it will be enough to compute the infimum of this ratio for profiles $x$ such that $x_{i}<x_{n}$ for all $i\leq n-1$.
We first compute the desired lower bound when $(\frac{1}{n}+\frac{\theta }{n-1})-\frac{\theta }{n(n-1)}\frac{x_{N}}{x_{i}}\geq 0$ for all $i$, so that all agents $i\leq n-1$ get exactly this share and agent $n$ gets$$\varphi _{n}^{\theta }(x)=1-\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\varphi _{i}^{\theta }(x)=\frac{1}{n}-\theta +\frac{\theta }{n(n-1)} \left(\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\frac{1}{x_{i}}\right)x_{n}+n-1+\sum_{\{i,j\}\subset \{1,\cdots ,n-1\}}\left(\frac{x_{i}}{x_{j}}+\frac{x_{j}}{x_{i}}\right) \right)$$
On the right-hand side, if we fix the sum $\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}x_{i}$, the first sum is minimal when all utilities are equal; the second sum is also minimal and equal to $(n-1)(n-2)$ when utilities are equal. It is also clear that for $i,j\leq n-1$ the sum $\varphi _{i}^{\theta }(x)\cdot x_{i}+\varphi
_{j}^{\theta }(x)\cdot x_{j}$ is constant when we equalize $x_{i}$ and $x_{j} $ while keeping their sum constant. Thus, we can assume that $x_{i}=y$ for $1\leq i\leq n-1$, so that the share of agent $n$ is$$\varphi _{n}^{\theta }(x)=\frac{1}{n}-\theta +\frac{\theta }{n}\left(\frac{x_{n}}{y}+n-1\right)=\frac{1}{n}(1-\theta )+\frac{\theta }{n}\frac{x_{n}}{y}$$Then we compute$$\frac{1}{x_{n}}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\varphi _{i}^{\theta }(x)\cdot x_{i}\right)=\varphi
_{n}^{\theta }(x)+(n-1)\frac{\varphi _{1}^{\theta }(x)}{x_{n}}=\frac{1}{n}\left((1-2\theta )+\theta \frac{x_{n}}{y}+(n-1+\theta )\frac{y}{x_{n}}\right)$$and the minimum in $x_{n},y$ of this expression is achieved for $\frac{x_{n}}{y}=\big(\frac{(n-1+\theta )}{\theta }\big)^{\frac{1}{2}}$ (which is larger than $1$ as needed) and its value is$$\frac{1}{n}\left((1-2\theta )+2\sqrt{(n-1+\theta )\theta }\right)$$as stated. Clearly it decreases in $\theta $.
It remains to consider the case where for some $i^{\ast }\leq n-1$ we have, for all $i\leq i^{\ast }-1$ and all $j\geq i^{\ast }$:$$\left(\frac{1}{n}+\frac{\theta }{n-1}\right)-\frac{\theta }{n(n-1)}\frac{x_{N}}{x_{i}}<0\leq \left(\frac{1}{n}+\frac{\theta }{n-1}\right)-\frac{\theta }{n(n-1)}\frac{x_{N}}{x_{j}}$$ Observe that if we decrease $x_{i}$ to zero for all $i\leq i^{\ast }-1$, without changing other coordinates, the share of each agent $j,i^{\ast }\leq
j\leq n-1,$ increases (strictly if some $x_{i}$ is positive), while that of agent $n$ decreases; therefore the ratio $\frac{1}{x^{\ast n}}\{\sum_{i=1}^{n}\varphi _{i}^{\theta }(x)\cdot x_{i}\}$ decreases. Thus, it is enough to assume $x_{i}=0$ for all $i\leq i^{\ast }-1$. Computing the share of agent $n$ and the total utility $\sum_{i=1}^{n}\varphi _{i}^{\theta
}(x)\cdot x_{i}$ is then more tedious but very similar, and the argument that we can assume $x_{i}=y$ for $i^{\ast }\leq i\leq n-1$ is unchanged. In turn we find$$\varphi _{n}^{\theta }(x)=\frac{i^{\ast }}{n}\left(1-\frac{n-i^{\ast }}{n-1}\theta \right)+\frac{n-i^{\ast }}{n(n-1)}\theta \frac{x_{n}}{y}$$$$\frac{1}{x_{n}}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\varphi _{i}^{\theta }(x)\cdot x_{i}\right)=\frac{i^{\ast }}{n}-\frac{(n-i^{\ast })(i^{\ast }+1)}{n(n-1)}\theta +\frac{n-i^{\ast }}{n(n-1)}\left(\theta \frac{x_{n}}{y}+(n-1+i^{\ast }\theta )\frac{y}{x_{n}}\right)$$of which the minimum in $x_{n},y$ is$$\frac{i^{\ast }}{n}-\frac{(n-i^{\ast })}{n(n-1)}\left((i^{\ast
}+1)\theta -2\sqrt{(n-1+i^{\ast }\theta )\theta }\right)$$and this quantity increases in $i^{\ast }$ because $(i^{\ast }+1)\theta -2\sqrt{(n-1+i^{\ast }\theta )\theta }$ does. Therefore, the worst case is for $i^{\ast }=1$, and we are done.
*Statement* $iv)$ Clearly $\inf_{\varphi \in \Phi(FS)}PoF_{n}(\varphi )\leq \inf_{\varphi \in \Phi_{ind} (FS)}PoF_{n}(\varphi )\leq
PoF_{n}(\varphi ^{1})$, so the inequality $\inf_{\varphi \in \Phi(FS)}PoF_{n}(\varphi )\leq \frac{n}{2\sqrt{n}-1}$ follows from Lemma 1 and statement $iii)$.
Next we fix $n,p,$ s.t. $1\leq p\leq n-1$ and consider the problem $\mathcal{P}(n,p)\in {\Large \Pi }_{n}$ with $n$ agents and $p$ equiprobable states:$$\mbox{utilities:}\
\begin{array}{cccc}
state & \omega _{1} & \cdots & \omega _{p} \\
proba & 1/p & \cdots & 1/p \\
X_{1} & p & 0 & 0 \\
\cdots & 0 & p & 0 \\
X_{p} & 0 & 0 & p \\
X_{p+1} & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
\cdots & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
X_{n} & 1 & 1 & 1\end{array}$$Let $N_{1}$ be the set of the $p$ single-minded agents and $N_{2}$ that of the other $n-p$ indifferent agents. Fix an arbitrary [prior-dependent]{} rule $\varphi \in \Phi(FS)$ and write $\mathbb{E}_{\mu }(Y_{i})=\mathbb{E}_{\mu }(\varphi_{i}^{\mu}(X)\cdot X_{i})$ the expected utility of agent $i$.
We call $\lambda _{k}$ the total share $\varphi$ gives to $N_{2}$ at state $\omega _{k}$. Then $\mathbb{E}_{\mu }(Y_{N_{2}})=\frac{1}{p}\sum_{k=1}^{p}\lambda _{k}$ and Fair Shares imply $\sum_{k=1}^{p}\lambda
_{k}\geq \frac{p(n-p)}{n}$. If $\varphi$ gives the remaining shares to single-minded agent $k$ in state $\omega _{k}$, then $\mathbb{E}_{\mu }(Y_{N_{1}})=\frac{1}{p}\sum_{k=1}^{p}(1-\lambda _{k})p=p-\sum_{k=1}^{p}\lambda _{k}$. This is the best $\varphi$ can do for the utilitarian objective. Compute$$\mathbb{E}_{\mu }(Y_{N})=\left(p-\sum_{k=1}^{p}\lambda _{k}\right)+\left(\frac{1}{p}\sum_{k=1}^{p}\lambda _{k}\right)=p-\frac{p-1}{p}\sum_{k=1}^{p}\lambda _{k}$$$$\leq p-\frac{(p-1)(n-p)}{n}=\frac{p^{2}}{n}-\frac{p}{n}+1$$$$\Longrightarrow \left( \frac{\mathbb{E}_{\mu }(\max_{i}X_{i})}{\mathbb{E}_{\mu }(Y_{N})}\right)^{-1}=\frac{\mathbb{E}_{\mu }(Y_{N})}{p}\leq \frac{p}{n}+\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{n}$$The minimum of $\frac{p}{n}+\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{n}$ over real numbers is achieved for $p=\sqrt{n}$, and is worth $\frac{2}{\sqrt{n}}-\frac{1}{n}=(CR_{n}(\varphi ^{1}))^{-1}$. As $p$ is integer and $p\rightarrow f(p)=\frac{p}{n}+\frac{1}{p}$ is convex, the minimum over integers is at most $\alpha =\max \{f(\sqrt{n}+\frac{1}{2}),f(\sqrt{n}-\frac{1}{2})\}$. Routine computations show $\alpha \leq \frac{2}{\sqrt{n}}+\frac{1}{2n}$; therefore $\left(\frac{\mathbb{E}_{\mu }(\max_{i}X_{i})}{\mathbb{E}_{\mu }(Y_{N})}\right)^{-1}\leq
\frac{2\sqrt{n}-\frac{1}{2}}{n}$ and the proof is complete.
Proof of Proposition 5
----------------------
*Statement* $i)$ If $\varphi $ is the Equal Split rule, then $\frac{1}{\min_{i}x_{i}}(\sum_{i\in N}\varphi _{i}(x)\cdot x_{i})=\frac{x_{N}}{n\cdot \min_{i}x_{i}}$ for all $x\in
\mathbb{R}
_{+}^{N}$, and this ratio is clearly unbounded, so the claim follows by Lemma 1.
Recall that, by the definition, [the Proportional rule $\varphi^{pro}$ coincides with the utilitarian at any profile]{} $x\in
\mathbb{R}
_{+}^{N}$ with at least one zero coordinate. For $x\gg 0$ we have $\frac{1}{\min_{i}x_{i}}(\sum_{i\in N}\varphi _{i}^{pro}(x)\cdot x_{i})=\frac{1}{\min_{i}x_{i}}\frac{n}{\sum_{i\in N}\frac{1}{x_{i}}}=\frac{\widetilde{x}}{\min_{i}x_{i}}$ where $\widetilde{x}$ is the harmonic mean of the $x_{i}$. The inequality $\widetilde{x}\leq n\min_{i}x_{i}$ is always true, and [asymptotically]{} becomes an equality when $x_{1}=\min_{i}x_{i}$, and all other coordinates are equal and go to infinity. Therefore, the $CR_n(\varphi ^{pro})$ is indeed $n$.
*Statement* $ii)$ The lower bound follows from the lower bound on $\inf_{\varphi \in \Phi(FS)}PoF_{n}(\varphi )$ (statement $iii$ proven below) and from $CR_{n}(\varphi ^{1})=PoF_{n}(\varphi ^{1})\geq \inf_{\varphi
\in \Phi(FS)}PoF_{n}(\varphi )$.
To prove the upper bound* *$PoF_{n}(\varphi ^{1})\leq \frac{n}{4}+\frac{5}{4}$, we fix an arbitrary profile $x$ and majorize $\frac{1}{\min_{i}x_{i}}(\sum_{i\in N}\varphi _{i}^{1}(x)\cdot x_{i})$. Because $\varphi ^{1}$ is homogeneous of degree zero and symmetric, and $\varphi ^{1}$ [coincides with the Utilitarian rule]{} if $x_{1}=0$, we can without loss assume $x_{1}=1$ and $x_{i}$ increases weakly in $i$. We must bound $U_{N}(x)=\sum_{i\in N}\varphi
_{i}^{1}(x)\cdot x_{i}$. [By continuity of $U_N(x)$, we can assume that none of the coordinates of $x$ are equal, i.e., that $x_i$ is increasing strictly.]{}
By definition of $\varphi^{1}$ there exists an [index $\widetilde{t}$]{} such that$$\frac{1}{n(n-1)}\sum_{i=1}^{\widetilde{t}}\frac{x_{N\diagdown i}}{x_{i}}\leq 1<\frac{1}{n(n-1)}\sum_{i=1}^{\widetilde{t}+1}\frac{x_{N\diagdown i}}{x_{i}}$$and $\varphi _{i}^{1}(x)=\frac{1}{n(n-1)}\frac{x_{N\diagdown i}}{x_{i}}$ for $i\leq \widetilde{t}$.
We set $\Delta =n(n-1)-\sum_{i=1}^{\widetilde{t}}\frac{x_{N\diagdown i}}{x_{i}}$, $\Delta \geq 0$, and develop $U_{N}(x)$ as follows$$n(n-1)U_{N}(x)=\sum_{i=1}^{\widetilde{t}}x_{N\diagdown i}+\Delta
x_{\widetilde{t}+1}=(\widetilde{t}-1)\sum_{i=1}^{\widetilde{t}}x_{i}+\widetilde{t}\sum_{j=\widetilde{t}+1}^{n}x_{j}+\Delta x_{\widetilde{t}+1}$$
Say we replace each $x_{i},\ 2\leq i\leq \widetilde{t}$ by their average $y=\frac{1}{\widetilde{t}-1}\sum_{i=2}^{\widetilde{t}}$, ceteris paribus: this will decrease the total weight given by $\varphi ^{1}$ to these coordinates, which is $\frac{x_{N}}{n(n-1)}(\sum_{2}^{\widetilde{t}}\frac{1}{x_{i}})$, and increase the weight to coordinates $x_{\widetilde{t}+1}$ and beyond. Therefore, this move increases $U_{N}(x)$, so we can assume that these $\widetilde{t}-1$ coordinates are all equal to $y$. We also set $\sum_{j=\widetilde{t}+1}^{n}x_{j}=w$. Now we try to bound$$n(n-1)U_{N}(x)=(\widetilde{t}-1)(1+(\widetilde{t}-1)y)+\widetilde{t}w+\Delta x_{\widetilde{t}+1}$$under the constraints$$\Delta =n(n-1)+\widetilde{t}-(1+(\widetilde{t}-1)y+w)\left(1+\frac{\widetilde{t}-1}{y}\right)\geq 0\mbox{ ; }0\leq \Delta
x_{\widetilde{t}+1}\leq 1+(1-\widetilde{t})y+w\mbox{ ; }w\geq (n-\widetilde{t})y$$where the second inequality comes from the fact that $\Delta \leq \frac{x_{N\diagdown (\widetilde{t}+1)}}{x_{\widetilde{t}+1}}$ and the third one from the fact that the coordinates of $x$ increase weakly. These inequalities imply$$n(n-1)U_{N}(x)\leq \widetilde{t}(1+(\widetilde{t}-1)y)+(\widetilde{t}+1)w$$$$(1+(\widetilde{t}-1)y+w)\left(1+\frac{\widetilde{t}-1}{y}\right)\leq n(n-1)+\widetilde{t}\Longrightarrow \left(1+\frac{\widetilde{t}-1}{y}\right)w\leq
n(n-1)-(\widetilde{t}-1)\left(y+\frac{1}{y}\right)+(\widetilde{t}-1)-(\widetilde{t}-1)^{2}$$$$\Longrightarrow w\leq (n(n-1)+\widetilde{t}-1)\frac{y}{y+\widetilde{t}-1}-(\widetilde{t}-1)y$$Combining $w\geq (n-\widetilde{t})y$ and the upper bound above gives$$(n-\widetilde{t})y\leq (n(n-1)+\widetilde{t}-1)\frac{y}{y+\widetilde{t}-1}-(\widetilde{t}-1)y\Longrightarrow y+\widetilde{t}-1\leq n+\frac{\widetilde{t}-1}{n-1}\leq n+1$$Next we combine the upper bound on $n(n-1)U_{N}(x)$ with that on $w$:$$n(n-1)U_{N}(x)\leq \widetilde{t}(1+(\widetilde{t}-1)y)+(\widetilde{t}+1)(n(n-1)+\widetilde{t}-1)\frac{y}{y+\widetilde{t}-1}-(\widetilde{t}+1)(\widetilde{t}-1)y$$$$=\widetilde{t}-(\widetilde{t}-1)y+(\widetilde{t}+1)(n(n-1)+\widetilde{t}-1)\frac{y}{y+\widetilde{t}-1}$$We now majorize the upper bound above in the two real variables $\widetilde{t},y$ such that $y+\widetilde{t}\leq n+2$. Observe first that this bound increases in $y$ because its derivative has the sign of $\frac{(\widetilde{t}+1)(n(n-1)+\widetilde{t}-1)}{(y+\widetilde{t}-1)^{2}}-1$ and $\frac{(\widetilde{t}+1)(n(n-1)+\widetilde{t}-1)}{(y+\widetilde{t}-1)^{2}}\geq \frac{3(n^{2}-n+1)}{(n+1)^{2}}$. Thus, we can take $y+\widetilde{t}=n$ and use the inequality $\frac{\widetilde{t}+1}{n+1}\leq 1$ to deduce the bound$$n(n-1)U_{N}(x)\leq \widetilde{t}+\frac{n(n-1)(\widetilde{t}+1)y}{n+1}+(\widetilde{t}-1)y\left(\frac{\widetilde{t}+1}{n+1}-1\right)\leq n+\frac{n(n-1)}{n+1}(\widetilde{t}+1)(n+2-\widetilde{t})$$The maximum in $\widetilde{t}$ of $(\widetilde{t}+1)(n+2-\widetilde{t})$ is $\frac{(n+3)^{2}}{4}$ for $\widetilde{t}=\frac{n+1}{2}$; therefore$$\Longrightarrow U_{N}(x)\leq \frac{1}{n-1}+\frac{(n+3)^{2}}{4(n+1)}=\frac{n}{4}+\frac{5}{4}-\frac{2}{n^{2}-1}$$completing the proof of statement $ii)$.
*Statement* $iii)$
*Step 1. lower bound on* $\inf_{\varphi \in \Phi
(FS)}PoF_{n}(\varphi )$. Consider the normalised problem $\mathcal{P}$ with two equally probable states $\omega ,\omega ^{\prime }$, and the corresponding profiles of disutilities$$x_{1}=\frac{4}{n+1}, \ \ x_{i}=2 \ \mbox{ for } \ 2\leq i\leq n\mbox{ ; } \ \ \ x_{1}^{\prime
}=2\frac{n-1}{n+1},\ \ x_{i}^{\prime }=0 \ \mbox{ for } \ 2\leq i\leq n.$$Without the FS constraint total disutility is minimized by giving to agent $1 $ the whole bad in state $\omega $, and no share at all in state $\omega
^{\prime }$, so that $\mathbb{E}_{\mu }(\min_{i}X_{i})=\frac{2}{n+1}$. The FS constraint caps the share of agent $1$ at $\frac{n+1}{2n}$ in state $\omega $ so at least $\frac{n-1}{2n}$ goes to the other agents and expected total disutility is at least $\frac{1}{n}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{n-1}{2n}2=\frac{n+1}{2n}$. Therefore, for any $\varphi \in \Phi (FS)$ we have$$\frac{\pi (\varphi ,\mathcal{P})}{\mathbb{E}_{\mu }(\min_{i}X_{i})}\geq \frac{(n+1)^{2}}{4n}=\frac{n}{4}+\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{4n}$$
*Step 2*. *upper bound on* $\inf_{\varphi \in \Phi
(FS)}PoF_{n}(\varphi )$. We omit for brevity the proof that the above lower bound is achieved by the rule in $\Phi(FS)$ with the smallest disutility at each $\mathcal{P}\in {\LARGE \Pi }_{n}$.[^15] In any event the upper bound on $PoF_{n}(\varphi ^{1})$ in statement $ii)$ applies to $\inf_{\varphi \in \Phi (FS)}PoF_{n}(\varphi )$ as well.
Asymptotic results and missing proofs for Section 8
===================================================
A good
------
**Proposition 6** *Fix a distribution* $\nu $* of* $X_{i}$* with* $E_{\nu }X_{1}=1$* and* $E_{\nu
}(X_{1})^{\beta }<\infty $* for some* $\beta >2$*. Consider a problem* $\mathcal{P}_{n}(\nu )$* with* $n$* agents and* $\mu =\otimes _{i=1}^{n}\nu $*. Then the utilitarian performance of the TH rule* $\varphi ^{\theta }$*,* $\theta \in (0,1]$*, satisfies* $$UP(\varphi ^{\theta },\mathcal{P}_{n}(\nu ))=\frac{1}{1-\mathbb{E}_{\nu }\left(
1+\theta -\frac{\theta }{X_{1}}\right) _{+}+\frac{\mathbb{E}_{\nu }\left(
X_{1}(1+\theta )-\theta \right) _{+}}{\mathbb{E}_{\mu }(X^{*n})}}\left(1
+O\left( \frac{1}{n^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{\beta }}}\right)\right),
\label{eq_asymp_good_iid}$$*for a large number of agents[^16]* $n$*. Here* $(y)_{+}$*denotes* $\max \{y,0\}$*.*
Note that the only dependence on $n$ in formula ([eq\_asymp\_good\_iid]{}) is through the expected value of $X^{*n}=\max_{i=1,..,n}X_i$ and the error-term.
### Proof of Proposition 6
To simplify heavy formulas, we assume that $\theta=1$ (proof for other values of $\theta$ follows the same logic).
By the definition of the TH rule $\varphi ^{1}$ we can represent the relative gain as $$\sum_{i}X_{i}\varphi _{i}^{1}(X)=\sum_{i=1}^{n}X_{i}\left( \frac{2}{n}-\frac{X_{N}-X_{i}}{n(n-1)X_{i}}\right) _{+}+X^{\ast n}\left(
1-\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left( \frac{2}{n}-\frac{X_{N}-X_{i}}{n(n-1)X_{i}}\right)
_{+}\right)$$$$=A+X^{\ast n}-B.$$Consider the contribution of $A$ first. Since all $X_{i}$ have the same distribution $\mathbb{E}_{\mu }A=\mathbb{E}_{\mu }\left( 2X_{1}-\frac{\sum_{j\neq 1}X_{j}}{n-1}\right) _{+}$. Let us show that $\Delta _{0}=\mathbb{E}_{\mu }(A)-\mathbb{E}_{\nu }\left( 2X_{1}-1\right) _{+}$ is small. The function $(\,\cdot \,)_{+}$ is Lipschitz with constant one; thus by the Cauchy inequality and independence of $X_{j}$ $$\left\vert \Delta _{0}\right\vert \leq \mathbb{E}_{\mu }\left(\left\vert 1-\frac{\sum_{j\neq 1}X_{j}}{n-1}\right\vert\right) =\frac{1}{n-1}\mathbb{E}_{\mu
}\left(\left\vert {\sum_{j\neq 1}(X_{j}-1)}\right\vert \right)$$$$\leq \frac{1}{n-1}\sqrt{\mathbb{E}_{\mu }\left( \sum_{j\neq
1}(X_{j}-1)\right) ^{2}}=\frac{\sqrt{\mathbb{V}_{\nu }(X_{1})}}{\sqrt{n-1}}=O\left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\right)$$if the variance $\mathbb{V}_{\nu }$ of $X_{1}$ is finite.
Now we will check that $\mathbb{E}_\mu (B)$ is close to $\mathbb{E}_\mu
(X^{*n})\cdot \mathbb{E}_\nu \left((2-1/X_1)_+\right)$ (as if $X^*$ is independent of $X_i$ and $\sum {X_j}$ approximately equals its expectation). This is done in two steps:
$\bullet$ *Step 1:* proving that $\mathbb{E}_{\mu }(B)$ does not change much if we put $(2-1/X_{1})_{+}$ instead of $(2-\sum_{j\neq 1}X_{j}/(n-1)X_{1})_{+}$.
$\bullet$ *Step 2:* showing that the random variables $X^{\ast n}$ and $(2-1/X_{1})_{+}$ can be decoupled; the expected value of the product is close to the product of expectations.
*Step 1. Proving that $\sum_{j\neq 1}X_{j}/(n-1)$ can be replaced by its expectation*:
Since $X_j$ are independent and identically distributed we have $$\mathbb{E}_\mu (B) = \mathbb{E}_\mu \left(X^{*n} \left(2-\frac{\sum_{j\ne 1}X_j}{
(n-1)X_1}\right)_+\right)= \mathbb{E} \left(X^{*n} \left(2-\frac{1}{X_1}\right)_+\right) +
\Delta_1,$$ where $$\Delta_1=\mathbb{E}_\mu \left(X^*(n )\left(\left(2-\frac{\sum_{j\ne 1}X_j}{(n-1)X_1}\right)_+ - \left(2-\frac{1}{X_1}\right)_+\right)\right)=\mathbb{E}_\mu \left(X^{*n}
h(X) \right)$$ Consider two cases depending on how far is the sum $\sum_{j\ne 1} X_j$ from its expected value. Let $Q$ be the event that $\left|\frac{\sum_j X_j}{n-1}-1 \right|>\frac{1}{2}$, $\overline{Q}$ its complement, and $1_Q$, $1_{\overline{Q}}$ their indicator functions. Then the probability $\mathbb{P}_\mu(Q)=\mathbb{E}(1_Q)$ is at most $\frac{8 \mathbb{V}_\nu (X_1)}{n-1}$ by Markov inequality. Let us represent $\Delta_1$ as $\mathbb{E}_\mu \left(X^{*n}h(X)1_Q\right)+\mathbb{E}_\mu
\left(X^{*n}h(X)1_{\overline{Q}}\right)$. For the first term, we use the estimate $h\leq 2$ and then apply the Cauchy inequality: $$\mathbb{E}_\mu \left(X^{*n}|h(X)|1_Q\right) \leq 2\mathbb{E}_\mu \left(X^{*n}1_Q\right)\leq \sqrt{\mathbb{E}_\mu \left(|X^{*n}|^{2}\right)}\sqrt{\mathbb{P}_\mu(Q)}.$$ To bound the second term, consider the following inequality for $y,z\leq 2$: $\big||y|_+ - |z|_+\big|\leq (1_{y\geq 0}+1_{z\geq 0})\cdot \big|y-z\big|. $ Applying it to $h$ we get: $$|h(x)|\leq \left(1_{\left\{\frac{1}{x_1}\leq \frac{2(n-1)}{\sum_{j\ne 1 }x_j}
\right\}} + 1_{\left\{\frac{1}{x_1}\leq 2\right\}} \right) \left|\frac{
\sum_{j\ne 1} x_j}{(n-1)x_1} - \frac{1}{x_1} \right|$$ For $x\in \overline{Q}$ the function $h$ is non-zero only if $\frac{1}{x_1}\leq
\frac{4}{3}$. Thus, for such $x$, we have $|h(x)|\leq \frac{8}{3}\left|\frac{\sum_{j\ne 1} (x_j-1)}{n-1} \right|. $ Finally we get $$\mathbb{E}_\mu \left( X^{*n}|h(X)|1_{\overline{Q}}\right)\leq \frac{8}{3(n-1)}\mathbb{E}_\mu
\left(X^{*n}\left|\sum_{j\ne 1} (X_j-1)\right|\right)\leq \frac{8}{3(n-1)} \sqrt{\mathbb{E }_\mu \left(|X^{*n}|^{2}\right)} \sqrt{ \mathbb{E} \left(\left(\sum_{j\ne 1} (X_j-1)\right)^2\right)
}$$ Combining all the estimates together, we see that $|\Delta_1|= O\left(\frac{\sqrt{\mathbb{E}_\mu \left(|X^{*n}|^2\right)} }{\sqrt{n}}\right). $ We will estimate $\mathbb{E}_\mu \left(|X^{*n}|^2\right)$ at the end of the proof.
*Step 2. Decoupling $X^{\ast n}$ and $(2-1/X_{1})_{+}$*:
Now we continue with $B$. We proved that $B$ is close to $\mathbb{E}_{\mu
}\left(X^{\ast n}(2-1/X_{1})_{+}\right)$. Now we want to decouple the two factors and show that $B$ is close to $\mathbb{E}_{\mu }\left(X^{\ast n}\right)\cdot \mathbb{E}_{\nu
}\left((2-1/X_{1})_{+}\right)$. Define $\Delta _{2}=\mathbb{E}_{\mu }(X^{\ast n})\cdot
\mathbb{E}_{\nu }\left(\left( 2-\frac{1}{X_{1}}\right) _{+}\right)-\mathbb{E}_{\mu
}\left(X^{\ast n}\left( 2-\frac{1}{X_{1}}\right) _{+}\right).$ The random variable $\xi
=\max_{i=2...n}X_{i}$ is independent from $\left( 2-\frac{1}{X_{1}}\right)
_{+}$. Therefore, $$\Delta _{2}=\mathbb{E}_{\mu }(X^{\ast n}-\xi )\cdot \mathbb{E}_{\nu }\left(
2-\frac{1}{X_{1}}\right) _{+}-\mathbb{E}_{\mu }\left((X^{\ast n}-\xi )\left( 2-\frac{1}{X_{1}}\right) _{+} \right)$$By the definition $X^{\ast n}$ is greater than $\xi $. Hence $|\Delta
_{2}|\leq 2\mathbb{E}_{\mu }(X^{\ast n}-\xi ).$ To estimate the difference of expectations define $X_{-j}^{\ast n}$ as $\max_{k=1,..n,\ j\neq i}X_{k}$. Then $\mathbb{E}(X^{\ast n}_{-j})=\mathbb{E}(\xi) $ for all $j$. If $X_{i}=X^{\ast n}$, then all $X_{-j}^{\ast n}$ except the one with $j=i$ coincide and are equal to $X^{\ast n}$. Thus, $n\mathbb{E}(\xi) =\mathbb{E}\left(\sum_{j=1..n}X_{-j}^{\ast n}\right)\geq (n-1)\mathbb{E}(X^{\ast n})$ and $\mathbb{E}(X^{\ast n})-\mathbb{E}(\xi) \leq \frac{\mathbb{E}(X^{\ast n})}{n}.$ Finally $|\Delta _{2}|=O\left( \frac{\mathbb{E}_{\mu
}(X^{\ast n})}{n}\right) . $
Let us estimate $\mathbb{E}_\mu \left(\left(X^{*n}\right)^\alpha\right)$. For $\alpha>0$, we have $\mathbb{E}_\mu \left(\left(X^{*n}\right)^\alpha\right)
=-\int_{0}^\infty t^\alpha d\,\mathbb{P}_\mu(\{X^{*n}\geq t\}) $ and integration by part gives $$\alpha \int_{0}^\infty t^{\alpha-1}\mathbb{P}_\mu(\{X^{*n}\geq t\}) dt
=\int_{0}^T+\int_{T}^\infty.$$
The first integral does not exceed $T^{\alpha }$. To estimate the second one we combine the union bound with Markov inequality: $\mathbb{P}_{\mu
}(\{X^{*n}\geq t\})\leq n\mathbb{P}_{\nu }(\{X_{1}\geq t\})\leq n\frac{\mathbb{E}_{\nu }((X_{1})^{\beta })}{t^{\beta }}.$ Therefore, $$\alpha \int_{T}^{\infty }t^{\alpha -1}\mathbb{P}_{\mu }(\{X^{*n}\geq t\})dt\leq \alpha n\mathbb{E}_{\nu }\left((X_{1})^{\beta }\right)\int_{T}^{\infty
}t^{\alpha -\beta -1}dt=\frac{\alpha }{\beta -\alpha }n\mathbb{E}_{\nu
}\left((X_{1})^{\beta }\right)\frac{1}{T^{\beta -\alpha }}$$for $\beta >\alpha $. Optimizing over $T$, we get $\mathbb{E}_{\mu }\left(\left(
X^{\ast n}\right)^{\alpha }\right)\leq \left( \frac{\beta }{\beta -\alpha }\right)
\left( n\mathbb{E}_{\nu }\left((X_{1})^{\beta }\right)\right) ^{\frac{\alpha }{\beta }}=O\left( n^{\frac{\alpha }{\beta }}\right) .$
It remains to put all pieces together: $$\Delta_0+\Delta_1+\Delta_2=O\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\right)+O\left(\frac{
\sqrt{E_\mu\left(|X^{*n}|^{2}\right)} }{\sqrt{n}}\right)+O\left(\frac{\mathbb{E}_\mu
(X^{*n})}{n}\right)=O\left(\frac{1}{n^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{\beta}}}\right)$$ for any $\beta>2$ such that $\mathbb{E}_\nu (X_1)^\beta<\infty$. This implies formula (\[eq\_asymp\_good\_iid\]) for $\theta=1$.
### Proof of Lemma 2
For unbounded distributions $\mathbb{E}\left(X^{\ast n}\right)$ tends to $+\infty$ and thus by Proposition 6 the utilitarian performance of $\varphi^1$ converges to $\left(1-\mathbb{E}_\nu \left(2-\frac{1}{X_1}\right)_+\right)^{-1} $. Thus, the lower bound immediately follows from the inequality $|x_1-1|\geq x_1- \left(2-\frac{1}{x_1}\right)_+$.
For the upper bound, we have $$\left(UP(\varphi^1, \mathcal{P}_\infty(\nu))\right)^{-1}\geq \mathbb{E}_\nu \left(X_1- \left(2-\frac{1}{X_1}\right)_+\right)\geq \mathbb{E}_\nu\left(\left(X_1- \left(2-\frac{1}{X_1}\right)_+\right) 1_{\{X_1\geq 1\}}\right)=$$ $$=\mathbb{E}_\nu\left(\left(X_1+\frac{1}{X_1}-2\right)1_{\{X_1\geq 1\}}\right)= \mathbb{E}_\nu\left(\left(\frac{(X_1-1)^2}{X_1}\right)1_{\{X_1\geq 1\}}\right)= \mathbb{E}_\nu
\left(g(X_1)1_{\{X_1\geq 1\}}\right),$$ where $1_A$ stands for the indicator of the event $A$. In order to relate the expected value of $g(X_1)$ to $D$, we apply the Cauchy inequality $$\frac{D}{2}=\mathbb{E}_\nu \left(|X_1-1|1_{\{X_1\geq 1\}}\right)=\mathbb{E}_\nu \left(\sqrt{g(X_1)}1_{\{X_1\geq 1\}} \cdot \frac{|X_1-1|1_{\{X_1\geq 1\}}}{\sqrt{g(X_1)}}
\right)\leq$$ $$\leq \sqrt{\mathbb{E}_\nu \left(g(X_1)1_{\{X_1\geq 1\}}\right)} \sqrt{\mathbb{E}_\nu\left(\frac{(X_1-1)^2}{g(X_1)}1_{\{X_1\geq 1\}}\right)}.$$ The second factor on the right-hand side can be estimated as follows: $$\mathbb{E}_\nu\left(\frac{(X_1-1)^2}{g(X_1)}1_{\{X_1\geq 1\}}\right)=\mathbb{E}_\nu \left(X_1
1_{\{X_1\geq 1\}}\right)=\mathbb{E}_\nu \left(|X_1-1| 1_{\{X_1\geq 1\}}\right)+ \mathbb{E}_\nu
\left(1_{\{X_1\geq 1\}}\right)\leq \frac{D}{2}+1,$$ which completes the proof.
Bads
----
### Not much weight around zero
**Proposition 7** *Consider a distribution* $\nu $* such that* $E_{\nu }(X_{1})=1$* and* $E_{\nu }\left(\frac{1}{X_{1}}\right)<\infty $*. Then the utilitarian performance of the BH rule can be represented as* $$UP(\varphi ^{1},\mathcal{P}_{n}(\nu ))=\frac{\mathbb{P}_{\nu }(\{X_{1}<T\})+\gamma \mathbb{P}_{\nu }(\{X_{1}=T\})}{\mathbb{E}_{\mu
}\left(\min_{i\in N}X_{i}\right)}(1+o(1)),\ \ n\rightarrow \infty , \label{eq_asymp_bad_iid}$$*where* $T>0$* and* $\gamma ,0\leq \gamma <1$* a*re* defined by the following condition[^17]* $$\mathbb{E}_{\nu }\left(\frac{1_{\{X_{1}<T\}}}{X_{1}}\right)+\gamma \mathbb{P}(\{X_{1}=T\})\frac{1}{T}=1.$$*For the proportional rule* $$UP(\varphi ^{pro},\mathcal{P}_{n}(\nu ))=\frac{1}{\mathbb{E}_{\mu }(\min_{i\in N}X_{i})
\cdot {\mathbb{E}_{\nu }\left(\frac{1}{X_{1}}\right)}}(1+o(1)). \label{eq_asymp_bad_prop}$$
As in the proof of Proposition 6, symmetry of the problem implies $\pi(\varphi^1,\mathcal{P}_n(\nu))=n\mathbb{E}_{\mu} \left(X_1\varphi^1_1(X)\right)$ and hence it is enough to estimate the contribution of one agent. We will calculate this expectation in two steps: assuming first that $X_1=z$ is fixed and averaging over $X_{j}$, $j\geq 2$, and then averaging over $z$.
Consider $\mathbb{E}_{\mu}\left(n X_1\varphi^1_1(X)\mid X_1=z\right)$. By the definition of the BH rule we get $$\label{eq_big}
n\cdot X_1\varphi_1(X)\big\vert_{X_1=z}=\frac{X_{N\setminus 1}}{(n-1)}\cdot
1_{Q}+ z\cdot \frac{1-\sum_{j: X_j< z}\frac{1}{n}\frac{X_{N\setminus j}}{
(n-1)X_j} }{|\{j\in N: \ X_j=z \}|/n}\cdot 1_{Q^{\prime }},$$ where $Q$ is the event that $\sum_{j: X_j\leq z}\frac{X_{N\setminus j}}{
n(n-1)X_j}\leq 1$ (in other words, $i$ belongs to the group of agents whose share is given by the first line of equation (\[18\])) and the event $Q^{\prime }$ tells us that the share of agent $1$ comes from the second line of (\[18\]), i.e, $\sum_{j:
X_j< z}\frac{X_{N\setminus j}}{n(n-1)X_j}< 1< \sum_{j: X_j\leq z}\frac{
X_{N\setminus j}}{n(n-1)X_j}$.
Let us apply the strong law of large numbers to (\[eq\_big\]). Hence, $\frac{
X_{N\setminus 1}}{n-1}$ converges to $1$ almost surely, and the sum $\sum_{j:
X_j\leq z}\frac{X_{N\setminus j}}{n(n-1)X_j}$ from the definition of $Q$ converges to $\mathbb{E}_\nu\left(\frac{1}{X_j}\cdot 1_{\{X_j\leq
z\}}\right) $. Therefore, the first summand of (\[eq\_big\]) tends to $1_{\{z<T\}}$, where $T $ is defined as $\inf \left\{T^{\prime }\,\big\vert\, \mathbb{E}_\nu\left(\frac{1_{\{X_j \leq T^{\prime }\}}}{X_j}\right)\geq 1 \right\}$. Thus, the asymptotic contribution of the first term to $\pi(\varphi^1,\mathcal{P})$ is $\mathbb{P}_\nu(\{X_1<T\})$.
A similar application of the law of large numbers allows one to compute the contribution of the second summand. We omit these computations.
### Singularity at zero
**Lemma 5:** * If a distribution $\nu$ has an atom at zero, then the BH and the Proportional rules collect the optimal relative gain in the limit:* $$UP(\varphi^{1},\mathcal{P}_{\infty}(\nu ))=UP(\varphi^{pro},\mathcal{P}_{\infty}(\nu ))=1.$$
*If there is no atom and $\nu$ has a continuous density $f$ on $(0,a]$, but this density is unbounded, $f(x)=\frac{\lambda}{x^\alpha}(1+o(1))$ as $x\to +0$ for some $\lambda>0$ and $\alpha\in (0,1)$, then* $$UP(\varphi^{1},\mathcal{P}_{\infty}(\nu ))=1; \ \ \mbox{ however, } \ \ UP(\varphi^{pro},\mathcal{P}_{n}(\nu )) =\Omega\left({n}\right).$$
In case of an atom, there is an agent $i$ having $X_i=0$ with high probability for large $n$. In such a situation, both rules $\varphi^1$ and $\varphi^{pro}$ coincide with the Utilitarian rule and therefore their performance is $1$.
The second statement is proved similarly to Lemma 4. For such $\nu$, the expected value of the order statistic $X^{*k}$ for small $k$ equals $\left(\frac{ 1-\alpha}{\lambda}\frac{k}{n}\right)^\frac{1}{1-\alpha}\cdot(1+o(1))$. Therefore, only the agent $i$ with $X_i=\min_{j}X_j$ receives a bad under the BH rule with high probability, which gives $UP(\varphi^{1},\mathcal{P}_{\infty}(\nu ))=1 $. We omit a similar argument for the Proportional rule.
[^1]: Comments by seminar participants at the University of Liverpool, Zurich Technical University, the University of Lancaster, the Weizmann Institute, [ Tel-Aviv University,]{} [the Hebrew University of Jerusalem]{}, and the Technion in Israel, the PSE and the MSE in Paris, University of Rochester, and HSE St. Petersburg are gratefully acknowledged. [ Remarks of William Thomson and Yossi Azar were especially helpful.]{} [The project benefited from numerical simulations by Yekaterina Rzhewskaya,]{} PhD student at the HSE St. Petersburg. We thank Lillian Bluestein for the help with proofreading. Support from the Basic Research Program of the National Research University Higher School of Economics is gratefully acknowledged. Sandomirskiy is partially supported by the Lady Davis Foundation, by Grant 19-01-00762 of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, and by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement n$\degree$740435).
[^2]: [ The term online originates in the computer science literature: online algorithms deal with sequences of requests that emerge dynamically and are not known in advance [BorodinYaniv2005]{}.]{}
[^3]: This mild and uncontroversial test of fairness goes back to the earliest modern discussion of fair division by Steinhaus ([@Steinhaus48]).
[^4]: [For other unexpected differences between the fair division of goods and that of bads (recall the uniqueness of the Bottom-Heavy rule and multiplicity of optimal Top Heavy rules), see [@BMSY2017] and [@BMSY2018].]{}
[^5]: Obtained by dividing any object only between the agents with the highest utility.
[^6]: A [history-dependent prior-independent rule may learn something of the underlying distribution from the past allocations. Optimal rules in this full-fledged online context appear to be quite complicated. ]{}
[^7]: If $X$ is observable while $X^{r}$ is not, then, for a prior-independent rule, we must additionally know $\mathbb{E}(X_{i}),i\in N$. In this case, by calling a rule prior-independent, we abuse terminology since we still need a collection of simple statistics of the prior.
[^8]: Say we divide a good and $\mu $ picks, for each $i\geq 2$, the vector $x^{i}=e^{1}+(n-1)e^{i}$ with probability $\frac{1}{n-1}$. Then the expected utility of agent $1$ is $\frac{1}{1+(n-1)^{q}}$, below $\frac{1}{n}$ for $n\geq 3$. The proof for a bad is similar.
[^9]: The vector with the same set of coordinates as $x$, rearranged in increasing order.
[^10]: This is clear if we compare the shares of two agents $i,k$ outside $\tau (x)$ ; if $i\notin \tau (x)$ and $k\in \tau (x)$ inequality $\varphi _{i}^{\theta
}(x)\leq \varphi _{k}^{\theta }(x)$ is $$|\tau (x)|\varphi _{i}^{\theta }(x)+\sum_{j\in N\diagdown \tau (x)}\varphi
_{j}^{\theta }(x)\leq 1$$which follows from $\varphi _{i}^{\theta }(x)=\max \{\frac{1}{n}+\delta
{\large (}1-\frac{Ex}{x_{i}}{\large ),0\}}$ and (\[13\]).
[^11]: [Usually the competitive ratio for online problems is defined as a worst-case ratio of the gain of an online rule to the gain of the best “offline” one, which has a full knowledge of the future.\
Our definition can also be interpreted in this fashion: knowing the future means knowing the empirical distribution of the future sequence of values, which in an IID environment with a large number of repetitions converges to the prior. Thus the best “offline” rule becomes just the best prior-dependent.]{}
[^12]: Recall that $a_{n}=\Omega(b_{n})$ if there exist $n_{0}$ and $C>0$ such that $|a_{n}|\geq C|b_{n}|$ for all $n\geq n_{0}$.
[^13]: The order statistic $X^{*k}$ has the same distribution as $F^{-1}(Y^{*k})$, where $F$ is the distribution function of $\nu $ and $Y_{i}$, $i\in N$, are independent random variables uniformly distributed on $[0,1]$. By symmetry, $\mathbb{E}(Y^{*k})=\frac{k}{n+1}$.
[^14]: Indeed, $\mathbb{E}_{\mu }(X_{1})\leq \mathbb{E}_{\mu }(\max_{i}X_{i})=\pi (\varphi^{ut},\mathcal{P})=\sum_{i}\mathbb{E}_{\mu }(\varphi^{ut}_{i}(X)\cdot
X_{i})=n\mathbb{E}_{\mu }(\varphi^{ut}_{1}(X)\cdot X_{1}).$
[^15]: It is actually the PoF for a general normalized bargaining set; see the discussion in [@Bertsimas2011], [@Bertsimas2012].
[^16]: $a_{n}=O(b_{n})$ if there exist $n_{0}$ and $C>0$ such that $ |a_{n}|\leq C|b_{n}|$ for all $n\geq n_{0}$.
[^17]: Formulas simplify for continuous distribution because $\mathbb{P}(X_{i}=T)=0$ for all $T$ and thus we can always pick $\gamma =0$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this work, we present a switched relaying framework for multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) relay systems where a source node may transmit directly to a destination node or aided by relays. We also investigate relay selection techniques for the proposed switched relaying framework, whose relays are equipped with buffers. In particular, we develop a novel relay selection protocol based on switching and the selection of the best link, denoted as Switched Max-Link. We then propose the Maximum Minimum Distance (MMD) relay selection criterion for MIMO systems, which is based on the optimal Maximum Likelihood (ML) principle and can provide significant performance gains over other criteria, along with algorithms that are incorporated into the proposed Switched Max-Link protocol. An analysis of the proposed Switched Max-Link protocol and the MMD relay selection criterion in terms of computational cost, pairwise error probability, sum-rate and average delay is carried out. Simulations show that Switched Max-Link using the MMD criterion outperforms previous works in terms of sum-rate, pairwise error probability, average delay and bit error rate.'
author:
- 'F. L. Duarte and R. C. de Lamare, [^1] [^2] [^3]'
title: 'Study of Switched Max-Link Relay Selection for Cooperative Multiple-Antenna Systems\'
---
Cooperative communications, Relay-selection, Max-Link, Maximum Likelihood criterion, MIMO
INTRODUCTION
============
wireless networks, signal fading caused by multipath propagation is a channel propagation phenomenon that can be mitigated through the use of cooperative diversity[@f1; @f2; @f3]. In cooperative communications with multiple relays, where a number of relays help a source to transmit data packets to a destination, by receiving, decoding and forwarding these packets, relay selection schemes are key because of their high performance [@f5; @f4; @f35]. As cooperative communication can improve the throughput and extend the coverage of wireless communications systems, the task of relay selection serves as a building block to realize it. In this context, relay schemes have been included in recent/future wireless standards such as Long Term Evolution (LTE) Advanced [@f6; @f13] and 5G standards [@f12].
Prior and Related Work
----------------------
In conventional relaying, using half duplex (HD) and decode-and-forward protocols, transmission is often organized in a prefixed schedule with two successive time slots. In the first time slot, the relay receives and decodes the data transmitted from the source, and in the second time slot the relay forwards the decoded data to the destination. Single relay selection schemes use the same relay for reception and transmission, and cannot simultaneously exploit the best available source-relay ($SR$) and relay-destination ($RD$) channels. The most common schemes are bottleneck based and maximum harmonic mean based best relay selection (BRS) [@f5].
The performance of relaying schemes can be improved if the link with the highest power is used in each time slot. This can be achieved via a buffer-aided relaying protocol, where the relay can accumulate packets in its buffer prior to transmission. The use of buffers provides an improved performance and extra degrees of freedom for system design [@f6; @f14]. However, it suffers from additional delay that must be well managed for delay-sensitive applications. Buffer-aided relaying protocols require not only the acquisition of channel state information (CSI), but control of the buffer status. Applications of buffer-aided relaying are: vehicular, cellular, and sensor networks [@f6].
In Max-Max Relay Selection (MMRS) [@f5], in the first time slot, the relay selected for reception can store the received packets in its buffer and forward them at a later time when selected for transmission. In the second time slot, the relay selected for transmission can transmit the first packet in the queue of its buffer, which was received from the source earlier. MMRS assumes infinite buffer sizes. However, considering finite buffer sizes, the buffer of a relay becomes empty if the channel conditions are such that it is selected repeatedly for transmission (and not for reception) or full if it is selected repeatedly for reception (and not for transmission). To overcome this limitation, in [@f5] a hybrid relay selection (HRS) scheme, which is a combination of BRS and MMRS, was proposed.
Although MMRS and HRS improve the throughput and/or SNR gain as compared to BRS, their diversity gain is limited to the number of relays $N$. This can be improved by combining adaptive link selection with MMRS, which results in the Max-Link [@f9] protocol. The main idea of Max-Link is to select in each time slot the strongest link among all the available $SR$ and $RD$ links (i.e., among $2N$ links) for transmission [@f7]. For independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) links and no delay constraints, Max-Link achieves a diversity gain of $2N$, which is twice the diversity gain of BRS and MMRS.
Max-Link has been extended in [@f11] to account for direct source-destination ($S D$) connectivity, which provides resiliency in low transmit SNR conditions [@f7]. In [@f19; @f20; @f21; @f22; @f23; @f24; @f25], buffer-aided relay selection protocols were shown to improve the Max-Link performance by reducing the average packet delay, ensuring a good diversity gain, and/or achieving full diversity gain with a smaller buffer size as compared to Max-Link. In [@f19], the outage performance and the average packet delay of a relay system that exploits buffer-aided max-link relay selection are analyzed. In [@f20], a study of the average packet delay of a buffer-aided scheme that selects a relay node based on both the channel quality and the buffer state of the relay nodes was performed. In [@f21], the relay associated with the largest weight is selected among the qualified source-relay and relay-destination links, where each link is assigned with a weight related to the buffer status. In [@f22], motivated by the Max-Link and the Max-Max protocols, a hybrid buffer-aided cooperative protocol that attains the benefits of reliability and reduced packet delay is reported. In [@f23], a delay and diversity-aware buffer-aided relay selection policy that reduces the average delay and obtains a good diversity gain is proposed. In [@f24], a relay selection scheme that seeks to maintain the states of the buffers by balancing the arrival and departure rates at each relay’s buffer has been reported. In [@f25], the best relay node is selected as the link with the highest channel gain among the links within a priority class. In summary, the previous schemes (MMRS, HRS and Max-Link) only use buffer-aided relay selection for cooperative single-antenna systems.
More recently, buffer-aided relay selection protocols for cooperative multiple-antenna systems have been studied. In [@456], a virtual full-duplex (FD) buffer-aided relaying to recover the loss of multiplexing gain caused by HD relaying in a multiple relay network through joint opportunistic relay selection (RS) and beamforming (BF), is presented. Moreover, in [@654], a cooperative network with a buffer-aided multi-antenna source, multiple HD buffer-aided relays and a single destination is presented to recover the multiplexing loss of the network.
Contributions
-------------
In this work, we develop a switched relaying framework extended for MIMO relay systems that considers direct or cooperative transmissions with Maximum Likelihood (ML) detection and a Switched Max-Link protocol for cooperative MIMO systems, with non reciprocal channels, which selects the best links among $N$ relay nodes and whose preliminary results were reported in [@f27] and then further detailed in [@smax_link]. We then consider the novel MMD relay selection criterion [@f27], which is based on the optimal ML principle and the Pairwise Error Probability (PEP) [@f27; @f78; @f87], and the existing Quadratic Norm (QN) criterion and devise relay selection algorithms for Switched Max-Link. An analysis of the proposed scheme in terms of PEP, sum-rate, average delay and computational cost is also carried out. Simulations illustrate the excellent performance of the proposed framework, the proposed Switched Max-Link protocol and the MMD-based relay selection algorithm as compared to previously reported approaches. The main contributions of this work can be summarized as:
1. A switched relaying framework extended for MIMO relay systems that considers direct or cooperative transmissions with ML detection;
2. The Switched Max-Link protocol for cooperative MIMO relay systems;
3. The MMD criterion for MIMO relay systems, along with a relay selection algorithm;
4. An analysis of the proposed Switched Max-Link scheme with the MMD relay selection criterion in terms of PEP, sum-rate, average delay and computational cost.
Table \[table1\] shows the description of the main symbols adopted in this work.
Symbols Description
------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------- --
$D$ Destination node
$\mathcal{D}$ MMD metric
$\mathcal{D}_{\min}$ Minimum distance
$\mathcal{D}'_{\min}$ Minimum value of the PEP argument
$d_c$ Distances between the constellation symbols
$E[d_n]^{MMD}$ Average delay of the MMD-Max-Link protocol
$E[d_n]^{SML}$ Average delay of the Switched Max-Link protocol
$E[L_n]$ Average queue length
$E_S$ Energy transmitted from $S$
$E_{R_j}$ Energy transmitted from $R_j$
$E[T_n]$ Average throughput of a relay
$\mathbf{H}_{S,D}$ Matrix of $SD$ links
$\mathbf{H}_{S,R_k}$ Matrix of $SR_k$ links
$\mathbf{H}^u_{S,R_k}$ Submatrix of $SR_k$ links
$\mathbf{H}_{R_j,D}$ Matrix of $R_jD$ links
$\mathbf{H}^u_{R_j,D}$ Submatrix of $R_jD$ links
$J$ Size of the buffer (in packets)
$L$ Queue length
$M_S$ Number of antennas at $S$ and $D$
$M_R$ Number of antennas at the relays
$N$ Number or relays
$N_s$ Number of constellation symbols
$N_0$ Power spectral density of the AWGN
$\mathbf{n}_{D}$ AWGN at $D$
$\mathbf{n}_{R_k}$ AWGN at $R_k$
$P_{ML}^{\mathcal{S}}$ Probability of operating in the Max-Link mode
$\mathcal{Q}$ QN metric
$\mathbf{Q}_{S,D}$ Covariance matrix of the transmitted symbols (for $SD$)
$\mathbf{Q}_{S,R_k}$ Covariance matrix of the transmitted symbols (for $SR_k$)
$\mathbf{Q}_{R_j,D}$ Covariance matrix of the transmitted symbols (for $R_jD$)
$R_k$ Relay selected for reception
$R_j$ Relay selected for transmission
$\mathcal{R}$ Sum-Rate
$S$ Source node
$\mathcal{S}$ Switch of the Switched Max-Link protocol
$U$ Number of sets of $M_S$ antennas at the relays
$\mathbf{x}$ Vector of transmitted symbols
$\mathbf{\hat{x}}$ Estimate of the vector of transmitted symbols
$\mathcal{X}$ Number of calculations of the MMD metric
$\mathbf{y}_{S,D}$ Received vector of symbols (for $SD$ links)
$\mathbf{y}_{S,R_k}$ Received vector of symbols (for $SR_k$ links)
$\mathbf{y}_{R_j,D}$ Received vector of symbols (for $R_jD$ links)
$\rho$ Average data rate
: Description of the symbols[]{data-label="table1"}
This paper is structured as follows. Section II describes the system model and the main assumptions made. Section III details the proposed Switched Max-Link protocol with the MMD relay selection criterion whereas Section IV analyzes it. Section V illustrates and discusses the numerical results whereas Section VI gives the concluding remarks.
System Description
==================
We consider a multiple-antenna relay network with one source node, $S$, one destination node, $D$, and $N$ half-duplex decode-and-forward (DF) relays, $R_1$,...,$R_N$. The $S$ and $D$ nodes have $M_S$ antennas for transmission and reception, respectively, and each relay $M_R=U M_S$ antennas, where $U\in \{1,2,3\dots\}$. All the $M_R$ antennas are used for reception ($M_{R_{rx}}=M_R$) and a set of $M_S$ antennas is selected among $M_R$ to be used for transmission ($M_{R_{tx}}=M_S$). Thus, this configuration forms a spatial multiplexing network, in which the channel matrices are square or formed by multiple square submatrices. Each relay is equipped with a buffer, whose size is $J$ packets and the transmission is organized in time slots [@f5]. This configuration is considered for simplicity. The considered system is shown in Fig. \[fig:model\].
![System Model[]{data-label="fig:model"}](Figure_1.eps)
Assumptions
-----------
In cooperative transmissions two time slots are needed to transmit data packets from $S$ to $D$, so the energy transmitted in direct transmissions (from $S$ to $D$) is twice the energy $E_S$ transmitted in cooperative transmissions, from $S$ to the relay selected for reception $R_k$ or from the relay selected for transmission $R_j$ to $D$ ($E_{R_j}$), $E_{R_j}=E_S=E$. For this reason, the energy transmitted from each antenna in cooperative transmissions equals $E/M_S$ and the energy transmitted from each antenna in direct transmissions equals $2 E/M_S$. We consider that the channel coefficients are modeled by mutually independent zero mean complex Gaussian random variables. Moreover, we assume that the transmission is organized in data packets and the channels are constant for the duration of one time slot and vary independently from one time slot to the next. The information about the order of the data packets is contained in the preamble of each packet, so the original order is restored at $D$. Other information such as signaling for CSI estimation are also inserted in the preamble of the packet. We consider perfect and imperfect CSI. A distributed implementation can reduce signaling overheads and reduce the impact of outdated CSI. Furthermore, we assume that the relays do not communicate with each other. We also assume that $D$ is the central node, being responsible for deciding whether $S$ or a relay should transmit in a given time slot $i$. The central node has access to the channel and the buffer state information, so it may run the algorithm in each time slot and select the relay for transmission or reception through a feedback channel. This assumption can be ensured by an appropriate signalling that provides global CSI at $D$ [@f9]. Furthermore, we assume that $S$ has no CSI and each relay has only information about its $SR$ channels and buffer status.
System Model
------------
The proposed system can operate in each time slot in two modes: “Direct Transmission” (DT) or “Max-Link”. Thus, depending on the relay selection metrics (explained in Section III), the system may operate in each time slot with three options:
a\) DT mode: $S$ transmits $M_S$ packets directly to $D$;
b\) Max-Link-$SR$ mode: $S$ transmits $M_S$ packets to $R_k$;
c\) Max-Link-$RD$ mode: $R_j$ transmits $M_S$ packets to $D$.\
If the relay selection algorithm decides to operate in the DT mode, the received signal from the $S$ to $D$ is organized in an $M_S \times 1$ vector $\mathbf{y}_{S,D}[i]$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{y}_{S,D}[i]= \sqrt{\frac{2 E}{M_S}} \mathbf{H}_{S,D}\mathbf{x}[i]+\mathbf{n}_D[i],
\label{eq:1}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{x}[i]$ represents the vector formed by $M_S$ symbols sent by $S$, $\mathbf{H}_{S,D}$ represents the $M_S \times M_S$ matrix of $SD$ links and $\mathbf{n}_D$ denotes the zero mean additive white complex Gaussian noise (AWGN) at $D$. Assuming synchronization and perfect CSI, at $D$ we employ the ML receiver which yields $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mathbf{x}}[i]= \arg \min_{\mathbf{x'}[i]} \left({\left\lVert\mathbf{y}_{S,D}[i]- \sqrt{\frac{2 E}{M_S}} \mathbf{H}_{S,D}\mathbf{x'}[i]\right\rVert}^2\right),
\label{eq:5}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{x'}[i]$ represents each possible vector formed by $M_S$ symbols. Thus, the ML receiver computes the vector of transmitted symbols which is the optimal solution. As an example, if we have BPSK (number of constellation symbols $N_s= 2$), unit power symbols and $M_S = 2$, the estimated vector of transmitted symbols $
\hat{\mathbf{x}}[i]$ may be $[-1~-1]^T$, $[-1~+1]^T$, $[+1~-1]^T$ or $[+1~+1]^T$. Other suboptimal detection techniques could be considered in future work [@mmimo; @wence; @deLamare2003; @itic; @deLamare2008; @cai2009; @jiomimo; @Li2011; @dfcc; @deLamare2013; @did; @rrmser; @bfidd; @1bitidd; @aaidd].
Otherwise, if the relay selection algorithm decides to operate in the Max-Link-$SR$ mode, the received signal from $S$ to $R_k$ is organized in an $UM_S \times 1$ vector $\mathbf{y}_{S,R_k }[i]$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{y}_{S,R_k}[i]=\sqrt{\frac{E}{M_S}} \mathbf{H}_{S,R_k}\mathbf{x}[i]+\mathbf{n}_{R_k}[i],
\label{eq:2}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{H}_{S,R_k}$ represents the $UM_S \times M_S$ matrix of $S R_k$ links and $\mathbf{ n}_{R_k}$ represents the AWGN at $R_k$. Note that $\mathbf{H}_{S,R_k}$ is formed by $U$ square submatrices of dimensions $M_S \times M_S$ as given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{H}_{S,R_k}= [\mathbf{H}^1_{S,R_k}; \mathbf{H}^2_{S,R_k}; \dots ; \mathbf{H}^U_{S,R_k}].
\end{aligned}$$
Assuming synchronization and perfect CSI, at $R_k$ we employ the ML receiver [@f4]: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mathbf{x}}[i]= \arg \min_{\mathbf{x'}[i]} \left({\left\lVert\mathbf{y}_{S,R_k}[i]- \sqrt{\frac{E}{M_S}} \mathbf{H}_{S,R_k}\mathbf{x'}[i]\right\rVert}^2\right).
\label{eq:4}
\end{aligned}$$
Moreover, if the relay selection algorithm decides to operate in the Max-Link-$RD$ mode, the signal transmitted from $R_j$ to $D$ is structured in an $M_S \times 1$ vector $\mathbf{y}_{R_j,D }[i]$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{y}_{R_j,D}[i]=\sqrt{\frac{E}{M_S}} \mathbf{H}^u_{R_j,D}\hat{\mathbf{x}}[i]+\mathbf{n}_D[i],
\label{eq:3}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{\mathbf{x}}[i]$ is the vector formed by $M_S$ previously decoded symbols in the relay selected for reception and stored in its buffer and now transmitted by $R_j$ and $\mathbf{H}^u_{R_j,D}$ is an $M_S \times M_S$ matrix of $R_jD$ links. Alternatively, a designer can consider precoding techniques [@lclattice; @switch_int; @switch_mc; @gbd; @wlbd; @mbthp; @rmbthp; @bbprec; @baplnc] to help mitigate interference rather than open loop transmission. Note that $\mathbf{H}^u_{R_j,D}$ is selected among $U$ submatrices of dimension $M_S \times M_S$ contained in $\mathbf{H}_{R_j,D}$ as given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{H}_{R_j,D}= [\mathbf{H}^1_{R_j,D}; \mathbf{H}^2_{R_j,D}; \dots ; \mathbf{H}^U_{R_j,D}].
\end{aligned}$$
At $D$, we also resort to the ML receiver which computes $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mathbf{x}}[i]= \arg \min_{\mathbf{x'}[i]} \left({\left\lVert\mathbf{y}_{R_j,D}[i]- \sqrt{ \frac{E}{M_S}} \mathbf{H}^u_{R_j,D}\mathbf{x'}[i]\right\rVert}^2\right).
\label{eq:6}
\end{aligned}$$ Considering imperfect CSI, the estimated channel matrix $\mathbf{\hat{H}}$ is assumed, instead of $\mathbf{H}$ in (\[eq:5\]), (\[eq:4\]) and (\[eq:6\]): a channel error matrix $\mathbf{H}_e$ is added to the channel matrix ($\mathbf{H}_{S,R_k}$, $\mathbf{H}_{R_j,D}$ or $\mathbf{H}_{S,D}$) and we focus on the case where errors decay as $O (SNR^{-\alpha})$ for some constant $\alpha\in [0,1]$ [@f16]. Thus, the variance of the $\mathbf{H}_e$ coefficients is given by $\sigma_e^2=\beta
E^{-\alpha}$ ($\beta \geq 0$), in the case of $\mathbf{H}_{S,R_k}$ or $\mathbf{H}_{R_j,D}$, and $\sigma_e^2=\beta (2 E)^{-\alpha}$, in the case of $\mathbf{H}_{S,D}$. As an example, in the case of $\mathbf{H}_{S,R_k}$, the estimated channel matrix is given by $\mathbf{\hat{H}}_{S,R_k} = \mathbf{H}_{S,R_k} + \mathbf{H}_e$. Channel and parameter estimation [@smce; @TongW; @jpais_iet; @armo; @badstc; @baplnc; @goldstein; @qian; @jio; @jidf; @jiols; @jiomimo] techniques could be considered in future work in order to develop algorithms for this particular setting.
Principles of Switched Max-Link Relay Selection Based on MMD
============================================================
In this section, we detail the proposed Switched Max-Link relay selection protocol.
Principles of Switched Max-Link Relay Selection
-----------------------------------------------
The system presented in Fig. \[fig:model\] is equipped with the proposed Switched Max-Link relay selection protocol, that in each time slot may operate in two possible modes (“DT” or “Max-Link”), with three options:
a\) work in DT mode: $S$ sends $M_S$ packets directly to $D$;
b\) work in Max-Link-$SR$ mode: $S$ sends $M_S$ packets to $R_k$ and these packets are stored in its buffer;
c\) work in Max-Link-$RD$ mode: $R_j$ forwards $M_S$ packets from its buffer to $D$.
The proposed Switched Max-Link protocol uses the MMD relay selection criterion. As the scheme proposed in [@f10], the proposed MMD relay selection criterion is based on the ML principle. However, the metrics calculated by MMD are different from those of the scheme in [@f10], which leads to considerably better performance. MMD is also based on the worst case of the PEP and chooses the relay associated with the largest minimum Euclidian distance. So, it requires the distance between the $N_s^{M_S}$ possible vectors of transmitted symbols. The MMD-based relay selection algorithm, in the Max-Link-$SR$ mode, chooses the relay $R_k$ and the associated channel matrix $\mathbf{H}_{S,R_k}^{MMD}$ with the largest minimum distance as given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{H}_{S,R_k}^{MMD}=\arg \max_{\mathbf{H}_{S,R_i}} \mathcal{D}_{\min SR_i},
\label{eq:78}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{D}_{\min SR_i}=\min \left(\frac{E}{M_S}{\left\lVert\mathbf{H}_{S,R_i}^u(\mathbf{x}_l -
\mathbf{x}_n)\right\rVert}^2\right)$, $u \in \{1, \dots U\}$, $i \in \{1, \dots N\}$, $\mathbf{x}_l$ and $\mathbf{x}_n$ represent each possible vector formed by $M_S$ symbols and $l$ $\neq$ $n$. The metric $\frac{E}{M_S}{\left\lVert\mathbf{H}_{S,R_i}^u(\mathbf{x}_l -
\mathbf{x}_n)\right\rVert}^2$ is calculated for each of the $C_2^{N_s^{M_S}}$ (combination of $N_s^{M_S}$ in $2$) possibilities, for each submatrix $\mathbf{H}_{S,R_i}^u$, and $\mathcal{D}_{\min SR_i}$ is the smallest of these values, for each $R_i$. Thus, the selected matrix $\mathbf{H}_{S,R_k}^{MMD}$ has the largest $\mathcal{D}_{\min SR_i}$ value.
Moreover, the MMD-based relay selection algorithm, in the Max-Link-$RD$ mode, chooses the relay $R_j$ and the associated channel matrix $\mathbf{H}_{R_j,D}^{MMD}$ with the largest minimum distance as given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{H}_{R_j,D}^{MMD}=\arg \max_{\mathbf{H}_{R_i,D}} \mathcal{D}_{\min R_iD},
\label{eq:788}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{D}_{\min R_iD} = \max{(\mathcal{D}^u_{\min R_iD})}$ and $\mathcal{D}^u_{\min R_iD}= \min \left(\frac{E}{M_S}{\left\lVert\mathbf{H}^u_{R_i,D}(\mathbf{x}_l -
\mathbf{x}_n)\right\rVert}^2\right)$. Note that the submatrix $\mathbf{H}^u_{R_j,D}$ associated with the largest $\mathcal{D}^u_{\min R_iD}$ value is selected among $U$ submatrices of dimension $M_S \times M_S$ contained in $\mathbf{H}_{R_j,D}^{MMD}$. Table \[table3\] shows the Switched Max-Link pseudo-code and the following subsections explain how this protocol works.
[l]{}
\
1: Calculate the metrics $\mathcal{D}^u_{SR_i}$, of each submatrix $\mathbf{H}^u_{S,R_i}$ of $R_i$\
$\mathcal{D}^u_{SR_i}= {\left\lVert\sqrt{ E/M_S} \mathbf{H}^u_{S,R_i}\mathbf{x}_l - \sqrt{ E/M_S} \mathbf{H}^u_{S,R_i}\mathbf{x}_n\right\rVert}^2$ ;\
$ i=1,...,N$\
$ u =1,...,U$\
$ l= 1,...,N_s^{M_S} - 1$\
$ n = l+1,...,N_s^{M_S}$\
2: Find the minimum distance - $\mathcal{D}^u_{\min SR_i}$\
$ \mathcal{D}^u_{\min SR_i} = \min{(\mathcal{D}^u_{SR_i})};$\
\
3: Calculate the metrics $\mathcal{D}^u_{R_iD}$, of each submatrix $\mathbf{H}^u_{R_i,D}$ of $R_i$\
$\mathcal{D}^u_{R_iD}= {\left\lVert\sqrt{ E/M_S} \mathbf{H}^u_{R_i,D}\mathbf{x}_l - \sqrt{ E/M_S} \mathbf{H}^u_{R_i,D}\mathbf{x}_n\right\rVert}^2$ ;\
\
4: Find the minimum distance - $\mathcal{D}^u_{\min R_iD}$\
$ \mathcal{D}^u_{\min R_iD} = \min{(\mathcal{D}^u_{R_iD})};$\
\
5: Find the largest minimum distance - $\mathcal{D}_{\min R_iD}$\
$ \mathcal{D}_{\min R_iD} = \max{(\mathcal{D}^u_{\min R_iD})};$\
\
6: Compute the expected values and $\mathcal{D}_{\min SR_i}$\
$\mathcal{D}_{\min SR_i}= \frac{\mbox{E} [\mathcal{D}_{\min R_iD}]}{\mbox{E} [\mathcal{D}^u_{\min SR_i}]}\mathcal{D}^u_{\min SR_i};$\
\
7: Perform ordering on $\mathcal{D}_{\min SR_i}$ and $\mathcal{D}_{\min R_iD}$\
\
8: Find the maximum minimum distance\
$\mathcal{D} _{\max \min SR-RD}= \max{(\mathcal{D}_{\min SR_i},\mathcal{D}_{\min R_iD})}$;\
\
9: Calculate the metrics $\mathcal{D}_{SD}$\
$\mathcal{D}_{SD}= {\left\lVert\sqrt{2 E/M_S} \mathbf{H}_{S,D}\mathbf{x}_l - \sqrt{ 2 E/M_S} \mathbf{H}_{S,D}\mathbf{x}_n\right\rVert}^2;$\
\
10: Find the minimum distance - $\mathcal{D}_{\min SD}$\
$ \mathcal{D}_{\min SD} = \min{(\mathcal{D}_{SD})};$\
\
11: Select the transmission mode\
$\mathcal{D} _{\max \min}=\mathcal{D} _{\max \min SR-RD};$\
$G=\frac{\mathcal{D}_{\max\min}}{\mathcal{D}_{\min SD}}$;\
\
$\mbox{Mode}=
\begin{cases}
\mbox{Max-Link-}\textit{SR},& \mbox{if}\left(\mathcal{D} _{\max \min}= \max{(\mathcal{D}_{\min SR_i})}\right)\& \left(G> \mathcal{S}\right), ^\dagger\\
\mbox{Max-Link-}\textit{RD},&\mbox{if}\left(\mathcal{D} _{\max \min}= \max{(\mathcal{D}_{\min R_i D})}\right)\& \left( G> 1\right),\\
\mbox{DT},&\mbox{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
$\
\
$^\dagger$ Note that $\mathcal{S} \in \{0,1,2,...\}$ is a parameter that works as a\
switch. When $\mathcal{S}=0$ the scheme operates only in the Max-Link-\
($SR$ or $RD$) mode (MMD-Max-Link protocol). Moreover, when\
$\mathcal{S}>0$ the scheme operates in the Max-Link-($SR$ or $RD$)\
or DT mode (Switched-Max-Link protocol).\
\
Calculation of relay selection metric
-------------------------------------
In the first step we calculate the metrics $\mathcal{D}^u_{SR_i}$ related to the $SR$ channels of each submatrix $\mathbf{H}^u_{S,R_i}$ of each relay $R_i$, in Max-Link mode: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{D}^u_{SR_i}= {\left\lVert\sqrt{ \frac{E}{M_S}} \mathbf{H}^u_{S,R_i}\mathbf{x}_l - \sqrt{ \frac{E}{M_S}} \mathbf{H}^u_{S,R_i}\mathbf{x}_n\right\rVert}^2,
\label{eq:7}\end{aligned}$$ where $u \in \{1, \dots U\}$, $i \in \{1, \dots N\}$, $\mathbf{x}_l$ and $\mathbf{x}_n$ represent each possible vector formed by $M_S$ symbols and $l$ $\neq$ $n$. This metric is calculated for each of the $C_2^{N_s^{M_S}}$ (combination of $N_s^{M_S}$ in $2$) possibilities. As an example, if $M_S = 2$ and $N_s=2$, we have $C_2^4= 6$ possibilities. Then, we store the smallest metric ($\mathcal{D}^u_{\min SR_i}$), for being critical (a bottleneck) in terms of performance, and thus each relay will have a minimum distance associated with its $SR$ channels. In the second step we calculate the metrics $\mathcal{D}^u_{R_iD}$ related to the $RD$ channels of each submatrix $\mathbf{H}^u_{R_i,D}$ of each relay $R_i$: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{D}^u_{R_iD}= {\left\lVert\sqrt{ \frac{E}{M_S}} \mathbf{H}^u_{R_i,D}\mathbf{x}_l - \sqrt{\frac{ E}{M_S}} \mathbf{H}^u_{R_i,D}\mathbf{x}_n\right\rVert}^2,
\label{eq:8}\end{aligned}$$ where $l$ $\neq$ $n$. This metric is also calculated for each of the $C_2^{N_s^{M_S}}$ possibilities. Then, we store the minimum distance ($\mathcal{D}^u_{\min R_iD}$), and thus each submatrix $\mathbf{H}^u_{R_i,D}$ will have a minimum distance associated with its $RD$ channels. In the third step, we find the largest minimum distance $\mathcal{D}_{\min R_iD}$, and thus each relay will have its best channel submatrix $\mathbf{H}^u_{R_i,D}$ which is associated with this distance:\
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{D}_{\min R_iD} = \max{(\mathcal{D}^u_{\min R_iD})}.\end{aligned}$$
In the fourth step, after calculating the metrics $\mathcal{D}^u_{\min
SR_i}$ and $\mathcal{D}_{ \min R_iD}$ for each of the relays, as described previously, we compute the expected values of $\mathcal{D}^u_{\min SR_i}$ and $\mathcal{D}_{\min R_iD}$ and adjust the $\mathcal{D}^u_{\min SR_i}$ values to balance the number of time slots selected for Max-Link-$SR$ and Max-Link-$RD$ modes: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{D}_{\min SR_i}= \frac{\mbox{E}[\mathcal{D}_{\min R_iD}]}{\mbox{E} [\mathcal{D}^u_{\min SR_i}]}\mathcal{D}^u_{\min SR_i}.\end{aligned}$$
Then, we perform ordering and select the largest value of these distances: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{D} _{\max \min SR-RD}= \max(\mathcal{D}_{\min SR_i}, \mathcal{D}_{\min R_iD}).
\label{eq:9}
\end{aligned}$$
Therefore, we select the relay that is associated with $\mathcal{D} _{\max\min
SR-RD}$, considering its buffer status. This relay will be selected for reception (if its buffer is not full) or transmission (if its buffer is not empty), depending on this metric is associated with the $SR$ or $RD$ channels, respectively. Otherwise, the algorithm checks if the next maximum minimum distance and the associated relay meet the necessary requirements related to the buffer status.
Calculation of the metric for direct transmission
-------------------------------------------------
In this step we calculate the metric $\mathcal{D}_{SD}$ related to the $SD$ channels for the DT mode: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{D}_{SD}= {\left\lVert\sqrt{\frac{2 E}{M_S}} \mathbf{H}_{S,D}\mathbf{x}_l - \sqrt{\frac{2 E}{M_S}} \mathbf{H}_{S,D}\mathbf{x}_n\right\rVert}^2,
\label{eq:10}\end{aligned}$$ where $l$ $\neq$ $n$. This metric is calculated for each of the $C_2^{N_s^{M_S}}$ possibilities. Then, we store the minimum distance ($\mathcal{D}_{\min SD}$). Considering imperfect CSI, the estimated channel matrix $\mathbf{\hat{H}}$ is assumed, instead of $\mathbf{H}$ in (\[eq:7\]), (\[eq:8\]) and (\[eq:10\]). After finding $\mathcal{D}_{\max \min SR-RD}$ and $\mathcal{D}_{\min
SD}$, we compare these parameters and select the transmission mode that is equal to\
\
$
\begin{cases}
\mbox{Max-Link-}\textit{SR},& \mbox{if}\left(\mathcal{D} _{\max \min}= \max{(\mathcal{D}_{\min SR_i})}\right)\& \left(G> \mathcal{S}\right),\\
\mbox{Max-Link-}\textit{RD},&\mbox{if}\left(\mathcal{D} _{\max \min}= \max{(\mathcal{D}_{\min R_i D})}\right)\& \left( G> 1\right),\\
\mbox{DT},&\mbox{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
$ where $\mathcal{D} _{\max \min}=\mathcal{D} _{\max \min SR-RD}$, $G=\frac{\mathcal{D}_{\max\min}}{\mathcal{D}_{\min SD}}$, and $\mathcal{S} \in \{0,1,2,\dots\}$ is a parameter that works as a switch. In [@f27], assuming symmetric channels and applications without critical delay constraints, the switch $\mathcal{S}$ is equal to one. If we consider asymmetric channels and the need for a short average delay, we select an $\mathcal{S}$ that takes for granted that the protocol achieves a good BER and average delay performance. If $\mathcal{S}$ is equal to zero, the protocol is selected to operate only in the Max-Link mode and we do not have the possibility of a direct $SD$ connectivity and, consequently, we have another scheme called “MMD-Max-Link”. Otherwise, when we increase $\mathcal{S}$, the number of time slots in which the protocol is selected to operate in the DT mode increases.
Analysis of MMD: Impact on Relay Selection, PEP, Complexity, Sum-rate and Average Delay
=======================================================================================
In this section, we first analyze the proposed MMD and the existing QN relay selection criteria. We compare the PEP and the computational complexity of the MMD criterion versus the QN criterion. We then derive expressions to compute the sum-rate and the average delay of the Swiched Max-Link protocol.
Impact of the MMD and QN criteria on relay selection
----------------------------------------------------
The metrics $\mathcal{D}$ ($\mathcal{D}^u_{SR_i}$, $\mathcal{D}^u_{R_iD}$ and $\mathcal{D}_{SD}$) are calculated in (\[eq:7\]), (\[eq:8\]) and (\[eq:10\]), for each of the $C_2^{N_s^M}$ possibilities. However, in the following, we will show that it is not necessary to calculate all these possibilities. The total number of calculations of the metric $\mathcal{D}$, needed by the MMD criterion, depends on the number $M_S$ of antennas at $S$ and $D$ and the number $M_R$ of antennas at each relay. Furthermore, it depends on the constellation (BPSK, QPSK, 16-QAM...), specifically on the number of different distances between the constellation symbols. For the MMD criterion to compute the metric $\mathcal{D}$, it is necessary to consider the absolute value of the distances between the constellation symbols ($d_{c}$). If we have BPSK and unit power symbols, $d_{c}=2$. Otherwise, if we have QPSK, there are $W=3$ different values for $d_{c}$: $d_{c_1}=\sqrt{2}$, $d_{c_2}=\sqrt{2}j$ and $d_{c_3}=\sqrt{2}+\sqrt{2}j$.
We may consider that the $M_S \times M_S$ channel matrix $ \mathbf{H}^u$ represents $\mathbf{H}^u_{S,R_i}$, $\mathbf{H}^u_{R_i,D}$ or $\mathbf{H}_{S,D}$. In the case of $\mathcal{D}^u_{SR_i}$ and $\mathcal{D}^u_{R_iD}$, if $\mathbf{x}_n$ and $\mathbf{x}_l$ are different from each other in just one symbol in position $j$, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{D}_j&= {\left\lVert\sqrt{ \frac{E}{M_S}} \mathbf{H}^u\mathbf{x}_l - \sqrt{ \frac{E}{M_S}} \mathbf{H}^u\mathbf{x}_n\right\rVert}^2\\
&= \frac{E}{M_S}{\left\lVert\mathbf{H}^u(\mathbf{x}_l - \mathbf{x}_n)\right\rVert}^2\\
&= \frac{E}{M_S}{\left\lVert\mathbf{H}^u~ [0 \ldots \pm d_{c_w} \ldots0 ]^T\right\rVert}^2\\
&= \frac{{\left\vertd_{c_w}\right\vert}^2 E}{M_S} \sum_{i=1}^{M_S} {\left\vertH^u_{i,j}\right\vert}^2 \\
&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ w=1,...,W.
\label{eq:11}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
If $\mathbf{x}_n$ and $\mathbf{x}_l$ are different from each other in two symbols in positions $j$ and $k$, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{D}_{j,k}&= \frac{E}{M_S}{\left\lVert\mathbf{H}^u~ [0 \ldots \pm d_{c_w} \ldots \pm d_{c_h} \ldots0 ]^T\right\rVert}^2\\
&= \frac{ E}{M_S} \sum_{i=1}^{M_S} {\left\vert \pm d_{c_w} H^u_{i,j} \pm d_{c_h} H^u_{i,k}\right\vert}^2 \\
&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ w,h=1,...,W,\\
\label{eq:12}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where the indices $w$ and $h$ may be different from each other.
If $\mathbf{x}_n$ and $\mathbf{x}_l$ are different from each other in $M_S$ symbols, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{D}_{1,...,M_S}&= \frac{E}{M_S}{\left\lVert\mathbf{H}^u~ [ \pm d_{c_w} \ldots \pm d_{c_v}]^T\right\rVert}^2\\
&= \frac{ E}{M_S} \sum_{i=1}^{M_S} {\left\vert \pm d_{c_w} H^u_{i,1} \ldots \pm d_{c_v} H^u_{i,M_S}\right\vert}^2\\
&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ w,v=1,...,W,\\
\label{eq:13}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where the indices $w$ and $v$ may be different from each other.
We can simplify the equations, making $\mathcal{D}= E/M_S \times \mathcal{D'}$, where $\mathcal{D'}$=${\left\lVert\mathbf{H}^u(\mathbf{x}_n-\mathbf{x}_l)\right\rVert}^2$, for $\mathcal{D}^u_{SR_i}$ and $\mathcal{D}^u_{R_iD}$, or $\mathcal{D'}$= 2${\left\lVert\mathbf{H}^u(\mathbf{x}_n-\mathbf{x}_l)\right\rVert}^2$, for $\mathcal{D}_{SD}$. We know that the PEP considers the error event when $\mathbf{x}_n$ is transmitted and the detector computes an incorrect $\mathbf{x}_l$ (where $l\neq n$), based on the received symbol [@f17; @f26]. If we consider $M_R=M_S$, then $U=1$ and, consequently, $\mathbf{H}=\mathbf{H}^u$ and the PEP is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\mathbf{P}(\mathbf{x}_n \rightarrow \mathbf{x}_l | \mathbf{H})&= Q\left(\sqrt{\frac{E_s}{2 N_0M_S} \mathcal{D'}}\right),
\label{eq:19}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $N_0$ is the power spectrum density of the AWGN. The MMD criterion, by maximizing the value of the minimum distance $\mathcal{D}_{\min}$, also maximizes the minimum value of the PEP argument $\mathcal{D'}_{\min}$ (PEP worst case). The PEP argument $\mathcal{D'}$ is related to the sum of the powers of the coefficients of each column (or the combination of two or more columns by addition or subtraction) of the matrix $ \mathbf{H}$. Moreover, when $U>1$, $\mathbf{H}$ is formed by multiple square submatrices $\mathbf{H}^u$, and the maximization of the minimum distances related to $\mathbf{H}^u$ also implies the maximization of the minimum value of the PEP argument.
As an example, if we have BPSK and unit power symbols ($d_{c}=2$) and $M_S =M_R= 2$ ($U=1$), for each matrix $ \mathbf{H}^u$ ($\mathbf{H}^u_{S,R_i}$ or $\mathbf{H}^u_{R_i,D}$), we have to calculate 4 different values for $\mathcal{D'}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{D'}_1 &= 4~ \sum_{i=1}^{2} {\left\vertH^u_{i,1}\right\vert}^2,~ \mathcal{D'}_2 = 4~ \sum_{i=1}^{2} {\left\vertH^u_{i,2}\right\vert}^2,
\\
\mathcal{D'}_{1,2(+)} &= 4~ \sum_{i=1}^{2} {\left\vertH^u_{i,1}+H^u_{i,2}\right\vert}^2,
\\~\mathcal{D'}_{1,2(-)}&= 4~ \sum_{i=1}^{2} {\left\vertH^u_{i,1}-H^u_{i,2}\right\vert}^2.
\label{eq:141}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
If we have the direct transmission option, by considering the matrix $\mathbf{H}_{S,D}$, we also have to calculate the same expressions described in (\[eq:141\]), multiplied by 2. Note that these examples were considered by adopting BPSK, but other constellations (QPSK, 16-QAM...) can be adopted.
The MMD metric $\mathcal{D}$ is based on the minimum Euclidian distances between the possible vectors of transmitted symbols. In contrast, in the QN criterion, that is based only on the total power of these links (as the traditional Max-Link), the metric $\mathcal{Q}$ is related to the quadratic norm (the sum of the powers of all the coefficients) of each matrix $\mathbf{H}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{Q}&={\left\lVert\mathbf{H}\right\rVert}^2\\
&= \sum_{j=1}^{M_S} \sum_{i=1}^{M_R} {\left\vertH_{i,j}\right\vert}^2.\\
\end{split}
\label{eq:14}\end{aligned}$$
Thus, the QN criterion selects the channel matrix $\mathbf{H}^{QN}$, as given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{H}^{QN}&= \arg \max_{\mathbf{H}} {\left\lVert\mathbf{H}\right\rVert}^2
\label{eq:15}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{H} \in \{\mathbf{H}_{S,R_1},\dots, \mathbf{H}_{S,R_N},\mathbf{H}_{R_1,D},\dots, \mathbf{H}_{R_N,D}\}$ and $H_{i,j} \in \mathbb{C} (0,\sigma^2)$ .\
The MMD criterion, differently from the QN criterion, takes into account the minimum distances related to $\mathcal{D}_j$ in (\[eq:11\]), $\mathcal{D}_{j,k}$ in (\[eq:12\]) and $\mathcal{D}_{1,\dots, M_S}$ in (\[eq:13\]), to select $\mathbf{H}^{MMD}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\mathbf{H}^{MMD}= \arg \max_{\mathbf{H}} \min{(\mathcal{D}_j,\mathcal{D}_{j,k},\dots,\mathcal{D}_{1,\dots,M_S})}\\
~~ j, k=1,...,M_S, ~ j\neq k,
\label{eq:16}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{H} \in \{\mathbf{H}_{S,R_1},\dots, \mathbf{H}_{S,R_N},\mathbf{H}_{R_1,D},\dots, \mathbf{H}_{R_N,D},\mathbf{H}_{S,D}\}$ and $ H_{i,j} \in \mathbb{C} (0,\sigma^2)$.\
The advantage of the MMD algorithm as compared to QN is that MMD, by maximizing $\mathcal{D}_{\min}$, also maximizes the minimum value of the PEP argument $\mathcal{D'}_{\min}$, whereas QN does not take it into account. So, the minimum value of the PEP argument $\mathcal{D'}_{\min}^{QN}$ associated with $\mathbf{H}^{QN}$, selected by the QN criterion, may be not as high as the minimum value of the PEP argument $\mathcal{D'}_{\min}^{MMD}$ associated with $\mathbf{H}^{MMD}$, selected by the MMD criterion.\
Example 1: consider BPSK, unit power symbols and a network formed by $S$, $D$, one relay $R$ (without direct transmission), and two antennas in each node ($M_S=M_R=2$), where $\mathbf{H}_{S,R}$ and $\mathbf{H}_{R,D}$ are given by:
$$\left[
\begin{array}{c c c}
b &2 b\\
g & 2g\\
\end{array}\right]~ \mbox{and}~ \left[
\begin{array}{c c c}
2b+\epsilon &2 b \\
2 g +\epsilon & 2g\\
\end{array}\right], ~ \mbox{respectively},~\mbox{where}~\epsilon \rightarrow 0.$$
By applying the QN criterion and calculating the quadratic norm of $\mathbf{H}_{S,R}$, we have: $ \mathcal{Q}=5{\left\vertb\right\vert}^2+5{\left\vertg\right\vert}^2$. And the quadratic norm of $\mathbf{H}_{R,D}$ is equal to: $ \mathcal{Q}={\left\vert2b+\epsilon\right\vert}^2+{\left\vert2g+\epsilon\right\vert}^2+4{\left\vertb\right\vert}^2+4{\left\vertg\right\vert}^2. ~\mathcal{Q} \rightarrow 8{\left\vertb\right\vert}^2+8{\left\vertg\right\vert}^2$. Thus, by considering (\[eq:15\]), we have: $\mathbf{H}^{QN}= \mathbf{H}_{R,D}$. In contrast, by applying the MMD criterion and calculating the minimum distance of $\mathbf{H}_{S,R}$, we have: $\mathcal{D}_{\min}=\frac{4E}{M_S} ({\left\vert2b-b\right\vert}^2+{\left\vert2g-g\right\vert}^2)= \frac{4E}{M_S} ({\left\vertb\right\vert}^2+{\left\vertg\right\vert}^2)$. And the minimum distance of $\mathbf{H}_{R,D}$ is equal to: $\mathcal{D}_{\min}=\frac{4E}{M_S} ({\left\vert2b-2b-\epsilon\right\vert}^2+{\left\vert2g-2g-\epsilon\right\vert}^2)= \frac{8E}{M_S} {\left\vert\epsilon\right\vert}^2. ~ \mathcal{D}_{\min} \rightarrow 0$. Thus, by considering (\[eq:16\]), we have: $\mathbf{H}^{MMD}= \mathbf{H}_{S,R}$. Moreover, by calculating the minimum values of the PEP argument, we have: $\mathcal{D'}_{\min}^{MMD}= 4 ({\left\vertb\right\vert}^2+{\left\vertg\right\vert}^2)$ and $\mathcal{D'}_{\min}^{QN}=8 {\left\vert\epsilon\right\vert}^2. ~ \mathcal{D'}_{\min}^{QN} \rightarrow0$.\
Example 2: consider BPSK, unit power symbols and a network formed by $S$, $D$, one relay $R$ (without direct transmission), and $M_S=M_R=2$, where $\mathbf{H}_{S,R}$ and $\mathbf{H}_{R,D}$ are given by: $$\left[
\begin{array}{c c c}
\epsilon_1 &5b\\
\epsilon_2 & 4g\\
\end{array}\right]~ \mbox{and}~ \left[
\begin{array}{c c c}
b & 3 b \\
g & 3g\\
\end{array}\right], ~ \mbox{respectively},~\mbox{where}~\epsilon_1 \rightarrow 0~ \mbox{and}$$ $\epsilon_2 \rightarrow 0$.
By applying the QN criterion and calculating the quadratic norm of $\mathbf{H}_{S,R}$, we have: $ \mathcal{Q}=25{\left\vertb\right\vert}^2+16{\left\vertg\right\vert}^2+{\left\vert\epsilon_1\right\vert}^2+{\left\vert\epsilon_2\right\vert}^2. ~\mathcal{Q}\rightarrow 25{\left\vertb\right\vert}^2+16{\left\vertg\right\vert}^2$. And the quadratic norm of $\mathbf{H}_{R,D}$ is equal to: $ \mathcal{Q}=10{\left\vertb\right\vert}^2+10{\left\vertg\right\vert}^2$. Thus, by considering (\[eq:15\]), we have: $\mathbf{H}^{QN}= \mathbf{H}_{S,R}$. In contrast, by applying the MMD criterion and calculating the minimum distance of $\mathbf{H}_{S,R}$, we have: $\mathcal{D}_{\min}=\frac{4E}{M_S} ({\left\vert\epsilon_1\right\vert}^2+{\left\vert\epsilon_2\right\vert}^2). ~\mathcal{D}_{\min}\rightarrow 0$. And the minimum distance of $\mathbf{H}_{R,D}$ is equal to: $\mathcal{D}_{\min}=\frac{4E}{M_S} ({\left\vertb\right\vert}^2+{\left\vertg\right\vert}^2)$. Thus, by considering (\[eq:16\]), we have: $\mathbf{H}^{MMD}= \mathbf{H}_{R,D}$. Moreover, by calculating the minimum values of the PEP argument, we have: $\mathcal{D'}_{\min}^{MMD}= 4 ({\left\vertb\right\vert}^2+{\left\vertg\right\vert}^2)$ and $\mathcal{D'}^{QN}_{\min}=4 ({\left\vert\epsilon_1\right\vert}^2+{\left\vert\epsilon_2\right\vert}^2). ~\mathcal{D'}^{QN}_{\min}\rightarrow 0$.\
We have seen in these examples that: $\mathbf{H}^{MMD} \neq \mathbf{H}^{QN}$ and $\mathcal{D'}_{ \min}^{MMD} > \mathcal{D'}_{ \min}^{QN}$. In the appendix, we develop a proof that shows that: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{D'}_{\min}^{MMD}\geq \mathcal{D'}_{ \min}^{QN}.
\label{eq:18}\end{aligned}$$
Note that these examples were considered by using BPSK, but other constellations (QPSK, 16-QAM...) can be adopted.
Pairwise Error Probability
--------------------------
As we have seen in (\[eq:19\]), the PEP considers the error event when $\mathbf{x}_n$ is transmitted and the detector computes an incorrect $\mathbf{x}_l$ (where $l\neq n$), based on the received symbol. If we consider $M_R=M_S$, then $U=1$ and, consequently, $\mathbf{H}=\mathbf{H}^u$ and the PEP will have its maximum value for the minimum value of $\mathcal{D'}$ (worst case of the PEP). So, for the worst case of the PEP ($\mathcal{D'}_{\min}$), in direct $SD$ transmissions, in each time slot, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{P}(\mathbf{x}_n \rightarrow \mathbf{x}_l | \mathbf{H})= Q\left(\sqrt{\frac{E}{2 N_0M_S} \mathcal{D'}_{\min}}\right).
\label{eq:21}\end{aligned}$$
However, for cooperative $SR-RD$ transmissions, an approximated expression for computing the worst case of the PEP in each time slot (regardless of whether it is an $SR$ or $RD$ link) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{P}(\mathbf{x}_n \rightarrow \mathbf{x}_l | \mathbf{H})\approx 1- \left(1-Q\left(\sqrt{\frac{E}{2 N_0M_S} \mathcal{D'}_{\min}}\right)\right)^2.
\label{eq:102}\end{aligned}$$
The metric $\mathcal{D'}_{min}$ is maximized by the MMD criterion and the same does not happen to the QN criterion. The PEP is given by a $Q$ function and its argument is given by the root square of a constant $\left(\frac{E}{2 N_0M_S}\right)$ multiplied by $\mathcal{D'}_{\min}$. We know that by the characteristic of the $Q$ function when its argument grows its value decreases. Therefore, if we consider (\[eq:18\]), (\[eq:21\]) and (\[eq:102\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{P}^{MMD}(\mathbf{x}_n \rightarrow \mathbf{x}_l | \mathbf{H}^{MMD}) \leq \mathbf{P}^{QN}(\mathbf{x}_n \rightarrow \mathbf{x}_l | \mathbf{H}^{QN}),
\label{eq:22}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{P}^{MMD}(\mathbf{x}_n \rightarrow \mathbf{x}_l | \mathbf{H}^{MMD})$ is the PEP for the worst case in the MMD criterion and $\mathbf{P}^{QN}(\mathbf{x}_n \rightarrow \mathbf{x}_l | \mathbf{H}^{QN})$ is the PEP for the worst case in the QN criterion. Note that when $U>1$, $\mathbf{H}$ is formed by multiple square submatrices $\mathbf{H}^u$, and the maximization of the minimum distances related to $\mathbf{H}^u$ done by the MMD criterion also implies the maximization of the minimum value of the PEP argument.
![MMD-Max-Link and QN-Max-Link a) PEP performance and b) Computational Complexity.[]{data-label="fig:pepMMDMaxLink"}](Figure_2.eps)
Fig. \[fig:pepMMDMaxLink\] a) shows the theoretical PEP worst case performance (computed by the algorithm based on the selected channel matrix $\mathbf{H}$, in each time slot) of the MMD-Max-Link and QN-Max-Link protocols, for $M_S=M_R =M= 2$, $N$ = 3, 5 and 10, $J = 4$, BPSK and perfect CSI. Note that for multiple antennas the PEP worst case performance of the MMD-Max-Link scheme is much better than that of QN-Max-Link for the total range of SNR values tested. When we increase $N$, the MMD-Max-Link has its performance improved and the gap between the curves is increased. The same does not happen to QN-Max-Link, as the QN criterion does not take the metric $\mathcal{D'}_{\min}$ into account. Note that this example was considered by adopting BPSK, but other constellations (QPSK, 16-QAM...) can be considered.
Computational Complexity
------------------------
We may generalize the total number $\mathcal{X}$ of calculations of the metric $\mathcal{D}$, needed by the MMD criterion, for each matrix $\mathbf{H}^u_{S,R}$, $\mathbf{H}^u_{R,D}$ or $\mathbf{H}_{S,D}$:\
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{X}= \sum_{i=1}^{M_S} 2^{i-1} W^i C_i^{M_S},
\label{eq:23}\end{aligned}$$ where $W$ is the total number of different distances between the constellation symbols ($d_{c}$). If we have BPSK, $W=1$, and QPSK, $W=3$. In QPSK, the calculation of some of these metrics is redundant, so the number of calculations $\mathcal{X}$ may be less than the indicated in (\[eq:23\]), but it was considered in this way, by the greater ease of implementation of the algorithm.
Operations/Criterion Maximum Minimum Distance Quadratic Norm
---------------------- -------------------------- ----------------
additions $2NUM_S(\mathcal{X}-1)$ $2NU(M_S^2-1)$
multiplications $2NUM_S\mathcal{X}$ $2NUM_S^2$
: Computational Complexity of Criteria[]{data-label="table2"}
Table \[table2\] shows the complexity of the MMD and QN criteria for a number of $N$ relays, $M_S$ antennas at $S$ and $D$ and $M_R=UM_S$ antennas at the relays, considering only the cooperative transmission and the constellation type (BPSK, QPSK, 16-QAM...). Fig. \[fig:pepMMDMaxLink\] b) also shows the complexity of the MMD and QN criteria, for $N=3$ ($S$, $D$ and 3 relays), $M_S=M_R=M$ antennas at each node and BPSK. This result shows that the complexity of the MMD criterion with $M_S=2$ is not much higher than the complexity of the QN criterion. If we increase the number of antennas to $M_S=3$ (or more) in each node, the complexity of MMD becomes considerably higher than the complexity of QN.
Sum-Rate
--------
The sum-rate of a given system is upper bounded by the system capacity. In this context, the capacity of the cooperative system in a given time slot, using a single relay selection scheme is given by [@f1; @f15]: $$\begin{aligned}
C_{DF}=\frac{1}{2} \min \{ I_{DF}^{SR},I_{DF}^{RD}\},
\label{eq:24}\end{aligned}$$ where the first term in (\[eq:24\]) represents the maximum rate at which the relay can reliably decode the message from $S$, while the second term in (\[eq:24\]) is the maximum rate at which $D$ can reliably decode the estimated message from $S$ transmitted by the relay [@f1].
Note that in the Switched Max-Link and MMD-Max-Link schemes, differently from a single relay scheme, the selected relay for reception $R_k$ may be different from the selected relay for transmission $R_j$. Therefore, the capacity of the MMD-Max-Link and the Switched Max-Link (operating in the Max-Link mode) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
C_{DF}=\frac{1}{2} \min \{ I_{DF}^{SR_k},I_{DF}^{R_jD}\},
\label{eq:150}\end{aligned}$$ where the first term in (\[eq:150\]) is the maximum rate at which $R_k$ can reliably decode the message from $S$, while the second term in (\[eq:150\]) is the maximum rate at which $D$ can reliably decode the estimated message from $S$ transmitted by $R_j$. The capacity of direct transmission is given by $$\begin{aligned}
C_{DT}=I_{DT}^{SD}.
\label{eq:25}\end{aligned}$$
As Switched Max-Link may operate in both transmission modes (Max-Link or DT), the expected sum-rate $\mathcal{R}$ in bits/Hz of this scheme, considering symmetric channels, may be expressed as: $C_{DF}\leq \mathcal{R}\leq C_{DT}$. The relationship between mutual information and entropy can be expanded as follows for a given $\mathbf{H}_{S,R_k}$ (channel matrix from $S$ to $R_k$): $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
I_{DF}^{SR_k}&=I_{DF}(\mathbf{x};\mathbf{y}_{S,R_k} | \mathbf{H}_{S,R_k})\\
&=\mathcal{H}(\mathbf{y}_{S,R_k})-\mathcal{H}(\mathbf{y}_{S,R_k}|\mathbf{x})\\
&=\mathcal{H}(\mathbf{y}_{S,R_k})-\mathcal{H}(\mathbf{H}_{S,R_k}\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{n}_{R_k}|\mathbf{x})\\
&=\mathcal{H}(\mathbf{y}_{S,R_k})-\mathcal{H}(\mathbf{n}_{R_k}),\\
\label{eq:26}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{H}$(·) denotes the differential entropy of a continuous random variable. It is assumed that the transmit vector $\mathbf{x}$ and the noise vector $\mathbf{n}_{R_k}$ are independent.
Eq. (\[eq:26\]) is maximized when $\mathbf{y}_{S,R_k}$ is Gaussian, since the normal distribution maximizes the entropy for a given variance. For a complex Gaussian vector $\mathbf{y}_{S,R_k}$, the differential entropy is less than or equal to $\log_2 \det(\pi e\mathbf{K})$, with equality if and only if $\mathbf{y}_{S,R_k}$ is a circularly symmetric complex Gaussian vector with $ E[\mathbf{y}_{S,R_k} \mathbf{y}_{S,R_k}^H]=\mathbf{K}$ [@f15; @f155]. By assuming the optimal Gaussian distribution for the transmit vector $\mathbf{x}$, the covariance matrix of $\mathbf{y}_{S,R_k}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
E[\mathbf{y}_{S,R_k} \mathbf{y}_{S,R_k}^H]&=E[( \mathbf{H}_{S,R_k}\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{n}_{R_k})( \mathbf{H}_{S,R_k}\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{n}_{R_k})^H]\\
&= E[ \mathbf{H}_{S,R_k}\mathbf{x}(\mathbf{x})^H\mathbf{H}_{S,R_k}^H+\mathbf{n}_{R_k}(\mathbf{n}_{R_k})^H]\\
&= \mathbf{H}_{S,R_k} \mathbf{Q}_{S,R_k}\mathbf{H}_{S,R_k}^H+E[\mathbf{n}_{R_k}(\mathbf{n}_{R_k})^H]\\
&= \mathbf{H}_{S,R_k} \mathbf{Q}_{S,R_k}\mathbf{H}_{S,R_k}^H+\mathbf{K}^n\\
&=\mathbf{K}^d+\mathbf{K}^n,
\label{eq:28}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $d$ and $n$ denotes respectively the signal part and the noise part of (\[eq:28\]) [@f155]. The maximum mutual information is then given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
I_{DF}^{SR_k}&=\mathcal{H}(\mathbf{y}_{S,R_k})-\mathcal{H}(\mathbf{n}_{R_k})\\
&=\log_2 \det(\pi e (\mathbf{K}^d+\mathbf{K}^n))-\log_2 \det (\pi e\mathbf{K}^n))\\
&=\log_2 \det(\mathbf{K}^d+\mathbf{K}^n)-\log_2 \det (\mathbf{K}^n)\\
&=\log_2 \det(\mathbf{K}^d (\mathbf{K}^n)^{-1}+\mathbf{I}_{M_R})\\
&=\log_2 \det(\mathbf{H}_{S,R_k} \mathbf{Q}_{S,R_k}\mathbf{H}_{S,R_k}^H (\mathbf{K}^n)^{-1}+\mathbf{I}_{M_R})\\
&=\log_2 \det\left(\mathbf{H}_{S,R_k} (\mathbf{Q}_{S,R_k}/N_0)\mathbf{H}_{S,R_k}^H+\mathbf{I}_{M_R}\right).\\
\label{eq:28b}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
where $\mathbf{Q}_{S,R_k}= E[\mathbf{x}(\mathbf{x})^H]= \frac{ E}{M_S}~\mathbf{I}_{M_S}$ is the covariance matrix of the transmitted symbols, $\mathbf{I}_{M_S}$ is an $M_S\times M_S$ identity matrix and $\mathbf{I}_{M_R}$ is an $M_R\times M_R$ identity matrix. Note that the vectors $\mathbf{x}$ are formed by independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) symbols. The same reasoning can be applied to $I_{DF}^{R_jD}$ and $I_{DT}^{SD}$: $$\begin{aligned}
I_{DF}^{R_jD}=\log_2 \det(\mathbf{H}^u_{R_j,D} (\mathbf{Q}_{R_j,D}/N_0)(\mathbf{H}_{R_j,D}^{u})^H+\mathbf{I}_{M_S}),
\label{eq:33}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{Q}_{R_j,D}=\frac{ E}{M_S}~\mathbf{I}_{M_S}$ and $\mathbf{H}^u_{R_j,D}$ is the selected channel submatrix from $R_j$ to $D$. $$\begin{aligned}
I_{DT}^{SD}= \log_2 \det\left(\mathbf{H}_{S,D}(\mathbf{Q}_{S,D}/N_0)\mathbf{H}_{S,D}^H+\mathbf{I}_{M_S}\right),
\label{eq:34}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{Q}_{S,D}=\frac{2E}{M_S}~\mathbf{I}_{M_S}$. For simplicity, to compute the sum-rate of the Switched Max-Link scheme, instead of considering (\[eq:150\]), we considered an approximated expression for the sum-rate in each time slot, depending on the kind of transmission. Therefore, in the case of a time slot $i$ selected for $SR$ transmission, the approximated sum-rate is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{R}_i^{SR_k}\approx\frac{1}{2}~ \log_2 \det\left(\mathbf{H}_{S,R_k} (\mathbf{Q}_{S,R_k}/N_0)\mathbf{H}_{S,R_k}^H+\mathbf{I}_{M_R}\right).
\label{eq:35}\end{aligned}$$
Furthermore, in the case of a time slot $i$ selected for $RD$ transmission, the approximated sum-rate is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{R}_i^{R_jD}\approx\frac{1}{2}~ \log_2 \det(\mathbf{H}^u_{R_j,D} (\mathbf{Q}_{R_j,D}/N_0)(\mathbf{H}_{R_j,D}^{u})^H+\mathbf{I}_{M_S}).
\label{eq:36}\end{aligned}$$
In the case of a time slot $i$ selected for $SD$ transmission, the approximated sum-rate is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{R}_i^{SD}\approx \log_2 \det\left(\mathbf{H}_{S,D} (\mathbf{Q}_{S,D}/N_0)\mathbf{H}_{S,D}^H+\mathbf{I}_{M_S}\right).
\label{eq:37}\end{aligned}$$
Therefore, the average sum-rate ($\mathcal{R}$) of the Switched Max-Link scheme can be approximated to $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{R}\approx \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n_{SR}} \mathcal{R}_i^{SR_k}+\sum_{i=1}^{n_{RD}} \mathcal{R}_i^{R_jD}+2 \sum_{i=1}^{n_{SD}} \mathcal{R}_i^{SD}}{n_{SR}+n_{RD}+2 n_{SD}},
\label{eq:38}\end{aligned}$$ where $n_{SR}$ and $n_{RD}$ represent the total number of time slots selected for transmission from $S$ to $R_k$ and from $R_j$ to $D$, respectively, in the Max-Link operation mode ($n_{SR}\cong n_{RD}$), and $n_{SD}$ is the total number of time slots selected for transmission from $S$ to $D$, in DT mode.\
States of buffers, outage probability and throughput
----------------------------------------------------
In [@f9], a framework based on Discrete Time Markov Chains (DTMC) is proposed to analyze the traditional Max-Link algorithm, considering single-antenna systems. This framework has been used in many subsequent works to analyze other buffer-aided relay selection protocols whose buffer is finite [@f23]. In the following, we use this framework to analyze the MMD-Max-Link and the Switched Max-Link protocols for multiple-antenna systems.
The states of the DTMC represent all the possible states of the buffers, for both MMD-Max-Link and Switched Max-Link protocols, and also the state of direct link $SD$, for Switched Max-Link. So, in the Switched Max-Link protocol, the transitions between the states are given by the probabilities of successful transmissions of packets and a state of the DTMC is represented not only by the number of sets of $M_S$ packets stored in each buffer (as in the MMD-Max-Link), but it also includes a state which depicts the reception of $M_S$ packets directly from $S$ at $D$, denoted by $\mathcal{E}_d$ [@f11]. This state $\mathcal{E}_d \in \{0, 1\}$ changes every time a set of $M_S$ packets is received directly from $S$. If $\mathcal{E}_d$ is in state 1 and $D$ receives a set of $M_S$ packets directly from $S$ then it moves to state 0, and vice versa. Note that the state $\mathcal{E}_d$ does not change if a set of $M_S$ packets is received by a relay, or by $D$ from a relay node.
In the Switched Max-Link protocol, the state of the DTMC can be represented by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{E}_r=(\mathcal{E}_d B_1^{r}B_2^{r}\dots B_N^{r}), ~ r\in \mathbb{N}_+, 1\leq r\leq \left(L+1\right)^N,
\label{eq:35}\end{aligned}$$ where $L=\frac{J}{M_S}$. The states are predefined in a random way as all the possible $\left(L+1\right)^N$ combinations of the buffer sizes combined with the $\mathcal{E}_d$ state [@f11]. We consider that $\mathbf{A}\in \mathbb{R}^{2\left(L+1\right)^N\times2\left(L+1\right)^N}$ denotes the state transition matrix of the DTMC [@f11], in which the entry $A_{i,j}=P(\mathcal{E}_i\rightarrow \mathcal{E}_j)=P(\mathcal{E}_{t+1}=\mathcal{E}_j|\mathcal{E}_t=\mathcal{E}_i)$ is the transition probability to move from state $\mathcal{E}_i$ at time $t$ to state $\mathcal{E}_j$ at time ($t$+1). In order to construct the state transition matrix $\mathbf{A}$, we have to identify the connectivity between the different states of the buffers [@f9; @f11]. For each time slot, the buffer and the $\mathcal{E}_d$ status can be modified as follows: (a) the number of packets stored in a relay buffer can be decreased by $M_S$, if a relay node is selected for transmission in Max-Link mode (and the system is not in outage), changing the buffer status, (b) the number of packets stored in a relay buffer can be increased by $M_S$, if $S$ is selected for transmission in Max-Link mode (and the system is not in outage), changing the buffer status, (c) if $S$ is selected for transmission in DT mode (and the system is not in outage), changing the $\mathcal{E}_d$ status, (d) the buffer and the $\mathcal{E}_d$ status remain unchanged when there is an outage event (all the $SR$, $RD$ and $SD$ links in outage).
As the buffer of each relay is finite, the DTMC can be shown to be stationary, irreducible and aperiodic (SIA) [@f23; @f177]. In the following, analytical expressions are derived for the outage probability, average throughput and average packet delay.
An outage event occurs only when there is no change in the buffer and $\mathcal{E}_d$ status. Hence, the outage probability of the system is given by the sum of the product of the probabilities of being at a stage $r$ and having an outage event [@f9; @f11], as given by $$\begin{aligned}
P_{outage}=\sum_{r=1}^{Z\left(L+1\right)^N}\pi_r \bar{p}_r={\mathop{\rm diag}}(\mathbf{A})\pi,
\label{eq:35out}\end{aligned}$$ where $Z=1$ and $Z=2$ in the MMD-Max-Link and Switched Max-Link protocols, respectively. By considering the MMD-Max-Link and the Swiched Max-Link (operating in Max-Link mode), if there is only one transmission per time-slot, the average data rate $\rho$ is 0.5 since two hops are required to reach $D$. Otherwise, in schemes with successive transmissions, $\rho$ is approaching 1 [@f23]. The proportion of the packets that make it through is ($1-P_{outage}$). Thus, the average throughput is given by $E[T]=\rho(1-P_{outage})$[@f23], where $\rho \in (0.5, 1)$. Note that if the links are i.i.d., then the average throughput of a relay $R_n$ [@f23] in the MMD-Max-Link protocol is given by $$\begin{aligned}
E[T_n]=\frac{\rho(1-P_{outage})}{N}.
\label{eq:35at}\end{aligned}$$ And the average throughput of $R_n$ in the Switched Max-Link protocol is given by $$\begin{aligned}
E[T_n]=\frac{\rho_{SML}(1-P_{outage})}{N},
\label{eq:35ats}\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho_{SML}=\frac{2\rho P^{\mathcal{S}'}_{ML}}{P^{\mathcal{S}'}_{ML}+1}$, and $P^{\mathcal{S}'}_{ML}$ is the probability of a packet being transmitted in the Max-Link mode (passing by the relays) for a given $\mathcal{S'}$, considering $\mathcal{S'}=1$, if $\mathcal{S}\ge 1$, and $\mathcal{S'}=\mathcal{S}$, if $\mathcal{S}< 1$.
Average Delay
-------------
Similarly to the traditional Max-Link [@f9], Switched Max-Link and MMD-Max-Link were originally considered for applications without critical delay constraints. In this work, by considering the importance of a short average delay in most modern applications, an expression for the average delay of the proposed Switched Max-Link protocol is presented. The average delay is calculated by considering the time a packet needs to reach the destination once it has left the source (no delay is measured when the packet resides at $S$ [@f11]). In the Switched Max-Link protocol, the direct transmission is considered to have no delays and for packets that are processed by the relays, the delay is the number of time slots the packet stays in the buffer of the relay [@f11].
For i.i.d. channels, the average delay is the same on all relays. Hence, it is enough to analyze the average delay on a single relay [@f23]. By Little’s law, the average packet delay at $R_n$, denoted by $E[d_n]$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
E[d_n]=\frac{E[L_n]}{E[T_n]},
\label{eq:35t}\end{aligned}$$ where $E[L_n]$ and $E[T_n]$ are the average queue length and average throughput, respectively [@f23]. So, the average queue length at $R_n$, in the MMD-Max-Link and Switched Max-Link protocols, is given by $$\begin{aligned}
E[L_n]=\sum_{r=1}^{(L+1)^N}\pi_r B_n^r.
\label{eq:35q}\end{aligned}$$ And the average throughput is given in (\[eq:35at\]). Thus, by substituting (\[eq:35out\]), (\[eq:35at\]) and (\[eq:35q\]) into (\[eq:35t\]), we have that the average delay in the MMD-Max-Link protocol is given by
$$\begin{aligned}
E[d_n]^{MMD}=\frac{N\sum_{r=1}^{(L+1)^N} \pi_rB_n^r}{\rho\left(1-\sum_{r=1}^{(L+1)^N} \pi_r\bar{p}_r\right)},
\label{eq:35qb}\end{aligned}$$
where $\rho=0.5$, considering one transmission per time slot. The derivation for the average delay at the high SNR regime is given in [@f177]. First the throughput of each relay is found. As the selection of a relay is equiprobable, the average throughput at any relay $R_n$ is $\rho / N$, where $\rho$ is the average data rate. Since we have half-duplex links, $\rho=1/2$ and therefore $E[T_n]=\frac{1}{2N}$. Also, it can be shown that the average queue length at any relay is $E[L_n]=\frac{L}{2}$. Thus, by Little’s law, $E[d_n]^{MMD}=E[d]=NL=N\frac{J}{M_S}$. So, as either the number of relays or the buffer size increases, the average delay of the MMD-Max-Link algorithm increases.
As the MMD-Max-Link protocol operates only in the Max-Link mode (similarly to the traditional Max-Link, but with multiple antennas), we consider that the average delay of MMD-Max-Link is similar to the average delay of Max-Link. In contrast, the average delay of Switched Max-Link is lower than that of Max-Link, because its advantage (the possibility of operating in DT mode). The average delay of the Switched Max-Link protocol is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
E[d_n]^{SML}&=\frac{N\sum_{r=1}^{(L+1)^N} \pi_rB_n^r}{\rho_{SML}\left(1-\sum_{r=1}^{2(L+1)^N} \pi_r\bar{p}_r\right)} \times P_{ML}^{\mathcal{S}}\\
&\approx\frac{E[d_n]^{MMD}(P^{\mathcal{S}'}_{ML}+1)}{2P^{\mathcal{S}'}_{ML}}\times P_{ML}^{\mathcal{S}},
\label{eq:35qa}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $P_{ML}^{\mathcal{S}}$ is the probability of a packet being transmitted in the Max-Link mode, for a given $\mathcal{S}$. When the switch $\mathcal{S}$ tends to zero, $P_{ML}^{\mathcal{S}}$ tends to one (Switched Max-Link operates only in the Max-Link mode and its average delay equals the average delay of MMD-Max-Link). Otherwise, when $\mathcal{S}$ tends to $\infty$, $P_{ML}^{\mathcal{S}}$ tends to zero (Switched Max-Link operates only in DT mode, and its average delay tends to zero).
Numerical Results
=================
This section illustrates and discusses the simulation results of the proposed Switched Max-Link, the MMD-Max-Link, the Max-Link with direct transmission capability [@f11], the conventional MIMO (direct transmission, without relaying) and the Max-Link with the QN criterion (QN-Max-Link). QN-Max-Link with a single antenna refers to the traditional Max-Link [@f9]. The proposed Switched Max-Link scheme is considered in a network with $N$ relays and $M_S$ antennas at $S$ and $D$ and $M_R$ antennas at the relays. We considered different values for the buffer size $J$ and adopted $J=4$ packets as it is sufficient to ensure a good performance. We have also adopted $M_S=1$ and $2$ antennas. Since different packets may be stored at different relays for different amounts of time, the packets transmitted by $S$ may arrive at $D$ in an order different from the order at $S$ [@f5]. To restore the original order at $D$, it was necessary to insert in the preamble of each packet the order information (its position in the binary format, ranging from 1 to the total number of packets). We assume that the transmitted signals belong to BPSK or QPSK constellations. The 16-QAM constellation was not included in this work because of its higher complexity. We also assume $N_0 =1$ and $E_S = E_{R_j} = E$ (total energy transmitted). Scenarios with asymmetric channels were also tested in order to depict the performance of the proposed Switched Max-Link and MMD-Max-Link algorithms. The transmit signal-to-noise ratio SNR ($E/N_0$) ranges from 0 to 12 dB and the performances of the transmission schemes were tested for 10000$M_S$ packets, each containing 100 symbols.
Analysis accuracy validation: PEP and BER performance
-----------------------------------------------------
In the following we present the theoretical PEP worst case and the simulated BER performance to validate the accuracy of our analysis related to the MMD relay selection criterion, adopted in the Switched Max-Link and the MMD-Max-Link protocols. Then, the BER, average throughput and average delay performances of the Switched Max-Link and Max-Link with direct transmission capability [@f11] protocols are compared. We also present the BER performance considering BPSK, QPSK and outdated CSI of the Switched Max-Link, MMD-Max-Link and conventional MIMO protocols, considering unit power links ($\sigma_{ S,R}^2=\sigma_{ R,D}^2=\sigma_{ S,D}^2=1$).
![Switched Max-Link and Max-Link [@f11] PEP and BER performances.[]{data-label="fig:PEPexMMDMaxLink"}](Figure_3.eps)
Fig. \[fig:PEPexMMDMaxLink\] shows the theoretical PEP performance that yields from our theoretical framework that has been presented in Section IV and the BER performance of the Switched Max-Link and Max-Link [@f11] protocols, for BPSK, $M_S= M_R = 1$, $N$ = 3 and $J = 4$. In Switched Max-Link, we have $\mathcal{S}=1$ (solid curve) and 5 (dashed curve), and in Max-Link, we have $r_0=1$ (solid curve) and 0.5 BPCU (bits per channel use) (dashed curve). By comparing the solid curves, the result shows that for low SNR values (less than 8dB), the Max-Link protocol has a better BER performance than that of Switched Max-Link. This is because if an outage event occurs in Max-Link, the packet is not transmitted (improving the BER, but reducing the average throughput). In contrast, Switched Max-Link has a better BER performance than that of Max-Link for SNR values greater than 8dB, resulting also in a higher diversity gain. And the results are the same when we compare the dashed curves. These results show that the theoretical PEP performance matches the BER performance and validate the accuracy of our analysis. Note that in this case we have just a pair of possible transmitted symbols, so the BER performance is comparable to the PEP performance.
![Switched Max-Link and Max-Link [@f11] a) average throughput and b) average delay.[]{data-label="fig:ThADexMMDMaxLink"}](Figure_4.eps)
Fig. \[fig:ThADexMMDMaxLink\] shows the average throughput and average delay performances of the Switched Max-Link and Max-Link [@f11] protocols, for the same configuration described in Fig. \[fig:PEPexMMDMaxLink\]. The Switched Max-Link protocol has a high average throughput even for low SNR values. This does not happen to Max-Link, as in this protocol, if an outage event occurs, the packet is not transmitted (reducing the average throughput). Moreover, Switched Max-Link has a low average delay (when $\mathcal{S}=5$) even for low SNR values as opposed to Max-Link.
![a) BER performance for BPSK and b) BER performance for QPSK, with perfect and imperfect channel knowledge.[]{data-label="fig:pepberMMDMaxLink"}](Figure_5.eps)
Fig. \[fig:pepberMMDMaxLink\] a) shows the BER performance of the MMD-Max-Link and QN-Max-Link protocols, for $M_S=M_R = M=2$, $N$ = 3, 5 and 10, $J = 4$, BPSK and perfect CSI. Note that for multiple antennas the BER performance of the MMD-Max-Link scheme is much better than that of QN-Max-Link for the total range of SNR values tested. When we increase $N$, the MMD-Max-Link has its performance improved. The same does not happen to QN-Max-Link, as the QN criterion does not take the metric $\mathcal{D'}_{\min}$ into account. This result validates the accuracy of our analysis in Section IV, illustrating that a better theoretical PEP worst case performance achieved by the MMD relay selection criterion implies also a better BER performance for the MMD-Max-Link protocol. Fig. \[fig:pepberMMDMaxLink\] b) shows the Switched Max-Link, the MMD-Max-Link and the conventional MIMO BER performance comparison for $M_S=M_R= 2$, $N= 10$, $J= 4$, $\mathcal{S}=1$, QPSK, perfect and imperfect CSI ($\beta=1$ and $\alpha=0.8$). The QN-Max-Link was not considered as its performance is worse than the performance of the proposed protocol. Both for perfect and imperfect CSI, the performance of Switched Max-Link is considerably better than that of the conventional MIMO for a wide range of SNR values. Switched Max-Link also outperforms MMD-Max-Link, and has resiliency in low transmit SNR conditions. Moreover, we note that outdated CSI results in diversity loss.
Performance under asymmetric channels
-------------------------------------
In the following we consider the BER, sum-rate and average delay performances of the proposed and existing schemes under asymmetric channels.
![BER performance, with low power $SD$ links.[]{data-label="fig:berlowsd"}](Figure_6.eps)
Fig. \[fig:berlowsd\] shows the BER performance of the Switched Max-Link, MMD-Max-Link and the conventional MIMO protocols, for $M_S=M_R= M=2$, $N$= 5, $J=4$, $\mathcal{S}=1 $, 5 and 10, BPSK, perfect CSI and low power $SD$ links ($\sigma_{ S,R}^2$ $=$ $\sigma_{ R,D}^2$ $=1$ and $\sigma_{S,D}^2$ $= 0.2$). The performance of the proposed Switched Max-Link scheme, for $\mathcal{S}=1$, is very close to that of the MMD-Max-Link, illustrating the importance of switching to the Max-Link mode, when we have low power $SD$ links.
![a) Sum-rate and b) average delay performances, with low power $SD$ links.[]{data-label="fig:sumratelowsd"}](Figure_7.eps)
Fig. \[fig:sumratelowsd\] shows the sum-rate (assuming Gaussian signaling) and the average delay performances of the Switched Max-Link, MMD-Max-Link and the conventional MIMO protocols, for the same configuration described in Fig. \[fig:berlowsd\]. We notice that the simulated average delay of the MMD-Max-Link is equal to its theoretical value $\left(\frac{NJ}{M_S}=10\right)$. This result validates the accuracy of our analysis in Section IV. When we increase $\mathcal{S}$ in the proposed Switched Max-Link, the average delay reduces and is less than 1 time slot, when $\mathcal{S}$ is equal to 10. This result also validates the accuracy of our analysis. Moreover, the sum-rate of the proposed Switched Max-Link, for SNR values less than 6dB, is increased when we reduce $\mathcal{S}$, and, for SNR values greater than 6dB, it is increased when we increase $\mathcal{S}$.
![BER performance, with high power $SD$ links.[]{data-label="fig:berhighsd"}](Figure_8.eps)
Fig. \[fig:berhighsd\] shows the BER performance of the Switched Max-Link, MMD-Max-Link and the conventional MIMO protocols, for $M_S=M_R=M= 2$, $N$= 5, $J=4$, $\mathcal{S}=1 $, 3 and 5, BPSK, perfect CSI and high power $SD$ links ($\sigma_{S,R}^2$ $=$ $\sigma_{R,D}^2$ $=1$ and $\sigma_{S,D}^2$ $=5$). The performance of the proposed Switched Max-Link scheme, for the $\mathcal{S}$ values tested, is better than that of the conventional MIMO and considerably better than that of the MMD-Max-Link scheme, illustrating the importance of switching to DT mode, when we have high power $SD$ links.
![a) Sum-rate and b) average delay performances, with high power $SD$ links.[]{data-label="fig:sumratehighsd"}](Figure_9.eps)
Fig. \[fig:sumratehighsd\] shows the sum-rate and the average delay performances of the Switched Max-Link, MMD-Max-Link and the conventional MIMO protocols, for the same configuration described in Fig. \[fig:berhighsd\]. When we increase $\mathcal{S}$ in the proposed Switched Max-Link, the average delay reduces and is less than 1 time slot, when $\mathcal{S}$ is greater than 3. Moreover, the sum-rate performance of the proposed Switched Max-Link (for all the $\mathcal{S}$ values tested) is very close to that of conventional MIMO, for all the range of SNR values tested, and considerably higher than that of the MMD-Max-Link scheme.
![BER performance, with low power $SR$ or $RD$ links.[]{data-label="fig:berlowsrrd"}](Figure_10.eps)
Fig. \[fig:berlowsrrd\] shows the BER performance of the Switched Max-Link, MMD-Max-Link and the conventional MIMO protocols, for $M_S=M_R=M= 2$, $N$= 5, $J=4$, $\mathcal{S}=1 $, BPSK, perfect CSI and low power $SR$ or $RD$ links ($\sigma_{S,R}^2=0.5$ and 1, $\sigma_{R,D}^2 = 0.5$ and 1, $\sigma_{S,D}^2=1$). Switched Max-Link outperforms conventional MIMO and MMD-Max-Link schemes, illustrating that even with low power $SR$ or $RD$ links, Switched Max-Link has a better performance than that of conventional MIMO.
![a) Sum-rate and b) average delay performances, with low power $SR$ or $RD$ links.[]{data-label="fig:sumratelowsrrd"}](Figure_11.eps)
Fig. \[fig:sumratelowsrrd\] shows the sum-rate and the average delay performances of the Switched Max-Link, MMD-Max-Link and the conventional MIMO protocols, for the same configuration described in Fig. \[fig:berlowsrrd\]. When we have low power $SR$ links ($\sigma_{S,R}^2=0.5$ and $\sigma_{R,D}^2=1$), the probalility of selecting an $SR$ link is less than the probability of selecting an $RD$ link, so the average delay is less than the average delay with equal unit power channels ($\sigma_{S,R}^2=1$ and $\sigma_{R,D}^2=1$). Otherwise, when we have low power $RD$ links ($\sigma_{S,R}^2=1$ and $\sigma_{ R,D}^2=0.5$), the probalility of selecting an $RD$ link is less than the probability of selecting an $SR$ link, so the average delay is greater than the average delay with equal unit power channels. Moreover, the sum-rate performance of the proposed Switched Max-Link is very close to that of conventional MIMO, even for low power $SR$ or $RD$ links, and considerably higher than that of the MMD-Max-Link scheme. The slightly worse sum-rate performance of Switched Max-Link compared to conventional MIMO is justified, as the proposed scheme is able to transmit with higher order modulation due to the improved BER performance.
Performance for Massive MIMO
----------------------------
In the following we consider the performance of the proposed scheme for massive MIMO (with a small number of antennas at $S$ and $D$ and a large number of antennas at the relays).
![a) BER and b) sum-rate performances, for massive MIMO.[]{data-label="fig:bermassive"}](Figure_12.eps)
Fig. \[fig:bermassive\] shows the BER and sum-rate performances of the Switched Max-Link protocol, for $M_S= 2$, $M_R=4$, 8, 16, 32, 64 and 128, $N$= 5, $J=4$, $\mathcal{S}=1 $, BPSK, perfect CSI and unit power links ($\sigma_{ S,R}^2=\sigma_{ R,D}^2=\sigma_{ S,D}^2=1$). Both the BER and sum-rate performances are considerably improved when we increase $M_R$, illustrating that the proposed protocol can be used for massive MIMO (with a small number of antennas at $S$ and $D$ and a large number of antennas at the relays). This result validates the accuracy of our analysis, as when $U>1$, the maximization of the minimum distances related to $\mathbf{H}^u$ also implies the maximization of the minimum value of the PEP argument. Note that the achieved BER values were considerably reduced, thus the transmit signal-to-noise ratio SNR ($E/N_0$) ranges from 0 to 10 dB.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper, we have presented the benefits of using a novel relay selection protocol based on switching and the selection of the best link, denoted as Switched Max-Link. We then consider the MMD relay selection criterion for MIMO systems, along with algorithms that are incorporated into the proposed Switched Max-Link protocol. Switched Max-Link was evaluated experimentally and outperformed the conventional direct transmission and the existing QN Max-Link scheme. Despite the higher complexity of the proposed Switched Max-Link with the MMD relay selection criterion, it is an attractive solution for relaying systems with source and destination nodes equipped with a small number of antennas and relay nodes equipped with a small or large number of antennas due to its high performance and reduced delay.
Proof of $\mathcal{D'}_{\min}^{MMD} \geq \mathcal{D'}_{\min}^{QN}$
==================================================================
The selected matrix by the MMD criterion, that maximizes the minimum distances $\mathcal{D}$, is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\mathbf{H}^{MMD}&= \arg \max_{\mathbf{H}} \min{(\mathcal{D}_j,\mathcal{D}_{j,k},\dots,\mathcal{D}_{1,\dots,M_S})}\\
& ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ j, k=1,...,M_S, ~ j\neq k,\\
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{H} \in \{\mathbf{H}_{S,R_1},\dots, \mathbf{H}_{S,R_N},\mathbf{H}_{R_1,D},\dots, \mathbf{H}_{R_N,D},\mathbf{H}_{S,D}\}$ and $ H_{i,j} \in \mathbb{C} (0,\sigma^2)$ .\
As $\mathcal{D}=\frac{E}{M_S} \mathcal{D'}$, where $\mathcal{D'}$=${\left\lVert\mathbf{H}^u(\mathbf{x}_n-\mathbf{x}_l)\right\rVert}^2$, for $\mathcal{D}^u_{SR_i}$ and $\mathcal{D}^u_{R_iD}$, or $\mathcal{D'}$= 2${\left\lVert\mathbf{H}^u(\mathbf{x}_n-\mathbf{x}_l)\right\rVert}^2$ , for $\mathcal{D}_{SD}$, we have\
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\mathbf{H}^{MMD}= \arg &\max_{\mathbf{H}} \min{(\mathcal{D'}_j,\mathcal{D'}_{j,k},\dots,\mathcal{D'}_{1,\dots,M_S})}\\
& ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ j, k=1,...,M_S, ~ j\neq k,\\
\rm{where~the~PEP}&\rm{~arguments~\mathcal{D'}~are~given~by}\\
~ \mathcal{D'}_j&= {\left\vertd_{c_w}\right\vert}^2 \sum_{i=1}^{M_S} {\left\vertH^u_{i,j}\right\vert}^2\\
& ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ w=1,...,W,\\
\mathcal{D'}_{j,k}&= \sum_{i=1}^{M_S} {\left\vert \pm d_{c_w} H^u_{i,j} \pm d_{c_h} H^u_{i,k}\right\vert}^2\\
& ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ w,h=1,...,W,\\
\mathcal{D'}_{1,\dots,M_S}&= \sum_{i=1}^{M_S} {\left\vert \pm d_{c_w} H^u_{i,1}\ldots \pm d_{c_v} H^u_{i,M_S}\right\vert}^2\\
& ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ w,v=1,...,W.\\
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$\
So, the maximized minimum value of the PEP argument associated to $\mathbf{H}^{MMD}$ is given by\
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{D'}_{\min}^{MMD}&=\min{(\mathcal{D'}^{MMD}_j,\mathcal{D'}^{MMD}_{j,k},\dots,\mathcal{D'}^{MMD}_{1,\dots,M_S})}\\
& ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ j, k=1,...,M_S, ~ j\neq k.\\
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
However, the selected matrix by the QN criterion is given by\
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\mathbf{H}^{QN}&= \arg \max_{\mathbf{H}} \sum_{j=1}^{M_S} \sum_{i=1}^{M_R} {\left\vertH_{i,j}\right\vert}^2\\
& =\arg \max_{\mathbf{H}}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{M_R} {\left\vertH_{i,1}\right\vert}^2+\dots+\sum_{i=1}^{M_R} {\left\vertH_{i,M_S}\right\vert}^2\right),
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{H} \in \{\mathbf{H}_{S,R_1},\dots, \mathbf{H}_{S,R_N},\mathbf{H}_{R_1,D},\dots, \mathbf{H}_{R_N,D}\}$ and $H_{i,j} \in \mathbb{C} (0,\sigma^2)$ .\
The minimum value of the PEP argument associated to $\mathbf{H}^{QN}$ is given by\
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{D'}_{\min}^{QN}&=\min{(\mathcal{D'}^{QN}_j,\mathcal{D'}^{QN}_{j,k},\dots,\mathcal{D'}^{QN}_{1,...,M_S})}\\
& ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ j, k=1,...,M_S, ~ j\neq k.\\
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
If the sum of the powers of the coefficients of one of the columns (or the combination of 2 or more columns by addition or subtraction) of a selected submatrix and/or matrix $\mathbf{H}^{QN}$ is very small or tends to zero, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{D'}^{QN}_j &\rightarrow 0, \mathcal{D'}^{QN}_{j,k}\rightarrow 0,\dots, \rm{or}~\mathcal{D'}^{QN}_{1,...,M_S}\rightarrow 0,
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$\
and, consequently: $\mathcal{D'}_{\min}^{QN}\rightarrow 0$.\
As MMD maximizes $\mathcal{D'}_{\min}$, the submatrix and/or matrix selected by QN will be different from the selected by MMD:\
$\mathbf{H}^{QN}\neq\mathbf{H}^{MMD}$ and $\mathcal{D'}_{\min}^{QN} \neq \mathcal{D'}_{\min}^{MMD}.$\
We have seen that the MMD criterion computes all the values of $\mathcal{D'}$ and stores its minimum value ($\mathcal{D'}_{\min}$), for each submatrix $\mathbf{H}^u$. Then, this criterion selects the matrix $\mathbf{H}$ ($\mathbf{H}^{MMD}$) that is associated to the maximum $\mathcal{D'}_{\min}$ ($ \mathcal{D'}_{\min}^{MMD}$) and the associated relay. As the goal of this criterion is to maximize the argument of the PEP in its worst case ($\mathcal{D'}_{\min}$), another criterion such as QN can not outperform MMD but only equalize its performance, resulting in the same $\mathcal{D'}_{\min}$, if the matrix selected by QN ($\mathbf{H}^{QN}$) is equal to $\mathbf{H}^{MMD}$. Therefore, if we have $\mathbf{H}^{QN} \neq \mathbf{H}^{MMD}$, this implies that the $ \mathcal{D'}_{\min}$ associated to $\mathbf{H}^{MMD}$ ($ \mathcal{D'}_{\min}^{MMD}$) is greater than the $ \mathcal{D'}_{\min}$ associated to $\mathbf{H}^{QN}$ ($ \mathcal{D'}_{\min}^{QN}$). As there are cases where $\mathbf{H}^{QN} \neq \mathbf{H}^{MMD}$, we may conclude that: $\mathcal{D'}_{\min}^{MMD} \geq \mathcal{D'}_{\min}^{QN}$.
[00]{}
J. N. Laneman, D. N. C. Tse, G. W. Wornell, “Cooperative Diversity in Wireless Networks: Efficient Protocols and Outage Behavior”, in *IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.*, vol. 50, no. 12, pp. 3062-3080, Dec. 2004.
A. Sendonaris, E. Erkip and B. Aazhang, “User cooperation diversity - parts I and II,” *IEEE Trans. Commun.*, vol. 51, no. 11, pp. 1927–1948, Nov. 2003.
T. M. Cover, “Capacity Theorems for the Relay Channel”, *IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.*, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 572-584, Sept. 1979.
A. Ikhlef, D. S. Michalopoulos and R. Schober, “Max-Max Relay Selection for Relays with Buffers,” in *IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.*, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 1124-1135, March 2012.
T. Hesketh, R. C. De Lamare and S. Wales, “Joint maximum likelihood detection and link selection for cooperative MIMO relay systems,” in *IET Commun.*, vol. 8, no. 14, pp. 2489-2499, Sept. 25 2014.
P. Clarke and R. C. de Lamare, “Transmit Diversity and Relay Selection Algorithms for Multirelay Cooperative MIMO Systems,” in *IEEE Trans. Veh. Tech.*, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 1084-1098, March 2012.
N. Zlatanov, A. Ikhlef, T. Islam and R. Schober, “Buffer-aided cooperative communications: opportunities and challenges,” in *IEEE Commun. Mag.*, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 146-153, April 2014.
C. Hoymann, “Relaying in 3GPP LTE”, ITG Fachtagung – IMT Advanced, Ericsson Research – AACHEN, July 8, 2010 \[Online\]. Available: https://www.slideshare.net/allabout4g/relaying-in-3gpp-lteadvanced
Ericsson, “5 G Radio Access”, Ericsson White Paper, Uen 284 23-3204 Rev C | Apr. 2016 \[Online\]. Available: https://www.ericsson.com/assets/local/publications/white-papers/wp-5g.pdf.
J. Gu, R. C. de Lamare and M. Huemer, “Buffer-Aided Physical-Layer Network Coding with Optimal Linear Code Designs for Cooperative Networks,” in *IEEE Trans. Commun.*, vol. 66, no. 6, pp. 2560-2575, June 2018.
I. Krikidis, T. Charalambous, and J. Thompson, “Buffer-Aided Relay Selection for Cooperative Diversity Systems Without Delay Constraints,” *IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.*, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 1957–1967, May 2012.
N. Nomikos et al., “A Survey on Buffer-Aided Relay Selection,” in *IEEE Commun. Surveys & Tutorials*, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 1073-1097, Second quarter 2016.
T. Charalambous, N. Nomikos, I. Krikidis, D. Vouyioukas and M. Johansson, “Modeling buffer-aided relay selection in networks with direct transmission capability,” *IEEE Commun. Lett.*, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 649–652, April 2015.
Z. Tian, G. Chen, Y. Gong, Z. Chen and J. A. Chambers, “Buffer-Aided Max-Link Relay Selection in Amplify-and-Forward Cooperative Networks,” *in IEEE Trans. Veh. Tech.*, vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 553-565, Feb. 2015.
S. Luo and K. C. Teh, “Buffer State Based Relay Selection for Buffer-Aided Cooperative Relaying Systems,” in *IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.*, vol. 14, no. 10, pp. 5430-5439, Oct. 2015.
P. Xu, Z. Ding, I. Krikidis and X. Dai, “Achieving Optimal Diversity Gain in Buffer-Aided Relay Networks With Small Buffer Size,” in *IEEE Trans. Veh. Tech.*, vol. 65, no. 10, pp. 8788-8794, Oct. 2016.
M. Oiwa, C. Tosa and S. Sugiura, “Theoretical Analysis of Hybrid Buffer-Aided Cooperative Protocol Based on Max–Max and Max–Link Relay Selections,” in *IEEE Trans. Veh. Tech.*, vol. 65, no. 11, pp. 9236-9246, Nov. 2016.
D. Poulimeneas, T. Charalambous, N. Nomikos, I. Krikidis, D. Vouyioukas and M. Johansson, “Delay- and diversity-aware buffer-aided relay selection policies in cooperative networks,” *2016 IEEE Wireless Comm. and Netw. Conf., Doha, 2016*, pp. 1-6.
A. A. M. Siddig and M. F. M. Salleh, “Balancing Buffer-Aided Relay Selection for Cooperative Relaying Systems,” in *IEEE Trans. Veh. Tech.*, vol. 66, no. 9, pp. 8276-8290, Sept. 2017.
B. R. Manoj, R. K. Mallik and M. R. Bhatnagar, “Performance Analysis of Buffer-Aided Priority-Based Max-Link Relay Selection in DF Cooperative Networks,” in *IEEE Trans. Commun.*, vol. 66, no. 7, pp. 2826-2839, July 2018.
S. M. Kim and M. Bengtsson, “Virtual full-duplex buffer-aided relaying in the presence of inter-relay interference,” in *IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.*, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 2966-2980, April 2016.
T. Charalambous, S. M. Kim, N. Nomikos, M. Bengtsson and M. Johansson, “Relay-pair selection in buffer-aided successive opportunistic relaying using a multi-antenna source,” in *Ad Hoc Netw.*, vol. 84, pp. 29-41, 2019.
F. L. Duarte and R. C. de Lamare, “Switched Max-Link Buffer-Aided Relay Selection for Cooperative Multiple-Antenna Systems,” *SCC 2019; 12th Int. ITG Conf. on Systems, Commun. and Coding*, Rostock, Germany, 2019, pp. 1-6.
F. L. Duarte and R. C. de Lamare, “Buffer-Aided Max-Link Relay Selection for Multi-Way Cooperative Multi-Antenna Systems,” in *IEEE Commun. Lett.*, vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 1423-1426, Aug. 2019.
F. L. Duarte and R. C. de Lamare, “Buffer-Aided Max-Link Relay Selection for Two-Way Cooperative Multi-Antenna Systems”, in *2019 16th International Symposium on Wireless Communication Systems (ISWCS)*, Oulu, Finland, 2019, pp. 288-292.
F. L. Duarte and R. C. de Lamare, “Switched Max-Link Relay Selection Based on Maximum Minimum Distance for Cooperative MIMO Systems", IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 2020.
H. Joudeh and B. Clerckx, “Sum-Rate Maximization for Linearly Precoded Downlink Multiuser MISO Systems With Partial CSIT: A Rate-Splitting Approach,” in *IEEE Trans. Commun.*, vol. 64, no. 11, pp. 4847-4861, Nov. 2016.
X. Lu and R. C. de Lamare, “Buffer-aided relay selection for physical-layer security in wireless networks,” *WSA 2015; 19th Int. ITG Workshop on Smart Antennas*, Ilmenau, Germany, 2015, pp. 1–5.
R. Shankar, I. Kumar, A. Kumari, K. N. Pandey and R. K. Mishra, “Pairwise error probability analysis and optimal power allocation for selective decode-forward protocol over Nakagami-m fading channels,” 2017 *Int. Conf. on Algorithms, Methodology, Models and Applications in Emerging Technologies (ICAMMAET)*, Chennai, 2017, pp. 1-6.
T. Peng and R. C. de Lamare, “Adaptive Buffer-Aided Distributed Space-Time Coding for Cooperative Wireless Networks,” in *IEEE Trans. Commun.*, vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 1888-1900, May 2016.
I. E. Telatar, “Capacity of multi-antenna gaussian channels” *AT&T Bell Laboratories, Internal Tech. Memo*, June 1995.
B. Holter, “On the Capacity of the MIMO Channel - A Tutorial Introduction” \[Online\]. Available: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.503.3015&rep=\
rep1&type=pdf.
Z. Tian, G. Chen, Y. Gong, Z. Chen, and J. Chambers, “Buffer-Aided Max-Link Relay Selection in Amplify-and-Forward Cooperative Networks,” *IEEE Trans. Veh. Tech.*, vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 553–565, Feb. 2015.
R. C. de Lamare, “Massive MIMO systems: Signal processing challenges and future trends,” in URSI Radio Science Bulletin, vol. 2013, no. 347, pp. 8-20, Dec. 2013.
W. Zhang et al., “Large-Scale Antenna Systems With UL/DL Hardware Mismatch: Achievable Rates Analysis and Calibration,” in IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 1216-1229, April 2015.
R. C. de Lamare and R. Sampaio-Neto, “Adaptive MBER decision feedback multiuser receivers in frequency selective fading channels,” in IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 73-75, Feb. 2003.
R. C. De Lamare, R. Sampaio-Neto and A. Hjorungnes, “Joint iterative interference cancellation and parameter estimation for cdma systems,” in IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 11, no. 12, pp. 916-918, December 2007.
R. C. De Lamare and R. Sampaio-Neto, “Minimum Mean-Squared Error Iterative Successive Parallel Arbitrated Decision Feedback Detectors for DS-CDMA Systems,” in IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 778-789, May 2008.
Y. Cai and R. C. de Lamare, “Space-Time Adaptive MMSE Multiuser Decision Feedback Detectors With Multiple-Feedback Interference Cancellation for CDMA Systems,” in IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 58, no. 8, pp. 4129-4140, Oct. 2009.
R. C. de Lamare and R. Sampaio-Neto, “Adaptive Reduced-Rank Equalization Algorithms Based on Alternating Optimization Design Techniques for MIMO Systems,” in IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 2482-2494, July 2011.
P. Li, R. C. de Lamare and R. Fa, “Multiple Feedback Successive Interference Cancellation Detection for Multiuser MIMO Systems,” in IEEE Trans. on Wireless Comm., vol. 10, no. 8, pp. 2434-2439, Aug. 2011.
P. Li and R. C. De Lamare, “Adaptive Decision-Feedback Detection With Constellation Constraints for MIMO Systems,” in IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 853-859, Feb. 2012.
R. C. de Lamare, “Adaptive and Iterative Multi-Branch MMSE Decision Feedback Detection Algorithms for Multi-Antenna Systems,” in IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 12, no. 10, pp. 5294-5308, October 2013.
P. Li and R. C. de Lamare, “Distributed Iterative Detection With Reduced Message Passing for Networked MIMO Cellular Systems,” in IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 63, no. 6, pp. 2947-2954, July 2014.
Y. Cai, R. C. de Lamare, B. Champagne, B. Qin and M. Zhao, “Adaptive Reduced-Rank Receive Processing Based on Minimum Symbol-Error-Rate Criterion for Large-Scale Multiple-Antenna Systems,” in IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 63, no. 11, pp. 4185-4201, Nov. 2015.
A. G. D. Uchoa, C. T. Healy and R. C. de Lamare, “Iterative Detection and Decoding Algorithms for MIMO Systems in Block-Fading Channels Using LDPC Codes,” in IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 2735-2741, April 2016.
Z. Shao, R. C. de Lamare and L. T. N. Landau, “Iterative Detection and Decoding for Large-Scale Multiple-Antenna Systems With 1-Bit ADCs,” in IEEE Wireless Communications Letters, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 476-479, June 2018.
R. B. Di Renna and R. C. de Lamare, “Adaptive Activity-Aware Iterative Detection for Massive Machine-Type Communications,” in IEEE Wireless Communications Letters, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 1631-1634, Dec. 2019.
K. Zu and R. C. de Lamare, “Low-Complexity Lattice Reduction-Aided Regularized Block Diagonalization for MU-MIMO Systems,” in IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 925-928, June 2012.
Y. Cai, R. C. de Lamare, and R. Fa, “Switched Interleaving Techniques with Limited Feedback for Interference Mitigation in DS-CDMA Systems," IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol.59, no.7, pp.1946-1956, July 2011.
Y. Cai, R. C. de Lamare, D. Le Ruyet, “Transmit Processing Techniques Based on Switched Interleaving and Limited Feedback for Interference Mitigation in Multiantenna MC-CDMA Systems," IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol.60, no.4, pp.1559-1570, May 2011.
K. Zu, R. C. de Lamare and M. Haardt, “Generalized Design of Low-Complexity Block Diagonalization Type Precoding Algorithms for Multiuser MIMO Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 61, no. 10, pp. 4232-4242, October 2013.
W. Zhang et al., “Widely Linear Precoding for Large-Scale MIMO with IQI: Algorithms and Performance Analysis,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 3298-3312, May 2017.
K. Zu, R. C. de Lamare and M. Haardt, “Multi-Branch Tomlinson-Harashima Precoding Design for MU-MIMO Systems: Theory and Algorithms,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 939-951, March 2014.
L. Zhang, Y. Cai, R. C. de Lamare and M. Zhao, “Robust Multibranch Tomlinson-Harashima Precoding Design in Amplify-and-Forward MIMO Relay Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 62, no. 10, pp. 3476-3490, Oct. 2014.
L. T. N. Landau and R. C. de Lamare, “Branch-and-Bound Precoding for Multiuser MIMO Systems With 1-Bit Quantization,” in IEEE Wireless Communications Letters, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 770-773, Dec. 2017.
T. Wang, R. C. de Lamare, and P. D. Mitchell, “Low-Complexity Set-Membership Channel Estimation for Cooperative Wireless Sensor Networks," IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol.60, no.6, pp.2594-2607, July 2011.
T. Wang, R. C. de Lamare and A. Schmeink, “Joint linear receiver design and power allocation using alternating optimization algorithms for wireless sensor networks,” *IEEE Trans. on Vehi. Tech.*, vol. 61, pp. 4129-4141, 2012.
R. C. de Lamare, “Joint iterative power allocation and linear interference suppression algorithms for cooperative DS-CDMA networks", IET Communications, vol. 6, no. 13 , 2012, pp. 1930-1942.
T. Peng, R. C. de Lamare and A. Schmeink, “Adaptive Distributed Space-Time Coding Based on Adjustable Code Matrices for Cooperative MIMO Relaying Systems”, *IEEE Transactions on Communications*, vol. 61, no. 7, July 2013.
T. Peng and R. C. de Lamare, “Adaptive Buffer-Aided Distributed Space-Time Coding for Cooperative Wireless Networks," *IEEE Transactions on Communications*, vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 1888-1900, May 2016.
J. Gu, R. C. de Lamare and M. Huemer, “Buffer-Aided Physical-Layer Network Coding with Optimal Linear Code Designs for Cooperative Networks," *IEEE Transactions on Communications*, 2018.
M. L. Honig and J. S. Goldstein, “Adaptive reduced-rank interference suppression based on the multistage Wiener filter," *IEEE Transactions on Communications*, vol. 50, no. 6, June 2002.
Q. Haoli and S.N. Batalama, “Data record-based criteria for the selection of an auxiliary vector estimator of the MMSE/MVDR filter", *IEEE Transactions on Communications*, vol. 51, no. 10, Oct. 2003, pp. 1700 - 1708.
R. C. de Lamare and R. Sampaio-Neto, “Reduced-Rank Adaptive Filtering Based on Joint Iterative Optimization of Adaptive Filters", *IEEE Signal Processing Letters*, Vol. 14, no. 12, December 2007.
R. C. de Lamare and R. Sampaio-Neto, “Adaptive Reduced-Rank Processing Based on Joint and Iterative Interpolation, Decimation and Filtering", *IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing*, vol. 57, no. 7, July 2009, pp. 2503 - 2514.
R. C. de Lamare and R. Sampaio-Neto, “Reduced-rank space-time adaptive interference suppression with joint iterative least squares algorithms for spread-spectrum systems," *IEEE Trans. Vehi. Technol.*, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 1217-1228, Mar. 2010.
R. C. de Lamare and R. Sampaio-Neto, “Adaptive reduced-rank equalization algorithms based on alternating optimization design techniques for MIMO systems," *IEEE Trans. Vehi. Technol.*, vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 2482-2494, Jul. 2011.
[^1]: Copyright (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. However, permission to use this material for any other purposes must be obtained from the IEEE by sending a request to [email protected].
[^2]: F. L. Duarte is with the Centre for Telecommunications Studies (CETUC), Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and the Military Institute of Engineering, IME, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. e-mail: [email protected]
[^3]: R. C. de Lamare is with the Centre for Telecommunications Studies (CETUC), Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and the Department of Eletronic Engineering, University of York, United Kingdon. e-mail: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Tobias Koch[^1]'
- Lukas Liebel
- 'Friedrich Fraundorfer^,^'
- Marco Körner
-
bibliography:
- 'bib.bib'
title: |
Evaluation of CNN-based Single-Image Depth\
Estimation Methods
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
With the emergence of *deep learning* methods within the recent years and their massive influence on the computer vision domain, the problem of got addressed as well by many authors. These methods are in high demand for manifold scene understanding applications like, for instance, autonomous driving, robot navigation, or augmented reality systems. In order to replace or enhance traditional methods, architectures have been most commonly used and successfully shown to be able to infer geometrical information solely from presented monocular RGB or intensity images, as exemplary shown in \[fig:sample\_dataset\_nyu\].
[.48]{} ![Sample image pair from our dataset and depth prediction using a state-of-the-art algorithm [@Eigen2015]. Although the quality of the depth map seems reasonable, the prediction suffers from artifacts, smoothing, missing objects, and inaccuracies in textured image regions[]{data-label="fig:sample_dataset_nyu"}](figures/sample_1_rgb.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.48]{} ![Sample image pair from our dataset and depth prediction using a state-of-the-art algorithm [@Eigen2015]. Although the quality of the depth map seems reasonable, the prediction suffers from artifacts, smoothing, missing objects, and inaccuracies in textured image regions[]{data-label="fig:sample_dataset_nyu"}](figures/sample_1_gt "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
\
[.48]{} ![Sample image pair from our dataset and depth prediction using a state-of-the-art algorithm [@Eigen2015]. Although the quality of the depth map seems reasonable, the prediction suffers from artifacts, smoothing, missing objects, and inaccuracies in textured image regions[]{data-label="fig:sample_dataset_nyu"}](figures/sample_1_pred_selection.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.48]{} ![Sample image pair from our dataset and depth prediction using a state-of-the-art algorithm [@Eigen2015]. Although the quality of the depth map seems reasonable, the prediction suffers from artifacts, smoothing, missing objects, and inaccuracies in textured image regions[]{data-label="fig:sample_dataset_nyu"}](figures/sample_1_pred_crop "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
While these methods produce nicely intuitive results, proper evaluating the estimated depth maps is crucial for subsequent applications, [*e[.]{}g[.]{}*, ]{}their suitability for further 3D understanding scenarios [@Tateno2017:C]. Consistent and reliable relative depth estimates are, for instance, a key requirement for path planning approaches in robotics, augmented reality applications, or computational cinematography.
Nevertheless, the evaluation schemes and error metrics commonly used so far mainly consider the overall accuracy by reporting global statistics of depth residuals which does not give insight into the depth estimation quality at salient and important regions, like planar surfaces or geometric discontinuities. Hence, fairly reasonable reconstruction results, as shown in \[fig:sample\_depth\_prediction\], are probably positively evaluated, while still showing evident defects around edges. At the same time, the shortage of available datasets providing ground truth data of sufficient quality and quantity impedes precise evaluation. As this issue was reported by the authors of many recent papers, we aim at providing a new and extended evaluation scheme in order to overcome these deficiencies. In particular, as our main contributions, we
present a new evaluation dataset acquired from diverse indoor scenarios containing high/resolution RGB images aside highly accurate depth maps from laser scans[^2]
introduce a set of new interpretable error metrics targeting the aforementioned issues
evaluate a variety of state-of-the-art methods using these data and performance measures.
Related Work {#sec:sota}
============
In this section, we introduce some of the most recent learning-based methods for predicting depth from a single image and review existing datasets used for training and evaluating the accuracy of these methods.
Methods {#sec:methods}
-------
Most commonly, stereo reconstruction is performed from multi-view setups, [*e[.]{}g[.]{}*, ]{}by triangulation of 3D points from corresponding 2D image points observed by distinct cameras ([*cf[.]{}*]{} or methods) [@Seitz06:ACE]. Nevertheless, for already many decades, estimating depth or shape from monocular setups or single views is under scientific consideration [@Buelthoff91:SfX] in psychovisual as well as computational research domains. Most prominently, methods based on the principle [@Horn70:SfS; @Zhang99:SfS] exploit intensity or color gradients from single images to predict geometrical structure of objects under the assumptions of homogeneous lighting and Lambertian surface properties. While these methods operate passively on single-shot images, active monocular alternatives have been investigated, such as, for instance, by exploiting the focus and defocus behavior [@Favaro05:GAS; @Suwajanakorn15:DfF] or polarization cues [@Ngo15:SLD; @Kadambi15:P3H]. With the emergence of *light field* cameras, a further line of approaches [@Doorn11:LFS; @Heber16:CNS] was developed. After several RGB-D datasets were released [@Geiger2012:A; @Saxena2009:M; @Silberman2012:I], data-driven learning-based approaches outperformed established model-based methods. Especially deep learning-based methods have proven to be highly effective for this task and achieved current state-of-the-art results [@Chakrabarti2016:D; @Eigen2015; @Laina16; @Garg2016:U; @Kim2016:U; @Li2015; @Liu2016; @Wang2015:T; @Roy2016:M; @Li2017; @Xu2017:M; @Liu2015]. One of the first approaches using for regressing dense depth maps was presented by Eigen et al. [@Eigen14] who employ two deep networks for first performing a coarse global prediction and refine the predictions locally afterwards. An extension to this approach uses deeper models and additionally predicts normals and semantic labels [@Eigen2015]. Liu et al. [@Liu2016] combine and in a unified framework while making use of superpixels for preserving sharp edges. Laina et al. [@Laina16] tackle this problem with a fully convolutional network consisting of a feature map up-sampling within the network. While Li et al. [@Li2017] employ a novel set loss and a two-streamed that fuses predictions of depth and depth gradients, Xu et al. [@Xu2017:M] propose to integrate complementary information derived from multiple side outputs using .
Existing Benchmark Datasets {#sec:datasets}
---------------------------
In order to evaluate methods, any dataset containing corresponding RGB and depth images can be considered, which also comprises benchmarks originally designed for the evaluation of approaches. Strecha et al. [@Strecha2008:b] propose a benchmark providing overlapping images with camera poses for six different outdoor scenes and a ground truth point cloud obtained by a laser scanner. More recently, two benchmarks, the [[`ETH3D`]{}]{}[@Schoeps2017:m] and the [[`Tanks & Temples`]{}]{}[@Knapitsch17:T] datasets, have been released. Although these MVS benchmarks contain high resolution images and accurate ground truth data obtained from laser scanners, the setups are not designed for SIDE methods. Usually, a scene is scanned from multiple aligned laser scans and image sequences are acquired of the same scene. However, it cannot be guaranteed that the corresponding depth images are dense and could, therefore, exhibit gaps in the depth maps due to occlusions. Despite the possibility of acquiring a large number of image pairs, they mostly comprise only a limited scene variety and are highly redundant due to the image overlap. Currently, SIDE methods are tested on mainly three different datasets. [[`Make3D`]{}]{}[@Saxena2009:M], as one example, contains 534 outdoor images and aligned depth maps acquired from a custom-built 3D scanner, but suffers from a very low resolution of the depth maps and a rather limited scene variety. The [[`Kitti`]{}]{}dataset [@Geiger2012:A] contains street scenes captured out of a moving car. The dataset contains RGB images together with depth maps from a Velodyne laser scanner. However, depth maps are only provided in a very low resolution which furthermore suffer from irregularly and sparsely spaced points. The most frequently used dataset is the [[`NYU depth v2`]{}]{}dataset [@Silberman2012:I] containing 464 indoor scenes with aligned RGB and depth images from video sequences obtained from a Microsoft Kinect v1 sensor. A subset of this dataset is mostly used for training deep networks, while another 654 image and depth pairs serve for evaluation. This large number of image pairs and the various indoor scenarios facilitated the fast progress of methods. However, active RGB-D sensors, like the Kinect, suffer from a short operational range, occlusions, gaps, and erroneous specular surfaces. The recently released [[`Matterport3D`]{}]{}[@Chang2017:M] dataset provides an even larger amount of indoor scenes collected from a custom-built 3D scanner consisting of three RGB-D cameras. This dataset is a valuable addition to the [[`NYU-v2`]{}]{}but also suffers from the same weaknesses of active RGB-D sensors. A comparison of our proposed dataset and the existing datasets for evaluating SIDE methods is provided in \[tab:datasets\].
[@l@X@X@Y@Y@Y@]{} Benchmark & Setting & Sensor & & &\
& & &\
(r)[1-1]{} (r)[2-2]{} (r)[3-3]{} (r)[4-4]{} (r)[5-5]{} ()[6-6]{} [[`Strecha`]{}]{}[@Strecha2008:b] & Outdoor & LiDAR & 6 & 6 & 30\
[[`ETH3D`]{}]{}[@Schoeps2017:m] & Various & LiDAR & 0.4 (24) & 25 & 898\
[[`Tanks & Temples`]{}]{}[@Knapitsch17:T] & Various & LiDAR & 2 & 14 & 150k\
[[`Make3D`]{}]{}[@Saxena2009:M] & Outdoor & LiDAR & 0.017 & & 534\
[[`Kitti`]{}]{}[@Geiger2012:A] & Street & LiDAR & 0.5 & & 697\
[[`NYU-v2`]{}]{}[@Silberman2012:I] & Indoor & RGB-D & 0.3 & 464 & 654\
[[`Matterport3D`]{}]{}[@Chang2017:M] & Indoor & RGB-D & 0.8 & 90 & 200k\
**[[`IBims-1`]{}]{}** (proposed) & Indoor & LiDAR & 0.3 (6) & 20 & 54\
Error Metrics {#sec:metrics}
=============
This section describes established metrics and our new proposed ones allowing for a more detailed analysis.
Commonly Used Error Metrics {#sec:sota_metrics}
---------------------------
Established error metrics consider global statistics between a predicted depth map $\M{Y}$ and its ground truth depth image $\M{Y}^*$ with $T$ depth pixels. Beside visual inspections of depth maps or projected 3D point clouds, the following error metrics are exclusively used in all relevant recent publications [@Eigen14; @Eigen2015; @Laina16; @Li2017:T; @Xu2017:M]:
: % of $y$ such that $\max(\frac{y_i}{y_i^*}, \frac{y_i^*}{y_i} ) = \sigma < thr $
: $\mathrm{rel} = \frac{1}{T} \sum_{i,j} \abs{y_{i,j}-y_{i,j}^*}/y_{i,j}^* $
: $\mathrm{srel} = \frac{1}{T} \sum_{i,j} \abs{y_{i,j}-y_{i,j}^*}^2/y_{i,j}^* $
: $\mathrm{RMS} = \sqrt{\frac{1}{T} \sum_{i,j} \abs{y_{i,j}-y_{i,j}^*}^2}$
: $\mathrm{log_{10}} = \sqrt{\frac{1}{T} \sum_{i,j} \abs{\log{y_{i,j}} - \log{y_{i,j}^*}}^2}$
Even though these statistics are good indicators for the general quality of predicted depth maps, they could be delusive. Particularly, the standard metrics are not able to directly assess the planarity of planar surfaces or the correctness of estimated plane orientations. Furthermore, it is of high relevance that depth discontinuities are precisely located, which is not reflected by the standard metrics.
[.2]{} {width="\linewidth"}
[.2]{} {width="\linewidth"}
[.2]{} {width="\linewidth"}
[.2]{} {width="\linewidth"}
Proposed Error Metrics {#sec:prop_metrics}
----------------------
In order to allow for a more meaningful analysis of predicted depth maps and a more complete comparison of different algorithms, we present a set of new quality measures that specify on different characteristics of depth maps which are crucial for many applications. These are meant to be used in addition to the traditional error metrics introduced in \[sec:sota\_metrics\]. When talking about depth maps, the following questions arise that should be addressed by our new metrics: How is the quality of predicted depth maps for different absolute scene depths? Can planar surfaces be reconstructed correctly? Can all depth discontinuities be represented? How accurately are they localized? Are depth estimates consistent over the whole image area?
### Distance-Related Assessment
Established global statistics are calculated over the full range of depth comprised by the image and therefore do not consider different accuracies for specific absolute scene ranges. Hence, applying the standard metrics for specific range intervals by discretizing existing depth ranges into discrete bins ([*e[.]{}g[.]{}*, ]{}one-meter depth slices) allows investigating the performance of predicted depths for close and far ranged objects independently.
### Planarity {#subsubsec:planarity}
Man-made objects, in particular, can often be characterized by planar structures like walls, floors, ceilings, openings, and diverse types of furniture. However, global statistics do not directly give information about the shape correctness of objects within the scene. Predicting depths for planar objects is challenging for many reasons. Primarily, these objects tend to lack texture and only differ by smooth color gradients in the image, from which it is hard to estimate the correct orientation of a 3D plane with three-degrees-of-freedom. In the presence of textured planar surfaces, it is even more challenging for a approach to distinguish between a real depth discontinuity and a textured planar surface, [*e[.]{}g[.]{}*, ]{}a painting on a wall. As most methods are trained on large indoor scenes, like [[`NYU-v2`]{}]{}, a correct representation of planar structures is an important task for , but can hardly be evaluated using established standard metrics. For this reason, we propose to use a set of annotated images defining various planar surfaces ${\ensuremath{\V{\pi}}}_k^* = \left( \V{\eta}_k^*, d_k^* \right)$ (walls, table surfaces, and floors) and evaluate the flatness and orientation of predicted 3D planes ${\ensuremath{\V{\pi}}}_k$ compared to ground truth 3D planes ${\ensuremath{\V{\pi}}}_k^*$. In particular, a masked depth map $\M{Y}_k$ of a particular planar surface is projected to 3D points $\Point_{k;i,j}$ where 3D planes ${\ensuremath{\V{\pi}}}_k$ are robustly fitted to both the ground truth and predicted 3D point clouds $\Set{P}_k^*=\SetDef{\Point_{k;i,j}^*}_{i,j}$ and $\Set{P}_k=\SetDef{\Point_{k;i,j}}_{i,j}$, respectively. The planarity error $$\begin{aligned}
\error_{\text{PE}}^{\text{plan}}\left(\M{Y}_k\right) = \var{ \sum_{\Point_{k;i,j} \in \Set{P}_k} d\left({\ensuremath{\V{\pi}}}_k, \Point_{k;i,j}\right) }\end{aligned}$$ is then quantified by the standard deviation of the averaged distances between the predicted 3D point cloud and its corresponding 3D plane estimate. The orientation error $$\begin{aligned}
\error_{\text{PE}}^{\text{orie}}\left(\M{Y}_k\right) = \operatorname{acos} \left( \V{\eta}_k\T \cdot \V{\eta}_k^* \right)\end{aligned}$$ is defined as the 3D angle difference between the normal vectors of predicted and ground truth 3D planes. illustrate the proposed planarity errors. Note that the predicted depth maps are scaled [w[.]{}r[.]{}t[.]{} ]{}the ground truth depth map, in order to eliminate scaling differences of compared methods.
### Location Accuracy of Depth Boundaries {#subsubsec:DBE}
Beside planar surfaces, captured scenes, especially indoor scenes, cover a large variety of scene depths caused by any object in the scene. Depth discontinuities between two objects are represented as strong gradient changes in the depth maps. In this context, it is important to examine whether predicted depths maps are able to represent all relevant depth discontinuities in an accurate way or if they even create fictitious depth discontinuities confused by texture. An analysis of depth discontinuities can be best expressed by detecting and comparing edges in predicted and ground truth depth maps. Location accuracy and sharp edges are of high importance for generating a set of ground truth depth transitions which cannot be guaranteed by existing datasets acquired from RGB-D sensors. Ground truth edges are extracted from our dataset by first generating a set of tentative edge hypotheses using *structured edges* [@Dollar2015:F] and then manually selecting important and distinct edges subsequently. In order to evaluate predicted depth maps, edges $\M{Y}_\text{bin}$ are extracted using structured edges and compared to the ground truth edges $\M{Y}_\text{bin}^*$ via *truncated chamfer distance* of the binary edge images. Specifically, an *Euclidean distance transform* is applied to the ground truth edge image $\M{E}^* = DT\left( \M{Y}_\text{bin}^* \right)$, while distances exceeding a given threshold $\theta$ are ignored. We define the , comprised of an accuracy measure $$\begin{aligned}
\error_{\text{DBE}}^\text{acc} (\M{Y}) &= \frac{1}{\sum_i \sum_j y_{\text{bin};i,j}} \sum_i \sum_j e_{i,j}^* \cdot y_{\text{bin};i,j}\end{aligned}$$ by multiplying the predicted binary edge map with the distance map and a subsequent accumulation of the pixel distances towards the ground truth edge. As this measure does not consider any missing edges in the predicted depth image, we also define a completeness error $$\begin{aligned}
\error_{\text{DBE}}^\text{comp} (\M{Y}) &= \frac{1}{\sum_i \sum_j y_{\text{bin};i,j}^*} \sum_i \sum_j e_{i,j} \cdot y_{\text{bin};i,j}^*\end{aligned}$$ by accumulating the ground truth edges multiplied with the distance image of the predicted edges $\M{E} = DT\left( \M{Y}_\text{bin} \right)$. A visual explanation of the are illustrated in \[subfig:DBEacc,subfig:DBEcomp\].
### Directed Depth Error {#subsubsec:DDE}
For many applications, it is of high interest that depth images are consistent over the whole image area. Although the absolute depth error and squared depth error give information about the correctness between predicted and ground truth depths, they do not provide information if the predicted depth is estimated too short or too far. For this purpose, we define the $$\begin{aligned}
\error_{\text{DDE}}^+\left( \M{Y} \right)\! &=\!\frac{\abs{\SetDef{ y_{i,j} \vert d_{\text{sgn}}({\ensuremath{\V{\pi}}}, \Point_{i,j})\! >\! 0\! \wedge\!
d_{\text{sgn}}({\ensuremath{\V{\pi}}}, \Point_{i,j}^*)\! <\! 0 }}}
{T} \\
\error_{\text{DDE}}^-\left( \M{Y} \right)\! &=\! \frac{\abs{\SetDef{ y_{i,j} \vert d_{\text{sgn}}({\ensuremath{\V{\pi}}}, \Point_{i,j})\! <\! 0\! \wedge\!
d_{\text{sgn}}({\ensuremath{\V{\pi}}}, \Point_{i,j}^*)\! >\! 0 }}}
{T}
$$ as the proportions of too far and too close predicted depth pixels $\error_{\text{DDE}}^+$ and $\error_{\text{DDE}}^-$. In practice, a reference depth plane ${\ensuremath{\V{\pi}}}$ is defined at a certain distance ([*e[.]{}g[.]{}*, ]{}at , [*cf[.]{}*]{}\[subfig:dde\_gt\]) and all predicted depths pixels which lie in front and behind this plane are masked and assessed according to their correctness using the reference depth images.
Dataset {#sec:dataset}
=======
As described in the previous sections, our proposed metrics require extended ground truth which is not yet available in standard datasets. Hence, we compiled a new dataset according to these specifications.
Acquisition {#sec:dataset_acquisition}
-----------
For creating such a reference dataset, high-quality optical RGB images and depth maps had to be acquired. Practical considerations included the choice of suitable instruments for the acquisition of both parts. Furthermore, a protocol to calibrate both instruments, such that image and depth map align with each other, had to be developed. An exhaustive analysis and comparison of different sensors considered for the data acquisition can be found in the supplementary material. This comparison clearly shows the advantages of using a laser scanner and a camera compared to active sensors like RGB-D cameras or passive stereo camera rigs. We therefore used the respective setup for the creation of our dataset.
In order to record the ground truth for our dataset, we used a highly accurate Leica HDS7000 laser scanner, which stands out for high point cloud density and very low noise level. We acquired the scans with point spacing and RMS at distance. As our laser scanner does not provide RGB images along with the point clouds, an additional camera was used in order to capture optical imagery. The usage of a reasonably high-quality camera sensor and lens allows for capturing images in high resolution with only slight distortions and a high stability regarding the intrinsic parameters. For the experiments, we chose and calibrated a Nikon D5500 camera and a Nikon AF-S Nikkor lens, mechanically fixed to a focal length of approximately .
Using our sensor setup, synchronous acquisition of point clouds and RGB imagery is not possible. In order to acquire depth maps without parallax effects, the camera was mounted on a custom panoramic tripod head which allows to freely position the camera along all six degrees of freedom. This setup can be interchanged with the laser scanner, ensuring coincidence of the optical center of the camera and the origin of the laser scanner coordinate system after a prior calibration of the system. A visualization of our acquisition setup can be found in the supplementary material. It is worth noting, that every single RGB-D image pair of our dataset was obtained by an individual scan and image capture with the aforementioned strategy in order to achieve dense depth maps without gaps due to occlusions.
Registration and Processing {#sec:dataset_processing}
---------------------------
The acquired images were undistorted using the intrinsic camera parameters obtained from the calibration process. In order to register the camera towards the local coordinate system of the laser scanner, we manually selected a sufficient number of corresponding 2D and 3D points and estimated the camera pose using EPnP [@Moreno-Noguer2007:A]. This registration of the camera relative to the point cloud yielded only a minor translation, thanks to the pre-calibrated platform. Using this procedure, we determined the 6D pose of a virtual depth sensor which we use to derive a matching depth map from the 3D point cloud. In order to obtain a depth value for each pixel in the image, the images were sampled down to two different resolutions. We provide a high-quality version with a resolution of and a cropped [[`NYU-v2`]{}]{}-like version with a resolution of . 3D points were projected to a virtual sensor with the respective resolution. For each pixel, a depth value was calculated, representing the depth value of the 3D point with the shortest distance to the virtual sensor. It is worth highlighting that depth maps were derived from the 3D point cloud for both versions of the images separately. Hence, no down-sampling artifacts are introduced for the lower-resolution version. The depth maps for both, the high-quality and the [[`NYU-v2`]{}]{}-like version, are provided along with the respective images.
Contents {#sec:dataset_contents}
--------
Following the described procedure, we compiled a dataset, which we henceforth refer to as the *independent benchmark images and matched scans v1 ([[`IBims-1`]{}]{})* dataset. The dataset is mainly composed of reference data for the direct evaluation of depth maps, as produced by methods. As described in the previous sections, pairs of images and depth maps were acquired and are provided in two different versions, namely a high-quality version and a [[`NYU-v2`]{}]{}-like version. Example pairs of images and matching depth maps from [[`IBims-1`]{}]{}are shown in \[subfig:ibims\_sample\_rgb,subfig:ibims\_sample\_depth\] and \[fig:sample\_dataset\_proposed\_rgb,fig:sample\_dataset\_proposed\_depth\], respectively. More samples of different scenes are provided in the supplementary material.
[.48]{} ![Sample from the main part of the proposed [[`IBims-1`]{}]{}dataset with (a) RGB image, (b) depth map, (c) several masks with semantic annotations ([*i[.]{}e[.]{}*, ]{}walls ([ ]{}), floor ([ ]{}), tables ([ ]{}), transparent objects ([ ]{}), and invalid pixels ([ ]{})), and (d) distinct edges ([ ]{})](figures/dataset_example/cip_1_2_undist_small.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.48]{} ![Sample from the main part of the proposed [[`IBims-1`]{}]{}dataset with (a) RGB image, (b) depth map, (c) several masks with semantic annotations ([*i[.]{}e[.]{}*, ]{}walls ([ ]{}), floor ([ ]{}), tables ([ ]{}), transparent objects ([ ]{}), and invalid pixels ([ ]{})), and (d) distinct edges ([ ]{})](figures/dataset_example/side_cip_1_2_cropped_nyu_like.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
\
[.48]{} ![Sample from the main part of the proposed [[`IBims-1`]{}]{}dataset with (a) RGB image, (b) depth map, (c) several masks with semantic annotations ([*i[.]{}e[.]{}*, ]{}walls ([ ]{}), floor ([ ]{}), tables ([ ]{}), transparent objects ([ ]{}), and invalid pixels ([ ]{})), and (d) distinct edges ([ ]{})](figures/dataset_example/masks.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.48]{} ![Sample from the main part of the proposed [[`IBims-1`]{}]{}dataset with (a) RGB image, (b) depth map, (c) several masks with semantic annotations ([*i[.]{}e[.]{}*, ]{}walls ([ ]{}), floor ([ ]{}), tables ([ ]{}), transparent objects ([ ]{}), and invalid pixels ([ ]{})), and (d) distinct edges ([ ]{})](figures/dataset_example/edges "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
\[fig:sample\_dataset\_proposed\]
Additionally, several manually created masks are provided. Examples for all types of masks are shown in \[fig:sample\_dataset\_proposed\_masks\], while statistics of the plane annotations are listed in \[tab:planarity\_masks\].
In order to allow for evaluation following the proposed metric, we provide distinct edges for all images. Edges have been detected automatically and manually selected. shows an example for one of the scenes from [[`IBims-1`]{}]{}.
This main part of the dataset contains scenes in total[^3]. So far, the [[`NYU-v2`]{}]{}dataset is still the most comprehensive and accurate indoor dataset for training data-demanding deep learning methods. Since this dataset has most commonly been used for training the considered methods, [[`IBims-1`]{}]{}is designed to contain similar scenarios. Our acquired scenarios include various indoor settings, such as office, lecture, and living rooms, computer labs, a factory room, as well as more challenging ones, such as long corridors and potted plants. A comparison regarding the scene variety between [[`NYU-v2`]{}]{}and [[`IBims-1`]{}]{}can be seen in \[fig:scene\_distr\]. Furthermore, [[`IBims-1`]{}]{}features statistics comparable to [[`NYU-v2`]{}]{}, such as the distribution of depth values, shown in \[fig:depth\_distribution\], and a comparable field of view.
1= \[.48\] \[.48\]
[@l@\*[2]{}[S\[table-format=2.0, table-number-alignment=right\]@]{}S\[table-format=7.0, table-number-alignment=right\]@]{} Plane Type & & &\
(r)[1-1]{} (r)[2-2]{} (r)[3-3]{} ()[4-4]{} & 15 & 17 & 633729\
& 21 & 28 & 106428\
& 34 & 71 & 1955804\
Additionally, four sets of auxiliary, more specific and especially challenging images are provided. These depict four outdoor images containing cars, buildings and far ranges. The second set contains special cases which are expected to mislead methods. These show printed samples from the [[`NYU-v2`]{}]{}dataset and printed black and white patterns from the [`Pattern`]{} dataset [@Asuni2014:T] hung on a wall. Those could potentially give valuable insights, as they reveal what kind of image features methods exploit. shows examples from both categories. No depth maps are provided for those images, as the region of interest is supposed to be approximately planar and depth estimates are, thus, easy to assess qualitatively. The third set of auxiliary images contains geometrically and radiometrically augmented [[`IBims-1`]{}]{}images to test the robustness of SIDE methods. The last set comprises additional handheld images for every scene with viewpoint changes towards the reference images allowing to validate multi-view stereo algorithms with high-quality ground truth depth maps.
Evaluation {#sec:evaluation}
==========
In this section, we evaluate the quality of existing methods using both established and proposed metrics for our reference test dataset, as well as for the commonly used [[`NYU-v2`]{}]{}dataset. Furthermore, additional experiments were conducted to investigate the general behavior of methods, [*i[.]{}e[.]{}*, ]{}the robustness of predicted depth maps to geometrical and color transformations and the planarity of textured vertical surfaces. For evaluation, we compared several state-of-the-art methods, namely those proposed by Eigen and Fergus [@Eigen14], Eigen et al. [@Eigen2015], Liu et al. [@Liu2015], Laina et al. [@Laina16], and Li et al. [@Li2017:T]. It is worth mentioning that all of these methods were solely trained on the [[`NYU-v2`]{}]{}dataset. Therefore, differences in the results are expected to arise from the developed methodology rather than the training data.
Evaluation Using Proposed Metrics {#sec:evaluation_metrics}
---------------------------------
In the following, we report the results of evaluating methods on both [[`NYU-v2`]{}]{}and [[`IBims-1`]{}]{}using our newly proposed metrics. Please note, that due to the page limit, only few graphical results can be displayed in the following sections. Please refer to the supplementary material to find elaborate results for all evaluations.
[@l@@\*[7]{}[S\[table-format=1.2\]]{}S\[table-format=2.2\]S\[table-format=1.2\]\*[3]{}[S\[table-format=2.2\]]{}S\[table-format=1.2\]@]{} Method & & & &\
(r)[2-7]{} (r)[8-9]{} (r)[10-11]{} ()[12-14]{}
& & & & & & & & & & & & &\
(r)[1-1]{} (r)[2-2]{} (r)[3-3]{} (r)[4-4]{} (r)[5-5]{} (r)[6-6]{} (r)[7-7]{} (r)[8-8]{} (r)[9-9]{} (r)[10-10]{} (r)[11-11]{} (r)[12-12]{} (r)[13-13]{} ()[14-14]{} Eigen [@Eigen14] & 0.36 & 0.22 & 2.92 & 0.35 & 0.63 & 0.79 & 0.18 & 33.27 & 3.60 & 48.08 & 64.53 & 32.31 & 3.15\
Eigen (AlexNet) [@Eigen2015] & 0.32 & 0.18 & 2.63 & 0.42 & 0.72 & 0.82 & 0.21 & 26.64 & 3.01 & 32.00 & 74.65 & 21.51 & 3.84\
Eigen (VGG) [@Eigen2015] & 0.29 & 0.17 & 2.59 & 0.47 & 0.73 & 0.85 & [**0.17**]{} & [**21.64**]{} & 3.16 & 27.47 & 75.10 & 23.44 & [**1.46**]{}\
Laina [@Laina16] & 0.27 & 0.16 & 2.42 & 0.56 & 0.76 & 0.84 & 0.22 & 32.02 & 4.58 & 38.41 & 77.12 & 20.89 & 1.99\
Liu [@Liu2015] & 0.33 & 0.17 & 2.51 & 0.46 & 0.73 & 0.84 & 0.22 & 31.90 & [**2.32**]{} & [**16.85**]{} & 77.27 & [**16.38**]{} & 6.35\
Li [@Li2017:T] & [**0.25**]{} & [**0.14**]{} & [**2.32**]{} & [**0.58**]{} & [**0.79**]{} & [**0.86**]{} & 0.20 & 26.67 & 2.36 & 21.02 & [**80.99**]{} & 16.44 & 2.57\
### Distance-Related Assessment {#subsec:eval_dstmetric}
The results of evaluation using commonly used metrics on [[`NYU-v2`]{}]{}and [[`IBims-1`]{}]{}unveil lower overall scores for our dataset (please refer to \[tab:results\] for [[`IBims-1`]{}]{}and the supplementary material for [[`NYU-v2`]{}]{}). In order to get a better understanding of these results, we evaluated the considered methods on specific range intervals, which we set to in our experiments. shows the error band of the relative and RMS errors of the method proposed by Li et al. [@Li2017:T] applied to both datasets. The result clearly shows a comparable trend on both datasets for the shared depth range. This proves our first assumption, that the overall lower scores originate from the huge differences at depth values beyond the depth range. On the other hand, the results reveal the generalization capabilities of the networks, which achieve similar results on images from another camera with different intrinsics and for different scenarios. It should be noted that the error bands, which show similar characteristics for different methods and error metrics, correlate with the depth distributions of the datasets, shown in \[fig:depth\_distribution\].
\[.98\]
\
\[.98\]
### Planarity {#subsec:eval_planarity}
To investigate the quality of reconstructed planar structures, we evaluated the different methods with the planarity and orientation errors $\error_{\text{PE}}^\text{plan}$ and $\error_{\text{PE}}^\text{orie}$, respectively, as defined in \[subsubsec:planarity\], for different planar objects. In particular, we distinguished between horizontal and vertical planes and used masks from our dataset. show the results for the [[`IBims-1`]{}]{}dataset. Beside a combined error, including all planar labels, we separately computed the errors for the individual objects as well. The results show different performances for individual classes, especially orientations of floors were predicted in a significantly higher accuracy for all methods, while the absolute orientation error for walls is surprisingly high. Apart from the general performance of all methods, substantial differences between the considered methods can be determined. It is notable that the method of Li et al. [@Li2017:T] achieved much better results in predicting orientations of horizontal planes but also performed rather bad on vertical surfaces.
coordinates [(Combined,0.17935) (Tables,0.05809) (Floor,0.13499) (Walls,0.22267)]{}; coordinates [(Combined,0.20672) (Tables,0.039278) (Floor,0.17872) (Walls,0.25938)]{}; coordinates [(Combined,0.17356) (Tables,0.042628) (Floor,0.071407) (Walls,0.232)]{}; coordinates [(Combined,0.21935) (Tables,0.052007) (Floor,0.098884) (Walls,0.29188)]{}; coordinates [(Combined,0.22179) (Tables,0.049317) (Floor,0.098092) (Walls,0.29644)]{}; coordinates [(Combined,0.20701) (Tables,0.037079) (Floor,0.065045) (Walls,0.28589)]{};
coordinates [(Combined,33.2661) (Tables,17.9556) (Floor,29.2935) (Walls,38.3847)]{}; coordinates [(Combined,26.6375) (Tables,15.7233) (Floor,22.6134) (Walls,30.5428)]{}; coordinates [(Combined,21.6397) (Tables,19.9205) (Floor,13.4758) (Walls,23.8752)]{}; coordinates [(Combined,32.0173) (Tables,21.2273) (Floor,24.1105) (Walls,36.7236)]{}; coordinates [(Combined,31.9058) (Tables,21.4775) (Floor,22.5927) (Walls,36.814)]{}; coordinates [(Combined,26.6668) (Tables,13.1575) (Floor,7.7722) (Walls,34.5952)]{};
(group c1r1.north east) – node\[above\][\[CommonLegend\]]{} (group c1r1.north west);
### Location Accuracy of Depth Boundaries {#subsec:eval_depthtrans}
The high quality of our reference dataset facilitates an accurate assessment of predicted depth discontinuities. As ground truth edges, we used the provided edge maps from our dataset and computed the accuracy and completeness errors $\error_{\text{DBE}}^\text{acc}$ and $\error_{\text{DBE}}^\text{comp}$, respectively, introduced in \[subsubsec:DBE\]. Quantitative results for all methods are listed in \[tab:results\]. Comparing the accuracy error of all methods, Liu et al. [@Liu2015] and Li et al. [@Li2017:T] achieved best results in preserving true depth boundaries, while other methods tended to produce smooth edges loosing sharp transitions which can be seen in \[subfig:dbe\_gt,subfig:dbe\_pred\]. This smoothing property also affected the completeness error, resulting in missing edges expressed by larger values for $\error_{\text{DBE}}^\text{comp}$.
[.48]{} ![Visual results after applying DBE (a+b) and DDE (c+d) on [[`IBims-1`]{}]{}: (a) ground truth edge ([ ]{}) for one example from the [[`IBims-1`]{}]{}dataset. (b) Edge predictions using the methods of Li et al. [@Li2017:T] ([ ]{}) and Laina et al. [@Laina16] ([ ]{}). (c) Ground truth depth plane at $d = \SI{3}{\meter}$ separating foreground from background ([ ]{}). (d) Differences between ground truth and predicted depths using the method of Li et al. [@Li2017:T]. Color coded are depth values that are either estimated too short ([ ]{}) or too far ([ ]{})[]{data-label="fig:edge_predictions"}](figures/edges/gt "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.48]{} ![Visual results after applying DBE (a+b) and DDE (c+d) on [[`IBims-1`]{}]{}: (a) ground truth edge ([ ]{}) for one example from the [[`IBims-1`]{}]{}dataset. (b) Edge predictions using the methods of Li et al. [@Li2017:T] ([ ]{}) and Laina et al. [@Laina16] ([ ]{}). (c) Ground truth depth plane at $d = \SI{3}{\meter}$ separating foreground from background ([ ]{}). (d) Differences between ground truth and predicted depths using the method of Li et al. [@Li2017:T]. Color coded are depth values that are either estimated too short ([ ]{}) or too far ([ ]{})[]{data-label="fig:edge_predictions"}](figures/edges/predictions "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
\
[.48]{} ![Visual results after applying DBE (a+b) and DDE (c+d) on [[`IBims-1`]{}]{}: (a) ground truth edge ([ ]{}) for one example from the [[`IBims-1`]{}]{}dataset. (b) Edge predictions using the methods of Li et al. [@Li2017:T] ([ ]{}) and Laina et al. [@Laina16] ([ ]{}). (c) Ground truth depth plane at $d = \SI{3}{\meter}$ separating foreground from background ([ ]{}). (d) Differences between ground truth and predicted depths using the method of Li et al. [@Li2017:T]. Color coded are depth values that are either estimated too short ([ ]{}) or too far ([ ]{})[]{data-label="fig:edge_predictions"}](figures/depth_threshold/threshold_plane.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.48]{} ![Visual results after applying DBE (a+b) and DDE (c+d) on [[`IBims-1`]{}]{}: (a) ground truth edge ([ ]{}) for one example from the [[`IBims-1`]{}]{}dataset. (b) Edge predictions using the methods of Li et al. [@Li2017:T] ([ ]{}) and Laina et al. [@Laina16] ([ ]{}). (c) Ground truth depth plane at $d = \SI{3}{\meter}$ separating foreground from background ([ ]{}). (d) Differences between ground truth and predicted depths using the method of Li et al. [@Li2017:T]. Color coded are depth values that are either estimated too short ([ ]{}) or too far ([ ]{})[]{data-label="fig:edge_predictions"}](figures/depth_threshold/difference.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[@l@S\[table-format=1.4\]S\[table-format=-1.3\]\*[3]{}[S\[table-format=1.3\]]{}S\[table-format=-1.3\]\*[4]{}[S\[table-format=1.3\]]{}S\[table-format=-1.3\]S\[table-format=1\]@]{} Method & & & & & &\
(r)[3-4]{} (r)[5-7]{} (r)[8-9]{} (r)[10-11]{} ()[12-13]{}
& & & & & & & & & & & &\
(r)[1-1]{} (r)[2-2]{} (r)[3-3]{} (r)[4-4]{} (r)[5-5]{} (r)[6-6]{} (r)[7-7]{} (r)[8-8]{} (r)[9-9]{} (r)[10-10]{} (r)[11-11]{} (r)[12-12]{} ()[13-13]{} Eigen [@Eigen14] & 0.360 & -0.024 & 0.068 & 0.059 & 0.019 & -0.001 & 0.020 & 0.010 & 0.010 & 0.025 & -0.001 & 0\
Eigen (AlexNet) [@Eigen2015] & 0.318 & -0.012 & 0.113 & 0.111 & 0.031 & 0.041 & 0.022 & 0.008 & 0.005 & 0.022 & -0.001 & 0\
Eigen (VGG) [@Eigen2015] & 0.288 & -0.017 & 0.137 & 0.110 & 0.014 & 0.000 & 0.005 & 0.011 & 0.002 & 0.006 & -0.001 & 0\
Laina [@Laina16] & 0.274 & -0.018 & 0.162 & 0.079 & 0.027 & -0.001 & 0.005 & 0.008 & 0.001 & 0.004 & -0.001 & 0\
[.24]{} {width="\linewidth"}
[.24]{} {width="\linewidth"}
[.24]{} {width="\linewidth"}
[.24]{} {width="\linewidth"}
\
[.24]{} {width="\linewidth"}
[.24]{} {width="\linewidth"}
[.24]{} {width="\linewidth"}
[.24]{} {width="\linewidth"}
### Directed Depth Error {#subsec:eval_dde}
The aims to identify predicted depth values which lie on the correct side of a predefined reference plane but also distinguishes between overestimated and underestimated predicted depths. This measure could be useful for applications like 3D cinematography, where a 3D effect is generated by defining two depth planes. For this experiment, we defined a reference plane at $\SI{3}{\m}$ distance and computed the proportions of correct $\error_{\text{DDE}}^0$, overestimated $\error_{\text{DDE}}^+$, and underestimated $\error_{\text{DDE}}^-$ depth values towards this plane according to the error definitions in \[subsubsec:DDE\]. lists the resulting proportions for [[`IBims-1`]{}]{}, while a visual illustration of correctly and falsely predicted depths is depicted in \[subfig:dde\_gt,subfig:dde\_pred\]. The results show that the methods tended to predict depths to a too short distance, although the number of correctly estimated depths almost reaches and for [[`NYU-v2`]{}]{}and [[`IBims-1`]{}]{}, respectively.
Further Analyses {#sec:further_analyses}
----------------
A series of additional experiments were conducted to investigate the behavior of methods in special situations. The challenges cover an augmentation of our dataset with various color and geometrical transformations and an auxiliary dataset containing images of printed patterns and [[`NYU-v2`]{}]{}images on a planar surface.
### Data Augmentation
In order to assess the robustness of methods [w[.]{}r[.]{}t[.]{} ]{}simple geometrical and color transformation and noise, we derived a set of augmented images from our dataset. For geometrical transformations we flipped the input images horizontally—which is expected to not change the results significantly—and vertically, which is expected to expose slight overfitting effects. As images in the [[`NYU-v2`]{}]{}dataset usually show a considerable amount of pixels on the floor in the lower part of the picture, this is expected to notably influence the estimated depth maps. For color transformations, we consider swapping of image channels, shifting the hue by some offset $h$ and scaling the saturation by a factor $s$. We change the gamma values to simulate over- and under-exposure and optimize the contrast by histogram stretching. Blurred versions of the images are simulated by applying gaussian blur with increasing standard deviation $\sigma$. Furthermore, we consider noisy versions of the images by applying gaussian additive noise and salt and pepper noise with increasing variance and amount of affected pixels, respectively.
shows results for these augmented images using the global relative error metric for selected methods. As expected, the geometrical transformations yielded contrasting results. While the horizontal flipping did not influence the results by a large margin, flipping the images vertically increased the error by up to . Slight overexposure influenced the result notably, underexposure seems to have been less problematic. Histogram stretching had no influence on the results, suggesting that this is already a fixed or learned part of the methods. The methods also seem to be robust to color changes, which is best seen in the results for $s = 0$, [*i[.]{}e[.]{}*, ]{}, greyscale input images which yielded an equal error to the reference.
### Textured Planar Surfaces
Experiments with printed patterns and [[`NYU-v2`]{}]{}samples on a planar surface exploit the most important features useful for . As to be seen in the first example in \[fig:trickshots\_results\], gradients seem to serve as a strong hint to the network. All of the tested methods estimated incorrectly depth in the depicted scene, none of them, however, identified the actual planarity of the picture.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
We presented a novel set of quality criteria for the evaluation of methods. Furthermore, we introduced a new high-quality dataset, fulfilling the need for an extended ground truth of our proposed metrics. Using this test protocol we evaluated and compared state-of-the-art methods. In our experiments, we were able to assess the quality of the compared approaches [w[.]{}r[.]{}t[.]{} ]{}to various meaningful properties, such as the preservation of edges and planar regions, depth consistency, and absolute distance accuracy. Compared to commonly used global metrics, our proposed set of quality criteria enabled us to unveil even subtle differences between the considered methods. In particular, our experiments have shown that the prediction of planar surfaces, which is crucial for many applications, is lacking accuracy. Furthermore, edges in the predicted depth maps tend to be oversmooth for many methods. We believe that our dataset is suitable for future developments in this regard, as our images are provided in a very high resolution and contain new sceneries with extended scene depths.
The [[`IBims-1`]{}]{}dataset can be downloaded at [www.lmf.bgu.tum.de/ibims1](www.lmf.bgu.tum.de/ibims1).
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This research was funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) for Tobias Koch and the Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure (BMVI) for Lukas Liebel. We thank our colleagues from the Chair of Geodesy for providing all the necessary equipment and our student assistant Leonidas Stöckle for his help during the data acquisition campaign.
[^1]: Chair of Remote Sensing Technology, Computer Vision Research Group, Technical University of Munich {tobias.koch, lukas.liebel, marco.koerner}@tum.de
[^2]: This dataset is freely available at [www.lmf.bgu.tum.de/ibims1](www.lmf.bgu.tum.de/ibims1).
[^3]: The final dataset will contain 100 image pairs
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In the presence of background Neveu-Schwarz flux, the description of the Ramond-Ramond fields of type IIB string theory using twisted $K$-theory is not compatible with S-duality. We argue that other possible variants of twisted K-theory would still not resolve this issue. We propose instead a connection of S-duality with elliptic cohomology, and a possible T-duality relation of this to a previous proposal for IIA theory, and higher-dimensional limits. In the process, we obtain some other results which may be interesting on their own. In particular, we prove a conjecture of Witten that the $11$-dimensional spin cobordism group vanishes on $K({\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}},6)$, which eliminates a potential new $\theta$-angle in type IIB string theory.'
---
hep-th/0410293
[**Type IIB string theory, S-duality, and generalized cohomology**]{} [^1]
Igor Kriz[^2]$^1$ and Hisham Sati [^3]$^{2,3}$
\
Introduction
============
There are two string theories with two supersymmetries in ten dimensions, nonchiral type IIA and chiral type IIB theories. Type IIB supergravity [@GS] is the classical low energy limit of type IIB string theory. There is no manifestly Lorentz-invariant action for this theory [@Mar], but one can write down the equations of motion [@Schw],[@HW], and the symmetries and transformation rules [@Sch-W]. An action which encodes self-duality was proposed in [@PST]. However, such an action does not seem to be well-adapted for the topologically nontrivial situations we are interested in. Type IIB theory is free of chiral anomalies [@Alv-W].
Since both are ten-dimensional, why is IIB different than IIA? First note that in both cases, what is self-dual is the total field strength $F=\sum_i F_i$ with $i=2p$ for IIA and $i=2p+1$ for IIB. In the IIA story, $F_4$ might be viewed as having somewhat of a more transparent role than the other fields because that is the field directly descending from the fundamental field of M-theory, namely $G_4$. In IIB, there is no obvious way of picking one of the field (because it is not as transparently related to M-theory), but it should have a rank close to four, i.e. either the three-form or the five-form. Dualities give some hints. M-theory on a torus $T^2$ is equivalent to type IIB on a circle $S^1$ in the limit when the volume of the torus shrinks to zero (i.e. T-duality) [@Asp] [@SchM]. So if we start with $G_4$ in M-theory, then we can either reduce diagonally or vertically. The result of the former is a two-form, $F_2$ which can only be lifted over the circle diagonally to a three-form of type IIB. For the latter, we still have a four-form $F_4$ which can only lift diagonally to the IIB five-form. So in this way we see that the fields of degrees three and five in IIB are what is taking role which $F_4$ played in IIA. A detailed account of the relation between IIB and M-theory can be found in [@Gr].
Self-duality is usually a subtle issue to deal with when quantizing (see e.g. [@Hen] [@Wi4]), via the path integral in our case. In type IIA, this was taken care of in [@DMW] by summing over a set of commuting periods for the partition function, which amounted to picking a polarization over the torus $K^0/K_{tors}^0$ which keeps only the forms $F_0$, $F_2$ and $F_4$ and kills the “duals”. Then one could still further ignore all but $F_4$. Now the problem with just $F_4$ makes sense quantum-mechanically, because for one thing, it is not self-dual, and so the partition function is well-defined. In type IIB, a’priori $F$ is not a sum of even number of terms as was the case in IIA, where had the ${{\mathbb Z}}_2$-graded expansion $
F=F_0 + F_2 + F_4 + F_6 + F_8 + F_{10}.
$ Now in IIB we have $
F=F_1 + F_3 + F_5 + F_7 + F_9
$ which contains only five terms. So it is not obvious how to pick a polarization which kills half the terms as was done in IIA. However, one might argue that $F_5$ can be split into two parts according to self-duality/antiselfduality. One might also argue that since the theory has a (spacetime-filling) $D9$-brane, which couples to a 10-form potential $C_{10}$, one requires a corresponding field strength $F_{11}$. But in 10-dimensions this cannot occur. However, the rescue might be in looking at higher dimensions. If we take the view that type IIB theory has an intrinsic 12-dimensional structure associated to it, by viewing the $SL(2,{{\mathbb Z}})$ S-duality symmetry of the moduli, as actually coming from a physical torus on which the theory had been compactified, then one can identify the two modular groups and one gets a 12-dimensional lift of IIB, namely F-theory [@Vafa]. This is motivated by the fact that the S-duality group $SL(2,{{\mathbb Z}})$ is in fact a U-duality group [@HT] and the use of the intuition from compactification of M-theory to “discover” this as the modular group of an internal torus. If we take this point of view, then we have a total RR field strength with an even number of terms and thus we can pick a polarization that kills $F_{2p+1}$ for $p\geq 3$.
Next, one has to pick whether to keep $F_3$ or $F_5$, and further worry about analyzing the problem in an S-duality-covariant fashion. This is implied in the self-duality of $F_5$, which as we mentioned above, will have to be treated very carefully in the partition funcion, and the S-duality symmetry of $F_3$ which amounts to having to consider $H_3$ at an equal footing, that is look at the pair as an $SL(2,{{\mathbb Z}})$-doublet, i.e. as transforming in the two-dimensional representation of (subgroup of) the modular group.
Indeed, one of the problems that was discussed in [@DMW] is that there seems to be no symmetry between the Neveu-Schwarz three-form $H_3$ and the Ramond-Ramond three-form $F_3$, because traditionally $F_3$ is viewed as a $K$-theory object whereas $H_3$ is an ordinary differential form. They propose two approaches: The first is that there is a source term $Q$ for the anomaly equation, so that [^4] $Q=H_3\cup H_3$. The second is that the $SL(2,{{\mathbb Z}})$ invariance of the theory does not come from a simple transformation law on the space of classical configurations, i.e. the invariance of the partition function need not come from an invariance on the classical fields but appears only when one looks at equivalence classes (as was done in comparing M-theory to IIA). However, no convincing scenario for the latter was found.
The above can be rephrased in terms of differentials in the Atiyah-Hirzebruch Spectral Sequence (AHSS). In particular, the problem is to find an S-duality covariant extension of the third differential. Some discussions of this issue has appeared in [@EV]. For the twisted case, without the S-duality issue, the third differential was studied and given a very nice physical interpretation in [@MMS]. From the point of view of branes and solitons, some further discussion on this can be found in [@J2] [@J1]. Some progress in the resolution of the S-duality problem was made in [@DFM] from a different point of view, using their model of the M-theory three-form.
Now let us take this one step further. If one takes the view that $H_3$ is interpreted as a twisting for $K$-theory ([@Wi1] and [@Kap] [@BM] [@HM]), then $H_3$ is more naturally associated to a gerbe than a differential form. A gerbe is in some sense a “higher” object than that of $K$-theory, i.e. a vector bundle, and so one can argue that in order to provide a description that treats the NS fields and the RR fields on equal footing, one has to go beyond $K$-theory.
The question then is which (twisted) generalized cohomology theory is the right one to use? In type IIA, the answer [@KS] was somewhat more manifest since the Diaconescu-Moore-Witten anomaly [@DMW] $W_7$ was given by $\beta Sq^2(x_4)$, where $x_4$ is a four-class which could naturally be identified with four-form. In type IIB, however, there is no natural four-class available and so the situation is a little bit subtle.
In this paper, we find that to resolve the S-duality problem in IIB, one cannot use any variant of twisted $K$-theory where the twisting is merely by an integral cohomology class in dimension $3$. Such theory would be classified by a fibered space over the space classifying $K^1$ whose fiber would be $K({\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}},3)$, but we find that there is no such space in which the first Postnikov invariant would be compatible with S-duality. It is important to point out that our analysis does [*not*]{} exclude the possibility of a solution which combines the $3$-dimensional twisting with some higher twisting. On the other hand, we note that such higher twisting would amount to constructing, term by term, a Postnikov tower of some space which merely maps to $K^1$. We include some speculation about the nature of that space or generalized cohomology theory.
More precisely, the authors have a candidate theory which they found in connection with the T-dual scenario of IIA in [@KS], namely [*elliptic cohomology*]{}. What happens is that under certain conditions, there exists an elliptic cohomology analogue of the physical theory which defines the type II partition functions via $K$-theory [@DMW; @Wi4]. Elliptic cohomology, by design, has built in modularity which seems indeed to correspond with IIB S-duality. It is possible that in a suitable scenario, the sources $F_3$ and $H_3$ would both originate in elliptic cohomology which might resolve the puzzle in that range. We do not claim, however, that such scenario occurs in classical weak-coupled IIB string theory. Although IIB theory is U-dual to itself, it is nevertheless possible that on a line in moduli space connecting the two U-duals, dimensional expansion may occur. Dimensional expansion should, in fact, be generic. We think that it is that range to which the elliptic partition function corresponds, and we will pursue this direction in follow-up work.
There is another piece of evidence that the elliptic cohomology partition function should involve dimensional expansion and unification of string theories. The existence of the elliptic theory in the untwisted case requires the condition $w_4(X^{10})=0$, which is a stronger condition than the untwisted IIA obstruction $W_7(X^{10})=0$ (we will see that in untwisted IIB theory, there is no obstruction at all; that doesn’t violate T-duality, as the $W_7$-obstruction vanishes on a manifold of the form $S^1\times X^{9}$). The appearance of the $4$-dimensional obstruction may be somewhat surprizing. However, such obstruction occurs in the other types of string theory, namely type I and heterotic, where it relates the $w_4$ to the $4$-form of the gauge field. If the gauge field is $0$, we get precisely the obstruction $w_4=0$. We think that in sector in which our elliptic partition function applies, type II string theory becomes unified with other string theories, which is the reason why we are seeing a unified obstruction. More precise proposals will be made in follow-up work.
This paper is organized as follows. In section \[CS\] we study the Chern-Simons construction for the five-form, and we prove the vanishing fo the spin cobordism group $\tilde{\Omega}_{11}^{spin}\left( K({{\mathbb Z}},6)\right)$, which was conjectured by Witten. This fact, in fact, is interesting on its own, as it eliminates another potential $\theta$-angle in type IIB string theory. We also comment on the construction of the intermediate Jacobian for cohomology, making a connection to the work of Hopins and Singer.
In section \[K1\] we review Witten’s construction of the RR partition function in cohomology and in $K$-theory, and provide some details for the case of $H_3$-twisted $K$-theory.
In section \[DMWa\] we give the argument that there is no Diaconescu-Moore-Witten anomaly in ordinary untwisted $10$-dimensional type IIB partition function.
In section \[S\] we discuss the main topic which is the S-duality puzzle and previous attempts and suggestions to resolve it, and also provide homotopy-theoretical evidence why a straightforward solution to the S-duality puzzle, using some generalized twisting of $K$-theory, does not seem possible.
In section \[vs\], we propose in detail our possible approach to the S-duality problem using elliptic cohomology, and also write down the $\theta$-bundle construction, which is the main step of the partition function construction, in this elliptic cohomology context. This is a unification of the IIA elliptic cohomology partition function correction of [@KS] and the IIB $K^1$-partition function construction of [@Wi4].
Having proposed a solution to the S-duality problem, one must address T-duality. In [@KS] we found that the cancellation of the Diaconescu-Moore-Witten anomaly in type IIA required the formulation of the partition function in terms of elliptic cohomology. How are the two pictures compatible? We address this question in section \[T\].
The partition function and the Chern-Simons construction {#CS}
========================================================
We start by reviewing Witten’s construction. In order to study the partition function, one has to integrate over the space of fields. At the level of cohomology, one would also like to interpret the partition function as a section of a line bundle ${\mathcal L}$ over the intermediate Jacobian $J^5$, such that the first Chern class $c_1({\mathcal L})$ equals the polarization, or symplectic form, $\omega$ of $J^5$. Witten showed that using the Chern-Simons construction one can always find a line bundle with $c_1=2\omega$, and further, that in order to get one with $c_1=\omega$ (i.e. basically using level half) one has to have, for a closed twelve-dimensional spin manifold $Z^{12}$, that the intersection form on $H^6(Z^{12}, {{\mathbb Z}})$ be even, which is always the case. [^5]
In the Chern-Simons construction, i.e. extending by a circle with a bounding spin structure and then taking a coboundary, one encounters an obstruction for extending the gauge “bundles” as the cobordism group $\Omega_{11}^{spin}\left(K({{\mathbb Z}},6) \right)$. Witten conjectures [@eff] that this group should be zero because it is unlikely that a theta angle, parametrized by the dual group $Hom\left(\Omega_{11}^{spin}\left(K({{\mathbb Z}},6) \right), U(1) \right)$, exists in type IIB string theory.
Spin cobordism is represented by a spectrum, which is usually denoted by $MSpin$. Thus, another way of writing the above cobordism group, interpreting it as a generalized homology group using the notation of spectra, is $MSpin_{11}K({{\mathbb Z}},6)=\Omega_{11}^{spin}(K({{\mathbb Z}},6))
$. Recall that by a result of Milnor, $MSpin_{11}(*)=0$, so it suffices to consider the reduced group $\widetilde{MSpin}_{11}K({\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}},6)=\tilde{\Omega}_{11
}^{spin}(K({{\mathbb Z}},6))$. We want to show that this is zero. The point is that this is in the so-called [*stable range*]{}.
The word ‘stable’ is used in many different meanings in different contexts. The algebraic topology meaning, which we are referring to here, is actually related to the notion of stability of $D$-branes, but we are not interested in that at the moment. In algebraic geometry, on the other hand, for example a ‘stable bundle’ (or curve) is something quite different, controlling automorphisms. In algebraic topology, ‘stable’ means ‘preserved under suspension’. Suspension $\Sigma X$ of a space $X$ is formed by taking the product $X\times [0,1]$ and identifying all the points $(x,0)$ to a single point, and all the points $(x,1)$ to another single point. Now the crucial property is that for any generalized homology theory $E$, we have a natural isomorphism $$\tilde{E}_n(X)\cong \tilde{E}_{n+1}\Sigma X$$ where $\tilde{E}_n$ denotes the generalized homology group. A similar relation holds also for cohomology. This is what we mean by saying that generalized homology (or cohomology) theories are stable. In physics, it is important that stable D-branes are classified by $K$-theory, i.e. a stable invariant. The two notions of stability are related, but as we already commented, we are not using that in this proof.
Now conversely, with very mild restrictions, essentially every stable invariant of spaces is represented by a generalized homology or cohomology theory. This means that many common invariants are not stable. Homotopy groups are one example. Nevertheless, there is always a natural homomorphism (called the suspension map) [$$\label{efreud}\pi_n(X){\rho}\pi_{n+1}\Sigma X$$]{} and the Freudenthal suspension theorem asserts that [(\[efreud\])]{} is in fact an isomorphism if $n\leq 2k$ and onto for $n=2k+1$ where $k$ is such number that $$\pi_i(X)=0$$ for $i\leq k$ (we say that the space $X$ is [*$k$-connected*]{}). Because [(\[efreud\])]{} is an isomorphism in this range of $n$, we refer to $n\leq 2k$ as the [*stable range*]{}. Note that by mere comparison of numbers, once $n$ is in the stable range for $X$, then every suspension map $$\pi_{n+i}\Sigma^i X{\rho}\pi_{n+i+1}\Sigma^{i+1}X$$ is also an isomorphism for $i\geq 0$.
This led algebraic topologists to realize that there is a functor $\Sigma^{\infty}$ of ‘infinite suspension’ from spaces to the ‘stable world’ i.e. generalized cohomology theories. For these purposes, actually, it is useful to think of generalized cohomology theories on a point set level, not just up to homotopy. From this point of view, they are referred to as spectra. The essential point is that for any generalized homology $E$, we have a natural isomorphism $$\tilde{E}_n X\cong E_n \Sigma^{\infty}X$$ because generalized homology is a stable invariant! A similar relation also holds for generalized cohomology.
Now we have a map of spectra $
\Sigma^{\infty} K({{\mathbb Z}},6) \rightarrow \Sigma^6 H{{\mathbb Z}}.
\label{spec}
$ Here the spectrum on the right hand side is integral homology suspended by $6$. This means that when applying the homology theory represented by this spectrum to a space, the $i$’th integral homology group appears in dimension $i+6$. The map [(\[spec\])]{} comes simply from the fact that the $6$’th integral cohomology group of $K({\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}},6)$ is ${\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}}$. But by the Freudenthal suspension theorem, we can say what the map [(\[spec\])]{} does in homotopy groups. This is because $K({\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}},6)$ is $5$-connected (and in fact its only non-trivial homotopy group is ${\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}}$ in dimension $6$), so by the Freudenthal suspension theorem we know that $\Sigma^{\infty} K({\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}},6)$ has no non-trivial homotopy groups, except ${\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}}$ in dimension $6$, in dimensions $\leq 11$. It follows that the map [(\[spec\])]{} induces on homotopy groups an isomorphism in dimension $\leq 11$, and an onto map in dimension $12$ (simply because the right hand side has no homotopy in that dimension). Such map is referred to as a $12$-equivalence. In general, an $n$-equivalence of spaces or spectra has the property that it induces an isomorphism of any connective generalized homology or cohomology theory in dimension $<n$, and an onto map in dimension $n$ (connective means that the negative generalized homology resp. cohomology groups of a point are $0$). This is a consequence of the Whitehead theorem.
Therefore, [(\[spec\])]{}, which is a 12-equivalence, induces iso in dimensions less than twelve and onto map in dimension twelve in any connective generalized homology theory, of which $MSpin$ is an example. So all we need is $
MSpin_{11}\Sigma^6 H{{\mathbb Z}}=H_5(MSpin, {{\mathbb Z}})
\label{epspin}
$ (This is an interesting property of spectra: they are simultaneously generalized homology theories, and their arguments. Further, for spectra $E,F$, we have $E_n F=F_n E$. We refer the reader to [@adams] for this fact, as well as basic foundations of the theory of spectra, which should include all the properties used in this proof.) But now by Thom isomorphism, the right hand side of [(\[epspin\])]{} is equal to $H_5(BSpin, {{\mathbb Z}})$, which is zero. [^6]
We will next comment on the construction of the Jacobian over the integral cohomology torus. Recall that the theory has, in the RR sector, the field strengths $F_{2p+1}$, $p\leq 0 \leq 4$. In the case of trivial cohomology, $F_{2p+1}=dC_{2p}$. For $p=2$ the field strength is self-dual $F_5=*F_5$. This is analogous to the story of a self-dual scalar in 2 dimensions and the chiral 2-form theory on the M5 worldvolume [@eff] [@Wi4]. These are similar because of chirality in dimensions $4k+2$. The construction of the intermediate Jacobian (of cohomology) of the string and the fivebrane worldvolume theories should then be helpful for the type IIB case. Indeed this is the case as the work of Hopkins and Singer [@HS] suggests. Their construction of the line bundle works for any $Spin$-manifold M of dimension $4n-2$. Note that in order for their monodromy formula to work, they require that the cobordism group $MSpin_{4n-1}K({{\mathbb Z}},2n)$ ( $= H_{2n-1}(BSpin,{{\mathbb Z}})\oplus MSpin_{4n-1}(*)$ as above) vanishes. Note that in our case, $n=3$, we have proved above the vanishing of the corresponding cobordism group, and thus at the level of cohomology one can get the corresponding line bundle by applying the formalism of [@HS].
Note that in the special case when $X=T^{10}$, Dolan and Nappi [@DN] found the $SL(10,{{\mathbb Z}})$-invariant partition function for the chiral five-form. However, as they also indicate, their methods would not extend to manifolds with more nontrivial topology.
$K^1$ in type IIB {#K1}
=================
First we start by reviewing the appearance of $K$-theory in type IIB. The $RR$ fields of type IIB, in the absence of branes and $NSNS$ fields, are determined by $K^1(X^{10})$ [@Wi1]. In the presence of $NSNS$ field $H_3$ then this was suggested in [@Wi1], and shown in [@Kap] for the torsion case and later in [@BM] for nontorsion, to be the twisted group $K_H^1(X^{10})$. The formula for the $RR$ field strengths was proposed in [@MW] to be the same as for type IIA theory, $
\frac{F(x)}{2\pi}=\sqrt{{\hat A}(X)}ch(x)
$ where now the element $x$ has a slightly different interpretation. Since $K^1(X)$ is isomorphic to ${\widetilde K}^0(X \times S^1)$ [^7] , the Chern character $ch(x)$ is an element of $H^{even}(X \times S^1)$, which, upon integration over $S^1$, maps to $H^{odd}(X)$. One aspect of the $K$-theory interpretation of the $RR$ fields is that the torsion parts are also unified and one cannot make sense of torsion parts of seperate components of $F(x)$.
The construction of the theta functions was explained in [@MW] relying on the definitions in [@Wi4]. At the level of cohomology, on a ten-dimensional spin manifold, the potential $C_4$ with a self-dual field strength $F_5$, is topologically classified by a class $x \in H^5(X, {{\mathbb Z}})$, which is represented in de Rham cohomology by $F_5/{2\pi}$. The partition function is then constructed by summing over all values of $x$. This happens when one ignores the self-duality and imposes the conventional Dirac quantization. However, for a self-dual $F_5$, the partition function is not obtained by summing independently over all values of $x$, but rather [@Wi4] in terms of a theta function on ${\mathcal T}=H^5(X,U(1))$, which, in the absence of torsion in the cohomology of $X$, is the torus $H^5(X, {{\mathbb R}})/H^5(X,{{\mathbb Z}})$. Then the theta function is constructed by summing over a maximal set of “commuting” periods. In order to determine the line bundle over ${\mathcal T}$, whose section is the partition function, we need to detemine the the ${{\mathbb Z}}_2$-valued function $\Omega(x)$ on $H^5(X,{{\mathbb Z}}_2)$. As in the IIA case, this function obeys (for all $x$, $y \in H^5(X,{{\mathbb Z}}_2)$) $
\Omega(x+y)=\Omega(x) \Omega(y) (-1)^{x\cdot y}
$ where $x\cdot y$ is the intersection pairing on $X$, i.e. $\int_X x \cup y$. Again it is convenient to write it as $\Omega(x)=(-1)^{h(x)}$ for an integer-valued function that is defined mod 2.
Defining $\Omega(x)$ at the level of $K$-theory automatically includes forms of all odd dimensions [@Wi4]. Analogously to the IIA construction, we need $x \otimes {\bar y}$, which is in $K^2(X)={\widetilde K}^0(X \times S^1 \times S^1)$, and define $
(x,y)= \int_{X \times S^1 \times S^1}
{\hat A}(X\times S^1 \times S^1) ch(x \otimes {\bar y}).
$
There is a subtlety in defining $\Omega(x)$ [@Wi4]. Replacing the element $x \otimes {\bar x}$ of ${\widetilde K}^0(X \times S^1 \times S^1)$ by its complex conjugate amounts to exchanging the two $S^1$ factors. In addition, this element is trivial if restricted to $X\times S^1 \times \{*\}$ or $X\times \{*\}\times S^1$. The two properties amount to saying that $x \otimes {\bar x}$ can now be interpreted as an element of the Real group $KR(X\times S^2)$, with the involution given by a reflection on one of the coordinates of $S^2$. [^8] Now, by Bott periodicity of $KR$, $
KR(X\times S^2) \cong KO(X)
$ which means that the element $x \otimes {\bar x}$ maps to an element $w \in KO(X)$ and then one can define [@Wi4] $h(x)=j(w)$, where $j(w)$ is the mod 2 index of the Dirac operator with values in $w$, which has no elementary formula in general, but for bundles $w$ whose complexification is of the form $x \otimes {\bar
x}$, then $
j(w)= \int_X {\hat A}(X) ch(w) \quad {\rm mod} 2 .
$
Having reviewed Witten’s construction in $K$-theory, we next look at the twisted case, for which there is an analogous story. Since $H_3$-twisted $K$-theory is not ultimately the theory we are after for solving the S-duality problem, we will not attempt the whole construction but limit ourselves to certain aspects that follow rather directly from the construction in the case of $K^0$ in type IIA [@HM], which in turn is a generalization of [@DMW] and [@MS] to the (nontrivial) $H_3$-twisted case.
In the presence of $H$-flux, the Ramond-Ramond fields ${{F}}$ are determined by the twisted $K$-theory classes $x \in K(X, H)$ via the twisted Chern map $\label{F1}
\frac{{F}(x)}{2 \pi} = ch_{H}(x) \sqrt{{\hat A}(X)} \in
H^{odd}(X, H).
$
As in the $K^0$ case [@HM], the conjugate of $x$, $\bar x \in K^1(X, -H)$ $\label{F2}
\frac{{{F}(\bar x)}}{2 \pi} = ch_{-H}(\bar x) \sqrt{{\hat A}(X)}
\in H^{odd}(X, -H)
$
The RR field equations of motion can be written as $
d{{F}}=H_3 \wedge {F}
$ which, at the level of differential forms says that the RR fields determine elements in twisted cohomology, $H^{odd}(X, H)$, and at the level of cohomology this implies $H_3 \wedge {{F}}_{n}=0$.
We again have a diagram (analogously to [@HM], and which was also essentially used in [@BEM])
$$\label{rootA}
\begin{CD}
K^1(X, H) \times K^1(X, -H) @>>> K^0(X)
@>{\rm index}>>{{\mathbb Z}}\\
@V{ch_H}\times {ch_{-H}}VV @VV{ch} V @VV{||}V \\
H^{odd}(X, H) \times H^{odd}(X, -H) @> >>
H^{even} (X) @>\int_X{\widehat{A}(X)}\wedge>>{{\mathbb Z}}\end{CD}$$
where the upper row contains the cup product pairing in twisted $K$-theory followed by the standard index pairing of elements of $K$-theory with the Dirac operator (and we have used Bott periodicity). The bottom horizontal arrows are cup product in twisted cohomology followed by cup product by ${\widehat{A}(X)} $ and by integration. By the Atiyah-Singer index theorem, the diagram commutes. Therefore the normalization given to the Chern character in the definition of $\frac{{{F}(x)}}{2 \pi} $ makes the pairings in twisted $K$-theory and twisted cohomology isometric.
Again here there is the subtlety in the self-duality $*{{F}}={{F}}$, which would be resolved [@Wi4; @MW] by interpreting this self-duality as a statement in the quantum theory and summing over half the fluxes, i.e. over a maximal set of commuting periods. The lattice is $\Gamma_{K_H}=K^1(X,H)/K^1(X,H)_{tors}$. This is isomorphic to the image of the modified Chern character homomorphism of ${{\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}}}_2$-graded rings,
$
\sqrt{\hat{A}(X)} \wedge ch_H : K^1(X,H) \rightarrow H^{odd}(X,H;{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}})
\label{esqrt}
$ (via a similar arguement as the untwisted case) and the kernel is $K^1(X,H)_{tors}$, the torsion subgroup. However, in this case, it would be desirable (to see whether it is possible) to construct the structures on the lattice in analogy to the twisted IIA case [@HM].
One possible approach to trying to understand the twisted case better is to have a better understanding of the twisted backgrounds. This may include understanding the role of [*higher twisting*]{}. Higher twistings have been used in the work of Freed, Hopkins and Teleman on the Verlinde algebra [@turk] [@FHT]. For complex $K$-theory, by [@Tel], a twisting of complex $K$-theory over X is a principal $BU_{\otimes}$-bundle over that space. By (\[BU\]), this is a pair $(\delta, \tau)$ consisting of a [*determinant twisting*]{} $\delta$, which is a $K({{\mathbb Z}},2)$-bundle over X, and a [*higher twisting*]{} $\tau$, which is a $BSU_{\otimes}$-torsor, so that twistings are classified, up to isomorphism, by a pair of classes $[\delta] \in H^3(X, {{\mathbb Z}})$ and $[\tau]$ in the generalized cohomology group $H^1(X,BSU_{\otimes})$. This group is not very simple to deal with over ${{\mathbb Z}}$, but becomes more manageable over ${{\mathbb Q}}$, where it coefficient $BSU_{\otimes}$ becomes a topological abelian group, isomorphic to $\prod_{n \geq 2}K({{\mathbb Q}},2n)$ via the logarithm of the Chern character $ch$. In this latter case, Teleman then asserts [@Tel] that the twistings of rational $K$-theory over X are classified, up to isomorphism, by the group $\prod_{n> 1}H^{2n+1}(X,{{\mathbb Q}})$.
One place where it seems that higher twisting of $K$-theory does show up is in considering non-abelian spacetime. It is a well known fact that the $B$-field, whose field strength is $H_3$, measures non-commutativity of spacetime. In this section, we propose why higher twisting may be relevant from this geometric point of view.
First of all, mathematically, an infinitesimal deformation of any structure is measured by its first Quillen cohomology [@q]. Now for example flat spacetime is characterized by its ring of functions, which is (up to some completion) roughly a polynomial algebra. Now in the category of rings, $1$st Quillen cohomology is $2$nd Hochschild cohomology, which, for the polynomial algebra $R$, is simply the space of possible violations of commutativity, i.e. the space of antisymmetric matrices over $R$, i.e. $B$ fields.
This predicts that perhaps the string moduli space should contain backgrounds whose spacetimes have spaces of functions which are global non-commutative rings. We do not know if the IIA and IIB theory can indeed be fully recovered for such backgrounds, although it is worth noting that $K$ theory of non-commutative topological rings makes sense. Using Serre-Swan theorem one can define for a not necessarily commutative ring $A$, $K_0(A)$ as the group defined by the semigroup of isomorphism classes of finite projective A-modules. The definition of $K_1(A)$ follows the same pattern as the commutative case, provided $A$ is a Banach algebra. Bott periodicity extends to all Banach algebras.
There is also an intermediate step, i.e. “perturbative” non-commutative geometry in the sense of Connes [@con]. This is defined in a similar fashion as a super-manifold: a manifold $X$ together with a “structure sheaf”, or a bundle of non-commutative algebras. Atiyah and Segal [@AS] comment that while a $B$-field is precisely the data needed by twisting $K$-theory cohomologically, a $B$-field realized by such non-commutative algebra bundle gives therefore Connes’ non-commutative geometry. To have a bundle of non-commutative algebras, however, we first have a bundle of their indecomposibles, i.e. a vector bundle, which defines an element of $K$-theory.
The Diaconescu-Moore-Witten anomaly {#DMWa}
===================================
Here we show that there is no Diaconescu-Moore-Witten anomaly in the ordinary untwisted IIB partition function. In computing the quadratic structure $\Omega$, we took a class $x$ in $K$-theory ($K^1$ in case of IIB), and by multiplying it by its conjugate, created a class in real $K$-theory ($KR^{1+\alpha}X\cong KR^0X$ in IIB) and then capped with the KR theory fundamental class to get the mod 2 index. Witten’s method for identifying the anomaly is to choose a polarization of the form $\omega$, i.e. a maximal isotropic space. On such space $W$, there exists a characteristic, i.e. an element $\theta$ such that for $x\in W$, $\Omega(x)=\langle x,\theta \rangle$ (considering $\Omega(x)\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}}/2$).
Now Witten takes a polarization compatible with the AHSS. For IIA, this is the dual of $K$-theory elements supported on the $k$-skeleton, for $k>5$, in the AHSS. Witten then argues that the characteristic must be supported in the AHSS in dimension four. The filtration degree in real AHSS we need to get to is 8 (to apply the mod 2 index, which lands in $KO^2$), so a priori one can take the characteristic to be supported in filtration degrees $\geq 4$ (which is, from the point of view of this pairing, dual to $W$).
The same subtle argument can be applied to IIB. Of course, there is no canonical polarization, but we can take simply some isotropic subspace of the $\Omega$-dual of $K^1$-theory elements supported on the $>5$-skeleton in the AHSS. This amounts to just selecting some polarization of the part supported in cohomological dimension 5. Now for such choice of $W$, although not canonical, this time the characteristic can be taken supported in filtation degrees $\geq 5$. The point is, again, the mod 2 index is supposed to end up in $KO^2$, but we also apply the $1+\alpha$ shift. So, it seems that even before the shift, we want the complementary degree in the (cohomology) AHSS to be $-8$, so $-4$ for one class $x$, which occurs in filtration degree $5$.
Then the only non-trivial dimension is $5$. So the question will be analogous to IIA: Can there be a class $a=\theta$ in $H^5(X,{{\mathbb Z}})$ which supports a differential in the AHSS? This is not possible, as we argued before: if $d_3 a=b$ then choose $c\in H^2(X,{{\mathbb Z}})$ with $b\cup c$ not divisible by 2 (Poincaré duality). But then $c$ must support a $d_3$ in the AHSS but that cannot happen, because second cohomology is represented by maps to $CP^\infty$, hence any second cohomology class lifts to $K$-theory. Therefore there is no Diaconescu-Moore-Witten anomaly in the ordinary $10$-dimensional untwisted IIB partition function.
Note that this observation does not violate ordinary untwisted T-duality in the canonical case: when $X_{10}=X_9\times S^1$ and everything is $Spin$, then one must have $W_7(X_{10})=W_7(X_9)=0$ for the usual reason that $\beta Sq^6$ when applied to the fundamental homology class of $X_9$ would have to be an integral homology class in dimension $2$, which is again impossible by Poincaré duality.
S-duality and $K$-theory {#S}
========================
The puzzle
----------
Diaconescu, Moore and Witten [@DMW] discuss the apparent incompatability of twisted $K$-theory and S-duality. In order to have an $SL(2,{{\mathbb Z}})$ symmetry, the monodromies of $\tau$ should be trivial, which implies that $F_1$, which determines the monodromies of $Re\tau$ should vanish (recall that $\tau=C_0 + ie^{-\phi}$). So the condition for anomaly cancellation (i.e. the $W_3$ story [@FW], see also [@KS]) for the next nontrivial field $F_3$ is $(Sq^3 + H_3)\cup F_3=0$. Now the pair $H^i$ is expected to transform in the two-dimensional representation of the modular group. First, $\tau \rightarrow \tau +1$, sending $F_3$ to $F_3+H_3$ and $H_3$ to itself, encounters no problems since $H_3 \cup H_3=Sq^3 H_3$ which implies that the anomaly equation is invariant. But it is not invariant under the full group, e.g. sending $F$ to itself and $H$ to $H_3+F_3$. The $SL(2,{{\mathbb Z}})$-invariant extension of the above equation is [@DMW] $
F_3 \cup H_3 + \beta Sq^2 (F_3 + H_3)=0.
\label{Sq}
$ One immediate question is that of justification (and interpretation) of the term [$$\label{esqb}\beta Sq^2H_3=H_3\cup H_3.$$]{}
The problem can be restated as finding an S-duality extension of $d_3$ in AHSS (see [@EV] for discussions on this point). There have been several proposals concerning this. The authors of [@EV] state that they have verified equation (\[Sq\]) for IIB configurations obtained by T-duality of M-theory on a torus, and proposed a nonlinear extension of the differentials. In [@DFM] this problem was also addressed, focusing on the torsion components of the fields, starting from M-theory on a two-torus. Using their cubic refinement law for the M-theory phase and the quadratic refinement of the mod 2 index $f$, Diaconescu, Freed and Moore [@DFM] also derived the $SL(2,{{\mathbb Z}})$-invariant equation of motion for the torsion fields, $
Sq^3 (F_3)+Sq^3 (H_3) + F_3 \cup H_3 = P,
$ where $P$ depends only on the topology and the spin structure of the nine-manifold, and is defined by $
e^{i\pi f(a)}=\langle a, P\rangle.
$
Let us now attempt an explanation of the [(\[esqb\])]{} term in the equation [(\[Sq\])]{}. First of all, recall say from [@AS], Proposition 4.1, how one derives the differential $d_3$ in the twisted Atiyah-Hirzebruch spectral sequence: the term [(\[esqb\])]{} must be explicitly excluded, and the argument for excluding it is that one should have, in the twisted $K$-theory AHSS, [$$\label{esq0}d_3(0)=0.$$]{} Therefore, the presence of the term [(\[esqb\])]{} indicates that [(\[esq0\])]{} must be violated in the $K$-theoretical intepretation of IIB. In other words, the equation [(\[Sq\])]{}, for a given $H_3$, is not linear in $F_3$ and this is forced if we want to have modularity between the $H_3$ and $F_3$ fields.
In what way do we have to modify twisted $K$-theory to allow for a violation of [(\[esq0\])]{}? First, let us recall which twisted generalized cohomology theories we call twisted $K$-theory. A twisted generalized cohomology theory is a bundle of cohomology theories on $X$. So, for twisted $K$-theory, we would like the fiber over each point of $X$ to be $K$-theory. However, this condition is not enough. We would get a lot more “twisted $K$-theories” if we only imposed that condition. The salient point is that we also insist that twisted $K$-theory be a [*module*]{} over $K$-theory, which forces the “structure group” of the bundle of $K$-theories in question to be the multiplicative infinite loop space $GL_1(K)$ of $K$-theory. We have (see e.g. [@Tel]) $
GL_1(K)=BU^{\otimes} \sim {{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}}\times {{{\mathbb C}}P}^{\infty} \times BSU
\label{Ktwist}
$ Aside from the twistings coming from the group $\{\pm1\}$, the splitting (\[Ktwist\]) refines to a decompostion of the spectrum $BU_{\otimes}$ of 1-dimensional units in the classifying spectrum for complex $K$-theory [@MST] so that one has the factorization $
BU_{\otimes} \cong K({{\mathbb Z}};2) \times BSU_{\otimes}.
\label{BU}
$
Now if we have a violation of [(\[esq0\])]{}, clearly we cannot be dealing with a $K$-theory module. Can we then have some further generalized twisting, where, for a particular $H_3$, the choice of allowable $F_3$’s would not form a vector space? In other words, could one consider a form of twisted $K$-theory which is not a module cohomology theory over ordinary $K$-theory?
Generalized $K({\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}},3)$-twisted K-theory, and homotopy theory
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we will show that the kind of theory described in the end of the last subsection, also cannot exist if the twisting space is $K({\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}},3)$. However, first we have to understand what its existence would mean in terms of homotopy theory. So far, we have only exhibited one differential, or obstruction, [(\[Sq\])]{} for the cohomological pair $(H_3, F_3)$ to lift to the theory. For the theory to actually exist, we would have to exhibit a [*classifying space*]{}, i.e. a topological space $\mathcal{B}$ such that our affine-twisted $K^1$-group would be classified by homotopy classes of maps $
X{\rho}\mathcal{B}.
$ As it turns out, such space cannot exist. To understand this, the reader should review the Appendix for the construction of the space classifying $K^{1}_{tw}$. [^9] We see then that the space $\mathcal{B}$ should sit in a fibration [^10] [$$\label{egp1}SU{\rho}\mathcal{B}{\rho}K({\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}},3).$$]{} Then its Postnikov tower would have again the factors [(\[epostk1\])]{}, but the lowest Postnikov invariant should now be given by the equation [(\[Sq\])]{} instead of [(\[Sqk\])]{}.
Now applying the loop functor $\Omega$ ($\Omega X$ is the space of all maps $S^1{\rho}X$ preserving selected base points) to [(\[egp1\])]{}, and taking suitably rigid models, we get an extension of topological groups [$$\label{egp2}BU{\rho}\Omega B{\rho}{\ensuremath{\mathbb C}}P^{\infty}.$$]{} We will investigate $\Omega B$ as a homotopy associative $H$-space [^11]. First, since $BU$ is commutative up to homotopy, [(\[egp2\])]{} gives rise to a well defined action up to homotopy [$$\label{egp3}{\ensuremath{\mathbb C}}P^{\infty}\times BU{\rho}BU.$$]{} Now actions up to homotopy of the form [(\[egp3\])]{} can be classified. For our purposes, it suffices to consider actions which act through $H$-space homomorphisms, i.e. preserve the group structure of $BU$ up to homotopy.
Now maps $BU{\rho}BU$ are characteristic classes in $K$-theory, among which the additive ones are linear combinations of the Segre classes (otherwise known as Adams operations) $\psi_n$, which take a line bundle to its $n$’th power. Note that the composition of Adams operations is $$\psi_m\circ\psi_n=\psi_{m+n},$$ so if we write $a^n$ for $\psi_n$, one can write [(\[egp3\])]{} as a power series with integral coefficients in two variables $$\phi(x,a),$$ and the condition that [(\[egp3\])]{} is an action up to homotopy reads [$$\label{egp4}\phi(x,a)\cdot\phi(y,a)=\phi(x+y+xy,a).$$]{} To make this clearer, note that after rewriting formally $$\phi(x,a)=\Phi(1+x,a),$$ [(\[egp4\])]{} becomes $$\Phi(1+x,a)\cdot\Phi(1+y,a)=\Phi((1+x)(1+y),a)$$ to which clearly the only solutions are [$$\label{egp5}\phi(x,a)=\Phi(1+x,a)=(1+x)^m,\; m\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}}.$$]{} Therefore, $\phi$ cannot depend on $a$. What we have proven is that at least up to homotopy, the only actions [(\[egp3\])]{} are ordinary twistings of $K$-theory by $m$’th power of the line bundle. Moreover, to get the exactly the multiplicative term in the Postnikov invariant [(\[Sq\])]{}, we must have $m=1$.
We now continue our classification of the homotopy $H$-spaces [(\[egp2\])]{}. Now that the action [(\[egp3\])]{} has been identified, extensions [(\[egp2\])]{} up to homotopy are classified by a cohomology group which we can roughly write as a “group cohomology” [$$\label{egp6}H^2({\ensuremath{\mathbb C}}P^{\infty},BU)$$]{} where ${\ensuremath{\mathbb C}}P^{\infty}$ acts on $BU$ by the action [(\[egp3\])]{}, which is [(\[egp5\])]{} with $m=1$. More precisely, if $[X,Y]$ denotes homotopy classes of maps from $X$ to $Y$, then [(\[egp6\])]{} is a cohomology group $
[{\ensuremath{\mathbb C}}P^{\infty},BU]~ {\buildrel {d_1} \over \longrightarrow}~
[{\ensuremath{\mathbb C}}P^{\infty}\times{\ensuremath{\mathbb C}}P^{\infty},BU]~ {\buildrel {d_2} \over
\longrightarrow}~
[{\ensuremath{\mathbb C}}P^{\infty}\times {\ensuremath{\mathbb C}}P^{\infty} \times {\ensuremath{\mathbb C}}P^{\infty},BU].
$ Using the fact that $K^0(({\ensuremath{\mathbb C}}P^{\infty})^{\times n})$ is the ring of integral power series in $n$ variables (copies of the canonical complex orientation of $K$-theory), we may write an element in the middle term as a power series with integral coefficients $$f(x,y),$$ and then using [(\[egp5\])]{} for $m=1$, we have $$(d_2f)(x,y,z)=f(x+y+xy,z)-f(x,y+z+yz)+f(x,y)(1+z)$$ and similarly $$(d_1g) (x,y)=g(x+y+xy)-g(x)(1+y).$$ As before, things become clearer when we formally rewrite $$f(x,y)=F(1+x,1+y),$$ $$g(x)=G(1+x).$$ The differential then becomes $$d_2f=F((1+x)(1+y),(1+z))-F(1+x,(1+y)(1+z))+(F(1+x,1+y))(1+z),$$ $$d_1g=G((1+x)(1+y))-(G(1+x))(1+y).$$ This however is the standard pattern of the cobar construction with repeat term, which has no higher cohomology: indeed, if $$d_2f=0,$$ then [$$\label{egp7}f=d_1g$$]{} where $$g(x)=G(1+x)=F(1,1+x)=f(0,x).$$ To see this, calculate $$d_1g=F(1,(1+x)(1+y))-(F(1,1+x))(1+y),$$ while $$0=d_2f(1,x,y)=F(1+x,1+y)-F(1,(1+x)(1+y))+(F(1,1+x))(1+y),$$ thus proving [(\[egp7\])]{}.
We have therefore shown that the cohomology group [(\[egp6\])]{} vanishes, so at $m=1$, ordinary twisted $K$-theory is the only candidate for $\Omega
\mathcal{B}$ in the extension [(\[egp2\])]{} as homotopy associative $H$-spaces. Now recall that when we apply the loop functor $\Omega$ to [*any*]{} fibration of topological spaces [(\[egp1\])]{}, we obtain (upon selecting an appropriately rigid model) an extension of topological groups [(\[egp2\])]{}, and that this extension moreover determines the fibration [(\[egp1\])]{}. Now we have classified the extension [(\[egp2\])]{} on the level of $H$-spaces, which is weaker than topological groups. A priori, this does not exclude the possibility that some subtle higher invariant could further distinguish between the extensions of topological groups [(\[egp2\])]{}. However, the [*first*]{} Postnikov invariant of $\mathcal{B}$ (the one which goes from dimension $3$ to dimension $6$) is determined by the structure of $\Omega\mathcal{B}$ as homotopy associative $H$-space. Therefore, we have shown that [(\[Sq\])]{} cannot occur as first Postnikov invariant of a space sitting in the fibration [(\[egp1\])]{}. In other words, no version of $K({\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}},3)$-twisted $K$-theory, i.e. no theory which would be classified by a space $\mathcal{B}$ sitting in a fibration sequence of the form [(\[egp1\])]{}, can be compatible with S-duality, which is needed to solve the puzzle of [@DMW].
Even more general twisted K-theory?
-----------------------------------
We have shown that no generalized $K({\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}},3)$-twisted K-theory solves the problem of producing a theory which would explain the equation [(\[Sq\])]{}. >From a physics point of view, one might ask whether any kind of higher-twisted K-theory might solve the problem. In particular, it seems reasonable to ask whether K-twisted K-theory should play a role. If so, then that would imply a symmetry between the RR fields and the NSNS fields. Let us discuss how one might form “NSNS fields” in odd degrees. Of course, we have the standard field $H_3$. Aside from $H_7$ the dual of $H_3$, one can also include the field strength $de^{\varphi}$ of the dilaton $\varphi$, which is of degree one, its dual, and also the five-form field strength since it is duality-symmetric. One then has forms of all odd degrees less than ten, and one might then argue, in analogy to the situation with the RR fields, that they form a total Neveu-Schwarz field $
H_{NS}=\sum_n H_{2n+1}
$ where $H_{2n+1}$ are the individual fields identified above. This might then be viewed as a K-theory element which provides the higher twisting for the Ramond-Ramond fields, since as we saw earlier, rationally are of the form [@Tel] $
\prod_n H^{2n+1}(X,{{\mathbb Q}}).
$
But where would one look for such theory? First of all, recall again that ordinary higher-twisted module $K$-theory is not really $K$-twisted, but $gl_1(K)$-twisted, which involves the factors $K({{\mathbb Z}},2) \times BSU$, so using this, one still does not get the [(\[Sq\])]{} equation. Also, the self-dual $F_5$ in fact places doubts on any hope that a $(K,K)$-approach to IIB could give S-duality: Bott periodicity, which is intrinsic to $K$-theory, has a physical interpretation in tachyonic condensation where it shows up as a Gysin map. This periodicity relates all the fields $F_{2i+1}$. Now there is no obvious physical argument why the NS-NS-fields should be related by such construction. Even if this were the case, one would have to explain how come the construction passes through the self-dual $F_5$ field and returns back to NS-NS fields.
It is difficult to make a pursuasive argument that [*no*]{} twisting of $K$-theory could possibly work. The reason is that it is difficult to specify what exactly one would mean by the most general kind of twisting. For example, Zhang [@Z] defines $K$-twisted $K$-theory as cohomology of a complex $$\diagram
\rto^\alpha &K^0(X)\rto^{\alpha}& K^1(X)\rto^{\alpha} &K^0(X)\rto^{\alpha}&
\enddiagram$$ where $\alpha\in K^1(X)$ is a class, and makes calculations with this construction. Now although a theory of this type can lead to valuable calculations, even defining it however depends on calculational properties of $K^*(X)$ (one must have $\alpha^2=0$ – a priori it is only $2$-torsion, which is precisely where the subtleties lie with the equation [(\[Sq\])]{}).
In homotopy theory, the desirable property would be that our hypothetical theory, let us call it $\mathcal{K}^1$ should be representable, which means one should have $$\mathcal{K}^1(X)=[X,\mathcal{B}]$$ for some space $\mathcal{B}$. Now one may ask what type of space we allow as $\mathcal{B}$. Further, if we are referring to a twisting of $K$-theory, we should at least have a fibration [$$\label{efibx}SU{\rho}\mathcal{B}{\rho}T$$]{} for some space $T$. In the previous section, we have excluded $T=K({\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}},3)$ as a candidate. But what most general choice of $T$ should we allow? A homotopy theorist might answer $T=BG$ where $G$ is the monoid of self-maps $BU{\rho}BU$ either as a space or as an infinite loop space. However, one could go even more general. For example, one could argue that $K$-theory of $K$-theory should also be considered a twisting of $K$-theory. This was calculated by Baas-Dundas-Rognes [@bdr], and shown to be related to elliptic cohomology, which we will consider in the next section.
In general, homotopy theory allows us to say this: since we have the field $H_3$, and can neglect lower dimensions for the purposes of deriving our condition, we can assume the space $T$ of [(\[efibx\])]{} is $2$-connected and has [$$\label{efiby}{\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}}\subset \pi_3(T).$$]{} We should be more precise here: of course we are interested in situations where spacetime $X$ would not be simply connected. So, the most general kind of fibration we should consider is in fact [$$\label{efibgen}U{\rho}\mathcal{B}{\rho}T.$$]{} However, for the purpose of merely deriving a condition on [(\[efibgen\])]{}, we may take a $2$-connected cover of all terms of [(\[efibgen\])]{}, and still have a fibration sequence. Then we get [(\[efibx\])]{} with $T$ $2$-connected.
Now we can then ask what Postnikov invariants (also called $k$-invariants) are attached to the generator [(\[efiby\])]{}? By the result of the last section, at least one of those $k$-invariants must be non-zero. Now assuming $\pi_4(T)=0$ (since we do not see an obvious $4$-dimensional field), the lowest possible $k$-invariant of $T$ is $$k_3(H_3)\in H^6(K({\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}},3),\pi_5(T)).$$ But if this $k$-invariant is non-zero, it alters, by definition, the equation [(\[Sq\])]{}, because the target of the $k$-invariant considered there is $H^6(K({\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}},3),\pi_5(SU))$, which is a different term of the fibration [(\[efibx\])]{}. Assuming, however, that the lowest $k$-invariant of $H_3$ is in $H^n(K({\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}},3),\pi_{n-1}(T))$ for $n>3$, we see that the space $T$ cannot be a form of $K$-theory or ordinary cohomology, since in those theories, all classes with non-trivial $k$-invariants have a non-trivial $k_3$. We see therefore that one way or another, we are led to some type of other theory than $K$-theory or ordinary cohomology.
Elliptic cohomology {#vs}
===================
Let us now drop the restriction that the theory we are searching for be a priori a twisting of $K$-theory. Let us recapitulate the requirements we have on a theory which used to calculate the IIB partition function:
1. \[ii1\] $S$-duality, i.e. modularity with respect to $H$, $F$
2. \[ii2\] Higher generalized cohomology - at least a $2$’nd generalized cohomology group must be defined in our theory to imitate the untwisted $K^1$-partition function construction reviewed above
3. \[ii3\] $T$-duality with IIA, which should in some form extend to the $>10$-dimensional limits.
In the last section, we concluded that \[ii1\] cannot be satisfied by any generalization of $K({\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}},3)$-twisted $K$-theory. However, \[ii2\] casts doubt on the viability of any twisted generalized cohomology approach: when the twisting space is introduced into the theory, an intrinsic non-commutativity is introduced which seems to prevent further “delooping” of the theory into a modular second cohomology group. It therefore seems that a candidate for the theory we are searching for, should be, after all, an [*untwisted*]{} generalized cohomology theory. But how could the twisting of $K$-theory untwist in another cohomology theory which carries at least the same amount of information? There is some evidence for an answer. Douglas [@dtwist] notes that twistings of $K$-theory result in maps $$K({\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}},3){\rho}TMF,$$ in fact defining “elliptic line bundles”. Therefore, what looks like twisting to the eyes of $K$-theory, untwists and becomes merely a multiplication by a suitable element in $TMF$ or any suitable form of elliptic cohomology.
One can in fact push this a bit further: the geometric interpretation of ordinary cohomology twisting of $K$-theory is as a gerbe [@BCMMS] [@BM]. However, a gerbe should only be a special case of a $2$-vector space bundle. The problem is that this intuition has not yet been made precise mathematically: a $2$-vector space should be a lax module (in the sense of [@hk1]) over the symmetric bimonoidal category ${\ensuremath{\mathbb C}}_2$ of finite-dimensional complex vector spaces. Naively, a $2$-vector space over $X$ would just be a bundle, assigning to each point $x$ of $X$, continuously a $2$-vector space $\mathcal{V}_x$. One could then define $\mathcal{V}$-twisted $K$-theory simply as a the $K$-theory of the category of continuous sections of $Obj(\mathcal{V}_x)$, as $x$ varies. The problem with making this mathematically precise is that the $2$-category of $2$-vector spaces is unexpectedly rigid, and there are not enough equivalences to get good examples of $2$-bundles. Solutions to this problem have been proposed ([@bdr; @hk1]), but it is fair to say that so far these structures have not been investigated in detail. The main point is that it seems that a suitable “group completion” of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb C}}_2$ must be found, i.e. a category of super-vector spaces with well behaved inverse. One mathematical way one can talk rigorously about the $2$-vector space twistings of $K$-theory is via the spaces $GL_n(K)$,whose limit determines the algebraic $K$-theory of the $E_{\infty}$ ring spectrum $K$. In any case, from the work of Baas-Dundas-Rognes [@bdr], we expect that $2$-vector spaces, with perhaps some extra structure, also determine elliptic cohomology (or $TMF$) elements, so this type of twisting by a higher-dimensional $2$-vector bundle would also untwist in elliptic cohomology.
Another hint that twisted $K$-theory should lead up to elliptic cohomology is the result of Freed, Hopkins and Teleman [@FHT] relating the Verlinde algebra of a compact Lie group to its (ordinary cohomology-twisted) equivariant $K$-theory. Perhaps by considering the full force of twisting, one could cohomologically explain the full anomaly of the chiral WZW models? But anomaly of chiral CFT is kind of “$1$-st CFT cohomology” information, and we think that elliptic cohomology and “CFT cohomology” are related ([*cf.*]{} [@hk]).
In any case, we have now gathered some evidence that the theory we are searching for, which would satisfy \[ii1\], \[ii2\], should be elliptic cohomology. In elliptic cohomology, the both fields $H_3$ and $F_3$ play symmetrical roles, and twisting is replaced by multiplication. Thus, the equation [(\[Sq\])]{} is replaced by requiring that both $H_3$, $F_3$ be represented by elements of elliptic cohomology. But this also dovetails with point \[ii3\]: In [@KS], we proposed that a correction of the IIA partition function in the case of the $M$-theory limit should be defined by elliptic cohomology. It is therefore natural that the theory containing the partition function of the $T$-dual IIB theory should also be elliptic cohomology. There is in fact a physical argument why a [*modular*]{} theory should involve the higher-dimensional high energy limits: $K$ theory predicts periodicity of the RR-fields, but the dual NS-NS fields do not seem to share such periodicity. Therefore, to have a modular picture, we need to consider a theory which breaks the periodicity of RR-fields. However, it seems that this periodicity is only broken when a strong-type coupling limit leading to dimensional expansion of spacetime is introduced.
Also the fact that S-duality is a part of U-duality gives an argument why we should be led to higher dimension in considering IIB modularity: we have a path in the string moduli space connecting a theory to its U-dual. In the case of IIA theory, it has been shown that in the limit, the theory expands to $11$-dimensions, and therefore the theory must be at least $11$-dimensional also on the path in the string moduli space. In fact, dimensional expansion is a kind of condition which should be generic in the moduli space. Therefore, in the path in the moduli space connecting IIB with its U-dual, we should also see $>10$-dimensional theories in the interior of the path, even though both limit theories are $10$-dimensional (we think, in fact, that the correct number of dimensions is $12$; in future work, we shall obtain evidence confirming that proposal).
Let us recapitulate what we concluded up to this point: If we want to understand S-duality in type IIB string theory, we must find a way of twisting $F_3$ by $H_3$ which is compatible with S-duality. To do that, we must look beyond any kind of $K({\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}},3)$-twisted $K$-theory. One possible approach is to look for a generalized cohomology theory where the twisting untwists, i.e. $H_3$ is just represented by a class in the theory. Such theory is elliptic cohomology. However, if we select elliptic cohomology as an approach to the IIB S-duality puzzle, we have also expanded the theory. In other words, we are no longer in the situation of classical IIB string theory, but in some dimensional expansion of that theory.
There remains a question which exact type of elliptic cohomology theory one should use. The trouble is that mathematics has not yet perfected the connection between elliptic cohomology and geometrical or physical objects such as gerbes or $2$-vector spaces. Many variations of constructions originating from such objects can be made, leading to slightly different elliptic cohomology theories. We do not have a definitive answer as to which theory to use (a similar difficulty was encountered in [@KS]). In algebraic topology, this difficulty is circumvented by observing certain common features of elliptic cohomology theories, and considering them therefore, in a way, all at once.
The “ultimate” elliptic cohomology theory (which however is no longer an elliptic cohomology theory in the standard definition) is $TMF$, and will pursue this point in a follow-up paper [@follow]. In this paper, we shall simply show that complex-oriented elliptic cohomology theory we used in [@KS] can be used as a kind of toy model. It is easier to analyze mathematically, and in fact one can build, at least at free field approximation, a physical quantum theory based on elliptic cohomology whose partition function is directly analogous to the $K$-theory partition function introduced in [@Wi4], [@DMW] which serves as an approximation of the type II partition function, and which was reviewed above. The question is what exact role this theory plays. We have concluded above that this theory serves as partition function of some dimensional expansion of type IIB string theory which has S-duality.
In [@Wi4], [@DMW], to correctly understand the phases necessary to define the type II partition function, it was necessary to involve real $K$-theory in addition to complex $K$-theory. Similarly, in the elliptic theory, to get correct phases for its partition function, one must involve real elliptic cohomology. Passage to a real form of a complex-oriented theory however entails an obstruction. In the case of $K$-theory, it was shown in [@DMW] that the correct obstruction in the untwisted case is $W_7$. In Section \[DMWa\] above, we have shown that in IIB, in the untwisted case, there is no such obstruction. We observed however in [@KS] that in real elliptic cohomology, the obstruction is stronger: the $10$-dimensional compact spacetime $Spin$-manifold $X$ must satisfy the condition [$$\label{eobst}w_4(X)=0,$$]{} which is a necessary and sufficient condition for orientation with respect to real elliptic cohomology. A physical interpretation of this seemingly foreign condition will be proposed below.
Now the partition function is getting a $\theta$-function. Its construction in the IIB case is directly analogous to [@Wi4]. Instead of $K^1(X)$, one starts with $E^1(X)$ where $E$ is complex-oriented elliptic cohomology. The construction proceeds precisely analogously as in the $K^1(X)$ case. The only delicate point which requires explicit discussion is the phase. There, too, we have an analogy, but we must make sure all steps of the analogy make sense. We have the pairing in $E^1(X)$: [$$\label{eep}E^1(X)\otimes E^1(X){\rho}E^2(X){\rho}E^{-8}=E^0$$]{} where the second map is capping with the fundamental orientation class in $E_{10}(X)$. To construct a $\theta$-function, however, we need a quadratic structure, for which, just as in the case of IIA, we need to consider real elliptic cohomology: A product of an $x\in E^1(X)$ with itself can be given a real structure, which just as in the case of $KR$-theory reviewed above, gives rise to an element of [$$\label{eep1}\omega(x)\in E{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}^{1+\alpha}X.$$]{} But now capping [(\[eep1\])]{} with the fundamental orientation class in $E{\ensuremath{\mathbb R}}_{10}(X)$, we obtain an element in $E^{\alpha-9}$. As remarked in [@KS], this is a ${\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}}/2$-vector space generated by the classes $$v_{1}^{3n-1}v_2^{2-n}\sigma^{-4}a^2,\; n\geq 1.$$ Therefore, we get a quadratic structure depending on one free parameter, which leads to a precise IIB analog of the $\theta$-function constructed for IIA using real elliptic cohomology in [@KS].
The $w_4$ obstruction, IIA-strings and T-duality {#T}
================================================
Why would there be a $4$-dimensional obstruction such as [(\[eobst\])]{} to construction of partition function in any type II string theory? Such condition (on $\lambda$, the four-dimensional characteristic class of the tangent bundle equaling that of the gauge bundle) is present in type I and heterotic string theory, but not in $10$-dimensional type II theory. The direct answer is, as we noted above, that we have left the confines of classical type II string theory, and passed to its dimensional expansion. So what we see is that we have an additional obstruction which must vanish in order for this expansion to be exist. This is perfectly consistent. But why is the obstruction exactly $w_4$?
In [@KS], we saw that analysing the conjectured $M$-theory limit of IIA string theory, the $W_7$ anomaly of Diaconescu-Moore-Witten [@DMW] gets refined to $w_4$ (the obstruction to orientability with respect to real elliptic cohomology) or even $\lambda \in {{\mathbb Z}}/{24}$ (the obstruction to orientability with respect to tmf). Now we observed above that the $W_7$ anomaly does not show up in ordinary untwisted IIB-theory, but in the last section reached the conclusion that elliptic cohomology (or $TMF$) should really be the theory describing the behavior of IIB, in which case the obstruction $w_4$ (or $\lambda\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}}/24$) reappears. How does this relate to T-duality? What is then the role of a $4$-dimensional obstruction in IIB when there are no $4$-dimensional RR-fields in IIB? The answer, perhaps, should be that the reason we see the same obstruction for all string theories is that we are considering dimensional expansion, which, as observed above, should be a generic phenomenon in the string moduli space. In this expansion, perhaps, all string theories should be unified (the moduli space should be connected), and this is why the obstructions merge. What is, however, the right number of dimensions?
Physically, one can argue that the two theories, IIA and IIB, are not completely symmetrical in ten dimensions. Note that certain topological terms on the M-theory (and consequently the IIA-) side that do not come from corresponding terms in the IIB side. For example, the one-loop topological term $
\int_{Y^{11}}C_3 \wedge I_8
\label{1loop}
$ in M-theory, which reduces to the term $
\int_{X^{10}} B_2 \wedge I_8
$ in type IIA, does not match a corresponding term in IIB [@Das]. Instead, there are terms, that depend inversely on the radius of the extra circle in nine dimensions, that make the matching possible, and that tend to zero as the tenth dimension (up to IIB) is decompactified [@Das]. So if topological terms are not traced back to similar terms, then there could be a mismatch if one wants to look at the full story in the context of the $E_8$ bundle in eleven (and twelve) dimensions. This is because the term (\[1loop\]) was an essential ingredient in Witten’s formulation of the phase of M-theory as an $E_8$ index [^12]. A complete discussion of the effect of T-duality on the partition function will perhaps involve the fermionic path integral as well as the one-loop corrections, as was found in [@MS] for the case of IIA on $X_8 \times T^2$. This would be beyond the scope of this paper.
On the other hand, IIB should have a $12$-dimensional $F$-theory limit [^13]. [^14] Then there should also be $T$-duality which would somehow unify the $F$-theory limit of IIB with the conjectured $12$-dimensional $F$-theory limit of $M$-theory (hence also IIA), although we must note that necessarily, both of the IIA and IIB limits should end up in quite different sectors of $F$-theory: For example, assuming there is an F-theory limit to IIB, the elliptic curve which is the fiber must have completely Ramond spin structure, i.e. no non-separating curve can bound. The point is, that is the only spin structure on an elliptic curve which does not break modularity. So, the elliptic fiber must have Ramond spin structure in order to preserve S-duality.
As noted, IIA should also have $12$-dimensional limits. On one hand, implicitly or explicitly, one limit shows up in [@DMW] in the form of the manifold $Z$ whose boundary is the $11$-dimensional spacetime of $M$-theory, which in turn is conjectured to be a strong coupling form of IIA. On the other hand, if the IIA-theory has an F-theory limit whose fiber is an elliptic curve, that fiber must have a spin structure which contains NS non-separating curves, because in the $11$-dimensional M-theory whose spacetime is an $S^1$-bundle over $X$, the fiber must have NS-spin structure.
We see therefore that T-duality in the F-theory limits of IIA and IIB cannot be straightforward in the sense that it would simply keep the fiber intact. This is a possible explanation why in the ordinary untwisted $10$-dimensional partition functions of IIA and IIB, the $W_7$-anomaly shows up in IIA but not in IIB, and also of the other apparent asymmetries between $10$-dimensional IIA and IIB theories. Note however that T-duality in F-theory may be the key to explaining the role of the $w_4$-obstruction to the elliptic IIB partition function: Although we know little about the nature of F-theory at this point, it should however contain both the IIA and IIB fields. Therefore, it is no surprise that a $4$-dimensional topological obstruction is relevant in any sector of F-theory.
There is also another, purely mathematical, intuition why orientability with respect to $tmf$ should be relevant to string backgrounds. Stolz and Teichner [@stolz] conjecture that $tmf$ could be constructed as moduli space of supersymmetric conformal field theories. Such theories, in dimension $10$ (more precisely $(9,1)$), determine $10$-dimensional string backgrounds. Therefore, there should be a canonical $tmf$-class on the moduli space of $10$-dimensional backgrounds which should be the Witten genus. This means that we should consider the Witten genus on spacetime manifolds, but we know that the Witten genus is well behaved precisely for manifolds which have a $tmf$-orientation.
The above issues deserve further investigation and we hope to revisit them in the near future [@follow].
\
We thank Edward Witten for emphasizing the importance of the problem and for discussion. We also acknowledge useful conversations with Jarah Evslin and Varghese Mathai. H. S. would like to thank the Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics for kind hospitality during the intermediate stages of this project.
[**Appendix: The homotopical construction of $K^{1}_{tw}$**]{} We give here the construction of the classifying space $\mathcal{K}$ of “ordinary” twisted $K^1$-theory. Recall [@macl] that a monoidal category [^15] is a category with a bifunctorial operation $+$ which is associative and unital (not necessarily commutative) up to natural isomorphisms which must satisfy appropriate coherence diagrams. It is in fact appropriate to call a monoidal category a [*lax monoid*]{}: the general rule of thumb is that for any algebraic structure, a [*lax*]{} verion of that structure is a category on which all the operations are defined and satisfy all their required identities (e.g. associativity, unit, etc.) up to natural isomorphisms, which in turn sit in commutative [*coherence diagrams*]{}. There is no point in going to too much detail about that here, but roughly speaking, imagine we can convert in the (strict) algebraic structure one expression into another using the defining identities in two different ways. Then, in the lax structure, these two ways define a required commutative coherence diagram.
Now for a monoidal category $\mathcal{C}$, its classifying space $B\mathcal{C}$ then has the natural structure of a topological monoid, of which we can then again take a classifying space $\mathbb{B}B\mathcal{C}$. (We deliberately use here different symbols $B$, $\mathbb{B}$ for the category and monoid classifying spaces, since these are different construction, and $\mathbb{B}$ is in fact with respect to the monoidal structure obtained from topological realization of the categorical operation $+$, whereas $B$ is just done with respect to the structure of categorical composition.
Then the space $\mathcal{K}$ can be constructed as $
\mathcal{K}=\mathbb{B}B\mathcal{C}
$ where the monoidal category $\mathcal{C}$ has as objects pairs $(L,V)$ where $L$ is a $1$-dimensional complex vector space and $V$ is a finite-dimensional complex vector space, and as morphisms pairs of isomorphisms, and the operation is [$$\label{eoptw}(L,V)+(M,W)=(LM,LW+V).$$]{} The unit is $({\ensuremath{\mathbb C}},0)$ and to see associativity, we have $
(L,V)+(M,W)+(N,Z)=(LMN,LMZ+LW+V).
$ In fact, there is further discussion one can have: The space $\mathcal{K}$ sits in a fibration $$U{\rho}\mathcal{K}{\rho}K({\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}},3).$$ Taking fixed loops, we get a fibration [$$\label{efibk}
BU\times {\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}}{\rho}\Omega\mathcal{K}{\rho}{\ensuremath{\mathbb C}}P^{\infty},$$]{} but it is a well known fact that we can choose models of the spaces involved such that [(\[efibk\])]{} is actually an extension of topological groups. In any case, since $\pi_1({\ensuremath{\mathbb C}}P^{\infty})=0$, the fibration [(\[efibk\])]{} does not twist the connected components of the fiber $BU\times{\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}}$, so, we may get a group extension by restricting the fiber to $BU\times\{0\}$: [$$\label{efibk1}
BU{\rho}\Omega\mathcal{K}_0{\rho}{\ensuremath{\mathbb C}}P^{\infty},$$]{} and taking $\mathbb{B}$, we obtain a fibration [$$\label{efibk2}
SU{\rho}\mathcal{K_0}{\rho}K({\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}},3).$$]{} The Postnikov tower of this space $\mathcal{K}$ has stages [$$\label{epostk1}K({\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}},3)\times K({\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}},3), K({\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}},5), K({\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}},7),...$$]{} and the first Postnikov invariant is the map [$$\label{epostk}K({\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}},3)\times K({\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}},3){\rho}K({\ensuremath{\mathbb Z}},6)$$]{} which is given by the equation [$$\label{Sqk}\beta Sq^2 F + H\cup F$$]{} where $H,F$ are the characteristic $3$-dimensional cohomology classes of the factors of the left hand side of [(\[epostk\])]{}.
[99]{} M. B. Green and J. H. Schwarz, [*Extended supergravity in ten dimensions*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**B122**]{} (1983) 143.
N. Marcus and J. H. Schwarz, [*Field theories that have no manifestly Lorentz-invariant formulation*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**B115**]{} (1982) 111.
J. H. Schwarz and P. C. West, [*Symmetries and transformations of chiral $N=2$, $D=10$ supergravity*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**B126**]{} (1983) 301.
P. S. Howe and P. C. West, [*The complete $N=2$, $D=10$ supergravity*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**B238**]{} (1984) 181.
J. H. Schwarz, [*Covariant field equations of chiral $N=2$ $D=10$ supergravity*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**B226**]{} (1983) 269.
G. Dall’Agata, K. Lechner and M. Tonin, JHEP [**9807**]{} (1998) 017, \[[arXiv:hep-th/9806140]{}\].
L. Alvarez-Gaumé and E. Witten, [*Gravitational anomalies*]{} Nucl. Phys. [**B234**]{} (1984) 269.
P. S. Aspinwall, [*Some relationships between dualities in string theory*]{}, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**46**]{} (1996) 30, \[[arXiv:hep-th/9508154]{}\].
J. H. Schwarz, [*The power of M theory*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**B367**]{} (1996) 97, \[[arXiv:hep-th/9510086]{}\].
Michael B. Green, [*Interconnections between type II superstrings, M theory and $N=4$ supersymmetric Yang–Mills*]{}, \[[arXiv:hep-th/9903124]{}\].
M. Henningson, B. E. W. Nilsson and P. Salomonson, [*Holomorphic factorization of correlation functions in $(4k+2)$-dimensional $(2k)$-form gauge theory*]{}, JHEP [**9909**]{} (1999) 008, \[[arXiv:hep-th/9908107]{}\].
E. Witten, [*Duality relations among topological effects in string theory*]{}, JHEP [**0005**]{} (2000) 031, \[[arXiv:hep-th/9912086]{}\].
E. Diaconescu, G. Moore and E. Witten, [*$E_8$ gauge theory, and a derivation of $K$-Theory from M-Theory*]{}, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**6**]{} (2003) 1031, \[[arXiv:hep-th/0005090]{}\].
C. Vafa, [*Evidence for F-theory*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**B469**]{} (1996) 403, \[[arXiv:hep-th/9602022]{}\].
C. M. Hull and P. K. Townsend, [*Unity of superstring dualities*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**B438**]{} (1995) 109, \[[arXiv:hep-th/9410167]{}\].
J. Evslin and U. Varadarajan, [*$K$-theory and S-duality: starting over from square 3*]{}, JHEP [**0303**]{} (2003) 026 \[[arXiv:hep-th/0112084]{}\].
J. Maldacena, G. Moore and N. Seiberg, [*D-brane instantons and $K$-theory charges*]{}, JHEP [**0111**]{} (2001) 062, \[[arXiv:hep-th/0108100]{}\].
J. Evslin, [*IIB soliton spectra with all fluxes activated*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**B657**]{} (2003) 139, \[[arXiv:hep-th/0211172]{}\].
J. Evslin, [*Twisted $K$-theory from monodromies*]{}, JHEP [**0305**]{} (2003) 030, \[[arXiv:hep-th/0302081]{}\].
E. Witten, [*D-Branes and $K$-Theory*]{}, JHEP [**12**]{} (1998) 019, \[[arXiv:hep-th/9810188]{}\].
A. Kapustin, [*D-branes in a topologically nontrivial B-field*]{}, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**4**]{} (2000) 127, \[[arXiv:hep-th/9909089]{}\].
P. Bouwknegt and V. Mathai, [*D-branes, B-fields and twisted $K$-theory*]{}, JHEP [**03**]{} (2000) 007, \[[arXiv:hep-th/0002023]{}\].
V. Mathai and H. Sati, [*Some relations between twisted $K$-theory and $E\sb8$ gauge theory*]{}, JHEP [**03**]{} (2004) 016, \[[arXiv:hep-th/0312033]{}\].
I. Kriz and H. Sati, [*M Theory, type IIA superstrings, and elliptic cohomology*]{}, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**8**]{} (2004) 345, \[[arXiv:hep-th/0404013]{}\].
E. Witten, [*Five-brane effective action in M-theory*]{}, J. Geom. Phys. [**22**]{} (1997) 103, \[[arXiv:hep-th/9610234]{}\].
M.J. Hopkins, I.M. Singer, [*Quadratic functions in geometry, topology, and M-theory*]{}, \[[arXiv:math.AT/0211216]{}\].
L. Dolan and C. R. Nappi, [*The Ramond-Ramond selfdual five-form’s partition function on $T^{10}$*]{}, Mod. Phys. Lett. [**A15**]{} (2000) 1261, \[[arXiv:hep-th/0005074]{}\].
G. Moore and E. Witten, [*Self duality, Ramond-Ramond fields, and $K$-theory*]{}, JHEP [**05**]{} (2000) 032, \[[arXiv:hep-th/9912279]{}\].
G. Moore and N. Saulina, [*T-duality, and the $K$-theoretic partition function of Type IIA superstring theory*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**B670**]{} (2003) 27, \[[arXiv:hep-th/0206092]{}\].
P. Bouwknegt, J. Evslin and V.Mathai, [*T-duality: Topology change from $H$-flux*]{}, Commun. Math. Phys. [**249**]{} (2004) 383, \[[arXiv:hep-th/0306062]{}\].
D. S. Freed, [*The Verlinde algebra is twisted equivariant $K$-theory*]{}, Turk. J. Math. [**25**]{} (2001) 159, \[[arXiv:math.RT/0101038]{}\].
D. S. Freed, M. J. Hopkins and C. Teleman, [*Twisted $K$-theory and loop group representations*]{}, \[[arXiv:math.AT/0312155]{}\].
C. Teleman, [*$K$-theory of the moduli space of bundles on a surface and deformations of the Verlinde algebra*]{}, in Topology, Geometry and Quantum Field Theory, U. Tillmann (ed.), Cambridge University Press, 2004, \[[arXiv:math.AG/0306347]{}\].
D. Quillen, [*On the (co)homology of commutative rings*]{}, in Applications of Categorial Algebra, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., vol. [**XVII**]{}, AMS (1970).
A. Connes, [*Noncommutative geometry*]{}, Academic Press, San Diego, 1994.
M. Atiyah and G. Segal, [*Twisted $K$-theory*]{}, \[[arXiv:math-KT/0407054]{}\].
D. S. Freed and E. Witten, [*Anomalies in string theory with D-Branes*]{}, Asian J. Math. [**3**]{} (1999) 819, \[[arXiv:hep-th/9907189]{}\].
E. Diaconescu, D. Freed and G. Moore, [*The M-theory 3-form and E8 gauge theory*]{}, \[[arXiv:hep-th/0312069]{}\].
I. Masden, V. Snaith and J. Tornehave, [*Infinite loop maps in geometric topology*]{}, Math. Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. [**81**]{} (1977) 399.
B. Zhang, [*$K$-twisted equivariant $K$-theory for $SU(N)$*]{}, \[[arXiv:math-KT/0311298]{}\].
C. L. Douglas, [*On the twisted $K$-homology of simple Lie groups*]{}, \[[arXiv:math.AT/0402082]{}\].
P. Bouwknegt, A. L. Carey, V. Mathai, M. K. Murray and D. Stevenson, [*Twisted $K$-theory and $K$-theory of bundle gerbes*]{}, Commun. Math. Phys. [**228**]{} (2002) 17, \[[arXiv:hep-th/0106194]{}\].
P. Hu and I. Kriz, [*Closed and open conformal field theories and their anomalies*]{}, to appear in Commun. Math. Phys., \[[arXiv:hep-th/0401061]{}\].
N. Baas, B. A. Dundas and J. Rognes, [*Two-vector bundles and forms of elliptic cohomology*]{}, in Topology, Geometry and Quantum Field Theory, U. Tillmann (ed.), Cambridge University Press, 2004, \[[arXiv:math.AT/0306027]{}\].
P. Hu and I. Kriz, [*Conformal field theory and elliptic cohomology*]{}, to appear in Advances in Mathematics.
I. Kriz and H. Sati, work in progress.
K. Dasgupta and S. Mukhi, [*A note on low-dimensional string compactifications*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**B398**]{} (1997) 285, \[[arXiv:hep-th/9612188]{}\].
S. Stolz and P. Teichner, [*What is an elliptic object?*]{}, in Topology, Geometry and Quantum Field Theory, U. Tillmann (ed.), Cambridge University Press, 2004.
S. MacLane, [*Categories for the working mathematician*]{}, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1998.
F. Adams, [*Stable homotopy and generalised homology*]{}, Chicago Lectures in Mathematics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill.-London, 1974
[^1]: I. K. is supported by NSF grant DMS 0305853, and H. S. is supported by the Australian Research Council.
[^2]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^3]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^4]: At the level of differential forms, i.e. over ${{\mathbb R}}$ or ${{\mathbb C}}$, this term is a wedge product of two copies of the same odd differential form, and thus vanishes identically. However, over ${{\mathbb Z}}$, this can be $2$-torsion. Note that S-duality and U-duality care about integral information.
[^5]: Recall that in M-theory, the even-ness of the intersection form on the fourth integral cohomology was equivalent to integrality of the Spin class $\lambda/2$, because of the factor $
(-1)^{\int_{\Sigma_4} \lambda} \exp\left(i\int_{\Sigma_4} G_4
\right)
$ that had to be well-behaved.
[^6]: Note that the calculation of the other groups that occur in Type IIA and M-theory, such as $MSpin_{i} K({{\mathbb Z}},4)$ for $i=10,11$ can be understood with the same philosophy. However, there one has to be careful in seperating [*stable*]{} and [*unstable*]{} parts, which correspond to additive and non-additive structures.
[^7]: the reduced group, i.e. the subset of $K^0(X \times S^1)$ consisting of elements that are trivial when restricted to $X$.
[^8]: By collapsing $S^1 \times \{*\}$ and $\{*\}\times S^1$, one maps $S^1 \times S^1$ to $S^2$ and the reflection on one coordinate in $S^2$ is inherited from the map that exchanges the two factors of $S^1 \times
S^1$.
[^9]: When not referring to a particular space, we use the notation $K_{tw}$ for twisted K-theory.
[^10]: Here by fibration, or more precisely a fibered sequence, we mean a sequence of spaces $$F{\rho}E{\rho}B$$ where $E{\rho}B$ is a fibration, which means roughly that $E$ is fibered without singularities over $B$ (more precisely that it satisfies the homotopy lifting property), and the fiber is $F$. Any map in topology may, up to homotopy, be replaced by a fibration, so this places no homotopical restriction on the map $E{\rho}B$.
[^11]: Recall that a $H$-space is a topological group up to homotopy.
[^12]: Of course, there is also the Rarita-Schwinger part.
[^13]: In this section, the word “limit” is not meant in the dynamical sense, but more in the geometric or topological sense.
[^14]: We note that at present, referring to $F$-theory is a little dangerous, since its precise physical form is not clarified. In particular, at physical signatures, no Lorentz-invariant formulation of $F$-theory is known so far. We shall return to this point in future work. For now, however, let us neglect this difficulty, and assume that a physically consistent $F$-theory has been developed.
[^15]: A monoid is a group-like object that fails to be a group by lacking an inverse. It is also a semigroup (i.e. a set equipped with an associative product) with an indentity element.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'This paper presents a human gait data collection for analysis and activity recognition consisting of continues recordings of combined activities, such as walking, running, taking stairs up and down, sitting down, and so on; and the data recorded are segmented and annotated. Data were collected from a body sensor network consisting of six wearable inertial sensors (accelerometer and gyroscope) located on the right and left thighs, shins, and feet. Additionally, two electromyography sensors were used on the quadriceps (front thigh) to measure muscle activity. This database can be used not only for activity recognition but also for studying how activities are performed and how the parts of the legs move relative to each other. Therefore, the data can be used (a) to perform health-care-related studies, such as in walking rehabilitation or Parkinson’s disease recognition, (b) in virtual reality and gaming for simulating humanoid motion, or (c) for humanoid robotics to model humanoid walking. This dataset is the first of its kind which provides data about human gait in great detail. The database is available free of charge <https://github.com/romanchereshnev/HuGaDB>.'
author:
- Roman Chereshnev
- 'Attila Kertész-Farkas[^1]'
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
title: 'HuGaDB: Human Gait Database for Activity Recognition from Wearable Inertial Sensor Networks'
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
The increasing availability of wearable body sensors leads to novel scientific studies and industrial applications [@aggarwal2013managing]. The main large areas include gesture recognition, human activity recognition, and human gait analysis. Several databases have been released for benchmarking; however, due to a wide variety of sensor types and the complexity of activities, these databases are rather distinct. Now, we will review these areas and the corresponding databases in a taxonomic manner.
[**Gesture recognition**]{} (GR) mainly focuses on recognizing hand-drawn gestures in the air. Patterns to be recognized may include numbers, circles, boxes, or Latin alphabet letters. Prediction is usually made on data obtained from smartphone sensors or some special gloves equipped with kinematic sensors, such as 3-axis accelerometers, 3-axis gyroscopes, and occasionally electromyography (EMG) sensors, to measure the electrical potential on the human skin during muscular activities [@amma2014airwriting]. A database for gesture recognition is available in [@georgi2015recognizing].
[**Human activity recognition**]{} (HAR), on the other hand, aims at recognizing daily lifestyle activities. For instance, an interesting research topic is recognizing activities in or around the kitchen, such as cooking; loading the dishwasher or washing machine; preparing brownies or salads; scrambling eggs; light cleaning; opening or closing drawers, the fridge, or doors; and so on. Often these activities can be interrupted by, for example, answering phones. Databases on this topic include the MIT Place dataset [@tapia2006design; @intille2005living], Darmstadt Daily Routine dataset [@huynh2008discovery], Ambient Kitchen [@pham2009slice], CMU Multi-Modal Activity Database (CMU-MMAC) [@de2008guide], and Opportunity dataset [@Chavarriaga2013; @sagha2011benchmarking]. In this topic, on-body inertial sensors are usually worn on the wrist, back, or ankle, however, additional sensors are used, such as temperature sensor, proximity sensor, water consumption sensor, heart rate and so on. For instance, CMU-MMAC includes videos, audios, RFID tags, motion capture system based on on-body markers, and physiological sensors such as galvanic skin response (GSR) and skin temperature, which are all located on both forearms and upper arms, left and right calves and thighs, abdomen, and wrists.
Other types of HAR usually focus on walking-related activities, such as walking, jogging, turning left or right, jumping, laying down, going up or down the stairs, and so on. Data on this topic can be found in the WARD dataset [@yang2009ward], PAMAP2 dataset [@reiss2012introducing; @reiss2012creating], HASC challenge [@kawaguchi2011hasc; @kawaguchi2012hasc2012corpus; @kawaguchi2011hasc2011corpus], USC-HAD [@zhang2012usc; @zhang2013human], and MAREA [@khandelwal2017evaluation]. For data collection, on-body sensors are often placed on the participant’s wrist, waist, ankles, and back.
In some databases, exceptional efforts are taken to provide a reliable benchmark. The body sensor network conference (BSNC) (http://bsncontest.org) [@giuberti2011simple], for instance, has carried out a contest where organizers provided three different datasets from different research groups. Databases differ in sensor types used and activities recorded. Another team, called the Evaluating Ambient Assisted Living Systems through Competitive Benchmarking – Activity Recognition (EvAAL-AR), provides a service to evaluate HAR systems live on the same activity scenarios performed by an actor [@gjoreski2015competitive]. In this contest, each team brings its own activity recognition system, and the evaluation criteria attempt to capture the practical usability: recognition accuracy, user acceptance, recognition delay, installation complexity, and interoperability with ambient-assisted living systems.
[**Gait analysis**]{} focuses not only on the recognition of activities observed but also on how activities are performed. This can be useful in health-care systems for monitoring patients recovering after surgery or fall detection or in diagnosing the state of, for example, Parkinson’s disease [@sant2011new; @sant2012symbolic]. For instance, the Daphnet Gait dataset (DG) [@bachlin2009potentials] consists of recordings of 10 participants affected with Parkinson’s disease instructed to carry out activities that are likely to be difficult to perform, such as walking. The objective is to detect these incidents from accelerometer data recorded from above the ankle, above the knee, and on the trunk. On the other hand, Bovi et al. provide a gait dataset collected from 40 healthy people with various ages as a reference dataset [@bovi2011multiple]. In the aforementioned BSNC, the third database (ID:IC) contains gait data before knee surgery and 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 weeks (respectively) after it.
Motivation and Design Goals {#sec:motivation}
===========================
The main purpose of this dataset is to provide detailed gait data to study how the parts of the legs move individually and relative to each other during activities such as walking, running, standing up, and so on. A summary of the activities can be found in Table \[tb:activity-data-dist\]. This dataset contains continuous recordings of combinations of activities, and the data are segmented and annotated with the label of the activity currently performed. Thus, this dataset is also suitable for analyzing human gait and activities between transitions.
Mainly inertial sensors were used for data acquisition. We decided to use inertial sensors because they are inexpensive, simple to use anywhere such as indoor and outdoor area, and widely available compared with other systems. For instance, compared with video-based motion capture systems, they require expensive video cameras and special full bodysuit with special markers on it. In addition, they are restricted to being used in the installed test area and they are sensitive to lightning and suffer from lost markers phenomenon.
In total, six inertial sensors were placed on the right and left thighs, shins and feet; and data were collected from 18 healthy participants, providing total 10 hours of recording. This allows one to investigate how the parts of the legs move individually and relative to each other within and in-between activities. Our dataset could be used as control data, for instance, in health-care-related studies, such as walking rehabilitation or Parkinson’s disease recognition. In virtual reality or gaming, our dataset can be used to model a virtual human movements by reproducing the leg movements from the accelerometer data by simply taking the integrals. In fact, it is not limited to virtual environment and could be used to train to walk and move humanoid robots to make them more humanlike and cope with the uncanny valley.
This dataset is unique in the sense that it is the first to provide human gait data in great detail mainly from inertial sensors and contains segmented annotations for studying the transition between different activities.
[max width=]{}
ID Activity Time sec (min) Percent Samples Description
---- ------------------ ---------------- --------- --------- ------------------------------------------------------------
1 Walking 11544 (192) 32.15 679073 Walking and turning at various speeds on a flat surface
2 Running 1218 (20) 3.39 71653 Running at various paces
3 Going up 2237 (37) 6.23 131604 Taking stairs up at various speeds
4 Going down 1982 (33) 5.52 116637 Taking the stairs down at various speeds and steps
5 Sitting 4111 (68) 11.45 241849 Sitting on a chair; sitting on the floor not included
6 Sitting down 409 (6) 1.14 24112 Sitting on a chair; sitting down on the floor not included
7 Standing up 380 (6) 1.06 22373 Standing up from a chair
8 Standing 5587 (93) 15.56 328655 Static standing on a solid surface
9 Bicycling 2661 (44) 7.41 156560 Typical bicycling
10 Up by elevator 1515 (25) 4.22 89144 Standing in an elevator while moving up
11 Down by elevator 1185 (19) 3.30 69729 Standing in an elevator while moving down
12 Sitting in car 3069 (51) 8.55 180573 Sitting while an travelling by car as a passenger
Total 35903 598 100.00 2111962
: Characteristics of HuGaDB[]{data-label="tb:activity-data-dist"}
Data Collection and Sensor Network Topology {#sec:collectio&topology}
===========================================
In data collection, we used MPU9250 inertial sensors and electromyography (EMG) sensors. Each EMG sensor has a voltage gain is about 5000 and band-pass filter with bandwidth corresponding to power spectrum of EMG (10-500 Hz). A sample rate of each EMG-channel is 1.0 kHz, ADC resolution is 8 bits, input voltages: 0 - 5 Volts. The inertial sensors consisted of a 3-axis accelerometer and a 3-axis gyroscope integrated into a single chip. Data were collected with accelerometer’s range equal to $\pm 2$g with sensitivity 16.384 LSB/g and gyroscope’s range equal to $\pm 2000 \degree/$s with sensitivity 16.4 LSB $/ \degree/$s. All sensors are powered from a battery, that helps to minimize electrical grid noise.
Accelerometer and gyroscope signals were stored in int16 format. EMG signals are stored in uint8. Therefore, accelerometer data can be converted to m / s$^2$ by dividing raw data 32768 and multiplying it by 2g. Raw gyroscope data can be converted to $ \degree/$s by multiplying it by 2000/32768. Raw EMG data can be converted to Volts by multiplying it 0.001/255. We kept the raw data in our data collection in case one prefers other normalization techniques.
In total, three pairs of inertial sensors and one pair of EMG sensors were installed symmetrically on the right and left legs with elastic bands. A pair of inertial sensors were installed on the rectus femoris muscle 5 centimetres above the knee, a pair of sensors around the middle of the shinbone at the level where the calf ends, and a pair on the feet on the metatarsal bones. Two EMG sensors were placed on vastus lateralis and connected to the skin with three electrodes. The locations of the sensors are shown in Figure \[fg:walking-scheme\]. In total, 38 signals were collected, 36 from the inertial sensors and 2 from the EMG sensors.
The sensors were connected through wires with each other and to a microcontroller box, which contained an Arduino electronics platform with a Bluetooth module. The microcontroller collected 56.3500 samples per second in average with standard deviation (std) 3.2057 and then transmitted them to a laptop through Bluetooth connection.
The data were collected from 18 participants. These participants were healthy young adults: 4 females and 14 males, average age of 23.67 (std: 3.69) years, an average height of 179.06 (std: 9.85) cm, and an average weight of 73.44 (std: 16.67) kg. The participants performed a combination of activities at normal speed and casual way, and there were no obstacles placed on their way. For instance, a participant was instructed to perform the following activities: starting from a sitting position, sitting - standing up - walking - going up the stairs - walking - sitting down. The experimenter recorded the data continually using a laptop and annotated the data with the activities performed. This provided us a long, continuous sequence of segmented data annotated with activities. We developed our own data collector program. In total, 2,111,962 samples were collected from all the 18 participants, and they provided a total of 10 hours of data.
Data acquisition was carried out mainly inside a building. However, activities such as running, bicycling, and sitting in a car were performed outside. We collected data in a moving elevator and vehicle. In these scenarios, the activities performed were simply standing or sitting. However, a force impact on the accelerometer sensors and in certain applications, it may be important to consider these facts. Note that we did not collect data on a treadmill.
![Location of Sensors. EMG sensor are shown as circles while boxes represent inertial sensors[]{data-label="fg:walking-scheme"}](SensorsLocation.jpg){width="50.00000%"}
Data Format {#sec:format}
===========
Data obtained from the sensors were stored in flat text files. We decided to store the data in flat files because they have one of the most universal formats, and they can be easily preprocessed in all programming languages on every system. One data file contains one recording, which is either a single activity (e.g., walking) or a series of activities. Every file name was created according to the template [**HGDvXACTPRCNT.txt**]{}. HGD is a prefix that means human gait data and vX means the version of the data files, currently v1. ACT is a variable, and it denotes the activity ID that was performed. If a file contains a series of different types of activities, then it is indicated as VARIOUS. PR indicates the ID of the person who performed the activity. Data recording was repeated a few times, and CNT is a counter for this. For example, a file named HGDv1walking1702.txt contains data from participant 17 while he was walking for the second time. The file naming convention is summarized in Table \[tb:filenaming\].
TAG Description Type Comment
----- ---------------- --------- ----------------------------------------------
HGD Prefix fixed Data files start with this prefix
vX Version number integer Indicates the version of the data format
ACT Activity string Indicates the type of activity
PR Participant ID integer Indicates the subject whos data was recorded
CNT Counter integer Counter for repeated experiments
: Description of the file naming convention[]{data-label="tb:filenaming"}
[max width=]{}
TAG Description Type Comment
-------------- ------------------------------ ------------------ ---------------------------------------
\#Activity List of the activities string Lists the activity types in this file
\#ActivityID List of the ID of activities List of integers lists the activity types in this file
\#Date-Time Date and Time YEAR-MM-DD-HR-MN Year-Month-Day-Hour-Min format
: Description of the data file header[]{data-label="tb:metadata"}
The main body of the data files contains tab-delimited raw, unnormalized data obtained from the sensors directly. Each data file starts with a header, which contains metainformation. It summarizes the list of activities, the IDs of the activities recorded, and the time and date of the recording. This is summarized in Table \[tb:metadata\].
The main data body of every file has 39 columns. Each column corresponds to a sensor, and one row corresponds to a sample. The order of the columns is fixed. The first 36 columns correspond to the inertial sensors, the next 2 columns correspond to the EMG sensors, and the last column contains the activity ID. The activities are coded as shown in Table \[tb:activity-data-dist\]. The inertial sensors are listed in the following order: right foot (RF), right shin (RS), right thigh (RT), left foot (LT), left shin (LS), and left thigh (LT), followed by right EMG (R) and left EMG (L). Each inertial sensor produces three acceleration data on x,y,z axes and three gyroscope data on x,y,z axes. For instance, the column named ’RTaccz’ contains data obtained from the z-axis of accelerometer located on the right thigh.
Sample data with respect to the activities are visualized through a heat map representation in Figure \[fg:hgd-data\].
![Data visualization. For normalization data from initial sensors were divided by 32768 and data from EMG were subtracted by 128 and divided by 128[]{data-label="fg:hgd-data"}](heatmap_all_acts_v.png){width="\textwidth"}
Availability {#sec:availability}
============
The database is available free of charge at <https://github.com/romanchereshnev/HuGaDB> (455 Mb).
Summary {#sec:summery}
=======
The HuGaDB dataset contains detailed kinematic data for analyzing human gait and activity recognition. This dataset differs from previously published datasets in the sense that HuGaDB provides human gait data in great detail mainly from inertial sensors and contains segmented annotations for studying the transition between different activities. Data were obtained from 18 participants, and in total, they provide around 10 hours of recording. This dataset can be used in health-care-related studies, such as walking rehabilitation, or in modeling human movements in virtual reality or humanoid robotics. The dataset will be updated with new data from new participants in the future.
[^1]: Corresponding author at: Kochnovskiy Proezd, 3, Moscow, 125319, Russian Federation Tel.: +7 499 152 0741 : [email protected] (R. Chereshnev), [email protected] (A. Kertész-Farkas)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We illustrate the Dirichlet prescription of the AdS/CFT correspondence using the example of a massive scalar field and argue that it is the only entirely consistent regularization procedure known so far. Using the Dirichlet prescription, we then calculate the divergent terms for gravity in the cases $d=2,4,6$, which give rise to the Weyl anomaly in the boundary conformal field theory.'
author:
- |
W. Mück[^1] and K. S. Viswanathan[^2]\
*Department of Physics, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., V5A 1S6 Canada*
title: 'Counterterms for the Dirichlet Prescription of the AdS/CFT Correspondence'
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
It has been stated in most papers on this subject that the correspondence between a field theory on anti-de Sitter space (AdS) and a conformal field theory (CFT) on its horizon is formally described by the formula [@Gubser; @Witten] $$\label{form}
\int_{\phi_0} \mathcal{D}\phi\, {\mathrm{e}}^{-I_{AdS}[\phi]}
= \left\langle \exp \int d^dx\; \phi_0(x)
\mathcal{O}(x) \right\rangle,$$ where the functional integral on the left hand side is over all fields $\phi$, which asymptotically approach $\phi_0$ on the AdS horizon. On the right hand side, $\phi_0$ couples as a current to some boundary conformal field $\mathcal{O}$. In the classical approximation the left hand side is identical to $\exp(-I[\phi_0])$, where $I[\phi_0]$ is the on-shell action evaluated as a functional of the boundary value. Thus, the formula enables one to calculate correlation functions of the field $\mathcal{O}$ in the boundary conformal field theory. This rather formal identification of partition functions needs refinement due to the fact that $I[\phi_0]$ is divergent as a result of the divergence of the AdS metric on the horizon. Let us choose the conventional representation of anti de-Sitter space, namely the upper half space $x^0>0$, ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}}\in\mathbb{R}^d$ with the metric $$\label{metric}
ds^2 = \frac1{(x^0)^2} \left[(dx^0)^2 +(d{\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}})^2 \right].$$ The horizon is given by $x^0=0$, but in order to regularize the action one considers the space restricted to $x^0>\epsilon$. The regularized on-shell action will be a function of $\epsilon$. Moreover, the terms which diverge in the limit $\epsilon\to0$ can be isolated and cancelled with counterterms. The remaining finite result is identified with the right hand side of eqn. . There is a subtlety concerning the proper choice of boundary values, but consistency forces us to use the boundary values at $x_0=\epsilon$ (We call this the Dirichlet prescription). This subtlety and its resolution is illustrated for the example of the massive scalar field in section \[prod\].
The Dirichlet prescription of the AdS/CFT correspondence has been used to successfully calculate the two-point functions of scalar fields [@Gubser; @Mueck1; @Freedman1], spinors [@Mueck2], vector fields [@Mueck2], Rarita Schwinger fields [@Corely] and gravitons [@Mueck3]. It must be noted that the subtlety mentioned above affects neither the finite terms in the two-point functions for massless scalar and vector fields, gravitons, spinors and Rarita Schwinger fields [@Witten; @Henningson1; @Liu; @AVolovich; @Koshelev], nor higher point correlators (cf. [@Freedman2] and references therein).
More recently, attention has been brought to the divergent contributions, which have to be cancelled by counterterms [@Henningson2; @Henningson3; @Nojiri1; @Hyun; @Balasu; @Nojiri2; @Gonzalez; @Emparan; @Nishi]. Of particular importance are terms, which are logarithmically divergent, since those counterterms are not invariant under conformal or Weyl scaling transformations. Hence, the presence of a logarithmic divergence leads to a conformal or Weyl anomaly in the finite part of the action. The Weyl anomaly has recently been calculated for the cases $d=2,4,6$ [@Henningson2; @Henningson3]. However, the authors of these papers used a regularization, which does not consistently address the subtlety mentioned above. Therefore, we present in section \[anomaly\] the calculation of the divergent terms for free gravity using the Dirichlet prescription. Our results for the terms relevant to the Weyl anomaly in $d=2,4,6$ agree with those of [@Henningson2; @Henningson3], but we regard this as a coincidence particular to gravitons. Finally, we urge the reader to consult the appendix for our notation and for a review of the time slicing formalism, which is used in section \[anomaly\].
The Regularization Procedure {#prod}
============================
We illustrate the regularization procedure with the example of the free massive scalar field, whose action is given by $$\label{action}
I = \frac12 \int d^{d+1}x \sqrt{g} \left( D_\mu \phi D^\mu \phi +
m^2 \phi^2 \right),$$ and whose equation of motion with the metric is $$\label{eqnmot1}
\left[ x_0^2 \partial_\mu \partial_\mu - x_0(d-1)\partial_0 -m^2
\right] \phi=0.$$ The solution of eqn. , which does not diverge for $x_0\to\infty$ is given in terms of the mode $$x_0^\frac{d}2 {{\mathrm{e}}^{-i{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k\cdot x}}}}}K_\alpha(kx_0), \qquad
\text{where} \quad \alpha= \sqrt{\frac{d^2}4+m^2}$$ and $K_\alpha$ is a modified Bessel function. Let us isolate the leading behaviour for small $x_0$ by defining $$\label{phihatdef}
\phi(x) = x_0^{\frac{d}2-\alpha} \hat\phi(x).$$ Then, $\hat\phi$ has a finite limit as $x_0$ goes to zero. However, one must take care to express the regularized on-shell action in terms of the boundary value at $x_0=\epsilon$. This is easiest done by using $$\label{phihat}
\hat\phi(x) = \left(\frac{x_0}\epsilon\right)^\alpha {\int\frac{d^dk}{(2\pi)^d}\,}{{\mathrm{e}}^{-i{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k\cdot x}}}}}\frac{K_\alpha(kx_0)}{K_\alpha(k\epsilon)} \phi_\epsilon({\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}}),$$ which satisfies $\hat\phi({\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}},\epsilon)=\phi_\epsilon({\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}})$. Consider the regularized on-shell action, which is [@Mueck1] $$\label{onshell}
I(\epsilon) = -\frac12 \int d^dx\, \epsilon^{-2\alpha} \left[ \left(
\frac{d}2 -\alpha \right) \phi_\epsilon^2
+ \epsilon \phi_\epsilon \left. \partial_0
\hat\phi\right|_\epsilon \right]$$ The first term on the right hand side is divergent and must be cancelled with a counterterm. The second term might contain other divergent terms, but also gives rise to the finite term [@Mueck1] $$\label{Ifin}
I_{fin} = -\alpha c_\alpha \int d^dx d^dy\, \frac{\phi_\epsilon({\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}})
\phi_\epsilon({\ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}})}{|{\ensuremath{\mathbf{x-y}}}|^{d+2\alpha}},$$ where $c_\alpha = \Gamma(d/2+\alpha)/[\pi^\frac{d}2 \Gamma(\alpha)].$
On the other hand, there appears to be a slightly different, and in our view not entirely consistent, prescription. Essentially, it expresses $\hat\phi$ in terms of the boundary value $\phi_0$ at $x_0=0$, which can be done by writing $$\label{phihat2}
\hat\phi(x) = \frac{2^{1-\alpha}}{\Gamma(\alpha)} {\int\frac{d^dk}{(2\pi)^d}\,}{{\mathrm{e}}^{-i{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k\cdot x}}}}}(kx_0)^\alpha K_\alpha(kx_0) \phi_0({\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}}).$$ For small $x_0$ this can be expanded as $$\label{phihat3}
\hat\phi(x) = \phi_0({\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}}) +x_0^{2\alpha} c_\alpha \int d^dy\,
\frac{\phi_0({\ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}})}{|{\ensuremath{\mathbf{x-y}}}|^{d+2\alpha}} +
\mathcal{O}\left(x_0^{2n},x_0^{2(\alpha+n)}\right).$$ Substituting eqn. into eqn. one obtains $$\label{Iwrong}
I = -\frac12 \int d^dx\, \epsilon^{-2\alpha}
\left(\frac{d}2-\alpha\right) \phi_0^2 - \frac{d}2 c_\alpha \int
d^dx d^dy\,\frac{\phi_0({\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}})
\phi_0({\ensuremath{\mathbf{y}}})}{|{\ensuremath{\mathbf{x-y}}}|^{d+2\alpha}}
+\mathcal{O}\left(\epsilon^{2(n-\alpha)},\epsilon^{2n}\right).$$ Obviously, the finite term in eqn. does not agree with eqn. , except for $d=2\alpha$, i.e. for $m=0$. The reason for the discrepancy is that the first term on the right hand side of eqn. , which is purely divergent in the Dirichlet prescription, contributes to the finite term, if eqn. is used. Ignoring this spurious contribution (by including it into the counterterm), the finite terms coincide. Thus, one must accept that counterterms are to be expressed in terms of $\phi_\epsilon$, not $\phi_0$, which is the essence of the Dirichlet prescription.
Divergent Terms for Gravity {#anomaly}
===========================
General Formalism
-----------------
The gravity action is given by [@Liu; @Arutyunov] $$\label{gen:action}
I = - \int_\epsilon d^{d+1}x \sqrt{\tilde g} \left[\tilde R
+\frac{d(d-1)}{l^2} \right]
+ 2 \int d^dx \sqrt{g}\, \left[H+\frac{d-1}l\right],$$ where the cosmological constant has been set equal to $2\Lambda
=-d(d-1)/l^2$. The last term in the boundary integral can be considered as the first counterterm. As for our calculation of the finite part of the action [@Mueck3] we use the time slicing formalism, which is summarized in the appendix. Let us choose $\rho=X^0$ as time coordinate and use the gauge $$\label{gen:gauge}
n =\frac{l}{2\rho}, \qquad n^i=0.$$ After isolating the leading behaviour of $g_{ij}$ for small $\rho$ (which can be found from the equation of motion) by defining $$\label{gen:ghatdef}
g_{ij} = \frac1\rho \hat g_{ij},$$ the equation of motion becomes $$\label{gen:eqnmot1}
l^2 {{\hat R}}_{ij} +(d-2) \hat g_{ij}' - 2\rho \hat g_{ij}'' + 2 \rho \hat
g^{kl} \hat g_{ik}' \hat g_{lj}' - \hat g^{kl} \hat g_{kl}' \left(\rho
\hat g_{ij}' -\hat g_{ij}\right) = 0.$$ Here, ${{\hat R}}_{ij}=R_{ij}$ is the Ricci tensor of the time slice hypersurface. Raising an index with the metric $\hat g^{ij}$ we realize that it is handy to define the quantity $$\label{gen:hdef}
h^i_j = \hat g^{ik} \hat g_{kj}'.$$ In fact, eqn. becomes $$\label{gen:eqnmot}
l^2 {{\hat R}}^i_j +(d-2) h^i_j +h \delta^i_j - \rho \left(2{h^i_j}' + h
h^i_j \right) =0.$$ Similarly, rewriting the constraints and using eqns. , and one obtains $$\label{gen:con1}
l^2 {{\hat R}}+ 2 (d-1) h +\rho \left( h^i_j h^j_i -h^2 \right) =0$$ and $$\label{gen:con2}
D_i h -D_j h^j_i = 0,$$ respectively.
In the AdS/CFT correspondence we have to calculate the on-shell value of the action as a functional of prescribed boundary values $\hat g_{ij}$, where the boundary is given by $\rho=\epsilon$. First, the on-shell action is easily found to be $$\label{gen:onsh}
I(\epsilon) = \frac{d}l \int_\epsilon d\rho\, d^dx\, \sqrt{\hat g}\,
\rho^{-1-\frac{d}2}
+\frac2l \int d^dx \sqrt{\hat g}\, \epsilon^{-\frac{d}2} (\epsilon h -1).$$ In order to find the singular terms in the limit $\epsilon\to0$, we differentiate eqn. with respect to $\epsilon$, leading to $$\label{gen:delI}
\frac{\partial I}{\partial \epsilon} = \int d^d x \sqrt{\hat g}\,
\epsilon^{-\frac{d}2} \left[ l {{\hat R}}+\frac{d-1}l h \right].$$ We have made use of the trace of the equation of motion in order to simplify this expression. One can find the singular terms by calculating $h$ from eqns. , and as a power series in $\epsilon$, keeping only terms of order smaller than $\epsilon^\frac{d}2$. Thus, for odd $d$, eqn. contains only singular terms proportional to powers $\epsilon^{-n+\frac12}$. On the other hand, for even $d$, eqn. contains a term proportional to $1/\epsilon$, which yields a corresponding term proportional to $\ln
\epsilon$ in $I$. This logarithmic divergence is the source of the Weyl anomaly in the regularized finite action.
$d=2$
-----
There is not really much to do for $d=2$. In fact, the divergent term in eqn. is obtained from the leading order solution for $h$. Using the constraint one finds $$\label{d2:h}
h = -\frac{l^2}2 {{\hat R}}+\mathcal{O}(\epsilon).$$ Hence, the divergent term in the action is $$\label{d2:Idiv}
I_{div} = \ln\epsilon\; \frac{l}2 \int d^dx \sqrt{\hat g}\, {{\hat R}}.$$
$d=4$
-----
Starting from the constraint one finds $$\label{d4:h1}
h = -\frac16 \left[l^2 {{\hat R}}+\epsilon \left(h^i_j h^j_i -h^2
\right)\right].$$ Here, the leading order behaviour of the term in parentheses is sufficcient. The equation of motion gives $$h^i_j = -\frac{l^2}2 \left({{\hat R}}^i_j - \frac16 \delta^i_j {{\hat R}}\right) +\mathcal{O}(\epsilon),$$ which in turn yields $$h^i_j h^j_i -h^2 = \frac{l^4}4 \left({{\hat R}}^i_j {{\hat R}}^j_i - \frac13
{{\hat R}}^2 \right) +\mathcal{O}(\epsilon).$$ Hence, one finds $$\label{d4:Idiv}
I_{div} = - \int d^dx \sqrt{\hat g}\left[ \frac{l}{2\epsilon}{{\hat R}}+
\ln\epsilon\; \frac{l^3}8 \left({{\hat R}}^i_j {{\hat R}}^j_i - \frac13
{{\hat R}}^2 \right)\right].$$
$d=6$
-----
The constraint yields $$\label{d6:h1}
h =-\frac1{10}\left[ l^2 {{\hat R}}+\epsilon \left(h^i_j h^j_i-h^2
\right)\right].$$ We have to calculate the term in parentheses up to order $\epsilon$. Starting from the equation of motion we obtain $$h^i_j = -\frac{l^2}4 \left({{\hat R}}^i_j -\delta^i_j \frac{{{\hat R}}}{10}
\right) + \frac\epsilon4 \left[2{h^i_j}' +\frac{l^4{{\hat R}}}{40}
\left({{\hat R}}^i_j -\delta^i_j\frac{{{\hat R}}}{10} \right) + \delta^i_j
\frac1{10} \left( h^k_l h^l_k -h^2 \right) \right] +
\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2),$$ which in turn yields $$\label{d6:h2}
h^i_j h^j_i -h^2 = \frac{l^4}{16} \left( {{\hat R}}^i_j {{\hat R}}^j_i
-\frac3{10} {{\hat R}}^2 \right) - \frac\epsilon8 \left( 2l^2 {{\hat R}}^j_i
{h^i_j}' - \frac{l^2}5 {{\hat R}}h' + \frac{15 l^6}{400} {{\hat R}}{{\hat R}}^i_j {{\hat R}}^j_i
- \frac{29 l^6}{4000} {{\hat R}}^3 \right) +\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2).$$ The quantities $h'$ and ${h^i_j}'$ can be found by differentiating the equation of motion with respect to $\rho$, leading to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{d6:hprime}
h' &= -\frac18 \left(l^2 {{{\hat R}}}' -h^2\right)+ \mathcal{O}(\epsilon),\\
\label{d6:hijprime}
{h^i_j}' &= -\frac12 \left(l^2 {\hat {R^i_j}}' -\frac{l^2}8 {{{\hat R}}}'
\delta^i_j
+ \frac18 \delta^i_j h^2 - h h^i_j \right) +\mathcal{O}(\epsilon).\end{aligned}$$ The missing quantity ${\hat {R^i_j}}'$ is given by $$\label{d6:Rijprime}
{\hat {R^i_j}}' = \frac12 \left( {{\hat R}}^i_k h^k_j - {{\hat R}}^k_j h^i_k
\right) - {{\hat R}}^{ik}_{\;\;jl} h^l_k +\frac12 D^i D_j h - \frac12
D^k D_k h^i_j,$$ where we have used the constraint . Taking the trace of eqn. yields $$\label{d6:Rprime}
{{\hat R}}' = - {{\hat R}}^i_j h^j_i.$$ Thus, substituting everything back into eqn. we find $$\label{d6:h3}
\begin{split}
h^i_j h^j_i -h^2 &= \frac{l^4}{16} \left( {{\hat R}}^i_j {{\hat R}}^j_i
-\frac3{10}{{\hat R}}^2 \right)
-\frac{\epsilon l^6}{32} \left( \frac1{20} {{\hat R}}D_k D^k {{\hat R}}+
\frac15 {{\hat R}}^i_j D^j D_i {{\hat R}}-\frac12 {{\hat R}}^i_j D_k D^k {{\hat R}}^j_i\right.\\
&\quad \left. - {{\hat R}}^{ik}_{\;\;jl} {{\hat R}}^j_i {{\hat R}}^l_k
+\frac12 {{\hat R}}{{\hat R}}^i_j {{\hat R}}^j_i - \frac3{50} {{\hat R}}^3 \right)
+\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2).
\end{split}$$ Finally, substituting eqns. and into eqn. we obtain the result $$\label{d6:Idiv}
\begin{split}
I_{div} &= \int d^dx \sqrt{\hat g} \left[ -\frac{l}{4\epsilon^2} {{\hat R}}+ \frac{l^3}{32 \epsilon} \left( {{\hat R}}^i_j {{\hat R}}^j_i
-\frac3{10}{{\hat R}}^2 \right)
+ \ln\epsilon\; \frac{l^5}{64} \left( \frac1{20} {{\hat R}}D_k
D^k {{\hat R}}\right. \right. \\
&\quad\left.\left. + \frac15 {{\hat R}}^i_j D^j D_i {{\hat R}}-\frac12 {{\hat R}}^i_j
D_k D^k {{\hat R}}^j_i -{{\hat R}}^{ik}_{\;\;jl} {{\hat R}}^j_i {{\hat R}}^l_k
+ \frac12 {{\hat R}}{{\hat R}}^i_j {{\hat R}}^j_i - \frac3{50} {{\hat R}}^3
\right) \right].
\end{split}$$
Conclusions
===========
In this paper, we first explained the regularization procedure for the AdS/CFT correspondence. This was done using the example of a massive scalar field. The regularization procedure involves considering a family of surfaces as space time boundary, which tend towards the AdS horizon for some limit $\epsilon\to0$. When using the cut-off, one must express all counterterms in terms of the boundary values of the AdS fields at the cut-off boundary, not the asymptotic horizon value. Our example demonstrates the importance of this step and thus shows that the “Dirichlet prescription” is the only entirely consistent one known so far.
Then, we calculated the divergent terms for AdS gravity for $d=2,4,6$ using the Dirichlet prescription. We found agreement with earlier results, whose derivation did not properly address the boundary value subtlety [@Henningson2], or used different techniques [@Hyun; @Balasu; @Emparan]. The fact that the subtlety does not affect the result should be regarded as a coincidence, as in the other cases mentioned in the introduction. In fact, we calculated some divergent terms for the scalar field and found that they generically disagree for the correct and asymptotic boundary values – even in the massless case, where the finite terms coincide.
As in our calculation of the finite term [@Mueck3], which yields the two-point function of CFT energy momentum tensors, the time slicing formalism proves a valuable tool for the gravity part of the AdS/CFT correspondence. Moreover, we found that the calculation was greatly simplified by considering the derivative of the action, eqn. .
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported in part by a grant from NSERC. W. M. is very grateful to Simon Fraser University for financial support.
Time Slicing Formalism {#slicing}
======================
Let us begin with a review of basic geometric relations for immersed hypersurfaces [@Eisenhart]. Let a hypersurface be defined by the functions $X^\mu(x^i)$, ($\mu=0,\ldots d$, $i=1,\ldots d$) and let $\tilde g_{\mu\nu}$ and $g_{ij}$ be the metric tensors of the imbedding manifold and the hypersurface, respectively. The tangents $\partial_i X^\mu$ and the normal $N^\mu$ of the hypersurface satisfy the following orthogonality relations: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sli:induced}
\tilde g_{\mu\nu} \partial_i X^\mu \partial_j X^\nu &= g_{ij},\\
\label{sli:orth}
\partial_i X^\mu N_\mu &= 0,\\
\label{sli:norm}
N_\mu N^\mu &=1.\end{aligned}$$ We shall in the sequel use a tilde to label quantities relating to the $d+1$ dimensional space time manifold and leave those relating to the hypersurface unadorned. Moreover, we use the symbol $D$ to denote a covariant derivative with respect to whatever indices may follow. Then, there are the equations of Gauss and Weingarten, which define the second fundamental form $H_{ij}$ of the hypersurface, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sli:gauss1}
D_i\partial_j X^\mu &\equiv \partial_i\partial_j X^\mu + \tilde
\Gamma^\mu_{\lambda\nu} \partial_i X^\lambda \partial_j X^\nu
-\Gamma^k_{ij} \partial_k X^\mu = H_{ij} N^\mu,\\
\label{sli:weingarten}
D_i N^\mu &\equiv \partial_i N^\mu +\tilde \Gamma^\mu_{\lambda\nu}
\partial_i X^\lambda N^\nu = -H^j_i \partial_j X^\mu.\end{aligned}$$ The second fundamental form describes the extrinsic curvature of the hypersurface and is related to the intrinsic curvature by another equation of Gauss, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sli:gauss2}
\tilde R_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho} \partial_i X^\mu \partial_j X^\nu
\partial_k X^\lambda \partial_l X^\rho &=R_{ijkl} + H_{il} H_{jk} -
H_{ik} H_{jl}.\\
\intertext{Furthermore, it satisfies the equation of Codazzi,}
\label{sli:codazzi}
\tilde R_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho} \partial_i X^\mu \partial_j X^\nu
N^\lambda \partial_k X^\rho &= D_i H_{jk} -D_j H_{ik}.\end{aligned}$$
In the time slicing formalism [@Wald; @MTW] we consider the bundle of immersed hypersurfaces defined by $X^0=const.$, whose tangent vectors are given by $\partial_i X^0=0$ and $\partial_i X^\mu
=\delta_i^\mu$ ($\mu=1,\ldots d$). One conveniently splits up the metric as (shown here for Euclidean signature) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sli:split}
\tilde g_{\mu\nu} &= \begin{pmatrix} n_i n^i +n^2 & n_j \\
n_i & g_{ij} \end{pmatrix},\\
\intertext{whose inverse is given by}
\label{sli:splitinv}
\tilde g^{\mu\nu} &= \frac1{n^2} \begin{pmatrix} 1& -n^j \\
-n^i & n^2 g^{ij} +n^i n^j \end{pmatrix}\end{aligned}$$ and whose determinant is $\tilde g=n^2 g$. The quantities $n$ and $n^i$ are called the lapse function and shift vector, respectively. The normal vector $N^\mu$ satisfying eqns. and is given by $$\label{sli:normal}
N_\mu = (-n,{\ensuremath{\mathbf{0}}}), \qquad N^\mu= \frac1{n}(-1,n^i),$$ where the sign has been chosen such that the normal points outwards on the boundary ($n>0$ without loss of generality). Then, one obtains the second fundamental form from the equation of Gauss as $$\label{sli:Hij}
H_{ij} = \frac1{2n} (g_{ij}' -D_i n_j -D_j n_i),$$ where the prime denotes a derivative with respect to the time coordinate ($X^0$).
The advantage of the time slicing formalism is that one removes the diffeomorphism invariance in Einstein’s equation by specifying the lapse function $n$ and shift vector $n^i$ and thus obtains an equation of motion as well as constraints for the physical degrees of freedom $g_{ij}$. Consider Einstein’s equation without matter fields, $$\label{sli:einstein}
\tilde R_{\mu\nu} -\frac12 \tilde g_{\mu\nu} \tilde R = - \tilde
g_{\mu\nu} \Lambda.$$ Multiplying it with $N^\mu N^\nu$ and using the equation of Gauss as well as the relation one obtains the first constraint, $$\label{sli:con1}
R+H_{ij}H^{ij} -H^2 = 2\Lambda,$$ where $H=H^i_i$. Similarly, multiplying with $N^\mu \partial_i X^\nu$, using the equation of Codazzi and the relation yields the second constraint, $$\label{sli:con2}
D_i H - D_j H^j_i =0.$$ Finally, rewriting eqn. in the form $$\label{sli:einstein2}
\tilde R_{\mu\nu} = \frac{2}{d-1}\tilde g_{\mu\nu} \Lambda$$ and projecting out its tangential components we obtain the equation of motion $$\label{sli:eqnmot}
\tilde R_{ij} = \frac2{d-1} g_{ij} \Lambda.$$
[99]{} S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov and A. M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. **B428**, 105 (1998), `hep-th/9802109` E. Witten, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. **2**, 253 (1998), `hep-th/9802150` W. Mück and K. S. Viswanathan, Phys. Rev. D **58**, 041901 (1998), `hep-th/9804035` D. Z. Freedman, S. D. Mathur, A. Matusis and L. Rastelli, *Correlation functions in the CFT$_d$/AdS$_{d+1}$ correspondence*, `hep-th/9804058` W. Mück and K. S. Viswanathan, Phys. Rev. D **58**, 106006 (1998), `hep-th/9805145` S. Corley, Phys. Rev. D **59**, 086003 (1998), `hep-th/9808184` W. Mück and K. S. Viswanathan, *The Graviton in the AdS-CFT correspondence: Solution via the Dirichlet boundary value problem*, `hep-th/9810151` M. Henningson and K. Sfetsos, Phys. Lett. **B431**, 63 (1998), `hep-th/9803251` H. Liu and A. A. Tseytlin, Nucl. Phys. B **533**, 88 (1998), `hep-th/9804083` A. Volovich, J. High Energy Phys. **9**, 022 (1998), `hep-th/9809009` A. S. Koshelev and O. A. Rytchkov, Phys. Lett. **B450**, 368 (1999), `hep-th/9812238` E. D’Hoker, D. Z. Freedman, S. D. Mathur, A. Matusis and L. Rastelli, *Graviton exchange and complete 4-point functions in the AdS/CFT correspondence*, `hep-th/9903196` M. Henningson and K. Skenderis, J. High Energy Phys. **7**, 023 (1998) M. Henningson and K. Skenderis, *Holography and the Weyl Anomaly*, `hep-th/9812032` S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Lett. **B444**, 92 (1998), `hep-th/9810008` S. Hyun, W. T. Kim and J. Lee, Phys. Rev. D **59**, 084020 (1999), `hep-th/9811005` V. Balasubramanian and P. Kraus, *A Stress Tensor for Anti-de Sitter Gravity*, `hep-th/9902121` S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, `hep-th/9903033` F. Gonzalez-Rey, B. Kulik and I. Y. Park, *Non-renormalization of two and three Point Correlators of $N=4$ SYM in $N=1$ Superspace*, `hep-th/9903094` R. Emparan, C. V. Johnson and R. C. Myers, *Surface Terms as Counterterms in the AdS/CFT Correspondence*, `hep-th/9903238` M. Nishimura and Y. Tanii, *Super Weyl Anomalies in the AdS/CFT Correspondence*, `hep-th/9904010` G. E. Arutyunov and S. A. Frolov, Nucl. Phys. B **544**, 576 (1999), `hep-th/9806216` L. P. Eisenhart, *Riemannian Geometry*, Princeton University Press (1964) R. M. Wald, *General Relativity*, University of Chicaco Press (1984) C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne and J. A. Wheeler, *Gravitation*, Freeman, San Francisco (1973)
[^1]: E-mail: `[email protected]`
[^2]: E-mail: `[email protected]`
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The Fermi bubbles are two lobes filled with non-thermal particles that emit gamma rays, extend $\approx$10 kpc vertically from the Galactic center, and formed from either nuclear star formation or accretion activity on Sgr A\*. Simulations predict a range of shock strengths as the bubbles expand into the surrounding hot gas halo distribution ($T_{halo} \approx 2 \times 10^6$ K), but with significant uncertainties in the energetics, age, and thermal gas structure. The bubbles should contain thermal gas with temperatures between $10^6$ and $10^8$ K, with potential X-ray signatures. In this work, we constrain the bubbles’ thermal gas structure by modeling the and emission line strengths from archival *XMM-Newton* and *Suzaku* data. Our emission model includes a hot thermal volume-filled bubble component cospatial with the gamma-ray region, and a shell of compressed material. We find that a bubble/shell model with $n \approx 1 \times 10^{-3}$ cm$^{-3}$ and with log($T$) $\approx$ 6.60-6.70 is consistent with the observed line intensities. In the framework of a continuous Galactic outflow, we infer a bubble expansion rate, age, and energy injection rate of $490_{-77}^{+230}$ km s$^{-1}$, $4.3_{-1.4}^{+0.8}$ Myr, and $2.3_{-0.9}^{+5.1} \times 10^{42}$ erg s$^{-1}$. These estimates are consistent with the bubbles forming from a Sgr A\* accretion event rather than from nuclear star formation.'
author:
- 'Matthew J. Miller & Joel N. Bregman'
title: 'The Interaction of the Fermi Bubbles with the Milky Way’s Hot Gas Halo'
---
Introduction {#section.introduction_chap_fb}
============
The Fermi bubbles are important Galactic structures that were recently discovered by the *Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope* [@su_etal10]. The bubbles are two diffuse lobes of material extending $\sim$50$\arcdeg$ above and below the Galactic plane ($\approx$10 kpc at the Galactic center). Their surface brightness shows little variation on the sky, their gamma-ray spectrum follows a power law with $dN/dE \propto E^{-2}$ between $\approx$1 and 200 GeV, and they have a counterpart in microwaves, known as the $Wilkinson\ Microwave\ Anisotropy\ Probe$ ($WMAP$) haze [@dobler_finkbeiner08; @dobler_etal10; @su_etal10; @ackermann_etal14]. It is still unclear what produces the gamma rays, but all plausible mechanisms imply that energetic cosmic-ray particles exist within the bubbles. This inference combined with the bubbles’ size and location on the sky suggests that they are affiliated with a massive energy injection event near the Galactic center.
The bubbles’ morphology is similar to wind-blown bubbles observed in other galaxies, indicating that they formed from either a period of enhanced nuclear star formation or a Sgr A\* outburst event (see @veilleux_etal05 for a review). Star formation can drive outflows through a combination of stellar winds from young stars and multiple type-II supernova explosions [e.g., @leitherer_etal99], while black hole accretion episodes can produce energetic jets or winds that inflate a cavity with thermal and non-thermal particles [e.g., @mcnamara_nulsen07; @yuan_narayan14]. Both of these scenarios are critical events in galaxy evolution, as they both can deposit significant amounts of energy into the rest of the galaxy on scales $\gtrsim$10 kpc (see @mcnamara_nulsen07 for a review). However, the details of these “feedback” effects (mass displacement, energy transport, etc.) are poorly understood since we observe them in external galaxies. The Fermi bubbles are a unique laboratory for understanding these processes since we can spatially resolve the bubbles across multiple wavebands.
A popular strategy to probe these effects and bubbles’ origins has been the use of magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulations to reproduce the bubbles’ global morphology and non-thermal properties. Simulations produce cosmic rays either from a black hole accretion event [@zubovas_etal11; @guo_mathews12a; @guo_mathews12b; @yang_etal12; @yang_etal13; @zubovas_nayakshin12; @mou_etal14; @mou_etal15], from nuclear star formation activity [@crocker12; @crocker_etal14; @crocker_etal15; @sarkar_etal15; @ruszkowski_etal16], or in-situ as the bubbles evolve [@cheng_etal11; @cheng_etal15b; @mertsch_sarkar11; @fujita_etal14; @lacki14; @sasaki_etal15], and compare the non-thermal emission to the bubbles’ gamma-ray emission. All of these origin scenarios can reproduce the bubbles’ morphology, but they imply significantly different input energetics and timescales required to inflate the bubbles ($\dot{E} \gtrsim 10^{41}$ erg s$^{-1}$, $t \lesssim 5$ Myr for black hole accretion compared to $\dot{E} \lesssim 5 \times 10^{40}$ erg s$^{-1}$, $t \gtrsim 50$ Myr for star formation). This variation in the feedback rate is a significant uncertainty in how the bubbles impact the Galaxy, but there are additional factors that can constrain the characteristic bubble energetics.
Constraining the bubbles’ thermal gas distribution is a promising avenue to solve this problem, since the characteristic densities and temperatures should be significantly different depending on the bubble energetics. In the framework of expanding galactic outflows and shocks [e.g., @veilleux_etal05], a higher energy input rate leads to a higher plasma temperature and a larger expansion rate for a fixed bubble size and ambient density. Thus, the plasma temperature at the interface between the bubbles and surrounding medium encodes information on the bubbles’ shock strength, expansion properties, and overall energy input rate. A generic prediction from simulations and observations of galactic outflows is that the bubbles are overpressurized and hotter than the surrounding medium ($\gtrsim 2 \times 10^6$ K), implying that the bubbles’ thermal gas should have signatures at soft X-ray energies. Indeed, the bubbles appear to be bounded by X-ray emission seen in the *ROSAT* 1.5 keV band [@bh_cohen03; @su_etal10]; however, these observations do not constrain the bubbles’ intrinsic thermal gas structure since the broad-band images are a weak temperature diagnostic. Spectral observations with current X-ray telescopes are a much better temperature diagnostic for this type of environment.
Initial efforts to observe the bubbles in soft X-rays with *Suzaku* and *Swift* and constrain their temperature and shock strength were carried out by several groups [@kataoka_etal13; @kataoka_etal15; @tahara_etal15]. @kataoka_etal15 extracted soft X-ray background (SXRB) spectra in the 0.5–2.0 keV band for 97 sight lines that pass through the Fermi bubbles, and fit the spectra with thermal plasma models. They consistently measured plasma temperatures of $kT$ = 0.3 keV for these sight lines, which is systematically higher than the characteristic temperature measured in sight lines away from the Galactic center [$kT \approx$0.2 keV; @hs13]. From this temperature ratio, they inferred a shock Mach number of $\mathcal{M} \approx $0.3 keV / 0.2 keV = 1.5, and corresponding expansion rate of $\approx$300 km s$^{-1}$. This is a valuable attempt to constrain these quantities, but the analysis assumes that the Fermi bubble plasma dominates the hotter spectral component. In practice, there are other known emission sources that contribute to the SXRB spectrum, and accounting for this emission can change the inferred thermal gas temperature.
The Milky Way hosts a hot gas distribution with $T \approx 2 \times 10^6$ K extending on scales $\gtrsim$10 kpc based on shadowing experiments from *ROSAT* all-sky data [@snowden_etal97; @kuntz_snowden00]. This plasma is believed to dominate any SXRB spectrum, with and being the characteristic observed line transitions [e.g., @mccammon_etal02; @yoshino_etal09; @hs12]. The structure of this extended plasma distribution has been debated in the literature, but numerous studies on but numerous studies on both absorption and emission line strengths indicate that the plasma is spherical and extends to at least $r \sim 50$ kpc [@fang_etal06; @bregman_ld07; @gupta_etal12; @fang_etal13; @miller_bregman13; @miller_bregman15]. In particular, Miller & Bregman ([-@miller_bregman15], defined as henceforth) modeled a set of 648 emission line intensities from Henley & Shelton ([-@hs12], defined as henceforth), and found that a hot gas density profile with $n \propto r^{-3/2}$ extending to the virial radius reproduces the observed emission line intensities. These modeling studies have placed useful constraints on the Galactic-scale hot gas distribution, but also highlight the fact that this extended plasma is likely the dominant emission source in all 0.5–2.0 keV band spectra.
In this study, we expand the analysis Kataoka et al. ([-@kataoka_etal15], defined as henceforth) analysis by modeling the combined emission from the Fermi bubbles and hot gas halo present in emission line measurements. We modify the Galactic-scale hot gas models from to include a geometry, density, and temperature structure for the Fermi bubbles. Given a set of model parameters, we predict the contribution to the emission made by the Fermi bubbles and hot gas halo along any sight line. This results in a more careful comparison between the Fermi bubbles’ emission and the total observed emission in any SXRB measurement.
The observations used in our analysis consist of published *XMM-Newton* measurements from , and a new *Suzaku* data set produced for this work. The *XMM-Newton* data are mostly the same measurements used in , but we now include data near the Fermi bubbles. We supplement these data with archival *Suzaku* measurements of SXRB spectra, which more than doubles the number of emission line measurements projected near the bubbles. These data are processed in a similar way to the *XMM-Newton* data reduction outlined in , resulting in a uniformly processed data set of emission line intensities from the SXRB.
Following the methodology from , we constrain the Fermi bubbles’ density and temperature structure by finding the parametric model that is most consistent with the observed emission line intensities. We measure the characteristic bubble temperature from analyzing the distribution of observed /line ratios near the bubbles, and the characteristic bubble density from explicitly modeling the emission line intensities. We infer a similar bubble shock strength compared to the analysis, and discuss the systematic differences between our approaches and results and theirs. We also estimate the bubbles’ age and energy input rate, and these with the possible formation mechanisms discussed above.
The rest of the paper is outlined as follows. Section \[section.data\_chap\_fb\] discusses how we compiled our emission line sample, including an overview of the *XMM-Newton* data set and the *Suzaku* data processing. Section \[section.model\_chap\_fb\] definesdefines our parametric density and temperature model and discusses our line intensity calculation. Section \[section.results\_chap\_fb\] discusses our model fitting routine and results. Section \[section.discussion\_chap\_fb\] discusses our constraints on the Fermi bubbles in the context of galactic outflows, previous X-ray studies, and simulations. Section \[section.conclusions\_chap\_fb\] summarizes our results.
Emission Line Data {#section.data_chap_fb}
==================
Our data set includes (He-like triplet at $E \approx 0.56$ keV) and (Ly$\alpha$ transition at $E \approx 0.65$ keV) emission lines, which are the dominant ions for thermal plasmas with temperatures between $T \sim 10^{5.5}$ and $10^{7}$ K [@sutherland_dopita93]. For an optically thin plasma in collisional ionization equilibrium, the emission line intensity depends on the plasma density and temperature as $I\ \propto\ n^2 \epsilon(T)$, where $\epsilon(T)$ is the volumetric line emissivity. This implies that the line strength ratio is a temperature diagnostic and the individual ion line strengths can be used to estimate the plasma density. Large, all-sky samples of emission line measurements in particular have been instrumental in constraining the Milky Way’s global density distribution of $\sim 10^6$ K gas .
The full data set used in our modeling analysis is a combination of published *XMM-Newton* emission line measurements from and a complementary sample of *Suzaku* measurements compiled specifically for this project. The *XMM-Newton* sample from contains $\sim$1000 emission line measurements distributed across the sky, making it a valuable starting point for our modeling work. While *XMM-Newton* has more collecting power than *Suzaku* near the emission lines (collecting area $\times$ field of view $\approx$140,000 cm$^{2}$ arcmin$^{2}$ for the MOS1 camera compared to $\approx$70,000 cm$^{2}$ arcmin$^{2}$ for the XIS1 detector), we include a supplemental *Suzaku* data set for two reasons. *Suzaku’s* low Earth orbit results in a lower and more stable particle background than *XMM-Newton’s*, often resulting in measurements with higher signal-to-noise ratio at soft X-ray energies. Also, there are many valuable archival *Suzaku* observations projected near the Fermi bubbles, including 14 observations dedicated to observing the bubbles’ edge. In practice, *Suzaku* data should have a comparable signal-to-noise ratio to the *XMM-Newton* data, while probing the crucial region in and near the Fermi bubbles.
Our goal is to create a clean sample of uniformly processed emission line measurements by reducing the *Suzaku* data in a similar way to how reduced the *XMM-Newton* data. The main steps include: the removal of bright point sources, light curve filtering, spectral fitting, and filtering for solar wind charge-exchange (SWCX) emission. The following sections summarize how the *XMM-Newton* data were produced, and detail our *Suzaku* data reduction steps. After applying all these data reduction methods, our final sample includes 683 useful *XMM-Newton* measurements and 58 useful *Suzaku* measurements.
*XMM-Newton* Observations {#subsection.xmm_chap_fb}
-------------------------
We summarize the *XMM-Newton* emission line sample compilation here, but we refer the reader to for a more detailed description of their data reduction methods. Their initial sample included 5698 observations that had any EPIC-MOS exposure time. They reduced the data using the *XMM-Newton* Extended Source Analysis Software [^1] [*XMM*-ESAS; @kuntz_snowden08; @snowden_kuntz11], which includes screening the 2.5–12 keV band count rate for soft proton flares. They also removed point sources from the spectral extraction regions using data from the Second *XMM-Newton* Serendipitous Source Catalog [^2] [@watson_etal09], as well as visual inspection for bright sources in the images. The authors attempted to reduce geocoronal SWCX emission by excluding observing periods with high solar wind proton flux measurements (see Section \[subsection.swcx\_chap\_fb\] for the details of this procedure), which they called their “flux-filtered” sample. These reduction methods resulted in 1868 total observations and 1003 flux-filtered observations with $\geq$5 ks of good observing time. Each of these observations includes an and emission line intensity measurement, and they have been used to analyze the known emission sources (i.e., Local Bubble (LB), extended hot halo, SWCX).
This sample has been used before to successfully model the Milky Way’s global hot gas structure, thus motivating its use to model the Fermi bubbles. compiled a subset of the flux-filtered sample with additional spatial screening criteria to reduce any residual emission from sources other than the LB and Galactic hot halo. To achieve this, they removed observations within 0.5$\arcdeg$ of potential bright X-ray sources (see Table 1 in for the types of sources) or within 10$\arcdeg$ of the Galactic plane, and sight lines near the Fermi bubbles ($|l| \leq\ 22\arcdeg$, $|b| \leq\ 55\arcdeg$). This resulted in a subsample of 649 observations from the flux-filtered sample.
The *XMM-Newton* data used in this study are the same as those used in , but including the sight lines near the Fermi bubbles. We start with the flux-filtered sample and still exclude sight lines near bright X-ray sources or within 10$\arcdeg$ of the Galactic plane. These screening criteria result in a total of 683 *XMM-Newton* measurements distributed across the sky, with 34 measurements passing near or through the bubbles’ gamma-ray edge.
*Suzaku* Observations and Data Reduction {#subsection.suz_chap_fb}
----------------------------------------
We compiled an initial *Suzaku* target list of all observations that were publicly available as of 2015 January and near the Fermi bubbles. This included any observations with Galactic coordinates $|l| \leq\ 25\arcdeg$ and $10\arcdeg \leq |b| \leq\ 55\arcdeg$. There were 143 observations in this region of the sky, which we inspected for usable spectra.
Each observation includes data from the three active X-ray Imaging Spectrometer (XIS) detectors on board *Suzaku* [@koyama_etal07]. The detectors each have an $18\arcmin \times 18\arcmin$ field of view and a point spread function of $\approx 2 \arcmin$. We only considered data from the back-illuminated XIS1 detector since it has a larger collecting area below 1 keV than the other detectors.
We processed all XIS1 data using HEAsoft version 6.17 and calibration database (CALDB) files from 2015 January. We followed the standard data reduction procedure described in *The Suzaku Data Reduction Guide*.[^3] This includes recalibrating the raw data files, screening for flickering or bad pixels, energy-scale reprocessing, and building good time interval (GTI) files. Fortunately, the FTOOL script `aepipeline` performs all these tasks for standard *Suzaku* observations. We used `aepipeline` version 1.1.0 to generate reprocessed images, light curves, and spectra for our analysis.
We extracted all data products using `xselect` version 2.4. Each data set combined data from $3 \times 3$ and $5 \times 5$ editing modes where applicable. We did not impose any non-standard criteria on the data extraction steps with the exception of the cutoff rigidity (COR) of the Earth’s magnetic field. This parameter varies throughout *Suzaku’s* low Earth orbit, and larger COR constraints result in fewer particle background counts. A higher cutoff than the standard COR $>$ 4 GV has been used in previous SXRB spectral fits, and typically results in higher signal-to-noise ratio between 0.5 and 2.0 keV [@smith_etal07; @kataoka_etal15]. Here, we follow the suggested value from @smith_etal07 and use a constraint of COR $>$ 8 GV.
Since the observational goal of this study is to measure and intensities from SXRB spectra, we removed point sources from each observation before we extracted spectra. We inspected each XIS1 image for point sources to remove with self-defined region files. Observations of exceptionally bright sources (i.e., where there was clear emission extending over more than $\approx5\arcmin$), extended sources (galaxy clusters, star clusters, etc.), or other anomalous features were rejected from the data set. We also rejected any observations not taken in the standard observing window mode due to the reduction in field-of-view collecting area. For any remaining visible point sources, we defined circular exclusion regions between 1$\arcmin$ and 4$\arcmin$ in radius centered on each source. We then re-extracted the data products for each observation with the point source region excluded.
The next step in our data cleaning process was light curve inspection and filtering. We extracted 0.4–10.0 keV light curves and constructed count-rate histograms for each observation. Our default screening criterion was to remove observing periods that were $> 2 \sigma$ from the mean count rate. This led to a small reduction in observing time since most count-rate histograms followed an approximately Gaussian distribution. We flagged observations that did not have an approximately Gaussian count-rate distribution, which is indicative of additional soft proton flares or residual point-source emission that may have been variable throughout the observation. Example light curves with the various filtering tasks can be seen in Figure \[figure.lc\_regfilter\_chap\_fb\]. We also expand on this analysis step in Section \[subsection.swcx\_chap\_fb\] where we exclude observing periods with high solar wind proton flux measurements. This light curve filtering created new GTI files, which we used to compile our initial data products.
The procedures for point-source exclusion and light curve filtering procedures outlined above were the primary stages in our initial sample catalog. To summarize the main screening criteria, we excluded observations that showed anomalous features in either their images or light curves or that had exceptionally bright point sources, and we filtered the images for removable point sources. After these screening criteria, we kept observations with $\geq$5 ks of good observing time. This resulted in 112 observations out of the original 143.
SWCX Filtering {#subsection.swcx_chap_fb}
--------------
SWCX emission can occur in any X-ray observation, but it is difficult to predict or attribute the amount of SWCX emission in individual SXRB observations [e.g., @carter_sembay08; @carter_etal11; @galeazzi_etal14; @hs15]. The emission can occur either at the interface between the solar system and interstellar medium (ISM) (heliospheric emission) or as solar wind ions pass near the Earth’s neutral atmosphere (geocoronal emission). Heliospheric emission is thought to vary with the overall solar cycle, the observed direction relative to the Sun’s orbit and ecliptic plane, and the hydrogen and helium density in the neutral ISM [@cravens_etal01; @robertson_cravens03_a; @koutroumpa_etal06; @koutroumpa_etal07; @koutroumpa_etal11; @galeazzi_etal14; @hs15]. Geocoronal emission is thought to depend on the solar wind proton flux and the observed direction relative to the magnetosheath [@snowden_etal04; @wargelin_etal04; @fujimoto_etal07; @carter_sembay08; @carter_etal10; @carter_etal11; @ezoe_etal10; @ezoe_etal11; @ishikawa_etal13; @hs15]. It is still unclear what the typical amount of SWCX emission is in a given X-ray observation, and models predict a wide range of and intensities depending on the parameters listed above [@robertson_cravens03_b; @koutroumpa_etal06; @koutroumpa_etal07; @koutroumpa_etal11; @robertson_etal06]. For the purpose of this project, SWCX emission is considered to be contamination, and our goal is to reduce the amount of potential emission as much as possible.
Following the work of , we filter the observations for periods of high solar wind proton flux in an effort to reduce geocoronal SWCX. For each observation, we gathered solar wind data from the OMNIWeb database,[^4] which includes data from the *Advanced Composition Explorer* and *Wind* satellites. The database includes solar wind densities and velocities, which we convert to fluxes. We cross-correlated each solar wind proton flux light curve with the X-ray light curves. Periods with solar wind flux values $> 2 \times 10^8 $ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ were flagged and considered to potentially include SWCX emission. We illustrate how this screening works for several example spectra in Figure \[figure.lc\_fluxfilter\_chap\_fb\]. We made new GTI files incorporating these filtering periods and the $> 2 \sigma$ count rate periods discussed above. These GTI files were used for the final spectral extraction used in the fitting analysis.
We point out that this filtering procedure is designed to reduce geocoronal SWCX emission, not heliospheric SWCX emission. The models suggesting that heliospheric SWCX varies with ecliptic latitude imply that applying an ecliptic latitude cut to an observing sample may help reduce that emission. Indeed, @hs13 discuss this effect and employ this screening criterion for their study on fitting SXRB spectra. However, the analysis in argues that there does not appear to be a significant enhancement of or line emission within 10$\arcdeg$ of the ecliptic plane, part of which passes through the Fermi bubbles. Therefore, heliospheric SWCX is likely present at softer X-ray energies, but it does not appear to be a significant emission source for the oxygen lines of interest.
This additional screening procedure can only reduce the good exposure time in a given observation. Some observations occurred entirely during a period of high solar wind proton flux, in which case the observation was removed from the sample. Other observations occurred entirely during a period of low solar wind proton flux, in which case the observation was unaffected. The rest of the observations were partially contaminated, leading to a reduction of observing time. We enforced the same good exposure time requirement noted above of $>$5 ks to keep observations in the sample. After the default screening outlined in Section \[subsection.suz\_chap\_fb\] and this additional SWCX filtering, our sample includes 58 of the original 143 observations.
Spectral Modeling {#subsection.spec_mod_chap_fb}
-----------------
This section outlines our spectral fitting procedure, including the response files used, our spectral model, and resultant data products. We extracted spectra in the 0.4–5.0 keV band, which is broad enough to model the known SXRB emission sources. Each observation had its own particle spectrum, or non X-ray background (NXB) spectrum, and response files. We used `Xspec` version 12.9.0 for all spectral fitting, where we used the Cash statistic as our fit statistic [@cash79]. Figure \[figure.spectrum\_chap\_fb\] shows an example observed spectrum and best-fit multi-component model. Our final result includes and line intensities for each observation.
We generated response matrices and auxiliary response files using standard *Suzaku* scripts. The script `xisrmfgen` was used to generate response matrices (RMF files) for each observation. We used the ray-tracing program `xissimarfgen` to generate ancillary response files (ARFs) assuming a uniformly emitting source and a 20$\arcmin$ radius circle for a simulated source region. The size of the source region acts as a normalization in our spectral fit values.
Each observation has an NXB spectrum collected by *Suzaku* observations of the Earth at night. We generated NXB spectra using the script `xisnxbgen` [@tawa_etal08]. This creates an NXB spectrum using a weighted sum of *Suzaku* of the Earth at night based on the exposure times. The only unique parameter we supplied to the script is the same constraint of COR $>$8 GV that we applied to the initial data extraction. Different SXRB studies have multiple treatments for these NXB spectra, with groups either subtracting the NXB counts from the observed spectrum or including the NXB spectrum as additional data and simultaneously modeling its contribution to the full spectrum [e.g., @smith_etal07]. We follow the latter methodology, meaning we fit both our observed spectrum and the NXB spectrum as one process.
Our spectral model includes the following components: NXB spectrum, an absorbed cosmic X-ray background (CXB) or extragalactic power law, an absorbed hot gas continuum component with no oxygen emission lines, and the and lines of interest. The absorbed components were attenuated using the `phabs` model in Xspec [@bc_mccammon92; @yan_etal98] and had column densities fixed to values from the LAB survey [@kalberla_etal05]. We also assume metal abundances from @asplund_etal09 unless otherwise stated. The rest of this section details the spectral model assumed for each source.
The NXB model includes a contribution from particles hitting the XIS detectors that are not focused by the telescope and three instrumental lines. For the particle spectrum, we include a power law where both the normalization and slope can vary. The instrumental lines include an Al K line at 1.49 keV, an Si K line at 1.74 keV, and an Au M line at 2.12 keV.[^5] We model each of these lines as Gaussians with widths and normalizations left to vary as free parameters and the centroids fixed. This model component is only folded through the RMF response (as opposed to both the RMF and ARF), and it contributes to both the observed and NXB spectra.
The CXB spectrum is typically modeled as an absorbed power law or multiple broken power laws, and is thought to be due to unresolved active galactic nuclei (AGNs). The differences between these spectral shapes have minimal effects on the measured oxygen line intensities, since the CXB contributes $\lesssim10\%$ to the total SXRB flux below $\approx$1 keV. Therefore, we adopt the spectral shape used by , which is a power law with fixed spectral index of 1.46 [@chen_etal97]. These authors discuss the uncertainty in the CXB power law normalization, but argue for a nominal value of 7.9 photons cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$ keV$^{-1}$ at 1 keV after accounting for CXB sources with $F_X < 5 \times 10^{-14}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ in the 0.5–2.0 keV band [@moretti_etal03]. We allow the CXB normalization to be a free parameter in our spectral model, but place $\pm$30% hard boundaries on the parameter to allow for field-to-field variation.
Although the oxygen lines are the measurement of interest, we still account for hot gas continuum emission in our model. We model this component as an absorbed thermal APEC plasma [@smith_etal01] with fixed solar metallicty and without the oxygen lines. We achieve the latter by setting the oxygen line emissivities to zero in the standard Xspec APEC files [@lei_etal09; @hs12]. The normalization and temperature were left as free parameters in the model. We expected the fitted plasma temperatures to be between 0.1 and 0.3 keV, but these temperatures are typically most sensitive to the oxygen lines that we disabled. Therefore, we let the plasma temperature vary outside this range, but with hard boundaries between 0.05 and 5 keV.
Our final spectral model components are the and emission lines. We model each of these components as Gaussian features with the widths fixed to the instrumental resolution. We fixed the centroid to its laboratory value of 0.6536 keV, but let the centroid vary since the line is an unresolved blend of the resonance, forbidden, and intercombination lines. The Gaussian normalizations were also free parameters, because these represent the line strength measurements. We point out that this spectral fitting method measures the *total* emission line strengths from all emission sources (residual SWCX, LB, absorbed hot gas halo, or Fermi bubble) for each sight line. This is why our model line intensities in Section \[subsection.intensity\_chap\_fb\] include all emission sources along each sight line.
The Exclusion of the North Polar Spur Region {#subsection.nps}
--------------------------------------------
The North Polar Spur (NPS) is an extended region of enhanced X-ray emission that is cospatial with part of a larger region of enhanced radio continuum emission known as Loop I [@berkhuijsen_etal71; @borken_iwan77; @snowden_etal97]. The X-ray enhancement is strongest at lower Galactic latitudes near $l, b \approx$ 25, 25, and gradually decreases in intensity toward the Galactic pole. Spectral observations with *XMM-Newton* and *Suzaku* indicate that the plasma is hotter than the surrounding medium with $kT \approx 0.3$ keV, is depleted in C, O, Mg, Ne, Fe, and enhanced in N [@willingale_etal03; @miller_etal08; @ursino_etal16]. These measurements alone do not constrain the NPS distance, which makes it unclear whether the enhancement is associated with the Fermi bubbles.
Several independent methods place constraints on the NPS distance, but there is tension between the results. @sofue15 analyzed how the NPS X-ray emission varies with extinction near the Aquila Rift, and concluded that the NPS must be behind the rift and $>$1 kpc from the Sun. @puspitarini_etal14 compared three-dimensional models of the Milky Way’s ISM and found no evidence for a low-density, hot cavity capable of producing the NPS X-ray emission within $\approx$200 pc of the Sun. Alternatively, @sun_etal15 mapped the NPS in polarized radio emission and constrained the distance using maps of Faraday rotation measure and depth. They argue that the NPS emission at $b \gtrsim$50 is likely within a few hundred parsecs of the Sun, while emission at lower latitudes can be either local or distant depending on the sign of the Milky Way’s large-scale magnetic field.
These distance discrepancies are problematic because the NPS could be a region of compressed circumgalactic medium (CGM) material due to the Fermi bubbles’ expansion, and thus a probe of their kinematics. This scenario was suggested long before the bubbles’ discovery, and models of “biconical hypershells” expanding away from the Galactic center can reproduce the X-ray and radio morphologies of the NPS [@sofue77; @sofue00; @sofue_etal16]. Alternatively, models of stellar winds and supernova remnants from the Sco–Cen OB association can also reproduce the X-ray and radio morphologies, in which case the emission occurs $\approx$200 pc away from the Sun [@egger_aschenbach95; @wolleben07]. In this scenario, the NPS has no affiliation from the Fermi bubbles, so analyzing its emission would lead to inaccurate measured bubble properties.
In light of these uncertainties, we choose to exclude observations that are projected through the NPS in our model fitting analysis. This is a conservative approach that prevents us from fitting hot gas emission that may be unrelated to our emission model. Furthermore, the NPS appears to be a unique feature in terms of its location on the sky. There should be similarly enhanced X-ray-emitting regions in the other quadrants of the sky if the NPS were due to the Fermi bubbles, but these are not seen in the *ROSAT* maps. Thus, modeling the NPS emission could lead to biased and inaccurate results.
We exclude observations near the NPS in two square regions. Any observations within $l$ = 20–25, $b$ = 26–34, or $l$ = 4–20, $b$ = 40–57 were excluded. This led to the exclusion of 27 observations from our model fitting procedure.
[l r r r c r r]{}\[t!\]
Data Summary {#subsection.data_summary_chap_fb}
------------
The final *Suzaku* sample with spectral fitting results can be seen in Table \[table.suz\_data\_chap\_fb\]. We include the observation ID, the sight line in Galactic coordinates, the good XIS exposure time, and the oxygen line strengths with their 1$\sigma$ uncertainties in Line Units (L.U.). The emission line measurements presented here are designed to have as little SWCX as possible, while containing only emission from astrophysical sources of interest (i.e., Galactic hot gas halo and Fermi bubbles). We also outlined data reduction, extraction, and cleaning prodecures as similar as possible to the work by , such that this sample and the *XMM-Newton* data are processed in a uniform way.
Our total data sample used in our astrophysical modeling combines the *XMM-Newton* and *Suzaku* measurements. There are 683 *XMM-Newton* measurements in total distributed across the sky, with 34 projected near the Fermi bubbles. The *Suzaku* data are exclusively projected near the Fermi bubbles, and there are 58 measurements included here. Figure \[figure.maps\_chap\_fb\] shows all-sky maps of the oxygen emission line strengths.
Model Overview {#section.model_chap_fb}
==============
In this section, we define our parametric astrophysical models and assumptions. The SXRB is known to have at least two plasma sources—a “local” source within $\approx$300 pc from the Sun and a “distant” source at $\gtrsim$5 kpc from the Sun. These sources have all been modeled in different ways, resulting in different inferences on their underlying emission properties. The Fermi bubbles have not been considered in most SXRB modeling studies, with the exception of recent studies by . Here, we identify all emission sources in our model, and justify our choices for the underlying source distributions.
We point out that this work is an advancement over the modeling work presented in , who used the same *XMM-Newton* data discussed in Section \[subsection.xmm\_chap\_fb\] to constrain the structure of the Milky Way’s hot gas halo. The model used in that study is identical to the model outlined below, with the exception of the Fermi bubble emission source. We summarize these models in Sections \[subsection.lb\_mod\_chap\_fb\] and \[subsection.halo\_mod\_chap\_fb\], but we refer the reader to for additional explanation of the model choice.
LB / Residual SWCX Model {#subsection.lb_mod_chap_fb}
------------------------
The “local” emission source has been argued to include emission from both the LB and SWCX based on numerous shadowing experiments [@galeazzi_etal07; @koutroumpa_etal07; @koutroumpa_etal11; @smith_etal07] and studies of the *ROSAT* 1/4 keV band [@kuntz_snowden00; @galeazzi_etal14]. As discussed in Section \[subsection.swcx\_chap\_fb\], SWCX emission is difficult to predict or quantify; however, the flux-filtering techniques are designed to reduce its contribution to our measured line strengths. The physical properties of the LB have also been debated, with some studies arguing that the LB is volume-filled with $\sim10^6$ K gas [@smith_etal07] and others arguing that the emission comes primarily from the bubble edges about 100–300 pc away [@lallement_etal03; @welsh_shelton09]. Regardless of these differences, our goal is to choose a parameterization that characterizes the emission from this source.
We parameterize the LB as a volume-filled plasma with a constant density and temperature and a size varying between 100 and 300 pc. This follows interpretation from @smith_etal07, who conducted SXRB modeling with *Suzaku* on the nearby molecular cloud MBM12. Under the assumption of a volume-filled plasma, these authors concluded that the LB has a temperature of $1.2 \times 10^6$ K and a density of 1–4$\times 10^{-3}$ cm$^{-3}$. In our model, we fix the plasma temperature to this value and let the density, $n_{LB}$, be a free parameter.
While we include an Local Bubble emission source in our model for completeness, it is unlikely to have a significant impact on our results. The “local” plasma source is known to contribute more to the *ROSAT* 1/4 keV band than to the *ROSAT* 3/4 keV band [e.g., @snowden_etal97; @kuntz_snowden00]. This implies that the “local” emission source should produce more than in a given observation. Shadowing spectroscopic observations verify this, and show there is minimal ($\lesssim$0.5 L.U.) due to “local” sources [@koutroumpa_etal07; @koutroumpa_etal11; @smith_etal07]. Furthermore, showed that this LB model effectively has no contribution to the emission lines from the *XMM-Newton* sample discussed in Section \[subsection.xmm\_chap\_fb\]. Our modeling work below focuses on emission lines, so we do not believe that this LB parameterization will affect our results.
Hot Halo Model {#subsection.halo_mod_chap_fb}
--------------
We assume that the Milky Way’s “extended” hot gas plasma structure is dominated by a spherical, volume-filling halo of material extending to the virial radius, as opposed to the alternative assumption of an exponential disk morphology with scale height between 5 and 10 kpc. The latter structure is believed to form from supernovae in the disk [e.g., @norman_ikeuchi89; @joung_maclow06; @hill_etal12] and can reproduce X-ray absorption and emission line strengths in several individual sight lines [@yao_wang05; @yao_wang07; @yao_etal09_b; @hagihara_etal10]. However, numerous studies have shown that a spherical, extended morphology due to shock-heated gas from the Milky Way’s formation reproduces a multitude of observations [e.g., @white_frenk91; @cen_ostriker06; @fukugita_peebles06]. These include ram-pressure stripping of dwarf galaxies [@blitz_robishaw00; @grcevich_putman09; @gatto_etal13], the pulsar dispersion measure toward the Large Magellanic Cloud [@anderson_bregman10; @fang_etal13], and the aggregate properties of oxygen absorption and emission lines distributed in multiple sight lines across the sky [@bregman_ld07; @gupta_etal12; @miller_bregman13; @miller_bregman15; @faerman_etal16]. This distribution has been proven to reproduce most of the emission line intensities from the *XMM-Newton* portion of the sample, thus justifying its use in this modeling work.
Our parameterized density distribution follows a spherical $\beta$-model, which assumes that the hot gas is approximately in hydrostatic equilibrium with the Milky Way’s dark-matter potential well. The $\beta$-model has also been used to fit X-ray surface brightness profiles around early-type galaxies [e.g., @osullivan_etal03] and massive late-type galaxies [@anderson_bregman11; @dai_etal12; @bogdan_etal13b; @bogdan_etal13a; @anderson_etal16]. The model is defined as
$$\label{eq.beta_model_chap_fb}
n(r) = {n_o}({1 + ({r}/{r_c})^2})^{-{3\beta}/{2}},$$
where $r$ is the galactocentric radius, $n_\circ$ is the central density, $r_c$ is the core radius ($\lesssim$5 kpc), and $\beta$ defines the slope (typically between 0.4 and 1.0). The previous modeling by was limited to using an approximate form of this model in the limit where $r \gg r_c$, since they specifically did not include observations near the expected $r_c$. This resulted in constraints on a power-law density distribution:
$$\label{eq.beta_model_approx_chap_fb}
n(r) \approx \frac{n_or_c^{3\beta}}{r^{3\beta}}.$$
The emission line sample in this study includes 33 sight lines that pass within 20$\arcdeg$ of the Galactic center, so we present model results assuming both distributions. The net effect of this will be for the power-law model to produce more halo emission for sight lines near the Galactic center than the usual $\beta$-model since the density continues to increase at small $r$ instead of approach $n_o$ for $r \lesssim r_c$.
We assume the halo gas is isothermal with a temperature of log($T_{halo}$) = 6.30, or $T_{halo} = 2 \times 10^6$ K. This temperature is characteristic of the Milky Way’s virial temperature, and thus consistent with the picture in which the “extended” plasma is spherical and extended to $r_{vir}$. This temperature is also constrained by observations. @hs13 provide the strongest observational constraints on the plasma temperature, as they fit SXRB spectra for 110 high-latitude ($|b| > 30\arcdeg$) sight lines from the sample. They fit the spectra with thermal APEC plasma models and found a narrow range of plasma temperatures (median and interquartile range of $2.22 \pm 0.63 \times 10^6$ K). These results suggest that the plasma is nearly isothermal, thus validating our assumption.
Fermi Bubble Geometry {#subsection.geometry_chap_fb}
---------------------
Our Fermi bubble structure includes two components: a volume-filled ellipsoid and a shell surrounding the ellipsoid. These components are designed to parameterize the outer regions of galactic outflows, where the volume-filled structure includes hot, shocked wind material, and the shell includes shocked ISM/CGM material (see Section \[subsubsection.wind\_chap\_fb\] for an overview of galactic wind morphology). Hard X-ray emission bounds the bubbles at low Galactic latitudes, verifying that there is a distinct shell structure of thermal gas surrounding the bubbles [@bh_cohen03; @su_etal10]. The flat gamma-ray intensity distribution on the sky indicates that non-thermal particles fill the bubbles in a quasi-spherical volume, and we include a thermal gas component in this region.
We define the bubble volume as a three-dimensional ellipsoid designed to match the bubbles’ projected gamma-ray edge on the sky. Each bubble (positive and negative Galactic latitudes) is centered at $|z|$ = 5 kpc away from the Galactic plane, has a semi-major axis of 5 kpc, and has both minor axes set to 3 kpc. We also tilt each bubble $5\arcdeg$ toward negative longitudes to match the slight asymmetry observed in the bubble shape. Figure \[figure.geometry\_chap\_fb\] shows this bubble volume in physical and projected coordinates.
The shell volume is defined in the same way as the bubble volume, but with a thickness of $\approx$1 kpc away from the bubble surface. This implies that the shell ellipsoids are also centered at $|z|$ = 5 kpc from the Galactic plane and have semimajor axes of 6 kpc and minor axes of 4 kpc. The region inside this surface but outside the bubble surface is considered to be the shell region. We note that this parameterization is different from the modeling work presented by , who considered Fermi bubble emission from only two angled shells (one for each bubble) with inner and outer radii of 3 and 5 kpc. However, Figure \[figure.geometry\_chap\_fb\] indicates that our bubble volume is consistent with the projected bubble outline, and the expected galactic wind morphology suggests that there should be at least two distinct outflow regions we can observe (the shocked wind and shocked ISM/CGM). Therefore, we feel that our choice of bubble volume is reasonable given the observational constraints available at this time.
Fermi Bubble Density and Temperature {#subsection.fb_nt_chap_fb}
------------------------------------
We assume that the bubble and shell components each have constant electron densities, defined as $n_{FB}$ and $n_{shell}$. This parameterization is useful since it is simple, yet still allows us to constrain the average thermal gas densities. Simulations suggest that the bubbles have some thermal gas substructure [e.g., @yang_etal12], and we did explore more sophisticated models with density gradients away from the Galactic plane or from the bubble edges. However, the data did not provide statistically significant constraints with these profiles (any gradient parameter was consistent with a constant-density profile within the 1$\sigma$ uncertainties). These constant-density models should be considered a valuable first step when analyzing the bubbles’ thermal gas structure.
The bubble and shell are likely hotter than the surrounding medium, so we assume that each component has a characteristic temperature $\geq 2 \times 10^6$ K. Like the bubble and shell densities, each component has a constant temperature ($T_{FB}$ and $T_{shell}$). However, these temperatures are each initially fixed to $3 \times 10^6$ K during the model fitting process. The temperatures are not free parameters in our models because the calculated line intensity scales with density and temperature as $I \propto n^2 \epsilon(T)$, where $\epsilon$ has a temperature dependence. Since we explicitly model a sample of emission line intensities, the density and temperature parameters would be degenerate with each other. Section \[section.results\_chap\_fb\] discusses how we constrain the bubble and shell temperatures by looking at the distribution of /line ratios for different assumed temperatures.
Our modeling also implicitly assumes that the Fermi bubble and shell plasmas have solar metallicities. This implies that our bubble density parameters are degenerate with the assumed metallicity since the plasma emission measure scales linearly with metallicity. We make this choice because there are no direct observational constraints on the plasma metallicity inside the bubbles. The SXRB modeling from @kataoka_etal13 advocates for a sub-solar bubble metallicity of $Z \approx 0.2 Z_{\odot}$, but this value is weakly constrained due to photon statistics, and the spectral fits represent the emission measure-weighted spectrum from the bubbles and Galactic hot halo (see discussion in Section \[subsubsection.softxray\_chap\_fb\]). Thus, it is difficult to interpret whether the bubbles’ plasma is enriched or sub-solar. The bubbles’ abundance ratios can be diagnostics for how they formed [@inoue_etal15], but a detailed abundance analysis is beyond the scope of this work.
Line Intensity Calculation {#subsection.intensity_chap_fb}
--------------------------
Calculating model line intensities depends on the density and temperature profile along each line of sight. For any given Galactic coordinate ($l,b$), we divide the line of sight into cells extending to the virial radius ($r_{vir}$ = 250 kpc). Each cell position along the line of sight ($s$) is converted to Galactic coordinates ($R$, $z$, $r$) by the standard equations:
$$R^2 = R_{\odot}^2 + s^2\cos(b)^2 - 2sR_{\odot}\cos(b)\cos(l)$$
$$z^2 = s^2\sin(b)^2$$ $$r^2 = R^2 + z^2,$$
where $R_{\odot}$ = 8.5 kpc is the Sun’s distance from the Galactic center. We assign a density and temperature to each cell based on its set of Galactic coordinates and the assumed model parameters. The hot halo profile described in Section \[subsection.halo\_mod\_chap\_fb\] sets the density and temperature for cells outside the shell volume. The parameters $n_{shell}$ and $T_{shell}$ set the density and temperature for cells within the shell volume, while $n_{FB}$ and $T_{FB}$ set the density and temperature for cells within the bubble volume. Therefore, sight lines not passing through the bubbles include only halo emission, while sight lines passing through the bubbles include emission from the hot gas halo, bubble, and shell.
We assume an optically thin plasma in collisional ionization equilibrium to calculate all line intensities. Given a line-of-sight density and temperature profile, the model line intensity is defined as
$$\label{eq.intensity_thin_chap_fb}
I (l,b) = \frac{1}{4 \pi} \int n_e(s)^2 \epsilon(T(s)) ds,$$
where $n_e(s)$ is the line-of-sight electron density, $T(s)$ is the line-of-sight temperature profile, and $\epsilon(T)$ is the volumetric line emissivity for a thermal APEC plasma. We use AtomDB version 2.0.2 for all line emissivities [@foster_etal12], and characteristic values for (in photons cm$^3$ s$^{-1}$) are $\epsilon(T_{halo}) = 1.45 \times 10^{-15}$ and $\epsilon(3 \times 10^6\ \text{K}) = 3.84 \times 10^{-15}$. Although believed to be minimal, the intensity contribution from the LB is defined as
$$I_{LB} (l,b) = \frac{n_{LB}^2 L(l,b) \epsilon(T_{LB})}{4 \pi},$$
where $L(l,b)$ defines the LB path length ($\approx$100–300 pc; see @lallement_etal03 and ). The total line intensity is thus defined as
$$I_{total} (l,b) = I_{LB} + e^{-\sigma N_{HI}}(I_{halo} + I_{FB} +I_{shell}),$$
where the exponential term accounts for attenuation due to neutral hydrogen in the disk, $N_{HI}$ is the same neutral hydrogen column assumed for each sight line in in the spectral fitting procedure, and $\sigma$ is the absorption cross section [@bc_mccammon92; @yan_etal98]. Thus, our model line intensities are comparable to the total observed line intensities.
Results {#section.results_chap_fb}
=======
Our results include a discussion of the and line intensity distributions along with a parametric modeling analysis. Section \[subsection.ratios\_chap\_fb\] presents the line strength and ratio distributions on the sky for the combined *XMM-Newton* and *Suzaku* sample. The latter provides model-independent evidence that the bubbles contain gas at higher temperatures than the surrounding medium ($> 2 \times 10^6 $ K). Section \[subsection.obs\_model\_chap\_fb\] builds on this evidence and the modeling work from to constrain the characteristic thermal gas densities and temperatures associated with the bubbles.
Emission Line Ratios {#subsection.ratios_chap_fb}
--------------------
The observed /ratios in our sample can be used as crude temperature diagnostics. If the observed emission lines come from a single, cospatial plasma source, Equation \[eq.intensity\_thin\_chap\_fb\] indicates that the /ratio is a direct temperature diagnostic because $I_{OVIII}/I_{OVII} \propto n^2 \epsilon_{OVIII}(T)/n^2 \epsilon_{OVII}(T) = \epsilon_{OVIII}(T)/ \epsilon_{OVII}(T)$. The observations from SXRB spectra are more complicated since we know that multiple plasma sources exist along each line of sight. This implies that the total observed /line ratio probes the emission measure-weighted temperature due to the various plasma sources. However, we discussed in Section \[section.model\_chap\_fb\] how the LB is believed to produce little emission with a variable amount of emission, and the hot halo plasma is believed to be nearly isothermal at $\approx 2 \times 10^6$ K. The expected /line ratio for a thermal plasma at this temperature is $\approx 0.25$, so the observed line ratios in our sample would be $\lesssim 0.25$ if they included only emission from the LB and hot halo.
We explore this idea by examining the /distribution on the sky from our total observation sample. Figure \[figure.map\_quarterbin\_chap\_fb\] shows our line intensity ratios on the sky. Inspecting the sky projection alone suggests that the line intensity ratios are systematically higher for sight lines that pass through or near the Fermi bubbles ($\approx$0.5) than for those farther away from the Galactic center ($\approx$0.2). To quantify this, we bin the sight lines on the sky and calculate the median and interquartile range for the line ratios in each bin. The bin edges are defined as ellipses in $l,b$ space, where the first bin includes sight lines that pass though the Fermi bubbles and subsequent bins include sight lines extending farther into the halo (see dotted lines in Figure \[figure.map\_quarterbin\_chap\_fb\]). Figure \[figure.map\_quarterbin\_chap\_fb\] shows the line ratio median and interquartile range for observations in each bin. These results clearly show that the line ratios are systematically higher for sight lines in the first bin, and are also higher than the characteristic ratio expected if the observations included just LB and hot gas halo emission (gray shaded band in Figure \[figure.map\_quarterbin\_chap\_fb\]).
These systematically larger line ratios near the Galactic center indicate the presence of hotter gas than the ambient $2 \times 10^6$ K plasma. This interpretation is model-independent and builds upon the fact that we know the Fermi bubbles occupy a significant volume above and below the Galactic center. While this is a useful result that relies only on observations, the observed line ratios do not encode the bubbles’ detailed temperature structure due to additional emission from the LB and hot gas halo. Nevertheless, this result motivates the modeling work below and validates the assumption that the bubbles contain gas hotter than $2 \times 10^6$ K.
Comparing Models with Data {#subsection.obs_model_chap_fb}
--------------------------
As a preliminary test, we explore an emission model including only contributions from the LB and hot gas halo. This model assumes that the bubble and shell volumes contribute no line emission, or equivalently that $n_{FB} = n_{shell} = 0$. For the other emission components, we assume a parametric model distribution from . This includes an LB density of $n_{LB} = 4 \times 10^{-3}$ cm$^{-3}$ and a hot gas density profile described by Equation \[eq.beta\_model\_approx\_chap\_fb\] with $n_or_c^{3\beta}$ = $1.35 \times 10^{-2}$ cm$^{-3}$ kpc$^{3\beta}$ and $\beta$ = 0.5. This model likely *overestimates* any halo emission since it assumes a power law all the way to the Galactic center, as opposed to having a flat core density. We calculate model emission line intensities for this limiting case and compute the residual emission defined as $(I_{observed} - I_{model})/I_{error}$. Figure \[figure.residuals\_chap\_fb\] shows how the residual emission varies on the sky, with a particular emphasis on the strong ($\gtrsim 3 \sigma$) positive residuals near the Fermi bubbles. We interpret these residuals as missing emission due to the Fermi bubbles, which motivates the modeling procedure outlined below.
The goal of our modeling procedure is to find the density model that is most consistent with our observed data set, including contributions from the Fermi bubble and shell components. We quantify this consistency with the model $\chi^2$ or likelihood ($\mathcal{L} \propto$ exp$(-\chi^2 / 2)$). We use the publicly available Markov chain Monte-Carlo (MCMC) Python package `emcee` [@foreman_mackey_etal13] to explore our model parameter space and find the parameters that minimize the model $\chi^2$, or maximize the model ln($\mathcal{L}$). The output chains for each model parameter are treated as marginalized posterior probability distributions. We define “best-fit” parameters as the median values for each binned chain distribution, which yields identical results to the Gaussian-fitting procedure outlined by , assuming the distributions are approximately Gaussian. Thus, these best-fit parameters maximize the model likelihood, given the data.
We considered several different model parameterizations in our model fitting process. These included hot gas halo density models described by either a power law (Equation \[eq.beta\_model\_approx\_chap\_fb\]) with two free parameters (the normalization and $\beta$) or a full $\beta$-model (Equation \[eq.beta\_model\_chap\_fb\]) with $r_c$ and $\beta$ left to vary. We did not let $n_o$ vary independently in this model since the previous modeling work from effectively constrained the halo normalization parameter $n_or_c^{3\beta}$. Our modeling procedure keeps this quantity fixed to $n_or_c^{3\beta} = 1.35 \times 10^{-2}$ cm$^{-3}$ kpc$^{3\beta}$, while letting the core radius vary as the free parameter. We also experimented with fixing the hot gas halo profile with the fit values from or with $r_c$ = 3 kpc, but we found that this made little difference in the best-fit parameters for either the halo density profile or the bubble/shell densities.
[c c c c c c c c]{}
Table \[table.mcmc\_results\_chap\_fb\] summarizes our best-fit model parameters, including 1$\sigma$ uncertainties encompassing the 68% probability ranges from the posterior probability distributions. There are several trends to note from these results. The LB density parameter is consistent with zero, validating the assumption that the LB contributes little emission to the data. The halo density profile results are consistent with those reported in when considering the same power-law density parametrization ($n_or_c^{3\beta} = 1.35 \times 10^{-2}$ cm$^{-3}$ kpc$^{3\beta}$, $\beta$ = 0.5). This implies that the hot gas density profile constraints are not biased due to observations near the Fermi bubbles. We also find characteristic best-fit core radii of 2–3 kpc, which is expected. The parameters of interest, $n_{FB}$ and $n_{shell}$, have characteristic best-fit densities of (5–8)$\times 10^{-4}$ cm$^{-3}$ assuming a temperature of log($T$) = 6.50. The inferred densities are lower if we assume a power-law model for the halo gas density than if we assume a $\beta$-model. We expect to see this trend since the power-law model produces more halo emission near the Galactic center than a $\beta$-model with a core radius/density, thus resulting in less Fermi bubble/shell emission being required to produce the observed emission. After weighing these effects, we define our fiducial model to be one with a $\beta$-model and $r_c$ fixed to 3 kpc. This results in best-fit parameters of $n_{FB} = 7.2 \pm 0.2 \times 10^{-4}$ cm$^{-3}$, and $n_{shell} = 7.7 \pm 0.2 \times 10^{-4}$ cm$^{-3}$. Figure \[figure.pdf\_chap\_fb\] shows the marginalized posterior probability distributions and contour plots from our MCMC analysis assuming this parametric model [generated using the Python code `corner.py`; @foreman_mackey_corner16].
We also explore models with either the bubble or shell distributions to determine each component’s significance in our model fitting procedure. A bubble-only model is equivalent to setting the shell thickness to 0 kpc and not including $n_{shell}$ as a model parameter parameter. A shell-only model is the same as our original emission model ($r_c$ fixed to 3 kpc) but with $n_{FB}$ fixed to zero. When we refit the data with these models, we find that each density component increases to compensate for the lack of emission from the other component. For example, $n_{FB}$ increased to $7.7\times 10^{-4}$ cm$^{-3}$ in the bubble-only model, and $n_{shell}$ increased to $10.0\times 10^{-4}$ cm$^{-3}$ in the shell-only model. These best-fit models lead to changes in the overall fit quality, where our initial best-fit $\chi^2_{r}$ (dof) = 2783 (739). The bubble-only model leads to a marginal improvement in the overall fit quality ($\chi^2_{r,\ bubble-only}$ (dof) = 2741 (740)), while the shell-only model leads to a worse quality of fit ($\chi^2_{r,\ shell-only}$ (dof) = 3241 (740)). This implies that the volume-filled structure is more important than the shell structure, although we point out that this exercise fixes every other component of the emission model (halo emission, bubble/shell geometry, etc.). Thus, we still assume that the bubble and shell structures are each present in our discussion and temperature analysis.
In order to constrain the bubble and shell temperatures, we compare best-fit model line ratios for different temperature distributions with the observed /line ratios near the Fermi bubbles. To do this, we change the bubble and shell temperatures while keeping the product $n^2 \epsilon_{OVIII}(T)$ fixed from the best-fit model results. This fixes the emission coming from the bubble and shell, but changes the model emission because $\epsilon_{OVII}(T)$ decreases faster than $\epsilon_{OVIII}(T)$ with increasing temperature. Thus, increasing the assumed temperature leads to an increase in the model line ratios, an increase in the inferred best-fit densities ($\epsilon_{OVIII}$ decreases for $T > 3 \times 10^6$ K), and a constant contribution to the emission.
A model temperature distribution with log($T_{FB}$) = 6.60 and log($T_{shell}$) = 6.70 leads to a model line ratio distribution most consistent with the observed line ratios near the Fermi bubbles. This changes the inferred best-fit densities to $n_{FB} = 8.2\times 10^{-4}$ cm$^{-3}$ and $n_{shell} = 1.0\times 10^{-3}$ cm$^{-3}$ in order to keep the product $n^2 \epsilon_{OVIII}(T)$ fixed for each component. Figure \[figure.ratio\_hist\_chap\_fb\] shows histograms of the observed and new best-fit model line ratios for sight lines that pass within $\approx 5 \arcdeg$ of the projected bubble edge ($\sim$100 sight lines). These densities and temperatures produce an /ratio median and interquartile range of 0.52 (0.41–0.60), consistent with the observed median and interquartile range of 0.49 (0.38–0.62). We treat these densities and temperatures as the characteristic physical properties for the bubble and shell components in our subsequent analysis.
Discussion {#section.discussion_chap_fb}
==========
In this section, we discuss how our constraints fit in with our current picture for the Fermi bubbles and Milky Way. This includes an overview of the constrained thermal gas structure, and how this compares to the surrounding hot medium. We extend these constraints to infer the bubbles’ characteristic shock strength, current expansion velocity, energy input rate, age, and likely formation scenario. We also discuss how our constraints compare with previous Fermi bubble analyses.
Table \[table.inferred\_prop\_chap\_fb\] summarizes our most important inferred quantities discussed below for the best-fit densities and temperatures discussed above. The density uncertainties follow directly from our MCMC results summarized in Table \[table.mcmc\_results\_chap\_fb\]. We use less strict criteria for the temperature uncertainties since we did not directly fit the /line ratios. The temperature limits represent where the differences between the observed and model line ratio medians are less than 1$\sigma$ of the corresponding uncertainties in the sample median. Uncertainties on all subsequent calculated quantities (masses, expansion rates, ages, etc.) use the density and temperature uncertainties listed in Table \[table.inferred\_prop\_chap\_fb\].
Inferred Bubble Structure {#subsection.structure_chap_fb}
-------------------------
We discuss our inferred bubble densities and temperatures in this section, and compare them to the assumed ambient structure. Overall, our constraints indicate that the bubbles are hotter and overpressurized compared to the surrounding medium, consistent with previous observations of the bubble [@su_etal10; @kataoka_etal15]. Figure \[figure.fit\_slice\_chap\_fb\] shows our best-fit model as two-dimensional maps of density, temperature, and pressure projected at the Galactic center. This visualizes the comparison with the surrounding medium that we discuss in the rest of the section.
The derived structure indicates that the best-fit densities and temperatures for the bubble and shell components are nearly identical to each other. This suggests that there may not be two distinct outflow regions, which contradicts the global morphology predicted from Galactic outflow simulations [e.g., @yang_etal12; @sarkar_etal15; @sofue_etal16]. This inference could be due to our assumed geometry, in terms of both the volume-filled shape and the shell thickness. Our emission model effectively constrains each component’s emission measure, so changes in the bubble/shell path lengths along different sight lines could change the inferred densities. Additional substructure could also be present inside the volume-filled component, which might explain why we infer a relatively high density permeating the entire bubble volume. Modeling this substructure is beyond the scope of this work, but our modeling results still provide valuable constraints on the average bubble and shell properties.
[l c c c]{}\[t\]
The bubble and shell densities have characteristic values of $\sim 10^{-3}$ cm$^{-3}$, which are comparable to the surrounding medium at low $z$. Including a core radius for the hot gas halo of 3 kpc in our fiducial model implies a core density of $2.6 \times 10^{-3}$ cm$^{-3}$, assuming a fixed power-law normalization of $n_o r_c^{3\beta} = 1.35 \times 10^{-2}$ cm$^{-3}$ kpc$^{3\beta}$. This suggests $n_{shell} \sim n_{halo}$ within $|z| \lesssim $5 kpc. The hot gas halo density decreases by about a factor of 6 between $r = $1 and 10 kpc, meaning that our bubble and shell densities are larger than the surrounding CGM density farther away from the Galactic plane. We also note that $n_{FB} \approx n_{shell}$ from our model fitting results, making it difficult to distinguish between volume-filling emission and limb-brightened emission. This might be due to our choice to parameterize the structures with constant densities and temperatures, but our constraints still probe the average densities associated with the bubbles.
Our inferred bubble and shell temperatures of log($T_{FB,\ shell}$) = 6.60–6.70 are hotter than the surrounding medium (log($T_{halo}$) = 6.30). This is broadly consistent with the bubbles injecting enough energy to shock-heat the surrounding medium, although simulations predict a wide range of shock strengths and bubble temperatures as high as $\sim 10^8$ K [e.g., @guo_mathews12a; @yang_etal12]. It is possible that the bubbles contain gas at this high temperature, but plasma at this temperature would not produce observable emission. Our modeling results indicate that on average the bubble and shell are hotter than the surrounding medium, but still at low enough temperatures to produce observable signatures in the data.
Combining the density and temperature constraints indicates that the bubbles’ are overpressurized compared to the surrounding medium. Our best-fit bubble and shell parameters indicate thermal gas pressures of $P_{FB} = 4.5 \times 10^{-13}$ dyn cm$^{-2}$, $P_{shell} = 6.9 \times 10^{-13}$ dyn cm$^{-2}$, or $P/k \approx $3000–5000 cm$^{-3}$ K. The surrounding thermal gas pressure varies with $r$ and $z$ due to the decreasing density profile, with characteristic values of $\approx$5000 cm$^{-3}$ K near the Galactic center and $\approx$1000 cm$^{-3}$ K at $r$ = 10 kpc. In this picture, the bubbles are in approximate pressure equilibrium at lower $z$, but become overpressurized with increasing height away from the Galactic plane. These estimates are also a lower limit to how overpressurized the bubbles actually are, because they do not account for non-thermal or magnetic pressure contributions. Nevertheless, these constraints indicate that the bubbles are generally overpressurized, and thus expanding into the surrounding medium.
We use these quantities to infer a characteristic shock strength and instantaneous expansion velocity associated with the bubbles. The classic treatment of shocks propagating through the ISM yields specific pre- and post-shock jump conditions for the gas density, temperature, and pressure given a shock expansion velocity (e.g., Shull & Draine [-@shull_draine87], pp. 283–319). The Fermi bubbles’ expansion is more complex than this traditional treatment since they do not appear to be spherical, and they are presumably expanding into a medium with varying density. For example, the ratio between $n_{shell}$ (treated as post-shocked material) and the ambient halo gas density along the shell edge (treated as pre-shock material) ranges between $\approx$0.5 near the Galactic center and $\approx$3 at the maximum bubble height. On the other hand, our choice to parameterize the hot gas halo and shell with constant temperatures allows us to use the temperature ratio as a shock strength diagnostic similar to . Assuming a monotonic gas ($\gamma$=5/3), an ambient gas sound speed of $c_s$= 212 km s$^{-1}$, $T_{shell} = 5 \times 10^6$ K, and $T_{halo} = 2 \times 10^6$ K, our temperature ratio implies a fiducial Mach number and corresponding expansion velocity of $\mathcal{M} = 2.3$ and $v_{exp}$ = 490 km s$^{-1}$. The uncertainty in $T_{shell}$ expands these constraints to $\mathcal{M} =$1.9–3.4 and $v_{exp}$ = 413–720 km s$^{-1}$. These shock parameters are broadly consistent with the range of density and pressure ratios we estimate, indicating that these constraints probe the bubbles’ current expansion rate into the surrounding medium.
Bubble Energetics and Origin Scenarios {#subsection.origins_chap_fb}
--------------------------------------
### The Bubbles as a Confined Galactic Wind {#subsubsection.wind_chap_fb}
We treat the bubbles in the framework of a continuous galactic outflow/superbubble with self-similar Sedov-Taylor solutions [e.g., @castor_etal75; @weaver_etal77; @maclow_mccray88; @veilleux_etal05]. The outflow morphology consists of five zones (from closer to farther from the outflow origin): the energy injection zone, a free-flowing outflow, shocked wind material, a shell of shocked ISM/CGM material, and the ambient ISM/CGM. Our model constraints probe the last three zones since we do not model observations in the inner $\approx$1 kpc from the Galactic center. The Sedov-Taylor solutions for this type of outflow relate the ambient density, bubble age, bubble size, expansion velocity, and average energy injection relate to each other. Assuming that the outflow is still in the energy-conserving phase (cooling time greater than the bubble age), the relations between these quantities are as follows:
$$\label{eq.age_chap_fb}
t_{age}
=\ 11.8\ Myr\
\left(\frac{r}{10\ \text{kpc}}\right)
\left(\frac{v}{500\ \text{km s}^{-1}}\right)^{-1},
$$
$$\label{eq.edot_chap_fb}
\begin{aligned}
&\xi\dot{E}
=\ 3.7 \times 10^{42}\ \text{erg s}^{-1}\
\\
&\times \left(\frac{n_o}{10^{-3}\ \text{cm}^{-3}}\right)
\left(\frac{r}{10\ \text{kpc}}\right)^2
\left(\frac{v_{exp}}{500\ \text{km s}^{-1}}\right)^3,
\end{aligned}$$
where $n_o$ is the ambient density, $r$ is the bubble radius, $v_{exp}$ is the expansion velocity, $t_{age}$ is the bubble age, $\dot{E}$ is the energy injection rate, and $\xi$ is the thermalization efficiency of the mechanical energy. This thermalization efficiency is believed to vary with environment, but is estimated to be $\gtrsim$10% in average galaxies with a typical assumed value of 0.3 [e.g., @larson74; @wada_norman01; @melioli_degouvia04].
Our modeling results constrain three of the five variables in these equations. As discussed above, a hot gas halo model with $r_c$ = 3 kpc and fixed power-law normalization of $1.35 \times 10^{-2}$ cm$^{-3}$ kpc$^{3\beta}$ results in an ambient core density of $n_o = 2.6 \times 10^{-3}$ cm$^{-3}$. The constraints on the bubble and shell temperatures suggest an outflow velocity of 490 km s$^{-1}$. The bubble size is not trivial to estimate in this framework, where the outflow is typically treated as a spherical shell with radius $r$ centered on the injection source. The bubbles’ shape is more complex than this since two lobes exist on each side of the Galactic plane. We use a characteristic bubble size defined as the geometric mean of the three ellipsoidal axes, resulting in $r$ = 3.6 kpc.
Given these constrained values, we estimate the bubbles’ age and average mechanical energy injection rate. The bubbles’ dynamical timescale, $t_{dyn} = d/v_{exp}$, is a crude age estimate that does not incorporate the bubble environment or energy source. For $v_{exp}$ = 490 km s$^{-1}$, the dynamical timescale for the full bubble height is $t_{dyn,\ h}$ = 10 kpc / 490 km s$^{-1}$ = 20.0 Myr, and the dynamical timescale for half the bubble width is $t_{dyn,\ w}$ = 3 kpc / 490 km s$^{-1}$ = 6.0 Myr. The superbubble model calculation (Equation \[eq.age\_chap\_fb\]) is a refined age estimate, where we find $t_{age}$ = 4.3 Myr for $r$ defined as the geometric mean above and $v_{exp}$ = 490 km s$^{-1}$. We also infer a combined energy injection for both bubbles ($2 \times \xi \times \dot{E}$) of $2.3 \times 10^{42}$ erg s$^{-1}$ using Equation \[eq.edot\_chap\_fb\]. Accounting for the uncertainty in $v_{exp}$ leads to a characteristic age range of $\approx$3–5 Myr and energy injection rate of $\approx$1–7$ \times 10^{42}$ erg s$^{-1}$. We compare this characteristic age and energy injection rate with possible bubble formation mechanisms.
### Origin from Sgr A\* Accretion {#subsubsection.sgra_chap_fb}
One suggested bubble formation mechanism has been a past accretion event onto Sgr A\*, resulting in an AGN episode in the Milky Way. Sgr A\* has an estimated mass of $4 \times 10^6\ M_{\odot}$ [@schodel_etal02; @ghez_etal03; @ghez_etal08; @gillessen_etal09b; @gillessen_etal09a; @meyer_etal12], which is capable of producing significant amounts of energy during an accretion episode. We also know that accretion onto supermassive black holes can produce galactic outflows with significant energy injection rates and morphologies similar to the observed Fermi bubbles [e.g., @mcnamara_nulsen07; @yuan_narayan14]. Here, we consider observations of Sgr A\* and its possible accretion history, and compare the expected energetics with our modeling constraints.
Sgr A\* is currently in a quiescent state with a bolometric luminosity of $L_{bol} \sim 10^{36}$ erg s$^{-1}$ $\sim 2 \times 10^{-9}\ L_{Edd}$ [e.g., @yuan_narayan14]. Our proximity to Sgr A\* allows for a combination of techniques to estimate current mass accretion rates. $Chandra's$ resolution is comparable to the Sgr A\* Bondi radius, and has constrained the Bondi accretion rate to be $\sim 10^{-5}$ $M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ [@baganoff_etal03]. Polarized radio emission constrains the accretion rate near the event horizon, with limits being between $> 2 \times 10^{-9}$ $M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ and $< 2 \times 10^{-7}$ $M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ depending on the magnetic field orientation [e.g., @marrone_etal07]. While this is a significant uncertainty in the current mass accretion rate, the consensus is that Sgr A\* is accreting well below its Eddington rate, and has been a well-modeled source for radiatively inefficient accretion flows (RIAFs).
There are a number of observational indications that Sgr A\* has been more active in the past [@totani06]. @mou_etal14 summarizes these lines of evidence, which include: a higher Sgr A\* luminosity is required to produce fluorescent iron emission and reflection nebulae seen in several nearby molecular clouds [@koyama_etal96; @murakami_etal00; @murakami_etal01b; @murakami_etal01a], there exists an ionized halo of material surrounding Sgr A\* [@maeda_etal02], there are dynamic features indicating an outflow near the Galactic center in the form of the Galactic Center Lobe [@bh_cohen03] and the Expanding Molecular Ring [@kaifu_etal72; @scoville72], excess H$\alpha$ emission seen in the Magellanic Stream [@bh_etal13], and possibly the Fermi bubbles themselves. The RIAF modeling from @totani06 argues that Sgr A\* should have had an accretion rate $\sim 10^3$–$10^4$ times larger than its current accretion rate over the past $\sim$10 Myr to reproduce these observations. This introduces additional scatter in the inferred past Sgr A\* accretion rate, but motivates the assumption that Sgr A\* has injected energy into the surrounding medium through an accretion event.
We estimate an energy injection rate due to past Sgr A\* accretion and compare with our constrained energy input rate. The mechanical energy injection rate from black hole accretion is tied to the accretion power by the following relation:
$$\label{eq.bh_chap_fb}
\begin{aligned}
\dot{E}_{BH} &= \epsilon \dot{M}_{acc}c^2
\\
&= 5.7 \times 10^{45}\ \text{erg s}^{-1}\
\left( \frac{\epsilon}{0.1} \right) \left(\frac{\dot{M}_{acc}}{M_{\odot}\ \text{yr}^{-1}}\right),
\end{aligned}$$
where $\dot{E}_{BH}$ is the mechanical energy injection rate, $\dot{M}_{acc}$ is the accretion rate near the event horizon, and $\epsilon$ is the mechanical energy injection rate efficiency. If we assume a past accretion rate of $10^{-3}$ $M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ (near the high end of the values discussed above), we find that $\dot{E}_{BH}$ equals our inferred vale of $2.3 \times 10^{42}$ erg s$^{-1}$ for $\epsilon \approx 0.05$. This efficiency is larger than the typical values inferred from simulations [$10^{-4}$–$10^{-3}$; @yuan_etal15], but this mechanical efficiency is often treated as a free parameter in simulations. We also point out that the required efficiency is less than one, indicating that this analysis does not violate energy conservation constraints. *Thus, it is plausible that a past accretion episode onto Sgr A\* could have produced enough energy to match our energy injection rate constraints.*
The bubble age indicates that this Sgr A\* accretion episode had a shorter active period than the typical AGN duty cycle. Studies constrain the AGN duty cycle by either comparing black hole mass functions (inferred from the $M_{BH}$–$\sigma$ relation) to AGN luminosity functions at different redshifts [e.g., @yu_tremaine02; @shankar_etal04; @hao_etal05; @schawinski_etal10] or through analytic models of black hole accretion [e.g., @hopkins_hernquist06; @shankar_etal09]. These techniques suggest that black holes with masses of $\sim 10^6$ should have active periods of $\sim 10^8$ yr at $z$ = 0, or $\sim$1% of a Hubble time. Our Fermi bubble age estimate is an upper limit to the active Sgr A\* accretion time, and our constraint of 4.3 Myr is much smaller than the inferred duty cycle from AGN populations. One possible explanation for this discrepancy is that the Fermi bubble outburst was one of several past accretion events in the Galactic center. Our constraints imply that the Fermi bubbles are due to a relatively weak AGN event, and it is possible that multiple Sgr A\* accretion events of comparable or lower energy have occurred over the past $\sim 10^8$ yr. Our results are also consistent with the overall decrease in AGN activity since $z \sim 2$ [e.g., @hopkins_etal07], as opposed to a prolonged Sgr A\* accretion/growth phase.
### Origin from Nuclear Star Formation {#subsubsection.nsf_chap_fb}
Numerous studies also suggest that the Fermi bubbles formed from a period of enhanced star formation activity near the Galactic center. The Galactic center hosts several young stellar clusters with ages ranging between 5 and 20 Myr and accounting for $\sim 5 \times 10^5$ $M_{\odot}$ of material. The massive stars in these clusters could have generated a galactic-scale outflow due to stellar winds and type-II supernova explosions [e.g., @leitherer_etal99]. Here, we compare the expected energy output from past star formation near the Galactic center to our energy injection rate constraints.
The Galactic center star formation history is complex and difficult to measure, but several studies argue for an average star formation rate (SFR) of $\approx 0.05$ $M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ over the past $\sim$10 Myr. @crocker12 reviews these studies, most of which utilize *Spitzer* observations of young stellar objects within the inner $\sim$500 pc from the Galactic center. For example, @yusefzadeh_etal09 conducted a census of these objects using the Infrared Array Camera and Multiband Imaging Photometer on board *Spitzer*, and concluded the average SFR has been between 0.04 and 0.08 $M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ over longer timescales ($\sim$10 Gyr). @immer_etal12 performed a similar analysis using data from the *Spitzer* Infrared Spectrograph, and argue for an average SFR of $\approx 0.08$ $M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ over the past $\sim$Myr. Others estimate the SFR to be $\approx$0.01–0.02 $M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ by counting the mass in young star clusters and dividing that by estimates for the period of star formation [@figer_etal04; @mauerhan_etal10]. Thus, it appears that a characteristic SFR of $\approx 0.05$ $M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ over the past $\sim$10 Myr is a reasonable assumption.
Similar to our argument concerning the black hole accretion energy above, we estimate the energy injection rate due to star formation in the Galactic center to compare with our constrained energy input rate. Assuming a Kroupa initial mass function [@kroupa01], and $10^{51}$ erg of mechanical energy input from a type-II supernova, the mechanical energy from type-II supernovae is related to the SFR as
$$\label{eq.nsf_chap_fb}
\dot{E}_{nsf} = 1.1\ \times 10^{40}\ \text{erg s}^{-1}\ \left( \frac{\epsilon}{0.3} \right) \left(\frac{SFR}{0.1\ M_{\odot}\ \text{yr}^{-1}}\right),$$
where $\dot{E}_{nsf}$ is the mechanical energy input rate due to nuclear star formation and $\epsilon$ is an efficiency factor typically assumed to be $\approx$0.3 (see Crocker et al. [-@crocker_etal15] or Sarkar et al. [-@sarkar_etal15] for equivalent relations). This implies that an average SFR of 0.05 $M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ over the past $\sim$10 Myr produces an energy injection rate of $\approx 6 \times 10^{39}$ erg s$^{-1}$. This estimate falls $\approx$400 times lower than our estimated energy input rate of $2.3 \times 10^{42}$ erg s$^{-1}$. It is possible that the SFR has been more variable over the past $\sim$10 Myr, however the upper limits are only $\approx$3 times higher than the average value [@yusefzadeh_etal09]. *Thus, star formation in the Galactic center does not produce enough energy to inflate the bubbles based on our energy injection rate constraints.*
Thermal Gas Masses {#subsection.mass_chap_fb}
------------------
We use our density constraints to estimate the thermal gas mass within the bubble and shell structures. This is a straightforward calculation since we assume that each component has a constant density and fixed volume. Thus, the mass in each component is defined as $M = \mu m_H \times n \times V$, where $\mu = 0.61$ is the average weight per particle, $m_H$ is the mass of hydrogen, $n$ is the inferred density, and $V$ is the volume. Our geometric models imply a bubble volume of $V_{FB} = 2 \times 4/3 \times \pi \times 5 \times 3^2 = 377$ kpc$^3$ (the factor of two is for two ellipsoidal bubbles), and a combined shell volume of $V_{shell} = 411$ kpc$^3$. The densities in Table \[table.inferred\_prop\_chap\_fb\] imply thermal gas masses of $M_{FB} = 4.6 \times 10^6$ $M_{\odot}$ and $M_{shell} = 6.1 \times 10^6$ $M_{\odot}$ for the bubble and shell, with a characteristic range between 5 and 10$\times 10^6$ $M_{\odot}$ given the density uncertainties. These masses represent material that has been shock-heated by the bubbles or injected into the bubbles by the energy source.
We first explore whether the bubble and shell plasmas are predominantly shocked/mixed hot halo material by comparing the masses derived above to the inferred hot gas halo mass that would exist within the bubble and shell volumes. If the density inside the bubble+shell volume was defined by our hot gas halo density model with $r_c$ = 3 kpc (instead of the Fermi bubble/shell densities), the halo mass in the volume would be $1.11 \times 10^7$ $M_{\odot}$. The calculations above indicate that the combined thermal gas mass within the bubble+shell volumes is $M_{FB}+M_{shell} = 1.07 \times 10^7$ $M_{\odot}$. The consistency between these values suggests that most of the thermal gas associated with the bubbles is shock-heated ambient material, as opposed to material injected by the energy source.
As a consistency check, we estimate the amount of material injected by the energy source, either AGN or star formation, to compare with the above masses. The mass-loss rate due to nuclear star formation activity (or mass injection rate) is believed to be $\dot{M}_{inj,\ nsf} \approx 0.3 (SFR / M_{\odot}yr^{-1})$ [@leitherer_etal99]. Mass-loss rates from black hole accretion events (from either jets or winds) are more uncertain, but simulations of RIAF accretion winds suggest values ranging between 2% and 20% of $\dot{M}_{Edd} = 10L_{Edd}/c^2$ [@yuan_etal12; @yuan_etal15]. Assuming a nuclear SFR of 0.05 $M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$, $\dot{M}_{Edd} \sim 10^{-1}$ $M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ for Sgr A\*, and an active period of for the bubble of 4.3 Myr, we estimate the injected mass is $M_{inj} \lesssim 10^{5}$ $M_{\odot}$ for both origin scenarios. This is significantly less than our constrained mass estimate of $\sim 10^7$ $M_{\odot}$, thus validating our claim that the bubbles contain predominantly shocked halo gas.
Comparing with Previous Work {#subsection.compare_chap_fb}
----------------------------
### Analyses at Soft X-Ray Energies {#subsubsection.softxray_chap_fb}
The most direct comparisons to our analysis are the previous soft X-ray spectral analyses [@kataoka_etal13; @kataoka_etal15; @tahara_etal15]. These studies follow a similar methodology and find similar results, with being the most current and comprehensive work of the three. These authors compiled a sample of 29 *Suzaku* observations and 68 *Swift* observations distributed across the Fermi bubbles. They fit the *Suzaku* XIS data and *Swift* X-ray Telescope spectra with a multi-component thermal plasma model, where one component is typically fixed at $kT = 0.1$ keV to represent emission from the LB and residual SWCX, and the other represents the combined emission from the halo and Fermi bubbles. They systematically find a hot gas halo/Fermi bubble plasma temperature of $kT = 0.3$ keV, and this is hotter than the characteristic value found for sight lines away from the bubbles [$kT = 0.2$ keV; @hs13]. From this temperature, they infer a relatively low Mach number of $\mathcal{M}$ = 0.3 keV / 0.2 keV = 1.5 and an expansion velocity of $v_{exp} = 300$ km s$^{-1}$. They also find emission measures that vary by over an order of magnitude, which they note is due to a combination of emission from the Galactic halo and from the Fermi bubbles. The authors model the emission measures in the northern Galactic hemisphere with a hot gas halo density model from @miller_bregman13 and a Fermi bubble shell distribution with an inner radius of 3 kpc, an outer radius of 5 kpc, and a density of $3.4 \times 10^{-3}$ cm$^{-3}$.
While our approach is similar to these studies, there are several differences that can explain why we derive a higher bubble temperature and lower bubble density. The main observational difference is that these studies fit the SXRB spectra for emission measures and temperatures, while we chose to measure oxygen emission line intensities. Emission measures and temperatures are more useful plasma properties to measure, but fitting a full 0.5–2.0 keV SXRB spectrum with a thermal plasma model requires more counts than fitting only the oxygen emission lines. This is why our sample is larger and has better sky coverage than the sample. However, these observables should give consistent results for the inferred bubble temperature and density. The measured plasma temperature is most sensitive to the / ratio for temperatures between $\approx$0.1 and 0.3 keV, because the lines are strong and rapidly changing in strength in this regime (Figure \[figure.epsilon\_ratio\]). Thus, any temperature derived from fitting an SXRB spectrum with an APEC model should be consistent with the temperature inferred from fitting the oxygen lines separately [@yoshino_etal09]. The analysis becomes more complicated when there are multiple emission components, and the interpretation of multiple SXRB sources is likely the bigger difference between approaches.
The primary difference between our work and those discussed above is the treatment of combined X-ray emission from the hot gas halo and Fermi bubbles. The observed emission includes contributions from the hot halo and Fermi bubbles. Thus, the fitted plasma temperature of 0.3 keV is the emission measure-weighted temperature of the hot halo at 0.2 keV and a Fermi bubble plasma that is likely $>$0.3 keV. The analysis assumes that the Fermi bubbles dominate the observed emission, while our analysis includes the combined emission from the hot halo and Fermi bubbles. This extension leads to a similar result to these previous works, but also explains why we infer a higher temperature for the Fermi bubble plasma than these studies ($kT_{FB,\ shell} \approx$ 0.4–0.5 keV).
A similar interpretation likely explains why the analysis infers bubble densities 3–4 times higher than our constraints. Their Fermi bubble geometric distribution includes only a shell component that is 2 kpc thick, while ours includes both a volume-filled component and a shell component. This implies that our bubble+shell emission model has a longer path length along most sight lines near the bubbles than their model. The emission measure scales with density and path length as $EM \propto n^2 L$, so a longer inferred path length would lead to a lower inferred density. We also point out that their hot gas halo density model extends only to $r$ = 20 kpc. While the hot halo emission is likely dominated by gas within $r \lesssim$25 kpc, failing to account for emission at greater radii can decrease the amount of modeled halo emission. The combined effect is that the analysis assumes shorter bubble path lengths and less halo emission than our emission model, and this results in a higher inferred bubble density required to match the total observed emission.
### Kinematic Estimates from UV Absorption Lines {#subsubsection.uv_chap_fb}
A different approach to constrain the Fermi bubble kinematics involves analysis of UV absorption lines near background quasars. @fox_etal15 observed the quasar PDS 456 ($l,b = 10.4\arcdeg, 11.2\arcdeg$) with the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph on board the $Hubble\ Space\ Telescope$. The spectrum from 1133–1778 Å covers several ionic species indicative of gas with $T \sim 10^4$–$10^5$ K, including , , , , , and . They detected multiple absorption components for each species, but they argue the nearly symmetric components at $v_{LSR}$ = -235 km s$^{-1}$ and +250 km s$^{-1}$ are unlikely to come from absorbers in the disk or farther in the halo. If these absorbers represent gas entrained near the bubble edges, their velocities can be used to constrain the bubble kinematics. Indeed, the authors apply a Galactic wind model from @bordoloi_etal14 to simulate $v_{LSR}$ absorbers and find that an intrinsic outflow velocity of $\geq$900 km s$^{-1}$ is required to reproduce the observed absorption features.
There is tension between these results and our lower inferred expansion rate of $\approx$500 km s$^{-1}$. Although we infer a higher expansion rate than @kataoka_etal15, they discuss this discrepancy as well. The outflow model used by @fox_etal15 has two important parameters—the outflow velocity and the opening angle. They assume an opening angle of 110$\arcdeg$ to match the hard X-ray arcs seen by @bh_cohen03. However, this geometry produces a significant correction between the intrinsic outflow velocity and $v_{LSR}$ at low latitudes. Their model implies that most of the bubble velocity at $l,b \approx 10\arcdeg, 10\arcdeg$ is tangential to the line of sight, which may not be the case. If instead the bubbles have a rounder surface at lower $z$ or a stronger outflow velocity vector away from the Galaxy’s polar axis, a lower intrinsic velocity could reproduce the observed absorption. Thus, the unknown intrinsic bubble geometry plausibly accounts for the different expansion velocities inferred from these two methodologies.
### Comparing with Simulations {#subsubsection.sims_chap_fb}
The Fermi bubbles have motivated numerous simulations of Galactic outflows since their discovery. Typically, these studies primarily focus on the gamma-ray source, which is tied to the underlying cosmic-ray composition (leptonic or hadronic) and where the cosmic rays are produced (injected from the central source, accelerated in situ, etc.). All of these simulations predict various distributions for the non-thermal and thermal gas within the bubbles, but information on the latter is often not discussed in detail. This limits our comparison to characteristic densities, velocities, and energetics, although our results are initial steps toward constraining these properties.
Simulations are also generally segregated by the assumed energy source, either a black hole accretion event or nuclear star formation. There is much variation with the assumed outflow parameters, but black hole accretion simulations tend to be more energetic on shorter time scales than star formation simulations. For example, simulations producing the bubbles with AGN jets have characteristic total energy injection rates and ages of $\gtrsim 10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$ and $\approx$1–3 Myr [e.g., @guo_mathews12a; @guo_mathews12b; @yang_etal12; @yang_etal13], whereas simulations producing the bubbles from weaker AGN winds suggest values of $10^{41}$–$10^{42}$ erg s$^{-1}$ and 5–10 Myr [e.g., @mou_etal14; @mou_etal15]. Alternatively, nuclear star formation simulations can reproduce the bubble morphology with energy injection rates of $\approx$(1–5)$\times 10^{40}$ erg s$^{-1}$ over $\gtrsim$50 Myr timescales [e.g., @crocker_etal14; @crocker_etal15; @sarkar_etal15]. The AGNs simulations also tend to predict stronger outflow velocities than the star formation simulations ($\gtrsim$1000 km s$^{-1}$ compared to $\lesssim$500 km s$^{-1}$).
Our inferred energy injection rate, bubble age, and expansion velocity are most consistent with the weaker black hole accretion simulations, where the bubbles are inflated by an AGN wind [@mou_etal14; @mou_etal15]. Simulations of AGN jets predict higher energy input rates than our results, while star formation simulations are typically weaker and over a much longer timescale than our constraints. It is difficult to make stronger claims at this point since these simulations are subject to a number of uncertainties. For example, the energy injection rate required to match the bubble morphology is degenerate with the density of the surrounding medium since it opposes the ram pressure from the galactic wind. Most simulations assume an ambient density comparable to our core density ($\sim 10^{-3}$ cm$^{-3}$), but this is a well-documented degeneracy in the simulations. Regardless of these limitations, our constraints should be used to motivate future simulations designed to analyze the bubbles.
Our thermal pressure constraints also address the bubbles’ cosmic-ray composition and whether thermal or non-thermal pressure drives the bubbles’ expansion. Simulations can produce the bubbles’ gamma-ray and microwave emission by accelerating either leptonic or hadronic cosmic rays, leading to uncertainties in the inferred non-thermal pressure (cosmic rays and magnetic fields). For example, the leptonic AGN jet simulations from @yang_etal13 predict a total pressure inside the bubbles of $\sim 10^{-10}$ dyn cm$^{-2}$ and a cosmic ray pressure of $\sim 10^{-12}$ dyn cm$^{-2}$. This implies either that the bubbles are dominated by a thermal gas pressure much larger than our estimates (magnetic pressure is negligible) or that an additional hadronic cosmic ray source could contribute most of the pressure. The former scenario is consistent with nuclear star formation simulations that accelerate cosmic-ray leptons [@sarkar_etal15] or hadrons [@crocker_etal15]. Alternatively, limits from hard X-ray spectra near the bubbles imply a cosmic ray electron and magnetic pressure of $\approx 2 \times 10^{-12}$ dyn cm$^{-2}$ [@kataoka_etal13], which is approximately equal to the thermal pressure estimate. Our characteristic thermal gas pressure of (5–20)$\times 10^{-13}$ dyn cm$^{-2}$ should be used in future modeling work to build a more accurate census of the bubbles’ energy and pressure budget.
Conclusions {#section.conclusions_chap_fb}
===========
This work is a comprehensive observational analysis of the Fermi bubbles at soft X-ray energies. The and emission line sample includes data from *XMM-Newton* and *Suzaku*, with 741 sight lines in total and $\sim 100$ sight lines projected near the Fermi bubbles. The new *Suzaku* measurements were processed in a similar way to the *XMM-Newton* measurements, making this the largest emission line sample designed to probe Galactic-scale hot gas distributions.
We used this sample to model the Fermi bubbles’ thermal gas emission, resulting in improved constraints on the bubbles’ physical properties and their role in the Milky Way’s evolution. Our modeling procedure is similar to previous studies at soft X-ray energies [@kataoka_etal13; @kataoka_etal15; @tahara_etal15], although we model the combined emission from the hot halo and Fermi bubbles simultaneously. This extension confirms the result that the bubbles are hotter than the surrounding medium and expanding supersonically, and leads to a stronger shock than previous works. Thus, these are improved constraints on the Fermi bubbles’ thermal gas distribution given the data currently available.
We summarize our primary conclusions and inferred bubble properties:
1. [The observed /ratios are systematically larger for sight lines near the bubbles, suggesting the presence of a plasma with $T > 2 \times 10^6$ K. ]{}
2. [Our best-fit parametric model implies $n_{FB} = 8.2 \pm 0.2 \times 10^{-4}$ cm$^{-3}$, $n_{shell} = 10.0 \pm 0.3 \times 10^{-4}$ cm$^{-3}$, log($T_{FB}$) = 6.60–6.65, and log($T_{shell}$) = 6.60–6.95 with an optimal value of 6.70. This involves explicitly fitting the line intensities and analyzing the /ratio distribution near the bubbles. ]{}
3. [These densities imply thermal gas masses within the bubble and shell volumes of $M_{FB}$ = 4.6–5.0$\times 10^6$ $M_{\odot}$ and $M_{shell}$ = 5.2–9.8$\times 10^6$ $M_{\odot}$. We interpret this as predominantly shock-heated hot gas halo material. ]{}
4. [The inferred bubble/shell temperature ($5 \times 10^6$ K) compared to ambient halo gas temperature ($2 \times 10^6$ K) suggests a shock Mach number of $\mathcal{M} = 2.3_{-0.4}^{+1.1}$ and expansion rate of $v_{exp} = 490_{-77}^{+230}$ km s$^{-1}$. These are larger than the values suggested from other soft X-ray modeling analyses , and smaller than the value suggested by the UV absorption line analysis by @fox_etal15. The differences are likely explained by geometric assumptions for the latter and modeling the hot gas halo emission for the former. ]{}
5. [Treating the bubbles as a galactic outflow with Sedov-Taylor expansion solutions leads to an inferred energy injection rate of $2.3_{-0.9}^{+5.1} \times 10^{42}$ erg s$^{-1}$ and age of $4.3_{-1.4}^{+0.8}$ Myr. These energetics and timescales suggest that the bubbles likely formed from a Sgr A\* accretion episode, as opposed to sustained nuclear star formation activity. ]{}
6. [Our results are broadly consistent with predictions from MHD simulations of galactic outflows. The constrained energy injection rate and age are most consistent with simulations that generate the bubbles from a relatively weak AGN wind [@mou_etal14; @mou_etal15]. ]{}
This analysis is an initial effort to constrain the Fermi bubbles’ thermal gas structure using soft X-ray observations, but it should also motivate future observational and theoretical studies. Future analyses using additional spectral data or all-sky maps from MAXI or eROSITA will help probe the bubbles’ structure and interaction with the surrounding medium. The results should also motivate future simulations that predict characteristic bubble densities, temperatures, pressures, and expansion rates.
We thank Meng Su, H.-Y. Karen Yang, Mateusz Ruszkowski, and the anonymous referee for their insightful comments that improved our manuscript. We also acknowledge the NASA Astrophysics Data Analysis Program grants NNX16AF23G and NNX11AJ55G for funding this work.
natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
, M., [Albert]{}, A., [Atwood]{}, W. B., [et al.]{} 2014, , 793, 64
, M. E., & [Bregman]{}, J. N. 2010, , 714, 320
—. 2011, , 737, 22
, M. E., [Churazov]{}, E., & [Bregman]{}, J. N. 2016, , 455, 227
, M., [Grevesse]{}, N., [Sauval]{}, A. J., & [Scott]{}, P. 2009, , 47, 481
, F. K., [Maeda]{}, Y., [Morris]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2003, , 591, 891
, M., & [McCammon]{}, D. 1992, , 400, 699
, E. M., [Haslam]{}, C. G. T., & [Salter]{}, C. J. 1971, , 14, 252
, J., & [Cohen]{}, M. 2003, , 582, 246
, J., [Maloney]{}, P. R., [Sutherland]{}, R. S., & [Madsen]{}, G. J. 2013, , 778, 58
, L., & [Robishaw]{}, T. 2000, , 541, 675
, [Á]{}., [Forman]{}, W. R., [Kraft]{}, R. P., & [Jones]{}, C. 2013, , 772, 98
, [Á]{}., [Forman]{}, W. R., [Vogelsberger]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2013, , 772, 97
, R., [Lilly]{}, S. J., [Kacprzak]{}, G. G., & [Churchill]{}, C. W. 2014, , 784, 108
, R. J., & [Iwan]{}, D.-A. C. 1977, , 218, 511
, J. N., & [Lloyd-Davies]{}, E. J. 2007, , 669, 990
, J. A., & [Sembay]{}, S. 2008, , 489, 837
, J. A., [Sembay]{}, S., & [Read]{}, A. M. 2010, , 402, 867
—. 2011, , 527, A115
, W. 1979, , 228, 939
, J., [McCray]{}, R., & [Weaver]{}, R. 1975, , 200, L107
, R., & [Ostriker]{}, J. P. 2006, , 650, 560
, L.-W., [Fabian]{}, A. C., & [Gendreau]{}, K. C. 1997, , 285, 449
, K. S., [Chernyshov]{}, D. O., [Dogiel]{}, V. A., & [Ko]{}, C. M. 2015, , 804, 135
, K.-S., [Chernyshov]{}, D. O., [Dogiel]{}, V. A., [Ko]{}, C.-M., & [Ip]{}, W.-H. 2011, , 731, L17
, T. E., [Robertson]{}, I. P., & [Snowden]{}, S. L. 2001, , 106, 24883
, R. M. 2012, , 423, 3512
, R. M., [Bicknell]{}, G. V., [Carretti]{}, E., [Hill]{}, A. S., & [Sutherland]{}, R. S. 2014, , 791, L20
, R. M., [Bicknell]{}, G. V., [Taylor]{}, A. M., & [Carretti]{}, E. 2015, , 808, 107
, X., [Anderson]{}, M. E., [Bregman]{}, J. N., & [Miller]{}, J. M. 2012, , 755, 107
, G., & [Finkbeiner]{}, D. P. 2008, , 680, 1222
, G., [Finkbeiner]{}, D. P., [Cholis]{}, I., [Slatyer]{}, T., & [Weiner]{}, N. 2010, , 717, 825
, R. J., & [Aschenbach]{}, B. 1995, , 294, L25
, Y., [Ebisawa]{}, K., [Yamasaki]{}, N. Y., [et al.]{} 2010, , 62, 981
, Y., [Miyoshi]{}, Y., [Yoshitake]{}, H., [et al.]{} 2011, , 63, S691
, Y., [Sternberg]{}, A., & [McKee]{}, C. F. 2016, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1602.00689
, T., [Bullock]{}, J., & [Boylan-Kolchin]{}, M. 2013, , 762, 20
, T., [Mckee]{}, C. F., [Canizares]{}, C. R., & [Wolfire]{}, M. 2006, , 644, 174
, D. F., [Rich]{}, R. M., [Kim]{}, S. S., [Morris]{}, M., & [Serabyn]{}, E. 2004, , 601, 319
, D., [Hogg]{}, D. W., [Lang]{}, D., & [Goodman]{}, J. 2013, , 125, 306
Foreman-Mackey, D., Vousden, W., Price-Whelan, A., [et al.]{} 2016, corner.py: corner.py v1.0.2, doi:10.5281/zenodo.45906
, A. R., [Ji]{}, L., [Smith]{}, R. K., & [Brickhouse]{}, N. S. 2012, , 756, 128
, A. J., [Bordoloi]{}, R., [Savage]{}, B. D., [et al.]{} 2015, , 799, L7
, R., [Mitsuda]{}, K., [Mccammon]{}, D., [et al.]{} 2007, , 59, 133
, Y., [Ohira]{}, Y., & [Yamazaki]{}, R. 2014, , 789, 67
, M., & [Peebles]{}, P. J. E. 2006, , 639, 590
, M., [Gupta]{}, A., [Covey]{}, K., & [Ursino]{}, E. 2007, , 658, 1081
, M., [Chiao]{}, M., [Collier]{}, M. R., [et al.]{} 2014, , 512, 171
, A., [Fraternali]{}, F., [Read]{}, J. I., [et al.]{} 2013, , 433, 2749
, A. M., [Duch[ê]{}ne]{}, G., [Matthews]{}, K., [et al.]{} 2003, , 586, L127
, A. M., [Salim]{}, S., [Weinberg]{}, N. N., [et al.]{} 2008, , 689, 1044
, S., [Eisenhauer]{}, F., [Fritz]{}, T. K., [et al.]{} 2009, , 707, L114
, S., [Eisenhauer]{}, F., [Trippe]{}, S., [et al.]{} 2009, , 692, 1075
, J., & [Putman]{}, M. E. 2009, , 696, 385
, F., & [Mathews]{}, W. G. 2012, , 756, 181
, F., [Mathews]{}, W. G., [Dobler]{}, G., & [Oh]{}, S. P. 2012, , 756, 182
, A., [Mathur]{}, S., [Krongold]{}, Y., [Nicastro]{}, F., & [Galeazzi]{}, M. 2012, , 756, L8
, T., [Yao]{}, Y., [Yamasaki]{}, N. Y., [et al.]{} 2010, , 62, 723
, L., [Strauss]{}, M. A., [Fan]{}, X., [et al.]{} 2005, , 129, 1795
, D. B., & [Shelton]{}, R. L. 2012, , 202, 14
—. 2013, , 773, 92
—. 2015, , 808, 22
, A. S., [Joung]{}, M. R., [Mac Low]{}, M.-M., [et al.]{} 2012, , 750, 104
, P. F., & [Hernquist]{}, L. 2006, , 166, 1
, P. F., [Richards]{}, G. T., & [Hernquist]{}, L. 2007, , 654, 731
, K., [Schuller]{}, F., [Omont]{}, A., & [Menten]{}, K. M. 2012, , 537, A121
, Y., [Nakashima]{}, S., [Tahara]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2015, , 67, 56
, K., [Ezoe]{}, Y., [Miyoshi]{}, Y., [et al.]{} 2013, , 65, doi:10.1093/pasj/65.3.63
, M. K. R., & [Mac Low]{}, M.-M. 2006, , 653, 1266
, N., [Kato]{}, T., & [Iguchi]{}, T. 1972, Nature Physical Science, 238, 105
, P. M. W., [Burton]{}, W. B., [Hartmann]{}, D., [et al.]{} 2005, , 440, 775
, J., [Tahara]{}, M., [Totani]{}, T., [et al.]{} 2015, , 807, 77
—. 2013, , 779, 57
, D., [Acero]{}, F., [Lallement]{}, R., [Ballet]{}, J., & [Kharchenko]{}, V. 2007, , 475, 901
, D., [Lallement]{}, R., [Kharchenko]{}, V., [et al.]{} 2006, , 460, 289
, D., [Smith]{}, R. K., [Edgar]{}, R. J., [et al.]{} 2011, , 726, 91
, K., [Maeda]{}, Y., [Sonobe]{}, T., [et al.]{} 1996, , 48, 249
, K., [Tsunemi]{}, H., [Dotani]{}, T., [et al.]{} 2007, , 59, 23
, P. 2001, , 322, 231
, K. D., & [Snowden]{}, S. L. 2000, , 543, 195
—. 2008, , 478, 575
, B. C. 2014, , 444, L39
, R., [Welsh]{}, B. Y., [Vergely]{}, J. L., [Crifo]{}, F., & [Sfeir]{}, D. 2003, , 411, 447
, R. B. 1974, , 169, 229
, S., [Shelton]{}, R. L., & [Henley]{}, D. B. 2009, , 699, 1891
, C., [Schaerer]{}, D., [Goldader]{}, J. D., [et al.]{} 1999, , 123, 3
, M.-M., & [McCray]{}, R. 1988, , 324, 776
, Y., [Baganoff]{}, F. K., [Feigelson]{}, E. D., [et al.]{} 2002, , 570, 671
, D. P., [Moran]{}, J. M., [Zhao]{}, J.-H., & [Rao]{}, R. 2007, , 654, L57
, J. C., [Cotera]{}, A., [Dong]{}, H., [et al.]{} 2010, , 725, 188
, D., [Almy]{}, R., [Apodaca]{}, E., [et al.]{} 2002, , 576, 188
, B. R., & [Nulsen]{}, P. E. J. 2007, , 45, 117
, C., & [de Gouveia Dal Pino]{}, E. M. 2004, , 424, 817
, P., & [Sarkar]{}, S. 2011, , 82, 876
, L., [Ghez]{}, A. M., [Sch[ö]{}del]{}, R., [et al.]{} 2012, Science, 338, 84
, E. D., [Tsunemi Hiroshi]{}, [Bautz]{}, M. W., [et al.]{} 2008, , 60, 95
, M. J., & [Bregman]{}, J. N. 2013, , 770, 118
—. 2015, , 800, 14
, A., [Campana]{}, S., [Lazzati]{}, D., & [Tagliaferri]{}, G. 2003, , 588, 696
, G., [Yuan]{}, F., [Bu]{}, D., [Sun]{}, M., & [Su]{}, M. 2014, , 790, 109
, G., [Yuan]{}, F., [Gan]{}, Z., & [Sun]{}, M. 2015, , 811, 37
, H., [Koyama]{}, K., & [Maeda]{}, Y. 2001, , 558, 687
, H., [Koyama]{}, K., [Sakano]{}, M., [Tsujimoto]{}, M., & [Maeda]{}, Y. 2000, , 534, 283
, H., [Koyama]{}, K., [Tsujimoto]{}, M., [Maeda]{}, Y., & [Sakano]{}, M. 2001, , 550, 297
, C. A., & [Ikeuchi]{}, S. 1989, , 345, 372
, E., [Ponman]{}, T. J., & [Collins]{}, R. S. 2003, , 340, 1375
, L., [Lallement]{}, R., [Vergely]{}, J.-L., & [Snowden]{}, S. L. 2014, , 566, A13
, I. P., [Collier]{}, M. R., [Cravens]{}, T. E., & [Fok]{}, M.-C. 2006, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 111, 12105
, I. P., & [Cravens]{}, T. E. 2003, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 108, 8031
—. 2003, , 30, 1439
, M., [Yang]{}, H.-Y. K., & [Zweibel]{}, E. 2016, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1602.04856
, K. C., [Nath]{}, B. B., & [Sharma]{}, P. 2015, , 453, 3827
, K., [Asano]{}, K., & [Terasawa]{}, T. 2015, , 814, 93
, K., [Urry]{}, C. M., [Virani]{}, S., [et al.]{} 2010, , 711, 284
, R., [Ott]{}, T., [Genzel]{}, R., [et al.]{} 2002, , 419, 694
, N. Z. 1972, , 175, L127
, F., [Salucci]{}, P., [Granato]{}, G. L., [De Zotti]{}, G., & [Danese]{}, L. 2004, , 354, 1020
, F., [Weinberg]{}, D. H., & [Miralda-Escud[é]{}]{}, J. 2009, , 690, 20
, J. M., & [Draine]{}, B. T. 1987, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 134, Interstellar Processes, ed. D. J. [Hollenbach]{} & H. A. [Thronson]{}, Jr., 283–319
, R. K., [Brickhouse]{}, N. S., [Liedahl]{}, D. A., & [Raymond]{}, J. C. 2001, , 556, L91
, R. K., [Bautz]{}, M. W., [Edgar]{}, R. J., [et al.]{} 2007, , 59, 141
, S. L., [Collier]{}, M. R., & [Kuntz]{}, K. D. 2004, , 610, 1182
, S. L., & [Kuntz]{}, K. D. 2011, Cookbook for Analysis Procedures for XMM-Newton EPIC MOS Observations of Extended Objects and the Diffuse Background, version 4.3
, S. L., [Egger]{}, R., [Freyberg]{}, M. J., [et al.]{} 1997, , 485, 125
, Y. 1977, , 60, 327
—. 2000, , 540, 224
—. 2015, , 447, 3824
, Y., [Habe]{}, A., [Kataoka]{}, J., [et al.]{} 2016, , 459, 108
, M., [Slatyer]{}, T. R., & [Finkbeiner]{}, D. P. 2010, , 724, 1044
, X. H., [Landecker]{}, T. L., [Gaensler]{}, B. M., [et al.]{} 2015, , 811, 40
, R. S., & [Dopita]{}, M. A. 1993, , 88, 253
, M., [Kataoka]{}, J., [Takeuchi]{}, Y., [et al.]{} 2015, , 802, 91
, N., [Hayashida]{}, K., [Nagai]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2008, , 60, S11
, T. 2006, , 58, 965
, E., [Galeazzi]{}, M., & [Liu]{}, W. 2016, , 816, 33
, S., [Cecil]{}, G., & [Bland-Hawthorn]{}, J. 2005, , 43, 769
, K., & [Norman]{}, C. A. 2001, , 547, 172
, B. J., [Markevitch]{}, M., [Juda]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2004, , 607, 596
, M. G., [Schr[ö]{}der]{}, A. C., [Fyfe]{}, D., [et al.]{} 2009, , 493, 339
, R., [McCray]{}, R., [Castor]{}, J., [Shapiro]{}, P., & [Moore]{}, R. 1977, , 218, 377
, B. Y., & [Shelton]{}, R. L. 2009, , 323, 1
, S. D. M., & [Frenk]{}, C. S. 1991, , 379, 52
, R., [Hands]{}, A. D. P., [Warwick]{}, R. S., [Snowden]{}, S. L., & [Burrows]{}, D. N. 2003, , 343, 995
, M. 2007, , 664, 349
, M., [Sadeghpour]{}, H. R., & [Dalgarno]{}, A. 1998, , 496, 1044
, H.-Y. K., [Ruszkowski]{}, M., [Ricker]{}, P. M., [Zweibel]{}, E., & [Lee]{}, D. 2012, , 761, 185
, H.-Y. K., [Ruszkowski]{}, M., & [Zweibel]{}, E. 2013, , 436, 2734
, Y., & [Wang]{}, Q. D. 2005, , 624, 751
—. 2007, , 658, 1088
, Y., [Wang]{}, Q. D., [Hagihara]{}, T., [et al.]{} 2009, , 690, 143
, T., [Mitsuda]{}, K., [Yamasaki]{}, N. Y., [et al.]{} 2009, , 61, 805
, Q., & [Tremaine]{}, S. 2002, , 335, 965
, F., [Bu]{}, D., & [Wu]{}, M. 2012, , 761, 130
, F., [Gan]{}, Z., [Narayan]{}, R., [et al.]{} 2015, , 804, 101
, F., & [Narayan]{}, R. 2014, , 52, 529
, F., [Hewitt]{}, J. W., [Arendt]{}, R. G., [et al.]{} 2009, , 702, 178
, K., [King]{}, A. R., & [Nayakshin]{}, S. 2011, , 415, L21
, K., & [Nayakshin]{}, S. 2012, , 424, 666
[^1]: <http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/xmm/xmmhp_xmmesas.html>
[^2]: <http://xmmssc-www.star.le.ac.uk/Catalogue/2XMMi-DR3/>
[^3]: <https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/suzaku/analysis/abc/>
[^4]: <http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/>
[^5]: <https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/suzaku/prop_tools/suzaku_td/>
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
-
bibliography:
- '../../../bibliography.bib'
title: On the Role of Feedback in LT Codes
---
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Numerical simulations of numerous quantum systems suffer from the notorious sign problem. Meron-cluster algorithms lead to an efficient solution of sign problems for both fermionic and bosonic models. Here we apply the meron concept to quantum spin systems in an arbitrary external magnetic field, in which case standard cluster algorithms fail. As an example, we simulate antiferromagnetic quantum spin ladders in a uniform external magnetic field that competes with the spin-spin interaction. The numerical results are in agreement with analytic predictions for the magnetization as a function of the external field.'
author:
- |
S. Chandrasekharan$^a$, B. Scarlet$^b$ and U.-J. Wiese$^b$\
\
$^a$ Department of Physics, Duke University,\
Durham, North Carolina 27708\
$^b$ Center for Theoretical Physics, Laboratory for Nuclear Science\
and Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,\
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139\
\
DUKE-TH-99-197, MIT-CTP-2904
title: 'Meron-Cluster Simulation of Quantum Spin Ladders in a Magnetic Field [^1]'
---
addtoreset[equation]{}[section]{}
plus 15pt minus 4pt
Introduction
============
Numerical simulations of quantum systems can suffer from the notorious sign problem. Well-known examples of systems where this problem has hindered progress are fermions in more than one spatial dimension, quantum antiferromagnets on non-bipartite lattices, as well as some quantum spin systems in an external magnetic field. For these systems the Boltzmann factor of a configuration in the path integral can be negative and hence cannot be interpreted as a probability. When the sign of the Boltzmann factor associated with the configuration is incorporated in measured observables, the fluctuations in the sign give rise to dramatic cancellations. In particular, for large systems at low temperatures this leads to relative statistical errors that are exponentially large in both the volume and the inverse temperature. As a consequence, it is impossible in practice to study such systems with standard numerical methods.
Recently, some severe fermion sign problems have been solved with a meron-cluster algorithm [@Cha99a; @Cha99b; @Cha99c; @Cox99]. Such an algorithm was originally developed to solve the sign problem associated with the phase $\exp(i\theta Q)$ of the Boltzmann weight in the $(1+1)$-d $O(3)$ symmetric quantum field theory at vacuum angle $\theta = \pi$ [@Bie95]. Here $Q$ is the topological charge that measures the winding number of a configuration and that is carried by the classical instanton solutions. The solution of the sign problem is based on the fact that the flip of certain clusters changes the topological charge by one and hence changes the sign $(-1)^Q$ of the configuration. Such clusters can be associated with half a unit of topological charge and were referred to as merons [^2]. Thus meron clusters are used to identify two configurations with the same weight but opposite signs. Remarkably, this property of a meron is applicable to clusters in a variety of models with sign problems. Hence we generally use the term meron to denote clusters whose flip changes the sign of a configuration without changing its weight. In this paper we extend the meron concept to quantum spin systems in a magnetic field.
As an example of physical interest we consider antiferromagnetic quantum spin ladders in an external uniform magnetic field that competes with the spin-spin interaction. The competing interactions lead to severe problems in numerical simulations. The most efficient algorithms for simulating quantum spin systems in the absence of an external magnetic field are cluster algorithms [@Wie92], in particular the loop algorithm [@Eve93; @Wie94; @Eve97] which can be implemented directly in the Euclidean time continuum [@Bea96]. The idea behind this algorithm is to decompose a spin configuration into clusters which can be flipped independently with probability $1/2$. This procedure leads to large collective moves through configuration space and eliminates critical slowing down. In the presence of a magnetic field pointing along the quantization axis of the spins, the ${{\sf Z \!\!\! Z}}(2)$ symmetry that allows the clusters to be flipped with probability $1/2$ is explicitly broken. As a consequence, at low temperatures or for large values of the magnetic field some clusters can only be flipped with very small probability and the algorithm becomes inefficient. An interesting alternative to the loop algorithm is the so-called worm algorithm [@Pro96] which has produced high-precision results for quantum spin chains in a magnetic field [@Kas99]. The worm algorithm explores an enlarged configuration space and, unlike the loop algorithm, seems not to suffer from exponential slowing down at least for 1-d spin chains in a magnetic field. We are not aware of any applications of the worm algorithm to higher-dimensional spin systems, and it would be interesting to see if this algorithm then still works efficiently. Another method based on stochastic series expansion techniques has been applied successfully to 2-d quantum spin systems in a magnetic field [@San99]. An alternative strategy using cluster algorithms is to choose the spin quantization axis perpendicular to the direction of the magnetic field. Then all clusters can still be flipped with probability $1/2$. This procedure indeed leads to an efficient algorithm for ferromagnets in an external uniform magnetic field [^3]. Unfortunately, for antiferromagnets, i.e. when the magnetic field competes with the spin-spin interaction, this formulation of the problem leads to a very severe sign problem. In this paper we show how this sign problem can be solved completely using a meron-cluster algorithm. This method allows us to simulate quantum spin systems in an arbitrary magnetic field, in which case the standard loop algorithm fails. Indeed, we show in this paper that, at low temperatures or for large values of the magnetic field, the meron-cluster algorithm is far more efficient than the loop algorithm. Since the meron-cluster algorithm has all the advantages of a cluster algorithm, including improved estimators for various physical observables, we expect it to be more efficient than the worm algorithm. A detailed comparison of the worm algorithm, the stochastic series expansion technique and the meron-cluster algorithm would be interesting for future studies.
Antiferromagnetic quantum spin ladders are interesting systems that interpolate between 1-dimensional spin chains and 2-dimensional spin systems. The 2-d systems may become high-temperature superconductors after doping. As reviewed in [@Dag96], Haldane’s conjecture [@Hal83] has been generalized to quantum spin ladders: ladders consisting of an odd number of transversely coupled spin $1/2$ chains are gapless, while ladders consisting of an even number of chains have a gap [@Khv94; @Whi94; @Sie96]. Correlations in quantum spin ladders were studied numerically in [@Gre96; @Syl97]. When the even number of coupled chains is increased, the gap decreases exponentially. In the limit of a large even number of transversely coupled chains one approaches the continuum limit of the 2-d classical $O(3)$ model [@Cha96], which can be viewed as a $(1+1)$-d relativistic quantum field theory. When the quantum spin ladder is placed in an external uniform magnetic field $B$, the corresponding quantum field theory is the $(1+1)$-d $O(3)$ model with chemical potential $\mu = B/c$ (where $c$ is the spin-wave velocity). Using Bethe ansatz techniques, this theory has been solved exactly. Translating the field theoretic results back into the language of condensed matter physics, we obtain an analytic expression for the magnetization of a quantum spin ladder consisting of a large even number of transversely coupled spin $1/2$ chains. The numerical results obtained with the meron-cluster algorithm are in agreement with the analytic predictions.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 contains a general discussion of the nature of the sign problem and illustrates the basic ideas behind the meron-cluster algorithm. In section 3 the path integral representation for quantum magnets is derived. Section 4 contains a description of the cluster algorithm for quantum spin systems and section 5 introduces the meron concept and discusses the solution of the sign problem in detail. In section 6 the physics of antiferromagnetic quantum spin ladders is discussed theoretically and the results of numerical simulations are presented in section 7. Finally, section 8 contains our conclusions.
Nature of the Sign Problem and the Meron Concept
================================================
When antiferromagnetic quantum spin systems in an external magnetic field are simulated numerically, a severe sign problem arises. The general nature of this problem was discussed in [@Cha99a]. For the convenience of the reader and to make this paper self-contained we reproduce this discussion here. We consider the partition function of some quantum system written as a path integral $$Z = \sum_s {\mbox{Sign}}[s] \exp(-S[s]),$$ over configurations $s$ with a Boltzmann weight of magnitude $\exp(-S[s])$ and ${\mbox{Sign}}[s] = \pm 1$. Here $S[s]$ is the action of a system with a positive Boltzmann weight and a modified partition function $$Z' = \sum_s \exp(-S[s]),$$ which does not suffer from the sign problem. An observable $O[s]$ of the original system is obtained in a simulation of the modified model as $$\langle O \rangle = \frac{1}{Z} \sum_s O[s] {\mbox{Sign}}[s] \exp(-S[s]) =
\frac{\langle O {\mbox{Sign}}\rangle}{\langle {\mbox{Sign}}\rangle}.$$ The average sign in the modified ensemble is given by $$\langle {\mbox{Sign}}\rangle = \frac{1}{Z'}{\sum_s {\mbox{Sign}}[s] \exp(-S[s])} =
\frac{Z}{Z'} = \exp(- \beta V \Delta f).$$ The expectation value of the sign is exponentially small in both the volume $V$ and the inverse temperature $\beta$ because the difference $\Delta f$ between the free energy densities of the original and the modified systems is always positive. Hence the original expectation value $\langle O \rangle$ — although of order one — is calculated as the ratio of two exponentially small modified expectation values $\langle O {\mbox{Sign}}\rangle$ and $\langle {\mbox{Sign}}\rangle$ which are very small compared to the statistical error and therefore impossible to measure in practice. This difficulty is the origin of the sign problem. We can estimate the statistical error of the average sign in an ideal simulation of the modified ensemble which generates $N$ completely uncorrelated configurations as $$\frac{\Delta {\mbox{Sign}}}{\langle {\mbox{Sign}}\rangle} =
\frac{\sqrt{\langle {\mbox{Sign}}^2 \rangle - \langle {\mbox{Sign}}\rangle^2}}
{\sqrt{N} {\langle {\mbox{Sign}}\rangle}} = \frac{\exp(\beta V \Delta f)}{\sqrt{N}}.$$ The last equality results from taking the large $\beta V$ limit and by using ${\mbox{Sign}}^2 = 1$. To determine the average sign with sufficient accuracy one needs on the order of $N = \exp(2 \beta V \Delta f)$ measurements. For large volumes and small temperatures this is infeasible.
A naive meron-cluster algorithm simply matches any contribution of $-1$ with another contribution of $1$ to give $0$, such that only a few unmatched contributions of $1$ remain. Then effectively ${\mbox{Sign}}= 0,1$ and hence ${\mbox{Sign}}^2 = {\mbox{Sign}}$. This step reduces the relative statistical error to $$\frac{\Delta {\mbox{Sign}}}{\langle {\mbox{Sign}}\rangle} =
\frac{\sqrt{\langle {\mbox{Sign}}\rangle - \langle {\mbox{Sign}}\rangle^2}}
{\sqrt{N'} {\langle {\mbox{Sign}}\rangle}} =
\frac{\exp(\beta V \Delta f/2)}{\sqrt{N'}}.$$ One gains an exponential factor in statistics, but one still needs to generate $N' = \sqrt{N} = \exp(\beta V \Delta f)$ independent configurations in order to accurately determine the average sign. Since the probability to measure a contribution of $1$ is $\langle {\mbox{Sign}}\rangle$, one generates exponentially many contributions of $0$ before one encounters a contribution of $1$. Thus this step alone solves only one half of the sign problem and would at most allow us to double the space-time volume $\beta V$.[^4] In a second step involving a Metropolis decision, the full meron-cluster algorithm ensures that contributions of $0$ are suppressed. This step saves another exponential factor in statistics and solves the other half of the sign problem.
A central idea behind our algorithm is to decompose a configuration of quantum spins into clusters which can be flipped independently. A cluster flip changes spin up to spin down and vice versa. The clusters can be characterized by their effect on the sign. Clusters whose flip changes the sign are referred to as merons. Using an improved estimator, any configuration that contains merons contributes $0$ to the average sign, since the flip of a meron-cluster leads to a sign change and hence to an explicit cancellation of the contributions of two configurations with the same weight but opposite ${\mbox{Sign}}[s] = \pm 1$. Thus only the configurations without merons make non-vanishing contributions. If the clusters can be flipped such that one reaches a reference configuration with a positive sign, configurations without merons always have ${\mbox{Sign}}[s] = 1$. This solves one half of the sign problem.
The other half of the problem is solved using a reweighting method that suppresses multi-meron configurations. In order to perform this essential step, all observables must be measured using improved estimators. Fortunately, this is possible for a variety of physical quantities. For example, the uniform and staggered magnetization get non-zero contributions only from the zero-meron sector, while the associated susceptibilities receive non-zero contributions from the two-meron sector as well. Since in this article we will be interested in the uniform magnetization only, we can completely eliminate all configurations containing meron-clusters. In principle, this restriction can be achieved with a simple reject step. In this way an exponentially large portion of the configuration space of the modified model is eliminated. Configurations with merons would contribute in the modified model that does not include the sign, but they do not contribute to the observables of the original model with the sign. Eliminating the exponentially large multi-meron sector of the configuration space saves an exponential factor in statistics and solves the other half of the sign problem. In order to improve the autocorrelations of the algorithm it is advantageous not to eliminate multi-meron configurations completely. In practice, a Metropolis step is used instead to suppress strongly the incidence of multi-meron configurations while still allowing occasional visits of sectors with a small number of merons.
Path Integral for Quantum Magnets
=================================
We consider a system of quantum spins $1/2$ on a $d$-dimensional cubic lattice with site label $x$ and with periodic spatial boundary conditions. In particular, we will be interested in ladder systems on a 2-d rectangular lattice of size $L \times L'$ with $L \gg L'$. The spins located at the sites $x$ are described by operators $S^i_x$ with the usual commutation relations $$[S_x^i,S_y^j] = i \delta_{xy} \epsilon_{ijk} S_x^k.$$ The Hamilton operator $$H = \sum_{x,i} [J (S_x^1 S_{x+\hat i}^1 + S_x^2 S_{x+\hat i}^2) +
J' S_x^3 S_{x+\hat i}^3] - \sum_x B_x S_x^1$$ couples the spins at the lattice sites $x$ and $x+\hat i$, where $\hat i$ is a unit-vector in the $i$-direction. The cases $J' = J < 0$ and $J' = J > 0$ correspond to the ferro- and antiferromagnetic quantum Heisenberg model respectively, while $J' = 0$ corresponds to the quantum XY-model. We consider a magnetic field $B_x$ that points in the $1$-direction and has an arbitrary $x$-dependence. Later it will be important that the magnetic field is perpendicular to the spin quantization axis, which we will choose in the $3$-direction. As a specific example we will consider an antiferromagnetic isotropic quantum spin ladder (i.e. $J' = J > 0$) in a uniform magnetic field $B_x = B$.
To derive a path integral representation of the partition function we decompose the Hamilton operator into $2d+1$ terms $$H = H_1 + H_2 + ... + H_{2d+1}.$$ The various terms take the forms $$H_i = \!\!\! \sum_{\stackrel{x = (x_1,x_2,...,x_d)}{x_i even}} \!\!\! h_{x,i},
\,
H_{i+d} = \!\!\! \sum_{\stackrel{x = (x_1,x_2,...,x_d)}{x_i odd}} \!\!\!
h_{x,i}, \,
H_{2d+1} = \!\!\! \sum_{\stackrel{x = (x_1,x_2,...,x_d)}{}} \!\!\! h_x,$$ with $$h_{x,i} = J (S_x^1 S_{x+\hat i}^1 + S_x^2 S_{x+\hat i}^2) +
J' S_x^3 S_{x+\hat i}^3, \, h_x = - B_x S_x^1.$$ Note that the individual contributions to a given $H_i$ commute with each other, but two different $H_i$ do not commute. Using the Trotter-Suzuki formula we express the partition function as $$Z = \mbox{Tr} [\exp(- \beta H)] =
\lim_{M \rightarrow \infty} \!\!\! \mbox{Tr}
[\exp(- \beta H_1) \exp(- \beta H_2) ... \exp(- \beta H_{2d+1})]^M.$$ We have introduced $(2d+1)M$ Euclidean time slices with $\epsilon = \beta/M$ as the lattice spacing in the Euclidean time direction. We insert complete sets of eigenstates $|{\uparrow}\rangle$ and $|{\downarrow}\rangle$ with eigenvalues $S_x^3 = \pm 1/2$ between the factors $\exp(- \beta H_i)$. The transfer matrix is a product of factors $$\label{transfer1}
\exp(- \epsilon h_{x,i}) = \left(\begin{array}{cccc}
\exp(- \epsilon J'/2) & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \cosh(\epsilon J/2) & - \sinh(\epsilon J/2) & 0 \\
0 & - \sinh(\epsilon J/2) & \cosh(\epsilon J/2) & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \exp(- \epsilon J'/2) \end{array} \right)$$ (here we have dropped an irrelevant overall prefactor $\exp(\epsilon J'/4)$) and $$\label{transfer2}
\exp(- \epsilon h_x) = \left(\begin{array}{cc}
\cosh(\epsilon B_x/2) & \sinh(\epsilon B_x/2) \\
\sinh(\epsilon B_x/2) & \cosh(\epsilon B_x/2) \end{array} \right).$$ The $4 \times 4$ matrix of eq.(\[transfer1\]) is represented in the basis $|{\uparrow}{\uparrow}\rangle$, $|{\uparrow}{\downarrow}\rangle$, $|{\downarrow}{\uparrow}\rangle$ and $|{\downarrow}{\downarrow}\rangle$ of two sites $x$ and $x+\hat i$, and the $2 \times 2$ matrix of eq.(\[transfer2\]) is in the basis $|{\uparrow}\rangle$ and $|{\downarrow}\rangle$ of the site $x$.
The partition function is now expressed as a path integral $$Z = \sum_s {\mbox{Sign}}[s] \exp(- S[s]),$$ over configurations of spins $s(x,t) = {\uparrow}, {\downarrow}$ on a $(d+1)$-dimensional space-time lattice of points $(x,t)$. The Boltzmann factor $$\begin{aligned}
\exp(- S[s])&=&\!\!\!\!\! \prod_{\stackrel{x = (x_1,x_2,...,x_d)}
{x_1 even, t = 2dp}} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\exp\{- S[s(x,t),s(x+\hat 1,t),s(x,t+1),s(x+\hat 1,t+1)]\} \nonumber \\
&\times&\!\!\!\!\! \prod_{\stackrel{x = (x_1,x_2,...,x_d)}
{x_2 even, t = 2dp+1}} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\exp\{- S[s(x,t),s(x+\hat 2,t),s(x,t+1),s(x+\hat 2,t+1)]\} ... \nonumber \\
&\times&\!\!\!\!\! \prod_{\stackrel{x = (x_1,x_2,...,x_d)}
{x_d even, t = 2dp+d-1}} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\exp\{- S[s(x,t),s(x+\hat d,t),s(x,t+1),s(x+\hat d,t+1)]\} \nonumber \\
&\times&\!\!\!\!\! \prod_{\stackrel{x = (x_1,x_2,...,x_d)}
{x_1 odd, t = 2dp+d)}} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\exp\{- S[s(x,t),s(x+\hat 1,t),s(x,t+1),s(x+\hat 1,t+1)]\} \nonumber \\
&\times&\!\!\!\!\! \prod_{\stackrel{x = (x_1,x_2,...,x_d)}
{x_2 odd, t = 2dp+d+1}} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\exp\{- S[s(x,t),s(x+\hat 2,t),s(x,t+1),s(x+\hat 2,t+1)]\} ... \nonumber \\
&\times&\!\!\!\!\! \prod_{\stackrel{x = (x_1,x_2,...,x_d)}
{x_d odd, t = 2d(p+1)-1}} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\exp\{- S[s(x,t),s(x+\hat d,t),s(x,t+1),s(x+\hat d,t+1)]\} \nonumber \\ \
&\times&\!\!\!\!\! \prod_{\stackrel{x = (x_1,x_2,...,x_d)}
{t = 2d(p+1)}} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\exp\{- S[s(x,t),s(x,t+1)]\} \nonumber \\ \\end{aligned}$$ (with $p = 0,1,...,M-1$) is a product of space-time plaquette contributions with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Boltzmann1}
&&\exp(- S[{\uparrow},{\uparrow},{\uparrow},{\uparrow}]) = \exp(- S[{\downarrow},{\downarrow},{\downarrow},{\downarrow}]) =
\exp(- \epsilon J'/2),
\nonumber \\
&&\exp(- S[{\uparrow},{\downarrow},{\uparrow},{\downarrow}]) = \exp(- S[{\downarrow},{\uparrow},{\downarrow},{\uparrow}]) =
\cosh(\epsilon J/2),
\nonumber \\
&&\exp(- S[{\uparrow},{\downarrow},{\downarrow},{\uparrow}]) = \exp(- S[{\downarrow},{\uparrow},{\uparrow},{\downarrow}]) =
\sinh(\epsilon |J|/2),\end{aligned}$$ and time-like bond contributions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Boltzmann2}
&&\exp(- S[{\uparrow},{\uparrow}]) = \exp(- S[{\downarrow},{\downarrow}]) = \cosh(\epsilon B_x/2),
\nonumber \\
&&\exp(- S[{\uparrow},{\downarrow}]) = \exp(- S[{\downarrow},{\uparrow}]) = \sinh(\epsilon |B_x|/2).\end{aligned}$$
The sign of a configuration, ${\mbox{Sign}}[s]$, also is a product of space-time plaquette contributions $\mbox{Sign}[s(x,t),s(x+\hat i,t),s(x,t+1),s(x+\hat i,t+1)]$ with $$\begin{aligned}
&&\mbox{Sign}[{\uparrow},{\uparrow},{\uparrow},{\uparrow}]) = \mbox{Sign}[{\uparrow},{\downarrow},{\uparrow},{\downarrow}]) =
\mbox{Sign}[{\downarrow},{\uparrow},{\downarrow},{\uparrow}]) = \mbox{Sign}[{\downarrow},{\downarrow},{\downarrow},{\downarrow}]) = 1
\nonumber \\
&&\mbox{Sign}[{\uparrow},{\downarrow},{\downarrow},{\uparrow}]) = \mbox{Sign}[{\downarrow},{\uparrow},{\uparrow},{\downarrow}]) =
- \mbox{sign}(J),\end{aligned}$$ and time-like bond contributions $$\begin{aligned}
&&\mbox{Sign}[{\uparrow},{\uparrow}]) = \mbox{Sign}[{\downarrow},{\downarrow}]) = 1 \nonumber \\
&&\mbox{Sign}[{\uparrow},{\downarrow}]) = \mbox{Sign}[{\downarrow},{\uparrow}]) = \mbox{sign}(B_x).\end{aligned}$$ Figure 1 shows two spin configurations in $(1+1)$ dimensions. The first configuration is completely antiferromagnetically ordered and has ${\mbox{Sign}}[s] = 1$. The second configuration contains one interaction plaquette with configuration $[{\downarrow},{\uparrow},{\uparrow},{\downarrow}]$ which contributes ${\mbox{Sign}}[{\downarrow},{\uparrow},{\uparrow},{\downarrow}] = - 1$ for $J > 0$. In addition, there are two time-like interaction bonds with configurations $[{\downarrow},{\uparrow}]$ and $[{\uparrow},{\downarrow}]$. When $B_x > 0$ these contribute ${\mbox{Sign}}[{\downarrow},{\uparrow}] =
{\mbox{Sign}}[{\uparrow},{\downarrow}] = 1$, such that the whole configuration has ${\mbox{Sign}}[s] = - 1$.
The central observable of our study is the uniform magnetization $$\label{magnetization}
M^i = \sum_x S_x^i.$$ The expectation value of the magnetization $\langle M^1 \rangle$ in the direction of the magnetic field is non-zero, while $\langle M^2 \rangle =
\langle M^3 \rangle = 0$.
It should be noted that the path integral can be simplified for isotropic ferromagnets ($J' = J < 0$) or antiferromagnets ($J' = J > 0$) in a uniform magnetic field ($B_x = B$). In that case, the magnetic field interaction $B \sum_x S_x^1$ commutes with the rest of the Hamiltonian and can hence be concentrated in a single Euclidean time-step. Then one can work with only $2dM+1$ time-slices instead of $(2d+1)M$. Instead of $M$ magnetic field interaction time-steps with Boltzmann weights $\cosh(\epsilon B/2)$ and $\sinh(\epsilon B/2)$ one then has only one such step with Boltzmann weights $\cosh(\beta B/2)$ and $\sinh(\beta B/2)$. In the simulations performed in this paper we use the method with $(2d+1)M$ time-slices.
Cluster Algorithm for the Modified Model without the Sign Factor
================================================================
The meron-cluster algorithm is based on a cluster algorithm for the modified model without the sign factor. Quantum spin systems without a sign problem can be simulated very efficiently with the loop-cluster algorithm [@Eve93; @Wie94; @Eve97]. This algorithm can be implemented directly in the Euclidean time continuum [@Bea96], i.e. the Suzuki-Trotter discretization is not even necessary. The same is true for the meron-cluster algorithm. Here we discuss the algorithm for discrete time.
The idea behind the algorithm is to decompose a configuration into clusters which can be flipped independently. Each lattice site belongs to exactly one cluster. When the cluster is flipped, the spins at all the sites on the cluster are changed from up to down and vice versa. The decomposition of the lattice into clusters results from connecting neighboring sites on each space-time interaction plaquette or time-like interaction bond according to probabilistic cluster rules. A set of connected sites defines a cluster. In this case the clusters are open or closed strings. The cluster rules are constructed so as to obey detailed balance. To show this property we first write the space-time plaquette Boltzmann factors as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cluster1}
&&\!\!\!\exp(- S[s(x,t),s(x+\hat i,t),s(x,t+1),s(x+\hat i,t+1)]) = \nonumber \\
&&\!\!\!A \delta_{s(x,t),s(x,t+1)} \delta_{s(x+\hat i,t),s(x+\hat i,t+1)} +
B \delta_{s(x,t),-s(x+\hat i,t)} \delta_{s(x,t+1),-s(x+\hat i,t+1)} +
\nonumber \\
&&\!\!\!C \delta_{s(x,t),s(x,t+1)} \delta_{s(x+\hat i,t),s(x+\hat i,t+1)}
\delta_{s(x,t),-s(x+\hat i,t)} +
D \delta_{s(x,t),s(x+\hat i,t+1)} \delta_{s(x+\hat i,t),s(x,t+1)} +
\nonumber \\
&&\!\!\!E \delta_{s(x,t),s(x,t+1)} \delta_{s(x+\hat i,t),s(x+\hat i,t+1)}
\delta_{s(x,t),s(x+\hat i,t)}.\end{aligned}$$ The various $\delta$-functions specify which sites are connected and thus belong to the same cluster. It is possible to construct a cluster algorithm satisfying detailed balance if the coefficients $A,B,...,E$ are all non-negative. In that case these coefficients determine the relative probabilities for different cluster break-ups of an interaction plaquette. [^5] For example, $A$ determines the probability with which sites are connected with their time-like neighbors, while $B$ and $D$ determine the probabilities for connections with space-like and diagonal neighbors. The quantities $C$ and $E$ determine the probabilities to put all four spins of a plaquette into the same cluster. This is possible for plaquette configurations $[{\uparrow},{\downarrow},{\uparrow},{\downarrow}]$ or $[{\downarrow},{\uparrow},{\downarrow},{\uparrow}]$ with a probability proportional to $C$ and for configurations $[{\uparrow},{\uparrow},{\uparrow},{\uparrow}]$ or $[{\downarrow},{\downarrow},{\downarrow},{\downarrow}]$ with a probability proportional to $E$. Inserting the expressions from eq.(\[Boltzmann1\]) one finds $$\begin{aligned}
\label{balance1}
&&\exp(- S[{\uparrow},{\uparrow},{\uparrow},{\uparrow}]) = \exp(- S[{\downarrow},{\downarrow},{\downarrow},{\downarrow}]) =
\exp(- \epsilon J'/2) = A + D + E, \nonumber \\
&&\exp(- S[{\uparrow},{\downarrow},{\uparrow},{\downarrow}]) = \exp(- S[{\downarrow},{\uparrow},{\downarrow},{\uparrow}]) =
\cosh(\epsilon J/2) = A + B + C, \nonumber \\
&&\exp(- S[{\uparrow},{\downarrow},{\downarrow},{\uparrow}]) = \exp(- S[{\downarrow},{\uparrow},{\uparrow},{\downarrow}]) =
\sinh(\epsilon |J|/2) = B + D.\end{aligned}$$ For example, the probability to connect the sites with their time-like neighbors on a plaquette with configuration $[{\uparrow},{\uparrow},{\uparrow},{\uparrow}]$ or $[{\downarrow},{\downarrow},{\downarrow},{\downarrow}]$ is $A/(A+D+E)$, while the probability to connect them with their diagonal neighbor is $D/(A+D+E)$. All sites on such a plaquette are connected together and are hence put into the same cluster with probability $E/(A+D+E)$. Similarly, the probability for connecting space-like neighbors on a plaquette with configuration $[{\uparrow},{\downarrow},{\downarrow},{\uparrow}]$ or $[{\downarrow},{\uparrow},{\uparrow},{\downarrow}]$ is $B/(B+D)$ and the probability for connecting diagonal neighbors is $D/(B+D)$. Similarly, the time-like bond Boltzmann factors are expressed as $$\label{cluster2}
\exp(- S[s(x,t),s(x,t+1)]) = F \delta_{s(x,t),s(x,t+1)} + G.$$ The probability to connect spins with their time-like neighbors is $F/(F+G)$. The spins remain disconnected with probability $G/(F+G)$. Inserting the expressions from eq.(\[Boltzmann2\]) one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\label{balance2}
&&\exp(- S[{\uparrow},{\uparrow}]) = \exp(- S[{\downarrow},{\downarrow}]) = \cosh(\epsilon B_x/2) = F + G,
\nonumber \\
&&\exp(- S[{\uparrow},{\downarrow}]) = \exp(- S[{\downarrow},{\uparrow}]) = \sinh(\epsilon |B_x|/2) = F.\end{aligned}$$ The cluster rules are illustrated in table 1.
‘?=?
[|c|c|c|]{} weight&configuration&break-ups\
$\exp(- \epsilon J'/2)$ &
&
\
$\cosh(\epsilon J/2)$ &
&
\
$\sinh(\epsilon |J|/2)$ &
&
\
$\cosh(\epsilon B_x/2)$ &
&
\
$\sinh(\epsilon|B_x|/2)$ &
&
\
Eqs.(\[cluster1\],\[cluster2\]) can be viewed as a representation of the original model as a random cluster model. The cluster algorithm operates in two steps. First, a cluster break-up is chosen for each space-time interaction plaquette or time-like interaction bond according to the above probabilities. This effectively replaces the original Boltzmann weight of a configuration with a set of constraints represented by the $\delta$-functions associated with the chosen break-up. The constraints imply that the spins in one cluster can only be flipped together. Second, every cluster is flipped with probability $1/2$. When a cluster is flipped, the spins on all sites that belong to the cluster are flipped from up to down and vice versa. Eqs.(\[balance1\],\[balance2\]) ensure that the cluster algorithm obeys detailed balance. To determine $A,B,...,E$ we distinguish three cases. For $J' > J > 0$ we solve eq.(\[balance1\]) by $$\label{solution1}
A = \exp(- \epsilon J'/2), \ B = \sinh(\epsilon J/2), \
C = \exp(- \epsilon J/2) - \exp(- \epsilon J'/2), \ D = E = 0.$$ For $- J \leq J' \leq J$ we use $$\begin{aligned}
\label{solution2}
&&A = \frac{1}{2}[\exp(- \epsilon J'/2) + \exp(- \epsilon J/2)],
\ B = \frac{1}{2}[\exp(\epsilon J/2) - \exp(- \epsilon J'/2)], \
C = 0, \nonumber \\
&&D = \frac{1}{2}[\exp(- \epsilon J'/2) - \exp(- \epsilon J/2)], \
E = 0, \end{aligned}$$ and for $J' \leq J < 0$ $$\label{solution3}
A = \cosh(\epsilon J/2), \ B = C = 0, \ D = \sinh(\epsilon |J|/2), \
E = \exp(- \epsilon J'/2) - \exp(\epsilon |J|/2).$$ For example, for the antiferromagnetic quantum Heisenberg model ($J' = J > 0$) we have $$A = \exp(- \epsilon J/2), \, B = \sinh(\epsilon J/2), \, C = D = E = 0.$$ Consequently, on plaquette configurations $[{\uparrow},{\uparrow},{\uparrow},{\uparrow}]$ or $[{\downarrow},{\downarrow},{\downarrow},{\downarrow}]$ one always chooses time-like connections between the sites, and for configurations $[{\uparrow},{\downarrow},{\downarrow},{\uparrow}]$ or $[{\downarrow},{\uparrow},{\uparrow},{\downarrow}]$ one always chooses space-like connections. For configurations $[{\uparrow},{\downarrow},{\uparrow},{\downarrow}]$ or $[{\downarrow},{\uparrow},{\downarrow},{\uparrow}]$ one chooses time-like connections with probability $p = A/(A+B) = 2/[1 + \exp(\epsilon J)]$ and space-like connections with probability $1 - p = B/(A+B)$. Similarly, eq.(\[balance2\]) yields $$F = \exp(- \epsilon |B_x|/2), \, G = \sinh(\epsilon |B_x|/2).$$
The above cluster rules were first used in a simulation of the Heisenberg antiferromagnet [@Wie94] in the absence of a magnetic field. In that case there is no sign problem. Then the corresponding loop-cluster algorithm is extremely efficient and has almost no detectable autocorrelations. When a magnetic field is switched on the situation changes. When the magnetic field points in the direction of the spin quantization axis (the $3$-direction in our case) there is no sign problem. However, the magnetic field then explicitly breaks the ${{\sf Z \!\!\! Z}}(2)$ flip symmetry on which the cluster algorithm is based, and the clusters can no longer be flipped with probability $1/2$. Instead the flip probability is determined by the value of the magnetic field and by the magnetization of the cluster. When the field is strong, flips of magnetized clusters are rarely possible and the algorithm becomes very inefficient. To avoid this problem, we have chosen the magnetic field to point in the $1$-direction, i.e. perpendicular to the spin quantization axis. In that case, the cluster flip symmetry is not affected by the magnetic field, and the clusters can still be flipped with probability $1/2$. However, in several cases one now has a sign problem and the cluster algorithm becomes extremely inefficient again. Fortunately, using the meron concept the sign problem can be eliminated completely and the efficiency of the original cluster algorithm can be maintained even in the presence of a magnetic field.
Meron-Clusters and the Sign Problem
===================================
Let us consider the effect of a cluster flip on the sign. As discussed before, the flip of a meron-cluster changes ${\mbox{Sign}}[s]$, while the flip of a non-meron-cluster leaves ${\mbox{Sign}}[s]$ unchanged. An example of a meron-cluster is shown in figure 2 along with the same spin configurations as in figure 1. When the meron cluster is flipped the first configuration with ${\mbox{Sign}}[s] = 1$ turns into the second configuration with ${\mbox{Sign}}[s] = - 1$. This property of the cluster is independent of the orientation of any other cluster. Since flipping all spins leaves ${\mbox{Sign}}[s]$ unchanged, the total number of meron-clusters is always even.
The meron concept allows us to gain an exponential factor in statistics. Since all clusters can be flipped independently with probability $1/2$, one can construct an improved estimator for $\langle {\mbox{Sign}}\rangle$ by averaging analytically over the $2^{N_C}$ configurations obtained by flipping the $N_C$ clusters in a configuration in all possible ways. For configurations that contain merons, the average ${\mbox{Sign}}[s]$ is zero because flipping a single meron-cluster leads to a cancellation of contributions $\pm 1$. Hence only the configurations without merons contribute to $\langle {\mbox{Sign}}\rangle$. The probability to have a configuration without merons is equal to $\langle {\mbox{Sign}}\rangle$ and is hence exponentially suppressed with the space-time volume. The vast majority of configurations contains merons and contributes an exact $0$ to $\langle {\mbox{Sign}}\rangle$ instead of a statistical average of contributions $\pm 1$. In this way the improved estimator leads to an exponential gain in statistics.
Now we want to show that the contributions from the zero-meron sector are always positive. With no merons in the configuration it is clear that the sign remains unchanged under cluster flips, but it is not obvious that one always has ${\mbox{Sign}}[s] = 1$. To prove this we note that there is no sign problem in the absence of the magnetic field. In that case all configurations have ${\mbox{Sign}}[s] = 1$ and all clusters are closed loops. In the presence of the magnetic field some of the closed loops are cut into open string pieces. However, one can always flip the individual pieces such that a typical configuration of the model without the magnetic field emerges. These reference configurations have ${\mbox{Sign}}[s] = 1$. Since any configuration can be turned into such a configuration by cluster flips, and since the sign remains unchanged when a non-meron-cluster is flipped, all configurations without merons have ${\mbox{Sign}}[s] = 1$. At this point we have solved one half of the sign problem.
Before we can solve the other half of the problem we must discuss the improved estimator for the magnetization. Since the magnetization operator $M^1 = \sum_x S^1_x$ is not diagonal in the basis we have chosen to quantize the spins (which is along the $3$-direction), it is not obvious how to measure it. However, as discussed in [@Bro98], quantum cluster algorithms naturally allow us to measure non-diagonal operators. In the present case, due to time translation invariance, $M^1$ is equivalent to a sum of local spin-flip operators $S_x^1$ inserted at any time slice and appropriately averaged. An open string cluster that contains the point $(x,t)$ is naturally divided into two parts, one on each side of the point. Flipping each side while keeping the other side fixed produces spin configurations that contribute to the spin flip operator $S_x^1$ at time $t$. Closed loop-clusters, on the other hand, do not decompose into two parts and thus do not contribute to this operator. If we construct an improved estimator for $S_x^1$ inserted at the time $t$, a configuration containing more than one meron does not contribute to $\langle S_x^1\rangle$. Since the total number of merons is always even, in there exists at least one meron that does not contain the point $(x,t)$. Flipping that meron changes the sign but not $S_x^1$ and hence results in an exact cancellation of two equal and opposite contributions to $\langle S_x^1\rangle$. Hence we can focus entirely on the zero-meron sector. In this sector the point $(x,t)$ can divide an open string cluster into two merons or two non-merons. When both parts are non-merons, flipping one part but not the other yields a contribution of $1/2$ to $\langle S_x^1 \rangle$. When both parts are merons, on the other hand, one gets a contribution of $-1/2$. Summing over $x,t$ one obtains $\langle M^1 \rangle$.
For an antiferromagnet in a uniform magnetic field $B_x = B$, one can find a simple expression for the improved estimator for $\langle M^1 \rangle$ in terms of a winding number of closed loops which result from joining the open string clusters. In that case a non-meron cluster has the property that both end points of an open string cluster have the same spin type, either up or down. If all the open string clusters are flipped into a reference configuration and joined together to form closed loops, one can define $W_l$ for each loop to be the temporal winding number of the loop. We assume that the cluster is growing in the positive direction on the sites where the loop is broken into open strings. Since the loop is always broken up on the same type of spin, the above definition of the winding of a given loop is consistent. Further, if a particular loop is not composed of open string clusters then $W_l = 0$. With this definition of $W_l$ it is easy to show that $$\label{ratio}
\langle M^1 \rangle =
\frac{\langle \delta_{N,0} \sum_l W_l \rangle}{2 \langle \delta_{N,0} \rangle},$$ where $N$ is the number of meron-clusters. Hence, as explained above, the magnetization gets non-vanishing contributions only from the zero-meron sector. One should note that $W_l$ can be negative.
Since the magnetization gets non-vanishing contributions only from the zero-meron sector, it is unnecessary to generate any configuration that contains meron-clusters. This observation is the key to the solution of the other half of the sign problem. In fact, one can gain an exponential factor in statistics by restricting the simulation to the zero-meron sector, which represents an exponentially small fraction of the whole configuration space. This procedure enhances both the numerator and the denominator in eq.(\[ratio\]) by a factor that is exponentially large in the volume, but leaves the ratio of the two invariant. In practice, it is advantageous to occasionally generate configurations containing merons even though they do not contribute to our observable, because this reduces the autocorrelation times. Still, in order to solve the sign problem multi-meron configurations must be very much suppressed. To suppress such configurations in a controlled way, we introduce an additional Boltzmann factor $q < 1$ for each meron, which determines the relative weights of the $N$-meron sectors. We visit all plaquette and time-like bond interactions one after the other and choose new pair connections between the sites according to the above cluster rules. The suppression factor $q$ is used in a Metropolis accept-reject step. A newly proposed pair connection that changes the number of merons from $N$ to $N'$ is accepted with probability $p = \mbox{min}[1,q^{N'-N}]$. It should be stressed that adding the Boltzmann factor for the reweighting doesn’t change the physics, only the algorithm. After visiting all plaquette and time-like bond interactions, each cluster is flipped with probability $1/2$ which completes one update sweep. After reweighting, multi-meron configurations are very much suppressed. This completes the second step in our solution of the sign problem.
Antiferromagnetic Spin Ladders in a Uniform Magnetic Field
==========================================================
Antiferromagnetic spin ladders — sets of several transversely coupled quantum spin chains — are interesting condensed matter systems which interpolate between single 1-d spin chains and 2-d quantum antiferromagnets. The ladders are spatially quasi 1-d systems whose low-energy dynamics are governed by $(1+1)$-d quantum field theories, which can be solved analytically using Bethe ansatz techniques. This allows us to test field theoretical predictions for such models using condensed matter experiments as well as numerical simulations. Here we consider spin ladders in an external uniform magnetic field $B_x = B$, which corresponds to a chemical potential $\mu = B/c$ in the corresponding $(1+1)$-d quantum field theory. The Bethe ansatz solution of this theory yields predictions for the magnetization of the ladder system, which we compare with results of numerical simulations.
Haldane was first to realize the connection between spin chains and $(1+1)$-d field theories [@Hal83]. He conjectured that a single 1-d antiferromagnetic quantum spin chain of length $L$ at inverse temperature $\beta$ is described by a $(1+1)$-d $O(3)$ symmetric quantum field theory with an action $$S[\vec e] = \int_0^\beta dt \int_0^L dx \
[\frac{c}{2g^2}(\partial_x \vec e \cdot \partial_x \vec e
+ \frac{1}{c^2} \partial_t \vec e \cdot \partial_t \vec e)
+ \frac{i \theta}{4 \pi} \vec e \cdot
(\partial_x \vec e \times \partial_t \vec e)].$$ Here $\vec e(x,t)$ is a three-component unit-vector field, $g$ is a coupling constant and $c$ is the spin-wave velocity. The vacuum angle is given by $\theta = 2 \pi S$, where $S$ is the value of the spin, hence quantum spin chains with integer spin have $\theta = 0$ and chains with half-integer spin have $\theta = \pi$. The $(1+1)$-d $O(3)$ model is an asymptotically free quantum field theory with a non-perturbatively generated mass-gap $m \propto \exp(- 2 \pi/g^2)$ at $\theta = 0$. At $\theta = \pi$, on the other hand, the mass-gap disappears. This naturally explains why chains of half-integer spins are gapless, while chains of integer spins have a gap. For large values of the spin $S$ the coupling constant is given by $1/g^2 = S/2$, so the mass-gap $m \propto \exp(- \pi S)$ goes to zero and the system approaches a continuum limit.
Chakravarty, Halperin and Nelson used a $(2+1)$-d effective field theory to describe the low-energy dynamics of spatially 2-d quantum antiferromagnets [@Cha88]. Chakravarty has applied this theory to quantum spin ladders with a large even number of coupled spin $1/2$ chains [@Cha96]. We consider spin ladders with the same value of the antiferromagnetic coupling along and between the chains. These systems are described by the action $$S[\vec e] = \int_0^\beta dt \int_0^L dx \int_0^{L'} dy \
\frac{\rho_s}{2}[\partial_x \vec e \cdot \partial_x \vec e
+ \partial_y \vec e \cdot \partial_y \vec e
+ \frac{1}{c^2} \partial_t \vec e \cdot \partial_t \vec e],$$ where $\rho_s$ is the spin stiffness and $c$ is the spin-wave velocity. The coupled spin chains are oriented in the spatial $x$-direction with a large extent $L$, while the transverse $y$-direction has a much smaller extent $L' \ll L$. Here we consider spin ladders with periodic boundary conditions in the transverse direction, and we limit ourselves to an even number of coupled spin $1/2$ chains. The effective action for a ladder with an odd number of coupled chains would contain an additional topological term.
When the spin ladder is placed in a uniform external magnetic field $\vec B$, the field couples to a conserved quantity — the uniform magnetization. Hence, on the level of the effective theory, the magnetic field plays the role of a chemical potential, i.e. it appears as the time-component of an imaginary constant vector potential. As a consequence, the ordinary derivative $\partial_t \vec e$ is replaced by the covariant derivative $\partial_t \vec e
+ i \vec B \times \vec e$ and the effective action takes the form $$S[\vec e] = \int_0^\beta dt \int_0^L dx \int_0^{L'} dy \
\frac{\rho_s}{2}[\partial_x \vec e \cdot \partial_x \vec e
+ \partial_y \vec e \cdot \partial_y \vec e
+ \frac{1}{c^2} (\partial_t \vec e + i \vec B \times \vec e) \cdot
(\partial_t \vec e + i \vec B \times \vec e)].$$
For a sufficiently large even number of coupled chains ($L' \gg c/\rho_s$) the ladder system undergoes dimensional reduction to the $(1+1)$-d $O(3)$ symmetric quantum field theory with the action $$\begin{aligned}
S[\vec e]&=&\int_0^\beta dt \int_0^L dx \
\frac{\rho_s L'}{2}[\partial_x \vec e \cdot \partial_x \vec e
+ \frac{1}{c^2} (\partial_t \vec e + i \vec B \times \vec e) \cdot
(\partial_t \vec e + i \vec B \times \vec e)] \nonumber \\
&=&\int_0^{\beta c} dct \int_0^L dx \
\frac{1}{2g^2}[\partial_x \vec e \cdot \partial_x \vec e
+ (\partial_{ct} \vec e + i \vec \mu \times \vec e) \cdot
(\partial_{ct} \vec e + i \vec \mu \times \vec e)].\end{aligned}$$ The effective coupling constant is given by $1/g^2 = \rho_s L'/c$ and the magnetic field appears as a chemical potential of magnitude $\mu = B/c$.
The $(1+1)$-d $O(3)$ model with chemical potential $\mu$ has been solved exactly by Wiegmann [@Wie85] using Bethe ansatz techniques. Using this solution, Hasenfratz, Maggiore and Niedermayer have derived an exact result for the non-perturbatively generated mass-gap $m$ in this model [@Has90]. In particular, for $\mu \geq m$ and $\beta = L = \infty$ the Bethe ansatz yields the free energy density $$\label{free}
f(\mu) - f(0) =
- \frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_{-\theta_0}^{\theta_0} d\theta \epsilon(\theta) m
\cosh\theta,$$ where the function $\epsilon(\theta)$ satisfies the integral equation $$\label{epsilon}
\epsilon(\theta) - \int_{-\theta_0}^{\theta_0} d\theta'
\frac{\epsilon(\theta')}{(\theta' - \theta)^2 + \pi^2} = \mu - m \cosh\theta,$$ and $\theta_0$ is defined by the boundary condition $\epsilon(\pm \theta_0) = 0$. For $\mu < m$ no particles can be produced and $f(\mu) = f(0)$. For chemical potentials slightly above this threshold the previous equations imply $$f(\mu) - f(0) = - \frac{2}{3} \frac{\sqrt{2m}}{\pi} (\mu - m)^{3/2}$$ and the resulting particle density is given by $$\frac{\langle N \rangle}{L} = - \frac{df(\mu)}{d\mu} = \frac{\sqrt{2m}}{\pi}
\sqrt{\mu - m}.$$ This quantum field theoretic result can be translated back into the language of condensed matter physics. It yields an expression for the magnetization density $$\label{root}
\frac{\langle M^1 \rangle}{L} = \frac{\sqrt{2m}}{\pi} \sqrt{\frac{B}{c} - m}$$ as a function of the magnetic field $B$. The square root form was derived earlier in [@Chi97]. Our result yields an explicit expression for the prefactor as well.
In the next chapter we will present results of numerical simulations using the meron-cluster algorithm. The numerical results are obtained at small but non-zero temperatures and for ladders of large but finite lengths, while the above analytic expressions are for $\beta = L = \infty$. In particular, the results in the threshold region $\mu \approx m$ are very sensitive to finite-size and finite-temperature effects. Fortunately, these effects can still be understood analytically. In particular, the Bethe ansatz solution reveals that for not too large $\mu$ the system is equivalent to a dilute gas of fermions. Its magnetization density is hence given by $$\label{finitesize}
\frac{\langle M^1 \rangle}{L} = \frac{1}{L} \sum_{n \in {{\sf Z \!\!\! Z}}}
[1 + \exp(\beta (c \sqrt{(\frac{2 \pi n}{L})^2 + m^2} - B))]^{-1}.$$
Up to this point we have considered the mass-gap $m$ as an unknown constant. Based on results from [@Cha88; @Has90; @Has91], Chakravarty [@Cha96] has expressed the mass-gap of the ladder system as $$m = \frac{16 \pi \rho_s}{e c} \exp(- 2 \pi \rho_s L'/c)
[1 + \frac{c}{4 \pi \rho_s L'} + {\cal O}((\frac{c}{\rho_s L'})^2)].$$ For the spin $1/2$ quantum Heisenberg model with exchange coupling $J$ on a 2-d lattice of spacing $a$, the values of the spin stiffness $\rho_s = 0.1800(5) J$ and the spin-wave velocity $c = 1.657(2) Ja$ are known from very precise cluster algorithm simulations [@Bea98]. As discussed in [@Bea98], the above expression for the mass-gap is expected to be accurate for a sufficiently large number $L'/a > 12$ of coupled chains. The simulations in the present paper are performed at $L'/a = 4$ and are thus not expected to be described accurately by this formula. Still, for $L'/a = 4$ the value $m = 0.141(2)/a$ is known from the simulations of [@Syl97].
There is another interesting phenomenon that occurs at rather large values of the magnetic field, namely saturation of the magnetization — all spins follow the external field and the system becomes completely ferromagnetically ordered. This effect cannot be understood in the framework of the above low-energy effective theory because it assumes antiferromagnetic order. Still, it is easy to convince oneself that there must be a critical magnetic field beyond which saturation occurs. This effect is indeed observed in the numerical simulations described below.
Numerical Results
=================
We have performed numerical simulations with the meron-cluster algorithm for various quantum antiferromagnets in a uniform magnetic field $B$. To demonstrate the efficiency of the algorithm, we have compared it with the standard loop-cluster algorithm. In case of the loop algorithm, the magnetic field points in the direction of the spin quantization axis. Hence the ${{\sf Z \!\!\! Z}}(2)$ symmetry that allows the clusters to be flipped with probability $1/2$ at $B=0$ is explicitly broken by the magnetic field. In this case some loop-clusters can be flipped only with very small probability and the algorithm becomes inefficient for large values of $B$. In the meron-cluster algorithm, on the other hand, the magnetic field is perpendicular to the spin quantization axis and all clusters can still be flipped with probability $1/2$. Now the sign problem arises, but it is solved completely by the meron-cluster algorithm. Figure 3 compares the thermalization behavior of the magnetization of a 2-d Heisenberg antiferromagnet on an $8 \times 8$ lattice at $\beta J = 10$ with $M = 100$ for the loop-cluster algorithm and the meron-cluster algorithm. At $B=0.75J$, the loop-cluster algorithm takes about 20000 sweeps until thermal equilibrium is reached, while the meron-cluster algorithm equilibrates much faster. At $B=J$, the loop-cluster algorithm already needs more than 100000 equilibration sweeps, but the meron-cluster algorithm again has no thermalization problem. It should be pointed out that the loop-cluster algorithm works reasonably well for small values of $B$ and has been used in an interesting numerical study in [@Tro98]. However, for larger values of $B$ the meron-cluster algorithm is clearly superior. It would be interesting to compare the performance of the meron-cluster algorithm with that of the worm algorithm [@Pro96; @Kas99] and the stochastic series expansion technique [@San99].
Some of our data for the magnetization density $\langle M^1 \rangle a/L$ of 2-d antiferromagnetic spin systems on an $L/a \times L'/a$ lattice at inverse temperature $\beta$ are contained in table 2.
$L/a$ $L'/a$ $\beta J$ $M$ $B/J$ $\langle M^1 \rangle a/L$
------- -------- ----------- ----- ------- ---------------------------
8 8 10 100 0.75 0.488(6)
8 8 10 100 1.00 0.690(6)
20 4 15 200 0.10 0.0048(4)
20 4 15 200 0.20 0.0184(4)
20 4 15 200 0.30 0.0452(8)
20 4 15 200 0.40 0.086(2)
20 4 15 200 0.50 0.120(4)
20 4 15 200 1.00 0.324(4)
20 4 15 200 2.00 0.76(2)
20 4 15 200 3.00 1.280(8)
20 4 15 200 4.00 1.93(3)
20 4 15 200 4.20 2.000(8)
20 4 15 200 4.40 2.000(8)
40 4 24 300 0.10 0.00104(8)
40 4 24 300 0.20 0.0096(6)
40 4 24 300 0.30 0.042(2)
40 4 24 300 0.40 0.085(3)
40 4 24 300 0.50 0.117(7)
40 4 24 300 1.00 0.332(4)
: *Numerical results for the magnetization density $\langle M^1 \rangle a/L$ for various spatial sizes $L,L'$, inverse temperatures $\beta$, Trotter numbers $M$ and magnetic field values $B$.*
Figure 4 shows the probability to have a certain number of merons in an algorithm that samples all meron-sectors without reweighting. This calculation was done on an $8 \times 8$ lattice at $\beta J = 1$ and $M = 100$. For small values of $B$ the zero-meron sector and hence $\langle {\mbox{Sign}}\rangle$ are relatively large, while multi-meron configurations are rare. On the other hand, for larger values of the magnetic field the vast majority of configurations have a large number of merons and hence $\langle {\mbox{Sign}}\rangle$ is exponentially small. The meron-cluster algorithm suppresses the multi-meron configurations and concentrates on the zero-meron sector which is the only one that contributes to the magnetization.
Figure 5 shows the magnetization density of antiferromagnetic quantum spin ladders consisting of four coupled spin $1/2$ chains (i.e. $L'/a = 4$). The cases $L/a = 20, \beta J = 15, M = 200$ and $L/a = 40, \beta J = 24, M = 300$ have been investigated. Within our statistical errors these Trotter numbers give results indistinguishable from the time-continuum limit. In any case, following [@Bea96] it would be straightforward to implement the meron-cluster algorithm directly in the Euclidean time continuum. Using the values $m = 0.141(2)/a$ from [@Syl97] and $c = 1.657(2) Ja$ from [@Bea98], the finite volume, non-zero temperature expression of eq.(\[finitesize\]) that was derived for small values of $B$ (represented by the dashed curves in figure 5) describes the data rather well in that regime. Using the same values for $m$ and $c$, the infinite volume, zero temperature expression for $\langle M^1 \rangle/L$ that results from solving eqs.(\[free\]) and (\[epsilon\]) (represented by the solid curve in figure 5) is in good agreement with the numerical data for intermediate values of $B$. For $B/c$ slightly above the threshold $m$, the infinite volume, zero temperature expression for $\langle M^1 \rangle/L$ is given by eq.(\[root\]). In the threshold region finite size and finite temperature effects are rather large and our numerical data do not fall in the applicability range of eq.(\[root\]). As expected, for large values of $B$ the magnetization per spin saturates at $1/2$ (represented by the dotted curve in figure 5). Note that $\langle M^1 \rangle a/L = 2$ for $L'/a = 4$ in table 2 corresponds to a value $\langle M^1 \rangle a^2/(L L') = 1/2$ per spin. It should be stressed that the comparison of analytic and numerical results does not involve any adjustable parameters. Of course, one should not expect perfect agreement. Given the fact that the simulations were performed at $L'/a = 4$ while the analytic expressions were derived in the large $L'/a$ limit, the agreement between theory and numerical data is quite remarkable.
Conclusions
===========
Antiferromagnetic quantum spin systems in a uniform external magnetic field $B$ are very difficult to simulate numerically. For example, the standard loop-cluster algorithm, which is very efficient for $B=0$, suffers from exponential slowing down for large values of the field. Here we have traded this slowing down problem for a severe sign problem by a change of the spin quantization axis. Meron-cluster algorithms provide a general strategy to deal with sign problems and have previously led to a complete solution of severe fermion sign problems [@Cha99a; @Cha99b; @Cha99c; @Cox99]. Here we have generalized the meron concept to quantum spins in a magnetic field, which again led to a complete solution of the sign problem for these bosonic systems. Our numerical simulations of quantum spin ladders are in agreement with analytic predictions and confirm that ladders consisting of an even number of transversely coupled spin $1/2$ chains are described by a $(1+1)$-d $O(3)$ symmetric quantum field theory.
In conclusion, the meron concept provides us with a powerful algorithmic tool — the meron-cluster algorithm — which can lead to a complete solution of severe sign problems. In this paper we have demonstrated that this algorithm allows us to simulate bosonic quantum spin systems in an arbitrary magnetic field. The next challenge is to construct meron-cluster algorithms for systems that show high-temperature superconductivity. A first step in this direction was taken in [@Cox99]. In that paper a Hamiltonian with the symmetries of the Hubbard model but with enhanced antiferromagnetic couplings has been investigated. The enhanced antiferromagnetic couplings allowed us to solve the fermion sign problem in that model. It turned out that after doping the model undergoes phase separation and does not superconduct. It remains to be seen if meron-cluster algorithms can also be constructed for models that show high-temperature superconductivity.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We have benefited from discussions about cluster algorithms with R. Brower, H. G. Evertz and M. Troyer. Furthermore, we are grateful to P. Hasenfratz and F. Niedermayer for very useful remarks about the Bethe ansatz solution of the 2-d $O(3)$ model. U.-J. W. also likes to thank the theory group of Erlangen University where this work was completed for its hospitality and the A. P. Sloan foundation for its support.
[10]{}
S. Chandrasekharan and U.-J. Wiese, cond-mat/9902128.
S. Chandrasekharan, J. Cox, K. Holland and U.-J. Wiese, hep-lat/9906021.
S. Chandrasekharan, hep-lat/9909007.
J. Cox, C. Gattringer, K. Holland, B. Scarlet and U.-J. Wiese, hep-lat/9909119.
W. Bietenholz, A. Pochinsky and U.-J. Wiese, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 4524.
U.-J. Wiese and H.-P. Ying, Phys. Lett. A168 (1992) 143.
H. G. Evertz, G. Lana and M. Marcu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 (1993) 875.
U.-J. Wiese and H.-P. Ying, Z. Phys. B93 (1994) 147.
H. G. Evertz, The loop algorithm, in Numerical Methods for Lattice Quantum Many-Body Problems, ed. D. J. Scalapino, Addison-Wesley Longman, Frontiers in Physics
B. B. Beard and U.-J. Wiese, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 5130.
N. V. Prokof’ev, B. V. Svistunov and I. S. Tupitsyn, Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 64 (1996) 853 \[JETP Lett. 64 (1996) 911\]; Phys. Lett. A238 (1998) 253; JETP Lett. 87 (1998) 318.
V. A. Kashurnikov, N. V. Prokof’ev, B. V. Svistunov and M. Troyer, Phys. Rev. B59 (1999) 1162.
A. W. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. B59 (1999) R14157.
E. Dagotto and T. M. Rice, Science 271 (1996) 618.
F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50 (1983) 1153.
D. V. Khveshchenko, Phys. Rev. B50 (1994) 380.
S. R. White, R. M. Noack and D. J. Scalapino, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73 (1994) 886.
G. Sierra, J. Phys. A29 (1996) 3299.
M. Greven, R. J. Birgeneau and U.-J. Wiese, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 1865.
O. F. Syljuasen, S. Chakravarty and M. Greven, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997) 4115.
S. Chakravarty, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 4446.
R. Brower, S. Chandrasekharan and U.-J. Wiese, Physica A261 (1998) 520.
S. Chakravarty, B. I. Halperin and D. R. Nelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60 (1988) 1057; Phys. Rev. B39 (1989) 2344.
P. B. Wiegmann, Phys. Lett. B152 (1985) 209.
P. Hasenfratz, M. Maggiore and F. Niedermayer, Phys. Lett. B245 (1990) 522.
P. Hasenfratz and F. Niedermayer, Phys. Lett. B268 (1991) 231.
B. B. Beard, R. J. Birgeneau, M. Greven and U.-J. Wiese, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 (1998) 1742.
R. Chitra and T. Giamarchi, Phys. Rev. B55 (1997) 5816.
M. Troyer and S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 5418.
[^1]: This work is supported in part by funds provided by the U.S. Department of Energy (D.O.E.) under cooperative research agreements DE-FC02-94ER40818 and DE-FG02-96ER40949.
[^2]: The term meron is traditionally used to denote a half-instanton.
[^3]: This was pointed out to one of the authors by H. G. Evertz and M. Troyer some time ago.
[^4]: The fact that an improved estimator alone cannot solve the sign problem was pointed out to one of the authors by H. G. Evertz a long time ago.
[^5]: We thank R. Brower for introducing us to the $\delta$-function method.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'A precision measurement of the $D^0$ meson mass has been made using $\sim\!281$ pb$^{-1}$ of $e^{+}e^{-}$ annihilation data taken with the CLEO-c detector at the $\psi(3770)$ resonance. The exclusive decay $D^0\to K_S \phi$ has been used to obtain $M(D^0)=1864.847\pm0.150(\mathrm{stat})\pm0.095(\mathrm{syst})\;\mathrm{MeV}$. This corresponds to $M(D^0\overline{D^{*0}})=3871.81\pm0.36$ MeV, and leads to a well–constrained determination of the binding energy of the proposed $D^0\overline{D^{*0}}$ molecule X(3872), as $E_b=0.6\pm0.6~\mathrm{MeV}$.'
author:
- 'C. Cawlfield'
- 'B. I. Eisenstein'
- 'I. Karliner'
- 'D. Kim'
- 'N. Lowrey'
- 'P. Naik'
- 'M. Selen'
- 'E. J. White'
- 'J. Wiss'
- 'R. E. Mitchell'
- 'M. R. Shepherd'
- 'D. Besson'
- 'T. K. Pedlar'
- 'D. Cronin-Hennessy'
- 'K. Y. Gao'
- 'J. Hietala'
- 'Y. Kubota'
- 'T. Klein'
- 'B. W. Lang'
- 'R. Poling'
- 'A. W. Scott'
- 'A. Smith'
- 'P. Zweber'
- 'S. Dobbs'
- 'Z. Metreveli'
- 'K. K. Seth'
- 'A. Tomaradze'
- 'J. Ernst'
- 'K. M. Ecklund'
- 'H. Severini'
- 'W. Love'
- 'V. Savinov'
- 'O. Aquines'
- 'Z. Li'
- 'A. Lopez'
- 'S. Mehrabyan'
- 'H. Mendez'
- 'J. Ramirez'
- 'G. S. Huang'
- 'D. H. Miller'
- 'V. Pavlunin'
- 'B. Sanghi'
- 'I. P. J. Shipsey'
- 'B. Xin'
- 'G. S. Adams'
- 'M. Anderson'
- 'J. P. Cummings'
- 'I. Danko'
- 'D. Hu'
- 'B. Moziak'
- 'J. Napolitano'
- 'Q. He'
- 'J. Insler'
- 'H. Muramatsu'
- 'C. S. Park'
- 'E. H. Thorndike'
- 'F. Yang'
- 'T. E. Coan'
- 'Y. S. Gao'
- 'M. Artuso'
- 'S. Blusk'
- 'J. Butt'
- 'J. Li'
- 'N. Menaa'
- 'R. Mountain'
- 'S. Nisar'
- 'K. Randrianarivony'
- 'R. Sia'
- 'T. Skwarnicki'
- 'S. Stone'
- 'J. C. Wang'
- 'K. Zhang'
- 'G. Bonvicini'
- 'D. Cinabro'
- 'M. Dubrovin'
- 'A. Lincoln'
- 'D. M. Asner'
- 'K. W. Edwards'
- 'R. A. Briere'
- 'T. Ferguson'
- 'G. Tatishvili'
- 'H. Vogel'
- 'M. E. Watkins'
- 'J. L. Rosner'
- 'N. E. Adam'
- 'J. P. Alexander'
- 'D. G. Cassel'
- 'J. E. Duboscq'
- 'R. Ehrlich'
- 'L. Fields'
- 'R. S. Galik'
- 'L. Gibbons'
- 'R. Gray'
- 'S. W. Gray'
- 'D. L. Hartill'
- 'B. K. Heltsley'
- 'D. Hertz'
- 'C. D. Jones'
- 'J. Kandaswamy'
- 'D. L. Kreinick'
- 'V. E. Kuznetsov'
- 'H. Mahlke-Krüger'
- 'P. U. E. Onyisi'
- 'J. R. Patterson'
- 'D. Peterson'
- 'J. Pivarski'
- 'D. Riley'
- 'A. Ryd'
- 'A. J. Sadoff'
- 'H. Schwarthoff'
- 'X. Shi'
- 'S. Stroiney'
- 'W. M. Sun'
- 'T. Wilksen'
- 'S. B. Athar'
- 'R. Patel'
- 'V. Potlia'
- 'J. Yelton'
- 'P. Rubin'
date: 'January 30, 2007'
title: A Precision Determination of the $D^0$ Mass
---
The $D^0\;(c\bar{u})$ and $D^\pm\;(c\bar{d},\;\bar{c}d)$ mesons form the ground states of the open charm system. The knowledge of their masses is important for its own sake, but a precision determination of the $D^0$ mass has become more important because of the recent discovery of a narrow state known as X(3872) [@belleX; @cdfX; @d0X; @babarX]. Many different theoretical models have been proposed [@x-cc; @x-hybrid; @x-gb; @x-mol] to explain the nature of this state, whose present average of measured masses is $M({\rm X})=3871.2\pm0.5$ MeV [@pdg]. A provocative and challenging theoretical suggestion is that X(3872) is a loosely bound molecule of $D^0$ and $\overline{D^{*0}}$ mesons [@x-mol]. This suggestion arises mainly from the closeness of $M({\rm X}(3872))$ to $M(D^0)+M(D^{*0})=2M(D^0) + \Delta [M(D^{*0})-M(D^0)]=2(1864.1\pm1.0)+(142.12\pm0.07)~\mathrm{MeV}=3870.32\pm2.0~\mathrm{MeV}$ based on the PDG [@pdg] *average* value of the measured $D^0$ mass, $M(D^0)=1864.1\pm1.0$ MeV. This gives the binding energy of the proposed molecule, $E_{b}(\mathrm{X}(3872))\equiv M(D^0) + M(D^{*0}) - M({\rm X}(3872)) =-0.9\pm2.1$ MeV. Although the negative value of the binding energy would indicate that X(3872) is not a bound state of $D^0$ and $\overline{D^{*0}}$, its $\pm$2.1 MeV error does not preclude this possibility. It is necessary to measure the masses of both $D^0$ and X(3872) with much improved precision to reach a firm conclusion. In this Letter we report on a precision measurement of the $D^0$ mass, and provide a more constrained value of the binding energy of X(3872) as a molecule.
Several earlier measurements of the $D^0$ mass exist [@pdg]. The only previous measurements in which sub-MeV precision was claimed are the SLAC measurements of $e^{+}e^{-}\to \psi(3770)\to D^0\overline{D^0}$ by the lead glass wall (LGW) [@mark1] and the Mark II [@mark2] collaborations, and the CERN measurement by the NA32 experiment with 230 GeV $\pi^{-}$ incident on a copper target [@na32]. All three measurements determined the $D^0$ mass using $D^0\to K^-\pi^+$ and $D^0\to K^-\pi^+\pi^-\pi^+$ (and charge conjugates) decays. In the SLAC measurements the beam constrained mass was determined as $M^{2}(D^0)=E^2_{\mathrm{beam}}-p^2_D$. The results were $M(D^0)$ = 1863.3 $\pm$ 0.9 $\mathrm{MeV}$ (LGW [@mark1]), and $M(D^0)$ = 1863.8 $\pm$ 0.5 $\mathrm{MeV}$ (Mark II [@mark2]). The NA32 experiment reported $M(D^0)$ = 1864.6 $\pm$ 0.3($\mathrm{stat}$) $\pm$ 1.0($\mathrm{syst})~\mathrm{MeV}$ from a simultaneous fit of the mass and lifetime of $D^0$ in the two decays, with the main contribution to the systematic uncertainty arising from magnetic field calibration. The PDG [@pdg] lists the resulting average $D^0$ mass based on the measured $D^0$ masses as $M(D^0)_{\mathrm{AVG}}$=1864.1 $\pm$ 1.0 MeV. They also list a fitted mass, $M(D^0)_{\mathrm{FIT}}$=1864.5 $\pm$ 0.4 MeV, based on the updated results of measurements of $D^\pm$, $D^0$, $D^\pm_s$, $D^{*\pm}$, $D^{*0}$, and $D_s^{*\pm}$ masses and mass differences.
We analyze $\sim281$ pb$^{-1}$ of $e^{+}e^{-}$ annihilation data taken at the $\psi(3770)$ resonance at the Cornell Electron Storage Ring (CESR) with the CLEO-c detector to measure the $D^0$ mass using the reaction $$\psi(3770)\to D^0\overline{D^0},\; D^0 \to K_S\phi,\;K_S\to\pi^+\pi^-,\;\phi\to K^+K^-.$$ Our choice of the $D^0\to K_S\phi$ decay mode is motivated by several considerations. Our determination of the $D^0$ mass does not depend on the precision of the determination of the beam energy. Since $M(\phi)+M(K_S) = 1517$ MeV is a substantial fraction of $M(D^0)$, the final state particles have small momenta and the uncertainty in their measurement makes a small contribution to the total uncertainty in $M(D^0)$. This consideration favors $D^0\to K_S\phi$ decay over the more prolific decays $D^0\to K\pi$ and $D^0\to K\pi\pi\pi$, in which the decay particles have considerably larger momenta and therefore greater sensitivity to the measurement uncertainties. An additional advantage of the $D^0\to K_S\phi$ reaction is that in fitting for $M(D^0)$ the mass of $K_S$ can be constrained to its value which is known with precision [@pdg].
The CLEO-c detector [@CLEOcDetector] consists of a CsI(Tl) electromagnetic calorimeter, an inner vertex drift chamber, a central drift chamber, and a ring imaging Cherenkov (RICH) detector inside a superconducting solenoid magnet providing a 1.0 Tesla magnetic field. For the present measurements, the important components are the drift chambers, which provide a coverage of 93% of $4\pi$ for the charged particles. The final state pions and kaons from the decays of $K_S$ and $\phi$ have momenta less than 600 MeV/$c$, and they are efficiently identified using measurements of track vertices and ionization loss ($dE/dx$) in the drift chambers. The detector response was studied using a GEANT-based Monte Carlo simulation [@GEANTMC].
We select $D^0$ candidates using the standard CLEO D–tagging criteria, which impose a very loose requirement on the beam energy constrained $D^0$ mass, as described in Ref. [@dtag]. We select well-measured tracks by requiring that they be fully contained in the barrel region ($|\cos\theta| < 0.8$) of the detector, have transverse momenta $>120$ MeV/$c$, and have specific ionization energy loss, $dE/dx$, in the drift chamber consistent with pion or kaon hypothesis within 3 standard deviations. For the pions from $K_S$ decay, we make the additional requirement that they originate from a common vertex displaced from the interaction point by more than 10 mm. We require a $K_S$ flight distance significance of more than 3 standard deviations. We accept $K_S$ candidates with mass in the range $497.7\pm12.0$ MeV. In addition, for the $K_S$ candidates from the exclusive reaction $D^0\to K_S\phi$, we perform a mass-constrained (1C) kinematic fit and accept in our final sample $K_S$ with $\chi^2<20$. The $\pi^+\pi^-$ invariant mass distribution is shown in the upper panel of Fig. 1 with a fit to a sum of two Gaussians. The fit results are: $M(K_S)$=497.545 $\pm$ 0.112 MeV, $\chi^2/d.o.f.=0.6$, and full width at half maximum, FWHM = 5.0 MeV. While the fit is very good, because of the limited statistics the resulting $M(K_S)$ does not have the precision required for testing the calibration of the detector. As described later, we use the large statistics data for the inclusive $K_S$ production, $D\to K_S+X$, for that purpose. The lower panel of Fig. 1 shows the $K^+K^-$ invariant mass distribution. The data are fitted with a Breit-Wigner of width $\Gamma(\phi)$ = 4.26 MeV [@pdg] convoluted with the Monte Carlo determined Gaussian with FWHM = 2.8 MeV, and a linear background. The fit results in $M(\phi)$ = 1019.518 $\pm$ 0.243 MeV, $\chi^2/d.o.f.=1.1$. We select events containing a $\phi$ by requiring that $M(K^+K^-)$ of the candidate kaons is within $\pm15~\mathrm{MeV}$ of the value $M(\phi)=1019.46$ MeV [@pdg].
{width="3.5in"} {width="3.5in"}
Figure 2 shows the invariant mass spectrum of the $D^0$ candidates constructed with $K_S$ and $\phi$ as identified above. A likelihood fit of the data in the region 1840–1890 MeV was done with a Gaussian peak and a constant background. An excellent fit is obtained with the number of fitted events $N(D^0)=319\pm18$, $\sigma=2.52\pm0.12$ MeV (FWHM = 5.9 MeV), $\chi^2/d.o.f.=0.7$, and $$M(D^0)=1864.847\pm0.150(\mathrm{stat})~\mathrm{MeV}.$$
{width="3.5in"}
The key to the precision measurement of the $D^0$ mass is in determining the accuracy in the detector calibration which can be studied by constructing $M(K_S)$ and $M(\phi)$ from the measured momenta of the final state particles, $\pi^\pm$ and $K^\pm$. We find that $M(\phi)$ is not very sensitive to these variations, because the $K^\pm$ have very small momenta in the rest frame of the $\phi$. On the other hand, $M(K_S)$ is quite sensitive to the uncertainty in the relatively larger momenta of $\pi^\pm$ in the rest frame of the $K_S$. The sensitivity of $M(D^0)$ is also large as a consequence of the sensitivity of $M(K_S)$. We therefore conclude that $M(K_S)$ can be best used to determine the accuracy of the detector calibration. As mentioned before, the exclusive sample of $D^0\to K_S\phi$ events does not yield a statistically useful result for $M(K_S)$. It is possible to determine $M(K_S)$ with much higher statistical precision using inclusive $K_S$ production in $D$ decays, $D\to K_S+X$. Inclusive $K_S$’s were selected from each event that had at least one candidate $D$ decay. The $K_S$ mesons from the decays $D^0\to K_S\phi$ have momenta in the range of $p(K_S)\approx 0.40-0.65$ GeV/$c$. We therefore determine $M(K_S)$ for this range of $p(K_S)$ in the inclusive decays.
{width="3.5in"}
Figure 3 shows the $M(\pi^+\pi^-)$ distribution for the inclusive reaction, with $p(K_S)$ in the range $0.40-0.65$ GeV/$c$. A fit with the peak shape given by the sum of two Gaussians and a linear background returns $$M(K_S)=497.648\pm0.007(\mathrm{stat})~\mathrm{MeV}.$$ The fit has 115,235 $\pm$ 450 events, $\chi^2/d.o.f.=1.07$, and FWHM = 4.7 MeV.
In order to estimate the systematic error in the above determination of $M(K_S)$, we have studied the variation of $M(K_S)$ as a function of several observables associated with $K_S$: $p$($\pi^{\pm}, K_S$), $p_T$($\pi^{\pm}$), $p_L$($\pi^{\pm}$), flight distance($K_S)$, flight significance($K_S$), $\cos(\theta)$($\pi^{\pm}, K_S)$, and $\pi^+\pi^-$ opening angle. The largest variation in $M(K_S)$ was found with respect to the variation in $\cos(\theta)$ and $p_T$ of $\pi^+$. The observed variations contribute a $\pm28$ keV systematic uncertainty in our determination of $M(K_S)$.
It is found that Monte Carlo events have a reconstructed output $M(K_S)$ which differs by $\pm$21 keV from the input value of $M(K_S)$. In addition, we determine systematic uncertainties for different peak fitting procedures: $\pm9~\mathrm{keV}$ from variation of the peak shape, $\pm1~\mathrm{keV}$ from variation of bin size from 62 keV to 250 keV, and $\pm8~\mathrm{keV}$ from variation of fitting range from 15 MeV to 20 MeV. Thus, added in quadrature, the total systematic uncertainty in $M(K_S)$ from the inclusive data is $\pm37~\mathrm{keV}$, and our final result is $$M(K_S)=497.648\pm0.007(\mathrm{stat})\pm0.037(\mathrm{syst})~\mathrm{MeV}.$$ Since $M(K_S)_{\mathrm{PDG}}=497.648\pm0.022$ MeV, $$M(K_S) - M(K_S)_{\mathrm{PDG}} = 0.000\pm0.044~\mathrm{MeV}.$$ To be conservative, we consider the above maximum difference $\pm44$ keV to be a reflection of the possible uncertainty in the momentum calibration of the detector, which likely arises from uncertainty in the magnetic field calibration and uniformity. The $B$–field of the CLEO-c detector is set by scaling a map of the $B$–field such that the measured mass of $J/\psi\to \mu^{+}\mu^{-}$ lies at the mass of $J/\psi$ [@pdg]. We have tried several different ways to impose ad-hoc changes in the measured momenta of the pions to produce a $\pm44~\mathrm{keV}$ change in $M(K_S)$ in the *inclusive* data. We find that when these same changes are applied to the measured momenta of all $\pi^\pm$ and $K^\pm$ in the *exclusive* data, in all cases the change in $M(D^0)$ is nearly twice as large as the change in $M(K_S)$. We therefore assign $\pm90~\mathrm{keV}$ as the uncertainty in $M(D^0)$ due to the uncertainty in the momentum calibration of the detector.
An independent confirmation of this conclusion is obtained by measuring the mass of $\psi(2S)$ via the reaction $\psi(2S)\to\pi^+\pi^-J/\psi$, which produces $\pi^\pm$ with nearly the same momenta as $\pi^+\pi^-$ and $K^+K^-$ from the $D^0$ exclusive data. A sample of CLEO-c data for $\psi(2S)\to\pi^+\pi^-J/\psi$, $J/\psi\to \mu^{+}\mu^{-}$ was analyzed with the track selection and fitting procedure similar to those used to determine $M(D^0)$. A mass-constrained kinematic fit for $J/\psi$ was performed, similar to that done for the $K_S$ in our $D^{0}$ decay. The fit resulted in $M(\psi(2S))=3686.122\pm0.021~\mathrm{MeV}$. This differs from the most precise measurement of $M(\psi(2S))=3686.111\pm0.027~\mathrm{MeV}$ by the KEDR collaboration [@kedr] by $\Delta M(\psi(2S))=11\pm34~\mathrm{keV}$. Since the detector $B$–field was calibrated at $J/\psi$, this difference can be attributed to the uncertainty in measurement of $\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ momenta, just as in the case of $\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ in inclusive $K_S$. This assures us that our assignment of $\pm90~\mathrm{keV}$ as the systematic uncertainty in $M(D^0)$ due to detector calibration is conservative.
Systematic Error(MeV)
------------------------------------ -----------------------
Detector Calibration $\pm0.090$
Monte–Carlo input/output $\pm0.022$
Bin size (0.002–2 MeV) $\pm0.018$
Unbinned fit $\pm0.007$
Peak Shape(single/double Gaussian) $\pm0.003$
Background Shape (const./linear) $\pm0.007$
Fit interval ($\pm$20 MeV) $\pm0.002$
Sum in Quadrature $\pm0.095$
: Summary of systematic errors in $M(D^0)$.
Other contributions to systematic errors in $M(D^0)$ are smaller, and are listed in Table I.
Thus, our final result is $$M(D^0)=1864.847\pm0.150(\mathrm{stat})\pm0.095(\mathrm{syst})\;\mathrm{MeV}.$$ Adding the errors in quadrature, we obtain $$M(D^0)=1864.847\pm0.178~\mathrm{MeV}.$$ This is significantly more precise that the current PDG average [@pdg].
Our result for $M(D^0)$ leads to $M(D^0\overline{D^{*0}})$ = 3871.81 $\pm$ 0.36 MeV. Thus, the binding energy of X(3872) as a $D^0\overline{D^{*0}}$ molecule is $E_b=(3871.81\pm0.36)-(3871.2\pm0.5)=+0.6\pm0.6~~\mathrm{MeV}.$ This result provides a strong constraint for the theoretical predictions for the decays of X(3872) if it is a $D^0\overline{D^{*0}}$ molecule [@x-mol]. The error in the binding energy is now dominated by the error in the X(3872) mass measurement, which will hopefully improve as the results from the analysis of larger luminosity data from various experiments become available.
We gratefully acknowledge the effort of the CESR staff in providing us with excellent luminosity and running conditions. This work was supported by the A.P. Sloan Foundation, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
[99]{}
Belle Collaboration, S. K. Choi *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 262001 (2003).
CDF II Collaboration, D. Acosta *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 072001 (2004).
D[Ø]{} Collaboration, V. M. Abazov [et al.]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. **93**, 162002 (2004).
Collaboration, B. Aubert *et al.*, Phys. Rev. **D 71**, 071103 (2005).
E. J. Eichten, K. Lane, and C. Quigg, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 162002 (2002); Phys. Rev. [**D 69**]{}, 094019 (2004); T. Barnes and S. Godfrey, Phys. Rev. [**D 69**]{}, 054008 (2004).
F. E. Close and P. R. Page, Phys. Lett. **B 578**, 119 (2004).
K. K. Seth, Phys. Lett. **B 612**, 1 (2005).
E. S. Swanson, Phys. Lett. **B 588**, 189 (2004); N. A. Törnqvist, Phys. Lett. **B 599**, 209 (2004); M. B. Voloshin, Phys. Lett. **B 579**, 316 (2004).
Particle Data Group, W.-M. Yao *et al.*, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. **33**, 1 (2006).
I. Peruzzi *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **39**, 1301 (1977).
R.H. Schindler *et al.*, Phys. Rev. **D 24**, 78 (1981).
ACCMOR Collaboration, S. Barlag *et al.*, Zeit. für Phys. **C 46**, 563 (1990).
G. Viehhauser, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. **A 462**, 146 (2001); D. Peterson *et al.*, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. **A 478**, 142 (2002).
R. Brun *et al.*, CERN Long Writeup W5013 (1994), unpublished.
CLEO Collaboration, Q. He *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **95**, 121801 (2005).
KEDR Collaboration, V. M. Aulchenko *et al.*, Phys. Lett. **B 573**, 63 (2003).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
\]
Recently, the improvement of momentum resolution in ARPES has generated new discussions about the interpretation of the electronic dynamic and its relation with the phenomena of high-$Tc$ superconductivity.
In one of these experiments [@Valla] the energy distribution curves (EDC) and momentum distribution curves (MDC) in Bi2212 (optimally doped) gave important information about the electron self-energy $\Sigma(\vec{k},\omega)$. The main result of [@Valla] was related with the suitable linear frequency dependence of the $-Im(\Sigma(\vec{k},\omega))$ with no saturation up to frequencies of the order of $150 meV$. Surprisingly, this result is very similar to the one already predicted in the early days of the HTC superconductivity [@Varma]. In particular, Anderson [@Anderson] and Abrahams and Varma [@Abrahams] related these new results with their original ideas of spin-charge separation and marginal Fermi liquid (MFL) theory respectively.
However, the subsequent ARPES experiments in Bi2212 [@Bogdanov; @Kaminski] showed a new picture. Both papers found the presence of a kink in the electron dispersion near the Fermi surface (FS). This kink is basically a change in the slope of the dispersion, near the FS, by a factor of two and is related with an energy scale of the order of $50 meV$. It is interesting to note that this low energy scale was not discussed in [@Valla] but a close inspection of this paper shows that the kink was also observed there (see Fig.1 of [@Valla])
A straightforward interpretation for the break in the electron dispersion is associated with a change in the Fermi velocities (FV), near the FS, by a factor of two. This can be related with a quasiparticle weight $z=1/(1+\lambda) \sim 0.5$, giving a characteristic coupling $\lambda \sim 1$. But if $z$ is finite, the system behaves like a Fermi liquid (FL). On the other hand, as we mentioned above, the experiment shows that $-Im(\Sigma(\vec{k},\omega))$ is linear in $\omega$ implying a zero quasiparticle weight at the FS which is not consistent with a FL picture. Therefore, it is important to investigate whether the kink is consistent only with a FL picture or it can also be interpreted in terms of non Fermi liquid theories.
The presence of this kink, which nowadays is well accepted, opens several and relevant questions: which mechanism provides the energy scale of the kink?; is $-Im(\Sigma(\vec{k},\omega))$ really linear in $\omega$ for all $\omega$ or, it deviates near the FS?; if so, is spin-charge separation or MFL the right scenario to account for this low energy breakdown of the linear behavior?.
Further experiments [@Lanzara] showed the kink also in monolayer compounds LSCO and Bi2201 for several dopings (underdoped, optimally doped and overdoped). It was also shown in [@Bogdanov; @Johnson] that the kink and the self energy effects are rather isotropic through the Brillouin zone (BZ) and it exists below and above $T_c$. Another interesting feature of the kink is its evolution with temperature $T$. When $T$ increases the change of the slope of the dispersion decreases, making the kink less evident.
There are two main explanations for the kink. The first one relates the kink with a magnetic excitation[@Eschrig] which appears as a resonant peak in neutron scattering measurements [@Fong] and the second one associates the kink with the electron-phonon interaction(EPHI) [@Zeyher; @Shen]. In Ref. [@Zeyher] using a large-N expansion on the t-J model, it was shown that phonons are better candidates than the resonant peak to explain the low energy features associated with the kink. Besides, from the experimental point of view, as it was mentioned above, the kink is observed in optimally and overdoped regime above $Tc$ and also in monolayer compounds. As the resonant peak was only observed in the superconducting phase of the bilayer compounds, it is problematic to associate the kink with this magnetic resonance. Therefore, in the present paper we will take the EPHI [@Zeyher; @Shen] as the origin of the kink.
At this point we note that an EPHI can not explain the linear behavior of $-Im(\Sigma)$, measured in ARPES, with no saturation up to frequencies much larger than the Debye frequency. Recently this linear behavior in $-Im(\Sigma)$ was experimentally re-investigated for several dopings from under to overdoped [@Yusof].
One important characteristic of the electron dispersion is that, in contrast to usual metals [@Mahan; @Valla1], does not go to the one-electron band predicted from LDA calculation up to the measured energy of $200 meV$ (much larger than the Debye energy). This was remarked only in [@Bogdanov] (to our knowledge). It will be a very important point in the present paper. Moreover, we consider that this is a clear manifestation of the existence of large $-Im(\Sigma)$ at large $\omega$, as observed in Bi2212.
In this paper we will analyze the latest ARPES experiments in the context of the MFL. We will show that the MFL with an additional electron-phonon interaction can reproduce the ARPES results quite well. Our calculation will show that a slope-change in the dispersion of order two is also compatible with a theory that predicts a zero quasiparticle weight $z$ at the FE. We point out that our analysis will be based manly on phenomenological grounds. It means that we will not solve or treat rigorously any microscopic Hamiltonian.
We will consider the following total self-energy $\Sigma(\vec{k},\omega)=\Sigma_{MFL}(\vec{k},\omega)+\Sigma_{e-ph}(
\vec{k},\omega)$ with $\Sigma_{MFL}(\vec{k},\omega)$ the MFL self energy [@Varma] given by $\Sigma_{MFL}(\vec{k},\omega)=\lambda[\omega log(\frac{x}{\omega_c}-i
\frac{\pi}{2} x)]$. $x=max(|\omega|,T)$ and $\lambda$ is a coupling constant (as we are interested in the general behavior we neglect, as a first approximation, possible vertex corrections). An important characteristic of the MFL theory is the isotropic nature of the self-energy. $\Sigma_{e-ph}$ is the contribution to the self energy by the EPHI. The result for $\Sigma_{e-ph}$ is not sensitive weather we use in its calculation the MFL Green function ($G_{MFL}=1/(i\omega_n-(\epsilon(k)-\Sigma_{MFL})$) or the simple bare electron Green function. This result is more evident when the cutoff $\omega_c$ increases. According to this remark, in the following we will present results for $\Sigma_{e-ph}$ using the bare Green function.
In the following we will consider a Holstein model, with Debye frequency $\omega_{D}$, for phonons and a $\vec{k}$-independent electron-phonon coupling $\lambda^{ph}$. We will also calculate $\Sigma_{e-ph}$ assuming a constant electronic density of state (DOS). A more accurate calculation, which include a more realistic model for the electrons and phonons, will not change the main conclusion of the present paper.
We also need the one-electron band $\epsilon(\vec{k})$. For $\epsilon(\vec{k})$ we assume $\epsilon(\vec{k})=-2t(cos(k_x)+cos(k_y))+4t'cos(k_x)cos(k_y)$ with $t=150meV$ and $t'/t=0.25$. With these parameters $\epsilon(\vec{k})$ reproduces the FS of Bi2212 [@Norman]. The small value of these hopping parameters means that they are renormalized by electronic correlations [@Moreo; @Zeyher]. We will present calculations for doping $\delta=0.20$ away from half-filling.
In Fig.1 we show the imaginary part of the total electron self-energy for the parameters $\lambda^{ph}=0.75$, $\omega_D=34.5 meV$, $\omega_c=1.8 eV$ and $\lambda=(2/\pi)0.55$. We choose the parameters in order to reproduce the experimental results of [@Valla]. Moreover, we fix the parameters in order to reproduce the difference, at zero frequency between $-Im(\Sigma)$ at $300K$ and $90K$. Using this criteria we avoid the uncertainty due to the contribution of the impurities in the samples.
The agreement between the results of Fig. 1 and the experiments is quite good with characteristic phonon parameters consistent with those previously proposed[@Zeyher; @Andersen]. On the other hand we can see in Fig. 1 the overlap between the results for $T=300K$ and $90K$ for frequencies larger than $60 meV$. This fact was experimentally observed and put strong constraints on the values of the $\lambda^{ph}$ and $\omega_D$. Smaller values of these two parameters will not reproduce the mentioned overlap. In the inset of the figure we show the behavior of $-Im(\Sigma_{MFL})$ for a pure marginal Fermi liquid model at the same two temperatures. We can see the qualitatively similar behavior in $\omega$ between the inset and the main figure. Therefore as was discussed in Ref. [@Valla], it is possible to describe the experimental result with a pure MFL model by increasing $\lambda$ from our value of $\lambda=(2/\pi)0.55$ [@Valla]. We conclude that is not possible to distinguish between the two models by solely fitting $-Im(\Sigma)$. We need, in addition the $Re(\Sigma)$. This information enters directly in the kink or break of the dispersion near the FS as we will show later. Nevertheless, if it were possible to measure $-Im(\Sigma)$ for larger energies than the ones currently available, our model predicts a splitting between the results for $-Im(\Sigma)$ corresponding to this two temperatures for $\omega >> \omega_D$. This should be a possible experimental check of the present model.
In Fig.2 we present results for the electron dispersion near the FS in the nodal direction. This dispersion was obtained as the energy position of the main peak, for a given $\vec{k}$, of the spectral function calculated with the self energy correction previously discussed. In Fig. 2 the kink is clearly observed (diamonds) at 50K near the FS. For large binding energy the electron dispersion (diamonds) does not go to the one-electron band (circles). It is also clear that, when the temperature increases from 50K to 130K, the kink is less evident like in the experiment. At larger energies than the Debye frequencies, the band goes to the pure MFL results. The figure also shows, at small temperatures, a change in the slope of the dispersion consistent with the experiment. This also means that our phonon parameters have the correct order of magnitude. The inset of the figure shows the electron dispersion corresponding to MFL at two different temperatures. From this inset we conclude that the pure MFL theory cannot reproduce the kink. There is only a small deviation (if the temperature is large) near the FS but in the opposite direction to the experiment.
From the results shown in Fig. 2 we conclude that: to explain the kink in the context of MFL we really need an EPHI which provides an energy scale of the order of $50 meV$. The presence of an EPHI to explain the kink does not mean a weakness of the MFL, on the contrary, we think that the MFL is an excellent phenomenological insight to discuss the physics of high-$T_c$ cuprates.
In Fig. 3a we plot the inverse of the quasiparticle weight $Z=1-(Re(\Sigma(\omega))-Re(\Sigma(0)))/\omega$ ($Z=z^{-1}$) for the case of only MFL $Z_{MFL}$ (dashed line), only phonons $Z_{ph}$ (dot-dashed line) and the total case $Z$ (solid line). As it is well know, the quasiparticle weight goes to zero logarithmically at zero $\omega$ for the pure MFL. The solid line shows that $Z$ goes to infinity (the quasiparticle weight goes to zero) logarithmically but also shows the structure at $\omega=\omega_D$ which is the responsible for the kink. From Fig. 3a, we can say that a change in the slope by a factor of two does not means that we really have a FL picture. In our case we can reproduce the main features of ARPES together with a zero quasiparticle weight at the FS.
One relevant question for high-$Tc$ cuprates is weather the relaxation time $1/\tau$ measured in ARPES determines the transport properties. The $DC$ resistivity can be calculated as $\rho=4\pi / {\Omega_p}^2 \tau_{tr}$ where, in usual metals at high temperature, $1/\tau_{tr}= 2 \pi \lambda_{tr}^{ph} T$ [@Mahan; @Burgy]. On the other hand, in most metals [@Allen] the electron-phonon coupling constant $\lambda^{ph}$ is nearly the same that $\lambda_{tr}^{ph}$ and then, the relaxation time measured in ARPES is the same that enters in transport. The width of the Drude peak in the optical conductivity determines the quasi-particle lifetime called $1/\tau^*$. For the case of EPHI in usual metals $1/\tau_{ph}^*=2\pi \lambda_{tr}^{ph}/(1+\lambda^{ph}) T$. The experiment in cuprates[@Schlesinger] shows that $1/\tau^*=1.5 T$. Our previous results show that an electron-phonon coupling $\lambda^{ph}$ of order $0.75$ is needed in order to reproduce ARPES. If we consider, as in usual metals, that for HTC cuprates $\lambda^{ph}=\lambda_{tr}^{ph}$ , we found for $1/\tau^* = 2.7 T$. Then, taking into account only the electron-phonon contribution we found twice the slope of the experimental result. We have in addition a contribution to $1/ \tau^*$ from the MFL which, will increase even more the discrepancies with the experiment.
Then, to explain optical data we need $\lambda_{tr}^{ph} << \lambda^{ph}$. Phonons are expected to be isotropic on the BZ and this is the reason because in usual metals $\lambda^{ph}=\lambda_{tr}^{ph}$. In their original paper Zeyher and Kuli$\acute{c}$ [@Kulic] have shown $\lambda_{tr}^{ph} << \lambda^{ph}$ when the electrons are strongly correlated. The electron correlations are the responsible for vertex corrections of the EPHI. This vertex correction produces a $\vec{k}$-dependence in the final electron-phonon coupling (which was originally isotropic). As a final result, vertex corrections favor forward scattering which leads to a $\lambda_{tr}^{ph}$ much smaller than $\lambda^{ph}$. In Ref. [@Greco] it was shown that $\lambda_{tr}^{ph}$ renormalizes to around $\lambda/3$. Using a value of $\lambda_{tr}^{ph} =0.3$ and $\lambda^{ph}=0.75$ we obtain $1/{\tau^*}_{ph}=1.07 T$. We have an additional contribution from the MFL, which for our set of parameters gives $1/{\tau^*}_{MFL}=1.09 T$. Then, the addition of both contributions ($1/{\tau^*}_{ph} +1/{\tau^*}_{MFL}$) give a value in good agreement with the experiments.
There are two contributions to the resistivity, $\rho=(8\pi/{\Omega_P}^2) (\lambda^{ph}_{tr} +\lambda^{MFL}_{tr}) T$. According to our previous discussions we will take for the transport electron-phonon coupling $\lambda^{ph}_{tr}=0.3$. Assuming the isotropic nature of the MFL we have $\lambda^{MFL}_{tr}=0.55$. With these two parameters and the experimental value $\Omega_p=3 eV$ we show (with circles) the temperature dependence of the DC resistivity in Fig 3b.
Our calculation compares well with overdoped samples (see figure 4 of[@Yusof] for Bi2212). It is evident from this experimental data that the resistivity is not linear in $T$ at less for low temperatures, near $Tc$. It has a weak low temperature curvature similar to our results (circles) of Fig. 3b. The weakly changes between the slopes at low $T$ given by the MFL and the slope at large $T$, is an additional manifestation of the small electron-phonon contribution to the transport properties.
It is very important to note that the same sample, used in the measurement for the resistivity in Fig. 4 of [@Yusof] , shows a linear behavior in $\omega$ for the $Im(\Sigma)$ and it also shows the kink in the dispersion. It will be very interesting to have experimental determinations of the resistivity at lower temperatures, for such a sample. According to our interpretation the experiment should show a linear $T$ dependence of the resistivity due to the MFL contribution at low temperature.
The experimental data for the resistivity as a function of $T$ for optimally doped samples both in $Bi2212$ and $YBaCuO$ does not show any curvature[@Timusk1]. The behavior is surprisingly linear in $T$ with practically no finite intercept at zero temperature. We are forced to point out that the kink also appears in these samples. Then, the question is: is $\lambda_{tr}^{ph}$ exactly zero in optimally doped?.
A final discussion on this last point is in order. $1/N$ expansion on the t-J model have shown an instability toward a flux phase at a critical doping $\delta_c$ (for a given relation $J/t$)[@Capellutti]. In [@Capellutti] $\delta_c$ was identified with the optimally doped point of the phase diagram of HTC cuprates. In addition, in [@Kulic] it was shown that the electron-phonon coupling becomes more and more sharp at $\vec{k}=0$ , due to vertex corrections. This is the main reason for the decreasing of $\lambda_{tr}^{ph}$ when we approach the flux-phase from the overdoped region[@Greco]. If at $\delta_c$ the sharp electron-phonon vertex behaves like a delta function in $\vec{k}$ , $\lambda_{tr}^{ph}$ will be exactly zero. Our previous results give a phenomenological support to this speculation. More theoretical studies will be necessary to clarify this question [@dagotto].
In summary, we have presented a possible explanation of the recent ARPES experiments in cuprates superconductors by including an EPHI in the context of a MFL theory. In this way, we have accounted at the same time for the linear $\omega$-dependence of the imaginary part of the self-energy and for the break in the electron dispersion at a characteristic energy scale of 50 meV. We have confronted our model against the transport data and concluded that the EPHI which is relevant for transport is strongly screened respect to the one extracted from ARPES experiments. This condition is supported by strong coupling theories on the t-J model.
A.G. acknowledges R. Zeyher for useful discussion and Fundación Antorchas for financial support. We acknowledge J. Riera for very illuminating discussions and A. Trumper for critical reading of the manuscript.
[99]{}
T. Valla, A.V. Federov, P.D. Johnson, B.O. Wells, S.L. Hulbert, Q. Li, G.D. Gu, N. Koshizuka, Science [**285**]{}, 2110 (1999)
C.M. Varma et al; Phys. Rev. Lett, 63,1996 (1989).
P.W. Anderson; cond-mat 0007287.
E. Abrahams and C.M. Varma;cond-mat0003135.
P.V. Bogdanov et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 2581 (2000)
A. Kaminski et al, cond-mat/0004482
A. Lanzara et al, cond-mat/0102227
P.D. Johnson; cond-mat 0102260.
M. Eschrig and M.R. Norman, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 3261 (2000)
H.F. Fong et al, Phys. Rev. B [**61**]{}, 14773 (2000).
R. Zeyher and A. Greco; Phys.Rev. B [**64**]{} 140510 (2001).
Z. Shen, A. Lanzara and N. Nagaosa; cond-mat 0102244.
Z. Yusof et al; cond-mat 0104367.
G. D. Mahan; Many-Particle Physics, Plenum Press, New York (1981)
T. Valla et al Phys.Rev. Lett. 83,2085 (1999); M. Hengsberger et al; Phys. Rev. Lett. 83,592 (1999).
M. R. Norman, Phys. Rev. B 61, 14751 (2000).
D. Duffy, A. Nazarenko, S. Hass, A. Moreo, J. Riera and E. Dagotto, Phys. Rev. B [**56**]{} 5597 (1997).
The assumption of an homogeneous distribution of charge is expected to be valid in the optimally doped and overdoped regime where our results apply. On the other hand, inhomogeneties could be relevant in the very underdoped regime (J. Burgy et al cond-mat 0107300).
O. K. Andersen, S.Y. Savrasov, O. Jepsen, and A.I. Liechtenstein, J. of Low Temp. Physics [**105**]{}, 285 (1996); H. Krakauer, W.E. Pickett, and R.E. Cohen, Phys. Rev. B [**47**]{}, 1002 (1993)
P.B. Allen; Phys.Rev.B 36, 2920 (1987).
Z. Schlesinger et al; Phys. Rev. Lett. 65,801(1990).
R. Zeyher and M. Kuli$\acute{c}$, Phys. Rev. B [**53**]{}, 2850 (1996)
A. Greco and R. Zeyher, Phys. Rev. B [**63**]{}, 064520 (2001)
T. Timusk and B. Statt; Rep. Prog. Phys. 62, 61(1999).
E. Cappelluti and R. Zeyher; Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 13, 2607(1999).
From numerical works there is no at present conclusive evidence for a critical doping where the system becomes unstable toward a flux phase. However, both early (D. Poilblanc, E. Dagotto and J. Riera, Phys. Rev. B [**43**]{} 7899 (1991)) and more recent exact diagonalization studies (P. W. Leung, Phys. Rev. B [**43**]{} R6112 (2000)) indicate the possibility for a flux phase pattern with staggered order.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- |
J.L. Fernández[^1]\
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid\
Madrid , Spain\
- |
M.V. Melián$^*$\
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid\
Madrid , Spain\
- |
D. Pestana [^2]\
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid\
Madrid, Spain\
title: Quantitative recurrence properties of expanding maps
---
Introduction
============
The pre-images under a mixing transformation $T$ distribute themselves somehow regularly along the base space. In this paper we aim to quantify this regularity by studying both the measure and dimension of some recurrence sets. More precisely, we study the behaviour of pre-images under expanding transformations, i.e. transformations which locally increase distances.
Throughout this paper $(X,d)$ will be a locally complete separable metric space endowed with a finite measure ${\lambda}$ over the $\sigma$-algebra $\cal A$ of Borel sets. We further assume throughout that the support of ${\lambda}$ is equal to $X$ and that ${\lambda}$ is a non-atomic measure. We recall that a measurable transformation $T:X\longrightarrow X$ preserves the measure ${\lambda}$ if ${\lambda}(T^{-1}(A))={\lambda}(A)$ for every $A\in{\cal A}$. The classical recurrence theorem of Poincaré (see, for example, [@Fu], p.61) says that
[**Theorem A (H. Poincaré).**]{} [*If $T:X \longrightarrow X$ preserves the measure ${\lambda}$, then ${\lambda}$-almost every point of $X$ is recurrent, in the sense that $$\liminf_{n\to \infty} d(T^n(x),x)=0 \,.$$*]{} Here and hereafter $T^n$ denotes the $n$-th fold composition $T^n=T\circ T \circ \cdots \circ T$. M. Boshernitzan obtained in [@Bo] the following quantitative version of Theorem A.
[**Theorem B (M. Boshernitzan).**]{} [*If the Hausdorff $\alpha$-measure $H_\alpha$ on $X$ is $\sigma$-finite for some $\alpha>0$ and $T:X \longrightarrow X$ preserves the measure ${\lambda}$, then for ${\lambda}$-almost all $x\in X$, $$\liminf_{n\to\infty} n^{1/\alpha} \, d(T^n(x),x) < \infty \,.$$ Besides, if $H_\alpha (X)=0$, then for ${\lambda}$-almost all $x\in X$, $$\label{Bos}
\liminf_{n\to\infty} n^{1/\alpha} \, d(T^n(x),x) = 0$$ and when the measure ${\lambda}$ agrees with $H_\alpha$ for some $\alpha>0$, then for ${\lambda}$-almost all $x\in X$, $$\liminf_{n\to\infty} n^{1/\alpha} \, d(T^n(x),x) \le 1 \,.$$* ]{}
L. Barreira and B. Saussol [@BS] have obtained a generalization of (\[Bos\]) when $X\subseteq {\bf R}^N$ in terms of the lower pointwise dimension of ${\lambda}$ at the point $x\in X$ instead of the Hausdorff measure of $X$ and other authors have also obtained new quantitative recurrence results relating various recurrence indicators with entropy and dimension, see e.g. [@ACS], [@BGI], [@G], [@G2] and [@STV].
It is natural to ask if the orbit $\{T^n(x)\}$ of the point $x$ comes back not only to every neighborhood of $x$ itself as Poincaré’s Theorem asserts, but whether it also visits every neighborhood of a previously chosen point $x_0 \in X$. Under the additional hypothesis of ergodicity it is easy to check that for any $x_0\in X$, we have that $$\label{poincareergodico}
\liminf_{n\to \infty} d(T^n(x),x_0) = 0 \,, \qquad \hbox{for ${\lambda}$-almost all $x\in X$.}$$ Recall that the transformation $T$ is [*ergodic*]{} if the only $T$-invariant sets (up to sets of ${\lambda}$-measure zero) are trivial, [*i.e.*]{} they have zero ${\lambda}$-measure or their complements have zero ${\lambda}$-measure.
In order to obtain a quantitative version of (\[poincareergodico\]) along the lines of Theorem B we need stronger mixing properties on $T$. In [@FMP] we studied [*uniformly mixing*]{} transformations. For these transformations we obtained, for example, that, given a decreasing sequence $\{r_n\}$ of positive numbers tending to zero as $n\to\infty$, if $$\displaystyle\sum_{n=1}^\infty {\lambda}(B(x_0,r_n)) = \infty,$$ then $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \dfrac {\# \{i\le n: \ d(T^i (x),x_0) \le
r_i\,\}} {\sum_{j=1}^n {\lambda}(B(x_0,r_j))} = 1 \,, \qquad \hbox{for
${\lambda}$-almost every $x\in X$}\,,$$ and therefore $$\liminf_{n\to \infty} \frac {d(T^n(x),x_0)}{r_n} \le 1 \,, \qquad
\hbox{for ${\lambda}$-almost every $x\in X$}\,.$$ Here and hereafter the notation $\# A$ means the number of elements of the set $A$.
[**Expanding maps.**]{}
In this paper we consider the recurrence properties of the orbits under expanding maps, a context which encompasses many interesting examples: subshift of finite type, in particular Bernoulli shifts, Gauss transformation and continued fractions expansions, some inner functions and expanding endomorphisms of compact manifolds.
An expanding map $T:X\longrightarrow X$ does not, in general, preserves the given measure ${\lambda}$ for a given expanding system, but among all the measures invariant under $T$ there exists a unique probability measure $\mu$ which is locally absolutely continuous with respect to ${\lambda}$ and has good mixing properties (see Theorem E). We will refer to $\mu$ as the absolutely continuous invariant probability measure (ACIPM). For the complete definition of expanding maps we refer to Section \[expandingmaps\]. However we will describe here their main properties in an informal way. An expanding system $(X,d,{\lambda},T)$ has an associated Markov partition ${\cal P}_0$ of $X$ in such a way that $T$ is injective in each block $P$ of ${\cal P}_0$ and $T(P)$ is a union of blocks of ${\cal P}_0$. Also there exists a positive measurable function ${\bf J}$ on $X$, the [*Jacobian*]{} of $T$, such that $${\lambda}(T(A)) = \int_A {\bf J} \, d\lambda\,, \qquad \hbox{if $A$ is contained in some block of ${\cal P}_0$}$$ and ${\bf J}$ has the following distortion property for all $x,y$ in the same block of ${\cal P}_0$: $$\left| \frac {{{\bf J}}(x)}{{{\bf J}}(y)} -1 \right| \le C_1\,
d(T(x),T(y))^\alpha \,.$$ Here $C_1>0$ and $0<\alpha\le 1$ are absolute constants. This property allows us to compare the ratio ${\lambda}(A)/{\lambda}(A')$ with ${\lambda}(T(A))/{\lambda}(T(A'))$for $A,A'$ contained in the same block of ${\cal P}_0$.
Finally, the reason for the name expanding is the property that if $x,y$ belong to the same block of the partition ${\cal P}_n=\vee_{j=0}^{n}
T^{-j}({\cal P}_0)$, then $$d(T^n(x),T^n(y))\ge C_2 \beta^n d(x,y)$$ with absolute constants $C_2>0$ and $\beta>1$.
In this paper we are interested in studying for expanding systems the size of the set of points of $X$ where $\liminf_{n\to\infty} d(T^n(x),x_0)/r_n =0$, where $\{r_n\}$ is a given sequence of positive numbers and $x_0$ is a previously chosen point in $X$. To do this we study the size of the set $${\cal W}(x_0,\{r_n\}) = \{x\in X: \ d(T^n (x),x_0)< r_n \
\mbox{for infinitely many} \ n\}\,.$$ Our first objective is to study the relationship between the measure of this set and how fast goes to zero the sequence of radii. We use the following definitions of local dimension.
\[dimensiones\] The lower and upper ${\cal P}_0$-dimension of the measure $\mu$ at the point $x\in X$ are defined, respectively, by $$\underline{\delta}_\mu(x) = \liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac{\log \mu(P(n,x))}{\log\hbox{\rm
diam}(P(n,x))}\,, \qquad
\overline{\delta}_\mu(x) = \limsup_{n\to\infty} \frac{\log \mu(P(n,x))}{\log\hbox{\rm
diam}(P(n,x))}\,.$$ Here and hereafter $P(n,x)$ denotes the block of the partition ${\cal
P}_n=\vee_{j=0}^{n} T^{-j}({\cal P}_0)$ which contains the point $x\in X$.
We have the following result.
\[intromedidaradios\] Let $(X,d,{\lambda},T)$ be an expanding system with finite entropy $H_\mu({\cal P}_0)$ with respect to the partition ${\cal P}_0$. Let $\{r_n\}$ be a non increasing sequence of positive numbers. Then for ${\lambda}$-almost all point $x_0\in X$ we have that $$\hbox{if} \qquad\sum_{n=1}^\infty r_n^{\delta} = \infty \, \quad
\hbox{for some $\delta>\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0),\quad $ then
\quad ${\cal W}(x_0,\{r_n\})$ has full ${\lambda}$-measure}\,,$$ and we can conclude that, for ${\lambda}$-almost all point $x_0\in X$, $$\liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac {d(T^n(x),x_0)}{r_n} = 0 \,, \qquad
\hbox{for ${\lambda}$-almost all $x\in X$}\,.$$
In particular, we have, for $\alpha>{\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}$, that for ${\lambda}$-almost all point $x_0\in X$ $$\liminf_{n\to\infty} n^{1/\alpha} d(T^n(x),x_0) = 0 \,, \qquad
\hbox{for ${\lambda}$-almost all $x\in X$}\,.$$
Further results about the points $x_0$ which satisfy the conclusions in Theorem \[intromedidaradios\] are included in Section \[medida\]. There is also a quantitative version when the system has the Bernoulli property (see Theorem \[elbueno\]).
If the sequence $\{r_n\}$ tends to zero in such a way that $\sum_n
{\lambda}(B(x_0,r_n))<\infty$ then it is easy to check that ${\lambda}({\cal
W}(x_0,\{r_n\}))=0$ and therefore $$\liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac {d(T^n(x),x_0)}{r_n} \ge 1 \,, \qquad
\hbox{for ${\lambda}$-almost all $x\in X$}\,.$$ As a consequence we get that if ${\lambda}(B(x_0,r))\le C\,r^\Delta$ for all $r$, then for $\alpha<\Delta$ $$\liminf_{n\to\infty} n^{1/\alpha} d(T^n(x),x_0) = \infty \,, \qquad
\hbox{for ${\lambda}$-almost all $x\in X$}\,.$$ Theorem \[intromedidaradios\] is sharp in the sense that if the series $\sum_{n=1}^\infty r_n^{\delta}$ diverges for $\delta<\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)$, then it can happen that the set ${\cal W}(x_0,\{r_n\})$ has zero ${\lambda}$-measure. Consider, for instance, the sequence $r_n=1/n^{1/\delta}$ with $\delta<1$, and an expanding system with $X\subset{{\bf R}}$ and ${\lambda}$ the Lebesgue measure. Then ${\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}=1$ and $\sum_n r_n^\delta=\infty$. But $\sum_n
{\lambda}(B(x_0,r_n))<\infty$ and therefore ${\lambda}({\cal W}(x_0,\{r_n\}))=0$. On the other hand, for expanding systems with extra mixing properties, Theorem \[intromedidaradios\] still holds for $\delta=\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)$ (see, Theorem 3 in [@FMP]).
Even in the case that the set ${\cal W}(x_0,\{r_n\})$ has zero ${\lambda}$-measure we have proved that this set is large since we have obtained a positive lower bound for its dimension.
In this paper we use two different notions of dimension: the ${\lambda}$-grid dimension (${\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}}$), considering coverings with blocks of the partitions ${\cal P}_n$, and the ${\lambda}$-Hausdorff dimension (${\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{\lambda}$), when we consider coverings with balls of small diameter (see Section \[grids\] for the definitions). We remark that ${\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{\lambda}$ is equal to $1/N$ times the usual Hausdorff dimension when ${\lambda}$ is the Lebesgue measure in $X={{\bf R}}^N$. To obtain lower bounds for the dimension, we have constructed a Cantor-like set contained in ${\cal W}(x_0,\{r_n\})$. The elements of the different families of the Cantor set are certain blocks of some partitions ${\cal P}_n$. In our construction these blocks have controlled $\mu$-measure and they are in a certain sense well distributed. The main difficulty while estimating the dimension of this Cantor set is that does not have a fixed pattern and the ratio between the measure of a ‘parent’ and his ‘son’ can be very big depending on the sequence of radii. Our approach is contained in Theorem \[azulesyrojos\].
The main tools in the construction of the Cantor set are: (1) good estimates for the measure $\mu$ of some blocks of ${\cal P}_n$, obtained as a consequence of Shannon-McMillan-Breimann Theorem (see Theorem D); (2) good estimates of the ratio between ${\lambda}(P(n+1,x))$ and ${\lambda}(P(n,x))$ due to the distortion property of $\bf J$. An extra difficulty is that the measures ${\lambda}$ and $\mu$ are only comparable in each block of the partition ${\cal P}_0$.
In order to obtain lower bounds for ${\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{\lambda}$ we relate it with ${\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}}$ and to do so we have required an extra condition of regularity over the ‘grid’ ${{\bf\Pi}}=\{{\cal P}_n\}$ (see Section \[grids\]). The required condition is trivially fulfilled in the one dimensional case. When the measure ${\lambda}$ of a ball is comparable to a power of its diameter we have also obtained an estimate of ${\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{\lambda}}$ without assuming the regularity condition on the grid.
\[introdimensionradios\] Let $(X,d,{\lambda},T)$ be an expanding system with finite entropy $H_\mu({\cal P}_0)$ with respect to the partition ${\cal
P}_0$, and let us us consider the grid ${{\bf\Pi}}=\{{\cal P}_n\}$. Let $\{r_n\}$ be a non increasing sequence of positive numbers, and let $U$ be an open set in $X$ with $\mu(U)>0$. Then, for almost all $x_0\in X$, $$\frac 1{{\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}} ({\cal W}(x_0,\{r_n\})\cap U)} -1 \le \frac {{\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}\, {{\overline{\ell}}}}{h_\mu} \,,$$ where ${{\overline{\ell}}}= \limsup_{n\to\infty} \frac 1n\log\frac{1}{r_n}$ and $h_\mu$ is the entropy of $T$ with respect to $\mu$.
Moreover, for almost all $x_0\in X$, the Hausdorff dimensions of the set ${\cal W}(U,x_0,\{r_n\})$ verify:
1. If the grid ${{\bf\Pi}}$ is ${\lambda}$-regular then $$\frac 1{{\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{\lambda}({\cal W}(U,x_0,\{r_n\}))} -1 \le \frac {{\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}\, {{\overline{\ell}}}}{h_\mu} \,.$$
2. If ${\lambda}$ is a doubling measure verifying that ${\lambda}(B(x,r))\le C\,r^s$ for all ball $B(x,r)$, then $${\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{\lambda}({\cal W}(U,x_0,\{r_n\})) \ge 1 - \frac {{\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}{{\overline{\ell}}}}{s\log\beta}\,.$$
As a consequence, we obtain the same estimates for the Hausdorff dimensions of the set $$\left\{x\in U: \ \liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac{d(T^n(x),x_0)}{r_n}=0\right\}.$$
Observe that, for instance, if $X\subset{{\bf R}}$, we obtain that, for any $\alpha>0$, $${\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{\lambda}\{x\in U: \ \liminf_{n\to\infty} e^{n\alpha} d(T^n(x),x_0)=0\}\ge \frac {h_\mu}{h_\mu +
{\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}\, \alpha} \, .$$
Theorem \[introdimensionradios\] is sharp since for some expanding systems we get equality, see Theorem \[innerp\]. As in Theorem \[intromedidaradios\] we have chosen to state the above result for almost all $x_0\in X$ and we refer to Section \[lowerdimension\] for more precise results concerning to the set of points $x_0$ where this kind of results holds.
Results related to these two theorems above can be found in [@Ja], [@Be], [@BaSc], [@Su], [@MP], [@DMPV], [@CK] and [@KM]. See also, [@Da], [@FM], [@BiJo], [@Ur] [@Do] and [@FM2].
[**Coding.**]{}
It is a well known fact that an expanding map induces a coding on the points of $X$ (see Section \[codes\]). Via this coding the above results are in certain sense a consequence of analogous results involving symbolic dynamic. More precisely, each point $x$ of the set $$X_0: = \bigcap_{n=0}^\infty \bigcup_{P\in {\cal P}_n} P$$ can be codified as $x=[\;i_0 \;i_1\:\ldots\;]$ where $
P(0,T^n(x))=P_{i_n}\in{\cal P}_0$ for all $ n=0,1,2,\ldots$ Notice that if $x=[\;i_0 \; i_1 \; i_2 \ldots\;]$ then $T(x)=[\;i_1\:i_2\;i_3\;\ldots\;]$, i.e. $T$ acts as the left shift on the set of all codes.
Given an increasing sequence $\{t_k\}$ of positive integers and a point $x_0\in X_0$ we study the size of set $$\widetilde{\cal W}(x_0,\{t_n\}) = \{x\in X_0: \ T^k(x) \in
P(t_k,x_0) \ \hbox{for infinitely many $k$}\} .$$ If $x\in X_0$ and $T^k(x)\in P(t_k,x_0)$ then $P(j, T^k(x))=P(j,x_0)$ for $j=0,1,\ldots, t_k$ and it follows that $\widetilde{\cal W}(x_0,\{t_n\})$ can be also described as the set of points $x=[\;m_0\;m_1\ldots\;]\in X_0$ such that $$m_k=i_0,\, m_{k+1}=i_1,\;\dots\;,\, m_{k+t_k}=i_{t_k}$$ for infinitely many $k$, where $x_0=[\;i_0\;i_1\ldots\;]$. For this set, we have the following analogue of Theorem \[intromedidaradios\]:
\[intromedidacode\] Let $(X,d,{\lambda},T)$ be an expanding system. Let $x_0$ be a point of $X_0$ such that $\underline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)>0$ and let $\{t_n\}$ be a non decreasing sequence of positive integers numbers. $$\hbox{If} \qquad \sum_{n=1}^\infty {\lambda}(P(t_n,x_0)) = \infty, \qquad \hbox{then}
\qquad {\lambda}(\widetilde{{\cal W}}(x_0,\{t_n\}))={\lambda}(X).$$ Moreover, if the partition ${\cal P}_0$ is finite or if the system has the Bernoulli property, $($i.e. if $T(P)=X$ $($mod $0)$ for all $P\in {\cal P}_0)$, then we have the following quantitative version: $$\label{cuantitativointro}
\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac {\#\{i\le n: \ T^i(x)\in
P(t_i,x_0)\}}{\sum_{j=1}^n \mu(P(t_j,x_0))} =1\,, \qquad
\hbox{for ${\lambda}$-almost every $x\in X$ , }$$ where $\mu$ is the ACIPM associated to the system.
Property (\[cuantitativointro\]) is related to the decay of the correlation coefficients of the indicator functions of $\{P(n,x_0)\}$, see [@S] and [@Ph]. For expanding systems with the Bernoulli property L.S. Young [@Y] has proved that this decay is exponential.
As with ${\cal W}(x_0,\{r_n\})$, it is easy to see using the Borel-Cantelli lemma that if $\sum_n{\lambda}(P(t_n,x_0)) < \infty$, then ${\lambda}(\widetilde{{\cal W}}(x_0,\{t_n\}))=0$.
\[introdimensioncode\] Let $(X,d,{\lambda},T)$ be an expanding system with finite entropy $H_\mu({\cal P}_0)$ with respect to the partition ${\cal P}_0$ where $\mu$ is ACIPM associated to the system, and let us consider the grid ${{\bf\Pi}}=\{{\cal P}_n\}$. Let $\{t_n\}$ be a non decreasing sequence of positive integers and let $U$ be an open set in $X$ with $\mu(U)>0$. Then, for almost all point $x_0\in X_0$, $$\frac 1{{\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}} ({\cal \widetilde W}(x_0,\{t_n\})\cap U)}-1 \le \frac
{\overline{L}(x_0)}{h_\mu} \,,$$ where $\overline{L}(x_0)= \limsup_{n\to\infty} \frac 1n
\log\frac{1}{{\lambda}(P( t_n,x_0))}$ and $h_\mu$ is the entropy of $T$ with respect to $\mu$. Moreover, if the grid ${{\bf\Pi}}$ is ${\lambda}$-regular, then $$\frac 1{{\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{\lambda}} ({\cal \widetilde W}(x_0,\{t_n\})\cap U)} \le \frac {\overline{L}(x_0)}{h_\mu} \,.$$
As in the previous theorems, for the sake of simplicity, we have stated this last result for almost all point $x_0$ in $X$, but we refer to Section \[lowerdimension\] for a more precise statement concerning the points $x_0$ which satisfy the conclusions. Also, we should mention that, up a ${\lambda}$-zero measure set, we have that $\overline{L}(x_0)/h_{\mu}=\limsup_{n\to\infty} t_n/n$ (see Theorem \[dimensioncode2\]).
[**Applications.**]{}
The generality of the definition of expanding systems allows us to apply our results in a broad kind of situations. In the final section, we have obtained results for Markov transformations, subshifts of finite type (in particular, Bernoulli shifts), the Gauss transformation, some inner functions and expanding endomorphisms. In the case of Bernoulli shifts we also give a precise upper bound of the dimension by using a large deviation inequality. As an example, for the Gauss map $\phi$, which acts on the continued fractions expansions as the left shift, we have the following results:
- - If $\alpha>1$ then, for almost all $x_0\in [0,1]$, and more precisely, if $x_0$ is an irrational number with continued fraction expansion $[\,i_0\,,\;i_1\,, \; \dots ]$ such that $\log i_n = o(n)$ as $n\to\infty$, we have that $$\liminf_{n\to\infty} n^{1/\alpha} |\phi^n(x)-x_0| = 0 \,, \qquad
\text{for almost all $x\in [0,1]$.}$$
- If $\alpha <1$, then for all $x_0\in [0,1]$ we have that $$\liminf_{n\to\infty} n^{1/\alpha} |\phi^n(x)-x_0| = \infty \,,
\qquad \text{for almost all $x\in [0,1]$.}$$
- If $x_0$ verifies the same hypothesis than in part $(1)$, then $${\mbox{\rm Dim}}\left\{x\in [0,1]: \ \liminf_{n\to\infty} n^{1/\alpha}
|\phi^n(x)-x_0| =0 \right\} = 1\,, \qquad \text{for any
$\alpha>0$}.$$ and $${\mbox{\rm Dim}}\left\{x\in [0,1]: \ \liminf_{n\to\infty} e^{n\kappa}
|\phi^n(x)-x_0| =0 \right\} \ge \frac {\pi^2}{\pi^2+6\kappa\log2}
\,, \qquad \text{for any $\kappa>0$}.$$
Let $x_0\in [0,1]$ be an irrational number with continued fraction expansion $x_0=[\,i_0,i_1,\dots \,]$ and let $t_n$ be a non decreasing sequence of natural numbers. Let $\widetilde W$ be the set of points $x=[\,m_0,m_1,\dots\,]\in [0,1]$ such that $$m_n=i_0\,, \; m_{n+1}=i_1\,,\; \dots\;, \; m_{n+t_n} = i_{t_n} \;,
\qquad \text{for infinitely many $n$}.$$
- ${\lambda}(\widetilde W)=1$, if $$\sum_n \frac 1{(i_0+1)^2\cdots (i_{t_n}+1)^2} =\infty \,.$$
- ${\lambda}(\widetilde W)=0$, if $$\sum_n \frac 1{i_0^2\cdots i_{t_n}^2} <\infty \,.$$
- In any case, if $\log i_n = o(n)$ as $n\to\infty $, then $${\mbox{\rm Dim}}(\widetilde W) \ge \frac {\pi^2}{\pi^2+6\log 2\,\limsup_{n\to\infty}
\frac 1n \log (i_0+1)^2\cdots (i_{t_n}+1)^2} \,.$$
The techniques developed in this paper for expanding maps and therefore for one-sided Bernoulli shifts, can be extended to bi-sided Bernoulli shifts. This has allowed us [@Anosov] to get results on recurrence for Anosov flows.
The outline of the paper is as follows: In Section \[grids\] we give our two definitions of dimension and prove some general results for computing the dimensions of a kind of Cantor-like sets with the particular feature that the ratio between the size of a ’son’ and his ’parent’ decays very fast. Section \[SMB\] contains some consequences of Shannon-McMillan-Breiman Theorem. In section \[expandingmaps\] we give the complete definition of an expanding system and in Section \[codes\] we recall how to associate a code to the points of $X$. In Section \[PropEM\] we prove some general properties of expanding maps. The precise statements and proofs of Theorems \[intromedidaradios\] and \[intromedidacode\], and some consequences of them, are contained in Section \[medida\]. The dimension results are included in Section \[dimensionresults\]. More general versions of Theorems \[introdimensionradios\] and \[introdimensioncode\] are included in Section \[lowerdimension\]. In Section \[upperbounds\] we include an upper bound of the dimension. Finally, Section \[aplicaciones\] contains several applications of the above results.
[*Acknowledgements:*]{} We want to thank to J. Gonzalo, R. de la Llave, V. Muñoz and R. Pérez Marco for helpful conversations about this work. We are particularly indebted to A. Nicolau for his encouragement and stimulating discusions.
[*A few words about notation.*]{} There are many estimates in this paper involving absolute constants. These are usually denoted by capital letters like $C$. Occasionally, we shall indicate a constant $C$ depending on some parameter $\alpha$ by $C(\alpha)$. The symbol $\# D$ denotes the number of elements of the set $D$. By $A\asymp B$ we mean that there exist absolute constants $C_1,C_2>0$ such that $ C_1B\leq A\leq C_2 B$.
Grids and dimensions. {#grids}
=====================
Along this section $(X,d,{\cal A},{\lambda})$ will be a finite measure space with a compatible metric. Compatible means that $\cal A$ is the the $\sigma$-algebra of the Borel sets of $d$. We recall that we are assuming that the measure ${\lambda}$ is non-atomic and its support is $X$.
Given a set $F\subset X$ and $0<\alpha\leq 1$, we define the $\alpha$-dimensional ${\lambda}$-Hausdorff measure of $F$ as $${\cal H}_{{\lambda}}^{\alpha}(F)=\lim_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}{\cal
H}^{\alpha}_{{\lambda},\, {\varepsilon}}(F)$$ with $${\cal H}^{\alpha}_{{\lambda},\, {\varepsilon}}(F)=\inf\sum_i({\lambda}(B_i))^{\alpha}$$ where the infimum is taken over all the coverings $\{B_i\}$ of $F$ with balls such that ${\text{\rm diam\,}}(B_i)\leq{\varepsilon}$ for all $i$.
It is not difficult to check that ${\cal H}^{\alpha}$ is a regular Borel measure, see e.g. [@Matti]. Observe that if $X\subset {{\bf R}}^N$ and ${\lambda}$ is Lebesgue measure, then ${\cal H}^{\alpha}$ is comparable with the usual $N\alpha$-dimensional Hausdorff measure.
The ${\lambda}$-Hausdorff dimension of $F$ is defined as $${\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{\lambda}}(F)=\inf\{\alpha \, : \, {\cal
H}_{{\lambda}}^{\alpha}(F)=0\}=\sup\{\alpha \, : \, {\cal
H}_{{\lambda}}^{\alpha}(F)>0\}\,.$$
If $X\subset {{\bf R}}^N$ and ${\lambda}$ is Lebesgue measure, then the ${\lambda}$-Hausdorff dimension coincides with $1/N$ times the usual Hausdorff dimension.
A grid is a collection ${{\bf\Pi}}=\{{\cal P}_n\}$ of partitions of $X$ each of them constituted by disjoint open sets, and such that for all $P_n\in {\cal P}_n$ there exists a unique $P_{n-1}\in{\cal P}_{n-1}$ such that $P_n\subset P_{n-1}$, and $\sup_{P\in{\cal P}_n} {\text{\rm diam\,}}(P) \to 0$ as $n\to\infty$..
Given a grid ${{\bf\Pi}}=\{{\cal P}_n\}$ of $X$ and $0<\alpha\leq 1$, the $\alpha$-dimensional ${\lambda}$-grid measure of any subset $F\subset X$ is defined as $${\cal H}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}}^{\alpha}(F)=\lim_{n\to \infty}{\cal
H}^{\alpha}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}, n}(F)$$ with $${\cal H}^{\alpha}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}, n}(F)=\inf\sum_i({\lambda}(P_i))^{\alpha}$$ where the infimum is taken over all the coverings $\{P_i\}$ of $F$ with sets $P_i\in\cup_{k\geq n}{\cal P}_k$.
The ${\lambda}$-grid Hausdorff dimension of $F$ is defined as $${\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}}(F)=\inf\{\alpha \, : \, {\cal
H}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}}^{\alpha}(F)=0\}=\sup\{\alpha \, : \, {\cal
H}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}}^{\alpha}(F)>0\}\,.$$
As before we have that ${\cal H}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}}^{\alpha}$ is a Borel measure.
If $X\subseteq {{\bf R}}$ and ${\lambda}$ is Lebesgue measure we have that ${\cal H}_{{\lambda}}^{\alpha}(F)\le {\cal
H}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}}^{\alpha}(F)$ and therefore, for any $F\subset {{\bf R}}$, $${\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{\lambda}(F) \le {\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}}(F) \,.$$ Also, if $X=[0,1]$, ${\cal P}_n$ denotes the family of dyadic intervals with length $1/2^{n+1}$ and ${\lambda}$ is Lebesgue measure, then we have, for any $F\subset [0,1]$, that $${\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{\lambda}(F) = {\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}}(F) \,.$$
In order to compute the ${\lambda}$-grid Hausdorff dimension we will use the following result which parallels Frostman lemma.
\[DimBill\] Let ${{\bf\Pi}}=\{{\cal P}_n\}$ be a grid of $X$. For each $n\in{{\bf N}}$, let ${\cal Q}_n$ be a subcollection of ${\cal P}_n$ and let $F$ be a set with $$F \subseteq \bigcap_{n}\bigcup_{Q\in{\cal Q}_n} Q \,.$$ If there exist a measure $\nu$ such that $\nu(F)>0$, a real number $0<\gamma\leq 1$ and a positive constant $C$ such that, for all $x\in F$, $$\nu(Q(k,x)) \le C\, (\lambda(Q(k,x)))^\gamma \,,$$ where $Q(k,x)$ denotes the block of ${\cal Q}_k$ which contains $x$, then, $${\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}}(F)\geq \gamma \,.$$
It follows from the fact that ${\cal H}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}}^{\alpha}(F)\ge \nu(F)/C>0$.
The following result allows to obtain a lower bound for the ${\lambda}$-grid Hausdorff dimension of Cantor-like sets.
\[azulesyrojos\] Let ${{\bf\Pi}}=\{{\cal P}_n\}$ be a grid of $X$ and let $\{d_j\}$ and $\{\widetilde{d}_j\}$ be two increasing sequences of natural numbers tending to infinity verifying that $d_{j-1}<\widetilde{d}_j < d_j $ for each $j$.
Consider two collections $\{{\cal J}_j\}$ and $\{\widetilde{{\cal J}}_j\}$ of subsets of $X$ such that:
- $\widetilde{\cal J}_0={\cal J}_0=\{J_0\}$ and for each $j$, $
{\cal J}_j \subseteq {\cal P}_{d_j}$ and $\widetilde{\cal J}_j \subseteq {\cal P}_{\widetilde{d}_j}$.
- For each $J_j\in {\cal J}_j$ $(j\ge 1)$ there exists a unique $\widetilde{J}_j \in
\widetilde{\cal J}_j$ such that $\hbox{\rm closure} (J_j) \subset \widetilde{J}_j$. Reciprocally, for each $\widetilde{J}_j \in \widetilde{\cal J}_j$ there exists a unique ${J}_j \in \widetilde{\cal J}_j$ such that $\hbox{\rm closure} (J_j) \subset \widetilde{J}_j$.
- For each $\widetilde{J}_j \in \widetilde{\cal J}_j$ $(j\ge 1)$ there exists a unique $J_{j-1}\in {\cal J}_{j-1}$ such that $\widetilde{J}_j \subset J_{j-1}$.
Let ${\cal C}$ be the Cantor-like set defined by $${\cal C}= \bigcap_{j=0}^\infty \bigcup_{J_j\in{\cal J}_j} J_j= \bigcap_{j=0}^\infty \bigcup_{\widetilde{J}_j\in\widetilde{\cal J}_j}\widetilde{ J}_j \;.$$
Assume that the pattern of ${\cal C}$ has the following additional properties:
- There exist two sequences $\{\alpha_j\}$ and $\{\beta_j\}$ of positive numbers such that $$\alpha_j \le \displaystyle\frac{{\lambda}(\widetilde{J}_j)}{{\lambda}(J_{j-1})} \le \beta_j \,.$$
- There exists a sequence $\{\gamma_j\}$ of positive numbers such that $$\frac{{\lambda}(J_j)}{{\lambda}(\widetilde{J}_{j})} \ge \gamma_j \;.$$
- There exists a sequence $\{\delta_j\}$ with $0<\delta_j\leq 1$ such that $${\lambda}(\widetilde{\cal J}_j \cap J_{j-1}) \ge \delta_j\, {\lambda}(J_{j-1})\,.$$
- There exists an absolute constant $\Lambda$ such that for all $j$ large enough $$\frac{1}{\delta_{j+1}}\frac {\beta_j}{\delta_j} \frac {\beta_{j-1}}{\delta_{j-1}} \cdots \frac {\beta_1}{\delta_1} \le
[( \alpha_j \gamma_j)\, ( \alpha_{j-1} \gamma_{j-1})\,\cdots\,( \alpha_1 \gamma_1)]^\Lambda\,.$$
Then $${\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}} ({\cal C}) \ge \Lambda\,.$$
Observe that in the special case when the two families $\widetilde{\cal J}_j$ and ${\cal J}_j$ coincide and $\alpha_j=\alpha$, $\beta_j=\beta$, $\delta_j=\delta$, then the above result is the usual Hungerford’s Lemma $(\Lambda=\log(\beta/\delta)/\log\alpha)$, see e.g. [@Pom2].
We construct a probability measure $\nu$ supported on ${\cal C}$ in the following way: We define $\nu(J_0)=1$ and for each set $J_j\in {\cal J}_j$ we write $$\nu(J_j)=\nu(\widetilde{J}_j) = \frac {{\lambda}(\widetilde{J}_j)}{{\lambda}(\widetilde{\cal J}_j
\cap J_{j-1})} \, \nu(J_{j-1})$$ where $J_{j-1}$ and $\widetilde{J}_j$ denote the unique sets in ${\cal J}_{j-1}$ and $\widetilde{\cal J}_{j}$ respectively, such that $J_j \subset \widetilde{J}_j \subset J_{j-1}$. As usual, for any Borel set $B$, the $\nu$-measure of $B$ is defined by $$\nu(B) = \nu(B\cap {\cal C}) = \inf \sum_{U\in {\cal U}} \nu(U) \,$$ where the infimum is taken over all the coverings $\cal U$ of $B\cap {\cal C}$ with sets in $\bigcup {\cal J}_j$.
We will show that there exists a positive constant $C$ such that for all $x\in{\cal C}$ and $m$ large enough, $$\label{frostmangrid}
\nu(P(m,x))\leq C\,({\lambda}(P(m,x))^\Lambda$$ and therefore, from Lemma \[DimBill\], we get the result.
To prove (\[frostmangrid\]) let us suppose first that $P(m,x)=J_j$ for some $J_j\in{\cal
J}_j$. From properties (1)-(3) we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\nu(J_j) & \le \frac {\beta_j}{\delta_j} \, \nu(J_{j-1}) \le \frac {\beta_j}{\delta_j} \frac {\beta_{j-1}}{\delta_{j-1}} \cdots \frac {\beta_1}{\delta_1} \,, \notag \\
{\lambda}(J_j) & \ge \alpha_j \gamma_j \, {\lambda}(J_{j-1}) \ge ( \alpha_j \gamma_j)\, ( \alpha_{j-1} \gamma_{j-1})\,\cdots\,( \alpha_1 \gamma_1) {\lambda}(J_0) \,.\notag\end{aligned}$$ and follows from property (4) that $$\label{nuj}
\nu(\widetilde{J}_j)=\nu({J}_j) \le C\, \delta_{j+1}{\lambda}(J_j)^\Lambda \,.$$ This condition is stronger than (\[frostmangrid\]) for $\widetilde{J}_j$ and $J_j$ and we will use it to get (\[frostmangrid\]) in general.
Now, let us suppose that $P(m,x)\not= J_j$ for all $j$ and for all $J_j\in{\cal J}_j$. Since $x\in{\cal C}$ there exist $J_j\in{\cal J}_j$ and $J_{j+1}\in{\cal J}_{j+1}$ such that $$J_{j+1}\subset P(m,x)\subset J_j \,.$$ If $P(m,x)\subset \widetilde {J}_{j+1}$, then from the definition of $\nu$ and (\[nuj\]) for $\widetilde{J}_{j+1}$ we get $$\nu(P(m,x))=\nu(\widetilde{J}_{j+1})=\nu(J_{j+1})\leq C
\,({\lambda}(J_{j+1}))^{\Lambda}\leq C\, ({\lambda}(P(m,x)))^{\Lambda}\,.$$
Otherwise $P(m,x)$ contains sets of the family ${\widetilde{\cal
J}}_{j+1}$ and we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{nocantor}
\nu(P(m,x)) & =
\sum_{\substack{{\tilde{J}}_{j+1} \in {\widetilde{\cal J}}_{j+1} \\
{\widetilde{J}}_{j+1} \subseteq P(m,x)}} \nu (J_{j+1}) \,=
\sum_{\substack{{\tilde{J}}_{j+1} \in {\widetilde{\cal J}}_{j+1} \\
{\widetilde{J}}_{j+1} \subseteq P(m,x)}} \frac{{\lambda}({\widetilde{J}_{j+1}})}{{\lambda}({\widetilde{\cal J}}_{j+1}
\cap J_j)}\,\nu (J_{j}) \notag \\
& = \frac{\nu (J_{j}) }{{\lambda}({\widetilde{\cal J}}_{j+1}\cap J_j)}\,\sum_{\substack{{\tilde{J}}_{j+1}
\in {\widetilde{\cal J}}_{j+1} \\
{\widetilde{J}}_{j+1} \subseteq
P(m,x)}}{\lambda}({\widetilde{J}_{j+1}}) \leq \frac{\nu (J_{j})
}{{\lambda}({\widetilde{\cal J}}_{j+1}\cap J_j)}\ {\lambda}(P(m,x)) \,.\end{aligned}$$ And using property (3) and (\[nuj\]) we obtain that $$\nu(P(m,x))\leq \frac{C}{({\lambda}(J_j))^{1-\Lambda}}\,{\lambda}(P(m,x))$$ But ${\lambda}(J_j))\geq {\lambda}(P(m,x))$ and so we get $$\nu(P(m,x))\leq C\,({\lambda}(P(m,x)))^{\Lambda}\,.$$
Notice that if we define $$\nu(J_j) = \frac {{\lambda}({J}_j)}{{\lambda}({\cal J}_j
\cap J_{j-1})} \, \nu(J_{j-1})$$ then instead of (\[nocantor\]) we get
$$\begin{aligned}
\nu(P(m,x)) & \le
\frac{\nu (J_{j}) }{{\lambda}({{\cal J}}_{j+1}\cap J_j)}\,\sum_{\substack{{\tilde{J}}_{j+1}
\in {\widetilde{\cal J}}_{j+1} \\
{\widetilde{J}}_{j+1} \subseteq
P(m,x)}}{\lambda}({{J}_{j+1}}) \notag \\
& \le
\frac{\nu (J_{j}) \,\omega_{j+1}}{{\lambda}({{\cal J}}_{j+1}\cap J_j)}\,\sum_{\substack{{\tilde{J}}_{j+1}
\in {\widetilde{\cal J}}_{j+1} \\
{\widetilde{J}}_{j+1} \subseteq
P(m,x)}}{\lambda}(\widetilde{J}_{j+1})
\leq \frac{1}{\delta_{j+1}} \frac{\nu (J_{j})}{{\lambda}(J_j)}\frac{\omega_{j+1}}{\gamma_{j+1}}
\ {\lambda}(P(m,x)) \,. \notag\end{aligned}$$
where $$\gamma_j\le \frac{{\lambda}(J_j)}{{\lambda}(\widetilde{J}_{j})} \le \omega_j \; .$$ Hence if $\nu(J_j)\leq C \delta_{j+1} ({\lambda}(J_j))^{\Lambda}$ we get that $$\nu(P(m,x))\leq \frac{C}{({\lambda}(J_j))^{1-\Lambda}}\,\,\frac{\omega_{j+1}}{\gamma_{j+1}}\, {\lambda}(P(m,x))$$ and we will need $$\frac{\omega_{j+1}}{\gamma_{j+1}}\,\leq\frac{1}{ ( {\lambda}(P(m,x)))^{\varepsilon}}$$ in order to get that the dimension is greater than $\Lambda-{\varepsilon}$. We recall that in this case the upper bound for ${\lambda}(P(m,x))$ is ${\lambda}(J_j)$ and ${\lambda}(J_j)\leq (\omega_j\beta_j)(\omega_{j-1}\beta_{j-1})\cdots (\omega_1\beta_1)$.
\[azulesyrojos2\] Under the same hypotheses that in Theorem [\[azulesyrojos\]]{} we have that if $\delta_j=\delta>0$ and $$\alpha_j = e^{-N_j a}\,, \qquad \beta_j= e^{-N_j b} \,, \qquad \gamma_j = e^{-N_j c}\,,$$ then $${\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}} ({\cal C}) \ge \frac b{a+c} - \frac {\log(1/\delta)}{a+c}\lim_{j\to\infty} \frac {j}{N_1 +\cdots +N_j}\,.$$
The next definition states some kind of regularity on the distribution of the blocks of the partitions. This property will allow us to relate the Hausdorff dimension with the grid Hausdorff dimension.
\[gridregular\] Let ${{\bf\Pi}}=\{{\cal P}_n\}$ be a grid of $X$. We will say that ${{\bf\Pi}}$ is ${\lambda}$-regular if there exists a positive constant $C$ such that for all ball $B$ $${\lambda}(\cup\{P: P\in{\cal P}_n \, , \, P\cap B\not=\emptyset\})\leq
C\, {\lambda}(B)$$ for all $n$ such that $\sup_{P\in{\cal P}_n}{\lambda}(P)\leq{\lambda}(B)$.
\[regularreal\] It is clear from the definition that any grid of $X\subset {{\bf R}}$ is ${\lambda}$-regular (we can take $C=3$)
[**An example:**]{} Let $X$ be the square $[0,1]\times[0,1]$ in ${{\bf R}}^2$ and let us denote by ${\lambda}$ the Lebesgue measure. Consider the grid ${{\bf\Pi}}=\{{\cal P}_n\}$ defined as follows: the elements of ${\cal P}_0$ are the four open rectangles obtained by dividing the square $[0,1]\times[0,1]$ through the lines $x=a$ and $y=b$, with $\frac12<b<a<1$; the elements of ${\cal P}_n$ are getting by dividing each rectangle of ${\cal P}_{n-1}$ in four rectangles using the same proportions. We will see that this is not a regular grid.
Let us consider the ball $B_k$ with diameter $(1-b)^k$ and contained in the square $[0,(1-b)^k]\times[(1-b)^k,1]$. It is easy to see that $\sup_{P\in{\cal P}_n}{\lambda}(P)=(ab)^n$, and therefore $(ab)^n\leq {\lambda}(B_k)$ implies $$n\geq \frac{\log c+2k\log(1/(1-b))}{\log{1/(ab)}}$$
Therefore, if ${{\bf\Pi}}$ is regular, then for $n=n(k)= 2k \frac{\log(1/(1-b))}{\log{1/(ab)}}+C$ the quotient $$C_k:=\frac{{\lambda}(\cup\{P: P\in{\cal P}_n \, , \, P\cap B_k\not=\emptyset\})}{{\lambda}(B_k)}$$ has to be bounded. But, it is easy to see that the elements of ${\cal P}_n$ whose closure intersects to $[0,1]\times\{0\}$ are rectangles of width $a^n$, and hence, since $b<a$, $$C_k\ge \frac {(1-b)^ka^{n(k)}}{(1-b)^{2k}} \to \infty \qquad \hbox{as $k\to\infty$}.$$ Therefore, this grid is not regular. On the other hand it is clear that any grid in $X$ whose elements are all squares is regular.
The following result gives a lower bound for the Hausdorff dimension of Cantor like sets which are constructed using a regular subgrid with some control into the quotient between the size of parents and sons.
\[haches\] Let ${{\bf\Pi}}=\{{\cal P}_n\}$ be a grid of $X$ and let $\{{\cal Q}_n\}$ be a ${\lambda}$-regular subgrid of ${{{\bf\Pi}}}$. Let us suppose that there exist strictly non increasing sequences $\{a_n\}$, $\{b_n\}$ of positive numbers such that $\lim_{n\to\infty} b_n=0$ and for all $Q\in {\cal Q}_n$ $$a_n\leq{\lambda}(Q)\leq b_n\,.$$ Then, for any subset $F \subseteq \bigcap_n\bigcup_{Q\in{\cal Q}_n} Q$, $$\label{Hausmess}
{\cal H}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}}^{\alpha}(F)\leq C\, {\cal
H}_{{\lambda}}^{1-(1-\alpha)\eta}(F)$$ for all $\alpha$ and $\eta$ such that $$\label{limgrid}
\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{\log(1/a_n)}{\log
(1/b_{n-1})}<\eta < \frac 1{1-\alpha}\,,$$ where $C$ is an absolute positive constant. In particular, $$\label{Hausdims}
\frac {1-{\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{\lambda}(F)}{1- {\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}}(F)} \le
\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{\log(1/a_n)}{\log (1/b_{n-1})}\,.$$
Let us consider a ball $B$ such that $B\cap F\not=\emptyset$ and let $n=n(B)$ be the smallest integer such that $b_n\leq{\lambda}(B)$. Then $$b_n\leq{\lambda}(B) <b_{n-1}.$$ We denote by ${\cal Q}(B)$ the collection of elements in ${\cal
Q}_n$ whose intersection with $B$ is not empty. Then the collection ${\cal Q}(B)$ is a covering of $B\cap F$, that is $$\label{covering}
B\cap F\subset \bigcup\{Q\, :\, Q\in{\cal Q}(B)\},$$ and moreover by the Definition \[gridregular\] and the election of $n=n(B)$, $$\sum_{Q\in{\cal Q}(B)}({\lambda}(Q))^{\alpha}=\sum_{Q\in{\cal
Q}(B)}\frac1{({\lambda}(Q))^{1-\alpha}}\,{\lambda}(Q)\leq C\,
\frac{1}{a_n^{1-\alpha}}\, {\lambda}(B) \,.$$ We may assume that $n$ is large because ${\text{\rm diam\,}}(B)$ is small and so the above inequality and (\[limgrid\]) imply that $$\label{medidacov}
\sum_{Q\in{\cal Q}(B)}({\lambda}(Q))^{\alpha}\leq C' ({\lambda}(B))^{1-(1-\alpha)\eta} \,.$$ The inequality (\[Hausmess\]) follows now from (\[covering\]) and (\[medidacov\]). To prove (\[Hausdims\]) let us observe that we can assume that $$\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{\log(1/a_n)}{\log (1/b_{n-1})} < \frac 1{1- \rm
Dim_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}}(F)}$$ since in other case (\[Hausdims\]) is trivial. Let us choose now $\alpha$ and $\eta$ such that $$\label{etayalpha}
\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{\log(b_{n-1}/a_n)}{\log (1/b_n)} <\eta <
\frac 1{1-\alpha}< \frac 1{1-{\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}}(F)}.$$ Then ${\cal H}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}}^{\alpha}(F)>0$ and by (\[Hausmess\]) we have also that ${\cal H}_{{\lambda}}^{1-(1-\alpha)\eta}(F)>0$. Since $\alpha$ y $\eta$ are arbitrary numbers verifying (\[etayalpha\]), the ineguality (\[Hausdims\]) follows.
Some consequences of Shannon-McMillan-Breiman Theorem {#SMB}
=====================================================
Along this section $(X,{\cal A},\mu)$ will be a finite measure space and $T:X\longrightarrow X$ will be a measurable transformation. A [*partition*]{} of $X$ is a family ${\cal P}$ of measurable sets with positive measure satisfying
- If $P_1,P_2 \in {\cal P}$ then $\mu(P_1 \cap P_2)=0$.
- $\mu\left(X\setminus \cup_{P\in{\cal P}} P\right) =0$.
It follows from these properties that ${\cal P}$ must be finite or numerable. The [*entropy*]{} of a partition ${\cal P}$ is defined as $$H_\mu({\cal P}) = \sum_{P\in{\cal P}} \mu(P) \, \log \frac 1{\mu(P)}\,.$$ If $T:X\longrightarrow X$ preserves the measure $\mu$, then the [*entropy of $T$ with respect to the partition ${\cal P}$*]{} is $$h_\mu(T,{\cal P}) = \lim_{n\to\infty} \frac 1n \, H_\mu \big( \vee_{j=0}^{n-1} T^{-j} {\cal P} \big).$$ This limit exists since the sequence in the right hand side is decreasing. Hence $h_\mu(T,{\cal P})\le H_\mu({\cal P})$.
Finally, the [*entropy*]{} $h_\mu(T)$ of the endomorphism $T$ is the supremum of $h_\mu(T,{\cal P})$ over all the partitions ${\cal P}$ of $X$ with entropy $h_\mu(T,{\cal P})<\infty$.
If the partition ${\cal P}$ is generating, i.e. if $\vee_{j=0}^\infty T^{-j}({\cal P})$ generates $\cal A$, then, by the Kolmogorov-Sinai Theorem (\[M, p. 218-220\]), we get
[**Theorem C** ]{} [*Let $(X,{\cal A}, \mu)$ be a probability space and $T:X\longrightarrow X$ be a measure preserving transformation. If $\cal P$ is a generating partition of $X$ and the entropy $H_{\mu}({\cal P})$ is finite, then $h_{\mu}(T)=h_{\mu}(T,{\cal P})$*]{}.
Let $P(n,x)$ denotes the element of the partition $\vee_{j=0}^n
T^{-j}({\cal P})$ which contains the point $x\in X$. It follows from the definition of partition, that for almost every $x\in X$, $P(n,x)$ is defined for all $n$. Entropy is a measure of how fast $\mu(P(n,x))$ goes to zero. The following fundamental result, which is due to Shannon, McMillan and Breiman, formalizes this assertion:
[**Theorem D**]{}(\[M, p. 209\]) [*Let $(X,{\cal A},\mu)$ be a probability space and let $T:X\longrightarrow X$ be a measure preserving ergodic transformation. Let ${\cal P}$ be a partition with finite entropy $H_{\mu}({\cal P})$. Then, $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac 1n\log{\frac{1}{\mu(P(n,x))}}=h_{\mu}(T,{\cal P}) \,,$$ for $\mu$-almost every $x\in X$.*]{}
We will need later the following consequence of Theorem D.
\[egorof\] Let $(X,{\cal A},\mu)$ be a probability space and let $T:X\longrightarrow X$ be a measure preserving ergodic transformation and ${\cal P}$ be a partition with finite entropy $H_{\mu}({\cal P})$. Then, given ${\varepsilon}>0$ there exists a decreasing sequence of sets $\{E_N^{{\varepsilon}}\}_{N\in{{\bf N}}}$ such that $$\label{e_n}
\mu(E_N^{{\varepsilon}})\to 0 \quad \mbox{ as } \quad N\to\infty$$ and for all $x\in X\setminus E_N^{{\varepsilon}}$ $$\label{SM}
e^{-j(h_\mu+{\varepsilon})}<\mu(P(j,x))<e^{-j(h_\mu-{\varepsilon})}\,, \qquad \mbox{
for all } j\geq N\,.$$ with $h_\mu=h_{\mu}(T,{\cal P})$ the entropy of $T$ with respect to $\mu$ and the partition $\cal P$.
Given ${\varepsilon}>0$ we define for all $j\in{{\bf N}}$ the sets $$F_{j}^{{\varepsilon}}=\left \{x\in X \, : \,\left |
\frac{1}{j}\log\frac{1}{\mu(P(j,x))}-h_\mu\right |<{\varepsilon}\right \}\,.$$ By Theorem D we know that for almost every $x\in X$ $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{n}\log\frac{1}{\mu(P(n,x))} =h_\mu\,.$$ Therefore there is a set $S$ with $\mu(S)=0$ such that for all $x\in X\setminus S$ there exists $n(x)\in{{\bf N}}$ such that $$\left | \frac{1}{j}\log\frac{1}{\mu(P(j,x))}-h_\mu\right |<{\varepsilon}\qquad \mbox{ for all } j\geq
n(x)\,.$$ Hence, $$X\setminus S\subset \bigcup_{N\in{{\bf N}}}\bigcap_{j\geq N}F_{j}^{{\varepsilon}}$$ or equivalently $$\label{med0}
\bigcap_{N\in{{\bf N}}}\bigcup_{j\geq N}(X\setminus F_{j}^{{\varepsilon}})\subset
S\,.$$ We define $$E_N^{{\varepsilon}}=\bigcup_{j\geq N}(X\setminus F_j^{{\varepsilon}})\,.$$ By definition $E_{N+1}^{{\varepsilon}}\subset E_N^{{\varepsilon}}$ for all $N\in{{\bf N}}$ and by (\[med0\]) $\mu(\bigcap_N E_N^{{\varepsilon}})=0$, therefore $$\mu(E_N^{{\varepsilon}})\to 0 \qquad \mbox{ when }\qquad N\to\infty\,.$$ Moreover, if $x\in X\setminus E_N^{{\varepsilon}}$, then $x\in F_j^{{\varepsilon}}$ for all $j\geq N$, and therefore $$e^{-j(h_\mu+{\varepsilon})}<\mu(P(j,x))<e^{-j(h_\mu-{\varepsilon})} \qquad \mbox{ for
all }\qquad j\geq N\,.$$
\[SMsinmalos\] Let $(X,{\cal A},\mu)$ be a probability space, let $T:X\longrightarrow X$ be a measure preserving mixing transformation, and ${\cal P}$ be a partition with finite entropy $H_{\mu}({\cal P})$. Let us denote $$X_0 = \bigcap_{n=0}^\infty \bigcup_{P\in \vee_{j=0}^n T^{-j}({\cal
P})} P \,.$$ Let $P_1,P_2$ be two fixed elements of ${\cal P}$. For ${\varepsilon}>0$ let $\{E_M^{\varepsilon}\}$ be the decreasing sequence of sets given by Lemma [\[egorof\]]{} . If ${\cal S}_{N,M}$ denotes the collection of the sets $P(N,x)$ verifying $$x\in X_0\setminus E_M^{\varepsilon}\,, \qquad P(N,x) \subset P_1\,, \qquad
T^N(P(N,x))=P(0,T^N(x))=P_2 \,,$$ then, for all $M$ and $N$ large enough depending on $P_1$ and $P_2$, $$\label{Sn}
\mu({\cal S}_{N,M}) := \mu \big(\bigcup_{S\in{{\cal S}_{N,M}}} S
\big) \ge \frac 12 \, \mu (P_1) \, \mu (P_2) \,.$$
We have that $$\begin{aligned}
\mu (P_1) & = \mu ({\cal S}_{N,M}) + \sum_{P\in{\cal P}\setminus
\{P_2\}}
\sum_{\substack{ P(N,x)\subset P_1 \ s.t. \ x\in X_0\setminus E_M^{{\varepsilon}} \\ T^N(P(N,x)) = P}} \mu(P(N,x)) + \mu (P_1 \cap E_M^{\varepsilon}) \notag \\
& \le \mu({\cal S}_{N,M}) + \sum_{P\in{\cal P}\setminus \{P_2\}} \mu (P_1 \cap T^{-N} (P)) + \mu (P_1 \cap E_M^{\varepsilon}) \notag \\
& = \mu({\cal S}_{N,M}) + \mu (P_1) - \mu (P_1 \cap T^{-N} (P_2))
+ \mu (P_1 \cap E_M^{\varepsilon}) \notag \,.\end{aligned}$$ Notice that $\lim_{M\to\infty} \mu(E_M^{\varepsilon}) = 0$ by Lemma \[egorof\] and $$\lim_{N\to\infty} \mu (P_1 \cap T^{-N} (P_2)) = \mu(P_1) \,
\mu(P_2)$$ because $T$ is mixing. Hence, for $M$ and $N$ large enough, $$\mu ({\cal S}_{N,M}) \ge \frac 12 \, \mu (P_1) \, \mu (P_2)\,.$$
Expanding maps. {#expandingmaps}
===============
We will say that $(X,d,{\cal A},\lambda,T)$ is an [*expanding system*]{} if $(X,\cal A,\lambda)$ is a finite measure space, ${\lambda}$ is a non-atomic measure and the support of ${\lambda}$ is equal to $X$, $(X,d)$ is a locally complete separable metric space, $\cal A$ is its Borel $\sigma$-algebra and $T:X \longrightarrow X$ is an [*expanding map*]{}, i.e. a measurable transformation satisfying the following properties:
- There exists a collection of open sets ${\cal P}_0 = \{P_i\}$ of $X$ such that $\displaystyle \sup_{P\in
{\cal P}_0} {\text{\rm diam\,}}(P) <\infty$, and
- $\lambda (P_i)>0$,
- $P_i\cap P_j = \emptyset$ if $i\ne j$,
- $\lambda (X \setminus \cup_i P_i) =0$,
- The restriction $T\big |_{P_i}$ of $T$ to the set $P_i$ is injective,
- For each $P_i$, if $P_j\cap T(P_i)\ne \emptyset$, then $P_j \subseteq T(P_i)$.
- For each $P_i$, if $P_j \subseteq T(P_i)$, then the map $T\big |_{P_i}^{-1}: T(P_i)\cap P_j\longrightarrow P_i $ is open.
- There is a natural number $n_0>0$ such that $\lambda (T^{-n_0}(P_i)\cap P_j) > 0$, for all $P_i, \, P_j \in
{\cal P}_0$.
- There exists a measurable map ${{\bf J}}:X \longrightarrow
[0,\infty)$, ${{\bf J}}>0$ in $\cup_{P\in{\cal P}_0} P$, such that for all $P_i \in {\cal P}_0$ and for all Borel subset $A$ of $P_i$ we have that $$\lambda (T(A)) = \int_A {{\bf J}}\, d\lambda \,.$$ and moreover there exist absolute constants $0<\alpha\le 1$ and $C_1>0$, such that for all $x,y \in P_i$ $$\left| \frac {{{\bf J}}(x)}{{{\bf J}}(y)} -1 \right| \le C_1\,
d(T(x),T(y))^\alpha \,.$$
- Let us define inductively the following collections $\{{\cal P}_i\}$ of open sets: $${\cal P}_1=\bigcup_{P_i\in{\cal P}_0}\{ (T\big|_{P_i})^{-1}(P_j)\,
:\, P_j\in{\cal P}_0 \,, \ P_j \subset T(P_i) \},$$ and, in general, $${\cal P}_{n}=\bigcup_{P_i\in{\cal
P}_0}\{(T\big|_{P_i})^{-1}(P_j)\, :\, P_j\in{\cal P}_{n-1} \,, \
P_j \subset T(P_i)\}.$$ Then, there exist absolute constants $\beta >1$ and $C_2>0$ such that for all $x,y$ in the same element of ${\cal P}_n$ we have that $$d(T^n(x),T^n(y)) \ge C_2 \beta^n d(x,y)\,.$$
\[nota1\]
- - It is easy to see that each family ${\cal P}_n$ verifies the properties (A.1), (A.2) and (A.3). Also notice that, for each $n$, $T({\cal P}_n)$ is equal to ${\cal P}_{n-1}$ (mod $0$) in the sense that the image of each element of ${\cal P}_n$ is an element of ${\cal P}_{n-1}$ (mod $0$).
- From the properties (A.1), (A.2) and (A.3) it follows that ${\cal P}_0$ is finite or numerable.
- As a consequence of property (C) we have, since $\sup_{P\in {\cal P}_0}{\text{\rm diam\,}}(P)<\infty$, that $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \Big( \sup_{P\in{\cal P}_n} \hbox{diam}(P) \Big) =0 \,.$$ Therefore (see for example \[M, p.13\]) we deduce that the partition ${\cal P}_0$ is [*generating*]{}. This means that ${\cal A}=\bigvee_{n=0}^\infty {\cal P}_n$ (mod 0).
We will define also, for each $n\in {{\bf N}}$, the function $${{\bf J}}_n(x) = {{\bf J}}(x) \cdot {{\bf J}}(T(x)) \cdots {{\bf J}}(T^{n-1}(x)) \,, \qquad
\hbox{for } x\in \bigcup_{P\in {\cal P}_{n-1}}P.$$ Then it follows easily that $$\label{njacobiano}
\int_A f(T^n(x)) \, {\bf J}_n(x)\, d\lambda(x) = \int_{T^n(A)}
f(x)\, d\lambda (x) \,, \qquad \hbox{for all $f\in L^1(\mu)$}\,,$$ and, in particular, $$\lambda (T^n(A)) = \int_A {{\bf J}}_n \, d\lambda$$ for each measurable set $A$ contained in some element of ${\cal P}_{n-1}$.
Notice that in the definition of an expanding map the measure $\lambda$ it is not required to have special dynamical properties. However it is a remarkable fact that it is possible to find an invariant measure which is essentially comparable to $\lambda$ and has very interesting dynamical properties. More concretely it is known the following result
[**Theorem E**]{} (\[M, p.172\]).
*Let $(X,d,{\cal
A},\lambda,T)$ be an expanding system. Then, there exist a unique probability measure $\mu$ on $\cal A$ which is absolutely continuous with respect to $\lambda$ and such that*
- $T$ preserves the measure $\mu$.
- $d\mu/d\lambda$ is Hölder continuous.
- For each $P_i \in {\cal P}_0$ there exist a positive constant $K_i$ such that $$\frac 1{K_i} \le \frac {d\mu}{d\lambda} (x) \le K_i \,, \qquad
\hbox{for all $x\in P_i$}\,.$$
- $T$ is exact with respect to $\mu$.
- $\mu(B)= \dfrac 1{{\lambda}(X)} \lim_{n\to\infty} \lambda (T^{-n}(B))$ for every $B\in {\cal A}$.
In what follows we will refer to $\mu$ as the ACIPM measure associated to the expanding system.
\[fullsets\] Notice that by part (iii) and property (A.3) of expanding maps the measures ${\lambda}$ and $\mu$ have the same zero measure sets and therefore the same full measure sets.
\[comparableabsoluta\] We recall that the condition (A.4) in the definition of expanding maps says that $T\big| P_i$ must be injective for all $P_i \in {\cal P}_0$. If we strengthen this condition by requiring also that $$\inf_{P\in {\cal P}_0} {\lambda}(T(P)) >0 \qquad \text{and} \qquad
\sup_{P\in {\cal P}_0} {\text{\rm diam\,}}(T(P)) <\infty \,,$$ or, in particular, if $T:P \longrightarrow X$ is bijective (mod $0$) for all $P\in {\cal P}_0$ and $X$ is bounded, then, a slight modification of the proof of Theorem E in [@M] (using Remark \[lema3\] instead of \[M, Lemma 1.5\]), allows to obtain the property (iii) of $\mu$ with an absolute constant $K$. Therefore with this additional assumption one have that $$\frac 1K \, \lambda (A) \le \mu(A) \le K \, \lambda(A) \,, \qquad
\hbox{for all $A\in {\cal A}$}\,.$$ Of course, this condition also holds if the partition ${\cal P}_0$ is finite.
We recall that since $\sup_{P\in{\cal P}_0} {\text{\rm diam\,}}(P)<\infty$ then the partition ${\cal P}_0$ is generating, Therefore, for expanding systems $h_\mu(T)=h_\mu(T,{\cal P}_0)$.
\[entropia\] By definition of entropy, if $H_\mu({\cal P}_0)$ is finite, then $h_\mu(T)\le H_\mu({\cal P}_0)<\infty$. Also, since $T$ is exact with respect to $\mu$ we have that an expanding system is Kolmogorov ([@M], p. 158). Also, $X$ is a Lebesgue space ([@M], p. 81). As a consequence it follows that $h_\mu(T)>0$, ([@M]., p. 225).
For expanding maps there exists an alternative way of computing the entropy of $T$:
[**Theorem F**]{}(\[M, p. 227\]) [*Let $(X,d,{\cal
A},\lambda,T)$ be an expanding system and let $\mu$ be the ACIPM measure associated to the system. If the entropy $H_{\mu}({\cal
P}_0)$ of the partition ${\cal P}_0$ is finite, then $\log {{\bf J}}$ is integrable and $$h_{\mu}(T)=\int_X\log {{\bf J}}\, d\mu \,.$$* ]{}
A code for expanding maps {#codes}
-------------------------
We will denote by $P(n,x)$ the element of the collection ${\cal
P}_n$ which contains the point $x\in X$. Observe that for each $n$, $P(n,x)$ is well defined for $x$ belonging to $$\Upsilon_n:= \cup \{P: P\in {\cal P}_n \}$$ and $\Upsilon_n$ has full $\lambda$-measure for property (A.3) for ${\cal P}_n$, see Remark \[nota1\].1. Therefore if $x$ belongs to the set $$\label{defdeX0}
X_0:=\bigcap_{n=0}^\infty \Upsilon_n = \bigcap_{n=0}^\infty \bigcup_{P\in {\cal P}_n} P$$ then $P(n,x)$ is well defined for all $n$. Moreover, if $x\in \Upsilon_n$ then from the definition of ${\cal P}_n$ we have that $T(x)\in \Upsilon_{n-1}$. Hence, if $x\in X_0$ we have that $T^\ell (x) \in X_0$ for all $\ell\in{{\bf N}}$, and so $P(n,T^\ell(x))$ is well defined for all $n, \ell \in{{\bf N}}$. This set has full $\lambda$-measure since $X\setminus X_0
\subseteq \cup_{n\ge 0} X\setminus \Upsilon_n$ and this set has zero $\lambda$-measure by (A.3) for ${\cal
P}_n$. Hence, for almost every $x\in X$, $P(n,T^\ell(x))$ is defined for all $n, \ell\in{{\bf N}}$. An easy consequence of the definition of $P(n,x)$ that we will use in the sequel is that $$\label{TdeIn}
T(P(n,x)) = P(n-1, T(x)) \,, \qquad n\ge 1 \,.$$
If $x\in X_0$ then, since $P(n+1,x)\subset P(n,x)$ and ${\text{\rm diam\,}}(P(n,x))\to 0$ when $n\to\infty$, we have that $$\bigcap_n P(n,x)=\{ x\}$$ and so the sequence $\{P(n,x)\}_n$ determines to the point $x$. Moreover, from (\[TdeIn\]) we have that $T^n(P(n,x))=P(0,T^n(x))$, and it is not difficult to see that $$\begin{aligned}
P(k,x) & =T\big |_{P(0,x)}^{-1}T\big |_{P(0,T(x))}^{-1}\ldots T\big |_{P(0,T^{k-1}(x))}^{-1}\Big ( P(0,T^k(x))\Big )\notag \\
& =T\big |_{P(0,x)}^{-1}T\big |_{P(0,T(x))}^{-1}\ldots T\big |_{P(0,T^{k-2}(x))}^{-1}\Big (T^{-1}\big (P(0,T^k(x))\big )\cap P(0,T^{k-1}(x)) \Big)\notag \\
& =T\big |_{P(0,x)}^{-1}T\big |_{P(0,T(x))}^{-1}\ldots T\big |_{P(0,T^{k-3}(x))}^{-1}\Big (T^{-2}\big (P(0,T^k(x))\big )\cap T^{-1}\big ( P(0,T^{k-1}(x))\big )\cap P(0,T^{k-2}(x))\Big )\notag \\
&=\ldots =\bigcap_{n=0}^k T^{-n}(P(0,T^n(x))) . \notag\end{aligned}$$ Hence $$\bigcap_{n=0}^\infty T^{-n}(P(0,T^n(x)))=\bigcap_{n=0}^\infty
P(n,x)=\{ x\}$$ and the sequence $\{P(0,T^n(x))\}_n$ also determines the point $x$.
We will also define the set $X_0^+$ as the union of $X_0$ with the set of points $x\in X$ verifying that there exists a sequence $\{P_n\}$, with $P_n \in {\cal P}_n$ and $P_{n+1} \subset P_n$, such that $$\bigcap_{n=0}^\infty \text{closure}(P_n)=\{ x\} \,.$$ We remark that for points $x\in X_0^+\setminus X_0$ the sequence $\{P_n\}$ is not uniquelly determinated by $x$. From now on, for each $x\in X_0^+\setminus X_0$ we make an election of $\{P_n\}$ and we denote $P_n$ by $P(n,x)$. Also by $P(0,T^n(x))$ we mean $T^n(P(n,x))$. We are extending in this way the definition of $P(n,x)$ and $P(0,T^n(x))$ given for points in $X_0$ in such a way that for points in $ X_0^+\setminus X_0$ we also have that $T^n(P(n,x))=P(0,T^n(x))$.
\[code\] If $x\in X_0^+$, then we will code $x$ as the sequence $\{ i_0,
i_1, \ldots\}$ and we will write $x=[\;i_0 \;i_1\:\ldots\;]$ if and only if $$P(0,T^n(x))=P_{i_n}\in{\cal P}_0,\qquad \text{ for all } \quad n=0,1,2,\ldots$$
If $x=[\;i_0 \; i_1 \; i_2 \ldots\;]$ then $T(x)=[\;i_1\:i_2\;i_3\;\ldots\;]$. Therefore $T$ acts as the left shift on the space of all codes.
Some properties of expanding maps {#PropEM}
---------------------------------
Let $(X,d,{\cal A},\lambda,T)$ be an expanding system. Following [@M] we have
\[cotajacobiano\] There exists an absolute constant $C>0$ such that for all $x_0 \in
X_0^+$ and for all natural number $n$ we have that if $x,y \in
P(n,x_0)$ then $$\label{lachachi}
\frac {{{\bf J}}_{s}(x)}{{{\bf J}}_{s}(y)} \le C \,, \qquad \hbox{for
$s=1,\dots,n$}\,.$$ Moreover, if $\sup_{P\in {\cal P}_0} {\text{\rm diam\,}}(T(P))<\infty$, then [(\[lachachi\])]{} holds for $s=n+1$.
We will prove the lemma for the case $s=n+1$. If $x,y\in P(n.x_0)$ we have, from properties (B) and (C), that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{{\bf J}}_{n+1}(x)}{{{\bf J}}_{n+1}(y)} & = \prod_{k=0}^n \frac
{{{\bf J}}(T^k(x))}{{{\bf J}}(T^k(y))}
\le \prod_{k=0}^n (1+C \, d(T^{k+1}(x),T^{k+1}(y))^\alpha ) \notag \\
& = (1+C \, d(T^{n+1}(x),T^{n+1}(y))^\alpha) \prod_{k=0}^{n-1} (1+C\, d(T^{k+1}(x),T^{k+1}(y))^\alpha) \notag \\
& \le (1+C \, [\hbox{diam\,}T(P(0,T^n(x_0)))]^\alpha) \prod_{k=0}^{n-1} (1+C\, \beta^{-\alpha(n-(k+1))} d(T^{n}(x),T^{n}(y))^\alpha) \notag\end{aligned}$$ since $x,y\in P(n,x_0)$ implies that $T^{k+1}(x),T^{k+1}(y)\in P(n-(k+1),T^{k+1}(x_0))$ for $k=0,\dots,n-1$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{{\bf J}}_{n+1}(x)}{{{\bf J}}_{n+1}(y)} &
\le (1+C \, [\hbox{diam\,}T(P(0,T^n(x_0)))]^\alpha) \prod_{j=0}^{n-1} (1+C\, \beta^{-\alpha j} [\hbox{diam\,} P(0,T^n(x_0))]^\alpha) \notag \\
&\le (1+ C\, \overline{D}^\alpha) \exp \Big[ C\, D^\alpha \sum_{j=0}^{\infty}
\beta^{-\alpha j} \Big] \le C \,, \notag\end{aligned}$$ where $D=\sup_{P\in {\cal P}_0} {\text{\rm diam\,}}(P)$ and $\overline{D}=\sup_{P\in {\cal P}_0} {\text{\rm diam\,}}(T(P))$.
An easy consequence of the above bound, that we will often use, is the following one:
\[elchachi\] If $P$ is an element of ${\cal P}_n$, i.e. if $P=P(n,x)$ for some $x\in X$, and $P'$ is a measurable subset of $P$ then $$\frac 1C \frac {\lambda(T^{j}(P'))}{\lambda (T^{j}(P))}\le \frac
{\lambda(P')}{\lambda(P)} \le C \frac {\lambda(T^{j}(P'))}{\lambda
(T^{j}(P))}\, , \qquad \hbox{ for } j=1,\dots, n\,,$$ with $C$ an absolute constant. Moreover, if $\sup_{P\in {\cal P}_0}{\text{\rm diam\,}}(T(P))<\infty$, then the above inequality is true for $j=n+1$.
Using (\[njacobiano\]) we get $$\frac {\inf_{y\in P}{\bf J_{j}}(y)}{\sup_{x\in P}{\bf J_{j}}(x)} \, \frac {\lambda(P')}{\lambda(P)} \le
\frac {\lambda(T^{j}(P'))}{\lambda (T^{j}(P))} = \frac {\int_{P'} {\bf J_{j}} \, d\lambda}{\int_{P} {\bf J_{j}} \,
d\lambda} \le \frac {\sup_{x\in P} {\bf J_{j}}(x)}{\inf_{y\in P}{\bf J_{j}}(y)} \, \frac {\lambda(P')}{\lambda(P)}$$ and the result follows from Proposition \[cotajacobiano\].
\[elquefunciona\] If $A\in {\cal A}$ and $Q\in {\cal P}_m$ for some m, then $$\lambda (T^{-\ell}(A)\cap Q) = \int_A \sum_{y\in T^{-\ell}(x)\cap
Q} \frac 1{{{\bf J}}_\ell(y)} \, d\lambda (x) \,, \qquad \hbox{for }
\ell=1,2,\dots \,.$$
We may assume that $T^{-\ell}(A)\cap Q\neq \emptyset$ and $A\subseteq P\in {\cal P}_m$. The general result follows from the fact that ${\cal P}_m$ is a partition of $X$. Then we have that $T^{-\ell}(A)\cap Q$ is a union of some elements $B_1,B_2,\ldots$ such that $B_i\subset P_i\in {\cal P}_{\ell+m}$ and $T^\ell \big|_{B_j}: B_j \longrightarrow A$ is bijective for all $j$. Let us denote by $S_j$ its inverse map, $S_j:A\longrightarrow B_j$. Then $$\lambda (T^{-\ell}(A)\cap Q) = \sum_j \lambda (B_j) = \sum_j
\lambda (S_j(A)) \,.$$ But using (\[njacobiano\]) we deduce that $$\lambda (S_j(A)) = \int_{S_j(A)} d\lambda = \int_{S_j(A)} \frac
{{{\bf J}}_\ell (x)}{{{\bf J}}_\ell ((S_j (T^{\ell}(x)))} \, d\lambda(x) =
\int_{T^{\ell}(S_j(A))} \frac 1{{{\bf J}}_\ell(S_j(x))} \, d\lambda
(x)\,.$$ Therefore, since $T^{\ell}(S_j(A))=A$, we have $$\lambda (T^{-\ell}(A)\cap Q) = \sum_j \int_A \frac 1{{{\bf J}}_\ell
(S_j(x))} \, d\lambda (x) = \int_A \sum_j \frac 1{{{\bf J}}_\ell
(S_j(x))} \, d\lambda (x)\,.$$ If we denote, for each $j$, $y=S_j(x)$ we have that $y\in
T^{-\ell}(x)\cap B_j$ and that $y$ is unique. This observation completes the proof.
\[nucleoacotado\] If $x\in P_0\in {\cal P}_0$ and $z\in Q\in {\cal P}_m$, then $$\sum_{y\in T^{-\ell}(x)\cap Q} \frac 1{{{\bf J}}_\ell(y)} \le
\begin{cases}
C\, {\lambda}(P(\ell,z))& \text{ if $\ell< m$},
\\
&
\\
C\, {\lambda}(Q)& \text{ if $\ell \geq m.$}
\end{cases}$$ with $C>0$ a constant depending on $P_0$.
Using (\[TdeIn\]), (\[njacobiano\]) and Proposition \[cotajacobiano\] we deduce that $$\lambda (P_0) = \lambda (P(0,x)) =\lambda (P(0,T^{\ell}(y))=
\lambda (T^\ell (P(\ell,y))) = \int_{P(\ell,y)} {{\bf J}}_\ell \,
d\lambda \asymp {{\bf J}}_\ell (y) {\lambda}(P(\ell,y)) \,.$$ Therefore $$\label{unoentrejotaele}
\frac 1{{{\bf J}}_\ell (y)} \asymp \frac {{\lambda}(P(\ell,y))}{\lambda (P_0)}
\,.$$ If $\ell\geq m$ we have that $P(\ell,y)\subset Q$ for all $y\in T^{-\ell}(x)\cap Q$ and so $$\sum_{y\in T^{-\ell}(x)\cap Q} \frac 1{{{\bf J}}_\ell(y)} \asymp \frac
1{\lambda (P_0)} \sum_{y\in T^{-\ell}(x)\cap Q} \lambda
(P(\ell,y)) \le \frac {C}{\lambda (P_0)} \, \lambda (Q)$$ On the other hand, if $\ell < m$ the map $T^{\ell}$ is injective in $Q$ and therefore there is at most one point $y\in
T^{-\ell}(x)\cap Q$. Since $P(\ell,y)\supset P(m,y)=Q$ we also have that $P(\ell,z)=P(\ell,y)$ for any $z\in Q$. Therefore, in this case, the result follows from (\[unoentrejotaele\]).
\[lema3\] Under the same hypotheses for $x$ and $Q$, and if $$C_0:=\inf_{P\in{\cal P}_0} {\lambda}(T(P)) >0 \qquad \text{and} \qquad
D_0:=\sup_{P\in {\cal P}_0} {\text{\rm diam\,}}(T(P)) <\infty ,$$ then $$\sum_{y\in T^{-\ell}(x)\cap Q} \frac 1{{{\bf J}}_\ell(y)} \le
\begin{cases}
C\, {\lambda}(P(\ell-1,z))& \text{ if $\ell< m+1$},
\\
&
\\
C\, {\lambda}(Q)& \text{ if $\ell \geq m+1.$}
\end{cases}$$ with $C$ a constant depending on $C_0$ and $D_0$.
Notice that from Proposition \[cotajacobiano\] we get that $${\lambda}(T(P(0,T^{\ell-1}(y))))=\lambda (T^\ell (P(\ell-1,y))) = \int_{P(\ell-1,y)} {{\bf J}}_\ell \,
d\lambda \asymp {{\bf J}}_\ell (y) {\lambda}(P(\ell-1,y)) \,.$$ Therefore, $$\frac 1{{{\bf J}}_\ell (y)} \asymp \frac {{\lambda}(P(\ell-1,y))}{{\lambda}(T(P(0,T^{\ell-1}(y))))} \le \frac 1{C_0}\,{\lambda}(P(\ell-1,y))
\,.$$ The rest of the proof is similar to the proof of Lemma \[nucleoacotado\].
\[yaesta\] Let $\mu$ be the ACIPM measure associated to the expanding system. Let $A\in {\cal A}$ and $Q\in {\cal P}_m$ with $A, Q\subset P_0
\in {\cal P}_0$. Then, we have that $$\mu(T^{-\ell}(A)\cap Q) \leq \begin{cases}
C\, \mu(A)\mu(P(\ell,z))& \text{ if $\ell < m$},
\\
&
\\
C\, \mu(A)\mu(Q)& \text{ if $\ell \ge m.$}
\end{cases}$$ where $z$ is any point of $Q$ and $C>0$ is a constant depending on $P_0$.
By Theorem E we know that $$\label{compara}
\mu(V)\asymp\lambda(V) \hbox{ for all measurable set } V\subset P_0$$ and the result is a consequence of lemmas \[elquefunciona\] and \[nucleoacotado\].
If $\inf_{P\in{\cal P}_0} {\lambda}(T(P)) >0$ and $\sup_{P\in {\cal
P}_0} {\text{\rm diam\,}}(T(P)) <\infty$, then ${\lambda}$ and $\mu$ are comparable in the whole $X$ and it is not necessary in the statement of the Proposition \[yaesta\] that $A,Q\subset P_0$.
Recall now the definitions of lower and upper ${\cal
P}$-dimensions, see Definition \[dimensiones\]. Since the sequence $\{P(n,x_0)\}_{n\in{{\bf N}}}$ is defined for all $x_0\in
X_0^+$, we have that ${\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}$ and ${\underline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}$ are also defined for $x_0\in X_0^+$,
\[compdiam1\] Let $x_0\in X_0^+$ such that $\underline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)>0$. Given $0<{\varepsilon}<{\underline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}$ there exists $N\in{{\bf N}}$ such that for all $n\geq N$ $$\lambda(P(n,x_0))\leq \beta^{-n(\underline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)-{\varepsilon})}$$ with $\beta>1$ the constant in the property [(C)]{} of expanding maps.
By definition of $\underline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)$ we have that for $n$ large enough $$\lambda(P(n,x_0))\leq (\hbox{diam}(P(n,x_0)))^{\underline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)-{\varepsilon}/2}$$ Now, if $x_0\in X_0$, from the property (C) of expanding maps we get that $$C_2\beta^{n}\hbox{diam}(P(n,x_0))\leq
\hbox{diam}(P(0,T^{n}(x_0)))\le D=\sup_{P\in {\cal P}_0}
{\text{\rm diam\,}}(P)<\infty.$$ The result follows for $x_0\in X_0$ from these two inequalities. If $x_0\in X_0^+\setminus X_0$, then $P(n,x_0)=P(n,x)$ with $x\in
P(n,x_0)\cap X_0$ and from this fact we conclude that also $C_2\beta^{n}\hbox{diam}(P(n,x_0))\le \sup_{P\in {\cal P}_0}
{\text{\rm diam\,}}(P)$ for these points.
Another quantity that we will need is the following:
\[tau\] The rate of decay of the measure ${\lambda}$ at $x\in X_0$ with respect to the partition ${\cal P}_0$ is defined as $$\overline{\tau}_{\lambda}(x)=\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac 1n \log\frac
{{\lambda}(P(n,x))}{{\lambda}(P(n+1,x))}\,.$$
Notice that we can extend the definition of ${{\overline{\tau}_{\lambda}(x_0)}}$ to all $x_0\in X_0^+$.
\[justificacion\] If the entropy $H_\mu({\cal P}_0)$ of the partition ${\cal P}_0$ with respect to the ACIPM measure associated to the expanding system is finite, then the set of points $x_0 \in X_0^+$ verifying $$\label{tau0}
{{\overline{\tau}_{\lambda}(x_0)}}=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac 1n \log\frac
{{\lambda}(P(n,x_0))}{{\lambda}(P(n+1,x_0))}=0$$ has full ${\lambda}$-measure. Besides [(\[tau0\])]{} holds if $\,\sup_{P\in {\cal P}_0} {\text{\rm diam\,}}(T(P))<\infty$ and $x_0 \in X_0^+$ verifies $$\inf_j {\lambda}(P(0,T^j(x_0))) >0 \,.$$ In particular, if the partition ${\cal P}_0$ is finite, then [(\[tau0\])]{} holds for all $x_0 \in X_0^+¼$.
. From part (iii) of Theorem E we know that the measures $\mu$ and ${\lambda}$ are comparable in each element of the partition ${\cal
P}_0$ and as a consequence the zero measure sets are the same for $\mu$ and ${\lambda}$. Hence from Theorem D we have that for ${\lambda}$-almost all $x\in X$ $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac
1n\log\frac{1}{{\lambda}(P(n,x))}=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac
1n\log\frac{1}{\mu(P(n,x))}=h_{\mu},$$ and therefore (\[tau0\]) holds.
Now let us prove that if $\inf_j {\lambda}(P(0,T^j(x_0)))>0$ and $\sup_{P\in {\cal P}_0}{\text{\rm diam\,}}(T(P))<\infty$, then [(\[tau0\])]{} holds for all $x_0 \in X_0^+$. By Proposition \[elchachi\] and (\[TdeIn\]) we have that for all $x_0\in X_0$ $$\frac{{\lambda}(P(n,x_0))}{{\lambda}(P(n+1,x_0))}\le C
\frac{{\lambda}(T(P(0,T^n(x_0)))}{{\lambda}(P(0,T^{n+1}(x_0)))}\le C
\frac{{\lambda}(X)}{\inf_j {\lambda}(P(0,T^j(x_0)))} < C'$$ with $C'>1$ a constant. This implies (\[tau0\]) for all $x_0\in
X_0$. If $x_0 \in X_0^+\setminus X_0$, then $P(n+1,x_0)=P(n+1,x)$ for $x\in P(n+1,x_0)\cap X_0$ and, since $P(n+1,x_0)\subset P(n,x_0)$, we also have that $x\in P(n,x_0)\cap X_0$ and therefore also $P(n,x)=P(n,x_0)$. The result for these points follows now from the last chain of inequalities.
\[compdiam2\] Let $x_0\in X_0^+$ be a point such that $\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)<\infty$ and ${{\overline{\tau}_{\lambda}(x_0)}}<\infty$. Given ${\varepsilon}>0$ there exists $N\in{{\bf N}}$ such that for all $n\geq N$ $$\lambda(P(n,x_0))\geq (\hbox{\rm diam}(P(n-1,x_0)))^{\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)+{{\overline{\tau}_{\lambda}(x_0)}}/\log \beta+{\varepsilon}}$$ where $\beta>1$ is the constant in the property [(C)]{} of expanding maps.
By Definition \[tau\] we have that for $n$ large enough $$\frac{1}{n-1} \log \frac {{\lambda}(P(n-1,x_0))}{{\lambda}(P(n,x_0))} <
{{\overline{\tau}_{\lambda}(x_0)}}+\frac 13 {\varepsilon}\log\beta \,.$$ Hence, for $n$ large enough, $$\label{lcompmed2}
\lambda(P(n,x_0))\geq \beta^{-(n-1){\varepsilon}/3} e^{-(n-1){{\overline{\tau}_{\lambda}(x_0)}}} \lambda(P(n-1,x_0))\, .$$
But from the property (C) of expanding maps, if $x_0\in X_0$ we have that, $$C_2\beta^{n-1}\hbox{diam}(P(n-1,x_0))\leq
\hbox{diam}(P(0,T^{n-1}x_0))\le D$$ with $D=\sup_{P\in {\cal P}_0} {\text{\rm diam\,}}(P)$. If $x_0\in
X_0^+\setminus X_0$, we obtain the same conclusion since $P(n-1,x_0)=P(n-1,x)$ for $x\in P(n-1,x_0)\cap X_0$. Therefore, in any case, we get that $$\label{diamn-1}
\beta^{-(n-1){\varepsilon}/3} e^{-(n-1){{\overline{\tau}_{\lambda}(x_0)}}} \geq C(\hbox{diam}(P(n-1,x_0)))^{{\varepsilon}/3+{{\overline{\tau}_{\lambda}(x_0)}}/\log\beta}$$ with $C>0$.
Finally from the definition of $\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)$ we have that for $n$ large $$\label{deltamed}
\lambda (P(n-1,x_0)) \ge \hbox{diam}
(P(n-1,x_0))^{{\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}+{\varepsilon}/3} \,.$$ The result follows from (\[lcompmed2\]), (\[diamn-1\]), and (\[deltamed\]).
Using lemma \[egorof\] we can define an important subset of $X_0$ which also has full ${\lambda}$-measure. We will refer to this set in the rest of the paper. The following lemma summarizes its properties.
\[defdeX1\] Let $(X,{\cal A},{\lambda},T)$ be an expanding system such that the entropy $H_\mu({\cal P}_0)$ of the partition ${\cal P}_0$, with respect to the unique $T$-invariant probability measure which is absolutely continuous with respect to ${\lambda}$, is finite. Let $X_1$ denote the subset of $X_0$ $$X_1 = X_0 \setminus [\cup_{m=1}^\infty \cap_{N} E_{N}^{1/m}]\,.$$ with $\{E_N^{1/m}\}$ the sets given by Lemma [\[egorof\] ]{} for ${\varepsilon}=1/m$. Then ${\lambda}(X_1)={\lambda}(X)$ and moreover, if $x_0\in X_1$ then:
- $P(n,T^{\ell}(x_0))$ is well defined for all $n,\ell \in {{\bf N}}$.
- For all positive integer $m$ there exists $N\in{{\bf N}}$ such that for all $n\geq N$ $$\label{pronto}
\frac{1}{M}\,e^{-n(h_{\mu}+1/m)} < {\lambda}(P(n,x_0)) < M\,
e^{-n(h_{\mu}-1/m)}\,$$ with $M>0$ depending on $P(0,x_0)$.
- $${{\overline{\tau}_{\lambda}(x_0)}}=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac 1n \log\frac
{{\lambda}(P(n,x_0))}{{\lambda}(P(n+1,x_0))}=0\,.$$
- $ \overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)\le
h_{\mu}/\log\beta<\infty$, with $\beta$ the constant given by property [(C)]{} of expanding maps.
In the proof of Lemma \[egorof\] we saw that $\mu(\cap_{N}
E_{N}^{1/m})=0$. Then, by Theorem E, we obtain that ${\lambda}(\cap_{N} E_{N}^{1/m})=0$, and therefore ${\lambda}[\cup_{m=1}^\infty \cap_{N} E_{N}^{1/m}]=0$. Hence we have that ${\lambda}(X_1)={\lambda}(X_0)$, but when we defined $X_0$ (see (\[defdeX0\])) we showed that ${\lambda}(X_0)={\lambda}(X)$.
The property (i) is satisfied for all points in $X_0$ and therefore also in $X_1$. If the point $x_0\in X_1$, then, for all positive integer $m$, $x_0$ does not belong to $\cap_{N}
E_{N}^{1/m}$, and so from Lemma \[egorof\] we have that for all $n$ large enough $$e^{-n(h_{\mu}+1/m)} < \mu(P(n,x_0)) < e^{-n(h_{\mu}-1/m)}\,.$$ From part (iii) of Theorem E, we conclude that (\[pronto\]) holds.
Moreover, from (\[pronto\]) we also get that $$\frac{1}{n} \log \frac {{\lambda}(P(n,x_0))}{{\lambda}(P(n+1,x_0))}
<\frac{2\log M+h_{\mu}+1/m}{n}+\frac 2m \longrightarrow \frac 2m \qquad \hbox{ as }\quad n\to\infty$$ Therefore by taking $m\to\infty$, we get the property (iii).
By property (C) of expanding maps we also have that $$\hbox{diam\,}(P(n,x_0)) \le C\, \beta^{-n} \,,$$ and therefore, using again (\[pronto\]), we get that $$\frac {\log{\lambda}(P(n,x_0))}{\log\hbox{diam\,}(P(n,x_0))} \le \frac
{n(h_\mu+1/m) +\log M}{n\log\beta -\log C} \longrightarrow \frac
{h_\mu+1/m}{\log\beta}$$ as $n\to\infty$, and so by letting $m\to\infty$ we obtain that ${\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}\leq h_\mu/\log\beta<\infty$.
Measure results {#medida}
===============
We want to study the size of the set $${\cal W}(x_0,\{r_n\}) = \{x\in X: \ d(T^n (x),x_0)< r_n \
\mbox{for infinitely many} \ n\}$$ where $\{r_n\}$ is a given sequence of positive numbers and $x_0$ is an arbitrary point in $X$. Observe that if the sequence $\{r_n\}$ is constant this set is $T$-invariant, but, in general, this is not the case.
We are also interested in the size of another set that we will see that is closely related with ${\cal W}(x_0,\{r_n\})$. This set is $$\widetilde{\cal W}(x_0,\{t_n\}) = \{x\in X: \ T^k(x) \in
P(t_k,x_0) \ \hbox{for infinitely many $k$}\}$$ with $\{t_k\}$ an increasing sequence of positive integers and $x_0\in X_0^+$.
Notice also that if $x\in\widetilde{\cal W}(x_0,\{t_n\})$ then $P(m,x)$ is well defined for infinitely many $m$. and so it is well defined for all $m$. Therefore $\widetilde{\cal
W}(x_0,\{t_n\}) \subset X_0$.
Let us denote $$A_k=T^{-k}(B(x_0,r_k)) \qquad \hbox{and} \qquad \widetilde{A}_k = T^{-k}(P(t_k,x_0))$$ With these notations, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal W}(x_0,\{r_n\}) = \{x\in X: \ x\in A_n \ \mbox{for
infinitely many $n$}\} = \bigcap_{k=1}^\infty \bigcup_{n=k}^\infty
A_n \,, \notag \\
\widetilde{\cal W}(x_0,\{t_n\}) = \{x\in X: \ x\in \widetilde{A}_n
\ \mbox{for infinitely many $n$}\} = \bigcap_{k=1}^\infty
\bigcup_{n=k}^\infty \widetilde{A}_n \,. \notag\end{aligned}$$
The following result on the size of these sets is a consequence of the direct part of Borel-Cantelli lemma and Theorem E.
\[serieconverge\] Let $(X,d,{\cal A},\lambda,T)$ be an expanding system.
- Let $x_0\in \cup_{P\in {\cal P}_0} P$ and let $\{r_n\}$ be a sequence of positive numbers. $$\hbox{If} \qquad \sum_{n=1}^\infty {\lambda}(B(x_0, r_n))<\infty \qquad
\hbox{then} \qquad {\lambda}({\cal W}(x_0,\{r_n\}))=0.$$
- Let $x_0\in X_0^+$ and let $\{t_n\}$ be a non decreasing sequence of positive integers. $$\hbox{ If \qquad } \sum_{n=1}^\infty {\lambda}(P(t_n,x_0))<\infty ,
\qquad \hbox{ then } \qquad {\lambda}(\widetilde {\cal
W}(x_0\{t_n\}))=0.$$
i\) First of all, let us observe that $\lim_{n\to\infty} r_n=0$. Let $\mu$ be the ACIPM associated to the system. We have that $\mu(B(x_0,r_k))=\mu(A_k)$ for all $k\in{{\bf N}}$ and therefore $$\sum_{n=1}^\infty \mu(A_n) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty \mu(B(x_0,r_n)) < \infty\,,$$ since for $r_n$ small enough, $B(x_0,r_n) \subset P(0,x_0)$ and ${\lambda}$ and $\mu$ are comparable in that set by Theorem E. From Borel-Cantelli lemma it follows that $\mu({\cal
W}(x_0,\{r_n\}))=0$ and using the Remark \[fullsets\], we conclude that ${\lambda}({\cal W}(x_0,\{r_n\}))=0$. The same argument works for part ii).
\[hartos\] Let $(X,d,{\cal A},\lambda,T)$ be an expanding system. Let $x_0\in
\cup_{P\in {\cal P}_0} P$ and let $\{r_n\}$ be a sequence of positive numbers. If $\ \sum_{n=1}^\infty {\lambda}(B(x_0,
r_n))<\infty$ then $$\liminf_{n\to \infty} \frac {d(T^n(x),x_0)}{r_n} \ge 1 \,, \qquad \hbox{for ${\lambda}$-almost every $x\in X$}\,.$$
\[hartosinf\] Let $(X,d,{\cal A},\lambda,T)$ be an expanding system. Let $x_0\in
\cup_{P\in {\cal P}_0} P$ such that $$0<{\underline{\Delta}_\lambda(x_0)}:= \liminf_{r \to 0} \frac{\log {\lambda}(B(x_0,r))}{\log r}<\infty\,,$$ and let $\{r_n\}$ be a sequence of positive numbers such that $\
\sum_{n=1}^\infty r_n^{{\underline{\Delta}_\lambda(x_0)}-{\varepsilon}}<\infty$ for some $0<{\varepsilon}<{\underline{\Delta}_\lambda(x_0)}$. Then $$\liminf_{n\to \infty} \frac {d(T^n(x),x_0)}{r_n} = \infty \,, \qquad \hbox{for ${\lambda}$-almost every $x\in X$}\,.$$ If there exists a constant $\Delta(x_0)$ such that ${\lambda}(B(x_0,r))\le Cr^{\Delta(x_0)}$ for all $r$ small enough, then the conclusion holds when $\
\sum_{n=1}^\infty r_n^{\Delta(x_0)}<\infty$.
By definition of ${\underline{\Delta}_\lambda(x_0)}$, we have that for any $r$ small enough $${\lambda}(B(x_0,r)) \le r^{{\underline{\Delta}_\lambda(x_0)}-{\varepsilon}} \,.$$ Now, for any $m\in {{\bf N}}$, since $\lim_{n\to\infty} r_n=0$, we have that for $n$ big enough, (depending on $m$), $${\lambda}(B(x_0,m r_n)) \le (m r_n)^{{\underline{\Delta}_\lambda(x_0)}-{\varepsilon}} \,.$$ Therefore, for all $m\in{{\bf N}}$, $$\sum_n {\lambda}(B(x_0,m r_n)) \le C_m \, m^{{\underline{\Delta}_\lambda(x_0)}-{\varepsilon}} \sum_n
r_n^{{\underline{\Delta}_\lambda(x_0)}-{\varepsilon}} <\infty \,.$$ From Corollary \[hartos\] we get that, for all $m\in{{\bf N}}$, $$\liminf_{n\to \infty} \frac {d(T^n(x),x_0)}{r_n} \ge m \,, \qquad \hbox{for ${\lambda}$-almost every $x\in X$}\,.$$ The result follows now from the fact that $$\left\{ x\in X : \ \liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac {d(T^n(x),x_0)}{r_n} = \infty \right\}
= \bigcap_{m=1}^\infty \left\{ x\in X : \ \liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac {d(T^n(x),x_0)}{r_n} \ge m \right\}\,.$$
\[ensoporte\] If the measures ${\lambda}$ and $\mu$ are comparable in $X$, then part i) of Proposition \[serieconverge\] and its corollaries hold for all $x_0 \in X$. In particular, this happens if $$\inf_{P\in {\cal P}_0} {\lambda}(T(P)) >0 \qquad \text{and} \qquad
\sup_{P\in {\cal P}_0} {\text{\rm diam\,}}(T(P)) <\infty \,,$$ see Remark \[comparableabsoluta\]. Also, part i) of Proposition \[serieconverge\] and its corollaries hold for those $x_0$ such that the set of elements $P\in {\cal P}_0$ such that $x_0$ belongs to ${\partial}P$ is finite. For example, if $X\subseteq {{\bf R}}$ or if the partition ${\cal P}_0$ is finite, then all $x_0\in X$ satisfy the above condition.
\[elbuenocode\] Let $(X,d,{\cal A},\lambda,T)$ be an expanding system. Let $x_0$ be a point of $X_0^+$ such that $\underline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)>0$ and let $\{t_n\}$ be a non decreasing sequence of positive integers numbers. $$\hbox{If} \qquad \sum_{n=1}^\infty {\lambda}(P(t_n,x_0)) = \infty, \qquad \hbox{then}
\qquad {\lambda}(\widetilde{{\cal W}}(x_0,\{t_n\}))={\lambda}(X).$$ Moreover, if the partition ${\cal P}_0$ is finite or if the system has the Bernoulli property, $($i.e. if $T(P)=X$ $($mod $0)$ for all $P\in {\cal P}_0)$, then we have the following quantitative version: $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac {\#\{i\le n: \ T^i(x)\in
P(t_i,x_0)\}}{\sum_{j=1}^n \mu(P(t_j,x_0))} =1\,, \qquad
\hbox{for ${\lambda}$-almost every $x\in X$.}$$
In the proof of Theorem \[elbuenocode\] we will use the following classical result.
[**Lemma (Payley-Zygmund Inequality).**]{} [*Let $(X,{\cal A}, \mu)$ be a probability space and let $Z:X\longrightarrow \bf R$ be a positive random variable. Then, for $0<\tau<1$, $$\mu[Z>\tau \,E(Z)] \ge (1-\tau)^2 \frac {E(Z)^2}{E(Z^2)} \,,$$ where $E(\cdot)$ denotes expectation value.* ]{}
Let $\mu$ be the ACIPM associated to the system. For $j\ge k$, we have that $$\mu(\widetilde A_k \cap \widetilde A_j) = \mu
(T^{-k}[P(t_k,x_0))\cap T^{-(j-k)}(P(t_j,x_0))]) = \mu
(P(t_k,x_0))\cap T^{-(j-k)}(P(t_j,x_0)))\,,$$ and by using Proposition \[yaesta\] with $\ell=j-k$, $n=t_j$ and $m=t_k$, and using again that $T$ preserves the measure $\mu$, we conclude that $$\label{akaj}
\mu(\widetilde A_k\cap \widetilde A_j) \leq \begin{cases}
C \mu(\widetilde A_j)\mu(P(j-k,x_0))& \text{ if $j-k< t_k$},
\\
&
\\
C \mu(\widetilde A_j)\mu(\widetilde A_k)& \text{ if $j-k \ge t_k.$}
\end{cases}$$ with $C>0$ depending on $P(0,x_0)$. Let us denote by $Z_n$ and $Z$ the counting functions $$Z_n=\sum_{k=1}^n {\chi_{{}_{\widetilde A_k}}}\qquad \hbox{and} \qquad Z=\sum_{k=1}^\infty {\chi_{{}_{\widetilde A_k}}}\,,$$ where ${\chi_{{}_{\widetilde A_k}}}$ is the characteristic function of $\widetilde{A}_k$. Observe that ${\widetilde{ \cal W}}(x_0,\{r_n\})=\{x\in X_0: \
Z(x)=\infty\}$.
If we compute the expectation value of $Z_n^2$ (with respect to $\mu$), we obtain $$E(Z_n^2) = E\Big[\sum_{k=1}^n {\chi_{{}_{\widetilde A_k}}}+ \sum^n_{\substack{k,j=1 \\
k\ne j}} \chi_{{}_{\widetilde A_k\cap \widetilde A_j}}\Big] =
\sum_{k=1}^n \mu(\widetilde A_k) + 2 \sum^n_{\substack{k,j=1 \\
k<j}} \mu(\widetilde A_k\cap \widetilde A_j)$$ and using (\[akaj\]) we get $$E(Z_n^2) \le E(Z_n) + 2C \sum^n_{\substack{k,j=1 \\
k<j}} \mu(\widetilde A_j) \, \mu(P(j-k,x_0) + 2C
\sum^n_{\substack{k,j=1
\\ k<j}} \mu(\widetilde A_j) \, \mu(\widetilde A_k)\,.$$ But $\mu(\widetilde A_j)\le \mu(\widetilde A_k)$ for all $j> k$ because $\{t_n\}$ is non decreasing. Therefore $$\label{Zn2}
E(Z_n^2) \le E(Z_n) + 2C \sum_{k=1}^n \mu(\widetilde A_k)
\sum_{j=k+1}^n \mu(P(j-k,x_0)) +C\, E(Z_n)^2 \,.$$
Since by Theorem E the measures $\lambda$ and $\mu$ are comparable in $P(0,x_0)$ we get from Lemma \[compdiam1\] that $$\label{acotado}
\sum_{s=1}^{\infty}\mu(P(s,x_0)) \leq C\,
\sum_{s=1}^{\infty}\beta^{-s(\underline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)-{\varepsilon})}\leq
C'$$ with $C'$ a positive constant. From (\[Zn2\]), and (\[acotado\]) we obtain that $$\label{masacotado}
E(Z_n^2) \le \Big(1+ 2CC' \Big) \, E(Z_n) + C\,E(Z_n)^2 \,.$$ By applying Paley-Zygmund Lemma we obtain from (\[masacotado\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{casicasi}
\mu [\{x\in X: \ Z(x) > \tau \, E(Z_n)\}] & \ge \mu [\{x\in X: \ Z_n(x) > \tau \, E(Z_n)\}] \notag \\
&\ge (1-\tau)^2 \frac {E(Z_n)}{1+ 2CC'+ C\,E(Z_n)} \,.\end{aligned}$$
Using again that ${\lambda}$ and $\mu$ are comparable in $P(0,x_0)$, we get that $$E(Z_n) = \sum_{k=1}^n \mu(\widetilde{A}_k) = \sum_{k=1}^n \mu(P(t_k,x_0)) \ge C
\sum_{k=1}^n {\lambda}(P(t_k,x_0))$$ and from the hypothesis of the theorem, we obtain that $E(Z_n) \to \infty$ as $n\to\infty$. Hence, we have from (\[casicasi\]) that $$\mu [\{x\in X: \ Z(x) = \infty\}] \ge \frac 1C (1-\tau)^2 \,,
\qquad \hbox{for $0<\tau<1$}\,.$$ and we conclude that $\widetilde {\cal W}(x_0,\{t_n\})$ has positive $\mu$-measure. If we denote, for each $n\in\bf N$ $$\widetilde {\cal W}_n(x_0,\{t_n\}) = \{x\in X: \ T^{k-n}(x) \in
P(t_k,x_0) \ \hbox{for infinitely many $k$ with $k\ge n$}\}\,,$$ it is easy to see that $$\widetilde{\cal W}(x_0,\{t_n\}) = T^{-n}(\widetilde{\cal
W}_n(x_0),\{t_n\}) \qquad \hbox{for each $n\in\bf N$}$$ and since $T$ is exact with respect to $\mu$ (see Theorem E) it follows that $\widetilde{\cal W}(x_0,\{t_n\})$ has full $\mu$-measure. Therefore from Remark \[fullsets\] we conclude that $\widetilde{\cal W}(x_0,\{t_n\})$ has full ${\lambda}$-measure.
Finally, if the system has the Bernoulli property then the correlation coefficients of the sets $\{P(n,x_0)\}_{n\in {{\bf N}}}$ have exponential decay, see [@Y]. Concretely, she proves that $$\label{UM}
|\mu(T^{-\ell}(P(n,x_0))\cap
P(m,x_0))-\mu(P(n,x_0))\mu(P(n,x_0))|\le
C\,\mu(P(n,x_0))\,e^{-\alpha\ell}$$ for some absolute positive constants $C$ and $\alpha$ and for all $m,n,\ell\in{{\bf N}}$. The same argument used in the proof of Theorem 1 in [@FMP], gives the quantitative version.
If the partition ${\cal P}_0$ is finite, then the dynamical system $(X,{\cal A},\mu,T)$ is isomorphic via coding to a (one-sided) subshift of finite type. The stochastic matrix $M$ of this subshift is defined in the following way: $p_{i,j}=\mu(T^{-1}(P_j)\cap P_i)/\mu(P_i)$ where $P_i,P_j \in {\cal P}_0$. Property (A.7) implies that $M$ verifies that $M^{n_0}$ has all its entries positive, see for example [@KH], p.158 or Lemma 12.2 in [@M]. This implies that the shift $\sigma$ is mixing, see for example Proposition 12.3 in [@M], and moreover (\[UM\]) follows from the Perron-Frobenius theorem (see, for example [@KH] or [@M]; see also [@CK]).
We state now the following corollary of this proof.
\[casitodopuntocode\] Let $(X,d,{\cal A},\lambda,T)$ be an expanding system with finite entropy $H_\mu({\cal P}_0)$ with respect to the partition ${\cal P}_0$ where $\mu$ is the ACIPM associated to the system. Let $\{t_n\}$ be a non decreasing sequence of positive integers.
Then for ${\lambda}$-almost all point $x_0\in X_0^+$, more concretely if $x_0\in X_1$ $($see definition in Lemma [\[defdeX1\])]{}, we have that $$\hbox{If} \qquad \sum_{n=1}^\infty {\lambda}(P(t_n,x_0)) = \infty \qquad \hbox{then} \qquad
{\lambda}(\widetilde{{\cal W}}(x_0,\{t_n\}))={\lambda}(X).$$
If $x_0\in X_1$ we have from Lemma \[defdeX1\] that for all $m\in{{\bf N}}$ there exists $N\in{{\bf N}}$ such that $$e^{-n(h_\mu+1/m)} \le \mu(P(n,x_0)) \le e^{-n(h_\mu-1/m)}$$ for all $n\ge N$. Therefore we can substitute the inequality (\[acotado\]) by $$\sum_{s=1}^\infty \mu(P(s,x_0)) \le C\sum_{s=1}^\infty
e^{-s(h_\mu-1/m)} \le C' < \infty\,,$$ since $h_\mu>0$ (see Remark \[entropia\]) and we can take $m$ large enough so that $0<1/m<h_\mu$. Hence we do not need now the hypothesis ${\underline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}>0$.
\[elbueno\] Let $(X,d,{\cal A},\lambda,T)$ be an expanding system. Let $x_0$ be a point of $X_0^+$ such that $${{\overline{\tau}_{\lambda}(x_0)}}<\infty \qquad \text{and} \qquad
0<\underline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0) \le
\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0) <\infty \,,$$ and let $\{r_n\}$ be a non increasing sequence of positive numbers. $$\hbox{If} \qquad\sum_{n=1}^\infty
r_n^{\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)+{{\overline{\tau}_{\lambda}(x_0)}}/\log\beta+{\varepsilon}} = \infty \, \quad
\hbox{for some ${\varepsilon}>0,\quad $ then} \qquad {\lambda}({\cal W}(x_0,\{r_n\}))=
{\lambda}(X)\,.$$ Moreover, if the partition ${\cal P}_0$ is finite or if the system has the Bernoulli property, $($i.e. if $T(P)=X$$ ($mod $0)$ for all $P\in {\cal P}_0)$, then we have the following quantitative version: $$\liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac {\#\{i\le n: \ d(T^i(x),x_0)\le
r_i\}}{\sum_{j=1}^n
r_j^{\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)+{{\overline{\tau}_{\lambda}(x_0)}}/\log\beta+{\varepsilon}}} \geq
C \,, \qquad \hbox{for ${\lambda}$-almost every $x\in X$},$$ with $C$ a positive constant depending on $x_0$ and on the comparability constants between ${\lambda}$ and $\mu$ at $P(0,x_0)$.
If the correlation coefficients of the balls $\{B(x_0,r_n)\}$ had exponential decay, i.e. if they verify the relations $$|\mu(T^{-\ell}(B(x_0,r_n))\cap
B(x_0,r_m))-B(x_0,r_n)B(x_0,r_m)|\le
C\,\mu(B(x_0,r_n))\,e^{-\alpha\ell}$$ for some absolute positive constants $C$ and $\alpha$ and for all $n,\ell \in{{\bf N}}$, then using the same arguments that in Theorem 1 in [@FMP] we would have $$\liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac {\#\{i\le n: \ d(T^i(x),x_0)\le r_i\}}{\sum_{j=1}^n \mu(B(x_0,r_j)} =1 \,, \qquad
\hbox{for ${\lambda}$-almost every $x\in X$},$$
\[tau=0\] We recall that by Lemma [\[justificacion\]]{} we know that ${{\overline{\tau}_{\lambda}(x_0)}}=0$ for ${\lambda}$-almost all $x_0\in X$. We have also that ${{\overline{\tau}_{\lambda}(x_0)}}=0$ if $\inf_j {\lambda}(P(0,T^j(x_0)))>0$ and $\sup_{P\in {\cal P}_0}{\text{\rm diam\,}}(T(P))<\infty$. In particular, if the partition ${\cal P}_0$ is finite and $\sup_{P\in {\cal
P}_0}{\text{\rm diam\,}}(T(P))<\infty$, then ${{\overline{\tau}_{\lambda}(x_0)}}=0$ for all $x_0\in
X_0^+$.
\[hartos2\] Under the same hypothesis than Theorem [[\[elbueno\]]{}]{}, if $$\label{seriedivergeep}
\sum_{n=1}^\infty r_n^{{\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}+{{\overline{\tau}_{\lambda}(x_0)}}/\log\beta+{\varepsilon}}=\infty, \qquad \hbox{ for
some } \quad {\varepsilon}>0\,,$$ then, $$\liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac {d(T^n(x),x_0)}{r_n} = 0\,, \qquad
\text{for ${\lambda}$-almost all $x\in X$.}$$
From Theorem \[elbueno\] it follows easily that if the radii $r_n$ verify (\[seriedivergeep\]) then $$\liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac {d(T^n(x),x_0)}{r_n} \le 1\,, \qquad
\text{for ${\lambda}$-almost all $x\in X$.}$$ But notice that for any $m\in {{\bf N}}$ the radii $r_n/m$ also verify (\[seriedivergeep\]) and therefore we get that for any $m\in {{\bf N}}$ $$\liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac {d(T^n(x),x_0)}{r_n} \le \frac 1m \,, \qquad
\hbox{for ${\lambda}$-almost all $x\in X$.}$$ The result follows now from the fact that $$\left\{ x\in X : \ \liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac {d(T^n(x),x_0)}{r_n} = 0 \right\}
= \bigcap_{m=1}^\infty \left\{ x\in X : \ \liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac {d(T^n(x),x_0)}{r_n} \le \frac 1m \right\}\,.$$
Let $\mu$ be the ACIPM associated to the system. Given $x_0\in X_0^+$ and the sequence $r_k$ we define $t_k$ as the smallest integer so that $$\label{defdetk}
P(t_k,x_0)\subset B(x_0, r_k).$$ Hence, $\widetilde{\cal W}(x_0,\{t_n\})\subset {\cal W}(x_0,\{r_n\})$.
Moreover, since ${\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}<\infty$ and ${{\overline{\tau}_{\lambda}(x_0)}}<\infty$, from Lemma \[compdiam2\], we get that $$\label{sonlas8}
\sum_{k=1}^n {\lambda}(P(t_k,x_0))\geq \sum_{k=1}^n
(\hbox{diam}(P(t_k-1,x_0)))^{\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)+{{\overline{\tau}_{\lambda}(x_0)}}/\log\beta+{\varepsilon}}$$ But from the definition of $t_k$ we have that $$P(t_k-1,x_0)\not\subset B(x_0,r_k)$$ and since $x_0\in P(t_k-1,x_0)$ we can conclude that $$\hbox{diam}(P(t_k-1,x_0))\geq r_k \,.$$ Therefore we get that $$\sum_{k=1}^\infty {\lambda}(P(t_k,x_0)) \geq \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}
r_k^{\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)+{{\overline{\tau}_{\lambda}(x_0)}}/\log\beta+{\varepsilon}} =\infty$$ and from Theorem \[elbuenocode\] we conclude that ${\lambda}({\cal W}(x_0,\{r_n\}))={\lambda}(X)$.
Now from (\[defdetk\]), (\[sonlas8\]) and the fact that ${\lambda}$ and $\mu$ are comparable on $P(0,x_0)$ we have that $$\frac {\#\{i\le n: \ d(T^i(x),x_0)\le r_i\}}{\sum_{j=1}^n r_j^{\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)+{{\overline{\tau}_{\lambda}(x_0)}}/\log\beta+{\varepsilon}}} \ge C\, \frac {\#\{i\le n: \ T^i(x)\in P(t_i,x_0)\}}{\sum_{j=1}^n \mu(P(t_j,x_0))}\,.$$ Hence, the quantitative version follows from Theorem \[elbuenocode\].
We have also the following corollary of the proof of Theorem \[elbueno\].
\[casitodopunto\] Let $(X,d,{\cal A},\lambda,T)$ be an expanding system with finite entropy $H_\mu({\cal P}_0)$ with respect to the partition ${\cal P}_0$ where $\mu$ is the ACIPM associated to the system. Let $\{r_n\}$ be a non increasing sequence of positive numbers. Then for ${\lambda}$-almost all point $x_0\in X$, more concretely if $x_0\in X_1$ $($see definition in Lemma [\[defdeX1\])]{}, we have that $$\hbox{if} \qquad\sum_{n=1}^\infty
r_n^{\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)+{\varepsilon}} = \infty \, \quad
\hbox{for some ${\varepsilon}>0,\quad $ then} \qquad {\lambda}({\cal
W}(x_0,\{r_n\}))= {\lambda}(X)\,.$$ In particular, we conclude that, for ${\lambda}$-almost all point $x_0\in X$, $$\liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac {d(T^n(x),x_0)}{r_n} = 0 \,, \qquad
\hbox{for ${\lambda}$-almost all $x\in X$}\,.$$
As in the proof of Theorem \[elbueno\] we define $t_k$ by (\[defdetk\]) and as a consequence $\widetilde{\cal W}(x_0,\{t_n\})\subset {\cal W}(x_0,\{r_n\})$. Since $x_0\in X_1$ we have, from Lemma \[defdeX1\], that ${{\overline{\tau}_{\lambda}(x_0)}}=0$ and ${\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}<\infty$ and therefore we get the inequality (\[sonlas8\]) with ${{\overline{\tau}_{\lambda}(x_0)}}=0$.
From Lemma \[defdeX1\] we also have that for all $m\in{{\bf N}}$ there exists $N\in{{\bf N}}$ such that $$e^{-n(h_\mu+1/m)} \le \mu(P(n,x_0)) \le e^{-n(h_\mu-1/m)}$$ for all $n\ge N$. The same argument given in Corollary \[casitodopuntocode\] allows us to avoid the condition ${\underline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}>0$. The fisrt part of the corollary follows from these facts as in Theorem \[elbueno\]. The last assertion follows from Corollary \[hartos2\].
Under the same hypotheses than Corollary [\[casitodopunto\]]{} we have that if ${\underline{\Delta}_\lambda(x_0)}={\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}:=D(x_0):=D$ and $$\sum_{k=1}^\infty {\lambda}(B(x_0,r_k))^{1+{\varepsilon}} = \infty \, \quad
\hbox{for some ${\varepsilon}>0,\quad $ then} \qquad {\lambda}({\cal W}(x_0))=
{\lambda}(X)\,.$$
From the definition of ${\underline{\Delta}_\lambda(x_0)}$ (see Corollary \[hartosinf\]), the condition $\sum_{k=1}^\infty
{\lambda}(B(x_0,r_k))^{1+{\varepsilon}} = \infty$ implies that $\sum_{k=1}^\infty
r_k^{(1+{\varepsilon})(D-{\varepsilon}')}=\infty$. But if ${\varepsilon}'$ is small enough we have that $(1+{\varepsilon})(D-{\varepsilon}')=D+{\varepsilon}''$ with ${\varepsilon}''>0$. Since $D={\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}$ we conclude that $\sum_k r_k^{{\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}+{\varepsilon}''}=\infty$.
Dimension estimates {#dimensionresults}
===================
Lower bounds for the dimension {#lowerdimension}
------------------------------
Our lower estimate of the dimension is based into the construction of a Cantor like set. Our argument requires to compare the measures ${\lambda}$ and $\mu$ several times because we use some consequences of the Shannon-McMillan-Breiman Theorem for the measure $\mu$ (see Section \[SMB\]) and also some consequences of the definition of expanding maps involving the measure ${\lambda}$. We have already mentioned that the measures ${\lambda}$ and $\mu$ are comparable into the blocks of the partition ${\cal
P}_0$, but in order to control the comparability constants in our proof, we need the following definition:
\[aproximable\] We will say that a point $x_0\in X_0$ is if there exist an increasing sequence ${\cal
I}(x_0)=\{p_i\}$ of natural numbers such that for all $A\in\cal A$ contained in $P(0,T^{p_i}(x_0))$ for some $i$, we have that $$\frac 1K \, {\lambda}(A) \le \mu(A) \le K\,{\lambda}(A) \,.$$ with $K>1$ a constant depending on $x_0$.
\[approx\] A mixing version of Poincare’s Recurrence Theorem (see [@FMP], Theorem A’) shows that for ${\lambda}$-almost all point $x_0$ there exists an increasing sequence $\{p_i\}$ such that $P(0,T^{p_i}(x_0))=P(0,T^{p_1}(x_0))$ for all $i$. Therefore, the set of approximable points have full ${\lambda}$-measure.
\[approxfinito\] From part (iii) of Theorem E we have that if the partition ${\cal P}_0$ is finite then any point in $X_0^+$ is an approximable point. More generally, from Remark \[comparableabsoluta\] we have that if $\inf_{P\in{\cal P}_0}
{\lambda}(T(P))>0$ and $\sup_{P\in {\cal P}_0} {\text{\rm diam\,}}(T(P)) <\infty$, then any point in $X_0^+$ is an approximable point.
The next theorem contains a lower bound for the Hausdorff and the grid Hausdorff dimensions of ${\cal W}(U,x_0,\{r_n\})$ with respect to the grid ${{\bf\Pi}}=\{{\cal P}_n\}$. As we mentioned in Section \[grids\], in order to get results for the ${\lambda}$-Hausdorff dimension we need an extra property of regularity. More precisely, we ask ${{\bf\Pi}}$ to be ${\lambda}$-regular (see Definiton \[gridregular\]). We recall that any grid on ${{\bf R}}$ is ${\lambda}$-regular.
\[dimension\] Let $(X,d,{\cal A},\lambda,T)$ be an expanding system with finite entropy $H_\mu({\cal P}_0)$ with respect to the partition ${\cal P}_0$ where $\mu$ is the ACIPM associated to the system. Let us consider the grid ${{\bf\Pi}}=\{{\cal P}_n\}$. Let $\{r_n\}$ be a non increasing sequence of positive numbers and let $U$ be an open set in $X$ with $\mu(U)>0$. Then, for all approximable point $x_0\in X_0$, the grid Hausdorff dimensions of the set $${\cal W}(U,x_0,\{r_n\})=\{ x\in U\cap X_0: \ d(T^n (x),x_0) < r_n \ \mbox{for infinitely many} \ n \}$$ verify $$\label{dimgridporabajo}
{\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}} ({\cal W}(U,x_0,\{r_n\})) = {\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{{\bf\Pi}},\mu} ({\cal W}(U,x_0,\{r_n\})) \ge \frac {h_{\mu}}{h_\mu +
{\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}\, {{\overline{\ell}}}} \,.$$ where ${{\overline{\ell}}}= \limsup_{n\to\infty} \frac 1n\log\frac{1}{r_n}$ and $h_\mu$ is the entropy of $T$ with respect to $\mu$.
Moreover, for all approximable point $x_0\in X_0$, the Hausdorff dimensions of the set ${\cal W}(U,x_0,\{r_n\})$ verify:
1. If the grid ${{\bf\Pi}}$ is ${\lambda}$-regular then $$\label{dimporabajo}
{\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{\lambda}({\cal W}(U,x_0,\{r_n\}))={\mbox{\rm Dim}}_\mu ({\cal
W}(U,x_0,\{r_n\})) \ge \frac {h_{\mu}}{h_\mu + {\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}\, {{\overline{\ell}}}} \, \Big(
1-\frac{\overline{\tau}_{\lambda}(x_0){\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}\ell^2}{h_{\mu}^2\log\beta}\Big)
\,,$$
2. If ${\lambda}$ is a doubling measure verifying that ${\lambda}(B(x,r))\le C\,r^s$ for all ball $B(x,r)$, then $$\label{dimdiametros}
{\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{\lambda}({\cal W}(U,x_0,\{r_n\}))={\mbox{\rm Dim}}_\mu ({\cal W}(U,x_0,\{r_n\}))\ge 1 - \frac {{\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}{{\overline{\ell}}}}{s\log\beta}\,.$$
Here $\beta$ is the constant appearing in the property [(C)]{} of expanding maps.
Recall from Remark \[entropia\] that $0<h_\mu<\infty$. Recall also that from Remark \[approx\] we know that the set of approximable points has full ${\lambda}$-measure, and from Lemma [\[defdeX1\]]{} we know that all point $x_0$ in $X_1$ satisfies ${\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}<\infty$ and ${{\overline{\tau}_{\lambda}(x_0)}}=0$. Therefore since $X_1$ has full ${\lambda}$-measure we have that Theorem [\[dimension\]]{} holds with ${{\overline{\tau}_{\lambda}(x_0)}}=0$ for ${\lambda}$-almost all $x_0\in X$.
\[opeque–a\] From Remark \[approxfinito\] we have that if $\inf_{P\in{\cal P}_0} {\lambda}(T(P))>0$ and $\sup_{P\in {\cal P}_0} {\text{\rm diam\,}}(T(P))<\infty$ then any point in $X_0^+$ is an approximable point. Moreover, if $\sup_{P\in{\cal
P}_0}{\text{\rm diam\,}}(T(P))<\infty$ then, by Proposition \[elchachi\], $$\frac {{\lambda}(P(n,x_0))}{{\lambda}(P(n+1,x_0))} \asymp \frac
{{\lambda}(T(P(0,T^n(x_0))))}{{\lambda}(P(0,T^{n+1}(x_0)))} \leq \frac
{{\lambda}(X)}{{\lambda}(P(0,T^{n+1}(x_0)))}$$ and then ${{\overline{\tau}_{\lambda}(x_0)}}=0$ for all $x_0$ such that $$\log \frac 1{{\lambda}(P(0,T^n(x_0)))} =o(n) \,, \qquad \text{ as }
\quad n\to\infty\,.$$
First, let us observe that the ${\lambda}$-Hausdorff dimension and $\mu$-Hausdorff dimensions coincide for subsets of $\cup_{P\in {\cal P}_0} P$ and, in particular, for subsets of $X_0$.
\[dimensioncoincide\] If $A\in {\cal A}$ is a subset of $\cup_{P\in {\cal P}_0} P$, then $$\text{\rm Dim}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}} (A) = \text{\rm Dim}_{{{\bf\Pi}},\mu} (A)
\qquad \hbox{and} \qquad {\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{\lambda}(A) = {\mbox{\rm Dim}}_\mu (A) \,.$$
We will prove only the equality of grid-dimensions, since the other proof is similar. By properties (A.2) and (A.3) of expanding maps we have for the $\alpha$-dimensional ${\lambda}$-grid and $\mu$-grid Hausdorff measures that $${\cal H}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}}^\alpha (A) = \sum_{i} {\cal
H}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}}^\alpha (A\cap P_i)\,, \qquad {\cal
H}_{{{\bf\Pi}},\mu}^\alpha (A) = \sum_{i} {\cal H}_{{{\bf\Pi}},\mu}^\alpha
(A\cap P_i)\,.$$ where ${\cal P}_0=\{P_i\}$. As a consequence of part (iii) of Theorem E we get that $${\cal H}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}}^\alpha (A\cap P_i) \asymp {\cal
H}_{{{\bf\Pi}},\mu}^\alpha (A\cap P_i) \,,$$ with constants depending on $i$. Therefore $${\cal H}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}}^\alpha (A) =0 \qquad \Longleftrightarrow
\qquad {\cal H}_{{{\bf\Pi}},\mu}^\alpha (A) =0 \,.$$
\[Proof of Theorem $\ref{dimension}$\] We may assume that ${\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}$, ${{\overline{\tau}_{\lambda}(x_0)}}$ and ${{\overline{\ell}}}$ are all finite, since otherwise the estimations (\[dimgridporabajo\]) and (\[dimporabajo\]) are trivial. Since $\mu(U)>0$, the set $U$ contains a point $x\in X_0$. As $U$ is open, we have that there exists $r>0$ such that $B(x,r)\subset
U$, where by $B(x,r)$ we denote the ball $\{y\in X : d(y,x)<
r\}$. Therefore, since $\sup_{P\in{\cal P}_n} \hbox{diam}(P)$ goes to zero as $n\to\infty$, there exists $N_0\in {{\bf N}}$ such that $$P(N_0,x)\subset B(x,r)\subset U.$$
Let us write $J_0=P(N_0,x)$ and let $A_0$ denote the element of the partition ${\cal P}_0$ such that $T^{N_0}(J_0)=A_0$. To get the desired result, it is enough to show (\[dimgridporabajo\]) and (\[dimporabajo\]) for the set $$\widetilde W=\{ x\in J_0\cap X_0: d(T^n(x),x_0) < r_n \ \mbox{for infinitely many}
\ n\}.$$
Notice that we can assume that $\lim_{n\to\infty} r_n=0$. Otherwise, there exists $C>0$ such that $r_n >C$ for all $n$, and since $\mu$ is ergodic, from Theorem A’ in [@FMP], we deduce that for $\mu$-almost every point in $J_0$, $$\label{inequalities}
d(T^n(x),x_0) < C \ \mbox{for infinitely many} \ n \,.$$ Using Remark \[fullsets\] we conclude that (\[inequalities\]) holds also for ${\lambda}$-almost every point in $J_0$ and therefore ${\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}} ({\cal W}(U,x_0,\{r_n\}))={\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{\lambda}} ({\cal
W}(U,x_0,\{r_n\}))=1$. However, in this case more is true, see Corollary \[recurrentes\].
To obtain (\[dimgridporabajo\]) we will construct, for each small ${\varepsilon}>0$, a Cantor-like set $\cal C_{\varepsilon}$$ \subset \widetilde W$ and we will prove using Corollary \[azulesyrojos2\] that $$\label{DiminfCantor}
{\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}} ({\cal C}_{\varepsilon}) = {\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{{\bf\Pi}},\mu} ({\cal
C}_{\varepsilon})\ge \frac {h_\mu
-2{\varepsilon}}{h_\mu+2{\varepsilon}+(1+{\varepsilon})({\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}+{\varepsilon}) \, ({{\overline{\ell}}}+{\varepsilon})+{\varepsilon}}
\, .$$
We construct now the Cantor-like set $${\cal C}_{{\varepsilon}}=\bigcap_{n=0}^{\infty}\bigcup_{J\in{\cal J}_n} J$$ as follows: we start with ${\cal J}_0=\{ J_0\}$ and we denote by $G^{-1}_{J_0}$ the composition of the $N_0$ branchs of $T^{-1}$ such that $J_0=G^{-1}_{J_0} (A_0)$.
Let ${\cal I}(x_0)=\{p_i\}$ denote the sequence associated to the approximable point $x_0$ given by Definition \[aproximable\]. Let $s_k={\text{\rm diam\,}}({P}(p_k,x_0))$, and for each $s_k$ let $n(k)$ denotes the greatest natural number such that $s_k \le r_{n(k)}$. We denote by $\cal D$ the set of these indexes $n(k)$. Since $s_k\to 0$ as $k\to\infty$ and $r_n \to 0$ as $n\to\infty$ by hypothesis, we have that $n(k)\to\infty$ as $k\to\infty$. We will write ${\cal D}=\{d_i\}$ with $d_i<d_{i+1}$ for all $i$.
Notice that if $d\in{\cal D}$, then there exists $k(d)\in {\cal I}(x_0)$ such that $$\label{permitidos2}
r_{d+1} < {\text{\rm diam\,}}(P(k(d),x_0)) \le r_{d}$$ and $$\label{permitidos1}
P(k(d),x_0)\subset B(x_0,{\text{\rm diam\,}}(P(k(d),x_0))\subset B(x_0, r_d)\,,$$
Moreover from the property (C) of expanding maps we have that $$C_2\beta^{k(d)}{\text{\rm diam\,}}(P(k(d),x_0))\leq{\text{\rm diam\,}}(P(0,T^{k(d)} (x_0)))\le
\sup_{P\in {\cal P}_0} {\text{\rm diam\,}}(P) <\infty$$ and using (\[permitidos2\]) we get $$\frac{k(d)}{d+1}\leq\frac{1}{\log\beta}\left [\frac{C}{d+1}+\frac{1}{d+1}\log\frac{1}{r_{d+1}}\right ].$$ Hence, for all $d$ large enough $$\label{kvsN}
\frac{k(d)}{d}\leq (1+{\varepsilon})\frac{{{\overline{\ell}}}}{\log\beta}\,.$$
To construct the family ${\cal J}_1$ we first choose a natural number $N_1$ so that $d_1:=N_0+N_1\in\cal D$, and large enough so that (\[Sn\]) holds with $P_1=A_0$, $P_2=P(0,x_0)$, $N=N_1$ and $M:=M_1=[{\varepsilon}N_0]$, (\[kvsN\]) holds for $d_1$, and also $$\label{d1}
d_1\leq (1+{\varepsilon})N_1\,, \qquad r_{d_1} > e^{-d_1({{\overline{\ell}}}+{\varepsilon})}.$$ Let ${\cal S}_{N_1,M_1}$ denote the collection of elements in ${\cal
P}_{N_1}$ given by Proposition \[SMsinmalos\]. We define $\widetilde{\cal J}_1$ as the family of sets $G^{-1}_{J_0}(S)$ with $S\in{\cal S}_{N_1,M_1}$, see Figure 1.
*Figure $1$.*
Notice that by construction if $\widetilde J\in\widetilde{ \cal J}_1$, then $$\label{d1tilde}
T^{d_1}(\widetilde J)=P(0,x_0),\qquad \text{ with }\qquad d_1=N_0+N_1$$ and since $T^{N_0}(\widetilde J)=S$ for some $S\in{\cal S}_{N_1,M_1}$ $$T^{N_0}(\widetilde J)\cap (X_0\setminus E_{M_1}^{\varepsilon})\neq\emptyset
\qquad \text{ with } \quad M_1=[{\varepsilon}N_0].$$
We remark that we will define later the family ${\cal J}_1$ by taking an appropriate subset of each one of the elements of the family $\widetilde{\cal J}_1$. From Proposition \[elchachi\] we obtain that if $\widetilde J=G_{J_0}^{-1}(S)$ with $S\in{\cal S}_{N_1,M_1}$, then $$\label{cociente1}
\frac 1C \, \frac{\lambda(S)}{\lambda(A_0)}\leq \frac{\lambda(
\widetilde J)}{\lambda(J_0)}\leq C
\,\frac{\lambda(S)}{\lambda(A_0)}$$ with $C$ an absolute constant. Hence, from (\[SM\]), (\[cociente1\]), part (iii) of Theorem E and by taking $N_1$ large enough we get that for all $\widetilde{J}_1\in \widetilde{\cal J}_1$ $$e^{-N_1(h_{\mu}+2{\varepsilon})}\le \frac
{\lambda(\widetilde{J}_1)}{\lambda(J_0)} \le
e^{-N_1(h_{\mu}-2{\varepsilon})}\,,$$ From (\[cociente1\]) we also get an estimate on the size of the family ${\widetilde{\cal J}}_1$ $$\lambda(\widetilde{\cal J}_1\cap J_0)=\lambda(\widetilde{\cal J}_1):=\sum_{\widetilde{J}_1\in\widetilde {\cal J}_1} \lambda(\widetilde{J}_1) \geq \frac 1C \frac{\lambda(J_0)}{{\lambda}(A_0)}\sum_{S\in{\cal S}_{N_1,M_1}}\lambda(S)\,.$$ Therefore, from Proposition \[SMsinmalos\], and the part (iii) of Theorem E we get that $$\lambda(\widetilde{\cal J}_1 \cap J_0) \geq C\,
\lambda(J_0)\,\lambda (P(0,x_0))$$ with $C>0$ depending on $P_1=A_0$ and $P_2=P(0.x_0)$.
Now, since $d_1=N_0+N_1\in\cal D$, by (\[permitidos2\]) and (\[permitidos1\]) there exists an integer $k_1\in {\cal I}(x_0)$ such that $$\label{defdek1}
P(k_1,x_0)\subset B(x_0, \,r_{d_1}).$$ and $$\label{diametro}
\hbox{diam}(P(k_1,x_0))\geq r_{d_1+1}\,.$$
Moreover, from (\[d1\]) we have that $k_1\leq \frac{(1+{\varepsilon})^2{{\overline{\ell}}}}{\log\beta}N_1$. Since we can take $N_1$ as large as we want so that $k_1$ is large enough we can get that $$\label{clauint1}
\hbox{closure\,}(P(k_1,x_0)) \subset P(0,x_0)$$ and also by taking $N_1$ large we have from the definition of ${\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}$ and (\[diametro\]) and (\[d1\]) that $$\label{Ik1}
\lambda(P(k_1,x_0))\ge \hbox{diam} (P(k_1,x_0))^{{\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}+{\varepsilon}}
\,\geq r_{d_1+1}^{{\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}+ {\varepsilon}} \ge e^{-N_1(1+{\varepsilon})({\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}+{\varepsilon})({{\overline{\ell}}}+{\varepsilon})}.$$
For all $S\in{\cal S}_{N_1,M_1}$ let $G^{-1}_{S}$ denote the composition of the $N_1$ branchs of $T^{-1}$ such that $S=G^{-1}_{S}(P(0,x_0))$. In each set $S$ in ${\cal S}_{N_1,M_1}$ we take the subset $L_1:=G^{-1}_{S}(P(k_1,x_0))$ and we denote by ${\cal L}_1$ this family of sets. To define the family ${\cal J}_1$ we just “draw” the sets $L_1$ in $J_0$. More precisely, ${\cal J}_1$ is the family $G^{-1}_{J_0}(L_1)$ with $L_1\in{\cal L}_1$, see Figure 2.
*Figure $2$.*
Notice that by construction if $ J\in{ \cal J}_1$, then $$\label{d1dej1}
T^{d_1}(J)=P(k_1,x_0) \qquad \text{ and }\qquad
T^{d_1+k_1}(J)=P(0,T^{k_1}(x_0)).$$
Hence if $x\in J \in {\cal J}_1$ then $T^{d_1}(x)\in
P(k_1,x_0)\subset B(x_0, \,r_{d_1})$, and it follows that $$d(T^{d_1}(x),x_0)\leq r_{d_1} \,.$$
By construction we have that for all $ J\in{ \cal J}_1$ there exists an unique $\widetilde J\in\widetilde{ \cal J}_1$ such that $J\subset \widetilde J$, and by using the condition (A.6) and (\[clauint1\]) we have that $$\hbox{closure}(J_1)=G_{J_0}^{-1}(G_{S}^{-1}(\hbox{closure}(P(k_1,x_0))))\subset
G_{J_0}^{-1}(G_S^{-1}((P(0,x_0))) = \widetilde J_1\,.$$
Also by (\[d1tilde\]), (\[d1dej1\]) and Proposition \[elchachi\] we get that $$\frac 1C \, {\lambda}(P(k_1,x_0))\leq \frac{{\lambda}(J_1)}{{\lambda}(\widetilde J_1)} \leq C {\lambda}(P(k_1,x_0))$$ with $C>0$ a constant depending on ${\lambda}(P(0,x_0))$. And from (\[Ik1\]) by taking $N_1$ large, we have that $$\frac{{\lambda}(J_1)}{{\lambda}(\widetilde J_1)} \geq e^{-N_1[(1+{\varepsilon})({\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}+{\varepsilon})({{\overline{\ell}}}+{\varepsilon})+{\varepsilon}]}.$$
Now, let us assume that we have already constructed the families $\widetilde{\cal J}_j, \, {\cal J}_j$ and the numbers $N_j$ and $k_j\in {\cal I}(x_0)$ for $j=1,\ldots,m$ with the following properties:
Let $d_1=N_0+N_1$ and $$d_j:=N_0+N_1+\cdots +N_j+k_1+\cdots
+k_{j-1}\qquad \text{ for } \qquad j\geq 2$$.
- For all point $x$ in $J_j\in{\cal J}_j$ $$d(T^{d_j}(x),x_0) \leq r_{d_j}.$$
- For all $\widetilde{J}_j\in\widetilde{\cal J}_j$ we have
- $ T^{d_j}(\widetilde{J}_j)=P(0,x_0)$ and $$T^{d_j-N_j}(\widetilde{J}_j)\bigcap(X_0\setminus E_{M_j}^{{\varepsilon}})\neq\emptyset \qquad \text{ with }\quad M_j=[{\varepsilon}N_{j-1}].$$
- There exists a unique $J_{j-1}\in{\cal J}_{j-1}$ so that $\widetilde{J}_j\subset J_{j-1}$ and $$e^{-N_j(h_{\mu}+2{\varepsilon})}\le \frac
{{\lambda}(\widetilde{J}_j)}{{\lambda}(J_{j-1})} \le
e^{-N_j(h_{\mu}-2{\varepsilon})}\,.$$
- For all $J_j\in{\cal J}_j$ we have
- $T^{d_j}(J_j)=P(k_j,x_0)$.
- There exists a unique $\widetilde J_{j}\in\widetilde {\cal J}_{j}$ so that $\hbox{closure}(J_j) \subset \widetilde J_{j}$, $$\frac {{\lambda}(J_j)}{{\lambda}(\widetilde J_{j})}\asymp {\lambda}(P(k_j,x_0)) \qquad \hbox{and} \qquad
\frac {{\lambda}(J_j)}{{\lambda}(\widetilde J_{j})}\geq
e^{-N_j[(1+{\varepsilon})({\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}+{\varepsilon})({{\overline{\ell}}}+{\varepsilon})+{\varepsilon}]}\,.$$ Besides, for each $\widetilde J_{j}\in\widetilde {\cal J}_{j}$ there exists a unique $J_{j}\in {\cal J}_{j}$ so that $\hbox{closure}(J_j) \subset \widetilde J_{j}$
- $k_j\leq\frac{(1+{\varepsilon})^2{{\overline{\ell}}}}{\log\beta}N_j$.
- There exists an absolute constant $\widetilde{c}>1$ such that for all $J_{j-1}\in {\cal J}_{j-1}$, $${\lambda}(\widetilde{\cal J}_j\cap
J_{j-1}):=\sum_{\widetilde{J}_j\in\widetilde{\cal J}_j, \,
\widetilde {J}_j\subset J_{j-1}} {\lambda}(\widetilde{ J}_j)\geq \frac
1{\widetilde{c}}\, {\lambda}(J_{j-1}) \,.$$
- $N_j$ is big enough so that $$\frac{ j}{N_1+\cdots+N_j} < \frac 1{j}\,.$$
We want to mention that the hypothesis on $x_0$ of being approximable is only required to obtain an absolute constant $\widetilde{c}$ in the property (d).
Recall that we want to apply Corollary \[azulesyrojos2\]. In our case $$\label{enemigomio}
a=h_\mu+2{\varepsilon}\,, \qquad
b=h_\mu-2{\varepsilon}\,, \qquad
c=(1+{\varepsilon})({\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}+{\varepsilon})({{\overline{\ell}}}+{\varepsilon})+{\varepsilon}\qquad \hbox{and} \qquad
\delta=1/\widetilde{c}\,.$$
Now we start with the construction of the family ${\cal J}_{m+1}$. We choose a natural number $N_{m+1}\ge N_m$ large enough so that $$d_{m+1}:=N_0+N_1+\cdots +N_{m+1}+k_1+\cdots + k_{m}\in {\cal D},$$ property (e) holds for $j=m+1$, (\[Sn\]) holds with $P_1=P(0,T^{k_m}(x_0))$, $P_2=P(0,x_0)$, $N=N_{m+1}$, and $M:=M_{m+1}=[{\varepsilon}N_{m}]$, (\[kvsN\]) holds for $d_{m+1}$, and also $$\label{historiainterminable}
d_{m+1}\leq (1+{\varepsilon}) N_{m+1}\,, \qquad r_{d_{m+1}} \ge e^{-d_{m+1}({{\overline{\ell}}}+{\varepsilon})}\,.$$
Let ${\cal S}_{N_{m+1},M_{m+1}}$ denote the collection of elements in ${\cal P}_{N_{m+1}}$ given by Proposition \[SMsinmalos\]. Notice that the sets in this family verify (\[SM\]) with $N=N_{m+1}$. For each $J\in{\cal J}_m$ let $G_J^{-1}$ denote the composition of the $d_m+k_m$ branchs of $T^{-1}$ such that $J=G_J^{-1}(P(0,T^{k_m}(x_0)))$. We define now $\widetilde{\cal
J}_{m+1}$ as $$\widetilde{\cal J}_{m+1} = \bigcup_{J\in {\cal J}_m} G_J^{-1} ({\cal S}_{N_{m+1},M_{m+1}}) \,.$$ Notice that, by construction, if $\widetilde J\in\widetilde{ \cal J}_{m+1}$, then $$\label{dm1tilde}
T^{d_{m+1}}(\widetilde J)=P(0,x_0),$$ and since $T^{d_{m+1}-N_{m+1}}(\widetilde J)=S$ for some $S\in{\cal S}_{N_{m+1},M_{m+1}}$. $$T^{d_{m+1}-N_{m+1}}(\widetilde J)\cup (X_0\setminus E_{M_{m+1}}^{\varepsilon})\neq\emptyset
\qquad \text{ with } \quad M_{m+1}=[{\varepsilon}N_m].$$ Since $J_m\in {\cal P}_{d_m+k_m}$, by Proposition \[elchachi\] we have that if $\widetilde{J}= G_{J_m}^{-1}(S)$ with $S\in{\cal
S}_{N_{m+1},M_{m+1}}$, then $$\label{propmt}
\frac 1C \, \frac{{\lambda}(S)}{{\lambda}(P(0,T^{k_m}(x_0)))}\leq
\frac{{\lambda}(\widetilde J)}{{\lambda}(J_m)}\leq C \,
\frac{{\lambda}(S)}{{\lambda}(P(0,T^{k_m}(x_0)))} \,,$$ with $C$ an absolute constant.
If $\widetilde{J}_{m+1}\in\widetilde {\cal J}_{m+1}$, then there are $J_m \in {\cal J}_m$ and $S\in{\cal S}_{N_{m+1},M_{m+1}}$ such that $\widetilde{J}_{m+1}= G_{J_m}^{-1}(S)$. Hence from (\[propmt\]), (\[SM\]), the definition of approximable points and by taking $N_{m+1}$ large, we get the property (b) for $j=m+1$. We remark that ${\lambda}(P(0,T^{k_m}(x_0))$ does not depend on $N_{m+1}$.
Now from (\[propmt\]), Proposition \[SMsinmalos\] and again the definition of approximable points we get $${\lambda}(\widetilde{{\cal J}}_{m+1}\cap J_m) = \sum_{\substack{\widetilde{J}_{m+1}\in\widetilde {\cal J}_{m+1} \\ \widetilde{J}_{m+1}\subset J_m}} \!\!\!\!{\lambda}(\widetilde{J}_{m+1}) \ge
\frac 1C \frac {{\lambda}(J_m)}{{\lambda}(P(0,T^{k_m}(x_0)))} \sum_{S\in
{\cal S}_{N_{m+1},M_{m+1}}}\!\!\!\!\!\!\! {\lambda}(S) \ge \frac 1{c'}
\,{\lambda}(P(0,x_0))\,{\lambda}(J_m) \,,$$ and this gives property (d) for $j=m+1$. Observe that the constant $c'$ depends on the comparability constant between ${\lambda}$ and $\mu$ in $P_1=P(0,T^{k_m}(x_0))$ but from the definition of approximable points we know that this constant is absolute.
Since $d_{m+1}\in\cal D$, by (\[permitidos2\]) and (\[permitidos1\]), there exists an integer $k_{m+1}\in {\cal I}(x_0)$ such that $$\label{defdekm}
P(k_{m+1},x_0)\subset B(x_0, r_{d_{m+1}}).$$ and $$\label{diametrom}
\hbox{diam}(P(k_{m+1},x_0))\geq r_{d_{m+1}+1}\,.$$
From (\[kvsN\]) and since $d_{m+1}\leq (1+{\varepsilon})N_{m+1}$ we get the property (c3) for $j=m+1$.
As in the initial step from the definition of ${\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}$, (\[diametrom\]) and (\[historiainterminable\]), we have that $$\label{Ikm+1}
\lambda(P(k_{m+1},x_0))\ge r_{d_{m+1}+1}^{{\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}+ {\varepsilon}} \ge e^{-N_{m+1}(1+{\varepsilon})({\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}+{\varepsilon})({{\overline{\ell}}}+{\varepsilon})}.$$
In each set $S\in{\cal S}_{N_{m+1},M_{m+1}}$ we take the subset $L_{m+1}:=G^{-1}_{S}(P(k_{m+1},x_0))$ and we call ${\cal L}_{m+1}$ to this family of sets. We recall that by $G_S^{-1}$ we denote the composition of the $N_{m+1}$ branchs of $T^{-1}$ such that $S=G_S^{-1}(P(0,x_0))$.
To define the family ${\cal J}_{m+1}$ we “draw” the family ${\cal L}_{m+1}$ in each one of the sets $J\in{\cal J}_m$. More precisely, for each $J\in{\cal J}_m$ let $G_J$ denote the composition of the $d_m+k_m$ branchs of $T$ such that $G_J(J)=P(0,T^{k_m}(x_0))$. We define now ${\cal J}_{m+1}$ as $${\cal J}_{m+1} = \bigcup_{J\in {\cal J}_m} G_J^{-1} ({\cal L}_{m+1}) \,.$$
Notice that by construction if $ J\in{ \cal J}_{m+1}$, then $$\label{d1dejm}
T^{d_{m+1}}(J)=P(k_{m+1},x_0) \qquad \text{ and }\qquad
T^{d_{m+1}+k_{m+1}}(J)=P(0,T^{k_{m+1}}(x_0)).$$ Therefore the condition (c1) holds for $j=m+1$. Besides, by (\[defdekm\]), if $x\in J
\in {\cal J}_{m+1}$ then $T^{d_{m+1}}(x)\in P(k_{m+1},x_0)\subset
B(x_0,r_{d_{m+1}})$, and therefore the condition (a) holds for $j=m+1$.
By construction we have that for all $ J_{m+1}\in{ \cal J}_{m+1}$ there exists an unique $\widetilde J_{m+1}\in\widetilde{ \cal J}_{m+1}$ such that $J_{m+1}\subset \widetilde J_{m+1}$, and by using the condition (A.6) and (\[clauint1\]) as in the initial step we have that $$\hbox{closure}(J_{m+1}) \subset \widetilde J_{m+1}\,.$$ The estimates of ${\lambda}(J_{m+1})/{\lambda}(\widetilde J_{m+1})$ of the condition (c2) follows by applying Proposition \[elchachi\] and by using (\[dm1tilde\]), (\[Ikm+1\]) and (\[d1dejm\]).
We have already obtained the properties (a)-(e) for $j=m+1$, and therefore we have concluded the construction of the Cantor-like set ${\cal C}_{{\varepsilon}}$. The property that for all $J_{m+1}\in{\cal J}_{m+1}$ there exists a unique $J_m\in{\cal J}_m$ such that $$\hbox{closure}(J_{m+1}) \subset J_{m}$$ implies that ${\cal C}_{{\varepsilon}}$ is not empty. And moreover ${\cal
C}_{{\varepsilon}}\subset X_0$ since by construction $P(m,x)$ is defined for all $x\in {\cal C}_{{\varepsilon}}$. Hence the condition (a) implies that ${\cal C}_{{\varepsilon}}$ is contained in the set $W$.
The estimate (\[DiminfCantor\]) follows now directly from (\[enemigomio\]), property (e) and Corollary \[azulesyrojos2\].
Next we will prove the estimate (\[dimporabajo\]) for the ${\lambda}$-grid Hausdorff dimension of ${\cal C}_{\varepsilon}$. We will use the subcollections $\{{\cal Q}_m\}$ of $\{{\cal P}_m\}$ given by $${\cal Q}_m=\{ P(m,x) \, : \, x\in {\cal C}_{{\varepsilon}}\}$$ in order to apply Proposition \[haches\]. Since ${{\bf\Pi}}$ is a ${\lambda}$-regular grid, see Definition \[gridregular\], we only need to deal with the computation of the parameters $\{a_m\}$ and $\{b_m\}$ of the subcolletions ${\cal Q}_m$. We recall that $a_m$ and $b_m$ are, respectively, a lower and an upper bound for ${\lambda}(P(m,x))$ with $x\in{\cal C}_{{\varepsilon}}$.
The easiest cases correspond to $m=d_n$ and $m=d_n+k_n$, i.e. to the families $\widetilde{\cal J}_n$ and ${\cal J}_n$. Since $P(d_n,x)$ belongs to $\widetilde{\cal J}_n$, from property (b2) of ${\cal C}_{{\varepsilon}}$ and by taking $N_n$ large enough we have that $$\label{abdn}
a_{d_n}=e^{-N_n(h_{\mu}+3{\varepsilon})} \qquad \text{ and }\qquad
b_{d_n}=e^{-N_n(h_{\mu}-3{\varepsilon})}\,.$$ Also, from property (c2) for $j=n$, $${\lambda}(P(d_n+k_n,x))\asymp {\lambda}(P(d_n, x))\, {\lambda}(P(k_n,x_0))\,.$$ for all $x\in{\cal C}_{{\varepsilon}}$, and therefore, $$\label{abdnmaskn}
a_{d_n+k_n}\asymp a_{d_n}{\lambda}(P(k_n,x_0)) \qquad \text{ and }\qquad
b_{d_n+k_n}\asymp b_{d_n}{\lambda}(P(k_n,x_0))\,.$$
To estimate $a_m$ and $b_m$ in the other cases we need first some estimate on the Jacobian. Specifically we need to estimate ${{\bf J}}_{d_n}(x)$ and ${{\bf J}}_{d_n+k_n}(x)$ for $x\in{\cal C}_{{\varepsilon}}$. From (\[njacobiano\]), Proposition \[cotajacobiano\], and properties (b1) and (c1) of ${\cal C}_{{\varepsilon}}$ (for $ j=n$) we have that $${\lambda}(P(0,x_0))={\lambda}(T^{d_n}(P(d_n,x)))=\int_{P(d_n,x)}{{\bf J}}_{d_n}
d{\lambda}\asymp {{\bf J}}_{d_n}(x)\, {\lambda}(P(d_n,x))$$ and $${\lambda}(P(0,T^{k_n}(x_0)))={\lambda}(T^{d_n+k_n}(P(d_n+k_n,x)))=\int_{P(d_n+k_n,x)}\!\!\!\!{{\bf J}}_{d_n+k_n}
d{\lambda}\asymp {{\bf J}}_{d_n+k_n}(x)\, {\lambda}(P(d_n+k_n,x))\,.$$ Hence for all $x\in{\cal C}_{{\varepsilon}}$ $$\label{otrojacobiano1}
\frac{1}{{{\bf J}}_{d_n}(x)}\asymp{\lambda}(P(d_n,x))$$ and, by using property (c2) for $j=n$, $$\label{otrojacobiano2}
\frac{1}{{{\bf J}}_{d_n+k_n}(x)}\asymp \frac{{\lambda}(P(d_n,x)) \,
{\lambda}(P(k_n,x_0))}{{\lambda}(P(0,T^{k_n}(x_0)))}$$ with constants depending on $P(0,x_0)$.
For $d_n<m < d_n+k_n$ by (\[njacobiano\]) and Proposition \[cotajacobiano\] we have that $${\lambda}(P(m-d_n,T^{d_n}(x)))={\lambda}(T^{d_n}(P(m,x)))=\int_{P(m,x)}{{\bf J}}_{d_n}
d{\lambda}\asymp {{\bf J}}_{d_n}(x)\, {\lambda}(P(m,x))\,.$$ Then from (\[otrojacobiano1\]) we get $${\lambda}(P(m,x))\asymp {\lambda}(P(d_n,x))\, {\lambda}(P(m-d_n, T^{d_n}(x)))\,.$$ But, since $x\in{\cal C}_{{\varepsilon}}$, by (c1) $$T^{d_n}(x)\in P(k_n,x_0)\subseteq P(m-d_n, x_0), \qquad \text{ for
} m\le d_n+k_n,$$ and therefore $P(m-d_n, T^{d_n}(x))=P(m-d_n,x_0)$. Hence we have that for $d_n \le m \le d_n+k_n$ $$\label{abdn<dnkn}
a_{m}\asymp a_{d_n}{\lambda}(P(m-d_n,x_0)) \qquad \text{ and }\qquad
b_{m}\asymp b_{d_n}{\lambda}(P(m-d_n,x_0))\,.$$
Now for $d_n+k_n<m < d_{n+1}=d_n+k_n+N_{n+1}$ by (\[njacobiano\]) and Proposition \[cotajacobiano\] we have that $${\lambda}(T^{d_n+k_n}(P(m,x)))=\int_{P(m,x)}{{\bf J}}_{d_n+k_n} d{\lambda}\asymp
{{\bf J}}_{d_n+k_n}(x)\, {\lambda}(P(m,x))$$ and from (\[otrojacobiano2\]) we get $$\label{m<dn1}
{\lambda}(P(m,x))\asymp \frac {{\lambda}(P(d_n,x))\,
{\lambda}(P(k_n,x_0)\,{\lambda}(T^{d_n+k_n}(P(m,x)))}{{\lambda}(P(0,T^{k_n}(x_0)))}\,.$$ Therefore, we need to obtain upper and lower bounds of ${\lambda}(T^{d_n+k_n}(P(m,x)))$ independent of $x\in {\cal C}_{\varepsilon}$.
Notice that if $m \le d_{n+1}$, then $$T^{d_{n+1}-N_{n+1}}(P(d_{n+1},x))=T^{d_{n}+k_{n}}(P(d_{n+1},x))\subset
T^{d_n+k_n}(P(m,x))$$ and, since $T^{d_{n+1}-N_{n+1}}(P(d_{n+1},x))=P(N_{n+1},T^{d_n+k_n}(x))$ is an element of the family ${\cal S}_{N_{n+1},M_{n+1}}$, from the property (b1) of ${\cal C}_{{\varepsilon}}$ we can conclude that there exists $z\in T^{d_n+k_n}(P(m,x))$ such that $z\not\in
E_{M_{n+1}}^{{\varepsilon}}$ with $M_{n+1}=[{\varepsilon}N_n]$. Hence, for $m\le d_{n+1}$, $$\label{bien}
T^{d_n+k_n}(P(m,x))=P(m-d_n-k_n,z) \, \qquad \hbox {with }\qquad
z\not\in E_{[{\varepsilon}N_n]}^{{\varepsilon}}$$ and, for $m-d_n-k_n\ge M_{n+1}=[{\varepsilon}N_n]$, $$\frac 1C e^{-(m-d_n-k_n)(h_{\mu}+{\varepsilon})}\leq
{\lambda}(T^{d_n+k_n}(P(m,x)))\leq C e^{-(m-d_n-k_n)(h_{\mu}-{\varepsilon})}\,.$$
Therefore, for $d_n+k_n+[{\varepsilon}N_n]\leq m < d_{n+1}$, $$\label{abdnknnn<dn1}
a_{m}\asymp \frac {a_{d_n}{\lambda}(P(k_n,x_0))
e^{-(m-d_n-k_n)(h_{\mu}+{\varepsilon})}}{{\lambda}(P(0,T^{k_n}(x_0)))} \quad
\text{ and }\quad b_{m}\asymp
\frac{b_{d_n}{\lambda}(P(k_n,x_0))e^{-(m-d_n-k_n)(h_{\mu}-{\varepsilon})}}{{\lambda}(P(0,T^{k_n}(x_0)))}\,.$$
For $d_n+k_n<m<d_n+k_n+[{\varepsilon}N_n]$ we have that $$P([{\varepsilon}N_n],z)\subset T^{d_n+k_n}(P(m,x))\subset P(0,T^{k_n}(x_0))$$ and therefore, from Lemma \[egorof\] and the definition of approximable point (recall that $k_n\in{\cal I}(x_0)$), $$\label{sinliminf}
\frac 1C \, e^{-[{\varepsilon}N_n](h_\mu+{\varepsilon})} \le {\lambda}(T^{d_n+k_n}(P(m,x)))\le {\lambda}(P(0,T^{k_n}(x_0))).$$ Hence, from (\[m<dn1\]) we get that $$\label{abdnkn<dnknnn}
a_m\asymp \frac
{a_{d_n}{\lambda}(P(k_n,x_0))e^{-[{\varepsilon}N_n](h_{\mu}+{\varepsilon})}}{{\lambda}(P(0,T^{k_n}(x_0)))}
\qquad \text{ and }\qquad b_m \asymp b_{d_n}{\lambda}(P(k_n,x_0))\,.$$
In order to apply Proposition \[haches\] we will show that $$\label{cocientegrid}
\limsup_{m\to\infty}\frac{\log \left (1/a_m\right)}{\log\left(
1/b_{m-1}\right)}\leq 1+C{\varepsilon}+\frac{{{\overline{\tau}_{\lambda}(x_0)}}{{\overline{\ell}}}}{(h_{\mu}-3{\varepsilon})\log\beta}$$ with $C$ an absolute constant. Then, from Proposition \[haches\], (\[cocientegrid\]), and by taking ${\varepsilon}\to 0$ we get the desired bound for the ${\lambda}$-Hausdorff dimension of the set ${\cal W}(U,x_0,\{r_n\})$.
Let us define $$q_m:=\frac{\log \left (1/a_m\right)}{\log\left( 1/b_{m-1}\right)}\, .$$
For $m=d_n$ we have by (\[abdn\]) and (\[abdnknnn<dn1\]) that $$\label{phm1}
q_m\asymp \frac{N_n (h_\mu+3{\varepsilon})}{N_n(h_\mu-{\varepsilon})+C_{n-1}}$$ with $$C_{n-1}=(h_{\mu}-3{\varepsilon})N_{n-1}+\log\frac{{\lambda}(P(0,T^{k_{n-1}}(x_0)))}{{\lambda}(P(k_{n-1},x_0))}\,
.$$
Hence from (\[phm1\]) we get that $$\label{hm1}
q_m\leq 1+C{\varepsilon}\qquad \text{ for } \quad m=d_n$$ with $C>0$ an absolute constant. In order to obtain (\[cocientegrid\]) from (\[phm1\]) we must also say that we have taken $N_n$ large enough so that $C_{n-1}\ge -{\varepsilon}N_n$.
For $m=d_n+1$ we get from (\[abdn\]) and (\[abdn<dnkn\]) that, for $N_n$ large enough, $$\label{phm1punto5}
q_m\asymp\frac{N_n(h_\mu+3{\varepsilon}) +\log\frac
1{{\lambda}(P(1,x_0))}}{N_n(h_\mu-3{\varepsilon})} \le 1+C{\varepsilon}\,.$$
For $d_n+1<m\leq d_n+ k_n$ we have from (\[abdn<dnkn\]) $$\label{phm2}
q_m\asymp\frac{ N_n(h_\mu+3{\varepsilon})+\log\frac 1{{\lambda}(P(m-d_n,x_0))}}
{N_n(h_\mu-3{\varepsilon})+\log\frac{1}{{\lambda}(P(m-d_n-1,x_0)}} \, .$$ But since $${{\overline{\tau}_{\lambda}(x_0)}}=\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{n}\log\frac{{\lambda}(P(n,x_0))}{{\lambda}(P(n+1,x_0))},$$ then given ${\varepsilon}>0$ there exists $C'>0$ such that for all $n$ $$\log\frac{{\lambda}(P(n,x_0))}{{\lambda}(P(n+1,x_0))} \leq C' +
n({{\overline{\tau}_{\lambda}(x_0)}}+{\varepsilon})\, .$$ Hence $$\log\frac{{\lambda}(P(m-d_n-1,x_0))}{{\lambda}(P(m-d_n,x_0))}\leq
C'+k_n({{\overline{\tau}_{\lambda}(x_0)}}+{\varepsilon})$$ and by property (c3) of ${\cal C}_{{\varepsilon}}$ for $N_n$ large enough we get that $$\label{pphm2}
\log\frac{{\lambda}(P(m-d_n-1,x_0))}{{\lambda}(P(m-d_n,x_0))}\leq
C'+\frac{({{\overline{\tau}_{\lambda}(x_0)}}+{\varepsilon}) (1+{\varepsilon})^2{{\overline{\ell}}}}{\log\beta} N_n.$$ From (\[phm1punto5\]), (\[phm2\]) and (\[pphm2\]) it follows that for $N_n$ large $$\label{hm2}
q_m\leq 1+C{\varepsilon}+\frac{{{\overline{\tau}_{\lambda}(x_0)}}{{\overline{\ell}}}}{(h_{\mu}-3{\varepsilon})\log\beta}
\qquad \text{ for } \quad d_n< m\leq d_n+k_n$$ with $C>0$ an absolute constant.
For $d_n+k_n<m <d_n+k_n+[{\varepsilon}N_n]$ we get from (\[abdnmaskn\]), (\[abdnknnn<dn1\]) and (\[abdnkn<dnknnn\]) that $$q_m\asymp\frac{N_n(h_\mu+3{\varepsilon}) +[{\varepsilon}N_n](h_{\mu}+{\varepsilon})+ \log\frac
1{{\lambda}(P(k_n,x_0))}-\log\frac{1}{{\lambda}(P(0,T^{k_n}(x_0)))}}
{N_n(h_{\mu}-3{\varepsilon})+\log\frac{1}{{\lambda}(P(k_n,x_0))}}$$ and therefore, for $N_n$ large enough, we have with $C$ an absolute constant that $$\label{hm3}
q_m \leq 1+\frac{6{\varepsilon}N_n+[{\varepsilon}N_n]
(h_{\mu}+{\varepsilon})}{N_n(h_{\mu}-3{\varepsilon})}\le 1+C{\varepsilon}\qquad \text{ for }
\quad d_n+k_n< m < d_n+k_n+ [{\varepsilon}N_n] \,.$$
For $m=d_n+k_m+[{\varepsilon}N_n]$ we get from (\[abdnkn<dnknnn\]) and (\[abdnknnn<dn1\]) that $$q_m\asymp\frac{N_n(h_\mu +3{\varepsilon})+ [{\varepsilon}N_n]( h_{\mu}+{\varepsilon})
+\log\frac 1{P(k_n,x_0)}-\log\frac 1{{\lambda}(P(0,T^{k_n}(x_0)))}}
{N_n(h_{\mu}-3{\varepsilon})+\log\frac{1}{{\lambda}(P(k_n,x_0))}}$$ and therefore, for $N_n$ large enough, we have, with $C$ an absolute constant, that $$\label{hm3ymedio}
q_m \le \frac {6{\varepsilon}N_n+[{\varepsilon}N_n](h_\mu
+{\varepsilon})}{N_n(h_{\mu}-3{\varepsilon})}\le 1+C{\varepsilon}\qquad \text{ for } \quad
m = d_n+k_n+ [{\varepsilon}N_n]\,.$$
For $d_n+k_n+[{\varepsilon}N_n]<m <d_{n+1}$ we get from (\[abdnknnn<dn1\]) that $$\label{phm4}
q_m\asymp\frac{N_n(h_\mu+3{\varepsilon})+ (m-d_n-k_n)(h_\mu+{\varepsilon})+\log\frac
1{P(k_n,x_0)}-\log\frac 1{{\lambda}(P(0,T^{k_n}(x_0)))}}
{N_n(h_{\mu}-3{\varepsilon})+(m-d_n-k_n-1)(h_{\mu}+{\varepsilon})+\log\frac
1{P(k_n,x_0)}-\log\frac 1{{\lambda}(P(0,T^{k_n}(x_0)))}}\, .$$ Hence from (\[sinliminf\]) and (\[phm4\]) we have that $$q_m\leq 1+\frac{6{\varepsilon}N_n+h_\mu+{\varepsilon}}{N_n(h_{\mu}-3{\varepsilon})-\log\frac
1{{\lambda}(P(0,T^{k_n}(x_0)))}}\leq 1+ \frac{6{\varepsilon}N_n+h_\mu+{\varepsilon}}{N_n(h_{\mu}-3{\varepsilon})+\log\frac 1C-[{\varepsilon}N_n](h_\mu+{\varepsilon})} \, \,$$ and so, for $N_n$ large enough, we have, with $C$ an absolute constant, that $$\label{hm4}
q_m \le 1+C{\varepsilon}\qquad \text{ for } \quad d_n+k_n+ [{\varepsilon}N_n]<m
<d_{n+1}\,.$$
From (\[hm1\]), (\[hm2\]), (\[hm3\]), (\[hm3ymedio\]) and (\[hm4\]) we get (\[cocientegrid\]). Using now Proposition \[haches\] it follows that $$\label{cocientedimensiones}
\frac {1-{\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{\lambda}({\cal C}_{\varepsilon})}{1-{\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{\Pi,{\lambda}} ({\cal
C}_{\varepsilon})}\le 1+C{\varepsilon}+\frac{{{\overline{\tau}_{\lambda}(x_0)}}{{\overline{\ell}}}}{(h_{\mu}-3{\varepsilon})\log\beta}\,.$$ As ${\cal C}_{\varepsilon}\subset {\cal W}(U,x_0,\{r_n\})$ for all ${\varepsilon}>0$, (\[dimporabajo\]) follows now from (\[DiminfCantor\]) and (\[cocientedimensiones\]) by letting ${\varepsilon}\to 0$.
Finally, to prove (\[dimdiametros\]) it is enough to show that, for all $x\in{\cal C}_{\varepsilon}$, $$\label{frostman}
\nu(B(x,r)) \le C\, ({\lambda}(B(x,r))^\eta \,, \qquad \hbox{with } \eta=1-(1+{\varepsilon})\frac{(1+{\varepsilon})({\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}+{\varepsilon})({{\overline{\ell}}}+{\varepsilon})+{\varepsilon}}{s\log\beta}\,.$$ First, notice that from the definition of the measure $\nu$ and the properties (c2) and (d) of the definition of the Cantor set ${\cal C}_{\varepsilon}$ it follows that for all $x\in{\cal C}_{\varepsilon}$:
\(1) If $J_{n+1} \subset P(m,x) \subseteq \widetilde{J}_{n+1}$, then $$\nu(P(m,x))=\nu(\widetilde{J}_{n+1})=\nu(J_{n+1})\le C {\lambda}( \widetilde{J}_{n+1})\, \frac{\nu(J_n)}{{\lambda}(J_n)}\le C\, \frac 1{{\lambda}(P(k_{n+1},x_0))}\, \frac{\nu(J_n)}{{\lambda}(J_n)}\,{\lambda}(P(m,x)) \,.$$
\(2) If $\widetilde{J}_{n+1} \subset P(m,x) \subseteq J_n$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\nu(P(m,x)) & =
\sum_{\substack{{\tilde{J}}_{n+1} \in {\widetilde{\cal J}}_{n+1} \\
{\widetilde{J}}_{n+1} \subseteq P(m,x)}} \nu (J_{n+1}) \,=
\sum_{\substack{{\tilde{J}}_{n+1} \in {\widetilde{\cal J}}_{n+1} \\
{\widetilde{J}}_{n+1} \subseteq P(m,x)}} \frac{{\lambda}({\widetilde{J}_{n+1}})}{{\lambda}({\widetilde{\cal J}}_{n+1}
\cap J_n)}\,\nu (J_{n}) \notag \\
&\le C\, \frac{\nu (J_{n}) }{{\lambda}( J_n)}\,\sum_{\substack{{\tilde{J}}_{n+1}
\in {\widetilde{\cal J}}_{n+1} \\
{\widetilde{J}}_{n+1} \subseteq
P(m,x)}}{\lambda}({\widetilde{J}_{n+1}}) \leq C\, \frac{\nu (J_{n})
}{{\lambda}({ J}_{n})}\ {\lambda}(P(m,x)) \notag \\
&\le C\, \frac{{\lambda}(\widetilde{J}_{n})\, \nu(J_{n-1})}{{\lambda}({ J}_{n})\, {\lambda}({\widetilde{\cal J}}_{n}
\cap J_{n-1}) }\ {\lambda}(P(m,x))\le C
\, \frac{{\lambda}(\widetilde{J}_{n})} {{\lambda}({ J}_{n}) } \frac{ \nu(J_{n-1})} {{\lambda}({ J}_{n-1}) }\ {\lambda}(P(m,x)) \notag \\
&\le C\, \frac 1{{\lambda}(P(k_{n},x_0))}\, \frac{\nu(J_{n-1})}{{\lambda}(J_{n-1})}\,{\lambda}(P(m,x)) \,. \notag\end{aligned}$$
In any case, by taking $N_{n+1}$ large enough (and therefore $k_{n+1}$ also large enough) or $N_n$ large enough (and therefore $k_{n}$ also large enough) we have that for $J_{n+1} \subset P(m,x) \subseteq J_n$, $$\label{doscasos}
\nu(P(m,x)) \le C\, \frac 1{{\lambda}(P(k_{j},x_0))^{1+{\varepsilon}}} \,{\lambda}(P(m,x))$$ with $j=n+1$ in the case (1) and $j=n$ in the case (2).
Recall also that by the property (C) of expanding maps we have $$\sup_{P\in {\cal P}_n} \hbox{diam}(P) \le C \, \frac 1{\beta^n}$$ Now given a ball $B=B(x,r)$ with center $x\in {\cal C}_{\varepsilon}$ we define the natural number $m=m(B)$ given by $$\label{defdem}
\frac {2C}{\beta^m} \le \hbox{diam}(B) < \frac {2C}{\beta^{m-1}}$$ and the family ${\cal P}(B)$ as the collection of blocks in $P\in{\cal P}_m$ such that $P\cap B\neq \emptyset$. Let us also denote by $n=n(B)$ the natural number such that $d_n+k_n\le m <d_{n+1}+k_{n+1}$. It is clear that $$\nu(B) \le \sum_{P\in {\cal P}(B)} \nu(P)$$ and using (\[doscasos\]) we obtain that $$\nu(B) \le C \frac 1{{\lambda}(P(k_{j},x_0))^{1+{\varepsilon}}} \sum_{P\in {\cal P}(B)} \,{\lambda}(P)$$ where $j=n$ if $d_n+k_n\le m <d_{n+1}$ and $j=n+1$ if $d_{n+1}\le m < d_{n+1}+k_{n+1}$. Notice that, by (\[defdem\]), it is clear that $\cup_{P\in {\cal P}(B)} P \subset 2B:=B(x,2r)$ and since ${\lambda}$ is a doubling measure we have that $$\sum_{P\in {\cal P}(B)} \,{\lambda}(P) \le C{\lambda}(B)\,.$$ Therefore, in each of the above cases, we have $$\label{aquel}
\nu(B) \le C\, \frac 1{{\lambda}(P(k_{j},x_0))^{1+{\varepsilon}}} \,{\lambda}(B)\,.$$ But, by the property (c2) of the Cantor set ${\cal C}_{\varepsilon}$ $${\lambda}(P(k_{j},x_0) \ge e^{-N_j[(1+{\varepsilon})({\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}+{\varepsilon})({{\overline{\ell}}}+{\varepsilon})+{\varepsilon}]}\,$$ and by (\[defdem\]) we obtain that $${\lambda}(B) \le C\, \hbox{diam}(B)^s \le C\, \frac 1{\beta^{(m-1)s}} \le C\, e^{-N_j s \log\beta}$$ where we have used that $d_{n+1}\asymp N_{n+1}$ and $d_n+k_n\asymp d_n \asymp N_n$. Hence, $$\label{este}
{\lambda}(P(k_{j},x_0) \ge {\lambda}(B)^{[(1+{\varepsilon})({\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}+{\varepsilon})({{\overline{\ell}}}+{\varepsilon})+{\varepsilon}]/s\log\beta}\,.$$ From (\[aquel\]) and (\[este\]) we get (\[frostman\]).
\[Markovsi\] If $X\subset {{\bf R}}$ and ${\lambda}$ is Lebesgue measure, then Theorem \[dimension\] holds also for all approximable point $x_0\in X_0^+$. In fact, in this case we can not assure that $\hbox{closure}(P(k_1,x_0))\subset P(0,x_0)$. However it is true that $\hbox{closure}(P(k_1,x_0))\subset P(0,x_0) \cup \{x_0\}$ and from this fact we can conclude easily that $${\cal C}_{\varepsilon}:= \bigcap_{n=0}^\infty \bigcup_{J\in {\cal J}_n} J
\subset \bigcap_{n=0}^\infty \bigcup_{J\in {\cal J}_n} \hbox{closure\,}(J) \subset {\cal C}_{\varepsilon}\cup
S\,,$$ where $S$ is a countable set. Hence, ${\cal C}_{\varepsilon}$ and $ \bigcap_{n=0}^\infty \bigcup_{J\in {\cal J}_n} \hbox{closure\,}(J)$ have the same Hausdorff dimensions. Also, since ${\lambda}(J)={\lambda}(\hbox{closure\,}(J))$ the proof of Theorem \[dimension\] allows to estimate the Hausdorff dimensions of $ \bigcap_{n=0}^\infty \bigcup_{J\in {\cal J}_n} \hbox{closure\,}(J)$.
The next result follows from the proof of Theorem \[dimension\]. In this case the sequence of radii is constant and therefore we are estimating the set of points returning periodically to a neighbourhood of the given point $x_0$. The proof is much more simple because the constructed Cantor-like sets have a more regular pattern.
\[recurrentes\] Let $(X,d,{\cal A},\lambda,T)$ be an expanding system with finite entropy $H_\mu({\cal P}_0)$ with respect to the partition ${\cal
P}_0$ where $\mu$ is the ACIPM associated to the system. Let us consider the grid ${{\bf\Pi}}=\{{\cal P}_n\}$. Let $r>0$ and let $P$ be a block of ${\cal P}_{N_0}$. Then, given ${\varepsilon}>0$, for all point $x_0\in X_0$, there exist $k$ depending on $x_0$ and $r$, and $\widetilde N$ depending on $P$, $x_0$, $r$ and ${\varepsilon}$ such that for all $N\geq\widetilde N$ the grid Hausdorff dimensions of the set ${\cal R}(P,x_0,r,N)$ of points $x\in P\cap X_0$ such that $$d(T^{d_j} (x),x_0) < r \ \mbox{ for } \ d_j=N_0 + k+(j-1)(N+k) \ \mbox{ for } j=1,2,\ldots$$ verify $${\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}} ({\cal R}(P,x_0,r,N)) = {\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{{\bf\Pi}},\mu} ({\cal
R}(P,x_0,r,N)) \geq 1-{\varepsilon}-C_1/N \,.$$ where $C_1$ is an absolute constant. Moreover for all $x_0\in X_0$ we have
1. If the grid ${{\bf\Pi}}$ is ${\lambda}$-regular then, $${\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{\lambda}({\cal R}(U,x_0,r,N))={\mbox{\rm Dim}}_\mu ({\cal R}(U,x_0,r,N )) \geq 1-{\varepsilon}-C_2/N .$$
2. If ${\lambda}$ is a doubling measure verifying that ${\lambda}(B(x,r))\le C\,r^s$ for all ball $B(x,r)$, then $${\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{\lambda}} ({\cal R}(P,x_0,r,N)) = {\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{\mu} ({\cal R}(P,x_0,r,N)) \ge 1-\frac {\log C_3}{(N+k)s\log\beta}\,,$$ with $C_3\asymp 1/{\lambda}(P(k,x_0))$.
We have now ${{\overline{\ell}}}=0$ and we can do the same construction that in Theorem \[dimension\] with $N_j=N$ and $k_j=k$ for all $j\ge 1$. The result for ${\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}}$ follows from Corollary \[azulesyrojos2\] by taking $\alpha_j=e^{-Na}$, $\beta_j=e^{-Nb}$ with $a=h_\mu+2{\varepsilon}$, $b=h_\mu-2{\varepsilon}$ and $\gamma_j$ a constant. Part 1 is a consequence of Proposition \[haches\]. The proof of Part 2 is similar to the corresponding one in the proof of Theorem \[dimension\]. Now instead of (\[doscasos\]) we have that $\nu(P(m,x))\le C\,C_3^n {\lambda}(P(m,x))$.
Let $\{A_k\}$ be a decreasing sequence of Borel sets in $X$ such that ${\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}} (A_k)\ge \beta>0$. Then, $Dim_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}} (\cap_k A_k)\ge \beta$.
If $0<\alpha<\beta$, then ${\cal H}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}}^\alpha (A_k)=\infty$ for all $k$ and therefore ${\cal H}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}}^\alpha (\cap_k A_k)=\lim_{k\to\infty}{\cal H}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}}^\alpha (A_k)=\infty $. It follows that ${\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{\lambda}(\cap_k A_k)\ge\alpha$. The result follows by letting $\alpha\to\beta$.
The lemma also holds (with the same proof) for the ${\lambda}$-Hausdorff dimension.
\[cotasparadimconradios2\] Under the hypotheses of Theorem [\[dimension\]]{} we have that $${\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}} \left\{ x\in U: \ \liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac{d(T^n(x),x_0)}{r_n} = 0 \right\} \ge
\frac {h_\mu}{h_\mu + {\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}\,{{\overline{\ell}}}}\,.$$ Moreover, if the grid ${{\bf\Pi}}$ is ${\lambda}$-regular, then $${\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{\lambda}} \left\{ x\in U: \ \liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac{d(T^n(x),x_0)}{r_n} = 0 \right\} \ge
\frac {h_{\mu}}{h_\mu + {\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}\, {{\overline{\ell}}}} \, \Big(
1-\frac{\overline{\tau}_{\lambda}(x_0){\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}\ell^2}{h_{\mu}^2\log\beta}\Big)\,.$$
Notice that if $x\in U$ verifies $$d(T^n(x),x_0) \le r_n \,, \ \hbox{for
infinitely many $n$} \quad \implies \quad \liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac {d(T^n(x),x_0)}{r_n }\le 1$$ and from Theorem \[dimension\] we obtain that $${\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}} \left\{ x\in U: \ \liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac{d(T^n(x),x_0)}{r_n} \le 1 \right\} \ge
\frac {h_\mu}{h_\mu + {\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}\,{{\overline{\ell}}}}\,.$$ By applying this last result to the sequence $\{r_n/m\}_{n=1}^\infty$ for any $m\in{{\bf N}}$, we get that $${\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}} \left\{ x\in U: \ \liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac{d(T^n(x),x_0)}{r_n} \le \frac 1m \right\} \ge
\frac {h_\mu}{h_\mu + {\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}\,{{\overline{\ell}}}}\,,$$ and since $$\left\{ x\in X : \ \liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac {d(T^n(x),x_0)}{r_n} = 0 \right\}
= \bigcap_{m=1}^\infty \left\{ x\in X : \ \liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac {d(T^n(x),x_0)}{r_n} \le \frac 1m \right\}\,.$$ the lower bound in the statement follows from the above lemma. The proof of the second statement is similar.
As in the measure section we are also interested in the size of the set $$\widetilde{\cal W}(x_0,\{t_n\}) = \{x\in X_0: \ T^k(x) \in
P(t_k,x_0) \ \hbox{for infinitely many $k$}\}$$ with $\{t_k\}$ an increasing sequence of positive integers and $x_0\in X_0^+$. We recall that if $x_0=[\;i_0\;i_1\ldots\;]$, then $\widetilde{\cal W}(x_0,\{t_n\})$ is the set of points $x=[\;m_0\;m_1\ldots\;]\in X_0$ such that $$m_k=i_0, m_{k+1}=i_i,\;\ldots \;,m_{k+t_k}=i_{t_k}$$ for infinitely many $k$.
\[dimensioncode\] Let $(X,d,{\cal A},\lambda,T)$ be an expanding system with finite entropy $H_\mu({\cal P}_0)$ with respect to the partition ${\cal P}_0$ where $\mu$ is the ACIPM associated to the system. Let $\{t_n\}$ be a non decreasing sequence of positive integers and let $U$ be an open set in $X$ with $\mu(U)>0$. Let us consider the grid ${{\bf\Pi}}=\{{\cal P}_n\}$. Then, for all approximable point $x_0\in X_0$, the grid Hausdorff dimensions of the set $$\widetilde{\cal W}(U,x_0,\{t_n\})=\{x\in U\cap X_0: \ T^k(x) \in
P(t_k,x_0) \ \hbox{for infinitely many $k$}\}\,,$$ verify $${\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}} ({\cal \widetilde W}(U,x_0,\{t_n\})) =
{\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{{\bf\Pi}},\mu} ({\cal \widetilde W}(U,x_0,\{t_n\})) \ge \frac
{h_\mu}{h_\mu +\overline{L}(x_0)} \,,$$ where $\overline{L}(x_0)= \limsup_{n\to\infty} \frac 1n
\log\frac{1}{{\lambda}(P( t_n,x_0))}$ and $h_\mu$ is the entropy of $T$ with respect to $\mu$.
Moreover, for all approximable point $x_0\in X_0$, the Hausdorff dimension of the set ${\cal \widetilde W}(U,x_0,\{t_n\})$ verify:
1. If the grid ${{\bf\Pi}}$ is ${\lambda}$-regular, then $${\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{\lambda}} ({\cal \widetilde W}(U,x_0,\{t_n\})) = {\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{\mu}
({\cal \widetilde W}(U,x_0,\{t_n\})) \ge \frac {h_\mu}{h_\mu
+\overline{L}(x_0)} \, \Big( 1- \frac{{{\overline{\tau}_{\lambda}(x_0)}}\,\overline{w}\,\overline{L}(x_0) }{h_{\mu}^2} \Big)\,,$$ where $\overline{w}= \limsup_{n\to\infty} \frac {t_n}n$.
2. If ${\lambda}$ is a doubling measure verifying that ${\lambda}(B(x,r))\le C\,r^s$ for all ball $B(x,r)$, then $${\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{\lambda}(\widetilde{\cal W}(U,x_0,\{t_n\}))={\mbox{\rm Dim}}_\mu ({\cal W}(U,x_0,\{t_n\}))\ge 1 - \frac {\overline{L}(x_0) \overline{w}}{s\log\beta}\,.$$
We recall that from Remark \[approx\] and Lemma \[justificacion\] we know that the set of approximable points such that ${{\overline{\tau}_{\lambda}(x_0)}}=0$ has full ${\lambda}$-measure.
As in the case of radii, we have the following consequence of the proof of Theorem \[dimensioncode\] when we take the sequence $\{
t_n:=t\}$ constant. We are estimating the set of points in whose code appear periodically the first $t$ digits of the code of the point $x_0$. The proof is similar.
Let $(X,d,{\cal A},\lambda,T)$ be an expanding system with finite entropy $H_\mu({\cal P}_0)$ with respect to the partition ${\cal
P}_0$ where $\mu$ is the ACIPM associated to the system. Let us consider the grid ${{\bf\Pi}}=\{{\cal P}_n\}$. Let $t\in{{\bf N}}$ and let $P$ be an block of ${\cal P}_{N_0}$. Then, given ${\varepsilon}>0$ for all point $x_0\in
X_0$ there exist $k$ depending on $x_0$ and $t$, and $\widetilde
N$ depending on $P$, $x_0$ ${\varepsilon}$ and $t$, such that for all $N\geq\widetilde N$ the grid Hausdorff dimensions of the set $\widetilde{{\cal R}}(P,x_0,r,N)$ of points $x=[\;m_0\;m_1\ldots\;]\in P\cap X_0$ such that for $j=1,2,\ldots$ $$m_{d_j}=i_0,\, m_{d_j+1}=i_1,\;\ldots \;,m_{d_j+t}=i_{t}
\ \mbox{ with } \ d_j=N_0+k +(j-1)(N+k)$$ verify $${\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}} ({\cal R}(P,x_0,r,N)) = {\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{{\bf\Pi}},\mu} ({\cal R}(P,x_0,r,N)) \geq 1-{\varepsilon}-C_1/N \,,$$ where $C_1$ is an absolute constant. Moreover for all $x_0\in X_0$ we have
1. If the grid ${{\bf\Pi}}$ is ${\lambda}$-regular then, $${\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{\lambda}({\cal R}(U,x_0,r,N))={\mbox{\rm Dim}}_\mu ({\cal R}(U,x_0,r,N )) \geq 1-{\varepsilon}-C_2/N .$$
2. If ${\lambda}$ is a doubling measure verifying that ${\lambda}(B(x,r))\le C\,r^s$ for all ball $B(x,r)$, then $${\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{\lambda}} ({\cal R}(P,x_0,r,N)) = {\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{\mu} ({\cal R}(P,x_0,r,N)) \ge 1-\frac {\log C_3}{(N+k)s\log\beta}\,,$$ with $C_3\asymp 1/{\lambda}(P(k,x_0))$.
We may assume that $\overline{L}(x_0)$, ${{\overline{\tau}_{\lambda}(x_0)}}$ and $\overline{w}$ are all finite, since otherwise our Hausdorff dimension estimates are obvious. Now, the proof is similar to the proof of Theorem \[dimension\]. For each ${\varepsilon}>0$ we construct a Cantor-like set ${\cal C}_{{\varepsilon}}\subset \widetilde{\cal
W}(U,x_0,\{t_n\})$. Recall that in the proof of Theorem \[dimension\] we defined an increasing sequence $\cal D$ of allowed indexes. Here, we define $\cal D$ in the following way: Let ${\cal I}(x_0)=\{p_i\}$ denote the sequence associated to $x_0$ given by Definition \[aproximable\]. For each $p_k \in {\cal I}(x_0)$ let $n(k)$ denote the greatest natural number such that $t_{n(k)}\le
p_k$. We denote by $\cal D$ the set of these allowed indexes. We will write ${\cal D}=\{d_i\}$ with $d_i<d_{i+1}$.
With this new definition of ${\cal D}$ we have that if $d\in\cal
D$, then there exists $k(d)\in {\cal I}(x_0)$ such that $$t_d \le k(d) <t_{d+1} \qquad \text{and} \qquad P(k(d),x_0)\subset
P(t_d,x_0)\,.$$ These two properties substitute to (\[permitidos2\]) and (\[permitidos1\]). For all $d$ large enough we have that $$\frac{k(d)}{d}\leq (1+{\varepsilon}) \overline{w}\,.$$ This inequality substitute to (\[kvsN\]). With the above considerations and proceeding as in the proof of Theorem \[dimension\] we construct the families $\widetilde{\cal J}_j, \, {\cal J}_j$ and the numbers $N_j$ and $k_j\in {\cal I}(x_0)$ with the properties (b), (c1), (c3), (d) and (e). The corresponding properties (a) and (c2) are now the following ones:
- For all point $x$ in $J_j\in{\cal J}_j$ $$T^{d_j}(x)\in P(t_{d_j},x_0)\,.$$
- For all $J_j\in{\cal J}_j$ there exist a unique $\widetilde{J}_{j}\in\widetilde{\cal J}_{j}$ so that $\text{closure\,}(J_j)\subset \widetilde{J}_{j}$ and $$\frac {{\lambda}(J_j)}{{\lambda}(\widetilde{J}_{j})} \asymp {\lambda}(P(k_j,x_0)) \qquad \hbox{and} \qquad
\frac {{\lambda}(J_j)}{{\lambda}(\widetilde{J}_{j})}\ge
e^{-N_j[(1+{\varepsilon})(\overline{L}(x_0)+{\varepsilon})+{\varepsilon}]}
\,.$$
The rest of the proof is similar.
\[Markovsicode\] Using the same argument that in Remark \[Markovsi\] we get that if $X\subset {{\bf R}}$ and ${\lambda}$ is Lebesgue measure, then Theorem \[dimensioncode\] holds also for all approximable point $x_0\in X_0^+$.
For points $x_0\in X_1$ we have the following version of the above theorem.
\[dimensioncode2\] Let $(X,d,{\cal A},\lambda,T)$ be an expanding system with finite entropy $H_\mu({\cal P}_0)$ with respect to the partition ${\cal P}_0$, where $\mu$ is the ACIPM associated to the system. Let $\{t_n\}$ be a non decreasing sequence of positive integers and let $U$ be an open set in $X$ with $\mu(U)>0$. Let us consider the grid ${{\bf\Pi}}=\{{\cal P}_n\}$. Then, for all approximable point $x_0\in X_1$, and therefore for ${\lambda}$-almost point $x_0\in X$, the grid Hausdorff dimensions of the set $$\widetilde{\cal W}(U,x_0,\{t_n\})=\{x\in U\cap X_0: \ T^k(x) \in
P(t_k,x_0) \ \hbox{for infinitely many $k$}\}\,,$$ verify $${\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}} ({\cal \widetilde W}(U,x_0,\{t_n\})) =
{\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{{\bf\Pi}},\mu} ({\cal \widetilde W}(U,x_0,\{t_n\})) \ge \frac
{1}{1 +\overline{w}} \,,$$ where $\overline{w}= \limsup_{n\to\infty} \frac {t_n}n$. Moreover, if the grid ${{\bf\Pi}}$ is ${\lambda}$-regular, then also $${\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{\lambda}} ({\cal \widetilde W}(U,x_0,\{t_n\})) = {\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{\mu}
({\cal \widetilde W}(U,x_0,\{t_n\})) \ge \frac {1}{1
+\overline{w}}\,.$$
We may assume that $\overline{w}<\infty$ since otherwise our estimations are trivial. The proof is similar to the proof of Theorem \[dimensioncode\] but using that for $d$ large $${\lambda}(P(t_d,x_0)) \ge e^{-t_d(h_\mu+{\varepsilon})} \ge
e^{-d(\overline{w}+{\varepsilon})(h_\mu+{\varepsilon})}\,.$$
Upper bounds of the dimension {#upperbounds}
-----------------------------
We will prove now some upper bounds for the ${\lambda}$-grid Hausdorff dimension of ${\cal W}(U,x_0,\{r_n\})$ and $\widetilde{\cal W}(U,x_0,\{t_n\})$ in the case that the partition ${\cal P}_0$ is finite.
\[dimensionporarribacode\] Let $(X,d,{\cal A},\lambda,T)$ be an expanding system such that the partition ${\cal P}_0$ is finite. Let $\mu$ be the ACIPM associated to the system. Let $\{t_n\}$ be a non decreasing sequence of positive integers and $U$ be an open set in $X$ with $\mu(U)>0$.
Then, if $x_0 \in X_0^+$, we have that the grid Hausdorff dimensions of the set $$\widetilde{\cal W}(U,x_0,\{t_n\})=\{x\in U\cap X_0: \ T^k(x) \in
P(t_k,x_0) \ \hbox{for infinitely many $k$}\}\,,$$ verify $${\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}} ({\widetilde{\cal W}}(U,x_0,\{t_n\})) =
{\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{{\bf\Pi}},\mu} ({\widetilde{\cal W}}(U,x_0,\{t_n\})) \le \min \left\{1, \frac {\log D}{h_\mu
+ \underline{L}(x_0)} \right\}\,.$$ where $\underline{L}(x_0)= \liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac
1n\log\frac{1}{{\lambda}(P( t_n,x_0))}$, $h_\mu=h_{\mu}(T)$ is the entropy of $T$ with respect to the measure $\mu$ and $D$ is the cardinality of ${\cal P}_0$. Moreover, if $x_0\in X_1$, then $${\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}} ({\widetilde{\cal W}}(U,x_0,\{t_n\})) =
{\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{{\bf\Pi}},\mu} ({\widetilde{\cal W}}(U,x_0,\{t_n\})) \le \min \left\{1, \frac {\log D}{(1+\underline w)h_\mu} \right\}\,,$$ where $\underline{w}=\liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac 1n \, t_n \,.$
We define the collections $${\cal F}_n=\{T^{-n}(P(t_n,x_0))\cap Q: \ Q\in {\cal P}_n\} \,.$$ Then the collection $${\cal G}_N = \bigcup_{n=N}^\infty {\cal F}_n \,.$$ covers the set ${\widetilde{\cal W}}(U,x_0,\{t_n\})$ for all $N\in{{\bf N}}$. Using Proposition \[yaesta\] we get that $$\label{todos}
\sum_{k=N}^\infty \sum_{F\in {\cal F}_k} \mu(F)^\tau \le C \sum_{k=N}^\infty \mu(P(t_k,x_0))^\tau \sum_{Q\in {\cal P}_k} \mu(Q)^\tau \,.$$ Let us consider now the following two subcollections of ${\cal P}_k$: $${\cal P}_{k, {\rm small}} = \{Q \in {\cal P}_k : \ \mu(Q)\le e^{-kh_\mu} \} \,, \qquad
{\cal P}_{k,{\rm big}} = \{Q \in {\cal P}_k : \ \mu(Q) > e^{-kh_\mu} \}\,.$$ Then, $$\sum_{Q\in {\cal P}_{k,{\rm small}}} \mu(Q)^\tau \le D^k e^{-k\tau h_\mu}$$ and $$\sum_{Q\in {\cal P}_{k,{\rm big}}} \mu(Q)^\tau = \sum_{Q\in {\cal P}_{k,{\rm big}}}
\frac 1{\mu(Q)^{1-\tau}} \,\mu(Q) \le e^{kh_\mu(1-\tau)}\,.$$ Since $h_\mu \le H_\mu({\cal P}_0)\le \log D$ we have that $$e^{kh_\mu(1-\tau)} \le D^k e^{-k\tau h_\mu}$$ and therefore using (\[todos\]) we obtain that $$\sum_{k=N}^\infty \sum_{F\in {\cal F}_k} \mu(F)^\tau \le 2C \sum_{k=N}^\infty D^k e^{-k\tau h_\mu} \mu(P(t_k,x_0))^\tau$$ By part (iii) of Theorem E we know that $\mu(P(t_k,x_0))\asymp
{\lambda}(P(t_k,x_0))$. Then for $t_k$ large enough $$\mu(P(t_k,x_0))\asymp \lambda(P(t_k,x_0))\leq e^{-k(\underline{L}-{\varepsilon})} \,.$$ Hence $$\sum_{G\in {\cal G}_N} \mu(G)^\tau \to 0 \qquad \text{ when} \quad
N\to\infty$$ for $$\tau > \frac {\log D}{h_\mu + \underline{L}(x_0)-{\varepsilon}}\,.$$ For these $\tau$’s the $\tau$-dimensional $\mu$-grid Hausdorff measure of $\widetilde{\cal W}(U,x_0,\{t_n\})$ is zero and therefore $${\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{{\bf\Pi}},\mu} ({\cal \widetilde W}(U,x_0,\{t_n\})) \le \frac
{\log D}{h_\mu + \underline{L}(x_0)-{\varepsilon}}\,.$$ The result follows by taking ${\varepsilon}$ tending to zero and using Lemma \[dimensioncoincide\]. Finally, if $x_0\in X_1$, we have that $\underline{L}(x_0)=h_\mu \, \underline{w}$.
Even in the case that the partition ${\cal P}_0$ is not finite a slight modification of the above proof shows that $$\label{intX1}
{\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{{\bf\Pi}},{\lambda}} (\widetilde{\cal W}(U, x_0,\{t_n\})\cap X_1) \le \frac {h_\mu}{h_\mu+\underline{L}(x_0)}\,.$$ To see this, notice that if we define for any ${\varepsilon}>0$ the subcollections: $${\cal P}_{n, {\varepsilon}, {\rm big}} = \{Q \in {\cal P}_n : \ \mu(Q) > e^{-n(h_\mu+{\varepsilon})} \}\,.$$ then the set $\widetilde{\cal W}(U, x_0,\{t_n\})\cap X_1$ can be covered by the collections $${\cal G}_N^{\varepsilon}= \bigcup_{n=N}^\infty {\cal F}_{n,{\rm big}}^{\varepsilon}\,.$$ where $${\cal F}_{n.{\rm big}}^{\varepsilon}=\{T^{-n}(P(t_n,x_0))\cap Q: \ Q\in {\cal P}_{n,{\varepsilon},{\rm big}}\} \,.$$ The proof of (\[intX1\]) follows now easily.
\[dimensionporarriba\] Let $(X,d,{\cal A},\lambda,T)$ be an expanding system with $X\subset {{\bf R}}$ and such that the partition ${\cal P}_0$ is finite. Let $\mu$ be the ACIPM associated to the system. Let $\{r_n\}$ be a non increasing sequence of positive numbers and $U$ be an open set in $X$ with $\mu(U)>0$.
Then, for $x_0\in X_0$, the Hausdorff dimensions of the set $${\cal W}(U,x_0,\{r_n\})=\{ x\in U\cap X_0: \ d(T^n (x),x_0)\le r_n \ \mbox{for
infinitely many} \ n \}$$ verify $$\label{dimporarriba}
{\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{\lambda}} ({\cal W}(U,x_0,\{r_n\}))={\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{\mu} ({\cal W}(U,x_0,\{r_n\})) \le \min \left\{ 1, \frac {\log D}{h_\mu +
{\underline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}{{\underline{\ell}}}} \right\}\,,$$ where $D$ is the cardinality of ${\cal P}_0$, $h_\mu=h_{\mu}(T)$ is the entropy of $T$ with respect to $\mu$ and $${{\underline{\ell}}}= \liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac 1n\log\frac{1}{r_n}$$
We define the collections $${\cal F}_n=\{T^{-n}(B(x_0,r_n))\cap Q: \ Q\in {\cal P}_n\} \,.$$ Notice that for $n$ large enough $B(x_0,r_n)\subseteq P(0,x_0)$ and then $T^{-n}(B(x_0,r_n))\cap Q$ is an interval for any $Q\in {\cal P}_n$. Therefore, the collection of intervals $${\cal G}_N = \bigcup_{n=N}^\infty {\cal F}_n$$ covers the set ${\cal W}(U,x_0,\{r_n\})$ for all $N\in{{\bf N}}$ large enough. Using Proposition \[yaesta\] we get that $$\sum_{k=N}^\infty \sum_{F\in {\cal F}_k} \mu(F)^\tau \le C \sum_{k=N}^\infty \mu(B(x_0,r_k))^\tau \sum_{Q\in {\cal P}_k} \mu(Q)^\tau \,.$$ By estimating $\sum_{Q\in {\cal P}_k} \mu(Q)^\tau$ as in the proof of Proposition \[dimensionporarribacode\] we get $$\sum_{k=N}^\infty \sum_{F\in {\cal F}_k} \mu(F)^\tau \le 2C \sum_{k=N}^\infty D^k e^{-k\tau h_\mu} \mu(B(x_0,r_k))^\tau$$ For $r_k$ small enough we have that $B(x_0,r_k)\subset P(0,x_0)$ and then $\mu(B(x_0,r_k))\asymp{\lambda}(B(x_0,r_k))$ by part (iii) of Theorem E. Hence, from the definition of ${\underline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}$ and Lemma \[egorof\], we conclude that given ${\varepsilon}>0$, $$\sum_{k=N}^\infty \sum_{F\in {\cal F}_k} \mu(F)^\tau \le C \sum_{k=N}^\infty r_k^{({\underline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}-{\varepsilon})\tau} D^k e^{-k\tau h_\mu}
\longrightarrow 0$$ as $N\to\infty$, if $$\tau > \frac {\log D}{h_\mu + ({\underline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}-{\varepsilon})
({{\underline{\ell}}}-{\varepsilon})}\,.$$ For these $\tau$’s the $\tau$-dimensional $\mu$-Hausdorff measure of ${\cal W}(U,x_0,\{r_n\})$ is zero and therefore $${\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{\mu} ({\cal W}(U,x_0,\{r_n\})) \le \frac {\log D}{h_\mu +
({\underline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}-{\varepsilon}) ({{\underline{\ell}}}-{\varepsilon})} \,.$$ The result follows by taking ${\varepsilon}$ tending to zero and using Lemma \[dimensioncoincide\].
Applications {#aplicaciones}
============
Markov transformations
----------------------
Let ${\lambda}$ be Lebesgue measure in $[0,1]$. A map $f:[0,1]\longrightarrow [0,1]$ is a [*Markov transformation*]{} if there exists a family ${\cal P}_0=\{P_j\}$ of disjoint open intervals in $[0,1]$ such that
- ${\lambda}([0,1]\setminus \cup_j P_j)=0$.
- For each $j$, there exists a set $K$ of indices such that $f(P_j)=\cup_{k\in K} P_k$ (mod $0$).
- $f$ is derivable in $\cup_j P_j$ and there exists $\sigma>0$ such that $|f'(x)|\ge \sigma$ for all $x\in\cup_j P_j$.
- There exists $\gamma>1$ and a non zero natural number $n_0$ such that if $f^m(x)\in \cup_j P_j$ for all $0\le m \le
n_0-1$, then $|(f^{n_0})'(x)|\ge\gamma$.
- There exists a non zero natural number $m$ such that ${\lambda}(f^{-m}(P_i)\cap P_j)>0$ for all $i,j$.
- There exist constants $C>0$ and $0<\alpha\le 1$ such that, for all $x,y \in P_j$, $$\Big| \frac{f'(x)}{f'(y)}-1 \Big| \le C|f(x)-f(y)|^\alpha \,.$$
Markov transformations are expanding maps with parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta=\gamma^{1/n_0}$, see [@M], p.171, and therefore, by Theorem E, there exists a unique $f$-invariant probability measure $\mu$ in $[0,1]$ which is absolutely continuous with respect to Lebesgue measure and satisfies properties (i)-(v) in Theorem E. As a consequence of our results we obtain
\[markovradios\] Let $f:[0,1]\longrightarrow [0,1]$ be a [*Markov transformation*]{} and $\{r_n\}$ be a non increasing sequence of positive numbers. Then,
- If $\sum_n r_n^{1+{\varepsilon}}=\infty$ for some ${\varepsilon}>0$, then for almost all $x_0\in [0,1]$ we have that $$\liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac {|f^n(x)-x_0|}{r_n} = 0\,, \qquad
\text{for almost all $x\in [0,1]$.}$$
- If $\sum_n r_n <\infty$, then for all $x_0\in
\cup_j P_j$ we have that $$\liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac {|f^n(x)-x_0|}{r_n} = \infty \,, \qquad
\text{for almost all $x\in [0,1]$.}$$
- If $H_\mu ({\cal P}_0)<\infty$, then, for almost all $x_0\in [0,1]$, we have that $$\hbox{\rm Dim}\left\{x\in [0,1]: \
\liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac {|f^n(x)-x_0|}{r_n} = 0 \right\}\ge \frac{h_\mu}{h_\mu +{{\overline{\ell}}}}\,,$$ where ${{\overline{\ell}}}=\limsup
\frac 1n \log \frac 1{r_n}$, $h_\mu= \int_0^1 \log |f'(x)|\, d\mu(x)$ and ${\mbox{\rm Dim}}$ denotes Hausdorff dimension.
If the partition ${\cal P}_0$ is finite, then all the statements hold for all $x_0\in [0,1]$.
Let us observe that if $\sum_n r_n = \infty$ the theorem does not tell us what is the measure of the set where $$\liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac {|f^n(x)-x_0|}{r_n} = 0$$ but by part (3) we know that this set is big since has positive Hausdorff dimension.
\[maspuntos\] For sake of simplicity we have stated the above theorem for almost all point $x_0$. However, the results in the previous sections give more information if we choose an specific $x_0$, see Remarks \[tau=0\] and \[approx\]-\[opeque–a\].
Part (1) follows from Lemma \[justificacion\] and Corollary \[hartos2\]. Part (2) is a consequence of Corollary \[hartosinf\]. Finally, part (3) follows from Remark \[approx\], Remark \[regularreal\], Lemma \[justificacion\] and Corollary \[cotasparadimconradios2\]. Finally, to get the result when the partition ${\cal P}_0$ is finite, we use additionally that, in this case, $X_0^+=[0,1]$, ${{\overline{\tau}_{\lambda}(x_0)}}=0$ for all $x_0\in [0,1]$ and Remarks \[ensoporte\], \[approxfinito\] and \[Markovsi\].
Recall that, as we saw in Section \[codes\], given an expanding map we have a code for almost all point $x_0$, and more precisely for all $x_0\in X_0^+$. The following result summarizes our results about coding for Markov transformations.
\[markovcode\] Let $f:[0,1]\longrightarrow [0,1]$ be a Markov transformation and $\{t_n\}$ be a non decreasing sequence of natural numbers. Given a point $x_0=[\,i_0,i_1,\dots \,]\in X_0^+$, let $\widetilde{\cal
W}(x_0,\{t_n\})$ be the set of points $x=[\,m_0,m_1,\dots\,]\in X_0$ such that $$m_n=i_0\,, \; m_{n+1}=i_1\,,\; \dots\;, \; m_{n+t_n} = i_{t_n} \;, \qquad \text{for infinitely many $n$}.$$ Then,
- If $\sum_n {\lambda}(P(t_n,x_0))=\infty$, then ${\lambda}(\widetilde{W}(x_0,\{t_n\})))=1$. Moreover, if the partition ${\cal P}_0$ is finite or if $f(P)=[0,1]$ $($mod $0)$ for all $P\in {\cal P}_0$, then we have the following quantitative version: $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac {\#\{i\le n: \ f^i(x)\in
P(t_i,x_0)\}}{\sum_{j=1}^n \mu(P(t_j,x_0))} =1\,, \qquad
\hbox{for ${\lambda}$-almost every $x$.}$$
- If $\sum_n {\lambda}(P(t_n,x_0))<\infty$, then ${\lambda}(\widetilde{W}(x_0,\{t_n\})))=0$.
- If $H_\mu ({\cal P}_0)<\infty$, then, for almost all $x_0\in X$, we have that $${\mbox{\rm Dim}}(\widetilde{\cal W}(x_0,\{t_n\}) \ge \frac 1{1+\overline{w}} \,.$$ where $\overline{w}=\limsup_{n\to\infty} \frac {t_n}n$ and ${\mbox{\rm Dim}}$ denotes Hausdorff dimension.
Even though part (3) is stated for almost every $x_0$ a more precise result for an specific $x_0$ follows from Theorem \[dimensioncode\] and Remark \[Markovsicode\]. Recall also that any grid contained in ${{\bf R}}$ is regular.
Part (1) and (2) follow from Theorem \[elbuenocode\] and Proposition \[serieconverge\], respectively. Part (3) is a consequence of Lemma \[justificacion\], Remark \[approx\], Remark \[regularreal\] and Theorem \[dimensioncode2\].
### Bernoulli shifts and subshifts of finite type {#markovchain}
Given a natural number $D$ let $\Sigma$ denote the space of all infinite sequences $\{(i_0\,,\,i_1\,,\,\dots)\}$ with $i_n\in\{0,1,\dots,D-1\}$ endowed with the product topology. The left shift $\sigma: \Sigma \longrightarrow \Sigma$ is the continuous map defined by $$\sigma (i_0\,,\,i_1\,,\,\dots) =(i_1\,,\,i_2\,,\,\dots)\,.$$ For every positive numbers $p_0,p_1,\dots,p_{D-1}$ verifying $\sum_{i=0}^{D-1} p_i=1$ we define the function $$\nu (C^{j_0,j_1,\dots,j_t}_{i_0,i_1,\dots,i_t})=p_{i_0} p_{i_1} \cdots p_{i_t} \,,$$ where $C^{j_0,j_1,\dots,j_t}_{i_0,i_1,\dots,i_t}$ is the cylinder $$C^{j_0,j_1,\dots,j_t}_{i_0,i_1,\dots,i_t} = \{(k_0\,,k_1\,,\,\dots)\in \Sigma:
\ k_{j_s}=i_s \ \hbox{for all $s=0,1,\dots,t$}\}\,.$$ It is well known that we can extend the set function $\nu$ to a probability measure defined on the $\sigma$-algebra of the Borel sets of $\Sigma$. The space $(\Sigma, \sigma, \nu)$ is called a (one-sided) [*Bernoulli shift*]{}.
We can generalize the full shift space $(\Sigma, \sigma,
\nu)$ by considering the set $\Sigma_A$ defined by $$\Sigma_A=\{(i_0\,,\,i_1\,,\,\dots)\in\Sigma: \
a_{i_k,i_{k+1}}=1 \ \hbox{for all $k=0,1,\ldots$}\}\,,$$ where $A=(a_{i,j})$ is a $D\times D$ matrix with entries $a_{i,j}=0$ or $1$. The matrix $A$ is known as a [*transition matrix*]{}. Let us consider now a new $D\times D$ matrix $M=(p_{i,j})$ such that $p_{i,j}=0$ if $a_{i,j}=0$, and $$\begin{aligned}
&(1)& \ \sum_{j=0}^{D-1} p_{i,j}=1\,, \quad \hbox{for every $i=0,1,\dots,D-1$}. \notag \\
&(2)& \ \sum_{i=0}^{D-1} p_i p_{i,j}=p_j\,, \quad \hbox{for every
$j=0,1,\dots,D-1$}. \notag\end{aligned}$$ The numbers $p_{i,j}$ are called the [*transition probabilities*]{} associated to the transition matrix $A$ and the matrix $M$ is called a [*stochastic matrix*]{}. Observe that the probability vector $(p_0,\dots,p_{D-1})$ is an eigenvector of the matrix $M$.
We introduce now a probability measure $\nu$ on all Borel subsets of $\Sigma_A$ by extending the set function defined by $$\nu(C^{n,\dots,n+t}_{i_0,i_1,\dots,i_t}) = p_{i_0} p_{i_0,i_1} \cdots
p_{i_{t-1},i_t}\,.$$ The space $(\Sigma_A,\sigma,\nu)$ is called a (one-sided) [*subshift of finite type*]{} or a (one-sided) [*Markov chain*]{}.
We will explain now how to associate to (one-sided) Bernoulli shifts or (one-sided) subshift of finite type a Markov transformation:
Let $(\Sigma, \sigma, \nu)$ be a (one-sided) Bernoulli shift and let ${\lambda}$ denote the Lebesgue measure in $[0,1]$. Consider a partition $\{P_0, \dots, P_{D-1}\}$ of $[0,1]$ in $D$ consecutive open intervals such that ${\lambda}(P_j)=p_j$ for $j=0,1,\dots,D-1$. We define now a function $f:[0,1]\longrightarrow [0,1]$ by letting $f$ to be linear and bijective from each $I_j$ onto $(0,1)$, i.e. $$f(x)= \frac 1{p_j}\, \left( x- \sum_{k=0}^{j-1}
p_k\right) \,, \qquad \hbox{if $x\in P_j$}\,,$$ and $f$ equal to zero on the boundaries of the intervals $P_j$. It is easy to check that $f$ is a Markov transformation and therefore an expanding map.
Define now a mapping $\pi: \Sigma \longrightarrow [0,1]$ by $$\pi((i_0,i_1,\dots))=\bigcap_{n=0}^\infty \hbox{closure\,} (f^{-n} (
{P}_{i_n}))\,.$$ Then it is not difficult to see that $\pi$ is continuous and $f\circ \pi= \pi\circ \sigma$. $$\begin{CD}
\Sigma @>\sigma>> \Sigma \\
@V\pi VV @VV \pi V \\
[0,1] @>f>> [0,1]
\end{CD}$$ Notice that the space of codes associated through $f$ to the points in $X_0$ (as we explained in Section \[codes\]) is precisely the set $\Sigma_0$ of all sequences $(i_0,i_1,\dots)$ such that there is not $k_0\in{{\bf N}}$ such that $i_j=0$ for all $j\ge
k_0$ or $i_j=D-1$ for all $j\ge k_0$, and that $\pi$ is bijective from this set onto $X_0=[0,1]\setminus \cup_{n=0}^\infty
f^{-n}(\cup_i \partial P_i)$.
It is also easy to check that the image measure of the product measure $\nu$ under $\pi$ is precisely the Lebesgue measure in $[0,1]$ and that $f$ preserves Lebesgue measure. Therefore the dynamical systems $(\Sigma,\sigma,\nu)$ and $([0,1],f,{\lambda})$ are isomorphic. We have also that the Hausdorff dimension of a Borel subset $B\subset [0,1]$ coincides que the $\nu$-Hausdorff dimension of $\pi^{-1}(B)$.
The subshifts of finite type whose stochastic matrix $M$ is transitive (i.e. there exists $n_0>0$ such that all entries of $M^{n_0}$ are positive) can be also thought as Markov transformations: Let $(\Sigma_A, \sigma, \nu)$ be a subshift of finite type with respect to the stochastic matrix $M=(p_{i,j})$ and the probability vector $(p_0,p_1,\dots,p_{D-1})$. Consider as before a partition $\{P_0, P_1, \dots, P_{D-1}\}$ of $[0,1]$ in $D$ consecutive open intervals such that ${\lambda}(P_i)=p_i$ for $i=0,1,\dots,D-1$. We divide now each interval $P_i$ into $D$ consecutive open intervals $P_{i,j}$ such that ${\lambda}(P_{i,j})=p_i
p_{i,j}$ for $j=0,1,\dots, D-1$. If $p_{i,j}=0$ we take $P_{i,j}=\emptyset$. Notice that by property (1) of stochastic matrices we have that ${\lambda}(P_i)=\sum_j {\lambda}(P_{i,j})$.
We define now a function $f:[0,1]\longrightarrow [0,1]$ in the following way: for each $P_{i,j}\ne \emptyset$, $$f(x) = \frac 1{p_{j,i}} \left( x - \sum_{k=0}^{j-1} p_k p_{k,i} - \sum_{\ell=0}^{i-1} p_\ell \right) +
\sum_{k=0}^{j-1} p_k \,, \qquad \hbox{if } x\in P_{i,j} \,.$$ We define also $f$ on the points beloging to $P_i \cap \partial
P_{i,j}$ in such a way that $f$ is continuous in that points. Finally we define $f$ to be zero on the boundaries of the intervals $P_i$.
When the stochastic matrix $M$ verifies that there exists $n_0$ such that all entries of $M^{n_0}$ are positive, it is easy to check that $f$ is a Markov transformation and therefore an expanding map with respect to the partition ${\cal
P}_0 = \{P_{i}: \ i=0,1,\dots,D-1\}$. The condition on $M$ it is necessary only to assure property (e) of Markov transformations, see [@M], Lemma 12.2. Notice also that the condition (2) in the definition of stochastic matrices means that $f$ preserves Lebesgue measure.
As in the case of Bernoulli shifts, the dynamical systems $(\Sigma_A,\sigma,\nu)$ and $([0,1],f,{\lambda})$ are isomorphic and also the Hausdorff dimension of a Borel subset $B\subset [0,1]$ coincides que the $\nu$-Hausdorff dimension of $\pi^{-1}(B)$.
We obtain the following result:
\[onesidemarkovchaincode\] Let $(\Sigma_A,\sigma,\nu)$ be a subshift of finite type whose stochastic matrix verifies that there exists $n_0$ such that all entries of $M^{n_0}$ are positive. Let $\{t_n\}$ be a non decreasing sequence of natural numbers. Given a sequence $s_0=(i_0,i_1,\ldots)\in\Sigma_A$, let $\widetilde{\cal W}(s_0,\{t_n\})$ be the set of sequences $s=(m_0,m_1,\ldots)\in\Sigma_A$ such that $$m_n=i_0\,, \; m_{n+1}=i_1\,,\; \dots\;, \; m_{n+t_n} = i_{t_n} \;,
\qquad \text{for infinitely many $n$}.$$ Then,
$(1)$ If $\sum_n p_{i_0} p_{i_0,i_1} \cdots
p_{i_{t_n-1},i_{t_n}}=\infty$, then $\nu(\widetilde{\cal W}(s_0,\{t_n\}))=1$. Besides, we have that $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac {\#\{j\le N: \ \sigma^j(s)\in C^{0,1,\dots,t_j}_{i_0,i_1,\dots,i_{t_j}} \}}{\sum_{n=1}^N p_{i_0} p_{i_0,i_1} \cdots p_{i_{t_n-1},i_{t_n}}} =1\,, \qquad
\hbox{for $\nu$-almost every $s\in \Sigma_A$.}$$
$(2)$ If $\sum_n p_{i_0} p_{i_0,i_1} \cdots
p_{i_{t_n-1},i_{t_n}}<\infty$, then $\nu(\widetilde{\cal W}(s_0,\{t_n\}))=0$.
$(3)$ In any case we have that $$\frac {h}{h+\overline L} \le {\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{{\bf\Pi}},\nu} (\widetilde{\cal W}(s_0,\{t_n\})) \le
\min \left\{ 1, \frac{\log D}{h+\underline{L}}\right\} \,,$$ where $h=\sum_{i,j} p_i p_{i,j}\log (1/p_{i,j})$, $$\underline L=\liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac 1n \log \frac 1{p_{i_0}p_{i_0,i_1} \cdots p_{i_{t_{n-1},i_{t_n}}}} \qquad \hbox{and} \qquad
\overline L=\limsup_{n\to\infty} \frac 1n \log \frac 1{p_{i_0}p_{i_0,i_1} \cdots p_{i_{t_{n-1},i_{t_n}}}} \,.$$
First, let us observe that for subshifts of finite type $X_0^+=[0,1]$ because ${\cal P}_0$ is a finite partition of intervals. Also, since $f$ preserves the Lebesgue measure ${\lambda}$ we have that the ACIPM $\mu$, whose existence is assured by Theorem E, coincides with ${\lambda}$. Then, parts (1) and (2) follow from Theorem \[markovcode\]. Finally any point in $[0,1]$ is an approximable point. Besides, from Lemma \[justificacion\] we have that ${{\overline{\tau}_{\lambda}(x_0)}}=0$ for $x_0\in X_0^+=[0,1]$. Therefore, part (3) follows from Remark \[regularreal\], Theorem \[dimensioncode\], Remark \[Markovsi\] and Proposition \[dimensionporarribacode\].
The special properties of Bernoulli shifts allow us to get a better upper bound for the Hausdorff dimension of the set $\widetilde{\cal W}(s_0,\{t_n\})$ in that case. To prove it we will use the following concentration inequality (see, for example [@H]).
[**Lemma (Hoeffding’s tail inequality)**]{}. [*Let $(\Omega,{\cal A}, \mu)$ be a probability space and let $X_1,\dots, X_n$ be independent copies of a bounded random variable $X$ taking values in the interval $(a,b)$ almost surely. Then, for any $t>0$, $$\mu \Big[\sum_{i=1}^n X_i - n\, E(X) \ge t \Big] \le e^{-2t^2/(n(b-a)^2)}\,.$$*]{}
Let $(\Sigma,\sigma,\nu)$ be a Bernoulli shift, $\{t_n\}$ be a non decreasing sequence of natural numbers and $s_0=(i_0,i_1,\ldots)\in\Sigma$. Then $$\frac {h}{h+\overline L} \le{\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{{\bf\Pi}},\nu} (\widetilde{\cal W}(s_0,\{t_n\})) \le
\frac {\sqrt{(h+{\underline{L}})^2+2{\underline{L}}(\log \frac {\max_j p_j}{ \min_j p_j})^2}+h-{\underline{L}}}
{\sqrt{(h+{\underline{L}})^2+2{\underline{L}}(\log \frac {\max_j p_j}{ \min_j p_j})^2}+h+{\underline{L}}} \,.$$ where $h=\sum_{i} p_i \log (1/p_{i})$, $$\underline L=\liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac 1n \log \frac 1{p_{i_0}p_{i_1} \cdots p_{i_{t_n}}}\qquad \hbox{and} \qquad
\overline L=\limsup_{n\to\infty} \frac 1n \log \frac 1{p_{i_0}p_{i_1} \cdots p_{i_{t_n}}} \,.$$ In particular, if $p_0=p_1=\cdots=p_{D-1}=1/D$ and $\overline L={\underline{L}}=L$, then $${\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{{\bf\Pi}},\nu} (\widetilde{\cal W}(s_0,\{t_n\}))= \frac {h}{h+ L}\,.$$
The lower inequality follows from Corollary \[onesidemarkovchaincode\]. So we only need to deal with the upper one. We define the collections $${\cal F}_n = \{ C_{j_0,\dots,j_{n-1},i_0,\dots,i_{t_n}}^{0,\dots,n+t_n} : \ j_0.j_1,\dots,j_{n-1} \in
\{0,\dots,D-1\} \}\,.$$ Then, the collection $${\cal G}_N = \cup_{n=N}^\infty {\cal F}_n$$ covers the set $\widetilde{\cal W}(s_0,\{t_n\})$ and $$\label{cover}
\sum_{n=N}^\infty \sum_{F\in {\cal F}_n} \nu(F)^\tau = \sum_{n=N}^\infty
\nu(C_{i_0,\dots,i_{t_n}}^{0,\dots,t_n})^\tau \sum_{j_0,\dots,j_{n-1}=1}^{D-1}
\nu(C_{j_0,\dots,j_{n-1}}^{0,\dots,n-1})^\tau \,.$$ For each $n$, we will divide the partition of $\Sigma $ $${\cal P}_{n-1}=
\{C_{j_0,\dots,j_{n-1}}^{0,\dots,n-1} : \ j_0.j_1,\dots,j_{n-1} \in
\{0,\dots,D-1\}\}$$ in the following three subcollections: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal P}_{n-1,{\rm big}} & =\left\{C\in {\cal P}_{n-1}: \ \nu(C)\ge e^{-nh} \right\} \,, \notag \\
{\cal P}_{n-1,{\rm middle}} & =\left\{C\in {\cal P}_{n-1}: \ e^{-\beta n} < \frac {\nu(C)}{e^{-nh}} < 1 \right\} \,, \notag\\
{\cal P}_{n-1,{\rm small}} & =\left\{C\in {\cal P}_{n-1}: \ \frac {\nu(C)}{e^{-nh}} \le e^{-\beta n} \right\} \,,\notag\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta=(1+{\varepsilon})(1-\tau)/(\alpha K)$, $0<\alpha<1$ and ${\varepsilon}>0$. Then $$\label{big}
\sum_{C\in {\cal P}_{n-1,{\rm big}}} \nu(C)^\tau = \sum_{C\in {\cal P}_{n-1,{\rm big}}}
\frac {1}{\nu(C)^{1-\tau}} \,\nu(C) \le e^{nh(1-\tau)}$$ and $$\sum_{C\in {\cal P}_{n-1,{\rm middle}}} \nu(C)^\tau \le (\# {\cal P}_{n-1,{\rm middle}})^{1-\tau}
\left( \sum_{C\in {\cal P}_{n-1,{\rm middle}}} \nu(C)\right)^\tau \,.$$ Since $(\# {\cal P}_{n-1,{\rm middle}}) \, e^{-(h+\beta)n} \le \sum_{C\in {\cal P}_{n-1,{\rm middle}}} \nu(C)$, we deduce that $$\label{middle}
\sum_{C\in {\cal P}_{n-1,{\rm middle}}} \nu(C)^\tau \le e^{n(h+\beta)(1-\tau)} \sum_{C\in {\cal P}_{n-1,{\rm middle}}} \nu(C) \le e^{n(h+\beta)(1-\tau)} \,.$$ For each $n\in{{\bf N}}$ we will choose an increasing sequence $\{a_{n,k}\}$, $a_{n,k} \to\infty$ as $k\to\infty$, with $a_{n,1}=\beta n$. Using this sequence we divide the collection ${\cal P}_{n-1,{\rm small}}$ in the following way: $${\cal P}_{n-1,{\rm small}} = \bigcup_{k=1}^\infty {\cal P}^k_{n-1,{\rm small}}\,, \qquad
{\cal P}^k_{n-1,{\rm small}}=\{C\in {\cal P}_{n-1}: \ e^{-a_{n,k+1}} \le \frac {\nu(C)}{e^{-nh}} \le
e^{-a_{n,k}} \} \,.$$ Then, $$\sum_{C\in {\cal P}_{n-1,{\rm small}}} \nu(C)^\tau = \sum_{k=1}^\infty \sum_{C\in {\cal P}^k_{n-1,{\rm small}}} \nu(C)^\tau \le \sum_{k=1}^\infty (\# {\cal P}^k_{n-1,{\rm small}})^{1-\tau}
\left( \sum_{C\in {\cal P}^k_{n-1,{\rm small}}} \nu(C)\right)^\tau \,.$$ Since $(\# {\cal P}^k_{n-1,{\rm small}}) \, e^{-nh} e^{-a_{n,k+1}} \le \sum_{C\in {\cal P}^k_{n-1,{\rm small}}} \nu(C)$, we deduce that $$\label{small}
\sum_{C\in {\cal P}_{n-1,{\rm small}}} \nu(C)^\tau \le e^{nh(1-\tau)} \sum_{k=1}^\infty e^{(1-\tau)a_{n,k+1}} \sum_{C\in {\cal P}^k_{n-1,{\rm small}}} \nu(C) \,.$$ Now, observe that $$\bigcup_{C\in {\cal P}^k_{n-1,{\rm small}}} C = \left\{ s\in\Sigma: \ a_{n,k}\le \log \frac 1{\nu( P(n-1,s))} -nh <
a_{n,k+1} \right\} \,.$$ For each $j=0,1,\ldots$, let $Z_j:\Sigma\longrightarrow {{\bf R}}$ be the ramdom variable defined by $$Z_j(i_0,i_1,\ldots)=\log \frac 1{p_{i_j}}\,.$$ These ramdom variables are independent and identically distributed with expectated value $$E(Z_j)=\sum_{i=0}^{D-1} p_i \log \frac 1{p_i} = h \,.$$ Moreover, $$S_n(s):=\sum_{j=0}^{n-1} Z_j(s) = \log \frac 1{\nu( P(n-1,s))}$$ and therefore $$\bigcup_{C\in {\cal P}^k_{n-1,{\rm small}}} C = \left\{ s\in\Sigma: \ a_{n,k}\le S_n(s) - E(S_n) <
a_{n,k+1} \right\} \,.$$ Hence, from Hoeffding’s tail inequality we have that, for all ${\varepsilon}>0$, $$\nu \Big( \bigcup_{C\in {\cal P}^k_{n-1,{\rm small}}} C \Big) \leq e^{ - K a_{n,k}^2/n}\,, \qquad
\hbox{with} \quad K= \frac 2{\big(\log \frac {\max_j p_j}{ \min_j p_j}+{\varepsilon}\big)^2}\,.$$ Using now (\[small\]) we get that $$\sum_{C\in {\cal P}_{n-1,{\rm small}}} \nu(C)^\tau \le e^{nh(1-\tau)} \sum_{k=1}^\infty e^{(1-\tau)a_{n,k+1}}
e^{ - K a_{n,k}^2/n} \,.$$ Notice that for $0<\alpha<1$ the sequence defined by $$a_{n,k+1} = \frac {K\alpha}{1-\tau} \frac {a_{n,k}^2}n \,, \qquad a_{n,1}=\beta n \,,$$ verifies that $$a_{n,k}= \frac {(1-\tau)n}{K\alpha} \Big( \frac {K\alpha}{1-\tau}\,\beta \Big)^{2^k} = \frac {(1-\tau)n}{K\alpha} (1+{\varepsilon})^{2^k} \longrightarrow \infty \,, \qquad \hbox{as } k\to\infty$$ and therefore $$\sum_{C\in {\cal P}_{n-1,{\rm small}}} \nu(C)^\tau \le e^{nh(1-\tau)} \sum_{k=1}^\infty
e^{ - K(1-\alpha) a_{n,k}^2/n} \,.$$ But $$\sum_{k=1}^\infty e^{ - K(1-\alpha) a_{n,k}^2/n} \le \int_{\beta n}^\infty
e^{ - K(1-\alpha) x^2/n} dx \le \frac {\Gamma(1/2)}{2\sqrt{(1-\alpha)K}}\, \sqrt{n} \,.$$ Hence, for any $\eta>0$ and $n$ large enough we have $$\label{small3}
\sum_{C\in {\cal P}_{n-1,{\rm small}}} \nu(C)^\tau \le e^{nh(1-\tau)(1+\eta)} \,.$$ Using now (\[cover\]), (\[big\]), (\[middle\]) and (\[small3\]) we deduce, for $N$ large enough, $$\sum_{n=N}^\infty \sum_{F\in {\cal F}_n} \nu(F)^\tau \le 3 \sum_{n=N}^\infty
\nu(C_{i_0,\dots,i_{t_n}}^{0,\dots,t_n})^\tau e^{n(h+\beta)(1-\tau)}\,.$$ Since, given ${\varepsilon}>0$, for $N$ large enough we have that $\nu(C_{i_0,\dots,i_{t_n}}^{0,\dots,t_n})\le e^{-n(\underline{L}(s_0)-{\varepsilon})}$ we conclude that $$\sum_{n=N}^\infty \sum_{F\in {\cal F}_n} \nu(F)^\tau \le 3 \sum_{n=N}^\infty
e^{-n\tau(\underline{L}(s_0)-{\varepsilon})} e^{n(h+\beta)(1-\tau)}
\to 0 \qquad \hbox{as } N\to\infty$$ if $$\tau> \frac {\sqrt{(h+{\underline{L}}-{\varepsilon})^2+4(1+{\varepsilon})({\underline{L}}-{\varepsilon})/(K\alpha)}+h-{\underline{L}}+{\varepsilon}}{\sqrt{(h+{\underline{L}}-{\varepsilon})^2+4(1+{\varepsilon})({\underline{L}}-{\varepsilon})/(K\alpha)}+h+{\underline{L}}-{\varepsilon}}\,.$$ Therefore, $${\mbox{\rm Dim}}_{{{\bf\Pi}},\nu} (\widetilde{\cal W}(s_0,\{t_n\})) \le \frac {\sqrt{(h+{\underline{L}}-{\varepsilon})^2+2(1+{\varepsilon})({\underline{L}}-{\varepsilon})(\log \frac {\max_j p_j}{ \min_j p_j}+{\varepsilon})^2/\alpha}+h-{\underline{L}}+{\varepsilon}}
{\sqrt{(h+{\underline{L}}-{\varepsilon})^2+2(1+{\varepsilon})({\underline{L}}-{\varepsilon})(\log \frac {\max_j p_j}{ \min_j p_j}+{\varepsilon})^2/\alpha}+h+{\underline{L}}-{\varepsilon}} \,.$$ The result follows by taking ${\varepsilon}\to 0$ and $\alpha\to 1$.
The above results allow us to get, for example, the following one:
\[bernouillicode\] Let $(\Sigma,\sigma,\nu)$ be a Bernoulli shift.
- Let $t_n=[\log n]$. Then, for every sequence $(\,i_0,i_1,\dots)\in \Sigma$ we have that, for $\nu$-almost all sequence $(m_0,m_1,\dots)\in \Sigma$, $$m_n=i_0\,, \; m_{n+1}=i_1\,,\; \dots\;, \; m_{n+t_n} = i_{t_n} \;,
\qquad \text{for infinitely many $n$}.$$
- Let $t_n=[n^\kappa]$ with $\kappa>0$. Then, for every sequence $(i_0,i_1,\dots)\in \Sigma$, the set $\widetilde{\cal W}$ of sequences $(m_0,m_1,\dots)\in \Sigma$ such that $$m_n=i_0\,, \; m_{n+1}=i_1\,,\; \dots\;, \; m_{n+t_n} = i_{t_n} \;,
\qquad \text{for infinitely many $n$},$$ has zero $\nu$-measure. Moreover, the $\nu$-grid Hausdorff dimension of $\widetilde{\cal W}$ is $1$ if $0<\kappa<1$ and zero if $\kappa>1$.
Notice that if $t_n=[n^\kappa]$, we have $$\sum_n p_{i_0} p_{i_1}\cdots p_{i_{t_n}} \le \sum_n (\max_j p_j )^{t_n}\sum_n
(\max_j p_j )^{n^\kappa-1} <\infty$$ and if $t_n=[\log n]$ we have that $$\sum_n p_{i_0} p_{i_1}\cdots p_{i_{t_n}} \ge
\sum_n (\min_j p_j )^{t_n} \ge \sum_n (\min_j p_j )^{1+\log n} = \infty \,.$$ Also if $t_n=[n^\kappa]$ we have that $L=0$ if $0<\kappa<1$ and $L=\infty$ if $\kappa>1$.
When $p_0=\cdots=p_{D-1}=1/D$ we can identify the Bernoulli shift $(\Sigma, \sigma, \nu)$ with the set of $D$-base representations of numbers in the interval $[0,1]$. The associated expanding map $f$ is then the map $f(x)=Dx$ (mod $1$), and the measure results contained in Corollary \[bernouillicode\] in this particular case, are well known (see [@Ph]).
### Gauss transformation
Let us consider now the map $\phi:[0,1]\longrightarrow [0,1]$ given by $$\phi(x)=
\begin{cases}
\dfrac 1x - \left[ \dfrac 1x \right] \,, \quad &\text{if } x\ne 0
\,, \vspace{3pt}
\\
0 \,, \quad &\text{if } x=0 \,.
\end{cases}$$ Here $[x]$ denotes the integer part of $x$. The map $\phi$ is called the [*Gauss transformation*]{} and it is very close related with the theory of continued fractions. Recall that given $0<x<1$ we can write it as $$x=\frac 1{n_0 + \phi(x)} \,, \qquad \text{with } n_0:= \left[\frac
1x \right] \,.$$ If $\phi(x)\ne 0$, i.e. if $x\notin \{1/n: \ n\in{{\bf N}}\}\cup\{0\}$, we can repeat the process with $\phi(x)$ to obtain $$x= \frac 1{n_0+\dfrac 1{n_1+\phi^2(x)}}\,, \qquad \text{with }
n_1:= \left[\frac 1{\phi(x)} \right] \,.$$ If $\phi^n(x)\ne 0$ for all $n$, or equivalently if $x$ is irrational, we can repeat the process for all $n$ and associate in this way to $x$ the infinite sequence $\{n_j\}$, with $n_j=[1/\phi^{j}(x)]$ and we write $$x:= [n_0 \; n_1 \; n_2\; \dots ] = \lim_{j\to\infty} \frac
1{n_0+\dfrac 1{n_1+\dfrac 1{n_2+\dfrac 1{\ddots +n_j}}}}\;.$$ Observe that if we denote by $I_n$ the interval $I_n=(1/(n+1),1/n)$, then the sequence $n_j$ is determined by the property $\phi^{j}(x) \in I_{n_j}$.
If $x$ is rational the above expansion is finite (ending with $n$ such that $\phi^n(x)=0$. We call to the code $[n_0 \; n_1 \;
n_2\; \dots ]$ the continued fraction expansion of $x$. It is clear that the Gauss transformation acts on the continued fraction expansions as the left shift $$x=[n_0 \; n_1 \; n_2\; \dots ] \qquad \implies \qquad \phi(x)= [
n_1 \; n_2\; \dots ]\,.$$
It is not difficult to check that the Gauss transformation $\phi$ is a Markov transformation with respect to the partition ${\cal P}_0=\{I_n\}$ and that the continued fraction expansion of $x$ coincide with the code associated to an expanding map given in Section \[codes\]. It is also easy to check that $\phi$ preserves the so called Gauss measure which is defined by $$\mu(A)= \frac 1{\log 2} \int_A \frac 1{1+x} \, d\lambda(x)$$ where ${\lambda}$ denotes Lebesgue measure. Since this measure is obviously absolutely continuous with respect to ${\lambda}$, we conclude that the Gauss measure is the unique $\phi$-invariant absolutely continuous probability whose existence is assured by Theorem E.
The next theorem is an example of the kind of statements that we can obtain when we apply our results to the Gauss transformation.
\[gaussradios\]
- - If $\alpha>1$ then, for almost all $x_0\in [0,1]$, and more precisely, if $x_0=[\,i_0\,,\;i_1\,, \; \dots ]$ is an irrational number such that $\log i_n = o(n)$ as $n\to\infty$, we have that $$\liminf_{n\to\infty} n^{1/\alpha} |\phi^n(x)-x_0| = 0 \,, \qquad
\text{for almost all $x\in [0,1]$.}$$
- If $\alpha <1$, then for all $x_0\in [0,1]$ we have that $$\liminf_{n\to\infty} n^{1/\alpha} |\phi^n(x)-x_0| = \infty \,,
\qquad \text{for almost all $x\in [0,1]$.}$$
- If $x_0$ verifies the same hypothesis than in part $(1)$, then $${\mbox{\rm Dim}}\left\{x\in [0,1]: \ \liminf_{n\to\infty} n^{1/\alpha}
|\phi^n(x)-x_0| =0 \right\} = 1\,, \qquad \text{for any
$\alpha>0$}.$$ and $${\mbox{\rm Dim}}\left\{x\in [0,1]: \ \liminf_{n\to\infty} e^{n\kappa}
|\phi^n(x)-x_0| =0 \right\} \ge \frac {\pi^2}{\pi^2+6\kappa\log2}
\,, \qquad \text{for any $\kappa>0$}.$$
Let us observe first that now ${\underline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}={\overline{\delta}_\lambda(x_0)}=1$ for all $x_0\in
[0,1]$ and that obviously ${\lambda}$ and $\mu$ are comparable in $[0,1]$. With this facts in mind, part (2) is a consequence of part (2) of Theorem \[markovradios\] if $x_0\in \cup_j I_j$. Part (2) is also true if $x_0=1/m$ for some $m\in{{\bf N}}$, since ${\lambda}$ and $\mu$ are comparable in $[0,1]$ and then we do not need that $B(x_0,r_k)\subset P(0,x_0)$ in the proof of Proposition \[serieconverge\].
Since $T(P)=(0,1)$ for all $P\in {\cal P}_0$ we can use Proposition \[elchachi\] for the case $j=n+1$ to get that $$\frac {{\lambda}(P(n,x_0))}{{\lambda}(P(n+1,x_0))} \asymp \frac
{1}{{\lambda}(P(0,T^{n+1}(x_0)))}\,.$$ But $T^{n+1}(x_0)=[\,i_{n+1}\,,\;i_{n+2}\,, \; \dots ]$ and therefore $P(0,T^{n+1}(x_0))=(1/(i_{n+1}+1),1/i_{n+1})$. Hence $$\log \frac {{\lambda}(P(n,x_0))}{{\lambda}(P(n+1,x_0))} \asymp \log i_{n+1}$$ and we conclude that $\tau(x_0)=0$ if $\log i_n=o(n)$ as $n\to\infty$. Part (1) follows now from Corollary \[hartos2\], since in this case the set $X_0$ is precisely the set of irrational numbers in $[0,1]$.
Since ${\lambda}$ and $\mu$ are comparable in $[0,1]$ we have that all irrational number is approximable (see Definition \[aproximable\]) and as we have just seen $\tau(x_0)=0$ if $\log
i_n=o(n)$, we can use Remark \[regularreal\] and Corollary \[cotasparadimconradios2\] to obtain that $${\mbox{\rm Dim}}\left\{x\in [0,1]: \ \liminf_{n\to\infty}
\frac{|\phi^n(x)-x_0|} {r_n} =0 \right\} \ge \frac {h}{h+\ell}$$ for any non increasing sequence $\{r_n\}$ of positive numbers such that there exists $\ell:=\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac 1n \log \frac
1{r_n}$. Here $h$ denotes de entropy of the Gauss transformation which is known to be $$h=\frac 2{\log 2} \int_0^1 \frac {\log (1/x)}{1+x}\, dx = \frac
{\pi^2}{6\log 2}\;.$$ Part (3) follows now from the fact that if $r_n=n^{-1/\alpha}$ with $\alpha>0$ then $\ell=0$, and if $r_n=e^{-n\kappa}$ with $\kappa>0$ we have $\ell=\kappa$.
For continued fractions expansions there is an analogous to Corollary \[bernouillicode\]. However we have preferred to state the following result involving the digits appearing in the continued fraction expansion of $x_0$.
Let $x_0\in [0,1]$ be an irrational number with continued fraction expansion $x_0=[\,i_0,i_1,\dots \,]$ and let $t_n$ be a non decreasing sequence of natural numbers. Let $\widetilde W$ be the set of points $x=[\,m_0,m_1,\dots\,]\in [0,1]$ such that $$m_n=i_0\,, \; m_{n+1}=i_1\,,\; \dots\;, \; m_{n+t_n} = i_{t_n} \;,
\qquad \text{for infinitely many $n$}.$$
- ${\lambda}(\widetilde W)=1$, if $$\sum_n \frac 1{(i_0+1)^2\cdots (i_{t_n}+1)^2} =\infty \,.$$
- ${\lambda}(\widetilde W)=0$, if $$\sum_n \frac 1{i_0^2\cdots i_{t_n}^2} <\infty \,.$$
- In any case, if $\log i_n = o(n)$ as $n\to\infty $, then $${\mbox{\rm Dim}}(\widetilde W) \ge \frac h{h+\limsup_{n\to\infty}
\frac 1n \log (i_0+1)^2\cdots (i_{t_n}+1)^2} \,.$$
It is easy to check that, for all $n\in{{\bf N}}$, $$\frac 1{(i_0+1)^2\cdots (i_{n}+1)^2} \le {\lambda}(P(n,x_0)) \le \frac 1{i_0^2\cdots i_{n}^2}\,.$$ Then, parts (1) and (2) follow from Theorem \[markovcode\] and part (3) is a consequence of Theorem \[dimensioncode\] and Remark \[regularreal\].
Inner functions
---------------
A Blaschke product is a complex function of the type $$B(z)= \prod_{k=1}^\infty \frac {|a_k|}{a_k} \frac{z-a_k}{1-\overline{a_k}z}\,, \qquad \hbox{$|a_k|<1$}\,,$$ verifying the Blaschke condition $\sum_{k=1}^\infty (1-|a_k|)<\infty$. The function $B(z)$ is holomorphic in the unit disk ${{\bf D}}=\{z: |z|<1\}$ of the complex plane and it is an example of an inner function, i.e a holomorphic function $f$ defined on ${{\bf D}}$ and with values in ${{\bf D}}$ whose radial limits $$f^*(\xi):=\lim_{r\to 1^-} f(r\xi)$$ (which exists for almost every $\xi$ by Fatou’s Theorem) have modulus $1$ for almost every $\xi\in{\partial}{{\bf D}}$. Therefore an inner function $f(z)$ induces a mapping $f^*:{\partial}{{\bf D}}\longrightarrow {\partial}{{\bf D}}$. It is well known that any inner function can be written as $$f(z) = e^{i\phi} B(z) \, \exp
\left( -\int_{{\partial}{{\bf D}}} \frac{\xi+z}{\xi-z} \,d\nu(\xi) \right)$$ where $B(z)$ is a Blaschke product and $\nu$ is a finite positive singular measure on ${\partial}{{\bf D}}$.
For inner functions it is well known the following result, see e.g. [@R]:
[**Theorem G (Löwner’s lemma).**]{} [*If $f:{{\bf D}}\longrightarrow {{\bf D}}$ is an inner function then $f^*:{\partial}{{\bf D}}\longrightarrow {\partial}{{\bf D}}$ preserves Lebesgue measure if and only if $f(0)=0$.*]{}
We recall that, by the Denjoy-Wolff theorem [@D], for any holomorphic function $f:{{\bf D}}\longrightarrow {{\bf D}}$ which is not conjugated to a rotation, there exists a point $p\in\overline{{\bf D}}$, the so called Denjoy-Wolff point of $f$, such the iterates $f^n$ converge to $p$ uniformly on compact subsets of ${{\bf D}}$. Also, if $p\in{{\bf D}}$ then $f(p)=p$ and if $p\in{\partial}{{\bf D}}$ then $f^*(p)=p$. Hence, if $f$ is an inner function which is not conjugated to a rotation and does not have a fixed point $p\in{{\bf D}}$ then its Denjoy-Wolff point $p$ belongs to ${\partial}{{\bf D}}$ and $f^n$ converges to $p$ uniformly on compact subsets of ${{\bf D}}$. Bourdon, Matache and Shapiro [@BMS] and Poggi-Corradini [@PC] have proved independently that if $f$ is inner with a fixed point in $p\in{\partial}{{\bf D}}$, then $(f^*)^n$ can converge to $p$ for almost every point in ${\partial}{{\bf D}}$. In fact, see Theorem 4.2 in [@BMS], $(f^*)^n \to p$ almost everywhere in ${\partial}{{\bf D}}$ if and only if $\sum_n
(1-|f^n(0)|)<\infty$.
If $f$ is inner with a fixed point in ${{\bf D}}$, $f$ preserves the harmonic measure $\omega_p$. We recall that $\omega_p$ can be defined as the unique probability measure such that, for all continuous function $\phi:{\partial}{{\bf D}}\longrightarrow {{\bf R}}$, $$\int_{{\partial}{{\bf D}}} \phi \, d\omega_p = \widetilde \phi (p) \,,$$ where $\widetilde\phi$ is the unique extension of $\phi$ which is continuous in $\overline{{\bf D}}$ and harmonic in ${{\bf D}}$. It follows that if $A$ is an arc in ${\partial}{{\bf D}}$, then $\omega_p(A)$ is the value at the point $p$ of the harmonic function whose radial limits take the value $1$ on $A$ and the value $0$ on the exterior of $A$.
If $f$ is inner with a fixed point in ${{\bf D}}$, but it is not conjugated to a rotation, J. Aaronson [@A] and J.H. Neuwirth [@N] proved, independently, that $f^*$ is exact with respect to harmonic measure and therefore mixing and ergodic. In fact, inner functions are also ergodic with respect to $\alpha$-capacity [@FPR]. An interesting study of some dynamical properties of inner functions is contained in the works of M. Craizer. In [@C1] he proves that if $f'$ belongs to the Nevanlinna class, then the entropy of $f^*$ is finite and it can be calculated by the formula $$h(f^*) = \frac 1{2\pi} \int_0^{2\pi} \log |(f^*)'(x)|\, dx\,,$$ where $(f^*)'$ denotes the angular derivative of $f$. He also proves that the Rohlin invertible extension of an inner function with a fixed point in ${{\bf D}}$ is equivalent to a generalized Bernoulli shift, see [@C2].
The mixing properties of inner functions are even stronger. In this sense Ch. Pommerenke [@P] has shown the following
[**Theorem H (Ch. Pommerenke).**]{} [*Let $f:{{\bf D}}\longrightarrow{{\bf D}}$ be an inner function with $f(0)=0$, but not a rotation. Then, there exists a positive absolute constant $K$ such that $$\left| \frac{{\lambda}[B\cap (f^*)^{-n}(A)]}{{\lambda}(A)} - {\lambda}(B) \right| \le
K\,e^{-\alpha n} \,,$$ for all $n\in {{\bf N}}$, for all arcs $A,B\subset{\partial}{{\bf D}}$, where $\alpha=\max\{1/2, |f'(0)|\}$ and ${\lambda}$ denotes normalized Lebesgue measure.*]{}
In the terminology of [@FMP] this imply that inner functions with $f(p)=p$ $(p\in{{\bf D}})$ are uniformly mixing at any point of ${\partial}{{\bf D}}$ with respect to the harmonic measure $\omega_p$. In particular, we have that the correlation coefficients of characteristic functions [*of balls*]{} have exponential decay. As a consequence of Theorem 3 in [@FMP], and the arguments of the proofs of Corollaries \[hartosinf\] and \[hartos2\] we have that if $\xi_0$ is any point in ${\partial}{{\bf D}}$ and $\{r_n\}$ is a non increasing sequence of positive numbers, then we have that
- If $\sum_{n=1}^\infty r_n < \infty$, then $$\liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac {d((f^*)^n(\xi), \xi_0)}{r_n} = \infty\,, \qquad \hbox{for almost every
$\xi\in{\partial}{{\bf D}}$} \,.$$
- If $\sum_{n=1}^\infty r_n = \infty$, then $$\lim_{N\to\infty} \dfrac{\#\{n\le N: \ d((f^*)^n(\xi), \xi_0)<r_n
\}}{\sum_{n=1}^{N}r_n} = 1\,, \qquad \hbox{for almost every
$\xi\in{\partial}{{\bf D}}$} \,.$$ and $$\liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac {d((f^*)^n(\xi), \xi_0)}{r_n} =0 \,,
\qquad \hbox{for almost every $\xi\in{\partial}{{\bf D}}$}\,.$$
A finite Blaschke product $B$ (with, say, $N$ factors) is a rational function of degree $N$ and therefore it is a covering of order $N$ of ${\partial}{{\bf D}}$. As a consequence $B$ has a fixed point in ${\partial}{{\bf D}}$ if $N\ge 3$ or if $N=2$ and $B(0)=0$. Hence, we can choose a branch of the argument of $B(e^{i\theta})$ mapping $0$ on $0$ and $[0,2\pi]$ onto $[0,2N\pi]$. Also $B(z)$ is $C^\infty$ at the boundary ${\partial}{{\bf D}}$ of the unit disk and its derivative verifies $$|B'(z)| = \sum_{k=1}^N \frac {1-|a_k|^2}{|z-a_k|^2} \,,
\qquad \hbox{if $|z|=1$}\,.$$ Therefore, if $B(0)=0$, we have that $|B'(z)|>C>1$ for all $z\in{\partial}{{\bf D}}$, and the dynamic of $B^*$ on ${\partial}{{\bf D}}$ is isomorphic to the dynamic of a Markov transformation with a finite partition ${\cal P}_0$ (it has $N$ elements) and having the Bernoulli property. Besides, since the Lebesgue measure is exact we have that the ACIPM measure of the system is precisely Lebesgue measure ${\lambda}$. Hence, we obtain the following improvement of statement (A):
\[innerp\] Let $B:{{\bf D}}\longrightarrow {{\bf D}}$ be a finite Blaschke product with a fixed point $p\in {{\bf D}}$, but not an automorphism which is conjugated to a rotation. Let also $\xi_0$ be any point in ${\partial}{{\bf D}}$ and let $\{r_n\}$ be a non increasing sequence of positive numbers. Then $${\mbox{\rm Dim}}\left\{ \xi\in{\partial}{{\bf D}}: \liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac
{d((B^*)^n(\xi), \xi_0)}{r_n} =0\right\} \ge \frac {h}{h+{{\overline{\ell}}}}$$ where ${{\overline{\ell}}}=\limsup_{n\to\infty} \frac 1n \log \frac 1{r_n}$, $h=
\int_{{\partial}{{\bf D}}} \log |B'(z)|\, d{\lambda}(z)$ and ${\mbox{\rm Dim}}$ denotes Hausdorff dimension. The result is sharp in the sense that we get equality when $B(z)=z^N$ and ${{\overline{\ell}}}=\ell= \lim_{n\to\infty} \frac 1n \log \frac 1{r_n}$.
In the case that $p=0$ the result follows from the above comments and Theorem \[markovradios\]. In the general case, let $T:D\longrightarrow {{\bf D}}$ be a Möbius transformation such that $T(p)=0$. Then, $g=T\circ B\circ T^{-1}$ is a finite Blasckhe product with $g(0)=0$. Besides, it is easy to see that $$\{\xi\in{\partial}{{\bf D}}: \ d((g^*)^n(\xi),\xi_0)<r_n \ \hbox{i.o.}\} \subseteq T(\{\xi\in{\partial}{{\bf D}}: \ d((B^*)^n(\xi),T^{-1}(\xi_0))<Cr_n \ \hbox{i.o.}\} )$$ where $C$ is a constant depending on $T$. Therefore the lower bound follows from the case $p=0$. The equality for $B(z)=z^N$ follows from Proposition \[dimensionporarriba\].
Theorem \[innerp\] is also true for the following infinite Blaschke product: $$B(z)= \prod_{k=0}^\infty \frac{z-a_k}{1-a_kz}\,, \qquad \hbox{$a_k=1-2^{-k}$}\,.$$ since as we will see, the dynamic of $B^*$ on ${\partial}{{\bf D}}$ is isomorphic to the dynamic of a Markov transformation with a countable partition ${\cal P}_0$ and with the Bernoulli property. Notice also that $B^*$ is exact with respect to Lebesgue measure and therefore we have that the ACIPM measure is Lebesgue measure.
For this Blaschke product $B$ is defined in ${\partial}{{\bf D}}\setminus\{1\}$ and in fact it is $C^\infty$ there and $$|B'(z)| = \sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac {1-a_k^2}{|z-a_k|^2} \,,
\qquad \hbox{if $|z|=1, \ z\ne1$}\,.$$ If we denote $B(e^{2\pi it})=e^{2\pi iS(t)}$ then $S'(t)=|B'(e^{2\pi it})|>C>1$. Moreover, it follows from Phragmén-Lindelöf Theorem that the image of $S(t)$ is $(-\infty,\infty)$ and so we can define the intervals $P_j= \{t\in (0,1): \ j<S(t)<j+1\}$. The transformation $T:[0,1]\longrightarrow [0,1]$ given by $T(t)=S(t)$ (mod $1$), $T(0)=T(1)=0$, is a Markov transformation with partition ${\cal P}_0=\{P_j\}$. To see this we only left to prove property (f). We define the following collection of subarcs of ${\partial}{{\bf D}}$: $I^+_k=\{e^{i\alpha}:
\theta_{k+1}<\alpha<\theta_{k}\}$ $(k\ge 0)$, where $\theta_{0}=\pi$ and for each $k\ge 1$ we denote by $e^{i\theta_k}$ $(\theta_k\in (0,\pi))$ the point whose distance to $1$ is $1-a_{k-1}=2^{-(k-1)}$. We define also $I_k^-=\{z\in{\partial}{{\bf D}}: \bar z \in I_k^+\}$. It is geometrically clear that if $z\in I^\pm_j$, then $|\sin 2\pi t|\le C\,2^{-j}$ and also that $$|z-a_k| \ge
\begin{cases}
C\, 2^{-j} \,, \qquad \hbox{for $k\ge j$} \\
C\, 2^{-k} \,, \qquad \hbox{for $k < j$}\,,
\end{cases}$$ Now, if $z=e^{2\pi it}\in I^\pm_j$, we have that $$\begin{gathered}
S'(t)=|B'(e^{2\pi it})|= \sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac {1-a_k^2}{|e^{2\pi it}-a_k|^2}\ge C\, \frac {1-a_j}{2^{-2j}}=C\, 2^j \,, \notag \\
S'(t) = \sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac {1-a_k^2}{|e^{2\pi it}-a_k|^2} \le C \sum_{k<j} \frac {2^{-k}}{2^{-2k}} + C \sum_{k\ge j} \frac {2^{-k}}{2^{-2j}} \le C\, 2^j
\notag\end{gathered}$$ and $$|S''(t)| \le C \sum_{k=0}^\infty \left| \frac {a_k(1-a_k^2)\sin 2\pi t}{(e^{2\pi it}-a_k)^4} \right|
\le C \sum_{k<j} \frac {2^{-k}2^{-j}}{2^{-4k}} + C \sum_{k\ge j} \frac {2^{-k}2^{-j}}{2^{-4j}}
\le C\, 2^{2j}\,.$$ Therefore, since ${\lambda}(I_j^\pm)\asymp 2^{-j}$ we have that $\int_{I_j^\pm} S'(t) \, dt \asymp C$ and so each $P_j\in {\cal P}_0$ contains at most a fixed constant number of consecutive intervals $I_k^\pm$. Hence, there exists an absolute constant $C$ such that, if $t_1,t_2,t_3 \in P_j$, then $$\frac {|T''(t_1)|}{T'(t_2)\,T'(t_3)} \le C$$ and this implies that $T$ verify property (f) of Markov transformations.
Finally, the entropy $h$ of $B^*$ (or $T(t)$) is finite, because $$\begin{aligned}
h=\int_{{\partial}{{\bf D}}} \log |B'(z)|\, d{\lambda}(z) &=2\sum_{j=0}^\infty \int_{I_j}
\log |B'(z)|\, d{\lambda}(z) \notag \\
&\le 2 \sum_{j=0}^\infty \log\Big(C\sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac {2^{-k}}{2^{-2j}}\Big) \frac 1{2^{j+1}} = 2 \sum_{j=0}^\infty \log\Big(C 2^{2j}\Big) \frac 1{2^{j+1}}
<\infty\,. \notag\end{aligned}$$
The singular inner functions $$f(z)=e^{c\frac {1+z}{1-z}} \,, \qquad \hbox{for $c<-2$}.$$ also verify Theorem \[innerp\]. These inner functions have only one singularity at $z=1$ and its Denjoy-Wolff point $p$ is real and it verifies $0<p<1$. It is easy to see that if $f(e^{2\pi
it})= e^{2\pi i S(t)}$ for $t\in [0,1]$, then $S(t) = \frac
{c}{2\pi} \, \cot \pi t$. and the dynamic of $f^*$ on ${\partial}{{\bf D}}$ is isomorphic to the dynamic of the Markov transformation $T(t)=S(t)$ (mod 1). We have that the partition ${\cal P}_0$ for $T$ is countable, ${\cal P}_0=\{P_j: j\in{{\bf Z}}\}$ where $P_j = \{t\in (0,1):
\ j<S(t)<j+1\}$, and $T$ has the Bernoulli property, i.e. $T(P_j)=(0,1)$. Notice also that $T'(t)=\frac {|c|}2 \,\csc^2 \pi
t>1$ and that, for $x,y\in P_j$, $$\left| \frac{T'(x)}{T'(y)}-1 \right| = \frac {|T(x)+T(y)|}{T(y)^2+ (c/2\pi)^2}\, |T(x)-T(y)|\le
\frac {2j+2}{j^2+ (c/2\pi)^2}\, |T(x)-T(y)|\le C\, |T(x)-T(y)|\,.$$ It is known that the entropy of $f$ is finite (see [@Ma]) $$h(f)= \log \left( \frac {1}{1-p^2} \log \frac 1{p^2} \right)<\infty\,.$$
More generally, Theorem \[innerp\] holds for inner functions $f$ with a fixed point $p\in {{\bf D}}$ and finite entropy such that the transformation $T$ defined as in these examples is Markov. This happens, for example, if the set of singularities of $f$ in ${\partial}{{\bf D}}$ is finite, the lateral limits of $f^*$ at the singular points are $\pm\infty$ and $T$ verifies properties (d) and (f) of Markov transformations. Notice that the condition on the lateral limits holds, for example, for Blasckhe products whose singular set is finite and each singular point $\xi$ is an accumulation point of zeroes inside of a Stolz cone with vertex $\xi$. However we think that Theorem \[innerp\] is true for any inner function with a fixed point $p\in {{\bf D}}$ and finite entropy.
Expanding endomorphisms {#expend}
-----------------------
Let $M$ be a compact Riemannian manifold. A $C^1$ map $f:M\longrightarrow M$ is an [*expanding endomorphism*]{} if there exists a natural number $n\ge 1$ and constants $C>0$ and $\beta>1$ such that $$\|(D_x f^n)u\| > C\,\beta^n \|u\|\,, \qquad \text{for all } x\in M, u\in T_x
M\,.$$ A $C^1$ expanding endomorphism of a compact connected Riemannian manifold $M$ whose derivative $D_x f$ is a Hölder continuous function of $x$ is an expanding map with respect to Lebesgue measure ${\lambda}$ and a finite Markov partition ${\cal P}_0$, see [@M], p.171. Therefore, the unique $f$-invariant probability measure whose existence is assured by Theorem E is comparable to ${\lambda}$ in the whole $M$. Our results also apply for this dynamical system.
Aaronson, J. Ergodic theory of inner functions of the upper half plane. [*Ann. Henri Poincaré*]{} [**14**]{} (1978), 233-253.
Afraimovich, V., Chazottes, J.R., Saussol, B. Pointwise dimensions for Poincaré recurrence associated with maps and special flows. [*Disc. Cont. Dyn. Syst. A*]{} [**9**]{} (2003), 263-280.
Barreira, L., Saussol, B. Hausdorff dimension of measures via Poincaré Recurrence. [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**219**]{} (2001), 443-463.
Baker, A., Schmidt, W.M., Diophantine approximation and Hausdorff dimension. [*Proc. London Math. Soc.*]{} (3) [**31**]{} (1970), 1-11.
Besicovitch, A.S., Sets of fractional dimension (IV): On rational approximations to real numbers. [*J. London Math. Soc.*]{} [**9**]{} (1934), 126-131.
Bonanno, C., Galatolo, S., Isola S. Recurrence and algorithmic information. [*Nonlinearity*]{}, [**17**]{} (2004), 1057-1074.
Bishop, C., Jones, P., Hausdorff dimension and Kleinian groups. [*Acta Math.*]{} [**179**]{} (1997), 1-39.
Boshernitzan, M. Quantitative recurrence results. [*Invent. Math.*]{} [**113**]{} (1993), 617-631.
Bourdon, P.S., Matache, V., Shapiro, J.H., On convergence to the Denjoy-Wolff point. [*Illinois J. Math.*]{} [**49**]{} (2005), 405-430.
Chernov. N., Kleinbock, D., Dynamical Borel-Cantelli lemmas for Gibbs measures. [*Israel J. Math.*]{} [**112**]{} (2001), 1-27.
Craizer, M., Entropy of inner functions. [*Israel J. Math.*]{} [**74**]{} (1991), 129-168.
Craizer, M., The Bernoulli property of inner functions. [*Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys.*]{} [**12**]{} (1992), 209-215.
Dani, S.G., On badly approximable numbers, Schmidt games and bounded orbits of flows. [*LMS Lecture Notes*]{} [**134**]{}, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989.
Denjoy, A., Fonctions contractante le cercle $|z|<1$. [*C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris*]{} [**182**]{} (1926), 255-257.
Dodson, M., Melián, M.V., Pestana, D., Velani, S., Patterson measure and Ubiquity. [*Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser, A. I. Math.*]{} [**20**]{} (1995), 37-60.
Dolgopyat, D., Bounded geodesics of Anosov flows. [*Duke Math.*]{} [**87**]{} (1997), 87-114.
Fernández, J.L., Melián M.V., Bounded geodesics of Riemann surfaces and hyperbolic manifolds. [*Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**347**]{} (1995), 3533-3549.
Fernández, J.L., Melián M.V., Escaping geodesics of Riemannian surfaces. [*Acta Math.* ]{} [**187**]{} (2001), 213-236.
Fernández, J.L., Melián, M.V., Pestana, D., Quantitative mixing results and inner functions. To appear in [*Math. Ann.*]{}
Fernández, J.L., Melián, M.V., Pestana, D., Quantitative recurrence properties of Anosov flows. Preprint.
Fernández, J.L., Pestana, D., Rodríguez, J.M., Distortion of Boundary Sets under Inner Functions II. [*Pacific J. Math.*]{} [**172**]{} (1996), 49-81.
Frostman, O. Sur les produits de Blasckhe. [*Fysiogr. Sällsk. Lund Förh.*]{} [**12**]{} (1943), 169-182
Furstenberg, H., [*Recurrence in Ergodic Theory and Combinatorial Number Theory*]{}. Princeton University Press, 1981.
Galatolo, S., Dimension via waiting time and recurrence. [*Math. Research Letters*]{}, [**12**]{} (2005), 377-386.
Galatolo, S., Hitting time and dimension in Axiom A systems, generic interval exchanges and an application to Birkoff Sums. [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**123**]{} (2006), 111-124.
Hoeffding, W., Probability inequalities for sums of bounded random variables. [*J. Amer. Stat. Assoc.*]{} [**58**]{} (1963), 13-30.
Jarník, V., Zur metrischen Theorie der diophantischen Approximationen. [*Prace Mat.-Fiz*]{} [**36**]{} (1928-1929), 91-106.
Katok, A., Hasselblatt, B., [*Introduction to the Modern Theory of Dynamical Systems*]{}. Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications [**54**]{}. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1995.
Kleinbock, D. Margulis, G., Logarithm laws for flows on homogeneous spaces. [*Invent. Math.*]{} [**138**]{} (1999), 451-494.
Mañé, R., [*Ergodic Theory and Differentiable Dynamics*]{}. Springer-Verlag, 1980.
Martin N.F.G., On ergodic properties of restrictions of inner functions. [*Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys.*]{} [**9**]{} (1989), 137-151.
Mattila, P., [*Geometry of Sets and Measures in Euclidean Spaces*]{}. Cambridge studies in advanced mathematics, [**44**]{}. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1995.
Melián, M.V., Pestana, D., Geodesic Excursions into Cusps in Finite-Volume Hyperbolic Manifolds. [*Michigan Math. J.*]{} [**40**]{} (1993), 77-93.
Neuwirth, J.H. Ergodicity of some mappings of the circle and the line. [*Israel J. Math.*]{} [**31**]{} (1978), 359-367.
Philipp W., Some metrical theorems in Number Theory. [*Pacific J. of Math.*]{} [**20**]{} (1967), 109-127.
Pommerenke, Ch. On ergodic properties of inner functions. [*Math. Ann.*]{} [**256**]{} (1981), 43-50.
Pommerenke, Ch. [*Boundary behaviour of Conformal Maps*]{}. Springer-Verlag, 1992.
Poggi-Corradini, P., Pointwise convergence on the boundary in the Denjoy-Wolff theorem. Preprint, 2005.
Rudin, W. [*Function theory in the unit ball of ${\bf C}^n$*]{}. Springer-Verlag, 1980.
Sprindzuk, V., [*Metric theory of Diophantine approximations*]{}. J. Wiley & Sons, New York-Toronto-London, 1979.
Saussol, B. Troubetzkoy, S., Vaienti, S. Recurrence, dimensions and Lyapunov exponents. [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**106**]{} (2002), 623-634.
Sullivan, D., Disjoint spheres, approximation by imaginary quadratic numbers and the logarithm law for geodesics. [*Acta Math.*]{} [**149**]{} (1982), 215-237.
Urbanski, M., The Hausdorff dimension of the set of points with non-dense orbit under a hyperbolic dynamical system. [*Nonlinearity*]{} [**4**]{} (1991), 385-397.
Young, L-S., Recurrence times and rates of mixing, [*Israel J. Math*]{} [**110**]{} (1999), 153-188.
[^1]: Research supported by Grant BFM2003-04780 from Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología, Spain
[^2]: Research supported by Grants BFM2003-04780 and BFM2003-06335-C03-02 Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología, Spain
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We compute the production of particles from the gravitational field of an expanding mass shell. Contrary to the situation of Hawking radiation and the production of cosmological perturbations during cosmological inflation, the example of an expanding mass shell has no horizon and no singularity. We apply the method of ‘ray-tracing’, first introduced by Hawking, and calculate the energy spectrum of the produced particles. The result depends on three parameters: the expansion velocity of the mass shell, its radius, and its mass. Contrary to the situation of a collapsing mass shell, the energy spectrum is non-thermal. Invoking time reversal we reproduce Hawking’s thermal spectrum in a certain limit.'
address:
- '${}^\dag$Institut für Theoretische Physik, J.W.Goethe-Universität, Robert-Mayer-Str. 8–10, 60054 Frankfurt am Main, Germany'
- '${}^\ddag$Institut für Theoretische Physik, Technische Universität Wien, Wiedner Hauptstr. 8–10, 1040 Vienna, Austria'
- '${}^*$Theory Divison, CERN, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland'
author:
- 'Sabine Hossenfelder,$^\dag$ Dominik J. Schwarz,$^{\ddag *}$ Walter Greiner$^\dag$'
title: 'Particle production in time-dependent gravitational fields: the expanding mass shell'
---
CERN-2002-286\
Introduction
============
Gradients in a gravitational field may cause the production of particles out of the vacuum; this is similar to the situation in quantum electrodynamics (QED). In the latter case a virtual pair of particles is ripped apart by the electric field. In contrast to QED, the gravitational ‘charge’—the mass—is always positive; in this case, the tidal forces are thus responsible for the separation of the particle pair. But there is also another difference. The energy that is needed for the production of particles in a charged vacuum is taken out of the field energy. Since the energy of the gravitational field cannot be localised, the energy gain must be explained otherwise. One possibility is the existence of a horizon. Another possibility is the time dependence of the gravitational field.
We compute the particle production in a time-dependent gravitational field induced by an expanding mass shell. This is done at a semiclassical level. The gravitational field, which acts through curvature of space-time, is treated as a classical background field in which a quantum field propagates. We consider a massless scalar field. So it is quantum field theory in curved space that we need to apply.
Perhaps the best known result in this field is the thermal radiation emitted by a black hole. This effect, discovered by Hawking [@Haw], shows a deep connection between gravity, thermodynamics and quantum physics. Hawking’s result was reproduced in several ways, but also other problems such as Unruh’s accelerated observer [@Unruh] or the gravitational analogue to the Casimir effect [@Casm] were studied.
In cosmological models, the production of particles plays a central role in explaining the origin of the structures observed in the Universe. During an epoch of cosmological inflation, quantum fluctuations of space-time and matter are amplified by the accelerated expansion of the Universe to become the seeds of large-scale structures [@infl].
All mentioned examples involve either a horizon, a boundary, or a singularity. To our knowledge, there exists no example in which particle production in an infinite space-time without horizon and without singularity has been calculated. The situation of an expanding mass shell represents such an example. We do not expect this work to have a direct astrophysical application, but the situation under study might be of interest when black holes evaporate. One could imagine that Hawking radiation is emitted from an evaporating black hole in a final burst, which we could then describe as a thin shell, carrying a mass somewhat larger than the Planck mass. If the emitted radiation consists of massive particles, this mass shell moves at a speed slightly below the speed of light and our calculation might be applicable. Since the expanding mass shell itself leads to gravitational particle production, this work might be useful for an estimate of backreaction effects in the final stages of black hole evaporation. We will not study this aspect here, the purpose of this paper being just to calculate the energy spectrum of the particles produced by an expanding mass shell.
There are three main procedures that are used to deal with quantum fields in curved space-time: Hawking’s classical ray-tracing [@Haw], renormalization of the energy-momentum tensor (e.g. by point-splitting) [@Fulling; @Wald], particle production in the reference frame of a uniformly accelerated observer [@Unruh; @GrQED], from which we will choose the first one. A useful overview on computational matters can be found in [@BiDa; @Novi].
The procedure of ray-tracing in a semiclassical limit is appropriate if the energy carried by the quantum field is small with respect to the energy of the source of the gravitational field. Furthermore we have to stay on scales on which possible effects of quantum gravity do not occur. As Wheeler showed in [@Pll] the characteristic length for this to happen is the Planck length $l_{\rm P}=
\sqrt{\frac{G\hbar}{c^3}}\approx 10^{-33}$ cm.
So we have to restrict our results to cases in which the effects of interest take place on scales $\gg l_{\rm P}$ and $\gg t_{\rm P}$. However, it seems that there is no reason to restrict the calculation to masses $M > m_{\rm P}$, as long as the mass shell starts to expand at a radius $\gg l_{\rm P}$. We set $G = c = \hbar = 1$ in the following.
This paper is organized as follows. First we will need to find an observable of particle density in curved space, which will be done in Section 2. After this we will introduce our model of the expanding mass shell and discuss its properties. The computation of the number density operator is presented in Section 4. The results are discussed in section 5, which contains plots of the spectral energy flux and total energy flux through a 2-dimensional surface. We conclude with a short summary.
Quantum fields in curved space-time
===================================
Let us first recall some of the basics of quantum field theory in curved space-time [@BiDa; @Wald; @Fulling]. Physics in flat space-time is invariant under Poincaré transformations. This singles out a set of (Fourier) modes and a vacuum state, which are invariant under Poincaré transformations. In curved space-time there is no global Poincaré symmetry.
In the following we consider a minimally coupled scalar field $\varphi$. Its Fourier modes in flat space are attached to the energy $\omega$ by $$\label{Energ}
{\mathrm{i}} \partial_t u_{k}= \omega u_k \quad \mbox{with} \quad \omega>0\; .$$ This uniqueness is lost when the coordiates are chosen arbitrarily. In curved space-time we have no distinguished time coordinate, thus no distinguished energy belonging to it, and no distinguished set of modes that can be related to the notion of particles. In general we have to deal with an arbitrary set of modes $(u_i)$ and ask for its relation to a different set $(v_i)$. The quantum field $\hat{\varphi}$ can then be expanded in both sets: $$\label{Phiua}
\hat{\varphi} = \sum_i (u_i \hat{a_i}+u_i^*\hat{a_i}^{\dag})\; , \quad
\hat{\varphi} = \sum_j (v_j \hat{b_j}+v_j^*\hat{b_j}^{\dag})\; .$$ The relations between these sets are given by the so-called Bogoliubov transformations [@Bogo] and have the form: $$\label{Bogu}
v_j = \sum_i (\alpha_{ji}u_i+\beta_{ji}u_i^*) \;, \quad
u_i = \sum_j (\alpha_{ji}^*v_j-\beta_{ji}v_j^*)$$ with $$\alpha_{jk} = (v_j,u_k) \; , \quad \beta_{jk}=-(v_j,u_k^*) \;,$$ and the scalar product given by $$\label{skpr}
(u_i,v_j) =
-\mathrm{i}\int_{\Sigma}\left[u_i(\partial_{\mu} v_j^*) -
(\partial_{\mu} u_i)v_j^*\right]
\sqrt{-g_\Sigma}\; \mathrm{d}\Sigma^{\mu}\;.$$ Here $\Sigma$ is a space-like hypersurface with volume element $\mathrm{d}\Sigma$, $\mathrm{d}\Sigma^{\mu}=n^{\mu}\mathrm{d}\Sigma$, and $n^{\mu}$ is a normal vector of $\Sigma$ with norm $n^{\mu}n_{\mu}=1$.
The creation and annihilation operators (\[Phiua\]) depend on the modes, and so does the vacuum state defined with respect to them. The vacuum state $|0_b\rangle$ belongs to $\hat{b}_i$ and is defined by $\hat{b}_i|0_b\rangle=0$. In general, $|0_b\rangle$ is not identical with $|0_a\rangle$, for which we have $\hat{a}_i|0_a\rangle=0$. It follows that the vacuum expectation value of the number density operator $\hat{a}_i^{\dag} \hat{a}_i$ must not necessarily vanish when applied to the vacuum $|0_b\rangle$, $$\label{Vakew}
\langle0_b|\hat{a}_i^{\dag} \hat{a}_i|0_b\rangle=\sum_j |\beta_{ji}|^2\;.$$ This operator has a well defined meaning as the number (mode) density operator only if the modes used for the expansion can be put in a suitable relation to the known modes of Minkowski space-time to render an interpretation possible. This is possible if we are interested in the change of vacuum between two asymptotically flat regions of space-time.
If the eigenvalues are not discrete $(i \to \vec{k})$, we have to deal with an integral that may have divergences. These divergences caused by the limit from periodic boundary conditions with discrete spectrum to an infinite volume ${\bf{V}}=\langle 0|0\rangle$ can be cured by normalization. This may be accomplished by dividing through the same divergence: $$\label{stNprotau}
\langle0_b|\hat{a}_{\vec{k}}^{\dag} \hat{a}_{\vec{k}}|0_b\rangle_{ren} =
\frac{1}{\bf{V}}\langle0_b|\hat{a}_{\vec{k}}^{\dag}
\hat{a}_{\vec{k}}|0_b\rangle=
\frac{1}{\bf{V}}\int |\beta_{\vec{k'}\vec{k}}|^2 \;{\mathrm{d}}^3 k' \;.$$ If $\langle0_b|\hat{a}_{\vec{k}}^{\dag}\hat{a}_{\tilde{\vec{k}}}|0_b\rangle$ has the form $\delta(\vec{k}-\tilde{\vec{k}})f(\vec{k},\tilde{\vec{k}})$, one finds $$\label{Nprotau}
\langle0_b|{\hat{a}^{\dag}}_{\vec{k}} \hat{a}_{\vec{k}}|0_b\rangle_{ren}=
\frac{1}{\bf{V}}
\lim_{\vec{k} \to \tilde{\vec{k}}}\langle0_b|\hat{a}^{\dag}_{\vec{k}}
\hat{a}_{\tilde{\vec{k}}}|0_b\rangle=f(\vec{k})\; ,$$ which will be useful later on. Now $\langle0_b|\hat{a}_{\vec{k}}^{\dag} \hat{a}_{\vec{k}}|0_b\rangle_{ren}$ is the well defined spectral number (mode) density.
The expanding mass shell
========================
We consider a spherical shell of mass $M$ and radius $R$. Outside of the shell, space-time is described by the Schwarzschild metric; inside it space-time is flat. We assume that the thickness of the shell in negligible with respect to its radius (thin shell). Originally the shell’s radius is constant, $R = R_0$. The shell is ‘ignited’ at some time $\tau = 0$ (as measured in the rest frame of the total mass inside the shell). Afterwards the shell expands as $R = R(\tau)$. The situation is illustrated in Fig. \[scene\].
(12,15)
(1.0,0.0) (1.0,4.5)
(3.0,0.0)[(0,1)[4.5]{}]{} (3.0,4.5)[(1,4)[2.3]{}]{}
(1.0,6.5)[(1,-1)[5.8]{}]{} (1.0,6.5)[(1,1)[6.5]{}]{} (1.0,2.5)[(1,-1)[2.3]{}]{} (1.0,2.5)[(1,1)[6.8]{}]{}
(6.0,6.0) (6.0,13.0)
(3.0,4.5) (4.33,9.83)
(6.0,12.5) (6.0,9.5) (6.0,6.5)
(6.8,11.8) (6.8,7.8) (1.4,6.4) (1.4,5.4) (1.4,2.4) (5.4,1.4)
(6.0,12.5)[(0,0)[1]{}]{} (6.0,9.5)[(0,0)[2]{}]{} (6.0,6.5)[(0,0)[3]{}]{}
(4.5,8.5)[(0,0)[$R(\tau)$]{}]{} (3.4,2.5)[(0,0)[$R_0$]{}]{}
(9,4)[(0,0)[$r$]{}]{} (0.0,12.5)[(0,0)[$\tau,t$]{}]{}
Our first task is to write down the metric of the space-time describing an expanding mass shell. The surface of the shell is the same whether it is measured from the inside or from the outside. We can thus choose the same radial coordinate $r$ on both sides of the shell and we obviously can choose the same angular coordinates $\theta$ and $\phi$. Outside the shell we denote the time coordinate by $t$, which is the time measured by an asymptotic observer, who is at rest with respect to the centre of mass of the shell. The relation between the time coordinates $t$ and $\tau$ remains to be fixed by the boundary conditions on the mass shell. We take null coordinates and ignore the $r^2 d\Omega^2$ part of the line element for the moment. Inside the shell these coordinates are denoted by $(U,V)$, and by $(u,v)$ outside, where the line element is given by $$\label{Meau}
\mathrm{d}s^2 = \gamma(r)\;\mathrm{d}u\;\mathrm{d}v\; , \quad
\gamma(r) = 1-\frac{2M}{r}\; ,$$ with $$\label{trafouv}
u + u_0 := t - \int^r_{R_0}\frac{\mathrm{d}r'}{\gamma(r')}\; , \quad
v + v_0 := t + \int^r_{R_0}\frac{\mathrm{d}r'}{\gamma(r')}\; .$$ Inside we simply have $$\mathrm{d}s^2 = {\mathrm{d}}U\;{\mathrm{d}}V\; ,$$ with $$\label{trafoUV}
V + V_0 := \tau + r - R_0\; , \quad U + U_0 := \tau - r + R_0\; .$$ The outgoing light rays run on world lines with constant $u$ and $U$. We fix the origin of the null coordinates by the convention that the incoming ray $v=V=0$ goes through the point $(\tau = 0, R_0)$ and that $U=u=0$ denotes the very same ray on its way out (see Fig. \[scene\]). Thus $v_0 = V_0 = 0$ and at $r=0$ we have $U + U_0 = V + 2R_0$. With our choice for $U$ we finally have $U_0 = 2R_0$.
We define the expansion velocity of the shell by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{nu}
\nu := \frac{\mathrm{d}R}{\mathrm{d}\tau}\; ,\end{aligned}$$ which is actually the coordinate velocity as seen from the inside of the shell. In principle $\nu$ is a function of time, but we will see below that it is a good approximation to work with a constant expansion velocity. In that case the world line of a point on the shell is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{RvonV}
R(\tau)=\left\{\begin{array}{lcr}
R_0 + \frac{\nu}{1+\nu}V = R_0 + \frac{\nu}{1-\nu}(U+U_0)
&\mbox{when}& \tau >0\\
R_0 & \mbox{when} & \tau <0
\end{array}\right. \; .\end{aligned}$$ Our result will finally depend on three parameters: $R_0$, $M$ and $\nu$.
From the coordinate transformations (\[trafouv\]) and (\[trafoUV\]) and from the definition of the expansion velocity (\[nu\]) we find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ugenU}
\left.\frac{\mathrm{d}u}{\mathrm{d}U}\right|_{r = R} &=&
\left\{\begin{array}{ccr}
\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathrm{d}\tau} - \frac{\nu}{\gamma(R)}\right)
\biggr/(1-\nu)
&\mbox{when}& U > -U_0 \\
1/\sqrt{\gamma_0} &\mbox{when}& U < -U_0
\end{array}\right.\; , \\
\label{ugenv}
\left.\frac{\mathrm{d}v}{\mathrm{d}V}\right|_{r = R} &=&
\left\{\begin{array}{ccr}
\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathrm{d}\tau} + \frac{\nu}{\gamma(R)}\right)
\biggr/(1+\nu)
&\mbox{when}& V > 0 \\
1/\sqrt{\gamma_0} &\mbox{when}& V < 0
\end{array}\right.\; , \end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_0 := \gamma(R_0) = 1-\frac{2M}{R_0}\; .\end{aligned}$$ The matching of the inside and outside space-time demands the continuity of the line element $$\label{stetig}
(\gamma \; {\mathrm{d}}u \; {\mathrm{d}}v)|_{r = R} =
({\mathrm{d}}U \; {\mathrm{d}}V)|_{r = R} \;,$$ which leads, with (\[ugenU\]) and (\[ugenv\]), to $$\label{z}
\frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathrm{d}\tau} = \frac{1}{\gamma(R)}
\sqrt{\gamma(R) (1 - \nu^2) + \nu^2}\; ,$$ which describes the relation between $t$ and $\tau$, and finally fixes the space-time geometry. Note that Eq. (\[z\]) describes nothing but the gravitational redshift $z$ for a photon that is emitted inside the shell and crosses the shell at time $\tau$, i.e. $\mathrm{d}t/\mathrm{d}\tau = 1 + z$.
To trace a radial light ray through space-time, we need to find the transition functions between the two coordinate patches on the surface of the mass shell. The setting is illustrated in Fig. \[scene\]. There are three different cases for a ray that arrives at infinity. Let us start with the trivial case (3). Everything happens before the onset of expansion. We do not expect any effect then. For the second case (2) the rays enter the shell before the start of the expansion and the shell is ‘ignited’ while the ray is crossing the interior. Only a final intervall in $u$ of length $u_0$ is involved. For case (1), entrance and exit of the ray occur while the expansion is taking place.
We obtain a collapsing shell by inverting the setting ($u\to-u, v\to-v, \tau \to -\tau$, etc.). To reproduce a collapse to a black hole, we need to take $R_0 \to 2M$ and $\nu \to 1$.[^1] This procedure will allow us to reproduce Hawking’s result from the setting of the expanding shell.
The transition functions, which follow from (\[ugenU\]) and (\[ugenv\]) by integration, are too complicated for an exact analytic treatment of the problem. We therefore have to find a reasonable approximation. Let us start from the inverse of Eqs. (\[ugenU\]) and (\[ugenv\]), which reads $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\mathrm{d}}U}{{\mathrm{d}}u} \bigg|_{U>-U_0}
& = & \frac{[\gamma(1-\nu^2)+\nu^2]^\frac{1}{2}+\nu}{(1+\nu)}\ ,\\
\frac{{\mathrm{d}}V}{{\mathrm{d}}v} \bigg|_{V>0}
& = & \frac{[\gamma(1-\nu^2)+\nu^2]^\frac{1}{2}-\nu}{(1-\nu)}\ .\end{aligned}$$ As a first approximation we assume that the expansion velocity $\nu$ is constant. Secondly, we expect the biggest effect when the space-time curvature is high, thus in the vicinity of the ‘explosion’. Consequently we expand the transition functions in the Newtonian potential difference $ - 2M(1/R - 1/R_0)$, which is a small quantity at the beginning of the expansion. Case (3) is trivial. For case (2) we approximate $\mathrm{d}U/\mathrm{d}u$ around the ‘ignition’, $R = R_0$. For case (1) we have to consider two points at which the ray crosses the shell. The effect from the entrance of the ray into the shell will be larger than the effect from the exit of the ray. Thus we need to approximate $\mathrm{d}V/\mathrm{d}v$ around $\gamma_0$ and $\mathrm{d}U/\mathrm{d}u$ around $\gamma(R(U=0)) =: \gamma_1$. Around $\gamma_0$ we include terms up to linear order, whereas around $\gamma_1$ we keep only the leading term. These expansions yield $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\mathrm{d}}U}{{\mathrm{d}}u} \bigg|_{U>-U_0}
&\approx& c_0 - c_0' \frac{2M}{R(U)}\; \; \mbox{around} \; \; \gamma_0\\
\frac{{\mathrm{d}}U}{{\mathrm{d}}u} \bigg|_{U>-U_0}
&\approx& c_1 \; \; \mbox{around} \; \; \gamma_1\\
\frac{{\mathrm{d}}V}{{\mathrm{d}}v} \bigg|_{V>0}
&\approx& d_0 - d_0' \frac{2M}{R(V)}
\; \; \mbox{around} \; \; \gamma_0\;\;,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
c_0 &:=& \frac{{\mathrm{d}}U}{{\mathrm{d}}u}\bigg|_{\gamma_0} +
c_0'(1-\gamma_0)\ , \qquad
c_0' := \frac{\partial}{\partial\gamma}\,
\frac{{\mathrm{d}}U}{{\mathrm{d}}u}\bigg|_{\gamma_0}\ ,\\
\label{c1}
c_1 &:=& \frac{{\mathrm{d}}U}{{\mathrm{d}}u}\bigg|_{\gamma_1}\ ,\\
\label{d}
d_0 &:=& \frac{{\mathrm{d}}V}{{\mathrm{d}}v}\bigg|_{\gamma_0} +
d_0' (1-\gamma_0)\ , \qquad
d_0' := \frac{\partial}{\partial\gamma}\,
\frac{{\mathrm{d}}V}{{\mathrm{d}}v}\bigg|_{\gamma_0}\ .\end{aligned}$$ As a consequence $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dudU}
\frac{{\mathrm{d}}u}{{\mathrm{d}}U} &\approx&
\frac{R_0(1-\nu)+\nu(U+U_0)}{c_0[R_0(1-\nu)+\nu(U+U_0)]-c_0' 2M(1-\nu)} \\
\label{dvdV}
\frac{{\mathrm{d}}v}{{\mathrm{d}}V}&\approx&
\frac{R_0(1+\nu)+\nu V}{d_0[R_0(1+\nu)+\nu V] - d_0' 2M(1+\nu)} \;\;.\end{aligned}$$
We denote the approximate transition functions around $\gamma_0$ at the entrance with $\xi_0(V)$, around $\gamma_0$ at the exit with $\eta_0(u)$, and around $\gamma_1$ at the exit with $\eta_1(u)$. The inverse functions of the last two are written as $\eta_0^{-1}(U)$ and $\eta_1^{-1}(U)$, respectively. Integration of (\[dudU\]), (\[c1\]) and (\[dvdV\]) provides the functions that will be relevant to our calculation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{uebergang}
\eta_0^{-1}(U) &=& \frac{U}{c_0} + \frac{c_0'2M (1-\nu)}{c_0^2\nu}
\ln\left[1+\frac{c_0\nu U}{(c_0 R_0 - c_0'2M)(1-\nu)
+ c_0\nu U_0}\right],\\
\eta_1^{-1}(U) &=& \frac{U}{c_1},\\
\xi_0(V) &=& \frac{V}{d_0} +\frac{d_0'2M (1+\nu)}{d_0^2\nu}
\ln\left[1+\frac{d_0\nu V}{(d_0 R_0 - d_0'2M)(1+\nu)}\right].\end{aligned}$$
Particle production
===================
To compute the particle production caused by the moving mass shell, we consider an observer who defines vacuum before the onset of expansion (at [I]{}$^-$) and ask how this vacuum is seen by an observer at [I]{}$^+$, i.e. we have to calculate the Bogoliubov transformations between the vacua at [I]{}$^-$ and [I]{}$^+$. We can do this by following the track of the light-rays.
We restrict our attention to a massless, minimally coupled scalar field, which obeys the equation of motion $\Box \varphi = 0$. We expect a damping of the amplitude with $r^{-1}$ because of the spherical symmetry. Furthermore we split off an angular component in the form of spherical harmonics $Y_{lm}(\theta,\phi)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi(r,t,\theta,\phi)=
\sum_{l,m} \frac{1}{r}Y_{lm}(\theta,\phi)\Psi_l(t,r) \;\;.\end{aligned}$$ With this ansatz, the wave equation in null coordinates becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{wglSS}
\frac{\partial^2 \Psi_l}{\partial u \partial v}
=\gamma(r)\left( \frac{2M}{r^3} + \frac{l(l+1)}{r^2} \right)\Psi_l \;\;.\end{aligned}$$ The right-hand side has a minimum outside the Schwarzschild radius and acts like a potential well. Because of this, incoming rays may be reflected at the gravitational potential. To a good approximation one may neglect this effect of backscattering by simply dropping the right-hand side of (\[wglSS\]). In the same way we neglect potential terms in the inside. The index $l$ is left out in the following, since $\Psi$ no longer depends on $l$ if the centrifugal potential is neglected.
We are searching for solutions of the equations $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial^2 \Psi}{\partial u \partial v} =0
\; \; \;
\mbox{outside,}
\; \; \;
\frac{\partial^2 \Psi}{\partial U \partial V} =0
\; \; \;
\mbox{inside.}\end{aligned}$$ Any function that does not mix the two variables $u,v$ or $U,V$ respectively is a solution. We are looking for an incoming mode which turns into an outgoing one in a smooth manner and passes through $r=0$. These solutions must behave like spherically symmetric Minkowski modes at [I]{}$^-$. At $r \to \infty$ the phase of an incoming wave is given by $$e^{- \mathrm{i}\omega v}\ .$$ Inside of the mass shell, the corresponding mode travels on a curve with constant $V$. At $r=0$ we have $U=V$ where the incoming ray $\exp(- \mathrm{i} \tilde{\omega} V)$ turns smoothly into the outgoing ray $\exp(- \mathrm{i} \tilde{\omega} U)$. At [I]{}$^+$, outgoing modes are proportional to $$e^{ -\mathrm{i}\omega' u}\ .$$ With the help of the transition functions (\[uebergang\]) we can now glue curves of constant $v$ to curves of constant $V$ and curves of constant $U$ to curves of constant $u$. Figure \[3faelle\] gives an overview of this procedure. Here we already inserted $U_0=2R_0$.
(13,4.5) (0,3.5)[$e^{-\mathrm{i}\omega v}$]{} (1,3.7)[(1,0)[1.2]{}]{} (1.2,3.9) (2.5,3.5)[$e^{-\mathrm{i}\omega \xi(V)}$]{} (4.2,3.7)[(1,0)[1]{}]{} (5.4,3.5)[$e^{-\mathrm{i}\omega \xi(U)}$]{} (7.2,3.7)[(1,0)[1.2]{}]{} (8.8,3.5)[$e^{-\mathrm{i}\omega \xi(\eta(u))}$]{} (11.2,3.5)[case (1)]{} (1,3.5)[(1,-1)[1.2]{}]{} (0.6,2.6) (2.5,2.0)[$e^{-\mathrm{i}\omega V/\sqrt{\gamma_0}}$]{} (4.2,2.2)[(1,0)[1]{}]{} (5.4,2.0)[$e^{-\mathrm{i} \omega U/\sqrt{\gamma_0}}$]{} (7.2,2.2)[(1,0)[1.2]{}]{} (7.3,2.5) (8.8,2.0)[$e^{-\mathrm{i}\omega \eta(u)/\sqrt{\gamma_0}}$]{} (11.2,2.0)[case (2)]{} (7.2,2.0)[(1,-1)[1.2]{}]{} (6.3,1.0) (7.5,0)[$e^{-\mathrm{i}\omega (u + u_0 - 2R_0/\sqrt{\gamma_0})}$]{} (11.2,0.2)[case (3)]{}
In the following we restrict our analysis to the most interesting case (1), which provides the result for the extended expansion phase of the mass shell. Case (2) is restricted to a short time after the ignition of the shell, and thus is only characteristic of the ignition phase of our problem. Its importance depends on the velocity of the shell. So we now calculate the coefficients $\beta^1_{\omega'\omega}$. We expand the outgoing modes into plane waves. The outgoing modes are functions that depend on $u$ only, and we obtain $$\Psi \simeq \frac{1}{4\pi \sqrt{2\omega}} e^{-\mathrm{i}\omega\xi_0(\eta_1(u))}
= \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} A^1_{\omega}(\omega')\frac{1}{4 \pi \sqrt{2\omega'}}
e^{-{\mathrm{i}}\omega' u} \; {\mathrm{d}}\omega' \; \; \mbox{for} \; \; u>0\ ,$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DefA1}
A^1_{\omega}(\omega') = \left\{ \begin{array}{rr}
\alpha_{\omega'\omega}^{1*} \; \; \omega' > 0 \\
{\mathrm{i}} \beta_{- \omega'\omega}^1 \; \; \omega' < 0
\end{array} \right. \;\;.\end{aligned}$$ This is a Fourier transformation, which allows us to compute the Bogoliubov coefficients without evaluatiing the scalar product (\[skpr\]). A Fourier transformation of the outgoing modes gives $$I := \sqrt{\frac{\omega}{\omega'}}A^1_{\omega}(\omega')
= \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{0}^{\infty}
e^{-{\mathrm{i}}\omega \xi_0(\eta_1(u))}
e^{{\mathrm{i}}\omega' u} \; {\mathrm{d}}u \ .$$ Using the approximations for $\xi_0(V)$ and $\eta_1(u)$, and introducing the notation $\lambda := d_0'2M(1+\nu)/(d_0^2\nu)$, we find $$I = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{0}^{\infty}
e^{-{\mathrm{i}}(\omega\frac{c_1}{d_0}-\omega')u} \left[
\frac{(R_0 - d_0'2M/d_0)(1+\nu)/\nu + c_1 u}
{(R_0 - d_0'2M/d_0)(1+\nu)/\nu}
\right]^{-\mathrm{i}\omega\lambda} \; \mathrm{d}u \ .$$ We further define $x-x_0 := c_1 u / d_0 $ and $x_0:=(R_0 -
d_0'2M/d_0)(1+\nu)/(\nu d_0)$. The transition coefficients then become $$\label{beta1}
\beta^1_{\omega'\omega} =
-\frac{1}{2\pi}\sqrt{\frac{\omega'}{\omega}}
e^{\mathrm{i}\omega_+ x_0} x_0^{\mathrm{i}\omega\lambda} \frac{d_0}{c_1}
\int_{x_0}^{\infty} x^{-\mathrm{i}\omega\lambda} e^{-\mathrm{i}\omega_+ x} \;
{\mathrm{d}}x \ ,$$ where $\omega_+ := \omega + \omega' \frac{d_0}{c_1}$.
The vacuum expectation value of the number density operator is given by $$\label{Ablx}
\int_0^{\infty}\vert\beta^1_{\omega'\omega}\vert^2 \; {\mathrm{d}}\omega' =
\frac{d_0^2}{4\pi^2 c_1^2} \int_0^{\infty} \frac{\omega'}{\omega}
\Biggl|\int_{x_0}^{\infty} e^{-\mathrm{i}\omega_+ x}
x^{-\mathrm{i}\omega \lambda} \; {\mathrm{d}}x\Biggr|^2\;{\mathrm{d}}\omega'\ .$$ This quantity is divergent and has to be regularized. First we will shift the $\omega'$-integration into the complex plane for some $\epsilon$. We do this because, for ${\rm Im}\, \omega_+ < 0$, the inner integrations are well defined and may be expressed as incomplete $\Gamma$-functions [@AS]. Further we regularize the number density with the help of a ‘frequency split’ $$\begin{aligned}
\vert \beta^1_{\omega'\omega} \vert^2 = \lim_{\omega \to \tilde{\omega}}
\beta^1_{\omega'\omega}
{\beta^1_{\tilde{\omega}\omega}}^*\ .\end{aligned}$$ Finally, we take the difference to the limit $x_0 \to 0$, which allows us to subtract the divergent part in a well defined manner. The point is that (\[Ablx\]) reduces in this limit to the expression for the number density that shows up in the Hawking effect [@Haw], $$\label{x0lim}
\lim_{x_0 \to 0}\int_0^{\infty} \vert\beta^1_{\omega'\omega}\vert^2 \;
{\mathrm{d}}\omega' = \lim_{\tilde\omega \to \omega}
\frac{\delta(\tilde\omega - \omega)}{e^{2\pi\omega\lambda}-1}\ .$$ The only difference is that $\lambda$ replaces the inverse of the surface gravity, $1/\kappa = 4 M$, that would show up in the situation of a collapsing mass shell.
As a first step we rotate the integration variable $x$ in the complex plane and obtain $$\int_0^{\infty} \vert\beta^1_{\omega'\omega}\vert^2 \; {\mathrm{d}}\omega' =
\lim_{\epsilon \to 0}
\frac{d_0^2}{4\pi^2 c_1^2} \int_{0-\mathrm{i}\epsilon}^{\infty-\mathrm{i}\epsilon}
\frac{\omega'}{\omega}
\Bigg|\int_{x_0}^{x_0-\mathrm{i}\infty} e^{-\mathrm{i}\omega_+ x}
x^{-\mathrm{i}\omega\lambda} \; {\mathrm{d}}x \; \Bigg|^2
\;{\mathrm{d}}\omega' \; .$$ Introducing $\tilde{\omega}_+ = \tilde{\omega} +
\omega' \frac{d_0}{c_1}$ and $\tilde{\omega} := \omega + \varepsilon$, we regularize the product of the inner integrations by a frequency split, $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int_0^{\infty} \vert \beta^1_{\omega'\omega} \vert^2 \; \mathrm{d}\omega' =
\lim_{\epsilon \to 0 \atop \varepsilon \to 0}
\frac{1}{4\pi^2 c_1^2} \times \nonumber \\
&&\int_{0-\mathrm{i}\epsilon}^{\infty-\mathrm{i}\epsilon}
\frac{\omega'}{\omega}
\int_{x_0}^{x_0-\mathrm{i}\infty} e^{-{\mathrm{i}} \omega_+ x}
x^{-\mathrm{i}\omega \lambda} \; {\mathrm{d}}x \;
\int_{x_0}^{x_0+\mathrm{i}\infty}
e^{\mathrm{i}\tilde{\omega}_+^* \tilde{x}}
\tilde{x}^{\mathrm{i}\tilde{\omega} \lambda} \; \mathrm{d}\tilde{x}
\;{\mathrm{d}}\omega' \; , \label{57}\end{aligned}$$ where we took the limit partially. In the first of the inner integrals we further substitute $\mathrm{i}\omega_+ x =:y$ and in the second $-\mathrm{i}\tilde{\omega}^*_+\tilde{x} =:\tilde{y}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{55}
&&\int_0^{\infty} \vert \beta^1_{\omega'\omega} \vert^2 \; \mathrm{d}\omega' =
\lim_{\epsilon \to 0 \atop \varepsilon \to 0}
\frac{1}{4\pi^2 c_1^2 \omega} e^{- \pi \omega \lambda}\times \\
&&\int_{0-\mathrm{i}\epsilon}^{\infty-\mathrm{i}\epsilon} \omega'
\frac{\omega_+^{\mathrm{i}\lambda\omega}}{\omega_+}
\frac{(\tilde{\omega}_+^*)^{-\mathrm{i}\lambda\tilde{\omega}}}
{\tilde{\omega}_+^*}
\int_{\mathrm{i}\omega_+ x_0}^{\mathrm{i}\omega_+ x_0+\infty} e^{-y}
y^{-\mathrm{i}\omega \lambda} \; {\mathrm{d}}y \;
\int_{-\mathrm{i}\tilde{\omega}_+^* x_0}^{-\mathrm{i}\tilde{\omega}_+^* x_0+
\infty} e^{-\tilde{y}}
\tilde{y}^{\mathrm{i}\tilde{\omega}\lambda} \; {\mathrm{d}}\tilde{y} \;
{\mathrm{d}}\omega' \; . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Since $$\begin{aligned}
(\omega_+^* + \varepsilon)^{-\mathrm{i}\tilde{\omega}\lambda}=
(\omega_+^*)^{-\mathrm{i}\tilde{\omega}\lambda }+O(\varepsilon) \;\;,\end{aligned}$$ and ignoring terms ${\cal O}(\varepsilon)$, we can write $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int_0^{\infty} \vert\beta^1_{\omega'\omega}\vert^2 \; {\mathrm{d}}\omega' =
\lim_{\epsilon \to 0 \atop \varepsilon \to 0}
\frac{d_0^2}{4\pi^2 c_1^2 \omega}e^{- \pi \omega \lambda}\times
\nonumber \\
&&\int_{0-{\mathrm{i}}\epsilon}^{\infty-{\mathrm{i}}\epsilon} \omega'
\omega_+^{-\mathrm{i}\lambda\varepsilon-2}
\int_{\mathrm{i}\omega_+ x_0}^{\mathrm{i}\omega_+ x_0+\infty} e^{-y}
y^{-\mathrm{i}\omega\lambda} \; {\mathrm{d}}y \;
\int_{-{\mathrm{i}}\omega_+^* x_0}^{-\mathrm{i}\omega_+^* x_0+\infty}
e^{-\tilde{y}}
\tilde{y}^{{\mathrm{i}}\omega \lambda} \;
{\mathrm{d}}\tilde{y} \;{\mathrm{d}}\omega' \; .
\label{beforesub}\end{aligned}$$
Let us now take the difference to the $x_0 \to 0$ limit (\[x0lim\]), $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int_0^{\infty} \vert\beta^1_{\omega'\omega}\vert^2 \; \mathrm{d}\omega' -
\lim_{x_0 \to 0}\int_0^{\infty} \vert\beta^1_{\omega'\omega}\vert^2 \;
{\mathrm{d}}\omega' =
\lim_{\epsilon \to 0 \atop \varepsilon \to 0}
\frac{d_0^2}{4\pi^2 c_1^2 \omega} e^{-\pi\omega\lambda}\times \nonumber \\
&&\int_{0-\mathrm{i}\epsilon}^{\infty-\mathrm{i}\epsilon} \omega'
\omega_+^{-\mathrm{i}\lambda\varepsilon - 2}
\left[\left|\int_{\mathrm{i}\omega_+ x_0}^{\mathrm{i}\omega_+ x_0+\infty}
y^{-\mathrm{i}\omega\lambda} e^{- y} \mbox{d}y \right|^2\; -
\vert \Gamma(1-\mathrm{i}\omega\lambda)\vert^2\right] \; \mbox{d}\omega' \; .\end{aligned}$$ Note that the expression inside the square bracket is well defined for all $\omega'$. We now replace the integration variable $\omega'$ by $\omega_+$, using its definition from above, and obtain (we omit $\epsilon$ and $\varepsilon$ in the discussion of the following step) $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\frac{1}{4\pi^2\omega} e^{-\pi\omega\lambda}
\left\{\int_{\omega}^{\infty} \omega_+^{- 1}
\left[\left|\int_{\mathrm{i}\omega_+ x_0}^{\mathrm{i}\omega_+x_0+\infty}
y^{-\mathrm{i}\omega\lambda} e^{-y} \mbox{d}y \; \right|^2 -
\vert\Gamma(1-\mathrm{i}\omega\lambda) \vert^2 \right] \mbox{d}\omega_+
\right.\\
&& \left. - \omega \int_{\omega }^{\infty} \omega_+^{- 2}
\left[\left|\int_{\mathrm{i}\omega_+ x_0}^{\mathrm{i}\omega_+ x_0 +\infty}
y^{-\mathrm{i}\omega\lambda} e^{- y} \mbox{d}y \; \right|^2
- \vert \Gamma(1-\mathrm{i}\omega\lambda)\vert^2 \right]
\mbox{d}\omega_+ \right\} \ .\end{aligned}$$ The second term is finite (see Appendix) and, since we expect a divergent result, we can neglect it. The first term can be written as the integral from $0$ to $\infty$ minus the integral from $0$ to $\omega$. The latter integration is finite as well, since the difference of the $\Gamma$-functions vanishes as $\omega_+ \to 0$. We are left with $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int_0^{\infty} \vert \beta^1_{\omega'\omega} \vert^2 \;
\mathrm{d}\omega' -
\lim_{x_0 \to 0}\int_0^{\infty} \vert\beta^1_{\omega'\omega}\vert^2 \;
\mathrm{d}\omega'
=
\mbox{finite} +
\frac{1}{4\pi^2 \omega} e^{-\pi\omega\lambda}\times \nonumber \\
&& \int_0^{\infty} \omega_+^{- 1}
\left[\left|\int_{\mathrm{i}\omega_+ x_0}^{\mathrm{i}\omega_+ x_0 + \infty}
y^{-\mathrm{i}\omega\lambda} e^{- y} \mbox{d}y \; \right|^2 -
\vert \Gamma(1-\mathrm{i}\omega\lambda) \vert^2 \right] \;
\mbox{d}\omega_+ \ .\end{aligned}$$ Now we neglect all finite terms and use the fact that the second term inside the square bracket is again (up to finite terms) the result of the $x_0 \to 0$ limit (\[x0lim\]). We thus see that the divergent part of (\[beforesub\]) can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int_0^{\infty} \vert \beta^1_{\omega'\omega} \vert^2 \; \mathrm{d}\omega'=
\lim_{\epsilon \to 0 \atop \varepsilon \to 0}
\frac{1}{4\pi^2 \omega} e^{-\pi\omega\lambda}\times \nonumber \\
&&\int_{0-\mathrm{i}\epsilon}^{\infty-\mathrm{i}\epsilon}
\omega_+^{-\mathrm{i}\lambda\varepsilon-1}
\int_{\mathrm{i}\omega_+ x_0}^{\mathrm{i}\omega_+ x_0 + \infty} e^{-y}
y^{-\mathrm{i}\omega \lambda} \; {\mathrm{d}}y \;
\int_{-\mathrm{i}\omega_+^* x_0}^{-\mathrm{i}\omega_+^* x_0 + \infty}
e^{-\tilde{y}}
\tilde{y}^{-\mathrm{i} \omega \lambda} \; {\mathrm{d}}\tilde{y} \;
{\mathrm{d}}\omega_+ \ .
\label{zurueck}\end{aligned}$$ For positive $\varepsilon$ we can replace the contour parallel to the positive real axis by an integration along the negative imaginary axis. Then we substitute $e^z=\mathrm{i} \frac{\omega_+}{\omega}$ and have $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int_0^{\infty} \vert \beta^1_{\omega'\omega} \vert^2 \; \mathrm{d}\omega' =
\lim_{\epsilon \to 0 \atop \varepsilon \to 0}
\frac{1}{4\pi^2 \omega} e^{-\pi\omega\lambda}\times \nonumber \\
&&\int_{\ln \left(\frac{\epsilon}{\omega}\right)}^{\infty} e^{-\mathrm{i}\lambda \varepsilon z}
\int_{x_0 \omega e^z}^{x_0 \omega e^z+\infty} y^{- \mathrm{i}\omega\lambda} e^{- y} \mbox{d}y
\; \int_{x_0 \omega e^{z*}}^{x_0 \omega e^{z*}+\infty} \tilde{y}^{\mathrm{i}\omega\lambda}
e^{- \tilde{y}}
\mbox{d}\tilde{y} \; \mbox{d} z \ .
\label{almostdone}\end{aligned}$$ We can now take the limit $\epsilon \to 0$ and see that, since the integration is along the real axis, our integral can be written as $$\int_0^{\infty} \vert \beta^1_{\omega'\omega} \vert^2 \; \mathrm{d}\omega' =
\lim_{\varepsilon \to 0}
\int_{- \infty}^{\infty} e^{-\mathrm{i}\lambda \varepsilon z} h(z)\;
\mbox{d}z\ , \label{defh}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
h(z):=\frac{e^{-\pi\omega\lambda}}{4\pi^2 \omega} \int_{x_0 \omega e^z}^{\infty}
y^{-\mathrm{i}\omega\lambda} e^{- y} \mbox{d}y \;
\int_{x_0 \omega e^z}^{\infty} \tilde{y}^{\mathrm{i}\omega\lambda} e^{- \tilde{y}}
\mbox{d}\tilde{y} \ ,\end{aligned}$$ for any complex $z$. For real $z$, as we integrate over on the r.h.s. of Eq. (\[defh\]), this yields the quantity we search for; $h(z)$ is identical to the product of the inner integrations in (\[almostdone\]) for real $z$. This function is holomorphic in $z$. It has an upper bound $B$ for any real $z$ in $[-R,R]$. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\left\vert \int_{-R}^R h(z) \mbox{d}z \right\vert \leq 2 R B \; \; ,\end{aligned}$$ and, because the function is holomorphic, $$\begin{aligned}
\left\vert \int_{\gamma^u_{R}} h(z) \mbox{d}z \right\vert \leq 2 R B\quad
\mbox{and} \quad
\left\vert \int_{\gamma^d_{R}} h(z) \mbox{d}z \right\vert \leq 2 R B \;\; ,\end{aligned}$$ where the path $\gamma^d_{R}$ is the half-circle of radius $R$ in the lower complex plane and $\gamma^u_{R}$ the half-circle of radius $R$ in the upper complex plane. From this we find $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{R \to \infty} \vert \int_{\gamma^u_{R}} \frac{h(z)}{z^2} \mbox{d}z \vert
&=& 0 \\
\lim_{R \to \infty} \vert \int_{\gamma^d_{R}} \frac{h(z)}{z^2} \mbox{d}z \vert
&=& 0 \ .\end{aligned}$$ Our integral of interest can now be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
e^{- \mathrm{i}\lambda \varepsilon z} h(z) \; \mbox{d} z =
- \frac{1}{\lambda^2} \partial^2_{\varepsilon} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
e^{- \mathrm{i}\lambda \varepsilon z}
\frac{h(z)}{z^2} \; \mbox{d} z \; \; ,\end{aligned}$$ which allows us to make use of the residue theorem. Now for $\varepsilon > 0$ we may close the contour in the lower plane. To compute the integral we shift the pole into the lower plane. This yields $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
e^{-\mathrm{i}\lambda \varepsilon z} \frac{h(z)}{z^2}
\; \mbox{d} z = - 2\pi \left( \lambda \varepsilon h + \mathrm{i} \partial_z h
\right) \Theta(\varepsilon) \ .\end{aligned}$$ With this we now get $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^{\infty} \vert \beta^1_{\omega'\omega} \vert^2 \; \mathrm{d}\omega'&=&
\lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} \frac{2\pi}{\lambda} h(0) \delta(\varepsilon) \\
&=& \lim_{\varepsilon \to 0}
\frac{e^{-\pi\omega\lambda}}{2\pi\omega\lambda}
\delta(\varepsilon) \int_{x_0 \omega }^{\infty}
y^{-\mathrm{i}\omega\lambda} e^{- y} \mbox{d}y \;
\int_{x_0 \omega }^{\infty} \tilde{y}^{\mathrm{i}\omega\lambda} e^{-\tilde{y}}
\mbox{d}\tilde{y} \ , \end{aligned}$$ with the differentiation on the $\delta$-function interpreted as $0$.[^2] If we now put all pieces together, we finally find for the vacuum expectation value of the number density operator $N(\omega)$ \[in case (1)\]: $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^{\infty} \vert \beta^1_{\omega'\omega} \vert^2 \; \mbox{d}\omega' &=&
\frac{e^{-\pi\omega \lambda}}{2\pi \lambda \omega } \delta(\varepsilon)
\vert \Gamma(1-\mathrm{i}\omega\lambda,x_0 \omega)\vert^2
\; \;
+ \mbox{finite} \nonumber \\ \label{erg1}
\Rightarrow \frac{N(\omega)}{{\bf{V}}}
&=&\frac{e^{-\pi\omega \lambda}}{2 \pi \lambda \omega }
\vert \Gamma(1-\mathrm{i}\omega\lambda,x_0 \omega)\vert^2
\; \; .\end{aligned}$$ The spectral energy flux through a 2-dimensional surface $\rho(\omega)$ then reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{energdi1}
\rho(\omega)&=& \frac{e^{-\pi\omega \lambda}\omega^2}{4\pi^3\lambda}
\vert \Gamma(1+\mathrm{i}\omega\lambda,x_0 \omega)\vert^2\; .\end{aligned}$$
We have made several assumptions, but some of them may be relaxed. First, we assumed that the velocity $\nu$ of the mass shell is constant. In a realistic scenario we would expect a high velocity at the beginning, decreasing towards a constant value (inertial motion), in contrast to a collapse where the velocity would increase. Secondly, we approximated around the space-time points that cause the maximal amount of particle production. Therefore, our result is only correct in the vicinity of $u=0$. To obtain a result for later times, we would have to approximate around other points. This gives rise to different values of the parameters $\lambda$ and $x_0$, which actually become functions of $R$ and $\nu(R)$. These functions then are \[cf. (\[d\])\]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dR}
\lambda(R) &=& \frac{2 (1+\nu) M d'}{\nu d^2}
\ \ \mbox{and} \nonumber \\
x(R) &:=& \frac{(1 + \nu) R}{\nu d} - \lambda \ ,\ \mbox{with} \nonumber \\
d'(R)&:=& \frac{\partial}{\partial
\gamma(R)} \frac{{\rm d} V}{ {\rm d} v} \bigg|_{\gamma(R)} \nonumber\\
d(R) &:=& \frac{{\rm d} V}{ {\rm d} v} \bigg|_{\gamma(R)}
+ d'(R) [1-\gamma(R)]\ , \end{aligned}$$ from which we obtain a spectral energy flux that depends on the actual radius and the actual velocity of the mass shell: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dasergebnis}
\rho(\omega,R) = \frac{e^{-\pi\omega\lambda(R)}\omega^2}
{4\pi^3\lambda(R)}
\vert \Gamma[1+{\mathrm{i}}\omega\lambda(R), x(R)]\vert^2 \; \; .\end{aligned}$$ The quality of this generalization mainly depends on the assumption that the change of velocity is small, so that $\ddot{R}$-contributions can be neglected. Should the acceleration of the mass shell get too high, the patches in which the velocity can be treated as nearly constant would get too small and effects from the boundaries would grow important.
Discussion
==========
The particle production of an expanding mass shell depends on the velocity of the mass shell $\nu$, its mass $M$, and its radius $R$. In the spectral energy flux, these three quantities enter only through the functions $\lambda(\nu,M,R)$ and $x(\nu,M,R)$. To get a feeling for the behaviour of the function $\rho(\omega)$ we will first turn to a discussion of these quantities. In Table 1 we provide the values of $\lambda$ and $x$ for some limits. The limit $\nu \to 1$ together with $R \to 2M$ reproduces Hawking’s result.
\[Limites\]
Limit $\lambda$ $x$
----------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------
$\nu \to 1$ $4M$ $2(R-2M)$
$\nu \to 0 $ $\infty$ $\infty $
$\nu \to 1 \wedge R \to 2M$ $4M$ $0$
$R \to \infty$ $\frac{(1+\nu)^2}{\nu}M$ $\infty$
$M \to 0$ $0$ $\frac{(1+\nu)}{\nu}R$
$R \to 2M$ $4M$ $0$
: Some limiting cases for the functions that enter the expression for the spectral energy flux through a 2-dimensional surface.
In the Hawking limit we have $\lambda \to \kappa$, the so-called surface gravity. Additionally $x \to 0$, and we obtain exactly the expected Planck spectrum (cf. (\[dasergebnis\])). Figures \[la\] and \[xnu\] show $1/\lambda$ as a function of $R$ for three different values of $R$ and $x$ as a function of $\nu$ for different values of $R$.
We normalize all quantities to the Schwarzschild radius $R_{\rm S} = 2M$; $1/\lambda$ decreases rapidly with decreasing velocity. As is shown below, this implies a decrease of the spectral energy flux and a shift of the maximum towards smaller frequencies as the velocity decreases; $\lambda$ is less sensitive to changes of the radius at high velocities. Particle production ceases, as expected, at large radii, because $x$ increases with large $R$ and small velocity.
The spectral energy flux
------------------------
We now study the behaviour of the spectral energy flux (\[energdi1\]) as a function of $\lambda/R_{\rm S}$ and $x/R_{\rm S}$. Figures \[Erg1\] and \[Erg2\] show $\rho(\omega)$ for different values of $x/R_{\rm S}$, and for different values of $\lambda/R_{\rm S}$ with the second parameter fixed at a representative value each time.
Let us first turn to Fig. \[Erg1\]. When $x=0$ we find a Planck spectrum with temperature $T=(2 \pi k_B \lambda )^{-1}$. For $x/R_{\rm S}>0$ the spectrum is non-thermal. It is interesting to note that in the non-equilibrium situation more hard particles and less soft particles are produced at a fixed value of $\lambda$.
In Fig. \[Erg2\] we see, as expected, that an increase in $\lambda/R_{\rm S}$ causes a shift of the maximum towards smaller frequencies. Furthermore the whole curve flattens quickly for increasing $\lambda/R_{\rm S}$.
Remember that, according to the considerations presented in the last section, an increasing radius (which changes $\lambda$ and $x$) dominates the evolution of the spectral energy flux during the expansion. This can be seen in Fig. \[Erg4\].
The energy flux
---------------
Finally we come to the emitted energy flux through a 2-dimensional surface, $\varepsilon \equiv
\int\rho(\omega){\rm d}\omega$.
In Fig. \[Gesamten\] we see the energy flux as a function of radius for different values of $\nu$. At large values of $R/R_S$ no particles are produced, since the mass shell moves inertially (the tidal forces go to zero). However, more interesting is the maximum of the curve that appears for ultra-relativistic velocities $\nu$. This reflects the fact that two effects are working against each other during the expansion. The probability of particle production depends on the strength of the tidal forces acting on the vacuum locally. The tidal forces decrease monotonically as the mass shell expands. Once particles have been created, they have to climb out of the gravitational potential well of the mass shell itself (gravitational redshift). This effect reduces the energy of the produced particles. At the Schwarzschild radius the energy would be reduced to zero. For an ultrarelativistic mass shell the tidal forces change very quickly and thus the particle production is large. Close to the Schwarzschild radius however, this is counteracted by the gravitational redshift, giving rise to a maximum slightly away from $R_{\rm S}$.
Summary
=======
We computed the spectrum of particles produced by the time-dependent gravitational field of an expanding mass shell. This system is—as long as no horizon forms—invariant under time-reversal, so that we can describe an expanding shell as well as a collapsing shell before the formation of a horizon. If the horizon is formed, the system gets quasi-static for the asymptotic observer and the effect is “frozen”. In this way we can reproduce the result of Hawking radiation.
In the situation of an expanding mass shell the spectrum is non-thermal. Our result might be of relevance for the discussion of evaporating black holes. In the situation of a collapsing mass shell, we obtain the deviations from the Planck spectrum of Hawking radiation, which is produced just before the horizon forms.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
DJS thanks the Austrian Academy of Sciences for financial support.
To show that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{beid}
\int_\omega^{\infty}\!\!\! \omega_+^{- 2}\!
\left[\int_{{\mathrm i}x_0 \omega_+}^{\mathrm{i}\omega_+x_0 + \infty}\!\!\!\!\!
\! y^{\mathrm{i}\omega\lambda} e^{-y} \mbox{d}y
\int_{- {\mathrm i}x_0\omega_+}^{-\mathrm{i}\omega_+x_0 + \infty}\!\!\!\!\!\!
\tilde{y}^{-\mathrm{i}\omega\lambda}
e^{-\tilde{y}}\mbox{d}\tilde{y}
- \vert \Gamma(1+\mathrm{i}\omega\lambda)\vert^2 \right]
\mbox{d}\omega_+\end{aligned}$$ is finite (for $\omega>0$), it is sufficient to show that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{zeig}
\left\vert
\int_{{\mathrm i}x_0\omega_+}^{\mathrm{i}\omega_+x_0 + \infty}
y^{\mathrm{i}\omega\lambda} e^{-y} \mbox{d}y \right\vert
\leq {\mbox{const.}},\end{aligned}$$ which means that it has an upper bound for $\omega_+ \to \infty$ since the second term in (\[beid\]) does not depend on $\omega_+$ anyhow. We are then left with an integral over $\omega_+^{-2}$ that is finite. If we succeed in showing that (\[zeig\]) is true, we know that the first term does not increase faster for large $\omega_+$ and therefore is finite too. It is $$\begin{aligned}
\Bigg|
\int_{{\mathrm i}x_0\omega_+}^{\mathrm{i}\omega_+x_0 + \infty} y^{\mathrm{i}\omega\lambda}
e^{-y} \mbox{d}y \Bigg| &=&
\Bigg|
\int_{{\mathrm i} x_0\omega_+}^{\mathrm{i}\omega_+x_0 + \infty}
e^{\mathrm{i}\omega\lambda\ln\vert y \vert -\omega\lambda{\mathrm{arg}}(y)}
e^{-y} \mbox{d}y \Bigg|\\
&\leq&\sup_{y \in \gamma}\Bigg|
e^{\mathrm{i}\omega\lambda\ln\vert y \vert -
\omega\lambda\mathrm{arg}(y)}\Bigg|\cdot
\Bigg|
\int_{x_0\omega_+}^{-\mathrm{i}\omega_+\infty}
e^{- y} \mbox{d}y \Bigg|\;\;,\end{aligned}$$ $\gamma$ being the path of integration in the upper right quadrant of the complex plane and therefore is $\mathrm{arg}(y) \in
\left[\frac{3}{2}\pi,2\pi\right]$ on $\gamma$. This yields $$\begin{aligned}
\Bigg|
\int_{{\mathrm i}x_0\omega_+}^{\mathrm{i}\omega_+x_0 + \infty} y^{\mathrm{i}\omega\lambda}
e^{- y} \mbox{d}y \Bigg|
&\leq&
e^{2 \pi \omega\lambda}
\Bigg|
\int_{{\mathrm i}x_0\omega_+}^{\mathrm{i}\omega_+x_0 + \infty}
e^{- y} \mbox{d}y \Bigg|\\
&=&
e^{2\pi\omega\lambda}
\Bigg| e^{-{\mathrm i}x_0\omega_+}\Bigg| \; \; .\end{aligned}$$ Putting this together we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Bigg|
\int_{\mathrm{i}x_0\omega_+}^{-\mathrm{i}\omega_+\infty}
y^{\mathrm{i}\omega\lambda}
e^{- y} \mbox{d}y \Bigg| \leq
e^{2\pi\omega\lambda} \ ,\end{aligned}$$ which shows that (\[beid\]) is finite, as claimed.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{} Hawking S W 1974 [*Nature*]{} [**248**]{} 30; id. 1975 [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} [**43**]{} 199; id. 1976 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 14**]{} 2460 Unruh W G 1976 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 14**]{} 332 Dowker J S and Kennedy G 1987 [*J. Phys. A: Gen. Phys.*]{} [**11**]{} 895; Deutsch D and Candelas R 1979 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 20**]{} 3063 Mukhanov V and Chibisov G 1981 [*JETP Lett.*]{} [**33**]{} 532; id. 1982 [*Sov. Phys. JETP*]{} [**56**]{} 258; Hawking S 1982 [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**115B**]{} 295; Starobinsky A 1982, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**117B**]{} 175; Guth A and Pi Y S 1982 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**49**]{} 1110; Brandenberger R H, Feldmann H A and Mukhanov V F 1992 [*Phys. Rep.*]{} [**215**]{} 203 Fulling S A 1989 [*Aspects of quantum field theory in curved space-time*]{} (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) Wald R M 1994 [*Quantum field theory in curved spacetime and black hole thermodynamics*]{} (Chicago: Chicago Lectures in Physics) Greiner W, Müller B and Rafelski J 1985 [*QED of strong fields*]{} (Berlin: Springer Verlag) Birell N D and Davies P C W 1982, [*Quantum fields in curved space*]{} (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) Novikov I D and Frolov V P 1998 [*Black hole physics*]{} (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers) Wheeler J A 1957 [*Ann. Phys. Rev.*]{} [**2**]{} 604 Bogolubov N N and Shirkov D V 1958 [*Sov. Phys. JETP*]{} [**7**]{} 51 Abramowitz M and Stegun I A 1972, [*Handbook of mathematical functions*]{} (New York: Dover Publications)
[^1]: After this change of the time direction the in-vacuum is defined in a different region, but the vacuum expectation value of the number density operator is still given by the same formula.
[^2]: It is an even function.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In the $2$-Machine Flow Shop problem with exact delays the operations of each job are separated by a given time lag (delay). Leung et al. (2007) established that the problem is strongly NP-hard when the delays may have at most two different values. We present further results for this case: we prove that the existence of $(1.25-\varepsilon)$-approximation implies P$=$NP and present a $2$-approximation algorithm.'
author:
- Alexander Ageev
date: |
Sobolev Institute of Mathematics\
Novosibirsk, Russia
title: 'Approximating the $2$-Machine Flow Shop Problem with Exact Delays Taking Two Values'
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
An instance of the $2$-Machine Flow Shop problem with exact delays consists of $n$ triples $(a_j, l_j, b_j)$ of nonnegative integers where $j$ is a job in the set of jobs $J=\{1,\dots , n\}$. Each job $j$ must be processed first on machine $1$ and then on machine $2$, $a_j$ and $b_j$ are the lengths of operations on machines $1$ and $2$, respectively. The operation of job $j$ on machine 2 must start exactly $l_j$ time units after the operation on machine 2 has been completed. The goal is to minimize makespan. In the standard three-field notation scheme the problem is written as $F2\;|\mbox{ exact }l_j\in \{L_1,L_2\}\;|\;C_{\max}$.
One of evident applications of scheduling problems with exact delays is chemistry manufacturing where there often may be an exact technological delay between the completion time of some operation and the initial time of the next operation. The problems with exact delays also arise in command-and-control applications in which a centralized commander distributes a set of orders (associated with the first operations) and must wait to receive responses (corresponding to the second operations) that do not conflict with any other (for more extensive discussion on the subject, see [@ESS; @SS]). Condotta [@Con] describes an application related to booking appointments of chemotherapy treatments [@Con].
The approximability of $F2\;|\mbox{ exact }l_j\in
\{L_1,L_2\}\;|\;C_{\max}$ was studied by Ageev and Kononov in [@AK]. They proved that the existence of $(1.5-\varepsilon)$-approximation algorithm implies P$=$NP and constructed a $3$-approximation algorithm. They also give a $2$-approximation algorithm for the cases when $a_j\leq b_j$ and $a_j\geq b_j$, $j\in J$. These algorithms were independently invented by Leung et al. in [@LLZ]. The case of unit processing times ($a_j=b_j=1$ for all $j\in J$) was shown to be strongly NP-hard by Yu [@Yu; @YHL]. Ageev and Baburin [@AB] gave a $1.5$-approximation algorithm for solving this case.
In this paper we consider the case when $l_j\in \{L_1,L_2\}$ for all $j\in \{1,\ldots , n\}$. In the three-field notation scheme this case can be written as $F2\;|\mbox{ exact }l_j\in
\{L_1,L_2\}\;|\;C_{\max}$. The problem was shown to be strongly NP-hard by Leung et al. [@LLZ].
Our results are the following: we prove that the existence of $(1.25-\varepsilon)$-approximation for $F2\;|\mbox{ exact }l_j\in
\{0,L\}\;|\;C_{\max}$ implies P$=$NP and present a $2$-approximation algorithm for $F2\;|\mbox{ exact }l_j\in \{L_1,L_2\}\;|\;C_{\max}$.
Inapproximability lower bound
==============================
In this section we establish the inapproximability lower bound for the case $F2\;|\mbox{ exact }l_j\in \{0,L\}\;|\;C_{\max}$, i.e., when $L_1=0$, $L_2=L$. To this end consider the following reduction from <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Partition</span> problem.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Partition</span>
\[sec:1\] [**Instance:**]{} Nonnegative integers $w_1,\ldots,w_m$ such that $\sum_{k\in X}w_k=2S$.
Does there exist a subset $X\subseteq \{1,\ldots,
m\}$ such that $ \sum_{k\in X}w_k=S$?
Consider an instance $\mathcal{I}$ of [Partition]{} and construct an instance $\mathcal{I}'$ of $F2\;|\mbox{ exact }l_j\in
\{0,L\}|\;C_{\max}$.
Set $J=\{1,\ldots ,m+6\}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
% \nonumber to remove numbering (before each equation)
a_k&=&b_k=w_k, \; l_k=2R \mbox{ for } \quad k=1,\ldots m, \\
a_{m+1} &=& b_{m+1}=R,\; l_{m+1}=0, \\
a_{m+2} &=& b_{m+2}=R, \; l_{m+2}=2R, \\
a_{m+3} &=& 0, \; b_{m+3}=R-S, \; l_{m+3}=0, \\
a_{m+4} &=& R-S, \; b_{m+4}=0,\; l_{m+4}=0,\\
a_{m+5} &=& 0, \; b_{m+5}=R, \; l_{m+5}=0, \\
a_{m+6} &=& R,\; b_{m+6}=0,\; l_{m+6}=0\end{aligned}$$ where $R>5 S$. We will refer to the jobs in $\{1,\ldots, m\}$ as *small* and to the remaining six jobs as *big*.
\[l1\]
(i)
: If $\sum_{k\in X}w_k =S$ for some subset $X\subseteq \{1,\ldots
m\}$, then there exists a feasible schedule $\sigma$ such that $C_{max}(\sigma)\leq 4R+4S$.
(ii)
: If there exists a feasible schedule $\sigma$ with $C_{max}(\sigma) \leq 4R+4S$, then $\sum_{k\in X}w_k =S$ for some set $X\subseteq \{1,\ldots m\}$.
(iii)
: If $C_{max}(\sigma) > 4R+4S$ for any feasible schedule $\sigma$, then $C_{max}(\sigma)\geq 5R-S$.
\(i) Let $X\subseteq \{1,\ldots, m\}$ such that $ \sum_{k\in
X}w_k=S$. Then $ \sum_{k\in Y}w_k=S$ where $Y=\{1,\ldots,
m\}\setminus X$.
First of all point out that the whole construction presenting a feasible schedule can be moved along the time line in both directions. So the length of the schedule is the length of the time interval between the starting time of the first operation (which is not necessarily equal to zero) and the end time of the last one.
To construct the required schedule arrange the big jobs in the order shown in Fig. 1. This construction has two idle intervals: $A$ on machine 1 and $B$ on machine 2. The interval $A$ is between the end of the first operation of job $m+1$ and the beginning of the first operation of job $m+4$. The interval $B$ is between the end of the second operation of job $m+3$ and the beginning of the second operation of job $m+1$. Both intervals have length $S$.
For scheduling the small jobs we use the following rule. Schedule the small jobs in $X$ in such a way that their first operations are executed within the time interval $A$ in non-increasing order of the lengths. Correspondingly, w.l.o.g. we may assume that $X=\{1,2,\ldots ,S\}$ and $w_1\leq w_2\leq \ldots \leq w_S$.
Denote by $A'$ the time interval between the end of the second operation of job $m+2$ and the end of the last operation of job $S$. It is easy to understand (see Fig. 2) that all the second operations of jobs $\{1,\ldots , S\}$ fall within $A'$ and the length of $A'$ is equal to $$\sum_{i=1}^Sw_i+w_1
+(w_2-w_1)+(w_3-w_2)+\ldots+(w_S-w_{S-1}),$$ which does not exceed $2S$.
Now we observe that the construction is symmetric and schedule the jobs in $Y$ quite similarly. Finally, we arrive at the schedule shown in Fig. 3. From the above argument its length does not exceed $4R+4S$, as required.
\(ii) Let $\sigma$ be a feasible schedule with $C_{max}(\sigma) \leq
4R+4S$. Observe first that in any schedule of length at most $4R+4S$ both operations of job $m+1$ are executed exactly within the lag time interval of job $m+2$, since otherwise $C_{max}(\sigma) \geq
6R$. So for these jobs we have the *initial* construction shown in Fig. 4. Denote by $t_0, t_1, t_2, t_3, t_4$ the junction times of the operations of these jobs (see Fig. 4).
\[fig4\]
Observe that the schedule $\sigma$ has the following property (Q): for any small job either its execution finishes at time not earlier than $t_1$, or its execution starts at time not later than $t_3$. It follows from the fact that otherwise the length of $\sigma$ is at least $5R$. Let $X$ be the subset of small jobs such that its execution completes at time not earlier than $t_1$. Then $Y=\{1,\ldots , m\}\setminus X$ is the subset of small jobs whose execution starts at time not later than $t_3$. For definiteness assume that $X\not= \emptyset$. This immediately implies that job $m+5$ starts executing at time not later than $t_0$. Then job $m+3$ starts executing exactly at time $t_1$, since otherwise the length of $\sigma$ is at least $5R-S$, which is greater than $4R+4S$ due to the choice of $R$ and $S$. Thus the second operations of the jobs in $X$ are executed within the interval $[t_2-S,S]$. It follows that $Y\not=\emptyset$. Moreover, a similar argument shows that the first operations of the jobs in $Y$ are executed within the interval $[t_2, t_2+S]$. Thus we have $\sum_{j\in X}{w_j}\leq S$ and $\sum_{j\in Y}{w_j}\leq S$, which implies $\sum_{j\in
X}{w_j}=\sum_{j\in Y}{w_j}=S$, as required.
\(iii) Let $\sigma$ be a feasible schedule satisfying $C_{max}(\sigma)>4R+4S$. We may assume that $\sigma$ contains the initial construction and satisfies property (Q) (see (ii)), since otherwise we are done. Let $X$ and $Y$ be defined as in (ii). From (i) it follows that $\sum_{j\in X}w_j\not=\sum_{j\in Y}w_j$. W.l.o.g. we may assume that $\sum_{j\in X}w_j>\sum_{j\in Y}w_j$, i.e., $\sum_{j\in X}w_j>S$. Then jobs $m+3$ and $m+5$ both start executing no later than time $t_0$. Since the length of the initial construction is equal to $4R$, the length of $\sigma$ is at least $4R+R-S=5R-S$ (the shortest possible configuration is shown in Fig. 5).
\[fig5\]
Set $R=kS$. Then $5R-S=S(5k-1)$. On the other hand, $4R+4S=4kS+4S=S(4k+4)$. The fraction $$\frac{5k-1}{4k+4}$$ tends to $1.25$ as $k$ tends to infinity. Thus Lemma \[l1\] implies
If the problem $F2\;|\mbox{ exact }l_j\in \{0,L\}\;|\;C_{\max}$ admits a $(1.25-\varepsilon)$-approximation algorithm, then $P=NP$.
A $2$-approximation algorithm
==============================
In this section we present a simple $2$-approximation algorithm for solving $F2\;|\mbox{ exact }l_j\in \{L_1,L_2\}\;|\;C_{\max}$.
We show first that the case when the delays are the same for all jobs ($L_1=L_2=L$) is polynomially solvable. Note that any feasible schedule $\sigma$ of an instance of $F2\;|\mbox{ exact
}l_j=L\;|\;C_{\max}$ can be associated with a feasible schedule $\sigma'$ of the corresponding instance of $F2\;|\mbox{ exact
}l_j=0\;|\;C_{\max}$ and their lengths satisfy $C_{max}(\sigma)=C_{max}(\sigma')+L$. More precisely, shifting the second operations of all jobs to the left by distance $L$ gives a feasible schedule to the problem with zero delays, and vise versa (see Fig. 6). The problem $F2\;|\mbox{ exact }l_j=0\;|\;C_{\max}$ (all delays are equal to $0$) is nothing but the 2-machine no-wait Flow Shop problem. The latter problem is known to be solvable in $O(n\log n)$ time [@GG; @GLS; @BDDVW]. Therefore the problem $F2\;|\mbox{ exact }l_j=L|\;C_{\max}$ is solvable in $O(n\log n)$ time for all $L\geq 0$.
Let $\mathcal{I}_1, \mathcal{I}_2$ be instances of $F2\;|\mbox{
exact }l_j|\;C_{\max}$ with disjoint set of jobs $J_1$ and $J_2$. Let $\sigma_k$, $k=1,2$, be feasible schedules of $\mathcal{I}_k$, respectively. Consider the instance $\mathcal{I}$ of $F2\;|\mbox{
exact }l_j|\;C_{\max}$ formed by the union of $J_1$ and $J_2$. Denote by $\sigma_1\oplus\sigma_2$ the schedule of $\mathcal{I}$ obtained from $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$ by *concatenation* of schedules $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$. More precisely, the schedule $\sigma_1\oplus\sigma_2$ first executes the jobs in $J_1$ according to the schedule $\sigma_1$ and then just after completion of the last operation starts executing the jobs in $J_2$ according to the schedule $\sigma_2$.
We now give a description of an approximation algorithm for $F2\;|\mbox{ exact }l_j\in \{L_1,L_2\}\;|\;C_{\max}$.
**Algorithm** <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Concatenation</span>
Input: An instance $\{(a_j,l_j,b_j): j\in J\}$, $l_j\in
\{L_1,L_2\}$.
Output: A feasible schedule $\sigma$.
1\. Set $J_k=\{j\in J: l_j=L_k$, $k=1,2$}. For $k=1,2$ form the instances $\mathcal{I}_k=\{(a_j,L_k, b_j): j\in J_k\}$ of $F2\;|\mbox{ exact }l_j=L\;|\;C_{\max}$.
2\. Solve the instances $\mathcal{I}_k$, $k=1,2$. Let $\sigma_k$, $k=1,2$, be optimal schedules of $\mathcal{I}_k$, respectively.
3\. Set $\sigma=\sigma_1\oplus\sigma_2$.
As mentioned above the time complexity of Step 2 is $O(n\log n)$. So the overall running time of Algorithm <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Concatenation</span> is $O(n\log n)$.
The approximation bound is derived from the following easy lemmas.
Let $C^*_{\max}$ be the length of an optimal schedule to the instance $\{(a_j,l_j,b_j): j\in J\}$, $l_j\in \{L_1,L_2\}$. Then $C_{\max}(\sigma_k)\leq C^*_{max}$ for $k=1,2$.
Let $\sigma^*$ be an optimal schedule to the instance $\{(a_j,l_j,b_j): j\in J\}$, $l_j\in \{L_1,L_2\}$. Let $\sigma'$ be a schedule obtained from $\sigma^*$ by deleting all jobs in $J_2$. Then $$C_{\max}(\sigma_1)\leq C_{\max}(\sigma')\leq
C_{\max}(\sigma^*)=C^*_{\max}.$$ A similar argument proves the statement for $k=2$.
$C_{\max}(\sigma)\leq C_{\max}(\sigma_1)+C_{\max}(\sigma_2)$.
Follows from the definition of operation $\oplus$.
From Lemmas 1 and 2 we have $$C_{\max}(\sigma)\leq 2C^*_{\max}.$$ Thus we arrive at the following
Algorithm <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Concatenation</span> runs in time $O(n\log n)$ and finds a feasible schedule of $F2\;|\mbox{ exact }l_j\in
\{L_1,L_2\}\;|\;C_{\max}$ whose length is within a factor of $2$ of the optimum.
[99]{}
A.A. Ageev and A.E. Baburin, Approximation algorithms for UET scheduling problems with exact delays. Oper. Res. Letters 35(2007), 533–540.
A.A. Ageev and A.V. Kononov, Approximation algorithms for scheduling problems with exact delays. In: Approximation and Online Algorithms: 4th International Workshop (WAOA 2006), Zurich, Switzerland, LNCS 4368 (2007), 1–14.
R.E. Burkard, V.G. Deineko, R. van Dal, J.A.A. van der Veen and G.J. Woeginger. Well-solvable special cases of the traveling salesman problem: A survey. SIAM Review, 40: 496–546, 1998.
A. Condotta, Scheduling with due dates and time lags: new theoretical results and applications. Ph.D. Thesis, 2011, The University of Leeds, School of Computing, 156 pp.
M. Elshafei, H. D. Sherali, and J.C. Smith, Radar pulse interleaving for multi-target tracking. Naval Res. Logist. 51 (2004), 79–94.
P.C. Gilmore and R.E. Gomory. Sequencing a one-state variable machine: a solvable case of the traveling salesman problem. Operations Research 12 (1964), 655–679.
P.C.Gilmore, E.L. Lawler and D.B. Shmoys. Well solved cases, in E.L. Lawler, J.K. Lenstra, A.H.G. Rinnooy Kan and D.B. Shmoys (Eds), The Traveling Salesman Problem: A Guided Tour of Combinatorial Optimization, Wiley, New York, pp. 87–143, 1986.
J. Y.-T. Leung, H. Li, and H. Zhao, Scheduling two-machine flow shops with exact delays. International Journal of Foundations of Computer Science 18 (2007), 341–359.
H. D. Sherali and J. C. Smith, Interleaving two-phased jobs on a single machine, Discrete Optimization 2 (2005), 348–361.
W. Yu, The two-machine shop problem with delays and the one-machine total tardiness problem, Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, 1996.
W. Yu, H. Hoogeveen, and J. K. Lenstra, Minimizing makespan in a two-machine flow shop with delays and unit-time operations is NP-hard. J. Sched. 7 (2004), no. 5, 333–348.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Knowing a biomolecule’s structure is inherently linked to and a prerequisite for any detailed understanding of its function. Significant effort has gone into developing technologies for structural characterization. These technologies do not directly provide 3D structures; instead they typically yield noisy and erroneous distance information between specific entities such as atoms or residues, which have to be translated into consistent 3D models.
Here we present an approach for this translation process based on maxent-stress optimization. Our new approach extends the original graph drawing method for the new application’s specifics by introducing additional constraints and confidence values as well as algorithmic components. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our approach infers structural models ([*i.e.,* ]{}sensible 3D coordinates for the molecule’s atoms) that correspond well to the distance information, can handle noisy and error-prone data, and is considerably faster than established tools. Our results promise to allow domain scientists nearly-interactive structural modeling based on distance constraints.\
**Keywords:** Distance geometry, protein structure determination, 3D graph drawing, maxent-stress optimization
author:
- Michael Wegner
- Oskar Taubert
- Alexander Schug
- Henning Meyerhenke
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
- 'references-Michael-orig.bib'
title: 'Maxent-stress Optimization of 3D Biomolecular Models'
---
Introduction
============
**Context.** Proteins are biomolecular machines that fulfill a large variety of tasks in living systems, be it as reaction catalysts, molecular sensors, immune responses, or driving muscular activity [@voet2010biochemistry]. Knowing a protein’s 3D structure is a requirement for any detailed understanding of its function, and functional or structural disorder can lead to disease. Structure resolution techniques have made strong progress in recent years: biomolecules that were inaccessible a decade ago can now be structurally resolved, as exemplified by the rapid growth of structural databases [@PDB2015]. The resolution techniques, however, do not directly provide structural information as 3D coordinates. Instead, [*e.g.,* ]{}X-ray crystallography yields a diffraction pattern which has to be translated into a structural model. Similarly, Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) techniques measure coupled atomic spins, which can be translated into pairwise distances between specific atoms. These distances are typically incomplete, [*i.e.,* ]{}not all spatially adjacent atom pairs are detected [@stothers2012carbon]. Also computational tools, such as co-evolutionary analysis of multiple-sequences alignments of protein [@schug2009; @uguzzoni2017; @ovchinnikov2017] or RNA families [@leonadis2015] can provide distance constraints between residues for biomolecular structure prediction. Conceptually, one can understand the information provided by these techniques as incomplete and erroneous parts of the complete distance matrix. **Motivation.** Our goal is to provide an efficient and effective method to compute a full structural 3D model from incomplete and/or noisy distances. For this task, physics-based approaches are computationally prohibitive. Molecular dynamics-based approaches require weeks on supercomputers [@lange2008] and stochastic global optimization techniques [@schug2003] still days on medium-sized clusters. To lower computational costs, one can use more coarse-grained force-fields [@rohl2004], yet the computations still require hours to days depending on the input size.
For interactive or nearly-interactive work, however, running times of a few seconds would be desirable. This would support a quick back-and-forth between, [*e.g.,* ]{}assigning NMR chemical shifts to determine pairwise atomic distances and follow-up structural modeling[@stothers2012carbon]. These structural models allow then, in turn, improved NMR shift assignment and a repetition of the loop until no further improvement can be found. One forgoes describing the detailed physics and finds a near-optimal solution which respects all distance constraints. Exemplary tools which solve this distance geometry problem are [@more1999] and [@martin2011]. Challenges for such tools are efficiency, solution quality, and support for variations of the original problem such as the ability to deal with noise, error, or distance intervals.
**Outline and Contribution.** In this paper we transfer a maxent-stress optimization approach from 2D graph drawing [@gansner2013] to computing a 3D model from (incomplete) distance information. We exploit the resemblance of the objective functions (see Section \[sec:prelim\]), and extend the basic model and algorithm shown in Section \[sub:maxent\] by specifics of the biological application. Our algorithmic adaptations and extensions, as well as details regarding their implementation, are presented in Section \[sec:algo-impl\].
Extensive experiments (see Section \[sec:experiments\]) reveal that our algorithm is significantly faster than other competitive algorithms; at the same time its solution quality is very often better than the results of the best competitor. In particular in our most realistic instances, we outperform our competitors (i) in terms of quality by providing more accurate structural models in (ii) consistently high agreement with reference models and requiring (iii) only about $5$-$10$% of the running time. This stays true even when provided with noisy input data. We further extend our algorithm to support a weighted problem variant that allows to specify how certain a distance interval is and obtain very promising experimental results for this setting as well. To our knowledge, our algorithm is the first to support this new variant.
Preliminaries {#sec:prelim}
=============
Problem Definition
------------------
We model a biomolecule as a graph $G = (V, E)$, where the set $V$ of $n$ vertices models the atoms and the set $E$ of $m$ edges their relations. Distance information is given separately for all pairs $\{u,v\} \in S \subseteq V \times V$ by a distance matrix $D \in \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}^{n \times n}$. For this purpose $d_{vw}$ denotes the distance between vertices $v$ and $w$—or is set to `nil` if the distance is unknown (for pairs $\notin S$). We are interested in finding an embedding of $G$ into $\mathbb{R}^3$, [*i.e.,* ]{}3D coordinates for the vertices, that respects the distances for $S$. This problem is known as (3D) *distance geometry problem* (DGP). In line with previous work, we account for inexact distance information due to measurement errors by introducing an interval in which the actual distance is contained. This modified DGP is called *interval distance geometry problem* [@liberti2014survey]:
\[Interval Distance Geometry Problem (iDGP)\] Let a simple undirected graph $G = (V,E)$, a distance interval function $d = [l,u]$ with $d: E \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^2$, and an integer $k > 0$ be given. Then determine whether there is an embedding $x : V \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^k$ such that $$\label{eq:iDGP}
\forall \{v,w\} \in E: l_{vw} \leq \lVert x_v - x_w \rVert \leq u_{vw},$$ where $l_{vw}$ and $u_{vw}$ are lower and upper bounds for the distance of the edge $\{v,w\}$.
Here and in the following, $k$ equals $3$. Then DGP is prefixed by an ’M’ for ’molecular’. Note that the (M)DGP is contained in the i(M)DGP by setting the lower and upper bound of each interval to be equal to the actual distance. Saxe [@saxe1980] showed that deciding whether a valid embedding exists (in the DGP sense) is strongly NP-complete for $k=1$ and strongly NP-hard for $k > 1$. Interestingly, the problem becomes solvable in polynomial time if all distances are given [@blumenthal1953dg; @crippen1988distance; @dong2002linear]. Since solving the decision problem (finding a valid embedding) is difficult and even not always possible, we continue by considering the embedding task as an optimization problem, to be solved by heuristics. As a measure of error, one could use the *largest distance mean error* (LDME) defined as: $$\label{eq:ldme}
\textnormal{LDME}(x) = \sqrt{\frac{1}{|E|} \sum_{ \{v,w\} \in E} \max(l_{vw} - \lVert x_v - x_w \rVert, \lVert x_v - x_w \rVert - u_{vw} , 0)^2}.$$ An embedding $x$ that has an LDME value of $0$ is obviously a solution of the iDGP as each distance constraint is met. One could thus minimize the LDME of the embedding found.
To be closer to the actual biophysical application and real-world data, we actually use the *root mean square deviation* ([RMSD]{}) to *evaluate* our solutions. The [RMSD]{}compares the embedding against a reference structure: $$\label{eq:rmsd}
\textnormal{{RMSD\xspace}}(x, x') = \min \sqrt{\frac{1}{|V|} \sum_{v \in V} \lVert x_v - x'_v \rVert^2},$$ with $x_v$ and $x_v'$ being the coordinates of the embedding and the reference structure, respectively. The minimum value is over all possible spatial translations and rotations of both superimposed structures. [RMSD]{}values $<1.5$Å approach the structure resolution limit of experimental wet-lab techniques (NMR and X-ray) [@voet2010biochemistry]. While error functions that test the capability of the algorithm to match the constraints can be useful from an optimization point of view, a good value does not necessarily mean that the embedding reproduces the molecular structure. In particular, the algorithm must be able to handle noisy and erroneous data. In the end, the structure must also be physically meaningful. The [RMSD]{}addresses this challenge and is a standard measure of (dis)similarity in structural molecular biology by directly assessing the usefulness in a real-life scenario[@voet2010biochemistry]. We will therefore rely on the [RMSD]{}to compare algorithms.
Related Work {#sub:rel-work}
------------
There exist many algorithms for solving the MDGP optimization problem. Yet, for most algorithms the required running time is either very high or the solution quality is in the meantime rather low. Also, some algorithms currently do not support iMDGP—which limits their use in a real-world scenario. Due to space constraints the description of related work focuses on two tools, and , which we use in our experimental comparison as they are publicly available and established in the distance geometry research community – cf. a book on distance geometry edited by Mucherino [*et al.*]{} [@mucherino2012distance] and an even more recent survey by the same authors [@liberti2014survey]. Mentioned running times (in seconds) are based on experimental data in previous works and are thus not necessarily completely comparable. For a broader overview we refer to the aforementioned book and survey.
Liberti [*et al.*]{} [@liberti2014survey] found in their survey from 2014 that general-purpose global optimization solvers like Octave’s *fsolve* or spatial branch-and-bound techniques are not able to solve the problem for more than 10 vertices in a reasonable amount of time. One reason is that the objective function has a large number of local minima.
Moré and Wu [@more1997] implemented an algorithm called [^1] that transforms the objective function gradually into a smoother function that approximates the original function and has fewer local minima. The algorithm builds a hierarchy of increasingly smooth functions by iteratively applying a transformation. In a next step, employs Newton’s method as a local optimization on the smoothest function and then traces this solution back to the original objective function, applying a local optimization on each level. Liberti [*et al.*]{}state that the algorithm “has several advantages: it is efficient, effective for small-to-medium-sized instances, and, more importantly, can be naturally extended to solve iMDGP instances” [@liberti2014survey p. 23]. On the downside, on large-scale instances the solution quality decreases (while the running time remains reasonable). An et al. [@an2003large; @an2003solving] use a different continuation approach which improves the solution quality compared to . In their experiments the running time of their algorithm for proteins larger than atoms lies between and s. The double variable neighborhood search with smoothing (DVS) algorithm by Liberti et al. [@liberti2009double] combines the ideas of and variable neighborhood search into one algorithm. In their comparison to the quality of DVS was significantly better, but the running time two orders of magnitude slower already for small inputs.
Biswas [*et al.*]{} [@biswas2008distributed] proposed the DAFGL algorithm that decomposes the graph into clusters by running the symmetric reverse Cuthill-McKee algorithm on the distance matrix. The subproblems are solved with a semidefinite programming (SDP) formulation. DAFGL is capable of solving the iMDGP. While its solution quality are mostly reasonable, one has to consider that as much as 70% of distances smaller than 6 were provided with added noise. Also, larger instances increase the running time rapidly. The two largest molecules (PDB: 1toa and 1mqq, see Table \[tab:proteins\]) took already s and s with only modest to poor solution quality ([RMSD]{}: $3.2$Å and $9.8$Å) to solve, even though the algorithm makes use of a distributed SDP solver. Leung and Toh [@leung2009sdp] proposed the [^2] algorithm that is an advancement to the DAFGL algorithm by Biswas [*et al.*]{} [@biswas2008distributed]. If the problem is small enough, solves the problem with an SDP approach and refines the obtained solution with regularized gradient descent. Otherwise, splits the graph into two subgraphs and solves the problem recursively. uses the symmetric reverse Cuthill-McKee algorithm to cluster the vertices initially. In a second step tries to minimize the edge cut between different subgraphs by placing a vertex $v$ into the subgraph where most of its neighbors are placed. The algorithm puts some vertices in both subgraphs (overlapping atoms) to later stitch the two embedded subgraphs together. Its authors tested also in the iMDGP setting ([*i.e.,* ]{}supports inexact distances). The results indicate that is able to compute the structure of proteins with very sparse distance data and high noise in s for a protein having atoms. Fang and Toh [@fang2013using] presented some enhancements to for the iMDGP setting by incorporating knowledge about molecule conformations to improve the robustness of . Their experiments show that their changes indeed lead to better solutions (about 50–70%) with the cost of increased running times (also about 50–70%).
MaxEnt-Stress Optimization {#sub:maxent}
--------------------------
We aim at developing an algorithm for iMDGP (and its extension wiMDGP, see Section \[sub:algo-wiMDGP\]) with a significantly lower running time than previous algorithms and with solutions of good quality. Our main idea is to use an objective function proposed by Gansner [*et al.*]{} [@gansner2013] for planar graph drawing, called maxent-stress (short for *maximal entropy stress*). As the name suggests, it is composed of two parts, a stress part that penalizes deviations from the prescribed distances (with a quadratic penalty, possibly weighted) and an entropy part that penalizes vertices for getting too close to each other (atoms cannot overlap):
$$\label{eq:maxent-stress}
\min_x \sum_{vw \in S} \omega_{vw} (\lVert x_v - x_w \rVert - d_{vw})^2 \; - \alpha H(x),$$
where $H(x) = -\operatorname{sgn}(q) \sum_{vw \notin S} \lVert x_v - x_w \rVert ^{-q}, q > -2$, is the entropy term, $\omega_{vw}$ a weighting factor for edge $\{v,w\}$, $\alpha \geq 0$ a user-defined control parameter, and $\operatorname{sgn}(q)$ the signum function with the special case that $sgn(0) = 1$.
To minimize function (\[eq:maxent-stress\]), Gansner [*et al.*]{} [@gansner2013] derive a solution from successively solving Laplacian linear systems of the form $Lx=b$ for $x$. A noteworthy feature of this successive iteration towards a local minimum is that the solution of the current iteration depends on the solution of the previous iteration, since the current right-hand side is computed from the solution in the previous iteration. Note that the computation of distances between vertex pairs not in $S$ is not required for function (\[eq:maxent-stress\]). Instead, vertex pairs not in $S$ are related to each other via the entropy term, which enters the right-hand side, too. If the parameter $q$ is set to be smaller than zero, the entropy term of vertex $u$ acts as a sum of attractive forces on $u$. Conversely, the term acts as a sum of repulsive forces if $q$ is larger than zero. The Gansner [*et al.*]{}algorithm typically needs several iterations to converge. In this process the entropy weighting factor $\alpha$ has a strong influence in the maxent-stress model: a high value will cause the vertices to expand into space indefinitely while a low value will cause no entropy influence. The maxent-stress algorithm therefore starts with $\alpha = 1$ and gradually reduces this value to $\alpha = 0.008$ with a rate of $0.3$. For each value of $\alpha$, a maximum of 50 linear system solves are performed and Gansner [*et al.*]{}set $q$ to $0$ except when the graph has more than 30% degree-1 vertices (then $q \gets 0.8$). Note that in this entropy context they assume $\Vert x \Vert^0 = \ln \Vert x \Vert$. If the relative difference $\lVert x' - x \rVert / \lVert x \rVert$ between two successive solutions $x$ and $x'$ is below $0.001$, the algorithm is terminated.
More implementation details ([*e.g.,* ]{}the approximation of the entropy term in case of $|S| \in {\mathcal{O}(n)}$) can be found in Section \[sec:impl\].
New Algorithm and its Implementation {#sec:algo-impl}
====================================
Now we describe the adaptations made to the generic maxent-stress algorithm in order to deal with iMDGP and an extension called wiMDGP. For more technical details we refer the interested reader to our code[^3].
Adapting the Maxent-stress Algorithm for iMDGP
----------------------------------------------
Recall that for iMDGP we are given a graph $G = (V, E)$ and the distance intervals $d = [l,u] : E \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}^2$. We then want to find an embedding $x: V \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^3$ that respects the intervals as well as possible. Note that, in line with previous work, we assume the set $S$ of known distances to be equal to $E$ here. We also assume the edges in $E$ to be unweighted.
As Gansner [*et al.*]{}’s maxent-stress algorithm [@gansner2013] cannot cope with intervals, we solve the iMDGP by first running our implementation of the maxent-stress algorithm with an adapted distance $d' : E \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ that is defined by $d'_{vw} \coloneqq (l_{vw} + u_{vw}) / 2$. One might expect that, in the resulting embedding, the distances should be roughly in the middle of their interval. This would already be a valid solution to the iMDGP. However, our preliminary experiments show that the output of the maxent-stress algorithm still violates distance constraints even on smaller graphs if called this way. We therefore apply local optimizations to the layout computed by the maxent-stress algorithm. One optimization is based on simulated annealing, while the other is a simple local optimization algorithm.
#### Optimization of the Embedding with Simulated Annealing. {#optimization-of-the-embedding-with-simulated-annealing. .unnumbered}
Simulated annealing (SA) is a well-known metaheuristic that can escape local optima by probabilistically (based on a temperature parameter) accepting neighbor solutions that are worse than the current one, see [*e.g.*]{}Talbi [@Talbi:2009:MDI:1718024].
Our SA algorithm is sketched as Algorithm \[alg:sa\_optimizer\] in Appendix \[sub:sa-alg\]. The SA metaheuristic is often especially powerful if the initial solution is randomly chosen and can then jump between local minima. In our setting we receive an embedding from the maxent-stress algorithm as input; its global structure should be already quite good and only some of the given distances are not in their desired intervals. Therefore, our SA algorithm is only used to overcome rather narrow local minima instead of jumping to a completely different solution.
The constants in Algorithm \[alg:sa\_optimizer\] have been manually chosen in informal experiments. The outermost loop breaks after a certain number of unsuccessful improvement attempts or if the temperature is really low. The second loop iterates until an equilibrium [w. r. t. ]{}the current temperature is reached—here controlled by the number of iterations and modifications. As we do not want to get completely different solutions for reasons mentioned above, we choose a low start temperature and decrease it rather quickly.
Within the innermost loop a new neighbor solution is computed. In fact, we use parallelism here to reduce the running time of the algorithm. While this can lead to some data races if the position of a vertex is altered by more than one thread, we did not experience any significant decrease in quality. The number of total iterations, steps with no improvement and the number of modifications are all chosen rather small to keep the running time low.
The main ingredients of the innermost loop are (i) the local error criterion, (ii) the local optimizer that computes a neighbor solution, and (iii) the acceptance function.
We define $\text{error}_{vw}(x)$ as $\text{error}_{vw}(x) \coloneqq \max \{ l_{vw} - \lVert x_v - x_w \rVert, \lVert x_v - x_w \rVert - u_{vw} , 0\}^2.
$ and the local error of an edge $\{v,w\}$ as: $$\text{localError}(\{v,w\}, x) \coloneqq \text{error}_{vw}(x) + \sum_{\mathclap{u \in N(v) \setminus \{w\}}} \text{error}_{vw}(x) + \sum_{\mathclap{u \in N(w) \setminus \{v\}}} \text{error}_{uw}(x),$$ where $N(v)$ denotes the neighborhood ([*i.e.*]{}the set of incident vertices) of $v$.
In each iteration a new neighbor solution is computed for an edge $\{v,w\}$. To this end, we apply a force-based approach that takes the edge lengths to their neighbors and the edge length of $\{v,w\}$ into account. The idea is to model the local system similarly to the spring embedder model [@eades1984] and the force-directed algorithm by Fruchterman and Reingold [@fruchterman1991]. The difference to those algorithms is that we have to deal with an interval for the length of an edge. In our local force optimization step, we only change the positions of $v$ and $w$ while keeping adjacent vertices fixed.
We say an edge $\{v,w\}$ is *violating* its distance constraint if the error$_{vw}(x)$ is larger than $10^{-9}$ (and not exactly 0 due to numerical reasons). In our spring model only the violating edges account for a repulsive or attractive force, while the other edges do not take part in the force calculation. In our model each spring has its equilibrium state in an interval that corresponds to the interval of the respective edge it models.
For an optimization on edge $\{v,w\}$, the forces acting on $v$ and $w$ are a combination of attractive and repulsive forces: $f(v) \coloneqq f_{rep}(v) + f_{attr}(v)$ and $f(w) \coloneqq f_{rep}(w) + f_{attr}(w)$. The repulsive and attractive forces for a vertex $v$ are defined as $f_{rep}(v) \coloneqq \sum_{w \in N_{rep}(v)} (x_v - x_w) \cdot \frac{l_{wv}^2}{\lVert x_w - x_v \rVert^2}$ and $f_{attr}(v) \coloneqq \sum_{w \in N_{attr}(v)} (x_w - x_v) \cdot \frac{u_{wv}^2}{\lVert x_w - x_v \rVert^2},$ where $N_{rep}(v) \subseteq N(v)$ is the set of neighbors of $v$ that are too close to $v$ ([*i.e.,* ]{}the edge is shorter than its lower bound) and $N_{attr}(v) \subseteq N(v)$ is the set of neighbors of $v$ that are too far away ([*i.e.,* ]{}the edge is longer than its upper bound).
Finally, the acceptance function always accepts improving changes. Error-increasing changes are probabilistically accepted according to the Boltzmann distribution based on the local error (as in many cases [@Talbi:2009:MDI:1718024]).
#### A Simple Local Optimization Algorithm. {#a-simple-local-optimization-algorithm. .unnumbered}
In addition to our SA optimization algorithm, we propose another simple local optimization algorithm. During one iteration the algorithm sorts the edges by their error ([*i.e.,* ]{}the deviation from the edge’s given distance interval) in descending order. For an edge $\{v,w\}$ having a length that is not in the given distance interval, the algorithm either prolongates or shortens the edge length such that it is exactly as long as the upper or lower bound given by the distance interval, respectively. We only accept the change if we reduce the local edge error. If we change the length of an edge $\{v,w\}$, we lock the other incident edges of $v$ and $w$ for the remainder of the current iteration to prevent an oscillating effect. We perform a maximum of iterations or less if there is no improvement between two successive iterations. Pseudocode of the method is shown as Algorithm \[alg:simple-local\] in Appendix \[sub:simple-local\].
Intervals with Confidence Values: wiMDGP {#sub:algo-wiMDGP}
----------------------------------------
Some distances can be measured more accurately than others in common biomolecular experimental methods. To account for this, we add a confidence to each interval. Such a confidence states how certain it is that the actual distance is contained in this interval, leading us to the following problem definition:
\[Weighted Interval Distance Geometry (Optimization) Problem (wiDGP)\] Let a simple undirected graph $G = (V,E)$, a distance interval function $d = [l,u]$, a confidence function $p: E \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, and an integer $k > 0$ be given. Then minimize the following function: $$\label{eq:icDGOP}
\sum_{\{v,w\} \in E} \omega_{vw} \cdot \text{error}_{\{v, w\}}(x),$$ where the weight $\omega_{vw}$ depends on the edge’s confidence value $c_{vw}$.
In order to support wiMDGP, we adapt the maxent-stress algorithm as well as the other two optimization algorithms. For wiMDGP we can use the weights $\omega_{vw}$ from Eq. (\[eq:maxent-stress\]), the maxent-stress optimization problem, as a penalty that increases the error of an edge if the confidence that the distance lies in the interval is high. After some manual parameter tuning, we have chosen the following function to define the weighting factors: $\omega_{vw} \coloneqq 1 + 5\exp^{-5 (1 - c_{vw})},$ where $c_{vw}$ denotes the confidence for edge $\{v,w\}$. This way, the weight of an edge is roughly in the interval $[1, 6]$ and increases rapidly between A confidence between $0$ and $0.6$ only tells us that we cannot be very certain about the distance and thus, the error term should not vary too much. For higher confidence values, we can be quite certain that the distance interval is correct, so we need to penalize the errors of such edges significantly higher. Choosing a larger interval for the weights turned out not to be beneficial in terms of solution quality in preliminary experiments.
Both our SA and simple local optimization algorithm use an adapted error function for an edge that includes the weighting function above. In our simple local optimizer, we additionally change the sorting of the edges such that edges with higher confidence are considered first. Confidence ties are broken by choosing the edge with larger error first.
Implementation Details {#sec:impl}
----------------------
##### Initial layout. {#initial-layout. .unnumbered}
For computing the initial layout, we implemented three algorithms. In addition to PivotMDS [@brandes], which was used by Gansner [*et al.*]{} [@gansner2013], these are two random vertex placement algorithms. The first one is a very simple method and places the coordinates randomly in a $k$-dimensional hypercube with predefined side length. The second one does include some of the distance information provided by the input. Given an edge $\{v,w\}$ and the coordinates of vertex $v$, we place $w$ at the boundary of a $k$-dimensional hypersphere with radius $d_{vw}$ and centered at $v$. The algorithm needs a start vertex with given coordinates, as neighbors will be placed around it. We choose the vertex with maximum degree in the graph; this way, the highest number of neighbors is placed in random directions around the start vertex, which should lead to better spatial spread.
Finally, PivotMDS is an approximation algorithm for multidimensional scaling that is based on sampling; for a detailed description the reader is referred to Brandes and Pich [@brandes].
Preliminary experiments indicated that PivotMDS and the random hypersphere approach fare similarly well. Since PivotMDS turned out to be more robust in terms of solution quality when applied to protein instances, we use it in all the following experiments. Its slower speed is more than outweighed by the more expensive maxent-stress algorithm.
##### Approximating the entropy term. {#approximating-the-entropy-term. .unnumbered}
The entropy term in Eq. (\[eq:maxent-stress\]) iterates over all elements not in $S$. As the set $S$ is usually sparse, this computation would thus require quadratic running time. Thus, it is important to approximate the distances required for the entropy calculations. We implemented both the well-known Barnes-Hut approximation (also used by Gansner [*et al.*]{}) as well as well-separated pair decomposition (WSPD) [@callahan1995].
Additionally, we evaluate the entropy lazily: instead of computing the entropy term in each iteration, we recompute it only when the function $\lfloor 5 \log i\rfloor$ changes, where $i$ is the iteration number. We expect the entropy term to significantly change more frequently at the beginning of a new iteration; thus, we use a function that causes the algorithm to recompute the entropy more often at lower iteration numbers. Lipp [*et al.*]{} [@lipp2015] use the same function for reducing the running time of their WSPD algorithm. This “lazy” computation of the entropy term significantly reduces the running time while the quality does not deteriorate much.
##### Solving the Laplacian linear systems. {#solving-the-laplacian-linear-systems. .unnumbered}
Recall that Gansner [*et al.*]{}derived an iteration of subsequent Laplacian linear systems for optimizing maxent-stress. They use the conjugate gradient method (CG) as a Laplacian solver in their implementation. The conjugate gradient method has superlinear time complexity. That is why we use lean algebraic multigrid (LAMG) instead, a fast solver proposed by Livne and Brandt [@livne2012] with linear empirical running time. We use our C++ implementation of LAMG; it is available in NetworKit and has been used for other Laplacian graph problems before [@DBLP:conf/siamcsc/BergaminiWLM16]. An alternative multilevel approach for solving the linear systems exists [@meyerhenke2015], but is harder to adapt to the present scenario.
##### Optimization Workflow. {#optimization-workflow. .unnumbered}
We combine our two optimization algorithms into one workflow: the solution found by the SA algorithm can often be further improved by a subsequent run of our simple local optimization algorithm. Sometimes it happens that the SA algorithm only finds a slightly worse solution compared to the maxent-stress algorithm. In this case we ignore the SA solution and only run the simple optimization algorithm.
Experiments {#sec:experiments}
===========
In this section we present a representative subset of our experiments and their results. To this end, we implemented our algorithm in C++ based on NetworKit [@staudtSM14], an open-source toolkit for graph algorithms and in particular interactive large-scale network analysis. We call our algorithm (for **M**axent-stress **O**ptimization of **Bi**omolecular models) and compare it with [@more1997] (C/Fortran code) and [@leung2009sdp] (compiled Matlab code), two of the very few publicly available established tools that can handle inexact inputs with intervals.
All experiments are done on a machine that has 256 GB of main memory and 2 sockets, each equipped with an 8-core Intel Xeon CPU E5-2680 clocked at 2.7 GHz (hyperthreading enabled). We compile our code with g++ version 4.8.1 and OpenMP 3.1. The MATLAB version installed on the system is MATLAB R2015a (8.5.0.197613) 64-bit.
Instances {#sub:exp-settings}
---------
To test the accuracy and efficiency of our approach in a real-world setting, we work on 10 proteins of different sizes [@berman2000] taken from the protein data bank (PDB) [@PDB2015], see Table \[tab:proteins\]. These proteins range from small globular proteins with 50 amino acids to large proteins with about 700 amino acids. We only consider *ATOM* entries in the file, which provide atomic coordinates. Also, we only work on the first chain in the case of multiple protein chains. Based on the coordinates of a protein, we can construct an instance for the various distance geometry problems. For each experiment we actually create three instances per protein ([*i.e.,* ]{}different contact distance information) to eliminate effects of particularly good/bad sets of input data. Also, each instance ([*i.e.,* ]{}same contact distance information) is re-run three times to eliminate stochasticity effects. The displayed data per protein are averaged over these three instances and three respective runs.
Protein \# atom/ vertices \# residues bond edges contact edges
--------- ------------------- ------------- ------------ ---------------
1ptq 402 50 412 3987
1lfb 641 78 654 6320
1gpv 735 87 696 7208
1f39 767 101 788 7621
1ax8 1003 130 1016 10527
1rgs 2015 264 2053 20731
1toa 2138 277 2181 23168
1kdh 2846 356 2904 30655
1bpm 3671 481 3744 41027
1mqq 5510 675 5665 62396
: Proteins for distance geometry benchmarks and their basic properties [@berman2000]. Listed are the protein data bank (PDB) code [@PDB2015], and the size in atoms (vertices), amino acid residues, the number of edges equivalent to covalent bonds (= bonds edges) and the number of edges with atoms closer to each other than 5Å without being a covalent bond (= contact edges). []{data-label="tab:proteins"}
We use a percentage $p$ of all atom distances $\{v,w\} \in \binom{V}{2}$ for which $d_{vw} = \lVert x_v - x_w \rVert$ is below a cut-off distance of 5 Å, where $x$ denotes the coordinates from the protein file. We use 5 Å because this approximates the distance that can be determined by NMR experiments [@wuthrich1990; @stothers2012carbon] and since it is a typical cutoff in determining so-called contact maps ([*i.e.*]{}binary matrices that store only adjacencies whose length is below the cutoff) [@schug2010; @noel2013]. To construct an instance for iMDGP, we introduce the interval $[d_{vw} - \underline{\epsilon}, d_{vw} + \overline{\epsilon}]$, where $\underline{\epsilon}, \overline{\epsilon} = d_{vw} \cdot \mathcal{N}(0, \sigma^2)$ and $\sigma$ is the standard deviation. We denote instances created this way as instances.
In contrast, the more closely reflects standard NMR experiments by taking protein biochemistry into account. As all covalent bonds of a protein are known, instances can be assumed to have full knowledge of exact distances for these bonds: Chemically, the length of covalent bonds fluctuates very little, hence the interval for these bonds edges $\{v,w\}$ consists of a single distance $[d_{vw}, d_{vw}]$. In addition to the distance information of the bonds, we add more distances the same way as for constructing a instance.
Results & Discussion {#sub:exp-results}
--------------------
To quantify the structure determination quality of the different approaches, we compare them by [RMSD]{}. For the test instances, we observe low [RMSD]{}for and , while performs significantly worse (cf. Tables \[tab:t50\_0.1\] and \[tab:t30\_0.1\] as well as Table \[tab:t70\_0.1\] in Appendix \[sub:add-exp\]). As expected, the [RMSD]{}gets higher if less distance information is provided (the instances in Tables \[tab:t50\_0.1\] and \[tab:t30\_0.1\] provide only 50% and 30% of the contact edges, respectively, while the instances in Table \[tab:t70\_0.1\] provide 70%). The [RMSD]{}values do not increase, as one might expect *a priori*, necessarily with instance size (number of atoms/ vertices). Instead, these instances have more edges, which might make the embedding computationally more demanding but also of good quality. Indeed, and yield good embeddings regardless of system size. performs worse for larger systems. Also, is more consistent than and performs best in nearly all instances, in particular for those with less information (cf. instances 1gpv and 1rgs in Table \[tab:t30\_0.1\]). Similarly, the running times of are about an order of magnitude faster than and , with being slightly faster than . There is an overall trend of increased running times with system size, but some instances seem particular hard to compute ([*e.g.*]{}instances 1gpv, 1rgs, and 1toa in Table \[tab:t30\_0.1\]). Gaussian noise on the intervals does not significantly alter the results: given a relatively high amount of distance information, and produce embeddings of very high quality with [RMSD]{}$< 1$Å (see Tables \[tab:t70\_0.1\], \[tab:t70\_0.01\] and \[tab:t70\_0.001\] in Appendix \[sub:add-exp\]). It should be noted, though, that in Table \[tab:t70\_0.01\] yields the majority of best results in terms of solution quality—but is usually not far behind.
For the instances, we display the results only for (and show the same respective trends as above) as a heatmap in Figure \[heatmap\_bonds\]. For very low amounts of additional distance information (1-2%) in addition to the bonds, is unable to provide high-quality embeddings as displayed by [RMSD]{}values $> 5$Å. When provided as little as 8-12% distance information in addition to the bonds, the structure determination quality becomes below $3$Å [RMSD]{}, [*i.e.,* ]{}it approaches the wet-lab resolution. Interestingly, the amount of Gaussian noise does not strongly influence the embedding quality. Exemplary structure embeddings are displayed in Figures \[1mqq\] and \[1ptq\] in Appendix \[sub:add-exp\]. While the overall quality appears good here as well, one can see that most structural errors are found at the surface, where fewer edges are available.
The experimental results for are shown in Table \[tab:wiMDGP-t50\] in Appendix \[sec:add-exp-wiMDGP\]. As these instances cannot be directly compared against other cases, we merely report that produces high quality solutions, typically with [RMSD]{}$<1.0$Å and comparable running times to the other instances with . To truly assess the use of this implementation on real-world data, one would have to work on curated wet-lab experimental data [@wuthrich1990; @voet2010biochemistry] or co-evolutionary signals [@schug2009]. This is clearly outside the scope of this paper.
Overall, in particular for limited and noisy distance information, provides consistently embeddings with higher quality and does so at significantly lower running times than both and . On average (geometric means over quotients for each of the Tables \[tab:t50\_0.1\] to \[tab:t70\_0.001\]), is between x and x faster than . At the same time its RMSD values are on average % to % better—except for Table \[tab:t70\_0.01\], where is % better. is not competitive in terms of solution quality and also x to x slower.
For instances and very high amounts of distance information, the embeddings provide [RMSD]{}$<1$Å, which is below the typical resolution of NMR or X-ray [@voet2010biochemistry]; even providing only $p=30\%$ leads to high quality embeddings. Both and perform considerably better than older algorithms such as[@biswas2008distributed], where some [RMSD]{}$>5$Å were reported. In the more realistic scenario of instances with all bond edges provided, only few contact edges (8-12%) can already lead to high quality embeddings with . Thus, we are confident that our algorithm will lead to improved interpretation of wet-lab experiments in particular in cases with sparse data, such as sparse NMR experiments.
--------- ------ -- ------ ------ -- --
Protein
1ptq **** ****
1lfb **** ****
1gpv **** ****
1f39 **** ****
1ax8 **** ****
1rgs **** ****
1kdh **** ****
1toa **** ****
1bpm **** ****
1mqq **** ****
--------- ------ -- ------ ------ -- --
: Performance results on $50\%$ $\sigma=0.1$ instances. Best results in bold font.[]{data-label="tab:t50_0.1"}
--------- ------ -- -- ------ -- --
Protein
1ptq **** ****
1lfb **** ****
1gpv **** ****
1f39 **** ****
1ax8 **** ****
1rgs **** ****
1toa **** ****
1kdh **** ****
1bpm **** ****
1mqq **** ****
--------- ------ -- -- ------ -- --
: Performance results on $30\%$ $\sigma=0.1$ instances. Best results in bold font.[]{data-label="tab:t30_0.1"}
![Quality results for bonds-iDGP instances. The horizontal axis shows the amount of contact edges in addition to bond edges provided, the vertical axis varies the $\sigma$ of Gaussian noise.[]{data-label="heatmap_bonds"}](1ptq-eps-converted-to){width="\textwidth"}
![Quality results for bonds-iDGP instances. The horizontal axis shows the amount of contact edges in addition to bond edges provided, the vertical axis varies the $\sigma$ of Gaussian noise.[]{data-label="heatmap_bonds"}](1f39-eps-converted-to){width="\textwidth"}
![Quality results for bonds-iDGP instances. The horizontal axis shows the amount of contact edges in addition to bond edges provided, the vertical axis varies the $\sigma$ of Gaussian noise.[]{data-label="heatmap_bonds"}](1bpm-eps-converted-to){width="\textwidth"}
![Quality results for bonds-iDGP instances. The horizontal axis shows the amount of contact edges in addition to bond edges provided, the vertical axis varies the $\sigma$ of Gaussian noise.[]{data-label="heatmap_bonds"}](1mqq-eps-converted-to){width="\textwidth"}
Conclusions {#sec:concl}
===========
This paper provides a significant step towards nearly-interactive protein structure determination. To this end, we implemented the maxent-stress algorithm [@gansner2013] and incorporated first of all a faster Laplacian solver. Based on this implementation we extended the graph drawing algorithm to handle distance geometry problems where the distances are either exact or come in the form of intervals, optionally with some confidence. Comparing our algorithm with two publicly available competitors shows that we are able to significantly outperform both of them in terms of running time, while usually providing embeddings with higher quality. For the more realistic bonds-iDGP instances, our algorithm is able to compute high quality protein structures with limited and noisy information. Most errors can be found at the surface of the proteins, where only few edges can guide the optimization process.
While some related work can provide even higher solution quality ([*e.g.*]{} [@fang2013using]), it can only do so at the expense of an enormous increase in running time. The strength of our work is the combination of low running time, good and consistent solution quality, and genericity.
The evaluation of our algorithm on real-world instances whose distance matrices are derived from chemical bonds and real NMR experiments is ongoing and shows very promising results, too. In the future it also seems promising to use our algorithm for bootstrapping more sophisticated and thus more expensive algorithms for protein structure determination (such as refining the resulting structures in physics-based force fields similar to [@schug2009; @dago2012]). Moreover, further improvements of the resulting structures could be achieved by re-weighting edges by their density; such an approach would consider surfaces more strongly.
\
**Acknowledgments.** The work by MW and HM was partially supported by grant ME 3619/3-1 within German Research Foundation (DFG) Priority Programme 1736. AS acknowledges support by the *Helmholtz Impuls- und Vernetzungsfonds* and a Google Research Award. HM and AS acknowledge support by KIT’s Young Investigator Network YIN. The authors thank Michael Kovermann (University of Konstanz) for fruitful discussions.
Appendix
========
Pseudocode of Simulated Annealing Algorithm {#sub:sa-alg}
-------------------------------------------
$x' \leftarrow x$ $\leftarrow 0.3$ $x'$
Pseudocode of Simple Local Optimizer {#sub:simple-local}
------------------------------------
$x' \leftarrow x$ $x'$
Additional Experimental Results for iMDGP {#sub:add-exp}
-----------------------------------------
--------- ------ -- -- ------ -- --
Protein
1ptq **** ****
1bpm **** ****
1lfb **** ****
1toa **** ****
1gpv **** ****
1rgs **** ****
1f39 **** ****
1ax8 **** ****
1kdh **** ****
1mqq **** ****
--------- ------ -- -- ------ -- --
: Performance results on $70\%$ $\sigma=0.1$ instances. Best results in bold font.[]{data-label="tab:t70_0.1"}
--------- ------ -- ------ ------ -- --
Protein
1ptq **** ****
1bpm **** ****
1lfb **** ****
1toa **** ****
1gpv **** ****
1rgs **** ****
1f39 **** ****
1ax8 **** ****
1kdh **** ****
1mqq **** ****
--------- ------ -- ------ ------ -- --
: Performance results on $70\%$ $\sigma=0.01$ instances. Best results (before rounding) in bold font.[]{data-label="tab:t70_0.01"}
--------- ------ -- ------ ------ -- --
Protein
1ptq **** ****
1bpm **** ****
1lfb **** ****
1toa **** ****
1gpv **** ****
1rgs **** ****
1f39 **** ****
1ax8 **** ****
1kdh **** ****
1mqq **** ****
--------- ------ -- ------ ------ -- --
: Performance results on $70\%$ $\sigma=0.001$ instances. Best results (before rounding) in bold font.[]{data-label="tab:t70_0.001"}
Experimental Results for wiMDGP with {#sec:add-exp-wiMDGP}
-------------------------------------
In order to construct the instances, we perform the same procedure as for with $50\%$ contact edges. For these contact edges, however, weights and interval bounds are modified into three groups: $25\%$ randomly chosen are considered certain and assigned interval bound of $\pm 0.1$ Å and $c_{vw}=1$, $50\%$ randomly chosen are considered of intermediate confidence and assigned interval bounds of $\sigma=0.1$ and $c_{vw}=0.75$, and the last $25\%$ randomly chosen are considered uncertain and assigned $\sigma=0.5$ and $c_{vw}=0.5$.
Protein [RMSD]{} / Å time / s
--------- -------------- -----------
1ptq
1lfb
1ax8
1f39
1gpv
1rgs
1kdh
1bpm
1toa
1mqq
: Performance results on wiMPGP instance (bonds + re-weighted $50\%$ contact-edges: $25\%$ $c_{vw}=1$, $\Delta=0.1$Å , $50\%$ $c_{vw}=0.75$, $\sigma=0.1$ ,$25\%$ $c_{vw}=0.5$, $\sigma=0.5$) []{data-label="tab:wiMDGP-t50"}
[^1]: publicly available at <http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~more/dgsol/> (accessed on April 4, 2017)
[^2]: publicly available at <http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/~mattohkc/disco.html> (accessed on April 4, 2017)
[^3]: <https://algohub.iti.kit.edu/parco/NetworKit/NetworKit-MaxentStress>, main source folder `networkit/cpp/viz`. An updated standalone version is planned to be published in the future.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We investigate the low loss acoustic motion of superfluid $^4$He parametrically coupled to a very low loss, superconducting Nb, TE$_{011}$ microwave resonator, forming a gram-scale, sideband resolved, optomechanical system. We demonstrate the detection of a series of acoustic modes with quality factors as high as $7\cdot 10^6$. At higher temperatures, the lowest dissipation modes are limited by an intrinsic three phonon process. Acoustic quality factors approaching $10^{11}$ may be possible in isotopically purified samples at temperatures below 10 mK. A system of this type may be utilized to study macroscopic quantized motion and as an ultra-sensitive sensor of extremely weak displacements and forces, such as continuous gravity wave sources.'
author:
- 'L. A. De Lorenzo'
- 'K. C. Schwab'
bibliography:
- 'sf\_res\_bib\_v21.bib'
title: 'Superfluid Optomechanics: Coupling of a Superfluid to a Superconducting Condensate'
---
Introduction
============
The study of the detection of motion at quantum mechanical limits has received great attention over the past 35 years[@braginsky1985; @Schwab2005; @Aspelmeyer2012] with much of the early thoughts and efforts focused on the engineering of very large-scale, ultra-sensitive gravitational wave antennas. Given the recent success to prepare nano- and micron-scale mechanical structures at quantum limits,[@LaHaye2004; @Teufel2011; @Safavi2012] it is intriguing to consider what is required to accomplish quantum behavior with larger objects.
When considering such experiments, a key parameter which becomes apparent is the coupling rate to dissipative thermal environments which sets the timescale for energy decay, decoherence times[@zurek1992], lifetimes of number states, limits of cooling to the ground state[@Roucheleau2009], position sensitivity[@hertzberg2009], and force sensitivity. Furthermore, fascinating experiments have recently been accomplished with small quantum condensates of atomic vapors coupled to optical resonators.[@Murch2008; @Purdy2010] In light of this, superfluid $^{4}$He, a condensate which can easily be prepared in macroscopic quantities and demonstrates frictionless motion at zero-frequency[@reppy1964], is an intriguing material to consider for the study of quantized macroscopic motion[@Aspelmeyer2012] and quantized mechanical fields.[@Larraza1998]
Acoustic dissipation of first sound of superfluid $^4$He is a very well studied and understood process.[@chase1955; @waters1967; @abraham1968] For temperatures below 0.5 K, the attenuation is due to non-linearities in the compressibility of liquid helium, which couples the low frequency acoustic mode with thermal phonons, and leads to an acoustic attenuation length of:[@abraham1968] $$\alpha = \frac{\pi^3}{60} \frac{\left(G+1\right)^{2} }{\rho_{4} \hbar^3 c_{4}^{6}} \left(k_{B}T\right)^{4}\omega$$ where $G=\left(\rho/c\right)\partial c / \partial \rho=2.84$ is the Grüneisen’s parameter,[@Abraham1970] $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant, $\rho=145$ kg/m$^{3}$, $\hbar$ is the Planck constant, $c_4=238$ m/s is the speed of sound,[@Abraham1970] $\omega$ is the frequency of the acoustic wave, and $T$ is the temperature. Assuming a sample temperature of 10 mK this leads to an acoustic quality factor of $Q=5\cdot10^{10}$, which would exceed the highest recorded mechanical quality factors[@mcguigan1978; @bagdasarov1977; @goryachev2012] of $10^{9}$. A 5 kHz acoustic mode in this condition would have an extraordinary number state lifetime of $\tau_N=\hbar Q/(k_B T)\approx 36$ s.
{width=".8\textwidth"}
A parametric system is formed when low frequency mechanical motion modulates a higher frequency electromagnetic resonance: an optical cavity with a mechanical resonator as a mirror, or a microwave cavity coupled to a mechanical element are prototypical examples of parametric opto-mechanical systems.[@Aspelmeyer2012] In this work, we couple the acoustic motion of superfluid $^{4}$He to a microwave resonance through the modulation of the density and resulting modulation of the permittivity. We find[@DeLorenzo2013] that the change in the resonant microwave frequency due to an acoustic wave with pressure amplitude P is: $$\frac{\partial \omega_{C}}{\partial P} = - \frac{\omega_{C} \kappa_{He}}{6} \left( \epsilon_{R} + 2 \right) \left(\epsilon_{R} -1 \right) \Omega$$ where $\omega_C$ is the microwave cavity frequency, $\kappa_{He}=1.2\cdot 10^{-7}$ Pa$^{-1}$ and $\epsilon_R=1.057$ are the compressibility and relative permittivity of liquid helium. $\Omega$ is the geometric coupling between the acoustic wave and the energy stored in the microwave field: $$\Omega=\frac{ \int f \left( r, \theta, z \right) \left|E \left( r, \theta, z \right)\right|^{2} \,dV }{ \int \epsilon_{R} \left|E\left( r, \theta, z \right)\right|^{2} \,dV }$$ where $P\cdot f\left(r,\theta,z\right)$ and $E \left( r, \theta, z \right)$ are the spatial functions of the pressure field of the acoustic mode and electric field of the microwave mode. For the TE$_{011}$ mode coupled to the acoustic mode at 10138 Hz (see Fig. 1), we compute $\Omega = -.083$.
The coupling between the motion of the helium and the microwave field is relatively weak in comparison to nano- and micro-scale optomechanical realizations: the single quanta frequency shift is given by $\frac{\partial \omega_{C}}{\partial P} \Delta P_{SQL}=3.3\cdot 10^{-8}$ where $\Delta P_{SQL}=\sqrt{\hbar \omega/(\kappa_{He} V_{eff})} =2\cdot 10^{-9}$ Pa is the amplitude of the zero point fluctuations of the acoustic field, $V_{eff}=19.5$ cm$^3$ is the effective volume of the acoustic mode and $\omega=2\pi\cdot 10$ kHz.[@DeLorenzo2013] However, as a result of the extremely low levels of dissipation of the microwave resonator and the very low dielectric loss of the helium ($\epsilon^{''}<10^{-10}$)[@hartung2006], we do expect to be able to pump this system sufficiently hard to detect the acoustic field at the Standard Quantum Limit (SQL).[@DeLorenzo2013] Furthermore, mechanical coupling between the superfluid and the Nb cell is also expected to be weak given the large difference in speeds of sound ($c_{Nb}= 3480$m/s): the lowest acoustic resonance of the helium is lower in frequency than the lowest vibrational mode of the Nb cell. In addition, Nb has been shown to be an excellent mechanical material at low temperatures (Q of $4\cdot 10^7$ at 50 mK at kHz[@duffy1994]). Finite element analysis shows that only $\approx4\cdot10^{-4}$ of the acoustic energy resides in the Nb cell with the superfluid excited at the 6020 Hz acoustic resonance (Fig. 1b,) limiting[@DeLorenzo2013] the quality factor of the acoustic helium mode to $10^{11}$. Other designs utilizing very low loss dielectric materials such as sapphire are also possible and under development.[@DeLorenzo2013]
Our superconducting cavity resonator (SCR) is formed from a billet of superconductivity-grade Nb[@ATIWahChang] which is machined into cylindrical cavity with internal dimension: 1.78 cm radius and 3.95 cm length ( Fig 1a.) After machining, the Nb pieces were polished and etched in acid (HF:HNO$_3$:HPO$_3$::1:1:2) for 40 min which removed approximately $100\mbox{ }\mu$m of material.[@Padamsee2009]
Microwaves are coupled through loops recessed into the lid. Measurements at 1.7 K show a TE$_{011}$ resonance of 10.89 GHz (10.60 GHz when filled with He) with an internal loss rate of $\kappa_{int}=(2\pi)\cdot 31$ Hz. After characterizing the SCR, we increased the coupling to $\kappa_{in}=\kappa_{out}=(2\pi)\cdot 633$ Hz, enabling sideband resolution for kilo-hertz acoustic modes. The SCR is coupled to the mixing chamber of the dilution refrigerator (base temperature of 5.5mK) with two copper brackets.
The cell is filled at 4.0 K through a 0.5 mm ID capillary with normal isotopic purity $^4$He. As the cell is cooled below 1K, the helium undergoes a substantial thermal contraction ($\Delta \rho/\rho=0.13$), which lowers the free surface of the liquid helium into a 7.4 cm$^3$ volume placed at the mixing chamber, before the SRC. This avoids the heat load into both the helium and the refrigerator from a filled capillary. The remaining heat load from the helium film in the capillary limits the base-temperature of the refrigerator to 33 mK. The superfluid cools through the walls of the SRC with a thermal time constant expected to be $\sim 10^3$ seconds, which is anticipated to be largely temperature independent.[@Lounasmaa1974] Future work will include the addition of a low temperature valve[@Sprague1998] to the fill-line which will avoid both the heat flow and acoustic coupling into the superfluid cell.
![a) shows the free decay of the helium acoustic resonance at 12,201 Hz, demonstrating a quality factor of $7\cdot 10^6$. b) shows the measured quality factors for a number of the lowest frequency acoustic modes, versus refrigerator temperature, where modes with a radial node are shown as filled symbols, and modes without are shown is unfilled. The blue line shows the dissipation expected from 3-phonon process (Eq.1), and the red line shows the dissipation expected from $^3$He impurities at a concentration of $10^{-6}$.[]{data-label="fig2"}](figure2_v10small.pdf){width=".9\linewidth"}
We pump the parametric system with a microwave source, red-detuned from the SRC resonance and measure the up-converted sideband appearing at the cavity frequency[@Roucheleau2009] due to the acoustic motion which is stimulated with a piezoelectric transducer attached near the SRC. We find a series of acoustic resonances within 1% of the expected frequencies for a right cylindrical resonator. We measure the quality factor by recording the undriven, free decay. Figure 2a show such a trace for a 12,201 Hz mode demonstrating a Q of $7\cdot 10^{6}$. Figure 2b shows the measured quality factors for a number of the acoustic modes versus temperature.
For the highest Q acoustic modes, the Q approximately follows the dissipation rate versus temperature due to the expected 3-phonon process (Eq.1), but eventually saturates below 100 mK. At this point we do not have a clear understanding of this saturation or the difference in Q between the modes: from Eq. 1 we would expect the Q to be frequency independent. It is interesting to note that the higher Q modes have a pressure node near the location of the fill line (radial node), suggesting that the acoustic loss into the fill line may be dominating the dissipation of lower Q resonances. As the frequency approaches the first acoustic mode of the niobium cell (15 kHz), the helium acoustic resonances become more difficult to isolate, and the Q’s start to degrade. Above 15 kHz, some modes are extremely low Q ($Q<10^{3}$). We have also estimated the dissipation due to $^3$He impurities[@DeLorenzo2013] and show this on Fig. 2a. We believe the highest Q acoustic modes are not yet limited by this effect, which will scale as $\omega^{2}$ and is inconsistent with our data. We have obtained a sample of isotopically purified helium[@mcclintock1978] (concentration of $^3$He is $10^{-10}$ that of $^4$He), to mitigate this effect in future experiments.
The measurement shown in Fig. 2a are realized with a microwave pump strength producing $n_p = 4.5\cdot10^{8}$ microwave photons inside the SRC, leading to a dissipation in the SRC of 0.6 pW, and in the helium itself of $<20$ fW. At 100 mK (10 mK), this would lead to an increase of the temperature of the helium of 1 nK (1 $\mu$K). This low level of heating allows for the application of large amplitude microwave signals until the sensitivity is limited by the phase noise of the microwave sources. With our lowest phase noise source (Agilent E8257D-$\mathcal{L}\left( 10 kHz\right)=-110 db_c/Hz$) and a 10 kHz, $Q=3\cdot 10^6$ acoustic resonance, the pressure resolution is $3\cdot 10^{-3}$ Pa, which corresponds to a noise temperature of $1.5\cdot 10^6$ K. Utilizing a sapphire cryogenic reference, a much lower phase noise source is possible: $\mathcal{L}\left( 10 kHz\right)=-156 db_c/Hz$[@Woode1996]. This source combined with a Q=55M SRC as a filter cavity would yield a detection noise temperature of 10 mK with $n_P = 5\cdot10^{13}$. Realizing an acoustic Q of $5\cdot10^{10}$ would allow for detection near the SQL (noise temperature of $2 \cdot 10^{-7}$ K) and sideband cooling of the acoustic mode.[@Roucheleau2009]
The possibility to produce an extremely sensitive inertial sensor can be understood through the following estimate. Suppose the helium acoustic resonance is modeled as a simple mass-spring system contained inside the Nb cavity, where $m=5.7$ g is the mass of the superfluid and $k=m\omega^2=10^7$ N/m. The thermal motion of this system at 100 mK is $x_{th}=\left(k_bT/(m\omega^2)\right)^2=2\cdot10^{-16}$ m. If one drove this system by shaking the Nb cavity at the acoustic resonance, with an amplitude $x_0$, the motion of the helium would be $x=Q\cdot x_0$. Turning this expression around, and assuming both our current device parameters (10 kHz, $Q=3\cdot10^6$, 100 mK) and that the detection is limited by the thermal noise of the acoustic field, we would expect a displacement sensitivity of the Nb container to be $8 \cdot 10^{-23}$ m; assuming 10 mK and $Q=10^{11}$, we expect sensitivity to motion of the outside container of $x_0=x_{th}/Q=8 \cdot 10^{-28}$ m.
This remarkable level of sensitivity would correspond to a strain sensitivity of $h\approx 2 \cdot 10^{-26}$ assuming our current device geometry. This level of strain is below the level predicted for rapidly spinning pulsars.[@Abbott2008; @Press1972] Although this extreme sensitivity would only be obtained around the narrow acoustic resonance, it is possible to tune the acoustic resonance by as much as 50% by pressurizing and modifying the speed of sound of the helium.[@Atkins1953; @Abraham1970] This frequency control could also enable parametric amplification techniques which could both preamplify weak signals and provide sensitive detection at frequencies other than the resonant acoustic frequency.
We would like to acknowledge helpful conversations with Rana Adhikari. We acknowledge funding provided by the Institute for Quantum Information and Matter, an NSF Physics Frontiers Center(NSF IQIM-1125565) with support of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (GBMF-1250) NSF DGE-1144469, NSF DMR-1052647, and DARPA-QUANTUM HR0011-10-1-0066.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Let $E/\mathbb{Q}$ be a number field of degree $n$. We show that if $\operatorname{Reg}(E)\ll_n |\operatorname{Disc}(E)|^{1/4}$ then the fraction of class group characters for which the Hecke $L$-function does not vanish at the central point is $\gg_{n,\varepsilon} |\operatorname{Disc}(E)|^{-1/4-\varepsilon}$.
The proof is an interplay between almost equidistribution of Eisenstein periods over the toral packet in $\mathbf{PGL}_n(\mathbb{Z})\backslash\mathbf{PGL}_n(\mathbb{R})$ associated to the maximal order of $E$, and the escape of mass of the torus orbit associated to the trivial ideal class.
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA'
- 'School of Mathematics, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA'
author:
- Ilya Khayutin
bibliography:
- 'non\_vanishing\_bib.bib'
title: 'Non-vanishing of Class Group $L$-functions for Number Fields with a Small Regulator'
---
Introduction
============
Our main result is the following theorem.
\[thm:main\] Let $E/\mathbb{Q}$ be a number field of degree $n$. Denote by $D$ its discriminant, by $R$ the regulator of its ring of integers and by $h$ the class number. For every class group character $\chi\in \widehat{{\mathrm{Cl}}(E)}$ let $L(s,\chi)$ be the associated Hecke $L$-function.
Fix a real number $1/2\leq s<1$. There are effectively computable constants $A,B>0$ that depends only on $s,n$ such that for every $1/2>\varepsilon>0$ $$h^{-1}\#\left\{\chi \in \widehat{{\mathrm{Cl}}(E)} \mid L(s,\chi)\neq 0 \right\}
\geq |D|^{-(1-s+\varepsilon)/2} \left(A-B \frac{R}{|D|^{s/2}}\right) \varepsilon^n\;.$$
The most interesting point is of course $s=1/2$ as GRH would imply non-vanishing of $L(s,\chi)$ at $1/2<s<1$ for all $\chi$. Fröhlich [@Frohlich] has demonstrated that the Dedekind zeta function actually vanishes at the central point for infinitely many number fields. Duke [@DukeLarge] has constructed for each $n$ an infinite family of degree $n$ totally real $S_n$ number fields such that $R\ll (\log |D|)^{(n-1)}$.
There is a very rich literature about non-vanishing of $L$-functions at the central point for several families of $L$-functions. In this exposition we restrict our discussion to class group $L$-functions and closely related families. Blomer [@Blomer] has established a very strong result for the family of class group $L$-functions of imaginary quadratic fields. He is able to demonstrate non-vanishing for a large fraction of the class group characters, $\gg \varphi(|D|)/|D|$, whenever $|D|\gg 1$. Theorem \[thm:main\] provides significantly weaker results for imaginary quadratic fields but it covers class group $L$-functions of any degree. In the conductor aspect, Balasubramanian and Murty [@BalasubramanianMurty] established that a positive proportion of Dirichlet $L$-function of prime conductor $q\gg 1$ do not vanish at the central point. Soundararajan [@SoundNonVanishing] has established that a positive proportion of Dedekind zeta functions of real quadratic fields do not vanish at the central point. Methodologically, the work of Michel and Venkatesh [@MichelVenkatesh] about non-vanishing of quadratic twists for automorphic $\mathbf{GL}_2$ $L$-functions is the closest to ours.
We remark that predictions about the behavior of $L$-function at the central point can be often deduced from random matrix theory heuristics [@KatzSarnak; @SarnakShinTemplier; @ShankarSodergrenTemplier]. Moreover, the non-vanishing phenomena is related to deep questions in analytic number theory, such as the existence of Landau-Siegel zeros [@IwaniecSarnak] and spectral gap for automorphic representations [@LuoRudnickSarnakI; @LuoRudnickSarnakII].
Three aspects of Theorem \[thm:main\] stand out. The first is that the result is valid for number fields of any degree. The second is that we allow relatively large regulators. In particular, whenever $R=o(|D|^{1/4})$ Theorem \[thm:main\] provides new non-vanishing results at the central point $s=1/2$. Finally, the non-vanishing fraction depends only on the discriminant and the regulator, and does not depend on the shape of the unit lattice. Specifically, we do not need to assume that the number field $E$ has no non-trivial subfields of a small regulator. The latter assumption is needed in the course of the proof of [@ELMVPeriodic Theorem 1.10] which is conceptually related to our method. Finally, it is worth mentioning that the constants $A,B$ are completely effective, and do not depend on Siegel’s bound, cf. [@Blomer] where the lower bound for $|D|$ is ineffective.
Subconvexity
------------
Some improvements of the lower bound in Theorem \[thm:main\] for $s=1/2$ are easily achievable.
1. Using the weak subconvexity bound of Soundararajan [@Sound] we can deduce a lower bound with a logarithmic improvement for all number fields $$h^{-1}\#\left\{\chi \in \widehat{{\mathrm{Cl}}(E)} \mid L(1/2,\chi)\neq 0 \right\} \gg_{n,\varepsilon} |D|^{-1/4}(\log |D|)^{1-\varepsilon}\left(A-B \frac{R}{|D|^{1/4}}\right)\;.$$
2. Whenever there is $\delta>0$ such that a subconvex bound in the discriminant aspect $$|L(1/2,\chi)| \ll_{n,\varepsilon} |D|^{(1/2-\delta+\varepsilon)/2}$$ is known, we can improve the lower bound to $$h^{-1}\#\left\{\chi \in \widehat{{\mathrm{Cl}}(E)} \mid L(1/2,\chi)\neq 0 \right\} \gg_{n,\varepsilon} |D|^{-(1/2-\delta+\varepsilon)/2} \left(A-B \frac{R}{|D|^{1/4}}\right)\;.$$ The Grand Lindelöf Hypothesis would provide the optimal $\delta=1/2$. A non-trivial $\delta>0$ is known unconditionally for abelian fields $E$ using the Burgess bound [@BurgessII] and for cubic fields using the convexity breaking results of Duke, Friedlander and Iwaniec [@DFI] and Blomer, Harcos, Michel [@BHM].
Method of Proof
---------------
To study the Hecke $L$-function at the critical strip we follow Hecke’s original method [@Hecke]. That is, we represent the $L$-function as an integral of a spherical degenerate Eisenstein series $E(\bullet,s)\colon{\mathchoice{
\settototalheight{\faktorheight}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{PGL}_n(\mathbb{Z})}} \raisebox{-0.5\faktorheight}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{PGL}_n(\mathbb{Z})}} \backslash
\settototalheight{\faktorheight}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{PGL}_n(\mathbb{R})}} \raisebox{0.5\faktorheight}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{PGL}_n(\mathbb{R})}}}
{
\ensuremath{\mathbf{PGL}_n(\mathbb{Z})}
\backslash
\ensuremath{\mathbf{PGL}_n(\mathbb{R})}
}
{\let\GenerateWarning=\errmessage}
{\let\GenerateWarning=\errmessage}
}\to\mathbb{C}$ along a collection of periodic torus orbits. This spherical Eisenstein series coincides with Epstein zeta function of the associated quadratic form. The definition and properties of the Epstein zeta function are reviewed in §\[sec:Epstein-cusp\].
Our strategy is most closely related to the methods of Michel and Venkatesh [@MichelVenkatesh] who study non-vanishing at the central point for quadratic twists of $\mathbf{GL}_2$ automorphic $L$-functions. They provide two tools to establish non-vanishing in a family, either using effective equidistribution of a packet of Heegner points on the modular curve, or using the escape of mass of a portion of the packet that contains the trivial ideal class. Unfortunately, in higher rank we do not know unconditionally an effective equidistribution result of the analogues toral packets nor do we know that a large enough portion of the mass escapes to infinity, even for small regulators. Instead, we observe that combining very weak versions of both statement *together* is sufficient to establishing the non-vanishing theorem. The equidistribution statement is weakened to the convexity bound of Hecke $L$-functions. It is supplemented with a good control on the mass that the single orbit of the trivial ideal class element spends high in the cusp.
In section §\[sec:periods\] we construct a maximal torus $H<\mathbf{PGL}_n(\mathbb{R})$ from a fixed degree $n$ number field $E$ and an algebra isomorphism $\iota\colon E\otimes \mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}^{r_1}\times \mathbb{C}^{r_2}=\mathbb{R}^n$. Every fractional ideal $\Lambda \subset E$ gives rise to a periodic $H$-orbit which we denote by $\tensor[^\iota]{\Lambda}{}H\subset {\mathchoice{
\settototalheight{\faktorheight}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{PGL}_n(\mathbb{Z})}} \raisebox{-0.5\faktorheight}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{PGL}_n(\mathbb{Z})}} \backslash
\settototalheight{\faktorheight}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{PGL}_n(\mathbb{R})}} \raisebox{0.5\faktorheight}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{PGL}_n(\mathbb{R})}}}
{
\ensuremath{\mathbf{PGL}_n(\mathbb{Z})}
\backslash
\ensuremath{\mathbf{PGL}_n(\mathbb{R})}
}
{\let\GenerateWarning=\errmessage}
{\let\GenerateWarning=\errmessage}
}$, cf. [@ELMVPeriodic]. This periodic orbit depends only on the ideal class of $\Lambda$. We recall these classical definitions as well in §\[sec:periods\]. Fix $1/2\leq s < 1$ and define the function $Z\colon {\mathrm{Cl}}(E)\to\mathbb{C}$ $$Z(\Lambda)\coloneqq\int_{[H]} E^*(\tensor[^\iota]{\Lambda}{}h,ns) {\,\mathrm{d}}^\times h\;,$$ where $E^*(g,\rho)\coloneqq \pi^{-\rho/2}\Gamma\left(\frac{\rho}{2}\right) E(g,\rho)$ is the completed Epstein zeta function and the integration is with respect to the $H$-periodic measure of volume $1$. Hecke’s period formula, cf. Theorem \[thm:Hecke-period\], expresses this integral in terms of a completed partial Dedekind zeta function $$Z(\Lambda)=\frac{w}{2^{r_1} n R} \zeta^*_{\Lambda}(s)\;.$$ whose definition we recall in \[defi:partial-dedekind\]. The Fourier coefficient of this function coincides with the completed $L$-function of the class group character $$\hat{Z}(\chi)=\frac{w}{2^{r_1} n h R} L^*(s,\chi)$$ for any $\chi\in\widehat{{\mathrm{Cl}}(E)}$.
In Theorem \[thm:Epstein-cusp\] we establish a good lower bound on the Epstein zeta function high in the cusp using an approximate functional equation. This lower bound and the fact that the lattice $\iota(\mathcal{O}_E)\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ contains the short vector $(1,\ldots,1)$ are used in the proof of the key statement of this manuscript – Proposition \[prop:Z(O)-bound\]. This proposition states that there are effectively computable constants $A_1,B_0>0$ such that $$Z(\mathcal{O}_E) \geq \frac{A_1|D|^{s/2}-B_0 R}{R}$$ The proof of this result also uses a trick where the unit lattice is approximated by the lattice spanned by vectors realizing its successive minima. This allows us to remove the dependence on the shape of the unit lattice.
Without further ado we establish Theorem assuming this result and using the following elementary lemma.
\[lem:non-vanishing\] Let $C$ be a finite abelian group. For every function $f\colon C\to\mathbb{C}$ define $$\operatorname{NV}(f)\coloneqq\left\{\chi \in \widehat{C} \mid \hat{f}(\chi)\neq 0 \right\}\;.$$ Then $$\#\operatorname{NV}(f) \geq \frac{\|f\|_\infty}{\|\hat{f}\|_\infty}\;.$$
Fix $c\in C$ where $|f|$ attains its maximum. Then $$\|f\|_\infty=\left|\sum_{x\in\operatorname{NV}(f)} \hat{f}(\chi) \chi(c)\right|\leq \|\hat{f}\|_\infty \left|\operatorname{NV}(f)\right|$$
We apply Lemma \[lem:non-vanishing\] above to the function $Z\colon {\mathrm{Cl}}(E)\to\mathbb{C}$. Proposition \[prop:Z(O)-bound\] provides the necessary lower bound on $\|Z\|_\infty$. We need only an appropriate upper-bound on $|\hat{Z}(\chi)|$ for any class-group character $\chi$. Recall the convexity bound for Hecke $L$-functions of class group characters, cf. [@Rademacher]. For every $0<\varepsilon<1/2$ and $1/2\leq s < 1$ $$|L(s,\chi)|\ll_s |D|^{(1-s+\varepsilon)/2} \zeta(1+\varepsilon)^n\Longrightarrow |\hat{Z}(\chi)|\ll_{s,n} \frac{|D|^{(1+\varepsilon)/2}}{hR}\zeta(1+\varepsilon)^n \ll_n \frac{|D|^{(1+\varepsilon)/2}}{hR} \varepsilon^{-n}$$ Dividing the lower bound from Proposition \[prop:Z(O)-bound\] by the convexity upper bound implies the claimed theorem.
The convexity bound should be understood as an almost-equidistributiom statement for periods of degenerate Eisenstein series over toral packets. Indeed, any subconvex improvement in the discriminant aspect over the convexity bound would imply the equidistribution of any degenerate pseudo-Eisenstein series. If $n$ is a prime then such a subconvexity bound can be bootstrapped using the method of Einsiedler, Lindenstrauss, Michel and Venkatesh [@ELMVCubic] to equidistribution of any compactly supported continuous function.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
---------------
I wish to deeply thank Peter Sarnak, Vesselin Dimitrov and Elon Lindenstrauss for very fruitful discussions about this topic. I am grateful to Valentin Blomer for helpful and insightful comments regarding a previous version of this manuscript.
The growth of the Epstein zeta function in the cusp {#sec:Epstein-cusp}
===================================================
Define the degenerate spherical Eisenstein series with complex parameter $s$ and $g\in\mathbf{GL}_n(\mathbb{R})$ $$E\left(g,s\right)=\frac{1}{2}|{\operatorname{det}}g|^{s/n} \sum_{0\neq \mathrm{v}\in \mathbb{Z}^n} \|\mathrm{v} g \|_2^{-s}\;.$$
This function coincides with the Epstein zeta function[^1] of the quadratic form with Gram matrix $g\cdot \tensor[^t]{g}{}$. The series converges absolutely for $\Re s>n$ and can be analytically continued to a meromorphic function of $s\in \mathbb{C}$. The unique pole of $E\left(g,s\right)$ is at $s=n$. This pole is simple with residue[^2] $$\operatorname{Res}_{s=n}E\left(g,s\right)=
\frac{\pi^{n/2}}{\Gamma(n/2)}$$ The constant on the right is half the surface area of the $(n-1)$-dimensional unit sphere. Notice that it does not depend on $g$.
We have normalized $E(g,s)$ using the determinant to make it a well-defined function on ${\mathchoice{
\settototalheight{\faktorheight}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{PGL}_n(\mathbb{Z})}} \raisebox{-0.5\faktorheight}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{PGL}_n(\mathbb{Z})}} \backslash
\settototalheight{\faktorheight}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{PGL}_n(\mathbb{R})}} \raisebox{0.5\faktorheight}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{PGL}_n(\mathbb{R})}}}
{
\ensuremath{\mathbf{PGL}_n(\mathbb{Z})}
\backslash
\ensuremath{\mathbf{PGL}_n(\mathbb{R})}
}
{\let\GenerateWarning=\errmessage}
{\let\GenerateWarning=\errmessage}
}$.
We will also make use of a completed version of $E(g,s)$ defined as $$E^*(g,s)=\pi^{-s/2}\Gamma\left(\frac{s}{2}\right) E(g,s)\;.$$
The functional equation [@Epstein], cf. [@ELMVCubic Proposition 10.2], is especially simple for the completed Eisenstein series $$E^*(g,n-s)=E^*(\tensor[^t]{g}{^{-1}},s)$$ It follows that $E^*(g,s)$ is holomorphic in $s$ except for two simple poles at $s=0,n$ with residues $-1,1$ respectively.
Our first goal is to understand the behavior of this function high in the cusp. The following theorem due to Riemann for $n=1$ and Terras [@Terras] for $n>1$ is a variant of the approximate functional equation for the Epstein zeta function. We provide a proof using Mellin inversion.
\[thm:approx-func-eq\] For any $0,n\neq s\in\mathbb{C}$ and $g\in\mathbf{GL}_n(\mathbb{R})$ $$E^*(g,s)=-\frac{1}{s}-\frac{1}{n-s}+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{0\neq v \in \mathbb{Z}_n} f\left(s, \frac{\|vg\|_2}{|{\operatorname{det}}g|^{1/n}}\right)
+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{0\neq v \in \mathbb{Z}_n} f\left(n-s, \frac{\|v\tensor[^t]{g}{^{-1}}\|_2}{|{\operatorname{det}}\tensor[^t]{g}{^{-1}}|^{-1/n}}\right)$$ where $$f(s,a)\coloneqq (\pi a^2)^{-s/2}\Gamma\left(\frac{s}{2},\pi a^2\right)
=\int_1^\infty t^{s/2}\exp(-\pi t a^2) {\,\mathrm{d}}^\times t$$
The Mellin transform in the $a$ variable of $f(s,a)$ is exactly $\pi^{-\sigma/2}\Gamma\left(\frac{\sigma}{2}\right)(\sigma-s)^{-1}$. Because of the exponential decay of the Gamma function in the vertical direction we can use Mellin inversion to write $$\frac{1}{2}\sum_{0\neq v \in \mathbb{Z}_n} f\left(s, \frac{\|vg\|_2}{|{\operatorname{det}}g|^{1/n}}\right)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{\Re \sigma=n+\delta} \frac{E^*(g,\sigma)}{\sigma-s} {\,\mathrm{d}}\sigma$$ for any $1>\delta>0$. We shift the contour of integration to the line $\Re \sigma=-\delta$ collecting residues at the $\sigma=0,s,n$. To justify the contour shift we claim that $E^*(g,s)$ decays exponentially in the vertical direction uniformly in any interval $a\leq \Re s \leq b$. To the right of the critical strip this follows from the definition using lattice summation and the exponential decay in the vertical direction of the Gamma function. To the left of the critical strip this can be deduced using the functional equation and inside the critical strip using the Phragmén-Lindelöf principle.
The residue at $\sigma=s$ coincides with $E^*(g,s)$ and the other two residues produce the terms $-\frac{1}{s}$ and $-\frac{1}{n-s}$ in the claim. The proof is concluded by applying the functional equation and the change of variable $\sigma \mapsto n-\sigma$. $$\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{\Re \sigma=-\delta} \frac{E^*(g,\sigma)}{\sigma-s} {\,\mathrm{d}}\sigma
=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{\Re \sigma=-\delta} \frac{E^*(\tensor[^t]{g}{^{-1}},n-\sigma)}{\sigma-s} {\,\mathrm{d}}\sigma
=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{\Re \sigma=\delta} \frac{E^*(\tensor[^t]{g}{^{-1}},\sigma)}{\sigma-(n-s)} {\,\mathrm{d}}\sigma\;.$$ The latter integral is equal to the dual sum because of Mellin inversion.
\[cor:Epstein-pos\] For any real $s\neq 0,n$ the function $E^*(g,s)$ is real and satisfies $$E^*(g,s)\geq -\frac{1}{s}-\frac{1}{n-s}$$
For any $g\in\mathbf{GL}_n(\mathbb{R})$ set $$\lambda_1(g)\coloneqq |{\operatorname{det}}g|^{-1/n} \min_{0\neq \mathrm{v} \in \mathbb{Z}^n} \|\mathrm{v} g\|_2$$ to be the length of the shortest non-trivial vector in the unimodular lattice homothetic to $\mathbb{Z}^n g$.
Recall that Mahler’s compactness criterion implies that $\lambda_1\colon {\mathchoice{
\settototalheight{\faktorheight}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{PGL}_n(\mathbb{Z})}} \raisebox{-0.5\faktorheight}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{PGL}_n(\mathbb{Z})}} \backslash
\settototalheight{\faktorheight}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{PGL}_n(\mathbb{R})}} \raisebox{0.5\faktorheight}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{PGL}_n(\mathbb{R})}}}
{
\ensuremath{\mathbf{PGL}_n(\mathbb{Z})}
\backslash
\ensuremath{\mathbf{PGL}_n(\mathbb{R})}
}
{\let\GenerateWarning=\errmessage}
{\let\GenerateWarning=\errmessage}
}\to \mathbb{R}_{>0}$ is a proper continuous function.
\[thm:Epstein-cusp\] Denote by $V_{n-1}=\nicefrac{\pi^{n-1}}{\Gamma\left((n+1)/2\right)}$ the volume of the $(n-1)$-dimensional unit ball. For any real $0<s<n$ if $$\lambda_1(g)\leq \begin{cases}
2^{-1/(s-1)} & s>1\\
1 & s =1\\
V_{n-1} 2^{-\frac{(n-s)(n-1)}{n-s-1}} & s<1
\end{cases}$$ then $$E^*(g,s)+\frac{1}{s}+\frac{1}{n-s}\gg
\begin{cases}
\lambda_1(g)^{-s} & s>1\\
-\lambda_1(g)^{-1}\log \lambda_1(g) & s=1\\
\left(\lambda_1(g) \frac{2^{n-1}}{V_{n-1}}\right)^{-(n-s)/(n-1)} & s<1
\end{cases}$$
The lower bound above is optimal up to a constant. This can be seen by applying iteratively the Fourier expansion of $E^*(g,s)$ due to Terras [@TerrasFourier] to compute the constant term of $E^*(g,s)$. Write the Iwasawa decomposition of $g=u\cdot a \cdot k$ where $a=\operatorname{diag}(y_1,\ldots,y_n)$ with positive entries, $u\in \mathbf{N}(\mathbb R)$ is lower triangular unipotent and $k\in\mathbf{O}_n(\mathbb R)$. The constant term of $E^*(g,s)$ is equal to[^3] $$\sum_{k=0}^{n-1} \zeta^*(s-k) \prod_{i=1}^{n-k-1} \left(\frac{y_{i+1}}{y_i}\right)^{i (1-s/n)} \cdot
\prod_{i=n-k}^{n-1} \left(\frac{y_{i+1}}{y_i}\right)^{(n-i) s/n}\;.$$ While $\lambda_1(g) \asymp_n \prod_{i=1}^{n-1} \left(\frac{y_{i+1}}{y_i}\right)^{-(n-i)/n}$. Combining these two expressions we deduce that at least the constant term is asymptotic to the lower bound in the theorem above. The difficulty in establishing the theorem using the Fourier expansion is that it is hard to analyze for $n>2$ that contribution of the non-constant terms in the Fourier expansion when $\operatorname{diag}(y_1,\ldots,y_n)$ is near the walls of the positive Weyl chamber. Instead we study the behavior in the critical strip using an approximate functional equation.
Assume first $s\geq 1$ then $\lambda_1(g)\leq 1$ by assumption. Because the sums over the lattices $\mathbb{Z}^n g$ and $\mathbb{Z}^n \tensor[^t]{g}{^{-1}}$ in Theorem \[thm:approx-func-eq\] are positive, we can compute a lower bound by restricting the sum to a line going through a vector of minimal length in $\mathbb{Z}^n g$. This implies $$E^*(g,s)+\frac{1}{s}+\frac{1}{n-s}\geq \frac{1}{2} \sum_{0\neq b\in\mathbb{Z}} f(s,|b|\lambda_1(g))$$ The integral representation of $f(s,a)$ implies that it is a monotonic decreasing function of $a$ for $a>0$. Hence the right hand side above can be bounded below by $$\frac{1}{\lambda_1(g)}\int_{\lambda_1(g)}^{\infty} f(s,a){\,\mathrm{d}}a=\frac{\lambda_1(g)^{-s}}{2}
\int_{\lambda_1(g)^2}^{\infty} t^{(s-1)/2}\operatorname{erfc}(\sqrt{\pi t}){\,\mathrm{d}}^\times t
\geq \frac{\lambda_1(g)^{-s}}{2} \int_{\lambda_1(g)^2}^{1} t^{(s-1)/2}\operatorname{erfc}(\sqrt{\pi t}){\,\mathrm{d}}^\times t \;.$$ The equality above follows by applying Fubini to the integral representation of $f(s,a)$ and the change of variables $t\mapsto \lambda_1(g)^2t$. We bound the latter integral using the monotonicity inequality $\operatorname{erfc}(x)>\operatorname{erfc}(\sqrt{\pi})$ for $0\leq x\leq \sqrt{\pi}$. $$\label{eq:lambda_1_int_small}
\frac{\lambda_1(g)^{-s}}{2}
\int_{\lambda_1(g)^2}^{1} t^{(s-1)/2}\operatorname{erfc}(\sqrt{\pi t}){\,\mathrm{d}}^\times t
\gg \frac{\lambda_1(g)^{-s}}{2} \int_{\lambda_1(g)^2}^{1} t^{(s-1)/2}{\,\mathrm{d}}^\times t=
\begin{cases}
\frac{\lambda_1(g)^{-s}-\lambda_1(g)^{-1}}{s-1} & s\neq 1\\
-\lambda_1(g)^{-1}\log \lambda_1(g) & s=1
\end{cases}$$
This establishes the claim in case $s=1$. In case $s>1$ the assumption $\lambda_1(g)^{s-1}<1/2$ implies that $\lambda_1(g)^{-1}<1/2 \lambda_1(g)^{-s}$ and the claim follows again from .
The lower bound for $s<1$ will follow from applying the $s>1$ case to the dual lattice which also contributes to $E^*(g,s)$ with $s$ replaced by $n-s$. We need only to establish $$\label{eq:lambda1-dual-ineq}
\lambda_1\left(\tensor[^t]{g}{^{-1}}\right)^{n-1}\leq \frac{2^{n-1}}{V_{n-1}} \lambda_1(g) \;.$$ To prove inequality fix $v_1,\ldots,v_n$ a basis of the lattice $\Lambda\coloneqq\mathbb{Z}^n g$, where $v_1$ is a vector of minimal length. Denote by $\mathrm{v}_1^*,\ldots,\mathrm{v}_n^*$ the dual basis of $\Lambda^*\coloneqq\mathbb{Z}^n \tensor[^t]{g}{^{-1}}$. Then $\mathrm{v}_2^*,\ldots,\mathrm{v}_n^*$ span a lattice $\Lambda_1^*$ in the $n-1$-dimensional hyperplane $\mathrm{v}_1^\perp$ and $$|{\operatorname{det}}g|^{-1}=\operatorname{covol}\left(\Lambda^*\right)=\operatorname{covol}\left(\mathrm{v}_1^*\mathbb{Z}+\Lambda_1^*\right)
=\left|\left\langle \mathrm{v}_1^*, \frac{\mathrm{v}_1}{\|\mathrm{v}_1\|}\right\rangle\right| \operatorname{covol}\left(\Lambda_1^*\right)= \|\mathrm{v}_1\|^{-1} \operatorname{covol}\left(\Lambda_1^*\right)\;.$$ Hence $\operatorname{covol}\left(\Lambda_1^*\right)= \lambda_1(g) |{\operatorname{det}}g|^{1/n-1}$ and Minkowski’s first theorem implies that there is a vector $\mathrm{v}^*\in \Lambda_1^*\subset \Lambda^*$ satisfying $V_{n-1}\|\mathrm{v}_*\|_2^{n-1}= 2^{n-1} \lambda_1(g) |{\operatorname{det}}g|^{1/n-1}$. This implies and the second claimed inequality.
\[cor:Epstein-cusp-uniform\] Assume $1/n\leq s<1$. There are effectively computable constants $A_0,B_0>0$, depending only on $n$ and $s$, such that for all $g\in \mathbf{GL}_n(\mathbb{R})$ $$E^*(g,ns)\geq A_0 \lambda_1(g)^{-ns}-B_0\;.$$ In fact, $$\begin{aligned}
A_0&=\operatorname{erfc}(\sqrt{\pi})
\begin{cases}
\frac{1}{2(ns-1)} & s>1/n\\
\log 2 &s=1/n
\end{cases},
&
B_0&=\frac{1}{n}\left(\frac{1}{s}+\frac{1}{1-s}\right)+A
\begin{cases}
2^{-ns/(ns-1)} & s>1/n\\
2 & s=n
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ are admissible.
This follows immediately with $B_0=\frac{1}{n}\left(\frac{1}{s}+\frac{1}{1-s}\right)$ from Theorem \[thm:Epstein-cusp\] above if $\lambda_1(g)< 2^{-1/(ns-1)}$ and $s>1/n$ or if $s=1/n$ and $\lambda_1(g)<1/2$. The specific value of $A_0$ is a direct consequence of the proof.
Otherwise, assume first that $s>1/n$. If $\lambda_1(g)\geq 2^{-1/(ns-1)}$ then $\lambda_1(g)^{-ns}\leq 2^{-ns/(ns-1)}$. Moreover, we know from Corollary \[cor:Epstein-pos\] that $E^*(g,ns)\geq - \frac{1}{n}\left(\frac{1}{s}+\frac{1}{1-s}\right)$. Hence the claim holds for any $g$ with $B_0=\frac{1}{n}\left(\frac{1}{s}+\frac{1}{1-s}\right)+2^{-ns/(ns-1)}A_0$. The argument for $s=1/n$ is analogues.
Toral periods of the Epstein zeta function {#sec:periods}
==========================================
We recall a formula originally due to Hecke that relates Hecke $L$-functions of number field to toral periods of the Epstein zeta function. The proofs are straightforward using the unfolding method and can be extended to any Grossencharakter $L$-function in the adèlic setting, cf. [@ELMVCubic Lemma 10.4] and [@Wielonsky].
Let $E/\mathbb{Q}$ be a degree $n$ number field with $r_1$ real places and $r_2$ inequivalent complex places. Denote by $D\coloneqq\operatorname{Disc}(\mathcal{O}_E)$ the discriminant of its ring integers and let $R\coloneqq \operatorname{Reg}(\mathcal{O}_E)$ be its regulator. Set $h\coloneqq\#{\mathrm{Cl}}(E)$. Let $E_\infty$ be the étale-algebra $E\otimes \mathbb{R}$ over $\mathbb{R}$.
Fix once and for all a ring isomorphism $$\iota\colon E_\infty\to \mathbb{R}^{r_1}\times \mathbb{C}^{r_2}$$ This map is unique up to post-composition with permutation of the real and complex places respectively and complex conjugation at each complex places. We henceforth identify the right hand side with $\mathbb{R}^n=\mathbb{R}^{r_1+2r_2}$ in the standard manner. For any $\mathbb{Z}$-lattice $\Lambda \subset E$ we denote by $\tensor[^\iota]{\Lambda}{}$ the element of ${\mathchoice{
\settototalheight{\faktorheight}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{PGL}_n(\mathbb{Z})}} \raisebox{-0.5\faktorheight}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{PGL}_n(\mathbb{Z})}} \backslash
\settototalheight{\faktorheight}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{PGL}_n(\mathbb{Z})}} \raisebox{0.5\faktorheight}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{PGL}_n(\mathbb{Z})}}}
{
\ensuremath{\mathbf{PGL}_n(\mathbb{Z})}
\backslash
\ensuremath{\mathbf{PGL}_n(\mathbb{Z})}
}
{\let\GenerateWarning=\errmessage}
{\let\GenerateWarning=\errmessage}
}$ corresponding to the lattice $\iota(\Lambda)$. Specifically, the raw matrix of every $\mathbb{Z}$-basis of the lattice $\iota(\Lambda)$ is a representative of the coset $\tensor[^\iota]{\Lambda}{}$.
Set $$H\coloneqq {\mathchoice{
\settototalheight{\faktorheight}{\ensuremath{\left(\mathbb{R}^\times\right)^\Delta}} \raisebox{-0.5\faktorheight}{\ensuremath{\left(\mathbb{R}^\times\right)^\Delta}} \backslash
\settototalheight{\faktorheight}{\ensuremath{E_\infty^\times}} \raisebox{0.5\faktorheight}{\ensuremath{E_\infty^\times}}}
{
\ensuremath{\left(\mathbb{R}^\times\right)^\Delta}
\backslash
\ensuremath{E_\infty^\times}
}
{\let\GenerateWarning=\errmessage}
{\let\GenerateWarning=\errmessage}
}={\mathchoice{
\settototalheight{\faktorheight}{\ensuremath{\left(\mathbb{R}^\times\right)^\Delta}} \raisebox{-0.5\faktorheight}{\ensuremath{\left(\mathbb{R}^\times\right)^\Delta}} \backslash
\settototalheight{\faktorheight}{\ensuremath{\left(\mathbb{R}^\times\right)^{r_1}\times {\left(\mathbb{C}^\times\right)^{r_2}}}} \raisebox{0.5\faktorheight}{\ensuremath{\left(\mathbb{R}^\times\right)^{r_1}\times {\left(\mathbb{C}^\times\right)^{r_2}}}}}
{
\ensuremath{\left(\mathbb{R}^\times\right)^\Delta}
\backslash
\ensuremath{\left(\mathbb{R}^\times\right)^{r_1}\times {\left(\mathbb{C}^\times\right)^{r_2}}}
}
{\let\GenerateWarning=\errmessage}
{\let\GenerateWarning=\errmessage}
}\,.$$ We identify $H$ with a maximal torus subgroup in $\mathbf{GL}_n(\mathbb{R})$ using the map $\iota$. The Haar measure on $H$ is normalized to be consistent with the standard Haar measures on $E_\infty^\times$ and $\mathbb{R}^\times$.
Dirichlet’s unit theorem implies that $\mathcal{O}_E^\times\slash \mathbb{Z}^\times$ is a lattice in $H$ of covolume $$\frac{2^{r_1} \pi^{r_2} n R}{w}\;,$$ where $w$ is the number of roots of unity in $E$.
Define $[H]={\mathchoice{
\settototalheight{\faktorheight}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}_E^\times}} \raisebox{-0.5\faktorheight}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}_E^\times}} \backslash
\settototalheight{\faktorheight}{\ensuremath{H}} \raisebox{0.5\faktorheight}{\ensuremath{H}}}
{
\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}_E^\times}
\backslash
\ensuremath{H}
}
{\let\GenerateWarning=\errmessage}
{\let\GenerateWarning=\errmessage}
}$ and normalize the Haar measure on $[H]$ so it has volume $1$. If ${\,\mathrm{d}}^\times h$ is the Haar measure on $H$, then the measure on $[H]$ descents from the Haar measure $$\frac{w{\,\mathrm{d}}^\times h}{2^{r_1}\pi^{r_2}n R} \;.$$
If $\Lambda\subset E$ is a fractional $\mathcal{O}_E$-ideal then the stabilizer in $H$ of $\tensor[^\iota]{\Lambda}{}$ is the lattice $\mathcal{O}_E^\times\slash \mathbb{Z}^\times$. Hence $\tensor[^\iota]{\Lambda}{}H$ is a periodic $H$-orbit isomorphic to $[H]$. This orbit depends only on the ideal class of $\Lambda$. The ideal classes of $\mathcal{O}_E$ give rise to a finite collection of periodic $H$-orbits, c.f. [@ELMVPeriodic]. This collection is called a *packet* of periodic $H$-orbits.
\[defi:partial-dedekind\] Let $\Lambda\subset E$ be a fractional $\mathcal{O}_E$-ideal. The partial Dedekind zeta-function of $\Lambda$ is defined by the Dirichlet series $$\zeta_{\Lambda}(s)\coloneqq\operatorname{Nr}(\Lambda)^s \sum_{0\neq \mathrm{v}\in \Lambda} \left|\operatorname{Nr}\mathrm{v} \right|^{-s}$$ that converges for $\Re s>1$. The zeta function depends only the class of $\Lambda$ modulo the principal ideals. For every class group character $\chi\colon {\mathrm{Cl}}(E)\to\mathbb{C}^\times$ the class group $L$-function satisfies $$L(s,\chi)=\sum_{[\Lambda]\in {\mathrm{Cl}}(E)} \zeta_{\Lambda}(s) \bar{\chi}(\Lambda)\;.$$
We also define the completed partial zeta function as $$\zeta_{\Lambda}^*(s)\coloneqq \left(\pi^{-s/2}\Gamma\left(\frac{s}{2}\right)\right)^{r_1} \big((2\pi)^{-s}\Gamma\left(s\right)\big)^{r_2} |D|^{s/2} \zeta_{\Lambda}(s)\;.$$ The completed $L$-function $L^*(s,\chi)$ of a class group character $\chi$ is defined similarly. These satisfy a functional equation due to Hecke. The functional equation for these $L$-functions is a direct consequence of the functional equation for the completed Epstein zeta function and Theorem \[thm:Hecke-period\] below.
\[thm:Hecke-period\]\[Hecke\] Let $\Lambda\subset E$ be a fractional $\mathcal{O}_E$-ideal. Then $\tensor[^\iota]{\Lambda}{}$ is a periodic $H$-orbit and for any $s\neq 0,1$ and $$\int_{[H]} E^*(\tensor[^\iota]{\Lambda}{}h,ns) {\,\mathrm{d}}^\times h
=\frac{w}{2^{r_1} n R} \zeta^*_{\Lambda}(s)\;,$$
We reproduce the proof for completeness sake using the following important lemma, also due to Hecke. The crux of the proof is that the ring of $E_\infty^\times$-invariant polynomials on $E_\infty$ is generated by the norm function.
\[lem:Hecke-trick\] \[Hecke’s Trick\] Equip $E_\infty$ with an Euclidean inner-product by summing the standard inner-products on each copy of $\mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbb{C}$. Then for all $\mathrm{v}\in E_\infty^\times$ $$\int_{H} \left\|\mathrm{v}h\right\|_2^{-ns} \left|\operatorname{Nr}h\right|^{s}{\,\mathrm{d}}^\times h=\frac{\pi^{r_2}\Gamma\left(s/2\right)^{r_1}\Gamma\left(s\right)^{r_2}}{\Gamma\left(ns/2\right)} |\operatorname{Nr}\mathrm{v}|^{-s}\;.$$
Using the change of variables $h\mapsto \mathrm{v}h$ we see that $$\int_{H} \left\|\mathrm{v}h\right\|_2^{-ns} \left|\operatorname{Nr}h\right|^s {\,\mathrm{d}}^\times h=|\operatorname{Nr}\mathrm{v}|^{-s}
\int_{H} \ \left\| h\right\|_2^{-ns} \left|\operatorname{Nr}h\right|^s {\,\mathrm{d}}^\times h=|\operatorname{Nr}\mathrm{v}|^{-s}
I(s)\;.$$ To evaluate the integral on the right-hand side, $I(s)$, we calculate the integral $\int_{E_\infty^\times}e^{-\|y\|_2^2} \left|\operatorname{Nr}y\right|^s {\,\mathrm{d}}^\times y$ in two different ways. On one hand we use the compatibility of Haar measures on quotients and the change of variables $t\mapsto t \|y\|_2$ $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{E_\infty^\times}e^{-\|y\|_2^2} \left|\operatorname{Nr}y\right|^{s} {\,\mathrm{d}}^\times y&=\int_{H={\left(\mathbb{R}^\times\right)^\Delta}\backslash{E_\infty^\times}} \int_{\mathbb{R}^\times} e^{-(|t|\|y\|_2)^2} |t|^{ns} \left|\operatorname{Nr}y\right|^{s}{\,\mathrm{d}}^\times t {\,\mathrm{d}}^\times \left(\mathbb{R}^\times y\right)\\
&=\int_{H} \|y\|_2^{-ns} \left|\operatorname{Nr}y\right|^{s} \int_{\mathbb{R}^\times} e^{-(|t|\|y\|_2)^2} (|t|\|y\|_2)^{ns} {\,\mathrm{d}}^\times t {\,\mathrm{d}}^\times \left(\mathbb{R}^\times y\right)=I(s)\cdot \int_{0}^{\infty} e^{-t^2}t^{ns}\frac{2{\,\mathrm{d}}t}{t}\\
&=I(s)\Gamma(ns/2)\;.\end{aligned}$$
On the other hand, using polar coordinates for each complex coordinate, the integral over $E_\infty^\times$ decomposes as a product $$\int_{E_\infty^\times}e^{-\|y\|_2^2} \left|\operatorname{Nr}y\right|^{s} {\,\mathrm{d}}^\times y= \prod_{i=1}^{r_1} \int_{\mathbb{R}^\times}
e^{-t_i^2}|t_i|^s {\,\mathrm{d}}^\times t_i \cdot \prod_{i=r_1+1}^{r_1+r_2} 2 \pi \int_{\mathbb{R}_{>0}}
e^{-r_i^2}r_i^{2s} {\,\mathrm{d}}^\times r_i=\Gamma(s/2)^{r_1} \cdot \pi^{r_2}\Gamma(s)^{r_2}\;.$$ The proof concludes by comparing the two expressions for $\int_{E_\infty^\times}e^{-\|y\|_2^2} |y|^s {\,\mathrm{d}}^\times y$.
We consider $h\in E_\infty^\times$ as an element of $\mathbf{GL}_n(\mathbb{R})$ using the map $\iota$, then $|{\operatorname{det}}h|=\left|\operatorname{Nr}h\right|$. Rewrite the period of the Epstein zeta-function using the standard unwinding transformation $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{[H]} E(\tensor[^\iota]{\Lambda}{}h,ns){\,\mathrm{d}}^\times h = \frac{1}{2}&\operatorname{covol}(\Lambda)^s \sum_{0\neq \mathrm{v}\in \Lambda\slash \mathcal{O}_E^\times} \sum_{u\in \mathcal{O}_E^\times}
\int_{[H]} \|\mathrm{v}uh\|_2^{-sn} \left|\operatorname{Nr}h\right|^s{\,\mathrm{d}}^\times h\\
=&\operatorname{covol}(\Lambda)^s \sum_{0\neq \mathrm{v}\in \Lambda\slash \mathcal{O}_E^\times}
\int_H \|\mathrm{v}h\|_2^{-sn}\left|\operatorname{Nr}h\right|^s \frac{w{\,\mathrm{d}}^\times h}{2^{r_1}\pi^{r_2}n R} \;.\end{aligned}$$ The factor $1/2$ is absorbed in the difference between $\mathcal{O}_E^\times$ and the group $\mathcal{O}_E^\times \slash \mathbb{Z}^\times$. The proof concludes by applying Lemma \[lem:Hecke-trick\] and using the formula $\operatorname{covol}(\Lambda)=2^{-r_2}\sqrt{|D|} \operatorname{Nr}(\Lambda)$.
The top period {#sec:highest}
==============
We continue to fix a degree $n$ number field $E/\mathbb{Q}$ and carry all the notations from the previous sections. Henceforth we fix $1/2\leq s<1$ and define the function $Z\colon {\mathrm{Cl}}(E)\to\mathbb{C}$ as in the introduction $$Z(\Lambda)\coloneqq
\frac{w}{2^{r_1} n R} \zeta^*_{\Lambda}(s)=\int_{[H]} E^*(\tensor[^\iota]{\Lambda}{}h,ns) {\,\mathrm{d}}^\times h\;.$$ Notice that the Fourier coefficients of the function $Z$ satisfy $$\hat{Z}(\chi)=\frac{1}{h}\sum_{[\Lambda]\in {\mathrm{Cl}}(E)} Z(\Lambda)\bar{\chi}(\Lambda)=
\frac{w}{2^{r_1} n h R} L^*(s,\chi)\;.$$
In this section we prove the following lower bound on the value of $Z$ at the identity class. This is a key part of our argument.
\[prop:Z(O)-bound\] Let $1/2\leq s<1$. There are effectively computable constants $A_1,B_0>0$ depending only on $s$ and $n$ such that $$Z(\mathcal{O}_E) \geq \frac{A_1|D|^{s/2}-B_0 R}{R}$$ In particular, $Z(\mathcal{O}_E)$ is positive if $|D|^{s/2}/R\gg_{s,n} 1$.
We observe that the lower bound depends only on the regulator and not on the shape of the lattice of roots of unity. This is possible because the exponential map converts a linear combination of trace-less vectors in the logarithmic space to a product of units in $E_\infty$. Hence the average length in $E_\infty$, over a fundamental domain of units in the logarithmic space, almost decomposes as a product of averages. This reduces the proposition to a question of bounding a product of lengths of vectors forming a basis for the unit lattice. To control the latter we approximate the unit lattice by the sub-lattice spanned by vectors realizing the successive minima and use Minkowski’s second theorem.
Consider as usual the logarithmic group homomorphism $\log_E\colon E_\infty^\times \to \mathbb{R}^{r_1+r_2}$ $$\log_E(u_1,\ldots,u_{r_1+r_2})\coloneqq\left(\log |u_1|_{\mathbb{R}},\ldots,\log|u_{r_1}|_{\mathbb{R}},
2\log|u_{r_1+1}|_{\mathbb{C}},\ldots,2\log|u_{r_1+r_2}|_{\mathbb{C}} \right)\;.$$ We will need the right-inverse $$\exp_E(x_1,\ldots,x_{r_1+r_2})\coloneqq (\exp(x_1),\ldots,\exp(x_{r_1}),\exp(x_{r_1+1}/2),\ldots,\exp(x_{r_1+r_2}/2))\;.$$ The kernel of $\log_E$ is the group of elements whose coordinate-wise absolute values are all $1$. It is a compact subgroup that acts on $E_\infty$ by orthogonal transformation. In particular, $E^*(g,s)$ is invariant under right multiplication by $\ker (\log_E)$.
The map $\log_E$ furnishes a homomorphism from $H$ onto the trace $0$ subspace $\mathbb{R}^{r_1+r_2}_0$. Dirichlet’s units theorem states that the image of $\mathcal{O}_E^\times$ is a lattice in $\mathbb{R}^{r_1+r_2}_0$ of covolume $R$, where the covolume is computed with respect to the usual inner product on $\mathbb{R}^{r_1+r_2}$. Hence we can compute the integral of the spherical Epstein zeta function over the periodic $H$-orbit $\tensor[^\iota]{\mathcal{O}}{_E}H$ using a normalized Lebesgue measure on $\mathbb{R}^{r_1+r_2}_0$. $$\int_{[H]} E^*(\tensor[^\iota]{\mathcal{O}}{_E}h,ns){\,\mathrm{d}}^\times h=
\frac{1}{R}\int_{\mathcal{F}} E^*(\tensor[^\iota]{\mathcal{O}}{_E}\exp_E(x_1,\ldots,x_{r_1+r_2-1}),ns) {\,\mathrm{d}}^0(x_1,\ldots x_{r_1+r_2})\;,$$ where $\mathcal{F}$ is any fundamental domain for $\log_E(\mathcal{O}_E^\times)$ in $\mathbb{R}^{r_1+r_2}_0$ and ${\,\mathrm{d}}^0(x_1,\ldots, x_{r_1+r_2})$ is the standard Lebesgue measure on the trace-less subspace $\mathbb{R}^{r_1+r_2}_0$. Corollary \[cor:Epstein-cusp-uniform\] and the formula above imply that $$\label{eq:Z(OE)-cusp}
Z(\mathcal{O}_E) \geq A_0 \frac{1}{R}
\int_{\mathcal{F}}
\lambda_1(\tensor[^\iota]{\mathcal{O}}{_E}\exp_E(x))^{-ns} {\,\mathrm{d}}^0 x-B_0
=A_0 I_\lambda(s)-B_0\;.$$ Our aim now is to provide a proper lower bound for the normalized integral $I_\lambda(s)$. Denote by $\|x\|_{\infty}=\max(|x_1|,\ldots,|x_{r_1}|,|x_{r_1+1}|/2,\ldots,|x_{r_1+r_2}|/2)$ the supremum norm on $\mathbb{R}^{r_1+r_2}$. This restricts to a norm on $\mathbb{R}^{r_1+r_2}_0$. Denote by $\tilde{V}_{r_1,r_2}$ the Lebesgue measure of the unit ball of the latter norm. Let $\theta_1,\ldots,\theta_{r_1+r_2-1}\in\log_E(\mathcal{O}_E^\times)$ be vectors realizing the successive minima of the lattice $\log_E(\mathcal{O}_E^\times)$ with respect to the $\|\bullet\|_\infty$ norm. By Minkowski’s second theorem $$\label{eq:Minkowski-Theta}
\|\theta_1\|_\infty \cdots \|\theta_{r_1+r_2-1}\|_\infty \cdot \tilde{V}_{r_1,r_2}\leq 2^{r_1+r_2-1} R$$ Denote by $\Theta\subset \log_E(\mathcal{O}_E^\times) \subset \mathbb{R}^{r_1+r_2}_0$ the lattice spanned by $\theta_1,\ldots,\theta_{r_1+r_2-1}$. Define $$\mathcal{F}_\Theta\coloneq \left\{\sum_{j=1}^{r_1+r_2-1} \varepsilon_j \theta_j \mid 0\leq \varepsilon_j < 1 \right\}\;.$$ It is a fundamental domain for $\Theta$. This domain can be covered by exactly $\left[ \log_E(\mathcal{O}_E^\times) \colon \Theta\right]$ fundamental domains of $\log_E(\mathcal{O}_E^\times)$. We can now evaluate over each of these domains to deduce $$\begin{aligned}
I_\lambda(s) &= \frac{1}{\operatorname{covol}{\Theta}}
\int_{\mathcal{F}_\Theta}
\lambda_1(\tensor[^\iota]{\mathcal{O}}{_E}\exp_E(x))^{-ns} {\,\mathrm{d}}^0x\\
&\gg_{s, n}\frac{|D|^{s/2}}{\operatorname{covol}{\Theta}}
\int_{\mathcal{F}_\Theta}
\|\exp_E(x)\|_2^{-ns} {\,\mathrm{d}}^0x\;,\end{aligned}$$ where in the last inequality we have used the fact the the covolume of $\mathcal{O}_E$ is $2^{-r_2}\sqrt{|D|}$ and that it contains the short vector $(1,\ldots,1)$.
Define the norm $\|y\|_{E_\infty}=\max(|y_1|_{\mathbb{R}},\ldots,|y_{r_1}|_{\mathbb{R}},|y_{r_1+1}|_{\mathbb{C}},\ldots,|y_{r_1+r_2}|_{\mathbb{C}})$. We apply the inequality $\|\bullet\|_2\leq \sqrt{r_1+r_2} \|\bullet \|_{E_\infty}$ in $E_\infty$ and then rewrite the last integral using the basis $\theta_1,\ldots\theta_{r_1+r_2-1}$. $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\frac{1}{\operatorname{covol}{\Theta}}\int_{\mathcal{F}_\Theta} &\|\exp_E(x)\|_2^{-ns} {\,\mathrm{d}}^0x
\gg_{n,s} \frac{1}{\operatorname{covol}{\Theta}} \int_{\mathcal{F}_\Theta} \|\exp_E(x)\|_{E_\infty}^{-ns} {\,\mathrm{d}}^0 x
\geq \frac{1}{\operatorname{covol}{\Theta}}\int_{\mathcal{F}_\Theta} \exp(-ns\|x\|_\infty) {\,\mathrm{d}}^0 x\\
\nonumber
&\geq\int_0^1 \cdots \int _0^1 \exp(-ns\sum_{j+1}^{r_1+r_2-1}\varepsilon_j\|\theta_j\|_\infty )
{\,\mathrm{d}}\varepsilon_1\cdots {\,\mathrm{d}}\varepsilon_{r_1+r_2-1}
= \prod_{j=1}^{r_1+r_2-1} \int_0^1 \exp(-n s \varepsilon_j\|\theta_j\|_\infty) {\,\mathrm{d}}\varepsilon_j\\
\label{eq:Ftheta-integral}
&= \prod_{j=1}^{r_1+r_2-1} \frac{1-\exp(-n s \|\theta_j\|_\infty)}{n s \|\theta_j\|_\infty}\;,\end{aligned}$$ where in the second line we have used the triangle inequality for the norm $\|\bullet\|_\infty$ on $\mathbb{R}^{r_1+r_2}_0$. We bound the denominator using Minkowski’s second theorem . To bound the numerator we use the inequality $\|\log_E(y)\|_\infty\gg_n 1$ for every $y\in\mathcal{O}_E^\times\setminus \mu_E$, where $\mu_E<E^\times$ is the group of roots of unity. This inequality with an effective constant follows from the Northcott property, cf. [@BombieriGubler §1.6.15]. Better bounds in terms of the dependence on $n$ follow from the result of Dobrowolski [@Dobrowolski] towards the Lehmer conjecture. See also Blanskby-Montgomery [@BlanksbyMontgomery] and Stewart [@Stewart]. The claim finally follows by applying these bounds for the numerator and denominator in and substituting into .
[^1]: Our normalization for the Epstein zeta function is different from [@Terras] where $Z(g\cdot \tensor[^t]{g}{},\rho)=|{\operatorname{det}}g|^{-2\rho/n}E(g,2\rho)$.
[^2]: This can be deduced from the fact that the number of lattice points in a sphere of radius $R$ is asymptotic to the volume of the sphere as $R\to \infty$ for any unimodular lattice.
[^3]: The original expansion in [@TerrasFourier] is in terms of the Iwasawa decomposition of $\tensor[^t]{g}{^{-1}}$. To pass to an expression in terms of the decomposition of $g$ we apply first the functional equation.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we verify the $L^p$ coarse Baum-Connes conjecture for spaces with finite asymptotic dimension for $p\in[1,\infty)$. We also show that the $K$-theory of $L^p$ Roe algebras are independent of $p\in(1,\infty)$ for spaces with finite asymptotic dimension.'
address:
- 'Shanghai Center for Mathematical Sciences, Fudan University'
- 'Research Center for Operator Algebras, East China Normal University'
author:
- Jianguo Zhang
- Dapeng Zhou
bibliography:
- 'LpCBC.bib'
title: '$L^p$ Coarse Baum-Connes Conjecture and $K$-theory for $L^p$ Roe Algebras'
---
Introduction
============
An elliptic differential operator on a closed manifold is Fredholm. The celebrated Atiyah-Singer index theorem compute the Fredholm index [@AtiyahSingerI] [@AtiyahSingerIII]. In the recent 40 years, the Atiyah-Singer index theorem has been vastly generalized to the higher index theory [@WillettYuBook][@YuICM]. There are two most important cases. For a manifold carrying a proper cocompact group action, the Baum-Connes assembly map defines a higher index in the $K$-theory of group $C^\ast$-algebra [@MischenkoFumenko][@Kasparov88]. For an open manifold without group actions, the coarse Baum-Connes assembly map defines a higher index in the $K$-theory of the Roe algebra of the manifold [@Roe88].
The Baum-Connes conjecture [@BaumConnesHigson] and the coarse Baum-Connes conjecture [@HigsonRoeCBC][@YuCBC] give algorithms to compute the higher indices using $K$-homology. The $K$-homology is local and much more computable. In recent years, the $L^p$ version of the Baum-Connes and the coarse Baum-Connes conjecture are studied. The motivation for using Banach algebras is that they are more flexible than $C^\ast$-algebras. Since the traditional $C^\ast$-algebraic method [@Kasparov88] is very difficult in dealing with groups with property (T) (these groups admits no proper isometric actions on Hilbert spaces). Actually a lot of interesting groups, e.g. hyperbolic group, may have property (T). Lafforgue invented the Banach $KK$-theory and verified the Baum-Connes conjecture for a large class of groups with property (T) [@LafforgueInven]. In [@YuHyperbolicLpAction], Guoliang Yu proved that hyperbolic groups always admit proper isometric actions on $\ell^p$ spaces. In [@KasparovYuPBC], Kasparov and Yu proved that the $L^p$ Baum-Connes conjecture is true for groups with a proper isometric action on $\ell^p$ space.
In [@LiaoYu], Benben Liao and Guoliang Yu proved that the $K$-theory of $L^p$ group algebras are independent of $p$ for a large class of groups, e.g. hyperbolic groups. Their proof relies on the Lafforgue’s results on the Baum-Connes conjecture [@LafforgueInven] and $L^p$ property (RD) for the group.
Yeong-Chyuan Chung developed a quantitative $K$-theory for Banach algebras [@ChungQuantiativeBanach] and applied this theory to compute $K$-theory of $L^p$ crossed products [@ChungDynamical]. Chung showed that the Baum-Connes conjecture for $G$ with coefficient in $C(X)$ is true if the dynamical system $G\curvearrowright X$ has Finite Dynamical Complexity, introduced by Guentner-Willett-Yu [@GuentnerWillettYuFDC]. As a corollary, Chung proved that the $K$-theory of $L^p$ crossed products $B^{p,\ast}(X,G)$ are independent of $p$ provided that $G\curvearrowright X$ has finite dynamical complexity.
Motivated by Liao-Yu and Chung’s result, we ask the following question: Are the $K$-theory of $L^p$ Roe algebras $B^p(X)$ independent of $p$? The main theorem of the paper provides a positive answer to this question for the spaces with finite asymptotic dimension.
Let $X$ be a separable proper metric space. If $X$ has finite asymptotic dimension, then $K_*(B^p(X))$ does not depend on $p$ for $p\in(1,\infty)$
The proof of the theorem relies on the $L^p$ coarse Baum-Connes conjecture. The key ingredient is the Mayer-Vietoris argument. A coarse geometric Mayer-Vietoris sequence in $K$-theory was formulated by Higson-Roe-Yu [@HigsonRoeYuCoarseMV]. In [@YuFAD], Guoliang Yu invented the quantitative $K$-theory and a quantitative Mayer-Vietoris sequence, and he verified the coarse Baum-Connes conjecture for spaces with finite asymptotic dimension. The quantitative $K$-theory is a refined version of the classical operator $K$-theory. It encodes more geometric information, and it is a powerful tool to compute the $K$-theory of Roe algebras or other $C^\ast$-algebras coming from geometry. The quantitative $K$-theory has been generalized to general geometric $C^\ast$-algebras by Oyono-Oyono and Yu [@OyonoYuQuantitative][@OyonoYuPersistence][@OyonoYuKunneth], to Banach algebras by Yeong-Chyuan Chung [@ChungQuantiativeBanach], and to groupoids by Clement Dell’Aiera [@DellAieraControlledGroupoid]. It has many important applications in dynamical systems [@GuentnerWillettYuFDC][@ChungDynamical] and coarse geometry [@LiWillett][@ChungLiLpUniformRoe]. In this paper, by a similar argument of quantitative $K$-theory for $L^p$ algebras, we prove the following result.
For any $p\in [1,\infty)$, the $L^p$ coarse Baum-Connes conjecture holds for separable proper metric spaces with finite asymptotic dimension.
The result is very similar to Chung’s result on Baum-Connes conjecture with coefficient for dynamical systems with finite dynamical decomposition complexity [@ChungDynamical]. His result is for dynamical systems or transform groupoids, while our result is for coarse geometry or coarse groupoids.
We want to emphasize that the results in this paper does not need the condition of bounded geometry. For the similar result for spaces with bounded geometry, we could generalize the result to spaces with finite decomposition complexity, introduced by Erik Guentner, Romain Tessera and Guoliang Yu [@GuentnerTesseraYuRigidity][@GuentnerTesseraYuGeometric]. Our method also works for uniform $L^p$ Roe algebras. We will study the results in a separate paper.
The paper is organized in the following order: In Section 2, we recall the concept of $L^p$ Roe algebras, $L^p$ localization algebras and $L^p$ coarse Baum-Connes conjecture. In Section 3, we study the Quantitative $K$-theory for $L^p$ algebras. In Section 4, we prove that the $L^p$ Baum-Connes conjecture is true for spaces with finite asymptotic dimension. In Section 5, we prove that the $K$-theory of $L^p$ Roe algebras are independent of $p$ for spaces with finite asymptotic dimensions. In the end, we raise some open problems for future study.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
The authors would like to thank our Ph.D. advisor, Guoliang Yu, for suggesting us this project and his guidance.
$L^p$ Coarse Baum-Connes Conjecture
===================================
Let $X$ be a separable proper metric space, $p\in [1,\infty)$. Recall that a metric space is called proper if every closed ball is compact.
\[Def:Lp-module\] An *$L^p$-$X$-module* is an $L^p$ space $E_X^p=\ell^p(Z_X)\otimes \ell^p=\ell^p(Z_X,\ell^p)$ equipped with a natural point-wise multiplication action of $C_0(X)$ by restricting to $Z_X$, where $Z_X$ is a countable dense subset in $X$, $\ell^p=\ell^p({\mathbb{N}})$ and $C_0(X)$ is the algebra of all complex-valued continuous functions on $X$ which vanish at infinity.
We notice that this action can be extended naturally to the algebra of all bounded Borel functions on $X$.
$L^p$ Roe algebra
-----------------
Let $E_X^p$ be an $L^p$-$X$-module and $E_Y^p$ be an $L^p$-$Y$-module, and let $T:E_X^p \rightarrow E_Y^p$ be a bounded linear operator. The *support* of $T$, denoted $\mathrm{supp}(T)$, consists of all points $(x,y)\in X\times Y$ such that $\chi_VT\chi_U \not=0$ for all open neighbourhoods $U$ of $x$ and $V$ of $y$, where $\chi_U$ and $\chi_V$ be the characteristic function on $U$ and $V$, respectively.
We give some properties of the support, the proof can be obtained similarly from chapter 4 of [@WillettYuBook].
\[Remark:support\] Let $E_X^p$ be an $L^p$-$X$-module, $E_Y^p$ be an $L^p$-$Y$-module, and $E_Z^p$ be an $L^p$-$Z$-module. Let $R,S:E_X^p\rightarrow E_Y^p$ and $T:E_Y^p\rightarrow E_Z^p$ be bounded linear operators. Then:
1. $\mathrm{supp}(R+S) \subseteq \mathrm{supp}(R) \cup \mathrm{supp}(S)$;
2. $\mathrm{supp}(TS) \subseteq \mathrm{cl}(\mathrm{supp}(S) \circ \mathrm{supp}(T))=\mathrm{cl}(\{(x,z)\in X\times Z: \text{there is}\ y\in Y \ \text{such that } (x,y)\in \mathrm{supp}(S)$, $(y,z)\in \mathrm{supp}(T)\})$, where ‘$\mathrm{cl}$’ means closure;
3. If the coordinate projections $\pi_Y$: $\mathrm{supp}(T)\rightarrow Y$ and $\pi_Z: \mathrm{supp}(T)\rightarrow Z$ are proper maps, or coordinate projections $\pi_X: \mathrm{supp}(S)\rightarrow X$ and $\pi_Y: \mathrm{supp}(S)\rightarrow Y$ are proper maps, then $\mathrm{supp}(TS) \subseteq \mathrm{supp}(T) \circ \mathrm{supp}(S)$;
4. Let $F$ = supp($S$), then for any compact subset $K$ of $X$, respectively $Y$, we have $S\chi_K=\chi_{K\circ F}S\chi_K$, $\chi_KS=\chi_KS\chi_{F\circ K}$, where $K\circ F:=${$y\in Y:$ there is $x\in K$ such that $(x,y)\in F$}, $F\circ K:=${$x\in X:$ there is $y\in K$ such that $(x,y)\in F$}.
Let $E_X^p$ be an $L^p$-$X$-module and $T$ be a bounded linear operator acting on $E_X^p$.
1. The *propagation* of $T$, denoted $\mathrm{prop}(T)$, is defined to be $\sup\{d(x,y):(x,y)\in \mathrm{supp}(T)\}$;
2. $T$ is said to be *locally compact* if $\chi_K T$ and $T \chi_K$ are compact operators for all compact subset $K$ of $X$.
By Remark \[Remark:support\], We have the following properties of propagation.
\[Remark:propagation\] Let $E_X^p$ be an $L^p$-$X$-module and let $T,S:E_X^p\rightarrow E_X^p$ be bounded linear operators. Then:
1. $\mathrm{prop}(T+S) \leq \max\{\mathrm{prop}(T),\mathrm{prop}(S)\}$;
2. $\mathrm{prop}(TS) \leq \mathrm{prop}(T) + \mathrm{prop}(S)$.
Let $E_X^p$ be an $L^p$-$X$-module. The *$L^p$ Roe algebra* of $E_X^p$, denoted $B^p(E_X^p)$, is defined to be the norm closure of the algebra of all locally compact operators acting on $E_X^p$ with finite propagations.
A Borel map $f$ from a proper metric space $X$ to another proper metric space $Y$ is called *coarse* if (1) $f$ is proper, i.e., the inverse image of any bounded set is bounded; (2) for every $R>0$, there exists $R'>0$ such that $d(f(x),f(y))\leq R'$ for all $x,y\in X$ satisfying $d(x,y)\leq R$.
\[Lemma:CoveringIsometry\] Let $f$ be a continuous coarse map, let $E_X^p$ be an $L^p$-$X$-module and $E_Y^p$ be an $L^p$-$Y$-module. Then for any $\varepsilon>0$, there exist an isometric operator $V_f:E_X^p\rightarrow E_Y^p$ and a contractible operator $V_f^+:E_Y^p\rightarrow E_X^p$ with $V_f^+V_f=I$ such that
$\mathrm{supp}(V_f) \subseteq \{(x,y)\in X\times Y:d(f(x),y)\leq \varepsilon\}$\
$\mathrm{supp}(V_f^+) \subseteq\{(y,x)\in Y\times X:d(f(x),y)\leq \varepsilon\}$
Let $Z_X$, $Z_Y$ be the dense subsets of $X$ and $Y$ for defining $E^p_X$ and $E^p_Y$, respectively, as in Definition \[Def:Lp-module\]
There exists a Borel cover $\{Y_i\}_i$ of $Y$ such that:
1. $Y_i\cap Y_j=\emptyset$ if $i\not=j$;
2. $\mathrm{diameter}(Y_i)\leq \varepsilon$ for all $i$;
3. each $Y_i$ has nonempty interior.
Condition (3) implies that $Y_i\cap Z_Y$ is a countable set. Thus if $f^{-1}(Y_i)\cap Z_X\not=\emptyset$, then there exists an isometric operator $V_i:\ell^p(f^{-1}(Y_i)\cap Z_X)\otimes \ell^p\rightarrow \ell^p(Y_i\cap Z_Y)\otimes \ell^p$ and a contractible operator $V_i^+:\ell^p(Y_i\cap Z_Y)\otimes \ell^p\rightarrow \ell^p(f^{-1}(Y_i)\cap Z_X)\otimes \ell^p$ such that $V_i^+V_i=\chi_{f^{-1}(Y_i)\cap Z_X}\otimes I$. If $f^{-1}(Y_i)\cap Z_X=\emptyset$, then let $V_i=V_i^+=0$. Define $$V_f=\bigoplus_{i} V_i:\bigoplus_{i} \ell^p(f^{-1}(Y_i)\cap Z_X)\otimes \ell^p\rightarrow \bigoplus_{i} \ell^p(Y_i\cap Z_Y)\otimes \ell^p$$ $$V_f^+=\bigoplus_{i} V_i^+:\bigoplus_{i} \ell^p(Y_i\cap Z_Y)\otimes \ell^p \rightarrow \bigoplus_{i} \ell^p(f^{-1}(Y_i)\cap Z_X)\otimes \ell^p.$$ Then $V_f$ is an isometric operator, $V_f^+$ is a contractible operator and $V_f^+V_f=I$. Condition (2) together with the construction of $V_f$ and $V_f^+$, implies that $\mathrm{supp}(V_f) \subseteq \{(x,y)\in X\times Y:d(f(x),y)\leq \varepsilon\}$ and $\mathrm{supp}(V_f^+) \subseteq\{(y,x)\in Y\times X:d(f(x),y)\leq \varepsilon\}$.
\[Lemma:CoveringIsometryPair\] Let $f$, $E_X^p$ and $E_Y^p$ be as in Lemma \[Lemma:CoveringIsometry\]. Then pair $(V_f,V_f^+)$ gives rise to a homomorphism $\mathrm{ad}((V_f,V_f^+)):B^p(E_X^p)\rightarrow B^p(E_Y^p)$ defined by: $$\mathrm{ad}((V_f,V_f^+))(T)=V_fTV_f^+$$ for all $T\in B^p(E_X^p)$.
Moreover, the map $\mathrm{ad}((V_f,V_f^+))_*$ induced by $\mathrm{ad}((V_f,V_f^+))$ on $K$-theory depends only on $f$ and not on the choice of pair $(V_f,V_f^+)$.
Obviously, $\mathrm{ad}(V_f,V_f^+)$ be a contractible homomorphism, thus we just need show that if $T$ has finite propagation and is locally compact, then $\mathrm{ad}((V_f,V_f^+))(T)$ has these properties too.
Assume first that $T$ has finite propagation. Let $\varepsilon$ be as in Lemma \[Lemma:CoveringIsometry\], then $d(f(x),y)\leq \varepsilon$ and $d(f(x'),y')\leq \varepsilon$ for any $(x,y)\in \mathrm{supp}(V_f)$ and $(y',x')\in \mathrm{supp}(V_f^+)$. Let $(y_1,y_2)\in \mathrm{supp}(V_fTV_f^+)$, by Remark \[Remark:support\] part (3), we have that
$\mathrm{supp}(V_fTV_f^+) \subseteq \mathrm{supp}(V_f) \circ \mathrm{supp}(T)\circ \mathrm{supp}(V_f^+)$.
Hence there exist $x_1,x_2\in X$ such that $(x_1,y_1)\in \mathrm{supp}(V_f), (x_1,x_2)\in \mathrm{supp}(T)$ and $(y_2,x_2)\in \mathrm{supp}(V_f^+)$, then $$d(y_1,y_2)\leq d(y_1,f(x_1))+d(f(x_1),f(x_2))+d(f(x_2),y_2)\leq 2\varepsilon +d(f(x_1),f(x_2)).$$ Since $f$ is coarse and $T$ has finite propagation, we have that $d(y_1,y_2)$ is smaller than some constant for all $(y_1,y_2)\in \mathrm{supp}(V_fTV_f^+)$, this completes the proof of finite propagation.
Now assume that $T$ is locally compact. Let $K$ be a compact subset of $Y$, and let $F = \mathrm{supp}(V_f)$. By Remark \[Remark:support\] (4), we have that$$\chi_K V_fTV_f^+=\chi_K V_f\chi_{F\circ K}TV_f^+$$ Since $f$ is proper map and $X$ is proper space, we know that $F\circ K$ is compact subset in $X$, then $\chi_{F\circ K}T$ is compact operator, thus $\chi_K V_f\chi_{F\circ K}TV_f^+$ is a compact operator. The case of $V_fTV_f^+\chi_K$ is similar. Thus $\mathrm{ad}((V_f,V_f^+))(T)$ is locally compact.
Let $(V_1,V_1^+)$ and $(V_2,V_2^+)$ be two pair operators satisfying the conditions of Lemma \[Lemma:CoveringIsometry\], then we just need to prove $$\mathrm{ad}((V_1,V_1^+))_*=\mathrm{ad}((V_2,V_2^+))_*: K_*(B^p(E_X^p))\rightarrow K_*(B^p(E_Y^p))$$ Let
$$U=\begin{pmatrix}
I-V_1V_1^+ & V_1V_2^+ \\
V_2V_1^+ & I-V_2V_2^+
\end{pmatrix}$$
then $U^2=I$ and
$$\begin{pmatrix}
\mathrm{ad}((V_1,V_1^+))(T) & 0\\
0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
=U\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0\\
0 & \mathrm{ad}((V_2,V_2^+))(T)
\end{pmatrix}U$$
Thus $\mathrm{ad}((V_1,V_1^+))_*=\mathrm{ad}((V_2,V_2^+))_*$
For different $L^p$-$X$-modules $E_X^p$ and $E_X'^{p}$, $B^p(E_X^p)$ is non-canonically isomorphic to $B^p(E_X'^{p})$, and $K_*(B^p(E_X^p))$ is canonically isomorphic to $K_*(B^p(E_X'^{p}))$.
For convenience, we replace $B^p(E_X^p)$ by $B^p(X)$ representing $L^p$ Roe algebra of $X$.
$L^p$ Localization algebra and $L^p$ $K$-homology
-------------------------------------------------
Let $X$ be a separable proper metric space. The *$L^p$ localization algebra* of $X$, denoted $B_L^p(X)$, is defined to be the norm closure of the algebra of all bounded and uniformly norm-continuous function $f$ from $[0,\infty)$ to $B^p(X)$ such that
prop($f(t)$) is uniformly bounded and prop($f(t)$)$\rightarrow 0$ as $t\rightarrow \infty$.
The *propagation* of $f$ is defined to be $\max\{\mathrm{prop}(f(t)):t\in [0,\infty)\}$.
Let $f$ be a uniformly continuous coarse map from a separable proper metric space $X$ to another separable proper metric space $Y$. Let $\{\varepsilon_k\}_k$ be a sequence of positive numbers such that $\varepsilon_k \rightarrow 0$ as $k \rightarrow \infty$. By Lemma \[Lemma:CoveringIsometry\], for each $\varepsilon_k$, there exists an isometric operator $V_k$ from an $L^p$-$X$-module $E_X^p$ to an $L^p$-$Y$-module $E_Y^p$ and a contractible operator $V_k^+$ from an $L^p$-$Y$-module $E_Y^p$ to an $L^p$-$X$-module $E_X^p$ such that $V_k^+V_k=I$ and
$\mathrm{supp}(V_k) \subseteq\{(x,y)\in X\times Y : d(f(x),y)\leq \varepsilon_k\}$\
$\mathrm{supp}(V_k^+) \subseteq\{(y,x)\in Y\times X : d(f(x),y)\leq \varepsilon_k\}$.
For $t\in [0,\infty)$, define
$V_f(t)=R(t-k)(V_k\oplus V_{k+1})R^*(t-k)$\
$V_f^+(t)=R(t-k)(V_k^+\oplus V_{k+1}^+)R^*(t-k)$
for all $k\leq t \leq k+1$, where $$R(t)=\begin{pmatrix}
\cos(\pi t/2) & \sin(\pi t/2)\\
-\sin(\pi t/2) & \cos(\pi t/2)
\end{pmatrix}.$$ $V_f(t)$ is an operator from $E_X^p \oplus E_X^p$ to $E_Y^p \oplus E_Y^p$, and $V_f^+(t)$ is an operator from $E_Y^p \oplus E_Y^p$ to $E_X^p \oplus E_X^p$ such that $||V_f(t)||\leq 4$, $||V^+_f(t)||\leq 4$ and $V_f^+(t)V_f(t)=I$ for all $t\in[0,\infty)$.
\[Lemma:IsometryPairHom\] Let $f$ and $\{\varepsilon_k\}_k$ be as above, then the pair $(V_f(t),V_f^+(t))$ induces a homomorphism $\mathrm{Ad}((V_f,V_f^+))$ from $B_L^p(X)$ to $B_L^p(Y)\otimes M_2(\mathbb{C})$ defined by: $$\mathrm{Ad}((V_f,V_f^+))(u)(t)=V_f(t)(u(t)\oplus 0)V_f^+(t)$$ for any $u\in B_L^p(X)$ and $t\in [0,\infty)$, such that $$\mathrm{prop}(\mathrm{Ad}((V_f,V_f^+))(u)(t))\leq \sup_{(x,y)\in \mathrm{supp}(u(t))}d(f(x),f(y))+2\varepsilon_k + 2\varepsilon_{k+1}$$ for all $t\in [k,k+1]$.
Moreover, the induced map $\mathrm{Ad}((V_f,V_f^+))_*$ on $K$-theory depends only on f and not on the choice of the pairs $\{(V_k,V_k^+)\}$ in the construction of $V_f(t)$ and $V_f^+(t)$.
For any $u\in B_L^p(X)$, $\mathrm{Ad}((V_f,V_f^+))(u)$ is bounded and uniformly norm-continuous in $t$ although $V_f$ and $V_f^+$ is not norm-continuous. By the same ways as the proof of Lemma \[Lemma:CoveringIsometryPair\], we can obtain that $\mathrm{Ad}((V_f,V_f^+))(u)(t)$ is locally compact when $u(t)$ is locally compact for each $t$ and $\mathrm{Ad}((V_f,V_f^+))_*$ does not depend on the choice of the pair $(V_f,V_f^+)$.
Thus we just need to consider prop($\mathrm{Ad}((V_f,V_f^+))(u)(t)$) for which prop($u(t)$) is uniformly finite and prop($u(t)$)$\rightarrow 0$ as $t\rightarrow \infty$. By Lemma \[Remark:support\] (4), we know that $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{prop}(V_k u(t) V_k^+) &\le\sup\{d(f(x),f(y)):(x,y)\in \mathrm{supp}(u(t))\}+2\varepsilon_k\\
\mathrm{prop}(V_k u(t) V_{k+1})& \le \sup\{d(f(x),f(y)):(x,y)\in \mathrm{supp}(u(t))\}+\varepsilon_k+\varepsilon_{k+1}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus by Remark \[Remark:propagation\], we have
prop$(\mathrm{Ad}((V_f,V_f^+))(u)(t))$ $\leq$ sup$\{d(f(x),f(y)):(x,y)\in \mathrm{supp}(u(t))\}$ $+$ $2\varepsilon_k + 2\varepsilon_{k+1}$
Therefore, $\mathrm{prop}(\mathrm{Ad}((V_f,V_f^+))(u)(t))$ is uniformly finite since $f$ is a coarse map, and $\mathrm{prop}(\mathrm{Ad}((V_f,V_f^+))(u)(t)$)$\rightarrow 0$ as $t\rightarrow \infty$ since $f$ is uniformly continuous map and $\varepsilon_k\rightarrow 0$.
The $i$-th *$L^p$ $K$-homology* of $X$, is defined to be $K_i(B^p_L(X))$.
Obstruction group
-----------------
Let $X$ be a separable proper metric space, now consider the evaluation-at-zero homomorphism: $$e_0:B_L^p(X)\rightarrow B^p(X)$$ which induces a homomorphism on $K$-theory: $$e_0:K_*(B_L^p(X))\rightarrow K_*(B^p(X))$$
Let $C$ be a locally finite and uniformly bounded cover for $X$. The *nerve space* $N_C$ associated to $C$ is defined to be the simplicial complex whose set of vertices equals $C$ and where a finite subset $\{U_0,\ldots,U_n\}\subseteq C$ spans an $n$-simplex in $N_C$ if and only if $\bigcap_{i=0}^n U_i \not=\emptyset$. Endow $N_C$ with the *$\ell^1$-metric*, i.e., the path metric whose restriction to each simplex $\{U_0,\ldots,U_n\}$ given by $$d(\sum^n_{i=0}t_iU_i,\sum^n_{i=0}s_iU_i)=\sum^n_{i=0}|t_i-s_i|.$$ The metric of two points which in the different connected components is defined to be $\infty$ by convention.
A sequence of locally finite and uniformly bounded covers $\{C_k\}_{k=0}^\infty$ of metric space $X$ is called an *anti-Čech system* of $X$ [@RoeBookCoarseCohomology], if there exists a sequence of positive numbers $R_k\rightarrow \infty$ such that for each $k$,
\(1) every set $U\in C_k$ has diameter less than or equal to $R_k$;
\(2) any set of diameter $R_k$ in $X$ is contained in some member of $C_{k+1}$.
An anti-Čech system always exists [@RoeBookCoarseCohomology]. By the property of the anti-Čech system, for every pair $k_2>k_1$, there exists a simplicial map $i_{k_1 k_2}$ from $N_{C_{k_1}}$ to $N_{C_{k_2}}$ such that $i_{k_1k_2}$ maps a simplex $\{U_0,\ldots,U_n\}$ in $N_{C_{k_1}}$ to a simplex $\{U_0',\ldots,U_n'\}$ in $N_{C_{k_2}}$ satisfying $U_i\subseteq U_i'$ for all $0\leq i\leq n$. Thus, $i_{k_1 k_2}$ gives rise to the following inductive systems of groups:
$\mathrm{ad}((V_{i_{k_1k_2}},V_{i_{k_1k_2}}^+))_*:K_*(B^p(N_{C_{k_1}}))\rightarrow K_*(B^p(N_{C_{k_2}}))$;\
$\mathrm{Ad}((V_{i_{k_1k_2}},V_{i_{k_1k_2}}^+))_*:K_*(B_L^p(N_{C_{k_1}}))\rightarrow K_*(B_L^p(N_{C_{k_2}}))$.
The following conjecture is called the $L^p$ coarse Baum-Connes conjecture.
Let $X$ be a separable proper metric space, $\{C_k\}_{k=0}^\infty$ be an anti-Čech system of $X$, then the evaluation-at-zero homomorphism $$e_0:\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty} K_*(B_L^p(N_{C_k})) \rightarrow \lim_{k\rightarrow \infty} K_*(B^p(N_{C_k})) \cong K_*(B^p(X))$$ is an isomorphism.
One can check that for each $p\in [1,\infty)$, the group $\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty} K_*(B_L^p(N_{C_k}))$ be the *coarse $K$-homology of $X$* [@WillettYuBook]. Moreover, it is not difficult to see that the $L^p$ coarse Baum-Connes conjecture for $X$ does not depend on the choice of the anti-Čech system.
Let $B_{L,0}^p(X)=\{f\in B_L^p(X):f(0)=0\}$. There exists an exact sequence: $$0 \rightarrow B_{L,0}^p(X) \rightarrow B_L^p(X) \rightarrow B^p(X) \rightarrow 0$$ Thus we have the following reduction:
\[Thm:VanishingObstruction\] Let $X$ be a separable proper metric space, $\{C_k\}_{k=0}^\infty$ be an anti-Čech system of $X$, then the $L^p$ coarse Baum-Connes conjecture is ture if and only if $$\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty} K_*(B_{L,0}^p(N_{C_k}))=0$$
For obvious reason $\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty} K_*(B_{L,0}^p(N_{C_k}))$ is called the obstruction group to the $L^p$ coarse Baum-Connes conjecture.
Controlled obstructions: $QP_{\delta,N,r,k}(X),QU_{\delta,N,r,k}(X)$
====================================================================
The controlled obstruction $QP$ and $QU$ for the coarse Baum-Connes conjecture was introduced by Guoliang Yu [@YuFAD]. In this section, we will introduce and study the $L^p$ version of $QP$ and $QU$, which can be considered as a controlled version of $K_0(B^p_{L,0}(X)\otimes C_0((0,1)^k))$ and $K_1(B^p_{L,0}(X)\otimes C_0((0,1)^k))$. We will follow the notation in [@YuFAD]. One may refer to [@OyonoYuQuantitative][@ChungQuantiativeBanach] for more detail about the controlled $K$-theory for $C^\ast$-algebras and $L^p$-algebras.
Fundamental concept and property
--------------------------------
([@ChungQuantiativeBanach]) Let A be a unital Banach algebra, for $0<\delta<1/100,N\geq 1$, we define (1) an element $e$ in $A$ is called *$(\delta,N)$-idempotent*, if $||e^2-e||<\delta$ and max$\{||e||,||I-e||\}\leq N$; (2) an element $u$ in $A$ is called $(\delta,N)$-$invertible$, if $||u||\leq N$, and there exists $v\in A$ with $||v||\leq N$ such that max$\{||uv-I||,||vu-I||\}<\delta$, where $I$ is the unit of $A$. Such $v$ is called the $(\delta,N)$-inverse of $u$.
Let $X$ be a proper metric space, let $B^p_{L,0}(X)^+$ be the Banach algebra obtained from $B^p_{L,0}(X)$ by adjoining an identity $I$.
Let $0<\delta<1/100, N\geq 1, r>0$, $k$ and $n$ be nonnegative integers. Define $QP_{\delta,N,r,k}(B^p_{L,0}(X)^+ \otimes M_n(\mathbb{C}))$ to be the set of all continuous functions $f$ from $[0,1]^k$ to $B^p_{L,0}(X)^+ \otimes M_n(\mathbb{C})$ such that:
\(1) $f(t)$ is an $(\delta,N)$-idempotent and prop$(f(t))$ $\leq r$ for all $t\in [0,1]^k$;
\(2) $||f(t)-e_m||<\delta$ for all $t\in bd([0,1]^k)$, the boundary of $[0,1]^k$ in $\mathbb{R}^k$, where $e_m=I\oplus \ldots \oplus I\oplus 0\oplus \ldots \oplus 0$ with $m$ identities;
\(3) $\pi(f(t))=e_m$, where $\pi$ is the canonical homomorphism from $B^p_{L,0}(X)^+ \otimes M_n(\mathbb{C})$ to $M_n(\mathbb{C})$.
Let $0<\delta<1/100, N\geq 1, r>0$, $QP_{\delta,N,r,k}(X)$ is defined to be the direct limit of $QP_{\delta,N,r,k}(B^P_{L,0}(X)^+ \otimes M_n(\mathbb{C}))$ under the embedding: $p\rightarrow p\oplus 0$.
Let $0<\delta<1/100, N\geq 1, r>0$, $k$ and $n$ be nonnegative integers. Define $QU_{\delta,N,r,k}(B^p_{L,0}(X)^+ \otimes M_n(\mathbb{C}))$ to be the set of all continuous functions $u$ from $[0,1]^k$ to $B^p_{L,0}(X)^+ \otimes M_n(\mathbb{C})$ such that there exists a continuous function $v:[0,1]^k \rightarrow B^p_{L,0}(X)^+ \otimes M_n(\mathbb{C})$ satisfying that:
\(1) $u(t)$ is an $(\delta,N)$-invertible with a $(\delta,N)$-inverse $v(t)$ such that $\max\{\mathrm{prop}(u(t))$, $\mathrm{prop}(v(t))$} $\leq r$ for all $t\in [0,1]^k$;
\(2) $||u(t)-I||<\delta$ and $||v(t)-I||<\delta$ for all $t\in \mathrm{bd}([0,1]^k)$;
\(3) $\pi(u(t))=\pi(v(t))=I$, where $\pi$ is the canonical homomorphism from $B^p_{L,0}(X)^+ \otimes M_n(\mathbb{C})$ to $M_n(\mathbb{C})$.
Such $v$ is called a *$(\delta,N,r)$-inverse* of $u$.
Let $0<\delta<1/100, N\geq 1, r>0$, $QU_{\delta,N,r,k}(X)$ is defined to be the direct limit of $QU_{\delta,N,r,k}(B^P_{L,0}(X)^+ \otimes M_n(\mathbb{C})$ under the embedding: $u\rightarrow u\oplus I$.
Let $e_1,e_2\in QP_{\delta,N,r,k}(B^p_{L,0}(X)^+ \otimes M_n(\mathbb{C}))$, we call $e_1$ is *$(\delta,N,r)$-equivalent* to $e_2$, if there exists a continuous homotopy $a(t')$ in $QP_{\delta,N,r,k}(B^p_{L,0}(X)^+ \otimes M_n(\mathbb{C}))$ for $t'\in [0,1]$, such that $a(0)=e_1$ and $a(1)=e_2$. Such homotopy be called a *$(\delta,N,r)$-homotopy*.
Notice that (1) any $e\in QP_{\delta,N,r,k}(X)$ is $(\delta',N',r)$-equivalent to some $f$ for which $f(t)=\pi(f)$ for all $t\in \mathrm{bd}([0,1]^k)$; (2) if $e_1$ is $(\delta,N,r)$-equivalent to $e_2$ and $e_1(t)=\pi(e_1)$, $e_2(t)=\pi(e_2)$ for all $t\in \mathrm{bd}([0,1]^k)$, then there exists a homotopy $a(t')$ in $QP_{\delta'',N'',r,k}(X)$ such that $a(0)=e_1,a(1)=e_2$ and $a(t')(t)=\pi(a(t'))$ for all $t\in \mathrm{bd}([0,1]^k)$, where $\delta',\delta''$ depend only on $\delta,N$; $N',N''$ depend only on $N$.
Let $u_1,u_2$ are two elements in $QU_{\delta,N,r,k}(B^p_{L,0}(X)^+ \otimes M_n(\mathbb{C}))$, we call $u_1$ is *$(\delta,N,r)$-equivalent* to $u_2$, if there exists a continuous homotopy $w(t')$ in $QU_{\delta,N,r,k}(B^p_{L,0}(X)^+ \otimes M_n(\mathbb{C}))$ for $t'\in [0,1]$ such that $w(0)=u_1$ and $w(1)=u_2$. This equivalence reduce an equivalent relation in $QU_{\delta,N,r,k}(X)$.
The following lemma tell us that $QP_{\delta,N,r,k}(X)$ can be considered as a controlled version of $K_0(B^p_{L,0}(X) \otimes C_0((0,1)^k))$.
\[Lemma:QuasiVSTrueProjection\] Let $0<\delta<1/100$ and $\chi$ is a function such that $\chi(x)=1$ for $\mathrm{Re}(x)>1/2$; $\chi(x)=0$ for $\mathrm{Re}(x)<1/2$,
\(1) for any $e\in QP_{\delta,N,r,k}(X)$, $\chi(e)$ is an idempotent and define an element $[\chi(e)]\in K_0(B^p_{L,0}(X)\otimes C_0((0,1)^k))$;
\(2) for any two elements $e_1,e_2\in QP_{\delta,N,r,k}(X)$ satisfying that $e_1$ is $(\delta,N,r)$-equivalent to $e_2$, then $[\chi(e_1)]=[\chi(e_2)]$ in $K_0(B^p_{L,0}(X)\otimes C_0((0,1)^k))$;
\(3) for any $0<\delta<1/100$, every element in $K_0(B^p_{L,0}(X)\otimes C_0((0,1)^k))$ can be represented as $[\chi(e_1)]-[\chi(e_2)]$, where $e_1,e_2\in QP_{\delta,N,r,k}(X)$ for some $N\geq 1$ and $r>0$.
\(1) and (2) are straightforward by holomorphic function calculus and the definition of $(\delta,N,r,k)$-equivalence. To prove (3), for any $[p]-[q]\in K_0(B^p_{L,0}(X)\otimes C_0((0,1)^k))$ where $p,q\in (B^p_{L,0}\otimes C_0((0,1)^k))^+ \otimes M_n(\mathbb{C})$, Let $N=||p||+||1-p||+1$, by approximation argument there exists $r>0$ and $e_1\in (B^p_{L,0}\otimes C((0,1)^k) )^+\otimes M_n(\mathbb{C})$ such that $\mathrm{prop}(e_1)<r$ and $||e_1-p||<\frac{\delta}{4N}$, then we have $e_1\in QP_{\delta,N,r,k}(X)$, now we just need to prove $[\chi(e_1)]=[p]$, let $e(t')=t'e_1+(1-t')p$ for $t'\in [0,1]$, then $||e^2(t')-e(t')||<\delta$, thus $\chi(e(t'))$ is a continuous homotopy of projections between $\chi(e(0))=p$ and $\chi(e(1))=\chi(e_1)$.
The following lemma tell us that $QU_{\delta,N,r,k}(X)$ can be considered as a controlled version of $K_1(B^p_{L,0}(X) \otimes C_0((0,1)^k))$.
\[Lemma:QuasiVSTrueInvertible\] Let $0<\delta<1/100$,
\(1) for any $u\in QU_{\delta,N,r,k}(X)$, $u$ is invertible element and define a element $[u]$ in $K_1(B^p_{L,0}(X)\otimes C_0((0,1)^k))$;
\(2) if $u_1$ is $(\delta,N,r)$-equivalent to $u_2$ in $QU_{\delta,N,r,k}(X)$, then $[u_1]=[u_2]$ in $K_1(B^p_{L,0}(X)\otimes C_0((0,1)^k))$;
\(3) for any $0<\delta<1/100$, every element in $K_1(B^p_{L,0}(X)\otimes C_0((0,1)^k))$ can be represented as $[u]$, where $u\in QU_{\delta,N,r,k}(X)$ for some $N\geq 1$ and $r>0$.
\(1) is true since the set of invertible elements in Banach algebra is open, (2) is true by the definition of $(\delta,N,r)$-equivalence. To prove (3), assume $[u']\in K_1(B^p_{L,0}(X)\otimes C_0((0,1)^k))$, let $N=||u'||+||u'^{-1}||+1$, then there exists $r>0$ and $u,v\in B^p_{L,0}(X)\otimes C_0((0,1)^k)\otimes M_n(\mathbb{C})$ such that $||u-u'||<\frac{\delta}{2N}, ||v-u'_{-1}||<\frac{\delta}{2N}$ and $\mathrm{prop}(u)<r,\mathrm{prop}(v)<r$, then we have $||u||\leq N, ||v||\leq N$ and $||uv-I||<\delta,||vu-I||<\delta$, thus $u\in QU_{\delta,N,r,k}(X)$, let $w(t)=tu+(1-t)u'$ for $t\in [0,1]$, then we have $||w(t)u'^{-1}-I||<\delta<1/100$, thus $w(t)u'^{-1}$ is an invertible element, so is $w(t)$, therefore $[u]=[u']$ in $K_1(B^p_{L,0}(X)\otimes C_0((0,1)^k))$.
\[Lemma:HomotopyImpliesLipschitz\](Lemma 2.29 in [@ChungQuantiativeBanach]) If $e$ is $(\delta,N,r)$-equivalent to $f$ by a homotopy $e_{t'}(t'\in [0,1])$ in $QP_{\delta,N,r,k}(X)$, then there exists $\alpha_N>0,m\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $e\oplus I_m\oplus 0_m$ is $(2\delta,3N,r)$-equivalent to $f\oplus I_m\oplus 0_m$ by a $\alpha_N$-Lipschitz homotopy, where $\alpha_N$ depends only on $N$ and not on $e,f,\delta,r$; and $m$ depends only on $\delta,N,e_{t'}$.
There exists a partition $0=t'_0<t'_1<\ldots<t'_m=1$ such that $$||e_{t'_i}-e_{t'_{i-1}}||<\inf_{t'\in [0,1]} \frac{\delta-||e^2_{t'}-e_{t'}||}{2N+1}$$ For each $t'$, we have a Lipschitz $(\delta,3N,r)$-homotopy between $I\oplus 0$ and $e_{t'}\oplus (1-e_{t'})$ given by combining the linear homotopy connecting $I\oplus 0$ to $(e_{t'}-e^2_{t'})\oplus 0$ and the homotopy $$(e_{t'}\oplus 0)+R^*(s)((1-e_{t'})\oplus 0)R(s)$$ where $R(s)=\begin{pmatrix}
\cos(\pi s/2) & \sin(\pi s/2)\\
-\sin(\pi s/2) & \cos(\pi s/2)
\end{pmatrix}$. Obviously, the linear homotopy between $e_{t'_{i-1}}$ and $e_{t'_i}$ is Lipschitz for all $i$. Then
$\begin{pmatrix}
e_{t'_0} & & \\
& I_m & \\
& & 0_m
\end{pmatrix}\\
\simeq \begin{pmatrix}
e_{t'_0} & & & & &\\
& I & & & &\\
& & 0 & & &\\
& & & \ddots & &\\
& & & & I & \\
& & & & & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\simeq \begin{pmatrix}
e_{t'_0} & & & & &\\
& I-e_{t'_1} & & & &\\
& & e_{t'_1} & & &\\
& & & \ddots & &\\
& & & & I-e_{t'_m} & \\
& & & & & e_{t'_m}
\end{pmatrix}\\
\simeq \begin{pmatrix}
e_{t'_0} & & & & &\\
& I-e_{t'_0} & & & &\\
& & e_{t'_1} & & &\\
& & & \ddots & &\\
& & & & I-e_{t'_{m-1}} & \\
& & & & & e_{t'_m}
\end{pmatrix}
\simeq \begin{pmatrix}
I & & & & &\\
& 0 & & & &\\
& & I & & &\\
& & & \ddots & &\\
& & & & 0 & \\
& & & & & e_{t'_m}
\end{pmatrix}\\
\simeq \begin{pmatrix}
e_{t'_m} & & \\
& I_m & \\
& & 0_m
\end{pmatrix}$.\
Where $\simeq$ represent $(2\delta,3N,r)$-equivalence by Lipschitz homotopy.
We remark that we have a result for $QU$ similar to above lemma, i.e., homotopy implies Lipschitz homotopy.
The following lemma tells us that homotopy equivalence of two quasi-invertible elements implies homotopy equivalence of their quasi-inverses.
\[Lemma:EquivImplyInverseEquiv\] Let $u_1,u_2$ be two elements in $QU_{\delta,N,r,k}(X)$ with inverse $v_1,v_2$ respectively, if $u_1$ is $(\delta,N,r)$-equivalent to $u_2$, then $v_1$ is $(4\delta,2N,r)$-equivalent to $v_2$ in $QU_{4\delta,2N,r,k}(X)$.
Let $w(t')$ be the homotopy path jointing $u_1$ and $u_2$, for $\varepsilon=\frac{\delta}{N}$, there exists a partition $0=t'_0<t'_1<\ldots<t'_n=1$ such that $$\max_{0\leq i \leq n-1} \left\{||w(l)-w(l')||:t'_i\leq l,l' \leq t'_{i+1} \right\}<\frac{\delta}{N}.$$ Assume $s_{t'_i}$ is the $(\delta,N,r)$-inverse of $w(t'_i)$, we require $s_0=v_1,s_1=v_2$, let $$s(t')=\frac{t'-t'_i}{t'_{i+1}-t'_i}s_{t'_{i+1}}-\frac{t'-t'_{i+1}}{t'_{i+1}-t'_i}s_{t'_i},t'_i\leq t' \leq t'_{i+1}$$ we have $||s_{t'_i}w(t')-I||\leq ||s_{t'_i}||\cdot ||w(t')-w(t'_i)||+||s_{t'_i}w(t'_i)-I||\leq 2\delta$ for $t'_i\leq t'\leq t'_{i+1}$, then $||s(t')w(t')-I||\leq 4\delta$, similarly, $||w(t')s(t')-I||\leq 4\delta$.
Obviously, $||s(t')||\leq 2N$ and $\mathrm{prop}(s(t'))<r$, thus $s(t')$ is a continuous homotopy between $v_1$ and $v_2$ in $QU_{4\delta,2N,r,k}(X)$.
The following two lemmas can be viewed as the controlled version of the classical result in $K$-theory that stably homotopy equivalence of idempotents is the same as stably similarity.
\[Lemma:HomotopyImpliesSimilar\] Let $0<\delta<1/100$, if $e$ is $(\delta,N,r)$-equivalent to $f$ in $QP_{\delta,N,r,k}(X)$, then there exist a positive number $m$ and an element $u$ in $QU_{\delta,C_1(N),C_2(N,\delta)r,k}(X)$ with $(\delta,C_1(N),C_2(N,\delta)r)$-inverse $v$, such that $$||f\oplus I_m\oplus 0_m - v(e\oplus I_m\oplus 0_m)u||<C_3(N)\delta$$ where $C_1(N)$ and $C_3(N)$ depend only on $N$, $C_2(N,\delta)$ depends only on $N$ and $\delta$.
By Lemma \[Lemma:HomotopyImpliesLipschitz\], there exists $\alpha_N>0,m\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $e\oplus I_m\oplus 0_m$ is $(2\delta,3N,r)$-equivalent to $f\oplus I_m\oplus 0_m$ by a $\alpha_N$-Lipschitz homotopy $e_{t'}$, i.e. $||e_{t'}-e_{t''}||\leq \alpha_N|t'-t''|$ for any $t',t''\in [0,1]$. There exists a partition $0=t'_0<t'_1<\ldots<t'_n=1$ such that $$\alpha_N|t'_{i+1}-t'_i|<\frac{1}{2N+1}$$ Let $w_i=((2e_{t'_i}-I)(2e_{t'_{i+1}}-I)+I)/2$, we have $I-w_i=(2e_{t'_i}-I)(e_{t'_i}-e_{t'_{i+1}})+2(e_{t'_i}-e^2_{t'_i})$, then $$||I-w_i||<||2e_{t'_i}-I||\cdot ||e_{t'_i}-e_{t'_{i+1}}||+2||e_{t'_i}-e^2_{t'_i}||<1/2+4\delta<1$$ thus $w_i$ is an invertible element and $w^{-1}_i=\Sigma^{\infty}_{j=0}(1-w_i)^j$, let $v_i=\Sigma^l_{j=0}(I-w_i)^j$ satisfying $||v_i-w^{-1}_i||<\delta/2((\max_{i}\{||w_i||,||w^{-1}_i||\}+1)^n)$, let $$u=w_0w_1\ldots w_{n-1},v=v_{n-1}v_{n-2}\ldots v_0$$ then $\max\{||u||,||v||\} \leq C_1(N)$, $\max\{\mathrm{prop}(u(t)),\mathrm{prop}(v(t))\} \leq C_2(N,\delta)r$ for $t\in[0,1]^k$ and $\max\{||I-uv||,||I-vu||\}<\delta$, where $C_1(N)$ depends only on $N$ and $C_2(N,\delta)$ depends only on $N,\delta$.
By computation, we have $||e_{t'_i}w_i-w_ie_{t'_{i+1}}||<26N\delta$, then $||ue_1-e_0u||<C'N$, where $C'$ depends only on $N$. Thus, $$||e_1-v(e_0)u||=||e_1-vue_1+v(ue_1-e_0u)||<C_3(N)\delta$$ where $C_3(N)$ depends only on $N$.
\[Lemma:SimilarImplyHomotopy\] Let $N\geq 1$, $0<\delta<1/(800N^4), 0<\varepsilon<1/400$, for $e$ and $f$ in $QP_{\delta,N,r,k}(B^p_{L,0}(X)^+\otimes M_n(\mathbb{C}))$, if there exists $u$ in $QU_{\delta,N,r,k}(X)$ with $(\delta,N,r)$-inverse $v$ satisfying $||uev-f||<\varepsilon$, then $e\oplus 0_n$ is $(2\varepsilon+4N^4\delta,2N^3,3r)$-equivalent to $f\oplus 0_n$ in $QP_{2\varepsilon+4N^4\delta,2N^3,3r,k}(X)$.
Let $e_{t'}$ be a homotopy connecting $f\oplus 0_n$ to $e\oplus 0_n$ obtained by combining the linear homotopy connecting $f\oplus 0_n$ to $uev\oplus 0_n$ with the following homotopy connecting $uev\oplus 0_n$ to $e\oplus 0_n$: $$R(t')(u\oplus I_n)R^*(t')(e\oplus 0_n)R(t')(v\oplus I_n)R^*(t')$$ where $R(t')=\begin{pmatrix}
\cos(\pi t'/2) & \sin(\pi t'/2)\\
-\sin(\pi t'/2) & \cos(\pi t'/2)
\end{pmatrix}$. This is not difficult to verify $e_{t'}$ is a $(2\varepsilon+4N^4\delta,2N^3,3r)$-homotopy between $e$ and $f$.
Let $X$ be a separable proper metric space, define $$GQP_{\delta,N,r,k}(X)=\{e-f:e,f\in QP_{\delta,N,r,k}(X), \pi(e)=\pi(f)\}$$ The equivalent relation in $GQP_{\delta,N,r,k}$ is defined by: $e_1-f_1$ is called $(\delta,N,r)$-equivalent to $e_2-f_2$ if $e_1\oplus f_2\oplus I_n\oplus 0_n$ is $(\delta,N,r)$-equivalent to $f_1\oplus e_2\oplus I_n\oplus 0_n$ for some $n$.
For any $u\in QU_{\delta,N,r,k}(X)$ with $(\delta,N,r)$-inverse $v$, let $Z_t(u)$ be a homotopy connecting $I\oplus I$ to $u\oplus v$ obtained by combining the linear homotopy connecting $I\oplus I$ to $uv\oplus I$ with the homotopy $(u\oplus I)R(t)(v\oplus I)R^*(t)$ connecting $uv\oplus I$ to $u\oplus v$, let $Z'_t(u)$ be a homotopy connecting $I\oplus I$ to $v\oplus u$ obtained by combining the linear homotopy connecting $I\oplus I$ to $uv\oplus I$ with the homotopy $R(t)(u\oplus I)R^*(t)(v\oplus I)$ connecting $uv\oplus I$ to $v\oplus u$, where $$R(t)=\begin{pmatrix}
\cos(\pi t/2) & \sin(\pi t/2)\\
-\sin(\pi t/2) &\cos(\pi t/2)
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Let $$e_t(u)=Z_t(u)(I\oplus 0)Z'_t(u)$$ we have (1) $||e^2_t(u)-e_t(u)||<8N^6\delta$; (2) $||e_t(u)||\leq 4N^4$ and $||I-e_t(u)||\leq 5N^4$; (3) $\mathrm{prop}(e_t(u)(t'))\leq 2r$ for $t'\in [0,1]^k$.
Then we can define a map $\theta$ from $QU_{\delta,N,r,k}(X)$ to $GQP_{8N^6\delta,5N^4,2r,k+1}(X)$ by: $$\theta(u)=e_t(u)-(I\oplus 0)$$
It is not difficult to see that the definition of $\theta$ does not depend on the choose of $(\delta,N,r)$-inverse $v$ of $u$ in the sense of equivalence.
The following result can be considered as a controlled version of a classical result in operator $K$-theory $K_1(A)\cong K_0(SA)$.
\[Lemma:ControlledSuspension\] $\theta:QU_{\delta,N,r,k}(X)\rightarrow GQP_{8N^6\delta,5N^4,2r,k+1}(X)$ is an asymptotic isomorphism in the following sense:
\(1) For any $0<\delta<1/100,r>0,N\geq 1$, there exists $0<\delta_1<\delta, N_1\geq N$ and $0<r_1<r$, such that if two elements $u_1$ and $u_2$ in $QU_{\delta_1,N,r_1,k}(X)$ are $(\delta_1,N,r_1)$-equivalent, then $\theta(u_1)$ and $\theta(u_2)$ are $(\delta,N_1,r)$-equivalent, where $\delta_1$ depends only on $\delta$ and $N$; $N_1$ depends only on $N$ and $r_1$ depends only on $r$.
\(2) For any $0<\delta<1/100,r>0,N\geq 1$, there exists $0<\delta_2<\delta, N_2\geq N$ and $0<r_2<r$, such that if $u'$ and $u''$ in $QU_{\delta_2,N,r_2,k}(X)$ satisfying $\theta(u')$ is $(\delta_2,N,r_2)$-equivalent to $\theta(u'')$, then $u'\oplus I_m$ is $(\delta,N_2,r)$-equivalent to $u''\oplus I_m$ for some $m\in \mathbb{N}$, where $\delta_2$ depends only on $\delta$ and $N$; $N_2$ depends only on $N$ and $r_2$ depends only on $r,\delta,N$.
\(3) For any $0<\delta<1/100,r>0,N\geq 1$, there exists $0<\delta_3<\delta, N_3\geq N$ and $0<r_3<r$, such that for each $e-e_m\in GQP_{\delta_3,N,r_3,k+1}(X)$, there exists $u\in QU_{\delta,N_3,r,k}(X)$ for which $\theta(u)$ is $(\delta,N_3,r)$-equivalent to $e-e_m$, where $\delta_3$ depends only on $\delta$ and $N$; $N_3$ depends only on $N$ and $r_3$ depends only on $r,\delta,N$.
\(1) Let $v_i$ be the $(\delta_1,N,r_1)$-inverse of $u_i$ for $i=1,2$, $w(t)$ be the $(\delta_1,N,r_1)$-homotopy between $u_1$ and $u_2$, by Lemma \[Lemma:EquivImplyInverseEquiv\], there exists a $(4\delta_1,2N,r_1)$-homotopy $s(t)$ connecting $v_1$ and $v_2$ such that $||I-s(t)w(t)||$ and $||I-w(t)s(t)||\}$ are less than $4\delta_1$. Let $a(t)$ be a homotopy connecting $I$ to $v_2u_1$ obtained by combining the linear homotopy connecting $I$ to $v_1u_1$ with the homotopy $s(t)u_1$; let $a'(t)$ be a homotopy connecting $I$ to $v_1u_2$ obtained by combining the linear homotopy connecting $I$ to $v_1u_1$ with the homotopy $v_1w(t)$; let $b(t)$ be a homotopy connecting $I$ to $u_2v_1$ obtained by combining the linear homotopy connecting $I$ to $u_1v_1$ with the homotopy $w(t)v_1$; let $b'(t)$ be a homotopy connecting $I$ to $u_1v_2$ obtained by combining the linear homotopy connecting $I$ to $u_1v_1$ with the homotopy $u_1s(t)$. Define $$x_t=Z_t(u_2)(a(t)\oplus b(t))Z'_t(u_1)$$ $$x'_t=Z_t(u_1)(a'(t)\oplus b'(t))Z'_t(u_2)$$ Then (i) $\max\{||x_t||,||x'_t||\}\leq 8N^6$; (ii) $\max\{||I-x_t x'_t||,||I-x'_t x_t||\} < 64N^{10}\delta_1$; (iii) $\max\{\mathrm{prop}(x_t),\mathrm{prop}(x'_t)\}<6r_1$; (iv) $\max\{||x_i-I||,||x'_i-I||<3\delta_1\}$ for $i=0,1$. Thus $x_t,x'_t\in QU_{64N^{10}\delta_1,8N^6,6r_1,k+1}(X)$. And $$||x_te_t(u_1)x'_t-e_t(u_2)||<(184N^{14})\delta_1$$ By Lemma \[Lemma:SimilarImplyHomotopy\], we can select appropriate $\delta_1,N_1$ and $r_1$ satisfying (1).
\(2) Let $v',v''$ be $(\delta_2,N,r_2)$-inverse of $u',u''$ respectively. By Lemma \[Lemma:HomotopyImpliesSimilar\], there exists an element $u$ in $QU_{\delta_2,C_1(N),C_2(N,\delta_2)r_2,k+1}(X)$ with inverse $v$, such that $$||ue_t(u'\oplus I)v-e_t(u''\oplus I)||<C_3(N)\delta_2$$ i.e. $$||u_tZ_t(u'\oplus I)(I\oplus 0)Z'_t(u'\oplus I)v_t-Z_t(u''\oplus I)(I\oplus 0)Z'_t(u''\oplus I)||<C_3(N)\delta_2 \eqno(A)$$ where $t\in[0,1]$,then we have $$||Z'_t(u''\oplus I)u_tZ_t(u'\oplus I)(I\oplus 0)-(I\oplus 0)Z'_t(u''\oplus I)u_tZ_t(u'\oplus I)||<C_4(N)\delta_2 \eqno(B)$$ Let $$Z'_t(u''\oplus I)u_tZ_t(u'\oplus I)=\begin{pmatrix}
b_t & g_t\\
h_t & d_t
\end{pmatrix},$$ then by $(B)$, we obtain $$||g_t||<C_4(N)\delta_2, ||h_t||<C_4(N)\delta_2. \eqno(*)$$ By $(A)$, we also have $$||(I\oplus 0)Z'_t(u'\oplus I)v_tZ_t(u''\oplus I)-Z'_t(u'\oplus I)v_tZ_t(u''\oplus I)(I\oplus 0)||<C_5(N)\delta_2\eqno(C)$$ Let $$Z'_t(u'\oplus I)v_tZ_t(u''\oplus I)=\begin{pmatrix}
b'_t & g'_t\\
h'_t & d'_t
\end{pmatrix},$$ then by $(C)$, we obtain $$||g'_t||<C_5(N)\delta_2, ||h'_t||<C_5(N)\delta_2. \eqno(**)$$ Thus by $(*)$ and $(**)$, we know that $b_t\in QU_{C_6(N)\delta_2,C_7(N),C_8(N,\delta_2)r_2,k+1}(X)$ with $(C_6(N)\delta_2,C_7(N),C_8(N,\delta_2)r_2)$-inverse $b'_t$. And $$||c_0-I||\leq ||u_0-I||<\delta_2$$ $$||c_1-(v''\oplus I)(u'\oplus I)||<C_9(N)\delta_2.$$ Thus we can select appropriate $\delta_2,N_2$ and $r_2$ satisfying (2).
\(3) $e(t)$ can be considered as a homotopy in $QP_{\delta_3,N,r_3,k}(X)$, where $t\in [0,1]$, we can assume $e(0)=e(1)=e_m=I\oplus 0$, by the proof of Lemma \[Lemma:HomotopyImpliesSimilar\], there exists a homotopy $w(t)$ in $QU_{\delta_3,C_1(N),C_2(N,\delta_3)r_3,k}(X)$ with inverse $s(t)$ for which $w(0)=s(0)=I$ such that $$||w(t)(I\oplus 0\oplus I_m\oplus 0_m)s(t)-e(t)\oplus I_m\oplus 0_m||<C_3(N)\delta_3$$ for some $m\in \mathbb{N}$ and all $t\in [0,1]$, then by some minor modifications of $w(t)$ and $s(t)$, we have $$||w(1)(I\oplus 0)-(I\oplus 0)w(1)||<C_4(N)\delta_3 \eqno(A)$$ let $$w(1)=\begin{pmatrix}
u & g\\
h & u'
\end{pmatrix},
s(1)=\begin{pmatrix}
v & g'\\
h' & v'
\end{pmatrix},$$ then by $(A)$, we obtain $$\max\{||g||,||h||,||g'||,||h'||\}<C_4(N)\delta_3$$ thus $u$ and $u'$ are two elements in $QU_{C_5(N)\delta_3,C_6(N),C_7(N,\delta_3)r_3,k}(X)$ with inverse $v$ and $v'$ respectively.
Let $a_t$ be a homotopy connecting $I\oplus I\oplus I$ to $v'v\oplus I\oplus I$ obtained by combining the linear homotopy connecting $I\oplus I\oplus I$ to $v'u'\oplus I\oplus I$ with the rotation homotopy connecting $(v'\oplus I\oplus I)(u'\oplus I\oplus I)$ to $(v'\oplus I\oplus I)(v\oplus u\oplus u')$ with the homotopy $(v'\oplus I\oplus I)(v\oplus w(1-t))$ connecting $(v'\oplus I\oplus I)(v\oplus u\oplus u')$ to $v'v\oplus I\oplus I$, similarly, let $b_t$ be a homotopy connecting $I\oplus I\oplus I$ to $uu'\oplus I\oplus I$. Define $$y_t=(w(t)\oplus I\oplus I)(I\oplus a(t))(Z'_t(u)\oplus I\oplus I)$$ $$y'_t=(Z_t(u)\oplus I\oplus I)(I\oplus b(t))(s(t)\oplus I\oplus I)$$ then we have $$y_0=y'_0=I, \max\{||y_i-I||,||y'_i-I||\}<C_8(N)\delta_3 \eqno(A)$$ and $$||y_t(e_t(u)\oplus 0)y'_t-(e\oplus 0)||<C_9(N)\delta_3 \eqno(B)$$ Now by Lemma \[Lemma:SimilarImplyHomotopy\], we can choice appropriate $\delta_3,N_3,r_3$ on the basis of $(A)$ and $(B)$ satisfying (3).
Remark: we can also let $$y_t=(w(t)\oplus I\oplus I)(I\oplus Z'_t(u')s(t)\oplus I)(Z'_t(u)\oplus I\oplus I)$$ $$y'_t=(Z_t(u)\oplus I\oplus I)(I\oplus w(t)Z_t(u')\oplus I)(s(t)\oplus I\oplus I)$$
Strongly Lipschitz homotopy invariance
--------------------------------------
Let $f,g:X\rightarrow Y$ be two proper Lipschitz maps, a continuous homotopy $F(t,x)(t\in[0,1])$ between $f$ and $g$ is called *strongly Lipschitz* if: (1) $F(t,x)$ is a proper map from $X$ to $Y$ for each $t$; (2) there exists a constant $C$, such that $d(F(t,x),F(t,y))\leq Cd(x,y)$ for all $x,y\in X$ and $t\in [0,1]$, this $C$ is called Lipschitz constant of $F$; (3) $F$ is equicontinuous in $t$, i.e. for any $\varepsilon>0$, there exists $\delta>0$ such that $d(F(t_1,x),F(t_2,x))<\varepsilon$ for all $x\in X$ if $|t_1-t_2|<\delta$; (4) $F(0,x)=f(x),F(1,x)=g(x)$ for all $x\in X$.
$X$ is said to be strongly Lipschitz homotopy equivalent to $Y$, if there exist proper Lipschitz maps $f:X\rightarrow Y$ and $g:Y\rightarrow X$ such that $fg$ and $gf$ are strongly Lipschitz homotopic to $\mathrm{id}_Y$ and $\mathrm{id}_X$, respectively.
\[Lemma:Homotopy\] $f$ and $g$ be two Lipschitz maps from $X$ to $Y$, let $F(t,x)$ be a strongly Lipschitz homotopy connecting $f$ to $g$ with Lipschitz constant $C$, then there exists $C_0>0$, such that for any $u\in QU_{\delta,N,r,k}(X)$, there exists a homotopy $w(t')$ in $QU_{D(N)\delta,N^{100},C_0r,k}(Y)$ for which $$w(0)=\mathrm{Ad}((V_f,V^+_f))(u)\oplus I$$ $$w(1)=\mathrm{Ad}((V_g,V^+_g))(u)\oplus I$$ where $D(N)$ depends only on $N$ and $C_0$ depends only on $C$.
Choose $\{t_{i,j}\}_{i\geq 0,j\geq 0} \subseteq [0,1]$ satisfying
\(1) $t_{0,j}=0, t_{i,j+1}\leq t_{i,j}, t_{i+1,j}\geq t_{i,j}$;
\(2) there exists $N_j\rightarrow \infty$ such that $t_{i,j}=1$ for all $i\geq N_j$ and $N_{j+1}\geq N_j$;
\(3) $d(F(t_{i+1,j},x),F(t_{i,j},x))<\varepsilon_j=r/(j+1), d(F(t_{i,j+1},x),F(t_{i,j},x))<\varepsilon_j$ for all $x\in X$.
Let $f_{i,j}(x)=F(t_{i,j},x)$, by Lemma \[Lemma:CoveringIsometry\], there exist an isometric operator $V_{f_{i,j}}:E_X^p\rightarrow E_Y^p$ and a contractible operator $V^+_{f_{i,j}}:E_Y^p\rightarrow E_X^p$ with $V^+_{f_{i,j}}V_{f_{i,j}}=I$ such that
$\mathrm{supp}(V_{f_{i,j}}) \subseteq \{(x,y)\in X\times Y:d(f_{i,j}(x),y)<r/(1+i+j)\}$;\
$\mathrm{supp}(V^+_{f_{i,j}}) \subseteq\{(y,x)\in Y\times X:d(f_{i,j}(x),y)<r/(1+i+j)\}$.
For each $i>0$, define a family of operators $V_i(t)(t\in [0,\infty))$ from $E^p_X\oplus E^p_X$ to $E^p_Y\oplus E^p_Y$ and a family of operators $V^+_i(t)(t\in [0,\infty))$ from $E^p_Y\oplus E^p_Y$ to $E^p_X\oplus E^p_X$ by $$V_i(t)=R(t-j)(V_{f_{i,j}}\oplus V_{f_{i,j+1}})R^*(t-j), t\in[j,j+1]$$ $$V^+_i(t)=R(t-j)(V^+_{f_{i,j}}\oplus V^+_{f_{i,j+1}})R^*(t-j), t\in[j,j+1]$$ where $$R(t)=\begin{pmatrix}
\cos(\pi t/2) & \sin(\pi t/2)\\
-\sin(\pi t/2) & \cos(\pi t/2)
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Consider: $$u_0(t)=\mathrm{Ad}((V_f,V^+_f))(u)=V_f(t)(u(t)\oplus I)V^+_f(t)+(I-V_f(t)V^+_f(t));$$ $$u_{\infty}(t)=\mathrm{Ad}((V_g,V^+_g))(u)=V_g(t)(u(t)\oplus I)V^+_g(t)+(I-V_g(t)V^+_g(t));$$ $$u_i(t)=\mathrm{Ad}((V_i,V^+_i))(u)=V_i(t)(u(t)\oplus I)V^+_i(t)+(I-V_i(t)V^+_i(t)),$$ let $v$ be the $(\delta,N,r)$-inverse of $u$, similarly, we can define $$u'_i(t)=\mathrm{Ad}((V_i,V^+_i))(v).$$ For each $i$, define $n_i$ by $$n_i=\left\{
\begin{array}{lr}
\max\{j:i\geq N_j\}, & \{j:i\geq N_j\}\not= \emptyset;\\
0, & \{j:i\geq N_j\}= \emptyset.
\end{array}
\right.$$ We can choose $V_{f_{i,j}}$ in such a way that: $u_i(t)=u_{\infty}$ where $t\leq n_i$.
Define $$w_i(t)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
u_i(t)(u'_{\infty}(t)), & t\geq n_i;\\
(n_i-t)I+(t-n_i+1)u_i(t)u'_{\infty}(t), & n_i-1\leq t \leq n_i;\\
I, & 0\leq t \leq n_i-1.
\end{array}
\right.$$ Consider: $$\begin{aligned}
a&=\bigoplus^{\infty}_{i=0}(w_i\oplus I);\\
b&=\bigoplus^{\infty}_{i=0}(w_{i+1}\oplus I);\\
c&=(I\oplus I)\bigoplus^{\infty}_{i=1}(w_i\oplus I).
\end{aligned}$$ By the construction of $\{t_{i,j}\}$, we know that $a,b,c\in QU_{D_1(N)\delta,N^2,C_1r,k}(Y)$ for some constant $C_1$ depends only on $C$. Let $$V_{i,i+1}(t')=R(t')(V_i\oplus V_{i+1})R^*(t'),t'\in [0,1];$$ $$V^+_{i,i+1}(t')=R(t')(V^+_i\oplus V^+_{i+1})R^*(t'), t'\in [0,1].$$ Define $$u_{i,i+1}(t')=V_{i,i+1}(t')((u\oplus I)\oplus I)V^+_{i,i+1}(t')+(I-V_{i,i+1}(t')V^+_{i,i+1}(t')),$$ then $$\begin{aligned}
u_{i,i+1}(0)&=(V_i(u\oplus I)V^+_i+(I-V_iV^+_i))\oplus I;\\
u_{i,i+1}(1)&=(V_{i+1}(u\oplus I)V^+_{i+1}+(I-V_{i+1}V^+_{i+1}))\oplus I\end{aligned}$$ Using $u_{i,i+1}(t')$, we can construct a homotopy $s_1(t')$ in $QU_{D_2(N)\delta,N^{100},C_2r,k}(Y)$ for some $C_2\geq C_1$ depends only on $C$, such that $$s_1(0)=a, s_1(1)=b.$$
We can also construct a homotopy $s_2(t')$ in $QU_{D_3(N)\delta,N^{100},C_3r,k}(Y)$ for some $C_3\geq C_1$ depends only on $C$, such that $$s_2(0)=b\oplus I, s_2(1)=c\oplus I.$$
Finally, we define $w(t')$ to be the homotopy obtained by combining the following homotopies:
\(1) the linear homotopy between $(u_0\oplus I)\bigoplus^{\infty}_{i=1}(I\oplus I)$ and $c'a((u_{\infty}\oplus I)\bigoplus^{\infty}_{i=1}(I\oplus I))$;
\(2) $s'_2(1-t')a((u_{\infty}\oplus I)\bigoplus^{\infty}_{i=1}(I\oplus I)); $
\(3) $s'_1(1-t')a((u_{\infty}\oplus I)\bigoplus^{\infty}_{i=1}(I\oplus I)); $
\(4) the linear homotopy between $a'a((u_{\infty}\oplus I)\bigoplus^{\infty}_{i=1}(I\oplus I))$ and $(u_{\infty}\oplus I)\bigoplus^{\infty}_{i=1}(I\oplus I)$,\
where $a',b',c',s'_1,s'_2$ be the $(D(N)\delta,N^{100},C_0r)$-inverse of $a,b,c,s_1,s_2$ respectively in $QU_{D_4(N)\delta,N^{100},C_4r,k}(Y)$ for some $C_4\geq \max\{C_1,C_2,C_3\}$ depends only on $C$.
Therefore, $w(t')$ is the homotopy connecting $\mathrm{Ad}((V_f,V^+_f))(u)\bigoplus^{\infty}_{i=1}I$ to\
$\mathrm{Ad}((V_g,V^+_g))(u)\bigoplus^{\infty}_{i=1}I$.
By Lemma \[Lemma:ControlledSuspension\], we have the following result:
Let $X,Y,f$ and $g$ be as in Lemma \[Lemma:Homotopy\]. For any $0<\delta<1/100, N\geq 1,r\geq 0$, there exist $0<\delta_1<\delta, N_1\geq N, 0\leq r_1<r$ such that for any $e\in QP_{\delta_1,N,r_1,k}(X)(k>1)$, there exists a homotopy $e(t')(t'\in[0,1])$ in $QP_{\delta,N_1,r,k}(Y)$ satisfying $$e(0)=\mathrm{Ad}((V_f,V^+_f))(e\oplus 0)\oplus (I\oplus 0)$$ $$e(1)=\mathrm{Ad}((V_g,V^+_g))(e\oplus 0)\oplus (I\oplus 0)$$ where $\delta_1$ depends only on $\delta$ and $N$; $N_1$ depends only on $N$ and $r_1$ depends only on $r,\delta,N,C$.
controlled cutting and pasting {#section:cutpaste}
------------------------------
\[Def:ControlledBoundary\] Let $X$ be a separable proper metric space, $X_1$ and $X_2$ be two subspaces. The triple $(X;X_1,X_2)$ is said to satisfy the *strong excision* condition if :
\(1) $X=X_1\cup X_2$, $X_i$ be Borel subset and $\mathrm{int}(X_i)$ is dense in $X_i$ for $i=1,2$;
\(2) there exists $r_0>0,C_0>0$ such that (i) for any $r'\leq r_0$, $\mathrm{bd}_{r'}(X_1)\cap \mathrm{bd}_{r'}(X_2)=\mathrm{bd}_{r'}(X_1\cap X_2)$; (ii) for each $X'=X_1,X_2,X$ and any $r'\leq r_0$, $\mathrm{bd}_{r'}(X')$ is strongly Lipschitz homotopy equivalent to $X'$ with $C_0$ as the Lipschitz constant.
Let the triple $(X;X_1,X_2)$ be as above. Let $0<\delta<1/100$, for any $u\in QU_{\delta,N,r,k}(X)$ with $(\delta,N,r)$-inverse $v$, we take $uX_1=\chi_{X_1}u\chi_{X_1}$, the same as $vX_1$, define $$w_u=\begin{pmatrix}
I & uX_1\\
0 & I
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
I & 0\\
-vX_1 & I
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
I & uX_1\\
0 & I
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & -I\\
I & 0
\end{pmatrix}$$ then $$w^{-1}_u=\begin{pmatrix}
0 & I\\
-I & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
I & -uX_1\\
0 & I
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
I & 0\\
vX_1 & I
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
I & -uX_1\\
0 & I
\end{pmatrix}.$$
We define a homomorphism $\partial_0: QU_{\delta,N,r,k}(X)\rightarrow QP_{4N^4\delta,2N^6,6r,k}(\mathrm{bd}_{5r}(X_1) \cap \mathrm{bd}_{5r}(X_2))$ by $$\partial_0(u)=\chi_{\mathrm{bd}_{5r}(X_1) \cap \mathrm{bd}_{5r}(X_2)} w_u(I\oplus 0)w^{-1}_u \chi_{\mathrm{bd}_{5r}(X_1) \cap \mathrm{bd}_{5r}(X_2)}$$
Now we verify $\partial_0(u)\in QP_{4N^4\delta,2N^6,6r,k}(\mathrm{bd}_{5r}(X_1) \cap \mathrm{bd}_{5r}(X_2))$, firstly, $||\partial_0(u)||$ and $||1-\partial_0(u)||$ are less than $2N^6$, secondly, $\mathrm{prop}(\partial_0(u))<6r$, finally, we estimate $||(\partial_0(u))^2-\partial_0(u)||$, for convenience, we take $Y=\mathrm{bd}_{5r}(X_1) \cap \mathrm{bd}_{5r}(X_2)$: $$||(\partial_0(u))^2-\partial_0(u)||=||\chi_Y w_u(I\oplus 0)w^{-1}_u\chi_{X_1-Y} w_u(I\oplus 0)w^{-1}_u\chi_Y||$$ we now estimate $||\chi_Y w_u(I\oplus 0)w^{-1}_u\chi_{X_1-Y}||$, we have $\chi_{X_1}u\chi_{X_1-Y}=u\chi_{X_1-Y}$, thus we can replace $uX_1$ by $u$ in $w_u(I\oplus 0)w^{-1}_u$, then $$w_u(I\oplus 0)w^{-1}_u=\begin{pmatrix}
(I-uv)uv+uv & (I-uv)u(I-vu)+u(I-vu)\\
(I-vu)v & (I-vu)^2,
\end{pmatrix}$$ thus $$||\chi_Y w_u(I\oplus 0)w^{-1}_u\chi_{X_1-Y}||=||\chi_{Y\cap X_1}((w_u(I\oplus 0)w^{-1}_u)-(I\oplus 0))\chi_{X_1-Y}||<2N^2\delta$$ similarly, $$||\chi_{X_1-Y} w_u(I\oplus 0)w^{-1}_u \chi_Y||<2N^2\delta$$
Assume that $r<r_0/5$, where $r_0$ is as in Definition \[Def:ControlledBoundary\]. Let $f$ be the proper Lipschitz map from $\mathrm{bd}_{5r}(X_1) \cap \mathrm{bd}_{5r}(X_2)$ to $X_1\cap X_2$ realizing the strong Lipschitz homotopy equivalence in Definition \[Def:ControlledBoundary\], by Lemma \[Lemma:IsometryPairHom\], we have the pair $(V_f,V^+_f)$ corresponding to $\{\varepsilon_m\}$ for which $\sup_m(\varepsilon_m)<r/10$.
We define the boundary map $\partial:QU_{\delta,N,r,k}(X)\rightarrow GQP_{4N^4\delta,2N^6,6C_0r,k}(X_1 \cap X_2)$ by $$\partial(u)=\mathrm{Ad}((V_f,V^+_f))(\partial_0(u))-(I\oplus 0)$$
Then we consider the following sequence: $$QU_{\delta,N,r,k}(X_1) \oplus QU_{\delta,N,r,k}(X_2) \xrightarrow{j} QU_{\delta,N,r,k}(X) \xrightarrow{\partial} GQP_{4N^4\delta,2N^6,6C_0r,k}(X_1 \cap X_2)$$ where $j(u_1\oplus u_2)=(u_1+\chi_{X-X_1}) \oplus (u_2+\chi_{X-X_2}), r<r_0/5 $.
\[Lemma:ControlledExact\] Let $(X;X_1,X_2)$ be as in Definition \[Def:ControlledBoundary\] with $r_0,C_0$, then the above sequence is asymptotically exact in the following sense:
\(1) For any $0<\delta<1/100, N\geq 1, r>0$, there exist $0<\delta_1<\delta, N_1\geq N, 0<r_1<\min\{r,r_0/5 \}$, such that $\partial j(u_1\oplus u_2)$ is $(\delta,N_1,r)$-equivalent to $0$ for any $u_i\in QU_{\delta_1,N,r_1,k}(X_i)(i=1,2)$, where $\delta_1$ depends only on $\delta,N$; $N_1$ depends only on $N$ and $r_1$ depends only on $\delta,N,r$.
\(2) For any $0<\delta<1/100,N\geq 1,r>0$, there exists $0<\delta_2<\delta, N_2\geq N, 0<r_2<\min\{r,r_0/5 \}$, such that if $u$ is an element in $QU_{\delta_2,N,r_2,k}(X)$ for which $\partial(u)$ is $(\delta_2,N,r_2)$-equivalent to $0$ in $GQP_{\delta_2,N,r_2,k}(X)$, then there exist $u_i\in QU_{\delta,N_2,r,k}(X_i)(i=1,2)$ such that $j(u_1\oplus u_2)$ is $(\delta,N_2,r)$-equivalent to $u$, where $\delta_2$ depends only on $\delta,N$; $N_2$ depends only on $N$ and $r_2$ depends only on $\delta,N,r,r_0,C_0$.
\(1) follows from the definition of the boundary map and Lemma \[Lemma:SimilarImplyHomotopy\].
\(2) By strong homotopy invariance of $QP$, for any $0<\delta'<\delta, N\geq 1, 0<r'_2<\min\{r,r_0/5 \}$, there exist $\delta_2<\delta', N'>N, 0<r_2<r'_2$ ($\delta_2$ depends only on $\delta',N$; $N'$ depends only on $N$; $r_2$ depends only on $r'_2,\delta',N,r_0,C_0$), such that , for any $u\in QU_{\delta_2,N,r_2,k}(X)$ whose boundary $\partial(u)$ is $(\delta_2,N,r_2)$-equivalent to $0$, then $\partial_0(u)$ is $(\delta',N',r'_2)$-equivalent to $0$. By Lemma \[Lemma:HomotopyImpliesSimilar\] there exists an element $y$ in $QU_{\delta',C_1(N'),C_2(N',\delta')r'_2,k}(\mathrm{bd}_{5r_2}(X_1) \cap \mathrm{bd}_{5r_2}(X_2))$ with $(\delta',C_1(N'),C_2(N',\delta')r'_2)$-inverse $y'$, such that $$||xw(I\oplus 0)w^{-1}x'-(I\oplus 0)||<C_3(N')\delta',$$ where $x=y+\chi_{X-\mathrm{bd}_{5r_2}(X_1) \cap \mathrm{bd}_{5r_2}(X_2)}, x'=y'+\chi_{X-\mathrm{bd}_{5r_2}(X_1) \cap \mathrm{bd}_{5r_2}(X_2)}, w=w_{u\oplus I}$.
This implies that $$||xw(I\oplus 0)-(I\oplus 0)xw||<C_4(N')\delta'.$$ Thus we have $$xw=\begin{pmatrix}
a & b\\
c & d
\end{pmatrix},
||b||\leq C_4(N')\delta',
||c||\leq C_4(N')\delta', \eqno(A)$$ $$w^{-1}x'=\begin{pmatrix}
a' & b'\\
c' & d'
\end{pmatrix},
||b'||\leq C_4(N')\delta',
||c'||\leq C_4(N')\delta', \eqno(B)$$ Define $$v_1=a\chi_{\mathrm{bd}_{5r_2}}(X_1), v'_1=\chi_{\mathrm{bd}_{5r_2}}(X_1)a',$$ $(A)$ and $(B)$ tell us that $v_1\in QU_{(C_4(N')+1)\delta',C_1(N')N^3_2,(C_2(N',\delta')+3)r'_2,k}(bd_{5r_2}(X_1))$ with inverse $v'_1$. $(A)$ and $(B)$ together with the definition of $w$, implies $$||\chi_{X-\mathrm{bd}_{10r_2}(X_2)}(v'_1(u\oplus I-I))||<C_5(N')\delta', \eqno(C)$$ $$||(v'_1(u\oplus I-I))\chi_{X-\mathrm{bd}_{10r_2}(X_2)}||<C_5(N')\delta'. \eqno(D)$$ Define $$v_2=\chi_{\mathrm{bd}_{10r_2}(X_2)}(v'_1(u\oplus I))\chi_{\mathrm{bd}_{10r_2}(X_2)}, v'_2=\chi_{\mathrm{bd}_{10r_2}(X_2)}((u'\oplus I)v_1)\chi_{\mathrm{bd}_{10r_2}(X_2)},$$ where,$u'$ be the $(\delta_2,N,r_2)$-inverse of $u$. $(C)$ and $(D)$ tell us that $v_2\ \text{belongs to} \\ QU_{C_6(N')\delta', C_7(N'),C_8(N',\delta')r'_2,k}(\mathrm{bd}_{10r_2}(X_2))$ with inverse $v'_2$.
We require $0<r_2<r_0/10$, let $f_1$ be the proper strong Lipschitz map from $\mathrm{bd}_{5r}(X_1)$ to $X_1$ realizing the strong Lipschitz homotopy equivalence; let $f_2$ be the proper strong Lipschitz map from $\mathrm{bd}_{10r}(X_2)$ to $X_2$ realizing the strong Lipschitz homotopy equivalence. Define $u_i=\mathrm{Ad}((V_{f_i},V^+_{f_i}))(v_i)$ for $i=1,2$, where the pair $(V_{f_i},V^+_{f_i})$ corresponding to $\{\varepsilon_k\}$ for which $\sup_k(\varepsilon_k)<r'_2$.
By $(C)$ and $(D)$, we have that $(v_1+\chi_{X-\mathrm{bd}(5r_2)(X_1)})\oplus (v_2+\chi_{X-\mathrm{bd}(10r_2)(X_2)})$ is $(C_9(N')\delta',C_{10}(N'),C_{11}(N',\delta')r'_2)$-equivalent to $u\oplus I$.
Where $C_j(N')$ depends only on $N'$ for $j=1,3,4,5,6,7,9,10$, $C_j(N_2,\delta')$ depends only on $N',\delta',C_0$ for $j=2,8,11$.
By Lemma \[Lemma:Homotopy\], we can choose appropriate $\delta',N_2$ and $r'_2$ such that $u_1$ and $u_2$ satisfy the desired properties of (2), where $\delta'$ depends only on $\delta,N$; $N_2$ depends only on $N$; $r'_2$ depends only on $r,\delta,N,r_0,C_0$.
By Lemma $\ref{Lemma:ControlledSuspension}$ and Lemma $\ref{Lemma:ControlledExact}$, we have the following asymptotically exact sequence for $QU$ when $k>1$: $$QU_{\delta,N,r,k}(X_1) \oplus QU_{\delta,N,r,k}(X_2) \rightarrow QU_{\delta,N,r,k}(X) \rightarrow QU_{\delta,N,r,k-1}(X_1 \cap X_2)$$
Spaces with finite asymptotic dimension
=======================================
In this section, we will recall some fact about space with finite asymptotic dimension, and verify the $L^p$ coarse Baum-Connes conjecture for spaces with finite asymptotic dimension.
The *asymptotic dimension* of a metric space $X$ is the smallest integer $m$ such that for any $r>0$, there exists an uniformly bounded cover $C=\{U_i\}_{i\in I}$ of $X$ for which the $r$-multiplicity of $C$ is at most $m+1$; i.e. no ball of radius $r$ in the metric space intersects more than $m+1$ member of $C$. If no such $m$ exists, we call $X$ has infinite asymptotic dimension.
A finitely generated group can be viewed as a metric space with a left-invariant *word-length metric*. To be more precise, for a group $\Gamma$ with a finite symmetric generating set $S$, for any $\gamma\in\Gamma$, we define its length $$l_S(\gamma):=\min\{n:\gamma=s_1 \ldots s_n, s_i\in S\}$$ the word-length metric $d_S$ on $\Gamma$ is defined by $$d_S(\gamma_1,\gamma_2):=l_S(\gamma_1^{-1}\gamma_2)$$ for all $\gamma_1,\gamma_2\in \Gamma$. We remark that for any two finite symmetric generating sets $S_1,S_2$ of $\Gamma$, $(\Gamma,d_{S_1})$ is quasi-isometric to $(\Gamma,d_{S_2})$.
Now we give some fact about asymptotic dimension:
1. The concept of asymptotic dimension is a coarse geometric analogue of the covering dimension in topology;
2. Hyperbolic groups have finite asymptotic dimension as a metric space with word-length metric [@GromovHyperbolic][@RoeHyperbolic];
3. The class of finitely generated groups with finite asymptotic dimension is hereditary (Proposition 6.2 in [@YuFAD]) , i.e., if a finitely generated group $\Gamma$ has finite asymptotic dimension as a metric space with word-length metric, then any finitely generated subgroups of $\Gamma$ also has finite asymptotic dimension as a metric space with word-length metric.
4. If $\Gamma$ is a discrete subgroup of an almost connected Lie group, e.g. $\mathrm{SL}(n,{\mathbb{Z}})$, then $\Gamma$ has finite asymptotic dimension.
5. CAT(0) cube complexes have finite asymptotic dimension. [@WrightCAT0FAD]
6. Certain relative hyperbolic groups have finite asymptotic dimension. [@OsinRelativeHyperbolic]
7. Certain Coxter groups have finite asymptotic dimension. [@DranishnikovFAD]
8. Mapping class groups have finite asymptotic dimension. [@MappingClassGroup]
\[construct:anticech\] Let $X$ be a separable proper metric space with asymptotic dimension $m$. By the definition of asymptotic dimension there exists a sequence of covers $C_k$ of $X$ for which there exists a sequence of positive numbers $R_k\rightarrow \infty$ such that
1. $R_{k+1}>4R_k$ for all $k$;
2. diameter$(U)<R_k/4$ for all $U\in C_k$;
3. the $R_k$-multiplicity of $C_{k+1}$ is at most $m+1$, i.e. no ball with radius $R_k$ intersects more than $m+1$ member of $C_k+1$.
Let $C_k'=\{B(U,R_k):U\in C_{k+1}\}$, where $B(U,R_k)=\{x\in X:d(x,U)<R_k\}$. (1), (2) and (3) imply that $\{C_k'\}$ is an anti-Čech system for $X$.
Fixed a positive integer $n_0$. For each $n>n_0$, let $r_n=\frac{R_n}{2R_{n_0+1}}-4$. By property (1) of the sequence ${R_k}$, there exists $n_1>n_0$ such that $r_n>2$ if $n>n_1$ and there exists a sequence of nonnegative smooth function $\{\chi_n\}_{n>n_1}$ on $[0,\infty)$ for which
1. $\chi_n(t)=1$ for all $0\leq t\leq 2$, and $\chi_n(t)=0$ for all $t\geq r_n$;
2. there exists a sequence of positive numbers $\varepsilon_n\rightarrow 0$ satisfying $|\chi'_n(t)|<\varepsilon_n\leq 1$ for all $n>n_1$.
For each $U\in C_{n+1}(n>n_1)$, define $$U'=\{V\in N_{C'_{n_0}}:V\in C'_{n_0},U \cap V \not= \emptyset\}$$
We define a map $G_n:N_{C'_{n_0}}\rightarrow N_{C'_n}$ by $$G_n(x)=\sum_{U\in C_{n+1}} \frac{\chi_n(d(x,U'))}{\sum_{V\in C_{n+1}} \chi_n(d(x,V'))} B(U,R_n)$$ for all $x\in N_{C'_{n_0}}$.
Let $n>n_1$, we define a map $i_{n_0n}:N_{C'_{n_0}}\rightarrow N_{C'_n}$ in such a way that, for each $V\in C_{n_0+1}$, $$i_{n_0n}(B(V,R_{n_0}))=B(U,R_n)$$ for some $U\in C_{n+1}$ satisfying $U\cap V\not= \emptyset$.
Let $F_t$ be the linear homotopy between $G_n$ and $i_{n_0n}$, i.e. $F_t(x)=tG_n(x)+(1-t)i_{n_0n}(x)$ for all $t\in [0,1]$ and $x\in N_{C'_{n_0}}$.
By the above construction, we have the following important lemma:
\[Lemma:PropagationArbitrarySmall\](Lemma 6.3 in [@YuFAD]) Let $X$ be a separable proper metric space with finite asymptotic dimension $m$, and $G_n,F_t$ and $i_{n_0n}$ be as above, then
1. $G_n$ is a proper Lipschitz map with a Lipschitz constant depending only on $m$;
2. $F_t$ is a strong Lipschitz homotopy between $G_n$ and $i_{n_0n}$ with a Lipschitz constant depending only on $m$;
3. For any $\varepsilon>0,R>0$, there exists $K>0$ such that $d(G_n(x),G_n(y))<\varepsilon$ if $n>K,d(x,y)<R$.
The following lemma plays a crucial role in the proof of Theorem \[Thm:LpBCCFAD\]. Its proof bases on the Eilenberg swindle argument and the controlled cutting and pasting exact sequence in Section \[section:cutpaste\].
\[Lemma:VanishingControlledObstruction\] Let $X$ be a simplicial complex with finite dimension $m$ and endowed with $\ell^1$ metric. For any $k>m+1, 0<\delta<1/100, N\geq 1, r>0$, there exist $0<\delta_1\leq \delta, N_1\geq N, 0<r_1<r$, such that every element $u$ in $QU_{\delta_1,N,r_1,k}(X)$ is $(\delta,N_1,r)$-equivalent to $I$, where $\delta_1$ depends only on $\delta,N$; $N_1$ depends only on $N$ and $r_1$ depends only on $r,\delta,N$.
Let $X^{(n)}$ be the $n$-skeleton of $X$, we will prove our lemma for $X^{(n)}$ by induction on $n$.
When $n=0$, we choose $r_1=\min\{r,2\}$. Let $v$ be the $(\delta_1,N,r_1)$-inverse of $u$. Then $\mathrm{prop}(u(t))=\mathrm{prop}(v(t))=0$. For $t_0\in [0,\infty)$, we define: $$u_{t_0}(t)=\left \{
\begin{array}{ll}
I, & 0\leq t\leq t_0;\\
u(t-t_0), & t_0\leq t<+\infty.
\end{array} \right.$$ Similarly, we can define $v_{t_0}$ for $t_0\in [0,\infty)$. Thus $v_{t_0}$ is the $(\delta_1,N,r_1)$-inverse of $u_{t_0}$.\
Define $$E^{p,\infty}_X=(\oplus^{\infty}_{k=0} E^p_X)\oplus E^p_X$$ Notice that $E^{p,\infty}_X$ is a standard non-degenerated $L^p$-$X$-module.
Let $w_1(t')$ be the linear homotopy between $u\oplus^{\infty}_{k=1}I \oplus I$ and $u\oplus^{\infty}_{k=1}u_kv_k\oplus I$. Let $w_2(t')=(\oplus^{\infty}_{k=0}u_k\oplus I)(I\oplus^{\infty}_{k=1}v_{k-t'}\oplus I)$, where $t'\in [0,1]$.
Let $T,T^*:E^{p,\infty}_X\rightarrow E^{p,\infty}_X$ be a homomorphism defined by $$\begin{aligned}
T((h_0,h_1,\ldots),h))&=(0,h_0,h_1,\ldots),h)\\
T^*((h_0,h_1,\ldots),h))&=(h_1,h_2,\ldots),h)
\end{aligned}$$ Thus $$I\oplus^{\infty}_{k=1}v_{k-1}\oplus I=T(\oplus^{\infty}_{k=0}v_{k}\oplus I)T^*.$$ Hence there exists a homotopy $s_1(t')(t'\in[0,1])$ connecting $I\oplus^{\infty}_{k=1}v_{k-1}\oplus I$ and $\oplus^{\infty}_{k=0}v_{k}\oplus I$.
Let $s_2(t')(t'\in[0,1])$ be the linear homotopy between $\oplus^{\infty}_{k=0}u_kv_k\oplus I$ and $\oplus^{\infty}_{k=0}I\oplus I$.
Define $$w(t')=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
w_1(4t'), & 0\leq t'\leq 1/4;\\
w_2(4t'-1), & 1/4\leq t'\leq 1/2;\\
(\oplus^{\infty}_{k=0}u_k\oplus I)s_1(4t'-2), & 1/2\leq t'\leq 3/4;\\
s_2(4t'-3), & 3/4\leq t'\leq 1.\\
\end{array}\right.$$
It is not difficult to see $w(t')$ is the homotopy connecting $u\oplus I$ to $I$, thus we can choose appropriate $\delta_1$ and $N_1$ satisfying lemma.
Assume by induction that the lemma holds for $n=m-1$, next we will prove the lemma holds for $n=m$. For each simplex $\triangle$ of dimension $m$ in $X$, we let $$\triangle_1=\{x\in \triangle: d(x,c(\triangle))\leq 1/100\},\triangle_2=\{x\in \triangle: d(x,c(\triangle))\geq 1/100\},$$ where $c(\triangle)$ is the center of $\triangle$.
Let $$X_1=\bigcup_{\triangle:\text{simplex of dimension $m$ in X}} \triangle_1;$$ $$X_2=\bigcup_{\triangle:\text{simplex of dimension $m$ in X}} \triangle_2.$$ Notice that:\
(1) $X_1$ is strongly Lipschitz homotopy equivalent to $$\{c(\triangle): \text{$\triangle$ is $m$-dimensional simplex in X}\};$$ (2) $X_2$ is strongly Lipschitz homotopy equivalent to $X^{(m-1)}$;\
(3) $X^{(m)}=X_1 \cup X_2$ and $X_1 \cap X_2$ is the disjoint union of the boundaries of all $m$-dimensional $\triangle_1$ in $X^{(m)}$.
\(1) and (2) together with strongly Lipschitz homotopy invariance of $QU$ and the induction hypothesis, imply that our lemma holds for $X_1$ and $X_2$.
By strongly Lipschitz homotopy invariance of $QU$ and the controlled cutting and pasting exact sequence, we also know that our lemma holds for $X_1\cap X_2$.
Obviously, $(X^{(m)},X_1,X_2)$ satisfies the strong excision condition, thus we can complete our induction process by using the controlled cutting and pasting exact sequence and the controlled five lemma.
Now we are ready to prove the main theorem of this section.
\[Thm:LpBCCFAD\] For any $p\in [1,\infty)$, the $L^p$ coarse Baum-Connes conjecture holds for separable proper metric spaces with finite asymptotic dimension.
Let $X$ be a separable proper metric space with asymptotic dimension $m$. By Theorem \[Thm:VanishingObstruction\], it is enough to prove that $$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}K_i(B^p_{L,0}(N_{C'_n}))=0,$$ where $C'_n$ is as in Construction \[construct:anticech\].
Lemma \[Lemma:QuasiVSTrueProjection\], \[Lemma:QuasiVSTrueInvertible\] and \[Lemma:ControlledSuspension\] tell us that any element $[q]$ in $K_i(B^p_{L,0}(N_{C'_{n_0}}))$ can be represented as an element $u$ in $QU_{\delta_1,N,r,k}(N_{C'_{n_0}})$ for some $N,r$ and $k>m+1$, where $\delta_1$ is as in Lemma \[Lemma:VanishingControlledObstruction\] for some $0<\delta<1/100$. Let $$u_n=\mathrm{Ad}((V_{G_n},V^+_{G_n}))(u),$$ where $G_n$ is as in Lemma \[Lemma:PropagationArbitrarySmall\], $\mathrm{Ad}((V_{G_n},V^+_{G_n}))$ is defined by $\{\varepsilon_m\}$ for which $\sup(\varepsilon_m)<r_1/10$, where $r_1$ is as in Lemma \[Lemma:VanishingControlledObstruction\].
By Lemma \[Lemma:PropagationArbitrarySmall\] (3), there exists $K>0$ such that
$\mathrm{prop}(u_n)<r_1,$ for $n>K.$
Since the asymptotic dimension of $X$ is $m$, we have $\dim(N_{C'_n})\leq m$ for all $n$. By Lemma $\ref{Lemma:VanishingControlledObstruction}$, we have that $u_n$ is $(\delta,N_1,r)$-equivalent to $I$ in $QU_{\delta,N_1,r,k}(N_{C'_n})$ for $n>K$.
By Lemma $\ref{Lemma:PropagationArbitrarySmall}$ (2), strongly Lipschitz homotopy invariance of $QU$, Lemma \[Lemma:QuasiVSTrueProjection\] (2) and Lemma \[Lemma:QuasiVSTrueInvertible\] (2), we have that $\mathrm{Ad}((V_{i_{n_0n}},V^+_{i_{n_0n}}))(u)$ and $u_n$ correspond to the same element in $K_i(B^p_{L,0}(N_{C'_n}))$.
Thus $[q]=0$ in $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}K_i(B^p_{L,0}(N_{C'_n}))$.
$K$-theory of $L^p$ Roe algebras
================================
In this section, we shall use the dual $L^p$ $K$-homology as a bridge to prove that the $L^p$ $K$-homology is independent of $p$. Combining the Theorem \[Thm:LpBCCFAD\], we obtain that the $K$-theory of the $L^p$ Roe algebra does not depend on $p$ for space with finite asymptotic dimension.
Dual $L^p$ Localization algebra and dual $L^p$ $K$-homology
-----------------------------------------------------------
Let $p\in (1,\infty)$, $Z$ and $Z'$ be countable discrete measure spaces, then $\ell^p(Z)$ has a natural Schauder basis $\{e_i\}_{i\in Z}$, where $e_i(z)=1$ for $i=z$ and $e_i(z)=0$ for $i\not=z$. Similarly, $\ell^p(Z')$ has a natural Schauder basis $\{e'_i\}_{i\in Z'}$. Let $T$ be a bounded operator from $\ell^p(Z)$ to $\ell^p(Z')$, $T$ can be considered as a countably dimensional matrix under the Schauder basis $\{e_i\}$ and $\{e'_i\}$. We can define $T^*$ as the transpose of the matrix of $T$. We call $T$ be a *dual-operator*, if $T^*$ is a bounded operator from $\ell^p(Z')$ to $\ell^p(Z)$ under the Schauder basis $\{e'_i\}$ and $\{e_i\}$. We call $T$ be a *compact dual-operator*, if $T$ and $T^*$ are compact operators from $\ell^p(Z)$ to $\ell^p(Z')$ and from $\ell^p(Z')$ to $\ell^p(Z)$, respectively. We define the *maximal norm* of dual-operator $T$ by $||T||_{\max}:=\max\{||T||,||T^*||\}$.
For $p\in(1,\infty)$, let $\mathcal{B}^*(\ell^p(Z),\ell^p(Z'))$ be the Banach algebra of all dual-operators from $\ell^p(Z)$ to $\ell^p(Z')$ with maximal norm. Let $\mathcal{K}^*(\ell^p(Z),\ell^p(Z'))$ be the Banach algebra of all compact dual-operators from $\ell^p(Z)$ to $\ell^p(Z')$. It is easy to see that $\mathcal{K}^*(\ell^p(Z))$ be a closed ideal of $\mathcal{B}^*(\ell^p(Z))$.
For $p\in (1,\infty)$, let $q$ be the dual number of $p$, i.e., $1/p+1/q=1$. If $T$ be a dual-operator acting on $\ell^p(Z)$, then $T$ can be considered as a bounded operator acting on $\ell^q(Z)$ and $||T||_{\ell^q(Z)}=||T^*||_{\ell^p(Z)}$. This is why we call such $T$ a dual-operator. Otherwise, $\mathcal{B}^*(\ell^p(Z))$ is isomorphic to $\mathcal{B}^*(\ell^q(Z))$ for $p,q\in (1,\infty)$ and $1/p+1/q=1$.
\[Lemma:LpCompact\] Let $p\in (1,\infty)$, $Z$ be a countable discrete measure space, if we fixed a bijection between $Z$ and $\mathbb{N}$, then $\ell^p(Z)$ has a natural Schauder basis $\{e_i\}_{i\in \mathbb{N}}$, for any $K\in \mathcal{K}^*(\ell^p(Z))$, we have $$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}F_nKF_n=K$$ in $\mathcal{K}^*(\ell^p(Z))$, where $F_n$ be the coordinate projection from $\ell^p(Z)$ to the subspace generated by $e_1,\cdots,e_n$.
We just need to prove $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}||F_nKF_n-K||_{\max}=0$, i.e. $$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}||F_nKF_n-K_j||_{l^p(Z)}=0 \text{ and }\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}||F^*_nK^*F^*_n-K^*_j||_{\ell^p(Z)}=0.$$ These are true by the Proposition 1.8 in [@PhillipsLp].
This lemma is false for $p=1$, N.C. Phillips construct a rank one operator without this property in [@PhillipsLp].
\[Cor:KtheoryLpCompact\] Let $p\in (1,\infty)$, $Z$ be a countable discrete measure space, then $K_1(\mathcal{K}^*(\ell^p(Z)))=0$ and $K_0(\mathcal{K}^*(\ell^p(Z)))=\mathbb{Z}$ generated by a rank one idempotent.
Lemma \[Lemma:LpCompact\] imply that $\mathcal{K}^*(\ell^p(Z))$ can be represented as the direct limit of matrix algebra. By the continuous property of $K$-group, we complete the proof.
Let $X$ be a separable proper metric space, $p\in (1,\infty)$. Recall that an $L^p$-$X$-module is an $L^p$-space $E_X^p=\ell^p(Z_X)\otimes \ell^p=\ell^p(Z_X,\ell^p)$ equipped with a natural point-wise multiplication action of $C_0(X)$ by restricting to $Z_X$, where $Z_X$ is a countable dense subset in $X$.
Let $X$ be separable proper metric spaces, $T$ be an element in $\mathcal{B}^*(E^p_X)$, we call $T$ a *locally compact dual-operator* if $\chi_K T$ and $T \chi_K$ are both compact dual-operators for any compact subset $K$ in $X$.
The *dual $L^p$ Roe algebra* of $E_X^p$, denoted $B^{p,\ast}(E_X^p)$, is defined to be the maximal-norm closure of the algebra of all locally compact dual-operators acting on $E_X^p$ with finite propagations.
Let $X,Y$ be two separable proper metric spaces, and $f$ be a continuous coarse map from $X$ to $Y$. Let $V_f$ and $V^+_f$ be an isometric dual-operator and a contractible dual-operator, respectively, constructed in Lemma \[Lemma:CoveringIsometry\]. Thus we have the following lemma.
Let $f$, $E_X^p$ and $E_Y^p$ be as above. Then pair $(V_f,V_f^+)$ give rise to a homomorphism $\mathrm{ad}((V_f,V_f^+)):B^{p,\ast}(E_X^p)\rightarrow B^{p,\ast}(E_Y^p)$ defined by: $$\mathrm{ad}((V_f,V_f^+))(T)=V_fTV_f^+$$ for all $T\in B^{p,\ast}(E_X^p)$.
Moreover, the map $\mathrm{ad}((V_f,V_f^+))_*$ induced by $\mathrm{ad}((V_f,V_f^+))$ on $K$-theory depends only on $f$ and not on the choice of pair $(V_f,V_f^+)$.
The proof of this lemma is same as the proof of Lemma \[Lemma:CoveringIsometryPair\].
For different $L^p$-$X$-modules $E_X^p$ and $E_X'^{p}$, $B^{p,\ast}(E_X^p)$ is non-canonically isomorphic to $B^{p,\ast}(E_X'^{p})$, and $K_*(B^{p,\ast}(E_X^p))$ is canonically isomorphic to $K_*(B^{p,\ast}(E_X'^{p}))$.
For convenience, we replace $B^{p,\ast}(E_X^p)$ by $B^{p,\ast}(X)$ representing the dual $L^p$ Roe algebra of $X$.
Let $X$ be a separable proper metric space. The *dual $L^p$ localization algebra* of $X$, denoted $B^{p,\ast}_L(X)$, is defined to be the norm closure of the algebra of all bounded and uniformly norm-continuous function $f$ from $[0,\infty)$ to $B^{p,\ast}(X)$ such that
prop($f(t)$) is uniformly finite and prop($f(t)$)$\rightarrow 0$ as $t\rightarrow \infty$.
The *propagation* of $f$ is defined to be $\sup\{\mathrm{prop}(f(t)):t\in [0,\infty)\}$.
We have the following lemma for dual $L^p$ localization algebra just like Lemma \[Lemma:IsometryPairHom\].
Let $X,Y$ be two separable proper metric spaces, $f$ be a uniformly continuous coarse map from $X$ to $Y$ and $\{\varepsilon_k\}_k$ be a sequence of positive numbers such that $\varepsilon_k \rightarrow 0$ as $k \rightarrow \infty$, then pair $(V_f(t),V_f^+(t))$ constructed in Lemma \[Lemma:IsometryPairHom\] induces a homomorphism $\mathrm{Ad}((V_f,V_f^+))$ from $B^{p,\ast}_L(X)$ to $B^{p,\ast}_L(Y)\otimes M_2(\mathbb{C})$ defined by: $$\mathrm{Ad}((V_f,V_f^+))(u)(t)=V_f(t)(u(t)\oplus 0)V_f^+(t)$$ for any $u\in B^{p,\ast}_L(X)$ and $t\in [0,\infty)$, such that $$\mathrm{prop}(\mathrm{Ad}((V_f,V_f^+))(u)(t))\leq \sup_{(x,y)\in \mathrm{supp}(u(t))}\{d(f(x),f(y))\}+2\varepsilon_k + 2\varepsilon_{k+1}$$ for all $t\in [k,k+1]$.
Moreover, the map $\mathrm{Ad}((V_f,V_f^+))_*$ induced by $\mathrm{Ad}((V_f,V_f^+))$ on $K$-theory depends only on f and not on the choice of the pairs $(V_k,V_k^+)$ in the construction of $V_f(t)$ and $V_f^+(t)$.
The proof of this lemma is similar to the proof of Lemma \[Lemma:IsometryPairHom\].
The $i$-th *dual $L^p$ $K$-homology* is defined to be $K_i(B^{p,\ast}_L(X))$.
Strongly Lipschitz homotopy invariance of (dual) $L^p$ $K$-homology
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we will prove that (dual) $L^p$ $K$-homology is strongly Lipschitz homotopic invariant. In the following, we just discuss the case of dual $L^p$ $K$-homology, similarly, we can obtain the same result for $L^p$ $K$-homology.
\[Lemma:LipschitzHomotopy\] $f$ and $g$ be two Lipschitz maps from $X$ to $Y$, let $F(t,x)$ be a strongly Lipschitz homotopy connecting $f$ and $g$, then $$\mathrm{Ad}((V_f,V^+_f))_*=\mathrm{Ad}((V_g,V^+_g))_*: K_*(B^{p,\ast}_L(X)) \rightarrow K_*(B^{p,\ast}_L(Y))$$
We just prove this lemma for $K_1$ group, and by suspension, we can obtain the same result for $K_0$ group. Choose $\{t_{i,j}\}_{i\geq 0,j\geq 0} \subseteq [0,1]$ satisfying
\(1) $t_{0,j}=0, t_{i,j+1}\leq t_{i,j}, t_{i+1,j}\geq t_{i,j}$;
\(2) there exists $N_j\rightarrow \infty$ such that $t_{i,j}=1$ for all $i\geq N_j$ and $N_{j+1}\geq N_j$;
\(3) $d(F(t_{i+1,j},x),F(t_{i,j},x))<\varepsilon_j=1/(j+1), d(F(t_{i,j+1},x),F(t_{i,j},x))<\varepsilon_j$ for all $x\in X$.
Let $f_{i,j}(x)=F(t_{i,j},x)$, by Lemma \[Lemma:CoveringIsometry\], there exist an isometric dual-operator $V_{f_{i,j}}:E_X^p\rightarrow E_Y^p$ and a contractible dual-operator $V^+_{f_{i,j}}:E_Y^p\rightarrow E_X^p$ with $V^+_{f_{i,j}}V_{f_{i,j}}=I$ such that $$\mathrm{supp}(V_{f_{i,j}}) \subseteq \{(x,y)\in X\times Y:d(f_{i,j}(x),y)<1/(1+i+j)\};$$ $$\mathrm{supp}(V^+_{f_{i,j}}) \subseteq\{(y,x)\in Y\times X:d(f_{i,j}(x),y)<1/(1+i+j)\}.$$ For each $i>0$, define a family of operators $V_i(t)(t\in [0,\infty))$ from $E^p_X\oplus E^p_X$ to $E^p_Y\oplus E^p_Y$ and a family of operators $V^+_i(t)(t\in [0,\infty))$ from $E^p_Y\oplus E^p_Y$ to $E^p_X\oplus E^p_X$ by $$V_i(t)=R(t-j)(V_{f_{i,j}}\oplus V_{f_{i,j+1}})R^*(t-j), t\in[j,j+1]$$ $$V^+_i(t)=R(t-j)(V^+_{f_{i,j}}\oplus V^+_{f_{i,j+1}})R^*(t-j), t\in[j,j+1]$$ where $$R(t)=\begin{pmatrix}
\cos(\pi t/2) & \sin(\pi t/2)\\
-\sin(\pi t/2) & \cos(\pi t/2)
\end{pmatrix}.$$ For any $[u]\in K_1(B^{p,\ast}_L(X))$, consider: $$u_0(t)=\mathrm{Ad}((V_f,V^+_f))(u)=V_f(t)(u(t)\oplus I)V^+_f(t)+(I-V_f(t)V^+_f(t));$$ $$u_{\infty}(t)=\mathrm{Ad}((V_g,V^+_g))(u)=V_g(t)(u(t)\oplus I)V^+_g(t)+(I-V_g(t)V^+_g(t));$$ $$u_i(t)=\mathrm{Ad}((V_i,V^+_i))(u)=V_i(t)(u(t)\oplus I)V^+_i(t)+(I-V_i(t)V^+_i(t)),$$ For each $i$, define $n_i$ by $$n_i=\left\{
\begin{array}{lr}
\max\{j:i\geq N_j\}, & \{j:i\geq N_j\}\not= \emptyset;\\
0, & \{j:i\geq N_j\}= \emptyset.
\end{array}
\right.$$ We can choose $V_{f_{i,j}}$ in such a way that: $u_i(t)=u_{\infty}$ where $t\leq n_i$.
Define $$w_i(t)=u_i(t)(u^{-1}_{\infty}(t))$$ Consider $$\begin{aligned}
a&=\bigoplus^{\infty}_{i=0}(w_i\oplus I);\\
b&=\bigoplus^{\infty}_{i=0}(w_{i+1}\oplus I);\\
c&=(I\oplus I)\bigoplus^{\infty}_{i=1}(w_i\oplus I).
\end{aligned}$$ By the construction of $\{t_{i,j}\}$, we know that $a,b,c\in (B^{p,\ast}_L(X) \otimes M_2(\mathbb{C}))^+$. It is not difficult to see that $a$ is equivalent to $b$ and $b$ is equivalent to $c$ in $K_1(B^{p,\ast}_L(X))$. Thus $u_0u^{-1}_{\infty} \oplus_{i\geq 1} I$ is equivalent to $\oplus_{i\geq 0} I$ in $K_1(B^{p,\ast}_L(X))$. This means that $\mathrm{Ad}((V_f,V^+_f))_*=\mathrm{Ad}((V_g,V^+_g))_*$.
Cutting and pasting of the (dual) $L^p$ $K$-homology
----------------------------------------------------
Let $X$ be a simplicial complex endowed with the $\ell^1$-metric, and let $X_1$ be a simplicial subcomplex of $X$. For $p\in (1,\infty)$ define $B^{p,\ast}_L(X_1;X)$ to be the closed subalgebra of $B^{p,\ast}_L(X)$ generated by all elements $f$ such that there exists $c_t>0$ satisfying $\lim _{t\rightarrow \infty} c_t=0$ and $\mathrm{supp}(f(t)) \subset \{(x,y)\in X \times X: d((x,y),X_1 \times X_1)\leq c_t\}$ for all $t\in [0,\infty)$.
\[Lemma:LocalizationIndepStar\] The inclusion homomorphism $i$ from $B^{p,\ast}_L(X_1)$ to $B^{p,\ast}_L(X_1;X)$ induces an isomorphism from $K_*(B^{p,\ast}_L(X_1))$ to $K_*(B^{p,\ast}_L(X_1;X))$.
For any $\varepsilon>0$, let $B_{\varepsilon}(X_1)=\{x \in X : d(x,X_1) \leq \varepsilon\}$. There exists a small $\varepsilon_0>0$ such that $B_{\varepsilon_0}(X_1)$ is strongly Lipschitz homotopy equivalent to $X_1$. Any element in $K_1(B^{p,\ast}_L(X_1;X))$ can be represented by an invertible element $a\in (B^{p,\ast}_L(X_1;X))^+$ such that $a=a'+I$ and there exists $c_t>0$ satisfying $\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty} c_t=0$, $\mathrm{supp}(a'(t))\subset \{(x,y)\in X \times X: d((x,y),X_1 \times X_1)\leq c_t\}$. Uniform continuity of $a(t)$ implies that $a(t+st_0)(s\in [0,1])$ is norm continuous in $s$ for all $t_0>0$. Thus $[a(t)]$ is equivalent to $[a(t+st_0)]$ in $K_1(B^{p,\ast}_L(X_1;X))$ for any $t_0$. We can choose $t_0$ large enough so that $\mathrm{supp}(a'(t+t_0)) \subset B_{\varepsilon_0}(X_1) \times B_{\varepsilon_0}(X_1)$ for all $t$. By Lemma \[Lemma:LipschitzHomotopy\], we know that $i_*$ is surjective.
A similar argument can be used to show that $i_*$ is injective. The case for $K_0$ can be similarly dealt with by a suspension argument.
Let $X$ be a simplicial complex endowed with the $\ell^1$-metric, let $X_1,X_2$ be its two simplicial subcomplexes. We have the following six term exact sequence:
$$\begin{CD}
K_0(B^{p,\ast}_L(X_1 \cap X_2)) @>>> K_0(B^{p,\ast}_L(X_1))\oplus K_0(B^{p,\ast}_L(X_2)) @>>> K_0(B^{p,\ast}_L(X_1 \cup X_2))\\
@AAA & & @VVV \\
K_1(B^{p,\ast}_L(X_1 \cup X_2)) @<<< K_1(B^{p,\ast}_L(X_1))\oplus K_0(B^{p,\ast}_L(X_2)) @<<< K_1(B^{p,\ast}_L(X_1 \cap X_2))
\end{CD}$$
Let $Y=X_1 \cup X_2$, observe that $B^{p,\ast}_L(X_1;Y)$ and $B^{p,\ast}_L(X_2;Y)$ be the ideals of $B^{p,\ast}_L(Y)$ such that $B^{p,\ast}_L(X_1;Y)+B^{p,\ast}_L(X_2;Y)=B^{p,\ast}_L(Y)$. Then by the Mayer-Vietoris sequence for Banach algebra and Lemma \[Lemma:LocalizationIndepStar\], we can obtain this lemma.
By similar argument as above, we have the following six term exact sequence for $L^p$ localization algebra:
$$\begin{CD}
K_0(B^p_L(X_1 \cap X_2)) @>>> K_0(B^p_L(X_1))\oplus K_0(B^p_L(X_2)) @>>> K_0(B^p_L(X_1 \cup X_2))\\
@AAA & & @VVV \\
K_1(B^p_L(X_1 \cup X_2)) @<<< K_1(B^p_L(X_1))\oplus K_0(B^p_L(X_2)) @<<< K_1(B^p_L(X_1 \cap X_2))
\end{CD}$$
Main result and proof
---------------------
Let $X$ be a finite dimensional simplicial complex endowed with $\ell^1$-metric. Recall that $E^p_X$ be the $L^p$-$X$-module and $\mathcal{B}^*(E^p_X)$ be the Banach algebra of all dual-operators on $E_X^p$ for $p\in (1,\infty)$. Every $T\in \mathcal{B}^*(E^p_X)$ can be viewed as an element in $B(E^p_X)$. This induces a contractible homomorphism $$\phi:B^{p,\ast}_L(X)\rightarrow B^p_L(X)$$
Next we use the Riesz-Thorin interpolation theorem to build a connection between the dual $L^p$ localization algebra and the localization $C^*$-algebra. Firstly, let us recall this interpolation theorem.
\[Riesz-Thorin\] Let $(X,\mu)$ and $(Y,\nu)$ be two measure spaces. Let $T$ be a linear operator defined on the set of all simple functions on $X$ and taking values in the set of measurable functions on $Y$. Let $1 \leq p_0,p_1,q_0,q_1 \leq \infty$ and assume that $$||T(f)||_{L^{q_0}}\leq M_0||f||_{L^{p_0}},$$ $$||T(f)||_{L^{q_1}}\leq M_1||f||_{L^{p_1}},$$ for all simple functions $f$ on $X$. Then for all $0<\theta<1$ we have $$||T(f)||_{L^{q'}}\leq M^{1-\theta}_0M^{\theta}_1||f||_{L^{p'}}$$ for all simple functions $f$ on $X$, where $1/p'=(1-\theta)/p_0+\theta/p_1$ and $1/q'=(1-\theta)/q_0+\theta/q_1$.\
By density, $T$ has a unique extension as a bounded operator from $L^{p'}(X,\mu)$ to $L^{q'}(Y,\nu)$.
For any $p\in (1,\infty)$, let $q$ be the dual number of $p$, i.e. $1/p+1/q=1$. Let $p_0=q_0=p$, $p_1=q_1=q$ and $\theta=1/2$ in the above, by Riesz-Thorin interpolation theorem, we have that each element $T\in\mathcal{B}^*(E^p_X)$ can be consider as an element in $B(E^2_X)$. This correspondence induces a contractible homomorphism $$\psi:B^{p,\ast}_L(X) \rightarrow C^*_L(X),$$ where $C^*_L(X)$ be the localization $C^*$-algebra of $X$.
\[Thm:pIndependentLocalization\] Let $X$ be a finite dimensional simplicial complex endowed with $\ell^1$-metric, then for any $p\in (1,\infty)$, $\psi$ induces an isomorphism between $K_*(B^{p,\ast}_L(X))$ and $K_*(C^*_L(X))$.
Let $X^{(n)}$ be the $n$-skeleton of $X$, we shall prove this theorem for $X^{(n)}$ by induction on $n$.
When $n=0$, $K_*(B^{p,\ast}_L(X))$ equals to the direct product of $K_*(\mathcal{K}^*(\ell^p))$ and $K_*(C^*_L(X))$ equals to the direct product of $K_*(\mathcal{K}^*(\ell^2))$ following the fact that the algebra of all bounded and uniformly continuous functions from $[0,\infty)$ to a Banach algebra has the same $K$-theory as this Banach algebra. Then by Corollary \[Cor:KtheoryLpCompact\], $\psi_*$ is an isomorphism in this case.
Assume by induction that the theorem holds when $n=m-1$. Next we shall prove the theorem holds when $n=m$. For each simplex $\triangle$ of dimension $m$ in $X$, we let $$\triangle_1=\{x\in \triangle: d(x,c(\triangle))\leq 1/100\},\triangle_2=\{x\in \triangle: d(x,c(\triangle))\geq 1/100\},$$ where $c(\triangle)$ is the center of $\triangle$.
Let $$X_1=\bigcup_{\triangle:\text{simplex of dimension $m$ in X}} \triangle_1;$$ $$X_2=\bigcup_{\triangle:\text{simplex of dimension $m$ in X}} \triangle_2.$$ Notice that:
1. $X_1$ is strongly Lipschitz homotopy equivalent to $$\{c(\triangle): \text{$\triangle$ is $m$-dimensional simplex in X}\};$$
2. $X_2$ is strongly Lipschitz homotopy equivalent to $X^{(m-1)}$;\
3. $X^{(m)}=X_1 \cup X_2$ and $X_1 \cap X_2$ is the disjoint union of the boundaries of all $m$-dimensional $\triangle_1$ in $X^{(m)}$.
\(1) and (2) together with the strongly Lipschitz homotopy invariance of the dual $L^p$-$K$-homology and the induction hypothesis, imply that the theorem holds for $X_1$ and $X_2$.
By the strongly Lipschitz homotopy invariance of $K_*(B^{p,\ast}_L(X))$, $K_*(C^*_L(X))$ and the cutting and pasting exact sequence, we also know that our lemma holds for $X_1\cap X_2$.
Thus we can complete our induction process by using the cutting and pasting exact sequence and the five lemma.
Take the similar argument for $\phi$, we have the following theorem.
\[Thm:pIndenpendentStarLocalization\] Let $X$ be a finite dimensional simplicial complex endowed with the $\ell^1$-metric, then for any $p\in (1,\infty)$, $\phi$ induces an isomorphism between $K_*(B^{p,\ast}_L(X))$ and $K_*(B^p_L(X))$.
By the Theorem \[Thm:pIndependentLocalization\] and \[Thm:pIndenpendentStarLocalization\], we obtain that the $K$-theory for $L^p$ localization algebra is independent of $p$.
Let $X$ be a finite dimensional simplicial complex endowed with the $\ell^1$-metric, then for any $p\in (1,\infty)$, $K_*(B^p_L(X))$ does not depend on $p$.
Further more, we have the following $p$-indenpendency of $K$-theory for $L^p$ Roe algebra.
Let $X$ be a separable proper metric space, assume that there exists an anti-Čech system $\{C_k\}_k$ for $X$ such that $N_{C_k}$ is a finite dimensional simplicial complex for all $k$. Then if for any $p\in (1,\infty)$, the $L^p$ coarse Baum-Connes conjecture is true for $X$, we have that $K_*(B^p(X))$ does not depend on $p$.
By the Theorem \[Thm:LpBCCFAD\], we have the following theorem.
\[Thm:MainThmPIndpendency\] Let $X$ be a separable proper metric space. If $X$ has finite asymptotic dimension, then $K_*(B^p(X))$ does not depend on $p$ for $p\in (1,\infty)$.
Open problems
=============
In this last section, we list several interesting open problems.
There are several versions of $L^p$ $K$-homology. Are they all the same?
Similar to the $L^2$-version of $K$-homology, there are many different versions of $K$-homology
1. Kasparov’s $K$-homology [@KasparovKhomology]
2. $K$-theory of dual algebra by Paschke [@PaschkeDuality]
3. $K$-theory of localization algebra of Guoliang Yu [@YuLocalization][@QiaoRoe]
4. Localization $K$-homology by Xiaoman Chen and Qin Wang [@ChenWangLocalization]
5. $E$-theory by Connes and Higson [@ConnesHigson]
In the $L^2$ case, all above concepts are the same. In this paper, we have seen that the $L^p$ counterpart of all above notions are equivalent for finite dimensional simplicial complex, since they all agree for zero dimensional complexes, and preserve under strong Lipschitz homotopy. But we are not very optimistic that they are equivalent for general topological spaces. To prove the equivalence, we need some deep theorems, say the Voiculescu Theorem [@Voiculescu] and the Kasparov Technical Lemma [@Kasparov88], for $L^p$ spaces.
Is it possible to prove that the $K$-theory of $L^p$ Roe algebras are independent of $p$ without using the coarse Baum-Connes conjecture?
Up to now, all the results about the $p$ indenpendency of the $K$-theory of the group algebras, crossed products and Roe algebras rely on the Baum-Connes conjecture or the coarse Baum-Connes conjecture, since the $K$-homology sides are easier to maneuver. A more direct approach without using the (coarse) Baum-Connes conjecture would shed some light on a Banach algebra approach to the (coarse) Baum-Connes conjecture. For example, if we know certain groups admitting proper isometric actions on $L^p$-spaces and their $K$-theory of the $L^p$ group algebras does not depend on $p$, by the result of Kasparov and Yu [@KasparovYuPBC], we can verify the Baum-Connes conjecture for these groups.
Can we develop an $L^p$ version of Dirac-dual-Dirac method for the $L^p$ Baum-Connes conjecture for amenable groupoids?
In [@TuATmenable], Tu showed the Baum-Connes conjecture is true for amenable groupoids, or more generally, a-T-menable groupoids. For a space with finite asymptotic dimension, or more generally finite decomposition complexity, the coarse groupoid is amenable. For a dynamical system with finite dynamical complexity, the corresponding transformation groupoid is also amenable [@GuentnerWillettYuFDC]. It would be great if we can modify Tu’s method to deal with $L^p$ groupoid algebra and give a unified proof for the Chung’s result on $L^p$ crossed products and the results in this paper on $L^p$ Roe algebras.
Are there any topological and geometric implication of the $L^p$ (coarse) Baum-Connes conjecture?
For example, does it imply the Gromov conjecture [@GromovConjecture] that uniformly contractible manifolds with bounded geometry admit no uniform positive scalar curvature?
Are there any counter-examples for the injectivity of the $L^p$ coarse Baum-Connes conjecture?
In [@HigsonLafforgueSkandalis][@WillettYuExpander], Higson-Lafforgue-Skandalis and Willett-Yu showed that Magulis type expanders and expanders with large girth are counter-examples for the surjectivity of the coarse Baum-Connes conjecture. In [@ChungNowakPCBC], Chung and Nowak showed that Magulis type expanders are still counter-example for the $L^p$ coarse Baum Connes conjecture. However, the existence of injectivity counterexample of the $L^p$ coarse Baum Connes conjecture is still open. In [@YuFAD], Guoliang Yu gave a counterexample of the injectivity of coarse Baum-Connes conjecture. The proof relies on a positive scalar curvature argument. Is Yu’s counter-example still a counter-example for the $L^p$ version?
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
=22.5cm =15.cm =-0.0in
‘=11 @x== by 60 = by 60 = by - \#1[0= -.025em0-0 .05em0-0 -.025em.0433em0 ]{} versim\#1\#2 ‘=12
[TAUP-2503-98\
]{}
, [**Georges Grunberg $^b$**]{} and [**Marek Karliner $^a$**]{}\
$^a$ School of Physics and Astronomy\
Raymond and Beverly Sackler Faculty of Exact Sciences\
Tel-Aviv University, 69978 Tel-Aviv, Israel\
e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]
$^b$ Centre de Physique Théorique de l’Ecole Polytechnique [^1]\
91128 Palaiseau Cedex, France\
email: [email protected]
[**Abstract**]{}\
Introduction
============
Due to asymptotic freedom [@oneloop], physical quantities in QCD at large momentum transfers $Q^2\equiv -q^2$, where $q^2$ is a space-like momentum-squared, can be calculated as power expansions in the coupling constant $x(Q^2)=\alpha _s(Q^2)/\pi$. This seems as a reasonable expansion[^2] since the coupling vanishes at this limit according to: $$x(Q^2)\sim \frac{1}{\beta_0 \ln \left( Q^2/\Lambda ^2\right) }
\label{1_loop_running}$$ where \_0=14( 11-23N\_f) \[beta0\] and $\Lambda $ is the QCD scale. $x(Q^2)$ in (\[1\_loop\_running\]) is a solution to the 1-loop renormalization group (RG) equation Q\^2=-\_0x\^2. \[1loopRG\] Going to lower $Q^2$, $x(Q^2)$ becomes larger, and higher loops have to be taken into account in (\[1loopRG\]), as well as in the expansions that describe physical quantities in terms of $x(Q^2)$. The RG equation at the $(n+1)$-th loop order is Q\^2=(x)=-\_0x\^2(1+cx+c\_2x\^2+c\_nx\^n). \[n1loopRG\]
For $Q^2$ below $\Lambda^2$, non-perturbative effects, which are non-expandable in $x(Q^2)$, become dominant, and the perturbative expansion becomes useless. However, in the intermediate regime, the perturbative solution can be fitted to the data, provided it is supplemented by power-like terms. These terms are non-perturbative but they can be characterized by perturbation theory, as they are related to the large order asymptotics of the perturbation series, and in particular to renormalons (see [@Bridge] and refs. therein). It is the non-convergence of the perturbative expansion, that provides some information on the non-perturbative terms.
Another indication that the perturbative result is incomplete, and cannot describe the low $Q^2$ physics unless it is supplemented by non-perturbative corrections, comes from considering its analyticity structure in the complex $Q^2$ plane: a generic QCD observable, that depends on a space-like momentum variable $Q^2$, is expected to be an analytic function of $Q^2$ in the entire complex plane, except the negative real (time-like) axis. Singularities on the time-like axis are meaningful since they correspond to production of on-shell particles, while existence of singularities away from the time-like axis would violate causality. Thus causality constrains the functional dependence of observables on $Q^2$. The analyticity condition is equivalent to the requirement that $x(Q^2)$ obeys the following dispersion relation: \_R(s)-{ x(-s)} \[beta\_R\] with x(Q\^2)=- \_0\^ds \[DR\] where $\beta_R(s)$, with $0\leq s< \infty$, is called the spectral density function.
A 1-loop perturbative result for a generic QCD observable depends on the coupling (\[1\_loop\_running\]) and therefore contains a “Landau-pole” at $Q^2=\Lambda^2$. This pole is located on the positive real axis (the space-like axis) and therefore it is non-physical. This pole is expected to be washed out when further perturbative and non-perturbative corrections are added. In general, higher loop perturbative results for the coupling have a more complicated analyticity structure which is still inconsistent with causality. Thus, in general, causality can by saved only be inclusion of non-perturbative terms.
A special case in which the perturbative result by itself can be consistent with causality, is when the perturbative $\beta$ function (\[n1loopRG\]) has a zero. Then, the coupling reaches a finite value in the infrared limit and thus it is finite for any real and positive $Q^2$. To be consistent with causality, the coupling should be non-singular in the entire $Q^2$ plane except the time-like axis, and therefore there may be cases where freezing occurs but causality is still violated, due to complex $Q^2$ singularities.
In real-world QCD, with only three light flavors, it seems from the first few terms in the $\beta$ function series that there is no perturbative freezing [@FP]. In this case, the standard perturbative approach always faces the “Landau singularity” problem. Refs. [@Analytic_1; @Analytic] revive a natural solution to this problem through the so-called Analytic Perturbation Theory (APT) approach. The APT coupling was used in [@dispersive_grunberg] for discussing power corrections within the more general (non-perturbative) dispersive approach of [@dispersive], and was also considered there (as well as in refs. [@Bridge; @Zakharov]) as a possible model for non-OPE power terms.
In this paper we solve the 2-loop and 3-loop RG equation giving explicit expressions for the coupling as a function of the scale in terms of the Lambert W function. This enables us to study the location and the nature of the “Landau singularities” in the complex $Q^2$ plane. In particular we find exact criteria which determine when perturbative freezing à la Banks-Zaks [@BZ] leads to an analyticity structure that is consistent with causality. Using the Lambert W solution, we then analyze the APT approach and show that it is either consistent with perturbative freezing (for $c<-\beta_0<0$) with an infrared limit of $-1/c$, or leads to a non-perturbative coupling with an infrared limit of $1/\beta_0$ (for $c>-\beta_0$).
The Lambert W function – exact explicit coupling at 2-loops
===========================================================
We start with a 2-loop RG equation (x)==-\_0[x]{}\^2(1+cx ) \[beta\_2loop\] where $t=\ln(Q^2/\Lambda^2)$. Note that the value of $\Lambda$ here should be different from the one in (\[1\_loop\_running\]), so that the same phenomenological value for $x(Q^2)$ will be obtained. When higher-order corrections are added, $\Lambda$ should be further adjusted, but for simplicity we use the same notation throughout. The 2-loop coefficient $c$, which is renormalization scheme independent, is given by: c==1[4\_0]{} \[c\] A straightforward integration of (\[beta\_2loop\]) for the asymptotically-free case ($\beta_0>0$) yields: \_0 (Q\^2/\^2)= -c\[2loop\_int\] At this stage it is already clear that $x(Q^2)$ has a cut on the negative real axis, being a function of $\ln(Q^2/\Lambda^2)$. The problem of inverting (\[2loop\_int\]) makes it difficult to study the singularity structure. In [@Analytic_1], for instance, the inversion of (\[2loop\_int\]) relies on the assumption that the $1/x$ term is much larger than the logarithmic term. Although correct in the deep perturbative region, this approximation is inadequate for studying the singularity structure of $x(Q^2)$. In particular, this approximation does not allow perturbative freezing at all, since in the latter case the logarithmic term becomes dominant in the infrared region.
Luckily, an explicit solution of the 2-loop RG equation (\[beta\_2loop\]), i.e. an inversion of (\[2loop\_int\]), can be written in terms of the so-called Lambert $W$ function [@Lambert]. $W(z)$ is defined by W(z) =z \[LambertW\_def\] The coupling is then given by:
[c]{} x(Q\^2)=-\
\
z = -(-1-\_0 t/c) = - ()\^[-\_0/c]{}
\[W\_sol\_2loop\] $W(z)$ is a multi-valued function with an infinite number of branches, denoted by $W_n(z)$. We follow [@Lambert] as for the division of the branches and notation. The requirement that $x(Q^2)$ is real and positive for a real positive $Q^2$ (at least for $Q^2\gg \Lambda^2$), is sufficient to determine the physical branch depending on the sign of $c$:
[(a) ]{} for $c>0$, $z<0$ and the physical branch is $W_{-1}(z)$. This branch is a real monotonically decreasing function for $z\in(-1/e,0)$, with $W_{-1}(z)\in(-\infty,-1)$ (outside this range $W_{-1}(z)$ is complex). Thus, the ultraviolet limit corresponds to $z\longrightarrow 0^-$, $W_{-1}(z)\longrightarrow -\infty$, and $x\longrightarrow 0^+$, as required by asymptotic freedom. In the infrared region, below the “Landau singularity” (see further discussion later) $x$ is complex.
[(b) ]{} for $c<0$, $z>0$ and the physical branch is the principal branch, $W_0(z)$. This branch is a real monotonically increasing function for $z\in(-1/e,\infty)$, with $W_0\in (-1,\infty)$ (outside this range, $W_0(z)$ is complex). For $z\geq0$, $W_0(z)\in [0,\infty)$. The ultraviolet limit corresponds to $z\longrightarrow\infty$, $W_0(z)\longrightarrow\infty$ and $x\longrightarrow 0^+$. The infrared limit corresponds to $z\longrightarrow 0^+$, $W_0(z) \longrightarrow 0^+$, and $x\longrightarrow (-1/c)^-$ which is consistent with the Banks-Zaks perturbative fixed-point value $x_{FP}=-1/c$.
The solution in (\[W\_sol\_2loop\]) can be quite useful whenever a two-loop evolution of the QCD coupling is required. It clearly yields more accurate results than the standard expansion of the coupling in $1/\ln(Q^2/\Lambda^2)$. Note that the latter can be obtained from (\[W\_sol\_2loop\]) using the asymptotic formulae for $W(z)$: for $c<0$ one uses the asymptotic expansion of $W_0(z)$ at large positive $z$ that starts with $W_0(z)\sim \ln(z)-\ln(\ln(z))$, and for $c>0$ one uses the asymptotic expansion of $W_{-1}(z)$ at small negative $z$ that starts with $W_{-1}(z)\sim \ln(-z)-\ln(-\ln(-z))$.
Other possible applications of (\[W\_sol\_2loop\]) are in the context of resummation methods, such as the iterated construction suggested by Maxwell in [@Maxwell] and the improved Baker-Gammel approximants suggested by Cvetič in [@Cvetic] which both generalize the diagonal Padé approximants approach [@diag_PA].
The general idea in these resummation methods is that knowledge of the first few orders in a perturbative expansion, together with the RG equation, can be used to construct approximants to physical quantities that have a better accuracy than the truncated perturbative series, and exhibit reduced renormalization scale and scheme dependence (for related ideas, see [@ECH; @PMS]). Diagonal Padé Approximants, as opposed to truncated series, are exactly invariant with respect to an arbitrary renormalization scale transformation, so long as the transformation respects the 1-loop evolution form (i.e. an evolution related to the 1-loop $\beta$ function) [@diag_PA]. In order to achieve scale invariance beyond this approximation, it turns out [@Maxwell; @Cvetic] that one has to use more complicated functions, which are related to the inverted solution of the some higher-order RG equation. Using the explicit inverted solution of the 2-loop RG equation (\[W\_sol\_2loop\]) the methods of [@Maxwell; @Cvetic] can be easily implemented in practice and also their mathematical structure can be further studied.
It is worth mentioning that another way[^3] to invert (\[2loop\_int\]) was suggested in the past by Khuri and Ren [@Khuri]: they wrote the 2-loop coupling in terms of $F(\zeta)$, which is defined by $2F(\zeta)-\exp[F(\zeta)]+1=\zeta$. The latter equation was considered earlier in different physical contexts (see refs. in [@Khuri]). There is, of course, a one-to-one correspondence between the Lambert W solution of (\[W\_sol\_2loop\]) and that of [@Khuri]: -12 =W(-12 ). In the following we stick with the Lambert W solution.
The singularity structure of the 2-loop coupling
================================================
Having found an explicit solution for coupling (\[W\_sol\_2loop\]), we would like now to analyze its singularity structure in the complex $Q^2$ plane and, in particular, to find when it is consistent with causality. To do so it is essential to define the analytical continuation of $x(Q^2)$ to the whole complex $Q^2$ plane, namely to specify the branch of $W(z)$ that is used in (\[W\_sol\_2loop\]) for a generic $Q^2=\vert Q^2\vert e^{i\phi}$, where $-\pi<\phi<\pi$.
At this stage it is necessary to give a brief description of the singularity structure of the Lambert W function; more details can be found in [@Lambert]. The partition of the complex $W$ plane between the different branches, $W_0$, $W_{\pm 1}$ and $W_{\pm 2}$, is shown by dashed lines in fig. 1 (the other lines in fig. 1 will be discussed later). It is important to realize that the singularity structure of the different branches $W_n(z)$ is different. $W_0$, $W_{-1}$ and $W_1$ share a common branch point at $z=-1/e$, at which $W=-1$. The $z=-1/e$ cut in all three branches is chosen to be $z\in (-\infty,-1/e)$. While for $W_0$, $z=-1/e$ is the only singularity, other branches $W_n(z)$ with $n\neq 0$ have a branch point at $z=0$ with a cut at $(-\infty,0)$. The $z=0$ cut is the only singularity in $W_n$ for $n\geq2$. Note that $W(y)$ obeys the following symmetry [@Lambert], W\^\*\_[-n]{}(y\^\*)=W\_n(y) \[summetry\] and therefore it is possible to obtain $W(z)$ and $x(Q^2)$ on the upper half-plane from those on the lower half-plane. Note also that the branches $W_{-1}(z)$ and $W_{1}(z)$ have a common real limit along the cut for $z\in (-1/e,0)$. It is only a matter of convention that the negative real axis ($W\in (-\infty,-1/e)$) belongs to $W_{-1}$ rather than to $W_1$.
The criterion we use for defining the analytical continuation is that for $\vert Q^2\vert \gg \Lambda^2$, the coupling $x(Q^2)$, and therefore also $W(z)$, will be continuous as a function of the phase of $Q^2$. From the analyticity structure of $W(z)$ described above it is clear that as long as the phase of $z$ does not reach $\pm \pi$ for any $Q^2$ in the first sheet, the only relevant branch is the physical one, i.e. the one that yields a real positive $x$ for real positive $Q^2$: $W_0$ for $c < 0$ and $W_{\pm 1}$ for $c > 0$. Let us define $z=\vert z\vert e^{i\delta}$. Using (\[W\_sol\_2loop\]) the condition $-\pi <\delta<\pi$ can be directly translated to conditions on $\beta_0$ and $c$, and therefore further division of the $c$ axis is suggested as follows:
[(a) ]{} for $c<-\beta_0<0$ we have $\delta=-(\beta_0/c)\phi$, and for $\phi \in (-\pi,\pi)$ we always have $-\pi <-\vert\beta_0/c\vert\pi<\delta<\vert\beta_0/c\vert\pi<\pi$. Thus $W_0(z)$ is the only relevant branch, its boundary is never reached and no singularity is encountered. We conclude that here the coupling has a perturbative fixed-point at $x_{\FP}=-1/c$, and an analyticity structure that is consistent with causality.
[(b) ]{} for $-\beta_0<c<0$, we find that $\delta=-(\beta_0/c) \phi$ reaches $\pm \pi$ at $\pm\phi_0$, with \_0c/\_0 . \[phi0\] Thus, when $Q^2$ has a phase of $\pm \phi_0$, the boundary of the $W_0(z)$ branch is reached. Consequently, an image of the cut $z\in(-\infty,-1/e)$ appears on the first sheet in the $Q^2$ plane. The branch point corresponding to $z=-1/e$ appears at Q\^2=Q\_0\^2e\^[i\_0]{} \[complex\_poles\] where Q\_0\^2=\^2 c\^[-c/\_0]{}. \[Q0\] The cuts in the $Q^2$ plane and the analytical continuation for $\vert \phi\vert>\phi_0$ will be discussed later.
[(c) ]{} for $c>\beta_0/2$, the solution is given by $W_{-1}(z)$ with $\delta=+\pi-(\beta_0/c)\phi$ for $\phi>0$ and by $W_{1}(z)$ with $\delta=-\pi-(\beta_0/c)\phi$ for $\phi<0$. For $\phi\in(0,\pi)$, $\delta>(1-\beta_0/c)\pi$ and therefore it never reaches the $W_{-1}$ branch boundary at $\delta=-\pi$. Similarly, for $\phi\in(-\pi,0)$, $\delta<(-1+\beta_0/c)\pi$ and therefore it never reaches the $W_{1}$ branch boundary at $\delta=+\pi$. Thus, the only relevant branches are $W_{\pm1}$ and the only singularity encountered is the one at $z=-1/e$ with the cut $z\in (-\infty,-1/e)$ that separates between $W_1$ and $W_{-1}$. From (\[W\_sol\_2loop\]) we find that the $z=-1/e$ singularity appears on the positive real $Q^2$ axis, at $Q^2=Q_0^2$, where $Q_0^2$ is given in (\[Q0\]). The cut $z\in (-\infty,-1/e)$ corresponds to a cut on the infrared section of the positive real $Q^2$ axis, $Q^2\in(0,Q_0^2)$.
[(d) ]{} for $0<c<\beta_0/2$, $\delta=\pm\pi-(\beta_0/c)\,\phi$ and the boundary of $W_{-1}$ at $\delta=-\pi$, and that of $W_{1}$ at $\delta=\pi$, is reached at $\phi=\pm\phi_1$, where $\phi_1= 2\,(c/\beta_0)\, \pi$. Like in case (b) above, it is required to define $W(z)$ for $\phi>\phi_1$. This will be done soon.
In the two cases with large $\vert\beta_0/c\vert$, (b) and (d) above, we found that the boundary of the physical branch is reached, and therefore a definition of $W(z)$ in eq. (\[W\_sol\_2loop\]) for $\vert \phi\vert >\phi_{0}$, in (b), and $\vert \phi\vert >\phi_{1}$, in (d), is required. The criterion that $W(z)$ should be continuous as a function of $\phi$ for large $\vert Q^2\vert$ implies a particular definition for the analytical continuation of $W(z)$: starting with a given branch $W_{\vert n\vert} (z)$ and increasing $\vert \phi\vert $, then when the branch boundary is reached one switches to the next branch $W_{\vert n\vert+1}(z)$.
Let us illustrate the above starting with the case $0<c<\beta_0/2$, (d) above, and consider a gradual increase in $\vert \phi\vert $, the phase of $Q^2$, in the lower half-plane $\phi<0$. For a positive real $Q^2$, $z<0$ and $W(z)$ is just on the boundary between $W_{-1}$ and $W_{1}$, shown by the dashed line in fig. 1. For a small negative $\phi$, $z$ is slightly below the negative real axis ($\delta=-\pi-(\beta_0/c)\phi$) and the solution is within the branch $W_1(z)$. This is exemplified in fig. 1 by the case $g=0.1$ ($\phi=-0.1\pi$). When $\phi=-\phi_1=-2\,(c/\beta_0)\,\pi$, $\delta=\pi$, $z$ becomes negative real again, and so the cut $z\in (-\infty,0)$ which is the upper boundary of the $W_1(z)$ branch is reached. Continuity of $W(z)$ is obtained if, and only if $W_2(z)$ is used for $\phi< -\phi_1$. In fig. 1, this is exemplified by the case $g=0.6$ ($\phi=-0.6\pi$). Note that in the specific example given in fig. 1, the time-like axis $\phi=-\pi$ is reached within the $W_2$ branch (the dot-dash line), but in general, depending on the ratio $\beta_0/c$, higher branches of $W$ may become relevant.
Next, consider the case $-\beta_0<c<0$, (b) above, where the positive real $Q^2$ solution is the positive real $W$ axis in the $W_0$ branch, described by the $g=0$ line in fig. 2. For a small negative $\phi$, $\delta=-(\beta_0/c) \phi$ is still far from the $\delta=-\pi$ limit and the solution is given by $W_0(z)$. In fig. 2, this is exemplified by the case $g=0.1$ ($\phi=-0.1\pi$). For $\phi=-\phi_0=\,(c/\beta_0)\,\pi$, the cut at $z=(-\infty,-1/e)$ which is the lower boundary of the $W_0$ branch is reached. Continuity of $W(z)$ at large $\vert Q^2\vert$ (the right side of fig. 2) implies that for $\phi\leq-\phi_0$, the branch $W_{-1}(z)$ should be used. In fig. 2 this is exemplified by the case $g=0.7$ ($\phi=-0.7\pi$). The possibility that higher branches ($W_{\vert n\vert} $ for $n>1$) will become relevant (depending on the ratio $\beta_0/c$) exists also here. Just like in the previous case, these branches are reached through the $z=0$ cut.
A unique feature of the analytical continuation we perform appears in case (b) (see fig. 2): this is a “phase transition” from the Banks-Zaks non-trivial infrared fixed-point to the trivial one, that occurs at $\phi=\pm\phi_0$. For any $\vert \phi\vert <\phi_0$ (the lines with $g\leq 0.6$ in fig. 2) $W(z)$ flows to zero in the infrared, which corresponds to the perturbative fixed-point at $x_{\FP}=-1/c$. On the other hand, for any $\vert \phi\vert >\phi_0$ (the lines with $g\geq0.7$ in fig. 2) $\vert W(z)\vert$ becomes infinite in the infrared, which corresponds to $x(Q^2)\longrightarrow 0$. The boundary between the $W_0$ branch and the $W_{-1}$ branch in fig. 2 separates between the two regimes. A flow from the ultraviolet down to the infrared for $\phi=\phi_0$ ($\phi=-(2/3)\pi$ in fig. 2) leads to a fork at $W=-1$ (corresponding to $Q^2=Q_0^2$) from which there are two ways to continue towards $Q^2=0$, one is to the right, within the $W_0$ branch leading to $W=0$, and the other to the left, on the boundary between the $W_{-1}$ and $W_1$ branches, leading to $W=-\infty$. In other words, choosing the analytical continuation beyond $\vert\phi\vert=\phi_0$ as we did, guarantees continuity for $Q^2\in(Q_0^2,\infty)$, but leaves a discontinuity in the complex $Q^2$ plane, along the $\phi=\pm\phi_0$ directions for any $Q^2\in(0,Q_0^2)$.
Let us now summarize how we choose the branch of the Lambert W function in (\[W\_sol\_2loop\]) according to the proposed analytical continuation of the coupling to the entire complex $Q^2$ plane. It is convenient to determine the branch from $d\equiv -(\beta_0/c)\,\phi$, where $\phi$ is the phase of $Q^2$, as before[^4]. Given $d$, we use the branch $W_n$ such that for $c<0$, d((2n-1),(2n+1)\] \[d\_n\_neg\_c\] and for $c>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{d_n_pos_c}
d\in(2(n-1)\,\pi\,,\,2n\pi] & n\geq 1 \\ \nonumber
d\in(2n\pi\,,\,2(n+1)\pi] & n\leq -1\end{aligned}$$ For instance, for $c<0$, $W_{-1}$ is used for $d\in(-3\pi,-\pi]$ and $W_0$ is used for $d\in(-\pi,\pi]$, as shown in fig. 2. For $c>0$, $W_{1}$ is used for $d\in(0,2\pi]$ and $W_2$ is used for $d\in(2\pi,4\pi]$, as shown in fig. 1.
Note that the lower half of the complex $Q^2$ plane ($\phi<0$) always corresponds to a positive imaginary part for the coupling. For $c<0$ the lower half-plane corresponds to $d<0$ which, according to (\[d\_n\_neg\_c\]), refers to $n\leq 0$ i.e. ${\rm Im}\{W\}<0$ that yields ${\rm Im}\{x(Q^2)\}>0$ in (\[W\_sol\_2loop\]). For $c>0$, $\phi<0$ corresponds to $d>0$ which according to (\[d\_n\_pos\_c\]) refers to $n\geq 1$ i.e. ${\rm Im}\{W\}>0$ that again yields ${\rm Im}\{x(Q^2)\}>0$ in (\[W\_sol\_2loop\]).
We are now in a position to address the question we started with, namely what is the singularity structure of $x(Q^2)$ in the complex $Q^2$ plane. There are three different possibilities, depending on the values of $c$ and $\beta_0>0$, which are shown in fig. 3[^5]:
[(a) ]{} for $c<-\beta_0<0$ the 2-loop coupling has a non-trivial perturbative infrared fixed point at $x_{\FP}=-1/c$ and an analyticity structure that is consistent with causality. Note there is no pole in the denominator of (\[W\_sol\_2loop\]), since whenever $W$ is real, it is positive. From considering only the 2-loop $\beta$ function it is not possible to exclude the physical relevance of this fixed-point, and there is no indication of the existence of non-perturbative effects.
[(b) ]{} for $-\beta_0<c<0$ the $\beta$ function seems to have a fixed-point, as in a), but since $x_{\FP}=-1/c$ is large here, this fixed-point is probably not reliable – it can be washed out by higher-loop contributions or by non-perturbative effects. Existence of the latter is strongly suggested by the presence of causality violating singularities: there are two branch points at $Q^2=Q_0^2e^{\pm i\phi_0}$ with radially oriented cuts that end at $Q^2=0$. The pole in the denominator of (\[W\_sol\_2loop\]) at $W=-1$ falls right on top of these branch points.
[(c) ]{} for $c>0$ there is no infrared fixed-point. The singularity structure violates causality, due to the branch point on the space-like axis at $Q^2=Q_0^2$. The pole in the denominator of (\[W\_sol\_2loop\]) at $W=-1$ falls right on top of this branch point. Note that for $c>0$ it is not important whether $\beta_0/c$ is large or small: in any case the only singularity is the single image of the $z=-1/e$ branch point, the starting point of the cut that separates between $W_1$ and $W_{-1}$ (There are no similar singularities for higher branches $\vert n\vert\geq 2$ of the W function). The non-physical cut on the space-like axis is probably removed from any physical quantity by non-perturbative effects.
The truncated 2-loop $\beta$ function (\[beta\_2loop\]) can be considered as a legitimate choice of renormalization scheme – the so-called ‘t Hooft scheme. However, in certain cases this may be a peculiar choice of scheme for calculating observable quantities: the truncation of the $\beta$ function at the 2-loop order seems quite arbitrary. Therefore, it is interesting to see to what extent our solution depends on this specific choice of scheme.
The Lambert W solution at 3-loops
=================================
Given the above motivation we would like to generalize our results by considering a generic 3-loop RG equation: (x)==-\_0[x]{}\^2(1+cx +c\_2x\^2) \[beta\_3loop\] where again $t=\ln(Q^2/\Lambda^2)$. A straightforward integration of (\[beta\_3loop\]) yields a function that involves arctanh terms in addition to the terms of the form appearing in (\[2loop\_int\]). Therefore, it is even harder to explicitly invert this function. To avoid this difficulty, we use the following trick: we alter the 3-loop $\beta$ function slightly, by taking its $x^2$\[1/1\] Padé Approximant (PA)[^6]: \_[PA]{}(x)=-\_0x\^2 \[PA\] This change does not limit generality as long as we restrict our interest to 3-loops, since the difference between the $\beta$ function in (\[PA\]) and that in (\[beta\_3loop\]) is of the order ${\cal
O}(x^4)$. Indeed, using (\[PA\]) instead of (\[beta\_3loop\]) is expected to change the singularity structure of $x(Q^2)$, but we insist that (\[PA\]) corresponds to a choice of scheme at 4-loops and beyond which is just as arbitrary as the truncation in (\[beta\_3loop\]). Using (\[PA\]) we obtain: \_0 (Q\^2/\^2)= -c\[3loop\_int\] and finally,
[c]{} x(Q\^2)=-\
\
z = -.
\[W\_sol\_3loop\]
Just like in the 2-loop case (\[W\_sol\_2loop\]), the sign of $z$ and therefore also the physically relevant branch of $W(z)$ are determined according the sign of $c$: for $c>0$, $z<0$ and the physical branch is $W_{-1}(z)$, taking real values in the range $(-\infty,-1)$, while for $c<0$, $z>0$ and the physical branch is $W_0(z)$, taking real values in the range $(0,\infty)$.
Note, that the only significant difference between the 3-loop solution (\[W\_sol\_3loop\]) and the 2-loop solution (\[W\_sol\_2loop\]) is in the relation between $W(z)$ and $x(Q^2)$. This is because the difference in the definition of $z$ can be swallowed in a redefinition of the scale parameter \^2\^2=\^2e\^[c\_2/(\_0 c)]{}. \[scheme\_trans\] Consequently, we immediately know almost everything concerning the singularity structure of the PA-improved 3-loop coupling: it has the same type of branch points and cuts that are described in fig. 3. The difference is, however, that the simple pole due to a zero in the denominator of $x(Q^2)$ in (\[W\_sol\_3loop\]) at $W(z)=c_2/c^2-1$, is not obtained on top of the branch point(s) at $W=-1$ (which corresponds instead to the pole of the PA improved $\beta$ function). Let us consider the three possible cases:
[(a) ]{} If $c>0$ then when $W$ is real ($W=W_{-1}$) it obeys $W(z)<-1$ and then any $c_2<0$ would result in a pole on the space-like axis.
[(b) ]{} If $c<-\beta_0$ then when $W$ is real ($W=W_0$) it obeys $W(z)>0$ and then if $c_2>c^2$ the pole will appear on the space-like axis (for $c_2<c^2$ the coupling is causal) .
[(c) ]{} If $-\beta_0<c<0$, $W$ obtains (or approaches) any real value: $W=W_0\in(0,\infty)$ on the space-like axis, $W\longrightarrow W_0\in(-1,0)$ for $\vert\phi\vert\longrightarrow \phi_0^-$ and $W\longrightarrow W_{\pm 1}\in(-\infty,-1)$ for $\vert\phi\vert\longrightarrow \phi_0^+$. Therefore for $-\beta_0<c<0$, the pole will always appear, either on the space-like axis (if $c_2>c^2$), or at $\vert\phi\vert=\phi_0$ (if $c_2<c^2$).
We conclude that the singularity structure of the PA-improved 3-loop coupling is not much different from the 2-loop coupling: there are regions of the parameter space for which perturbative freezing is consistent with causality. In particular, this is true for small enough $\beta_0$ and $c<0$, which is the starting point for the Banks-Zaks expansion. In general, however, higher-order terms in the $\beta$ function create a more complicated singularity structure in the infrared region, which is inconsistent with the analyticity requirement.
The Analytic Perturbation Theory approach
=========================================
Recently it was suggested [@Analytic_1] to construct a causal coupling constant by analytically continuing the coupling to the time-like axis (i.e. looking at $x(Q^2=-s)$ with $s>0$), use the discontinuity, or equivalently the imaginary part, to define a spectral function $\beta_R(s)$ as in (\[beta\_R\]) and finally use the dispersive integral (\[DR\]) to construct a new space-like coupling $x_{\APT}(Q^2)$. APT stands for “Analytic Perturbation Theory” since in this approach $x_{\APT}(Q^2)$ has the required analyticity structure by construction, being defined through the dispersion relation (\[DR\]).
The authors of refs. [@Analytic_1; @Analytic] show that the APT coupling has some remarkable features such as a universal infrared limit of $1/\beta_0$ which is almost independent of the renormalization scheme and of the order of the $\beta$ function one starts with. A general argument for the universality of the APT infrared limit (for $c>0$) was also given in [@dispersive_grunberg]. With the explicit expression for the 2-loop coupling in (\[beta\_2loop\]), we can now directly check these conclusions.
Before dealing with the 2-loop case, let us briefly review the APT results at 1-loop, where both the spectral function and $x_{\APT}$ can be easily obtained in a closed form. One starts with the 1-loop $\beta$ function (\[1\_loop\_running\]) and performs an analytical continuation by substituting $Q^2=-s-i\epsilon$ where $s>0$ and $\epsilon>0$ is small. In the limit $\epsilon\longrightarrow 0$ one obtains, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Re_and_Im}
{\rm Im}\{x(-s)\}&=&\frac{\beta_0\pi}{(\beta_0\pi)^2+(\beta_0t)^2} \nonumber \\
{\rm Re}\{x(-s)\}&=&\frac{\beta_0t}{(\beta_0\pi)^2+(\beta_0t)^2}\end{aligned}$$ where $t\equiv \ln(s/\Lambda^2)$. The spectral density is \_R(t)=-{x(-s)}= -. \[beta\_R\_APT\] Finally, one constructs the corresponding space-like effective coupling, through the dispersion relation (\[DR\]). The integral can be performed analytically, and yields x\_(Q\^2)= . \[removing\_Landau\] The first term in (\[removing\_Landau\]) is just the 1-loop perturbative result and the second term exactly cancels the “Landau-pole”. Since the second term is a power correction, it does not alter the ultraviolet behavior. By construction, $x_{\APT}(Q^2)$ has a cut at ${\rm Re}\{ Q^2\}<0$ and no other singularities in the complex plane, and is therefore consistent with causality. The coupling has a non-perturbative infrared fixed-point at $x_{\APT}(0)=1/\beta_0$.
It is clearly of interest to see how these APT results change at 2-loops. Since we already know how to analytically continue the space-like coupling to the entire $Q^2$ plane, we can now examine $x(Q^2)$ on the time-like axis. Before doing so, we stress once more that for the uniqueness of the APT solution it is necessary to impose a continuity condition on $x(Q^2)$ for large $\vert Q^2 \vert$. This condition is implemented by starting from $x(Q^2)$ on the space-like axis with $Q^2\gg\Lambda^2$, and demanding continuity of $x(Q^2)$ as the phase of $Q^2$ is changed. This prescription is essential, since the naive alternative of “taking a shortcut" and going directly to the time-like axis by trying to invert (\[2loop\_int\]) for negative $Q^2$ leads to an ambiguity in the choice of the branch of $W$ and in the corresponding APT spectral function.
Actually, perturbatively speaking, there can be no ambiguity in the definition of $x(Q^2)$ at complex $Q^2$. To see this one first writes the solution of eq. (\[n1loopRG\]) in the standard “non-improved” way as $x(Q^2/\mu^2, x_0)$, where $x_0\equiv x(Q^2=\mu^2)$, and expands in powers of $x_0$. The resulting coefficients are polynomials in $\log(Q^2/\mu^2)$ (the standard RG logs) and can all be expressed in terms of the $\beta$ function coefficients. If the $\beta$ function is given by a convergent power series (as in all examples we examine here), then the resulting series for $x(Q^2/\mu^2, x_0)$ has a [*finite*]{} radius of convergence at any fixed $\vert Q^2/\mu^2\vert$, and defines the unique correct analytic continuation to complex $Q^2$. Given the finite convergence radius, there are no singularities for a fixed $\vert Q^2/\mu^2\vert$ if $x_0$ is small enough. Due to asymptotic freedom, small enough $x_0$ at fixed $\vert Q^2/\mu^2\vert$ corresponds to large $\vert Q^2 \vert$ and therefore $x(Q^2)$ has no singularities for large enough $\vert
Q^2\vert$.
Considering the 2-loop APT spectral function, with $x(Q^2)$ given by eq. (\[W\_sol\_2loop\]), we show in fig. 4 the values of $W$ along the time-like axis, below the cut, for a 2-loop $\beta$ function with $\beta_0=1$ and several different values of $c$. We identify two categories of lines in fig. 4:
[(a) ]{} for $c<-\beta_0$ ($c<-1$ in the figure) $W$ flows to zero in the infrared. This leads to a non-trivial perturbative infrared fixed-point: $x(Q^2)\longrightarrow x_{FP}=-1/c$.
[(b) ]{} for $c>-\beta_0$ (where $c$ can be either positive or negative) $\vert W\vert \longrightarrow \infty$ in the infrared, and thus $x(Q^2)\longrightarrow 0$.
When $c<-\beta_0$, the singularity structure (see fig. 3) is consistent with causality: the cut is only on the time-like axis. This guarantees that $x(Q^2)$ obeys the dispersion relation in eqs. (\[beta\_R\]) and (\[DR\]). It follows that in this case the APT coupling coincides with the perturbative coupling: $x_{\APT}(Q^2)=x(Q^2)$. On the other hand, when $c>-\beta_0$, the singularity structure is always inconsistent with causality (see fig. 3). Therefore in this case $x_{\APT}(Q^2)$ differs from the perturbative coupling $x(Q^2)$.
Having identified how the relative size of $c$ vs. $\beta_0$ affects the main features of the APT coupling, we are now ready to consider the actual 2-loop $\beta$ function in QCD and examine the dependence of the analytically continued coupling $x(-s)$ on $N_f$, the number of light quark flavors. In fig. 5 we plot values of $W$ along the time-like axis, below the cut, for $N_f=0,1,2,\ldots,16$. As already mentioned, the branch $W_n$ in which the solution corresponding to the time-like axis resides, depends on $c/\beta_0$. The table below lists the values of $N_f$, and the corresponding branch labels $n$. $$\begin{array}{|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|}
\hline
N_f& 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 & 10 & 11 & 12 & 13 & 14 & 15 & 16\\
\hline
n& 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 25 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\hline
\end{array}$$ For $N_f\geq 10$ we have $c<-\beta_0$, so the APT coupling coincides with the perturbative one. On the other hand, for $N_f\leq 9$ we have $c>-\beta_0$, and then we expect the APT solution to be different. For $N_f=9$, $-\beta_0<c<0$ and therefore a pair of complex singularities appears, while for $N_f\leq 8$ there is a single singularity of the space-like axis. The $N_f=8$ line is not shown in fig. 5, since the large value of $\beta_0/c$ in this case causes the corresponding Im($W$) to fall within the $W_{25}$ branch, way outside the vertical range of the plot. It is important to note that for the physically relevant case, $N_f\leq3$, the exact number of flavours has only a small effect on $W$.
Next, we use (\[W\_sol\_2loop\]) to calculate $x(-s)$ below the cut for two representative examples: $N_f=3$ and $N_f=10$. The corresponding real and imaginary parts of $x(-s)$ are shown in fig. 6 as function of $t=\ln(s/\Lambda^2)$. The ultraviolet limit of the real part is the same in both cases: ${\rm Re}\{x(-s)\}\,\rightarrow\, 0$. The difference is in the infrared: for , , in accordance with (a) above, while for $N_f=3$, , in accordance with (b) above. The imaginary part of $x(-s)$ vanishes in both the infrared and in the ultraviolet limit, so that the APT coupling given by (\[beta\_R\]) and (\[DR\]) is well defined.
${\rm Im}\{x(-s)\}$ below the cut is always positive-definite and thus the APT coupling is a monotonically decreasing function of $Q^2$, attaining its maximum value $x_{\APT}(0)$ at $Q^2=0$. The infrared limit of the APT coupling can be obtained by integrating ${\rm Im}\left\{x(-s)\right\}$ over all scales: x\_(0)=\_[-]{}\^[Im]{}{x(-s)} dt \[allscaleint\] This integral can be performed analytically by changing the integration variable to $W$. Using (\[LambertW\_def\]) and (\[W\_sol\_2loop\]) we write $dt=(-c/\beta_0)(1+W)/W\,dW$ and obtain: x\_(0)= [Im]{}{\_[IR]{}\^[UV]{}} \[as\_2loops\] where the integration contour in the $W$ plane is along the line that corresponds to the [*time-like*]{} axis (examples are provided by the continuous lines in figs. 4 and 5).
For $c>0$ and for $-\beta_0<c<0$ the time-like axis is always mapped into a non-principle branch ($n\neq 0$) and then the integration contour stretches from ${\rm Re}\{W\}\longrightarrow -\infty$ to ${\rm Re}\{W\} \longrightarrow +\infty$, while ${\rm Im}\{W\}$ is bounded. The integral can then be performed by closing the integration contour with a semi-circle at infinity. Since there are no poles inside the closed contour and the integration along the semi-circle yields $i \pi$, one obtains $x_{\APT}(0)=1/\beta_0$.
For $c<-\beta_0$ the relevant branch is $n=0$ and then the contour starts at $W=0$ in the infrared and reaches ${\rm Re}\{W\} \longrightarrow +\infty$ in the ultraviolet. In this case we evaluate the integral directly and then use the asymptotic behavior of $W_0(z)$ at small and large $\vert z\vert$. The result is $x_{\APT}(0)=-1/c$. A posteriori, this should not come as a surprise, since we already know that whenever the time-like coupling is within the $W_0$ branch, ($c<-\beta_0$), the APT solution coincides with the perturbative coupling which flows to the infrared fixed-point at $-1/c$.
We note that the conclusion of refs. [@Analytic_1; @Analytic] that the infrared limit of the 2-loop APT coupling is always $1/\beta_0$ is correct only for $c>-\beta_0$.
Our results for 2-loop $x_{\APT}(0)$ are summarized in fig. 7, where the upper plot (continuous line) shows the 2-loop APT infrared limit for a $\beta$ function with $\beta_0=1$ and a span of $c$ values, and the lower plot (continuous line and crosses) shows the 2-loop APT infrared limit for QCD with a varying number of flavours. For $N_f\leq9$ the APT infrared limit is $1/\beta_0$, while for $N_f\geq10$ it is $-1/c$.
In a similar manner we now calculate the infrared APT limit for the PA-improved three-loop coupling defined from the imaginary part of $x(-s)$ in eq. (\[W\_sol\_3loop\]). Also here we perform the integral analytically by changing the integration variable to $W$, x\_(0)= [Im]{}{\_[IR]{}\^[UV]{} }. \[as\_3loops\] We find the same two scenarios: when the time-like axis corresponds to a non-principal branch, we close the contour by a half-circle at infinity. Otherwise, for $n=0$, we evaluate the integral directly and use asymptotics of $W_0(z)$.
Depending on the values of $\beta_0$, $c$ and $c_2$, there are four different possibilities, as summarized below:
[ll]{}
[ll]{} &\
&\
c>0 &\
c<0 & {
[ll]{} c>-\_0 &\
c<-\_0 & {
[ll]{} c\_2<c\^2 &\
c\_2>c\^2 &\
.
.
&
[l]{}\
\
1/\_0\
1/\_0\
(-1/c)/(1-c\_2/c\^2)\
1/\_0-(1/c+1/\_0)/(1-c\_2/c\^2)
\[3\_loops\_APT\_0\]
For $c>-\beta_0$ we again obtain a completely universal infrared limit: $x_{\APT}(0)$ does not depend at all on $c$ and $c_2$. The universality breaks down for $c<-\beta_0$, just like in the two-loop case. When the singularity structure of the perturbative coupling is consistent with causality, we expect that it coincides with the APT coupling, and then $x_{\APT}(0)$ should be just equal to the solution of $\beta(x)=0$, which is $x(Q^2=0)=(-1/c)/(1-c_2/c^2)$. However, contrary to the two-loop case, at three-loops, given $c<-\beta_0$, it is still possible that the singularity structure will be inconsistent with causality: if $c_2>c^2$ the perturbative coupling has an extra pole on the space-like axis (see discussion below eq. (\[scheme\_trans\]), case (b)). Indeed, in this case the APT infrared limit is different from the perturbative one.
Our results for the infrared limit of the APT coupling at 3-loops are shown in fig. 7, on top of the 2-loop results. The plot demonstrates that as long as $c>-\beta_0$ the limit $x_{\APT}(0)=1/\beta_0$ is universal, i.e. it does not depend on $c$ and $c_2$. Nevertheless, when $c<-\beta_0$ the values of $c$ and $c_2$ are important for the APT infrared limit, as indicated by (\[3\_loops\_APT\_0\]).
In the upper plot, one notes that for a 3-loop case with $c_2>0$ and $c<0$, $x_{\APT}(0)$ can become large, and even diverge, when $c_2\sim c^2$. Then $x_{\APT}$ ceases to be a good expansion parameter. Another interesting feature of the 3-loop solution is the jump that may occur in the value of $x_{\APT}(0)$ at $c=-\beta_0$ when $c$ is varied. Such a jump indeed occurs if $c_2<c^2$ (dashed line in the upper plot).
In the lower plot, one observes that the APT coupling based on the PA-improved 3-loop $\beta$ function in $\MSbar$ shows a sharp transition at $N_f\simeq 10$. For $N_f\geq 10$ the coupling has a perturbative infrared fixed point at a rather small value ($x(0)\sim 0.1$), suggesting a reliable purely perturbative phase. On the other hand, for $N_f\leq 9$ the APT coupling has a non-perturbative infrared fixed point, with the “universal” value of $1/\beta_0$. It is natural to ask whether the transition observed at $N_f\simeq 10$ is an indication of the phase transition expected in QCD as $N_f$ is increased (see [@FP] and refs. therein), or is it an artifact of considering a truncated $\beta$ function in a special renormalization scheme. While we cannot fully answer this question, it is worthwhile noting that the transition point $N_f\sim 10$ does not depend on the renormalization scheme, since it reflects the [*scheme-independent*]{} condition $c=-\beta_0$. Moreover, the essential qualitative features of the $\MSbar$ results for $N_f\geq 10$ are likely shared by most acceptable renormalization schemes: one observes that in physical schemes the condition $c_2<c^2$ is always obeyed for $N_f\geq 10$ (see fig. 1 in [@FP]). Therefore, the perturbative fixed-point of the PA-improved 3-loops $\beta$ function at $(-1/c)/(1-c_2/c^2)$ is positive and the perturbative coupling has a causal analyticity structure. The last case considered in (\[3\_loops\_APT\_0\]), i.e. $c<-\beta_0$ and $c_2>c^2$, is probably never realized in QCD.
Summary and Conclusions
=======================
Using the Lambert W function we achieved a thorough understanding of the structure of the solutions of the 2-loop and (Padé improved) 3-loop RG equation for the coupling constant in the complex $Q^2$ plane. The main result is that the running perturbative coupling in QCD can have a causal analyticity structure, with a non-trivial infrared fixed point, provided $\beta_0$ is small enough and that $\beta_1$ is negative, i.e. in the framework of the Banks-Zaks expansion. This suggests that a consistent, purely perturbative definition of QCD should be possible when the number of flavors is large enough (barring possible complications due to renormalons and to the asymptotic nature of the $\beta$ function series and of the Banks-Zaks series, which have not been addressed here). On the other hand, for larger $\beta_0$ or for positive $\beta_1$, unphysical singularities are present in the infrared region, which are to be removed by non-perturbative power-like effects.
At the 2-loop level, the causality requirement translates into the condition , i.e. $x_{FP}\equiv -1/c<1/\beta_0$. This condition is also relevant for the PA-improved 3-loop case, for most of the acceptable renormalization schemes. Taking seriously the 2-loop and 3-loop results, we are lead to conclude that a purely perturbative phase is realized in QCD with $N_f\geq 10$. This result is in reasonable agreement with other approaches (see [@FP] and refs. therein).
We have investigated the APT approach, a simple mathematical way (which admittedly lacks a physical basis, see the discussion below) to implement the necessary power-like effects, starting from perturbation theory. In this approach, a causal coupling is reconstructed via a dispersion relation from the time-like discontinuity of the [*perturbative*]{} coupling. We have shown that in some cases the value of the APT infrared fixed point may depend on higher-order coefficients of the perturbative $\beta$ function, and is not always given by the one-loop value $1/\beta_0$, which is therefore not “universal”. Departure from the “universal” value appears not only in the above mentioned cases where the perturbative coupling is by itself already causal and the APT fixed point coincides with the perturbative one, but also when unphysical space-like singularities are present and a (positive) perturbative infrared fixed point does not exist – case (b) below eq. (\[scheme\_trans\]). Nevertheless, the latter case might be viewed as academic, since in QCD it is not realized for any number of flavors.
It is therefore natural to wonder what general conditions are required to recover the “universal” APT value, which clearly has a special, remarkable status (in particular, all the “non-perturbative” APT fixed point curves end up on the “universal” $1/\beta_0$ line in Fig.(7)). Sufficient conditions for the “universal” APT value were given in [@dispersive_grunberg], [*assuming*]{} a Landau singularity is present on the space-like axis: essentially, the perturbative coupling was required to approach the [*trivial*]{} infrared fixed point when the scale is decreased to zero on the [*space-like*]{} axis below the Landau singularity[^7]. Thus, in order to avoid universality in this case, there must exist a [*non-trivial*]{}, but [*perturbative*]{}, infrared fixed point (at unphysical negative or complex values of the coupling), whose domain of attraction includes the trajectory going through the Landau singularity. Indeed, a (negative) perturbative infrared fixed point is present in the 3-loop example for $c<0$ and $c_2>c^2$, explaining why the last “non-perturbative” APT fixed point in eq. (\[3\_loops\_APT\_0\]) differs from the “universal” value. Actually, universality may be obtained under more general conditions then those stated in [@dispersive_grunberg], e.g. in the case $-\beta_0<c<0$ in eq. (\[3\_loops\_APT\_0\]), where the APT value is still the universal one, despite the presence of a non-trivial perturbative infrared fixed point (which always exists for $c<0$), and regardless of its sign (if the latter is negative, then a Landau pole is still present on the space-like axis).
In all the examples presented here, namely the 2-loop and PA-improved 3-loop $\beta$ functions, universality is obtained whenever the perturbative coupling approaches the [*trivial*]{} infrared fixed point as $Q^2\longrightarrow 0^-$ on the [*time-like*]{} axis. This has a simple mathematical explanation in terms of the Lambert W function, as in these cases, the contour in the $W$ plane stretches from ${\rm Re}\{W\}\longrightarrow -\infty$ to ${\rm Re}\{W\} \longrightarrow +\infty$, while ${\rm Im}\{W\}$ is bounded. The integral can then be performed by closing the integration contour with a semi-circle at infinity. Since there are no poles inside the closed contour and the integration along the semi-circle yields $i \pi$, one obtains $x_{\APT}(0)=1/\beta_0$. As a result, the details of the contour, which do depend on the coefficients of the $\beta$ function, are insignificant.
It would be interesting to know whether, for a [*generic*]{} higher-order $\beta$ function, a universal $1/\beta_0$ limit of the APT coupling is obtained whenever the perturbative coupling approaches the [*trivial*]{} infrared fixed point on the [*time-like*]{} axis, giving a sufficient condition for universality alternative to that of [@dispersive_grunberg]. Unfortunately, because of the complicated phase structure in the complex $Q^2$ plane when complex Landau singularities are present (see the discussion before eq. (\[d\_n\_neg\_c\])), it is not clear if such a condition could turn out to be also necessary. Note that in the present examples, for $-\beta_0<c<0$ there is a 2-phase structure, such that the space-like coupling approaches the non-trivial perturbative infrared fixed point, while the time-like coupling approaches the trivial one. On the other hand, for $c<-\beta_0<0$ there is only one phase and both couplings approach the non-trivial fixed point. But, in principle, there could be more complicated examples where a third scenario is realised, namely the space-like coupling approaches the trivial fixed point (thus insuring universality according to [@dispersive_grunberg]), while the time-like coupling approaches a non-trivial one.
It is also interesting to note that the PA-improved 3-loop coupling probably offers the simplest example (in case $c<0$ and $c_2>c^2$) where the standard relation between renormalons and Landau pole (see previous footnote) might not hold, since the Landau pole trajectory is not in the domain of attraction of the trivial infrared fixed point in this example. Developing this point is beyond the scope of the present paper.
One might question the physical relevance of the APT coupling. It is unlikely, given its perturbative origin, that it exhausts all non-perturbative effects in the running coupling, but it may play a useful phenomenological role (yet to be clarified) in a more general framework [@dispersive_grunberg; @alekseev].
[**Acknowledgments**]{}
This research was supported in part by the Israel Science Foundation administered by the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, by a Grant from the G.I.F., the German-Israeli Foundation for Scientific Research and Development, by the Charles Clore doctoral fellowship, and by the EC program ‘Training and Mobility of Researchers’, Network ‘QCD and Particle Structure’, contract ERBFMRXCT980194.
[99]{}
D. Gross and F. Wilczek, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**30**]{} (1973) 1343; H.D. Politzer [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**30**]{} (1973) 1346.
V. I. Zakharov, [*Renormalons as a bridge between perturbative and nonperturbative physics*]{}, hep-ph/9802416.
E. Gardi, M. Karliner, [*Relations between observables and the infrared fixed-point in QCD*]{}, to be published in [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B**]{}, hep-ph/9802218.
I.L. Solovtsov and D.V. Shirkov, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**79**]{} (1997) 1209-1212, [*Analytic model for the QCD running coupling with universal $\alpha_s(0)$ value*]{} hep-ph/9704333.
D.V. Shirkov, [*On the analytic “Causal” model for the QCD running coupling*]{}, hep-ph/9708480; K. A. Milton, O. P. Solovtsova, OKHEP-97-06, [*Analytic perturbation theory: a new approach to the analytic continuation of the strong coupling constant alpha-s into the time-like region*]{}, hep-ph/9710316; I.L. Solovtsov and D.V. Shirkov [*Analytic approach to perturbative QCD and renormalization scheme dependence*]{}, hep-ph/9711251; K. A. Milton, I.L. Solovtsov and O. P. Solovtsova, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B415**]{} (1997) 104.
Yu.L. Dokshitzer, G. Marchesini and B.R. Webber, [ *Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B469**]{} (1996) 93.
G. Grunberg, [*Power corrections and Landau singularity*]{}, hep-ph/9705290.
R. Akhoury and V.I. Zakharov, UM-TH/97-11, hep-ph/9705318; UM-TH/97-19, hep-ph/9710257; UM-TH/97-18, hep-ph/9710487; G. Grunberg, CERN-TH/97-340, hep-ph/9711481.
W. E . Caswell, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [ **33**]{}, (1974) 244; D. R. T. Jones, [*Nucl. Phys.* ]{}[**B75**]{}, (1974) 531.
T. Banks and A. Zaks, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B196**]{} (1982) 189. See also G. Grunberg, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D46**]{}, (1992) 2228.
R.M. Corless, G.H. Gonnet, D.E.G. Hare, D.J. Jeffrey and D.E. Knuth, “On the Lambert W function”, [*Advances in Computational Mathematics*]{}, [**5**]{} (1996) 329,
C. J. Maxwell, [*Phys. Lett.* ]{} [**B409**]{} (1997) 450-454. G. Cvetič, [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}[**D57**]{} (1998) 3209-3213; G. Cvetič, [*Nucl. Phys.* ]{} [**B517**]{} (1998) 506-520; see also G. Cvetič and R. Kögerler, MPI-PhT 98-13, BI- TP 98/2, hep-ph/9802248.
E. Gardi, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D56**]{} (1997) 68; S. J. Brodsky, J. Ellis, E. Gardi, M. Karliner, M.A. Samuel. [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D56**]{} (1997) 6980-6992.
G. Grunberg, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D29**]{} (1984) 2315.
P.M. Stevenson, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D23**]{} (1981) 2916.
N.N. Khuri and H.C. Ren, [*Annals Of Physics*]{} [**189**]{} (1989) 142-154. G. Grunberg, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B304**]{} (1993) 183.
N.G. Uraltsev, private communication with G. Grunberg.
M.A. Samuel, J. Ellis and M. Karliner, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**74**]{} (1995) 4380; [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B400**]{} (1997) 176; J. Ellis, E. Gardi, M. Karliner and M.A. Samuel, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B366**]{} (1996) 268; [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D54**]{} (1996) 6986; I. Jack, D.R.T. Jones and M.A. Samuel, hep-ph/9706249; J. Ellis, I. Jack, D.R.T. Jones, M. Karliner and M.A. Samuel, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D57**]{} (1998) 2665.
G. Grunberg [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B372**]{} (1996) 121.
A.I. Alekseev, [*QCD Running Coupling: Freezing Versus Enhancement in the Infrared Region*]{}, hep-ph/9802372; A.I. Alekseev, B.A. Arbuzov, [*Analyticity and Minimality of Non-perturbative Contributions in Perturbative region for $\bar\alpha_s$*]{}, hep-ph/9704228.
[^1]: CNRS UMR C7644
[^2]: Even though the series actually does not converge, and in-fact it is non Borel-summable.
[^3]: An exact solution of (\[2loop\_int\]) in term of a (modified) Borel representation can also be found in [@grunberg-borel].
[^4]: Note that $d$ is not the phase of $z$, since the latter has an additional $\pi$ term for $c>0$.
[^5]: Some of these conclusions have been anticipated by Uraltsev [@Uraltsev_private].
[^6]: PA’s were found useful in various applications in perturbative QCD – see refs. [@diag_PA; @PA_QCD].
[^7]: This condition also allows to relate [@grunberg-fixedpoint] the ambiguity arising from integrating over the Landau singularity to the one due to renormalons, a fact exploited in the proof.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'A method for generating a mesoscopic superposition state of the collective spin variable of a gas of atoms is proposed. The state consists of a superposition of the atomic spins pointing in two slightly different directions. It is obtained by using off resonant light to carry out Quantum Non Demolition Measurements of the spins. The relevant experimental conditions, which require very dense atomic samples, can be realized with presently available techniques. Long-lived atomic superposition states may become useful as an off-line resource for quantum computing with otherwise linear operations.'
author:
- 'S. Massar'
- 'E. S. Polzik'
date: 'December 2, 2002'
title: Generation of Superposition Spin States in an Atomic Ensemble
---
Generation of superpositions of macroscopically different quantum states have been attracting fundamental interest for a long time [@S] since they illustrate the superposition principle in an extreme setting. Recently, such states have also been proposed as an off-line entanglement resource for a quantum computer, with which the computer can work using only linear operations [@Milburn]. Non-deterministically produced “cat” states of an ensemble of particles serve in this proposal as an alternative to operations with maximally entangled quantum states in other quantum computing schemes.
Superpositions involving a few microwave photons in a cavity have been demonstrated in [@haroche]. Quantum superpositions have been recently also demonstrated using currents in superconducting interference devices [@SQUID]. There are proposals for realising such states in different physical systems, see for instance [@proposals] for those which involve Bose Einstein Condensates (BEC). Methods for generating superpositions of two coherent states $|\alpha \rangle +|-\alpha \rangle $ of the electro-magnetic (e.m.) field have been suggested, but they require a perfect measurement of the photon number [@optics], which is impractical at present.
In this paper, we propose a method for realizing a superposition state of the collective spin variables of a gas of alkali atoms. Specifically the state that would be realised is a coherent superposition of the atomic spins pointing in two slightly different directions. Our method, in which the state of the atomic spins is generated via an interaction with light pulses, is another step within the growing field devoted to developing a quantum interface between light and atomic ensembles. Strong coupling between collective degrees of freedom of multi-atom ensembles and multi-photon pulses of light can be achieved in free space and has been recently used to demonstrate squeezing of the collective spin [@spinsqueezed; @kuzmandel] and entanglement between two atomic samples [@duan; @Julsgaard]. This should be contrasted with the strong coupling of individual photons to individual atoms, which requires high finesse cavities [@haroche; @cavity].
The method we propose here for generating a coherent superposition of the spins advances these techniques beyond the continuous variables approximation. Indeed in our proposal a strong atom-photon coupling has to be realized with a small number of atoms. The relevant experimental conditions, which require very dense atomic samples, seem to be realisable using presently available techniques. The transfer of the atomic ensemble spin state onto the state of light is also in principle possible [@Kuzmich; @teleport], and therefore superpositions of coherent states of light could also be realised using our method.
The collective spin variables for the ground state of an atomic ensemble $
{\hat{\vec{J}}}=\sum_{i}\hat{\vec{\j}}^{(i)},$ where $\hat{\vec{\j}}^{(i)}$ is the total angular momentum of the $i$’th atom in the ground state, obey the usual commutation relations $[\hat{J}_{x},\hat{J}_{y}]=i\hat{J}_{z}$. For simplicity we assume that each atom is a spin $1/2$ system. We start with the coherent spin state with maximal total angular momentum (i.e. all spins parallel) whereupon $
\hat J_{x}^{2}+\hat J_{y}^{2}+\hat J_{z}^{2}=
{\frac{N^{a}}{2}}({\frac{N^{a}}{2}}+1)$ where $
N_{a}$ is the number of atoms. We will suppose that the evolution of the collective spin is limited to unitary transfirmations without dissipation. Under these conditions the total length of the spin vector is conserved, i.e. it stays on the surface of the same Bloch sphere. Throughout the paper the spin vector stays polarized close to the $+z$ direction (close to $|\uparrow
_{z}\rangle $ state), but not necessarily exactly in this direction. We can then define the rescaled variables $\hat x_A= \sqrt{2 \over N_a}\hat J_{x}$, $\hat p_A= \sqrt{2 \over
N_a} \hat J_{y}$, $\hat n_A={N_{A}\over 2}-\hat J_{z}$, which satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\lbrack \hat x_A, \hat p_A] &=&i+O(\hat n_A/N_{A}) \ , \label{commut2} \\
{\frac{\hat x_A^{2}}{2}}+{\frac{\hat p_A^{2}}{2}} &=& \hat n_A+{\frac{1}{2}}%
+O(\hat n_A^{2}/N_{A})\ . \label{number}\end{aligned}$$Thus $\hat x_A$ and $\hat p_A$ are analogous to the position and momentum operators, or to the quadrature operators of a single mode of the e.m. field, and $\hat n_A$, the number of spins polarised in the $+z$ direction, is analogous to the occupation number of a harmonic oscillator, or to the number of photons in a mode of the e.m. field. The new feature of the present model, as compared to the earlier work, is that it goes beyond the harmonic oscillator approximation since the deviation of $\hat J_{z}$ from $N_{a}/2$ is taken into account to first order.
The qualitative outline of the procedure for the “cat” state generation goes as follows, see figure \[Lfig2\]. As shown in [@kuzmandel; @Kuzmich; @Julsgaard] a component of the collective spin operator can be measured in a QND way. A measurement of $\hat J_{x}$ to precision $\Delta
J$ produces a squeezed state of the atomic spin with uncertainties $\Delta
x_A^2=2\Delta J^2 /N_{a}=1/(2\xi^2) $ and $\Delta p_A^2=\xi^2/2 $ where $\xi $ denotes the degree of squeezing. Such a state has a “banana” shape localized around the pole of the Bloch sphere. The critical next step is to carry out a QND measurement of $\hat J_{z}$, i.e. of the number operator $\hat n_A$, with the same precision $\Delta J$. Such a measurement can be visualized as intersecting the “banana” with a plane parallel to the equatorial plane \[Lfig2\]. The distance from the plane to the pole depends on the result of the QND measurement of $\hat n_A$. The “width” of the plane depends on the precision $\Delta J$ with which $\hat n_A$ is measured. The resulting state lies at the intersection of the plane and the initial squeezed state. It is a superposition state. Of central importance is that only “weak” QND measurements of the atomic population, i.e. measurements of $\hat n_A$ which do not need to have the single atom accuracy, are required to produce the superpostion state.
Let us now describe in detail the QND measurements of the atomic spin. The starting point is the effective interaction between the off resonant light and the atomic ground state spin [@kuzmandel; @Kuzmich; @duan]. Atomic levels and interactions with light are shown in figure 1a). Let us suppose that initially the photons are in the coherent state $|\psi_{P}\rangle=\int d x_P\exp
[-x_P^{2}/2]| x_P\rangle $ (hereafter we omit for simplicity normalisation constants) and that the atoms are polarised in the $z$ direction in the coherent spin state $ |0\rangle_{n_A} =\int dx_A\ \exp \left[
-x_A^{2}/2\right]
|x_A\rangle$ (the level scheme on top in figure 1a). For light propagating along the $x$ axis the effective interaction Hamiltonian is $H_{eff}=\kappa
\sum_{i}|\uparrow _{x}\rangle _{i}\langle \uparrow _{x}|\hat a_{L}^{\dagger
}\hat a_{L}+|\downarrow _{x}\rangle _{i}\langle \downarrow _{x}|\hat
a_{R}^{\dagger
}\hat a_{R}$ where $\hat a_{L}$, $\hat a_{R}$ are the annihilation operators for left and right circular polarized light (the interaction is pictorially shown in the middle level scheme in figure 1a). We introduce the Stokes operators $
\hat S_{x}=\hat a_{L}^{\dagger }\hat a_{L}-\hat a_{R}^{\dagger }\hat
a_{R}$, $\hat S_{y}=\hat a_{L}^{\dagger
}\hat a_{R}+\hat a_{R}^{\dagger }\hat a_{L}$, $\hat S_{z}=-i\hat
a_{L}^{\dagger }\hat a_{R}+i\hat a_{R}^{\dagger
}\hat a_{L}$ and assume that $\hat S_{z}\simeq N_{p}$ is close to its maximal value (where $N_{P}$ is the number of photons in the beam). Then we can define the rescaled position-momentum like operators $\hat S_{x}=\hat
x_P\sqrt{N_{p}/2}\ ,\
\hat S_{y}=\hat p_P/\sqrt{N_{P}/2}$ which obey $[\hat x_P,\hat p_P]=i$. With this notation the unitary evolution can be written (up to an unimportant overall phase) as $$U=\exp \left( -ia\hat J_{x}\hat S_{x}\right) =\exp \left( -i\alpha
\hat x_A \hat x_P\right)
\label{a}$$ where $\alpha =a\sqrt{N_{a}N_{p}}/2$.
In the first step a spin squeezed state is obtained as follows [@kuzmandel; @Kuzmich; @duan] After the interaction with light the state is, in the $p_P$ basis, $U|\psi_{P}\rangle|0\rangle_{n_A}=\int dx_A dp_P \exp [-(\alpha
x_A-p_P)^{2}/2]\exp \left[
-x_A^{2}/2\right]|x_A\rangle |p_P\rangle$. Upon measuring $
\hat p_P$ a particular outcome $p_P$ is obtained. The state of the atoms conditioned on the measurement outcome $p_P$ is $$\psi _{A}(p_P)=\int dx_A\ \exp [-(\alpha
x_A-p_P)^{2}/2]\exp \left[
-x_A^{2}/2\right]|x_A\rangle
\ .$$ This is a squeezed state. By a rotation one can center the state around $p_P=0$ whereupon one has $$\begin{aligned}
\psi _{A}^{squeezed} &=&
dx_A\ \exp [-(\alpha^2 + 1) x_A^{2}/2 ]|x_A\rangle
\nonumber\\
&=& \sum_{n_A} c(n_A)|n_A\rangle
\label{squ}\end{aligned}$$ where $c(n_A)=0$ if $n_A$ is odd, and equals $c(n_A) = \left({\xi^2 -1\over 2 (\xi^2 +1)}\right)^{n_A/2}
{\sqrt{n_A!}\over
({n_A/2})!}$ when $n_A$ is even, with $\xi^2 = \alpha^2+1$.
The next step is generation of the cat state from the spin squeezed state by carrying out a QND measurement of $\hat J_z$. Towards this end we send off resonant right circular polarised light in a coherent state with the mean number of photons $N_{p}$ along the $z$ axis through the sample (the bottom level scheme in figure 1a). The temporal evolution of the light and spins is then given by $U=\exp \left(
-ia\sum_{i}|\downarrow \rangle _{i}\langle \downarrow |\hat a_{R}^{\dagger
}\hat a_{R}\right)$. We define a translated creation operator by $\hat a_{R}=\sqrt{N_{p}}+\hat a_{R}^{\prime }$ and the translated quadrature operators $\hat x_{R}=(\hat a_{R}^{\prime }+\hat a_{R}^{\prime \dagger}
)/\sqrt{2}$, $\hat p_{R}=-i (\hat a_{R}^{\prime }-\hat a_{R}^{\prime \dagger
})/\sqrt{2}$ so that the unitary evolution takes the form $U=\exp \left[ -ia \hat n_A \left( N_{p}+\sqrt{2N_{p}}\hat x_{R}\right)
\right]$ where we have dropped a term proportional to $\hat a_{R}^{\prime \dagger}\hat a_{R}^{\prime}$. The term proportional to $N_{p}$ does not modify the state of the light, but it rotates the atomic spin. This term can be taken into account at later stages of the protocol and is omitted from now on. The part of the unitary transformation relevant for the QND measurement is therefore $U=\exp \left[ -i\beta \hat n_A \hat x_{R}\right] $ where $\beta =a \sqrt{2N_{p}}$.
Initially light is in the coherent state $\psi _{R}=\int
dx_{R}\exp \left[ -x_{R}^{2}/2\right] |x_{R}\rangle $ and the spin squeezed state of atoms is given by eq. (\[squ\]). After the interaction of light and atoms, one measures the $p_{R}$ quadrature and finds an outcome $p_{R}$. The state of the atoms conditional on this outcome is $$\psi_A (p_{R})= \sum_{n_A} c(n_A)
\exp \left[ - (\beta n_A- p_{R})^{2}/{2}
\right] |n_A\rangle \ .
\label{cat11}$$ For suitable values of $\alpha, \beta, p_R$, this is a cat state. In order to show this one should express the state in the $x_A$ and $p_A$ basis. This can be done using the matrix elements $\langle p_A |n_A\rangle =\pi
^{-1/4}(2^{n_A} n_A!)^{-1/2}H_{n_A}(p_A)\exp [-p_A^{2}/2]$ where $
H_{j_{z}}(j_{y})$ are the Hermite polynomials. A numerical calculation of $\psi_A (p_{R})$ in the $p_A$ basis is given in figure 2 (solid line). To facilitate the analysis of the obtained state we derive approximate analytical expressions for $\psi_A (p_{R})$ in the $x_A$ and $p_A$ basis. First note that using the Stirling expansion, the coefficients $c(n_A)$ can be approximated by $c(n_A) \simeq \left({\xi^2 -1 \over \xi^2 +1}\right)^{n_A/2}$ when $n_A$ is even. Inserting this expression into eq. (\[cat11\]) we find that $$\begin{aligned}
&\psi_A (p_{R})\simeq \sum_{n_A\ even}
\exp \left[ - \beta^2 (n_A- \mu(p_{R}))^{2}/{2}
\right] |n_A\rangle\ \ &
\label{cat12}\\
&\mbox{where }
\mu(p_R)= {p_R \over \beta} + {1 \over 2 \beta^2}
\ln \left({\xi^2 -1 \over \xi^2 +1}\right)\simeq{p_R \over \beta}\ .&
\label{mumu}\end{aligned}$$ The distribution of number states is thus a Gaussian with the mean $\mu(p_R)$ and the variance $1/\beta$. We now use the fact that the initial state is strongly squeezed in $x_A$, see eq. (\[squ\]). Thus we can use the approximation $n_A \simeq p_A^2 /2$ in eq. (\[cat12\]). This implies that the wave function in $p_A$ representation is centered around the two values $\pm \sqrt{2\mu(p_R)}$ with the variance $1/ (\sqrt{2\mu(p_R)} \beta)$. Hence the wave function is $$\begin{aligned}
|\psi (p_{R})\rangle &=&\int dp_A\ \left( \exp \left[ -(p_A-\sqrt{2\mu }
)^{2}\beta ^{2}\mu \right] \right. \nonumber \label{psimux} \\
&&\left. +\exp \left[ -(p_A+\sqrt{2\mu })^{2}\beta ^{2}\mu \right]
\right) |p_A\rangle \label{caty} \\
&=&\int dx_A\ \exp \left[ -{\frac{x_A^{2}}{4\beta ^{2}\mu }}\right] \cos
\left[ x_A\sqrt{2\mu }\right] |x_A\rangle \quad \label{catx}\end{aligned}$$ where the second equality if obtained from the first by taking the Fourier transform, and the notations are simplified as $\mu =\mu (p_{R})$. Note that the Hermite polynomials with even index are even functions of $p_A$ which explains the $+$ sign between the two terms in eq. (\[caty\]). As seen in figure 2, eq. (\[caty\]) is a good approximation to the exact wave function (dotted line).
To verify that the cat state has indeed been obtained, the measurements of spin components $\hat x_A$ and $\hat p_A$ should be carried out. The results of the $\hat p_A$ measurement should be distributed according to the 2 broad peaks described by eq. (\[caty\]). The condition for observation of two distinct peaks is that the width of each of them should be less than the distance between them. The $ \hat x_A$ measurement should exhibit an interference pattern due to the cosine in eq. (\[catx\]). This interference pattern is the proof that the two peaks found in the $\hat p_A$ measurement are coherent, and therefore that a quantum superposition between atomic spins pointing in two different directions has been created. The condition for observation the interference is that the period of the cosine should be less than the width of the Gaussian in (\[catx\]). In fact both conditions lead to the same inequality, $\mu \geq 1 / \beta$. This condition means that by the QND measurement of the population one has removed the components with small $n_A$, i.e. the components near the origin $p_A = 0$, from the squeezed state leaving a state with two peaks.
There is a second condition which is that the average population $\mu$ is limited by the degree of spin squeezing obtained in the first step of our protocol: $\mu \leq \xi^2$. This condition has two origins. The first is that the probability of finding values of $\mu$ which exceed $\xi^2$ is exponentially small. The second is that when this condition is violated it becomes impossible to measure the interference pattern in $x_A$ basis, and thereby to prove that the state so obtained is indeed a coherent superposition.
Putting these two conditions together we obtain the condition $\beta \xi^2 > 1 $ which relates the precision $1 /\xi$ with which one can measure the $\hat x_A$ quadrature to the precision $1/ \beta$ with which one can measure the number operator $\hat n_A$. Using the expressions for $\beta$ and $\xi$ in terms of $a$, we can reexpress this condition as $$\xi ^{2}\geq N_{a}^{1/3}\ . \label{cond1}$$ Thus a superposition state can be produced if a high degree of squeezing can be realised with a small number of atoms. In what preceeds we have assumed that the quantum states are pure and that there is no noise present. Below we consider decoherence of the atomic state caused by the non-ideal QND measurements and describe a possible experimental realization of the proposal.
The off resonant probe light used for the QND measurements will cause (weak) real excitations of atoms leading to an incoherent spontaneous process [@duan]. The significance of this process can be assessed in terms of accessible experimental parameters. A first key parameter is the resonant optical depth of the atomic sample, $\kappa _{0}=\sigma N_{a}/A$ where $\sigma $ is the cross section. The forward scattering amplitude of light is proportional to $\frac{\gamma }{2}/({ i\Delta +\gamma /2)}$ where $\gamma $ is the linewidth and $\Delta $ is the detuning with respect to resonance. Hence the optical depth at detuning $ \Delta \gg \gamma $ is $\kappa _{\Delta }=\kappa _{0}\gamma ^{2}/4\Delta ^{2} $ and the phase shift (or polarisation rotation) of light traversing the sample is $\theta _{\Delta }=\kappa _{0}\gamma /2\Delta $. The parameter $a$ defined in eq. (\[a\]) is the phase shift or polarisation rotation per atom, hence equal to $a=\theta _{\Delta
}/N_{a}$. The degree of squeezing that can be obtained is $\xi
=a\sqrt{N_{a}N_{p}}/2$. Decoherence caused by the probe light can be described by the degree of optical depumping, $\eta =\kappa _{\Delta
}N_{p}/N_{a}$ which can be interpreted as the probability that an atom makes an incoherent transition. All these parameters can be put together in the equation $\xi ^{2}=\kappa _{0}\eta /4$ relating the degree of squeezing, the resonant optical depth and the degree of optical depumping. The degree of optical depumping must obey the condition $\eta \leq 1/\xi ^{2}$ otherwise the coherence of the squeezed state or the superposition state will be destroyed. This condition follows from the fact that a fraction $1/\xi
^{2}$ of the spins are pointing in the $-z$ direction and the other spins are pointing in the $+z$ direction. Hence on average $
N_{A}/\xi ^{2}$ atoms can decohere before the coherence of the superposition state, or of the parent squeezed state, is seriously affected. Thus the figure of merit for generation of squeezing and entanglement is the resonant optical depth of the sample which limits the degree of spin squeezing to $\xi ^{2}\leq \frac{1 }{2}\sqrt{\kappa _{0}}.$ Using these conditions and eq. (\[cond1\]), one finds that the condition for realising a superposition state can be written as $$\kappa _{0}\geq 4N_{a}^{2/3}\ , \label{cond2}$$that is a large optical depth must be achieved with a small number of atoms. This means that sending light through the sample along orthogonal directions for the two steps of the protocol is not optimal. Rather it seems more practical to confine the atoms to a cylinder of area $A$ and length $l$, with light sent along the long axis of the cylinder, and to rotate the atomic spins between successive measurements.
The condition eq. (\[cond2\]) can be achieved in, e.g., an alkali metal BEC. Atomic density of the order of $10^{15}cm^{-3}$ for $4\cdot
10^{5}$ atoms has been reported in [@Zimmerman] for a cigar shaped condensate with the optical density along the long axis on the order of $10^{4}.$ This is marginally close to the condition eq. (\[cond2\]). The degree of squeezing required for cat state generation under the above conditions is $\xi ^{2}\approx 50$. An additional improvement in the efficiency of the spin measurement of a small number of atoms can be achieved by placing the atomic sample in a low-finesse symmetric standing wave cavity with the mirror transmission coefficients $T=1-R$. If the single pass absorption probability and the single pass phase rotation angle $\theta $ are much smaller than $T$, then the phase shift/polarisation rotation of light exiting the cavity is $\theta ^{c}=2\theta /T$ and the degree of optical depumping becomes $\eta ^{c}=2\eta /T$. Thus the effect of the cavity can be summarized by introducing an effective cross section $\sigma ^{c}=2\sigma /T$. The condition eq. (\[cond2\]) for realisation of a mesoscopic superposition state therefore becomes $2\kappa _{0}/T>4N_{a}^{2/3}$. For a BEC sample with the density of $
10^{15}cm^{-3}$ placed in a low finess cavity with $T=5\%$, this condition is met with $10^{3}$ atoms, which according to eq. (\[cond1\]) requires a feasible degree of spin squeezing $\xi
^{2}\approx 10$ for generation of the superposition state. Note that the life time of the coherent superposition state is close to the life time of the parent spin squeezed state, $\tau _{c}\xi ^{-2} $ [@wineland], where $\tau _{c}$ is the coherence time of the atomic ground state, which for a BEC is at least $100 m\sec $ [@BECtime].
Finally let us mention some additional experimental conditions. We have assumed above that the initial atomic spin state is perfectly polarized. In practice the degree of spin polarisation obtained by optical pumping in a vapor can reach $99\%$ [@Julsgaard], which should be sufficient to generate squeezing up to approximately $\xi ^{2}=100$. The degree of spin polarization in a BEC can be even higher because only certain magnetic states can be trapped. Another challenge associated with the cylindrical configuration is that the atomic spins must be very precisely rotated between each QND measurement (using either optical or radio frequency pulses). It is easy to check that the precision of this rotation must satisfy $\Delta \theta <1/(\xi ^{2}\sqrt{N_{a}})$ which for the free space scenario with a BEC corresponds to the precision $\Delta \theta \simeq
3\times 10^{-5}$. For the low finesse cavity scenario a lower precision of $
\Delta \theta =1/300$ is necessary.
In summary we have proposed a method for generating a coherent superposition of states in which the collective spin of an atomic ensemble points in two slightly different directions. It appears to be realisable using present technology by combining the methods used for QND measurements of collective atomic variables with a BEC in a bad cavity. Preliminary experimental work towards realisation of this proposal is under way. This mesoscopic superposition state uses the ground state atomic spins which means that it is relatively long lived. It can therefore in principle be used as an offline non deterministic resource for quantum logic as described in [@Milburn]. We will report on this in a future publication and in particular we will show that the methods described here can be used for purifying the entanglement between two distant atomic ensembles.
We acknowledge financial support from the Danish National Research Foundation, from the Communauté Française de Belgique under grant ARC 00/05-251, from the IUAP programme of the Belgian government under grant V-18, from the EU through projects EQUIP, RESQ, QUICOV and CAUAC.
[99]{} E. Schrödinger, Die Naturwissenschaften **23** (1935) 807 T. C. Ralph *et al*, quant-ph/0110115 J.M. Raimond *et al*, Phys. Rev. Lett., 79, 1964 (1997) C. H. van der Wal *et al*, Science **290**, 773 (2000); J. R. Friedman *et al*, Nature **406**, 43 (2000) J. I Cirac *et al*, Phys. Rev. A **57**, 1208 (1998); J. Ruostekoski *et al*, Phys. Rev. A **57**, 511 (1998) S. Song *et al*, Phys. Rev. A **41** 5261 (1990); B. Yurke *et al*, Phys. Rev. A **42** 1703 (1990) H.J. Kimble, Physica Scripta T76, 127 (1998); G.R. Guthohrlein et al, Nature, 414, 49 (2001); G. Rempe, Physics World13, 37, (2000) A. Kuzmich and E. S. Polzik, Phys. Rev. Lett. **85**, 5639 (2000) B. Julsgaard *et al*, Nature **413**, 400 (2001) J. Hald *et al*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **83**, 1319 (1999) A. Kuzmich *et al*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **85**, 1594 (2000) L. M. Duan *et al*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **85**, 5643 (2000) C. Schori *et al*, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 057903 (2002); A. Kuzmich and E.S.Polzik, to appear in Quantum Information with Continuous Variables. Ed. S. Braunstein, Kluwer. H. Ott *et al*, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 230401 (2001) and C. Zimmerman, private communication. S. F. Huelga *et al*, Phys. Rev. Lett., 79, 3865 (1997) D. S. Hall *et al*, Phys. Rev. Lett., 81, 1543 (1998)
![Generation of the superposition spin state. a) Atomic levels and interaction with light. Both ground and excited states are spin $1/2$ states. The top diagram shows the initial coherent spin state in $z$ representation. The medium diagram shows the same state in $x$ representation along with the virtual transitions used for generation of the spin squeezed state. The bottom diagram shows the spin squeezed state in $z$ representation along with the interaction used for the cat state generation. b) The spin squeezed state generated by a QND measurement using the first pulse of light is represented by the “banana” shape. The following QND measurement of the number operator $\hat n_A$ corresponds to intersecting the “banana” with a plane of a finite width. Thus the final state has two components lying at positive and negative values of $J_y$, i.e. it is a superposition state.[]{data-label="Lfig2"}](figure.ps){width="1\linewidth"}
![ The solid line shows the amplitude of the state $\psi_A(p_R)$, eq. (\[cat11\]), in the $p_A$ basis for parameters $\xi^2=20$, $p_R/ \beta = 7$, $\beta = 1/3$. The dotted line shows the approximation eq. (\[caty\]) for the same values of the parameters. []{data-label="fig2"}](clipboard.eps){width="0.7\linewidth"}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Hilding R. Neilson'
- 'John B. Lester'
bibliography:
- 'ld4.bib'
title: 'Spherically symmetric model stellar atmospheres and limb darkening II: limb-darkening laws, gravity-darkening coefficients and angular diameter corrections for FGK dwarf stars[^1]'
---
Introduction
============
One of the great astronomical advances of the past two decades has been the discovery and study of extrasolar planets via the transit method, i.e. from the minute drop of a star’s flux as a planet passes in front of it. The transit not only constrains the planet’s properties but also the star’s properties, such as limb darkening. However, interpreting planetary transits typically assumes that limb darkening can be parametrized by a simple relation [@Mandel2003] with a few free parameters that can be fit directly from the observations or assumed from model stellar atmospheres.
Limb darkening is important not only for understanding planetary transits [e.g. @Croll2011], but also for interpreting optical interferometric observations [e.g. @Davis2000] and microlensing observations [e.g. @An2002] and eclipsing binary light curves [e.g. @Bass2012]. Like transit measurements, interferometric and microlensing observations are typically fit by simple limb-darkening laws with coefficients derived from model stellar atmospheres [@Al-naimiy1979; @Wade1985; @vanhamme1993; @Claret2000; @Claret2011; @Claret2012]. However, these simple limb-darkening laws have become less suitable as the observations have improved. For example, [@Fields2003] showed that flux-normalized limb-darkening laws fit to [*Atlas*]{} plane-parallel model atmospheres disagreed with microlensing observations. Limb-darkening coefficients derived from planetary transit observations with large impact parameters differ more from the limb-darkening coefficients from model atmospheres, but the discrepancy still exists when the impact parameter is taken into account [@Barros2012].
This discrepancy might be due to a number of physical processes, including granulation, multidimensional convection and/or the presence of magnetic fields in the stellar atmosphere. However, the simplest step is to assume a more realistic geometry for the model stellar atmospheres. Limb-darkening coefficients presented in the literature are based on two forms: plane-parallel model stellar atmospheres computed using the [*Atlas*]{} [@Kurucz1979] and [*Phoenix*]{} code [@Hauschildt1998] and spherically symmetric model stellar atmospheres also computed from the [*Phoenix*]{} code [@Sing2010; @Howarth2011a; @Claret2011; @Claret2012]. In particular, @Claret2003 and @Claret2012 [@Claret2013] explored limb darkening using spherically symmetric [*Phoenix*]{} model stellar atmospheres specifically for main sequence stars. They also introduced the concept of “quasi-spherical” models, defined as the spherically-symmetric intensity profile restricted to inner part of the stellar disk ($\mu \geq 0.1$), to compare limb-darkening coefficients with those from plane-parallel models.
In our previous study [@Neilson2012 hereafter Paper 1], we presented coefficients for six typical limb-darkening laws fit to the surface intensities for grids of plane-parallel and spherical model atmospheres [@Lester2008] representing red giant and supergiant stars. The intensities were for the wavebands of the Johnson-Cousins [@Johnson1953; @Bessell2005], [*CoRot*]{} [@Auvergne2009] and [*Kepler*]{} [@Koch2004] filters. We also computed gravity-darkening coefficients and interferometric angular diameter corrections. We found that the predicted limb-darkening coefficients computed from spherical model atmospheres differ from those computed from plane-parallel model atmospheres, which was not unexpected; the height of the atmospheres of red giants and supergiants relative to the stellar radius is many times greater than the relative heights of the atmospheres of main-sequence stars, i.e. the assumed model geometry is important. We found similar differences for the angular diameter corrections as a function of geometry but little difference between gravity-darkening coefficients as a function of geometry. While model atmosphere geometry is clearly important for understanding the extended atmospheres of red giant and supergiant stars, it is not as obvious that geometry also changes predictions for model stellar atmospheres of main sequence dwarf stars [e.g. @Claret2003].
In this work, we explore the role of model atmosphere geometry in understanding limb darkening in dwarf stars and compute limb-darkening coefficients, gravity-darkening coefficients and interferometric angular diameter corrections from grids of model stellar atmospheres of dwarf stars. In Sect. 2, we briefly describe the grids of model atmospheres used. In Sect. 3, we describe various limb-darkening laws and compare predicted limb-darkening coefficients, while in Sect. 4 we compute gravity-darkening coefficients. We present interferometric angular diameter corrections as a function of geometry in Sect. 5 and summarize our results in Sect. 6.
Model stellar atmospheres
=========================
The [*Atlas/SAtlas*]{} code was used to compute model stellar atmospheres assuming either plane-parallel or spherically symmetric geometry. Details of the code can be found in [@Lester2008], [@Neilson2011; @Neilson2012a] and Paper 1. We computed model stellar atmospheres with parameters $3500$ K $\leq T_{\rm{eff}} \leq 8000$ K in steps of $100~$K, and $4.0 \leq \log g \leq 4.75$ in steps of $0.25$. For the spherically symmetric models, which require an additional parameter, such as stellar mass, to characterize the atmosphere, we chose $M = 0.2$ to $1.4~M_\odot$ in steps of $0.3~M_\odot$. For each model stellar atmosphere we compute intensities at each wavelength for 1000 uniformly spaced values of $\mu$, the cosine of the angle formed by the line-of-sight point on the stellar disk and the disk center, spanning $0 \leq \mu \leq 1$. Typically, [*Atlas*]{} models compute intensities at only seventeen angles [@Kurucz1979], but some have employed 100 $\mu$-points [@Claret2011]. We compute intensity profiles for each model atmosphere for the $BVRIH$ and $K$-bands as well as the [*CoRot*]{} and [*Kepler*]{}-bands. As an example, Fig. \[f0\] shows the [*Kepler*]{}-band intensity profiles for plane-parallel and spherical models with $T_\mathrm{eff} = 5800~$K, $\log g = 4.5$ and $M = 1.1~M_\odot$. Using the wavebands outlined above, we compute limb-darkening coefficients, gravity-darkening coefficients and interferometric angular diameter corrections.
![ Predicted [*Kepler*]{}-band intensity profiles for plane-parallel (solid line) and spherically symmetric (dotted line) model stellar atmosphere with $T_{\rm{eff}} = 5800~$K, $\log g = 4.5$ and $M= 1.1~M_\odot$.[]{data-label="f0"}](ld_ex.eps){width="50.00000%"}
Limb-darkening laws
===================
We consider the same six limb-darkening laws as in Paper 1: $$\label{eq:linear}
\frac{I(\mu)}{I(\mu=1)} = 1 - u(1- \mu) \hfill \makebox{Linear,\hspace{.3cm}}$$ $$\label{eq:quad}
\frac{I(\mu)}{I(\mu=1)} = 1 - a(1-\mu) - b(1-\mu)^2 \hfill\mbox{Quadratic,\hspace{.3cm}}$$ $$\label{eq:root}
\frac{I(\mu)}{I(\mu=1)} = 1 - c(1-\mu) - d(1-\sqrt{\mu}) \hfill \mbox{Square-Root,\hspace{.3cm}}$$ $$\label{eq:4-p}
\frac{I(\mu)}{I(\mu=1)} = 1 - \sum_{j=1}^{4}f_j(1-\mu^{j/2}) \hfill \mbox{4-Parameter,\hspace{.3cm}}$$ $$\label{eq:exp}
\frac{I(\mu)}{I(\mu=1)} = 1 - g(1-\mu) - h\frac{1}{1-e^{\mu}} \hfill \mbox{Exponential,\hspace{.3cm}}$$ $$\label{eq:ln}
\frac{I(\mu)}{I(\mu=1)} = 1 - m(1-\mu) - n\mu \ln \mu \hfill \mbox{Logarithmic.\hspace{.3cm}}$$ As in Paper 1, we use a general least-squares fitting algorithm to compute the limb-darkening coefficients for each law in the $BVRIH$- and $K$-bands as well as for the [*CoRot*]{} and [*Kepler*]{}-bands. Using the *Kepler*-band as an example, Figure \[fig:ab\_l\] shows the best-fit limb-darkening coefficient for the linear law (Eq. \[eq:linear\]), Fig. \[f2\] shows the coefficients for the quadratic (Eq. \[eq:quad\]) and square-root (Eq. \[eq:root\]) laws, Fig. \[f3\] shows the coefficients for the exponential (Eq. \[eq:exp\]) and logarithmic (Eq. \[eq:ln\]) laws and Fig. \[f4\] shows the coefficients for the [@Claret2000] four-parameter law (Eq. \[eq:4-p\]).
![The limb-darkening coefficient $u$, used in the linear law (Eq. \[eq:linear\]), applied to the *Kepler* photometric band. Crosses are the plane-parallel model stellar atmospheres, and the squares are the spherical models.[]{data-label="fig:ab_l"}](linear_ab.eps){width="50.00000%"}
{width="50.00000%"}{width="50.00000%"}
{width="50.00000%"}{width="50.00000%"}
{width="50.00000%"}{width="50.00000%"}
The results shown in Fig. \[fig:ab\_l\] demonstrate how the geometry of the model atmosphere affects the best-fit linear [*Kepler*]{}-band limb-darkening coefficients, with squares representing fits to the spherically symmetric model atmospheres and crosses representing fits to the plane-parallel models. The values of the $u$-coefficient for the spherical models are larger than those for the planar models, particularly for models with $T_{\rm{eff}} > 4500~$K. At these higher effective temperatures the difference due to geometry, $\Delta u_{\rm{Kepler}}$, is $\sim 0.3$. There is also a greater spread for the spherical model coefficients at a given effective temperature. This is caused by the spherical models being defined by three parameters, with mass and radius being separated, as opposed to the two parameters for plane-parallel model atmospheres, where mass and radius are combined in the surface gravity. At $T_{\rm{eff}} < 4500~$K the $u$-coefficients computed for both geometries shift to similar values. A likely cause of this change relative to the higher effective temperatures is the shift in dominant opacities from H$^-$ to TiO.
The more complex limb-darkening laws have similar differences between coefficients from plane-parallel and spherically symmetric models. For the quadratic and square-root laws, the coefficients of the linear term ($a$ and $c$, respectively) shows similar behavior as a function of effective temperature as does the $u$-coefficients, while the coefficients of the non-linear terms ($b$ and $d$) appear correlated to the coefficients of the linear terms, as was seen previously for other laws [@Fields2003; @Neilson2011; @Neilson2012a].
For the exponential and logarithmic laws, the best-fit coefficients again differ as a function of model atmosphere geometry. The limb-darkening coefficients also appear to be correlated for each law. It is notable that the best-fit $m$-coefficients of the logarithmic law from spherically symmetric models are approximately constant with respect to effective temperature, whereas the non-linear term is not constant. The limb-darkening coefficients from spherically symmetric models for both exponential and logarithmic laws vary significantly for any given effective temperature, suggesting the coefficients are sensitive to the mass and gravity of a model stellar atmosphere.
The best-fit coefficients for the [@Claret2000] four-parameter limb-darkening laws do not agree for spherical and plane-parallel models. For effective temperatures greater than $4000$ K, the limb-darkening coefficient $f_1$ varies from $-2$ to $+4$ for the spherical models but only from $-0.5$ to $0.5$ for the plane-parallel models. The dramatic difference is due to the more complex structure of spherically symmetric model intensity profiles, even when considering the smaller atmospheric extensions for models used in this work as opposed to those considered in Paper 1, which indicates that even this more sophisticated limb-darkening law is not ideal for fitting spherically symmetric model intensity profiles.
{width="50.00000%"}{width="50.00000%"}
Figures \[fig:ab\_l\]–\[f4\] demonstrate that the best-fit coefficients from spherical models differ from those computed from planar models, but these figures do not quantify the fits for either geometry. To do this, we employ the parameter defined in Paper 1, $$\label{eq:delta}
\Delta_{\lambda} \equiv \sqrt{ \frac{\sum \left [I_\mathrm{model}(\mu) - I_\mathrm{fit}(\mu) \right ]^2}{\sum \left [I_\mathrm{fit}(\mu) \right ]^2}},$$ to measure the difference for every model between the computed intensity distribution and the best fit to those intensities for each limb-darkening law. Unfortunately, as we showed in Paper 1, the computed error depends on how the models are sampled and the number of intensity points. If one fits intensity profiles for $\mu$-points near the center of the stellar disk then the limb-darkening coefficients and predicted errors differ from limb-darkening coefficients and errors predicted from a sample of $\mu$-points near the edge of the stellar disk. However, we can predict the relative quality of fits as a function of geometry. We show in Fig. \[f5\] the predicted errors for each limb-darkening law as a function of effective temperature.
As expected, Fig. \[f5\] shows that all six limb-darkening laws fit the plane-parallel model atmosphere intensity profiles better than intensity profiles from spherical models. The definition of plane-parallel radiative transfer [@Feautrier1964] assumes that $I(\mu) \propto e^{-\tau/\mu}$, where $\tau$ is the monochromatic optical depth. As $\mu \rightarrow 0$, then $I(\mu) \rightarrow 0$, i.e. the intensity and the derivative of the intensity, $\mathrm{d}I/\mathrm{d}\mu$, both change monotonically. These properties allow simple limb-darkening laws to fit plane-parallel model intensity profiles well.
For spherically symmetric model atmospheres the radiative transfer is calculated for a set of rays along the line-of-sight between the observer and points on the stellar disk. The rays nearer the center of the stellar disk come from depths that are assumed to be infinitely optically thick. The rays farther from the center of the stellar disk penetrate to depths where the optical depth is assumed never to reach infinity [@Rybicki1971; @Lester2008], although the rays can reach extremely large optical depths. Rays located toward the limb of the star can penetrate the tenuous outer atmosphere, never reaching large optical depths. As a result, the computed intensity profiles have a point of inflection (see Fig. \[f0\]) where the intensity derivative, $VI/d\mu$, is not changing monotonically, which prevents the simple limb-darkening laws from fitting as well.
While it is difficult to draw conclusions from the predicted errors, we can reliably state that the linear and exponential limb-darkening laws do not fit the spherical model atmospheres. The predicted errors for those limb-darkening laws range from $0.05$ to $0.2$ and are significantly greater than the errors for the fits to plane-parallel models. The best-fitting relations are the square-root law and the four-parameter limb-darkening law of [@Claret2000], which have errors less than $0.08$.
Another thing to note is that based on fits to plane-parallel model atmospheres, [@Diaz1995] suggested that the square-root law is more adequate for fitting hotter stars ($T_{\rm{eff}} >8000~$K), although they were unclear which law is preferred for cooler stars. For spherical model atmospheres we find that the predicted errors for the square-root limb-darkening law are less than the errors for the quadratic law, making the former the clear preference. Also, the quadratic limb-darkening law is of particular interest because it is the most commonly used limb-darkening law for analyzing planetary transit observations [@Mandel2003]. However, numerous comparisons of quadratic limb-darkening laws fit directly to observations and those fit to model stellar atmospheres suggest disagreement for a number of cases [@Howarth2011]. The results presented here suggest it may be advantageous to consider fitting transit observations with a square-root limb-darkening law or the more accurate four-parameter limb-darkening law.
Gravity-darkening coefficients
==============================
[@Claret2011] computed wavelength-dependent gravity-darkening coefficients from [*Atlas*]{} plane-parallel model stellar atmospheres based on the analytic relation developed by [@Bloemen2011]. In Paper 1 we used this same prescription for both plane-parallel and spherically symmetric model stellar atmospheres to compute gravity-darkening coefficients for cool giant stars, and we found that model geometry played a negligible role in determining gravity-darkening coefficients except for $T_\mathrm{eff} < 4000$ K. At the cooler effective temperatures, the spherically symmetric model gravity-darkening coefficients are predicted to be vary significantly, and are up to an order-of-magnitude greater than those predicted from plane-parallel model atmospheres.
We repeat that analysis here for our higher gravity model stellar atmospheres. As described by [@Bloemen2011], the gravity-darkening coefficient, $y(\lambda)$ for a star is $$\label{eq:grav}
y(\lambda) = \left(\frac{\partial \ln I(\lambda)}{\partial \ln g}\right)_{T_{\rm{eff}}} + \left(\frac{d\ln T_{\rm{eff}}}{d\ln g}\right)\left(\frac{\partial \ln I(\lambda)}{\partial \ln T_{\rm{eff}} }\right)_g.$$ As described in Paper 1, @vonZeipel1924 showed that $T_\mathrm{eff} \sim (g_\mathrm{eff})^{\beta_1/4}$, where $\beta_1 \equiv d\ln T_{\rm{eff}}/d\ln g$. As previously, we assume $\beta_1 = 0.2$ for models with $T_{\rm{eff}} < 7500$ K and $\beta_1 = 1$ otherwise. Using these constant values for $\beta_1$ provides only a limited analysis of the gravity-darkening because $\beta_1$ is a function of effective temperature, but assuming these two values does enable us to gain some perspective on the role of model atmosphere geometry. The other terms are the partial derivatives of the wavelength-dependent intensity with respect to gravity and effective temperature, respectively.
We compute the two intensity derivatives and predicted gravity-darkening coefficients for our grids of plane-parallel and spherically symmetric model atmospheres and plot the predicted values in Fig. \[f6\] for the [*Kepler*]{} waveband. The predicted derivatives and gravity-darkening coefficients are similar to those computed in Paper 1, for which there is little difference between spherically symmetric and plane-parallel model predictions for effective temperatures greater than $4000~$K. The spherical and planar predictions then diverge for cooler effective temperatures. However, the range of values for the spherical model predictions is less for the higher gravity models explored in this work relative to the lower gravity models studied in Paper 1.
{width="50.00000%"}{width="50.00000%"}
Interferometric angular diameter corrections
============================================
Interferometry provides precise measurements of stellar angular diameters. However, stellar interferometry measures the combination of angular diameter and intensity profile and the two quantities are degenerate. One route to break the degeneracy is to assume a uniform intensity profile and measure the uniform-disk angular diameter. The limb-darkened angular diameter can then be predicted from the uniform-disk angular diameter using corrections computed from stellar atmosphere models [@Davis2000].
Another technique for measuring limb-darkened angular diameters is to assume a simple limb-darkening law and coefficients from model stellar atmospheres to fit the interferometric observations [e.g @Boyajian2012]. However, this technique might also predict incorrect angular diameters because plane-parallel model atmospheres are typically used for fitting limb-darkening coefficients. We can assess the potential error of assuming plane-parallel limb-darkening coefficients to fit the angular diameter by comparing predicted angular diameter corrections from spherically symmetric model stellar atmospheres with those from plane-parallel models.
{width="50.00000%"}{width="50.00000%"}
In Fig. \[f7\] we plot the $V$- and $K$-band angular diameter corrections as a function of effective temperature and gravity for both spherical and planar model atmospheres. The $V$-band corrections vary from $0.93$ to $0.97$ for the plane-parallel model atmospheres and from $0.92$ to $0.95$ for spherical models. The difference is more apparent if one considers stellar atmospheres with $T_{\rm{eff}} > 4500$ K, where the difference between plane-parallel and spherical model corrections is about $0.01$ to $0.02$. This suggests that employing plane-parallel model corrections for measuring stellar angular diameters from interferometric observations will lead to a $1$ to $2\%$ underestimate of the angular diameter.
Similarly, the $K$-band corrections also vary as a function of model atmosphere geometry; plane-parallel models suggest values of $\theta_{\rm{UD}}/\theta_{\rm{LD}} = 0.98$ to $0.99$ while spherical models suggest $\theta_{\rm{UD}}/\theta_{\rm{LD}} = 0.97$ to $0.985$. Again, using plane-parallel model corrections to fit $K$-band interferometric observations will underestimate the actual angular diameter by about 1%. Thus, for precision measurements of angular diameters, hence fundamental stellar parameters from optical interferometry, one should employ more physically representative spherical model atmospheres. This appears to be the case even for main sequence stars with large gravities and small atmospheric extensions.
Summary
=======
In this work, we followed up on the study of Paper 1 to measure how model stellar atmosphere geometry affects predicted limb-darkening coefficients, gravity-darkening coefficients and interferometric angular diameter corrections for main sequence FGK dwarf stars. As in Paper 1, we find significant differences between predictions from plane-parallel and spherically symmetric model atmospheres computed with the [*Atlas/SAtlas*]{} codes. The results in this article are surprising because geometry is believed to be not important for stars with smaller atmospheric extension, i.e. main sequence stars with $\log g \ge 4$. As atmospheric extension gets smaller, defined as the ratio of the atmospheric depth to stellar radius, then it is expected that a spherical model atmosphere should appear more and more like a plane-parallel model atmosphere. However, even for small atmospheric extension models, we find differences in predicted intensity profiles, hence differences in limb-darkening and angular diameter corrections.
As in Paper 1, there is negligible difference between gravity-darkening coefficients predicted from planar and spherical model atmospheres. This is because gravity-darkening coefficients depend heavily on the central intensity of the star, not the entire intensity profile. The central intensity is approximately a function of the effective temperature at $\tau_{\rm{Ross}} =1$ according to the Eddington-Barbier relation [@Mihalas1978]. [@Lester2008] showed that the atmospheric temperature structure computed from plane-parallel and spherically symmetric model atmospheres for the same effective temperature and gravity primarily differs closer to the surface, $\tau_{\rm{Ross}} < 2/3$, and converges as $\tau \rightarrow \infty$. Because the computed temperatures at depth are very similar for the two geometries, the central intensity is also similar for both model geometries, making the gravity-darkening coefficients insensitive to model geometry. However, geometry is important for stars with $T_{\rm{eff}} < 4000~$K, which is due to differences in the opacity structure and convection, which lead to changes in the temperature structure.
Angular diameter corrections do vary as a function of geometry. The corrections account for the degeneracy between the intensity profile and limb-darkened angular diameter in modeling interferometric observations. Therefore, differences between the intensity profiles of plane-parallel and spherically symmetric model stellar atmospheres lead directly to differences between predicted angular diameter corrections. We find that spherically symmetric model corrections are about $1$ to $2\%$ smaller than planar model corrections for the main sequence stars analyzed here.
Similarly, we computed limb-darkening coefficients for six different limb-darkening laws. As in Paper 1, we find that the linear law is least consistent with predicted intensity profiles and that the four-parameter law is best. We also find that the commonly used quadratic limb-darkening law does not fit spherically symmetric model atmosphere intensity profiles as precisely as the similar square-root or four-parameter limb-darkening laws. This suggests that as planetary-transit observations become increasingly precise, the four-parameter law combined with the more physically representative spherically symmetric model stellar atmospheres will be more appropriate for fitting observations or, better still, using intensity profiles directly.
The angular-diameter corrections, limb-darkening and gravity-darkening coefficients are publicly available as online tables. Each table has the format $T_\mathrm{eff}$ (K), $\log g$ and $M~(M_\odot)$ and then the appropriate variables for each waveband, such as linear limb-darkening coefficients. Tables for plane-parallel model fits do not include mass. Tables of gravity-darkening coefficients also contain values of the intensity derivatives with respect to gravity and effective temperature. For plane-parallel models, values of mass, radius and luminosity are presented as zero in the tables. We list the properties of these tables in Table \[t1\] that are available from CDS. Tabulated grids of the model atmosphere intensity profiles used in this work are also available.
Name Geometry Type
--------- ----------- ----------------------------------------------
Table2 Spherical Linear Limb Darkening Eq. \[eq:linear\]
Table3 Spherical Quadratic Limb Darkening Eq. \[eq:quad\]
Table4 Spherical Square Root Limb Darkening Eq. \[eq:root\]
Table5 Spherical Four-parameter Limb Darkening Eq. \[eq:4-p\]
Table6 Spherical Exponential Limb Darkening Eq. \[eq:exp\]
Table7 Spherical Logarithmic Limb Darkening Eq. \[eq:ln\]
Table8 Planar Linear Limb Darkening Eq. \[eq:linear\]
Table9 Planar Quadratic Limb Darkening Eq. \[eq:quad\]
Table10 Planar Square Root Limb Darkening Eq. \[eq:root\]
Table11 Planar Four-parameter Limb Darkening Eq. \[eq:4-p\]
Table12 Planar Exponential Limb Darkening Eq. \[eq:exp\]
Table13 Planar Logarithmic Limb Darkening Eq. \[eq:ln\]
Table14 Spherical Gravity Darkening
Table15 Planar Gravity Darkening
Table16 Spherical Angular Diameter Corrections
Table17 Planar Angular Diameter Corrections
: Summary of limb-darkening coefficient, gravity-darkening coefficient and interferometric angular diameter correction tables found online.[]{data-label="t1"}
This work has been supported by a research grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and NSF grant (AST-0807664).
[^1]: Tables 2 –17 are only available in electronic form at the CDS via anonymous ftp to cdsarc-u-strasbg.fr or via http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/qcat?J/A+A/
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The ordering of communication channels was first introduced by Shannon. In this paper, we aim to find a characterization of the Shannon ordering. We show that $W''$ contains $W$ if and only if $W$ is the skew-composition of $W''$ with a convex-product channel. This fact is used to derive a characterization of the Shannon ordering that is similar to the Blackwell-Sherman-Stein theorem. Two channels are said to be Shannon-equivalent if each one is contained in the other. We investigate the topologies that can be constructed on the space of Shannon-equivalent channels. We introduce the strong topology and the BRM metric on this space. Finally, we study the continuity of a few channel parameters and operations under the strong topology.'
author:
-
bibliography:
- 'bibliofile.bib'
title: A Characterization of the Shannon Ordering of Communication Channels
---
Introduction
============
The ordering of communication channels was first introduced by Shannon in [@ShannonDegrad]. A channel $W'$ is said to contain another channel $W$ if $W$ can be simulated from $W'$ by randomization at the input and the output using a shared randomness between the transmitter and the receiver. Shannon showed that the existence of an $(n,M,\epsilon)$ code for $W$ implies the existence of an $(n,M,\epsilon)$ code for $W'$.
Another ordering that has been well studied is the degradedness between channels. A channel $W$ is said to be degraded from another channel $W'$ if $W$ can be simulated from $W'$ by randomization at the output, or more precisely, if $W$ can be obtained from $W'$ by composing it with another channel. It is easy to see that degradedness is a special case of Shannon’s ordering. One can trace the roots of the notion of degradedness to the seminal work of Blackwell in the 1950’s about comparing statistical experiments [@blackwell1951]. Note that in the Shannon ordering, the input and output alphabets need not be the same, whereas in the degradedness definition, we have to assume that $W$ and $W'$ share the same input alphabet $\mathcal{X}$ but they can have different output alphabets. A characterization of degradedness is given by the famous Blackwell-Sherman-Stein (BSS) theorem [@blackwell1951], [@Sherman], [@Stein].
In [@RajInputDegrad], we introduced the input-degradedness ordering of communication channels. A channel $W$ is said to be input-degraded from another channel $W'$ if $W$ can be simulated from $W'$ by randomization at the input. Note that $W$ and $W'$ must have the same output alphabet, but they can have different input alphabets. In [@RajInputDegrad], we provided two characterizations of input-degradedness, one of which is similar to the BSS theorem. The main purpose of this paper is to find a characterization of the Shannon ordering that is similar to the BSS theorem.
In [@RaginskyShannon], Raginsky introduced the Shannon deficiency which compares a particular channel with the Shannon-equivalence class of another channel. The Shannon deficiency is not a metric that compares two Shannon-equivalence classes of channels.
In [@RajDMCTop] and [@RajContTop], we constructed topologies for the space of equivalent channels and studied the continuity of various channel parameters and operations under these topologies. In this paper, we show that some of the results in [@RajDMCTop] and [@RajContTop] can be replicated (with some variation) for the space of Shannon-equivalent channels.
Preliminaries
=============
We assume that the reader is familiar with the basic concepts of general topology. The main concepts and theorems that we need can be found in the preliminaries section of [@RajDMCTop].
Set-theoretic notations
-----------------------
For every integer $n>0$, we denote the set $\{1,\ldots,n\}$ as $[n]$.
Let $(A_i)_{i\in I}$ be a collection of arbitrary sets indexed by $I$. The *disjoint union* of $(A_i)_{i\in I}$ is defined as $\displaystyle \coprod_{i\in I} A_i=\bigcup_{i\in I}(A_i\times\{i\})$. For every $i\in I$, the $i^{th}$-*canonical injection* is the mapping $\phi_i:A_i\rightarrow \displaystyle\coprod_{j\in I} A_j$ defined as $\phi_i(x_i)=(x_i,i)$. If no confusions can arise, we can identify $A_i$ with $A_i\times\{i\}$ through the canonical injection. Therefore, we can see $A_i$ as a subset of $\displaystyle\coprod_{j\in I} A_j$ for every $i\in I$.
Let $R$ be an equivalence relation on $T$. For every $x\in T$, the set $\hat{x}=\{y\in T:\; x R y\}$ is the *$R$-equivalence class* of $x$. The collection of $R$-equivalence classes, which we denote as $T/R$, forms a partition of $T$, and it is called the *quotient space of $T$ by $R$*. The mapping $\operatorname*{Proj}_R:T\rightarrow T/R$ defined as $\operatorname*{Proj}_R(x)=\hat{x}$ for every $x\in T$ is the *projection mapping onto $T/R$*.
Measure theoretic notations
---------------------------
The set of probability measures on a measurable space $(M,\Sigma)$ is denoted as $\mathcal{P}(M,\Sigma)$. For every $P_1,P_2\in\mathcal{P}(M,\Sigma)$, the *total variation distance* between $P_1$ and $P_2$ is defined as: $$\|P_1-P_2\|_{TV}=\sup_{A\in\Sigma}|P_1(A)-P_2(A)|.$$
If $\mathcal{X}$ is a finite set, we denote the set of probability distributions on $\mathcal{X}$ as $\Delta_{\mathcal{X}}$. We always endow $\Delta_{\mathcal{X}}$ with the total variation distance and its induced topology.
Quotient topology
-----------------
Let $(T,\mathcal{U})$ be a topological space and let $R$ be an equivalence relation on $T$. The *quotient topology* on $T/R$ is the finest topology that makes the projection mapping $\operatorname*{Proj}_R$ onto the equivalence classes continuous. It is given by $$\mathcal{U}/R=\left\{\hat{U}\subset T/R:\;\textstyle\operatorname*{Proj}_R^{-1}(\hat{U})\in \mathcal{U}\right\}.$$
\[lemQuotientFunction\] Let $f:T\rightarrow S$ be a continuous mapping from $(T,\mathcal{U})$ to $(S,\mathcal{V})$. If $f(x)=f(x')$ for every $x,x'\in T$ satisfying $x R x'$, then we can define a *transcendent mapping* $f:T/R\rightarrow S$ such that $f(\hat{x})=f(x')$ for any $x'\in\hat{x}$. $f$ is well defined on $T/R$ . Moreover, $f$ is a continuous mapping from $(T/R,\mathcal{U}/R)$ to $(S,\mathcal{V})$.
Let $(T,\mathcal{U})$ and $(S,\mathcal{V})$ be two topological spaces and let $R$ be an equivalence relation on $T$. Consider the equivalence relation $R'$ on $T\times S$ defined as $(x_1,y_1) R' (x_2,y_2)$ if and only if $x_1 R x_2$ and $y_1=y_2$. A natural question to ask is whether the canonical bijection between $\big((T/R)\times S,(\mathcal{U}/R)\otimes \mathcal{V} \big)$ and $\big((T\times S)/R',(\mathcal{U}\otimes \mathcal{V})/R' \big)$ is a homeomorphism. It turns out that this is not the case in general. The following theorem, which is widely used in algebraic topology, provides a sufficient condition:
\[theQuotientProd\] [@Engelking] If $(S,\mathcal{V})$ is locally compact and Hausdorff, then the canonical bijection between $\big((T/R)\times S,(\mathcal{U}/R)\otimes \mathcal{V} \big)$ and $\big((T\times S)/R',(\mathcal{U}\otimes \mathcal{V})/R' \big)$ is a homeomorphism.
\[corQuotientProd\] [@RajContTop] Let $(T,\mathcal{U})$ and $(S,\mathcal{V})$ be two topological spaces, and let $R_T$ and $R_S$ be two equivalence relations on $T$ and $S$ respectively. Define the equivalence relation $R$ on $T\times S$ as $(x_1,y_1) R (x_2,y_2)$ if and only if $x_1 R_T x_2$ and $y_1R_S y_2$. If $(S,\mathcal{V})$ and $(T/R_T,\mathcal{U}/R_T)$ are locally compact and Hausdorff, then the canonical bijection between $\big((T/R_T)\times (S/R_S),(\mathcal{U}/R_T)\otimes (\mathcal{V}/R_S) \big)$ and $\big((T\times S)/R,(\mathcal{U}\otimes \mathcal{V})/R \big)$ is a homeomorphism.
The space of channels from $\mathcal{X}$ to $\mathcal{Y}$
---------------------------------------------------------
Let $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}$ be the set of all channels having $\mathcal{X}$ as input alphabet and $\mathcal{Y}$ as output alphabet. For every $W,W'\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}$, define the distance between $W$ and $W'$ as: $$d_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}(W,W')=\frac{1}{2} \max_{x\in\mathcal{X}}\sum_{y\in\mathcal{Y}}|W'(y|x)-W(y|x)|.$$
Throughout this paper, we always associate the space $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}$ with the metric distance $d_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}$ and the metric topology $\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}$ induced by it. It is easy to see that $\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}$ is the same as the topology inherited from the Euclidean topology of $\mathbb{R}^{\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}}$ by relativization. It is also easy to see that the metric space $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}$ is compact and path-connected (see [@RajDMCTop]).
For every $W\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}$ and every $V\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{Z}}$, define the composition $V\circ W\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Z}}$ as $$(V\circ W)(z|x)=\sum_{y\in\mathcal{Y}}V(z|y)W(y|x),\;\;\forall x\in\mathcal{X},\;\forall z\in\mathcal{Z}.$$
For every mapping $f:\mathcal{X}\rightarrow\mathcal{Y}$, define the deterministic channel $D_f\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}$ as $$D_f(y|x)=\begin{cases}1\quad&\text{if}\;y=f(x),\\0\quad&\text{otherwise}.\end{cases}$$ It is easy to see that if $f:\mathcal{X}\rightarrow \mathcal{Y}$ and $g:\mathcal{Y}\rightarrow \mathcal{Z}$, then $D_g\circ D_f=D_{g\circ f}$.
Channel parameters
------------------
The *capacity* of a channel $W\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}$ is denoted as $C(W)$.
An *$(n,M)$-encoder* on the alphabet $\mathcal{X}$ is a mapping $\mathcal{E}:\mathcal{M}\rightarrow\mathcal{X}^n$ such that $|\mathcal{M}|=M$. The set $\mathcal{M}$ is the *message set* of $\mathcal{E}$, $n$ is the *blocklength* of $\mathcal{E}$, $M$ is the *size* of $\mathcal{E}$, and $\frac{1}{n}\log M$ is the *rate* of $\mathcal{E}$ (measured in nats). The *error probability of the ML decoder for the encoder $\mathcal{E}$ when it is used for a channel $W\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}$* is given by: $$P_{e,\mathcal{E}}(W)=1-\frac{1}{M}\sum_{y_1^n\in\mathcal{Y}^n} \max_{m\in\mathcal{M}}\left\{\prod_{i=1}^n W(y_i|\mathcal{E}_i(m))\right\},$$ where $(\mathcal{E}_1(m),\ldots,\mathcal{E}_n(m))=\mathcal{E}(m)$.
The *optimal error probability of $(n,M)$-encoders for a channel $W$* is given by: $$P_{e,n,M}(W)=\min_{\substack{\mathcal{E}\;\text{is an}\\(n,M)\text{-encoder}}}P_{e,\mathcal{E}}(W).$$
Channel operations
------------------
For every $W_1\in \operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}$ and $W_2\in \operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}$, define the *channel sum* $W_1 \oplus W_2\in \operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1\coprod\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_1\coprod\mathcal{Y}_2}$ of $W_1$ and $W_2$ as: $$(W_1\oplus W_2)(y,i|x,j)=\begin{cases}W_i(y|x)\quad&\text{if}\;i=j,\\
0&\text{otherwise},\end{cases}$$ where $\mathcal{X}_1\coprod\mathcal{X}_2=(\mathcal{X}_1\times\{1\})\cup(\mathcal{X}_2\times\{2\})$ is the disjoint union of $\mathcal{X}_1$ and $\mathcal{X}_2$. $W_1\oplus W_2$ arises when the transmitter has two channels $W_1$ and $W_2$ at his disposal and he can use exactly one of them at each channel use.
We define the *channel product* $W_1\otimes W_2\in \operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1\times\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_1\times\mathcal{Y}_2}$ of $W_1$ and $W_2$ as: $$(W_1\otimes W_2)(y_1,y_2|x_1,x_2)=W_1(y_1|x_1)W_2(y_2|x_2).$$ $W_1\otimes W_2$ arises when the transmitter has two channels $W_1$ and $W_2$ at his disposal and he uses both of them at each channel use. Channel sums and products were first introduced by Shannon in [@ChannelSumProduct].
Shannon ordering and Shannon-equivalence {#secShannonOrd}
========================================
Let $\mathcal{X},\mathcal{X}',\mathcal{Y}$ and $\mathcal{Y}'$ be three finite sets. Let $W\in \operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}$ and $W'\in \operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}',\mathcal{Y}'}$. We say that $W'$ contains $W$ if there exist $n$ pairs of channels $(R_i,T_i)_{1\leq i\leq n}$ and a probability distribution $\alpha\in\Delta_{[n]}$ such that $R_i\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{X}'}$ and $T_i\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{Y}}$ for every $1\leq i\leq n$, and $\displaystyle W=\sum_{i=1}^n \alpha(i)T_i\circ W'\circ R_i$, i.e., $$W(y|x)=\sum_{i=1}^n\alpha(i)\sum_{\substack{x'\in\mathcal{X}',\\y'\in\mathcal{Y}'}}T_i(y|y')W'(y'|x')R_i(x'|x).$$ The channels $W$ and $W'$ are said to be *Shannon-equivalent* if each one contains the other.
A channel $V\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{X}'\times\mathcal{Y}}$ is said to be a *convex-product channel* if it is the convex combination of the products of channels in $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{X}'}$ with channels in $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{Y}}$. More precisely, $V\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{X}'\times\mathcal{Y}}$ is a convex-product channel if there exist $n$ pairs of channels $(R_i,T_i)_{1\leq i\leq n}$ and a probability distribution $\alpha\in\Delta_{[n]}$ such that $R_i\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{X}'}$ and $T_i\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{Y}}$ for every $1\leq i\leq n$, and $$V(x',y|x,y')=\sum_{i=1}^n\alpha(i)R_i(x'|x)T_i(y|y').$$ We denote the set of convex-product channels from $\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}'$ to $\mathcal{X}'\times\mathcal{Y}$ as $\operatorname*{CPC}_{\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{X}'\times\mathcal{Y}}$.
\[propCPCCompactConvex\] The space $\operatorname*{CPC}_{\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{X}'\times\mathcal{Y}}$ is a compact and convex subset of $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{X}'\times\mathcal{Y}}$.
Define the set of product channels $${\operatorname*{PC}}_{\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{X}'\times\mathcal{Y}}=\{R\otimes T:\;R\in{\operatorname*{DMC}}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{X}'},\;T\in{\operatorname*{DMC}}_{\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{Y}}\}.$$ Clearly, $\operatorname*{CPC}_{\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{X}'\times\mathcal{Y}}$ is the convex hull of $\operatorname*{PC}_{\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{X}'\times\mathcal{Y}}$ and so $\operatorname*{CPC}_{\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{X}'\times\mathcal{Y}}$ is convex. Now since $\operatorname*{PC}_{\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{X}'\times\mathcal{Y}}$ can be seen as a subset of $\mathbb{R}^{\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}'\times\mathcal{X}'\times\mathcal{Y}}$, it follows from the Carathéodory theorem that every channel $V$ in $\operatorname*{CPC}_{\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{X}'\times\mathcal{Y}}$ can be written as a convex combination of at most $$n=|\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}'\times\mathcal{X}'\times\mathcal{Y}|+1$$ product channels in $\operatorname*{PC}_{\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{X}'\times\mathcal{Y}}$. Define the mapping $$f:\Delta_{[n]}\times({\operatorname*{DMC}}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{X}'}\times {\operatorname*{DMC}}_{\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{Y}})^n\rightarrow {\operatorname*{DMC}}_{\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{X}'\times\mathcal{Y}}$$ as $$f\big(\alpha,(R_i,T_i)_{1\leq i\leq n}\big) = \sum_{i=1}^n \alpha(i)R_i\otimes T_i.$$ Since $\Delta_{[n]}$, ${\operatorname*{DMC}}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{X}'}$ and ${\operatorname*{DMC}}_{\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{Y}}$ are compact, the space $\Delta_{[n]}\times({\operatorname*{DMC}}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{X}'}\times {\operatorname*{DMC}}_{\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{Y}})^n$ is compact. Moreover, since $f$ is continuous, it follows that $${\operatorname*{CPC}}_{\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{X}'\times\mathcal{Y}}=f\big(\Delta_{[n]}\times({\operatorname*{DMC}}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{X}'}\times {\operatorname*{DMC}}_{\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{Y}})^n\big)$$ is compact.
Let $\mathcal{X},\mathcal{X}',\mathcal{X}'',\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{Y}'$ and $\mathcal{Y}''$ be finite sets. For every $V\in\operatorname*{CPC}_{\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{X}'\times\mathcal{Y}}$ and every $V'\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}'\times\mathcal{Y}'',\mathcal{X}''\times\mathcal{Y}'}$, define the *skew-composition* $V\circ_s V'\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}'',\mathcal{X}''\times\mathcal{Y}}$ of $V'$ with $V$ as follows: $$\label{eqSkewComposition}
(V\circ_s V')(x'',y|x,y'')=\sum_{\substack{x'\in\mathcal{X}',\\y'\in\mathcal{Y}'}}V(x',y|x,y')V'(x'',y'|x',y''),$$ for every $x''\in\mathcal{X}''$, $y\in \mathcal{Y}$, $x\in\mathcal{X}$ and $y''\in\mathcal{Y}''$. It may not be immediately clear from that $V\circ_s V'$ is a valid channel in $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}'',\mathcal{X}''\times\mathcal{Y}}$. In the following, we show that $V\circ_s V'\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}'',\mathcal{X}''\times\mathcal{Y}}$.
Let $n\geq 1$, $\alpha\in\Delta_{[n]}$, $(R_i,T_i)_{1\leq i\leq n}$ be such that $R_i\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{X}'}$ and $T_i\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{Y}}$ for every $1\leq i\leq n$, and $$V=\sum_{i=1}^n\alpha(i)R_i\otimes T_i.$$ For every $(x,y'')\in\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}''$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\substack{x''\in\mathcal{X}'',\\y\in\mathcal{Y}}}(V\circ_s V')(x'',y|x,y'')&= \sum_{\substack{x''\in\mathcal{X}'',\\y\in\mathcal{Y}}}\sum_{\substack{x'\in\mathcal{X}',\\y'\in\mathcal{Y}'}}V(x',y|x,y')V'(x'',y'|x',y'')\\
&=\sum_{\substack{x''\in\mathcal{X}'',\\y\in\mathcal{Y}}}\sum_{\substack{x'\in\mathcal{X}',\\y'\in\mathcal{Y}'}}\sum_{i=1}^n\alpha(i) R_i(x'|x)T_i(y|y')V'(x'',y'|x',y'')\\
&=\sum_{i=1}^n\alpha(i) \sum_{\substack{x''\in\mathcal{X}'',\\y\in\mathcal{Y}}}\sum_{\substack{x'\in\mathcal{X}',\\y'\in\mathcal{Y}'}}R_i(x'|x)T_i(y|y')V'(x'',y'|x',y'')\\
&=\sum_{i=1}^n\alpha(i) \sum_{\substack{x''\in\mathcal{X}''}}\sum_{\substack{x'\in\mathcal{X}',\\y'\in\mathcal{Y}'}}R_i(x'|x)V'(x'',y'|x',y'')\\
&=\sum_{i=1}^n\alpha(i) \sum_{\substack{x'\in\mathcal{X}'}}R_i(x'|x)=\sum_{i=1}^n\alpha(i)=1.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $V\circ_s V' \in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}'',\mathcal{X}''\times\mathcal{Y}}$. Note that if $V\in \operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{X}'\times\mathcal{Y}}$ and $V\notin \operatorname*{CPC}_{\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{X}'\times\mathcal{Y}}$, then the skew-composition of $V'$ with $V$ as defined in Equation does not always yield a valid channel in $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}'',\mathcal{X}''\times\mathcal{Y}}$.
\[lemSkewCompositionCPC\] If $V\in\operatorname*{CPC}_{\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{X}'\times\mathcal{Y}}$ and $V'\in\operatorname*{CPC}_{\mathcal{X}'\times\mathcal{Y}'',\mathcal{X}''\times\mathcal{Y}'}$, then $V\circ_s V' \in\operatorname*{CPC}_{\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}'',\mathcal{X}''\times\mathcal{Y}}$.
Let $n\geq 1$, $\alpha\in\Delta_{[n]}$, $(R_i,T_i)_{1\leq i\leq n}$ be such that $R_i\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{X}'}$ and $T_i\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{Y}}$ for every $1\leq i\leq n$, and $$V=\sum_{i=1}^n\alpha(i)R_i\otimes T_i.$$ Let $n'\geq 1$, $\alpha'\in\Delta_{[n']}$, $(R_j',T_j')_{1\leq j\leq n'}$ be such that $R_j'\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}',\mathcal{X}''}$ and $T_j'\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{Y}'',\mathcal{Y}'}$ for every $1\leq j\leq n'$, and $$V'=\sum_{j=1}^{n'}\alpha'(j)R_j'\otimes T_j'.$$ We have $$\begin{aligned}
(V\circ_s V')(x'',y|x,y'')&= \sum_{\substack{x'\in\mathcal{X}',\\y'\in\mathcal{Y}'}}V(x',y|x,y')V'(x'',y'|x',y'')\\
&=\sum_{\substack{x'\in\mathcal{X}',\\y'\in\mathcal{Y}'}}\sum_{i=1}^n\alpha(i)R_i(x'|x)T_i(y|y')\sum_{j=1}^{n'}\alpha'(j)R_j'(x''|x')T_j'(y'|y'')\\
&=\sum_{i=1}^n\sum_{j=1}^{n'} \alpha(i)\alpha'(j) \sum_{\substack{x'\in\mathcal{X}',\\y'\in\mathcal{Y}'}}R_i(x'|x)T_i(y|y')R_j'(x''|x')T_j'(y'|y'')\\
&=\sum_{i=1}^n\sum_{j=1}^{n'} \alpha(i)\alpha'(j) (R_j'\circ R_i)(x''|x)(T_i\circ T_j')(y|y'').\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $V\circ_s V' \in\operatorname*{CPC}_{\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}'',\mathcal{X}''\times\mathcal{Y}}$.
For every $W'\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}',\mathcal{Y}'}$ and every $V\in \operatorname*{CPC}_{\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{X}'\times\mathcal{Y}}$, we define the *skew-composition* $V\circ_s W'\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}$ of $W'$ with $V$ as follows: $$\label{eqSkewCompositionChan}
(V\circ_s W')(y|x)=\sum_{\substack{x'\in\mathcal{X}',\\y'\in\mathcal{Y'}}}V(x',y|x,y')W'(y'|x').$$ Note that Equation can be seen as a particular case of Equation if we let $\mathcal{X}''=\mathcal{Y}''=\{0\}$ (i.e., a singleton) and we identify $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}',\mathcal{Y}'}$ with $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}'\times\mathcal{Y''},\mathcal{X}''\times\mathcal{Y}'}$.
The following lemma is trivial:
\[lemContainSkew\] Let $W\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}$ and $W'\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}',\mathcal{Y}'}$. $W'$ contains $W$ if and only if there exists $V\in\operatorname*{CPC}_{\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{X}'\times\mathcal{Y}}$ such that $W=V\circ_s W'$.
A characterization of the Shannon ordering
==========================================
A *blind randomized in the middle (BRM) game* is a 6-tuple $\mathcal{G}= (\mathcal{U},\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{V}, l,W)$ such that $\mathcal{U},\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}$ and $\mathcal{V}$ are finite sets, $l$ is a mapping from $\mathcal{U}\times\mathcal{V}$ to $\mathbb{R}$, and $W\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}$. The mapping $l$ is called the *payoff function* of the BRM game $\mathcal{G}$, and the channel $W$ is called the *randomizer* of $\mathcal{G}$. The BRM game consists of two players that we call Alice and Bob. The BRM game takes place in two stages:
- Alice chooses a symbol $u\in\mathcal{U}$ and writes her choice on a piece of paper. Bob chooses two functions $f:\mathcal{U}\rightarrow\mathcal{X}$ and $g:\mathcal{Y}\rightarrow\mathcal{V}$, and writes a description of $f$ and $g$ on a piece of paper. At this stage, no player has knowledge of the choice of the other player.
- Alice and Bob simultaneously reveal their papers. They compute $x=f(u)\in\mathcal{X}$ and then randomly generate a symbol $y\in\mathcal{Y}$ according to the conditional probability distribution $W(y|x)$. Finally, $v=g(y)$ is computed and then Alice pays[^1] Bob an amount of money that is equal to $l(u,v)$.
A *strategy* (for Bob) in the BRM game $\mathcal{G}$ is a 4-tuple $S=(n,\alpha, \mathbf{f}, \mathbf{g})$ satisfying:
- $n\geq 1$ is a strictly positive integer.
- $\alpha\in\Delta_{[n]}$.
- $\mathbf{f}=(f_i)_{1\leq i\leq n}\in (\mathcal{X}^{\mathcal{U}})^n$, where $\mathcal{X}^{\mathcal{U}}$ is the set of functions from $\mathcal{U}$ to $\mathcal{X}$.
- $\mathbf{g}=(g_i)_{1\leq i\leq n}\in (\mathcal{V}^{\mathcal{Y}})^n$.
We denote $n$ and $\alpha$ as $n_S$ and $\alpha_S$ respectively. For every $1\leq i\leq n=n_S$, we denote $f_i$ and $g_i$ as $f_{i,S}$ and $g_{i,S}$ respectively. The set of strategies is denoted as $\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{U},\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{V}}$.
Bob implements the strategy $S$ as follows: he randomly picks an index $i\in\{1,\ldots,n_S\}$ according to the distribution $\alpha_S$, and then commits to the choice $(f_{i,S},g_{i,S})$.
For every $u\in\mathcal{U}$, the *payoff gained by the strategy $S$ for $u$ in the BRM game $\mathcal{G}$* is given by: $$\$(u,S,\mathcal{G})=\sum_{i=1}^{n_S} \alpha_S(i) \sum_{y\in\mathcal{Y}} W(y|f_{i,S}(u))l(u,g_{i,S}(y)).$$ The *payoff vector gained by the strategy $S$ in the game $\mathcal{G}$* is given by: $$\vec{\$}(S,\mathcal{G})=\big(\$(u,S,\mathcal{G})\big)_{u\in\mathcal{U}}\in\mathbb{R}^{\mathcal{U}}.$$
The *achievable payoff region for the game $\mathcal{G}$* is given by: $$\$_{\operatorname*{ach}}(\mathcal{G})=\Big\{\vec{\$}(S,\mathcal{G}):\; S\in\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{U},\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{V}}\Big\}\subset \mathbb{R}^{\mathcal{U}}.$$
The *average payoff for the strategy $S\in\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{U},\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{V}}$ in the game $\mathcal{G}$* is given by: $$\hat{\$}(S,\mathcal{G})=\frac{1}{|\mathcal{U}|}\sum_{u\in\mathcal{U}} \$(u,S,\mathcal{G}).$$ $\hat{\$}(S,\mathcal{G})$ is the expected gain of Bob assuming that Alice chooses $u\in\mathcal{U}$ uniformly at random.
The *optimal average payoff for the game $\mathcal{G}$* is given by $$\$_{\operatorname*{opt}}(\mathcal{G})= \sup_{S\in\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{U},\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{V}}} \hat{\$}(S,\mathcal{G}).$$
For every $S\in\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{U},\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{V}}$, we associate the convex-product channel $V_S\in\operatorname*{CPC}_{\mathcal{U}\times\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{V}}$ defined as $$V_S=\sum_{i=1}^{n_S}\alpha_S(i)D_{f_{i,S}}\otimes D_{g_{i,S}}.$$ For every $u\in\mathcal{U}$, we have $$\label{eqDollarVs}
\begin{aligned}
\$(u,S,\mathcal{G})&=\sum_{i=1}^{n_S} \alpha_S(i) \sum_{y\in\mathcal{Y}} W(y|f_{i,S}(u))l(u,g_{i,S}(y))\\
&=\sum_{i=1}^{n_S} \alpha_S(i) \sum_{\substack{x\in\mathcal{X},\\y\in\mathcal{Y},\\v\in\mathcal{V}}} D_{f_{i,S}}(x|u) W(y|x) D_{g_{i,S}}(v|y) l(u,v)\\
&=\sum_{\substack{x\in\mathcal{X},\\y\in\mathcal{Y},\\v\in\mathcal{V}}} \left(\sum_{i=1}^{n_S} \alpha_S(i) D_{f_{i,S}}(x|u)D_{g_{i,S}}(v|y)\right) W(y|x) l(u,v)\\
&=\sum_{\substack{x\in\mathcal{X},\\y\in\mathcal{Y},\\v\in\mathcal{V}}} V_S(x,v|u,y) W(y|x) l(u,v).
\end{aligned}$$
\[lemCPCisStrategy\] For every $V\in\operatorname*{CPC}_{\mathcal{U}\times\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{V}}$, there exists $S\in\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{U},\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{V}}$ such that $V=V_S$.
Let $n\geq 1$, $\alpha\in\Delta_{[n]}$, $(R_i,T_i)_{1\leq i\leq n}$ be such that $R_i\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{U},\mathcal{X}}$ and $T_i\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{V}}$ for every $1\leq i\leq n$, and $$\label{eqVVVVVVV}
V=\sum_{i=1}^n\alpha(i)R_i\otimes T_i.$$ Since every channel can be written as a convex combination of deterministic channels [@ShannonDegrad], we can rewrite as a convex combination of products of deterministic channels. Therefore, there exists $S\in\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{U},\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{V}}$ such that $V=V_S$.
Equation and Lemma \[lemCPCisStrategy\] imply that $\$_{\operatorname*{ach}}(\mathcal{G})$ is the image of $\operatorname*{CPC}_{\mathcal{U}\times\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{V}}$ by a linear function. Since $\operatorname*{CPC}_{\mathcal{U}\times\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{V}}$ is convex and compact (Proposition \[propCPCCompactConvex\]), $\$_{\operatorname*{ach}}(\mathcal{G})$ is convex and compact as well.
Let $\mathcal{U}$ and $\mathcal{V}$ be two finite sets and let $l:\mathcal{U}\times\mathcal{V}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be a payoff function. We say that $l$ is *normalized and positive* if $l(u,v)\geq 0$ for every $u\in\mathcal{U}$ and every $v\in\mathcal{V}$, and $$\sum_{\substack{u\in\mathcal{U},\\v\in\mathcal{V}}}l(u,v)=1.$$ In other words, $l$ is normalized and positive if $l\in\Delta_{\mathcal{U}\times\mathcal{V}}$.
The following theorem provides a characterization of the Shannon ordering of communication channels that is similar to the BSS theorem.
\[theGameShannonCharac\] Let $\mathcal{X},\mathcal{X}',\mathcal{Y}$ and $\mathcal{Y}'$ be four finite sets. Let $W\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}$ and $W'\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}',\mathcal{Y}'}$. The following conditions are equivalent:
- $W'$ contains $W$.
- For every two finite sets $\mathcal{U}$ and $\mathcal{V}$, and every payoff function $l:\mathcal{U}\times\mathcal{V}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$, we have $$\$_{\operatorname*{ach}}(\mathcal{U},\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{V},l,W)\subset \$_{\operatorname*{ach}}(\mathcal{U},\mathcal{X}',\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{V},l,W').$$
- For every two finite sets $\mathcal{U}$ and $\mathcal{V}$, and every payoff function $l:\mathcal{U}\times\mathcal{V}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$, we have $$\$_{\operatorname*{opt}}(\mathcal{U},\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{V},l,W)\leq \$_{\operatorname*{opt}}(\mathcal{U},\mathcal{X}',\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{V},l,W').$$
- For every two finite sets $\mathcal{U}$ and $\mathcal{V}$, and every normalized and positive payoff function $l\in\Delta_{\mathcal{U}\times\mathcal{V}}$, we have $$\$_{\operatorname*{ach}}(\mathcal{U},\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{V},l,W)\subset \$_{\operatorname*{ach}}(\mathcal{U},\mathcal{X}',\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{V},l,W').$$
- For every two finite sets $\mathcal{U}$ and $\mathcal{V}$, and every normalized and positive payoff function $l\in\Delta_{\mathcal{U}\times\mathcal{V}}$, we have $$\$_{\operatorname*{opt}}(\mathcal{U},\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{V},l,W)\leq \$_{\operatorname*{opt}}(\mathcal{U},\mathcal{X}',\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{V},l,W').$$
Assume that (a) is true. Lemma \[lemContainSkew\] implies that there exists $V\in \operatorname*{CPC}_{\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{X}'\times\mathcal{Y}}$ such that $W=V\circ_s W'$. Let $\mathcal{U}$ and $\mathcal{V}$ be two finite sets, and let $l:\mathcal{U}\times\mathcal{V}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be a payoff function. Define $\mathcal{G}=(\mathcal{U},\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{V},l,W)$ and $\mathcal{G}'=(\mathcal{U},\mathcal{X}',\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{V},l,W')$.
Fix $\vec{v}\in \$_{\operatorname*{ach}}(\mathcal{G})$. There exists $S\in\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{U},\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{V}}$ such that $\vec{v}=\vec{\$}(S,\mathcal{G})=\big(\$(u,S,\mathcal{G})\big)_{u\in\mathcal{U}}$. From equation we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\$(u,S,\mathcal{G})&=\sum_{\substack{x\in\mathcal{X},\\y\in\mathcal{Y},\\v\in\mathcal{V}}} V_S(x,v|u,y) W(y|x) l(u,v)\\
&=\sum_{\substack{x\in\mathcal{X},\\y\in\mathcal{Y},\\v\in\mathcal{V}}} V_S(x,v|u,y) \Bigg(\sum_{\substack{x'\in\mathcal{X}',\\y'\in\mathcal{Y'}}}V(x',y|x,y')W'(y'|x')\Bigg) l(u,v)\\
&=\sum_{\substack{x'\in\mathcal{X}',\\y'\in\mathcal{Y'},\\v\in\mathcal{V}}} \Bigg(\sum_{\substack{x\in\mathcal{X},\\y\in\mathcal{Y}}} V_S(x,v|u,y)V(x',y|x,y')\Bigg)W'(y'|x') l(u,v)\\
&=\sum_{\substack{x'\in\mathcal{X}',\\y'\in\mathcal{Y'},\\v\in\mathcal{V}}} (V_S\circ_s V)(x',v|u,y')W'(y'|x') l(u,v).\end{aligned}$$ Lemma \[lemSkewCompositionCPC\] implies that $V_S\circ_s V\in\operatorname*{CPC}_{\mathcal{U}\times\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{X}'\times\mathcal{V}}$ and Lemma \[lemCPCisStrategy\] implies that there exists $S'\in\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{U},\mathcal{X}',\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{V}}$ such that $V_{S'}=V_S\circ_s V$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\$(u,S,\mathcal{G})&=\sum_{\substack{x'\in\mathcal{X}',\\y'\in\mathcal{Y'},\\v\in\mathcal{V}}} V_{S'}(x',v|u,y')W'(y'|x') l(u,v)\stackrel{(\ast)}{=}\$(u,S',\mathcal{G}'),\end{aligned}$$ where $(\ast)$ follows from Equation . This shows that $\vec{v}=\big(\$(u,S',\mathcal{G}')\big)_{u\in\mathcal{U}}$, hence $\$_{\operatorname*{ach}}(\mathcal{G})\subset \$_{\operatorname*{ach}}(\mathcal{G}')$. Therefore, (a) implies (b).
Now assume that (b) is true. Let $\mathcal{U}$ and $\mathcal{V}$ be two finite sets, and let $l:\mathcal{U}\times\mathcal{V}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be a payoff function. Define $\mathcal{G}=(\mathcal{U},\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{V},l,W)$ and $\mathcal{G}'=(\mathcal{U},\mathcal{X}',\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{V},l,W')$. We have $\$_{\operatorname*{ach}}(\mathcal{G})\subset \$_{\operatorname*{ach}}(\mathcal{G}')$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\$_{\operatorname*{opt}}(\mathcal{G})=\sup_{(v_u)_{u\in\mathcal{U}} \in \$_{\operatorname*{ach}}(\mathcal{G})} \frac{1}{|\mathcal{U}|}\sum_{u\in\mathcal{U}} v_u \stackrel{(\ast\ast)}{\leq} \sup_{(v_u')_{u\in\mathcal{U}} \in \$_{\operatorname*{ach}}(\mathcal{G}')} \frac{1}{|\mathcal{U}|} \sum_{u\in\mathcal{U}} v_u' = \$_{\operatorname*{opt}}(\mathcal{G}'),\end{aligned}$$ where $(\ast\ast)$ follows from the fact that $\$_{\operatorname*{ach}}(\mathcal{G})\subset \$_{\operatorname*{ach}}(\mathcal{G}')$. This shows that (b) implies (c). We can show similarly that (d) implies (e).
Trivially, (b) implies (d), and (c) implies (e).
Now assume that (e) is true. For every normalized and positive payoff function $l\in\Delta_{\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}}$, define the BRM games $\mathcal{G}=(\mathcal{X},\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{Y},l,W)$ and $\mathcal{G}'=(\mathcal{X},\mathcal{X}',\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{Y},l,W')$. We have $\$_{\operatorname*{opt}}(\mathcal{G})\leq \$_{\operatorname*{opt}}(\mathcal{G}')$.
Fix a strategy $S\in\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{Y}}$ satisfying $n_S=1$, $f_{1,S}(x)=x$ for all $x\in\mathcal{X}$ and $g_{1,S}(y)=y$ for all $y\in\mathcal{Y}$. Clearly $\alpha_S(1)=1$, hence $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\$}(S,\mathcal{G})&=\frac{1}{|\mathcal{X}|}\sum_{x\in\mathcal{X}} \$(x,S,\mathcal{G})=\frac{1}{|\mathcal{X}|}\sum_{x\in\mathcal{X}} \sum_{y\in\mathcal{Y}}W(y|f_{1,S}(x)) l\big(x,g_{1,S}(y)\big)=\frac{1}{|\mathcal{X}|}\sum_{\substack{x\in\mathcal{X},\\y\in\mathcal{Y}}} W(y|x)l(x,y).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{|\mathcal{X}|}\sum_{\substack{x\in\mathcal{X},\\y\in\mathcal{Y}}} W(y|x)l(x,y)&=\hat{\$}(S,\mathcal{G})\leq \$_{\operatorname*{opt}}(\mathcal{G})\leq \$_{\operatorname*{opt}}(\mathcal{G}')=\sup_{S'\in\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{X}',\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{Y}}} \hat{\$}(S',\mathcal{G}')\\
&=\sup_{S'\in\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{X}',\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{Y}}} \frac{1}{|\mathcal{X}|}\sum_{\substack{x\in\mathcal{X}}} \$(x,S',\mathcal{G}')\\
&=\sup_{S'\in\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{X}',\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{Y}}} \frac{1}{|\mathcal{X}|}\sum_{\substack{x\in\mathcal{X}}}\sum_{\substack{x'\in\mathcal{X}',\\y'\in\mathcal{Y}',\\y\in\mathcal{Y}}} V_{S'}(x',y|x,y') W'(y'|x') l(x,y)\\
&=\sup_{S'\in\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{X}',\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{Y}}} \frac{1}{|\mathcal{X}|}\sum_{\substack{x\in\mathcal{X},\\y\in\mathcal{Y}}} (V_{S'}\circ_s W')(y|x) l(x,y)\\
&\stackrel{(\dagger)}{=}\sup_{V\in\operatorname*{CPC}_{\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{X}'\times\mathcal{Y}}} \frac{1}{|\mathcal{X}|}\sum_{\substack{x\in\mathcal{X},\\y\in\mathcal{Y}}} (V\circ_s W')(y|x) l(x,y),\end{aligned}$$ where $(\dagger)$ follows from Lemma \[lemCPCisStrategy\]. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\inf_{V\in\operatorname*{CPC}_{\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{X}'\times\mathcal{Y}}} \frac{1}{|\mathcal{X}|}\sum_{\substack{x\in\mathcal{X},\\y\in\mathcal{Y}}}\big(W(y|x) - (V\circ_s W')(y|x)\big)l(x,y)\leq 0.\end{aligned}$$ Since this is true for every $l\in\Delta_{\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}}$, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{l\in\Delta_{\mathcal{X}\times \mathcal{Y}}} \inf_{V\in\operatorname*{CPC}_{\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{X}'\times\mathcal{Y}}} \sum_{\substack{x\in\mathcal{X},\\y\in\mathcal{Y}}}\big(W(y|x) - (V\circ_s W')(y|x)\big)l(x,y)\leq 0.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, since $\Delta_{\mathcal{X}\times \mathcal{Y}}$ and $\operatorname*{CPC}_{\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{X}'\times\mathcal{Y}}$ are compact (see Proposition \[propCPCCompactConvex\]), the sup and the inf are attainable. Therefore, we can write: $$\label{eqMinimaxlV}
\max_{l\in\Delta_{\mathcal{X}\times \mathcal{Y}}} \min_{V\in\operatorname*{CPC}_{\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{X}'\times\mathcal{Y}}} \sum_{\substack{x\in\mathcal{X},\\y\in\mathcal{Y}}}\big(W(y|x) - (V\circ_s W')(y|x)\big)l(x,y)\leq 0.$$ Since the function $\displaystyle \sum_{\substack{x\in\mathcal{X},\\y\in\mathcal{Y}}}\big(W(y|x) - (V\circ_s W')(y|x)\big)l(x,y)$ is affine in both $l\in\Delta_{\mathcal{X}\times \mathcal{Y}}$ and $V\in\operatorname*{CPC}_{\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{X}'\times\mathcal{Y}}$, it is continuous, concave in $l$ and convex in $V$. On the other hand, the sets $\Delta_{\mathcal{X}\times \mathcal{Y}}$ and $\operatorname*{CPC}_{\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{X}'\times\mathcal{Y}}$ are compact and convex (see Proposition \[propCPCCompactConvex\]). Therefore, we can apply the minimax theorem [@MiniMax] to exchange the max and the min in Equation . We obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{V\in\operatorname*{CPC}_{\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{X}'\times\mathcal{Y}}} \max_{l\in\Delta_{\mathcal{X}\times \mathcal{Y}}} \sum_{\substack{x\in\mathcal{X},\\y\in\mathcal{Y}}}\big(W(y|x) - (V\circ_s W')(y|x)\big)l(x,y)\leq 0.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, there exists $V\in\operatorname*{CPC}_{\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}',\mathcal{X}'\times\mathcal{Y}}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
0&\geq \max_{l\in\Delta_{\mathcal{X}\times \mathcal{Y}}} \sum_{\substack{x\in\mathcal{X},\\y\in\mathcal{Y}}}\big(W(y|x) - (V\circ_s W')(y|x)\big)l(x,y)\\
&\stackrel{(\dagger\dagger)}{=}\max_{\substack{x\in\mathcal{X},\\y\in\mathcal{Y}}} \big(W(y|x) - (V\circ_s W')(y|x)\big),\end{aligned}$$ where $(\dagger\dagger)$ follows from the fact that $\displaystyle\sum_{\substack{x\in\mathcal{X},\\y\in\mathcal{Y}}}\big(W(y|x) - (V\circ_s W')(y|x)\big)l(x,y)$ is maximized when we choose $l\in\Delta_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}$ in such a way that $l(x_0,y_0)=1$ for any $(x_0,y_0)\in\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}$ satisfying $$\big(W(y_0|x_0) - (V\circ_s W')(y_0|x_0)\big)=\max_{\substack{x\in\mathcal{X},\\y\in\mathcal{Y}}} \big(W(y|x) - (V\circ_s W')(y|x)\big).$$ We conclude that for every $(x,y)\in\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}$, we have $$W(y|x)\leq (V\circ_s W')(y|x).$$ Now since $\displaystyle \sum_{y\in\mathcal{Y}} W(y|x)=\sum_{y\in\mathcal{Y}} (V\circ_s W')(y|x)$ for every $x\in\mathcal{X}$, we must have $W(y|x)= (V\circ_s W')(y|x)$ for every $(x,y)\in\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}$. Therefore, $W=V\circ_s W'$. Lemma \[lemContainSkew\] now implies that $W'$ contains $W$, hence (e) implies (a). We conclude that the conditions (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) are equivalent.
Space of Shannon-equivalent channels from $\mathcal{X}$ to $\mathcal{Y}$
========================================================================
The $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)}$ space {#subsecDMCXYs}
---------------------------------------------------------------
Let $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{Y}$ be two finite sets. Define the equivalence relation $R_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)}$ on $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}$ as follows: $$WR_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)}W'\;\;\Leftrightarrow\;\;W\;\text{is Shannon-equivalent to}\;W'.$$
The space of Shannon-equivalent channels with input alphabet $\mathcal{X}$ and output alphabet $\mathcal{Y}$ is the quotient of the space of channels from $\mathcal{X}$ to $\mathcal{Y}$ by the Shannon-equivalence relation: $$\textstyle\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)}=\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}/R_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)}.$$ We define the topology $\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)}$ on $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)}$ as the quotient topology $\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}/R_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)}$.
Let $(\mathcal{U},\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{V},l,W)$ be a BRM game. Since $\mathcal{U},\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}$ and $\mathcal{V}$ are implicitly determined by $l$ and $W$, we may simply write $\$_{\operatorname*{opt}}(l,W)$ to denote $\$_{\operatorname*{opt}}(\mathcal{U},\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{V},l,W)$.
Let $W,W'\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}$. Theorem \[theGameShannonCharac\] shows that $W'$ contains $W$ if and only if $\$_{\operatorname*{opt}}(l,W)\leq \$_{\operatorname*{opt}}(l,W')$ for every $l\in\Delta_{\mathcal{U}\times\mathcal{V}}$ and every two finite sets $\mathcal{U}$ and $\mathcal{V}$. Therefore, $W R_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)}W'$ if and only if $\$_{\operatorname*{opt}}(l,W)= \$_{\operatorname*{opt}}(l,W')$ for every $l\in\Delta_{\mathcal{U}\times\mathcal{V}}$ and every two finite sets $\mathcal{U}$ and $\mathcal{V}$. This shows that $\$_{\operatorname*{opt}}(l,W)$ only depends on the $R_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)}$-equivalence class of $W$. Therefore, if $\hat{W}\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)}$, we can define $\$_{\operatorname*{opt}}(l,\hat{W}):=\$_{\operatorname*{opt}}(l,W')$ for any $W'\in\hat{W}$.
Define the *BRM metric* $d_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)}$ on $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)}$ as follows: $$d_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)}(\hat{W}_1,\hat{W}_2)=\sup_{\substack{n,m\geq 1,\\l\in{\Delta}_{[n]\times[m]}}}|\$_{\operatorname*{opt}}(l,\hat{W}_1)-\$_{\operatorname*{opt}}(l,\hat{W}_2)|.$$
\[propReldXYdXYs\] Let $W_1,W_2\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}$ and let $\hat{W}_1$ and $\hat{W}_2$ be the $R_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)}$-equivalence classes of $W_1$ and $W_2$ respectively. We have $d_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)}(\hat{W}_1,\hat{W}_2)\leq d_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}(W_1,W_2)$.
See Appendix \[appReldXYdXYs\].
\[theDMCXYs\] The topology induced by $d_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)}$ on $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)}$ is the same as the quotient topology $\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)}$. Moreover, $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)},d_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)})$ is compact and path-connected.
Since $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}},d_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}})$ is compact and path-connected, the quotient space $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)},\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)})$ is compact and path-connected.
Define the mapping $\operatorname*{Proj}:\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}\rightarrow\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)}$ as $\operatorname*{Proj}(W)=\hat{W}$, where $\hat{W}$ is the $R_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)}$-equivalence class of $W$. Proposition \[propReldXYdXYs\] implies that $\operatorname*{Proj}$ is a continuous mapping from $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}},d_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}})$ to $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)},d_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)})$. Since $\operatorname*{Proj}(W)$ depends only on $\hat{W}$, Lemma \[lemQuotientFunction\] implies that the transcendent mapping of $\operatorname*{Proj}$ defined on the quotient space $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)},\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)})$ is continuous. But the transcendent mapping of $\operatorname*{Proj}$ is nothing but the identity on $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)}$. Therefore, the identity mapping $id$ on $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)}$ is a continuous mapping from $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)},\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)})$ to $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)},d_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)})$. For every subset $U$ of $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)}$ we have:
- If $U$ is open in $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)},d_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)})$, then $U=id^{-1}(U)$ is open in $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)},\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)})$.
- If $U$ is open in $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)},\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)})$, then its complement $U^c$ is closed in $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)},\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)})$ which is compact, hence $U^c$ is compact in $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)},\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)})$. This shows that $U^c=id(U^c)$ is a compact subset of $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)},d_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)})$. But $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)},d_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)})$ is a metric space, so $U^c$ is closed in $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)},d_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)})$. Therefore, $U$ is open $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)},d_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)})$.
We conclude that $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)},\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)})$ and $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)},d_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)})$ have the same open sets. Therefore, the topology induced by $d_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)}$ on $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)}$ is the same as the quotient topology $\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)}$. Now since $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)},\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)})$ is compact and path-connected, $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)},d_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)})$ is compact and path-connected as well.
Throughout this paper, we always associate $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)}$ with the BRM metric $d_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)}$ and the quotient topology $\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)}$.
Canonical embedding and canonical identification {#subsecEmbedShanEquiv}
------------------------------------------------
Let $\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_1$ and $\mathcal{Y}_2$ be four finite sets such that $|\mathcal{X}_1|\leq |\mathcal{X}_2|$ and $|\mathcal{Y}_1|\leq |\mathcal{Y}_2|$. We will show that there is a canonical embedding from $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}^{(s)}$ to $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}$. In other words, there exists an explicitly constructable compact subset $A$ of $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}$ such that $A$ is homeomorphic to $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}^{(s)}$. $A$ and the homeomorphism depend only on $\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_1$ and $\mathcal{Y}_2$ (this is why we say that they are canonical). Moreover, we can show that $A$ depends only on $|\mathcal{X}_1|$, $|\mathcal{Y}_1|$, $\mathcal{X}_2$ and $\mathcal{Y}_2$.
\[lemEquivChannelSurjInj\] For every $W\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}$, every surjection $f$ from $\mathcal{X}_2$ to $\mathcal{X}_1$, and every injection $g$ from $\mathcal{Y}_1$ to $\mathcal{Y}_2$, the channel $W$ is Shannon-equivalent to $D_g\circ W\circ D_f$.
Clearly $W$ contains $D_g\circ W\circ D_f$. Now let $f'$ be any mapping from $\mathcal{X}_1$ to $\mathcal{X}_2$ such that $f(f'(x_1))=x_1$ for every $x_1\in\mathcal{X}_1$, and let $g'$ be any mapping from $\mathcal{Y}_2$ to $\mathcal{Y}_1$ such that $g'(g(y_1))=y_1$ for every $y_1\in\mathcal{Y}_1$. We have $$W=(D_{g'}\circ D_g)\circ W\circ (D_{f}\circ D_{f'})=D_{g'}\circ(D_g\circ W\circ D_f)\circ D_{f'},$$ and so $D_g\circ W\circ D_f$ also contains $W$. Therefore, $W$ and $D_g\circ W\circ D_f$ are Shannon-equivalent.
\[corEquivChannelSurjInj\] For every $W,W'\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}$, every two surjections $f,f'$ from $\mathcal{X}_2$ to $\mathcal{X}_1$, and every two injections $g,g'$ from $\mathcal{Y}_1$ to $\mathcal{Y}_2$, we have: $$W R_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}^{(s)} W'\;\;\Leftrightarrow\;\; (D_g\circ W\circ D_f)R_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}(D_{g'}\circ W'\circ D_{f'}).$$
Since $W$ is Shannon-equivalent to $D_g\circ W\circ D_f$ and $W'$ is Shannon-equivalent to $D_{g'}\circ W'\circ D_{f'}$, then $W$ is Shannon-equivalent to $W'$ if and only if $D_g\circ W\circ D_f$ is Shannon-equivalent to $D_{g'}\circ W'\circ D_{f'}$.
For every $W\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}$, we denote the $R_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}^{(s)}$-equivalence class of $W$ as $\hat{W}$, and for every $W\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}$, we denote the $R_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}$-equivalence class of $W$ as $\tilde{W}$.
\[propEmbedShanEquiv\] Let $\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{X}_2, \mathcal{Y}_1$ and $\mathcal{Y}_2$ be four finite sets such that $|\mathcal{X}_1|\leq |\mathcal{X}_2|$ and $|\mathcal{Y}_1|\leq |\mathcal{Y}_2|$. Let $f:\mathcal{X}_2\rightarrow\mathcal{X}_1$ be any fixed surjection from $\mathcal{X}_2$ to $\mathcal{X}_1$, and let $g:\mathcal{Y}_1\rightarrow\mathcal{Y}_2$ be any fixed injection from $\mathcal{Y}_1$ to $\mathcal{Y}_2$. Define the mapping $F:\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}^{(s)}\rightarrow \operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}$ as $F(\hat{W})=\widetilde{D_g\circ W'\circ D_f}=\operatorname*{Proj}_2(D_g\circ W'\circ D_f)$, where $W'\in \hat{W}$, $\widetilde{D_g\circ W'\circ D_f}$ is the $R_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}$-equivalence class of $D_g\circ W'\circ D_f$, and $\operatorname*{Proj}_2$ is the projection onto the $R_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}$-equivalence classes. We have:
- $F$ is well defined, i.e., $F(\hat{W})$ does not depend on $W'\in\hat{W}$.
- $F$ is a homeomorphism between $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}^{(s)}$ and $F\big(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}^{(s)}\big)\subset \operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}$.
- $F$ does not depend on the surjection $f$ nor on the injection $g$. It depends only on $\mathcal{X}_1$, $\mathcal{X}_2$, $\mathcal{Y}_1$ and $\mathcal{Y}_2$, hence it is canonical.
- $F\big(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}^{(s)}\big)$ depends only on $|\mathcal{X}_1|$, $|\mathcal{Y}_1|$, $\mathcal{X}_2$ and $\mathcal{Y}_2$.
- For every $W'\in\hat{W}$ and every $W''\in F(\hat{W})$, $W'$ is Shannon-equivalent to $W''$.
See Appendix \[appEmbedShanEquiv\].
\[corIdentShanEquiv\] If $|\mathcal{X}_1|=|\mathcal{X}_2|$ and $|\mathcal{Y}_1|=|\mathcal{Y}_2|$, there exists a canonical homeomorphism from $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}^{(s)}$ to $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}$ depending only on $\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1,\mathcal{X}_2$ and $\mathcal{Y}_2$.
Let $f$ be a bijection from $\mathcal{X}_2$ to $\mathcal{X}_1$, and let $g$ be a bijection from $\mathcal{Y}_1$ to $\mathcal{Y}_2$. Define the mapping $F:\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}^{(s)}\rightarrow \operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}$ as $F(\hat{W})=\widetilde{D_g\circ W'\circ D_f}=\operatorname*{Proj}_2(D_g\circ W'\circ D_f),$ where $W'\in \hat{W}$ and $\operatorname*{Proj}_2:\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}\rightarrow\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}$ is the projection onto the $R_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}$-equivalence classes.
Also, define the mapping $F':\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}\rightarrow \operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}^{(s)}$ as $$\textstyle F'(\tilde{V})=\widehat{D_{g^{-1}}\circ V'\circ D_{f^{-1}}}=\operatorname*{Proj}_1(D_{g^{-1}}\circ V'\circ D_{f^{-1}}),$$ where $V'\in \tilde{V}$ and $\operatorname*{Proj}_1:\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}\rightarrow\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}^{(s)}$ is the projection onto the $R_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}^{(s)}$-equivalence classes.
Proposition \[propEmbedShanEquiv\] shows that $F$ and $F'$ are well defined.
For every $W\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}$, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
F'(F(\hat{W}))&\stackrel{(a)}{=}F'(\widetilde{D_g\circ W\circ D_f})\stackrel{(b)}{=}\textstyle\operatorname*{Proj}_1(D_{g^{-1}}\circ(D_g\circ W\circ D_f)\circ D_{f^{-1}})=\hat{W},\end{aligned}$$ where (a) follows from the fact that $W\in \hat{W}$ and (b) follows from the fact that $D_g\circ W\circ D_f\in \widetilde{D_g\circ W\circ D_f}$.
We can similarly show that $F(F'(\tilde{V}))=\tilde{V}$ for every $\tilde{V}\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}$. Therefore, both $F$ and $F'$ are bijections. Proposition \[propEmbedShanEquiv\] now implies that $F$ is a homeomorphism from $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}^{(s)}$ to $F\big(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}^{(s)}\big)=\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}$. Moreover, $F$ depends only on $\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1,\mathcal{X}_2$ and $\mathcal{Y}_2$.
Corollary \[corIdentShanEquiv\] allows us to identify $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)}$ with $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}^{(s)}$ through the canonical homeomorphism, where $n=|\mathcal{X}|$, $m=|\mathcal{Y}|$, $[n]=\{1,\ldots,n\}$ and $[m]=\{1,\ldots,m\}$. Moreover, for every $1\leq n\leq n'$ and $1\leq m\leq m'$, Proposition \[propEmbedShanEquiv\] allows us to identify $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}^{(s)}$ with the canonical subspace of $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n'],[m']}^{(s)}$ that is homeomorphic to $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}^{(s)}$. In the rest of this paper, we consider that $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}^{(s)}$ is a compact subspace of $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n'],[m']}^{(s)}$.
\[conjShanInterior\] For every $1\leq n<m$, the interior of $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}$ in $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[m],[m]}^{(s)}$ is empty.
Space of Shannon-equivalent channels {#secShanEquivSpace}
====================================
The previous section showed that if we are interested in Shannon-equivalent channels, it is sufficient to study the spaces $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}$ and $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}^{(s)}$ for every $n,m\geq 1$. Define the space $$\textstyle\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}={\displaystyle\coprod_{\substack{n\geq 1,\\m\geq 1}}} \operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}.$$ The subscripts $\ast$ indicate that the input and output alphabets of the considered channels are arbitrary but finite. We define the equivalence relation $R_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$ on $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}$ as follows: $$WR_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}W'\;\;\Leftrightarrow\;\;W\;\text{is Shannon-equivalent to}\;W'.$$
The space of Shannon-equivalent channels is the quotient of the space of channels by the Shannon-equivalence relation: $$\textstyle\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}=\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}/R_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}.$$
Clearly, $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}/R_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$ can be canonically identified with $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}/R_{[n],[m]}^{(s)}=\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}^{(s)}$ for every $n,m\geq 1$. Therefore, we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\textstyle\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}={\displaystyle\bigcup_{n,m\geq 1}}\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}^{(s)}\stackrel{(a)}{=}{\displaystyle\bigcup_{n\geq 1}}\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that (a) follows from the fact that $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}^{(s)}\subset \operatorname*{DMC}_{[k],[k]}^{(s)}$ (see Section \[subsecEmbedShanEquiv\]), where $k=\max\{n,m\}$.
We define the *Shannon-rank* of $\hat{W}\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$ as: $$\operatorname*{srank}(\hat{W})=\min\{n\geq 1:\; \hat{W}\in{\operatorname*{DMC}}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}\}.$$ Clearly, $$\textstyle{\operatorname*{DMC}}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}=\{\hat{W}\in{\operatorname*{DMC}}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}:\;\operatorname*{srank}(\hat{W})\leq n\}.$$
A subset $A$ of $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$ is said to be *rank-bounded* if there exists $n\geq 1$ such that $A\subset \operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}$.
Natural topologies on $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$ {#subsecNaturalTopShan}
-------------------------------------------------------------
Since $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$ is the quotient of $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}$ and since $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}$ was not given any topology, there is no “standard topology" on $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$. However, there are many properties that one may require from any “reasonable" topology on $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$. In this paper, we focus on one particular requirement that we consider the most basic property required from any “acceptable" topology on $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$:
A topology $\mathcal{T}$ on $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$ is said to be *natural* if it induces the quotient topology $\mathcal{T}_{[n],[m]}^{(s)}$ on $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}^{(s)}$ for every $n,m\geq 1$.
The reason why we consider such topology as natural is because the quotient topology $\mathcal{T}_{[n],[m]}^{(s)}$ is the “standard" and “most natural" topology on $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}^{(s)}$. Therefore, we do not want to induce any non-standard topology on $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}^{(s)}$ by relativization.
\[propShanNaturalTopProperties\] Every natural topology is $\sigma$-compact, separable and path-connected.
Since $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$ is the countable union of compact and separable subspaces (namely $\{\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}\}_{n\geq 1}$), $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$ is $\sigma$-compact and separable.
On the other hand, since $\displaystyle\bigcap_{n\geq 1}\textstyle\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}=\operatorname*{DMC}_{[1],[1]}^{(s)}\neq\o$ and since $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}$ is path-connected for every $n\geq1$, the union $\textstyle\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}={\displaystyle\bigcup_{n\geq 1}}\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}$ is path-connected.
\[remNegPropertiesNatTopShan\] It is possible to show that if Conjecture \[conjShanInterior\] is true, then for every natural topology $\mathcal{T}$ on $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$, we have:
- Every open set is rank-unbounded.
- For every $n\geq 1$, the interior of $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}$ in $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)},\mathcal{T})$ is empty.
- If $\mathcal{T}$ is Hausdorff, then
- $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)},\mathcal{T})$ is not a Baire space, hence no natural topology can be completely metrized.
- $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)},\mathcal{T})$ is not locally compact anywhere.
Strong topology on $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$ {#subsecInStrongTop}
==========================================================
Since the spaces $\{\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}\}_{n,m\geq 1}$ are disjoint and since there is no a priori way to (topologically) compare channels in $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}$ with channels in $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n'],[m']}$ for $(n,m)\neq(n',m')$, the “most natural" topology that we can define on $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}$ is the disjoint union topology $\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}:=\displaystyle\bigoplus_{n,m\geq 1}\mathcal{T}_{[n],[m]}$. Clearly, the space $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast},\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast})$ is disconnected. Moreover, $\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}$ is metrizable because it is the disjoint union of metrizable spaces. It is also $\sigma$-compact because it is the union of countably many compact spaces.
We added the subscript $s$ to emphasize the fact that $\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}$ is a strong topology (remember that the disjoint union topology is the *finest* topology that makes the canonical injections continuous).
We define the strong topology $\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$ on $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$ as the quotient topology $\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}/R_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$.
We call open and closed sets in $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)},\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)})$ as strongly open and strongly closed sets respectively.
Let $\operatorname*{Proj}:\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}\rightarrow\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$ be the projection onto the $R_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$-equivalence classes, and for every $n,m\geq 1$ let $\operatorname*{Proj}_{n,m}:\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}\rightarrow\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}^{(s)}$ be the projection onto the $R_{[n],[m]}^{(s)}$-equivalence classes. Due to the identifications that we made in Section \[secShanEquivSpace\], we have $\operatorname*{Proj}(W)=\operatorname*{Proj}_{n,m}(W)$ for every $W\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}$. Therefore, for every $U\subset \operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$, we have $$\textstyle\operatorname*{Proj}^{-1}(U)={\displaystyle\coprod_{n,m\geq 1}}\operatorname*{Proj}_{n,m}^{-1}(U\cap\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}^{(s)}).$$ Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\textstyle U\in\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)}\;\;&\stackrel{(a)}{\Leftrightarrow}\;\;\textstyle\operatorname*{Proj}^{-1}(U)\in\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}\\
&\textstyle\stackrel{(b)}{\Leftrightarrow}\;\;\operatorname*{Proj}^{-1}(U)\cap\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]} \in\mathcal{T}_{[n],[m]},\;\;\forall n,m\geq 1\\
&\textstyle\Leftrightarrow\;\;\left({\displaystyle\coprod_{n',m'\geq 1}}\operatorname*{Proj}_{n',m'}^{-1}(U\cap\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n'],[m']}^{(s)})\right)\cap\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]} \in\mathcal{T}_{[n],[m]},\;\;\forall n,m\geq 1\\
&\textstyle\Leftrightarrow\;\;\operatorname*{Proj}_{n,m}^{-1}(U\cap\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}^{(s)}) \in\mathcal{T}_{[n],[m]},\;\;\forall n,m\geq 1\\
&\textstyle\stackrel{(c)}{\Leftrightarrow}\;\;U\cap\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}^{(s)} \in\mathcal{T}_{[n],[m]}^{(s)},\;\;\forall n,m\geq 1,\end{aligned}$$ where (a) and (c) follow from the properties of the quotient topology, and (b) follows from the properties of the disjoint union topology.
We conclude that $U\subset \operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$ is strongly open in $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$ if and only if $U\cap \operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}^{(s)}$ is open in $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}^{(s)}$ for every $n,m\geq 1$. This shows that the topology on $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}^{(s)}$ that is inherited from $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)},\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)})$ is exactly $\mathcal{T}_{[n],[m]}^{(s)}$. Therefore, $\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$ is a natural topology. On the other hand, if $\mathcal{T}$ is an arbitrary natural topology and $U\in\mathcal{T}$, then $U\cap\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}^{(s)}$ is open in $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}^{(s)}$ for every $n,m\geq 1$, so $U\in\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$. We conclude that $\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$ is the finest natural topology.
We can also characterize the strongly closed subsets of $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$ in terms of the closed sets of the $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}^{(s)}$ spaces: $$\begin{aligned}
F\;\text{is strongly closed in}\;&\textstyle\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}\;\;\\
&\Leftrightarrow\;\;\textstyle\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}\setminus F\;\text{is strongly open in}\;\textstyle\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}\\
&\textstyle\Leftrightarrow\;\;\left(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}\setminus F\right)\cap\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}^{(s)}\;\text{is open in}\;\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}^{(s)},\;\;\forall n,m\geq 1\\
&\textstyle\Leftrightarrow\;\;\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}^{(s)}\setminus \left(F\cap\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}^{(s)}\right)\;\text{is open in}\;\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}^{(s)},\;\;\forall n,m\geq 1\\
&\textstyle\Leftrightarrow\;\;F\cap\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}^{(s)}\;\text{is closed in}\;\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}^{(s)},\;\;\forall n,m\geq 1.\end{aligned}$$
For every subset $U$ of $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$, we have:
- $U$ is strongly open if and only if $U\cap\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}$ is open in $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}$ for every $n\geq 1$.
- $U$ is strongly closed if and only if $U\cap\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}$ is closed in $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}$ for every $n\geq 1$.
If $U$ is strongly open then $U\cap\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}^{(s)}$ is open in $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}^{(s)}$ for every $n,m\geq 1$. This implies that $U\cap\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}$ is open in $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}$ for every $n\geq 1$.
Conversely, assume that $U\cap\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}$ is open in $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}$ for every $n\geq 1$. Fix $n,m\geq 1$ and let $k=\max\{n,m\}$. We have $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}^{(s)}\subset\operatorname*{DMC}_{[k],[k]}^{(s)}$. Since $U\cap \operatorname*{DMC}_{[k],[k]}^{(s)}$ is open in $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[k],[k]}^{(s)}$, the set $U\cap\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}^{(s)}=(U\cap \operatorname*{DMC}_{[k],[k]}^{(s)})\cap \operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}^{(s)}$ is open in $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}^{(s)}$. Therefore, $U\cap\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}^{(s)}$ is open in $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}^{(s)}$ for every $n,m\geq 1$, which implies that $U$ is strongly open.
We can similarly show that $U$ is strongly closed if and only if $U\cap\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}$ is closed in $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}$ for every $n\geq 1$.
Since $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}$ is metrizable for every $n\geq 1$, it is also normal. We can use this fact to prove that the strong topology on $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$ is normal:
\[lemDMCXsNorm\] $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)},\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)})$ is normal.
See Appendix \[appDMCXsNorm\].
The following theorem shows that the strong topology satisfies many desirable properties.
\[theDMCXs\] $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)},\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)})$ is a compactly generated, sequential and $T_4$ space.
Since $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast},\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast})$ is metrizable, it is sequential. Therefore, $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)},\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)})$, which is the quotient of a sequential space, is sequential.
Let us now show that $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$ is $T_4$. Fix $\hat{W}\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$. For every $n\geq 1$, we have $\{\hat{W}\}\cap \operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}$ is either $\o$ or $\{\hat{W}\}$ depending on whether $\hat{W}\in \operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}$ or not. Since $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}$ is metrizable, it is $T_1$ and so singletons are closed in $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}$. We conclude that in all cases, $\{\hat{W}\}\cap \operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}$ is closed in $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}$ for every $n\geq 1$. Therefore, $\{\hat{W}\}$ is strongly closed in $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$. This shows that $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)},\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)})$ is $T_1$. On the other hand, Lemma \[lemDMCXsNorm\] shows that $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)},\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)})$ is normal. This means that $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)},\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)})$ is $T_4$, which implies that it is Hausdorff.
Now since $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast},\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast})$ is metrizable, it is compactly generated. On the other hand, the quotient space $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)},\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)})$ was shown to be Hausdorff. We conclude that $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)},\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)})$ is compactly generated.
It is possible to show that if Conjecture \[conjShanInterior\] is true, then we have:
- $\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$ is not first-countable anywhere.
- A subset of $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$ is compact in $\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}$ if and only if it is rank-bounded and strongly closed.
The BRM metric on the space of Shannon-equivalent channels
==========================================================
We define the *BRM metric* on $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$ as follows: $$d_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}(\hat{W}_1,\hat{W}_2)=\sup_{\substack{n,m\geq 1,\\l\in{\Delta}_{[n]\times[m]}}}|\$_{\operatorname*{opt}}(l,\hat{W}_1)-\$_{\operatorname*{opt}}(l,\hat{W}_2)|.$$
Let $\mathcal{T}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$ be the metric topology on $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$ that is induced by $d_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$. We call $\mathcal{T}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$ the *BRM topology* on $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$.
Clearly, $\mathcal{T}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$ is natural because the restriction of $d_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$ on $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}^{(s)}$ is exactly $d_{[n],[m]}^{(s)}$, and the topology induced by $d_{[n],[m]}^{(s)}$ is $\mathcal{T}_{[n],[m]}^{(s)}$ (Theorem \[theDMCXYs\]).
Continuity of channel parameters and operations in the strong topology
======================================================================
Channel parameters
------------------
For every $W\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}$, $C(W)$ depends only on the Shannon-equivalence class of $W$ [@ShannonDegrad]. Therefore, for every $\hat{W}\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$, we can define $C(\hat{W}):=C(W')$ for any $W'\in\hat{W}$. We can define $P_{e,n,M}(\hat{W})$ similarly.
\[propContParamDMCXYsStr\] Let $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{Y}$ be two finite sets. We have:
- $C:\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^+$ is continuous on $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)},\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)})$.
- For every $n\geq 1$ and every $M\geq 1$, the mapping $P_{e,n,M}:\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)}\rightarrow [0,1]$ is continuous on $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)},\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)})$.
Since $C:\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^+$ is continuous, and since $C(W)$ depends only on the $R_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)}$-equivalence class of $W$, Lemma \[lemQuotientFunction\] implies that $C:\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^+$ is continuous on $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)},\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)})$. We can show the continuity of $P_{e,n,M}$ on $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)},\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)})$ similarly.
The following lemma provides a way to check whether a mapping defined on $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)},\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)})$ is continuous:
\[lemContinuityForStrongTopShan\] Let $(S,\mathcal{V})$ be an arbitrary topological space. A mapping $f:\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}\rightarrow S$ is continuous on $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)},\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)})$ if and only if it is continuous on $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)},\mathcal{T}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)})$ for every $n\geq 1$.
$$\begin{aligned}
\textstyle f\;\text{is continuous on}\;(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)},\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)})\;\;&\textstyle\Leftrightarrow\;\; f^{-1}(V)\in \mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)},\;\;\forall V\in\mathcal{V}\\
&\textstyle\Leftrightarrow\;\; f^{-1}(V)\cap \operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)} \in \mathcal{T}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)},\;\;\forall n\geq 1,\; \forall V\in\mathcal{V}\\
&\textstyle\Leftrightarrow\;\; f\;\text{is continuous on}\; (\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)},\mathcal{T}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}),\;\;\forall n\geq 1.\end{aligned}$$
\[propContParamDMCsStr\] We have:
- $C:\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^+$ is continuous on $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)},\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)})$.
- For every $n\geq 1$ and every $M\geq 1$, the mapping $P_{e,n,M}:\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}\rightarrow [0,1]$ is continuous on $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)},\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)})$.
The proposition follows from Proposition \[propContParamDMCXYsStr\] and Lemma \[lemContinuityForStrongTopShan\].
Channel operations {#subsecContOperShan}
------------------
Channel sums and products can be “quotiented" by the Shannon-equivalence relation. We just need to realize that the Shannon-equivalence class of the resulting channel depends only on the Shannon-equivalence classes of the channels that were used in the operation [@ShannonDegrad].
\[propContOperDMCXYs\] We have:
- The mapping $(\hat{W}_1,\overline{W}_2)\rightarrow \hat{W}_1\oplus \overline{W}_2$ from $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}^{(s)}\times \operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}$ to $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1\coprod \mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_1\coprod\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}$ is continuous.
- The mapping $(\hat{W}_1,\overline{W}_2)\rightarrow \hat{W}_1\otimes \overline{W}_2$ from $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}^{(s)}\times \operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}$ to $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1\times\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_1\times\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}$ is continuous.
We only prove the continuity of the channel sum because the proof for the channel product is similar.
Let $\operatorname*{Proj}:\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1\coprod\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_1\coprod\mathcal{Y}_2}\rightarrow \operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1\coprod\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_1\coprod\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}$ be the projection onto the $R_{\mathcal{X}_1\coprod\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_1\coprod\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}$-equivalence classes. Define the mapping $f:\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}\times \operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}\rightarrow \operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1\coprod\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_1\coprod\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}$ as $f(W_1,W_2)=\operatorname*{Proj}(W_1\oplus W_2)$. Clearly, $f$ is continuous.
Now define the equivalence relation $R$ on $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}\times \operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}$ as: $$(W_1,W_2)R(W_1',W_2')\;\;\Leftrightarrow\;\; W_1 R_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}^{(s)}W_1'\;\text{and}\;W_2 R_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}W_2'.$$ The discussion before the proposition shows that $f(W_1,W_2)=\operatorname*{Proj}(W_1\oplus W_2)$ depends only on the $R$-equivalence class of $(W_1,W_2)$. Lemma \[lemQuotientFunction\] now shows that the transcendent map of $f$ defined on $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}\times \operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2})/R$ is continuous.
Notice that $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}\times \operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2})/R$ can be identified with $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}^{(s)}\times \operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}$. Therefore, we can define $f$ on $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}^{(s)}\times \operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}$ through this identification. Moreover, since $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}$ and $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}$ are locally compact and Hausdorff, Corollary \[corQuotientProd\] implies that the canonical bijection between $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}\times \operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2})/R$ and $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}^{(s)}\times \operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}$ is a homeomorphism.
Now since the mapping $f$ on $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}^{(s)}\times \operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}$ is just the channel sum, we conclude that the mapping $(\hat{W}_1,\overline{W}_2)\rightarrow \hat{W}_1\oplus \overline{W}_2$ from $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}^{(s)}\times \operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}$ to $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1\coprod\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_1\coprod\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}$ is continuous.
\[propContOperDMCsStr\] Assume that the space $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$ is endowed with the strong topology. We have:
- The mapping $(\hat{W}_1,\overline{W}_2)\rightarrow \hat{W}_1\oplus \overline{W}_2$ from $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}\times \operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}$ to $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$ is continuous.
- The mapping $(\hat{W}_1,\overline{W}_2)\rightarrow \hat{W}_1\otimes \overline{W}_2$ from $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}\times \operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}$ to $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$ is continuous.
We only prove the continuity of the channel sum because the proof of the continuity of the channel product is similar.
Due to the distributivity of the product with respect to disjoint unions, we have: $$\textstyle\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}\times\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}={\displaystyle\coprod_{n,m\geq1}}(\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}\times\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}),$$ and $$\textstyle\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}\otimes\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}={\displaystyle\bigoplus_{n,m\geq1}}\left(\mathcal{T}_{[n],[m]}\otimes\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}\right).$$
Therefore, the space $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}\times\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}$ is the topological disjoint union of the spaces $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}\times\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2})_{n,m\geq 1}$.
For every $n,m\geq 1$, let $\operatorname*{Proj}_{n,m}$ be the projection onto the $R_{[n]\coprod\mathcal{X}_2,[m]\coprod\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}$-equivalence classes and let $i_{n,m}$ be the canonical injection from $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n]\coprod\mathcal{X}_2,[m]\coprod\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}$ to $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$.
Define the mapping $f: \operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}\times\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}\rightarrow \operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$ as $$\textstyle f(W_1,W_2)=i_{n,m}(\operatorname*{Proj}_{n,m}(W_1\oplus W_2))=\hat{W}_1\oplus\overline{W}_2,$$ where $n$ and $m$ are the unique integers satisfying $W_1\in \operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}$. $\hat{W}_1$ and $\overline{W}_2$ are the $R_{[n],[m]}^{(s)}$ and $R_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}$-equivalence classes of $W_1$ and $W_2$ respectively.
Clearly, the mapping $f$ is continuous on $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[m]}\times\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}$ for every $n,m\geq 1$. Therefore, $f$ is continuous on $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}\times\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2},\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}\otimes\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2})$.
Let $R$ be the equivalence relation defined on $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}\times\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}$ as follows: $(W_1,W_2)R(W_1',W_2')$ if and only if $W_1 R_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)} W_1'$ and $W_2 R_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)} W_2'$.
Since $f(W_1,W_2)$ depends only on the $R$-equivalence class of $(W_1,W_2)$, Lemma \[lemQuotientFunction\] implies that the transcendent mapping of $f$ is continuous on $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}\times\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2})/R$.
Since $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast},\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast})$ and $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}=\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}/R_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}$ are Hausdorff and locally compact, Corollary \[corQuotientProd\] implies that the canonical bijection from $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}\times \operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}$ to $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}\times \operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2})/R$ is a homeomorphism. We conclude that the channel sum is continuous on $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}\times \operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)},\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)}\otimes\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)})$.
The reader might be wondering why the channel sum and the channel product were not shown to be continuous on the whole space $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}\times \operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$ instead of the smaller space $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}\times \operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}$. The reason is because we cannot apply Corollary \[corQuotientProd\] to $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}\times \operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}$ and $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}\times \operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$ since we do not know whether $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)},\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)})$ is locally compact or not. Moreover, as we stated in Remark \[remNegPropertiesNatTopShan\], if Conjecture \[conjShanInterior\] is true then $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)},\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)})$ is not locally compact.
As in the case of the space of equivalent channels [@RajContTop], one potential method to show the continuity of the channel sum on $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}\times\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)},\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)}\otimes \mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)})$ is as follows: let $R$ be the equivalence relation on $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}\times\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}$ defined as $(W_1,W_2)R(W_1',W_2')$ if and only if $W_1 R_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}W_1'$ and $W_2 R_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}W_2'$. We can identify $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}\times\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast})/R$ with $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}\times\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$ through the canonical bijection. Using Lemma \[lemQuotientFunction\], it is easy to see that the mapping $(\hat{W}_1,\overline{W}_2)\rightarrow \hat{W}_1\oplus\overline{W}_2$ is continuous from $\big(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}\times\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}, (\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}\otimes \mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast})/R\big)$ to $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)},\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)})$.
It was shown in [@CompactlyGenerated] that the topology $(\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}\otimes \mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast})/R$ is homeomorphic to $\kappa(\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)}\otimes \mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)})$ through the canonical bijection, where $\kappa(\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)}\otimes \mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)})$ is the coarsest topology that is both compactly generated and finer than $\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)}\otimes \mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$. Therefore, the mapping $(\hat{W}_1,\overline{W}_2)\rightarrow \hat{W}_1\oplus\overline{W}_2$ is continuous on $\big(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}\times\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}, \kappa(\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)}\otimes \mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)})\big)$. This means that if $\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)}\otimes \mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$ is compactly generated, we will have $\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)}\otimes \mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)}=\kappa(\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)}\otimes \mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)})$ and so the channel sum will be continuous on $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}\times\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}, \mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)}\otimes \mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)})$. Note that although $\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$ and $\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$ are compactly generated, their product $\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)}\otimes \mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$ might not be compactly generated.
Discussion and open problems
============================
The following continuity-related problems remain open:
- The continuity of the channel parameters $C$ and $P_{e,n,M}$ in the BRM topology $\mathcal{T}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$.
- The continuity of the channel sum and the channel product on the whole product space $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}\times \operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)},\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)}\otimes \mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)})$. As we explained in Section \[subsecContOperShan\], it is sufficient to prove that the product topology $\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)}\otimes \mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$ is compactly generated.
- The continuity of the channel sum and the channel product in the BRM topology.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
I would like to thank Emre Telatar for helpful discussions. I am also grateful to Maxim Raginsky for informing me about the work of Blackwell on statistical experiments.
Proof of Proposition \[propReldXYdXYs\] {#appReldXYdXYs}
=======================================
Fix $n,m\geq 1$ and let $l\in\Delta_{[n]\times[m]}$. Define $\mathcal{G}_1=([n],\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y},[m],l,W_1)$ and $\mathcal{G}_2=([n],\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y},[m],l,W_2)$. For every $S\in\mathcal{S}_{[n],\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y},[m]}$, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\$}&(S,\mathcal{G}_1)\\
&=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{u\in[n]} \hat{\$}(u,S,\mathcal{G}_1)=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{\substack{u\in[n]}}\sum_{i=1}^{n_S}\alpha_S(i)\sum_{y\in\mathcal{Y}}W_1\big(y\big|f_{i,S}(u)\big)l\big(u,g_{i,S}(y)\big)\\
&=\left(\frac{1}{n}\sum_{\substack{u\in[n]}}\sum_{i=1}^{n_S}\alpha_S(i)\sum_{y\in\mathcal{Y}}W_2\big(y\big|f_{i,S}(u)\big)l\big(u,g_{i,S}(y)\big)\right)\\
&\;\;\;+\frac{1}{n}\sum_{\substack{u\in[n]}}\sum_{i=1}^{n_S}\alpha_S(i)\sum_{y\in\mathcal{Y}}\Big(W_1\big(y\big|f_{i,S}(u)\big)-W_2\big(y\big|f_{i,S}(u)\big)\Big)l\big(u,g_{i,S}(y)\big)\\
&\leq \hat{\$}(S,\mathcal{G}_2) + \sum_{i=1}^{n_S}\frac{\alpha_S(i)}{n}\sum_{\substack{u\in[n]}}\sum_{\substack{y\in\mathcal{Y},\\W_1(y|f_{i,S}(u))\geq W_2(y|f_{i,S}(u))}}\Big(W_1\big(y\big|f_{i,S}(u)\big)-W_2\big(y\big|f_{i,S}(u)\big)\Big)l\big(u,g_{i,S}(y)\big)\\
&\stackrel{(a)}{\leq} \hat{\$}(S,\mathcal{G}_2) + \sum_{i=1}^{n_S}\frac{\alpha_S(i)}{n}\sum_{\substack{u\in[n]}}\sum_{\substack{y\in\mathcal{Y},\\W_1(y|f_{i,S}(u))\geq W_2(y|f_{i,S}(u))}}\Big(W_1\big(y\big|f_{i,S}(u)\big)-W_2\big(y\big|f_{i,S}(u)\big)\Big)\\
&= \hat{\$}(S,\mathcal{G}_2) + \sum_{i=1}^{n_S}\frac{\alpha_S(i)}{n}\sum_{\substack{u\in[n]}} \frac{1}{2} \sum_{y\in\mathcal{Y}} \big|W_1\big(y\big|f_{i,S}(u)\big)-W_2\big(y\big|f_{i,S}(u)\big)\big|\\
&\leq \hat{\$}(S,\mathcal{G}_2) + \sum_{i=1}^{n_S}\frac{\alpha_S(i)}{n}\sum_{\substack{u\in[n]}} \max_{x\in\mathcal{X}} \frac{1}{2} \sum_{y\in\mathcal{Y}} |W_1(y|x)-W_2(y|x)|\\
&= \hat{\$}(S,\mathcal{G}_2) + \sum_{i=1}^{n_S}\frac{\alpha_S(i)}{n}\sum_{\substack{u\in[n]}} d_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}(W_1,W_2)=\hat{\$}(S,\mathcal{G}_2) + d_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}(W_1,W_2)\\
&\leq d_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}(W_1,W_2) + \sup_{S'\in\mathcal{S}_{[n],\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y},[m]}} \hat{\$}(S',\mathcal{G}_2)=d_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}(W_1,W_2) + \$_{\operatorname*{opt}}(\mathcal{G}_2),\end{aligned}$$ where (a) follows from the fact that $l(u,g_{i,S}(y))\leq 1$ (because $l\in\Delta_{[n]\times[m]}$). Therefore, $$\$_{\operatorname*{opt}}(\mathcal{G}_1)=\sup_{S\in\mathcal{S}_{[n],\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y},[m]}} \hat{\$}(S,\mathcal{G}_1)\leq \$_{\operatorname*{opt}}(\mathcal{G}_2) + d_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}(W_1,W_2),$$ hence $$\$_{\operatorname*{opt}}(\mathcal{G}_1)- \$_{\operatorname*{opt}}(\mathcal{G}_2) \leq d_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}(W_1,W_2).$$ We can show similarly that $\$_{\operatorname*{opt}}(\mathcal{G}_2)- \$_{\operatorname*{opt}}(\mathcal{G}_2) \leq d_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}(W_1,W_2)$. Therefore, $$|\$_{\operatorname*{opt}}(l,\hat{W}_1)- \$_{\operatorname*{opt}}(l,\hat{W}_2)|=|\$_{\operatorname*{opt}}(l,W_1)- \$_{\operatorname*{opt}}(l,W_2)|=|\$_{\operatorname*{opt}}(\mathcal{G}_1)- \$_{\operatorname*{opt}}(\mathcal{G}_2)| \leq d_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}(W_1,W_2).$$ We conclude that $$d_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}^{(s)}(\hat{W}_1,\hat{W}_2)=\sup_{\substack{n,m\geq 1,\\l\in\Delta_{[n]\times[m]}}} |\$_{\operatorname*{opt}}(l,\hat{W}_1)- \$_{\operatorname*{opt}}(l,\hat{W}_2)|\leq d_{\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}}(W_1,W_2).$$
Proof of Proposition \[propEmbedShanEquiv\] {#appEmbedShanEquiv}
===========================================
Corollary \[corEquivChannelSurjInj\] implies that $\operatorname*{Proj}_2(D_g\circ W\circ D_f)=\operatorname*{Proj}_2(D_g\circ W'\circ D_f)$ if and only if $W R_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}^{(s)}W'$. Therefore, $\operatorname*{Proj}_2(D_g\circ W'\circ D_f)$ does not depend on $W'\in\hat{W}$, hence $F$ is well defined. Corollary \[corEquivChannelSurjInj\] also shows that $\operatorname*{Proj}_2(D_g\circ W'\circ D_f)$ does not depend on the particular choice of the surjection $f$ or the injection $g$, hence it is canonical (i.e., it depends only on $\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_1$ and $\mathcal{Y}_2$).
On the other hand, the mapping $W\rightarrow D_g\circ W\circ D_f$ is a continuous mapping from $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}$ to $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}$, and $\operatorname*{Proj}_2$ is continuous. Therefore, the mapping $W\rightarrow \operatorname*{Proj}_2(D_g\circ W\circ D_f)$ is a continuous mapping from $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}$ to $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}$. Now since $\operatorname*{Proj}_2(D_g\circ W \circ D_f)$ depends only on the $R_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}^{(s)}$-equivalence class $\hat{W}$ of $W$, Lemma \[lemQuotientFunction\] implies that the transcendent mapping of $W\rightarrow \operatorname*{Proj}_2(D_g\circ W\circ D_f)$ that is defined on $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}^{(s)}$ is continuous. Therefore, $F$ is a continuous mapping from $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}^{(s)},\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}^{(s)})$ to $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)},\mathcal{T}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)})$. Moreover, we can see from Corollary \[corEquivChannelSurjInj\] that $F$ is an injection.
For every closed subset $B$ of $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}^{(s)}$, $B$ is compact since $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}^{(s)}$ is compact, hence $F(B)$ is compact because $F$ is continuous. This implies that $F(B)$ is closed in $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}$ since $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}$ is Hausdorff (as it is metrizable). Therefore, $F$ is a closed mapping.
Now since $F$ is an injection that is both continuous and closed, $F$ is a homeomorphism between $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}^{(s)}$ and $F\big(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}^{(s)}\big)\subset \operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}$.
We would like now to show that $F\big(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}^{(s)}\big)$ depends only on $|\mathcal{X}_1|$, $|\mathcal{Y}_1|$, $\mathcal{X}_2$ and $\mathcal{Y}_2$. Let $\mathcal{X}_1'$ and $\mathcal{Y}_1'$ be two finite sets such that $|\mathcal{X}_1|=|\mathcal{X}_1'|$ and $|\mathcal{Y}_1|=|\mathcal{Y}_1'|$. For every $W\in \operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1',\mathcal{Y}_1'}$, let $\overline{W}\in\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1',\mathcal{Y}_1'}^{(s)}$ be the $R_{\mathcal{X}_1',\mathcal{Y}_1'}^{(s)}$-equivalence class of $W$.
Let $f':\mathcal{X}_1\rightarrow \mathcal{X}_1'$ be a fixed bijection from $\mathcal{X}_1$ to $\mathcal{X}_1'$ and let $f''=f'\circ f$. Also, let $g':\mathcal{Y}_1'\rightarrow\mathcal{Y}_1$ be a fixed bijection from $\mathcal{Y}_1'$ to $\mathcal{Y}_1$ and let $g''=g\circ g'$. Define $F': \operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1',\mathcal{Y}_1'}^{(s)}\rightarrow \operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_2,\mathcal{Y}_2}^{(s)}$ as $F'(\overline{W})=\widetilde{D_{g''}\circ W'\circ D_{f''}}=\operatorname*{Proj}_2(D_{g''}\circ W'\circ D_{f''}),$ where $W'\in \overline{W}$. As above, $F'$ is well defined, and it is a homeomorphism from $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1',\mathcal{Y}_1'}^{(s)}$ to $F'\big(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1',\mathcal{Y}_1'}^{(s)}\big)$. We want to show that $F'\big(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1',\mathcal{Y}_1'}^{(s)}\big)=F\big(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}^{(s)}\big)$. For every $\overline{W}\in \operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1',\mathcal{Y}_1'}^{(s)}$, let $W'\in\overline{W}$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\textstyle F'(\overline{W})= \textstyle\operatorname*{Proj}_2(D_{g''}\circ W'\circ D_{f''})&=\textstyle \operatorname*{Proj}_2(D_{g}\circ(D_{g'}\circ W'\circ D_{f'})\circ D_f)\\
&=\textstyle F\left(\widehat{D_{g'}\circ W'\circ D_{f'}}\right)\in F\big(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}^{(s)}\big).\end{aligned}$$ Since this is true for every $\overline{W}\in \operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1',\mathcal{Y}_1'}^{(s)}$, we deduce that $F'\big(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1',\mathcal{Y}_1'}^{(s)}\big)\subset F\big(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}^{(s)}\big)$. By exchanging the roles of $(\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1)$ and $(\mathcal{X}_1',\mathcal{Y}_1')$ and using the fact that $f=f'^{-1}\circ f''$ and $g=g''\circ g'^{-1}$, we get $F\big(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}^{(s)}\big)\subset F'\big(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1',\mathcal{Y}_1'}^{(s)}\big)$. We conclude that $F\big(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}^{(s)}\big)=F'\big(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1',\mathcal{Y}_1'}^{(s)}\big)$, which means that $F\big(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\mathcal{X}_1,\mathcal{Y}_1}^{(s)}\big)$ depends only on $|\mathcal{X}_1|$, $|\mathcal{Y}_1|$, $\mathcal{X}_2$ and $\mathcal{Y}_2$.
Finally, for every $W'\in\hat{W}$ and every $W''\in F(\hat{W})=\widetilde{D_g\circ W'\circ D_f}$, $W''$ is Shannon-equivalent to $D_g\circ W'\circ D_f$ and $D_g\circ W'\circ D_f$ is Shannon-equivalent to $W'$ (by Lemma \[lemEquivChannelSurjInj\]), hence $W''$ is Shannon-equivalent to $W'$.
Proof of Lemma \[lemDMCXsNorm\] {#appDMCXsNorm}
===============================
Define $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[0],[0]}^{(s)}=\o$, which is strongly closed in $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$.
Let $A$ and $B$ be two disjoint strongly closed subsets of $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$. For every $n\geq 0$, let $A_n=A\cap \operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}$ and $B_n=B\cap \operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}$. Since $A$ and $B$ are strongly closed in $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$, $A_n$ and $B_n$ are closed in $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}$. Moreover, $A_n\cap B_n\subset A\cap B=\o$.
Construct the sequences $(U_n)_{n\geq 0},(U_n')_{n\geq 0},(K_n)_{n\geq 0}$ and $(K_n')_{n\geq 0}$ recursively as follows:
$U_0=U_0'=K_0=K_0'=\o\subset\operatorname*{DMC}_{[0],[0]}^{(s)}$. Since $A_0=B_0=\o$, we have $A_0\subset U_0\subset K_0$ and $B_0\subset U_0'\subset K_0'$. Moreover, $U_0$ and $U_0'$ are open in $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[0],[0]}^{(s)}$, $K_0$ and $K_0'$ are closed in $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[0],[0]}^{(s)}$, and $K_0\cap K_0'=\o$.
Now let $n\geq 1$ and assume that we constructed $(U_j)_{0\leq j< n},(U_j')_{0\leq j< n},(K_j)_{0\leq j< n}$ and $(K_j')_{0\leq j< n}$ such that for every $0\leq j< n$, we have $A_j\subset U_j\subset K_j\subset\operatorname*{DMC}_{[j],[j]}^{(s)}$, $B_j\subset U_j'\subset K_j'\subset \operatorname*{DMC}_{[j],[j]}^{(s)}$, $U_j$ and $U_j'$ are open in $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[j],[j]}^{(s)}$, $K_j$ and $K_j'$ are closed in $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[j],[j]}^{(s)}$, and $K_j\cap K_j'=\o$. Moreover, assume that $K_j\subset U_{j+1}$ and $K_j'\subset U_{j+1}'$ for every $0\leq j<n-1$.
Let $C_n=A_n\cup K_{n-1}$ and $D_n=B_n\cup K_{n-1}'$. Since $K_{n-1}$ and $K_{n-1}'$ are closed in $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n-1],[n-1]}^{(s)}$ and since $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n-1],[n-1]}^{(s)}$ is closed in $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}$, we can see that $K_{n-1}$ and $K_{n-1}'$ are closed in $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}$. Therefore, $C_n$ and $D_n$ are closed in $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}$. Moreover, we have $$\begin{aligned}
C_n\cap D_n&=(A_n\cup K_{n-1})\cap(B_n\cup K_{n-1}')\\
&=(A_n\cap B_n)\cup(A_n\cap K_{n-1}')\cup (K_{n-1}\cap B_n)\cup(K_{n-1}\cap K_{n-1}')\\
&\stackrel{(a)}{=}\textstyle \left(A_n\cap K_{n-1}'\cap \operatorname*{DMC}_{[n-1],[n-1]}^{(s)}\right)\cup \left(K_{n-1}\cap \operatorname*{DMC}_{[n-1],[n-1]}^{(s)}\cap B_n\right)\\
&=(A_{n-1}\cap K_{n-1}')\cup (K_{n-1}\cap B_{n-1})\subset (K_{n-1}\cap K_{n-1}')\cup (K_{n-1}\cap K_{n-1}')=\o,\end{aligned}$$ where (a) follows from the fact that $A_n\cap B_n=K_{n-1}\cap K_{n-1}'=\o$ and the fact that $K_{n-1}\subset \operatorname*{DMC}_{[n-1],[n-1]}^{(s)}$ and $K_{n-1}'\subset \operatorname*{DMC}_{[n-1],[n-1]}^{(s)}$.
Since $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}$ is normal (because it is metrizable), and since $C_n$ and $D_n$ are closed disjoint subsets of $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}$, there exist two sets $U_n,U_n'\subset \operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}$ that are open in $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}$ and two sets $K_n,K_n'\subset \operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}$ that are closed in $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}$ such that $C_n\subset U_n\subset K_n$, $D_n\subset U_n'\subset K_n'$ and $K_n\cap K_n'=\o$. Clearly, $A_n\subset U_n\subset K_n\subset \operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}$, $B_n\subset U_n'\subset K_n'\subset \operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}$, $K_{n-1}\subset U_n$ and $K_{n-1}'\subset U_n'$. This concludes the recursive construction.
Now define $\displaystyle U=\bigcup_{n\geq 0}U_n=\bigcup_{n\geq 1}U_n$ and $\displaystyle U'=\bigcup_{n\geq 0}U_n'=\bigcup_{n\geq 1}U_n'$. Since $A_n\subset U_n$ for every $n\geq 1$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\textstyle A=A\cap\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}=A\cap\left({\displaystyle\bigcup_{n\geq 1}}\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}\right)={\displaystyle\bigcup_{n\geq 1}}\left(A\cap \operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}\right)={\displaystyle\bigcup_{n\geq 1}} A_n\subset {\displaystyle\bigcup_{n\geq 1}} U_n =U.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, for every $n\geq 1$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\textstyle U\cap \operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}=\left({\displaystyle\bigcup_{j\geq 1} U_j}\right)\cap \operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}\stackrel{(a)}{=}\left({\displaystyle\bigcup_{j\geq n} U_j}\right)\cap \operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}={\displaystyle\bigcup_{j\geq n} \left(U_j\cap \textstyle\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}\right)},\end{aligned}$$ where (a) follows from the fact that $U_j\subset K_j\subset U_{j+1}$ for every $j\geq 0$, which means that the sequence $(U_j)_{j\geq 1}$ is increasing.
For every $j\geq n$, we have $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}\subset \operatorname*{DMC}_{[j],[j]}^{(s)}$ and $U_j$ is open in $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[j],[j]}^{(s)}$, hence $U_j\cap \operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}$ is open in $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}$. Therefore, $U\cap \operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}=\displaystyle\bigcup_{j\geq n} \left(U_j\cap \textstyle\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}\right)$ is open in $\operatorname*{DMC}_{[n],[n]}^{(s)}$. Since this is true for every $n\geq 1$, we conclude that $U$ is strongly open in $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$.
We can show similarly that $B\subset U'$ and that $U'$ is strongly open in $\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)}$. Finally, we have $$\begin{aligned}
U\cap U'=\left(\bigcup_{n\geq 1} U_n\right)\cap \left(\bigcup_{n'\geq 1} U_{n'}'\right)=\bigcup_{n\geq 1, n'\geq 1}(U_n\cap U_{n'}')\stackrel{(a)}{=}\bigcup_{n\geq 1}(U_n\cap U_n')
&\subset\bigcup_{n\geq 1}(K_n\cap K_n')=\o,\end{aligned}$$ where (a) follows from the fact that for every $n\geq 1$ and every $n'\geq 1$, we have $$U_n\cap U_{n'}'\subset U_{\max\{n,n'\}}\cap U_{\max\{n,n'\}}'$$ because $(U_n)_{n\geq 1}$ and $(U_n')_{n\geq 1}$ are increasing. We conclude that $(\operatorname*{DMC}_{\ast,\ast}^{(s)},\mathcal{T}_{s,\ast,\ast}^{(s)})$ is normal.
[^1]: If $l(u,v)<0$, then Bob pays Alice an amount of money that is equal to $-l(u,v)$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
[**Classification of $n$-qubit states\
with minimum orbit dimension**]{}\
David W. Lyons\
[email protected]\
Mathematical Sciences\
Lebanon Valley College\
Scott N. Walck\
[email protected]\
Department of Physics\
Lebanon Valley College\
revised: 19 January 2006\
[**Abstract**]{}. The group of local unitary transformations acts on the space of $n$-qubit pure states, decomposing it into orbits. In a previous paper we proved that a product of singlet states (together with an unentangled qubit for a system with an odd number of qubits) achieves the smallest possible orbit dimension, equal to $3 n / 2$ for $n$ even and $(3 n + 1)/2$ for $n$ odd, where $n$ is the number of qubits. In this paper we show that any state with minimum orbit dimension must be of this form, and furthermore, such states are classified up to local unitary equivalence by the sets of pairs of qubits entangled in singlets.
Introduction
============
Quantum entanglement has been identified as an important resource for quantum computing, quantum communication, and other applications [@nielsenchuang; @gudder03]. A fundamental theoretical problem is to understand the types of entanglement that composite quantum systems can achieve.
Defining entanglement types as equivalence classes of quantum states under local unitary (LU) equivalence is perhaps the most natural way to proceed in classifying entanglement [@linden98; @linden99]. The group of LU transformations acts on the space of quantum states, partitioning it into LU orbits. Each orbit is a collection of locally equivalent quantum states that forms a differentiable manifold with a certain dimension.
The classification of entanglement types has turned out to be a difficult problem. Most of the progress in understanding multipartite entanglement has been for systems of only two or three qubits [@acin00; @acin01; @carteret00a]. Few results exist concerning the classification of $n$-qubit entanglement types for arbitrary $n$.
A promising approach to the difficult problem of characterizing entanglement types is to break the problem into two parts. First, identify the possible dimensions of LU orbits in the state space. Then, identify the orbits that have each possible dimension. In [@lyonswalck], the present authors addressed the first part of this program by identifying the allowable range of orbit dimensions for $n$-qubit quantum states to be $3n/2$ to $3n$ for even $n$ and $(3n+1)/2$ to $3n$ for odd $n$. The present paper begins the second part of the program by completely identifying all orbits (entanglement types) with minimum dimension.
In this paper, we identify all $n$-qubit entanglement types that have minimum orbit dimension. States that have the minimum orbit dimension are, in some sense, the “rarest” quantum states. We show that the only quantum states to achieve minimum orbit dimension are tensor products of singlet states (with a single unentangled qubit for $n$ odd) and their LU equivalents. This suggests a special role for the 2-qubit singlet state in the theory of $n$-qubit quantum entanglement.
Notation and previous results
=============================
In this section we establish notation, some definitions, and state some results from our previous paper [@lyonswalck] needed for the present paper. For the convenience of the reader, we give a list (Appendix A) of equation and statement numbers in the present paper with their matching numbers in [@lyonswalck].
Let $|0\rangle$, $|1\rangle$ denote the standard computational basis for ${{\mathbb C}}^2$ and write $|i_{1}i_{2}\ldots i_n\rangle$ for $|i_{1}\rangle\otimes|i_{2}\rangle\otimes\cdots\otimes|i_n\rangle$ in $({{\mathbb C}}^2)^{\otimes n}$. For a multi-index $I=(i_{1}i_{2}\ldots i_n)$ with $i_k = 0,1$ for $1\leq k\leq n$, we will write $|I\rangle$ to denote $|i_{1}i_{2}\ldots i_n\rangle$. Let $i_k^c$ denote the bit complement $$i_k^c = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
0 & \mbox{if $i_k = 1$}\\
1 & \mbox{if $i_k = 0$}
\end{array}\right.$$ and let $I_k$ denote the multi-index $$I_k:=(i_{1}i_{2}\ldots i_{k-1} i_k^c i_{k+1} \ldots i_n)$$ obtained from $I$ by taking the complement of the $k$th bit for $1\leq k\leq n$. Similarly, let $I_{kl}$ denote the multi-index $$I_{kl}:=(i_{1}i_{2}\ldots i_{k-1} i_k^c i_{k+1} \ldots i_{l-1} i_l^c
i_{l+1} \ldots i_n)$$ obtained from $I$ by taking the complement of the $k$th and $l$th bits for $1\leq k<l\leq n$.
Let $H= ({{\mathbb C}}^2)^{\otimes n}$ denote the Hilbert space for a system of $n$ qubits and let ${{\mathbb P}}(H)$ denote the projectivization of $H$ which is the state space of the system. We take the local unitary group to be $G=\mbox{\rm SU}(2)^n$. Its Lie algebra $LG=\mbox{\rm su}(2)^n$ is the space of $n$-tuples of traceless skew-Hermitian $2\times 2$ matrices. We choose $\displaystyle A = i\sigma_z = {\left[ \begin{array}{cc} i & 0 \\
0 & -i \end{array} \right]}$, $\displaystyle B = i\sigma_y = {\left[ \begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\
-1 & 0 \end{array} \right]}$, and $\displaystyle
C = i\sigma_x = {\left[ \begin{array}{cc} 0 & i \\
i & 0 \end{array} \right]}$ as a basis for $\mbox{\rm su}(2)$, where $\sigma_x,\sigma_y,\sigma_z$ are the Pauli spin matrices. We define elements $A_k,B_k,C_k$ of $LG$ for $1\leq k\leq n$ to have $A,B,C$, respectively, in the $k$th coordinate and zero elsewhere. $$\begin{aligned}
A_k &=& (0,\ldots,0,{\left[ \begin{array}{cc} i & 0 \\
0 & -i \end{array} \right]},0,\ldots,0)\\
B_k &=& (0,\ldots,0,{\left[ \begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\
-1 & 0 \end{array} \right]},0,\ldots,0)\\
C_k &=& (0,\ldots,0,{\left[ \begin{array}{cc} 0 & i \\
i & 0 \end{array} \right]},0,\ldots,0)\end{aligned}$$ Given a state vector ${\left| \psi \right\rangle}=\sum c_I{\left| I \right\rangle}$, we have the following. $$\begin{aligned}
A_k{\left| \psi \right\rangle} &=& \sum_{I} i(-1)^{i_k}c_{I} {\left| I \right\rangle}\label{akact}\\
B_k{\left| \psi \right\rangle} &=& \sum_{I} (-1)^{i_k}c_{I_k} {\left| I \right\rangle}\label{bkact}\\
C_k{\left| \psi \right\rangle} &=& \sum_{I} ic_{I_k} {\left| I \right\rangle}\label{ckact}\end{aligned}$$ Given a state vector ${\left| \psi \right\rangle}\in H$, we define the $2^n\times(3n+1)$ complex matrix $M$ to be the $(3n+1)$-tuple of column vectors $$\label{colsofMident}
M=(A_1{\left| \psi \right\rangle},B_1{\left| \psi \right\rangle},C_1{\left| \psi \right\rangle},
\ldots,A_n{\left| \psi \right\rangle},B_n{\left| \psi \right\rangle},C_n{\left| \psi \right\rangle},-i{\left| \psi \right\rangle}).$$ We view the matrix $M$ and also its column vectors both as real and also as complex via the standard identification $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathbb C}}^N &\leftrightarrow &{{\mathbb R}}^{2N} \nonumber \\
(z_1,z_2,\ldots,z_N) &\leftrightarrow &(a_1,b_1,a_2,b_2,\ldots,a_N,b_N) \label{cnidentr2n}\end{aligned}$$ where $z_j = a_j + ib_j$ for $1\leq j\leq N$. The real rank of $M$ gives the dimension of the $G$ orbit of a state.
[Proposition]{}[orbitdimasrank]{} [Orbit dimension as rank of $M$:]{} Let $x\in {{\mathbb P}}(H)$ be a state, let ${\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ be a Hilbert space representative for $x$, and let $M$ be the associated matrix constructed from the coordinates of ${\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ as described above. Then we have $$\rank_{{{\mathbb R}}} M = \dim {\cal O}_x + 1.$$
We denote by ${\cal
C}$ the set $${\cal C}=\{A_1{\left| \psi \right\rangle},B_1{\left| \psi \right\rangle},C_1{\left| \psi \right\rangle},
\ldots,A_n{\left| \psi \right\rangle},B_n{\left| \psi \right\rangle},C_n{\left| \psi \right\rangle},-i{\left| \psi \right\rangle}\}$$ of columns of $M$, and for $1\leq k\leq n$ we define the [*triple $T_k\subseteq{\cal C}$*]{} to be the set of vectors $$T_k=\{A_k{\left| \psi \right\rangle},B_k{\left| \psi \right\rangle},C_k{\left| \psi \right\rangle}\}.$$ For a subset ${\cal B}\subseteq {\cal C}$, we write $\langle {\cal
B}\rangle$ to denote the real span of the column vectors contained in ${\cal B}$. For convenience we write $\langle
T_{i_1},T_{i_2},\ldots,T_{i_r}\rangle$ to denote the real span $\langle
T_{i_1}\cup T_{i_2}\cup \cdots\cup T_{i_r}\rangle$ of a set of triples. We have the following facts about the dimensions of spans of sets of triples.
[Proposition]{}[triplesprop]{} Let $T_k=\{A_k{\left| \psi \right\rangle},B_k{\left| \psi \right\rangle},C_k{\left| \psi \right\rangle}\}$ be a triple of columns of $M$. The three vectors in the triple are orthogonal when viewed as real vectors.
[Proposition]{}[mainpropgen]{} [Main orthogonality proposition:]{} Suppose that $$\dim\langle T_{j_1},T_{j_2},\ldots,T_{j_m}\rangle<3m$$ for some $1\leq
j_1<j_2<\cdots<j_m\leq n$. Then there is a nonempty subset $K\subseteq
\{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_m\}$ containing an even number of elements such that there are two orthogonal vectors ${\left| \zeta_k \right\rangle},{\left| \eta_k \right\rangle}$ in $\langle T_k \rangle$, both of which are orthogonal to $-i{\left| \psi \right\rangle}$, $A_j{\left| \psi \right\rangle}$, $B_j{\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ and to $C_j{\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ for all $k\in K,
j\not \in K$.
More can be said about a pair of triples which together span fewer than five dimensions.
[Lemma]{}[twocommon]{} Suppose that for some $1\leq l<l'\leq n$ we have $A_l {\left| \psi \right\rangle} = A_{l'} {\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ and $C_l {\left| \psi \right\rangle} = C_{l'} {\left| \psi \right\rangle}$. Then $A_k {\left| \psi \right\rangle}$, $B_k {\left| \psi \right\rangle}$, and $C_k {\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ are each orthogonal to $-i{\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ and to $A_j {\left| \psi \right\rangle}$, $B_j {\left| \psi \right\rangle},C_j {\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ for all $k\in \{l,l'\},j\not\in\{l,l'\}$.
[Proposition]{}[twocommongen]{} [Generalization of \[twocommon\]:]{} Suppose that $\dim \langle T_l,T_{l'}\rangle \leq 4$ for some $1\leq l<l'\leq n$. Then $A_k {\left| \psi \right\rangle}$, $B_k {\left| \psi \right\rangle}$, and $C_k {\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ are each orthogonal to $-i{\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ and to $A_j {\left| \psi \right\rangle}$, $B_j {\left| \psi \right\rangle},C_j
{\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ for all $k\in \{l,l'\},j\not\in\{l,l'\}$.
We use propositions \[triplesprop\], \[mainpropgen\] and \[twocommongen\] to establish the lower bound for the rank of $M$, and therefore also for orbit dimension.
[Proposition]{}[minrankM]{} [Minimum rank of $M$:]{} Let ${\left| \psi \right\rangle}\in H$ be a state vector, and let $M$ be the matrix associated to ${\left| \psi \right\rangle}$. We have $$\rank_{{{\mathbb R}}} M \geq \left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{3n}{2} + 1 & \mbox{$n$ even}\\
\frac{3n+1}{2} + 1 & \mbox{$n$ odd}
\end{array}\right..$$
A product of singlets (together with an unentangled qubit for $n$ odd) achieves the lower bound established in \[minrankM\]. This establishes the minimum orbit dimension.
[Theorem]{}[minorbthmstmnt]{} For the local unitary group action on state space for $n$ qubits, the smallest orbit dimension is $$\min\{\dim {\cal O}_x\colon x\in {{\mathbb P}}(H)\} = \left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{3n}{2} & \mbox{$n$ even}\\
\frac{3n+1}{2} & \mbox{$n$ odd}
\end{array}\right..$$
This concludes the statements of definitions and results from [@lyonswalck] to be used in the sequel.
Further results on ranks of sets of triples
===========================================
In this section we develop more facts about ranks of sets of triples of the columns of the matrix $M$ associated to an $n$-qubit state vector ${\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ as described in the previous section. These include strengthened versions of \[twocommon\], \[twocommongen\] and \[minrankM\]. We begin with a general fact about local unitary invariance.
[Proposition]{}[ranktripluinv]{} The dimension of the span of a union of triples with or without the rightmost column $-i{\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ is a local unitary invariant.
We prove the proposition for the case “with the rightmost column.” The same proof works for the case “without the rightmost column” by making the obvious changes.
Let $T_{j_1},T_{j_2},\ldots,T_{j_m}$ be a set of triples of columns of the matrix $M$ associated to the state vector ${\left| \psi \right\rangle}$. Let $U=\prod_{i=1}^n U_i$ be an element of the local unitary group and let $M'$ with triples $T_k'=\{A_kU{\left| \psi \right\rangle},B_kU{\left| \psi \right\rangle},C_kU{\left| \psi \right\rangle}\}$ be associated to the state ${\left| \psi' \right\rangle}=U{\left| \psi \right\rangle}$. Since $U$ is unitary, the dimension of the span $$\dim\langle T_{j_1}'\cup T_{j_2}'\cup \ldots\cup T_{j_m}' \cup
\{-i{\left| \psi' \right\rangle}\}\rangle$$ is equal to the dimension of the span of the set $$(\ast)\hspace*{.3in}\bigcup_{i=1}^m
\{U^\dag A_{j_i}U{\left| \psi \right\rangle},U^\dag B_{j_i}U{\left| \psi \right\rangle},U^\dag C_{j_i}U{\left| \psi \right\rangle}\}\cup
\{-i{\left| \psi \right\rangle}\}.\hfill {\rule[0cm]{0cm}{0cm}}$$ Observe that $$\begin{aligned}
U^\dag A_kU &=& (0,\ldots,0,U_k^\dag AU_k,0,\ldots,0)
=(0,\ldots,0,\mbox{\rm Ad}(U_k^\dag)(A),0,\ldots,0)\\
U^\dag B_kU &=& (0,\ldots,0,U_k^\dag BU_k,0,\ldots,0)
=(0,\ldots,0,\mbox{\rm Ad}(U_k^\dag)(B),0,\ldots,0)\\
U^\dag C_kU &=& (0,\ldots,0,U_k^\dag
CU_k,0,\ldots,0)=(0,\ldots,0,\mbox{\rm Ad}(U_k^\dag)(C),0,\ldots,0) \end{aligned}$$ where the zeros occur in all but the $k$th coordinate and $\mbox{\rm
Ad}\colon \mbox{\rm SU}(2)\to \mbox{\rm SO}(\mbox{\rm su}(2))$ denotes the adjoint representation of $\mbox{\rm SU}(2)$ on its Lie Algebra. It follows that the span of the set $(\ast)$ lies inside the span of the set $$(\ast\ast)\hspace*{.3in}\bigcup_{i=1}^m
\{ A_{j_i}{\left| \psi \right\rangle},B_{j_i}{\left| \psi \right\rangle}, C_{j_i}{\left| \psi \right\rangle}\}\cup
\{-i{\left| \psi \right\rangle}\}.\hfill {\rule[0cm]{0cm}{0cm}}$$ and hence that $$\dim\langle T_{j_1}'\cup T_{j_2}'\cup \ldots\cup T_{j_m}' \cup
\{-i{\left| \psi' \right\rangle}\}\rangle \leq \dim\langle T_{j_1}\cup T_{j_2}\cup \ldots\cup T_{j_m} \cup
\{-i{\left| \psi \right\rangle}\}\rangle.$$ Reversing the roles of ${\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ and ${\left| \psi' \right\rangle}$ yields that the span of the set $(\ast\ast)$ lies inside the span of the set $(\ast)$, and hence that $$\dim\langle T_{j_1}'\cup T_{j_2}'\cup \ldots\cup T_{j_m}' \cup
\{-i{\left| \psi' \right\rangle}\}\rangle \geq \dim\langle T_{j_1}\cup T_{j_2}\cup \ldots\cup T_{j_m} \cup
\{-i{\left| \psi \right\rangle}\}\rangle.$$ This concludes the proof.
Next we consider the case of two triples which together span five dimensions.
[Proposition]{}[twotripspan5]{} Suppose that $\dim \langle T_l,T_{l'}\rangle =5$ for some $1\leq
l<l'\leq n$. Then there are four independent vectors ${\left| \zeta_l \right\rangle},{\left| \eta_l \right\rangle} \in T_l$, ${\left| \zeta_{l'} \right\rangle},{\left| \eta_{l'} \right\rangle}
\in T_{l'}$, which are orthogonal to $-i{\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ and to $A_j
{\left| \psi \right\rangle}$, $B_j {\left| \psi \right\rangle},C_j {\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ for all $j\not\in\{l,l'\}$.
Applying the main orthogonality proposition \[mainpropgen\], the only new claim made in the statement of \[twotripspan5\] is that the vectors ${\left| \zeta_k \right\rangle},{\left| \eta_k \right\rangle} \in T_k$, $k\in \{l,l'\}$ are independent. In the proof of \[mainpropgen\] there is a unitary transformation $U\colon H\to H$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
U{\left| \zeta_k \right\rangle} &=& B_kU{\left| \psi \right\rangle}\\
U{\left| \eta_k \right\rangle} &=& C_kU{\left| \psi \right\rangle}\end{aligned}$$ for $k\in \{l,l'\}$ and $A_lU{\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ is collinear with $A_{l'}U{\left| \psi \right\rangle}$. Since $\dim\langle T_l,T_{l'}\rangle = 5$, the span of $\displaystyle \{A_kU {\left| \psi \right\rangle}$, $B_k U{\left| \psi \right\rangle},C_k
U{\left| \psi \right\rangle}\colon k=l,l'\}$ is also five dimensional by \[ranktripluinv\]. Thus the collinearity of $A_lU{\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ and $A_{l'}U{\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ implies that $U{\left| \zeta_l \right\rangle}$, $U{\left| \eta_l \right\rangle}$, $U{\left| \zeta_{l'} \right\rangle}$, and $U{\left| \eta_{l'} \right\rangle}$ are independent, and therefore that ${\left| \zeta_l \right\rangle}$, ${\left| \eta_l \right\rangle}$, ${\left| \zeta_{l'} \right\rangle}$, and ${\left| \eta_{l'} \right\rangle}$ are independent.
Next, a small observation proves a stronger version of \[twocommon\].
[Lemma]{}[twocommonstrong]{} Suppose that for some $1\leq l<l'\leq n$ we have $A_l {\left| \psi \right\rangle} =
A_{l'} {\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ and $C_l {\left| \psi \right\rangle} = C_{l'} {\left| \psi \right\rangle}$. Then $B_l
{\left| \psi \right\rangle} = -B_{l'} {\left| \psi \right\rangle}$, the dimension of $\langle
T_l,T_{l'}\rangle$ is three, and $\langle T_l,T_{l'}\rangle$ is orthogonal to $-i{\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ and to $A_j {\left| \psi \right\rangle}$, $B_j
{\left| \psi \right\rangle},C_j {\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ for all $j\not\in\{l,l'\}$.
We only need to prove that $B_l{\left| \psi \right\rangle} = -B_{l'} {\left| \psi \right\rangle}$. The rest of the statement follows from \[twocommon\]. Equation (\[akact\]) and the hypothesis $A_l {\left| \psi \right\rangle} = A_{l'}
{\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ imply that $(-1)^{i_l}c_I = (-1)^{i_{l'}}c_I$, so if $c_I\neq 0$ then $i_l = i_{l'}$ mod 2. It follows that if $c_{I_l}\neq
0$ then $i_l = i_{l'}+1$ mod 2. Equation (\[ckact\]) and the hypothesis $C_l {\left| \psi \right\rangle} = C_{l'} {\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ imply that $c_{I_l}=c_{I_{l'}}$ for all $I$. Hence, for all $I$ we have $${\left\langle I \right|} B_l {\left| \psi \right\rangle} = (-1)^{i_l}c_{I_l} = (-1)^{i_{l'}+1}c_{I_{l'}}
= -{\left\langle I \right|} B_{l'}{\left| \psi \right\rangle}.$$ This establishes the claim.
The strengthened Lemma \[twocommonstrong\] yields the following strengthened version of \[twocommongen\]. We omit the proof because it requires only a minor change to apply \[twocommonstrong\] in the proof of \[twocommongen\].
[Proposition]{}[twocommonstronggen]{} [Strengthened version of \[twocommongen\]:]{} Let ${\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ be a state vector and let $M$ be its associated matrix. Suppose that $\dim
\langle T_l,T_{l'}\rangle \leq 4$ for some $1\leq l<l'\leq n$. Then ${\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ is local unitary equivalent to a state vector ${\left| \psi' \right\rangle}$ such that $A_l {\left| \psi' \right\rangle} =A_{l'} {\left| \psi' \right\rangle}$, $B_l {\left| \psi' \right\rangle}
=-B_{l'} {\left| \psi' \right\rangle}$, $C_l {\left| \psi' \right\rangle} =C_{l'} {\left| \psi' \right\rangle}$, the dimension of $\langle T_l,T_{l'}\rangle$ is three, and $\langle
T_l,T_{l'}\rangle$ is orthogonal to $-i{\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ and to $A_j
{\left| \psi \right\rangle}$, $B_j {\left| \psi \right\rangle},C_j{\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ for all $j\not\in\{l,l'\}$.
Next we state and prove a stronger version of \[minrankM\].
[Proposition]{}[minrankMstrong]{} [Minimum rank for submatrices of $M$:]{} Let ${\cal S}=T_{i_1}\cup T_{i_2}\cup \cdots \cup T_{i_q}\cup
\{-i{\left| \psi \right\rangle}\}$ be a union of $q$ triples together with the rightmost column $-i{\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ of $M$. Then $$\displaystyle \dim \langle {\cal S}\rangle
\geq \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} \frac{3q}{2}+1 & \mbox{$q$ even}\\
\frac{3q+1}{2}+1 & \mbox{$q$ odd}\end{array}\right. .$$
Let ${\cal S}_0\subseteq {\cal S}$ be a union of some number $p$ of triples, maximal with respect to the property that $\langle {\cal S}_0 \rangle$ contains a subspace $W$ for which
1. \[propa\] $\displaystyle \dim W
\geq \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} \frac{3p}{2} & \mbox{$p$ even}\\
\frac{3p+1}{2} & \mbox{$p$ odd}\end{array}\right.$, and
2. \[propb\] $W \perp \langle{\cal
C}\setminus{\cal S}_0 \rangle$.
We separate the argument into cases. We show that in every case, either \[minrankMstrong\] holds or we can derive a contradiction by constructing a superset ${\cal S}_1$ such that ${\cal S}_0
\subseteq{\cal S}_1 \subseteq {\cal S}$, and ${\cal S}_1$ is the union of some number $p'>p$ triples and contains a subspace $W'$ satisfying properties (i) and (ii) with $p'$ in place of $p$. The construction of ${\cal S}_1$ violates the maximality of ${\cal S}_0$ and therefore rules out the case in question.
Case 1: Suppose that $p=q$. Then \[minrankMstrong\] holds.
Case 2: Suppose that $p<q$ and that the triples $T_{j_1},T_{j_2},\ldots,T_{j_{q-p}}$ in ${\cal S}\setminus {\cal S}_0$ have the maximum possible span, that is, $$\dim \langle T_{j_1},T_{j_2},\ldots,T_{j_{q-p}}\rangle =3(q-p).$$ Properties (i) and (ii) imply that $$\begin{aligned}
\dim\langle {\cal S}\rangle &\geq& \dim W + \dim \langle{\cal S}\setminus{\cal S}_0 \rangle
\\
&\geq& \frac{3p}{2} + 3(q-p)\\
&=& \frac{6q-3p}{2}\\
&\geq& \frac{6q - (3q-3)}{2}\hspace*{.2in}\mbox{(since $p\leq q-1$)}\\
&=& \frac{3q+3}{2}\\
&=& \frac {3q+1}{2} + 1\end{aligned}$$ and so \[minrankMstrong\] holds. Note that if $p=q-1$, the hypothesis of full span is met by \[triplesprop\]. Therefore in the remaining cases we need only consider $p\leq q-2$.
Case 3: Suppose $p\leq q-2$ and that there is a pair of triples $T_l,T_{l'}$ in ${\cal S}\setminus{\cal S}_0$ with $\dim\langle T_l,T_{l'}\rangle \leq 4$. Let ${\cal S}_1 = {\cal S}_0
\cup T_l\cup T_{l'}$, let $p'=p+2$, and let $W'=W \oplus \langle T_l\cup
T_{l'} \rangle$, where “$\oplus$” denotes the orthogonal direct sum. That the sum is orthogonal is guaranteed by property (ii) for $W$. Proposition \[twocommongen\] implies that property (ii) also holds for the pair $({\cal S}_1,W')$ and that $\dim W' \geq \dim W + 3$ (in fact, we have equality by \[twocommonstronggen\]). It follows that if $p$ is even, so is $p'$ and we have $$\dim W' \geq \frac{3p}{2} +3 = \frac{3p+6}{2} = \frac{3(p+2)}{2} =
\frac{3p'}{2}$$ and similarly if $p$ and $p'$ are odd we have $$\dim W' \geq \frac{3p+1}{2} +3 = \frac{3p'+1}{2}$$ so $({\cal S}_1, W')$ satisfies property (i). Thus ${\cal S}_1$ violates the maximality of ${\cal S}_0$, so we conclude that the hypothesis of case 3 is impossible.
Case 4: Suppose $p\leq q-2$ and that there is a pair of triples $T_l,T_{l'}$ in ${\cal S}\setminus{\cal S}_0$ such that $\dim\langle T_l,T_{l'}\rangle =5$. Applying \[twotripspan5\] we have four independent vectors $${\left| \zeta_l \right\rangle},{\left| \eta_l \right\rangle}\in \langle T_l\rangle, \hspace*{.25in}
{\left| \zeta_{l'} \right\rangle},{\left| \eta_{l'} \right\rangle}\in \langle T_{l'} \rangle$$ orthogonal to all column vectors of $M$ in columns outside of triples $T_l,T_{l'}$, so once again ${\cal S}_1 = {\cal S}_0 \cup T_l\cup T_{l'}$ with the subspace $$W'=W\oplus \langle {\left| \zeta_l \right\rangle},{\left| \eta_l \right\rangle}, {\left| \zeta_{l'} \right\rangle},{\left| \eta_{l'} \right\rangle}\rangle$$ violates the maximality of ${\cal S}_0$. We conclude that the hypothesis of case 4 is impossible.
Case 5: The only remaining possibility is that $p\leq q-3$. Let ${\cal T}=\{T_{j_1},T_{j_2},\ldots,T_{j_m}\}$ be a set of triples in ${\cal S}\setminus {\cal S}_0$ with $m\geq 3$ minimal with respect to the property $$\dim \langle T_{j_1},T_{j_2},\ldots,T_{j_m}\rangle < 3m.$$ Applying \[mainpropgen\] we have 2 vectors $${\left| \zeta_{k} \right\rangle},{\left| \eta_{k} \right\rangle}\in \langle T_{k}\rangle$$ for each of the $m'\geq 2$ elements $k\in K$. Let $${\cal S}_1 = {\cal S}_0 \cup \left(\bigcup_{k\in K} T_k\right),$$ let $p'=p+m'$, and let $$W'=W \oplus \langle \{{\left| \zeta_{k} \right\rangle},{\left| \eta_{k} \right\rangle}\}_{k\in
K}\rangle.$$ Note that property (ii) holds for $({\cal S}_1,W')$. If $m'<m$, then the $2m'$ vectors in $\{{\left| \zeta_{k} \right\rangle},{\left| \eta_{k} \right\rangle}\}_{k\in K} $ are independent by the minimality of ${\cal T}$, so we have $$\dim W' \geq \dim W + 2m' \geq \frac{3p}{2} + 2m' =
\frac{3p'+m'}{2}\geq \frac{3p'+1}{2}$$ so property (i) holds for $({\cal S}_1,W')$, but this contradicts the maximality of ${\cal S}_0$. Finally, if $m'=m$, then $m\geq 4$ (since $m'$ is even) and at least $2(m-1)$ of the vectors in $\{{\left| \zeta_{k} \right\rangle},{\left| \eta_{k} \right\rangle}\}_{k\in K} $ must be independent, again by the minimality of ${\cal T}$. If $p$ is even, then $p'=p+m$ is also even and we have $$\dim W' \geq \dim W + 2(m-1) \geq \frac{3p}{2} + 2(m-1) =
\frac{3p'+m-4}{2}\geq \frac{3p'}{2}.$$ If $p$ is odd, then $p'=p+m$ is odd and we have $$\dim W' \geq \dim W + 2(m-1) \geq \frac{3p+1}{2} + 2(m-1) =
\frac{3p'+m-3}{2}\geq \frac{3p'+1}{2}.$$ Thus ${\cal S}_1$ with the subspace $W'$ violates the maximality of ${\cal S}_0$. We conclude that the hypothesis of case 5 is impossible.
Having exhausted all possible cases, this completes the proof of \[minrankMstrong\].
Next we state and prove a general statement about additivity of ranks for bipartite states.
[Proposition]{}[bipartiteranksadd]{} Let ${\left| \psi \right\rangle}={\left| \psi_1 \right\rangle}\otimes
{\left| \psi_2 \right\rangle}$ be a state vector for a bipartite state, where ${\left| \psi_j \right\rangle}$ is an $n_j$-qubit state vector for $j=1,2$. Let $M$ be the matrix associated to ${\left| \psi \right\rangle}$, and let $M_j$ denote the associated matrix for ${\left| \psi_j \right\rangle}$ for $j=1,2$. Let ${\cal S}_1$ and ${\cal S}_2$ be the following submatrices of $M$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal S}_1 &=& T_1\cup T_2 \cup \cdots \cup T_{n_1}\cup
\{-i{\left| \psi \right\rangle}\}\\
{\cal S}_2 &=& T_{n_1+1}\cup T_{n_2+2} \cup \cdots \cup T_{n_1+n_2}\cup \{-i{\left| \psi \right\rangle}\}\end{aligned}$$ and let ${\cal B'} = T'_{j_1}\cup T'_{j_2}\cup \ldots \cup T'_{j_m}$ be a union of triples in $M_1$ with corresponding union ${\cal B} =
T_{j_1}\cup T_{j_2}\cup \ldots \cup T_{j_m}$ in $M$. We have
1. $\rank_{{\mathbb R}}M - 1 = (\rank_{{\mathbb R}}M_1 - 1) +
(\rank_{{\mathbb R}}M_2 - 1)$,
2. $\rank_{{\mathbb R}}M_j = \dim\langle{\cal S}_j\rangle$ for $j=1,2$, and
3. $\dim\langle {\cal B'}\rangle = \dim\langle {\cal B}\rangle.$
Let $x$ denote the state represented by ${\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ and let $G$ denote the local unitary group. Let $x_j$ denote the state represented by ${\left| \psi_j \right\rangle}$, and let $G_j$ denote the local unitary group for $j=1,2$, so we have $G=G_1\times G_2$.
It is easy to see that the $G$-orbit of $x$ is diffeomorphic to the product of the $G_j$-orbits of the $x_j$, so dimensions add. $$\dim Gx = \dim G_1x_1 + \dim G_2x_2$$ Applying \[orbitdimasrank\], it follows immediately that (i) holds.
For (ii), observe that the columns of ${\cal S}_j$ are simply the comlumns of $M_j$ tensored with ${\left| \psi_2 \right\rangle}$. The same reasoning applied to the subset ${\cal B}\subseteq {\cal S}_1$ establishes (iii).
We end this section with statements about factoring singlets and unentangled qubits.
[Proposition]{}[twotripspan3factors]{} There are two triples $T_l,T_{l'}$ with $\dim \langle T_l,T_{l'}\rangle
= 3$ if and only if the state factors as a product of a singlet in qubits $l,l'$ times a state in the remaining qubits.
Without loss of generality, let us renumber the qubits so that $l=1,l'=2$.
First we prove the “if” part of the statement. Let ${\left| \psi \right\rangle}={\left| s \right\rangle}\otimes
{\left| \phi \right\rangle}$ where ${\left| s \right\rangle}$ is a singlet in qubits 1 and 2, and ${\left| \phi \right\rangle}$ is an $(n-2)$-qubit state. Then ${\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ is local unitary equivalent to ${\left| \psi' \right\rangle}= {\left| s' \right\rangle}\otimes {\left| \phi \right\rangle}$, where ${\left| s' \right\rangle}={\left| 00 \right\rangle}+{\left| 11 \right\rangle}$. A simple calculation shows that the two triples in the matrix for a 2-qubit singlet state vector ${\left| s' \right\rangle}$ together span three dimensions. Therefore by \[bipartiteranksadd\] (iii), the dimension of the span of triples 1 and 2 in the matrix for ${\left| \psi' \right\rangle}$ is also three. Since the rank of unions of triples is local unitary invariant by \[ranktripluinv\], we conclude that the dimension of the span of triples 1 and 2 in the matrix for ${\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ is also three.
Next we prove “only if.” Let ${\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ be a state vector for which $\dim \langle T_1,T_{2}\rangle = 3$. By \[twocommonstronggen\], ${\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ is local unitary equivalent to state vector ${\left| \psi' \right\rangle}$ for which $A_1{\left| \psi' \right\rangle}=A_{2}{\left| \psi' \right\rangle}$ and $C_1{\left| \psi' \right\rangle}=C_{2}{\left| \psi' \right\rangle}$. Equation (\[akact\]) and the hypothesis $A_1 {\left| \psi \right\rangle} = A_{2} {\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ imply that $(-1)^{i_1}c_I
= (-1)^{i_{2}}c_I$, so if $c_I\neq 0$ then $i_1 = i_{2}$ mod 2, so every $I$ for which $c_I\neq 0$ has either both zeros or both ones in the first two indices. Equation (\[ckact\]) and the hypothesis $C_1
{\left| \psi \right\rangle} = C_{2} {\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ imply that $c_{I_1}=c_{I_{2}}$ for all $I$. Apply this to $I$ for which $i_1\neq i_2$ and we get $$c_{(00i_3i_4\ldots i_n)} = c_{(11i_3i_4\ldots i_n)}$$ for all $(i_3i_4\ldots i_n)$. It follows that ${\left| \psi' \right\rangle}$ factors as a product $${\left| \psi' \right\rangle} = ({\left| 00 \right\rangle}+{\left| 11 \right\rangle})\otimes {\left| \phi \right\rangle}$$ where ${\left| \phi \right\rangle}$ is an $(n-2)$-qubit state. Therefore ${\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ is a product of a singlet state in the first two qubits times a state in the remaining qubits.
[Lemma]{}[trippluslonelyspan3lemma]{} If $A_j{\left| \psi \right\rangle}=i{\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ then the $j$th qubit is unentangled.
Renumber the qubits, if necessary, so that $j=1$. By (\[akact\]), the hypothesis $A_1{\left| \psi \right\rangle}=i{\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ implies that if $c_I\neq 0$ then $i_1=0$. Therefore ${\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ factors as a product $${\left| \psi \right\rangle}= {\left| 0 \right\rangle}\otimes {\left| \phi \right\rangle}$$ where ${\left| \phi \right\rangle}$ is an $(n-1)$-qubit state vector.
[Proposition]{}[trippluslonelyspan3]{} If the dimension of the span of a triple together with the rightmost column $-i{\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ is three, then the state factors as an unentangled qubit times a state in the remaining qubits.
Let $T_j$ be a triple such that $\dim \langle T_j \cup
\{-i{\left| \psi \right\rangle}\}\rangle=3$. Since $i{\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ lies in the span of $\langle{T_j}\rangle$, we may write $$i{\left| \psi \right\rangle} = \alpha A_{j}{\left| \psi \right\rangle} + \beta B_{j}{\left| \psi \right\rangle} + \gamma
C_{j}{\left| \psi \right\rangle}$$ for some real $\alpha,\beta,\gamma$. Choose $R\in
\mbox{\rm SO}(\mbox{\rm su}(2))$ such that $$R(A) = \alpha A + \beta B + \gamma C.$$ Since the adjoint representation $\mbox{\rm Ad}\colon \mbox{\rm SU}(2)\to \mbox{\rm
SO}(\mbox{\rm su}(2))$ is surjective, we can choose $U_{j}\in \mbox{\rm
SU}(2)$ such that $\mbox{\rm Ad}(U_{j}^\dag) = R$, that is, $U_{j}^\dag
X U_{j} = R(X)$ for all $X\in \mbox{\rm su}(2)$. For $1\leq k \leq n$, $k\neq j$, set $U_k$ equal to the identity. Finally, let $U\in
G=\mbox{\rm SU}(2)^n$ be $U=\prod_{i=1}^n U_i$. We have $$U^\dag A_j U{\left| \psi \right\rangle} = i{\left| \psi \right\rangle}.$$ Applying $U$ to both sides, we obtain $$A_jU{\left| \psi \right\rangle} = iU{\left| \psi \right\rangle}.$$ Applying Lemma \[trippluslonelyspan3lemma\] to the matrix $M'$ for the state $U{\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ shows that the $j$th qubit is unentangled for the state $U{\left| \psi \right\rangle}$. Since unentanglement of a particular qubit is local unitary invariant, the proposition is established.
[Proposition]{}[unentrank]{} [Rank of unentangled triples:]{} If a state has $k$ unentangled qubits, the rank of the union of the triples corresponding to those qubits together with the rightmost column $-i{\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ of $M$ is $2k+1$.
Let ${\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ be a state vector for a state with $k$ unentangled qubits, and let us renumber the qubits, if necessary, so that the unentangled qubits are numbered 1 through $k$. The state vector ${\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ is local unitary equivalent to a state vector $${\left| \psi' \right\rangle} = {\left| 00\cdots 0 \right\rangle}\otimes {\left| \phi \right\rangle}$$ where ${\left| 00\cdots 0 \right\rangle}$ is the product of $k$ unentangled qubits and ${\left| \phi \right\rangle}$ is an $(n-k)$-qubit state. Let $M'$ be the matrix associated to ${\left| \psi' \right\rangle}$, $M_1$ the matrix for ${\left| 00\cdots 0 \right\rangle}$, and $M''$ the matrix for the single qubit state ${\left| 0 \right\rangle}$. Apply \[bipartiteranksadd\] (i) to ${\left| 00\cdots 0 \right\rangle}={\left| 0 \right\rangle}\otimes
\cdots \otimes {\left| 0 \right\rangle}$ to get $\rank_{{\mathbb R}}M_1 = 2k+1$ (using the fact that the single qubit state ${\left| 0 \right\rangle}$ has $\rank_{{\mathbb R}}M'' = 3$). Then apply \[bipartiteranksadd\] (ii) to the set ${\cal S}_1$ which is the union of the first $k$ triples of the matrix $M'$ together with the column $-i{\left| \psi' \right\rangle}$ to get $\dim\langle {\cal S}_1\rangle = \rank_{{\mathbb R}}M_1 = 2k+1$. Finally, apply \[ranktripluinv\] to conclude that the desired statement holds for ${\left| \psi \right\rangle}$.
Minimum dimension orbit classification
======================================
Now we prove that any state with minimum orbit dimension is a product of singlets for $n$ even, times an unentangled qubit for $n$ odd.
[Main Lemma]{}[minrankimpliessinglet]{} For $n\geq 2$, if $M$ has minimum rank, then there is some pair of triples whose span is three dimensional.
Suppose not. A consequence of \[twocommonstronggen\] is that every pair of triples spans either three, five or six dimensions. We can rule out the possibility that some pair of triples spans five dimensions, as follows. If there is a pair $T_l,T_{l'}$ of triples which spans five dimensions, then by \[twotripspan5\], the pair contributes four independent column vectors which are orthogonal to every column vector in the set ${\cal
S}={\cal C}\setminus (T_l\cup T_{l'})$. Applying \[minrankMstrong\] to ${\cal S}$ with with $q=n-2$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\rank M &\geq& 4 + \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} \frac{3q}{2}+1 & \mbox{$n$ even}\\
\frac{3q+1}{2}+1 & \mbox{$n$ odd}\end{array}\right.\\
&=& \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} \frac{3n+2}{2}+1&\mbox{$n$ even}\\
\frac{3n+3}{2}+1& \mbox{$n$ odd}\end{array}\right. \end{aligned}$$ which is greater than minimum, and therefore impossible.
Thus we need only consider the case where every pair of triples spans six dimensions.
Let ${\cal T}=\{T_{j_1},T_{j_2},\ldots,T_{j_m}\}$ be a set of $m$ triples minimal with respect to the property $$\dim \langle T_{j_1},T_{j_2},\ldots,T_{j_m}\rangle < 3m$$ (“minimal” means that ${\cal T}$ contains no proper subset of triples which satisfy the given property; thus, any subset of $m'<m$ triples of ${\cal T}$ has “full” span of $3m'$ dimensions). We know such a ${\cal T}$ exists since the rank of $M$ is minimum. Apply \[mainpropgen\] to get a subset $K\subseteq\{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_m\}$ with some even positive number $m'$ of elements and vectors ${\left| \zeta_k \right\rangle},{\left| \eta_k \right\rangle}$ in $T_k$ for $k\in K$. Let $\displaystyle
{\cal T}'=\bigcup_{k\in K} T_k$ and let ${\cal S}={\cal C}\setminus {\cal T}'$ be the union of the $q=n-m'$ triples not in ${\cal T}'$ together with the rightmost column $-i{\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ of $M$.
If $m'<m$, the minimality of ${\cal T}$ guarantees that the $2m'$ vectors $\{{\left| \zeta_{k} \right\rangle},{\left| \eta_{k} \right\rangle}\}_{k\in K} $ are independent, so the rank of $M$ is at least (apply \[minrankMstrong\] to ${\cal S}$ with $q=n-m'$) $$\begin{aligned}
\rank M &\geq& 2m' + \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} \frac{3q}{2}+1 & \mbox{$n$ even}\\
\frac{3q+1}{2}+1 & \mbox{$n$ odd}\end{array}\right.\\
&=& \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} \frac{3n+m'}{2}+1&\mbox{$n$ even}\\
\frac{3n+1+m'}{2}+1& \mbox{$n$ odd}\end{array}\right. \end{aligned}$$ which is greater than minimum, so this case cannot occur.
If $m'=m$, the minimality of ${\cal T}$ guarantees that at least $2(m'-1)$ of the vectors in $\{{\left| \zeta_{k} \right\rangle},{\left| \eta_{k} \right\rangle}\}_{k\in K} $ are independent, so the rank of $M$ is at least $$\begin{aligned}
\rank M &\geq& 2(m'-1) + \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} \frac{3q}{2}+1 & \mbox{$n$ even}\\
\frac{3q+1}{2}+1 & \mbox{$n$ odd}\end{array}\right.\\
&=& \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} \frac{3n+m'-4}{2}+1&\mbox{$n$ even}\\
\frac{3n+1+m'-4}{2}+1& \mbox{$n$ odd}\end{array}\right.. \end{aligned}$$ If $m'>4$, this is greater than minimum, so we may assume that $m'=m\leq
4$.
We rule out the possibility $m=2$ since every pair of triples spans six dimensions, so the only remaining case is $m'=m=4$. We may further assume that [*every*]{} minimal set of triples that has less than full span consists of $m=4$ triples, and that applying \[mainpropgen\] to such a set yields $m'=4$. Thus the columns of $M$ decompose into a disjoint union $${\cal C} = {\cal S}_0 \cup {\cal T}_1 \cup {\cal T}_2 \cup \cdots \cup
{\cal T}_t$$ where each ${\cal T}_i$ is a union of four triples for which applying \[mainpropgen\] yields six independent vectors orthogonal to $\langle {\cal C}\setminus {\cal T}_i\rangle$, and ${\cal S}_0$ is a union of $q=n-4t$ triples together with the rightmost column $-i{\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ of $M$ such that the span of the union of the triples in ${\cal S}_0$ is $3q$ dimensional.
We consider the cases $q \geq 2$, $q=0$, and finally $q=1$.
If $q\geq 2$ then we have $$\rank M \geq 6t + 3q =
6\left(\frac{n-q}{4}\right)+3q=\frac{3n+3q}{2}$$ which is greater than minimum, so this case cannot occur.
If $q=0$ or $q=1$, let ${\cal S}_1={\cal S}_0 \cup {\cal T}_1$ and consider the disjoint union $${\cal C} = {\cal S}_1 \cup {\cal T}_2 \cup \cdots \cup
{\cal T}_t$$ of the set ${\cal S}_1$ with $t'=t-1$ unions of four triples $\{{\cal
T}_i\}_{i=2}^t$.
If $q=0$, ${\cal S}_1$ has a span of at least nine dimensions since any three of the triples in ${\cal T}_1$ have full span. We have $$\rank M \geq 9 + 6t' = 9 + 6\left(\frac{n-4}{4}\right) =
\frac{3n+6}{2}$$ which is greater than minimum, so this case cannot occur.
If $q=1$, then ${\cal S}_1$ is the union of five triples together with the rightmost column $-i{\left| \psi \right\rangle}$. If any subset of four of those five triples has full span, then we have $$\rank M \geq 12 + 6t' = 12 + 6\left(\frac{n-5}{4}\right) =
\frac{3n+9}{2}$$ which is greater than minimum, so it must be the case that [*all*]{} subsets of four triples have less than full span, so any subset of four triples contributes six independent vectors orthogonal to the remaining triple and the rightmost column $-i{\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ of $M$. If any one of the qubits corresponding to one of the five triples is [*not*]{} unentangled, then by \[trippluslonelyspan3\] we have $$\rank M \geq 6 + 4 + 6t' = 10 + 6\left(\frac{n-5}{4}\right) =
\frac{3n+5}{2}$$ which is greater than minimum, so it must be the case that [*all*]{} five qubits are unentangled. But then by \[unentrank\] we have $$\rank M \geq 11 + 6t' = 11 + 6\left(\frac{n-5}{4}\right) =
\frac{3n+7}{2}$$ which is greater than minimum.
Since all possible cases lead to contradictions, we conclude that some pair of triples must have a three dimensional span.
[Corollary]{}[decompcor]{} Any state which has minimum orbit dimension is a product of singlets when $n$ is even, together with an unentangled qubit when $n$ is odd.
Let ${\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ be a state vector for a state with minimum orbit dimension, with associated matrix $M$. Apply Lemma \[minrankimpliessinglet\] to $M$ to get a pair of triples whose span is three dimensional. By \[twotripspan3factors\], ${\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ factors as a product of a singlet in those two qubits times an $(n-2)$-qubit state, say, with state vector ${\left| \psi_1 \right\rangle}$, in the remaining qubits. Let $M_1$ be the matrix associated to ${\left| \psi_1 \right\rangle}$. By \[bipartiteranksadd\] (i), $M_1$ also has minimum rank. Repeating this reasoning yields a sequence ${\left| \psi \right\rangle},{\left| \psi_1 \right\rangle},{\left| \psi_2 \right\rangle},\ldots$ which eventually exhausts all the qubits of ${\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ unless $n$ is odd, in which case a single unentangled qubit remains.
Next we classify states with minimum orbit dimension up to local unitary equivalence.
[Proposition]{}[sepsingprod]{} [Separation of singlet products:]{} Products of singlets are local unitary equivalent if and only if the choices of entangled pairs are the same in each product.
If ${\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ is a product of singlets for which some pair of qubits, say qubits 1 and 2, forms a singlet, then ${\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ is of the form ${\left| \alpha \right\rangle}\otimes {\left| \beta \right\rangle}$, where ${\left| \alpha \right\rangle}$ is a singlet in qubits 1 and 2. Clearly, any state local unitary equivalent to ${\left| \psi \right\rangle}$ is also of this form.
The following classification theorem summarizes the results of this section.
[Theorem]{}[minorbclassthm]{} [Classification of states with minimum orbit dimension:]{} An $n$-qubit pure state has minimum orbit dimension $3n/2$ ($n$ even) or $(3n+1)/2$ ($n$ odd) if and only if it is a product of singlets, together with an unentangled qubit for $n$ odd. Furthermore, two of these states which do not have the same choices for pairs of entangled qubits are not local unitary equivalent.
Conclusion
==========
The classification of types of quantum entanglement is a difficult but central problem in the field of quantum information. Entanglement types partially distinguish themselves by their local unitary orbit and their orbit dimension. As an integer that can be readily calculated for a given quantum state, orbit dimension is a convenient LU invariant. It provides a useful “first stratification” of quantum state space, which suggests a two-step program for entanglement classification. The first step is to understand the possible orbit dimensions for a composite quantum system, and the second step is to understand the types of entanglement that occur in each orbit dimension. For pure states of $n$-qubits, the first step was achieved in [@lyonswalck]. The present work completes the second step for the orbits of minimum dimension. In particular, states with minimum orbit dimension are precisely products of pairs of qubits, each pair in a singlet state (or LU equivalent). While there is much work left to be done in the second step of the classification program, it is worth remarking that the present results, dealing with an arbitrary number of qubits, give some hope that a meaningful classification of entanglement for $n$ qubits is possible.
Reduced orbit dimension states appear to be the most interesting states. Carteret and Sudbery [@carteret00a] pointed out that reduced orbit dimension states (which they call “exceptional states”) must have extreme values of the local unitary invariants that are used in the construction of all measures of entanglement. They concluded that reduced orbit dimension states should be expected to be particularly interesting and important. Subsequent studies have confirmed this expectation. All of the “famous” states that theorists use for examples and that experimentalists try to exhibit in the laboratory have reduced orbit dimension (examples include the EPR singlet state, the GHZ state, unentangled states, the W state, and $n$-cat states). Both the most entangled and the least entangled states states have reduced orbit dimension.
Orbit dimension provides a useful first step in entanglement classification, but the numerical value of orbit dimension, beyond providing a sense of how rare an entanglement type is, does not carry a simple physical meaning. For example, in the case of pure three-qubit states [@carteret00a; @walck], the minimum orbit dimension is 5 and the maximum orbit dimension is 9. States with orbit dimension 5 consist only of products of a singlet pair and a qubit, orbit dimension 6 contains the unentangled states, orbit dimension 7 contains GHZ states as well as products of generic two-qubit states with an unentangled qubit, orbit dimension 8 contains the W state, and orbit dimension 9 contains all generic states.
Minimum orbit dimension states have the most symmetry with respect to local transformations in that they remain invariant under a larger class of transformations than any other states. They are maximal symmetry generalizations of the spin singlet state, which is invariant (as a quantum state, not an entanglement type) to any rotation applied identically to both spins. The present result, that the $n$-qubit maximal symmetry generalizations of the two-qubit singlet state are themselves products of singlets, shows a special role for the two-qubit singlet state in the theory of $n$-qubit quantum entanglement.
Linden, Popescu, and Wootters [@linden02a; @linden02b] have shown that almost all pure $n$-qubit quantum states lack essential $n$-qubit quantum entanglement in the sense that they can be reconstructed from their reduced density matrices. It appears likely (and is known in the three-qubit case) that states with essential $n$-qubit entanglement are found among the reduced orbit dimension states. The present work shows that minimum orbit dimension states do not exhibit essential $n$-qubit entanglement for $n \geq 3$. Rather, minimum orbit dimension states maximize pairwise entanglement. We conjecture that states with minimum orbit dimension among *non-product* states have essential $n$-qubit entanglement in the sense of [@linden02a; @linden02b].
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank the anonymous referees for their helpful suggestions. Co-author Walck thanks the Research Corporation for their support.
Equation and statement numbers in [@lyonswalck]
===============================================
Table 1 gives a list of equation and statement numbers in the present paper with their matching numbers in [@lyonswalck].
\[statenumtable\]
[|c|c|]{}number in this paper & number in [@lyonswalck]\
(\[akact\]) & (10)\
(\[bkact\]) & (11)\
(\[ckact\]) & (12)\
(4) & (13)\
(5) & (1)\
\[orbitdimasrank\] & 3.3\
(6) & (14)\
\[triplesprop\] & 5.1\
\[mainpropgen\] & 6.1\
\[twocommon\] & 5.3\
\[twocommongen\] & 6.2\
\[minrankM\] & 7.2\
\[minorbthmstmnt\] & 7.1\
[10]{}
Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang. . Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Stan Gudder. Quantum computation. , 110(3):181–201, 2003.
N. Linden and S. Popescu. On multi-particle entanglement. , 46:567–578, 1998. e-print quant-ph/9711016.
N. Linden, S. Popescu, and A. Sudbery. Non-local properties of multi-particle density matrices. , 83:243–247, 1999. e-print quant-ph/9801076.
A. Ac[í]{}n, A. Andrianov, L. Costa, E. Jan[é]{}, J. I. Latorre, and R. Tarrach. Generalized [S]{}chmidt decomposition and classification of three-quantum-bit states. , 85:1560, 2000. e-print quant-ph/0003050.
A. Ac[í]{}n, A. Andrianov, E. Jan[é]{}, and R. Tarrach. Three-qubit pure-state canonical forms. , 34:6725, 2001. e-print quant-ph/0009107.
H. A. Carteret and A. Sudbery. Local symmetry properties of pure 3-qubit states. , 33:4981–5002, 2000. e-print quant-ph/0001091.
David W. Lyons and Scott N. Walck. Minimum orbit dimension for local unitary action on $n$-qubit pure states. 46(10):102106, 2005. e-print quant-ph/0503052
Scott N. Walck, James K. Glasbrenner, Matthew H. Lochman, and Shawn A. Hilbert. Topology of the three-qubit space of entanglement types. 72:052324, 2005. e-print quant-ph/0507208
N. Linden, S. Popescu, and W. K. Wootters. Almost Every Pure State of Three Qubits Is Completely Determined by Its Two-Particle Reduced Density Matrices. 89:207901, 2002.
N. Linden and W. K. Wootters. The Parts Determine the Whole in a Generic Pure Quantum State. 89:277906, 2002.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We calculate the absorption efficiencies of composite silicate grains with inclusions of graphite and silicon carbide in the spectral range 5–25$\rm \mu m$. We study the variation in absorption profiles with volume fractions of inclusions. In particular we study the variation in the wavelength of peak absorption at 10 and 18$\rm \mu m$. We also study the variation of the absorption of porous silicate grains. We use the absorption efficiencies to calculate the infrared flux at various dust temperatures and compare with the observed infrared emission flux from the circumstellar dust around some M-Type & AGB stars obtained from IRAS and a few stars from Spitzer satellite. We interpret the observed data in terms of the circumstellar dust grain sizes; shape; composition and dust temperature.'
author:
- |
Ranjan Gupta$^1$[^1], Dipak B. Vaidya$^2$ and Rajeshwari Dutta $^1$\
1. IUCAA, Post Bag 4, Ganeshkhind, Pune-411007, India\
2. Gujarat College, Ahmedabad-380006, India\
bibliography:
- 'gupta.bib'
date: 'Received on 2016 April 25; Accepted on 2016 July 13 '
title: Composite Circumstellar Dust Grains
---
\[firstpage\]
Circumstellar Dust: dust – infrared emission; stars: circumstellar matter
Introduction
============
In general, the composition of circumstellar dust around evolved stars are studied from observations in the near and mid-infrared spectroscopy of absorption and emission features. Emission from the characteristic 10 and 18$\rm \mu m$ features, which arise from the bending and stretching modes of silicate grains, were first identified in the spectra of oxygen rich giants and super giants, [@woolf69], [@woolf73], [@bode88]. [@little] have analyzed about 450 IRAS-LRS spectra of M Mira variables to determine the morphology of the emission features, found near 10$\rm \mu m$ and to correlate the shape of this feature with period, mass loss rates and other parameters of the stars. [@simp] has analyzed the shape of the silicate dust features of 117 stars using spherical dust shell models. Evolved stars have distinctive IR spectra according to C/O abundance ratio e.g. [@aitken], [@cohen]. It is to be noted, however, that among the stars of the principal condensates in the two environments, amorphous carbon and silicates, only those with silicate environments have been detected directly. Amorphous carbon lacks strong IR resonances, although most of the continuum emission from carbon stars is presumably attributed arising from amorphous carbon, [@groen]. Silicon Carbide (SiC) emission at 11.3$\rm \mu m$ is the only spectral feature of dust commonly observed in normal C-type red giants. However, as noted by [@lorenz], SiC contributes only 10% or less of the dust in such objects. Although, the correlation between the C/O abundance ratio and the form of the IR spectrum is not perfect, the dust features are sometimes used as diagnostic of the C/O abundance ratios in stars. In some cases, silicate emission features are detected in stars classified as C rich e.g. [@little86], [@waters]. Their analysis indicates that the peak wavelength, strength and shape of the silicate features are very important to obtain the exact composition, sizes and shapes of the silicate grains. Thus, in order to interpret the observed silicate emission, we must compare the observed data with various silicate based models. In this paper, we have systematically analyzed the spectra of about 700 IRAS-LRS stars and compared them with composite dust grain models. We have also analyzed four other M-type & AGB stars observed by Spitzer satellite.
The grains flowing out of the stars are most likely to be non-spherical and inhomogeneous, porous, fluffy and composites of many very small particles due to grain-grain collisions, dust-gas interactions and various other processes. Further, observations from space and balloon probes show that, in general, dust grains are porous, fluffy and composites of many very small grains glued together, see [@brown]; [@kohler]; [@lasue] and [@levas]. Since there is no exact theory to study the scattering properties of these composite grains, various approximation methods are used for formulating models of electromagnetic scattering by these grains, such as EMA (Effective Medium Approximation), DDA (Discrete Dipole Approximation), etc. In EMA the optical properties (refractive index, dielectric constant) of a small composite particle, comprising a mixture of two or more materials, are approximated by a single averaged optical constant and then Mie theory or T-Matrix is used to calculate absorption cross sections for spherical/non-spherical particles. Basically, the inhomogeneous particle is replaced by a homogeneous one with some average effective dielectric function. The effects related to the fluctuations of the dielectric function within the inhomogeneous structures cannot be treated by this approach. For details on EMA, refer to [@bohren].
On the other hand, DDA takes into account irregular shape effects, surface roughness and internal structure of dust grains. DDA is computationally more rigorous than EMA. (For a discussion and comparison of DDA and EMA methods, including the limitations of EMA, see [@bazel], [@perrin90a], [@perrin90b], [@ossen] and [@wolff1994]. The DDA, which was first proposed by [@purcell], represents a composite grain of arbitrary shape as a finite array of dipole elements. Each dipole has an oscillating polarization in response to both the incident radiation and the electric fields of the other dipoles in the array, and the superposition of dipole polarizations leads to extinction and scattering cross sections. For a detailed description of DDA, see [@draine1988]. In an earlier paper by [@vaidya2011], the effects of inclusions and porosities on the 10 and 18$\rm \mu m$ features were studied for the average observed IRAS spectra. In this paper, we use both DDA and EMA-T-Matrix to study the absorption properties of the composite grains consisting of host silicate spheroidal grains and inclusions of graphite or silicon carbide (SiC). The effects of inclusions and porosities, grain size and axial ratio (AR) on the absorption efficiencies of the grains in the wavelength range 5–25 $\rm \mu m$ have been studied. In particular, we have systematically studied the 10$\rm \mu m$ silicate feature as a function of the volume fraction of the inclusions. Using the absorption efficiencies of these composite grains for a power law grain size distribution ([@mathis1977]), the infrared fluxes for these grain models were calculated at various dust temperatures (T=200–400K). The infrared flux curves obtained from the models were then compared with the observed infrared emission curves of circumstellar dust around 700 oxygen-rich M-type and AGB stars, obtained by IRAS and Spitzer satellites. [@kessler2006] have used opacities for distribution of hollow spheres (DHS) of silicate shells [@min05] and these models have been compared with circumstellar dust around a few stars observed by Spitzer satellite. The DHS method averages the scattering and absorption/emission cross sections of the set of hollow spheres. [@smolder] have used silicates and gehlenite to study the 10 and 18$\rm \mu m$ peaks in circumstellar dusts around S-type stars obtained by Spitzer satellite. Very recently, [@siber] have used a mixture of amorphous carbon and silicate dust models to interpret interstellar extinction, absorption, emission and polarization in the diffused interstellar medium. [@mathis] and [@vosh2006] have used amorphous carbon with silicate in their composite grain model. [@zubko] have reviewed various dust models including composite silicate-graphite grain model and they have used EMA-T-Matrix method to calculate extinction efficiencies composite grains. Using T-Matrix based method, [@iati] have studied optical properties of composite interstellar grains. [@draine-li], have used silicate-graphite-PAH model to study the infra-red emission from interstellar dust in the post-Spitzer era. Using a radiative transfer model, [@kirch] have studied the effect of dust porosity on the appearance of proto-planetary disks.
A description of the composite grain models used is given in Section 2. In Section 3, the results of the studies on the absorption efficiencies of the grain models are presented. Section 4 provides results of the comparison of the model curves with the observed IR fluxes obtained by IRAS and Spitzer satellites. The conclusions are presented in Section 5.
Composite Grain Models
======================
The absorption efficiencies $\rm Q_{abs}$ of composite grains, made up of a host silicate oblate spheroid and inclusions of graphite/silicon carbide and voids for porous silicate grains, for three axial ratios, in the spectral region 5–25$\rm \mu m$, are computed using the DDA and EMA-T-Matrix methods. The details on these composite grain models using DDA are provided in [@vaidya2007], [@vaidya2009] and [@vaidya2011].
We have selected oblate (axial ratio $>$ 1) spheroid since, it provides a good fit to the observed polarization across the 10$\rm \mu m$ feature [@henning1993], [@kim]. Earlier, [@draine1984] have also used oblate silicate spheroids to model interstellar grains. [@gupta2005] have also shown that the interstellar extinction curves obtained with oblate spheroidal grain models fit best with the observed interstellar extinction.
[*Discrete Dipole Approximation (DDA) based grain models:*]{}
Composite spheroidal grain models containing N (number of dipoles) = 9640, 25896 and 14440 dipoles (corresponding to axial ratios AR = 1.33, 1.5 and 2.0 respectively), each carved out from $32 \times 24 \times 24, 48\times 32\times 32$ and $48\times 24\times 24$ dipole sites respectively are used. Sites outside the spheroid are set to be vacuum and sites inside are assigned to be the host material. The size of the inclusion is given in terms of the number of dipoles ’n’ across the diameter of an inclusion, e.g. n = 152 dipoles for composite grain model with N = 9640, i.e. AR = 1.33 and volume fraction of f=0.1. Please see Table 1 in [@vaidya2011] and also [@chylek2000]. The DDA code generates a three dimensional matrix, specifying the material type at each dipole site. There are two validity criteria for DDA (see e.g. [@wolff1994]); viz. (i) $\rm |m|kd \leq 1$, where m is the complex refractive index of the material; k=$\rm \pi/\lambda$ is the wavenumber and d is the lattice dispersion spacing and (ii) d should be small enough (N should be sufficiently large) to describe the shape of the particle satisfactorily. For all the composite grain models, viz. N=9640; 14440 & 25896; and for all grain sizes 0.005-0.250$\mu $ in the wavelength range 5–25$\rm \mu m$ considered in the present study, we have checked that the DDA validity criteria are satisfied. Details on the computer code and the corresponding modification to the DDSCAT 6.1 code [@draineflatau2003] are given in [@vaidya2001] and [@gupta2005].
[*Effective Medium Approximation (EMA-T-Matrix) based models:*]{}
We have also obtained absorption efficiencies for composite grains using the combination of EMA-T-Matrix calculations. In EMA, a mixing rule (e.g. Maxwell-Garnet or Bruggman see: [@bohren]) is used to obtain the average refractive index (by using the optical constants of two materials) of the composite grain. We have used Maxwell-Garnet mixing rule. The absorption efficiencies of the composite grains are calculated using the T-Matrix code given by [@mish2002]. Earlier, [@gupta2005] and [@vaidya2009] have used EMA-T-Matrix based method to study scattering properties of composite grains. For a discussion on various EMA mixing rules see [@bohren].
[*Grain size and size distribution:*]{}
We have used the power-law MRN, [@mathis1977], dust grain size distribution:
n(a) $\rm \propto a^{-q} (a_{min} < a < a_{max})$,
where a is the effective radius. This law states that the number of dust grains per unit volume having radius between a and a + da, is proportional to $a^{-q}$. An acceptable fit to the observed data is obtained with values of $\rm a_{min} = 0.005 \mu, a_{max} = 0.250 \mu$ and q = 3.5. If the semi-major and semi-minor axes are denoted by x/2 and y/2 respectively, then $\rm a^3=(x/2)(y/2)^2$, where ’a’ is the radius of the equivalent sphere, whose volume is the same as that of the spheroid.
[*Types of Inclusions:*]{}
For the composite grain models, we have used the host silicate spheroid with graphite or silicon carbide (SiC) inclusions. Graphite is selected as inclusions, since it explains the observed bump at 2175Å in the UV region of the extinction curve [@draine1988]. [@odon] and [@henning1993] have also used graphite inclusions in the composite grain models. [@min07], [@min08] have used SiC as inclusions to study the 10$\rm \mu m$ silicate feature.
We have also used porous silicate grain models, as the circumstellar grains are likely to be porous and fluffy, [@kohler] and [@vosh2005].
The complex refractive indices for silicates and graphite were obtained from [@draine2003]. The optical constants for SiC were obtained from [@pegourie1988]. The volume fractions of the inclusions are denoted as f = 0.04, 0.06, 0.08, 0.1, 0.2 & 0.30 etc.
[*Orientation:*]{}
For randomly oriented spheroidal grains, the scattering properties of the composite grains have to be averaged over all of the possible orientations. In the present study, we have used three values for each of the orientation parameters and averaging is done over 27 different orientations for all DDA computations (see [@wolff1994] & [@wolff1998]).
For an illustration of a composite grain model with N = 14440 (total 14440 dipoles with 11 inclusions of 224 dipoles per inclusion); see Fig.1a and Fig1b.
Model Absorption Curves and Absorption Efficiency of Composite Grains
=====================================================================
We have calculated the absorption efficiencies for the composite grain models with spheroidal silicates as host and graphite/or silicon carbide inclusions. The composite grain models with graphite inclusions have been used earlier by [@ossen], [@odon], [@henning1993], [@vaidya2011] and with SiC by [@kessler2006], [@min08] and [@siber]. We have also calculated the absorption efficiency for the porous silicate grains. Porosity ’P’ is defined as $\rm P=1-V_{solid}/V_{total}$; where $\rm V_{solid}$ is the number of dipoles of the material and $\rm V_{total}$ is the total number of dipoles in the spheroid; accordingly the porosity varies from 1–30% for the spheroidal grains ([@green] and [@vaidya1997]). Earlier, porous silicate grains have also been used by [@li] for modeling the dust around AGN stars. [@vosh2013] have studied the effect of porosities on the 10$\rm \mu m$ silicate feature. Using [@kohler], have calculated radiation pressure cross-sections on porous (porosities 30–90%) astronomical spherical silicate grains in the circumstellar dust shells around $\beta$-Pictoris, Vega & Formalhaut stars. [@kohler] have also used the combination of EMA and Mie theory and calculated the radiation pressure cross-sections of porous silicate grains and compared with the DDA results. They have also noted that the DDA method is time consuming.
The variation in absorption efficiencies $\rm Q_{abs}$ of the composite grains with different volume fractions (0.04, 0.10,...0.3) of the inclusions of Silicon Carbide (SiC) for the three different axial ratios 1.33, 1.5 and 2.0, in the wavelength range 5–25$\rm \mu m$ for the grain size a = 0.10$\rm \mu$ is shown in Figs. 2(a, b & c). It is seen that for the composite grain models with inclusions of SiC, the strength of both the 10 and 18$\rm \mu m$ absorption peaks decreases with increase in the volume fractions. It is to be noted that for higher volume fractions 0.3 of SiC inclusions, the the 10$\rm \mu m$ feature is modified considerably.
{width="84mm"}
We have also computed absorption efficiencies of the composite grains using EMA-T-Matrix based calculations. In Figs. 3(a, b & c), we show the absorption profiles of composite grains with three SiC inclusions. It is seen that the absorption efficiencies increase with volume fraction of SiC and there is no appreciable shift in the wavelength of peak absorption at 10$\rm \mu m$ feature. In our earlier study [@vaidya2011], using DDA, we have shown the variation of absorption efficiencies of composite grains with inclusions of graphite and porous silicate grains.
{width="84mm"}
In Fig.4, we compare the absorption efficiencies of the composite grains with inclusions of graphite and porous grains obtained using DDA and EMA-T-Matrix methods. It is seen in Fig 4 (a) & (c) the absorption efficiencies decrease as the volume fractions of graphite increases for both DDA & EMA-T-Matrix. The absorption efficiencies for porous silicate grains as seen in Fig. 4 (b) for DDA decreases with increasing inclusion fraction whereas for EMA-T-Matrix in 4 (d) there is no appreciable change. Figure 5 shows how the ratio between $\rm Q_{abs}$ calculated from DDA and EMA-T-Matrix deviate and it clearly shows that for higher volume fractions, the ratio deviations are more prominent around the 15$\rm \mu m$ region.
The absorption efficiencies obtained using EMA-T-Matrix calculations and DDA do not agree because the EMA method does not take into account the inhomogeneities within the grains (internal structure, surface roughness etc see [@wolff1998] and the material interfaces and shapes are smeared out into the homogeneous ’average mixture’; thus the refractive index using EMA is an average one and the resulting absorption efficiency is not reliable, [@saija2001]. However, EMA-T-Matrix method is still quite useful since the application of DDA poses a computational challenge for large size parameter $\rm X=2 \pi a/\lambda > 20$ and large complex refractive index m. Further, EMA allows to examine applicability of several mixing rules see e.g. [@wolff1998]; [@chylek2000]; [@saija2001]; [@vosh2005] and [@vosh2006].
{width="84mm"}
{width="84mm"}
IR Emission from Dust and Comparison with Observed Data
=======================================================
The stars which have evolved from the main sequence and have entered the giant phase of their evolution are a major source of dust grains in the galactic interstellar medium. Such stars have oxygen-rich material (e.g. olivine) over abundant relative to carbon, and therefore, produce silicates and show strong feature at 10$\rm \mu m$. The 10$\rm \mu m$ feature is identified with the Si–O bond, from stretching mode. These materials (amorphous silicates, e.g. olivines and pyroxenes) also show a weaker feature at 18$\rm \mu m$ resulting from O–Si–O bending mode, [@little] and [@whitt]. These features can be present in either emission or absorption spectra depending on the optical depth of the circumstellar shell.
The Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS) had an instrument called the Low Resolution Spectrometer (LRS), which measured spectra of the brighter ($>$ 10Jy) point sources (about 50,000), between 7.7 and 22.6$\rm \mu m$, with a resolution varying from 20 to 60. A total of 5425 objects with better quality spectra were included in the Atlas of Low-Resolution IRAS Spectra, [@olnon]. Two thousand bright sources from the Atlas were classified into 17 different classes based on their spectral morphology using Artificial Neural Network (ANN) scheme [@gupta2004]. Objects belonging to Class 6 of this classification, which are O–rich AGB stars with strong silicate emission feature at 10$\rm \mu m$, are considered for this paper. This class contains the largest number of objects (732) amongst all the classes.
Using the absorption efficiencies $\rm Q_{abs}$ of the composite grains, the infrared flux, $\rm F_{\lambda}$ at various dust temperatures is calculated using the relation, $\rm F_{\lambda} = Q_{abs} B_{\lambda}(T)$ at dust temperature T in K, and $\rm B_{\lambda}$ is the Planck function. This relation is valid only if the silicate emission region is optically thin, [@simp], [@ossen92], & [@li]. It is also assumed that the dust is isothermal and the grains behave as perfect black bodies. As mentioned earlier in Section 2, we have used a MRN (power law) grain size distribution with $\rm a_{min}=0.005\mu$ and $\rm a_{max}=0.250\mu$, [@mathis1977] for all the composite grain models to compare the observed IR fluxes. The composite grain model with larger grain size distribution in the range a=0.1 to 1.0$\rm \mu$ did not match the observed curves satisfactorily. As noted by [@sylv], [@teles], [@back], [@li1998], [@kriv] and [@car], small grain sizes are expected from the IR data and the profile of the silicate emission at 10$\rm \mu m$. In Figure 6, we show the variation of the infrared flux for a temperature range of 200–400K for composite grains with 10% SiC inclusions, and size integration of grain sizes from 0.005 to 0.250 $\rm \mu$ by both DDA amd EMA-T-Matrix methods. It is seen that the flux decreases as the dust temperature increases.
{width="84mm"}
{width="84mm"}
The observed IRAS-LRS curves obtained for circumstellar dust around 700 oxygen rich M-type stars, are compared with the calculated infrared fluxes, $\rm F_{\lambda}$, for the composite grain models. $\chi^{2}$ minimization method is used to fit the observed data with the calculated infrared fluxes for the composite grain models models. For details on the $\chi^{2}$ method see [@vaidya2007] & [@vaidya2011]. An error bar of 10% on the data is used, [@olnon]. In Fig. 7 histogram, we show the number of stars with the absorption band at 10$\rm \mu m$. It is seen that the maximum number of stars have peak wavelength range between 9.4 & 9.8 $\rm \mu m$.
The best fit dust temperature is computed for each star along with the errors in temperature over a confidence level of 90%.
Some of the best fit infrared emission flux curves, for the composite grain models are shown in Fig. 8 with graphite; porous and SiC inclusions & porous silicate grains. The smooth curves represent the model data, while the points with error bars represent the observed data. The axial ratio and the dust temperature for the best fit grain model are also shown in the plots.
{width="84mm"}
We also compare the observed IRAS-LRS flux data with best fit models using EMA-T-Matrix calculations in Fig. 9.
{width="84mm"}
Table 1 shows the detailed parameters for composite grain and porous silicate grain models for some of the best fits of these models to a set of 10 IRAS stars, each with their IRAS catalogue No.; corresponding LRS No.; the best fit minimum $\chi^{2}$ value; estimated temperature; model evaluated flux ratio (R=Flux(18$\rm \mu$)/Flux(10$\rm \mu$)); observed flux ratio (R) and the corresponding best fit DDA model. Table 2 shows the best fit results with EMA-T-Matrix model.
IRAS No. LRS No. Min.$\chi^{2}$ T(K) Model R Obs.R BestFitModel
------------ --------- ---------------- ------- --------- ------- --------------
09235-2347 lrs1579 0.1515 300.0 0.180 0.180 2.00si0.08gr
17119+0859 lrs1915 0.1710 285.0 0.202 0.203 2.00si0.08gr
10359-5955 lrs1550 0.1863 345.0 0.146 0.149 2.00si0.1por
20484-7202 lrs1670 0.1905 295.0 0.186 0.176 2.00si0.1gr
18595-3947 lrs1975 0.1963 290.0 0.182 0.173 2.00si0.3gr
19240+3615 lrs1534 0.2002 275.0 0.218 0.213 2.00si0.1gr
19244+1115 lrs1992 0.2057 220.0 0.390 0.379 2.00si0.2gr
11525-5057 lrs1482 0.2189 295.0 0.187 0.178 2.00si0.08gr
16340-4634 lrs1946 0.2208 265.0 0.232 0.234 2.00si0.2gr
06297+4045 lrs1617 0.2225 260.0 0.244 0.244 2.00si0.2gr
IRAS No. LRS No. Min.$\chi^{2}$ T(K) Model R Obs.R BestFitModel
------------ --------- ---------------- ------- --------- ------- ---------------
10359-5955 lrs1550 0.1500 345.0 0.146 0.149 2.00si0.08por
09235-2347 lrs1579 0.1887 310.0 0.180 0.180 2.00si0.08por
17119+0859 lrs1915 0.2043 285.0 0.205 0.203 1.50si0.08por
02351-2711 lrs1884 0.2160 330.0 0.159 0.156 2.00si0.08por
19240+3615 lrs1534 0.2405 270.0 0.222 0.213 1.33si0.1sic
11525-5057 lrs1482 0.2429 295.0 0.190 0.178 1.50si0.08por
17484-0800 lrs1712 0.2495 315.0 0.174 0.166 2.00si0.08por
15255+1944 lrs1764 0.2528 290.0 0.194 0.194 1.33si0.08por
08124-4133 lrs1734 0.2544 295.0 0.191 0.188 1.50si0.3sic
21069-3843 lrs1697 0.2556 305.0 0.162 0.164 1.50si0.04gr
The results in Figs. 8 & 9, and Tables 1 & 2, show that the composite grain models with graphite inclusions fit the observed fluxes reasonably well, whereas the porous silicate models and the composite grain models with inclusions of SiC do not fit the observed curves satisfactorily, as indicated by the $\chi^{2}$ values.
Further, these results indicate that the temperature range of 250–350K derived from the grain models give satisfactory fit to the observed data. Stars giving good fits with the composite grain models with graphite & SiC inclusions have temperatures between 270 and 300K, while those with the porous silicate grain models give the best fit dust temperature between 300 and 370K. The estimated temperature errors are within 10K.
We have also used the data from the Infrared Spectrograph IRS ([@houck]); on board the Spitzer Space Telescope, [@werner] and extracted the spectrum of four M-type and AGB stars using the Cornell Atlas of Spitzer/IRS Sources (CASSIS) extraction procedure ([@lebout]). Figure 10 shows model fits with observed Spitzer data in the spectral range of 8-13$\rm \mu m$ for M-type stars and one AGB star (see [@mant]). It is seen that the composite grain models or porous silicate grain models do not fit the observed Spitzer fluxes satisfactorily. The derived temperature range in these objects is around 220–250K. The stars in panels (a) and (b) fit to the composite grains with graphite inclusions and porous silicates respectively whereas the stars in panels (c) and (d) show the best fit to the composite grain models with SiC inclusions and seem to have been affected by the SiC feature at 11.3$\rm \mu m$. [@smolder] have used silicate grains with gehlenite grain models to fit the observed spectra of a few stars obtained by Spitzer, and have also noted that grain models with a component of SiC are not suitable to fit the M-type stars. We note here that we need to analyze larger sample of M-type and AGB stars observed by Spitzer satellite.
{width="84mm"}
[@min08] have used grain models with mixture of SiC and Si to interpret the observed 10$\rm \mu m$ absorption band and they have noted that the shape of SiC resonance is very sensitive to the shape of the SiC grain in the region of 10$\rm \mu m$ band. In Figs. 11 (a), (b) & (c) we show the effect of grain shape (axial ratio AR) on the silicate and SiC features at 10 and 11.3$\rm \mu m$ respectively. It is seen that the 10.0$\rm \mu m$ silicate feature is not affected by the grain shape, whereas, 11.3$\rm \mu m$ SiC feature shows variation with the grain shape (see Fig. 11 b & c).
{width="84mm"}
[*Flux Ratio R in the Silicate Emission:*]{}
We have also calculated the flux ratio R=Flux(18$\rm \mu$)/Flux(10$\rm \mu$) for all the composite grain models.
In our earlier study [@vaidya2011], we had shown that, in general, the flux ratio R decreases with the dust temperature for the composite grains with graphite inclusions and porous silicate grain models, it varies between $\sim$0.6 at 200K and 0.2 at 300K. We had also shown that for the composite grain models with graphite inclusions, the ratio R decreases with the volume fraction of the inclusions, whereas it increases with the porosities. [@henning1993] did not find any variation either with graphite inclusions or with the porosities. In Tables 1, 2 & 3, we show the flux ratio for the best fit models. In this paper, we also show R for the composite grains with SiC inclusions as depicted in Table 3. It is seen that the R decreases with the dust temperature which is consistent with the earlier results on composite grains with graphite inclusions and porous silicate grains, [@vaidya2011]. We also note that R obtained by EMA-T-Matrix is higher than that obtained by DDA.
T(K) DDA EMA-T-Matrix
------ ------- --------------
200 0.501 0.702
240 0.310 0.397
280 0.221 0.266
320 0.173 0.198
360 0.144 0.156
400 0.124 0.133
Conclusions
===========
In order to interpret dust properties (viz. sizes, shapes, composition and temperature) in circumstellar dust, we have systematically analyzed the IR spectra of about 700 IRAS-LRS oxygen rich M type stars using the composite grain models with graphite and silicon carbide (SiC) inclusions and porous silicate grain models. The 10$\rm \mu m$ band has been studied in more details and is compared with the observed data for the stars with the absorption band between 9.5 and 10.0$\rm \mu m$. It should be noted here that we have used both DDA & EMA-T-Matrix methods to compute the absorption efficiency of composite grain models and porous silicate grain models, whereas most of others have used EMA and T-Matrix methods or methods using Distribution of Hollow Spheres (DHS), [@min08] and [@kessler2006] or layered spheres method [@mathis].
The main conclusions are presented below:
\(1) The absorption/emission properties of the silicate grains are modified considerably with the inclusions of carbonaceous materials (e.g. graphite & SiC) and porosity. Our results on the composite grain models clearly show the variation in absorption efficiency $\rm Q_{abs}$ with the variation of volume fraction of inclusions (graphite & SiC) and porosity. The results on the composite grain models with inclusions of SiC show a longward shift in the 10$\rm \mu m$ absorption feature with the volume fraction of the inclusions whereas the composite grain models with graphite inclusions show a shortward shift in the 10$\rm \mu m$ feature. The 18$\rm \mu m$ feature, however, remains unaffected with variation in the volume fraction of the inclusions. The composite grain models with graphite inclusions were also used by [@henning1993] and they did not find any appreciable shift in the 10$\rm \mu m$ feature with inclusions, while [@min07] have found that it shifts shortwards. Our results on the porous silicate grains do not show any shift either in the 10 or the 18$\rm \mu m$ feature. [@li] have used porous silicate grain models to study the 10$\rm \mu m$ feature in the AGNs and found that the 10$\rm \mu m$ peak shifts towards longer wavelength. For an elaborate comparison of models/results on silicate IR emission features see e.g. [@kessler2006] and [@vaidya2011].
\(2) We have also found that the composite grain models with the SiC inclusions modify the absorption profile in the spectral region 5–25$\rm \mu m$ and the 10$\rm \mu m$ silicate feature and do not fit M-type stars. This is consistent with the results obtained by [@smolder]). These results on the composite grain models with SiC inclusions may be also compared with the C–rich stars with silicate emission features at 10 and 18$\rm \mu m$ as suggested by [@little86] & [@smolder]. We find that the shape of the SiC feature at 11.3$\rm \mu m$ varies with the shape of the grain. This is in agreement with the result obtained by [@min08].
We note here that the composite grain models with the inclusions of graphite or SiC do not seem to fit well the selected sample of Spitzer stars. We need to analyze larger sample of M-type and AGB stars observed by Spitzer.
\(3) We have found that the composite grain models with number of dipoles N=14440 (AR=2.0) and graphite inclusions with the volume fractions between 0.1 and 0.3 provide better fit than either with SiC inclusions or porous silicate grains for the selected IRAS stars (see Tables 1 and 2). [@smolder] have used silicates and gehlenite to fit the observed 10 and 18$\rm \mu m$ silicate features and have also noted that grain models with a component of SiC may not fit the observed silicate features to the M-type stars. The IRAS 17423-1755 is an O-rich AGB star and it too does not fit well with grain models with SiC inclusion (see more on this AGB star in [@mant]).
\(4) The composite grain models with graphite and SiC inclusions and porous silicates give dust temperatures in the range 250–400K, which fit most of the observed IRAS-LRS curves selected for this paper. This temperature range compares well with the temperature range suggested by [@bowey] and [@vosh2008]. For stars giving good fits with composite grain models with graphite & SiC inclusions have dust temperature range between 270 and 300K, while for those giving good fits with porous models, have higher dust temperatures between 300 and 370K. The error in temperature estimates is within 10K.
\(5) Flux ratios R is in the range from 0.15 to 0.25 in the dust temperature range of 250–300K, obtained for the composite grain models with graphite & SiC inclusions and porous silicate grain models compare well with the observed ratio. These values are lower than that given by [@ossen92], which are in the range 0.30 to 0.60. The low value of R may be due to O-deficient silicates as noted by [@little] and [@ossen]. Most of the stars have the best fit flux ratio R $\sim$ 0.15–0.20 for all the composite grain models.
The present study can be extended to Class 12 IRAS objects [@gupta2004] which show similar but weaker silicate emission features at 10$\rm \mu m$. These results on the composite grain models and earlier studies [@little86] and [@waters] clearly indicate that the composite grain models with other carbonaceous materials (e.g. amorphous silicates & amorphous carbon, ices & PAHs) as inclusions are required to interpret the observed IR emission from the circumstellar dust around O–rich as well as C–rich stars, to obtain more exact composition, sizes and shapes of the silicate grains in the circumstellar dust.
We also note that the optical constants for other carbonaceous materials by laboratory studies are required.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
D. B. Vaidya thanks IUCAA for funding the visits for completion of this work. The research has made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France. ====
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Using PSPC [*Rosat*]{} data, we measure x–ray surface brightness profiles, size and luminosity of the Butcher–Oemler (BO) sample of clusters of galaxies. The cluster x-ray size, as measured by the Petrosian $r_{\eta=2}$ radius, does not change with redshift and is independent from x-ray luminosity. On the other hand, the x–ray luminosity increases with redshift. Considering that fair samples show no-evolution, or negative luminosity evolution, we conclude that the BO sample is not formed from the same class of objects observed at different look–back times. This is in conflict with the usual interpretation of the Butcher–Oemler as an evolutionary (or redshift–dependent) effect, based on the assumption that we are comparing the same class of objects at different redshifts. Other trends present in the BO sample reflect selection criteria rather than differences in look-back time, as independently confirmed by the fact that trends loose strength when we enlarge the sample with x–ray selected sample of clusters. The variety of optical sizes and shapes of the clusters in the Butcher–Oemler sample, and the Malmquist-like bias, are the reasons for these selection effects that mimic the trends usually interpreted as changes due to evolution.'
author:
- 'S. Andreon'
- 'S. Ettori'
title: 'Is the Butcher-Oemler effect a function of the cluster redshift?'
---
Introduction
============
Galaxies in distant ($z\sim0.4$) clusters differ from those in the nearby systems (e.g. Butcher & Oemler 1984; Dressler & Gunn 1992). There is a blueing of galaxy color with redshift, also known as Butcher-Oemler effect (hereafter BO effect, Butcher & Oemler 1977, 1984). At $z\sim0.4$ there is a population of almost normal late–type galaxies that by the present epoch has disappeared, faded or has been disrupted (Dressler et al. 1997). Distant clusters contain galaxies with disturbed morphologies and peculiar spectra. The occurrence of these peculiarities varies from cluster to cluster and, on average, increases with redshift. In general, the change of galaxy properties is explained as the effect of some kind of evolution.
Oemler, Dressler & Butcher (1997) proposed a physical reason to explain why most of the clusters showing a BO effect are at high redshift and almost none at the present epoch: clusters at $z\sim0.4$ are much more exceptional objects than present–day clusters and they are observed in the act of growing by merger of smaller clumps, in agreement with a hierarchical growth of structures as described, for example, by Kauffmann (1995). Furthermore, this scenario permits the existence of dynamically young local clusters, such as the spiral rich Abell 1367 and 2151 clusters, and evolved clusters at high redshift, such as Cl 0024+16. In the Oemler et al. (1997) interpretation of the BO effect, clusters at higher redshift are dynamically younger, on average, than the nearby ones, because we are looking at the epoch of an enhanced cluster formation.
Allington-Smith et al. (1993) showed that galaxies in groups do not evolve (except passively) and suggest that the BO effect should be interpreted as an evidence of the important role played by the cluster environment: evolution is strong in clusters and negligible in groups. However this idea have been questioned: Rakos & Schombert (1995) show that it is difficult to fade the majority of the cluster population at $z\sim0.7$ to make their blue population as scarce as in present–day clusters. Andreon, Davoust & Heim (1997) and Ellis et al. (1997) show that cluster ellipticals and lenticulars are old galaxies already at $z\sim0.4$, and that the majority of them cannot be the end product of the blue galaxy population. Recently, this result has been extended with clusters up to $z\sim0.9$ (Stanford, Eisenhardt & Dickinson 1998).
Andreon et al. (1997) have made a detailed comparison of the properties of galaxies in the nearby Coma cluster and the distant cluster, Cl 0939+47. They found that the spiral population of these two clusters appears too different in spatial, color and surface brightness distributions to be the same galaxy population observed at two different epochs. The Coma cluster is therefore unlikely to be representative of the end of the evolution path of Cl 0939+47.
In order to quantify the effect of evolution on the properties of a given class of objects, it is required that the observed class is the same at different times. In the case of the evolution of galaxies in clusters, it is necessary that the high redshift clusters studied are the ancestors of the investigated present–day clusters.
The goal of this paper is to test whether the distant and nearby clusters of the BO sample are really the same population seen at different epochs or two different populations; in other words, we want to check if we are comparing unripe apples to ripe oranges in understanding how fruit ripens!. We achieve this goal by means of the X–ray properties of the clusters of galaxies, whose evolution is known.
The paper is organized as follows: in the next section, we present our sample of clusters. In Section 3, we discuss the x–ray analysis of their images. The observed trends and their relevance on the BO effect are presented in Section 4 and 5, respectively. In Section 6, we summarize our main results.
In the following analysis, we adopt $H_0=50$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ and $q_0=0.5$. The conversion to the physical dimension is done through the equation (Sandage 1988): $${\rm r (kpc)} = 2.91 \ 10^3 \times \theta
\frac{ z + 1 - \sqrt{z +1} }{H_0 \ (1+z)^2},$$ where $\theta$ is the angular radius in arcsec.
Our sample: the Butcher & Oemler (1985) sample
==============================================
The clusters most frequently compared for measuring the BO effect are listed in Butcher & Oemler (1985). This list is the master list for many studies (e.g. Dressler & Gunn 1992; Oemler, Dressler & Butcher 1997; half of the sample by Smail et al. 1997; Dressler et al. 1998 is drawn from the BO sample, etc.).
Our sample is made from the BO sample plus Cl 0939+47, a cluster at $z\sim0.4$ which is frequently studied in the context of the BO effect. This sample, which consist of 33(+1) clusters, is not complete in any sense (in cluster richness, in $z$, etc.). Figure 1 reproduces Figure 3 in Butcher & Oemler (1984), with the addition of Cl 0939+47. The BO effect is evident from the increase of the fraction of blue galaxies with the redshift.
We have x–ray data for 30 of the 34 clusters. Position Sensitive Proportional Counter (PSPC) images are available for 25 of these. We call this subsample “HQ" (high quality) sample. Five more clusters, as well as many of the clusters observed by [*Rosat*]{}, have been observed with previous x–ray missions. We use these old data when necessary.
Table 1 presents the whole sample in order of increasing redshift. A double tick and a single tick in the last column indicate that the cluster belongs to the HQ sample and we collect x–ray flux from literature, respectively. Columns 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 list respectively the cluster name, the cluster redshift, the radius $r_{30}$ that contain 30 % of the whole cluster population, the number of galaxies $N_{30}$ inside such a radius, and the cluster blue fraction $f_b$ (from Butcher & Oemler (1985)). Columns 7 and 8 list the Galactic HI column (from Stark et al. 1992) toward the cluster direction and the cluster richness \[from the Abell, Corwin & Olowin (1989, hereafter ACO) catalog\]. We update the richness classification of the Cl 0939+47 (Abell 851) and Abell 370 clusters, and we attribute a richness to Cl 0024+16 by adopting the more accurate values listed in Oemler et al. (1997). Cl 0016+16 is twice as rich as Coma (Koo 1981). The ACO richness, according to its definition, is the background corrected number of galaxies within 3 Mpc from the cluster center having luminosity in the range $M_3$ and $M_3+2$, where $M_3$ is the magnitude of the third brightest cluster galaxy.
Data analysis
=============
Data reduction
--------------
PSPC images in the hard band 0.5–2 keV with 15 arcsec pixel size have been extracted from the public archive at the Max–Planck–Institut für extraterrestrische Physik (MPE) or at the Goddard Space Flight Center (according to their availability). Table 2 lists x–ray related quantities. We correct our images for exposure variation and telescope vignetting using the distributed exposure maps. All pixels contaminated by other objects or occulted by ribs have been flagged and excluded from the following analysis.
In order to measure the x–ray radial profiles, brightnesses are computed in elliptical annuli of semi-major axis increasing in geometrical progression of base $\sqrt{2}$ in order to take the S/N approximatively constant along the radius.
Ellipticity, position angle (PA hereafter) and center for the cluster emission have been derived paying attention to the observational data available for distant clusters. For example, we keep fixed the center, even if isophotes center moves, since in distant clusters we seldom have data of good enough quality to measure the displacement of the center of the various isophotes. When data are not good enough to estimate the ellipticity or the position angle, we adopt circular apertures.
The details of the data reduction are as follows:
– The equivalent radius of each ellipse is that of a circle of the same area, i.e. $r=\sqrt{ab}$, where $a,b$ are the major and minor axis of the ellipse.
– The axis lengths of an elliptical annulus of finite width are at half way from the internal and external edges.
– The brightness in an annulus is computed as the ratio of the intensity measured in unflagged pixels and their total area.
– We assume that flagged pixels have the same brightness as unflagged ones in the same annulus. The flux inside an ellipse is the sum, over the internal annulus, of the product of the brightness computed in each annulus and the total area of the annulus (calculated including the flagged pixels).
Before we proceed further in the data analysis we need to verify two assumptions: the computed profiles are independent of the exact choice of the flagged pixels and of the ellipticity and PA chosen for the integration. We apply two different flag schemes to the same image of Abell 2218: (i) we flag only superposed objects and ribs, (ii) we flags every small fluctuation, including very faint ones at the level of the noise. The resulting profiles are indistinguishable. Further confirmation of the independence of the exact choice of the pixels flagged came from the comparison of independent analysis of the same images (see next section).
In order to test the sensitivity of our profile to the chosen axis ratio, we compute the profiles of Abell 2218 within elliptical annuli of axis ratio 0.83 and 1. The two profiles are, again, indistinguishable. The profiles of some other clusters, taken from the literature, measured through ellipses of different shapes agree within the errors. Our elliptical profiles do not depend upon the adopted axis ratio, due to our selection of the axis length, and the fact that the PA and ellipticity of the x–ray isophotes are not subject to large variations.
Furthermore, we adjust the background level of the Abell 1656 cluster, the emission of which almost fills the PSPC field of view, in such a way that our profile at large radii matches those derived in literature from the [*Rosat*]{} All Sky Survey images (Briel, Henry & Boeringer 1992). Abell 400 exhibits a central point source, a dumbbell galaxy also known as radio source 3C75, with a slight offset with respect to the center of the cluster emission (cf. Beers et al. 1992). Pixels affected by this source have been flagged. Some other clusters in our list have some peculiar features in their x–ray profile: Abell 1689, 2199 and 2634 present a strong cooling flow (Allen & Fabian 1998, White et al. 1997 and Schindler & Prieto 1996, respectively). In the following figures, we represent with squares symbols these cooling flows clusters.
Comparisons with previous [*Rosat*]{} data
------------------------------------------
A comparison between our profiles and those from literature is quite difficult. For most of the clusters, the data points of the surface brightness profile are not available. Generally, the best–fit parameters for a $\beta$-model (Cavaliere & Fusco-Femiano 1976) are the only quantities quoted. We will use these for our comparisons, even if some information is still missing, such as (i) the adopted center, ellipticity and position angle (for elliptical profiles), (ii) the value of the central brightness, (iii) the radius up to which the data are fitted, (iv) how well the model describes the profile, in terms of the location of the deviations from the best fit. Finally some literature values are wrong through mistake or typographical errors.
Figure 2 shows good agreement between the best fits as obtained from literature, once the necessary (if any) corrections were introduced, and our profiles. Here we note that where we see a local mismatch between the data and the best fit, the same deviations are often observed in the published surface brightness profile.
### Remarks on individual clusters
Abell 262: David, Jones, & Forman (1996) found that the x–ray isophotes of this cluster twist and ellipticity changes with radius. They present a detailed analysis of the x–ray profile computed through elliptical apertures whose PA and ellipticity are fitted to the cluster isophotes. However, they list only counts integrated within ellipses of unspecified PA and ellipticity, both of which are probably changing with radius. In our comparison, to compute the surface brightness profile, we calculate the gradient of the integrated flux in each ellipse and make the approximation that it was computed within ellipses with the same centre and axis ratio of 0.8. Our profile matches exactly the one from literature at $\log(r)>2.4$. The agreement is satisfactory at smaller radii given the approximation involved in the comparison.
Abell 401: Our points match well those of Buote & Canizares (1996) $\beta$ model. Another observation performed 6 months later is in good agreement with the plotted profile, confirming also the temporal stability of the [*Rosat*]{} PSPC.
Abell 1656: Our points lie on the best-fit $\beta$ models in Buote & Canizares (1996) and Briel, Henry & Boeringer (1992).
Abell 2199: This has been observed twice with a temporal gap of 3 years. As for A401, the two profiles are in good agreement between them and with Buote & Canizares (1996) $\beta$ model.
Abell 2256: This is a quite studied merging cluster (Markevitch & Vikhlinin 1997, Buote & Canizares 1996; Briel, Henry & Boeringer 1992). Our center is not located on the peak emission but on the barycenter of the x–ray emission. This explains the rising profile at small radii and the slight differences with the fit functions from literature.
Abell 2634: This cluster presents a strong cooling flow, and is not described at all by a $\beta$ model for $\log(r)<2.4$. At larger radii, where the profile matches the $\beta$ model, our data are consistent with the best-fit $\beta$ model in Schindler & Prieto (1996).
Cl0939+4713: Our profile agrees well with the Schindler & Wambganss (1996) $\beta$ profile.
Characterization of the cluster profiles
----------------------------------------
Usually x–ray profiles are characterized through some parameters, resulting from a fit to the data of an appropriate function, generally a $\beta$ model. The use of this model presents some problems. Firstly, this method is parametric and introduces the width of the bin in the extracted profile as no-physical scale. Secondly, the $\beta$ parameter, often referred to as the ‘slope’, is not properly the slope of the profile at large radii, as one can verify calculating the radial gradient of the $\beta$ model or, more simply, plotting two profiles with the same $\beta$, but different core radii. Thirdly, the best-fit parameters are generally a function of the amplitude of the errors.
For these reasons, we prefer to characterize cluster x–ray profiles through a no-parametric way, computing Petrosian (1976) quantities. A detailed and recent presentation of Petrosian quantities can be found in Sandage & Perelmuter (1990). Briefly, the Petrosian radius $r_{\eta}$ is defined as the radius where the surface brightness [*at*]{} at that radius is $\eta$ times fainter than the surface brightness [*inside*]{} that radius. Figure 3 shows the surface brightness ($SB(r)$)and the $\eta(r)$ profiles for a King profile, where $\eta(r)= SB(<r)/SB(r)$.
Choosing a value for $\eta$, of say 2, the corresponding radius $r_{\eta=2}$ is completely determined (in our example $\log(r)\sim2.8$). The Petrosian radius, as a ratio between two surface brightnesses, does not depend from quantities that usually affect surface brightnesses, such as Galactic absorption, cosmological dimming, K-correction and even luminosity evolution if it is the same at all radii. It could be shown (Petrosian 1976), that the Petrosian radius is a metric radius, i.e. its angular dimension is given by the formula relating the physical dimension of a rigid rod and its angular dimension. For objects with profiles of the same shape, the luminosity within a fixed Petrosian radius gives a fixed fraction of the total luminosity, as the effective radius for the de Vaucouleurs’ (1976) law. We choose $2.5\log\eta=2$, and we refer to it as “$\eta=2$". For Hubble and $\beta$ model (with $\beta=2/3$) profiles, $\eta=2$ correspond to 55 and 38 core radii, respectively.
Luminosities & errors
---------------------
The count rates have been converted to the flux in the 0.5-2 keV band using a conversion factor of $1.15 \times 10^{-11}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ / (count s$^{-1}$), almost independent from the gas temperature. The correction for the Galactic absorption has been calculated applying the Morrison & McCammon (1983) model as a foreground absorber to the thermal emission from the intracluster plasma with metallicity fixed to 0.3 (Raymond, & Smith 1977; up to date version 1992 in XSPEC version 10). Since all clusters are at high Galactic latitude, this correction is small. K–corrections have been computed individually assuming thermal cluster spectrum. Temperatures have been taken from White, Jones & Forman (1997). For the clusters Abell 222, 223, 777, 963, 1758, 1904, 2125, and Cl 0024+16, Cl 0939+47, that are not listed in White et al. 1997, we adopt a temperature of 4 keV. Our K–corrections are compatible with the more accurate values plotted by Jones et al. (1998) in their Figure 7. Differences amount to 0.01 in $\log(L_X)$ at most, i.e. are negligible.
Our estimate of the uncertainties include Poisson errors and a generous 10% error on the determination of the background level. In Figure 4, and subsequent plots, we do not plot the errors on the x–ray flux, since they are smaller than the symbol size, except for two clusters (Abell 777 and Cl0024, whose fluxes are lower limits).
Comparison with data from previous x–ray missions
-------------------------------------------------
For the clusters of our sample, the x–ray luminosities measured by previous missions are listed in various compilations (Salten & Henry 1983; Lea & Henry 1988; Mushotzky & Scharf 1997; Sadat, Blanchard, Guiderdoni & Silk 1998). Their luminosities are not measured at the Petrosian radii, nor in the [*Rosat*]{} hard band, but are simply aperture or isophotal fluxes, usually in the band of observation. We convert them in our system (flux measured in the Petrosian $r_{\eta=2}$ radius in [*Rosat* ]{} hard band) empirically, by means of the median difference between the (log of the) luminosities in common clusters. Our fluxes correlate well with literature ones transformed in our system, as shown in Figure 4. The large scatter is due to the heterogeneity of literature data and to the transformation from one band to another, since the formal error on the x-ray flux in our system is smaller than the point size. The two outliers refer to the cluster Abell 400, whose central emission has been masked out in our flux measure (see Section 3.2.1), but not in the two estimates from literature.
Results: the trends
===================
The aim of this section is to show the existence of trends between quantities related to clusters properties (richness, size, distance, x–ray flux, etc.), and to understand the role played by selection effects on these trends.
Size
----
Table 3 quotes the $r_{\eta=2}$ size of the HQ sample. All clusters, spanning a large redshift range, from $z\sim0$ to $z\sim0.6$, have similar sizes of $\log r \sim 3.10 $ kpc with a scatter (in $\log r$) of only 0.14 (see Figure 5). The outliers (at small $r_{\eta=2}$) appear to be cooling flow clusters. Cl 0024+16 and Abell 777 have a too noisy profile to compute $r_{\eta=2}$. Our results confirm those obtained from Henry et al. (1979) and Vikhlinin et al. (1998). Figure 6 shows that clusters have similar size, independently on their x–ray luminosity, at least in the luminosity range sampled ($43.5<\log L_X<45.5$ erg s$^{-1}$). Furthermore clusters rich in blue galaxies (solid dots in the figure) are not preferentially larger, smaller, brighter or fainter than those clusters poor in blue galaxies.
Figure 7 compares the optical cluster radius, defined as the radius which encloses 30 % of the galaxy population, $r_{30}$, with our x–ray $r_{\eta=2}$ size, for the HQ sample. The $r_{\eta=2}$ is in average $\sim3$ times larger than $r_{30}$, with a large scatter. Clusters rich in blue galaxies (solid dots) do not have systematically larger or smaller $r_{\eta=2}/r_{30}$ ratios than clusters poor in blue galaxies (open dots). Even if the two most distant clusters have both a $r_{\eta=2}/r_{30}$ ratio larger than the average, there is no convincing statistical evidence for a trend of an increasing $r_{\eta=2}/r_{30}$ ratio with redshift.
$L_x$ vs $z$
------------
Figure 8 shows that in the BO sample there is a deficit of distant clusters with a x–ray luminosity comparable to faint present–day cluster, and an excess of clusters which are as bright as, or brighter than, the brightest nearby clusters. This holds for the HQ sample as well as for the whole sample. The x–ray luminosity is correlated with $z$ at the 99.9 % confidence level, according to the Spearman’s $r_s$ and Kendall’s $\tau$ tests. The x–ray luminosity of the four clusters not present in the HQ sample has been converted to our energy band as described in Section 3.5. In the whole sample, clusters rich in blue galaxies (solid dots) are not preferentially the brightest or the faintest ones. The correlation between x–ray luminosity and redshift is still present if we use $r_{30}$ or a 3 Mpc aperture for all clusters. If we remove the irregular clusters identified by Butcher & Oemler (1984) from the sample the correlation is still present, but only at 98.5 % confidence level.
In the x–ray waveband, distant clusters are not brighter in the past than today, and, if anything, they were fainter in the past, not brighter (Henry et al. 1992; Collins 1997; Vikhlinin et al. 1998; Rosati, Della Ceca, Norman et al. 1998). On the other hand, the x–ray luminosity of the clusters in the BO sample, that span the same redshift and luminosity range of the above-mentioned [*representative*]{} samples, increases with redshift (or low luminosity clusters are missing at large $z$ in the sample). This means that the BO sample is not representative of a homogeneous class of clusters of galaxies observed at different look–back times, but it is biased toward an increasing fraction of bright x–ray clusters as the redshift increases. We postpone the discussion of the relevance of the trend in the BO effect to the next section.
The existence of a strong correlation between x–ray luminosity and redshift, in the BO sample, makes suspicious any other correlation involving these two quantities.
Richness vs $z$
---------------
In hierarchical scenarios, clusters at high redshift are more massive, on average, than nearby clusters, since only richest clusters are already formed. Instead, the ancestors of present–day clusters were less massive than today and they had not yet formed at high redshift. Therefore, it is expected that, at higher redshift, clusters (which have already formed) are richer than nearby ones.
Figure 9 shows that the distant clusters in our sample are also the ones with higher ACO richness. The Spearman $r_s$ and Kendall’s $\tau$ tests reject ($>$ 99.9 % confidence level) that the richness is not correlated with $z$. Dressler et al. (1997), in their study of the morphological segregation in clusters at $z\sim0.4$ (half of these taken from the BO list), noted that the distant clusters are denser than nearby ones listed in Dressler (1980).
The increase of the cluster richness with redshift in our (BO) sample is not due to the evolution of clusters, but just to two selection effects: both richness and x–ray luminosity (see Figure 10), and x–ray luminosity and redshift (see Figure 8) are correlated. The latter correlation is certainly a bias, and this induces a correlation between redshift and richness. Therefore the trend between richness and redshift is not a property of the clusters but a result of the (poorly known) selection criteria adopted for assembling the sample.
The (apparent) evolution of the cluster richness is easy to understand from an observational point of view. In the optical, clusters are usually detected as galaxy overdensity over the field. As the redshift increases, the clusters have to be richer and richer to be detected, and distant poor clusters are likely to be missing in all optically selected catalogs. The ACO catalog, on which the Butcher–Oemler sample is largely based (note also that Cl 0939+47 is listed in the ACO catalog as Abell 851), is complete up to $z\sim0.1$ (Scaramella et al. 1991). At larger redshifts only the richest clusters are present, whereas at small redshift the number of very rich clusters is small because of the small local volume.
The right panel of Figure 9 shows that the central richness, $N_{30}$, of clusters with PSPC data does not increase with redshift, contrary to that expected from its correlation with x–ray luminosity (Figure 10) and from the increase of the x–ray luminosity with $z$ (Figure 8). However, it is quite dangerous to do predictions by propagating correlations between quantities, especially in a biased sample such as our, since too many properties are changing at the same time as the redshift varies.
$N_{30}$ and $R$ do not show any statistically significant correlation (the Spearman test indicate a correlation at 60 % confidence level). Poor clusters, in the ACO sense, do not have too many galaxies within $R_{30}$, whereas rich clusters can be very rich, as well as very poor, in the center. This means that clusters have a variety of galaxy density profiles for a given $N_{30}$ or $R$, since for the same total number of bright galaxies, $R$, they can have quite different central number of galaxies, $N_{30}$ (and vice versa). Alternatively, large observational errors affect these two quantities.
$L_x$ vs richness
-----------------
Figure 10 shows that in the whole sample the cluster x–ray luminosity increases with galaxy richness, as measured by either Abell, Corwin & Olowin (1989) or Butcher & Oemler (1984). Clusters which are rich in blue galaxies (solid dots) span the entire range explored in richness and luminosity. The correlation between x–ray luminosity and cluster richness is expected (e.g. Bahcall 1974; Jones & Forman 1978). However, in our sample, this correlation is probably the result of two selection effects: as the redshift increases, we sample (i) brighter (see Figure 8) and (ii) richer (Figure 9, left panel) clusters. Our statement can be checked using the data from Smail et al. (1998), who studied very bright x–ray selected clusters, independently from their optical richness. Their clusters have $\log
L_x\sim45$, $0<R<3$ and $15<N_{30}<60$. Adding these data to ours, the correlation between richness and x–ray luminosity largely disappears, thus confirming that the found correlation is the result of the selection criteria instead of a real clusters property (Figure 11).
$L_x$ vs $f_b$
--------------
A correlation between $L_x$ and $f_b$ would explain many cluster properties. The lack of blue galaxies in the cluster core, the color distribution of spiral galaxies and many of their properties, such as velocity and position relative to the cluster center, higher surface brightness (Andreon 1996) and HI deficiency of infalling spirals (Gavazzi 1987) can be explained if spirals falling in clusters have a starburst due to the ram pressure in the hot gas (Bothun & Dressler 1986) that consumes the galaxy’s gas reservoir. During the burst, these galaxies become bluer and brighter in the mean surface brightness. Just after the burst, they become as red as ellipticals (Charlot & Silk 1994), explaining the presence of red spirals in cluster cores. Furthermore, both the existence of galaxies that show spectral signatures consistent with the presence of intermediate age stellar populations (Couch & Sharples 1987, Lavery & Henry 1988, Dressler & Gunn 1992), and the photometric evidence for the blue starburst spirals in Coma (Donas et al. 1995, Andreon 1996), give support to this scenario.
We do not observe any correlation between x–ray luminosity and the fraction of blue galaxies for the whole sample and for the HQ sample. In a sample of 10 clusters at moderate redshift ($z\sim0.25$), which span just a factor 2-3 in x–ray luminosity, a wide spread is found in the fraction of blue galaxies (Smail et al. 1998), which is uncorrelated to x–ray luminosity. Using [*Einstein Observatory*]{} data, Lea & Henry (1988) suggest the possible existence of a correlation between these two quantities in a sub-sample of the BO list, provided that deviant points (low luminosity clusters and the most distant cluster) are discarded. The absence of a correlation between the fraction of blue galaxies and the cluster x–ray luminosity implies that this link, if exist, is complex and needs more physical parameters to be explained than only the spiral fraction and the x–ray luminosity.
Here we note that these quantities are not averaged on the same cluster area, nor on regions whose area ratio is fixed: sometimes the optical radius is 3 time larger than the area over which the spiral fraction has been computed, and sometimes it is two times smaller (see Figure 7). For this reasons, we have recalculated the cluster x–ray luminosities within the radius $r_{30}$ used for computing the cluster spiral fraction, but still any significant correlation between these two quantities does not appear.
Relevance of these trends in the context of the BO effect
=========================================================
Any sample of local and distant clusters that is not statistically complete can be affected by the selection criteria adopted to assemble it. This happens because clusters have (i) morphological differences in the nearby universe (Zwicky 1957) and at $z\sim0.4$ (Oemler et al. 1998) and (ii) their galaxy populations are subjected to several segregation effects, both in galaxy morphology (Hubble & Humanson 1922; Dressler 1980; Sanromà & Salvador–Solé 1991; Whitmore, Gilmore & Jones 1993; Andreon 1994, 1996; Dressler et al. 1997; Andreon, Davoust & Heim 1997), color (Butcher, & Oemler 1984; Mellier, Soucail, Fort et al. 1988; Donas et al. 1995; Andreon 1996), and spectral properties (Biviano et al. 1997 and reference therein).
In particular, any selection done on the basis of the richness is contaminated by several factors, such as our ignorance on the physical evolution of the cluster richness or the role played by local phenomena as the enhancement in brightness due to starburst activity. In this sense, selecting clusters according to their x–ray luminosity is safer, because the physics of the x–ray emission is well known, and easier in detecting (the x–ray emission goes as the square of the density, instead of the density for optical richness). Once a sample of clusters is properly defined, the assumption done is that the same class of objects are compared at different look–back times.
[*Our results show that the main cluster sample studied up to now in the context of the BO effect is biased:*]{} the x–ray luminosity of these clusters increases with the redshift, contrary to the recent observational evidence for representative samples (see Sect. 4.2). Thus, the nearby and distant clusters in the BO sample are not representative of a fair sample. This implies that any trend highlighted in the BO sample could be the product of the selection criteria adopted instead of real differences with respect to the age of the systems.
Differences in x–ray luminosity reflect, at large extent, differences in the intracluster gas temperature and gas density and, consequently, in the cluster mass (Quintana & Melnick 1982, Edge & Steward 1991, White et al. 1997). Oemler et al. (1997) supposed that they were studying richer and richer clusters as the redshift increases, and that distant clusters were growing in a way different from present–day clusters, i.e. merging smaller clumps at higher rate, as hierarchical scenarios suggest (Kauffmann 1995). This conclusion supposes a physical evolution of the clusters in the BO sample, whereas instead the richness of the clusters in the BO list increases just because of selection effects.
Another piece of evidence for the presence of a selection bias in the BO sample comes from the fact that the BO effect is only evident in optically selected cluster samples. In fact, clusters selected in the x–ray band, with almost the same x–ray luminosity and $z\sim0.25$, show blue fraction values with a large range, and with a mean similar to that observed in nearby clusters (Smail et al. 1998). This mean value is also smaller than the blue fraction in the BO clusters at the same redshift.
To summarize, the BO sample does not contain the same class of objects at different look–back times, contrary to the requirement to detect any sign of evolution in a sample.
We note that, although this bias affects the BO sample, it could not lower the significance of the BO effect, if x–ray bright clusters have the same blue fraction of much fainter clusters. This is a hypothesis that, at the present time, we cannot test observationally on an unbiased sample. In the BO biased sample, the fraction of blue galaxies does not seem to depend on the x–ray cluster properties. Furthermore, the BO effect is evident even after removing the faint clusters with $\log(L_X)<44$ and $z<0.1$. However, we do not know if this reduced sample (or any other subsample drawn from the BO sample) is representative for the range of redshift studied, and any conclusion drawn from it should be regarded with caution. In conclusion, we do not believe that selection biases are completely removed by eliminating offending clusters.
From the theoretical point of view, Kauffmann (1995) shows that in their model of cluster formation and evolution the fraction of blue galaxies does not depend on the cluster mass, at least for rich clusters. In that case, there is no risk in comparing clusters of different masses (x–ray luminosities) at different redshift for studying the BO effect. We stress, however, that the evolutionary interpretation of the BO effect still holds only under the hypothesis that these selection biases do not affect the sample, hypothesis which must be shown to be true.
Galaxies in groups do not show the BO effect (Allington-Smith et al. 1993) over the same redshift range. For this reason, and under the assumption of the evolutionary interpretation of the BO effect in clusters, Allington-Smith et al. (1993) claim that evolution is driven by environment, much more than look–back time. However, selection criteria of studied groups and clusters are quite different: groups are [*not*]{} optically selected, because Allington–Smith et al. (1993) built their group sample selecting the galaxies around radio–galaxies of a given radio flux, which is likely to be uncorrelated with the optical luminosity of the galaxy hosting the radio–source, or to the group optical properties. Instead, the BO cluster sample is biased toward very rich (and x–ray luminous) clusters at high redshift. We think that the claim of a differential evolution of galaxies in clusters compared to those in groups, should be pending on a proper determination of the amplitude of the BO effect in a sample of clusters representative of their redshift.
Conclusions
===========
We have analysed [*Rosat*]{} PSPC images of most of the clusters studied in relation to the Butcher-Oemler effect. We have computed surface brightness profiles, as well as x–ray fluxes within metric diameters adapted to the cluster size (Table 3). Our main results are:
1\) The cluster x-ray size, as measured by the Petrosian $r_{\eta=2}$ radius, does not evolve and it is independent of x-ray luminosity: $\log \
r_{\eta=2}\sim3.10\pm0.14$ kpc.
2\) The x–ray luminosity of clusters listed in the Butcher–Oemler sample increases with redshift (Figure 8). In the same redshift range, there is observational evidence, from [*representative*]{} samples, that the x–ray luminosity of clusters is constant or decreasing i.e. have a trend opposite to those observed in BO sample. Therefore, nearby and distant clusters in the BO sample are not representative of a given class of objects observed at different epochs, and thus the BO sample does not contain the same class of objects at different look–back times, contrary to the requirement to detect any sign of evolution in a sample.
Because selection criteria modify the sample composition in a redshift dependent way, it is quite difficult to disentangle a real redshift dependence (evolution) from a fictitious redshift trend induced by selection criteria. Hence, the observed BO effect measured from optical selected samples is [*not necessarily*]{} a general property of clusters of galaxies, but could be a selection effect. There is some independent support to this interpretation: it seems that x–ray selected clusters, all of similar x–ray luminosity and therefore likely to belong to the same class, do not show the BO effect (Smail et al. 1998). Similarly, galaxies in radio–selected groups show no evolution, beside passive one (Allington-Smith et al. 1993).
The variety of optical shapes and sizes of clusters, together with the Malmquist-like bias and the incompleteness of the BO list, are the main sources for the trends present in the sample.
X–ray data have been of fundamental importance in revealing the existence of a selection bias that mimic the trend usually interpreted as evidence of evolution. It is not surprising, therefore, that our conclusions differ from those reached when x–ray data were not available.
3\) The ACO richness of clusters listed in the Butcher–Oemler sample increases with redshift. We interpret this correlation as an observational effect: poor clusters are scarcely detected at high redshift, and, unusually, rich cluster are missing in low redshift samples. Other cluster quantities ($N_{30}$, $L_X$, etc.) shows some correlation among them or with redshift. We explain these as the effect of selection criteria. Adding to our sample a sample of x–ray selected clusters, the correlations generally lose strength, suggesting the correctness of our interpretation.
4\) The usual interpretation of the BO effect, as due to evolution, holds only assuming that selection effects have not practical relevance, an hypothesis which must be tested. The absence of correlation between the fraction of blue galaxies and the x–ray luminosity of the clusters may suggest such a possibility.
We are grateful to Sabrina de Grandi for her support and availability at the beginning of this work and to David White and Gilles Theureau for their suggestions on the manuscript. Constructive comments by D. Burstein, G. Bothun and an anonymous referee improved this paper. S.E. acknowledges M. Capaccioli for the financial support of the publication charges of this paper. S.A. dedicates this work to his grand father, Ismaele Andreon, recently deceased.
Abell G., Corwin H., Olowin R., 1989, ApJS 70, 1
Allen S., Fabian A., 1998, MNRAS 297, L57
Allington-Smith J., Ellis R., Zirbel E., Oemler A., 1993, ApJ 404, 521 Andreon S., 1994, A&A 284, 801
Andreon S., 1996, A&A 314, 763
Andreon S., Davoust E., Heim, A&A, 1997, 323, 337
Bahcall N., 1974, ApJ 193, 529
Beers T.C., Gebhardt K., Huchra J.P., Forman W., Jones C., Bothun G.D., 1992, ApJ 400, 410
Biviano A., Katgert P., Mazure A., 1997, A&A 321, 84
Bothun G., Dressler A., 1986, ApJ 301, 57
Briel U, Henry J., Boeringer H., 1992, A&A 259, L31
Buote D., Canizares C., 1996, ApJ 457, 565
Butcher H., Oemler A., 1977, ApJ 219, 18
Butcher H., Oemler A., 1984, ApJ 285, 426
Cavaliere A., Fusco-Femiano R., 1976, A&A 19, 137
Charlot S., Silk J., 1994, ApJ 432, 453
Cirimele G., Nesci R., Trevese D., 1997, ApJ 475, 11
Collins C., Burke D., Romer A., Sharples R., Nicol R., 1997, ApJ 479, L117
Couch W., Sharples R. 1987, MNRAS 229, 423
David L., Jones C., Forman W., 1996, ApJ 473, 692
Donas J., Milliard B., Laget M., 1995, A&A, 303, 661
Dressler A., 1980, ApJ 236, 351
Dressler A., Gunn J. 1992, ApJS 78, 1
Dressler A., Oemler A., Couch W., et al. 1997, ApJ 490, 577
Edge A. & Stewart G. 1991, MNRAS 252, 428
Ellis R., 1997, ARA&A 35, 389
Ellis R., Colless M., Broadhurst T., Heyl J., Glazembrook, K., 1996, MNRAS 280, 235
Ellis R., Smail I., Dressler A., et al. 1997, ApJ 483, 582
Evrard A., 1990, ApJ 363, 349
Evrard A., 1991, MNRAS, 248, 88
Gavazzi G., 1987, ApJ 320, 96
Gunn J., Gott J., 1972, ApJ 176, 1
Jones C., Forman W., 1978, ApJ 224, 1
Jones L., Scharf, C., Ebeling, H., Perlman, E., Wegner, G., Malkan, M., & Horner, D., 1998, ApJ, 495, 100
Henry J, Branduardi G., Fabricant D. et al., 1979, ApJ 234, L15
Henry J., Gioia I., Maccacaro T. et al., 1992, ApJ 386, 408
Huang J.-S., Cowie L., Luppino G., 1998, ApJ 463, 31
Hubble E., Humason M., 1926, ApJ 64, 321
Kauffmann G., 1995, MNRAS 274, 161
Lavery R., Henry J.P., 1988, ApJ 330, 596
Lea S.M., Henry J.P., 1988, ApJ 332, 81
Lilly S., Tresse L., Hammer F., Crampton D., LeFevre O., 1995, ApJ 455, L8
Maccacaro T., Gioia I, Zamorani G. et al. 1982, Apj 253, 504
Markevitch M., Vikhlinin A., 1997, ApJ 491, 467
Mellier Y., Soucail G., Fort B., Mathez G., 1988, A&A 199, 13
Morrison R., McCammon D., 1983, ApJ, 270,119
Mushotzky R., Scharf C., 1997, ApJ 482, 13
Koo D., 1981, ApJ 251, L75
Oemler A., Dressler A, Butcher H., 1997, ApJ 474, 561 Petrosian V., 1976, ApJ 209, L1
Quintana H., Melnick J. 1982, AJ 87, 972
Raymond J.C., Smith B.W., 1977, ApJS, 35, 419
Rosati P., Della Ceca R., Norman C., Giacconi R., 1998, ApJ 492, L21
Sadat R., Blanchard A., Guiderdoni B., Silk J., 1998, A&A 331, L69
Sandage A., 1988, ARA&A 26, 561
Sandage A., Perelmuter J.-M., 1990, ApJ 350, 481
Sanromà M., Salvador-Solé E., 1990, ApJ 360, 16
Scaramella R., Zamorani G., Vettolani G., Chincarini G., 1991, AJ 101, 342
Schindler S., Prieto M., 1997, A&A 327, 37
Schindler S., Wambganss J., 1996, A&A 313, 113
Smail I., Edge A., Ellis R., Blandford R., 1998, MNRAS, 293, 124
Soltan A., Henry J., 1983, ApJ 271, 442
Stanford S., Eisenhardt P., Dickinson M., 1995, ApJ 450, 512
Stanford S., Eisenhardt P., Dickinson M., 1998, ApJ 492, 461
Stark A., Gammie C., Wilson R., et al., 1992, ApJS 79, 77
Vikhlinin A., McNamara B., Forman W., Jones C., Quintana H., 1998, ApJ, 498, L21
de Vaucouleurs G., 1976
Wang Q., Ulmer M., 1997, MNRAS, 292, 920 White D.A., Jones C., Forman W., 1997, MNRAS 292, 419
Whitmore B., Gilmore D., Jones C., 1993, ApJ 407, 489
Zwicky F., 1957, Morphological Astronomy, Springer–Verlag
[llrrrlrc]{} Virgo & 0.0033 & 120& 21 & 0.04 & & & $\surd$ Abell 262 & 0.0164 & 27& 22 & 0.02 & 5.3 & 0 & $\surd$$\surd$ Abell 1367 & 0.02 & 25& 20 & 0.4& 2.1 & 2 & $\surd$$\surd$ Abell 400 & 0.0232 & 17& 30 & 0.05 & 8.7 & 1 & $\surd$$\surd$ Abell 1656 & 0.0232 & 22& 94 & 0.03 & 0.91 & 2 & $\surd$$\surd$ Abell 2199 & 0.0305 & 18& 94 & 0.04 & 0.88 & 2 & $\surd$$\surd$ Abell 2634 & 0.0322 & 30& 60 & 0.02 & 4.9 & 1 & $\surd$$\surd$ Abell 2151 & 0.0371 & 14& 29 & 0.14 & 3.4 & 1 & $\surd$$\surd$ Abell 2256 & 0.0581 & 11& 116 & 0.03 & 4.2 & 2 & $\surd$$\surd$ Abell 1904 & 0.0714 & 9.4 & 68 & 0.02 & 1.8 & 2 & $\surd$$\surd$ Abell 401 & 0.0748 & 10.7 & 92 & 0.02 & 1.1 & 2 & $\surd$$\surd$ Abell 2670 & 0.0749 & 4.9 & 51 & 0.04 & 2.7 & 3 & $\surd$$\surd$ Cl 0004.8-34 & 0.114 & 5.9 & 60 & 0.07 & & & Abell 2218 & 0.171 & 5.8 & 114 & 0.11 & 3.3 & 4 & $\surd$$\surd$ Abell 1689 & 0.1747 & 5.8 & 124 & 0.09 & 1.8 & 4 & $\surd$$\surd$ Abell 520 & 0.203 & 4.5 & 126 & 0.07 & 7.6 & 3 & $\surd$$\surd$ Abell 963 & 0.206 & 3.6 & 88 & 0.19 & 1.4 & 0 & $\surd$$\surd$ Abell 223 & 0.207 & 3.2 & 67 & 0.10 & 1.9 & 3 & $\surd$$\surd$ Abell 222 & 0.211 & 1.6 & 45 & 0.06 & 1.8 & 3 & $\surd$$\surd$ Abell 1963 & 0.221 & 1.5 & 38 & 0.10 & & 2 & Abell 1942 & 0.224 & 2.8 & 57 & 0.17 & & 3 & $\surd$ Abell 2397 & 0.224 & 2.0 & 23 & -0.04 & 5.6 & 3 & $\surd$$\surd$ Abell 777 & 0.226 & 1.4 & 15 & 0.05 & 1.9 & 4 & $\surd$$\surd$ Abell 2111 & 0.229 & 4.1 & 155 & 0.16 & 1.9 & 3 & $\surd$$\surd$ Abell 1961 & 0.232 & 3.4 & 88 & 0.10 & & 3 & Abell 2645 & 0.246 & 1.4 & 35 & 0.03 & & 4 & $\surd$ Abell 2125 & 0.2472 & 2.3 & 62 & 0.19 & 2.9 & 4 & $\surd$$\surd$ Abell 1758 & 0.280 & 2.4 & 91 & 0.09 & 1.1 & 3 & $\surd$$\surd$ Cl 1446+26 & 0.369 & 0.9 & 42 & 0.36 & & & Abell 370 & 0.373 & 2.2 & 107 & 0.21 & & 2 & $\surd$ Cl 0024+16 & 0.39 & 1.1 & 87 & 0.16 & 4.2 & 2 & $\surd$$\surd$ Cl 0939+47 & 0.407 & 1.0 & & 0.4& 1.3 & 5 & $\surd$$\surd$ 3C295 & 0.465 & 1.0 & 45 & 0.22 & & & $\surd$ Cl 0016+16 & 0.541 & 1.0 & 65 & 0.02 & 4.1 & 4 & $\surd$$\surd$
[llrclr]{} Abell 262 & rp800254n00 & 8163 & 1 52 47 +36 09 22 & 0.87 & 45 Abell 1367 & rp800153n00 & 17610 & 11 44 49 +19 41 28 & 1 & 0 Abell 400 & rp800226n00 & 22203 & 2 57 35 +6 00 25 & 0.66 & 30 Abell 1656 & rp800005n00 & 19819 & 12 59 42 +27 56 34 & 1 & 0 Abell 2199 & rp800644n00 & 38244 & 16 28 38 +39 32 52 & 0.76 & 135 & rp150083n00 & 10063 & 16 28 39 +39 33 07 & 0.76 & 135 Abell 2634 & rp800014a01 & 9826 & 23 38 29 +27 01 55 & 1 & 0 Abell 2151 & rp800517n00 & 11341 & 16 04 36 +17 43 21 & 1 & 0 Abell 2256 & rp100110n00 & 16452 & 17 03 54 +78 38 19 & 1 & 0 Abell 1904 & rp800257n00 & 3627 & 14 22 16 +48 30 58 & 1 & 0 Abell 401 & rp800182n00 & 6289 & 2 58 59 +13 34 35 & 0.6 & 30 & rp800235n00 & 7009 & 2 58 59 +13 34 40 & 0.6 & 30 Abell 2670 & rp800420n00 & 16554 & 23 54 14 -10 24 53 & 0.74 & 45 Abell 2218 & rp800097n00 & 39579 & 16 35 52 +66 12 34 & 0.83 & 0 Abell 1689 & rp800248n00 & 13142 & 13 11 29 -1 20 32 & 1 & 0 Abell 520 & rp800480n00 & 4565 & 4 54 10 +2 55 04 & 1 & 0 Abell 963 & rp900528n00 & 9989 & 10 17 12 +39 02 40 & 1 & 0 Abell 223 & rp800048n00 & 6402 & 1 37 56 -12 49 08 & 1 & 0 Abell 222 & rp800048n00 & 6402 & 1 37 34 -12 59 23 & 1 & 0 Abell 2397 & rp800344n00 & 13629 & 21 56 09 +1 23 25 & 1 & 0 Abell 777 & rp800049n00 & 7464 & 9 29 20+78 16 34 & 1 & 0 Abell 2111 & rp800479n00 & 7028 & 15 39 41 +34 24 52 & 1 & 0 Abell 2125 & rp800511n00 & 11340 & 15 41 06 +66 16 13 & 0.6 & 135 Abell 1758 & rp800047n00 & 16142 & 13 32 42 +50 32 54 & 0.7 & 135 Cl 0024+16 & rp800524n00 & 1069 & 0 26 35 +17 09 43 & 1 & 0 Cl 0939+47 & rp800102n00 & 13098 & 9 43 00 +46 59 31 & 0.74 & 30 Cl 0016+16 & rp800253n00 & 40325 & 0 18 34 +16 26 16 & 1 & 0
[llrr]{} Abell 262 & 2.96 & 43.66 & 43.64 Abell 1367 & 3.03 & 43.86 & 43.83 Abell 400 & 3.11 & 43.47 & 43.39 Abell 1656 & 3.10 & 44.60 & 44.56 Abell 2199 & 2.83 & 44.39 & 44.41 Abell 2634 & 3.15 & 43.78 & 43.79 Abell 2151 & 3.33 & 43.96 & 43.82 Abell 2256 & 3.10 & 44.64 & 44.62 Abell 1904 & 3.34 & 43.86 & 43.76 Abell 401 & 3.26 & 44.80 & 44.77 Abell 2670 & 3.03 & 44.17 & 44.09 Abell 2218 & 3.05 & 44.73 & 44.75 Abell 1689 & 2.87 & 45.08 & 45.11 Abell 520 & 3.22 & 44.90 & 44.86 Abell 963 & 3.31 & 44.82 & 44.68 Abell 223 & 3.17 & 44.47 & 44.35 Abell 222 & 3.29 & 44.49 & 44.13 Abell 2397 & 3.12 & 44.60 & 44.45 Abell 777 & & $\sim$43.86 & 43.43 Abell 2111 & 3.24 & 44.76 & 44.71 Abell 2125 & 3.08 & 44.22 & 44.14 Abell 1758 & 3.10 & 45.00 & 44.94 Cl 0024+16 & & $\sim$44.37 & 44.25 Cl 0939+47 & 3.08 & 44.95 & 44.41 Cl 0016+16 & 3.05 & 45.25 & 45.07
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'If strange matter is absolutely stable, the ordinary nuclei decay to strangelets, while neutron stars convert into strange stars. Lifetimes of the ordinary nuclei are constrained experimentally to be above $\sim 10^{33}$ years, while lifetimes of the metastable neutron stars depend on the neutron star masses and can exceed the age of the Universe. As a consequence, the neutron stars and the strange stars can coexist in the Universe. We point out that numerical simulations of the conversion of neutron stars to strange stars, performed by M. Herzog and F. K. Röpke in Phys. Rev. D **84**, 083002 (2011), are focused on a region in the parameter space of strange matter, in which low-mass neutron stars and strange stars are coexistent, whereas massive neutron stars are highly unstable and short lived on an astronomical timescale.'
author:
- |
[M. I. Krivoruchenko and B. V. Martemyanov]{}\
Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics$\mathrm{,}$ B. Cheremushkinskaya 25\
117218 Moscow, Russia
title: '**Comment on “Three-dimensional hydrodynamic simulations of the combustion of a neutron star into a quark star”**'
---
In 1960 Ambartsumyan and Saakyan [@AMBA60] pointed out that production of hyperons becomes energetically favorable inside neutron stars and calculated the composition and the equation of state (EoS) of cold baryonic matter. The existence of quark stars was conjectured by Ivanenko and Kurdgelaidze [@Ivan65]. Quark stars whose interior consists of strange quark matter (SQM) were discussed by Itoh in 1970 [@ITOH70]. The next year Bodmer [@BODM71] discussed the possible existence of absolutely stable SQM, the binding energy of which at zero external pressure could be greater than that of ordinary nuclei. This idea has attracted interest only much later, after the publication of Witten’s (1984) seminal paper [@WITT84]. Detailed calculations in the framework of the MIT bag model, made by Farhi and Jaffe [@FARH84], confirmed that for an admissible range of parameters the SQM is bound.
Existence of the absolutely stable SQM does not contradict to the fact that ordinary nuclei are composed of nucleons. The critical density of the phase transitions with conservation and non-conservation of strangeness, i.e., with turned off and turned on weak interaction, differ only by a numerical factor, so the bound SQM automatically implies that critical density of the phase transition with the conservation of strangeness is relatively low.
At the saturation density, the nuclear matter is still in the baryonic phase. From this condition, Farhi and Jaffe [@FARH84] derived a restriction on the binding energy of the SQM and the vacuum pressure $B$. For the quark-gluon coupling constant $\alpha_c = 0 $ and the strange quark mass $m_s=100$ MeV they found $E/A > m_N - 90$ MeV, where $m_N$ is nucleon mass, and $$B^{1/4} > 145 \; \text{MeV.} \;\;\;\; \mathtt{(stability~of~nuclei)}
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;$$
Stronger constraints follow from the existence of neutron stars. If SQM is absolutely stable, the phase transition to quark matter with the conservation of strangeness leads, on a weak interaction time scale, to the conversion of quark matter to SQM and the eventual slow (deflagration) or fast conversion of a neutron star into a strange star. Such a process is followed by neutrino burst, which can be detected by terrestrial observatories. Neutrino bursts accompanying the slow combustion of neutron stars into quark stars can have duration up to 5 min. with average neutrino energy of a few MeV. [@Mart94] 1-minute intervals on the historical data were analyzed at the Baksan scintillation telescope [@BST]; no statistically significant excess of neutrino events was found. 10-second signals are expected from supernova explosions and also from the conversion of neutron stars into quark stars in the scenarios in which the phase transition leads to gravitational instability. [@MIKR87] Given that neutrino signal is not confirmed by an observation of supernova in optics, x-rays or gamma rays, in-depth analysis of neutrino spectrum and the time evolution of the signal is required to discriminate between scenarios. In this respect, the long-duration neutrino signals provide a cleaner signature for the identification of “quark-novae”. 10-second intervals were analyzed at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory [@SNO], also with zero result.
If the conjecture on the absolutely stable SQM is correct, then all compact stars are either neutron stars or strange stars. The neutron stars are metastable with respect to conversion to strange stars, and their central density is lower than the critical density of the phase transition with the conservation of strangeness.
In observational astrophysics, there are ample indications that compact objects are neutron stars rather than strange stars. The existence of neutron stars provides stronger constraints on the parameters of the MIT bag model, compatible with the absolutely stable SQM. These constraints can be further improved by considering conditions inside newly born hot protoneutron stars during the first seconds after the core collapse supernovae. Such limits are derived in Refs. [@MIKR87; @MIKR91a; @MIKR91b] For $\alpha_c = 0$, e.g., the absence of phase transition with the conservation of strangeness inside a protoneutron star with the baryon rest mass of $1.4~M_{\odot}$ implies $$B^{1/4} > 155 \; \text{MeV.} \;\;\;\; \mathtt{(stability~of~neutron~stars)}$$
In recent years, pulsars with masses $\sim 2.0~M_{\odot}$ have been reported. [@Demo10; @Anto12] Such pulsars, if they are neutron stars, have a high central density and more favorable conditions for conversion into strange stars. A neutron star with mass $\sim 2.0~M_{\odot}$ rules out three softest EoS of nuclear matter out of the six ones examined in Refs. [MIKR91a,MIKR91b]{} The stiff EoS [@BARO85; @PAND75a; @PAND75b] still do not contradict the absolutely stable SQM, although its binding energy must be small. For $\alpha_c = 0$ and $m_s=100$ MeV, the binding energy of less than 30 MeV is allowed in the model of Baron, Cooperstein and Kahana [@BARO85], while in the models of Pandharipande and Smith [@PAND75a; @PAND75b] the SQM is, for this particular choice of parameters, unbound.
An evidence that SQM is unbound comes from the relatively high crossover temperature of QCD. The absolutely stable SQM requires for two-flavor quark mater $T_{c}(n_f = 2) < 122 \pm 7$ MeV [@Kond91], whereas numerous lattice data give $T_{c}(n_f = 2) = 175 \pm 10$ MeV. [@Satz11]
It is presently unknown whether strange stars exist at all. On the other hand, it has been discussed whether there do exist undoubted observable indications that at least some of the compact stars are not strange stars [@CALD91; @Balb92; @JMad04]. The constraints of Refs. [MIKR87,MIKR91a,MIKR91b]{} are valid provided one can find in the Universe at least one neutron star with a mass above $1.4~M_{\odot}$.
In Ref. [@HERZ11] results of the numerical simulation of combustion of a neutron star into a strange star are reported. The conversion to the absolutely stable SQM is found to be turbulent for a substantial part of the parameter space of the MIT bag model. This interesting analysis oversteps the line of the coexistence of massive neutron stars and strange stars:
Given a neutron star of mass $1.4~M_{\odot}$, the horizontal lines in Figs. 1 and 2 of Ref. [@HERZ11] should be moved up to the level of 155 MeV. The left two-thirds of Fig. 3, four out of the five rows of Table 3, three of the four curves in Fig. 4, all the Fig. 5, four of the six columns of Table 2, four of the five curves in Fig. 6, all the Fig. 7, and Sections 5B and 5C are also excluded.
Almost all scenarios described in Ref. [@HERZ11] belong to a universe without the massive neutron stars.
During the time that has elapsed since the publications of Bodmer [BODM71]{} and Witten [@WITT84], there arose a disagreement with lattice models concerning crossover temperature of QCD, while experimental searches for stable strange matter in the laboratory and astrophysics did not yield positive results. Nevertheless, strange quark matter still deserves careful study, for it has important physical implications. A strong argument in favor of the existence of strange quark matter would be the observation of a long-duration soft neutrino burst accompanying combustion of a neutron star into a quark star. Observation of two pulsars with equal masses and different radii would provide an indirect evidence for coexistence of neutron stars and strange stars. Another point worth noting is that since low-mass strange stars are bound by the strong force, their rotation speed is not constrained by the Kepler frequency. A period of rotation $\lesssim
0.5$ milliseconds would indicate a low-mass strange star. Eventually, one can hope that fast progress in lattice gauge theories on their part will help to also describe quantitatively cold baryonic matter.
The authors gratefully acknowledge correspondence from N. Itoh.
[99]{} V. A. Ambartsumyan and G. S. Saakyan, Astron. Zh. **37**, 193 (1960).
D. Ivanenko and D. F. Kurdgelaidze, Astrofizika **1**, 479 (1965).
N. Itoh, Prog. Theor. Phys. **44**, 291 (1970).
A. R. Bodmer, Phys. Rev. D **4**, 1601 (1971).
E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D **30**, 272 (1984).
E. Farhi and R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. D **30**, 2379 (1984).
B. V. Martemyanov, Pis’ma v Astron. Zh. **20**, 588 (1994) \[Astron. Lett. **20**, 499 (1994)\].
E. N. Alekseev, private communication (2012).
M. I. Krivoruchenko, Pis’ma v ZhETF **46**, 5 (1987) \[JETP Lett. **46**, 3 (1987)\]. B. Aharmim *et al.*, Astrophys. J. **728**, 83 (2011).
M. I. Krivoruchenko, B. V. Martemyanov, Astrophys. J. **378**, 628 (1991).
M. I. Krivoruchenko and B. V. Martemyanov, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) **24**, 134 (1991). P. B. Demorest, T. Pennucci, S. M. Ransom, M. S. Roberts, J. W. Hessels, Nature **467**, 1081 (2010).
J. Antoniadis et al., Science **340**, 448 (2013).
E. Baron, J. Cooperstein, S. Kahana, Phys. Rev. Lett. **55**, 126 (1985). V. R. Pandharipande, R. A. Smith, Phys. Lett. B **59**, 15 (1975). V. R. Pandharipande, R. A. Smith, Nucl. Phys. A **237**, 507 (1975). R. R. Caldwell, J. L. Friedman, Phys. Lett. B **264**, 143 (1991).
S. Balberg Phys. Rev. Lett. **92**, 119001 (2004).
J. Madsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. **92**, 119002. (2004).
L. A. Kondratyuk, B. V. Martemyanov, and M. I. Krivoruchenko, Z. Phys. C **52**, 563 (1991).
H. Satz, Nucl. Phys. A **862**-**863**, 4 (2011).
M. Herzog, F. K. Röpke, Phys. Rev. D **84**, 083002 (2011).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper we study error-correcting codes for the storage of data in synthetic deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). We investigate a storage model where a data set is represented by an unordered set of $M$ sequences, each of length $L$. Errors within that model are a loss of whole sequences and point errors inside the sequences, such as insertions, deletions and substitutions. We derive Gilbert-Varshamov lower bounds and sphere packing upper bounds on achievable cardinalities of error-correcting codes within this storage model. We further propose explicit code constructions than can correct errors in such a storage system that can be encoded and decoded efficiently. Comparing the sizes of these codes to the upper bounds, we show that many of the constructions are close to optimal.'
author:
- 'Andreas Lenz, Paul H. Siegel, Antonia Wachter-Zeh, and Eitan Yaakobi [^1] [^2][^3][^4] [^5][^6]'
bibliography:
- 'IEEEabrv.bib'
- 'ref.bib'
title: Coding over Sets for DNA Storage
---
coding over sets, DNA data storage, Gilbert-Varshamov bound, insertion and deletion errors, sphere packing bound
[^1]: This paper was presented in part at the International Symposium on Information Theory 2018 [@LSWY18].
[^2]: A. Lenz is with the Institute for Communications Engineering, Technische Universität München, Munich 80333, Germany (e-mail: [email protected]).
[^3]: P. H. Siegel is with the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department and the Center for Memory and Recording Research, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0407 USA (e-mail: [email protected]).
[^4]: A. Wachter-Zeh is with the Institute for Communications Engineering, Technische Universität München, Munich 80333, Germany (e-mail: [email protected]).
[^5]: E. Yaakobi is with the Computer Science Department, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 32000, Israel (e-mail: [email protected]).
[^6]: This work was supported by the Institute for Advanced Study (IAS), Technische Universität München (TUM), with funds from the German Excellence Initiative and the European Union’s Seventh Framework Program (FP7) under grant agreement no. 291763. This work was also supported by NSF Grant CCF-BSF-1619053 and by the United States-Israel BSF grant 2015816.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study, in an abstract axiomatic setting, the notion of sectional category of a morphism. From this, we unify and generalize known results about this invariant in different settings as well as we deduce new applications.'
address:
- 'F.J. Díaz; J.M. García Calcines; P.R. García Díaz; J. Remedios Gómez Departamento de Matemática Fundamental Universidad de La Laguna 38271 La Laguna, Spain.'
- 'A. Murillo Mas Departamento de Algebra, Geometría y Topología Universidad de Málaga Ap.59, 29080 Málaga, Spain.'
author:
- |
F. Díaz Díaz, J.M. García Calcines,\
P.R. García Díaz, A. Murillo Mas and J. Remedios Gómez
title: Abstract Sectional Category
---
[^1]
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
The sectional category $\mbox{secat}\hspace{2pt}(p)$ of a fibration $p:E\twoheadrightarrow B$, originally introduced by A. Schwarz [@Sch], is defined as the least integer $n$ such that $B$ admits a cover constituted by $n+1$ open subsets, on each of which $p$ has a local section. It is a lower bound of the Lusternik-Schnirelmann category of the base space and it is also a generalization of this invariant since $\mbox{secat}\hspace{2pt}(p)=\mbox{cat}\hspace{2pt}(B)$ when $E$ is contractible. Apart from the original applications of the sectional category in the classification of bundles or the embedding problem [@Sch], this numerical invariant has proved to be useful in different settings. For instance, Smale [@Sm] showed that the sectional category of a certain fibration provides a lower bound for the complexity of algorithms computing the roots of a complex polynomial. We can also mention the work of M. Farber [@Far; @Far2] who introduced the topological complexity of a given space $X$ as the sectional category of the path fibration $X^I\rightarrow X\times X,$ $\alpha \mapsto (\alpha (0),\alpha
(1)).$ In robotics, when $X$ is thought to be the configuration space associated to the motion of a given mechanical system, this invariant measures, roughly speaking, the minimum amount of instructions of any algorithm controlling the given system.
In general, the sectional category of a fibration is hard to compute. The notion of Lusternik-Schnirelmann category (L.-S. category, for short) has the same disadvantage. In order to face this problem for L.-S. category there have been several attempts to describe it in a more functorial and therefore manageable form; among the most successful ones we can mention the Whitehead and Ganea characterizations. Many other approximations of L.-S. category have been introduced. One of them relies in an important algebraic technique for obtaining lower bounds. It consists of taking models of spaces in an algebraic category where a notion of L.-S.-category type invariant is given. Such algebraic category must posses an abstract notion of homotopy, usually established in an axiomatic homotopy setting, such as a Quillen model category. Then the algebraic L.-S. category of the model of X is a lower bound of the original L.-S. category of $X.$ During the progress of this technique, several algebraic notions of L.-S. category have been appearing. In 1993, in order to give a common point for all of them, Doeraene [@D] introduced the notion of L.-S. category in a Quillen model category. Actually, in his work Doeraene develops two different notions of L.-S. category, which are the analogous to the Ganea and Whitehead characterizations in the topological case and proves that, under the crucial cube axiom, these notions agree, as expected. As far as the sectional category is concerned, not much has been done in this direction. In the work of A. Schwarz [@Sch] it was established a Ganea-type characterization of sectional category. Namely, if $p:E\twoheadrightarrow B$ is a fibration we can consider $j_n:*^n_BE\rightarrow B,$ which is the $n$-th fold join of $p.$ If the base space $B$ is paracompact, then A. Schwarz proved that $\mbox{secat}\hspace{2pt}(p)\leq n$ if and only if $j_n$ admits a (homotopy) section. Clapp and Puppe [@clpp Cor. 4.9] also obtained a Whitehead-type characterization of sectional category; more precisely, for a given map $p:E\rightarrow B$ with associated cofibration $\hat{p}:E\rightarrow \hat{B},$ $\mbox{secat}\hspace{2pt}(p)\leq n$ if and only if the diagonal map $\Delta _{n+1}:\hat{B}\rightarrow \hat{B}^{n+1}$ factors, up to homotopy, through the $n$-th fat wedge $T^n(\hat{p})=\{(b_0,b_1,...,b_n)\in \hat{B}^{n+1}:x_i\in
E,\hspace{3pt}\mbox{for some}\hspace{3pt}i \}.$ With this characterization Fassò [@fa] studied the sectional category of the corresponding algebraic model of $p$ in rational homotopy. These functorial characterizations in the topological case open a door through an axiomatization of sectional category. In this direction an initial advance has been made by T. Kahl in [@K]. In his work he gives the notion of abstract sectional category through a certain variation of inductive L.-S. category in the sense of Hess-Lemaire [@He-L].
Our aim in this paper is to develop, in the same spirit as Doeraene did in [@D] with the L.-S. category, the notion of sectional category in an abstract homotopy setting and to deduce some applications. In the first section we recall some background to set the axiomatic framework in which we shall work as well as the main tools that will be used. In §2 we introduce, under two different approaches, the concept of sectional category of a given morphism. Then, in §3 we present the main properties of this invariant and finally, in the fourth section, we give some applications.
Preliminaries: $J$-category and main notions.
=============================================
In this paper we shall work in a $J$-category [@D], which includes the cases of a pointed cofibration and fibration category in the sense of Baues [@B] or a pointed proper model category [@Q; @Q2] as long as they satisfy the “cube lemma". The aim of this section is to provide some of the most important notions and properties given in such a homotopy setting. For proofs and more details the reader is referred to Doeraene’s paper [@D] or his thesis [@D2].
Explicitly, a $J$-category $\mathcal{C}$ is a category with a zero object $0$ and endowed with three classes of morphisms called fibrations ($\twoheadrightarrow $), cofibrations ($\rightarrowtail
$) and weak equivalences ($\stackrel{{\rotatebox{0}{{\tiny $\!\! \sim \!\!\!$}}}\:\,}{\rightarrow }$), satisfying the following set of axioms (J1)-(J5) below. Recall that a morphism which is both a fibration (resp. cofibration) and a weak equivalence is called [*trivial fibration*]{} (resp. [*trivial cofibration*]{}). An object $B$ is called [*cofibrant model*]{} if every trivial fibration $p:E\stackrel{{\rotatebox{0}{{\tiny $\!\! \sim \!\!\!$}}}\,}{\twoheadrightarrow }B$ admits a section.
1. Isomorphisms are trivial cofibrations and also trivial fibrations. Fibrations and cofibrations are closed by composition. If any two of $f,$ $g,$ $gf$ are weak equivalences, then so is the third.
2. The pullback of a fibration $p:E\twoheadrightarrow B$ and any morphism $f:B'\rightarrow B$ $$\xymatrix{
{E'} \ar@{>>}[d]^{\overline{p}} \ar[r]^{\overline{f}}
& E \ar@{>>}[d]^{p} \\
{B'} \ar[r]_{f} & B }$$ always exists and $\overline{p}$ is a fibration. Moreover, if $f$ (respec.$p$) is a weak equivalence, then so is $\overline{f}$ (respec. $\overline{p}$). The dual assertion is also required.
3. For any map $f:X\rightarrow Y$ there exist an $F$-factorization (i.e., $f=p\tau $ where $\tau $ is a weak equivalence and $p$ is a fibration) and a $C$-factorization (i.e., $f=\sigma i,$ where $i$ is a cofibration and $\sigma $ is a weak equivalence).
4. For any object $X$ in $\mathcal{C},$ there exists a trivial fibration $p_X:\overline{X}\stackrel{{\rotatebox{0}{{\tiny $\!\! \sim \!\!\!$}}}\,}{\twoheadrightarrow }X,$ in which $\overline{X}$ is a cofibrant model. The morphism $p_X:\overline{X}\stackrel{{\rotatebox{0}{{\tiny $\!\! \sim \!\!\!$}}}\,}{\twoheadrightarrow }X$ is called *cofibrant replacement* for $X.$
A commutative square $$\xymatrix{
{D} \ar[d]^{g'} \ar[r]^{f'}
& C \ar[d]^{g} \\
{A} \ar[r]_{f} & B }$$ is said to be a *homotopy pullback* if for some (equivalently *any*) $F$-factorization of $g$ (equivalently $f$ or both), the induced map from $D$ to the pullback $E'=A\times _B E$ is a weak equivalence $$\xymatrix@C=.7cm@R=.5cm{
{D} \ar[dd]_{g'} \ar[rrr]^{f'} \ar@{.>}[dr] & & & {C} \ar[dd]^g
\ar[dl]^{\tau }_{{\rotatebox{45}{{\tiny $\!\! \sim \!\!\!$}}}} \\
& {E'} \ar@{>>}[dl]^{\overline{p}} \ar[r]_{\overline{f}} & {E} \ar@{>>}[dr]^p & \\
{A} \ar[rrr]_f & & & B }$$ The notion of *homotopy pushout* is dually defined.
1. [*The cube axiom*]{}. Given any commutative cube where the bottom face is a homotopy pushout and the vertical faces are homotopy pullbacks, then the top face is a homotopy pushout.
As pointed out by Doeraene, (J1)-(J4) axioms allow us to replace ’some’ by ’any’ in the definition of homotopy pullback, or to use an $F$-factorization of $f$ instead of $g.$
We are particularly interested in knowledge of objects and morphisms *up to weak equivalence*. Two objects $A$ and $A'$ in $\mathcal{C}$ are said to be [*weakly equivalent*]{} if there exists a finite chain of weak equivalences joining $A$ and $A'$ $$\xymatrix{
A \ar@{-}[r]^{{\rotatebox{0}{{\tiny $\!\! \sim \!\!\!$}}}} & \bullet \ar@{-}[r]^(.33){{\rotatebox{0}{{\tiny $\!\! \sim \!\!\!$}}}} &
\bullet \: \cdots \cdots \: {\bullet }\ar@{-}[r]^(.67){{\rotatebox{0}{{\tiny $\!\! \sim \!\!\!$}}}} &
{A'} }$$ where the symbol $\xymatrix{{\bullet } \ar@{-}[r] &
{\bullet}}$ means an arrow with either left or right orientation. One can analogously define the notion of *weakly equivalent morphisms* by considering a finite chain of weak equivalences in the category $\textrm{Pair}(\mathcal{C})$ of morphisms in $\mathcal{C}$ ([@B] Def. II.1.3) $$\xymatrix{
A \ar[d]_f \ar@{-}[r]^{\sim } & \bullet \ar[d] \ar@{-}[r]^{\sim} &
\bullet \ar[d] \ar@{-}[r]^{\sim } &
{\bullet} \ar[d] \ar@{-}[r]^{\sim } & {\bullet} \ar[d] \ar@{-}[r]^{\sim } & {A'} \ar[d]^{f'}\\
{B} \ar@{-}[r]_{\sim } & {\bullet } \ar@{-}[r]_{\sim } &
{\bullet} \ar@{-}[r]_{\sim } & {\bullet} \ar@{-}[r]_{\sim } &
{\bullet} \ar@{-}[r]_{\sim } & {B'}}$$
[Given two morphisms $f:A\rightarrow B$ and $g:C\rightarrow B$, consider any $F$-factorization of $g=p\tau $ and the pullback of $f$ and $p.$ Let $\overline{f}$ and $\overline{p}$ the base extensions of $f$ and $p$ respectively. Then, take any $C$-factorization of $\overline{f}=\sigma i$ and the pushout of $\overline{p}$ and $i.$ This pushout object is denoted by $A*_B C$ and is called the [*join*]{} of $A$ and $C$ over $B.$ The dotted induced map from $A*_B C$ to $B$ is called the *join morphism* of $f$ and $g.$ $$\xymatrix@R=.5cm@C=.5cm{
{E'} \ar[rr]^{\overline{f}} \ar@{ >->}[dr]_i
\ar@{>>}[ddd]_{\overline{p}} & & {E} \ar@{>>}[ddd]^p & {C}
\ar[l]_{\tau }^{{\rotatebox{0}{{\tiny $\!\! \sim \!\!\!$}}}} \ar[dddl]^g \\
& {Z} \ar[ur]_{\sigma }^{{\rotatebox{40}{{\tiny $\!\! \sim \!\!\!$}}} } \ar[d] & & \\
& {A*_B C} \ar@{.>}[dr] & & \\
{A} \ar@{ >->}[ur] \ar[rr]_f & & B & }$$ ]{}
The object $A*_B C$ and the join map are well defined and they are symmetrical up to weak equivalence [@D; @D2].
An important result that allows us to see that if a property holds for some $F$-factorization, then it also holds for any $F$-factorization is the following lemma. Recall from [@B] that in a fibration category a *relative cocylinder* of a fibration $p:E\twoheadrightarrow B$ is just an $F$-factorization of the morphism $(id_E,id_E):E\rightarrow E\times _BE,$ where $E\times _BE$ denotes the pullback of $p$ with itself $$\xymatrix{
{E} \ar[rr]^{(id_E,id_E)} \ar[dr]_{\sim } & & {E\times _B E} \\
& {Z_p} \ar@{>>}[ur]_{(d_0,d_1)} & }$$ Then, given $f,g:X\rightarrow E$ such that $pf=pg,$ it is said that *$f$ is homotopic to $g$ relative to $p$* ($f\simeq g$ rel. $p$) if there exists a morphism $F:X\rightarrow Z_p$ such that $d_0F=f$ and $d_1F=g.$ When $p=0:E\twoheadrightarrow 0$ is the zero morphism we obtain the notion of non relative homotopy (and write $f\simeq g$). In this case, the cocylinder of $0:E\twoheadrightarrow 0$ will be denoted by $E^I.$
\[lifting-lemma\]
[@B II.1.11] Consider a commutative diagram of unbroken arrows: $$\xymatrix{
{D} \ar[d]^{\sim }_{\tau } \ar[r]^g & {E} \ar@{>>}[d]^p \\
{A} \ar[r]_f \ar@{.>}[ur]_l & {B} }$$
1. If $A$ is a cofibrant model, then there is a morphism $l:A\rightarrow E$ such that $pl=f.$
2. If $A$ and $D$ are cofibrant models, then there is a morphism $l:A\rightarrow E$ for which $pl=f$ and $l\tau \simeq g$ rel. $p.$ Moreover, if $g$ is a weak equivalence, then so is $l.$
We also recall the notion of weak lifting.
\[good-defi-weaklift\]
Let $f:A\rightarrow B$ and $g:C\rightarrow B$ be morphisms in $\mathcal{C}.$ We say that $f$ admits a *weak lifting along* $g$ if for some $F$-factorization $g=p\tau $ of $g$ and for some cofibrant replacement $p_A:\overline{A}\stackrel{\sim
}{\rightarrow }A$ of $A$ there exists a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix@R=.4cm@C=.4cm{
& & C \ar[dd]^g \ar[dl]^{\tau }_{{\rotatebox{45}{{\tiny $\!\! \sim \!\!\!$}}}} \\
& E \ar@{>>}[dr]^p & \\
{\overline{A}} \ar@{.>}[ur]^s \ar[rr]_{fp_A} & & B }$$
In the particular case $f=id_B$ we say that $g:C\rightarrow B$ admits a *weak section*.
This notion does not depend on the choice of the $F$-factorization nor on the cofibrant replacement. In order to check this fact one has to use Lemma \[lifting-lemma\] above and the following result. The details are left to the reader.
\[lifting-triv-fib\][[@B II.1.6] Let $p:X\stackrel{\sim }{\twoheadrightarrow }Y$ be a trivial fibration and $f:A\rightarrow Y$ any morphism, with $A$ a cofibrant model. Then there exists a lift of $f$ with respect to $p,$ i.e. a morphism $\tilde{f}:A\rightarrow X$ such that $p\tilde{f}=f$ $$\xymatrix{
& {X} \ar@{>>}[d]^{p}_{\sim } \\
{A} \ar[r]_{f} \ar@{.>}[ur]^{\tilde{f}} & {Y} }$$]{}
Another important notion that will be used in this paper is the one of weak pullback.
\[weak-pullback\] [Let $f:A\rightarrow B$, $f':A'\rightarrow B'$ and $b:B\rightarrow B'$ be morphisms in $\mathcal{C}.$ It is said that $A\mbox{-}A'\mbox{-}B'\mbox{-}B$ is a *weak pullback* if for some $F$-factorization $f'=p\tau $ and some cofibrant replacement $p_A:\overline{A}\stackrel{\sim }{\twoheadrightarrow
}A$ of $A$ there exists a homotopy pullback $$\xymatrix{
{\overline{A}} \ar[d]_{fp_A}^{\hspace{15pt}\mbox{h.p.b.}}
\ar@{.>}[r]^x & X \ar@{>>}[dr]_p & {A'} \ar[d]^{f'} \ar[l]_{\tau
}^{\sim } \\ B \ar[rr]_b & & {B'} }$$ ]{}
Any homotopy pullback is a weak pullback. Again, Lemma \[lifting-lemma\], axiom (J4) and Lemma \[lifting-triv-fib\] allow us to replace the word ’some’ by ’any’ in the above definition. We also have to take into account that the composition of homotopy pullbacks is a homotopy pullback (in fact there is a Prism Lemma for homotopy pullbacks [@D Prop. 1.1]) and that the weak equivalences in the category $\textrm{Pair}(\mathcal{C})$ of morphisms in $\mathcal{C}$ are homotopy pullbacks.
Sectional category. Ganea and Whitehead approaches.
===================================================
As in Doeraene’s work, from now on we will assume that $\mathcal{C}$ *is a $J$-category in which all objects are cofibrant models*. Therefore we will take as cofibrant replacements the corresponding identities. It is important to remark that in a general $J$-category we will also obtain the same results. However, the exposition and/or the arguments in this general case would be affected by unessential technical complications. So just for the sake of simplicity and comfort we admit this assumption without lost of generality. Essentially, the key point for the pass from our assumption to the general case is established by considering cofibrant replacements:
- *Any object $X$ in $\mathcal{C}$ has a cofibrant replacement, that is, a trivial fibration $p_X:\overline{X}\stackrel{{\rotatebox{0}{{\tiny $\!\! \sim \!\!\!$}}}\,}{\twoheadrightarrow }X,$ in which $\overline{X}$ is a cofibrant model.* ((J4) axiom )
- *Any morphism $f:X\rightarrow Y$ in $\mathcal{C}$ has a cofibrant replacement, that is, given cofibrant replacements $p_X,$ $p_Y$ of $X$ and $Y,$ there exists an induced morphism $\overline{f}:\overline{X}\rightarrow \overline{Y}$ making commutative the following square $$\xymatrix{
{\overline{X}} \ar@{>>}[d]^{\sim }_{p_X} \ar[r]^{\overline{f}} &
{\overline{Y}} \ar@{>>}[d]_{\sim }^{p_Y} \\
{X} \ar[r]_f & {Y} }$$*
Observe that the second item holds thanks to Lemma \[lifting-triv-fib\]. Using these simple facts when necessary and working a little bit harder the reader should be able to prove our results when not all objects are cofibrant models.
We are now prepared for the definition of sectional category of a morphism in $\mathcal{C}$ under two different approaches. In the following definition, only axioms (J1)-(J4) are needed.
\[$G$-sectional category\]
Let $p:E\rightarrow B$ be any morphism in $\mathcal{C}$ (not necessarily a fibration). We consider for each $n$ a morphism $h_n:*^n_B E\rightarrow B$ inductively as follows:
1. $h_0=p:E\rightarrow B$ (so $*^0_B E=E$)
2. Assume that $h_{n-1}:*^{n-1}_B E\rightarrow B$ is already constructed. Then $h_n$ is the join morphism of $p$ and $h_{n-1}:$ $$\xymatrix@R=.5cm@C=.5cm{
{\bullet } \ar[rr] \ar@{ >->}[dr] \ar@{>>}[ddd] & & {E'}
\ar@{>>}[ddd] & {E}
\ar[l]^{{\rotatebox{0}{{\tiny $\!\! \sim \!\!\!$}}}} \ar[dddl]^p \\
& {\bullet } \ar[ur]^{{\rotatebox{40}{{\tiny $\!\! \sim \!\!\!$}}} } \ar[d] & & \\
& {*^n _B E} \ar@{.>}[dr]^{h_n} & & \\
{*^{n-1}_B E} \ar@{ >->}[ur] \ar[rr]_{h_{n-1}} & & B & }$$
Then, the [*Ganea sectional category of $p$*]{}, $\mbox{Gsecat}(p)$, is the least integer $n\le \infty$ such that $h_n$ admits a weak section $$\xymatrix@R=.4cm@C=.4cm{
& & {*^n_B E} \ar[dd]^{h_n} \ar[dl]_{{\rotatebox{45}{{\tiny $\!\! \sim \!\!\!$}}}} \\
& {\bullet } \ar@{>>}[dr] & \\
{B} \ar@{.>}[ur] \ar@{>>}[rr]_{id_B}^{\sim } & & B }$$
Observe that $\mbox{Gsecat}(p)=0$ if and only if $p$ has a weak section. Moreover, in the topological setting this invariant coincides with $\mbox{secat}(p),$ the classical sectional category of a given fibration $p:E\twoheadrightarrow B$, with $B$ paracompact. In fact, the $n$-th iterated join of $p$ over $B$, $h_n:*^n_B E\rightarrow B$ has a homotopy section if and only if $B$ can be covered by $n+1$ open subsets, each of them having a local homotopy section [@Ja; @Sch].
Now we show that this is an invariant up to weak equivalence.
\[salvoequivdeb\][If $p:E\rightarrow B$ and $p':E'\rightarrow B'$ are weakly equivalent morphisms, then $\mbox{Gsecat}(p)=\mbox{Gsecat}(p').$]{}
For the proof we shall use the following result.
\[buenadefi\][[@D Lemma 3.5] Consider the following commutative diagram in $\mathcal{C}$ $$\xymatrix{
{A} \ar[d]_x \ar[rr]^f & & {B} \ar[dd]^b & & {C} \ar[ll]_g
\ar[d]^y \\
{\bullet } \ar@{>>}[drr] & & & & {\bullet } \ar@{>>}[dll] \\
{A'} \ar[u]^{\sim } \ar[rr]_{f'} & & {B'} & & {C'} \ar[ll]^{g'}
\ar[u]_{\sim } }$$ That is, $bf$ admits a weak lifting along $f'$ and $bg$ admits a weak lifting along $g'.$ Let $j:A*_BC\rightarrow
B$ and $j':A'*_{B'}C'\rightarrow B'$ denote the corresponding join maps. Then $bj$ admits a weak lifting along $j'$ $$\xymatrix{
{A*_B C} \ar[d]_{j} \ar[r] & {\bullet }
\ar@{>>}[dr] & {A'*_{B'}C'} \ar[d]^{j'} \ar[l]^(.6){\sim } \\
B \ar[rr]_b & & {B'} }$$ Furthermore, if $b,x$ and $y$ are weak equivalences, then $A*_B C$ is weakly equivalent to $A'*_{B'}C'$ via the above diagram.]{}
We can suppose without losing generality that there is a commutative diagram of the following form $$\xymatrix{
{E} \ar[d]_p \ar[r]^u_{\sim } & {E'} \ar[d]^{p'} \\
{B} \ar[r]^{\sim }_{v} & {B'} }$$ Let us see by induction on $n$ that $h_n:*^n_BE\rightarrow B$ and $h'_n:*^n_{B'}E'\rightarrow B'$ are weakly equivalent morphisms. Indeed, for $n=0$ it is certainly true. Now suppose that $h_{n-1}$ and $h'_{n-1}$ are weakly equivalent. Again we can assume, without losing generality, that there is a commutative square $$\xymatrix{
{*^{n-1}_BE} \ar[d]_{h_{n-1}} \ar[r]^{w}_{\sim } & {*^{n-1}_{B'}E'} \ar[d]^{h'_{n-1}} \\
{B} \ar[r]^{\sim }_{v} & {B'} }$$ Now take $h'_{n-1}=q\lambda $ and $p'=r\mu $ $F$-factorizations. Then we have a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
{*^{n-1}_BE} \ar[d]_{\lambda w}^{\sim } \ar[rr]^{h_{n-1}} & & {B}
\ar[dd]^v_{\sim } & & {E} \ar[ll]_p
\ar[d]^{\mu u}_{\sim } \\
{\bullet } \ar@{>>}[drr]^q & & & & {\bullet } \ar@{>>}[dll]_r \\
{*^{n-1}_{B'}E'} \ar[u]_{\sim }^{\lambda} \ar[rr]_{h'_{n-1}} & &
{B'} & & {E'} \ar[ll]^{p'} \ar[u]^{\sim }_{\mu } }$$ which, applying Lemma \[buenadefi\], gives rise to this one $$\xymatrix{
{*^n_BE} \ar[d]_{h_n} \ar[r]_{\sim } & {\bullet }
\ar@{>>}[dr] & {*^n_{B'}E'} \ar[d]^{h'_n} \ar[l]^(.6){\sim } \\
B \ar[rr]_v^{\sim} & & {B'} }$$
Now we have that $h_n$ admits a weak section if and only if $h'_n$ admits a weak section. In order to check this assertion, one has just to take into account Lemma \[lifting-lemma\] and the fact that the pullback of $\bullet \twoheadrightarrow B'$ and $v:B\stackrel{\sim }{\rightarrow }B'$ gives rise to an $F$-factorization of $h_n$ in a natural way.
Now we give a Whitehead-type definition of sectional category.
\[$W$-sectional category\] Let $p:E\rightarrow B$ be any morphism in $\mathcal{C}$ where $B$ is $e$-fibrant, that is, the zero morphism $B\rightarrow 0$ is a fibration. We define $j_n:T^n(p)\rightarrow B^{n+1}$ inductively as follows:
1. $j_0=p:E\rightarrow B$ (so $T^0(p)=E$)
2. If $j_{n-1}:T^{n-1}(p)\rightarrow B^n$ is constructed, then $j_n$ is the following join construction: $$\xymatrix@R=.5cm@C=.5cm{
{\bullet } \ar[rr] \ar@{ >->}[dr] \ar@{>>}[ddd] & & {\bullet }
\ar@{>>}[ddd] & {B^n\times E}
\ar[l]^(.6){{\rotatebox{0}{{\tiny $\!\! \sim \!\!\!$}}}} \ar[dddl]^{id_{B^n}\times p} \\
& {\bullet } \ar[ur]^{{\rotatebox{40}{{\tiny $\!\! \sim \!\!\!$}}} } \ar[d] & & \\
& {T^n(p)} \ar@{.>}[dr]^{j_n} & & \\
{T^{n-1}(p)\times B} \ar@{ >->}[ur] \ar[rr]_{j_{n-1}\times id_B} &
& B^{n+1} & }$$
Then the [*Whitehead sectional category of $p$*]{}, $\mbox{Wsecat}(p)$, is the least integer $n\le \infty$ such that the diagonal morphism $\Delta _{n+1}:B\rightarrow B^{n+1}$ admits a weak section along $j_n:T^n(p)\rightarrow B^{n+1}:$ $$\xymatrix@R=.4cm@C=.4cm{
& & {T^n(p)} \ar[dd]^{j_n} \ar[dl]_{{\rotatebox{45}{{\tiny $\!\! \sim \!\!\!$}}}} \\
& {\bullet } \ar@{>>}[dr] & \\
B \ar@{.>}[ur] \ar[rr]_{\Delta _{n+1}} & & {B^{n+1}} }$$
Observe that, in order to define $\mbox{Wsecat}(p),$ we have to consider $B$ an e-fibrant object to ensure that all products $B^n,$ $T^n(p)\times B$ and $B^n\times E$ exist ($n\geq 0$). Now we extend $\mbox{Wsecat}(p)$ to the general case, in which $B$ need not be e-fibrant. For it consider an $F$-factorization $\xymatrix{B \ar[r]_{\sim }^{\tau } & {F} \ar@{>>}[r] & {0}}$ of the zero morphism. Then we define $$\mbox{Wsecat}(p):=\mbox{Wsecat}(\tau p)$$
\[good-defi-whit\] [If $p:E\rightarrow B$ is any morphism, then $\mbox{Wsecat}(p)$ does not depend on the choice of the $F$-factorization for $B\rightarrow 0.$]{}
Consider $\xymatrix{B \ar[r]_{\sim }^{\tau } & {F} \ar@{>>}[r] &
{0}}$ and $\xymatrix{B \ar[r]_{\sim }^{\tau '} & {F'} \ar@{>>}[r]
& {0}}$ two such $F$-factorizations. Then, by Lemma \[lifting-lemma\](b) applied to the following commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
{B} \ar[r]^{\tau }_{\sim } \ar[d]_{\tau '}^{\sim } & {F}
\ar@{>>}[d] \\ {F'} \ar@{.>}[ur]^{\sim }_h \ar@{>>}[r] & {0} }$$ there exists a weak equivalence $h:F'\stackrel{\sim
}{\rightarrow }F$ such that $h\tau '\simeq \tau .$ Take a homotopy $H:B\rightarrow F^I$ verifying that $d_0H=h\tau '$ and $d_1H=\tau
$ and consider the commutative diagram, where the codomain of each vertical arrow is an e-fibrant object $$\xymatrix{
{E} \ar[d]_{\tau ' p} \ar@{=}[r] &
{E} \ar[d]_{h\tau ' p} \ar@{=}[r] & {E} \ar[d]_{Hp} \ar@{=}[r] &
{E} \ar[d]_{\tau p} \\
{F'} \ar[r]^{\sim }_h & {F} & {F^I} \ar[l]_{\sim }^{d_0}
\ar[r]^{\sim }_{d_1} & {F} }$$ This diagram shows that $\tau p$ and $\tau 'p$ are weakly equivalent morphisms. Observe that, since $F\times F$ is e-fibrant and by definition there is a fibration $(d_0,d_1):F^I\twoheadrightarrow F\times F,$ we have that the cocylinder object $F^I$ is also e-fibrant. Finally, considering a similar argument to that given in the proof of Proposition \[salvoequivdeb\] we obtain the identity $\mbox{Wsecat}(\tau p)=\mbox{Wsecat}(\tau 'p).$
\[good-defi-Wsecat\][If $p:E\rightarrow B$ and $p':E'\rightarrow B'$ are weakly equivalent morphisms, then $\mbox{Wsecat}(p)=\mbox{Wsecat}(p').$]{}
We can suppose, without losing generality, that there is a commutative square $$\xymatrix{
{E} \ar[d]_p \ar[r]^u_{\sim } & {E'} \ar[d]^{p'} \\
{B} \ar[r]^{\sim }_{v} & {B'} }$$ Now, if $\xymatrix{B'
\ar[r]_{\sim }^{\tau '} & {F'} \ar@{>>}[r] & {0}}$ is an $F$-factorization of the zero morphism, then an $F$-factorization $\xymatrix{B \ar[r]_{\sim }^{\tau } & {F} \ar@{>>}[r]^w & {F'}}$ of $\tau 'v$ gives rise to $\xymatrix{B \ar[r]_{\sim }^{\tau } &
{F} \ar@{>>}[r] & {0}},$ another $F$-factorization, and a commutative square $$\xymatrix{
{E} \ar[d]_{\tau p} \ar[r]^u_{\sim } & {E'} \ar[d]^{\tau 'p'} \\
{F} \ar@{>>}[r]^{\sim }_{w} & {F'} }$$ Again, the result follows considering a similar argument to that given in the proof of Proposition \[salvoequivdeb\].
We now see that $\mbox{Gsecat}$ and $\mbox{Wsecat}$ coincide in a $J$-category.
\[coinciden\][If $p:E\rightarrow B$ is any morphism, then $$\mbox{Gsecat}(p)=\mbox{Wsecat}(p).$$]{}
For it we recall some useful properties about weak pullbacks. Again we refer the reader to [@D].
[[@D Prop. 2.5] Consider the following diagram $$\xymatrix{
A \ar[d] & B \ar[d] & C \ar[d] \\
X \ar[r] & Y \ar[r] & Z }$$ If $B\mbox{-}C\mbox{-}Z\mbox{-}Y$ is a weak pullback, then $A\mbox{-}B\mbox{-}Y\mbox{-}X$ is a weak pullback if and only if $A\mbox{-}C\mbox{-}Z\mbox{-}X$ is a weak pullback.]{}
\[lift-weakpullback\][[@D Lemma 3.5] Consider a weak pullback $$\xymatrix{
{D} \ar[d]_{g}^{\hspace{15pt}\mbox{h.p.b.}} \ar[r] & {\bullet }
\ar@{>>}[dr] & {C} \ar[d]^{g'} \ar[l]^{\sim } \\ A \ar[rr]_f & &
{B} }$$ and let $h:X\rightarrow A$ be any morphism. Then $h$ admits a weak lifting along $g$ if and only if $fh$ admits a weak lifting along $g'.$]{}
And now the Join Theorem. This result strongly relies on the cube axiom (J5 axiom) and therefore it does not admit a dual version.
\[jointheorem\] [[@D Th. 2.7] Consider the weak pullbacks $$\xymatrix{ A \ar[d]_f^{\hspace{15pt}\mbox{h.p.b.}} \ar[r] & X
\ar@{>>}[dr]_p & {A'} \ar[d] \ar[l]^{\sim } & & C
\ar[d]_g^{\hspace{15pt}\mbox{h.p.b.}} \ar[r] & Y \ar@{>>}[dr]_q
& {C'} \ar[d] \ar[l]^{\sim } \\
B \ar[rr]_b & & {B'} & & B \ar[rr]_b & & {B'}}$$ Then there is a weak pullback $$\xymatrix{
{A*_B C} \ar[d]^{\hspace{15pt}\mbox{h.p.b.}} \ar[r] & {\bullet }
\ar@{>>}[dr] & {A'*_{B'}C'} \ar[d] \ar[l]^(.6){\sim } \\
B \ar[rr]_b & & {B'} }$$]{}
First suppose that $B$ is e-fibrant. We will see by induction on $n\ge 0$ that for any map $p{\colon}E\rightarrow B$, there is weak pullback: $$\xymatrix{
{*^n_B E} \ar[d]_{h_n}^{\hspace{15pt}\mbox{h.p.b.}} \ar[r] &
{\bullet } \ar@{>>}[dr] & {T^n(p)} \ar[d]^{j_n} \ar[l]^{\sim } \\
B \ar[rr]_{\Delta _{n+1}} & & {B^{n+1}} }$$ For $n=0$ it is trivially true. Suppose the statement true for $n-1$ and consider the diagram $$\xymatrix{ {*^{n-1}_B E} \ar[d]_{h_{n-1}}
\ar@{}[dr]|-(.4){\textcircled{{\scriptsize 1}}} &
{T^{n-1}(p)\times B }\ar[r]^{pr}
\ar[d]|-{j_{n-1}\times id_B} & {T^{n-1}(p)} \ar[d]_{j_{n-1}} \\
{B} \ar[r]_{\Delta _{n+1}} & {B^n\times B} \ar@{>>}[r]_{pr} &
{B^n} }$$ where the right square is a pullback in which $pr:B^n\times
B\twoheadrightarrow B^n$ is a fibration (observe that $B$ is e-fibrant and use (J2) axiom). Therefore this pullback is also a homotopy pullback and a weak pullback. Now, applying the Prism Lemma together with the induction hypothesis we deduce that diagram is also a weak pullback.
The same argument applied to the diagram $$\xymatrix{ {E} \ar[d]_{p} \ar[rr]^(.4){(p,p,...,p,id_E)}
\ar@{}[drr]|-{\textcircled{{\scriptsize 2}}} & & {B^n\times
E} \ar[d]|-{id_{B^n}\times p} \ar@{>>}[rr]^{pr} & & {E} \ar[d]_p \\
{B} \ar[rr]_{\Delta _{n+1}} & & {B^n\times B} \ar@{>>}[rr]_{pr} &
& B }$$ implies that is a weak pullback. We obtain the expected result by applying the Join Theorem to the weak pullbacks and . The theorem easily follows now from this fact together with Lemma \[lift-weakpullback\].
When $B$ is not e-fibrant, consider $\xymatrix{B \ar[r]_{\sim
}^{\tau } & {F} \ar@{>>}[r] & {0}}$ an $F$-factorization. Then we have that $\mbox{Gsecat}(p)=\mbox{Gsecat}(\tau p)$ by Proposition \[salvoequivdeb\]. But we have already proved that $\mbox{Gsecat}(\tau p)=\mbox{Wsecat}(\tau p)$ (=$\mbox{Wsecat}(p)$).
When our category $\mathcal{C}$ does not satisfy the cube axiom (J5), the most we can say is that $\mbox{Wsecat}(p)\leq
\mbox{Gsecat}(p)$. Indeed, a similar argument that the one used in Theorem \[coinciden\] using Lemma \[buenadefi\] instead of Lemma \[jointheorem\], proves that for each $n\geq 0,$ $\Delta
_{n+1}h_n$ admits a weak lifting along $j_n,$ i.e., there is a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
{*^n_B E} \ar[d]_{h_n}^{\hspace{15pt}} \ar[r] &
{\bullet } \ar@{>>}[dr] & {T^n(p)} \ar[d]^{j_n} \ar[l]^{\sim } \\
B \ar[rr]_{\Delta _{n+1}} & & {B^{n+1}} }$$ The general case, in which $B$ is not necessarily e-fibrant, follows easily. Now, if $id_B$ admits a weak lifting along $h_n,$ then it is easy to check that $\Delta _{n+1}=\Delta _{n+1}id_B$ admits a weak lifting along $\Delta _{n+1}h_n.$ Using Lemma \[transitivity\] below we obtain that $\Delta _{n+1}$ admits a weak lifting along $j_n.$
From now on we will denote by $\secat (p)$ both equivalent invariants and call it the [*sectional category*]{} of $p.$
Main properties of the sectional category
=========================================
We begin by observing that the Lusternik Schnirelmann category of an object $B$ in $\mathcal{C}$ is the sectional category of the zero morphism $0\rightarrow B.$ Indeed (see [@D]) the $n$-th Ganea map $p^n\colon G^nB\rightarrow B$ is precisely the $n$-th join over $B$, $h_n:*^n_BE\rightarrow B$, of $0\rightarrow B$ and therefore, $$\mbox{cat}(B)=\mbox{secat}(0\rightarrow B).$$
On the other hand, given $b:B\rightarrow B'$ any morphism, we define $\mbox{cat}(b)$ as the least integer $n\leq \infty $ such that $b$ admits a weak lifting along $p'^n:G^nB'\rightarrow B'$. Compare the next result with [@K].
\[superlema\][Let $p:E\rightarrow B$, $p':E'\rightarrow B'$ and $b\colon B\to
B'$ be morphisms in $\mathcal{C}$ defining a weak pullback. Then, $$\mbox{secat}(p)\leq \min \{\mbox{cat}(b),\mbox{secat}(p')\}.$$ ]{}
For its proof we shall need the following lemma.
\[transitivity\][[@D Lemma 3.4] Let $f:A\rightarrow B,$ $g:C\rightarrow B$ and $h:D\rightarrow B$ be morphisms. If $f$ admits a weak lifting along $g$ and $g$ admits a weak lifting along $h$, then $f$ admits a weak lifting along $h.$]{}
By induction, using repeatedly the Join Theorem (Lemma \[jointheorem\]) on the given weak pullback
$$\xymatrix{
{E} \ar[d]_{p} \ar[r] & {\bullet }
\ar@{>>}[dr] & {E'} \ar[d]^{p'} \ar[l]^(.6){\sim } \\
B \ar[rr]_b & & {B'} }$$ we obtain, for every $n\geq 0,$ a weak pullback of the form $$\xymatrix{
{*^n_BE} \ar[d]_{h_n} \ar[r] & {\bullet }
\ar@{>>}[dr] & {*^n_{B'}E'} \ar[d]^{h'_n} \ar[l]^(.6){\sim } \\
B \ar[rr]_b & & {B'} }$$ Hence, if $\mbox{secat}(p')\leq n$, $h'_n$ admits a weak section: $$\xymatrix@R=.4cm@C=.4cm{
& & {*^n_{B'}E'} \ar[dd]^{h'_n} \ar[dl]_{{\rotatebox{45}{{\tiny $\!\! \sim \!\!\!$}}}} \\
& {\bullet } \ar@{>>}[dr] & \\
{B'} \ar@{.>}[ur]^s \ar[rr]_{id_{B'}} & & {B'} }$$ In particular, $b:B\rightarrow B'$ admits a weak lifting along $h'_n$ through the morphism $sb:B\rightarrow {\bullet }.$ By Lemma \[lift-weakpullback\], $h_n$ admits a weak section and $\mbox{secat}(p)\leq n.$
Now suppose that $\mbox{cat}(b)\leq n,$ that is, $b$ admits a weak lifting along $p'^n:G^nB'\rightarrow B'$. Consider the following diagram obtained by simply choosing any $F$-factorization of $p'$: $$\xymatrix{
{0} \ar[d] \ar[r] & {\bullet }
\ar@{>>}[dr] & {E'} \ar[d]^{p'} \ar[l]^(.6){\sim } \\
{B'} \ar[rr]_{id} & & {B'} }$$ As this is not in general a weak pullback, apply this time Lemma \[buenadefi\] inductively to obtain that $p'^n:G^nB'\rightarrow B'$ admits a weak lifting along $h'_n:*^n_{B'}E'\rightarrow B'.$ Finally, by Lema \[transitivity\] we conclude that $b$ admits a weak lifting along $h'_n:*^n_{B'}E'\rightarrow B',$ which by Lemma \[lift-weakpullback\], is equivalent to the fact that $h_n:*^n_{B}E\rightarrow B$ admits a weak section.
Even if our data is not a weak pullback, we can prove a similar result. Compare with [@K].
\[lema2\][Let $p:E\rightarrow B$ and $p':E'\rightarrow B$ be morphisms in $\mathcal{C}$. If $p$ admits a weak lifting along $p',$ then $\mbox{secat}(p')\leq \mbox{secat}(p).$ In particular, $$\mbox{secat}\hspace{1pt}(p)\leq
\mbox{cat}\hspace{1pt}(B).$$ Moreover, if $p:E\rightarrow B$ admits a weak lifting along the zero morphism $0\rightarrow B$ (in particular, when $E$ is weakly contractible, i.e., $E$ and $0$ are weakly equivalent) then $\mbox{secat}\hspace{1pt}(p)=\mbox{cat}\hspace{1pt}(B)$.]{}
For the first assertion, apply Lemma \[buenadefi\] inductively to the diagram $$\xymatrix{
{E} \ar[d]_{p} \ar[r] & {\bullet }
\ar@{>>}[dr] & {E'} \ar[d]^{p'} \ar[l]^(.6){\sim } \\
B \ar[rr]_{id_B} & & {B} }$$ to conclude that, for every $n\geq
0,$ $h_n$ admits a weak lifting along $h'_n$. If $\secat(p)\le n$, $id_B$ admits a weak lifting along $h_n$ and, by Lemma \[transitivity\], $id_B$ admits a weak lifting along $h'_n$. Hence, $\secat(p')\le n$.
On the other hand, recall that $\mbox{cat}(B)=\mbox{secat}(0\rightarrow B)$ and observe that the zero morphism admits a weak lifting along any morphism. Thus, $\mbox{secat}\hspace{1pt}(p)\leq \mbox{cat}\hspace{1pt}(B).$ Finally note that, if $E$ is a weakly trivial object, by Lemma \[lifting-lemma\], $p$ admits a weak lifting along $0:0\rightarrow B$.
Modelization functors.
----------------------
We now study the behaviour of $\secat$ through a [*modelization functor*]{}. Recall from [@D] that a covariant functor $\mu
:\mathcal{C}\rightarrow \mathcal{D}$ between categories satisfying (J1)-(J4) axioms is called a modelization functor if it preserves weak equivalences, homotopy pullbacks and homotopy pushouts. We say that $\mu $ is *pointed* if $\mu (0)=0.$ If $\mu
:\mathcal{C}\rightarrow \mathcal{D}$ is contravariant, it is said to be a modelization functor if the corresponding covariant functor $\mu :\mathcal{C}^{op}\rightarrow \mathcal{D}$ is a modelization functor. Here we prove:
\[comparison\][If $\mu :\mathcal{C}\rightarrow \mathcal{D}$ is a modelization functor between $J$-categories, then for any morphism $p:E\rightarrow B$ of $\mathcal{C}$ $$\mbox{secat}(\mu (p))\leq \mbox{secat}(p)$$]{}
For it we shall need the following
\[tecnico\][[@D Prop. 6.7] Let $\mu :\mathcal{C}\rightarrow \mathcal{D}$ be a modelization functor and let $j:A*_BC\rightarrow B$ denote the join map of $f:A\rightarrow B$ and $g:C\rightarrow B$ . Then, there is a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
{\mu (A*_BC)} \ar[drr]^{\mu (j)} & & \\
{\bullet } \ar[u]_{\sim } \ar[d]^{\sim } \ar[rr] & & {\mu (B)} \\
{\mu (A)*_{\mu (B)}\mu (C)} \ar[urr]_{j'} & & }$$ where $j'$ denotes the join morphism of $\mu (f)$ and $\mu (g).$]{}
In view of Lemma \[transitivity\] it is sufficient to prove that, for each $n$, $h_n^{\mu (p)}$ admits a weak lifting along $\mu (h_n^{p})$ $$\xymatrix@R=.4cm@C=.4cm{
& & {\mu (*^n_BE)} \ar[dl]^{\sim } \ar[dd]^{\mu (h_n^p)} \\
& {\bullet } \ar@{>>}[dr] & \\
{*^n_{\mu (B)}\mu (E)} \ar[ur] \ar[rr]_{h_n^{\mu (p)}} & & {\mu
(B)}}$$ where $h_n^p$ and $h_n^{\mu (p)}$ are the $n$-th join morphisms $p$ and $\mu (p)$ respectively. For $n=0$ is trivially true. By assuming the assertion true for $n-1,$ and choosing any $F$-factorization of $\mu (p)$ we obtain a commutative diagram of the form $$\xymatrix{
{*^{n-1}_{\mu (B)}\mu (E)} \ar[d] \ar[rr]^{h_{n-1}^{\mu (p)}} & &
{\mu (B)} \ar[dd]^{id} & & {\mu (E)} \ar[ll]_{\mu (p)}
\ar[d]_{\sim } \\
{\bullet } \ar@{>>}[drr] & & & & {\bullet } \ar@{>>}[dll] \\
{\mu (*^{n-1}_{B}E)} \ar[u]_{\sim } \ar[rr]_{\mu (h_{n-1}^p)} & &
{\mu (B)} & & {\mu (E)} \ar[ll]^{\mu (p)} \ar[u]^{\sim } }$$ By Lemma \[buenadefi\] $h_n^{\mu (p)}$ admits a weak section along the join morphism of $\mu (h_{n-1}^p)$ and $\mu (p):$ $$\xymatrix{
{*^n_{\mu (B)}\mu (E)} \ar[d]_{h_n^{\mu (p)}} \ar[r] & {\bullet }
\ar@{>>}[dr] & {\mu (*^{n-1}_{B}E)*_{\mu (B)}\mu (E)} \ar[d] \ar[l]^(.75){\sim } \\
{\mu (B)} \ar[rr]_{id} & & {\mu (B)} }\eqno(3)$$ On the other hand, applying Proposition \[tecnico\] above to the morphisms $h_{n-1}^p:*^{n-1}_BE\rightarrow B$ and $p:E\rightarrow B,$ we obtain a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
{\bullet } \ar[rr]_{\sim } \ar[d]^{\sim } & & {\mu (*^n_BE)}
\ar[d]^{\mu (h_n^p)} \\
{\mu (*^{n-1}_{B}E)*_{\mu (B)}\mu (E)} \ar[rr] & & {\mu (B)}}$$ Taking any $F$-factorization of $\mu (h_n^p)$ and applying Lemma \[lifting-lemma\] we deduce that the join morphism $\mu
(*^{n-1}_{B}E)*_{\mu (B)}\mu (E)\rightarrow \mu (B)$ admits a weak lifting along $\mu (h_n^p)$. Finally, by Lemma \[transitivity\] applied to $(3)$, we conclude the inductive step.
Observe that, for the proof of Theorem \[comparison\] we have used the Ganea-type version of sectional category. If (J5) axiom is not satisfied, then using similar arguments we can also obtain the same result for the Whitehead-type version of sectional category. The same also applies for the remaining results of this section.
\[igualdad\][Consider $\mu :\mathcal{C}\rightarrow \mathcal{D}$ and $\nu
:\mathcal{D}\rightarrow \mathcal{C}$ modelization functors between $J$-categories and let $p:E\rightarrow B$ be a morphism in $\mathcal{C}$ such that $\nu (\mu (p))$ is weakly equivalent to $p$. Then $$\mbox{secat}(\mu (p))=\mbox{secat}(p)$$]{}
As an example we apply the theorem above to the [*abstract topological complexity*]{} of a given object. For any e-fibrant object $B$ we define its topological complexity, $\mbox{TC}(B)$ as the sectional category of the diagonal morphism $\Delta
_B:B\rightarrow B\times B$. If $B$ is not e-fibrant consider any $F$-factorization $\xymatrix{B \ar[r]^{\sim } & {F} \ar@{>>}[r] &
{0}}$ and set $$\mbox{TC}(B):=\mbox{TC}(F).$$ Then $\mbox{TC}(B)$ does not depend on the e-fibrant object $F;$ indeed, if we take another $F$-factorization $\xymatrix{B \ar[r]^{\sim } & {F'}
\ar@{>>}[r] & {0}},$ then there exists a weak equivalence $h:F'\stackrel{\sim }{\rightarrow }F$ (see the proof of Lemma \[good-defi-whit\]). The naturality of the diagonal morphism applied to $h$ together with the fact that $h\times h:F'\times
F'\stackrel{\sim }{\rightarrow }F\times F$ is a weak equivalence (by the dual of the Gluing Lemma [@B II.1.2]) prove that $\Delta _{F}:F\rightarrow F\times F$ and $\Delta
_{F'}:F'\rightarrow F'\times F'$ are weakly equivalent morphisms. Therefore $$\mbox{TC}(F)=\mbox{secat}(\Delta
_{F})=\mbox{secat}(\Delta _{F'})=\mbox{TC}(F').$$ $\mbox{TC}(B)$ neither depends on the weak type of $B;$ given $f:B\stackrel{\sim
}{\rightarrow }B'$ a weak equivalence, if we consider an $F$-factorization $\xymatrix{{B'} \ar[r]_{\sim }^{\tau '} & {F'}
\ar@{>>}[r] & {0}}$, then any $F$-factorization of the composite $\tau 'f:B\rightarrow F'$ $$\xymatrix{ {B} \ar[rr]^{\tau 'f}_{\sim } \ar[dr]^{\sim }_{\tau } & & {F'}
\\ & {F} \ar@{>>}[ur]_g & }$$ gives rise to a trivial fibration $g:F\stackrel{\sim }{\twoheadrightarrow }F',$ which shows that $$\mbox{TC}(B)=\mbox{TC}(F)=\mbox{TC}(F')=\mbox{TC}(B').$$
[For any pointed modelization functor $\mu :\mathcal{C}\rightarrow
\mathcal{D}$ and any object $B$, $$\mbox{TC}(\mu (B))\leq
\mbox{TC}(B)$$]{}
Taking into account that $\mu $ preserves weak equivalences and $\mbox{TC}$ does not depend on the weak type, we can suppose without losing generality that $B$ is an e-fibrant object. Since $\mu (B)$ need not be e-fibrant we consider any $F$-factorization $$\xymatrix{{\mu (B)} \ar[rr] \ar[dr]^{\sim }_{\tau } & & {0}
\\ & {F} \ar@{>>}[ur] & }$$ so that $\mbox{TC}(\mu (B))=\mbox{TC}(F).$ Now take the following commutative cube: $$\xymatrix@R=.4cm@C=.4cm{
& {\mu (B\times B)} \ar[rrr]^{\mu (pr_2)} \ar@{.>}'[dd]^{\,\omega }[dddd] \ar[ddl]_{\mu (pr_1)}
& & & {\mu (B)} \ar[dddd]^{\tau }_{\sim} \ar[ddl] \\
& & & \\
{\mu (B)} \ar[rrr] \ar[dddd]_{\tau }^{\sim }
& & & {0} \ar[dddd]^(.3){id}_(.3){\sim } \\
& & & \\
& {F\times F} \ar@{>>}'[rr]_(.7){pr_2}[rrr] \ar@{>>}[ddl]_{pr_1} & & &
{F} \ar@{>>}[ddl]
\\
& & &\\
{F} \ar@{>>}[rrr] & & & {0} \\
}$$ where $pr_1$ and $pr_2$ denote the projection morphisms. As $\mu$ is a pointed modelization functor, the top face is a homotopy pullback. On the other hand, the bottom face is a strict pullback (and a homotopy pullback) and $\omega =(\tau \mu
(pr_1),\tau \mu (pr_2))$ is the induced morphism from the universal property of the pullback. Since the top and bottom faces are homotopy pullbacks and the unbroken vertical morphisms are weak equivalences, by [@D Cor. 1.12] (or the dual of the Gluing Lemma [@B II.1.2]) we have that $\omega $ is also a weak equivalence. From the following commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
{\mu (B)} \ar[rr]^{\tau }_{\sim } \ar[d]_{\mu (\Delta _B)} & &
{F} \ar[d]^{\Delta _{F}} \\
{\mu (B\times B)} \ar[rr]^{\sim }_{\omega } & & {F\times F} }$$ we deduce that $\mu (\Delta _B)$ and $\Delta _{F}$ are weakly equivalent morphisms. Then, by Proposition \[salvoequivdeb\] we have that $\mbox{TC}(\mu
(B))=\mbox{secat}(\Delta _{F}) =\mbox{secat}(\mu (\Delta _B))$ while, by Theorem \[comparison\], $\mbox{secat}(\mu (\Delta
_B))\leq \mbox{secat}(\Delta _B)=\mbox{TC}(B)$.
\[igualdad2\][Consider $\mu :\mathcal{C}\rightarrow \mathcal{D}$ and $\nu
:\mathcal{D}\rightarrow \mathcal{C}$ pointed modelization functors and let $B$ be an object in $\mathcal{C}$ such that $\nu (\mu
(B))$ is weakly equivalent to $B.$ Then $$\mbox{TC}(\mu (B))=\mbox{TC}(B)$$]{}
Some applications.
==================
We start by an immediate application in rational homotoy theory. A classical fact [@bkan §8] assures the existence of an adjunction $$\xymatrix{ {\text{\bf CDGA}^\varepsilon}&{\text{\bf SSet}^*}
\ar@<1ex>[l]^{\langle\,\cdot\,\rangle} \ar@<1ex>[l];[]^{A_{PL}}&
\\}$$ between the categories of augmented commutative differential graded algebras over a field $\mathbb{K}$ of characteristic zero, and pointed simplicial sets. The category ${\text{\bf SSet}^*}$ is known to be a $J$-category endowed with Kan fibrations, injective maps and maps realizing to homotopy equivalences [@Q Chap.III§.3], [@D Prop.A.8]. The category ${\text{\bf CDGA}^\varepsilon}$ is also a (proper) closed model category [@bkan §4] (and thus J1-J4 are satisfied) in which fibrations are surjective morphisms, weak equivalences are morphisms inducing homology isomorphisms (the so called “quasi-isomorphisms") and cofibrations are “relative Sullivan algebras" [@fht §14], i.e., inclusions $A\to A\otimes\Lambda V$ in which $\Lambda V$ denotes the free commutative algebra generated by the graded vector space $V$ and the differential on $A\otimes \Lambda V$ satisfies a certain “minimality" condition. However, this is NOT a $J$-category and the Eckmann-Hilton dual of a partial version of the cube axiom is satisfied when restricting to $1$-connected algebras [@D A.18]. The functors ${\langle\,\cdot\,\rangle}$ and $A_{PL}$ do not in general respect weak equivalences although ${\langle\,\cdot\,\rangle}$ sends cofibrations to fibrations and ${\langle\,\cdot\,\rangle}$ can be slightly modified to send fibrations to cofibrations [@bkan §8]. Therefore, as they stand, they are not modelization functors. However, it is also known [@bkan §8,9] that, restricting those functors to the categories $$\xymatrix{ {\text{\bf CDGA}^1_{cf\Q}}&{\text{\bf Kan-Complexes}^1_\Q}\ar@<1ex>[l]
\ar@<1ex>[l];&\\}$$ of cofibrant $1$-connected commutative differential graded algebras of finite type over $\Q$ (known as Sullivan algebras [@fht §12]) and $1$-connected rational Kan complexes of finite type, then they do preserve weak equivalences and via [@D Prop.6.5] they are modelization functors.
On the other hand, in [@fa Ch.8], Fassò introduce, for a map of finite type $1$-connected CW-complexes, or equivalently for a simplicial map of finite type $1$-connected Kan complexes $E\stackrel{p}{\to}B$ the [*rational sectional category*]{} of $p$, $\secat_0(p)$ which can be seen as the sectional category in the opposite category of $\text{\bf CDGA}^1_{cf\mathbb{Q}}$ of $A_{PL}( p_{\mathbb{Q}}),$ being $p_{\mathbb{Q}}$ the map in ${\text{\bf Kan-Complexes}^1_\Q}$ obtained by rationalization [@bkan §11]. Thus, by Corollary \[igualdad\], $$\secat_0(p)=\secat(p_{\mathbb{Q}})$$
Our second application concerns localization functors. Let $P$ be a (possibly empty) set of primes and $$(-)_P\colon \text{\bf CW}_{\mathcal{N}}\longrightarrow \text{\bf
CW}_{\mathcal{N}}$$ denotes the $P$-localization functor (see [@hmr §2] or [@ar Chap.III] where it is shown that localization can chosen to be a functor as it stands, not just in the homotopy category) in the pointed category of spaces of the homotopy type of nilpotent CW-complexes. Then, this functor sends homotopy pushouts to homotopy pushouts and homotopy pullbacks (if the chosen homotopy pullback stays in this category) to homotopy pullbacks [@hmr §7]. (Note that, considering closed cofibrations, Hurewicz fibrations and homotopy equivalences, the category of well pointed topological spaces ${\text{\bf Top}^*}$ has the structure of a $J$-category; see [@S3 Thm.11] for axioms (J1)-(J4) plus [@M Thm.25] for (J5)). Thus, even though strictly speaking this is not a modelization functor as it is defined on a certain subcategory of ${\text{\bf Top}^*},$ the arguments in Theorem \[comparison\] could be followed mutatis mutandi as long as all constructions there remain within our category. But this is in fact the case as the homotopy pullback (or pushout) of two maps in $\text{\bf CW}_{\mathcal{N}}$ can be chosen to live also in this category [@hmr §7]. Hence, $$\secat(f_P)\le \secat f.$$ However, the situation is drastically different in the general case as all sort of possible $P$-localizations (extending the one on nilpotent complexes) do not, in general, preserve homotopy pullbacks and homotopy pushouts.
Here, we consider the Casacuberta-Peschke localization functor on ${\text{\bf Top}^*}$ [@cp] and start by setting some notation. Given a group $G$ we denote by P\[G\] the ring localization of the group ring $\mathbb{Z}_PG$ obtained by inverting all of the elements $1 + g +\cdots+ g^{n-1}$, where $g \in G$, and $(n,p)=1$ for any $p\in P$ (see [@cp §2]).
Following [@p] we say that a $P$-torsion group $G$ is an [*acting group*]{} for a space $X$ if there is an epimorphism $f\colon
\pi_1X\twoheadrightarrow G$ such that, for each $m\ge 2$, the action $\pi_1X\to Aut(\pi_mX)$ factors through $G$.
Let $f\colon X\to Y$ a map for which:
1. $\pi_1(*^n_Yf)\colon
\pi_1(*_Y^nX)\stackrel{\cong}{\longrightarrow} \pi_1Y$ is an isomorphism of $P$-local groups for any $n\ge 0$.
2. $\pi_1(*^n_YX)$ and $\pi_1Y$ have a common acting group $G$ for any $n\ge 0$.
3. If we denote $\pi_1Y$ by $\pi$, the morphism $\mathbb{Z}_P\pi\to P[\pi]$ induce isomorphisms on homology with local coefficients $H_*(-;\mathbb{Z}_P\pi)\to H_*(-;P[\pi])$.
Then, $$\secat(f_P)\le \secat (f).$$
Again, note that the argument in Theorem \[comparison\] could be applied if, for any $n\ge 1$, there is a homotopy commutative diagram of the form: $$\xymatrix{{(*^{n-1}_YX)_P*_{Y_P}X_P}\ar[rd]_{{(h_{n-1})_P*f_P}}\ar[rr]^{\simeq}
&&{(*^n_YX)_P}\ar[ld]^{(h_n)_P}\\
&Y_P&}$$ To this end, an inductive process, as in [@D Prop.6.7] will work as long as the following two conditions hold:
\(1) The localization of the homotopy pullback $$\xymatrix{Q_n\ar[r]\ar[d]&X\ar[d]^{f}\\{*^{n-1}_YX}\ar[r]_(.7){h_{n-1}}&Y}$$ $$\xymatrix{(Q_n)_P\ar[r]\ar[d]&X_P\ar[d]^{f_P}\\{(*^{n-1}_YX)_P}\ar[r]_(.7){{h_{n-1}}_P}&Y_P}$$
is again a homotopy pullback.
\(2) The localization of the homotopy pushout $$\xymatrix{Q_n\ar[r]\ar[d]&X\ar[d]\\{*^{n-1}_YX}\ar[r]&{*^n_YX}}$$ $$\xymatrix{(Q_n)_P\ar[r]\ar[d]&X_P\ar[d]\\{(*^{n-1}_YX)_P}\ar[r]&{(*^n_YX)_P}}$$ is again a homotopy pushout.
However, by hypothesis, we may apply [@p Thm.4.3] to prove statement (1) (respec. [@p Thm.2.1] to prove (2)).
[99]{}
M Arkowitz, *Localization and $H$-Spaces*, Lecture Notes Series 44, Matem. Inst. Aarhus Universitet (1976).
, *Algebraic Homotopy*. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Maths 15, Camb. Univ. Press (1989).
A. K. Bousfield and V. K. A. M. Gugenheim. On PL De Rahm theory and rational homotopy type, [*Mem. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{}, [**179**]{} (1976).
C. Casacuberta and G. Peschke. Localizing with respect to self maps of the circle, [*Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{}, [**339**]{} (1993), 117-140.
M. Clapp and D. Puppe. Invariants of the Lusternik-Schnirelmann type and the topology of critical sets. *Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.*, **298** (1986), 603-620.
J. P. Doeraene. L.S.-category in a model category, *J. Pure and Appl. Algebra* **84** (1993), 215-261.
J. P. Doeraene. LS-catégorie dans une catégorie à modèles. Thesis, Université Catholique de Louvain, 1990.
Topological complexity of motion planning. *Discrete Comput. Geom.* 29 (2003), 211-221.
Instabilities of robot motion. *Topology Appl.* 140 (2004), 245-266.
A. Fassò Velenik, [*Relative homotopy invariants of the type of the Lusternik-Schnirelmann category*]{}, Eingereichte Dissertation (Ph.D. Thesis), Freien Universität Berlin, 2002.
Y. Félix, Stephen Halperin and Jean Claude Thomas, *Rational Homotopy Theory*, Graduate Texts in Math. 205, Springer (2000).
K. P. Hess and J. M. Lemaire. Generalizing a definition of Lusternik and Schnirelmann to model categories, *J. Pure and Appl. Algebra*, [91]{} (1994), 165-182.
P. Hilton, G. Mislin and J. Roitberg, *Localization of Nilpotent Groups and Spaces*, Mathematics Studies 15, North-Holland (1975).
I.M. James. On category in the sense of Lusternik-Schnirelmann. *Topology* **17** (1978), 331-348.
T. Kahl. Lusternik-Schnirelmann-Kategorie und axiomatische Homotopietheorie. Diplomarbeit, Freie Universität Berlin (1993).
Pull-backs in Homotopy Theory. *Can. J. Math.* 28(2) (1976), 225-263.
G. Peschke and W. Shen. When does P-localization preserve homotopy pushouts or pullbacks?, [*Topology and its Applications*]{}, [**145**]{} (2004), 1-10.
D. Quillen. *Homotopical Algebra*, Lecture Notes in Math, 43, Springer, 1967.
D. Quillen. Rational homotopy theory. *Ann. Math.* (2), **90** (1969), 205-295.
A. Schwarz. *The genus of a fiber space*. A.M.S. Transl. 55 (1966), 49-140
S Smale. On the topology of algorithms. *I, J. Complexity* **3** (1987) 81-89.
*The homotopy category is a homotopy category*. Arch. Math., 23 (1972), 435-441.
[^1]: Partially supported by FEDER, the Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia grants MTM2009-12081, MTM2010-18089 and by the Junta de Andalucía grant FQM-213
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We propose solutions of the quantum Q-systems of types $B_N,C_N,D_N$ in terms of $q$-difference operators, generalizing our previous construction for the Q-system of type $A$. The difference operators are interpreted as $q$-Whittaker limits of discrete time evolutions of Macdonald-van Diejen type operators. We conjecture that these new operators act as raising and lowering operators for $q$-Whittaker functions, which are special cases of graded characters of fusion products of KR-modules.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, University of Illinois MC-382, Urbana, IL 61821, U.S.A. e-mail: [email protected] and Institut de Physique Théorique du Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique, Unité de Recherche associée du CNRS, CEA Saclay/IPhT/Bat 774, F-91191 Gif sur Yvette Cedex, FRANCE. e-mail: [email protected] '
- 'Department of Mathematics, University of Illinois MC-382, Urbana, IL 61821, U.S.A. e-mail: [email protected]'
author:
- Philippe Di Francesco
- Rinat Kedem
bibliography:
- 'refs.bib'
title: 'Macdonald operators and quantum Q-systems for classical types'
---
*To Nicolai Reshetikhin on his 60th birthday*
Introduction
============
The characters of tensor products of KR-modules of Yangians, quantum affine algebras or affine algebras have fermionic formulas, generalizing Bethe’s original counting formula of the Bethe eigenstates of the Heisenberg spin chain [@Bethe]. The fermionic formulas, in the case of KR-modules of Yangians of the classical Lie algebras ${{\mathfrak{g}}}=ABCD$, were conjectured by Kirillov and Reshetikin [@KR] and further generalized in [@HKOTY]. They were proved for the case of any simple Lie algebra ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$ in [@AK; @DFK08]. In the course of the proof, it becomes clear that there is a close connection between solutions of recursion relations known as the Q-systems and the fermionic formulas.
In [@KR; @HKOTY], $q$-analogs of the fermionic characters of tensor products of KR-modules, or graded characters, are also presented. There are several interpretations of the grading of these tensor products, which gives rise to these $q$-analogues, or graded characters: (1) as linearized energy function for the corresponding generalized inhomogeneous Heisenberg spin chain, (2) as a charge function for the crystal limit of the corresponding quantum affine algebra modules, when it exists, or (3) as the natural grading of the underlying affine algebra [@FL]. The latter definition was used in [@AK; @qKR; @Simon] to prove the $q$-graded fermionic character formulas. It turns out that there is a close connection between the graded character formulas and $q$-deformed versions of Q-systems known as the quantum Q-systems.
Quantum Q-systems are defined by quantizing [@BZ] the cluster algebraic [@FZ] structure of the classical Q-systems [@Ke07; @DFKQcluster]. They are recursion relations for non-commuting variables $\{{{\mathcal Q}}_{a,k}\}$, with $a$ running over the Dykin labels of ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$ and $k\in{{\mathbb Z}}$.
Graded characters are Weyl-symmetric functions with coefficients in ${{\mathbb Z}}_+[q]$. The relation with the quantum Q-system can be schematically described as follows. One can construct a linear functional $\phi$ from the ordered product of (opposite, with parameter $q^{-1}$) quantum Q-system solutions ${{\mathcal Q}}_{a,k}^*$ to the graded characters of the corresponding tensor product: $$\label{linfun}
\chi_{{{\mathbf n}}}(q^{-1};{{\mathbf x}})= \phi\left( {\displaystyle \prod_{a,k}^{\rightarrow} ({{\mathcal Q}}^*_{a,k})^{n_{a,k}}}\right),$$ where $\chi_{{\mathbf n}}(q;{{\mathbf x}})$ is the graded character of the tensor product (or fusion product in the sense of [@FL]) of KR-modules $\otimes_{a,k} {{{\rm KR}}}_{k\omega_a}^{\otimes n_{a,k}}$, ${{\mathbf n}}=\{n_{a,k}\}$ denoting the collection of tensor powers, and ${{\mathbf x}}=(x_1,x_2,...,x_N)$. Here, ${{{\rm KR}}}_{k\omega_a}$ is a ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$-module, the restriction of the KR-module of the (quantum) affine algebra module, which has highest weight $k\omega_a$, $k\in{{\mathbb N}}$ and $\omega_a$ being one of the fundamental weights of ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$. The arrow on top of the product sign refers to a specific ordering of the terms [@qKR; @Simon], in which long and short roots play different roles.
Tensoring the tensor product above by an extra factor ${{{\rm KR}}}_{k'\omega_b}$ corresponds to the insertion of the factor ${{\mathcal Q}}_{b,k'}^*$ on the right in the product inside the functional, if $k'$ is sufficiently large, so that the product remains ordered.
In the case of ${{\mathfrak{g}}}={{\mathfrak{sl}}}_N$ we introduced [@DFK15; @DFK16] a set of $q$-difference operators ${\mathcal D}_{b,k'}$, acting on the space of symmetric functions of ${{\mathbf x}}$ to the right, and representing the insertion on the right of the factor ${{\mathcal Q}}^*_{b,k'}$ in the linear functional of equation . The following diagram explains the action by difference operators on the space of symmetric functions:
[\_[a,k]{}\^ ([[Q]{}]{}\_[a,k]{}\^\*)\^[n\_[a,k]{}]{}]{} & [(\_[a,k]{}\^ ([[Q]{}]{}\_[a,k]{}\^\*)\^[n\_[a,k]{}]{})[[Q]{}]{}\^\*\_[b,k’]{}]{}\
\_[[[n]{}]{}]{}(q\^[-1]{};[[x]{}]{}) & \_[[[n]{}]{}+\_[b,k’]{}]{}(q\^[-1]{};[[x]{}]{})
The result is an explicit expression for graded characters as the iterated action of $q$-difference operators ${\mathcal D}_{a,k}$ on the constant $1$. The difference operators satisfy the quantum Q-system. We refer to them as the functional representation of the quantum Q-system.
In [@DFK15], it was observed that the difference operators $\mathcal D_{a,k}$ for $k=0$ are the $t\to \infty$ limit of the Macdonald difference operators of type $A$, of which Macdonald polynomials form a set of common eigenfunctions. Thus, in [@DFKqt], we identified the $t$-deformation of the $A$ type quantum Q-system as the spherical Double Affine Algebra Hecke (sDAHA) of type $A$. This is the algebra which underlies Macdonald theory [@macdo; @Cheredbook].
In the $t\to\infty$ limit, in which Macdonald polynomials tend to (dual) $q$-Whittaker functions with parameter $q^{-1}$, we further identified in [@DFK15] the operator representation ${\mathcal D}_{a,k}$ of the quantum Q-system when $k=1$ (resp. $k=-1$) as the $t\to\infty$ limits of the Kirillov-Noumi [@Kinoum] raising (resp. lowering) operators. These operators, acting on a Macdonald polynomial indexed by some Young diagram, have the effect of adding (resp. subtracting) a column of $a$ boxes to the Young diagram. Equivalently, using the correspondence of the Young diagram $\lambda$ with a dominant ${{\mathfrak{gl}}}_N$-weight, it corresponds to adding or subtracting the fundamental weight $\omega_a$.
As a consequence, in the case where all KR-modules in the tensor product are fundamental modules ($n_{a,k}=0$ unless $k=1$), the graded characters are identified as limits of Macdonald polynomials as $t\to\infty$ or $t=0$ upon changing $q\to q^{-1}$, and can therefore be identified with specialized $q$-Whittaker functions. See also [@LNSSS].
We remark that the above difference operators can be compared to the so-called “minuscule monopole operators" representing the Coulomb branches of 4D $N=4$ quiver gauge theories [@BFN] in the particular case of the “Jordan quiver" with a single node, and when the equivariant parameter $t$ is taken to infinity (with the result of imposing that the representation $N$ is trivial).
It is natural to look for the generalization of the functional representation of the quantum Q-systems, corresponding to the affine algebras of types $BCD$. These are described in terms of the root systems of the finite $BCD$ type. Motivated by the results in type $A$, we expect the functional representation of the other type quantum Q-systems to involve the $t\to\infty$ limits of the corresponding $BCD$ type generalized Macdonald operators. In this paper, we present, without proof, a set of such difference operators. Our main conjecture \[qqconj\] is that these operators satisfy the relevant quantum Q-systems relations.
The construction of the $BCD$ type difference operators is best understood by thinking of the quantum Q-systems as evolution equations in the discrete time variable $k\in {{\mathbb Z}}$ for the elements ${{\mathcal Q}}_{a,k}$. In type $A$, from the relation to sDAHA, we noted in [@DFKqt] that the discrete time evolution $k\to k+1$ is given by the adjoint action of a generator of the $SL_2({{\mathbb Z}})$ symmetry of DAHA. The latter is also expressed as the adjoint action of the “Gaussian" function $\gamma^{-1}$ of the variables ${{\mathbf x}}$, where $$\label{gaussian}
\gamma\equiv\gamma({{\mathbf x}})=e^{\sum_{i=1}^N \frac{{\rm Log}(x_i)}{2{\rm Log}(q)}} ,$$ and such that ${\mathcal D}_{a,k+1} \propto \gamma^{-1} {\mathcal D}_{a,k} \gamma$.
The aim of the present paper is to present constructions of difference operator solutions to the quantum Q-systems of types $BCD$, such that they coincide, at $k=0$, with the $t\to\infty$ limit of suitable Macdonald operators, and which have raising/lowering properties at $k=\pm 1$. To this end, we first identify the $t\to\infty$ limits of suitable Macdonald-type operators in types $BCD$ by use of works of Macdonald and van Diejen [@macdoroot; @vandiej; @vandiejtwo]. Next, we construct their time evolution, by a suitable Gaussian conjugation. Our main result are the conjectures \[qqconj\] and \[knconj\] stating that (1) these operators obey a renormalized version of the quantum Q-systems in types $BCD$ and (2) the operators at times $k=\pm 1$ act as raising/lowering operators on the corresponding $q$-Whittaker functions.
[**Acknowledgments.**]{} RK and PDF acknowledge support by NFS grant DMS18-02044 PDF is partially supported by the Morris and Gertrude Fine endowment. RK thanks the Institute Physique Théorique of CEA/Saclay for hospitality.
Q-systems and quantum Q-systems
===============================
Weights and Roots {#rootsec}
-----------------
Let ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$ be a Lie algebras of classical type, ${\mathfrak g}\in
\{A_{N-1},D_N,B_N,C_N\}$. For each of these, we list in table \[data\] the standard data of fundamental weights $\omega_a$, the simple roots $\alpha_a$, and the conditions on the non-increasing sequence $\lambda=(\lambda_1\geq\lambda_2\geq \cdots \geq \lambda_N)$ corresponding to dominant weights $\sum_a n_a \omega_a=\sum_i \lambda_i e_i$ ($n_a\in{{\mathbb Z}}_+$). In table \[data\], the set $\{e_a\}_{a=1}^N$ is the standard basis of ${{\mathbb R}}^N$ whereas $\{\hat{e}_a=e_a-\rho/N\}_{a=1}^{N-1}$ where $\rho$ is the sum over all the basis elements.
\[data\]
-------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Algebra Fundamental weights $\omega_a$ simple roots $\alpha_a$ $\lambda$
\[.1cm\] $A_{N-1}$ $ \displaystyle{\omega_a = \sum_{i=1}^a \hat e_i,\ a\in[1,N-1]} $ $ e_a- e_{a+1} $ $\lambda_a\in{{\mathbb Z}}_+$
\[.1cm\] $B_N$ $\displaystyle{\omega_a=\left\{\begin{array}{ll} $ \begin{array}{l}e_a-e_{a+1},\ a<N\\ e_N, \ a=N\end{array}$ $\begin{array}{c}
\displaystyle{\sum_{i=1}^a e_i,}& a<N;\\ \displaystyle{\frac{1}{2} \sum_{i=1}^N e_i,}& a=N. \\\end{array}\right.} $ \lambda_a\in{{\mathbb Z}}_+ \hbox{ for all $a$ or}\\
\lambda_a\in {{\mathbb Z}}_++{\frac12}\hbox{ for all }a\end{array}$
\[.1cm\] $C_N$ $\omega_a = \displaystyle{\sum_{i=1}^a e_i},\ a\in[1,N]$ $ \displaystyle{\begin{array}{l} e_a-e_{a+1},\ a<N\\ $\lambda_a\in{{\mathbb Z}}_+$
2 e_N,\ a=N \end{array}}$
\[.1cm\] $D_N$ $\begin{array}{l} $\displaystyle{\begin{array}{l} e_a - e_{a+1},\ a<N\\ e_a+e_{a+1} ,\ a=N $\begin{array}{c}\lambda_a\in{{\mathbb Z}}\hbox{ for all $a$ or }\\
\omega_a = \displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^a e_i, \ a<N-1\\ \end{array}}$ \lambda_a\in {{\mathbb Z}}+{\frac12}\hbox{for all $a$},\\
\omega_{N-1}= {\frac12}(\omega_{N-2} + e_{N-1}-e_N)\\ \lambda_{N-1}\geq |\lambda_N| \geq 0.
\omega_N= {\frac12}(\omega_{N-2}+e_{N-1}+e_N)\end{array} $ \end{array}$
-------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
: Root and weight data for the classical Lie algebras
.5cm
We also denote by $t_a$ the integers $\frac{2}{||{{\alpha}}_a||^2}$, so that $t_a=1$ for long roots and $t_a=2$ for the short roots in types $BC$.
The classical Q-systems for simply-laced affine $ABCD$
------------------------------------------------------
The Q-systems are recursion relations for the variables $\{Q_{a,k}\}$ where $a$ is a label in the Dynkin diagram, and $k$ is any integer. We list the Q-systems associated with types $ABCD$ [@KR; @KNS]. The boundary condition $Q_{0,k}=0$ is assumed in all cases. $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathfrak{g}}}=A_{N-1}: & &
Q_{a,k+1}Q_{a,k-1}=Q_{a,k}^2-Q_{a+1,k}Q_{a-1,k}, \qquad (a\in [1,N-1]),\label{ANqsys}\\
&& \quad Q_{N,k}=1. \nonumber \\ \nonumber\\
{{\mathfrak{g}}}=B_{N}: &&
Q_{a,k+1}Q_{a,k-1}=Q_{a,k}^2-Q_{a+1,k}Q_{a-1,k} ,\qquad (a\in [1,N-2]),\nonumber\\
&& Q_{N-1,k+1}\,Q_{N-1,k-1}=(Q_{N-1,k})^2- Q_{N,2k}\, Q_{N-2,k},\label{BNqsys}\\
&& Q_{N,2k+1}\,Q_{N,2k-1}= (Q_{N,2k})^2 -(Q_{N-1,k})^2 ,\nonumber\\
&& Q_{N,2k+2}\,Q_{N,2k}= (Q_{N,2k+1})^2 -Q_{N-1,k+1}\,Q_{N-1,k}. \nonumber\\ \nonumber\\
{{\mathfrak{g}}}=C_{N}: &&
Q_{a,k+1}Q_{a,k-1}=Q_{a,k}^2-Q_{a+1,k}Q_{a-1,k}, \qquad (a\in [1,N-2]),\nonumber\\
&& Q_{N-1,2k+1}Q_{N-1,2k-1}=Q_{N-1,2k}^2 - Q_{N-2,2k} Q_{N,k}^2,\label{CNqsys}\\
&& Q_{N-1,2k+2}Q_{N-1,2k}=Q_{N-1,2k+1}^2 - Q_{N-2,2k+1} Q_{N,k+1}Q_{N,k} .\nonumber\\
&& Q_{N,k+1}\,Q_{N,k-1}=Q_{N,k}^2- Q_{N-1,2k},\nonumber\\ \nonumber\\
{{\mathfrak{g}}}=D_{N}: &&
Q_{a,k+1}Q_{a,k-1}=Q_{a,k}^2-Q_{a+1,k}Q_{a-1,k}, \qquad (a\in [1,N-3]),\nonumber\\
&& Q_{N-2,k+1}Q_{N-2,k-1}=Q_{N-2,k}^2-Q_{N,k}Q_{N-1,k}Q_{N-3,k},\label{DNqsys} \\
&& Q_{a,k+1}Q_{a,k-1}=Q_{a,k}^2-Q_{N-2,k} \qquad (a\in \{N-1,N\}) .\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ .2in These recursion relations (for $k\geq 1$) were originally observed [@KR] to be relations satisfied by characters of finite-dimensional irreducible Yangian modules.
(12k) at (0,0) \[label=below:${\scriptstyle (1,2k)}$\] ; (22k) at (2,0) \[label=below:${\scriptstyle (2,2k)}$\] ; (12kp) at (0,2) \[label=above:${\scriptstyle (1,2k+1)}$\] ; (22kp) at (2,2) \[label=above:${\scriptstyle (2,2k+1)}$\] ; (42kp) at (6,2) \[label=above:${\scriptstyle (N-2,2k+1)}$\] ; (42k) at (6,0) \[label=below:${\scriptstyle (N-2,2k)}$\] ; (N2k) at (8,0) \[label=below:${\scriptstyle (N-1,2k)}$\] ; (N2kp) at (8,2) \[label=above:${\scriptstyle (N-1,2k+1)}$\] ; (middleeven) at (4,0) [$\cdots$]{}; (middleodd) at (4,2) [$\cdots$]{}; (label) at (-1.3,1) [ $\Gamma_{A_N} = $]{}; (12kp) to (12k); (22kp) to (22k); (42kp) to (42k); (N2kp) to (N2k); (12k) to (22kp); (22k) to (12kp); (22k) to (middleodd); (middleeven) to (22kp); (42k) to (N2kp); (N2k) to (42kp); (42k)to(middleodd); (middleeven)to(42kp);
.1in
(N2k) at (8,0) \[label=below:${\scriptstyle (N,4k)}$\] ; (12k) at (0,0) \[label=below:${\scriptstyle (1,2k)}$\] ; (22k) at (2,0) \[label=below:${\scriptstyle (2,2k)}$\] ; (42k) at (6,0) \[label=below:${\scriptstyle (N-1,2k)}$\] ; (N2kp) at (8,2) \[label=above:${\scriptstyle (N,4k+1)}$\] ; (12kp) at (0,2) \[label=above:${\scriptstyle (1,2k+1)}$\] ; (22kp) at (2,2) \[label=above:${\scriptstyle (2,2k+1)}$\] ; (42kp) at (6,2) \[label=above:${\scriptstyle (N-1,2k+1)}$\] ; (middleeven) at (4,0) [$\cdots$]{}; (middleodd) at (4,2) [$\cdots$]{}; (label) at (-1.3,1) [$\Gamma_{B_N} = $]{}; (12kp) to (12k); (22kp) to (22k); (42kp) to (42k); (N2kp) to (N2k); (12k) to (22kp); (22k) to (12kp); (22k) to (middleodd); (middleeven) to (22kp); (42k) to (N2kp); (42k) to(N2k); (N2k) to (42kp); (42k)to(middleodd); (middleeven)to(42kp);
.1in
(N2k) at (8,0) \[label=below:${\scriptstyle (N,2k)}$\] ; (12k) at (0,0) \[label=below:${\scriptstyle (1,4k)}$\] ; (22k) at (2,0) \[label=below:${\scriptstyle (2,4k)}$\] ; (42k) at (6,0) \[label=below:${\scriptstyle (N-1,4k)}$\] ; (N2kp) at (8,2) \[label=above:${\scriptstyle (N,2k+1)}$\] ; (12kp) at (0,2) \[label=above:${\scriptstyle (1,4k+1)}$\] ; (22kp) at (2,2) \[label=above:${\scriptstyle (2,4k+1)}$\] ; (42kp) at (6,2) \[label=above:${\scriptstyle (N-1,4k+1)}$\] ; (middleeven) at (4,0) [$\cdots$]{}; (middleodd) at (4,2) [$\cdots$]{}; (label) at (-1.3,1) [$\Gamma_{C_N} = $]{}; (12kp) to (12k); (22kp) to (22k); (42kp) to (42k); (N2kp) to (N2k); (12k) to (22kp); (22k) to (12kp); (22k) to (middleodd); (middleeven) to (22kp); (42k) to (N2kp); (N2k) to (42k); (N2k) to (42kp); (42k)to(middleodd); (middleeven)to(42kp);
.1in
(N2k) at (8.5,-1.5) \[label=right:${\scriptstyle (N,2k)}$\] ; (Nm2k) at (7.5,1) \[label=right:${\scriptstyle (N-1,2k)}$\] ; (12k) at (0,0) \[label=below:${\scriptstyle (1,2k)}$\] ; (22k) at (2,0) \[label=below:${\scriptstyle (2,2k)}$\] ; (42k) at (6,0) \[label=below:${\scriptstyle (N-2,2k)}$\] ; (Nm2kp) at (7.5,3) \[label=right:${\scriptstyle (N-1,2k+1)}$\] ; (N2kp) at (8.5,.5) \[label=right:${\scriptstyle (N,2k+1)}$\] ; (12kp) at (0,2) \[label=above:${\scriptstyle (1,2k+1)}$\] ; (22kp) at (2,2) \[label=above:${\scriptstyle (2,2k+1)}$\] ; (42kp) at (6,2) \[label=above:${\scriptstyle (N-2,2k+1)}$\] ; (middleeven) at (4,0) [$\cdots$]{}; (middleodd) at (4,2) [$\cdots$]{}; (label) at (-1.3,1) [$\Gamma_{D_N} = $]{}; (42k)to(Nm2kp); (Nm2k)to(42kp); (Nm2kp)to(Nm2k); (12kp) to (12k); (22kp) to (22k); (42kp) to (42k); (N2kp) to (N2k); (12k) to (22kp); (22k) to (12kp); (22k) to (middleodd); (middleeven) to (22kp); (42k) to (N2kp); (N2k) to (42kp); (42k)to(middleodd); (middleeven)to(42kp);
Each set of the Q-systems is associated with a cluster algebra:
[@Ke07; @DFKQcluster] For each algebra ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$, the variables $\{Q_{a,k}: a\in[1,r], k\in {{\mathbb Z}}\}$, up to a simple rescaling which eliminates the minus sign on the right hand side, are cluster variables in a corresponding cluster algebra. Each of the Q-system relations is an exchange relation in the cluster algebra.
The cluster algebras are defined via a $2r\times 2r$ skew symmetric exchange matrix $B$, ($r$ being the rank of ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$), or quiver $\Gamma$ as in Figure \[fig:CNquiv\], which depends only on the Cartan matrix $C$ of ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$: $$\label{Bmatrix}
B = \left(\begin{array}{c | c } C^T - C & -C^T \\ \hline C & 0\end{array}
\right).$$ This exchange matrix, together with the initial cluster variables ${{\mathbf X}}= (Q_{a,0}; Q_{a,1})_{a=1}^r$, defines the cluster algebra. The cluster variables $\{Q_{a,k}\}$ are obtained from a generalized bipartite evolution of the initial cluster $({{\mathbf X}},B)$ [@DFKQcluster]. The subset of mutations on the (generalized) bipartite belt which generates all the cluster variables corresponding to the Q-system algebra was given in [@DFKQcluster], Theorem 3.6.
Quantum Q-systems
-----------------
One of the advantages of formulating the Q-system relations in terms of cluster algebra mutations is that there is a canonical quantization of the cluster algebra, using the canonical Poisson structure [@GSV] and its quantization [@BZ].
The quantum cluster algebra attached to a non-degenerate, skew-symmetric matrix $B$ is the non-commutative algebra generated by the cluster variables ${{\mathbf X}}=(X_i)$ at an initial cluster and their inverses, with exchange matrix $B$, as well as the cluster variables at all mutation equivalent clusters. Within the cluster $(\mathbf X, B)$ the cluster variables $q$-commute according to a skew-symmetric $\Lambda$ proportional to the inverse of $B$: $$X_i X_j = q^{\Lambda_{ij}} X_j X_i.$$ The exchange relations are given by normal-ordering of the classical mutations: $$X_i' = : \prod_{j: B_{ij}>0} X_j^{B_{ij}} X_i^{-1}: + :\prod_{j: B_{ij}<0} X_j^{-B_{ij}} X_i^{-1}: .$$ Here, given a monomial $\prod X_i^{b_i}$ such that $X_iX_j =q^{a_{i,j}}X_jX_i$, the normal ordered product is $$:X_1^{b_1} \cdots X_\ell^{b_\ell} :\, = q^{-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i<j} a_{i,j} b_i b_j}\, X_1^{b_1} \cdots X_\ell^{b_\ell}.$$
The exchange matrices corresponding to the Q-system cluster algebras are skew-symmetric and invertible. We use the associated quantum cluster algebra to define the quantum Q-systems as the quantized exchange relations corresponding to the exchange relations appearing in the classical Q-systems.
Let $\Lambda$ be a $2r\times 2r$ skew-symmetric matrix, with $\Lambda^T B = -D$, a diagonal integer matrix with negative integer entries. Then $$\label{LambdaMatrix}
\Lambda = \left(\begin{array}{c | c } 0 & \lambda \\ \hline -\lambda^T & \lambda^T- \lambda \end{array}
\right),$$ where $\lambda$ is proportional to the inverse Cartan matrix. We use the following normalizations: $$\label{lambda}
\begin{array}{rl}
A_{N-1}: & \lambda_{ab}=C^{-1}_{ab}
= {\min}(a,b) - \frac{ab}{N} \\ \\
B_N: & \lambda_{ab}= 2 C^{-1}_{ab} =
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 2 {\min}(a,b), & 1\leq a\leq N,\ 1\leq b\leq N-1;\\
{\min}(a,b), & 1\leq a\leq N=b ,
\end{array}
\right.
\\ \\
C_N: & \lambda_{ab}= 2 C^{-1}_{ab} =
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 2 {\min}(a,b), & 1\leq a\leq N-1,\ 1\leq b\leq N;\\
{\min}(a,b), & 1\leq b\leq N=a,
\end{array}
\right.
\\ \\
D_N: & \lambda_{ab}=2 C^{-1}_{ab}
=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
2 {\min}(a,b), & 1\leq a,b\leq N-2,\\
b, & 1\leq b\leq N-2,\ a\in \{N-1,N\},\\
a, & 1\leq a\leq N-2,\ b \in \{N-1,N\},\\
{\frac12}N, & a=b \in \{N-1,N\},\\
{\frac12}(N-2), & a\neq b \in \{N-1,N\}.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{array}$$ This choice of normalization results, in the cases $B_N,C_N,D_N$, in the value $\lambda_{a,b}=2\, {\rm min}(a,b)$ whenever $a,b$ correspond to the part of the Dynkin diagram that forms an A-type chain, that is, $a,b \in [1,N-1]$ for types $BC$ and $a,b\in [1,N-2]$ for type $D$.
The quantum Q-systems are recursion relations for the non-commuting variables ${{\mathcal Q}}_{a,k}$. These take the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ANqqsys}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!A_{N-1}&:&
{{\mathcal Q}}_{a,k}\, {{\mathcal Q}}_{b,p}=q^{\lambda_{a,b}(p-k)} \, {{\mathcal Q}}_{b,p}\,{{\mathcal Q}}_{a,k} ,\nonumber \\
&&q^{\lambda_{a,a}} \, {{\mathcal Q}}_{a,k+1}\,{{\mathcal Q}}_{a,k-1}= {{\mathcal Q}}_{a,k}^2-q^{\frac{1}{2}} \,{{\mathcal Q}}_{a+1,k}\,{{\mathcal Q}}_{a-1,k},\quad (a\in [1,N]) ,
\\
\nonumber&&{{\mathcal Q}}_{0,k}=1, \qquad {{\mathcal Q}}_{N+1,k}=0.\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\quad\quad\, B_N&:&
{{\mathcal Q}}_{a,k}\, {{\mathcal Q}}_{b,p}= q^{p \lambda_{a,b}-k \lambda_{b,a}}\, {{\mathcal Q}}_{b,p}\, {{\mathcal Q}}_{a,k},\nonumber \\
&&q^{2a} \,{{\mathcal Q}}_{a,k+1}\,{{\mathcal Q}}_{a,k-1}={{\mathcal Q}}_{a,k}^2-q\, {{\mathcal Q}}_{a+1,k}\,{{\mathcal Q}}_{a-1,k}\, {{\mathcal Q}}_{{{\alpha}}-1,k},\quad ({{\alpha}}\in [1,N-2]),\nonumber \\
&&q^{2N-2} \,{{\mathcal Q}}_{N-1,k+1}\,{{\mathcal Q}}_{N-1,k-1}=({{\mathcal Q}}_{N-1,k})^2-q {{\mathcal Q}}_{N,2k}\, {{\mathcal Q}}_{N-2,k}, \label{BNqqsys}\\
&&q^N\, {{\mathcal Q}}_{N,2k+1}\,{{\mathcal Q}}_{N,2k-1}= ({{\mathcal Q}}_{N,2k})^2 -q ({{\mathcal Q}}_{N-1,k})^2,\nonumber \\
&&q^N\, {{\mathcal Q}}_{N,2k+2}\,{{\mathcal Q}}_{N,2k}= ({{\mathcal Q}}_{N,2k+1})^2 -q^{N} {{\mathcal Q}}_{N-1,k+1}\,{{\mathcal Q}}_{N-1,n}, \nonumber \\
&&{{\mathcal Q}}_{0,k}=1. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\quad\quad C_N&:&
{{\mathcal Q}}_{a,k}\, {{\mathcal Q}}_{b,p}=
q^{p \lambda_{a,b} -k \lambda_{b,a}}\,
{{\mathcal Q}}_{b,p}\, {{\mathcal Q}}_{a,k},\nonumber \\
&&q^{2a} {{\mathcal Q}}_{a,k+1}\,{{\mathcal Q}}_{a,k-1}={{\mathcal Q}}_{a,k}^2-q \,{{\mathcal Q}}_{a+1,k}\,{{\mathcal Q}}_{a-1,k} ,\qquad ({{\alpha}}\in[1,N-2]),\nonumber\\
&&q^{2N-2} {{\mathcal Q}}_{N-1,2k+1}{{\mathcal Q}}_{N-1,2k-1}={{\mathcal Q}}_{N-1,2k}^2 -q {{\mathcal Q}}_{N-2,2k} {{\mathcal Q}}_{N,k}^2, \label{CNqqsys}\\
&&q^{2N-2} {{\mathcal Q}}_{N-1,2k+2}{{\mathcal Q}}_{N-1,2k}={{\mathcal Q}}_{N-1,2k+1}^2 - q^{1+\frac{N}{2}}\,{{\mathcal Q}}_{N-2,2k+1} {{\mathcal Q}}_{N,k+1}{{\mathcal Q}}_{N,k}, \nonumber\\
&&q^N {{\mathcal Q}}_{N,k+1}\,{{\mathcal Q}}_{N,k-1}= {{\mathcal Q}}_{N,k}^2- q {{\mathcal Q}}_{N-1,2k},\nonumber \\
&&{{\mathcal Q}}_{0,k}=1. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
D_N&:&
{{\mathcal Q}}_{a,k}\, {{\mathcal Q}}_{b,p}=q^{\lambda_{a,b}(p-k)}\, {{\mathcal Q}}_{b,p}\, {{\mathcal Q}}_{a,k},\nonumber \\
&&q^{2a}{{\mathcal Q}}_{a,k+1}\,{{\mathcal Q}}_{a,k-1}={{\mathcal Q}}_{a,k}^2-q\, {{\mathcal Q}}_{a+1,k}\,{{\mathcal Q}}_{a-1,k}\qquad (a\in [1,N-3]),\nonumber \\
&&q^{2(N-2)}{{\mathcal Q}}_{N-2,k+1}\,{{\mathcal Q}}_{N-2,k-1}= {{\mathcal Q}}_{N-2,k}^2-q\, {{\mathcal Q}}_{N,k}\,{{\mathcal Q}}_{N-1,k}\,{{\mathcal Q}}_{N-3,k} ,\\
&&q^{\frac{N}{2}}{{\mathcal Q}}_{N-1,k+1}\,{{\mathcal Q}}_{N-1,k-1}= {{\mathcal Q}}_{N-1,k}^2-q\, {{\mathcal Q}}_{N-2,k},\nonumber \\
&&q^{\frac{N}{2}}{{\mathcal Q}}_{N,k+1}\,{{\mathcal Q}}_{N,k-1}= {{\mathcal Q}}_{N,k}^2-q\, {{\mathcal Q}}_{N-2,k} ,\nonumber \\
&&{{\mathcal Q}}_{0,k}=1. \nonumber\label{DNqqsys}\end{aligned}$$
In each case, the $q$-commutation relation, i.e. the first equation in each set, holds only for variables within the same cluster, hence the restriction on possible values of the second index. For example, in the case $A_{N-1}$, the restriction is $|p-k|\leq |a-b|+1$. In general, the clusters consisting of Q-system solutions only are parameterized by generalized Motzkin paths [@Simon].
\[boundary\_condition\] The general boundary condition in the quantum Q-system of type $A_{N-1}$ is ${{\mathcal Q}}_{N+1,k}=0$, as opposed to the condition $Q_{N,k}=1$ for the classical system , which is compatible but more restrictive. This means that there is an additional set of variables in the center of the quantum cluster algebra which satisfy ${{\mathcal Q}}_{N,k+1}{{\mathcal Q}}_{N,k-1}={{\mathcal Q}}_{N,k}^2$. This is consistent with the extension of the definition of the matrix $\lambda_{a,b}$ in type $A$ to an $N\times N$ matrix using the same formula, so that $\lambda_{a,N}=0$. The most general solution subject to the boundary conditions has ${{\mathcal Q}}_{N,k}={{\mathcal Q}}_{N,1}^k {{\mathcal Q}}_{N,0}^{k-1}$, in terms of the two central elements ${{\mathcal Q}}_{N,1}$ and ${{\mathcal Q}}_{N,0}$. This more general system can be embedded into a cluster algebra with coefficients.
The $A_{N-1}$ case solution: generalized Macdonald difference operators and quantum determinants {#sec:A}
================================================================================================
Renormalized quantum Q-system
-----------------------------
With the choice of boundary condition for the type $A$ quantum Q-system as in Remark \[boundary\_condition\], the quantum Q-system is homogeneous with respect to the grading $\deg({{\mathcal Q}}_{a,k}):=a k$ ($a\in[1,N]$). We adjoin an invertible degree operator $\Delta^{1/N}$ to the algebra, such that $$\Delta\, {{\mathcal Q}}_{a,k}=q^{ak}\, {{\mathcal Q}}_{a,k}\,\Delta, \qquad a\in [1,N],k\in {{\mathbb Z}}.$$ Using $\lambda_{a,a}+\frac{a}{N}=a$ and $\lambda_{a+1,a+1}+\lambda_{a-1,a-1}-2\lambda_{a,a}=-\frac{2}{N}$, the renormalized variables $$\label{renorm} \widetilde{{\mathcal Q}}_{a,k}=q^{-\frac{1}{2}(k+\frac{N}{2})\lambda_{a,a}}\, {{\mathcal Q}}_{a,k} \, \Delta^\frac{a}{N} ,\qquad a\in [1,N], k\in {{\mathbb Z}},$$ satisfy the [*renormalized quantum Q-system*]{}: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\widetilde{{\mathcal Q}}_{a,k}\,\widetilde{{\mathcal Q}}_{b,k'}= q^{(k'-k){\min}(a,b)} \, \widetilde{{\mathcal Q}}_{b,k'}\,\widetilde{{\mathcal Q}}_{a,k},\quad |k-k'| \leq |a-b|+1,\nonumber \\
&&q^a\, \widetilde{{\mathcal Q}}_{a,k+1}\, \widetilde{{\mathcal Q}}_{a,k-1} =\widetilde{{\mathcal Q}}_{a,k}^2- \widetilde{{\mathcal Q}}_{a+1,k}\, \widetilde{{\mathcal Q}}_{a-1,k} ,\qquad (a\in [1,N]),\label{Msys}\\
&&\widetilde{{\mathcal Q}}_{0,k}=1,\qquad \widetilde{{\mathcal Q}}_{N+1,k}=0.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
The choice ${{\mathcal Q}}_{N,0}=1$ implies $\widetilde{{\mathcal Q}}_{N,0}=\Delta$. Defining $A=\widetilde{{\mathcal Q}}_{N,1}\widetilde{{\mathcal Q}}_{N,0}^{-1}$, a homogeneous element of degree N, we have $\widetilde{{\mathcal Q}}_{N,k}=A^k\, \Delta$. The quiver with coefficients corresponding to this cluster algebra is illustrated in Figure \[qAquiver\].
(N2k) at (8,0) \[label=below:${\scriptstyle (N-1,0)}$\]; (12k) at (0,0) \[label=below:${\scriptstyle (1,0)}$\] ; (22k) at (2,0) \[label=below:${\scriptstyle (2,0)}$\]; (42k) at (6,0) \[label=below:${\scriptstyle (N-2,0)}$\]; (N2kp) at (8,2) \[label=above:${\scriptstyle (N-1,1)}$\] ; (12kp) at (0,2) \[label=above:${\scriptstyle (1,1)}$\] ; (22kp) at (2,2) \[label=above:${\scriptstyle (2,1)}$\] ; (42kp) at (6,2) \[label=above:${\scriptstyle (N-2,1)}$\] ; (middleeven) at (4,0) [$\cdots$]{}; (middleodd) at (4,2) [$\cdots$]{}; (A) at (10,2) \[label=above:${\scriptstyle \Delta^{-1}}$\] ; (D) at (10,0) \[label=below:${\scriptstyle A\Delta}$\] ; (12kp) to (12k); (22kp) to (22k); (42kp) to (42k); (N2kp) to (N2k); (12k) to (22kp); (22k) to (12kp); (22k) to (middleodd); (middleeven) to (22kp); (42k) to (N2kp); (N2k) to (42kp); (42k)to(middleodd); (middleeven)to(42kp); (N2k) to (D); (N2kp) to (A); (A) to (D);
The quantum determinant
-----------------------
The exchange relations define a quantum determinant: The variables $\widetilde{{\mathcal Q}}_{a,k}$ with $a>1$ are polynomials in the variables $\{\widetilde{{\mathcal Q}}_{1,k'}: |k'-k| \leq a-1\}$. Below, we use the notation $\widetilde{{\mathcal Q}}_{k}:=\widetilde{{\mathcal Q}}_{1,k}$. The quantum determinant is best defined in terms of generating functions.
Given a set of integers $k_1,...,k_a\in {{\mathbb Z}}$, define the Hankel matrix $$\label{hank}
(\widetilde{{\mathcal Q}}_{k_i+i-j})_{1\leq i,j\leq a} .$$ The quantum determinant of this matrix, denoted by $\widetilde{{\mathcal Q}}[k_1,k_2,...,k_a]$, is given by the coefficients of the generating function: $$\sum_{k_1,...,k_{{\alpha}}\in {{\mathbb Z}}} u_1^{k_1}\cdots u_a^{k_{{\alpha}}}\, {\widetilde{{\mathcal Q}}}[k_1,...,k_a]=
\prod_{1\leq i<j \leq a} \left(1-q\frac{u_j}{u_i}\right) { \widetilde{{\mathcal Q}}}(u_1) {\widetilde{{\mathcal Q}}}(u_2)\cdots {\widetilde{{\mathcal Q}}}(u_{{\alpha}}),$$ where $${\widetilde{{\mathcal Q}}}(u):= \sum_{k\in {{\mathbb Z}}} u^k\, \widetilde{{\mathcal Q}}_{k}.$$
The quantum determinant $\widetilde{{\mathcal Q}}[k_1,...,k_a]$ is a homogeneous polynomial of degree $a$ in the $\widetilde{{\mathcal Q}}_{k}$s.
[[@DFK16]]{} The solutions $\widetilde{{\mathcal Q}}_{a,k}$ of the system with $a\geq 1$ and $k\in {{\mathbb Z}}$ are the quantum determinants $$\widetilde{{\mathcal Q}}_{a,k}=
\widetilde{{\mathcal Q}}[\ \underbrace{ k,k,...,k }_{\text{ $a$ times}}\ ] .$$
The functional representation of the quantum Q-system
-----------------------------------------------------
We recall the functional representation of the renormalized quantum Q-system $\rho (\widetilde{{\mathcal Q}}_{a,k})=M_{a,k}$ [@DFK15], which act on the space of symmetric functions of $N$ variables $x_1,x_2,...,x_N$.
[@DFK15; @DFK16]\[macdoQsys\] Let $\Gamma_i$ be the $q$-shift operator acting on the space of functions in $N$ variables, defined by $\Gamma_i f(x_1,...,x_i,...,x_N) = f(x_1,...,q x_i, ..., x_N).$ The $q$-difference operators $$\label{macMo}
M_{a,k}=\sum_{I\subset [1,N]\atop |I|=a} \Big(\prod_{i\in I}x_i\Big)^k
\prod_{i\in I\atop j\not\in I} \frac{x_i}{x_i-x_j}\, \prod_{i\in I} \Gamma_i ,\quad a\in[1,N], k\in{{\mathbb Z}}$$ satisfy the quantum Q-system relations .
In this representation, $$A=x_1x_2\cdots x_N,\qquad \Delta=\Gamma_1\Gamma_2\cdots \Gamma_N .$$
\[glvssl\] For ${{\mathfrak{sl}}}_N$-characters, the products $A$ and $\Delta$ are taken to be equal to $1$. The more general boundary condition here corresponds to ${{\mathfrak{gl}}}_N$-characters.
The spherical double affine Hecke algebra
-----------------------------------------
The reader will have recognized that the difference operators $M_{a,0}$ in are the limit $t\to \infty$ of the (renormalized) Macdonald difference operators in type $A$. This is the main observation which led to the results of [@DFKqt], where it is shown that the spherical DAHA [@Cheredbook] of type $A_{N-1}$ is the natural $t$-deformation of the quantum Q-system.
An important observation in [@DFKqt] is that the evolution in the discrete time variable $k$ is induced by the adjoint action of one of the generators of the $SL_2({{\mathbb Z}})$ symmetry of the DAHA.
[[@DFKqt]]{}\[gauM\] The discrete time evolution of the operators $M_{a,k}$ is induced by the adjoint action of the Gaussian $\gamma^{-1}$, with $\gamma$ as in : $$\label{adjA}
M_{a,k}=q^{-a k/2}\, \gamma^{-k}\, M_{a,0}\, \gamma^k .$$
The difference operators $\{M_{a,k}\}$, together with the elementary symmetric functions of ${{\mathbf x}}$, are the image in the functional representation of the generators of the spherical DAHA.
The double affine Hecke algebra and corresponding Macdonald operators are defined for other Lie algebras. In the following sections, we will use this as the inspiration to give conjectures for the functional representations of the quantum Q-systems for the other classical types by following the inverse reasoning: Starting from the appropriate choice of Macdonald difference operators, act with the adjoint action of $\gamma$ to obtain the discrete time-evolved operators, imitating the contents of Theorem \[gauM\]. The resulting $q$-difference operators, in the limit $t\to\infty$, are (conjecturally) solutions of renormalized quantum Q-systems for the other classical types.
Raising and lowering operators
------------------------------
The dual $q$-Whittaker functions are defined as $$\Pi_\lambda\equiv\Pi_\lambda(q^{-1};{{\mathbf x}})=\lim_{t\to \infty} P_\lambda (q,t;{{\mathbf x}}),$$ where the $P_\lambda$ are the Macdonald polynomials for type $A_{N-1}$ [@macdo]. Here, the partition $\lambda$ corresponds to a dominant integral weight of ${{\mathfrak{gl}}}_N$, $\lambda=\sum_{i=1}^N \lambda_i e_i$ in the standard basis of ${{\mathbb R}}^N$, with $\lambda_1\geq \lambda_2 \geq \cdots \geq \lambda_N\geq 0$. The polynomials $P_\lambda$ are common monic eigenfunctions of the Macdonald operators $D_a$ $$\label{macdopA}
D_a=\sum_{I\subset [1,N]\atop |I|=a}
\prod_{i\in I\atop j\not\in I} \frac{t x_i-x_j}{x_i-x_j}\, \prod_{i\in I} \Gamma_i , \quad a\in [1,N],$$ with $$D_a P_\lambda = t^{-\frac{a(a-1)}{2}}\, e_a(q^{\lambda_1} t^{N-1}, q^{\lambda_2} t^{N-2},\ldots, q^{\lambda_N} )P_\lambda,$$ where $e_a$ are the elementary symmetric functions in $N$ variables. Using $\displaystyle\lim_{t\to\infty} t^{-a(N-a)}\, D_a=M_{a,0}$, this means that the $q$-Whittaker functions are eigenfunctions of the difference operators $M_{a,0}$: $$\label{eigenAN}
M_{a,0}\, \Pi_\lambda= q^{(\lambda,\omega_a)}\, \Pi_\lambda , \quad a\in [1,N],$$ where $\omega_a=e_1+e_2+\cdots +e_a$ are the fundamental weights of $\mathfrak{gl}_N$.
In [@DFK15] we showed that the operators $M_{a;\pm 1}$ are the limit $t\to\infty$ of the raising and lowering operators for Macdonald polynomials constructed by Kirillov and Noumi [@Kinoum]. However, the commutation relations in provide an easier proof, which we present here.
\[KNAN\] The operators $M_{a,\pm 1}$ act on the polynomials $\Pi_\lambda$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
M_{a,1}\, \Pi_\lambda&=& q^{(\lambda,\omega_a)}\, \Pi_{\lambda+\omega_a}, \label{raisingAN}\\
M_{a,-1}\, \Pi_\lambda&=& q^{(\lambda,\omega_a)}\, \big(1-q^{-(\lambda,{{\alpha}}_{a})}\big)\, \Pi_{\lambda-\omega_a}, \label{loweringAN}\end{aligned}$$ where ${{\alpha}}_a=e_a-e_{a+1}$ are the simple roots of ${{\mathfrak{sl}}}_N$.
Note that if $\lambda$ is a partition, $\lambda+\omega_a$ is also a partition, and if $\lambda-\omega_a$ is not a partition, the scalar factor $(1-q^{(\lambda,\alpha_a)})$ vanishes.
Up to scalar multiple, the polynomials $\Pi_\lambda$ are uniquely determined by the collection of eigenvalues $q^{(\omega_a,\lambda)}$ corresponding to the diagonal action of the operators $M_{a,0}$, $a=1,2,...,N$. The commutation relations in are $$M_{a,0}\, M_{b,\pm 1} =q^{\pm {\min}(a,b)} \, M_{b,0\pm 1}\, M_{a,0}.$$ Applying this to $\Pi_\lambda$ and using , $$M_{a,0}\, M_{b,\pm 1} \Pi_\lambda=q^{(\lambda,\omega_a)\pm {\min}(a,b)}\, M_{b,\pm 1} \Pi_\lambda=q^{(\lambda\pm\omega_b,\omega_a)} M_{b,\pm1}\Pi_\lambda,$$ since ${\min}(a,b)=(\omega_b,\omega_a)$. That is, $M_{b,\pm 1} \Pi_\lambda$ is an eigenfunction of $M_{a,0}$ with eigenvalue $q^{(\lambda\pm \omega_b,\omega_a)}$. Therefore there exist scalars $c^\pm_{\lambda,b}$ such that $M_{b,\pm 1} \Pi_\lambda =c^\pm_{\lambda,b}\,\Pi_{\lambda\pm \omega_b}$.
Recall that the Macdonald polynomials $P_\lambda$, and therefore $\Pi_\lambda$, have a triangular decomposition with respect to the monomial symmetric functions with leading term $m_\lambda$. The following analysis provides the scalar factor $c^+_{\lambda,b}$. When $|x_1|\gg|x_2|\gg \cdots \gg|x_N|$, $\Pi_\lambda =x_1^{\lambda_1}\cdots x_{N}^{\lambda_N}+{\rm lower \ order}$ and $M_{b,1}=x_1x_2...x_b\, \Gamma_1\Gamma_2\cdots \Gamma_b+{\rm lower \ order}$. Thus, $$M_{b,1}\, \Pi_\lambda= q^{\lambda_1+\cdots +\lambda_b} x_1^{\lambda_1+1}\cdots x_\beta^{\lambda_b+1}
x_{b+1}^{\lambda_{b+1}}
\cdots x_n^{\lambda_N}+{\rm lower \ order}=q^{(\lambda,\omega_b)}\Pi_{\lambda+\omega_b}+{\rm lower \ order},$$ and thus $c^+_{\lambda,b}=q^{(\lambda,\omega_b)}$.
Applying the exchange relation in with $k=0$ to $\Pi_\lambda$, we get $$q^a\, M_{a,1}\, M_{a,-1}\, \Pi_\lambda=q^{a} \, c^+_{\lambda-\omega_a,a}\, c^-_{\lambda,a} \Pi_\lambda=
(q^{2(\lambda,\omega_a)}-q^{(\lambda,\omega_{a+1}+\omega_{a-1})}) \Pi_\lambda,$$ which shows that $c^-_{\lambda,a}=q^{(\lambda,\omega_a)}-q^{(\lambda,\omega_{a+1}+\omega_{a-1}-\omega_a)}$ and the Theorem follows.
Graded characters in terms of difference operators
--------------------------------------------------
The difference operators can be used to efficiently generate graded characters . Theorem \[macdoQsys\] is a necessary condition for the following theorem:
([@DFK15], Corollary 18): Starting with the trivial character $\chi_0=1$, the difference operators act consecutively to generate the character of the graded tensor product of KR-modules $\otimes_{a,i} {{{\rm KR}}}_{i\omega_a}^{\otimes n_{a,i}}$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_{{\mathbf n}}(q^{-1},{{\mathbf x}})&= & q^{-{\frac12}Q({{\mathbf n}})}
\prod_{a=1}^{N-1}(M_{a,k})^{n_{a,k}}\prod_{a=1}^{N-1}(M_{a,k-1})^{n_{a,k-1}}\cdots
\prod_{a=1}^{N-1}(M_{a,1})^{n_{a,1}}\, 1.\end{aligned}$$ where $$Q({{\mathbf n}}) = \sum_{a,b=1}^{N-1}\sum_{i,j\geq 1} n_{a,i}\, {\rm min}(i,j)\, {\rm min}(a,b)\, n_{b,j}-\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}\sum_{i\geq 1} i\, a\, n_{a,i}.$$
Alternatively, when $k\geq \max\{j: n_{a,j}>0\}$, $$D_{a,k} \chi_{{{\mathbf n}}} (q^{-1};{{\mathbf x}}) = q^{(\omega_a,\sum_{b,j} j n_{b,j}\omega_b)}\chi_{{{\mathbf n}}+\epsilon_{a,k}}(q^{-1};{{\mathbf x}}),$$ where we write ${{\mathbf n}}=\sum_{b,j} n_{b,j}\epsilon_{b,j}$.
The quantum Q-system conjectures for types $BCD$ {#sec:conj1}
================================================
In order to formulate the conjectures for the functional representation of the quantum Q-systems of types $D_N,B_N,C_N$, we start with the results of Macdonald and van Diejen. There are $N$ algebraically independent commuting Hamiltonians in the sDAHA of those types. Our goal is to find a set that will be the seed, in the $q$-Whittaker limit, of the Q-system solutions.
Macdonald and van Diejen operators {#diff_ops}
----------------------------------
In [@macdoroot], Macdonald constructed certain difference operators for types $D_N,B_N,C_N$, corresponding to minuscule coweights. For these types, there are, respectively, $3,1$ and $1$ minuscule coweights, indexed by some of the extremal nodes of the Dynkin diagrams. The corresponding Macdonald operators are $$\begin{aligned}
D_N:\quad {\mathcal E}_1^{(D_N)}&=&\sum_{\epsilon=\pm 1}\sum_{i=1}^N \prod_{j\neq i} \frac{1-t x_i^\epsilon x_j}{1-x_i^\epsilon x_j}
\frac{t x_i^\epsilon-x_j}{x_i^\epsilon-x_j} \Gamma_i^{2\epsilon} ,\label{macDN1}\\
{\mathcal E}_{N-1}^{(D_N)}&=& \sum_{\epsilon_1,...,\epsilon_N=\pm 1\atop \epsilon_1\epsilon_2\cdots \epsilon_N=-1}
\prod_{1\leq i<j\leq N} \frac{1-t x_i^{\epsilon_i} x_j^{\epsilon_j}}{1-x_i^{\epsilon_i}x_j^{\epsilon_j}}
\prod_{i=1}^N \Gamma_i^{\epsilon_i}, \label{macDN2}\\
{\mathcal E}_N^{(D_N)}&=&
\sum_{\epsilon_1,...,\epsilon_N=\pm 1\atop \epsilon_1\epsilon_2\cdots \epsilon_N=1} \prod_{1\leq i<j\leq N} \frac{1-t x_i^{\epsilon_i} x_j^{\epsilon_j}}{1-x_i^{\epsilon_i}x_j^{\epsilon_j}} \prod_{i=1}^N \Gamma_i^{\epsilon_i}.\label{macDN3}\\
B_N:\quad {\mathcal E}_{1}^{(B_N)}&=&\sum_{\epsilon=\pm 1}
\sum_{i=1}^N \frac{1-t x_i^{\epsilon}}{1-x_i^{\epsilon}}
\prod_{j\neq i} \frac{1-t x_i^{\epsilon} x_j}{1-x_i^{\epsilon}x_j}\frac{t x_i^{\epsilon} -x_j}{x_i^{\epsilon}-x_j}
\Gamma_i^{2\epsilon}.\label{macBN}\\
C_N:\quad {\mathcal E}_{N}^{(C_N)}&=&\sum_{\epsilon_1,...,\epsilon_N=\pm 1}\prod_{i=1}^N
\frac{1-t x_i^{2\epsilon_i}}{1-x_i^{2\epsilon_i}}
\prod_{1\leq i<j\leq N} \frac{1-t x_i^{\epsilon_i}x_j^{\epsilon_j}}{1-x_i^{\epsilon_i}x_j^{\epsilon_j}}
\prod_{i=1}^N \Gamma_i^{\epsilon_i}.\label{macCN}\end{aligned}$$
The Macdonald operator for $C_N$ is of “order" $N$, namely acts by shifts of $N$ variables in each term, as opposed to the operators ${\mathcal E}_1^{(D_N)}$ and ${\mathcal E}_{1}^{(B_N)}$, which are linear combinations of shifts of a single variable. A first order difference operator for $C_N$, $ {\mathcal E}_{1}^{(C_N)}$, can be obtained using the commuting operators constructed in [@vandiej; @vandiejtwo]. We choose the following first order $C_N$ operator, which is a particular linear combination of the identity and the first order van Diejen operator:
$${\mathcal E}_{1}^{(C_N)}=(1+t^{N+1})\frac{1-t^{N}}{1-t}+ \sum_{\epsilon=\pm 1}\sum_{i=1}^N \frac{1-t x_i^{2\epsilon}}{1-x_i^{2\epsilon}}
\frac{1-t q^2 x_i^{2\epsilon}}{1-q^2 x_i^{2\epsilon}} \prod_{j\neq i} \frac{1-t x_i^{\epsilon}x_j}{1-x_i^{\epsilon}x_j}
\frac{t x_i^{\epsilon}-x_j}{x_i^{\epsilon}-x_j} \, (\Gamma_i^{2\epsilon}-1) \label{macCN1}$$
This particular choice ensures that the corresponding eigenfunctions are the Macdonald polynomials $P_\lambda({{\mathbf x}})$ of type $C_N$ with eigenvalues $$t^N\, e_1(\{ t^{N+1-i} q^{2\lambda_i}\}_{i=1}^N),\qquad \hbox{where }e_1(z_1,z_2,...,z_N)=\sum_{i=1}^N (z_i+z_i^{-1}).$$ In particular, for $P_0({{\mathbf x}})=1$, we have ${\mathcal E}_{1}^{(C_N)} 1= t^N\,e_1(\{t,t^2,...,t^{N}\})=(1+t^{N+1})\frac{1-t^{N}}{1-t}$.
The $q$-Whittaker limit {#Moperators}
-----------------------
Each of the operators ${\mathcal E}_i^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}$ in Equations – have suitable limits as $t\to\infty$, denoted by $$M_{i,0}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}:=\lim_{t\to\infty} t^{-a_i^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}} {\mathcal E}_i^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})},$$ where: $$\begin{aligned}
a_1^{(D_N)}&=&2(N-1),\quad a_{N-1}^{(D_N)}=a_{N}^{(D_N)}=\frac{N(N-1)}{2},\\
a_1^{(B_N)}&=&2N-1,\\
a_1^{(C_N)}&=&2N,\quad a_N^{(C_N)}=\frac{N(N+1)}{2} .\end{aligned}$$
It is also necessary to define the additional operator in type $C_N$: $$\label{macCN2}
M_{1,1}^{(C_N)}:= \sum_{\epsilon=\pm 1}\sum_{i=1}^N \frac{x_i^{2\epsilon}}{x_i^{2\epsilon}-1}
\frac{q^2 x_i^{2\epsilon}}{q^2 x_i^{2\epsilon}-1} \prod_{j\neq i} \frac{x_i^{\epsilon}x_j}{x_i^{\epsilon}x_j-1}
\frac{x_i^{\epsilon}}{x_i^{\epsilon}-x_j} \, x_i^{-\epsilon}(x_i^{2\epsilon} \Gamma_i^{2\epsilon}-q^{-2})$$
Discrete time evolution by adjoint action of the Gaussian
---------------------------------------------------------
By analogy with the $A_{N-1}$ case (see Theorem \[gauM\]), define the Gaussian function for types $BCD$: $$\gamma:= e^{\sum_{i=1}^N \frac{({\rm Log}(x_i))^2}{4{\rm Log}(q)}}$$\[gau\] [Note the slight modification $q\to q^2$ compared to the $A$ type Gaussian .]{}
The adjoint action of Gaussian function on the difference operators of Section \[Moperators\] induces a discrete time evolution:
\[discrete\_time\_evolution\] Let $k\in {{\mathbb Z}}$. The difference operators $M_{a,k}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}$ are defined as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
D_N:\quad {M}_{1,k}^{(D_N)}&:=&q^{-k}\, \gamma^{-k}\, M_{1,0}^{(D_N)} \, \gamma^k \\
{M}_{N-1,k}^{(D_N)}&:=&q^{-kN/4}\, \gamma^{-k}\, {M}_{N-1,0}^{(D_N)} \, \gamma^k\\
{M}_{N,k}^{(D_N)}&:=&q^{-kN/4}\, \gamma^{-k}\, {M}_{N,0}^{(D_N)} \, \gamma^k\\
B_N:\quad {M}_{1,k}^{(B_N)}&:=&q^{-k}\, \gamma^{-k}\, {M}_{1,0}^{(B_N)} \, \gamma^k \\
C_N:\quad {M}_{1,2k}^{(C_N)}&:=&q^{-2k}\, \gamma^{-2k}\,{M}_{1,0}^{(C_N)}\,\gamma^{2k}\\
{M}_{1,2k+1}^{(C_N)}&:=&q^{-2k}\, \gamma^{-2k}\,M_{1,1}^{(C_N)}\,\gamma^{2k}\\
{M}_{N,k}^{(C_N)}&:=& q^{-kN/2}\, \gamma^{-2k}\, {M}_{N,0}^{(C_N)}\, \gamma^{2k }\end{aligned}$$
Note that in type $C$, the definition for the time evolution of $M_{1,k}^{(C_N)}$ splits into two separate evolutions for even and odd $k$, involving the operators $M_{1,0}^{(C_N)}$ for even $k$ and $M_{1,1}^{(C_N)}$ of for odd $k$. This is due to the fact that ${{\alpha}}_1$ is a short root in type $C$. The same parity phenomenon is expected for the short root ${{\alpha}}_N$ of $B_N$.
Using the simple relation $\gamma^{-1}\,\Gamma_i^2\, \gamma= q x_i \, \Gamma_i^2$ for $\gamma$ as in , we see that Definition \[discrete\_time\_evolution\] results immediately in the following explicit expressions:
$$\begin{aligned}
\hbox{Type $D_N$:}\qquad
{M}_{1,k}^{(D_N)}&=&\sum_{\epsilon=\pm 1}\sum_{i=1}^N \prod_{j\neq i} \frac{x_i^\epsilon x_j}{x_i^\epsilon x_j-1}
\frac{x_i^\epsilon}{x_i^\epsilon-x_j} x_i^{k\epsilon}\, \Gamma_i^{2\epsilon}\nonumber\\
{M}_{N-1,k}^{(D_N)}&=&\sum_{\epsilon_1,...,\epsilon_N=\pm 1\atop \epsilon_1\epsilon_2\cdots \epsilon_N=-1}
\prod_{1\leq i<j\leq N} \frac{x_i^{\epsilon_i} x_j^{\epsilon_j}}{x_i^{\epsilon_i}x_j^{\epsilon_j}-1}
\prod_{i=1}^N x_i^{\frac{k\epsilon_i}{2}}\, \prod_{i=1}^N \Gamma_i^{\epsilon_i}\label{Dtwo}\\
{M}_{N,k}^{(D_N)}&=&\sum_{\epsilon_1,...,\epsilon_N=\pm 1\atop \epsilon_1\epsilon_2\cdots \epsilon_N=1}
\prod_{1\leq i<j\leq N} \frac{x_i^{\epsilon_i} x_j^{\epsilon_j}}{x_i^{\epsilon_i}x_j^{\epsilon_j}-1}
\prod_{i=1}^N x_i^{\frac{k\epsilon_i}{2}}\, \prod_{i=1}^N \Gamma_i^{\epsilon_i}\label{Dthree}\end{aligned}$$
$$\hbox{Type $B_N:$}\qquad {M}_{1,k}^{(B_N)}=\sum_{\epsilon=\pm 1}
\sum_{i=1}^N \frac{x_i^{\epsilon}}{x_i^{\epsilon}-1}
\prod_{j\neq i} \frac{x_i^{\epsilon} x_j}{x_i^{\epsilon}x_j-1}\frac{x_i^{\epsilon} }{x_i^{\epsilon}-x_j}
x_i^{k\epsilon}\,\Gamma_i^{2\epsilon}$$
$$\hbox{Type $C_N$:}\qquad{M}_{1,2k}^{(C_N)}=q^{-2k}+ \sum_{\epsilon=\pm 1}\sum_{i=1}^N \frac{x_i^{2\epsilon}}{x_i^{2\epsilon}-1}
\frac{q^2 x_i^{2\epsilon}}{q^2 x_i^{2\epsilon}-1} \prod_{j\neq i} \frac{x_i^{\epsilon}x_j}{x_i^{\epsilon}x_j-1}
\frac{x_i^{\epsilon}}{x_i^{\epsilon}-x_j} \, (x_i^{2k\epsilon}\Gamma_i^{2\epsilon}-q^{-2k})$$
$$\begin{aligned}
{M}_{1,2k-1}^{(C_N)}&=&\sum_{\epsilon=\pm 1}\sum_{i=1}^N \frac{x_i^{2\epsilon}}{x_i^{2\epsilon}-1}
\frac{q^2 x_i^{2\epsilon}}{q^2 x_i^{2\epsilon}-1} \prod_{j\neq i} \frac{x_i^{\epsilon}x_j}{x_i^{\epsilon}x_j-1}
\frac{x_i^{\epsilon}}{x_i^{\epsilon}-x_j} \, x_i^{-\epsilon}(x_i^{2k\epsilon} \Gamma_i^{2\epsilon}-q^{-2k})\nonumber \\
{M}_{N,k}^{(C_N)}&=&\sum_{\epsilon_1,...,\epsilon_N=\pm 1}\prod_{i=1}^N
\frac{x_i^{2\epsilon_i}}{x_i^{2\epsilon_i}-1}
\prod_{1\leq i<j\leq N} \frac{x_i^{\epsilon_i}x_j^{\epsilon_j}}{x_i^{\epsilon_i}x_j^{\epsilon_j}-1}
\prod_{i=1}^N x_i^{k\epsilon_i}\,\prod_{i=1}^N \Gamma_i^{\epsilon_i}.\label{Cthree}\end{aligned}$$
These expressions motivate the main conjectures of this paper.
Other Macdonald operators via quantum determinants
--------------------------------------------------
The list of operators defined in the previous section can be completed to include $M_{a,k}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}$ for the Dynkin labels $a$ which are not in the list above, by using quantum determinants.
Comparing the commutation relations and mutation relations of the quantum $BCD$ Q-systems involving only the Dynkin labels $\{1,...,N-1\}$ (types $BC$) and $\{1,...,N-2\}$ (type $D$), we see that the relations are the same as in type $A$ of , expressed in the variable $M_{a,k}$, up to the change of parameter $q\mapsto q^2$ (which results in a change in the first factor $q^a \mapsto q^{2a}$, and the commutation relations $q^{\min(a,b)}
\mapsto q^{2{\min(a,b)}}$). This observation leads to the following definitions:
For types $BCD$, define the difference operators $M_{a,k}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}$ by the following quantum determinants: $$\label{firmac}
M^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}_{a,k}:= |{\bf M}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}(\{\underbrace{k,k,...,k}_{a\ \rm{times}}\})|_{q^2}=M_{k,k,...,k}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})} \qquad (a=1,2,...,n_{{{\mathfrak{g}}}})$$ where $n_{D_N}=N-2$, and $n_{B_N}=n_{C_N}=N-1$. Here the matrix ${\bf M}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}(\{{{\mathbf a}}\})$ is obtained by replacing $M_{1,k}$ with $M^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}_{1,k}$ in the defining expression , and the quantum determinant has parameter $q^2$ instead of $q$ in the vandermonde factor.
By homogeneity of the quantum determinant as a polynomial in the variables $M^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}_{1,k}$, Definition is compatible with the discrete time evolution relations: $$\begin{aligned}
M_{a,k}^{(D_N)}&=&q^{-k a}\, \gamma^{-k} \, M_{a,0}^{(D_N)} \, \gamma^k,\qquad (a=1,2,...,N-2);\\
M_{a,k}^{(B_N)}&=&q^{-k a}\, \gamma^{-k} \, M_{a,0}^{(B_N)} \, \gamma^k,\qquad (a=1,2,...,N-1);\\
M_{a,2k+\eta}^{(C_N)}&=&q^{-2k a}\, \gamma^{-2k} \, M_{a,\eta}^{(C_N)} \, \gamma^{2k},\qquad (a=1,2,...,N-1,\eta=0,1),\end{aligned}$$ with the Gaussian function $\gamma$ as in .
The quantum Q-system conjectures
--------------------------------
The main conjecture of this paper is the following:
\[qqconj\] For $G=D_N,B_N,C_N$, the Macdonald operators $M_{a,n}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}$ obey the following renormalized versions (we omit the superscript ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$ for simplicity) of the quantum Q-systems (\[DNqqsys\]-\[CNqqsys\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\hbox{Type $D_N$:}\qquad\qquad\qquad M_{a,k}\, M_{b,p}&=&q^{\Lambda_{a,b}(p-k)}\, M_{b,p}\, M_{a,k}\nonumber \\
q^{2 a}M_{a,k+1}M_{a,k-1}&=&M_{a,k}^2-M_{a+1,k}M_{a-1,k}\qquad (a\in[1,N-3])\nonumber \\
q^{2(N-2)}M_{N-2,k+1}M_{N-2,k-1}&=& M_{N-2,k}^2- q^{-\frac{(N-2)k}{2}}\, M_{N,k}M_{N-1,k}M_{N-3,k}
\label{DMsys} \\
q^{\frac{N}{2}}M_{N-1,k+1}M_{N-1,k-1}&=& M_{N-1,k}^2- q^{\frac{(N-4)k}{2}}\,M_{N-2,k}\nonumber \\
q^{\frac{N}{2}}M_{N,k+1}M_{N,k-1}&=& M_{N,k}^2- q^{\frac{(N-4)k}{2}}\,M_{N-2,k}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\hbox{Type $B_N$}:\qquad \qquad\qquad M_{a,k}\, M_{b,p}&=& q^{\Lambda_{a,b} p-\Lambda_{b,a}k}\, M_{b,p}\, M_{a,k}\nonumber \\
q^{2a} \,M_{a,k+1}\,M_{a,k-1}&=&(M_{a,k})^2-M_{a+1,k}\, M_{a-1,k}\quad (a\in [1,N-2])\nonumber \\
q^{2N-2} \,M_{N-1,k+1}\,M_{N-1,k-1}&=&(M_{N-1,k})^2-M_{N,2k}\, M_{N-2,k}\label{BMsysthird} \\
q^N\, M_{N,2k+1}\,M_{N,2k-1}&=& (M_{N,2k})^2 -q^{-2k} (M_{N-1,k})^2\nonumber\\
q^N\, M_{N,2k+2}\,M_{N,2k}&=& (M_{N,2k+1})^2 -q^{N-1-(2k+1)} M_{N-1,k+1}\,M_{N-1,k}\label{BMsyslast}\\\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\hbox{Type $C_N$:}\qquad\qquad\qquad M_{a,k}\, M_{b,p}&=&q^{\Lambda_{a,b} p-\Lambda_{b,a}k}\,
M_{b,p}\,M_{a,k}\nonumber \\
q^{2a} M_{a,k+1}\, M_{a,k-1}&=&M_{a,k}^2- M_{a+1,k}M_{a-1,k} \qquad (a\in[1,N-2])\nonumber \\
q^{2N-2} M_{N-1,2k+1}M_{N-1,2k-1}&=&M_{N-1,2k}^2 - q^{-Nk}\,M_{N-2,2k} M_{N,k}^2\nonumber \\
q^{2N-2} M_{N-1,2k+2}M_{N-1,2k}&=&M_{N-1,2k+1}^2 - q^{-Nk}\,M_{N-2,2k+1} M_{N,k+1}M_{N,k}\nonumber \\
q^N M_{N,k+1}\,M_{N,k-1}&=& M_{N,k}^2- q^{(N-2)k}\,M_{N-1,2k}\label{CMsys}\end{aligned}$$
In the case of $B_N$ we have not given an [*a priori*]{} definition of the order $N$ operators $M_{N,k}$. They can be constructed as a suitable linear combination of the limits at $t\to\infty$ of van Diejen operators [@vandiej; @vandiejtwo], compatible with the quantum Q-system in type B. These operators can be defined also by taking the quantum Q-system as the defining set of equations. First, define $M_{N,2k}=\vert M(\{k,k,...,k\})\vert_{q^2}$ ($k$ repeated $N$ times), compatible with Equation , in which $M_{N,2k}$ plays the role of the quantum determinant of size $N$. Then Equation gives information about $M_{N,2k+1}$: $$(M_{N,2k+1})^2=q^N\, M_{N,2k+2}\,M_{N,2k}+q^{N-1-(2k+1)} M_{N-1,k+1}\,M_{N-1,k}.$$ This can be used to determine the relevant difference operators. The fact that all the other equations of the system are satisfied is a highly non-trivial check.
These conjectures have been checked numerically up to $N=6$. We illustrate them in cases of small rank in Appendix A.
The difference operators $M_{a,k}$ are a functional representation of the quantum Q-system (\[DNqqsys\]-\[CNqqsys\]) up to the following rescaling: $$\begin{aligned}
D_N:\qquad\qquad\qquad
M_{a,k}&=& q^{\frac{a(a+1)}{2} -a(N+k)} {{\mathcal Q}}_{a,k}\qquad ({{\alpha}}\in[1,N-2])\nonumber\\
M_{N-1,k}&=& q^{-\frac{N(N-1)}{4}-\frac{Nk}{4}}\, {{\mathcal Q}}_{N-1,k}\nonumber\\
M_{N,k}&=& q^{-\frac{N(N-1)}{4}-\frac{Nk}{4}}\, {{\mathcal Q}}_{N,k}\qquad \qquad\qquad\qquad \qquad\qquad\qquad \qquad\qquad\label{Dch}\\
\nonumber\\
B_N:\qquad\qquad \qquad M_{a,k}&=& q^{\frac{a^2}{2}-a (N+k)} \,{{\mathcal Q}}_{a,k}\qquad (a\in[1,N-1])
\nonumber\\
M_{N,k}&=& q^{-\frac{N^2}{2}-\frac{Nk}{2}} \,{{\mathcal Q}}_{N,k}\label{Bch}\\
\nonumber\\
C_N:\qquad\qquad \qquad M_{a,k}&=&q^{\frac{a(a-1)}{2}-a(N+k)} \,{{\mathcal Q}}_{a,k}\qquad (a\in[1,N-1])
\nonumber\\
M_{N,k}&=&q^{-\frac{N(N+1)}{4}-\frac{Nk}{2}}\, {{\mathcal Q}}_{N,k}\label{Cch}\end{aligned}$$
By straightforward inspection.
The raising/lowering operator conjectures for types $BCD$
=========================================================
In this section, we present conjectures that extend the result of Theorem \[KNAN\] to types $BCD$. These involve the action of the difference operators $M_{a,k}$ on the dual $q$-Whittaker functions: $$\Pi_\lambda^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}(q^{-1};{{\mathbf x}}):=\lim_{t\to\infty} P_\lambda^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}(q,t;{{\mathbf x}}).$$ The general idea is that while the operators $M_{a,0}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}$ are all limits of Macdonald operators, for which the $q$-Whittaker functions $\Pi_\lambda^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}$ are common eigenfunctions, the operators $M_{a,\pm 1}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}$ are simple raising and lowering operators on those eigenfunctions.
\[knconj\] The operators $M_{a,0}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}$ and $M_{a,\pm 1}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}$ have the following action on the $q$-Whittaker functions $\Pi^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}_\lambda$, valid for all $a\in [1,N]$: $$\begin{aligned}
D_N, B_N:\qquad M_{a,0}\, \Pi_\lambda&=&q^{2t_a (\lambda,\omega_a)}\, \Pi_{\lambda}
\nonumber\\
M_{a,1}\, \Pi_\lambda&=& q^{2t_a(\lambda,\omega_a)}\, \Pi_{\lambda+\omega_a} \nonumber \\
M_{a,-1}\, \Pi_\lambda&=&q^{2t_a(\lambda,\omega_a)} \big(1-q^{-2t_a({{\alpha}}_a,\lambda)}\big)\, \Pi_{\lambda-\omega_a}
\qquad
\label{DKN}\label{BKN}\\
\nonumber\\
C_N:\qquad M_{a,0}\, \Pi_\lambda&=&q^{t_a(\omega_a,\lambda)}\,\Pi_\lambda \quad \nonumber\\
M_{a,1}\, \Pi_\lambda &=& q^{t_a\,(\omega_a,\lambda)} \, \Pi_{\lambda+\omega_a} \quad \nonumber\\
M_{a,-1}\, \Pi_\lambda&=& q^{t_a(\omega_a,\lambda)}\big(1-q^{-t_a({{\alpha}}_{a},\lambda)}\big) \, \Pi_{\lambda-\omega_a},\quad \label{CKN}\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega_a$ and ${{\alpha}}_a$ are the fundamental weights and simple roots of the corresponding algebras, $t_a=2$ for the short roots in types $BC$, and $t_a=1$ otherwise.
The eigenvalue equations (the first equation in each set) are a consequence of the Macdonald eigenvalue equations of the finite $t$ case. As in type $A$, up to a scalar multiple, the raising equations (the second equation in each set) are a consequence of the quantum commutation relations $M_{a,0}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}\, M_{b,1}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}=q^{\lambda_{a,b}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}} \, M_{b,1}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}\, M_{a,0}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}$. When applied to the $q$-Whittaker functions, this gives: $$M_{a,0}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}\Big( M_{b,1}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}\, \Pi_\lambda^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}\Big)
=q^{\lambda_{a,b}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}}\, M_{b,1}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}\, M_{a,0}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}\, \Pi_\lambda^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}=
q^{\epsilon^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})} \!t_a^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}\!(\omega_a^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}\!\!\!,\lambda+\omega_b^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}\!)}\, M_{b,1}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}\, \Pi_\lambda^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}$$ where we have defined $\epsilon^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}=2$ for ${{\mathfrak{g}}}=B_N,D_N$ and $\epsilon^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}=1$ for ${{\mathfrak{g}}}=C_N$, and used the fact that $\lambda_{a,b}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}=\epsilon^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}t_a^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}(\omega_a^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})},\omega_b^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})})$. As the simulataneous eigenvalue property for the action of all $M_{a,0}$ determines the eigenvectors uniquely, up to a scalar multiple, we deduce that $M_{b,1}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}\, \Pi_\lambda^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}$ must be proportional to $\Pi_{\lambda+\omega_b}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}$. The conjecture concerns simply the explicit value of the proportionality factor $q^{\epsilon^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}t_a^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}(\omega_a^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}\!\!,\lambda)}$, which we checked numerically up to $N=6$.
Similarly, the action of the lowering operator (third equation in each set) follows from the eigenvalue and raising operator actions and the quantum Q-system equations (\[DMsys\]-\[CMsys\]) of Conjecture \[qqconj\]. This is readily seen by applying the exchange relations involving $M_{a,1}$ and $M_{a,-1}$ to $\Pi_\lambda$.
Examples of q-Whittaker functions and raising/lowering difference operators are given in Appendix A.
The graded character conjectures for types $BCD$
================================================
The main Conjecture \[qqconj\] is a necessary ingredient in proving the following conjecture about the expression of the graded characters in terms of difference operators. Let $I_<$ be the subset labels of the short roots the Dynkin diagram in types BC. Recall that $t_a=2$ for $a\in I_<$, and $t_a=1$ otherwise.
\[gradconj\] The graded characters of the tensor products of KR-modules in types $BCD$ can be expressed using the iterated action of the difference operators in types $BCD$ on the polynomial 1: $$\chi_{{{\mathbf n}}}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}(q^{-1};{{\mathbf x}})=q^{-\frac{1}{2}Q^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}({{\mathbf n}})}\, \prod_{\ell=k}^1\left( \prod_{a\in I} (M_{ a,t_a\ell}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})})^{n_{a,t_a\ell}} \prod_{a\in I_<} (M_{a, t_a\ell-1}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})})^{n_a,t_a\ell-1}\right)\ \cdot 1$$ where $k$ is chosen large enough to cover all the non-zero $n$’s, and $$Q^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}({{\mathbf n}}):=\sum_{a,b=1}^N\sum_{i,j\geq 1} n_{a,i}\,\frac{\lambda_{a,b}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})} }{t_a^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}}\,
{\rm min}(t_b^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})} i,t_a^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})} j) \, n_{b,j} -\sum_{a=1}^N \sum_{i\geq 1} i\, \lambda_{a,a}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}\, n_{a,i}$$
The ordering of the difference operators in Conjecture \[gradconj\] is consistent with [@qKR; @Simon], and is determined by the order of mutations in the bipartite belt of the quantum cluster algebra.
In particular, Conjecture \[gradconj\] allows one to interpret the so-called “level 1" graded characters corresponding to only possibly non-zero $n_a=n_{a,1}$, as the limiting Macdonald polynomials (or dual $q$-Whittaker functions) $\Pi_\lambda$, with the correspondence: $$\label{dema} \chi_{\{n_a\}}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}(q^{-1},{{\mathbf x}})=q^{-\frac{1}{2}Q^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}(\{n_a\})}\, \prod_{a\in I_>} \left(M_{a,1}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}\right)^{n_a}\prod_{a\in I_<} \left(M_{a,1}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}\right)^{n_a} \cdot 1 =\Pi_\lambda^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}(q^{-1};{{\mathbf x}})$$ where $I_>=I\setminus I_<$ is the set of long root labels, $\lambda=\sum_a n_a\omega_a$, and the quadratic form $Q^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
Q^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}(\{n_a\}) &=&\sum_{a,b=1}^N n_{a}\,\frac{\lambda_{a,b}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}}{t_a^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}} \min(t_a^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})},t_b^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})})\,n_{b} -\sum_{a=1}^N \lambda_{a,a}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}\, n_{a} \\
&=&\epsilon^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}\left\{ \sum_{a,b=1}^N n_{a}\,(\omega_a^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})},\omega_b^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}) \min(t_a^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})},t_b^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})})\,n_{b} -\sum_{a=1}^N t_a^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})} (\omega_a^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})},\omega_a^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})})\, n_{a} \right\} .\end{aligned}$$ Alternatively, for a fixed ${{\mathbf n}}$, acting with $M_{a,k}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}$ such that $t_a k \geq \max\{t_b j: n_{b,j}>0\}$ on $\chi_{{\mathbf n}}$ gives $$M_{a,k}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}\,\chi_{{\mathbf n}}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}(q^{-1};{{\mathbf x}}) = q^{\epsilon^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})} \sum_{j,b} (\omega_a^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})},\omega_b^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}) \min(t^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}_b k,t^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}_a j)n_{b,j}} \chi_{{{\mathbf n}}+\epsilon_{a,k}}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}(q^{-1};{{\mathbf x}}),$$ where, again, ${{\mathbf n}}=\sum n_{b,j} \epsilon_{b,j}$.
It is a non-trivial exercise to check the compatibility between and the raising operator conditions on the second lines of (\[DKN\]-\[CKN\]). Indeed, we note that for a short root label $a$, we may only act with $M_{a,1}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}$ on characters obtained themselves by short root raising operators say $\prod_{b\in I_<} (M_{b,1}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})})^{n_b}\cdot 1$: $$\begin{aligned}
M_{a,1}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}\, \chi_{\{n_b\}}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}(q^{-1},{{\mathbf x}})&=&q^{-{\frac12}Q^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}(\{n_b\})} \prod_{b\in I_<}
(M_{b,1}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})})^{n_b+\delta_{a,b}}\cdot 1\\
&=&q^{{\frac12}(Q^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}(\{n_b+\delta_{a,b}\})-Q^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}(\{n_b\}))} \chi_{\{n_b+\delta_{a,b}\}}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}(q^{-1},{{\mathbf x}})\end{aligned}$$ We compute: $$\begin{aligned}
Q^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}(\{n_b+\delta_{a,b}\})-Q^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}(\{n_b\})&=&\epsilon^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})} \sum_{b\in I_<} n_b \min(t_a^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})},t_b^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}) (\omega_a^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})},\omega_b^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})})\\
&=&
\epsilon^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}\, t_a^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})} (\omega_a^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})},\sum_b n_b \omega_b^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})})=\epsilon^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}\, t_a^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})} (\omega_a^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})},\lambda)\end{aligned}$$ by use of $t_a^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}=t_b^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}=2$. This is in agreement with (\[DKN\]-\[CKN\]), upon writing $\lambda=\sum n_b \omega_b$. For a long root label $a$, we have similarly: $$\begin{aligned}
Q^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}(\{n_b+\delta_{a,b}\})-Q^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}(\{n_b\})&=&\epsilon^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})} \sum_{b\in I} n_b \min(t_a^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})},t_b^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}) (\omega_a^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})},\omega_b^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})})\\
&=&
\epsilon^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}\, (\omega_a^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})},\sum_b n_b \omega_b^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})})=\epsilon^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}\, t_a^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})} (\omega_a,\lambda)\end{aligned}$$ by use of $t_a^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}=1$. This is again in agreement with (\[DKN\]-\[CKN\]).
This special case is also in agreement with [@LNSSS].
Conclusion
==========
Summary: Macdonald operators and quantum cluster algebra
--------------------------------------------------------
In this paper we have presented two main conjectures about the difference operators $M_{a,k}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}$ corresponding to root systems of types $BCD$.
The first conjecture states that the difference operators $\{M_{a,k}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}\}$ satisfy renormalized quantum Q-systems of types $BCD$. The commuting difference operators $\{M_{a,0}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}\}$ can be obtained as the limits $t\to \infty$ of appropriate Macdonald operators for the relevant Lie root systems. The operators $M_{a,k}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}$ are their $SL_2({{\mathbb Z}})$ “discrete time evolution".
The second conjecture is that the difference operators $M_{a,\pm 1}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}$ at times $k=\pm 1$ act as raising and lowering operators on $q$-Whittaker functions $\Pi_\lambda^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}$.
The quantum Q-systems are mutations in the corresponding quantum cluster algebras. From this point of view, the sets $S_{\pm}:=\{ M_{a,0}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})},M_{a,\pm 1}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}\}$ are two possible valid initial cluster seeds, and the conjectures state that, as in type $A$, these are formed of the Macdonald and raising (reps. lowering) operators, at $t\to \infty$. This raises a number of questions regarding cluster variables in general: from preliminary inspection, it appears that [*all cluster variables*]{} in the corresponding cluster algebra are difference operators as well, a quite surprising property which goes way beyond the usual Laurent property of quantum cluster algebra, which would only imply that all cluster variables are Laurent polynomials of those in an initial cluster. These other difference operators should tell us something new about Macdonald theory (including in type $A$).
Towards proving the conjectures
-------------------------------
The second conjecture of this paper offers a possible strategy for proving both conjectures which goes as follows. The second conjecture indeed can be restated as follows: the Macdonald and raising operators $M_{a,0}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}$ and $M_{a,1}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}$ act on the basis $\Pi_\lambda$ of Weyl-symmetric polynomials of ${{\mathbf x}}$ as very simple [*dual*]{} operators $X_a,P_a$: $$M_{a,0}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}\, \Pi_\lambda^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}= \Pi_\lambda^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})} \, X_a,
\quad M_{a,1}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}\, \Pi_\lambda^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}= \Pi_\lambda^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})} \, P_a$$ where the operators $X_a,P_a$ act to the left on the variables $\Lambda_a=q^{2\lambda_a}$. More precisely the operators $X_a$ acts diagonally on the basis $\Pi_\lambda^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}$ with eigenvalues $q^{\epsilon_a^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}(\omega_a^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}\!\!,\lambda)}$ whereas $P_a$ includes a multiplicative shift of $\Lambda$ variables. As a result, the operators $X_a,P_a$ obey the simple (opposite) commutation relations: $X_a \, P_b=q^{-\lambda_{a,b}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}}\,P_b\, X_a$.
Reversing the logic entirely, we may [*start from the data*]{} of operators $X_a,P_a$, and [*define*]{} the left action of the operators $M_{a,k}^{({{\mathfrak{g}}})}$ via the (opposite) renormalized quantum Q-systems of this paper. To identify the left action and the right one, we need to construct the Gaussian operator in $X_a,P_a$ variables, and the conjectures will follow from the anti-homomorphism mapping left and right actions. We will pursue this program elsewhere.
sDAHA, EHA and the $t$-deformation of quantum Q-systems
-------------------------------------------------------
In [@DFKqt], we investigated the natural $t$-deformation of the $A$ type quantum Q-system provided by the type $A$ sDAHA, also expressed as a quotient of the elliptic Hall algebra (EHA) [@SCHIFFEHA], or the quantum toroidal algebra of ${{{\mathfrak{gl}}}}_1$. There exist sDAHAs for all classical types [@Cheredbook], and this would be the natural candidate for a generalization of the $A$ type results. We may use as starting points the $(q,t)$-Macdonald operators of Section \[diff\_ops\], and their time evolution via the suitable $SL_2({{\mathbb Z}})$ action, to derive current algebra relations that will generalize EHA or quantum toroidal algebra relations, ideally giving rise to new interesting algebras.
Examples
========
This appendix gathers a few inter-connected examples, which give non-trivial checks of the conjectures of this paper. We give here the examples of the $B_2$ and $C_2$ cases, that of the $A_3$ and $D_3$, and finally the $D_4$ case. We verify in particular that the symmetries of the Dynkin diagrams are also reflected on our difference operators.
Weyl-invariant Schur functions
------------------------------
We define the Weyl-invariant Schur functions $s^{({\mathfrak g})}_\lambda({{\mathbf x}})$ for ${\mathfrak g}=A_{N-1},B_N,C_N,D_N$ to be the characters of the irreducible representations of corresponding weight [@Mizu]:[^1]: $$s^{(A_{N-1})}_\lambda({{\mathbf x}})=
\frac{\det_{1\leq i,j\leq N}\left( x_i^{N-j+\lambda_j}\right)}
{\det_{1\leq i,j\leq N}\left( x_i^{N-j}\right)} \label{ANschur}$$ $$s^{(B_N)}_\lambda({{\mathbf x}})=
\frac{\det_{1\leq i,j\leq N}\left( x_i^{N-j+\lambda_j+\frac{1}{2}}-\frac{1}{x_i^{N-j+\lambda_j+\frac{1}{2}}}\right)}
{\det_{1\leq i,j\leq N}\left( x_i^{N-j+\frac{1}{2}}-\frac{1}{x_i^{N-j+\frac{1}{2}}}\right)} \label{BNschur}$$ $$s^{(C_N)}_\lambda({{\mathbf x}})=\frac{\det_{1\leq i,j\leq N}\left( x_i^{N-j+\lambda_j+1}-\frac{1}{x_i^{N-j+\lambda_j+1}}\right)}
{\det_{1\leq i,j\leq N}\left( x_i^{N-j+1}-\frac{1}{x_i^{N-j+1}}\right)} \label{CNschur}$$ $$s^{(D_N)}_\lambda({{\mathbf x}})=
\frac{\det_{1\leq i,j\leq N}\left( x_i^{N-j+\lambda_j}-\frac{1}{x_i^{N-j+\lambda_j}}\right)}
{\det_{1\leq i,j\leq N}\left( x_i^{N-j}+\frac{1}{x_i^{N-j}}\right)}
+\frac{\det_{1\leq i,j\leq N}\left( x_i^{N-j+\lambda_j}+\frac{1}{x_i^{N-j+\lambda_j}}\right)}
{\det_{1\leq i,j\leq N}\left( x_i^{N-j}+\frac{1}{x_i^{N-j}}\right)}\label{DNschur}$$
The Weyl-invariant Schur functions form a basis of the space of Weyl-invariant (Laurent) polynomials. In the following sections, we write the dual $q$-Whittaker functions $\Pi_\lambda$ in this Schur basis. We drop the superscript $({\mathfrak g})$ for simplicity.
Note that Equation for ${\mathfrak gl}_N$ Schur functions gives the ${\mathfrak sl}_N$ Schur functions, upon restriction to $x_1x_2\cdots x_N=1$ and then noting that $s_\lambda=s_{\lambda-\rho}$ where $\rho=e_1+e_2+\cdots +e_N$.
The $B_2$ case
--------------
### M operators
$$\begin{aligned}
M_{1,k}&=&\sum_{\epsilon=\pm 1}
x_1^{k \epsilon}\, \frac{x_1^\epsilon}{x_1^\epsilon- 1}
\frac{x_1^\epsilon x_2}{x_1^\epsilon x_2 - 1}\, \frac{x_1^\epsilon}{x_1^\epsilon - x_2}
\, \Gamma_1^{2\epsilon}
+x_2^{k \epsilon}\, \frac{x_2^\epsilon}{x_2^\epsilon- 1}
\frac{x_2^\epsilon x_1}{x_2^\epsilon x_1 - 1}\, \frac{x_2^\epsilon}{
x_2^\epsilon - x_1} \, \Gamma_2^{2\epsilon}\\
M_{2,2k}&=&q^{-2k}+\sum_{\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2=\pm 1}
\frac{x_1^{\epsilon_1} }{x_1^{\epsilon_1}-1}\, \frac{x_2^{\epsilon_2} }{x_2^{\epsilon_2}-1}\, \frac{x_1^{\epsilon_1}x_2^{\epsilon_2} }{x_1^{\epsilon_1}x_2^{\epsilon_2}-1}\,
\frac{q^2x_1^{\epsilon_1}x_2^{\epsilon_2} }{q^2x_1^{\epsilon_1}x_2^{\epsilon_2}-1}
(x_1^{k\epsilon_1}x_2^{k\epsilon_2}\,\Gamma_1^{2\epsilon_1}\Gamma_2^{2\epsilon_2}-q^{-2k})\\
M_{2,2k-1}&=&\sum_{\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2=\pm 1}
\frac{x_1^{\epsilon_1} }{x_1^{\epsilon_1}-1}\, \frac{x_2^{\epsilon_2} }{x_2^{\epsilon_2}-1}\, \frac{x_1^{\epsilon_1}x_2^{\epsilon_2} }{x_1^{\epsilon_1}x_2^{\epsilon_2}-1}\,
\frac{q^2x_1^{\epsilon_1}x_2^{\epsilon_2} }{q^2x_1^{\epsilon_1}x_2^{\epsilon_2}-1}
(x_1^{\epsilon_1}x_2^{\epsilon_2})^{-\frac{1}{2}}\, (x_1^{k\epsilon_1}x_2^{k\epsilon_2}\,\Gamma_1^{2\epsilon_1}\Gamma_2^{2\epsilon_2}-q^{-2k})\end{aligned}$$
Here $M_{1,k}$ is given by the $k$-th iterate conjugation of w.r.t. the Gaussian, and $M_{2,2k}$ by the quantum determinant $M_{1,k}^2-q^2M_{1,k+1}M_{1,k-1}$.
### Dual $q$-Whittaker functions
$$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_{0,0}&=& s_{0,0}\\
\Pi_{1,0}&=& s_{1,0} \\
\Pi_{2,0}&=& s_{2,0}+q^{-2}s_{1,1}+q^{-4}s_{0,0} \\
\Pi_{1,1}&=& s_{1,1}+q^{-2}s_{1,0}+q^{-2}s_{0,0} \\
\Pi_{3,0}&=& s_{3,0}+\frac{1+q^2}{q^4} s_{2,1}+q^{-6}s_{1,1}+\frac{1+q^2+q^4}{q^8}s_{1,0}\\
\Pi_{2,1}&=& s_{2,1}+q^{-2}s_{2,0}+\frac{1+q^2}{q^4} s_{1,1}+\frac{1+q^2}{q^4} s_{1,0}+q^{-6}s_{0,0} \\
\Pi_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}}&=& s_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}}\\\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_{\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2}}&=& s_{\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2}}+q^{-2}s_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}}\\
\Pi_{\frac{5}{2},\frac{1}{2}}&=& s_{\frac{5}{2},\frac{1}{2}}+q^{-2}s_{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}}+\frac{1+q^2}{q^4} s_{\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2}}+
\frac{1+q^2}{q^6}s_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}}\\
\Pi_{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}}&=& s_{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}}+\frac{1+q^2}{q^4} s_{\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2}}+
\frac{1+q^2+q^4}{q^6}s_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}}\end{aligned}$$
The $C_2$ case
--------------
### The $B_2\leftrightarrow C_2$ symmetry
The $B_2$ case can be mapped onto the $C_2$ case, by interchanging the roles of the two fundamental weights. More precisely, let us denote by $\omega_a=\omega_a^{(B_2)}$ (resp. $\omega_a'=\omega_a^{(C_2)}$). The variables $x_1,x_2$ of the $B_2$ case can be thought of as $x_i=e^{e_i}$, with $e_1=\omega_1$ and $e_2=2\omega_2-\omega_1$, and similarly for $C_2$, where $x_i'=e^{e_i'}$, $e_1'=\omega_1'$ and $e_2'=\omega_2'-\omega_1'$. The mapping $(\omega_1,\omega_2)\mapsto (\omega_2',\omega_1')$ sends $$\label{mapx} x_1=e^{\omega_1}\mapsto e^{\omega_2'}=x_1'\, x_2', \quad x_2=e^{2\omega_2-\omega_1}\mapsto e^{2\omega_1'-\omega_2'}=\frac{x_1'}{x_2'}$$ Similarly, we have: $$\label{mapga} \Gamma_1^2 \mapsto \Gamma_1'\, \Gamma_2',\qquad \Gamma_2^2\mapsto \Gamma_1'\, {\Gamma_2'}^{-1}$$ The map (\[mapx\]-\[mapga\]) sends the operators $M_{a,k}^{(B_2)}\mapsto M_{3-a,k}^{(C_2)}$ for $a=1,2$ and $k\in {{\mathbb Z}}$, and the Macdonald polynomials $P_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2}^{(B_2)}\mapsto P_{\lambda_1+\lambda_2,\lambda_1-\lambda_2}^{(C_2)}$ and similarly for the $q$-Whittaker functions, using $$\lambda=\lambda_1 e_1+\lambda_2 e_2=(\lambda_1-\lambda_2)\omega_1+2\lambda_2 \omega_2\mapsto
(\lambda_1-\lambda_2)\omega_2'+2\lambda_2 \omega_1'=(\lambda_1+\lambda_2)e_1'+(\lambda_1-\lambda_2)e_2' .$$
### M operators
From the definitions in type $C$, $$\begin{aligned}
M_{1,2k}&=&q^{-2k}+\sum_{\epsilon=\pm 1} \left\{
\frac{x_1^{2\epsilon}}{x_1^{2\epsilon}-1}\frac{q^2x_1^{2\epsilon}}{q^2x_1^{2\epsilon}-1}
\frac{x_1^\epsilon x_2}{x_1^\epsilon x_2 - 1}\frac{x_1^\epsilon }{x_1^\epsilon -x_2 }
(x_1^{2k \epsilon} \Gamma_1^{2\epsilon} -q^{-2k}) \right.\\
&&\qquad\qquad +\left. \frac{x_2^{2\epsilon}}{x_2^{2\epsilon}-1}\frac{q^2x_2^{2\epsilon}}{q^2x_2^{2\epsilon}-1}
\frac{x_2^\epsilon x_1}{x_2^\epsilon x_1 - 1}\frac{x_2^\epsilon }{x_2^\epsilon -x_1 }
(x_2^{2k \epsilon} \Gamma_2^{2\epsilon} -q^{-2k})\right\},\\
M_{1,2k-1}&=&\sum_{\epsilon=\pm 1} \left\{
\frac{x_1^{2\epsilon}}{x_1^{2\epsilon}-1}\frac{q^2x_1^{2\epsilon}}{q^2x_1^{2\epsilon}-1}
\frac{x_1^\epsilon x_2}{x_1^\epsilon x_2 - 1}\frac{x_1^\epsilon }{x_1^\epsilon -x_2 }\, x_1^{-\epsilon}
(x_1^{2k \epsilon} \Gamma_1^{2\epsilon} -q^{-2k})\right.\\
&&\qquad+\left. \frac{x_2^{2\epsilon}}{x_2^{2\epsilon}-1}\frac{q^2x_2^{2\epsilon}}{q^2x_2^{2\epsilon}-1}
\frac{x_2^\epsilon x_1}{x_2^\epsilon x_1 - 1}\frac{x_2^\epsilon }{x_2^\epsilon -x_1 }\, x_2^{-\epsilon}
(x_2^{2k \epsilon} \Gamma_2^{2\epsilon} -q^{-2k})\right\},\\
M_{2,k}&=& \sum_{\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2=\pm 1} \frac{x_1^{2\epsilon_1}}{x_1^{2\epsilon_1}-1}\frac{x_2^{2\epsilon_2}}{x_2^{2\epsilon_2}-1}
\frac{x_1^{\epsilon_1}x_2^{\epsilon_2} }{x_1^{\epsilon_1}x_2^{\epsilon_2}-1}\,
(x_1^{k\epsilon_1} x_2^{k\epsilon_2})\, \Gamma_1^{\epsilon_1}\Gamma_2^{\epsilon_2}.\end{aligned}$$
The expected symmetry between $M_{1,k}^{(B_2)}\mapsto M_{2,k}^{(C_2)}$ and $M_{2,k}^{(B_2)}\mapsto M_{1,k}^{(C_2)}$ is easily checked.
### Dual $q$-Whittaker functions
$$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_{0,0}&=& s_{0,0}\\
\Pi_{1,0}&=& s_{1,0} \\
\Pi_{2,0}&=& s_{2,0}+q^{-2}s_{1,1}+q^{-2}s_{0,0} \\
\Pi_{1,1}&=& s_{1,1} \\
\Pi_{3,0}&=& s_{3,0}+\frac{1+q^2}{q^4} s_{2,1}+\frac{1+q^2+q^4}{q^6}s_{1,0}\\
\Pi_{2,1}&=& s_{2,1}+q^{-2}s_{2,0}+q^{-2} s_{1,0}\\
\Pi_{4,0}&=& s_{4,0}+\frac{1+q^2+q^4}{q^6} s_{3,1}+\frac{1+q^4}{q^8}s_{2,2}+\frac{(1+q^2+q^4)(1+q^4)}{q^{10}}s_{2,0}\\
&&+\frac{1+2q^2+q^4+q^6}{q^{10}}s_{1,1}+\frac{1+q^4+q^8}{q^{12}}s_{0,0}\\
\Pi_{3,1}&=& s_{3,1}+q^{-2}s_{2,2}+\frac{(1+q^2)}{q^{4}}s_{2,0}+\frac{1+q^2}{q^{4}}s_{1,1}+q^{-6}s_{0,0}\\
\Pi_{2,2}&=&s_{2,2}+q^{-2}s_{2,0}+q^{-4}s_{0,0}\end{aligned}$$
The expected symmetry relations between $B_2$ and $C_2$ $q$-Whittaker functions are easily checked, using the explicit expressions for the relevant Schur functions (\[BNschur\]-\[CNschur\]).
The ${\mathfrak sl}_4$ and $D_3$ cases
--------------------------------------
### The ${\mathfrak sl}_4\leftrightarrow D_3$ symmetry
Compared to the ${\mathfrak gl}_4$ case, the symmetric functions of the case ${\mathfrak sl}_4$ involve the extra condition that $x_1x_2x_3x_4=1$, and accordingly $\Gamma_1\Gamma_2\Gamma_3\Gamma_4=1$ (see Remark \[glvssl\]). This is implemented by imposing the extra condition $e_1+e_2+e_3+e_4=0$ under which: $$e_1=\omega_1,\ e_2=\omega_2-\omega_1,\ e_3=\omega_3-\omega_2,\ e_4=-\omega_3 .$$ Primed variables are used for $D_3$: $$e_1'=\omega_1',\ e_2'=\omega_2'+\omega_3'-\omega_1',\ e_3'=\omega_3'-\omega_2' .$$ We use the mapping $$\omega_1\mapsto \omega_3', \quad \omega_2\mapsto \omega_1', \quad\omega_3\mapsto \omega_1' .$$ This is equivalent to the changes of variables (using $x_i=e^{e_i}, x_i'=e^{e_i'}$): $$\label{sl4tod3} x_1\mapsto \sqrt{x_1'x_2'x_3'},\quad x_2\mapsto \sqrt{\frac{x_1'}{x_2'x_3'}},\quad x_3\mapsto\sqrt{\frac{x_2'}{x_1'x_3'}},\quad x_4\mapsto \sqrt{\frac{x_3'}{x_1'x_2'}} .$$ Moreover, to account for our choice of normalization we must also take $q\mapsto q^2$, which results in $$\label{sl4toD3} \Gamma_1 \mapsto \Gamma_1'\Gamma_2'\Gamma_3',\quad \Gamma_2\mapsto \frac{\Gamma_1'}{\Gamma_2'\Gamma_3'}, \quad \Gamma_3\mapsto \frac{\Gamma_2'}{\Gamma_1'\Gamma_3'}, \quad \Gamma_4\mapsto \frac{\Gamma_3'}{\Gamma_1'\Gamma_2'} .$$
The above transformations send the ${\mathfrak sl}_4$ Macdonald operators to the $D_3$ ones, namely $M_{1,k}\mapsto M_{3,k}'$, $M_{2,k}\mapsto M_{1,k}'$ and $M_{3,k}\mapsto M_{2,k}'$. The corresponding mapping of Macdonald polynomials is $$\label{maPsl4tod3}
P_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3,\lambda_4}^{({\mathfrak sl}_4)}\mapsto P_{\frac{\lambda_1+\lambda_2-\lambda_3-\lambda_4}{2},\frac{\lambda_1-\lambda_2+\lambda_3-\lambda_4}{2},\frac{\lambda_1-\lambda_2-\lambda_3+\lambda_4}{2}}^{(D_3)} .$$
### M operators
The ${\mathfrak sl}_4$ operators are: $$\begin{aligned}
M_{1,k}^{({\mathfrak sl}_4)}&=&\sum_{i=1}^4 x_i^k\, \prod_{j\neq i} \frac{x_i}{x_i-x_j} \Gamma_i \\
M_{2,k}^{({\mathfrak sl}_4)}&=&\sum_{1\leq i<j\leq 4}^4 (x_i x_j)^k\, \prod_{m\neq i,j} \frac{x_m}{x_m-x_i}\frac{x_m}{x_m-x_j}\, \Gamma_i\Gamma_j\\
M_{3,k}^{({\mathfrak sl}_4)}&=&\sum_{i=1}^4 x_i^{-k}\, \prod_{j\neq i} \frac{x_j}{x_j-x_i} \Gamma_i^{-1}\end{aligned}$$ where $x_1x_2x_3x_4=1$ and $\Gamma_1\Gamma_2\Gamma_3\Gamma_4=1$.
The $D_3$ operators are: $$\begin{aligned}
M_{1,k}^{(D_3)}&=&\sum_{\epsilon=\pm 1} \sum_{i=1}^3 x_i^k\, \prod_{j\neq i}\frac{x_i^\epsilon x_j}{x_i^\epsilon x_j-1} \frac{x_i^\epsilon}{x_i^\epsilon-x_j}\Gamma_i^{2\epsilon} \\
M_{2,k}^{(D_3)}&=&\sum_{\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2,\epsilon_3=\pm 1\atop
\epsilon_1\epsilon_2\epsilon_3=-1} \prod_{i=1}^3 x_i^{k\epsilon_i}\, \prod_{1\leq i<j\leq 3} \frac{x_i^{\epsilon_i} x_j^{\epsilon_j}}{x_i^{\epsilon_i} x_j^{\epsilon_j}-1} \prod_{i=1}^3 \Gamma_i^{\epsilon_i}\\
M_{3,k}^{(D_3)}&=&\sum_{\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2,\epsilon_3=\pm 1\atop
\epsilon_1\epsilon_2\epsilon_3=1} \prod_{i=1}^3 x_i^{k\epsilon_i}\, \prod_{1\leq i<j\leq 3} \frac{x_i^{\epsilon_i} x_j^{\epsilon_j}}{x_i^{\epsilon_i} x_j^{\epsilon_j}-1} \prod_{i=1}^3 \Gamma_i^{\epsilon_i}\end{aligned}$$
It is straightforward to see that the change of variables (\[sl4tod3\]-\[sl4toD3\]) map the M operators as follows: $M_{1,k}^{({\mathfrak sl}_4)}\mapsto M_{3,k}^{(D_3)}$, $M_{2,k}^{({\mathfrak sl}_4)}\mapsto M_{1,k}^{(D_3)}$ and $M_{3,k}^{({\mathfrak sl}_4)}\mapsto M_{2,k}^{(D_3)}$.
### Dual $q$-Whittaker functions
In terms of the Schur functions , the first few $A_3$ dual $q$-Whittaker functions are: $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_{0,0,0,0}&=&1\\
\Pi_{1,0,0,0}&=&s_{1,0,0,0}\\
\Pi_{2,0,0,0}&=&s_{2,0,0,0}+q^{-1}\, s_{1,1,0,0}\\
\Pi_{1,1,0,0}&=&s_{1,1,0,0}\\
\Pi_{3,0,0,0}&=&s_{3,0,0,0}+\frac{1+q}{q^2}\, s_{2,1,0,0}+ q^{-3}\, s_{1,1,1,0}\\
\Pi_{2,1,0,0}&=&s_{2,1,0,0}+q^{-1}\, s_{1,1,1,0}\\
\Pi_{1,1,1,0}&=&s_{1,1,1,0}\\
\Pi_{4,0,0,0}&=&s_{4,0,0,0}+\frac{1+q+q^2}{q^3}s_{3,1,0,0}+\frac{1+q^2}{q^4}s_{2,2,0,0}+\frac{1+q+q^2}{q^5}s_{2,1,1,0}+q^{-6}s_{1,1,1,1}\\
\Pi_{3,1,0,0}&=&s_{3,1,0,0}+q^{-1}s_{2,2,0,0}+\frac{1+q}{q^2}s_{2,1,1,0}+q^{-3}s_{1,1,1,1}\\
\Pi_{2,2,0,0}&=&s_{2,2,0,0}+q^{-1}s_{2,1,1,0}+q^{-2}s_{1,1,1,1}\\
\Pi_{2,1,1,0}&=&s_{2,1,1,0}+q^{-1}s_{1,1,1,1}\\
\Pi_{1,1,1,1}&=&s_{1,1,1,1}\end{aligned}$$
In terms of the Schur functions , the first few $D_3$ dual $q$-Whittaker functions are: $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_{0,0,0}&=&1\\
\Pi_{1,0,0}&=&s_{1,0,0}\\
\Pi_{2,0,0}&=&s_{2,0,0}+q^{-2}\, s_{1,1,0}+q^{-4}\,s_{0,0,0}\\
\Pi_{1,1,0}&=&s_{1,1,0}+q^{-2}\,s_{0,0,0}\\
\Pi_{3,0,0}&=&s_{3,0,0}+\frac{1+q^2}{q^4}\, s_{2,1,0}+ q^{-6}\, (s_{1,1,1}+s_{1,1,-1})+\frac{1+q^2+q^4}{q^8}\,s_{1,0,0}\\
\Pi_{2,1,0}&=&s_{2,1,0}+q^{-2}\, (s_{1,1,1}+s_{1,1,-1})+\frac{1+q^2}{q^4}\,s_{1,0,0}\\
\Pi_{1,1,\epsilon}&=&s_{1,1,\epsilon}+q^{-2}\, s_{1,0,0}\\
\Pi_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{\epsilon}{2}}&=&s_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{\epsilon}{2}}\\
\Pi_{\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{\epsilon}{2}}&=&s_{\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{\epsilon}{2}}+q^{-2}\,
s_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},-\frac{\epsilon}{2}}\\
\Pi_{\frac{5}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{\epsilon}{2}}&=&s_{\frac{5}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{\epsilon}{2}}+q^{-2}\,s_{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2},\frac{\epsilon}{2}}+\frac{1+q^2}{q^4}\,
s_{\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2},-\frac{\epsilon}{2}}+\frac{1+q^2}{q^6}\,s_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{\epsilon}{2}}\\\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2},\frac{\epsilon}{2}}&=&s_{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2},\frac{\epsilon}{2}}+q^{-2}\,
s_{\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2},-\frac{\epsilon}{2}}+\frac{1+q^2}{q^4}\,s_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{\epsilon}{2}}\\
\Pi_{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2},\frac{3\epsilon}{2}}&=&s_{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2},\frac{3\epsilon}{2}}+\frac{1+q^2}{q^4}\, s_{\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{\epsilon}{2}}+q^{-6}\, s_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},-\frac{\epsilon}{2}}\end{aligned}$$
The relations are easily checked for these polynomials. First we note that the mapping extends to the Weyl-invariant Schur functions as well. We then simply have to check that the coefficients in the $D_3$ case match those in the ${\mathfrak sl}_4$ case up to $q\to q^2$. For instance, we have $\Pi_{2,1,0,0}^{({\mathfrak sl}_4)}\mapsto \Pi_{\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}}^{(D_3)}$ as the coefficient of $s_{1,1,1,0}^{({\mathfrak sl}_4)}$ (resp. $s_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},-\frac{\epsilon}{2}}^{(D_3)}$) is $q^{-1}$ (resp. $q^{-2}$). Similarly the coefficients in $\Pi_{3,0,0,0}^{({\mathfrak sl}_4)}$ and $\Pi_{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}}^{(D_3)}$ also agree up to $q\to q^2$.
The $D_4$ case
--------------
### Symmetries
There are two simple symmetries of the Dynkin diagram which induce symmetries of the Macdonald operators and polynomials:
- The ${{\mathbb Z}}_2$ automorphism of the Dynkin diagram under which $1\to 1$, $2\to 2$ and $3\leftrightarrow 4$,
- The ${{\mathbb Z}}_3$ automorphism of the Dynkin diagram under which $1\to 3\to 4\to 1$ and $2\to 2$.
Recall the relations $$e_1=\omega_1,\ e_2=\omega_2-\omega_1,\ e_3=\omega_4+\omega_3-\omega_2,\ e_4=\omega_4-\omega_3 .$$ The ${{\mathbb Z}}_2$ symmetry under: $$\omega_1\mapsto \omega_1,\ \omega_2\mapsto \omega_2,\ \omega_3\mapsto \omega_4,\
\omega_4\mapsto \omega_3$$ induces the transformations $$\label{mapxDtwo}
x_1\mapsto x_1,\ x_2\mapsto x_2,\ x_3\mapsto
x_3,\ x_4\mapsto \frac{1}{x_4} .$$ Similarly, we have $$\Gamma_1\mapsto \Gamma_1,\
\Gamma_2\mapsto \Gamma_2,\
\Gamma_3\mapsto \Gamma_3,\
\Gamma_4 \mapsto \Gamma_4^{-1} .$$ We will check that under these transformations, we have $M_{1,k}\mapsto M_{1,k}$, $M_{2,k}\mapsto M_{2,k}$, $M_{3,k}\mapsto M_{4,k}$ and $M_{4,k}\mapsto M_{3,k}$ for Macdonald operators, and $$P_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3,\lambda_4}\mapsto P_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3,-\lambda_4}$$ for Macdonald polynomials as well as $q$-Whittaker functions.
The ${{\mathbb Z}}_3$ symmetry sends $$\omega_1\mapsto \omega_3,\ \omega_2\mapsto \omega_2,\ \omega_3\mapsto \omega_4,\
\omega_4\mapsto \omega_1$$ therefore induces the transformations $$\label{mapxD}
x_1\mapsto \sqrt{\frac{x_1x_2x_3}{x_4}},\ x_2\mapsto\sqrt{\frac{x_1x_2x_4}{x_3}},\ x_3\mapsto
\sqrt{\frac{x_1x_3x_4}{x_2}},\ x_4\mapsto \sqrt{\frac{x_1}{x_2x_3x_4}} .$$ Similarly, we have $$\Gamma_1^2\mapsto \frac{\Gamma_1\Gamma_2\Gamma_3}{\Gamma_4},\
\Gamma_2^2\mapsto \frac{\Gamma_1\Gamma_2\Gamma_4}{\Gamma_3},\
\Gamma_3^2\mapsto \frac{\Gamma_1\Gamma_3\Gamma_4}{\Gamma_2},\
\Gamma_4^2\mapsto \frac{\Gamma_1}{\Gamma_2\Gamma_3\Gamma_4} .$$ We expect that under these transformation, we have $M_{1,k}\mapsto M_{3,k}\mapsto M_{4,k}\mapsto M_{1,k}$ as well as $M_{2,k}\mapsto M_{2,k}$ for Macdonald operators, and $$P_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3,\lambda_4}\mapsto P_{\frac{\lambda_1+\lambda_2+\lambda_3+\lambda_4}{2},\frac{\lambda_1+\lambda_2-\lambda_3-\lambda_4}{2},\frac{\lambda_1-\lambda_2+\lambda_3-\lambda_4}{2},\frac{-\lambda_1+\lambda_2+\lambda_3-\lambda_4}{2}}$$ for Macdonald polynomials as well as $q$-Whittaker functions.
The fact that our operators/polynomials obey these symmetry relations is a highly non-trivial check of our construction.
### M operators
$$\begin{aligned}
M_{1,k}&=&\sum_{\epsilon=\pm 1}\sum_{i=1}^4 \prod_{j\neq i} \frac{x_i^\epsilon x_j}{x_i^\epsilon x_j-1}
\frac{x_i^\epsilon}{x_i^\epsilon-x_j} x_i^{k\epsilon}\, \Gamma_i^{2\epsilon} \\
M_{2,k}&=&M_{1,k}^2-q^2 M_{1,k+1}\,M_{1,k-1}\\
{M}_{3,k}&=&
\sum_{\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2,\epsilon_3,\epsilon_4=\pm 1\atop \epsilon_1\epsilon_2\epsilon_3 \epsilon_4=-1}
\prod_{1\leq i<j\leq 4} \frac{x_i^{\epsilon_i} x_j^{\epsilon_j}}{x_i^{\epsilon_i}x_j^{\epsilon_j}-1}
\prod_{i=1}^4 x_i^{\frac{k\epsilon_i}{2}}\, \prod_{i=1}^4 \Gamma_i^{\epsilon_i}\\
{M}_{4,k}&=&
\sum_{\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2,\epsilon_3,\epsilon_4=\pm 1\atop \epsilon_1\epsilon_2\epsilon_3 \epsilon_4=1}
\prod_{1\leq i<j\leq 4} \frac{x_i^{\epsilon_i} x_j^{\epsilon_j}}{x_i^{\epsilon_i}x_j^{\epsilon_j}-1}
\prod_{i=1}^4 x_i^{\frac{k\epsilon_i}{2}}\, \prod_{i=1}^N \Gamma_i^{\epsilon_i}\\\end{aligned}$$
The expected symmetry relations under both ${{\mathbb Z}}_2$ and ${{\mathbb Z}}_3$ automorphisms are easily checked. For instance in the ${{\mathbb Z}}_2$ case, we see immediately that $M_{3,k}$ and $M_{4,k}$ are interchanged under the transformation $(x_4,\Gamma_4)\to (x_4^{-1},\Gamma_4^{-1})$ while all other $x_i, \Gamma_i$ remain unchanged, as the transformation amounts to changing $\epsilon_4\to -\epsilon_4$ in the summation.
In the general $D_N$ case, the ${{\mathbb Z}}_2$ symmetry of the Dynkin diagram that interchanges the two end-nodes $N-1$ and $N$ implies the symmetry under $x_N\mapsto 1/x_N$ while all other $x$’s remain unchanged, together with $\Gamma_N\mapsto \Gamma_N^{-1}$. It is clear that under this transformation, we have $M_{N-1,k}^{(D_N)}\mapsto M_{N,k}^{(D_N)}$ and $M_{N,k}^{(D_N)}\mapsto M_{N-1,k}^{(D_N)}$ Indeed, eqs. and are interchanged under the change of summation variable $\epsilon_N\to -\epsilon_N$, which amounts exactly to $x_N\to1/x_N$ and $\Gamma_N\to \Gamma_N^{-1}$.
### Dual $q$-Whittaker functions
$$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_{0,0,0,0}&=&s_{0,0,0,0}\\
\Pi_{1,0,0,0}&=&s_{1,0,0,0}\\
\Pi_{2,0,0,0}&=&s_{2,0,0,0}+q^{-2}s_{1,1,0,0}+q^{-4}s_{0,0,0,0}\\
\Pi_{1,1,0,0}&=&s_{1,1,0,0}+q^{-2}s_{0,0,0,0}\\
\Pi_{3,0,0,0}&=&s_{3,0,0,0}+\frac{1+q^2}{q^4}s_{2,1,0,0}+q^{-6}s_{1,1,1,0}+
\frac{1+q^2+q^4}{q^8}s_{1,0,0,0}\\
\Pi_{2,1,0,0}&=&s_{2,1,0,0}+q^{-2}s_{1,1,1,0}+
\frac{1+q^2}{q^4}s_{1,0,0,0}\\
\Pi_{1,1,1,0}&=&s_{1,1,1,0}+
q^{-2}s_{1,0,0,0}\\
\Pi_{4,0,0,0}&=&s_{4,0,0,0}+\frac{1+q^2+q^4}{q^6}s_{3,1,0,0}+\frac{1+q^4}{q^8}s_{2,2,0,0}+
\frac{1+q^2+q^4}{q^{10}}s_{2,1,1,0}\\
&&+q^{-12}(s_{1,1,1,1}+s_{1,1,1,-1})+\frac{(1+q^4)(1+q^2+q^4)}{q^{12}}s_{2,0,0,0}\\
&&+\frac{(1+q^4)(1+q^2+q^4)}{q^{14}}s_{1,1,0,0}+\frac{1+q^4+q^8}{q^{16}}s_{0,0,0,0}\\
\Pi_{3,1,0,0}&=&s_{3,1,0,0}+q^{-2}s_{2,2,0,0}+
\frac{1+q^2}{q^{4}}s_{2,1,1,0}+q^{-6}(s_{1,1,1,1}+s_{1,1,1,-1})\\
&&+
\frac{1+q^2+q^4}{q^6}s_{2,0,0,0}+\frac{1+q^2+2q^4}{q^8}s_{1,1,0,0}+\frac{1+q^4}{q^{10}}s_{0,0,0,0}\\
\Pi_{2,2,0,0}&=&s_{2,2,0,0}+
q^{-2}s_{2,1,1,0}+q^{-4}(s_{1,1,1,1}+s_{1,1,1,-1})\\
&&+
q^{-4}s_{2,0,0,0}+\frac{1+q^2+q^4}{q^6}s_{1,1,0,0}+\frac{1+q^4}{q^{8}}s_{0,0,0,0}\\
\Pi_{2,1,1,0}&=&s_{2,1,1,0}+q^{-2}(s_{1,1,1,1}+s_{1,1,1,-1})+
q^{-2}s_{2,0,0,0}+\frac{1+q^2}{q^4}s_{1,1,0,0}+q^{-6}s_{0,0,0,0}\\
\Pi_{1,1,1,\epsilon}&=&s_{1,1,1,\epsilon}+q^{-2}s_{1,1,0,0}+q^{-4}s_{0,0,0,0}\\
\Pi_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{\epsilon}{2}}&=&
s_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{\epsilon}{2}}\\
\Pi_{\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{\epsilon}{2}}&=&s_{\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{\epsilon}{2}}
+q^{-2}s_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},-\frac{\epsilon}{2}}\\
\Pi_{\frac{5}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{\epsilon}{2}}&=&s_{\frac{5}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{\epsilon}{2}}+q^{-2}s_{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{\epsilon}{2}}+\frac{1+q^{2}}{q^4}s_{\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},-\frac{\epsilon}{2}}+\frac{1+q^2}{q^6}s_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{\epsilon}{2}}\\
\Pi_{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{\epsilon}{2}}&=&s_{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{\epsilon}{2}}+q^{-2}s_{\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},-\frac{\epsilon}{2}}+\frac{1+q^2}{q^4}s_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{\epsilon}{2}}\end{aligned}$$
for $\epsilon=\pm 1$.
The expected symmetry relations under the ${{\mathbb Z}}_3$ Dynkin automorphism are easily checked using the explicit expressions for Weyl-invariant D-type Schur functions . As an illustration, the reader can check that $\Pi_{2,0,0,0}\mapsto \Pi_{1,1,1,-1}$, as a consequence of $s_{2,0,0,0}\mapsto s_{1,1,1,-1}$, $s_{1,1,0,0}\mapsto s_{1,1,0,0}$ and $s_{0,0,0,0}\mapsto s_{0,0,0,0}$ under the transformation . The ${{\mathbb Z}}_2$ symmetry is simply the covariance of $\Pi$ under $\epsilon\to-\epsilon$.
[^1]: In [@Mizu], the author restricts the definition to $\lambda$’s that are actual partitions. Here we include all possible dominant weights.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The effect of introducing measuring devices in a “quantum pinball” system is shown to lead to a chaotic evolution for the particle position as defined in Bohm’s approach to Quantum Mechanics.'
address: ' Physics Division, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth PO1 2DZ, United Kingdom'
author:
- 'C. Dewdney, Z Malik'
---
Introduction
============
One of the major problems in the study of the quantum mechanical behaviour of classically chaotic systems, in the context of the orthodox interpretation, is the inapplicability of the usual means of describing the dynamics of any system in terms of well-defined trajectories. In contrast to the orthodox approach to quantum mechanics Bohm’s approach[@deB26; @deBbook; @Bohm52] does allow the description of quantum systems in terms of well-defined trajectories and so overcomes this particular limitation. The Bohm trajectories are derived from the wavefunction according to the guidance condition $$\vec{p}=\Im\left [\frac{\Psi^\dagger\nabla\Psi}{\Psi^\dagger\Psi}\right ]$$ where $\vec{p}$ is the momentum and we assume $\hbar=1$. In a recent work[@MD95; @zmthesis] we used Bohm’s approach to explore the quantum mechanical behaviour of the (classically chaotic) kicked rotor and, notwithstanding the nonlinear quantum potential which arises in this description, found that neither an isolated rotor in a superposition of states nor an otherwise isolated but periodically kicked rotor showed any evidence of chaotic behaviour. The Schrödinger equation is non-mixing (two initially almost identical wavefunctions remain almost identical under the Schrödinger evolution) and this coupled with the fact that Bohm trajectories do not cross in the configuration - space of the system, which in this is case is one dimensional, makes the conclusion that chaos is not observed not surprising.
Thus far there is little in the extensive quantum chaos literature concerning the effects of measurement on a quantum system. This is probably because, from the orthodox point of view, the effect of measurement on a quantum system is to introduce an inherent randomness of outcomes and this essentially removes the system from the arena of interest for quantum chaology; chaos should arise from the internal dynamics of the system, not as a result of an external randomising influence. The introduction of measuring devices, when they are simply considered as other quantum systems, enlarges the configuration space of the (now compound) system. Their principle function is to introduce bifurcations in the evolution of the probability density in configuration space which then flows into separate regions. A good measuring device also ensures that the possibility for interference between these different regions in the future is negligable. In common text-book parlance the configuration-space wave then collapses (by some unspecified non-quantum mechanical process) in a random manner into just one of these regions.
In contrast to the usual description, Bohm’s approach has no need for wavepacket collapse. There is a well-defined outcome in each individual measurement since the actual configuration of the compound system is given by a well defined point in configuration space (just as in classical mechanics) and, according to the equations of motion, this point moves into just one the separate regions that develop as the interaction proceeds. Thus a unique correlated state of the measuring device and the measured system is selected. If the device is a good one then, for the practical purposes of calculating the future behaviour of the system, one may neglect all the unoccupied regions of the configuration space and just employ that component of the superposition which is effective in determing the future behaviour. Wave packet collapse to an effective wavefunction is, in Bohm’s theory, just a calculational convenience that one may employ.
At the end of our above-cited paper on the kicked rotor we suggested that, if the rotor were to be subjected to repeated measurements of the angular momentum, one after each kick, then the evolution of the effective wavefunctions associated with different initial conditions could indeed be divergent, leading to chaotic behaviour for the motion of the rotor. For the case of the rotor[@MD93] we have shown that the outcome of a measurement of angular momentum is dependent not only on the initial state of the rotor but also on the initial coordinates of the rotor’s centre of mass within its wavepacket as it enters the Stern-Gerlach apparatus. After the rotor suffers a kick and enters a superposition of angular momentum eigenstates a subsequent measurement will lead to the emergence of a number of wave packets from the exit from the Stern-Gerlach field and, given the fact that the Bohm trajectories may not cross, there will clearly be a corresponding number of bifurcations in the associated trajectories. Each one of these emerging wavepackets is associated with a different angular momentum component eigenstate and since the actual rotor position must, in any individual case, enter just one of the packets as they separate in space, the effective wavefunction (the one which determines the rotor’s behaviour) becomes just one of the eigenstates. In Bohm’s theory we are justified in ignoring the packets not containing the actual rotor centre of mass coordinate for the purposes of calculation providing only that the packets associated with different outcomes remain orthogonal either in virtue of spatial separation or the functioning of some complex recording device with many degrees of freedom. That is, in modern parlance, the alternatives must decohere. On receiving the next kick the effective angular momentum eigenstate wavefunction becomes a superposition of angular momentum eigenstates once more. The values of the coefficients of the eigenstates in this superposition will depend on the rotor’s state before the kick. Consequently the sequences of effective wavefunctions, generated by rotors with arbitrarily close initial positions, in a sequence of kicks followed by angular momentum measurements will in general diverge.
The picture is this: two identical rotors, differing only slightly in the values of their initial positions within their identical centre-of-mass wave-packets are subjected to a series of kicks. In the absence of any other interactions the behaviour of the two rotors will remain closely correlated. The situation is radically different if, between kicks, an angular momentum measurement is carried out. Initially, for a few kick and measurement pairs, the trajectories of the centre of mass of each rotor will be closely correlated and the two sequences of eigenstates resulting from the measurements will be identical. Eventually the center of mass coordinates of the two rotors will be placed either side of one of the bifurcation points that arise on measurement. Then the effective eigenstate for each rotor will be different after the measurement. On the next kick the expansion coeficients of the angular momentum eigenstates will be different and the behaviour of the rotors will no longer be correlated.
Quantum Pinball
===============
In order to explore the type of behaviour which arises with a kicked and measured rotor, but in the context of a simple system for which the outcome of the measuring interaction is merely twofold, we consider here a “quantum-pinball system”. The model-system we have in mind is constructed from a series of potential barriers, each with a transmission coefficient of one- half, which are arranged in a typical fairground pinball array (essentially on a triangular lattice within a triangle). A wave packet incident on the first barrier at the apex of the set of pins splits into two equal-sized packets which then propagate on towards two further barriers where the splitting behaviour is repeated. The significant coordinate is clearly perpendicular tothe barriers, the motion parallel is unaffected by the barriers.
We shall consider two variants of the pinball, the first is as described so far, but the second has the addition of measuring devices, capable of recording the passage of the particle, in each arm of the network. Before describing the motion of the particle through the whole pinball let us examine the behaviour of a particle as its wavepacket scatters from a single potential barrier.
From the fact that the Bohm-trajectories may not cross we can deduce that all those particles which approach the barrier within the trailing half of the packet must be reflected, whilst those in the front half of the packet must be transmitted.[@DH82] Thus this process, widely held to be inherently random in the usual approach to quantum mechanics, can be given a fully deterministic description in Bohm’s theory. On scattering from the barrier the wavefunction develops into a superposition $$\Psi_{\mbox{inc}}=\Psi_{\mbox{ref}}+\Psi_{\mbox{trans}}$$ but in each individual case there is a definite outcome as the Bohm trajectory must lead into just one of the packets. Whilst the two packets remain orthogonal, in virtue of their separation in space, only that part of the superposition associated with the actual particle position is active in determining the behaviour of the particle (this we refer to as the effective wavefunction). If the two packets were to be recombined, as happens in the second level of the pinball, then the reflected and transmitted packets would interfere and both would be relevant in determining the particle’s behaviour.
The situation is very different if measuring devices, capable of recording the passage of the particle, are introduced in the transmitted and reflected paths. The wave function develops in the following way $$\Psi_{\mbox{inc}}\Phi_0(1)\Phi_0(2) \rightarrow
\Psi_{\mbox{ref}}\Phi_1(1)\Phi_0(2)+\Psi_{\mbox{trans}}\Phi_0(1)\Phi_1(2)$$ where $\Phi_1$ and $\Phi_0 $ are orthogonal (and non-overlapping in the associated coordinate space) and the number in parenthesis labels the detector. Under these circumstances if the two beams emerging from the beam splitter are recombined they do not interfere and the behaviour of a particle associated with one part of the superposition remains independent of the other part of the superposition. (The alternatives decohere.) In the configuration space spanned by the particle coordinates and by all the measuring device coordinates the Bohm trajectories do not cross, but in the subspace spanned by just the particle coordinates the trajectories may cross.
With this in mind let us now consider the quantum pinball. In the absence of the measuring devices the incident wavepacket splits at each barrier and subsequently interferes at each further barrier with the packets that have propagated along the various alternate paths to that barrier. Given that the Bohm trajectories in this two-dimensional system cannot cross the order of the trajectories in the initial packet is maintained as the packet propagates through the system and two trajectories that start close together must remain close together. Two such quantum trajectories are shown in figure 1.
The particle trajectories are very different if we include the measuring devices. The splitting behaviour at the first barrier remains the same as in the case discussed above, but subsequently the system evolves in a very different manner. The presence of the measuring devices ensures that there is no interference between any of the packets that propagate along different paths in the pinball apparatus. These alternative paths may then be said to form a set of consistent histories. Consequently the behaviour of the trajectories at each barrier is the same as their behaviour at the first barrier: the packet splits at the centre, those in front are transmitted whilst those behind are reflected. Which path a given particle takes through the pinball is determined at the outset by its position within the initial packet. Every time the particle scatters from a barrier its position with respect to the centre of the emerging packet is different. In fact a simple calculation shows that the sequence of positions of the particle in the wave packet, as the particle scatters from successive barriers, is given by $$x_{n+1}=2x_n\bmod 1
\label{Bern}$$ This behaviour of the particle coordinate is identical to that discussed by Goldstein, Dürr and Zanghi [@Goldstein] in the context of a particle oscillating back and forth in a double-well potential and subjected to repeated position measurements. In our example of chaotic Bohm motion, the position of the particle relative to the centre of the wave packet, as it scatters from the barriers, determines the path taken through the pinball system. We can think of the particle position in the wavepacket as an internal coordinate and the centre of the packet actually containing the particle as an external or macroscopic coordinate. Since the internal coordinate behaves chaotically according to equation (\[Bern\]) the external coordinate follows an apparently random walk through the pinball. If the system is set up twice, with slightly different initial internal coordinate in each case, the corresponding motions of the wave packets through the pinball soon become totally uncorrelated, as the iterations of equation (\[Bern\]) quickly diverge. Two such trajectories are shown in figure 2. In practise of course it is not experimentally possible to set the system up with the same wave packet but different initial particle position within the packet, any attempt to determine the particle position will also alter its wave function.
When the particle in the pinball is not measured we see that the Bohm trajectories are very different to those of a classical particle in such a pinball device. With the measuring devices in place the trajectories are similar to those of a classical particle. In the WKB limit (in which the pins are smoothly varying potentials in the distance of one wavelength) and when the wavepacket is small compared to the size of the pins one would expect the whole wavepacket to follow a single path through the pinball. In this case the Bohm trajectories would not diverge, they would all be grouped around the same path. As the packet spreads it would begin to split on scatterring from the pins. If no measuring devices are present on the paths the wave-like behaviour discussed above will develop, with the measuring devices in place the internal coordinate will become chaotic and the packet trajectory will become random. However, if the measuring devices also reconstitute the original packet dimensions on each occasion (thus preventing the spreading of the packet from allowing different paths through the pinball developing) the packet will continue to follow a classical path, as will the Bohm trajectories.
Conclusion
==========
Since measurements are held to be inherently random processes in orthodox interpretations of quantum theory the study of their effects generally falls outside the arena of interest for quantum chaologists. In Bohm’s approach measurements are deterministic dynamical processes and their effect on the evolution of the coordinates of a system is a legitimate case for study in the search for quantum chaos. Here, in accordance with the results of Dürr et.al., we have shown that quantum chaos will arise in simple quantum systems, such as the kicked-rotor or pinball systems, when they are subjected to repeated measurements.
The quantum kicked-rotor when completely isolated does not show chaotic motion, so how does chaos arise in the classical limit? One answer is that classical and hence chaotic behaviour in the motion of kicked rotor will develop when it is allowed to interact with certain types of environment (here a set of measuring devices, which may themselves mimick a more complicated interaction with an more general environment capable of storing information about the rotor’s state) in such a way that the various alternatives that arise in the time-development of the system’s wave function decohere.
The authors wish to thank Shelly Goldstein for pointing out his reference [@Goldstein] and for useful e-discussions.
[99]{}
de Broglie L (1926) [*C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris.*]{} [**183**]{} 447; [**185**]{} 580 (1927) (1960) [*Nonlinear Wave Mechanics*]{} (Amsterdam: Elsevier) Bohm D (1952) [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**85**]{} 166, 180 (1951) [*Quantum Theory*]{} (New York: Prentice Hall) Malik Z, Dewdney C (1994) submitted to [*Phys. Lett. A*]{} Malik Z (Nov 1994) [*PhD Thesis*]{} (Univ. of Portsmouth) Dewdney C, Malik Z (1993) [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**48**]{}, pp 3513–24 Dewdney C, Hiley B J (1982)[*Foundations of Physics*]{} [**12**]{} 27 Dürr D, Goldstein S, Zanghi N (1992) [*Jour. Stat. Phys*]{} [**68**]{}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We consider the background-free quantum gravity based on conformal gravity with the Riegert-Wess-Zumino action, which is formulated in terms of a conformal field theory. Employing the $R \times S^3$ background in practice, we construct the nilpotent BRST operator imposing diffeomorphism invariance. Physical fields and states are analyzed, which are given only by real primary scalars with a definite conformal weight. With attention to the presence of background charges, various significant properties, such as the state-operator correspondence and the norm structure, are clarified with some examples.'
---
[Ken-ji Hamada]{}[^1]
[*Institute of Particle and Nuclear Studies, KEK, Tsukuba 305-0801, Japan*]{}\
and\
[*Department of Particle and Nuclear Physics, The Graduate University for Advanced Studies (Sokendai), Tsukuba 305-0801, Japan*]{}
Introduction
============
Conformal field theory (CFT) appears in various branches of theoretical physics. Quantum gravity is also described as a certain CFT that has conformal invariance as gauge symmetry. It is well-known that two-dimensional (2D) quantum gravity is described in terms of the CFT called the Liouville theory and the Virasoro algebra represents the background-free picture of 2D spacetime [@polyakov; @kpz; @dk; @seiberg; @gl; @bmp].
The four-dimensional quantum gravity we will study here [@riegert; @am; @amm92; @amm97b; @hs; @hamada02; @hh; @hamada05; @hamada09a; @hamada09b; @hamada11; @hamada12] is described in terms of such a CFT, which is formulated on the basis of conformal gravity systematically incorporating the Riegert-Wess-Zumino action induced from the path integral measure, as in the case of 2D quantum gravity. The model is characterized by how the metric field decomposes into the conformal factor $e^{2\phi}$ and the traceless tensor field $h_{\mu\nu}$ [@hamada02; @hamada09a]: $$g_{\mu\nu}=e^{2\phi}(\hg e^{th})_{\mu\nu}= e^{2\phi} \left( \hg_{\mu\nu} + t h_{\mu\nu} + \cdots \right) ,
\label{metric decomposition}$$ where $tr(h)=\hg^{\mu\nu}h_{\mu\nu}=0$ and $\hg_{\mu\nu}$ is the background metric. Nonperturbative effects are incorporated by treating the conformal factor $e^{2\phi}$ exactly without introducing its own coupling constant, while the traceless tensor field $h_{\mu\nu}$ is handled by the perturbation theory. Here, $t$ is the dimensionless coupling constant indicating asymptotic freedom. The model we consider is obtained at the ultraviolet (UV) limit of $t=0$, where exact conformal invariance arises as a realization of background metric independence.
In this paper, we continue the study of physical fields and states of the model developed in [@hh; @hamada05; @hamada09b; @hamada11] in the context of the Becchi-Rouet-Stora-Tyutin (BRST) quantization [@brs; @kugo; @kato; @fms; @bmp]. The BRST symmetry we discuss here is the residual diffeomorphism symmetry left after the gauge fixing, such that the gauge degrees of freedom reduce to the 15 conformal Killing vectors $\zeta^\mu$ satisfying $\hnb_\mu \zeta_\nu + \hnb_\nu \zeta_\mu - \hg_{\mu\nu} \hnb_\lam \zeta^\lam/2 =0$ [@hh; @hamada09b]. The BRST transformation is obtained by replacing $\zeta^\mu$ with the corresponding gauge ghost $c^\mu$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\dl_{\rm B} \phi &=& c^\lam \hnb_\lam \phi + \fr{1}{4} \hnb_\lam c^\lam ,
\nonumber \\
\dl_{\rm B} h_{\mu\nu} &=& c^\lam \hnb_\lam h_{\mu\nu}
+ \half h_{\mu\lam} \left( \hnb_\nu c^\lam - \hnb^\lam c_\nu \right)
+ \half h_{\nu\lam} \left( \hnb_\mu c^\lam - \hnb^\lam c_\mu \right) .
\label{BRST transformation} \end{aligned}$$
This transformation can be regarded as a conformal transformation considering quantum gravity as a quantum field theory on the background spacetime. Due to the presence of the shift term in the first equation, the invariance under the conformal change of the background metric occurs as the gauge symmetry. Thus, the background-free nature is represented as the gauge equivalence between the metrics before and after the change.
Unlike usual CFT, this conformal invariance is imposed on the field as well as the vacuum because it is the gauge symmetry. Although the residual gauge degrees of freedom are finite, this symmetry is much stronger because the right-hand side of (\[BRST transformation\]) is field-dependent and so the transformation mixes all modes in the field. Indeed, physical fields are given only by real primary scalars with a definite conformal weight.
The analysis of physical quantities is carried out employing the cylindrical background $R \times S^3$ in practice because it is useful to study physical states and their norm structures. The related study on the Minkowski background $M^4$ has been carried out in the previous work [@hamada12]. The result is consistent with this case, as is expected from the background-free nature of the model.
This paper is presented as follows. In the next section, we briefly summarize the model and the definitions of the basic objects we will use. The nilpotent BRST operator imposing diffeomorphism invariance is constructed in Section 3. Physical fields and states are studied in the context of BRST formalism, with some examples given in Sections 4 and 5. The physical significant properties, such as the state-operator correspondence and the norm structure, are clarified in Section 6. Section 7 is devoted to a conclusion and discussion.
Brief Summary of The Model
==========================
In order to discuss diffeomorphism symmetry at the quantum level, we have to specify the gravitational action. The action that governs the dynamics of the traceless tensor field is given by the Weyl action divided by $t^2$, $-(1/t^2) \int d^4 x \sq{-g}C_{\mu\nu\lam\s}^2$, where $C_{\mu\nu\lam\s}$ is the Weyl tensor. The action for the $\phi$ field, called the Riegert field, in the conformal factor is induced from the path integral measure. At the UV limit of $t=0$, it is given by the Riegert-Wess-Zumino action [@riegert] $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\rm RWZ} = -\fr{b_1}{(4\pi)^2} \int d^4 x \sq{-\hg}
\left\{ 2\phi \hDelta_4 \phi + \left( \hat{G}_4 - \fr{2}{3} \hnb^2 \hR \right) \phi \right\} ,
\label{RWZ action}\end{aligned}$$ where $\sq{-g}\Delta_4$ is the conformally invariant fourth-order differential operator and $G_4$ is the Euler density. The quantities with the hat are defined in terms of the background metric $\hg_{\mu\nu}$. The coefficient $b_1$ is the positive-definite constant greater than 4,[^2] and thus the action is bounded from below (in Wick-rotated Euclidean space).
The Riegert-Wess-Zumino action has been quantized in [@am; @amm92; @amm97b; @hs; @hh; @hamada05; @hamada09b; @hamada11; @hamada12] and the quantization of the Weyl action has been carried out in the perturbative expansion by $t$ in [@hamada02; @hamada09a].[^3] It has been shown that the algebra of diffeomorphism symmetry (\[BRST transformation\]) is closed at the quantum level in this system without the $R^2$ action [@hh; @hamada09b; @hamada12], as indicated from the Wess-Zumino integrability condition [@wz; @bcr; @riegert].
In this paper, the background is practically chosen to be $R\times S^3$ with unit $S^3$. The Riegert field is expanded in scalar harmonics on $S^3$ denoted by $Y_{JM}$ (\[scalar harmonics Y\]), which is decomposed into three parts: creation mode, zero mode, and annihilation mode, with $\phi = \phi_> + \phi_0 + \phi_<$, where $\phi_0 = \phi_0^\dag$, $\phi_> = \phi_<^\dag$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_0 &=& \fr{1}{\sq{2b_1}} \left( \hq + \eta \hp \right),
\nonumber \\
\phi_< &=& \fr{\pi}{2\sq{b_1}} \left\{
\sum_{J \geq \half} \sum_M \fr{a_{JM} e^{-i2J\eta}Y_{JM}}{\sq{J(2J+1)}}
+\sum_{J \geq 0} \sum_M \fr{b_{JM} e^{-i(2J+2)\eta}Y_{JM}}{\sq{(J+1)(2J+1)}} \right\} .
\label{mode expansion}\end{aligned}$$ The commutation relations are given by $[\hat{q}, \hat{p}] = i$ and $\left[ a_{J_1 M_1},a^\dag_{J_2 M_2} \right] = -\left[ b_{J_1 M_1},b^\dag_{J_2 M_2} \right] = \dl_{J_1 J_2}\dl_{M_1 M_2}$, where $a_{JM}$ and $b_{JM}$ are the positive-metric and negative-metric modes, respectively. The index $J (\geq 0)$ with $M$ in these modes and scalar harmonics denotes that these quantities belong to the $(J,J)$ representation of the $S^3$ isometry group $SU(2) \times SU(2)$ with the multiplicity $M=(m,m^\pp)$, where $m,m^\pp =-J, -J+1, \cdots, J$. The delta function for the multiplicity index is defined by $\dl_{M N}=\dl_{m n}\dl_{m^\pp n^\pp}$. For more details, see Appendix A in which the conventions and notations for indices and various tools on $R \times S^3$ are summarized.
The 15 conformal Killing vectors on $R\times S^3$ are denoted as $\zeta^\mu= \eta^\mu, \zeta_{MN}^\mu, \zeta_M^\mu, \zeta_M^{\mu*}$ and their concrete forms are gathered in Appendix A. Here and below, for simplicity, we use the indices $M$, $N$ without $J$ for the four-vector of $J=1/2$ which appears in the conformal Killing vectors, the corresponding generators, and also ghost modes introduced in the next section. The generator of diffeomorphism symmetry that forms the conformal algebra is given by $Q_\zeta = \int d\Om_3 \zeta^\mu \hat{T}_{\mu 0}$, where $\hat{T}_{\mu\nu}$ is the stress tensor derived from the combined system of Riegert-Wess-Zumino and Weyl actions.
The 15 generators for the Riegert sector are represented as follows [@amm97b; @hh; @hamada05; @hamada09b]. The Hamiltonian is $H = {\hat p}^2/2 + b_1 + \sum_{J, M} \{ 2J a^\dag_{JM} a_{JM} -(2J+2)b^\dag_{JM} b_{JM} \}$, where the constant energy shift $b_1$ is the Casimir effect. The four generators of special conformal transformations have the form $$\begin{aligned}
Q_M &=& \left( \hbox{$\sq{2b_1}$}-i\hat{p} \right) a_{\half M}
\nonumber \\
&& +\sum_{J \geq 0}\sum_{M_1}\sum_{M_2} \C^{\half M}_{JM_1, J+\half M_2}
\Bigl\{ \sq{2J(2J+2)} \eps_{M_1} a^\dag_{J-M_1} a_{J+\half M_2}
\nonumber \\
&&
-\sq{(2J+1)(2J+3)} \eps_{M_1} b^\dag_{J-M_1} b_{J+\half M_2}
+ \eps_{M_2} a^\dag_{J+\half -M_2} b_{J M_1} \Bigr\} ,
\label{generator of special conformal transformation}\end{aligned}$$ where $\eps_M=(-1)^{m-m^\pp}$ and $\C$ is the $SU(2) \times SU(2)$ Clebsch-Gordan coefficient defined by (\[C function\]). The Hermitian conjugates $Q_M^\dag$ are also the generators of special conformal transformations.[^4] The six generators of the $SU(2) \times SU(2)$ rotation group on $S^3$ are denoted by $R_{MN}$, with the properties $R^\dag_{MN}=R_{NM}$ and $R_{MN}=-\eps_M \eps_N R_{-N-M}$, whose explicit forms are not depicted here. These 15 generators form the conformal algebra of $SO(4,2)$ as follows:[^5] $$\begin{aligned}
\left[ Q_M, Q^\dag_N \right] &=& 2\dl_{MN} H + 2R_{MN},
\nonumber \\
\left[ H, Q_M \right] &=& -Q_M, \quad
\left[ H, R_{MN} \right] = 0,
\nonumber \\
\left[ Q_M, Q_N \right] &=& 0, \quad
\left[ Q_M, R_{N L} \right] = \dl_{M L} Q_N -\eps_N \eps_L \dl_{M -N} Q_{-L} ,
\nonumber \\
\left[ R_{M N}, R_{L K} \right]
&=& \dl_{M K} R_{L N} -\eps_M \eps_N \dl_{-N K} R_{L -M}
\nonumber \\
&& - \dl_{N L} R_{M K} +\eps_M \eps_N \dl_{-M L} R_{-N K} .
\label{conformal algebra}\end{aligned}$$
The significant property of the generator $Q_M$ (\[generator of special conformal transformation\]) is that this generator mixes the positive-metric and negative-metric modes due to the presence of the last cross term. Consequently, both of these modes cannot be gauge-invariant alone, and therefore they themselves have no physical meaning.
The same situation holds in the case of the traceless tensor field as well. The generator has been constructed from the Weyl action in [@hh] and its physical properties have been investigated in [@hamada05; @hamada09b] and are briefly summarized in Appendix B.
BRST Operator
=============
The gauge ghost $c^\mu$ satisfying the conformal Killing equation $\hnb_\mu c_\nu + \hnb_\nu c_\mu - \hg_{\mu\nu} \hnb_\lam c^\lam/2 =0$ is expanded by 15 Grassmann modes $\rc$, $\rc_{MN}$, $\rc_M$, $\rc_M^\dag$ as $$c^\mu = \rc \eta^\mu + \sum_M \left( \rc_M^\dag \zeta^\mu_M + \rc_M \zeta_M^{\mu *} \right)
+ \sum_{M,N} \rc_{MN} \zeta_{MN}^\mu .
\label{ghost field}$$ We also introduce the antighost modes $\rb$, $\rb_{MN}$, $\rb_M$, $\rb_M^\dag$. Here, $\rc$ and $\rb$ are real operators and $\rc_{MN}$ and $\rb_{MN}$ satisfy the relations $\rc_{MN}^\dag = \rc_{NM}$, $\rc_{MN} = -\eps_M \eps_N \rc_{-N-M}$, $\rb_{MN}^\dag = \rb_{NM}$ and $\rb_{MN} = -\eps_M \eps_N \rb_{-N-M}$. The anticommutation relations among these modes are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\{ \rb, \rc \} &=& 1,
\nonumber \\
\{ \rb_{M N}, \rc_{L K} \} &=& \dl_{M L} \dl_{N K}
-\eps_M \eps_N \dl_{-M K} \dl_{-N L} ,
\nonumber \\
\{ \rb^\dag_M , \rc_N \} &=& \{ \rb_M , \rc^\dag_N \} = \dl_{MN} .
\label{anticommutation relations for ghost modes}\end{aligned}$$ For later calculations, it is useful to know that the gauge ghost modes satisfy $\sum_M \rc_{MM}=0$ and $\sum_M \eps_M \rc_{-M} \rc_M =0$, and that the antighost modes also satisfy similar equations.
Using these gauge ghost and antighost modes, we can construct the 15 generators of conformal symmetry, which are given by [@amm97a; @hamada05] $$\begin{aligned}
H^\gh &=& \sum_M \left( \rc_M^\dag \rb_M - \rc_M \rb_M^\dag \right) ,
\nonumber \\
R^\gh_{MN} &=& - \rc_M \rb_N^\dag + \rc^\dag_N \rb_M
+ \eps_M \eps_N \left( \rc_{-N} \rb^\dag_{-M} - \rc^\dag_{-M} \rb_{-N} \right)
\nonumber \\
&& - \sum_L \left( \rc_{LM} \rb_{LN} - \rc_{NL} \rb_{ML} \right) ,
\nonumber \\
Q_M^\gh &=& -2 \rc_M \rb - \rc \rb_M - \sum_L \left( 2 \rc_{LM} \rb_L + \rc_L \rb_{ML} \right),
\nonumber \\
Q_M^{\gh\dag} &=& 2 \rc_M^\dag \rb + \rc \rb_M^\dag + \sum_L \left( 2 \rc_{ML} \rb_L^\dag + \rc_L^\dag \rb_{LM} \right).
\label{generators for gauge ghosts}\end{aligned}$$ These generators satisfy the same conformal algebra as (\[conformal algebra\]). In the following, we write the full generators of the conformal algebra including the gauge ghost part as $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal H} &=& H + H^\gh, \qquad {\cal R}_{MN} = R_{MN} + R^\gh_{MN} ,
\nonumber \\
{\cal Q}_M &=& Q_M + Q_M^\gh, \qquad {\cal Q}^\dag_M = Q^\dag_M + Q_M^{\gh\dag} .
\label{full generator}\end{aligned}$$
The BRST operator generating the diffeomorphism (\[BRST transformation\]) is now given by $$\begin{aligned}
Q_\BRST &=& \rc H + \sum_M \left( \rc_M^\dag Q_M + \rc_M Q_M^\dag \right) + \sum_{M,N} \rc_{MN}R_{MN}
\nonumber \\
&& + \half \rc H^\gh + \half \sum_M \left( \rc^\dag_M Q_M^\gh
+ \rc_M Q_M^{\gh \dag} \right) + \half \sum_{M,N} \rc_{MN} R_{MN}^\gh ,
\label{BRST operator}\end{aligned}$$ which satisfies the Hermitian condition $Q_\BRST^\dag =Q_\BRST$. It can be written in the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
Q_\BRST &=& \rc {\cal H} + \sum_{M,N} \rc_{MN} {\cal R}_{MN}
- \rb M - \sum_{M,N} \rb_{MN} Y_{MN} + \hat{Q} ,
\label{BRST operator 2}\end{aligned}$$ where the full generators ${\cal H}$ and ${\cal R}_{MN}$ defined above come out. The other operators $M$, $Y_{MN}$ and $\hat{Q}$ are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
M &=& 2 \sum_M \rc^\dag_M \rc_M ,
\qquad
Y_{MN} = \rc^\dag_M \rc_N + \sum_L \rc_{ML} \rc_{LN} ,
\nonumber \\
\hat{Q} &=& \sum_M \left( \rc_M^\dag Q_M + \rc_M Q_M^\dag \right) . \end{aligned}$$ Using the expression (\[BRST operator 2\]), the nilpotency of the BRST operator can be shown as $$\begin{aligned}
Q_\BRST^2 &=& \hat{Q}^2 - M {\cal H} -2 \sum_{M,N} \rc_M^\dag \rc_N \left[ {\cal R}_{MN}
+ \sum_L \left( \rc_{LM} \rb_{LN} - \rc_{NL} \rb_{ML} \right) \right]
\nonumber \\
&=& \hat{Q}^2 - MH -2 \sum_{M,N}\rc_M^\dag \rc_N R_{MN} = 0 ,\end{aligned}$$ where the conformal algebra (\[conformal algebra\]) is used.
The anticommutation relations of the BRST operator with gauge ghost modes are $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{ Q_\BRST, \rc \right\} &=& -2 \sum_M \rc_M^\dag \rc_M ,
\nonumber \\
\left\{ Q_\BRST, \rc_{MN} \right\} &=& -\rc_M^\dag \rc_N - \eps_M \eps_N \rc_{-M} \rc_{-N}^\dag
+2 \sum_L \rc_{ML} \rc_{LN} ,
\nonumber \\
\left\{ Q_\BRST, \rc_M \right\} &=& \rc_M \rc +2 \sum_N \rc_N \rc_{NM} ,
\nonumber \\
\left\{ Q_\BRST, \rc^\dag_M \right\} &=& \rc \rc_M^\dag +2 \sum_N \rc_{MN} \rc_N^\dag
\label{BRST commutator for c ghost}\end{aligned}$$ and those with antighost modes are $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{ Q_\BRST, \rb \right\} &=& {\cal H} , \qquad
\left\{ Q_\BRST, \rb_{MN} \right\} = 2 {\cal R}_{MN},
\nonumber \\
\left\{ Q_\BRST, \rb_M \right\} &=& {\cal Q}_M , \qquad
\left\{ Q_\BRST, \rb^\dag_M \right\} = {\cal Q}_M^\dag ,
\label{BRST commutator}\end{aligned}$$ where the full generators appear in the right-hand side. From (\[BRST commutator\]), the nilpotency of the BRST operator represents $[ Q_\BRST,{\cal H} ] = [ Q_\BRST,{\cal R}_{MN} ] = [ Q_\BRST,{\cal Q}_M ] = [ Q_\BRST,{\cal Q}_M^\dag ] = 0$.
Physical Fields
===============
In this section, we develop the study of physical field operators [@hamada11] in the context of the BRST formalism.
For each generator of the conformal algebra, the Riegert field transforms as $$\begin{aligned}
i \left[ H, \phi \right] &=& \pd_\eta \phi ,
\qquad
i \left[ R_{MN}, \phi \right] = \hnb_j \left( \zeta_{MN}^j \phi \right) ,
\nonumber \\
i[Q_M, \phi] &=& \zeta_M^\mu \hnb_\mu \phi +\fr{1}{4} \hnb_\mu \zeta^\mu_M ,
\quad
i[Q^\dag_M, \phi] = \zeta_M^{\mu *} \hnb_\mu \phi +\fr{1}{4} \hnb_\mu \zeta^{\mu *}_M .
\label{comutators of conformal operator and Riegert field}\end{aligned}$$ Here, the third equation is given by the sum of the equations $$\begin{aligned}
i \left[ Q_M , \phi_> \right]
&=& \zeta_M^\mu \hnb_\mu \phi_> + \zeta_M^0 \pd_\eta \phi_0 + \fr{1}{4} \hnb_\mu \zeta_M^\mu ,
\nonumber \\
i \left[ Q_M, \phi_0 + \phi_< \right] &=& \zeta_M^\mu \hnb_\mu \phi_<
\label{commutator with Q_M}\end{aligned}$$ and the fourth equation is the Hermitian conjugate of the third one.
Using the BRST operator, we find that the transformation laws (\[comutators of conformal operator and Riegert field\]) can be summarized into the single equation $$i \left[ Q_\BRST, \phi \right] = c^\mu \hnb_\mu \phi + \fr{1}{4} \hnb_\mu c^\mu .$$ The right-hand side is the BRST transformation $\dl_{\rm B}\phi$ in (\[BRST transformation\]). Also, the BRST transformation of the gauge ghost is given by the anticommuation relation as $$\begin{aligned}
i \left\{ Q_\BRST, c^\mu \right\}
&=& -2i \sum_M \rc_M^\dag \rc_M \eta^\mu
-i \sum_{M,N} \left( \rc_M^\dag \rc_N + \eps_M \eps_N \rc_{-M} \rc_{-N}^\dag \right) \zeta_{MN}^\mu
\nonumber \\
&& + 2i \sum_{M,N,L} \rc_{ML} \rc_{LN} \zeta_{MN}^\mu
+ i \sum_M \left( \rc \rc_M^\dag \zeta_M^\mu + \rc_M \rc \zeta^{\mu *}_M \right)
\nonumber \\
&& + 2i \sum_{M,N} \rc_{MN} \rc_N^\dag \zeta_M^\mu
+ 2i \sum_{M,N} \rc_N \rc_{NM} \zeta_M^{\mu *}
\nonumber \\
&=& c^\nu \hnb_\nu c^\mu .
\label{anti-commutator of Q_BRST and c}\end{aligned}$$ Here, to show the second equality, we use the Grassmann nature of gauge ghosts and the product expansions of scalar harmonics (\[scalar harmonics product expansion\]).
In the following, the BRST-invariant fields composed of only the Riegert field and the gauge ghost are studied with two examples corresponding to the cosmological constant term and the Ricci scalar curvature.
#### Cosmological constant term
We first study the field operator given by the purely exponential function of the Riegert field. The normal ordering of such a composite operator is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
V_\a = \l: e^{\a \phi} \r: = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \fr{\a^n}{n!} \l: \phi^n \r:
= e^{\a \phi_>} e^{\a \phi_0} e^{\a \phi_<} .
\label{definition of V}\end{aligned}$$ The zero-mode part can be written as $e^{\a \phi_0} = e^{\hq\a/\sq{2b_1}} e^{\eta\hp\a/\sq{2b_1}} e^{-i\eta\a^2/4b_1}$. The constant $\a$, called the Riegert charge, represents a quantum correction determined by the BRST invariance condition below, which is given by a real number to reflect that $V_\a$ is a gravitational quantity.
Using the commutation relations given in (\[comutators of conformal operator and Riegert field\]), we find that this field satisfies $i [ H, V_\a ] = \pd_\eta V_\a$ and $i [ R_{MN}, V_\a ] = \hnb_j ( \zeta_{MN}^j V_\a )$. For the special conformal transformation, we find $$\begin{aligned}
i \left[ Q_M , V_\a \right]
= \zeta_M^\mu \hnb_\mu V_\a + \fr{h_\a}{4} \hnb_\mu \zeta_M^\mu V_\a ,
\label{conformal transformation of V}\end{aligned}$$ where $h_\a$ is the conformal weight of the field given by $$\begin{aligned}
h_\a = \a - \fr{\a^2}{4b_1} .
\label{definition of conformal weight h_a}\end{aligned}$$ Since $V_\a$ is real, the commutator between $Q_M^\dag$ and $V_\a$ is given by the right-hand side of (\[conformal transformation of V\]) with $\zeta_M^{\mu *}$ instead of $\zeta_M^\mu$. In terms of CFT, $V_\a$ is the so-called primary scalar field with conformal weight $h_\a$. These equations are summarized into the single equation using the BRST operator as $$i \left[ Q_\BRST , V_\a \right] = c^\mu \hnb_\mu V_\a + \fr{h_\a}{4} \hnb_\mu c^\mu V_\a .$$
Therefore, the spacetime volume integral of $V_\a$ with definite conformal weight $h_\a =4$ commutes with the BRST operator; namely, it commutes with all generators of conformal algebra as $$i \left[ Q_\BRST , \int d\Om_4 V_\a \right] = \int d\Om_4 \hnb_\mu \left( c^\mu V_\a \right) = 0 ,$$ where $d\Om_4 =d\eta d\Om_3$ is the spacetime volume element.
Furthermore, we can make the field locally BRST-invariant by introducing the function of the gauge ghost contracted by the totally antisymmetric $\eps$-tensor, $$\om = \fr{1}{4!} \eps_{\mu\nu\lam\s}c^\mu c^\nu c^\lam c^\s .
\label{ghost function}$$ This function transforms as $$i \left[ Q_\BRST, \om \right] = c^\mu \hnb_\mu \om = -\om \hnb_\mu c^\mu ,$$ where the transformation law of $c^\mu$ (\[anti-commutator of Q\_BRST and c\]) and $c^\mu \om =0$ are used. Using this commutator we can show that the product $\om V_\a$ becomes BRST-invariant without integrating over the spacetime volume as $$i \left[ Q_\BRST , \om V_\a \right] = \fr{1}{4} \left( h_\a -4 \right) \om \hnb_\mu c^\mu V_\a = 0$$ provided $h_\a =4$.
There are two solutions for the equation $h_\a=4$. We select the solution that approaches the canonical value $4$ in the classical limit of $b_1 \to \infty$ corresponding to the large-number limit of matter fields coupled to gravity (see footnote \[footnote for b\_1\]). The quantum cosmological constant term is thus identified to be $V_\a$ with the Riegert charge $$\begin{aligned}
\a = 2b_1 \left( 1 - \sq{1-\fr{4}{b_1}} \right) .\end{aligned}$$ The constant $\a$ is real due to $b_1 >4$, as mentioned before. In the following, $\a$ takes this value.
The other solution of $h_\a=4$ is given by $4b_1-\a$ due to the duality relation $h_\a = h_{4b_1-\a}$. The operator $V_{4b_1-\a}$ does not reduce to the canonical form of the cosmological constant term at the classical limit, but two operators $V_\a$ and $V_{4b_1-\a}$ are regarded as adjoints of one another in the presence of the background charge, as is discussed in Section 6.
#### Ricci scalar curvature
Next, we study the field operator with derivatives. Because of the rotation invariance, the number of derivatives must be even. We here consider the real primary scalar field $W_\b$ with two derivatives that satisfies the following transformation laws: $i [ H, W_\b ] = \pd_\eta W_\b$, $i [ R_{MN}, W_\b ] = \hnb_j ( \zeta_{MN}^j W_\b )$ and $$\begin{aligned}
i \left[ Q_M , W_\b \right]
= \zeta_M^\mu \hnb_\mu W_\b + \fr{h_\b+2}{4} \hnb_\mu \zeta_M^\mu W_\b .
\label{commutator of Q_M and W}\end{aligned}$$ The equation for $Q_M^\dag$ is given by the Hermitian conjugate of (\[commutator of Q\_M and W\]). $\b$ represents the Riegert charge and $h_\b+2$ is the conformal weight of the field, where $h_\b$ is defined by (\[definition of conformal weight h\_a\]) and $2$ denotes the number of derivatives.
The conditions for the Hamiltonian and the rotation generator are rather simple, but the condition (\[commutator of Q\_M and W\]) is so strong as to determine the form of the field uniquely. We find that the following operator satisfies these conditions:[^6] $$\begin{aligned}
W_\b &=& \l: e^{\b\phi} \left( \hnb^2 \phi + \fr{\b}{h_\b} \hnb_\mu \phi \hnb^\mu \phi
- \fr{h_\b}{\b} \right) \r:
\nonumber \\
&=& W^1_\b + \fr{\b}{h_\b} W^2_\b - \fr{h_\b}{\b} V_\b\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
W^1_\b &=& \hnb^2 \phi_> V_\b + V_\b \hnb^2 \phi_< ,
\nonumber \\
W^2_\b
&=& - \fr{1}{4}\pd_\eta \phi_0 \pd_\eta \phi_0 V_\b
- \half \pd_\eta \phi_0 V_\b \pd_\eta \phi_0
- \fr{1}{4} V_\b\pd_\eta \phi_0 \pd_\eta \phi_0
\nonumber \\
&& - \pd_\eta \phi_0 \left( \pd_\eta \phi_> V_\b + V_\b \pd_\eta \phi_< \right)
- \left( \pd_\eta \phi_> V_\b + V_\b \pd_\eta \phi_< \right) \pd_\eta \phi_0
\nonumber \\
&& + \hnb_\mu \phi_> \hnb^\mu \phi_> V_\b +2 \hnb_\mu \phi_> V_\b \hnb^\mu \phi_<
+ V_\b \hnb_\mu \phi_< \hnb^\mu \phi_< ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\hnb^2=\hnb_\mu \hnb^\mu$ and $V_\b$ has been defined by Eq. (\[definition of V\]).
Thus, the spacetime volume integral of $W_\b$ with $h_\b =2$ commutes with all generators of the conformal algebra. It is simply expressed in terms of the BRST operator as $$\left[ Q_\BRST, \int d\Om_4 W_\b \right] =0 .
\label{BRST invariance for int W}$$ The quantum Ricci scalar curvature is now identified to be $W_\b$ with the Riegert charge $$\begin{aligned}
\b = 2b_1 \left( 1 - \sq{1-\fr{2}{b_1}} \right) ,\end{aligned}$$ which is one of the solutions of $h_\b =2$. The operator $W_\b$ then reduces to the classical form of the Ricci scalar curvature $\sq{-g}R$ divided by $-6$ because $\b \to 2$ and $\b/h_\b \to 1$ in the large-$b_1$ limit.[^7] In the following, $\b$ is fixed to this value.
Due to the duality relation $h_\b=h_{4b_1-\b}$, another BRST-invariant operator has the form $W_{4b_1-\b}$. This operator is the adjoint of the Ricci scalar operator $W_\b$, but does not have the classical limit.
As in the case of $V_\a$, using the gauge ghost function (\[ghost function\]), we find $$\begin{aligned}
\left[ Q_\BRST, \om W_\b \right] = 0 .
\label{BRST invariance for om W}\end{aligned}$$ Here, note that this BRST invariance condition is stronger than the condition (\[BRST invariance for int W\]) because the condition (\[BRST invariance for int W\]) holds up to total divergences.
In general, as is clear from the construction, physical fields are given by primary scalar fields with conformal weight $4$, while primary tensor fields are excluded from physical fields because such fields do not become gauge-invariant under rotations and special conformal transformations due to the presence of spin terms. All of the descendant fields are excluded as well.
Physical States
===============
Let us study the BRST-invariant state $|\Psi \rangle$ satisfying the condition $$Q_\BRST |\Psi \rangle = 0 .$$
First, we define various vacuum states. The vacuum of Fock space annihilated by the zero mode $\hat{p}$ and annihilation modes $a_{JM}$ and $b_{JM}$ is denoted by $|0\rangle$. We also introduce the conformally invariant vacuum annihilated by all generators of the conformal symmetry except gauge ghost parts, $H$, $R_{MN}$, $Q_M$, and $Q_M^\dag$, which is defined by $| \Om \rangle = e^{-2b_1 \phi_0(0)}| 0 \rangle$, where $\phi_0(0)=\hq/\sq{2b_1}$. This vacuum and its Hermitian conjugate have the background charge $-2b_1$, respectively, and thus the vacua have the total background charge $-4b_1$.[^8]
The conformally invariant vacuum of the gauge ghost sector is denoted by $|0 \rangle_\gh$, which is annihilated by all generators of the gauge ghost system (\[generators for gauge ghosts\]); namely, annihilated by all antighosts, but not annihilated by gauge ghosts. Using this, the Fock vacuum of the gauge ghost system annihilated by the annihilation modes $\rc_M$ and $\rb_M$ is given by $\prod_M \rc_M |0 \rangle_\gh$.
Since the Hamiltonian depends on neither $\rc$ and $\rc_{MN}$ nor $\rb$ and $\rb_{MN}$, the gauge ghost vacuum $\prod \rc_M|0 \rangle_\gh$ is degenerate. The degenerate partners are then given by applying $\rc$ and $\prod \rc_{MN}$ to this vacuum. The norm structure will be discussed in the next section.
For convenience, we denote the Fock vacuum state with the Riegert charge $\gm$ by $$| \gm \rangle = e^{\gm \phi_0(0)} | \Om \rangle \otimes \prod_M \rc_M |0 \rangle_\gh .
\label{state with gamma}$$ This state satisfies ${\cal H} |\gm \rangle = ( h_\gm -4 ) |\gm \rangle$, where $i\hat{p}|\gm \rangle =(\gm/\sq{2b_1}-\sq{2b_1} )|\gm \rangle$ is used and $-4$ comes from the gauge ghost sector.
The physical state is constructed by applying the creation modes such as $a^\dag_{JM}$, $b^\dag_{JM}$, $\rc^\dag_M$, $\rb_M^\dag$ and $\hat{p}$ to the Fock vacuum (\[state with gamma\]), where $\hat{p}$ may be replaced by the appropriate number. Since $\{Q_\BRST,\rb \}={\cal H}$ and $\{Q_\BRST,\rb_{MN} \}=2{\cal R}_{MN}$ and the Fock vacuum is annihilated by $\rb$ and $\rb_{MN}$, we merely consider the subspace satisfying the conditions $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal H} |\Psi \rangle = {\cal R}_{MN} |\Psi \rangle =0, \quad
\rb |\Psi \rangle = \rb_{MN} |\Psi \rangle =0 .
\label{subspace of physical state}\end{aligned}$$ On this subspace, from the expression of the BRST operator (\[BRST operator 2\]), the BRST-invariant state coincides with the $\hat{Q}$-invariant state.
For the time being, we analyze physical states in the subspace (\[subspace of physical state\]) described in the following form: $$|\Psi \rangle = {\cal A} \left( \hat{p}, a^\dag_{JM}, b^\dag_{JM}, \cdots \right) |\gm \rangle ,
\label{restricted state of psi}$$ where the dots denote creation modes of other fields except gauge ghosts. The operator ${\cal A}$ and the Riegert charge $\gm$ will be determined from the BRST invariance condition below. The cases in which ${\cal A}$ includes creation modes of gauge ghosts and antighosts will be discussed later.
Since $\rc_M |\Psi \rangle =0$ for the state (\[restricted state of psi\]), the $\hat{Q}$ invariance condition is expressed as $$\hat{Q} |\Psi \rangle = \sum_M \rc^\dag_M Q_M |\Psi \rangle =0 .$$ Thus, together with the Hamiltonian and rotation invariance conditions in (\[subspace of physical state\]), we reproduce the physical state conditions $$\begin{aligned}
(H-4) |\Psi \rangle = R_{MN} |\Psi \rangle = Q_M |\Psi \rangle =0
\label{physical state condition}\end{aligned}$$ studied in [@hh; @hamada05; @hamada09b]. Here, the condition for $Q_M^\dag$ is not necessary. This shows that the state $|\Psi \rangle$ is given by a primary scalar with conformal weight $4$.[^9]
The BRST invariance condition for $|\Psi \rangle$ is now equivalent to the condition that the operator ${\cal A}$ satisfies the algebra $$\begin{aligned}
\left[ H, {\cal A} \right] = l {\cal A}, \quad \left[ R_{MN}, {\cal A} \right] = 0,
\quad \left[ Q_M, {\cal A} \right] = 0 .
\label{physical algebra}\end{aligned}$$ The first condition implies that ${\cal A}$ has the conformal weight $l (\geq 0)$. By solving the Hamiltonian condition $h_\gm + l -4 = 0$ in (\[physical state condition\]), the Riegert charge $\gm$ is determined to be $$\gm_l = 2b_1 \left( 1 - \sq{1-\fr{4-l}{b_1}} \right).
\label{Riegert charge gamma}$$ Here, we choose the solution where $\gm$ approaches the canonical value $4-l$ in the large-$b_1$ limit. The charges $\gm_0$ and $\gm_2$ correspond to $\a$ and $\b$ defined above, respectively.
In order to find the operator ${\cal A}$ satisfying the second and third conditions of (\[physical algebra\]), we seek creation operators that commute with the generator $Q_M$ and then combine them in a rotation-invariant form. Since there is no creation mode that commutes with $Q_M$ for the Riegert field, we look for operators constructed in a bilinear form. Such operators have been studied previously in [@hamada05; @hamada09b]. Using the crossing properties of the $SU(2) \times SU(2)$ Clebsch-Gordan coefficients (\[crossing relations\]), we find that for the Riegert sector there are two types of $Q_M$-invariant creation operators with conformal weight $2L$ for integers $L \geq 1$: $$\begin{aligned}
S^{\dag}_{L N}
&=& \chi(\hat{p},L) a^{\dag}_{L N}
+ \sum_{K=\half}^{L-\half} \sum_{M_1}\sum_{M_2} x(L,K)
\C^{L N}_{L-K M_1, K M_2} a^{\dag}_{L-K M_1} a^{\dag}_{K M_2},
\nonumber \\
{\cal S}^{\dag}_{L-1 N}
&=& \psi(\hat{p}) b^{\dag}_{L-1 N}
+ \sum_{K=\half}^{L-\half} \sum_{M_1}\sum_{M_2} x(L,K)
\C^{L-1 N}_{L-K M_1, K M_2} a^{\dag}_{L-K M_1} a^{\dag}_{K M_2}
\nonumber \\
&& + \sum_{K=\half}^{L-1} \sum_{M_1,M_2} y(L,K)
\C^{L-1 N}_{L-K-1 M_1, K M_2}
b^{\dag}_{L-K-1 M_1} a^{\dag}_{K M_2} ,
\label{building block}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
x(L,K) &=& \fr{(-1)^{2K}}{\sq{(2L-2K+1)(2K+1)}}\sq{ \left( \begin{array}{c}
2L \\
2K
\end{array} \right)
\left( \begin{array}{c}
2L-2 \\
2K-1
\end{array} \right) } \end{aligned}$$ and $y(L,K) = -2\sq{(2L-2K-1)(2L-2K+1)}x(L,K)$. The zero-mode operators are given by $\chi (\hat{p},L) = \sq{2} ( \sq{2b_1}-i\hat{p})/\sq{(2L-1)(2L+1)}$ and $\psi (\hat{p}) = -\sq{2} ( \sq{2b_1}-i\hat{p})$.[^10] For any half-integer $L$ there is no such operator. The operators for the lower cases of $L$ are provided in Appendix C.
By joining these bilinear operators using the $SU(2) \times SU(2)$ Clebsch-Gordan coefficients, we can construct the basis of $Q_M$-invariant creation operators in the Riegert sector. Due to the crossing properties of the Clebsch-Gordan coefficients, any $Q_M$-invariant creation operators will be expressed in such a fundamental form. Thus, these two types of $Q_M$-invariant bilinear operators are expected to be the building blocks of physical states. Thus the physical state $|\Psi \rangle$ (\[restricted state of psi\]) is now written in the form ${\cal A} ( S^\dag, {\cal S}^\dag, \cdots ) |\gm \rangle $, where the dots denote building blocks for other fields and all tensor indices are contracted out in an $R_{MN}$-invariant way. Since building blocks have even conformal weights, the weight $l$ for ${\cal A}$ is given by even integers, which corresponds to the number of derivatives for physical fields.
As an example, we present here the physical states corresponding to the lower cases of $l$ up to $4$. The lowest weight state is simply given by $|\a \rangle$, which corresponds to the cosmological constant term, and the second lowest state with $l=2$ is given by ${\cal S}^\dag_{00} |\b \rangle$, which corresponds to the Ricci scalar curvature, where we use the notations $\a$ and $\b$ for $\gm_0$ and $\gm_2$, respectively. For $l=4$, there are two states, $\left( {\cal S}^\dag_{00} \right)^2 |\gm_4 \rangle$ and $\sum_N \eps_N S^\dag_{1-N}S^\dag_{1N} |\gm_4 \rangle$, where $\gm_4=0$ from (\[Riegert charge gamma\]), which correspond to the square of the Ricci scalar and the other four derivative scalar quantities, such as the Euler density, respectively.
At $l=4$, there is another gravitational physical state. From the Weyl sector summarized in Appendix B, we find the physical state $\sum_{M,x} \eps_M c^\dag_{1(-Mx)} c^\dag_{1(Mx)} |\gm_4 \rangle$ corresponding to the square of the Weyl tensor. Here, $c^\dag_{1(Mx)}$ is the lowest creation mode of the tensor field, which is the only creation mode that commutes with $Q_M$.
For other modes in the Weyl sector, we also have to consider $Q_M$-invariant building blocks written in a bilinear form. The purely gravitational physical state with higher conformal weight is generally given by combining building blocks for both the Riegert and Weyl sectors in a rotation-invariant way.
Finally, we discuss the cases with gauge ghost and antighost creation modes $\rc^\dag_M$ and $\rb^\dag_M$. For $l=2$, we obtain another BRST-invariant state, $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{ - \left( \hbox{$\sq{2b_1}$} -i\hat{p} \right)^2 \sum_M \eps_M \rb^\dag_{-M} \rc_M^\dag
+ \hat{h} \sum_M \eps_M a^\dag_{\half -M} a^\dag_{\half M}
\right\} |\b \rangle ,
\label{another l=2 state}\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{h}=\hat{p}^2/2 + b_1$. This state is, however, equivalent to the physical state given before up to the BRST trivial state.
To show this, we introduce the state $$\begin{aligned}
|\Upsilon \rangle = \left( \hbox{$\sq{2b_1}$} -i\hat{p} \right)
\sum_M \eps_M \rb_{-M}^\dag a_{\half M}^\dag |\b \rangle \end{aligned}$$ satisfying the conditions ${\cal H} |\Upsilon \rangle = {\cal R}_{MN}|\Upsilon \rangle = \rb |\Upsilon \rangle = \rb_{MN} |\Upsilon \rangle =0$. Applying the BRST operator to this state, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
Q_\BRST |\Upsilon \rangle
&=& \biggl\{ - \left( \hbox{$\sq{2b_1}$} -i\hat{p} \right)^2 \sum_M \eps_M \rb^\dag_{-M} \rc_M^\dag
+ 4 \left( \hbox{$\sq{2b_1}$} -i\hat{p} \right) b_{00}^\dag
\nonumber \\
&& \quad
+ 2\hat{h} \sum_M \eps_M a^\dag_{\half -M} a^\dag_{\half M}
\biggr\} |\b \rangle .\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the state (\[another l=2 state\]) can be written in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\fr{1}{2\sq{2}} {\cal S}^\dag_{00} |\b \rangle + Q_\BRST |\Upsilon \rangle ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{h}|\b \rangle = 2|\b \rangle$ is used.
In general, it seems that the physical state depending explicitly on gauge ghosts and antighosts such as this reduces to the standard form (\[restricted state of psi\]) up to the BRST trivial state. Thus, we only consider such a standard form throughout this paper.
State-Operator Correspondences and Norm Structures
==================================================
In this section we discuss various significant properties such as the state-operator correspondence, the adjoint of a physical state, and the norm structure, with attention to the presence of the background charge.
Consider the physical state with the Riegert charge $\gm$ and the corresponding physical field operator $O_\gm$ satisfying the BRST invariance condition $[ Q_\BRST, \om O_\gm ]=0$. The state-operator correspondence is given by the following limit: $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{\eta \to i\infty} e^{-4i\eta}O_\gm |\Om \rangle = |O_\gm \rangle \end{aligned}$$ apart from the gauge ghost sector.
For the physical fields $V_\a$ and $W_\b$, for instance, we can obtain the physical states as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
|V_\a \rangle = \lim_{\eta \to i\infty}e^{-4i\eta}V_\a |\Om \rangle
= \lim_{\eta \to i\infty} e^{i(-4+h_\a)\eta} e^{\a\phi_>}e^{\fr{\a}{\sq{2b_1}}\hat{q}} |\Om \rangle
= e^{\a\phi_0(0)} |\Om \rangle \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
|W_\b \rangle &=& \lim_{\eta \to i\infty}e^{-4i\eta}W_\b |\Om \rangle
\nonumber \\
&=& \lim_{\eta \to i\infty} e^{i(-4+h_\b)\eta} \left\{ \hnb^2 \phi_> -2i \pd_\eta \phi_>
+ \fr{\b}{h_\b} \hnb_\mu \phi_> \hnb^\mu \phi_> \right\}
e^{\b\phi_>}e^{\fr{\b}{\sq{2b_1}}\hat{q}} |\Om \rangle
\nonumber \\
&=& -\fr{\b}{2\sq{2}b_1}{\cal S}^\dag_{00}e^{\b\phi_0(0)} |\Om \rangle .\end{aligned}$$ These limits exist only when $h_\a=4$ and $h_\b=2$, respectively, as is required from the physical condition.
Since the most singular term of the gauge ghost function (\[ghost function\]) at the limit $\eta \to i\infty$ behaves as $\om \propto e^{-4i\eta}\prod_M \rc_M$, the state-operator correspondence that includes this function is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{\eta \to i\infty}\om O_\gm |\Om \rangle \otimes |0 \rangle_\gh
\Leftrightarrow |O_\gm \rangle \otimes \prod_M \rc_M |0 \rangle_\gh .\end{aligned}$$ The right-hand side is the physical state discussed in Section 5.
Next, we consider the adjoint of the physical state $|O_\gm \rangle \otimes \prod \rc_M|0 \rangle_\gh$. The adjoint of $|O_\gm \rangle$ is denoted by $\langle {\tilde O}_\gm|$, which is not the naive Hermitian conjugate $\langle O_\gm |$ because in this case the Riegert charge is not conserved; namely, the zero mode does not cancel out, such that $\langle O_\gm | O_\gm \rangle$ is unnormalizable.[^11] The state $\langle {\tilde O}_\gm|$ is defined by using the other pair of the physical states derived from the duality relation $h_\gm = h_{4b_1-\gm}$.
Again, we consider the physical fields $V_\a$ and $W_\b$. The adjoints of these fields are given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\tilde V}_\a &=& V_{4b_1-\a},
\nonumber \\
{\tilde W}_\b &=& - \fr{b_1}{4} W_{4b_1-\b}
= - \fr{b_1}{4} \left( W^1_{4b_1-\b} + \fr{4b_1-\b}{h_\b} W^2_{4b_1-\b}
- \fr{h_\b}{4b_1-\b} V_{4b_1-\b} \right)
\nonumber \\
&&\end{aligned}$$ and the out-states corresponding to these fields are $$\begin{aligned}
\langle {\tilde V}_\a | &=& \lim_{\eta \to -i\infty} e^{4i\eta} \langle \Om | {\tilde V}_\a
= \langle \Om | e^{(4b_1-\a)\phi_0(0)} ,
\nonumber \\
\langle {\tilde W}_\b |
&=& \lim_{\eta \to -i\infty} e^{4i\eta} \langle \Om | {\tilde W}_\b
= \fr{4b_1-\b}{8\sq{2}} \langle \Om | e^{(4b_1-\b)\phi_0(0)} {\cal S}_{00} .\end{aligned}$$ They are normalized to be $$\begin{aligned}
\langle {\tilde V}_\a | V_\a \rangle = 1, \qquad \langle {\tilde W}_\b | W_\b \rangle = 1 .
\label{normalization}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\langle \Om| e^{4b_1\phi_0(0)} |\Om \rangle =1$ is used, which comes from the Riegert charge conservation such that the charge $4b_1$ cancels the background charges in the conformally invariant in- and out-vacua.
The naive inner products between gauge ghost vacua and their Hermitian conjugates vanish as ${}_\gh\langle 0|0 \rangle_\gh = {}_\gh\langle 0|\prod \rc_M^\dag \prod \rc_M|0 \rangle_\gh=0$, which is easily confirmed by inserting the anticommutation relations $\{ \rb, \rc \} = 1$ and $\{ \rb_{M N}, \rc_{L K} \} = \dl_{M L} \dl_{N K} -\eps_M \eps_N \dl_{-M K} \dl_{-N L}$ into the relevant expressions. So, we normalize the gauge ghost sector by inserting the operator $\vartheta = i \rc \prod \rc_{MN}$ satisfying $\vartheta^\dag = \vartheta$ as $$\begin{aligned}
{}_\gh\langle 0|\prod \rc_M^\dag \vartheta \prod \rc_M |0 \rangle_\gh =1 .\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the adjoint of the physical state $| O_\gm \rangle \otimes \prod \rc_M |0 \rangle_\gh$ is given by $\langle {\tilde O}_\gm | \otimes {}_\gh \langle 0| \prod \rc_M^\dag \vartheta$. In this way, we can always define the inner product of a physical state normalized to be unity.
Lastly, we mention that the result (\[normalization\]) is consistent with the two-point correlation function calculated to be [@hamada11] $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \Om| {\tilde V}_\a(x) V_\a(0) |\Om \rangle
= \left( \fr{1}{L^2(\eta,\om)} \right)^4 \end{aligned}$$ and also with the correlation function between $W_\b$ and ${\tilde W}_\b$, which will be of the same form. Here, the function $L$ is defined through the operator product $\phi(x)\phi(0) = -(1/4b_1)\times \log L^2(\eta, \om) + \l: \phi(x) \phi(0) \r:$ as $$\begin{aligned}
L^2(\eta,\om) = 2 \left\{ \cos \eta -\cos \fr{\om}{2} \right\} ,\end{aligned}$$ where $-2\cos (\om/2)$ is the spatial distance and the angle $\om$ is defined in Appendix A.
Conclusion and Discussion
=========================
We have studied background-free quantum gravity described in terms of CFT in the context of BRST formalism. The nilpotent BRST operator generating the diffeomorphism was constructed on the $R \times S^3$ background. We used this operator to construct the BRST-invariant fields and states and studied various significant properties, such as the state-operator correspondence and the norm structure. In terms of CFT, these are given by primary scalars with definite conformal weight $4$, while primary tensors and all of their descendants are excluded.
The BRST-invariant fields always appear in pairs due to the existence of the duality in Riegert charges. The physical field was identified with the one that reduces to the classical gravitational scalar quantity in the large-$b_1$ limit corresponding to the large-number limit of matter fields coupled to gravity.
The naive inner product between the physical state and its Hermitian conjugate is unnormalizable because the Riegert charge is not conserved; namely, the zero mode does not cancel out. The adjoint of physical state is given by the other member of the BRST-invariant pair, which does not have the classical limit, and so is regarded as a quantum virtual state. With this state, the Riegert charge can be conserved and we can define the inner product normalized to be unity.
We now discuss how to define correlation functions among physical fields with the correct Riegert charge. Naively, they do not exist because the Riegert charge is not conserved as mentioned above. To define the correlation functions, we should consider (for instance) the model perturbed by the cosmological constant term, and then the constant mode of the Riegert field $\s$ should be taken into account. Carrying out the path integral over the constant mode $A=e^{\a\s}$ first (in Wick-rotated Euclidean space), we obtain the correlator in the perturbed theory $S_{\rm RWZ}+ \mu {\bar V}_\a$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\langle {\bar O}_{\gm_{l_1}} \cdots {\bar O}_{\gm_{l_n}} \rangle\rangle
&=& \fr{1}{\a} \int^\infty_0 \fr{dA}{A} A^{-s}
\langle {\bar O}_{\gm_{l_1}} \cdots {\bar O}_{\gm_{l_n}} e^{-\mu A {\bar V}_\a} \rangle
\nonumber \\
&=& \mu^s \fr{\Gamma(-s)}{\a}
\langle {\bar O}_{\gm_{l_1}} \cdots {\bar O}_{\gm_{l_n}} \left( {\bar V}_\a \right)^s \rangle \end{aligned}$$ with $s= (4b_1 - \sum_{i=1}^n \gm_{l_i})/\a$.[^12] Here, $\mu$ is the cosmological constant. The bar on the field denotes that the field is integrated over the spacetime volume and $\langle \cdots \rangle$ represents the correlator in the unperturbed theory. This correlator will exist because the Riegert charge is conserved. It indicates that the correlation function has a power-law behavior in the mass scale. Its physical implications to inflationary cosmology are discussed elsewhere [@hy; @hhy06; @hhy10].
Basic Tools on $R \times S^3$
=============================
The notations and conventions for various tools on $R\times S^3$ [@hh] are summarized here. The background metric is parametrized by the coordinate $x^\mu=(\eta,x^i)$ using the Euler angles $x^i=(\a,\b,\gm)$ as $d\hat{s}^2_{R\times S^3} = -d\eta^2 + \fr{1}{4} (d\a^2 +d\b^2 +d\gm^2 +2 \cos \b d\a d\gm )$, where $\a$, $\b$ and $\gm$ have the ranges $[0,2\pi]$, $[0,\pi]$, and $[0,4\pi]$, respectively. The radius of $S^3$ is taken to be unity such that $\hR=6$. The volume element on the unit $S^3$ is $d\Om_3 = \sin \b d\a d\b d\gm/8$ and the volume is given by $\V3 = \int d\Om_3 =2\pi^2$. The angle $\om$ is defined by $\cos(\om/2)= \cos(\b/2)\cos(\a/2)\cos(\gm/2)-\cos(\b/2)\sin(\a/2)\sin(\gm/2)$.
The scalar harmonics on $S^3$ are defined by $$Y_{JM} = \sq{\fr{(2J+1)}{\V3}} D^J_{m\prm}
\label{scalar harmonics Y}$$ satisfying $\hnb^j\hnb_j Y_{J M} = -2J(2J+2) Y_{J M}$, where $D^J_{m\prm}$ is the Wigner $D$-function [@vmk]. It belongs to the $(J,J)$ representation of the isometry group $SU(2)\times SU(2)$, and $J~(\geq 0)$ takes integer or half-integer values. The index $M=(m,\prm)$ denotes the multiplicity of the $(J,J)$ representation and thus $m$ and $\prm$ take values from $-J$ to $J$, respectively. The normalization is taken to be $\int d\Om_3 Y^*_{J_1 M_1}Y_{J_2 M_2} = \dl_{J_1J_2}\dl_{M_1 M_2}$, where $\dl_{M_1 M_2}=\dl_{m_1 m_2}\dl_{\prm_1 \prm_2}$. The complex conjugate is given by $Y^*_{J M}= \eps_M Y_{J -M}$, where $\eps_M=(-1)^{m-\prm}$.
The $SU(2)\times SU(2)$ Clebsch-Gordan coefficient defined by the volume integral of three products of scalar harmonics over $S^3$ is given by $$\C^{JM}_{J_1M_1,J_2M_2}
= \sq{\fr{(2J_1+1)(2J_2+1)}{2J+1}} C^{Jm}_{J_1m_1,J_2m_2}
C^{J\prm}_{J_1\prm_1,J_2\prm_2} ,
\label{C function}$$ where $C^{Jm}_{J_1 m_1, J_2 m_2}$ is the standard $SU(2)$ Clebsch-Gordan coefficient [@vmk]. It satisfies the relations $\C^{JM}_{J_1M_1,J_2M_2}=\C^{JM}_{J_2M_2,J_1M_1}=\C^{J-M}_{J_1-M_1,J_2-M_2}=\eps_{M_2}\C^{J_1 M_1}_{JM,J_2 -M_2}$, $\C^{JM}_{00,JN}=\dl_{MN}$ and the crossing relation $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{J \geq 0} \sum_M \eps_M \C^{J_1M_1}_{J_2M_2, J-M} \C^{J_3M_3}_{JM,J_4M_4}
= \sum_{J \geq 0} \sum_M \eps_M \C^{J_1M_1}_{J_4M_4, J-M} \C^{J_3M_3}_{JM,J_2M_2} .
\label{crossing relations} \end{aligned}$$
The 15 conformal Killing vectors on $R \times S^3$ are given in the following. The vector that generates the time translation is denoted by $\eta^\mu = (1,0,0,0)$. The six Killing vectors on $S^3$ are given by $\zeta_{MN}^\mu=(0,\zeta_{M N}^j)$, with $\zeta^j_{MN} = i (\V3/4) \times \{ Y^*_{1/2 M} \hnb^j Y_{1/2 N} - Y_{1/2 N} \hnb^j Y^*_{1/2 M} \}$. Here, we use the index without $J$ in the case of the four-vector index of $J=1/2$ that appears in the conformal Killing vectors and the corresponding generators. The four vectors that generate special conformal transformations are given by $\zeta_M^\mu=(\zeta_M^0,\zeta_M^j)$ with $\zeta^0_M = \sq{\V3} e^{i\eta}Y^*_{1/2 M}/2$ and $\zeta^j_M = -i\sq{\V3} e^{i\eta} \hnb^j Y^*_{1/2 M}/2$. Their complex conjugates are also conformal Killing vectors for special conformal transformations.
At last, we give the product expansion formulas for scalar harmonics: $$\begin{aligned}
&& Y_{\half M}^* Y_{JN} = \fr{1}{\sq{\V3}}
\left\{ \sum_{N^\pp} \C^{\half M}_{JN,J+\half N^\pp}Y^*_{J+\half N^\pp}
+ \sum_{N^\pp} \C^{\half M}_{JN,J-\half N^\pp}Y^*_{J-\half N^\pp} \right\},
\nonumber \\
&& \hnb^i Y_{\half M}^* \hnb_i Y_{JN} = \fr{1}{\sq{\V3}}
\biggl\{ -2J\sum_{N^\pp} \C^{\half M}_{JN,J+\half N^\pp}Y^*_{J+\half N^\pp}
\nonumber \\
&& \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
+(2J+2) \sum_{N^\pp} \C^{\half M}_{JN,J-\half N^\pp}Y^*_{J-\half N^\pp} \biggr\} .
\label{scalar harmonics product expansion}\end{aligned}$$ These are used to show the transformation laws in Section 4.
Generators for Tensor Fields
============================
Here we briefly summarize the generator of the conformal algebra for the traceless tensor field derived in [@hh].
The Weyl action is quantized in the radiation$^+$ gauge,[^13] and then the traceless tensor field $h_{\mu\nu}$ is expanded in tensor and vector harmonics on $S^3$ with three types of mode operators: $c_{J(Mx)}$, $d_{J(Mx)}$, and $e_{J(My)}$. The first two modes belong to the $(J+x, J-x)$ representation of $SU(2) \times SU(2)$ with $J \geq 1$, and the third belongs to the $(J+y, J-y)$ representation with $J \geq 1$ ($e_{1/2(My)}$ is removed by gauge conditions), where $x=\pm 1$ and $y=\pm 1/2$ are the polarization indices for a rank-2 tensor and vector, respectively. The index $M=(m,m^\pp)$ denotes the multiplicity for each representation.
The commutation relations are set as $[c_{J_1 (M_1 x_1)}, c^{\dag}_{J_2 (M_2 x_2)} ] = - [d_{J_1 (M_1 x_1)}, d^{\dag}_{J_2 (M_2 x_2)} ] = \dl_{J_1 J_2} \dl_{M_1 M_2}\dl_{x_1 x_2}$ and $[e_{J_1 (M_1 y_1)}, e^{\dag}_{J_2 (M_2 y_2)} ] = -\dl_{J_1 J_2}\dl_{M_1 M_2}\dl_{y_1 y_2}$, and thus $c_{J(Mx)}$ has the positive metric and $d_{J(Mx)}$ and $e_{J(My)}$ have the negative metric. The Hamiltonian is then given by $H = \sum_{J \geq 1} \{ \sum_{M,x} [ 2J c^{\dag}_{J(Mx)}c_{J(Mx)} -(2J+2)d^{\dag}_{J(Mx)}d_{J(Mx)} ] - \sum_{M,y} (2J+1) e^{\dag}_{J(My)}e_{J(My)} \}$.
The generators of special conformal transformations are given by $$\begin{aligned}
Q_M &=& \sum_{J \geq 1}\sum_{M_1,x_1}\sum_{M_2,x_2}
\E^{\half M}_{J(M_1 x_1), J+\half (M_2 x_2)}
\Bigl\{ \sq{2J(2J+2)} \eps_{M_1} c^\dag_{J(-M_1 x_1)} c_{J+\half (M_2 x_2)}
\nonumber \\
&& -\sq{(2J+1)(2J+3)} \eps_{M_1} d^\dag_{J(-M_1 x_1)} d_{J+\half (M_2 x_2)}
+ \eps_{M_2} c^\dag_{J+\half (-M_2 x_2)} d_{J (M_1 x_1)} \Bigr\}
\nonumber \\
&& + \sum_{J \geq 1}\sum_{M_1,x_1}\sum_{M_2,y_2}
\H^{\half M}_{J(M_1 x_1); J (M_2 y_2)}
\Bigl\{ A(J) \eps_{M_1} c^\dag_{J(-M_1 x_1)} e_{J (M_2 y_2)}
\nonumber \\
&&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
+ B(J) \eps_{M_2} e^\dag_{J(-M_2 y_2)} d_{J (M_1 x_1)} \Bigr\}
\nonumber \\
&& + \sum_{J \geq 1}\sum_{M_1,y_1}\sum_{M_2, y_2}
\D^{\half M}_{J(M_1 y_1), J+\half (M_2 y_2)}
C(J) \eps_{M_1} e^\dag_{J(-M_1 y_1)} e_{J+\half (M_2 y_2)} ,
\label{Q_M for tensor field}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
A(J) &=& \sq{\fr{4J}{(2J-1)(2J+3)}}, \qquad
B(J) = \sq{\fr{2(2J+2)}{(2J-1)(2J+3)}},
\nonumber \\
C(J) &=& \sq{\fr{(2J-1)(2J+1)(2J+2)(2J+4)}{2J(2J+3)}} .\end{aligned}$$ The $SU(2)\times SU(2)$ Clebsch-Gordan coefficients defined by the volume integrals of three products of tensor harmonics up to rank 2 are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\E^{\half M}_{J(M_1 x_1), J+\half (M_2 x_2)}
&=& \sq{(2J-1)(J+2)} C^{\half m}_{J+x_1 m_1, J+\half+x_2 m_2}
C^{\half \prm}_{J-x_1 \prm_1, J+\half-x_2 \prm_2} ,
\nonumber \\
\H^{\half M}_{J(M_1 x_1); J(M_2 y_2)}
&=& - \sq{(2J-1)(2J+3)}
C^{\half m}_{J+x_1 m_1, J+y_2 m_2}
C^{\half \prm}_{J-x_1 \prm_1, J-y_2 \prm_2} ,
\nonumber \\
\D^{\half M}_{J(M_1 y_1), J+\half (M_2 y_2)}
&=& \sq{J(2J+3)} C^{\half m}_{J+y_1 m_1, J+\half+y_2 m_2}
C^{\half \prm}_{J-y_1 \prm_1, J+\half-y_2 \prm_2} .\end{aligned}$$ Here, the type $\E$ is defined by the product of a scalar and two tensor harmonics, the type $\H$ is the product of scalar, tensor, and vector harmonics with a derivative, and the type $\D$ is the product of a scalar and two vector harmonics. In the generator, the coefficients with the four-vector index for scalar harmonics appear. The general expressions of these coefficients are given in [@hh].
In order to construct physical states, we have to prepare creation operators that commute with $Q_M$. From (\[Q\_M for tensor field\]), we find that all creation modes do not commute with $Q_M$, except the lowest creation mode of the tensor field with the positive metric $c^\dag_{1(Mx)}$. Thus the rotation-invariant combination of $c^\dag_{1(Mx)}$ gives the lowest-weight states in the Weyl sector. For other modes, we look for the $Q_M$-invariant creation operators constructed in a bilinear form. Such operators and $c^\dag_{1(Mx)}$ will provide building blocks of physical states for the Weyl sector, which have been constructed and classified in [@hamada05].
Building Blocks for Lower $L$
=============================
Here, we write down the building blocks of physical states with conformal weight $2L$ given in (\[building block\]) for the lower cases of $L$. For $L=1$, they are given by $$\begin{aligned}
S^\dag_{1N} &=& \sq{\fr{2}{3}} ( \hbox{$\sq{2b_1}$}-i\hat{p}) a^\dag_{1N}
- \fr{1}{\sq{2}} \sum_{M_1,M_2} \C^{1N}_{\half M_1, \half M_2}
a^\dag_{\half M_1} a^\dag_{\half M_2} ,
\nonumber \\
{\cal S}^\dag_{00} &=& -\sq{2} ( \hbox{$\sq{2b_1}$}-i\hat{p}) b^\dag_{00}
- \fr{1}{\sq{2}} \sum_M \eps_M a^\dag_{\half -M} a^\dag_{\half M} \end{aligned}$$ with conformal weight $2$. The building blocks of $L=2$ with conformal weight $4$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
S^\dag_{2N} &=& \sq{\fr{2}{15}} ( \hbox{$\sq{2b_1}$}-i\hat{p}) a^\dag_{2N}
- \sq{2} \sum_{M_1,M_2} \C^{2N}_{\fr{3}{2} M_1, \half M_2}
a^\dag_{\fr{3}{2} M_1} a^\dag_{\half M_2}
\nonumber \\
&& + \fr{2}{\sq{3}} \sum_{M_1,M_2} \C^{2N}_{1 M_1, 1 M_2}
a^\dag_{1 M_1} a^\dag_{1 M_2} ,
\nonumber \\
{\cal S}^\dag_{1N} &=& -\sq{2} ( \hbox{$\sq{2b_1}$}-i\hat{p}) b^\dag_{1N}
- 4 b^\dag_{00} a^\dag_{1N}
- \sq{2} \sum_{M_1,M_2} \C^{1N}_{\fr{3}{2}M_1,\half M_2}
a^\dag_{\fr{3}{2} M_1} a^\dag_{\half M_2}
\nonumber \\
&& + \fr{2}{\sq{3}} \sum_{M_1,M_2} \C^{1N}_{1 M_1,1 M_2}
a^\dag_{1 M_1} a^\dag_{1 M_2}
+ 4 \sum_{M_1,M_2} \C^{1N}_{\half M_1,\half M_2}
b^\dag_{\half M_1} a^\dag_{\half M_2} \end{aligned}$$ and the building blocks of $L=3$ with conformal weight $6$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
S^\dag_{3N} &=& \sq{\fr{2}{35}} ( \hbox{$\sq{2b_1}$}-i\hat{p}) a^\dag_{3N}
- \sq{2} \sum_{M_1,M_2} \C^{3N}_{\fr{5}{2} M_1, \half M_2}
a^\dag_{\fr{5}{2} M_1} a^\dag_{\half M_2}
\nonumber \\
&& + 4 \sum_{M_1,M_2} \C^{3N}_{2 M_1, 1 M_2}
a^\dag_{2 M_1} a^\dag_{1 M_2}
- \sq{\fr{15}{2}} \sum_{M_1,M_2} \C^{3N}_{\fr{3}{2} M_1, \fr{3}{2} M_2}
a^\dag_{\fr{3}{2} M_1} a^\dag_{\fr{3}{2} M_2} ,
\nonumber \\
{\cal S}^\dag_{2N} &=& -\sq{2} ( \hbox{$\sq{2b_1}$}-i\hat{p}) b^\dag_{2N}
- 4 \sq{3} b^\dag_{00} a^\dag_{2N}
- \sq{2} \sum_{M_1,M_2} \C^{2N}_{\fr{5}{2}M_1,\half M_2}
a^\dag_{\fr{5}{2} M_1} a^\dag_{\half M_2}
\nonumber \\
&& + 4 \sum_{M_1,M_2} \C^{2N}_{2 M_1,1 M_2}
a^\dag_{2 M_1} a^\dag_{1 M_2}
- \sq{\fr{15}{2}} \sum_{M_1,M_2} \C^{2N}_{\fr{3}{2} M_1,\fr{3}{2} M_2}
a^\dag_{\fr{3}{2} M_1} a^\dag_{\fr{3}{2} M_2}
\nonumber \\
&& + 4 \sq{3} \sum_{M_1,M_2} \C^{2N}_{\fr{3}{2} M_1, \half M_2}
b^\dag_{\fr{3}{2} M_1} a^\dag_{\half M_2}
- 4 \sq{15} \sum_{M_1,M_2} \C^{2N}_{1 M_1,1 M_2}
b^\dag_{1 M_1} a^\dag_{1 M_2}
\nonumber \\
&& + 4 \sq{15} \sum_{M_1,M_2} \C^{2N}_{\half M_1, \fr{3}{2} M_2}
b^\dag_{\half M_1} a^\dag_{\fr{3}{2} M_2} .\end{aligned}$$
[99]{}
A. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. [**103B**]{} (1981) 207. V. Knizhnik, A. Polyakov and A. Zamolodchikov, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**3**]{} (1988) 819. J. Distler and H. Kawai, Nucl. Phys. [**B321**]{} (1989) 509; F. David, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**3**]{} (1988) 1651. N. Seiberg, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. [**102**]{} (1990) 319. M. Goulian and M. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**66**]{} (1991) 2051. P. Bouwknegt, J. McCarthy and K. Pilch, Commun. Math. Phys. [**145**]{} (1992) 541. R. Riegert, Phys. Lett. [**134B**]{} (1984) 56. I. Antoniadis and E. Mottola, Phys. Rev. D [**45**]{} (1992) 2013. I. Antoniadis, P. Mazur and E. Mottola, Nucl. Phys. [**B388**]{} (1992) 627. I. Antoniadis, P. Mazur and E. Mottola, Phys. Rev. D [**55**]{} (1997) 4770. K. Hamada and F. Sugino, Nucl. Phys. [**B553**]{} (1999) 283. K. Hamada, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**108**]{} (2002) 399. K. Hamada and S. Horata, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**110**]{} (2003) 1169. K. Hamada, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**20**]{} (2005) 5353. K. Hamada, Found. Phys. [**39**]{} (2009) 1356. K. Hamada, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**24**]{} (2009) 3073. K. Hamada, Found. Phys. [**41**]{} (2011) 41. K. Hamada, Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{} (2012) 024028. C. Becchi, A. Rouet and R. Stora, Comm. Math. Phys. [**42**]{} (1975) 127; Ann. Phys. [**98**]{} (1976) 287. T. Kugo and I. Ojima, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. [**66**]{} (1979) 1. M. Kato and K. Ogawa, Nucl. Phys. [**B212**]{} (1983) 443. D. Friedan, E. Martinec and S. Shenker, Nucl. Phys. [**B271**]{} (1986) 93. D. Capper and M. Duff, Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. A [**23**]{} (1974) 173. S. Deser, M. Duff and C. Isham, Nucl. Phys. [**B111**]{} (1976) 45. M. Duff, Nucl. Phys. [**B125**]{} (1977) 334. J. Wess and B. Zumino, Phys. Lett. [**37B**]{} (1971) 95. L. Bonora, P. Cotta-Ramusino and C. Reina, Phys. Lett. [**B126**]{} (1983) 305. I. Antoniadis, P. Mazur and E. Mottola, Phys. Rev. D [**55**]{} (1997) 4756. K. Hamada and T. Yukawa, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**20**]{} (2005) 509. K. Hamada, S. Horata and T. Yukawa, Phys. Rev. D [**74**]{} (2006) 123502. K. Hamada, S. Horata and T. Yukawa, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{} (2010) 083533. D. Varshalovich, A. Moskalev and V. Khersonskii, [*Quantum Theory of Angular Momentum*]{} (World Scientific, Singapore, 1988).
[^1]: E-mail address: [email protected]; URL: http://research.kek.jp/people/hamada/
[^2]: \[footnote for b\_1\] It has been computed to be $b_1 = 769/180 + ( N_X + 11N_W/2 + 62 N_A )/360$, where $N_X$, $N_W$, and $N_A$ are numbers of scalar fields, Weyl fermions, and gauge fields, respectively [@cd; @ddi; @duff]. The first term comes from gravitational loop corrections, which is the sum of $-7/90$ and $87/20$ from the $\phi$ and $h_{\mu\nu}$ fields, respectively [@amm92; @hs].
[^3]: The beta function has been computed to be $\b_t=-\b_0 t_r^3$, with $\b_0=\{ 197/30 +(N_X + 3N_W + 12 N_A )/120 \}/32\pi^2$, where the first term of $\b_0$ is the sum of $-1/15$ and $199/30$ from the $\phi$ and $h_{\mu\nu}$ fields, respectively [@cd; @ddi; @duff; @amm92; @hs]. It indicates the asymptotic freedom and ensures the positivity of the two-point function of the stress tensor for this combined system because its coefficient is given by $\b_0$.
[^4]: $Q^\dag_M$ may be called the generator of translations.
[^5]: Parametrizing the four-vector index $\{ (1/2, 1/2), (1/2, -1/2), (-1/2, 1/2), (-1/2, -1/2) \}$ by $\{ 1,2,3,4 \}$, and setting $A_+=R_{31}$, $A_-=R_{31}^\dag$, $A_3=(R_{11}+R_{22})/2$, $B_+=R_{21}$, $B_-=R_{21}^\dag$ and $B_3=(R_{11}-R_{22})/2$, the last rotation algebra is written in the familiar form of the $SU(2)\times SU(2)$ algebra as $[A_+, A_-]=2A_3$, $[A_3, A_\pm ]=\pm A_\pm$, $[B_+, B_-]=2B_3$, $[B_3, B_\pm ]=\pm B_\pm$, where $A_{\pm,3}$ and $B_{\pm,3}$ commute. The generators $A_{\pm,3} (B_{\pm,3})$ act on the left(right) index of $M=(m,m^\pp)$.
[^6]: This operator is slightly different from the Ricci scalar operator given in [@hamada11]. According to this change, we correct the discussion held there.
[^7]: The classical form of the Ricci scalar curvature is given by $d^4 x \sq{-g}R= d\Om_4 e^{2\phi}(-6\hnb^2 \phi -6 \hnb_\mu \phi \hnb^\mu \phi + 6)$ on the $R \times S^3$ background with unit $S^3$.
[^8]: The background charge originates from the linear term in the Riegert-Wess-Zumino action (\[RWZ action\]).
[^9]: The primary state is, in general, defined by $H |h, \{ r \} \rangle = h |h, \{ r \} \rangle$, $R_{MN} |h, \{ r \} \rangle = \left( \Sigma_{MN} \right)_{\{ r^\pp \},\{ r \}} |h, \{ r^\pp \} \rangle$ and $Q_M |h, \{ r \} \rangle =0$, where $h$ is the conformal weight, $\{ r \}$ denotes a representation of $SU(2)\times SU(2)$, and $\Sigma_{MN}$ is the generator of spin rotations of the state. The descendant state is generated by applying $Q_M^\dag$ to the primary state $|h, \{ r \} \rangle$.
[^10]: Here, we correct an error in the previous papers as follows: $\chi(\hat{p},L)$ is twice that given in [@hamada05; @hamada09b].
[^11]: The situation is the same as in the case of the Liouville gravity [@seiberg]. Unlike this case, if the Riegert charge were purely imaginary, such as $\gm=ip$, and there were no background charges, physical fields could be normalizable as $\langle O_{-ip} | O_{ip} \rangle=1$, as in the case of string theory [@kato; @fms].
[^12]: Here, $s$ is not an integer, but a fractional number. Therefore, by regarding $s$ as an integer the correlator may be evaluated, and then $s$ may be analytically continued to the fractional number [@gl].
[^13]: The space of the residual symmetry in the radiation gauge $\hnb^i h_{ij}= \hnb^i h_{i0}= h_{00}=0$ is slightly bigger than the space generated by the 15 conformal Killing vectors, and hence we further remove the lowest mode of $h_{i0}$ satisfying $(\hnb^j \hnb_j +2)h_{i0}=0$, namely, $e_{1/2(My)}=0$ in the text. We call this choice the “radiation$^+$" gauge.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
address: |
Department Applied of Mathematics\
I-Shou University\
Kaohsiung, Taiwan\
Republic of China
author:
- Cheng Lien Lang
- Mong Lung Lang
title: Fibonacci Numbers and Identities II
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
Let $a,b, p,q \in \Bbb C$, $q\ne 0$. Define the generalised Fibonacci sequence $\{W_n \} = \{ W_n(a,b\, ; p,q)\}$ by $W_0=a$, $W_1 = b$, $$W_n= pW_{n-1} -qW_{n-2}.\eqno(1.1)$$
Obviously the definition can be extended to negative subscripts ; that is, for $n = 1, 2, 3,\cdots, $ define $$W_{-n} = (pW_{-n+1} -W_{-n+2})/q.\eqno (1.2)$$
In the case $a=0$, $b=1$, following \[Ho\], we shall denote the sequence $\{ W_n
(0,1\,;\, p,q)\}$ by $\{u_n\}$. Equivalently, $$u_n = W_n(0,1\, ; p,q).\eqno(1.3)$$
Note that $u_{-n} = -q^{-n} u_n$. In this article, we will give a unified proof of various identities involving $W_n$. The alternative proof presented in this article (for Melham’s, Howard’s and Horadam’s identities) uses nothing but [*recurrence*]{} which is slightly different from the original proof.
Recurrence Relation
===================
[**Lemma 2.1.**]{} [*$ A(n) = W_{2n}$, $B(n) =W_{n}W_{n+r}$ and $C(n) = q^n$ satisfy the following recurrence relation*]{} [$$X(n+3) = (p^2-q)X(n+2) +(q^2-p^2q)X(n+1)+q^3X(n).\eqno (2.1)$$]{}
[*Proof.*]{} One sees easily that $q^n$ satisfies (2.1). The following shows that $W_{n}^2 $ satisfies (2.1). By (1.1),
$$W_{n+3}^2 = (pW_{n+2} - qW_{n+1})^2 = p^2W_{n+2}^2 + q^2W_{n+1}^2 - 2pqW_{n+2}W_{n+1},\eqno(2.2)$$
$$2pqW_{n+2}W_{n+1}
= qW_{n+2}(W_{n+2}+qW_{n})
+pq(pW_{n+1}-qW_n)W_{n+1}.\eqno(2.3)$$
Replace the last quantity of the right hand side of (2.2) by (2.3), one has the following.
[$$W_{n+3}^2 =
(p^2-q)W_{n+2}^2 +(q^2 -p^2q)W_{n+1}^2 - q^2 W_{n+2}W_n +pq^2W_{n+1}W_n.\eqno(2.4)$$]{}
By (1.1), [$q^2 W_{n+2}W_n -pq^2W_{n+1}W_n = -q^3W_n$.]{} This completes the proof of the fact that $W_n^2 $ satisfies the recurrence relation (2.1). One can show similar to the above that $W_{2n}$ and $ W_{n}W_{n+r}$ satisfy the recurrence (2.1).
[**Lemma 2.2.**]{} [*Suppose that $x(n)$ and $y(n)$ satisfy the recurrence $(2.1)$. Let $r, s \in \Bbb Z$. Then $ x(n) \pm y(n)$ and $rx(n+s)$ satisfy the recurrence $(2.1)$.*]{}
[**Lemma 2.3.**]{} [*Suppose that both $A(n)$ and $B(n)$ satisfy $(2.1). $ Then $A(n) = B(n)$ if and only if $A(n) = B(n) $ for $n = 0, 1, 2.$*]{}
[*Proof.*]{} Since both $A(n)$ and $B(n)$ satisfy the same recurrence relation, $A(n)= B(n)$ if and only if they satisfy the same initial condition. This completes the proof of the lemma.
[**Lemma 2.4.**]{} [*Let $W_n$ and $u_n$ be given as in $(1.1)$ and $(1.3)$. Then the following hold.*]{} $$W_r = u_rW_1 -qu_{r-1}W_0,\eqno(2.5)$$ $$W_r = u_{r-1}W_2 -qu_{r-2}W_1,\eqno(2.6)$$ $$W_r = u_{r-2}W_3 -qu_{r-3}W_2.\eqno(2.7)$$
[*Proof.*]{} We note first that (1.1) and (1.2) give the same recurrence relation. Denoted by $A(r)$ and $B(r)$ the left and right hand side of (2.5)-(2.7). Since $W_r$, $u_{r}$, $u_{r-1}$ and $u_{r-2}$ (as functions in $r$) satisfy the recurrence relation (1.1), both $A(r)$ and $B(r)$ satisfy (1.1). Hence $A(r) = B(r)$ if and only if they satisfy the same initial condition. (2.5)-(2.7) can now be verified with ease.
On Melham’s Identity
====================
[**Theorem 3.1.**]{} (Melham \[M\]) [*Let $W_n$ be given as in $(1.1)$ and let $e= pab-qa^2-b^2$. Then $$W_{n+1}W_{n+2}W_{n+6} -W_{n+3}^3=
eq^{n+1}(p^3W_{n+2} -q^2W_{n+1}).\eqno(3.1)$$*]{} In the case $p=1, q=-1, a=b=1$, (3.1) becomes $$F_{n+1}F_{n+2}F_{n+6} -F_{n+3}^3 = (-1)^nF_n,\eqno(3.2)$$ where $F_n$ is the $n$-th Fibonacci number. In this short note, we give a direct proof of Theorem 3.1 which uses only the simple fact that $W_nW_{n+r}$ and $q^n$ satisfy the recurrence relation (2.1).
[**Lemma 3.2.**]{} [*$W_{n+2}W_{n+4} - W_{n+3}^2 = e q^{n+2}$ and $W_{n+1}W_{n+6}-W_{n+3}W_{n+4}
=eq^{n+1}(p^3-pq).$* ]{}
[*Proof.*]{} Let $A(n) =W_{n+2}W_{n+4} - W_{n+3}^2$, $ B(n) = e q^{n+2}.$ By Lemmas 2.1 and 2.2, both $A(n)$ and $B(n)$ satisfy the recurrence relation (2.1). Note that $A(n) = B(n)$ for $n = 0,1,2$. It follows from Lemma 2.3 that $A(n) = B(n)$ for all $n$. The second identity can be proved similarly.
[**Proof of Theorem 3.1.**]{} By the first identity of Lemma 3.2, the left hand side of (3.1) can be written as $$W_{n+1}W_{n+2}W_{n+6} -W_{n+3}^3=
W_{n+2}(W_{n+1}W_{n+6}-W_{n+3}W_{n+4})
+eq^{ n+2}W_{n+3}.\eqno(3.3)$$ Replace the left hand side of (3.1) by identity (3.3), one has (3.1) is true if and only if $$W_{n+2}(W_{n+1}W_{n+6}-W_{n+3}W_{n+4})
+eq^{ n+2}W_{n+3}
=eq^{n+1}(p^3W_{n+2} -q^2W_{n+1}).\eqno(3.4)$$ By(1.1), $W_{n+3} = pW_{n+2}-qW_{n+1}$ (note that (1.1) and (1.2) give the same recurrence relation). Hence (3.4) is equivalent to $$W_{n+2}(W_{n+1}W_{n+6}-W_{n+3}W_{n+4})
=eq^{n+1}(p^3-pq)W_{n+2}.\eqno(3.5)$$ One may now apply the second identity of Lemma 3.2 to finish our proof of Theorem 3.1.
On Howard’s Identity
====================
Let $p$ and $q$ be given as in (1.1). Define similarly the sequence $\{V_n\}$ by the same recurrence relation $$V_n= pV_{n-1} -qV_{n-2}\,, \,\,V_0 = c, \,\,V_1 = d.\eqno(4.1)$$
A careful study of the proof of Lemma 2.1 reveals that
1. the fact we used to show that $W_n^2$ satisfies the recurrence (2.1) is the recurrence (1.1),
2. the proof of Lemma 2.1 is independent of the choice of the values of $W_0$ and $W_1$.
As a consequence, the following lemma is clear.
[**Lemma 4.1.**]{} [ *Let $k , r\in \Bbb Z$. Then $rW_nV_{n+k}$, $rW_n u_{n+k}$ and $ rV_{n}u_{n+k}$ satisfy the recurrence relation $(2.1)$.*]{}
[**Theorem 4.2.**]{} (Howard \[Ho\]) [*Let $W_n, V_n$ and $ u_n$ be given as in $(1.1)$, $(1.3)$ and $(4.1)$. Then* ]{}
$$W_n^2 -q^{n-j}W_j^2
= u_{n-j}(bW_{n+j}-qaW_{n+j-1}),\eqno(4.2)$$ $$W_{m+n+1} = W_{m+1}u_{n+1}-qW_mu_n,\eqno(4.3)$$ $$V_{m+k}W_{n+k}-q^kV_mW_n =
u_k(bV_{m+n+k}-qaV_{m+n+k-1}),\eqno(4.4)$$ $$W_{n+k}^2 -q^{2k}W_{n-k}^2
= u_{2k}(bW_{2n} -qaW_{2n-1}).\eqno(4.5)$$
In \[Ho\], proof of Theorem 4.2 involves mathematical induction, a result of Bruckman \[B\] and a very neat combinatorial argument. In this article, we give an alternative proof which is direct and uses Lemmas 2.1-2.4 and 4.1 only.
[**Proof of Theorem 4.2.**]{} We shall prove (4.3). The rest can be proved similarly. Note first that (4.3) can be proved by induction as well. Let $m+n+1 = r$. Since $u_{-n} = -q^{-n} u_n$ and $q\ne 0$, (4.3) becomes $$-q^{m-r} W_r = W_{m+1}u_{m-r} -W_m u_{m+1-r}.\eqno(4.6)$$
Let $A(m) = - q^{m-r}W_r$ and $ B(m) =W_{m+1}u_{m-r} -W_m u_{m+1-r}.$ View both $A(m)$ and $B(m)$ as functions in $m$. By Lemmas 2.1 2.2 and 4.1, they both satisfy the recurrence relation (2.1). By Lemma 2.3, $A(m) = B(m)$ if and only if $A(m)= B(m)$ for $m = 0, 1$ and 2. Equivalently, (4.3) is true if and only if $A(0) = B(0)$, $A(1) = B(1)$ and $A(2) = B(2)$. Equivalently,
$$-q^{-r} W_r= W_1u_{-r} - W_0u_{1-r}, \eqno(4.7)$$ $$- q^{1-r}W_r = W_2u_{1-r} - W_1u_{2-r}, \eqno(4.8)$$ $$-q^{2-r}W_r = W_3u_{2-r} - W_2u_{3-r}.
\eqno(4.9)$$
Since $u_{-n} = -q^{-n} u_n$ and $q \ne 0$, (4.7), (4.8) and (4.9) of the above can be written as the following. $$W_r = u_rW_1 -qu_{r-1}W_0,\eqno(4.10)$$ $$W_r = u_{r-1}W_2 -qu_{r-2}W_1,\eqno(4.11)$$ $$W_r = u_{r-2}W_3 -qu_{r-3}W_2.\eqno(4.12)$$
Hence (4.3) is true if and only if (4.10)-(4.12) are true. Applying Lemma 2.4, we conclude that (4.3) is true.
Horadam’s Identities
====================
Horadam \[H\] studied the fundamental arithmetical properties of $\{W_n\}$ and provided us with many interesting identities. A careful checking of his identities suggested that Identities (3.14), (3.15), (4.1)-(4.12) and (4.17)-(4.22) of \[H\] can be verified by our method as the functions involved in those identities satisfy the recurrence (2.1) of the present paper.
Discussion
==========
The technique we presented in the proof of Theorems 3.1 and 4.2 can be applied to the verification of identities of the form $A(n)= B(n)$ if one can show
1. $A(n)$ and $B(n)$ satisfy the same recurrence relation,
2. $A(n)$ and $B(n)$ satisfy the same initial condition.
The verification of (i) is not difficult (see Appendix B of \[LL\]). (ii) can be checked with ease. Note that it is not just our purpose to reprove the identities but to illustrate the importance and usefulness of the [*recurrence*]{} (such as (2.1) of the present paper)
[99]{}
P. S. Bruckman, *Solution of Problem $H$-$487$ $($Proposed by Stanley Rabinowitz$)$*, The Fibonacci Quarterly **33.4** (1995 ), 382.
A. F. Horadam, *Basic Properties of a Certain Generalized Sequence of Numbers*, The Fibonacci Quarterly **3.3** (1965), 161–76.
F. T. Howard, *The sum of the squares of two generalized Fibonacci numbers*, The Fibonacci Quarterly **41.1** (2003), 80–84.
C.L. Lang and M.L. Lang, *Fibonacci Numbers and Identities*, preprint, [arXiv:math/1303.5162v2 \[math.NT\]]{} (2013)
R.S. Melham, *A Fibonacci identity in the spirit of Simon and Gelin-Cesàro*, The Fibonacci Quarterly **41.2** (2003), 142-143.
M. E. Waddill, *Matrices and Generalized Fibonacci Sequences*, The Fibonacci Quarterly **12.4** (1974), 381–86.
MSC2010: 11B39, 11B83
[^1]:
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'General Relativity (GR) is a phenomenologically successful theory that rests on firm foundations, but has not been tested on cosmological scales. The advent of dark energy (and possibly even the requirement of cold dark matter), has increased the need for testing modifications to GR, as the inference of such otherwise undetected fluids, depends crucially on the theory of gravity. In this work I outline a general scheme for constructing consistent and covariant modifications to the Einstein equations. This framework is such that there is a clear connection between the modification and the underlying field content that produces it. I conclude by a simple metric based modification of the fluctuation equations for which the background is exact $\Lambda$CDM and present its impact on observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation.'
author:
- Constantinos Skordis
title: Consistent cosmological modifications to the Einstein equations
---
The theory of gravity plays a fundamental role in our modelling and understanding of the universe. If we are to know the matter constituents of the universe, we have to be sure we understand what is the underlying gravitational theory. Einstein’s General Relativity (GR) has played a key role in formulating modern cosmology, first as a smooth Friedmann-Lemaitre-Roberson-Walker (FLRW) spacetime, then at the level of linearized fluctuations about this spacetime.
General relativity is a very solid “principle” theory from the theoretical point of view, (and quite understandably the aesthetical point of view). The Lovelock-Grigore theorem [@Lovelock; @Grigore] asserts that GR with a cosmological constant is unique under the following assumptions : geometry is Riemannian and the gravitational action depends only on the metric, it is local and diffeomorphism invariant and leads to 2nd-order field equations. Relaxing any of these assumptions can lead to more general gravitational theories, e.g. adding extra fields [@JFBD; @TeVeS; @AE], having higher derivatives [@Weyl], having a pregeometry [@pregeometry] or making the theory non-local[@non_local]. This is not an exhaustive list but possible theories fall into one or more categories above.
However as nice as we may think that GR is, the ultimate judge is experiment. Indeed, different aspects of GR have been vigorously tested in the lab, in the solar system and with binary pulsars, all of which lie in the strong curvature regime (compared to cosmology).
The discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelerating opens the possibility that general relativity breaks down on large scales or low curvatures. It may also be that the apparent missing mass in the universe is not in the form of a cold dark matter particle but once again due to departures from general relativity. This opens the need for cosmological tests of gravity, and much work has been carried out in this direction [@PPF0; @PPF1; @PPF2] at various levels. More recently Hu and Sawicki [@HS], and Hu [@Hu], have laid down a fully covariant formulation of modifications to gravity under well motivated assumtions.
In this work I outline a general scheme for constructing consistent modifications to the Einstein equations. The scheme is such that, one can clearly classify the modifications according to whether they obey or violate diffeomorphism invariance, need extra fields, or stem from higher derivative theories. Indeed the advantage of this method is the direct connection between the field content and the modifications. Additional assumptions as in [@phipsi; @HS; @Hu] can always be used at the very end but we shall not consider this possibility here. I close the paper by constructing the most general modification for which the FLRW background is exact $\Lambda$CDM and illustrate the effects on observables in a simple subcase.
Following Hu [@Hu] we start by putting the gravitational field equations in the form $$G_{ab} = 8\pi G T_{ab}^{(known)} + U_{ab}
\label{gen_U}$$ Here $G_{ab}$ is the Einstein tensor for the universal matter metric $g_{ab}$, $T_{ab}^{(known)}$ is the stress-energy tensor of all *known* forms of matter (like baryons, photons and neutrinos), $U_{ab}$ is a general tensor which encapsulates all the unknown fields/modifications and can depend on $T_{ab}$ for each field and various combinations of metric functions (such as curvature tensors). The assumption of upto 2nd order field equations, translates to having only upto first derivatives of the extra field in $U_{0\nu}$ and upto 2nd derivatives in $U_{ij}$. Relaxing this assumption is possible and will simply give higher order field equations, but one has to be cautious that quite generally higher derivative theories lead to instabilites.
At this point we have to decide on the field content, i.e. whether $U_{ab}$ depends on additional fields or the metric alone. In the former case, we must add one field at a time and ensure its energy conservation by applying the Bianchi identity which directly translates to $$\nabla_a U^a_{\;\;b} = 0$$ and gives a field equation for the extra field. Violating the [Bianchi identity ]{}leads to entirely arbitrary parametrizations and will not be considered. The caveat of this approach is that in the case that more than two independent degrees of freedom are present in $U_{ab}$, one would have to supply extra equations for these, not given by the [Bianchi identity ]{}(see [@Hu2; @Max; @BFS] for examples). Finally, there could be interactions between fields in $T_{ab}$ and $U_{ab}$. For simplicity I do not consider this possibility further, but it is straightforward to add.
We now split the dynamics of the problem in the background FLRW dynamics and their fluctuations about that background. The FLRW metric is $ds^2 = a^2( -d\tau^2 + q_{ij} dx^i dx^j)$ where $\tau$ is the conformal time, $a$ is the scale factor and $q_{ij}$ is a spacial metric of constant (dimensionless) curvature $K$. The FLRW assumption means that effectively we are considering a collection of scalar fields on the spacial hypersurface of homogeneity and isotropy. This boils down to requiring that the Lie derivative of the extra field vanishes for all six Killing vectors of the FLRW spacetime. Examples are a scalar field $\phi(t)$, a vector field with components $A^\mu = (A(t), 0, 0, 0 )$ and a tensor field $X^a_{\;\;b}$ whose only non-vanishing components must be $X^0_{\;\;0} = -X(t)$ and $X^i_{\;\;j} = Y(t)\delta^i_{\;\;j}$. In the special case of a unit-timelike vector field $A(t)$ is pure gauge and the contribution of such a field to the FLRW equations is generally given in terms of functions of $a$, $\dot{a}$ and $\ddot{a}$ [@AE].
Lets define $E_F= - a^2 G^0_{\;\;0}$ and $E_R$ such that $a^2 G^i_{\;\;j} = E_R \delta^i_{\;\;j}$, which are explicitely given by $E_F = 3 \frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2} + 3K $ and $ E_R = - 2 \frac{\ddot{a}}{a} + \frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2} - K$. The FLRW equations corresponding to (\[gen\_U\]) are then simply written as $E_F = 8\pi G a^2 \sum_i \rho_i + a^2 X$ and $E_R = 8\pi G a^2 \sum_i P_i + a^2 Y$. Applying the [Bianchi identity ]{}then gives $\dot{E}_F + \frac{\dot{a}}{a} (E_F +3E_R) = 0$. and the fluid equation $\dot{\rho} + 3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}(\rho+P) = 0$. Applying the Bianchi identity on $U_{ab}$ imposes $$\dot{X} + 3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}(X + Y) = 0
\label{eq_bianchi_flrw}$$ The above equation will give the background equation for the extra field, or additional constraints on $X$ and $Y$ in the absence thereof. We see that any FLRW background can be modelled via one arbitrary function $Y(t)$ and a second function $X(t)$ found by solving (\[eq\_bianchi\_flrw\]).
Adding a scalar field amounts to letting $X = X(\phi,\dot{\phi},a,\dot{a})$ and $Y = Y(\phi,\dot{\phi},\ddot{\phi},a,\dot{a},\ddot{a})$, if we are to expect at most 2nd order field equations for the scalar. For example a canonical scalar field corresponds to $X = \frac{1}{2a^2}\dot{\phi}^2 + V(\phi)$ and $Y = \frac{1}{2a^2}\dot{\phi}^2 - V(\phi) $ while the Jordan-Fierz-Brans-Dicke theory [@JFBD] to $X = 8\pi G a^2 (e^{\phi} - 1)\rho + \frac{\omega}{2a^2} \dot{\phi}^2 + \frac{3}{a^2}\frac{\dot{a}}{a} \dot{\phi} $ and $Y = 8\pi G a^2 (e^{\phi} - 1)P -\frac{1}{a^2}(\ddot{\phi} + \frac{\dot{a}}{a}\dot{\phi} - \frac{2+\omega}{2} \dot{\phi}^2)$.
Consider now the (scalar) fluctuations about the FLRW metric as $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2 &=& - a^2(1 - 2 \Xi) dt^2 - 2a^2 ({\ensuremath{\vec{\nabla}}}_i \zeta) dt dx^i
\nonumber
\\ && + a^2[ (1 + \frac{1}{3}\chi ) q_{ij} + D_{ij} \nu ] dx^i dx^j\end{aligned}$$ where $D_{ij} \equiv {\ensuremath{\vec{\nabla}}}_i {\ensuremath{\vec{\nabla}}}_j - \frac{1}{3} q_{ij} {\ensuremath{\vec{\nabla}}}^2$ is a spacial traceless derivative operator. A perfect fluid is described at the fluctuation level by a density contrast $\delta$ , momentum $\theta$ such that its total momentum is $u_i = a {\ensuremath{\vec{\nabla}}}_i \theta$, dimensionless pressure perturbation $\Pi$ such that $\delta T^i_{\;\;j} = \Pi\rho \delta^i_{\;\;j}$ and shear $\Sigma$, such that the shear tensor is $\Sigma_{ij} = D_{ij} \Sigma$.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\Xi \rightarrow\Xi - \frac{\dot{\xi}}{a}$ $\zeta \rightarrow \zeta + \frac{1}{a}\left[ \xi + \frac{\dot{a}}{a}\psi - \dot{\psi}\right]$
$\chi \rightarrow \chi + \frac{1}{a}\left[ 6 \frac{\dot{a}}{a}\xi + 2{\ensuremath{\vec{\nabla}^2}}\psi\right]$ $\nu \rightarrow \nu + \frac{2}{a}\psi$
$V \rightarrow V + \frac{2}{a} \xi$ $J \rightarrow J + \frac{6}{a} \frac{\dot{a}}{a}\xi$
$\theta \rightarrow \theta + \frac{1}{a}\xi$ $W \rightarrow W + \frac{1}{a}\bigg[ 6 \frac{\dot{a}}{a}\dot{\xi} + 6 (\frac{\ddot{a}}{a} - 2\frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2})\xi$
$\delta \rightarrow \delta -\frac{3}{a}(1+w)\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\xi$ $ \qquad +2{\ensuremath{\vec{\nabla}^2}}\xi \bigg]$
$E_\Theta \rightarrow E_\Theta + \frac{1}{a}(E_F + E_R)\xi$ $\Pi \rightarrow \Pi + \frac{1}{a} \left[\dot{w} - 3w(1+w) \frac{\dot{a}}{a} \right]\xi$
$E_P \rightarrow E_P + \frac{3}{a}\left[ \dot{E}_R -2\frac{\dot{a}}{a} E_R \right] \xi$ $E_\Delta \rightarrow E_\Delta - \frac{3}{a}\frac{\dot{a}}{a} (E_F + E_R)\xi$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Gauge transformations for the metric, fluid and Einstein tensor variables.
\[normal\_gauge\_trans\]
We now decide whether the parametrization should obey diffeomorphism invariance. At the linearized level this is the requirement that all field equations must be gauge form-invariant. Let us demonstrate what is gauge form-invariance for the case of standard GR coupled to a fluid. Gauge transformations are infinitesimal diffeomorphisms generated by a vector field $\xi^a$ which can be parametrized as $\xi_\mu = a ( -\xi, {\ensuremath{\vec{\nabla}}}_i \psi )$. All perturbations apart from $\Sigma$ above are not gauge invariant but transform with $\xi$ and $\psi$ as in table I. Consider the $\delta G^0_{\;\;0}$ Einstein equation which is $$\begin{aligned}
&& -\frac{1}{3} ({\ensuremath{\vec{\nabla}^2}}+ {\ensuremath{3K}}) \left[ \chi -{\ensuremath{\vec{\nabla}^2}}\nu \right]
+ \frac{\dot{a}}{a}\left[ \dot{\chi} +2{\ensuremath{\vec{\nabla}^2}}\zeta \right]
\nonumber \\&&
\qquad \qquad
+ 6 \frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2} \Xi
= 8\pi G a^2 {\ensuremath{\bar{\rho}}}\delta\end{aligned}$$ If we perform a gauge transformation $X\rightarrow X'$ to all perturbations above, the $\delta G^0_{\;\;0}$ Einstein equation becomes $$\begin{aligned}
&& -\frac{1}{3} ({\ensuremath{\vec{\nabla}^2}}+ {\ensuremath{3K}}) \left[ \chi' -{\ensuremath{\vec{\nabla}^2}}\nu' \right]
+ \frac{\dot{a}}{a}\left[ \dot{\chi}' +2{\ensuremath{\vec{\nabla}^2}}\zeta' \right]
\nonumber \\&&
\qquad \qquad
+ 6 \frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2} \Xi'
= 8\pi G a^2 {\ensuremath{\bar{\rho}}}\delta'\end{aligned}$$ i.e. it retains its exact form (it is form-invariant), with the only change being a relabelling of the perturbations with $X\rightarrow X'$ for each variable. Gauge form-invariance always holds for all field equations which stem from a diffeomorphism invariant action, no matter how complicated the theory is.
We can shortcut testing for gauge form-invariance as follows. First define the three gauge non-invariant potentials $V\equiv \dot{\nu} +2 \zeta $, $J\equiv\chi - {\ensuremath{\vec{\nabla}^2}}\nu $ and $W\equiv\dot{\chi} +2 {\ensuremath{\vec{\nabla}^2}}\zeta = \dot{J} + {\ensuremath{\vec{\nabla}^2}}V $, which are the only three combinations of metric variables appearing in the perturbed Einstein tensor. They transform only with the gauge variable $\xi$. Then define the two gauge-invariant potentials ${\ensuremath{\hat{\Phi}}}\equiv -\frac{1}{6}J + \frac{1}{2}\frac{\dot{a}}{a} V$ and ${\ensuremath{\hat{\Psi}}}\equiv - \Xi - \frac{1}{2}\dot{V} - \frac{1}{2}\frac{\dot{a}}{a} V$ . We can now split the perturbed Einstein tensor into a gauge invariant and a gauge non-invariant part which involves the variable $V$. For simplicity let us define $E_\Delta = -a^2\delta G^0_{\;\;0}$, $E_\Theta$ is such that $-a^2\delta G^0_{\;\;i} = {\ensuremath{\vec{\nabla}}}_i E_\Theta$, $E_P = a^2 \delta G^i_{\;\;i}$ and $E_\Sigma$ is such that $ a^2\left[ \delta G^i_{\;\;j} - \frac{1}{3} \delta G^k_{\;\;k} \delta^i_{\;\;j}\right] = {\ensuremath{D}}^i_{\;\;j} E_\Sigma $. Explicitely we get $$\begin{aligned}
E_\Delta &=& 2 ({\ensuremath{\vec{\nabla}^2}}+ {\ensuremath{3K}}) {\ensuremath{\hat{\Phi}}}- 6 \frac{\dot{a}}{a}(\dot{{\ensuremath{\hat{\Phi}}}} + \frac{\dot{a}}{a} {\ensuremath{\hat{\Psi}}})
\nonumber
\\ &&
- \frac{3}{2}\frac{\dot{a}}{a} (E_F + E_R) V,
\label{E_Delta}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
E_\Theta &=& 2(\dot{{\ensuremath{\hat{\Phi}}}} + \frac{\dot{a}}{a} {\ensuremath{\hat{\Psi}}}) + \frac{1}{2}(E_F + E_R)V,
\label{E_Theta}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
E_P&=&
6\frac{d}{dt}\left(\dot{{\ensuremath{\hat{\Phi}}}}
+ \frac{\dot{a}}{a} {\ensuremath{\hat{\Psi}}}\right)
+ 12\frac{\dot{a}}{a} (\dot{{\ensuremath{\hat{\Phi}}}} + \frac{\dot{a}}{a} {\ensuremath{\hat{\Psi}}})
\nonumber \\ &&
- 2({\ensuremath{\vec{\nabla}^2}}+ {\ensuremath{3K}})({\ensuremath{\hat{\Phi}}}- {\ensuremath{\hat{\Psi}}})
-3 (E_F+ E_R) {\ensuremath{\hat{\Psi}}}\nonumber \\ &&
+ \frac{3}{2} [ \dot{E}_R -2 \frac{\dot{a}}{a}E_R ] V,
\label{E_P}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
E_\Sigma &=& {\ensuremath{\hat{\Phi}}}- {\ensuremath{\hat{\Psi}}}.
\label{E_Sigma}\end{aligned}$$ The Einstein equations are then given as $$\begin{aligned}
E_\Delta &=& 8\pi G a^2 {\ensuremath{\bar{\rho}}}\delta + U_\Delta
\label{E_Delta_eq}
\\
E_\Theta &=& 8\pi G a^2 ({\ensuremath{\bar{\rho}}}+ {\ensuremath{\bar{P}}})\theta + U_\Theta
\label{E_Theta_eq}
\\
E_P &=& 24\pi G a^2 {\ensuremath{\bar{\rho}}}\Pi + U_P
\label{E_P_eq}
\\
E_\Sigma &=& 8\pi G ({\ensuremath{\bar{\rho}}}+ {\ensuremath{\bar{P}}})\Sigma + U_\Sigma
\label{E_Sigma_eq}\end{aligned}$$ where the $U_i$ variables are defined in the same way as for the $E_i$ variables with $\delta G^a_{\;\;b}$ replaced by $\delta U^a_{\;\;b}$.
The importance of gauge form-invariance cannot be overemphasized. In fact gauge form-invariance severely constrains the terms involved. For had we decided to let the RHS of the Einstein equations to be $ 8\pi G a^2 f_1(\tau) \delta$, $8\pi G a^2 f_2(\tau)\theta$ and $ 24\pi G a^2 f_3(\tau) \Pi$ we would have found that by virtue of the background equations, the Einstein equations are gauge form-invariant if and only if $f_1 = f_3 = \rho$, and $f_2 = \rho+P$. A less trivial example is when $X = \frac{1}{r_c}\frac{\dot{a}}{a^2}$ for some scale $r_c$. If we decide that this term is due to metric modifications, then $U_\Delta = \frac{a}{r_c}(\frac{1}{6}\dot{J} + \frac{\dot{a}}{a}\Xi)$ and $U_\Theta = -\frac{a^2}{3\dot{a}r_c}(\frac{1}{6}\dot{J} + \frac{\dot{a}}{a}\Xi)$. If on the other hand we posit that it is due to a unit-timelike vector field perturbed as $A_i = a {\ensuremath{\vec{\nabla}}}_i \alpha$ then a possibility is $U_\Delta = \frac{a}{r_c}(\frac{\ddot{a}}{a} - 2 \frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2})\alpha$. In the last case we pick higher derivatives, and a gauge-invariant counter-term must be added to cancel them [@extra_skordis].
Once we have added the gauge non-invariant terms and correctly fixed the functions multiplying them by requiring gauge form-invariance to hold, we can proceed to add more gauge-invariant terms involving the extra fields and the gauge invariant potentials ${\ensuremath{\hat{\Phi}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\hat{\Psi}}}$. If we want to consider only parametrizations which lead to 2nd order field equations in all variables, then we have to be careful what terms we add and where. For example, when we add metric terms, we can add upto first derivatives in the two Einstein constraint equations (\[E\_Delta\_eq\]) and (\[E\_Theta\_eq\]), and up to second derivatives in the two Einstein propagation equations (\[E\_P\_eq\]) and (\[E\_Sigma\_eq\]). Since ${\ensuremath{\hat{\Phi}}}$ is of first order in the metric variables while ${\ensuremath{\hat{\Psi}}}$ is of second order, we can add ${\ensuremath{\hat{\Phi}}}$ in all four Einstein equations but $\dot{{\ensuremath{\hat{\Phi}}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\hat{\Psi}}}$ only in the two propagation equations (\[E\_P\_eq\]) and (\[E\_Sigma\_eq\]). Note that although $\dot{{\ensuremath{\hat{\Phi}}}} + \frac{\dot{a}}{a} {\ensuremath{\hat{\Psi}}}$ is of 1st-order in the metric perturbations, it contains 2nd derivatives of the scale factor, and so it cannot be added to (\[E\_Delta\_eq\]) and (\[E\_Theta\_eq\]), unless we relax the 2nd-order field equations constraint. The reason it is allowed in the definition of $E_\Delta$ above is because, there are also 2nd derivatives of the scale factor appearing in the gauge non-invariant part of $E_\Delta$ proportional to $V$. Thus when $E_\Delta$ is written in terms of the actual metric potentials, the $\ddot{a}$ terms cancel and the final expression contains only first derivatives in all the variables. On the contrary, when we add solely gauge-invariant terms we no longer have this luxury.
Let us also note that the gauge variable $\psi$ is not involved in the transformation of the Einstein tensor. Thus if any extra field does transform with $\psi$ it will always appear in combination with $\nu$, $\zeta$ or $\chi$ in the field equations, in a way that the whole combination does not transform with $\psi$. An explicit example can be found in [@BFS].
We finally utilize the [Bianchi identity ]{}which at the linearized level simply translates in terms of the added variables $U_\Delta$, $U_\Theta$, $U_P$ and $U_\Sigma$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{U}_\Delta + \frac{\dot{a}}{a} U_\Delta - {\ensuremath{\vec{\nabla}^2}}U_\Theta + \frac{1}{2} a^2 (X+Y) W + \frac{\dot{a}}{a} U_P &=&0
\qquad\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{U}_\Theta +2 \frac{\dot{a}}{a} U_\Theta - \frac{1}{3} U_P - \frac{2}{3} ({\ensuremath{\vec{\nabla}^2}}+ {\ensuremath{3K}} )U_\Sigma
&&
\nonumber \\
+ a^2 (X+Y) \Xi &=& 0\end{aligned}$$ This provides us with the field equations for the extra fields [@extra_skordis], or with additional constraints on the added functions in the absence thereof.
I now illustrate the above scheme, by finding the most general diffeomorphism invariant modification to the Einstein equations for which the background cosmology is the plain $\Lambda CDM$ model, no extra fields are present, and no higher derivative than two is present in the field equations. Since there are no extra fields and the background is unchanged from $\Lambda CDM$ we can only add gauge invariant terms to Einstein equations by setting $U_\Delta= {\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}{\ensuremath{\hat{\Phi}}}$, $U_\Theta = {\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}{\ensuremath{\hat{\Phi}}}$, $U_P = {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}_1 {\ensuremath{\hat{\Phi}}}+ {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}_2 \dot{{\ensuremath{\hat{\Phi}}}} + {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}_3 {\ensuremath{\hat{\Psi}}}$ and $ U_\Sigma = {\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}_1 {\ensuremath{\hat{\Phi}}}+ {\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}_2 \dot{{\ensuremath{\hat{\Phi}}}} + {\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}_3 {\ensuremath{\hat{\Psi}}}$, for operators ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}_i$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}_i$. Applying the [Bianchi identity ]{}we get two equations involving $\dot{{\ensuremath{\hat{\Phi}}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\hat{\Phi}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\hat{\Psi}}}$ and consistency requires that these equations must be satisfied whatever the values of $\dot{{\ensuremath{\hat{\Phi}}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\hat{\Phi}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\hat{\Psi}}}$. A sufficient condition is found by setting the coefficients of these terms to zero which gives ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}_3 = {\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}_3= 0$, ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}} = -\frac{\dot{a}}{a}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}_2$ , ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}} = \frac{1}{3}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}_2 + \frac{2}{3} ({\ensuremath{\vec{\nabla}^2}}+ {\ensuremath{3K}}) {\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}_2$ and the two differential equations $\dot{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}} + \frac{\dot{a}}{a}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}} - {\ensuremath{\vec{\nabla}^2}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}} + \frac{\dot{a}}{a}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}_1= 0$ and $\dot{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}} + 2 \frac{\dot{a}}{a} {\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}} - \frac{1}{3} {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}_1 - \frac{2}{3} ({\ensuremath{\vec{\nabla}^2}}+ {\ensuremath{3K}}){\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}_1 = 0$. A quick examination reveals that if ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}$ are both zero then we get exact GR. The same holds for ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}_1$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}_2$, hence a generic prediction of this kind of modification to GR is that ${\ensuremath{\hat{\Phi}}}- {\ensuremath{\hat{\Psi}}}$ should deviate from the GR value.
Lets illustrate the effect on observables in a simple subcase for which ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}} = {\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}_1 = {\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}_1 = 0$, ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}} = \frac{\beta H_0^2}{a}$, ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}_2 = -\frac{\beta H_0^2}{\dot{a}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}_2 = \frac{\beta H_0^2}{2\dot{a}}\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\vec{\nabla}^2}}}$. Thus, we parametrize deviations from GR with a single dimensionless parameter $\beta$. We let $ \gamma = \frac{\beta H_0^2}{2k^2 a + \beta H_0^2}$ and find the Einstein equations in the synchronous gauge (defined as $\Xi = \zeta = 0$ and $\chi = h$, $-k^2\nu = h + 6\eta$). The $\dot{h}$ equation is $$\frac{\dot{a}}{a} \dot{h} = ( 1 - \gamma) 8\pi G a^2 \rho \delta + 2k^2 \eta - 6\gamma \frac{\dot{a}}{a} \dot{\eta}$$ while the $\dot{\eta}$ equation is unchanged. The perturbation equations were solved numerically in both the synchronous and in the conformal Newtonian gauge for numerical consistency. The upper panel of Fig. 1 shows the CMB angular power spectrum $l(l+1) C_l$ for a $\Lambda CDM$ universe ($\beta=0$) contrasted with non-zero $\beta$. We see that for this particular model, the effect of non-zero $\beta$ is to decrease power on large scales including even the first peak. The lower panel of Fig. 1 shows the time variation of $g = \frac{{\ensuremath{\hat{\Phi}}}- {\ensuremath{\hat{\Psi}}}}{{\ensuremath{\hat{\Phi}}}+ {\ensuremath{\hat{\Psi}}}}$ for the same set of models at $k=10^{-3} Mpc^{-1}$. We see that like other modifications to gravity, the effect is to make $g$ grow. In contrast to other parametrizations of modified gravity [@PPF2; @phipsi] however, the difference of ${\ensuremath{\hat{\Phi}}}- {\ensuremath{\hat{\Psi}}}$ is sourced by $\dot{{\ensuremath{\hat{\Phi}}}}$ rather than $\Phi$.
This scheme can be used to consistently add terms to the Einstein equations which may or may not depend on extra fields, and possible metric functions. The fluctuation equations can then be solved to obtain observable spectra. An important issue is to find predictions concerning these extra parameters for upcoming precision experiments such as the Square Kilometer Array [@SKA] and the EUCLID project.
[*Acknoledgments:* ]{} I’m greatful to M.Bañados, R. Durrer, P. Ferreira and W. Hu for important comments. Research at Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics is supported in part by the Goverment of Canada through NSERC and by the Province of Ontario through MRI.
[99]{}
D.Lovelock, Arch.Rat.Mech.Anal. [**33**]{}, 54 (1969).
D. R. Grigore, [Class. Quant. Grav. [**9**]{}, 1555 (1992) ]{}.
P.Jordan, Nature (London) [**164**]{}, 637 (1949); Z.Phys. [**157**]{}, 112 (1959); M.Fierz, Helv. Phys. Acta [**29**]{}, 128 (1956); C.Brans and R.H.Dicke, Phys. Rev. [**124**]{}, 925 (1961). J. D. Bekenstein, , 083509 (2004); J.W. Moffat, JCAP [**0603**]{},004 (2006); C. Skordis, arXiv:0801.1985. M.Bañados, ArXiv:0801.4103. E. A. Lim, , 063504 (005) ;T. Zlosnik, P.Ferreira and G. Starkman, , 044017 (2007). P. Mannheim and D. Kazanas, [, 635 (1989) ]{}. W-T Ni, [, 2880 (1973) ]{}; R.H.Sanders, [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**480**]{}, 492 (1997); M. Visser, Gen. Rel. Grav. [**30**]{}, 1717 (1998). G.R.Dvali, G.Gabadadze and M.Porrati, Phys.Lett. [**B485**]{}, 208 (2000); M.E.Soussa and R.P.Woodard, [Class. Quant. Grav. [**20**]{}, 2737 (2003) ]{}; A.O. Barvinsky, Phys.Lett.[**B572**]{},109 (2003). L. Knox, Y-S Song and J.A. Tyson, [, 023512 (2006) ]{}; M. Ishak, A. Upadhye and D.N.Spergel, [, 043513 (2006) ]{}; D. Huterer and E. Linder, [, 023519 (2007) ]{}; S. Wang, L. Hui, M. May and Z. Haiman, [, 063503 (2007) ]{}. R. Caldwell, A. Cooray and A. Melchiorri, , 023507 (2007); P. Zhang, M. Liguori,R. Bean and S. Dodelson,, 141302 (2007); L. Amendola, M. Kunz and D. Sapone, JCAP, [**0804**]{} , 013 (2008); P. Jain and P. Zhang, arXiv:0709.2375; S. F. Daniel, R.R. Caldwell, A.Cooray and A. Melchiorri, arXiv:0802.1068. F. Schmidt, M. Liguori and S. Dodelson, , 083518 (2007); M. Amin, R. Wagoner and A. Blandford, arXiv:0708.1793. W. Hu and I. Sawicki, [, 104043 (2007) ]{}. W. Hu, ArXiV:0801-2433. W. Hu, [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**506**]{}, 485 (1998). M.Bañados, P. Ferreira and C. Skordis, in preparation. C. Skordis, in preparation. E. Bertschinger, , 796 (2006). http://www.skatelescope.org/
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
**Electron Phenomena in Layered Conductors** {#electron-phenomena-in-layered-conductors .unnumbered}
============================================
[**C**]{}**ONTENTS** {#contents .unnumbered}
====================
INTRODUCTION
============
The search for new superconducting materials has focused attention on conductors of organic origin, which possess layered of thread structure with a pronounced anisotropy in the normal (non-superconducting) state. Many of them have the metal-type electrical conductivity, i.e. their resistance increases with increasing temperature and are known as artificial or synthetic metals. However, the electron properties of low-dimensional conductors differ essentially from those of ordinary metals, and the utilization of layered and thread conductors in different spheres of the modern electronics appears to be more effective than metals and semiconductors. In this connection it is useful to make a theoretical analysis of the electron processes proceeding in low-dimensional conductors.
It is of interest to investigate to what extent layered conductors are also the preferred objects for the investigations of the Kapitza’s effect.
A considerable part of organic superconductors are layered structures, and their conductivity along the layers is significantly higher than along the normal $\bs{n}$ to the layers. Many layered conductors, in particular halides of tetraseleniumtetracen and salts of tetrahiafulvalene, exhibit the metal type conductivity even across the layers. Thus there are grounds for making use of the concept of quasiparticles carrying a charge $e$, analogous to conduction electrons in metals, in order to describe electron processes in such conductors. Evidently, sharp anisotropy of the electrical conductivity is connected with the anisotropy of the charge carriers velocity $\bs{v}=\partial\varepsilon(\bs{p})/\partial p$ on the Fermi surface $\varepsilon(\bs{p})=\varepsilon_{\rm F}$, i.e. their energy ()=\_[n=0]{}\^\_n(p\_x,p\_y){} is weakly dependent on the quasi-momentum projection $p_z=\bs{pn}$. The Fermi surface of such conductors represents a weakly corrugated cylinder and, probably, some more closed cavities referring to the small groups of charge carriers.
Here $a$ is the separation between the layers, $\hbar$ is the Planck constant, the maximum values on the Fermi surface of the function $\varepsilon_1(p_x, p_y)$ is $\eta\varepsilon_{\rm F}\ll\varepsilon_{\rm F}$, and of the functions $\varepsilon_n(p_x,p_y)$ with $n\ge2$ being equal to $A_n$, is still smaller, i.e. $A_{n+1}\ll A_n$. Such form is characteristic of the charge carriers dispersion low in the strong coupling approximation when the overlap of the wave functions of electrons belonging to different bands is negligible.
Below we consider electron phenomena in layered conductors with the metal-type conductivity for the most general assumptions on the form of the quasi-two-dimensional electron energy spectrum.
GALVANOMAGNETIC EFFECTS
=======================
In contrast to the case of a metal, in the layered conductors placed in a magnetic field $\bs{H}$ both the absence of a response to the action of the field and the intensification of galvanomagnetic effects, characteristic of metals, are possible.
In 1928, P.L. Kapitza observed a wonderful phenomena – the linear growth with a magnetic field of the resistance of metals at liquid air and liquid carbon oxide temperature ranges \[1\]. For this purpose Kapitza created powerful magnets, in which the magnetic field attains 30–50 tesla. At that time in Leiden experimental investigations at lower temperatures were carried out, which raised the effectiveness of less strong magnetic fields by increasing the charge carriers mean free path. At liquid hydrogen temperatures instead of the linear increase of the magnetic field, the more complicated dependence of the resistance of single bismuth crystals was observed by Shubnikov and de Haas \[2\], and at helium temperatures the oscillatory dependence of the resistance on the inverse magnetic field – the Shubnikov–de Haas effect – was clearly demonstrated \[3\]. The oscillatory dependence is a common effect for metals, which is connected with the presence of the singularities of the density of states of the charge carriers while their energy spectrum is quantized by a magnetic field \[4\]. The amplitude of the quantum oscillations in metals is substantially less than the amplitude of the oscillations observed in bismuth, which is caused, by the sharp anisotropy of the Fermi surface of bismuth-type semimetals.
The Shubnikov–de Haas effect is also clearly manifested in the tetrathiafulvalene salts and halides of tetraseleniumtetracen, which have a pronounced layered structure \[5–14\]. A considerable increase in the amplitude of the quantum oscillations of the magnetoresistance in the layered conductors arises from the quasi-two-dimensial character of their electron energy spectrum. In metals, the Shubnikov–de Haas effect is formed only by the small fractions of charge carriers on the Fermi surface. These are electrons near the Fermi surface cross-sections whose areas cut by the plane $p_{\rm
H}=\bs{pH}/H=\mbox{const}$ are close to the extreme magnitude \[15–16\], or conduction electrons near the self-intersecting orbit \[17\]. In contrast to metals, in the quasi-two-dimensional conductors almost all charge carriers with the Fermi energy contribute to the quantum oscillatory effects because at $\eta\ll 1$ all closed cross-sections of the Fermi surface cut by the plane $p_{\rm H}=\mbox{const}$ are almost indistinguishable.
It is also of interest to find out to what extent the layered conductors are preferable objects for the investigations of the Kapitza’s effect as well.
The linear growth of the resistance observed by Kapitza was not in agreement with the main principles of the electron theory of metals, because in accordance with the Onsager principle of symmetry of kinetic coefficients \[18\] the resistance of a conductor must be an even function of a magnetic field. The first attempt to explain the results of the Kapitza’s experiments was made only 30 years later. The agreement with the Onsager principle of the linear increase with $\bs{H}$ of the resistance is related to the complicated form of the dependence of the charge carriers energy $\varepsilon$ upon their quasimomentum $\bs{p}$. The fundamental characteristic of the electron energy spectrum – the Fermi surface – is open for almost all metals, and in a magnetic field the orbits of electrons with the Fermi energy $\varepsilon_{\rm F}$ can pass through a large number of cells in the momentum space. The period of revolution of conduction electrons on such strongly elongated orbits $T=2\pi/\Omega$ may be greater than its free path time $\tau$ at however strong magnetic field. As a result averaging of the resistance of a polycrystal wire over all possible orientations of crystallites and, consequently, over electron orbits leads to the linear dependence of the resistance on the magnitude of a strong magnetic field ($\Omega_0\tau\gg1$, where $\Omega_0$ is the maximum rotational frequency of the Fermi electron in a magnetic field) \[19, 20\]. If the thickness of a polycrystal specimen of a metal f with an open Fermi surface significantly exceeds the crystallite dimension, then in a strong magnetic field the resistance $\rho$ is proportional to $H^{4/3}$ \[21, 22\], i.e. the $H$-dependence of $\rho$ is close to the linear one. If there are saddle points on the Fermi surface the frequency of revolution takes on all values within the interval between zero and $\Omega_0$ in a single crystal. This is the case when self-intersecting orbits, on which an electron cannot make a total revolution, may take place. However, a number of electrons near the self-intersecting orbit, for which the period $T$ is greater than the free path time, is proportional to $\exp(-\Omega_0\tau)$, because the period as a function of $p_{\rm H}=\bs{pH}/H$ diverges logarithmically on the self-intersecting orbit. As a result, in a very narrow range of magnetic fields the complicated dependence of $\rho$ upon $H$ changes for the saturation or the quadratical growth with increasing $H$.
In the quasi-two-dimensional conductors the period of revolution of charge carriers in a magnetic field is weakly dependent on the momentum projection $p_{\rm H}$, and there are grounds to expect that in such conductors a number of electrons near the self-intersecting orbit, for which $T>\tau$, is essentially greater than in an ordinary metal. These electrons, make a major contribution to conductivity in a significantly wider range of magnetic fields ($\Omega\tau\gg1$), and averaging of the frequencies of revolution will give another result in comparison with the case of a metal. In order to find out the connection between the current density j\_i=ev\_if()\^3p =\_[ik]{}E\_k and electric field $\bs{E}$ it is necessary to solve the kinetic equation for the charge carriers distribution function $f(\bs{p})$ (e+) =W\_[col]{}{f}.
At small electric field the deviation of the distribution function f()=f\_0()-eE\_i\_i() from the equilibrium Fermi function $f_0(\varepsilon)$ is small and the kinetic equation (2.2) can be linearized in small perturbation of the conduction electrons system. In this approximation the collision integral $W_{\rm col}$ represents a linear integral operator applying to $\psi_i$, which is the function to be found. At low temperatures when conduction electrons are scattered mainly by impurities and crystal defects, we may take, with sufficient accuracy, the collision integral to be the operator of multiplication by the collision frequency $1/\tau$ of the unequilibrium correction to the Fermi function $f_0(\varepsilon)$, i.e. the solution of the kinetic equation appears to be the proper function of the integral operator of collisions. When taking into account the other mechanisms of dissipation, the solution of the kinetic equation should be found in the basis of proper functions of the collision integral operator, but a correct solution of this complicated mathematical problem only enables us to improve unessential numerical factors of the order of unity and does not touch the functional behaviour of the physical characteristics of a conductor, i.e. their dependence on external parameters. In order to find out the dependence of the resistance and the Hall field in the layered conductor on the magnitude and orientation of a magnetic field, the $\tau$-approximation for the collision integral is used. In this approximation the kinetic equation takes the simple enough form \[\] +=v\_i, and its solution \_i(t,p\_[H]{},)=\^[t]{}\_[-]{} v\_i(t’,p\_[H]{},){} t’ allows us to determine the components of the electrical conductivity tensor \_[ik]{}&=&- p\_[H]{} \_0\^Ttv\_i(t)\
&& \^[t]{}\_[-]{}v\_k(t’){} t’\
&=&e\^2v\_i\_k. As the variables in the momentum space we have chosen the integrals of motion $\varepsilon$, $p_{\rm H}$ and the time $t$ of electron motion in a magnetic field $\bs{H}=(0,H\sin\theta,H\cos\theta)$ according to the equations &=& (v\_y-v\_z);\
&=& -v\_x;\
&=& v\_x.
![Different types of electron trajectories in the momentum space in a magnetic field applied parallel to the layers: [*1*]{}, an open trajectory; [*2*]{}, a closed orbit; [*3*]{}, the self-intersecting orbit containing the saddle points $\bs{p}_{\rm
s}$. The cross-section $p_y=p_{\rm c}$ separates the region of open cross-sections from the closed ones.](f1.eps){width="10cm"}
![Electron trajectories on the Fermi surface in an oblique magnetic field ($\theta$ is the angle of deviation of the vector $\bs{H}$ from the layers-plane). An electron orbit ([*1*]{}) passes through a few number of cells in the momentum space.](f2.eps){width="10cm"}
Suppose the Fermi surface of the layered conductor with the quasi-two-dimensional energy spectrum to be only one weakly corrugated cylinder with the direction of “openness” aligned with the $p_z$-axis (Fig. 1). If $\theta$ differs from $\pi/2$, all cross-sections of the weakly corrugated cylinder cut by the plane $\bs{pH}=\mbox{const}$ are closed and almost indistinguishable for $\eta\ll 1$ (Fig. 2). The angle $\theta$ approaching $\pi/2$, closed electron orbit becomes strongly elongated, and at $\theta=\pi/2$ transforms into two open orbits (Fig. 1). The period of motion changes discontinually and on the open cross-section cut by the plane $p_{\rm
H}=p_y=\mbox{const}$, takes the form T= =\_0\^[2/a]{} .
When approaching the limiting cross-section $p_y=p_{\rm c}$, which separates the region of open cross-sections from the small layer of closed ones, the period of motion $T(p_y)$ increases without limit. This results from the fact that the cross-section $p_y=p_{\rm c}$ contains the saddle points $\bs{p}_{\rm c}=(0,p_{\rm c}, 2\pi\hbar n/a)$, where open orbits touch one another, and electrons make a long stay near the points of self-intersection because their velocity in the plane orthogonal to $\bs{H}$ is negligible (Fig. l[*b*]{}).
At $\theta=\pi/2$ the mean value of the velocity $v_x$ differs from zero \_x=T\^[-1]{}\_[0]{}\^[T]{}tv\_x(t) = =, and all directions of drift the charge carriers cover the whole $xy$-plane. In this case the components of the electrical conductivity tensor $\sigma_{xx}$ and $\sigma_{yy}$ coincide in order of magnitude with the conductivity along the layers in the absence of a magnetic field. However, at $\eta\ll 1$ the components of the tensor $\sigma_{ij}$ with one or two $z$ indices are incredible small and in a strong magnetic field they also decrease with increasing $H$ because ${\bar v}_z=0$.
Being determined up to terms proportional to $\eta$, the period of motion along an orbit sufficiently distant from the self-intersecting one, is inversely proportional to $v_x(0)$ (we have taken the central cross-section $p_z=0$ as the origin of the variable $t$). When an electron approaches the self-intersecting orbit $p_y=p_{\rm c}$, its velocity along the $x$-axis decreases and allowance for small corrections in $\eta$ becomes necessary. The period of motion of electrons along the orbit on which $p_{\rm H}$ is close to $p_{\rm c}$ is very large, since electrons stay for a long time near the saddle point $\bs{p}_{\rm c}=(0,p_{\rm c},0)$, where $v_x=v_z=0$ (see Fig. l[*b*]{}). In the vicinity of the cross-section $p_{\rm H}=p_{\rm c}$ the electron velocity projection $v_x$ is a complicated function of $t$, but far from this cross-section the small corrections in $\eta$ depending on $t$ can be omitted in the expression for $v_x(t)$. The period of charge carriers motion has the form T(p\_[H]{})== and at $v_x\ll v_{\rm F}=\varepsilon_{\rm F}a/\hbar$ may become comparable with the free path time. As a result the charge carriers with the small value of the velocity projection $v_x$ give the major contribution into $\sigma_{iz}$ and $\sigma_{zi}$. Regardless of the small corrections depending on $t$, $p_z$ is the linear function of the time of motion in a magnetic field, and the velocity projection v\_z=-\_[n=1]{}\^ \_n(p\_x,p\_y)(nt) is determined mainly by the first term in Equation (2.11). It is not difficult to calculate the conductivity component $\sigma_{zz}$ in this case: \_[zz]{}= 2m\^\*p\_[H]{} \_[n=1]{}\^.
In the vicinity of the cross-section $p_{\rm H}=p_{\rm c}$ the numerators in Equation (2.12) should be improved by changing them for $|v_z^n|^2$. Since for these charge carriers $p_z$ is a complicated function of $t$, the Fourier transforms of the velocities $v_z^n$ need not be decreasing with $n$, and the contribution in the asymptotic value of $\sigma_{zz}$ from electrons belonging to the vicinity of the saddle point is not limited only by the first harmonic in the Fourier expansion of the function $v_z(t)$. At the limiting cross-section $p_y=p_{\rm c}$ the maximum value of the velocity of electron motion along the $x$-axis is equal in the order of magnitude to $\eta^{1/2}v_{\rm F}$ and $t$-dependence of $v_x$ is of no importance only at $v_x(0)\gg\eta^{1/2}v_{\rm F}$.
Let $\sigma_{zz}$ be represented in the form $\sigma_{zz}=\sigma_{zz}^{(1)}+\sigma_{zz}^{(2)}+\sigma_{zz}^{(3)}$, where $\sigma_{zz}^{(1)}$ describes the contribution of the charge carriers whose velocity $v_z$ is given by Equation (2.11), the second term is the contribution to $\sigma_{zz}$ from conduction electrons on the open orbits for which $v_x\le\eta^{1/2}v_{\rm F}$, and the last term \_[zz]{}\^[(3)]{}= \_[p\_[c]{}]{}\^[p\_0]{}p\_[H]{}2m\^\*(p\_[H]{}) \_[m=1]{}\^ is connected with the charge carriers on the closed orbits.
Here $p_0$ is the maximum value of $p_{\rm H}$ in the Fermi surface reference point $\bs{p}_0=(0,p_0,\pi h/a)$ (Fig. l[*a*]{}).
At $\gamma_0=1/\Omega_0\tau>\eta^{1/2}$ the integration in $p_{\rm H}$ over a small interval where $\eta^{1/2}v_{\rm F}<v_x\ll v_{\rm F}$ leads to the following result \_[zz]{}\^[(1)]{}=\_0\^2\_0, where $\sigma_0$ is of the order of the conductivity along the layers in the absence of a magnetic field.
Near the reference point of the Fermi surface the charge carriers cyclotron mass $m^*$ is proportional to $\eta^{-1/2}$ and increases when approaching to the cross-section $p_{\rm H}=p_{\rm c}$, on which it becomes infinite. At $\eta^{1/2}\ll\gamma_0$ conduction electrons on the closed cross-sections have no time to make a total revolution along the orbit and give the following contribution into $\sigma_{zz}$: \_[zz]{}\^[(3)]{}= \_[p\_[c]{}]{}\^[p\_0]{}2m\^\*(p\_[H]{})p\_[H]{} [|v]{}\_z\^2=\_0\^[5/2]{}.
Here and below we shall omit unessential factors of the order of unity in formulas for $\sigma_{zz}$.
Thus, at $\eta^{1/2}\ll\gamma_0\ll1$ a small fraction of conduction electrons on the open orbits moving slowly along the $x$-axis gives the main contribution to $\sigma_{zz}$.
A number of conduction electrons for which $T>\tau$ decreases with increasing magnetic field, and the contribution to $\sigma_{zz}$ of the charge carriers on the orbits close to the cross-section $p_{\rm H}=p_{\rm c}$ becomes essential. Near the self-intersecting orbit the charge carriers velocity projection $v_x$ is small, i.e. their energy is weakly dependent on $p_x$, and we can easily find the $p_{\rm H}$-dependence of the period of motion from the expansion of the energy in the powers of $p_x$. We retain only the first two terms in Equation (1.1), viz. ()=(0,p\_y)+ +\_1(0,p\_y)().
Using Equation (2.7) we obtain T(p\_[H]{})= {}\^[1/2]{} \_[0]{}\^(\^2+\^2)\^[1/2]{}, where $$\xi^2=\frac{\varepsilon_0(0,p_{\rm c})-\varepsilon(0,p_y)
+\varepsilon_1(0,p_{\rm c})-\varepsilon_1(0,p_y)}{2\varepsilon_1(0,p_y)}.$$
At $\xi\ll1$ the period of motion of charge carriers T(p\_[H]{})\_0\^[-1]{}\^[-1/2]{}() diverges logarithmically, and the contribution into $\sigma_{zz}$ of electrons belonging to the small vicinity (of the order of $\Delta p_{\rm H}=p_{\rm c}-p_{\rm H}\cong p_{\rm c}\eta$) of the limiting cross-section has the form \_[zz]{}\^[(2)]{}=\_0\^[5/2]{}\_0\^2 \_\^[1]{}u \_0.
In ordinary metals the period of motion of charge carriers is greater or comparable with the free path time only in a small region (about $\exp[-\Omega_0\tau]$) of the Fermi surface self-intersecting cross-section. In contrast to the case of a metal, in the quasi-two-dimensional conductors the condition $T\ge \tau$ is satisfied in a wider range of electron orbits, where $\xi$ can be of the order of unity.
At $\eta^{1/2}\ll\gamma_0$ the contribution into $\sigma_{zz}$ of charge carriers in the vicinity of the self-intersecting cross-section of the order of $p_0\eta$ is very incredibly small and $\sigma_{zz}\cong\sigma_{zz}^{(1)}$, whereas in the opposite case these charge carriers contribute to conductivity on a level with other conduction electrons. It is easy to determine that at $\eta>\gamma_0^2$ the conductivity $\sigma_{zz}^{(1)}$ also decreases proportionally to $\gamma_0^2$ as a magnetic field increases. As a result, in the range of strong magnetic fields when $\gamma_0\le\eta^{1/2}$, we have \_[zz]{}\_0\^[3/2]{}\_0\^2.
In the layered conductors the Hall field also behave differently to metals. In order to demonstrate the results obtained more visibly, we consider the galvanomagnetic phenomena using the simple model of the charge carriers dispersion law ()= -(). This is the approximation at which charge carriers are assumed to be almost free in the layers-plane. Since the main contribution to the electrical conductivity across the layers is given by electrons with small $v_x$-velocity and the dependence of $\varepsilon_n(p_x,p_y)$ on $p_y$ is nonessential at $\theta=\pi/2$, the analysis of the galvanomagnetic effects given below applies.
Making use of the equation of charge carriers motion in a magnetic field (2.7) at $\theta=\pi/2$ and of the dispersion law (2.21), we have \_z=(\_x-v\_x), where $\gamma=mc/eH\tau$. From this it follows that \_[zz]{}=\_[zx]{};\_[xz]{}=(\_[xx]{}-\_0);\_[zx]{}=-\_[xz]{}, and the matrix $\sigma_{ij}$ has the form \_[ij]{}=(
[ccc]{} \_0-\^[-2]{}\_[zz]{}&0&-\^[-1]{}\_[zz]{}\
0&\_0&0\
\^[-1]{}\_[zz]{}&0&\_[zz]{}
). For the inverse tensor of the resistance we have \_[ij]{}=(
[ccc]{} \_0\^[-1]{}&0&-(\_0)\^[-1]{}\
0&\_0\^[-1]{}&0\
(\_0)\^[-1]{}&0&\_[zz]{}\^[-1]{}-\_0\^[-1]{}\^[-2]{}
).
It can be seen that the resistance along the normal to the layers $\rho_{zz}$ to a good accuracy is equal to $1/\sigma_{zz}$ and grows linearly with a magnetic field at $\eta^{1/2}\ll\gamma\ll1$. The Hall field \_[Hall]{}=R\[\] is also proportional to $H$, and the Hall constant $R$ is inversely proportional to the volume within the Fermi surface. In metals, the Hall constant is of the same form only in the absence of the Fermi surface open cross-sections.
=3 The absence of the magnetoresistance $\Delta\rho=\rho(H)-\rho(0)$ for the current directed along the layers is connected with the quadratical dispersion of the charge carriers in the $xy$-plane. For more complicated dependence of the charge carriers energy on $p_x$ and $p_y$ the resistance grows with increasing $H$ and tends to a finite value in a high magnetic field, as demonstrated in metals. However, the opposite occur in case of a metal, and the quasi-two-dimensional conductors $\Delta\rho$ is very small and disappears at $\eta=0$. This follows from the fact that the only projection onto the normal to the layers of a magnetic field, which disappears at $\theta=\pi/2$, fundamentally affects the charge carriers dynamics.
For $(\pi/2)\le\eta$ the conductivity along the layers is similar to that in the absence of a magnetic field, and the Equations (2.14) and (2.20) are valid for $\sigma_{zz}$ until $\gamma_0\ge\eta$. But at $(\pi/2-\theta)\gg\eta$ there are no self-intersecting orbits, and in actually attained strong magnetic fields the in-plane resistance tends to a finite value in a large range of angles $\theta$ of deviation of the field from the layers-plane.
Using Equation (2.21) for the cargo carriers dispersion law, we have for the conductivity tensor
\_[ij]{}=(
[ccc]{} &\_[xy]{} &-\
-\_[xy]{} &\_0- &\
& &\_[zz]{}
); and for the resistance tensor \_[ij]{}=(
[ccc]{} \_0\^[-1]{} & &-\
- &\_0\^[-1]{} &0\
&0 &\_[zz]{}\^[-1]{}-
); where $$\sigma_{xy}=\frac{\gamma_0\cos\theta}{(\gamma_0^2+\cos^2\theta)^2}
[\sigma_0(\gamma_0^2+\cos^2\theta)-\sigma_{zz}\sin\theta\cos^2\theta],$$ $N$, is the charge carriers density.
The matrix $\rho_{ij}$ given above is valid at any value of a magnetic field (including weak fields), the Hall constant being equal to $1/Nec$ for an arbitrary orientation with respect to the layers of both the magnetic field and electric current.
For an arbitrary charge carriers dispersion law the magnetoresistance for the current, coplanar with the layers, differs from zero, as it occurs at $\theta=\pi/2$, and its magnitude depends on the angle of deviation of a magnetic field from the layers-plane. The magnetoresistance increases with increasing $\theta$ and becomes comparable with that in the absence of a magnetic field. On the contrary, the resistance of the layered conductor along the “hard” direction, i.e. along the normal to the layers, is very sensitive to the orientation of a magnetic field, and for small $\eta$ its asymptotic value may change essentially at some values of $\theta$. This follows from the fact that the velocity of the charge carriers drift along the normal to the layers ${\bar v}_z(p_{\rm H},\theta)$ disappears not only at $\theta=\pi/2$, but also at an infinite number of the values $\theta=\theta_{\rm c}$. On the central cross-section of the Fermi surface cut by the plane $p_{\rm H}=0$ the charge carriers velocity averaged over the period disappears, since \_z(0,)=\_[n=1]{}\^ \_[0]{}\^[T]{}t\_n(t,0) ()=0. When $\theta$ differs from zero essentially there always is such a value $\theta=\theta_{\rm c}$, and not a single one, at which \_[n=1]{}\^ \_[0]{}\^[T]{}t\_n(t,0) ()=0. and near the central cross-section the expansion of ${\bar v}_z$ starts from cube terms in $p_{\rm H}$. Since for $\eta\ll1$ the charge carriers velocity is weakly dependent on $p_{\rm H}$, at $\theta=\theta_{\rm c}$ the expansion of the conductivity tensor components $\sigma_{iz}$ and $\sigma_{zj}$ in a power series in the small parameters $\eta$ and $\gamma_0/\cos\theta$ start with terms of higher order than at $\theta\neq\theta_{\rm c}$. It is easy to make sure that the expansion in a power series in $\eta$ however small of the components $\sigma_{iz}$ and $\sigma_{zj}$ start with terms of the second or higher order. This results from the fact that for $\cos\theta\gg\eta$ not only the velocity, but also the momentum projection $p_i(t,p_{\rm H}=p_i(t)+\Delta p+i(t,p_{\rm H})$ are weakly dependent of $p_{\rm H}$.
When calculating the asymptotic value of $\sigma_{zz}$ \_[zz]{}(, H)&=& \_[0]{}\^[2/a]{}p\_[H]{} ()\
we may omit $\Delta p_i$ in Equation (2.33), if we confine ourselves to quadratical in $\eta$ terms. This gives \_[zz]{}&=&\_[n=1]{}\^\_[0]{}\^[T]{}t \_[t]{}\^[-]{}t’()\^2 \_n(t)\_n(t’)()\
&& {(p\_y(t)-p\_y(t’))}; where all functions under the integral sign depend on $t$ and $t'$.
As a result, for small $\eta/\cos\theta$ and $\gamma_0\ll\cos\theta$ the component $\sigma_{zz}$ takes the form \_[zz]{}&=& \_[n=1]{}\^n\^2|I\_n()|\^2\
&+& \_0\^2 {\^2 f\_1() +()\^2f\_2()}; where I\_n()=T\^[-1]{}\_[0]{}\^[T]{}t\_n(t) {p\_y(t)}, $f_1(\theta)$ and $f_2(\theta)$ are about unit and depend on the concrete form of the charge carriers dispersion law. Reference to them is essential only for those $\theta=\theta_{\rm c}$, at which in the sum over $n$ the main term $I_1(\theta)$ disappears.
For $\tan\theta\gg 1$ the expression under the integral sign in Equation (2.34) is a rapidly oscillating function, and $I_n(\theta)$ can be calculated easily by means of the stationary phase method. If there are only two points of stationary phase, where $v_x$ disappears, the asymptotic value of $I_n$ takes the form I\_n()&=&T\^[-1]{}\_n(t\_1) ||\^[1/2]{}\
&& {-}. Here $D_p$ is the diameter of the Fermi surface along the $p_y$-axis, the prime denotes differentiation with respect to $t$ in the stationary phase point, where $v_x(t_1)=0$.
As it follows from Equation (2.35), zeros of the function $I_1(\theta)$, repeat periodically with the period ()=. When the current is directed along the normal to the layers, the resistance of the layered conductor is determined mainly by the component $\sigma_{zz}$, i.e. $\rho_{zz}\cong\sigma_{zz}^{-1}$, and the Fermi surface diameter can be found by measuring the period of the angular oscillations of the magnetoresistance. Changing the orientation of a magnetic field in the $xy$-plane enables the anisotropy of the Fermi surface diameters to be determined. The possibility of studying the diameters anisotropy in the layered conductors is due to the presence of strongly elongated orbits, which pass through a great number of cells in the momentum space.
If the terms in the sum over $n$ in Equation (2.32) decrease rapidly with $n$ (so that $I_n(\theta)$ with $n\ge 2$ is less than $v_{\rm F}n\gamma_0/\sin\theta$), then at $\theta=\theta_{\rm c}$ and $\eta<\gamma_0/\cos\theta\ll 1$ the resistance along the normal to the layers grows quadratically with $H$ and tends to a finite value about $\sigma_0^{-1}\eta^{-4}$ only in the range of stronger magnetic fields when $\gamma_0\ll\eta\cos\theta$.
The $\tau$-approximation used for the collision integral is applicable to the analysis of the galvanomagnetic phenomena in the layered conductors with the quasi-two-dimensional electron energy spectrum of the tetrathiafulvalene salts type, because it does not contradict various experimental results. The measured angular dependence of the magnetoresistance \[5, 6, 11\] verify convincingly the existence of the orientation effect – the essential alteration of the asymptotic behaviour of the magnetoresistance along the normal to the layers for certain orientations of a magnetic field about the layers.
In the layered high-temperature conductors on the basis of oxicuprates the free path lengths are not great and realization of the case of a strong magnetic field ($\gamma\ll 1$) is faced with difficulties. In a weak magnetic field ($\gamma\gg 1$) the role of different mechanisms of the electron relaxation in the magnetoresistance is more essential than their dynamics in a magnetic field. In order to interpret the measured anomalies of the magnetoresistance of bismuth high-temperature superconductors (the nonmonotonical temperature dependence of the magnetoresistance, the negative magnetoresistance along the normal to the layers), the more correct account of the collision integral is necessary.
{width="10cm"}
For $\eta^{1/2}<\gamma_0\ll1$ the free path time is not contained in the asymptotic expression for the magnetoresistance, and the problem of the collision integral does not arise. When it is possible to obtain more perfect single crystals of the high-temperature metal-oxide conductors, for which the condition of the strong magnetic field can be satisfied, then at $\bs{H}\bot\bs{j}$ the linear growth with $H$ of their magnetoresistance will be expected (Fig. 3).
PROPAGATION OF ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES IN LAYERED CONDUCTORS
==========================================================
The depth of penetration of an electromagnetic wave into the layered conductor with the quasi-two-dimensional electron energy spectrum depends essentially on the polarization of the incident wave. A linearly polarized wave whose electric field is aligned with the normal to the layers can penetrate [*a priori*]{} to a greater depth than a wave with the electric vector coplanar with the layers. Under the normal skin-effect conditions, when the skin layer depth is much more than the charge carriers free path length $l$, the attenuation depth $\delta_\|$ for the electric field $E_z(\bs{r})$ is $1/\eta$ times greater than the skin depth $\delta_\bot$ for the electric field along the layers \_=\_. In the case of the anomalous skin effect, when the skin layer depth $\delta_\|$ is much less than $l$, the relation between $\delta_\bot$ and $\delta_\|$ has the form \_=\_\^[3/2]{}. In a magnetic field, especially under the anomalous skin-effect conditions, the relations between $\delta_\bot$ and $\delta_\|$ are more variable.
We consider the propagation of electromagnetic waves in the half space $x\ge0$ occupied by the layered conductor in a magnetic field $\bs{H}=(H\sin\phi,H\cos\phi\sin\theta,H\cos\phi\cos\theta)$, where $\phi$ is the angle of deviation of a magnetic field from the sample surface $x_{\rm s}=0$.
The complete set of equations representing the problem consists of the Maxwell equations ()&=&-i+;\
()&=&i;\
&=&+4; and the kinetic equation for the charge carriers distribution function $f(\bs{p},x,t)=f_0(\varepsilon)-\psi(\bs{p},x)\exp\{-i\omega t\} \partial
f_0(\varepsilon)/\partial\varepsilon$: v\_x +() +(-i)=e(x); the solution of which allows us to determine the relation between the current density and the electric field of the wave.
Here $\bs{M}$ is the magnetization of a conductor. Usually the magnetic susceptibility $\chi_{ij}=\partial M_i/\partial B_j$ of nonmagnetic conductors is negligible, and below we shall not distinguish between the magnetic field and the magnetic induction $\bs{B}$, except for some special cases, when the de Haas–van Alfven effect is most pronounced and results in the appearance of diamagnetic domains \[24, 25\]. The perturbation of the charge carriers system caused by the electromagnetic wave is supposed to be sufficiently weak, and here we confine our consideration to a linear approximation in a weak electric field. The Maxwell equations in this approximation become linear and we can also suppose the electromagnetic wave to be monochromatic with the frequency $\omega$, without loss of the generality. This follows from the fact that the solution of the problem in the case of an arbitrary time-dependence of the fields presents the superposition of the solutions for different harmonics. For this reason the time differentiation in the Maxwell equations (3.3) and (3.4) is equivalent to multiplication by $(-i\omega t)$. Below $t$ will indicate the time of the charge motion in a magnetic field according to Equations (2.9).
The kinetic equation (3.5) should be supplemented with the boundary condition allowing for the scattering of charge carriers by the sample surface $x_{\rm s}=0$ (\_+,0)&=&q(\_-)(\_-,0)\
&& \^3pW(,\_+){1-}(,0); where the sample surface specularity parameter $q(\bs{p})$ is the probability for a conduction electron incident onto the surface $x_{\rm s}=0$ to be reflected specularly with momentum $\bs{p}$. The specularity parameter is related to the scattering indicatrix $W(\bs{p},\bs{p}_+)$ through the expression q(\_-)=1-\^3pW(,\_+){1-}; $\Theta(\zeta)$ is the Heaviside function and the momenta $\bs{p}_-$ and $\bs{p}_+$ (of incident and scattered electrons, respectively) are related by the specular reflection condition, which conserves energy and momentum projection on the sample surface.
The integral term in the boundary condition (3.6) ensures no current through the surface. However, in the range of high frequencies $\omega$ the solution to the kinetic equation depends weakly on this functional of the scattering indicatrix and, without reference to it, has the form (t\_[H]{},p\_[H]{},x)&=&\_\^[t\_[H]{}]{}t e(t,p\_[H]{})(x(t,p\_[H]{})-x(,p\_[H]{}))\
&& {(t-t\_[H]{})} +\
&& \_\^[T-]{}t e(t,p\_[H]{})(x(t,p\_[H]{})-x(,p\_[H]{}))\
&& {(t-t\_[H]{}+2-T)}; where $\nu=-i\omega+1/\tau$, and $\lambda$ is the nearest to $t_{\rm H}$ root of the equation x(t,p\_[H]{})-x(,p\_[H]{})= \_\^[t]{}v\_x(t’,p\_[H]{})t’=x;
For electrons that do not collide with the specimen boundary, i.e. at $\{x(t_{\rm H},p_{\rm H})-x_{\rm min}\}<x$, one should put $\lambda=-\infty$.
After several collisions with the surface $x_{\rm s}=0$ in an oblique magnetic field electrons either move into the bulk of the conductor or tend to approach the surface. The relative number of electrons is not large and they do not contribute markedly to an alternating current at $\phi\cong 1$. The contribution of the remaining electrons, naturally, depends on the nature of their interaction with the surface, but the state of the surface influences unessential numerical factors of the order of unity in the expression for the surface impedance.
Following Reuter and Sondheimer \[26\], we continue the electric field and the current density in an even manner to the region of negative values of $x$, and apply a Fourier transformation, viz. (k)&=&2\_[0]{}\^x(x)kx;\
(k)&=&2\_[0]{}\^x(x)kx. As a result, the Maxwell equations after the exclusion of the magnetic field of the wave takes the form {k\^2-}E\_(k) -=-2E\_’(0);=(y,z), where the prime denotes differentiation with respect to $x$.
The solution of the kinetic equation (3.8) allows us to find the relation between the Fourier transforms of the electric field and the current density. j\_i(k)=\_[ij]{}(k)E\_j(k)+ k’Q\_[ij]{}(k,k’)E\_j(k’); where \_[ij]{}(k)&=& p\_[H]{} \_[0]{}\^[T]{}tv\_i(t,p\_[H]{}) \_[-]{}\^[t]{}t’v\_j(t’,p\_[H]{})\
&& {(t’-t)}k{x(t’,p\_[H]{})-x(t,p\_[H]{})}\
&& e\^2v\_i[R]{}v\_j. The kernel of the integral operator $Q_{ij}$ depends essentially on the condition of the specimen surface, i.e. on the probability of the specular reflection of charge carriers.
The electric field $E_x(x)$ should be determined from the Poisson equation =4e, which in conductors with a high charge carriers density reduces to the condition of electrical neutrality of a conductor =0. The condition of charge conservation, following from the continuity equation -ie+=0; and the macroscopic boundary condition (the absence of the current through the surface $x_{\rm s}=0$) enable us to relate the electric field $E_x(x)$ with the other components of the field. The equality to zero of the current $j_x$ for any $x$, j\_x(k)=\_[xx]{}(k)E\_x(k)+\_[x]{}(k)E\_(k)=0; =(y,z), together with the Equation (3.11) allows us to find the Fourier-transform $\bs{E}(k)$, and then, by using the inverse Fourier transformation, to obtain the distribution of the electric field in the conductor E\_(x)=\_[0]{}\^k E\_(k){-ikx}.
Normal Skin Effect
------------------
The penetration of an electromagnetic field into the conductor under the following conditions: when the current density $\bs{j}(\bs{r})$ is determined by the value of the electric field $\bs{E}(\bs{r})$ in the same point $\bs{r}$, is known as the normal skin effect.
In the absence of open electron orbits, the high-frequency current may be produced mainly by conduction electrons that are removed from the surface at greater distance than the electron orbit diameter and do not collide with the sample surface. This takes place in sufficiently strong magnetic fields parallel to the sample surface ($\phi=0$) when the curvature radius $r$ of the charge carriers trajectory is much less than the skin-layer depth. In this case the relation between the current density and the electric field can be treated as local, as in the case of the normal skin-effect, although we may take any proportion between $l$ and $\delta$.
The depth of the skin-layer is determined by the roots of the dispersion equation {(k\^2-) -\_(k)} =0, where \_(k)=\_(k)- ; ,=(y,z).
At $kr\ll 1$ the asymptotic expression for $\sigma_{ij}(k)$ is of the same form as that in a uniform electric field, hence $\sigma_{zz}$ can be described by Equations (2.31)–(2.33), where the frequency of collisions $1/\tau$ should be replaced by $\nu$. In a strong magnetic field the asymptotic value of $\sigma_{yy}$ is proportional to $\sigma_0(\eta\tan\theta)^2$, because ${\bar v}_y={\bar v}_z\tan\theta$. However, in this approximation the Hall field is large and ${\tilde\sigma}_{zz}$ is of the order of $\sigma_0$ ($\sigma_0$ is the conductivity in the layers-plane at $H= 0$ in an uniform electric field). As a result, at $kr\ll1$ the electric field $E_y$ attenuates at distance \_\_0=c(2\_0)\^[-1/2]{} for any proportion between the free path length and the skin-layer depth.
At $\eta\ll1$ each of the components $\sigma_{zx}$ and $\sigma_{xz}$ is proportional to $\eta^2$ or to higher powers of $\eta$, so that ${\tilde\sigma}_{zz}\cong\sigma_{zz}$. For small $\theta$ the asymptotic value of $\sigma_{zz}(k)$ is about $\sigma_0\eta^2$ and the depth $\delta_\|$ is $1/\eta$ times greater than $\delta_\bot$ (as for normal skin effect conditions), if the Fermi surface corrugation is not too small and $\eta\ge\delta_0\omega/c$. At $\omega\gg\sigma_0\eta^2$ and $\eta
r\le\delta_0$ the skin-layer depth \_= (1+)\^[-1/2]{} increases with increasing magnetic field and attains the value $\omega\delta_0^2/c$.
When $\theta$ is not small, there is a sequence of values $\theta=\theta_{\rm c}$, at which the asymptotic behaviour of $\sigma_{zz}$, (and hence of ${\tilde\sigma}_{zz}$) changes essentially. For $\tan\theta\gg1$ this sequence repeats periodically but the period as well as the values $\theta_{\rm c}$ differ slightly from those in the case of static fields. This results from the fact that the stationary phase points $\bs{kv}=\omega$ do not coincide with the turning points on an electron orbit where $v_x$ disappears. However the phase velocity of the wave $v_\phi=\omega/k=(\omega\tau)^{-1/2}\omega c/\omega_0\eta$ is much less than the Fermi velocity $v_{\rm F}$, hence the period of changing of the asymptotic value of ${\tilde\sigma}_{zz}(k,\theta)$ is determined, to a good accuracy, by the Fermi surface diameter and has the form (2.35). At $\theta=\theta_{\rm c}$ the asymptotic value for $\sigma_{zz}$ decreases significantly for small $\eta$, $\gamma=(\Omega_0\tau\cos\theta)^{-1}$, $\omega/\Omega_0$ and $kr$, viz. \_[zz]{}(k,,\_[c]{})= \_0\^2{\^2f\_1(\_[c]{})+\^2f\_2(\_[c]{}) +(kr)\^2f\_3(\_[c]{})}, where $f_i$ are the functions of $\theta$ of the order of unity.
The penetration depth for the electric field $E_z$ grows substantially for $\theta=\theta_{\rm c}$. In the angular dependence of the impedance there is a series of narrow spikes at $\theta=\theta_{\rm c}$, which in pure conductors ($l\eta^2>\delta_0$) diminish with increasing magnetic field, whereas at $l\eta^2<\delta_0$ they grow proportionally to $l\delta_0/r\eta$ if $l\eta<r<\delta_0/\eta$. At certain frequencies (not too high sufficiently), when the displacement current is small compared to the conduction current the solution of the dispersion equation (3.19) at $\theta=\theta_{\rm c}$ can be represented by the following interpolation formula \_=l()\^[1/2]{}.
In the case of low electrical conductivity across the layers, when the condition $\omega/c>\sigma_0\eta^2(\eta^2+r^2/l^2)$ is met, the skin depth $\delta_\|$ has the form \_={ 1+()\^2 +()\^2 }\^[-1/2]{} { 1+()\^2 }, and in a strong magnetic field, when $r<(l^2\eta^2+\delta_0^2/\eta^2)^{1/2}$, the electric field decay length across the layers is again $\delta_0/\eta^2$. In the region of sufficiently strong magnetic fields, when at $\theta=\theta_{\rm c}$ the relation $\delta_0/\eta\ll r\ll\delta_\|$ is valid, the impedance as a function of a magnetic field has a minimum value because for $r\gg l\eta$ the skin depth \_=l is inversely proportional to the magnetic field magnitude \[27, 28\].
At $\delta_\bot\ll r\ll\delta_\|$ the decay length pertaining to the electric field $E_z(x)$ is, as before, weakly dependent on the character of charge carriers interaction with the conductor surface, whereas the penetration depth for the electric field $E_y(x)$ is very sensitive to the state of the surface if $\delta_\bot$ is less or comparable with the charge carriers mean free path. In this range of magnetic fields the normal skin effect is realizable only for $\delta_\bot\gg l$, when the local connection between the current density and the electric field takes place at an arbitrary orientation of the magnetic field. Asymptotic expression for ${\tilde\sigma}_{yy}(k)$ at $kl\ll 1$ coincides with $\sigma_0$ up to numerical factor of the order unity and, hence, $\delta_\bot$ is of the same order of magnitude as $\delta_0$. However, the penetration depth for the electric field $E_z(x)$ depends essentially on the orientation of the magnetic field. The solution of the dispersion equation (3.19) has the form k&=& { \_0\^[-1]{}+\_[zz]{}\^[-1]{}\
&& \^[1/2]{}}\^[-1/2]{}. Inessential numerical factors of the order of unity depending on the concrete form of the electron energy spectrum are omitted in Equation (3.27). When $\theta$ differs essentially from $\pi.2$, in an extremely strong magnetic field ($\gamma\ll\eta^2$) the propagation of helical waves is possible. For $\phi\cong1$ one of the roots of the dispersion equation describes the attenuation of the electric field along the layers at distances of the order of \_=\_0 { 1+ }\^[1/2]{}.
It is easily seen that the depth of penetration for the field $E_y$ grow proportionally to $H$, when $\gamma\ll\eta$. At $\gamma\gg\eta^2$ the electric field along the normal attenuates at distances \_=\_0 ( )\^[1/2]{}, i.e. at distances of the order of $\delta_0/\eta$, as in the absence of a magnetic field.
The specific dependence of the attenuation length for the field $E_z(x)$ takes place at $\theta=\pi/2$, when, apart from the charge carriers drift along $\bs{H}$-direction, in the $xy$-plane there are many possible directions of drift for charge carriers belonging to open Fermi surface cross-sections. In this case the dependence of $\sigma_{zz}$ on the magnitude of a strong magnetic field ($\gamma_0\ll 1$), given by the following interpolation expression \_[zz]{}=\_0\_0\^2\^2 (\_0\^2+)\^[-1/2]{}, is the same for any orientation of a magnetic field in the $xy$-plane.
Using Equations (3.29) and (3.30), it is easy to demonstrate that at $\eta^{1/2}\ll\gamma_0\ll1$ the attenuation length $\delta_\|$ increases with increasing magnetic field as $H^{1/2}$, and at $\eta^2\ll\gamma_0\le\eta^{1/2}$ the length of electric field attenuation along the normal to the layers $\delta_\|\cong\delta_0/\gamma_0\eta^{3/4}$ grows linearly with a magnetic field.
Anomalous Skin Effect
---------------------
When the frequency of the electromagnetic wave increases, a local connection between the current density and the electric field $E_y(x)$ may be broken and the Maxwell equations appear to be integral even in the Fourier representation. In the presence of a magnetic field a strict solution of the problem has been suggested by Hartmann and Luttinger for some special cases \[29\]. If the numerical factors of the order of unity are not used, the dependencies of the surface impedance and other characteristics of waves on physical parameters can be obtained by means of the correct estimation of the contribution given by the integral term in Equation (3.12) to the Fourier transform of the high-frequency current. In a magnetic field applied parallel to the sample surface, the contribution to the current from charge carriers colliding with the surface is essential at $\delta_\bot\le r$. When the reflection of charge carriers at the specimen boundary is close to specular (the width of the scattering indicatrix $w$ is much less than $r^{3/2}/l\delta_\bot^{1/2}$), the contribution to the high-frequency current from electrons “slipping” along the sample surface is great and the asymptotic expression for ${\tilde\sigma}_{yy}(k)$ at large $k$ has the form \_[yy]{}(k)=. By means of the dispersion equation (3.19) the length of electric fields decay can be easily determined \_=\_0\^[6/5]{}r\^[-1/5]{} ( w+ )\^[2/5]{}; \_=.
In this region of weak magnetic fields ($\delta_\bot\ll r\ll l$) the impedance has a minimum at $r = wl$, the width of the scattering indicatrix being determined by the position of the minimum.
In a magnetic field applied parallel to the sample surface under the conditions of anomalous skin-effect, when the skin depth is the smallest length parameter, i.e. both $\delta_\bot$, and $\delta_\|$ are much less than $r$ and $l$, the universal relation between $\delta_\bot$ and $\delta_\|$ takes place at $w\ll r^{3/2}/l\delta_\|^{1/2}$, viz. \_=\_\^[4/5]{}.
If $w\gg r^{3/2}/l\delta_\bot^{1/2}$ and $\delta_\bot\ll r\ll l$, the high-frequency current is produced mainly by charge carriers that do not collide with the sample surface and the relation between $\delta_\bot$ and $\delta_\|$ has the form (3.2).
In the intermediate case, when $r^{3/2}/l\delta_\|^{1/2}\ll w\ll r^{3/2}/l\delta_\bot^{1/2}$, only $\delta_\bot$ is essentially dependent on $w$ for $w\ge r/l$: \_&=&r\^[1/3]{} ( )\^[2/3]{};\
\_&=&(wl)\^[2/5]{}\_0\^[4/5]{}r\^[-1/5]{}.
In the absence of open electron orbits the information on the skin-layer field can be electronically transported deeper into the conductor in the form of narrow field spikes, predicted by Azbel’ \[30\]. The electron transport of the electromagnetic field and the screening of the incident wave at the surface $x_{\rm s}=0$ is due mainly to the charge carriers that are in phase with the wave and move nearly parallel to the sample surface. At $\eta\le \delta/r$ field spikes are produced with the participation of almost all charge carriers \[31\]. Without reference to collisions, the intensities of the spikes at distances, that are multiples of the electron orbit diameter along the $x$ axis, are in the same range. Allowance for the scattering of conduction electrons in the bulk of a conductor, results in the attenuation of the field in the spikes at distance of the order of the mean free path. Thus under the anomalous skin effect conditions there are two scale lengths of wave decay. Apart from the damping effect over the skin depth the electromagnetic field penetrates into the conductor to distances of the order of the mean free path $l$.
In the case when $\eta\gg\delta/r$, spike formation is provided by a small fraction of order $(\delta/r\eta)^{1/2}$ of the charge carriers whose orbit diameter scatter near the extremal section is comparable to the skin layer depth. As a result, the spike intensities decrease as the distance from the face $x_{\rm s}=0$ increases, and apart from the factor $\exp\{-x/l\}$ every subsequent spike acquires the small factor $(\delta/r\eta)^{1/2}$.
While the angle $\theta$ approaches $\pi/2$, closed electron orbits become strongly elongated in the $x$-direction. When the orbit diameter along the $x$-axis exceeds the free path length $l$, the spike mechanism of the electromagnetic field penetration into the conductor is replaced by the electron transport of the field in the form of Reuter–Sondheimer quasi-waves.
Weakly Damping Reuter–Sondheimer Waves
--------------------------------------
Consider the electron transport of the electromagnetic field at $\theta=\pi/2$. In order to find the field in a depth of the conductor by means of the inverse Fourier transformation (3.18) we continue $\sigma_{ij}(k)$ analytically into the whole complex $k$-plane and supplement the integration contour with an arc of an infinitely large radius. The skin layer depth is determined by poles of the integrand in Equation (3.18), whereas weakly attenuated waves are connected to the integration along the cut-line drawn from the branching point of the function $E_j(k)$. It can be easily seen that at however small $\eta$ the components of the tensor $\sigma_{ij}(k)$ has a power $1/2$ singularity: \_[zz]{}(k)&=& {(\_+\^2-1)\^[-1/2]{}+(\_-\^2-1)\^[-1/2]{}};\
\_[yy]{}(k)&=&( )\^2 { ( )\^2 +1 }\^[1/2]{}, where $\omega_0$ is the plasma frequency, $\alpha_\pm=i(kv\pm\Omega_0)/\nu$ unessential numerical factors of the order of unity are omitted.
The kernel of the integral operator $Q_{ij}(k,k')$ as a function of $k$ has such a singularity as well.
At distances from the sample surface that are greater than either the curvature radius of the electron trajectory $r=v/\Omega_0$ or the electron displacement $2\pi v/\omega$ per period of the wave the electromagnetic field decreases proportionally to $x^{-3/2}\exp(-x/l)$. For $\Omega_0\gg\omega$ the slowly decreasing electric field $E_z(x)$ oscillates with $H$ at large $x$: E\_z(x)&=&E\_z(0)\^[-4/3]{} ( )\^[4/3]{} ( )\^[2/3]{} r\^[-1/2]{}x\^[-3/2]{}\
&& { - }; rx.
At $\eta\ll1$ the attenuation of the electric field $E_y(x)$ over the charge carriers free path length has the form E\_y(x)=E\_y(0) ( )\^[4/3]{} ( )\^[2/3]{} x\^[-3/2]{} { - }; x, and does not contain the magnetic field magnitude.
The oscillatory dependence of $E_y(x)$ upon the magnetic field magnitude occurs only in the case, when the charge with velocity $v_y$ is not an integral of motion, and manifests itself in small corrections proportional to $\eta^2$. Numerical factors of order unity, being dependent on the concrete form of the electron dispersion law, are omitted in Equations (3.37) and (3.38).
In a sufficiently strong magnetic field ($r\ll l\eta$) the asymptotic behaviour of the weakly damping field $E_z(x)$ changes essentially with displacement from the sample surface. In the absence of a magnetic field $\sigma_{yy}(k)$ and $\sigma_{zz}(k)$ have logarithmic singularities at $k_1=i\nu/v_1$ and $k_2=i\nu/v_2$, except were $\eta$ is not small. $v_1$ is the electron velocity in the reference point (in the $x$-direction) of the Fermi surface and $v_2$ is the velocity projection $v_x$ in the Fermi surface saddle point, where the connectivity of the line $v_x=\mbox{const}$ changes \[32\]. At small values of $\eta$ these branching points for the components of the high-frequency conductivity tensor approach each other, and at $\eta=0$ the logarithmic singularity is replaced by the power $1/2$ singularity of the form (3.35), (3.36). Let the integration contour in the $k$-plane at small $\eta$ be drawn along the cut-line from the branching points $k_1$ and $k_2$ parallel to the imaginary axis, to go round both branching points. Then the electric field $E_z(x)$ at large distances from the skin layer takes the following form. E\_z(x)&=& \_[k\_1]{}\^[k\_1+i]{} [k\^2-\^2/c\^2-4ic\^[-2]{}\_[zz1]{}(k)]{}\
&+& \_[k\_2]{}\^[k\_2+i]{} [k\^2-\^2/c\^2-4ic\^[-2]{}\_[zz2]{}(k)]{}
The integral along the line connecting the branching points $k_1$ and $k_2$ may be neglected; $\sigma_{zz1}(k)$ is the value of the function $\sigma_{zz}$ on the left side of the cut-line drawn from the point $k_1$, $\sigma_{zz1}$ is the value on the right side of the cut-line from the point $k_2$. $v_1$ is assumed to be larger than $v_2$. Making use of the dispersion law (2.21), we obtain the following expressions for the diagonal components of the high-frequency conductivity tensor at $k_1\le k\le k_2$ \_[yy]{}(k)&=& \_[0]{}\^ \_[0]{}\^[/2]{} ;\
\_[yy]{}(k)&=& \_[0]{}\^\^2 \_[0]{}\^[/2]{} ;\
It is easily seen that at $\eta=0$ the component of the high-frequency conductivity $\sigma_{zz}(k)$ is proportional to $(\nu+ikv)^{-1/2}$ and $\sigma_{yy}(k)$ is proportional to $(\nu+ikv)^{1/2}$, i.e. at $k=i\nu/v$ both of them have the power $1/2$ singularity,. When the Fermi surface corrugation is not small ($\eta\cong1$) instead of the power $1/2$ singularity the logarithmic singularity appears for $k=i\nu/v(1+\eta)^{1/2}$ and $k=i\nu/v(1-\eta)^{1/2}$. The integral with respect to $\phi$ has the power $1/2$ singularity at $k=i\nu/v(1+\eta\cos\alpha)^{1/2}$. Interchanging the order of integration with respect to $\alpha$ and $k$ in Equation (3.39), we obtain the following expression for the weakly damping component of the electric field at large distances from the skin layer E\_y(x)&=&E\_y(0) ( )\^[4/3]{} ( )\^[2/3]{} x\^[-3/2]{} ( )\^[1/2]{}\
&& \_[0]{}\^ { - }
At great distances from the sample surface the electric field along the normal to the layers can be described by the same formula, if the additional factor $\eta^{-4/3}\sin^2\alpha$ is written in the integral over $\alpha$. At $x\gg v/\omega\eta$ the integrand in Equation (3.42) is a rapidly oscillating function and the major contribution to the integral is given by the small vicinities near the stationary phase points $\alpha=(0,\pi)$. After simple calculations we have E\_y(x)&=&E\_y(0) ( )\^[4/3]{} ( )\^[2/3]{} x\^[-2]{}\^[-1/2]{}\
&&;\
&& x.
In the formulas given above unessential numerical factors of order unity are omitted. The factor at the exponent in Equation (3.43) is inversely proportional to $x^2$, as in ordinary metals. Such asymptotic behaviour of the electric field in the layered conductors takes place only in the range of large frequencies when $\omega\tau\gg 1/\eta$. The difference in asymptotic behaviour of the electric fields at such frequencies can be understood by watching the wave phase, which is carried away from the skin layer by conduction electrons with different velocity projections $v_x$. At a moment $t$ and a distance $x$ electrons carry information on the electromagnetic wave whose phase is late for the quantity $\omega\Delta t=\omega x/v_x$. After averaging over different values of $v_x$ we have (x)=v\_x { -it+ }.
It can be easily seen that the slowly damping wave, propagating with the velocity of electrons from the Fermi surface reference point $v_1$, is formed by charge carriers whose velocity $v_x$ differs from $v_1$, by the quantity $\Delta v_x\le v_1^2/\omega x$. If $v_1-v_2\cong v\eta$ is less than $\Delta v_x$, i.e. $x\le v \omega \eta$, then Equation (3.38) takes place, and in the opposite case, when $\Delta v_x\ll v\eta$, electrons from the small vicinity of the Fermi surface saddle and reference points produce weakly damping waves of the form (3.43).
In a magnetic field, the charge carriers that belong to one of the sides of the central open Fermi surface cross section, (at which the velocity $v_x$ alters periodically with time in the interval between $v_2$ and $v_1$) move more rapidly into the bulk of the sample. The weakly damping waves propagate with velocity, equal to the extremal value ${\bar v}_x$, and can be described by Equations (3.37) and (3.38).
Weakly damping waves are of the analogous form, in a magnetic field $\bs{H}=(H\cos\phi, H\sin\phi\cos\theta,
H\sin\phi\cos\theta)$ deflected from the layers-plane. If ??? and $\phi$ differ from zero essentially, the weakly damping wave at $\theta=\pi/2$ propagates with velocity ${\bar v}_x$, which is equal to the velocity of drift for charge carriers on the open Fermi surface cross-section containing the reference point with respect to the axis $p_x$. The asymptotic behaviour of the electric field $E_y(x)$ can be described by Equation (3.38), and the oscillatory dependence on the magnetic field, applied orthogonal to the axis of the corrugated cylinder, manifests itself, as before, only in small corrections proportional to $\eta^2$. However at $\phi\ll1$ and $\theta=\pi/2$ the asymptotic behaviour of $E_z(x)$ and $E_y(x)$ at great distances from the sample surface can change essentially.
In a magnetic field applied orthogonal to the surface ($\phi=0$) the electrons with closed orbits and also a considerable part of charge carriers on open orbits near the self-intersecting orbit, participate in the formation of the weakly damping waves at distances $x\ll v/\omega\eta$. If the charge carriers dispersion law used is, as before, Equation (2.21), $\sigma_{ij}(k)$ takes the form \_[ij]{}(k)= \_[n]{}p\_x 2m\^\*.
At a distance $x\gg v/\omega\eta$ the faster wave is formed by charge carriers with the closed orbit near the Fermi surface reference point and the factor at the exponent in the asymptotic expression for the electric field decreases proportionally to $x^2$ with increasing $x$. If $\eta^{1/2}\ll\gamma_0$, i.e. an electron has no time to make a complete revolution along the orbit during the free path time, then not only the field $E_y$ but also the field $E_z$ are independent of $H$ at such great distances.
At low temperatures, when the smearing $k_{\rm B}T$ of the Fermi distribution function for charge carriers is less than the spacing between quantum energy layers $\hbar\Omega$, the magnetic susceptibility as well as other kinetic characteristics oscillates with the inverse magnetic field in the quasiclassical region. In this case the amplitude of the quantum oscillations of the magnetic susceptibility may considerably exceed the monotonically changing part and even equal the magnitude $1/4\pi$. If the sample surface coincides with a plane of symmetry for the crystal, the main axes for the magnetic susceptibility tensor, coincide with the axes $y$ and $z$ accurately. The Maxwell equations in this case take the form { \_[yy]{}(k)+- (1-pi\_[zz]{}) } E\_y(k)\
+\^\*\_[yz]{}(k)E\_z(k)&=&-E’\_y(0);\
\^\*\_[zy]{}(k)E\_y(k)+\
{ \^\*\_[zz]{}(k) +- (1-4\_[yy]{}) }E\_z(k) &=& -E’\_z(0), where $$\sigma_{\alpha\beta}^*(k)=
\sigma_{\alpha\beta}(k)
-\frac{4\pi\sigma_{\alpha
x}(k)\sigma_{x\beta}(k)}{4\pi\sigma_{xx}(k)-i\omega},$$ $(\alpha,\beta)=(y,z)$.
It is easy to make sure that the oscillating part of the magnetization \_[osc]{}&=& { 2 \_[q=1]{}\^ p\_[H]{} h\
&& ( ) } decreases with increasing $\theta$, so that the amplitude of the magnetic susceptibility is maximum for the magnetic field directed along the normal to the layers ($\theta=0$), and $M_{\rm osc}$ is proportional to $\eta$ for $\theta=\pi/2$. As a result, when the electric field of the incident wave is linearly polarized along the normal to the layers, the surface impedance undergoes small quantum oscillations with an inverse magnetic field. The electric field in the layers plane attenuates at a distance $$\delta=
\left\{
\frac{vc^2(1-4\pi\chi)}{\omega\omega_0^2}
\right\}^{1/3},$$ if $\chi=\chi_{zz}<1/4\pi$, and the impedance undergoes giant oscillations at $(1-4\pi\chi^{\rm max})\ll1$. In the opposite case $((1-4\pi\chi^{\rm max}))<0$ homogeneous state is unstable for some values of a magnetic field which leads to the formation of magnetic domains.
The considered cases of electromagnetic waves propagation in the layered conductors with the quasi-two-dimensional electron energy spectrum prove that they possess a great variety of specific high-frequency properties, that will, undoubtedly, be used in modern electronics.
Such a strong dependence of the intensity of the wave on its polarization allows us to utilize even thin plates of layered conductors (whose thickness is much more than skin depth but less or of the order of the free path length) as filters allowing the wave to pass with a certain polarization.
ACOUSTIC TRANSPARENCY OF LAYERED CONDUCTORS
===========================================
When acoustic waves propagate in a layered conductor placed in a magnetic field, the quasi-two dimensional nature of the charge carriers energy spectrum is expected to be pronounced. Being very sensitive to the form of electron energy spectrum, the magnetoacoustic effects \[33–36\] have been used successfully for restoration of the Fermi surface, and in the low-dimensional conductors they are worthy of the special examination.
In conducting crystals apart from the sound waves attenuation related to the interaction between thermic phonons and coherent phonons with the frequency $\omega$, there are many mechanisms of electron absorption of acoustic waves. The most essential of them is the so-called deformation mechanism connected with charge carriers energy renormalization under strain =\_[ij]{}u\_[ij]{}. where $\lambda_{ij}$ is the deformation potential tensor.
In a magnetic field the induction mechanism connected with electromagnetic fields generated by sound waves is also essential. These fields should be derived from the Maxwell equations (3.3), (3.4) and connection of the current density with the strain tensor $u_{ij}$ and electric field =+ + can be found with the aid of the solution of the Boltzman kinetic equation. The field $\tilde{\bs{E}}$ is determined in the concomitant system of axes which moves with the velocity $\dot{\bs{u}}$.
The last term in the Equation (4.2) is connected with the Stewart–Tolmen effect.
In a weakly deformed crystal the complete set of equations for this problem is suggested by Silin \[37\] for isotropic metals and generalized by Kontorovich \[38\] to the case of an arbitrary dispersion law of charge carriers. A complete set of nonlinear equations for this problem, valid for any wave intensity, was derived by Andreev and Pushkarov \[39\].
Together with the Maxwell equations and Boltzman kinetic equation it is necessary to consider the dynamics equation of the elasticity theory for the ionic displacement $\bs{u}$. -\^2u\_i=\_[ijlm]{}+F\_i. Here $\rho$ and $\lambda_{ijlm}$ are the density and elastic tensor of the crystal. The equation contains the force $\bs{F}$ applied to the lattice from the electron system excited by the acoustic wave which is taken to be monochromatic with the frequency $\omega$. If the lattice strain is small, the force is F\_i=c\[\]\_i+ij\_i +\_[ik]{}, where $\Lambda_{ik}(\bs{p})=\lambda_{ik}(\bs{p})-
\langle\lambda_{ik}(\bs{p})\rangle/\langle 1 \rangle$.
In the linear approximation of the deformation tensor the change of charge carrier dispersion law (1.1) can be described with the aid of the deformation potential $\lambda_{ij}$ whose components depend on the quasimomentum $\bs{p}$ only and coincide in order of magnitude with the characteristic energy of the electron system, viz., the Fermi energy $\varepsilon_{\rm F}$.
Confining ourselves only to the linear approximation in a weak perturbation of conduction electrons under deformation of the crystal in kinetic equation, we obtain for $\psi$ the following expression: ={\_[ij]{}()\_[ij]{}+e}, where $\hat{R}$ is the resolvent of Equation (2.2) when $1/\tau\to\nu=1/\tau-i\omega$.
Let us consider an acoustic wave propagating in $x$-direction orthogonal to a magnetic field $\bs{H}=(0,H\sin\theta,H\cos\theta)$. Using the Fourier method, derive from the Maxwell equations and Equation (4.3) a set of equations for the Fourier components of the electric field $E_i(k)$ and ionic displacements $u_i(k)$: j\_(k)&=& k\^2E\_(k) -()\^2E\_(k), =y,z\
j\_x(k)&=&0,\
-\^2u\_i(k)&=& -\_[iklx]{}k\^2u\_l+j\_i(k) +\[(k)\]\_i+ik\_[ix]{}.\
Using the kinetic equation solution, we can conveniently express the parameters $j_i(k)=\langle ev_i\psi(k)\rangle$ and $\langle\Lambda_{ix}\psi(k)\rangle$, which characterize the system response to the acoustic wave, in the form j\_i(k)&=&\_[ij]{}(k)\_j(k)+a\_[ij]{}(k)ku\_j(k),\
\_[ix]{}(k)&=& b\_[ij]{}(k)\_j(k)+c\_[ij]{}(k)ku\_j(k), where the Fourier components of the conductivity tensor and of acousto-electronic coupling tensors are \_[ij]{}(k)=e\^2v\_i v\_j;&& a\_[ij]{}(k)=ev\_i\_[jx]{};\
b\_[ij]{}(k)=e\_[ix]{}v\_j;&& c\_[ij]{}(k)=\_[ix]{}\_[jx]{}. By substituting Equations (4.8) into the equation set (4.6), we obtain a system of linear algebraic equations in $u_i(k)$ and $\tilde{E}_i(k)$. After the inverse Fourier transform of the solutions of the obtained equation system, the problem of the distribution of the electric and strain fields in a conductor will be solved completely.
The Rate of Sound Attenuation
-----------------------------
The condition for the existence of nontrivial solution of the set of equations for $u_i(k)$ and $\tilde{E}_i(k)$ (which is equal to zero of the system determinant) represents the dispersion relation between the wavevector $\bs{k}$ and the frequency $\omega$. The imaginary part of the root of the dispersion equation determines the decrements of the acoustic and electromagnetic waves and the real part describes the renormalization of their velocities related to the interaction between the waves and conduction electrons.
However the sound attenuation rate can be also determined by means of the dissipation function $Q$ which is proportional to the variation with time of the entropy of a conductor \[40\]. Taking into account only the electron absorption of acoustic waves we have for the dissipation function Q=\_[col]{}{}; and for the sound damping decrement =, where $s$ is the sound velocity, the collision integral is taken in the $\tau$-approximation.
In ordinary metals the electromagnetic fields generated by sound are essential in the range of strong enough magnetic fields when the radius of curvature of the electron trajectory is much less than the mean free path and also than the sound wavelength, i.e. $kr\ll1$. If the charge carriers trajectories are bent so that 1krkl, the absorption of sound wave energy in a metal is determined mainly by the deformation mechanism. In low-dimensional conductors the role of electromagnetic fields generated by a sound wave turns out to be essential in a wider range of magnetic fields, including a magnetic field which satisfies the condition (4.11) \[41\]. In this range of magnetic fields, the energy absorption coefficient $\Gamma$ of the acoustic wave in an ordinary (quasi-isotropic) metal oscillates with variation of the reciprocal magnetic field. The amplitude of these oscillations is small compared with the slowly varying component of $\Gamma$, and the period is determined by the extreme diameter of the Fermi surface. This effect, which was predicted by Pippard \[33\], is associated with a periodic repetition of the conditions of absorption of the acoustic wave energy by electrons on a selected orbit, when a number of acoustic wavelengths fitting in this orbit changes by unity. Under conditions of strong anisotropy in the energy-momentum relation for charge carriers, Pippard’s oscillations are formed not by small fractions of electrons, but by almost all charge carriers on the Fermi surface. As a result, the amplitude of periodic variations of $\Gamma$ increases sharply compared with the case of quasi-isotropic metal, and these variations acquire the form of resonance peaks \[42, 43\].
If the acoustic wave polarization is aligned with its wavevector ($\bs{u}=(u,0,0)$) the equations system after the exclusion of $\tilde{E}_x$ takes the form ( \_[yx]{}k+ ) u +(\_[yy]{}-1)\_y +\_[yz]{}\_z &=&0;\
( \_[zx]{}k+ ) u +(\_[zz]{}-1)\_z +\_[zy]{}\_y &=&0;\
(\^2-s\^2k\^2)u +\
+\
+ &=&0,\
where \_=\_ -,&& \_[j]{}=a\_[j]{} -,\
\_[i]{}= b\_[i]{}-, && \_[ij]{}=c\_[ij]{}-,,=y,z.\
s= ( )\^[1/2]{}, && =. For $\omega\tau\ll1$ one root of the dispersion equation is close to $\omega/s$, so we seek its solution in the form k=+k\_1.
For $k_1$ we have k\_1&=& { (\_[yx]{}\_[xy]{}-\_[xx]{}\_[yy]{})\
&+& \_[xx]{}-i(\_[yx]{}-\_[xy]{}) +\_[yy]{} }\_[k=/s]{}.
The acousto-electronic tensors components oscillate with the magnetic field. When $1\ll kr\ll1/eta$ the spread of electron orbit diameters, $\Delta D\cong2r\eta$, is much smaller than the acoustic wavelength, and the amplitude of the oscillations may be comparable to the slowly varying parts of these functions. This leads to weak damping of acoustic waves under these conditions except for the values of a magnetic field at which the magnetoacoustic resonance occurs.
For example, for $\sigma_{yy}$ and $a_{yj}$ we have \_[yy]{}(k)&=&(1-kD);\
a\_[yx]{}(k)&=&-ikD, were $$G=\frac{4vD_{\rm p}e^2\tau}{ac(2\pi\hbar)^2},\quad
D=\frac{cD_{\rm p}}{eH\cos\theta}$$ and $D_{\rm p}$ is the diameter of the Fermi surface along the $p_y$-axis, $v$ and $\Lambda_{jx}$ are the electron velocity and value of $\lambda_{jx}(\bs{p})$ at the reference point along the $p_y$-axis.
It is easily seen that the parameter $\tilde{\sigma}_{yy}$ is largely controlled by the component $\sigma_{yy}$ and the denominator in the expression (4.14) decreases considerably at $kD=2\pi(n+1/4)$, and terms of higher order with respect to the small parameters $1/kD$ and $\gamma=r/l$ should be retained in the asymptotic expression for $\sigma_{yy}$-component of the tensor of high-frequency conductivity. This leads to the sharp increase of $\Gamma$, and the height of resonant peaks \_[res]{}= is proportional to $H$ if $l\ll kr^2$.
Out of the resonance, in a wide range of magnetic fields until $\sin kD$ differs essentially from unity, there is no need to take into account small corrections in the formula for $\sigma_{yy}$ and the sound damping decrement has the form = .
In this case the rate of sound attenuation decreases with increasing of the magnetic field magnitude. The attenuation length for a longitudinal wave is the largest when $kD$ is close to $2\pi(n-1/4)$. As a result, between resonant values of the sound decrement, which repeat with the period ()= the anomalous acoustic transparency should be observed with the same period (Fig. 4).
{width="10cm"}
One can easily derive explicit expressions for $\Gamma$ at any $kr\eta$ making use of an example of a layered conductor whose electron spectrum has the form ()= +v\_0(),v\_0=, and assume that the magnetic field is perpendicular to the layers \[43\]. In this case, at the lowest order in the small parameters $\gamma$ and $(kr)^{-1}$ the conductivity component is of the form \_[yy]{}= \[1-J\_0(kR)(2kr\_0)\], where $N$ is the charge carriers density, $r_0=v_0/\Omega$, $\Omega=eH/mc$, $R=2hc/eHa$ and $J_0$ is the Bessel function.
For $kR\eta\gg 1$, the Fermi surface corrugation is essential, and the acoustic absorption is similar to that in an ordinary (nearly isotropic) metal: =\_[k=/s]{} for $kR\eta\ll1$, peculiar properties of a quasi-two-dimensional conductor are manifested clearly, and $\Gamma$ is described by the expression &=&\
&& \_[k=/s]{}, where $$\mu=\frac{\pi v_0c^2\omega}{2s^3\omega^2_0\Omega\tau}$$ and $\omega_0$ is the plasma frequency. If it is comparable to that of ordinary metals ($10^{15}$–$10^{16}$ s$^{-1}$), the parameter $\mu$ in the range of ultrasonic frequencies is fairly small, and the function $\Gamma(1/H)$ has giant resonant oscillations. This shape of $\Gamma(1/H)$ is usual for any electron spectrum described by Equation (1.1).
It should be noted that the resonance attenuation of acoustic waves in ordinary metals in a magnetic field is observed only if the charge carriers drift along the direction of the wave vector \[35\].
In the case of transverse acoustic wave polarization, $\bs{u}=(0,u_y,u_z)$, the external magnetic field $\bs{H}=(0,H_y, H_z)$ is contained only in expressions for acousto-electric coefficients, hence $$E_\alpha=\frac{m\omega^2}{e}u_\alpha+\xi j_\alpha.$$
Having excluded $\tilde{E}_\alpha$ using Equation (4.8), we obtain j\_y(1-\_[yy]{})-j\_z\_[yz]{} &=& ( k\_[yy]{}+\_[yy]{} )u\_y\
&+& ( k\_[yz]{}+\_[yz]{} )u\_z,\
-j\_y\_[zy]{}+j\_z(1-\_[zz]{}) &=& ( k\_[zy]{}+\_[zy]{} )u\_y\
&+& ( k\_[zz]{}+\_[zz]{} )u\_z.
Taking a combination of these equations with the elasticity equations (4.3), we obtain the equation system, whose self-consistency condition |
[cccc]{} 1-\_[yy]{}& -\_[yz]{}& \_[yy]{}& \_[yz]{}\
-\_[zy]{}& 1-\_[zy]{}& \_[zy]{}& \_[zz]{}\
(im/e)+ik\_[yy]{}& ik\_[yz]{}& (\^2-s\^2\_yk\^2)+\_[yy]{}& \_[yz]{}\
ik\_[zy]{}& (im/e)+ik\_[zz]{}& \_[zy]{}& (\^2-s\^2\_zk\^2)+\_[zz]{}
|=0 yields damping parameters of the acoustic wave and the co-moving electromagnetic wave. Here $s_y=(\lambda_{yzyx}/\rho)^{1/2}$ and $s_z=(\lambda_{zxzx}/\rho)^{1/2}$ are the velocities of $y$- and $z$-polarized sound, respectively; \_&=& -k\_ -\_,\
\_&=& ik , and the components of the elastic tensor, $\lambda_{yxzx}$ and $\lambda_{zxyx}$, equal to zero if, for example, the $xy$ plane is a crystal symmetry plane \[44\]. Otherwise these components should be taken into account, but they do not essentially affect the result. This crystal symmetry is implied in Equation (1.1).
The pronounced anisotropy of the electron spectrum in layered conductors leads to different attenuation lengths of sound with polarizations perpendicular and parallel to the layers, in the limit of small $\eta$, the displacement of ions along the normal to the layers decays over a length $\eta^{-2}$ times larger than a wave with $y$-polarization. One can easily prove that expansions in powers of $\eta$ of the components of acousto-electronic tensors with one or two $z$ indices start with terms of second or higher order. Omitting in Equation (4.24) terms of the order higher than two with respect to $\eta$, we obtain (1-\_[zz]{}) \_[yy]{} &?&\
\[(\^2-s\_z\^2k\^2)+\_[zz]{}\] &=&0\
Since Equation (4.26) is factored, acoustic waves with $y$- and $z$-polarization do not interfer in this approximation. By equating to zero the first miltiplicator in (4.26), we obtain the equation for $k=\omega/s_y+k_2$, from which follows k\_2&=& \_[k=/s\_y]{}. The denominator in this equation is similar to that in the equation for $k_1$, so the absorption of the $y$-polarized wave has the same resonances as the longitudinal wave.
The deviation of the other root of Equation (4.26) from $\omega/s$ is proportional to $\eta^2$ when $\eta\to0$ and described by the expression k\_3&=& \_[k=/s\_z]{}.
The transparency of the layered conductor for the acoustic wave with the polarization parallel to the normal to the layers occurs only at selected values of a magnetic field when $\sin kD=-1$. If $\sin kD$ differs essentially from $-1$ the sound attenuation rate has the form \[45\]: =\^2{ 1+kD+kr\^2(1-kD)}. At a higher magnetic field, when $kr\ll1$, acousto-electronic coefficients appear to be very susceptible to the magnetic field orientation with respect to the layers \[46\]. If in the expression for $\Lambda_{zz}$ and $v_z$, i.e. \_[xx]{}()&=&\_[n=1]{}\^ \_n(p\_x,p\_y);\
v\_z()&=&-\_[n=1]{}\^n\_n(p\_x,p\_y) the functions $\Lambda_n(p_x,p_y)$ and $\varepsilon_n(p_x,p_y)$ decrease rapidly with $n$, the asymptotic form of the acousto-electronic coefficients are essentially different at some angles $\theta$ between the magnetic field and the normal to the layers. These are the values $\theta=\theta_{\rm c}$ at which $\eta^2$ in the expansion in powers of $\eta$ equal zero. For $\tan\theta\gg1$ these terms turn to zero repeatedly with a period $\Delta(\tan\theta)=2\pi\hbar/D_{\rm p}$, where $D_{\rm p}$ is the Fermi surface diameter along the $p_y$ axis. These oscillations are due to the Larmour precession of electrons in strongly elongated cross-sections of the Fermi surface which intersect a large number of cells in the reciprocal lattice, while the oscillation period is associated with a change of this number by unity.
In the case when the dispersion law is described by Equation (4.19), $\Gamma(\eta)$ is given by =\^2 , where $$\alpha=\eta^2\frac{s\omega_0^2\tau}{c^2\omega},\quad
\zeta=\frac{av_0m}{h}\tan\theta.$$
{width="10cm"}
If the plasma frequency comparable with the value $\omega_0\sim10^{15}$–$10^{16}$ s$^{-1}$ for a “good metal”, the parameter $\alpha$ is generally not small in spite of a small value of $\eta$. This complicates the form of the angular oscillations of $\Gamma$ (Fig. 5) \[46\].
One can easily find that the last term in expression (4.28) is a factor of $(v_{\rm F}/s_z)^2$ larger than other term in brackets. If $\theta$ is different from $\theta_{\rm c}$, the following expression can be derived for $\Gamma=\mbox{Im}\,k_3$ for $kr\ll 1$ and $\omega\tau\ll1$: =\^2\^2. But at $\theta=\theta_{\rm c}$ the acoustic attenuation length $l_{\rm at}=1/\Gamma$ is considerably larger because $\Gamma$ takes the form: =\^2\^2 . The latter term in Equation (4.34) is due to the mismatch between the zeros of the functions $\tilde{a}_{zz}(\theta)/\eta^2$ and $\tilde{b}_{zz}(\theta)/\eta^2$, on one side, and $\tilde{c}_{zz}(\theta)/\eta^2$, on the other side, at $\eta\to 0$.
For an electron spectrum of the form (1.1), (4.30), (4.31) the acousto-electronic coefficients $a_{zz}$ and $b_{zz}$ tend to zero at $\eta\to 0$ faster than $\eta^2$, i.e. $f(\eta)$ also tends to zero at a small $\eta$. Strictly speaking, this is the main feature of the electron spectrum (1.1). For this reason we retain the parameters $\tilde{a}_{zz}$ and $\tilde{b}_{zz}$ in the final formulas for $k_3$, although this does not correspond to the actual accuracy of the formulas, given the electron spectrum described by Equation (1.1).
If $\eta$ is not infinitesimal, but satisfies the condition ()\^[-1/2]{}1, the term $\xi\tilde{\sigma}_{zz}$ in the denominator of Equation (4.28) cannot be omitted. For $kr\gg1$ the damping rate of the sound with $z$-polarization may have resonances if ()\^[-1/2]{}(kr)\^[-1]{}1.
The condition of the magnetoacoustic resonance in rather strict for tetrathiafulvalene salts, which have been extensively investigated recently. In these compounds the mean free path is $10^{-3}$–$10^{-2}$ cm, and resonances can be observed at acoustic frequencies of the order of $10^9$ s$^{-1}$. But the effect of field orientation on the sound absorption can be observed in such layered materials at acoustic frequencies of the order of $10^8$ s$^{-1}$ because for $kr\ll1$ the ratio of the electron mean free path to the acoustic wavelength is not essential, and only the condition $r\ll l$, which is fulfilled in a field of 10–20 T, is obligatory.
The specific behaviour of damping of acoustic waves with different polarization can be used in filters transmitting waves of a definite polarization, and sound absorption may be a very accurate tool for studying electron spectra in layered conductors.
If an electron drifts along the sound wavevector (for instance, the sound wave propagates along the $y$-axis) the sound decrement reduces in $(kl\eta)^2$ times for $r/l\ll kr\eta\ll1$ \[47\]. The solution of the kinetic equation in this case takes the form = { (T+i||T)-1 }\^[-1]{} \_[t]{}\^[t+T]{}t’g(t’) {i\[(t’)-(t)\]}, where $g(t)=\Lambda_{ji}(t)k_iu_j+e\bs{v}(t)\tilde{E}$.
At $1\ll kl\eta\ll l/r$ in the expansion in the powers of $\nu T$ and $$\bar{\bs{k}}\bar{\bs{v}}T=\int\limits_{0}^{T}\mbox{d}t\,
\bs{kv}(t)$$ of the factor in front of the integral, the terms proportional to $\bar{\bs{k}}\bar{\bs{v}}T$ are the most essential. Finally, in the case when the charge carriers drift along $\bs{k}$ with the velocity $\bar{v}_y=\bar{v}_z\tan\theta\cong\eta v\tan\theta$, in the expression for the rate of sound attenuation $\nu T$ should be replaced by $kr\eta\tan\theta$. If $kr\eta\tan\theta\gg1$, i.e. during the free path time an electron is capable of drifting along the sound wavevector at distance which exceeds significantly the sound wavelength; the magnetoacoustic resonance predicted and studied theoretically by Kaner, Privorotsky and one of the authors of this paper \[35\] takes place. The resonance occurs at $\bar{\bs{k}}\bar{\bs{v}}T=2\pi n$ and in contrast to the case of an ordinary metal the amplitude of the resonant oscillations is determined by the parameter $kr\eta$ rather than by $kr$.
The formulas given above are valid when $\cos\theta\gg cD_{\rm p}/eHl$. If $\theta$ is close to $\pi/2$, i.e. $\cos\theta$ is so small that an electron has no time to make a total rotation along the orbit in a magnetic field, then the components of the tensors $\tilde{\sigma}_{yy}$ and $\tilde{\sigma}_{zz}$ are close to their values in the absence of a magnetic field. This results from the fact that in the quasi-two-dimensional conductor only the projection $H_z$ affects the charge carriers dynamics, and at $\eta\ll1$ the component $H_y$ manifests itself only in small corrections in the parameter $\eta$.
At $\theta=\pi/2$ the dependence of the sound damping decrement on the magnetic field magnitude is present only in the terms that vanish when $\eta\to 0$, and the magnetoacoustic effects are pronounced in the case of the shear wave with the ionic displacement along a normal to the layers only. In the range of a sufficiently strong magnetic field ($kr\ll1$) the attenuation rate for the wave with such polarization depends essentially on the magnitude of a magnetic field and its orientation with respect to the layers, and in the $\theta$-dependence of $\Gamma$ sharp peaks and dips appear. At $\tan\theta\gg1$ they repeat periodically with the period $\Delta(\tan\theta)=2\pi\hbar/D_{\rm p}$. The concrete form of the $\theta$-dependence of $\Gamma$ is analogous to the angular dependence of the electromagnetic impedance for $kr\ll 1$.
When the acoustic waves propagate along the normal to the layers, the Maxwell equations have the form {1-\_[xx]{}(k)}\_x -\_[xy]{}(k)\_y &=& \_[xj]{}(k)u\_j-(u\_yH\_z-u\_zH\_y)\
&-&;\
-\_[yx]{}(k)\_x {1-\_[yy]{}(k)}\_y &=& \_[yj]{}(k)u\_j+u\_xH\_z\
&-&.
It is easy to see that the electric field and the components of the matrix $\tilde{\sigma}_{\alpha\beta}$ do not disappear when $\eta\to0$ and, consequently, the induction mechanism of the sound waves attenuation is more significant. The drift of conduction electrons along the $z$-axis does not take place only for the magnetic field orientation in the layers-plane. If $\theta$ is not equal to $\pi/2$, at $kr\eta\ll 1$ the displacement of charge carriers along the wavevector for the period of motion in a magnetic field is much less than the sound wavelength. The acousto-electronic coefficients are of the same order of magnitude as the analogous values for the case of weak spatial dispersion being reduced in $kl\eta$ times, if $kl\eta\gg1$.
The dependence of $\Gamma$ on $H$ occurs only in the range of magnetic fields when $kr\eta\gg1$. At $\tan\theta\ll leH/cD_{\rm p}$ an ordinary magnetoacoustic resonance takes place and this is connected with the charge carriers drift along the sound wavevector. At $\theta=\pi/2$ electrons drift in the $xy$-plane only, that is the direction orthogonal to the wavevector. In this case the sound attenuation rate oscillates with $1/H$ which is analogous to the Pippard oscillations in metals (H)= { 1-(kr)\^[-1/2]{}( + ) }. Measurements of the period of these oscillations ( ) =, enable the corrugation of the Fermi surface to be evaluated. Here $D_{{\rm p}x}$ is the difference between the maximum and minimum diameters along the axis $p_x$ at $p_y=0$. The condition $kr\eta\gg1$ is very strict and can be satisfied in the range of a magnetic field where $r\ll l$ only for $\eta\ge 1/10$. Therefore, there are no grounds to expect that the clear dependence of $\Gamma$ on the magnitude and orientation of a magnetic field can be observed in the layered conductors.
Fermi-Liquid Effects
--------------------
Charged elementary excitations in conductors form a Fermi liquid, and their energy spectrum is determined by the distribution function for quasiparticles. As a result, the response of the electron system in solids to an external perturbation depends to a considerable extent on the correlation function describing the electron–electron interaction \[48, 49\]. Usually, the inclusion of the Fermi-liquid interaction of charge carriers leads to a renormalization of kinetic coefficients calculated on the assumption that conduction electrons form a Fermi gas. In some cases, however, the Fermi-liquid interaction approach leads to specific effects such as spin waves in nonmagnetic metals \[50\] and “softening” of metals in a strong magnetic field \[51\]. As a rule, in stationary fields Fermi-liquid effects results only in the renormalization of the charge carriers energy within the gas-approximation. For this reason, the analysis of the galvanomagnetic phenomena, when the charge carriers are assumed to form a Fermi-gas with an arbitrary electron energy spectrum, is equivalent to the consideration of the problem in the Fermi-liquid theory.
We consider the propagation of acoustic waves and co-moving electromagnetic waves with reference to the electron–electron interaction \[52–54\]. Charge carriers are supposed to form, not a Fermi-gas but a Fermi-liquid in which the correlation effects are essential.
Now the energy of charge carriers is a function of the density of elementary excitations. If the temperature is not too low, smearing of the equilibrium Fermi distribution function for charge carriers significantly exceeds the spacing between energy levels quantized by a magnetic field. In this case the energy of elementary excitations carrying a charge in the quasiclassical approximation has the form =\_0()+\_[ij]{}()u\_[ij]{} +(,,t), where $\varepsilon_0(\bs{p})$ is the charge carriers energy in undeformed crystal in the gas approximation; the second term takes into consideration the renormalization caused by the deformation; and the function (,,t)=(,’)f(’,,t) accounts for the correlation effects associated with the electron–electron interaction.
Here $\delta f=f(\bs{p},\bs{r},t)-f_0\{\varepsilon_0(\bs{p})\}$ is the nonequilibrium correction to the Fermi distribution function $f_0\{\varepsilon_0(\bs{p})\}$ for charge carriers in the undeformed conductor.
The Landau correlation function $\Phi(\bs{p},\bs{p}')$ can be expanded in the complete set of orthonormal functions $\phi_n(\bs{p})$: (,’)&=&\_[n=0]{}\^ \_n\_n()\_n(’);\
-\_n()\_m() &=& \_n()\_m()\
&=&\_[nm]{}, and the nonequilibrium correction $\delta f(\bs{p},\bs{r},t)$ should be found by means of the solution for the kinetic equation + + = W\_[col]{}{f}.
The collision integral $W_{\rm col}\{f\}$ disappears being applied to the Fermi function $f_0(\varepsilon)$ depending on the charge carriers energy with regard to the correlation effects. Below we shall consider the collision integral in the $\tau$-approximation, i.e. W\_[col]{}{f}= = .
The equation of charge carriers motion in this case is of the form = e+ -, where the last tern accounts not only for the force of the deformation but also for the Fermi-liquid interaction of charge carriers.
In the linear approximation in a weak perturbation of charge carriers the kinetic equation (4.45) takes the form { +e +\_[ij]{} -- - } &&\
&=&\
or + ++ = +eBv +\_[ij]{}, where &=&,\
&=& the function $\Psi(\bs{p},x)$ is found with the help of the solution for the following integral equation: (,x,t)&=& (,’) {(’,x,t)-(’,x,t)}\
&& , where $\varepsilon_0'=\varepsilon_0(\bs{p}')$.
Using the Fourier representation (,)=\_[n=0]{}\^k \_n(k)\_n(){i}, we obtain the following system of the algebraic equations for the Fourier transforms $\Psi_n(k)$: &\_n(k){1+\_n\^[-1]{}} + i\_n() \_[m]{}\_m()\_m(k)=\
&-ik\_ju\_i(k)\_n()\_[ij]{}()+ \_n() \[e(k) -k\_j\_[ij]{}()u\_i(k)\] ,\
where g=\_[-]{}\^[t]{}t’g(t) {i\[(t’)-(t)\]+(t’-t)}.
The value of $\omega\tau$ is smaller than unity even in pure conductors at low temperatures in a wide acoustic frequency range, and the integral term in Equation (4.53) can he taken into account in the perturbation theory. In the asymptotic approximation in the small parameter $\omega\tau$, the Fourier transform of the kinetic equation solution $\psi(k)$ is of the form (k)&=& {e\_j(k)v\_j+k\_i\_[ji]{}u\_j(k)} -i\_[n]{}\_n(1+\_n)\^[-1]{}\
&& \[ \_ne\_jv\_j-ik\_iu\_j\_n\_[ji]{}+\_n\_[ji]{}k\_iu\_j \]\_n and the acousto-electronic coefficients can be found easily. In the case, when $\bs{k}=(k,0,0)$ and displacement of ions is in the $xy$-plane, they are given by \_[ij]{}(k) &=& e\^2v\_iv\_j\
&-& ie\^2\_[n=1]{}\^\_n(1+\_n)\^[-1]{} v\_i\_n\_nv\_j;\
a\_[ij]{}(k) &=& ev\_i\_[jm]{}- \_[n=1]{}\^\_n(1+\_n)\^[-1]{} ev\_i\_n\
&& { \_n\_[jm]{} +i\_n\_[jm]{}};\
b\_[ij]{}(k) &=& e\_[i]{}v\_j\
&-& ie\_[n=1]{}\^\_n(1+\_n)\^[-1]{} \_[ix]{}\_n\_nv\_j;\
c\_[ij]{}(k) &=& e\_[ix]{}\_[jx]{}- \_[n=1]{}\^\_n(1+\_n)\^[-1]{}\
&& e\_[ix]{}\_n{\_n\_[jx]{}+i\_n\_[jx]{}}.
Using Equations (4.56)–(4.59) we can easily determine the rate of absorption for the acoustic wave. For brevity of computations only, we assume that $\phi_1(-\bs{p})=\phi_1(\bs{p})$ and $\phi_2(-\bs{p})=-\phi_2(\bs{p})$, while $\phi_n$ with $n>2$ are equal to zero. Taking into account that $\varepsilon(-\bs{p})=\varepsilon(\bs{p})$, at $\eta\ll kr\eta\ll1$ we obtain for $\sigma_{yy}$ the following expression: \_[yy]{}\^[liquid]{}=\_[yy]{}\^[gas]{}(1-L), where L= { \_1\^2(1+kD) +\_2\^2(1-kD) }, and $\phi_1$, $\phi_2$ and $v$ are the values of the functions $\phi_i(t)$ and the velocity modulus in the point where $\bs{kv}=\omega$.
At $kr\ll1$ the angular dependence of neither the electromagnetic impedance nor the sound attenuation rate undergo substantial changes due to the allowance for the Fermi-liquid interaction between charge carriers.
Naturally, the acoustic transparency and the sound attenuation rate of layered conductors with a quasi-two-dimensional electron energy spectrum depend on the intensity of the Fermi-liquid interaction between charge carriers. The inclusion of the Fermi-liquid interaction significantly affects the shape of the resonance curve but the period of oscillations of $\Gamma$ with $1/H$ and the positions of sharp peaks in the angular dependence $\Gamma(\theta)$ remain unchanged when Fermi-liquid effects are taken into account.
The magnitude of the Fermi-liquid interaction between charge carriers can be determined from measured electromagnetic and acoustic impedances either for different wave frequencies or at sufficiently low temperatures, when effects of the charge carriers energy quantization are manifested clearly.
POINT-CONTACT SPECTROSCOPY OF LAYERED\
CONDUCTORS
======================================
Point-Contact Investigation of Electron Energy Spectrum
-------------------------------------------------------
In 1965 Sharvin \[55\] studied the dynamics of conduction electrons by using a magnetic field for longitudinal focusing of carriers injected into a metal from a point contact. Figure 6 shows the schematic diagram of the circuit for longitudinal electron focusing, in which an uniform magnetic field $\bs{H}$ is directed along the line connecting two point contacts, viz., the emitter [*E*]{} and the collector [*C*]{} situated at the opposite surfaces of a thin plate. The longitudinal electron focusing was first observed by Sharvin and Fisher \[56\].
{width="10cm"}
Another possibility for observing focused electron beams in metals is associated with the geometry of the experiments in which the magnetic field $\bs{H}$ is directed at a right angle to the line connecting the contacts at the same surface of the sample (transverse electron focusing). This idea was proposed by Pippard \[57\] and first realized experimentally by Tsoi \[58\]. The diagram of a circuit for transverse electron focusing is shown in Fig. 7.
{width="10cm"}
It was noted even in first experimental \[55, 58\] and theoretical \[59, 60\] publications that electron focusing, a ballistic effect in its origin, is extremely sensitive to the energy-momentum relation for charge carriers, and the electron focusing signal might have extrema due to electrons belonging to open Fermi surface cross-sections \[60\]. A peculiar feature of the further analysis is the quasi-two-dimensional nature of the electron energy spectrum which is responsible for a significant difference in both the amplitude and the shape of electron focusing for the layered conductors and for metals with weakly anisotropic conducting properties \[61\]. This difference is associated with a small displacement of electrons in the direction perpendicular to the layers over the time of their motion from one point contact to another, and as a result, with the dependence of the electron focusing signal on the relation between the above displacement and point contact diameters.
Let us consider a standard experimental geometry for electron focusing observations, when the current point contact (emitter [*E*]{}) and the measuring point contact (collector [*C*]{}) are mounted either on the same surface or on the opposite surfaces of a plate. The quantity under investigation is the difference (measured by a voltmeter) in electrochemical potentials of the collector and a periphery point of the sample as a function of the magnitude and direction of the magnetic field $\bs{H}$.
In order to determine quantity $U$, measured with the aid of potential point contacts, let us consider a stationary nonequilibrium electron state described by the distribution function f(,)=f\_0() -e (x\_-()) which satisfies the Boltzman equation (2.2) supplemented by the boundary condition on the sample surface $\bs{R}\in\Sigma$ f(,) &=& f(,)\
&+& \^3’(-v\_n’)W(,’) \[f\_[’]{}(’,) -f(,)\](S\_i)\
&+& \_[i]{}f\^[(i)]{}(,)(S\_i), where $v_n=\bs{vn}$; $\bs{n}$ is the interior normal to the specimen boundary; $\Theta(x)$ is, as before, the Heaviside function, $\Theta(\bs{R}\in S_i)$ is a unit function that differs from zero for values of $\bs{R}$ belonging to the plane $S_i$ of the $i$-th contact opening; $\Theta(\bs{R}\notin
S_i)=1-\Theta(\bs{R}\in S_i)$; $f^{(i)}(\bs{p},\bs{R})$ is the electron-distribution function on the plane $S_i$. The electron monenta $\tilde{\bs{p}}$ and $\bs{p}$ are connected through the specular reflection conditions:
![A model of the measuring contact (collector [*C*]{}) shaped as a circular orifice of a diameter $d$.](f8.eps){width="10cm"}
()=();=\[\]. The Equation (5.2) takes into account the surface scattering of electrons and the injection of charge carriers into the sample through the current and potential contacts. The kernel of the integral operator $W(\bs{p},\bs{p}')$ (the surface scattering indicatrix) depends on the nature of the surface scattering (see \[62–64\]). The function $f^{(i)}(\bs{p},\bs{R})$ depends on the contact shape and the nature of its contamination, and must be found by solving a kinetic equation in the contact region. The condition (5.2) automatically ensures the current does not flow across the surface and potential contacts, and is conserved in the plane of the current orifice. The electric field $\bs{E}(\bs{r})=-\nabla\phi(\bs{r})$ in the sample is determined from the electroneutrality condition (3.15).
In the case of a bulk layered conductor and the current contacts of a large area which are placed at the opposite surfaces of the sample we can ignore the surface effects and not consider the boundary condition (5.2). It is well known \[65\], that at distances from the sample boundaries larger than the maximum mean free path of electrons $l$, an uniform electric field $\bs{E}(\bs{r})=\mbox{const}$ automatically satisfies the equation of electrical neutrality (3.15), and the relation between a current density $\bs{j}$ and an electric field $\bs{E}$ has an ordinary form (2.1).
Let a point contact [*C*]{} with an ideal voltmeter (of an infinite resistance) connected to it, be situated at the metal surface. The diameter $d$ of the contact is presumed to be much less than $l$. A transient current which appears at the initial moment will nullify as the potential far from the contact (at distances $|\bs{R}_0|\gg d$) in the bulk reaches a certain value $U$ (Fig. 8). We shall assume that the second potential contact is placed at the specimen periphery ($\bs{r}\to\infty$, $x>0$) where $f(\bs{p})=f_0(\varepsilon)$ and $\phi=0$. Then the potential difference, as measured by voltmeter, will be equal to $U$. The condition of the absence of the current $J$ through the measuring contact orifice can be written by representing the distribution function in the form f(,)&=&f\_0() -e {
[ll]{} \_()-(),&v\_3<0\
U-(),&v\_3>0
. ;\
J&=& \_[S\_[c]{}]{}\^2 v\_3(U-\_())(v\_3) =0. In this chapter the angle brackets indicate the integration over Fermi surface $$\langle\ldots\rangle=
-\int\mbox{d}^3\bs{p}\frac{\partial f_0}{\partial\varepsilon}
\ldots\, ,$$ $v_3$ is the velocity component perpendicular to the contact plane (Fig. 8); $\tilde{\chi}_{\bs{p}}$ and $\tilde{\phi}(\bs{r})$ represent the function $\chi_{\bs{p}}$ and the potential $\phi$ being perturbed by the measuring contact. The integration in Equation (5.5) is carried out over the area of the contact orifice, $S_{\rm c}=\pi d^2/4$. At distances $|\bs{R}_0|\gg d$ from the contact we have \_{
[ll]{} \_p,&x\_3>0\
0,x\_3<0
. ; (){
[ll]{} (),&x\_3>0\
U,x\_3<0
. . These relations are valid under the condition $d\ll |\bs{R}_0|\ll L_0$, where $L_0$ is the characteristic spatial scale of variation of the function $\chi_{\bs{p}}$ far from the contact [*C*]{}. When $d$ tends to zero, from Equations (5.5) and (5.6) we obtain the following expression for the quantity $U$ \[66\]: U= [v\_3(-v\_3)]{}, where the vector $\bs{L}$ defines the position of the measuring contact at the surface.
The function $\chi_{\bs{p}}(\bs{r})$ in the solution (5.1) of the kinetic equation (2.2) in the approximation of the relaxation time $\tau$ can be presented in the form \_() &=& F(-(t))()\
&+& \_\^[t]{}t’ (+(t’)-(t)) (), where $\lambda(\bs{r},\bs{p})\le t$ is the instant of time when an electron is reflected from the specimen boundary at the point $\bs{R}$ given by equation \_\^[t]{}t’(t’) =(t)-()=-, $F(\bs{r}-\bs{r}(t))$ is an arbitrary function of characteristics whose value is preserved along the trajectory of motion of charge carriers between two collisions with the surface. The condition (5.2) enables us to obtain an explicit expression for the function $F$. Representing the distribution function of electrons leaving the emitter in the form $$f^{(E)}(\bs{p},\bs{r})=f_0(\varepsilon)
-\frac{\partial f_0}{\partial\varepsilon}(\chi_{\bs{p}}^*-\phi(\bs{r})),$$ we can write the following expression for the value of the function $\chi_{\bs{p}}$ in the plane $S_{\rm c}$,of the collector orifice \[67\]: \_()=\_\^\* \_[n]{}q\^[n-1]{}(-\_nS\_[E]{}) ( - ) +\_(). where $$q(\bs{p})=1-\int\mbox{d}^3\bs{p}'\,
\Theta(-v_n')W(\bs{p},\bs{p}')$$ is the specular reflection parameter.
=3 Equation (5.10) contains the summations over the number $n$ of collisions with the surface of electrons injected from the emitter. The displacement of these electrons in the plane parallel to the boundary during the time $\Delta T_n$ of motion from contact to contact is $\Delta R_n$. The first term on the right-hand side of Equation (5,10) is the nonequilibrium component of the distribution function for electrons moving strictly along ballistic trajectories. This term determines the part of the signal on the measuring contact, which depends nonmonotonically on the magnetic field and contains singularities (extremes and kinks) known as electron focusing lines. The second term in Equation (5.10) results from electron scattering in the bulk as well as from scattering on the surface of the conductor ($\Delta\chi_{\bs{p}}\to 0$, if $\tau\to\infty$, $q=1$). This term is responsible for the emergence of background in the $U(H)$ signal which varies smoothly with $\bs{H}$. In this version, we will consider a more informative (from the experimental point of view) situation when $\Delta
T_n\ll\tau$ and $1-q\ll 1$, therefore we shall not adduce the explicit form of the function $\chi_{\bs{p}}(R)$ whose contribution to the electron focusing signal $U(H)$ can be discounted when the above inequalities are satisfied. In the case of pure contacts, whose diameter $d$ is much less than $l$, and relatively weak magnetic field, considered below, the affect of the field on electron trajectories can be discounted over a distance of the order $d$. In this case the function $\chi_{\bs{p}}^*$ is independent of the coordinate and momentum and is equal to the voltage $V$ applied to the contact \[68\].
In the case when the separation $L$ between the point contacts is much greater than the contact diameter $d$, the asymptotic behaviour of the integral in Equation (5.7) is conditioned by the fact that only a small faction of charge carriers starting from the emitter can reach the collector. These are electrons that belong to a small region of the Fermi surface near the points $p=p_0(\bs{H},n)$ specified by equations: \_n(\_0)=. The approximation of the step function $\Theta(\bs{R}\in S_{\rm E})$ by the function $\exp[-|\bs{R}|^2/(d/2)^2]$ for $d/L\to0$ allows us to find the asymptotic value of the quantity $U$ by using the Laplace method. Retaining the main term in the asymptotic series, it is convenient to write the amplitude of the electron focusing signal in the form
U(H)=V\_[n=n\_0]{}\^[N]{} (- ) A(\_0), where $n_0(\bs{H})$, $N(\bs{H})$ are the minimum and maximum numbers of collisions with the boundary by which an electron can reach the collector for a given value of the magnetic field. $A(\bs{p}_0)$ is the partial contribution to the electron focusing signal from the electrons having a momentum $\bs{p}_0(\bs{H},n)$, and getting from the current contact to the measuring one without scattering. The form of function $A$ is determined by the mutual orientation of the crystal surface, line $\bs{L}$ connecting the contacts, and the magnetic field vector $\bs{H}$.
We shall consider below the two main experimental geometries when the axes of the contacts are either parallel or orthogonal to the layers with a high electrical conductivity, in addition to the expression for the function $A(\bs{p}_0)$ which is valid for an arbitrary form of the functions $\varepsilon_0$ and $\varepsilon_1$ characterizing the Fermi surface (1.1), we shall give the results of calculations based on a commonly used simple model (2.21). This model enables us to obtain the magnetic field dependence of $U$ in an explicit form.
[*1. The contacts are on the crystal boundary perpendicular to the layers with a high electrical conductivity.*]{} In this geometry, it is possible to observe the transverse electron focusing by a magnetic field applied parallel to the boundary (Fig. 9[*a*]{}). If the vector $\bs{H}=(0,0,H)$ is oriented at an angle $\theta$ to the plane of the layers, charge carriers perform a periodic motion over the surface. Their displacement along the boundary $\Delta\bs{R}$ during the time $\Delta T$ between two collisions with the boundary is the same for all segments of the trajectory: \_n&=& n=(y\_n,z\_n)= ( D\_x, )=;\
T\_n&=& , where $n$ is the number of a collision with the boundary, $D_x(p_y,p_z)$ is the chord of the section of the Fermi surface $\varepsilon(\bs{p})=\varepsilon_{\rm F}$ cut by the plane $p_z=\mbox{const}$, which is parallel to the normal $\bs{n}=(1,0,0)$ to the boundary; $S_{\rm seg}$ is the area of the segment cut by the chord $D_x$ on this section; and $\bs{L}=(0,L_y,L_z)$.
![Experimental geometry ([*a*]{}) and the shape of the transverse ($\bs{L}\bot\bs{H}$) electron focusing peaks ([*b*]{}) in the case when the line $\bs{H}$ connecting the contacts on the same face of the crystal lies in the plane of the layers, and the magnetic field vector $\bs{H}$ is orthogonal to the layers.](f9.eps){width="10cm"}
=2 The minimum number of the collisions $n_0$ with which an electron can reach the collector is connected with the maximum displacement $R_m=|\Delta R^{\rm max}|$ through the inequalities $L/R_m<n_0<L/R_m-1$, and the maximum number of the collisions $N$ tends to infinity and corresponds to charge carriers sliding over the crystal surface at very small angles.
=2 The magnitude of the electron focusing amplitude is extremely sensitive to the relation between two small parameters $\mu=d/L$ and $\eta=\varepsilon_1/\varepsilon_{\rm F}$, that characterize the relative number of electrons participating in the formation of the signal and anisotropy of the energy spectrum, respectively. For $\mu\ll\eta$, only the charge carriers having momenta from the narrow strips on the Fermi surface ($\Delta p_za/\hbar\simeq\mu$) can reach the collector ($a$ is the distance between the layers). In this case, the computation of the quantity $A$ in Equation (5.12) leads to the following results:
A(\_0)= {
[ll]{} \^2D\^[-1]{},&D0\
()\^[3/2]{}Q\^[-1]{}; &D=0;Q0
. where D&=& + ( )\^2;\
Q&=& | D\_x |\^[1/2]{}. The peaks of the electron focusing signal correspond to the values of the field $H_n$ satisfying the condition (5.11) for which $D=0$.
If the large-diameter contacts satisfy the condition $1\gg\mu\gg\eta$ and the angle $\theta$ between the vector $\bs{H}$ and the Fermi surface cylinder axis is less than $\eta$, the drift $\Delta z_n$ along the $\bs{H}$-direction is smaller than the contact diameter $d$ for all electrons leaving the emitter. In other words, electrons with any value of the component $p_z$ can get from contact to contact. An increase in the number of electrons hitting the collector results in a stronger signal as compared to the situation when $\mu\ll\eta$. Assuming that the Fermi surface is cylindrical ($\varepsilon(\bs{p})=\varepsilon_0(p_x,p_y)$) in the main approximation in the parameter $\eta/\mu\ll1$, we obtain the following expression for the function $A$:
A= {
[ll]{} | |\^[-1]{}, &0\
\^[1/2]{} | D\_x |\^[-1/2]{}, &=0
.
For $\bs{H}\bot\bs{L}$ (Fig. 9[*a*]{}), the electron focusing signal has peaks for those values of a magnetic field $H=H_n$ at which electrons, reaching the collector, have the maximum displacement along the surface and correspond to the extremal Fermi surface diameter ($D_x^{\rm ext}=D_x(p_{0e})$) \[58–60\]. However, separate observation of transverse electron focusing peaks associated with charge carriers belonging to different extremal cross sections of Fermi surface is possible only for contacts with a small diameter ($\mu\ll\eta$).
For a quadratic and isotropic energy-momentum relation for electrons in the layers (2.21) and for $\bs{H}\bot\bs{L}\bot p_z$ Equation (5.14) and (5.15) take the simple form\
A&=& {
[ll]{} \^2 , &\_n<1\
( ) \^[3/2]{}\^[3/2]{}, &\_n=1
.\
\
A&=& {
[ll]{} , &\_n<1\
( ) 2\^[9/2]{}\^[1/2]{}, &\_n=1
. where $n\ge n_0$; $\xi_{n_0}<1$, and $\xi_{n_0-1}>1$. The quantity $\xi_n$ in Equation (5.16) has the two values $\xi_n=L/2n r_{\rm H}(1\pm\eta)$ ($r_{\rm H}=cp_{\rm F}/eH$; $p_{\rm F}=\sqrt{2m\varepsilon_{\rm F}}$) for the same value of $n$, which correspond to the contributions from electrons belonging to the maximum and minimum Fermi surface cross-sections. We must put $\xi_n=L/2nr_{\rm H}$ in Equation (5.17) which is valid to within the terms proportional to $\eta/\mu\ll1$.
The period of motion along the trajectory is a multiple valued function of $\xi_n$ ($\Delta T^{(1)}=(T_{\rm H}/\pi)\arcsin\xi_n$; $\Delta T^{(2)}=T_{\rm H}-\Delta T^{(1)}$; $T_{\rm H}=2\pi mc/eH$), since the same displacement over the surface corresponds to the two possible electron orbits with the height of segment $\Delta
x^{(1,2)}=r_{\rm H}(1\pm\sqrt{1-\xi_n^2})$.
Figure 9[*b*]{} is plotted as a result of numerical calculations based on the Equations (5.12) and (5.16) and shows the $U(H)$ dependence for $\mu\ll\eta$. The split structure of the electron focusing peaks is due to a small difference between the extremal diameters of the cross-sections cut by $p_z=0$ and $p_z=\pm\hbar/a$.
The angle $\theta$ between the vector $\bs{H}$ and Fermi surface cylinder axis significantly affects the form of electron trajectories. As the value $\theta$ increases, the orbits become elongated along the normal to the sample boundary and acquire additional indentations associated with Fermi surface corrugation (see Fig. 2[*b*]{}). For certain magnetic field orientations, electron trajectories acquire saddle points (halt points), and the period of motion tends logarithmically to infinity (Equation (2.18)). With increasing $\theta$, the electron drift along the magnetic field is enhanced due to an increase in the period of motion along the trajectory as well as an increase in possible values of the electron velocity components along the vector $\bs{H}$ \[69\].
In accordance with the evolution of electron orbits described above, the rotation of the line connecting the contacts in the plane of the surface leads to a nonmonotonic dependence of the electron focusing signal amplitude on the angle $\theta$ \[60\] and to the emergence of additional electron focusing peaks associated with the emergence of new extremal diameters on the Fermi surface cross section satisfying Equation (5.11).
![Experimental geometry ([*a*]{}) and the shape of the transverse ($\bs{L}\bot\bs{H}$) electron focusing peaks ([*b*]{}) in the case when the line $\bs{L}$ connects the contacts at opposite faces of a thin plate, and the magnetic field vector $\bs{H}$ lies in the plane of the layers.](f10.eps){width="10cm"}
In the limiting case when the vector $\bs{H}$ lies in the plane of the layers ($\theta=\pi/2$), charge carriers belonging to open Fermi surface cross sections move along periodic trajectories into the bulk of the sample, which allows the observation of the effect analogous to the longitudinal electron focusing with the help of the point contact located on the second surface of thin plate with the thickness $L<l$ (Fig. 10[*a*]{}). If both of the point contacts are on the $x$-axis, the electron from the emitter can reach the collector only if its displacement in the direction orthogonal to this axis over the time $\Delta T$ of motion from one surface of the plate to another is less then the contact diameter $d$. For $d\to 0$ we have the conditions: &=& ( (p\_[x0]{}(+T),v\_[z0]{}T) )=0,\
x&=& (p\_[y0]{}(+T)-p\_[y0]{}())=L, where $\lambda$ characterizes the position of an electron on the Fermi surface at the moment of its “start” from the emitter. When the condition $2\pi\hbar ck/eHa=L$ ($k=1,2,\ldots$) is satisfied, the time $\Delta T=L/\bar{v}_y$ is multiple of the period of motion $T_{\rm op}$. In this case all the electrons have zero displacement along the $y$-axis, and the amplitude of the electron focusing signal attains its maximum value. For $\bs{L}\bot p_z\bot\bs{H}$, only the electrons that do not interact with the sample surface can get from contact to contact along the ballistic trajectory, and we must put $n_0=N=1$ in Equation (5.12). The partial contribution to the amplitude $A(\bs{p})$ is associated with electrons for which the focusing conditions (5.18) are satisfied: A(p)&=&\
&& {
[ll]{} \^2, &TkT\_[op]{}\
T \^[-1/2]{}, &T=kT\_[op]{}
.\
where $$\bar{v}_y=\frac{L}{\Delta T};\quad
m^{-1}_{zz}=\frac{\partial\varepsilon}{\partial p_z^2};\quad
\bs{v}'=\bs{v}(\lambda+\Delta T);$$ $T_{\rm op}$ is the period of electron motion along an open trajectory.
For the energy-momentum relation (2.21), Equation (5.19) takes the form A= {
[ll]{} , &k\
, &=k(k=0,1,…)
. where $\gamma=L/(v_{\rm F}T_{\rm op})$; $T_{\rm op}2\pi hmc/eHp_{\rm F}a$.
Note that the necessary condition for the nonmonotonic dependence of the electron focusing signal on $H$ is that the size, characteristic for the electron trajectory in the direction of the “openness” of the Fermi surface ($\Delta y_m\simeq\tilde{r}\eta$; $\tilde{r}=\pi\hbar c/eHa$), must be much larger than the contact diameter. In strong fields, when $\tilde{r}$ becomes smaller than $d/\eta$, the signal $U$ depends smoothly on $H$. Figure 10[*b*]{} shows the results of numerical calculations based on Equations (5.12) and (5.20). It can be seen that electron focusing peaks are equidistant in the magnetic field and have a symmetric shape.
![Experimental geometry ([*a*]{}) and the shape of the transverse ($\bs{L}\bot\bs{H}$) electron focusing signal (curve [*I*]{}) and its derivative with respect to $\bs{H}$ (curve [*II*]{}) in the case when the line $\bs{L}$ connecting the contacts on the same face of the sample and the magnetic field vector $\bs{H}$ lies in the plane of the layers.](f11.eps){width="10cm"}
[*2. The crystal surface bearing contacts coincides with a high-conductivity plane.*]{} In this case, a thin layer (whose thickness is of the order of $\tilde{r}\eta$) of “jumping” electron trajectories exists in a magnetic field $\bs{H}\bot p_y$ parallel to the boundary, in the transverse electron focusing geometry (Fig. 11[*a*]{}), such electrons ensure a ballistic transport of charge between point contacts arranged at the same face of the crystal, and the function $A$ is defined by relations (5.15). In the case under investigation, the values of a magnetic field for which the separation between contacts is multiple to the maximum jump over the surface are preferred \[60, 61\], i.e., L=,(n=1,2,…).
For $H=H_n$, the $U(H)$ dependence has kinks rather than extrema (curve [*1*]{}in Fig. 11[*b*]{}) since electrons having the maximum displacement along the surface over a period approach the surface at small angles, and their contribution to the emf measured by collector is small in accordance with Equation (5.7). In the Fermi surface model (2.21) in which the cross section $p_z=\mbox{const}$ does not contain extremal diameters (and hence ordinary electron focusing peaks are absent), the partial amplitude $A$ for $\bs{H}\bot\bs{L}$ and $H\neq H_n$ is given by A=\^2 [2F(,\_n/2)]{}, \_n<1, where $$\zeta_n=\frac{L}{2n\tilde{r}};\quad
\tilde{r}=\frac{\pi hc}{eHa}; \quad
n\ge n_0; \quad
\zeta_{n_0}<1;\quad
\zeta_{n_0-1}>1.$$
The contribution of electrons, sliding along the surface with a small velocity component normal to the boundary, cannot be described by Equation (5.15) and must be taken into account with the help of the next approximation in the small parameter $\mu$: A\^[max]{}&=& \^3\
&=& \^[-3/2]{}\^3 ,v\_x=0, \_n=1, where $K(k)$, $F(k,\varphi)$ are complete and incomplete elliptic integrals of the first kind. The dot in Equation (5.23) denotes the differentiation of electron velocity of motion along the trajectory with respect to time. All the Fermi surface characteristics in Equation (5.23) are taken at the point $\bs{p}_0$ at which v\_x(\_0)=v\_z(\_0)=0. Apparently, it would be more convenient in this case to investigate experimentally the derivative $\partial U/\partial H$ of the electron focusing signal with respect to a magnetic field, which has jumps at the values $H_n$ determined by Equation (5.21). Figure 11[*b*]{} shows the magnetic field dependence of the electron focusing signal (curve [*1*]{}) and its derivative (curve [*2*]{}) for the simple model of the Fermi surface (2.21).
In a magnetic field orthogonal to the crystal surface, electrons injected by the emitter move along helical trajectories to the bulk of the crystal. Setting the collector and emitter at opposite faces of a thin plate and directing the vector $\bs{H}$ along the line connecting the contacts, we can observe the effect of the longitudinal electron focusing (Fig. 12[*a*]{}). It can be seen that with such a geometry, only the electrons for which the time of motion $\Delta T=L/\bar{v}_z$ is a multiple of their period of motion in a magnetic field ($\Delta T=kT_{\rm H}$; $k=1,2,\ldots$) can get from contact to contact.
The peaks of the longitudinal electron focusing signal correspond to the value of the field at which electrons have the extremal value of the time-averaged velocity component $\bar{v}_z$: H\_n= ( )\_[extr]{}, where $$p_{z0}=-\frac{\pi\hbar}{2a}
\left(
\frac{\partial S}{\partial p_{z0}}
\right)_{\rm extr}$$ is the extremal value of the derivative of the Fermi surface cross-sections perpendicular to the axis.
In the case when the Fermi surface (1.1) is a body of revolution, we obtain the following expression for the partial amplitude: A&=&\
&& {
[ll]{} , &=m\^[-1]{}\_[zz]{}0;\
( ) \^[1/2]{} ( m\_[zz]{} )\^[-1]{}, &=m\^[-1]{}\_[zz]{}=0,\
&p\_[z0]{}=-
.\
where $$v_\bot=\sqrt{v_x^2+v_y^2};\quad
m^*=\frac{1}{2\pi}\frac{\partial S}{\partial\varepsilon_p}.$$
![Experimental geometry ([*a*]{}) and the shape of the longitudinal ($\bs{L}\|\bs{H}$) electron focusing peaks ([*b*]{}) in the case when the line $\bs{L}$ connecting the contacts on the same face of the crystal and the magnetic field vector $\bs{H}$ is orthogonal to the plane of the layers.](f12.eps){width="10cm"}
If the function $\varepsilon_0$ is quadratic and isotropic. Equation (5.26) can be transformed to A=\_[k=k\_0]{}\^ {
[ll]{} , &\_k<1;\
\^[1/2]{} ( )\^[1/2]{}, &\_k=1
. where $$\lambda_k=\frac{L}{2\pi kr_0};\quad
r_0=\frac{\varepsilon_1 aT_{\rm H}}{2\pi\hbar};\quad
\lambda_{k_0}<1;\quad
\lambda_{k_0-1}>1.$$
The time of motion along the trajectory for an electron reaching the collector over $k$ complete periods is $\Delta T=Lh/\varepsilon_1 a\lambda_k$. The explicit form of the magnetic field dependence for the longitudinal electron focusing signal can be easily obtained, if we substitute Equation (5.27) into Equation (5.12) and put $n_0=N=1$ in it. The results of numerical calculations are presented in Fig. 12[*b*]{}.
Thus, the magnetic field dependence $U(H)$ of the electron focusing signal in the layered conductors is determined by the size of the point contacts and their orientation, relative to crystallographic axes. If the contacts are arranged on the crystal surface perpendicular to the layers with a high electrical conductivity, electron focusing can be observed only in a magnetic field directed along this surface. Setting both of the point contacts at the same sample boundary, we can determine the diameters of closed Fermi surface cross-sections from the positions of transverse electron focusing peaks on the magnetic field scale. The shape of the lines ($U(H)$ dependence) depends significantly on the relation between two small parameters: the ratio $\eta$ of the conductivity across the layers to the conductivity in the layers-plane and the ratio $\mu$ of the diameter of contacts to the separation between them.
In the case when vector $\bs{H}$ lies in the layers-plane, the electrons injected by emitter are displaced along an open trajectory to the bulk of the sample. In the thin plate (the thickness of which is much smaller than the mean free path), such electrons can be focused by a magnetic field at the collector arranged on the sample face opposite to the emitter. However, electron focusing in such geometry can be observed only for very small contacts for which $\mu\ll\eta$.
If the plane of the surface bearing the contacts is parallel to high conductivity layers, and the magnetic field is orthogonal to the Fermi surface axis electrons belonging to open Fermi surface cross sections move along periodic trajectories along the crystal boundary. For values of the field $H$ corresponding to the separation between the electrodes that are multiple of the electron displacement in an open trajectory over period $T_{\rm op}$, the derivative $\mbox{d}U/\mbox{d}H$ of the electron focusing signal undergoes jumps. The presence of singularities in the derivative $\mbox{d}U/\mbox{d}H$ and not in the signal $U(H)$ can be explained by the fact that electrons, for which the time between two consecutive collisions with the boundary is close to $T_{\rm op}$, reach the collector at small angles and their contribution to $U(\bs{H})$ is small.
The effect of longitudinal electron focusing can be observed in a magnetic field orthogonal to the surface. The values of $H$ for which the signal $U(\bs{H})$ has peaks can be used for determining the extremal value of the electron velocity along the Fermi surface cylinder axis.
Thus, the electron focusing in the layered organic metals being a source of information on their Fermi surface, enable us to obtain, along with the extremal diameters and velocities, the period of constant energy surfaces in the direction of the “openness”. Another important advantage of the electron focusing is the applicability of this method to the analysis of surface scattering of electron.
Resistance of Point-Contact between Layered Conductors
------------------------------------------------------
Two bulk metallic electrodes, contacting one another (contiguously) over a small area, form an electrical contact of small dimensions – a point contact. When an electric current is passed through such a system, it is concentrated in a narrow region (system with concentration of current), reaching densities of $10^{13}$–$10^{14}$ A/m$^2$. The metal in this narrow region is not overheated due to the effective heat flow to the banks (the electrodes) of the contact, provided that mean free path for energetic relaxation of electrons $l_\varepsilon$ is greater than the characteristic (the largest) dimension of the narrow region. Two possible asymptotic regimes can be distinguished for the electric current through a point contact: the ballistic regime (clean conductor) when the mean free path for elastic relaxation $l_i$ is much greater than $d$ and the diffusion regime (impure conductor) when $l_i\ll d$ (where $d$ is the characteristic dimension of the contact).
Let us consider a junction in the form of a single – sheet hyperboloid of revolution (Fig. 13[*a*]{}) F(x\_1,x\_2,x\_3)= --1=0 subjected to a voltage $V$ and placed in a magnetic field $\bs{H}$ directed at an angle $\theta$ with respect to the $x_3$-axis ($\rho^2=x_1^2+x_2^2$) This model allows us to examine the limiting cases: the model of aperture with an infinitely thin flat partition, dividing the two metallic half-spaces ($\beta\to0$) (see Fig. 13[*b*]{}) and the model of a long channel (the length of the channel is much larger than its diameter $d=2\nu$), filled with metal and connecting the bulk metallic banks ($\nu\to0$).
In the semiclassical approximation the current = \_[S\_[c]{}]{}\^3f() flowing through a contact area $S_{\rm c}=\pi\nu^2$ should be determined by means of the nonequilibrium electron-distribution function $f(\bs{p},\bs{r})$ satisfying the Boltzman equation (2.2).
![A model of the point-contact in the form of a single-sheet hyperboloid of revolution ([*a*]{}); its limiting case ($\beta=0$) is a circular orifice ([*b*]{}); $\Omega(\bs{r})$ is the solid angle within which velocities of the electrons passing the contact along the ballistic trajectories fit.](f13.eps){width="10cm"}
In the zeroth approximation in electron–phonon collision integral, the distribution function $f(\bs{p},\bs{r})=f_{\bs{p}}^{(0)}(\bs{r})$ can be presented in the form \[70\] f\_\^[(0)]{}()&=& \_() f\_0 ( ()+e()- )\
&+& (1-\_()) f\_0 ( ()+e()+ ), where $f_0$ is the Fermi distribution function, $\Phi(\bs{r})$ is the electrical potential, and $\alpha_{\bs{p}}(\bs{r})$ signifies the probability for an electron with the momentum $\bs{p}$ to arrive at the point $\bs{r}$ from $+\infty$. For $eV\ll\varepsilon_{\rm F}$, the function $\alpha_{\bs{p}}(\bs{r})$ satisfies a field-independent kinetic equation which, for the sake of simplicity, can be written in the approximation of the mean relaxation time $\tau$ + =0. The boundary condition to Equation (5.31) ensures that the current does not flow through the surface $\Sigma$ \_()=\_(),and that equilibrium is restored in the electron subsystem at the contact banks $|\bs{r}|\to\infty$ \_()=(x\_3). The momenta $\bs{p}$ and $\tilde{\bs{p}}$ satisfy Equations (5.3). In order to avoid cumbersome calculations, we shall consider the specular reflection of electrons at the boundary (Equation (5.32)).
Here (,)=; …= \_[() =\_[F]{}]{}tp\_[H]{}… , $t$ is, as below, the time of the electron motion along its trajectory in a magnetic field, and $p_{\rm H}$ is the momentum projection on the direction of the vector $\bs{H}$. The integration in Equation (5.34) is carried out over the open constant-energy surface within the limits of the Brillouin zone.
The distribution of the electric potential $\Phi(\bs{r})$ in a sample satisfies the Poisson equation which can be reduced to the electroneutrality condition (3.15) if a Debye screening radius is small in comparison with the contact diameter. It was shown in \[70, 71\] that having the probability $\alpha_{\bs{p}}(\bs{r})$ determined, we can calculate the contact resistance for low voltages ($V\to0$) R\^[-1]{}= = \_[S\_[c]{}]{}S \_, and the electrical potential distribution ()=(2(,)-1).
The solution of Equation (5.31) can be formally presented as \_(,)= \_[-]{}\^[t]{}t’ ( ) (-(t)+(t’)).
If the electric potential, and hence (in view of Equation (5.36)) the mean probability $\alpha$, varies smoothly at distances comparable with the characteristic size $\bs{r}(t)-\bs{r}(t-\tau)$ of the electron trajectory in the corresponding direction, the integral equation (5.37) for $\alpha_{\bs{p}}(\bs{r})$ can be replaced by a differential equation for its mean value $\alpha$. We expand $\alpha(\bs{r}-\bs{r}(t)+\bs{r}(t'))$ in the integral in Equation (5.37) into a series near the point $\bs{r}(t)=\bs{r}(t')$: \_()&=& -\
&+& \_[-]{}\^[t]{}t’ ( ) v\_i(t’)(x\_k(t)-x\_k(t’))… ,\
\
g(,)&=& \_[-]{}\^[t]{}t’ ( ) (t’).
Averaging Equation (5.38) over the directions of the momentum $\bs{p}$ and going over to dimensionless variables x\_i’= ( )\^[1/2]{} we obtain the following equation for $\alpha(\bs{r},\bs{H})$ (’) +\_[ik]{}C\_[ik]{}\^[(s)]{} =0, where C\_[ik]{}&=&,\
\_[ik]{}&=& v\_ig\_kare the electrical conductivity tensor components in a bulk conductor and $C_{ik}^{(\rm s)}$ is the symmetric part of $C_{ik}$ (5.42). Equation (5.41), which coincides with the continuity equation $\div\bs{j}=0$, must be supplemented by boundary conditions. Using Equations (5.32) and (5.33), we obtain ()&=&(x\_3);\
’(’)+ \_[ik]{}n\_i’C\_[ik]{} . |\_[’]{} &=&0, ($\bs{n}'=\nabla F(\bs{r}')/|\nabla F(\bs{r}')|$ is the vector normal to the metal boundary $\Sigma'$ (5.28)) in coordinates (5.40). The solution of boundary-value problem (5.41), (5.44), (5.45) would lead to a rigorous criterion for the applicability of the expression (5.38) for the function $\alpha_{\bs{p}}(\bs{r})$. In spite of the considerable simplification due to making use of the representation (5.38) for the function $\alpha_{\bs{p}}(\bs{r})$, the problem of evaluating the electric field in a metal remains quite complicated and can be solved analytically only if the coefficients $C_{ik}$ are small. In the main approximation ($C_{ik}=0$) the boundary value problem (5.41)–(5.45) is reduced to the Neumann’s problem with zeroth boundary condition for the normal derivative $\partial\alpha/\partial n'$ on the hyperboloid surface (5.28) which is no longer a figure of revolution in coordinates (5.40). For this reason, it is convenient to solve the Equation (5.41) by going to the general ellipsoidal coordinates $\xi$, $\eta$, $\zeta$ (x\_1’)\^2&=& ;\
(x\_2’)\^2&=& ;\
(x\_3’)\^2&=& ; $$-a^2\le\zeta\le -b^2;\quad
-b^2\le\eta\le0;\quad
\xi\ge0;$$ $$a^2=c_1^2+\varkappa^2;\quad
b^2=c_2^2+\varkappa^2;\quad
c_i^2=\frac{\sigma_{33}}{\sigma_{ii}};\quad
\varkappa=\frac{\beta}{\nu}.$$ For the sake of definiteness, we suppose that $\sigma_{11}\le\sigma_{22}$ and hence $a\ge b$. In these coordinates the contact surface corresponds to $\eta=-\varkappa^2$, and we obtain for the probability $\alpha(\bs{r}')$: (’)= (z’)- (x\_3’) F( ,k ), where $F(\phi,k)$ and $K(k)$ are incomplete and complete elliptical integrals of the first kind, $k^2=1-b^2/a^2$.
Substituting the expansion (5.38) and the function $\alpha$ (5.45) into Equation (5.35) for the electric current, we have the final result for the resistance \[72,7 3\]: R\^[-1]{}(h)= a(,k). Here, $$\Psi(\phi,k)=
F(\phi,k')
\left[
\frac{\bs{E}(k)}{\bs{K}(k)}-1
\right]
+E(\phi,k')-
\frac{\varkappa}{a}\frac{c_2}{c_1}$$ k’=;=( );d=2and $\bs{E}(k)$ is a complete elliptic integral of the second kind.
Let us first consider the case when $\bs{H}=0$ and a contact is formed by conductors with the small elastic mean free path ($l_i\ll d$). In this case the function $\bs{g}(\bs{p},\bs{H}=0)$ can be written in the form: ()=. In the absence of a magnetic field the conductivity tensor (5.43) is diagonal and (5.47) is the exact solution of Equation (5.41). Using the expression (5.47) for the probability $\alpha$ we can write the resistance for a point contact in the form of aperture $r^2=x_1^2+x_2^2\le d^2/4$ of diameter $d$ in a plane of insulating partition ($\beta=\varkappa=0$) (see Fig. 13[*b*]{}) as R\^[-1]{}(0)= K\^[-1]{} ( );\_[11]{}\_[22]{}. Equation (5.51) indicates that the point contact resistance R\^[-1]{}= {
[ll]{} d; &\_[33]{}=\_; \_[11]{}=\_[22]{}=\_,\
\_ \^[-1]{} ( ); &\_[33]{}=\_[11]{}=\_; \_[22]{}=\_; 1,
. where $$\sigma_\bot=
\frac{e^2\tau m\pi\varepsilon_1^2a}{(2\pi)^3\hbar^4};\quad
\sigma_\|=\frac{8\pi^2e^2\tau\varepsilon_{\rm F}}{(2\pi\hbar)^2a}
\left(
1-\frac{\varepsilon_1}{\varepsilon_{\rm F}}
\right),$$ depends not only on the electrical conductivity along the contact axis, but also on the conducting properties of the sample in the direction perpendicular to this axis. This is due to the three-dimensional nature of current flow in the point-contact region. It should be noted that for $\sigma_{33}=\sigma_\|$ and $(\sigma_\|/\sigma_\bot)\to\infty$ (strictly two-dimensional conductivity), the resistance (5.52) contains the logarithmic divergence. In this case we must take into account the sample size $D$, and for $(\sigma_\|/\sigma_\bot)\gg(D/d)\gg1$ the resistance is $R(0)\sim(\sigma_\| d)^{-1}\ln(D/d)$.
In pure metals the ballistic mode of current flow through the contact, for which $d\ll l_i$ can be realized. In this case we can discount the second term in Equation (5.31). Its solution is $\alpha=\mbox{const}(t)$. Using the boundary condition (5.33) we found $\alpha_{\bs{p}}(\bs{r})$ for the contact in the form of aperture \_()=(()); x\_2<0, where $\Omega(\bs{r})$ is the solid angle enclosing the velocities of electrons passing through the aperture and the point $\bs{r}$ (see Fig. 13[*b*]{}).
Substituting the solution (5.53) into Equation formula (5.35), we obtain the following expression for the resistance: R\^[-1]{}(0)= {
[ll]{} \_ ( ); &\_[33]{}=\_[11]{}=\_; \_[22]{}=\_,\
; &\_[33]{}=\_;\_[11]{}=\_[22]{}=\_.
. It is interesting to note that, according to Equations (5.52) and (5.54), the ratio $R_\|/R_\bot$ for $\varepsilon_1\ll\varepsilon_{\rm F}$ is inversely proportional to the square root of the ratio $\sigma_\|/\sigma_\bot$ and depends weakly on the relation between the contact diameter $d$ and the electron mean free path $l_i$ ($R_\|$, $\sigma_\|$ and $R_\bot$, $\sigma_\bot$ are the resistances and the conductivities of the contact with the axis oriented parallel and perpendicular to the layers, respectively).
Thus, the electrical conductivity of the point contact between layered metals is extremely sensitive to the orientation of the crystals in the contact. However, in contrast to the case of a bulk sample, the resistance depends on the metal conductivity in the directions parallel and perpendicular to the contact axis in view of the three-dimensional nature of current flow.
In a strong magnetic field ($\gamma_0=cp_{\rm F}/eHl_i\ll1$, $p_{\rm F}$ is the Fermi momentum) the function $\bs{g}(\bs{p},\bs{H})$, appearing in the theory of galvanomagnetic phenomena \[69\], can be presented in the form of a power series in $1/H$ whose first terms are given by g\_x&=&-(p\_y-p\_z);\
g\_y&=&v\_[H]{}-;\
g\_z&=&+v\_[H]{}, for closed electron orbits ($\gamma=\gamma_0\sec\theta\ll1$, $\bs{H}=(0,H\sin\theta,H\cos\theta)$) and g\_x=(p\_y-|[p]{}\_y);g\_y=|[v]{}\_y;g\_z=v\_zfor open electron orbits ($\theta=\pi/2$, $\gamma_0\ll1$). In Equations (5.55), (5.56) $v_{\rm
H}=\partial\varepsilon(\bs{p})/\partial p_{\rm H}$ and the bar indicates the value of a function averaged over the period of motion in a magnetic field. In following analysis we shall assume that $\eta\ll\gamma$ and the inclination $\theta$ of the magnetic field does not coincide with the value $\theta_{\rm c}$ for which the conductivity across the layers decreases considerably ($\sigma_{zz}(\theta_{\rm c})\approx\eta^4$, see Equations (2.33)). In this case, as it follows from Equations (2.27), and (5.42), the coefficients $C_{xz}$ and $C_{yz}$ are small and the terms containing these coefficients in Equation (5.41) can be omitted. Since the anisotropy of conductivity in the layers-plane is usually not significant, unjustifiably cumbersome formulas can be avoided by assuming that the Fermi surface is a figure of revolution. It was shown for this case (see Equations (2.24), (2.27)) that if the inequality $\eta\ll\gamma$ is satisfied, then $\sigma_{xx}\approx\sigma_{yy}=\sigma_\|(H)$ for any angle $\theta$, while for $\theta=\pi/2$ we have $\sigma_{xy}=\sigma_{yz}=0$. The inequality $\eta\ll\gamma$, which is violated only in very strong fields, indicates that the conductivity across the layers always remains much lower than the conductivity along the layers.
We consider separately the two main geometries of the experiment.
[*1. Contact axis is perpendicular to the layers ($x_3=x$; $x_2=y$; $x_3=z$; $\sigma_{33}=\sigma_{zz}$; $\sigma_{11}=\sigma_{22}=\sigma_\|$)*]{} (see Fig. 14).
In Equation (5.46) and (5.47) we must replace $$c_1^2=c_2^2=L^2=\frac{\sigma_{zz}}{\sigma_\|}<1.$$
The probability $\alpha$ can be presented in the form \[71\]: ()=(z)-(z) (). where = { -+ \^[1/2]{} }\^[1/2]{}r=.
![The model of the point ([*a*]{}) in the case when the contact axis coincides with the axis of the Fermi surface ([*b*]{}) of a layered conductor.](f14.eps){width="10cm"}
It follows from Equations (5.36), (5.57) that the characteristic scale of variation of the electric field along the $z$-axis is of the order of $d/(L^2+\varkappa^2)^{1/2}$ (where $L^2=\sigma_{zz}/\sigma_\|$, $\varkappa=\beta/\nu$) and may be either larger or smaller than the contact diameter. Substituting the function $\alpha_{\bs{p}}(\bs{r})$ in the form (5.38) into the expression (5.35) for the resistance and taking into account the equalities (5.55) and (5.57), we obtain R\^[-1]{}(H)=d;=(). In view of the oscillatory dependence of $\sigma_{zz}$ on the slope of the magnetic field (Equation (2.33)), the magnetoresistance of the point contact is also a nonmonotonic function of $\theta$. It should be noted that $R(H)$ is highly sensitive to the contact geometry. Thus, for a constriction having a form close to aperture ($\varkappa\ll1$), we have R\^[-1]{}(H)= {
[ll]{} \_[zz]{};& 1L,\
d; &1L.
. The magnetic field variation of the parameter $L^2(H)$, viz., the ratio of electrical conductivities across and along the layers, depends significantly on the orientation of the vector $\bs{H}$. If the vector $\bs{H}$ is parallel to the contact axis ($\sigma_{zz}(\bs{H})=\sigma_\bot=\mbox{const}(\bs{H})$), an increase in the field causes a decrease in the conductivity $\sigma_\|(H)$ and an increase in $L$. For $L(0)\ll \varkappa$, there exist a range of values of $H$ ($L(H)<\varkappa$) in which $R(H)=\mbox{const}$. Formally, such a situation corresponds to a contact in the form of strongly elongated channel, since, although the real contact length for $\varkappa\ll1$ is much smaller than its diameter, the electron velocity along the channel axis is much lower than the velocity of diffusive motion along a normal to this axis of the Larmour orbit center. In stronger fields, when $L(H)$ becomes larger than the parameter $\varkappa$ characterizing the shape of the constriction, the quasi-two-dimensional current flow is replaced by the three-dimensional flow, and the contact resistance depends linearly on the magnetic field as in the case of an isotropic metal \[13\].
The magnetic field, which is orthogonal to the contact axis, suppresses the electric conductivity $\sigma_{zz}$ across the layers, leaving the in-plane conductivity $\sigma_\|$ practically unchanged. This corresponds to a decrease in parameter $L$ with increasing $H$. Hence for $L(0)\ll\varkappa$, the contact resistance in strong magnetic fields is proportional to $H^2$ for $\gamma_0\le\eta^{1/2}$ (see Equation (2.14)). If, however, $L(0)\gg\varkappa$ (although $L(0)\simeq\eta\ll1$), the quadratic dependence $R(H)$ is preceded by the linear magnetoresistance $L(H)>\varkappa$.
![The model of the point-contact ([*a*]{}) in the case when the contact axis is parallel to the layers ([*b*]{}).](f15.eps){width="10cm"}
[*2. Contact axis is parallel to the layers ($x_3=x$) (Fig. 15).*]{}
If the magnetic field is perpendicular to the axis of the cylindrical Fermi surface, the coefficients $C_{ik}$ are small for any angle of inclination of the magnetic field to the contact axis. It follows from (5.48) that if the contact axis lies in the plane of a high electrical conductivity ($\sigma_{33}=\sigma_\|$) the resistance depends logarithmically on the magnetic field $H$ (except for the case of a strongly elongated constriction ($\varkappa\gg L^{-2}$), for which $R(H)=\mbox{const}$: R\^[-1]{}(H)=\_d {
[ll]{} ( ) \^[-1]{} ( ); &L1,\
; &L1.
. Thus, the magnetic field dependence $R(H)$ of contacts oriented at a right angle to the layers with a high electrical conductivity is extremely sensitive to the shape of the constriction. If the square root of the ratio $\sigma_\bot/\sigma_\|=L^2$ is smaller than the ratio $\varkappa=\beta/\nu$ of the length of the contact to its radius, the longitudinal resistance ($\theta=0$, $\theta$ is the angle between the contact axis and vector $\bs{H}$) and is independent of a magnetic field while the transverse magnetoresistance ($\theta=\pi/2$) is proportional to $H^2$. If the opposite inequality $L\gg\varkappa$ is satisfied, the resistance increases linearly with $H$. A variation of the field changes the magnitude $L^2$ ($L^2$ decreases for $\theta=\pi/2$ and increases in all other cases), thus allowing two types of field dependence $R(H)$ for the same contact in different ranges of $H$. As the inclination of the vector $\bs{H}$ relative to the layers is changed, $R(\bs{H})$ becomes a nonmonotonic function of an angle. In the geometry of the experiment, when the contact axis and the vector $\bs{H}$ lie in the plane of the layers with a high conductivity, the resistance shows a logarithmic dependence on $\bs{H}$.
Point-Contact Spectroscopy of Electron–Phonon Interaction
---------------------------------------------------------
The information about the electron–phonon interaction in layered conductors is of great importance for understanding the nature of the superconducting state and for analysis of transport phenomena in these materials. Point-contact spectroscopy is an effective and reliable method of studying electron–phonon interaction \[74, 75, 68\]. Point contact spectroscopy is based on a strong nonequilibrium in the electronic system only in a small region of space whose dimension is less than the inelastic mean free path of electrons. In a point contact the Fermi surface splits into two parts with maximum energies differing by the bias energy $eV$. Effectively, there are two electronic beams moving in opposite directions with energies differing at each point of space by exactly the bias energy. Electron–phonon scattering in contacts results in a back flow: some electrons are reflected after entering the constriction and do not contribute to the contact current. Each time the bias $eV$ equals the energy of particular phonon $\hbar\omega_{\bs{p}}$, the current decreases. When averaged over all phonons, these contributions result in a nonlinear current in the contact. This technique has been used recently for reconstructing the point-contact spectroscopy of the electron–phonon interaction in organic metals $\beta$-(BEDT-TTF)$_2X$ ($X=I_2$, $I$Au$I$) \[76–80\]. The experiments carried out in \[76–80\] revealed that the form of the point contact spectrum depends to a considerable extent on the orientation of the contact axis relative to planes with a high electrical conductivity.
The inelastic process of the electron–phonon interaction can be taken into account in the collision integral W\^[(ep)]{}\_[col]{}{f()}&=& \_[k]{} W\_[,k]{} { \[f(+)(1-f())(N\_[,k]{}+1)\
&-& f()(1-f(+))N\_[,k]{} \]\
&& ((+) -()-\_[,k]{})\
&+& \[f(-)(1-f())N\_[,k]{}\
&-& f()(1-f(-))(N\_[,k]{}+1) \]\
&& ((-) -()+\_[,k]{}) }. Here, the summation is carried out over the numbers $k$ of the phonon spectrum branches $\omega_{\bs{q},k}$; $W_{\bs{q},k}$ is the square of the magnitude of the electron–phonon interaction matrix element. In general, the system of Equations (2.2), (3.15) must be supplemented by the kinetic equation for determining the phonon distribution function $N_{\bs{q},k}$. But usually the state of the phonon system in the contact does not influence the form of the point contact spectra so much. This is so in the case of weak phonon–electron scattering, when the phonon distribution function $N_{\bs{q},k}$ is independent of bias, $V$ \[81\]. In the following consideration we shall assume that phonons are in thermal equilibrium, i.e. $$N_{\bs{q},k}=\left(
\exp\left(
\frac{h\omega_{\bs{q},k}}{T}
\right)-1
\right)^{-1}.$$
We should write \[70, 71\] the particular solution $f_{\bs{p}}^{(1)}(\bs{r})$ of the non-homogeneous Equation (2.2) using the corresponding Green’s function $g_{\bs{pp}'}(\bs{r},\bs{r}')=g_{-\bs{p}',-\bs{p}}(\bs{r}',\bs{r})$: f\_\^[(1)]{}()= ’’ g\_[’]{}(,’)W\^[(ep)]{}\_[col]{} {f\_\^[(0)]{}(’)}, where $f_{\bs{p}}^{(0)}(\bs{r})$ is the distribution function (5.30) in zeroth approximation in electron–phonon collision integral. The function $g_{\bs{pp}'}(\bs{r},\bs{r}')$ must be determined from the relations ’g\_[’]{}(,’) -{g\_[’]{}-g\_[’]{}}&=& -(-’)\
&-& (-’);\
g\_[’]{}(,’)&=&0;\
g\_[’]{}(,’)&=& g\_[’]{}(,’). Substituting the value $f_{\bs{p}}^{(1)}(\bs{r})$ in formula (5.29) we will get the expression for the change in the electric current $\Delta I$ due to the electron phonon interaction I= G\_()W\^[(ep)]{}\_[col]{} {f\_\^[(0)]{}(’)}, where G\_()= Sn\_3’ v\_3’g\_[’]{}(,’). Multiplying Equation (5.64) by $v_3$ and integrating it over the contact area $S_{\rm c}$ and momentum $\bs{p}$ we get the following equation and the boundary conditions for the function $G_{\bs{p}}(\bs{r})$ G\_() -{ G\_()- G\_[’]{}()}&=&-(x\_3),\
G\_()&=&0,\
G\_()&=&G\_[’]{}(). The probability $\alpha_{\bs{p}}(\bs{r})$ satisfies the Equations (5.31)–(5.33), which combined with Equations (5.69)–(5.71) yield the relation \[70\] G\_()=\_[-]{}()-(x\_3).
The point contact spectrum is the second derivative of the point contact current $I(V)$ with respect to the voltage $V$. Substituting Equations (5.30) and (5.47) into the expression for the point contact current correction (5.67) and making use of the equality $$\frac{\mbox{d}^2I}{\mbox{d}V^2}=
-R^{-2}\frac{\mbox{d}R}{\mbox{d}V},$$ where $R(V)$ is the dynamic resistance $\mbox{d}I/\mbox{d}V$, we obtain the relation \[68, 70\]: = e\_0 \_[0]{}\^ ( )G(), where $$\tau_0=\nu(\varepsilon_{\rm F})\frac{(2\pi\hbar)^3d}{2S_{\rm F}};
\quad
\chi(x)=x(\exp(x)-1),$$ $\nu(\varepsilon_{\rm F})$ is the density of states at the Fermi surface; $S_{\rm F}$ is the area of the Fermi surface within the Brillouin zone. For the isotropic metal the coefficient $\tau_0$ is equal to $d/v_{\rm F}$ ($v_{\rm F}$ is the Fermi velocity). The second derivative of the function $\chi(x)$ tends to $\delta(x)$ at low temperatures. At $T=0$ this point contact spectrum is = e\_0 G(). The point-contact function of the electron–phonon interaction $G(\omega)$ in Equation (5.73) is defined as G()&=& \_[k]{}W\_[-’,k]{}K(,’) (-\_[-’,k]{}) ;\
K(,’)&=& \^3r \[\_(,)-\_[’]{}(,)\]\
&& \[\_[-]{}(,-)-\_[-’]{}(,-)\]\
&& { \_0S }. The expansion (5.38) and the equality (5.47) enable us to write an expression for the function $K(\bs{p},\bs{p}')$ \[72, 73\] K(,’)&=& \_[i=1]{}\^[3]{} ( )\^[1/2]{}\
&&\
&& I\_i(k,), where $g_i^{\rm (ev)}(\bs{p},\bs{H})=g_i^{\rm (ev)}(\bs{p},-\bs{H})$ and $g_i^{\rm (od)}(\bs{p},\bs{H})=-g_i^{\rm (od)}(\bs{p},-\bs{H})$ are even and odd parts of the functions $g_i$ (5.55), (5.56); I\_i(k,)&=& \_[b\^2]{}\^[a\^2]{} \_[\^2]{}\^[b\^2]{} \_[0]{}\^\
&& ( [(a\^2-)(b\^2-)(a\^2-)(-b\^2)]{} )\^[1/2]{} ( )\^2.\
Here, $x_i'$, $a$, and $b$ are defined by relation (5.46).
Let us first consider the case $\bs{H}=0$ and a point contact in the form of an aperture ($\varkappa=0$). For an impure conductor ($l_i\ll d$), from Equations (5.77), (5.38), (5.50) we obtain the form-factor $K(\bs{p},\bs{p}')$ K(,’)= \^3 ( (-’) )\^2 { \_[S\_[c]{}]{}S (). } The form factor $K(\bs{p},\bs{p}')$ in the case under investigation is given by K(,’)&=& \^[-1/2]{}\^[-1]{}(k)\
&& { (v\_1-v\_1’)\^2 {f()}\
&+& (v\_2-v\_2’)\^2 {f\^[-1]{}()}\
&+& (v\_3-v\_3’)\^2\[4(k)\
&-& ({f()}+{f\^[-1]{}()}\] }, where $$\lambda=\frac{a^2}{b^2};\quad
k^2=1-\frac{1}{\lambda};$$ {f}&=& \_[1]{}\^ \_[0]{}\^[1]{} \_[0]{}\^ ( )\^[1/2]{} f(,,);\
f(,,)&=& \^[1/2]{}.
If the contact axis is oriented at right angle to the planes with a high electrical conductivity (Fig. 15) ($\lambda=1$, $\sigma_{33}=\sigma_{\bot}$, $\sigma_{11}=\sigma_{22}=\sigma_\|$), for the Fermi surface (2.21) Equation (5.80) assumes the form K(,’)&=&\
&& { \[(v\_1-v\_1’)\^2+(v\_2-v\_2’)\^2\]+2(v\_3-v\_3’)\^2 }.\
For the Fermi surface (1.23) formula (5.81) reduces to K(,’)= { (\_-’\_)\^2 +8\^2 }, where $\bs{p}_\|$ is component of $\bs{p}$ parallel to the layers. In other words, for $\varepsilon_{1}\ll\varepsilon_{\rm F}$ the intensity of the normalized point contact spectrum (5.79) does not depend on $\varepsilon_1$, and the contributions to the spectrum from electrons scattering by phonons are of the same order of magnitude for both cases: when the charge carriers velocity changes in parallel and perpendicular directions to the layers.
If, however, the contact axis is parallel to the layers (Fig. 15) ($\sigma_{11}=\sigma_{33}=\sigma_\|$; $\sigma_{22}=\sigma_\bot$), the quasi-two-dimensional nature of the current flow is responsible for dominating the contribution to the point contact spectrum from the electron scattering involving a change in the momentum component tangential to the layers: K(,’)= (\_-’\_)\^2;1. The expression for the $K$-factor for the point contact function of the electron–phonon interaction describes the influence of anisotropy in energy-momentum relation for conduction electrons on the point contact spectrum \[68\]. Substituting the expression for probability (5.53) into Equation (5.76), with reference to the clean conductor ($l_i\gg d$) we obtain \[68\] K(,’)= . Thus, an analysis of the intensity of the point contact spectra of the layered conductor with various orientations of the contact axis allows us to single out unambiguously, the lines corresponding to electron relaxation at two-dimensional phonon modes whose existence in layered crystals was predicted theoretically \[82\].
The magnetic field dependence of the point contact spectrum is contained in $K$-factor (5.76). If the contact axis is perpendicular to the layers (Fig. 14) ($x_3=z$; $\sigma_{zz}=\sigma_\bot(H)$, $\sigma_{yy}=\sigma_{xx}=\sigma_\|(H)$), evaluating the integrals of products of functions $\alpha_{\bs{p}}$ (5.38) and using the asymptotic expressions (5.55) and (5.56) for the function $\bs{g}$ in strong magnetic fields, we obtain K(,’)= ( 2A\_[’]{}\^2+ B\_[’]{}\^2), where for $\gamma_0\sec\theta\ll1$: A\_[’]{}&=& (v\_[H]{}-v\_[H]{}’)\^2\^2-\_0\^2m\^[-2]{} (p\_x-p\_x’)\^2;\
B\_[’]{}&=& (v\_[H]{}-v\_[H]{}’)\^2\^2\
&-& \_0\^2m\^[-2]{} \[(\_-\_’)\^2\^2-(p\_z-p\_z’)\^2\^2\], and for $\gamma_0\ll1$, $\theta=\pi/2$ A\_[’]{}&=& -\_0\^2\[(p\_y-p\_y’)-(|[p]{}\_y-|[p]{}\_y’)\]\^2\
B\_[’]{}&=& \[(v\_z-v\_z’)\^2+(|[v]{}\_y-|[v]{}\_y’)\^2\] where $\gamma_0=1/\Omega_0\tau$; $\Omega_0=eH/mc$; $m$ is the minimum cyclotron mass; $\bs{p}_\|$ is the component of $\bs{p}$ parallel to the layers; $$\psi=\frac{1}{2}\arctan
\left[
\frac{1}{\varkappa}
\left(
\frac{\sigma_{zz}}{\sigma_\|}
\right)^{1/2}
\right]$$ It follows from Equation (5.85) that the behaviour of $K$-factor in a magnetic field depends significantly on the shape of the contact and the inclination $\theta$ of the field $\bs{H}$ to the contact axis. In the limiting cases $\theta=0$ and $\theta=\pi/2$, the $K$-factor does not contain the parameter $\gamma\ll1$ for both very short ($\varkappa\ll L$) and elongated ($\varkappa\gg L$) contacts.
If the contact axis as well as a magnetic field lie in the layers-plane for a contact in the form of an orifice ($\varkappa=0$) (Fig. 10), we obtain simple asymptotic expressions for the integral $I_i(L,\varkappa)$ (5.78) at $L\ll1$: I\_12L;I\_2();I\_3();L\^2=. Substituting the expressions for $I_i$ (5.88) into Equation (5.77) and noting that the function $\Psi(k)=(\pi/2)\ln^{-1}(1/L)$ for $\varkappa\ll1$, we find K(,’)&=&\
&& { -\_0\^2m\^[-2]{} \[(p\_y-p\_y’)-(|[p]{}\_y-|[p]{}\_y’)\]\^2\
&+& \[ 2(v\_z-v\_z’)\^2+(|[v]{}\_y-|[v]{}\_y’)\^2 \] }. It is follows from Equation (5.89) that in the main approximation in above parameters, the point contact, spectrum is practically independent of $H$ in a strong field.
Thus, the point contact spectra differ considerably for different orientations of the contact axis and vector $\bs{H}$. If the current passes in the direction with low conductivity, the electron–phonon collisions, which change the charge carrier velocity component parallel to the layers, make a negative contribution to the point contact spectrum in a longitudinal field. The situation is reversed as the field $\bs{H}$ is turned through right angles, and the negative contribution is now made by the scattering processes which change the electron velocity at right angle to the layers. These processes play the most important role and must cause an inversion of the point contact spectrum in a magnetic field transverse to the axis for $L\ll\varkappa$. The intensity and sign of the point contact spectrum are determined by the type of phonons being excited, as well as by the shape of the contact. When the main role in the passage of current through the contact is played by electrons moving parallel to the layers, the point contact spectrum is independent of $\bs{H}$ in the strong magnetic field.
CONCLUSION {#conclusion .unnumbered}
==========
Electron phenomena in quasi-two-dimensional conductors with the metal type of electrical conductivity, analysed above, shows the rich variety of properties of artificial metals.
In contrast to the case of an ordinary metal, the presence of an extra small parameter such as the parameter of quasi-two-dimensionality of the electron energy spectrum, allows us to study theoretically and in far more detail, the relaxation phenomena and also to reveal new effects containing the information about properties of charge carriers in low-dimensional conductors. Among them there is the orientation effect (peculiar dependence of kinetic characteristics of a layered conductor on the orientation of a strong magnetic field) arising from the sharp anisotropy of the velocity of charge carriers with the Fermi energy. The dependencies of magnetoresistance, surface impedance, and sound attenuation rate on the angle between the normal to the layers and a magnetic field show sharp peaks, the spacing between them containing the information on the form of the Fermi surface. Experimental investigations of the orientation effect under the conditions, when the diameter of electron orbit is the least length parameter of the problem, and enable the anisotropy and magnitude of the Fermi surface diameters to be determined.
In ordinary metals only the Fermi surface topology can be restored by galvanomagnetic measurements, but in order to determine the sizes of the Fermi surface the response of electron system to an alternating field must be investigated.
When electromagnetic and acoustic waves propagate in layered conductors, when the wavelength is the least length parameter of the problem, extra possibilities for studying the properties of charge carriers appear. Even if charge carriers are incapable of drifting along the direction of the wave vector, magnetoacoustic resonance takes place, and between resonant peaks the acoustic transparency is observed.
The attenuation length for acoustic and electromagnetic waves in quasi-two-dimensional conductors is very sensitive to the polarization of the wave. Investigations of the high-frequency impedance in a magnetic field at different polarizations of the wave enable the character of the interaction between charge carriers and the sample surface to be studied.
The magnetic field dependence $U(H)$ of the electron focusing signal in layered conductors is determined by the size of point contacts and their orientation in relation to crystallographic axes. If contacts are arranged on the crystal surface perpendicular to the layers with a high electrical conductivity, one can determine the diameters of closed Fermi surface cross sections from the positions of transverse electron focusing peaks on the magnetic field scale. When the vector $\bs{H}$, lies in the plane of the layers, singularities in the electron focusing signal occur for the values of the field $\bs{H}$ corresponding to the separation between the electrodes multiple to the electron displacement per period in an open trajectory. The effect of longitudinal electron focusing can be observed in a magnetic field orthogonal to the surface. The values of $H$ for which the signal $U(H)$ has peaks can be used for determining the extremal value of the electron velocity along the Fermi surface cylinder axis. Thus, the electron focusing observations in layered organic metals can serve as a source of information on their Fermi surface.
The magnetic field dependence of the resistance $R(H)$ for contacts oriented at a right angle to the layers with a high electrical conductivity is extremely sensitive to the shape of the constriction and to the ratio of conductivities across and along the layers. A variation of the field changes the ratio of conductivities paving the way for two types of field dependence $R(H)$ for the same contact in different ranges of $H$. As the inclination of the vector $\bs{H}$ in relation to the layers changes, $R(H)$ becomes a nonmonotonic function of the angle. In the geometry of experiment, when the contact axis and vector $\bs{H}$ lie in the plane of a layer with a high conductivity, the resistance shows algorithmic dependence on $\bs{H}$.
The point contact spectra differ considerably for different orientations of both the contact axis and vector $\bs{H}$. If the current passes in the direction with a low conductivity, the electron–phonon collisions, that change the charge carrier velocity in the layers-plane, make a negative contribution into the point contact spectrum in a longitudinal field. The situation is reversed as the field $\bs{H}$ turned through a right angle, and the negative contribution is now made by the scattering processes that change the electron velocity at a right angle to the layers. The intensity and sign of the point contact spectrum are determined by the type of phonons, being excited, as well as by the shape of the contact. When the main role in the passage of current through the contact is played by electrons moving parallel to the layers, the point contact spectrum is independent of $\bs{H}$ in a strong magnetic field.
REFERENCES {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[ ]{}
Kapitza, P. (1928) [*Proc. Roy. Soc.*]{}, [**A129**]{}, 358
Schubnikov, L.V. and de Haas, W.J. (1930) [*Leiden Commun.*]{}, [**19**]{}, 207f
de Haas, W.J., Blom, J.W. and Schubnikov, L.V. (1930) [*Physica*]{}, [**2**]{}, 907
Landau, L.D. (1939) [*Proc. Roy. Soc.*]{}, [**170**]{}, 341
Kartsovnic, V.M., Laukhin, V.N., Nizhankovsky, V.I. and Ignatyev, A.A. (1988) [*Pis’ma v ZhETF*]{}, [**47**]{}, 302 ([*JETP Lett*]{}, [**47**]{}, 363 (1988))
Kartsovnic, V.M., Kononovich, P.A., Laukhin, V.N. and Shchegolev, I.F. (1988) [*Pis’ma v ZhETF*]{}, [**48**]{}, 498 (JETP Lett., 48, 541 (1988))
Parker, I.D., Pigram, D.D., Friend, R.H., Kurmo, M. and Day, P. (1988) [*Synth. Met.*]{}, [**27**]{}, A387
Oshima, K., Mori, T., Inokuchi, H., Urayama, H., Yamochi, H. and Sato, C. (1988) [*Phys. Rev.*]{}, [**B38**]{}, 938
Toyota, N., Sasaki, T., Murata, K., Honda, Y., Tokumoto, M., Bando, H., Kinoshita, N., Anzai, H., Ishiguro, T. and Muto, Y. (1988) [*J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.*]{}, [**57**]{}, 2616
Kang, W., Montambaux, G., Cooper, J.R., Jerome, D., Batail, P. and Lenoir, C. (1989) [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, [**62**]{}, 2559
Kartsovnic, V.M., Kononovich, P.A., Laukhin, V.N., Pesotskii, S.I. and Shchegolev, I.F. (1990) [*Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.*]{}, [**97**]{}, 1305 (in Russian)
Shchegolev, I.F., Kononovich, P.A., Kartsovnic, V.M., Laukhin, V.N., Pesotskii, S.I., Hilti, B. and Mayer, C.W. (1990) [*Synth. Met.*]{}, [**39**]{}, 357
Tokumoto, M., Swanson, A.O., Brooks, J.S., Agosta, C.C., Hannahs, S.T., Kinoshita, N., Anzai, H. and J.R.Anderson, (1990) [*J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.*]{}, [**59**]{}, 2324
Yagi, R., Iye, Y., Osada, T. and Kagoshima, S. (1990) [*J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.*]{}, [**59**]{}, 3069
Onsager, L. (1952) [*Phil. Mag*]{}, [**43**]{}, 1006
Lifshitz, I.M. and Kosevich, A.H. (1955) [*Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.*]{}, [**29**]{}, 743 ([*Sov. Phys. JETP*]{}, [**2**]{}, 646 (1956))
Azbel’, M.Ya. (1960) [*Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.*]{}, [**39**]{}, 400 ([*Sov. Phys. JETP*]{}, [**12**]{}, 283 (1961))
Onsager, L. (1931) [*Phys. Rev.*]{}, [**37**]{}, 405
Lifshitz, I.M. and Peschansky, V.G. (1958) [*Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.*]{}, [**35**]{}, 1251 ([*Sov. Phys. JETP*]{}, [**8**]{}, 875 (1958)).
Ziman, J. (1959) [*Phil. Mag.*]{}, [**3**]{}, 1117
Stachowiak, H. (1964) [*Acta Phys. Pol.*]{}, [**26**]{}, 217
Dreizin, Yu.A. and Dykhne, A.M. (1971) [*Pis’ma v ZhETF*]{}, [**14**]{}, 101 (in Russian)
Peschansky, V.G., Roldan Lopez, J.A. and Toji Gnado Jao (1991) [*Journ. de Physik I (France)*]{}, [**1**]{}, 1469
Schoenberg, D. (19??) [*Magnetic Oscillations*]{} ???
Privorotsky, I.A. (1967) [*Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.*]{}, [**52**]{}, 1755 (in Russian)
Reuter, E.H.T. and Sondheimer, B.H. (1948) [*Proc. Roy. Soc.*]{}, [**195**]{}, 336
Peschansky, V.G., Savel’eva, S.N. and Kheir Bek, H. (1992) [*Fiz. Tverd. Tela*]{}, [**34**]{}, 1630 ([*Sov. Phys. Solid State*]{}, [**34**]{}, 871 (1992))
Peschansky, V.G., Kheir Bek, H. and Savel’eva, S.N. (1992) [*Fiz. Nizk. Temp.*]{}, [**18**]{}, 1012 ([*Sov. J. Low Temp. Phys.*]{}, [**18**]{}, 711 (1992))
Hartmann, L.E. and Luttinger, L.M. (1966) [*Phys. Rev.*]{}, [**151**]{}, 430
Azbel’, M.Ja. (1961) [*Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.*]{}, [**39**]{}, 400 ([*Sov. Phys. JETP*]{}, [**12**]{}, 283 (1961))
Lur’e, M.A., Peschansky, V.G. and Jiasemides, K. (1984) [*J. Low Temp. Phys.*]{}, [**36**]{}, 277
Peschansky, V.G., Dassanaeke, M.S. and Tsybulina, B.V. (1983) [*Fiz. Nizk. Temp.*]{}, [**11**]{}, 297 ([*Sov. Low. Temp. Phys.*]{}, [**11**]{}, 162 (1985))
Pippard, A.B. (1957) [*Phil. Mag.*]{}, [**2**]{}, 1147
Gurevich, V.L. (1959) [*Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.*]{}, [**37**]{}, 71 (in Russian)
Kaner, E.A., Peschansky, V.G. and Privorotsky, I.A. (1961) [*Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.*]{}, [**40**]{}, 214 ([*Sov. Phys. JETP*]{}, [**13**]{}, 147 (1961))
Gurevich, V.L., Skobov, V.G. and Firsov, Yu.D. (1961) [*Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.*]{}, [**40**]{}, 786 ([*Sov. Phys. JETP*]{}, [**13**]{}, 552 (1961))
Silin, V.P. (1960) [*Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.*]{}, [**38**]{}, 977 ([*Sov. Phys. JETP*]{}, [**11**]{}, 775 (1960))
Kontorovich, V.M. (1963) [*Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.*]{}, [**45**]{}, 1633 ([*Sov. Phys. JETP*]{}, [**18**]{}, 1333 (1963))
Andreev, A.F. and Pushkarov, D.I. (1985) [*Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.*]{}, [**89**]{}, 1883 ([*Sov. Phys. JETP*]{}, [**62**]{}, 1087 (1985))
Akhiezer, A.I. (1938) [*Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.*]{}, [**8**]{}, 1338
Kirichenko, O.V. and Peschansky, V.G. (1994) [*Journal de Physique*]{}, [**4**]{}, 823
Gorhfel’d, V.M., Kirichenko, O.V. and Peschansky, V.G. (1995) [*Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.*]{}, [**108**]{}, 2147 ([*Sov. Phys. JETP*]{}, [**81**]{}, 1171 (1995))
Kirichenko, O.V. and Peschansky, V.G. (1994) [*Fiz. Nizk. Temp.*]{}, [**20**]{}, 574 (Low. Temp. Phys., 20, 453 (1994))
Landau, L.D. and Lifshits, B.M. (1986) [*Theory of Elasticity*]{}, Pergamon, Oxford
Kirichenko, O.V. and Peschansky, V.G. (1996) [*Pis’ma v ZhETF*]{}, [**64**]{}, 845 (in Russian)
Gorhfel’d, V.M., Kirichenko, O.V. and Peschansky, V.G. (1993) [*Fiz. Nizk. Temp.*]{}, [**19**]{}, 456 ([*Low. Temp. Phys.*]{}, [**19**]{}, 321 (1993))
Galbova, O., Ivanovski, G., Kirichenko, O.V. and Peschansky, V.G. (1997) [*Fiz. Nizk. Temp.*]{}, [**23**]{}, 173 ([*Low. Temp. Phys.*]{}, [**23**]{}, 127 (1997))
Landau, L.D. (1956) [*Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.*]{}, [**30**]{}, 1058 ([*Sov. Phys. JETP*]{}, [**3**]{}, 920 (1956))
Silin, V.P. (1957) [*Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.*]{}, [**33**]{}, 495 ([*Sov. Phys. JETP*]{}, [**6**]{}, 387 (1957))
Silin, V.P. (1967) [*Usp. Fiz. Nauk*]{}, [**93**]{}, 185
Bagaev, V.N., Okulov, V.I. and Pamyatnikh, E.A. (1978) [*Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.*]{}, [**27**]{}, 156 ([*JETP Letters*]{}, [**27**]{}, 144 (1978))
Peschansky, V.G., Espeho, G. and Tesgera Bedassa, D. (1995) [*Fiz. Nizk. Temp.*]{}, [**21**]{}, 971 ([*Low Temp. Phys.*]{}, [**21**]{}, 748 (1995))
Galbova, O., Ivanovski, G., Kirichenko, O.V. and Peschansky, V.G. (1995) [*Phys. Low-Dim. Struct.*]{}, [*10/11*]{}, 295
Galbova, O., Ivanovski, G., Kirichenko, O.V. and Peschansky, V.G. (1996) [*Fiz. Nizk. Temp.*]{}, [**22**]{}, 425 ([*Low Temp. Phys.*]{}, [**22**]{}, 331 (1996))
Sharvin, Yu.V. (1965) [*Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.*]{}, [**48**]{}, 984 ([*Sov. Phys. JETP*]{}, [**21**]{}, 655 (1965))
Sharvin, Yu.V. and Fisher, L.M. (1965) [*Pis’ma v ZhETF*]{}, [**1**]{}, 54 ([*JETP Lett.*]{}, [**1**]{}, 152 (1965))
Hawkins, F.M. and Pippard, A.B. (1965) [*Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc.*]{}, [**61**]{}, 433
Tsoi, V.S. (1974) [*Pis’ma v ZhETF*]{}, [**19**]{}, 114 ([*JETP Lett.*]{}, [**19**]{}, 70 (1974))
Goncalves da Silva, C.E.T. (1974) [*J. Low. Temp. Phys.*]{}, [**16**]{}, 337
Korzh, S.A. (1975) [*Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.*]{}, [**68**]{}, 144 ([*Sov. Phys. JETP*]{}, [**41**]{}, 70 (1975))
Kolesnichenko, Yu.A., Bedassa, T. and Grishaev, V.I. (1995) [*Fiz. Nizk. Temp.*]{}, [**21**]{}, 1049 ([*Low Temp. Phys.*]{}, [**21**]{}, 806 (1995))
Baskin, E.M. and Entin, M.V. (1968) [*Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.*]{}, [**49**]{}, 460 (in Russian)
Fal’kovsky, L.A. (1970) [*Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.*]{}, [**58**]{}, 1830 ([*Sov. Phys. JETP*]{}, [**31**]{}, 981 (1970))
Okulov, V.I. and Ustinov, V.V. (1979) [*Fiz. Nizk. Temp.*]{}, [**5**]{}, 213 ([*Sov. J. Low Temp. Phys.*]{}, [**5**]{}, 101 (1979))
Azbel’, M.Ya. and Peschansky, V.G., (1965) [*Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.*]{}, [**49**]{}, 52; (1968) [*Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.*]{}, [**55**]{}, 1980 ([*Sov. Phys. JETP*]{}, [**22**]{}, 399 (1966); [*Sov. Phys. JETP*]{}, [**22**]{}, 1045 (1969))
Kolesnichenko, Yu.A. and Kulik, I.O. (1992) [*Fiz. Nizk. Temp.*]{}, [**18**]{}, 1005 ([*Sov. J. Low Temp. Phys.*]{}, [**18**]{}, 706 (1992))
Kolesnichenko, Yu.A. (1992) [*Fiz. Nizk. Temp.*]{}, [**18**]{}, 1059 ([*Sov. J. Low Temp. Phys.*]{}, [**18**]{}, 741 (1992))
Kulik, I.O., Omel’anchuk, A.N. and Shekhter, R.I. (1977) [*Fiz. Nizk. Temp.*]{}, [**3**]{}, 1543 ([*Sov. J. Low Temp. Phys.*]{}, [**3**]{}, 740 (1977))
Lifshits, I.M. Azbel’, M.Ya. and Kaganov, M.I. (1972) [*Electron Theory of Metals*]{}, Moscow: Nauka (New York: Consultant Bureau (1973))
Kulik, I.O., Shekhter, R.I. and Shkorbatov, A.G. (1981) [*Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.*]{}, [**81**]{}, 2126 ([*Sov. Phys. JETP*]{}, [**54**]{}, 1130 (1981))
Bogachek, E.N., Kulik, I.O. and Shekhter, R.I. (1987) [*Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.*]{}, [**92**]{}, 730 ([*Sov. Phys. JETP*]{}, [**65**]{}, 411 (1987))
Kolesnichenko, Yu.A., Tuluzov, I.G. and Khotkevich, A.V. (1993) [*Fiz. Nizk.Temp.*]{}, [**19**]{}, 402 ([*Low Temp. Phys.*]{}, [**19**]{}, 282 (1993))
Kolesnichenko, Yu.A., Tuluzov, I.G. and Khotkevich, A.V. (1993) [*Fiz. Nizk.Temp.*]{}, [**19**]{}, 901 ([*Low Temp. Phys.*]{}, [**19**]{}, 642 (1993))
Yanson, I.K. (1974) [*Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.*]{}, [**66**]{}, 1035 ([*Sov. Phys. JETP*]{}, [**39**]{}, 506 (1974))
Yanson, I.K. and Khotkevich, A.V. (1986) [*Atlas of Point Contact Spectra of Electron–Phonon Interactions in Metals*]{}, Kiev: Naukova dumka (Kluwer Academic Publishers (1995))
Novack, A., Weger, M., Schweitzer, D. and Keller, H.J. (1986) [*Solid State Commun.*]{}, [**60**]{}, 199
Novak, A., Poppe, U., Weger, M. [*et al.*]{} (1987) [*Zh. Phys.*]{}, [**B68**]{}, 41
Kamarchuk, G.V., Pokhodnya, K.I., Khotkevich, A.V. and Yanson, I.K. (1990) [*Fiz. Nizk. Temp.*]{}, [**16**]{}, 711 ([*Sov. J. Low Temp. Phys.*]{}, [**16**]{}, 419 (1990))
Kamarchuk, G.V., Khotkevich, A.V., Kozlov, M.E. and Pokhodnya, K.I. (1992) [*Fiz. Nizk. Temp.*]{}, [**18**]{}, 967 ([*Sov. J. Low Temp. Phys.*]{}, [**18**]{}, 679 (1992))
Kamarchuk, G.V., Khotkevich, A.V., Kolesnichenko, Yu.A., Pokhodnya, K.I. and Tuluzov, I.G. (1994) [*J. Phys.: Condens. Matter*]{}, [**6**]{}, 3559
Kulik, I.O. (1985) [*Pis’ma v ZhETF*]{}, [**41**]{}, 302 ([*JETP Lett.*]{}, [**41**]{}, 370 (1985))
Syrkin, E.S. and Feodos’ev, S.B. (1991) [*Fiz. Nizk. Temp.*]{}, [**17**]{}, 1055 ([*Sov. J. Low Temp. Phys.*]{}, [**19**]{}, 549 (1991))
INDEX {#index .unnumbered}
=====
Acoustic transparency
Acousto-electronic tensors
Anomalous skin effect
Boundary condition
Collision integral
Deformation potential
Distribution function of electrons
Electron focusing
Electron–phonon interaction
Electrical neutrality
Fermi liquid-interaction
Fermi surface
Kinetic equation
Magnetoresistance
Magnetoacoustic resonance
Maxwell’s equation
Normal skin effect
Open electron orbit
Penetration depth
Point contacts
Point contact spectroscopy
Quasi-two-dimensional energy spectrum
Rate of sound attenuation
Scattering indicatrix
Specular parameter
Weakly damping waves
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Circular Polarisation Ratio (CPR) mosaics from Mini-SAR on Chandrayaan-1 and Mini-RF on LRO are used to study craters near to the lunar north pole. The look direction of the detectors strongly affects the appearance of the crater CPR maps. Rectifying the mosaics to account for parallax also significantly changes the CPR maps of the crater interiors. It is shown that the CPRs of crater interiors in unrectified maps are biased to larger values than crater exteriors, because of a combination of the effects of parallax and incidence angle. Using the LOLA Digital Elevation Map (DEM), the variation of CPR with angle of incidence has been studied. For fresh craters, CPR $\sim 0.7$ with only a weak dependence on angle of incidence or position interior or just exterior to the crater, consistent with dihedral scattering from blocky surface roughness. For anomalous craters, the CPR interior to the crater increases with both incidence angle and distance from the crater centre. Central crater CPRs are similar to those in the crater exteriors. CPR does not appear to correlate with temperature within craters. Furthermore, the anomalous polar craters have diameter-to-depth ratios that are lower than those of typical polar craters. These results strongly suggest that the high CPR values in anomalous polar craters are not providing evidence of significant volumes of water ice. Rather, anomalous craters are of intermediate age, and maintain sufficiently steep sides that sufficient regolith does not cover all rough surfaces.'
address:
- 'Institute for Computational Cosmology, Department of Physics, Durham University, Science Laboratories, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, U.K.'
- 'BAER, Planetary Systems Branch, Space Science and Astrobiology Division, MS: 245-3, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000, U.S.A.'
author:
- 'Vincent R. Eke'
- 'Sarah A. Bartram'
- 'David A. Lane'
- David Smith
- 'Luis F. A. Teodoro'
bibliography:
- 'mybib.bib'
title: 'Lunar polar craters – icy, rough or just sloping?'
---
Moon, surface; Radar observations; Ices
Introduction
============
Knowing the quantity of water ice that is squirreled away in permanently shaded lunar polar cold traps will constrain models of volatile molecule delivery and retention. It is also of interest as a potential resource for future explorers. The seminal work of [@wat61] introduced the possibility of water ice accumulations in regions so cold, beneath $\sim 110$K, that ice would be stable against sublimation for billions of years. Using the Lunar Prospector Neutron Spectrometer (LPNS), [@feld98] showed that there were concentrations of hydrogen at polar latitudes to the $70$ cm depths probed by the neutrons. [@eke09] showed, with a pixon image reconstruction algorithm that sharpened the LPNS hydrogen map, that the excess polar hydrogen was preferentially concentrated into the permanently shaded regions. However, while suggestive, the level of $\sim 1$ wt$\%$ Water Equivalent Hydrogen (WEH), inferred from the models of [@law06], was still not sufficiently high to prove that the hydrogen needed to be present as water ice. Only with the LCROSS impactor [@cola10] did it become clear that water ice did indeed exist, in a small region within Cabeus, at a level of a few per cent by mass within the top metre or two of regolith. The hydrogen maps produced from the LPNS by [@luis10] implied that there may well be significant heterogeneity between permanently shaded polar craters, so the LCROSS result should not be assumed to apply to all of these cold traps.
Infra-red spectroscopy of the sunlit lunar surface has shown not only absorption by surficial water and hydroxyl [@pie09; @clark09], but also that these molecules are mobile across the surface depending upon the time of lunar day [@sun09]. This supports the idea of a lunar “water cycle” of the sort envisaged by [@but97] and [@cv00], but major uncertainties remain in our understanding of the efficiency with which cold traps protect the volatiles that they receive [@cv03].
The Lyman Alpha Mapping Project (LAMP) instrument on LRO has shown, using radiation resulting from distant stars or scattering of the Sun’s Ly $\alpha$ from interplanetary hydrogen atoms, that permanently shaded polar craters typically have a low far-UV albedo [@glad12]. These results are consistent with $1-2\%$ water frost in the upper micron of the regolith of the permanently shaded regions, with the observed heterogeneity between different craters perhaps implying a sensitivity to local temperatures. Knowing how heterogeneous the water ice abundance is would provide insight into which physical processes are most relevant for determining volatile retention.
Another widely-used remote sensing technique with the potential to provide information about both the composition and structure of near-surface material is radar [@cambook]. This often involves sensing the polarisation state of the reflected radiation when circularly polarised radio waves are transmitted towards a surface. The dielectric properties of the materials present, surface roughness, including rocks and boulders, composition and size of any buried materials within the regolith and the depth of regolith above bedrock could all affect the returned signal. For $13$ cm radiation, the dielectric properties of regolith are such that the upper few metres of the surface can be probed by radar measurements. Given the complex nature of the scattering problem, it can be difficult to know what to infer from radar data without additional insights into the likely surface composition or structure. The most frequently used way of characterising the returned signal is to take the ratio of powers in the same sense (as transmitted) to the opposite sense of circular polarisation, namely the circular polarisation ratio, or CPR. A CPR of zero would be expected for specular reflection from a medium with higher refractive index, whereas higher CPR values can result from multiple scattering, which may imply the presence of a low-loss medium such as water ice making up the regolith.
Radar observations of Europa, Ganymede and Callisto showed surprisingly high CPR values of $\sim 1.5$ [@cam78; @ost92]. The low densities of these satellites were indicative of them having icy compositions. The temptation to associate high CPR values with ice increased when observations of the polar regions of Mercury showed that high CPR regions were associated with permanently shaded craters, within which temperatures could be low enough for water ice to be stable against sublimation [@harm94]. Recent results from MESSENGER’s neutron spectrometer [@law13] support this conclusion.
It is less clear what should be inferred from radar observations of the Moon about the presence of water ice in permanently shaded craters. The Clementine mission transmitted circularly polarised radio waves into the lunar polar regions, with the reflected flux measured on Earth. An increase in same-sense polarised power at zero phase angle was interpreted by [@noz96] as possible evidence for constructive interference from waves taking reversed routes involving multiple scattering within an icy regolith. This coherent backscatter opposition effect [CBOE @hapke] is one physical process that would produce high CPR values. However, [@stac97], [@st99] and [@cam05] showed that high CPR could also result from surfaces that were rough on scales within an order of magnitude in size of the $13$ cm radar wavelength, which would help to explain why at least some of the high CPR regions occurred in clearly sunlit locations where water ice would not exist in significant amounts.
In parallel with the acquisition of remote sensing radar data, various models have been constructed to help to interpret the CPR measurements. Descriptions of the scattering mechanisms relevant to the problem are given by [@cambook; @cam12]. An empirical two-component model was developed by [@thomp11] with a view to decoding CPR data from the Mini-SAR and Mini-RF instruments on Chandrayaan-1 and LRO respectively. The most physically motivated modelling to date was carried out by [@fa11] who used vector radiative transfer theory to follow the polarisation state of the input electromagnetic radiation. While their model did not include multiple scattering, so had no CBOE, it did predict the impact of incidence angle, regolith thickness, buried rocks and surface roughness on the returned signal. They found that the similarity in dielectric permittivity between ice and a silicate regolith would make it difficult to identify ice mixed into such a regolith.
The wealth of recent information returned from lunar missions provides the possibility of discriminating between the different reasons for high CPR regions on the lunar surface. [@spu10] used the north pole CPR mosaic from the Mini-SAR instrument on Chandrayaan-1 to show how fresh craters showed high CPR both inside and out, whereas a set of ‘anomalous’ polar craters had high interior CPRs without any corresponding enhancement just outside their rims. If meteorite bombardment removed roughness at a similar rate inside and outside these craters then this is suggestive that something other than roughness was responsible for the anomalously high CPRs inside these craters. That something could be water ice. Using Mini-RF data from LRO, [@spu13] argued that the abundance of anomalous craters was much greater near to the lunar poles than at lower latitudes, with the implication that temperature might be an important variable in determining the CPR in these craters.
More recently, [@fa13] studied examples of both polar and non-polar fresh and anomalous craters using data from the Mini-RF Synthetic Aperture Radar instrument on board LRO, finding polar and non-polar anomalous craters to have indistinguishable distributions of pixel CPR. Given that water ice is not the reason for the non-polar crater interiors having anomalously high pixel CPR values, why should it be necessary for the high pixel CPR values in anomalous polar craters? Furthermore, [@fa13] used LROC images to see boulders within, and not outside, the non-polar anomalous crater. Despite the mismatch in scales between the $>$1-2 m-sized rocks and the $13$ cm radar wavelength, the model of [@fa13] shows that dihedral scattering from such rocks can still significantly increase the CPR. This provides a potential reason for the anomalous crater CPR distributions and evidence for some differential weathering from the crater interior to its exterior. Unfortunately, the lack of illumination into the floors of the polar craters precluded such a detailed investigation of rockiness being carried out in these locations. In their detailed study of Shackleton crater, [@thom12] found that “Mini-RF observations indicate a patchy, heterogeneous enhancement in CPR on the crater walls whose strength decreases with depth toward the crater floor.” While placing an upper limit of $\sim 5-10$ wt% H$_2$O ice in the uppermost metre of regolith, they conclude that the result “... is most consistent with a roughness effect due to less mature regolith present on the crater wall slopes.”
In this paper, the polar craters studied by [@spu10] will be investigated using a combination of topography, radar and temperature data sets, with a view to determining what is responsible for the anomalous polar craters, and is anything special about their cold floors. Section \[sec:data\] contains descriptions of the various data sets that will be employed and the set of polar craters to be studied. Results concerning the variation of CPR with incidence angle and position within the crater, as well as a simple model showing the impact of parallax in the range measurement, are contained in Section \[sec:res\]. What these CPR measurements imply about the presence of polar water ice are discussed in Section \[sec:disc\], and conclusions drawn in Section \[sec:conc\].
Data {#sec:data}
====
A number of different lunar data sets, available from the Geosciences Node of NASA’s Planetary Data System (PDS[^1]), will be used. This section describes them briefly, as well as providing details of the set of north polar craters to be studied.
LOLA Topographical data {#ssec:lola}
-----------------------
The polar stereographic Lunar Orbiter Laser Altimeter (LOLA) Digital Elevation Map (DEM) for the north pole, with a pixel size of $80$ m, is used in this study [@smith10]. These data are used for finding craters using the algorithm defined in the Appendix, which returns crater locations, diameters ($D$) and depths ($d$), and also to determine surface normals and hence radar angles of incidence for the Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) observations.
Synthetic Aperture Radar data {#ssec:radar}
-----------------------------
Both the S-band ($12.6$ cm wavelength) CPR and reflected power (characterised through the first element of the Stokes vector, $S_1$) polar stereographic mosaics for the Mini-SAR instrument on Chandrayaan-1 [@spu09] and Mini-RF on LRO [@noz10] are used here. These instruments use a hybrid polarity architecture [@raney07], emitting circularly polarised radio waves and receiving two orthogonal linear polarisations coherently, enabling the Stokes vector of the returned signal to be fully reconstructed. The PDS mosaics of CPR and $S_1$ provide measurements with a pixel size of $75$ m for Mini-SAR and $\sim 118$ m for Mini-RF down to a latitude of $\sim 70^\circ$. Both of these instruments were side-facing, relative to the direction of spacecraft motion, with Mini-SAR having a nadir angle of $\sim 33^\circ$ and Mini-RF $\sim 48^\circ$. The currently available mosaics are neither controlled, to take into account the imperfect knowledge of the spacecraft trajectory, nor orthorectified to tie the images to an underlying base map such as that provided by the LOLA DEM. Orthorectification involves removing distortions in the inferred range distance, perpendicular to the direction of spacecraft motion, resulting from height variations in the topography affecting the return times of the radar pulses [@kirk13; @cambook]. The impact of this radar parallax effect is significant and will be considered in detail in this paper. These factors mean that the Mini-SAR and Mini-RF mosaics can be spatially offset from the base map set by the LOLA DEM by up to $\sim 5$ km and $\sim 2$ km respectively. The Mini-RF mosaic is a mixture of left- and right-looking measurements, with most pixels being assigned the latest right-looking observation, with $\sim 5\%$ of pixels being left-looking (R. Kirk, private communication). Consequently, the Mini-RF mosaic will not be used for the quantitative analysis towards the end of this paper. It should be noted that near to the poles, right-looking does not imply east-looking. For instance, when the detector is at the north pole, right-looking corresponds to facing south.
Diviner data {#ssec:div}
------------
{width="2.3\columnwidth"}
The Diviner infra-red radiometer on board LRO has measured fluxes from the lunar surface in nine different spectral bands, allowing surface temperatures to be inferred. From these data, with a model to account for the variation in solar illumination over time, maps of average and maximum temperatures can be calculated [@paige10b]. Given the exponential dependence of both water molecule diffusion and sublimation rates on temperature, the map of maximum temperature is likely to be most relevant to the distribution of polar water ice and is used here. These $T_{\rm max}$ values are provided in a set of triangular pixels poleward of $75^\circ$ latitude, with a spatial resolution of $\sim 500$ m.
The crater set {#ssec:crat}
--------------
\[tab:loc\]
A set of polar craters was found by applying the algorithm described in the Appendix to the LOLA $80$ m north pole stereographic DEM. Briefly, this method involves finding depressions in the surface by tracking to where ‘water’, placed uniformly across the surface, runs. Isolated ‘puddles’ provide possible candidates for simple, isolated craters that do not have significant sub-cratering. A crater-shaped filter is run over the DEM in the vicinity of sufficiently isolated depressions. This filter picks out circularly symmetric concave regions with a circular convex rim. The best match of the crater-shaped filter with the DEM defines the crater centre and radius, $r_{\rm c}$, and the value of the filtered DEM provides a quantitative measure of how crater-like each candidate is.
$42$ of the craters studied by [@spu10] were matched to crater candidates in the LOLA DEM. Locations and radii are provided in Table 1 for this set. Note that, because the Mini-SAR and Mini-RF mosaics have not been orthorectified to the LOLA base map, there are different crater centres for each of these data sets. To determine the crater centres, their radii and approximate locations are taken from the crater-finding algorithm. The radar data are then visually aligned, matching the pattern of nearby craters in the LOLA DEM to those visible in the CPR and $S_1$ maps. In the radar data, anomalous and fresh craters show up as regions of high CPR, with arcs of high $S_1$ on the far crater walls. The accuracy with which this alignment can be used to estimate the positions of the crater rims is approximately $2$ pixels, which is $150$ m for the Mini-SAR data. This is less than $10\%$ of the crater radius for almost all of the craters considered here. Having aligned the rims of the craters in this way, the pre-rectification centre locations are assumed to have the same uncertainty in position. A few of the craters studied by [@spu10] are not included in the sample of $42$ craters, either because they could not be confidently found in the CPR maps, or because their CPR and $S_1$ distributions did not allow a clear centre to be inferred.
Figure \[fig:allcdist\] shows probability distributions for pixel CPR values measured from the Mini-SAR mosaic for the interiors and exteriors of all $42$ craters. Craters $1-33$ represent the “anomalous” ones with exterior CPR values being typically lower than interior ones, whereas numbers $34-42$ are fresh craters. For reference, crater $2$ is the anomalous crater shown in figure 3 of [@spu10].
Results {#sec:res}
=======
The different CPR distributions for pixels interior and exterior to the polar anomalous craters are clearly seen in Figure \[fig:allcdist\]. This section contains the results from a more detailed analysis of what gives rise to these differences.
Stacking craters {#ssec:stack}
----------------
If the anomalously high interior CPR measurements in polar craters were the result of significant deposits of water ice, then one might expect to see a variation of CPR with the position within the crater, reflecting varying insolation, temperature and hence water ice stability [@vas99]. To enhance the signal-to-noise, all $33$ anomalous craters have been stacked together to produce the Mini-SAR CPR map shown in Figure \[fig:ch1stack\]. The stacking process involves dividing each pixel’s CPR by the mean crater interior CPR and the distance from the centre is expressed as a fraction of the distance to the crater’s edge. The map for each crater is rotated to have the north pole at the top, and the final stacked map is the mean of these processed crater maps. It is apparent from the figure that the highest CPR is typically on the poleward side of the crater, with a distinctive horseshoe pattern of higher CPR around the crater walls.
Stacking the same $33$ anomalous craters together using the Mini-RF mosaic gives rise to the CPR map in Figure \[fig:lrostack\]. Once again a horseshoe-shaped high CPR region is seen, only in a different part of the stacked crater. Given that the lunar surface will not have changed significantly during the period between Mini-SAR and Mini-RF data collection, it can be inferred that this difference reflects a change in the viewing geometry, as anticipated by the model of [@fa11] (see their figure 13).
This conclusion is strengthened by the corresponding stacked maps of the returned power shown in Figures \[fig:s1cstack\] and \[fig:s1lstack\], which are determined from the $S_1$ mosaics. Higher returned power suggests the transmitted radiation is nearer to normal incidence on the surface. Consequently, there will be greater specular reflection and a lower returned CPR. Thus, the highly reflective parts of the stacked returned power maps correspond to the low parts in the CPR maps. When the surface is viewed at larger angles of incidence, the multiply scattered radiation becomes increasingly important and the returned CPR increases while the returned power decreases. The stacked crater maps shown in these figures all have north to the top, but the radar look direction does not always have the same bearing because the side-facing detector will change its look direction near to the pole. In addition to having different look directions for the different craters contributing to the stacked map, the incidence angle in any given pixel will vary between craters as they have a variety of diameter-to-depth ratios. Consequently, these stacked maps are for illustrative purposes only, and all subsequent radar results treat the craters individually, using a look direction inferred by determining the position of the maximum reflected power in that crater’s $S_1$ map.
From these figures, it is clear that the largest factor affecting the CPR maps of these polar craters is the angle of incidence of the observations. As the Mini-RF mosaic includes both left and right-looking measurements it will not be possible to infer an appropriate, reliable single crater look direction from the mosaic, so attention will now be focussed onto the Mini-SAR data.
Slopes and parallax {#ssec:slopes}
-------------------
Given that the angle of incidence is a complicating, and for the purposes of learning about the lunar surface uninteresting, factor driving the CPR distribution within the polar craters, it would be good to remove its effect. While there have been models of how CPR varies with angle of incidence [@thomp11; @fa11], a more robust approach involves determining the dependence using the data themselves.
Each crater has an $S_1$ map with a high spot that should be nearest to normal incidence for the incoming radar. This is defined within a cone of opening angle $20^\circ$ from the centre of the crater, and is used to define the azimuthal look direction of the detector appropriate to this particular crater. In combination with the nadir angle of the detector, this provides a vector for the incoming radiation. Finite differencing methods applied to the LOLA DEM provide a local surface normal. The scalar product of these unit vectors yields the cosine of the angle of incidence for each pixel in each of the craters being considered. In this way, each pixel CPR can be mapped to a corresponding angle of incidence.
![The stacked relative CPR map for the 33 anomalous craters. Each crater map is divided by the mean pixel CPR interior to the crater and rotated to have north at the top before they are stacked together. The white circle represents the edge of the craters contributing to the average.[]{data-label="fig:ch1stack"}](ch1stack.pdf){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
![The stack of the 33 anomalous crater relative CPR maps using the LRO Mini-RF unrectified mosaic.[]{data-label="fig:lrostack"}](lrostack.pdf){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
![The stacked relative returned power, represented by the first element of the Stokes vector, $S_1$, for observations of the 33 anomalous craters made by Mini-SAR. All craters are aligned so that north points to the top of the image before stacking.[]{data-label="fig:s1cstack"}](s1cstack.pdf){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
![The equivalent of Fig. \[fig:s1cstack\] for the LRO Mini-RF $S_1$ mosaic.[]{data-label="fig:s1lstack"}](s1lstack.pdf){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
One final, but crucial, complication is to determine to which bit of the surface does an unrectified Mini-SAR mosaic pixel correspond. The effect of parallax in radar range measurements distorts the inferred pixel position because the mapping of return signal time to distance should account for variations in the height of the surface being mapped [@cambook]. As the Mini-SAR crater positions have been individually chosen such that the crater rims appear to line up correctly (something that the stacked CPR and $S_1$ mosaics imply has been done reasonably well), the mean altitude of the crater rim is set as the reference height. All other points within $1.5r_{\rm c}$ of the crater centre are then shifted a distance $p$ away from the detector in the range direction using $$\Delta h=p \tan\alpha,$$ where $\Delta h$ represents the change in height, at the shifted position, relative to the reference height, $p$ is the parallax, and $\alpha$ is the angle of incidence of the radar [see section 4.11 in @cambook]. An iterative procedure is necessary because the parallax displacements depend upon the topography at to-be-determined positions in the DEM. This shift moves unrectified pixels within the crater having $\Delta h<0$ to positions that are nearer to the detector (i.e. $p<0$). As a consequence, equally spaced pixels in the distorted, unrectified map preferentially sample the near crater wall at higher angles of incidence.
Having determined which part of the LOLA DEM should be matched to each pixel in the vicinities of the craters being considered, the dependence of pixel CPR on the angle of incidence can be determined. Figure \[fig:angle\] shows the median dependence of the pixel values for each of the $33$ anomalous north pole craters being considered here. The median of these curves is shown with the bold black line, which can be well described by the linear fit $$CPR(\theta)=0.27+0.68(\theta/90^\circ)
\label{cprtheta}$$ where $\theta$ represents the angle of incidence in degrees. The crater interior shows a strong trend of increasing CPR with increasing angle of incidence, although the individual crater values have a non-negligible scatter about this median relation. A bold green line traces the median dependence for the $33$ crater exterior regions out to $1.5r_{\rm c}$, and clearly shows lower CPR values for intermediate angles of incidence than are typical inside these craters. While the exterior CPR does become more similar to the interior crater values at high and low angles of incidence, it is possible that this is a consequence of inaccuracies in defining the crater edges in the Mini-SAR mosaic.
This measurement of the variation of CPR with angle of incidence could contain dependencies on hidden surface properties that have not been considered, but it serves as a useful starting point for constructing a simple model with which to investigate just how important the rectification process is. A model crater was created with diameter $2r_{\rm c}=6$ km, and a diameter-to-depth ratio of $5.5$, typical of the anomalous polar craters considered here. The radial height profile, $a(x)$, with $x=r/r_{\rm c}$ being the radius in terms of the crater radius, was defined via $y(x)=a(x)/r_{\rm c}$, where $$\hspace{-0.8cm}y(x)=\left \{
\begin{array}{ll}
y_0+\eta x^2 &{\rm if}~ x\leq x_1,\\
y_1+y_1'(x-x_1) &{\rm if}~ x_1\leq x\leq x_2,\\
y_2+\beta[(x_2-1)^2-(x-1)^2] &{\rm if}~ x_2\leq x\leq x_3,\\
y_3+\gamma[(x-x_4)^2-(x_3-x_4)^2] &{\rm if}~ x_3\leq x\leq x_4,\\
y_4 &{\rm if}~ x_4\leq x.
\end{array}
\right.
$$ $y_0$ represents the central depth divided by the crater radius, which is just twice the reciprocal of the diameter-to-depth ratio, while $y_n$ for $n>0$ is the value of $y$ evaluated at $x_n$. $y_1'$ denotes d$y/$d$x$ evaluated at $x_1$. With the outer boundary condition set as $y_4=-0.04$ at $x_4=1.5$ and the two inner curvatures chosen to be $\eta=1$ and $\beta=2$, the requirements that the function is continuous and differentiable sets the remaining constants via $$\begin{aligned}
x_1&=&\frac{1-\sqrt{1-\frac{y_0}{\eta}(1+\eta/\beta)}}{1+\eta/\beta}\\
x_2&=&1-\frac{\eta}{\beta} x_1\\
x_3&=&1-\frac{y_4}{\beta (x_4-1)}\\
\gamma&=&\frac{\beta (x_3-1)}{x_4-x_3}.\end{aligned}$$ This cross-section for the model crater is shown in Figure \[fig:app2\] and has a maximum smooth slope for the crater wall of tan$^{-1}y_1'\approx 23^\circ$. A regular $75$ m grid of pixels was created out to $x_4=1.5$ from the crater centre. Assuming that these pixels were unrectified, the corresponding rectified positions in the crater were calculated, the angles of incidence to the nominal detector with a nadir angle of $33^\circ$ were inferred and CPR values were assigned according to equation (\[cprtheta\]).
The resulting unrectified CPR mosaic is shown in Figure \[fig:modelu\] from which it can be seen that the high CPR values associated with the near wall, viewed at large angles of incidence, occupy a significantly larger fraction of the crater interior pixels than the more nearly normal incidence parts of the far wall. Figure \[fig:modelr\] shows the same pixels shifted to the parts of the crater that they actually sample. With the effect of parallax removed from the map, it becomes apparent just how the pixels are biased to measure the CPR of the near wall of the crater. Even with $75$ m unrectified resolution of a $6$ km diameter crater, there are significant parts of the far wall that are completely unsampled.
The impact of this uneven sampling of the crater on the probability distribution of pixel CPR values is shown in Figure \[fig:modelcdist\]. Dashed red and green lines show how the interior and exterior pixel CPR distributions can look significantly different, despite both being drawn from an identical relation for CPR as a function of angle of incidence. The peak of the distribution shifts from a CPR of $\sim 0.5$ to $\sim
0.7$, as a result only of the bias caused by using a mosaic uncorrected for the effect of parallax and the dependence of CPR on angle of incidence. These pixel CPR distributions are much more sharply peaked than those in Figure \[fig:allcdist\] that were measured for real craters using the Mini-SAR mosaic. One way in which the distribution would be broadened would be if there were significant statistical uncertainties on the measurements. The solid lines in Figure \[fig:modelcdist\] show that including a $40\%$ scatter in the assumed CPR at any particular angle of incidence produces distributions that look not unlike those from a few of the anomalous craters.
![An unrectified CPR mosaic of a model crater with $r_{\rm c}=3$km, a diameter-to-depth ratio of $5.5$ and a rim height of $0.04r_{\rm c}$. The model SAR is looking from the left with a look angle of $33^\circ$ and the mosaic has $75$m square pixels. []{data-label="fig:modelu"}](modelu.pdf){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
![The rectified version of Fig. \[fig:modelu\], with each coloured point showing the true position within the crater that it samples. White regions show parts of the crater into which none of the unrectified mosaic pixels are mapped when the parallax correction moves pixels beneath the crater rim toward the detector. The colour relates directly to the angle of incidence at which the surface is viewed through equation (\[cprtheta\]).[]{data-label="fig:modelr"}](modelr.pdf){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
![The distribution of pixel CPR values for the interior (red) and exterior (green) of the model crater. Dashed lines show results when no scatter is added in the model CPR value at a given angle of incidence, whereas the solid lines show the effect of including a $40$% $1\sigma$ Gaussian scatter around the median value.[]{data-label="fig:modelcdist"}](modelcdist.pdf){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
![The variation of median CPR as a function of angle of incidence between the incident radar and the surface normal for the 33 anomalous craters. Values show the median of the individual crater values that contribute to each increment of incidence angle. Error bars show an estimate of the statistical uncertainty on the inferred median based on the 16th and 84th percentiles of the distribution of CPR values from the individual craters at each angle of incidence and the assumption that this distribution is Gaussian. The different colours represent different radial ranges of pixels. Positions have been rectified to account for the parallax prior to determining into which radial range they fall.[]{data-label="fig:anglea"}](anglea.pdf){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
![The equivalent of Fig. \[fig:anglea\] for the 9 fresh craters. Wider radial ranges are used to suppress statistical noise in the median CPR estimates.[]{data-label="fig:anglef"}](anglef.pdf){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
Is it reasonable that such large observational uncertainties exist? This can be indirectly addressed by considering the variation in CPR between adjacent pixels in the Mini-SAR mosaic. The root mean square fractional difference in CPR varies only slightly across the whole polar region, and typically has a value of $25-30\%$ in the vicinity of the craters studied here. This represents an upper limit on the size of the statistical uncertainties in the mosaic CPR values, because some of these variations on small scales are presumably the result of varying surface properties. Thus, it can be safely concluded that observational uncertainties in conjunction with slopes and the bias introduced by parallax are not sufficient to explain the measurements. This implies that there must be some additional process responsible for changing the CPR in a systematic way and that the interior surfaces of these polar anomalous craters are typically different from their exteriors in more complicated ways than merely having steeper slopes.
The radial variation of CPR {#ssec:cprr}
---------------------------
Having determined that the angle of incidence is not solely responsible for the differences between anomalous crater interiors and exteriors, the challenge shifts to trying to determine what other factors are affecting the CPR. Figure \[fig:anglea\] shows how the median pixel CPR varies with angle of incidence for different radial ranges both inside and outside the anomalous craters. The pixels are placed into the different radial bins based on their rectified positions within the crater. For all different radial ranges the shape of the median CPR variation with angle of incidence is similar. Only the amplitude changes with radius. The central region of the typical crater has CPR values that are indistinguishable from those of pixels in the crater exterior with $1.2<r/r_{\rm c}<1.5$. Out to $r/r_{\rm c} \sim 0.8$, the CPR at a given angle of incidence increases systematically with increasing radius. Inaccuracies in determining the precise crater locations may scramble any trends at radii around $r_{\rm c}$, but there is a sharper drop in the CPR outside the crater edge than is seen inside the crater. No difference is seen in the results shown in Figure \[fig:anglea\] when the anomalous crater sample is split in half either by crater radius or latitude. The increased CPR at any given angle of incidence seems to increase with increasing local slope. At radii satisfying $0.5\lsim r/r_{\rm c}\lsim 1$, where the CPR is largest for a given angle of incidence, the azimuthally-averaged slopes are typically $\sim 25^\circ$. However, the inaccuracy in the alignment of CPR and DEM maps and the relatively poor spatial resolution preclude a more detailed comparison of CPR with local slope at present.
The corresponding results for the $9$ fresh craters are shown in Figure \[fig:anglef\]. Wider bins in radius are used to prevent the results becoming too noisy given the relatively small number of fresh craters. The variation of CPR with angle of incidence is much weaker than for the anomalous craters. Also, the radial variation, while qualitatively similar to that seen for the anomalous craters, is less pronounced. This is consistent with what one might expect from a surface containing a uniform scattering of blocky ejecta behaving like corner reflectors.
Maps of the variation of CPR relative to the typical value at each incidence angle in each crater are shown in Figure \[fig:manycor\]. Although the maps are quite heterogeneous, the relatively low CPR values tend to be either in the crater centres or on the far wall as viewed by the detector. Arrows show the direction in which each crater is viewed, as determined from the high spots in the individual crater $S_1$ maps. Relatively high CPR values tend to be concentrated onto the crater walls. The median CPR values as a function of incidence angle are determined from rectified pixels satisfying $r/r_{\rm c}<0.8$. This is done to prevent errors arising from misalignments between the Mini-SAR mosaic and the LOLA DEM. Near to the crater rim, the slopes change rapidly, such that any misalignments between data sets would lead to pixels being assigned very wrong incidence angles, biasing the inferred CPR as a function of incidence angle. This effect may be behind the slightly non-monotonic behaviour noted in Figure \[fig:anglea\] for the radial bins adjacent to the rim.
Figure \[fig:look\] is included to help the interpretation of the relative CPR maps in Figure \[fig:manycor\]. It shows how the angle of incidence varies with position within the model crater used in Section \[ssec:slopes\], and is effectively just a rescaled version of Figure \[fig:modelr\]. The comparison of local CPR with that at comparable angles of incidence, given in Figure \[fig:manycor\] within each crater, is showing along a line of constant colour in Figure \[fig:look\], with the orientation set by the azimuthal look direction, where are the higher and lower values of CPR.
![The distribution of incidence angle for the model crater considered in Section \[ssec:slopes\]. This shows which parts of a typical crater are viewed at the same angle of incidence, and represents a remapped version of Fig. \[fig:modelr\]. The detector is looking along the $+x$ direction at the model crater, as shown by the black arrow.[]{data-label="fig:look"}](look.pdf){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
Implications for the detection of water ice {#sec:disc}
===========================================
The results in the previous section showed that high CPR regions within polar anomalous craters, once angle of incidence effects are removed to the extent that is possible with the data sets being used here, tend to be found on the steep crater walls. This finding matches that of [@thom12] from their detailed study of Shackleton crater. Figure \[fig:tempmap\] shows the stacked map of the maximum temperature, $T_{\rm max}$, relative to the mean maximum temperature within each crater, inferred from Diviner measurements for the $33$ anomalous craters. For all craters, the largest interior $T_{\rm max}$ values exceed $290$K and are found on the equator-facing walls, where direct sunlight can occasionally be seen. The stacked pole-facing slope and crater floor have the lowest maximum temperatures, typically $70$K but ranging from $30-130$K, because they only ever receive reflected sunlight. Given that surficial water ice should be stable against sublimation for temperatures beneath $\sim 100$K, one might well expect any water ice to be located in these relatively cold regions within the craters. This pattern of maximum temperatures is similar to that seen in the average temperatures, and neither of them reflect the variation of CPR, as might be expected if significant deposits of water ice were responsible for the elevated interior CPRs in the anomalous polar craters.
It is possible that water ice could be insulated by a layer of mantling regolith, in which case the CPR variations within anomalous craters might not be expected to reflect those in the temperature. Perhaps the central regions of craters are covered by too much regolith for the radar to see underlying water ice. In contrast, the steep crater sides should not be covered by deep regolith. However, in these regions, the CPR variations still do not reflect the variations in temperature determined using Diviner data.
![The stacked Diviner-inferred pixel $T_{\rm max}$ relative to the mean within each crater for the 33 anomalous craters. North is upwards, so the relatively cold part of the average crater is pole-facing.[]{data-label="fig:tempmap"}](tempmap.pdf){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
![The variation of diameter-to-depth ratio ($D/d$) with crater diameter for the 33 anomalous craters (blue filled circles), 9 fresh craters (red open circles) and 154 topographically selected, isolated polar craters (black crosses). The black line represents the variation with diameter of the median of the black points, and the green line traces the relation given by Pike (1974) for fresh lunar craters.[]{data-label="fig:doverd"}](doverd.pdf){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
Using the set of $154$ topographically selected polar craters described in the Appendix, one can look at the diameter-to-depth ratios of the fresh and anomalous craters relative to a set that have been found without reference to their CPR properties. The mean diameter-to-depth ratios of the fresh and anomalous craters are $D/d\sim 5.0$ and $5.9$ respectively. Increasing $D/d$ would be expected as craters age, because the depths decrease over time while the diameters change little. These measurements are therefore consistent with the picture of the anomalous craters being older than the fresh ones. However, the topographically selected craters have even larger $D/d$ values, with a mean of $\sim 7.0$. Could these differences be driven by the crater diameter-to-depth ratio varying with crater size? Figure \[fig:doverd\] shows the different crater sets as a function of crater diameter. The solid black line represents the median $D/d$ for the topographically selected craters binned into three different diameter ranges, whereas the green line shows the relation found by [@pike74] for a set of fresh lunar craters. It is clear that the anomalous craters typically have lower diameter-to-depth ratios than the set of polar craters selected only on topography. Under the assumption that $D/d$ is a proxy for crater age, one therefore infers that the anomalous craters, while older than the fresh ones, are still less mature than typical craters in the north polar region. This is again suggestive that the effects of micrometeorite bombardment on the steep crater walls have not yet acted to remove all of the rocks or roughness that give rise to high CPR values.
If micrometeoritic bombardment is isotropic and the blocky debris from the crater forming impacts is weathered away at similar rates inside and outside polar craters, then these results imply that processes are preferentially acting on the steep slopes to refresh the near-surface roughness to which the CPR is sensitive. This picture is consistent with the findings of [@band11], who use the thermal inertia determined from Diviner measurements to infer rock abundances and regolith thicknesses. They find extra rockiness on steep crater walls relative to crater floors and crater exteriors, which is in qualitative agreement with what is inferred in this study. Similarly, [@fa13] use LROC images to show higher rock abundance interior to craters relative to their exteriors. Furthermore, they find this extra rockiness correlates with the difference between interior and exterior CPR values, as measured by Mini-RF. Both the Diviner and LROC rock abundances refer to objects that are at least $1-2$ m in size, which is $\sim 10$ times the S-band radar wavelength. While there is no guarantee that rockiness on these relatively large scales implies roughness on scales more comparable with the radar wavelength, the modelling of [@fa13] suggests that the larger rocks can nevertheless provide a significant CPR enhancement through dihedral reflections.
If the anomalous craters do have high CPR as a result of differential weathering of roughness, then the finding reported by [@spu13], that the number density of anomalous craters at the poles greatly exceeds that at lower latitudes, remains to be explained. This apparent dependence on temperature is difficult to reconcile with the indifference to local temperature of the CPR distribution within anomalous polar craters. One would really like to start from the topographically-selected crater sample and study the variation of CPR with crater morphology, rather than starting from craters that have a particular CPR distribution, as was done here and in previous work. Looking only at CPR-selected craters can lead to a misleading impression of the population of craters as a whole. An orthorectified CPR mosaic, already tied to the LOLA DEM, would be necessary to avoid topographically-selected craters being ejected from the sample if their CPR was insufficiently distinct for them to be detected via their CPR, which has occurred in this study, as described in Section \[ssec:crat\].
Conclusions {#sec:conc}
===========
The distribution of pixel CPR values inside and outside fresh craters is largely independent of the angle of incidence with which the lunar surface is viewed. In contrast, for anomalous craters the angle of incidence has a large impact on the CPR maps that result. In these cases, counting pixels in SAR mosaics that have not been rectified for the effect of parallax has the effect of biasing the crater interior CPR pixel distribution to be dominated by observations of the near wall, viewed at larger incidence angle. Consequently, the mean interior crater CPR measured from an unrectified Mini-SAR map would exceed that for the crater exterior even when the interior and exterior surfaces have identical radar reflectivities (see Figure \[fig:modelcdist\]).
The typical variation of CPR with angle of incidence was measured within the anomalous craters and used to make a model to quantify how using unrectified mosaics will bias the distribution of pixel CPRs inside the crater relative to that from just outside. While this effect alone creates a sufficient change in the mean pixel CPR to explain some of the anomalous craters, the additional scatter required to recover the observed CPR distributions exceeds the statistical uncertainties on the measurements. Therefore, the CPR is also significantly affected by variations in the surface properties.
An additional variation with distance from the crater centre has also been discovered, with the crater centre having CPR values like those of the crater exterior, while larger CPR values at any given incidence angle are found on the steeper parts of the crater walls. It is argued that this variation of CPR with local slope, rather than local temperature, suggests that it results from a variation in the extent to which roughness is visible to the incident radar. Steeper walls near the angle of repose may be less able to sustain enough fine regolith to prevent the radar from seeing the rougher rocks underneath or it could just be that ongoing weathering produces more surface rocks or roughness on steeper slopes.
This argument is supported by the fact that anomalous craters, while having larger diameter-to-depth ratios than fresh ones, are typically steeper-sided than craters determined using a crater-finding algorithm applied to the LOLA DEM. Assuming that the diameter-to-depth represents a proxy for crater age, the anomalous craters are of intermediate age. If surface roughness refreshed by mass-wasting on steep slopes were responsible for the high CPR, then one would expect anomalous craters to be of intermediate age, because fresh craters have high CPR both inside and outside, whereas old craters do not retain sufficiently steep sides for mass-wasting to continue to promote sufficient surface roughness to cause high CPR. Thus, the surface roughness explanation appears to pass this test.
Future analyses of the lunar SAR data should use properly controlled and rectified CPR mosaics that are tied to the LOLA global DEM and take into account explicitly the dependence of CPR on angle of incidence. The model of [@fa11], while not including multiple scattering and the CBOE, suggests that radar data will not be able to distinguish between regolith with and without a few wt% WEH, which is the level that the LCROSS and LPNS results imply is the likely concentration. There is strong circumstantial evidence that the extractable information from the lunar SAR data will pertain to surface or near-surface roughness rather than water ice. This should provide fertile ground in conjunction with Diviner and LROC data sets to learn about surface weathering as a function of local slope and composition [@bell12].
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
VRE thanks Randy Kirk for helpful comments. We would like to thank the referees for their helpful comments. This work was supported by the Science and Technology Facilities Council \[grant number ST/F001166/1\]. LT acknowledges the support of the LASER and PGG NASA programs for funding this research.
[Icarus]{}[Icarus]{}
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
Crater-finding algorithm {#app:meth}
========================
The list of craters produced by [@head10] from the LOLA topographical data consists of 5185 craters with radii of at least $10$ km distributed over the entire lunar surface. [@sala12] supplemented this with additional craters found using a predominantly automated detection algorithm that was based on the LOLA DEM. Their crater catalogue contained 60645 objects and is the most complete to radii of $4$ km. For the purpose of this study, even smaller craters in the vicinity of the lunar north pole are of interest, and the desire is to produce craters with representative diameter-to-depth ratios. Thus, an algorithm has been developed to find simple craters with radii in the range $2\leq r_{\rm c}/{\rm km}\leq 10$ using the LOLA north polar stereographic digital elevation map.
The crater-finding algorithm consists of two main stages. First, by placing ‘water’ on the surface and letting it drain downhill to create puddles, a set of potential crater centres are found. The amount of water in each puddle reflects the area from which it came and hence provides an estimate of the radius of the potential crater. Secondly, in the vicinity of each potential crater, the Laplacian of the topography is filtered to search for circularly symmetric patterns with a concave centre surrounded by a convex rim. The details of these two parts of the algorithm are described in the following subsections.
Finding crater candidates {#app:water}
-------------------------
Candidates for crater centres are found using a hydrological algorithm that is a simplified version of those described by [@hydro1] and [@hydro2]. A smoothed version of the LOLA polar stereographic $80$ m DEM is used. The smoothing suppresses small scale depressions that might otherwise prevent ‘water’ from draining further into larger depressions. It also removes candidate tiny craters that might be within other craters, which would consequently fail the isolation criterion described in the next section and be jettisoned from the sample. A single smoothing entails replacing each altitude with a value that is $1/4$ of the original value plus $1/8$ of each of the values in the $4$ adjacent pixels, plus $1/16$ times the values in the diagonally adjacent pixels. Given that craters in the radius range $2-10$ km are being considered here, 3 smoothings of the DEM are used.
An amount of ‘water’ proportional to the pixel area is placed into each pixel in the smoothed digital elevation map and this is allowed to run downhill using the following iterative method. Each pixel with none of its 8 neighbours being higher and containing water, distributes its water to neighbouring pixels that are lower than it. The water is distributed to the $N$ lower neighbouring pixels in proportion to the gradient in their direction. Thus, the fraction of water sent to the $i$th lower neighbour is given by $$f_i=\frac{|\underline{\nabla}_i|}{\sum_{j=1}^{N}|\underline{\nabla}_j|},$$ where $\underline{\nabla}_i$ represents the gradient in the direction of the $i$th neighbour. This draining is repeated until no pixels with lower neighbours contain any water, at which point the set of ‘wet’ pixels defines the centres of crater candidates, with the amount of water providing an estimate of the potential crater radius under the assumption that it came from a circular patch of the surface.
Confirming craters {#app:filter}
------------------
For the purpose of this study, there is no need to have a complete sample of craters, merely one that is representative of the diameter-to-depth ratios of craters as a whole. Thus, for simplicity, only isolated crater candidates are retained for further consideration. Isolation is defined as having no other crater candidate within one candidate crater radius from the candidate crater centre. This yields a set of $\sim 68000$ candidate isolated craters of all radii at ${\rm latitude}>80^\circ$. These candidates are then filtered to refine the centres and radii and determine a statistic related to how much they match a simple crater in their topographic profile.
The Laplacian of the DEM in the vicinity of each of these potential craters is filtered using a compensated filter of the form $$w(r)=\left \{
\begin{array}{ll}
N_{\rm ring}/N_{\rm cen} & {\rm if~~~} r<0.6r_{\rm c,test},\\
-1 &{\rm if~~} |r-r_{\rm c,test}|\leq 40 {\rm m,}\\
0 &{\rm otherwise,}
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $r_{\rm c,test}$ is the crater radius being tested, $N_{\rm cen}$ is the number of $80$ m pixel centres lying within a disc of radius $0.6r_{\rm c,test}$ and $N_{\rm ring}$ is the number of pixel centres within an annulus one pixel wide having mean radius equal to $r_{\rm c,test}$. Crater radii are tested in the range $0.5-1.5$ times the value inferred from the amount of water gathered by each candidate. This filter picks out regions that have a concave disc of surface surrounded by a convex rim-like structure. The pixels within which the maximum filtered Laplacian values are found for each tested crater radius provide the most likely crater centres for those test radii.
To determine which tested radius produces the best overall match, a significance of the value of the filtered Laplacian is defined. Applying the filter to a random part of the Laplacian map inferred from the DEM would give rise to a distribution of filter values. This can be treated as a random walk with a step size of the rms Laplacian weighted by the rms step size of the filter. Using this to normalise the filtered Laplacian values around the candidate crater centre gives a significance for each candidate crater. This value is used to determine the best test radius. Each candidate with a significance, $S$, (of the filtered Laplacian relative to that expected from a random walk) of at least $S_{\rm min}=15$ is deemed to be a detected crater.
The set of polar craters {#app:crat}
------------------------
The algorithm described above yields $154$ craters with latitude greater than $80^\circ$. Table A1 contains a list of the centres and radii of these north polar, isolated craters, and Figure \[fig:app1\] shows their distribution with diameter. Figure \[fig:doverd\] plots the dependence of the crater diameter-to-depth ratios on diameter, illustrating how these topographically selected craters typically have shallower profiles than either the fresh or anomalous craters studied by [@spu10].
The choice of $S_{\rm min}$ feeds into the inferred diameter-to-depth ratio of the resulting crater catalogue, because deeper craters better match the filter shape than shallower ones. Thus, increasing $S_{\rm min}$ from $15$ to $20$ decreases the number of craters from $154$ to $108$, and the diameter-to-depth ratio from $7.0$ to $6.3$. However, the lower threshold of $S_{\rm min}=15$ still produces a set of azimuthally symmetric depressions with convex rims that are crater-like. Figure \[fig:app2\] shows the azimuthally-averaged height profiles, scaled by crater radius, of all $154$ craters with $S>15$. The diversity of depths reflects the range of diameter-to-depth values for the selected craters, and it is apparent that each of the craters possesses both a central depression and a convex rim.
![The probability distributions of the crater diameters for the three different sets of craters: $154$ topographically selected (black), $9$ fresh (red) and $33$ anomalous (blue). Coloured arrows show the mean diameters in each sample.[]{data-label="fig:app1"}](pofd.pdf){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
![The azimuthally averaged height profiles, scaled by crater radius, for the $154$ topographically selected craters. Each radius is rescaled by the crater radius, $r_{\rm c}$, whereas the scaled height is plotted relative to the value at $r/r_{\rm c}=1.1$. The bold red line shows the profile for the model crater used in Section \[ssec:slopes\], offset vertically by $0.1$ for clarity.[]{data-label="fig:app2"}](cratprof.pdf){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
\[tab:app\]
[^1]: http://pds-geosciences.wustl.edu
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
‘=11
\#1 =by60 = \#1[[bsphack@filesw [ gtempa[auxout[ ]{}]{}]{}gtempa @nobreak esphack]{} eqnlabel[\#1]{}]{} eqnlabel vacuum \#1
‘@=12
\#1\#2\#3[ [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**\#1**]{}, \#2(\#3)]{} \#1\#2\#3[ [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**\#1**]{}, \#2(\#3)]{} \#1\#2\#3[ [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**\#1**]{}, \#2(\#3)]{} \#1\#2\#3[ [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**\#1**]{}, \#2(\#3)]{} \#1\#2\#3[ [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**\#1**]{}, \#2(\#3)]{} \#1\#2\#3[ [*Ann. Phys.*]{} [**\#1**]{}, \#2(\#3)]{} = publist\[\#1\] @publist plus 1000pt minus 1000pt \#1 \#1[= to]{}
¶ c ł Ł §
hep–th/0312274\
-.1 cm December 2003\
.7in
[**Ricci flows and infinite dimensional algebras**]{}[^1]
0.6in
[**Ioannis Bakas**]{} 0.2in [*Department of Physics, University of Patras\
GR-26500 Patras, Greece\
*]{}\
.8in
**Abstract**
The renormalization group equations of two-dimensional sigma models describe geometric deformations of their target space when the world-sheet length changes scale from the ultra-violet to the infra-red. These equations, which are also known in the mathematics literature as Ricci flows, are analyzed for the particular case of two-dimensional target spaces, where they are found to admit a systematic description as Toda system. Their zero curvature formulation is made possible with the aid of a novel infinite dimensional Lie algebra, which has anti-symmetric Cartan kernel and exhibits exponential growth. The general solution is obtained in closed form using Bäcklund transformations, and special examples include the sausage model and the decay process of conical singularities to the plane. Thus, Ricci flows provide a non-linear generalization of the heat equation in two dimensions with the same dissipative properties. Various applications to dynamical problems of string theory are also briefly discussed. Finally, we outline generalizations to higher dimensional target spaces that exhibit sufficient number of Killing symmetries.
16 pt
The renormalization group properties of two-dimensional sigma models were extensively studied in the past, and it was found that their beta function $\beta (g^2)$ is not always zero (see, for instance, [@sasha]). In general, the coupling constant runs by changing the length scale of the world-sheet and the theory breaks conformal invariance in the quantum regime. This general framework has two applications in string theory. First, it is interesting to find fixed points of the renormalization group flow, as they provide conformal field theory blocks for building string vacua. Second, it is also interesting to study non-conformal backgrounds by solving the beta function equations and try to develop an off-shell formulation for addressing the problem of vacuum selection in string theory. Our work is mostly concerned with the second problem, as we report on a new algebraic method for the integration of the renormalization group equations that appear to lowest order in perturbation theory. Further details can be found in a recent publication, [@bakas].
We set us the notation by considering two-dimensional sigma models with classical action S = [1 4\^]{} d\^2w h\^[ij]{} (\_i X\^) (\_j X\^) G\_ , where $\{X^{\mu}; \mu = 1, 2, \cdots , n\}$ are coordinates in target space with metric $G_{\mu \nu} (X)$. Let $\Lambda^{-1}$ be the renormalization scale parameter on the world-sheet and $R_{\mu \nu}$ the Ricci curvature tensor of the target space metric. Then, the renormalization group equations are \^[-1]{} [\^[-1]{}]{} G\_ = - (G\_) = -R\_ + in appropriate units, $2\pi \alpha^{\prime} = 1$, and dots denote higher order curvature terms that arise at two loops or higher in perturbation theory, [@dan]. We will only consider the lowest order terms, which provide a good approximation to the metric beta functions when the curvature is rather weak, and define the logarithmic length scale $t = {\rm log} \Lambda^{-1}$ as the [*renormalization group time*]{}; in this parameterization, the ultra-violet limit corresponds to $t \rightarrow -\infty$ and the infra-red limit to $t \rightarrow +\infty$. Thus, we consider the equations G\_ = -R\_ , \[flows\] which define a dynamical system in superspace that consists of all possible metrics.
These equations describe changes of the target space geometry that are induced by changes of the world-sheet logarithmic scale, but they are very difficult to solve in all generality. The same equations also arose independently in the mathematics literature, where they became known as [Ricci flows]{}, and they have turned into a major tool for addressing a variety of open problems in geometry in diverse dimensions; for a recent account of the main mathematical results see, for instance, [@ricci], and references therein. We will be able to solve these equations for two-dimensional target spaces by casting them into zero curvature form and then integrate them in closed form. As byproduct, we reveal the role of a novel infinite dimensional Lie algebra in this dynamical problem, which arises in the zero curvature formulation and it could be of more general value. Some special trajectories will also be briefly reviewed in order to confront the algebraic construction of the general solution with the geometric deformations that are involved. We also note for completeness that the renormalization group equations [(\[flows\])]{} admit a more general description in the form G\_ = -R\_ + \_ \_ + \_ \_ , \[flows2\] which incorporates the effect of all possible field redefinitions $\delta X_{\mu} = -\xi_{\mu}$ associated with changes of coordinates along the flow. Some solutions assume a simpler form when they are written in different frames.
Let us now restrict attention to two-dimensional target spaces in the conformally flat frame ds\_[t]{}\^2 = 2 e\^[(z\_+, z\_-; t)]{} dz\_+ dz\_- = [1 2]{} e\^[(X,Y; t)]{} (dX\^2 + dY\^2) using Cartesian coordinates $X$, $Y$ or the complex conjugate variables $2z_{\pm} = Y \pm i X$. Then, since the non-vanishing component of the Ricci curvature tensor equal to R\_[+-]{} = -\_+ (e\^[-]{} \_- e\^ ) = - \^2 , we find that the renormalization group flows [(\[flows\])]{} reduce in this frame to the following non-linear differential equation for $\Phi(X, Y; t)$, e\^[(X, Y; t)]{} = \^2 (X, Y; t) . \[main\]
This equation provides a non-linear generalization of the heat equation on the two-dimensional plane, (X, Y; t) = \^2 (X,Y; t) , which approximates [(\[main\])]{} when $\Phi(X, Y; t) \simeq \Theta (X,Y; t)$ becomes very small. Such linearization typically arises in the infra-red region of the renormalization group flow, $t \rightarrow +\infty$, where the target space metric becomes approximately flat and the weak field limit G\_ \_ + h\_ [with]{} h\_ <<1 [and]{} h\_ <<1 \[weak\] comes into play. The heat equation exhibits dissipative behavior in time, $t$, which can be seen by considering the fundamental solution (X, Y; t) = [1 4t]{} e\^[-(X\^2 + Y\^2)/4t]{} that describes a Gaussian pulse with height $1/t$ and width $\sqrt{t}$. It starts as singular function at the initial time $t=0$, where the Gaussian becomes delta function, and it dissolves after infinitely long time by spreading the initial singularity all over the plane. However, since the weak field approximation [(\[weak\])]{} is not valid for finite values of $t$, but only asymptotically as $t \rightarrow +\infty$, one may wonder whether the characteristic property of the heat equation to dissipate singularities is also a property of the non-linear equation [(\[main\])]{}. As we will see later, the decay process of a conical singularity, which describes the transition of a flat cone $C/Z_n$ to the plane, provides an analogue of the fundamental solution of the heat equation to the non-linear system [(\[main\])]{}.
The main equation [(\[main\])]{} can be conveniently written in the form \^2 (X, Y; t) = dt\^ K(t, t\^) e\^[(X, Y; t\^)]{} , where $K(t, t^{\prime})$ is the kernel K(t, t\^) = [t]{} (t, t\^) , \[cartan\] which is anti-symmetric with respect to its arguments $t$ and $t^{\prime}$. This formulation proves advantageous for casting the Ricci flow into Toda form for appropriate choice of the Lie algebra. Recall at this point that Toda equations describe integrable interactions for a collection of two-dimensional fields $\{\phi_i (X, Y)\}$, which are labeled by the simple roots of a given Lie algebra and they are coupled via the Cartan matrix $K_{ij}$ as follows, \^2 \_i(X,Y) = \_j K\_[ij]{} e\^[\_j(X,Y)]{} . The indices $i$, $j$ are typically discrete, but there are also generalizations to continuous variables for some infinite dimensional Lie algebras, which are obtained by replacing the collection of two-dimensional Toda fields $\{\phi_i\}$ with a “master" field $\Phi(X, Y; t)$, the Cartan matrix $K_{ij}$ with a Cartan kernel $K(t, t^{\prime})$, and the summation over $j$ with an integral over $t^{\prime}$. In this case, $t$ is interpreted as Dynkin parameter on the root system of a continual Lie algebra whose basic commutation relations are defined by the corresponding Cartan kernel, which depends on continuous variables rather than discrete labels. The Ricci flows in two dimensions fit precisely this algebraic framework provided that $K(t, t^{\prime})$ is given by [(\[cartan\])]{} with $t$ being the logarithm of the world-sheet length scale of sigma models. Its anti-symmetry is inherited from the first order derivatives that describe the evolution in $t$.
The notion of continual Lie algebras arises naturally by considering a system of Cartan-Weyl generators $\{H(t), X^{\pm}(t)\}$ that depend on a continuous variable $t$, so that the commutation relations of the local part of the algebra assume the general form, [@misha] & & \[X\^+(t) , X\^-(t\^)\] = (t-t\^) H(t\^) , \[H(t), H(t\^)\] = 0 ,\
& & \[H(t), X\^(t\^)\] = K(t, t\^) X\^ (t\^) . Equivalently, using the smeared form of the generators $\{H(\varphi), X^{\pm}(\varphi)\}$ with respect to arbitrary function $\varphi(t)$, where A() = dt (t) A(t) , the commutation relations above assume the form & & \[X\^+() , X\^-()\] = H() , \[H(), H()\] = 0 ,\
& & \[H(), X\^()\] = X\^ (K(, )) . Here, we restrict attention to bilinear maps $K(\varphi, \psi) = (K\varphi) \cdot \psi$, which are described by a much simpler linear map $K$, so that there is always consistency with the Jacobi identities. The algebra that results in this case is denoted by ${\cal G}(K, 1)$ and it is $Z$-graded in the sense that (K, 1) = \_[n Z]{} [G]{}\_n . The local part corresponds to ${\cal G}_{-1} \oplus {\cal G}_0 \oplus {\cal G}{+1}$, whereas all other elements are obtained, as usual, by taking successive commutators so that ${\cal G}_n = [{\cal G}_{n-1}, {\cal G}_{+1}]$ for $n>0$ and ${\cal G}_n = [{\cal G}_{n+1}, {\cal G}_{-1}]$ for $n<0$.
The Ricci flows admit a zero curvature formulation as Toda theory for the special continual Lie algebra with $K = d/dt$, [@bakas]. It can be easily seen by considering = 0 , where the gauge connections $A_{\pm}$ take values in the local part of the algebra ${\cal G}_0 \oplus {\cal G}_{\pm 1}$, respectively, with A\_(z\_+, z\_-) = H(u\_) + X\^ (f\_) that depend on some arbitrary functions $u_{\pm}$ and $f_{\pm}$ of $z_+$, $z_-$ and $t$. Then, using the basic commutation relations of the algebra ${\cal G}(d/dt; 1)$ we obtain the following system of equations & & [u\_+ t]{} = -\_+ ([log]{}f\_-) , [u\_- t]{} = \_- ([log]{} f\_+) ,\
& & \_+ u\_- - \_- u\_+ + \^2 f\_+ f\_- = 0 , which can be simplified by eliminating $u_{\pm}$. Then, the zero curvature condition yields \_+ \_- (z\_+, z\_-; t) = -\^2 [t]{} e\^[(z\_+, z\_-; t)]{} , [with]{} = [log]{}(f\_+ f\_-) , which is the Ricci flow equation [(\[main\])]{} in conformally flat coordinates $z_+$, $z_-$ with $\lambda^2 = -1$. Equivalently, using the gauge invariance of the zero curvature condition, we may choose $u_- =0$, $f_+ =1$ from the very beginning, and set $f_- = {\rm exp} \Phi$, $u_+ = \Psi$, where $\partial_+ \Phi = -
\partial_t \Psi$. Thus, the renormalization group equations are integrable in target space, while $t$ enters into the definition of the infinite dimensional Lie algebra that describes them as continual Toda system.
According to the general theory of Toda field equations, the general solution can be obtained in closed form, using Bäcklund transformations, and it is parametrized by a system of arbitrary free fields. The group theoretical method that allows for their integration is based on the existence of a highest weight state $|t>$, so that X\^+(t\^)|t> = 0 , <t|X\^-(t\^) = 0 , H(t\^) |t> = (t-t\^) |t> with $<t|t> = 1$. This is formally defined for continual Lie algebras, in analogy with the representations of finite dimensional simple Lie algebras. Then, for the case at hand, the general solution assumes the form, [@bakas] (z\_+, z\_-; t) = \_0(z\_+, z\_-; t) + \_t ([log]{} <t| M\_+\^[-1]{}(z\_+; t) M\_-(z\_-; t)|t> ) , where $M_{\pm}$ are path-ordered exponentials M\_ (z\_; t) = [P]{} [exp]{} (i \^[z\_]{} dz\_\^ \^t dt\^ e\^[f\^(z\_\^; t\^)]{} X\^ (t\^) ) and $\Phi_0 (z_+, z_-; t) = f^+ (z_+; t) + f^-(z_-; t)$ is a one-parameter family of free fields in two dimensions, i.e., $\partial_+ \partial_- \Phi_0 (z_+, z_-; t) = 0$, which depend on the continuous index $t$.
The solution can be written in formal power series around the free field configuration by expanding the path-ordered exponentials, so that & & <t|M\_+\^[-1]{} M\_- |t> = 1 + \_[m=1]{}\^ \^[z\_+]{} dz\_1\^+ \^[z\_[m-1]{}\^+]{} dz\_m\^+ \^[z\_-]{} dz\_1\^- \^[z\_[m-1]{}\^-]{} dz\_m\^-\
& & \_[i=1]{}\^m dt\_i \_[i=1]{}\^m dt\_i\^ [exp]{} f\^+(z\_i\^+; t\_i) [exp]{}f\^-(z\_i\^-; t\_i\^) D\_t\^[{t\_1, , t\_m; t\_1\^, , t\_m\^}]{} . Here, the matrix elements D\_t\^[{t\_1, t\_2, , t\_m; t\_1\^, t\_2\^, , t\_m\^}]{} = <t| X\^+(t\_1) X\^+(t\_2) X\^+(t\_m) X\^-(t\_m\^) X\^-(t\_2\^) X\^-(t\_1\^) |t> can be evaluated one by one, using the basic commutation relations of the algebra ${\cal G}(d/dt; 1)$, and their integration against the free field $f^{\pm}$ yields all terms in the free field expansion of the Toda field configuration $\Phi(z_+, z_-; t)$. The details are rather cumbersome, since the generic term of the expansion can not be written in closed form, but for special configurations that correspond to free fields \_0(z\_+, z\_-; t) = c (z\_+ + z\_-) + d(t) cY + d(t) the result is more manageable. Such configurations are used to parametrize solutions of the Toda field equation with an isometry, i.e., independent of $X$, and they give rise to the following perturbative expansion, [@bakas] = \_0 + [1 c\^2]{} \_t e\^[\_0]{} + [1 4c\^4]{} \_t (e\^[\_0]{} \_t e\^[\_0]{} ) + [1 36c\^6]{} \_t (3e\^[\_0]{} (\_t e\^[\_0]{} )\^2 + e\^[2\_0]{} \_t\^2 e\^[\_0]{} ) + \[free\] which is valid around ${\rm exp} \Phi \simeq 0$, i.e., for $\Phi_0 \rightarrow -\infty$.
The infinite dimensional algebra ${\cal G}(d/dt; 1)$ has exponential growth, which is seen by attempting to construct the independent elements that parametrize the subspaces ${\cal G}_n$ beyond the local part $n=0, \pm 1$. It can be shown by induction that if ${\cal G}_{\pm n}$ is spanned by $d_n$ independent elements $X_{\pm n}^{(1)}, \cdots , X_{\pm n}^{(d_n)}$, the subspace ${\cal G}_{\pm (n+1)} = [{\cal G}_{\pm 1} , {\cal G}_{\pm n}]$ will be spanned by the following $2d_n$ independent elements, [@misha] X\_[(n+1)]{}\^[(s)]{} () & = & \_n\^[(s)]{} \[X\_[1]{}(1), X\_[n]{}\^[(s)]{} ()\] - \[X\_[1]{} (), X\_[n]{}\^[(s)]{} (1)\] ; 1 s d\_n ,\
X\_[(n+1)]{}\^[(s)]{} () & = & \_n\^[(s)]{} \[X\_[1]{}(1), X\_[n]{}\^[(s)]{} ()\] + \[X\_[1]{} (), X\_[n]{}\^[(s)]{} (1)\] ; d\_n + 1 s d\_n for all $n \geq 2$ and for appropriately chosen constants $\alpha_n^{(s)}$ and $\beta_n^{(s)}$. This formula does not apply for $n=1$, since the two different series of elements are linearly dependent and each ${\cal G}_{\pm 2}$ has only one generator. Thus, the dimension of the subspaces ${\cal G}_{\pm n}$ (relative to the dimension of ${\cal G}_0$, which is taken to be 1) turns out to be d\_0 = d\_[1]{} =1 , d\_n = 2\^[n - 2]{} [for]{} n 2 and ${\cal G}(d/dt; 1)$ exhibits exponential growth. This makes it rather exotic and also difficult to study in great detail. The complete system of commutation relations is not known in closed form, but fortunately we only need the local part ${\cal G}_{-1} \oplus {\cal G}_0 \oplus {\cal G}_{+1}$ to write down the Ricci flows in Toda form. It should be noted, however, that generalized systems of Toda field equations can also be written down in zero curvature form $[\partial_+ + A_+, ~ \partial_- + A_-] = 0$ for appropriately chosen gauge connections $A_{\pm} \in {\cal G}_0 \oplus {\cal G}_{\pm 1} \oplus \cdots \oplus {\cal G}_{\pm N}$ for all $N$. It is natural to expect that such equations will be associated to the beta functions of higher spin fields beyond the renormalization group equation of the target space metric.
Returning back to the geometry of Ricci flows, we present some special solutions that have received a lot of attention in recent years. The first describes axially symmetric deformations of the round sphere, which look like a sausage that becomes infinitely long in the ultra-violet region, [@sausa]; the flow terminates at a finite scale, say $t=0$, where the configuration collapses to a point and the lowest order approximation to the beta function equations is not valid anymore. The second describes the decay process of a conical singularity by considering an orbifold configuration $C/Z_n$ at some initial time, say $t=0$, which then flows to flat space in the infra-red region, [@cone1; @cone2]. Both examples are tractable and they can be derived by much simpler integration methods, because they correspond to mini-superspace approximation of the Ricci flow equations imposed by axial symmetry. Other special solutions are also known in the literature, [@bakas], and they all fit into the general algebraic scheme that was presented above.
\(i) [*Sausage model*]{}: In this case, the conformal factor of the metric assumes the simple form e\^[(Y; t)]{} = [2 a(t) + b(t) [cosh]{} 2Y]{} , where $0 \leq X \leq 2\pi$ and $-\infty < Y < +\infty$. Then, the flows [(\[flows\])]{} reduce to the first order system of differential equations a\^(t) = 2 b\^2(t) , b\^ (t) = 2a(t)b(t) , which are easily solved in the physical region $a(t) \geq b(t) \geq 0$ as follows, a(t) = (-2t) , b(t) = [(-2t)]{} , with $\gamma$ being an arbitrary non-negative constant and $t$ running from $-\infty$ (ultra-violet) to $0$ (big crunch). This special solution admits a free field representation, in the context of equation [(\[free\])]{}, provided that \_0 (Y; t) = -2Y + [log]{} ([4 ]{} [sinh]{}(-2t) ) .
It can also be written in proper coordinates, where it becomes simpler to visualize as sausage, ds\_[t]{}\^2 = [k ]{} ( d\^2 + [sn]{}\^2 ( + K(k) ; k ) dX\^2 ) , by introducing change of coordinates $\tilde{Y} = F(\psi; k)$ given by the incomplete elliptic integral of the first kind with free parameter ${\rm sin} \psi = {\rm tanh} Y$ and modulus $k = {\rm tanh}(-\gamma t)$. In this frame, however, one has to introduce a compensating vector field $\xi_{\mu} = \partial_{\mu} \tilde{\Phi}$ with () = [log]{} ( + K(k)) + [1 2]{} ([E(k) K(k)]{} - [1 2]{} [k\^]{}\^2 (1 + [1 ]{} ) ) \^2 following equation [(\[flows2\])]{}. All formulae are written here in terms of the standard Jacobi elliptic and theta functions. As for the solution, it can also be viewed as bound state of two Euclidean two-dimensional black holes which are glued together in the asymptotic region and they evolve by “eating" each other until they reach a singularity at $t=0$.
\(ii) [*Decay of cone*]{}: This process is better described in a frame where the $t$ dependence factorizes linearly, as ds\_[t]{}\^2 = t (f\^2(r) dr\^2 + r\^2 d\^2 ) , \_r = [1 2]{}rf(r) , \_ = 0 , where $0 \leq \phi \leq 2\pi /n$ and the vector field $\xi_{\mu}$ accounts for the formulation of the solution in a non-conformally flat system. Then, the renormalization group equations [(\[flows2\])]{} result into a simple differential equation for $f(r)$ with solution ([1 f(r)]{} - 1 ) [exp]{} ([1 f(r)]{} -1 ) = (n-1) [exp]{} (n-1 - [r\^2 2]{} ) that interpolates smoothly between $f=1/n$ at $r=0$ and $f=1$ at $r = \infty$. Equivalently, introducing the $t$-dependent change of coordinates $\tilde{r}
= r \sqrt{t}$, we find that when $\tilde{r}$ is held fixed the limit $t \rightarrow 0$ corresponds to $f \rightarrow 1$ and $t \rightarrow +\infty$ corresponds to $f \rightarrow 1/n$. Thus, the geometry describes the transition from a cone $C/Z_n$, which has opening angle $2\pi / n$ at the initial time, to the plane which is only reached in the infra-red limit. The solution looks more complicated when formulated in a conformally flat frame, but it can be worked out in detail and compared with the general solution of the Toda field equation for appropriate choice of free field configuration, [@bakas].
The decay process of a conical singularity demonstrates by example the dissipative nature of the Ricci flows, which are capable to spread an initial curvature singularity all over space after infinitely long time; as such, it can be viewed as non-linear generalization of the fundamental Gaussian solution of the heat equation. This process, which is described in the gravitational regime, has several applications in closed string theory while studying the general problem of tachyon condensation. For instance, we may consider ten-dimensional string vacua of the form = [CFT]{}\_2 + R\^[7, 1]{} , where the conformal block ${\rm CFT}_2$ corresponds to the orbifold field theory $C/Z_n$. This vacuum is unstable because there are tachyonic states in the twisted sector of the orbifold, which are localized at the tip of the cone, and they induce transitions to more stable vacua by reducing the order of the singularity; the singularity is completely resolved by the decay of the cone to the plane, as given by the above geometric transition in renormalization group time. More generally, tachyon condensation is quite important for addressing the problem of vacuum selection in string theory by dynamical methods. Ricci flows offer a good starting point in this direction.
The deformations of two-dimensional geometries, which are induced by Ricci flows, could be interpreted as time dependent gravitational solutions in $2 + 1$ dimensions, which are on-shell. It should be noted, however, that the correspondence with dynamical processes in real time has not been made precise in all generality to this day, although special examples that exhibit the same qualitative behavior with the renormalization group flows are known in the literature, [@harvey]. It is expected that a similar dynamical interpretation will be possible in any number of dimensions, and could be used either way. This formulation is quite important for addressing a variety of physically interesting dynamical problems, such as gravitational collapse, in terms of a more fundamental standpoint provided by world-sheet methods. There are critical phenomena associated to gravitational collapse (for a review see, for instance, [@golm]), which could be better understood in terms of renormalization group flows of $d$-dimensional geometries rather than using dynamical processes in $(d+1)$-dimensional space-time. In this context, it will also be interesting to revisit Zamolodchikov’s $c$-theorem, [@zamo], and its effective field theory description as entropy of the Ricci flows, following the recent work of Perelman, [@grisha].
Another interesting problem is the generalization of our algebraic framework to higher dimensional target spaces. The formulation of Ricci flows as zero curvature condition is rather special to two dimensions, but it can be extended to higher dimensional geometries with sufficient number of Killing isometries, so that the metric is effectively described by functions of two coordinates. For example, in three dimensions, we may consider the action of Ricci flows taking place in the restricted class of metrics with Killing coordinate $w$, ds\_[t]{}\^2 = V(z\_+, z\_-; t) dw\^2 + 2 e\^[(z\_+, z\_-; t)]{} dz\_+ dz\_- , and try to describe the evolution equations for the functions $V$ and $\Phi$ in a similar way. In this context, the decay of conical geometries might admit a nice interpretation in terms of matter sources coupled to gravity. The systematic extension of our work to all these cases remains open as there are several two-dimensional fields, and not just $\Phi$, which come into play. We hope to be able to report elsewhere whether they all fit in a generalized Toda system, as for two-dimensional geometries.
In summary, the Ricci flows provide a meeting point for many recent developments in physics and mathematics, which could be used further for the benefit of both subjects. Our main contribution in this area is the algebraic formulation of two-dimensional Ricci flows as Toda system, which in turn points to a new class of infinite dimensional algebras that are relevant for addressing dynamical problems.
**Acknowledgments**
This work was supported in part by the European Research and Training Networks “Superstring Theory" (HPRN-CT-2000-00122) and “Quantum Structure of Space-time" (HPRN-CT-2000-00131), as well as the Greek State Foundation Award “Quantum Fields and Strings" (IKYDA-2001-22) and NATO Collaborative Linkage Grant “Algebraic and Geometric Aspects of Conformal Field Theories and Superstrings" (PST.CLG.978785). I also thank the organizers of the meeting for their kind invitation to present the results of my work in a pleasant and stimulating atmosphere.
[3]{} A.M. Polyakov, “Gauge Fields and Strings", Contemporary Concepts in Physics, volume 3, Harwood Academic Publishers, Chur, 1987. I. Bakas, “Renormalization group flows and continual Lie algebras", JHEP (2003) 013. D. Friedan, “Nonlinear models in $2+\epsilon$ dimensions", Ann. Phys. (1981) 85. H.-D. Cao and B. Chow, “Recent developments on the Ricci flow", Bull. Am. Math. Soc. (1999) 59. M. Saveliev and A.M. Vershik, “Continual analogs of contragradient Lie algebras (Lie algebras with a Cartan operator and nonlinear dynamical systems)", Commun. Math. Phys. (1989) 367. V.A. Fateev, E. Onofri and Al.B. Zamolodchikov, “Integrable deformations of the $O(3)$ sigma model. The sausage model", Nucl. Phys. (1993) \[FS\] 521. A. Adams, J. Polchinski and E. Silverstein, “Don’t panic! Closed string tachyons in ALE space-times", JHEP (2001) 029. M. Gutperle, M. Headrick, S. Minwalla and V. Schomerus, “Space-time energy decreases under world-sheet RG flow", JHEP (2003) 073. R. Gregory and J. Harvey, “Space-time decay of cones at strong coupling", Class. Quant. Grav. (2003) L231. C. Gundlach, “Critical phenomena in gravitational collapse", Phys. Rept. (2003) 339. A.B. Zamolodchikov, “Irreversibility of the flux of the renormalization group in a 2D field theory", JETP Lett. (1986) 730. G. Perelman, “The entropy formula for the Ricci flow and its geometric applications", math.DG/0211159.
[^1]: Contribution to the proceedings of the [*36th International Symposium Ahrenshoop on the Theory of Elementary Particles*]{}, Berlin, August 26–30, 2003; to be published in Fortschritte der Physik.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We build a holographic $s$-wave conductor/superconductor model and an insulator/superconductor model in the four-dimensional conformal anomaly corrected (CAC) AdS gravity. The effects of CAC parameter $\alpha$ are studied using both numerical and analytical methods in the probe approximation. Concretely, when the CAC parameter increases, the critical temperature increases for the conductor/superconductor phase transition, while the critical chemical potential decreases for the insulator/superconductor case, which suggests that the increasing CAC parameter enhances both superconducting phase transitions. Meanwhile, below the critical temperature or beyond the critical chemical potential, the scalar hair begins to condense, and the condensed phases are found to be thermodynamically stable. The critical behaviors obtained from numerics are confirmed by our analytical analysis. For the parameters we are considering, the energy gap in the conductor/superconductor model decreases monotonically by increasing the CAC parameter, while for the insulator/superconductor model the energy of quasiparticle excitations decreases with the CAC parameter.'
author:
- 'Jun-Wang Lu$^{1}$'
- 'Huai-Fan Li$^{2}$'
- 'Ya-Bo Wu$^{3}$'
title: ' Holographic $s$-wave superconductors with conformal anomaly correction'
---
[^1]
[^2]
[^3]
Introduction
============
The AdS/CFT correspondence provides a powerful tool to study $d$-dimensional strongly coupled systems from its $(d+1)$-dimensional gravitational theory in AdS spacetime [@Maldacena1998]. In the recent years, the correspondence and its generalized version (the so-called gauge/gravity duality) have been widely applied in various strongly correlated systems [@Liu:2018crr; @Cai:2015cya; @Hartnoll:2016apf; @Landsteiner:2019kxb], especially the high temperature superconductor [@Hartnoll2008; @Horowitz126008].
The high temperature superconductor (with the critical temperature usually larger than $39K$) is believed to involve strong interaction. To understand its properties and, in particular, the microscopic mechanism are still one of the biggest challenges in condensed matter physics. The AdS/CFT correspondence naturally opens a new window to study the properties of high temperature superconductors. By using the Einstein-Abelian-Higgs system, the authors of Refs. [@Hartnoll2008; @Hartnoll:2008kx] built a holographic description of the $s$-wave conductor/superconductor model, where the main characters of a superconductor were reproduced, such as the appearance of the condensate accompanied by spontaneously breaking of the $U(1)$ symmetry below the critical temperature and the infinite DC conductivity in the broken phase. Soon after, the Meissner effect in the presence of a background magnetic field was observed via the holographic setup [@Maeda:2009vf], following which the numerical results about holographic superconductor models were confirmed by the analytical Sturm-Liouville (S-L) eigenvalue method [@Siopsis:2010uq].
The above studies showed that the main properties of superconductors have been disclosed successfully by the gauge/gravity duality. Since then, holographic superconductors were studied from various perspectives in the literature, and an interesting direction is to construct holographic models that are more close to the real superconducting materials in condensed matter. Following this idea, the superconductor models were generalized to the SU(2) $p$-wave model [@Gubser:2008wv], the $d$-wave model [@Chen:2010mk], Maxwell-complex-vector (MCV) $p$-wave model [@Cai:2013pda; @Cai:2013aca], the superfluid model [@Herzog:2008he; @Basu:2008st; @Wu:2014cfa; @Xia:2019eje], the coexistence and competition of multiple order parameters [@Cai:2013wma; @Kiritsis:2015hoa; @Nie:2014qma; @Nie:2020lop], superconductor models with spatial modulations [@Ling:2014laa; @Cai:2017qdz; @Ling:2019gjy; @Cremonini:2016rbd; @Cremonini:2019fzz], the insulator/superconductor model [@Nishioka131; @Cai:2011ky; @Li:2013fza], complexity and entanglement entropy of superconductors [@Yang:2019gce; @Cai:2012sk; @Cai:2012nm; @Albash:2012pd], the superconductor with the anisotropic scaling [@Brynjolfsson065401; @ZYFan2000; @Lu:2013tza] and Kibble-Zurek Scaling [@Chesler:2014gya; @Zeng:2019yhi; @Natsuume:2017jmu; @Bu:2019epc].
The other direction of the development is to improve the basic framework of the gauge/gravity by investigating more general interactions and corrections, in particular the terms due to quantum corrections. The related works involve: (1) high curvature corrections such as Gauss-Bonnet gravity [@Cai:2010zm; @Cai:2012vk], Quasi-topological gravity [@Kuang:2010jc], (2) nonlinear electrodynamics, for example, Born-Infeld correction [@Mohammadi:2018hxc], exponential correction, Logarithmic correction [@Cheng:2018zjv], as well as (3) gravity-gauge field coupled correction, for instance, $RF^2$ [@Lv:2020ecm; @Lu:2018tdo] and $CF^2$ [@Wu:2010vr] and $C^2F^2$ corrections [@Wu:2017xki; @Lu:2020phn] with $R$ ($C$) denoting the curvature scalar or tensor (Weyl tensor). It follows that the first kind of corrections (1) inhibit both the conductor/superconductor and insulator/superconductor phase transitions [@Cai:2010zm; @Kuang:2010jc], while the second kind of corrections (2) inhibit the conductor/superconductor phase transition, but do not affect the critical value of insulator/superconductor phase transition [@Mohammadi:2018hxc; @Cheng:2018zjv]. Meanwhile, the third kind of corrections (3) enhance the conductor/superconductor phase transition, but do not influence the $s$-wave and MCV $p$-wave insulator/superconductor phase transitions [@Lv:2020ecm; @Lu:2018tdo; @Wu:2010vr; @Wu:2017xki; @Lu:2020phn].
There are also many works considering simultaneously the effects of above directions, for example, the superconductor model with backreaction in Gauss-Bonnet gravity [@Cai:2010zm], the superconductor with momentum relaxation and Weyl correction [@Ling:2016lis] and the $p$-wave model with Weyl correction or $RF^2$ correction [@Lu:2018tdo] and the $p$-wave superfluid in AdS soliton [@Lv:2020ecm] . In fact, besides corrections from Gauss-Bonnet gravity, Quasi-topological gravity, the conformal anomaly is also a kind of interesting correction worthy to be studied [@Duff:1993wm]. The usual conformal anomaly characterizes the non-vanishing trace of the effective energy-momentum tensor of conformal field theory from one loop quantum corrections [@Duff:1993wm]. The conformal anomaly correction not only plays an important role in the quantum field theory in curved spaces, but also has the meaningful effects in cosmology, black hole physics, string theory and statistical mechanics [@Duff:1993wm]. For example, it was argued that conformal anomaly correction might have closed relation to the Hawking radiation of black hole in the two-dimensional spacetime [@ChristensenPRD1977] and also drive the inflation in cosmology [@Hawking:2000bb; @Nojiri:2000gb]. As a first step to study the backreaction of the trace anomaly, the authors in Ref. [@Cai:2009ua] obtained some exactly nontrivial black hole solutions to the Einstein equations with conformal anomaly correction for the first time and found there exists a logarithmic correction to the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy. Subsequently, considering the fact that the thermodynamical properties of AdS black holes crucially depend on horizon structure, the author of Ref. [@Cai:2014jea] generalized the previous black holes in Ref. [@Cai:2009ua] to the case with an arbitrary constant curvature horizon. Among these black hole solutions, the planer black hole with Ricci flat horizon provides a natural gravitational background for the holographic superconductor model. Recently, the authors of [@Glavan:2019inb] proposed a novel four-dimensional Gauss-Bonnet theory as a limiting case of the original D-dimensional theory with singular Gauss-Bonnet coupling constant. While some issues and inconsistency are still debated [@Gurses:2020ofy; @Mahapatra:2020rds; @Shu:2020cjw; @Hennigar:2020lsl; @Arrechea:2020evj], such Gauss-Bonnet gravity in four dimensional spacetime has been explored extensively in the literature. Interestingly, the same solutions of Ref. [@Cai:2014jea] have been found in the four-dimensional Gauss-Bonnet theory. Therefore, it is meaningful to ask how the curvature correction affects the holographic superconductors in the novel four-dimensional Gauss-Bonnet theory. Motivated by the above mentioned, we will construct the $s$-wave superconductor model with conformal anomaly correction in this paper and study the CAC effects on the superconductor phase transitions. The results show that the increasing CAC parameter hinders both the conductor/superconductor phase transition in the black hole and the insulator/superconductor phase transition in the soliton.
This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we study the $s$-wave conductor/superconductor phase transition and calculate the optical conductivity. We also investigate the critical temperature and the critical behavior by the analytical S-L method. In Sec. III, by constructing numerically the $s$-wave insulator/superconductor model in the CAC soliton background, we study the corresponding superconductor model by the S-L method. The final section is devoted to the conclusions and discussions. It should be noted that while this paper was being completed, the holographic superconductors in four-dimensional Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity appeared in arXiv [@Qiao:2020hkx]. In our present work, the numerical part about the $s$-wave conductor/superconductor model has some overlap with Ref. [@Qiao:2020hkx].
Conductor/superconductor phase transition {#numericalcs}
=========================================
In this section, we firstly construct the holographic $s$-wave conductor/superconductor phase transition in the four-dimensional CAC black hole with the Maxwell complex scalar field via the numerical method. To verify that below the critical temperature the state with scalar hair is indeed stable, we define the grand potential density of the system and then compare the grand potential of the hairy state with the one of no hairy state, following which the frequency dependent conductivity is studied in detail. In order to check the numerical results of the model, we restudy the holographic superconductor model by the analytical S-L method.
First of all, we give the four-dimensional CAC planer black hole as [@Cai:2014jea] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{CACBH}
ds^2&=&-f(r)dt^2+\frac{dr^2}{f(r)}+r^2(dx^2+dy^2),\\
&&f(r)=-\frac{r^2}{4\alpha}\left(1-\sqrt{1+\frac{8\alpha}{l^2}\left(1-\frac{r_+^3}{r^3}\right)}\right)\nonumber,\end{aligned}$$ where $r_+$ represents the horizon of the black hole satisfying $f(r_+)=0$, $l^{-2}$ is related to the cosmological constant $\Lambda=-\frac{3}{l^2}$. The effective radius of the AdS spacetime is $L_{eff}^2=4 \alpha/(\sqrt{1+8\alpha/l^2}-1)$. Meanwhile, the CAC parameter $\alpha$ can be concretely represented as $\alpha=8\pi G \vartheta$, where $\vartheta$ is a positive constant related to the degrees of freedom of quantum fields. In the present work, we will focus on the CAC parameter space as $0.0001\leq\alpha\leq10$. Obviously, the CAC black hole returns to the standard planer AdS black hole in the case of $\alpha\rightarrow 0$ [@Hartnoll2008; @Horowitz126008; @Siopsis:2010uq; @Cai:2013pda].
Subsequently, we take the Lagrangian density consisting of a Maxwell field and a complex scalar field [@Hartnoll2008] $$\label{Swaveaction}
\mathcal{L}_m=-\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}- D_\mu\psi(D^\mu\psi)^\ast -m^2 |\psi|^2,$$ where $F_{\mu\nu}=\nabla_\mu A_\nu-\nabla_\nu A_\mu$ is the field strength of the gauge field $A_\mu$, $D_\mu=\nabla_\mu-iq A_\mu$, and $m$ ($q$) is the mass (charge) of the scalar field $\psi$. To simplify the calculation, we regarded the matter field as the probe to the CAC black hole, where the equations of motion for both the scalar and the gauge field decouple from the Einstein field equation and the main physics of the system is believed to be grasped at the same time. Varying the action for the Lagrangian density (\[Swaveaction\]) with respect to the scalar field $\psi$ and the gauge field $A_\mu$, respectively, we can read off the equations of motion of scalar field and gauge field as $$\begin{aligned}
D_\mu D^\mu\psi-m^2\psi&=&0,\label{EOMofpsiofSwave}\\
\nabla^\mu F_{\mu\nu}-iq(\psi^\ast D_\nu\psi-\psi (D_\nu\psi)^\ast)&=&0.\label{EOMofphiofSwave}\end{aligned}$$ Throughout the paper, we will set $l=1$ and $q=1$ without loss of generality.
Following the works in Refs. [@Hartnoll2008; @Horowitz126008], we take the complex scalar field to be real and only turn on the time component of the Maxwell field with other components vanishing, which are $$\label{psiphiansatz}
\psi=\psi(r), \ \ \ A_\mu dx^\mu=\phi(r) dt.$$ Combining the ansatz (\[psiphiansatz\]) with the black hole background (\[CACBH\]), the concrete equations of motion in term of $\psi(r)$ and $\phi(r)$ read [@Hartnoll2008; @Horowitz126008] $$\begin{aligned}
\psi''(r)+\left(\frac{f^\prime(r)}{f(r)}+\frac{2}{r}\right)\psi'(r)+\left(\frac{\phi^2(r)}{f^2(r)}-\frac{m^2}{f(r)}\right)\psi(r)&=&0,\label{snumpsi} \\
\phi''(r)+\frac{2}{r}\phi'(r)-\frac{2\psi(r)^2}{f(r)}\phi(r) &=& 0,\label{snumphi}\end{aligned}$$ where the prime denotes the derivative with respect to $r$.
To solve the above coupled differential equations, we usually impose the boundary conditions. At the horizon $r=r_+$, we require $\phi(r_+)=0$ to satisfy the finite norm of $A_\mu$, while $\psi(r_+)$ needs to be regular. At the infinite boundary ($r\rightarrow \infty$), $\psi(r)$ and $\phi(r)$ behave as $$\begin{aligned}
\psi(r)&=&\frac{\psi_1}{r^{\Delta_-}}+\frac{\psi_2}{r^{\Delta_+}}+\cdots, \label{asySwaveBHSpsi}\\
\phi(r)&=&\mu-\frac{\rho}{ r}+\cdots, \label{asySwaveBHphi}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta_\pm =\frac{1}{2}\left(3\pm\sqrt{9+4m^2L^2_{eff}}\right)$, and the constants $\psi_1$ ($\psi_2$) and $\mu$ ($\rho$) are interpreted as the source (the vacuum expectation value) of the dual operator $\hat{\mathcal{O}}$ and the chemical potential (the charge density) of dual field theory, respectively. By requiring that the U(1) symmetry is broken spontaneously, we impose the source-free condition $\psi_1=0$. We will focus on $\Delta_+=\Delta=2$ throughout the paper, which implies that the mass squared of the scalar field has a relation to effective radius of the AdS spacetime $m^2L^2_{eff}=-2 $. For the above coupled equations and the asymptotical behaviors of $\psi(r)$ and $\phi(r)$, there exists an important scaling symmetry, such as $(r,T,\mu)\rightarrow \xi (r,T,\mu),\psi_2\rightarrow \xi^{\Delta} \psi_2,\rho\rightarrow \xi^{2} \rho$ with $\xi$ a positive constant, by using which we can fix the chemical potential $\mu$ and thus work in the grand canonical ensemble.
Numerical part
--------------
After numerical calculations, we obtain the condensate with respect to the temperature for various CAC parameter $\alpha$ and scaling dimension parameter $\Delta$. To see clearly the effect of the CAC parameter $\alpha$ on the scalar condensate, we typically display the condensate for $\alpha=0.01,0.5,10$ with $\Delta=2$ (left panel) and $\frac{5}{2}$ (right panel) in Fig. \[condoffixDelta\].
![The condensate versus the temperature with $\alpha=0.01$ (black solid), $\alpha=0.5$ (red dashed), $\alpha=10$ (blue dotdashed) for $\Delta=2$ (the left panel) and $\Delta=\frac{5}{2}$ (the right panel). []{data-label="condoffixDelta"}](figure1a.eps){width="2.8in"}
![The condensate versus the temperature with $\alpha=0.01$ (black solid), $\alpha=0.5$ (red dashed), $\alpha=10$ (blue dotdashed) for $\Delta=2$ (the left panel) and $\Delta=\frac{5}{2}$ (the right panel). []{data-label="condoffixDelta"}](figure1b.eps "fig:"){width="2.8"}\
It is observed that there always exists a critical temperature below which the scalar hair starts to condense. To study synthetically the CAC effects on the critical temperature, we list the critical temperature for various value of $\alpha$ with $\Delta=2$ in Tab. \[tab:sTcna\],
$\alpha$ 0.0001 0.01 0.1 0.3 0.5 2 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- ----------- --------- --------- ----------- ----------- ---------
$\frac{T_{cn}}{\mu}$ 0.05876 $0.05973$ 0.06747 0.08066 $0.09110$ $0.14201$ 0.27452
$\frac{T_{ca}}{\mu}$ 0.05739 $0.05831$ 0.06562 0.07813 $0.08807$ $0.1365$ 0.2628
$\frac{\langle \mathcal{O} \rangle^{1/2}}{T_c}(\frac{T}{T_c}\approx 0.1)$ 7.87 $7.84$ 7.70 7.485 $7.244$ $6.563$ 5.636
$\mathcal{C}_{1n}(T\approx T_c)$ 114.921 114.700 112.053 106.263 101.712 84.496 62.160
$\mathcal{C}_{1a}(T\approx T_c)$ 59.596 59.401 57.612 54.312 51.857 42.861 31.413
$\frac{\omega_g}{T_c}(\frac{T}{T_c}\approx 0.1)$ 8.87 $8.80$ 7.80 6.50 $5.70$ $3.65$ 1.85
: \[tab:sTcna\] The results to different $\alpha$ for the conductor/superconductor model with $\Delta=2$: the critical temperature$\frac{T_{cn}}{\mu}$ ($\frac{T_{ca}}{\mu}$) from the numerical (analytical) method, the stable value of $\frac{\langle \mathcal{O} \rangle^{1/2}}{T_c}$ at $\frac{T}{T_c}\approx 0.1$, the coefficient $\mathcal{C}_{1n}$ ($\mathcal{C}_{1a}$) of the condensate $\left(\frac{\langle\hat{\mathcal{O}}\rangle}{T_c^\Delta}\approx \mathcal{C}_{1}\sqrt{1-\frac{T}{T_c}}\right)$ near the critical point from numerical (analytical) method and the energy gap $\omega_g$.
and also show the critical temperature versus the CAC parameter $\alpha$ for different value of $\Delta$ in the left panel of Fig. \[Tcandgrandpotential\]. It is clear that the critical temperature increases with the increasing CAC parameter, which means the increasing CAC parameter enhances the conductor/superconductor phase transition. While for the fixed CAC parameter, we find that the critical temperature decreases with the increasing $\Delta$, which means that the lager mass squared of the scalar field makes the conductor/superconductor phase transition more difficult. Meanwhile, by fitting the condensate curve near the critical point, we find all curves of condensate versus the temperature have a square root behavior near the critical value, i.e., $\frac{\langle\hat{\mathcal{O}}\rangle}{T_c^\Delta}\approx \mathcal{C}_{1n}\sqrt{1-\frac{T}{T_c}}$, which indicates that the system might suffer from a second-order phase transition at the critical temperature. What is more, we list the coefficient $\mathcal{C}_{1n}$ with $\Delta=2$ in Tab. \[tab:sTcna\], which decreases with the increasing CAC parameter and then implies the condensate increases more and more slowly with the larger CAC parameter. Especially, as $\alpha=0.0001$, if we fix the charge density but not the chemical potential, we can obtain the critical temperature $\frac{T_c}{\sqrt{\rho}}=0.1184$, which obviously returns to the standard AdS black hole [@Hartnoll2008; @Horowitz126008; @Lu:2013tza]. Furthermore, at the lower temperature region, the scalar condensate approximates a stable value listed in Tab. \[tab:sTcna\], which decreases with the increasing CAC parameter $\alpha$ and is consistent with the behavior of the condensate at the intermediate temperature region. If we regard the value of condensate at low temperature as the condensed gap, we can see that the larger the CAC parameter, the smaller the condensed gap.
![The left panel represents the critical temperature versus the CAC parameter $\alpha$ for $\Delta=2$ (black solid) and $\Delta=3$ (red dashed), while the right panel represents the grand potential about the normal state(dashed) and the superconducting state(solid) in the case of $\alpha=0.01$(black) and $\alpha=10$(red) with $\Delta=2$. []{data-label="Tcandgrandpotential"}](figure2a.eps){width="2.8in"}
![The left panel represents the critical temperature versus the CAC parameter $\alpha$ for $\Delta=2$ (black solid) and $\Delta=3$ (red dashed), while the right panel represents the grand potential about the normal state(dashed) and the superconducting state(solid) in the case of $\alpha=0.01$(black) and $\alpha=10$(red) with $\Delta=2$. []{data-label="Tcandgrandpotential"}](figure2b.eps "fig:"){width="2.8"}\
In addition, we also consider the case for other value of $\alpha$ and $\Delta$, the results show that the effects of the CAC parameter on the condensate is qualitative the same. For example, the curve of the critical temperature versus the CAC parameter with $\Delta=\frac{5}{2}$ lies between the curves of $\Delta=2$ and $\Delta=3$ in the left panel of Fig. \[Tcandgrandpotential\]. However, it should be noted that when the scaling dimension parameter $\Delta$ is large enough (for instance, $\Delta=3$), the numerical calculation becomes obviously difficult, especially for the lower temperature region of the model.
To check that below the critical point the superconducting state is indeed thermodynamically favored compared with the normal state, it is helpful to calculate the grand potential of the system, which is defined by the Euclidean on-shell action $S_E$ timing the temperature of the black hole, i.e., $\Omega=T S_E$. Integrating the Minkowski action (\[Swaveaction\]) by parts yields the on-shell part of action as $$\begin{aligned}
S_{os}&=&\int \sqrt{-g}d^4x\Big{(}-\frac{1}{2} \nabla_\mu(A_\nu F^{\mu\nu})-\nabla_\mu(\psi^\ast D^\mu\psi) +q^2\psi^2A_\nu A^\nu\Big{)}\nonumber \\
&=&\frac{V_2}{T} \sqrt{h}n_r\left(-\frac{1}{2}A_\nu F^{r\nu}-\psi^\ast D^r\psi\right)\Big{|}_{r\rightarrow\infty}
+q^2\frac{V_2}{T}\int^\infty_{r_+}\sqrt{-g}\psi^2\phi^2 dr,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where we have taken into account $\int d^3x=\frac{V_2}{T}$ and also Eqs. (\[EOMofpsiofSwave\]) and (\[EOMofphiofSwave\]). Keepping in mind that $S_E=-S_{os}$, we obtain the density of the grand potential as $$\label{grandpotential}
\frac{\Omega}{V_2}=\frac{-TS_{os}}{V_2}=-\frac{1}{2}\mu\rho+\int ^\infty_{r_+}\frac{r^2\psi^2\phi^2}{f}dr.$$ We typically display the grand potential as a function of the temperature for the case of $\alpha=0.01$(black) and $\alpha=10$(red) with $\Delta=2$ in the right panel of Fig. \[Tcandgrandpotential\]. It follows that near the critical temperature, both solid curves corresponding to the superconducting state stretch out from the dashed curves corresponding to the normal state smoothly with the decreasing temperature, which means that at the critical temperature the system indeed suffers from a second-order phase transition, and thus agrees with the behavior of the condensate in Fig. \[condoffixDelta\]. Most importantly, the value of the grand potential of the superconducting state is always lower than that of the normal state, which means that below the critical temperature, the superconducting state is indeed thermodynamically stable. In addition, we also consider the other parameter cases, such as $(\Delta=2,\alpha=1,2,5,8)$ and $(\Delta=\frac{5}{2},\alpha=0.01,1,2,5,8,10)$, the curves are similar to the ones in Fig. \[Tcandgrandpotential\]. As a result, it is believed our numerical results are reliable in the parameter space($0.0001\leq \alpha \leq 10$).
To testify the superconducting signal characterized by the infinite DC conductivity and the strength of the interaction in the superconductor represented by the energy gap, it is useful to compute the AC conductivity of the superconductor model. From the AdS/CFT correspondence, we study the perturbation of the gauge field in the bulk. For simplicity, we turn on the perturbation along the $x $ direction with the ansatz $\delta A(t,r)=A_x(r)e^{-i \omega t}dx$. The linearized equation of the perturbation $A_x(r)$ reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eomax}
&&A_x''(r)+\frac{f^\prime(r)}{f(r)} A_x'(r)+ \left(\frac{\omega^2}{f^2(r)}-\frac{2\psi^2(r)}{f(r)}\right)A_x(r)=0.\end{aligned}$$ At the horizon, we impose the ingoing wave condition $$A_x(r)=(r-r_+)^{-i\omega/{3r_+}}\left(1+A_{x1} (r-r_+)+A_{x2} (r-r_+)^2+A_{x3}(r-r_+)^3+\cdots\right).$$ While at the boundary, the asymptotical solution of $A_x(r)$ is given by $$\label{Ayasyr}
A_x(r)=A^{(0)}+\frac{ A^{(1)}}{r}+\cdots,$$ where $A^{(i)}$ are all constants. Combining with Eqs. (\[EOMofphiofSwave\]) and (\[Ayasyr\]), we can obtain the retarded Green’s function as $$\label{eq39}
G(\omega)=-f(r)\frac{A_x^\prime(r)}{A_x(r)}\Big{|}_{r\rightarrow\infty}=\frac{1}{L_{eff}^2}\frac{A^{(1)}}{A^{(0)}}.$$ According to the Kubo formula, the AC conductivity reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{conductivityformula}
\sigma(\omega)&=&-\frac{i}{\omega}G(\omega)=-\frac{i}{\omega L_{eff}^2} \frac{A^{(1)}}{A^{(0)}}.\end{aligned}$$ In Fig. \[conducfixgamma\], we plot the AC conductivity at $\frac{T}{T_c}\approx \frac{1}{10}$ for $\Delta=2$ with $\alpha=0.01$ (black), $\alpha=0.5$ (red), $\alpha=10$ (blue).
![The real part(left) and imaginal part(right) of the AC conductivity at $\frac{T}{T_c}\approx 0.1$ as a function of the frequency for fixed $\Delta=2$ with $\alpha=0.01$ (black), $\alpha=0.5$ (red),$\alpha=10$ (blue). []{data-label="conducfixgamma"}](figure3a.eps){width="2.8in"}
![The real part(left) and imaginal part(right) of the AC conductivity at $\frac{T}{T_c}\approx 0.1$ as a function of the frequency for fixed $\Delta=2$ with $\alpha=0.01$ (black), $\alpha=0.5$ (red),$\alpha=10$ (blue). []{data-label="conducfixgamma"}](figure3b.eps "fig:"){width="2.8"}\
It is observed from the imaginal part of conductivity at the lower frequency there is an obvious pole for all values of the CAC parameter $\alpha$, which corresponds to a delta function of the DC conductivity as expected from condensed physics. Meanwhile, the imaginal part of conductivity displays a minimum at some special frequency where the real part of conductivity grows most rapidly with the increasing frequency. Following Refs. [@Hartnoll2008; @Horowitz126008], we interpret the value of this special frequency as the energy gap which is believed to characterize the strength of the interaction in the superconductor. What is more, we find for fixed $\Delta=2$, the ratio of the energy gap to the critical temperature decreases with the increasing CAC parameter, which means that the larger CAC parameter suppresses the energy gap and obviously enhances the conductor/superconductor phase transition, which is consistent with the CAC effect on the critical temperature in Fig. \[Tcandgrandpotential\]. At the same time, we also list the value of the energy gap in Tab. \[condoffixDelta\]. It follows that the energy gap decreases from $8.87$ to $1.85$, which seems to suggest that the present superconductor model not only displays the high-temperature superconductor with strong interaction but also the conventional BCS superconductor. Moreover, at the high frequency region, the conductivity extends a stable value, which is the universal behavior in the four dimensional black hole case. In addition, we also consider the case with different CAC parameter, and obtain the similar behavior in Fig. \[conducfixgamma\].
Analytical part
---------------
By means of the new variable $z=\frac{r_+}{r}$, Eqs. (\[snumpsi\]) and (\[snumphi\]) can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\psi''(z)+\frac{f'(z)}{f(z)}\psi'(z)+\left(\frac{\phi(z)^2}{r_+^2z^4f^2(z)}-\frac{m^2}{ z^4f(z)}\right)\psi(z)&=&0,\label{BHpsiz} \\
\phi''(z)-\frac{2 \psi (z)^2}{z^4f(z)}\phi(z) &=& 0,\label{BHphiz}\end{aligned}$$ where the prime represents the derivative with respect to the variable $z$.
At the critical point, the scalar condensate vanishes, we can thus read off the solution of the gauge field as $$\label{phianala}
\phi(z)=\lambda r_+(1-z), \lambda=\frac{\mu}{r_{+c}},$$ where $r_{+c}$ represents the location of the horizon at the critical temperature.
Near the critical point, we can express the scalar field $\psi(z)$ as $$\label{psianaans}
\psi(z)= \frac{\langle \mathcal{O}\rangle}{r_+^\Delta} z^\Delta F(z),$$ with the boundary condition $F(0)=1$ and $F'(0)=0$ [@Siopsis:2010uq; @Li:2013fza; @ZYFan2000; @Lu:2013tza]. Taking into account Eq. (\[phianala\]) and substituting Eq. (\[psianaans\]) into Eq. (\[BHpsiz\]) yields the equation in term of $F(z)$ as $$\label{anacsbhF}
F''+\left(\frac{2\Delta}{z}+\frac{f'(z)}{f(z)}\right)F'+\left(\frac{(1-z)^2}{z^4f^2(z)}\lambda^2+\frac{\Delta z^2(zf'(z)+(\Delta-1)f(z))-m^2}{z^4f(z)}\right)F=0,$$
By multiplying $\mathcal{T}= z^{2 \Delta}f(z)$ to Eq. (\[anacsbhF\]) reads the S-L eigenvalue equation as $$\label{SolitonSLeq}
\frac{d}{dz}(\mathcal{T} F')-\mathcal{P}F +\lambda^2 \mathcal{Q}F=0,$$ where the coefficients $\mathcal{P}$ and $\mathcal{Q}$ are given by $$\mathcal{P}=-z^{2 \Delta-4 }( \Delta z^2 ((\Delta-1)f(z)+zf'(z))-m^2),\ \ \ \ \mathcal{Q}= \frac{(1-z)^2 z^{2 \Delta -4}}{f(z)}.$$ Thus $\lambda^2$ is obtained by minimizing the following expression as [@Siopsis:2010uq; @Lu:2013tza] $$\label{eigenvalueexpress}
\lambda^2=\frac{\int_0^1 (\mathcal{T} {F'}^2-\mathcal{P}F^2)dz}{\int^1_0 \mathcal{Q} F^2 dz}.$$ Given the boundary conditions $F(0)=1,~F'(0)=0$, we can take the form of trial function as $$\label{trialfunction}
F=F_\beta(z)\equiv 1-\beta z^2,$$ by plugging which into Eq. (\[eigenvalueexpress\]) we can obtain the value of $\lambda$ with respect to some special $\beta$. Thus the critical temperature can be written as $$T_c=\frac{3}{4\pi}r_{+c}=\frac{3}{4\pi}\frac{\mu}{\lambda}.$$ The concrete analytical values of the critical temperature $\frac{T_{ca}}{\mu}$ are listed in Tab. \[tab:sTcna\], from which we can see clearly that the critical temperature increases with the increasing CAC parameter $\alpha$, which means that the larger CAC parameter makes the conductor/superconductor phase transition easier to occur. Meanwhile, the analytical results agree well with the numerical ones. In particular, as $\alpha=0.0001$, the result almost restores to the standard AdS black hole case in Refs. [@Hartnoll2008; @Horowitz126008; @Siopsis:2010uq; @Lu:2013tza].
Below (but close to) the critical temperature, the condensate $\frac{\langle\mathcal{O}\rangle}{r_+^\Delta}$ is very small, by using which the gauge field (\[phianala\]) can be expanded in the form of the small parameter as $$\label{phianacsO}
\frac{\phi(z)}{r_+}=\lambda(1-z)+\frac{\langle\mathcal{O}\rangle}{r_+^\Delta}\chi(z).$$ Substituting Eq. (\[phianacsO\]) into Eq. (\[BHphiz\]), we can obtain the equation of $\chi(z)$ at the linear order of $\frac{\langle\mathcal{O}\rangle}{r_+^\Delta}$ as $$\label{chi2csana}
\chi''(z)= \lambda \frac{\langle\mathcal{O}\rangle}{r_+^\Delta} \frac{ 2(1-z) F^2(\beta,z) z^{2 \Delta -4}}{f(z)}$$ with the boundary condition $\chi(1)=0=\chi'(1)$ [@Siopsis:2010uq; @Lu:2013tza]. Integrating Eq. (\[chi2csana\]) yields $$\label{chiuBH}
\chi'(u)=- \lambda\frac{\langle\mathcal{O}\rangle} {r_+^\Delta} \int^{z=1}_{z=u}\frac{2(1-z) F^2(\beta,z) z^{2 \Delta -4}}{f(z)}dz,$$ by further integrating which we have $$\label{anacschi0}
\chi(0)=\lambda\frac{\langle\mathcal{O}\rangle} {r_+^\Delta} \int^{u=1}_{u=0}\int^{z=1}_{z=u}\frac{2(1-z) F^2(\beta,z) z^{2 \Delta -4}}{f(z)}dzdu\equiv \lambda\frac{\langle\mathcal{O}\rangle} {r_+^\Delta}\mathcal{C}_2(\beta,\Delta).$$
On the other hand, expanding Eq. (\[phianacsO\]) at the infinite boundary ($z\rightarrow0$) and comparing the zero order of $z$ with Eq. (\[asySwaveBHphi\]), we have $$\label{anacsOchi}
\frac{\langle\mathcal{O}\rangle} {r_+^\Delta}\chi(0)=\frac{\mu}{r_+}-\lambda.$$
Taking notice of the value of $\chi(0)$ in Eq. (\[anacschi0\]), the condensate near the critical point can be expressed as $$\left(\frac{\langle\mathcal{O}\rangle} {r_+^\Delta}\right)^2=\frac{1}{\mathcal{C}_2(\beta,\Delta)}\frac{T_c}{T}\left(1-\frac{T}{T_c}\right)\approx \frac{1}{\mathcal{C}_2(\beta,\Delta)}\left(1-\frac{T}{T_c}\right),$$ where we have considered the approximation $T\approx T_c$. Therefore, the critical behavior of the condensate is given by $$\frac{\langle\mathcal{O}\rangle} {{T_c}^\Delta}=\left(\frac{4\pi}{3}\right)^\Delta\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathcal{C}_2(\beta,\Delta)}}\sqrt{1-\frac{T}{T_c}}=C_{1a}\sqrt{1-\frac{T}{T_c}}.$$ The coefficient $\mathcal{C}_{1a}$ is listed in Tab. \[tab:sTcna\], from which we find that the coefficient agrees with the numerical results at the same order, especially, the monotonically decreasing trend as a function of the CAC parameter $\alpha$.
Insulator/superconductor phase transition {#inssuper}
=========================================
Similar to the idea of the conductor/superconductor model based on the CAC black hole in the above section, we will numerically build the corresponding insulator/superconductor phase transition in the four-dimensional AdS soliton and then calculate the grand potential of the system, following which we study the frequency dependent conductivity. To back up the numerical results, we will reconstruct the holographic superconductor model by the analytical S-L method.
By performing the double Wick rotation ($t\rightarrow i\eta,~y\rightarrow i t$) to the four-dimensional CAC black hole solution (\[CACBH\]), a four-dimensional CAC soliton is of the form [@Nishioka131; @Cai:2011ky; @Li:2013fza; @Lu:2013tza] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{AdSsolitonmetric}
ds^2&=&-r^2dt^2+\frac{dr^2}{f(r)}+r^2dx^2+f(r)d\eta^2,
f(r)=-\frac{r^2}{4\alpha}\left(1-\sqrt{1+\frac{8\alpha}{l^2}\left(1-\frac{r_0^3}{r^3}\right)}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $r_0$ denotes the tip of the soliton geometry to distinguish the soliton from the black hole. To have a smooth geometry, we impose a periodicity $\eta\sim\eta+\frac{\pi}{r_0}$ for the Scherk-Schwarz circle on the spatial direction $\eta$. Due to the fact that the soliton solution has no horizon, thus no temperature exists. Meanwhile, because of the tip for the soliton geometry, there is an IR cutoff (mass gap) for the dual field theory, which means a confined phase. Therefore, the soliton gravitational background is believed to model the insulator in condensed matter physics [@Nishioka131; @Cai:2011ky; @Li:2013fza]. In addition, because of the compactness of the spatial direction $\eta$, the present four-dimensional soliton background is indeed dual to a two-dimensional field theory with mass gap. Following the works in Refs. [@Nishioka131; @Cai:2011ky; @Li:2013fza], we take the form of the complex scalar field and the Maxwell field the same with Eq. (\[psiphiansatz\]) and thus obtain the concrete equations of motion in term of $\psi(r)$ and $\phi(r)$ in the CAC soliton background (\[AdSsolitonmetric\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
\psi''(r)+\left(\frac{2}{r}+\frac{f'(r)}{f(r)}\right)\psi'(r)+\left(\frac{\phi^2}{r^2f(r)}-\frac{ m^2 }{ f(r)}\right)\psi(r)&=&0,\label{snumpsis} \\
\phi''(r)+\frac{f'(r)}{f(r)}\phi'(r)-\frac{2\psi(r)^2}{f(r)}\phi(r) &=& 0,\label{snumphis}\end{aligned}$$ where the prime stands for the derivative with respect to $r$.
Numerical part {#numericalss}
--------------
To solve numerically the coupled differential equations (\[snumpsis\]) and (\[snumphis\]), we have to specify the boundary conditions for $\psi(r)$ and $\phi(r)$. It should be noted that the constant $\mu$ is a trial solution of Eq. (\[snumphis\]). Different from the AdS black holes requiring the gauge field to be zero at the horizon [@Hartnoll2008; @Horowitz126008], here we only impose the Neumann-like boundary condition [@Nishioka131] to remove the logarithm term in order for both $\psi(r_0)$ and $\phi(r_0)$ to be finite at the tip $r=r_0$. At the infinite boundary ($r\rightarrow \infty$), $\psi(r)$ and $\phi(r)$ have the same asymptotical expansions as Eqs. (\[asySwaveBHSpsi\]) and (\[asySwaveBHphi\]) in the black hole case. According to the gauge/gravity duality, the coefficients ($\psi_1$ ($\psi_2$) and $\mu$($\rho$)) of the insulator/superconductor model have the same physical explanations with the conductor/superconductor model in Sec. \[numericalcs\]. Since the U(1) symmetry is expected to be broken spontaneously, we still impose the source-free condition $\psi_1=0$. Hereafter, we still concentrate on the $\Delta=2$ case in the present section and take $r_0=1$ in the numerical calculation. Thus the period of the spatial coordinate $\eta$ is $\Gamma=\pi$. In order for the insulator/superconductor model with different CAC parameter to be comparable, we fix the period of the spatial coordinate $\eta$, which is another difference from the case of the black holes requiring either the charge density or the chemical potential to be fixed. However, the period $\Gamma$ is obviously independent of the CAC parameter, which implies that we do not need rescale the numerical results if we fix $\Gamma=\pi$ in the current paper.
We plot the scalar condensate $\langle \mathcal{O}\rangle$ and the charge density $\rho$ versus the chemical potential with $\alpha=0.01$ (black solid), $1$ (red dashed) and $10$ (blue dotted) in Fig. \[condchargedensity\],
![The condensate (left) and the charge density (right) versus chemical potential with $\alpha=0.01,1,10$ (from right to left) for fixed $\Delta=2$.[]{data-label="condchargedensity"}](figure4a.eps){width="3.1in"}
![The condensate (left) and the charge density (right) versus chemical potential with $\alpha=0.01,1,10$ (from right to left) for fixed $\Delta=2$.[]{data-label="condchargedensity"}](figure4b.eps){width="3.1in"}
from which we have the following remarks. As for the curves of scalar condensate, first of all, there always exists a critical chemical potential for all cases, above which the scalar hair starts to condense. Meanwhile, we have also listed the critical chemical potential in Tab. \[criticalmuc1c2\]
$\alpha$ 0.01 0.2 0.5 1 5 10
------------------------------------------- -------- ---------- -------- -------- ---------- ----------
$\mu_{cn}$ 1.7074 $1.5578$ 1.4238 1.2953 $0.9689$ $0.8373$
$\mathcal{C}_{3n}(\mu\approx \mu_c)$ 1.7739 $1.7030$ 1.6110 1.4390 $1.1241$ $0.9571$
$\mathcal{C}_{4n}(\mu\approx \mu_c)$ 1.4573 $1.541$ 1.594 1.636 $1.746$ $1.812$
$\omega_{gn}(\frac{\mu}{\mu_c}\approx 2)$ 2.169 $1.933$ 1.745 1.574 $1.163$ $1.002$
$\omega_{gn}(\frac{\mu}{\mu_c}\approx 5)$ 3.985 $3.529$ 3.175 2.859 $2.106$ $1.813$
: \[criticalmuc1c2\] The results for the insulator/superconductor model with $\Delta=2$: the critical chemical potential from the numerical method ($\mu_c$). $\langle \mathcal{O} \rangle=\mathcal{C}_{3n}\sqrt{\frac{\mu-\mu_c}{\mu_c}}$ and $\rho\approx \mathcal{C}_{4n}(\mu-\mu_c)$ near the critical point $(\mu\approx \mu_c)$, $\omega_{gn}(\frac{\mu}{\mu_c}\approx 2(5))$ denotes the location of second pole for the conductivity for $\frac{\mu}{\mu_c}\approx 2$ ($5$).
and plotted the value of $\mu_c$ versus the CAC parameter $\alpha$ in the form the black solid curve in the left panel of Fig. \[Criticalmugrandpotential\].
![The left panel represents the critical chemical potential versus the CAC parameter $\alpha$ in the case of $\Delta=2,\frac{5}{2}$, while the right panel shows the grand potential as a function of the chemical potential about the normal state(horizontal) and the superconducting state(curved) in the case of $\alpha=0.01,1,10$(from right to left) with fixed $\Delta=2$. []{data-label="Criticalmugrandpotential"}](figure5a.eps){width="2.8in"}
![The left panel represents the critical chemical potential versus the CAC parameter $\alpha$ in the case of $\Delta=2,\frac{5}{2}$, while the right panel shows the grand potential as a function of the chemical potential about the normal state(horizontal) and the superconducting state(curved) in the case of $\alpha=0.01,1,10$(from right to left) with fixed $\Delta=2$. []{data-label="Criticalmugrandpotential"}](figure5b.eps "fig:"){width="2.8"}\
It follows that the critical chemical potential decreases with the larger CAC parameter $\alpha$, which means that the larger CAC correction enhances the insulator/superconductor phase transition. What is more, for fixed CAC parameter, the larger the dimensional scaling $\Delta$, the smaller the critical chemical potential, which is reasonable, because the larger $\Delta$ means the larger mass squared $m^2$ of the scalar field, which must hinder the scalar field to condense. Meanwhile, near the critical point, we have $\langle \mathcal{O}\rangle \sim \mathcal{C}_{3n}\sqrt{\mu-\mu_c}$ by fitting the numerical curves in Fig. \[condchargedensity\]. The critical exponent of the condensate ($\frac{1}{2}$) indicates that the system undergoes a second-order phase transition at the critical point. Furthermore, we read off the coefficient $\mathcal{C}_{3n}$ in Tab. \[criticalmuc1c2\] and find it decreases with the increasing CAC parameter, which suggests that the larger CAC parameter suppresses the growth of the condensate. In term of the curves for the charge density, we observe that above the critical point, the charge density appears and increases with the chemical potential. By fitting the numerical results, we also find that the charge density has the linear dependent on the chemical potential as $\rho\sim\mathcal{C}_{4n}(\mu-\mu_c)$, which agrees with the meaning field theory. Besides, the coefficient $\mathcal{C}_{4n}$ listed in Tab. \[criticalmuc1c2\] increases with the increasing CAC parameter.
In order to prove that above the critical chemical potential, the superconducting state with scalar hairy is indeed thermodynamically favored in contrast with the normal state, we introduce the ‘temperature’ of the soliton as $\int dt=\frac{1}{T}$, upon which the grand potential of the system is defined by the Euclidean on-shell action $S_E$ timing the ‘temperature’ of the soliton, i.e., $\Omega=T S_E$. Integrating the Minkowski action (\[Swaveaction\]) by parts, the on-shell action is of the form $$\begin{aligned}
S_{os} &=&\frac{V_2}{T} \left(\frac{\mu\rho}{2L^2_{eff}}-\int^\infty_{r_0}\psi^2\phi^2dr\right),\end{aligned}$$ where we have taken into account $\int d^2x=V_2$ and also Eqs. (\[snumpsi\]) and (\[snumphi\]). Having in mind that $S_E=-S_{os}$, the density of the grand potential is given by $$\label{grandpotential}
\frac{\Omega}{V_2}=\frac{-TS_{os}}{V_2}=-\frac{\mu\rho}{2L^2_{eff}}+\int ^\infty_{r_0}r\phi^2\psi^2 dr.$$
Because of the existence of the effective radius of AdS spacetime $L^2_{eff}$, it is clear that the CAC parameter $\alpha$ will affect the grand potential. Next, we typically display the grand potential with respect to the chemical potential for the case of $\Delta=2$ in the right panel of Fig. \[Criticalmugrandpotential\], from which we can observe that near the critical point, the superconducting curve stretches out from the horizontal line corresponding to insulators smoothly with the increasing chemical potential, which means that the system indeed suffers from a second-order phase transition at the critical point, and thus agrees with the behavior of the condensate in Fig. \[condchargedensity\]. What is more, the value of the grand potential of the superconducting state is always lower than the one of the normal state, which means that above the critical value, the superconducting state is indeed thermodynamically stable. In addition, the behaviors of the other values of the CAC parameter in $0.001\leq \alpha\leq 10$ are similar to the case in Fig. \[Criticalmugrandpotential\].
In what follows, we calculate the electromagnetic perturbation in the hairy soliton to study the conductivity. Concretely, we turn on the perturbation $\delta A=A_x(r)e^{-i \omega t}dx$, and thus obtain the linearized equation [@Nishioka131; @Lu:2013tza] $$\label{Sswaveaxeq}
A_x''(r)+\frac{f'(r)}{f(r)}A_x'(r)+\left(\frac{\omega^2}{r^2f(r)}-\frac{2\psi^2(r)}{f(r)}\right)A_x(r)=0.$$ In order for $A_x$ to be finite at the tip, we take the ansatz of $A_x$ near the tip $$\label{Solitontipcond}
A_x(r)=1+A_{x1} (r-r_0)+A_{x2} (r-r_0)^2+A_{x3}(r-r_0)^3+\cdots,$$ where $A_{x1}$, $A_{x2}$ and $A_{x3}$ are all constants and the leading term is taken to be unity due to the linearity of the equation for $A_x$. At the infinite boundary ($r\rightarrow\infty$), the asymptotical expansion of $A_x$ is the same with Eq. (\[Ayasyr\]). From the gauge field perturbation we can find that the Green function is still (\[eq39\]). Therefore, the formula of the frequency conductivity still equates to Eq. (\[conductivityformula\]).
In Fig. \[condufre\], we typically show the imaginal part of conductivity as a function of the frequency for different values of chemical potential and $\Delta$,
![The left panel represents the imaginal part of frequency dependent conductivity for $\Delta=2$ and $\alpha=1$ in the case of $\frac{\mu}{\mu_c}\approx 1,~2,~5$ (from left to right), while the right panel represents the ones with $\frac{\mu}{\mu_c}\approx 5$ and $\alpha=10,1,0.01$ (from left to right).[]{data-label="condufre"}](figure6a.eps){width="2.9"}
![The left panel represents the imaginal part of frequency dependent conductivity for $\Delta=2$ and $\alpha=1$ in the case of $\frac{\mu}{\mu_c}\approx 1,~2,~5$ (from left to right), while the right panel represents the ones with $\frac{\mu}{\mu_c}\approx 5$ and $\alpha=10,1,0.01$ (from left to right).[]{data-label="condufre"}](figure6b.eps){width="2.9"}
from which some remarks are in order. In term of the left panel, we can see that at the critical chemical potential the imaginal part of the conductivity vanishes at the low frequency region, which corresponds to the finite conductivity. However, when the chemical potential increases away from the critical point, such as $\frac{\mu}{\mu_c}\approx 2~(5)$, a clear pole appears in the low frequency region, which implies the infinite DC conductivity as expected from the superconducting state. Meanwhile, the value of the location for the second pole of conductivity increases with the larger chemical potential, which suggests that the larger chemical potential increases the energy of quasiparticle excitation. As for the right panel, due to the fact that all curves are from superconducting state, it is reasonable that there always exists a pole in the low frequency region. Furthermore, we list the value of the second pole of the imaginal part of conductivity for various CAC parameter $\alpha$ for $\frac{\mu}{\mu_c}\approx 2~(5)$ in Tab. \[criticalmuc1c2\]. It follows that for the fixed ratio of the chemical potential to the critical value, the location of the second pole moves toward left when one increases the value of $\alpha$. The case of $\frac{\mu}{\mu_c}\approx 5$ has the similar behavior to the case of $\frac{\mu}{\mu_c}\approx 2$.
Analytical part
----------------
To back up the above numerical results, especially, the effects of the CAC parameter on the critical chemical potential and the condensate, we construct the $s$-wave insulator/superconductor model by the analytical S-L method. Concretely, we resolve analytically the coupled differential equations (\[snumpsis\]) and (\[snumphis\]) with the same boundary conditions as the ones in subsection \[numericalss\]. By introducing a new variable $z=\frac{r_0}{r}$, Eqs. (\[snumpsis\]) and (\[snumphis\]) can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\psi ''(z)+\frac{f'(z)}{f(z)}\psi '(z)+\left(\frac{\phi (z)^2}{r_0^2z^2f(z)}-\frac{m^2}{ z^2f(z)}\right)\psi (z)&=&0,\label{EOMofpsiz}\\
\phi ''(z)+\left(\frac{2}{z}+\frac{f'(z)}{f(z)}\right)\phi '(z)-\frac{2 \psi ^2(z)}{z^4 f(z)} \phi (z)&=&0,\label{EOMofphiz}\end{aligned}$$ where the prime represents the derivative with respect to $z$.
In the normal phase, $\psi(z)= 0$, the general solution $\phi(z)$ from Eq. (\[EOMofphiz\]) is of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\phi(z)&=&\mathcal{C}_5 +\mathcal{C}_6\Big{(}\frac{z \left(1-z^3\right) \sqrt{8 \alpha -8 \alpha z^3+1}
F_1\left(\frac{1}{3};-\frac{1}{2},1;\frac{4}{3};\frac{8 z^3 \alpha }{8 \alpha +1},z^3\right)}{8 \alpha
\left(z^3-1\right) \sqrt{1-\frac{8 \alpha z^3}{8 \alpha +1}}}+ \nonumber\\
&&-\frac{\log \left(z^2+z+1\right)}{48 \alpha}+\frac{\log (1-z)}{24 \alpha}-\frac{\tan ^{-1}\left(\frac{2z+1}{\sqrt{3}}\right)}{8 \sqrt{3} \alpha}\Big{)},\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{C}_5$ and $\mathcal{C}_6$ are two constants. As we have analyzed in subsection \[numericalss\], we take $\mathcal{C}_6=0$ in order for the gauge field to be finite at the tip via the Neumann-like boundary condition [@Nishioka131; @Cai:2011ky; @Li:2013fza]. Hence, the constant $\mathcal{C}_5=\mu$ is regarded as the chemical potential in the dual field theory. Obviously, the charge density vanishes in the normal phase, which agrees well with the numerical results in Fig. \[condchargedensity\].
When the chemical potential goes slightly beyond the critical point, the scalar condensate begins to condense and can be expressed as $$\label{ConFz}
\psi= \langle \mathcal{O}\rangle z^\Delta F(z),$$ where $F(z)$ is a function to be determined with the boundary condition $F(0)=1$. Plugging Eq. (\[ConFz\]) into Eq. (\[EOMofpsiz\]) yields the equation of $F(z)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
F''(z)+\left(\frac{f'(z)}{f(z)}+\frac{2
\Delta }{z}\right)F'(z)\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ &&\nonumber \\
+\left(\frac{\Delta z^2 \left(z f'(z)+(\Delta -1) f(z)\right)-m^2}{z^4f(z)}+\frac{\lambda ^2}{z^2 f(z)}\right)F(z)&=&0.\end{aligned}$$ Multiplying the factor $\mathcal{T}=z^{2\Delta}f(z)$ to the above equation yields the S-L eigenvalue equation as $$\label{SolitonSLeq}
\frac{d}{dz}(\mathcal{T} F')-\mathcal{P}F +\mu_c^2 \mathcal{Q}F=0,$$ where $\mathcal{P}$ and $\mathcal{Q}$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{P}&=&-z^{2 \Delta -4} \left(\Delta z^2 \left(z
f'(z)+(\Delta -1) f(z)\right)-m^2\right),\ \ \ \ \ \mathcal{Q}= z^{2 \Delta -2}.\end{aligned}$$ The minimal eigenvalue $\mu_c^2$ is obtained by minimizing the expression $$\label{SLeigenvalue}
\mu_c^2=\frac{\int_0^1 (\mathcal{T} {F'}^2-\mathcal{P}F^2)dz}{\int^1_0 \mathcal{Q} F^2 dz}$$ with the boundary condition $F'(0)=0$ [@Cai:2011ky; @Li:2013fza]. Considering comprehensively the boundary conditions $F(0)=1$ and $F'(0)=0$, we introduce a trial function with the same form to (\[trialfunction\]) and thus read off the critical chemical potential from Eq. (\[SLeigenvalue\]). Concretely, we plot the critical chemical potential $\mu_c$ versus the CAC parameter $\alpha$ in the form of solid points in the left plot of Fig. \[Criticalmugrandpotential\] and list the results in Tab. \[tab:ssTcna\].
$\alpha$ 0.01 0.2 0.5 1 5 10
-------------------------------------- -------- ---------- -------- -------- ---------- ----------
$\mu_{ca}$ 1.7080 $1.5582$ 1.4241 1.2955 $0.9690$ $0.8374$
$\mathcal{C}_{3a}(\mu\approx \mu_c)$ 1.4247 $1.3725$ 1.2954 1.2053 $0.9345$ $0.8148$
$\mathcal{C}_{4a}(\mu\approx \mu_c)$ 1.0604 $1.1364$ 1.1826 1.2157 $1.2701$ $1.2841$
: \[tab:ssTcna\] The analytical results for the insulator/superconductor model with $\Delta=2$: the critical chemical potential from the analytical method ($\mu_c$), $\langle \mathcal{O} \rangle \approx \mathcal{C}_{3a}\sqrt{\frac{\mu-\mu_c}{\mu_c}}$ and $\rho\approx \mathcal{C}_{4a}(\mu-\mu_c)$ near the critical point.
It is observed that the analytical results agree well with the numerical ones, which means that the S-L method is still powerful in the CAC insulator/superconductor model.
When the chemical potential is slightly above the critical point, the condensate $\langle \mathcal{O}\rangle$ is very small, so we can expand the gauge field $\phi(z)$ in the form of the small parameter $\langle \mathcal{O}\rangle$ as $$\label{solitonphiochi}
\phi(z)=\mu_c+\langle \mathcal{O}\rangle \chi(z)+\cdots.$$ Combining with Eq. (\[ConFz\]), we have the equation of $\chi(z)$ as $$\label{schizprim2}
\chi''-\left(\frac{2}{z}+\frac{f'(z)}{f(z)}\right)\chi'-\frac{2 \mu _c \langle \mathcal{O}\rangle \left(1-\beta z^2\right)^2 z^{2 \Delta -4}}{f(z)}=0.$$ Defining $T(z)= z^2 f(z)$, Eq. (\[schizprim2\]) can be rewritten as $$\label{tchieqanasol}
(T\chi')'=2 \mu _c \langle \mathcal{O}\rangle \left(1-\beta z^2\right)^2 z^{2 \Delta -2}.$$
At the boundary ($z\rightarrow0$), the function $\chi(z)$ can be further expanded as $$\label{chiexpand}
\chi(z)=\chi(0)+\chi^\prime(0)z+\frac{1}{2}\chi^{\prime\prime}(0) z^2+\frac{1}{6}\chi^{\prime\prime\prime}(0)z^3+\cdots.$$ Substituting Eq. (\[chiexpand\]) into Eq. (\[solitonphiochi\]) and thus comparing it with Eq. (\[asySwaveBHphi\]), we can get $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\mathcal{O}\rangle &=& \frac{1}{\chi(0)}(\mu-\mu_c), \label{anaOchi} \\
\rho &=&-\chi'(0) \langle\mathcal{O}\rangle=-\frac{\chi'(0)}{\chi(0)}(\mu-\mu_c).\label{anarhochi}\end{aligned}$$ Obviously, the following important thing is to calculate the values of $\chi'(0)$ and $\chi(0)$. By using the boundary condition $\chi'(1)=0$ [@Cai:2011ky; @Li:2013fza], integrating Eq. (\[tchieqanasol\]) reads $$(T\chi')|^z_1= \mu _c \langle\mathcal{O}\rangle\int^{u=z}_{u=1}2\left(1-\beta u^2\right)^2 u^{2 \Delta -2}du=\mu _c \langle\mathcal{O}\rangle \mathcal{C}_7(\beta,\Delta, z).$$ Further integrating the above equation, we can obtain the value of $\chi(0)$ as $$\label{chi0anas}
\chi(0)=\mu _c \langle\mathcal{O}\rangle \int^0_1\frac{\mathcal{C}_7(\beta,\Delta, z)}{T}dz=\mu _c \langle\mathcal{O}\rangle\mathcal{C}_8(\beta,\Delta).$$ Meanwhile, taking the limit $z\rightarrow0$ yields the value of $\chi'(0)$ as $$\label{chiprime0anas}
\chi'(0)=\mu _c \langle\mathcal{O}\rangle \lim_{z\rightarrow0}\frac{\mathcal{C}_7(\beta,\Delta, z)}{T}=\mu _c \langle\mathcal{O}\rangle\mathcal{C}_9(\beta,\Delta).$$ Combining Eqs. (\[chiprime0anas\]) and (\[chi0anas\]) with Eqs. (\[anaOchi\]) and (\[anarhochi\]), the scalar condensate and the charge density near the critical chemical potential can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\mathcal{O}\rangle &=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathcal{C}_8}}\sqrt{\frac{\mu}{\mu_c}-1}=\mathcal{C}_{3a}\sqrt{\frac{\mu}{\mu_c}-1},\label{anaOfinal} \\
\rho &=&-\frac{\chi'(0)}{\chi(0)}(\mu-\mu_c)=-\frac{ \mathcal{C}_9(\beta,\Delta)}{\mathcal{C}_8(\beta,\Delta)}(\mu-\mu_c)=\mathcal{C}_{4a}(\mu-\mu_c).\label{anarhofinal}\end{aligned}$$ We calculate and list the values of $\mathcal{C}_{3a}$ for Eq. (\[anaOfinal\]) and $\mathcal{C}_{4a}$ for Eq. (\[anarhofinal\]) in Tab. \[tab:ssTcna\] to compare with the numerical results in Tab. \[criticalmuc1c2\]. It is obvious that the analytical results agree with the numerical ones at the same order, especially, the trend of the effect for CAC parameter on the coefficient is consistent with each other. What is more, the results in the case of $\alpha=0.01$ almost recover the ones in Refs. [@Nishioka131; @Lu:2013tza; @Cai:2011ky; @Li:2013fza].
Conclusions and discussions
===========================
In the probe limit, we have constructed the holographic $s$-wave superconductor models in the four-dimensional CAC black hole and soliton backgrounds via both numerical and analytical methods. The effects of the CAC parameter $\alpha$ on the superconductor models were studied in detail and the main conclusions are as follows.
In term of the conductor/superconducotor model, when the scaling dimension is fixed as $\Delta=2$, the critical temperature increases with the larger CAC parameter $\alpha$, which means that the increasing CAC parameter enhances the superconductor phase transition. Meanwhile, the critical exponent of the condensate is $\frac{1}{2}$, which suggests that the system suffers from a second-order phase transition at the critical point, and thus be upheld by the behavior of the grand potential. What is more, below the critical point, an obvious pole appears in the low frequency region for the imaginal part of conductivity, which corresponds to a delta function of the real part of the conductivity and thus implies the infinite DC conductivity expected from the superconductor. Furthermore, from the minimum of the imaginal part of conductivity, we read off the energy gap, which decreases with the increasing CAC parameter and is consistent with the behavior of the condensate. In addition, the analytical results such as the critical temperature, the critical exponents of condensate $\langle \mathcal{O}\rangle$ agree with the numerical results, and the coefficients of $\langle \mathcal{O}\rangle$ is qualitatively the same with the numerical ones near the critical point.
As for the insulator/superconducotor model, the critical chemical potential with $\Delta=2$ decreases with the increasing CAC parameter $\alpha$, which means that the increasing CAC parameter enhances the superconductor phase transition. Meanwhile, the critical exponent of the condensate ($\frac{1}{2}$) suggests that a second-order phase transition occurs at the critical point, which is testified by the grand potential. What is more, near the critical point, the charge density increases linearly with the chemical potential, which is the university of holographic insulator/superconductor model. Furthermore, beyond the critical point, the imaginal part of conductivity displays an obvious pole at the low frequency region, which implies that the system is indeed at superconducting state above the critical point. In addition, the hairy state is proved to be stable compared with the no-hair state from the analysis of the grand potential. The analytical results such as the critical chemical potential, the critical exponents of condensate $\langle \mathcal{O}\rangle$ and charge density $\rho$ agree with the numerical results, and the coefficients of $\langle \mathcal{O}\rangle$ and $\rho$ are qualitatively the same with the numerical ones near the critical point. Even though the present calculation are restricted to some special cases of the parameter space of scaling dimension $\Delta$ and CAC parameter $\alpha$, we can obtain the qualitatively same results for other values of $\Delta$ and $\alpha$.
Comprehensively speaking, the increasing CAC parameter enhances both the conductor/superconductor phase transition and the insulator/superconductor phase transition for fixed scaling dimension. What is more, for both models, there always exists a critical value. Near the critical point, the system suffers from a second-order phase transition expected from the mean-field theory. Meanwhile, the state with scalar condensate is confirmed to be thermodynamically stable. Furthermore, all above numerical results are backed up by the analytical results. In addition, as discussed in Sec. I, the present work also investigated the effects of curvature correction on holographic superconductors in the four-dimensional Gauss-Bonnet gravity in some sense. However, it should be noted that the increasing curvature correction parameter $\tilde{\alpha}$ always hinders the $s$-wave conductor/superconductor phase transition in the range $\tilde{\alpha}<0$ [@Qiao:2020hkx], while the increasing CAC parameter enhances the superconductor phase transition in the current paper. By analysing the metric functions of the CAC gravity and the four-dimensional Gauss-Bonnet one [@Qiao:2020hkx], this inconsistency is reasonable, because the CAC parameter $\alpha$ equates to minus one half of the Gauss-Bonnet parameter $\tilde{\alpha}$ in Ref. [@Qiao:2020hkx], i.e, if we define $-2\alpha=\tilde{\alpha}$, the current metric function (\[CACBH\]) restores to the Gauss-Bonnet metric function (6) in Ref. [@Qiao:2020hkx]. Of course, after this definition, we can easily forecast that the increasing CAC parameter does not enhance the phase transition but hinders the condensate to appear.
We would like to thank Prof. L. Li for his helpful discussions and comments. This work is supported in part by NSFC (Nos. 11865012, 11647167, 11575075 and 11747615), Foundation of Guizhou Educational Committee(Nos. Qianjiaohe KY Zi \[2016\]311 Zi), Foundation of Scientific Innovative Research Team of Education Department of Guizhou Province (QNYSKYTD2018002), Program for the Natural Science Foundation of Shanxi Province, China(Grant No.201901D111315) and the Natural Science Foundation for Young Scientists of Shanxi Province,China (Grant No.201901D211441)..
[\*]{} J. M. Maldacena, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**2**]{}, 231 (1998) \[hep-th/9711200\].
R. G. Cai, L. Li, L. F. Li and R. Q. Yang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. [**58**]{}, no. 6, 060401 (2015) \[arXiv:1502.00437 \[hep-th\]\]. H. Liu and J. Sonner, arXiv:1810.02367 \[hep-th\].
S. A. Hartnoll, A. Lucas and S. Sachdev, \[arXiv:1612.07324 \[hep-th\]\].
K. Landsteiner, Y. Liu and Y. W. Sun, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. **63**, no.5, 250001 (2020) \[arXiv:1911.07978 \[hep-th\]\].
S. A. Hartnoll, C. P. Herzog and G. T. Horowitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 031601 (2008) \[arXiv:0803.3295 \[hep-th\]\]. G. T. Horowitz and M. M. Roberts, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 126008 (2008) \[arXiv:0810.1077 \[hep-th\]\].
S. A. Hartnoll, C. P. Herzog and G. T. Horowitz, JHEP [**0812**]{}, 015 (2008) \[arXiv:0810.1563 \[hep-th\]\].
K. Maeda, M. Natsuume and T. Okamura, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 026002 (2010) \[arXiv:0910.4475 \[hep-th\]\].
G. Siopsis and J. Therrien, JHEP [**1005**]{}, 013 (2010) \[arXiv:1003.4275 \[hep-th\]\].
S. S. Gubser and S. S. Pufu, JHEP [**0811**]{}, 033 (2008) \[arXiv:0805.2960 \[hep-th\]\]. J. -W. Chen, Y. -J. Kao, D. Maity, W. -Y. Wen and C. -P. Yeh, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 106008 (2010) \[arXiv:1003.2991 \[hep-th\]\].
R. G. Cai, S. He, L. Li and L. F. Li, JHEP [**1312**]{}, 036 (2013) \[arXiv:1309.2098 \[hep-th\]\].
R. G. Cai, L. Li and L. F. Li, JHEP **01** (2014), 032 \[arXiv:1309.4877 \[hep-th\]\].
C. P. Herzog, P. K. Kovtun and D. T. Son, Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 066002 (2009) \[arXiv:0809.4870 \[hep-th\]\]. P. Basu, A. Mukherjee and H. H. Shieh, Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{} (2009) 045010 \[arXiv:0809.4494 \[hep-th\]\]. Y. B. Wu, J. W. Lu, C. Y. Zhang, N. Zhang, X. Zhang, Z. Q. Yang and S. Y. Wu, Phys. Lett. B [**741**]{}, 138 (2015) \[arXiv:1412.3689 \[hep-th\]\].
C. Y. Xia, H. B. Zeng, H. Q. Zhang, Z. Y. Nie, Y. Tian and X. Li, Phys. Rev. D [**100**]{}, no. 6, 061901 (2019) \[arXiv:1904.10925 \[hep-th\]\].
R. G. Cai, L. Li, L. F. Li and Y. Q. Wang, JHEP **09** (2013), 074 \[arXiv:1307.2768 \[hep-th\]\].
E. Kiritsis and L. Li, JHEP [**1601**]{}, 147 (2016) \[arXiv:1510.00020 \[cond-mat.str-el\]\].
Z. Y. Nie, Y. P. Hu and H. Zeng, \[arXiv:2003.12989 \[hep-th\]\].
Z. Y. Nie, R. G. Cai, X. Gao, L. Li and H. Zeng, Eur. Phys. J. C **75** (2015), 559 \[arXiv:1501.00004 \[hep-th\]\].
Y. Ling, P. Liu, C. Niu, J. P. Wu and Z. Y. Xian, JHEP [**1502**]{}, 059 (2015) \[arXiv:1410.6761 \[hep-th\]\].
R. G. Cai, L. Li, Y. Q. Wang and J. Zaanen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**119**]{}, no. 18, 181601 (2017) \[arXiv:1706.01470 \[hep-th\]\]. Y. Ling, P. Liu and M. H. Wu, arXiv:1911.10368 \[hep-th\].
S. Cremonini, L. Li and J. Ren, Phys. Rev. D **95** (2017) no.4, 041901 \[arXiv:1612.04385 \[hep-th\]\].
S. Cremonini, L. Li and J. Ren, JHEP [**1909**]{}, 014 (2019) \[arXiv:1906.02753 \[hep-th\]\].
T. Nishioka, S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi, JHEP [**1003**]{}, 131 (2010) \[arXiv:0911.0962 \[hep-th\]\]. R. G. Cai, H. F. Li and H. Q. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{}, 126007 (2011) \[arXiv:1103.5568 \[hep-th\]\].
H. F. Li, JHEP [**1307**]{}, 135 (2013) \[arXiv:1306.3071 \[hep-th\]\].
R. Q. Yang, H. S. Jeong, C. Niu and K. Y. Kim, JHEP [**1904**]{}, 146 (2019) \[arXiv:1902.07586 \[hep-th\]\]. R. G. Cai, S. He, L. Li and Y. L. Zhang, JHEP **07** (2012), 088 \[arXiv:1203.6620 \[hep-th\]\].
T. Albash and C. V. Johnson, JHEP **05** (2012), 079 \[arXiv:1202.2605 \[hep-th\]\].
R. G. Cai, S. He, L. Li and Y. L. Zhang, JHEP **07** (2012), 027 \[arXiv:1204.5962 \[hep-th\]\].
E. J. Brynjolfsson, U. H. Danielsson, L. Thorlacius and T. Zingg, J. Phys. A [**43**]{}, 065401 (2010) \[arXiv:0908.2611 \[hep-th\]\].
Z. Fan, JHEP [**1309**]{}, 048 (2013) \[arXiv:1305.2000 \[hep-th\]\]. J. W. Lu, Y. B. Wu, P. Qian, Y. Y. Zhao and X. Zhang, Nucl. Phys. B [**887**]{}, 112 (2014) \[arXiv:1311.2699 \[hep-th\]\].
P. M. Chesler, A. M. Garcia-Garcia and H. Liu, Phys. Rev. X **5**, no.2, 021015 (2015) \[arXiv:1407.1862 \[hep-th\]\].
H. B. Zeng, C. Y. Xia, W. H. Zurek and H. Q. Zhang, \[arXiv:1912.08332 \[hep-th\]\].
M. Natsuume and T. Okamura, Phys. Rev. D **95**, no.10, 106009 (2017) \[arXiv:1703.00933 \[hep-th\]\].
Y. Bu, M. Fujita and S. Lin, Phys. Rev. D [**101**]{}, no. 2, 026003 (2020)
R. G. Cai, Z. Y. Nie and H. Q. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{}, 066013 (2011) \[arXiv:1012.5559 \[hep-th\]\].
R. G. Cai, L. Li, L. F. Li, H. Q. Zhang and Y. L. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D **87** (2013) no.2, 026002 \[arXiv:1209.5049 \[hep-th\]\].
X. M. Kuang, W. J. Li and Y. Ling, JHEP [**1012**]{}, 069 (2010) \[arXiv:1008.4066 \[hep-th\]\].
M. Mohammadi, A. Sheykhi and M. Kord Zangeneh, Eur. Phys. J. C [**78**]{}, no. 8, 654 (2018) \[arXiv:1805.07377 \[hep-th\]\].
J. Cheng, Q. Pan, H. Yu and J. Jing, Eur. Phys. J. C [**78**]{}, no. 3, 239 (2018) \[arXiv:1803.08204 \[hep-th\]\].
Y. Lv, X. Qiao, M. Wang, Q. Pan, W. L. Qian and J. Jing, Phys. Lett. B [**802**]{}, 135216 (2020) \[arXiv:2001.08364 \[hep-th\]\]. J. W. Lu, Y. B. Wu, B. P. Dong and H. Liao, Phys. Lett. B [**785**]{}, 517 (2018).
J. P. Wu, Y. Cao, X. M. Kuang and W. J. Li, Phys. Lett. B [**697**]{}, 153 (2011) \[arXiv:1010.1929 \[hep-th\]\].
J. P. Wu and P. Liu, Phys. Lett. B [**774**]{}, 527 (2017) \[arXiv:1710.07971 \[hep-th\]\].
J. W. Lu, Y. B. Wu, B. P. Dong and Y. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C [**80**]{}, no. 2, 114 (2020). Y. Ling and X. Zheng, Nucl. Phys. B [**917**]{}, 1 (2017) \[arXiv:1609.09717 \[hep-th\]\].
M. Duff, Class. Quant. Grav. **11**, 1387-1404 (1994) \[arXiv:hep-th/9308075 \[hep-th\]\]. S. M. Christensen and S. A. Fulling, Phys. Rev. D 15, 2088 (1977).
S. Hawking, T. Hertog and H. Reall, Phys. Rev. D **63**, 083504 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0010232 \[hep-th\]\].
S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Lett. B **484**, 119-123 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-th/0004097 \[hep-th\]\].
R. G. Cai, L. M. Cao and N. Ohta, JHEP **04**, 082 (2010) \[arXiv:0911.4379 \[hep-th\]\].
R. G. Cai, Phys. Lett. B **733**, 183-189 (2014) \[arXiv:1405.1246 \[hep-th\]\].
D. Glavan and C. Lin, Phys. Rev. Lett. **124**, no.8, 081301 (2020) \[arXiv:1905.03601 \[gr-qc\]\].
M. Gurses, T. C. Sisman and B. Tekin, \[arXiv:2004.03390 \[gr-qc\]\].
S. Mahapatra, \[arXiv:2004.09214 \[gr-qc\]\].
F. W. Shu, \[arXiv:2004.09339 \[gr-qc\]\].
R. A. Hennigar, D. Kubiznak, R. B. Mann and C. Pollack, \[arXiv:2004.09472 \[gr-qc\]\].
J. Arrechea, A. Delhom and A. Jiménez-Cano, \[arXiv:2004.12998 \[gr-qc\]\].
X. Qiao, L. OuYang, D. Wang, Q. Pan and J. Jing, \[arXiv:2005.01007 \[hep-th\]\].
[^1]: E-mail address:[email protected]
[^2]: E-mail address:[email protected]
[^3]: E-mail address:[email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present a term rewrite system that formally models the Message Authenticator Algorithm (MAA), which was one of the first cryptographic functions for computing a Message Authentication Code and was adopted, between 1987 and 2001, in international standards (ISO 8730 and ISO 8731-2) to ensure the authenticity and integrity of banking transactions. Our term rewrite system is large (13 sorts, 18 constructors, 644 non-constructors, and 684 rewrite rules), confluent, and terminating. Implementations in thirteen different languages have been automatically derived from this model and used to validate 200 official test vectors for the MAA.'
author:
- Hubert Garavel Lina Marsso
title: |
A Large Term Rewrite System Modelling\
a Pioneering Cryptographic Algorithm
---
Introduction
============
In data security, a Message Authentication Code (MAC) is a short sequence of bits that is computed from a given message; the MAC ensures both the authenticity and integrity of the message, i.e., that the message sender is the stated one and that the message contents have not been altered. A MAC is more than a mere checksum, as it must be secure enough to defeat attacks; its design usually involves cryptographic keys shared between the message sender and receiver.
One of the first MAC algorithm to gain widespread acceptance was the Message Authenticator Algorithm (also known as Message Authentication Algorithm, MAA for short) [@Davies-85] [@Davies-Clayden-88] [@Preneel-11] designed in 1983 by Donald Davies and David Clayden at the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) in response to a request of the UK Bankers Automated Clearing Services. The MAA was adopted by ISO in 1987 and became part of the international standards 8730 [@ISO-8730:1990] and 8731-2 [@ISO-8731-2:1992]. Later, cryptanalysis of MAA revealed various weaknesses, including feasible brute-force attacks, existence of collision clusters, and key-recovery techniques [@Preneel-vanOorschot-96] [@Rijmen-Preneel-DeWin-96] [@Preneel-Rumen-vanOorschot-97] [@Preneel-vanOorschot-99] [@Preneel-11]. For this reason, MAA was withdrawn from ISO standards in 2002.
From the point of view of formal methods, the MAA is interesting because of its pioneering nature, because its definition is freely available and stable, and because it is involved enough while remaining of manageable complexity. Over the past decades, various formal specifications of the MAA have been developed using VDM, Z, abstract data types (i.e., algebraic specifications), term rewrite systems, etc. For such formalisms, the usual examples often deal with syntax trees, which are explored using standard traversals (breadth-first, depth-first, etc.); contrary to such commonplace examples, cryptographic functions (and the MAA, in particular) exhibit more diverse behaviour, as they rather seek to perform irregular computations than linear ones.
The present article is organized as follows. Section \[MAA\] provides an algorithmic overview of the MAA. Section \[HISTORY\] lists the preexisting formal specifications of the MAA. Section \[MODEL\] presents the modelling of the MAA using term rewrite systems. Section \[VALIDATION\] discusses validation steps applied to this model. Finally, Section \[CONCLUSION\] gives concluding remarks.
Overview of the MAA {#MAA}
===================
Nowadays, Message Authentication Codes are computed using different families of algorithms based on either cryptographic hash functions (HMAC), universal hash functions (UMAC), or block ciphers (CMAC, OMAC, PMAC, etc.). Contrary to these modern approaches, the MAA was designed as a standalone algorithm that does not rely on any preexisting hash function or cipher.
In this section, we briefly explain the principles of the MAA. More detailed explanations can be found in [@Davies-85], [@Davies-Clayden-88] and [@Menezes-vanOorschot-Vanstone-96 Algorithm 9.68].
The MAA was intended to be implemented in software and to run on 32-bit computers. Hence, its design intensively relies on 32-bit words (called [*blocks*]{}) and 32-bit machine operations.
The MAA takes as inputs a key and a message. The key has 64 bits and is split into two blocks $J$ and $K$. The message is seen as a sequence of blocks. If the number of bytes of the message is not a multiple of four, extra null bytes are added at the end of the message to complete the last block. The size of the message should be less than 1,000,000 blocks; otherwise, the MAA result is said to be undefined; we believe that this restriction, which is not inherent to the algorithm itself, was added in the ISO 8731-2 standard to provide MAA implementations with an upper bound (four megabytes) on the size of memory buffers used to store messages.
The MAA produces as output a block, which is the MAC value computed from the key and the message. The fact that this result has only 32 bits proved to be a major weakness enabling cryptographic attacks; MAC values computed by modern algorithms now have a much larger number of bits. Apart from the aforementioned restriction on the size of messages, the MAA behaves as a totally-defined function; its result is deterministic in the sense that, given a key and a message, there is only a single MAC result, which neither depends on implementation choices nor on hidden inputs, such as nonces or randomly-generated numbers.
The MAA calculations rely upon conventional 32-bit logical and arithmetic operations, among which: (conjunction), (disjunction), (exclusive disjunction), (circular rotation by one bit to the left), (addition), (carry bit generated by 32-bit addition), (multiplication, sometimes decomposed into and , which denote the most- and least-significant blocks in the 64-bit product of a 32-bit multiplication). On this basis, more involved operations are defined, among which (result of a 32-bit multiplication modulo $2^{32}-1$), (result of a 32-bit multiplication modulo $2^{32}-2$), (faster version of ), and (two unary functions[^1] respectively defined as $x \rightarrow {\mbox{\tt AND}} ({\mbox{\tt OR}} (x, {\mbox{\tt A}}), {\mbox{\tt C}})$ and $x \rightarrow {\mbox{\tt AND}} ({\mbox{\tt OR}} (x, {\mbox{\tt B}}), {\mbox{\tt D}})$, where , , , and are four hexadecimal block constants = 02040801, = 00804021, = BFEF7FDF, and = 7DFEFBFF). The MAA operates in three successive phases:
- The [*prelude*]{} takes the two blocks $J$ and $K$ of the key and converts them into six blocks $X_0$, $Y_0$, $V_0$, $W$, $S$, and $T$. This phase is executed once. After the prelude, $J$ and $K$ are no longer used.
- The [*main loop*]{} successively iterates on each block of the message. This phase maintains three variables $X$, $Y$, and $V$ (initialized to $X_0$, $Y_0$, and $V_0$, respectively), which are modified at each iteration. The main loop also uses the value of $W$, but neither $S$ nor $T$.
- The [*coda*]{} adds the blocks $S$ and $T$ at the end of the message and performs two more iterations on these blocks. After the last iteration, the MAA result is ${\mbox{\tt XOR}} (X, Y)$.
In 1987, the ISO 8731-2 standard [@ISO-8731-2:1987 Section 5] introduced an additional feature (called [*mode of operation*]{}), which concerns messages longer than 256 blocks and which, seemingly, was not present in the early MAA versions designed at NPL. Each message longer than 256 blocks must be split into [*segments*]{} of 256 blocks each, with the last segment possibly containing less than 256 blocks. The above MAA algorithm (prelude, main loop, and coda) is applied to the first segment, resulting in a value noted $Z_1$. This block $Z_1$ is then inserted before the first block of the second segment, leading to a 257-block message to which the MAA algorithm is applied, resulting in a value noted $Z_2$. This is done repeatedly for all the $n$ segments, the MAA result $Z_i$ computed for the $i$-th segment being inserted before the first block of the $(i+1)$-th segment. Finally, the MAC for the entire message is the MAA result $Z_n$ computed for the last segment.
Prior Formal Specifications of the MAA {#HISTORY}
======================================
The informal description of the MAA can be found both in ISO standard 8731-2 [@ISO-8731-2:1992] or in a 1988 NPL technical report [@Davies-Clayden-88]. On this basis, several formal models of the MAA have been developed:
- In 1990, G. I. Parkin and G. O’Neill designed a formal specification of the MAA in VDM [@Parkin-ONeill-90] [@Parkin-ONeill-91]. To our knowledge, this was the first attempt at applying formal methods to the MAA. The VDM specification became part of the ISO standard defining the MAA [@ISO-8731-2:1992 Annex B]. Three implementations in C [@Parkin-ONeill-90 Annex C], Miranda [@Parkin-ONeill-90 Annex B], and Modula-2 [@Lampard-91] were written by hand along the lines of the VDM specification.
- In 1991, M. K. F. Lai formally described the MAA using the set-theoretic Z notation [@Lai-91]. He adopted Knuth’s “literate programming” approach, by inserting formal fragments of Z code in the natural-language description of the MAA.
- In 1991, Harold B. Munster produced a formal specification of the MAA in LOTOS [@Munster-91-a]. The MAA was described using only the data part of LOTOS: the behavioural part of LOTOS, which serves to describe concurrent processes, was not used. The LOTOS specification, which made intensive use of the predefined LOTOS data-type libraries, was mainly declarative but not executable, as all facilities of LOTOS abstract data types were used in an unconstrained way. For instance, some equations could be rephrased as: “[*given $x$, the result is $y$ such that $x = f (y)$*]{}”, which required to invert function $f$ in order to compute $y$.
- In 1992, Hubert Garavel and Philippe Turlier, taking the aforementioned LOTOS specification as a starting point, gradually transformed it by successive modifications. Their goal was to obtain an executable specification that could be processed by the [C[Æ]{}SAR.ADT]{} compiler [@Garavel-89-c] [@Garavel-Turlier-93], while staying as close as possible to the original LOTOS specification. To do so, three main kinds of modifications were applied: (i) the LOTOS algebraic equations, which are not oriented, were turned into rewrite rules, which are oriented from left to right and, thus, more amenable to automatic execution; (ii) a distinction was made between constructor and non-constructor operations, and the discipline of “free” constructors was enforced — namely, each rule defining a non-constructor $f$ must have the form “$f (P_1, ..., P_n) \rightarrow ...$”, where each $P_i$ contains only constructors and free variables; (iii) some LOTOS sorts and operations were implemented as C types and functions, by importing manually-written C code — for instance, addition, multiplication, and bit shifts on 32-bit words were implemented directly in C. From this specification, the [C[Æ]{}SAR.ADT]{} compiler could automatically generate C code that, combined with a small handwritten main program, computed the MAC value corresponding to a message and a key.
Specification of the MAA as a Term Rewrite System {#MODEL}
=================================================
Taking Garavel & Turlier’s LOTOS specification as a starting point, our central contribution is a formal model of the MAA specified as a term rewrite system. This model is expressed using the notations of the simple rewriting language REC proposed in [@Duran-Roldan-Balland-et-al-09 Sect. 3] and [@Duran-Roldan-Bach-10 Sect. 3.1], which was lightly enhanced to distinguish between free constructors (declared in the “” part) and non-constructors (declared in the “” part and defined by rewrite rules given in the “” part).
The model is given in Annex \[ANNEX-REC\] of the present article. Notice that the model has a few (only six) conditional rules and is thus a conditional term rewrite system; if needed, it could easily be turned into a non-conditional term rewrite system by slightly modifying the definitions of three functions (i.e., adding extra parameters and auxiliary functions), as explained in Annex \[ANNEX-REC\]. Our main results are the following:
- Our model is [*large*]{}. It is 1575-line long and contains 13 sorts, 18 constructors, 644 non-constructors, and 684 rewrite rules. Although research on term rewriting led to a wealth of scientific publications, it is difficult to find concrete examples of large term-rewrite systems: for instance, in the data base of models accumulated during the three Rewrite Engines Competition (2006, 2008, and 2010), the largest models are less than 300-line long. There exist indeed larger (e.g., 10,000-line long) term rewrite systems, but they are either generated automatically (and, thus, difficult to understand by humans) or they are actual implementations of compilers or translators (and, often, are not “pure” term rewrite systems, as they rely upon higher-level features, e.g., subsorts or strategies).
- Our model is [*exhaustive*]{}, as it fully describes the MAA algorithm, including its “mode of operation” and its segmentation of messages larger than 1024 bytes.
- Our model is [*self-contained*]{}, as each detail of the MAA is expressed using term rewrite systems only; the model does not rely upon any externally-defined type or function and is thus independent from machine-specific assumptions, e.g., 32-bit vs 64-bit words or little- vs big-endian ordering.
- Our model is [*executable*]{}. From a theoretical point of view, this was enabled by the aforementioned shift from general LOTOS abstract data types to term rewrite systems, which are less declarative and more operational. From a practical point of view, this shift was not sufficient, as the MAA intensively manipulates block values (i.e., 32-bit numbers), which cannot be reasonably implemented in the Peano style (the execution stack quickly overflows when these numbers are represented using the and constructors). To overcome this issue, we chose to represent blocks in binary form, as words of four octets. So doing, the logical operations on blocks (, , , and ) are easy to define using bitwise and octetwise manipulations. The arithmetical operations (, , and ) are more involved: we implemented them using 8-bit, 16-bit, and 32-bit adders and multipliers, more or less inspired from the theory of digital circuits.
- Our model is [*minimal*]{}, in the sense that each sort, constructor, and non-constructor defined in our model is actually used (i.e., the model does not contain “dead” code).
- Our model is [*readable*]{}. Despite its size, efforts have been made to give it a modular structure, which is reflected in the sections of Annex \[ANNEX-REC\]. Particular care has been taken to choose constructors appropriately and to keep non-constructor definitions as simple as possible.
Validation of the MAA Model {#VALIDATION}
===========================
In this section, we detail the various steps performed to make sure that our model is correct:
- Our model is [*self-checking*]{}. Because the REC language has no input/output primitive and no provision for interfacing with external C code, it cannot be used to compute the MAC value of a given file. In order to check whether our model was correct or not, we enriched it with 203 test vectors originating from three sources, namely: (i) all the test vectors provided in Tables 1 to 6 of [@ISO-8731-2:1992 Annex A] and [@Davies-Clayden-88]; (ii) all the test vectors provided in [@ISO-8730:1990 Annex E.3.3] — the subsequent test vectors of [@ISO-8730:1990 Annexes E.3.4 and E.4] were discarded because of their size (they deal with two messages having 84 and 588 blocks, which would have led to a much too large REC specification); (iii) supplementary test vectors intended to specifically check for certain aspects (byte permutations and message segmentation) that were not enough covered by the above tests; this was done by introducing a function acting as a pseudo-random message generator (see Annex \[ANNEX-REC-MESSAGE\]).
- Our model is [*confluent*]{}. This is easy to see, because all constructors are free and all the rules defining non-constructors have disjoint patterns and mutually exclusive premises; for safety, the disjunction of patterns and exclusion of guards has been checked mechanically by translating the REC specification to the Opal language [@Didrich-Fett-Gerke-et-al-94], whose compiler emits warnings in presence of “ambiguous” (i.e., nondeterministic) rules.
- Our model is [*terminating*]{}. This has been verified by automatically translating our REC model into the input formalism TRS of the AProVE tool [@Giesl-Brockschmidt-Emmes-et-al-14], which produced a proof of quasi-decreasingness in 76 steps.
- Our model was [*validated*]{}. We checked that the REC specification satisfies all the aforementioned test vectors. Because it enjoys the confluence and termination properties, all rewrite strategies should lead to the same result. Using a software framework[^2] under development at INRIA Grenoble, we automatically translated our REC model into thirteen different languages: Clean, Haskell, LNT, LOTOS, Maude, mCRL2, OCaml, Opal, Rascal, Scala, SML, Stratego/XT, and Tom. We submitted these translations to sixteen compilers, interpreters, and rewrite engines: eleven of them reported that all the 203 tests passed successfully, while the other tools halted or timed out. Moreover, some involved components (namely, the binary adders and multipliers) have been validated separately using more than 30,000 test vectors.
Conclusion {#CONCLUSION}
==========
Twenty-five years after, we revisited the Message Authenticator Algorithm (MAA), which used to be a pioneering case study for cryptography in the 80s and for formal methods in the early 90s.
We developed a formal specification of the MAA, expressed as a term rewrite system encoded in the REC language. As far as we are aware, it is one of the largest handwritten term rewrite systems publicly available. This specification is self-contained and self-checking, as it includes 203 test vectors. It has been carefully validated using a dozen tools.
Parts of this specification (in particular, the binary adders and multipliers) are certainly reusable for different purposes, e.g., formal libraries for modular arithmetic or cryptography.
This study enabled us to discover various mistakes in prior MAA specifications. For instance, we corrected the test vectors given for function PAT at the bottom of Table 3 in [@ISO-8731-2:1992 Annex A] and [@Davies-Clayden-88] (see Annex \[ERRATA-8731\] of the present article for details). We also corrected the handwritten implementation in C of the function imported by the aforementioned LOTOS specification (this illustrates the risks arising when formal and non-formal codes are mixed).
It is however fair to warn the reader that term rewrite systems are a low-level theoretical model that does not scale well to large problems. The REC specification is between two and six times longer than any other (formal or informal) description of the MAA, and it took considerable effort to come up with a REC specification that is readable, properly structured, and seemingly straightforward. Similar results might not be easy to reproduce on a regular basis with other case studies.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
We are grateful to Keith Lockstone for his advices and his web site[^3] giving useful information about the MAA, and to Sharon Wilson, librarian of the National Physical Laboratory, who provided us with valuable early NPL reports that cannot be fetched from the web.
Errata Concerning Annex A of the ISO-8731-2:1992 Standard {#ERRATA-8731}
=========================================================
After checking carefully all the test vectors contained in the original NPL report defining the MAA [@Davies-Clayden-88] and in the 1992 version of the MAA standard [@ISO-8731-2:1992], we believe that there are mistakes[^4] in the test vectors given for function .
More precisely, the three last lines of Table 3 [@Davies-Clayden-88 page 15] — identically reproduced in Table A.3 of [@ISO-8731-2:1992 Sect. A.4] — are written as follows:
{X0,Y0} 0103 0703 1D3B 7760 PAT{X0,Y0} EE
{V0,W} 0103 050B 1706 5DBB PAT{V0,W} BB
{S,T} 0103 0705 8039 7302 PAT{S,T} E6
Actually, the inputs of function should not be `{X0,Y0}`, `{V0,W}`, `{S,T}` but rather `{H4,H5}`, `{H6,H7}`, `{H8,H9}`, the values of , ..., being those listed above in Table 3. Notice that the confusion was probably caused by the following algebraic identities:
{X0,Y0} = BYT (H4, H5)
{V0,W} = BYT (H6, H7)
{S,T} = BYT (H8, H9)
If one gives `{X0,Y0}`, `{V0,W}`, `{S,T}` as inputs to , then the three results of are equal to and thus cannot be equal to , , , respectively.
But if one gives `{H4,H5}`, `{H6,H7}`, `{H8,H9}` as inputs to , then the results of are the expected values , , .
Thus, we believe that the three last lines of Table 3 should be modified as follows:
{H4,H5} 0000 0003 0000 0060 PAT{H4,H5} EE
{H6,H7} 0003 0000 0006 0000 PAT{H6,H7} BB
{H8,H9} 0000 0005 8000 0002 PAT{H8,H9} E6
Formal Specification of the MAA in the REC Language {#ANNEX-REC}
===================================================
This annex presents the specification of the MAA in the REC language. This specification is fully self-contained, meaning that it does not depend on any externally-defined library — with the minor disadvantage of somewhat lengthy definitions for octet and blocks constants.
For readability, the specification has been split into 21 parts, each part being devoted to a particular sort, a group of functions sharing a common purpose, or a collection of test vectors. The first parts contain general definitions that are largely independent from the MAA; starting from Sect. \[ANNEX-REC-SPECIFIC\], the definitions become increasingly MAA-specific.
The complete REC specification is obtained by concatenating all these parts, grouping their various sections (i.e., merging all sections into a single one, all sections into a single one, etc.) and, after this, removing duplicated variable declarations in the section, and pasting broken lines so that each rewrite rule that was split across several lines now fits on one single line.
For readability, the rewrite rules concerning the same non-constructors have been put together and separated with blank lines when appropriate. Also, the arguments of certain non-constructors are separated by semicolons rather than commas when it helps to distinguish arguments of different nature (e.g., summand bits, carry, or sum bits).
All machine words (octets, blocks, etc.) are represented according to the “big endian” convention, i.e., the first argument of each corresponding constructor denote the most significant bit.
Definitions for sort Bool
-------------------------
We first define Booleans using the and constructors, together with two non-constructors implementing logical conjunction and disjunction.
SORTS
Bool
CONS
false : -> Bool
true : -> Bool
OPNS
andBool : Bool Bool -> Bool
orBool : Bool Bool -> Bool
VARS
L : Bool
RULES
andBool (false, L) -> false
andBool (true, L) -> L
orBool (false, L) -> L
orBool (true, L) -> true
Definitions for sort Nat
------------------------
We then define natural numbers in the Peano style using the and constructors, together with non-constructors implementing addition, multiplication, equality, strict order, and a few constants.
SORTS
Nat
CONS
zero : -> Nat
succ : Nat -> Nat
OPNS
addNat : Nat Nat -> Nat
multNat : Nat Nat -> Nat
eqNat : Nat Nat -> Bool
ltNat : Nat Nat -> Bool
n1 : -> Nat
n2 : -> Nat
n3 : -> Nat
n4 : -> Nat
n5 : -> Nat
n6 : -> Nat
n7 : -> Nat
n8 : -> Nat
n9 : -> Nat
n10 : -> Nat
n11 : -> Nat
n12 : -> Nat
n13 : -> Nat
n14 : -> Nat
n15 : -> Nat
n16 : -> Nat
n17 : -> Nat
n18 : -> Nat
n19 : -> Nat
n20 : -> Nat
n21 : -> Nat
n22 : -> Nat
n254 : -> Nat
n256 : -> Nat
n4100 : -> Nat
VARS
N N' : Nat
RULES
addNat (N, zero) -> N
addNat (N, succ (N')) -> addNat (succ (N), N')
multNat (N, zero) -> zero
multNat (N, succ (N')) -> addNat (N, multNat (N, N'))
eqNat (zero, zero) -> true
eqNat (zero, succ (N')) -> false
eqNat (succ (N), zero) -> false
eqNat (succ (N), succ (N')) -> eqNat (N, N')
ltNat (zero, zero) -> false
ltNat (zero, succ (N')) -> true
ltNat (succ (N'), zero) -> false
ltNat (succ (N), succ (N')) -> ltNat (N, N')
n1 -> succ (zero)
n2 -> succ (n1)
n3 -> succ (n2)
n4 -> succ (n3)
n5 -> succ (n4)
n6 -> succ (n5)
n7 -> succ (n6)
n8 -> succ (n7)
n9 -> succ (n8)
n10 -> succ (n9)
n11 -> succ (n10)
n12 -> succ (n11)
n13 -> succ (n12)
n14 -> succ (n13)
n15 -> succ (n14)
n16 -> succ (n15)
n17 -> succ (n16)
n18 -> succ (n17)
n19 -> succ (n18)
n20 -> succ (n19)
n21 -> succ (n20)
n22 -> succ (n21)
n254 -> addNat (n12, multNat (n11, n22))
n256 -> multNat (n16, n16)
n4100 -> addNat (n4, multNat (n16, n256))
Definitions for sort Bit
------------------------
We now define bits using two constructors and , together with non-constructors implementing bit equality and logical operations on bits.
SORTS
Bit
CONS
x0 : -> Bit
x1 : -> Bit
OPNS
eqBit : Bit Bit -> Bool
notBit : Bit -> Bit
andBit : Bit Bit -> Bit
orBit : Bit Bit -> Bit
xorBit : Bit Bit -> Bit
VARS
B : Bit
RULES
eqBit (x0, x0) -> true
eqBit (x0, x1) -> false
eqBit (x1, x0) -> false
eqBit (x1, x1) -> true
notBit (x0) -> x1
notBit (x1) -> x0
andBit (B, x0) -> x0
andBit (B, x1) -> B
orBit (B, x0) -> B
orBit (B, x1) -> x1
xorBit (B, x0) -> B
xorBit (B, x1) -> notBit (B)
Definitions for sort Octet
--------------------------
We now define octets using a constructor that takes eight bits and returns a byte, together with non-constructors implementing equality, bitwise logical operations, left-shift and right-shift operations on octets, as well as all octet constants needed to formally describe the MAA and its test vectors.
SORTS
Octet
CONS
buildOctet : Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit -> Octet
% the first argument of buildOctet contains the most significant bit
OPNS
eqOctet : Octet Octet -> Bool
andOctet : Octet Octet -> Octet
orOctet : Octet Octet -> Octet
xorOctet : Octet Octet -> Octet
leftOctet1 : Octet -> Octet
leftOctet2 : Octet -> Octet
leftOctet3 : Octet -> Octet
leftOctet4 : Octet -> Octet
leftOctet5 : Octet -> Octet
leftOctet6 : Octet -> Octet
leftOctet7 : Octet -> Octet
rightOctet1 : Octet -> Octet
rightOctet2 : Octet -> Octet
rightOctet3 : Octet -> Octet
rightOctet4 : Octet -> Octet
rightOctet5 : Octet -> Octet
rightOctet6 : Octet -> Octet
rightOctet7 : Octet -> Octet
x00 : -> Octet
x01 : -> Octet
x02 : -> Octet
x03 : -> Octet
x04 : -> Octet
x05 : -> Octet
x06 : -> Octet
x07 : -> Octet
x08 : -> Octet
x09 : -> Octet
x0A : -> Octet
x0B : -> Octet
x0C : -> Octet
x0D : -> Octet
x0E : -> Octet
x0F : -> Octet
x10 : -> Octet
x11 : -> Octet
x12 : -> Octet
x13 : -> Octet
x14 : -> Octet
x15 : -> Octet
x16 : -> Octet
x17 : -> Octet
x18 : -> Octet
x1A : -> Octet
x1B : -> Octet
x1C : -> Octet
x1D : -> Octet
x1E : -> Octet
x1F : -> Octet
x20 : -> Octet
x21 : -> Octet
x23 : -> Octet
x24 : -> Octet
x25 : -> Octet
x26 : -> Octet
x27 : -> Octet
x28 : -> Octet
x29 : -> Octet
x2A : -> Octet
x2B : -> Octet
x2D : -> Octet
x2E : -> Octet
x2F : -> Octet
x30 : -> Octet
x31 : -> Octet
x32 : -> Octet
x33 : -> Octet
x34 : -> Octet
x35 : -> Octet
x36 : -> Octet
x37 : -> Octet
x38 : -> Octet
x39 : -> Octet
x3A : -> Octet
x3B : -> Octet
x3C : -> Octet
x3D : -> Octet
x3F : -> Octet
x40 : -> Octet
x46 : -> Octet
x48 : -> Octet
x49 : -> Octet
x4A : -> Octet
x4B : -> Octet
x4C : -> Octet
x4D : -> Octet
x4E : -> Octet
x4F : -> Octet
x50 : -> Octet
x51 : -> Octet
x53 : -> Octet
x54 : -> Octet
x55 : -> Octet
x58 : -> Octet
x5A : -> Octet
x5B : -> Octet
x5C : -> Octet
x5D : -> Octet
x5E : -> Octet
x5F : -> Octet
x60 : -> Octet
x61 : -> Octet
x62 : -> Octet
x63 : -> Octet
x64 : -> Octet
x65 : -> Octet
x66 : -> Octet
x67 : -> Octet
x69 : -> Octet
x6A : -> Octet
x6B : -> Octet
x6C : -> Octet
x6D : -> Octet
x6E : -> Octet
x6F : -> Octet
x70 : -> Octet
x71 : -> Octet
x72 : -> Octet
x73 : -> Octet
x74 : -> Octet
x75 : -> Octet
x76 : -> Octet
x77 : -> Octet
x78 : -> Octet
x79 : -> Octet
x7A : -> Octet
x7B : -> Octet
x7C : -> Octet
x7D : -> Octet
x7E : -> Octet
x7F : -> Octet
x80 : -> Octet
x81 : -> Octet
x83 : -> Octet
x84 : -> Octet
x85 : -> Octet
x86 : -> Octet
x88 : -> Octet
x89 : -> Octet
x8A : -> Octet
x8C : -> Octet
x8D : -> Octet
x8E : -> Octet
x8F : -> Octet
x90 : -> Octet
x91 : -> Octet
x92 : -> Octet
x93 : -> Octet
x95 : -> Octet
x96 : -> Octet
x97 : -> Octet
x98 : -> Octet
x99 : -> Octet
x9A : -> Octet
x9B : -> Octet
x9C : -> Octet
x9D : -> Octet
x9E : -> Octet
x9F : -> Octet
xA0 : -> Octet
xA1 : -> Octet
xA2 : -> Octet
xA3 : -> Octet
xA4 : -> Octet
xA5 : -> Octet
xA6 : -> Octet
xA7 : -> Octet
xA8 : -> Octet
xA9 : -> Octet
xAA : -> Octet
xAB : -> Octet
xAC : -> Octet
xAE : -> Octet
xAF : -> Octet
xB0 : -> Octet
xB1 : -> Octet
xB2 : -> Octet
xB3 : -> Octet
xB5 : -> Octet
xB6 : -> Octet
xB8 : -> Octet
xB9 : -> Octet
xBA : -> Octet
xBB : -> Octet
xBC : -> Octet
xBE : -> Octet
xBF : -> Octet
xC0 : -> Octet
xC1 : -> Octet
xC2 : -> Octet
xC4 : -> Octet
xC5 : -> Octet
xC6 : -> Octet
xC7 : -> Octet
xC8 : -> Octet
xC9 : -> Octet
xCA : -> Octet
xCB : -> Octet
xCC : -> Octet
xCD : -> Octet
xCE : -> Octet
xD0 : -> Octet
xD1 : -> Octet
xD2 : -> Octet
xD3 : -> Octet
xD4 : -> Octet
xD5 : -> Octet
xD6 : -> Octet
xD7 : -> Octet
xD8 : -> Octet
xD9 : -> Octet
xDB : -> Octet
xDC : -> Octet
xDD : -> Octet
xDE : -> Octet
xDF : -> Octet
xE0 : -> Octet
xE1 : -> Octet
xE3 : -> Octet
xE6 : -> Octet
xE8 : -> Octet
xE9 : -> Octet
xEA : -> Octet
xEB : -> Octet
xEC : -> Octet
xED : -> Octet
xEE : -> Octet
xEF : -> Octet
xF0 : -> Octet
xF1 : -> Octet
xF2 : -> Octet
xF3 : -> Octet
xF4 : -> Octet
xF5 : -> Octet
xF6 : -> Octet
xF7 : -> Octet
xF8 : -> Octet
xF9 : -> Octet
xFA : -> Octet
xFB : -> Octet
xFC : -> Octet
xFD : -> Octet
xFE : -> Octet
xFF : -> Octet
VARS
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 : Bit
B'1 B'2 B'3 B'4 B'5 B'6 B'7 B'8 : Bit
RULES
eqOctet (buildOctet (B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8),
buildOctet (B'1, B'2, B'3, B'4, B'5, B'6, B'7, B'8))
-> andBool (eqBit (B1, B'1), andBool (eqBit (B2, B'2),
andBool (eqBit (B3, B'3), andBool (eqBit (B4, B'4),
andBool (eqBit (B5, B'5), andBool (eqBit (B6, B'6),
andBool (eqBit (B7, B'7), eqBit (B8, B'8))))))))
andOctet (buildOctet (B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8),
buildOctet (B'1, B'2, B'3, B'4, B'5, B'6, B'7, B'8))
-> buildOctet (andBit (B1, B'1), andBit (B2, B'2),
andBit (B3, B'3), andBit (B4, B'4),
andBit (B5, B'5), andBit (B6, B'6),
andBit (B7, B'7), andBit (B8, B'8))
orOctet (buildOctet (B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8),
buildOctet (B'1, B'2, B'3, B'4, B'5, B'6, B'7, B'8))
-> buildOctet (orBit (B1, B'1), orBit (B2, B'2),
orBit (B3, B'3), orBit (B4, B'4),
orBit (B5, B'5), orBit (B6, B'6),
orBit (B7, B'7), orBit (B8, B'8))
xorOctet (buildOctet (B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8),
buildOctet (B'1, B'2, B'3, B'4, B'5, B'6, B'7, B'8))
-> buildOctet (xorBit (B1, B'1), xorBit (B2, B'2),
xorBit (B3, B'3), xorBit (B4, B'4),
xorBit (B5, B'5), xorBit (B6, B'6),
xorBit (B7, B'7), xorBit (B8, B'8))
leftOctet1 (buildOctet (B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8))
-> buildOctet (B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8, x0)
leftOctet2 (buildOctet (B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8))
-> buildOctet (B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8, x0, x0)
leftOctet3 (buildOctet (B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8))
-> buildOctet (B4, B5, B6, B7, B8, x0, x0, x0)
leftOctet4 (buildOctet (B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8))
-> buildOctet (B5, B6, B7, B8, x0, x0, x0, x0)
leftOctet5 (buildOctet (B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8))
-> buildOctet (B6, B7, B8, x0, x0, x0, x0, x0)
leftOctet6 (buildOctet (B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8))
-> buildOctet (B7, B8, x0, x0, x0, x0, x0, x0)
leftOctet7 (buildOctet (B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8))
-> buildOctet (B8, x0, x0, x0, x0, x0, x0, x0)
rightOctet1 (buildOctet (B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8))
-> buildOctet (x0, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7)
rightOctet2 (buildOctet (B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8))
-> buildOctet (x0, x0, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6)
rightOctet3 (buildOctet (B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8))
-> buildOctet (x0, x0, x0, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5)
rightOctet4 (buildOctet (B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8))
-> buildOctet (x0, x0, x0, x0, B1, B2, B3, B4)
rightOctet5 (buildOctet (B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8))
-> buildOctet (x0, x0, x0, x0, x0, B1, B2, B3)
rightOctet6 (buildOctet (B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8))
-> buildOctet (x0, x0, x0, x0, x0, x0, B1, B2)
rightOctet7 (buildOctet (B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8))
-> buildOctet (x0, x0, x0, x0, x0, x0, x0, B1)
x00 -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x0, x0, x0, x0, x0, x0)
x01 -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x0, x0, x0, x0, x0, x1)
x02 -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x0, x0, x0, x0, x1, x0)
x03 -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x0, x0, x0, x0, x1, x1)
x04 -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x0, x0, x0, x1, x0, x0)
x05 -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x0, x0, x0, x1, x0, x1)
x06 -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x0, x0, x0, x1, x1, x0)
x07 -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x0, x0, x0, x1, x1, x1)
x08 -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x0, x0, x1, x0, x0, x0)
x09 -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x0, x0, x1, x0, x0, x1)
x0A -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x0, x0, x1, x0, x1, x0)
x0B -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x0, x0, x1, x0, x1, x1)
x0C -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x0, x0, x1, x1, x0, x0)
x0D -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x0, x0, x1, x1, x0, x1)
x0E -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x0, x0, x1, x1, x1, x0)
x0F -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x0, x0, x1, x1, x1, x1)
x10 -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x0, x1, x0, x0, x0, x0)
x11 -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x0, x1, x0, x0, x0, x1)
x12 -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x0, x1, x0, x0, x1, x0)
x13 -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x0, x1, x0, x0, x1, x1)
x14 -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x0, x1, x0, x1, x0, x0)
x15 -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x0, x1, x0, x1, x0, x1)
x16 -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x0, x1, x0, x1, x1, x0)
x17 -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x0, x1, x0, x1, x1, x1)
x18 -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x0, x1, x1, x0, x0, x0)
x1A -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x0, x1, x1, x0, x1, x0)
x1B -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x0, x1, x1, x0, x1, x1)
x1C -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x0, x1, x1, x1, x0, x0)
x1D -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x0, x1, x1, x1, x0, x1)
x1E -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x0, x1, x1, x1, x1, x0)
x1F -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x0, x1, x1, x1, x1, x1)
x20 -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x1, x0, x0, x0, x0, x0)
x21 -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x1, x0, x0, x0, x0, x1)
x23 -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x1, x0, x0, x0, x1, x1)
x24 -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x1, x0, x0, x1, x0, x0)
x25 -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x1, x0, x0, x1, x0, x1)
x26 -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x1, x0, x0, x1, x1, x0)
x27 -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x1, x0, x0, x1, x1, x1)
x28 -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x1, x0, x1, x0, x0, x0)
x29 -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x1, x0, x1, x0, x0, x1)
x2A -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x1, x0, x1, x0, x1, x0)
x2B -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x1, x0, x1, x0, x1, x1)
x2D -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x1, x0, x1, x1, x0, x1)
x2E -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x1, x0, x1, x1, x1, x0)
x2F -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x1, x0, x1, x1, x1, x1)
x30 -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x1, x1, x0, x0, x0, x0)
x31 -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x1, x1, x0, x0, x0, x1)
x32 -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x1, x1, x0, x0, x1, x0)
x33 -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x1, x1, x0, x0, x1, x1)
x34 -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x1, x1, x0, x1, x0, x0)
x35 -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x1, x1, x0, x1, x0, x1)
x36 -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x1, x1, x0, x1, x1, x0)
x37 -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x1, x1, x0, x1, x1, x1)
x38 -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x1, x1, x1, x0, x0, x0)
x39 -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x1, x1, x1, x0, x0, x1)
x3A -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x1, x1, x1, x0, x1, x0)
x3B -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x1, x1, x1, x0, x1, x1)
x3C -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x1, x1, x1, x1, x0, x0)
x3D -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x1, x1, x1, x1, x0, x1)
x3F -> buildOctet (x0, x0, x1, x1, x1, x1, x1, x1)
x40 -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x0, x0, x0, x0, x0, x0)
x46 -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x0, x0, x0, x1, x1, x0)
x48 -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x0, x0, x1, x0, x0, x0)
x49 -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x0, x0, x1, x0, x0, x1)
x4A -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x0, x0, x1, x0, x1, x0)
x4B -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x0, x0, x1, x0, x1, x1)
x4C -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x0, x0, x1, x1, x0, x0)
x4D -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x0, x0, x1, x1, x0, x1)
x4E -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x0, x0, x1, x1, x1, x0)
x4F -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x0, x0, x1, x1, x1, x1)
x50 -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x0, x1, x0, x0, x0, x0)
x51 -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x0, x1, x0, x0, x0, x1)
x53 -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x0, x1, x0, x0, x1, x1)
x54 -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x0, x1, x0, x1, x0, x0)
x55 -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x0, x1, x0, x1, x0, x1)
x58 -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x0, x1, x1, x0, x0, x0)
x5A -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x0, x1, x1, x0, x1, x0)
x5B -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x0, x1, x1, x0, x1, x1)
x5C -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x0, x1, x1, x1, x0, x0)
x5D -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x0, x1, x1, x1, x0, x1)
x5E -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x0, x1, x1, x1, x1, x0)
x5F -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x0, x1, x1, x1, x1, x1)
x60 -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x1, x0, x0, x0, x0, x0)
x61 -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x1, x0, x0, x0, x0, x1)
x62 -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x1, x0, x0, x0, x1, x0)
x63 -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x1, x0, x0, x0, x1, x1)
x64 -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x1, x0, x0, x1, x0, x0)
x65 -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x1, x0, x0, x1, x0, x1)
x66 -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x1, x0, x0, x1, x1, x0)
x67 -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x1, x0, x0, x1, x1, x1)
x69 -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x1, x0, x1, x0, x0, x1)
x6A -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x1, x0, x1, x0, x1, x0)
x6B -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x1, x0, x1, x0, x1, x1)
x6C -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x1, x0, x1, x1, x0, x0)
x6D -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x1, x0, x1, x1, x0, x1)
x6E -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x1, x0, x1, x1, x1, x0)
x6F -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x1, x0, x1, x1, x1, x1)
x70 -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x1, x1, x0, x0, x0, x0)
x71 -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x1, x1, x0, x0, x0, x1)
x72 -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x1, x1, x0, x0, x1, x0)
x73 -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x1, x1, x0, x0, x1, x1)
x74 -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x1, x1, x0, x1, x0, x0)
x75 -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x1, x1, x0, x1, x0, x1)
x76 -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x1, x1, x0, x1, x1, x0)
x77 -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x1, x1, x0, x1, x1, x1)
x78 -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x1, x1, x1, x0, x0, x0)
x79 -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x1, x1, x1, x0, x0, x1)
x7A -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x1, x1, x1, x0, x1, x0)
x7B -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x1, x1, x1, x0, x1, x1)
x7C -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x1, x1, x1, x1, x0, x0)
x7D -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x1, x1, x1, x1, x0, x1)
x7E -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x1, x1, x1, x1, x1, x0)
x7F -> buildOctet (x0, x1, x1, x1, x1, x1, x1, x1)
x80 -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x0, x0, x0, x0, x0, x0)
x81 -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x0, x0, x0, x0, x0, x1)
x83 -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x0, x0, x0, x0, x1, x1)
x84 -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x0, x0, x0, x1, x0, x0)
x85 -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x0, x0, x0, x1, x0, x1)
x86 -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x0, x0, x0, x1, x1, x0)
x88 -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x0, x0, x1, x0, x0, x0)
x89 -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x0, x0, x1, x0, x0, x1)
x8A -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x0, x0, x1, x0, x1, x0)
x8C -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x0, x0, x1, x1, x0, x0)
x8D -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x0, x0, x1, x1, x0, x1)
x8E -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x0, x0, x1, x1, x1, x0)
x8F -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x0, x0, x1, x1, x1, x1)
x90 -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x0, x1, x0, x0, x0, x0)
x91 -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x0, x1, x0, x0, x0, x1)
x92 -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x0, x1, x0, x0, x1, x0)
x93 -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x0, x1, x0, x0, x1, x1)
x95 -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x0, x1, x0, x1, x0, x1)
x96 -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x0, x1, x0, x1, x1, x0)
x97 -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x0, x1, x0, x1, x1, x1)
x98 -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x0, x1, x1, x0, x0, x0)
x99 -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x0, x1, x1, x0, x0, x1)
x9A -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x0, x1, x1, x0, x1, x0)
x9B -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x0, x1, x1, x0, x1, x1)
x9C -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x0, x1, x1, x1, x0, x0)
x9D -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x0, x1, x1, x1, x0, x1)
x9E -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x0, x1, x1, x1, x1, x0)
x9F -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x0, x1, x1, x1, x1, x1)
xA0 -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x1, x0, x0, x0, x0, x0)
xA1 -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x1, x0, x0, x0, x0, x1)
xA2 -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x1, x0, x0, x0, x1, x0)
xA3 -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x1, x0, x0, x0, x1, x1)
xA4 -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x1, x0, x0, x1, x0, x0)
xA5 -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x1, x0, x0, x1, x0, x1)
xA6 -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x1, x0, x0, x1, x1, x0)
xA7 -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x1, x0, x0, x1, x1, x1)
xA8 -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x1, x0, x1, x0, x0, x0)
xA9 -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x1, x0, x1, x0, x0, x1)
xAA -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x1, x0, x1, x0, x1, x0)
xAB -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x1, x0, x1, x0, x1, x1)
xAC -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x1, x0, x1, x1, x0, x0)
xAE -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x1, x0, x1, x1, x1, x0)
xAF -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x1, x0, x1, x1, x1, x1)
xB0 -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x1, x1, x0, x0, x0, x0)
xB1 -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x1, x1, x0, x0, x0, x1)
xB2 -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x1, x1, x0, x0, x1, x0)
xB3 -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x1, x1, x0, x0, x1, x1)
xB5 -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x1, x1, x0, x1, x0, x1)
xB6 -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x1, x1, x0, x1, x1, x0)
xB8 -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x1, x1, x1, x0, x0, x0)
xB9 -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x1, x1, x1, x0, x0, x1)
xBA -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x1, x1, x1, x0, x1, x0)
xBB -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x1, x1, x1, x0, x1, x1)
xBC -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x1, x1, x1, x1, x0, x0)
xBE -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x1, x1, x1, x1, x1, x0)
xBF -> buildOctet (x1, x0, x1, x1, x1, x1, x1, x1)
xC0 -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x0, x0, x0, x0, x0, x0)
xC1 -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x0, x0, x0, x0, x0, x1)
xC2 -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x0, x0, x0, x0, x1, x0)
xC4 -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x0, x0, x0, x1, x0, x0)
xC5 -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x0, x0, x0, x1, x0, x1)
xC6 -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x0, x0, x0, x1, x1, x0)
xC7 -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x0, x0, x0, x1, x1, x1)
xC8 -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x0, x0, x1, x0, x0, x0)
xC9 -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x0, x0, x1, x0, x0, x1)
xCA -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x0, x0, x1, x0, x1, x0)
xCB -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x0, x0, x1, x0, x1, x1)
xCC -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x0, x0, x1, x1, x0, x0)
xCD -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x0, x0, x1, x1, x0, x1)
xCE -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x0, x0, x1, x1, x1, x0)
xD0 -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x0, x1, x0, x0, x0, x0)
xD1 -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x0, x1, x0, x0, x0, x1)
xD2 -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x0, x1, x0, x0, x1, x0)
xD3 -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x0, x1, x0, x0, x1, x1)
xD4 -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x0, x1, x0, x1, x0, x0)
xD5 -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x0, x1, x0, x1, x0, x1)
xD6 -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x0, x1, x0, x1, x1, x0)
xD7 -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x0, x1, x0, x1, x1, x1)
xD8 -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x0, x1, x1, x0, x0, x0)
xD9 -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x0, x1, x1, x0, x0, x1)
xDB -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x0, x1, x1, x0, x1, x1)
xDC -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x0, x1, x1, x1, x0, x0)
xDD -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x0, x1, x1, x1, x0, x1)
xDE -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x0, x1, x1, x1, x1, x0)
xDF -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x0, x1, x1, x1, x1, x1)
xE0 -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x1, x0, x0, x0, x0, x0)
xE1 -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x1, x0, x0, x0, x0, x1)
xE3 -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x1, x0, x0, x0, x1, x1)
xE6 -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x1, x0, x0, x1, x1, x0)
xE8 -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x1, x0, x1, x0, x0, x0)
xE9 -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x1, x0, x1, x0, x0, x1)
xEA -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x1, x0, x1, x0, x1, x0)
xEB -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x1, x0, x1, x0, x1, x1)
xEC -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x1, x0, x1, x1, x0, x0)
xED -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x1, x0, x1, x1, x0, x1)
xEE -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x1, x0, x1, x1, x1, x0)
xEF -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x1, x0, x1, x1, x1, x1)
xF0 -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x1, x1, x0, x0, x0, x0)
xF1 -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x1, x1, x0, x0, x0, x1)
xF2 -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x1, x1, x0, x0, x1, x0)
xF3 -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x1, x1, x0, x0, x1, x1)
xF4 -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x1, x1, x0, x1, x0, x0)
xF5 -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x1, x1, x0, x1, x0, x1)
xF6 -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x1, x1, x0, x1, x1, x0)
xF7 -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x1, x1, x0, x1, x1, x1)
xF8 -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x1, x1, x1, x0, x0, x0)
xF9 -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x1, x1, x1, x0, x0, x1)
xFA -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x1, x1, x1, x0, x1, x0)
xFB -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x1, x1, x1, x0, x1, x1)
xFC -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x1, x1, x1, x1, x0, x0)
xFD -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x1, x1, x1, x1, x0, x1)
xFE -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x1, x1, x1, x1, x1, x0)
xFF -> buildOctet (x1, x1, x1, x1, x1, x1, x1, x1)
Definitions for sort OctetSum
-----------------------------
We now define sort that stores the result of the addition of two octets. Values of this sort are 9-bit words, made up using the constructor that gathers one bit for the carry and an octet for the sum. The three principal non-constructors for this sort are (which tests equality), (which adds two octets and an input carry bit, and returns both an output carry bit and an 8-bit sum), and (which is derived from the former one by dropping the input and output carry bits); the other non-constructors are auxiliary functions implementing an 8-bit adder.
SORTS
OctetSum
CONS
buildOctetSum : Bit Octet -> OctetSum
OPNS
eqOctetSum : OctetSum OctetSum -> Bool
addBit : Bit Bit Bit -> Bit
carBit : Bit Bit Bit -> Bit
addOctetSum : Octet Octet Bit -> OctetSum
addOctet8 : Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit
-> OctetSum
addOctet7 : Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit
-> OctetSum
addOctet6 : Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit -> OctetSum
addOctet5 : Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit -> OctetSum
addOctet4 : Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit -> OctetSum
addOctet3 : Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit -> OctetSum
addOctet2 : Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit -> OctetSum
addOctet1 : Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit -> OctetSum
addOctet0 : Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit -> OctetSum
dropCarryOctetSum : OctetSum -> Octet
addOctet : Octet Octet -> Octet
VARS
B B' Bcarry : Bit
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 : Bit
B'1 B'2 B'3 B'4 B'5 B'6 B'7 B'8 : Bit
B"1 B"2 B"3 B"4 B"5 B"6 B"7 B"8 : Bit
O O' : Octet
RULES
eqOctetSum (buildOctetSum (B, O), buildOctetSum (B', O'))
-> andBool (eqBit (B, B'), eqOctet (O, O'))
% addBit (B, B', Bcarry) is the sum of bits (B + B' + Bcarry) without carry
addBit (B, B', Bcarry) -> xorBit (xorBit (B, B'), Bcarry)
% carBit (B, B', Bcarry) is the carry for the sum of bits (B + B' + Bcarry)
carBit (B, B', Bcarry) -> orBit (andBit (andBit (B, B'), notBit (Bcarry)),
andBit (orBit (B, B'), Bcarry))
addOctetSum (buildOctet (B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8),
buildOctet (B'1, B'2, B'3, B'4, B'5, B'6, B'7, B'8), Bcarry)
-> addOctet8 (B1, B'1, B2, B'2, B3, B'3, B4, B'4, B5, B'5, B6, B'6, B7, B'7, B8,
B'8; Bcarry)
addOctet8 (B1, B'1, B2, B'2, B3, B'3, B4, B'4, B5, B'5, B6, B'6, B7, B'7, B8, B'8;
Bcarry)
-> addOctet7 (B1, B'1, B2, B'2, B3, B'3, B4, B'4, B5, B'5, B6, B'6, B7, B'7;
carBit (B8, B'8, Bcarry); addBit (B8, B'8, Bcarry))
addOctet7 (B1, B'1, B2, B'2, B3, B'3, B4, B'4, B5, B'5, B6, B'6, B7, B'7;
Bcarry; B"8)
-> addOctet6 (B1, B'1, B2, B'2, B3, B'3, B4, B'4, B5, B'5, B6, B'6;
carBit (B7, B'7, Bcarry); addBit (B7, B'7, Bcarry), B"8)
addOctet6 (B1, B'1, B2, B'2, B3, B'3, B4, B'4, B5, B'5, B6, B'6;
Bcarry; B"7, B"8)
-> addOctet5 (B1, B'1, B2, B'2, B3, B'3, B4, B'4, B5, B'5;
carBit (B6, B'6, Bcarry); addBit (B6, B'6, Bcarry), B"7, B"8)
addOctet5 (B1, B'1, B2, B'2, B3, B'3, B4, B'4, B5, B'5;
Bcarry; B"6, B"7, B"8)
-> addOctet4 (B1, B'1, B2, B'2, B3, B'3, B4, B'4;
carBit (B5, B'5, Bcarry); addBit (B5, B'5, Bcarry), B"6, B"7, B"8)
addOctet4 (B1, B'1, B2, B'2, B3, B'3, B4, B'4;
Bcarry; B"5, B"6, B"7, B"8)
-> addOctet3 (B1, B'1, B2, B'2, B3, B'3; carBit (B4, B'4, Bcarry);
addBit (B4, B'4, Bcarry), B"5, B"6, B"7, B"8)
addOctet3 (B1, B'1, B2, B'2, B3, B'3;
Bcarry; B"4, B"5, B"6, B"7, B"8)
-> addOctet2 (B1, B'1, B2, B'2; carBit (B3, B'3, Bcarry);
addBit (B3, B'3, Bcarry), B"4, B"5, B"6, B"7, B"8)
addOctet2 (B1, B'1, B2, B'2;
Bcarry; B"3, B"4, B"5, B"6, B"7, B"8)
-> addOctet1 (B1, B'1; carBit (B2, B'2, Bcarry);
addBit (B2, B'2, Bcarry), B"3, B"4, B"5, B"6, B"7, B"8)
addOctet1 (B1, B'1;
Bcarry; B"2, B"3, B"4, B"5, B"6, B"7, B"8)
-> addOctet0 (carBit (B1, B'1, Bcarry);
addBit (B1, B'1, Bcarry), B"2, B"3, B"4, B"5, B"6, B"7, B"8)
addOctet0 (Bcarry; B"1, B"2, B"3, B"4, B"5, B"6, B"7, B"8)
-> buildOctetSum (Bcarry, buildOctet (B"1, B"2, B"3, B"4, B"5, B"6, B"7, B"8))
dropCarryOctetSum (buildOctetSum (Bcarry, O)) -> O
addOctet (O, O') -> dropCarryOctetSum (addOctetSum (O, O', x0))
Definitions for sort Half
-------------------------
We now define 16-bit words (named “half words”) using a constructor that takes two octets and returns a half word, together with non-constructors implementing equality, two usual constants, and an operation that takes two octets and computes their 16-bit product; the other non-constructors are auxiliary functions implementing an 8-bit multiplier.
SORTS
Half
CONS
buildHalf : Octet Octet -> Half
% the first argument of buildHalf contain the most significant bits
OPNS
eqHalf : Half Half -> Bool
x0000 : -> Half
x0001 : -> Half
mulOctet : Octet Octet -> Half
mulOctet1 : Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Octet Half -> Half
mulOctet2 : Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Octet Half -> Half
mulOctet3 : Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Octet Half -> Half
mulOctet4 : Bit Bit Bit Bit Bit Octet Half -> Half
mulOctet5 : Bit Bit Bit Bit Octet Half -> Half
mulOctet6 : Bit Bit Bit Octet Half -> Half
mulOctet7 : Bit Bit Octet Half -> Half
mulOctet8 : Bit Octet Half -> Half
mulOctetA : Half Octet Octet -> Half
mulOctetB : Octet OctetSum -> Half
VARS
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 : Bit
O' O1 O2 O'1 O'2 : Octet
RULES
eqHalf (buildHalf (O1, O2), buildHalf (O'1, O'2))
-> andBool (eqOctet (O1, O'1), eqOctet (O2, O'2))
x0000 -> buildHalf (x00, x00)
x0001 -> buildHalf (x00, x01)
mulOctet (buildOctet (B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8), O')
-> mulOctet1 (B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8, O', x0000)
mulOctet1 (x0, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8, O', H) -> mulOctet2 (B2, B3, B4, B5, B6,
B7, B8, O', H)
mulOctet1 (x1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8, O', H) -> mulOctet2 (B2, B3, B4, B5, B6,
B7, B8, O', mulOctetA (H, rightOctet1 (O'), leftOctet7 (O')))
mulOctet2 (x0, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8, O', H) -> mulOctet3 (B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8,
O', H)
mulOctet2 (x1, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8, O', H) -> mulOctet3 (B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8,
O', mulOctetA (H, rightOctet2 (O'), leftOctet6 (O')))
mulOctet3 (x0, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8, O', H) -> mulOctet4 (B4, B5, B6, B7, B8, O', H)
mulOctet3 (x1, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8, O', H) -> mulOctet4 (B4, B5, B6, B7, B8, O',
mulOctetA (H, rightOctet3 (O'), leftOctet5 (O')))
mulOctet4 (x0, B5, B6, B7, B8, O', H) -> mulOctet5 (B5, B6, B7, B8, O', H)
mulOctet4 (x1, B5, B6, B7, B8, O', H) -> mulOctet5 (B5, B6, B7, B8, O',
mulOctetA (H, rightOctet4 (O'), leftOctet4 (O')))
mulOctet5 (x0, B6, B7, B8, O', H) -> mulOctet6 (B6, B7, B8, O', H)
mulOctet5 (x1, B6, B7, B8, O', H) -> mulOctet6 (B6, B7, B8, O',
mulOctetA (H, rightOctet5 (O'), leftOctet3 (O')))
mulOctet6 (x0, B7, B8, O', H) -> mulOctet7 (B7, B8, O', H)
mulOctet6 (x1, B7, B8, O', H) -> mulOctet7 (B7, B8, O',
mulOctetA (H, rightOctet6 (O'), leftOctet2 (O')))
mulOctet7 (x0, B8, O', H) -> mulOctet8 (B8, O', H)
mulOctet7 (x1, B8, O', H) -> mulOctet8 (B8, O',
mulOctetA (H, rightOctet7 (O'), leftOctet1 (O')))
mulOctet8 (x0, O', H) -> H
mulOctet8 (x1, O', H) -> mulOctetA (H, x00, O')
mulOctetA (buildHalf (O1, O2), O'1, O'2)
-> mulOctetB (addOctet (O1, O'1), addOctetSum (O2, O'2, x0))
mulOctetB (O1, buildOctetSum (x0, O2)) -> buildHalf (O1, O2)
mulOctetB (O1, buildOctetSum (x1, O2)) -> buildHalf (addOctet (O1, x01), O2)
Definitions for sort HalfSum
----------------------------
We now define sort that stores the result of the addition of two half words. Values of this sort are 17-bit words, made up using the constructor that gathers one bit for the carry and a half word for the sum. The five principal non-constructors for this sort are (which tests equality), (which adds two half words and returns both a carry bit and a 16-bit sum), (which is derived from the former one by dropping the carry bit), and (which are similar to the former one but take octet arguments that are converted to half words before summation); the other non-constructors are auxiliary functions implementing a 16-bit adder built using two 8-bit adders.
SORTS
HalfSum
CONS
buildHalfSum : Bit Half -> HalfSum
OPNS
eqHalfSum : HalfSum HalfSum -> Bool
addHalfSum : Half Half -> HalfSum
addHalf2 : Octet Octet Octet Octet -> HalfSum
addHalf1 : Octet Octet OctetSum -> HalfSum
addHalf0 : OctetSum Octet -> HalfSum
dropCarryHalfSum : HalfSum -> Half
addHalf : Half Half -> Half
addHalfOctet : Octet Half -> Half
addHalfOctets : Octet Octet -> Half
VARS
B B' : Bit
O O' O1 O2 O'1 O'2 O"1 O"2 : Octet
H H' : Half
RULES
eqHalfSum (buildHalfSum (B, H), buildHalfSum (B', H'))
-> andBool (eqBit (B, B'), eqHalf (H, H'))
addHalfSum (buildHalf (O1, O2), buildHalf (O'1, O'2)) -> addHalf2 (O1, O'1, O2, O'2)
addHalf2 (O1, O'1, O2, O'2) -> addHalf1 (O1, O'1, addOctetSum (O2, O'2, x0))
addHalf1 (O1, O'1, buildOctetSum (B,O"2)) -> addHalf0 (addOctetSum (O1, O'1, B),O"2)
addHalf0 (buildOctetSum (B, O"1), O"2) -> buildHalfSum (B, buildHalf (O"1, O"2))
dropCarryHalfSum (buildHalfSum (B, H)) -> H
addHalf (H, H') -> dropCarryHalfSum (addHalfSum (H, H'))
addHalfOctet (O, H) -> addHalf (buildHalf (x00, O), H)
addHalfOctets (O, O') -> addHalf (buildHalf (x00, O), buildHalf (x00, O'))
Definitions for sort Block
--------------------------
We now define 32-bit words (named “blocks” according to the MAA terminology) using a constructor that takes four octets and returns a block. The seven principal non-constructors for this sort are (which tests equality), , , and (which implement bitwise logical operations on blocks), and (which decompose a block into two half words), and (which takes two half words and computes their 32-bit product); the other non-constructors are auxiliary functions implementing a 16-bit multiplier built using four 8-bit multipliers, as well as all block constants needed to formally describe the MAA and its test vectors.
SORTS
Block
CONS
buildBlock : Octet Octet Octet Octet -> Block
% the first argument of buildBlock contain the most significant bits
OPNS
eqBlock : Block Block -> Bool
andBlock : Block Block -> Block
orBlock : Block Block -> Block
xorBlock : Block Block -> Block
HalfU : Block -> Half
HalfL : Block -> Half
mulHalf : Half Half -> Block
mulHalfA : Half Half Half Half -> Block
mulHalf4 : Octet Octet Octet Octet Octet Octet Octet Octet -> Block
mulHalf3 : Octet Octet Octet Octet Half Octet -> Block
mulHalf2 : Octet Half Octet Octet -> Block
mulHalf1 : Half Octet Octet Octet -> Block
x00000000 : -> Block
x00000001 : -> Block
x00000002 : -> Block
x00000003 : -> Block
x00000004 : -> Block
x00000005 : -> Block
x00000006 : -> Block
x00000007 : -> Block
x00000008 : -> Block
x00000009 : -> Block
x0000000A : -> Block
x0000000B : -> Block
x0000000C : -> Block
x0000000D : -> Block
x0000000E : -> Block
x0000000F : -> Block
x00000010 : -> Block
x00000012 : -> Block
x00000014 : -> Block
x00000016 : -> Block
x00000018 : -> Block
x0000001B : -> Block
x0000001D : -> Block
x0000001E : -> Block
x0000001F : -> Block
x00000031 : -> Block
x00000036 : -> Block
x00000060 : -> Block
x00000080 : -> Block
x000000A5 : -> Block
x000000B6 : -> Block
x000000C4 : -> Block
x000000D2 : -> Block
x00000100 : -> Block
x00000129 : -> Block
x0000018C : -> Block
x00004000 : -> Block
x00010000 : -> Block
x00020000 : -> Block
x00030000 : -> Block
x00040000 : -> Block
x00060000 : -> Block
x00804021 : -> Block % MAA special constant 'B'
x00FF00FF : -> Block
x0103050B : -> Block
x01030703 : -> Block
x01030705 : -> Block
x0103070F : -> Block
x02040801 : -> Block % MAA special constant 'A'
x0297AF6F : -> Block
x07050301 : -> Block
x077788A2 : -> Block
x07C72EAA : -> Block
x0A202020 : -> Block
x0AD67E20 : -> Block
x10000000 : -> Block
x11A9D254 : -> Block
x11AC46B8 : -> Block
x1277A6D4 : -> Block
x13647149 : -> Block
x160EE9B5 : -> Block
x17065DBB : -> Block
x17A808FD : -> Block
x1D10D8D3 : -> Block
x1D3B7760 : -> Block
x1D9C9655 : -> Block
x1F3F7FFF : -> Block
x204E80A7 : -> Block
x21D869BA : -> Block
x24B66FB5 : -> Block
x270EEDAF : -> Block
x277B4B25 : -> Block
x2829040B : -> Block
x288FC786 : -> Block
x28EAD8B3 : -> Block
x29907CD8 : -> Block
x29C1485F : -> Block
x29EEE96B : -> Block
x2A6091AE : -> Block
x2BF8499A : -> Block
x2E80AC30 : -> Block
x2FD76FFB : -> Block
x30261492 : -> Block
x303FF4AA : -> Block
x33D5A466 : -> Block
x344925FC : -> Block
x34ACF886 : -> Block
x3CD54DEB : -> Block
x3CF3A7D2 : -> Block
x3DD81AC6 : -> Block
x3F6F7248 : -> Block
x48B204D6 : -> Block
x4A645A01 : -> Block
x4C49AAE0 : -> Block
x4CE933E1 : -> Block
x4D53901A : -> Block
x4DA124A1 : -> Block
x4F998E01 : -> Block
x4FB1138A : -> Block
x50DEC930 : -> Block
x51AF3C1D : -> Block
x51EDE9C7 : -> Block
x550D91CE : -> Block
x55555555 : -> Block
x55DD063F : -> Block
x5834A585 : -> Block
x5A35D667 : -> Block
x5BC02502 : -> Block
x5CCA3239 : -> Block
x5EBA06C2 : -> Block
x5F38EEF1 : -> Block
x613F8E2A : -> Block
x63C70DBA : -> Block
x6AD6E8A4 : -> Block
x6AEBACF8 : -> Block
x6D67E884 : -> Block
x7050EC5E : -> Block
x717153D5 : -> Block
x7201F4DC : -> Block
x7397C9AE : -> Block
x74B39176 : -> Block
x76232E5F : -> Block
x7783C51D : -> Block
x7792F9D4 : -> Block
x7BC180AB : -> Block
x7DB2D9F4 : -> Block
x7DFEFBFF : -> Block % MAA special constant 'D'
x7F76A3B0 : -> Block
x7F839576 : -> Block
x7FFFFFF0 : -> Block
x7FFFFFF1 : -> Block
x7FFFFFFC : -> Block
x7FFFFFFD : -> Block
x80000000 : -> Block
x80000002 : -> Block
x800000C2 : -> Block
x80018000 : -> Block
x80018001 : -> Block
x80397302 : -> Block
x81D10CA3 : -> Block
x89D635D7 : -> Block
x8CE37709 : -> Block
x8DC8BBDE : -> Block
x9115A558 : -> Block
x91896CFA : -> Block
x9372CDC6 : -> Block
x98D1CC75 : -> Block
x9D15C437 : -> Block
x9DB15CF6 : -> Block
x9E2E7B36 : -> Block
xA018C83B : -> Block
xA0B87B77 : -> Block
xA44AAAC0 : -> Block
xA511987A : -> Block
xA70FC148 : -> Block
xA93BD410 : -> Block
xAAAAAAAA : -> Block
xAB00FFCD : -> Block
xAB01FCCD : -> Block
xAB6EED4A : -> Block
xABEEED6B : -> Block
xACBC13DD : -> Block
xB1CC1CC5 : -> Block
xB8142629 : -> Block
xB99A62DE : -> Block
xBA92DB12 : -> Block
xBBA57835 : -> Block
xBE9F0917 : -> Block
xBF2D7D85 : -> Block
xBFEF7FDF : -> Block % MAA special constant 'C'
xC1ED90DD : -> Block
xC21A1846 : -> Block
xC4EB1AEB : -> Block
xC6B1317E : -> Block
xCBC865BA : -> Block
xCD959B46 : -> Block
xD0482465 : -> Block
xD636250D : -> Block
xD7843FDC : -> Block
xD78634BC : -> Block
xD8804CA5 : -> Block
xDB79FBDC : -> Block
xDB9102B0 : -> Block
xE0C08000 : -> Block
xE6A12F07 : -> Block
xEB35B97F : -> Block
xF0239DD5 : -> Block
xF14D6E28 : -> Block
xF2EF3501 : -> Block
xF6A09667 : -> Block
xFD297DA4 : -> Block
xFDC1A8BA : -> Block
xFE4E5BDD : -> Block
xFEA1D334 : -> Block
xFECCAA6E : -> Block
xFEFC07F0 : -> Block
xFF2D7DA5 : -> Block
xFFEF0001 : -> Block
xFFFF00FF : -> Block
xFFFFFF2D : -> Block
xFFFFFF3A : -> Block
xFFFFFFF0 : -> Block
xFFFFFFF1 : -> Block
xFFFFFFF4 : -> Block
xFFFFFFF5 : -> Block
xFFFFFFF7 : -> Block
xFFFFFFF9 : -> Block
xFFFFFFFA : -> Block
xFFFFFFFB : -> Block
xFFFFFFFC : -> Block
xFFFFFFFD : -> Block
xFFFFFFFE : -> Block
xFFFFFFFF : -> Block
VARS
O1 O2 O3 O4 O'1 O'2 O'3 O'4 O"1 O"2 O"3 O"4 : Octet
O11U O11L O12U O12L O21U O21L O22U O22L Ocarry : Octet
RULES
eqBlock (buildBlock (O1, O2, O3, O4), buildBlock (O'1, O'2, O'3, O'4))
-> andBool (andBool (eqOctet (O1, O'1), eqOctet (O2, O'2)),
andBool (eqOctet (O3, O'3), eqOctet (O4, O'4)))
andBlock (buildBlock (O1, O2, O3, O4), buildBlock (O'1, O'2, O'3, O'4))
-> buildBlock (andOctet (O1, O'1), andOctet (O2, O'2),
andOctet (O3, O'3), andOctet (O4, O'4))
orBlock (buildBlock (O1, O2, O3, O4), buildBlock (O'1, O'2, O'3, O'4))
-> buildBlock (orOctet (O1, O'1), orOctet (O2, O'2),
orOctet (O3, O'3), orOctet (O4, O'4))
xorBlock (buildBlock (O1, O2, O3, O4), buildBlock (O'1, O'2, O'3, O'4))
-> buildBlock (xorOctet (O1, O'1), xorOctet (O2, O'2),
xorOctet (O3, O'3), xorOctet (O4, O'4))
HalfU (buildBlock (O1, O2, O3, O4)) -> buildHalf (O1, O2)
HalfL (buildBlock (O1, O2, O3, O4)) -> buildHalf (O3, O4)
mulHalf (buildHalf (O1, O2), buildHalf (O'1, O'2))
-> mulHalfA (mulOctet (O1, O'1), mulOctet (O1, O'2),
mulOctet (O2, O'1), mulOctet (O2, O'2))
mulHalfA (buildHalf (O11U, O11L), buildHalf (O12U, O12L),
buildHalf (O21U, O21L), buildHalf (O22U, O22L))
-> mulHalf4 (O11U, O11L, O12U, O12L, O21U, O21L; O22U; O22L)
mulHalf4 (O11U, O11L, O12U, O12L, O21U, O21L; O22U; O"4)
-> mulHalf3 (O11U, O11L, O12U, O21U;
addHalfOctet (O12L, addHalfOctets (O21L, O22U)); O"4)
mulHalf3 (O11U, O11L, O12U, O21U; buildHalf (Ocarry, O"3); O"4)
-> mulHalf2 (O11U; addHalfOctet (Ocarry,
addHalfOctet (O11L, addHalfOctets (O12U, O21U))); O"3, O"4)
mulHalf2 (O11U; buildHalf (Ocarry, O"2); O"3, O"4)
-> mulHalf1 (addHalfOctets (Ocarry, O11U); O"2; O"3, O"4)
mulHalf1 (buildHalf (Ocarry, O"1); O"2; O"3, O"4)
-> buildBlock (O"1, O"2, O"3, O"4) % assert eqOctet (Ocarry, x00)
x00000000 -> buildBlock (x00, x00, x00, x00)
x00000001 -> buildBlock (x00, x00, x00, x01)
x00000002 -> buildBlock (x00, x00, x00, x02)
x00000003 -> buildBlock (x00, x00, x00, x03)
x00000004 -> buildBlock (x00, x00, x00, x04)
x00000005 -> buildBlock (x00, x00, x00, x05)
x00000006 -> buildBlock (x00, x00, x00, x06)
x00000007 -> buildBlock (x00, x00, x00, x07)
x00000008 -> buildBlock (x00, x00, x00, x08)
x00000009 -> buildBlock (x00, x00, x00, x09)
x0000000A -> buildBlock (x00, x00, x00, x0A)
x0000000B -> buildBlock (x00, x00, x00, x0B)
x0000000C -> buildBlock (x00, x00, x00, x0C)
x0000000D -> buildBlock (x00, x00, x00, x0D)
x0000000E -> buildBlock (x00, x00, x00, x0E)
x0000000F -> buildBlock (x00, x00, x00, x0F)
x00000010 -> buildBlock (x00, x00, x00, x10)
x00000012 -> buildBlock (x00, x00, x00, x12)
x00000014 -> buildBlock (x00, x00, x00, x14)
x00000016 -> buildBlock (x00, x00, x00, x16)
x00000018 -> buildBlock (x00, x00, x00, x18)
x0000001B -> buildBlock (x00, x00, x00, x1B)
x0000001D -> buildBlock (x00, x00, x00, x1D)
x0000001E -> buildBlock (x00, x00, x00, x1E)
x0000001F -> buildBlock (x00, x00, x00, x1F)
x00000031 -> buildBlock (x00, x00, x00, x31)
x00000036 -> buildBlock (x00, x00, x00, x36)
x00000060 -> buildBlock (x00, x00, x00, x60)
x00000080 -> buildBlock (x00, x00, x00, x80)
x000000A5 -> buildBlock (x00, x00, x00, xA5)
x000000B6 -> buildBlock (x00, x00, x00, xB6)
x000000C4 -> buildBlock (x00, x00, x00, xC4)
x000000D2 -> buildBlock (x00, x00, x00, xD2)
x00000100 -> buildBlock (x00, x00, x01, x00)
x00000129 -> buildBlock (x00, x00, x01, x29)
x0000018C -> buildBlock (x00, x00, x01, x8C)
x00004000 -> buildBlock (x00, x00, x40, x00)
x00010000 -> buildBlock (x00, x01, x00, x00)
x00020000 -> buildBlock (x00, x02, x00, x00)
x00030000 -> buildBlock (x00, x03, x00, x00)
x00040000 -> buildBlock (x00, x04, x00, x00)
x00060000 -> buildBlock (x00, x06, x00, x00)
x00804021 -> buildBlock (x00, x80, x40, x21) % MAA special constant 'B'
x00FF00FF -> buildBlock (x00, xFF, x00, xFF)
x0103050B -> buildBlock (x01, x03, x05, x0B)
x01030703 -> buildBlock (x01, x03, x07, x03)
x01030705 -> buildBlock (x01, x03, x07, x05)
x0103070F -> buildBlock (x01, x03, x07, x0F)
x02040801 -> buildBlock (x02, x04, x08, x01) % MAA special constant 'A'
x0297AF6F -> buildBlock (x02, x97, xAF, x6F)
x07050301 -> buildBlock (x07, x05, x03, x01)
x077788A2 -> buildBlock (x07, x77, x88, xA2)
x07C72EAA -> buildBlock (x07, xC7, x2E, xAA)
x0A202020 -> buildBlock (x0A, x20, x20, x20)
x0AD67E20 -> buildBlock (x0A, xD6, x7E, x20)
x10000000 -> buildBlock (x10, x00, x00, x00)
x11A9D254 -> buildBlock (x11, xA9, xD2, x54)
x11AC46B8 -> buildBlock (x11, xAC, x46, xB8)
x1277A6D4 -> buildBlock (x12, x77, xA6, xD4)
x13647149 -> buildBlock (x13, x64, x71, x49)
x160EE9B5 -> buildBlock (x16, x0E, xE9, xB5)
x17065DBB -> buildBlock (x17, x06, x5D, xBB)
x17A808FD -> buildBlock (x17, xA8, x08, xFD)
x1D10D8D3 -> buildBlock (x1D, x10, xD8, xD3)
x1D3B7760 -> buildBlock (x1D, x3B, x77, x60)
x1D9C9655 -> buildBlock (x1D, x9C, x96, x55)
x1F3F7FFF -> buildBlock (x1F, x3F, x7F, xFF)
x204E80A7 -> buildBlock (x20, x4E, x80, xA7)
x21D869BA -> buildBlock (x21, xD8, x69, xBA)
x24B66FB5 -> buildBlock (x24, xB6, x6F, xB5)
x270EEDAF -> buildBlock (x27, x0E, xED, xAF)
x277B4B25 -> buildBlock (x27, x7B, x4B, x25)
x2829040B -> buildBlock (x28, x29, x04, x0B)
x288FC786 -> buildBlock (x28, x8F, xC7, x86)
x28EAD8B3 -> buildBlock (x28, xEA, xD8, xB3)
x29907CD8 -> buildBlock (x29, x90, x7C, xD8)
x29C1485F -> buildBlock (x29, xC1, x48, x5F)
x29EEE96B -> buildBlock (x29, xEE, xE9, x6B)
x2A6091AE -> buildBlock (x2A, x60, x91, xAE)
x2BF8499A -> buildBlock (x2B, xF8, x49, x9A)
x2E80AC30 -> buildBlock (x2E, x80, xAC, x30)
x2FD76FFB -> buildBlock (x2F, xD7, x6F, xFB)
x30261492 -> buildBlock (x30, x26, x14, x92)
x303FF4AA -> buildBlock (x30, x3F, xF4, xAA)
x33D5A466 -> buildBlock (x33, xD5, xA4, x66)
x344925FC -> buildBlock (x34, x49, x25, xFC)
x34ACF886 -> buildBlock (x34, xAC, xF8, x86)
x3CD54DEB -> buildBlock (x3C, xD5, x4D, xEB)
x3CF3A7D2 -> buildBlock (x3C, xF3, xA7, xD2)
x3DD81AC6 -> buildBlock (x3D, xD8, x1A, xC6)
x3F6F7248 -> buildBlock (x3F, x6F, x72, x48)
x48B204D6 -> buildBlock (x48, xB2, x04, xD6)
x4A645A01 -> buildBlock (x4A, x64, x5A, x01)
x4C49AAE0 -> buildBlock (x4C, x49, xAA, xE0)
x4CE933E1 -> buildBlock (x4C, xE9, x33, xE1)
x4D53901A -> buildBlock (x4D, x53, x90, x1A)
x4DA124A1 -> buildBlock (x4D, xA1, x24, xA1)
x4F998E01 -> buildBlock (x4F, x99, x8E, x01)
x4FB1138A -> buildBlock (x4F, xB1, x13, x8A)
x50DEC930 -> buildBlock (x50, xDE, xC9, x30)
x51AF3C1D -> buildBlock (x51, xAF, x3C, x1D)
x51EDE9C7 -> buildBlock (x51, xED, xE9, xC7)
x550D91CE -> buildBlock (x55, x0D, x91, xCE)
x55555555 -> buildBlock (x55, x55, x55, x55)
x55DD063F -> buildBlock (x55, xDD, x06, x3F)
x5834A585 -> buildBlock (x58, x34, xA5, x85)
x5A35D667 -> buildBlock (x5A, x35, xD6, x67)
x5BC02502 -> buildBlock (x5B, xC0, x25, x02)
x5CCA3239 -> buildBlock (x5C, xCA, x32, x39)
x5EBA06C2 -> buildBlock (x5E, xBA, x06, xC2)
x5F38EEF1 -> buildBlock (x5F, x38, xEE, xF1)
x613F8E2A -> buildBlock (x61, x3F, x8E, x2A)
x63C70DBA -> buildBlock (x63, xC7, x0D, xBA)
x6AD6E8A4 -> buildBlock (x6A, xD6, xE8, xA4)
x6AEBACF8 -> buildBlock (x6A, xEB, xAC, xF8)
x6D67E884 -> buildBlock (x6D, x67, xE8, x84)
x7050EC5E -> buildBlock (x70, x50, xEC, x5E)
x717153D5 -> buildBlock (x71, x71, x53, xD5)
x7201F4DC -> buildBlock (x72, x01, xF4, xDC)
x7397C9AE -> buildBlock (x73, x97, xC9, xAE)
x74B39176 -> buildBlock (x74, xB3, x91, x76)
x76232E5F -> buildBlock (x76, x23, x2E, x5F)
x7783C51D -> buildBlock (x77, x83, xC5, x1D)
x7792F9D4 -> buildBlock (x77, x92, xF9, xD4)
x7BC180AB -> buildBlock (x7B, xC1, x80, xAB)
x7DB2D9F4 -> buildBlock (x7D, xB2, xD9, xF4)
x7DFEFBFF -> buildBlock (x7D, xFE, xFB, xFF) % MAA special constant 'D'
x7F76A3B0 -> buildBlock (x7F, x76, xA3, xB0)
x7F839576 -> buildBlock (x7F, x83, x95, x76)
x7FFFFFF0 -> buildBlock (x7F, xFF, xFF, xF0)
x7FFFFFF1 -> buildBlock (x7F, xFF, xFF, xF1)
x7FFFFFFC -> buildBlock (x7F, xFF, xFF, xFC)
x7FFFFFFD -> buildBlock (x7F, xFF, xFF, xFD)
x80000000 -> buildBlock (x80, x00, x00, x00)
x80000002 -> buildBlock (x80, x00, x00, x02)
x800000C2 -> buildBlock (x80, x00, x00, xC2)
x80018000 -> buildBlock (x80, x01, x80, x00)
x80018001 -> buildBlock (x80, x01, x80, x01)
x80397302 -> buildBlock (x80, x39, x73, x02)
x81D10CA3 -> buildBlock (x81, xD1, x0C, xA3)
x89D635D7 -> buildBlock (x89, xD6, x35, xD7)
x8CE37709 -> buildBlock (x8C, xE3, x77, x09)
x8DC8BBDE -> buildBlock (x8D, xC8, xBB, xDE)
x9115A558 -> buildBlock (x91, x15, xA5, x58)
x91896CFA -> buildBlock (x91, x89, x6C, xFA)
x9372CDC6 -> buildBlock (x93, x72, xCD, xC6)
x98D1CC75 -> buildBlock (x98, xD1, xCC, x75)
x9D15C437 -> buildBlock (x9D, x15, xC4, x37)
x9DB15CF6 -> buildBlock (x9D, xB1, x5C, xF6)
x9E2E7B36 -> buildBlock (x9E, x2E, x7B, x36)
xA018C83B -> buildBlock (xA0, x18, xC8, x3B)
xA0B87B77 -> buildBlock (xA0, xB8, x7B, x77)
xA44AAAC0 -> buildBlock (xA4, x4A, xAA, xC0)
xA511987A -> buildBlock (xA5, x11, x98, x7A)
xA70FC148 -> buildBlock (xA7, x0F, xC1, x48)
xA93BD410 -> buildBlock (xA9, x3B, xD4, x10)
xAAAAAAAA -> buildBlock (xAA, xAA, xAA, xAA)
xAB00FFCD -> buildBlock (xAB, x00, xFF, xCD)
xAB01FCCD -> buildBlock (xAB, x01, xFC, xCD)
xAB6EED4A -> buildBlock (xAB, x6E, xED, x4A)
xABEEED6B -> buildBlock (xAB, xEE, xED, x6B)
xACBC13DD -> buildBlock (xAC, xBC, x13, xDD)
xB1CC1CC5 -> buildBlock (xB1, xCC, x1C, xC5)
xB8142629 -> buildBlock (xB8, x14, x26, x29)
xB99A62DE -> buildBlock (xB9, x9A, x62, xDE)
xBA92DB12 -> buildBlock (xBA, x92, xDB, x12)
xBBA57835 -> buildBlock (xBB, xA5, x78, x35)
xBE9F0917 -> buildBlock (xBE, x9F, x09, x17)
xBF2D7D85 -> buildBlock (xBF, x2D, x7D, x85)
xBFEF7FDF -> buildBlock (xBF, xEF, x7F, xDF) % MAA special constant 'C'
xC1ED90DD -> buildBlock (xC1, xED, x90, xDD)
xC21A1846 -> buildBlock (xC2, x1A, x18, x46)
xC4EB1AEB -> buildBlock (xC4, xEB, x1A, xEB)
xC6B1317E -> buildBlock (xC6, xB1, x31, x7E)
xCBC865BA -> buildBlock (xCB, xC8, x65, xBA)
xCD959B46 -> buildBlock (xCD, x95, x9B, x46)
xD0482465 -> buildBlock (xD0, x48, x24, x65)
xD636250D -> buildBlock (xD6, x36, x25, x0D)
xD7843FDC -> buildBlock (xD7, x84, x3F, xDC)
xD78634BC -> buildBlock (xD7, x86, x34, xBC)
xD8804CA5 -> buildBlock (xD8, x80, x4C, xA5)
xDB79FBDC -> buildBlock (xDB, x79, xFB, xDC)
xDB9102B0 -> buildBlock (xDB, x91, x02, xB0)
xE0C08000 -> buildBlock (xE0, xC0, x80, x00)
xE6A12F07 -> buildBlock (xE6, xA1, x2F, x07)
xEB35B97F -> buildBlock (xEB, x35, xB9, x7F)
xF0239DD5 -> buildBlock (xF0, x23, x9D, xD5)
xF14D6E28 -> buildBlock (xF1, x4D, x6E, x28)
xF2EF3501 -> buildBlock (xF2, xEF, x35, x01)
xF6A09667 -> buildBlock (xF6, xA0, x96, x67)
xFD297DA4 -> buildBlock (xFD, x29, x7D, xA4)
xFDC1A8BA -> buildBlock (xFD, xC1, xA8, xBA)
xFE4E5BDD -> buildBlock (xFE, x4E, x5B, xDD)
xFEA1D334 -> buildBlock (xFE, xA1, xD3, x34)
xFECCAA6E -> buildBlock (xFE, xCC, xAA, x6E)
xFEFC07F0 -> buildBlock (xFE, xFC, x07, xF0)
xFF2D7DA5 -> buildBlock (xFF, x2D, x7D, xA5)
xFFEF0001 -> buildBlock (xFF, xEF, x00, x01)
xFFFF00FF -> buildBlock (xFF, xFF, x00, xFF)
xFFFFFF2D -> buildBlock (xFF, xFF, xFF, x2D)
xFFFFFF3A -> buildBlock (xFF, xFF, xFF, x3A)
xFFFFFFF0 -> buildBlock (xFF, xFF, xFF, xF0)
xFFFFFFF1 -> buildBlock (xFF, xFF, xFF, xF1)
xFFFFFFF4 -> buildBlock (xFF, xFF, xFF, xF4)
xFFFFFFF5 -> buildBlock (xFF, xFF, xFF, xF5)
xFFFFFFF7 -> buildBlock (xFF, xFF, xFF, xF7)
xFFFFFFF9 -> buildBlock (xFF, xFF, xFF, xF9)
xFFFFFFFA -> buildBlock (xFF, xFF, xFF, xFA)
xFFFFFFFB -> buildBlock (xFF, xFF, xFF, xFB)
xFFFFFFFC -> buildBlock (xFF, xFF, xFF, xFC)
xFFFFFFFD -> buildBlock (xFF, xFF, xFF, xFD)
xFFFFFFFE -> buildBlock (xFF, xFF, xFF, xFE)
xFFFFFFFF -> buildBlock (xFF, xFF, xFF, xFF)
Definitions for sort BlockSum
-----------------------------
We now define sort that stores the result of the addition of two blocks. Values of this sort are 33-bit words, made up using the constructor that gathers one bit for the carry and a block for the sum. The five principal non-constructors for this sort are (which tests equality), (which adds two blocks and returns both a carry bit and a 32-bit sum), (which is derived from the former one by dropping the carry bit), and (which are similar to the former one but take half-word arguments that are converted to blocks before summation); the other non-constructors are auxiliary functions implementing a 32-bit adder built using four 8-bit adders.
SORTS
BlockSum
CONS
buildBlockSum : Bit Block -> BlockSum
OPNS
eqBlockSum : BlockSum BlockSum -> Bool
addBlockSum : Block Block -> BlockSum
addBlock4 : Octet Octet Octet Octet Octet Octet Octet Octet -> BlockSum
addBlock3 : Octet Octet Octet Octet Octet Octet OctetSum -> BlockSum
addBlock2 : Octet Octet Octet Octet OctetSum Octet -> BlockSum
addBlock1 : Octet Octet OctetSum Octet Octet -> BlockSum
addBlock0 : OctetSum Octet Octet Octet -> BlockSum
dropCarryBlockSum : BlockSum -> Block
addBlock : Block Block -> Block
addBlockHalf : Half Block -> Block
addBlockHalves : Half Half -> Block
VARS
B B' Bcarry : Bit
O1 O2 O3 O4 O'1 O'2 O'3 O'4 O"1 O"2 O"3 O"4 : Octet
W W' : Block
RULES
eqBlockSum (buildBlockSum (B, W), buildBlockSum (B', W'))
-> andBool (eqBit (B, B'), eqBlock (W, W'))
addBlockSum (buildBlock (O1, O2, O3, O4), buildBlock (O'1, O'2, O'3, O'4))
-> addBlock4 (O1, O'1, O2, O'2, O3, O'3, O4, O'4)
addBlock4 (O1, O'1, O2, O'2, O3, O'3, O4, O'4)
-> addBlock3 (O1, O'1, O2, O'2, O3, O'3, addOctetSum (O4, O'4, x0))
addBlock3 (O1, O'1, O2, O'2, O3, O'3, buildOctetSum (Bcarry, O"4))
-> addBlock2 (O1, O'1, O2, O'2, addOctetSum (O3, O'3, Bcarry); O"4)
addBlock2 (O1, O'1, O2, O'2, buildOctetSum (Bcarry, O"3); O"4)
-> addBlock1 (O1, O'1, addOctetSum (O2, O'2, Bcarry); O"3, O"4)
addBlock1 (O1, O'1, buildOctetSum (Bcarry, O"2); O"3, O"4)
-> addBlock0 (addOctetSum (O1, O'1, Bcarry); O"2, O"3, O"4)
addBlock0 (buildOctetSum (Bcarry, O"1); O"2, O"3, O"4)
-> buildBlockSum (Bcarry, buildBlock (O"1, O"2, O"3, O"4))
dropCarryBlockSum (buildBlockSum (Bcarry, W)) -> W
addBlock (W, W') -> dropCarryBlockSum (addBlockSum (W, W'))
addBlockHalf (buildHalf (O1, O2), W)
-> addBlock (buildBlock (x00, x00, O1, O2), W)
addBlockHalves (buildHalf (O1, O2), buildHalf (O'1, O'2))
-> addBlock (buildBlock (x00, x00, O1, O2), buildBlock (x00, x00, O'1, O'2))
Definitions for sort Pair
-------------------------
We now define 64-bit words (named “pairs” according to the MAA terminology) using a constructor that takes two blocks and returns a pair. The two principal non-constructors for this sort are (which tests equality) and (which takes two blocks and computes their 64-bit product); the other non-constructors are auxiliary functions implementing a 32-bit multiplier built using four 16-bit multipliers.
SORTS
Pair
CONS
buildPair : Block Block -> Pair
% the first argument of buildPair contain the most significant bits
OPNS
eqPair : Pair Pair -> Bool
mulBlock : Block Block -> Pair
mulBlockA : Block Block Block Block -> Pair
mulBlock4 : Half Half Half Half Half Half Half Half -> Pair
mulBlock3 : Half Half Half Half Block Half -> Pair
mulBlock2 : Half Block Half Half -> Pair
mulBlock1 : Block Half Half Half -> Pair
mulBlockB : Half Half Half Half -> Pair
VARS
O1 O2 O3 O4 O'1 O'2 O'3 O'4 : Octet
O1U O1L O2U O2L O3U O3L O4U O4L : Octet
H"2 H"3 H"4 : Half
H11U H11L H12U H12L H21U H21L H22U H22L : Half
W W1 W2 W'1 W'2 : Block
W11 W12 W21 W22 : Block
RULES
eqPair (buildPair (W1, W2), buildPair (W'1, W'2))
-> andBool (eqBlock (W1, W'1), eqBlock (W2, W'2))
mulBlock (W1, W2)
-> mulBlockA (mulHalf (HalfU (W1), HalfU (W2)), mulHalf (HalfU (W1), HalfL (W2)),
mulHalf (HalfL (W1), HalfU (W2)), mulHalf (HalfL (W1), HalfL (W2)))
mulBlockA (W11, W12, W21, W22)
-> mulBlock4 (HalfU (W11), HalfL (W11), HalfU (W12), HalfL (W12),
HalfU (W21), HalfL (W21); HalfU (W22); HalfL (W22))
mulBlock4 (H11U, H11L, H12U, H12L, H21U, H21L; H22U; H"4)
-> mulBlock3 (H11U, H11L, H12U, H21U;
addBlockHalf (H12L, addBlockHalves (H21L, H22U)); H"4)
mulBlock3 (H11U, H11L, H12U, H21U; W; H"4)
-> mulBlock2 (H11U; addBlockHalf (HalfU (W),
addBlockHalf (H11L, addBlockHalves (H12U, H21U))); HalfL (W), H"4)
mulBlock2 (H11U; W; H"3, H"4)
-> mulBlock1 (addBlockHalves (HalfU (W), H11U); HalfL (W), H"3, H"4)
mulBlock1 (W; H"2, H"3, H"4)
-> mulBlockB (HalfL (W), H"2, H"3, H"4) % assert eqHalf (HalfU (W), x0000)
mulBlockB (buildHalf (O1U, O1L), buildHalf (O2U, O2L),
buildHalf (O3U, O3L), buildHalf (O4U, O4L))
-> buildPair (buildBlock (O1U, O1L, O2U, O2L), buildBlock (O3U, O3L, O4U, O4L))
Definitions for sort Key {#ANNEX-REC-SPECIFIC}
------------------------
We now define a sort that is intended to represent the 64-bit keys $(J, K)$ used by the MAA. This sort has a constructor that takes two blocks and returns a key. In [@Munster-91-a], keys are represented using the sort , but we prefer introducing a dedicated sort to clearly distinguish between keys and, e.g., results of the multiplication of two blocks.
SORTS
Key
CONS
buildKey : Block Block -> Key
% the 1st argument of buildKey was noted J in the MAA specification
% the 2nd argument of buildKey was noted K in the MAA specification
Definitions for sort Message {#ANNEX-REC-MESSAGE}
----------------------------
We now define messages, which are non-empty lists of blocks built using two constructors and ; there are three non-constructors for this sort: (which inserts a block at the end of a list), (which reverses a list), and (which generates a message of a given length, the blocks of which follow an arithmetic progression).
SORTS
Message
CONS
unitMessage : Block -> Message
consMessage : Block Message -> Message
OPNS
appendMessage : Message Block -> Message
reverseMessage : Message -> Message
makeMessage : Nat Block Block -> Message
VARS
M M' : Message
W W' : Block
RULES
appendMessage (unitMessage (W), W') -> consMessage (W, unitMessage (W'))
appendMessage (consMessage (W, M), W') -> consMessage (W, appendMessage (M, W'))
reverseMessage (unitMessage (W)) -> unitMessage (W)
reverseMessage (consMessage (W, M)) -> appendMessage (reverseMessage (M), W)
makeMessage (succ (N), W, W')
-> unitMessage (W) if eqNat (N, zero) -><- true
makeMessage (succ (N), W, W')
-> consMessage (W, makeMessage (N, ADD (W, W'), W')) if eqNat (N, zero) -><- false
If needed, the two conditional rules could be eliminated by modifying the definition of as follows:
makeMessage (succ (zero), W, W')
-> unitMessage (W)
makeMessage (succ (succ (N)), W, W')
-> consMessage (W, makeMessage (succ (N), ADD (W, W'), W'))
Definitions for sort SegmentedMessage {#SEGMENTS}
-------------------------------------
We now define segmented messages, which are non-empty lists of messages, each message containing up to 1204 octets (i.e., 256 blocks). Values of this sort are built using two constructors and ; the principal non-constructor is , which converts a message into a segmented message.
SORTS
SegmentedMessage
CONS
unitSegment : Message -> SegmentedMessage
consSegment : Message SegmentedMessage -> SegmentedMessage
OPNS
splitSegment : Message -> SegmentedMessage
cutSegment : Message Message Nat -> SegmentedMessage
VARS
M M' : Message
N : Nat
S : SegmentedMessage
W : Block
RULES
splitSegment (unitMessage (W)) -> unitSegment (unitMessage (W))
splitSegment (consMessage (W, M)) -> cutSegment (M, unitMessage (W), n254)
cutSegment (unitMessage (W), M', N)
-> unitSegment (reverseMessage (consMessage (W, M')))
cutSegment (consMessage (W, M), M', zero)
-> consSegment (reverseMessage (consMessage (W, M')), splitSegment (M))
cutSegment (consMessage (W, M), M', succ (N))
-> cutSegment (M, consMessage (W, M'), N)
Definitions (1) of MAA-specific cryptographic functions
-------------------------------------------------------
We now define a first set of functions to be used for MAA computations, most of which were present in [@Davies-Clayden-88] or have been later introduced in [@Munster-91-a]. Operations , , , , and are merely aliases of already-defined functions on Blocks; operations and are just auxiliary functions.
OPNS
ADD : Block Block -> Block
AND : Block Block -> Block
MUL : Block Block -> Pair
OR : Block Block -> Block
XOR : Block Block -> Block
XOR' : Pair -> Block
CYC : Block -> Block
nCYC : Nat Block -> Block
FIX1 : Block -> Block
FIX2 : Block -> Block
needAdjust : Octet -> Bool
adjustCode : Octet -> Bit
adjust : Octet Octet -> Octet
PAT : Block Block -> Octet
BYT : Block Block -> Pair
BYT' : Octet Octet Octet Octet Octet Octet Octet Octet Octet -> Pair
ADDC : Block Block -> Pair
ADDC' : BlockSum -> Pair
VARS
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 : Bit
B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 B16 : Bit
B17 B18 B19 B20 B21 B22 B23 B24 : Bit
B25 B26 B27 B28 B29 B30 B31 B32 : Bit
O O' : Octet
W W' : Block
RULES
ADD (W, W') -> addBlock (W, W')
AND (W, W') -> andBlock (W, W')
MUL (W, W') -> mulBlock (W, W')
OR (W, W') -> orBlock (W, W')
XOR (W, W') -> xorBlock (W, W')
XOR' (buildPair (W, W')) -> XOR (W, W')
CYC (buildBlock (buildOctet (B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8),
buildOctet (B9, B10, B11, B12, B13, B14, B15, B16),
buildOctet (B17, B18, B19, B20, B21, B22, B23, B24),
buildOctet (B25, B26, B27, B28, B29, B30, B31, B32)))
-> buildBlock (buildOctet (B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8, B9),
buildOctet (B10, B11, B12, B13, B14, B15, B16, B17),
buildOctet (B18, B19, B20, B21, B22, B23, B24, B25),
buildOctet (B26, B27, B28, B29, B30, B31, B32, B1))
nCYC (zero, W) -> W
nCYC (succ (N), W) -> CYC (nCYC (N, W))
FIX1 (W) -> AND (OR (W, x02040801), xBFEF7FDF) % A = x02040801, C = xBFEF7FDF
FIX2 (W) -> AND (OR (W, x00804021), x7DFEFBFF) % B = x00804021, D = x7DFEFBFF
needAdjust (O) -> orBool (eqOctet (O, x00), eqOctet (O, xFF))
adjustCode (O) -> x1 if needAdjust (O) -><- true
adjustCode (O) -> x0 if needAdjust (O) -><- false
adjust (O, O') -> xorOctet (O, O') if needAdjust (O) -><- true
adjust (O, O') -> O if needAdjust (O) -><- false
PAT (buildBlock (O1, O2, O3, O4), buildBlock (O'1, O'2, O'3, O'4))
-> buildOctet (adjustCode (O1), adjustCode (O2),
adjustCode (O3), adjustCode (O4),
adjustCode (O'1), adjustCode (O'2),
adjustCode (O'3), adjustCode (O'4))
BYT (buildBlock (O1, O2, O3, O4), buildBlock (O'1, O'2, O'3, O'4))
-> BYT' (O1, O2, O3, O4, O'1, O'2, O'3, O'4,
PAT (buildBlock (O1, O2, O3, O4), buildBlock (O'1, O'2, O'3, O'4)))
BYT' (O1, O2, O3, O4, O'1, O'2, O'3, O'4, Opat)
-> buildPair (buildBlock (adjust (O1, rightOctet7 (Opat)),
adjust (O2, rightOctet6 (Opat)),
adjust (O3, rightOctet5 (Opat)),
adjust (O4, rightOctet4 (Opat))),
buildBlock (adjust (O'1, rightOctet3 (Opat)),
adjust (O'2, rightOctet2 (Opat)),
adjust (O'3, rightOctet1 (Opat)),
adjust (O'4, Opat)))
ADDC (W, W') -> ADDC' (addBlockSum (W, W'))
ADDC' (buildBlockSum (x0, W)) -> buildPair (x00000000, W)
ADDC' (buildBlockSum (x1, W)) -> buildPair (x00000001, W)
If needed, the four conditional rules could be eliminated by introducing two auxiliary functions and and modifying the definitions of and as follows:
OPNS
adjustCode' : Bool -> Bit
adjust' : Octet Octet Bool -> Octet
RULES
adjustCode (O) -> adjustCode' (needAdjust (O))
adjustCode' (true) -> x1
adjustCode' (false) -> x0
adjust (O, O') -> adjust' (O, O', needAdjust (O))
adjust (O, O', true) -> xorOctet (O, O')
adjust (O, O', false) -> O
Definitions (2) of MAA-specific cryptographic functions
-------------------------------------------------------
We now define a second set of functions, namely the “multiplicative” functions used for MAA computations. The three principal operations are , , and ; the other ones are auxiliary functions.
OPNS
MUL1 : Block Block -> Block
MUL1XY : Pair -> Block
MUL1UL : Block Block -> Block
MUL1SC : Pair -> Block
MUL2 : Block Block -> Block
MUL2XY : Pair -> Block
MUL2UL : Block Block -> Block
MUL2DEL : Pair Block -> Block
MUL2FL : Block Block -> Block
MUL2SC : Pair -> Block
MUL2A : Block Block -> Block
MUL2AXY : Pair -> Block
MUL2AUL : Block Block -> Block
MUL2ADL : Block Block -> Block
MUL2ASC : Pair -> Block
VARS
W W' Wcarry : Block
RULES
MUL1 (W, W') -> MUL1XY (MUL (W, W'))
MUL1XY (buildPair (W, W')) -> MUL1UL (W, W')
MUL1UL (W, W') -> MUL1SC (ADDC (W, W'))
MUL1SC (buildPair (Wcarry, W)) -> ADD (W, Wcarry)
MUL2 (W, W') -> MUL2XY (MUL (W, W'))
MUL2XY (buildPair (W, W')) -> MUL2UL (W, W')
MUL2UL (W, W') -> MUL2DEL (ADDC (W, W), W')
MUL2DEL (buildPair (Wcarry, W), W') -> MUL2FL (ADD (W, ADD (Wcarry, Wcarry)), W')
MUL2FL (W, W') -> MUL2SC (ADDC (W, W'))
MUL2SC (buildPair (Wcarry, W)) -> ADD (W, ADD (Wcarry, Wcarry))
MUL2A (W, W') -> MUL2AXY (MUL (W, W'))
MUL2AXY (buildPair (W, W')) -> MUL2AUL (W, W')
MUL2AUL (W, W') -> MUL2ADL (ADD (W, W), W')
MUL2ADL (W, W') -> MUL2ASC (ADDC (W, W'))
MUL2ASC (buildPair (Wcarry, W)) -> ADD (W, ADD (Wcarry, Wcarry))
Definitions (3) of MAA-specific cryptographic functions
-------------------------------------------------------
We now define a third set of functions used for MAA computations.
OPNS
squareHalf : Half -> Block
Q : Octet -> Block
H4 : Block -> Block
H6 : Block -> Block
H8 : Block -> Block
H0 : Block -> Block
H5 : Block Octet -> Block
H7 : Block -> Block
H9 : Block -> Block
J1_2 : Block -> Block
J1_4 : Block -> Block
J1_6 : Block -> Block
J1_8 : Block -> Block
J2_2 : Block -> Block
J2_4 : Block -> Block
J2_6 : Block -> Block
J2_8 : Block -> Block
K1_2 : Block -> Block
K1_4 : Block -> Block
K1_5 : Block -> Block
K1_7 : Block -> Block
K1_9 : Block -> Block
K2_2 : Block -> Block
K2_4 : Block -> Block
K2_5 : Block -> Block
K2_7 : Block -> Block
K2_9 : Block -> Block
VARS
H : Half
O : Octet
W : Block
RULES
squareHalf (H) -> mulHalf (H, H)
Q (O) -> squareHalf (addHalf (buildHalf (x00, O), x0001))
J1_2 (W) -> MUL1 (W, W)
J1_4 (W) -> MUL1 (J1_2 (W), J1_2 (W))
J1_6 (W) -> MUL1 (J1_2 (W), J1_4 (W))
J1_8 (W) -> MUL1 (J1_2 (W), J1_6 (W))
J2_2 (W) -> MUL2 (W, W)
J2_4 (W) -> MUL2 (J2_2 (W), J2_2 (W))
J2_6 (W) -> MUL2 (J2_2 (W), J2_4 (W))
J2_8 (W) -> MUL2 (J2_2 (W), J2_6 (W))
K1_2 (W) -> MUL1 (W, W)
K1_4 (W) -> MUL1 (K1_2 (W), K1_2 (W))
K1_5 (W) -> MUL1 (W, K1_4 (W))
K1_7 (W) -> MUL1 (K1_2 (W), K1_5 (W))
K1_9 (W) -> MUL1 (K1_2 (W), K1_7 (W))
K2_2 (W) -> MUL2 (W, W)
K2_4 (W) -> MUL2 (K2_2 (W), K2_2 (W))
K2_5 (W) -> MUL2 (W, K2_4 (W))
K2_7 (W) -> MUL2 (K2_2 (W), K2_5 (W))
K2_9 (W) -> MUL2 (K2_2 (W), K2_7 (W))
H4 (W) -> XOR (J1_4 (W), J2_4 (W))
H6 (W) -> XOR (J1_6 (W), J2_6 (W))
H8 (W) -> XOR (J1_8 (W), J2_8 (W))
H0 (W) -> XOR (K1_5 (W), K2_5 (W))
H5 (W, O) -> MUL2 (H0 (W), Q (O))
H7 (W) -> XOR (K1_7 (W), K2_7 (W))
H9 (W) -> XOR (K1_9 (W), K2_9 (W))
Definitions (4) of MAA-specific cryptographic functions
-------------------------------------------------------
We now define the higher-level functions that implement the MAA algorithm, namely the prelude, the inner loop, and the coda; the two principal functions are (which computes the signature of a non-segmented message) and (which splits a message into 1024-byte segments and computes the overall signature of this message by iterating on each segment, the 4-byte signature of each segment being prepended to the bytes of the next segment).
OPNS
preludeXY : Block Block -> Pair
preludeVW : Block Block -> Pair
preludeST : Block Block -> Pair
preludeXY' : Pair Octet -> Pair
preludeVW' : Pair -> Pair
preludeST' : Pair -> Pair
computeXY : Pair Pair Block -> Pair
computeXY' : Pair Block Block -> Pair
computeVW : Pair -> Pair
loop1 : Pair Pair Message -> Pair
loop2 : Pair Pair Message -> Pair
coda : Pair Pair Pair -> Block
MAA : Key Message -> Block
MAA' : Pair Pair Pair Message -> Block
MAC : Key Message -> Block
MACfirst : Key SegmentedMessage -> Block
MACnext : Key Block SegmentedMessage -> Block
VARS
K : Key
O : Block
M : Message
P P' P1 P2 P3 : Pair
S : SegmentedMessage
W W' W1 W2 : Block
RULES
% functions implementing the MAA prelude
preludeXY (W1, W2) -> preludeXY' (BYT (W1, W2), PAT (W1, W2))
preludeVW (W1, W2) -> preludeVW' (BYT (W1, W2))
preludeST (W1, W2) -> preludeST' (BYT (W1, W2))
preludeXY' (buildPair (W, W'), O) -> BYT (H4 (W), H5 (W', O))
preludeVW' (buildPair (W, W')) -> BYT (H6 (W), H7 (W'))
preludeST' (buildPair (W, W')) -> BYT (H8 (W), H9 (W'))
% functions implementing the MAA inner loop
computeXY (P, P', W) -> computeXY' (P, W, XOR' (computeVW (P')))
computeXY' (buildPair (W1, W2), W, W')
-> buildPair (MUL1 (XOR (W1, W), FIX1 (ADD (XOR (W2, W), W'))),
MUL2A (XOR (W2, W), FIX2 (ADD (XOR (W1, W), W'))))
computeVW (buildPair (W1, W2)) -> buildPair (CYC (W1), W2)
loop1 (P, P', unitMessage (W)) -> computeXY (P, P', W)
loop1 (P, P', consMessage (W, M)) -> loop1 (computeXY (P, P', W), computeVW (P'), M)
loop2 (P, P', unitMessage (W)) -> computeVW (P')
loop2 (P, P', consMessage (W, M)) -> loop2 (computeXY (P, P', W), computeVW (P'), M)
% function implementing the MAA coda
coda (P, P', buildPair (W, W'))
-> XOR' (computeXY (computeXY (P, P', W), computeVW (P'), W'))
% functions computing the MAA on non-segmented messages
MAA (buildKey (W1, W2), M)
-> MAA' (preludeXY (W1, W2), preludeVW (W1, W2), preludeST (W1, W2), M)
MAA' (P1, P2, P3, M) -> coda (loop1 (P1, P2, M), loop2 (P1, P2, M), P3)
% functions computing the MAC on segmented messages
MAC (K, M) -> MACfirst (K, splitSegment (M))
MACfirst (K, unitSegment (M)) -> MAA (K, M)
MACfirst (K, consSegment (M, S)) -> MACnext (K, MAA (K, M), S)
MACnext (K, W, unitSegment (M)) -> MAA (K, consMessage (W, M))
MACnext (K, W, consSegment (M, S)) -> MACnext (K, MAA (K, consMessage (W, M)), S)
Test vectors (1) for checking MAA computations
----------------------------------------------
We now define a first set of test vectors for the MAA. The following expressions implement the checks listed in Tables 1, 2, and 3 of [@Davies-Clayden-88] and should all evaluate to if the MAA functions are correctly implemented.
% test vectors for function MUL1 - cf. Table 1
eqBlock (MUL1 (x0000000F, x0000000E), x000000D2)
eqBlock (MUL1 (xFFFFFFF0, x0000000E), xFFFFFF2D)
eqBlock (MUL1 (xFFFFFFF0, xFFFFFFF1), x000000D2)
% test vectors for function MUL2 - cf. Table 1
eqBlock (MUL2 (x0000000F, x0000000E), x000000D2)
eqBlock (MUL2 (xFFFFFFF0, x0000000E), xFFFFFF3A)
eqBlock (MUL2 (xFFFFFFF0, xFFFFFFF1), x000000B6)
% test vectors for function MUL2A - cf. Table 1
eqBlock (MUL2A (x0000000F, x0000000E), x000000D2)
eqBlock (MUL2A (xFFFFFFF0, x0000000E), xFFFFFF3A)
eqBlock (MUL2A (x7FFFFFF0, xFFFFFFF1), x800000C2)
eqBlock (MUL2A (xFFFFFFF0, x7FFFFFF1), x000000C4)
% test vectors for function BYT - cf. Table 2
eqPair (BYT (x00000000, x00000000), buildPair (x0103070F, x1F3F7FFF))
eqPair (BYT (xFFFF00FF, xFFFFFFFF), buildPair (xFEFC07F0, xE0C08000))
eqPair (BYT (xAB00FFCD, xFFEF0001), buildPair (xAB01FCCD, xF2EF3501))
% test vectors for function PAT - cf. Table 2
eqOctet (PAT (x00000000, x00000000), xFF)
eqOctet (PAT (xFFFF00FF, xFFFFFFFF), xFF)
eqOctet (PAT (xAB00FFCD, xFFEF0001), x6A)
% test vectors for functions J1_i - cf. Table 3
eqBlock (J1_2 (x00000100), x00010000)
eqBlock (J1_4 (x00000100), x00000001)
eqBlock (J1_6 (x00000100), x00010000)
eqBlock (J1_8 (x00000100), x00000001)
% test vectors for functions J2_i - cf. Table 3
eqBlock (J2_2 (x00000100), x00010000)
eqBlock (J2_4 (x00000100), x00000002)
eqBlock (J2_6 (x00000100), x00020000)
eqBlock (J2_8 (x00000100), x00000004)
% test vectors for functions Hi - cf. Table 3
eqBlock (H4 (x00000100), x00000003)
eqBlock (H6 (x00000100), x00030000)
eqBlock (H8 (x00000100), x00000005)
% test vectors for functions K1_i - cf. Table 3
eqBlock (K1_2 (x00000080), x00004000)
eqBlock (K1_4 (x00000080), x10000000)
eqBlock (K1_5 (x00000080), x00000008)
eqBlock (K1_7 (x00000080), x00020000)
eqBlock (K1_9 (x00000080), x80000000)
% test vectors for functions K2_i - cf. Table 3
eqBlock (K2_2 (x00000080), x00004000)
eqBlock (K2_4 (x00000080), x10000000)
eqBlock (K2_5 (x00000080), x00000010)
eqBlock (K2_7 (x00000080), x00040000)
eqBlock (K2_9 (x00000080), x00000002)
% test vectors for functions Hi - cf. Table 3
eqBlock (H0 (x00000080), x00000018)
eqBlock (Q (x01), x00000004)
eqBlock (H5 (x00000080, x01), x00000060)
eqBlock (H7 (x00000080), x00060000)
eqBlock (H9 (x00000080), x80000002)
% test vectors for function PAT - cf. Table 3
eqOctet (PAT (x00000003, x00000060), xEE)
eqOctet (PAT (x00030000, x00060000), xBB)
eqOctet (PAT (x00000005, x80000002), xE6)
% test vectors for function BYT - inferred from Table 3
eqPair (BYT (x00000003, x00000060), buildPair (x01030703, x1D3B7760)) % (X0, Y0)
eqPair (BYT (x00030000, x00060000), buildPair (x0103050B, x17065DBB)) % (V0, W)
eqPair (BYT (x00000005, x80000002), buildPair (x01030705, x80397302)) % (S, T)
Test vectors (2) for checking MAA computations
----------------------------------------------
We now define a second set of test vectors for the MAA, based upon Table 4 of [@Davies-Clayden-88]. The following expressions implement six groups of checks (three single-block messages and one three-block message). They should all evaluate to if the main loop of MAA (as described page 10 of [@Davies-Clayden-88]) is correctly implemented.
% test vectors for the first single-block message
eqBlock (CYC (x00000003), x00000006) % V
eqBlock (XOR (x00000006, x00000003), x00000005) % E
eqBlock (XOR (x00000002, x00000005), x00000007) % X
eqBlock (XOR (x00000003, x00000005), x00000006) % Y
eqBlock (ADD (x00000005, x00000006), x0000000B) % F
eqBlock (ADD (x00000005, x00000007), x0000000C) % G
eqBlock (OR (x0000000B, x00000004), x0000000F) % F
eqBlock (OR (x0000000C, x00000001), x0000000D) % G
eqBlock (AND (x0000000F, xFFFFFFF7), x00000007) % F
eqBlock (AND (x0000000D, xFFFFFFFB), x00000009) % G
eqBlock (MUL1 (x00000007, x00000007), x00000031) % X
eqBlock (MUL2A (x00000006, x00000009), x00000036) % Y
eqBlock (XOR (x00000031, x00000036), x00000007) % Z
% test vectors for the second single-block message
eqBlock (CYC (x00000003), x00000006) % V
eqBlock (XOR (x00000006, x00000003), x00000005) % E
eqBlock (XOR (xFFFFFFFD, x00000001), xFFFFFFFC) % X
eqBlock (XOR (xFFFFFFFC, x00000001), xFFFFFFFD) % Y
eqBlock (ADD (x00000005, xFFFFFFFD), x00000002) % F
eqBlock (ADD (x00000005, xFFFFFFFC), x00000001) % G
eqBlock (OR (x00000002, x00000001), x00000003) % F
eqBlock (OR (x00000001, x00000004), x00000005) % G
eqBlock (AND (x00000003, xFFFFFFF9), x00000001) % F
eqBlock (AND (x00000005, xFFFFFFFC), x00000004) % G
eqBlock (MUL1 (xFFFFFFFC, x00000001), xFFFFFFFC) % X
eqBlock (MUL2A (xFFFFFFFD, x00000004), xFFFFFFFA) % Y
eqBlock (XOR (xFFFFFFFC, xFFFFFFFA), x00000006) % Z
% test vectors for the third single-block message
eqBlock (CYC (x00000007), x0000000E) % V
eqBlock (XOR (x0000000E, x00000007), x00000009) % E
eqBlock (XOR (xFFFFFFFD, x00000008), xFFFFFFF5) % X
eqBlock (XOR (xFFFFFFFC, x00000008), xFFFFFFF4) % Y
eqBlock (ADD (x00000009, xFFFFFFF4), xFFFFFFFD) % F
eqBlock (ADD (x00000009, xFFFFFFF5), xFFFFFFFE) % G
eqBlock (OR (xFFFFFFFD, x00000001), xFFFFFFFD) % F
eqBlock (OR (xFFFFFFFE, x00000002), xFFFFFFFE) % G
eqBlock (AND (xFFFFFFFD, xFFFFFFFE), xFFFFFFFC) % F
eqBlock (AND (xFFFFFFFE, x7FFFFFFD), x7FFFFFFC) % G
eqBlock (MUL1 (xFFFFFFF5, xFFFFFFFC), x0000001E) % X
eqBlock (MUL2A (xFFFFFFF4, x7FFFFFFC), x0000001E) % Y
eqBlock (XOR (x0000001E, x0000001E), x00000000) % Z
% test vectors for three-block message: first block
eqBlock (CYC (x00000001), x00000002) % V
eqBlock (XOR (x00000002, x00000001), x00000003) % E
eqBlock (XOR (x00000001, x00000000), x00000001) % X
eqBlock (XOR (x00000002, x00000000), x00000002) % Y
eqBlock (ADD (x00000003, x00000002), x00000005) % F
eqBlock (ADD (x00000003, x00000001), x00000004) % G
eqBlock (OR (x00000005, x00000002), x00000007) % F
eqBlock (OR (x00000004, x00000001), x00000005) % G
eqBlock (AND (x00000007, xFFFFFFFB), x00000003) % F
eqBlock (AND (x00000005, xFFFFFFFB), x00000001) % G
eqBlock (MUL1 (x00000001, x00000003), x00000003) % X
eqBlock (MUL2A (x00000002, x00000001), x00000002) % Y
eqBlock (XOR (x00000003, x00000002), x00000001) % Z
% test vectors for the three-block message: second block
eqBlock (CYC (x00000002), x00000004) % V
eqBlock (XOR (x00000004, x00000001), x00000005) % E
eqBlock (XOR (x00000003, x00000001), x00000002) % X
eqBlock (XOR (x00000002, x00000001), x00000003) % Y
eqBlock (ADD (x00000005, x00000003), x00000008) % F
eqBlock (ADD (x00000005, x00000002), x00000007) % G
eqBlock (OR (x00000008, x00000002), x0000000A) % F
eqBlock (OR (x00000007, x00000001), x00000007) % G
eqBlock (AND (x0000000A, xFFFFFFFB), x0000000A) % F
eqBlock (AND (x00000007, xFFFFFFFB), x00000003) % G
eqBlock (MUL1 (x00000002, x0000000A), x00000014) % X
eqBlock (MUL2A (x00000003, x00000003), x00000009) % Y
eqBlock (XOR (x00000014, x00000009), x0000001D) % Z
% test vectors for three-block message: third block
eqBlock (CYC (x00000004), x00000008) % V
eqBlock (XOR (x00000008, x00000001), x00000009) % E
eqBlock (XOR (x00000014, x00000002), x00000016) % X
eqBlock (XOR (x00000009, x00000002), x0000000B) % Y
eqBlock (ADD (x00000009, x0000000B), x00000014) % F
eqBlock (ADD (x00000009, x00000016), x0000001F) % G
eqBlock (OR (x00000014, x00000002), x00000016) % F
eqBlock (OR (x0000001F, x00000001), x0000001F) % G
eqBlock (AND (x00000016, xFFFFFFFB), x00000012) % F
eqBlock (AND (x0000001F, xFFFFFFFB), x0000001B) % G
eqBlock (MUL1 (x00000016, x00000012), x0000018C) % X
eqBlock (MUL2A (x0000000B, x0000001B), x00000129) % Y
eqBlock (XOR (x0000018C, x00000129), x000000A5) % Z
We complete the above tests with additional test vectors taken from [@ISO-8730:1990 Annex E.3.3], which only gives detailed values for the first block of the 84-block test message.
% test vectors for block x0A202020 with key (J = xE6A12F07, K = x9D15C437)
eqBlock (CYC (xC4EB1AEB), x89D635D7) % V
eqBlock (XOR (x89D635D7, xF6A09667), x7F76A3B0) % E
eqBlock (XOR (x21D869BA, x0A202020), x2BF8499A) % X
eqBlock (XOR (x7792F9D4, x0A202020), x7DB2D9F4) % Y
eqBlock (ADD (x7F76A3B0, x7DB2D9F4), xFD297DA4) % F
eqBlock (ADD (x7F76A3B0, x2BF8499A), xAB6EED4A) % G
eqBlock (OR (xFD297DA4, x02040801), xFF2D7DA5) % F
eqBlock (OR (xAB6EED4A, x00804021), xABEEED6B) % G
eqBlock (AND (xFF2D7DA5, xBFEF7FDF), xBF2D7D85) % F
eqBlock (AND (xABEEED6B, x7DFEFBFF), x29EEE96B) % G
eqBlock (MUL1 (x2BF8499A, xBF2D7D85), x0AD67E20) % X
eqBlock (MUL2A (x7DB2D9F4, x29EEE96B), x30261492) % Y
Test vectors (3) for checking MAA computations
----------------------------------------------
We now define a third set of test vectors for the MAA, based upon Table 5 of [@Davies-Clayden-88]. The following expressions implement four groups of checks, with two different keys and two different messages. They should all evaluate to if the MAA signature is correctly computed.
% test vectors of the first column of Table 5
% key (J = x00FF00FF, K = x00000000), message (M1 = x55555555, M2 = xAAAAAAAA)
eqOctet (PAT (x00FF00FF, x00000000), xFF) % P
eqPair (preludeXY (x00FF00FF, x00000000),
buildPair (x4A645A01, x50DEC930)) % (X0, Y0)
eqPair (preludeVW (x00FF00FF, x00000000),
buildPair (x5CCA3239, xFECCAA6E)) % (VO, W)
eqPair (preludeST (x00FF00FF, x00000000),
buildPair (x51EDE9C7, x24B66FB5)) % (S, T)
eqPair (computeXY' (buildPair (x4A645A01, x50DEC930), x55555555,
XOR (nCYC (n1, x5CCA3239), xFECCAA6E)), % 1st iteration
buildPair (x48B204D6, x5834A585)) % (X, Y)
eqPair (computeXY' (buildPair (x48B204D6, x5834A585), xAAAAAAAA,
XOR (nCYC (n2, x5CCA3239), xFECCAA6E)), % 2nd iteration
buildPair (x4F998E01, xBE9F0917)) % (X, Y)
eqPair (computeXY' (buildPair (x4F998E01, xBE9F0917), x51EDE9C7,
XOR (nCYC (n3, x5CCA3239), xFECCAA6E)), % coda: use of S
buildPair (x344925FC, xDB9102B0)) % (X, Y)
eqPair (computeXY' (buildPair (x344925FC, xDB9102B0), x24B66FB5,
XOR (nCYC (n4, x5CCA3239), xFECCAA6E)), % coda: use of T
buildPair (x277B4B25, xD636250D)) % (X, Y)
eqBlock (XOR (x277B4B25, xD636250D), xF14D6E28) % Z (i.e., MAA)
% test vectors of the second column of Table 5
% key (J = x00FF00FF, K = x00000000), message (M1 = x55555555, M2 = xAAAAAAAA)
eqOctet (PAT (x00FF00FF, x00000000), xFF) % P
eqPair (preludeXY (x00FF00FF, x00000000),
buildPair (x4A645A01, x50DEC930)) % (X0, Y0)
eqPair (preludeVW (x00FF00FF, x00000000),
buildPair (x5CCA3239, xFECCAA6E)) % (VO, W)
eqPair (preludeST (x00FF00FF, x00000000),
buildPair (x51EDE9C7, x24B66FB5)) % (S, T)
eqPair (computeXY' (buildPair (x4A645A01, x50DEC930), xAAAAAAAA,
XOR (nCYC (n1, x5CCA3239), xFECCAA6E)), % 1st iteration
buildPair (x6AEBACF8, x9DB15CF6)) % (X, Y)
eqPair (computeXY' (buildPair (x6AEBACF8, x9DB15CF6), x55555555,
XOR (nCYC (n2, x5CCA3239), xFECCAA6E)), % 2nd iteration
buildPair (x270EEDAF, xB8142629)) % (X, Y)
eqPair (computeXY' (buildPair (x270EEDAF, xB8142629), x51EDE9C7,
XOR (nCYC (n3, x5CCA3239), xFECCAA6E)), % coda: use of S
buildPair (x29907CD8, xBA92DB12)) % (X, Y)
eqPair (computeXY' (buildPair (x29907CD8, xBA92DB12), x24B66FB5,
XOR (nCYC (n4, x5CCA3239), xFECCAA6E)), % coda: use of T
buildPair (x28EAD8B3, x81D10CA3)) % (X, Y)
eqBlock (XOR (x28EAD8B3, x81D10CA3), xA93BD410) % Z (i.e., MAA)
% test vectors of the third column of Table 5
% key (J = x55555555, K = x5A35D667), message (M1 = x00000000, M2 = xFFFFFFFF)
eqOctet (PAT (x55555555, x5A35D667), x00) % P
eqPair (preludeXY (x55555555, x5A35D667),
buildPair (x34ACF886, x7397C9AE)) % (X0, Y0)
eqPair (preludeVW (x55555555, x5A35D667),
buildPair (x7201F4DC, x2829040B)) % (VO, W)
eqPair (preludeST (x55555555, x5A35D667),
buildPair (x9E2E7B36, x13647149)) % (S, T)
eqPair (computeXY' (buildPair (x34ACF886, x7397C9AE), x00000000,
XOR (nCYC (n1, x7201F4DC), x2829040B)), % 1st iteration
buildPair (x2FD76FFB, x550D91CE)) % (X, Y)
eqPair (computeXY' (buildPair (x2FD76FFB, x550D91CE), xFFFFFFFF,
XOR (nCYC (n2, x7201F4DC), x2829040B)), % 2nd iteration
buildPair (xA70FC148, x1D10D8D3)) % (X, Y)
eqPair (computeXY' (buildPair (xA70FC148, x1D10D8D3), x9E2E7B36,
XOR (nCYC (n3, x7201F4DC), x2829040B)), % coda: use of S
buildPair (xB1CC1CC5, x29C1485F)) % (X, Y)
eqPair (computeXY' (buildPair (xB1CC1CC5, x29C1485F), x13647149,
XOR (nCYC (n4, x7201F4DC), x2829040B)), % coda: use of T
buildPair (x288FC786, x9115A558)) % (X, Y)
eqBlock (XOR (x288FC786, x9115A558), xB99A62DE) % Z (i.e., MAA)
% test vectors of the fourth column of Table 5
% key (J = x55555555, K = x5A35D667), message (M1 = xFFFFFFFF, M2 = x00000000)
eqOctet (PAT (x55555555, x5A35D667), x00) % P
eqPair (preludeXY (x55555555, x5A35D667),
buildPair (x34ACF886, x7397C9AE)) % (X0, Y0)
eqPair (preludeVW (x55555555, x5A35D667),
buildPair (x7201F4DC, x2829040B)) % (VO, W)
eqPair (preludeST (x55555555, x5A35D667),
buildPair (x9E2E7B36, x13647149)) % (S, T)
eqPair (computeXY' (buildPair (x34ACF886, x7397C9AE), xFFFFFFFF,
XOR (nCYC (n1, x7201F4DC), x2829040B)), % 1st iteration
buildPair (x8DC8BBDE, xFE4E5BDD)) % (X, Y)
eqPair (computeXY' (buildPair (x8DC8BBDE, xFE4E5BDD), x00000000,
XOR (nCYC (n2, x7201F4DC), x2829040B)), % 2nd iteration
buildPair (xCBC865BA, x0297AF6F)) % (X, Y)
eqPair (computeXY' (buildPair (xCBC865BA, x0297AF6F), x9E2E7B36,
XOR (nCYC (n3, x7201F4DC), x2829040B)), % coda: use of S
buildPair (x3CF3A7D2, x160EE9B5)) % (X, Y)
eqPair (computeXY' (buildPair (x3CF3A7D2, x160EE9B5), x13647149,
XOR (nCYC (n4, x7201F4DC), x2829040B)), % coda: use of T
buildPair (xD0482465, x7050EC5E)) % (X, Y)
eqBlock (XOR (xD0482465, x7050EC5E), xA018C83B) % Z (i.e., MAA)
We complete the above tests with additional test vectors taken from [@ISO-8730:1990 Annex E.3.3], which gives prelude results computed for another key.
% key (J = xE6A12F07, K = x9D15C437)
eqPair (preludeXY (xE6A12F07, x9D15C437),
buildPair (x21D869BA, x7792F9D4)) % (X0, Y0)
eqPair (preludeVW (xE6A12F07, x9D15C437),
buildPair (xC4EB1AEB, xF6A09667)) % (VO, W)
eqPair (preludeST (xE6A12F07, x9D15C437),
buildPair (x6D67E884, xA511987A)) % (S, T)
Test vectors (4) for checking MAA computations
----------------------------------------------
We define a last set of test vectors for the MAA. The first one (a message of 20 blocks containing only zeros) was directly taken from Table 6 of [@Davies-Clayden-88].
eqPair (computeXY' (buildPair (x204E80A7, x077788A2), x00000000,
XOR (nCYC (n1, x17A808FD), xFEA1D334)), % 1st iteration
buildPair (x303FF4AA, x1277A6D4)) % (X, Y)
eqPair (computeXY' (buildPair (x303FF4AA, x1277A6D4), x00000000,
XOR (nCYC (n2, x17A808FD), xFEA1D334)), % 2nd iteration
buildPair (x55DD063F, x4C49AAE0)) % (X, Y)
eqPair (computeXY' (buildPair (x55DD063F, x4C49AAE0), x00000000,
XOR (nCYC (n3, x17A808FD), xFEA1D334)), % 3rd iteration
buildPair (x51AF3C1D, x5BC02502)) % (X, Y)
eqPair (computeXY' (buildPair (x51AF3C1D, x5BC02502), x00000000,
XOR (nCYC (n4, x17A808FD), xFEA1D334)), % 4th iteration
buildPair (xA44AAAC0, x63C70DBA)) % (X, Y)
eqPair (computeXY' (buildPair (xA44AAAC0, x63C70DBA), x00000000,
XOR (nCYC (n5, x17A808FD), xFEA1D334)), % 5th iteration
buildPair (x4D53901A, x2E80AC30)) % (X, Y)
eqPair (computeXY' (buildPair (x4D53901A, x2E80AC30), x00000000,
XOR (nCYC (n6, x17A808FD), xFEA1D334)), % 6th iteration
buildPair (x5F38EEF1, x2A6091AE)) % (X, Y)
eqPair (computeXY' (buildPair (x5F38EEF1, x2A6091AE), x00000000,
XOR (nCYC (n7, x17A808FD), xFEA1D334)), % 7th iteration
buildPair (xF0239DD5, x3DD81AC6)) % (X, Y)
eqPair (computeXY' (buildPair (xF0239DD5, x3DD81AC6), x00000000,
XOR (nCYC (n8, x17A808FD), xFEA1D334)), % 8th iteration
buildPair (xEB35B97F, x9372CDC6)) % (X, Y)
eqPair (computeXY' (buildPair (xEB35B97F, x9372CDC6), x00000000,
XOR (nCYC (n9, x17A808FD), xFEA1D334)), % 9th iteration
buildPair (x4DA124A1, xC6B1317E)) % (X, Y)
eqPair (computeXY' (buildPair (x4DA124A1, xC6B1317E), x00000000,
XOR (nCYC (n10, x17A808FD), xFEA1D334)), % 10th iteration
buildPair (x7F839576, x74B39176)) % (X, Y)
eqPair (computeXY' (buildPair (x7F839576, x74B39176), x00000000,
XOR (nCYC (n11, x17A808FD), xFEA1D334)), % 11th iteration
buildPair (x11A9D254, xD78634BC)) % (X, Y)
eqPair (computeXY' (buildPair (x11A9D254, xD78634BC), x00000000,
XOR (nCYC (n12, x17A808FD), xFEA1D334)), % 12th iteration
buildPair (xD8804CA5, xFDC1A8BA)) % (X, Y)
eqPair (computeXY' (buildPair (xD8804CA5, xFDC1A8BA), x00000000,
XOR (nCYC (n13, x17A808FD), xFEA1D334)), % 13th iteration
buildPair (x3F6F7248, x11AC46B8)) % (X, Y)
eqPair (computeXY' (buildPair (x3F6F7248, x11AC46B8), x00000000,
XOR (nCYC (n14, x17A808FD), xFEA1D334)), % 14th iteration
buildPair (xACBC13DD, x33D5A466)) % (X, Y)
eqPair (computeXY' (buildPair (xACBC13DD, x33D5A466), x00000000,
XOR (nCYC (n15, x17A808FD), xFEA1D334)), % 15th iteration
buildPair (x4CE933E1, xC21A1846)) % (X, Y)
eqPair (computeXY' (buildPair (x4CE933E1, xC21A1846), x00000000,
XOR (nCYC (n16, x17A808FD), xFEA1D334)), % 16th iteration
buildPair (xC1ED90DD, xCD959B46)) % (X, Y)
eqPair (computeXY' (buildPair (xC1ED90DD, xCD959B46), x00000000,
XOR (nCYC (n17, x17A808FD), xFEA1D334)), % 17th iteration
buildPair (x3CD54DEB, x613F8E2A)) % (X, Y)
eqPair (computeXY' (buildPair (x3CD54DEB, x613F8E2A), x00000000,
XOR (nCYC (n18, x17A808FD), xFEA1D334)), % 18th iteration
buildPair (xBBA57835, x07C72EAA)) % (X, Y)
eqPair (computeXY' (buildPair (xBBA57835, x07C72EAA), x00000000,
XOR (nCYC (n19, x17A808FD), xFEA1D334)), % 19th iteration
buildPair (xD7843FDC, x6AD6E8A4)) % (X, Y)
eqPair (computeXY' (buildPair (xD7843FDC, x6AD6E8A4), x00000000,
XOR (nCYC (n20, x17A808FD), xFEA1D334)), % 20th iteration
buildPair (x5EBA06C2, x91896CFA)) % (X, Y)
eqPair (computeXY' (buildPair (x5EBA06C2, x91896CFA), x76232E5F,
XOR (nCYC (n21, x17A808FD), xFEA1D334)), % coda: use of S
buildPair (x1D9C9655, x98D1CC75)) % (X, Y)
eqPair (computeXY' (buildPair (x1D9C9655, x98D1CC75), x4FB1138A,
XOR (nCYC (n22, x17A808FD), xFEA1D334)), % coda: use of T
buildPair (x7BC180AB, xA0B87B77)) % (X, Y)
eqBlock (MAC (buildKey (x80018001, x80018000),
makeMessage (n20, x00000000, x00000000)), xDB79FBDC)
We believe that the test vector above is not sufficient to detect implementation mistakes arising from byte permutations (e.g., endianness issues) or incorrect segmentation of messages longer than 1024 bytes (i.e., 256 blocks). To address these issues, we added three supplementary test vectors that operate on messages of 16, 256, and 4100 blocks containing bit patterns not preserved by permutations.
eqBlock (MAC (buildKey (x80018001, x80018000),
makeMessage (n16, x00000000, x07050301)), x8CE37709)
eqBlock (MAC (buildKey (x80018001, x80018000),
makeMessage (n256, x00000000, x07050301)), x717153D5)
eqBlock (MAC (buildKey (x80018001, x80018000),
makeMessage (n4100, x00000000, x07050301)), x7783C51D)
Possible variants
-----------------
The REC specification given in the present Annex could be enhanced in two directions that diverge from the modelling choices originally done in [@Munster-91-a] and could be given as exercises to students:
- At present, the function is called several times when computing the MAC value for a given message; precisely, this function is called for every 256-block segment of the message. This is neither useful nor efficient. Propose a modification of the REC specification to ensure that the function is called only once per message.
- Before computing the MAC value for a given message, the REC specification converts this message into a segmented message by calling the function. Actually, such a preliminary duplication of message contents is not mandatory and could be avoided. Propose a modification of the REC specification in which the sort and all the definitions of Section \[SEGMENTS\] are removed, so that the MAC value is directly computed using a one-pass traversal of the message list, from its head to its tail, still taking the MAA “mode of operation” into account.
[^1]: The names and are borrowed from [@Munster-91-a pages 36 and 77].
[^2]: <http://gforge.inria.fr/scm/viewvc.php/rec/2015-CONVECS>
[^3]: <http://www.cix.co.uk/~klockstone>
[^4]: We used the French version of this standard, but we believe that the language plays no role, as the same mistakes were already present in the 1988 NPL report.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.