text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
abstract: |
We present a new algorithm that computes eigenvalues and eigenvectors of a Hermitian positive definite matrix while solving a linear system of equations with Conjugate Gradient (CG). Traditionally, all the CG iteration vectors could be saved and recombined through the eigenvectors of the tridiagonal projection matrix, which is equivalent theoretically to unrestarted Lanczos. Our algorithm capitalizes on the iteration vectors produced by CG to update only a small window of vectors that approximate the eigenvectors. While this window is restarted in a locally optimal way, the CG algorithm for the linear system is unaffected. Yet, in all our experiments, this small window converges to the required eigenvectors at a rate identical to unrestarted Lanczos. After the solution of the linear system, eigenvectors that have not accurately converged can be improved in an incremental fashion by solving additional linear systems. In this case, eigenvectors identified in earlier systems can be used to deflate, and thus accelerate, the convergence of subsequent systems.
We have used this algorithm with excellent results in lattice QCD applications, where hundreds of right hand sides may be needed. Specifically, about 70 eigenvectors are obtained to full accuracy after solving 24 right hand sides. Deflating these from the large number of subsequent right hand sides removes the dreaded critical slowdown, where the conditioning of the matrix increases as the quark mass reaches a critical value. Our experiments show almost a constant number of iterations for our method, regardless of quark mass, and speedups of 8 over original CG for light quark masses.
author:
- 'Andreas Stathopoulos [^1]'
- 'Konstantinos Orginos [^2]'
title: 'Computing and deflating eigenvalues while solving multiple right hand side linear systems with an application to Quantum Chromodynamics [^3] '
---
**Keywords:** Hermitian linear systems, multiple right hand sides, eigenvalues, deflation, Lanczos, Conjugate Gradient
Introduction
============
The numerical solution of linear systems of equations of large, sparse matrices is central to many scientific and engineering applications. One of the most computationally demanding applications is lattice Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) because not only does it involve very large matrix sizes but also requires the solution of several linear systems with the same matrix but different right hand sides. Direct methods, although attractive for multiple right hand sides, cannot be used because of the size of the matrix. Iterative methods provide the only means for solving these problems.
QCD is the theory of the fundamental force known as strong interaction, which describes the interactions among quarks, one of the constituents of matter. Lattice QCD is the tool for non-perturbative numerical calculations of these interactions on a Euclidean space-time lattice [@Wilson:1974sk]. The heart of the computations is the solution of the lattice-Dirac equation, which translates to a linear system of equations $Mx = b$, often for a large number of right hand sides [@Foley:2005ac]. The Dirac operator $M$ is $\gamma_5$-Hermitian, or $\gamma_5 M = M^H \gamma_5$, where, in one representation, $\gamma_5$ is a diagonal matrix with 1 and -1 on the diagonal. Also, $M = m_q I- D$, where $m_{q}$ is a parameter related to the quark mass and $D$ is an operator. In addition to solving linear systems of equations, many current approaches [@Foley:2005ac; @Edwards:2001ei; @DeGrand:2004qw; @Giusti:2004yp] require the solution of the eigenvalue problem $(\gamma_5 M)u_i = \lambda_i u_i$, for 100-200 smallest magnitude eigenvalues, $\lambda_i$, and their eigenvectors, $u_i$ (together we call them eigenpairs). Beyond the very large dimension and number of right hand sides, $M$ becomes increasingly ill-conditioned as $m_{q} \rightarrow m_{critical}$. In lattice QCD this is known as critical slowdown and is a limiting computational factor.
Traditionally these linear systems are solved by applying the Conjugate Gradient (CG) on the $A = M^HM$ Hermitian operator. Although there are cases where BICGSTAB on the nonsymmetric operator can be twice as fast [@Frommer_bicgstabdQCD; @Fischer:1996th], in other cases, such as in domain wall fermions, CG is not only the fastest but also the most robust method[^4]. In this paper, we focus on CG for Hermitian systems for two reasons. First, CG is characterized by optimal convergence. Second, the eigenvectors of $A$ are also eigenvectors of $\gamma_5 M$. Hence, after an initial CG phase, computed eigenvectors can be used to deflate BICGSTAB on $\gamma_5 M$ for the rest of the right hand sides.
Solving a linear system with many right hand sides is an outstanding problem. Traditional approaches solve each system one by one. Unknowingly, such methods regenerate search directions within previously explored subspaces, thus wasting iterations in successive right hand sides. Sharing information between systems has long been recognized as the key idea [@CLanczos_bcg]. This is typically performed through seed methods [@VS_EG_95; @TFC_WLW_94; @Saad_87a] or through block methods [@Golub_Underwood_77; @DOLeary_80a; @Guennouni_Jbilou_Sadok]. For Hermitian matrices, a selective sharing of only the useful part of information between systems can be achieved through invariant subspaces. Such ideas have been tried in QCD [@deForcrand:Progress], but effective deflation methods have only appeared recently. In section \[sec:Background\] we review deflation methods that either precompute the required eigenpairs or use a restarted method to compute eigenvectors while solving linear systems. Both approaches, however, are unnecessarily expensive.
In this paper we present an algorithm that computes eigenvalue and eigenvector approximations of a Hermitian operator by reusing information from the [*unrestarted*]{} CG method. This is achieved by keeping a search space that includes current eigenvector approximations and only the last few CG iteration vectors. The crucial step is how we restart this search space to keep computations tractable. The CG iteration is completely unaffected. Our experiments show that eigenvector convergence is similar to unrestarted Lanczos; an impressive achievement yet to be understood theoretically.
Our motivating application is the computation of nucleon-nucleon scattering lengths with all to all propagators, where, for a time discretization between 64 and 128, 1500-3000 right hand sides must be solved. Our algorithms are equally applicable to the more classic problem of computing nucleon form factors using sequential propagators where 120 right hand sides are required. In a first phase, we solve 24 right hand sides with our method. Unconverged eigenvectors from one system improve incrementally during the solution of subsequent systems. In the second phase, after 24 right hand sides, enough eigenvectors have been obtained to significantly reduce the condition number of the deflated matrix in the classic CG. In this phase we observe speedups of 8-9 over the non-deflated CG, and, most importantly, the number of the deflated CG iterations remains almost constant as $m_{q}$ approaches $m_{critical}$, thus removing the critical slowdown.
Background and current approaches {#sec:Background}
=================================
Krylov methods provide one of the most important tools for solving large, general sparse linear systems. An excellent survey of recent developments and discussion on some of the open problems in linear systems appears in [@Valeria_Szyld_RecentDevelopments]. For symmetric (or Hermitian) positive definite (SPD) matrices, CG [@MH_ES_CG] remains the uncontested choice because it uses a three term recurrence to converge optimally, with minimum storage and computational requirements. Even for the Hermitian case, however, it remains an open question as to how best solve a system with many (say $s$) right hand sides, $$Ax_i = b_i,\ i=1,\ldots ,s.$$
One approach is to use block methods which work simultaneously on a set of vectors [@Golub_Underwood_77; @DOLeary_80a; @Guennouni_Jbilou_Sadok]. They have favorable performance characteristics in memory hierarchy computers and usually reduce the number of iterations. However, their implementation is involved as linear dependencies in the block must be removed [@blockQMR]. More importantly, the total execution time often increases and there is no clear theoretical understanding of when to use them and with how large a block size (see [@Gutknecht_website_block; @Gutknecht_block_intro] for a recent review and [@Morgan_Wilcox] for a discussion of block methods in the context of multiple right hand sides and QCD).
The other common approach is the use of seed methods [@VS_EG_95; @TFC_WLW_94; @Saad_87a], which reuse the Krylov subspace generated by one seed system to project the rest. After projection, a new seed system is chosen to iterate to convergence, and the idea is repeated until all systems are solved. Seed methods effectively reduce the number of iterations to solve each successive right hand side when these are highly related. Most seed algorithms do not store the previously generated Krylov spaces. Instead, while solving $Ax_i = b_i$, they project the current Krylov vector from all the approximations $x_j, j=i+1,\ldots ,s$, updating all remaining linear systems at every iteration [@VS_EG_95; @TFC_WLW_94]. Seed and block methods have also been combined [@Misha_seed]. Still, this type of seed methods presents three difficulties: First, the $b_i$ vectors may not be all available at the same time. Second, we consider the contribution of each Krylov vector to all systems. This contribution is usually too small to warrant the additional expense, so the total time may increase. Third, the second problem becomes extreme when the $b_i$ are unrelated.
The above difficulties can be avoided by noticing that for unrelated $b_i$ and for SPD matrices the only improvements from seed methods should come almost entirely from those common subspaces that a Krylov method builds for any starting vector: the extreme invariant subspaces. In particular, the eigenvalues near zero should be targeted as their deflation dramatically decreases the condition number of the matrix. Also, we would like to avoid using an eigensolver to compute those eigenpairs but to reuse the Krylov space built by CG.
For non-Hermitian matrices, the GMRESDR method [@RBMorgan_2002; @Morgan_Wilcox] computes approximate eigenspace information during GMRES($m$) [@GMRES]. In GMRESDR, when the GMRES basis reaches $m$ vectors, it is restarted not only with the residual of the approximate solution of the linear system but also with the $nev < m$ smallest magnitude Ritz pairs. It is known that GMRESDR is equivalent to the Implicitly Restarted Arnoldi [@Sorensen_92], so while GMRESDR solves the linear system, the $nev$ Ritz pairs also converge to the smallest magnitude eigenpairs. This elegant solution transfers also to the Hermitian case, where GMRESDR becomes equivalent to thick restarted Lanczos [@TRLAN; @AS_YS_KW_98].
For Hermitian systems, however, the GMRESDR approach presents three disadvantages. First, it is based on GMRES which is much more expensive per step than CG. Second, restarting GMRES every $m$ steps impairs the optimal convergence of CG. Third, restarting also impairs the convergence of unrestarted Lanczos to the $nev$ required eigenpairs. In the context of this paper, the latter is an important disadvantage, because the eigenspaces may not be obtained at the accuracy required for deflation of other systems. In that case, we would like to incrementally improve on the approximate eigenspace during the solution of subsequent linear systems. This is performed in [@Giraud_incremental], but only for GMRESDR. In Section \[sec:ourmethod\] we present a way to compute eigenpairs from the [*unrestarted*]{} CG. One of the components of our method is similar to a method developed independently by Wang et al. [@Wang_Sturler_Paulino]. As we show later, our method is not only cheaper but by making the appropriate restarting choices it yields practically optimal convergence.
Deflating the CG {#sec:back_initCG}
----------------
Once a set of seed vectors $U$ have been computed, there are several ways to use $U$ to “deflate” subsequent CG runs. Assume that the solution $x$ of the system $Ax = b$ has significant components in $U$. Given an initial guess $\tilde x_0$, we can consider another guess whose $U$ components are removed ahead of time. This is performed by the Galerkin oblique projection [@Saad_linear]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:initCG}
x_0 = \tilde x_0 + U(U^HAU)^{-1}U^H(b-A\tilde x_0).\end{aligned}$$ Then $x_0$ is passed as initial guess to CG. These two steps are often called [@TFC_WLW_94; @Giraud_Ruiz_Touhami_06; @initCG]. The init-CG approach works well when $U$ approximates relatively accurately the eigenvectors with eigenvalues closest to zero.
When $U$ spans an approximate eigenspace that has been computed to $\epsilon$ accuracy, init-CG converges similarly to deflated CG up to $\epsilon$ accuracy for the linear system. After that point, convergence plateaus and eventually becomes similar to the original CG [@Giraud_Ruiz_Touhami_06]. A variety of techniques can be employed to solve this problem: using $U$ as a “spectral preconditioner” [@Erhel_precg_mrhs; @Nicolaides_deflation; @Giraud_spectral; @Brower:1995vx], including $U$ as an explicit orthogonalization constraint in CG [@Kaasschieter; @Wang_Sturler_Paulino], or combinations of methods as reviewed in [@Giraud_Ruiz_Touhami_06]. Typically, these techniques result in convergence which is almost identical to exact deflation, but the cost per iteration increases significantly. In this paper, we focus only on the init-CG method.
Locally optimal restarting for eigensolvers
-------------------------------------------
We conclude this background section with a restarting technique for eigensolvers that plays a central role in the method we develop in this paper. Because the Hermitian eigenvalue problem can be considered a constrained quadratic minimization problem, many eigenvalue methods have been developed as variants of the non-linear Conjugate Gradient (NLCG) method on the Grassman manifold [@EdelmanAriasSmith]. However, it is natural to consider a method that minimizes the Rayleigh quotient on the whole space $\left\{ u^{(m-1)}, u^{(m)}, g^{(m)} \right\},$ instead of only along one search direction. By $\theta^{(m)}, u^{(m)}$ we denote the eigenvalue and eigenvector approximations at the $m$th step and $g^{(m)} = Au^{(m)} - \theta^{(m)} u^{(m)}$ the corresponding residual. The method: $$\begin{aligned}
u^{(m+1)} & = &
\mbox{RayleighRitz}\left(\{ u^{(m-1)}, u^{(m)}, g^{(m)} \}\right),\ m>1,
\label{eq:locg}\end{aligned}$$ is often called locally optimal Conjugate Gradient (LOCG) [@DYAKONOV_83; @Knyazev_91], and seems to consistently outperform other NLCG type methods. For numerical stability, the basis can be kept orthonormal, or $u^{(m)}-\tau^{(m)} u^{(m-1)}$ can be used instead of $u^{(m-1)}$, for some weight $\tau^{(m)}$. The latter is the LOBPCG method [@LOBPCG].
Quasi-Newton methods use the NLCG vector iterates to construct incrementally an approximation to the Hessian, thus accelerating NLCG [@Gill_Murray_Wright]. Similarly, if all the iterates of LOCG are considered, certain forms of quasi-Newton methods are equivalent to unrestarted Lanczos. With thick or implicit restarting, Lanczos loses this single important direction ($u^{(m-1)}$). Therefore, the appropriate way to restart Lanczos or Lanczos-type methods is by subspace acceleration of the LOCG recurrence [@CM_SR_ED_92a; @AS_YS_98]. When looking for $nev$ eigenvalues, the idea can be combined with thick restarting so that the eigensolver search basis is restarted with an orthonormal basis for the following vectors [@AS_YS_98; @JDQMR_One]: $$\begin{aligned}
\left[
u_1^{(m)}, u_2^{(m)}, \ldots , u_{nev}^{(m)}, u_1^{(m-1)}, \ldots ,u_k^{(m-1)}
\right].
\label{eq:restartedV}\end{aligned}$$ An efficient implementation is possible at no additional cost to thick restarting, because all orthogonalization is performed on the small coefficient vectors of the Rayleigh-Ritz procedure [@AS_YS_98]. This technique consistently yields convergence which is almost indistinguishable from the unrestarted method. We see next how this scheme can help us approximate eigenvectors from within CG.
The eigCG method {#sec:ourmethod}
================
The idea is to use an eigenvector search space $V$ within the CG iteration, which is restarted through (\[eq:restartedV\]), but not to let it dictate the next search direction. Instead, we leverage a window of the last $m$ residuals computed by the unrestarted CG to build an appropriately restarted subspace.
Consider the preconditioned CG algorithm in the left box of Figure \[fig:eigCG\]. We will exploit the equivalence of CG and Lanczos and the fact that the Lanczos vectors are the appropriately normalized CG residuals [@GolubVanLoan]. In the general case of an SPD preconditioner, $P\neq I$, the Lanczos method approximates eigenpairs of the symmetric matrix $\hat A = P^{-1/2}AP^{-1/2}$ from the Lanczos basis $P^{-1/2} R = P^{-1/2}[r_1/\rho_1,\ldots ,r_j/\rho_j]$, where $\rho_j = (r_j^Hz_j)^{1/2}$ and $z_j = P^{-1/2}r_j$. Let $\hat U = P^{-1/2}R Y$ and $\hat \Lambda$ be the Lanczos approximations to the eigenvectors and eigenvalues of $\hat A$, respectively. These are exactly the eigenpairs needed to deflate subsequent linear systems with $\hat A$ using (\[eq:initCG\]). The inconvenient $\hat U$ basis can be avoided because CG needs an initial guess $x_0 \approx x$ and not $\hat x_0 \approx P^{1/2}x$. Specifically, let $V = P^{-1}R = [z_1/\rho_1, \ldots ,z_j/\rho_j]$, let $\tilde x_0$ be some approximation to $x$, and $P^{1/2}\tilde x_0$ the corresponding initial guess for the split preconditioned system $\hat A$. If $\hat x_0$ is the deflated initial guess for system $\hat A$ by applying (\[eq:initCG\]) on $P^{1/2}\tilde x_0$, then the initial guess $x_0$ to be given to CG is: $$\begin{aligned}
x_0 = P^{-1/2} \hat x_0
&=& P^{-1/2}(P^{1/2}\tilde x_0 + \hat U \hat \Lambda^{-1} \hat U^H P^{-1/2}
(P^{-1/2}b-P^{-1/2}A\tilde x_0)) \\
&=& \tilde x_0 + P^{-1} RY \hat \Lambda^{-1} Y^HR^H P^{-1}
(b - A\tilde x_0)\\
&=& \tilde x_0 + VY \hat \Lambda^{-1} Y^HV^H (b-A\tilde x_0).\end{aligned}$$ The $Y$ are the eigenvectors corresponding to the eigenvalues $\hat \Lambda$ of the Lanczos tridiagonal matrix $T_m = V^H A V = (P^{-1/2}R)^H \hat A (P^{-1/2}R)$. The $T_m$ is obtained at no extra cost from the scalars $\alpha_j = r_{j-1}^Hz_j / (p_j^HAp_j)$ and $\beta_j = r^H_{j-1}z_{j}/(r_{j-2}^Hz_{j-1})$ computed during the CG iteration [@Saad_linear p.194]: $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{12pt}
T_m = \left[ \begin{array}{ccccc}
1/\alpha_1 & \sqrt{\beta_2}/\alpha_1\\
\sqrt{\beta_2}/\alpha_1 & 1/\alpha_2 +\beta_2/\alpha_1 \\
& & \ddots & & \sqrt{\beta_{m+1}}/\alpha_m\\
& & & \sqrt{\beta_{m+1}}/\alpha_m &
1/\alpha_m + \beta_m/\alpha_{m-1} \\
\end{array}
\right].
\label{eq:tridiagonal}\end{aligned}$$
Traditionally, the Lanczos Ritz values and vectors are computed from $T_m$ at the end of CG. This, however, requires the storage of all $z_j$ or a second CG run to recompute them on the fly, effectively doubling the cost. Moreover, if the number of CG iterations is large, dealing with spurious eigenvalues at the end is expensive. Instead, we introduce an algorithm that restarts the search space for computing eigenvalues but does not restart CG.
The proposed algorithm, eigCG, adds new functionality to CG as shown in Figure \[fig:eigCG\] in a Matlab-like format. It uses a set of $m$ vectors, $V$, to keep track of the lowest $nev$ Ritz vectors (or more accurately the $P^{-1/2}\hat U$) of the matrix $\hat A$. Initially, $V$ is composed of the normalized CG preconditioned residuals $z/\sqrt{r^Hz}$ (step 11.13), and the projection matrix $T_m = V^HAV$ is available from (\[eq:tridiagonal\]) (steps 11.1 and 11.10). When $V$ reaches $m$ vectors, we restart it exactly as we would restart an eigensolver using (\[eq:restartedV\]) with $k=nev$. The Rayleigh Ritz can be applied both on $T_m$ and $T_{m-1}$ to produce Ritz vector coefficients for the last two consecutive steps (step 11.3). We also append a zero row to $\bar Y$ (step 11.4), so that $Y$ and $\bar Y$ have the same dimension $m$. In steps 11.5, 11.6 we use the Rayleigh Ritz again to compute an orthonormal Ritz basis for the space spanned by $[Y, \bar Y]$. In step 11.7 the restarted basis $V$ and its corresponding diagonal projection matrix are computed. Notice $V$ remains orthonormal (or $P$-orthonormal in case of preconditioning). After restarting, eigCG continues to append the CG preconditioned residuals $z$ to $V$, and to extend $T_i$ with the same tridiagonal coefficients. The only exception is the first residual added after restart. It requires a set of inner products, $z^HAV$, to explicitly update the $i+1$ row of matrix $T$. As shown in step 11.8, a matrix vector product can be avoided if we remember the previous vector $t_{prev}$ (step 10.1) and note that $Az = Ap - \beta_j t_{prev}$. After this point, no other extra computation is needed until the next restart ($m-2nev$ iterations).
Computationally, eigCG requires storage for $m$ vectors, but no additional matrix-vector operations or other costs during the CG iterations except at restart. At restart, all operations that involve matrices of size $m$, which includes the orthogonalization at step 11.5, have negligible cost. The only two expenses are: step 11.7 which requires $O(2N\cdot m\cdot 2nev)$ flops for $V (QZ)$, and step 11.8 which requires $O(2N\cdot 2nev)$ flops for $z_j^HAV$. This expense occurs every $(m-2nev)$ iterations, for a total of $$O(4N\cdot nev\cdot (m+1)/(m-2nev)) \mbox{ flops per iteration.}$$ Interestingly, the average cost per step decreases with $m$ and for large enough $m > 10nev$ it approaches $O(4 N nev)$ flops per step. This is the same as the computation of $2nev$ Ritz vectors from the full basis of unrestarted Lanczos. Finally, the extra computations are fully parallelizable: First, the computation $V (QZ)$ incurs no synchronization and can be performed in a cache efficient way with level 3 BLAS routines. Second, the accumulation of the dot products $V^HAz$ can be delayed until the first dot product during the next CG iteration to avoid an extra synchronization.
Convergence and comparison with other methods {#sec:convergence}
---------------------------------------------
In exact arithmetic, the vectors in $V$ remain orthonormal (or $P$-orthonormal in case of preconditioning) as linear combinations of the Lanczos vectors. In floating point arithmetic, the Lanczos property guarantees $z_j \perp V$ and the numerical accuracy of the $T_m$ coefficients until some eigenpairs converge to square root of machine precision ($\sqrt{\epsilon_{mach}}\|A\|$). After that, spurious eigenvalues start to appear in $T_{m}$ but without compromising the accuracy of the correct ones. Converging but unwanted eigenpairs, lying in the high end of the spectrum, pose little stability threat because they are purged at every restart (step 11.7). Nevertheless, we should choose $m$ such that the highest eigenpair does not converge in $m-2nev$ iterations, i.e., between successive restarts. Unless the largest eigenvalues are highly separated, this is not usually an issue.
To avoid spurious wanted eigenvalues, our eigCG algorithm facilitates a straightforward implementation of selective orthogonalization and a cheaper version of partial orthogonalization [@SEP]. For any Ritz vector $Vy$, where $y$ is any column of $Y$, its residual norm can be monitored at no additional cost through the Lanczos property, $\| AVy - \mu_i Vy\| = |\beta_j||y_{m}|$. When $V$ is restarted we can selectively orthogonalize against all those Ritz vectors whose accuracy approaches $\sqrt{\epsilon_{mach}}$. Alternatively, we can simply orthogonalize the CG residual against all the restarted $V$. The additional expense is minimal and the benefits are twofold; spurious eigenvalues are avoided in $T_m$ and the convergence of CG improves as well. We do not further explore this approach in this paper for three reasons; First, to keep the presentation simple and focused on the main eigCG idea; Second, as shown in section \[sec:incremental\], we use eigCG incrementally which resolves spurious issues at a higher level; Third, in our QCD application code we use single precision for all computations except for dot products. Therefore we do not expect any spurious eigenvalues to show up while solving one linear system.
The structure of $T_m$ after restart is reminiscent of the thick restarted Lanczos (TRLAN) [@TRLAN]. However, after the first restart, the residual of TRLAN (equivalently of ARPACK [@arpack] or of GMRESDR [@RBMorgan_2002]) is the residual produced by $2nev$ steps of [*some other Lanczos process with a different initial vector. Our residuals continue to be the Lanczos vectors of the original CG/Lanczos process.*]{} Therefore, the convergence of the CG is unaffected. Also, eigenvalue convergence in eigCG is expected to be different from TRLAN or GMRESDR.
Recently, the recycled MINRES (RMINRES) algorithm was developed independently in [@Wang_Sturler_Paulino]. It is based on the same technique of reusing some of the MINRES residuals in a basis $V$. The critical difference with eigCG is that RMINRES restarts as in TRLAN by keeping only the $nev$ harmonic Ritz vectors closest to zero and not the previous directions (i.e., $k=0$ in (\[eq:restartedV\])). As a result, [*eigenvalues converge only to a very low accuracy and then stagnate*]{}. This is acceptable in [@Wang_Sturler_Paulino] because their application involves systems of slightly varying matrices which cannot be deflated exactly by each other’s eigenvectors. Moreover, RMINRES tries to identify and maintain directions that tend to repeat across Krylov subspaces of different linear systems. To be effective, the basis $V$ must be kept orthogonal to these vectors, thus increasing the expense of its MINRES iteration. Our eigCG focuses on getting the eigenvectors accurately which can later be deflated inexpensively with init-CG.
The use of Rayleigh Ritz and thick restart guarantee monotonic convergence of the $nev$ Ritz values from $V$. Beyond that, it is not obvious why eigCG should converge to any eigenpairs, let alone with a convergence rate identical to that of unrestarted Lanczos! With thick restarting alone (as in RMINRES) the important information that is discarded cannot be reintroduced in $V$ as future residuals of the unrestarted CG are orthogonal to it. By using the restarting of eq. (\[eq:restartedV\]), with modest $nev$ values, almost all Lanczos information regarding the $nev$ eigenpairs is kept in condensed form in $V$. Then, the new CG residuals do in fact represent the steepest descent for our Ritz vectors, and eigCG behaves like unrestarted Lanczos.
The left graph of Figure \[fig:eigCG\_conv\] shows residual convergence for the smallest eigenpair under various eigCG($nev,m$) runs on a matrix of size $12\times 8^4 = 49152$ that represents the spectrum of a typical Wilson fermion matrix with light quark mass. The eigCG(1,3) holds only three vectors in $V$, which cannot capture the information well, and stagnates. Keeping as few as three Ritz vectors (eigCG(3,9)) improves the stagnation point dramatically, while with eight Ritz vectors we were able to reach accuracy of 1e-12. The figure only shows convergence until step 1540 which is where the linear system converged. It is remarkable, however, that until it reaches the stagnation point eigCG converges at the rate of unrestarted, fully reorthogonalized Lanczos. We have observed the same property for all $8$ smallest eigenvalues, whose convergence is depicted in the right graph in Figure \[fig:eigCG\_conv\]. A theoretical analysis of this surprising behavior will be the focus of our future research.
![Left graph: eigCG convergence with various values of ($nev,m$), matching unrestarted Lanczos. Right graph: convergence of 8 smallest eigenpairs of eigCG(8,20).[]{data-label="fig:eigCG_conv"}](history_plot "fig:"){width=".5\textwidth"} ![Left graph: eigCG convergence with various values of ($nev,m$), matching unrestarted Lanczos. Right graph: convergence of 8 smallest eigenpairs of eigCG(8,20).[]{data-label="fig:eigCG_conv"}](history_nevs "fig:"){width=".5\textwidth"}
Figure \[fig:comparisons\] compares the effectiveness of eigCG in approximating many eigenpairs to those of the competing GMRESDR and RecycledCG methods (the latter implementing the RMINRES ideas on CG). The experiments are run on a Wilson Fermion lattice of size $12\times 12^4$ with periodic boundary conditions and quark mass equal to the critical mass. We use odd-even preconditioning (which yields a matrix of half the size) and focus on the symmetric normal equations. We run the experiments in Matlab 7.5, on a Mac Pro, dual processor, dual-core, 3 GHz Intel Xeon. We test eigCG(10,50), GMRESDR(55,34), and RecycledCG(50,30) so that all methods have similar memory requirements. We plot the residual norms of the 10 smallest eigenvalues computed by the three methods at 830, 1000, and 1100 matrix-vector products. GMRESDR is effective at computing the lowest three eigenvalues but the accuracy of the rest does not seem to improve with further iterations. RecycledCG cannot improve the low accuracy obtained early during the iteration. Our method not only computes more accurate and more eigenvalues than both other methods, it also continues to improve them with more iterations. Moreover, GMRESDR took 1168 iterations and 1505 seconds to solve the linear system to accuracy $10^{-8}$, while eigCG took 1010 iterations and 410 seconds. Thus, eigCG was 3.7 times faster, while also computing a much better eigenspace.
![Accuracy of 10 smallest eigenvalues computed by eigCG(10,50), GMRESDR(55,34), and RecycledCG(50,30) methods, at 830, 1000, and 1100 iterations. For each method and case, smallest eigenvalues correspond to leftmost bars. []{data-label="fig:comparisons"}](SymEvalAccur_EigCG_GMRESDR_recycled){width="\textwidth"}
For comparison, we also report some results from running the GMRESDR directly on the nonsymmetric Dirac operator. This is sometimes reported to be twice as fast as CG on the normal equations because it avoids the squaring of the condition number. However, such results are often obtained from heavier quark masses, where the problem is not as difficult or interesting. In our $12\times12^4$ problem, and with the same accuracy and computational platform, GMRESDR(55,34) took 1000 iterations and 1120 seconds. GMRESDR(85,60) improved convergence to 585 iterations, but its execution time was still 1001 seconds. For low quark masses, as in our case, GMRESDR is not only slower than eigCG, but it has more difficulty computing accurate eigenpairs even with more memory as shown in Figure \[fig:GMRESDR\].
![Accuracy of 10 smallest magnitude eigenvalues computed by GMRESDR(55,34) and GMRESDR(85,60), at 585, 1000, and 2200 iterations on the nonsymmetric operator. GMRESDR(85,60) is not reported at 2200 MV since it reached machine precision much earlier. []{data-label="fig:GMRESDR"}](NSymEvalAccur_GMRESDR_55_85){width="80.00000%"}
Incrementally increasing eigenvector accuracy and number {#sec:incremental}
========================================================
When the CG iteration converges before equally accurate eigenvectors can be obtained, these eigenvectors cannot deflate effectively the CG for the next right hand side. Deflating with the eigenvectors obtained in the example of Figure \[fig:eigCG\_conv\] yielded 10% faster convergence in the next linear system. As we mentioned earlier, using the resulting $V$ as a spectral preconditioner is much more effective, resulting in 50% faster convergence in the same example. Still, we would like to avoid this expense on every step of CG, and more importantly to obtain more eigenvectors of $A$ for more effective deflation.
A simple outer scheme can be designed that calls eigCG for $s_1 < s$ right hand sides and accumulates the resulting $nev$ approximate Ritz vectors from each run into a larger set, $U$.
If we assume that $U$ contains converged eigenvectors, the Ritz vectors produced in $V$ during the solution of the next linear system will be in the orthogonal complement of span$(U)$, as $x_0$ is deflated of $U$. If some of the vectors in $U$ are not converged enough, the eigCG produces $V$ with directions not only in new eigenvectors but also in directions that complement the unconverged Ritz vectors in $U$. Thus, the accuracy of $U$ incrementally improves up to machine precision as our experiments indicate.
Although it is advisable for computational reasons to keep $m$ large, $nev$ should not be too large because it increases the eigCG cost without providing more than a few good eigenpair approximations from one linear system. Computing many eigenpairs through the Incremental eigCG allows us to choose modest values for $nev$. In our experiments, we used $nev=10$ while larger values did not consistently improve the results. Other dynamic techniques for setting $nev$ based on monitoring eigenvalue separation and convergence are also possible but not explored in this paper.
Computationally, if the number of vectors in $U$ is $l$, the above algorithm costs $nev$ matrix-vector operations and $(4 l nev + 4 nev^2)N + 2 l nev N$ flops of level 3 BLAS for each new system solved. For very large $l$ this time could become noticeable, in which case we could use the following two optimizations. First, we note that orthogonalization of the new vectors is only performed to reduce the conditioning of $H$, so it does not need to be carried out accurately. Moreover, it would suffice to orthogonalize only those Ritz vectors in $V$ with large components in $U$. These can be identified by whether their Ritz values lie within the range of already computed eigenvalues. Second, we could lock accurate eigenvectors out of $U$ so that they do not participate in building the $H$ matrix. Naturally, if the number of right hand sides is large enough, $s \gg s_1$, any of the above costs are amortized by the much faster convergence of the deflated systems for $b_i$, $i > s_1$. Nevertheless, our timings show that the overhead of the incremental part is small even for 240 vectors.
Storage for the total of $l = s_1 nev$ vectors of $U$ is usually not a challenge because it is on the order of the right hand sides or the solutions for the $s$ linear systems (assuming $s \geq s_1 nev$). Moreover, $U$ is not accessed within eigCG or CG, so it can be kept in secondary storage if needed. Still, it would be beneficial computationally and storage-wise if we could limit the size of $U$ to only a certain number of smallest eigenvectors. We have observed that if after augmenting $U$ with $V$, we truncate $U$ to include only a certain number of smallest eigenvectors, the accuracy ceases to increase with $V$ from subsequent systems. Although this problem merits further investigation, in the QCD problems in which we are currently interested the number of right hand sides is large enough to allow us to grow $U$ to a large number.
Numerical experiments
=====================
In this section we present results from two real world applications. After describing the computational platform and applications, we address four issues. In section \[sec:numerical-manyevals\], we study convergence of eigenvalues in the Incremental eigCG. In section \[sec:numerical-initcgworks\], we study the improvement in convergence of the linear systems as bigger spaces are deflated in init-CG. In section \[sec:numerical-noslowdown\], we study the convergence invariance of the resulting deflated init-CG under various quark masses. Finally, in section \[sec:numerical-timings\], we provide timings that show the small overhead and high efficiency of the method on a supercomputing platform.
Chroma implementation and two lattice QCD tests
-----------------------------------------------
We implemented our algorithms in C and interfaced with Chroma, a lattice QCD C++ software base developed at Jefferson National Lab [@Edwards:2004sx]. All our experiments were done in single precision with dot product summations in double precision. In the following three sections, we report tests on an 8 node dual socket, dual core cluster with 4GB of memory per node. The timings in section \[sec:numerical-timings\] are reported from a production all-to-all propagator calculation on 256 processors of the Cray XT4 at NERSC, Lawerence Berkeley National Lab.
The Dirac matrices used in this paper come from two ensembles of an anisotropic, two flavor dynamical Wilson fermion calculation. In both cases the sea pion mass is about 400(36) MeV and the lattice spacing is 0.108(7)fm. The anisotropy factor of the time direction is about 3 and the critical mass was determined to be -0.4188 in all cases. We studied the behavior of our algorithm on several different lattices from these ensembles and found insignificant variation in performance. In one case the lattice size is $16^3 \times 64$ for a matrix size of $N=3,145,728$, while in the other it is $24^3\times 64$ for a matrix size of $N= 10,616,832$. We refer to these cases as 3M and 10M lattices, respectively. The odd-even preconditioned normal equations were solved in both cases with storage requirements about $100N$ per matrix. These ensembles are used in current lattice QCD calculations with more than one hundred right hand sides at Jefferson Lab, hence our algorithmic improvements have direct implications in the cost of currently pursued lattice QCD projects.
In Figure \[fig:eigenvalues\] we present the lowest part of the spectrum for the matrices resulting from the two test lattices and for a range of quark masses. As expected, the lowest eigenvalue becomes smaller as the quark mass approaches the critical quark mass (-0.4188) leading to large condition numbers and to the critical slowdown. However, the more interior an eigenvalue is the lower the rate that it decreases with the mass. This also is expected, because the largest eigenvalue and the average density of the spectrum is a function of the discretization volume and not as much of the quark mass [@Spectral_Gaps_in_QCD]. Therefore, by deflating a sufficient number of lowest eigenvalues not only do we reduce the condition number significantly, but we also make it practically constant regardless of quark mass, thus removing the critical slowdown.
For the 3M lattice, for example, deflating 12 vectors from the lightest masses yields a condition number similar to the heavy mass case -0.4000. For the 10M lattice, about 30 vectors are required for the same effect. These examples show the limitation of all deflation methods, not only eigCG. As eigenvalue density increases with volume, more eigenvalues need to be deflated to achieve a constant condition number. Traditionally, scalability across volumes is the topic of multigrid methods [@Brandt_77; @Brandt_86; @Brower:1991ni; @Brannick:thesis; @Brannick:2006]. Although, our methods are very effective in that direction too, they only guarantee constant time across different masses.
![The smallest eigenvalues for the $M^+M$ positive definite matrix under various quark masses. 80 smallest eigenvalues are shown for the 3M lattice (left graph) and 50 smallest eigenvalues for the 10M lattice (right graph).[]{data-label="fig:eigenvalues"}](3M_Eigenvalues "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} ![The smallest eigenvalues for the $M^+M$ positive definite matrix under various quark masses. 80 smallest eigenvalues are shown for the 3M lattice (left graph) and 50 smallest eigenvalues for the 10M lattice (right graph).[]{data-label="fig:eigenvalues"}](10M_Eigenvalues "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
Eigenvalue convergence in Incremental eigCG {#sec:numerical-manyevals}
-------------------------------------------
In this section, we show how Incremental eigCG improves partially converged eigenpairs and how it produces additional interior eigenpairs. Figure \[fig:Incremental eigCG convergence\] shows the convergence of certain eigenpairs at every outer iteration of the Incremental eigCG for each of the two lattices and for three quark masses. In all cases, we use eigCG(10,100) to solve 24 unrelated right hand sides. After eigCG converges to a system, the computed 10 Ritz vectors augment $U$. We explicitly perform a Rayleigh Ritz on $U$ to report the best eigenvector approximations. We show the convergence of every 10th Ritz pair from the step they were first produced by eigCG and after each outer iteration. For example, the convergence history of the 30th smallest eigenpair is the third curve from the bottom in the graphs. The curve first appears at outer step 3 and improves after the solution of each subsequent system. In all cases, eigenpair approximations continue to converge and more eigenpairs are calculated incrementally with more outer iterations.
The top graphs in Figure \[fig:Incremental eigCG convergence\], which correspond to a very heavy mass and thus a small condition number, show that linear systems converge faster than eigenvectors. Incremental eigCG requires the solution of 10 right hand sides for the 3M lattice and 18 right hand sides for the 10M lattice to achieve machine precision for the first 10 eigenpairs (first bottom curve). One could continue the first eigCG until enough eigenvectors converge, but this would not take advantage of these iterations to solve linear systems. Moreover, deflating only a couple of eigenvalues is sufficient for low condition numbers. As the condition number deteriorates with lighter quark masses (middle and bottom graphs), eigCG takes far more iterations and thus can obtain the smallest 10 eigenvalues to machine precision by solving less than five linear systems. This behavior is consistent with the distribution of the eigenvalues in Figure \[fig:eigenvalues\].
![Convergence of eigenpairs in the outer loop of Incremental eigCG(10,100). A total of 24 linear systems are solved, one per outer iteration. Each curve shows the convergence of the residual norm of the $(10\times i)$-th innermost Ritz vector, which is obtained during the $i$-th outer iteration and improved in iterations $i+1, \ldots ,24$. Typically, residual norms for eigenvalues $(10\times i)+1, \ldots, (10\times i)+9$ fall between the two depicted curves for $(10\times i)$ and $(10\times (i+1))$. Left graphs show results from the 3M lattice and right graphs from the 10M lattice. Matrices coming from three different masses are considered for each lattice; a very heavy mass (top), the sea-quark mass (middle), and a mass close to the critical mass (bottom). Slower CG convergence with lighter masses allows eigenvalues to be found faster. []{data-label="fig:Incremental eigCG convergence"}](3M_Incremental_Accuracy4000 "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} ![Convergence of eigenpairs in the outer loop of Incremental eigCG(10,100). A total of 24 linear systems are solved, one per outer iteration. Each curve shows the convergence of the residual norm of the $(10\times i)$-th innermost Ritz vector, which is obtained during the $i$-th outer iteration and improved in iterations $i+1, \ldots ,24$. Typically, residual norms for eigenvalues $(10\times i)+1, \ldots, (10\times i)+9$ fall between the two depicted curves for $(10\times i)$ and $(10\times (i+1))$. Left graphs show results from the 3M lattice and right graphs from the 10M lattice. Matrices coming from three different masses are considered for each lattice; a very heavy mass (top), the sea-quark mass (middle), and a mass close to the critical mass (bottom). Slower CG convergence with lighter masses allows eigenvalues to be found faster. []{data-label="fig:Incremental eigCG convergence"}](10M_Incremental_Accuracy4000 "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
![Convergence of eigenpairs in the outer loop of Incremental eigCG(10,100). A total of 24 linear systems are solved, one per outer iteration. Each curve shows the convergence of the residual norm of the $(10\times i)$-th innermost Ritz vector, which is obtained during the $i$-th outer iteration and improved in iterations $i+1, \ldots ,24$. Typically, residual norms for eigenvalues $(10\times i)+1, \ldots, (10\times i)+9$ fall between the two depicted curves for $(10\times i)$ and $(10\times (i+1))$. Left graphs show results from the 3M lattice and right graphs from the 10M lattice. Matrices coming from three different masses are considered for each lattice; a very heavy mass (top), the sea-quark mass (middle), and a mass close to the critical mass (bottom). Slower CG convergence with lighter masses allows eigenvalues to be found faster. []{data-label="fig:Incremental eigCG convergence"}](3M_Incremental_Accuracy4125 "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} ![Convergence of eigenpairs in the outer loop of Incremental eigCG(10,100). A total of 24 linear systems are solved, one per outer iteration. Each curve shows the convergence of the residual norm of the $(10\times i)$-th innermost Ritz vector, which is obtained during the $i$-th outer iteration and improved in iterations $i+1, \ldots ,24$. Typically, residual norms for eigenvalues $(10\times i)+1, \ldots, (10\times i)+9$ fall between the two depicted curves for $(10\times i)$ and $(10\times (i+1))$. Left graphs show results from the 3M lattice and right graphs from the 10M lattice. Matrices coming from three different masses are considered for each lattice; a very heavy mass (top), the sea-quark mass (middle), and a mass close to the critical mass (bottom). Slower CG convergence with lighter masses allows eigenvalues to be found faster. []{data-label="fig:Incremental eigCG convergence"}](10M_Incremental_Accuracy4125 "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
![Convergence of eigenpairs in the outer loop of Incremental eigCG(10,100). A total of 24 linear systems are solved, one per outer iteration. Each curve shows the convergence of the residual norm of the $(10\times i)$-th innermost Ritz vector, which is obtained during the $i$-th outer iteration and improved in iterations $i+1, \ldots ,24$. Typically, residual norms for eigenvalues $(10\times i)+1, \ldots, (10\times i)+9$ fall between the two depicted curves for $(10\times i)$ and $(10\times (i+1))$. Left graphs show results from the 3M lattice and right graphs from the 10M lattice. Matrices coming from three different masses are considered for each lattice; a very heavy mass (top), the sea-quark mass (middle), and a mass close to the critical mass (bottom). Slower CG convergence with lighter masses allows eigenvalues to be found faster. []{data-label="fig:Incremental eigCG convergence"}](3M_Incremental_Accuracy4200 "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} ![Convergence of eigenpairs in the outer loop of Incremental eigCG(10,100). A total of 24 linear systems are solved, one per outer iteration. Each curve shows the convergence of the residual norm of the $(10\times i)$-th innermost Ritz vector, which is obtained during the $i$-th outer iteration and improved in iterations $i+1, \ldots ,24$. Typically, residual norms for eigenvalues $(10\times i)+1, \ldots, (10\times i)+9$ fall between the two depicted curves for $(10\times i)$ and $(10\times (i+1))$. Left graphs show results from the 3M lattice and right graphs from the 10M lattice. Matrices coming from three different masses are considered for each lattice; a very heavy mass (top), the sea-quark mass (middle), and a mass close to the critical mass (bottom). Slower CG convergence with lighter masses allows eigenvalues to be found faster. []{data-label="fig:Incremental eigCG convergence"}](10M_Incremental_Accuracy4180 "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
Incremental eigCG finds about the same number of extremal eigenvalues per number of linear systems solved, with a gradual decrease in the rate for more interior eigenpairs, especially with lighter masses (see Figure \[fig:Incremental eigCG convergence\]). The former is expected because eigCG builds a different space for each right hand side, so Incremental eigCG has no information for interior eigenvalues until they are targeted. There are three reasons for the gradual rate decrease. First, the graphs in the figure are shown against the number of linear systems solved so the scale is not representative of the actual work spent to find these eigenvalues. Indeed, later systems are deflated with more vectors in $U$ and so take fewer iterations to solve. Second, deflation does not improve the relative gaps between unconverged eigenvalues, so with fewer iterations eigCG cannot recover as much eigen-information by solving one linear system. Third, as discussed in section \[sec:back\_initCG\] for init-CG, the convergence of interior eigenvalues plateaus when it reaches the accuracy of more extreme deflated eigenvalues. Then, eigCG tries to improve the already computed eigenvectors rather than compute new ones. Loss of orthogonality in CG can also contribute to this. In this paper, we do not seek to alleviate this last problem through spectral preconditioning or by orthogonalization as in RMINRES, because the additional cost for obtaining more interior eigenvalues may not be justified as the exterior eigenvalues determine the condition number to a greater extent. Even so, we show how much can be achieved with no substantial additional cost to CG.
![Residual norm of the 240 Ritz vectors computed at the end of Incremental eigCG on 24 right hand sides. Left graph shows results from the 3M lattice and right graph from the 10M lattice. The three curves correspond to three different quark masses (a heavy, the sea quark, and one close to the critical mass).[]{data-label="fig:final accuracy of eigenvalues"}](3M_finalRitzAccuracy "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} ![Residual norm of the 240 Ritz vectors computed at the end of Incremental eigCG on 24 right hand sides. Left graph shows results from the 3M lattice and right graph from the 10M lattice. The three curves correspond to three different quark masses (a heavy, the sea quark, and one close to the critical mass).[]{data-label="fig:final accuracy of eigenvalues"}](10M_finalRitzAccuracy "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
We conclude this study of eigenvalue convergence by showing in Figure \[fig:final accuracy of eigenvalues\] the residual norms of the 240 computed Ritz vectors after all 24 linear systems have been solved with Incremental eigCG. The graphs show that for heavy masses more interior eigenvalues are found to better accuracy than with lighter masses, but with lighter masses extreme eigenvalues are found to much better accuracy. This is particularly evident in the 10M lattice. We have found that deflating Ritz vectors with residual norm below $\sqrt{\epsilon_{mach}}$ is more effective. Thus, about 80-110 eigenpairs can be deflated for both lattices, except for the 10M lattice with a mass close to critical one. In that case, a spectrally preconditioned eigCG could further improve interior eigenvalues.
Linear system convergence with init-CG {#sec:numerical-initcgworks}
--------------------------------------
![Linear system convergence solving 40 unrelated right hand sides. Left graphs show results from the 3M lattice and right graphs from the 10M lattice. Matrices coming from three different masses are considered for each lattice; a very heavy mass (top), the sea-quark mass (middle), and a mass close to the critical mass (bottom). Incremental eigCG(10,100) is used for the first 24 systems. The final 240 approximate eigenvectors are used in init-CG to solve the rest 24 systems. Restarting CG close to single machine precision resolves any convergence delays associated with init-CG.[]{data-label="fig:Linear_System_Convergence"}](3M_LinSystems_conv_4000 "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} ![Linear system convergence solving 40 unrelated right hand sides. Left graphs show results from the 3M lattice and right graphs from the 10M lattice. Matrices coming from three different masses are considered for each lattice; a very heavy mass (top), the sea-quark mass (middle), and a mass close to the critical mass (bottom). Incremental eigCG(10,100) is used for the first 24 systems. The final 240 approximate eigenvectors are used in init-CG to solve the rest 24 systems. Restarting CG close to single machine precision resolves any convergence delays associated with init-CG.[]{data-label="fig:Linear_System_Convergence"}](10M_LinSystems_conv_4000 "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
![Linear system convergence solving 40 unrelated right hand sides. Left graphs show results from the 3M lattice and right graphs from the 10M lattice. Matrices coming from three different masses are considered for each lattice; a very heavy mass (top), the sea-quark mass (middle), and a mass close to the critical mass (bottom). Incremental eigCG(10,100) is used for the first 24 systems. The final 240 approximate eigenvectors are used in init-CG to solve the rest 24 systems. Restarting CG close to single machine precision resolves any convergence delays associated with init-CG.[]{data-label="fig:Linear_System_Convergence"}](3M_LinSystems_conv_4125 "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} ![Linear system convergence solving 40 unrelated right hand sides. Left graphs show results from the 3M lattice and right graphs from the 10M lattice. Matrices coming from three different masses are considered for each lattice; a very heavy mass (top), the sea-quark mass (middle), and a mass close to the critical mass (bottom). Incremental eigCG(10,100) is used for the first 24 systems. The final 240 approximate eigenvectors are used in init-CG to solve the rest 24 systems. Restarting CG close to single machine precision resolves any convergence delays associated with init-CG.[]{data-label="fig:Linear_System_Convergence"}](10M_LinSystems_conv_4125 "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
![Linear system convergence solving 40 unrelated right hand sides. Left graphs show results from the 3M lattice and right graphs from the 10M lattice. Matrices coming from three different masses are considered for each lattice; a very heavy mass (top), the sea-quark mass (middle), and a mass close to the critical mass (bottom). Incremental eigCG(10,100) is used for the first 24 systems. The final 240 approximate eigenvectors are used in init-CG to solve the rest 24 systems. Restarting CG close to single machine precision resolves any convergence delays associated with init-CG.[]{data-label="fig:Linear_System_Convergence"}](3M_LinSystems_conv_4200 "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} ![Linear system convergence solving 40 unrelated right hand sides. Left graphs show results from the 3M lattice and right graphs from the 10M lattice. Matrices coming from three different masses are considered for each lattice; a very heavy mass (top), the sea-quark mass (middle), and a mass close to the critical mass (bottom). Incremental eigCG(10,100) is used for the first 24 systems. The final 240 approximate eigenvectors are used in init-CG to solve the rest 24 systems. Restarting CG close to single machine precision resolves any convergence delays associated with init-CG.[]{data-label="fig:Linear_System_Convergence"}](10M_LinSystems_conv_4180 "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
Figure \[fig:Linear\_System\_Convergence\] shows the CG convergence history for solving three linear systems for each of the two lattices, each system having 48 right hand sides. For the first 24 right hand sides we use Incremental eigCG(10,100), and for the 24 subsequent systems we use init-CG deflated with the obtained 240 approximate eigenvectors. Therefore, CG convergence is the slowest for the first system without deflation and improves as groups of 10 Ritz vectors are accumulated by Incremental eigCG. As expected from the eigenvalue spectrum of these matrices, there are diminishing returns from deflating an increasing number of eigenvectors. However, these diminishing returns start approximately at the point where the smallest non-deflated eigenvalue becomes relatively invariant of the quark mass used. In Figure \[fig:Linear\_System\_Convergence\] the init-CG used for the final 24 vectors converges in approximately the same number of steps regardless of quark mass, yielding speedups of more than 8 in the most difficult cases.
The Incremental eigCG curves for the first 24 systems show a sublinear convergence behavior which begins at the accuracy at which deflated approximate eigenvectors were obtained. Instead of a plateau, however, we see a gradual deterioration of the rate of convergence because extreme eigenpairs, which have a bigger effect on the condition number, are obtained more accurately than interior ones. For simplicity, we did not address this problem for the first 24 right hand sides during the Incremental eigCG, but only for the 24 subsequent right hand sides to be solved with init-CG. In many applications, including ours, the number of subsequent systems is large so optimizing the initial Incremental eigCG phase may not have a large impact.
For the second phase, we restart the init-CG when the norm of the linear system residual reached within an order of magnitude of machine precision (scaled by the norm of the matrix). As seen in the graphs of the previous section, most deflation benefits come from Ritz vectors with residual norm below this threshold. The graphs in Figure \[fig:Linear\_System\_Convergence\] show that after a short lived peak, the restart completely restores the linear CG convergence. A dynamic way to choose the restart threshold can be devised based on the computed eigenvalues and their residual norms, and balancing the benefits of reducing the condition number with the expense of restarting. Such a technique goes beyond the scope of this paper.
Removing the QCD critical slowdown {#sec:numerical-noslowdown}
----------------------------------
We have run similar experiments with 48 right hand sides for both the 3M and 10M lattices on several matrices coming from a wide range of quark masses; from heavy to below critical. In Figure \[fig:Eigenvalue no Critical Slowdown\] we show how large an eigenvalue we can expect the init-CG algorithm to deflate and how well. This eigenvalue is the denominator of the condition number of the deflated operator. We consider three thresholds 1E-3, 1E-4, and 1E-5 and plot for each matrix the largest eigenvalue returned by Incremental eigCG that has residual norm less than these three thresholds. For the 3M lattice (left graph) we see that lighter masses allow our algorithm to find eigenvalues deeper in the spectrum very accurately. For threshold 1E-3, the eigenvalues identified by Incremental eigCG are very close to 0.009 for all physically meaningful masses. Therefore, we expect similar conditioning and number of iterations regardless of the mass. This is confirmed in Figure \[fig:Iterations no Critical Slowdown\]. We also note the weakening ability of Incremental eigCG to identify interior eigenvalues below the critical mass because of loss of orthogonality in eigCG/init-CG. Similar observations can be made for the 10M lattice, with the exception that the eigenvalues that are accurate to 1E-3 tend to be smaller near the critical mass. Still, the ratio between the 1E-3 accurate eigenvalues at masses -0.4112 (sea quark mass) and -0.4180 (critical) is less than 4, implying a slowdown of no more than two over heavier masses. This is confirmed in Figure \[fig:Iterations no Critical Slowdown\].
![For each quark mass and its corresponding matrix we plot the largest eigenvalue of the 240 computed by Incremental eigCG that has residual norm less than some threshold. Each of the three curves corresponds to a different threshold. []{data-label="fig:Eigenvalue no Critical Slowdown"}](3M_noCriticalSlowdown_evals "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} ![For each quark mass and its corresponding matrix we plot the largest eigenvalue of the 240 computed by Incremental eigCG that has residual norm less than some threshold. Each of the three curves corresponds to a different threshold. []{data-label="fig:Eigenvalue no Critical Slowdown"}](10M_noCriticalSlowdown_evals "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
![For each quark mass and its corresponding matrix we plot the average number of iterations required by init-CG to solve the rest 24 systems. For comparison the number of iterations of the non-deflated CG is reported. []{data-label="fig:Iterations no Critical Slowdown"}](3M_noCrit_Slowdown "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} ![For each quark mass and its corresponding matrix we plot the average number of iterations required by init-CG to solve the rest 24 systems. For comparison the number of iterations of the non-deflated CG is reported. []{data-label="fig:Iterations no Critical Slowdown"}](10M_noCrit_Slowdown "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
Figure \[fig:Iterations no Critical Slowdown\] shows the average number of iterations required by init-CG to solve the 24 right hand sides for the two lattices and for each mass. We also plot the number of iterations required by the non-deflated CG. Speedups close to an order of magnitude are observed and, more importantly, the number of iterations of init-CG is almost constant across meaningful masses. Again, we note that a more fastidious use of spectrally preconditioned eigCG would have resulted in further reduction in iterations, especially for the 10M lattice, but this reduction would have been far less substantial relative to those reported in this paper. Moreover, this would only be needed in the physically non-meaningful range of masses (3M lattice) or very close to the critical mass (10M lattice). Instead, we showed why the critical slowdown can be removed in principle when the number of right hand sides is large and derived an algorithm that achieves this.
Cray XT4 timings {#sec:numerical-timings}
----------------
We have run the 10M lattice on the Cray XT4 at NERSC for a real world, all-to-all propagator calculation [@Foley:2005ac] with time and spatial even-odd dilution. Two different random noise vectors were used for a total of 256 right hand sides. This is a stochastic method of estimating all matrix elements of the quark propagator (i.e. the Dirac matrix inverse). For details regarding all-to-all propagator calculations see [@Kamleh:2005wg]. The quark mass used was $m_{q} = -0.4125$ which is the same as the dynamical quark mass used to generate the gauge configurations. The corresponding pion mass was determined to be roughly 400MeV and the spatial box was about 2.6fm. These are typical parameters in current lattice QCD calculations, although lighter masses would clearly benefit our methods. Our codes are compiled with C++ using the -O2 and loop unrolling flags.
As in our previous experiments we run two phases: First we apply Incremental eigCG(10,100) on the first 24 right hand sides. Second, on the following 232 systems, we apply init-CG deflated by the accumulated 240 vectors in $U$. We also restart the init-CG as in the previous sections, thereby incurring the deflation cost twice.
Table \[tab:timings\] shows the execution times for the two phases and the overall time for the application. We also report times for the original CG code as implemented in Chroma. All codes use the Chroma implementation of the sparse matrix-vector multiplication. The native CG in Chroma implements various architectural optimizations such as SSE vector processing and hand loop unrolling. Our CG implementation achieves an iteration cost only about 2% more expensive than the native Chroma CG. However, the benefits of deflation are far more significant. Linear systems deflated with the 240 vectors are solved 5.4 times faster than regular CG. Moreover, while obtaining these 240 vectors, our algorithm is still 1.6 times faster than if we were to simply run CG. Overall, the application runs with a speedup of 4.2.
------------- ------- ----------- -------- ----------------- --------
Chroma CG 527.9 Chroma CG 5127.2 Chroma CG 5751.5
Incr. eigCG 323.2 init-CG 951.2 Incr. eigCG 1365.8
speedup 1.6 speedup 5.4 overall speedup 4.2
------------- ------- ----------- -------- ----------------- --------
: Execution times in seconds for phase 1 where we apply Incremental eigCG, for phase 2 where we switch to init-CG, and for the whole application that includes also about 90 seconds of application setup time. We also show the times from using the original CG in Chroma without deflation.[]{data-label="tab:timings"}
Next, we quantify the relative expense of the various components in our algorithm; specifically, the relative costs of deflating with $U$, of incrementally updating $U$ outside eigCG, and of updating $V$ inside eigCG. In Figure \[fig:timings\], the left graph shows the percentage breakdown of execution time among eigCG, the incremental update, and the deflation part of init-CG. We show these only for the 24 vectors in the first phase where Incremental eigCG is used.
Our first observation is that the initial deflation part is negligible. Even deflating 230 vectors (before solving the 24th right hand side) constitutes less than 0.5% of the time spent in Incremental eigCG. In the second phase, when deflation with 240 vectors occurs twice and when the cheaper CG (i.e., eigCG(0,0)) is used, the total expense of deflation is less than 3% of the time to solve a system.
The cost of the incremental update of $U$ increases linearly with the number of right hand sides. As shown in Figure \[fig:timings\], the cost of updating 230 vectors with 10 additional ones (the 24th step) constitutes about 15% of the total Incremental eigCG time. This is a result of re-orthogonalizing the new vectors $V$ against $U$ and also of the fact that the Incremental eigCG is about 2.5 times faster than the original eigCG, so the relative cost of updates is pronounced. Lastly, in our application, updating $V$ during eigCG(10,100) costs an additional 21% over simple CG. Clearly, these relative costs depend on the cost of the matrix vector operation, and, for the general case, one must refer to the computational models in Sections \[sec:ourmethod\] and \[sec:incremental\].
Finally, we study the scenario where Incremental eigCG is run on fewer right hand sides, hence accumulating fewer deflation vectors for phase two. The right graph in Figure \[fig:timings\] shows two curves. The points on the solid line show the time taken by Incremental eigCG for the $k$-th right hand side, $k=1,\ldots ,24$. Immediately below each point, the bar represents the time init-CG would take to solve a linear system deflating only the $10(k-1)$ vectors accumulated by Incremental eigCG up to the $(k-1)$-th right hand side. The lower runtime is due to three reasons: We avoid the eigCG-related costs, the cost of updating $U$, and last but most important, the restarting of init-CG avoids the plateaus shown in Figure \[fig:Linear\_System\_Convergence\], speeding the method by a factor of two (when $k =24$).
![ Left graph: Percentage breakdown of execution time for the three components of Incremental eigCG: the eigCG inner iteration, the initial deflation, and the incremental update. Right graph: The solid line shows the execution time in seconds of Incremental eigCG for the $k$-th right hand side, $k=1,\ldots ,24$. The bars below each point show the time it would take to solve a linear system by switching to init-CG at the $k$-th right hand side. []{data-label="fig:timings"}](10M_TimeAllocation "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} ![ Left graph: Percentage breakdown of execution time for the three components of Incremental eigCG: the eigCG inner iteration, the initial deflation, and the incremental update. Right graph: The solid line shows the execution time in seconds of Incremental eigCG for the $k$-th right hand side, $k=1,\ldots ,24$. The bars below each point show the time it would take to solve a linear system by switching to init-CG at the $k$-th right hand side. []{data-label="fig:timings"}](10M_TimeReduction "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
Figure \[fig:timings\] also shows that the most significant speedups are obtained by running Incremental eigCG for 8-9 right hand sides (deflating 80-90 vectors). After that improvements wane but still manage to add an additional factor of 1.6 by $k=24$. It is possible to monitor these improvements at runtime, thus running Incremental eigCG for the number of right hand sides that will minimize overall execution time, before switching to init-CG. For example, the following table presents the optimal $k$ for this problem under various numbers of total right hand sides:
------------------------------------- --- ---- ---- ---- ----
total number of RHS 6 12 24 32 48
optimal \# RHS in Incremental eigCG 3 7 9 11 19
------------------------------------- --- ---- ---- ---- ----
Clearly, the more right hand sides we need to solve, the more vectors it pays to solve with Incremental eigCG.
Conclusions
===========
The numerical solution of large linear systems with multiple right hand sides is becoming increasingly important in many applications. Our original goal was to address this problem in the context of lattice QCD where, in certain problems, hundreds of linear systems of equations must be solved. For general SPD matrices, we have argued that extreme invariant subspaces are the only useful information that can be shared between Krylov spaces built by different, unrelated initial vectors. We have also argued that the critical slowdown, observed in lattice QCD computations when the quark mass approaches a critical value, is caused by a decrease in exactly the same extreme (smallest) eigenvalues, while the average density of more interior eigenvalues remains unaffected. In our approach we take advantage of the many right hand sides by incrementally building eigenspace information while solving linear systems. This eigenspace is used to accelerate by deflation subsequent linear systems and thus remove the critical slowdown.
The algorithm we have developed that derives eigenspace information during the CG method distinguishes itself from other deflation methods in several ways. First, we do not use restarted methods, such as GMRES($m$), so our linear system solver maintains the optimal convergence of CG. Second, by using the readily available CG iterates, we build a local window of Lanczos vectors with minimal additional expense. Third, we use the locally optimal restarting technique to keep the size of the window bounded. Our resulting algorithm, eigCG, has the remarkable property that the Ritz pairs converge identically to the unrestarted Lanczos method, to very good accuracy and without having to store the Lanczos vectors. In our experiments, we were able to find 50-80 eigenpairs to machine precision by solving 24 linear systems. Current state-of-the-art eigenvalue eigensolvers would require the equivalent of 50-80 linear system solves to produce the same information.
We believe the proposed eigCG is a breakthrough method. Because it is purely algebraic, it goes beyond lattice QCD to any SPD problem with multiple right hand sides. Moreover, it does not require the right hand sides to be available at the same time, so it is ideal for time dependent problems. In this paper, we have left some questions unanswered (especially those relating to the theoretical understanding of the method) and pointed to many directions that eigCG can be improved. Among this wealth of future research, a particularly exciting direction is a new eigensolver that redefines the state-of-the-art in the area. Finally, a general purpose code is currently under development.
[10]{}
A. Brandt. Multi-level adaptive solutions to boundary-value problems. , 31(138):333–390, 1977.
Achi Brandt. Algebraic multigrid theory: The symmetric case. , 19(1-4):23–56, 1986.
J Brannick. . PhD thesis, University of Colorado at Boulder, 2005.
J Brannick, M Brezina, R Falgout, T Manteuffel, S McCormick, J Ruge, B Sheehan, J Xu, and L Zikatanov. Extending the applicability of multigrid methods. , 46:443–452, 2006.
R. C. Brower, T. Ivanenko, A. R. Levi, and K. N. Orginos. Chronological inversion method for the dirac matrix in hybrid monte carlo. , B484:353–374, 1997.
Richard C. Brower, Claudio Rebbi, and Ettore Vicari. Projective multigrid method for propagators in lattice gauge theory. , D43:1965–1973, 1991.
Tony F. Chan and W.L. Wan. Analysis of projection methods for solving linear systems with multiple right-hand sides. , 18:1698–1721, 1997.
P. de Forcrand. Progress on lattice qcd algorithms. , 47:228–235, 1996.
L. Del Debbio, L. Giusti, M. [Lüscher]{}, R. Petronzio, and N. Tantalo. Stability of lattice qcd simulations and the thermodynamic limit. , 2006(02):011, 2006.
Thomas A. DeGrand and Stefan Schaefer. Improving meson two-point functions in lattice qcd. , 159:185–191, 2004.
I. S. Duff, L. Giraud, J. Langou, and E. Martin. Using spectral low rank preconditioners for large electromagnetic calculations. , 62(3):416–434, 2005.
E. G. D’yakonov. Iteration methods in eigenvalue problems. , 34:945–953, 1983.
A. Edelman, T. A. Arias, and S. T. Smith. The geometry of algorithms with orthogonality constraints. , 20(2):303–353, 1998.
Robert G. Edwards. Topology and low lying fermion modes. , 106:38–46, 2002.
Robert G. Edwards and Balint Joo. The chroma software system for lattice qcd. , 140:832, 2005.
J. Erhel and F. Guyomarc’h. An augmented [C]{}onjugate [G]{}radient method for solving consecutive symmetric positive definite systems. , 21(4):1279–1299, 2000.
S. Fischer et al. A parallel ssor preconditioner for lattice qcd. , 98:20–34, 1996.
Justin Foley et al. Practical all-to-all propagators for lattice qcd. , 172:145–162, 2005.
Roland W. Freund and Manish Malhotra. A block [QMR]{} algorithm for non-[Hermitian]{} linear systems with multiple right-hand sides. , 254(1–3):119–157, 1997.
Andreas Frommer. Linear systems solvers - recent developments and implications for lattice computations. , 53:120–126, 1997.
P. H. Gill, W. Murray, and M. H. Wright. . Academic Press, 1986.
L. Giraud, S. Gratton, and E. Martin. Incremental spectral preconditioners for sequences of linear systems. , to appear.
L. Giraud, D. Ruiz, and A. Touhami. A comparative study of iterative solvers exploiting spectral information for [SPD]{} systems. , 27(5):1760–1786, 2006.
L. Giusti, P. Hernandez, M. Laine, P. Weisz, and H. Wittig. Low-energy couplings of qcd from current correlators near the chiral limit. , 04:013, 2004.
G. H. Golub and C. F. Van Loan. . The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, [MD]{}, 1996.
G. H. Golub and R. Underwood. The block [L]{}anczos method for computing eigenvalues. In J. R. Rice, editor, [*Mathematical Software III*]{}, pages 361–377, New York, 1977. Academic Press.
A. El Guennouni, K. Jbilou, and H. Sadok. The block lanczos method for linear systems with multiple right-hand sides. , 51(2-3):243–256, 2004.
Martin H. Gutknecht. Block [K]{}rylov space solvers: A survey. http://www.sam.math.ethz.ch/ mhg/talks/bkss.pdf.
Martin H. Gutknecht. Block krylov space methods for linear systems with multiple right-hand sides: an introduction. In [*Modern Mathematical Models, Methods and Algorithms for Real World Systems*]{}. Anamaya Publishers, New Delhi, India, 2006.
M. R. Hestenes and E. Stiefel. Methods of conjugate gradient for solving linear systems. , 49:409–436, 1952.
E. Kaasschieter. Preconditioned conjugate gradient for solving singular systems. , 24:265–275, 1988.
W. Kamleh and M. J. Peardon. Polynomial filtering for hmc in lattice qcd. , LAT2005:106, 2006.
Misha Kilmer, Eric Miller, and Carey Rappaport. -based projection techniques for the solution of non-hermitian systems with multiple right-hand sides. , 23(3):761–780, 2002.
A. V. Knyazev. Convergence rate estimates for iteratime methods for symmetric eigenvalue problems and its implementation in a subspace. , 96:143–154, 1991. Eigenwertaufgaben in Natur- und Ingenieurwissenschaften und ihre numerische Behandlung, Oberwolfach, 1990.
A. V. Knyazev. Toward the optimal preconditioned eigensolver: [L]{}ocally [O]{}ptimal [B]{}lock [P]{}reconditioned [C]{}onjugate [G]{}radient method. , 23(2):517–541, 2001.
C. Lanczos. Solution of systems of linear equations by minimized iterations. , 49:33–53, 1952.
R. B. Lehoucq, D. C. Sorensen, and C. Yang. . SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 1998.
R. Morgan and W. Wilcox. Deflated iterative methods for linear equations with multiple right-hand sides. Technical Report BU-HEPP-04-01, Baylor University, 2004.
R. B. Morgan. with deflated restarting. , 24:20–37, 2002.
C. W. Murray, S. C. Racine, and E. R. Davidson. Improved algorithms for the lowest eigenvalues and associated eigenvectors of large matrices. , 103(2):382–389, 1992.
R. A. Nicolaides. Deflation of conjugate gradients with applications to boundary value problems. , 24(2):355–365, 1987.
Dianne P. O’Leary. The block conjugate gredient algorithm and related methods. , 29:293–322, February 1980.
B. N. Parlett. . SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 1998.
Y. Saad. On the [L]{}anczos method for solving symmetric linear systems with several right-hand sides. , 48:651–662, 1987.
Y. Saad. . SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2003.
Y. Saad and M. H. Schultz. : [A]{} generalized minimal residual algorithm for solving nonsymmetric linear systems. , 7:856–869, 1986.
Y. Saad, M. Yeung, J. Erhel, and F. Guyomarc’h. A deflated version of the conjugate gradient algorithm. , 21(5):1909–1926, 2000.
V. Simoncini and E. Gallopoulos. An iterative method for nonsymmetric systems with multiple right-hand side. , 16(4):917–933, 1995.
V. Simoncini and Daniel B. Szyld. Recent computational developments in [K]{}rylov subspace methods for linear systems. , 14(1):1–59, 2007.
D. C. Sorensen. Implicit application of polynomial filters in a [K]{}-step [A]{}rnoldi method. , 13(1):357–385, 1992.
A. Stathopoulos and Y. Saad. Restarting techniques for ([J]{}acobi-)[D]{}avidson symmetric eigenvalue methods. , 7:163–181, 1998.
A. Stathopoulos, Y. Saad, and K. Wu. Dynamic thick restarting of the [D]{}avidson, and the implicitly restarted [A]{}rnoldi methods. , 19(1):227–245, 1998.
Andreas Stathopoulos. Nearly optimal preconditioned methods for [H]{}ermitian eigenproblems under limited memory. [P]{}art [I]{}: Seeking one eigenvalue. , 29(2):481–514, 2007.
S. Wang, E. de Sturler, and G. H. Paulino. Large-scale topology optimization using preconditioned krylov subspace methods with recycling. , 69(12):2441–2468, 2007.
Kenneth G. Wilson. Confinement of quarks. , D10:2445–2459, 1974.
K. Wu and H. Simon. Thick-restart [L]{}anczos method for large symmetric eigenvalue problems. , 22(2):602–616, 2000.
[^1]: Department of Computer Science, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia 23187-8795, ([[email protected]]{}).
[^2]: Department of Physics, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, ([[email protected]]{}).
[^3]: This work was partially supported by the National Science Foundation grants ITR/DMR-0325218, CCF-0728915, and the Jeffress Memorial Trust grant J-813.
[^4]: Private communication Tom Blum and Taku Izubuchi.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'K. Hagel'
- 'J. B. Natowitz'
- 'G. Röpke'
date: 'Received: date / Revised version: date'
title: The equation of state and symmetry energy of low density nuclear matter
---
[leer.eps]{} gsave 72 31 moveto 72 342 lineto 601 342 lineto 601 31 lineto 72 31 lineto showpage grestore
Introduction {#intro}
============
Reliable understanding of the density dependence of the nuclear equation of state (EOS) over a wide range of densities and temperatures is a very important need in the investigation of both nuclear and astrophysical phenomena. One fundamental ingredient of the EOS which is the subject of many recent experimental and theoretical investigations is the symmetry energy $E_{\rm{sym}}(n,T)$ that describes the dependence of the energy per nucleon on the proton to neutron ratio. It governs phenomena from nuclear structure to astrophysical processes. As a result, the variation of the symmetry energy with nucleon density $n=n_n+ n_p$ with $n_n, n_p$ denoting the neutron and proton density, respectively, and temperature $T$ has been extensively investigated in recent years. A recent review is given by Li *et al.* [@Li:2008gp]; see also [@Lattimer:2006xb] and other contributions to this volume of the European Physical Journal A, in particular [@Typel2013].
While conventional mean-field approaches to the EOS treat nuclear matter as uniform, it is well established that the properties of low density nuclear matter are governed by correlations, in particular by the appearance of bound states, i.e. clusters. That correlations and clusterization are important and exhibit significant density dependences may be seen, for example, in Figure \[fig:1\] [@Sumiyoshi:2008]. In the left side of that figure the calculated density, electron fraction and temperature distributions of a post core collapse supernova are presented as a function of radial distance. At the larger radii temperatures and densities which are accessible in near Fermi energy collisions [@Kowalski:2006ju], are seen. In the right side of the picture are particle mass fractions calculated by Sumiyoshi *et al.* [@Sumiyoshi:2008] for $Z=1$ and $Z=2$ nuclei as a function of radial distance. Furthermore, also the mass fraction of higher mass nuclei (metals) are shown, that is calculated as the sum over all elements with $A > 2$ . The role of the cluster formation in the neutrino-sphere region (the region of last neutrino interaction) is of particular interest [@OÕConnor; @lentz12]. As will be seen below, this region of temperature and density is accessible in collisions of heavy ions at intermediate energies.
Currently some extensive EOS calculations and existing tabulations, based on varying nucleon-nucleon interactions, serve as standard input for a wide variety of astrophysical simulations. In general these calculations involve a number of simplifying assumptions and allow for a limited number of clustered species at lower densities where important clustering effects are expected [@Lattimer:1991nc; @Shen:1998gq; @Shen:2011; @Hempel:2010; @Horowitz:2005nd]. We show that new experiments allow for a laboratory test of the EOS and the symmetry energy in the low-density region. The results are in accordance with a systematic QS approach that takes correlations and cluster formation in warm dense matter into account.
Clusterization and the symmetry energy at very low density
==========================================================
Nuclear binding energies and Bethe-Weizsäcker mass formula
----------------------------------------------------------
The symmetry energy characterizes the dependence of the nuclear binding energy on the asymmetry $$\label{asymm}
\delta=(N-Z)/A=1-2Y_p$$ with $Z$ and $N$ the proton and neutron numbers, and $A=N+Z$. In astrophysics, the asymmetry is usually specified by the total proton fraction $Y_p$. For charge neutral stellar matter $Y_p$ is equal to the electron fraction $Y_e$. The definition of the symmetry energy can be expressed in different ways, see [@Typel2013]. Although in the binding energy of nuclei, there is a dependence on $\delta$ resulting from the Coulomb interaction, the symmetry energy does not include this trivial effect. Rather, it is defined by the asymmetry contribution of the strong interaction to the binding energy, as expressed within the Bethe-Weizsäcker mass formula $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:BW}
B(N,Z) & = & a_{V} A - a_{S} A^{2/3}
\\ \nonumber & &
% + \frac{a_{VI}A}{1+\frac{a_{VI}}{a_{SI}}A^{-1/3}}
% \\ \nonumber & &
- \left( a_{V}^{(\rm sym)} A + a_{S}^{(\rm sym)} A^{2/3} \right)
\delta^{2} % \left(\frac{N-Z}{N+Z}\right)^{2}
\\ \nonumber & &
- a_{C} \frac{Z(Z-1)}{A^{1/3}} + \dots \end{aligned}$$ where volume, surface, volume symmetry, surface symmetry and Coulomb contributions exhibit a particular dependence on the mass number $A$ and asymmetry $\delta$. (Pairing and other features such as shell effects are not considered here.) The parameters $a_{V}$, $a_{S}$, $a_{V}^{(\rm sym)}$, $a_{S}^{(\rm sym)}$, $a_{C}$ are generally found by fitting nuclear masses $$m_{N,Z} = N m_{n} + Z m_{p} - B(N,Z)$$ across the whole chart of known nuclei. Here $m_{n}$ and $m_{p}$ are the neutron and proton rest masses, respectively. Typical values of the coefficients $a_{V},a_{S},a_{V}^{(\rm sym)}, a_{S}^{(\rm sym)},a_{C}$ are given in Ref. [@Lun03]. Our empirical knowledge of the symmetry energy near the saturation density, $n_{0}$, is based primarily on the binding energy analysis. The Bethe-Weizsäcker mass formula leads to values of about $E_{\rm sym}(n_0,0)=28-34$ MeV for the nuclear matter symmetry energy at zero temperature and saturation density $n_{0} \approx 0.16$ fm$^{-3}$, if surface asymmetry effects are properly taken into account [@Dan03]. A recent analysis of experimental data [@jiang12] gives the value $a_{V}^{(\rm sym)} = 32.1 \pm 0.3$ MeV.
Note that in the above, the separation of the Coulomb energy has been performed under the assumption that the strong interaction part is symmetric with respect to $\delta \to - \delta$ so that the symmetry energy contains no linear term in $\delta$. Then, the Coulomb term in Eq. (\[eq:BW\]) contains besides the electrostatic field energy also the contribution of the nuclear wave function that may change with the asymmetry $\delta$.
Symmetry energy of nuclear matter at finite temperature
-------------------------------------------------------
Within a more fundamental approach, we can consider a given state of the nuclear system described by the wave function ($| \Psi \rangle$) or the statistical operator ($\rho$) and calculate the expectation value of the energy. In particular, we consider homogeneous matter at finite temperature $T$ consisting of nucleons (neutrons $n$, protons $p$) and electrons ($e$). To eliminate the dependence on the volume $V$ of the system that goes to infinity in the thermodynamic limit, we introduce the neutron density $n_n=N_n/V$ and the proton density $n_p=N_p/V$ that remain finite. The electron density $n_e=n_p$ is necessary to make the system globally charge neutral, to avoid diverging Coulomb energy. It is determined by the proton density and cannot be considered as an additional degree of freedom. Note that we neglect weak interaction processes that lead to $\beta$ equilibrium so that in full thermodynamic equilibrium the asymmetry (that follows from Eq. (\[asymm\]) after dividing the nucleon numbers by the volume $V$) $$\label{asymm1}
\delta=\frac{n_n-n_p}{n},\qquad n=n_n+n_p$$ is an independent thermodynamic parameter, in addition to $T$ and the total baryon density $n$. We note that the inclusion of further elementary particles such as muons, hyperons or neutrinos may be of interest in astrophysical context, at higher densities and temperatures.
For this “frozen” hot matter characterized by $T, n, \delta$ where weak interaction processes are neglected, thermodynamic equilibrium corresponds to the minimum of the free energy $$\label{freeen}
{\tilde F}(T,V,N_n, N_p)=V f(T, n, \delta)=N F(T, n, \delta),$$ $N=n V$. To eliminate the dependence on the volume $V$ of the system that goes to infinity, we introduce the density of the free energy $f(T, n, \delta)$ or the free energy per nucleon $F(T, n, \delta)= f(T, n, \delta)/n$. Being a thermodynamic potential, all other thermodynamic quantities such as pressure, entropy or internal energy are consistently derived using the thermodynamic relations.
It is convenient to describe the thermodynamic equilibrium by the grand canonical ensemble that is given by a Gibbs distribution $$\label{grandcan}
\rho_{\rm gr. can.}(T,\mu_n,\mu_p)=\frac{1}{Z(T,\mu_n,\mu_p)} {\rm e}^{-(H-\mu_n N_n-\mu_p N_p)/T}$$ with the neutron chemical potential $\mu_n$ and the the proton chemical potential $\mu_p$, $Z(T,\mu_n,\mu_p)$ is the partition function. The chemical potential of the background charge compensating electrons is not a new degree of freedom but is fixed by the condition of charge neutrality. As long as there are no phase transitions, the various statistical ensembles are equivalent and give identical results for the equation of state. The chemical potentials are related to the particle densities by the following equations of state $$\begin{aligned}
\label{density}
n_n(T, \mu_n,\mu_p)&=&{\rm Tr} \{ \rho_{\rm gr. can.}(T,\mu_n,\mu_p) {\hat N}_n\}/V ,\nonumber \\
n_p(T, \mu_n,\mu_p)&=&{\rm Tr} \{ \rho_{\rm gr. can.}(T,\mu_n,\mu_p) {\hat N}_p\}/V\,.\end{aligned}$$ In momentum representation, the particle number operators are $ {\hat N}_\tau=\sum_{{\bf p},\sigma} a^\dagger_ka^{}_k$ where the quantum number $k$ contains besides momentum $\bf p$ and spin $\sigma$ also the isospin $\tau$. We use these thermodynamic relations later on to calculate the free energy by integrating the Helmholtz equation, see Eq. (10) of Ref. [@Typel:2009sy] and Eq. (\[freV\]) below.
The Hamiltonian $H$ contains the kinetic energy (we use relativistic kinematics), the strong interaction and the Coulomb interaction that reads in position representation $$\label{Coulomb}
{\hat V}^{\rm Coul}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{c,d}\int d^3 r \psi_c^\dagger({\bf r})\psi_d^\dagger({\bf r}')\frac{e_ce_d}{|{\bf r}-{\bf r}'|}\psi_d({\bf r}')\psi_c({\bf r})$$ where the index $c,d$ denotes the different components, including spin. Calculating the expectation value of total energy $$\begin{aligned}
\label{energy}
&&U^{\rm total}(T, V,\mu_n,\mu_p)={\rm Tr} \{ H \rho_{\rm gr. can.}(T,\mu_n,\mu_p)\} \\
&& = U(T, V,\mu_n,\mu_p)+ U^{\rm Coul}(T, V,\mu_n,\mu_p)+U^{\rm el}(T, V,\mu_n,\mu_p)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ for this equilibrium quantum state, one can separate the contribution of the Coulomb energy $$\label{Coulomb1}
U^{\rm Coul}={\rm Tr} \{ \rho_{\rm gr. can.}(T,\mu_n,\mu_p) {\hat V}^{\rm Coul}\}$$ as well as the contribution of the electron kinetic energy $U^{\rm el}$. The symmetry energy follows from the expansion of the remaining energy (nucleon kinetic energy and strong interaction) with respect to the asymmetry.
Using the equations of state (\[density\]) $n_n = n_n(T,\mu_n,\mu_p)$, $n_p = n_p(T,\mu_n,\mu_p)$ we replace the thermodynamic variables $\mu_n,\mu_p$ by the densities $n_n, n_p$ or equivalently, the total baryon density $n$ and the asymmetry $\delta$. To obtain the symmetry energy per nucleon we consider the energy per nucleon $E(n,\delta,T)=U(T, V,\mu_n,\mu_p)/N$ (after subtracting the Coulomb energy according to Eq. (\[energy\])) as function of $\delta$. Because the strong interaction is assumed to be symmetric with respect to isospin, after subtracting the trivial term due to the difference of the neutron and proton mass in the relativistic kinematics, the first derivative at $\delta = 0$ is approximately zero, so that we have $$\label{eq:esym_defAbl}
E(n,\delta,T)\approx E(n,0,T) +(m_n-m_p) \delta+ E^"_{\rm sym}(n,T) \delta^2 +{\cal O}(\delta^4).$$ Here, the symmetry energy is related to the second derivative with respect to the asymmetry $\delta$. This definition is appropriate for experimental investigations where we explore nuclei near the valley of stability. In experiments performed for nuclear systems, $\delta$ is relatively small.
Another representation of the symmetry energy coefficient is the definition $$\label{eq:esym_def}
E_{\rm sym}(n,T) = \frac{E(n,1,T)
+ E(n,-1,T)}{2} - E(n,0,T) .$$ This definition is consistent with the use of the second order derivative only if the dependence on $\delta$ is purely quadratic. In particular in the case of phase transition and at very low temperatures, this is not exactly the case, see the discussion below and Ref. [@Typel2013] within this volume.
Comparing with the definition of the symmetry energy for finite nuclei given in the previous subsection, we give some comments. The generalization from ground state nuclei to finite temperatures $T$ is straightforward within the scope of thermodynamics.
An essential topic is the role of the nucleon distribution as expressed by the wave function or the statistical operator. Instead of the equilibrium statistical operator $\rho_{\rm gr. can.}$, Eq. (\[grandcan\]), non-equilibrium distributions can also be considered to investigate the average energy. Some confusion is connected with different assumptions regarding the quantum state of the system, [*i. e.*]{} the choice of the wave function ($| \Psi \rangle$) or the statistical operator ($\rho$). Sometimes an antisymmetrized product ansatz that leads to the mean-field approximation is taken. However, this ansatz, appropriate for noninteracting fermion systems, is not correct in describing the ground state or the thermodynamic equilibrium at finite $T$ for the interacting nuclear system because all correlations are neglected. To treat real systems, for instance in astrophysics, we have to take into account the correlations that are also present at thermodynamic equilibrium and are determined by the full Hamiltonian $H$.
More delicate is the subdivision of the symmetry energy in Eq. (\[eq:BW\]) into a volume part and a surface part. For homogeneous systems, the density does not depend on the position in coordinate space. This is also correct for correlations and bound state formation if the center-of-mass motion is taken into account. Correlations and bound state formation are seen in the two-particle distribution function (structure factor). After separation of the center-of-mass motion, the internal wave function of a cluster is usually approximated within a local-density approach. Thomas-Fermi models, droplet models, and gradient expansions can be applied to estimate the binding energy of a cluster. Thus, the definition of the symmetry energy (\[eq:esym\_defAbl\]) is not in conflict with the Bethe-Weizsäcker formula (\[eq:BW\]) that follows if the distribution of clusters (nuclei) is given (“frozen out”). Neglecting the center-of-mass motion, the internal density distribution of the cluster can be treated within a gradient expansion that gives, within the local density approximation, the volume term and the surface term. However, this subdivision, that is useful for some approximations, is not rigorous and cannot be applied, for instance, to describe the contribution of light clusters such as deuterons or $\alpha$ particles.
We also note that in the uncorrelated state of symmetric nuclear matter, where cluster formation is neglected (or the strong interaction is dropped), the Coulomb energy for charge neutral matter (proton and electron densities constant and compensating) does not vanish. Only the Hartree term is zero. Because of microfield fluctuations there is also a finite value of the Coulomb energy. In the lowest approximation we obtain the Debye shift due to the two-particle distribution function (Montroll - World contribution to the virial expansion of the equation of state), see for instance Ref. [@KKER].
The Coulomb interaction occurs in two positions: the energy that is clearly additive and can separated, and the influence on the quantum state or structure that is given, for instance, by the equilibrium distribution or the ground state wave function. Without Coulomb interactions, the structure of nuclei would change significantly and would lead to arbitrarily large stable nuclei what is not realistic. Also the two-phase separation that is obtained considering only strong interaction is disfavored because of large Coulomb energy what leads to so-called pasta structures. (Note that due to the Hamiltonian that is used to describe the ground state or thermodynamic equilibrium, the Coulomb interaction also indirectly leads to a linear term $\propto \delta$ in the energy that can be compensated by a redefinition of the Coulomb term.)
The symmetry energy at sub-saturation densities
-----------------------------------------------
We introduce the symmetry energy of nuclear matter at finite temperature to characterize the properties of matter in astrophysics or in excited nuclei. To describe real systems, the quantum statistical approach is used to introduce well-defined quantities. Then, special approximations can be performed that may lead to different results, due to the approximations used. Thus, different results for the symmetry energy of nuclear matter can be found in the literature that describe experiments with real systems to a good approximation only if the relevant processes are taken into account. In the case of the symmetry energy of low density nuclear matter considered here, correlations and cluster formation are essential and have to be taken into account. Mean-field approaches such as Skyrme interaction or relativistic mean field (RMF) approximation are not able to describe adequately the quantum state of matter at low densities because all correlations are neglected. Most of recently used treatments do not give the correct low-density limit that is governed by cluster formation, as discussed in the following subsection.
Two different pictures are used to describe nuclear matter at sub-saturation densities. Near the saturation density, $n_0$, the Fermi-liquid (single quasiparticle) approach is used to describe nuclear systems. This picture is confined to that region where correlations, in particular cluster formation, are not relevant. To give a number, the density should be larger than $n_0/3$. An alternative picture for hot nuclear systems is nuclear statistical equilibrium (NSE) and related models that treat a noninteracting gas consisting of all possible bound states in chemical equilibrium (mass action law). This chemical picture is confined to the low-density region (below $5 \times 10^{-4}$ fm$^{-3}$) where the interaction between the constituents can be neglected.
Many theoretical investigations have been performed to estimate the behavior of the symmetry energy as a function of $n$ and $T$ (Li *et al.* [@Li:2008gp], see also [@Fuchs:2005yn; @Klahn:2006ir]). Typically, quasi-particle approaches such as Skyrme Hartree-Fock and relativistic mean field (RMF) models or Dirac-Brueckner Hartree-Fock calculations are used. The uniform matter symmetry energy obtained in this approximation goes linearly to zero when the density goes to zero, $$\label{linEsym}
E_{\rm sym}(n,T) \propto n.$$ Such a behavior is often seen in the results shown in the literature, but is incorrect because correlations are not included.
At low density the symmetry energy changes mainly because additional binding is gained in symmetric matter due to formation of clusters and pasta structures [@Watanabe:2009vi]. Therefore, the symmetry energy in the low-temperature limit has to be equal to the binding energy per nucleon associated with the strong interaction of the most bound nuclear cluster. Theoretical calculations of the density dependence of the symmetry energy based on conventional mean-field approaches and ignoring cluster formation will fail to give the correct low-temperature, low-density limit to the symmetry energy. The correct low-density limit can be recovered only if the formation of clusters is properly taken into account, as has previously been shown in Ref. [@Ropke:1983], see also [@Horowitz:2005nd; @Schmidt:1990] in the context of a virial expansion valid at very low densities, and in Ref. [@Typel:2009sy].
Approaches used to account for cluster formation include the nuclear statistical equilibrium model (NSE) [@Bondorf:1995ua], cluster-virial expansions [@Horowitz:2005nd], as well as generalized Beth-Uhlenbeck approaches [@Schmidt:1990]. A thermodynamic Green’s function approach that allows a generalization of the NSE model by introducing a quasiparticle description also for the bound states was already formulated some decades ago [@Ropke:1983], but only recently analyzed with respect to the experimental consequences for nuclear matter [@Ropke:2008qk].
To deal with the clusterization, we employ a quantum statistical (QS) approach which takes into account cluster correlations in the medium. To extend the range of applicability of this approach, we then interpolate between the exact low-density limit and the very successful RMF approaches near the saturation density to provide a representation useful over a wide range of densities.
In this QS approach cluster correlations are described in a generalized Beth-Uhlenbeck expansion. The advantage of this method is that the medium modifications of the clusters at finite density are taken into account. In Ref. [@Typel:2009sy] the thermodynamic properties of nuclear matter were derived using this approach. The formulation of Ref. [@Typel:2009sy] is valid in the density and temperature range where the formation of light clusters with $A \leq 4$ dominates and heavier clusters are not yet important. The method requires a reasonably accurate modeling of the quasiparticle properties. For that we employ a RMF model with density dependent couplings [@Typ2005] which gives a good description both of nuclear matter around normal density and of ground state properties of nuclei across the nuclear chart. In order to extend the applicability of this RMF model to very low densities, it has been generalized in Ref. [@Typel:2009sy] to account also for cluster formation and destruction. The model allows derivation of the composition and the thermodynamic quantities of nuclear matter can be modeled in a large region of densities, temperatures and asymmetries that are required, for example, in supernova simulations.
This generalized model naturally leads to a decrease of the cluster mass fractions at high densities, reflecting a reduction of the cluster binding energies due to Pauli blocking. The binding energy of a cluster relative to the medium vanishes at a point known as the Mott point. As a result, well-defined clusters appear for densities below approximately 1/10 of the saturation density and get dissolved at higher densities. (Because of the presence of strong correlations in the scattering state continuum that are effectively represented by one resonance, there is a diminishing but non vanishing cluster fraction above the Mott density.) The Mott point is temperature dependent as seen in Figure \[fig:2\] where calculated Mott points for $d, t, ^3$He and $\alpha$ particles are represented [@Typel:2009sy].
Quantum statistical approach to the symmetry energy of nuclear matter at finite temperature
===========================================================================================
General approach
----------------
To describe the thermodynamic properties of a many-particle system, the thermodynamic (Matsubara) Green’s function approach can be used. Exact expressions for the equations of state (\[density\]) can be given that contain the single-particle spectral function $S_\tau({\bf p},\omega)$,
Using the finite-temperature Green function formalism, a non-relativistic quantum statistical approach can be given to describe the equation of state of nuclear matter including the formation of bound states [@Ropke:1983; @Schmidt:1990]. It is most convenient to start with the nucleon number densities $n_{\tau}(T,{\mu}_{p},{\mu}_{n})$ as functions of temperature $T$ and non-relativistic chemical potentials ${\mu}_{\tau}$ for protons ($\tau = p$) and neutrons ($\tau = n$), respectively, $$n_{\tau}(T,{\mu}_p,{\mu}_n)=
2 \int \frac{d^{3}k_{1}}{(2 \pi)^{3}}
\int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{d \omega}{2 \pi} f_{1,Z}(\omega)
S_{\tau}(1,\omega)\,.
\label{eosspec}$$ Summation over spin yields the factor $2$ and $$\label{faz}
f_{A,Z}(\omega) = \left(\exp\left\{
\beta \left[\omega -Z {\mu}_{p} -(A-Z) {\mu}_{n}\right]
\right\} - (-1)^{A}\right)^{-1}$$ is the Fermi or Bose distribution function which depends on the inverse temperature $\beta = 1/T$. Instead of the isospin quantum number $\tau$ we occasionally use the mass number $A$ and the charge number $Z$. Both the distribution function and the spectral function $S_1(1,\omega)$ depend on the temperature and the chemical potentials ${\mu}_{p}$, ${\mu}_{n}$ not given explicitly. For this EOS (\[eosspec\]), expressions such as the Beth-Uhlenbeck formula and its generalizations have been derived [@Horowitz:2005nd; @Ropke:1983; @Schmidt:1990].
The spectral function $S_{\tau}(1,\omega)$ is related to the self-energy $\Sigma(1,z)$ according to $$\label{spectral}
S_{\tau}(1,\omega) = \frac{2 {\rm Im}\,\Sigma(1,\omega-i0)}
{[\omega - E(1)- {\rm Re}\, \Sigma(1,\omega)]^2 +
[{\rm Im}\, \Sigma(1,\omega-i0)]^2 } \: ,$$ where the imaginary part has to be taken for a small negative imaginary part in the frequency $\omega$. $E(1)=p^{2}/(2m)$ is the kinetic energy of the free nucleon. The solution of the relation $$\label{quasinucleon}
E_{1}^{\rm qu}(1) = E(1) + {\rm Re}\, \Sigma[1,E_{1}^{\rm qu}(1)]$$ defines the single-nucleon quasiparticle energies $E_{1}^{\rm qu}(1) = E(1) + \Delta E^{\rm SE}(1)$. Expanding for small Im $\Sigma(1,z)$, the spectral function yields a $\delta$-like contribution. The densities are calculated from Fermi distributions with the quasiparticle energies so that $$n^{\rm qu}_{\tau}(T,{\mu}_{p},{\mu}_{n})
=\frac{2}{V} \sum_{k_{1}} f_{1,Z}[E_{1}^{\rm qu}(1)]
\label{nqu}$$ follows for the EOS in mean field approximation. This result does not contain the contribution of bound states and therefore is not correct in the low-temperature, low-density limit where the NSE describes the nuclear matter EOS.
As shown in Refs. [@Ropke:1983; @Schmidt:1990], the bound state contributions are obtained from the poles of Im $\Sigma(1,z)$ which cannot be neglected in expanding the spectral function with respect to Im $\Sigma(1,z)$. A cluster decomposition of the self-energy has been proposed, see [@Ropke:1983]. The self-energy is expressed in terms of the $A$-particle Green functions which read in bilinear expansion $$\begin{aligned}
&&G_A(1 \dots A,1^{\prime}\dots A^{\prime},z_A)
=\sum_{\nu K} \psi_{A \nu K}(1\dots A)\nonumber\\
&& \times
\frac{1}{ z_{A}-E^{\rm qu}_{A,\nu}(K)}
\psi^{\ast}_{A \nu K}(1^{\prime}\dots A^{\prime}) \: .
\label{bilinear}\end{aligned}$$ The $A$-particle wave function $\psi_{A \nu K}(1\dots A) $ and the corresponding eigenvalues $E^{\rm qu}_{A, \nu}(K)$ result from solving the in-medium Schrödinger equation, see the following Subsections. $K$ denotes the center of mass momentum of the $A$-nucleon system. Besides the bound states, the summation over the internal quantum states $\nu$ includes also the scattering states.
The evaluation of the equation of state in the low-density limit is straight forward. Considering only the bound-state contributions, we obtain the result $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EoS:p}
n^{\rm tot}_{p}(T,{\mu}_p,{\mu}_n)&=&
\frac{1 }{ V} \sum_{A,\nu,K}Z
f_{A,Z}[E^{\rm qu}_{A,\nu}(K;T,{\mu}_p,{\mu}_n)]\,,
\\
n^{\rm tot}_{n}(T,{\mu}_p,e{\mu}_n)&=&
\frac{1}{ V} \sum_{A,\nu,K}(A-Z)
f_{A,Z}[E^{\rm qu}_{A,\nu}(K;T,{\mu}_p,{\mu}_n)]\,\nonumber
\label{quasigas}\end{aligned}$$ for the EOS describing a mixture of components (cluster quasiparticles) obeying Fermi or Bose statistics. The total baryon density results as $n(T,{\mu}_{p},{\mu}_{n})
= n^{\rm tot}_{n}(T,{\mu}_{p},{\mu}_{n})
+n^{\rm tot}_{p}(T,{\mu}_{p},{\mu}_{n})$. To derive the extended Beth-Uhlenbeck formula, see [@Schmidt:1990], we restrict the summation to $A \le 2$, but extend the summation over the internal quantum numbers $\nu$, not only to the excited states, but also the scattering states. Note that at low temperatures Bose-Einstein condensation may occur.
The NSE is obtained in the low-density limit if the in-medium energies $E^{\rm qu}_{A,\nu}(K;T,{\mu}_{p},{\mu}_{n})$ can be replaced by the binding energies of the isolated nuclei $E^{(0)}_{A,\nu}(K)=E_{A,\nu}^{(0)}+K^{2}/(2Am)$, with $m=939$ MeV the average nucleon mass. For the cluster contributions, i.e. $A>1$, the summation over the internal quantum numbers is again restricted to the bound states only. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{NSE:p}
n^{\rm NSE}_{p}(T,{\mu}_p,{\mu}_n)&=&
\frac{1 }{V} \sum_{A,\nu,K}^{\rm bound} Z
f_{A,Z}[E^{(0)}_{A,\nu}(K)]\,,
\\
n^{\rm NSE}_{n}(T,{\mu}_p,{\mu}_n)&=&
\frac{1}{V} \sum_{A,\nu,K}^{\rm bound} (A-Z)
f_{A,Z}[E^{(0)}_{A,\nu}(K)]\,.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The summation over $A$ includes also the contribution of free nucleons, $A=1$.
In the nondegenerate and nonrelativistic case assuming a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, the summation over the momenta $K$ can be performed analytically and the thermal wavelength $\Lambda= \sqrt{2 \pi/(m T)}$ of the nucleon occurs. As shown below, the medium effects in nuclear matter are negligible below 10$^{-4}$ times the saturation density $n_0$ for the temperatures considered here.
Interesting quantities are the mass fractions $$X_{A,Z}= \frac{A}{V n} \sum_{\nu, K}
f_{A,Z}[E^{\rm qu}_{A,\nu}(K;T,{\mu}_p,{\mu}_n)]$$ of the different clusters. From the EOS considered here, thermodynamical potentials can be obtained by integration, in particular the free energy per volume $f={\tilde F}/V$. In the special case of symmetric nuclear matter, $Y_p^{\rm s}=0.5$, the free energy per volume is obtained from the averaged chemical potential $ \mu =( \mu_p+ \mu_n)/2$ (symmetric matter) as $$\label{freV}
f(T,n,Y_p^{\rm s}) = \int_0^n dn' \:
\mu(T,n',Y_p^{\rm s}) \: .$$
In the quantum statistical approach described above, we relate the EOS to properties of the correlation functions, in particular to the peaks occurring in the $A$-nucleon spectral function describing the single-nucleon quasiparticle ($A=1$) as well as the nuclear quasiparticles ($A \ge 2$). The microscopic approach to these quasiparticle energies can be given calculating the self-energy. Different approaches can be designed which reproduce known properties of the nucleonic system.
\[subsec:medium1\]Medium modification of single nucleon properties
------------------------------------------------------------------
The single-particle spectral function contains the single-nucleon quasiparticle contribution, $E_{1}^{\rm qu}(1) = E^{\rm qu}_{\tau}(k)$, given in Eq. (\[quasinucleon\]), where $\tau$ denotes isospin of particle $1$ and $ k$ is the momentum. In the effective mass approximation, the single-nucleon quasiparticle dispersion relation reads $$\label{quasinucleonshift}
E_{\tau}^{\rm qu}(k) = \Delta E^{\rm SE}_{\tau}(0) +\frac{k^2}{2
m_\tau^{\ast}} + {\mathcal O}(k^4)\,,$$ where the quasiparticle energies are shifted at zero momentum $ k$ by $\Delta E^{\rm SE}_{\tau}(0)$, and $m_\tau^{\ast}$ denotes the effective mass of neutrons ($\tau=n$) or protons ($\tau=p$). Both quantities, $\Delta E^{\rm SE}_{\tau}(0)$ and $m_\tau^{\ast}$, are functions of $T$, $n_{p}$ and $n_{n}$, characterizing the surrounding matter.
Expressions for the single-nucleon quasiparticle energy $E^{\rm qu}_{\tau}(k)$ can be given by the Skyrme parametrization [@Vautherin:1971aw] or by more sophisticated approaches such as relativistic mean-field (RMF) approaches [@Typ2005], and relativistic Dirac-Brueckner Hartree-Fock [@Fuchs:2005yn] calculations. We use the density-dependent relativistic mean field approach of [@Typ2005] that is designed not only to reproduce known properties of nuclei, but also fits with microscopic calculations in the low density region.
We can assume [@Klahn:2006ir] that the density-dependent RMF parametrisation covers a large density region. It will be used in this work to determine the single-nucleon quasiparticle energies. The single-nucleon quasiparticle energies result as $$E^{\rm qu}_{n,p}(0)=\sqrt{[m^2 -
S(T,n,\pm\delta)]^2 + k^2} + V(T,n,\pm\delta) \: .$$ In the nonrelativistic limit, the shifts of the quasiparticle energies are $$\Delta E^{\rm
SE}_{n,p}(k)=V(T,n,\pm\delta)-S(T,n,\pm\delta)\: .$$ The effective masses for neutrons and protons are given by $$m_{n,p}^{\ast} = m - S(T,n,\pm\delta) \: .$$ Approximations for the functions $V(T,n,\delta)$ and $S(T,n,\delta)$ are given in the literature [@Roe13]. These functions reproduce the empirical values for the saturation density $n_0\approx 0.15$ fm$^{-3}$ and the binding energy per nucleon $B/A\approx -16$ MeV. The effective mass is somewhat smaller than the empirical value $m^{\ast} \approx m(1-0.17~n/n_0)$ for $n<0.2$ fm$^{-3}$.
\[subsec:medium2\]Medium modification of cluster properties
-----------------------------------------------------------
Recent progress of the description of clusters in low density nuclear matter [@Sumiyoshi:2008; @Ropke:2008qk; @Ropke:2005] enables us to evaluate the properties of deuterons, tritons, helions and helium nuclei in a non-relativistic microscopic approach, taking the influence of the medium into account.
In addition to the $\delta$-like nucleon quasiparticle contribution, also the contribution of the bound and scattering states can be included in the single-nucleon spectral function by analyzing the imaginary part of $\Sigma (1,z)$. Within a cluster decomposition, $A$-nucleon $T$ matrices appear in a many-particle approach. These $T$ matrices describe the propagation of the $A$-nucleon cluster in nuclear matter. In this way, bound states contribute to $n_{\tau} =
n_{\tau}(T,\mu_{n},\mu_{p})$, see [@Ropke:1983; @Schmidt:1990]. Restricting the cluster decomposition only to the contribution of two-particle correlations, we obtain the so-called $T_{2}G$ approximation. In this approximation, the Beth-Uhlenbeck formula is obtained for the EOS, as shown in [@Ropke:1983; @Schmidt:1990]. In the low-density limit, the propagation of the $A$-nucleon cluster is determined by the energy eigenvalues of the corresponding nucleus, and the simple EOS (\[EoS:p\]) results describing the nuclear statistical equilibrium (NSE).
For nuclei imbedded in nuclear matter, an effective wave equation can be derived [@Ropke:1983; @Ropke:2008qk]. The $A$-particle wave function $\psi_{A\nu K}(1\dots A)$ and the corresponding eigenvalues $E^{\rm qu}_{A, \nu}(K)$ follow from solving the in-medium Schrödinger equation $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{[E^{\rm qu}(1)+\dots + E^{\rm qu}(A) - E^{\rm qu}_{A, \nu}(K)]
\psi_{A\nu K}(1\dots A)}
\nonumber \\ &&
+\sum_{1^{\prime} \dots A^{\prime}}\sum_{i<j}[1-\tilde{f}(i)- \tilde{f}(j)]
V(ij,i^{\prime}j^{\prime}) \nonumber \\ && \times \prod_{k \neq
i,j} \delta_{kk^{\prime}}\psi_{A \nu K}(1^{\prime}\dots A^{\prime})=0\,.
\label{waveA}\end{aligned}$$ This equation contains the effects of the medium in the single-nucleon quasiparticle shifts as well as in the Pauli blocking terms. The $A$-particle wave function and energy depend on the total momentum $K$ relative to the medium.
The in-medium Fermi distribution function $\tilde{f}(1)=\left(\exp\left\{ \beta
\left[E^{\rm qu}(1)- {\tilde \mu}_{\tau_1}\right]\right\} +1 \right)^{-1}$ contains the non-relativistic effective chemical potential ${\tilde \mu}_{\tau}$ which is determined by the total proton or neutron density calculated in quasiparticle approximation, $n_{\tau}^{\rm tot} =
V^{-1} \sum_{1} \tilde f(1) \delta_{\tau_{1},\tau}$ for the particles inside the volume $V$. It describes the occupation of the phase space neglecting any correlations in the medium. The solution of the in-medium Schrödinger equation (\[waveA\]) can be obtained in the low-density region by perturbation theory. In particular, the quasiparticle energy of the $A$-nucleon cluster with $Z$ protons in the ground state follows as $$\begin{aligned}
&&E^{\rm qu}_{A,\nu}(K) =
E_{A,Z}^{(0)}+\frac{ K^{2}}{2 A m} \nonumber \\ &&+
\Delta E_{A,Z}^{\rm SE}(K)+\Delta E_{A,Z}^{\rm Pauli}(K)
+ \Delta E_{A,Z}^{\rm Coul}(K),
\label{finalshift}\end{aligned}$$ plus higher order contributions with respect to density. Besides the cluster binding energy in the vacuum $E_{A,Z}^{(0)}$ and the kinetic term, the self-energy shift $\Delta E_{A,Z}^{\rm SE}(K)$, the Pauli shift $\Delta E_{A,Z}^{\rm
Pauli}(K)$ and the Coulomb shift $\Delta E_{A,Z}^{\rm
Coul}(K)$ enter. The latter can be evaluated for dense matter in the Wigner-Seitz approximation [@Ropke:1984; @Kolomiets:1997zzb; @Shlomo:2005]. It is given by $$\Delta E_{A,Z}^{\rm Coul}(K)=\frac{Z^2}{A^{1/3}}
\frac{3}{5} \frac{e^{2}}{r_{0}}
\left[ \frac{3}{2} \left(\frac{2 n_p}{n_0}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}
- \frac{n_p}{n_0}\right] %\: \mbox{\color{red} MeV?}$$ with $r_{0} = 1.2$ fm. Since the values of $Z$ are small, this contribution is small as well and disregarded here together with other small higher order terms in the quasiparticle energy (\[finalshift\]).
The self-energy contribution to the quasiparticle shift is determined by the contribution of the single-nucleon shift $$\label{delArigid}
\Delta E_{A,Z}^{\rm SE}(0)= (A-Z) \Delta E_{n}^{\rm SE}(0)+ Z \Delta
E_{p}^{\rm SE}(0) +\Delta E_{A,Z}^{\rm SE, eff.mass}\: .$$ The contribution to the self-energy shift due to the change of the effective nucleon mass can be calculated from perturbation theory using the unperturbed wave function of the clusters, see [@Sumiyoshi:2008], so that $$\label{delSEeff}
\Delta E_{A,Z}^{\rm SE, eff.mass}=\left(\frac{m}{m^{\ast}}-1\right)s_{A,Z}\: .$$ Values of $s_{A,Z}$ for $ \{A,Z\}=\{i\}=\{d,t,h,\alpha\} $ are given in Ref. [@Typel:2009sy]. Inserting the medium-dependent quasiparticle energies in the distribution functions (\[faz\]) this contribution to the quasiparticle shift can be included renormalizing the chemical potentials. The most important effect in the calculation of the abundances of light elements comes from the Pauli blocking terms in Eq. (\[waveA\]) in connection with the interaction potential. This contribution is restricted only to the bound states so that it may lead to the dissolution of the nuclei if the density of nuclear matter increases. The corresponding shift $\Delta E_{A,Z}^{\rm Pauli}(K)$ can be evaluated in perturbation theory provided the interaction potential and the ground state wave function are known. After angular averaging where in the Fermi functions the mixed scalar product $\vec{k} \cdot \vec{K}$ between the total momentum $\vec{K}$ and the remaining Jacobian coordinates $\vec{k}$ is neglected, the Pauli blocking shift can be approximated as $$\label{delpauli0P1}
\Delta E_{A,Z}^{\rm Pauli}(K) \approx \Delta E_{A,Z}^{\rm Pauli}(0) \,
\exp\left(-\frac{ K^{2}}{g_{A,Z}}\right)$$ where the amplitude $\Delta E_{A,Z}^{\rm Pauli}(0)$ and the dispersion $ g_{i}$ depend on the thermodynamic parameters $(T,n,Y_{p})$. Values are given in [@Typel:2009sy], for a more recent calculation see [@Ropke:2008qk; @Ropke2011].
With the neutron number $N_{i} = A_{i}-Z_{i}$, it can be written as $$\label{eq:lin_be_shift}
\Delta E_{A_{i},Z_{i}}^{\rm
Pauli}(0;n_{p},n_{n},T) =
-\frac{2}{A_{i}}
\left[Z_{i}n_{p}+N_{i}n_{n}\right]
\delta E^{\rm
Pauli}_{i}(T,n)~,$$ where the temperature dependence and higher density corrections are contained in the functions $ \delta E^{\rm
Pauli}_{i}(T,n)$.
Now, the nucleon number densities (\[quasigas\]) can be evaluated as in the non-interacting case, with the only difference that the number densities of the particles are calculated with the quasiparticle energies. In the light cluster-quasiparticle approximation, the total densities of neutrons (note that we change the notation to distinguish between the total nucleon density, former $n_\tau$, and the free nucleon density) $$n_{n}^{\rm tot} = n_{n} + \sum_{i=d,t,h,\alpha} N_{i} n_{i}$$ and of protons $$n_{p}^{\rm tot} = n_{p} + \sum_{i=d,t,h,\alpha} Z_{i} n_{i}$$ contain the densities of the free neutrons and protons $n_{n}$ and $n_{p}$, respectively, and the contributions from the nucleons bound in the clusters with densities $n_{i}$. The state of the system in chemical equilibrium is completely determined by specifying the total nucleon density $n=n_{n}^{\rm tot}+n_{p}^{\rm tot}$, the asymmetry $\delta$ and the temperature $T$ as long as no $\beta$-equilibrium is considered.
This result is an improvement of the NSE and allows for the smooth transition from the low-density limit up to the region of saturation density. The bound state contributions to the EOS are fading with increasing density because they move as resonances into the continuum of scattering states. This improved NSE, however, does not contain the contribution of scattering states explicitly. For the treatment of continuum states in the two-nucleon case, as well as the evaluation of the second virial coefficient, see [@Horowitz:2005nd; @Schmidt:1990].
The account of scattering states needs further consideration. Investigations on the two-particle level have been performed and extensively discussed [@Horowitz:2005nd; @Ropke:1983; @Schmidt:1990]. We use the Levinson theorem to take the contribution of scattering states into account in the lowest-order approximation. Each bound state contribution to the density has to accompanied with a continuum contribution that partly compensates the strength of the bound state correlations. As a consequence, the total proton and neutron densities are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{quasigas2_p}
n^{\rm tot}_{p}(T,{\mu}_p,{\mu}_n)&=&
\frac{1 }{ V} \sum_{A,\nu,K}^{\rm bound} Z
\left[ f_{A,Z}[E^{\rm qu}_{A,\nu}(K;T,{\mu}_p,{\mu}_n)] \right. \nonumber \\&& \left.
- f_{A,Z}[E^{\rm cont}_{A,\nu}(K;T,{\mu}_p,{\mu}_n)] \right]\,,
\\
\label{quasigas2_n}
n^{\rm tot}_{n}(T,\tilde{\mu}_p,\tilde{\mu}_n)&=&
\frac{1}{V} \sum_{A,\nu,K}^{\rm bound} (A-Z)
\left[ f_{A,Z}[E^{\rm qu}_{A,\nu}(K;T,{\mu}_p{\mu}_n)] \right. \nonumber \\&& \left.
- f_{A,Z}[E^{\rm cont}_{A,\nu}(K;T{\mu}_p,{\mu}_n)] \right]\,\end{aligned}$$ with explicit bound and scattering terms. $E^{\rm cont}_{A,\nu}$ denotes the edge of the continuum states that is also determined by the single-nucleon self-energy shifts. These expressions guarantee a smooth behavior if bound states merge with the continuum of scattering states. The summation over $A$ includes also the contribution of free nucleons, $A=1$, considered as quasiparticles with the energy dispersion given by the RMF approach. The summation over $K$ and the subtraction of the continuum contribution is extended only over that region of momentum space where bound states exist. The disappearance of the bound states is caused by the Pauli blocking term; the self-energy contributions to the quasiparticle shifts act on bound as well as on scattering states. Above the so-called Mott density, where the bound states at $K = 0$ disappear, the momentum summation has to be extended only over that region $K > K^{\rm Mott}_{A,\nu}(T,n,\delta)$ where the bound state energy is lower than the continuum of scattering states. The contribution of scattering states is necessary to obtain the second virial coefficient according to the Beth-Uhlenbeck equation, see [@Horowitz:2005nd; @Schmidt:1990]. This leads also to corrections in comparison with the NSE that accounts only for the bound state contributions, neglecting all effects of scattering states. These corrections become important at increasing temperatures for weakly bound clusters. Thus, the corrections which lead to the correct second virial coefficient are of importance for the deuteron system, when the temperature is comparable or large compared with the binding energy per nucleon. In the calculations for the quantum statistical (QS) model shown below, the contributions of these continuum correlations have been taken into account.
Solving Eqs. (\[quasigas2\_p\]) and (\[quasigas2\_n\]) for given $T$, $n^{\rm tot}_{p}$ and $n^{\rm tot}_{n}$ we find the chemical potentials $\mu_p$ and $\mu_n$. After integration, see Eq. (\[freV\]), the free energy is obtained, and all the other thermodynamic functions are derived from this quantity without any contradictions. Results are given below.
We do not consider the formation of heavy clusters here. This limits the parameter range $n_{n}^{\rm tot}$, $n_{p}^{\rm tot}$, $T$ in the phase diagram to that area where the abundances of heavier clusters are small. For a more general approach to the EOS which takes also the contribution of heavier cluster into account, see [@Ropke:1984]. Future work will include the contribution of the heavier clusters.
Further approximations refer to the linear dependence on density of the shifts of binding energies, calculated in perturbation theory. A better treatment will improve these shifts, but it can be shown that the changes are small. Furthermore, the approximation of the uncorrelated medium can be improved considering the cluster mean-field approximation [@Ropke:1983; @Ropke:2008qk; @Ropke:1980]. Last but not least, the formation of quantum condensates will give further contributions to the EOS. However, in the region considered here the formation of quantum condensates does not appear.
Results for the symmetry energy
-------------------------------
We perform the calculations for $A \le 4$ and compare them with several approximations. Solving the EOS (\[quasigas2\_p\]), (\[quasigas2\_n\]), we find the chemical potentials for symmetric matter as function of the densities and the temperature. The free energy density is obtained after integration, and the internal energy follows from the standard thermodynamic relations. The same procedure is made for neutron matter, and the difference of the internal energies gives the symmetry energy as shown in Figures \[fig:3\] and \[fig:4\]. The symmetry energy is calculated by using the finite difference formula, Eq. (12). The Coulomb energy of the clusters has been subtracted. Cluster formation is more clearly seen in the logarithmic scale, Fig. \[fig:3\], whereas the linear scale, Fig. \[fig:4\], is commonly used. The disappearance of clusters around $n_0/5$ indicates the transition to the RMF result. Because of the temperature dependence of the composition, the symmetry energy that is determined by the yields of clusters also depends strongly on $T$.
Degeneration effects are small, but can be easily incorporated. At low temperatures and high densities nucleons follow Fermi statistics. Pairing occurs in the two-nucleon channel and the transition from Cooper pairing to Bose-Einstein condensation is included. Even more interesting is Bose condensation for larger bosonic bound states that may occur at very low temperatures. The quarteting is a possible contribution that is presently not included.
This analysis should be improved by further considering the effects of continuum correlations. In particular, this will affect the contribution of deuterons that are weakly bound, and has been already taken into account in the present calculation. The Beth-Uhlenbeck formula gives the exact expression for the second virial coefficient. The effects become more relevant for high temperatures.
Due to the formation of correlations, in particular clusters, the symmetry energy becomes strongly temperature dependent. For decreasing temperatures, the contribution of higher clusters $A > 4$ is increasing. For an estimate of the contribution of higher clusters see [@Typel2013; @Hempel:2010]. Charge-neutral nuclear matter will not show a first order phase transition because of the Coulomb interaction that gives diverging energy, if with a homogeneous background of electrons the nuclear matter disensembles into a liquid phase and a gas-like phase. In that region, droplets and pasta-like structures may be formed, that are not fixed in space. Thus, the system remains in a homogeneous state in the thermodynamic context with a constant average density.
Laboratory Tests of the Equation of State at Low Density
========================================================
Experimental Technique
----------------------
The experimental information is derived from heavy-ion collisions of charge asymmetric nuclei, where transient states of different density can be reached, depending on the incident energy and the centrality of the collision. In the Fermi energy domain effects of the symmetry energy have been investigated in judiciously chosen observables [@Li:2008gp; @Baran:2004ih] suggesting an almost linear behavior around and below normal density [@Tsang:2008fd; @Wuenschel:2009; @Sfienti09].
Our experimental investigations of low density nuclear matter have utilized near Fermi energy heavy ion collisions to produce heated and expanded matter [@Kowalski:2006ju; @wang07; @Qin; @Wada; @natowitz10]. Cluster production was studied using the 4$\pi$ multi-detector, NIMROD, at the Cyclotron Institute at Texas A&M University. NIMROD consists of a 166 segment charged particle array set inside a neutron ball [@wuenschel09]. The charged particle array is arranged in 12 rings of Si-CsI telescopes or single CsI detectors concentric around the beam axis. The CsI detectors are 1-10 cm thick Tl doped crystals read by photomultiplier tubes. A pulse shape discrimination method is employed to identify light particles in the CsI detectors. For this experiment each of the forward rings included two segments having two Si detectors (150 and 500 $\mu$m thick) in front of the CsI detectors (super telescopes) and three having one Si detector (300 $\mu$m thick). Each super telescope was further divided into two sections. Neutron multiplicity was measured with the 4$\pi$ neutron detector surrounding the charged particle array. This detector is a neutron calorimeter filled with Gd doped pseudocumene. Thermalization and capture of emitted neutrons in the ball leads to scintillation which is observed with phototubes providing event by event determination of neutron multiplicities. Further details on the detection system, energy calibrations and neutron ball efficiency may be found in Ref. [@hagel00; @qin08]. The combined neutron and charged particle multiplicities were employed to select the most violent events for subsequent analysis.
Analyzing heavy ion collisions using the NIMROD multi-detector at Texas A&M University, the medium modification of light fragments that leads to the dissolution has been shown. Yields of light particles produced in the collisions of 47 $A$ MeV $^{ 40}$Ar with $^{112}$Sn , $^{124}$Sn and $^{64}$Zn with $^{112}$Sn, $^{124}$Sn were employed in Thermal coalescence model analyses to derive densities and temperatures of the evolving emitting systems. Free symmetry energies of these systems were determined using Isoscaling analyses.
The light particles and clusters emitted at the early stage of such collision are messengers carrying information on the dynamic evolution of the system and its degree of equilibration. We measure their energies, angles and yields and use that information to probe the properties of the system. We do this as a function of surface velocity of the emitted species. The surface velocity $v_{\rm surf}$, i.e. the velocity before the final Coulomb acceleration, serves as a surrogate to follow the time evolution of the system [@wang05].
Experimental determinations of the symmetry energy at very low densities produced in heavy ion collisions of $^{64}$Zn on $^{92}$Mo and $^{197}$Au at $35$ MeV per nucleon have also been reported [@Kowalski:2006ju]. The surface velocity was also used as a measure of the time when the particles leave the source under different conditions of density and temperature. Only values of $v_{\rm surf} < 4.5$ cm/ns were included in that work since it was argued that the system does not reach equilibrium for higher $v_{\rm surf}$, see Tab. I of Ref. [@Kowalski:2006ju].
Another experiment [@10; @40] was performed to study the dependence of the thermodynamic properties of nuclear material on neutron-proton asymmetry [@AsyDepMcI]. Here, collisions of $^{70}$Zn+$^{70}$Zn, $^{64}$Zn+$^{64}$Zn, and $^{64}$Ni+$^{64}$Ni at $E/A = 35$ MeV were studied. Charged particles and free neutrons produced in the reactions were measured in the NIMROD-ISiS 4$\pi$ detector array [@wuenschel09; @25]. The energy resolution achieved allowed excellent isotopic resolution of charged particles up to $Z=17$. For events in which all charged particles are isotopically identified, the QP (quasi-projectile, the primary excited fragment that exists momentarily after a non-central collision) was reconstructed using the charged particles and free neutrons. Thus, the reconstruction includes determination of the QP composition, both $A$ and $Z$. In order to select thermally equilibrated QPs, the QPs are required to be on-average spherical, in a narrow range of shape deformation. The excitation energy of the QPs is determined from the transverse kinetic energy of the charged particles, the Q-value of the QP breakup, the neutron multiplicity, and average neutron kinetic energy. This method of reconstruction has previously been described in detail [@Wuenschel:2009; @25; @20; @21; @24; @43; @44]. In this way, a set of quasi-projectiles was obtained, tightly selected on mass ($48 \le A_{QP} \le 52$), and which have properties consistent with thermal equilibration (i.e. selected on minimal shape deformation), and with known neutron-proton asymmetry.
Thermodynamic parameter determination
-------------------------------------
The characterization of properties of this low density matter necessarily begins with the determination of the temperature and density regions actually sampled in the collision. Temperature determinations are relatively well in-hand as there is a long history of experiments focusing on temperature determination which we will not repeat here. See for example [@hagel00; @21; @24; @nebbia86; @xu86; @fabris87; @hagel88; @wada89; @gonin89; @chbihi91; @nayak92; @schwarz93; @natowitz95; @tsang96; @majka97; @huang97; @xi98; @xi99; @natowitz02; @souza09]. In the work described in the following we have employed the Albergo method [@Albergo85] which uses double isotope ratios to determine temperatures based on chemical equilibrium assumptions. Thus, temperatures are determined using a H-He thermometer based on the double yield ratio of deuterons, tritons, $^3$He and $^4$He. Another method to extract temperatures is the analysis of fluctuations in the transverse momentum [@Zheng].
Accurate density determinations are inherently more difficult. Among the different experimental approaches which have been explored to extract densities for systems below normal density are:
- the use of the Albergo NSE based relations [@Kowalski:2006ju; @Albergo85],
- the use of the Mekjian coalescence model which takes into account three body terms which might mimic either a higher density (three body collisions) or Pauli blocking [@Qin; @Mekjian],
- analyses of caloric curve data or barrier data within the Fermi-Gas Model framework [@Natowitz2; @viola04],
- the quantum fluctuation analysis method [@Zheng],
- an approach based on use of the Chemical equilibrium constant employed in Ref. [@Qin].
The last approach was described in a recent paper [@R2013]. The yields of $d, t, ^3$He and $^4$He for evolving intermediate source systems formed in the collisions of 47$A$ MeV $^{40}$Ar with $^{112}$Sn and $^{124}$Sn, and 47$A$ MeV $^{64}$Zn with $^{112}$Sn and $^{124}$Sn were determined and this technique was applied to determine densities and temperatures. The free neutron yields are not measured but are determined from the free proton yield and the yield ratio of ${}^{3}$H to $^3$He. To determine the asymmetry parameter of the emitting sources the total proton and neutron yields including those bound in clusters are used. Values of $n = 0.002 - 0.032$ nucleons/fm$^3$ and $T= 5 - 10$ MeV were obtained. Figure \[fig:5\], taken from that work [@R2013], shows these results compared to results from several other analyses [@Kowalski:2006ju; @Qin; @Zheng]. While the NSE model is applicable at only very low densities, below $n \approx 0.001$ fm$^{-3}$ [@Shlomo:2009], the other models employed significantly higher densities and exhibit very reasonable agreement with each other.
The comparison of results from different techniques of extracting $T$ and $n_B$ from experimental data are presented in Fig. \[fig:5\].
Interestingly, the results of the coalescence model analysis [@Qin] and the quantum fluctuation analysis [@Zheng] presented in Fig. \[fig:5\] lead to very similar results. Both produce results quite similar to the densitometer analysis based on calculated QS model equilibrium constants. The fact that the two different experimental results for the temperature and density regions explored are consistent with each other despite the fact that they are obtained from quite different beam energies, emitting sources and analyses, suggests that an underlying unifying feature of the EOS is responsible. Indeed, further analysis by Mabiala [*et al.*]{} [@20; @21; @Zheng] indicate that the data are sampling the vapor branch of the liquid gas coexistence curve and may be employed to determine the critical temperatures of mesoscopic nuclear systems, within the framework of the Guggenheim systematics, in a manner analogous to previous treatments [@Natowitz2; @Elliott].
Test of the nuclear matter EOS at low densities
-----------------------------------------------
With our confidence in the temperature and density determinations bolstered by the consistency exhibited in Fig. \[fig:5\], we have addressed various aspects of clustering in the low density nuclear matter produced. In theoretical models cluster mass fractions are commonly used to characterize the degree of clusterization in low density matter. However, different theoretical models include various different competing species. This leads to differences in particular mass fractions quoted. If all relevant species are not included in the calculation, mass fractions cannot be accurately determined. To avoid this problem we have proposed that equilibrium constants for cluster formation be employed instead of mass fractions. In contrast to mass fractions, cluster formation equilibrium constants, such as that for $\alpha$ particle formation, i.e., $$K_c(\alpha) = \frac{n_\alpha}{n_n^2 n_p^2}$$ where $n_\alpha$, $n_n$, and $n_p$ are the $\alpha$ particle, neutron and proton densities, respectively, should be independent of proton fraction and choice of competing species.
Figure \[fig:6\] from reference [@Qin] depicts a comparison between our experimentally derived equilibrium constants and those resulting from models employing a variety of equations of state proposed for astrophysical applications [@Lattimer:1991nc; @Shen:1998gq; @Shen:2011; @Hempel:2010; @Typel:2009sy].
Not surprisingly the calculated values of the equilibrium constant tend to converge at the lower densities. Even at the lowest densities sampled, however, there are significant differences. At higher densities, 0.01 to 0.03 nuc/fm$^3$, the various interactions employed all lead to a decrease of $K_c$ below that of the Nuclear Statistical Equilibrium (NSE) values of Typel [*et al.*]{} [@Typel:2009sy], as expected. However most of them lead to higher values of $K_c(\alpha)$ than those derived from the experiment. The Lattimer-Swesty model [@Lattimer:1991nc] using Skyrme models with incompressibilities of 180 and 220 MeV and employing an excluded volume technique predict values slightly higher than the experimental values. This is also true for the Statistical Equilibrium model of Hempel and Schaffner-Bielich using an NL-3 interaction and also employing an excluded volume technique [@Hempel:2010]. The Quantum Statistical Model of Röpke *et al.*, which includes the medium modifications of the cluster binding energies leads to values close to the experimental values [@Ropke:2008qk; @Ropke2011]. The data provide important new constraints on the model calculations.
Shift of the binding energies and Mott points
---------------------------------------------
Using the equilibrium constants it is possible to derive temperature and density dependent binding energies of $d, t, ^3$He and $\alpha$ clusters from the data [@Hagel]. Since the observed temperatures and densities are correlated in our experiment the point at which an experimentally derived cluster binding energy is zero with respect to the surrounding medium corresponds to a particular combination of density and temperature. Thus, for our data, on clusters produced in collisions of 47 $A$ MeV $^{40}$Ar and $^{64}$Zn projectiles with $^{112}$Sn and $^{124}$Sn target nuclei we are able to extract a single Mott point for each cluster. In Figure \[fig:7\] we present the values of the Mott temperatures and densities and compare them with the loci of the values of medium modified binding energies predicted by the thermodynamic Green’s function method [@Ropke:2008qk; @Ropke2011], see Typel [*et al.*]{} [@Typel:2009sy]. This approach makes explicit use of an effective nucleon-nucleon interaction to account for medium effects on the cluster properties. We see that the agreement between the predictions and the experimental results is quite good.
Clusterization and the Symmetry Energy at Low Nucleon Density
=============================================================
Isoscaling and free symmetry energy
-----------------------------------
To explore the symmetry energy in low density nuclear matter we first employed isoscaling techniques to derive symmetry free energies [@MBTsang]. This analysis assumes that for two systems with similar temperatures but different $N/Z$ ratios, the ratio of yields of a particular isotope of mass number $A$, proton number $Z$, and neutron number $N$ in the two systems may be expressed as [@tsang01; @souza08] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq4}
\frac{Y_2(Z,N)}{Y_1(Z,N)}&=&
Ce^{((\mu_2(n)-\mu_1(n))N+(\mu_2(p)-\mu_1(p))Z)/T} \nonumber \\
&=&Ce^{\alpha N+\beta Z},\end{aligned}$$ where $C$ is a constant and $\mu(n)$ and $\mu(p)$ are the neutron and proton chemical potentials. The isoscaling parameters $\alpha=\big(\mu_2(n) - \mu_1(n)\big)/T$ and $\beta= \big(\mu_2(p) - \mu_1(p)\big)/T$, representing the difference in chemical potential between the two systems, may be extracted from suitable plots of yield ratios. Either parameter may then be related to the symmetry free energy, F$_{\rm sym}$. We take the $\alpha$ parameter, which is expected to be less sensitive to residual Coulomb effects. With the usual convention that system 2 is richer in neutrons than system 1, $$\alpha=4F_{\rm sym}\left[\left(\frac{Z_1}{A_1}\right)^2-\left(\frac{Z_2}{A_2}\right)^2\right]/T\,,$$ where $Z$ is the atomic number and $A$ is the mass number of the emitter [@natowitz10; @tsang01; @souza08]. Thus, F$_{\rm sym}$ may be derived directly from determinations of system temperatures, $Z/A$ ratios, and isoscaling parameters. We emphasize that the present analysis is carried out for light species characteristic of the nuclear gas rather than, as in most previous analyses, for the intermediate mass fragments thought to be characteristic of the nuclear liquid.
In this work we employ Eq. (\[eq4\]) with experimentally determined isoscaling parameters, $\alpha$, temperatures, $T$, and $Z/A$ ratios to determine the symmetry free energy coefficient F$_{\rm sym}$. Assuming the quadratic behavior of the symmetry energy term in the mass formula we can write $\alpha=4F_{\rm sym}\, \Delta(Z/A)^2/T$. Here $\alpha$ is the isoscaling coefficient determined from yield ratios of $Z =1$ ejectiles of the two reactions, $F_{\rm sym}$ is the free symmetry energy and $ \Delta(Z/A)^2$ is the difference of the squared asymmetries of the sources in the two reactions.
The isoscaling analysis has been employed (as a function of $v_{\rm surf}$) to determine $\alpha$ via the expression (\[eq4\]). With $ \Delta(Z/A)^2$ and the temperature determined from observed yields, the free symmetry energy is extracted [@Kowalski:2006ju; @Wada] .
Internal symmetry energy
------------------------
From the free symmetry energy $F_{\rm sym}$ the internal symmetry energy $E_{\rm sym}$ can be derived if the symmetry entropy $S_{\rm sym}$ is known, $$E_{\rm sym}=F_{\rm sym}+T S_{\rm sym}\,.$$ Simple approximations for $S_{\rm sym}$ obtained from NSE or virial expansions, see [@Kowalski:2006ju], cannot be used to derive the symmetry energy from the free symmetry energy. Given the general consistency of our data with the results of the QS calculations we have employed that model to determine the requisite symmetry entropies as a function of density and temperature. In contrast to the mixing entropy that leads to a larger entropy for uncorrelated symmetric matter in comparison with pure neutron matter, the formation of correlations, in particular clusters, will reduce the entropy in symmetric matter, see Fig. \[fig:9\] of Ref. [@Typel:2009sy]. For parameter values for which the yields of free nucleons in symmetric matter are small, the symmetry entropy may become positive for low temperatures. The fraction of nucleons bound in clusters can decrease, e.g. due to increasing temperature or the dissolution of bound states at high densities due to the Pauli blocking. Then, the symmetric matter recovers its larger entropy so that the symmetry entropy becomes negative.
Within this analysis we have employed the calculated symmetry entropy coefficients from the QS model [@Wada; @natowitz10] to determine the entropy contribution to the symmetry free energy and extract values of the symmetry energy coefficients from the data. The symmetry energies derived in this manner are presented in Fig. \[fig:8\].
Results for the symmetry energy and discussion
----------------------------------------------
The derived symmetry energy coefficients are plotted against density in Figure \[fig:8\] where they are compared to those which are predicted by the RMF and QS model calculations [@Typel2013]. Note that the underlying RMF model for the quasiparticle description with $n_0=0.149$ fm$^{-3}$, $E_{\rm sym}(n_0)=32.73$ MeV gives a reasonable behavior at high density. However, at the lowest densities sampled the quasiparticle mean-field approach (RMF without clusters) disagrees strongly with the experimentally deduced symmetry energy while the QS approach gives a rather good agreement with the experimental data. This reflects the formation of clusters, primarily $\alpha$ particles, not included in such calculations. The model with medium effects describes quite well the low-density symmetry energy data that were extracted from our analysis of heavy-ion collisions.
In Fig. \[fig:8\] we compare the internal symmetry energy in different approaches with the experimental values. In the left panel of the figure we show theoretical results for $T$ at or close to zero. A widely used momentum-dependent parametrization of the symmetry energy (MDI) at temperature $T=0$ MeV was given in Refs. [@Li:2008gp; @Che05] and is shown by dotted, dot-dashed and dashed lines corresponding to different values of the stiffness, governed by the parameter $x$. However, all these parametrizations vanish in the low-density limit. We compare this to the QS result at $T=1$ MeV (since the QS approach is not suitable for constructing the correlated ground state at $T=0$). In this approach the symmetry energy is finite at low density. (Because of the finite temperature at extremely low densities of the order of $10^{-5}~{\rm fm}^{-3}$ this curve will also approach zero.) Also note that the underlying RMF model for the quasiparticle description gives a reasonable behavior at high density similar to the MDI, $x$=0 parametrization. We thus see that the QS approach successfully interpolates between the clustering phenomena at low density and a realistic description around normal density. The generalized RMF, $T=0$ curve (see [@Typel:2009sy]) was constructed taking into account cluster formation, but demands further discussion with respect to the treatment of Coulomb interaction and phase transitions, see [@Typel2013].
Fig. \[fig:8a\] shows a comparison of the symmetry energy extracted from experimental data [@Kowalski:2006ju] to predictions of Danielewicz and Lee [@danielewicz13] and Chen [*et al.*]{} [@Che05]. The hatched area in the figure shows constraints obtained from analysis of isobaric analog states [@danielewicz13]. Calculations in [@natowitz10] combined with this analysis suggest a smooth transition from low density to normal nuclear density.
In the right panel of Fig. \[fig:8\] as well as in Fig. \[fig:9\] we compare the internal symmetry energy derived from the experimental data [@Kowalski:2006ju; @Wada; @natowitz10] in an expanded low-density region with the RMF and QS results. Again, it is clearly seen that the quasiparticle mean-field approach (RMF without clusters) disagrees strongly with the experimentally deduced symmetry energy while the QS approach gives a rather good agreement with the experimental data.
We find that medium-dependent cluster formation has to be considered in theoretical models to obtain the low-density dependence of the symmetry energy that is observed in experiments. The frequently used presentation for the density dependence of the symmetry energy that show vanishing symmetry energy at zero density and an increase that is linear with the density is not correct because correlations and cluster formation are essential in the low-density region. Note the strong dependence on temperature that is also not considered in the standard presentations, but has to be taken into account for applications in astrophysics and heavy ion collisions where temperatures in the range of several MeV are of interest.
Conclusion and outlook
======================
In conclusion, our comparison of experimental data with results of model calculations strongly indicates that accurate modeling of clusterization in low density matter is critical for both nuclear and astrophysical applications. A quantum-statistical model of nuclear matter, that includes the formation of clusters at densities below nuclear saturation, describes quite well the experimental low-density symmetry energy which was extracted from the analysis of heavy-ion collisions.
Using the QS approach, the composition and the thermodynamic quantities of nuclear matter can be modeled over a large region of densities, temperatures and asymmetries. In particular, it reproduces the statistical models of a gas consisting of various nuclei at low densities and the mean-field approaches that are applicable near the saturation density. An important ingredient is the disappearance of bound states at a certain density (denoted as Mott density) due to Pauli blocking.
Analyzing heavy ion collisions using the NIMROD multi-detector at the Cyclotron Institute at Texas A & M University the medium modification of light fragments that leads to the dissolution has been shown. Yields of light particles produced in the collisions of 47 $A$ MeV $^{40}$Ar with $^{112}$Sn ,$^{124}$Sn and $^{64}$Zn with $^{112}$Sn, $^{124}$Sn were employed in thermal coalescence model analyses to derive densities and temperatures of the evolving emitting systems. The nuclear matter equation of state has been tested, and significant deviations from the NSE have been found. The relevance of medium modifications that are obtained from the QS approach have been proven by experiments.
Isoscaling analyses were used to determine the free symmetry energies of these systems. Comparisons of the experimental values with those of calculations made using a model which incorporates medium modifications of cluster binding energies reveal a very good agreement. The model calculated symmetry entropies have been used together with the experimental free symmetry energies to derive symmetry energies of nuclear matter at densities of $0.03 \leq n/n_0 \leq 0.2$ and temperatures in the range 5 to 11 MeV. It has been shown that the occurrence of bound states, absent in a mean-field approach, leads to a significant increase of the symmetry energy in the low-density region in contrast to a linear increase of the symmetry energy with density as predicted by many mean-field motivated models. In the low-density region, the symmetry energy is strongly depending on temperature.
[**Acknowledgement**]{}: This research was supported by CompStar, a Research Networking Programme of the European Science Foundation, and in particular by grant No. DE-FG03-93ER40773 (Texas A & M) and by Robert A. Welch Foundation grant No. A0330 (JBN).
[00]{}
B. A. Li, [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rept. [**464**]{}, 113 (2008). J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, Phys. Rep. [**442**]{}, 109 (2007). S. Typel [*et al.*]{}, this volume
K. Sumiyoshi and G. Röpke, Phys. Rev. C [**77**]{}, 055804 (2008).
S. Kowalski [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**75**]{}, 014601 (2007). E. OÕConnor and C. D. Ott, Class. Quant. Grav. [**27**]{},114103 (2010).
E. J. Lentz *et al.*, J. Astrophys. [**760**]{}, 94 (2012).
J. M. Lattimer, [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. A [**A535**]{}, 331 (1991). H. Shen [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**A637**]{}, 435 (1998). G. Shen [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:nucl-th/1101.3715 (2011) M. Hempel et al., Nucl. Phys. [**A837**]{}, 210 (2010).
C. J. Horowitz and A. Schwenk, Nucl. Phys. [**A776**]{}, 55 (2006).
D. Lunney, J.M. Pearson, and C. Thibault, Rev. Mod. Phys. **75**, (2003) 1021-1082.
P. Danielewicz, Nucl. Phys. [**A727**]{}, 233 (2003).
H. Jiang, *et al.*, Phys. Rev. C [**85**]{}, 024301 (2012). S. Typel, G. Röpke, T. Klähn, D. Blaschke and H. H. Wolter, Phys. Rev. C [**81**]{}, 015803 (2010). W.-D. Kraeft, D. Kremp, W. Ebeling and G. Röpke, *Quantum Statistics of Charged Particle Systems*, Akademie-Verlag, Berlin, 1986.
C. Fuchs and H. H. Wolter, Eur. Phys. J. [**A30**]{}, 5 (2006). T. Klähn [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**74**]{}, 035802 (2006). G. Watanabe, [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**103**]{}, 121101 (2009). G. Röpke [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**A379**]{}, 536 (1982); [**A424**]{}, 594 (1984). M. Schmidt, G. R[ö]{}pke, and H. Schulz, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) [**202**]{}, 57 (1990).
J. P. Bondorf, [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rept. [**257**]{}, 133 (1995). G. Röpke, Phys. Rev. C [**79**]{}, 014002 (2009). S. Typel, Phys. Rev. C [**71**]{}, 064301 (2005).
G. Röpke, N.-U. Bastian, D. Blaschke, T. Klähn, S. Typel, and H. H. Wolter, Nucl. Phys. **A897**, 70 (2013).
D. Vautherin and D. M. Brink, Phys. Lett. [**B32**]{}, 149 (1970); Phys. Rev. C [**5**]{}, 626 (1972).
G. Röpke, A. Grigo, K. Sumiyoshi, and Hong Shen, Phys. Part. Nucl. Lett. [**2**]{}, 275 (2005).
G. Röpke, M. Schmidt and H. Schulz, Nucl. Phys. [**A424**]{}, 594 (1984).
A. Kolomiets [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**55**]{}, 1376 (1997).
S. Shlomo and V. M. Kolomietz, Rep. Prog. Phys. [**68**]{}, 1 (2005).
G. Röpke, Nucl. Phys. [**A867**]{}, 66 (2011).
G. Röpke [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Stat. Sol. (b) [**100**]{}, 215 (1980).
V. Baran, [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rept. [**410**]{}, 335 (2005). M. B. Tsang [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 122701 (2009). S. Wuenschel [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**79**]{}, 061602(R) (2009).
C. Sfienti, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 152701 (2009)
J. Wang [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**75**]{}, 014604 (2007).
L. Qin [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**108**]{}, 172701 (2012).
R. Wada [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**85**]{}, 064618 (2012).
J. B. Natowitz *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **104**, 202501 (2010)
S. Wuenschel *et al.*, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. **A604**, 578 (2009).
K. Hagel [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**62**]{} 034607 (2000)
L. Qin, Thesis, Texas A&M University (2008).
J. Wang *et al.*, Phys. Rev. C **72**, 024603 (2005).
Z. Kohley et al., Phys. Rev. C [**86**]{}, 044605 (2012)
Z. Kohley et al., Phys. Rev. C [**83**]{}, 044601 (2011)
A.B. McIntosh [*et al.*]{}, [*How Much Cooler Woud It Be With Some More Neutrons?*]{}, this volume
S. Wuenschel, Ph.D. thesis, Texas A & M Univ. (2009)
A.B. McIntosh et al., Phys. Lett. [**B719**]{}, 337 (2013)
A.B. McIntosh et al., Phys. Rev. C [**87**]{}, 034617 (2013)
S. Wuenschel et al., Nucl. Phys. [**A843**]{}, 1 (2010)
P. Marini et al., Phys. Rev. C [**85**]{}, 034617 (2012)
J.C. Steckmeyer et al., Nucl Phys. [**A686**]{}, 537 (2001)
G. Nebbia [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**B176**]{}, 20 (1986).
H. M. Xu [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**B182**]{}, 155 (1986).
D. Fabris [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**B196**]{}, 429 (1987).
K. Hagel [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**A486**]{}, 429 (1988).
R. Wada [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**39**]{}, 497 (1989).
M. Gonin [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett [**B217**]{}, 406 (1989).
A. Chbihi [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**43**]{}, 666 (1991).
T. K. Nayak [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**45**]{}, 132 (1992).
C. Schwarz [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**48**]{}, 676 (1993).
J. B. Natowitz [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**52**]{}, R2322 (1995).
M. B. Tsang [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**53**]{}, R1057 (1996).
Z. Majka [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**55**]{}, 2291, (1997).
M. J. Huang [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 1648 (1997).
H. Xi [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**B431**]{}, 8 (1998).
H. Xi [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**59**]{}, 1567 (1999).
J. B. Natowitz [*et al.*]{} Phys. Rev. C [**65**]{}, 034618 (2002).
S. R. Souza [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**80**]{}, 044606 (2009).
S. Albergo, [*et al.*]{}, Nuovo Cimento A [**89**]{}, 1 (1985)
H. Zheng and A. Bonasera, Phys. Lett. B [**696**]{}, 178 (2011); H. Zheng, G. Giuliani, and A. Bonasera, Nucl. Phys. A [**892**]{}, 43 (2012); J. Mabiala [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:1208.3480v1 \[nucl-ex\].
A. Z. Mekjian, Phys. Rev. C [**17**]{}, 1051 (1978); Phys. Rev. Lett. [**38**]{}, 640 (1977).
J. B. Natowitz [*et al.*]{}, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E [**13**]{}, 269 (2004).
V. E. Viola [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 132701 (2004).
G. Röpke [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**88**]{}, 024609 (2013).
S. Shlomo [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**79**]{}, 034604 (2009).
J. B. Elliott [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**67**]{}, 024609 (2003); J. B. Elliott [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:1203.5132 submitted to Phys. Rev. C (2013).
K. Hagel [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**108**]{}, 062702 (2012).
M. B. Tsang [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 5023 (2001).
M. B. Tsang *et al.*, Phys. Rev.C **64**, 041603 (2001).
S. R. Souza *et al.*, Phys. Rev. C **78**, 014605 (2008).
L. W. Chen [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 032701 (2005); Phys. Rev. C [**76**]{}, 054316 (2007).
P. Danielewicz and J. Lee, arXiv:1307.4130 \[nucl-th\]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present precision lattice calculations of the pseudoscalar decay constants of the charmed sector as well as determinations of the bottom quark mass and its ratio to the charm quark mass. We employ $N_f=2+1+1$ dynamical quark gauge configurations generated by the European Twisted Mass Collaboration, using data at three values of the lattice spacing and pion masses as low as 210 MeV. Strange and charm sea quark masses are close to their physical values.'
address:
- 'Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Roma “Tor Vergata", Via della Ricerca Scientifica 1, 00173, Rome, Italy'
- 'INFN, Sezione di Roma Tre, Via della Vasca Navale 84, I-00146 Rome, Italy'
- 'Dipartimento di Fisica, Università Roma Tre, Via della Vasca Navale 84, I-00146 Rome, Italy'
- 'Museo Storico della Fisica e Centro Studi e Ricerche “Enrico Fermi", Compendio del Viminale, Piazza del Viminale 1, I-00184 Rome, Italy '
- 'School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ Southampton, U.K.'
author:
- 'A. Bussone'
- 'N. Carrasco'
- 'P. Dimopoulos'
- 'R. Frezzotti'
- 'P. Lami'
- 'V. Lubicz'
- 'F. Nazzaro'
- 'E. Picca'
- 'L. Riggio'
- 'G.C. Rossi'
- 'F. Sanfilippo'
- 'S. Simula'
- 'C. Tarantino'
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: 'Heavy flavour precision physics from $N_f = 2 + 1 + 1$ lattice simulations'
---
$D_{(s)}$-decay constants, $b$-quark mass, Lattice QCD, ETMC
Introduction {#Intro}
============
Physical processes in the heavy quark sector offer the possibility to get some of the more stringest tests of the Standard Model and to search for possible footprints of New Physics dynamics, by directly challenging the unitarity constraints of the CKM matrix.
Lattice QCD has already entered the precision era as the accuracy of numerical computations is becoming comparable to that of experiments. For some of the relevant hadronic quantities in Flavour Physics the goal of per cent precision has been achieved. State-of-the-art lattice calculations involve O$(a)$-improved fermionic actions with $N_f=$ 2, 2+1 and 2+1+1 dynamical flavours with the smallest simulated pion masses being today at the physical point or slightly higher and employing three or more values of the lattice spacing. For a review with a critical evaluation of lattice results and averages, see [@Aoki:2013ldr]. First computations with four non-degenerate quark flavours including electromagnetic effects have also been presented recently [@Borsanyi:2014jba].
Direct computations by many lattice collaborations have shown that the cutoff effects in the $D$-sector are small and under control. Moreover, considerable progress has been recently made in flavour physics at the $b$ mass, with the help of both effective theories approaches and thanks to the implementation of some innovative methods. All these progresses have allowed the determination of a number of $B$-physics parameters (e.g. $m_b$, $f_B$ and $f_{B_s}$) with controlled systematic uncertainties.
Lattice methods are an invaluable tool to obtain direct determinations of hadronic quantities relevant for the computation of many of the so called golden plated processes such as decay constants, form factors and bag parameters. For instance, the width of the $D$ and $D_s$ leptonic decays is given, to lowest order, by $$\label{eq:width}
\hspace*{-0.3cm}\Gamma(D_{(s)} \rightarrow \ell \nu) = \dfrac{G_F^2 f_{D_{(s)}}^2 m_{\ell}^2 M_{D{(s)}}}{8\pi}
\left( 1 - \dfrac{m_{\ell}^2}{M_{D{(s)}}^2}\right)^2
| V_{cd(s)}|^2 .$$ Thus lattice computations of the quantities $f_D$ and $f_{Ds}$ gives access to the determination of the CKM matrix elements, $|V_{cd}|$ and $|V_{cs}|$, respectively, as in Eq. (\[eq:width\]) all the rest is known experimentally. On the experimental side also the accuracy of the measurements of the $D$ [@Zupanc:2013byn; @delAmoSanchez:2010jg; @Naik:2009tk] and $D_s$ [@BESIII:2014uxa; @BESIII:ichep2014] leptonic width has progressively improved during the years.
Lattice QCD provides a first principles’ way to compute quark masses. This is possible since quark masses enter as parameters in the QCD Lagrangian and their values can be extracted by matching hadron masses calculated on the lattice with their experimental values. The accuracy of quark mass estimates depends on the conversion from the lattice regularisation to continuum renormalisation schemes. Quark mass ratios instead can be computed in a fully non-perturbative way and are free of renormalisation scheme ambiguities. We notice, here, that the knowledge of the $b$-quark mass value and to less extent that of the $c$-quark mass plays an important r$\hat{{\rm o}}$le in the study of the Higgs decay to $b\bar b$ and $c\bar c$ [@Djouadi:2005gi].
The European Twisted Mass Collaboration (ETMC) has undertaken an extensive program of heavy quark physics calculations on the lattice using two and four dynamical flavours. Here we present the results of the computation of the $D_{(s)}$ pseudoscalar meson decay constants (in the isospin symmetric limit) and the $b$ to $c$ quark mass ratio obtained using gauge configurations with $N_f=2+1+1$ dynamical quarks. The main ([*preliminary*]{}) results in these proceedings are $$f_D = 208.7(5.2) ~{\rm MeV}, ~~~f_{Ds} = 247.5(4.1) ~ {\rm MeV},$$ $$\dfrac{f_{Ds}}{f_D} = 1.186(21),~~~~~~ \left(\dfrac{f_{Ds}}{f_D}\right) \Big{/} \left(\dfrac{f_{K}}{f_{\pi}}\right)=0.998(14),$$ $$m_b(\overline{{\rm MS}}, m_b) = 4.26 (16) ~ {\rm GeV},$$ $$m_b/m_c = 4.40(8)$$ For completeness we remind the recent ETMC determinations of the $c$-quark mass and the charm to strange quark mass ratio published in [@Carrasco:2014cwa]: $$m_c(\overline{{\rm MS}}, m_c) = 1.348 (42) ~ {\rm GeV}, ~~ m_c/m_s = 11.62(16)$$ For a preliminary ETMC computation of the $B$-meson decay constants, giving $f_B = 196 (9)$ MeV, $f_{Bs} = 235 (9)$ MeV and $f_{Bs}/f_{B} = 1.201 (25)$, we refer to [@Carrasco:2013naa].
Lattice setup
=============
ETMC has produced gauge configurations with $N_f=2+1+1$ dynamical quarks [@Baron:2010bv] employing the Iwasaki gluon action [@Iwasaki:1985we] and the Wilson Twisted Mass fermionic action for the sea quarks [@Frezzotti:2003xj]. Automatic O$(a)$-improvement is guaranteed both for the light and heavier quarks by tuning at maximal twist whilst the drawback of the mixing between the strange and charm sectors [@Baron:2010th] is avoided in the valence by using the Osterwalder-Seiler fermions [@Osterwalder:1977pc]. We have data ensembles at three values of the lattice spacing in the range \[0.06, 0.09\] fm. Simulated pion masses lie in the interval \[210, 440\] MeV. Thanks to the properties of the twisted mass action light quarks in the sea and all types of quarks in the valence enjoy multiplicative mass renormalisation, $Z_m = 1/Z_P$, which is computed non-perturbatively using the RI$'$-MOM scheme [@Carrasco:2014cwa]. Moreover owing to PCAC, at maximal twisted angle no normalisation constant is needed in the computation of the decay constants. In Ref. [@Carrasco:2014cwa] we have presented our computation for the quark masses of the (degenerate) light $m_{u/d}(\overline{{\rm MS}}, 2~{\rm GeV})= 3.70 (17)$ MeV, strange $m_{s}(\overline{{\rm MS}}, 2~{\rm GeV})= 99.6 (4.1)$ MeV and charm $m_{c}(\overline{{\rm MS}}, m_c)= 1.348 (42)$ GeV, which are determined by using the experimental values of the pion, kaon and $D$ (or $D_s$) masses, respectively. The phenomenological value of $f_{\pi}$ has been used for setting the scale.\
In this work the computation of the decay constants in the charmed region as well as the determination of the $b$-quark mass are performed using (Gaussian) smearing meson operators [@Gusken:1989qx; @Jansen:2008si] combined with APE smeared links [@Albanese:1987ds] in order to reduce both the coupling of the interpolating field with the excited states and the gauge noise of the links involved in the smeared fields. (For an alternative preliminary analysis of the charmed decay constants that use local point correlators see Ref.[@Dimopoulos:2013qfa].) A summary of the most important details of our simulations is given in Table 1.
\[Tab1\]
Charmed decay constants
=======================
We use two point correlation functions with pseudoscalar interpolating operators, $P(x) = \overline{q}_1(x) \gamma_5 q_2(x)$, that in periodic lattice have the typical form: $$\begin{aligned}
C_{PP}(t) &=& (1/L^3)\sum_{\vec{x}} \langle P(\vec{x},t) P^{\dagger}(\vec{0}, 0) \rangle \nonumber \\
&& \hspace*{-1.2cm}\stackrel{t \gg 0, ~(T-t) \gg 0}{\longrightarrow}
\dfrac{\xi_{PP}}{2M_{ps}} \left(e^{-M_{ps} t} + e^{-M_{ps}(T-t)} \right)\end{aligned}$$ We take the Wilson parameters of the two valence quarks of the pseudoscalar meson to be opposite in order to guarantee that the cutoff effects on the pseudoscalar mass are $O(a^2 \mu)$ [@FrezzoRoss1; @Frezzotti:2005gi; @Dimopoulos:2009qv]. We then consider two cases, using smeared source only and source and sink both smeared. As for $\xi_{PP}$, this is given by $\xi_{PP} = \langle 0| P^{L}|ps \rangle \langle ps |P^{S}|0 \rangle$ in the first case and $\xi_{PP} = \langle 0 | P^{S}|ps \rangle\langle ps |P^{S}|0\rangle$ in the second one, where $L$ and $S$ indicate local and smeared operators. By combining the two kinds of correlators it is easy to obtain the matrix element of the local operator $g_{ps} = \langle 0 | P^{L} | ps \rangle $ which serves for computing the pseudoscalar decay constant (via PCAC) given by: $$\label{eq:fps}
f_{ps} = (\mu_{1} + \mu_{2}) \dfrac{g_{ps}}{M_{ps} \sinh M_{ps}},$$ where $\mu_{1,2}$ are the masses of the valence quarks that form the pseudoscalar meson with mass $M_{ps}$. The use of $\sinh M_{ps}$ (rather than $M_{ps}$) in Eq. (\[eq:fps\]) is beneficial for reducing the discretisation errors. For the computation of $f_{Ds}$ we tune, via well controlled interpolations, one of the valence quark masses to the value of the strange mass and the other to the value of the charm mass, both taken from Ref. [@Carrasco:2014cwa].
In this way, for each value of the sea light quark mass and of the three lattice spacings, we get estimates for the decay constant $f_{cs}$. Then a simultaneous extrapolation to the physical value of the $u/d$ quark mass and to the continuum limit can be performed in order to obtain $f_{Ds}$. In the present analysis we consider the quantity $(f_{cs}/M_{cs}) \times M_{Ds}^{expt}$, where $M_{cs}$ is a pseudoscalar meson mass made of $c$ and $s$ quarks and is computed at each value of the sea light quark mass, while $M_{Ds}^{expt} = 1969.0(1.4)$ MeV is the experimental value of the $D_s$ mass. The above choice of observable is advantageous because, first, in the determination of $f_{Ds}$ any scale setting uncertainty is avoided and, second, this quantity presents very small discretisation effects. The fit ansatz of the combined chiral and continuum extrapolation reads: $[(f_{cs}/M_{cs}) \times M_{Ds}^{expt}] = C_0 + C_1~ \overline{\mu}_{\ell} + D~ a^2$, see Fig. \[fig:fDs\]. We control chiral fit uncertainties by adding in the above fit ansatz either a quadratic quark mass term or fitting data corresponding to light pseudoscalar masses with $M_{\ell \ell} < 350$ MeV. Finite volume systematics are estimated by fitting data corresponding to $L > 2.6$ fm. Discretisation systematic errors have been estimated by fitting data either from the two finest lattice spacings or from the two coarsest ones, and also by estimating the difference of our results from the finest lattice to the continuum limit. Moreover, we have also included the propagated error due to the $m_{s,c}$ uncertainties as well as the systematic effect of the quark mass renormalisation constant (RC) computed in two ways that differ by O$(a^2)$ effects. Our central value is the weighted average over the results from all the analyses described above. Our ([*preliminary*]{}) result for $f_{Ds}$ reads $$\label{eq:fDs_res}
f_{Ds} = 247.5\,(3.0)_{stat+fit}\, (2.7)_{syst}\,[4.1] ~~{\rm MeV},$$ where we report in square brackets the total error ($\sim$ 1.6%) that is the sum in quadrature of the statistical and systematic uncertainties. For the full error budget see Table 2.
\[Tab: budget\]
In Fig. \[fig:fDs\_compr\] we compare our result with those computed in other lattice studies and with the PDG estimate based on experimental results and unitarity assumptions. Some tension between the PDG estimate and the most precise lattice results is still present.
In order to determine the SU(3) symmetry breaking ratio $f_{Ds}/f_D$ we measure on our data sets the double ratio ${\cal R}_f=(f_{cs}/f_{c\ell})(f_{\ell\ell}/f_{s\ell})$. This choice enjoys the property of very mild light quark mass dependence as expected from the large cancellation between the SU(2) chiral logarithms [@Becirevic:2002mh; @Blossier:2009bx]. The quantity ${\cal R}_f$ in the continuum limit and at the physical pion mass point multiplied with $(f_K/f_{\pi})$ (taken from Ref. [@Carrasco_new]) will provide the result for $f_{Ds}/f_D$. We try the following fit ansätze: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fa_1}
{\cal R}_f &=& c_0^{(1)} + c_1^{(1)} \overline\mu_{\ell} + D^{(1)} a^2, \\
{\cal R}_f &=& c_0^{(2)}\Big[1 + c_1^{(2)} \overline\mu_{\ell} + \nonumber \\
&& +\left( \frac{9\hat{g}^2}{4} - \frac{1}{2} \right) \label{eq:fa_2}
\xi_{\ell}\log\xi_{\ell} \Big] + D^{(2)} a^2, \end{aligned}$$ where $\xi_{\ell} = (2 B_0 \overline\mu_{\ell})/(4 \pi f_0)^2$ with $B_0$ and $f_0$ determined in Ref. [@Carrasco:2014cwa]. We have applied finite size corrections using Ref.[@Colangelo:2005gd]. Among the available estimates for the ($D^{*}D\pi$) coupling we have used $\hat{g}=0.61(7)$ that in our case leads to the most conservative estimate for the chiral fit systematic uncertainty. The chiral and continuum limit extrapolation is shown in Fig. \[fig:fDs\_ov\_fD\]. Moreover we have performed an analysis similar to the one for $f_{Ds}$ in order to estimate our systematic uncertainties. The full error budget is given in Table 2. The central value corresponds to the weighted average over results from all the different analyses. Our ([*preliminary*]{}) results read $$(f_{Ds}/f_D){\large/}(f_{K}/f_{\pi}) = 0.998\,(8)_{stat+fit}\,(11)_{syst} [14],$$ $$f_{Ds}/f_{D} = 1.186\,(9)_{stat+fit}\,(19)_{syst}\,[21], \label{eq:fDs_ov_fD_res}$$ and each one of the total errors (in square brackets) is the sum in quadrature of the statistical error and the systematic one.
We combine the results from Eqs. (\[eq:fDs\_res\]) and (\[eq:fDs\_ov\_fD\_res\]) to get our ([*preliminary*]{}) result for the decay constant of the $D$-meson, namely $f_D = f_{Ds}/(f_{Ds}/f_D)$, which reads: $$\label{eq:fD_res}
f_D = 208.7\,(3.3)_{stat+fit}\,(4.0)_{syst}\, [5.2] ~~{\rm MeV} ,$$ where also in this case the total error written in square brackets ($\sim$ 2.5%) is the sum in quadrature of the statistical and systematic uncertainties. For the complete error budget see Table 2.
In Figs. \[fig:fDs\_ov\_fD\_compr\] and \[fig:fD\_compr\] we present a world comparison between lattice results for $f_{Ds}/f_{D}$ and $f_D$, respectively. In both figures the PDG estimate is also included. For some recent non-lattice estimates of the charmed decay constants, see Refs. [@Narison:2012xy; @Lucha:2011zp; @Wang:2013ff; @Gelhausen:2013wia].
Computation of $m_b$ and $m_b/m_c$
==================================
We perform the determination of the $b$-quark mass employing the [*ratio method*]{} described in detail in Refs. [@Carrasco:2013zta; @Blossier:2009hg; @Dimopoulos:2011gx]. We present here a variant of this method and we build the quantity $Q_h = M_{hs}/(M_{h\ell})^{\gamma}$, where $M_{hs}$ and $M_{h\ell}$ are the heavy-strange and heavy-light pseudoscalar masses, respectively. The parameter $\gamma$ is a free one and may take values at will in the interval $[0,1)$. By HQET arguments we know that for the asymptotic behaviour we get: $$\displaystyle \lim_{\mu_h^{\rm pole}\to \infty} \left(\frac{M_{hs}/(M_{h\ell})^{\gamma}}{(\mu_h^{\rm pole})^{(1-\gamma)}}\right)
= {\rm const.} ~,$$ where $\mu_h^{\rm pole}$ is the heavy quark pole mass. We then consider a sequence of heavy quark masses expressed in the $\overline{{\rm MS}}$-scheme at the scale of 2 GeV such that any two successive masses have a common and fixed ratio i.e. $\overline{\mu}^{(n)} = \lambda \overline{\mu}^{(n-1)}$, $n = 2, 3, \dots $. The next step is to construct at each value of the sea quark mass and the lattice spacing the following ratios: $$\begin{aligned}
&& y_Q(\overline\mu_h^{(n)},\lambda;\overline\mu_{\ell}, \overline\mu_s, a) \equiv \nonumber \\
&&\equiv
\frac{Q_h(\overline\mu_h^{(n)};\overline\mu_\ell, \overline\mu_s, a)}{Q_h(\overline\mu_h^{(n-1)};\overline\mu_\ell, \overline\mu_s, a)}
\cdot
\left(\frac{\overline\mu^{(n)}_h \rho (\overline\mu^{(n)}_h,\mu^{*})}
{\overline\mu^{(n-1)}_h \rho (\overline\mu^{(n-1)}_h,\mu^{*})}\right)^{(\gamma - 1) } \nonumber \\
\hspace*{-1cm}&& = \lambda^{(\gamma-1)} \frac{Q_h(\overline\mu_h^{(n)};\overline\mu_\ell, \overline\mu_s, a)}
{Q_h(\overline\mu^{(n)}_h/\lambda;\overline\mu_\ell, \overline\mu_s, a)}
\left(\frac{ \rho (\overline\mu^{(n)}_h,\mu^{*} )}{\rho( \overline\mu^{(n)}_h/\lambda,\mu^{*})}\right)^{(\gamma - 1)}\, \label{eq:yn}\end{aligned}$$ with $n = 2, 3, \dots $ and we have used the relation $\mu_{h}^{pole} = \rho( \overline\mu_h,\mu^{*})~\overline{\mu}_h(\mu^{*})$ between the $\overline{{\rm MS}}$ renormalised quark mass (at the scale of 2 GeV) and the pole quark mass. The $\rho$’s are known perturbatively up to N$^3$LO. For each pair of heavy quark masses we then carry out a simultaneous chiral and continuum fit of the quantity defined in Eq. (\[eq:yn\]) to obtain $y_Q(\overline\mu_h) \equiv y_Q(\overline\mu_h,\lambda;\overline\mu_{u/d}, \overline\mu_s, a=0)$. By construction this quantity involves (double) ratios of pseudoscalar meson masses at successive values of the heavy quark mass, so we expect that discretisation errors will be under control. In fact this is the case even for the largest values of the heavy quark mass used in this work, see Fig. \[fig:y8\]. Since we have taken into account the matching of QCD onto HQET concerning the evaluation of a heavy-light pseudoscalar mass, $M_{hs/\ell}$, our ratio $y_Q(\overline\mu_h)$ has been defined in such a way that the following ansatz is sufficient to describe the $\overline\mu_h$-dependence[^1] $$\label{eq:y_vs_muh}
y_Q(\overline\mu_h) = 1 + \frac{\eta_1}{\overline \mu_h} + \frac{\eta_2}{{\overline \mu}_h^2},$$ in which the constraint $\lim_{\overline\mu_h \to \infty} y_Q(\overline\mu_h) = 1$ has already been incorporated. This fit is reported in Fig. \[fig:y\_vs\_muh\]. Finally, we compute the $b$-quark mass via the [*chain*]{} equation $$\begin{aligned}
&&y_Q(\overline\mu_h^{(2)})\, y_Q(\overline\mu_h^{(3)})\,\ldots \, y_Q(\overline\mu_h^{(K+1)})= \nonumber \\
&& =\displaystyle \lambda^{K(\gamma - 1)} \,
\frac{Q_{h}(\overline\mu_h^{(K+1)})}{Q_{h}(\overline\mu_h^{(1)})} \cdot
\Big{(}\frac{\rho( \overline\mu_h^{(K+1)},\mu^*)}{\rho( \overline\mu_h^{(1)},\mu^*)}\Big{)}^{\gamma - 1} \label{eq:chain}\end{aligned}$$ in which the values of the factors in the (lhs) are evaluated using the result of the fit function (Eq. \[eq:y\_vs\_muh\]) and $\lambda$, $K$ (integer) and $\overline{\mu}^{(1)}_h$ are such that the quantity $Q_{h}(\overline\mu_h^{(K+1)})$ matches $M_{Bs}/(M_B)^{\gamma}$, where $M_{Bs} = 5366.7(4)$ MeV and $M_B$ = 5279.3(3) MeV are the experimental values of the $B_s$- and $B$-meson masses [@Agashe:2014kda], respectively. Notice that the quantity $Q_{h}(\overline\mu_h^{(1)})$ for [*any*]{} value of $\overline\mu_h^{(1)}$ around the charm quark mass is safely computed in the continuum limit and at the physical pion mass. For instance, using quark mass RC of the M2-type (see [@Carrasco:2014cwa]) and setting as input $\overline{\mu}^{(1)}_h = 1.148$ GeV and $\gamma = 0.75$ we find $(\lambda, ~ K) = (1.1588, ~10)$. Thus, the $b$-quark mass in the $\overline{{\rm MS}}$-scheme at the scale of 2 GeV is given by $\overline{\mu}_b = \lambda^{K}~ \overline{\mu}^{(1)}_h $. Our [*preliminary*]{} result for the $b$-quark mass is given by the average over two estimates obtained using either M1 or M2-type quark mass RCs while their half difference is taken as an additional systematic error. This reads $$m_b(\overline{{\rm MS}}, m_b) = 4.26 (7)_{stat+fit} (14)_{syst} [16]~ {\rm GeV},$$ where the total error (in brackets) is the sum in quadrature of the statistical and the systematic ones. For a complete error budget we refer to Table 3.
\[Tab: budget\_mb\]
We have verified that for a large range of values of $\gamma \in [0,~ 1)$ we get fully compatible final results[^2] for $m_b$. The freedom of choosing $\gamma$ allows for better control of systematic uncertainties stemming from discretisation effects and the fit ansatz Eq. (\[eq:y\_vs\_muh\]).
Finally, the ratio method offers the advantage of determining the ratio $m_b/m_c$ in a simple and fully non-perturbative way. By setting $\overline{\mu}^{(1)}_h = \overline{\mu}_c$ we repeat the above ratio method analysis and we find $$m_b / m_c = 4.40 (6)_{stat+fit} (5)_{syst} [8]$$ A complete error budget is also reported in Table 3. In Figs. \[fig:mb\_compr\] and \[fig:mb\_ov\_mc\_compr\] we present a comparison between lattice results for $m_b$ and $m_b/m_c$, respectively. For non-lattice estimate of $m_b$ see [@Chetyrkin:2009fv].
\
We are grateful to all members of ETMC for fruitful discussions. We acknowledge the CPU time provided by the PRACE Research Infrastructure under the project PRA067 at the Jülich and CINECA SuperComputing Centers, and by the agreement between INFN and CINECA under the specific initiative INFN-lqcd123.
[^1]: For more details on this point see the Appendix of Ref. [@Dimopoulos:2011gx] and [@Carrasco:2013zta], section 4.
[^2]: This systematic uncertainty has been included in the estimate called “syst. from ratios fits” of Table 3.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We prove quantitative recurrence and large deviations results for the Teichmuller geodesic flow on connected components of strata of the moduli space $Q_g$ of holomorphic unit-area quadratic differentials on a compact genus $g \geq 2$ surface.
**Keywords:** Moduli spaces, geodesic flow, large deviations.\
**Acknowledgements:** Research partially supported by NSF grant DMS-0244542.
address: '5734 S. University Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637'
author:
- |
Jayadev S. Athreya\
University of Chicago
title: Quantitative recurrence and large deviations for Teichmuller geodesic flow
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
Let $\Sigma_g$ be a compact surface of genus $g \geq 2$. Let $Q_g$ be the moduli space of unit-area holomorphic quadratic differentials on $\Sigma_g$. That is, a point $q \in Q_g$ is a equivalence class of pairs $(M, \omega)$, where $M$ is a genus $g$ Riemann surface, and $\omega$ is a holomorphic quadratic differential on $M$, i.e., a tensor with the form $f(z)dz^2$ in local coordinates, such that $\int_{M} |\omega| = 1$. Two pairs $(M_1, \omega_1)$ and $(M_2, \omega_2)$ are equivalent if there is a biholomorphism $f:M_1 \rightarrow M_2$ such that $f_{*} \omega_1 = \omega_2$.
Given a pair $q \in Q_g$, one obtains (via integration of the form) an atlas of charts to ${{\mathbb}C}\cong {{\mathbb}R}^2$, with transition maps of the form $z \mapsto \pm z + c$. Similarly, given such an atlas of charts, one obtains a holomorphic quadratic differential by pulling back the form $dz^2$ on ${{\mathbb}C}$.
These charts allow us to define a $SL(2, {{\mathbb}R})$ action on $Q_g$ (and $\tilde{Q_g}$) given by linear post-composition with charts.
$Q_g$ is naturally the unit cotangent bundle to ${\mathcal M}_g$, the moduli space of Riemann surfaces. The fiber over each point $M \in {\mathcal M}_g$ is the vector space of holomorphic quadratic differentials on $M$.
The space $Q_g$ is naturally stratified by integer partitions $\beta$ of $4g-4$. Strata are not always connected, however, they have at most finitely many components [@KZ], and are invariant under $SL(2,{{\mathbb}R})$. For the rest of our paper we work with one of these connected components, call it $Q$.
Without loss of generality, we will study strata of squares of abelian differentials (holomorphic 1-forms). Otherwise, we pass to a double cover. Since our results hold for all $g \geq 2$, we simply consider the (higher-genus) stratum defined in this way. Each stratum $Q$, while non-compact, is endowed with a continuous, ergodic, $SL(2, {{\mathbb}R})$-invariant probability measure $\mu_Q$.
More details about the basics of moduli spaces and quadratic differentials can be found in, e.g., [@FarbMarg; @MasurTab; @Strebel].
We are particularly interested in the action of the standard subgroups $K$ (maximal compact) and $A$ (diagonal matrices) of $SL(2, {{\mathbb}R})$. These are both one-parameter subgroups, and can be described as follows: $$K=\left\{r_{\theta} = \left( \begin{array}{cc} \cos \theta & \sin \theta \\
-\sin \theta & \cos \theta \end{array}\right): 0 \le \theta <
2\pi\right\}$$ $$A = \left\{g_t = \left(\begin{array}{cc} e^t & 0 \\ 0 & e^{-t}
\end{array}\right): t \in {{\mathbb}R}\right\}.$$We will often be interested also in the action of the semigroup $A^{+} = \{g_t: t \geq 0\}$.
The action of $K$, known as the *circle flow*, preserves the underlying holomorphic structure, so it acts as identity when projected to ${\mathcal M}_g$. The action of $A$ is known as *Teichmuller geodesic flow*, since the projection of an $A$-orbit yields a geodesic in the Teichmuller metric on ${\mathcal M}_g$ (and in fact, all Teichmuller geodesics arise this way).
Masur [@Masur1] and Veech [@Veech1] independently showed the Teichmuller geodesic flow is ergodic with respect to $\mu_Q$ and even mixing. Veech [@Veech] showed that it was ‘measurably Anosov’, and more recently Forni [@Forni] has obtained explicit formulas regarding the hyperbolic behavior. His results, which imply that as long as trajectories remain in a compact set their hyperbolicity can be controlled, provide much of the motivation for our research.
Our main results are concerned with the following scenario. Fix $q \in
Q$, and consider the ‘circle’ $Kq = \{r_\theta q: 0 \le \theta < 2\pi\}$. This set is endowed with a natural probability measure $\nu$, coming from the Haar measure on $K
\cong S^1$. What is the recurrence behavior of a trajectory $\{g_t r_{\theta} q\}$ when $\theta$ is chosen at random according to $\nu$?
This type of situation was first considered by Kerckhoff-Masur-Smillie [@KMS], in order to understand dynamics of billiards in rational angle Euclidean polygons. They developed a dictionary between the dynamics of the straight-line flow on the singular Euclidean surface determined by a quadratic differential $q$ and the recurrence behavior of the geodesic trajectory $g_t q$ in the stratum $Q$. The $K$-action here corresponds to changing the direction of the straight line flow without changing the underlying surface. Thus, making a statement about a fixed $q$ and almost all directions allowed one to say something about straight line flow in almost all directions for a given flat surface, in analogy with Weyl’s equidstribution theorem on the torus.
To apply these results to billiards, one follows the unfolding procedure of Zemljakov and Katok [@KZ1], which translate questions about dynamics of billiards in rational angle polygons to that of flows on an associated singular Euclidean surface. However, the set of surfaces arising from billiards is of measure 0 in every stratum, so making statements about almost every point $q$ does not suffice. To make statements about billiards, we need statements that hold for all $q \in Q$.
The main result in [@KMS] is that for all $q \in Q$, and almost every $\theta \in [0, 2\pi)$, the geodesic trajectory $\{g_t r_{\theta} q\}_{t\geq 0}$ is recurrent in $Q$. As a corollary, one obtains that the directional flow for Euclidean polygonal billiards is uniquely ergodic for almost every direction. Further results in this direction include estimates on the Hausdorff dimension of divergent and bounded trajectories ([@Cheung; @Kleinbock-Weiss]), and further relations between dynamics of the straight line flow and recurrence of the associated trajectory [@Masur-Cheung1; @Masur-Cheung2].
Our main results concern finer recurrence behavior of geodesic trajectories. In particular, for any fixed $q \in Q$, we estimate the measure of the set of angles such that the associated $A^+$ orbit $\{g_t r_{\theta} q\}_{t \geq 0}$ ‘behaves poorly’ for a length of time $T$. For us, poor behavior means that the trajectory is spending a lot of time in a neighborhood of the cusp of $Q$. Masur [@Masur] proved a statistical result, known as a *logarithm law* in this situation, in analogy with earlier results on symmetric spaces due to Sullivan [@Sullivan] and Kleinbock-Margulis [@KleinMar].
We will construct a proper (that is, unbounded off compact sets) continuous function $V: Q \rightarrow {{\mathbb}R}^{+}$, and consider the recurrence behavior of $\{g_t r_{\theta} q\}_{t \geq 0}$ to the family of compact sets $C_l: = \{q: V(q) \le l\}$, which form an exhaustion of $Q$ as $l$ varies. Our main results can be summarized as follows:
\[mainflow\] Fix notation as above. Then
1. For all $l$ sufficiently large and all $q \notin C_l$, there are positive constants $c_1 = c_1(l, q), c_2(l)$, with $$\nu\{\theta: g_t r_{\theta} q \notin C_l, 0 \le t \le T\} \le c_1e^{-c_2 T}$$ for all T sufficiently large. That is, the probability that a random geodesic trajectory has not visited $C_l$ by time $T$ decays exponentially in $T$.
2. For all $l, S, T$ sufficiently large and all $q \in Q$, there are positive constants $c_3 = c_3(S, l, q), c_4 = c_4(l)$, with $$\nu\{\theta: g_t r_{\theta} q \notin C_l, S \le t \le S+ T\} \le c_3e^{-c_4 T}.$$ That is, the probability that a random geodesic trajectory does not enter $C_l$ in the interval $[S, S+T]$ decays exponentially in $T$.
3. Let $q \in Q$. For any $0 < \lambda <1$, there is a $l \geq 0$, and $0<\gamma <1$, such that for all $T$ sufficiently large (depending on all the above constants)$$\nu\{\theta: \frac{1}{T}|\{0 \le t \le T:g_t r_{\theta} q \notin C_l\}|
> \lambda\} \le \gamma^T.$$
Result (3) above may be thought of as a large deviations result for the Teichmuller flow. While ergodicity guarantees that $\frac{1}{T}\left|\{0 \le t \le T: g_t q \in C_l\}\right|
\rightarrow \mu_Q(C_l)$ for $\mu_Q$-almost every $q \in Q$, our result gives explicit information about the likelihood of bad trajectories. Notice, however, this is *not* a traditional large deviations result, which estimates the probability of a deviation of any $\epsilon>0$ from the ergodic average. Other interesting results concerning deviations are due to Bufetov [@Bufetov], who proved a central limit theorem for this flow.
In [@Forni], Forni related this type of fine recurrence behavior for the geodesic trajectory $\{g_t q\}_{t \geq 0}$ to deviation of ergodic averages for the straight line flow on the flat surface associated to $q$. He proved that for almost every $q \in Q$, the associated flow has the same deviation behavior. However, his result gives no information on billiards, as the set of quadratic differentials arising from billiards are a set of measure zero. Since our results provide fine recurrence information about the geodesic trajectory $\{g_t r_{\theta} q\}_{t \geq 0}$ for *all* $q \in Q$, and almost all $\theta$, we conjecture the following:
For all rational-angle Euclidean polygons, the deviation of ergodic averages for the billiard flow is the same for almost all directions, and depends only on the $SL(2,{{\mathbb}R})$ orbit of the associated quadratic differential.
It was also shown in [@Forni] that as long as a geodesic trajectory stays within a compact set, the rate of expansion/contraction in the tangent space along the trajectory is bounded away from $1$. Thus our results can be used to obtain explicit estimates on the hyperbolicity of the flow along specific trajectories. Avila-Gouezel-Yoccoz [@AGY] used exponential return estimates to a different family of compact sets to prove the exponential rate of mixing for the Teichmuller geodesic flow, which was the original motivation for this research.
Other quantitative recurrence results for dynamics on Teichmuller spaces were obtained by Minsky-Weiss [@MinskyWeiss] for the case of Teichmuller horocycle flow.
We also have a collection of results for a certain class of random walks, defined as follows: Fix $\tau >0$. Given that we are at a point $q \in Q$, the next point in our trajectory will be chosen at random according to Haar measure on $S^1$ from the ‘circle’ of radius $\tau, \{g_{\tau}r_{\theta}q: 0 \le \theta < 2\pi\}$. Note that $\mu_Q$ is a stationary measure for this walk, since it is $SL(2, {{\mathbb}R})$-invariant. Let $\{X_n\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ denote the random walk generated this way.
**Remark:** By hyperbolic geometry, one can see that trajectories of this walk closely approximate geodesics. Thus, understanding recurrence properties of the walk gives one insight into properties of the flow.
We define $P_q(E): = \mbox{Prob}(E|
X_0 = q)$ for any event $E$ defined on the trajectory $\{X_n\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ starting at $X_0 = q$. Also, for any measurable $A \subset Q$, we define $P^n(q, A) := P_q(X_n \in A)$. That is, $P^n(q, .)$ is the probability distribution of $X_n$ given $X_0 = q$.
\[mainwalk\] For all $\tau$ sufficiently large, we have:
1. There is an $l(\tau)$ such that for all $l>l(\tau)$, and all $q \notin C_l$, there are constants $c_5 = c_5(q, l,\tau), c_6 = c_6(l, \tau)$, such that $$P_q(X_i \notin C_l: 1\le i \le n) \le c_5e^{-c_6n}.$$
2. For all compact $C \subset Q$, $\epsilon >0$, there is a $C_l
\supset C$ such that $\forall q \in C$, and for all $m \geq 0$, $$P_q(X_m
\in C_l) > 1-
\epsilon.$$
3. For all $\epsilon >0$, there is a $l = l(\epsilon)>0$ such that $\forall q \in
Q$, there is an $M(q)$ such that for all $m > M(q)$, $$P_q(X_m \in C_l)
> 1-\epsilon.$$
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: In the next section, we give more detailed statements of our main results, and construct the function $V$. We also give a version of our results for general $SL(2, {{\mathbb}R})$-actions. In section \[walkproof\], we prove our results for random walks. In section \[polar\], we collect some technical lemmas about change of polar coordinates on hyperbolic space. In section \[deviations\], we construct the required lemmas from the theory of large deviations. In section \[proofs\], we prove our main theorems for the flow.
Statement of Results {#results}
====================
The precise statements for the flow regard a *family* of proper functions $V_{\delta}$, $0 < \delta <1$, and the compact sets $C_{\delta, l} : = \{q: V_{\delta}(q) \le l\}$. We have:
Flow results {#flowresults}
------------
\[flowreturn\] For every $1>\delta >0$ there is a proper (i.e., unbounded off compact sets), smooth, $K$-invariant function $V_{\delta}: Q \rightarrow {{\mathbb}R}^{+}$ and positive constants $t_0 = t_0(\delta), l_0 = l_0(\delta), a= a(\delta)$ such that for all $l
\geq l_0$, there are $1>\delta^{\prime} = \delta^{\prime}(l, \delta)>\delta$, with $\delta^{\prime}$ decreasing as a function of $l$, so that for all $q \notin C_{\delta, l}$ $$\nu\{\theta: g_t r_{\theta} q \notin C_{\delta,l}, 0 \le t \le
T\} \le a\frac{V_{\delta}(q)}{l}e^{-(1-\delta^{\prime}) T},$$ for all $T>t_0$.
This is the precise version of part (1) of Theorem \[mainflow\]. Note that the outside term essentially depends only on $V_{\delta}(q)$.
\[sojourn\] Let $q \in Q$. For every $\epsilon>0$, $1>\delta>0$, there are positive constants $S_0, T_1, l_1$ depending on $\delta$, $1>\delta^{\prime\prime}=\delta^{\prime\prime}(l)>\delta$, and $\alpha = \alpha(q)$ such that $$\nu\{\theta: g_t r_{\theta} q \notin C_{\delta,l}, S \le t \le S+T\} \le \alpha e^{-(1-\delta^{\prime\prime}) T},$$ for all $S> S_0$, $T>T_1$, and $l >l_1$, with $$\alpha \le 8(1+\epsilon)\sup_{\theta \in [0, 2\pi)}ab\frac{V_{\delta}(g_Sr_{\theta}q)}{l},$$ where $b$ depends only on the curvature of ${{\mathbb}H}^2$.
Here, $S_0$ depends only on the choice of curvature for the hyperbolic plane ${{\mathbb}H}^2$, and $T_1$ is the maximum of $t_0$ from Theorem \[flowreturn\] and a $T_2$ depending only on curvature.
\[proportion\] Let $q \in Q$. For any $0 < \lambda <1$, and any $0 < \delta<1$ there is a $l \geq 0$, and $\gamma <1$, such that $$\nu\{\theta: \frac{1}{T}|\{0 \le t \le T:g_t r_{\theta} q \notin C_{\delta,l}\}|
> \lambda\} \le \gamma^T,$$ for all $T$ sufficiently large.
This theorem uses a technical tool from the theory of large deviations, Proposition \[gendev\], which makes it difficult to track the dependence of $\gamma$ on $l$ and $\lambda$. Clearly, if an $l$ works for a fixed $\lambda_0$ and $\delta$, it works for all $\lambda > \lambda_0$, and any larger $l$ (with the same $\delta$) will work for $\lambda_0$. Similarly, the same $l$ will work for the same $\lambda_0$ and any smaller $\delta$.
In a personal communication, Forni posed the following question: for *every* $q$ in $Q$, and almost all $\theta$, does there exist a $\zeta>0$ such that the geodesic trajectory $\{g_t r_{\theta} q\}_{t \geq 0}$ spends at least a proportion $\zeta$ of its time in a fixed compact set? The following corollary answers in the affirmative.
\[for\] Let $q \in Q, \zeta>0$. Fix $\epsilon>0$. Let $l$ be such that Theorem \[proportion\] is satisfied with $\lambda = 1-\zeta, \delta = \epsilon$. Then for $\nu$-almost every $\theta$, $$\limsup_{T \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{T} \left|\{ 0 \le t \le T: g_t
r_\theta q \notin C_{\delta,l}\}\right| \le
\lambda.$$
The proof of this result follows from an application of the Borel-Cantelli lemma and Theorem \[proportion\].
Random walks on $Q$ {#walkresults}
-------------------
Let $\{X_n\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ be our trajectory. That is, $$X_{n+1} = g_{\tau} r_{\theta_{n}} X_n,$$ where $\{\theta_n\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) according to the uniform distribution on $[0, 2\pi)$ (equivalently, $X_{n+1} = g_{\tau} k_n X_n$, where $\{k_n\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ are i.i.d. according to Haar measure on $K$). This implies $\{X_n\}$ is a Markov chain, with transition probability function $P(x, A) = \nu\{\theta: g_{\tau}r_{\theta}q \in A\}$.
\[walkreturn\] Fix $0<\delta<1$. Let $\{C_{\delta, l}\}$ be as in Theorem \[flowreturn\]. Then there is a $\tau_0 = \tau_0(\delta)>0$ such that for all $\tau > \tau_0$, there is a $\tilde{l}_0 = \tilde{l_0}(\delta, \tau)$ such that for all $l >\tilde{l_0}$, there is a $\gamma = \gamma(l, \delta)<1$ such that for all $q \notin C_{\delta,l}$, and for all $n \geq 1$, $$P_q\left(X_j \notin C_{\delta,l}: 0 \le j \le n\right) \le \frac{V_{\delta}(q)}{l}\gamma^n.$$
This is completely analagous to Theorem \[flowreturn\], and indeed the proof of this result will be essential to the proof of Theorem \[flowreturn\].
For the rest of the section, fix $1>\delta>0$, and $\tau > \tau_0(\delta)$.
\[tightness\] Let $\epsilon >0$. Then:
1. For all compact $C \subset Q$, there is a $C_{\delta,l}
\supset C$ such that $\forall q \in C$, and for all $m \geq 0$, $$P_q(X_m
\in C_{\delta, l}) > 1-
\epsilon.$$
2. There is a $l>0$ such that $\forall q \in
Q$, there is an $M(q)$ such that for all $m > M(q)$, $$P_q(X_m \in C_{\delta,l})
> 1-\epsilon.$$
Finally, we have:
\[walkfor\]
Fix $q \in Q$, $0<\lambda <1$, and $\epsilon >0$. Then there is a $ l=l(q, \lambda, \delta, \epsilon)>0$ so that, for all $n$ sufficiently large, $$P_q\left(\frac{1}{n}|\{1 \le i \le n: X_i \in
C_{\delta,l}\}| > \lambda \right) >1-\epsilon$$
This is analogous to Corollary \[for\].
**Remark:** $l$ can be chosen uniformly as $q$ varies over a compact set.
$SL(2, {{\mathbb}R})$-actions {#axiomatic}
-----------------------------
Let $SL(2, {{\mathbb}R})$ act continuously on a topological space $X$. Suppose there is a family of $K$-invariant functions $V_{\delta}: X \rightarrow {{\mathbb}R}$, $0 < \delta <1$ satisfying the following properties:
- For all $x \in X$, consider the function $V_{\delta, x}: SL(2,
{{\mathbb}R}) \rightarrow {{\mathbb}R}^+$ defined by $V_{\delta,x} = V_{\delta}(gx)$. Note that by $K$-invariance, we can view $V_{\delta,x}$ as a function on ${{\mathbb}H}^2 = SO(2)$`\`$SL(2, {{\mathbb}R})$. We require the following : For all $\sigma >1$, there exists a $\kappa>0$ such that for any $p \in {{\mathbb}H}^2$ with $d(p, i) < \kappa$, and any $h \in SL(2, {{\mathbb}R})$$$\label{logsmooth} \sigma^{-1}V_{\delta,x}(h)
\le V_{\delta,x}(ph) \le \sigma V_{\delta,x}(h).$$ We say such a function is *logsmooth*.
- For all $1>\delta>0$, there is a constant $\tilde{c} = \tilde{c}(\delta)$ such that for all sufficiently large $\tau$, there is a $\tilde{b} = \tilde{b}(\tau,\delta)$ such that for all $x \in X$, $$\label{drift1} (A_\tau V_{\delta})(x) : = \int_{0}^{2\pi}
V_{\delta}(g_{\tau} r_{\theta} x) d\nu(\theta) \le \tilde{c}e^{-(1-\delta)\tau}V_{\delta}(x) + \tilde{b}.$$
All our results on recurrence to the sublevel sets $C_{\delta, l}$ from subsections \[flowresults\] and \[walkresults\], while constructed for the space $Q$ hold for any space $X$ with the above properties.
The key lemma needed to prove our results will be the construction of a family of functions $\{V_{\delta}\}$ on $Q$ satisfying the above requirements.
\[drift\]There is a family of smooth, proper functions $V_{\delta}: Q \rightarrow {{\mathbb}R}^{+}$, $0 < \delta <1$ satisfying equations and .
We require the following technical lemma from [@EskinMasur] (page 465, Lemma 7.5).
For all $\delta>0$ there are logsmooth functions $V_0, \ldots ,V_n:
Q \rightarrow {{\mathbb}R}^+$ such that $V_0$ is proper, and for every $\tau>0$, there are constants $w= w(\tau, \delta),
\tilde{b^{\prime}}=
\tilde{b^{\prime}}(\tau, \delta)$, and $\tilde{c^{\prime}} = \tilde{c^{\prime}}(\delta)$, *independent* of $\tau$ such that for all $0 \le i \le n$, and $\forall q \in Q$, $$(A_{\tau}V_i)(q) \le
\tilde{c^{\prime}}e^{-(1-\delta)\tau}V_i(q) + w\sum_{j= i+1}^n V_j(q) +
\tilde{b^{\prime}}.$$
**Remark:** In fact $V_0(q) = \max\left(1, \frac{1}{l(q)^{1+\delta}}\right)$, where $l(q)$ denotes the length of the shortest saddle connection on $q$. Recall that a *saddle connection* is a geodesic (in the metric determined by $q$) connecting two zeroes of $q$.
**Proof of Lemma \[drift\]:**
Fix $\delta, \tau>0$. Let $\tilde{c} = 2\tilde{c^{\prime}}$ $\lambda_0 = \frac{w}{\tilde{c^{\prime}}}$, $\lambda_i = \left(\frac{\tilde{c^{\prime}}}{w}+1\right)^{i-1}$, for $0 \le i \le n$. Note that $$\sum_{i=0}^{j-1} \lambda_i \le
\frac{\tilde{c}}{2w}\lambda_j.$$Set $\tilde{b} =
\tilde{b^{\prime}}\sum_{i=0}^n\lambda_i$. Let $V_{\delta}(q) =
\sum_{i=0}^{n} \lambda_i V_i(q)$. Then
$$\begin{aligned}
\left(A_\tau V_{\delta}\right)(q) = \sum_{i=0}^n \lambda_i
\left(A_{\tau}V_i\right)(q)\nonumber &\le& \sum_{i=0}^n
\lambda_i\left(\tilde{c^{\prime}}e^{-(1-\delta)\tau}V_i(q) + w\sum_{j=i+1}^n V_j(q) +
\tilde{b^{\prime}}\right) \nonumber \\ & =& \sum_{i=0}^n \lambda_i
\tilde{c^{\prime}} e^{-(1-\delta)\tau}
V_i(q) + w\sum_{j=1}^n \left(\sum_{i=1}^{j-1}
\lambda_i\right)V_j(q)+ b \nonumber \\ &=&
\tilde{c^{\prime}}e^{-(1-\delta)\tau}\lambda_0V_0(q) + \sum_{i=1}^n
V_j(q)\left(\lambda_j \tilde{c^{\prime}}e^{-(1-\delta)\tau} +
w\sum_{i=0}^{j-1}\lambda_i\right) + \tilde{b} \nonumber \\ &=&
\tilde{c^{\prime}}e^{-(1-\delta)\tau} \lambda_0 V_0(q) + \sum_{j=1}^n
2\lambda_j\tilde{c^{\prime}}e^{-(1-\delta)\tau}V_j(q) + \tilde{b} \nonumber \\ &\le&
\tilde{c}e^{-(1-\delta)\tau}V_{\delta}(q) + \tilde{b}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Thus we have constructed a family of functions $V_{\delta}$ satisfying equations and . That $V_{\delta}$ satisfies follows from the logsmoothness of the $V_i$’s noted in [@EskinMasur] (where they are called $\alpha_i$’s) on page 471, at the beginning of the proof of Proposition 7.2. Finally, $V_{\delta}$ is proper since $V_0$ is proper.
General Markov Chain results {#walkproof}
============================
Our goal in this section is to recall some results from the theory of Markov Chains which will allow us to prove Theorems \[walkreturn\]-\[tightness\]. We also give some applications to random walks on homogeneous spaces, as considered in [@EskinMarg]. Many of these results can be found, in greater generality, in [@MeynTweedie].
Before stating our main results, we recall some basic notation: If $\{X_n\}$ is a Markov chain on $(S, \mathcal{S})$, $S$ the state space, and $\mathcal{S}$ the $\sigma$-algebra, then, for any event $E$ (an event $E$ is a set in the product $\sigma$-algebra) and any starting point $x \in S$ , $P_x(E) : = P(E| X_0 = x)$, i.e., it is the probability of the event $E$ occuring given that our starting point was $x$. Similarly, given a measurable subset $C \in S$, we write $P^n(x, C) = P_x(X_n \in C)$, and we define the first hitting time of $C$ by $\tau_C := \inf\{n \geq 1: X_n
\in C\}$.
The main result of this section is:
\[walkgen\]Let $S$ be a non-compact topological space, and $\mathcal{S}$ its Borel $\sigma$-algebra. Let $\{X_n\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ be a Markov chain on $(S, \mathcal{S})$. Suppose there exists a smooth, proper function $V: S
\rightarrow {{\mathbb}R}^{+}$ and constants $0<c<1$ and $b>0$ such that $$(PV)(x) :
= E(V(X_1)|X_0 =x) \le cV(x) + b,$$ for all $x \in S$. Then
1. For any $l >0$ and $x \notin C_{l}: = \{y
\in S: V(y) \le l\}$, $$p_n(x) := P_x\left(\tau_{C_{l}} > n\right) \le
\frac{V(x)}{l} \left(c+\frac{b}{l}\right)^n,$$ for all $n \geq 0$.
2. For all $\epsilon >0$, and for all compact $C \subset S$, there is an $l$ such that $\forall x \in C, m \geq 0$, $$P^m\left(x, C_l\right) >
1-\epsilon.$$
3. For all $\epsilon >0$ there is an $l >0$ such that $\forall x \in
S$, there is an $M(x) >0$ such that for $m> M(x)$, $$P^m\left(x, C_l\right) >
1- \epsilon.$$
4. For all $x \in S$, $0<\lambda <1$, and $\epsilon>0$, there is a $ l=l(q, \lambda, \epsilon)>0$ so that, for all $n$ sufficiently large, $$P_x\left(\frac{1}{n}|\{1 \le i \le n: X_i \in
C_l\}| > \lambda \right) >1-\epsilon .$$ If we fix $\lambda$ and $\epsilon$, then $l$ can be chosen uniformly as $x$ varies over a compact set.
**Proof of Theorems \[walkreturn\]-\[tightness\] and Corollary \[walkfor\] :** Combine Proposition \[walkgen\] with Lemma \[drift\]. For Theorem \[walkreturn\], fix $\delta >0$ and let $\tau_0$ be such that $c = \tilde{c}e^{-(1-\delta)\tau_0} <1$, we obtain our result with $\gamma = \left(c + \frac{\tilde{b}}{l}\right)$ for $l > \frac{\tilde{b}}{1-c}$.
**Proof of Proposition \[walkgen\]:**
- **Proof of (1):** Let $B_n : = \{\tau_{C_l} > n\}$. Then $p_n(x) = P_x(B_n)$. For $n \geq 0$, $$l p_n \le E_x(V(X_n): B_n) =: D_n$$ since on $B_n$, $X_n \notin C_l$, i.e. $V(X_n) \geq l$.
Now, $B_n \subset B_{n-1}$, so $$\begin{aligned}
D_n &\le& E_x(V(X_n): B_{n-1}) \nonumber\\
&=& E_x(E(V(X_n)|X_{n-1}): B_{n-1}) \\
&=& E_x( (PV)(X_{n-1}) : B_{n-1}) \nonumber \label{markov}\end{aligned}$$ where we are using the Markov property in the 2nd line.
Now we can apply our condition $$(PV)(X_{n-1}) \le cV(X_{n-1}) + b.$$ This yields $$D_n \le cD_{n-1} +
bp_{n-1},$$and using the observation that $p_{n-1} \le \frac{D_{n-1}}{l}$, we obtain the recurrence relation $$D_n \le \left(c+\frac{b}{l}\right)D_{n-1}.$$Iterating this, we obtain $$D_n \le D_0 \left(c+ \frac{b}{l}\right)^n.$$ Since $D_0 = V(X_0) = V(x)$, and $p_n \le \frac{D_n}{l}$, we obtain our result. Note that the result is only meaningful if $(c+\frac{b}{l}) < 1$, which is equivalent to setting $l > \frac{b}{1-c}$.
- **Proof of (2):** We have $(PV)(x) \le cV(X) + b$ for $c<1$. Iterating this, we get that $(P^mV)(x) \le c^mV(x) + b^{\prime}$, where $b^{\prime}$ does not depend on $m$ or $x$. Set $l = \sup_{y \in C}\frac{V(y)+b^{\prime}}{\epsilon}$. Then we have that $$lP^m(x, C_l^c) \le E_x(V(X_m)) \le c^mV(x) + b^{\prime},$$ so we get that $P^m(x, C_l^c) < \epsilon$ as desired.
- **Proof of (3):** For the third property, we select l = $2b^{\prime}/\epsilon$, where $b^{\prime}$ is as above. For $m$ sufficiently large, $c^mV(x) \le
b^{\prime}$, so by the argument in part (2), we can get our conclusion.
- **Proof of (4):** Fix $x \in S$, $0<\lambda<1$, and $\epsilon>0$. By part $(3)$, there is an $l>0$ so that for $n$ sufficiently large, $P(X_n \in C_l) > 1-
\epsilon^{\prime}$, where $0<\epsilon^{\prime} <
\frac{2}{3}\epsilon(1-\lambda)$. Set $S_n = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n
\chi_{C_l}(X_i)$, where $\chi_{C_l}$ is the indicator function of $C_l$. Then, for any $\lambda <1$, $$\begin{aligned}
E(S_n) &\le& \lambda P(S_n
\le \lambda) + P(S_n > \lambda) \nonumber\\ &=& \lambda +
(1-\lambda)P(S_n > \lambda). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Thus, we have $$P(S_n>\lambda) \geq \frac{E(S_n) -
\lambda}{1-\lambda}.$$
Now, for $n$ sufficiently large $E(S_n) \geq 1-\frac{3}{2}\epsilon^{\prime}$, thus, $$P(S_n
> \lambda) \geq \frac{1-\frac{3}{2}\epsilon^{\prime} -\lambda}{1-\lambda} >
1-\epsilon.$$
The fact that $l$ can be chosen uniformly as $x$ varies over a compact set follows from part (2).
These types of questions were considered for random walks on homogeneous spaces in [@EskinMarg] by Eskin and Margulis. They constructed a function $V$ on their state space satisfying the conditions of Proposition \[walkgen\], and used this to draw conclusions (2) and (3). Conclusions (1) and (4) appear to be new results for these walks.
Precisely, we have the following:
Let $G$ be a semisimple Lie group, and $\Gamma$ a non-uniform lattice. Let $\mu$ be a probability measure on $G$ satisfying the conditions of Theorem 2.1 in [@EskinMarg]. Consider the Markov chain $\{X_n\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ defined on $G/\Gamma$ by the measure $\mu$: $$X_{n+1} = g_n X_n,$$ with $\{g_n\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ an i.i.d. (with distribution $\mu$) sequence of elements of $G$. Then there is a function $V: G/\Gamma \rightarrow {{\mathbb}R}^{+}$ satisfying the conditions of Proposition \[walkgen\]. Thus, conclusions (1)-(4) of the Proposition are satisfied.
Polar coordinates and shadowing {#polar}
===============================
We require two lemmas about change of polar coordinates in the hyperbolic plane ${{\mathbb}H}^2 =SO(2)$`\`$SL(2, {{\mathbb}R})$. We fix two positive numbers $t_1, t_2$, and basepoints $i$ and $z_0 = i. g_{t_1} r_{\theta}$ (these will correspond to our basepoint $q$ and an arbitrary $q_0$ in its $SL(2, {{\mathbb}R})$-orbit, projected to $SO(2)$`\`$Q$). We let $d(., .)$ denote distance in the hyperbolic plane.
Consider the circle of radius $t_2$ around $z_0$, defined by $\{z_{\phi} = i.g_{t_2}r_{\phi}g_{t_1} r_{\theta}: 0 \le \phi <2\pi\}$. We say that $t_2, \phi$ are the polar coordinates of $z_{\phi}$ based at $z_0$. For each $\phi$, we define $D = D_{t_1, t_2}(\phi)$ and $\Psi = \Psi_{t_1,t_2}(\phi)$ by $z_{\phi} = i. g_{D(\phi)} r_{\theta+\Psi(\phi)}$, i.e. $D(\phi), \theta+\Psi(\phi)$ are the polar coordinates of $z_{\phi}$ based at $i$. Note that $D, \Psi$ are *independent* of $\theta$.
Geometrically, $D(\phi)$ is the distance and $\Psi(\phi)$ is the angle (measured clockwise from the the geodesic connecting $i$ to $z_0$) of the geodesic segment connecting $i$ to $z_{\phi}$. Hyperbolic trigonometry (the laws of sines and cosines, appied to the triangle formed by the points $i$, $z_0$, and $z_{\phi}$) yield: $$\label{polarlength} \cosh D(\phi) =
\cosh t_1 \cosh t_2+ \sinh t_1\sinh t_2 \cos \phi ,$$ and $$\label{polarangle} \sin \Psi(\phi) = \frac{\sinh t_2}{\sinh
D(\phi)} \sin \phi.$$
If $t_2>t_1$, $i$ lies inside the circle of radius $\tau$ around $z_0$, and thus, the map $\Psi$ is both one-to-one and onto. If $t_1>t_2$, the point $i$ is outside the cirlce, and $\Psi$ is neither one-to-one or onto. In this case, the image is an interval, with boundary points such that the geodesic determined by those angles intersects the circle of radius $t$ tangentially. In the interior of the interval, each point $\psi$ has two preimages, call them $\phi_1, \phi_2$ one such that $D(\phi_1) \approx
t_1-t_2$, and one such that $D(\phi_2) \approx t_1+t_2$. For our applications, we will only be concerned with $\phi_2$.
The key technical lemma is as follows:
\[shadow\] Let $A \subset [0, 2\pi)$ be a measurable set. Then, for every $\epsilon>0$, there are $\tau_1, \tau_2$, such that for all $t_1 > \tau_1, t_2> \tau_2$ the neighborhood $U = \Psi_{t_1, t_2}([-\pi/2, \pi/2])$ of $0$ satisfies $$\frac{\nu(U \cap
\Psi(A))}{\nu(U)} \le 4(1+\epsilon)\nu(A).$$
**Proof:** For this estimate, we need to control the behavior of the derivative $\Psi^{\prime}$. More precisely, we need to control *ratios* $\Psi^{\prime}(\phi_1)/\Psi^{\prime}(\phi_2)$, with $\phi_1, \phi_2 \in \Psi^{-1}
U$, so we can compare $\nu$ and $\Psi_{*} \nu$, where $\Psi_{*}\nu(E) = \nu(\Psi^{-1}E)$.
We have the following claim:
Let $\eta >0$. For $t_1, t_2$ sufficiently large, $$\frac{e^{-t_1}}{2}(1-\eta) \le |\Psi^{\prime}(\phi)| \le e^{-t_1}(1+\eta),$$ for $\phi \in [-\pi/2, \pi/2]$.
**Proof of Claim:**
Implicit differentiation of equations and yield:
$$\label{lengthderiv} D^{\prime}(\phi) \sinh D(\phi) =
-\sinh t_1 \sinh t_2 \sin \phi$$
and
$$\label{anglederiv} \Psi^{\prime}(\phi)\cos \Psi(\phi) = \sinh t_2
\frac{\cos \phi \sinh D(\phi) + \sin^2 \phi \coth D(\phi) \sinh t_1 \sinh
t_2}{\sinh^2 D(\phi)}.$$
Let $\kappa >0$. Let $t_1, t_2$ be large enough so that for all $\phi \in [-\pi/2, \pi/2]$,
1. $D(\phi) > t_1 + t_2 - \kappa$,
2. $\coth(D(\phi)) > 1-\kappa$
3. $\cos(\Psi(\phi))>1-\kappa$
4. $|\sinh t_1 \sinh t_2 - \sinh D(\phi)| \le \kappa$
5. $1-\kappa<\frac{2\sinh t_1}{e^{t_i/2}}, \frac{2\cosh t_1}{e^{t_i/2}}<1+\kappa$ for $i=1, 2$.
That we can achieve the above inequalities follows from hyperbolic geometry and the basic properties of $\sinh$ and $\cosh$.
Let $\eta >0$. Using the above inequalities and some basic algebra, we can select $\tau_1, \tau_2$ such that for all $t_1>\tau_1, t_2>\tau_2$, we have
$$(1-\eta) \le \frac{\Psi^{\prime}(\phi)}{ \frac{e^{-t_1} }{2}(2\cos\phi +\sin^2 \phi)} \le (1+\eta).$$
**Remark:** The expression $\frac{e^{-t_1} }{2}(2\cos\phi +\sin^2 \phi)$ is obtained by replacing the quantities in equation with their approximations (1)-(5).
Now, let $f(\phi) = 2\cos\phi + \sin^2 \phi$. We have $1 \le f(\phi) \le 2$ for $\phi \in [-\pi/2, \pi/2]$. Thus, $$\frac{e^{-t_1}}{2}(1-\eta) \le \Psi^{\prime}(\phi) \le (1+\eta)e^{-t_1},$$ completing the proof of the claim.
To complete the proof of the lemma, let $\epsilon >0$ and $\eta$ be such that $\frac{1+\eta}{1-\eta} \le 1+ \epsilon$. By the claim, we know that the proportion of measure of any set in $[-\pi/2, \pi/2]$ cannot be expanded by more than $2\frac{1+\eta}{1-\eta} \le 2(1+\epsilon)$ under $\Psi$, since that is the maximum of $\frac{\Psi^{\prime}(\phi_1)}{\Psi^{\prime}(\phi_2)}$ for $\phi_1, \phi_2 \in [-\pi/2, \pi/2]$. Now, since $\nu([-\pi/2, \pi/2]) = 1/2$, we have $$\frac{\nu(A \cap [-\pi/2, \pi/2])}{\nu([-\pi/2, \pi/2])}
\le 2\nu(A),$$ which yields $$\frac{\nu(\Psi(A) \cap U)}{\nu(U)} \le 2(1+\epsilon) \cdot 2\nu(A) = 4(1+\epsilon)\nu(A).$$
Our second main lemma is as follows: let $\tau >0$. For any $t>0$, define $$I(t) : = \{0 \le \theta < 2\pi: d(i.g_t, i.g_t r_{\theta}) \le 3\tau\}.$$ Fix $\kappa>0$. For any $\theta \in I(t)$, define $$U_{\theta} := \{ 0 \le \phi < 2\pi: D_{t, \tau}(\phi) > 1-\kappa, (\Psi_{t, \tau}(\phi) + \theta) \in I(t+\tau)\}.$$ Let $L_{\theta} = \nu(U_{\theta})$. The following lemma is proved in [@EskinMasur]. For notational convenience, we write drop the subscripts for $T$ and $S$.
\[polar2\] There is a constant $c^{\prime\prime}>0$ such that for all $\kappa>0$, there is a $\tau>0$ such that for all $\theta \in I(t)$, the map $\Psi|_{L_{\theta}}$ is a diffeomorphism onto its image, and, making the subsitution $\psi = \Psi(\phi)$, we have $$c^{\prime\prime} \le \nu(L_{\theta}) \le \int_{L_{\theta}} d\phi = \int_{\Psi(L_{\theta})} |\frac{d\phi}{d\psi}| d\psi.$$
**Proof:**[@EskinMasur], page 467, Lemma 7.6.
**Remarks:**
- $d\theta$ denotes $d\nu(\theta)$, and since we have normalized $\nu$ to be a probability measure, we do not need to divide by $2\pi$.
- In [@EskinMasur], the sets $I(t)$ are defined by $I(t): = [-\rho e^{-t}, \rho e^{-t}]$ for some positive constant $\rho$, and they require $\rho$ to be large enough so that the diameter of the set $J(t) = \{i.g_t r_{\theta}: \theta \in I(t)\}$ is at least $2\tau$. By hyperbolic geometry, our sets $I(t)$ are of this form, and they obviously satisfy the required condition.
We have the following Corollary, also from [@EskinMasur]:
\[polar3\] Let $f:SL(2, {{\mathbb}R}) \rightarrow {{\mathbb}R}$ be a logsmooth $SO(2)$-invariant function. Fix $\sigma > 1$. Let $\kappa>0$ be as in equation . Fix $\tau$ so that Lemma \[polar2\] holds. Then there is a $c^{\prime} >0$, independent of $\tau$, such that $$\int_{I(t+\tau)} f(g_{t+\tau}r_{\theta})d\theta \le c^{\prime}\sigma\int_{I(t)} (A_{\tau}f)(g_t r_{\theta})d\theta.$$
**Proof:**[@EskinMasur], page 468, Lemma 7.7.
Large Deviations {#deviations}
================
In this section, we prove the key technical lemma for our main large deviations result Theorem \[proportion\]. We assume some familiarity with the theory of conditional expectation. Excellent references include [@Varadhan; @Durrett].
\[gendev\] Let $\{\tau_i\}_{i=0}^{\infty}$ be a sequence of positive real-valued random variables on a probability space $(\Omega, {\mathcal F}, P)$. Let $\{{\mathcal F}_i\}$ be af filtration of ${\mathcal F}$ such that for all $i$, $\tau_i \in {\mathcal F}_i$, i.e., $\tau_i$ is ${\mathcal F}_i$-measurable. Suppose there exist positive random variables $\eta, \xi$ with $E\eta < E\xi$, $E\xi>0$, and a real number $\theta_0>0$ such that, for all $0 \le \theta < \theta_0$:
1. $E(e^{\theta \tau_{2i}}|{\mathcal F}_{2i-1}) \le E(e^{\theta \eta})$
2. $E(e^{-\theta (\tau_{2i-1}+\tau_{2i})}|{\mathcal F}_{2i-1}) \le E(e^{-\theta \xi})$
Let $T_n = \sum_{i=0}^n \tau_i$. Let $$X(t) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll} 1 & T_{2i-1} \le t
< T_{2i}\\ 0 & \mbox{otherwise}\end{array}\right.\nonumber$$
Then, $\forall \lambda > E\eta/E\xi$, there is a $0 < \gamma < 1$ such that for all $T$ sufficiently large$$P\left(\frac{1}{T}\int_0^T X(t)dt >
\lambda\right) \le
\gamma^T.$$
For our application, $\tau_{2i}$ will be the time a random geodesic spends outside the compact set, and $\tau_{2i-1}$ the time inside on the $i$th ‘sojourn’. $\eta$ is a stochastic upper bound for $\tau_{2i}$, and $\xi$ as a stochastic lower bound for the length of a ‘cycle’. Thus condition 1 should be thought of as a stochastic upper bound for the time spent outside and condition 2 a stochastic lower bound for the total time of a cycle. In our application, we will give a stronger, deterministic lower bound: in fact, we will construct our variables so that $\tau_{2i-1} > C$, for some fixed $C$. This clearly implies condition 2, simply by taking $\xi = C$. For condition 1, we will use Theorem \[flowreturn\] to show that $\tau_{2i}$ cannot grow too large.
**Proof:**
Define $f(\theta):=E(e^{\theta \eta})$ and $g(\theta):= E(e^{-\theta \xi})$.
Let $N(T) = \sup\nu\{k: T_{2k} \le T\}$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
P\left(\int_0^T X(t)dt>\lambda T\right)\nonumber &\le& P\left(\int_0^T
X(t)dt > \lambda T \mbox{ and } N(T) \le cT\right) + P\left(N(T) >
cT\right)\nonumber \\
&=& P\left(\sum_{i=0}^{\lfloor cT/2 \rfloor} \tau_{2i} > \lambda T\right) +
P\left(N(T) > cT\right).\end{aligned}$$
We estimate each of these terms in turn. Let $n:=\lfloor cT/2 \rfloor$. Then, since $$P\left(\sum_{i=0}^{\lfloor cT/2 \rfloor} \tau_{2i} > \lambda^{\prime}n\right) \geq P\left(\sum_{i=0}^{\lfloor cT/2 \rfloor} \tau_{2i} > \lambda T\right) \geq P\left(\sum_{i=0}^{\lfloor cT/2 \rfloor} \tau_{2i} > \lambda^{\prime}(n+1)\right)$$ to estimate the first term it suffices to estimate $P\left(\sum_{i=0}^{n} \tau_{2i} > \lambda^{\prime} n\right)$, where $\lambda^{\prime} =2\lambda/c$. Now, for any $\theta_ 0 > \theta
\geq 0$ $$\begin{aligned}
P\left(\sum_{i=0}^n \tau_{2i} > \lambda^{\prime}n\right) &=& P\left(e^{\theta
\sum_{i=0}^n\tau_{2i}} > e^{\theta\lambda^{\prime}n}\right) \nonumber\\
&\le& e^{-\theta \lambda^{\prime} n} E\left(e^{\theta \sum_{i=0}^n
\tau_{2i}}\right)
\nonumber\\
&\le& e^{-\theta \lambda^{\prime} n} f(\theta)^n. \label{cond}\end{aligned}$$
The last inequality follows from the first condition in our theorem, and the fact that each $\tau_i$ is ${\mathcal F}_i$-measurable. Since equation \[expec\] holds for any $\theta_0 > \theta \geq 0$, we have $$P\left(\sum_{i=0}^n \tau_{2i} >
\lambda^{\prime}n\right) \le
\inf_{\theta_0 > \theta \geq 0} \left(f(\theta)e^{-\theta
\lambda^{\prime}}\right)^n.$$
Let $\lambda^{\prime} > E\eta$. Then, letting $$F(\theta) =
f(\theta) e^{-\theta\lambda^{\prime}} = E\left(e^{\theta(\eta
-\lambda^{\prime})}\right),$$ we get $F(0) = 1$, $$F^{\prime}(\theta) = E\left(e^{-\theta
(\eta - \lambda^{\prime})} (\eta - \lambda^{\prime})\right).$$ This implies that $$F^{\prime}(0^+) = E\left(\eta
-\lambda^{\prime}\right) < 0.$$
Thus, there is a $0 \le \theta_1 \le \theta_0$ such that $F(\theta_1) : = \gamma^{\prime} < 1$. Plugging this into equation yields the estimate for our first term.
To estimate the second term, let $\xi_i = \tau_{2i-1} + \tau_{2i}$. Fix $c > 1/E\xi$. By a similar argument to that above, we obtain $$P\left(N(T) > cT\right) \le \inf_{0 \le \theta \le \theta_0}
e^{\theta T} g(\theta)^{cT}.$$
Let $$G(\theta) = g(\theta)e^{\theta/c} =
E\left(e^{-\theta(\xi -1/c)}\right).$$ Once again, as above, we obtain $$G^{\prime}(0^+) = -E\left(\xi - 1/c\right) \le
0.$$ Thus, there exists $\theta_2$ with $G(\theta_2) =
\gamma^{\prime\prime} <1$, and so we have our desired estimate.
\[limsup\] With notation as above, $$\limsup_{T \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{T} \int_0^T X(t) dt \le \lambda$$ with probability 1 for all $\lambda >
E\eta/E\xi$.
In order to prove this corollary, we need the following technical lemma:
\[tech\] Let $0 < \gamma < 1$. Let $U: {{\mathbb}R}^+ \rightarrow
{{\mathbb}R}^+$ be such that for all sequences $\{a_n\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ with $\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\gamma^{a_n}$ convergent, $$\limsup_{n \rightarrow \infty} U(a_n)
\le c,$$ for some $c>0$. Then $$\limsup_{T \rightarrow \infty} U(T) \le c.$$
**Proof:** We proceed by contradiction. Suppose $\limsup_{T
\rightarrow \infty} U(T) > c$. Then, there is a sequence of time $t_n$, $t_n \rightarrow \infty$, such that $U(t_n) > c$. Take a subsequence $t_{n_k}$, where $n_k$ is such that $t_n > k$ for all $n \geq n_k$. Such a subsequence exists since $t_n$ diverges. Now, letting $a_k = t_{n_k}$, note that $a_k > k$, so $\sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \gamma^{a_k}$ is convergent. So $\limsup_{k \rightarrow \infty} U(a_k) \le c$. But by definition, $U(a_k) > c$ for all $k$. This is a contradiction.
We now proceed with the proof of Corollary \[limsup\]. Let $U(T) =
\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^T X(t)dt$. Let $\gamma$ be as in the conclusion of Proposition \[gendev\]. Then, for any sequence $a_n$ we have $$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} P\left(U(a_n) > \lambda\right)
\le \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \gamma^{a_n}.$$ Thus, if $\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \gamma^{a_n}$ converges, by the Borel-Cantelli lemma, $\limsup_{n \rightarrow \infty} U(a_n) \le \lambda$, with probability one. Applying Lemma \[tech\], we have our result.
Proofs of main results {#proofs}
======================
We fix the following notation for the rest of this section: fix a $\delta>0$, and fix $q \in Q$. For $h \in SL(2, {{\mathbb}R})$, we define $V_{\delta, q}(h) = V_{\delta}(hq)$. $V_{\delta,q}$ is $K$-invariant, and thus can be viewed as a function on ${{\mathbb}H}^2$. We define the sets $C_{\delta,l}(q) = \{z \in {{\mathbb}H}^2: V_q(z) \le l\}$. In the rest of this section we work in this ${{\mathbb}H}^2$, identifying $g_t r_{\theta} q \in Q$ with $i. g_t r_{\theta} \in {{\mathbb}H}^2$. For notational convenience, we drop the subscripts $\delta$ and $q$, and write $V$ and $C_l$ for $V_{\delta,q}, C_{\delta,l}(q)$. Furthermore, all distances are measured in ${{\mathbb}H}^2$.
**Proof of Theorem \[flowreturn\]:** Let $q \notin C_l$. We want to estimate the measure of the sets $$B^{\prime}(T, l,
q) = \{\theta: i.g_t r_{\theta} \notin C_l, 0 \le t \le T\}.$$ For technical reasons, we will instead study the sets $$B(T):=B(T, l, q) =
\{\theta: \exists \phi \in B^{\prime}(T, l, q) \mbox{ such that }d(i.g_T
r_{\theta}, i.g_T
r_{\phi}) \le 3\tau\},$$ where we will specify $\tau$ shortly. Note that, by definition, and logsmoothness of $V$, there is some $a_{\tau} \geq 1$ such that $\phi \in B(T, l, q)$ implies that $V(i.g_t
r_{\phi}) > l/a_{\tau} =: l^{\prime\prime}$ for all $0 \le t \le T$.
Let $B_{n\tau}
= B(n\tau, l, q)$, and $p_{n\tau} = \nu(B_{n\tau})$. We have $$l^{\prime\prime} p_{n\tau}
\le \int_{B_{n\tau}} V(i.g_{n\tau}r_{\theta}) d\theta =: D_{n\tau}.$$
Our main lemma is as follows
\[average\] For all $\delta >0$, and all $\tau$ sufficiently large there are constants $c = c(\delta), b= b(\tau, \delta)$, so that $$D_{n\tau} \le ce^{-(1-\delta)\tau} + b$$
**Proof:** Note that by definition $B_{n\tau}$ is a union of arcs of the form $I(n\tau)$, and as such, both Lemma \[polar2\] and Corollary \[polar3\] apply (we are also using the fact that $V$ is logsmooth). Fix $\sigma>1$, and let $\tau$ be such that we can apply corollary \[polar3\]. Setting $c = \sigma c^{\prime}\tilde{c}$ and $b = \sigma c^{\prime} \tilde{b}$, we obtain our result.
Let $\tau$ be large enough so that we can apply Lemma \[average\]. Proceeding as in the proof of Proposition \[walkgen\] part (1), we obtain $$p_{n\tau}(q) \le \frac{V_{\delta}(q)}{l^{\prime\prime}} \left(ce^{-(1-\delta)\tau} + \frac{b}{l^{\prime\prime}}\right)^n.$$ Let $\tau_0 >0$ be such that $ce^{-(1-\delta)\tau_0} <1$.
Let $t > \tau_0$, and let $$l_0 \geq a \sup_{\tau_0 \le \tau \le 2\tau_0} \frac{b}{(1- ce^{1-\delta)\tau})}.$$ Let $$a = \sup_{\tau_0 \le \tau \le 2\tau_0} a(\tau),$$ and set $l^{\prime} = l/a$.
Let $$\delta^{\prime} = \delta + \sup_{\tau_0 \le \tau \le 2\tau_0} \frac{1}{\tau}\ln\left(c + \frac{b}{l^{\prime}}e^{(1-\delta)\tau}\right).$$ It is easy to check that $\delta^{\prime} < 1$, and that it is decreasing as a function of $l$. There is some $\tau_0 \le \tau \le 2\tau_0$ and $n \in {{\mathbb}N}$ such that $t = {n\tau}$. We have $$p_{n\tau} \le \frac{V_{\delta}(q)}{l^{\prime}}\left(ce^{-(1-\delta)\tau} + \frac{b}{l^{\prime}}\right)^n.$$ Rewriting this, we obtain $$p_t \le a\frac{V_{\delta}(q)}{l}e^{-(1-\delta^{\prime})t}.$$
**Proof of Theorem \[sojourn\]:** Let $q \in Q$. Consider the circle of radius $S+T$, $\{i.g_{S+T} r_{\theta}: 0 \le \theta <2\pi\}$. Given $T>0$, we want to show that the set $B = B_{S, T} (q,l) =
\{\theta: i.g_t r_{\theta} \notin C_l, S \le t \le S+T\}$ has exponentially small measure in $T$ for sufficiently large $l, S,$ and $T$.
Given $\theta_0 \in B$, let $z_0 = i. g_{S} r_{\theta_0}$, and consider the circle $\{i.g_T r_{\phi} g_{S}r_{\theta_0} : 0 \le \phi < 2\pi\}$ of radius $T$ around it. By Theorem \[flowreturn\], we know that for most (the complement is exponentially small in $T$) directions $\phi$ on this circle, $i.g_t r_{\phi} g_{S} r_{\theta_0} \in C_l$ for some $t < T$.
Our idea is as follows: there is a small neighborhood $U$ of $\theta_0$ such that each geodesic trajectory $\{i.g_t r_{\theta}\}_{t=0}^{S+T}, \theta
\in U$ is closely shadowed by a piecewise geodesic of the form $\gamma = \gamma_{\theta_0, \phi}$, $\theta = \Psi_{S, T}(\phi)$, where $$\gamma(t) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll} i.g_t r_{\theta_0}
& 0 \le t \le S \\ i.g_{t-S}r_{\phi}g_{S}r_{\theta_0} & S < t <
S+T\end{array}\right.\nonumber$$
By closely shadowed, we mean that $d(\gamma(t), i.g_t r_{\theta})$ is small for all $t$. Thus, if $V(\gamma(t)) \le l$ for some $S \le S+T$, we have that $V(i.g_t r_{\theta}) \le \tilde{l}$, for some $\tilde{l} > l$.
Now, for all but a small set of $\phi$, $\gamma(t) \in C_l$ for some $S
\le t \le S+T$. Thus, in a small neighborhood of $\theta_0$, we have a (large-proportioned) collection of angles which are not in $\tilde{B} = B_{S,T}(q, \tilde{l})$.
To make this rigorous, fix $\epsilon, \delta >0$, and let $A: = A(\theta_0) = B_{0,T}(z_0, l) = \{\phi: V(i.g_t r_{\phi}g_{S}r_{\theta_0})>l, 0 \le t \le T\}$. Let $d$ be the maximum thickness of a hyperbolic triangle. By logsmoothness of $V$, there is a $b \geq 1$ such that $d(z_1, z_2) \le d$ implies $\frac{V(z_1)}{V(z_2)} \le b$. Let $l_1 = bl_0$, where $l_0$ is as in the conclusion of Theorem \[flowreturn\]. For any $l$, let $\hat{l} = l/b$.
Setting $\delta^{\prime\prime} =\delta^{\prime}(\hat{l}, \delta)$ and $l^{\prime} = \hat{l}/a = l/ba$, where $a = a(\delta)$ is as in Theorem \[flowreturn\] yields $$\nu(A) \le \frac{V(z_0)}{l^{\prime}}e^{-(1-\delta^{\prime\prime})t}.$$ Let $T, S$ be large enough so that we can apply Lemma \[shadow\] with $\epsilon$, and $t_2= T$, $t_1 =
S$. This gives a neighborhood $U$ of $\theta_0$ in which the proportion of angles $$\frac{\nu(\Psi(A) \cap U)}{\nu(U)} \le 4(1+\epsilon)\sup_{\theta \in [0, 2\pi)}\frac{V(i.g_S r_{\theta})}{l^{\prime}}e^{-(1-\delta^{\prime\prime})t}.$$ Now, by the thinness of triangles in hyperbolic geometry, given $\theta \in U$, there is a $\phi$ with $\Psi(\phi) = \theta$ such that $$d(i.g_t r_{\theta},
\gamma_{\theta_0, \phi}(t)) \le d$$ for $t \in [0,
S+T]$.
For all $\phi \notin A$, we have $$\gamma_{\theta_0,
\phi} (t_0) \in
C_{\hat{l}},$$ for some $S+T > t_0 > S$. Thus, $$g_{t_0} r_{\theta} q \in C_l,$$ so $\theta \notin B$.
Thus, given any $\theta_0 \in B$, we have produced a neighborhood $U$ s.t. $$\frac{\nu(B^C \cap U)}{\nu(U)} > 1- 4(1+\epsilon)\sup_{\theta \in [0, 2\pi)}\frac{V(i.g_S r_{\theta})}{l^{\prime}}e^{-(1-\delta^{\prime\prime})t}.$$
To complete the proof, we need the following standard lemma (see, for example, [@Evans]):
\[besic\] Let $B \subset [0,2\pi)$ be a measurable set such that for all $b \in B$, there is a $\delta_b >0$, so that $U_b =
[b-\delta_b, b+\delta_b] \subset [0,2\pi)$ satisfies $$\frac{\nu(U_b
\cap B)}{\nu(U_b)} < \epsilon.$$ Then $$\nu(B) \le 2 \epsilon.$$
Applying the lemma to our set $B$, we obtain $$\nu(B) \le
8(1+\epsilon)\sup_{\theta \in [0, 2\pi)}\frac{V(i.g_S r_{\theta})}{l^{\prime}}e^{-(1-\delta^{\prime\prime})t}.$$
**Proof of Theorem \[proportion\]:** Our strategy is as follows: Given a direction $\theta$, consider the succesive departures and returns of the geodesic trajectory $\{i.g_t r_{\theta}\}_{t \geq 0}$ to the compact set $C_l$. Theorem \[flowreturn\] implies that the probability any departure is long is small, and thus, we can try and apply Proposition \[gendev\], to the ‘random variables’ given by the length of sojourns inside and outside the compact set.
We proceed as follows: Let $d$ be as in the proof of Theorem \[sojourn\]. Fix $\delta >0$, and let $l_0$ be as in Theorem \[flowreturn\]. Let $l > l_0$ be such that $d(C_l^{c},C_{l_0}) > 2d$, and define $C = C(l) = d(C_l^{c},C_{l_0}) - 2d$. Define $t_0(\theta) =0$, and set $$t_{2n}(\theta) = \inf \{t>
t_{2n-1}: \exists \phi \mbox{ such that }d(i.g_t r_{\phi}, i.g_t
r_{\theta}) < d, i.g_t r_{\phi} \in
C_{l_0}\}$$ and $$t_{2n+1}(\theta) = \inf \{t> t_{2n}: \exists \phi
\mbox{ such that } d (i.g_t r_{\phi}, i.g_t r_{\theta}) < d,
i.g_t
r_{\phi} \notin C_l\},$$ for $n \geq 0$. Define $\tau_i(\theta) = t_i - t_{i-1}$. Now fix $C^{\prime}>0$, and define auxiliary functions $\tau^{\prime}_i$ by $$\tau^{\prime}_{2i} := \left\{\begin{array}{ll} 0
& \tau_{2i} \le C^{\prime} \\ \tau_{2i} & \tau_{2i} >C^{\prime}\end{array}\right.$$ and $$\tau^{\prime}_{2i-1} := \left\{\begin{array}{ll} \tau_{2i-1}+\tau_{2i}
& \tau_{2i} \le C^{\prime} \\ \tau_{2i-1} & \tau_{2i} >C^{\prime}\end{array}\right.$$
Define $t^{\prime}_i := \sum_{j=1}^i \tau^{\prime}_j$. Note that $\tau_{2i} + \tau_{2i-1} = \tau^{\prime}_{2i} + \tau^{\prime}_{2i-1}$, so $t^{\prime}_{2i} = t_{2i}$.
$$X(t) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll} 1 & t^{\prime}_{2i-1} \le t
< t^{\prime}_{2i}\\ 0 & \mbox{otherwise}\end{array}\right.\nonumber$$
The $t_i$’s should be thought of as the entry and departure times of the trajectory $\{i.g_t r_{\theta}\}_{t \geq 0}$ from our compact sets. For technical reasons, they are defined as the first time when a *nearby* trajectory leaves a larger compact set ($C_l$), or re-enters a smaller one ($C_{l_0}$). The $\tau_{2i}$’s measure time spent after departing the larger set before returning to the smaller, and the $\tau_{2i-1}$’s measure the time spent after returning to the smaller before departing the larger. The auxiliary $\tau^{\prime}_i$’s are defined to exclude short ($\le C^{\prime}$) sojourns. Thus, if $t^{\prime}_{2i} < t < t^{\prime}_{2i+1}$ we are within distance $C^{\prime}$ of the larger compact set, and thus still within a compact set. Thus, for all such $t$, $V(i.g_t r_{\theta}) \le \tilde{l} = \tilde{l}(C^{\prime})$, i.e., $$X(t) \geq \chi_{C_{\tilde{l}}^{c}}(i.g_t r_{\theta} ).$$ Thus, it suffices to show that for all $\lambda >0$ there is a $C^{\prime} >0$ so that $\nu\left(\frac{1}{T} \int_{0}^{T} X(t)dt > \lambda\right)$ decays exponentially in $T$.
We will apply Proposition \[gendev\] to $\{\tau^{\prime}_i\}_{i \geq 0}$, with $\Omega = S^1$, ${\mathcal F}$ the standard $\sigma$-algebra, and $P=\nu$ the Haar measure. Let ${\mathcal F}_n = \sigma(t^{\prime}_1,
\ldots, t^{\prime}_n)$ be the $\sigma$-algebra generated by $t^{\prime}_1, \ldots, t^{\prime}_n$. Clearly $\tau^{\prime}_n$ is ${\mathcal F}_n$-measurable. Note that since $d(C_l^{c}, C_{l_0}) = 2d + C$, $$\tau^{\prime}_{2i+1} \geq \tau_{2i+1}
= t_{2i+1} - t_{2i} > C$$ (since $i.g_{t_{2i}}r_{\theta}$ is within distance $d$ of $C_{l_0}$ and $i.g_{t_{2i+1}}r_{\theta}$ is within distance $d$ of $C_{l}^c$). Thus, condition 2 of the proposition is satisfied, with $\xi = C$
It remains to check condition 1. We will show $$\label{decay} \nu(\tau^{\prime}_{2i} > t | {\mathcal F}_{2i-1}) \le a_1
e^{-a_2t}$$ for some $a_1, a_2 >0$ and all $t>C^{\prime}$.
By definition, $t_i^{\prime-1} (x)$ is an interval, and thus ${\mathcal F}_i$ is generated by these intervals. Fix $\theta$. Let $$I_n(\theta) = \{ \phi: t_i^{\prime}(\phi) = t_i^{\prime}(\theta) \mbox{ for all } 0 \le i \le
n\}.$$
It suffices to show that there are $a_1, a_2 >0$ such that, for all $t>C^{\prime}$, $$\label{decay2} \nu\left(\tau^{\prime}_{2n} > t|
I_{2n-1}(\theta)\right) \le a_1
e^{-a_2t}.$$ Fix $\phi \in I_{2n-1}(\theta)$ with $\tau_{2i}(\phi) > t$. Let $z_{\phi} = i.g_{t_{2i-1}} r_{\phi}$. Note that this point is within distance $d$ of the boundary of $C_l^c$, thus it is both outside $C_{l_0}$ and still contained within a compact set. Consider the circle of radius $t$ around $z_{\phi}$ and the associated map $\Psi = \Psi_{t, t_{2i-1}}$ back to the circle at $i$.
Let $A = A(\phi) = \{\theta: i.g_s r_{\theta}g_{t_{2i-1}}r_{\phi} \notin
C_{l_0}, 0 \le s \le t \}$. Since $z_{\phi}$ is contained in a compact set, we can pick $c_1 =c_1(l), c_2 =c_2(l_0)$ independent of $\phi$ such that $$\nu(A) \le c_1e^{-c_2t},$$ for all $t$ sufficiently large. By picking $C^{\prime}$ large enough, we can get this to hold for all $t > C^{\prime}$. For the rest of this section, let $t>C^{\prime}$.
Applying lemma \[shadow\] with $\epsilon =1$, we obtain a neighborhood $U$ of $\phi$, with $$\frac{\nu(\Psi A \cap U)}{\nu(U)} \le 16c_1
e^{-c_2t}.$$
Note that $U \subset \chi_{2n-1}(\theta)$, since $\forall 0 \le t \le
t_{2i-1}, \theta^{\prime} \in U$, $$d(i.g_t
r_{\theta^{\prime}}, i.g_t r_{\theta}) < d.$$
Finally, observe that $\tau_{2i}(\theta^{\prime}) < t$ for all $\theta
^{\prime} \in U- \Psi(A(\phi))$, since $\theta^{\prime} \notin \Psi(A)$ implies that there is some $0 \le s \le t$ such that $V(i.g_s r_{\psi}g_{t_{2i-1}}r_{\phi}) \le l_0$, with $\Psi (\psi) = \theta^{\prime}$. Thus, since $d(i.g_s r_{\psi}g_{t_{2i-1}}r_{\phi}, i.g_{s+t_{2i-1}}r_{\theta^{\prime}}) \le d$, we have $V(i.g_{s+t_{2i-1}}r_{\theta^{\prime}}) \le l$, and thus $\tau_{2i}(\theta^{\prime}) < t$. Once again applying Lemma \[besic\], we obtain equation , with $a_1 = 32c_1$ and $a_2 = c_2$.
Let $C^{\prime}$ be large enough so that $a_1e^{-a_2C^{\prime}} <1$. Let $\eta$ be a non-negative function on $S^1$ such that $$\nu\{\theta: \eta(\theta) = 0\} = a_1e^{-a_2C^{\prime}}$$ and $$\nu\{\theta: \eta(\theta) > t\} = a_1e^{-a_2t}$$ for all $t > C^{\prime}$. Condition 1 is then clearly satisfied, since $\nu(\tau_{2i}^{\prime} =0) \geq a_1e^{-a_2C^{\prime}}$, and $\nu(\tau^{\prime}_{2i} > t) \le a_1e^{-a_2 t}$ for $t> C^{\prime}$. Now, note that $E(\eta) = \frac{a_1}{a_2}e^{-a_2 C^{\prime}}$, and $E(\xi) = C$. Thus, by enlarging $C^{\prime}$, we can make $E(\eta)/E(\xi)$ arbitrarily small. Precisely for any $\lambda >0$, take $C^{\prime}$ so that $$E(\eta)/E(\xi) \le \lambda.$$ Then, setting $\tilde{l} = \tilde{l}(C^{\prime})$ and applying Proposition \[gendev\], we obtain that there is a $\gamma <1$ so that $$\nu\{\theta: \frac{1}{T}|\{0 \le t \le T:g_t r_{\theta} q \notin C_{\tilde{l}}\}|
> \lambda\} \le \nu\left(\frac{1}{T} \int_{0}^{T} X(t)dt > \lambda\right) \le \gamma^T,$$ for all $T$ sufficiently large.
**Proof of Corollary \[for\]:** Applying Corollary \[limsup\] to $X(t)$, we obtain our result.
**Acknowledgements:** I would like to thank my advisor, Professor Alex Eskin, for his guidance throughout this project. I would also like to thank Professors Howard Masur, Giovanni Forni, Steven Lalley and Krishna Athreya for valuable discussions, and my colleague Matthew Day for help with hyperbolic trigonometry. Thanks are also due to the anonymous referee, whose detailed comments and suggestions greatly improved this paper.
[99]{} A. Avila, S. Gouezel, and J. -C. Yoccoz, *Exponential mixing for the Teichmuller flow*, preprint, 2005. arxiv.org/math.DS/0511614
A. Bufetov, *Decay of Correlations for the Rauzy-Veech-Zorich Induction Map on the Space of Interval Exchange Transformations and the Central Limit Theorem for the Teichmueller Flow on the Moduli Space of Abelian Differentials*, preprint, 2005. arxiv.org/math.DS/0506222
Y. Cheung, *Slowly divergent geodesics in moduli space*, Conform. Geom. Dyn., vol. 8, 167-189, 2004.
Y. Cheung and H. Masur, *A divergent Teichmuller geodesic with uniquely ergodic vertical foliation*, preprint, 2005, arxiv.org/math.DS/0501296
Y. Cheung and H. Masur, *Minimal nonergodic directions on genus 2 translation surfaces*, to appear in Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems, 2005. arxiv.org/math.DS/0501286
R. Durrett, *Probability: Theory and Examples, Second Edition*, Duxbury Press, 1996.
A. Eskin and G. Margulis, *Recurrence properties of random walks on finite volume homogeneous manifolds*, in *Random walks and geometry*, 431–444, Walter de Gruyter GmbH and Co. KG, Berlin, 2004.
A. Eskin and H. Masur, *Asymptotic Formulas on Flat Surfaces*, Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems, v.21, 443-478, 2001.
L. C. Evans and R. Gariepy, *Measure Theory and Fine Properties of Functions*, CRC Press, 1991.
B. Farb, D. Margalit, *A primer on mapping class groups*, in preparation.
G. Forni, *Deviation of ergodic averages for area-preserving flows on surfaces of higher genus*, Annals of Math., v.155, no. 1, 1–103, 2002.
S. Katok, *Fuchsian Groups*, Chicago Lectures in Mathematics, University of Chicago Press, 1992.
S. Kerckhoff, H. Masur, and J. Smillie, *Ergodicity of billiard flows and quadratic differentials*, Annals of Mathematics, v. 124, no. 2, 293-311, 1986.
D. Y. Kleinbock and G. A. Margulis, *Logarithm laws for flows on homogeneous spaces*, Invent. Math., v. 138, 451-494, 1999.
D. Kleinbock and B. Weiss, *Bounded geodesics in moduli space*, Int. Math. Res. Not., no. 30, 1551-1560, 2004.
M. Kontsevich and A. Zorich, *Connected components of the moduli spaces of Abelian differentials with prescribed singularities*, Invent. Math. v. 153, no. 3, 631-678, 2003.
H. Masur, *Interval exchange transformations and measured foliations*, Annals of Mathematics, v. 115, 169-200, 1982.
H. Masur, *Logarithm law for geodesics in moduli space*, Contemporary Mathematics, v. 150, 229-245, 1993.
H. Masur and S. Tabachnikov, *Rational Billiards and Flat Structures*, Handoook of Dynamical Systems, v. 1A, 1015-1089, 2002.
Y. Minsky, and B. Weiss, *Non-divergence of horocyclic flows on moduli space*, J. Reine Angew. Math. v. 552, 131-177, 2002.
S.P. Meyn and R.L. Tweedie, *Markov Chains and Stochastic Stability*, Springer-Verlag, 1993
D. Sullivan, *Disjoint Spheres, Approximation by Imaginary Quadratic Numbers, and the Logarithm Law for Geodesics*, Acta Math., v. 149, 215-238, 1982.
K. Strebel, *Quadratic Differentials*, Springer-Verlag, 1984.
S. R. S. Varadhan, *Large Deviations and Applications*, CBMS-NSF Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics v. 46, SIAM, 1984.
W. Veech, *Gauss measures for transformations on the space of interval exchange maps*, Annals of Mathematics, v. 115, 201-242, 1982.
W. Veech, *Teichmuller Geodesic Flow*, Annals of Mathematics, v. 124, 441-530, 1986.
A. Zemljakov and A. Katok, *Topological transitivity of billiards in polygons*, Mat. Zametki, v. 19, no. 2, 291-300, 1975.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- |
Joseph Y. Halpern[^1]\
Cornell University\
Ithaca, NY 14853\
[email protected]\
http://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/halpern
bibliography:
- 'z.bib'
- 'joe.bib'
- 'riccardo2.bib'
nocite: '[@Hal31]'
title: 'Using Sets of Probability Measures to Represent Uncertainty[^2]'
---
Introduction
============
Despite its widespread acceptance, there are some problems in using probability to represent uncertainty. Perhaps the most serious is that probability is not good at representing ignorance. The following two examples illustrate the problem.
\[coinxam\] Suppose that a coin is tossed once. There are two possible worlds, $h$ and $t,$ corresponding to the two possible outcomes. If the coin is known to be fair, it seems reasonable to assign probability $1/2$ to each of these worlds. However, suppose that the coin has an unknown bias (where the *bias* of a coin is the probability that it lands heads.) How should this be represented? One approach might be to continue to take heads and tails as the elementary outcomes and, applying the principle of indifference, assign them both probability $1/2$, just as in the case of a fair coin. However, there seems to be a significant qualitative difference between a fair coin and a coin of unknown bias. This difference has some pragmatic consequences. For example, as Kyburg (e.g., in [@Kyb1]) has pointed out, the assumption that heads and tails have probability $1/2$, together with the assumption that consecutive coin tosses are independent implies that, if the coin is tossed 1,000,000 times, then the probability that the coin will land heads somewhere between 498,000 and 502,000 times is greater than .999. This certainly doesn’t seem something that an agent who has no idea of the bias of the coin should know!
\[marbles\] Suppose that a bag contains 100 marbles; 30 are known to be red, and the remainder are known to be either blue or yellow, although the exact proportion of blue and yellow is not known. What is the likelihood that a marble taken out of the bag is yellow? This can be modeled with three possible worlds, ${\mbox{\em red}},$ ${\mbox{\em blue}},$ and ${\mbox{\em yellow}},$ one for each of the possible outcomes. It seems reasonable to assign probability .3 to the outcome to choosing a red marble, and thus probability .7 to choosing either blue or yellow, but what probability should be assigned to the other two outcomes?
Empirically, it is clear that people do [*not*]{} use probability to represent the uncertainty in this example. For example, consider the following three bets. In each case a marble is chosen from the bag.
- $B_r$ pays \$1 if the marble is red, and 0 otherwise;
- $B_b$ pays \$1 if the marble is blue, and 0 otherwise;
- $B_y$ pays \$1 if the marble is yellow, and 0 otherwise.
People invariably prefer $B_r$ to both $B_b$ and $B_y,$ and they are indifferent between $B_b$ and $B_y$. The fact that they are indifferent between $B_b$ ad $B_y$ suggests that they view it equally likely that the marble chosen is blue and that it is yellow. This seems reasonable; the problem statement provides no reason to prefer blue to yellow, or vice versa. However, if the probability of drawing a red marble is taken to be .3, then the probability of drawing a blue marble and that of drawing a yellow marble are both .35, which suggests that $B_y$ and $B_b$ should both be preferred to $B_r$.
Moreover, now consider the following three bets:
- $B_{ry}$ pays \$1 if the marble is red or yellow, and 0 otherwise;
- $B_{by}$ pays \$1 if the marble is blue or yellow, and 0 otherwise.
While most people prefer $B_r$ to $B_b$, most also prefer $B_{by}$ to $B_{ry}$. There is no probability measure on $\{b,r,y\}$ that would both make $b$ more likely than $r$ and make $\{b,r\}$ less likely than $\{b,y\}$. (This is essentially Ellsberg’s [-@Ellsberg61] paradox; I return to this issue in Section \[sec:decision\].)
One natural way of representing uncertainty in both of these cases is by using a *set* of probability measures, rather than a single measure. For example, the uncertainty in Example \[coinxam\] can be represented by the set $\P_m = \{\mu_a: a \in
[0,1]\}$ of probability measures on $\{h,t\}$, where $\mu_a$ gives $h$ probability $a$. In Example \[marbles\], the uncertainty can be represented using the set $\P_u = \{\mu'_a: a \in [0,.7]\}$ of probability measures on $\{{\mbox{\em red}},{\mbox{\em blue}},{\mbox{\em yellow}}\}$, where $\mu'_a$ gives ${\mbox{\em red}}$ probability .3, ${\mbox{\em blue}}$ probability $a,$ and ${\mbox{\em yellow}}$ probability $.7-a$.
In the rest of this paper, I explore the use of sets of probability measures as a representation of uncertainty.
Lower and Upper Probability and Dutch Book Arguments
====================================================
Let $\P$ be a set of probability measures all defined on all subsets of a finite set $W$ of possible worlds.[^3] Given a set $X$ of real numbers, let $\sup X,$ the [*supremum*]{} (or just [*sup*]{}) of $X,$ be the [*least upper bound of $X$*]{}—the smallest real number that is at least as large as all the elements in $X$. That is, $\sup X =
\alpha$ if $x \le \alpha$ for all $x \in X$ and if, for all $\alpha' < \alpha,$ there is some $x \in X$ such that $x > \alpha'$. For example, if $X = \{1/2, 3/4, 7/8, 15/16, \ldots\}$, then $\sup X = 1$. Similarly, $\inf X,$ the [*infimum*]{} (or just [*inf*]{}) of $X$, is the greatest lower bound of $X$—the largest real number that is less than or equal to every element in $X$. For $U \subseteq W,$ define $$\begin{array}{l}
\P(U) = \{\mu(U): \mu \in \P\},\\
\P_*(U) = \inf \P(U), \mbox{ and }\\
\P^*(U) = \sup \P(U).
\end{array}$$ $\P_*(U)$ is called the [*lower probability*]{} of $U,$ and $\P^*(U)$ is called the [*upper probability*]{} of $U$. If $\P^*(U) = \P_*(U)$ for all subsets $U$ of $W$, then it is easy to see that $\P$ must be a singleton $\{\mu\}$, and $\P^* = \P_* = \mu$. In general, of course, $\P^* \ne \P_*$. For a set $U$, the difference $\P^*(U) - \P_*(U)$ can be viewed as characterizing our ignorance about $U$. In Example \[marbles\], there is uncertainty about the likelihood of ${\mbox{\em red}}$ being chosen, but there is no ignorance: the likelihood is exactly $.3$. This is captured by $\P_2$: $(\P_2)_*({\mbox{\em red}}) = (\P_2)^*({\mbox{\em red}}) = .3$. On the other hand, there is ignorance about the likelihood of ${\mbox{\em blue}}$ and ${\mbox{\em yellow}}$ being chosen. And, indeed, $(\P_2)_*({\mbox{\em blue}}) = 0$ and $(\P_2)^*({\mbox{\em blue}}) = .7$, and similarly for ${\mbox{\em yellow}}$.
While lower and upper probabilities seem natural, how reasonable is it to use them to represent uncertainty? I investigate this question in a number of different contexts in the next few sections. For now, I briefly consider one of the most prominent justifications for probability, the *Dutch book argument*, which goes back to Ramsey [-@Ram] and de Finetti [-@DeFinetti31; -@DeFinetti37], and see how it fares in the context of sets of probabilities.
Roughly speaking, the Dutch book argument says that if odds do not act like probabilities, then there is a collection of bets that guarantees a sure loss. Somewhat more precisely, suppose that an agent must post odds for each subset of a set $W$. If the agent chooses odds of, say, 4:5 on $U \subseteq W$, then this is supposed to mean that the agent is willing to accept a bet of any size for or against $U$. If a bookie bets $\$k$ on $U$, then if $U$ happens (i.e., if the actual world is in $U$—it is assumed that this can always be determined), then the bookie wins $\$9/4k$; if not, the bookie loses the $\$k$. Similarly, if the bookie bets $\$k$ against $U$, then if the $U$ happens, the bookie loses the $\$k$, and if not, then the bookie wins $\$9/5k$. In general, if the odds for $U$ are $o_1: o_2$, then if a bookie bets $\$k$ on $U$, then he wins $(o_1 +
o_2)/o_1$ if $U$ happens and loses the $\$k$ otherwise, and if he bets against $U$, he loses $\$k$ if $U$ happens and wins $(o_1 + o_2)/o_2$ otherwise. If the odds on $U$ are $o_1:o_2$, let $p_U$ be $o_1/(o_1 + o_2)$. The key claim is that, unless the numbers $p_U$ act like probabilities (and, in particular, $p_W = 1$ and $p_{U \union V} =
p_U + p_V$ if $U$ and $V$ are disjoint), then the agent is irrational: there is a *Dutch book*, a collection of bets which guarantee a loss for the agent. Conversely, if the $p_U$’s do act like probabilities, then there is no Dutch book.
Does this mean it is irrational to use other representations of uncertainty, such as sets of probability measures? Many problems have been noted with Dutch book arguments (see, for example, [@HowUrb pp. 89–91], [@Hajek07]). Of most relevance here is the implicit assumption that an agent can or is willing to post *fair odds*, that is, odds for which he is indifferent between a bet for and against a subset $U$ of $W$. In the stock market, bid and ask prices are not necessarily equal. Suppose that instead of posting fair odds, the agent were only willing to post the analogue of bid and ask prices; odds for which he is willing to take a bet on $U$ and (lower) odds at which he is willing to take a bet against $U$. In that case, arguments similar in spirit to those used by de Finetti and Ramsey can be used to show that the agent is rational iff his odds determine lower and upper probabilities (see [@Smith; @Williams76]). The key to making these arguments precise is a characterization of lower and upper probabilities, which is the subject of the next section.
Charaterizing Lower and Upper Probability
=========================================
A probability measure on $W$ is a function $\mu: 2^W \rightarrow [0,1]$ characterized by two well-known properties:
- $\mu(W) = 1$.
- $\mu(U_1 \union U_2) = \mu(U_1) + \mu(U_2)$ if $U_1$ and $U_2$ are disjoint subsets of $W$.
Every probability measure satisfies P1 and P2, and every function from $\mu: 2^W \rightarrow [0,1]$ satisfying P1 and P2 is a probability measure. Property P2 is known as *(finite) additivity*; note that the fact that $\mu(\emptyset) = 0$ follows easily from P2; P1 and P2 together imply that $\mu(\overline{U}) = 1 - \mu(U)$.
Are there similar properties characterizing lower and upper probabilities? It is easy to see that P1 continues to hold for both lower and upper probabilities. P2 does not hold, but lower probability is [*superadditive*]{} and upper probability is [ *subadditive,*]{} so that for disjoint sets $U$ and $V,$ $$\label{pch3.eq7}
\begin{array}{l}
\P_*(U \union V) \ge \P_*(U) +
\P_*(V), \mbox{ and }\\
\P^*(U \union V) \le \P^*(U) + \P^*(V).
\end{array}$$ In addition, the relationship between lower and upper probability is defined by $$\label{pch3.eq7.5}
\P_*(U) = 1 - \P^*(\overline{U}).$$ (I leave the straightforward proof of these results to the reader.)
While (\[pch3.eq7\]) and (\[pch3.eq7.5\]) hold for all lower and upper probabilities, these properties do not completely characterize them. For example, the following property holds for lower and upper probabilities if $U$ and $V$ are disjoint: $$\label{pch3.eq8}
\P_*(U \union V) \le \P_*(U) + \P^*(V) \le \P^*(U \union V);$$ moreover, (\[pch3.eq8\]) does not follow from (\[pch3.eq7\]) and (\[pch3.eq7.5\]) [@HalPuc00]. However, even adding (\[pch3.eq8\]) to (\[pch3.eq7\]) and (\[pch3.eq7.5\]) does not provide a complete characterization of lower and upper probabilities. The property needed to get a complete characterization is somewhat complex. To state it precisely, say that a set $\U$ of subsets of $W$ [*covers a subset $U$ of $W$ exactly $k$ times*]{} if every element of $U$ is in exactly $k$ sets in $\U$. Consider the following property: $$\label{pch3.eq9}
\begin{array}{c}
\mbox{If $\U = \{U_1, \ldots, U_k\}$ covers $U$ exactly $m+n$ times and
covers $\overline{U}$}\\
\mbox{exactly $m$ times, then $\sum_{i=1}^k \P_*(U_i) \le m + n\P_*(U).$}
\end{array}$$ (There is of course an analogous property for upper probability, with $\le$ replaced by $\ge$.) It is not hard to show that lower probabilities satisfy (\[pch3.eq9\]) and that (\[pch3.eq7\]) and (\[pch3.eq8\]) follow from (\[pch3.eq9\]) and (\[pch3.eq7.5\]). Indeed, in a precise sense, as Anger and Lembcke [-@AL85] show, (\[pch3.eq9\]) completely characterizes lower probabilities (and hence, together with (\[pch3.eq7.5\]), upper probabilities as well).
\[thm:upchar\] [[@AL85]]{} Lower probability satisfies (\[pch3.eq9\]). Conversely, if $f: 2^W \rightarrow [0,1]$ satisfies (\[pch3.eq9\]) (with $\P_*$ replaced by $f$) and $f(W) = 1$, then there exists a set $\P$ of probability measures such that $f = \P_*$.[^4]
Although I have been focusing on lower and upper probability, it is important to stress that sets of probability measures contain more information than is captured by their lower and upper probability, as the following example shows.
\[xam:moreinfo\] Consider two variants of Example \[marbles\]. In the first, all that is known is that there are at most 50 yellow marbles and at most 50 blue marbles in a bag of 100 marbles; no information at all is given about the number of red marbles. In the second case, it is known that there are exactly as many blue marbles as yellow marbles. The first situation can be captured by the set $\P_3 = \{\mu: \mu({\mbox{\em blue}}) \le .5,
\mu({\mbox{\em yellow}}) \le .5\}$. The second situation can be captured by the set $\P_4
= \{\mu: \mu(b) = \mu(y)\}$. These sets of measures are obviously quite different; in fact $\P_4$ is a strict subset of $\P_3$. However, it is easy to see that $(\P_3)_* =
(\P_4)_*$ and, hence, that $\P_3^* = \P_4^*$. Thus, the fact that blue and yellow have equal probability in every measure in $\P_4$ has been lost by considering only lower and upper probability. I return to this issue in Section \[sec:expectation\].
Dempster-Shafer Belief Functions as Lower Probabilities
=======================================================
The Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence, originally introduced by Arthur Dempster [-@Demp1; -@Demp] and then developed by Glenn Shafer [-@Shaf], provides another approach to attaching likelihoods to events. This approach starts out with a [*belief function*]{} (sometimes called a [*support function*]{}). Given a set $W$ of possible worlds and $U \subseteq W,$ the belief in $U,$ denoted ${{\rm Bel}}(U),$ is a number in the interval $[0,1]$. A belief function ${{\rm Bel}}$ defined on a space $W$ must satisfy the following three properties:
- ${{\rm Bel}}(\emptyset) = 0$.
- ${{\rm Bel}}(W) = 1$.
- ${{\rm Bel}}(\union_{i=1}^n U_i) \ge \sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{\{I \subseteq \{1, \ldots, n\}: |I| = i\}}
(-1)^{i+1} {{\rm Bel}}(\inter_{j \in I} U_j),$ for $n = 1, 2, 3, \ldots$.
B1 and B2 just say that, like probability measures, belief functions follow the convention of using 0 and 1 to denote the minimum and maximum likelihood. B3 is closely related to the *inclusion-exclusion* rule for probability. The inclusion-exclusion rule is used to compute the probability of the union of (not necessarily disjoint) sets. In the case of two sets $U$ and $V$, the rule says $$\mu(U \union V) =
\mu(U) + \mu(V) - \mu(U \inter V).$$ In the case of three sets $U_1$, $U_2$, $U_3$, similar arguments show that $$\begin{array}{l}
\mu(U_1 \union U_2 \union U_3) = \\
\ \ \ \mu(U_1) + \mu(U_2) + \mu(U_3) - \mu(U_1 \inter U_2) -
\mu(U_1 \inter U_3) - \mu(U_2 \inter U_3) + \mu(U_1 \inter U_2 \inter U_3).
\end{array}
$$ That is, the probability of the union of $U_1$, $U_2$, and $U_3$ can be determined by adding the probability of the individual sets (these are one-way intersections), subtracting the probability of the two-way intersections, and adding the probability of the three-way intersections. The generalization of this rule to $k$ sets, with $=$ replaced by $\ge$, is just B3. It follows that every probability measure is a belief function.
If $U$ and $V$ are disjoint sets, then it easily follows from B1 and B3 that ${{\rm Bel}}(U \union V) \ge {{\rm Bel}}(U) + {{\rm Bel}}(V)$. That is, ${{\rm Bel}}$ is superadditive, just like a lower probability. And just like a lower probability, ${{\rm Bel}}(U)$ can be viewed as providing a lower bound on the likelihood of $U$. Define ${{\rm Plaus}}(U) = 1 - {{\rm Bel}}(\overline{U})$. ${{\rm Plaus}}$ is a [*plausibility function;*]{} ${{\rm Plaus}}(U)$ is the [*plausibility*]{} of $U$. A plausibility function bears the same relationship to a belief function that upper probability bears to lower probability.
By B2 and B3, for all subsets $U \subseteq W$, $1 = {{\rm Bel}}(W) \ge {{\rm Bel}}(U)
+ {{\rm Bel}}(\overline{U}),$ so $${{\rm Plaus}}(U) = 1 - {{\rm Bel}}(\overline{U}) \ge {{\rm Bel}}(U).$$ Thus, for an event $U,$ the interval $[{{\rm Bel}}(U),{{\rm Plaus}}(U)]$ can be viewed as describing the range of possible values of the likelihood of $U$, just like $[\P_*(U), \P^*(U)]$.
There is in fact a deeper connection between belief functions and lower probabilities: every belief function is a lower probability and the corresponding plausibilty function is the corresponding upper probability.
\[pch3.thm1\] Given a belief function ${{\rm Bel}}$ defined on a space $W,$ let $\P_{{{\rm Bel}}} =
\{\mu: \mu(U) \ge {{\rm Bel}}(U) \mbox{ for all } U \subseteq
W\}$. Then ${{\rm Bel}}= (\P_{{{\rm Bel}}})_*$ and ${{\rm Plaus}}= (\P_{{{\rm Bel}}})^*$.
The converse of Theorem \[pch3.thm1\] does not follow, as the following example shows.
\[xam:lowerprobnotbel\] Suppose that $W = \{a,b,c,d\}$, $\P =
\{\mu_1, \mu_2\}$, $\mu_1(a) = \mu_1(b) = \mu_1(c) = \mu_1(d) = 1/4$, and $\mu_2(a) = \mu_2(c) = 1/2$ (so that $\mu_2(b) = \mu_2(d) = 0$). Let $U_1 = \{a,b\}$ and $U_2 = \{b,c\}$. It is easy to check that $\P_*(U_1) = \P_*(U_2) = 1/2$, $\P_*(U_1 \union U_2) = 3/4$, and $\P_*(U_1 \inter U_2) = 0$. $\P_*$ thus cannot be a belief function, because it violates B3: $$\P_*(U_1 \union U_2) < \P_*(U_1) + \P_*(U_2) - \P_*(U_1 \inter U_2).$$
Thus, lower probabilities are a strictly more expressive representation of uncertainty than belief functions.
I remark that while belief functions can be understood (to some extent) in terms of lower probability, this is not the only way of understanding them. Shafer, for example, views belief functions as a way of representing *evidence*; see [@HF2] for a discussion of these two ways of understanding belief functions.
Updating Sets of Probabilities
==============================
Suppose that an agent’s uncertainty is defined in terms of a set $\P$ of probability measures. How should the agent update his beliefs in light of observing an event $U$? The obvious thing to do is to condition each member of $\P$ on $U$. This suggests that after observing $U,$ the agent’s uncertainty should be represented by the set $\{\mu|U: \mu \in \P\}$ (where $\mu|U$ is the conditional probability measure that results by conditioning $\mu$ on $U$). There is one obvious issue that needs to be addressed: What happens if $\mu(U) = 0$ for some $\mu \in \P$? There are two choices here: either to say that conditioning makes sense only if $\mu(U) > 0$ for all $\mu \in
\P$ (if $\P_*(U) > 0$) or to consider only those measures $\mu$ for which $\mu(U) > 0$. The latter choice is somewhat more general, so that is what I use here. Thus, I define $$\P|U = \{\mu|U: \mu \in \P, \, \mu(U) > 0\}.$$ Once the agent has a set $\P|U$ of conditional probability measures, it is possible to consider lower and upper conditional probabilities. However, note that the lower and upper conditional probabilities are not determined by the lower and upper probabilities, as the following example shows.
\[lpnotcp\] Let $\P_3$ and $\P_4$ be the sets of probability measures constructed in Example \[xam:moreinfo\]. As was already observed, $(\P_3)_* = (\P_4)_*$ (and so $(\P_3)^* = (\P_4)^*$). But $(\P_3)_*(b \mid \{b,y\}) = 0$, while $(\P_4)_*(b \mid \{b,y\}) = 1/2$. Thus, even though the upper and lower probability determined by $\P_3$ and $\P_4$ are the same, the upper and lower probabilities determined by $\P_3|\{b,y\}$ and $\P_4|\{b,y\}$ are not.
The following example gives a sense of how conditioning works with sets of probabilities. \[pch4.xam3\] The three-prisoners is the following old puzzle, which is discussed, for example, by Mosteller [-@Mosteller] and Gardner [-@Gardner61]:
> One of three prisoners, $a,$ $b,$ and $c,$ has been chosen by a fair lottery to be pardoned, while the other two will be executed. Prisoner $a$ does not know who has been pardoned; the jailer does. Thus, $a$ says to the jailer, “Since either $b$ or $c$ is certainly going to be executed, you will give me no information about my own chances if you give me the name of one man, either $b$ or $c,$ who is going to be executed.” Accepting this argument, the jailer truthfully replies, “$b$ will be executed.” Thereupon $a$ feels happier because before the jailer replied, his own chance of execution was $2/3$, but afterward there are only two people, himself and $c,$ who could be the one not executed, and so his chance of execution is $1/2$.
It seems that the jailer did not give $a$ any new relevant information. Is $a$ justified in believing that his chances of avoiding execution have improved? If so, it seems that $a$ would be equally justified in believing that his chances of avoiding execution would have improved if the jailer had said “$c$ will be executed.” Thus, it seems that $a$’s prospects improve no matter what the jailer says! That does not seem quite right.
Conditioning is implicitly being applied here to a space consisting of three worlds—say $w_a,$ $w_b,$ and $w_c$—where in world $w_x,$ prisoner $x$ is pardoned. But this representation of a world does not take into account what the jailer says. A better representation of a possible situation is as a pair $(x,y),$ where $x,y \in \{a,b,c\}$. Intuitively, a pair $(x,y)$ represents a situation where $x$ is pardoned and the jailer says that $y$ will be executed in response to $a$’s question. Since the jailer answers truthfully, $x \ne y$; since the jailer will never tell $a$ directly that $a$ will be executed, $y \ne a$. Thus, the set of possible worlds is $\{(a,b), (a,c), (b,c), (c,b)\}$. The event ${\mbox{\em lives}}\mbox{-}a$—$a$ lives—corresponds to the set $\{(a,b), (a,c)\}$. Similarly, the events ${\mbox{\em lives}}\mbox{-}b$ and ${\mbox{\em lives}}\mbox{-}c$ correspond to the sets $\{(b,c)\}$ and $\{(c,b)\}$, respectively. By assumption, each prisoner is equally likely to be pardoned, so that each of these three events has probability $1/3$.
The event $says \mbox{-}b$—the jailer says $b$—corresponds to the set $\{(a,b),(c,b)\}$; the story does not give a probability for this event. The event $\{(c,b)\}$ ([*lives-c*]{}) has probability $1/3$. But what is the probability of $\{(a,b)\}$? That depends on the jailer’s strategy in the one case where he has a choice, namely, when $a$ lives. He gets to choose between saying $b$ and $c$ in that case. The probability of $(a,b)$ depends on the probability that he says $b$ if $a$ lives; that is, on $\mu(says \mbox{-}b\mid lives \mbox{-}a)$.
If the jailer chooses at random between saying $b$ and $c$ if $a$ is pardoned, so that $\mu(says \mbox{-}b \mid lives \mbox{-}a) = 1/2$, then $\mu(\{(a,b)\}) = \mu(\{(a,c)\}) = 1/6$, and $\mu(says \mbox{-}b) = 1/2$. With this assumption, $$\mu(lives \mbox{-}a \mid says \mbox{-}b) = \mu(lives \mbox{-}a \inter says \mbox{-}b)/\mu(says \mbox{-}b) =
(1/6)/(1/2) = 1/3.$$ Thus, if $\mu(says \mbox{-}b) = 1/2$, the jailer’s answer does not affect $a$’s probability.
Suppose more generally that $\mu_\alpha,$ $0 \le \alpha \le 1$, is the probability measure such that $\mu_\alpha(\mbox{{\it lives-}}a) =
\mu_\alpha(\mbox{{\it lives-}}b) = \mu_\alpha(\mbox{{\it lives-}}c) =
1/3$ and $\mu_\alpha(says \mbox{-}b \mid lives \mbox{-}a)
= \alpha$. Then straightforward computations show that $$\begin{array}{c}\label{prisoners}
\mu_\alpha(\{(a,b)\}) = \mu_\alpha(lives \mbox{-}a) \times
\mu_\alpha(says \mbox{-}b \mid lives \mbox{-}a) = \alpha/3,\\
\mu_\alpha(says \mbox{-}b) = \mu_\alpha(\{(a,b)\}) +
\mu_\alpha(\{(c,b)\})
=
(\alpha+1)/3,
\mbox{ and}\\
\mu_\alpha(lives \mbox{-}a \mid says \mbox{-}b) =
\frac{\alpha/3}{(\alpha+1)/3}
= \alpha/(\alpha+1).\end{array}$$ Thus, $\mu_{1/2} = \mu$. Moreover, if $\alpha \ne 1/2$ (if the jailer had a particular preference for answering either $b$ or $c$ when $a$ was the one pardoned), then $a$’s probability of being executed would change, depending on the answer. For example, if $\alpha = 0$, then if $a$ is pardoned, the jailer will definitely say $c$. Thus, if the jailer actually says $b,$ then $a$ knows that he is definitely not pardoned, that is, $\mu_0(lives \mbox{-}a \mid says \mbox{-}b) = 0$. Similarly, if $\alpha =1$, then $a$ knows that if either he or $c$ is pardoned, then the jailer will say $b,$ while if $b$ is pardoned the jailer will say $c$. Given that the jailer says $b,$ from $a$’s point of view the one pardoned is equally likely to be him or $c$; thus, $\mu_1(lives \mbox{-}a \mid says \mbox{-}b) = 1/2$. In fact, it is easy to see that if $\P_J = \{\mu_\alpha: \alpha \in [0,1]\}$, then $(\P_J|says\mbox{-}b)_*(lives \mbox{-}a)
= 0$ and $(\P_J|says\mbox{-}b)^*(lives \mbox{-}a) = 1/2$.
To summarize, the intuitive answer—that the jailer’s answer gives $a$ no information—is correct if the jailer applies the principle of indifference in the one case where he has a choice in what to say, namely, when $a$ is actually the one to live. If the jailer does not apply the principle of indifference in this case, then $a$ may gain information. On the other hand, if $a$ does not know what strategy the jailer is using to answer (and is not willing to place a probability on these strategies), then his prior point probability of $1/3$ *dilates* to the interval $[0,1/2]$.
As Seidenfeld and Wasserman [-@SeidenfeldW93] have shown, the dilation phenomenon observed in this example, where the prisoner’s ignorance after hearing the jailer’s answer goes from 0—initially $a$ knew that the probability of him being executed was $1/3$—to $1/2$, no matter what the jailer says, is quite general. Nevertheless, it is easy to see where the dilation is coming from here, and it is arguably acceptable. (Although, as shown by Grünwald and Halpern [-@GrunwaldH04], there may be circumstances when working with sets of probabilities under which it is most appropriate to ignore new information and just work with the prior probability.) A perhaps more significant problem with this approach to conditioning on sets of probabilities is that it does not always seem to capture learning, as the following example shows.
\[xam:coins\] Suppose that a coin is tossed twice and the first coin toss is observed to land heads. What is the likelihood that the second coin toss lands heads? In this situation, the sample space consists of four worlds: $hh,$ $ht,$ $th,$ and $tt$. Let $H^1 = \{hh, ht\}$ be the event that the first coin toss lands heads. There are analogous events $H^2,$ $T^1,$ and $T^2$. Further suppose that all that is known about the coin is that its bias is either $a$ or $b$, where $0 \le a < b \le 1$. The most obvious way to represent this seems to be with a set of probability measures $\P =
\{\mu_a, \mu_b\}$.[^5] Further suppose that the coin tosses are independent, so that, in particular, $\mu_\alpha(hh) = \mu_\alpha(H^1)
\mu_\alpha(H^2) = \alpha^2$ and that $\mu_\alpha(ht) = \mu_\alpha(H^1)
\mu_\alpha(T^2) = \alpha - \alpha^2$ for $\alpha \in \{a,b\}$.
Using the definitions, it is immediate that $\P|H^1(H^2) = \{a,b\}
= \P(H^2)$. At first blush, this seems reasonable. Since the coin tosses are independent, observing heads on the first toss does not affect the likelihood of heads on the second toss; it is either $a$ or $b$, depending on what the actual bias of the coin is. However, intuitively, observing heads on the first toss should also give information about the coin being used: it is more likely to be the coin with bias $b$. This point perhaps comes out more clearly if $a= 1/3$, $b = 2/3$, the coin is tossed 100 times, and 66 heads are observed in the first 99 tosses. What is the probability of heads on the hundredth toss? Formally, using the obvious notation, the question now is what $\P|(H^1 \inter \ldots \inter H^{99})(H^{100})$ should be. According to the definitions, it is again $\{1/3,2/3\}$: the probability is still either $1/3$ or $2/3$, depending on the coin used. But the fact that 66 of 99 tosses landed heads provides extremely strong evidence that the coin has bias $2/3$ rather than $1/3$. This evidence should make it more likely that the probability that the last coin will land heads is $2/3$ rather than $1/3$. The conditioning process does not capture this evidence at all.
The inability of this approach to conditioning with sets of probabilities to capture learning is perhaps its most serious weakness. Note that this really is a problem confined to sets of probabilities. If there is a probability on the possible biases of the coin, then all these difficulties disappear. In this case, the sample space must represent the possible biases of the coin, so there are eight worlds: $(a,hh), (\beta,hh),
(a,ht), (\beta,ht), \ldots$. Moreover, if the probability that it has bias $a$ is $p$ (so that the probability that it has bias $\beta$ is $1-p$), then the uncertainty is captured by a single probability measure $\mu$ such that $\mu(a,hh) = pa^2,$ $\mu(\beta,hh) = (1-p)b^2,$ and so on. A straightforward calculation shows that $\mu(H^1) = \mu(H^2) = pa + (1-p)b$ and $\mu(H^1 \inter H^2) = p a^2 + (1-p) b^2,$ so $\mu(H^2\mid H^1) = (pa^2 + (1-p) b^2)/(pa +(1-p)b)$. With a little calculus, it can be shown that $\mu(H^2\mid H^1) = (pa^2 + (1-p) b^2)/(pa +(1-p)b)
\ge
\mu(H^2),$ no matter what $a$ and $b$ are, with equality holding iff $a=0$ or $a=1$.
Intuitively, seeing $H^1$ makes $H^2$ more likely than it was before, despite the fact the coin tosses are independent, because seeing $H^2$ makes the coin more biased towards heads more likely to be the actual coin. This intuition can be formalized in a straightforward way. Let $C_b$ be the event that the coin has bias $b$ (so that $C_b$ consists of the four worlds of the form $(b,\ldots)$). Then $\mu(C_b) = 1-p$ by assumption, while $\mu(C_b\mid H^1) =
(1-p) b/(p a + (1-p)b) \ge 1-p,$ with equality holding iff $p$ is either 0 or 1 (since otherwise $b/(pa - (1-p)b) > 1$). Similarly, if $\mu(H_2 \mid H_1) \ge \mu(H_2)$, with equality holding iff $p$ is either 0 or 1.
Interestingly, if the bias of the coin is either 0 or 1 (i.e., the coin is either double-tailed or double-headed, so that $a=0$ and $b=1$), then the evidence is taken into account. In this case, after seeing heads, $\mu_0$ is eliminated, so $\P|H^1(H^2) = 1$ (or, more precisely, $\{1\}$), not $\{0,1\}$. On the other hand, if the bias is almost 0 or almost 1, say $.005$ or $.995$, then $\P|H^1(H^2) = \{.005,.995\}$. Thus, although the evidence is taken into account in the extreme case, where the probability of heads is either 0 or 1, it is not taken into account if the probability of heads is either slightly greater than 0 or slightly less than 1.
This observation suggests a modification of the conditioning process that lets us capture learning. In Example \[xam:coins\], the implicit assumption is that there is a true bias of the coin, either $a$ or $b$, which the agent would like to learn. Given an observation, the *maximum likelihood* approach, which is standard in statistics, would essentially use the probability measure that gave the highest probability to the observation from then on. Since $a < b$ by assumption, after observing heads, we would use $\mu_b$ for making future predictions, while after observing tails, we would use $\mu_a$.
The conditioning approach considered so far uses all probability measures except those that give probability 0 to the observation. An intermediate approach between these extremes is to consider only probability distributions that are within some parameter $q$ of the maximum probability that $U$ gets. Formally, for $0 < q \le 1$, define $$\P^q|U = \{\mu|U: \mu \in \P, q P^*(U) \le \mu(U)\}.$$ The maximum likelihood approach is a special case of this approach with $q=1$. $\P|U$ as defined earlier, is essentially the case where $q=0$, except that $\le$ is replaced by $<$.
Intuitively, $q$ can be viewed as describing how “conservative” the agent is; the smaller $q$ is, the more conservative the agent. Note that, for any choice of $q$, learning takes place. For example, if we take $\P$ to consist of all the probability measures $\mu_a$ with $a \in [1/3,2/3]$ (so that the agent considers the bias of the coin to be somewhere between $1/3$ and $2/3$), and the true bias is $b \in [1/3,2/3]$, then for any choice of $q$ and $\epsilon$, the agent will (with extremely high probability) converge to considering possible only distributions $\mu_c$ with $c \in [b-\epsilon,b+\epsilon]$. The larger $q$ is, the faster the learning (but the greater the likelihood of making mistakes by perhaps ignoring a probability measure inappropriately).[^6]
Lower and Upper Expectation {#sec:expectation}
===========================
In the context of probability and betting games, how much an agent can expect to win is defined in terms of *expectation*.
A *gamble* $X$ on $W$ is a function from $W$ to the reals.[^7] As is standard in the literature, if $x$ is a real number, take $X=x$ to be the subset of $W$ which $X$ maps to $x$, that is, $X=x$ is the subset $\{w: X(w) = x\}$.
The *expected value* of $X$ with repect to probability measure $\mu$, denoted $E_\mu(X)$, is just $$\sum_x x \mu(X=x).$$ For example, suppose that the agent bets \$1 and will win \$3 if $U$ happens and lose his dollar if $U$ does not happen. We can characterize this bet by the gamble $B = 5X_U - X_{\overline{U}}$, where, for an arbitrary subset $V$ of $W$, $X_V(w) = 1$ if $w \in V$ and $X_V(w) = 0$ if $w \notin U$. ($X_V$ is called the *indicator function* for $V$.)
If $\mu(U) = 1/3$, then the agent expects to win \$5 with probability $1/3$, and to lose \$1 with probability $2/3$. The expected value of this bet is $$E_\mu(B) = \frac{1}{3} \times 5 + \frac{2}{3} \times (-1) = 1.$$ This seems like an intuitively reasonable characterization of the agent’s expected winnings, provided that his uncertainty is given by the probability measure $\mu$.
Probabilistic expectation is characterized by some well-known properties. To make them precise, if $X$ and $Y$ are gambles on $W$ and $a$ and $b$ are real numbers, define the gamble $aX +b Y$ on $W$ in the obvious way: $(aX + bY)(w) = aX(w) + bY(w)$. Say that $X \le Y$ if $X(w) \le Y(w)$ for all $w \in W$. Let $\tilde{c}$ denote the constant function that always returns $c$; that is, $\tilde{c}(w) = c$.
\[expprop1\] The function $E_\mu$ has the following properties for all gambles $X$ and $Y$.
- $E_\mu$ is [*additive:*]{} $E_\mu(X + Y) = E_\mu(X) + E_\mu(Y)$.
- $E_\mu$ is [*affinely homogeneous:*]{} $E_\mu(aX + \tilde{b}) = aE_\mu(X) + b$ for all $a, b \in \IR$.
- $E_\mu$ is [*monotone:*]{} if $X \le Y,$ then $E_\mu(X)
\le E_\mu(Y)$.
The properties in Proposition \[expprop1\] essentially characterize probabilistic expectation.
\[expprop2\] Suppose that $E$ maps gambles on $W$ to $\IR$ and $E$ is additive, affinely homogeneous, and monotone. Then there is a (necessarily unique) probability measure $\mu$ on $W$ such that $E = E_\mu$. Now suppose that uncertainty is represented by a set $\P$ of probability measures, rather than a single probability measure. Define $E_\P(X) = \{E_\mu(X): \mu \in \P\}$. $E_\P(X)$ is a set of numbers. We can use $E_\P$ to define obvious analogues of lower and upper probability. Define the [*lower expectation*]{} and [*upper expectation*]{} of $X$ with respect to $\P,$ denoted ${\underline{E}}_\P(X)$ and ${\overline{E}}_\P(X)$, as the $\inf$ and $\sup$ of the set $E_\P(X),$ respectively.
Just as lower probability determines upper probability (and vice versa), so lower expectation determines upper expectation. It is not hard to show that $${\underline{E}}_\P(X) = -{\overline{E}}_\P(-X).$$
We can recover lower and upper probability from lower and upper expectation. It is easy to check that ${\underline{E}}_\P(X_U) = \P_*(U)$ and ${\overline{E}}_\P(X_U) = \P^*(U)$, where $X_U$ is the indicator function for $U$ defined earlier. The converse is not true; lower and upper probability do not determine lower and upper expectation.
\[xam:moreinfo1\] Again, consider the sets $\P_3$ and $\P_4$ of probability measures defined in Example \[xam:moreinfo\]. As observed earlier, $(\P_3)_* = (\P_4)_*$, and so $(\P_3)^* = (\P_4)^*$. However, if $Y$ is the random variable $X_{\{b\}} - X_{\{y\}}$, then ${\underline{E}}_{\P_4}(Y) = {\overline{E}}(\P_4)(Y) = 0$ (since $\mu(b) = \mu(y)$ for all probability measures in $\P_4$), while ${\underline{E}}_{\P_3}(Y) = -1$ and ${\overline{E}}_{\P_3}(Y) = 1$.
Thus, lower (and upper) expectation can make finer distinctions than lower and upper probability. (Note that this is not the case for probability: $\mu$ determines $E_\mu$ and vice versa.) Morever, the lower expectation corresponding to a set $\P$ of probability measures essentially determines $\P$.
To make this precise, recall that a set $\P$ of probability measures on $W$ is *convex* if, for all $\mu, \mu' \in \P$ and $\alpha \in [0,1]$, the probability measure $\alpha \mu + (1-\alpha)\mu'$ is also in $\P$. $\P$ is *closed* if it contains its limits. That is, for all sequences $\mu_1, \mu_2, \ldots$ of probability measures in $\P,$ if $\mu_n \rightarrow \mu$ in the sense that $\mu_n(U) \rightarrow
\mu(U)$ for all $U \subseteq W,$ then $\mu \in \P$. Let $\overline{\P}$ denote the convex closure of $\P$; that is, $\overline{\P}$ is the smallest closed convex set of probability measures containing $\P$. It is easy to see that ${\underline{E}}_{\P} =
{\underline{E}}_{\overline{\P}}$ and ${\overline{E}}_{\P} = {\overline{E}}_{\overline{\P}}$; adding a convex combinations of probability measure to $\P$ does not affect the lower expectation, nor does closing off $\P$ under limits. The converse holds as well.
\[thm:closedconvex\] ${\underline{E}}_{\P_1} = {\underline{E}}_{\P_2}$ iff $\overline{\P}_1 = \overline{\P}_2$.
Thus, there is a one-to-one map between closed, convex sets of probability measures and lower expectation functions. This shows that lower expectations are essentially as good as sets of probability measures as representations of uncertainty. Walley [-@Walley91] provides a detailed account of the use of lower and upper expectations as a representation of uncertainty. (He calls them coherent lower and upper *previsions*.)
Lower and upper expectation have a rather elegant characterization, similar in spirit to (but simpler than) the characterization of lower and upper probability. The following result collects some properties of lower and upper expectation, all of which are easy to verify.
\[expprop3\] The functions ${\overline{E}}_\P$ and ${\underline{E}}_\P$ have the following properties, for all gambles $X$ and $Y$.
- ${\overline{E}}_\P$ is [*subadditive:*]{} ${\overline{E}}_\P(X + Y) \le
{\overline{E}}_\P(X) + {\overline{E}}_\P(Y)$;\
${\underline{E}}_\P$ is [*superadditive:*]{} ${\underline{E}}_\P(X + Y) \ge
{\underline{E}}_\P(X) + {\underline{E}}_\P(Y)$.
- ${\overline{E}}_\P$ and ${\underline{E}}_\P$ are both [*positively affinely homogeneous:*]{} ${\overline{E}}_\P(a X + \tilde{b}) = a {\overline{E}}_\P(X) +b$ and ${\underline{E}}_\P(a X + \tilde{b})
= a {\underline{E}}_\P(X) +b$ if $a,b \in \IR,$ $a \ge 0$.
- ${\overline{E}}_\P$ and ${\underline{E}}_\P$ are monotone.
- ${\overline{E}}_\P(X) = - {\underline{E}}_\P(-X)$.
Superadditivity (resp., subadditivity), positive affine homogeneity, and monotonicity in fact characterize ${\underline{E}}_\P$ (resp., ${\overline{E}}_\P$).
\[expprop3.5\] [[@Huber81]]{} Suppose that $E$ maps gambles on $W$ to $\IR$ and is superadditive (resp., subadditive), positively affinely homogeneous, and monotone. Then there is a set $\P$ of probability measures on $W$ such that $E = {\underline{E}}_\P$ (resp., $E = {\overline{E}}_\P$).
The set $\P$ constructed in Theorem \[expprop3.5\] is not unique. But it follows from Theorem \[thm:closedconvex\] that there is a unique closed convex set $\P$ such that $E = {\underline{E}}_{\P}$. $\P$ is actually the largest set of probability measures $\P'$ such that $E = {\underline{E}}_{\P'}$, and consists of all probability measures $\mu$ such that $E_\mu(X) \ge E(X)$ for all gambles $X$.
Decision Making {#sec:decision}
===============
One of the standard uses of a representation of uncertainty is to help make decisions. Savage [-@Savage] formalizes the decision process by considering a set $W$ of possible worlds (sometimes called *states*), a set $C$ of *consequences*, and a set $A$ of *acts*, which are functions from worlds to consequences. For example, if an agent is trying to decide how to bet on a horse race, the worlds could represent the order in which the horses finished the race, and the consequences could be amounts of money won or lost. The consequence of a bet of \$10 on Northern Dancer depends on how Northern Dancer finishes in the world. So the bet is an act that maps worlds (which describe possible orders of finish) to consequences. The consequence could be purely monetary (the agent wins \$50 in the worlds where Northern Dancer wins the race) but could also include feelings (the agent is dejected if Northern Dancer finishes last, and he also loses \$10).
Savage [-@Savage] assumes that the agent has a preference order $\succeq$ on acts, where $a_1 \succeq a_2$ means that $a_1$ is at least as good as $a_2$ from the point of view of the agent. He shows that if the preference order satisfies certain postulates, then the agent is acting as if she has a probability $\mu$ on worlds, a utility function $u$ mapping consequences to reals, and is maximizing expected utility; that is, $a_1 \succeq a_2$ iff the expected utility of $a_1$ is at least as high as the expected utility of $a_2$.
Savage viewed his postulates as rationality postulates; an agent would be irrational if her preferences violated the postulates. However, as I discussed earlier, in the situation described by Example \[marbles\], experimental evidence (see [@KR95]) shows that most people prefer the bet $B_r$ to $B_b$ and also prefers $B_{by}$ to $B_{ry}$. These preferences are inconsistent with Savage’s postulates. Indeed, there does not exist a utility that can be placed on the two possible consequences (getting \$1 and getting 0) and a probability that can be placed on $\{b,r,y\}$ such that these preferences correspond to the order induced by expected utility.
On the other hand, these preferences can be captured using lower expected utility, an approach considered by Wald [-@Wald50], Gärdenfors and Sahlin [-@GS82], and Gilboa and Schmeidler [-@GS1989], among others. Taking the obvious set $\P_u$ of probability measures described after Example \[marbles\] and giving utility 1 to winning \$1 and utility 0 to getting 0, it is easy to see that the lower expected utility of act $B_r$ is .3, the lower expected utility of act $B_b$ is 0, the lower expected utility of $B_{ry}$ is also .3, and the lower expected utility of $B_{by}$ is .7. Thus, if the agent prefers the act whose lower expected utility is larger, then she would indeed prefer $B_r$ to $B_b$ and prefer $B_{by}$ to $B_{ry}$.
Gilboa and Schmeidler [-@GS1989] provide a collection of postulates that characterize decision making with lower expected utility in the spirit of Savage’s postulates. Of course, it is debatable whether these postulates represent “rationality” any better than Savage’s do. However, they do undercut the claim that Savage’s postulate characterize rationality.
Using lower expected utility corresponds to the preference order $\succeq^1_\P$ on acts such that ${{\bf a}}\succeq^1_\P {{\bf a}}'$ iff ${\underline{E}}_{\P}(u_{{{\bf a}}}) \ge {\underline{E}}_{\P}(u_{{{\bf a}}'})$. But this is not the only preference rule that can be used if uncertainty is represented using a set $\P$ of probabilities. Other orders can be defined as well:
- ${{\bf a}}\succeq^2_\P {{\bf a}}'$ iff ${\overline{E}}_{\P}(u_{{{\bf a}}}) \ge
{\overline{E}}_{\P}(u_{{{\bf a}}'})$;
- ${{\bf a}}\succeq^3_\P {{\bf a}}'$ iff ${\underline{E}}_{\P}(u_{{{\bf a}}}) \ge
{\overline{E}}_{\P}(u_{{{\bf a}}'})$;
- ${{\bf a}}\succeq^4_\P {{\bf a}}'$ iff $E_\mu(u_{{{\bf a}}}) \ge
E_{\mu}(u_{{{\bf a}}'})$ for all $\mu \in \P$.
Of course, all of these preference orders reduce to the order provided by maximizing expected utility if $\P$ is a singleton. But in general they are quite different. The order on acts induced by $\succeq^3_\P$ is very conservative; ${{\bf a}}\succeq^3_\P {{\bf a}}'$ iff the best expected outcome according to ${{\bf a}}$ is no better than the worst expected outcome according to ${{\bf a}}'$. The order induced by $\succeq^4_\P$ is more refined. Clearly if ${{\bf a}}\succeq^3_\P {{\bf a}}',$ then $E_{\mu}(u_{{\bf a}}) \ge E_{\mu}(u_{{{\bf a}}'})$ for all $\mu \in \P$, so ${{\bf a}}\succeq^4_\P {{\bf a}}'$. The converse may not hold. For example, suppose that $\P = \{\mu, \mu'\}$, and acts ${{\bf a}}$ and ${{\bf a}}'$ are such that $E_\mu(u_{{\bf a}}) = 2$, $E_{\mu'}(u_{{\bf a}}) = 4$, $E_\mu(u_{{{\bf a}}'}) = 1$, and $E_{\mu'}(u_{{{\bf a}}'}) = 3$. Then ${\underline{E}}_\P(u_{{{\bf a}}}) = 2$, ${\overline{E}}_\P(u_{{{\bf a}}}) = 4$, ${\underline{E}}_\P(u_{{{\bf a}}'}) = 1$, and ${\overline{E}}_\P(u_{{{\bf a}}'}) = 3$, so ${{\bf a}}$ and ${{\bf a}}'$ are incomparable according to $\succeq^3_\P,$ yet ${{\bf a}}\succeq^4_\P {{\bf a}}'$.
Which of these rules is the “right” one? We can think of $\succeq_\P^1$ as representing a very pessimistic agent (who considers only the worst case); $\succeq_\P^2$ represents an optimistic agent; while $\succeq^4_\P$ represents an agent who considers all possibilities. (I find $\succeq^3_\P$ too conservative, and believe that $\succeq^4_\P$ is a better choice than $\succeq^3_\P$.) Note that while $\succeq^1_\P$ and $\succeq^2_\P$ place a total order on acts, the ordering $\succeq^4_\P$ is only partial; some acts will be incomparable under $\succeq^4_\P$.
Conclusion
==========
I have provided a brief overview of some of the issues that arise when representing uncertainty by sets of probabilities, with a particular focus on updating and decision making. Before concluding, I briefly mention two other issues that may be of interest:
- There are propositional logics for reasoning about about probability and Dempster-Shafer belief functions [@FHM]. More recently, logics have been provided for reasoning about lower and upper probabilities [@HalPuc00] and lower and upper expectations [@HalPuc02:UAI]. The syntax of the logics for reasoning about probability, belief functions, and lower and upper probability are all the same. All include statements such as $2/3 l(\phi) + 3/4 l(\psi) \ge 1/2$, where $\phi$ and $\psi$ are propositional formulas. The “l” here stands for “likelihood”. Thus, this statement says $2/3$ times the likelihood of $\phi$ plus $3/4$ times the likelihood of $\psi$ is at least $1/2$. “Likelihood” can be interpreted as either probability, belief, or lower probability. In the latter case, the upper probability of $\phi$ can be expressed as $1 - l(\neg \phi)$. (In the case of belief, the same formula defines the plausibility of $\phi$.)
The syntax for the logic of expectation is similar in spirit. It includes formulas of the form $2/3 e(\gamma) + 3/4 e (\gamma') \ge 1/2$, where $\gamma$ and $\gamma'$ are *propositional gambles*. A propositional gamble has the form $a_1 \phi_1 + \cdots + a_k \phi_k$, where $a_1, \ldots, a_k$ are real numbers and $\phi_1, \ldots, \phi_k$ are propositional formulas. This propositional gamble is interpreted as the gamble $a_1 X_{{[\![ \phi_1 ]\!]}} + \cdots + a_k X_{{[\![ \phi_k ]\!]}}$, where ${[\![ \phi_j ]\!]}$ is the set of worlds where $\phi$ is true. Thus, a propositional gamble such as $2 \phi + 3 \psi$ is interpreted as the gamble $2 X_{{[\![ \phi ]\!]}} + 3
X_{{[\![ \psi ]\!]}}$, which returns 5 in worlds where both $\phi$ and $\psi$ are true, 2 in worlds where $\phi \land \neg \psi$ is true, and so on. Again, different interpretations of $e$ are allowed; it can be interpreted as probabilistic expectation, expected belief (see [@Hal31] for a definition of expected belief), or lower expectation (in which case upper expectation can be defined in the obvious way).
The axioms of the logics depend on the interpretation of $l$ and $e$. In all cases, there is an elegant sound and complete axiomatization. In the case of lower and upper probabilities (resp., lower and upper expectations), not surprisingly, the key axioms are those corresponding to the properties described in Theorem \[thm:upchar\] (resp., Theorem \[expprop3.5\]). Moreover, not only are the logics decidable, but the satisfiability problem is NP-complete in all cases, the same as that of propositional logic (and of the logic for reasoning about probability). Reasoning about lower and upper probability (resp., expectation) is thus, in a precise sense, no more difficult than propositional reasoning.
- *Bayesian networks* provide a compact way of representing probability measures, taking advantage of independencies and conditional independencies. There has been a great deal of work in the AI community showing how Bayesian networks can be used for efficient probabilistic reasoning (see [@Pearl] for an overview). We can define what it means for $U$ and $V$ to be conditionally independent with respect to a set $\P$ of probability measures. Roughly speaking, $U$ and $V$ are independent with respect to $\P$ if $\mu(V
\mid U) = \mu(V)$ for all $\mu \in \P$ (special care must be taken to deal with the case that $\mu(U) = 0$; see [@Hal25] for details). Conditional independence is defined in the same way. Once we do this, then the whole technology of Bayesian networks can be applied to sets of probabilities, essentially without change; see [@Hal25] for details.
As this discussion shows, using sets of probabilities provides a flexible way of representing uncertainty that enables an agent to represent ignorance as well as likelihood, while still retaining many of the pleasant features of using just a single probability measure to represent uncertainty.
#### Acknowledgments:
Thanks to Franz Huber for a careful reading of the paper and useful comments.
[^1]: Supported in part by NSF under grants CTC-0208535, ITR-0325453, and IIS-0534064, by ONR under grants N00014-00-1-03-41 and N00014-01-10-511, by the DoD Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative (MURI) program administered by the ONR under grants N00014-01-1-0795 and N00014-04-1-0725, and by AFOSR under grant F49620-02-1-0101.
[^2]: The material in this chapter is taken, often verbatim, from \[Halpern 2003\], which the reader is encouraged to consult for further details and references.
[^3]: The assumptions that $W$ is finite and that every subset of $W$ is *measurable*, that is, in the domain of every probability measure $\mu \in \P$, are made for ease of exposition only. They can both easily be dropped.
[^4]: Besides the characterization of Anger and Lembcke given in Theorem \[thm:upchar\], a number of other characterizations of lower and upper probability have been given in the literature, all similar in spirit [@r:giles82; @r:huber76; @Huber81; @r:lorentz52; @Williams76; @Wolf77].
[^5]: Some researchers working with probability restrict to sets $\P$ of probability measures that are *convex*. That is, if $\mu$ and $\mu'$ are both in $\P$, then so is the probability measure $\alpha \mu + (1-\alpha)\mu'$ for all $\alpha$ in the interval $[0,1]$ (where $(\alpha \mu + (1-\alpha)\mu')(U) = \alpha \mu(U) +
(1-\alpha)\mu'$; it is easy to check that $\alpha\mu + (1-\alpha)\mu'$ is a probability measure). I do not make this restriction here, but it is worth noting that nothing would be lost in this example by taking $\P$ to be the convex set consisting of all probability meausures $\mu$ such that $a\le \mu(h) \le b$.
[^6]: Although the idea of using a parameter $q$ to do the updating is quite natural, I have seen it in print only in the work of Epstein and Schneider [-@r:epstein05a], who use it in the context of decision making.
[^7]: A gamble is just a random variable whose range is the reals.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present numerical investigations based on the Luttinger-Kohn four-band $k \cdot p$ theory and, accordingly, establish a quantitatively valid model of the excitonic fine structures of droplet epitaxial GaAs/AlGaAs quantum dots under uni-axial stress control. In the formalisms, stressing a photo-excited quantum dot is equivalent creating a pseudo-magnetic field that is directly coupled to the pseudo-spin of the exciton doublet and tunable to tailor the polarized fine structure of exciton. The latter feature is associated with the valence-band-mixing of exciton that is especially sensitive to external stress in inherently unstrained droplet epitaxial GaAs/AlGaAs quantum dots and allows us to [*mechanically*]{} design and prepare any desired exciton states of QD photon sources prior to the photon generation.'
author:
- 'Shun-Jen Cheng'
- 'Yu-Huai Liao'
- 'Pei-Yi Lin'
title: 'Mechanically induced pseudo-magnetic fields in the excitonic fine structures of droplet epitaxial quantum dots'
---
Introduction
============
Excitonic fine structures (FS’s) of semiconductor quantum dots (QDs) have been realized as an essential feature of advanced photonic applications, such as entangled photon pair emitters [@Benson; @Bennett2010; @Mohan; @Trotta; @Kuroda] and exciton-qubit gates. [@Benny; @Kodriano] The realization of entangled photon pair emitters based on QDs has been for a long time a challenging task because it needs to retain the degeneracy of exciton doublet states, which is however likely lift by any slight symmetry breakings of QD structure. [@Singh; @Bryant; @Seguin; @Gong; @Ramirez] By contrast to the application of entangled photon pair generation, an efficient operation of exciton qubit gate yet needs an energy level anti-crossing in the FS that is coherently tunable so that any desired superposition states can be deterministically prepared and controlled.[@Pooley]
Technologically, Trotta [*et al.*]{} have recently demonstrated an efficient way to retain, universally, the degeneracies of exciton doublet states of asymmetric QDs by electrical and mechanical means.[@Trotta] The success in the exploitation of mechanical stress control paves an inspiring way to extend the usefulness of QD photon emitters with the potential integrations with micro electro-mechanical systems (MEMS)[@Baek] and nano-acoustics.[@Gust; @Kataoka] In the realization of those scaled-up hybrid quantum systems, a crucial issue is if whether and to what extent the quantum nature of a QD device can be affected by the applied mechanical stresses.
This work presents numerical investigations based on the Luttinger-Kohn four-band $k \cdot p$ theory and, accordingly, establishes a quantitatively valid model of excitonic fine structures of droplet epitaxial (DE) GaAs/AlGaAs QDs under uni-axial stress control. As a main feature elucidated by our studies, imposing an external stress onto a QD is shown not only to alter the magnitude of fine-structure splitting (FSS) but also rebuild the coherent superposition of exciton states significantly.[@Singh; @Gong] The latter feature is associated with the valence-band-mixing (VBM) of exciton that is especially sensitive to external stress in inherently unstrained DE-QDs and allows us to design and prepare, [*mechanically*]{}, desired exciton states of a QD photon source prior to phonon emission. In the model, we formulate an uniaxial stress applied on a photo-excited quantum dot as a pseudo-magnetic field that is directly coupled to the pseudo-spin of the exciton doublet and tunable to change the level splitting and the coherent superposition of the exciton states. The concept of such a stress-induced pseudo-magnetic field has been explored extensively in the field of two-dimensional monolayer materials, e.g. graphenes, very recently [@Guinea; @Juan] and is demonstrated here to be crucial as well in quasi-zero-dimensional systems. Furthermore, photon pairs emitted from stress-controlled vanishing fine structure splitting (FSS) are predicted to be always [*non-maximally*]{} entangled (also referred to as hyper-entanglement), an useful feature for loophole-free tests of Bell inequality.[@White; @Eberhard] Those revealed features that are beyond the most existing schemes simply based on pure heavy-hole-exciton are well captured by our improved model with the thorough consideration of the VBM nature of exciton.
Theoretical framework {#theoryframe}
=====================
We begin with the Hamiltonian for an interacting exciton in a QD that is expressed in the language of second quantization as, $ H_X = \sum_{i_e} E_{i_e}^e c_{i_e}^+c_{i_e}
+ \sum_{i_h} E_{i_h}^h h_{i_h}^+h_{i_h}
- \sum_{i_e,j_h,k_h,l_e}V_{i_e,j_h,k_h,l_e}^{eh}c_{i_e}^+h_{j_h}^+h_{k_h}c_{l_e} + \sum_{i_e,j_h,k_h,l_e}V_{i_e,j_h,k_h,l_e}^{eh,xc}c_{i_e}^+h_{j_h}^+h_{k_h}c_{l_e} $, [@RamirezPRL] where $i_{e}$ ($i_{h}$) represents a composite index composed of the labels of orbital and spin of a single-electron (single-hole) state, $c_{i_e}^+$ and $c_{i_e}$ ($h_{i_h}^+$ and $h_{i_h}$) are the particle creation and annihilation operators, $V_{i_e,j_h,k_h,l_e}^{eh}\equiv \int \int d^3{r_{e}} d^3{r_{h}} \psi_{i_e}^{e\ast}(\vec{r_{1}}) \psi_{j_h}^{h\ast}(\vec{r_{2}}) \frac{e^{2}}{4 \pi \epsilon_0 \epsilon_b |\vec{r}_{12}|} \psi_{k_h}^{h}(\vec{r_{2}}) \psi_{l_e}^{e}(\vec{r_{1}})$ ($V_{i_e,j_h,k_h,l_e}^{eh,xc}\equiv \int \int d^3{r_{1}} d^3{r_{2}} \psi_{i_e}^{e\ast}(\vec{r_{2}}) \psi_{j_h}^{h}(\vec{r_{2}}) \frac{e^{2}}{4 \pi \epsilon_0 \epsilon_b |\vec{r}_{12}|} \psi_{k_h}^{h \ast}(\vec{r_{1}}) \psi_{l_e}^{e}(\vec{r_{1}}) $) are the matrix elements of conventional electron-hole ([*e-h*]{}) Coulomb interactions ([*e-h exchange*]{} interactions), $\vec{r}_i$ denotes the coordinate position of particle, $\vec{r}_{12}\equiv \vec{r}_1- \vec{r}_2$, $\epsilon_0$ is vacuum permittivity, $\epsilon_b=\epsilon_b(|\vec{r}_{12}|)$ is the dielectric function of material that is generally dependent on the inter-particle distance, $E_{i_e}^e$ and $E_{i_h}^h$ ($\psi_{i_e}^{e}$ and $\psi_{i_h}^{h}$) are the eigen energies (wave functions) of a single electron and single hole in the QD, respectively. For the wide-band-gap GaAs/AlGaAs QDs studied in this work, we study the single-electron (single-hole) spectra, $\{E_{i_e}^e\}$ ($\{ E_{i_h}^h\}$), of a QD in the framework of the single band model (four-band $k\cdot p$ model), and the single-electron (-hole) wave functions are written as $\psi_{i_e}^{e}(\vec{r}_e)=g_{i_e}^e(\vec{r}_e) u_{s_z}^e(\vec{r}_e)$ ($\psi_{i_h}^{h}(\vec{r}_h)=\sum_{j_z=\pm\frac{1}{2},\pm\frac{3}{2}}g_{i_h,j_z}^h(\vec{r}_h) u_{j_z}^h(\vec{r}_h)$), a product of slowly varying envelope functions $g_{i_e}^{e}$ ($\{ g_{i_h,j_z}^h\}$) and microscopic Bloch functions, $u_{s_z}^{e}$ ($u_{j_z}^h$), of spin $s_z=\pm\frac{1}{2}$ (of angular momenta $j_z=\pm \frac{1}{2},\pm \frac{3}{2}$) for a conduction electron (valence hole).
![(a) Schematics of a quantum dot (QD) photon source mounted on a piezoelectric actuator (PMN-PT) under a controlled uniaxial stress $\sigma$ along the direction with a angle $\phi_{\sigma}$ to the elongation axis ($x$-axis) of the QD. Throughout this work, we consider $0^\circ <\phi_{\sigma}< 45^\circ$. (b) Polarized fine structures of exciton of a stressed QD without and with valence band mixing (VBM). (c) Polar plot of optical polarization and (d) polarized emission spectrum of a VBM exciton in a uniaxially stressed QD.[]{data-label="fig1"}](Fig1_prx.eps){width="12.0cm"}
In the theoretical framework, the envelope wave function, $g_{i_e}^e$, of a single electron in a stressed QD satisfies the Schrödinger equations, $H_{e}g_{i_e}^e=E_{i_e}^e g_{i_e}^e$, where $$H_e=\frac{\hbar^2 (k_x^2 + k_y^2 + k_z^2)}{2m_e^\ast}+V_{QD}^e(\vec{r}_e)+a_c(\epsilon_{xx}+\epsilon_{yy}+\epsilon_{zz})$$ is the single-electron Hamiltonian in the single-band effective mass approximation, $\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}$ are the tensor elements of strain ($\alpha,\beta=x,y,z$), $k_{\alpha} = -i\frac{\partial }{\partial \alpha}$ is the operator of the $\alpha$-component of wave vector, $V_{QD}^e(\vec{r}_e)$ is the position-dependent confining potential for an electron in the dot, $m_e^\ast =0.067m_0$ is the effective mass of electron, $m_0$ is the free electron mass, and $a_c=-8.013$eV for GaAs.[@Chuang]
Within the four-band Luttinger-Kohn $k\cdot p$ model, the Hamiltonian for a single hole in the same stressed QD is formulated as a $4\times 4$ matrix, $H_{h}=H_k^h+H_{\epsilon}^h+V_{QD}^h I_{4\times 4}$, that is composed of the kinetic energy-, strain- and potential parts, respectively. The single hole spectrum of a QD is calculated by solving $H_h |\psi_{i_h}^{h}\rangle = E_{i_h}^h |\psi_{i_h}^{h}\rangle $. In the basis ordered by $\{ |u_{\frac{3}{2}}\rangle, |u_{\frac{1}{2}} \rangle,|u_{-\frac{1}{2}}\rangle,|u_{-\frac{3}{2}}\rangle \}$, the single-hole wave functions are expressed as 4-vectors, $|\psi_{i_h}^{h}\rangle =(g_{i_h,\frac{3}{2}}^h (\vec{r}_h), g_{i_h,\frac{1}{2}}^h (\vec{r}_h), g_{i_h,-\frac{1}{2}}^h (\vec{r}_h) g_{i_h,-\frac{3}{2}}^h (\vec{r}_h))$, and the kinetic energy part of the Hamiltonian is expressed as $$\label{hammat}
H_k^h =
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
P_{k}+Q_{k} & -S_k & R_k & 0 \\
-S_k^+ & P_{k}-Q_{k} & 0 & R_k \\
R_k^+ & 0 & P_{k}-Q_{k} & S_k \\
0 & R_k^+ & S_k^+ & P_{k}+Q_{k}
\end{array}
\right) \, ,$$ where $P_k = \frac{\hbar^2\gamma_1}{2m_0}\left(k_x^2+k_y^2+k_z^2\right)$, $Q_k = \frac{\hbar^2\gamma_2}{2m_0}\left(k_x^2+k_y^2-2k_z^2\right)$, $R_k = \frac{\hbar^2}{2m_0}\left[-\sqrt{3}\gamma_3\left(k_x^2-k_y^2\right)+i2\sqrt{3}\gamma_2 k_xk_y\right]$, $S_k = \frac{\hbar^2\gamma_3}{2m_0}\sqrt{3}\left(k_x-ik_y\right)k_z$. The matrix of the strain part of the Hamiltonian, $H_{\epsilon}^h$, is in the same form of Eq.(\[hammat\]) but with the replacements of the operators $\{ P_{k}$, $R_{k}$, $S_{k}$, $R_{k}\}$ by $\{ P_{\epsilon}$, $R_{\epsilon}$, $S_{\epsilon}$, $R_{\epsilon}\}$ that are generated by the rules of transformation: $k_{\alpha}k_{\beta} \rightarrow \epsilon_{\alpha\beta}$, $\frac{\hbar^2 \gamma_1}{2m_0} \rightarrow -a_v$, $\frac{\hbar^2 \gamma_2}{2m_0} \rightarrow -\frac{b}{2}$, $\frac{\hbar^2 \gamma_3}{2m_0} \rightarrow -\frac{d}{2\sqrt{3}}$. [@Chuang] The parameters $\gamma_1=7.1$, $\gamma_2=2.02$, $\gamma_3=2.91$ ,$a_v=1.16eV$, $b=-1.7eV$, and $d=-4.55eV$ are taken for a valence hole in a stressed GaAs material.[@Bimberg; @Chuang]
![(a) \[(c)\] Numerically calculated polarized emission spectra and the corresponding polar plots of a $x$-elongated QD under uni-axial stresses with $\phi_{\sigma}=0^\circ$ \[$\phi_{\sigma}=30^\circ$\] and strength $\sigma=0,\pm 0.15$GPa. (c) \[(d)\]: same as (a) \[(b)\] but without the consideration of VBM. []{data-label="fig2"}](Fig2_prx.eps){width="15.0cm"}
![ (a) The excitonic fine structure splitting, $S$, defined by Eq.(\[Sdef\]) and (b) the degree of polarization, DOP, defined by Eq.(\[DOPdef\]) of the bright exciton doublet of an $x$-elongated QD under an uni-axial stress of varied strength $\sigma$ along the $x$-axis as considered for Fig. \[fig2\](a). Solid (Dotted) lines: numerically calculated results obtained by $k \cdot p$ theory (results yielded by the formalisms based on the model presented in Sec.\[paramodel\]). (c) and (d): the numerical and analytical results for the same dot but with the uniaxial stress misaligned to the $x$-axis with $\phi_{\sigma}=30^\circ$ as considered for Fig. \[fig2\](c). []{data-label="fig3"}](Fig3_prx.eps){width="12.0cm"}
Numerical computations
======================
Methods
-------
### Single particle spectra
Numerically, the single-electron (-hole) energy spectrum $E_{i_e}^e$ ($E_{i_h}^h$) and the envelope functions $g_{s_z}^{e}$ ($\{g_{j_z}^{h}\}$) are calculated using finite difference method for a GaAs/Al$_{0.35}$Ga$_{0.65}$As DE-QDs shaped by a Gaussian profile $0 \le z \le H \exp(-\frac{x^2}{\Lambda_x^2}-\frac{y^2}{\Lambda_y^2})$, characterized by the height of QD $(H)$ and the parameters of lateral characteristic length of QD along the $x/y$ direction $(\Lambda_{x/y})$.[@Liao] Accordingly, one can define the characteristic function for a QD, $X_{QD}(\vec{r})$, that is equal to one (zero) as the coordinate position $\vec{r}$ in (out of) the QD. Thus, the confining potential of a GaAs/Al$_{0.35}$Ga$_{0.75}$As QD for an electron (a hole) can be expressed as $V_{QD}^{e/h}(\vec{r}_{e/h})=V_b^{e/h} \cdot X_{QD}(\vec{r}_{e/h})$ with the band-offset $V_b^e=300$meV ($V_b^h=200$meV). [@Chuang]. Throughout this work, we choose the Cartesian coordinate frame with the axes along the specified crystalline directions, i.e. $\hat x \parallel [1\bar{1}0]$, $\hat y \parallel [110]$ and $\hat z \parallel [001]$, and study the asymmetric QDs that are elongated along the $x$-axis with $\Lambda_{x}>\Lambda_{y}$, as depicted in Fig.\[fig1\]. Besides, a QD might be considered to be under an uniaxial stress of strength $\sigma$ in the direction of $\hat{n}_{\sigma}=(\cos\phi_{\sigma},\sin\phi_{\sigma},0)$, as depicted in Figs. \[fig1\](a) and (b), which yields the strain tensor elements given by $\epsilon_{xx} = \left( \frac{s_{11}+s_{12}}{2}\right) \sigma + \left( \frac{s_{44}}{2}\right) \sigma \cos 2\phi_{\sigma}$, $\epsilon_{yy} = \left( \frac{s_{11}+s_{12}}{2}\right) \sigma - \left( \frac{s_{44}}{2}\right) \sigma \cos 2\phi_{\sigma}$, $\epsilon_{zz} = s_{12} \sigma$, $\epsilon_{xy} = \left( \frac{s_{11}-s_{12}}{2}\right) \sigma \sin 2\phi_{\sigma}$, where the elastic compliance constants are $s_{11}=0.0082$GPa$^{-1}$, $s_{12}=-0.002$GPa$^{-1}$, and $s_{44}=0.0168$GPa$^{-1}$ for GaAs.[@Chuang]
### Electron-hole exchange interactions
Since our interest is in the fine structures of the lowest exciton doublet, we take into account only the relevant lowest single-electron and single-hole orbitals and, for brevity of notation, label them simply with the spin indices, i.e. $\psi^e_{i_e=\uparrow_e/\downarrow_e} = |\uparrow_e/\downarrow_e \rangle $, ($\psi^h_{i_h=\Uparrow_h'/\Downarrow_h'} = |\Uparrow_h'/\Downarrow_h' \rangle$). Here, a superscript prime is attached to the arrow symbol of hole spin to indicate the VBM nature that mixes the heavy-hole (HH) and light-hole (LH) components. In the basis of the direct products of the single-electron and -hole states, $|\uparrow_e\rangle |\Downarrow_h'\rangle$ and $|\downarrow_e \rangle |\Uparrow_h'\rangle$, being the two bright exciton (BX) configurations, the Hamiltonian for an VBM BX in a QD is written as a $2\times 2$ matrix, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hamilX}
H_X=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
E_X^{(0)} & \tilde{\Delta}_{eff}^{xc} \\
\tilde{\Delta}_{eff}^{xc \, \ast} & E_X^{(0)} \\
\end{array}
\right) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $E_X^{(0)}=E_{\uparrow_e}^e+E_{\Downarrow_h'}^h -V_{\uparrow_e\Downarrow_h'\Downarrow_h'\uparrow_e}^{eh} = E_{\downarrow_e}^e+E_{\Uparrow_h'}^h -V_{\downarrow_e\Uparrow_h'\Uparrow_h'\downarrow_e}^{eh}$ denotes the energy of exciton regardless of the $\it e-h$ exchange interactions, and $\tilde{\Delta}_{eff}^{xc}\equiv V_{\uparrow \Downarrow' \Uparrow' \downarrow }^{ehxc}$ is the off-diagonal matrix element of $\it e-h$ exchange interaction that couples the two VBM bright exciton (BX) configurations of opposite angular momenta and results in the FSS of the exciton doublet, $|S|=2|\tilde{\Delta}_{eff}^{xc}|$. One should note that the off-diagonal matrix element in general is complex, and can be written as $$\label{Delta_eff_1_2}
\tilde{\Delta}_{eff}^{xc} = \Delta_{eff,1}^{xc} +i \Delta_{eff,2}^{xc} \equiv \Delta_{eff}^{xc} e^{-i\theta_{eff}}$$ where $\Delta_{eff,1}^{xc}$ ($\Delta_{eff,2}^{xc}$) is the real (imaginary) part and $\Delta_{eff}^{xc}$ is the magnitude. As will be shown later, the phase angle $\theta_{eff}$ is essential in the determination of the orientations of the optical polarizations, the pseudo-spins, and the Bloch vectors of the resulting exciton eigen states.
In the numerical calculation, the matrix elements of [*e-h*]{} exchange interactions are divided by the short-ranged and long-ranged parts according to the averaged Wigner-Seitz radius, and computed separately.[@Kadantsev] The former is treated in the dipole-dipole interaction approximation and numerically integrated using trapezoidal rules and graphics processing unit (GPU) parallel computing technique for numerical acceleration. The latter is considered for the matrix elements involving the exciton basis of same angular momenta and evaluated using the formalism of Eq.(2.17) in Ref.[@Taka], in terms of the the energy splitting between the bright- (BX) and dark-exciton (DX) states of a QD, $E_X^S = \Delta_{eh,bulk}^{xc} \times [ \pi (a_B^\ast)^3 \int d^3r |g_{s_z=\pm\frac{1}{2}}^e|^2 |g_{j_z=\mp\frac{3}{2}}^h|^2 ]$ (See also Eq.(2) in Ref.[@Liao]), which is extrapolated from the the BX-DX splitting $\Delta_{eh,bulk}^{xc}=20\mu$eV of a pure HH-exciton with the effective Bohr radius $a_B^\ast$ in GaAs bulk. [@Ekardt] While the screening in the e-h exchange interactions is known as a subtle problem, here we follow Ref.[@Allan] and assume that the long ranged electron-hole exchange interactions are screened by the static dielectric constant $\epsilon_b=12.9$ of host material GaAs. By contrast, we consider that the screening in the short ranged interactions has been implicitly merged in the empirical parameter of $\Delta_{eh,bulk}^{xc}$, as discussed by Kadantsev and Hawrylak [@Kadantsev], and do not include the background dielectric constant in the formalism.
Stress-dependent polarized fine structures
------------------------------------------
By solving the Schrödinger equation, $H_X |\Psi_n^{X}\rangle =E_n^X |\Psi_n^{X}\rangle $, we obtain the eigen states and the energies of the BX doublet, $E_{\pm}^X=E_X^{(0)} \pm \Delta_{eff}^{xc}$. Accordingly, the intensity of the emitted light, $I_n(\hat{e},\omega) \propto |\langle 0|P_{\hat{e}}^- | \Psi_{n}^X \rangle|^2 \delta(\hbar \omega -E_n^X)$, of the frequency $\omega$ and polarization along the $\hat{e}$-direction from a stressed QD can be calculated using the formalism of Fermi’s golden rule,[@Kumar] where $P_{\hat{e}}^-$ is the polarization operator as defined in Eqs.(18) and (19) in Ref.[@Liao]. For the maximum intensity of the emitted light from an exciton state $\Psi_n^X$ that is polarized along the optical axis, $\hat{e}_0$, we simplify its notation as $I_{n}(\hat{e}_0;\omega=E_n^X/\hbar) \equiv I_{e_0}$.
In the presence of stress, the optical axes of the exciton states of a QD might be re-directed and not any more aligned to the $x$- or $y$-axes. Here, we specify the re-directed optical axis of a stressed QD that is directionally close to the $x$-axis ($y$-axis) as the $x'$-axis ($y'$-axis) (See Fig. \[fig1\](c)). To characterize a polarized fine structure of a stressed QD, the parameter of degree of polarization, $$\label{DOPdef}
\text{DOP} \equiv \frac{ I_{x'}-I_{y'}}{I_{x'}+I_{y'}} \, ,$$ and that of fine structure splitting, $$\label{Sdef}
S \equiv E_{x'}^X-E_{y'}^X \,$$ are defined. Here, the subscript $x'$ ($y'$) indicates the direction of the optical axis of an exciton state, $|\Psi_{x'}^X\rangle $ ($|\Psi_{y'}^X\rangle $), and is also used to label the corresponding energy and emission intensity. Note that the signs of the defined DOP and $S$ depend on the relative intensities and the order of the energies of the emission lines in the FS.
### Aligned stresses
Figures \[fig2\] (a) shows the numerically calculated polarized emission spectra of the $x-$elongated GaAs/AlGaAs QD of $\Lambda_x=14$nm, $\Lambda_y=12.7$nm and $H=9$nm, applied by uniaxial stresses, aligned to the $x$-axis, of different strengths and types of $\sigma=0$ (stress-free), $-0.15$GPa (compressive) and $+0.15$GPa (tensile), respectively. In the stress-free case, the FS spectrum of the $x$-elongated DE-QD is featured by the low-energy $x$-polarized and the high energy $y$-polarized lines that are split by $|S|\sim 7\mu$eV and slightly differing in the intensities, characterized by DOP$\sim 3 \%$. The $x$-polarized emission line lying at lower energy in the excitonic FS of the QD results from the dominance of the long ranged [*e-h*]{} exchange interactions in the large QD that are essentially dipole-dipole interactions and energetically favour the exciton state that is optically $x$-polarized, along the elongation axis of QD. [@Lin]
Applying an $x$-aligned stress onto a QD substantially affects the FS feature described above. In Fig. \[fig2\] (a), we observe the obvious changes of the magnitude of the FSS of the QD caused by applying the stresses of $\sigma=-0.15$GPa and $+0.15$GPa. Remarkably, the types (compressive or tensile) of stress also affect the order of the $x$- and $y$-polarized emission lines of the stressed QD.
Figure \[fig3\] (a) and (b) present the numerically calculated DOP and $S$ of the stressed QD of Fig.\[fig2\] (a), respectively, against the $x$-aligned uniaxial stress of the strength continuously varied from $\sigma=-0.2$GPa to $\sigma=+0.2$GPa. More clearly, it is shown that overall the magnitudes of the $S$ and DOP are increased by increasing the strength of the applied stress with $|\sigma| > 0.1$GPa, but the signs of the $S$ and DOP change from positive to negative as the applied compressive stress is changed to be tensile. The sign change of the S and DOP reflects the reversal of the order of the $x$- and $y$-polarized emission lines in energy.
As known from previous studies, the stress-dependent DOP of a stressed QD is associated with the stress-enhanced VBM, so is the FSS.[@Santosh] To highlight the VBM effect, Fig. \[fig2\] (b) presents the emission spectra of the same stressed QD that are calculated regardless of the VBM (by artificially setting $S_k=S_\epsilon=0$ and $R_k=R-\epsilon=0$ in the $k\cdot p$ Hamiltonian), showing completely different features from that of Fig. \[fig2\] (a). More detailed analysis of the stress-induced VBM effects in Fig. \[fig2\] will be presented in the next section.
### Misaligned stresses
Next, let us consider the applied uniaxial stress misaligned to the elongation axis (the $x$-axis) of QD. Figure \[fig2\](c) shows the numerically calculated polarized emission spectra of the $x$-elongated QD under the misaligned uni-axial stresses of magnitudes $\sigma=0,\pm 0.15$GPa that are counter-clockwise rotated from and misaligned to the $x$-axis by $\phi_{\sigma}=30^\circ$. Figure \[fig3\] (c) and (d) present the calculated DOP and $S$ of the QD under the misaligned uniaxial stresses as function of the magnitude of the stress. As compared with the cases of aligned stress ($\phi_{\sigma}=0^\circ$), the FSS’s of the QD with misaligned stresses are shown always non-vanishing, with a lower bound of $|S|\sim 6\mu eV$ at $\sigma =-0.02$GPa, as observed and predicted by Refs. [@Plumhof; @Santosh; @Singh]. Another obvious observation is that the optical polarization axes of the QD under the misaligned uniaxial stresses are no longer aligned to either the $x$- or the $y$-axes, but directed in between and accompanied with significant changes of the magnitudes of the FSS and DOP. As will be elucidated more in the analysis of the next section, the rotation of the optical axes is understood as a resulting optical feature from the superposition of exciton eigen states of the stressed QD, mixed with the stress-free $x-$ and $y-$ polarized exciton states by a misaligned stress.
Model analysis
==============
Pseudo-spin representation
--------------------------
To elucidate the effects of uniaxial stress, we take the optically $x-$ and $y-$ polarized exciton configuration, $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|\downarrow_e \rangle |\Uparrow_h'\rangle + |\uparrow_e\rangle |\Downarrow_h'\rangle \right) \equiv |\Psi_x^X\rangle $ and $ \frac{-i}{\sqrt{2}} \left(|\downarrow_e \rangle |\Uparrow_h'\rangle - |\uparrow_e\rangle |\Downarrow_h'\rangle \right) \equiv |\Psi_y^X \rangle $, as basis for expanding the undetermined exciton states and constructing an effective Hamiltonian matrix of a QD with an uniaxial stress along an arbitrary direction. In the chosen basis $\{ |\Psi_x^X\rangle, |\Psi_y^X\rangle \} $, the $2 \times 2$ matrix of Hamiltonian for a VBM exciton in a stressed QD can be expressed in a compact form as $$\label{Blocheq}
H_{X}' = \vec{\sigma} \cdot \vec{\Omega}_{eff} \, ,$$ where $H_{X}'=H_{X} - E_{X}^{(0)}$ is the exciton Hamiltonian offset by the spin-independent averaged energy of BX doublet, $\vec{\sigma}=(\sigma_1, \sigma_2, \sigma_3)$ is the vector with the components of Pauli-matrices, $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_1=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\
1 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right) \, ,
\sigma_2=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & -i \\
i & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right) \, ,
\sigma_3=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1 \\
\end{array}
\right) \, , \end{aligned}$$ and $$\label{effectfield}
\vec{\Omega}_{eff} \equiv (\Omega_{1},\Omega_{2},\Omega_{3}) = \Delta_{eff}^{xc}(\sin\theta_{eff}, 0, \cos\theta_{eff})$$ acts as a pseudo-magnetic field that is coupled to the pseudo-spin of the exciton doublet represented by $\vec{\sigma}$ and orientated to the direction of $(\sin\theta_{eff}, 0, \cos\theta_{eff})$.
![Schematics of Bloch vectors of exciton eigen states of stress-free and stressed QDs. (a) As an example, the high energy (HE) exciton eigen states $\Psi_{+}^X = \Psi_{x}^X$ are $x$-polarized and geometrically specified to the north poles of the Bloch sphere. As a counterpart, the low-energy (LE) $y$-polarized state $\Psi_{-}^X = \Psi_{y}^X$ is at the south pole. (b) \[(c)\] Applying an compressive \[tensile\] uniaxial stress to the QD makes the exciton eigen states mixed by $\Psi_{x}^X$ and $\Psi_{y}^X$, the HE one of which, $\Psi_{+}^X$, is represented by a Bloch vector positioned between the north- and south-poles on the longitude of $\phi_X=0^\circ$ \[$\phi_X=180^\circ$\].[]{data-label="fig4"}](Fig4_prx.eps){width="12.0cm"}
Next, by solving Eq.(\[Blocheq\]) we obtain that the energies of exciton eigen states $|\Psi_{\pm}^X\rangle $ are given by $E_{\pm}^X=E_{X}^{(0)}\pm {\Delta}_{eff}^{xc}$, split by the FSS $|S|=2\Delta_{eff}^{xc}=2|\vec{\Omega}_{eff}|$. In the generalized Bloch vector representation, the high energy (HE) and the low energy (LE) exciton eigen states can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
|\Psi_{+}^{X}\rangle &=& (\cos\frac{\theta_{X}}{2}, e^{-i\phi_{X}}\sin\frac{\theta_{X}}{2}) \, , \label{Blochv1}\\
%|\Psi_{-}^{X}\rangle &=& (\cos\frac{(\pi-\theta_{X})}{2}, e^{-i(\phi_{X}+\pi)}\sin\frac{(\pi-\theta_{X})}{2}) \\
|\Psi_{-}^{X}\rangle &=& (\sin\frac{\theta_{X}}{2}, -e^{-i\phi_{X}}\cos\frac{\theta_{X}}{2}) \, , \label{Blochv2}\end{aligned}$$ respectively, characterized by the phase angles $\theta_X$ and $\phi_X$. Comparing Eqs. (\[Blochv1\]) and (\[Blochv2\]) with the solved exciton eigen states from Eqs.(\[Blocheq\]-\[effectfield\]), one can relate the phase angles of Bloch vector to $\theta_{eff}$: $$\theta_X=\theta_{eff}\, , \phi_X=0^\circ \, \text{ as } \theta_{eff}=\{0^\circ, 180^\circ\} \label{cond1}$$ and $$\theta_X=360^\circ - \theta_{eff}\, , \phi_X=180^\circ \, \text{ as } \theta_{eff}=\{180^\circ, 360^\circ\} \, . \label{cond2}$$
3D parabolic Model {#paramodel}
------------------
For more analysis, we take the three-dimensional (3D) parabolic model for the confining potential of DE-QD, [@Liao] yielding the solvable single particle wave functions and energy spectra. Within the model, the envelope wave function of the lowest single-electron state of a QD is explicitly given by $\phi_{000}^{e} =(\frac{1}{{\pi^{\frac{3}{2}}l_{x}^{e} l_{y}^{e} l_{z}^{e}}})^{1/2} \exp{\{-\frac{1}{2}[(\frac{x}{l_{x}^{e}})^{2}+(\frac{y}{l_{y}^{e}})^{2}+(\frac{z}{l_{z}^{e}})^{2}]\}}$, in terms of the parameters, $l_{x}^{e}$, $l_{y}^{e}$, and $l_{z}^{e}$, of the wave function extents in the $x$-, $y$-, and $z$-directions, respectively. By contrast, the energy spectrum and wave function of a single hole in a QD are hardly solved analytically even within the simplified parabolic model because of the off-diagonal elements in the Hamiltonian of Eq.(\[hammat\]) that make the mixture of HH and LH components, i.e. the VBM. Regardless of the VBM (by setting $S_k=S_\epsilon=0$ and $R_k=R_\epsilon=0$ in Eq.(\[hammat\])), the eigen states of a pure HH or LH in QD in the parabolic model can be described by the same formula of wave function as that of electron, $\phi_{000}^{HH/LH}$, with the substitution of the length parameters for a HH or a LH, $l_{x,y,z}^{HH/LH}$. Throughout this work, we consider $x$-elongated QDs with $\eta\equiv l_x/l_y \ge 1$. For brevity of notation, hereafter we denote the lowest pure HH (LH) states as $|\psi_{\Uparrow/\Downarrow}^h\rangle \equiv |\Uparrow_h/\Downarrow_h \rangle \approx |\phi_{000}^{HH} u_{+\frac{3}{2}/-\frac{3}{2}}^h \rangle $ ($|\psi_{\uparrow/\downarrow}^h\rangle \equiv |\uparrow_h/\downarrow_h \rangle \approx |\phi_{000}^{HH} u_{+\frac{1}{2}/-\frac{1}{2}}^h \rangle $).
Following Ref.[@Leger], one can treat the HH-LH coupling terms ($R_k,R_\epsilon,S_k$, and $S_\epsilon$) in the hole Hamiltonian as perturbations and, in the lowest order approximation, write the expanded VBM hole states of a QD as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{VBM-state}
|\Uparrow_h'\rangle &\approx & |\Uparrow_h \rangle - \tilde{\beta}_{HL}^\ast |\downarrow_h\rangle \, , \nonumber \\
|\Downarrow_h'\rangle &\approx & |\Downarrow_h \rangle - \tilde{\beta}_{HL} |\uparrow_h\rangle \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where the (complex) coefficient for the most leading LH component is $$\label{betahl}
\tilde{\beta}_{HL}= \frac{\tilde{\rho}_{HL,k} + \tilde{\rho}_{HL,\epsilon}}{\Delta_{HL}} \, ,$$ determined by the ratio of the matrix element of the HH-LH coupling operator $\hat{R}= \hat{R}_k + \hat{R}_{\epsilon} $, $\tilde{\rho}_{HL,k(\epsilon)} \equiv \langle \phi_{000}^{HH} |\hat{R}_{k(\epsilon)} | \phi_{000}^{LH} \rangle $, and the energy difference between the HH- and LH-levels, $\Delta_{HL} \equiv \langle \phi_{000}^{LH} |\hat{P}-\hat{Q}+V_{QD} | \phi_{000}^{LH} \rangle - \langle \phi_{000}^{HH} |\hat{P}+\hat{Q}+V_{QD} | \phi_{000}^{HH} \rangle$, where $\hat{P}\equiv \hat{P}_k + \hat{P}_{\epsilon}$ and $\hat{Q}\equiv \hat{Q}_k + \hat{Q}_{\epsilon}$.[@Lin] Taking into account Eq.(\[VBM-state\]), the matrix element of the [*e-h*]{} exchange interaction for a VBM-exciton is derived as $\tilde{\Delta}_{eff}^{xc} \equiv V_{\uparrow \Downarrow' \Uparrow' \downarrow }^{eh,xc} \approx V_{\uparrow \Downarrow \Uparrow \downarrow }^{eh,xc} -2 \tilde{\beta}_{HL} V_{\uparrow_e \Downarrow_h \downarrow_h \downarrow_e}^{eh,xc}$, or equivalently expressed, in a similar form presented in Ref.[@Lin], as $$\label{Delta_eff}
\tilde{\Delta}_{eff}^{xc}= -\Delta_1 + \tilde{\Delta}_{VBM} \, ,
%\tilde{\Delta}_{eff}^{xc} \equiv {\Delta}_{eff}^{xc} e^{-i\theta_{eff}} = -\Delta_1 + \frac{2E_X^S}{\sqrt{3}\Delta_{HL}} (\tilde{\rho}_{HL,k} + \tilde{\rho}_{HL,\epsilon}) \, ,$$ where the first term $-\Delta_1\equiv V_{\downarrow_e \Uparrow_h \Downarrow_h \uparrow_e}^{eh,xc}$ is the matrix element of the long ranged [*e-h*]{} exchange interaction that couples the two pure-HH exciton configurations of opposite angular momenta, $|\downarrow_e \Uparrow_h \rangle$ and $|\uparrow_e \Downarrow_h \rangle$, and the second term is $$\label{DeltaVBM}
\tilde{\Delta}_{VBM} = \frac{2E_X^S}{\sqrt{3}} \tilde{\beta}_{HL}\, ,$$ that originates from the (short ranged) interaction $E_S^X \equiv V_{\downarrow_e \Uparrow_h \Uparrow_h \downarrow_e }^{eh,xc} (= -\sqrt{3}V_{\downarrow_e \Uparrow_h \uparrow_h \uparrow_e }^{eh,xc}=V_{\uparrow_e \Downarrow_h \Downarrow_h \uparrow_e }^{eh,xc}= -\sqrt{3} V_{\uparrow_e \Downarrow_h \downarrow_h \downarrow_e }^{eh,xc})$ that makes the BX-DX splitting and is involved in the FSS of an exciton via VBM. The r.h.s of Eq.(\[Delta\_eff\]) is formulated in such a way to stress the attractive nature of the long ranged interaction ($-\Delta_1$) with respect to the $x$-polarized exciton FSS state and the repulsive VBM-induced interaction $(\tilde{\Delta}_{VBM})$, which might energetically compensates or even overwhelms the attractive interaction $(-\Delta_1)$.
In the parabolic model, one can derive all the terms used in Eqs.(\[betahl\])-(\[DeltaVBM\]) explicitly in terms of the QD and material parameters, which are $$\label{rhok}
\tilde{\rho}_{HL,k}=\rho_{HL,k} = \frac{\sqrt{3}\hbar^2\gamma_3}{4m_0}\cdot \left[ \left( \frac{1}{l_y^h} \right)^2 - \left( \frac{1}{l_x^h} \right)^2 \right] \, ,$$ $$\label{rhoepsilon}
\tilde{\rho}_{HL,\epsilon} = - \frac{|d| s_{44}}{4} \sigma \cos 2\phi_{\sigma} + i \frac{\sqrt{3}|b| (s_{11}-s_{12})}{2} \sigma \sin 2\phi_{\sigma} \, ,$$ $\Delta_{HL} \approx \frac{\hbar^2\gamma_2}{m_0}\cdot \frac{1}{l_z^2} -|b|(s_{11}-s_{12})\sigma $, $E_X^S \approx \dfrac{1}{2}\times\dfrac{{a_B^{\ast}}^3\Delta_{eh,{\rm bulk}}^{xc}}{\sqrt{8\pi}l_x^{eh}l_y^{eh}l_z^{eh}}$ [@Taka; @Lin], and $\Delta_1=\frac{1}{4 \pi \varepsilon_0}\frac{3 \sqrt{\pi} e^2 \hbar^2 E_p}{16\sqrt {2} m_0 {E_g}^2} \frac{\eta(\eta-1)}{(l_x^{eh})^3}e^{(\frac{3 \sqrt{\pi} l_z^{eh}}{4 l_y^{eh}})^{2}} {\rm erfc}(\frac{3 \sqrt{\pi} l_z^{eh}}{4 l_y^{eh}})$ [@Ramirez], where $a_B^\ast= 11nm$ ($\Delta_{eh,{\rm bulk}}^{xc}=20\mu \rm{eV}$) is the effective Bohr radius (the BX- and DX-level splitting) of exciton in bulk GaAs, $E_P=28.8eV$, and $E_{g}=1.519eV$ is the energy gap of GaAs.[@Bimberg; @Chuang] Here, $l_{x,y,z}^{HH}=l_{x,y,z}^{LH}=l_{x,y,z}^h$ and $l_{\alpha}^{eh} \equiv \frac{\sqrt{2}l_{\alpha}^e l_{\alpha}^h}{\sqrt{(l_{\alpha}^e)^2 (l_{\alpha}^h)^2}}$ are assumed for the compactness of formalisms.[@Ramirez] From Eqs.(\[Delta\_eff\])-(\[rhoepsilon\]), the magnitude of FSS defined by Eq.(\[Sdef\]) is given by $|S|=2|\tilde{\Delta}_{eff}^{xc}|=2|\Delta_{eff,1}^{xc} + i\Delta_{eff,2}^{xc} |$, where $$\label{Deltaeff1}
\Delta_{eff,1}^{xc}= -\Delta_1 + \frac{2E_X^S}{\sqrt{3}\Delta_{HL}} (\rho_{HL,k} - \frac{|d| s_{44}}{4} \sigma \cos 2\phi_{\sigma})$$ and $$\label{Deltaeff2}
\Delta_{eff,2}^{xc} = \frac{2E_X^S}{\sqrt{3}\Delta_{HL}} \frac{\sqrt{3}|b| (s_{11}-s_{12})}{2} \sigma \sin 2\phi_{\sigma} \, .$$ Notably, only a misaligned stress ($\sigma\neq 0, \phi_{\sigma}\neq 0,\pi$) can yield a non-vanishing imaginary part, $\Delta_{eff,2}^{xc}$, and, according to Eq.(\[Delta\_eff\_1\_2\]), gives rise to a phase angle $\theta_{eff}\neq 0$.
It is indicated from Eq.(\[Deltaeff2\]) that $\Delta_{eff,2}^{xc}<0$ ($\Delta_{eff,2}^{xc}>0$) and, according to Eq.(\[Delta\_eff\_1\_2\]) , the resulting phase angle $\theta_{eff}$ falls into the range, $\theta_{eff}=\{0^\circ, 180^\circ \}$ ($\theta_{eff}=\{180^\circ, 360^\circ \}$), as a compressive (tensile) uniaxial stress with $0<\phi_{\sigma}<45^\circ$ is applied to a QD. Accordingly, Eq.(\[cond1\]) can be used to determine the possible range of the orientation of an exciton Bloch vector on the Bloch sphere for QDs with compressive stress while Eq.(\[cond2\]) is for QDs with tensile stress. Figure \[fig4\] (a),(b) and (c) depict the Bloch vectors of the HE exciton states $|\Psi_{+}^{X}\rangle$ of stress-free, compressively, and tensile stressed QDs on the Bloch spheres, respectively.
Using the formalism of the Fermi’s golden rule in Ref.[@Liao] and Eqs.(\[Delta\_eff\_1\_2\]),(\[Blochv1\])-(\[cond2\]) and (\[VBM-state\])-(\[DeltaVBM\]), one can derive the intensities of the $\hat{e}$-polarized ($\hat{e}=(\cos\phi, \sin\phi, 0)$) emitted lights from the exciton eigen states, $|\Psi_{\pm}^X\rangle $, of a uniaxially stressed QD as, $$\label{optaxes1}
I_{+}(\phi) \propto I_{+,max} \cos^2(\phi-\phi_{+})$$ and $$\label{optaxes2}
I_{-}(\phi) \propto I_{-,max} \sin^2(\phi-\phi_{-}) \, ,$$ respectively, where the maximum intensities are determined by $$\label{intensitymax}
I_{\pm,max}= (1\pm \frac{\Delta_{eff}^{xc} +\Delta_1 \cos\theta_{eff}}{2E_{X}^S})^2 +(\frac{\Delta_1 \sin\theta_{eff}}{2E_{X}^S})^2\, ,$$ and the angle of the optical axis for $I_{+}$ ($I_{-}$) with respective to the $x$- ($y$)-axis is $$\label{phipm}
\phi_{\pm} = \frac{\theta_{eff}}{2} + \delta\phi_{\pm}\sim \frac{\theta_{eff}}{2}\, ,$$ where $\delta\phi_{\pm}=\tan^{-1}\left( \frac{\mp \Delta_1 \sin \theta_{eff}}{2E_{X}^S \pm \Delta_{eff} \pm \Delta_1 \cos\theta_{eff} } \right)$. Thus, the magnitude of the DOP of the emission lines from the exciton doublet is given by $|{\rm{DOP}}| = \left|\frac{I_{+,max}- I_{-,max}}{I_{+,max} + I_{-,max}} \right|$. Equation (\[phipm\]) shows that the orientation of the optical polarization of an exciton state in the FS of a QD is along the direction rotated from the $x$- or $y$-axes by the angle $\sim \theta_{eff}/2 $, which is specified by the new $x'$- or $y'$-axes as depicted in Fig. \[fig1\]. Using the above simplified model, the S’s and DOP’s of the stressed QD considered in Figs. \[fig2\] and \[fig3\] are calculated [@parameters] and show qualitative agreements with the numerical results, as seen in Fig.\[fig3\].
![(a) $S$ versus DOP of the polarized emission lines from the bright exciton doublets of the $x$-elongated QDs with $\eta\equiv l_x/l_y =1, 1.05, 1.1, 1.2$ under uniaxial stresses of $\sigma=0.1,0.05,...,-0.3$GPa along the elongation axis of QD. The areas of the empty (filled) symbols reflect the magnitudes of the applied tensile (compressive) stresses. Note that the resulting DOP’s ($\neq 0$) of the stressed QDs with $S=0$ are non-zero and lead to the non-maximal entanglement of the emitted photon pairs ($\epsilon<1$). (b) Degree of entanglement $\epsilon$ of emitted photon pairs from the elongated QDs with stress-controlled vanishing $S$ as a function of the QD elongation, $\eta$. []{data-label="fig5"}](Fig5_prx.eps){width="12.0cm"}
![(a) Optical polarization angles $\phi_{\pm}$, with respect to the $x$- or $y$-axes as depicted in the inset, of the excitonic fine structure states of a stressed QD with $\phi_{\sigma}=45^\circ$ as a function of the stress strength $\sigma$, which follow nearly the same $\sigma$-dependence as that of $\theta_{eff}/2$ (See Eq.(\[Delta\_eff\_1\_2\]) for the definition of $\theta_{eff}$). (b) Phase angles $\theta_{X}$ and $\phi_{X}$ used to characterize the Bloch vectors of the exciton states of the stressed QD, against the strength and orientation, $\sigma$ and $\phi_{\sigma}$, of the applied stresses, and show highly tunable by stressing the dot. []{data-label="fig6"}](Fig6_prx.eps){width="12.0cm"}
Discussions
===========
Below, we discuss three remarkable photonic and fine structure features of stressed QDs that are revealed by the established model.
Stress-dependent polarized fine structures
------------------------------------------
Figure \[fig5\](a) presents the calculated S’s versus DOP’s of the exciton fine structures of $x$-elongated QDs under an uniaxial stress, along the elongation axis of the QDs, with the varied stress strength from $\sigma=-0.3$ to $0.1$GPa. It is clearly seen that the $S$’s are correlated with and show quasi-linear dependences on the DOP’s for a asymmetric QD with a specific elongation ($\eta=1, 1.05, 1.1$, or $1.2$). Such a $S$-DOP correlation has been noticed and inferred from the previous experiments on strained self-assembled QD systems (See Ref.[@Lin]). Here, with stress as an additional tunable parameter, the underlying physics in the correlated $S$’s and DOP’s of unstrained DE-QDs can be more clearly recognized. From Eqs.(\[optaxes1\])-(\[intensitymax\]), the degree of polarization for an exciton FS doublet of a QD under an uniaxial stress is derived as $|\text{DOP}|=|\frac{\Delta_{eff}^{xc} +\Delta_1 \cos\theta_{eff}}{E_X^S}| =|\frac{|S| + 2\Delta_1 \cos\theta_{eff}}{2 E_X^S}|$, explicitly showing the $S$-DOP relationship and explaining the linear dependences of the $S$’s on the DOP’s.
Furthermore, we proceed with the analysis for the effects of stress that is misaligned to the elongation axis of a QD ($\phi_{\sigma} \neq 0$). If the misaligned stress is so significant that the last stress-dependent term on the r.h.s. of Eq.(\[Deltaeff1\]) is dominant ($\sigma > 0.1\text{GPa}$ in the cases studied here), one can show that the phase angle (for $0^\circ < \phi_{\sigma} < 45^\circ $), $$\label{thetaeffsigma}
\theta_{eff} \sim \tan^{-1} \left( \frac{2\sqrt{3}|b|(s_{11}-s_{12})}{|d|s_{44}}\tan 2\phi_{\sigma}\right)\, .$$ In other words, following Eq.(\[phipm\]) the direction of optical polarization of a QD under a high uniaxial stress roughly follow (not exactly aligned to) the stress axes since $\phi_{\pm} \sim \frac{1}{2} \tan^{-1} \left( \frac{2\sqrt{3}|b|(s_{11}-s_{12})}{|d|s_{44}}\tan 2\phi_{\sigma}\right) \sim \frac{1}{2} \tan^{-1} \left( 0.8 \tan 2\phi_{\sigma}\right)$. Thus, a misaligned stress with $\phi_{\sigma}\neq 0$ leads to the optical polarization axes (with $\phi_{\pm}\neq 0$) that are misaligned to the $x-$ or $y-$axes as well, as seen in Fig.\[fig2\](c). Equation (\[phipm\]) and the expressions for $\delta \phi_{\pm}$ therein further predict that the two major optical axes of the exciton doublet of a QD might not be perpendicular to each other, i.e. $\delta \phi_{+} \neq \delta \phi_{-}$, which happens as $\theta_{eff} \neq 0$, e.g. as an elongated QD is subjected to a misaligned uniaxial stress to the elongation axis. Such a stress-induced non-orthogonality of the optical axes of stressed QDs has been observed in the recent study of Ref.[@Santosh].
Non-maximally entangled photon pairs from stressed QDs
------------------------------------------------------
Following Eq.(\[Delta\_eff\_1\_2\]), the magnitude of the FSS of a QD is given by $|S|=2|\tilde{\Delta}_{eff}^{xc}| = 2\sqrt{\Delta_{eff,1}^2 + \Delta_{eff,2}^2}$ and never vanishing as long as the imaginary part, $\Delta_{eff,2}$ ($\propto \sigma\sin\phi_{\sigma}$ according to Eq.(\[Deltaeff2\])) of the effective interaction $\tilde{\Delta}_{eff}^{xc}$ remains non-zero. This happens as $\sigma\neq 0$ and $\phi_{\sigma}\neq 0, \pi/2$, i.e. as an uniaxial stress applied to an elongated QD is neither parallel nor perpendicular to the elongation axis.
In other words, as a prerequisite for the generation of entangled photon pair, making the FSS of a QD vanishing ($S=0$) is achievable only if the applied stress is [*exactly*]{} parallel or perpendicular to the axis of elongation. In the situation, the imaginary part of $\tilde{\Delta}_{eff}^{xc}$ is surely vanishing, and the resulting phase angles are $\theta_{eff}=0,\pi$. Thus, according to Eqs.(\[optaxes1\])-(\[intensitymax\]), one derives $\text{DOP} = \frac{2\rho_{HL}}{\sqrt{3}\Delta_{HL}}$ and $|S|=2 |\Delta_{eff,1}|= 2|-\Delta_1 + \Delta_{VBM}|$, where $\Delta_{VBM}=\frac{2\rho_{HL} }{\sqrt{3}\Delta_{HL}}\cdot E_X^S =\text{DOP}\cdot E_X^S $.[@Lin] Accordingly, a FSS is vanishing, i.e. $S=0$, only as the attractive long ranged part of [*e-h*]{} exchange interaction, $(-\Delta_1)$, is cancelled out by the VBM-involved repulsive interaction, $\Delta_{VBM}=\frac{2\rho_{HL} }{\sqrt{3}\Delta_{HL}}\cdot E_X^S =\text{DOP} \cdot E_X^S $. Re-examining Fig. \[fig5\](a), one can find that the DOP’s of the stress-controlled elongated QDs that are in coincidence with vanishing $S$’s are always non-zero. Therefore, a pair of entangled photons emitted from an elongated QDs with stress-tuned vanishing FSS should have unequal intensities and be in the so-called [*non-maximally*]{} entangled two-photon state, described by $|n=2 \rangle_{ph} = (|H H\rangle + \epsilon |V V\rangle )/\sqrt{1+\epsilon^2}$, with the degree of entanglement, $$\epsilon=\frac{ 1 - \rm{DOP}}{1 + \rm{DOP}}\, ,$$ where $|n \rangle_{ph}$ denotes a $n$-photon state, and $H$ ($V$) indicates a $x$-($y$-) polarized photon. Such a non-maximally entanglement ($\epsilon \neq 1$) has been shown to be advantageous for reducing the required detector efficiencies for loophole-free tests of Bell inequalities.[@White; @Eberhard] Figure \[fig5\](b) plots the degree of entanglement $\epsilon$ as a function of the elongation $\eta$ of the stressed QDs, which can be as low as $\epsilon\sim 0.6$ for $\eta=1.2$. One notes that the maximal entanglement ($\epsilon=1$) is achievable only as the QD that emits the photons is perfectly symmetric so as to have DOP$=0$.[@Kuroda]
![Time dependent horizontal($H$)-polarization projection $P_R^H$ of the superposition exciton state initialized by a right-handed circularly ($R$-)polarized light for an elongated QD that is stress-free, mechanically stretched with uniaxial compressive or tensile stresses ($\sigma=\pm 0.2\text{GPa}$) along the $[100]$ direction ($\phi_{\sigma}=45^\circ$). Note that the same initialized exciton state of the QD evolves in time along distinctive paths on the Bloch spheres (See the insets) and develops very different dynamics of $P_R^H(t)$ as the applied stress is changed.[]{data-label="fig7"}](Fig7_prx.eps){width="10.0cm"}
Mechanically prepared exciton superposition states
--------------------------------------------------
Experimentally, it has been demonstrated that an exciton superposition state, $\Psi_{\hat{e}}^X=C_{+}^{\hat{e}}\Psi_{+}^X + C_{-}^{\hat{e}}\Psi_{-}^X$,in the FS of a QD can be created by a quasi-resonant laser pulse with appropriate polarization denoted by $\hat{e}$, and then evolves, within the coherence time, in a free precession, which can be geometrically represented by a circular motion on a Bloch sphere about the axis connecting the exciton eigen states.[@Kodriano; @Poem] Uniaxially stressing a QD moves an exciton eigen state from the north or south poles of the Bloch sphere towards the equator by an angle $\theta_{X}$ with a fixed $\phi_X$ (See Eqs.(\[cond1\]),(\[cond2\]) and (\[thetaeffsigma\])). Consequently, the plane of the circular motion corresponding to the free precession of the exciton state is tilted. Thus, any superposition exciton state of a QD could be optically prepared or accessed by appropriately stressing the QD prior to the optical excitation.
Figure \[fig6\](a) shows the optical polarization angles $\phi_{\pm}$ of the emission lines from the LE and HE excitonic fine structure states $\Psi_{\pm}^X$ of the QD stressed uniaxially along the $[100]$ direction ($\phi_{\sigma}=45^\circ$) as a function of the stress strength $\sigma$. One can see that, even with a fixed direction of uniaxial stress, the polarization axes rotates over a wide angular range (almost $90^\circ$) with varying the magnitude of stress strength. Correspondingly, Fig.\[fig6\](b) shows the phase angles, $\theta_X$ and $\phi_X$, of the Bloch vector for the HE exciton eigen state, $\psi_{+}^X$, as formulated by Eq.(\[Blochv1\]). One sees that the phase angles of the exciton superposition states can be related to the orientations of the optical polarizations and are roughly equal $\theta_{X}\sim 2 \phi_{+}$ ($\theta_{X}\sim 360^\circ - 2 \phi_{+}$) for $\sigma<0$ (for $\sigma>0$), as inferred from Eqs.(\[cond1\]), (\[cond2\]) and (\[phipm\]).
The dynamics of such [*mechanically encoded*]{} exciton states can be monitored by optically measuring the polarization projection using the techniques presented in Refs.[@Benny; @Kodriano]. Figure \[fig7\](c) shows the time evolution of the $x$-polarization (or referred to as the $H$-polarization) projection $P_{R}^{H}(t)\equiv |\langle 0|P_{H}^-|\Psi_{R}^X (t)\rangle |^2 $ of the exciton superposition state that is optically initialized by a right-handed circular ($R$-) polarized laser ($|\Psi_{R}^X (t=0)\rangle = C_{+}^{R} |\Psi_{+}^{X}\rangle -i C_{-}^{R} |\Psi_{-}^X\rangle $, where $C_{\pm}^{R}=(\langle 0 |P_{R}^-|\Psi_{\pm}^X\rangle)^\ast$) of the QD uniaxially stressed in the fixed direction with $\phi_{\sigma}=45^\circ$ as considered in Fig. \[fig6\] (ideal coherence is assumed).[@Kodriano] Analytically, one can show that $P_{R}^{H} = \frac{1}{2}[ (1+\text{DOP})^2\cos^2\phi_{+} + (1-\text{DOP})^2\sin^2\phi_{-} - 2 (1-\text{DOP}^2)\cos\phi_{\alpha}\sin\phi_{\beta}\sin(\frac{|S|t}{\hbar}-\phi_{+}+ \phi_{-})]$, where $\phi_{+}$ ($\phi_{-}$) is the angle of the optical axis for $|\Psi_{+}^{X}\rangle $ ($|\Psi_{-}^{X}\rangle $).
In the absence of stress, the exciton eigen states of the $x$-elongated QD are $x$- and $y$-polarized (also referred to as $H$- and $V$-polarizations) and represented by the Bloch vectors pointing at the north and south-poles of the Bloch sphere as depicted by Fig. \[fig4\](a). Thus, a $R$-polarized initial superposition state evolves on the equator around the axis connecting the north- and south-poles and the $H$-polarization projection of the temporally evolved state remains constant. Applying a compressive stress of $\sigma=-0.2$GPa to the QD tilts the plane of the free-precession circular motion by $\theta_X=110^\circ$ with $\phi_X=0^\circ$, as depicted by the schematics in the left inset of Fig. \[fig6\](b) and the upper inset of Fig. \[fig7\]. It turns out that the $R$-polarized initial state evolves along another different path (See the inset of Fig. \[fig7\]), which starts from the $R$-polarized state at the equator, moves upwards but not pass the north-pole, and then turn downwards to complete the circle. Correspondingly, the $H$-polarization projection of the exciton superposition state of the compressed QD oscillates temporally at the angular frequency equal $|S|/\hbar$ as shown in Fig. \[fig7\]. Similarly, a $R$-polarized initial superposition exciton state for the QD under tensile stress evolves on another circular path whose enclosed plane orientated in different direction that is titled from the north pole towards the equator by $\theta_X=100^\circ$ with $\phi_X=180^\circ$ (See the lower inset of Fig. \[fig7\]). As a result, the temporal oscillation of the $H$-polarization projection of the same initial exciton superposition state prepared for the same QD but with tensile stress shows to be in the opposite phase. The distinct dynamical features in Fig. \[fig7\] for the same QD but under different stresses indicates the possibility of the free access of any desired exciton superposition states by appropriately stressing a QD prior to an optical polarized excitation.
Summary
=======
In summary, we present numerical investigations based on the Luttinger-Kohn four-band $k \cdot p$ theory and, accordingly, establish a valid simplified model of excitonic fine structures of droplet epitaxial GaAs/AlGaAs quantum dots under uni-axial stress control. In the formalisms, an applied uniaxial stress to a quantum dot along a specific direction acts as a pseudo-magnetic field that is directly coupled to the pseudo-spin of exciton doublet in the fine structure of the dot, and highly tunable to tailor the level splitting and orientation of the exciton pseudo-spin. As main results, photon pairs emitted from stressed DE-QDs are predicted always non-maximal entangled (referred to as hyper-entanglement), and a prior mechanically preparation of any desired exciton fine structure states of a QD photon source is shown feasible. The both features are associated with the valence-band-mixings in the exciton states that are especially sensitive to and controllable by external stresses for inherently unstrained droplet epitaxial quantum dots.
Acknowledgements
================
The authors gratefully acknowledge O. G. Schmidt, A. Rastelli, and K. Santosh (IFW Dresden) for inspiring this theoretical work. This work is supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan (Contract No. NSC-100-2112-M-009-013-MY2), and the National Center of Theoretical Sciences.
[00]{}
O. Benson, C. Santori, M. Pelton, and Y. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 2513 (2000).
A. J. Bennett, M. A. Pooley, R. M. Stevenson, M. B.Ward, R. B. Patel, A. Boyer de la Giroday, N. Sköld, I. Farrer, C. A. Nicoll, D. A. Ritchie and A. J. Shields, Nature Phys. [**6**]{}, 947 (2010).
A. Mohan, M. Felici, P. Gallo, B. Dwir, A. Rudra, J. Faist and E. Kapon, Nature Photon. [**4**]{}, 302 (2010).
R. Trotta, E. Zallo, C. Ortix, P. Atkinson, J. D. Plumhof, J. van den Brink, A. Rastelli, and O. G. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 147401 (2012).
T. Kuroda, T. Mano, N. Ha, H. Nakajima, H. Kumano, B. Urbaszek, M. Jo, M. Abbarchi, Y. Sakuma, K. Sakoda, I. Suemune, X. Marie, and T. Amand, Phys. Rev. B [**88**]{}, 041306(R) (2013).
Y. Benny, S. Khatsevich, Y. Kodriano, E. Poem, R. Presman, D. Galushko, P. M. Petroff, and D. Gershoni, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**106**]{}, 040504 (2011).
Y. Kodriano, I. Schwartz, E. Poem, Y. Benny, R. Presman, T. A. Truong, P. M. Petroff, and D. Gershoni, Phys. Rev. B. [**85**]{}, 241304(R) (2012).
R. Singh and G. Bester, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 196803 (2010).
G. W. Bryant, M. Zielinski, N. Malkova, J. Sims, W. Jaskolski, and J. Aizpurua, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 067404 (2010).
R. Seguin, A. Schliwa, S. Rodt, K. Potschke, U. W. Pohl, and D. Bimberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 257402 (2005).
M. Gong, W. Zhang, G.-C. Guo, and L. He, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**106**]{}, 227401 (2011).
H. Y. Ramirez, C. H. Lin, C. C. Chao, Y. Hsu, W. T. You, S. Y. Huang, Y. T. Chen, H. C. Tseng, W. H. Chang, S. D. Lin, and S. J. Cheng, Phys. Rev. B [**81**]{}, 245324 (2010).
M. A. Pooley, A. J. Bennett, I. Farrer, D. A. Ritchie, and A. J. Shields, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**103**]{}, 031105 (2013).
S. H. Baek, J. Park, D. M. Kim, V. A. Aksyuk, R. R. Das, S. D. Bu, D. A. Felker, J. Lettieri,V. Vaithyanathan, S. S. N. Bharadwaja, N. Bassiri-Gharb, Y. B. Chen, H. P. Sun, C. M. Folkman, H. W. Jang, D. J. Kreft, S. K. Streiffer, R. Ramesh, X. Q. Pan, S. Trolier-McKinstry, D. G. Schlom, M. S. Rzchowski, R. H. Blick, C. B. Eom, Science [**334**]{}, 958 (2011).
M. V. Gustafsson, P. V. Santos, G. Johansson and P. Delsing, Nature Phys. [**8**]{}, 338 (2012).
M. Kataoka, R. J. Schneble, A. L. Thorn, C. H.W. Barnes, C. J. B. Ford, D. Anderson, G. A. C. Jones, I. Farrer, D. A. Ritchie, and M. Pepper, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 046801 (2007).
F. Guinea, M. I. Katsnelson and A. K. Geim, Nature Phys. [**27**]{}, 30 (2009).
F. de Juan, A. Cortijo, M. A. H. Vozmediano and A. Cano, Nature Phys. [**7**]{}, 810 (2011)
A. G. White, D. F. V. James, P. H. Eberhard, and P. G. Kwiat, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 3103 (1999).
P. H. Eberhard, Phys. Rev. A [**47**]{}, R747 (1993).
H. Y. Ramirez and S.-J. Cheng, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 206402 (2010).
S. L. Chuang, Physics of Photonic Devices (Wiley, Hoboken, 2009).
A. Schliwa, M. Winkelnkemper, and D. Bimberg, Phys. Rev. B [**76**]{}, 205324 (2007).
Y. H. Liao, C. C. Liao, C. H. Ku, Y. C. Chang, and S. J. Cheng, M. Jo, T. Kuroda, T. Mano, M. Abbarchi, and K. Sakoda, Phys. Rev. B [**86**]{}, 115323 (2012).
E. Kadantsev and P. Hawrylak, Phys. Rev. B [**81**]{}, 045311 (2010).
T. Takagahara, Phys. Rev. B, [**62**]{}, 16840 (2000).
W. Ekardt, K. Lösch, D. Bimberg, Phys. Rev. B [**20**]{}, 3303 (1979).
G. Allan and C. Delerue, Phys. Rev. B 86, 165437 (2012).
J. Kumar, S. Kapoor, S. K. Gupta, and P. K. Sen, Phys. Rev. B [**74**]{}, 115326 (2006).
C. H. Lin, W. T. You, H. Y. Chou, S. J. Cheng, S. D. Lin, and W. H. Chang, Phys. Rev. B [**83**]{}, 075317 (2011).
S. Kumar, E. Zallo, Y. H. Liao, P. Y. Lin, R. Trotta, P. Atkinson, J. D. Plumhof, F. Ding, B. D. Gerardot, S. J. Cheng, A. Rastelli, and O. G. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. B [**89**]{}, 115309 (2014).
J. D. Plumhof, V. Krapek, F. Ding, K. D. Jons, R. Hafenbrak, P. Klenovsky, A. Herklotz, K. Dorr, P. Michler, A. Rastelli, and O. G. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. B [**83**]{}, 121302(R) (2011).
Y. Léger, L. Besombes, L. Maingault, and H. Mariette, Phys. Rev. B [**76**]{}, 045331 (2007).
For the model calculations throughout this work, we take the parameters of QD, $l_x^e=5.9$nm, $l_y^e=5.6$nm, $l_z^e=2.9$nm, $l_x^{h}=6.6$nm, $l_y^{h}=6.1$nm, and $l_z^{h}=2.3$nm, which are extracted by fitting the numerically calculated wave functions of the QD considered in Fig.\[fig2\].
E. Poem, O. Kenneth, Y. Kodriano, Y. Benny, S. Khatsevich, J. E. Avron, and D. Gershoni, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**107**]{}, 087401 (2011).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Multidimensional fitting (MDF) method is a multivariate data analysis method recently developed and based on the fitting of distances. Two matrices are available: one contains the coordinates of the points and the second contains the distances between the same points. The idea of MDF is to modify the coordinates through modification vectors in order to fit the new distances calculated on the modified coordinates to the given distances. In the previous works, the modification vectors are taken as deterministic variables, so here we want to take into account the random effects that can be produce during the modification. An application in the sensometric domain is also given.'
author:
- |
Hiba Alawieh\
Laboratoire Paul Painlevé, UFR de mathématiques,\
Université Lille 1, $59650$ Villeneuve d’Ascq, France.\
\
Frédéric Bertrand\
IRMA, Université de Strasbourg & CNRS,\
67084, Strasbourg, France.\
\
Myriam Maumy-Bertrand\
IRMA, Université de Strasbourg & CNRS,\
67084, Strasbourg, France.\
\
Nicolas Wicker\
Laboratoire Paul Painlevé, UFR de mathématiques,\
Université Lille 1, $59650$ Villeneuve d’Ascq, France.\
\
Baydaa Al Ayoubi\
Département de mathématiques appliquées,\
Faculté des sciences, Université libanaise,\
Beyrouth, Liban.
title: A random model for multidimensional fitting method
---
Introduction
============
Multidimensional data matrices are encountered in many disciplines of science as in biological domain studying the gene expression data [@gene1; @gene2], the geographical domain analysing the spatial earthquake data [@geo], in financial market data for portfolio construction and assessment [@fin] and many others domains. The complexity of matrices can be observed for example when a variable is informative only for a subset of data which render the application of some statistical methods too hard. Therefore, multidimensional data analysis [@Mardia1979] refers to the process of summarizing data across multiple dimensions and presenting the results in a reduced dimension space. Several well-known methods exist which perform dimension reduction as principal component analysis, multiple correspondence analysis, multidimensional scaling, and others. A new method of multidimensional data analysis called multidimensional fitting (MDF) was introduced and studied in [@MDF] and [@PMDF]. This method is a new method of fitting distances used in data analysis and requires two observed matrices, the target matrix and the reference matrix. The idea of MDF method is to modify the coordinates given by the target matrix in order to fit the new distances calculated on these modified coordinates to distances given by the reference matrix. In [@MDF] and [@PMDF], the authors consider the displacement vectors as deterministic vectors and the random effect that can be produced during the modification and can affect the interpretation of the modification significance is not taken into account.
In this article we want to introduce the random effect in the model of MDF method and to find then the real displacement vectors. Here, the minimization of the mean square error between the new distances and the reference distances performed in the deterministic model of MDF, to obtain the optimal values of displacement vectors, cannot be applied for the random model as the objective function here is a random variable. Therefore, we want to use different ways to find these vectors.
First of all, the random model of MDF is presented in Section $\ref{sec1}$, then in Sections $\ref{SecMin}$ and $\ref{secSim}$, two ways to obtain the optimal values of displacement vectors are illustrated. After that, an application in the sensometric domain has been presented in Section $\ref{secApp}$ in order to fit the sensory profiles of products to consumers preferences of these products. Finally, we conclude our work in Section $\ref{SecConc}$.
The random model of multidimensional fitting {#sec1}
============================================
Let us consider a target matrix $X=(X_1|\dots|X_n)$ which contains the coordinates of $n$ points in $\mathbb{R}^{^p}$ with $p>1$ in $\mathbb{R}$ and a reference matrix $D=\{d_{ij}\}$ which contains the distances between the same $n$ points. We note $f$ the modification function such as: $$f(X_i)=X_i+L_i,$$ where for $i=1,\dots,n$, the vectors $X_i$ and $ L_i$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^{^{p}} $ are, respectively, the coordinate and the displacement vectors of point $i$.
The problem of MDF is a mean square error minimization and the error, noted $\Delta$, defined by: $$\Delta=\sum_{1\leq i<j\leq n} \left( d_{ij}-a \delta_{ij}\right)^2$$ where $\delta_{ij}=\lVert f(X_i)-f(X_j) \rVert_{_2}=||X_{i}+L_{i}-X_{j}-L_{j}||_{_2}$ and $a$ a real scaling variable. We note: $e_{ij}=(d_{ij}-a \delta_{ij})^2\cdot$
Owing to the negligence of random effects that can occur during modification, the interpretation of the displacements can be erroneous. Thereby, to tackle this problem we introduce the random effects in the modification function. So, the new modification function is given by: $$f(X_i)=X_i+\theta_i+\varepsilon_i,$$ where $\theta_i$ and $\varepsilon_i$ in $ {\mathbb{R}}^{^{p}}$ are, respectively, the fixed and random part of modification.
Contrary to what has been seen above, $\delta_{ij}$ here is a random variable and not a deterministic value, for all $1 \leq i<j\leq n$, so the error $\Delta$ cannot be minimized directly. Deterministic and stochastic optimization are presented to find the optimum value of vectors $(\theta_1,\dots,\theta_n)$:
- Deterministic optimization: by minimizing a function depending on vectors $\theta_1,\dots,\theta_n$ with consideration that the components of vectors $\varepsilon_i$, for all $i=1,\dots,n$, are independently and identically normally distributed.
- Stochastic optimization: by simulating the error $\Delta$ where the components of vectors $\varepsilon_i$ for all $i=1,\dots,n$ are dependent and not normally distributed.
Calculation of $(\theta^*_1,\dots,\theta^*_n)$ by minimization {#SecMin}
==============================================================
In this section, we suppose that the components of vector $\varepsilon_i$ denoted $\varepsilon_{ik}$, for all $i=1,\dots,n$ and $k=1,\dots,p$, are $p$-dimensional independent and identically distributed random variables where the vector $\varepsilon_i$ is multivariate normally distributed with mean $\mathbb{E}(\varepsilon_i)=\textbf{0}$ (the vector $\textbf{0}$ in $\mathbb{R}^{^{p}}$ is the null vector) and variance $\mathbb{V}ar(\varepsilon_i)=\sigma^2 I_p$ ($\sigma$ is a strictly positive value to be fixed and $I_p$ is the identity matrix).
We note $\Gamma$ a $n \times n$ matrix that contains the distances between the points after modification. The objective function of the minimization problem called $g({D}, \Gamma)$ can be expressed in different forms. We cite below some of them: $$\begin{array}{cccc}
g: & \mathcal{M}_{n\times n}(\mathbb{R}) \times \mathcal{M}_{n\times n}(\mathbb{R}) & \longmapsto & \mathbb{R}\\
& ({D}, \Gamma) & \longmapsto & \begin{cases}
\begin{array}{c}
\mathbb{E}(\Vert {D}-a \Gamma \Vert_2^2) \\
\text{ }\text{med}(\Vert {D}- a \Gamma \Vert_2^2)\\
\text{ } \text{minmax}(\Vert {D}-a \Gamma \Vert_2^2)\\
\text{ }\Vert {D}-a \ \mathbb{E}(\Gamma) \Vert_2^2 \\
\text{ }\Vert {D}-a \ \text{med}(\Gamma) \Vert_2^2 \\
\text{ }\Vert \text{minmax}({D}-a \Gamma) \Vert_2^2. \\
\end{array}\end{cases}
\end{array}$$
In our work, we are interested to take $g({D}, \Gamma)=\mathbb{E}(\Vert {D}-a\Gamma \Vert_{_2}^2)$. The expression of $\Vert {D}-a\Gamma \Vert_{_2}^2$ noted $\Delta$ (as the mean square error cited above) can be rewritten as: $$\Delta=\displaystyle \sum_{1\leq i < j \leq n} (d_{ij}-a \Vert X_i+\theta_i+\varepsilon_i -X_j -\theta_j -\varepsilon_j \Vert_{_2})^2\cdot$$
The problem here is to find the vectors ($\theta^*_1, \dots, \theta^*_n$) such that the minimum of $\mathbb{E}(\Delta)$ under ($\theta_1, \dots, \theta_n$) is reached. The initial optimization problem (P$_0$) is defined by: $$(\text{P}_0): \underset{\theta_1,\dots,\theta_n \in \mathbb{R}^{^p}}{\text{min }} \mathbb{E}(\Delta)\cdot$$
The optimal solution obtained from (P$_0$) is a solution assigns the smallest value to $\mathbb{E}(\Delta)$ but moves too many points. So, it is a good solution from minimization standpoint, but awkward from parsimony standpoint.
A new optimization problem is presented to find the optimal vectors $(\theta^*_1,\dots,\theta^*_n)$ by taking into account the minimization of the expectation of $\Delta$ and the parsimonious choice of displacements. A natural approach to obtain such sparsity solution is to use the number of non-zero displacements as a penalty. So, a penalty term can be defined, using $\ell_0$-norm, as $\sum_{i=1}^n\rVert \theta_i \lVert_{_0}$ where $$\rVert . \lVert_{_0}=\# (i=1,\dots,n; k=1,\dots,p|\ \theta_{ik}=0)$$ is the $\ell_0$ norm which measures the parsimony of the displacements of points. Thus, a new optimization problem called (P$_1$) is given by: $$(\text{P}_1): \underset{\theta_1,\dots,\theta_n \in \mathbb{R}^{^p}}{\min} \hspace{2mm}\mathbb{E}(\Delta)+\eta \sum_{i=1}^n\lVert\theta_{i}\rVert_{_{0}},\\\\$$ with $\eta$ is a positive regularization parameter to be chosen. It controls the trade-off between the minimization of the expectation of the error and the use of a parsimonious number of displacements.
Choice of regularization parameter
-----------------------------------
In different penalization problems as the penalized regression or penalized likelihood methods for high dimensional data analysis [@PL], the choice of regularization parameter is always crucial to lead good results attached to the problem at hand. Different methods have been introduced to find the good value of this parameter (see [@pen1],[@pen2]). Some practical approaches consist in comparing different models using a sequence of penalization parameter and then choose the best of them using some model selection criteria like Cross-validation (CV) ([@cv1], [@cv2]), Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) [@aic] and Bayes Information Criterion (BIC) [@bic].
In our model, the choice of the value of $\eta$ is related to the number of displacements. With the same practical concept as the approaches presented in the literature, we want to solve the optimization problem (P$_1$) by taking different values of $\eta$, and as our problem is related to the number of displacements so we choose a value of $\eta$ that takes into account the number of points that must be modified in our data to fit the references distances. This number of points can be computed from the data or fixed by the number of displacements that we want to perform. So, the chosen number of displacements can be taken by two ways:
- through the posed problem,
- using the data.
Obviously, first way is trivial. Indeed, it is sufficient an user or a company choose a fixed number of displacements that wish perform to find the desirable solution. Accordingly, fixing the number of displacements can be interesting to companies because in some cases a displacement can be difficult and expensive therefore it is suitable for them to fix at the beginning the number of displacements. For the second way, the number of displacements can be calculated using the data. Therefore, a criterion of points selection defined below is used to choose the number of displacements.
### Criterion for selection points {#Secrho}
The number of displacements is related to the number of points that are misplaced in their initial configuration and need movements to fit their reference distances. For that, we have developed a simple criterion based on the error calculated on the initial data before data modification. This criterion for selection of the points is denoted $\rho_i$.
Indeed, for $i=1,\dots,n$ and $j=i+1,\dots, n$, we calculate the following difference: $$r_{ij}=(d_{ij}-a\lVert X_i-X_j\rVert_{_2})^2.$$ Note that $r_{ij}$ is equivalent to $e_{ij}$ with $L_i=L_j=0$.
Then, for each $i=1,\dots, n$, the criterion for selection points is defined as: $$\rho_{i}=\frac{\displaystyle{\sum_{m=1,m\neq i}^{n}r_{im}}}{\displaystyle{\sum_{1 \leq i<j\leq n}^{n} r_{ij}}}\cdot$$
The values of $\rho_i$ are between $0$ and $1$ so, for fixed value $\varrho \in [0,1]$ which is chosen through the value of $\rho_i$:
- if $\rho_i\leq \varrho$, then $i$ is considered as correctly placed point,
- else, $i$ is considered as misplaced point.
Now, in order to verify the interest of the modification of coordinates so as to approximate the distances, we want to perform a statistical test on the displacement vectors ($\theta^*_1, \dots,\theta^*_n$).
Statistical test for the displacement vectors $(\theta^*_1,\dots,\theta^*_n)$ {#Sectest}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we want to present a statistical test for the displacement vectors $\theta_i$ for all $i=1,\dots,n$. This test is based on the hypothesis of displacements significance. Recall the error: $$\Delta=\displaystyle \sum_{1\leq i<j\leq n} \left(d_{ij}-a\lVert X_{i}+\theta_{i}+\varepsilon_{i}-X_{j}-\theta_{j}-\varepsilon_j \rVert_{_{2}} \right)^2.$$\[eqE1\]
We note $\Delta_0$ the initial error given by: $$\Delta_0=\sum_{1 \leq i <j \leq n} (d_{ij}-a \Vert X_i+\varepsilon_i-X_j-\varepsilon_j\Vert_{_2})^2.$$
The two hypothesis of the statistical test are:
$$\begin{cases}
\begin{array}{cc}
&(\mathcal{H}_{0}):\\
\\
&(\mathcal{H}_{1}):
\end{array} & \begin{array}{cc}
\text{For } (\theta^*_{1}, \dots, \theta^*_n) \text{ such that } d_{ij}=a\lVert X_i+\theta_i-X_j-\theta_j\rVert_{_2},\text{ for all }(i,j),\\
\text{ the initial error } \Delta_0 \text{ and the error }\Delta \text{ calculated from }\\
\text{the vectors }(\theta^*_1,\dots,\theta^*_n) \text{ have the same distribution.}\\
\text{ The initial error }\Delta_0 \text{ and the error } \Delta \text{ calculated from the vectors }\\
(\theta^*_1,\dots,\theta^*_n)
\text{have not the same distribution.}
\end{array}\end{cases}$$
The error $\Delta$ is the test statistic and the decision rule is the following: $$\text{Rejection of } (\mathcal{H}_0) \Leftrightarrow \mathbb{P}_{\mathcal{H}_0}[\text{Reject }(\mathcal{H}_0)]\leq \alpha\Leftrightarrow \mathbb{P}_{\mathcal{H}_0}[\Delta\geq \Delta_c]\leq\alpha\cdot$$
To perform this test, we use the Bienaymé-Tchebychev inequality: $$\forall \gamma>0, \hspace{2mm }\mathbb{P}[|\Delta-\mathbb{E}(\Delta)| \geq \gamma]\leq \frac{\mathbb{V}ar(\Delta)}{\gamma^2}\cdot$$
Moreover, we suppose that the random effect is injected in the observation so instead of observing $X_i$ we observe $X_i+\varepsilon_i$. Then, by choosing $\gamma=|\Delta_0-\mathbb{E}(\Delta)|$, the ratio $\displaystyle \frac{\mathbb{V}ar(\Delta)}{\gamma^2}$ can be considered as $p$-value. So, if it is small than $\alpha$ then we reject the null hypothesis $(\mathcal{H}_0)$ with $\alpha$ is the error of type I.
computation of expectation and variance of error $\Delta$ are done in appendix. The results obtained in the appendix are valid for any values of $\theta_1,\dots,\theta_n$. Therefore, under the hypothesis $(\mathcal{H}_0)$ it is sufficient to replace $\Vert X_i+\theta_i-X_j-\theta_j\Vert_{_2}$ by $d_{ij}$.
The optimization problem
------------------------
Once hypothesis $(\mathcal{H}_0)$ is rejected, the vectors ($\theta^*_1,\dots,\theta^*_n$) can be calculated by solving problem (P$_1$).
Using the results of appendix $\ref{App2}$, the expectation of the error $\Delta$ has been calculated from the expectation of the non-central chi-squared and non-central chi distribution.
The expectation of the error $\Delta$ is: $$\displaystyle \mathbb{E}(\Delta)=\sum_{1\leq i<j\leq n} \left[ d_{ij}^2 +2a^2\sigma^2(p+\lambda^2_{ij})-2\sqrt{\pi}a \sigma d_{ij} \mathcal{L}_{\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{p}{2}-1}\left(-\frac{\lambda_{ij}^2}{2}\right) \right], \label{eqEsp}$$ where $\displaystyle \lambda_{ij}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\sigma}\lVert X_i+\theta_i-X_j-\theta_j\rVert_{_2}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{\nu}^{\gamma}(x)$ is the generalized Laguerre polynomial [@laguerre].
The optimization problem (P$_1$) can rewritten as: $$(\text{P}_1): \underset{\theta_1,\dots,\theta_n \in \mathbb{R}^{^p}}{\min} \hspace{2mm}a^2\lVert X_i+\theta_i-X_j-\theta_j\rVert^2_{_2}-2\sqrt{\pi}a \sigma d_{ij} \mathcal{L}_{\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{p}{2}-1}\left(-\frac{\lVert X_i+\theta_i-X_j-\theta_j\rVert^2_{_2}}{4\sigma^2}\right) +\eta \sum_{i=1}^n\lVert\theta_{i}\rVert_{_{0}},\\\\$$
Calculation of $(\theta^*_1,\dots,\theta^*_n)$ by simulation {#secSim}
============================================================
In this section, we suppose that the $p$ components of $\varepsilon_i$ are dependent or/and not necessarily normally distributed so the application of chi-squared and chi distributions becomes impossible. Therefore, we want to present an algorithm noted Algorithm $1$ which allows us to find the optimal vectors $\theta^*_1,\dots,\theta^*_n$ using Metropolis-Hastings [@MH1].
Simulation tools {#seKT}
----------------
Different tools used in algorithm $1$ and associated to the generation of vectors $\theta_1,\dots,\theta_n$ in order to minimize the error $\Delta$ are presented in the follow.
### Identification of misplaced and correctly placed sets {#SelP}
The set of points can be divided into two subsets:
- The first, noted $W$, having size equal to $n_W$. This subset contains the points that are correctly placed and should not be moved.
- The second, noted $M$, having size equal to $n_M$. This subset contains the points that are misplaced and must be moved.
The criterion for points selection $\rho_i$ presented in Section $\ref{Secrho}$ is used to construct these two subsets.
### Movement of set $M$
The subset $M$ contains the misplaced points that must be moved in order to fit the reference distances. In this section, the work is concentrated to find movements for the subset $M$ approaching as possible as the distances calculated after movements to the reference distances. The movements that can be applied to $M$ are translation, scaling and rotation. The scaling movement is not interest in our study as the subsets $W$ and $M$ are in the same scale seen that are derived from the same set of points and the scaling variable $a$ presented in the optimization problem of MDF is kept. Moreover, we suppose that the points inside $M$ are well concentrated so that the rotation movement can be neglected. That is why we are just interested on the translation movement. The translation of $M$ through a vector $B\in \mathbb{R}^{^{p}}$ can be shown as the translation of each points in $M$. So, the translation of a point $j\in M$ is given by: $Y_j+B$ where $Y_j \in \mathbb{R}^{^p}$ is the coordinate vector of point $j$.
The translation movement is performed in such a way to approach the distances calculated after translation to the distances given by the reference matrix. Thus, find the vector $B$ return to solve the following optimization problem: $$(\mathcal{P}): \underset{B \in \mathbb{R}^{^{p}} }{\min} \sum_{i\in W}\sum_{j\in M} \left(d_{ij}^{2}-a\parallel X_{i}-Y_{j}-B \parallel_{_2}^{2}\right)^{2}.$$
In order to simplify the problem $(\mathcal{P})$, we suppose that for all $i\in W$ and $j\in M$, $d_{ij}^{2}-a \parallel X_{i}-Y_{j}-b\parallel_{_2}^{2} \geq 0$ and the problem $(\mathcal{P})$ becomes: $$(\mathcal{P}_{1})\begin{cases}
\begin{array}{c}
\\
\text{s.t}
\end{array} & \begin{array}{c}
\underset{B \in \mathbb{R}^{^{p}}}{\min}\displaystyle{\sum_{i\in W}\sum_{j\in M}}\left(d_{ij}^{2}-a \parallel X_{i}-Y_{j}-B\parallel^{2}_{_2}\right)\\
\forall i\in W \text{ and } j\in M, \ d_{ij}^{2}-a \parallel X_{i}-Y_{j}-B\parallel_{_2}^{2} \geq 0\cdot
\end{array}\end{cases}$$ **Relaxation of problem $(\mathcal{P}_{1})$:** The following problem $(\mathcal{P}_{2})$ can easily solved and provide a starting point to resolve $(\mathcal{P}_{1})$. We have:
$$\begin{aligned}
(\mathcal{P}_{2}): & \displaystyle{ \sum_{i\in W}\sum_{j\in M}\left(d_{ij}^{2}-a \parallel X_{i}-Y_{j}-B\parallel_{_2}^{2}\right)}=0 \label{eqnul} \\
\Leftrightarrow & \displaystyle{\sum_{i\in W}\sum_{j\in M}}a \left(\parallel X_{i}-Y_{j}\parallel_{_2}^{2}+\parallel B\parallel_{_2}^{2}-2\langle X_{i}-Y_{j},B\rangle\right)-\displaystyle{\sum_{i\in W}\sum_{j\in M}}d_{ij}^{2}=0\nonumber\\
\Leftrightarrow & a\parallel B\parallel_{_2}^{2}-2a\frac{\displaystyle{\sum_{i\in W}\sum_{j\in M}}\langle X_{i}-Y_{j},B\rangle}{n_{W}n_{M}}=\frac{\displaystyle{\sum_{i\in W}\sum_{j\in M}}d_{ij}^{2}}{n_{W}n_{M}}-a \frac{ \displaystyle{\sum_{i\in W}\sum_{j\in M}} \Vert X_{i}-Y_{j}\Vert_{_2}^{2}}{n_{W}n_{M}} \cdot\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
a\left\| B-\frac{\displaystyle{\sum_{i\in W}\sum_{j\in M}} (X_{i}-Y_{j})}{n_{W}n_{M}}\right\|_2^{2}=&\frac{\displaystyle{\sum_{i\in W}\sum_{j\in M}}d_{ij}^{2}}{n_{W}n_{M}}-a\frac{\displaystyle{\sum_{i\in W}\sum_{j\in M}}\parallel X_{i}-Y_{j}\parallel_{_2}^{2}}{n_{W}n_{M}}\nonumber\\
&+a\frac{\left( \displaystyle{ \parallel \sum_{i\in W}\sum_{j\in M}} (X_{i}-Y_{j})\parallel_{_2}\right) ^2} {n^2_{W}n^2_{M}}\nonumber\cdot\end{aligned}$$
So, $$\left\| B-\frac{\displaystyle{\sum_{i\in W}\sum_{j\in M}} (X_{i}-Y_{j})}{n_{W}n_{M}}\right\|_2^{2}\leq r^2, \label{eq2}$$ with $$r^2=\left| \frac{\displaystyle{\sum_{i\in W}\sum_{j\in M}}d_{ij}^{2}}{a \ n_{W}n_{M}}-\frac{\displaystyle{\sum_{i\in W}\sum_{j\in M}}\parallel X_{i}-Y_{j} \parallel_2^{2}}{n_{W}n_{M}}+\frac{\left( \displaystyle{ \parallel \sum_{i\in W}\sum_{j\in M}} (X_{i}-Y_{j})\parallel_2\right) ^2} {n^2_{W}n^2_{M}} \right|\cdot$$
Using inequality (\[eq2\]), we can conclude that the optimal solution of the vector $B$ belongs to an hypersphere $(S)$ centered in $ C=\displaystyle \frac{\sum_{i\in W} \sum_{j\in M} (X_i-Y_j)}{n_W n_M} $ with radius $r$. As Equation (\[eqnul\]) is never equal to zero during optimization, so we take it smaller than certain real value. Therefore, the optimal solution is guened to belong to an hypersphere $(S^\xi)$ with same center $C$ as hypersphere $(S)$ but with radius equal to $r\pm\xi$ with $\xi$ a small value in $\mathbb{R}^{+}$.
We suppose that vector $B$ is uniformly distributed between $0$ and $B_{max}$, so it is necessary to find the maximal value $B_{max}$. This value is geometrically determined using Figure $\ref{figB}$. Starting with a null value of vector $B$, $B$ moves uniformly on the line $(d)$ passing by $O$ (the point where the vector $B$ is null) and $C$ to reach its maximum at the point $A$, the far intersection between $(d)$ and hypersphere $(S^\xi)$, hence the uniqueness of $A$.
(0,0) circle (2.5cm); (0,0) circle (2cm); (0,0) circle (1.5cm); (0,0) node\[below \][$C$]{} ; (-5,-3) – (5,3); (0,0) – (-2,0.4); (1,-1.1) – (1.3,-1.5); (0,-2) – (0,-2.5); (0.3,-2.7) node \[above\] [$\xi$]{}; (1.4,-1.6) node \[above\] [$\xi$]{}; (-1.2,0.1) node \[above\] [$r$]{}; (-5,-3) node \[above\] [$O$]{}; (2.1,1.2) node \[above\] [$A$]{}; (5.1,3) node \[above\] [$(d)$]{}; (0,2) node \[above\] [$(S)$]{}; in [(0,0), (2.1,1.2), (-5,-3)]{}[ at ; ]{}
To calculate the maximal solution of vector $B$, it is needed to find the far intersection of the line $(d)$ with hypersphere $(S^{\xi})$. The line $(d)$ has as direction vector the vector $OC$. So, the parametric equation of $(d)$ is equal to: $$\label{eqSS}
B=(t+1)C\cdot$$
Furthermore, we have: $$\begin{cases}
\begin{array}{c}
B=(t+1)C\\
\parallel B-C\parallel_{_2}^{^2}=(r+\xi)^{2}.
\end{array}\end{cases}$$
The intersection between $(d)$ and $(S^{\xi})$ gives: $$\begin{aligned}
\parallel(t+1)C-C\parallel_{_2}^{2}=(r+\xi)^{2}&\nonumber\\
\parallel tC \parallel_{_2}^{2}=(r+\xi)^{2}&\nonumber\\
t^2 \parallel C \parallel_{_2}^{2}=(r+\xi)^{2} &\nonumber\\
t=\pm \frac{r+\xi}{\parallel C \parallel_{_2}}\cdot& \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
We are interested by the farthest intersection, thus we take $\displaystyle t= \frac{r+\xi}{\parallel C \parallel_{_2}}\cdot$ By replacing $t$ in Equation (\[eqSS\]), we obtain: $$B_{max}=\left( \frac{r+\xi}{\parallel C \parallel_{_2}}+1 \right) C.$$
The values of $B$ can be proposed uniformly on the segment $[OA]$, so $$B \leadsto \mathcal{U}\left(0,B_{max}\right).$$
### Movement vectors generation {#MovSec}
In practice, for all $k=1, \dots, n$, we suppose that $M$ contains one point noted $l$. The choice of this point is made by a multinomial distribution $\mathcal{M}(1,\rho_1, \dots, \rho_n)$ where $\rho_k$ for $k=1,\dots,n$ is as defined in section $\ref{Secrho}$.
At instant $t$, a point $l$ chosen as misplaced point must occur a movement through the uniform distribution such as $\mathcal{U}\left(0;(\frac{r_l+\xi}{\parallel C_l \parallel}+1)C_l\right)$ with $C_l$ and $r_l$ are, respectively, the center and the radius of hypersphere $(S_l^{\xi})$ obtained by taking $M=\{l\}$. Thus, the movement of the point $l$ is equal to the movement at instant $t-1$ plus the new movement obtained by uniform distribution. Hence, we can write: $$\theta^*_l=\theta^{t-1}_l+B_l,$$ with $B_l$ is a generation value of the uniform distribution $\mathcal{U}\left(0,B^l_{max}\right)$. Noted that the equation of hypersphere given by (\[eq2\]) in each instant depends of misplaced point $l$.
We note ${\Theta}$ the sequence of $n$ generated vectors in ${\mathbb{R}}^{^{p}}$ defined by: ${\Theta}=\left(
{\theta}_{1},\dots,{\theta}_{n}
\right)$. Therefore, the passage from $\theta_l^{t-1}$ to $\theta_l^{t}$ occurs in a way to move: $$\Theta^{t-1}=(\theta_1^{t-1}, \dots, \theta_l^{t-1}, \dots, \theta_n^{t-1})$$ to $$\Theta^t=(\theta_1^{t-1}, \dots, \theta_l^{t}, \dots, \theta_n^{t-1}).$$
### Proposal distribution {#seKTR}
A proposal distribution is needed in the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm defined below. This distribution is constructed by calculating the probability to pass from $\Theta^{t-1}$ to a new generate value of $\Theta$ denoted $\Theta^*$ and it is equal to the probability to choose a point $l$ multiplied by the probability of the movement of this point. So, the proposal distribution noted $q$ is given by: $$q(\Theta^{t-1}\longrightarrow \Theta^{*})=\rho_{l} \times \frac{1}{\frac{r_{l}+\xi}{\parallel C_{l}\parallel}+1}$$ with $l$ is the chosen point.
We can easily see that this proposal distribution is a probability density function as $\sum_{i=1}^n \rho_i=1$.
Calculation of $(\theta_1,\dots,\theta_n)$ using Metropolis-Hastings algorithm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We consider that the component of vector $ \varepsilon_i$ are dependent such that $ \varepsilon_i \rightsquigarrow \mathcal{N}_p(\textbf{0},\Sigma)$, with $\Sigma$ is the covariance matrix.
The Metropolis-Hastings algorithm allows us to build a Markov chain with a desired stationary distribution [@MH1],[@MH2]. The proposal distribution here is related to the choice of vectors $\theta_i$ for $i=1,\dots,n$ and it is given in paragraph \[seKTR\]. The target distribution is given by: $$\pi(\Theta,\varepsilon)\propto{\exp\left(\frac{-E(\Theta)}{T}\right)\cdot h(\varepsilon)}$$ where $E$ is an application given by: $$\begin{array}{cccc}
E: & \mathcal{M}_{n \times p} & \longmapsto & \mathbb{R}\\
& \Theta=(\theta_{1},\ldots,\theta_{n}) & \longmapsto & \displaystyle E(\Theta)=\sum_{1 \leq i<j \leq n} \left(d_{ij}-a \Vert X_i+\theta_i-X_j -\theta_j\Vert_{_2} \right)^2,
\end{array}$$ and $h$ is the density function of the normal distribution $ \mathcal{N}_p(\textbf{0},\Sigma)$. The variable $T$ is the temperature parameter, to be fixed according to the value range of $E$.
The algorithm of Metropolis-Hastings is given as follows:\
\[algo2\]
. . . .
**Remark:** The error $ \varepsilon_i$ can be distributed through any other distribution other than the Gaussian distribution, so it is sufficient to generate the vector $\varepsilon_i$ using this distribution instead the normal distribution in algorithm 1.
Application {#secApp}
===========
This random model of multidimensional fitting has been applied in the sensometrics domain. This relatively young domain concerns the analysis of data from sensory science in order to develop a product by linking sensory attributes to ingredients, benefits, values and emotional elements of the brand to design products that meet the sensory quality preferences of sensory-based consumer segments [@Tortila]. This analysis of product characteristics among consumers gives an overview of the positive and negative aspects of products and aid the companies to better meet consumer tastes. So, the problem here is to fit the consumers scores to the product configuration given by the experts in order to find the ideal sensory profile of a product. Thus, two matrices are at disposal, one contains the consumer scores of products and the second the sensory profile of products given by the experts.
Several modelling techniques have been applied in sensory analysis domain like preference mapping which is the must popular of them. They can be divided into two methods: internal and external analysis [@Sen]. These methods have as objective to visually assess the relationship between the product space and patterns of preference [@Sen2]. In our application, we want to use the random model of multidimensional fitting to match as well as possible the sensory profile to the consumers preference of a product. White corn tortilla chips and muscadine grape juice data sets are used in our application.
Data description
----------------
White corn tortilla chips data set has been studied in [@Tortila] where $80$ consumers rated $11$ commercially available toasted white corn tortilla chip products for overall liking, appearance liking, and flavor liking. The names of these $11$ tortilla chip products and their labels are given in the Table $\ref{tabname1}$. Moreover, a group of $9$ Spectrum trained panelists evaluated apperance, flavor and texture attributes of tortilla chips using the Spectrum Method [@Sen] (Sensory Spectrum Inc., Chantham, NJ, U.S.A.). This data set is available at “<http://www.sensometric.org/datasets>” and it is composed from consumers notes table and panelists notes table. The first table is constructed after asked each consumer to evaluate liking, appearance, flavor and texture of each tortilla chips sample on a 9-point dedonic scale and the saltiness on 5-point ’JustAboutRight’ (JAR) (for more information about the scale, visit “[ http://www.sensorysociety.org/knowledge/sspwiki/Pages/The209-point20Hedonic20Scale.aspx]( http://www.sensorysociety.org/knowledge/sspwiki/Pages/The209-point20Hedonic20Scale.aspx)”). The second table is obtained after the evaluation of the $9$ panelists for flavor, texture and appearance attributes of all the chips and after that the calculation of the average score for each attribute. The total number of attributes studied in panelists notes table is $37$, we note some of them: sweet, salt, sour, lime, astringent, grain complex, toasted corn, raw corn, masa, toasted grain…
The application of our method requires a target and reference matrices. The target matrix is given by the panelists notes table, so the dimension of this matrix is $11 \times 37$ and the reference matrix is a matrix of dimension $11 \times 11$ and contains the Euclidean distances between the different tortilla chip samples calculated using the consumers notes table.
Muscadine grape juice data set is well studied in [@Juice], and it is composed from the scores of $61$ consumers and the average score for $15$ attributes given by $9$ panelists. This data is available at “<http://www.sensometric.org/datasets>”. Consumers evaluated $10$ muscadine grape juices for overall impression, appearance, aroma, color, and flavor. The name of the $10$ studied muscadine grape cultivars are given in the Table $\ref{tabname2}$. These $10$ juices are examined for aroma, basic tastes, aromatics, feeling factors by the group of Sensory Spectrum trained panelists. Likewise to white corn tortilla chips data set, this data set is composed from two tables: consumers notes table and panelists notes table. The first table contains the consumers evaluation of overall impression, appearance, aroma, color and flavor on the 9-point hedonic scale and the second one contains the average score for each attribute after evaluation of the $9$ panelists for the basic tastes, aromatics and feeling factors attributes for all muscadine juices.
The target matrix here is a matrix of dimension $10 \times 15$ constructed by the average score given by the panelists and the reference matrix is a matrix of dimension $10 \times 10$ constructed by the Euclidean distances between the consumers scores for the different cultivars of muscadine grape juices. To quote some of the studied attributes: sweet, sour, cooked muscadine, cooked grape, musty, green unripe, floral apple/pear, fermented …
**Tortilla Chip names** abb.
---------------------------- ------
Best Yet White Corn BYW
Green Mountain Gringo GMG
Guy’s Restaurant Rounds GUY
Medallion White Corn MED
Mission Strips MIS
Mission Triangle MIT
Oak Creek Farms-White Corn OAK
Santita’s SAN
Tostito’s Bite Size TOB
Tom’s White Corn TOM
Tostito’s Restaurant Style TOR
: Muscadine grape juice names and labels[]{data-label="tabname2"}
**Muscadine juice names** abb.
--------------------------- ------ -- --
Black Beauty BB
Carlos CA
Granny Val GV
Ison IS
Nestitt ME
Commercial Red CR
Commercial White CW
Southern Home SH
Summit SUM
Supreme SUP
: Muscadine grape juice names and labels[]{data-label="tabname2"}
Experimental setup
------------------
Random model of multidimensional fitting method is applied in the independent and dependent cases of the components of vectors $\varepsilon_i$ for $i=1,\dots,n$. The presence of Laguerre polynomial $\mathcal{L}_{\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{p}{2}-1}\left(-\frac{\lambda_{ij}^2}{2}\right)$ in the objective function of problem (P$_1$) complicates the optimization and makes the computation time too long. A way to simplify the optimization resolution is to calculate before the optimization a large set of Laguerre polynomial values corresponding to a large possible values of $\lambda^2_{ij}$ as the Laguerre polynomial presented in the expectation of the error $\Delta$ is related to the value of $\lambda_{ij}^2$. So we define $Z$ a set in $\mathbb{R}$ which contains many possible values of $\lambda_{ij}^2$ that can be used during the optimization. For all $1 \leq i<j \leq n$, the value of $\lambda_{ij}^2$ is proportional to the distance $\Vert X_i+\theta_i-X_j-\theta_j\Vert_{_2}^2$ thus the set $Z$ is related to the data set by the value of $d^2_{ij}$ for all $i,j$ as the objective of our optimization problem is to approach $\Vert X_i+\theta_i-X_j-\theta_j\Vert_{_2}$ to $d_{ij}$. Therefore, we define $Z$ as follows: $Z=[-\overline{d^2}/(4 \sigma^2)+\ell,0]$ where $\overline{d^2}$ is the mean of squared distances $d_{ij}$ and $\ell$ is a value which gives the length of $Z$ and related to the maximal value of $d^2_{ij}$ in order to cover the largest possible values of $\lambda^2_{ij}$. The increment between the elements of $Z$ is taken equal to $10^{-2}$. After that, during optimization, each value of $\lambda_{ij}^2$ calculated with a particular $\theta_i$ and $\theta_j$ is replaced by the nearest value in $Z$ and the Laguerre polynomial value associated to this value is injected directly in the objective function. This simplification gives results close to the results obtained directly by optimizing (P$_1$) and reduce thousandth times the resolution time.
Moreover, the choice of $\sigma$ and the scale parameter $a$ are crucial to obtain good results. Therefore, the value of $\sigma$ is taken equal to the mean of the $p$ standard deviation calculated on the target matrix $X$, so we can write $\displaystyle \sigma=\frac{\sum_{k=1}^p \sigma_k}{p}$. Concerning the parameter $a$, we calculate it using the following algorithm:
\[algoa\] . . .
NLopt library (Version 2.4.2) [@Nlopt] implanted in language $C$ a free and open-source library is used to solve problem (P${_1}$) as this problem is a non-linear and non-convex optimization problem. In this library, numerous algorithms exist to solve such non-linear optimization problems. In our application, we choose Sbplx algorithm which is based on Subplex method [@Subplex] that is a generalization of Nelder-mead simplex.
Concerning simulation algorithm, the covariance matrix $\Sigma$ is given by the covariance of matrix $X$ multiply by a constant $c$. The parameter $\xi$ presented in the proposal distribution is taken equal to $10^{-4}$. Concerning the temperature parameter, we take it equal to $T=100$. Moreover, during simulation, the number of iterations is taken equal to $N_1=300$.
Results
-------
### Optimization results
First, we want to define the different values of parameters $a$, $\sigma$ and $\ell$ for the two data sets. Table $\ref{taba}$ gives these values:
$a$ $\sigma$ $\ell$
--------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------
White corn tortilla chips $ 26.37$ $0.55$ $1000 $
Muscadine grape juices $ 36.9$ $0.64$ $1000$
: The values of parameters $a$, $\sigma$ and $\ell$ for the two data sets.[]{data-label="taba"}
The values of $a$ for the two data sets are calculated using algorithm $\ref{algoa}$. Figure $\ref{figa}$ depicts the trace plots of the value of $a$ at each iteration for the two data sets. We show clearly that the value of $a$ converge to an optimal value. Concerning the value of $\ell$, a choice of $1000$ for the two data set can be reasonable as the maximum value of the squared distances in the two data sets is in the range of $1000$.
[ @ @ plus 1fil minus @skip]{}
After parameters determination, the statistical test developed in Section \[Sectest\] has been applied to perform the interest of the displacements of the points. The values of the ratio $\mathcal{R}=\displaystyle \frac{\mathbb{V}ar(\Delta)}{(\Delta_0-\mathbb{E}(\Delta))^2}$ calculated for the two data sets are given in the Table $\ref{tabSig}$.
$\mathcal{R}$
--------------------------- ---------------
White corn tortilla chips $0.0239$
Muscadine grape juices $ 0.0153$
: The values of $\mathcal{R}$ for white corn tortilla chips and muscadine grape juices data sets.[]{data-label="tabSig"}
As the two values of $\mathcal{R}$ for the two data sets are smaller than $0.05$, so the statistical test is significant for $\alpha=0.05$ therefore we reject the null hypothesis $(\mathcal{H}_0)$ and we accept the alternative hypothesis $(\mathcal{H}_1)$. Thus, the movements of points $i$ and $j$ through vectors $\theta_i$ and $\theta_j$ are necessary to approach the distances $\Vert X_i+\theta_i-X_j-\theta_j\Vert$ to $d_{ij}$ for all $1\leq i<j\leq n$. After the statistical test, problem (P$_1$) has been solved using different values of regularization parameter $\eta$.
Tables $\ref{tabres1}$ and $\ref{tabres2}$ show the different values of the expectation of error $\Delta$ and the number of non-null displacements $\theta_{ik}$ after optimization for different values of $\eta$ obtained after optimization. We remark that when $\eta$ increases, the number of displacements decreases and when $\eta$ becomes too large, the number of displacements tends to zero and nothing moves.
------------------- ---------------------- --------------------------
$\eta$ $\mathbb{E}(\Delta)$ \#($\theta_{ik} \neq 0)$
$0$ $438896$ $407 $
$10$ $438892$ $ 405$
$10^2$ $ 444855$ $401 $
$10^3$ $393359$ $397 $
$10^4$ $447001$ $360 $
$ 10^5$ $709809$ $ 233$
$ 2\times 10^5$ $1450193$ $ 190$
$ 4\times 10^5$ $4558334$ $ 153$
$ 6\times 10^5$ $8229189$ $ 121$
$ 7\times 10^5$ $12330002$ $ 109$
$ 10^6$ $19927843$ $87 $
$ 10^7$ $229240376$ $ 0$
------------------- ---------------------- --------------------------
: The values of $\mathbb{E}(\Delta)$ and the number of non-null displacements for different values of $\eta$ for muscadine juices data set.[]{data-label="tabres2"}
----------------- ---------------------- --------------------------
$\eta$ $\mathbb{E}(\Delta)$ \#($\theta_{ik} \neq 0)$
$0$ $127845$ $150 $
$10$ $127845$ $ 149$
$ 10^2$ $127845$ $147$
$ 10^3$ $127952$ $133$
$ 4\times 10^3$ $128799$ $128$
$ 6\times 10^3$ $130641$ $116$
$ 8\times 10^3$ $140656$ $98$
$10^4$ $168285$ $86 $
$2 \times 10^4$ $276341$ $54 $
$4 \times 10^4$ $551644$ $28 $
$ 10^5$ $1336073$ $10 $
$ 10^6$ $ 3517594$ $ 0$
----------------- ---------------------- --------------------------
: The values of $\mathbb{E}(\Delta)$ and the number of non-null displacements for different values of $\eta$ for muscadine juices data set.[]{data-label="tabres2"}
A way to choose the value of $\eta$ is to determine the number of misplaced points which must be moved to fit the distances. To find these misplaced points, we use the criterion of selection points $\rho_i$ presented in Section $\ref{sec1}$.
Table $\ref{tabRho}$ shows the values of this criterion. We have seen that for a fixed real number $\varrho$ between $0$ and $1$, if $\rho_i>\varrho$ we consider $i$ as misplaced point. So, by taking $\varrho=0.1$ for the two data sets, we can detect $3$ misplaced points for white corn tortilla chips and $4$ for muscadine grape juices which is equivalent to $3\times 37=111$ values of $\theta_{ik} \neq 0$ for tortilla chips and $4 \times 15=60$ for muscadine juices. Then, by referring to Tables $\ref{tabres1}$ and $\ref{tabres2}$, we choose the value of $\eta$ that gives a number of displacement close to that obtained using the criterion $\rho_i$ for tortilla chips and muscadine juices. Indeed, a value of $\eta$ equal to $7\times 10^5$ gives a number of displacements equal to $109$ displacements that is close to $111$, so we can take $\eta=7 \times 10^5$. Similarly, we choose $\eta= 2\times 10^4$ for muscadine juices data set. Noted that by changing the value of $\varrho$, we can detect more misplaced points so this choice must be reasonable.
Besides, if the number of desirable displacements is fixed by the user then it is not needed to compute the ratio $\rho$ and in the same way we can choose the value of $\eta$. So, the choice of $\eta$ is always related to the objective which is aimed at.
The objective of the study is to determine the acceptable attributes categories of white corn tortilla chips and muscadine grape juices. Using our method we want to determine the product characteristics that must be changed to match with the consumers preference.
As we have seen we are interested in our method to fit the characteristics of product to the consumer acceptance rates, so null displacements can be interpreted as consumers satisfaction. Globally, for each categories of attributes, we can calculate the proportion of the null displacements. This proportion is given by: $$p_{_\text{C}}=\frac{\text{number of } (\theta_{ik}=0) \text{ in category } C_{_\mathcal{D}} }{\text{total number of } \theta_{ik} \text{ in category } C_{_{\mathcal{D}}} }$$ where $\mathcal{D}=\{\mathcal{D}_1, \mathcal{D}_2\}$, C$_{_{\mathcal{D}_1}}\in\{\text{Flavor, Texture, Appearance}\}$ is the category of white corn torilla chips $(\mathcal{D}_1)$ and C$_{_{\mathcal{D}_2}}\in\{ \text{ Basic tastes, Aromatics, Fellings factors }\}$ is the category of muscadine grape juices $(\mathcal{D}_2)$. For each data set, the proportion $p_{_{\text{C}}}$ is calculated from Table $\ref{tabTortilla}$ or Table $\ref{tabRaisin}$.
--------------------- ----------
Tortilla attributes
Categories $P_{_C}$
Flavor $0.71 $
Texture $0.72$
Appearance $0.78$
--------------------- ----------
: The proportion values for different attributes categories for white corn tortilla chips and muscadine grape juices.[]{data-label="tabprop"}
---------------------- ----------
Muscadine attributes
Categories $P_{_C}$
Basic tastes $0.70$
Aromatics $0.60$
Feeling factors $0.50$
---------------------- ----------
: The proportion values for different attributes categories for white corn tortilla chips and muscadine grape juices.[]{data-label="tabprop"}
The proportion values for different categories for the two data sets are given in the Table $\ref{tabprop}$. For white corn tortilla chips, the flavor, texture and appearance attributes categories have approximatively the same proportion values that it is equal in average to $0.75$. So, $25\%$ of the characteristics products must be moved to make the products characteristics as acceptable as possible by the consumers. Thus, we can conclude that the overall characteristics of tortilla chips are well accepted by the consumers. Concerning muscadine grape juices, we notice that the basic tastes attributes are the most acceptable attributes among the two other attributes categories as just $30\%$ of the attributes must be changed to fit the consumer scores whereas, $40\%$ and $50\%$ of the aromatics and feeling factors attributes categories must respectively be changed to make these characteristics acceptable by the consumers.
### Simulation results
Algorithm $1$ has been applied to the two data sets. The constant $c$ multiplied by covariance matrix of data is taken equal to $10^{-3}$ for the two data sets.
Figure $\ref{figSimAlgo1}$ shows that the minimal value of error $\Delta$ obtained by simulation is equal to $18129$ after $150$ iterations for the white corn tortilla chips and $4838$ after $50 $ iterations for the muscadine grape juices. The results of displacements for these two data sets are given in Figure $\ref{figDepAlgo1}$ and $\ref{figDepAlgo1Rai}$. In these figures, we compare the displacements obtained by simulation with those obtained by optimization of problem P$_0$ (without penalization term) as the parsimonious choice of displacements is not taken into account in the simulation algorithm.
[ @ @ plus 1fil minus @skip]{}
[8cm]{}
[8cm]{}
\
This comparison between optimization and simulation results indicates that using simulation technique we have succeeded in finding similar displacements with a value of $\Delta$ smaller than the value of the expectation calculated in the independent case. What is interesting here that the displacement obtained after simulation is not very different for most of the points. The important displacements obtained in the optimization and simulation results are close. So by taking some threshold to detect the important displacements, we can detect the same important displacements in two different ways.
[10cm]{}
[10cm]{}
[10cm]{}
[10cm]{}
Discussion
----------
Several papers in food quality and preference domains study the relation between consumers preference and the characteristics of products in order to find the must acceptable characteristics of these products by the consumers [@SS1]. Preference mapping techniques can be applied using just the consumers rates for each product, we address ’internal preference mapping’, or by taking an additionally data describing the products with a series of criteria, we address ’external preference mapping’ [@SS2]. As our method based on the fitting of two matrices so the comparative with external preference mapping should be more explicative. The main objective to external preference mapping is to fit the individual consumer rates to the products configuration by using one of the different regression models among which the quadratic surface model is popular [@SS3]. Meullenet in his article [@Tortila2] indicates that the preference mapping is determined by determining a partial least squares (PLS) regression model and the application of Jackknife optimization and this model is used to predict the consumer attributes acceptance. So, the prediction here is related to something subjective whereas our method gives displacements that can be interpretable without introducing subjective effects. Moreover, the displacement of attributes for each product can be interpretable alone or by taking all the categories of attributes. Thus, using our model we can find a new and simple methodology to determine the preference mapping of products.
Conclusion {#SecConc}
==========
We have presented a new model of multidimensional fitting method by taking into account random effects occurred. First, the random model of MDF with a penalized form is presented. Second, a statistical test indicates the significance of the displacements of the points. Then, optimization and simulation algorithms are developed to find these displacements. The application of this method in the sensometrics domain shows the simplest explanation of the sensory profiles of products according the consumers preference. Finally, MDF in their deterministic and random model can be also used when the data contains missing data. A pretreatment of this data before the application of MDF method to replace these missing values will not impinge the results. Finally, more studies can be developed to adapt MDF method to qualitative and functional data.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[00]{} Akaike, H. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. Information Theory (eds B. N. Petrov and F. Csaki). Budapest: Akademiai Kiado, 1973.
Alawieh, H., Wicker, N., Ayoubi, B. and Moulinier, L. Penalized multidimensional fitting for protein movement detection. Journal of Applied Statistics, DOI: 10.1080/02664763.2016.1261811, 2016.
Allen, D.M. The relationship between variable selection and data augmentation and a method for prediction. Technometrics, 16, 125-127, 1974.
and [ Wicker, N.]{} Multidimensional fitting for multivariate data analysis. [ Journal of Computational Biology]{}, [17]{}, 723–732, 2010.
Carroll, J. D. Individual differences and multidimensional scaling. In R. N. Shepard, A. K. Romney, and S. Nerlove (Eds.)Multidimensional Scaling: Theory and Applications in the Behavioral Sciences. 105–155, New York: Seminar Press, 1972.
Danzart, M. Quadratic model in preference mapping. 4th Sensometric meeting, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1998.
Cheung, L.W. Classification approaches for microarray gene expression data analysis. Methods Mol Biol., 802, 73-85, 2012.
Filaseta, M. and Lam, T.Y., On the irreducibility of the generalized Laguerre polynomials. Acat Arithmetica, 105(2), 177–182, 2002.
Golub , H.G., Heath, M. and Wahba , G. Generalized Cross-Validation as a Method for Choosing a Good Ridge Parameter. Technometrics, 21(2), 215-223, 1979.
Golub, T. R., Slonim, D. K., Tamayo, P., Huard, C., Gaasenbeek, M., Mesirov, J. P., Coller, H., Loh, M. L., Downing, J. R., Caligiuri, M. A., Bloomfield, C. D. and Lander, E. S. Molecular classification of cancer: class discovery and class prediction by gene expression monitoring. Science, 286, 531–537, 1999.
Green, P.J. Penalized Likelihood for General Semi-Parametric Regression Models. International Statistical Review / Revue Internationale de Statistique, 55(3), 245–259, 1987.
Greenhoff, K. and MacFie, H. J. H. Preference mapping in practice. In H. J. H. MacFie and D. M. H. Thomson (Eds.), Measurement of Food Preferences, 137–165, Springer US, Boston, MA, 1994.
Hastings, W. Monte Carlo sampling methods using Markov chains and their application. Biometrika, 57, 97–109, 1970.
Hoerl, A.E. and Kennard, R. Ridge regression: Biased estimation for nonorthogonal problems. Technometrics, 12, 55–67, 1970.
Jagannathan, R. and Ma, T. Risk reduction in large portfolios: why imposing the wrong constraints helps. J. Finan., 58, 1651–1683 ,2003.
Johnson, S.G. The NLopt nonlinear-optimization package, http://ab-initio.mit.edu/nlopt, 2008.
Lawless, H. T. and Heymann, H. Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices. Gaithersburg, Maryland: Aspen Publishers, Inc, 1999.
Mardia, K.V., Kent, J.T. and Bibby, J.M. Multivariate analysis, Academic Press, London, 406–407, 1979.
Meilgaard, M.C., Civille, G.V. and Carr, B.T. Sensory Evaluation Techniques. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, 2007.
Meullenet, J.F., Xiong, R., Monsoor, M.A., Bellman-Homer, T., Dias, P., Zivanovic, S., Fromm, H. and Liu, Z. Preference Mapping of Commercial Toasted White Corn Tortilla Chips. Journal of Food Science, 67(5), 1950–1957, 2002.
Meullenet, J.F., Xiong, R. and Findlay, C. J. Multivariate and Probabilistic Analyses of Sensory Science Problems. Ames, IA, USA: Blackwell Press, 2007.
Meullenet, J.F., Lovely, C., Threlfall, R., Morris, J.R. and Striegler, R.K. An ideal point density plot method for determining an optimal sensory profile for Muscadine grape juice. Food Quality and Preference, 19, 210–219, 2008.
Metropolis, N., Rosenbluth, A., Rosenbluth, M., Teller, A., and Teller, E. Equations of state calculations by fast computing machines. J. Chem. Phys., 21(6), 1087–1092, 1953.
Rowan, T. Functional Stability Analysis of Numerical Algorithms. [Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Sciences]{}, University of Texas at Austin, 1990.
Schwarz, G. Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann. Statist.,6, 461–464, 1978.
Stone, M. Cross-validation choice and assessment of statistical predictions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B 36, 111-147, 1974.
Van der Hilst, R., de Hoop, M., Wang, P., Shim, S.-H., Ma, P. and Tenorio, L. Seismo-stratigraphy and thermal structure of earth’s core-mantle boundary region. Science, 315, 1813–1817, 2007.
seccntformat\#1[Appendix the\#1:]{}
As we have seen, the expectation and the variance of the error $\Delta$ are involved in the objective function of problem (P$_1$) and in the statistical test. So, we want to calculate these two quantities for any value of $\theta_1,\dots,\theta_n$.
Five Lemmas {#App1}
===========
We have: $$\begin{aligned}
e_{ij}&=& \left(d_{ij}-a\lVert X_{i}+\theta_{i}+\varepsilon_{i}-X_{j}-\theta_{j}-\varepsilon_j \rVert_{_2} \right)^2.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ By developing the expression of $e_{ij}$, we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
e_{ij}=d_{{ij}}^2+a^2\lVert X_{i}+\theta_{i}+\varepsilon_{i}-X_{j}-\theta_{j}-\varepsilon_j \rVert_{_2}^2-2\ a \ d_{ij} \lVert X_{i}+\theta_{i}+\varepsilon_{i}-X_{j}-\theta_{j}-\varepsilon_j \rVert_{_2} \label{eqdef1}\end{aligned}$$
We want to present five lemmas that will help us in the calculation of the expectation and variance of $\Delta$.
\[lemma1\] Let $N_{ij}$ be a random variable defined by: $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle N_{ij}=\sum_{k=1}^{p} \left({\varepsilon_{ik}-\varepsilon_{jk}}\right)^2, \forall 1\leq i<j\leq n \label{eqt1}\end{aligned}$$ where the $p$ components of vectors $\varepsilon_i$, for all $i=1,\dots,n $ are independent and identically normally distributed random variables such that $\varepsilon_{ik}\rightsquigarrow \mathcal{N}(0,\sigma^2)$ for $k=1,\dots,p$. Then, we have: $$\mathbb{E}(N_{ij})=2\sigma^2 p \text{ et } \mathbb{V}ar(N_{ij})=8\sigma^4 p.$$
As, $\varepsilon_{ik}\rightsquigarrow \mathcal{N}(0,\sigma^2)$ and the vectors $\varepsilon_i$ and $\varepsilon_j$ are independents, we have $\varepsilon_{ik}-\varepsilon_{jk}\rightsquigarrow \mathcal{N}(0,2\sigma^2)$. Thus, $\displaystyle \sum_{k=1}^{p} \left(\frac{\varepsilon_{ik}-\varepsilon_{jk}}{\sqrt{2}\sigma}\right)^2\rightsquigarrow \chi^2_p$, and consequently: $$\displaystyle \mathbb{E}\left(\sum_{k=1}^{p} \left(\frac{\varepsilon_{ik}-\varepsilon_{jk}}{\sqrt{2}\sigma}\right)^2\right)=p \text{ et } \displaystyle \mathbb{V}ar\left(\sum_{k=1}^{p} \left(\frac{\varepsilon_{ik}-\varepsilon_{jk}}{\sqrt{2}\sigma}\right)^2\right)=2p.$$ So, we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left(N_{ij} \right)&=&2\sigma^2 p\nonumber\\
\mathbb{V}ar\left(N_{ij} \right)&=&8\sigma^4 p.\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
\[lemma2\] Let $A_{ij}$ be a random variable defined by: $$\begin{aligned}
A_{ij}=\lVert X_{i}+\theta_{i}+\varepsilon_{i}-X_{j}-\theta_{j}-\varepsilon_j \rVert_{_2} \label{eqt2}\end{aligned}$$ with $\varepsilon_{ik}\rightsquigarrow \mathcal{N}(0,\sigma^2)$. Then, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}(A_{ij})&=&\sqrt{2}\sigma \mu_{ij}\nonumber\\
\mathbb{V}ar(A_{ij})&=&{2}\sigma^2(p+\lambda_{ij}^{2}-\mu_{ij}^{2})\nonumber\\
\mathbb{E}(A_{ij}^2)&=&{2}\sigma^2 (p+\lambda_{ij}^{2})\nonumber\\
\mathbb{V}ar(A_{ij}^2)&=&8\sigma^4(p+2\lambda_{ij}^{2})\nonumber\\
\mathbb{E}\left(A_{ij}^3\right)&=&6\sigma^3 \sqrt{\pi} \mathcal{L}_{\frac{3}{2}}^{\frac{p}{2}-1}\left(-\frac{\lambda_{ij}^{2}}{2}\right)\nonumber\\
\mathbb{E}\left(A_{ij}^4\right)&=&4\sigma^4(p+\lambda_{ij}^{2})^2+8\sigma^4(p+2\lambda_{ij}^{2})\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
where $\displaystyle \mu_{ij}= \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}} \mathcal{L}_{\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{p}{2}-1}\left(-\frac{\lambda_{ij}^{2}}{2}\right)$, $\displaystyle \lambda_{ij}=\sqrt{\sum_{k=1}^p \left(\frac{ x_{ik}+\theta_{ik}-x_{jk}-\theta_{jk}}{\sqrt{2}\sigma}\right)^2}$ and $\mathcal{L}_\nu^{(\alpha)}(x)$ is the generalized Laguerre polynomial.
$A_{ij}$ is a random variable defined by: $$A_{ij}=\lVert X_{i}+\theta_{i}+\varepsilon_{i}-X_{j}-\theta_{j}-\varepsilon_j \rVert_2=\sqrt{\sum_{k=1}^p \left( x_{ik}+\theta_{ik}+\varepsilon_{ik}-x_{jk}-\theta_{jk}-\varepsilon_{jk}\right)^2}.$$
The random variable $\displaystyle x_{ik}+\theta_{ik}+\varepsilon_{ik}-x_{jk}-\theta_{jk}-\varepsilon_{jk}$ is normally distributed as $ \mathcal{N}(x_{ik}+\theta_{ik}-x_{jk}-\theta_{jk},2\sigma^2)$ which implies that the random variable $$\displaystyle \sqrt{\sum_{k=1}^p \left(\frac{ x_{ik}+\theta_{ik}+\varepsilon_{ik}-x_{jk}-\theta_{jk}-\varepsilon_{jk}}{\sqrt{2}\sigma}\right)^2}$$ is distributed according to the non-central chi distribution with $p$ degrees of freedom and $\lambda_{ij}$ the non-centrality parameter that is related to the mean of the random variable by: $\displaystyle \lambda_{ij}=\sqrt{\sum_{k=1}^p \left(\frac{ x_{ik}+\theta_{ik}-x_{jk}-\theta_{jk}}{\sqrt{2}\sigma}\right)^2}$.
Then, we obtain: $$\displaystyle \mathbb{E}\left( \sqrt{\sum_{k=1}^p \left(\frac{ x_{ik}+\theta_{ik}+\varepsilon_{ki}-x_{jk}-\theta_{jk}-\varepsilon_{jk}}{\sqrt{2}\sigma}\right)^2}\right)= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\sigma}\mathbb{E}(A_{ij}).$$
Recall that the expectation of non-central chi distribution $\chi_p(\lambda_{ij})$ is given by: $$\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}} \mathcal{L}_{\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{p}{2}-1}\left(-\frac{\lambda_{ij}^2}{2}\right).$$
We note $$\mu_{ij}=\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}} \mathcal{L}_{\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{p}{2}-1}\left(-\frac{\lambda_{ij}^2}{2}\right).$$ Then, we have $$\mathbb{E}(A_{ij})=\sqrt{2}\sigma \mu_{ij}.$$
Moreover, we have: $$\displaystyle \mathbb{V}ar\left( \sqrt{\sum_{k=1}^p \left(\frac{ x_{ik}+\theta_{ik}+\varepsilon_{ik}-x_{jk}-\theta_{jk}-\varepsilon_{jk}}{\sqrt{2}\sigma}\right)^2}\right)=\frac{1}{{2}\sigma^2}\mathbb{V}ar(A_{ij})\cdot$$ Recall that the variance of non-central chi distribution $\chi_p(\lambda_{ij})$ is given by: $$p+\lambda_{ij}^{2}-\mu_{ij}^{2}$$ that gives: $$\mathbb{V}ar(A_{ij})={2}\sigma^2(p+\lambda_{ij}^{2}-\mu_{ij}^{2}).$$\
Concerning the calculation of moments of order $3$ and $4$, we have: $$\displaystyle \mathbb{E}\left( \sqrt{\sum_{k=1}^p \left(\frac{ x_{ik}+\theta_{ik}+\varepsilon_{ik}-x_{jk}-\theta_{jk}-\varepsilon_{jk}}{\sqrt{2}\sigma}\right)^2}\right)^3= \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}\sigma^3}\mathbb{E}(A_{ij}^3)$$
and $$\displaystyle \mathbb{E}\left( \sqrt{\sum_{k=1}^p \left(\frac{ x_{ik}+\theta_{ik}+\varepsilon_{ik}-x_{jk}-\theta_{jk}-\varepsilon_{jk}}{\sqrt{2}\sigma}\right)^2}\right)^4= \frac{1}{4\sigma^4}\mathbb{E}(A_{ij}^4)\cdot$$ For a non-central chi distribution, the moments $3$ and $4$ are, respectively, given by: $$3\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}} \mathcal{L}_{\frac{3}{2}}^{\frac{p}{2}-1}\left(-\frac{\lambda_{ij}^{2}}{2}\right) \text{ and } (p+\lambda_{ij}^{2})^2+2(p+2\lambda_{ij}^{2}).$$
Then, we obtain: $$\mathbb{E}(A_{ij}^3)=6\sigma^3\sqrt{{\pi}} \mathcal{L}_{\frac{3}{2}}^{\frac{p}{2}-1}(-\frac{\lambda_{ij}^{2}}{2}),$$ and $$\mathbb{E}(A_{ij}^4)=4\sigma^4(p+\lambda_{ij}^{2})^2+8\sigma^4(p+2\lambda_{ij}^{2})\cdot$$
Moreover, we can straightforwardly find: $$\mathbb{E}(A^2{_{ij}})=2\sigma^2(p+\lambda_{ij}^{2}) \text{ \hspace{1cm} and \hspace{1cm} } \mathbb{V}ar(A^2{_{ij}})=8\sigma^4(p+2\lambda_{ij}^{2}) .$$
\[lemme3\] Upper bounds of $\mathbb{E}(A_{ij}A_{ij'})$ and $\mathbb{E}(A_{ij}^2 A_{ij'}^2)$ are given by: $$\mathbb{E}(A_{ij}A_{ij'})\leq 2\sigma^2\sqrt{(p+\lambda^2_{ij})(p+\lambda^2_{ij'})},$$ $$\mathbb{E}(A_{ij}^2 A_{ij'}^2)\leq 4\sigma^4\sqrt{\left[ (p+\lambda^2_{ij})^2+2(p+2\lambda^2_{ij})\right]\left[ (p+\lambda^2_{ij'})^2+2(p+2\lambda^2_{ij'})\right]}\cdot$$
The variables $A_{ij}$ and $A_{ij'}$ are two dependent random variables. Using the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality, we can write: $$\mathbb{E}(A_{ij}A_{ij'})\leq \sqrt{\mathbb{E}(A_{ij}^2)\mathbb{E}(A_{ij'}^2)} \cdot$$
Using Lemma $\ref{lemma2}$, we obtain: $$\mathbb{E}(A_{ij}A_{ij'})\leq 2\sigma^2\sqrt{(p+\lambda^2_{ij})(p+\lambda^2_{ij'})}\cdot$$
Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}(A_{ij}^2A_{ij'}^2)\leq \sqrt{\mathbb{E}(A_{ij}^4)\mathbb{E}(A_{ij'}^4)}\cdot\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
And from Lemma $\ref{lemma2}$, we obtain: $$\mathbb{E}(A_{ij}^2 A_{ij'}^2)\leq 4\sigma^4\sqrt{\left[ (p+\lambda^2_{ij})^2+2(p+2\lambda^2_{ij})\right]\left[ (p+\lambda^2_{ij'})^2+2(p+2\lambda^2_{ij'})\right]} \cdot$$
\[lemma5\] Lower bounds of $\mathbb{V}ar(A_{ij}+A_{ij'})$, $cov(A_{ij},A_{ij'})$ and $\mathbb{E}(A_{ij}A_{ij'})$ are given by: $$\mathbb{V}ar(A_{ij}+A_{ij'})\geq 2\sigma^2\left( p+\lambda_{jj'}^2-(\mu_{ij}+\mu_{ij'})^2 \right),$$
$$cov(A_{ij},A_{ij'})\geq -\sigma^2 \left( p+2 \mu_{ij} \mu_{ij'}+ \lambda_{ij}^2+\lambda_{ij'}^2-\lambda_{jj'}^2 \right),$$
$$\mathbb{E}(A_{ij}A_{ij'}) \geq -\sigma^2 \left( p+ \lambda_{ij}^2+\lambda_{ij'}^2-\lambda_{jj'}^2 \right) \cdot$$
We have: $$\begin{aligned}
A_{ij}+A_{ij'}&=&\lVert X_i+\theta_i+\varepsilon_i- X_j-\theta_j-\varepsilon_j \rVert+\lVert X_{i}+\theta_{i}+\varepsilon_{i}- X_{j'}-\theta_{j'}-\varepsilon_{j'} \rVert\nonumber\\
&\geq & \lVert X_j+\theta_j+\varepsilon_j- X_{j'}-\theta_{j'}-\varepsilon_{j'} \rVert=A_{jj'}\cdot\label{eqE12}\end{aligned}$$
The variance of $A_{ij}+A_{ij'}$ is given by: $$\mathbb{V}ar(A_{ij}+A_{ij'})=\mathbb{E}(A_{ij}+A_{ij'})^2-\left(\mathbb{E}(A_{ij}+A_{ij'})\right)^2\cdot$$ Using inequality $\ref{eqE12}$ and the positively of $A_{ij}$, we have $(A_{ij}+A_{ij'})^2 \geq A_{jj'}^2$ and then: $$\mathbb{E}\left( (A_{ij}+A_{ij'})^2 \right) \geq \mathbb{E} (A_{jj'}^2)=2\sigma^2(p+\lambda_{jj'}^2)\cdot$$ Hence, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{V}ar(A_{ij}+A_{ij'})&\geq& 2\sigma^2(p+\lambda_{jj'}^2)-\left(\mathbb{E}(A_{ij})+ \mathbb{E}(A_{ij'}) \right)^2\nonumber\\
&\geq& 2\sigma^2(p+\lambda_{jj'}^2)- 2\sigma^2(\mu_{ij}+\mu_{ij'})^2\nonumber\\
&\geq& 2\sigma^2\left( p+\lambda_{jj'}^2- (\mu_{ij}+\mu_{ij'})^2\right)\cdot\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
To obtain the lower bound of $cov(A_{ij},A_{ij'})$, we use the definition: $$cov(A_{ij},A_{ij'})=\frac{1}{2} \left[ \mathbb{V}ar(A_{ij}+A_{ij'})-\mathbb{V}ar(A_{ij})-\mathbb{V}ar(A_{ij'}) \right]\cdot$$ Then, using Lemma \[lemma2\] and the above result, we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
cov(A_{ij},A_{ij'})&\geq& \sigma^2(p+\lambda_{jj'}^2- (\mu_{ij}+\mu_{ij'})^2)-\sigma^2(p+\lambda_{ij}^2-\mu_{ij}^2)-\sigma^2(p+\lambda_{ij'}^2-\mu_{ij'}^2) \nonumber\\
&\geq& -\sigma^2 \left( p+2 \mu_{ij} \mu_{ij'}+ \lambda_{ij}^2+\lambda_{ij'}^2-\lambda_{jj'}^2 \right)\cdot \label{eqc32}\end{aligned}$$
Concerning the lower bound of $\mathbb{E}(A_{ij}A_{ij'})$, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}(A_{ij}A_{ij'})&=&cov(A_{ij},A_{ij'})+\mathbb{E}(A_{ij}) \mathbb{E}(A_{ij'})\nonumber\\
&\geq& -\sigma^2 \left( p+2 \mu_{ij} \mu_{ij'}+ \lambda_{ij}^2+\lambda_{ij'}^2-\lambda_{jj'}^2 \right)+2\sigma^2 \mu_{ij} \mu_{ij'}\nonumber\\
&\geq& -\sigma^2 \left( p+ \lambda_{ij}^2+\lambda_{ij'}^2-\lambda_{jj'}^2 \right)\cdot\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
\[lemma6\] Lower bounds of $\mathbb{E}(A_{ij}^2 A_{ij'})$ and $\mathbb{E}( A^2_{ij'}A_{ij})$ are given by: $$\mathbb{E}(A^2_{ij}A_{ij'}) \geq -\sigma^2 \left( p+ \lambda_{ij}^2+\lambda_{ij'}^2-\lambda_{jj'}^2 \right) -\sqrt{2}\sigma \mu_{ij'},$$ $$\mathbb{E}(A^2_{ij'}A_{ij}) \geq -\sigma^2 \left( p+ \lambda_{ij}^2+\lambda_{ij'}^2-\lambda_{jj'}^2 \right) -\sqrt{2}\sigma \mu_{ij}\cdot$$
$$\begin{aligned}
A_{ij}^2A_{ij'} &\geq &(A_{ij}-1)A_{ij'} \text{ as } A^2_{ij} \geq A_{ij}-1\nonumber\\
&\geq& A_{ij}A_{ij'}-A_{ij'}\cdot\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Thus, $$\mathbb{E}\left( A_{ij}^2A_{ij'}\right) \geq \mathbb{E} (A_{ij}A_{ij'})-\mathbb{E}( A_{ij'})\cdot$$ Lemma $\ref{lemma5}$ leads: $$\mathbb{E}(A^2_{ij}A_{ij'}) \geq -\sigma^2 \left( p+ \lambda_{ij}^2+\lambda_{ij'}^2-\lambda_{jj'}^2 \right) -\sqrt{2}\sigma \mu_{ij'}\cdot$$
Similarly, we obtain: $$\mathbb{E}(A^2_{ij'}A_{ij}) \geq -\sigma^2 \left( p+ \lambda_{ij'}^2+\lambda_{ij}^2-\lambda_{jj'}^2 \right) -\sqrt{2}\sigma \mu_{ij}\cdot$$
Calculation of the expectation value of error $\Delta$ {#App2}
======================================================
Using equations (\[eqdef1\]) and (\[eqt2\]), we have: $$\begin{aligned}
e_{ij}&=&d^2_{{ij}}+a^2A_{ij}^2-2 a d_{ij} A_{ij}\cdot \label{eqt3}\end{aligned}$$
We suppose that the $p$ components of vectors $\varepsilon_i$, for all $i=1,\dots,n $ are identically independent random variables and normally distributed. Using Lemma \[lemma2\], we obtain: $$\mathbb{E}(e_{ij})=d_{ij}^2 +2a^2\sigma^2(p+\lambda_{ij}^{2})-2\sqrt{\pi}a \sigma d_{ij} \mathcal{L}_{\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{p}{2}-1}\left(-\frac{\lambda_{ij}^2}{2}\right)\cdot$$ where $\displaystyle \lambda_{ij}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\sigma}\lVert X_i+\theta_i-X_j-\theta_j\rVert_{_2} \cdot$
Hence, the expectation of error $\Delta$ is equal to:
$$\displaystyle \mathbb{E}(\Delta)=\sum_{1\leq i<j\leq n} \left[ d_{ij}^2 +2a^2\sigma^2(p+\lambda^2_{ij})-2\sqrt{\pi} a \sigma d_{ij} \mathcal{L}_{\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{p}{2}-1}\left(-\frac{\lambda_{ij}^2}{2}\right) \right]\cdot \label{eqEsp}$$
Calculation of variance value of error $\Delta$ {#App3}
===============================================
The variance of $\Delta$ is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{V}ar(\Delta)&=&\mathbb{V}ar(\displaystyle \sum_{1\leq i<j\leq n} e_{ij})\nonumber\\
&=&\sum_{1\leq i<j\leq n} \mathbb{V}ar(e_{ij}) +{ \sum_{\begin{array}{c}
1\leq i<j\leq n\\
1\leq i'<j'\leq n\\
\end{array}}} cov(e_{ij}; e_{i'j'})\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
As $cov(e_{ij},e_{i'j'})=0$, if $(i,j)\cap(i',j')=\emptyset$ we obtain: $$\label{eqforVar}
\mathbb{V}ar(\Delta)=\sum_{1\leq i<j\leq n} \mathbb{V}ar(e_{ij}) +2\sum_{1\leq i <j<j'\leq n} cov(e_{ij},e_{ij'}) \cdot$$
To calculate $\mathbb{V}ar(\Delta)$ it is necessary to calculate $\mathbb{V}ar(e_{ij})$ and $cov(e_{ij}; e_{ij'})$ for all couples $(i,j)$ and $(i,j')$ with $
1\leq i<j<j'\leq n$.
Calculation of $\mathbb{V}ar(e_{ij})$
-------------------------------------
We have from Equation (\[eqt3\]): $$\begin{aligned}
e_{ij}&=&d^2_{{ij}}+a^2A_{ij}^2-2 a d_{ij} A_{ij}\cdot \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The definition of variance is: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{V}ar(e_{ij})=\mathbb{E}(e_{{ij}}^2)-(\mathbb{E}(e_{ij}))^2 \cdot\label{eqt5}\end{aligned}$$ Let begin by the calculation of $\mathbb{E}(e_{{ij}}^2)$. $$\begin{aligned}
e_{{ij}}^2&=&\left(d_{{ij}}^2+a^2A_{{ij}}^2-2ad_{ij}A_{ij}\right)^2\nonumber\\
&=& d_{{ij}}^4+a^4A_{ij}^4+6a^2d_{ij}^2A_{ij}^2-4ad_{ij}^3A_{ij}-4a^3d_{ij}A_{ij}^3\cdot \label{eqES}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
The expectation of $e_{ij}^2$ is then given by: $$\mathbb{E}(e_{{ij}}^2)=d_{{ij}}^4+a^4\mathbb{E}( A_{ij}^4)+6a^2d_{ij}^2\mathbb{E}(A_{ij}^2)-4ad_{ij}^3\mathbb{E}(A_{ij})-4a^3d_{ij}\mathbb{E}(A_{ij}^3)\cdot \label{eqvar}$$ Using lemma \[lemma2\], we can obtain all the terms of the moments presented in Eequation (\[eqvar\]). Then, we obtain the variance by replacing each term with their value in Equation $(\ref{eqt5})$ and we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{V}ar(e_{ij})=&a^4\mathbb{E}( A_{ij}^4)+4a^2d_{ij}^2\mathbb{E}(A_{ij}^2)-4a^3d_{ij}\mathbb{E}(A_{ij}^3)-a^4(\mathbb{E}(A_{ij}^2))^2-4 a^2 d_{ij}^2 (\mathbb{E}(A_{ij}))^2\nonumber\\
&+4a^3 d_{ij}\mathbb{E}(A_{ij}^2) \mathbb{E}(A_{ij})\cdot\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Calculation of $cov(e_{ij}, e_{ij'})$
-------------------------------------
Now, we want to calculate $cov(e_{ij}, e_{ij'})$. The definition of the covariance is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
cov(e_{ij}, e_{ij'})=\mathbb{E}(e_{ij} e_{ij'})-\mathbb{E}(e_{ij}) \mathbb{E}(e_{ij'})\cdot \label{eq1}\end{aligned}$$ To calculate the expectation $\mathbb{E}(e_{ij} e_{ij'})$, we firstly calculate $e_{ij}e_{ij'}$: $$\begin{aligned}
e_{ij}e_{ij'}&=&\left( d_{ij}^2+a^2A_{ij}^2-2ad_{ij}A_{ij}\right)\left( d_{ij'}^2+a^2A_{ij'}^2-2ad_{ij'}A_{ij'}\right)\nonumber\\
&=&d_{ij}^2d_{ij'}^2+a^2d_{ij}^2A_{ij'}^2-2ad_{ij}^2d_{ij'}A_{ij'}
+a^2d_{ij'}^2A_{ij}^2+a^4A_{ij}^2A_{ij'}^2\nonumber\\
&&-2a^3d_{ij'}A_{ij}^2A_{ij'}-2ad_{ij}d_{ij'}^2A_{ij}-2a^3d_{ij}A_{ij}A_{ij'}^2+4a^2d_{ij}d_{ij'}A_{ij}A_{ij'} \cdot\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Passing to the expectation, we obtain: @size[11]{}@mathfonts $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E} (e_{ij}e_{ij'})=d_{ij}^2d_{ij'}^2+a^2d_{ij}^2\mathbb{E}( A_{ij'}^2)-2ad_{ij}^2d_{ij'}\mathbb{E}(A_{ij'})
+a^2d_{ij'}^2\mathbb{E}(A_{ij}^2)+a^4\mathbb{E}(A_{ij}^2A_{ij'}^2)\nonumber\\
-2a^3d_{ij'}\mathbb{E}(A_{ij}^2A_{ij'})-2ad_{ij}d_{ij'}^2\mathbb{E}(A_{ij})-2a^3d_{ij}\mathbb{E}(A_{ij}A_{ij'}^2)+4a^2d_{ij}d_{ij'}\mathbb{E}(A_{ij}A_{ij'})\cdot \nonumber\\\label{eqCov}\end{aligned}$$
Using the five lemmas presented in section $\ref{App1}$, we can bound $\mathbb{E}(e_{ij}e_{ij'})$ in a way to obtain an upper bound of the covariance $cov(e_{ij}e_{ij'})$. We note $B_{ijj'}$ the upper bound of $\mathbb{E}(e_{ij}e_{ij'})$. So, returning to Equation ($\ref{eqforVar}$), we obtain: $$\mathbb{V}ar(\Delta)\leq \sum_{1\leq i<j\leq n} \mathbb{E}(e_{ij}^2)-\mathbb{E}(e_{ij})^2 +2\sum_{1\leq i <j<j'\leq n} B_{ijj'}-2\sum_{1\leq i <j<j'\leq n} \mathbb{E}(e_{ij})\mathbb{E}(e_{ij'})\cdot$$
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper, by combining of fractional centered difference approach with alternating direction implicit method, we introduce a mixed difference method for solving two-dimensional Riesz space fractional advection-dispersion equation. The proposed method is a fourth order centered difference operator in spatial directions and second order Crank-Nicolson method in temporal direction. By reviewing the consistency and stability of the method, the convergence of the proposed method is achieved. Several numerical examples are considered aiming to demonstrate the validity and applicability of the proposed technique.'
author:
- 'A. Borhanifar$^a$[^1], M. A. Ragusa$^b$$^c$[^2] and S. Valizadeh$^a$[^3]'
title: '**High-order numerical method for two-dimensional Riesz space fractional advection-dispersion equation**'
---
$^a$Department of Mathematics, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, 56199-11367 Ardabil, Iran\
$^b$Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica, Università di Catania, Viale Andrea Doria, 6-95125 Catania, Italy\
$^c$RUDN University, 6 Miklukho - Maklay St, Moscow, 117198, Russia
.3cm ***Keywords:*** Riesz fractional derivative; fractional centered difference; Crank-Nicolson method; alternating direction implicit method; convergence. .3cm
Introduction
============
.65cm
Many researchers focused on fractional partial differential equations due to their useful applications in many real-world models, modeling with the least error and overlapping physically with scientific issues.
Fractional partial differential equations are mainly classified to the time, space, and time-space fractional partial differential equations. Of all these types, space fractional partial differential equations are containing fractional diffusion equation, fractional Fokker-Planck equation, fractional advection-dispersion equation (see e.g. [@Adams19923293; @Baeumer20011543; @Gala20121741; @Gala20161271]). The fractional advection-dispersion equation provides a useful description of chemical and contaminant transport in heterogeneous aquifers [@Adams19923293; @Baeumer20011543], abnormal mass absorption in solids [@Povstenko2017203] and densities of plumes in spread proportionally to time-dependent of fractional order [@Benson20001403]. Although there is a plenty of research in one dimensional Riesz space fractional advection-dispersion equation (for example, see [@Abdi-mazraeh2015818; @Ding2017759; @Ding2015218; @Irandout-pakchin2014913; @Lakestani20121149; @Manafian2017243; @Micu20061950; @Popolizio20131975; @Rahman2014264; @Shen2008850; @Valizadeh2020; @Zhang2014266]), there are few works in the two dimensional case [@Chen2008295; @Zeng20142599; @Zhang20172063]. In this research, we numerically solve the general two dimensional Riesz space fractional advection-dispersion equation using modified Crank-Nicolson Alternating Direction Implicit (ADI) method. The outline of the paper is as follows. Problem description and its applications are presented in the next section. Section 3 is devoted to basic definitions and preliminaries. Section 4 is dedicated to the construction and explanation of the numerical scheme. In Section 5, consistency and stability of the numerical scheme are theoretically analyzed. Numerical examples are given in Section 6. In Section 7 the conclusions of the obtained results are given.
Problem description
===================
Let $\Pi$ be a rectangular domain in $\mathbb{R}^2$ with boundary $\Upsilon=\partial \Pi$ and $\mathfrak{T}=(0,T]$ be the time interval, $T > 0$. Consider the following two dimensional Riesz space fractional partial differential equation for a solute concentration of material $u$
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial u(x,y,t)}{\partial
t}=d_{\alpha}\frac{\partial^{\alpha}u(x,y,t)}{\partial
|x|^{\alpha}}+c_{\beta}\frac{\partial^{\beta}u(x,y,t)}{\partial
|x|^{\beta}}+d_{\mu}\frac{\partial^{\mu}u(x,y,t)}{\partial
|y|^{\mu}}+c_{\nu}\frac{\partial^{\nu}u(x,y,t)}{\partial
|y|^{\nu}}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{math201803252034}
+s(x,y,t),\quad (x,y,t)\in\Pi\times \mathfrak{T},\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{math201803252035}
u(x,y,0)=f(x,y), \quad (x,y)\in\Pi,\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{math201803252036}
u(x,y,t)=0, \quad (x,y,t)\in \Upsilon\times \mathfrak{T},\end{aligned}$$
where $f:\Pi \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a known function, $c_{\beta}$ and $c_{\nu}$ are the average fluid velocities in the x- and y-directions, while $d_{\alpha}$ and $d_{\mu}$ are the dispersion coefficients in the x- and y-directions, respectively. We restrict ourselves to $1 < \alpha, \mu \leq 2$, $0 < \beta, \nu < 1$ and assume that $d_{\alpha},d_{\mu}>0$ and $c_{\beta},c_{\nu}\geq 0$. The solution $u=u(x,y,t)$ is assumed to be sufficiently smooth and has the necessary continuous partial derivatives up to certain orders. The specific cases for equation (\[math201803252034\]) is discussed in the years 2007, 2012 and 2014 by Valdes-Parada et al. [@Valdes-Parada2007], Ding and Zhang [@Ding20121135] and Zeng et al. [@Zeng20142599] as follows:
- *The chemical reaction occurs only at the surface of the solid phase* [@Valdes-Parada2007]. The conservation equation that governs the transport process in the $\gamma$-phase is introduced by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rev3-2}
\frac{\partial c_{\gamma}}{\partial
t}+\nabla \bullet N_{\gamma}=0\quad \mbox{in the}\quad \gamma\mbox{-phase},\end{aligned}$$ where $c_{\gamma}$ and $N_{\gamma}$ are the concentration and the molar flux of the reactant in the $\gamma$-phase, respectively.\
A vector version of the fractional Fick’s equation is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rev3-3}
N_{\gamma}=-\emph{D}_{\alpha,\gamma}\nabla^{\alpha}c_{\gamma},\quad \alpha \in (0,1],\end{aligned}$$ where $\emph{D}_{\alpha,\gamma}$ is the fractional diffusion coefficient, and the fractional derivative operator is defined in the Riemann-Liouville’s sense. The combination of the two Eqs. (\[rev3-2\]) and (\[rev3-3\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rev3-4}
\frac{\partial c_{\gamma}}{\partial
t}=\nabla \bullet(\emph{D}_{\alpha,\gamma}\nabla^{\alpha}c_{\gamma}),\quad \mbox{in the}\quad \gamma\mbox{-phase}.\end{aligned}$$
- *1D Riesz space fractional advection-dispersion equation* [@Ding20121135]. Ding and Zhang considered in $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rev3-6}
\frac{\partial u(x,t)}{\partial
t}=K_{\alpha}\frac{\partial^{\alpha}u(x,t)}{\partial
|x|^{\alpha}}+K_{\beta}\frac{\partial^{\beta}u(x,t)}{\partial
|x|^{\beta}}\end{aligned}$$ where the Riesz fractional derivatives are used, $u$ is a solute concentration; $K_{\alpha}$ and $K_{\beta}$ represent the dispersion coefficient and the average fluid velocity. They restrict $1 < \alpha\leq 2$, $0 < \beta< 1$, and assume that $K_{\alpha}>0$ and $K_{\beta}\geq 0$. This is a special case for (\[math201803252034\]) where $d_{\alpha} \equiv K_{\alpha}$, $c_{\beta} \equiv K_{\beta}$, $d_{\mu}=c_{\nu}=0$ and $s(x,y,t)=0$.
- *2D nonlinear chemical reaction* [@Zeng20142599]. By briefly typing sentences for fractional derivatives in (\[rev3-4\]) and apply it to another dimension and also getting non-linear term, two-dimensional Riesz space fractional nonlinear reaction-diffusion equation is introduced as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rev3-5}
\partial_{t} u=K_{x}\frac{\partial^{2\alpha_{1}}u}{\partial
|x|^{2\alpha_{1}}}+K_{y}\frac{\partial^{2\alpha_{2}}u}{\partial
|y|^{2\alpha_{2}}}+F(u)+f(x,y,t)\end{aligned}$$ in which $\frac{1}{2}<\alpha_{1},\alpha_{1}<1$, $K_{x},K_{y}>0$. This is special form of (\[math201803252034\]) for $c_{\beta}=c_{\nu}=F(u)=0$.
The equation that is considered in this paper relates to a modeling of the fractional Fick’s law in porous media in both x- and y- directions. For this reason the basic definitions and lemmas will be considered in the next section.
Preliminaries
=============
In this section, we consider some important definitions, lemmas and notations which are useful for the further progresses in this paper.
The left-and right-sided Riemann-Liouville fractional derivatives of order $\gamma$ of $f(x)$ that be a continuous and Smooth function of order $n$ on $[0,L]$ are defined respectively as [@Podlubny1999], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{math21}
_{0} D_{x}^{\gamma}f(x)=\frac{1}{\Gamma(n-\gamma)}\frac{d^{n}}{d x^{n}}\int_{0}^{x}\frac{f(\xi)}{(x-\xi)^{\gamma-n+1}}d\xi,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{math22}
_{x} D_{L}^{\gamma}f(x)=\frac{(-1)^n}{\Gamma(n-\gamma)}\frac{d^{n}}{d x^{n}}\int_{x}^{L}\frac{f(\xi)}{(\xi-x)^{\gamma-n+1}}d\xi,\end{aligned}$$ where $\Gamma(\cdot)$ is the Euler gamma function, $n-1 < \gamma \leq n$, $n\in N$ and $n$ is the smallest integer greater than $\gamma$.
The Riesz fractional derivatives of order $\gamma$ of $f(x)$ function on $[0,L]$ is defined as [@Gorenflo1999231], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{math21}
\frac{\partial^{\gamma}f(x)}{\partial
|x|^{\gamma}}=-\kappa_{\gamma}\{_{0}D_{x}^{\gamma}f(x)+_{x}D_{L}^{\gamma}f(x)\},\end{aligned}$$ where $\kappa_{\gamma}=\frac{1}{2cos(\frac{\pi\gamma}{2})}$, $n-1< \gamma \leq n$ and $\gamma\neq1$.
\[math201803072224\] [@Meyer2000] The eigenvalues of the following tridiagonal Toeplitz matrix $$\label{3.42}
A=\left(
\begin{array}{cccccccc}
b & a & & & & & \\
c & b & a & & & O & \\
& c & \cdot & \cdot & & & \\
& & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & & \\
& & & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \\
& O & & & \cdot & \cdot & a \\
& & & & & c & b
\end{array}
\right)_{n\times n}$$ are given by $$\label{3.41}
\lambda_{j}=b+2a\sqrt{c/a}\cos(j\pi/(n+1)), \quad j=1,2,...,n,$$ while the corresponding eigenvectors are: $$x_{j}=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
(c/a)^{1/2}\sin(1j\pi/(n+1)) \\
(c/a)^{2/2}\sin(2j\pi/(n+1)) \\
(c/a)^{3/2}\sin(3j\pi/(n+1)) \\
\vdots \\
(c/a)^{n/2}\sin(nj\pi/(n+1)) \\
\end{array}
\right), \quad j=1,2,...,n,$$ i.e., $A x_{j}=\lambda_{j} x_{j}$, $j=1,2,...,n$. Moreover, the matrix $A$ is diagonalizable and $P=(x_{1}\quad x_{2}\quad ...\quad x_{n})$ diagonalizes $A$, i.e., $P^{-1}AP=D$, where $D=diag(\lambda_{1}\quad \lambda_{2}\quad ...\quad \lambda_{n})$.
Here we consider the approximation with step $\mathit{h}$ of the Riesz fractional derivative that obtained by calculating the appropriate coefficients for the fractional central difference by applying Fourier transform [@Ding2015218]\
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{math4}
\frac{\partial^{\gamma}u(x)}{\partial
|x|^{\gamma}}\approx-h^{-\gamma}\sum_{r=-1}^{1}\varrho_{r}^{(\gamma)}\mathcal{H}_{r}^{(\gamma)}u(x),\quad 0< \gamma \leq 2 \quad and \quad \gamma\neq1,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{math4-4}
\varrho_{-1}^{(\gamma)}=\varrho_{1}^{(\gamma)}=-\frac{\gamma}{24}, \quad \varrho_{0}^{(\gamma)}=\frac{\gamma}{12}+1,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{math4-1}
\mathcal{H}_{r}^{(\gamma)}u(x)=\sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty}\omega_{k}^{(\gamma)}u(x-(k+r)h),\end{aligned}$$ and all coefficients $\omega_{k}^{(\gamma)}$ are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{math4-2}
\omega_{k}^{(\gamma)}=\frac{(-1)^{k}\Gamma(\gamma+1)}{\Gamma(\frac{\gamma}{2}-k+1)\Gamma(\frac{\gamma}{2}+k+1)}, \quad k=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,...,\end{aligned}$$
By inserting the values of the $\varrho_{r}^{(\gamma)}$ and series in formula (\[math4-1\]) into the formula (\[math4\]), the corresponding operator of the Riesz fractional derivative of order $\gamma$ that we denote via $\mathfrak{D}_{\gamma,x}$ will be as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\mathfrak{D}_{\gamma,x}u(x)=-\frac{\gamma}{24}\sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{\omega_{k}^{(\gamma)}u(x-(k-1)h)}{h^{\gamma}}
+(\frac{\gamma}{12}+1)\sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{\omega_{k}^{(\gamma)}u(x-k h)}{h^{\gamma}}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
-\frac{\gamma}{24}\sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{\omega_{k}^{(\gamma)}u(x-(k+1)h)}{h^{\gamma}}\end{aligned}$$
We survey the properties of the coefficients $\omega_{k}^{(\gamma)}$ that are appearing at the approximate formula for Riesz fractional derivatives.
\[Thm99\] [@Celik20121743] The coefficients $\omega_{k}^{(\gamma)}$ for $k\in \mathbb{Z}$ in (\[math4-2\]) satisfy:\
(a) $\omega_{0}^{(\gamma)}\geq0$, $\omega_{-k}^{(\gamma)}=\omega_{k}^{(\gamma)}\leq 0$ for all $\mid k \mid \geq 1$,\
(b) $\sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty}\omega_{k}^{(\gamma)}=0$,\
(c) For any positive integer $n$ and $m$ with $n<m$, we have $\sum_{k=-m+n}^{n}\omega_{k}^{(\gamma)}>0$,\
(d) $\mid 2\sin(\frac{z}{2}) \mid^{\gamma}=\sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty}\omega_{k}^{(\gamma)}e^{-ik z}$.
\[math201802221502\] Let $f\in C^{7}(\mathbb{R})$ and all derivatives up to order seven belong to $L_{1}(\mathbb{R})$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{math201802221503}
\frac{\partial^{\gamma}f(x)}{\partial
|x|^{\gamma}}=-h^{-\gamma}\sum_{r=-1}^{1}\varrho_{r}^{(\gamma)}\mathcal{H}_{r}^{(\gamma)}f(x)+\mathcal{O}(h^{4}),\end{aligned}$$ when $h \rightarrow 0$ and $\frac{\partial^{\gamma}f(x)}{\partial
|x|^{\gamma}}$ is the Riesz fractional derivative for $\gamma \in(0,1)\cup(1,2]$.
Let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{math201802271726}
\varepsilon(x,h)=\frac{\partial^{\gamma}f(x)}{\partial
|x|^{\gamma}}+h^{-\gamma}\sum_{r=-1}^{1}\varrho_{r}^{(\gamma)}\mathcal{H}_{r}^{(\gamma)}f(x).\end{aligned}$$ Applying the Fourier transformation defined as $\widehat{f}(\xi)=\mathcal{F}\{f(x)\}=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}e^{-i\xi x}f(x) dx$, $\xi \in \mathbb{R}$ to the Eq. (\[math201802271726\]) yields
$$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\varepsilon}(\xi,h)=-\mid \xi \mid^{\gamma}\widehat{f}(\xi)-[\frac{\gamma}{24}\sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{\omega_{k}^{(\gamma)}e^{-i(k-1)\xi h}}{h^{\gamma}}
-(\frac{\gamma}{12}+1)\sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{\omega_{k}^{(\gamma)}e^{-ik\xi h}}{h^{\gamma}}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{math201802280048}
+\frac{\gamma}{24}\sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{\omega_{k}^{(\gamma)}e^{-i(k+1)\xi h}}{h^{\gamma}}]\widehat{f}(\xi),\end{aligned}$$
According to being $\mid \frac{2\sin(\frac{\xi h}{2})}{h} \mid$ the generating function of the coefficients $\omega_{k}^{(\gamma)}$ (formula in Lemma \[Thm99\] part (d) ), the above relation will be as follows
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{math201802222020}
\widehat{\varepsilon}(\xi,h)=[-\mid \xi \mid^{\gamma}-(\frac{\gamma}{12}\cos{\xi h}-(\frac{\gamma}{12}+1))\mid \frac{2\sin(\frac{\xi h}{2})}{h} \mid^{\gamma}]\widehat{f}(\xi),\end{aligned}$$
also, we have the following relation based on Taylor’s expansion of the function $\sin(\frac{\xi h}{2})$ centered at $\xi=0$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mid \frac{2\sin(\frac{\xi h}{2})}{h} \mid^{\gamma}=\mid \xi \mid^{\gamma}[1-\frac{\gamma}{24}(\xi h)^{2}+(\frac{1}{1920}+\frac{\gamma-1}{1152})\gamma(\xi h)^{4}-(\frac{1}{322560}+\frac{\gamma-1}{46080}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{math201802222022}
+\frac{(\gamma-1)(\gamma-2)}{82944})\gamma(\xi h)^{6}+ \mathcal{O}((\xi h)^{8})].\end{aligned}$$ Putting formula (\[math201802222022\]) in formula (\[math201802222020\]) gives the following relation: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{math201802272214}
\widehat{\varepsilon}(\xi,h)=\mid \xi \mid^{\gamma}[\frac{\gamma}{288}-\frac{\gamma^{2}}{576}+(\frac{1}{1920}+\frac{\gamma-1}{1152})\gamma](\xi h)^{4}\widehat{f}(\xi)
+ \mathcal{O}((\xi h)^{6}).\end{aligned}$$ Since $f\in C^{7}(\mathbb{R})$ and all derivatives up to order seven belong to $L_{1}(\mathbb{R})$, there exists a positive constant $C_{0}$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{math201802272314}
\mid \widehat{f}(\xi) \mid \leq C_{0}(1+\mid \xi \mid)^{-7}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, we have from (\[math201802272214\]) and (\[math201802272314\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{math201802272318}
\mid \widehat{\varepsilon}(\xi,h) \mid \leq \mathbb{C}h^{4}\mid \xi \mid^{4+\gamma}C_{0}(1+\mid \xi \mid)^{-7}\leq C h^{4}(1+\mid \xi \mid)^{4+\gamma}(1+\mid \xi \mid)^{-7}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{math201802272318}
=C h^{4}(1+\mid \xi \mid)^{\gamma-3}.\end{aligned}$$ where $C=\mathbb{C}C_{0}$ is independent of $\xi$. That is, the inverse Fourier transform of the function $\widehat{\varepsilon}(\xi,h)$ exists for $\gamma \in(0,1)\cup(1,2]$.
Therefore, taking the inverse Fourier transform in both sides of (\[math201802280048\]) and using (\[math201802272318\]) gives $$\begin{aligned}
\mid \varepsilon(x,h)\mid
\leq \frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\mid\widehat{\varepsilon}(\xi,h)\mid d\xi \leq \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}C h^{4}(1+\mid \xi \mid)^{\gamma-3}d\xi=C'h^{4},\end{aligned}$$ where $C'=\frac{C}{(2-\gamma)\pi}$.\
Hence $$\begin{aligned}
\varepsilon(x,h)=\mathcal{O}(h^{4}).\end{aligned}$$
\[math201803072254\] The matrix form of the operator $\mathfrak{D}_{\gamma,x}$ is symmetric positive definite.
Without loss of generality, suppose to be $m$ the number of nodal points for the Riesz fractional derivative approximation. The matrix form of the operator $\mathfrak{D}_{\gamma,x}$ is as follow $$\begin{aligned}
M(\mathfrak{D}_{\gamma,x})=A_{x}^{\gamma}\times B_{x}^{\gamma},\end{aligned}$$ where $A_{x}^{\gamma}$ and $B_{x}^{\gamma}$ are two symmetric matrices of order $m$, which have the entries $\varrho_{r}^{(\gamma)}$ and $\omega_{k}^{(\gamma)}$, respectively, $$\begin{aligned}
A_{x}^{\gamma}=tridiag\{\varrho_{-1}^{(\gamma)},\varrho_{0}^{(\gamma)},\varrho_{1}^{(\gamma)}\}=
tridiag\{-\frac{\gamma}{24},1+\frac{\gamma}{12},-\frac{\gamma}{24}\},\end{aligned}$$ i.e., the matrix $A_{x}^{\gamma}$ is the submatrix of matrix $A$ of order $m$, considered in the Lemma \[math201803072224\], for $a=c=-\frac{\gamma}{24}$ and $b=1+\frac{\gamma}{12}$. $$\begin{aligned}
(B_{x}^{\gamma})_{i,j}=\omega_{\mid i-j\mid}^{(\gamma)}, \quad i,j=1,2,...,m\end{aligned}$$ Based on the Lemma \[math201803072224\] eigenvalues and eigenvectors of matrix $A_{x}^{\gamma}$ are $\mu_{k}=1+\frac{\gamma}{12}\sin^{2}\frac{k\pi}{2(m+1)}$ and $y_{k}=(\sin(\frac{k \pi}{m+1})\quad \sin(\frac{2 k \pi}{m+1})\quad ...\quad\sin(\frac{m k \pi}{m+1}))^{T}$ for $k=1,2,...,m$ and also $A_{x}^{\gamma}$ is a real diagonally dominant matrix and according to the Lemma \[Thm99\] eigenvalues of matrix $B_{x}^{\gamma}$ are positive and $B_{x}^{\gamma}$ is a real diagonally dominant matrix and obviously the matrices $A_{x}^{\gamma}$ and $B_{x}^{\gamma}$ are symmetric. Therefore the matrices $A_{x}^{\gamma}$ and $B_{x}^{\gamma}$ are symmetric positive definite. The proof of the lemma is finished.
Implementation high order ADI scheme
====================================
In this section, we apply modified fractional centered difference ADI method to solve two dimensional RSFADE. For the numerical approximation scheme, let $\Pi$ be a finite domain satisfying $\Pi=[x_{L},x_{R}]\times[y_{L},y_{R}]$ and $0\leq t \leq T$, we introduce a uniform grid of mesh points $(x_{i},y_{j},t_{s})$, $\Delta x=\frac{x_{R}-x_{L}}{m_{1}}$ is the spatial grid size in $x$-direction, with partition $x_{i} = x_{L} + i\Delta x$ for $i=0,1,2,...,m_{1}$; $\Delta y=\frac{y_{R}-y_{L}}{m_{2}}$ is the spatial grid size in $y$-direction, with partition $y_{j} = y_{L} + j\Delta y$ for $j=0,1,2,...,m_{2}$ and $\Delta t=\frac{T}{N}$ is time step, with partition $t_{n}=n\Delta t$ for $n=0,1,...,N$, where $m_{1}$, $m_{2}$, and $N$ are being positive integers. For any function $\phi(x, y, t)$, we let $\phi_{i,j}(t)=\phi(x_{i},y_{j},t)$ and $\phi_{i,j}^{n}=\phi(x_{i},y_{j},t_{n})$.\
Firstly, we use modified fractional centered difference scheme to discrete Riesz derivatives with the subject of that these difference schemes operate on functions belong to $C^{7}(\mathbb{R})$. The following discretization formulas are achieved based on the expression in Theorem \[math201802221502\].
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{math201804010425}
\frac{\partial^{\alpha}u(x_{i},y,t)}{\partial
|x|^{\alpha}}=-\Delta x^{-\alpha}\sum_{r=-1}^{1}\varrho_{r}^{(\alpha)}\sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty}\omega_{k}^{(\alpha)}u(x_{i-k-r},y,t)\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{math201804010425}
+\mathcal{O}(\Delta x^{4}),\quad 1< \alpha \leq2 ,\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{math201804010426}
\frac{\partial^{\beta}u(x_{i},y,t)}{\partial
|x|^{\beta}}=-\Delta x^{-\beta}\sum_{r=-1}^{1}\varrho_{r}^{(\beta)}\sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty}\omega_{k}^{(\beta)}u(x_{i-k-r},y,t)\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{math201804010426}
+\mathcal{O}(\Delta x^{4}),\quad 0< \beta <1 ,\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{math201804010427}
\frac{\partial^{\mu}u(x,y_{j},t)}{\partial
|y|^{\mu}}=-\Delta y^{-\mu}\sum_{r=-1}^{1}\varrho_{r}^{(\mu)}\sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty}\omega_{k}^{(\mu)}u(x,y_{j-k-r},t)\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{math201804010427}
+\mathcal{O}(\Delta y^{4}),\quad 1< \mu \leq2 ,\end{aligned}$$
and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{math201804010428}
\frac{\partial^{\nu}u(x,y_{j},t)}{\partial
|y|^{\nu}}=-\Delta y^{-\nu}\sum_{r=-1}^{1}\varrho_{r}^{(\nu)}\sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty}\omega_{k}^{(\nu)}u(x,y_{j-k-r},t)\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{math201804010428}
+\mathcal{O}(\Delta y^{4}),\quad 0< \nu <1.\end{aligned}$$
Let $u_{i,j}(t)=u(x_{i},y_{j},t)$, for $i=1,2,...,m_{1}-1$ and $j=1,2,...,m_{2}-1$, by considering zero boundary conditions, the two dimensional RSFADE (\[math201803252034\]) can be cast into the following system of time ordinary differential equations by considering formulas (\[math201804010425\])-(\[math201804010428\]) based on mesh sizes in the spatial direction. $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial u_{i,j}(t)}{\partial t}=-d_{\alpha}\Delta x^{-\alpha}\sum_{r=-1}^{1}\varrho_{r}^{(\alpha)}\sum_{k=-m_{1}+i}^{i}\omega_{k}^{(\alpha)}u_{i-k-r,j}(t)-c_{\beta}\Delta x^{-\beta}\sum_{r=-1}^{1}\varrho_{r}^{(\beta)}\times\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=-m_{1}+i}^{i}\omega_{k}^{(\beta)}u_{i-k-r,j}(t)-d_{\mu}\Delta y^{-\mu}\sum_{r=-1}^{1}\varrho_{r}^{(\mu)}\sum_{k=-m_{2}+j}^{j}\omega_{k}^{(\mu)}u_{i,j-k-r}(t)\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
-c_{\nu}\Delta y^{-\nu}\sum_{r=-1}^{1}\varrho_{r}^{(\nu)}\sum_{k=-m_{2}+j}^{j}\omega_{k}^{(\nu)}u_{i,j-k-r}(t)+s_{i,j}(t),\end{aligned}$$ and by substituting $i-k-r=l$ and $j-k-r=z$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial u_{i,j}(t)}{\partial t}=-d_{\alpha}(\sum_{r=-1}^{1}\varrho_{r}^{(\alpha)}\sum_{l=-r+m_{1}}^{-r}\frac{\omega_{i-l-r}^{(\alpha)}}{\Delta x^{\alpha}})u_{l,j}(t)-c_{\beta}(\sum_{r=-1}^{1}\varrho_{r}^{(\beta)}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\times\sum_{l=-r+m_{1}}^{-r}\frac{\omega_{i-l-r}^{(\beta)}}{\Delta x^{\beta}})u_{l,j}(t)-d_{\mu}(\sum_{r=-1}^{1}\varrho_{r}^{(\mu)}\sum_{l=-r+m_{2}}^{-r}\frac{\omega_{i-l-r}^{(\mu)}}{\Delta x^{\mu}})u_{i,z}(t)\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
-c_{\nu}(\sum_{r=-1}^{1}\varrho_{r}^{(\nu)}\sum_{z=-r+m_{2}}^{-r}\frac{\omega_{j-z-r}^{(\nu)}}{\Delta y^{\nu}})u_{i,z}(t)+s_{i,j}(t),\end{aligned}$$ i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial u_{i,j}(t)}{\partial t}=-(d_{\alpha}\sum_{r=-1}^{1}\varrho_{r}^{(\alpha)}\sum_{l=-r+m_{1}}^{-r}\frac{\omega_{i-l-r}^{(\alpha)}}{\Delta x^{\alpha}}+c_{\beta}\sum_{r=-1}^{1}\varrho_{r}^{(\beta)}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\times\sum_{l=-r+m_{1}}^{-r}\frac{\omega_{i-l-r}^{(\beta)}}{\Delta x^{\beta}})u_{l,j}(t)-(d_{\mu}\sum_{r=-1}^{1}\varrho_{r}^{(\mu)}\sum_{l=-r+m_{2}}^{-r}\frac{\omega_{i-l-r}^{(\mu)}}{\Delta x^{\mu}}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Current3:4}
+c_{\nu}\sum_{r=-1}^{1}\varrho_{r}^{(\nu)}\sum_{z=-r+m_{2}}^{-r}\frac{\omega_{j-z-r}^{(\nu)}}{\Delta y^{\nu}})u_{i,z}(t)+s_{i,j}(t).\end{aligned}$$ In order to display simple of the four operators in (\[Current3:4\]) we show just briefly, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathfrak{D}_{\alpha,x}u_{i,j}^{n}=\sum_{r=-1}^{1}\varrho_{r}^{(\alpha)}\sum_{l=-r+m_{1}}^{-r}\frac{\omega_{i-l-r}^{(\alpha)}}{\Delta x^{\alpha}}u_{l,j}^{n},\quad \mathfrak{D}_{\beta,x}u_{i,j}^{n}=\sum_{r=-1}^{1}\varrho_{r}^{(\beta)}\sum_{l=-r+m_{1}}^{-r}\frac{\omega_{i-l-r}^{(\beta)}}{\Delta x^{\beta}}u_{l,j}^{n},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathfrak{D}_{\mu,y}u_{i,j}^{n}=\sum_{r=-1}^{1}\varrho_{r}^{(\mu)}\sum_{l=-r+m_{2}}^{-r}\frac{\omega_{i-l-r}^{(\mu)}}{\Delta x^{\mu}}u_{i,z}^{n}\quad \mbox{and}\quad \mathfrak{D}_{\nu,y}u_{i,j}^{n}=\sum_{r=-1}^{1}\varrho_{r}^{(\nu)}\sum_{z=-r+m_{2}}^{-r}\frac{\omega_{j-z-r}^{(\nu)}}{\Delta y^{\nu}}u_{i,z}^{n}.\end{aligned}$$ The two-dimensional Meerschaert–Tadjeran finite difference method can be formulated as follows: $$\frac{u_{i,j}^{n+1}-u_{i,j}^{n}}{\Delta t}=-(d_{\alpha}\mathfrak{D}_{\alpha,x}+c_{\beta}\mathfrak{D}_{\beta,x}+d_{\mu}\mathfrak{D}_{\mu,y}+c_{\nu}\mathfrak{D}_{\nu,y})u_{i,j}^{n}+s_{i,j}^{n}$$ A Crank-Nicolson type finite difference equation for the two-dimensional Riesz space fractional advection-dispersion equation (\[math201803252034\]) may be obtained by substituting the modified fractional centered difference estimates into the differential equation centered at time $t_{n+\frac{1}{2}}=\frac{1}{2}(t_{n+1}+t_{n})$ may be expressed as follows [@Tadjeran2007813]: $$\label{math201804171858}
\frac{u_{i,j}^{n+1}-u_{i,j}^{n}}{\Delta t}=-(d_{\alpha}\mathfrak{D}_{\alpha,x}+c_{\beta}\mathfrak{D}_{\beta,x}+d_{\mu}\mathfrak{D}_{\mu,y}+c_{\nu}\mathfrak{D}_{\nu,y})\frac{u_{i,j}^{n+1}+u_{i,j}^{n}}{2}$$ $$\label{math201804171858}
+\frac{s_{i,j}^{n+1}+s_{i,j}^{n}}{2}$$ Now Eq. (\[math201804171858\]) can be re-arranged and rewritten as this $$[\mathcal{I}+\frac{\Delta t}{2}(d_{\alpha}\mathfrak{D}_{\alpha,x}+c_{\beta}\mathfrak{D}_{\beta,x}+d_{\mu}\mathfrak{D}_{\mu,y}+c_{\nu}\mathfrak{D}_{\nu,y})]u_{i,j}^{n+1}=$$ $$\label{math201804171932}
[\mathcal{I}-\frac{\Delta t}{2}(d_{\alpha}\mathfrak{D}_{\alpha,x}+c_{\beta}\mathfrak{D}_{\beta,x}+d_{\mu}\mathfrak{D}_{\mu,y}+c_{\nu}\mathfrak{D}_{\nu,y})]u_{i,j}^{n}+s_{i,j}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\Delta t,$$ where $\mathcal{I}$ is an identify operator (depends on the type of spatial operator) and $s_{i,j}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}=\frac{s_{i,j}^{n+1}+s_{i,j}^{n}}{2}$.\
We note that the finite difference method (\[math201804171932\]) can be rewritten as the following directional splitting factorization form by ignoring the high order perturbation terms $$[\mathcal{I}+\frac{\Delta t}{2}(d_{\alpha}\mathfrak{D}_{\alpha,x}+c_{\beta}\mathfrak{D}_{\beta,x})][\mathcal{I}+\frac{\Delta t}{2}
(d_{\mu}\mathfrak{D}_{\mu,y}+c_{\nu}\mathfrak{D}_{\nu,y})]u_{i,j}^{n+1}=$$ $$\label{math201803181534}
[\mathcal{I}-\frac{\Delta t}{2}(d_{\alpha}\mathfrak{D}_{\alpha,x}+c_{\beta}\mathfrak{D}_{\beta,x})][\mathcal{I}-\frac{\Delta t}{2}
(d_{\mu}\mathfrak{D}_{\mu,y}+c_{\nu}\mathfrak{D}_{\nu,y})]u_{i,j}^{n}+s_{i,j}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\Delta t$$ To implement the practical reiterate scheme, by following the Peaceman-Rachford strategy, we can split the previous equation in two, by introducing an intermediate variable $u^ {*} $, which represents a solution computed at an intermediate time. Therefore, we obtain a type of Peaceman-Rachford ADI [@Peaceman195541], $$\label{math201803181535}
[\mathcal{I}+\frac{\Delta t}{2}(d_{\alpha}\mathfrak{D}_{\alpha,x}+c_{\beta}\mathfrak{D}_{\beta,x})]u_{i,j}^{*}=[\mathcal{I}-\frac{\Delta t}{2}
(d_{\mu}\mathfrak{D}_{\mu,y}+c_{\nu}\mathfrak{D}_{\nu,y})]u_{i,j}^{n}+s_{i,j}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\Delta t$$ $$\label{math201803181536}
[\mathcal{I}+\frac{\Delta t}{2}
(d_{\mu}\mathfrak{D}_{\mu,y}+c_{\nu}\mathfrak{D}_{\nu,y})]u_{i,j}^{n+1}=[\mathcal{I}-\frac{\Delta t}{2}(d_{\alpha}\mathfrak{D}_{\alpha,x}+c_{\beta}\mathfrak{D}_{\beta,x})]u_{i,j}^{*}$$ $$\label{math201803181536}
+s_{i,j}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\Delta t$$ In order to solve (\[math201803252034\])–(\[math201803252036\]) the following algorithm can be used.\
**Algorithm**\
**Step (1)** First solve on each fixed horizontal slice $y=y_{k}$ $(k=1,2,...,m_{2}-1)$, a set of $m_{1}-1$ equations at the points $x_{i}$, $i=1,2,...,m_{1}-1$ defined by (\[math201803181535\]) to obtain the middle solution slice $u_{i,k}^{*}$.\
**Step (2)** Next alternating the spatial direction, and for each $x = x_{k}$ $(k=1,2,...,m_{1}-1)$ solving a set of $m_{2}-1$ equations defined by (\[math201803181536\]) at the points $y_{j}$, $j = 1,2,...,m_{2}-1$, to get $u_{i,j}^{n+1}$.
Analysis of the ADI Crank-Nicolson scheme
=========================================
In this section, we bring essential theorems for convergence of the proposed method.
\[math201804192159\] The ADI-Crank Nicolson discretization for (\[math201803252034\])-(\[math201803252036\]) defined by (\[math201803181534\]) is consistent, with a truncation error of the order $\mathcal{O}(\Delta x^{4})+\mathcal{O}(\Delta y^{4})+\mathcal{O}(\Delta t^2)$.
First reminder that, as in the Crank-Nicolson method, for discretization the first derivative in the temporal direction $\partial u(x_{i},y_{j},t_{n+1/2})/\partial t$ gives the second-order accuracy via the centered divided difference $[u(x_{i},y_{j},t_{n+1})-u(x_{i},y_{j},t_{n})]/\Delta t$.
But in the spatial directions, we may employ Theorem \[math201802221502\] to express accuracy $$\begin{aligned}
\label{math201802221503}
\frac{\partial^{\alpha}u(x_{i},y_{j},t_{n})}{\partial
|x|^{\alpha}}=-\mathfrak{D}_{\alpha,x}u_{i,j}^{n}+\mathcal{O}(\Delta x^{4}),\quad \frac{\partial^{\beta}u(x_{i},y_{j},t_{n})}{\partial
|x|^{\beta}}=-\mathfrak{D}_{\beta,x}u_{i,j}^{n}+\mathcal{O}(\Delta x^{4}),\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{math201802221503}
\frac{\partial^{\mu}u(x_{i},y_{j},t_{n})}{\partial
|y|^{\mu}}=-\mathfrak{D}_{\mu,y}u_{i,j}^{n}+\mathcal{O}(\Delta y^{4})\quad \mbox{and} \quad \frac{\partial^{\nu}u(x_{i},y_{j},t_{n})}{\partial
|y|^{\nu}}=-\mathfrak{D}_{\nu,y}u_{i,j}^{n}+\mathcal{O}(\Delta y^{4}).\end{aligned}$$
According to the above description, the local truncation error of the modified fractional centered difference Crank-Nicolson method presented in (\[math201804171858\]) to approximate Eq. (\[math201803252034\]), which is centered in both space and time, are forth order accurate in space and second order accurate in time.\
By multiplying the sides of the relation (\[math201804171858\]) in $\Delta t$ and by sorting terms based on algorithmic form in the temporal direction, the local truncation error of (\[math201804171932\]) will be in order $\mathcal{O}(\Delta x^{4}\Delta t)+\mathcal{O}(\Delta y^{4}\Delta t)+\mathcal{O}(\Delta t^{3})$.\
The interactions that apply to formula (\[math201803181534\]) from formula (\[math201804171932\]) will not affect the accuracy of the method. Since it is supposed to repeat the algorithm (\[math201803181534\]) for the number of mesh points. Therefore, the ADI-CN finite difference equations defined by (\[math201803181534\]) have a truncation error of the order $\mathcal{O}(\Delta x^{4})+\mathcal{O}(\Delta y^{4})+\mathcal{O}(\Delta t^2)$.
\[math201804192200\] The iterative scheme defined by (\[math201803181534\]) to solve the two dimensional RSFADE (\[math201803252034\])-(\[math201803252036\]) is unconditionally stable.
Let $M_{x}$ and $M_{y}$ be matrix forms of the $\frac{\Delta t}{2}(d_{\alpha}\mathfrak{D}_{\alpha,x}+c_{\beta}\mathfrak{D}_{\beta,x})$ and $\frac{\Delta t}{2}
(d_{\mu}\mathfrak{D}_{\mu,y}+c_{\nu}\mathfrak{D}_{\nu,y})$, respectively. i.e, $$M_{x}=\frac{\Delta t}{2}m(d_{\alpha}\mathfrak{D}_{\alpha,x}+c_{\beta}\mathfrak{D}_{\beta,x})\quad \mbox{and} \quad M_{y}=\frac{\Delta t}{2}
m(d_{\mu}\mathfrak{D}_{\mu,y}+c_{\nu}\mathfrak{D}_{\nu,y})$$
According to Lemma \[math201803072254\], the matrices of $\mathfrak{D}_{\alpha,x}$, $\mathfrak{D}_{\beta,x}$, $\mathfrak{D}_{\mu,y}$ and $\mathfrak{D}_{\nu,y}$ operators are all symmetric positive definite. Therefore the matrices $M_{x}$ and $M_{y}$ are symmetric positive definite. And the matrices used in the recurrence relation corresponded in formula (28) are $(I+M_{x})^{-1}(I-M_{x})$ and $(I+M_{x})^{-1}$ in the direction of the length axis and $(I+M_{y})^{-1}(I-M_{y})$ and $(I+M_{y})^{-1}$ in the direction of the latitude axis. Since the two matrices $M_{x}$ and $M_{y}$ are symmetric positive definite, the eigenvalues of these two matrices are positive. So the eigenvalues of the two matrices $(I+M_{x})^{-1}$ and $(I+M_{y})^{-1}$ are positive and the eigenvalues of the matrices $(I+M_{x})^{-1}(I-M_{x})$ and $(I+M_{y})^{-1}(I-M_{y})$ be inner the unit circle. In addition, it should be noted that two matrices $M_ {x} $ and $M_ {y} $ commute (are commutative) to the matrix multiplication. Therefore the iterative scheme defined by (\[math201803181534\]) is unconditionally stable.
Let us now recall the following Lax results that allows the authors to obtain fruitful considerations regarding the convergence.
\[math201804200911\] **Lax Equivalence Theorem** [@Thomas2013] A consistent, two level difference scheme for a well-posed linear initial-value problem is convergent if and only if it is stable.
\[math201804200914\] **Lax Theorem** [@Thomas2013] If a two-level difference scheme $$\textbf{u}^{n+1}=Q\textbf{u}^{n}+\Delta t \textbf{G}^{n}$$ is accurate of order $(p, q)$ in the norm $\parallel.\parallel$ to a well-posed linear initial-value problem and is stable with respect to the norm $\parallel.\parallel$, then it is convergent of order $(p, q)$ with respect to the norm $\parallel.\parallel$.
The proposed method by referring to Theorem \[math201804192159\] is either consistently or accurate in related order and based on Theorem \[math201804192200\] is unconditionally stable. Convergence of the method yields from Lax equivalence theorem and it follows from Lax Theorem that the convergence of numerical method is of order $(4,2)$ in spatial and temporal directions, respectively.
Numerical results
=================
In this section, we report on numerical experiments for (\[math201803252034\])-(\[math201803252036\]) with the known exact solution to prove the correctness of our theoretical analysis expressed in the previous sections.
We use the same spacing $h$ in each direction, $\Delta x=\Delta y=h$. We present the error in $L^{2}$ norm $$e(h,k)=\parallel U^{N}-u^{N}\parallel,$$ and the convergence rates in the temporal and spatial directions determined by the following formulas $$\gamma_{1}\approx \frac{log(e_{m}/e_{m+1})}{log(h_{m}/h_{m+1})}, \quad \gamma_{2}\approx \frac{log(e_{n}/e_{n+1})}{log(k_{n}/k_{n+1})},$$ respectively, where the step size $h_{m}=Length/m$ , $k_{n}=T_{end}/n$ and $e_{m}$ , $e_{n}$ is the norm of the error with $h=h_{m}$ , $k=k_{n}$ respectively.
\[exp:1\] We consider the following two dimensional RSFADE with the initial and homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial u(x,y,t)}{\partial
t}=d_{\alpha}\frac{\partial^{\alpha}u(x,y,t)}{\partial
|x|^{\alpha}}+c_{\beta}\frac{\partial^{\beta}u(x,y,t)}{\partial
|x|^{\beta}}+d_{\mu}\frac{\partial^{\mu}u(x,y,t)}{\partial
|y|^{\mu}}+c_{\nu}\frac{\partial^{\nu}u(x,y,t)}{\partial
|y|^{\nu}}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
+s(x,y,t),\quad 0<t<\pi ,\quad 0<x,y<1,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
u(x,y,0)=0, \quad 0\leq x,y \leq 1,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
u(0,y,t)=u(1,y,t)=u(x,0,t)=u(x,1,t)=0, \quad 0\leq t \leq \pi,\quad 0\leq x,y \leq 1,\end{aligned}$$ with source term $$s(x,y,t)=d_{\alpha}y^{2}(1-y)^{2}\frac{\sin(\pi t)}{\cos(\frac{\pi\alpha}{2})}\Phi(\alpha,x)
+c_{\beta}y^{2}(1-y)^{2}\frac{\sin(\pi t)}{\cos(\frac{\pi\beta}{2})}\Phi(\beta,x)$$ $$+d_{\mu}x^{2}(1-x)^{2}\frac{\sin(\pi t)}{\cos(\frac{\pi\mu}{2})}\Phi(\mu,y)+c_{\nu}x^{2}(1-x)^{2}\frac{\sin(\pi t)}{\cos(\frac{\pi\nu}{2})}\Phi(\nu,y)$$ $$+\pi x^{2}y^{2}(1-x)^{2}(1-y)^{2}\cos(\pi t)$$
where $\alpha=1.8$, $\beta=0.9$, $\mu=1.6$, $\nu=0.7$, $d_{\alpha}=d_{\mu}=0.25$, $c_{\beta}=c_{\nu}=0.05$ and $\Phi(\gamma,z)=\frac{z^{2-\gamma}+(1-z)^{2-\gamma}}{\Gamma(3-\gamma)}-\frac{6(z^{3-\gamma}+
(1-z)^{3-\gamma})}{\Gamma(4-\gamma)}+\frac{12(z^{4-\gamma}+(1-z)^{4-\gamma})}{\Gamma(5-\gamma)}$. The exact solution of the problem is given by $u(x,y,t)=x^{2}y^{2}(1-x)^{2}(1-y)^{2}\sin(\pi t)$.
The maximum absolute errors and their estimated convergence rates to solve the two dimensional RSFADE with the initial value and homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions approximated by the modified Crank-Nicolson ADI method are shown in Tables \[tab:1\] and \[tab:2\]. We observe that as the step sizes reduce, the absolute errors decrease as well, which shows that the numerical solutions is coincident with the exact solution. From the numerics in Tables \[tab:1\] and \[tab:2\], we can see that the convergence rate for space is fourth order and the convergence rate for time is second order. The order of convergence is evaluated numerically, which demonstrates the theoretical results.
--------------------------------- ---------------- ------------------ -- --
Maximum Estimated
$\mathit{h}_{x}=\mathit{h}_{y}$ Absolute Error Convergence Rate
$0.10000$ $3.19826e-003$ -
$0.05000$ $2.61740e-004$ $3.61108$
$0.02500$ $1.90572e-005$ $3.77973$
$0.01250$ $1.33477e-006$ $3.83567$
$0.00625$ $8.92357e-008$ $3.90283$
--------------------------------- ---------------- ------------------ -- --
: The maximum errors and convergence rates for the modified Crank-Nicolson ADI method for solving two dimensional RSFADE with halved spatial step sizes and $\mathit{k}_{t}= 0.001$[]{data-label="tab:1"}
------------------ ---------------- ------------------ -- --
Maximum Estimated
$\mathit{k}_{t}$ Absolute Error Convergence Rate
$0.10000$ $3.77425e-003$ -
$0.05000$ $1.20417e-003$ $1.64815$
$0.02500$ $3.55418e-004$ $1.76045$
$0.01250$ $1.02360e-004$ $1.79586$
$0.00625$ $2.69907e-005$ $1.92312$
------------------ ---------------- ------------------ -- --
: The maximum errors and convergence rates for the modified Crank-Nicolson ADI method for solving two dimensional RSFADE with halved temporal step sizes and $\mathit{h}_{x}=\mathit{h}_{y}= 0.001$[]{data-label="tab:2"}
\[exp:2\] We consider the following two dimensional RSFADE with the initial and homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial u(x,y,t)}{\partial
t}=d_{\alpha}\frac{\partial^{\alpha}u(x,y,t)}{\partial
|x|^{\alpha}}+c_{\beta}\frac{\partial^{\beta}u(x,y,t)}{\partial
|x|^{\beta}}+d_{\mu}\frac{\partial^{\mu}u(x,y,t)}{\partial
|y|^{\mu}}+c_{\nu}\frac{\partial^{\nu}u(x,y,t)}{\partial
|y|^{\nu}}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
+s(x,y,t),\quad 0<t<2,\quad 0<x,y<\pi,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
u(x,y,0)=xy(\pi-x)(\pi-y), \quad 0\leq x,y \leq \pi,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
u(0,y,t)=u(\pi,y,t)=u(x,0,t)=u(x,\pi,t)=0, \quad 0\leq t \leq 2,\quad 0\leq x,y \leq \pi,\end{aligned}$$ with source function $$s(x,y,t)=\frac{d_{\alpha}y(\pi-y)e^{-t}}{2\cos(\frac{\pi\alpha}{2})}\Psi(\alpha,x)
+\frac{c_{\beta}y(\pi-y)e^{-t}}{2\cos(\frac{\pi\beta}{2})}\Psi(\beta,x)$$ $$\label{5.2}
+\frac{d_{\mu}x(\pi-x)e^{-t}}{2\cos(\frac{\pi\mu}{2})}\Psi(\mu,y)+\frac{c_{\nu}x(\pi-x)e^{-t}}
{2\cos(\frac{\pi\nu}{2})}\Psi(\nu,y)-xy(\pi-x)(\pi-y)e^{-t}$$ where $\alpha=1.8$, $\beta=0.7$, $\mu=1.6$, $\nu=0.5$, $d_{\alpha}=d_{\mu}=0.25$, $c_{\beta}=c_{\nu}=0.05$ and $\Psi(\gamma,z)=\frac{\pi(z^{1-\gamma}+(\pi-z)^{1-\gamma})}{\Gamma(2-\gamma)}-\frac{2(z^{2-\gamma}+(\pi-z)^{2-\gamma})}
{\Gamma(3-\gamma)}$. The corresponding exact solution is $u(x,y,t)=xy(\pi-x)(\pi-y)e^{-t}$.
The table \[tab:3\] shows maximum absolute errors and related estimated convergence rates with different values for $\mathit{h}_{x}=\mathit{h}_{y}$ as $0.1\pi$, $0.05\pi$, $0.025\pi$, $0.0125\pi$ and $0.00625\pi$ and fixed value $\mathit{k}_{t}=0.001$ whereas Table \[tab:4\] presents them with different values for $\mathit{k}_{t}$ as $0.1$, $0.05$, $0.025$, $0.0125$ and $0.00625$ and fixed value $\mathit{h}_{x}=\mathit{h}_{y}=0.001\pi$. From Tables \[tab:3\] and \[tab:4\], we find the experimental convergence orders are approximately four and two in spatial and temporal directions, respectively. The numerical Example \[exp:2\] results are provided to show that the proposed approximation method is computationally efficient.
--------------------------------- ---------------- ------------------ -- --
Maximum Estimated
$\mathit{h}_{x}=\mathit{h}_{y}$ Absolute Error Convergence Rate
$0.10000\pi$ $3.26587e-004$ -
$0.05000\pi$ $2.60038e-005$ $3.65067$
$0.02500\pi$ $1.81670e-006$ $3.83933$
$0.01250\pi$ $1.26448e-007$ $3.84471$
$0.00625\pi$ $8.13028e-009$ $3.95909$
--------------------------------- ---------------- ------------------ -- --
: The maximum errors and convergence rates for the modified Crank-Nicolson ADI method for solving two dimensional RSFADE with halved spatial step sizes and $\mathit{k}_{t}= 0.001$[]{data-label="tab:3"}
------------------ ---------------- ------------------ -- --
Maximum Estimated
$\mathit{k}_{t}$ Absolute Error Convergence Rate
$0.10000$ $4.79240e-003$ -
$0.05000$ $1.46420e-003$ $1.71063$
$0.02500$ $4.21902e-004$ $1.79513$
$0.01250$ $1.14998e-004$ $1.87530$
$0.00625$ $2.95945e-005$ $1.95821$
------------------ ---------------- ------------------ -- --
: The maximum errors and convergence rates for the modified Crank-Nicolson ADI method for solving two dimensional RSFADE with halved temporal step sizes and $\mathit{h}_{x}=\mathit{h}_{y}= 0.001\pi$[]{data-label="tab:4"}
Conclusions
===========
In this paper, a high-order Crank-Nicolson alternating direction implicit method to solve two-dimensional Riesz space fractional advection-dispersion equations was introduced. Consistency and stability of the proposed method are discussed and by using the Lax equivalence theorem and Lax theorem, convergence and its order are proved. Numerical tests are carried out to indicate the theoretical results and demonstrate the efficiency of the proposed method.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work of the first and third authors is partially supported by Grant-in-Aid from the University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran.\
The second author is supported by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation (5-100 program of the Russian Ministry of Education).
[99]{} \[1\][DOI \#1]{}
S. Abdi-mazraeh, M. Lakestani and M. Dehghan, The construction of operational matrices of integral and fractional integral using the flatlet oblique multiwavelets, J. Vib. Control 21(4) (2015) 818–832. E. E. Adams and L. W. Gelhar, Field study of dispersion in a heterogeneous aquifer: 2. Spatial moment analysis, Water Resour. Res. 28(12) (1992) 3293–3307. D. A. Benson, S. W. Wheatcraft and M. M. Meerschaert, Application of a fractional advection-dispersion equation, Water Resour. Res. 36(6) (2000) 1403–1412. B. Baeumer, D. A. Benson, M. M. Meerschaert and S. W. Wheatcraft, Subordinated advection-dispersion equation for contaminant transport, Water Resour. Res. 37(6) (2001) 1543–1550. C. Çelik and M. Duman, Crank-Nicolson method for the fractional diffusion equation with the Riesz fractional derivative, J. Comput. Phys. 231(4) (2012) 1743–1750. S. Chen and F. Liu, ADI-Euler and extrapolation methods for the two-dimensional fractional advection-dispersion equation, J. Appl. Math. Comput. 26(1-2) (2008) 295–311. H. F. Ding and Y. X. Zhang, New numerical methods for the Riesz space fractional partial differential equations, Comput. Math. Appl. 63(7) (2012) 1135–1146. H. Ding and C. Li, High-order numerical algorithms for Riesz derivatives via constructing new generating functions, J. Sci. Comput. 71(2) (2017) 759–784. H. Ding, C. Li and Y. Chen, High-order algorithms for Riesz derivative and their applications (II), J. Comput. Phys. 293 (2015) 218–237. S. Gala, Q. Liu and M. A. Ragusa, A new regularity criterion for the nematic liquid crystal flows, Appl. Anal. 91(9) (2012) 1741–1747. S. Gala and M. A. Ragusa, Logarithmically improved regularity criterion for the Boussinesq equations in Besov spaces with negative indices, Appl. Anal. 95(6) (2016) 1271–1279. R. Gorenflo and F. Mainardi, Approximation of Lévy-Feller diffusion by random walk models, Zeitschrift für Analysis und ihre Anwendungen 18(2) (1999) 231–246. S. Irandoust-pakchin, M. Dehghan, S. Abdi-mazraeh and M. Lakestani, Numerical solution for a class of fractional convection-diffusion equations using the flatlet oblique multiwavelets, J. Vib. Control 20(6) (2014) 913–924. M. Lakestani, M. Dehghan and S. Irandoust-Pakchin, The construction of operational matrix of fractional derivatives using B-spline functions, Commun. Nonlinear Sci. 17(3) (2012) 1149–1162. J. Manafian and M. Lakestani, A new analytical approach to solve some of the fractional-order partial differential equations, Indian J. Phys. 91(3) (2017) 243–258. C. D. Meyer, Matrix Analysis and Applied Linear Algebra, SIAM, 2000. E. Micu and E. Zuazua, On the controllability of a fractional order parabolic equation, SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization 44(6) (2006) 1950–1972. D. W. Peaceman and H. H. Rachford, The numerical solution of parabolic and elliptic differential equations, J. Soc. Indust. Appl. Math. 3(1) (1955) 28–41. I. Podlubny, Fractional Differential Equations, Academic Press, New York, (1999). S. Polidoro and M.A. Ragusa, Harnack inequality for hypoelliptic ultraparabolic equations with a singular lower order term, Revista Matematica Iberoamericana 24 (3) (2008) 1011–1046. M. Popolizio, A matrix approach for partial differential equations with Riesz space fractional derivatives, Eur. Phys. J. Special Topics 222(8) (2013) 1975–1985. Y. Povstenko, T. Kyrylych and G. Ryga[ł]{}, Fractional Diffusion in a Solid with Mass Absorption, Entropy 19(5) (2017) 203. DOI:10.3390/e19050203 M. Rahman, A. Mahmood and M. Younis, Improved and more feasible numerical methods for Riesz space fractional partial differential equations, Appl. Math. Comput. 237 (2014) 264–273. S. Shen, F. Liu, V. Anh and I. Turner, The fundamental solution and numerical solution of the Riesz fractional advection-dispersion equation, IMA J. Appl. Math. 73(6) (2008) 850–872. C. Tadjeran and M. M. Meerschaert, A second-order accurate numerical method for the two-dimensional fractional diffusion equation, J. Comput. Phys. 220(2) (2007) 813–823. J. W. Thomas, Numerical Partial Differential Equations: Finite Difference Methods, Springer Science & Business Media, New York, 2013. F. J. Valdes-Parada, J. A. Ochoa-Tapia and J. Alvarez-Ramirez, Effective medium equations for fractional Fick’s law in porous media, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 373 (2007) 339–353. S. Valizadeh and A. Borhanifar, Numerical solution for Riesz fractional diffusion equation via fractional centered difference scheme, Walailak J. Sci. Tech. (2020) Accepted. F. Zeng, F. Liu, C. Li, K. Burrage, I. Turner and V. Anh, A Crank-Nicolson ADI spectral method for a two-dimensional Riesz space farctional nonlinear reaction-diffusion equation, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 52(6) (2014) 2599–2622. Y. Zhang and H. Ding, Improved matrix transform method for the Riesz space fractional reaction dispersion equation, J. Comput. Appl. Math. 260 (2014) 266–280.
Y. Zhang and H. Ding, High-order algorithm for the two-dimension Riesz space-fractional diffusion equation, Int. J. Comput. Math. 94(10) (2017) 2063–2073. DOI: 10.1080/00207160.2016.1274746
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: Corresponding author: [email protected]
[^3]: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
= 10000
by 0.5in by -0.25in
Introduction {#Introduction}
============
The discovery of high temperature superconductors, with their broad fluctuation regime, has emphasized the inadequacy of the conventional mean–field description of critical behavior.[@FluctExpts] Early attempts to apply field theoretic methods to the Ginzburg–Landau (GL) free energy, however, are of limited applicability in low dimensions.[@HLM; @NBT] Instead, superconducting fluctuations in low dimensions are now understood in terms of vortices, which emerge as the low energy degrees of freedom of the Ginzburg–Landau theory. The phases of the superconductor within this picture are analogous to states of conventional matter, except that they are composed of flux lines instead of molecules. In fact, because the vortices are extended objects, the system most closely resembles a collection of [*quantum*]{} bosons.[@NelsonSeung] As the thickness of the superconductor approaches infinity, the effective “temperature” of this bosonic system goes to zero, and interesting strongly–correlated phases can emerge.
One difference between the flux line array and true assemblies of bosons is that in the former, the effects of the embedding medium are more often dramatic. Indeed, without careful preparation, most high temperature superconducting samples are dominated by internal defects which tend to disorder the vortex array. Only at reasonably high temperatures, when the fluxons are best described as a liquid, can the effects of these random pinning centers be neglected.[@NlD] At lower temperatures, disorder may induce subtle types of glassy order,[@VGtheory; @BGtheory; @VGexperiments; @BGexperiments] or simply force the system to remain a liquid with very sluggish dynamics.[@Young] The layered structure of the copper–oxide materials itself provides a non–random source of pinning.[@intrinsicrefs] At low temperatures, the c-axis coherence length $\xi_{c0} \approx 4 \AA \lesssim s
\approx 12 \AA$, where $s$ is the lattice constant in this direction. Vortex lines oriented in the ab plane are attracted to the regions of low condensate electron density between the CuO$_2$ layers. Such a periodic potential for true two–dimensional bosons could be induced by an anisotropically corrugated substrate, possibly leading to the observation of the effects described here in He$^4$ films.
Previous work on intrinsically pinned vortices has focused on the low temperature fluctuationless regime, in which the vortices form a pinned elastic solid. Near $T_c$, however, when thermal fluctuations are important, entirely different phases can exist. These thermally fluctuating states are particularly interesting experimentally because hysteretic effects are weak and equilibrium transport measurements are more easily performed than at low temperatures. Our research is motivated by the recent experimental work of Kwok et. al.[@Kwok] who observed a continuous resistive transition in ${\rm YBa_2Cu_3O_7}$ for fields very closely aligned ($\theta <
1^\circ$) to the ab plane. A preliminary version of our results appeared in Ref..
To explain the experiments, the interplay between inter–vortex interactions and thermal fluctuations must be taken into account in an essential way. The experiments of Ref. seem to rule out conventional freezing, which is first order in all known three–dimensional cases. The additional observation of a strong first order freezing transition for $\theta \gtrsim 1^\circ$ suggests that point disorder is relatively unimportant at these elevated temperatures (strong point disorder would destroy a first order freezing transition). In addition, an attempted fit of the data to a dynamical scaling form yielded exponents inconsistent with vortex or Bose glass values.[@Kwok] Instead, we postulate freezing into an intermediate “smectic” phase between the high temperature flux liquid and a low temperature crystal/glass. Such smectic freezing, as discussed by de Gennes for the nematic–smectic A transition,[@DeGennes] can occur via a continuous transition in three dimensions. The vortex smectic state is richer than its liquid crystal counterpart, however, for two reasons. First, the existence of a periodic embedding medium (i.e. the crystal lattice) in the former leads to commensurability effects not present in the liquid crystal.[@Villainreview] In addition, the connectedness of flux lines leads to constraints with no analog for pointlike molecules. As we show below, the onset of smectic order should be accompanied by a steep drop in the resistivity and a rapid increase in the tilt modulus for fields which attemp to tip vortices out of the CuO$_2$ planes – see Fig.\[qualfig\].
The smectic phase may also be distinguished experimentally using neutron scattering, which measures the Fourier transform of the magnetic field two–point correlation function (see Fig.\[sffig\]). We assume a magnetic field along the $y$–axis and CuO$_2$ layers perpendicular to ${\bf \hat{z}}$. The vortex liquid structure function shows the usual diffuse liquid rings, as well as delta–function Bragg peaks at $q_z =
2\pi n/s$ (for integral $n$), representing the “imposed” vortex density oscillations from the CuO$_2$ layers. On passing to the smectic state, additional peaks develop at wavevectors $q_z = 2\pi
n/a$, interlacing between those already present in the liquid. The new peaks represent the broken symmetry associated with preferential occupation of a periodic [*subset*]{} of the layers occupied by the vortices in the liquid. At lower temperatures in the vortex solid, further peaks form for $q_x \neq 0$, producing the full reciprocal lattice of a two–dimensional crystal.
Our analysis leads to the phase diagrams shown in Fig.\[phasediagramfig\]. Upon lowering the temperature for $H_c =
0$ and a commensurate value of $H_b$, the vortex liquid (L) freezes first at $T_s$ into the pinned smectic (S) state, followed by a second freezing transition at lower temperatures into the true vortex crystal (X). When $H_c \neq 0$, tilted smectic (TS) and crystal (TX) phases appear. The TS–L and TX–TL transitions are XY–like, while the TS–S and TX–X phase boundaries are commensurate–incommensurate transitions (CITs).[@Villainreview] At larger tilts, the TX–TS and TS–L phase boundaries merge into a single first order melting line. As $H_b$ is changed, incommensurate smectic (IS) and crystal (IX) phases appear, again separated by CITs from the pinned phases, and an XY transition between the IS and L states. If the low–$H_b$ commensurate smectic (S) phase corresponds to, say, 5 CuO$_2$ plane periodicities per vortex layer, the high–$H_b$ S phase will represent a state with 4 CuO$_2$ plane periodicities per sheet. We show that the commensurate smectic order along the $c$ axis is [*stable*]{} to weak point disorder, in striking contrast to the triangular flux lattice which appears for fields aligned with the c axis.[@LO] . This stability should [*increase*]{} the range of smectic behavior relative to the (unstable) crystalline phases when strong point disorder is present.
The high temperature flux liquid (for fields in the ab plane) is of some interest in its own right. Consider first one vortex line wandering along the $y$–axis, as shown schematically in Fig.\[wanderfig\]. This line is subject only to thermal fluctuations and a periodic pinning potential along the $z$–axis, provided by the CuO$_2$ planes.[@cuprateref] If thermal fluctuations are ignored, the vortex acts like a rigid rod, and will be localized in one of the potential minima.[@xdelocref] This localization assumption, however, is [*always*]{} incorrect in the presence of thermal fluctuations, provided the sample is sufficiently large in the $y$–direction. As $L_y \rightarrow \infty$, the statistical mechanics of this single wandering line random walking in directions perpendicular to $y$ leads inevitably to equal probabilities that the vortex is in [*any*]{} of the many possible minima along ${\bf \hat{z}}$.
On a more formal level, this probability distribution $P(z)$ is given by the square of the ground state wave function of the Schrödinger equation in a periodic potential – see section \[liquidsec\]below. The jumps shown in Fig.\[wanderfig\] across CuO$_2$ planes are represented by quantum mechanical tunneling in imaginary time. According to Bloch’s theorem, this tunneling leads to $P(z) =
|\psi_{k=0}(z)|^2$, where the Bloch states in general have the form $\psi_k(z) = \exp(ikz)u(z)$, with $u(z)$ a function with the periodicity of the pinning potential. The resulting probability distribution is shown schematically on the right side of Fig.\[wanderfig\].
Now suppose an additional line is added to the system. As suggested by the trajectory of the dashed curve in Fig.\[wanderfig\], it too will wander from plane to plane. Although the two flux lines interact repulsively, they can wander and still avoid each other by using the $x$–coordinate or by never occupying the same minimum at the same value of the “imaginary time” coordinate $y$. Thus [*both*]{} flux lines generate a delocalized probability distribution and occupy the same $k=0$ Bloch state. At high temperatures or when the lines are dilute, we expect for similar reasons [*macroscopic occupation*]{} of the $k=0$ Bloch state in the equivalent boson many body quantum mechanics problem, similar to Bose–Einstein condensation. In this sense, the flux liquid is indeed a “superfluid.” The presence of numerous “kinks” in the vortex trajectories insures a large tilt response for fields along ${\bf \hat{z}}$ and a large resistivity for currents along ${\bf \hat{x}}$. The various symmetry–breaking crystalline or smectic states which appear at low temperatures or higher densities arise because of the localizing tendency of the interactions. The density of kinks is greatly reduced in these phases.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In section \[modelsec\], several models are introduced which will be used to analyze the layered superconductor. Sections \[liquidsec\] and \[CrystalPhaseSection\] discuss the effect of intrinsic pinning on the liquid and crystal phases, respectively, and show how smectic ordering is encouraged on approaching the intermediate regime from these two limits. A Landau theory for the liquid–smectic transition is introduced in section \[criticalsection\], and the critical behavior is determined within this model. The nature of the commensurate smectic phase itself is explored in section \[smecticsection\], through a computation of the response functions. In section \[supersolidsection\], it is shown to have “supersolid” order, similar to the supersolid crystal phase recently proposed at high magnetic fields along the ${\bf\hat{c}}$ axis.[@FNF] The additional phases which arise for large incommensurate fields are described in section \[ICphases\]. Section \[disordersection\]details the modifications of the phase diagram when weak point disorder is present, and, in particular, demonstrates the stability of the smectic state. Concluding remarks and the implications of these results for helium films on periodically ruled substrates are presented in section \[conclusionsection\].
Models {#modelsec}
======
At a fundamental level (within condensed matter physics), layered superconductors may be modeled as a positively charged ionic background and a collection of conduction electrons, which can pair via the exchange of phonons, excitons, magnons, etc. Since such a microscopic theory of high temperature superconductors is lacking, we must resort to more phenomenological methods. There are, nevertheless, a variety of differing levels of description available, several of which will be used in the remainder of this paper.
Static Models
-------------
The most basic of our models is the familiar Ginzburg–Landau theory, which is an expansion of the free energy of the superconductor in powers of the order parameter field $\Psi_{\rm GL}$, $$\begin{aligned}
F_{\rm GL} & = & F_{\rm SC} + F_{\rm EM}, \nonumber \\
F_{\rm SC} & = & \int d^3{\bf r} \bigg\{ \sum_\mu{\hbar^2 \over
{2m_\mu}}\left|D_\mu\Psi_{\rm GL}\right|^2 + \alpha|\Psi_{\rm GL}|^2
\nonumber\\
& & +
{\beta \over 2}|\Psi_{\rm GL}|^4\bigg\}, \nonumber\\
F_{\rm EM} & = &\int d^3{\bf r} {1 \over {8\pi}}|\bbox{\nabla} \times {\bf
A} - {\bf H}|^2,
\label{GLfreeenergy}\end{aligned}$$ where $D_\mu \equiv \partial_\mu - 2\pi A_\mu/\phi_0$, $\phi_0 =
hc/2e$ is the flux quantum. Here ${\bf H}$ is the applied external magnetic field. To establish notation, we choose $x$, $y$, and $z$ respectively along the $a$, $b$, and $c$ axes of the underlying cuprate crystal. The diagonal components of the effective mass tensor are then $m_x = m_y \equiv m$ and $m_z = M$. For convenience in what follows, we also define the anisotropy ratio $\gamma \equiv \sqrt{m/M}
= \lambda_{ab}/\lambda_c = \xi_c/\xi_{ab} \ll 1$.
Eq.\[GLfreeenergy\] provides a powerful means of understanding superconducting behavior, including the effects of anisotropy. In layered materials, however, the theory must be modified to allow for coupling of the superconducting order to the crystalline lattice. One such description, in which the superconductor is regarded as a stack of Josephson–coupled layers, is the Lawrence–Doniach model. For our purposes, however, it is sufficient to consider a “soft” model for the lattice effects, in which the coupling $\alpha$ is allowed to be a periodic function of $z$ with period $s$ equal to the periodicity of the copper–oxide planes.
Because the high temperature superconductors are strongly type II, it is appropriate to use London theory over a large range of the phase diagram. In this limit, variations of the magnitude of the order parameter are confined to a narrow region within the core of each vortex. Because the resulting London equations are linear, a complete solution can be obtained for the free energy of an arbitrary vortex configuration.[@Brandt] For our purposes, it is sufficient to consider an approximate form in which the tilt moduli are local and the interactions between vortices occur at equal $y$,[@localnote]$$\begin{aligned}
F_{\rm London} & & = \sum_i \int \!\! dy \, {\tilde{\epsilon}_\parallel \over
2} \left| {{dx_i(y)} \over {dy}}\right|^2 +
{\tilde{\epsilon}_\perp \over 2} \left| {{dz_i(y)} \over
{dy}}\right|^2 \nonumber \\ & & \!\!\! - V_{\rm P}[z_i(y)] + \sum_{i,j} {1
\over 2} \int dy V[{\bf r}_{\perp i}(y) - {\bf r}_{\perp j}(y)],
\label{londonvortexfreeenergy}\end{aligned}$$ where $V[{\bf r}_\perp] \approx
2\gamma\epsilon_0K_0(\sqrt{x^2+z^2/\gamma^2}/\lambda_{ab})$ ($K_0(r)$ is a modified Bessel function), $\epsilon_0 =
(\phi_0/4\pi\lambda_{ab})^2$ ), and the stiffness constants obtained from anisotropic Ginzburg–Landau (GL) theory are $\tilde{\epsilon}_\parallel =
\epsilon_0\gamma$ and $\tilde{\epsilon}_\perp = \epsilon_0/\gamma$ (see, e.g. Ref.). $V_{\rm P}[z]$ is a periodic potential ($V_{\rm P}[z+s] = V_{\rm P}[z]$) taking into account the effects of the layering.
Either Eq.\[GLfreeenergy\] or Eq.\[londonvortexfreeenergy\] may be used at finite temperature, by calculating the partition function $$Z = {\rm Tr} e^{-F/k_{\rm B}T},
\label{partitionfunction}$$ where the trace is a functional integral over $\Psi_{\rm GL}$ or the set of vortex trajectories $\{ {\bf r}_i(z) \}$, for the Ginzburg–Landau and London limits, respectively.
In the London case, this trace may be formally performed by recognizing Eq.\[partitionfunction\] as mathematically identical to the Feynmann path integral for the first quantized imaginary time Green’s function of interacting bosons. Within this boson analogy,[@NelsonSeung] the Green’s function may also be calculated using a coherent state path integral representation. The “action” for these bosons is $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{S}_{\rm boson} & & = \int d^3{\bf r} \psi^\dagger
(T\partial_y - {{T^2} \over {2\tilde{\epsilon}_\perp}}\partial_z^2 -
{{T^2} \over {2\tilde{\epsilon}_\parallel}}\partial_x^2 - \mu)\psi
\nonumber \\
& & - \int d^3{\bf r} V_{\rm P}(z) n({\bf r}) \nonumber \\
& & \!\! + \int \! d^2{\bf r_\perp} d^2{\bf r'_\perp} dy {1 \over
2}
V({\bf r_\perp\! -\! r'_\perp})n({\bf r}_\perp,y)n({\bf
r'_\perp},y).
\label{anisotropicbosonaction}\end{aligned}$$ where $\psi$ is the complex coherent state boson field, and $n({\bf r}) =
\psi^\dagger({\bf r})\psi({\bf r})$. It is convenient to rescale $x \rightarrow
(\tilde{\epsilon}_\perp/\tilde{\epsilon}_\parallel)^{1/2}x$ and $z
\rightarrow
(\tilde{\epsilon}_\parallel/\tilde{\epsilon}_\perp)^{1/2}z$ to obtain the isotropic Laplacian $\nabla_\perp^2 \equiv \partial_x^2 +
\partial_z^2$. Eq.\[anisotropicbosonaction\] becomes $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\rm boson} & & = \int d^3{\bf r} \left[\psi^\dagger (T\partial_y - {{T^2}
\over {2\tilde{\epsilon}}}\nabla_\perp^2 - \mu)\psi -\tilde{V}_{\rm
P}(z) n({\bf r})\right] \nonumber \\ & &\!\! + {1 \over 2}\int\!
d^2{\bf r_\perp} d^2{\bf r'_\perp} dy \tilde{V}({\bf r_\perp\! -\!
r'_\perp})n({\bf r}_\perp,y)n({\bf r'_\perp},y),
\label{bosonaction}\end{aligned}$$ with $\tilde{\epsilon} \equiv
\sqrt{\tilde{\epsilon}_\parallel\tilde{\epsilon}_\perp}$ and the rescaled potentials $\tilde{V}_{\rm P}(z) = V_{\rm
P}(z\gamma^2)$ and $\tilde{V}({\bf r}_\perp) = V(x/\gamma^2
,z\gamma^2)$. The action is used via $${\cal Z} = \int [d\psi^\dagger][d\psi] e^{-S/k_{\rm B}T}
\label{grandcanonical}$$ to calculate the grand canonical partition function ${\cal Z}$ at chemical potential $\mu$ per unit length of vortex line. Eqs.\[grandcanonical\] and \[bosonaction\] may also be obtained directly froma limiting case of Eq.\[GLfreeenergy\] via a duality mapping.[@duality]
Dynamical Models {#hydromodel}
----------------
Calculation of dynamical response functions such as the resistivity requires a model for the time dependence of the superconductor. We will do this within the London framework, treating the vortex lines as the dynamical degrees of freedom. In the overdamped limit, the appropriate equation of motion is then $$\Gamma \dot{{\bf r}}_{\perp i}(y) = - {{\partial F_{\rm London}} \over
{\partial{\bf r}_{\perp i}(y)}} + {\bf f}_i,
\label{FLeom}$$ where $\Gamma$ is a damping constant, and ${\bf f}_i$ is the force on the $i^{\rm th}$ flux line, including both external forces and random thermal noise.
Eq.\[FLeom\] is useful in describing the properties of small numbers of vortices. To understand the bulk behavior of dense phases, however, we need an extensive theory. Such a model for the liquid phase was constructed on physical and symmetry grounds in Ref. in the hydrodynamic limit. Because we intend to go beyond simple linearized hydrodynamics, we require some knowledge of the non–linear form of the bulk equations of motion.
We proceed by first defining the hydrodynamic fields $$\begin{aligned}
n({\bf r}) & = & \sum_i \delta[{\bf r}_\perp - {\bf r}_{\perp i}(y)],
\label{ndef} \\
\bbox{\tau}({\bf r}) & = & \sum_i \delta[{\bf r}_\perp - {\bf r}_{\perp
i}(y)] {{d{\bf r}_{\perp i}(y)} \over {dy}}, \label{taudef} \\
{\bf f}({\bf r}) & = & \sum_i \delta[{\bf r}_\perp - {\bf r}_{\perp
i}(y)] {\bf f}_i. \label{fdef}\end{aligned}$$ Conservation of magnetic flux is embodied in the constraint $$\partial_y n + \bbox{\nabla}_\perp \cdot \bbox{\tau} = 0.
\label{constraint}$$ Eq.\[londonvortexfreeenergy\] may be rewritten as a function of ${\bf
n}$ and $\bbox{\tau}$, formally $$F_{\rm London}[\{ {\bf r}_{\perp i}(y) \}] = F[n({\bf
r}),\bbox{\tau}({\bf r})].
\label{Fdef}$$ Specific forms for $F[n,\bbox{\tau}]$ will be used as needed.
Eq.\[FLeom\] completely specifies the dynamics of $n$ and $\bbox{\tau}$. Differentiating Eqs.\[ndef\] and \[taudef\] then leads immediately to hydrodynamic equations of motion. Details are given in appendix \[dynamicsappendix\]. One finds $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t n + \bbox{\nabla}_\perp\cdot{\bf j}_v & = & 0,
\label{continuity} \\
\partial_t\tau_\alpha + \partial_\beta j_{\beta\alpha} & = & \partial_y
j_{v,\alpha}, \label{taucontinuity}\end{aligned}$$ where the density and tangent currents are $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma {\bf j}_v & = & -n\bbox{\nabla}_\perp{{\delta F} \over
{\delta n}} + n\partial_y{{\delta F} \over {\delta\bbox{\tau}}}
-\tau_\alpha\bbox{\nabla}_\perp{{\delta F} \over {\delta\tau_\alpha}}
+ n{\bf f},
\label{constitutive} \\
\Gamma j_{\beta\alpha} & = & -\tau^\beta\partial_\alpha{{\delta F}
\over {\delta n}} + \tau^\beta\partial_y {{\delta F} \over {\delta
\tau_\alpha}} - \tau^{\beta\gamma}\partial_\alpha {{\delta F} \over
{\delta\tau_\gamma}} + \tau^\beta f^\alpha \nonumber \\ & & - (\beta
\leftrightarrow \alpha),
\label{tauconstitutive}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\tau^{\beta\gamma}({\bf r}) \equiv \sum_i \delta[{\bf r}_\perp - {\bf
r}_{\perp i}(y)]{{dx^\beta_i} \over {dy}}{{dx^\gamma_i} \over {dy}}.
\label{tau2def}$$
Because the constitutive relation for the tangent current includes $\tau^{\beta\gamma}$, Eqs.\[continuity\]–\[tau2def\] do not form a closed set. Vortex hydrodynamics, however, leads us to expect that $n$ and $\bbox{\tau}$ provide a complete long–wavelength description of the system. We therefore adopt the truncation scheme $\tau^{\beta\gamma} \rightarrow \langle \tau^{\beta\gamma} \rangle$ (i.e. $\tau^{\beta\gamma}$ is preaveraged at equilibrium). Averaging via Eq.\[londonvortexfreeenergy\] gives $$\tau^{\beta\gamma} \rightarrow k_{\rm B}T n \left( {{\delta^{\beta
x}\delta^{\gamma x}} \over {\tilde{\epsilon}_\parallel}} + {{\delta^{\beta
z}\delta^{\gamma z}} \over {\tilde{\epsilon}_\perp}} \right).
\label{preaveraging}$$ To complete the dynamical description, we must specify $\Gamma$ and ${\bf f}$. Matching to the liquid hydrodynamics of Ref. relates $\Gamma$ to the Bardeen–Stephen friction coefficient $\gamma_{\rm
BS} = n_0\Gamma$, and gives the driving force $${\bf f} = {{\phi_0} \over c}{\bf J \wedge \hat{y}} +
\bbox{\eta},
\label{forces}$$ Here ${\bf J}$ is the applied transport current density and $\bbox{\eta}({\bf r})$ is a random thermal noise.
Intrinsic Pinning in the Vortex Liquid {#liquidsec}
======================================
To better understand the interplay of thermal fluctuations and layering of the superconductor, it is useful to first consider the behavior at high temperatures in the liquid state. As discussed by Marchetti,[@MCMhydro] the physics of a single vortex line in the liquid is well described by a hydrodynamic coupling to the motion of other vortices. In the dense limit, this medium is approximately uniform, and does not significantly effect the wandering of an isolated vortex. To estimate the effects of intrinsic pinning, it is thus appropriate to consider a single vortex line, oriented along the $a-b$ plane.
For $T \gtrsim
80K$, $\xi_c \approx
\xi_{c0}(1-T/T_c)^{-1/2} \gtrsim s$. In this limit, the copper–oxide planes act as a smooth periodic potential on the vortex. The magnitude of this potential per unit length is[@BLO] $$U_p \approx 5\times 10^2 \epsilon_0\gamma\left({{\xi_c}
\over s}\right)^{5/2} e^{-15.8 \xi_c/s}.
\label{upinning}$$
For a single vortex, Eq.\[londonvortexfreeenergy\] reduces to $$F_{\rm v} = \int_0^L \!\!\! dy \!\!\left\{ {{\tilde{\epsilon}_\parallel} \over
2}\left|{{dx} \over {dy}}\right|^2\!\! + {{\tilde{\epsilon}_\perp} \over
2}\left|{{dz} \over {dy}}\right|^2\!\! - V_{\rm P}(z) \right\}.
\label{singlevortexfreeenergy}$$ The periodic potential $V_{\rm P}[z] = U_p f_p [z/s]$, where $f_p(u) = f_p(u + 1)$ is a smooth periodic function with magnitude of order unity.
The $x$–displacement decouples in Eq.\[singlevortexfreeenergy\], and may be integrated out to yield $$\langle [x(y)-x(0)]^2 \rangle \sim D_x y,
\label{xdiffusion}$$ with $D_x = k_{\rm B}T/\tilde{\epsilon}_\parallel$. The $z$–dependent part of Eq.\[singlevortexfreeenergy\] is identical to the Euclidean action of a quantum particle of mass $\tilde{\epsilon}_\perp$ in a one–dimensional periodic potential $V_{\rm P}(z)$, with $y$ playing the role of imaginary time. The single flux line partition function, $${\cal Z}_1 = \int [dz(y)] e^{-F_{\rm v}[z]/k_{\rm B}T},
\label{singleFLpartitionfunction}$$ with fixed endpoints, maps to the Euclidean Green’s function for the particle, with $k_{\rm B}T$ replacing $\hbar$.
In the quantum–mechanical analogy, the particle tunnels between adjacent minima of the pinning potential, leading, as discussed in the Introduction, completely delocalized Bloch wavefunctions even for [*extremely*]{} strong pinning. The “time” required for this tunneling maps to the distance, $L_{\rm kink}$, in the $y$–direction between kinks in which the vortex jumps across one CuO$_2$ layer. The WKB approximation gives $$L_{\rm kink} \sim s\sqrt{{{\tilde{\epsilon}_\perp} \over U_p}}
e^{\sqrt{\tilde{\epsilon}_\perp U_p}s/k_{\rm B}T},
\label{WKBresult}$$
Eq.\[WKBresult\] may also be obtained from simple scaling considerations. The energy of an optimal kink is found by minimizing $$f_1 \sim {\tilde{\epsilon}_\perp \over 2}\left({s \over w}\right)^2 w
+ U_p w
\label{kinkestimate}$$ over the width (in the $y$ direction) $w$, giving $w^* \sim
\sqrt{\tilde{\epsilon}_\perp/U_p} s$ and $f_1^* \sim
\sqrt{\tilde{\epsilon}_\perp U_p}s$. Such a kink occurs with a probability proportional to $\exp(-f_1^*/k_{\rm B}T)$ in a length $w$. The condition $L_{\rm kink}/w \exp(-f_1^*/k_{\rm B}T) \sim O(1)$ then gives Eq.\[WKBresult\].
When the sample is larger than $L_{\rm kink}$ along the field axis, the flux line will wander as a function of $y$, with $$\langle [z(y)-z(0)]^2 \rangle \sim D_zy,
\label{vortexdiffusion}$$ where the “diffusion constant” $D_z \approx s^2/L_{\rm kink}$.
For $\sqrt{\tilde{\epsilon}_\perp U_p}s \lesssim k_{\rm B}T$, the pinning is extremely weak, and the WKB approximation is no longer valid. Instead, the diffusion constant $D_z \approx k_{\rm
B}T/\tilde{\epsilon}_\perp$, as obtained from Eq.\[singlevortexfreeenergy\] with $U_p = 0$. At much lower temperatures, when $\xi_c \ll s$, the energy in Eq.\[upinning\]must be replaced by the cost of creating a “pancake” vortex[@Clem] between the CuO$_2$ planes. In this regime, $L_{\rm
kink} \sim \xi_{ab}(s/\xi_c)^{\epsilon_0 s /k_{\rm B}T}$.
For $T \approx 90K$, as in the experiments of Kwok et. al.[@Kwok] $\xi_c/s \approx 2.3$, and Eq.\[upinning\] gives $\sqrt{\tilde{\epsilon}_\perp U_p}s/k_{\rm B}T \ll 1$, indicative of weakly pinned vortices in the liquid state. The transverse wandering in this [*anisotropic*]{} liquid is described by a boson “wavefunction” with support over an elliptical region of area $k_{\rm B}T
L_y/\sqrt{\tilde{\epsilon}_\parallel\tilde{\epsilon}_\perp}$ with aspect ratio $\Delta x/\Delta z = \gamma^{-1} \approx 5$ for ${\rm
YBa_2Cu_3O_7}$. For $L_y \approx 1mm$, a typical sample dimension along ${\bf
\hat{y}}$, the dimensions of this ellipse are of order microns. Since typical vortex spacings at the fields used in Ref.are of order $400\AA$, these flux lines are highly entangled.
To understand the bulk propertices of the vortex liquid, it is useful to employ the hydrodynamic description of section \[hydromodel\]. In the liquid, the appropriate form of the free energy is[@MNhydro; @derivationnote] $$\begin{aligned}
F_{\rm L} & = & {1 \over {2n_0^2}} \int {{d^3{\bf q}} \over {(2\pi)^3}} \bigg\{
c_{11}({\bf q})|\delta
n({\bf q})|^2 + c_{44,\parallel}({\bf q}) |\tau_x({\bf q})|^2
\nonumber \\
& & + c_{44,\perp}({\bf q}) |\tau_z({\bf q})|^2 \bigg\} - \int \!
d^3{\bf r} V_{\rm P}[z] \delta n({\bf r}),
\label{liquidhydro}\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta n = n - n_0$, with $n_0 = B_y/\phi_0$ the mean density. Here the compression modulus $c_{11}$ and tilt moduli $c_{44,\perp}$ and $c_{44,\parallel}$ are regular functions of ${\bf q}$ with finite values at ${\bf q = 0}$.
On physical grounds, we expect intrinsic pinning to enter Eq.\[liquidhydro\] both through an increase in $c_{44,\perp}$, which decreases fluctuations perpendicular to the layers, and through the $\tilde{V}_{\rm P}$ term which tends to localize the vortices near the minima in the periodic potential.
The former effect only acts to increase the anisotropy of the liquid. The latter term, however, explicitly breaks translational symmetry along the $z$ axis, inducing a modulation of the vortex density, $$\int dz e^{-iq_z z} \langle \delta n({\bf r}) \rangle = {n_0^2 \over
{c_{11}(q_z,q_x=q_y=0)}} V_{\rm P}[q_z].
\label{densitymodulation}$$ This modulation corrects the static structure function, $S({\bf q}) =
\langle \delta n({\bf q}) \delta n(-{\bf
q})\rangle/(2\pi)^3\delta^{(3)}({\bf q = 0})$, according to $$S({\bf q}) = S_0({\bf q}) + {n_0^4 \over {[c_{11}(q_z)]^2}} |V_{\rm
P}[q_z]|^2 (2\pi)^2\delta(q_x)\delta(q_y),
\label{ssf}$$ where $S_0(q)$ is the static structure function for $V_{\rm P}=0$. Since $V_{\rm P}[z]$ is a periodic function, the correction term shows peaks at the discrete reciprocal lattice vectors for which $q_z$ is an integral multiple of $2\pi/s{\bf\hat{z}}$.
The situation is somewhat analogous to applying a weak uniform field to a paramagnet, inducing a proportionate magnetization. Unlike the magnetic case, however, the layering perturbation leaves a residual translational symmetry under shifts $z \rightarrow z + s$. It is the breaking of this discrete group which we will identify with the freezing of the vortex liquid.
The Crystal Phase {#CrystalPhaseSection}
=================
Considerable work already exists on intrinsic pinning in vortex crystals.[@intrinsicrefs] We review the essential ideas here, and discuss its implications for thermal fluctuations at low temperatures.
Zero temperature properties
---------------------------
To study the effect of layering upon the vortex state, we first consider the limit of a weak periodic modulation of the order parameter along the $z$–axis. In this case, the resulting (zero temperature) configuration is only slightly perturbed from the ideal lattice predicted by Ginzburg–Landau (or London) theory. The free energy in this case may be written in terms of the phonon coordinates ${\bf u}({\bf r})$, as $$F_{\rm elastic} = \int {{d^3{\bf q}} \over {(2\pi)^3}} {K_{\alpha\beta
i j} \over 2}q_\alpha q_\beta u_i({\bf q})u_j(-{\bf q}) + F_{\rm IP},
\label{elasticenergy}$$ where $i$ and $j = x,y$, $\alpha$ and $\beta = x,y,z$, and the contribution to the free energy of the layering potential is $$F_{\rm IP} = - \int \! dy \sum_{x_n,z_n} V_{\rm P}[z_n + u_z(x_n,y,z_n)].
\label{FIP}$$ In general the elasticity theory is quite complex due to the anisotropy and wavevector dependence on the scale of $\lambda$. Rather than work with a specific form of the elastic moduli, we will obtain general expressions in terms of an unspecified set of $K_{ij}({\bf
q}) \equiv K_{\alpha\beta i j}q_\alpha q_\beta$.
To obtain the correct continuum limit of Eq.\[FIP\], we consider the possible commensurate states of the layers and vortex array. The triangular equilibrium lattice in this orientation is described by the two lattice vectors ${\bf a}_1 =
C\gamma^{-1}\hat{\bf z}$, ${\bf a}_2 = C\gamma^{-1}/2(\hat{\bf z} +
\sqrt{3}\gamma^2\hat{\bf x})$, with $C^2 = 2\phi_0/\sqrt{3}B_y$. Commensurability effects occur when the minimum $z$–displacement between vortices, $C/(2\gamma) = (n/m)s$, where $n$ and $m$ are integers, chosen relatively prime for definiteness. This gives the commensurate fields $$B_y^{(m,n)} = {m \over n} {\phi_0 \over {2\sqrt{3}\gamma^2s^2}}.
\label{commensuratefields}$$ For simplicity we consider here only the integral states with $m=1$. In this case, $V_{\rm P}[z_n + u] = V_{\rm P}[u]$, and we can straightforwardly take the continuum limit $$F_{\rm IP} = - \int \! d^3{\bf r} V_{\rm P}[u_z({\bf r})].
\label{FIPcontinuum}$$
Such an expression may be derived explicitly from the Abrikosov solution for fields near $H_{c2}$,[@intrinsicrefs] in which case the pinning potential is $$V_{\rm P}[u] \approx {{Hj_c s} \over {2\pi c}}\cos(2\pi u_z/s),
\label{Ivlevapprox}$$ where $$j_c = {4 \over {\beta_{\rm A}\sqrt{\pi}}} {{c(H_{c2}-H)} \over
{\kappa^2 s}} {{\xi_c\gamma^2} \over s} \exp (-8\xi_c^2/s^2).
\label{jcdefinition}$$ Here $\kappa = \lambda_{ab}/\xi_{ab}$ is the usual Ginzburg–Landau parameter, and $\beta_{\rm A} \approx 1.16$.
From Eqs.\[elasticenergy\] and \[FIPcontinuum\], it is clear that for these commensurate fields, the ground state is unchanged, i.e. ${\bf u = 0}$. Away from these fields, however, the fate of the lattice is less obvious. Ivlev et. al.[@intrinsicrefs] have shown that, for a small deviation from a commensurate field, it is energetically favorable for the vortex lattice to shear in order to remain commensurate with the copper–oxide plane spacing. Because such a distortion requires some additional free energy, it will generally be favorable, in addition, for the internal magnetic induction ${\bf B}$ to deviate from the applied field ${\bf H}$ to allow a better fit to the crystal. This Meissner–like effect will be discussed in more detail in section \[ICphases\].
For strong layering, such as that described by the Lawrence–Doniach model, the pinning effects are much more pronounced. When $\xi_c \ll s$, the magnetic field remains essentially confined between the $CuO_2$ layers, and the vortex array is thus [*automatically*]{} commensurate at all applied fields. Although such strong confinement of vortices can lead to interesting non–equilibrium states,[@Levitov] we will confine our discussion to equilibrium.
Thermal Fluctuations about the commensurate state
-------------------------------------------------
Thermal fluctuations of the vortex lattice are described by the partition function $${\cal Z}_{\rm elastic} = \int [du({\bf r})] \exp\left( -F_{\rm
elastic}/k_{\rm B}T \right).
\label{elasticpartitionfunction}$$
In three dimensions, phonon fluctuations are small, and expanding the pinning potential around its minimum for small ${\bf u}$, gives the quadratic free energy $$F_{\rm elastic} \approx \int {{d^3{\bf q}} \over {(2\pi)^3}} {K_{i
j}({\bf q}) \over 2}u_i({\bf q})u_j(-{\bf q}) +
{\Delta \over 2} |u_z({\bf q})|^2,
\label{quadraticefe}$$ where $\Delta \equiv -V_{\rm P}^{''}[z=0]$.
The displacement field fluctuations can be calculated from Eq.\[quadraticefe\] by equipartition, yielding the general result $$\begin{aligned}
{{\langle u_x^2 \rangle} \over {k_{\rm B}T}} & = & \int_{\rm BZ} \! {{d^3{\bf
q}}
\over (2\pi)^3}
{{K_{zz}({\bf q}) + \Delta} \over {K_{xx}({\bf q})(K_{zz}({\bf
q})+\Delta) - [K_{xz}({\bf q})]^2}}, \label{uxfluctuations}\\
{{\langle u_z^2 \rangle} \over {k_{\rm B}T}} & = & \int_{\rm BZ} \! {{d^3{\bf
q}}
\over (2\pi)^3}
{{K_{xx}({\bf q})} \over {K_{xx}({\bf q})(K_{zz}({\bf q})+\Delta) -
[K_{xz}({\bf q})]^2}}, \label{uzfluctuations}\end{aligned}$$ where BZ indicates an integral over the Brillouin zone.
The effect of the periodic potential is thus to uniformly decrease the fluctuations of $u_z$ at all wavevectors. For $\Delta
\gtrsim B^2/\lambda^2$, this decrease is substantial over the entire Brillouin zone, and $$\begin{aligned}
\langle u_x^2 \rangle & \approx & k_{\rm B}T \int_{\rm BZ} \! {{d^3{\bf q}}
\over (2\pi)^3} {1 \over {K_{xx}({\bf q})}} , \label{uxf1}\\
\langle u_z^2 \rangle & \approx & k_{\rm B}T \int_{\rm BZ} \! {{d^3{\bf q}}
\over (2\pi)^3} {1 \over \Delta}. \label{uzf1}\end{aligned}$$ In stronger fields, for $\Delta \lesssim
B^2/\lambda^2$, the only the contributions from $q \lesssim
\sqrt{\Delta} /B$ are strongly suppressed. For $1-B/H_{c2} \ll 1$, Eqs.\[Ivlevapprox\] and \[jcdefinition\] can be combined to give the ratio $$\Delta\lambda^2/B^2 \approx {2 \over {\pi^{3/2}\beta_{\rm A}}}
(H_{c2}/B - 1)\left({\xi_c \over s}\right)^3 e^{-8(\xi_c/s)^2}.
\label{characteristicratio}$$ At lower fields and temperatures, one expects the mean–field estimate above to break down and $\Delta\lambda^2/B^2$ to increase, possibly settling down to a constant value at low temperatures.
For magnetic fields oriented along the $c$ axis, the Lindemann criterion has been used to estimate the melting point of the vortex lattice[@NelsonSeung] by requiring that $\langle |{\bf u_i}|^2 \rangle
= c_{\rm L}^2 a_i^2$, for $i=x,z$, with a “Lindemann number” $c_{\rm L}
\approx 0.2-0.4$. As is clear from Eqs.\[uxfluctuations\]–\[uzfluctuations\], once layering is included, the increased stiffness for $u_z$ makes the two ratios $\langle u_x^2 \rangle/a_x^2$ and $\langle u_z^2 \rangle/a_z^2$ unequal. Indeed, the second ratio is strongly suppressed relative to the first. Extending the Lindemann criterion to this situation suggests that the strains in $u_x$ might be alleviated by a partial melting of the lattice without affecting the broken symmetry leading to the $u_z$ displacements. Such a scenario corresponds to the unbinding of dislocations with Burger’s vectors along the $x$ axis. The phase in which these dislocations are unbound is the smectic.
Strongly Layered Limit {#stronglayeringsection}
----------------------
To further elucidate the nature of the smectic phase, it is helpful to discuss the limit of very strong layering. In this case, the vortex lines are almost completely confined within the spaces between neighboring $CuO_2$ layers. For moderate fields, occupied layers will be separated by separated by several unoccupied ones, and the interactions between vortices in different layers may be considered weak. Because of the strong layering, the out–of–plane component of the displacement field $u_z$ is suppressed, so that the free energy of the system may be written to a first approximation as $$F_{\rm layers} = \sum_n {1 \over 2}\int {{d^2{\bf q_{\perp}}} \over {(2\pi)^2}}
\left(K_x q_x^2+K_z q_z^2\right)|u_n({\bf
q}_\perp)|^2,
\label{layerfreeenergy}$$ where ${\bf q}_\perp = (q_x,q_y)$ and $u_n({\bf q}_\perp) = u_x({\bf
q}_\perp, ns)$. For a qualitative discussion of smectic ordering, it is sufficient to take $K_x$ and $K_y$ independent of ${\bf q}$.
Eq.\[layerfreeenergy\] neglects both inter–layer interactions and hopping. The former are included perturbatively via the free energy $$F_{\rm int.} = - \sum_n \int \! dx dy
v_{\rm IL}
\cos {{2\pi} \over a}(u_{n+1} - u_n),
\label{interlayerinteractions}$$ where $v_{\rm IL}$ is an inter–layer interaction energy and $a$ is the lattice spacing in the $x$ direction. The periodic form of the interaction is required by the symmetry under lattice translations $u \rightarrow u + a$ within each layer.
Once hopping of flux lines between neighboring occupied layers is included, $u_n$ is no longer single valued within a given layer. In fact, a configuration in which a single line hops from layer $n$ to layer $n+1$ corresponds to a dislocation in layer $n$ paired with an anti–dislocation in layer $n+1$, since $$\oint \bbox{\nabla} u_k \cdot d\bbox{\ell} = a(\delta_{k,n} - \delta_{k,n+1})
\label{burgerscircuit}$$ for a contour surrounding the hopping point (see Fig.\[hoppingfigure\]). Such dislocation–antidislocation pairs, which we will refer to as large kinks, can be created in neighboring layers with a dislocation fugacity $y_d =
\exp(-E_{\rm lk}/k_{\rm B}T)$, where the core energy $$E_{\rm lk} \approx \sqrt{\tilde{\epsilon}_\perp U_p}ms,
\label{lkestimate}$$ as estimated from Eq.\[kinkestimate\] with $s \rightarrow ms$. Note that the dislocation and anti–dislocation must have the same $x$ and $y$ coordinates, since misalignment is accompanied by an energy cost proportional to the extra length of vortex between the occupied layers.
The full theory described by Eqs.\[layerfreeenergy\] and \[burgerscircuit\] plus dislocations can be studied using a perturbative renormalization group (RG) expansion in $v_{\rm IL}$ and $y_d$, using techniques developed for the XY model in a symmetry–breaking field.[@JKKN] For $y_d=v_{\rm IL}=0$, the Gaussian free energy of Eq.\[layerfreeenergy\] describes a fixed line of independently fluctuating vortex layers parameterized by the dimensionless ratio $\sqrt{K_xK_y}/k_{\rm B}T$. To characterize the order along this fixed line, we define a translational order parameter (characterizing correlations along the $x$ axis) within the $n^{\rm th}$ layer by summing over vortex lines according to $$\rho_\parallel(x,y,n) \equiv \sum_k \exp(2\pi i x_k^{(n)}(y)/a),
\label{inplaneorder}$$ where $x_k^{(n)}(y)$ is the coordinate of the $k^{\rm th}$ vortex line in layer $n$ at a length $y$ along the field direction. The correlation function $C_{\rm T,\parallel}(x,y,n) \equiv \langle
\rho_\parallel(x,y,n)\rho_\parallel(0,0,0)\rangle$ is then evaluated by inserting $x_k^{(n)}(y)
= ka + u_n(ka,y)$ and converting the sum to an integral via $\sum_k
\rightarrow \int dx/a$. One finds $$C_{\rm T,\parallel}(x,y,n) \sim \left( {K \over {K_x x^2+K_y y^2}}\right)^{-
\pi k_{\rm B}T/Ka^2}\delta_{n,0},
\label{QLRO}$$ i.e. quasi–long–range order within the planes.
This fixed line is [*always*]{} unstable either to interlayer couplings, to dislocations, or to both perturbations. The linear (in $y$ and $v_{\rm IL}$) RG flows which determine the stability are $$\begin{aligned}
{{dv_{\rm IL}} \over {dl}} & = & \left(2 - {{2\pi k_{\rm B}T} \over
{Ka^2}}\right)v_{\rm IL}, \label{vILrecursion}\\
{{dy_d} \over {dl}} & = & \left(2 - {{Ka^2} \over {2\pi k_{\rm
B}T}}\right)y_d, \label{yrecursion}\end{aligned}$$ where $K \equiv \sqrt{K_xK_y}$, and $l = \ln(b/a)$ is the logarithm of the coarse–graining length scale $b$.
When $k_{\rm B}T < Ka^2/4\pi$, dislocations are irrelevant at the fixed line, so that $y$ decreases under renormalization. In this regime, however, $v_{\rm IL}$ increases with $l$, so that interactions between the layers are important for the large distance physics. To study this regime, one may therefore expand the cosine of Eq.\[interlayerinteractions\] in $u_{n+1} -u_n$, obtaining a discrete version the usual three–dimensional elastic theory. In this limit, $$C_{\rm T,\parallel}(x,y,n) \sim {\rm Const.}
\label{LROlayered}$$ for large $|x|$, $|y|$, or $|n|$.
At high temperatures, when $k_{\rm B}T > Ka^2/\pi$, $v_{\rm IL}$ scales to zero while the fugacity $y_d$ is relevant. Unbound dislocations on long length scales therefore invalidate the elastic theory of Eq.\[layerfreeenergy\]. Following standard arguments, the translational correlation function in such an unbound vortex plasma becomes exponentially small, i.e. $$C_{\rm T,\parallel}(x,y,n) \sim
\exp(-\tilde{r}/\xi_{\rm T}),
\label{liquidlayered}$$ where $\tilde{r} \equiv \sqrt{ (K_x/K) x^2 + (K_y/K) y^2 + \chi
s^2n^2}$ with $\chi$ a constant, and $\xi_{\rm T}$ is a finite translational correlation length.
For temperatures in the intermediate range $Ka^2/4\pi < k_{\rm B}T <
Ka^2/\pi$, [*both*]{} $y_d$ and $v_{\rm IL}$ are relevant operators. The eventual nature of the ordering at long distances presumably takes one of the two above forms, though the critical boundary at which the system loses long–range translational order in the $x$ direction is not accessible by this method.
It remains to discuss translational order along the layering axis. Such order is characterized by the parameter $$\rho_\perp(x,y,n) \equiv \sum_k \exp(2\pi i z_k^{(n)}(y)/a_z),
\label{transverseordering}$$ where $a_z$ is the distance between occupied vortex layers (and therefore an integral multiple of the CuO$_2$ plane spacing, i.e. $a_z = ms$). Because we have, by construction, confined the vortices to these layers, however, $z_k^{(n)} = na_z$ for every $k$, and the exponential in Eq.\[transverseordering\] is always unity. Both phases described above, regardless of the relevance of $v_{\rm IL}$ and $y$, therefore retain long–range order along the $z$ axis.
Within the strongly layered model, there are still excitations which can destroy this transverse ordering. These are configurations in which a flux line hops out of an occupied layer into one of the ($m-1$) unoccupied intermediate planes between it and the next occupied layer. Such an excursion costs an energy proportional to the length of the vortex segment in the unoccupied layer, so that only short intermediate segments occur at low temperatures. These out–of–plane hops reduce the amplitude $\langle
\rho_\perp \rangle$, but do not drive it to zero. At very high temperatures, entropy may counterbalance this energy and drive the free energy cost for such intervening vortices negative. Once this occurs, translational order will be lost along the $z$ axis as well, and the system will be a true liquid. Nevertheless, at intermediate temperatures above the unbinding transition for dislocations in the $u$ field but below the temperature at which infinite vortices enter the intermediate copper oxide planes, we expect the system to sustain “one–dimensional” long–range order along the $z$ axis, i.e. a smectic state.
Critical Behavior {#criticalsection}
=================
Having established the possibility of a smectic phase approaching both from the crystalline and liquid limits, we now focus on the critical behavior near the putative liquid–smectic transition, using a Landau order parameter theory. A closely related Landau theory which describes a low temperature smectic–crystal transition is discussed in Appendix \[sxappendix\]. The natural order parameter to describe the smectic ordering is $\rho_\perp$ defined in Eq.\[transverseordering\]. To simplify notation, we define a new field $\Phi = \rho_\perp$, so that, in the continuum notation (i.e. outside the strongly layered limit), $$n ({\bf r}) \approx n_0 {\rm Re} \left\{ 1 + \Phi({\bf r})e^{-iqz}
\right\},
\label{densitywave}$$ where $n_0$ is the background density, and $q = 2\pi/a_z$ is the wavevector of the smectic layering. The complex translational order parameter $\Phi({\bf r})$ is assumed to vary slowly in space. The superconductor is invariant under translations and inversions in $x$ and $y$, and has a discrete translational symmetry under $z \rightarrow z + s$, where $s$ is the CuO$_2$ double–layer spacing. From Eq.\[densitywave\], these periodic translations correspond to the phase shifts $\Phi \rightarrow \Phi
e^{-iqs}$. We continue to assume, as in the previous section, that $a_z=ms$, with $m$ an arbitrary integer. The most general free energy consistent with these symmetries is $$\begin{aligned}
F & = \int \! d^3\!{\bf r} \left\{ \right. & {K \over 2}
|(\bbox{\nabla}-i{\bf A})
\Phi|^2 + {r \over 2}|\Phi|^2 + {v \over 4}|\Phi|^4 \nonumber\\
& & \left. - {g \over
2}\left( \Phi^m + \Phi^{*m} \right) + \cdots \right\},
\label{criticalfreeenergy}\end{aligned}$$ where the coordinates have been rescaled to obtain an isotropic gradient term. The “vector potential” ${\bf A}$ represents changes in the applied field $\delta {\bf H} = \delta H_b {\bf\hat{y}} + H_c
{\bf\hat{z}}$, with $A_x = 0$, $A_y = q H_c/H_b$, and $A_z = q\delta
H_b/H_b$. The form of this coupling follows from the transformation properties of $\Phi$.[@DeGennes; @Transformnote] Eq.\[criticalfreeenergy\] assumes a [*local*]{} form of the free energy. Additional non–local interactions arise due to interactions with long wavelength fluctuations in the density and tangent fields. The most relevant (near the critical point) of these couplings is $$F_{\Phi-\delta n} = -\gamma \int \! d^3\!{\bf r} \delta n |\Phi|^2,
\label{pdncoupling}$$ where the correlations of $\delta n$ are determined from Eqs.\[liquidhydro\] and \[constraint\].
When $\delta {\bf H} = {\bf A} = \gamma = 0$, Eq.\[criticalfreeenergy\]is the free energy of an XY model with an $m$–fold symmetry breaking term. A second order freezing transition occurs within Landau theory when $v>0$ and $r \propto T-T_s$ changes sign from positive (in the liquid) to negative (in the smectic). The renormalization group (RG) scaling dimension, $\lambda_m$, of the symmetry breaking term is known [*experimentally*]{} in three dimensions to be $\lambda_m \approx 3 - 0.515m -
0.152m(m-1)$.[@AA] For $m>m_c \approx 3.41$, the field $g$ is irrelevant ($\lambda_m <0$), and the transition is in the XY universality class.[@smallmfoot] The magnetic fields used by Kwok et. al.[@Kwok] correspond to $m = 9-11$,[@AGL] well into this regime. The static critical behavior is characterized by the correlation length exponent $\nu \approx 0.671 \pm 0.005$ and algebraic decay of order parameter correlations at $T_s$, $$\left\langle \Phi({\bf r})\Phi^*({\bf 0}) \right\rangle \sim {1 \over
r^{1+\eta}},
\label{criticalcorrelations}$$ with $\eta \approx 0.040 \pm 0.003$.[@exponentrefs] To study the effects of coupling to long wavelength fluctuations when $\gamma \neq 0$, we first satisfy Eq.\[constraint\] by defining an auxiliary “displacement”–like field ${\bf w}$ via $$\begin{aligned}
\delta n & = & - \bbox{\nabla}_\perp \cdot {\bf w} \nonumber \\
\bbox{\tau} & = & \partial_y {\bf w}.
\label{wdef}\end{aligned}$$ After this change of variables, Eq.\[liquidhydro\] becomes $$\begin{aligned}
F_{\bf w} & = & {1 \over {2n_0^2}} \int d^3{\bf r} \bigg\{
c_{11}|\bbox{\nabla}_\perp
\cdot {\bf w}|^2 + c_{44,\parallel}|\partial_y w_x|^2
\nonumber \\
& & + c_{44,\perp}|\partial_y w_z|^2 \bigg\},
\label{wfreeenergy}\end{aligned}$$ where we have taken the ${\bf q}=0$ limits of the elastic moduli to study the critical behavior, and dropped the $V_{\rm IP}$ term which only couples to ${\bf w}$ at finite $q_z$. Eq.\[pdncoupling\] then becomes $$F_{\Phi-{\bf w}} = \gamma\int d^3{\bf r} \bbox{\nabla}_\perp \cdot {\bf w}
|\Phi|^2.
\label{pwcoupling}$$
Eq.\[pwcoupling\] is an anisotropic form of a coupling studied previously in the context of the compressible Ising model, in which ${\bf
w}$ describes the phonon modes of a compressible lattice on which the spins reside.[@CIsing] As shown in appendix \[murelevanceappendix\], the techniques developed for that problem give the renormalization group eigenvalue $\lambda_\gamma = \alpha/2\nu$ for this coupling at the critical point. Since $\alpha = 2-3\nu \approx -0.01$ is negative, the long wavelength density fluctuations are irrelevant for the critical behavior.
Smectic Phase {#smecticsection}
=============
Static Behavior {#staticbehaviorsection}
---------------
Deep in the ordered phase ($r<0$), amplitude fluctuations of $\Phi$ are frozen out. Writing $\Phi = \sqrt{|r|/v} e^{2\pi i u/a}$, Eq.\[criticalfreeenergy\] becomes, up to an additive constant, $$F_{\rm smectic} = \int \! d^3\!{\bf r} \left\{ {\kappa \over 2}
(\bbox{\nabla}u \!-\! {\bf\cal A})^2 - \tilde{g}\cos 2\pi u/s \right\},
\label{smecticfreeenergy}$$ where $a=ms$, $\kappa = 4\pi^2|r|K/a^2v$, $\tilde{g} = g(|r|/v)^{m/2}$, and the reduced vector potential is ${\bf\cal A} = {\bf A}/q$. The displacement field $u$ describes the deviations of the smectic layers from their uniform state. The sine–Gordon term is an effective periodic potential acting on these layers. As is well known from the study of the roughening transition,[@roughening] such a perturbation is always relevant in three dimensions. The smectic state is thus [*pinned*]{} at long distances (i.e. the displacements $u$ of each smectic layer are localized in a single minima of the cosine).
To further characterize the smectic phase, we consider the transverse magnetic susceptibility, which defines the macroscopic tilt modulus, $$c_{44, \perp}^{-1} \equiv \left.{{\partial B_c} \over {\partial
H_c}}\right|_{H_c = 0}.
\label{c44def}$$ The field $H_c$ attempts to tilt the smectic layers. However, ${\bf\cal A} \propto H_c$ is an [*irrelevant*]{} operator in the smectic phase (as can be easily seen by replacing the periodic potential by a “mass” term $\propto u^2$). This implies that the smectic layers do not tilt under weak applied fields, i.e. $\partial
\langle \partial_y u \rangle/\partial H_c|_{H_c =0} = 0$. Naively, this implies an infinite tilt modulus.
A more careful treatment shows that $c_{44, \perp}$ actually remains finite in the smectic phase. To compute $c_{44, \perp}$ from first principles, we use the thermodynamic relation $$B_c = -4\pi {{\partial f} \over {\partial H_c}},
\label{Bcthermo}$$ where $f$ is the [*full*]{} free energy of the system, including a smooth part $f_0$ not involving $\Phi$ and not included in Eq.\[criticalfreeenergy\], i.e. $$f = f_0 - k_{\rm B}T \ln {\cal Z}_\Phi.
\label{ftotaldef}$$ To evaluate Eq.\[Bcthermo\], we need to consider in detail the dependence of the free energy [*and*]{} the coefficients in Eq.\[criticalfreeenergy\] on $H_c$. This dependence arises in two ways, because an applied $H_c$ can be decomposed into a rotation and a scaling of the full field ${\bf H}$. If the system were fully rotational invariant, the rotational part would enter $F$ purely through the “gauge–invariant” coupling to ${\bf \cal A}$ of Eq.\[criticalfreeenergy\]. However, anisotropy breaks this invariance, leaving instead only an inversion symmetry under $z
\rightarrow -z$. The inversion symmetry allows for a quadratic dependence of $r$ and of $f_0$ on $H_c$.[@hdepnote] The scaling part also contributes quadratic dependence, which may be combined with the previous effect. Taking both into account, and matching the tilt modulus to the tilt modulus of the liquid phase (i.e. with $\Phi = 0$) leads to $$B_c = {{Kq} \over H_b}{\rm Im}\left(\Phi^*\partial_y\Phi\right) +
\left(c_{44,\perp 0}^{-1} - r'' |\Phi|^2\right)H_c,
\label{transversefield}$$ where $c_{44,\perp 0}$ is the tilt modulus obtained from anisotropic GL theory (without accounting for the discreteness of the layers) and $r'' \equiv \partial^2 r/\partial H_c^2|_{H_c = 0}$.
Eq.\[transversefield\] has a simple physical interpretation. The first term is the contribution to $B_c$ from tilting of the layers (described by a phase shift of $\Phi$). This term is zero for small fields $H_c$ due to the cosine pinning potential. Even when the layers retain a fixed orientation perpendicular to the $c$ axis, however, the transverse field can penetrate via the second term. Such motion arises microscopically from a non–zero equilibrium concentration of vortices with large kinks extending between neighboring smectic layers, as suggested in section \[stronglayeringsection\]. Eq.\[transversefield\] predicts a non–divergent singularity $c_{44,\perp}(T) - c_{44,\perp}(T_s) \sim
|T-T_s|^{1-\alpha}$ at the critical point, where $\alpha$ is the specific heat exponent.
At low temperatures in the smectic phase, we can estimate the tilt modulus in terms of properties of kinks. In zero field, the concentrations of large kinks carrying magnetic field in the $+{\bf \hat{z}}$ and $-{\bf\hat{z}}$ directions are equal, leading to zero net field along the $c$ direction. For $H_c \neq 0$, the energy of a kink depends upon its orientation due to the $-B_c H_c/4\pi$ term in the GL free energy, yielding $$E_{\pm} \approx E_{\rm lk} \pm ms\phi_0 H_c/4\pi.
\label{epm}$$ The difference in the concentrations of up and down kinks takes the activated form $$n_+ - n_- \sim {B \over {\phi_0 w_{\rm lk}}} e^{-E_{\rm lk}/k_{\rm B}T} \sinh
\left( {{ms\phi_0 H_c} \over {4\pi k_{\rm B}T}} \right),
\label{kinkdiff}$$ where $w_{\rm lk} \sim \sqrt{\tilde{\epsilon}_\perp/U_p}ms$, estimated from Eq.\[kinkestimate\] with $s \rightarrow ms$. Since $B_c =
(n_+ - n_-)ms\phi_0$, Eq.\[c44def\] yields $$c_{44,\perp} \approx \left[{{\sqrt{\tilde{\epsilon}_\perp/U_p}k_{\rm
B}T} \over {B\phi_0 ms}}\right]e^{E_{\rm lk}/k_{\rm B}T},
\label{c44perpkinks}$$ i.e. a large but finite tilt modulus.
Dynamical Behavior {#dynamicbehaviorsection}
------------------
Very similar phenomena occur in the dynamics of the smectic phase. To study them, we need the equation of motion for $\Phi$. On the basis of symmetry and the lack of obvious conservation laws, a natural conjecture is that of overdamped “model A”[@HalperinHohenberg]dynamics. Indeed, a careful treatment using the general formalism of section \[hydromodel\] gives (see appendix \[eomappendix\]) $$\gamma_{\rm BS}\partial_t \Phi = - 4q^2{{\delta F_{\rm crit.}}
\over {\delta\Phi^*}} + i\mu J_x \Phi - \tilde{\eta},
\label{criticaldynamics}$$ where $\mu = q\phi_0 n_0/c$ and $\tilde{\eta}({\bf k}) = in_0 q
\eta_z(q{\bf\hat{z}} + {\bf k})$. Eq.\[criticaldynamics\]is remarkably similar to the model E dynamics[@HalperinHohenberg] for the complex “superfluid” order parameter $\Phi$, where now $J_x$ plays the role of the “electric field” in the Josephson coupling.[@conserveddensitynote] The actual electric field is ${\cal E}_x = j_{v,z}\phi_0/c$, leading via Eq.\[constitutive\] to (see appendix \[eomappendix\]) $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal E}_x & \approx & -{{n_0\phi_0} \over
{2qc}}{\rm Im}\left(\Phi^* \partial_t\Phi\right)
\nonumber \\
& & + (1 -
|\Phi|^2/2)\left({B \over {H_{c2}}}\right)\rho_{xx,n}J_x,
\label{vortexcurrent}\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho_{xx,n}$ is the normal state resistivity in the $x$ direction, whose appearance in the last term follows from the relation $(n_0\phi_0/c)^2/\gamma_{\rm BS} \approx (B/H_{c2})\rho_{xx,n}$.
Eq.\[vortexcurrent\] is interpreted in close analogy with Eq.\[transversefield\]. In the absence of pinning due to the periodic potential in Eq.\[smecticfreeenergy\], an applied force induces a uniform translation of the layers, and thus a net transport of vortices. In the ordered phase, where $\Phi = \sqrt{|r|/v} e^{2\pi
i u/a}$, the first term in Eq.\[vortexcurrent\] becomes proportional to the velocity $\partial_t u$. The second term contributes even when the layers are constant. It results microscopically from the motion of equilibrium vortex kinks, which can slide unimpeded along the $y$ axis and thereby transport vorticity along the $z$ axis (see Fig.\[kinkslidefig\]). Such flow at “constant structure” is analogous to the permeation mode in smectic liquid crystals.[@DeGennes] The presence of this defective motion implies a small but non–zero resistivity at the L–S transition. Near $T_s$, Eq.\[vortexcurrent\] predicts a singular decrease of the form $\rho_{xx}(T) - \rho_{xx}(T_s) \sim |T_s - T|^{1-\alpha}$, similar to the behavior of the tilt modulus. At lower temperatures (but still within the S phase) transport occurs via two channels. The permeation mode gives an exponentially small linear resistivity $\rho_{xx} \sim \exp(-E_{\rm lk}/k_{\rm B}T)$ (above $T_s$, single layer kinks give $\rho_{xx} \sim \exp(-E_{\rm k}/k_{\rm B}T)$, with $E_{\rm k} \approx E_{\rm lk}/m$).
Non–linear transport occurs in parallel to the above linear processes, via thermally activated liberation of vortex droplets, inside which $u$ (or $u_z$ in the crystal phase) is shifted by $s$ (see Fig.\[dropletfig\]). Such a droplet costs a surface energy, due to the creation of a domain wall between smectic regions shifted by $s$. The domain wall surface tension $\sigma_0$ is estimated from $$\sigma_0 \sim {\kappa \over 2} \left( {s \over w} \right)^2 + \tilde{g} w,
\label{dwenergy}$$ where $w$ is the width of the domain wall. The first term represents the elastic cost of the shift in $u$, while the second is the pinning energy. Minimizing Eq.\[dwenergy\] gives $w \sim
\sqrt{\kappa/\tilde{g}}s$ and $\sigma_0 \sim \sqrt{\kappa\tilde{g}}s$. This surface energy must be balanced against the Lorentz force in the interior, so that the energy of a droplet of linear size $L$ is $$E_{\rm droplet} \sim \sigma_0 L^2 - {{JBs} \over c}L^3.
\label{dropletenergy}$$
Eq.\[dropletenergy\] gives a critical droplet size $L_c \sim
\sqrt{\kappa\gamma}c/(JB)$ and an energy barrier $E_{\rm B} \sim
(c/JB)^2(\kappa\gamma)^{3/2}s$. Thermal activation therefore gives $${\cal E}_{nl} \sim e^{-(J_c/J)^2},
\label{activatedIV}$$ where $J_c \sim (c/B)(\kappa\tilde{g})^{3/4}(s/k_{\rm B}T)^{1/2}$. Similar non–linear IV relations have been obtained previously for vortex/Bose glasses,[@VGtheory; @BGtheory] but our result is more closely related to surface mobility below the roughening transition on crystal surfaces.[@roughening] Unlike these proposed glass phases, the smectic should always exhibit a nonzero linear resistivity as ${\bf
J}\rightarrow 0$.
Supersolid Order and the Smectic to Crystal Transition {#supersolidsection}
======================================================
Supersolid Nature of the Smectic Phase
--------------------------------------
In sections \[staticbehaviorsection\] and \[dynamicbehaviorsection\], we have seen that the response functions in the smectic phase retain many of the features of the vortex liquid. Both the tilt modulus and conductivity remain finite, despite the pinning of the smectic density wave by the CuO$_2$ layers. As discussed earlier, both phenomena are explained by the existence of an equilibrium concentration of large vortex kinks extending between successive occupied vortex layers. These kinks facilitate both transverse magnetic penetration and dissipation for currents along the $x$ axis.
This behavior is strikingly similar to the picture of “supersolid” vortex arrays recently proposed in Ref., for fields parallel to the $c$–axis. In the supersolid, a finite concentration of interstitials or vortices are present in the vortex lattice, and both the tilt modulus and conductivity in the presence of weak pinning are finite. Such a supersolid phase is distinct from the Abrikosov solid in that it supportslong range crystalline order coexists with a finite expectation value of the boson order parameter $\psi$, i.e. $$\langle \psi({\bf r}) \psi^*({\bf 0}) \rangle \rightarrow {\rm
Const.}
\label{supersoliddef}$$ as ${\bf r} \rightarrow \infty$. The supersolid must occur at sufficiently high magnetic fields, but its existence elsewhere in the phase diagram seems unlikely.[@FNF] Using this characterization of broken $U(1)$ symmetry (under $\psi
\rightarrow \psi e^{i\theta}$), the vortex smectic is [*always*]{} in a supersolid phase. As in Ref., this can be seen by considering the correlation function of $\psi$’s. Note that $\psi({\bf r})$ destroys a vortex line at position ${\bf r}$ are $\psi^*({\bf r})$ creates a line in the coherent state path integral formalism. Because there is always a finite probability of finding a kink connecting the points ${\bf 0}$ and ${\bf r}$, Eq.\[supersoliddef\] is indeed satisfied. With this understanding, the second terms in Eqs.\[vortexcurrent\] and \[transversefield\] have an additional complementary interpretation. They correspond to the contributions from the “superfluid fraction” of a two–fluid system with “superfluid” (kink) and “normal” (smectic) parts.
In addition, the concept of symmetry breaking implies that a continuous transition from the flux liquid state (with $\langle\psi\rangle \neq 0$) to a smectic (translationally ordered in one direction) phase must necessarily retain supersolid order. For the smectic phase to appear with $\langle\psi\rangle = 0$ would require [*simultaneous*]{} breaking of the discrete translation group and restoration of the $U(1)$ symmetry. Such a double critical point can only occur by tuning two parameters (one in addition to the temperature) or through a first order transition. The physical arguments of sections \[stronglayeringsection\] and \[staticbehaviorsection\]–\[dynamicbehaviorsection\], of course, imply the stronger condition that the smectic phase must be supersolid at [*all*]{} temperatures.
Consequences for Further Transitions at Low Temperatures
--------------------------------------------------------
At lower temperatures, provided point disorder remains negligible, the vortices will order along the $x$ axis as well.[@Feinberg] What is the nature of this two–dimensionally ordered phase?
The different possibilities may be classified by the order in which the symmetries are broken. At the lowest temperatures, we expect the system to prefer a true solid phase, with broken translational order in both directions (in particular $\langle\rho_\parallel\rangle \neq
0$, where $\rho_\parallel$ is the amplitude for periodic density variations along the $x$–axis. Recall that $\rho_\perp \equiv \Phi$ is the amplitude for density waves along $z$.) and a restored $U(1)$ symmetry (i.e. no interstitials).[@u1note] To connect this state with the smectic phase in which $\langle \rho_\parallel \rangle = 0$ and $\langle \psi
\rangle \neq 0$ requires two changes of symmetry.
Three monotonic choices of symmetry breaking are shown in Fig.\[sbfig\]. In the scenario (a), upon lowering the temperature from the smectic phase first the $U(1)$ symmetry is restored, and the translational symmetry along the $x$ axis is broken at a lower temperature. As remarked in the previous section, however, the intermediate non–supersolid smectic phase that appears in this sequence is impossible, so this sequence cannot occur.
Two physical choices remain. The smectic may go directly to the normal solid in a first order transition which breaks the translational symmetry and restores the $U(1)$ invariance simultaneously, as shown in Fig.\[sbfig\](b). The last possibility, illustrated in Fig.\[sbfig\](c), is that of an intermediate supersolid phase between the smectic and the interstitial–free solid. In this case both the low temperature phase transitions may be second order. The supersolid–solid critical behavior is described in Ref..
The smectic–supersolid transition is once again a freezing transition at a single wavevector, and is potentially describable by a Landau theory like Eq.\[criticalfreeenergy\]. Because the modulating effect of the underlying crystal lattice is much weaker in the $x$ direction, we expect $g \approx 0$ is a good approximation in this case, which leads to pure XY behavior.
Incommensurate Phases {#ICphases}
=====================
As is well known from the study of the sine–Gordon model,[@Villainreview] a large incommensurability can be compensated for by energetically favorable “solitons”, or walls across which $u \rightarrow u + s$ (see Fig.\[ickinkpicfig\]). Solitons begin to proliferate when their field energy per unit area $\sigma_{\rm field} \sim -\kappa{\cal A}s$ exceeds their cost at zero field, $\sigma_0
\sim \sqrt{\kappa\tilde{g}} s$ (estimated from Eq.\[smecticfreeenergy\]).
Physically, these solitons correspond to extra/missing flux line layers and walls of aligned “jogs” for $\delta{\bf H}$ along the $b$ and $c$ axes, respectively (see Fig.\[ickinkpicfig\]). In the former case, this leads to an incommensurate smectic (IS) phase, whose periodicity is no longer a simple multiple of $s$. For $\delta{\bf H}
\parallel {\bf\hat{z}}$, the solitons induce an additional periodicity along the $y$ axis. This tilted smectic (TS) phase has long range translational order in two directions.[@crystalnote] The analogous tilted [*crystal*]{} (TX) phase is qualitatively similar, but has long range order in 3 directions.
For larger $H_c$, as the angle between the field and the CuO$_2$ layers becomes large, intrinsic pinning and anisotropy no longer favor the smectic state. As shown in Fig.\[phasediagramfig\], we therefore expect the L–TS and TS–TX phase boundaries to merge in this regime. The direct L–TX transition is necessarily first order.
In conventional CITs, entropic contributions generate additional interactions between domain walls which actually dominate over the bare energetic repulsions when the inter–soliton spacing $\ell \rightarrow
\infty$. To estimate their magnitude here, we use the well known logarithmic roughness of a 2d interface,[@roughening]$$\left\langle \left( h({\bf x}) - h({\bf 0}) \right)^2\right\rangle \sim \ln|x|,
\label{logroughness}$$ where $h$ is the height of the interface and the coordinate ${\bf x}$ parameterizes its position in the base plane. For solitons spaced by $\ell$, collisions between neighbors generally occur only once $h \gtrsim
\ell$, so that the size of roughly independently fluctuating regions $x
\sim \exp(\ell^2)$. The entropy loss due to this constraint scales with the number of collisions $(L/x)^2$, so that the areal free energy cost per wall is $$f_{\rm coll.} = -T\Delta s_{\rm coll.} \sim Te^{-\ell^2}.
\label{fewall}$$ Since the energetic interactions in the smectic scale exponentially (like $\exp (-\ell/w)$) at long distances, the collision free energy is actually negligible as $\ell \rightarrow \infty$, unlike the situation for lines in $1+1$ dimensions.[@Villainreview] The free energy density in the incommensurate phases is thus $$f_{\rm soliton} \sim -{{|\sigma|} \over l} + {\Delta \over
l}e^{-l/w},
\label{solitonfreeenergy}$$ where $\sigma \equiv \sigma_{\rm field}+\sigma_0 <0$ is the total areal free energy of the soliton; $\Delta$ and $w$ set the energy and length scales of the soliton interactions. At low temperatures we expect $w \sim \lambda$ and $\Delta \sim \epsilon_0/a_x$, while near $T_s$, Eq.\[smecticfreeenergy\] gives $w \sim \sqrt{\kappa/\tilde{g}}s$ (c.f. Eq.\[dwenergy\]) and $\Delta \sim \tilde{g}\ell$. Minimizing Eq.\[solitonfreeenergy\] gives a soliton separation $l
\sim w\ln(\Delta/|\sigma|)$ near the CIT.
In the TS phase, net vortex motion along the $c$ axis occurs by sliding soliton walls along the $b$ direction. The resulting electric field is proportional to $J$ and the soliton density, leading to an additional contribution to the resistivity which vanishes at the CIT like $\rho_{xx}^{\rm soliton} \sim \rho_0^{\rm soliton}/\ln(\Delta/|\sigma|)$.
A single soliton wall in the IS phase, because it is parallel to the CuO$_2$ layers, experiences a periodic potential along $z$. From studies of the roughening transition,[@roughening] it is known that such a periodically pinned wall may be in either a rough or smooth phase. If the walls are individually smooth, thermal fluctuations are negligible, and the assembly of solitons is well described by an effectively one–dimensional elastic chain in a periodic potential.[@Villainreview] Because they are pinned separately into minima of the potential, they [*do not*]{} contribute to $\rho_{xx}$. If they are rough, they wander logarithmically and eventually interact with their neighbors. The appropriate coarse–grained description beyond this interacting length scale is an elastic stack of domain walls. The configuration of such a stack is described by a second displacement field $u_{\rm dw}$, with a free energy of the same form as Eq.\[smecticfreeenergy\] (but with different values of $\kappa$ and $\tilde{g}$). The statistical mechanics for the $u_{\rm dw}$ field is thus equivalent to that of the original $u$ variable. The preceding analysis must then be repeated within the new effective free energy.
Because of the aforementioned complexity of the one–dimensional problem, we have not attempted to determine the true long distance behavior of the soliton array in the IS phase. Because the permeation mode in the commensurate smectic already provides a finite tilt modulus and non–zero resistivity, however, we expect that these more subtle effects will have only weak experimental implications.
As the temperature is increased within the IS or TS phases, the system melts into the liquid. To study such transitions, we perform the dilation $\Phi \rightarrow \Phi \exp(i{\bf A\cdot r})$. Only the $g$ term is not invariant under such a gauge–like transformation. It becomes oscillatory and therefore does not contribute to the critical behavior at long wavelengths. The IS–L and TS–L phase transitions are thus XY–like. The shape of the CIT phase boundary is of particular experimental interest. In the mean field regime, this is obtained from the condition $\sigma=0$ as $\delta H \sim |r|^\Upsilon$, with $\Upsilon_{\rm MF} = (m-2)/4$. By the usual Ginzburg criterion, mean field theory breaks down for $|r|
\lesssim (k_{\rm B}Tv/K^{3/2})^2$. To determine the shape of the phase boundary in this critical regime, we follow the RG flows out of the critical region and repeat the preceding analysis with the renormalized couplings determined by matching when $|r|$ is order one. Then $\delta H_{\rm R} \sim \xi^{\lambda_{\rm H}}\delta H$ and $g_{\rm
R} \sim
\xi^{\lambda_m}g$, with $\xi \sim |r|^{-\nu}$. Rotational invariance at the rescaled fixed point ($g=0$) implies that the field exponent is [*exactly*]{} $\lambda_{\rm H} = 1$ (see appendix \[rotinvappendix\]). Using these renormalized quantities, we find $$\Upsilon_{\rm crit.} = (|\lambda_m|
+ 2)\nu/2 \approx 4.9 - 7.2,
\label{equationX}$$ for the fields used in Ref..
The IS–L and TS–L phase boundaries are non–singular and are determined locally by the smooth $\delta {\bf H}$ dependence of $r$. In particular, for small $H_c$, the TS–L phase critical temperature is $$T(H_c) = T_s - {{r''} \over 2r'}H_c^2,
\label{TSLboundary}$$ where $r' \equiv \partial r/\partial T|_{T=T_s,\delta H=0}$.
Influence of Disorder {#disordersection}
=====================
Lastly, we consider the effects of weak point disorder, which couples to the density of vortices according to $$F_d =\int \! d^3\!{\bf r} V_d({\bf r}) n({\bf r}),
\label{disorder}$$ where $V_d({\bf r})$ is a random potential, which, for point impurities, is short range correlated in space and narrowly (e.g. Gaussian) distributed at each point. Using Eq.\[densitywave\], $F_d$ can be rewritten, up to less relevant terms, as $$F_d = \int \! d^3\!{\bf r} V_d({\bf r}){\rm Re} \{ \Phi({\bf r})e^{iqz} \},
\label{fdphi}$$ in the smectic phase and in the liquid sufficiently near $T_s$. To bring Eq.\[fdphi\] into a more standard form, we define a complex random field $\tilde{V}_d \equiv V_d e^{iqz}$, in terms of which $$F_d = \int \! d^3\!{\bf r} {1 \over 2}\left( \tilde{V}_d^* \Phi +
\tilde{V}_d \Phi^* \right).
\label{rfpert}$$ Because of the oscillatory $e^{iqz}$ factor, $\tilde{V}_d$ and $\tilde{V}^*_d$ are essentially uncorrelated at long wavelengths. Eq.\[rfpert\] is the simplest “random field” XY perturbation of Eq.\[criticalfreeenergy\], and the resulting model is known in statistical mechanics as a random field XY model with an $m$–fold symmetry breaking term.
Before discussing the critical behavior of such a theory, it is natural to consider the effect upon the ordered state. In the smectic phase, using $\Phi = \sqrt{|r|/v}\exp(2\pi i u/a)$, Eq.\[rfpert\] becomes $$F_d = \int \! d^3\!{\bf r} {1 \over 2} \sqrt{{|r| \over v}}\left(
\tilde{V}_d^* e^{2\pi i u/a} + \tilde{V}_d e^{-2\pi i u/a} \right).
\label{rfsmectic}$$ If the disorder is weak relative to the periodic potential (i.e. $|\tilde{V}_d| \ll \tilde{g}$), it is naively justified to replace the cosine in Eq.\[smecticfreeenergy\] by the “mass” term $(2\pi/s)^2\tilde{g}u^2/2$. Such a mass term gives a large penalty for excursions of the layers with $u \gtrsim s$, so the randomness in $F_d$ appears irrelevant.
By ignoring the periodicity of the cosine, the above approach does not consider the possibility of disorder–induced solitons. To study the stability of the smectic to such topological defects, consider a region of size $L$ in which the displacement field $u$ is shifted by $s$, so as not to incur any bulk energy cost from the intrinsic pinning. Within this region, $F_d$ contributes an energy of random sign of order $|V_d|L^{d/2}$ in $d$ dimensions. On the boundary of the region, however, the cosine does contribute, costing an energy $\sim \tilde{g}L^{d-1}$. For $d>2$, the boundary energy grows more rapidly with $L$, and the net energy is always positive, provided $\tilde{g} > |V_d|s^{1-d/2}$. Thus we see that the smectic phase remains [*stable*]{} to weak disorder, even once solitons are taken into account.
Note that this result is in strong contrast to the Larkin–Ovchinikov argument that the Abrikosov lattice is unstable to arbitrarily weak pinning.[@LO] Physically, the instability is prevented, at least for weak disorder, by the periodic pinning potential which increases the stiffness of the smectic displacement field. The result can be understood, however, on more general symmetry grounds. For non–zero $g$, the system does not have a true continuous translational symmetry in the $z$ direction, but only the discrete symmetry under translations by $s$. Because the symmetry is discrete, there is no Goldstone mode in the ordered (smectic phase) – i.e. phonons are massive. It is now well known that for random field models with discrete symmetries (e.g. the random field Ising model, to which our model corresponds when $m=2$), the ordered phase survives above two dimensions.[@Imbrie] Indeed, the argument given above for stability against droplet solitons is a restatement of the Imry–Ma argument first used for the random field Ising model.[@ImryMa] In the incommensurate (IS and TS) phases, where the periodic pinning $\tilde{g}$ is effectively zero, the Imry–Ma argument no longer applies. In these phases, the original Larkin–Ovchinikov picture holds, and the distortions in $|u({\bf r})|^2$ must grow on long length scales, destroying the long range translational order of the layers. The nature of the resulting phase is unclear: it may be a “smectic glass”, analogous to the proposed vortex glass phase for more isotropic systems, or it may simply be a strongly correlated liquid, with slow relaxation times. The same considerations hold for the more ordered phases at low temperatures, since the translational order along the $x$ axis lacks the intrinsic pinning required to prevent the Larkin–Ovchinikov instability.
Turning to the critical behavior of the L–S transition, the analysis becomes more subtle. The random field perturbation in Eq.\[rfpert\] is a relevant perturbation at the XY fixed point (and indeed at any $O(n)$ fixed point), so the critical behavior is certainly altered. Naively, a $6-\epsilon$ expansion may be made for the critical behavior of the $O(n)$ random field model, which has a zero temperature critical point.[@RFepsilon] Within such a perturbative expansion near $6$ dimensions, the symmetry–breaking term appears irrelevant. There are two potential problems with this approach. Firstly, if the symmetry–breaking term indeed remains irrelevant at the new critical point, it would be an example of a three dimensional random field XY critical point. The random field XY model, however, because it has a continuous symmetry, does not even have a stable ordered phase in three dimensions. Although there may not be an obvious contradiction involved in this scenario, the physical meaning is certainly unclear. One possible resolution is that the symmetry–breaking term becomes relevant at some higher dimension (greater than 4) . The second problem is the status of the $6-\epsilon$ expansion itself, which has been proven to break down, at least via non–perturbative corrections (but possibly more strongly) for the case of the random field Ising model.[@DSFrandom] The consistency of the $6-\epsilon$ expansion, even perturbatively, has not yet been determined. Regardless of the success or failure of this theoretical approach, experimental work on random field Ising systems has demonstrated the subtle types of behavior possible for such zero temperature critical points. Fortunately, as discussed in sections \[staticbehaviorsection\]–\[supersolidsection\], the supersolid nature of the smectic (with the relatively fast permeation mode) implies that slow dynamics for the smectic ordering will not have a strong impact on transport and magnetization experiments.
Finally, consider the L–IS and L–TS transitions in the presence of disorder. Disorder strongly effects the behavior at such CITs, because it modifies the wandering of a single domain wall.[@KardarNelson; @NL]Fortunately, the effects of random field disorder on a single interface are known exactly.[@GM; @BF] In contrast to Eq.\[logroughness\], the height fluctuations of the interface grow like $$\overline{\left\langle \left( h({\bf x}) - h({\bf 0})
\right)^2\right\rangle} \sim |x|^{2\zeta},
\label{randomroughness}$$ where $\zeta = (5-d)/3 = 2/3$ in three dimensions. Also unlike the pure interface, the free energy fluctuations within a region grow with length scale, so that the cost per collision scales like $|x|^\theta$, where $\theta = d-3+2\zeta = 4/3$. The areal collision free energy per wall is thus $$f_{\rm coll.} \sim 1/\ell^{(2-\theta)/\zeta} \sim 1/\ell.
\label{randomfcoll}$$ This dominates over exponential energetic interactions for large $\ell$. The full soliton free energy is thus $$f_{\rm soliton} \sim -{{|\sigma|} \over l} + {{\Delta_d} \over \ell^2},
\label{rsolitonfreeenergy}$$ where $\Delta_d$ measures the strength of the disorder–induced collision interactions. Minimization of Eq.\[rsolitonfreeenergy\] gives $\ell
\sim 1/|\sigma|$.
Conclusions and Applications to Helium Films {#conclusionsection}
============================================
We have studied the behavior of vortex arrays subjected to a one–dimensional periodic potential transverse to the magnetic field. Such a potential, which is induced by the layered structure of the high temperature copper oxide superconductors for fields oriented in the a–b plane, favors an intermediate smectic phase between the vortex lattice and flux liquid. The commensurate smectic state is supersolid, and has in consequence a nonzero finite resistivity and tilt modulus, [*despite*]{} being pinned by the periodic potential. Including incommensurability effects leads to the rich phase diagrams of Fig.\[phasediagramfig\]. The experimental signature of the smectic is the appearance of Bragg peaks in the structure function along a single ordering axis interleaving the trivial peaks induced by the layering. We also expect a greatly reduced resistivity for currents transverse to both the layering and magnetic field axes, and a cusped phase boundary describing the response to small fields perpendicular to the layering direction. The qualitative behavior of the tilt modulus and resistivity near the liquid–to–smectic transition in a field aligned perfectly with the ab–plane is shown in Fig.\[qualfig\].
Using the boson mapping,[@NelsonSeung; @duality] these results can be extended to real two dimensional quantum mechanical bosons at zero temperature. The analogous quantum smectic phase might be studied in helium on a periodically ruled substrate. Such a substrate might be approximated by crystalline facets exposing a periodic array of rectangular unit cells with large aspect ratio. There are, however, a number of difficulties inherent in this extension. In particular, the interaction between helium atoms is not purely repulsive; it is reasonably well described by a Lennard–Jones potential with a minimum at an interatomic spacing of a few Angstroms. To obtain a substrate with a small enough period to affect the physics on these length scales is an experimental challenge. Were these interactions purely repulsive, one could probably overcome this difficulty by working with a dilute system. With an attractive tail to the potential, however, a low density helium film would likely phase separate into helium rich and helium poor regions, making intermediate densities inaccessible. Appropriate experimental conditions may nevertheless be achievable for small values of $m$ (the number of periods of the potential per period of the smectic density wave). The depth of the minimum in the effective pair potential, moreover, could be reduced somewhat by a careful choice of substrate.
The case $m=2$ has been explored numerically in a Bose Hubbard model in Ref.. These authors indeed find a smectic phase, which they denote a “striped solid”, with order in reciprocal space at ${\bf q} = (\pi,0)$. Their results for the structure function and superfluid density appear to be in good agreement with the predictions of section \[smecticsection\] (see in particular their Fig.11. The superfluid density of the boson system maps onto the inverse tilt modulus $c_{44}^{-1}$ of the flux lines.[@BGtheory]). Unfortunately, a detailed comparison of the critical behavior with the theory is beyond the resolution of the available data.
At a more general level, the liquid–smectic transition treated here appears to be the only known case of continuous quantum freezing in $2+1$ dimensions. The smectic phase, moreover, is perhaps the simplest example of a quantum phase intermediate between solid and liquid. The techniques developed here may be useful in understanding other quantum phases of mixed liquid/solid character. One particularly intriguing example is the “Hall solid” proposed in Ref.. Through the Chern–Simons mapping,[@ChernSimons] it can be related to a supersolid phase of composite bosons (electrons plus flux tubes).[@Bunpub] This phase, an analogous “Hall smectic” and “Hall hexatic,” and the modifications of the current theory to account for the long–range Coulomb and Chern–Simons interactions are discussed in Ref..
It is a pleasure to acknowledge discussions with George Crabtree, Daniel Fisher, Matthew Fisher, Randall Kamien, Wai Kwok, Leo Radzihovsky, and John Reppy. This research was supported by the National Science Foundation, through grant No. DMR94–17047 and in part through the MRSEC program via grant DMR4–9400396. L.B.’s work was supported at the Institute for Theoretical Physics by grant no. PHY89–04035.
Derivation of Hydrodynamic Equations {#dynamicsappendix}
====================================
The continuity equation (Eq.\[continuity\]) follows from differentiation of Eqs.\[ndef\]. For example, $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{n} & = & -\sum_i \left[\delta'(x-x_i)\delta(z-z_i)\dot{x}_i +
\delta(x-x_i)\delta'(z-z_i)\dot{z}_i \right] \nonumber \\
& = & -\bbox{\nabla}_\perp \cdot \sum_i \delta({\bf r}_\perp - {\bf
r}_{\perp i}) {\bf \dot{r}}_{\perp i} = - \bbox{\nabla}_\perp \cdot
{\bf j}_{v},
\label{contderiv}\end{aligned}$$ where $${\bf j}_v \equiv \sum_i \delta({\bf r}_\perp - {\bf r}_{\perp i}){\bf
\dot{r}}_{\perp i}.
\label{jvdef}$$ Eq.\[taucontinuity\] is derived analogously, giving the tangent current tensor $$j_{\beta\alpha} \equiv \sum_i \delta({\bf r}_\perp - {\bf r}_{\perp
i}) \left( {{\partial x_i^\beta} \over {\partial t}}{{\partial
x_i^\alpha} \over {\partial y}} - {{\partial x_i^\alpha} \over
{\partial t}}{{\partial x_i^\beta} \over {\partial y}}\right).
\label{jtdef}$$
Eqs.\[jvdef\] and \[jtdef\] are completely general, and do not depend upon the detailed dynamics of the vortex system. This additional physics is included in the constitutive equations (Eqs.\[constitutive\] and \[tauconstitutive\]). To derive them, we need the equation of motion, Eq.\[FLeom\]. Inserting this into Eq.\[jvdef\] gives $$\Gamma {\bf j}_v = - \sum_i \delta({\bf r}_\perp - {\bf r}_{\perp
i}){{\delta F} \over {\delta{\bf r}_{\perp i}(y)}} + n{\bf f}.
\label{jvintermediate}$$ The functional derivative with respect to ${\bf r}_{\perp i}$ can be transformed via the chain rule $$\delta F = \int d^3{\bf r} \left[ {{\delta F} \over {\delta n({\bf r})}}
\delta n({\bf r}) + {{\delta F} \over {\delta \bbox{\tau}({\bf r})}}
\cdot \delta\bbox{\tau}({\bf r})\right],
\label{chainrule}$$ where the variations $\delta n$ and $\delta\bbox{\tau}$ are $$\begin{aligned}
\delta n({\bf r}) & = & -\bbox{\nabla}_\perp\cdot \sum_i \delta({\bf
r}_\perp - {\bf r}_{\perp i}) \delta{\bf r}_{\perp i}(y), \nonumber\\
\delta\bbox{\tau}({\bf r}) & = & -\partial_\alpha \sum_i \delta({\bf
r}_\perp - {\bf r}_{\perp i}) {{d{\bf r}_{\perp i}} \over {dy}} \delta
x_i^\alpha(y) \nonumber \\
& & + \sum_i \delta({\bf r}_\perp - {\bf r}_{\perp i}) {{d\delta{\bf
r}_{\perp i}} \over {dy}}.
\label{variations}\end{aligned}$$ Substituting Eqs.\[chainrule\] and \[variations\] into Eq.\[jvintermediate\] then gives Eq.\[constitutive\]. The constitutive equation for $j_{\beta\alpha}$ is derived analogously, by premultiplying Eq.\[FLeom\] with $\partial x_i^\beta/\partial y$ and carrying out the same steps as before.
Landau Theory of the Smectic to Crystal Transition {#sxappendix}
==================================================
We assume that ${\bf H}$ is in the ab–plane and commensurate smectic order is already well established, and ask how a [*two*]{}–dimensional vortex modulation then arises at a lower temperature. The modulated vortex density now takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
n({\bf r}) & = & n_0 {\rm Re}\bigg\{ 1 + \Phi({\bf r})e^{-iqz} +
\psi_1({\bf r})e^{-i {\bf G_1 \cdot r}} \nonumber \\
& & + \psi_2({\bf r})e^{-i {\bf
G_2 \cdot r}} \bigg\},
\label{X1}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Phi({\bf r})$ is the (large) smectic order parameter, and ${\bf G}_1$ and ${\bf G}_2$ are reciprocal lattice vectors lying in the $(x-z)$ plane with $G_{1x} = - G_{2x} \neq 0$ satisfying $$q{\bf \hat{z}} + {\bf G_1} + {\bf G_2} = \bbox{0}.
\label{X2}$$ The six vectors $\pm q{\bf \hat{z}}$, $\pm {\bf G_1}$, and $\pm {\bf
G_2}$ form a distorted hexagon of minimal reciprocal lattice vectors. All other reciprocal lattice vectors in the crystalline phase are linear combinations of this set, which reflects an anisotropic vortex lattice in real space. The corresponding set of reciprocal lattice vectors for a [*square*]{} lattice is illustrated in Fig.\[sffig\].
The complex amplitudes $\psi_1({\bf r})$ and $\psi_2({\bf r})$ are small near the transition, and the Landau free energy difference $\delta F$ between the smectic and crystalline phases takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\delta F & = & \int \! d^3{\bf r} \bigg[ {\tilde{K} \over
2}\left|\nabla\psi_1\right|^2 + {\tilde{K} \over
2}\left|\nabla\psi_2\right|^2 + \tilde{g} \bbox{\nabla}\psi_1 \cdot
\bbox{\nabla}\psi_2 \nonumber \\
& + & {r \over 2}(|\psi_1|^2 + |\psi_2|^2) +
\tilde{w}(\Phi\psi_1\psi_2 + \Phi^*\psi_1^*\psi_2^*) + \cdots \bigg].
\label{X3}\end{aligned}$$ We have equated the coefficients of gradients in all three directions for simplicity. Within mean field theory, crystalline order can arise via a continuous phase transition whenever $r<0$. The neglected higher order terms fix the magnitudes of $\psi_1$ and $\psi_2$, $|\psi_1| = |\psi_2| \equiv \psi_0$ below the mean–field transition temperature. To study the true transition (which occurs for $r=r_c
<0$ due to thermal fluctuations), we set $$\psi_1 = \psi_0 e^{i\theta_1({\bf r})}, \hspace{0.5 truein} \psi_2 =
\psi_0 e^{i\theta_2({\bf r})}.
\label{X4}$$ Upon neglecting a constant, the free energy becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\delta F & = & \int \! d^3{\bf r} \bigg[ {K \over 2}|\nabla\theta_1|^2
+ {K \over 2}|\nabla\theta_2|^2 \nonumber \\
& & + g \bbox{\nabla}\theta_1 \cdot \bbox{\nabla}\theta_2 + w
\cos(\theta_1 - \theta_2) \bigg],
\label{X5}\end{aligned}$$ where $K= \tilde{K}\psi_0^2$, $g=\tilde{g}\psi_0^2$, $w=\tilde{w}|\Phi|\psi_0^2$, and we have assumed the phase of the smectic order parameter $\Phi$ is locked to zero by the periodic pinning potential. Eq.\[X5\] represents two coupled XY models with phases locked by the cosine. This term forces $\theta_1 \approx
\theta_2 \equiv \theta$, and the phase transition falls in the universality class of a three–dimensional XY model with effective free energy $$\delta F_{\rm XY} \approx (K+g)\int \! d^3{\bf r} |\nabla\theta|^2.
\label{X6}$$
Effect of Long Wavelength Fluctuations at the S–L Critical Point {#murelevanceappendix}
================================================================
To determine $\lambda_\gamma$, we assume the usual scaling form of the free energy at the critical point, $$f(r,\gamma) = \xi^{-d} g(\gamma\xi^{\lambda_\gamma}),
\label{freeenergyscalingform}$$ where $g$ is an unknown scaling function. Using $\xi \sim r^{-\nu}$ and $2-\alpha=d\nu$, Eq.\[freeenergyscalingform\] gives $$\left.{{\partial^2 f} \over {\partial\gamma^2}}\right|_{\gamma = 0} =
\xi^{2\lambda_\gamma -d}g(0) \sim r^{2-\alpha-2\lambda_\gamma\nu}.
\label{scalingprediction}$$ The same quantity can be calculated directly, however, by differentiating the partition function to obtain $$\left.{{\partial^2 f} \over {\partial\gamma^2}}\right|_{\gamma = 0} = \int
d^3{\bf x} \langle \bbox{\nabla}_\perp \!\cdot\! {\bf w}({\bf x})
\bbox{\nabla}_\perp \!\cdot\! {\bf w}({\bf 0}) \rangle \langle E({\bf x})
E({\bf 0}) \rangle,
\label{zdiff}$$ where the “energy” operator $E({\bf x}) \equiv |\Phi({\bf x})|^2$. The angular brackets indicate expectation values in the decoupled theories. The energy–energy correlations take the scaling form $$\langle E({\bf x})E({\bf 0})\rangle \sim r^{2(1-\alpha)}h(|{\bf x}|/\xi),
\label{Ecorrelations}$$ where $h(\chi)$ is another unknown scaling function. The long–wavelength fluctuations, determined from Eq.\[wfreeenergy\], are $$\begin{aligned}
\langle & &\bbox{\nabla}_\perp \!\cdot\! {\bf w}({\bf x})
\bbox{\nabla}_\perp \!\cdot\! {\bf w}({\bf 0}) \rangle = n_0^2 k_{\rm
B}T \times
\nonumber \\
& & \int \!
{{d^3{\bf q}} \over {(2\pi)^3}} {{c_{44,\perp}q_x^2 +
c_{44,\parallel}q_z^2} \over {c_{11}(c_{44,\perp}q_x^2 +
c_{44,\parallel}q_z^2) + c_{44,\perp}c_{44,\parallel}q_y^2}} e^{i{\bf
q}\cdot {\bf x}}.
\label{wwcorrelations}\end{aligned}$$ Inserting Eqs.\[Ecorrelations\] and \[wwcorrelations\] into Eq.\[zdiff\] and changing variables ${\bf x} \rightarrow \xi{\bf
x}$ gives the scaling $$\left.{{\partial^2 f} \over {\partial\gamma^2}}\right|_{\gamma = 0} \sim
r^{2(1-\alpha)}.
\label{zdiffscaling}$$ Comparison with Eq.\[scalingprediction\] then gives the desired result $\lambda_\gamma = \alpha/2\nu$.
Equations of Critical Dynamics {#eomappendix}
==============================
To derive the critical equations of motion, we assume that important fluctuations occur only near ${\bf q}=\bbox{0}$ and ${\bf q} = q{\bf\hat{z}}$. Including the ${\bf q}=\bbox{0}$ modes in Eq.\[densitywave\] gives $$n({\bf r}) = n_0 \left[1 + {\rm Re} \Phi e^{-iqz}) \right] + \delta n.
\label{densityexp}$$ It is sufficient to keep only the small ${\bf q}$ parts of the tangent field.[@BNunpublished] The finite $q_z$ modulation of the density induces a modulation of the vortex current, $${\bf j}_{v} = {\bf j}_{v, u} + {\rm Re} {\bf j}_{v, s}e^{-iqz},
\label{currentdecomp}$$ where ${\bf j}_{v, u}$ and ${\bf j}_{v, s}$ are the (slowly varying) uniform and smectic (i.e. periodic) components of the vortex current. Inserting Eq.\[densityexp\] into Eq.\[constitutive\] and isolating the parts proportional to $e^{-iqz}$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma{\bf j}_{v, s} & = & -4\left(1 + {{\delta n} \over n_0} \right)
\left( \bbox{\nabla}_\perp - iq{\bf\hat{z}}\right){{\delta F} \over
{\delta\Phi^*}} - n_0\Phi\bbox{\nabla}_\perp{{\delta F} \over
{\delta(\delta n)}} \nonumber \\
& & + n_0\Phi\partial_y{{\delta F} \over
{\delta\bbox{\tau}}} + n_0\Phi {\bf f} + n_0 {\bf f}_{\rm thermal}e^{iqz}
\label{jvs}\end{aligned}$$ where the last term is included because the white noise ${\bf f}_{\rm
thermal}$ has Fourier components at all wavevectors. Similarly, from the uniform component, one finds $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma{\bf j}_{v, u} & = & -(n_0 + \delta n)\left[\bbox{\nabla}_\perp
{{\delta F} \over {\delta(\delta n)}} - \partial_y {{\delta F} \over
{\delta\bbox{\tau}}}\right] - \tau_\alpha\bbox{\nabla}_\perp {{\delta
F} \over {\delta\tau_\alpha}} \nonumber \\
& & - 2{\rm Re}\left[\Phi\left(\bbox{\nabla}_\perp +
iq{\bf\hat{z}}\right){{\delta F} \over {\delta\Phi}}\right] + (n_0 +
\delta n){\bf f}.
\label{jvu}\end{aligned}$$ Using Eqs.\[currentdecomp\], the divergence of the current is $$\bbox{\nabla}_\perp \cdot {\bf j}_v = \bbox{\nabla}_\perp \cdot {\bf
j}_{v ,u} + {\rm Re} (\bbox{\nabla}_\perp -iq{\bf\hat{z}}){\bf j}_{v,
s}e^{-iqz},
\label{cdiv}$$ which leads to the two continuity equations $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t \delta n + \bbox{\nabla}_\perp\cdot {\bf j}_{v,u} & = & 0,
\label{uconst} \\
n_0\partial_t \Phi + (\bbox{\nabla}_\perp -iq{\bf\hat{z}})\cdot {\bf
j}_{v,s} & = & 0. \label{sconst}\end{aligned}$$
Eqs.\[jvs\]–\[sconst\] completely specify the dynamics of the density fluctuations $\delta n$ and $\Phi$. Inserting Eq.\[jvs\]into Eq.\[sconst\], and neglecting irrelevant couplings gives the “model E”–like model of Eq.\[criticaldynamics\].
Eq.\[jvu\] can, in principle, be used to study the effects of the smectic ordering on the long–wavelength modes. The most physical application, however, is to determine the contribution of the smectic degrees of freedom to the electric field. The average bulk (i.e. ${\bf q=0}$) field is $\langle {\cal E}_x \rangle =
\langle j_{v, u,z} \rangle \phi_0/c$. In the spirit of the Landau expansion, ${\bf q=0}$ component of Eq.\[jvu\] can be reasonably approximated by dropping terms with gradients of $\Phi$ (the leading contributions from the first term involving $\delta n$ and $\bbox{\tau}$ vanished automatically at ${\bf q=0}$ even without this approximation), yielding $$\Gamma \langle {\cal E}_c \rangle \approx n_0\phi_0 f_z/c +
{{iq\phi_0} \over c} \left[ \Phi^*{{\delta F} \over {\delta\Phi^*}} -
\Phi{{\delta F} \over {\delta\Phi}} \right].
\label{exintermediate}$$ Recognizing the variation of the free energy on the right hand side of Eq.\[exintermediate\], the substitution (c.f. Eq.\[criticaldynamics\]) $${{\delta F} \over {\delta\Phi^*}} = -{{\gamma_{\rm BS}} \over
{4q^2}}\partial_t\Phi + {{i\mu J_x} \over {4q^2}}\Phi,
\label{substitution}$$ leads immediately to Eq.\[vortexcurrent\].
Eigenvalue of ${\bf A}$ {#rotinvappendix}
=======================
The eigenvalue $\lambda_{\rm H}$ is determined completely by rotational invariance. To see this, consider Eq.\[criticalfreeenergy\] at the fixed point, i.e. with $g=0$. By making the transformation $\Phi
\rightarrow \Phi \exp(i{\bf A}\cdot{\bf r})$, the term involving ${\bf A}$ may be completely removed from $F$. The free energy is thus independent of ${\bf A}$. After integrating out short–wavelength modes, no dependence on ${\bf A}$ can appear, so precisely the same transformation must eliminate the field dependence in the renormalized free energy. This operation is $\Phi \rightarrow \Phi
\exp(i{\bf A} \cdot {\bf r}\xi)$, using the rescaled ${\bf r}$, so the renormalized vector potential must be $${\bf A}_{\rm R} = \xi {\bf A},
\label{rA}$$ which implies $\lambda_{\rm H} =1$.
Some recent experiments which demonstrate these strong fluctuation effects in clean samples include H. Safar, P. L. Gammel, D. A. Huse, D. J. Bishop, J. P. Rice, and D. M. Ginsberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 824 (1992); W. K. Kwok et. al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**72**]{}, 1092 (1994).
B. I. Halperin, T. C. Lubensky, and S.–K. Ma, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**32**]{}, 292 (1974).
E. Brezin, D. R. Nelson, and A. Thiaville, Phys. Rev. B[**31**]{}, 7124 (1985).
D. R. Nelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**60**]{}, 1415 (1988); D. R. Nelson and S. Seung, Phys. Rev. B[**39**]{}, 9153 (1989).
D. R. Nelson and P. Le Doussal, Phys. Rev. B [**42**]{}, 10113 (1990).
D. S. Fisher, M. P. A. Fisher, and D. A. Huse, Phys. Rev. [**B43**]{}, 130 (1991).
D. R. Nelson and V. M. Vinokur, Phys. Rev. B[**48**]{}, 13060 (1993).
R. H. Koch, V. Foglietti, W. J. Gallagher, G. Koren, A. Gupta, and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**63**]{}, 1511 (1989); P. L. Gammel, L. F. Schneemener, and D. J. Bishop, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**66**]{}, 953 (1991).
L. Civale, A. D. Marwick, T. K. Worthington, M. A. Kirk, J. R. Thompson, L. Krusin-Elbaum, Y. Sum, J. R. Clem and F. Holtzberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**67**]{}, 648 (1991); M. Leghissa, L. A. Gurevich, M. Kraus, G. Saemann–Ischenko, and L. Ya. Vinnikov, Phys. Rev. B [**48**]{}, 1341 (1993).
H. S. Bokil and A. P. Young, preprint (1994).
B. I. Ivlev and N. B. Kopnin, J. Low Temp. Phys. [**80**]{}, 161 (1990); B. I. Ivlev, N. B. Kopnin, and V. L. Pokrovsky, J. Low Temp. Phys. [**80**]{}, 187 (1990).
W. K. Kwok, J. Fendrich, U. Welp, S. Fleshler, J. Downey, and G. W. Crabtree, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**72**]{}, 1088 (1994).
L. Balents and D. R. Nelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**73**]{}, 2618 (1994).
P. G. de Gennes and J. Prost, [*The Physics of Liquid Crystals,*]{} (Oxford University Press, New York, 1993).
J. Villain, in [*Ordering in Strongly Fluctuating Condensed Matter Systems*]{}, edited by T. Riste (Plenum, New York, 1980), p. 221.
A. I. Larkin and Yu.–N. Ovchinikov, J. Low Temp. Phys. [**34**]{}, 409 (1979).
In real cuprate materials, there is usually more than one such plane per unit cell spacing in the $z$–direction. In this paper, we will usually ignore such complications, and model the potential by a simple sinusoidal variation along $z$.
The line is of course still delocalized along the $x$–direction, not shown in the figure.
E. Frey, D. R. Nelson and D. S. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B[**49**]{}, 9723 (1994).
See, e.g. A. Sudbo and E. H. Brandt, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**66**]{}, 1781 (1991)., and references therein.
Both the equal–$y$ interaction and the wavevector–independent elastic moduli are appropriate in situations when the curvature of the vortex lines is small on the scale of $\lambda$. See Appendix B of Ref..
G. Blatter, V. B. Geshkenbein, and A. I. Larkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 875 (1992).
M. P. A. Fisher and D.–H. Lee, Phys. Rev. B[**39**]{}, 2756 (1989).
M. C. Marchetti and D. R. Nelson, Physica C [**174**]{}, 40 (1991); Phys. Rev. B[**42**]{}, 9938 (1990).
M. C. Marchetti, Phys. Rev. B[**43**]{}, 8012 (1991).
A. Barone, A. I. Larkin, and Yu. N. Ovchinnikov, J. Supercond. [**3**]{}, 155 (1990).
J. R. Clem, Phys. Rev. B[**43**]{}, 7837 (1991).
The static equilibrium hydrodynamic equations described here have be derived from the boson mapping in Ref..
L. S. Levitov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**66**]{}, 224 (1991).
J. V. José, L. P. Kadanoff, S. Kirkpatrick, and D. R. Nelson, Phys. Rev. B[**16**]{}, 1217 (1977).
The dilation $z \rightarrow (1 + \delta H_b/H_b)z$ leads (c.f. Eq.\[densitywave\]) to $\Phi \rightarrow \Phi
e^{iq(\delta H_b/H_b)z}$, since the density $n$ is a scalar. Likewise, the rotation ${\bf r} \rightarrow {\bf r} + (H_c/H_b){\bf
\hat{x}}\wedge{\bf r}$ induces $\Phi \rightarrow \Phi
e^{iq(H_c/H_b)y}$.
A. Aharony et. al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**57**]{}, 1012 (1986). This empirical relation breaks down for very large $m$.
For $m<m_c$, symmetry breaking terms are [*relevant*]{}, and change the universality class of the transition. The cases $m=2$ and $m=3$ correspond to Ising and three–state Potts models, repspectively.
See, e.g. L. J. Campbell, M. M. Doria, and V. G. Kogan, Phys. Rev. B[**38**]{}, 2439 (1988).
J. Zinn–Justin, [*Quantum Field Theory and Critical Phenomena*]{}, (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1990), p. 619.
D. J. Bergman and B. I. Halperin, Phys. Rev. B[**13**]{}, 2145 (1976).
J. D. Weeks, in [*Ordering in Strongly Fluctuating Condensed Matter Systems,*]{} edited by T. Riste (Plenum, New York, 1980), p. 293.
In fact, $K$ and $v$ and other higher order coefficients also depend on $H_c$. Their contributions to $c_{44,\perp}$, are, however, small in the limit considered.
P. C. Hohenberg and B. I. Halperin, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**49**]{}, 435 (1977).
Our problem differs from model E in that the “conserved density” $\delta n$ is intimately connected via Eq.\[constraint\] to the tangent field $\tau$.
More complex structures are possible. See D. Feinberg and A. M. Ettouhami, Physica Scripta [**T49**]{}, 159 (1993).
It may seem surprising that the $U(1)$ symmetry is unbroken at zero temperature. In the language of statistical mechanics, this is because $\psi$ is actually a [*disorder*]{} operator, as can be seen by the duality relation with the original Ginzburg–Landau order parameter $\Psi_{\rm GL}$.[@duality] Since the solitons are two–dimensional objects embedded in three dimensions, dislocations cannot occur without terminating the wall itself, which is presumably energetically very costly. A dislocation free stack of layers in three dimensions automatically has long–range order, justifying the description as a crystalline phase.
J. Z. Imbrie, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**53**]{}, 1747 (1984).
Y. Imry and S.–K. Ma, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**35**]{}, 1399 (1975).
See, e.g. D. Boyanovsky and J. L. Cardy, Phys. Rev. B[**27**]{}, 4447 (1983), and D. S. Fisher, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**56**]{}, 416 (1986).
See, e.g. D. S. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B[**31**]{}, 7233 (1985).
M. Kardar and D. R. Nelson, Phys. Rev. Lett.[**55**]{}, 1157 (1985).
T. Nattermann and R. Lipowsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**61**]{}, 2508 (1988).
G. Grinstein and S.–K. Ma, Phys. Rev. B[**28**]{}, 2588 (1983).
L. Balents and D. S. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B[**48**]{}, 5949 (1993).
G. G. Batrouni, R. T. Scalettar, G. T. Zimanyi, and A. P. Kampf, unpublished; R. T. Scalettar, G. G. Batrouni, A. P. Kampf, and G. T. Zimanyi, unpublished.
Z. Tesanovic, F. Axel, and B. I. Halperin, Phys. Rev. B [**39**]{}, 8525 (1989).
See, e.g. S. C. Zhang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B [**6**]{}, 25 (1992).
L. Balents, unpublished.
L. Balents and D. R. Nelson, unpublished.
R. D. Kamien, P. Le. Doussal and D. R. Nelson, Phys. Rev. A[**45**]{}, 8727 (1992).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Temperature-dependent reflectivity and photoluminescence spectra are studied for undoped ultra-wide 150 nm and 250 nm GaAs quantum wells. It is shown that spectral features previously attributed to a size quantization of exciton motion in z-direction coincide well with energies of quantized levels for light holes. Furthermore, optical spectra reveal very similar properties at temperatures above exciton dissociation point.'
author:
- 'V.V. Solovyev,$^{1,2}$, V.A. Bunakov, $^1$ S. Schmult$^{2}$ and I. V. Kukushkin$^{1,2}$'
title: 'Light-hole quantization in the optical response of ultrawide GaAs/Al$_x$Ga$_{1-x}$As quantum wells\'
---
The optical response of a semiconductor material close to the band gap energy is determined at low temperatures by excitons, the particles composed of a conduction band electron bound to a valence band hole by the Coulomb interaction. Since their discovery [@Gross] excitons provide an extremely useful model system for many-body problems of condensed matter physics. The two-dimensional nature of excitons formed in semiconductor heterostructures usually simplifies theoretical considerations if compared to the 3D case and at the same time opens up new experimental possibilities. Recently, several attempts [@Kochereshko] [@Kochereshko2] were made to study properties of excitons with a quantized energy spectrum due to a one dimensional confinement in an ultra-wide quantum well (QW). If the QW width $d$ is much larger than the Bohr radius of an exciton, a quantization procedure should consider the latter as a single particle with a total mass equal to the sum of electron and hole masses. (This model is opposed to the case of narrow QW exciton where one starts from the quantized spectra of an individual electron and a hole and then adds the Coulomb attraction between them.) The authors in [@Kochereshko] associated features in the reflectivity spectra with a set of energies on the heavy-hole exciton dispersion relation selected by a quantization in momentum space according to $K_z=N\frac{\pi}{d}$, where $N$ is a positive integer.
In this report we present a study of ultra-wide undoped GaAs quantum wells by reflectivity and photoluminescence (PL) spectroscopy. The results demonstrate that the observed spectra cannot be described by a model of size quantized excitons. Instead, the extracted energy levels fit much better into the model of light-hole quantization.
The high quality samples were grown by a molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) and comprised a slab of undoped GaAs (150 or 250 nm in width) surrounded by 200 nm and 400 nm undoped Al$_{0.32}$Ga$_{0.68}$As barriers. In PL experiments the laser excitation at 780 nm and the collected signal were guided via two corresponding optical fibers. The same setup was used for recording reflectivity spectra. The light source for the latter experiment was a filament lamp with a white light passed through a 780 nm Raman edge optical filter to suppress excitation of PL lines in detected spectra.
In Figure 1 we present photoluminescence and reflectivity spectra for both samples recorded at a low temperature of 1.5 K. A multitude of narrow ( 0.2 meV in width) spectral lines are resolved in reflections with dispersive-like shapes for 150 nm QW and inverse absorptive-like shapes for the other sample. This lineshape change results from the optical path differences in the sample layers [@Lineshape]. The energy separation between successive spectral lines is clearly larger for a thinner QW, therefore we conclude that the observed spectral series should be related with some transversal size quantization. It is seen that optical spectra contain several lines marked $L_1$-$L_4$ that are less intensive than their neighbours; these lines demonstrate also different temperature and magnetic field dependencies as will be discussed later on. For further analysis we select spectral lines with similar amplitudes (in Fig.1 they are marked by arrows looking upward) and try to associate their positions with some translational quantization indices N. Instead of fixing some translational mass $M$ as in [@Kochereshko] and extracting corresponding N from the well-known relation $E_N=E_0+\frac{\hbar^2}{2M}{(\frac{N\pi}{d}})^2$, the lowest line energy was prescribed with some index $N_0$ and all higher energies got indices $N_0+1$, $N_0+2$ and so on [@Note0]. There should be only one series of indices that provides a straight line in coordinates Energy vs. $N^2$ [@Note1]. Figure 2 demonstrates how the experimental points fit into a linear dependence for several choices of $N_0$. The most appropriate values of $N_0$ for both samples are outlined by rectangles and they give a perfect coincidence with a size quantization model with the same value of $E_0=1.5148$ eV. It is these numbers that mark the spectral lines below the arrows in Fig.1 that are obtained from this simple fit.
The linear slopes of Fig.2 allow us to determine the values of translational mass $M$. Surprisingly, they equal 0.084$m_e$ and 0.092$m_e$ for QW of 250 nm and 150 nm in width respectively. This is the main finding of this paper: the extracted masses cannot be related with any of heavy-hole or light-hole excitons possible for GaAs material. Instead, we must conclude that the optical spectra are much better described by quantization of a light hole only because its measured mass of (0.078$\pm$0.002)$m_e$ in a bulk state [@Gubarev] is very close to our experimental results for $M$ [@Note11].
To support this model further, a magnetic field was applied in the growth direction of the sample to investigate its effect on optical spectra. Figure 3 shows the measured splittings of PL spectral lines with $N$=2 and $N$=3 from the 150 nm QW in a magnetic field up to 2 Tesla. These splittings deviate slightly from a linear dependence at high B-fields and can be approximately described by effective g-factors with absolute values of 2.7 and 5.3 for the $N$=2 and $N$=3 lines correspondingly. The obtained values are much higher than either electron g-factor $g_e$=-0.4, heavy hole g-factor $g_{hh}$=0.3 or their combination $g_e-3g_{hh}$=-1.3 which describes the Zeeman effect for $\sigma^{\pm}$ optical transitions for a heavy-hole exciton. In turn, the light holes are known to have anomalously large g-factor [@Gubarev] because of the spin-orbit interaction and k$\cdot$p mixing of the electron bands. Moreover, a recent theoretical study [@Glazov] predicts a light hole g-factor in a QW to be dependent on both a QW width and a quantized subband involved. For higher subband indices this parameter should increase due to larger values of $K_z$ in accordance with our measurements, however the full theoretical description of that phenomenon is still lacking.
Observation of light holes signatures in the optical spectra poses a question which should be discussed: why do heavy holes reveal no clear picture of quantization as opposed to light holes?
It is well known that a QW valence band hole is characterized by a complex dispersion relation due to a size quantization. As pointed out in [@Dyakonov], the physical reason for that is a nonzero probability for a heavy hole to be transformed into a light hole (and vice versa) in the course of the reflection from the QW wall. The resulting hole wave function is a linear combination of wave functions for light and heavy holes in their bulk states and the in-plane dispersion relations for all subbands turn out to be strongly renormalized. The most prominent change takes place for heavy holes where the calculated effective masses deviate drastically from the bulk value and even become negative for some subband indices $n$ [@Dyakonov]. This is the first possible reason why some heavy-hole subbands can be optically inactive. On the contrary, all light-hole subbands have a monotonically decreasing and relatively weak dependence of an in-plane mass on the subband index. Another reason might be an essential difference in scattering lengths for both types of holes. Size quantization in a QW requires that a particle preserves its coherence between successive reflections from the QW barriers. The lighter particle is expected to have a longer scattering length and therefore can reveal quantum properties at large scales. In our samples the QWs may be “thin enough” for light holes while heavy holes experience one or more scatterings at distances of several multiples of 150-250 nm.
One more consequence of the complex valence band structure is the allowance of the “forbidden” optical transitions between electrons and holes with different $N$ [@Dyakonov]. This explains the fact that the discussed spectral features correspond to the transitions between the 1st electron subband and the N-th light hole subbands otherwise optically inactive for all $N>$1. Spectral lines $L_1$-$L_4$ in Fig.1 can involve optical transitions to higher electron subbands or even might be attributed to some heavy-hole QW states, however these features were not investigated so far in detail. The absence of prominent optical transitions from higher electron subbands is tentatively explained by residual p-doping of our nominally undoped structures which results to a short scattering length for photoexcited electrons as compared with photoexcited light holes.
Bearing in mind possible contribution of excitonic effects into a quantization picture for our QWs, we also studied temperature-dependent reflectance spectra. The binding energy of a heavy-hole exciton in GaAs is approximately $Ry$=5 meV which corresponds to the dissociation temperature of some 60 K. This value is even smaller for a light-hole exciton. Temperature increase up to the dissociation point and above it leads to a broadening of the hydrogen-like exciton energy levels due to a thermal escape into continuum states. The thermal broadening can be simply estimated to be equal to $\Gamma(T)=\gamma_0 e^{(-\frac{Ry}{T})}$ , where $\gamma_0$=5$\div$10 meV as obtained from early experiments and theoretical considerations [@Lifetime]. An image of temperature-dependent reflectivity spectra from a 250 nm QW is shown in Figure 4. The bandgap energy change results to a red-shift of the observed optical transitions when the temperature is increased from 1.5 to 77 K. However the most prominent spectral features remain nearly unchanged. Figure 5 compares two reflectivity spectra recorded at 1.5 and 77 K with the low-temperature data red-shifted by 7 meV to compensate for a band gap change. Well-resolved spectral lines are observed again with linewidths of approximately 0.5 meV and an unambiguous association between the two series is possible. At 77 K any exciton-related spectral feature should have a thermal level broadening of more than 1 meV, therefore we conclude again that our experimental findings cannot be explained in terms of exciton quantization.
To summarize, we have investigated an optical response of ultra-wide GaAs quantum wells by means of photoluminescence and reflectance spectroscopy. It is shown that a picture of light holes quantization in a QW describes quite well our experimental results. From the analysis of temperature-dependent spectra we exclude an exciton quantization from possible models explaining the findings.
Support from the RFBR is greatly acknowledged.
**Figure Captions:**
**FIGURE 1**
Photoluminescence and reflectivity spectra from 250 nm (top) and 150 nm (bottom) ultra-wide quantum wells detected at 1.5 K. The most prominent spectral lines are marked with a corresponding translational quantization index N.
**FIGURE 2**
Procedure of quantization indices matching for spectral lines from Fig.1. The lowest optical transition from a spectral series is associated with a successively increasing index. The only designation delivers a perfectly straight line in coordinates chosen for our experimental points. From a slope of the line the effective mass $M$ of a quantized particle is extracted.
**FIGURE 3**
Zeeman splittings of optical transitions with $N$=2 and $N$=3 from the PL spectra of 150 nm QW and the corresponding effective g-factors.
**FIGURE 4**
Reflectivity spectra from a QW 250 nm thick, recorded at temperatures from 1.5 K to 77 K. All spectral lines experience a red-shift in energy due to a band gap energy decreasing, however most lines detected at the lowest temperatures are also observed at 77 K. Dotted line traces the optical transition corresponding to $N=9$ from Fig.1, as an example.
**FIGURE 5**
Comparison of reflectivity spectra from a QW 250 nm thick at two different temperatures of 1.5 and 77 K, the former red-shifted by 7 meV to match energies of the lowest optical transitions. The main series of spectral lines is still observed at higher temperatures while the lines $L_1$ and $L_2$ from Fig.1 has disappeared.
[2002]{}
Gross Ye F and Karryev N A 1952 Doklady Akad. Nauk. S.S.S.R. 84 261
Davies J J et al. 2006 Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 187403
Smith L C, Davies J J, Wolverson D, Boukari H, Mariette H, Kochereshko V P, Phillips R T 2011 Phys. Rev. B 83(15) 155206; Davies J J et al. 2010 Phys. Status Solidi B 247 1521-7; Davies J J, Smith L C, Wolverson D, Gust A, Kruse C, Hommel D, Kochereshko V P 2010 Phys. Rev. B 81(8) 085208; Kochereshko V P, Platonov A V, Loginov D K, Davies J J, Wolverson D, Smith L C, Boukari H, Cox R T, Cibert J and Mariette H 2008 Semicond. Sci. Technol. 23(11) 114011; Smith L C et al. 2008 Phys. Rev. B 78(8) 085204; Kochereshko V P et al. 2008 Phys. Status Solidi B 245(6) 1059-63
Zheng X L, Heiman D, Lax B, and Chambers F A 1988 Appl. Phys. Lett. 52 287-9
We emphasize that for our QW widths the ratio of $d/\lambda$, where $\lambda$ is the wavelength of the light in GaAs material, does not restrict observation of optical transitions to odd or even values of N only, see Phys. Rev. B37 4310-3 (1988) by Tuffigo H, Cox R T, Magnea N, Merle d’Aubigne Y and Million A. Therefore all successive positive integers are possible.
Strictly speaking, the full model of exciton polariton dispersion should be taken into account, however we deal with values of $K_z=N\frac{\pi}{d}$ large enough to safely consider the uncoupled approximation.
Gubarev S I, Ruf T, Cardona M, and Ploog K 1993 Phys. Rev. B 48 1647-58.
Interestingly, if we assume a simple dependence of a light hole mass on a QW width to be described by $m=m_0+\alpha\frac{1}{d^2}$ for large $d$, then a linear fit of our experimental results on $\frac{1}{d^2}$ gives a value of $m_0=$0.08 in a perfect accordance with [@Gubarev].
Dyakonov M I and Khaetskii A V 1982 Sov.Phys.JETP 55(5) 917-20. The actual calculations in this paper were carried out for Ge, however its results are qualitatively valid for our case of GaAs quantum wells.
Durnev M V, Glazov M M, Ivchenko E L 2012 Physica E 44 797-802 and referencies therein.
Rudin S and Reinecke T L 1987 Superlattices and Microstructures 3(2) 137-9
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
The behavior near the extinction time is identified for non-negative solutions to the diffusive Hamilton-Jacobi equation with critical gradient absorption $$\partial_tu-\Delta_p u+|\nabla u|^{p-1}=0 \quad \hbox{in} \
(0,\infty)\times{\mathbb{R}}^N\ ,$$ and fast diffusion $2N/(N+1)<p<2$. Given a non-negative and radially symmetric initial condition with a non-increasing profile which decays sufficiently fast as $|x|\to\infty$, it is shown that the corresponding solution $u$ to the above equation approaches a uniquely determined *separate variable solution* of the form $$U(t,x)=(T_e-t)^{1/(2-p)}f_*(|x|), \quad (t,x)\in (0,T_e)\times {\mathbb{R}}^N\ ,$$ as $t\to T_e$, where $T_e$ denotes the finite extinction time of $u$. A cornerstone of the convergence proof is an underlying variational structure of the equation. Also, the selected profile $f_*$ is the unique non-negative solution to a second order ordinary differential equation which decays exponentially at infinity. A complete classification of solutions to this equation is provided, thereby describing all separate variable solutions of the original equation. One important difficulty in the uniqueness proof is that no monotonicity argument seems to be available and it is overcome by the construction of an appropriate *Pohozaev functional*.
author:
- |
Razvan Gabriel Iagar[^1],[^2]\
Philippe Laurenot[^3]\
\[4pt\]
bibliography:
- 'CriticalExtinction.bib'
title: '**Self-similar extinction for a diffusive Hamilton-Jacobi equation with critical absorption**'
---
[**AMS Subject Classification:**]{} 35B40 - 35K67 - 34C11 - 34B40 - 35B33 - 35K92.
[**Keywords:**]{} finite time extinction, singular diffusion, separate variable solutions, gradient absorption.
Introduction
============
We perform a detailed analysis of the phenomenon of finite time extinction for the diffusive Hamilton-Jacobi equation with critical absorption and singular diffusion: $$\label{eq1}
\partial_tu-\Delta_pu+|\nabla u|^{p-1}=0, \qquad (t,x)\in (0,\infty)\times{\mathbb{R}}^N,$$ supplemented with the initial condition $$\label{eq2}
u(0,x)=u_0(x), \quad x\in{\mathbb{R}}^N.$$ Here, as usual, $$\Delta_p u := {\rm div}(|\nabla u|^{p-2}\nabla u)\ ,$$ where the exponent $p$ is assumed to belong to the fast diffusion range $$p_c:=\frac{2N}{N+1}<p<2\ ,$$ and the initial condition $u_0$ is assumed throughout the paper to satisfy $$\label{hypIC}
u_0\in W^{1,\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^N)\ , \qquad u_0\ge 0\ , \qquad u_0\not\equiv 0\ .$$ The term *critical* refers here to the peculiar choice of the exponent $p-1$ for the gradient absorption, for which the homogeneity of the absorption matches that of the diffusion. Observe that $p-1\in (0,1)$ as $p\in (p_c,2)$.
Equation is actually a particular case of the diffusive Hamilton-Jacobi equation with gradient absorption $$\label{eqgen}
\partial_tu-\Delta_pu+|\nabla u|^{q}=0, \qquad (t,x)\in (0,\infty)\times{\mathbb{R}}^N,$$ and it is already known that extinction in finite time takes place for non-negative solutions to with initial data decaying sufficiently fast as $|x|\to\infty$, provided $q\in (0,p/2)$ and $p\in (p_c,2]$ [@BLS01; @BLSS02; @Gi05; @IaLa12; @ILSxx]. Note that this range includes the values of $p$ and $q=p-1$ considered in this paper. Let us recall that, by extinction in finite time we mean that there exists $T_e\in(0,\infty)$ such that $u(t,x)=0$ for any $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^N$ and $t\ge T_e$, but $\|u(t)\|_{\infty}>0$ for all $t\in (0,T_e)$. The time $T_e$ is usually referred to as *the extinction time* of the solution $u$.
The main feature of is the *competition* between the two terms involving the space variable, the diffusion $-\Delta_p u$ and the absorption $|\nabla u|^q$, and their influence on the dynamics. As the properties of the diffusion equation and of the Hamilton-Jacobi equation (without diffusion) are very different, it is an interesting task to study the effects of their merging in , leading to different types of behavior in dependence on the relation between the exponents $p$ and $q$.
The development of the mathematical theory for begun with the semilinear case $p=2$, where techniques coming from linear theory (such as representation formulas via convolution with the heat kernel) were applied in order to get estimates on the solutions. The qualitative theory together with the large time behavior are now well understood. For exponents $q>1$, the problem has been investigated in a series of works [@ATU04; @BSW02; @BKaL04; @BL99; @BVD13; @BGK04; @GL07; @GGK03; @Gi05]. In this range, the diffusion has an important influence on the evolution: either completely dominating, when $q>q_*:=(N+2)/(N+1)$, leading to asymptotic simplification, or having a similar effect to the Hamilton-Jacobi term for $q\in(1,q_*]$, leading to a resonant, logarithmic-type behavior for $q=q_*$ [@GL07], or to a behavior driven by *very singular solutions* for $q\in (1,q_*)$ [@BKaL04]. For exponents $q\in (0,1)$, a singular phenomenon, extinction in finite time, shows up [@BLS01; @BLSS02; @Gi05], and a deeper study of the extinction mechanism has been performed recently in [@ILSxx]. It is shown that, in this range $q\in (0,1)$, rather unusual phenomena such as *instantaneous shrinking* (that is, the support of $u(t)$ becomes compact for any $t>0$, even if $u_0(x)>0$ for any $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^N$) and *single point extinction* take place. However, a precise description of the behavior of solutions near the extinction time is still missing. Finally, the critical case $q=1$ seems to be currently out of reach, though optimal decay estimates as $t\to\infty$ are established in [@BRV97].
A natural extension of the theory is to consider nonlinear generalizations of the Laplacian operator in the diffusion term, and the quasilinear operator $\Delta_p$ is one of the obvious candidates. In this case, the study proved to be more involved and challenging, as the classical linear techniques do not work anymore. Due to this difficulty, the qualitative theory for with $p\neq 2$ has been understood quite recently. Our main interest focuses on the fast/singular diffusion case $p\in (p_c,2)$, for which the qualitative theory has been developed starting from [@IaLa12], where all exponents $q>0$ are considered. Two critical exponents are identified in [@IaLa12]: $q=q_*:=p-N/(N+1)$ and $q=p/2$. These critical values limit ranges of different behaviors: diffusion dominates for $q>q_*$ leading to asymptotic simplification, while there is a balance between diffusion and absorption for $q\in [p/2,q_*]$. At last but not least, finite time extinction occurs for $0<q<p/2$ as soon as the initial condition $u_0$ decays sufficiently fast as $|x|\to\infty$.
Still the behavior of non-negative solutions to is not uniform within this range of values of $q$. Indeed, a by-product of the analysis in [@IaLa12; @ILSxx] reveals that there is another critical exponent in $(0,p/2)$, namely $q=p-1$. In fact, though the driving mechanism of extinction at a global scale is the absorption term in for all $q\in (0,p/2)$, a fundamental difference in the occurrence of finite time extinction shows up within this range. As shown in [@ILSxx], when $0<q<p-1$, a special phenomenon known as *instantaneous shrinking* takes place: for non-negative initial data decaying sufficiently fast at infinity, the support of $u(t)$ is compact for any $t>0$, even if $u_0(x)>0$ for any $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^N$. For a suitable class of radially symmetric initial conditions with a non-increasing profile, this property is enhanced by the dynamics and *single point extinction* takes place: the support of $u(t)$ shrinks to the singleton $\{0\}$ as $t\to T_e$.
This is in *sharp contrast* with the range $p-1\leq q<p/2$, where, as shown in [@ILSxx Proposition 4.4], *simultaneous extinction* occurs: that is, $u(t,x)>0$ for any $t\in (0,T_e)$ and $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^N$. This positivity property up to the extinction time is clearly due to the diffusion term which is thus not completely negligible in this range: some kind of balance between the two terms is expected, at least for initial data $u_0$ rapidly decaying as $|x|\to\infty$. In view of this analysis, the exponent $q=p-1$ to which we devote this work acts as an interface between the two different extinction mechanisms and describing it fully adds up to the general understanding of the dynamics of .
Let us point out that we restrict our analysis to the range $p>p_c$ in which there is a competition between the diffusion term aiming at positivity in the whole space ${\mathbb{R}}^N$ and the gradient absorption term being the driving mechanism of extinction. We do not consider here the limiting case $p=p_c$ which is more involved. We also leave aside the subcritical range $p\in (1,p_c)$ as finite time extinction also occurs for the fast diffusion equation without the gradient absorption term. We rather expect a different kind of competition in that range, namely between two extinction mechanisms stemming from both diffusion and absorption.
We finally mention that the phenomenon of extinction in finite time and the dynamics close to the extinction time have been an object of study also for other models exhibiting competition between diffusion and absorption, see [@Be01; @BHV01; @BeSh07; @Ka87; @FV; @HV92] for instance. A well-studied example is the fast diffusion equation with zero order absorption $$\label{PMEa}
\partial_t u-\Delta u^m+u^q=0, \qquad (t,x)\in (0,\infty)\times {\mathbb{R}}^N\ ,$$ in the range of parameters $m_c:=(N-2)_+/N<m< 1$ and $0<q<1$, see for example [@Ka87; @FV; @FGV; @dPSa02] and the references therein. For this equation, a threshold between single point extinction and simultaneous extinction also appears but at the exponent $q=m$. Further comments on similarities and differences between and with $0<m=q<1$ will be provided in the next section.
Main results
============
We are now ready to present the main contributions of this paper. First, as already pointed out, a consequence of the specific choice of the exponent $p-1$ for the gradient absorption in is the homogeneity of $-\Delta_p u + |\nabla u|^{p-1}$, which allows us to look for *separate variable solutions*, that is, particular solutions $U$ to having the following form: $$\label{sepvar}
U(t,x)=T(t)f(|x|), \qquad (t,x)\in (0,\infty)\times{\mathbb{R}}^N.$$ It is readily seen that, by direct calculation, we have $$T(t)=[(2-p)(T_0-t)_+]^{1/(2-p)}, \qquad t\in (0,\infty),$$ for some $T_0>0$, and $f$ is a non-negative solution to the following second order ordinary differential equation: $$\label{SSODE}
\left(|f'|^{p-2}f'\right)'(r)+\frac{N-1}{r}\left(|f'|^{p-2}f'\right)(r)+f(r)-|f'(r)|^{p-1}=0, \qquad r\in (0,\infty)\ ,$$ with the usual notation $r=|x|$ that will be used throughout the paper. The expected regularity of $U$ entails that $f'(0)=0$ while the value of $f(0)$ is still unknown at this point. We are thus led to study the following question: for which initial conditions $$\label{ICa}
f(0)=a>0, \quad f'(0)=0,$$ is the solution $f=f(\cdot;a)$ to - non-negative for all $r\ge 0$? The answer is given by our first result.
\[th.uniq\] Given $a>0$ there is a unique solution $f(\cdot;a)\in C^1([0,\infty))$ to - such that $(|f'|^{p-2}f')(\cdot;a)\in C^1([0,\infty))$.
Furthermore, there exists a unique $a_*>0$ such that $f(r;a_*)>0$ for all $r\ge 0$ and there is $c_*>0$ such that $$\label{decay}
f(r;a_*)\sim c_* r^{-(N-1)/(p-1)}e^{-r/(p-1)} \qquad {\rm as} \ r\to\infty.$$ Moreover, a complete classification of the behavior of the solutions $f(\cdot;a)$ to - is available:
\(a) For $a\in(0,a_*)$, there holds $f(r;a)>0$ for all $r\ge 0$ and $$f(r;a)\sim \left( \frac{2-p}{p-1}
r \right)^{-(p-1)/(2-p)} \qquad {\rm as} \ r\to\infty.$$
\(b) For $a\in(a_*,\infty)$, there exists $R(a)\in(0,\infty)$ such that $f(r;a)>0$ for $r\in(0,R(a))$, $f(R(a);a)=0$, and $f'(R(a);a)<0$. In particular, $f(\cdot;a)$ changes sign in $(0,\infty)$.
Before going forward to state our main convergence (or stabilization near extinction) result, let us make several remarks and comments on the previous result.
Let us first point out that Theorem \[th.uniq\] indicates that has several *ground states*, that is, non-negative $C^1$-smooth solutions which decay to zero as $r\to\infty$. Indeed, for any $a\in (0,a_*]$, $f(\cdot;a)$ is a ground state according to the previous definition. This is in sharp contrast with equations of the form $$(|w'|^{p-2} w')'(r) + \frac{N-1}{r} (|w'|^{p-2} w')(r) - w(r)^\alpha + w(r)^\beta = 0\ , \qquad r\in (0,\infty)\ ,$$ with $p\in (1,N)$ and $0<\alpha<\beta$, for which a single ground state exists, see [@Kw89; @ST00; @Ya91a; @Ya91b; @ShWa13; @ShWa16] and the references therein. The uniqueness statement in Theorem \[th.uniq\] thus amounts to select among the ground states of the one with the fastest decay. This requires to identify the possible decay rates for ground states at infinity and thus a refined analysis is needed.
We next notice that the behavior of $f(r;a_*)$ as $r\to\infty$ depends on the dimension $N$. Roughly speaking, this dependence is due to the $r$-dependent term $(N-1) (|f'|^{p-2} f')(r)/r$ in and the proof of Theorem \[th.uniq\] is much more involved for $N\ge 2$ than for $N=1$. In fact, since the variable $r$ does not appear explicitly in when $N=1$, we introduce in the companion paper [@IL16] a transformation which maps solutions of onto the solutions to a first order nonlinear ordinary differential equation. Besides being simpler to study, solutions of the latter equation also enjoy a monotonicity property with respect to the parameter $a$ and this is a key feature to establish the uniqueness of $a_*$. We refer to [@IL16] for the proof of Theorem \[th.uniq\] when $N=1$.
Such a transformation does not seem to be available for $N\ge 2$ and, moreover, it seems that no monotonicity of $f(\cdot;a)$, or other functions associated to it, with respect to $a>0$ holds true. This is thus an extra difficulty to be overcome on the way to the proof of Theorem \[th.uniq\]. Indeed, several recent uniqueness or classification results for ordinary differential equations derived for the study of self-similar profiles for nonlinear diffusion equations heavily rely on the monotonicity of the solutions with respect to the shooting parameter, see [@CQW03; @Shi04; @IaLa13a; @IaLa13b; @YeYi15] for example. The situation therein is similar to the one encountered here and there are several ground states, the monotonicity property being very helpful to select the one with the fastest decay and establish its uniqueness.
We failed to find such a property for in dimensions $N\geq2$ and we thus use some different, and technically more involved, ideas. The uniqueness proof is actually based on the construction of a *Pohozaev functional* associated to the differential equation $$g''(r)+\left(1+\frac{N-1}{r}\right)g'(r)+g(r)^{1/(p-1)}-\frac{N-1}{r^2}g(r)=0,$$ where $g:=-|f'|^{p-2}f'$. This approach of constructing Pohozaev-type functionals to study uniqueness for positive radial solutions to some elliptic equations seems to come, up to our knowledge, from Yanagida [@Ya91a; @Ya91b], while closer references to our case are the recent works by Shioji and Watanabe [@ShWa13; @ShWa16].
Thanks to Theorem \[th.uniq\] we are in a position to state the main convergence result of the present paper. Its validity requires further assumptions on the initial condition $u_0$: we assume that $$u_0 \;\text{ is radially symmetric and }\; \nabla u_0(x)\cdot x \le 0\ , \qquad x\in{\mathbb{R}}^N\ , \label{radsymdec}$$ along with an exponential decay at infinity. More precisely, there is $\kappa_0>0$ such that $$\label{decayin}
0 \le u_0(x) \le \kappa_0\ e^{-|x|/(p-1)}\ , \qquad
x\in\mathbb{R}^N\ .$$
\[th.conv\] Let $u$ be the solution to the Cauchy problem - with an initial condition $u_0$ satisfying , , and . We denote the finite extinction time of $u$ by $T_e \in (0,\infty)$. Then $$\label{eq.conv}
\lim\limits_{t\to T_e}(T_e-t)^{-1/(2-p)} \|u(t)-U_*(t)\|_\infty=0,$$ where $$U_*(t,x)=[(2-p)(T_e-t)]^{1/(2-p)}f(|x|;a_*), \qquad (t,x)\in (0,T_e)\times {\mathbb{R}}^N\ ,$$ and $f(\cdot;a_*)$ is defined in Theorem \[th.uniq\].
The proof of Theorem \[th.conv\] combines several different techniques: sharp estimates for $u$ and $\nabla u$ near the extinction time, identification of the $\omega$-limit set in self-similar variables, and the uniqueness of the fast decaying solution to given by Theorem \[th.uniq\]. The first two steps actually rely on a *variational structure* of Eq. which is only available for non-negative, radially symmetric solutions with non-increasing profiles and was noticed in [@LStxx] for a related problem. More precisely, is in that framework a *gradient flow* in $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^N,e^{|x|}dx)$ for the functional $$\mathcal{J}(v)=\frac{1}{p}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} e^{|x|}\ |\nabla v(x)|^{p}\,dx.$$ This structure not only allows us to adapt a technique from [@BeHo80] (used originally for the fast diffusion equation $\partial_t \phi - \Delta \phi^m=0$ in a bounded domain with homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions and $m\in (0,1)$) to derive optimal bounds near the extinction time, but also persists in self-similar variables and ensures that the $\omega$-limit set with respect to these variables only contains stationary solutions enjoying suitable integrability properties. Combining these information with the uniqueness provided by Theorem \[th.uniq\] we conclude that $f(\cdot;a_*)$ is the only element of the $\omega$-limit set, which completes the proof.
As already mentioned in the Introduction, the behavior near the extinction time has been studied also for the fast diffusion equation with zero order absorption . In particular, there is a corresponding critical case for , namely $q=m$, studied in [@FV Sections 4-5] in dimension $N=1$ and in [@dPSa02] for $N\geq2$. There is a *striking difference* between and with $q=m$: for the latter there is a *unique radially symmetric ground state* to the associated ordinary differential equation, while the convergence to zero *no longer guarantees uniqueness* in -, as we have seen in Theorem \[th.uniq\]. The approaches developed in [@FV; @dPSa02] thus do not seem to be applicable to and the study of requires new and more involved arguments to select the attracting profile among the different existing ones. Another noticeable difference is that, for with $q=m$, it is sufficient that $u_0(x) \to 0$ as $|x|\to\infty$ in order for a convergence result similar to Theorem \[th.conv\] to hold true (at least in dimension $N=1$, see [@FV Theorem 5.1]). But, conditions on the tail of $u_0(x)$ as $|x|\to\infty$ are needed for Theorem \[th.conv\] to be valid. Such limitations on $u_0$ are actually necessary, since a close inspection of the proof of [@ILSxx Theorem 1.2] shows that, if $$\lim\limits_{|x|\to\infty} |x|^{(p-1)/(2-p)}u_0(x)=\infty \;\;\text{ and }\;\; u_0(x)>0 \;\;\text{for any}\;\; x\in{\mathbb{R}}^N,$$ then extinction in finite time does not even occur and the corresponding solution to remains positive in ${\mathbb{R}}^N$ for any $t>0$. However, in the light of the above result, it is likely that the required exponential decay might be relaxed.
**Organization of the paper.** The proofs of the main results are given in two separate sections. Taking first Theorem \[th.uniq\] for granted, we devote the next Section \[sec.s3\] to the dynamical behavior of . There we exploit the variational structure of Eq. to derive temporal estimates for $u(t)$ and $\nabla u(t)$ for $t\in(0,T_e)$ and prove that, in self-similar variables, the $\omega$-limit set only contains non-zero solutions to - which belong to $W^{1,\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^N)\cap L^2({\mathbb{R}}^N;e^{|x|}dx)$. The fact that there is a unique solution to enjoying such a decay property is a consequence of Theorem \[th.uniq\] which is proved in Section \[sec.s4\]. Its proof relies on ordinary differential equations techniques and in particular the study of several auxiliary functions.
Dynamical behavior {#sec.s3}
==================
Consider $u_0\in W^{1,\infty}(\mathbb{R}^N)$ satisfying , , and . According to [@IaLa12 Theorems 1.1–1.3] and [@ILSxx Proposition 4.4] there is a unique non-negative (viscosity) solution $u\in C([0,\infty)\times \mathbb{R}^N)$ to - which is also a weak solution and enjoys the following properties: there are $T_e>0$ and $C_0=C_0(N,p,u_0)$ such that $$u(t,x)>0 \;\mbox{ for }\; (t,x)\in (0,T_e)\times\mathbb{R}^N\ ,
\qquad u(t,x)=0 \;\mbox{ for }\; (t,x)\in
[T_e,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^N\ , \label{db1}$$ and $$|\nabla\log u(t,x) | \le C_0 \left( 1 + \|u_0\|_\infty^{(2-p)/p}
t^{-1/p}\right)\ , \qquad (t,x)\in (0,T_e)\times\mathbb{R}^N\ .
\label{db2}$$ Furthermore, the rotational invariance of , the comparison principle, and the symmetry and monotonicity properties of $u_0$ entail that, for each $t\in (0,T_e)$, $$x\mapsto u(t,x) \;\mbox{ is radially symmetric with a non-increasing
profile}, \label{db3}$$ see, e.g., [@ILSxx Lemma 2.2] for a proof.
Temporal estimates: upper bounds {#s3.1}
--------------------------------
We first prove that the spatial exponential decay of $u_0$ is preserved throughout time evolution.
\[lemA11\] For each $t\in (0,T_e)$, there holds $$0 \le u(t,x) \le \kappa_0\ e^{-|x|/(p-1)}\ , \qquad
x\in\mathbb{R}^N\ . \label{db4}$$
Setting $\Sigma(x) := \kappa_0\ e^{-|x|/(p-1)}$ for $x\in \mathbb{R}^N$ we observe that $$\partial_r\Sigma(r) = - \frac{\kappa_0}{p-1} e^{-r/(p-1)}\ , \qquad \partial_r^2\Sigma(r) = \frac{\kappa_0}{(p-1)^2} e^{-r/(p-1)}$$ for $r=|x|\ne 0$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
-\Delta_p \Sigma(x) + |\nabla\Sigma(x)|^{p-1} & = \left( \frac{\kappa_0}{p-1} \right)^{p-1} \left( - 1 + \frac{N-1}{|x|} \right) e^{-|x|} + \left( \frac{\kappa_0}{p-1} \right)^{p-1} e^{-|x|} \\
& = \left( \frac{\kappa_0}{p-1} \right)^{p-1} \frac{N-1}{[x|}
e^{-|x|} \ge 0\ , \qquad x\ne 0\ .\end{aligned}$$
Now, if $\varphi\in C^2((0,T_e)\times\mathbb{R}^N)$ is an admissible test function in the sense of [@OhSa97 Definition 2.3] and $\Sigma-\varphi$ has a local minimum at $(t_0,x_0)\in
(0,T_e)\times\mathbb{R}^N$, then the following alternative occurs: either $x_0\ne 0$ which implies that $\nabla\varphi(t_0,x_0) =
\nabla\Sigma(x_0)\ne 0$ and $\partial_t\varphi(t_0,x_0) = 0$. We then infer from the ellipticity of the $p$-Laplacian that $$\partial_t\varphi(t_0,x_0) - \Delta_p\varphi(t_0,x_0) + |\nabla\varphi(t_0,x_0)|^{p-1} \ge -\Delta_p \Sigma(x_0) + |\nabla\Sigma(x_0)|^{p-1} \ge 0\ ,$$ which is the usual condition to be a supersolution. Or $x_0=0$ and there is $\delta>0$ such that $$\varphi(t_0,x) - \varphi(t_0,0) \le \Sigma(x) - \Sigma(0) \le 0
\;\;\mbox{ and }\;\; \varphi(t,0) \le \varphi(t_0,0)$$ for $t\in (t_0-\delta,t_0+\delta)$ and $x\in B(0,\delta)$. In particular, $x\mapsto \varphi(t_0,x)$ has a local maximum at $x=0$ and $t\mapsto \varphi(t,0)$ has a local maximum at $t_0$. Therefore $\nabla\varphi(t_0,0)=0$ and $\partial_t\varphi(t_0,0)=0$ and the requirements to be a supersolution stated in [@OhSa97 Definition 2.4] are satisfied.
We have thus shown that $\Sigma$ is a supersolution to and it follows from and the comparison principle [@OhSa97 Theorem 3.9] that $u(t,x)\le \Sigma(x)$ for $(t,x)\in
(0,T_e)\times\mathbb{R}^N$.
The next step is to derive optimal temporal decay estimates for $u$. To this end, we exploit the already mentioned variational structure of which is available here thanks to the symmetry and monotonicity properties of of $u$ and adapt the technique of [@BeHo80; @SaVe94] to relate a weighted $L^2$-norm of $u$ and a weighted $L^p$-norm of $\nabla u$ and obtain bounds on these quantities. More precisely, define $$\mathcal{I}(z) := \frac{1}{2} \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} e^{|x|} |z(x)|^2\
dx\ , \qquad \mathcal{J}(z) := \frac{1}{p} \int_{\mathbb{R}^N}
e^{|x|} |\nabla z(x)|^p\ dx\ , \label{db5}$$ whenever it makes sense. We gather in the next lemma useful information on $\mathcal{I}(u)$ and $\mathcal{J}(u)$.
\[lemA120\] For each $t\in [0,T_e)$, both $\mathcal{I}(u(t))$ and $\mathcal{J}(u(t))$ are positive and finite. In addition, $$\mathcal{I}(u)\in C([0,T_e])\cap C^1((0,T_e])\ , \qquad \mathcal{J}(u)\in C((0,T_e])\ , \label{z0}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt}\mathcal{I}(u(t)) & = - p \mathcal{J}(u(t))\ , \qquad t\in (0,T_e)\ , \label{z1} \\
\mathcal{J}(u(t_2)) + \int_{t_1}^{t_2} \mathcal{D}(u(t))\ dt & \le \mathcal{J}(u(t_1))\ , \qquad 0 < t_1 < t_2 \le T_e\ , \label{z2}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\mathcal{D}(u(t)) := \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} e^{|x|} |\partial_t u(t,x)|^2\ dx\ , \qquad t\in (0,T_e)\ . \label{z3}$$
Formally the proof of Lemma \[lemA120\] readily follows from after multiplication by $e^{|x|} u$ and $e^{|x|} \partial_t u$ and integration over $\mathbb{R}^N$, using repeatedly the property $x \cdot \nabla u(t,x) \le 0$ for $(t,x)\in (0,T_e)\times\mathbb{R}^N$. Due to the degeneracy of the diffusion term and the unboundedness of the weight $e^{|x|}$, a rigorous proof requires additional approximation and truncation arguments. In order not to delay further the proof of Theorem \[th.conv\], we postpone the proof of Lemma \[lemA120\] to the end of this section.
Thanks to and , optimal estimates for $\mathcal{I}(u(t))$ and $\mathcal{J}(u(t))$ may now be derived by adapting an argument from [@BeHo80].
\[lemA12\] There is $C_1=C_1(N,p,u_0)>0$ such that $$\mathcal{I}(u(t))^{1/2} + \left[ t \mathcal{J}(u(t)) \right]^{1/p} \le C_1\
(T_e-t)^{1/(2-p)}\ , \qquad t\in (0,T_e]\ . \label{db6}$$
First, by and the monotonicity and symmetry properties of $u$, $$\begin{aligned}
p \mathcal{J}(u(t)) & = \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} e^{|x|} |\nabla u(t,x)|^{p-2} \nabla u(t,x) \cdot \nabla u(t,x)\ dx \\
& = - \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} e^{|x|} \left( \Delta_p u(t,x) + |\nabla u(t,x)|^{p-2} \nabla u(t,x) \cdot \frac{x}{|x|} \right) u(t,x)\ dx \\
& = - \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} e^{|x|} u(t,x) \partial_t u(t,x)\ dx\ ,\end{aligned}$$ and we deduce from Hölder’s inequality that $$p \mathcal{J}(u(t)) \le \sqrt{2 \mathcal{I}(u(t))}
\sqrt{\mathcal{D}(u(t))}\ , \qquad t\in (0,T_e)\ . \label{db12}$$
Now, fix $T\in (T_e/2,T_e)$. For $h\in (0,(T_e-T)/2)$ and $t\in [0,T]$, define $$\mathcal{J}_h(u(t)) := \frac{1}{h} \int_t^{t+h} \mathcal{J}(u(s))\
ds\ .$$ According to and there holds $$\frac{d}{dt} \mathcal{J}_h(u(t)) \le - \frac{1}{h} \int_t^{t+h}
\mathcal{D}(u(s))\ ds \le - \frac{p^2}{2h} \int_t^{t+h}
\frac{\mathcal{J}(u(s))^2}{\mathcal{I}(u(s))}\ ds$$ for $t\in [0,T]$. We then deduce from and the above inequality that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt} \left( \frac{\mathcal{J}_h(u(t))}{\mathcal{I}(u(t))^{p/2}} \right) & = \frac{1}{\mathcal{I}(u(t))^{p/2}} \frac{d\mathcal{J}_h(u(t))}{dt} - \frac{p}{2} \frac{\mathcal{J}_h(u(t))}{\mathcal{I}(u(t))^{(p+2)/2}} \frac{d\mathcal{I}(u(t))}{dt} \\
& \le \frac{p^2}{2} \frac{\mathcal{J}_h(u(t)) \mathcal{J}(u(t))}{\mathcal{I}(u)^{(p+2)/2}} - \frac{p^2}{2h \mathcal{I}(u(t))^{p/2}} \int_t^{t+h} \frac{\mathcal{J}(u(s))^2}{\mathcal{I}(u(s))}\ ds \\
& \le \frac{p^2}{2h \mathcal{I}(u(t))^{p/2}} \int_t^{t+h} \left(
\frac{\mathcal{J}(u(t))}{\mathcal{I}(u(t))} -
\frac{\mathcal{J}(u(s))}{\mathcal{I}(u(s))} \right)
\mathcal{J}(u(s)) \ ds\ .\end{aligned}$$ Owing to the continuity and the positivity of $\mathcal{I}(u)$ and $\mathcal{J}(u)$ in $[T_e/2,(T+T_e)/2]$, the modulus of continuity $$\omega(h,(T+T_e)/2) := \sup \left\{ \left|
\frac{\mathcal{J}(u(t))}{\mathcal{I}(u(t))} -
\frac{\mathcal{J}(u(s))}{\mathcal{I}(u(s))} \right|\ :\ T_e/2\le s \le t
\le (T+T_e)/2\ , \ |t-s|\le h \right\}$$ is well-defined and converges to zero as $h\to 0$. Consequently, using also the time monotonicity of $\mathcal{I}(u)$ and $\mathcal{J}(u)$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt} \left( \frac{\mathcal{J}_h(u(t))}{\mathcal{I}(u(t))^{p/2}} \right) & \le \frac{p^2}{2h \mathcal{I}(u(t))^{p/2}} \omega(h,(T+T_e)/2) \int_t^{t+h} \mathcal{J}(u(s)) \ ds \\
& \le \frac{p^2}{2} \frac{\mathcal{J}(u_0)}{\mathcal{I}(u(T))^{p/2}}
\omega(h,(T+T_e)/2)\end{aligned}$$ for $t\in (T_e/2,T)$, hence, after integration, $$\frac{\mathcal{J}_h(u(t_2))}{\mathcal{I}(u(t_2))^{p/2}} \le
\frac{\mathcal{J}_h(u(t_1))}{\mathcal{I}(u(t_1))^{p/2}} +
\frac{p^2}{2} \frac{\mathcal{J}(u_0)}{\mathcal{I}(u(T))^{p/2}}
\omega(h,(T+T_e)/2) (t_2-t_1)$$ for $T_e/2\le t_1 \le t_2 \le T$. Since the second term of the right-hand side of the above inequality vanishes as $h\to 0$, we may let $h\to 0$ and deduce from the time continuity of $\mathcal{J}(u)$ that $\mathcal{J}(u)/\mathcal{I}(u)^{p/2}$ is non-increasing in $[T_e/2,T]$. As $T$ is arbitrary in $(T_e/2,T_e)$ we conclude that $$\frac{\mathcal{J}(u(t_2))}{\mathcal{I}(u(t_2))^{p/2}} \le
\frac{\mathcal{J}(u(t_1))}{\mathcal{I}(u(t_1))^{p/2}}\ , \qquad T_e/2
\le t_1 \le t_2 \le T_e\ .$$ In particular $$\frac{\mathcal{J}(u(t))}{\mathcal{I}(u(t))^{p/2}} \le r_0 :=
\frac{\mathcal{J}(u(T_e/2))}{\mathcal{I}(u(T_e/2))^{p/2}} \ , \qquad T_e/2 \le t
\le T_e\ . \label{db13}$$ We then infer from and that $$\frac{d}{dt} \mathcal{I}(u) \ge - p r_0 \mathcal{I}(u)^{p/2} \;\;\text{ in }\;\; [T_e/2,T_e]\ .$$ Since $p<2$, we further obtain $$\frac{d}{dt} \mathcal{I}(u)^{(2-p)/2} \ge - \frac{p(2-p)}{2} r_0 \;\;\text{ in }\;\; [T_e/2,T_e]\ ,$$ hence, after integrating over $(t,T_e)$, $t\in [T_e/2,T_e)$, and using the property $\mathcal{I}(u(T_e))^{(2-p)/2}=0$, $$\mathcal{I}(u(t))^{(2-p)/2} \le \frac{p(2-p)}{2} r_0 (T_e-t)\ ,
\qquad t\in [T_e/2,T_e]\ .$$ Combining the previous inequality with implies for $t\in [T_e/2,T_e]$. To complete the proof, we observe that, for $t\in (0,T_e/2)$, $$\mathcal{I}(u(t)) \le \mathcal{I}(u_0) \;\;\text{ and }\;\; t \mathcal{J}(u(t)) \le \int_0^t \mathcal{J}(u(s))\ ds \le \mathcal{I}(u_0)$$ by Lemma \[lemA120\] and $t \mapsto \mathcal{I}(u_0)^\alpha (T_e-t)^{-1/(2-p)}$ is clearly bounded in $[0,T_e/2]$ for $\alpha\in \{1/2,1/p\}$.
We next extend the temporal decay estimates established in Proposition \[lemA12\] to the $W^{1,\infty}$-norm of $u$.
\[corA13\] There is $C_2=C_2(N,p,u_0)>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\| u(t) \|_\infty & \le & C_2\ (T_e-t)^{1/(2-p)}\ t^{-N/2p}\ , \qquad t\in (0,T_e)\ , \label{db14} \\
\| \nabla u(t) \|_\infty & \le & C_2\ (T_e-t)^{1/(2-p)}\
t^{-(N+2)/2p}\ , \qquad t\in (0,T_e)\ . \label{db15} \end{aligned}$$
Let $t\in (0,T_e)$. Observing that $2\mathcal{I}(u(t)) \ge \|u(t)\|_2^2$, we infer from the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality, , and that $$\begin{aligned}
\|u(t)\|_\infty & \le C \|\nabla u(t)\|_\infty^{N/(N+2)}
\|u(t)\|_2^{2/(N+2)} \\&
\le C C_0^{N/(N+2)} \left( 1 + \|u_0\|_\infty t^{-1/p} \right)^{N/(N+2)} \|u(t)\|_\infty^{N/(N+2)} \left( 2\mathcal{I}(u(t)) \right)^{1/(N+2)} \\
& \le C t^{-N/p(N+2)} \|u(t)\|_\infty^{N/(N+2)} (T_e-t)^{2/(2-p)(N+2)}\ ,\end{aligned}$$ from which we deduce . The bound is next a straightforward consequence of and .
Temporal estimates: lower bound {#s3.15}
-------------------------------
We now derive a lower bound for $\|u(t)\|_\infty$ which is of the same order as , thus revealing that we have identified the extinction rate.
\[propZ1\] There is a positive constant $C_3=C_3(N,p,u_0)$ such that $$\|u(t)\|_\infty \ge C_3 (T_e-t)^{1/(2-p)}\ , \qquad t\in (0,T_e)\ .$$
We first recall that, by [@IaLa12 Theorem 1.7], there is a positive constant $C$ depending only on $N$ and $p$ such that $$\|\nabla u(t)\|_\infty \le C \|u(s)\|_\infty^{1/(p-1)} (t-s)^{-1/(p-1)}\ , \qquad 0 \le s < t\ . \label{y1}$$ On the one hand we infer from and the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality that, for $s\ge 0$ and $t>s$, $$\begin{aligned}
\|u(t)\|_\infty^{N+1} & \le C \|\nabla u(t)\|_\infty^N \|u(t)\|_1\ , \nonumber \\
\|u(t)\|_\infty^{N+1} & \le C \|u(s)\|_\infty^{N/(p-1)} (t-s)^{-N/(p-1)} \|u(t)\|_1\ . \label{y2}\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand we fix $\vartheta\in (0,1]$ such that $\vartheta<N(2-p)/(p-1)$ and deduce from Hölder’s inequality that, for $t\ge 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\|u(t)\|_1 & \le \| u(t)\|_\infty^{1-\vartheta} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} u(t,x)^\vartheta\ dx \\
& \le \| u(t)\|_\infty^{1-\vartheta} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} \left[ e^{\vartheta |x|/2} u(t,x)^\vartheta e^{-\vartheta|x|/2} \right] \ dx \\
& \le \| u(t)\|_\infty^{1-\vartheta} (2\mathcal{I}(u(t)))^{\vartheta/2} \left( \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N} e^{-\vartheta |x|/(2-\vartheta)} \ dx \right)^{(2-\vartheta)/2} \\
& \le C(\vartheta) \| u(t)\|_\infty^{1-\vartheta} \mathcal{I}(u(t))^{\vartheta/2}\ ,\end{aligned}$$ hence, by Proposition \[lemA12\], $$\|u(t)\|_1 \le C(\vartheta) \| u(t)\|_\infty^{1-\vartheta} (T_e-t)^{\vartheta/(2-p)}\ . \label{y3}$$ Combining and gives $$\| u(t)\|_\infty^{N+\vartheta} \le C(\vartheta) \|u(s)\|_\infty^{N/(p-1)} (t-s)^{-N/(p-1)} (T_e-t)^{\vartheta/(2-p)}$$ for $s\ge 0$ and $t>s$. Now, for $s\in (0,T_e)$, we set $$\tau(s) := \int_s^{T_e} \|u(t)\|_\infty^{(p-1)(N+\vartheta)/2N}\ dt\ ,$$ and infer from the previous inequality that $$\tau(s) \le C(\vartheta) \left( \int_s^{T_e} (t-s)^{-1/2} (T_e-t)^{\vartheta(p-1)/2N(2-p)}\ dt \right) \left( - \tau'(s) \right)^{N/(p-1)(N+\vartheta)}\ .$$ Since $t>s$ there holds $T_e-s>T_e-t$ and we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\tau(s) & \le C(\vartheta) \left( \int_s^{T_e} (t-s)^{-1/2} \ dt \right) (T_e-s)^{\vartheta(p-1)/2N(2-p)} \left( - \tau'(s) \right)^{N/(p-1)(N+\vartheta)} \\
& \le C(\vartheta) (T_e-s)^{[N(2-p)+\vartheta(p-1)]/2N(2-p)} \left( - \tau'(s) \right)^{N/(p-1)(N+\vartheta)}\ .\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, $$\tau'(s) \tau(s)^{-(p-1)(N+\vartheta)/N} + C(\vartheta) (T_e-s)^{-[(p-1)(N+\vartheta)(N(2-p)+\vartheta(p-1))]/2 N^2 (2-p)} \le 0\ .$$ Owing to the choice of $\vartheta$ there holds $$\frac{(p-1)(N+\vartheta)}{N}<1$$ and $$\frac{(p-1)(N+\vartheta)[N(2-p)+\vartheta(p-1)]}{2 N^2 (2-p)} = \frac{(p-1)(N+\vartheta)}{N} \left( \frac{1}{2} + \frac{(p-1)\vartheta}{2N(2-p)} \right) < 1 \ .$$ We may thus integrate the previous differential inequality over $(s,T_e)$, $s\in (0,T_e)$, and find, since $\tau(T_e)=0$, $$-\tau(s)^{[N(2-p)-\vartheta(p-1)]/N} + C(\vartheta) (T_e-s)^{[(N(2-p)-\vartheta(p-1))(2N(2-p)+(N+\vartheta)(p-1))]/2 N^2 (2-p)} \le 0\ ,$$ or equivalently $$C(\vartheta) (T_e-s)^{[2N(2-p)+(N+\vartheta)(p-1)]/2N(2-p)} \le \tau(s)\ .$$ Recalling that $t\mapsto \|u(t)\|_\infty$ is non-increasing by the comparison principle, we obtain $$\tau(s) \le (T_e-s) \|u(s)\|_\infty^{(p-1)(N+\vartheta)/2N}\ ,$$ which gives, together with the previous lower bound on $\tau(s)$, $$C(\vartheta) (T_e-s)^{(p-1)(N+\vartheta)/2N(2-p)} \le \|u(s)\|_\infty^{(p-1)(N+\vartheta)/2N}\ ,$$ thereby ending the proof.
Self-similar variables {#s3.2}
----------------------
To study the convergence of $u$ to self-similarity we use the classical transformation in self-similar variables and introduce the function $v$ defined by $$u(t,x) = \left( (2-p)(T_e-t) \right)^{1/(2-p)} v \left( -
\frac{1}{2-p} \log{\left( \frac{T_e-t}{T_e} \right)} , x \right) \label{db16}$$ for $(t,x)\in (0,T_e)\times\mathbb{R}^N$ as well as the new time variable $$s := - \frac{1}{2-p} \log{\left( \frac{T_e-t}{T_e} \right)} \in
(0,\infty)\ .$$ By -, the function $v$ solves $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_s v - \Delta_p v + |\nabla v|^{p-1} - v & = & 0 \ , \qquad (s,x)\in (0,\infty)\times \mathbb{R}^N\ , \label{rdhjca} \\
v(0) & = & v_0 := \left( (2-p)T_e \right)^{1/(2-p)} u_0\ , \qquad
x\in\mathbb{R}^N\ . \label{rdhjcain}\end{aligned}$$
We first translate the outcome of Section \[s3.1\] in terms of $v$ and deduce from Proposition \[lemA12\], Corollary \[corA13\], Proposition \[propZ1\], and the following estimates.
\[lemA14\] There is $C_4=C_4(N,p,u_0)>1$ such that, for $s\in (0,\infty)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{I}(v(s)) + \left( 1 - e^{-(2-p)s} \right) \mathcal{J}(v(s)) & \le & C_4\ , \label{db17} \\
\left( 1 - e^{-(2-p)s} \right)^{N/2p} \|v(s)\|_\infty + \left( 1 -
e^{-(2-p)s} \right)^{(N+2)/2p} \|\nabla v(s)\|_\infty & \le & C_4\ ,
\label{db18}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\|v(s)\|_\infty \ge \frac{1}{C_4}\ . \label{db175}$$
We next exploit the variational structure of in the radially symmetric and monotone setting and investigate the behavior of the energy $$\mathcal{E} := \mathcal{J} - \mathcal{I}\ , \label{db19}$$ along the trajectory $\{v(s)\ :\ s\ge 0\}$, recalling that $\mathcal{I}$ and $\mathcal{J}$ are defined in .
\[lemA15\] The energy $s\mapsto \mathcal{E}(v(s))$ is a non-negative and non-increasing function in $(0,\infty)$. In addition, $$\int_0^\infty \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} e^{|x|} |\partial_s v(s,x)|^2\
dxds < \infty\ . \label{db20}$$
Let us begin with the monotonicity of the energy. We only give a formal proof below as it can be justified rigorously by arguing as in the proof of Lemma \[lemA120\], see Section \[s3.4\]. Let $s>0$. We infer from and the monotonicity and symmetry properties of $v$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{ds} \mathcal{E}(v(s)) & = - \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} \left[ \mathrm{div}\left( e^{|x|} |\nabla v(s,x)|^{p-2} \nabla v(s,x) \right) + e^{|x|} v(s,x) \right] \partial_s v(s,x)\ dx \\
& = - \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} e^{|x|} \left[ \Delta_p v(s,x) + |\nabla v(s,x)|^{p-2} \nabla v(s,x) \cdot \frac{x}{|x|} + v(s,x) \right] \partial_s v(s,x)\ dx \\
& = - \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} e^{|x|} |\partial_s v(s,x)|^2\ dx\ ,\end{aligned}$$ from which the time monotonicity of the energy follows. Also, $$\int_0^S \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} e^{|x|} |\partial_s v(s,x)|^2\ dxds \le
\mathcal{E}(v_0) - \mathcal{E}(v(S))\ , \qquad S>0\ . \label{db21}$$
To establish the non-negativity of the energy, we adapt an argument from [@dPSa02 Lemma 4.1] and assume for contradiction that there is $s_0>0$ such that $\mathcal{E}(v(s_0))<0$. On the one hand, thanks to the just established monotonicity of the energy, we deduce that $$\mathcal{E}(v(s))<0\ , \qquad s\ge s_0\ . \label{db22}$$ On the other hand, it follows from and the monotonicity and symmetry properties of $v$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{ds} \mathcal{I}(v(s)) & = -\int_{\mathbb{R}^N} e^{|x|} \left[ |\nabla v(s,x)|^p + |\nabla v(s,x)|^{p-2} \nabla v(s,x) \cdot \frac{x}{|x|} \right] v(s,x)\ dx \\
& \qquad + \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} e^{|x|} \left[ v(s,x) - |\nabla v(s,x)|^{p-1} \right] v(s,x)\ dx \\
& = -p \mathcal{J}(v(s)) + 2 \mathcal{I}(v(s)) \\
& = -p \mathcal{E}(v(s)) + \frac{2-p}{2} \mathcal{I}(v(s))\ .\end{aligned}$$ Recalling we infer from the above differential inequality that $$\frac{d}{ds} \mathcal{I}(v(s)) \ge \frac{2-p}{2} \mathcal{I}(v(s)) +
p |\mathcal{E}(v(s_0))|\ , \qquad s\ge s_0\ ,$$ which contradicts the boundedness of $\mathcal{I}(v)$. Therefore, $\mathcal{E}(v(s))\ge 0$ for all $s\ge 0$. Furthermore, the right-hand side of is bounded from above by $\mathcal{E}(v_0)$, from which we deduce .
Convergence {#s3.3}
-----------
Thanks to the outcome of the previous two sections we are now in a position to complete the proof of Theorem \[th.conv\]. The first step is to show that the trajectory $\{v(s)\ :\ s\ge 0\}$ is compact in a suitable space and that the $\omega$-limit set $\omega(v_0)$ in that space contains only stationary solutions to . More precisely, we define $\omega(v_0)$ as follows:
\[definOL\] $w_*\in
\omega(v_0)$ if and only if
- $w_*$ is a non-negative radially symmetric function in $W^{1,\infty}(\mathbb{R}^N)\cap L^2(\mathbb{R}^N;e^{|x|}\ dx)$ with a non-increasing profile and $\nabla w_*\in L^p(\mathbb{R}^N;e^{|x|}\ dx)$,
- and there is a sequence $(s_k)_{k\ge 1}$ of positive real numbers such that $$\lim_{k\to\infty} s_k = \infty \;\;\text{ and }\;\;
\lim_{k\to\infty} \|v(s_k)-w_*\|_\infty= 0\ . \label{db23}$$
We first study the compactness properties of the trajectory $\{v(s)\
:\ s\ge 0\}$. As usual when dealing with unbounded domains, we begin with a control of the behavior as $|x|\to\infty$.
\[lemA16\] There is $C_5=C_5(N,p)$ such that, if $w$ is a radially symmetric function in $L^2(\mathbb{R}^N;e^{|x|}\ dx)$ with $\nabla w \in
L^p(\mathbb{R}^N;e^{|x|}\ dx)$, then $$\begin{aligned}
|w(x)| & \le & C_5\ |x|^{-(N-1)/p} e^{-|x|/p} \mathcal{J}(w)^{1/p}\
, \qquad x\in \mathbb{R}^N\ , \label{db24} \\ \int_{\{|x|\ge R\}}
e^{|x|} |w(x)|^2\ dx & \le & C_5\ \ell(R) \mathcal{J}(w)^{1/p}\ ,
\qquad R>0\ , \label{db25}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\ell(R) := \int_R ^\infty r^{-(2-p)(N-1)/p} e^{-(2-p)r/p}\ dr\ ,
\qquad R>0\ .$$
Let $x\in\mathbb{R}^N$, $x\ne 0$, and define $\varrho(r) := r^{N-1}
e^r$ for $r>0$. Since $w$ is radially symmetric, we infer from Hölder’s inequality that $$\begin{aligned}
|w(x)| & = \left| \int_{|x|}^\infty \partial_r w(r)\ dr \right| \le \int_{|x|}^\infty \left| \partial_r w(r)\right|\ dr \\
& \le \left( \int_{|x|}^\infty \varrho(r)^{-1/(p-1)}\ dr \right)^{(p-1)/p} \left( \int_{|x|}^\infty \varrho(r) |\partial_r w(r)|^p\ dr \right)^{1/p} \\
& \le C \varrho(|x|)^{-1/p} \mathcal{J}(w)^{1/p}\ ,\end{aligned}$$ hence . The estimate is next a straightforward consequence of .
\[lemA17\] The trajectory $\{v(s)\ :\ s\ge 1\}$ is relatively compact in $C(\mathbb{R}^N)$ and the set $\omega(v_0)$ is non-empty.
By Lemma \[lemA14\], the trajectory $\{v(s)\ :\ s\ge 1\}$ is bounded in $W^{1,\infty}(\mathbb{R}^N)$ and the Ascoli-Arzelà theorem implies that it is relatively compact in $C(\bar{B}(0,R))$ for any $R>0$. Moreover, $$|v(s,x)| \le C_5 C_4^{1/p} |x|^{-(N-1)/p} e^{-|x|/p}\ , \qquad s\ge
1\ , \;\; x\ne 0\ , \label{db26}$$ by Lemma \[lemA16\], from which the relative compactness in $C({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ follows. Therefore there are a sequence $(s_k)_{k\ge 1}$ and $w_*\in
C(\mathbb{R}^N)$ such that holds true. Combining the properties of $(v(s_k))_{k\ge 1}$ with Lemma \[lemA14\], we readily conclude that $w_*$ is a non-negative radially symmetric function in $W^{1,\infty}(\mathbb{R}^N)\cap
L^2(\mathbb{R}^N;e^{|x|}\ dx)$ with a non-increasing profile and $\nabla w_*\in L^p(\mathbb{R}^N;e^{|x|}\ dx)$, that is, $w_*\in
\omega(v_0)$.
We now exploit Lemma \[lemA15\] to identify the elements in $\omega(v_0)$.
\[prA18\] If $w_*\in \omega(v_0)$ then it is a weak solution to $$- \Delta_p w_* + |\nabla w_*|^{p-1} - w_* = 0 \;\;\text{ in }\;\;
\mathbb{R}^N\ . \label{db27}$$
Consider $w_*\in \omega(v_0)$. According to the definition of $\omega(v_0)$ there is a sequence $(s_k)_{k\ge 1}$ of positive real numbers such that holds true. Assuming without loss of generality that $s_k> 2$ for all $k\ge 1$, we set $$v_k(s,x) := v(s_k+s,x)\ , \qquad (s,x)\in (-1,1)\times\mathbb{R}^N\
, \quad k\ge 1\ .$$ We infer from Lemma \[lemA14\] that $(v_k)_{k\ge 1}$ is bounded in $L^\infty(-1,1;W^{1,\infty}(\mathbb{R}^N))$, while Lemma \[lemA15\] ensures that $$\int_{-1}^1 \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} e^{|x|} |\partial_s v_k(s,x)|^2\
dxds \le \int_{-1+s_k}^{1+s_k} \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} e^{|x|}
|\partial_s v(s,x)|^2\ dxds \mathop{\longrightarrow}_{k\to\infty} 0\
. \label{db28}$$ In particular, $(\partial_s v_k)_{k\ge 1}$ is bounded in $L^2((-1,1)\times\mathbb{R}^N)$ and we infer from [@Si87 Corollary 4] and the compactness of the embedding of $W^{1,\infty}(B(0,n))$ in $C(\bar{B}(0,n))$ for all $n\ge 1$ that there exist a subsequence of $(s_k)_{k\ge 1}$ (not relabeled) and $w\in C([-1,1]\times \mathbb{R}^N)$ such that $$\lim_{k\to\infty} \sup_{(s,x)\in [-1,1]\times \bar{B}(0,n)} |
v_k(s,x) - w(s,x)| = 0\ , \qquad n\ge 1\ .$$ Together with , this convergence leads us to: $$\lim_{k\to\infty} \sup_{s\in [-1,1]} \| v_k(s) - w(s)\|_\infty = 0\
. \label{db29}$$ Furthermore, $w\in L^\infty(-1,1;W^{1,\infty}(\mathbb{R}^N))$ by .
We next deduce from and Hölder’s inequality that, for $s\in (-1,1)$, $$\|v_k(s)-v_k(0)\|_2 \le \sqrt{|s|}\ \left( \int_{-1}^1
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N} |\partial_s v_k(\sigma,x)|^2\ dxd\sigma
\right)^{1/2} \mathop{\longrightarrow}_{k\to\infty} 0\ .$$ Combining this property with , , and gives $$w(s) = w_*\ , \qquad s\in [-1,1]\ . \label{db30}$$ Finally, observing that $v_k$ is a solution in $(-1,1)\times
\mathbb{R}^N$ to with initial condition $v(-1+s_k)$, we infer from , [@DBFr85b], and [@DBFr85a Theorem 1.1] that there is $\alpha\in (0,1)$ depending on $N$, $p$, and $C_4$ such that $(\nabla v_k)_{k\ge 1}$ is bounded in $C^{\alpha/2,\alpha}([-1/2,1/2]\times B(0,n))$ for all $n\ge 1$. Owing to the Ascoli-Arzelà theorem and we may thus assume further that $(\nabla v_k)_{k\ge 1}$ converges towards $\nabla w_*$ in $C([-1/2,1/2]\times \bar{B}(0,n))$ for all $n\ge 1$. We are then in a position to pass to the limit in the equation solved by $v_k$ (which is nothing but ) and conclude that $w_*$ is a weak solution to .
Consider $w_*\in\omega(v_0)$. Since $w_*$ is radially symmetric by Definition \[definOL\], we obtain from Proposition \[prA18\] that, given any $\sigma\in \mathbb{S}^{N-1}$, the function $W_{*,\sigma}: r\mapsto w_*(r\sigma)$ is a solution to the ordinary differential equation which is non-negative in $(0,\infty)$. Moreover, $$\int_0^\infty e^r\ W_{*,\sigma}(r)^2\ r^{N-1}\ dr \le C \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} e^{|x|} w_*(x)^2\ dx < \infty\ ,$$ and we infer from Theorem \[th.uniq\] that either $W_{*,\sigma} = f(\cdot;a_*)$ or $W_{*,\sigma}=0$. However, the lower bound excludes the latter as it guarantees that $\|W_{*,\sigma}\|_\infty = \|w_*\|_\infty \ge 1/C_4>0$. Consequently, $W_{*,\sigma} = f(\cdot;a_*)$ for any $\sigma\in\mathbb{S}^{N-1}$ so that $w_*(x) = f(|x|;a_*)$ for all $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^N$. This completes the proof.
Proof of Lemma \[lemA120\] {#s3.4}
--------------------------
For $t\in [0,T_e)$, the positivity of $\mathcal{I}(u(t))$ and $\mathcal{J}(u(t))$ is a straightforward consequence of the definition of the extinction time $T_e$. Also, since $2/(p-1)>1$, it readily follows from Lemma \[lemA11\] that $\mathcal{I}(u(t))<\infty$. We next infer from Lemma \[lemA11\] and that $$|\nabla u(t,x)| \le C_0 \left( 1 + \|u_0\|_\infty^{(2-p)/p} t^{-1/p}
\right)\ u(t,x) \le C \left( 1 + t^{-1/p} \right) e^{-|x|/(p-1)}
\label{db7}$$ for $x\in \mathbb{R}^N$, from which we deduce that $\mathcal{J}(u(t))<\infty$ after noticing that $p/(p-1)>1$. It also follows from [@DBFr85a; @DBFr85b] that both $u$ and $\nabla u$ are locally Hölder continuous in $(0,\infty)\times \mathbb{R}^N$. Together with the continuity of $u$ in $[0,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^N$, Lemma \[lemA11\], and , this implies that $$\mathcal{I}(u)\in C([0,T_e]) \;\;\mbox{ and }\;\; \mathcal{J}(u)\in
C((0,T_e])\ . \label{db7b}$$
We next turn to the derivation of - and mention that the computations given below are partly formal as they use more regularity on $u$ than that available, in particular the local square integrability of $\partial_t u$ in $(0,T_e)\times\mathbb{R}^N$. A fully rigorous proof requires to replace $u$ by classical solutions $(u_\varepsilon)_\varepsilon$ to regularized non-degenerate parabolic equations which converge to $u$ as $\varepsilon\to 0$. The computations performed below are then done with $u_\varepsilon$ and one first lets $\varepsilon\to 0$ before passing to the limit with the other parameters such as $R$, see below. For simplicity, we omit this step here and refer to [@IaLa12] for a complete description of the approximation procedure.
Consider a radially symmetric cut-off function $\vartheta\in C_0^\infty(\mathbb{R}^N)$ satisfying $\vartheta(x)=1$ for $x\in
B(0,1)$, $\vartheta(x)=0$ for $x\not\in B(0,2)$, $x\cdot \nabla \vartheta(x)\le 0$ for $x\in\mathbb{R}^N$, and $\nabla\vartheta/\sqrt{\vartheta}\in L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^N)$. For $R>1$ and $x\in\mathbb{R}^N$, we set $\vartheta_R(x) :=
\vartheta(x/R)$ and infer from and that $$\begin{aligned}
& \frac{1}{2} \frac{d}{dt} \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} e^{|x|} \vartheta_R(x) |u(t,x)|^2\ dx \\
& \qquad = - \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} \nabla\left( e^{|x|} \vartheta_R(x) u(t,x) \right) \cdot |\nabla u(t,x)|^{p-2} \nabla u(t,x)\ dx \\
& \qquad\qquad - \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} e^{|x|} \vartheta_R(x) |\nabla u(t,x)|^{p-1} u(t,x)\ dx \\
& \qquad = - \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} e^{|x|} u(t,x) |\nabla u(t,x)|^{p-2} \nabla u(t,x)\cdot \nabla\vartheta_R(x)\ dx \\
& \qquad\qquad - \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} e^{|x|} \vartheta_R(x) \left[ |\nabla u(t,x)|^p + u(t,x) |\nabla u(t,x)|^{p-2} \nabla u(t,x)\cdot \frac{x}{|x|} \right]\ dx \\
& \qquad\qquad + \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} e^{|x|} \vartheta_R(x) u(t,x) |\nabla u(t,x)|^{p-2} \nabla u(t,x)\cdot \frac{x}{|x|}\ dx\\
& \qquad = - \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} e^{|x|} u(t,x) |\nabla u(t,x)|^{p-2} \nabla u(t,x)\cdot \nabla\vartheta_R(x)\ dx \\
& \qquad\qquad - \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} e^{|x|} \vartheta_R(x) |\nabla
u(t,x)|^p\ dx\ .\end{aligned}$$ Since $$\begin{aligned}
& \left| \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} e^{|x|} u(t,x) |\nabla u(t,x)|^{p-2} \nabla u(t,x)\cdot \nabla\vartheta_R(x)\ dx \right| \\
& \qquad \le \frac{C^{p-1} \kappa_0 \|\nabla\vartheta\|_\infty}{R}
\left( 1 + t^{-1/p} \right)^{p-1} \int_{\mathbb{R}^N}
e^{-|x|/(p-1)}\ dx\end{aligned}$$ by Lemma \[lemA11\] and , the first term of the right-hand side of the previous inequality vanishes as $R\to\infty$ and we conclude that $$\frac{d}{dt} \mathcal{I}(u(t)) = - p \mathcal{J}(u(t))\ , \qquad
t\in (0,T_e)\ . \label{db8}$$ In particular, $\mathcal{I}(u)\in C^1((0,T_e])$ which completes the proof of .
It next follows from and that $$\begin{aligned}
& \frac{1}{p} \frac{d}{dt} \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} e^{|x|} \vartheta_R(x) |\nabla u(t,x)|^p\ dx \\
& \qquad = - \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} \mathrm{div}\left( e^{|x|} \vartheta_R(x) |\nabla u(t,x)|^{p-2} \nabla u(t,x) \right) \partial_t u(t,x)\ dx \\
& \qquad = - \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} e^{|x|} |\nabla u(t,x)|^{p-2} \nabla u(t,x) \cdot \nabla\vartheta_R(x) \partial_t u(t,x)\ dx \\
& \qquad\qquad - \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} e^{|x|} \vartheta_R(x) \left[
|\nabla u(t,x)|^{p-2} \nabla u(t,x) \cdot \frac{x}{|x|} + \Delta_p
u(t,x) \right] \partial_t u(t,x)\ dx \ .\end{aligned}$$ Using again and we end up with $$\begin{aligned}
& \frac{1}{p} \frac{d}{dt} \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} e^{|x|} \vartheta_R(x) |\nabla u(t,x)|^p\ dx \nonumber\\
& \qquad = - \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} e^{|x|} \vartheta_R(x) |\partial_t u(t,x)|^2\ dx \nonumber\\
& \qquad\qquad - \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} e^{|x|} |\nabla u(t,x)|^{p-2} \nabla
u(t,x) \cdot \nabla\vartheta_R(x) \partial_t u(t,x)\ dx \ .
\label{db9}\end{aligned}$$ For $\delta\in (0,1)$ we infer from the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, the boundedness of $\nabla\vartheta/\sqrt{\vartheta}$, and that $$\begin{aligned}
& \left| \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} e^{|x|} |\nabla u(t,x)|^{p-2} \nabla u(t,x) \cdot \nabla\vartheta_R(x) \partial_t u(t,x)\ dx \right| \\
& \qquad \le \delta \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} e^{|x|} \vartheta_R(x) |\partial_t u(t,x)|^2\ dx + \frac{1}{4\delta} \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} e^{|x|} \left| \frac{\nabla\vartheta_R}{\sqrt{\vartheta_R}} \right|^2 |\nabla u(t,x)|^{2(p-1)}\ dx \\
& \qquad \le \delta \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} e^{|x|} \vartheta_R(x) |\partial_t u(t,x)|^2\ dx + \frac{C}{\delta R} \left( 1+ t^{-1/p} \right)^{2(p-1)} \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} e^{-|x|} \ dx \\
& \qquad \le \delta \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} e^{|x|} \vartheta_R(x)
|\partial_t u(t,x)|^2\ dx + \frac{C}{\delta R} \left( 1+
t^{-2(p-1)/p} \right)\ .\end{aligned}$$ Combining the above inequality with gives, after integration over $(t_1,t_2)\subset (0,T_e)$, $$\begin{aligned}
& \frac{1}{p} \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} e^{|x|} \vartheta_R(x) |\nabla u(t_2,x)|^p\ dx + (1-\delta) \int_{t_1}^{t_2} \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} e^{|x|} \vartheta_R(x) |\partial_t u(t,x)|^2\ dxdt \nonumber\\
& \qquad \le \mathcal{J}(u(t_1)) + \frac{C}{\delta R}
\int_{t_1}^{t_2} \left( 1+ t^{-2(p-1)/p} \right)\ dt\ . \label{db10}\end{aligned}$$ As $p\in (1,2)$, one has $2(p-1)/p<1$ and we infer from that $$(1-\delta) \int_0^{T_e} \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} e^{|x|} \vartheta_R(x)
|\partial_t u(t,x)|^2\ dxdt \le \mathcal{J}(u_0) + \frac{C}{R}
\left( T_e + T_e^{(2-p)/p} \right)\ .$$ The Fatou lemma then entails that $\partial_t u$ belongs to $L^2((0,T_e)\times\mathbb{R}^N; e^{|x|}\ dxdt)$ and we may let $R\to
\infty$ in to deduce that $$\mathcal{J}(u(t_2)) + (1-\delta) \int_{t_1}^{t_2}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N} e^{|x|} |\partial_t u(t,x)|^2\ dxdt \le
\mathcal{J}(u(t_1))\ .$$ Letting $\delta\to 0$ finally gives .
Classification of self-similar profiles {#sec.s4}
=======================================
This section is devoted to the proof of Theorem \[th.uniq\], which, besides the uniqueness of the stabilization profile which is at the heart of the proof of Theorem \[th.conv\], also provides a complete classification of the possible behaviors of solutions to . A by-product of this section is the description of all non-negative radially symmetric solutions to of the form .
Recall that the purpose of this section is to study the behavior of solutions to the initial boundary value problem $$\begin{aligned}
&&\left(|f'|^{p-2}f'\right)'(r)+\frac{N-1}{r}\left(|f'|^{p-2}f'\right)(r)+f(r)-|f'(r)|^{p-1}=0, \qquad r>0,\label{ODE}
\\
&&f(0)=a, \ f'(0)=0, \label{IC}\end{aligned}$$ according to the value of $a>0$. We first observe that, introducing $g:= -|f'|^{p-2} f'$, an alternative formulation of - reads $$\begin{aligned}
f'(r) = - |g(r)|^{(2-p)/(p-1)} g(r)\ , & \qquad g'(r) + \frac{N-1}{r} g(r) + f(r) - |g(r)| = 0\ , \qquad r>0\ , \\
f(0) = a\ , & \qquad g(0)=0\ .\end{aligned}$$ Since $1/(p-1)>1$, standard results ensure that this initial value problem has a unique solution $(f,g)(\cdot;a)\in C^1([0,\mathcal{R}(a)))$ defined in a maximal interval of existence $[0,\mathcal{R}(a))$ for some $\mathcal{R}(a)\in(0,\infty]$. In addition, either $\mathcal{R}(a) = \infty$ or $$\mathcal{R}(a)<\infty \;\;\text{ and }\;\; \limsup_{r\to\mathcal{R}(a)}\ (|f(r;a)|+|g(r;a)|) = \infty\ . \label{altBU}$$ Clearly $f(\cdot;a)$ solves - and, since $f(0;a)=a>0$, we may define the first zero of $f(\cdot;a)$ by $$\label{support}
R(a):=\inf\{r \in [0,\mathcal{R}(a))\ :\ f(r;a)=0\}\in (0,\mathcal{R}(a)]\ ,$$ whenever it exists. When no confusion may arise we shall omit the dependence of $f(\cdot;a)$ on $a$ and simply use the notation $f$ instead without further notice.
Let us recall that we assume throughout all this section that *the space dimension satisfies $N\geq 2$*. As already mentioned in the introduction, the proof of Theorem \[th.uniq\] for $N=1$ requires a different technique and is done in [@IL16]. The study of - is divided into a number of lemmas that we give in the sequel.
Basic properties {#s4.1}
----------------
In the next lemma we gather some elementary properties of solutions $f(\cdot;a)$ to - for $a>0$.
\[lem41\] Let $a>0$.
- For $r\in(0,R(a))$ the following bounds hold true: $$\label{f1}
0<f(r;a)<a, \qquad -\left(\frac{a}{N}r\right)^{1/(p-1)}<f'(r;a)<0.$$
- In the interval $(0,R(a))$, can be written in the following alternative form: $$\label{f2}
\frac{d}{dr}\left[\varrho(r)|f'(r;a)|^{p-2}f'(r;a)\right]=-\varrho(r)f(r;a),
\qquad r\in(0,R(a))\ ,$$ where $$\varrho(r)=r^{N-1}e^r\ , \qquad r\ge 0\ . \label{fctrho}$$
- The maximal existence time is infinite, that is, $\mathcal{R}(a)=\infty$.
- If $R(a)=\infty$, then $$\lim\limits_{r\to\infty}f(r;a)=\lim\limits_{r\to\infty}f'(r;a)=0.$$
**Properties (a)-(b).** It readily follows from that, for $r>0$, $$\label{interm1}
\frac{d}{dr}\left[\varrho(r)|f'(r)|^{p-2}f'(r)\right]=\varrho(r)\left[|f'(r)|^{p-2}f'(r)+|f'(r)|^{p-1}-f(r)\right].$$ Since $$\lim\limits_{r\to0}(|f'|^{p-2}f')'(r)=-\frac{a}{N}<0, \qquad
f'(0)=0,$$ we deduce that $f'$ is negative in a right neighborhood of $r=0$. As long as this is true, we infer from that $$\frac{d}{dr}\left[\varrho(r)|f'(r)|^{p-2}f'(r)\right]=-\varrho(r)f(r)<0,$$ whence $$\varrho(r)|f'(r)|^{p-2}f'(r)+\int_0^r\varrho(\sigma)f(\sigma)\,d\sigma=0.$$ Thus, $f'$ cannot vanish in $(0,R(a))$. Consequently, $f'<0$ in $(0,R(a))$ and follows from . Furthermore, $f$ is decreasing on $(0,R(a))$, so that $0<f(r)<a$ for any $r\in(0,R(a))$. We then deduce from that $$\frac{d}{dr}\left[\varrho(r)|f'(r)|^{p-2}f'(r)\right]\geq-a\varrho(r)\ , \qquad r\in(0,R(a))\ .$$ Integrating the above inequality gives, for $r\in (0,R(a))$, $$\varrho(r)|f'(r)|^{p-2}f'(r)\geq-a\int_0^r\varrho(\sigma)\,d\sigma\geq-ae^r\int_0^r\sigma^{N-1}\,d\sigma,$$ whence $|f'(r)|^{p-2}f'(r)\geq-ar/N$, leading to the second bound in .
**Property (c).** Define the following energy $$\label{energy}
E(r):=\frac{p-1}{p}|f'(r)|^{p}+\frac{1}{2}f(r)^2, \qquad
r\in(0,\mathcal{R}(a)).$$ We readily infer from and the definition of the energy that, for $r\in [0,\mathcal{R}(a))$, $$\begin{split}
E'(r)&=f'(r)\left[(|f'|^{p-2}f')'(r)+f(r)\right]=f'(r)|f'(r)|^{p-1}-\frac{N-1}{r}|f'(r)|^p\\
&\leq|f'(r)|^p
=\frac{p}{p-1}\left[E(r)-\frac{1}{2}f(r)^2\right]\leq\frac{p}{p-1}E(r)\ .
\end{split}$$ Thus $E$ does not blow up in finite time which excludes the alternative and entails that $\mathcal{R}(a)=\infty$.
**Property (d).** Assume now that $R(a)=\infty$. Recalling the energy introduced in , we infer from that $$\label{interm2}
E'(r)=f'(r)\left[|f'(r)|^{p-1}-\frac{N-1}{r}(|f'|^{p-2}f')(r)\right]=-\left(1+\frac{N-1}{r}\right)|f'(r)|^p\leq 0
$$ for $r\in (0,\infty)$. Since $E$ is non-negative in $(0,\infty)$, it follows that there exist $l_f\ge 0$ and $l_E\geq 0$ such that $$\lim\limits_{r\to\infty}f(r)=l_f, \quad
\lim\limits_{r\to\infty}E(r)=l_E.$$ From the definition of $E$ we deduce that $-f'(r)=|f'(r)|$ also has a limit as $r\to\infty$, while and the existence of $l_E\geq 0$ entail that $f'\in L^p(0,\infty)$. Therefore, $$\label{interm3}\lim\limits_{r\to\infty}f'(r)=0.$$ Assume now for contradiction that $l_f>0$. We infer from and that $$\lim\limits_{r\to\infty}(|f'|^{p-2}f')'(r)=-l_f,$$ so that there exists $R>0$ such that $$(|f'|^{p-2}f')'(r)\leq-\frac{l_f}{2} \qquad {\rm for \ any} \ r\geq
R.$$ After integration, we get $$(|f'|^{p-2}f')(r)\leq(|f'|^{p-2}f')(R)-\frac{l_f}{2}(r-R), \qquad
r\geq R,$$ which implies that $|f'(r)|^{p-1}=-(|f'|^{p-2}f')(r)$ diverges to $\infty$ as $r\to\infty$ and contradicts . Therefore $l_f=0$, ending the proof.
The following lemma shows that $R(a)$ is indeed finite for some values of $a$.
\[lem42\] There exists $a_{\infty}>0$ such that $R(a)\in(0,\infty)$ for any $a>a_{\infty}$.
For $a>0$, introduce the following rescaling $$f(r;a)=a\varphi\left(a^{(2-p)/p}r;a\right), \quad
f'(r;a)=a^{2/p}\varphi'\left(a^{(2-p)/p}r;a\right), \quad
r\in[0,R(a)).$$ Letting $s:=a^{(2-p)/p}r$ and dropping the parameter $a$ from the notation, it follows from that $\varphi$ solves the following differential equation $$\label{interm4}
(|\varphi'|^{p-2}\varphi')'(s)+\frac{N-1}{s}(|\varphi'|^{p-2}\varphi')(s)+\varphi(s)-a^{(p-2)/p}|\varphi'(s)|^{p-1}=0,$$ for $s\in(0,\infty)$, with initial conditions $\varphi(0)=1$, $\varphi'(0)=0$. Let us also consider the solution $\psi$ to the following problem $$\label{interm5}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{(|\psi'|^{p-2}\psi')'(s)+\frac{N-1}{s}(|\psi'|^{p-2}\psi')(s)+\psi(s)=0,
\quad s>0,} \\
\\
\psi(0)=1, \ \psi'(0)=0.
\end{array}\right.$$ Note that, since $p<2$, continuous dependence guarantees that $$\lim\limits_{a\to\infty}\sup\limits_{[0,s]}|\varphi(\cdot;a)-\psi|=0 \qquad {\rm for \ all} \ s>0.$$ We claim that there is $s_0\in(0,\infty)$ such that $\psi(s_0)=0$, $\psi'(s_0)<0$, and $\psi'(s)<0<\psi(s)$ for $s\in(0,s_0)$. The fact that there exists a maximal interval $(0,s_0)$ on which $\psi>0$ and $\psi'<0$ is easily proved as in Lemma \[lem41\], so it remains to check that $s_0<\infty$. Assume for contradiction that $s_0=\infty$, so that $\psi$ is positive and decreasing in $(0,\infty)$. In the analysis below, we improve on an idea coming from [@Shi04]. Fix $\vartheta\in((N-p)/N,p-1)$, which is possible since $$p-1-\frac{N-p}{N}=\frac{p(N+1)-2N}{N}=\frac{N+1}{N}(p-p_c)>0,$$ and introduce $$\delta:=\left[\int_0^1\sigma^{N-1}\psi(\sigma)\,d\sigma\right]^{(1-\vartheta)/(p-1)}>0.$$ It follows from the monotonicity and positivity of $\psi$ that, for any $s\geq1$, $$\label{interm6}
\begin{split}
\int_0^s\sigma^{N-1}\psi(\sigma)\,d\sigma&\geq\left[\int_0^1\sigma^{N-1}\psi(\sigma)\,d\sigma\right]^{1-\vartheta}
\left[\int_0^s\sigma^{N-1}\psi(\sigma)\,d\sigma\right]^{\vartheta}\\
&\geq\delta^{p-1}\frac{s^{N\vartheta}}{N^{\vartheta}}\psi(s)^{\vartheta}.
\end{split}$$ We then infer from that, for any $s\geq1$, $$\frac{d}{ds}\left[s^{N-1}(|\psi'|^{p-2}\psi')(s)\right]=-s^{N-1}\psi(s),$$ hence, taking into account , $$(|\psi'|^{p-2}\psi')(s)=-\frac{1}{s^{N-1}}\int_0^s\sigma^{N-1}\psi(\sigma)\,d\sigma\leq-\frac{\delta^{p-1}}{N^{\vartheta}}s^{N(\vartheta-1)+1}\psi(s)^{\vartheta},$$ or equivalently, since $\psi>0$ and $\psi'<0$ in $(0,\infty)$, $$-\psi(s)^{-\vartheta/(p-1)}\psi'(s)\geq\frac{\delta}{N^{\vartheta/(p-1)}}s^{(N(\vartheta-1)+1)/(p-1)}.$$ By integration on the interval $[1,s]$ and straightforward manipulations, we thus obtain that $$\psi(s)^{(p-1-\vartheta)/(p-1)}\leq\psi(1)^{(p-1-\vartheta)/(p-1)}+\frac{\delta(p-1-\vartheta)}{(p-N+N\vartheta)N^{\vartheta/(p-1)}}
\left[1-s^{(p+N(\vartheta-1))/(p-1)}\right].$$ We deduce from the definition of $\vartheta$ that $p-1-\vartheta>0$ and $p+N(\vartheta-1)>0$, so that $\psi(s)^{(p-1-\vartheta)/(p-1)}$ becomes negative for $s$ sufficiently large, hence a contradiction. Consequently, $s_0<\infty$ and $$s_0^{N-1}|\psi'(s_0)|^{p-2}\psi'(s_0)=-\int_0^{s_0}\sigma^{N-1}\psi(\sigma)\,d\sigma<0,$$ so that $\psi'(s_0)<0$. Thus, for $\e>0$ sufficiently small, there are $s_1<s_0<s_2$ such that $\psi(s_1)>\e>-\e>\psi(s_2)$. By continuous dependence we realize that $$\varphi(s_1;a)>\frac{\e}{2}>-\frac{\e}{2}>\varphi(s_2;a),$$ for $a$ sufficiently large. Therefore $\varphi(\cdot;a)$ vanishes in $(0,\infty)$ when $a$ is sufficiently large and so does $f(\cdot;a)$, which completes the proof.
Classification of behaviors as $r\to\infty$ {#s4.2}
-------------------------------------------
In this subsection we analyze the possible decay rates as $r\to\infty$ of solutions to -. To this end, let $a>0$ and recall that the function $g(\cdot;a)$ is defined by $$g(r;a)=-|f'(r;a)|^{p-2}f'(r;a)\ , \qquad r\ge 0\ .$$ Since $f'(\cdot;a)<0$ on $(0,R(a))$ by Lemma \[lem41\] (a), it follows that $g(\cdot;a)=|f'(\cdot;a)|^{p-1}>0$ on $(0,R(a))$ and the first positive zero of $g(\cdot;a)$ (if any) thus satisfies $$\label{r1a}
R_1(a):=\sup\{R>0: g(\cdot;a)>0 \ {\rm on} \ (0,R)\} \ge R(a)\ ,$$ where $R_1(a)=\infty$ if $g(\cdot;a)>0$ on $(0,\infty)$. From we readily infer that $$-g'(r)-\left(1+\frac{N-1}{r}\right)g(r)+f(r)=0, \qquad r\in
(0,R_1(a)),$$ so that, differentiating with respect to $r$, we get $$\label{ODEg}
g''(r)+\left(1+\frac{N-1}{r}\right)g'(r)+g(r)^{1/(p-1)}-\frac{N-1}{r^2}g(r)=0,
\qquad r\in(0,R_1(a)),$$ where for simplicity we denoted $g=g(\cdot;a)$. Furthermore, $$\label{ICg}
g(0)=0, \quad g'(0)=\frac{a}{N}>0.$$ We also introduce the function $$\label{f3}
w(r)=w(r;a):=\varrho(r)g(r;a), \qquad r\in [0,R_1(a)),$$ and by straightforward calculations we obtain that $w$ solves $$\begin{aligned}
& w''(r)-\left(1+\frac{N-1}{r}\right)w'(r)+\varrho(r)^{-(2-p)/(p-1)}w(r)^{1/(p-1)}=0, \quad r\in (0,R_1(a)),
\label{ODEw} \\ & w(0)=0, \quad w'(r)\sim a\varrho(r) \ {\rm as} \
r\to 0.\label{ICw}\end{aligned}$$
\[lem43\] The function $g(\cdot;a)$ is positive on $(0,\infty)$ (or, equivalently, $R_1(a)=\infty$) if and only if $w'(\cdot;a)>0$ on $(0,\infty)$.
We derive from and that $$w'(r)=\varrho(r)\left[\left(1 + \frac{N-1}{r} \right)g(r)+g'(r)\right]\sim\varrho(r)\left[ \left( 1 + \frac{N-1}{r} \right) \frac{ar}{N} + \frac{a}{N} \right]\sim
a\varrho(r)$$ as $r\to 0$. Therefore, $w'>0$ in a right neighborhood of $r=0$. Define then $$r_0:=\sup\{R>0: w'>0 \ {\rm in} \ (0,R)\} > 0.$$ Assume first that $R_1(a)=\infty$ and assume for contradiction that $r_0<\infty$. Then $w''(r_0)<0$ by , thus $w'$ is negative in a right neighborhood of $r_0$. In addition, guarantees that $w''(r)<0$ for any $r>0$ such that $w'(r)<0$, a property which readily implies that $w'(r)<0$ and $w''(r)<0$ for $r\in(r_0,\infty)$. Now fix $r_1>r_0$. Then $w'(r)\leq w'(r_1)<0$ for $r\geq r_1$, hence $$w(r)\leq w(r_1)+w'(r_1)(r-r_1), \qquad r\geq r_1,$$ which implies that $w(r)$ vanishes at a finite $r>r_1$, contradicting the assumption $R_1(a)=\infty$. Consequently, $r_0=\infty$ and $w'>0$ in $(0,\infty)$.
The converse assertion is obvious: if $w'>0$ in $(0,\infty)$, then $w(r)>w(0)=0$ for $r\in (0,\infty)$ and $R_1(a)=\infty$.
We now split the range of $a$ into the following sets: $$\begin{aligned}
&&A:=\{a\in(0,\infty): R_1(a)<\infty\}, \\
&&B:=\{a\in(0,\infty): R_1(a)=\infty \ {\rm and} \ w(\cdot;a) \ {\rm
is \
bounded}\},\\
&&C:=\{a\in(0,\infty): R_1(a)=\infty \ {\rm and} \ w(\cdot;a) \ {\rm
is \ unbounded}\}\end{aligned}$$ From Lemma \[lem43\] we infer that $A\cup B\cup C=(0,\infty)$ and, owing to the monotonicity and positivity of $w(\cdot;a)$ for $a\in B\cup C$, $$\lim\limits_{r\to\infty}w(r;a)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
l(a)\in(0,\infty) & {\rm if} \ a\in B\ , \\
& \\
\infty & {\rm if} \ a\in C\ .
\end{array}
\right. \label{limitw}$$ The following result relates $R_1(a)$ and $R(a)$.
\[lem44\] We have $R_1(a)<\infty$ if and only if $R(a)<\infty$.
Recall first that $R(a)\leq R_1(a)$ by , so that the finiteness of $R_1(a)$ implies that of $R(a)$. Assume next that $R(a)<\infty$. Then $f'(R(a))<0$, which implies that $g(R(a))>0$ and thus $R_1(a)>R(a)$. Furthermore, $g>0$ in $(R(a),R_1(a))$ which entails that $f(r)<f(R(a))=0$ for $r\in (R(a),R_1(a))$. Fix $\theta\in(R(a),R_1(a))$. Since $f(\theta)<0$ and $f'<0$ in $(R(a),R_1(a))$, we obtain from and the definition of the function $g$ that $$\frac{d}{dr}(\varrho(r)g(r))=\varrho(r)f(r)\leq\varrho(r)f(\theta),
\qquad r\in[\theta,R_1(a)),$$ whence, by integration, $$\varrho(r)g(r)\leq\varrho(\theta)g(\theta)+ f(\theta)\, \int_{\theta}^r\varrho(s) \,ds\ , \qquad r\in (\theta,R_1(a))\ .$$ Since $f(\theta)<0$ and $\varrho(r)\to\infty$ as $r\to\infty$, the right-hand side of the above inequality is negative for $r$ large enough, which excludes that $R_1(a)=\infty$. Therefore $R_1(a)<\infty$ and the proof is complete.
\[corA\] The set $A$ is non-empty and open.
The fact that $A$ is open follows by continuous dependence with respect to the parameter $a$. Moreover, we infer from Lemma \[lem42\] and Lemma \[lem44\] that there exists $a_{\infty}>0$ such that $(a_{\infty},\infty)\subseteq A$, hence $A$ is non-empty.
\[lem45\] Let $a\in B\cup C$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{w(\cdot;a)}{\varrho}\in L^{1/(p-1)}(0,\infty), \qquad
\lim\limits_{r\to\infty}\frac{w(r;a)}{\varrho(r)}=0, \label{f4} \\
&&\lim\limits_{r\to\infty}\frac{w'(r;a)}{\varrho(r)}=0.\label{f5}\end{aligned}$$
It readily follows from that $$\label{interm7}
\frac{d}{dr}\left(\frac{w'(r)}{\varrho(r)}\right)=-\left(\frac{1}{\varrho(r)}\right)^{1+(2-p)/(p-1)}w(r)^{1/(p-1)}=-\left(\frac{w(r)}{\varrho(r)}\right)^{1/(p-1)}.$$ Since $w'>0$ in $(0,\infty)$ for $a\in B\cup C$ by Lemma \[lem43\], we infer from that $w'(r)/\varrho(r)$ is non-increasing and non-negative. Consequently, there exists $L\geq0$ such that $$\label{interm8}
\lim\limits_{r\to\infty}\frac{w'(r)}{\varrho(r)}=L.$$ Since $w'(r)/\varrho(r)\to a$ as $r\to0$ by , it readily follows from and that $$\label{interm9}
a-L=\int_0^{\infty}\left(\frac{w(r)}{\varrho(r)}\right)^{1/(p-1)}\,dr,$$ which in particular gives that $w/\varrho\in L^{1/(p-1)}(0,\infty)$. Furthermore $$\varrho'(r)=\left(1+\frac{N-1}{r}\right)\varrho(r)\sim\varrho(r) \quad {\rm as} \ r\to\infty, \label{asymptrho}$$ and we deduce from that $w'(r)/\varrho'(r)\to L$ as $r\to\infty$. Applying l’Hospital rule then gives $$\lim\limits_{r\to\infty}\frac{w(r)}{\varrho(r)}=L\ ,$$ and the integrability of $(w/\varrho)^{1/(p-1)}$ implies $L=0$, which completes the proof of and .
The next result goes deeper into the characterization of elements in the sets $B$ and $C$.
\[lem46\] If $a\in B\cup C$, then $w'(\cdot;a)/w(\cdot;a)$ has a limit as $r\to\infty$ and $$\label{f6}
\lim\limits_{r\to\infty}\frac{w'(r;a)}{w(r;a)}\in\{0,1\}.$$
Introducing $h:=w'/w$, it follows from and easy algebraic manipulations that $$\label{ODEh}
h'(r)=\left(1+\frac{N-1}{r}\right)h(r)-h(r)^2-\left(\frac{w(r)}{\varrho(r)}\right)^{(2-p)/(p-1)},
\quad r>0.$$ We infer from that $$\frac{d}{dr}\left(\frac{h(r)}{\varrho(r)}\right)=\frac{1}{\varrho(r)}\left[h'(r)-\left(1+\frac{N-1}{r}\right)h(r)\right]\leq-\frac{1}{\varrho(r)}h(r)^2,$$ which can be written alternatively as $$\frac{d}{dr}\left(\frac{h(r)}{\varrho(r)}\right)+\varrho(r)\left(\frac{h(r)}{\varrho(r)}\right)^2\leq0$$ or equivalently $$\varrho(r)\leq\frac{d}{dr}\left(\frac{\varrho(r)}{h(r)}\right).$$ Noticing that $$\frac{\varrho(r)}{h(r)}=\frac{\varrho(r)}{w'(r)}w(r)\sim\frac{w(r)}{a}\to 0 \quad {\rm as} \ r\to 0$$ by , we may integrate the previous differential inequality and find $$\label{interm11}
h(r)\leq\varrho(r)\left(\int_0^r\varrho(s)\,ds\right)^{-1}, \quad
r\in(0,\infty).$$ Since $\varrho'(r)/\varrho(r)\to1$ as $r\to\infty$ by , the l’Hospital rule applies and shows that $$\lim\limits_{r\to\infty}\varrho(r)\left(\int_0^r\varrho(s)\,ds\right)^{-1}=\lim\limits_{r\to\infty}\frac{\varrho'(r)}{\varrho(r)}=1,$$ and we conclude from that $$\label{interm12}
\limsup\limits_{r\to\infty}h(r)\leq1.$$ Fix now $\e\in(0,1)$. According to and , there exists $r_{\e}>0$ such that $$\label{interm13}
\left(\frac{w(r)}{\varrho(r)}\right)^{(2-p)/(p-1)}\leq\frac{\e^2}{4},
\quad r\geq r_{\e},$$ and $$\label{interm14}
h(r)<r_2(\e):=\frac{1+\sqrt{1-\e^2}}{2}, \quad r\geq r_{\e}.$$ Assume further that there exists $r_*>r_{\e}$ such that $$\label{interm15}
h(r_*) > r_1(\e):=\frac{1-\sqrt{1-\e^2}}{2},$$ and define $$R_*:=\inf\{r>r_*: h(r)<r_1(\e)\}>r_*.$$ For $r\in[r_*,R_*)$ we deduce from , , , and the definition of $R_*$ that $$\label{interm16}
h'(r)\geq h(r)-h(r)^2-\frac{\e^2}{4}=(r_2(\e)-h(r))(h(r)-r_1(\e))>0.$$ It thus follows from that $h$ is increasing in $[r_*,R_*)$, which readily implies that $R_*=\infty$. Moreover, we also get from that $$\begin{split}
\frac{d}{dr}\log\left(\frac{h(r)-r_1(\e)}{r_2(\e)-h(r)}\right)&=\left(\frac{1}{h(r)-r_1(\e)}+\frac{1}{r_2(\e)-h(r)}\right)h'(r)\\
&=\frac{r_2(\e)-r_1(\e)}{(h(r)-r_1(\e))(r_2(\e)-h(r))}h'(r)\geq\sqrt{1-\e^2},
\end{split}$$ whence, by integration over $(r_*,r)$, $$\frac{h(r)-r_1(\e)}{r_2(\e)-h(r)}\geq K_{\e}e^{r\sqrt{1-\e^2}},
\quad
K_{\e}:=\frac{h(r_*)-r_1(\e)}{r_2(\e)-h(r_*)}e^{-r_*\sqrt{1-\e^2}}>0,$$ the latter being true due to and . Therefore, $$\begin{split}
h(r)&\geq\frac{r_2(\e)K_{\e}e^{r\sqrt{1-\e^2}}+r_2(\e)+r_1(\e)-r_2(\e)}{1+K_{\e}e^{r\sqrt{1-\e^2}}}\\
&\geq r_2(\e)-\frac{\sqrt{1-\e^2}}{1+K_{\e}e^{r\sqrt{1-\e^2}}},
\end{split}$$ for $r\geq r_*$. In particular, $$\label{interm17}
\liminf\limits_{r\to\infty}h(r)\geq
r_2(\e)=\frac{1+\sqrt{1-\e^2}}{2}\ ,$$ this property being valid only if holds true.
Suppose now that $h$ does not converge to zero as $r\to\infty$. Then there exist $\mu\in(0,1/2)$ and a sequence $(r_j)_{j\ge 1}$ such that $r_j\to\infty$ as $j\to\infty$ and $$\label{interm18}
h(r_j)\geq\mu, \quad j\geq1.$$ Pick now $\e\in \left( 0,\sqrt{1-(1-2\mu)^2} \right)$. Then $(1-2\mu)<\sqrt{1-\e^2}$, so that $r_1(\e)<\mu$. Also there exists $j_{\e}\geq1$ such that $r_{j_{\e}}>r_{\e}$. Owing to and the choice of $\e$, it follows that $h$ satisfies with $r_*=r_{j_{\e}}$ and we deduce from the previous analysis that holds true. Since $\e>0$ can be picked as small as we want in $\left( 0,\sqrt{1-(1-2\mu)^2} \right)$, we conclude that $$\liminf\limits_{r\to\infty}h(r)\geq1,$$ which, together with , leads to $h(r)\to1$ as $r\to\infty$, completing the proof.
As up to now all the previous steps were common to $a\in B$ and $a\in C$, the following results introduce differences between the sets $B$ and $C$.
\[lem47\] Let $a\in B\cup C$. Then $$a\in B \ {\rm if \ and \ only \ if} \
\lim\limits_{r\to\infty}\frac{w'(r;a)}{w(r;a)}=0.$$ Furthermore, for $a\in B$, $$\label{f7}
w'(r;a)\sim (p-1)l(a)^{1/(p-1)}\varrho(r)^{-(2-p)/(p-1)} \quad {\rm
as} \ r\to\infty,$$ where $l(a)$ is defined in .
Assume first that $a\in B$. Then $l(a)\in (0,\infty)$ and it follows from that $$\lim\limits_{r\to\infty}\varrho(r)^{1/(p-1)}\frac{d}{dr}\left(\frac{w'}{\varrho}\right)(r)=
-\lim\limits_{r\to\infty} w(r)^{1/(p-1)} =-l(a)^{1/(p-1)},$$ hence we deduce by the l’Hospital rule that $$\label{interm19}
\lim\limits_{r\to\infty}\frac{w'(r)}{\varrho(r)} \left( \int_r^{\infty}\varrho(s)^{-1/(p-1)}\,ds \right)^{-1}=l(a)^{1/(p-1)}.$$ We next observe that $$\begin{split}
\int_{r}^{\infty}\varrho(s)^{-1/(p-1)}\,ds&=\int_{r}^{\infty}s^{-(N-1)/(p-1)}e^{-s/(p-1)}\,ds\\
&=(p-1)^{(p-N)/(p-1)}\int_{r/(p-1)}^{\infty}\sigma^{(p-N)/(p-1)-1}e^{-\sigma}\,d\sigma\\&=(p-1)^{(p-N)/(p-1)}\ \Gamma\left(\frac{p-N}{p-1},\frac{r}{p-1}\right),
\end{split}$$ where $\Gamma(\cdot,\cdot)$ is the (upper) incomplete Gamma function defined by $$\Gamma(\sigma,y):=\int_{y}^{\infty} z^{\sigma-1}e^{-z}\,dz\ , \qquad (\sigma,y)\in {\mathbb{R}}\times (0,\infty)\ .$$ Since $$\Gamma(\sigma,y)\sim y^{\sigma-1}e^{-y} \ {\rm as} \ y\to\infty\ ,$$ we obtain that, as $r\to\infty$, $$\int_r^{\infty}\varrho(s)^{-1/(p-1)}\,ds\sim(p-1)^{(p-N)/(p-1)}\left(\frac{r}{p-1}\right)^{-(N-1)/(p-1)}e^{-r/(p-1)}$$ and thus $$\label{interm20}
\varrho(r)\int_r^{\infty}\varrho(s)^{-1/(p-1)}\,ds\sim(p-1)\varrho(r)^{-(2-p)/(p-1)}.$$ We then derive easily from and . Moreover $w'(r)\to 0$ as $r\to\infty$ by and thus $\lim\limits_{r\to\infty}w'(r)/w(r)=0$.
Conversely, assume that $\lim\limits_{r\to\infty}w'(r)/w(r)=0$. Given $\delta\in(0,2-p)$, there exists $r_{\delta}>0$ such that $0<w'(r)/w(r)\leq\delta$ for $r\geq r_{\delta}$, whence $$\label{interm21}
0 < w(r)\leq w(r_{\delta}) e^{\delta(r-r_{\delta})}\ , \quad 0< w'(r)\leq \delta w(r_{\delta}) e^{\delta(r-r_{\delta})}\ , \qquad r\geq r_{\delta}.$$ In particular, $w'(r)/\varrho(r)\to 0$ as $r\to\infty$ and it follows from that $$w'(r) = \varrho(r) \int_r^\infty \left(\frac{w(s)}{\varrho(s)}\right)^{1/(p-1)}\, ds\ , \qquad r>r_\delta\ .$$ Combining the above inequality with gives, for $r>r_\delta$, $$\begin{aligned}
w'(r) & \le w(r_\delta)^{1/(p-1)} e^{-\delta r_\delta/(p-1)} \varrho(r) \int_r^\infty s^{-(N-1)/(p-1)} e^{(\delta-1)s/(p-1)} \, ds \\
& \le C(\delta) \varrho(r) e^{(\delta-1)r/(p-1)} \frac{p-1}{N-p} r^{(p-N)/(p-1)} \\
& \le C(\delta) r^{((N+1)p-2N)/(p-1)} e^{(\delta+p-2)r/(p-1)}\ .\end{aligned}$$ We deduce from the choice of $\delta$, the above inequality, and that $w'$ belongs to $L^1(r_\delta,\infty)$. Therefore, $w$ has a finite limit as $r\to\infty$ and thus $a\in B$.
The previous lemma also allows us to identify the asymptotic behavior of $w(\cdot;a)$ for $a\in C$.
\[cor.1\] Let $a\in B\cup C$. Then $$a\in C \ {\rm if \ and \ only \ if} \
\lim\limits_{r\to\infty}\frac{w'(r;a)}{w(r;a)}=1.$$ Moreover, for $a\in C$ we have $$\label{f8}
w(r;a)\sim\varrho(r)\left(\frac{2-p}{p-1}r\right)^{-(p-1)/(2-p)}
\quad {\rm as} \ r\to\infty.$$
The first assertion follows readily from Lemma \[lem46\] and Lemma \[lem47\]. Since $w(r)\sim w'(r)$ as $r\to\infty$ for $a\in C$, we derive from that $$\begin{split}
\frac{d}{dr}\left[\left(\frac{w'(r)}{\varrho(r)}\right)^{-(2-p)/(p-1)}\right]&=-\frac{2-p}{p-1}\left(\frac{w'(r)}{\varrho(r)}\right)^{-1/(p-1)}\frac{d}{dr}\left(\frac{w'(r)}{\varrho(r)}\right)\\
&=\frac{2-p}{p-1}\left(\frac{w(r)}{w'(r)}\right)^{-1/(p-1)},
\end{split}$$ and thus, as $r\to\infty$, $$\left(\frac{w'(r)}{\varrho(r)}\right)^{-(2-p)/(p-1)}\sim\frac{2-p}{p-1}r,$$ which easily implies .
\[cor.2\] Let $a\in B\cup C$. Recalling that $g(\cdot;a) = - (|f'|^{p-2} f')(\cdot;a)$, there holds: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\lim\limits_{r\to\infty}\frac{g(r;a)}{f(r;a)}=\infty \quad {\rm if} \
a\in B,\\
&&\lim\limits_{r\to\infty}\frac{g(r;a)}{f(r;a)}=1 \quad {\rm if} \ a\in
C.\end{aligned}$$
Observe that $$g=\frac{w}{\varrho}, \quad
g'=\frac{w'}{\varrho} - \frac{\varrho'}{\varrho}\, \frac{w}{\varrho},
\quad f=\frac{w'}{\varrho}.$$ Consequently, for $a\in B\cup C$, there holds $g/f=w/w'$ on $(0,\infty)$, and the conclusion readily follows from Lemma \[lem47\] and Corollary \[cor.1\].
A Pohozaev functional {#s4.3}
---------------------
The next step towards the identification of the sets $B$ and $C$ is the construction of a *Pohozaev functional*. Up to our knowledge, the idea of considering such functionals to study the uniqueness of solutions to some elliptic equation stems from Yanagida [@Ya91a; @Ya91b], but the approach we use here is rather inspired by [@ShWa13; @ShWa16].
Let $a>0$. Recalling that $g(\cdot;a) = - (|f'|^{p-2} f')(\cdot;a)$ we define $$\label{J1}
\begin{split}
J(r)=J(r;a) & :=\frac{1}{2}\alpha(r)g'(r;a)^2+\beta(r)g(r;a)g'(r;a) \\
& \quad +\frac{1}{2}\gamma(r)g(r;a)^2+\frac{p-1}{p}\delta(r)g(r;a)^{p/(p-1)}
\end{split}$$ for $r\in (0,R_1(a))$, where $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$, and $\delta$ are functions to be determined later. We proceed as in [@ShWa16] to look for a functional $J$ solving a differential equation of the form $J'=Gg^2$ for some function $G$. Calculating $J'$ and using in order to replace $g''$ in the calculations, we find, for $r\in (0,R_1(a))$, $$\begin{split}
J'(r)&=g'(r)^2 \left[\frac{1}{2}\alpha'(r)-\left(1+\frac{N-1}{r}\right)\alpha(r)+\beta(r)\right]\\
&+g(r)g'(r)\left[\frac{N-1}{r^2}\alpha(r)+\beta'(r)-\left(1+\frac{N-1}{r}\right)\beta(r)+\gamma(r)\right]\\
&+g(r)^{1/(p-1)}g'(r)\left[-\alpha(r)+\delta(r)\right]+g(r)^{p/(p-1)}\left[-\beta(r)+\frac{p-1}{p}\delta'(r)\right]\\
&+g(r)^2\left[\frac{N-1}{r^2}\beta(r)+\frac{1}{2}\gamma'(r)\right].
\end{split}$$ The idea is then to choose the functions $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$, and $\delta$ in order to vanish all the coefficients in the expression above for $J$, except for the one in front of $g^2$. More specifically we require $$\begin{aligned}
&&\beta(r)=-\frac{1}{2}\alpha'(r)+\left(1+\frac{N-1}{r}\right)\alpha(r),\label{J2}\\
&&\gamma(r)=-\beta'(r)+\left(1+\frac{N-1}{r}\right)\beta(r)-\frac{N-1}{r^2}\alpha(r),\label{J3}\\
&&\delta(r)=\alpha(r),\label{J4}\\
&&\frac{p-1}{p}\delta'(r)=\beta(r),\label{J5}\end{aligned}$$ in order to have $$\label{J6}
J'(r)=G(r)g(r)^2, \quad
G(r):=\frac{N-1}{r^2}\beta(r)+\frac{1}{2}\gamma'(r)\ , \qquad r\in (0,R_1(a))\ .$$ Combining , , and and replacing all the unknown functions in terms of $\delta$, we obtain $$\frac{\delta'(r)}{\delta(r)}=\frac{2p}{3p-2}\frac{\varrho'(r)}{\varrho(r)}, \qquad r>0\ ,$$ so that $\delta=\varrho^{2p/(3p-2)}$. Thanks to and , we find $$\label{J7}
\alpha(r)=\delta(r)=\varrho(r)^{2p/(3p-2)}, \quad
\beta(r)=\frac{2(p-1)}{3p-2}\left(1+\frac{N-1}{r}\right)\varrho(r)^{2p/(3p-2)}.$$ We next use and we obtain after rather tedious, but straightforward calculations $$\label{J8}
\begin{split}
\gamma(r)&= - \left[\frac{2(p-1)(2-p)}{(3p-2)^2}+\frac{4(N-1)(p-1)(2-p)}{(3p-2)^2}\frac{1}{r}\right.\\
&\left.+\frac{N-1}{(3p-2)^2}[p(3p-2)+2(N-1)(p-1)(2-p)]\frac{1}{r^2}\right]\varrho(r)^{2p/(3p-2)}.
\end{split}$$ Replacing the formulas giving the functions $\beta$ and $\gamma$ from and into and again after rather long calculations, one finds that $G/\alpha$ is a cubic polynomial in $1/r$. More precisely, $$\label{J9}
\frac{(3p-2)^3}{p}\frac{G(r)}{\alpha(r)}= P\left( \frac{1}{r} \right)\ , \qquad r>0\ ,$$ where $P$ is a the cubic polynomial $$P(z) := M_3(p) (N-1) z^3 +M_2(p) (N-1) z^2 + M_1(p) (N-1) z+ M_0(p),$$ its coefficients being given by $$\begin{aligned}
&&M_3(p):=(3p-2)^2+(N-1)(3p-2)(3p-4)-2(p-1)(2-p)(N-1)^2,\\
&&M_2(p):=(3p-2)(3p-4)-6(N-1)(p-1)(2-p),\\
&&M_1(p):=-6(p-1)(2-p), \quad M_0(p):=-2(p-1)(2-p).\end{aligned}$$
We emphasize here that *the function $G$ does not depend on the parameter $a$.*
The following result will be essential for the proof of Theorem \[th.uniq\].
\[lemaG\] If $p\in(p_c,2)$, there exists $r_G>0$ such that $G(r)>0$ if $r\in[0,r_G)$ and $G(r)<0$ if $r>r_G$.
From the definitions above, we easily notice that $M_0(p)<0$ and $M_1(p)<0$, since $p\in (1,2)$. We will next prove that $M_3(p)>0$ for $p\in(p_c,2)$. To this end, we first note that $$\label{J10}
M_3(p_c)= 4 \frac{N^3}{(N+1)^2}>0.$$ For $p>p_c$, we compute $M_3'(p)$ and find $$\begin{split}
M_3'(p)&=(4N^2+10N+4)p-6N(N+1) \\
& > (4N^2+10N+4)\frac{2N}{N+1}-6N(N+1)\\
& = \frac{2N}{N+1}\left(N^2+4N+1\right)>0.
\end{split}$$ Thus, $M_3$ is increasing on $(p_c,\infty)$ and, taking into account , we conclude that $M_3(p)>0$ for $p>p_c$. Therefore, denoting the (possibly complex) roots of the cubic polynomial $P$ by $z_1$, $z_2$, and $z_3$ with $z_1\in{\mathbb{R}}$ and using both the relations between roots and coefficients $$z_1 z_2 z_3=-\frac{M_0(p)}{(N-1)M_3(p)}>0, \quad
z_1 z_2 + z_1 z_3 + z_2 z_3 = \frac{M_1(p)}{M_3(p)}<0\ ,$$ and the properties $$P(0)= M_0(p)<0 \ , \qquad \lim_{z\to\infty} P(z) = \infty\ ,$$ we realize that the polynomial $P$ has exactly one positive root, which we denote by $1/r_G$. It is then easy to check that $G(r)>0$ if $r\in(0,r_G)$ and $G(r)<0$ if $r>r_G$, completing the proof.
Combining and Lemma \[lemaG\] provides interesting properties of the function $J(\cdot;a)$ defined in which we summarize in the next proposition.
\[propJ\] Let $a>0$. Then $J(0;a)=0$ and $J(\cdot;a)$ is increasing on $\left( 0,\min\{r_G,R_1(a)\} \right)$. If $R_1(a)>r_G$ then $J(\cdot;a)$ is decreasing on $\left( r_G , R_1(a) \right)$.
According to and , we have as $r\to 0$, $$\label{interm23}
J(r)\sim\left[\frac{1}{2}\alpha(r)+r\beta(r)+\frac{1}{2}r^2\gamma(r)\right]\left(\frac{a}{N}\right)^2+\frac{p-1}{p}\alpha(r)r^{p/(p-1)}\left(\frac{a}{N}\right)^{p/(p-1)}.$$ Recalling the formulas for $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $\gamma$ in and we have $$r\beta(r)\sim\frac{2(p-1)}{3p-2}(N-1+r)\alpha(r)\to0 \quad {\rm as}
\ r\to0,$$ and $$r^2\gamma(r)\sim-\frac{N-1}{(3p-2)^2}\left[p(3p-2)+2(N-1)(p-1)(2-p)\right]\alpha(r)\to0
\quad {\rm as} \ r\to 0.$$ Combining these properties with gives $J(0)=0$. The monotonicity properties of $J$ readily follow from and Lemma \[lemaG\].
The usefulness of the Pohozaev functional $J$ becomes clear from the next two lemmas. Indeed, with its help we provide a sharp difference between the sets $B$ and $C$, which is one of the last technical steps towards uniqueness of the profile in $B$.
\[lem48\] Let $a\in B$. Then $$J(r;a)>0 \ {\rm for} \ r\in(0,\infty), \quad
\lim\limits_{r\to\infty}J(r;a)=0.$$
Let $a\in B$. We first notice from , , and that $$\label{J11}
J(r)=\alpha(r)g(r)^2
\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{g'(r)}{g(r)}\right)^2+\frac{\beta(r)}{\alpha(r)}\frac{g'(r)}{g(r)}+\frac{\gamma(r)}{2\alpha(r)}+\frac{p-1}{p}g(r)^{(2-p)/(p-1)}\right],$$ with $$\label{J12}
\lim\limits_{r\to\infty}\frac{\beta(r)}{\alpha(r)}=\frac{2(p-1)}{3p-2},
\qquad
\lim\limits_{r\to\infty}\frac{\gamma(r)}{2\alpha(r)}=-\frac{(2-p)(p-1)}{(3p-2)^2}.$$ Since $a\in B$, it follows from and Lemma \[lem47\] that $$g(r)\sim \frac{l(a)}{\varrho(r)} \;\;\text{ as }\;\; r\to\infty\ , \qquad \lim\limits_{r\to\infty} \frac{g'(r)}{g(r)} = - 1 + \lim\limits_{r\to\infty} \frac{w'(r)}{w(r)} = -1\ .$$ Therefore, we infer from , , and that, as $r\to\infty$, $$\begin{split}
J(r)&\sim\varrho(r)^{2p/(3p-2)-2}l(a)^2\left[\frac{1}{2}-\frac{2(p-1)}{3p-2}-\frac{(p-1)(2-p)}{(3p-2)^2}\right]\\
&=l(a)^2\varrho(r)^{-4(p-1)/(3p-2)}\frac{p(2-p)}{2(3p-2)^2},
\end{split}$$ hence $\lim\limits_{r\to\infty}J(r)=0$. Since $J$ is increasing on $(0,r_G)$ and decreasing on $(r_G,\infty)$ with $J(0)=0$ by Proposition \[propJ\], we conclude that $J(r)>0$ for $r\in(0,\infty)$.
\[lem49\] Let $a>0$. Then $a\in C$ if and only if there exists $\bar{r}\in (0,R_1(a))$ such that $J(\bar{r};a)<0$.
Moreover, if $a\in C$, then $$\lim\limits_{r\to\infty} J(r;a)=-\infty.$$
Consider first $a\in C$. By Corollary \[cor.1\], we deduce that $$g(r)\sim\left(\frac{2-p}{p-1}r\right)^{-(p-1)/(2-p)} \quad {\rm as}
\ r\to\infty,$$ and $$\frac{g'(r)}{g(r)}=\frac{w'(r)}{w(r)}-1-\frac{N-1}{r}\to 0 \quad
{\rm as} \ r\to\infty.$$ We then obtain from and that $$J(r)\sim-\frac{(p-1)(2-p)}{(3p-2)^2}\varrho(r)^{2p/(3p-2)}\left(\frac{2-p}{p-1}r\right)^{-2(p-1)/(2-p)}\quad
{\rm as} \ r\to\infty,$$ from which we deduce that $J(r)\to-\infty$ as $r\to\infty$ and thus takes negative values.
Conversely, let $a>0$ be such that there is $\bar{r}\in (0,R_1(a))$ with $J(\bar{r};a)<0$. Assume for contradiction that $R_1(a)<\infty$. On the one hand it follows from Proposition \[propJ\] that $\bar{r}>r_G$ and $J(r;a) \le J(\bar{r};a)<0$ for $r\in (\bar{r},R_1(a))$. On the other hand $J(R_1(a);a) = \alpha(R_1(a))
g'(R_1(a);a)^2 \ge 0$ by and , which contradicts the previous statement. Consequently, $R_1(a)=\infty$, so that $a\in B\cup C$ and Lemma \[lem48\] excludes that $a$ belongs to $B$.
A by-product of Lemma \[lem48\] and Lemma \[lem49\] is an alternative characterization of the sets $B$ and $C$.
\[corrmk\] Let $a\in B\cup C$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
&&a\in B \ {\rm if \ and \ only \ if } \
\lim\limits_{r\to\infty}J(r;a)=0,\\
&&a\in C \ {\rm if \ and \ only \ if } \
\lim\limits_{r\to\infty}J(r;a)=-\infty.\end{aligned}$$
The previous characterization of the set $C$ via the properties of $J(\cdot;a)$ allows us to show that the set $C$ is non-empty.
\[lemaC\] The set $C$ is non-empty and open. Moreover, there exists $a_0>0$ such that $(0,a_0)\subseteq C$.
We prove first that $C$ is an open set. Consider $\bar{a}\in C$. We deduce from Corollary \[corrmk\] that there exists $R>r_G$ such that $J(R;\bar{a})<-2$. By continuous dependence, there exists $\varepsilon>0$ such that $$R_1(a)>2R \;\;\text{ and }\;\; J(R;a)<-1 \quad {\rm for} \ a\in(\bar{a}-\varepsilon , \bar{a}
+\varepsilon),$$ recalling that $R_1(a)$ is defined in . Then Lemma \[lem49\] guarantees that $(\bar{a}-\varepsilon,\bar{a}+\varepsilon)\subset C$.
Proving that $C$ is non-empty is more involved but also relies on a continuous dependence argument. For $a>0$ and $r\in (0,R_1(a))$, define $$z(r;a):=\frac{1}{a}g(r;a), \quad Z(r;a):=\frac{1}{a^2}J(r;a)\ .$$ It follows from that $$\label{ODEz}
z''(r;a)+\left(1+\frac{N-1}{r}\right)z'(r;a)-\frac{N-1}{r^2}z(r;a)+a^{(2-p)/(p-1)}z(r;a)^{1/(p-1)}=0$$ for $r\in (0,R_1(a))$, with initial conditions $$z(0;a)=0, \quad z'(0;a)=\frac{1}{N}.$$ Since $p\in (1,2)$ the nonlinear term in vanishes in the limit $a\to 0$ and we introduce the solution $z_0$ to the limit problem: $$\begin{aligned}
&&z_0''(r)+\left(1+\frac{N-1}{r}\right)z_0'(r)-\frac{N-1}{r^2}z_0(r)=0, \quad r>0, \label{ODEz0}\\
&&z_0(0)=0, \quad z_0'(0)=\frac{1}{N}.\label{ICz0}\end{aligned}$$ In fact, $$z_0(r)=\frac{1}{\varrho(r)}\int_0^r\varrho(s)\,ds\ , \qquad r>0\ .$$ Indeed, by a simple calculation, $$z_0'(r)=1-\left(1+\frac{N-1}{r}\right)z_0(r), \quad
z_0''(r)=-\left(1+\frac{N-1}{r}\right)z_0'(r)+\frac{N-1}{r^2}z_0(r),$$ whence is fulfilled, while l’Hospital rule ensures that $$\lim\limits_{r\to0}\frac{z_0(r)}{r}=\lim\limits_{r\to0}\frac{\varrho(r)}{r\varrho'(r)+\varrho(r)}=\lim\limits_{r\to0}\frac{1}{r+N-1+1}=\frac{1}{N},$$ leading readily to . In addition, by and the l’Hospital rule, $$\lim\limits_{r\to\infty}z_0(r)=\lim\limits_{r\to\infty}\frac{\varrho(r)}{\varrho'(r)}=1\ . \label{Y1}$$ Since $z(\cdot;a)\to z_0$ as $a\to 0$ uniformly on compact subsets of $(0,\infty)$, we infer from that convergence, the positivity of $z_0$ in $(0,\infty)$, and that $$\lim_{a\to\infty} R_1(a) = \infty\ . \label{Y2}$$
We also introduce the (formal) limit $Z_0$ of the Pohozaev functional $Z(\cdot;a)$ as $a\to 0$, $$\label{J13}
\begin{split}
Z_0(r)&:=\frac{1}{2}\alpha(r)z_0'(r)^2+\beta(r)z_0'(r)z_0(r)+\frac{1}{2}\gamma(r)z_0(r)^2\\
&=\alpha(r)z_0(r)^2\left[\frac{\gamma(r)}{2\alpha(r)}+\frac{\beta(r)}{\alpha(r)}\frac{z_0'(r)}{z_0(r)}+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{z_0'(r)}{z_0(r)}\right)^2\right],
\end{split}$$ with $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $\gamma$ given by and and claim that $$\label{J14}
\lim\limits_{r\to\infty} Z_0(r)=-\infty.$$ Indeed, since $$\frac{z_0'(r)}{z_0(r)}=\frac{1}{z_0(r)}-\left(1+\frac{N-1}{r}\right) \ ,$$ we deduce from that $$\lim\limits_{r\to\infty}\frac{z_0'(r)}{z_0(r)}=0.$$ Thus, taking into account that $$\alpha(r)z_0^2(r)\sim\alpha(r)\to\infty \quad {\rm as} \ r\to\infty$$ and recalling the limits in , we obtain . It follows from and that there exist $R_0>r_G$ and $a_0>0$ such that $$Z_0(R_0)<-2 \;\;\text{ and }\;\; R_1(a)>2R_0 \;\;\text{ for }\;\; a
\in (0,a_0)\ .$$ Then $Z(\cdot;a)$ is well-defined on $(0,2R_0)$ for $a\in (0,a_0)$ and, since $z(\cdot;a)\to z_0$ in $C^1([r_G,2R_0])$ as $a\to 0$ by continuous dependence, we find $$\lim\limits_{a\to 0} Z(R_0;a)=Z_0(R_0)<-2\ ,$$ and we may assume (possibly taking a smaller value of $a_0$) that $$Z(R_0;a) \le -1\ , \qquad a\in (0,a_0)\ .$$ Consequently, for $a\in (0,a_0)$, $$J(R_0;a) = a^2 Z(R_0;a) \le -a^2 < 0\ ,$$ and Lemma \[lem49\] readily entails that $a\in C$. We have thus proved that $(0,a_0)\subseteq C$.
Uniqueness of the fast decaying profile {#s4.4}
---------------------------------------
In this subsection we complete the proof of Theorem \[th.uniq\] and proceed as in the proofs of [@ShWa16 Lemma 3 & Proposition 3]. To this end, we need two preparatory technical results.
\[lem410\] Let $0<a_1<a_2<\infty$ such that $a_i\in B\cup C$, $i=1,2$. We define the Wronskian $W=g'(\cdot;a_1) g(\cdot;a_2) - g(\cdot;a_1) g'(\cdot;a_2)$ of the solutions $g(\cdot;a_1)$ and $g(\cdot;a_2)$. Then $$\label{Wronsk}
W(r)=\int_0^r\frac{\varrho(s)}{\varrho(r)}\left(g(s;a_2)^{(2-p)(p-1)}-g(s;a_1)^{(2-p)/(p-1)}\right)g(s;a_1) g(s;a_2)\,ds$$ for $r>0$.
We set $g_i:=g(\cdot;a_i)$, $i=1,2$. By and direct calculations we get $$\begin{split}
W'(r)&=g_2(r)\left[-\frac{\varrho'(r)}{\varrho(r)}g_1'(r)-g_1(r)^{1/(p-1)}+\frac{N-1}{r^2}g_1(r)\right]\\
& \qquad - g_1(r)\left[-\frac{\varrho'(r)}{\varrho(r)}g_2'(r)-g_2(r)^{1/(p-1)}+\frac{N-1}{r^2}g_2(r)\right]\\
&=-\frac{\varrho'(r)}{\varrho(r)}W(r)-g_1(r)^{1/(p-1)}g_2(r)+g_2(r)^{1/(p-1)}g_1(r),
\end{split}$$ hence $$\begin{aligned}
(W\varrho)'(r) &= \varrho(r)\left[W'(r)+\frac{\varrho'(r)}{\varrho(r)}W(r)\right] \\
& =\varrho(r)g_1(r)g_2(r)\left[g_2(r)^{(2-p)/(p-1)}-g_1(r)^{(2-p)/(p-1)}\right].\end{aligned}$$ Since $(W\varrho)(0)=W(0)=0$, follows by direct integration.
\[lem411\] Let $0<a_1<a_2<\infty$ such that $a_i\in B\cup C$, $i=1,2$. If $J(r;a_1)\geq0$ for $r\in(0,\infty)$, then $$\label{compar}
\frac{d}{dr} \left(\frac{g(r;a_2)}{g(r;a_1)}\right)<0, \quad r\in(0,\infty).$$
We set $g_i:=g(\cdot;a_i)$ and $J_i := J(\cdot;a_i)$, $i=1,2$, where $J(\cdot;a)$ is defined in . Introducing $q:=g_2/g_1$, we notice that $$\lim\limits_{r\to0}q(r)=\lim\limits_{r\to0}\frac{g_2(r)}{g_1(r)}=\lim\limits_{r\to0}\frac{g_2'(r)}{g_1'(r)}=\frac{a_2}{a_1}>1\ . \label{Y5}$$ Next, recalling that $W$ is defined in Lemma \[lem410\], we obtain, for $r>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
q'(r) & = & - \frac{W(r)}{g_1(r)^2} \nonumber\\
& =& \frac{1}{g_1^2(r)}\int_0^r\frac{\varrho(s)}{\varrho(r)}\left(g_1(s)^{(2-p)(p-1)}-g_2(s)^{(2-p)/(p-1)}\right)g_1(s)g_2(s)\,ds. \label{interm22}\end{aligned}$$ Since $a_1<a_2$, it follows from that $0<g_1(r)<g_2(r)$ for $r\in(0,\varepsilon)$ for some $\varepsilon>0$ sufficiently small and thus $q'<0$ in $(0,\varepsilon)$ by . Define then $$r_*:=\inf\{r>0: q'(r)>0\} > \varepsilon >0\ ,$$ and assume for contradiction that $r_*<\infty$. Then $q'(r)<0$ for $r\in(0,r_*)$ and $q'(r_*)=0$. In particular, $q$ is decreasing in $(0,r_*)$. We further claim that $$q(r_*)<1\ . \label{Y6}$$ Indeed, if this is not true, there holds $q(r)>1$ for $r\in(0,r_*)$, whence $g_1(r)<g_2(r)$ for $r\in(0,r_*)$ and thus $q'(r_*)<0$ by , which is a contradiction with the definition of $r_*$.
We next introduce $$X(r):=q^2(r)J_1(r)-J_2(r), \qquad r>0\ .$$ Thanks to the definition of $q$, it follows from that, for $r\in(0,r_*)$, $$\label{X1}
X'(r)= 2q(r)q'(r)J_1(r)<0.$$ In addition, we recall that $J_i(0)=0$ by Proposition \[propJ\] which, together with , leads us to $$\label{X2}
\lim\limits_{r\to0}X(r)=0.$$ Expanding now $X$ in terms of $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$, and $\delta$, we find $$\begin{split}
X&=\frac{\alpha}{2}\left[ q^2 (g_1')^2-(g_2')^2 \right]+ \beta\left(q^2g_1g_1'-g_2g_2'\right) +\frac{\gamma}{2} \left(q^2g_1^2-g_2^2\right)\\
&+\frac{p-1}{p}\delta \left(q^2g_1^{p/(p-1)}-g_2^{p/(p-1)}\right)\\
&=\frac{\alpha}{2g_1^2}\left[ g_2^2 (g_1')^2-g_1^2 (g_2')^2\right]+\frac{\beta g_2}{g_1}\left(g_2g_1'-g_1g_2'\right)\\
&+\frac{p-1}{p}\delta g_2^2\left(g_1^{(2-p)/(p-1)}-g_2^{(2-p)/(p-1)}\right)\\
&=\left[\frac{\alpha}{2g_1^2}\left(g_2g_1'+g_1g_2'\right)+\frac{\beta g_2}{g_1}\right]W\\
&+\frac{p-1}{p}\delta g_2^2\left(g_1^{(2-p)/(p-1)}-g_2^{(2-p)/(p-1)}\right).
\end{split}$$ Evaluating $X$ at $r=r_*$ and taking into account that $W(r_*)=-q'(r_*)/g_1(r_*)^2=0$, we conclude that $$\begin{split}
X(r_*)&=\frac{p-1}{p}\alpha(r_*)g_2(r_*)^2\left(g_1(r_*)^{(2-p)/(p-1)}-g_2(r_*)^{(2-p)/(p-1)}\right)\\
&=\frac{p-1}{p}\alpha(r_*)g_2(r_*)^2g_1(r_*)^{(2-p)/(p-1)}\left(1-q(r_*)^{(2-p)/(p-1)}\right)>0,
\end{split}$$ since $q(r_*)<1$ by . This contradicts and and thus, $r_*=\infty$, completing the proof.
With all these previous steps, we are now in a position to end up the proof of Theorem \[th.uniq\].
We infer from Corollary \[corA\] and Lemma \[lemaC\] that $B$ is a non-empty set, as $A$ and $C$ are both open and non-empty. We next show that $B$ is in fact a singleton. Indeed, assume for contradiction that there exist $a_1$, $a_2\in B$ such that $a_1<a_2$. Setting $g_i=g(\cdot;a_i)$ and $J_i:= J(\cdot;a_i)$, $i=1,2$, as well as $q=g_2/g_1$ and $X=q^2J_1-J_2$ as before, it follows from Lemma \[lem48\] that $J_i(r)>0$ for $r\in (0,\infty)$ and $i=1,2$, and $$\lim\limits_{r\to\infty}J_1(r)=\lim\limits_{r\to\infty}J_2(r)=0. \label{Y10}$$ Thanks to the just mentioned positivity of $J_1$, we apply Lemma \[lem411\] and obtain that $q'<0$ in $(0,\infty)$. Consequently $$X'(r)=2q(r)q'(r)J_1(r)<0, \quad r\in(0,\infty). \label{Y11}$$ Since both $a_1$ and $a_2$ belong to $B$, we also know from that there exists $l(a_i)\in(0,\infty)$ such that $g_i(r)\sim l(a_i)\varrho(r)^{-1}$ as $r\to\infty$, $i=1,2$, so that $q(r)\to l(a_2)/l(a_1)$ as $r\to\infty$. Combining this fact with gives $$\lim\limits_{r\to\infty} X(r)=0.$$ Recalling we deduce that $X$ is positive and decreasing on $(0,\infty)$, which contradicts .
Therefore $B$ is a singleton and we denote the only element in $B$ by $a_*$ . We then infer from Lemma \[lem44\], Corollary \[corA\], and Lemma \[lemaC\] that $C=(0,a_*)$, $B=\{a_*\}$, and $A=(a_*,\infty)$. The corresponding asymptotic behavior for $f(r;a)$ as $r\to\infty$ when $a\in C$ follows now readily from Corollary \[cor.2\], , and the definition of $w$. Finally, for $a=a_*$, according to , $g(r;a_*)\sim l(a_*)/\varrho(r)$ as $r\to\infty$. The behavior of $f(r;a_*)$ as $r\to\infty$ claimed in , with $$c_*=(p-1)l(a_*)^{1/(p-1)},$$ is then obtained by integration and using Lemma \[lem41\] (d).
\[rmkvar\] The existence of profiles $f(\cdot;a)$ with $a\in B$ may also be established with the help of the variational structure of used in Section \[sec.s3\]. More precisely, such a profile $f$ can be found as a minimizer of the constrained problem: $$\inf\left\{\int_0^{\infty} \varrho(r)\frac{|f'(r)|^p}{p}\,dr:
\int_0^{\infty} \varrho(r)\frac{|f(r)|^2}{2}\,dr=1\right\},$$ but this approach gives no clue about the uniqueness issue.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
R. G. I. is supported by the Severo Ochoa Excellence project SEV-2015-0554 (MINECO, Spain). Part of the work has been completed while R. G. I. was enjoying a one-month “Invited Professor" stay at the Institut de Mathématiques de Toulouse, and he thanks for the hospitality and support.
[^1]: Instituto de Ciencias Matemáticas (ICMAT), Nicolás Cabrera 13-15, Campus de Cantoblanco, 28049, Madrid, Spain, *e-mail:* [email protected]
[^2]: Institute of Mathematics of the Romanian Academy, P.O. Box 1-764, RO-014700, Bucharest, Romania.
[^3]: Institut de Mathématiques de Toulouse, CNRS UMR 5219, Université de Toulouse, F–31062 Toulouse Cedex 9, France. *e-mail:* [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
[**Abstract**]{}
We review CP-violating effects in Z $\rightarrow$ 3 jet and Z $\rightarrow$ 4 jet decays, assuming the presence of CP-violating effective $Z b \bar{b} G$ and $Z b \bar{b} G G$ couplings. Longitudinal beam polarization is included in the studies. We propose a direct search for such CP-violating couplings by using various CP-odd observables. The data of a future linear collider running at the Z-resonance in the so-called GigaZ option should give significant information on the couplings. Finally we show that stringent bounds on the mass of excited $b$ quarks can be derived if appropriate couplings are of a size characteristic of a strong interaction.
---
DESY 03–101\
LC–TH–2003-097\
hep-ph/0308198\
[**CP Violation in the 3 Jet and 4 Jet Decays of the\
Z Boson at GigaZ** ]{}\
[O. Nachtmann$^1$[^1] and C. Schwanenberger$^{2}$[^2]]{}\
[*$^1$ Institut für Theoretische Physik, Universität Heidelberg, Philosophenweg 16,\
D–69120 Heidelberg, Germany\
$^2$ Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, Notkestr. 85, D–22603 Hamburg, Germany*]{}\
Introduction
============
One of the most promising projects in todays high energy physics is an electron-positron linear collider, for example TESLA [@tesla]. At such a linear collider one should be able to polarize the electrons with the same technology as at the SLC to up to $80\%$. At TESLA it should also be possible to run with positrons polarized up to $60\%$ [@tesla]. With a luminosity of ${\cal L} \simeq 5 \cdot 10^{33}
{\rm cm}^{-2}
{\rm s}^{-1}$ at energies close to the peak of the Z-resonance TESLA could produce $10^9$ Z-bosons in about 70 days of running [@tesla]. In this scenario, often referred to as GigaZ, the measurements already performed at the electron-positron collider experiments at LEP and SLC could be redone with increased precision.
An interesting topic is the test of the CP symmetry in Z decays. There is already a number of theoretical ([@othertheo1]-[@4jetg] and references therein) and experimental [@alephtautau92]-[@thilo] studies of this subject. In the present paper we will study a flavor-diagonal Z decay where CP-violating effects within the Standard Model (SM) are estimated to be very small [@zdecay]. Thus, looking for CP violation in such Z decays means looking for new physics beyond the SM.
For a model-independent systematic analysis of CP violation in Z decays we use the effective Lagrangian approach as described in [@zdecay; @xsec]. Of particular interest are Z decays involving heavy leptons or quarks. Thus, the process Z $\rightarrow b \bar{b} G$, which is sensitive to effective CP-violating couplings in the $Z b \bar{b} G$ vertex, has been analysed theoretically in [@width; @hab] and experimentally in [@aleph]. No significant deviation from the SM has been found.
If CP-violating couplings are introduced in the $Z b \bar{b}
G$ vertex, they will, because of gauge invariance of QCD, appear in the $Z
b \bar{b} G G$ vertex as well. But the $Z b \bar{b} G G$ vertex could in principle contain new coupling parameters. The analysis of the 4 jet decays of the Z boson involving $b$ quarks looks into both, 4- and 5-point vertices. This has been investigated theoretically in [@4jet] and experimentally in [@thilo]. Also in this case no significant deviation from the SM has been found.
In this paper we review the results of the calculations of the processes and including CP-violating couplings, with at least two of the jets originating from a $b$ or $\bar{b}$ quark, for the GigaZ scenario assuming longitudinal beam polarization for electrons and positrons. All details of the calculation for unpolarized $e^+$, $e^-$ beams can be found in [@width; @hab; @4jet; @dok].
Finally we make an estimate for models with excited quarks and show that one can obtain stringent bounds on their mass. This, however, requires the introduction of a new type of strong interactions for quarks.
In chapter 2 we briefly review the theoretical framework of our computations. Models with excited quarks are discussed in chapter 3. Next, in chapter 4, we define CP-odd tensor and vector observables and calculate their sensitivities to anomalous couplings. Achievable bounds on the mass of excited quarks are presented. Our conclusions can be found in chapter 5.
Effective Lagrangian Approach
=============================
For a model independent study of CP violation in 3 jet and 4 jet decays of the Z boson we use the effective Lagrangian approach as explained in [@zdecay]. We could add to the SM Lagrangian ${\cal L}_{SM}$ a CP-violating term ${\cal L}_{CP}$ containing all CP-odd local operators with a mass dimension $d \leq
6$ ( electroweak symmetry breaking) that can be constructed with SM fields. However, it turns out that quite a number of such coupling terms can contribute to the reactions analysed here. To keep the analysis manageable we restrict ourselves to coupling terms involving the Z and the $b$ quarks and in addition any number of gluons. Then the effective CP-violating Lagrangian with $d \leq 6$ relevant to our analysis is: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lcp} \nonumber
{ {\cal L}_{CP}(x) = }
& - & \frac{i}{2} \widetilde{d}_b \: \bar{b}(x)\: \sigma^{\mu\nu}\: \gamma_5\:
b(x)\; [\partial_{\mu}\: Z_{\nu}(x) - \partial_{\nu}\: Z_{\mu}(x)] \\
& + & [\; h_{Vb}\: \bar{b}(x)\: T^a\: \gamma^{\nu}\:
b(x) + h_{Ab}\: \bar{b}(x)\: T^a\: \gamma^{\nu}\: \gamma_5\: b(x)\; ]\;
Z^{\mu}(x)\:
G^a_{\mu\nu}(x)\;\;,\end{aligned}$$ where $b(x)$ denotes the $b$ quark field, $Z^{\mu}(x)$ and $G^a_{\mu\nu}(x)$ represent the field of the Z boson and the field strength tensor of the gluon, respectively, and $T^a=\lambda^a/2$ are the generators of $SU(3)_C$ [@buch]. In (\[lcp\]) $\widetilde{d}_b$ is the weak dipole moment and $h_{Vb}$, $h_{Ab}$ are CP-violating vector and axial vector chirality conserving coupling constants. As effective coupling constants in ${\cal L}_{CP}$ the parameters $\widetilde{d}_b$, $h_{Vb}$, $h_{Ab}$ are real. They are related to form factors of vertices but should not be confused with the latter (see e. g. [@remarks]).
The Lagrangian ${\cal L}_{CP}$ is required to be invariant under the electromagnetic and strong gauge group $U(1)_{e.m.} \times SU(3)_C$. We do not require explicit gauge invariance under the complete $SU(2) \times
U(1)_Y$ group of the electroweak interaction, since we consider the theory after electroweak symmetry breaking. The couplings of (\[lcp\]) can, however, always be generated from higher dimensional $SU(2) \times U(1)_Y$ invariant couplings involving suitable Higgs fields, see [@bernnach2]. The coupling constants in (\[lcp\]) are then proportional to powers of the Higgs vacuum expectation value. Also, in theories — which we do not want to exclude a priori from our discussion — where $Z$ and $W^\pm$ are composite objects the $SU(2) \times U(1)_Y$ group has not necessarily a fundamental meaning (see the review [@Harari:1982xy]). Even if compositeness is not favoured by the LEP data [@pdg; @radii; @tesla] this option for going beyond the SM should certainly be investigated again at the GigaZ factory.
Information on the spin of the final state partons is hardly available experimentally. Thus, we consider as observables only the parton’s energies and momenta. Then, effects linear in the dipole form factor $\widetilde{d}_b$ are suppressed by powers of $m_b/m_Z$. So angular correlations of the jets in and Z $\rightarrow$ 4 jets are only sensitive to the couplings $h_{Vb}$ and $h_{Ab}$.
The corresponding vertices following from ${\cal L}_{CP}$ are shown in figure \[fig:vert\]. Because the non-abelian field strength tensor has a term quadratic in the gluon fields the $Z b \bar{b} G$- and $Z b \bar{b} G
G$-vertices are related.
We define dimensionless coupling constants $\widehat{h}_{Vb,Ab}$ using the Z mass as the scale parameter by $$\label{hhat}
h_{Vb,Ab} = \frac{e\: g_s}{\sin \vartheta_W\: \cos \vartheta_W \:m_Z^2}\; \widehat{h}_{Vb,Ab}\;,$$ where $e=\sqrt{4\pi \, \alpha}$, $g_s = \sqrt{4\pi \, \alpha_s}$ and $\vartheta_W$ is the weak mixing angle. For numerical calculations we set $m_Z=91.187\:$GeV, $\sin^2 \vartheta_W =
0.2236$ and the fine structure constant and $\alpha_s$ at the Z mass to $\alpha =1/128.9$ and $\alpha_s = 0.118$ [@pdg]. Our calculations are carried out in leading order of the CP-violating couplings of ${\cal L}_{CP}$ and the SM couplings. A non-vanishing $b$ quark mass of $4.5\:$GeV is included [^3] ; masses of $u$, $d$, $s$, $c$ quarks are neglected.
Models with excited quarks {#sec:excq}
==========================
In this chapter we discuss the possible generation of chirality conserving CP-violating interactions as introduced in the previous chapter in models with excited quarks. Excitations of quarks would be natural in a scenario where quarks have substructure and participate in a new type of strong interaction. This type of models and effects from excited quarks at hadron colliders have for instance been discussed in [@excq]. In particular, we assume here that $b$ quarks have excited partners $b'$, which could have spin $\frac{1}{2}$ or $\frac{3}{2}$. For simplicity we consider a $b'$ of spin $\frac{1}{2}$ and mass $m_{b'}$. Due to higher order dimensional operators in composite models chirality-conserving $Zb'b$ couplings at the scale of GigaZ energies are a priori possible (see e.g. [@Han:1998yr]). Because of colour gauge invariance we expect the $b' b G$ couplings to be chirality-flipping dipole couplings. Then, couplings $\widehat{h}_{Vb,Ab}$ as introduced in (\[lcp\]) can be generated by the following effective interactions of $b'$ and $b$ quarks, $Z$ bosons and gluons: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lexcq} \nonumber
{\cal L}'(x) =
& - & \frac{e}{2 \: \sin \vartheta_W\: \cos \vartheta_W}\;
Z_{\mu}(x)\: \bar{b}'(x)\: \gamma^{\mu} \; (g_V' - g_A' \gamma_5)\;
b(x)\\
& - & i \;\frac{g_s}{2 m_{b'}}\; \hat{d}_c \: \bar{b}'(x)\: \sigma^{\mu\nu}\:
\gamma_5\: T^a\: b(x)\: G^a_{\mu\nu}(x) + {\rm h.c.}\end{aligned}$$ Here $g_V'$, $g_A'$ and $\hat{d}_c$ are complex parameters, which can be expected to be of order one if the underlying dynamics is strongly interacting. In addition to $\hat{d}_c$, the chromoelectric dipole transition form factor $b \rightarrow b'$, there will be in general also a chromomagnetic transition form factor $\hat{d}_m$ which is omitted here for brevity.
The couplings $\widehat{h}_{Vb,Ab}$ have been calculated [@higgs] in this model from the diagrams of the type shown in Fig. \[fig:excquark\] for $m_{b'} \gg m_Z$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hexcf} \nonumber
\widehat{h}_{Vb} & = & \frac{m_Z^2}{m_{b'}^2} \; {\rm Re}(\hat{d}_c \:
g_A'^*) \;\; , \\
\widehat{h}_{Ab} & = & - \frac{m_Z^2}{m_{b'}^2} \; {\rm Re}(\hat{d}_c \:
g_V'^*) \;\; .\end{aligned}$$
Study of CP-violating couplings {#sec:partons}
===============================
In our study we assume that one is able to flavor-tag the $b$ quarks and to measure their momenta. This is justified due to the extremely good $b$-tagging capabilities foreseen at TESLA [@tesla]. For instance, the impact parameter resolution at TESLA is expected to be about a factor 10 better than at LEP [@moenig].
The definition of a 3 and 4 jet sample requires the introduction of resolution cuts. We use JADE cuts [@jade] requiring $$y_{ij} = \frac{2\, E_iE_j\,(1-\cos \vartheta_{ij})}{m_Z^2} >
y_{cut} \;,
\label{jade}$$ with $\vartheta_{ij}$ the angle between the momentum directions of any two partons ($i \neq j$) and $E_i$, $E_j$ their energies in the Z rest system.
CP-odd tensor and vector observables
------------------------------------
We study our CP-violating couplings using CP-odd observables constructed from the momentum directions of the $b$ and $\bar{b}$ quarks, $\widehat{\bf k}_b={\bf k}_b/|{\bf k}_b|$ and $\widehat{\bf k}_{\bar{b}}={\bf k}_{\bar{b}}/|{\bf k}_{\bar{b}}|$ (see [@zdecay; @xsec; @bernnach2; @hab]): $$T_{ij} = (\widehat{\bf k}_{\bar{b}} - \widehat{\bf k}_b)_i \; (\widehat{\bf k}_{\bar{b}} \times
\widehat{\bf k}_b)_j \; + (i \leftrightarrow j) \; ,
\label{ten}$$ $$V_i = (\widehat{\bf k}_{\bar{b}} \times \widehat{\bf k}_b)_i \; ,
\label{vec}$$ with $i$, $j$ the Cartesian vector indices in the Z rest system.
The observables $T_{ij}$ transform as tensor components, $V_i$ as vector components. For polarized $e^+e^-$ beams and our rotationally invariant cuts (\[jade\]) their expectation values are then proportional to the Z tensor polarization $S_{ij}$ and vector polarization $s_i$, respectively. For all definitions concerning the $Z$ density matrix see section 2.1 of [@zdecay]. Defining the positive $z$-axis in the $e^+$ beam direction, we have $$\label{s}
{\bf s} = \left( \begin{array}{c}
0 \\ 0 \\ s_3
\end{array} \right) \;,$$ $$\label{sij}
(S_{ij}) = \frac{1}{6} \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
-1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 &-1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 2
\end{array} \right) \;,$$ where $$\label{s3}
s_3 = \frac{ s_3^{(0)} (1 - P_+ P_-) + (P_+ - P_-)}{ (1 - P_+ P_-) + s_3^{(0)} (P_+ - P_-)}$$ and $$\label{s30}
s_3^{(0)} = \frac{2 \, g_{Ve} g_{Ae}}{g_{Ve}^2 + g_{Ae}^2} = 0.209\;,$$ with $g_{Ve}=-1/2+2 \sin^2 \vartheta_W$ and $g_{Ae}=-1/2$ the weak vector and axial vector $Zee$ couplings. $P_+$ and $P_-$ are the longitudinal polarizations for positron and electron, respectively, measured in the direction of the particle’s velocity. We have $|P_\pm| \le 1$. From (\[s\]) — (\[s30\]) we see that the components $T_{33}$ and $V_3$ are the most sensitive ones.
Note that the tensor observables do [*not*]{} change their sign upon charge misidentification ($\widehat{\bf k}_{\bar{b}} \leftrightarrow \widehat{\bf k}_b$) whereas the vector observables do. Thus, it is only for the measurement of the latter that charge identification is indispensable. We have computed the expectation values of the observables (\[ten\]), (\[vec\]) for different JADE cuts (\[jade\]), as function of $$\label{hat}
\widehat{h}_b = \widehat{h}_{Ab} g_{Vb} - \widehat{h}_{Vb} g_{Ab}$$ and $$\label{tilde}
\widetilde{h}_b = \widehat{h}_{Vb} g_{Vb} - \widehat{h}_{Ab} g_{Ab} \;,$$ where $$g_{Vb} = -\frac{1}{2} + \frac{2}{3} \sin^2 \vartheta_W \;, \;\; g_{Ab}=
-\frac{1}{2} \;.$$
The expectation value of a CP-odd observable ${\cal{O}}$ has the following general form: $$<\!{\cal{O}}\!> = (c_1 \widehat{h}_b + c_2 \widetilde{h}_b) \,
\frac{\Gamma^{SM}_{3/4\;jets}}{\Gamma_{3/4\;jets}} \;.
\label{cpoddobs}$$ Here $c_{1,2}$ are constants, $\Gamma^{SM}_{3/4\;jets}$ and $\Gamma_{3/4\;jets}$ denote the corresponding and decay widths in the SM and in the theory with SM plus CP-violating couplings, respectively. Note that terms quadratic in the anomalous couplings are CP-even. Thus on the r.h.s. of (\[cpoddobs\]) they only emerge in $\Gamma_{3/4\;jets}$. In an experimental analysis one has two options. The first one is to study directly the expectation values $<\!{\cal{O}}\!>$ which have a non-linear dependence on , . This dependence becomes linear for small anomalous couplings. In the following we will neglect non-linear terms, that is assume $\Gamma_{3/4\;jets} \approx \Gamma^{SM}_{3/4\;jets}$. The other option is to take $\Gamma^{SM}_{3/4\;jets}$ from the theoretical calculation, $\Gamma_{3/4\;jets}$ and $<\!{\cal{O}}\!>$ from the experimental measurement. The quantity $<\!{\cal{O}}\!> \! \cdot \,\Gamma_{3/4\;jets}$ is then an observable strictly linear in the anomalous couplings, which has obvious advantages.
For unpolarised $e^+ e^-$ beams a non-zero value $<\!{\cal{O}}\!> \, \neq 0$ for one of our CP-odd observables above is an unambiguous indicator of CP violation. For longitudinally polarised beams this holds if possible chirality flipping interactions at the $e^+e^- Z$ vertex — which do not exist in the SM — are neglected. See [@dnn] for an extensive discussion of this point.
From the measurement of a single observable (\[cpoddobs\]) we can get a simple estimate of its sensitivity to by assuming ${\mbox{$\widetilde{h}_{b}$}}=0$. The error on a measurement of is then to leading order in the anomalous couplings: $$\delta\widehat{h}_b =
\frac{\sqrt{<\!{\cal{O}}^2\!>_{SM}}}{|c_1| \sqrt{N}} \;,
\label{dhb}$$ where $N$ is the number of events within cuts. Similarly, assuming ${\mbox{$\widehat{h}_{b}$}}=0$ we get the error on as $$\delta\widetilde{h}_b =
\frac{\sqrt{<\!{\cal{O}}^2\!>_{SM}}}{|c_2| \sqrt{N}} \;.
\label{dhbn}$$ A measure for the sensitivity of to () is then $1/{\mbox{$\delta\widehat{h}_{b}$}}$ ($1/{\mbox{$\delta\widetilde{h}_{b}$}}$).
In very good approximation, it was found for and that the tensor observables are only sensitive to $\widehat{h}_b$ and the vector observables only to $\widetilde{h}_b$. A detailed discussion about that can be found in [@width; @hab; @4jet; @dok].
A measurement of , has to produce a mean value larger than $\delta\widehat{h}_b$ (\[dhb\]), $\delta\widetilde{h}_b$ (\[dhbn\]) to be able to claim a non-zero effect at the 1 s. d. level.
Numerical results {#sec:partres}
-----------------
We have calculated the sensitivities to $\widehat{h}_b$ and $\widetilde{h}_b$ for the tensor (\[ten\]) and vector (\[vec\]) observables varying the jet resolution parameter . Comparing with optimal observables it was found for unpolarized beams [@hab; @4jet] that these simple observables (\[ten\],\[vec\]) reach nearly optimal sensitivities. Therefore optimal observables are not considered in the following.
We assume a total number of $N_{tot} = 10^9$ Z decays for unpolarized beams, following the GigaZ scenario. The number $N$ of events within cuts which is available for the analysis is then given by $$\label{nevents}
N_{3/4\;jets} = N_{tot} \frac{\Gamma^{SM}_{3/4\;jets}}{\Gamma_Z} \;,$$ with ${\Gamma_Z}$ being the total Z decay width. Solely due to higher statistics in GigaZ of about a factor of one hundred compared to the sum of the four LEP experiments, the sensitivity to the CP violating couplings increases by a factor 10, as can be seen from (\[dhb\], \[dhbn\]).
The inverse sensitivities to these CP-odd couplings as calculated from (\[dhb\]) and (\[dhbn\]), respectively, are shown in Fig. \[fig:del\_asym\_3jets\] for and in Fig. \[fig:del\_asym\_4jets\] for for different longitudinal beam polarizations. The sensitivity decreases with increasing $y_{cut}$ for all observables due to the decrease in number of events available.
Because the expectation value of the tensor observable does not depend on longitudinal polarization (\[sij\]), the differences in for different polarization choices reflect only the change in statistics. For $P_+ = 0.6 $ and $P_- = -0.8$ the enhancement of the Z production rate is largest. The differences in reflect both the change in statistics and the modification of the expectation value due to polarization (\[s3\]). For $P_+ = 0.6 $ and $P_- = -0.8$ the sensitivity increases by more than a factor of six compared to unpolarized beams. A convenient choice of the polarizations can even lead to a better sensitivity of the vector observable to than of the tensor observable to .
In contrast, an unsuitable choice of the polarizations could kill any sensitivity of the vector observable. This is illustrated in Figs. \[fig:del\_sym\_3jets\] and \[fig:del\_sym\_4jets\] for and , respectively: The inverse sensitivities are shown as a function of the positron polarization assuming $P_- = -P_+$. For $P_+ \simeq - 0.1$ the expectation value for the vector observable and therefore the sensitivity to vanishes. For the tensor observable this cannot happen because the sensitivity to depends on the polarization only due to the change in the total number of Z decays.
It should be stressed that in this article we present a tree-level calculation. Thus next-to-leading order QCD corrections are not taken into account. For the SM part they can be found in [@NLO3jets] for including non-vanishing $b$ quark masses and in [@NLO4jets] for for massless quarks. QCD corrections to the anomalous couplings (\[lcp\]) could be calculated using
(0,0) (-230,65)
(0,0) (-230,65) (-140,-60) (-140,-333)
(0,0) (-230,65)
(0,0) (-230,65)
(0,0) (-230,65)
(0,0) (-230,65)
the methods of effective field theories (see for instance [@weinberg]). However, because here we always consider ratios of expectation values, see (\[cpoddobs\]–\[dhbn\]), these corrections can be expected to cancel to some extent and to lead only to moderate changes to the numbers given. This should hold at least for not too low values of ${\mbox{$y_{cut}$}}$. From [@NLO3jets; @NLO4jets] one finds higher order QCD corrections to become important for ${\mbox{$y_{cut}$}}\, \ltap \, 0.01$. Thus, to be on the safe side one should restrict the analysis to ${\mbox{$y_{cut}$}}\, \gtap
\, 0.01$.
Interpretation in the framework of excited quarks
-------------------------------------------------
If a measurement of , produces a mean value lower than $\delta\widehat{h}_b$ (\[dhb\]), $\delta\widetilde{h}_b$ (\[dhbn\]) a non-zero effect at the 1 s. d. level cannot be claimed and therefore an upper limit on these couplings can be derived. Using (\[hexcf\]) this can be translated into lower bounds on the excited quark mass $m_{b'}$. Assuming ${\rm Re}(\hat{d}_c \: g_A'^*) = {\rm Re}(\hat{d}_c \:
g_V'^*) = 1 $ these bounds are shown in Fig. \[fig:mb\_asym\_3jets\] for and in Fig. \[fig:mb\_asym\_4jets\] for for different longitudinal beam polarizations.
In [@excq_cdf] at the $95\%$ confidence level excited quarks with mass between 80 and 570 GeV and between 580 and 760 GeV were excluded. In [@excq_d0] the lower limit $m_{q'} > 775$ GeV on the masses of excited quarks was given.[^4] However, these results apply to excited $u$ and $d$ quarks only and do not exclude a lighter $b'$ quark.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper, we have reviewed calculations concerning the search for CP violation in the 3 jet and 4 jet decays of the Z boson with at least two of the jets originating from $b$ and $\bar{b}$ quarks. We have studied a CP-violating contact interaction with a vector and axial vector coupling , (\[lcp\]), (\[hhat\]). We have discussed how such couplings can be generated in models with an excited $b$ quark, $b'$. Such couplings can also arise at one loop level in multi-Higgs extensions of the Standard Model [@higgs; @bernnachhiggs]. Longitudinal beam polarization is included.
We studied a tensor and vector observable which can be used for the measurement of the anomalous couplings. While the sensitivity of the tensor observable to CP-violating effects is only affected by the variation of statistics due to beam polarization given a certain integrated luminosity, the expectation value of the vector observable itself changes by the factor $s_3$ (\[s3\]).
If flavor tagging of $b$ and jets is available then, with a total number of $10^9$ Z decays and choosing a cut parameter[^5] $y_{cut} = 0.02$, the anomalous coupling constant (\[hat\]) can be determined with an accuracy of order 0.004 () and 0.008 () at 1 s. d. level using the tensor observable $T_{33}$ (\[ten\]) for the measurement. Here, $b - {\mbox{$\bar{b}$}}$ distinction is not necessary. These accuracies are close to the ones which already can be obtained with unpolarized beams. If in a measurement a non-zero effect at the 1 s. d. level is not observed excited quark masses $m_{b'}$ lower than 1.4 TeV () and 0.94 TeV () can be excluded if appropriate couplings are of a size characteristic of a strong interaction.
If $b - {\mbox{$\bar{b}$}}$ distinction is experimentally realizable, which should be the case at a future linear collider, the coupling constant (\[tilde\]) can be measured with an accuracy of order 0.0015 () and 0.003 () using the vector observable $V_{3}$ (\[vec\]) and choosing $P_+ = 0.6 $ and $P_- = -0.8$ as longitudinal polarizations of positron and electron, respectively. In case of a non-observation of an effect at the 1 s. d. level excited quark masses $m_{b'}$ lower than 2.2 TeV () and 1.5 TeV () can be excluded if the relevant couplings are of a size characteristic of a strong interaction.
Comparing 3 and 4 jet analyses we found that the sensitivity to the anomalous coupling was roughly constant as function of the cut parameter for ${\mbox{$y_{cut}$}}<0.1$ in the 3 jet case. For the 4 jet case the sensitivity was found to increase as decreases. For ${\mbox{$y_{cut}$}}\approx 0.01$ the 4 jet sensitivity was found to become equal to that from 3 jets. Of course in an experimental analysis one should try to make both 3 and 4 jet analyses in order to extract the maximal possible information from the data.
In our theoretical investigations we assumed always $100\%$ efficiencies and considered the statistical errors only. Assuming systematic errors to be of the same size as the statistical ones, the accuracies in the determinations of , discussed above should indeed be better by more than one order of magnitude than those derived from LEP. As shown in [@higgs; @bernnachhiggs] this will, for instance, give valuable information on the scalar sector in multi-Higgs extensions of the Standard Model. That interesting information on models with excited quarks can be derived as well has been discussed in detail here.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
We would like to thank A. Brandenburg, F. Nagel, T. Ohl, S. Schmitt and M. Spira for valuable discussions. We also thank A. Brandenburg, A. Denner, G. Pasztor and M. Spira for carefully reading the manuscript.
[99]{}
F. Richard, J. R. Schneider, D. Trines and A. Wagner, “TESLA Technical Design Report Part I: Executive Summary”, \[hep-ph/0106314\];\
J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra [*et al.*]{} (ECFA/DESY LC Physics Working Group Collaboration), “TESLA Technical Design Report Part III: Physics at an $e^+e^-$ Linear Collider”, .
L. Stodolsky, Phys. Lett. [**B 150**]{} (1985) 221;\
F. Hoogeveen, L. Stodolsky, Phys. Lett. [**B 212**]{} (1988) 505.
J. F. Donoghue, B. R. Holstein, G. Valencia, Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**A 2**]{} (1987) 319;\
J. F. Donoghue, G. Valencia, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**58**]{} (1987) 451.
W. Bernreuther, U. Löw, J. P. Ma, O. Nachtmann, Z. Phys. [**C 43**]{} (1989) 117.
J. Bernabéu, N. Rius, Phys. Lett. [**232**]{} (1989) 127;\
J. Bernabéu, N. Rius, A. Pich, Phys. Lett. [**257**]{} (1991) 219.
M. B. Gavela, F. Iddir, A. Le Yaouanc, L. Olivier, O. Pène, J. C. Raynal, Phys. Rev. [**D 39**]{} (1989) 1870;\
A. De Rujula, M. B. Gavela, O. Pène, F. J. Vegas, Nucl. Phys. [**B 357**]{} (1991) 311.
S. Goozovat, C. A. Nelson, Phys. Lett. [**B 267**]{} (1991) 128;\
Phys. Rev. [**D 44**]{} (1991) 311.
W. Bernreuther, O. Nachtmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**63**]{} (1989) 2787.
J. Körner, J. P. Ma, R. Münch, O. Nachtmann, R. Schöpf, Z. Phys. [**C 49**]{} (1991) 447.
W. Bernreuther, G.W. Botz, O. Nachtmann, P. Overmann, Z. Phys. [**C 52**]{} (1991) 567.
W. Bernreuther, O. Nachtmann, Phys. Lett. [**B 268**]{} (1991) 424.
G. Valencia, A. Soni, Phys. Lett. [**B 263**]{} (1991) 517.
W. Bernreuther, O. Nachtmann, P. Overmann, Phys. Rev. [**D 48**]{} (1993) 78.
K. J. Abraham, B. Lampe, Phys. Lett. [**B 326**]{} (1994) 175.
W. Bernreuther, G. W. Botz, D. Bruß, P. Haberl, O. Nachtmann, Z. Phys. [**C 68**]{} (1995) 73.
W. Bernreuther, A. Brandenburg, P. Haberl, O. Nachtmann, Phys. Lett. [**B 387**]{} (1996) 155.
P. Haberl, “CP Violating Couplings in Z $\rightarrow$ 3 Jet Decays Revisited”, \[hep-ph/9611430\].
W. Bernreuther, O. Nachtmann, Z. Phys. [**C 73**]{} (1997) 647.
D. Bruß, O. Nachtmann, P. Overmann, Eur. Phys. J. [**C 1**]{} (1998) 191.
O. Nachtmann and C. Schwanenberger, Eur. Phys. J. [**C 9**]{} (1999) 565. O. Nachtmann and C. Schwanenberger, Eur. Phys. J. [**C 13**]{} (2000) 315. D. Buskulic et al., (ALEPH Collaboration), Phys. Lett. [**B 297**]{} (1992) 459.
D. Buskulic et al., (ALEPH Collaboration), Phys. Lett. [**B 346**]{} (1995) 371.
D. Buskulic et al., (ALEPH Collaboration), Phys. Lett. [**B 384**]{} (1996) 365.
M. Acciarri et al., (L3 Collaboration), Phys. Lett [ **B 436**]{} (1998) 428.
P.D. Acton et al., (OPAL Collaboration), Phys. Lett. [**B 281**]{} (1992) 405.
R. Akers et al., (OPAL Collaboration), Z. Phys. [ **C 66**]{} (1995) 31.
K. Ackerstaff et al., (OPAL Collaboration), Z. Phys. [**C 74**]{} (1997) 403.
M. Steiert, “Suche nach CP-verletzenden Effekten in hadronischen 3-Jet Ereignissen mit bottom Flavour $Z^0 \rightarrow b
\bar{b} G$”, Diploma thesis, University of Heidelberg (unpublished);\
Rainer Liebisch, “Suche nach CP-verletzenden Effekten au[ß]{}erhalb des Standardmodells im Zerfall $Z^0 \rightarrow b \bar{b} g$”, Diploma thesis, University of Heidelberg (unpublished).
T. Pauly, “Suche nach CP-Verletzung in den 4-Jet-Zerfällen des ${\rm Z}^0$”, Diploma thesis, University of Heidelberg (unpublished).
C. Schwanenberger, “CP-Verletzung in den 4-Jet-Zerfällen des Z-Bosons”, Doctoral thesis, HD–THEP 99–18, University of Heidelberg (1999).
O. Nachtmann, “Elementary Particle Physics”, Springer, Berlin 1990.
H. Harari, Phys. Rept. [**104**]{} (1984) 159. K. Hagiwara [*et al.*]{} (Particle Data Group Collaboration), Phys. Rev. [**D 66**]{} (2002) 010001. G. Kopp, D. Schaile, M. Spira and P. M. Zerwas, Z. Phys. C [**65**]{} (1995) 545.
A. Brandenburg, P. N. Burrows, D. Muller, N. Oishi and P. Uwer, Phys. Lett. [**B 468**]{} (1999) 168;\
G. Rodrigo, M. S. Bilenky and A. Santamaria, Nucl. Phys. [**B 554**]{} (1999) 257;\
M. Jamin and A. Pich, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**74**]{} (1999) 300;\
P. Abreu [*et al.*]{}, (DELPHI Collaboration), Phys. Lett. [**B 418**]{} (1998) 430;\
R. Barate [*et al.*]{} (ALEPH Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. [**C 18**]{} (2000) 1;\
G. Abbiendi [*et al.*]{} (OPAL Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. [**C 21**]{} (2001) 411. U. Baur, I. Hinchcliffe and D. Zeppenfeld, Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**A 2**]{} (1987) 1285;\
U. Baur, M. Spira and P. Zerwas, Phys. Rev. [**D 42**]{} (1990) 815.
T. Han and J. L. Hewett, Phys. Rev. [**D 60**]{} (1999) 074015. K. Mönig, “Electroweak physics at a linear collider Z-factory”, LC-PHSM-1999-002-TESLA. S. Bethke [*et al.*]{} (JADE Collaboration), Phys. Lett. [**B 213**]{} (1988) 235.
M. Diehl, O. Nachtmann and F. Nagel, Eur. Phys. J. [**C 27**]{} (2003) 375; M. Diehl, O. Nachtmann and F. Nagel, “Probing triple gauge couplings with transverse beam polarisation in $e^+ e^- \to W^+ W^-$”, hep-ph/0306247.
W. Bernreuther, A. Brandenburg and P. Uwer, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{} (1997) 189;\
A. Brandenburg and P. Uwer, Nucl. Phys. [**B 515**]{} (1998) 279. S. Weinzierl, J. Phys. [**G 26**]{} (2000) 654;\
L. J. Dixon and A. Signer, Phys. Rev. [**D 56**]{} (1997) 4031;\
Z. Nagy and Z. Trocsanyi, Phys. Rev. [**D 59**]{} (1999) 014020 \[Erratum-ibid. [**D 62**]{} (2000) 099902\];\
J. M. Campbell, M. A. Cullen and E. W. Glover, Eur. Phys. J. [**C 9**]{} (1999) 245;\
S. Weinzierl and D. A. Kosower, Phys. Rev. [**D 60**]{} (1999) 054028. S. Weinberg, “The Quantum Theory of Fields”, Volume II, Cambridge University Press 1996.
F. Abe [*et al.*]{} \[CDF Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. [**D 55**]{} (1997) 5263. V. M. Abazov, “Search for new particles in the two-jet decay channel with the D0 detector”, hep-ex/0308033.
W. Bernreuther, O. Nachtmann, Eur. Phys. J. [**C 9**]{} (1999) 319.
[^1]: Email: [email protected]
[^2]: Email: [email protected]
[^3]: We use here the pole mass value for the $b$ quark. In our leading order calculation we could as well use the running $b$ mass at $m_Z$: $m_b(m_Z) \simeq 3$ GeV [@mbatmz]. This would result only in minimal changes in our correlations.
[^4]: These numbers should be compared to our excited quark mass limits at the 2 s. d. level. In that case a measurement of , has to produce a mean value larger than $2\, \delta\widehat{h}_b$ (\[dhb\]), $2\, \delta\widetilde{h}_b$ (\[dhbn\]) to be able to claim a non-zero effect. From (\[hexcf\]) one derives that the mass limits at the 1 s. d. level given in Fig. \[fig:mb\_asym\_3jets\] and \[fig:mb\_asym\_4jets\] have to be divided by a factor $\sqrt{2}$ to get the limits at the 2 s. d. level.
[^5]: This value of is, in fact, a relatively large number for a selection of events . So the numbers given in the following are conservative for this channel.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We construct a natural family of rational functions $\tilde\Psi_m$ on a Hilbert modular surface from the classical $j$-invariant and its Hecke translates. These functions are obtained by means of a multiplicative analogue of the Doi-Naganuma lifting and can be viewed as twisted Borcherds products. We then study when the value of $\tilde\Psi_m$ at a CM point associated to a non-biquadratic quartic CM field generates the ‘CM class field’ of the reflex field. For the real quadratic field ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{5})$, we factorize the norm of some of these CM values to ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt 5)$ numerically.'
address:
- 'Mathematisches Institut, Universität zu Köln, Weyertal 86–90, D-50931 Köln, Germany'
- 'Department of Mathematics, University of Wisconsin Madison, Van Vleck Hall, Madison, WI 53706, USA'
author:
- Jan Hendrik Bruinier and Tonghai Yang
title: Twisted Borcherds products on Hilbert modular surfaces and their CM values
---
[^1]
Introduction {#sect:1}
============
In his papers [@Bo1] and [@Bo2] Borcherds constructed a lifting from certain weakly holomorphic elliptic modular forms of weight $1-n/2$ to meromorphic modular forms on the orthogonal group of a rational quadratic space of signature $(2,n)$. Here we consider a related construction in the particular case that $n=2$.
Let $p$ be a prime congruent to $1$ modulo $4$ and let $F={\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{p})$. We write ${\mathcal{O}}_F$ for the ring of integers and $\partial_F$ for the different of $F$. Considering the lattice $L^0={\mathbb{Z}}^2\oplus {\mathcal{O}}_F$ in the rational quadratic space $L^0\otimes_{\mathbb{Q}}{\mathbb{Q}}$ of signature $(2,2)$, one obtains from Borcherds’ result a lifting from weakly holomorphic elliptic modular forms of weight zero for the group $\Gamma_0(p)$ with Nebentypus character $\epsilon_p=(\frac{\cdot}{p})$ to meromorphic Hilbert modular forms for the Hilbert modular group $\Gamma={\operatorname{SL}}_2({\mathcal{O}}_F)$ [@Br1; @BB]. This lifting can be viewed as a multiplicative analogue of the Naganuma lift from holomorphic modular forms of weight $k$ for $\Gamma_0(p)$ with Nebentypus $\epsilon_p$ to holomorphic Hilbert modular forms of weight $k$ for $\Gamma$ [@Na; @Za].
There is another lifting from holomorphic elliptic modular forms to Hilbert modular forms, namely the celebrated Doi-Naganuma lift which maps holomorphic modular forms of weight $k$ for ${\operatorname{SL}}_2({\mathbb{Z}})$ to holomorphic Hilbert modular forms of weight $k$ for $\Gamma$ [@DN]. It was pointed out by Zagier that this lifting should have a multiplicative analogue as well [@Za3]. Moreover, Zagier stated several properties of such a multiplicative lifting and suggested that a proof could probably be given following the argument of [@Br1]. One purpose of the present paper is to work out a proof along these lines.
Let ${\mathbb{H}}$ be the upper complex half plane, and put $q=e(\tau)=e^{2\pi
i\tau}$ for $\tau\in {\mathbb{H}}$. Recall that a weakly holomorphic modular form for ${\operatorname{SL}}_2({\mathbb{Z}})$ is a meromorphic modular form for ${\operatorname{SL}}_2({\mathbb{Z}})$ which is holomorphic outside the cusp $\infty$. In particular, every weakly holomorphic modular form of weight zero for ${\operatorname{SL}}_2({\mathbb{Z}})$ is a polynomial in the $j$-function (which we normalize such that $j(\tau)=q^{-1}+744+O(q)$). In Section \[sect:5\] we shall prove the following theorem. See Theorem \[hilbert\] for a more detailed statement.
\[hilbertintro\] Let $f=\sum_{n\gg -\infty}c(n)q^n\in {\mathbb{Z}}[j]$ be a weakly holomorphic modular form of weight $0$ for ${\operatorname{SL}}_2({\mathbb{Z}})$ with integral Fourier coefficients. Then there exists a symmetric meromorphic Hilbert modular function $\Psi(z,f)$ for $\Gamma$ (of weight $0$, with trivial multiplier system, defined over $F$) such that:
1. The divisor of $\Psi(z,f)$ is determined by the polar part of $f$ at the cusp $\infty$. It equals $\sum_{n>0} c(-n) \tilde T_{n}$, where $\tilde T_{n}$ denotes the twisted Hirzebruch-Zagier divisor of discriminant $n$ defined in Section \[sect:3\].
2. The function $\Psi(z,f)$ has the Borcherds product expansion $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi(z,f)&= \prod_{\substack{\nu\in\partial_F^{-1} \\
\nu>0}}\prod_{b\,(p)} \left(1-e(\tfrac{b}{p}+\nu
z_1+\nu'z_2)\right)^{\epsilon_p(b)c(p\nu\nu')},
$$ which converges normally for all $z=(z_1,z_2)\in {\mathbb{H}}^2$ with $\Im(z_1)\Im(z_2)> Np$ outside the set of poles, where $N=\max
\{n\in {\mathbb{Z}};\; c(-n)\neq 0\}$. In particular, $\Psi(z, C) =1$ for any constant $C$.
3. The lifting is multiplicative, i.e., if $f,g\in {\mathbb{Z}}[j]$, then $\Psi(f+g)=\Psi(f)\Psi(g)$.
We now briefly describe the idea of the proof. For a positive integer $m$, we define in Section \[sect:3\] a certain “twisted Hirzebruch-Zagier divisor” $\tilde
T_m$ on the Hilbert modular surface corresponding to $\Gamma$ (see also [@Za2] pp. 166). In Section \[sect:4\], following [@Br1], we construct an automorphic Green function $\tilde
\Phi_{mp^2}(z,s)$ for $\tilde T_m$. We study its main properties and compute its Fourier expansion (Theorems \[fourier1\] and \[fourier2\]). By means of an identity relating certain finite exponential sums to Kloosterman sums (Lemma \[GaHb\]), we find that the Fourier coefficients of $\tilde \Phi_{mp^2}(z,s)$ are closely related to the coefficients of non-holomorphic Poincaré series of weight zero for ${\operatorname{SL}}_2({\mathbb{Z}})$ (see Section \[sect:2\]). Using the fact that any weakly holomorphic modular form of weight zero can be uniquely written as a linear combination of the non-holomorphic Poincaré series, Theorem \[hilbertintro\] can be deduced. Here the main point is an identity expressing $\log|\Psi(z,f)|$ as a linear combination of the automorphic Green functions $\tilde\Phi_{mp^2}(z,1)$, see Theorem \[hilbert\] (iv).
An alternative proof could be given by interpreting the lifting as a regularized theta lifting for the dual pair ${\operatorname{SL}}_2({\mathbb{R}})$, ${\operatorname{O}}(2,2)$ as in [@Bo2; @Br2], and by considering suitable “twists” of Siegel theta functions as kernel functions. It would actually be very interesting to describe such twisted Borcherds liftings in greater generality for ${\operatorname{O}}(2,n)$. However, it seems not quite clear what the right “twists” of Siegel theta functions should be in general. We have not pursued this approach in the present paper, because the proof using automorphic Green functions leads to the result in a direct way. Moreover, the construction of the Green functions should be of independent interest.
If $m$ is a positive integer, we write $\tilde\Psi_m$ for the symmetric Hilbert modular function of weight $0$ which is the twisted Borcherds lift via Theorem \[hilbertintro\] of the unique weakly holomorphic modular form $$J_m=q^{-m}+O(q)\in {\mathbb{Z}}[j].$$ In this way we obtain a ‘canonical’ family of rational functions on the Hilbert modular surface associated to $\Gamma$. It seems natural to ask for their arithmetic properties. For instance, one can ask whether $\tilde \Psi_1$, the lifting of the $j$-function, has a nice moduli interpretation as an invariant of abelian surfaces with ${\mathcal{O}}_F$-multiplication and $\partial_F^{-1}$-polarization.
It is a well-known and beautiful fact that $j(\frac{D+\sqrt{-D}}2)$ generates the Hilbert class field of the imaginary quadratic field ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{-D})$. In Section \[sect:class\], we study when the value of $\tilde\Psi_m$ at a CM point $z$ associated to a quartic CM number field $K$ with totally real subfield $F$ generates the ‘CM class field’ $H_{\tilde K}$ of the reflex field $\tilde K$ (see Section 6 for precise definitions).
In particular, we show that it generates this CM class field when the CM value $\tilde\Psi_m({\mathcal{CM}}(K))$, the evaluation of $\tilde\Psi_m$ at the CM cycle ${\mathcal{CM}}(K)$ corresponding to $K$, is not an odd power in $F$ (Corollary \[clcor1.3\]). We also prove the following theorem (see Theorem \[cltheo6.6\] for details).
Let $F=\mathbb Q(\sqrt p)$ be a fixed real quadratic field with $p \equiv 1 \mod 4$ prime. Then there is a constant $d >0$ such that for any CM quartic field $K$ of discriminant $d_K=p^2 q$ with $q \equiv 1 \mod 4$ prime, and a CM point $z$ in the Hilbert modular surface $X=\hbox{SL}_2({\mathcal O}_F)
\backslash \mathbb H^2$ of CM type $(K, \Phi)$ by ${\mathcal O}_K$, one has:
1. $M(\tilde\Psi_1(z), \tilde\Psi_2(z))$ is an unramified abelian extension of $M$, where $M$ is the smallest Galois extension of $\mathbb Q$ containing $K$.
2. Let $H_{\tilde K}$ be the ‘CM class field’ of the reflex field $\tilde K$, and let $L_K=M H_{\tilde K}$. Then $M(\tilde\Psi_1(z), \tilde\Psi_2(z))$ is a subfield of $L_K$ with bounded index $[L_K:M(\tilde\Psi_1(z),
\tilde\Psi_2(z))] \le d$.
3. One has $\lim_{q \rightarrow \infty} \frac{\log
[M(\tilde\Psi_1(z), \tilde\Psi_2(z)): M]}{\log \sqrt q}=1$.
In [@BY] the authors derived a formula for the values of (untwisted) Borcherds products (in the sense of [@BB]) at CM cycles ${\mathcal{CM}}(K)$. It would be very interesting to obtain an analogous formula for the CM values of the twisted Borcherds products of Theorem \[hilbertintro\]. In fact one can ask if it is possible to modify the proof of [@BY] to give such a result. One key ingredient of the proof – the relation between Borcherds products and automorphic Green functions – is already worked out in the present paper. However, in the second main step of the argument it is not clear at all how the function $\psi$ on the lattice $L^0$ defined in translates to some natural function on the reflex field $\tilde K$. In Section \[sect:examples\] we study some examples in the special case that $F={\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{5})$. We write $\tilde \Psi_1$ and $\tilde \Psi_2$ in terms of the generators of the ring of symmetric Hilbert modular forms of even weight given by Gundlach [@Gu]. This can be used to compute the Fourier expansions explicitly, which in turn can be employed to compute some CM values (mainly) numerically. For instance, for the CM point $z_0=(\zeta_5,\zeta_5^2)$ (where $\zeta_5=e^{2\pi i/5}$) corresponding to the cyclic CM extension $K={\mathbb{Q}}(\zeta_5)$ of $F={\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{5})$ we find that $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde \Psi_1(z_0) &=\frac{156973921227+70200871784\sqrt{5}}{156973921227-70200871784\sqrt{5}}=
\frac{\omega^{27}\cdot (4+\omega')^5\cdot(5+\omega')^5}{\omega'{}^{27}\cdot(4+\omega)^5\cdot(5+\omega)^5},\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega=\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}$. By means of the results of [@BY] we derive a heuristic how the CM values of twisted Borcherds products should look like. In particular, we obtain a conjecture on the prime ideals ${\mathfrak l}\subset{\mathcal{O}}_F$ at which the CM value of a twisted Borcherds product can have non-zero order (see Conjecture \[conj\]). The same phenomenon as in [@GZ] and [@BY] should happen: Such prime ideals should be of small norm.
Finally, in Section \[sect:7\], we list some open problems for further research. For instance, in all the examples we computed it turned out that $\tilde \Psi_1({\mathcal{CM}}(K, \Phi, {\mathcal O}_F))$ belongs to the field $F$. Moreover, if $K/{\mathbb{Q}}$ is non-Galois then $\tilde
\Psi_1({\mathcal{CM}}(K, \Phi, {\mathcal O}_F))$ is square-free. According to Corollary \[clcor1.3\], this implies that for $z\in {\mathcal{CM}}(K, \Phi,
{\mathcal O}_F)$ the CM value $\tilde \Psi_1(z)$ generates the class field $L_K$ over $M$. It is an interesting question whether this is a general phenomenon.
We mention that J. Rouse has used Theorem 1.1 to determine the Fourier coefficients of modular functions $f \in \mathbb{Z}[j]$ in terms of traces of singular moduli [@Rouse].
We thank Heike Hippauf and Sebastian Mayer for their valuable help with the computations in Section \[sect:examples\]. Moreover, we thank Lev Borisov, Bas Edixhoven, and Don Zagier for interesting and useful discussions, and thank Shou-Wu Zhang for bringing to our attention his equidistribution theorem, which is needed in the proof of Theorem \[cltheo6.6\].
Non-holomorphic Poincaré series {#sect:2}
===============================
Here we consider non-holomorphic Poincare series of weight $0$. The results of this section are known. We state them for completeness and to fix the notation. For details we refer to [@He], [@Ni], [@Br2].
Let $I_\nu(z)$ and $K_\nu(z)$ be the usual modified Bessel functions as in [@AS] §10. For convenience we put for $s\in{\mathbb{C}}$ and $y\in{\mathbb{R}}\setminus \{0\}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{calI}
{\mathcal{I}}_s(y)&= \sqrt{\frac{\pi |y|}{2}}I_{s-1/2}(|y|),\\
{\mathcal{K}}_s(y)&= \label{calK}
\sqrt{\frac{2|y|}{\pi}}K_{s-1/2}(|y|).\end{aligned}$$ The functions ${\mathcal{I}}_s(y)$ and ${\mathcal{K}}_s(y)$ are holomorphic in $s$. At $s=1$ they have the special values $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Mspecial}
{\mathcal{I}}_{1}(y)&=\sinh(|y|), \\
\label{Wspecial}
{\mathcal{K}}_{1}(y)&=e^{-|y|},\\
\label{MWspecial} 2{\mathcal{I}}_{1}(y)+{\mathcal{K}}_{1}(y)&=e^{|y|}.\end{aligned}$$
The full elliptic modular group $\Gamma'={\operatorname{SL}}_2({\mathbb{Z}})$ acts on the upper complex half plane ${\mathbb{H}}=\{\tau\in {\mathbb{C}};\;\Im(\tau)>0\}$ by linear fractional transformations. We write $\Gamma_\infty'=\{{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 1 & n \\ 0 & 1\end{smallmatrix}\right) };\;n\in {\mathbb{Z}}\}$. As usual we abbreviate $e(x)=e^{2\pi i x}$. For a positive integer $m$ we define the Poincaré series of weight $0$ and index $m$ by $$\label{DefF}
F_{m}(\tau,s)=\sum_{\gamma\in \Gamma'_\infty{\backslash}\Gamma'} {\mathcal{I}}_s\big(2\pi m \Im(\gamma \tau)\big) e\big(-m \Re(\gamma \tau)\big),$$ where $\tau=x+iy\in{\mathbb{H}}$ and $s\in{\mathbb{C}}$ with $\Re(s)>1$. It converges normally for $\Re(s)>1$ and defines a $\Gamma'$-invariant function on ${\mathbb{H}}$. It is an eigenfunction of the hyperbolic Laplacian with eigenvalue $s(s-1)$.
\[fourierF\] The Poincaré series $F_{m}(\tau,s)$ has the Fourier expansion $$\begin{aligned}
F_{m}(\tau,s)&=\left(2{\mathcal{I}}_{s}(2\pi m y)+{\mathcal{K}}_s(2\pi m y)\right) e(-mx)\\
&\phantom{=}{}+ b_m(0,s) y^{1-s} + \sum_{\substack{ n\in {\mathbb{Z}}\setminus \{0\}}} b_m(n,s) {\mathcal{K}}_s(2\pi ny) e(nx),\end{aligned}$$ where $$b_m(n,s)=\begin{cases}
\displaystyle 2\pi \left| \frac{m}{n}\right|^{1/2} \sum_{c=1}^\infty H_c(m,n) I_{2s-1}\!\left(\frac{4\pi}{c}\sqrt{|mn|}\right), & \text{$n>0$,}\\[3ex]
\displaystyle \frac{4 \pi^{1+s} m^{s}}{(2s-1)\Gamma(s)} \sum_{c=1}^\infty c^{1-2s} H_c(m,0), & \text{$n=0$,}\\[3ex]
\displaystyle -\delta_{-m,n} + 2\pi \left| \frac{m}{n}\right|^{1/2} \sum_{c=1}^\infty H_c(m,n)
J_{2s-1}\!\left(\frac{4\pi}{c}\sqrt{|mn|}\right), & \text{$n<0$}.
\end{cases}$$ Here $ H_c(m,n)$ denotes the Kloosterman sum $$\label{DefH_c}
H_c(m,n)=\frac{1}{c} \sum_{\substack{d(c)^*}} e\!\left( \frac{nd-m\bar d}{c}\right),$$ where the sum runs through the multiplicative group $({\mathbb{Z}}/c{\mathbb{Z}})^*$ and $\bar d$ denotes the multiplicative inverse of $d$. Moreover, $J_\nu(z)$ and $I_\nu(z)$ are the usual Bessel functions as defined in [@AS] §9.
This is a special case of [@Br2] Theorem 1.9. See also [@Ni] or [@He].
Notice that $H_c(m,n)=H_c(n,m)$.
\[constantterm\] The constant term of $F_m(\tau,s)$ is equal to $$b_m(0,s)=\frac{4 \pi}{(2s-1)} \frac{\sigma_m(2s-1)}{\pi^{-s}\Gamma(s)\zeta(2s)}.$$ Here $\zeta(s)$ denotes the Riemann zeta function and $\sigma_m(s)$ the divisor sum $$\sigma_m(s)=m^{(1-s)/2}\sum_{d\mid m} d^s.$$
By Theorem \[fourierF\] we have $$\begin{aligned}
b_m(0,s)&= \frac{4 \pi^{1+s} m^{s}}{(2s-1)\Gamma(s)} \sum_{c=1}^\infty c^{-2s} \sum_{d\,(c)^*}
e\left(\frac{md}{c}\right).\end{aligned}$$ If we insert the formula for the Ramanujan sum (see [@Ap] Chapter 8.3), $$\sum_{d\,(c)^*} e\left(\frac{md}{c}\right) = \sum_{a\mid (c,m)}\mu(c/a)a,$$ where $\mu$ is the Moebius function, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
b_m(0,s)&=\frac{4 \pi^{1+s} m^{s}}{(2s-1)\Gamma(s)} \sum_{a\mid m} \sum_{\substack{c=1\\a\mid c}}^\infty c^{-2s}\mu(c/a)a\\
&=\frac{4 \pi^{1+s}}{(2s-1)\Gamma(s)\zeta(2s)} m^{s} \sum_{a\mid m} a^{1-2s}\\
&=\frac{4 \pi^{1+s}\sigma_m(2s-1)}{(2s-1)\Gamma(s)\zeta(2s)}.\end{aligned}$$ This proves the Proposition.
Recall that a weakly holomorphic modular form for $\Gamma'$ is a meromorphic modular form for $\Gamma'$ which is holomorphic outside the cusp $\infty$. In particular, the space of weakly holomorphic modular forms for $\Gamma'$ of weight $0$ is ${\mathbb{C}}[j]$, the polynomial ring in the $j$-function.
\[fourierF1\] The special value $F_{m}(\tau,1)$ has the Fourier expansion $$\begin{aligned}
F_{m}(\tau,1)&=q^{-m}
+\sum_{n\geq 0} b_m(n,1) q^n,\end{aligned}$$ where $q=e^{2\pi i\tau}$ as usual. In particular, $F_{m}(\tau,1)$ is the unique weakly holomorphic modular form of weight $0$ for $\Gamma'$ whose Fourier expansion starts $q^{-m}+b_m(0,1)+O(q)$.
If we insert the special values and in the Fourier expansion given in Theorem \[fourierF1\], we find $$F_{m}(\tau,1)= q^{-m}+\sum_{n\geq 0} b_m(n,1) q^n + \sum_{\substack{ n<0}} b_m(n,1) e(n\bar\tau).$$ This implies that $$\overline{\tfrac{\partial}{\partial\bar\tau} F_{m}(\tau,1)}=-2\pi i \sum_{\substack{ n<0}} \overline{b_m(n,1)} n
e(-n\tau)$$ is a holomorphic modular form of weight $2$ for $\Gamma'$ and therefore has to vanish identically. We obtain the assertion.
We have $b_m(0,1)=24\sigma_m(1)$.
Hilbert modular surfaces and Hirzebruch-Zagier divisors {#sect:3}
=======================================================
Let $p\equiv 1 \pmod{4}$ be a prime and consider the real quadratic field $F={\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{p})$. We write ${\mathcal{O}}_F$ for the ring of integers in $F$ and $\partial_F=(\sqrt{p})$ for the different ideal. Moreover, we write $\epsilon_p(x)=(\frac{x}{p})$ for the quadratic character of $F$. The conjugation in $F$ is denoted by $x\mapsto x'$ and the norm of $x\in F$ by ${\operatorname{N}}(x)=xx'$.
The Hilbert modular group $\Gamma={\operatorname{SL}}_2({\mathcal{O}}_F)$ acts on ${\mathbb{H}}^2$ in the usual way. We denote by $X=\Gamma{\backslash}{\mathbb{H}}^2$ the Hilbert modular surface associated to $F$. We will use $z=(z_1,z_2)$ as a standard variable on ${\mathbb{H}}^2$ and write $z_1=x_1+iy_1$, $z_2=x_2+iy_2$ for the decomposition in real and imaginary parts. Recall that a Hilbert modular form $H(z_1,z_2)$ is called symmetric if $H(z_1,z_2)=H(z_2,z_1)$. It is called skew-symmetric if $H(z_1,z_2)=-H(z_2,z_1)$.
It is well known that the Hilbert modular group can also be viewed as a discrete subgroup of the orthogonal group of the rational quadratic space $$V=\{M\in \operatorname{Mat}_2(F);\; {}^tM=M'\}
= \{{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} a & \lambda \\ \lambda' & b\end{smallmatrix}\right) };\; a,b\in {\mathbb{Q}},\; \lambda\in F\},$$ equipped with the quadratic form $M\mapsto \det(M)$. Here ${}^tM$ is the transpose of $M$. The group ${\operatorname{SL}}_2(F)$ acts on $V$ via $$\gamma . M = \gamma' M \, {}^t\gamma$$ leaving the quadratic form invariant. The lattice $$\begin{aligned}
\label{def:L}
L=\{{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} a & \lambda \\ \lambda' & b\end{smallmatrix}\right) }\in V;\; a,b\in {\mathbb{Z}},\; \lambda\in
\partial^{-1}_F\}\end{aligned}$$ is stable under the action of $\Gamma$. Recall that $M\in L$ is called [*primitive*]{}, if $\frac{1}{d} M\notin L$ for every integer $d>1$.
If $M={\left(\begin{smallmatrix} a & \lambda \\ \lambda' & b\end{smallmatrix}\right) }$ is a vector in $L$, we let $$M^\perp=\{(z_1,z_2)\in {\mathbb{H}}^2; \quad az_1 z_2 +\lambda z_1 + \lambda' z_2 +b=0\}$$ be the corresponding analytic divisor on ${\mathbb{H}}^2$. If $m$ is a positive integer, then $$\begin{aligned}
F_m&=\sum_{\substack{\text{$M\in L/\{\pm 1\}$ primitive}\\
\det(M)=m/p}} M^\perp\end{aligned}$$ is a $\Gamma$-invariant divisor on ${\mathbb{H}}^2$, which descends to an algebraic divisor on $X$, also denoted by $F_m$. It is well known that the Hirzebruch-Zagier divisors $T_m$ on $X$ can be written as $T_m=\sum_{d^2|m} F_{m/d^2}$ (see [@Ge], [@HZ]).
The divisor $F_m$ on $X$ is irreducible if and only if $p^2\nmid m$. If $p^2|m$ then it decomposes into two irreducible components $F_m=F_m^++F_m^-$. To distinguish these components we define a function on lattice vectors $M={\left(\begin{smallmatrix} a & \lambda \\ \lambda' & b\end{smallmatrix}\right) }\in L$ of norm $ab-\lambda\lambda'\in p{\mathbb{Z}}$ divisible by $p$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:psi}
\psi(M)=\begin{cases}
(\tfrac{a}{p}),& \text{if $p\nmid a$,}\\
(\tfrac{b}{p}),& \text{if $p\nmid b$,}\\
0,&\text{if $p\mid (a,b)$.}
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ The following lemma shows that $\psi$ is well defined.
Let $M={\left(\begin{smallmatrix} a & \lambda \\ \lambda' & b\end{smallmatrix}\right) }\in L$ be a $p$-primitive vector (i.e. $\frac{1}{p}M\notin L$) and assume that $ab-\lambda\lambda'=np$ for some $n\in {\mathbb{Z}}$. Then $(\tfrac{a}{p})+(\tfrac{b}{p})\neq 0$.
First we notice that the hypothesis implies $p\nmid (a,b)$. This immediately yields the assertion if $p\mid a$, or $p\mid b$, respectively. So we may assume that $p\nmid a$ and $p\nmid b$. We have to show that $(\tfrac{a}{p})=(\tfrac{b}{p})$. If we write $\lambda=\frac{1}{2}(c+d\sqrt{p})$ with $c,d\in
{\mathbb{Z}}$ we find that $$\begin{aligned}
4ab=c^2-pd^2+4np\equiv \alpha^2\pmod{p}.\end{aligned}$$ This implies the assertion.
The function $\psi$ has the following genus character interpretation. Assume that $M={\left(\begin{smallmatrix} a & \lambda \\ \lambda' & b\end{smallmatrix}\right) }\in L$ and $ab-\lambda\lambda'\in p{\mathbb{Z}}$. Then $\lambda$ actually belongs to ${\mathcal{O}}_F$ and we may write $\lambda=\frac{1}{2}(c+d\sqrt{p})$ with $c,d\in
{\mathbb{Z}}$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{quadform}
{\begin{pmatrix} a & \lambda \\ \lambda' & b \end{pmatrix}}\equiv {\begin{pmatrix} a & c/2 \\ c/2 & b \end{pmatrix}}\pmod{\partial_F}\end{aligned}$$ and the latter matrix defines a binary integral quadratic form $Q=[a,c,b]$ of discriminant $c^2-4ab$ divisible by $p$. Recall that on binary integral quadratic forms of discriminant divisible by $p$ we have a genus character $\chi_p$ which is defined as follows: $$\chi_p(Q)=\begin{cases} (\frac{n}{p}),& \text{if $p\nmid Q$ and $(n,p)=1$ and $Q$ represents $n$},\\
0,& \text{if $p\mid Q$.}
\end{cases}$$ This definition does not depend on the choice of $n$. If the quadratic form $Q$ corresponds to $M$ as in , then $\psi(M)=\chi_p(Q)$.
One easily verifies that the value of $\psi(M)$ only depends on the $\Gamma$-orbit of $M$. In fact, it is well known that the components of $F_{mp^2}$ are distinguished by the values of the function $\psi$ (see [@Za2], [@Ge] Chapter V.3).
For a positive integer $m$ we define the twisted Hirzebruch-Zagier divisor of index $m$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{def: tildetm}
\tilde T_m = \sum_{\substack{M\in L/\{\pm 1\}\\
\det(M)=mp}} \psi(M)\cdot M^\perp.\end{aligned}$$
For instance, if $m$ is square-free then $\tilde T_m = F_{mp^2}^+-F_{mp^2}^-$.
Automorphic Green functions {#sect:4}
===========================
Let $m$ be a positive integer. Following [@Br1] we define the automorphic Green function corresponding to $\tilde T_m$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde \Phi_{mp^2}(z_1,z_2,s)=
\sum_{\substack{{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} a & \lambda \\ \lambda' & b\end{smallmatrix}\right) } \in L\\
ab-{\operatorname{N}}(\lambda)=mp}} \psi{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} a & \lambda \\ \lambda' & b\end{smallmatrix}\right) } Q_{s-1}\left(1+\frac{ |az_1
z_2 +\lambda z_1+\lambda' z_2+b|^2}{ 2y_1 y_2 mp }\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $Q_{s-1}(t)$ is the Legendre function of the second kind defined by (cf. [@AS] §8) $$Q_{s-1}(t) =\int_0^\infty (t +\sqrt{t^2-1} \cosh v)^{-s} dv\qquad (t>1, \,\Re(s)>0).$$
The sum converges normally for $(z_1,z_2)\in {\mathbb{H}}^2\setminus \tilde T_m$ and $s\in {\mathbb{C}}$ with $\Re(s)>1$. We will continue it to a neighborhood of $s=1$ by computing the Fourier expansion. To this end we write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{auft}
\tilde\Phi_{mp^2}(z_1,z_2,s)&= \tilde\Phi^0_{mp^2}(z_1,z_2,s) +
2\sum_{a=1}^{\infty} \tilde\Phi^a_{mp^2}(z_1,z_2,s)\\ \intertext{with}
\tilde\Phi^a_{mp^2}(z_1,z_2,s)&= \sum_{\substack{ b\in{\mathbb{Z}}\\
\lambda\in\partial_F^{-1}\\ ab-{\operatorname{N}}(\lambda)=mp }}
\psi{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} a & \lambda \\ \lambda' & b\end{smallmatrix}\right) } Q_{s-1}\left(1+\frac{ |az_1 z_2
+\lambda z_1+\lambda' z_2+b|^2}{ 2y_1 y_2 mp }\right). \label{Phia}\end{aligned}$$ Note that the partial sums $\tilde\Phi^a_{mp^2}(z_1,z_2,s)$ converge normally for $\Re(s)>1/2$.
For $a=0$ we have $$\tilde\Phi^0_{mp^2}(z_1,z_2,s)= \sum_{\substack{ b\in{\mathbb{Z}}\\ \lambda\in\partial_F^{-1}\\ {\operatorname{N}}(\lambda)=-mp }}
\epsilon_p(b) Q_{s-1}\left(1+\frac{ |\lambda z_1+\lambda' z_2+b|^2}{ 2y_1 y_2 mp }\right).$$ If $a$ is a positive integer coprime to $p$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde\Phi^a_{mp^2}(z_1,z_2,s)&= \epsilon_p(a) \sum_{\substack{ b\in{\mathbb{Z}}\\ \lambda\in\partial_F^{-1}\\ ab-{\operatorname{N}}(\lambda)=mp }} Q_{s-1}\left(1+\frac{ |az_1 z_2 +\lambda z_1+\lambda' z_2+b|^2}{ 2y_1 y_2 mp }\right)\\
&= \epsilon_p(a) \Phi^a_{mp^2}(z_1,z_2,s),\end{aligned}$$ where $\Phi^a_{mp^2}(z_1,z_2,s)$ is the function defined in [@Br1] (see §3 equation (16)). If $a$ is divisible by $p$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde\Phi^a_{mp^2}(z_1,z_2,s)&= \sum_{\substack{ b\in{\mathbb{Z}}\\ \lambda\in\partial_F^{-1}\\ ab-{\operatorname{N}}(\lambda)=mp }}
\epsilon_p(b) Q_{s-1}\left(1+\frac{ |az_1 z_2 +\lambda z_1+\lambda' z_2+b|^2}{ 2y_1 y_2 mp }\right).\end{aligned}$$
We compute the Fourier expansion of $\tilde\Phi^a_{mp^2}(z_1,z_2,s)$ in these three cases. We put for a positive real number $A$, $$\label{HAs}
H^A_s(z_1,z_2) = \sum_{\theta\in{\mathcal{O}}} Q_{s-1}\left(1+\frac{ |(z_1+\theta)(z_2+\theta')+A|^2 }{2y_1 y_2
A}\right),$$ and denote (for $y_1y_2>A$) the Fourier expansion by $$H^A_s(z_1,z_2) = \sum_{\nu\in{\mathfrak d}^{-1}} b_s^A(\nu,y_1,y_2) e(\nu x_1+\nu'x_2).$$ Moreover, we let $R(mp^2)$ be a set of representatives for $$\begin{aligned}
&\{\lambda\in \partial_F^{-1}/a{\mathcal{O}}_F;\quad {\operatorname{N}}(\lambda\sqrt{p})\equiv mp^2 \pmod{ap}\}\\
&=\{\lambda\in {\mathcal{O}}_F/a{\mathcal{O}}_F;\quad {\operatorname{N}}(\lambda)\equiv -mp \pmod{a}\}.\end{aligned}$$ We start with the case that $a$ is positive and coprime to $p$. Here we can argue as in [@Br1]. We may write $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde\Phi^a_{mp^2} (z_1,z_2,s)&= \epsilon_p(a)\sum_{\lambda\in R(mp^2)}\sum_{\theta\in{\mathcal{O}}} Q_{s-1}\left(1+\frac{ |(z_1+\theta+\tfrac{\lambda'}{a})(z_2+\theta'+\tfrac{\lambda}{a})+\tfrac{mp}{a^2}|^2 }{ 2y_1 y_2 mp/a^2}\right)\\
&=\sum_{\nu\in\partial_F^{-1}}\epsilon_p(a)\sum_{\lambda\in R(mp^2)} e\left(\frac{{\operatorname{tr}}(\nu\lambda)}{
a}\right)b_s^{mp/a^2}(\nu,y_1,y_2) e(\nu z_1+\nu'z_2).\end{aligned}$$ When $a$ is positive and divisible by $p$, one finds in a similar way that $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde\Phi^a_{mp^2} (z_1,z_2,s)&= \sum_{\lambda\in R(mp^2)}\sum_{\theta\in{\mathcal{O}}} \epsilon_p(\tfrac{\lambda\lambda'+mp}{a}) Q_{s-1}\left(1+\frac{ |(z_1+\theta+\tfrac{\lambda'}{a})(z_2+\theta'+\tfrac{\lambda}{a})+\tfrac{mp}{a^2}|^2 }{ 2y_1 y_2 mp/a^2}\right)\\
&=\sum_{\nu\in\partial_F^{-1}}
\sum_{\lambda\in R(mp^2)} \epsilon_p(\tfrac{\lambda\lambda'+mp}{a}) e\left(\frac{{\operatorname{tr}}(\nu\lambda)}{
a}\right)b_s^{mp/a^2}(\nu,y_1,y_2) e(\nu z_1+\nu'z_2).\end{aligned}$$ If we define $$\label{tildeGa}
\tilde G_a(mp^2,\nu)=\begin{cases} \epsilon_p(a)\sum_{\lambda\in R(mp^2)}
e\left(\frac{{\operatorname{tr}}(\nu\lambda)}{ a}\right),&\text{if $p\nmid a$,}\\[1ex]
\sum_{\lambda\in R(mp^2)} \epsilon_p(\tfrac{\lambda\lambda'+mp}{a}) e\left(\frac{{\operatorname{tr}}(\nu\lambda)}{
a}\right),&\text{if $p\mid a$,}
\end{cases}$$ we may finally write $$\label{Phim2}
\tilde\Phi_{mp^2} (z_1,z_2,s) = \tilde\Phi^0_{mp^2}(z_1,z_2,s) + 2
\sum_{\nu\in\partial_F^{-1}}\left[\sum_{a=1}^{\infty} \tilde G_a(mp^2,\nu)b_s^{mp/a^2}(\nu,y_1,y_2) \right]e(\nu
x_1+\nu'x_2).$$
For $r_1,r_2\in {\mathbb{R}}$ we briefly write $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha(r_1,r_2)&:= \max(|r_1|,|r_2|),\\
\beta(r_1,r_2)&:= \min(|r_1|,|r_2|).\end{aligned}$$
\[lphi0\] The function $\tilde\Phi^0_{mp^2}(z_1,z_2,s)$ has the Fourier expansion $$\begin{gathered}
\label{lphi0a}
\tilde\Phi_{mp^2}^0(z_1,z_2,s) = 2 \sqrt{p} \sum_{\substack{ \lambda\in\partial_F^{-1}\\ {\operatorname{N}}(\lambda)=-m/p}}
\sum_{n\geq 1} \frac{\epsilon_p(n)}{n}
{\mathcal{I}}_{s}(2\pi n \beta(\lambda y_1,\lambda' y_2))\\
{}\times {\mathcal{K}}_{s}(2\pi n \alpha(\lambda y_1,\lambda' y_2))e(n\lambda x_1+n\lambda' x_2).\end{gathered}$$
By definition we have $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde\Phi_{mp^2}^0(z_1,z_2,s) &= \sum_{\substack{b\in {\mathbb{Z}},\,\lambda\in \partial_F\\ \lambda\lambda'=-mp}}
\epsilon_p(b)
Q_{s-1}\left(1+\frac{ |\lambda z_1+\lambda' z_2+b|^2}{ 2y_1 y_2 mp }\right)\\
&= \sum_{\substack{b\,(p),\,\lambda\in \partial_F^{-1}\\ \lambda\lambda'=-m/p}} \epsilon_p(b) \sum_{b'\in {\mathbb{Z}}}
Q_{s-1}\left(1+\frac{ |\lambda z_1+\lambda' z_2+b'+b/p|^2}{ 2y_1 y_2 m/p }\right).\end{aligned}$$ We find that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Phi0h}
\tilde\Phi_{mp^2}^0(z_1,z_2,s) = \sum_{\substack{b\,(p)}} \sum_{\substack{\lambda\in \partial_F^{-1}\\
\lambda\lambda'=-m/p}}\epsilon_p(b) h_{\alpha(\lambda y_1, \lambda' y_2), \beta(\lambda y_1, \lambda'
y_2)}(\lambda x_1+ \lambda' x_2+b/p),\end{aligned}$$ where $$h_{\alpha,\beta}(x) = \sum_{b\in{\mathbb{Z}}} Q_{s-1}\left(\frac{(x+b)^2+\alpha^2+\beta^2}{2\alpha\beta}\right).$$ By [@Br1] Lemma 1, for $\alpha>\beta>0$, the function $h_{\alpha,\beta}(x)$ has the Fourier expansion $$h_{\alpha,\beta}(x)= \frac{2\pi}{2s-1} \alpha^{1-s}\beta^{s} +\sum_{n\in{\mathbb{Z}}-\{0\}}\frac{1}{|n|} {\mathcal{I}}_{s}(2\pi n
\beta) {\mathcal{K}}_{s}(2\pi n\alpha) e(nx).$$ Inserting this into , we obtain the assertion.
We recall the following lemma from [@Br1]:
\[lHA\] Let $y_1 y_2>A>0$. The function $H^A_s(z_1,z_2)$ defined by (\[HAs\]) has the Fourier expansion $$H^A_s(z_1,z_2) = \sum_{\nu\in\partial_F^{-1}} b_s^A(\nu,y_1,y_2) e(\nu x_1+\nu'x_2)$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
b^A_s(0,y_1,y_2) &= \frac{\pi \Gamma(s-1/2)^2}{ 2\sqrt{p}\,\Gamma(2s)}(4A)^s (y_1 y_2)^{1-s},\\
b^A_s(\nu,y_1,y_2)&=\pi\sqrt{\frac{A}{ p|\nu\nu'|}}\,I_{2s-1}(4\pi\sqrt{A|\nu\nu'|}){\mathcal{K}}_{s}(2\pi |\nu| y_1) {\mathcal{K}}_{s}(2\pi |\nu'| y_2), \quad\nu\nu'>0,\\
b^A_s(\nu,y_1,y_2)&=\pi\sqrt{\frac{A}{ p|\nu\nu'|}}\,J_{2s-1}(4\pi\sqrt{A|\nu\nu'|}){\mathcal{K}}_{s}(2\pi |\nu| y_1)
{\mathcal{K}}_{s}(2\pi |\nu'| y_2), \quad\nu\nu'<0.\end{aligned}$$
The following identity of finite exponential sums is crucial for the main result of the present paper.
\[GaHb\] Let $a\in{\mathbb{N}}$, $m\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, and $\nu\in\partial_F^{-1}$. Then $$\label{eq:key}
\frac{1}{ a } \,\tilde G_a(mp^2,\nu) = \sum_{\substack{r|\nu \\ r|a}} \epsilon_p(r) H_{a/r}\left( \frac{p\nu\nu'}{
r^2},m\right),$$ where the finite exponential sums $\tilde G_a(m,\nu)$ resp. $H_b(m,n)$ are defined by (\[tildeGa\]) resp. (\[DefH\_c\]).
We follow the proof of the Proposition in [@Za] §4. Both sides in are clearly periodic in $m$ with period $a$. Therefore it suffices to show that the finite Fourier transforms are equal, i.e., that for every $h\pmod{a}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:key2}
\frac{1}{ a }\sum_{m\,(a)}e\left(-\frac{hm}{a}\right) \tilde G_a(mp^2,\nu) =
\sum_{m\,(a)}e\left(-\frac{hm}{a}\right)\sum_{\substack{r|\nu \\ r|a}} \epsilon_p(r) H_{a/r}\left(
\frac{p\nu\nu'}{ r^2},m\right).\end{aligned}$$ Inserting the definition of $H_{c}\left( n,m\right)$ we find that the right hand side equals $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\substack{r|\nu \\ r|a}}\epsilon_p(r)\frac{r}{a} \sum_{d\,(a/r)^*} e\left( \frac{dp\nu\nu'/r^2}{a/r}\right)
\sum_{m\,(a)}e\left(-m\frac{\bar d r+h}{a}\right).\end{aligned}$$ The sum over $m\,(a)$ vanishes unless $\bar d r+h\equiv0\pmod{a}$ in which case it equals $a$. But $\bar d
r+h\equiv0\pmod{a}$ implies that $h\equiv 0\pmod{r}$ and $\bar d +h/r\equiv0\pmod{a/r}$. Since $\bar d$ is coprime to $a/r$ we find that $h/r$ must also be coprime to $a/r$ and consequently $r=(h,a)$.
Thus, denoting $r=(h,a)$ and by $\bar h_1$ a multiplicative inverse of $h/r$ modulo $a/r$ we obtain that the right hand side of equals $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:key3}
\epsilon_p(r)r \cdot e\left( -\frac{\bar h_1 p\nu\nu'/r^2}{a/r}\right).\end{aligned}$$
We now consider the left hand side of . We first assume that $(p,a)=1$. In this case it is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{\epsilon_p(a)}{ a }\sum_{m\,(a)}\sum_{\substack{\lambda\in {\mathcal{O}}_F/a{\mathcal{O}}_F\\ \lambda\lambda'=-mp\,(a)}} e\left(\frac{{\operatorname{tr}}(\lambda \nu)-hm}{a}\right) \\
&=\frac{\epsilon_p(a)}{ a }\sum_{\substack{\lambda\in {\mathcal{O}}_F/a{\mathcal{O}}_F}} e\left(\frac{{\operatorname{tr}}(\lambda \nu)+h\bar p
\lambda\lambda'}{a}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Here $\bar p$ denotes a multiplicative inverse of $p$ modulo $a$. We first observe that the sum vanishes unless $r=(h,a)$ divides $\nu$. This is easily seen by replacing $\lambda\mapsto \lambda+\frac{a}{r} \tau$ for $\tau\in
{\mathcal{O}}_F$ in the sum. Therefore, put $r=(h,a)$ and write $h=h_1 r$, $a= a_1 r$, and $\nu=\nu_1 r$. Then the sum becomes $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{\epsilon_p(a)}{ a }\sum_{\substack{\lambda\in {\mathcal{O}}_F/a{\mathcal{O}}_F}} e\left(\frac{{\operatorname{tr}}(\lambda \nu_1)+h_1\bar p \lambda\lambda'}{a_1}\right)\\
&=\frac{\epsilon_p(a)}{ a }r^2 e\left(-\frac{p \bar h_1 \nu_1\nu_1'}{a_1}\right)
\sum_{\substack{\lambda\in {\mathcal{O}}_F/a_1{\mathcal{O}}_F}} e\left(\frac{h_1\bar p(\lambda +p\bar h_1 \nu_1')(\lambda' +p\bar h_1 \nu_1)}{a_1}\right)\\
&=\frac{\epsilon_p(a)}{ a_1 }r e\left(-\frac{p \bar h_1 \nu_1\nu_1'}{a_1}\right)\sum_{\substack{\lambda\in
{\mathcal{O}}_F/a_1{\mathcal{O}}_F}} e\left(\frac{h_1\bar p\lambda \lambda' }{a_1}\right).\end{aligned}$$ The latter sum is computed in [@Za] §4 Lemma 2. Inserting its value $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{ a_1 }\sum_{\substack{\lambda\in {\mathcal{O}}_F/a_1{\mathcal{O}}_F}} e\left(\frac{h_1\bar p\lambda \lambda'
}{a_1}\right)= \epsilon_p( a_1)\end{aligned}$$ we finally find that the left hand side of is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon_p(r) r \cdot e\left(-\frac{p \bar h_1 \nu\nu'/r^2}{a/r}\right).\end{aligned}$$
Let us now consider the left hand side of in the case that $p\mid a$. Then it is given by $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{1}{ a }\sum_{m\,(a)}\sum_{\substack{\lambda\in {\mathcal{O}}_F/a{\mathcal{O}}_F\\ \lambda\lambda'\equiv-mp\,(a)}}
\epsilon_p\left(\frac{\lambda\lambda'+mp}{a}\right) e\left(\frac{{\operatorname{tr}}(\nu\lambda)-mh}{ a}\right).\end{aligned}$$ We substitute $m=m_1+m_2a/p$, where $m_1$ runs modulo $a/p$ and $m_2$ modulo $p$. Moreover, we notice that in the sum over $\lambda$, we actually only sum over $\lambda\in \partial_F/a{\mathcal{O}}_F$, since $p\mid a$. Substituting $\lambda\mapsto \sqrt{p}\lambda$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{1}{ a }\sum_{\substack{m_1\,(a/p)\\m_2\,(p)}}
\sum_{\substack{\lambda\in {\mathcal{O}}_F/a\partial_F^{-1}\\ \lambda\lambda'\equiv m_1\,(a/p)}} \epsilon_p\left(\frac{-\lambda\lambda'+m_1}{a/p}+m_2\right) e\left(\frac{{\operatorname{tr}}(\sqrt{p}\lambda\nu)-m_1 h}{ a}\right)e\left(-\frac{hm_2}{p}\right)\\
&=\frac{1}{ ap }\sum_{\substack{m_2\,(p)}}
\sum_{\substack{\lambda\in {\mathcal{O}}_F/a{\mathcal{O}}_F}} e\left(\frac{{\operatorname{tr}}(\sqrt{p}\lambda\nu)-h\lambda\lambda'}{ a}\right)\epsilon_p\left(m_2\right) e\left(-\frac{hm_2}{p}\right)\\
&=\frac{1}{ a\sqrt{p} }\epsilon_p(h) \sum_{\substack{\lambda\in {\mathcal{O}}_F/a{\mathcal{O}}_F}}
e\left(\frac{{\operatorname{tr}}(\sqrt{p}\lambda\nu)-h\lambda\lambda'}{ a}\right) .\end{aligned}$$ Here, in the last line we have inserted the value of the Gauss sum. In particular we see that the latter quantity vanishes if $p\mid h$. If $p\nmid(h,a)$ we see by replacing $\lambda\mapsto \lambda+\frac{a}{r} \tau$ for $\tau\in {\mathcal{O}}_F$ that the latter quantity actually vanishes unless $(h,a)$ divides $\nu$. Therefore, as above, we put $r=(h,a)$ and write $h=h_1 r$, $a= a_1 r$, and $\nu=\nu_1 r$. Then the sum becomes $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{r^2}{ a\sqrt{p} }\epsilon_p(h)
\sum_{\substack{\lambda\in {\mathcal{O}}_F/a_1{\mathcal{O}}_F}} e\left(\frac{{\operatorname{tr}}(\sqrt{p}\lambda\nu_1)- h_1\lambda\lambda'}{ a_1}\right)\\
&=\frac{r}{ a_1\sqrt{p} }\epsilon_p(h)e\left(-\frac{\bar h_1 p \nu_1\nu_1'}{a_1}\right)
\sum_{\substack{\lambda\in {\mathcal{O}}_F/a_1{\mathcal{O}}_F}} e\left(-\frac{h_1(\lambda-(\bar h_1\sqrt{p}\nu_1)')(\lambda'-(\bar h_1\sqrt{p}\nu_1)')'}{ a_1}\right)\\
&=\frac{r}{ a_1\sqrt{p} }\epsilon_p(h)e\left(-\frac{\bar h_1 p \nu\nu'/r^2}{a/r}\right) \sum_{\substack{\lambda\in
{\mathcal{O}}_F/a_1{\mathcal{O}}_F}} e\left(-\frac{h_1\lambda\lambda'}{ a_1}\right).\end{aligned}$$ By [@Za] §4 Lemma 2 (noting that $p\nmid r$ implies $p\mid a_1$) we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{ a_1 }\sum_{\substack{\lambda\in {\mathcal{O}}_F/a_1{\mathcal{O}}_F}} e\left(-\frac{h_1\lambda \lambda' }{a_1}\right) =
\epsilon_p( h_1)\sqrt{p}.\end{aligned}$$ We finally find that left hand side of is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon_p(r) r \cdot e\left(-\frac{p \bar h_1 \nu\nu'/r^2}{a/r}\right).\end{aligned}$$ This concludes the proof of the Lemma.
We are now ready to compute the Fourier expansion of $\tilde\Phi_{mp^2}(z_1,z_2,s)$ in terms of the coefficients of the Poincaré series $F_m(\tau,s)$.
\[fourier1\] The automorphic Green function $\tilde\Phi_{mp^2}(z_1,z_2,s)$ associated to $\tilde T_m$ has the Fourier expansion $$\begin{aligned}
&\tilde\Phi_{mp^2}(z_1,z_2,s)\\
&=\left(\frac{p}{\pi}\right)^{s-1/2}\Gamma(s-1/2)L(2s-1,\epsilon_p)
b_m(0,s)(y_1 y_2)^{1-s}\\
&\phantom{=}{}+\sqrt{p} \sum_{\substack{\nu\in \partial_F^{-1}\\\nu\nu'\neq 0}}\sum_{n\geq 1}
\frac{\epsilon_p(n)}{n} b_m(p\nu\nu',s){\mathcal{K}}_{s}(2\pi n\nu y_1) {\mathcal{K}}_{s}(2\pi n\nu' y_2)e(\nu n x_1+\nu'n x_2)\\
&\phantom{=}{}+\sqrt{p} \sum_{\substack{ \lambda\in\partial_F^{-1}\\ {\operatorname{N}}(\lambda)=-m/p}} \sum_{n\geq 1}
\frac{\epsilon_p(n)}{n}\big(
2{\mathcal{I}}_{s}(2\pi n \beta(\lambda y_1,\lambda' y_2))+{\mathcal{K}}_{s}(2\pi n \beta(\lambda y_1,\lambda' y_2))\big)\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad \times {\mathcal{K}}_{s}(2\pi n \alpha(\lambda y_1,\lambda' y_2)) e(n\lambda
x_1+n\lambda' x_2).\end{aligned}$$ If converges normally for $y_1 y_2>mp$. Here $b_m(n,s)$ denote the Fourier coefficients of the Poincaré series $F_m(\tau,s)$, and $L(s,\epsilon_p)$ the Dirichlet $L$-function corresponding to $\epsilon_p$.
We use , Lemma \[lphi0\], and Lemma \[lHA\] to compute the Fourier expansion. The constant term is given by $$\begin{aligned}
& 2 \sum_{a=1}^{\infty} \tilde G_a(mp^2,0)b_s^{mp/a^2}(0,y_1,y_2)\\
&=\frac{\pi \Gamma(s-1/2)^2}{ \sqrt{p}\,\Gamma(2s)}(4mp)^s (y_1 y_2)^{1-s} \sum_{a=1}^{\infty} \tilde G_a(mp^2,0)
a^{-2s}.\end{aligned}$$ In view of Lemma \[GaHb\] this is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber &\frac{\pi \Gamma(s-1/2)^2}{ \sqrt{p}\,\Gamma(2s)}(4mp)^s (y_1 y_2)^{1-s} \sum_{a=1}^{\infty} \sum_{r|a}
\epsilon_p(r) H_{a/r}\left( m,0\right)
a^{1-2s}\\
\nonumber &=\frac{\pi \Gamma(s-1/2)^2}{ \sqrt{p}\,\Gamma(2s)}(4mp)^s (y_1 y_2)^{1-s} \sum_{c=1}^{\infty}
\sum_{r=1}^\infty \epsilon_p(r) H_{c}\left( m,0 \right)
(cr)^{1-2s}\\
\label{h1} &=\frac{\pi \Gamma(s-1/2)^2}{ \sqrt{p}\,\Gamma(2s)}(4mp)^s (y_1 y_2)^{1-s} L(2s-1,\epsilon_p)
\sum_{c=1}^{\infty} H_{c}\left( m,0\right) c^{1-2s}.\end{aligned}$$ By means of the formula for the constant coefficient $b_m(0,s)$ of $F_m(\tau,s)$ and the duplication formula $\Gamma(s)\Gamma(s+\frac{1}{2})=2^{1-2s}\sqrt{\pi}\Gamma(2s)$ we see that the constant term equals: $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\frac{p}{\pi}\right)^{s-1/2}\Gamma(s-1/2)L(2s-1,\epsilon_p) b_m(0,s)(y_1 y_2)^{1-s}.\end{aligned}$$ We now consider the $\nu$-th Fourier coefficient of $\tilde\Phi_{mp^2}(z_1,z_2,s)$ for $\nu\in \partial_F$ with $\nu\nu'>0$. It is given by $$\begin{aligned}
& 2 \sum_{a=1}^{\infty} \tilde G_a(mp^2,\nu)b_s^{mp/a^2}(\nu,y_1,y_2)\\
&=2\pi \sum_{a=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{a}\tilde
G_a(mp^2,\nu)\sqrt{\frac{m}{\nu\nu'}}\,I_{2s-1}\left(\frac{4\pi}{a}\sqrt{mp|\nu\nu'|}\right){\mathcal{K}}_{s}(2\pi \nu
y_1) {\mathcal{K}}_{s}(2\pi \nu' y_2).\end{aligned}$$ In view of Lemma \[GaHb\] this is equal to: $$\begin{aligned}
&2\pi \sum_{a=1}^{\infty} \sum_{\substack{r|\nu \\ r|a}}
\epsilon_p(r) H_{a/r}\left(m, \frac{p\nu\nu'}{ r^2}\right)\sqrt{\frac{m}{\nu\nu'}}\,I_{2s-1}\left(\frac{4\pi}{a}\sqrt{mp|\nu\nu'|}\right){\mathcal{K}}_{s}(2\pi \nu y_1) {\mathcal{K}}_{s}(2\pi \nu' y_2)\\
&=2\pi \sqrt{p} \sum_{\substack{r|\nu }} \frac{\epsilon_p(r)}{r}
\sqrt{\frac{mr^2}{p\nu\nu'}}\sum_{c=1}^{\infty} H_{c}\left(m, \frac{p\nu\nu'}{ r^2}\right)
I_{2s-1}\left(\frac{4\pi}{cr}\sqrt{mp|\nu\nu'|}\right){\mathcal{K}}_{s}(2\pi \nu y_1) {\mathcal{K}}_{s}(2\pi \nu' y_2).\end{aligned}$$ By Theorem \[fourierF\] we finally find for the $\nu$-th coefficient: $$\begin{aligned}
& \sqrt{p} \sum_{\substack{r|\nu }} \frac{\epsilon_p(r)}{r} b_m(p\nu\nu'/r^2,s){\mathcal{K}}_{s}(2\pi \nu y_1)
{\mathcal{K}}_{s}(2\pi \nu' y_2).\end{aligned}$$
In the same way one can show that for $\nu\in \partial_F^{-1}$ with $\nu\nu'<0$ the $\nu$-th coefficient of $\tilde\Phi_{mp^2}(z_1,z_2,s)-\tilde\Phi_{mp^2}^0(z_1,z_2,s)$ is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
& \sqrt{p} \sum_{\substack{r|\nu }} \frac{\epsilon_p(r)}{r} b_m(p\nu\nu'/r^2,s){\mathcal{K}}_{s}(2\pi \nu y_1) {\mathcal{K}}_{s}(2\pi \nu' y_2)\\
&+ \sqrt{p} \sum_{\substack{r|\nu }} \frac{\epsilon_p(r)}{r} \delta_{-m,p\nu\nu'/r^2}{\mathcal{K}}_{s}(2\pi \nu y_1)
{\mathcal{K}}_{s}(2\pi \nu' y_2).\end{aligned}$$ Here the extra contribution with the Kronecker delta comes from the Kronecker delta $\delta_{-m,n}$ in the formula for $b_m(n,s)$ with $n<0$.
If we put the above contributions together, and use in addition the formula for $\tilde\Phi_{mp^2}^0$ of Lemma \[lphi0\], we find $$\begin{aligned}
&\tilde\Phi_{mp^2}(z_1,z_2,s)\\
&= \left(\frac{p}{\pi}\right)^{s-1/2}\Gamma(s-1/2)L(2s-1,\epsilon_p)
b_m(0,s)(y_1 y_2)^{1-s}\\
&\phantom{=}{}+\sqrt{p} \sum_{\substack{\nu\in \partial_F^{-1}\\\nu\nu'\neq 0}}
\sum_{\substack{r|\nu }} \frac{\epsilon_p(r)}{r} b_m(p\nu\nu'/r^2,s){\mathcal{K}}_{s}(2\pi \nu y_1) {\mathcal{K}}_{s}(2\pi \nu' y_2)e(\nu x_1+\nu' x_2)\\
&\phantom{=}{}+\sqrt{p} \sum_{\substack{\nu\in \partial_F^{-1}\\\nu\nu'< 0}} \sum_{\substack{r|\nu }}
\frac{\epsilon_p(r)}{r} \delta_{-m,p\nu\nu'/r^2}{\mathcal{K}}_{s}(2\pi \nu y_1)
{\mathcal{K}}_{s}(2\pi \nu' y_2)e(\nu x_1+\nu' x_2)\\
&\phantom{=}{}+2\sqrt{p} \sum_{\substack{ \lambda\in\partial_F^{-1}\\ {\operatorname{N}}(\lambda)=-m/p}} \sum_{n\geq 1}
\frac{\epsilon_p(n)}{n}
{\mathcal{I}}_{s}(2\pi n \beta(\lambda y_1,\lambda' y_2))
{\mathcal{K}}_{s}(2\pi n \alpha(\lambda y_1,\lambda' y_2)) e(n\lambda x_1+n\lambda' x_2).\end{aligned}$$ By rearranging the sums one deduces the stated formula.
Now it can be proved as in [@Br1] that $\tilde\Phi_{mp^2}(z_1,z_2,s)$ has a meromorphic continuation in $s$ to a neighborhood of $s=1$. The continuation turns out to be holomorphic at $s=1$, whereas there always was a simple pole in [@Br1]. This follows from the presence of $L(2s-1,\epsilon_p)$ in the constant term of the Fourier expansion given in Theorem \[fourier1\], while there appeared $\zeta(2s-1)$ in [@Br1] Theorem 1.
We define the regularized Green function $\tilde\Phi_{mp^2}(z_1,z_2)$ for $\tilde T_m$ as the value of $\tilde\Phi_{mp^2}(z_1,z_2,s)$ at $s=1$.
One finds that $\tilde\Phi_{mp^2}(z_1,z_2)$ is a harmonic function on ${\mathbb{H}}^2\setminus\tilde T_m$ with a logarithmic singularity along $-2\tilde T_m$.
\[fourier2\] The Green function $\tilde\Phi_{mp^2}(z_1,z_2)$ associated to $\tilde T_m$ has the Fourier expansion $$\begin{aligned}
&\tilde\Phi_{mp^2}(z_1,z_2)\\
&=\sqrt{p}L(1,\epsilon_p)
b_m(0,1)\\
&\phantom{=}{}+\sqrt{p} \sum_{\substack{\nu\in \partial_F^{-1}\\\nu\nu'> 0}}\sum_{n\geq 1}
\frac{\epsilon_p(n)}{n} b_m(p\nu\nu',1)e(-2\pi n|\nu y_1+\nu' y_2|)e(\nu n x_1+\nu'n x_2)\\
&\phantom{=}{}+\sqrt{p} \sum_{\substack{ \lambda\in\partial_F^{-1}\\ {\operatorname{N}}(\lambda)=-m/p}} \sum_{n\geq 1}
\frac{\epsilon_p(n)}{n} e\big(-2\pi n |\lambda y_1+\lambda' y_2|\big) e(n\lambda x_1+n\lambda' x_2).\end{aligned}$$ It converges normally on $y_1 y_2>mp$ outside the polar part of $\tilde T_m$.
This follows immediately from Theorem \[fourier1\], , and , noting that $b_m(n,1)=0$ when $n<0$, and that $\alpha(r_1,r_2)-\beta(r_1,r_2)=|r_1+r_2|$ for $r_1,r_2\in {\mathbb{R}}$ with $r_1r_2<0$.
We have $\sqrt{p}L(1,\epsilon_p)=h_F \log({\varepsilon}_0)$, where $h_F$ denotes the class number of $F$ and ${\varepsilon}_0>1$ the fundamental unit.
Twisted Borcherds products {#sect:5}
==========================
As an application of Theorem \[fourier2\] of the previous section we obtain a variant of the Borcherds lift for Hilbert modular surfaces (see [@Bo2], [@Br1], [@BB]). It can be viewed as a multiplicative analogue of the Doi-Naganuma lift [@DN] from holomorphic modular forms of weight $k$ for $\Gamma'$ to Hilbert modular forms of weight $k$ for $\Gamma$. Its existence was suggested by Zagier in [@Za3].
Following [@Za3] §7, we define $$\begin{aligned}
\label{defRp}
R_p(t)=\prod_{b\,(p)} (1-e(b/p)t)^{\epsilon_p(b)}.\end{aligned}$$ It is a rational function of $t$ with coefficients in $F$.
\[Rproperties\] The function $R_p(t)\in F(t)$ has the following properties:
1. $R_p(t)'=R_p(t)^{-1}$.
2. $R_p(t^{-1})=R_p(t)$.
3. $\log (R_p(t))= -\sqrt{p}\sum_{n\geq 1}\frac{1}{n}\epsilon_p(n)t^n$.
The first two properties are verified by direct computation. The third property follows from the identity $\sum_{b\,(p)}\epsilon_p(b) e(bn/p)=\sqrt{p}\epsilon_p(n)$.
\[hilbert\] Let $f=\sum_{n\gg -\infty}c(n)q^n\in {\mathbb{Z}}[j]$ be a weakly holomorphic modular form of weight $0$ for $\Gamma'$ with integral Fourier coefficients. Then there exists a symmetric meromorphic Hilbert modular function $\Psi(z,f)$ for $\Gamma$ (of weight $0$, with trivial multiplier system, defined over $F$) such that:
1. The divisor of $\Psi(z,f)$ is given by $${\operatorname{div}}(\Psi(z,f))= \sum_{n>0} c(-n) \tilde T_{n}.$$
2. The function $\Psi(z,f)$ has the Borcherds product expansion $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi(z,f)&= \prod_{\substack{\nu\in\partial_F^{-1} \\
\nu>0}}\prod_{b\,(p)} \left(1-e(\tfrac{b}{p}+\nu
z_1+\nu'z_2)\right)^{\epsilon_p(b)c(p\nu\nu')}\\
&=\prod_{\substack{\nu\in\partial_F^{-1} \\ \nu>0}} R_p\big(e(\nu
z_1+\nu'z_2)\big)^{c(p\nu\nu')} ,\end{aligned}$$ which converges normally for all $(z_1,z_2)$ with $y_1 y_2 > Np$ outside the set of poles, where $N=\max \{n\in {\mathbb{Z}};\; c(-n)\neq 0\}$.
3. The lifting is multiplicative, i.e., if $f,g\in {\mathbb{Z}}[j]$, then $\Psi(f+g)=\Psi(f)\Psi(g)$.
4. We have $$\log|\Psi(z,f)| =-\frac{1}{2} \sum_{n>0} c(-n) \left(
\tilde\Phi_{np^2}(z)-\sqrt{p} L(1,\epsilon_p) b_{n}(0,1)\right).$$
Let us first assume that $f=q^{-m}+O(1)$, as $q\to 0$, for some positive integer $m$. Then, according to Theorem \[fourierF1\], $f(\tau)=F_m(\tau,1)+C$ for some constant $C\in {\mathbb{Z}}$. We define the function $\Psi(z,f)$ by the product expansion in (ii). In view of Theorem \[fourier2\] and Lemma \[Rproperties\] (ii), (iii) we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{intid}
\log|\Psi(z,f)| =-\frac{1}{2} \left( \tilde\Phi_{mp^2}(z)-\sqrt{p}
L(1,\epsilon_p) b_{m}(0,1)\right).\end{aligned}$$ In particular, the normal convergence of the Fourier expansion of $\tilde\Phi_{mp^2}(z)$ on $y_1 y_2>mp$ implies the normal convergence of the infinite product $ \Psi(z,f)$. Therefore (ii) and (iv) hold.
In the same way as in [@Br1], Theorem 4, one can show that $
\Psi(z,f)$ has a meromorphic continuation to all of ${\mathbb{H}}^2$ and that ${\operatorname{div}}(\Psi(z,f))=\tilde T_m$: This follows from and the fact that $\tilde\Phi_{mp^2}(z)$ is a pluriharmonic function on ${\mathbb{H}}^2\setminus \tilde T_m$ with a logarithmic singularity along the divisor $-2\tilde T_m$.
Moreover, implies that $|\Psi(z,f)|$ is invariant under the group $\Gamma$. The matrix $S={\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0 & -1 \\ 1 & 0\end{smallmatrix}\right) }\in \Gamma$ satisfies the relation $S^2=-1$. Consequently, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{intid2}
\Psi(Sz,f)=\pm \Psi(z,f).\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, it follows from the product expansion that $\Psi(z,f)$ is invariant under translations ${\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 1 & \mu \\ 0 & 1\end{smallmatrix}\right) }$ where $\mu\in {\mathcal{O}_K}$. Using the relation $(S{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 1\end{smallmatrix}\right) })^3=-1$ in $\Gamma$, we may conclude that the sign in must be $+1$. But, by a theorem of Vaserstein, the translations ${\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 1 & \mu \\ 0 & 1\end{smallmatrix}\right) }$ and the matrix $S={\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0 & -1 \\ 1 & 0\end{smallmatrix}\right) }$ generate the group $\Gamma$. Hence $\Psi(z,f)$ is invariant under $\Gamma$.
Moreover, the product expansion implies that $\Psi(z,f)$ can be written as the quotient of two holomorphic Hilbert modular forms with Fourier coefficients in $F$. Hence, by the $q$-expansion principle, $\Psi(z,f)$ is defined over $F$.
Finally, the multiplicativity (iii) also follows from the infinite product expansion.
The condition $\nu>0$ under the product replaces the Weyl-chamber condition occurring for the untwisted Borcherds products [@BB]. It has this easy form because of the presence of the character $\epsilon_p(b)$ which causes some cancellations. Because of Lemma \[Rproperties\] (ii) the product is actually over ${\mathcal{O}}_F^\times/\{\pm 1\}$.
For the rest of this paper we write $\tilde\Psi_m$ ($m\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{>0}$) for the twisted Borcherds lift in the sense of Theorem \[hilbert\] of the unique weakly holomorphic modular form $$J_m=q^{-m}+O(q)\in {\mathbb{Z}}[j].$$
\[rem:conj\] In view of Lemma \[Rproperties\] (i), the conjugation in $F$ maps $\Psi(z,f)$ to $\Psi(z,f)^{-1}$.
Class Fields {#sect:class}
============
Let $F=\mathbb Q(\sqrt p)$ be a real quadratic field as before. Let $K = F(\sqrt\Delta)$ be a non-biquadratic totally imaginary quadratic extension of $F$. We view both $K$ and $F(\sqrt{\Delta'})$ as subfields of $\mathbb C$ with $\sqrt{\Delta}, \sqrt{\Delta'} \in \mathbb H$. Then $M=F(\sqrt\Delta, \sqrt{\Delta'})$ is Galois over ${\mathbb{Q}}$ and has an automorphism $\sigma$ of order $4$ such that $\sigma(\sqrt{\Delta}) =\sqrt{\Delta'}$ and $\sigma(\sqrt{\Delta'})=-\sqrt\Delta$. The field $K$ has four CM types: $\Phi=\{1, \sigma \}$, $\sigma\Phi =\{\sigma, \sigma^2\}$, $\sigma^2\Phi$, and $\sigma^3 \Phi$. We assume that the relative discriminant $d_{K/F}$ of $K/F$ satisfies the technical condition $$\label{oldeq1.1}
d_{K/F} \cap \mathbb Z = q \mathbb Z, \quad {\operatorname{N}}_{F/\mathbb Q} d_{K/F} =q,$$ for a prime number $ q \equiv 1 \pmod 4$.
Recall that the Hilbert modular surface $X$ corresponding to $\Gamma={\operatorname{SL}}_2({\mathcal O}_F)$ parameterizes isomorphism classes of triples $(A, \imath, m)$, where $(A, \imath)$ is an abelian surface with real multiplication $ \imath: {\mathcal O}_F \hookrightarrow
\hbox{End}(A), $ and $$m:(\mathfrak M_A, \mathfrak M_A^+) \longrightarrow \left(
\partial_F^{-1}, \partial_F^{-1, +}\right)$$ is an ${\mathcal O}_F$-isomorphism between the polarization module $\mathfrak
M_A$ of $A$ and $\partial_F ^{-1}$, taking the subset of polarizations to totally positive elements of $\partial_F^{-1}$ (see e.g. [@Go], Theorem 2.17 and [@BY] Section 3).
Let ${\mathcal{CM}}(K, \Phi, {\mathcal{O}}_F)$ be the CM $0$-cycle in $X$ of CM abelian surfaces of CM type $(K, \Phi)$, i.e., the points on $X$ with an ${\mathcal{O}}_K$-action via $\Phi$ (see [@BY] Section 3 for details). The field of moduli for the CM cycle ${\mathcal{CM}}(K):={\mathcal{CM}}(K, \Phi,
{\mathcal{O}}_F) + {\mathcal{CM}}(K, \sigma^3\Phi, {\mathcal{O}}_F)$ is $\mathbb Q$. Let $(\tilde K, \tilde\Phi)$ be the reflex of $(K, \Phi)$ with maximal totally real subfield $\tilde F =\mathbb Q(\sqrt{\Delta \Delta'})$. Let $I(K)$ be the group of all fractional ideals of $K$, and let $H(
K)$ be the subgroup of $I( K)$ of ideals $ {\mathfrak a}$ such that $$N_{ \Phi} {\mathfrak a} = \mu {\mathcal O}_{\tilde K},
\quad N {\mathfrak a} =\mu \bar\mu \quad \text{ for some $\mu \in \tilde K^*$}.$$ Here $N\mathfrak a =\# {\mathcal O}_K/\mathfrak a$, and $N_{ \Phi}$ is the type norm from $I( K)$ to $I(\tilde K)$ given by, in this case, $$N_{ \Phi} (\mathfrak a) = N_{M/\tilde K} (\mathfrak a {\mathcal O}_M).$$ We call the quotient ${\mathcal C \mathcal C}(K)= {\mathcal C \mathcal C}( K, \Phi) = I( K)/H( K)$ the CM ideal class group of $ K$. According to [@ShimuraCM], page 112, Main Theorem 1, the class field $H_{\tilde K}$ of $\tilde K$ associated to the CM ideal class group ${\mathcal C \mathcal C}(\tilde K,\tilde\Phi)$ is the composite of $\tilde K$ with the field of the moduli of any polarized CM abelian variety of type $(K, \Phi)$ by ${\mathcal O}_K$. Recall that ${\mathcal C \mathcal C}(\tilde K, \tilde\Phi) ={\operatorname{Gal}}(H_{\tilde K}/\tilde K)$ acts on ${\mathcal{CM}}(K, \Phi, {\mathcal O}_F)$ via [@BY], (3.7).
Inspired by the classical result that $j(\frac{-D +\sqrt{-D}}2)$ generates the Hilbert class field of the imaginary quadratic field $\mathbb Q(\sqrt{-D})$, we consider whether $H_{\tilde K}$ has a ‘canonical’ generator over $\tilde K$. Since $F$ is in general not contained in $\tilde K$, it seems more natural to consider the field $L_K= K H_{\tilde K} = M H_{\tilde K} =F H_{\tilde K}$ over either $M$ or $F$, where $M=K \tilde K$ is the smallest Galois extension of $\mathbb Q$ containing $K$ and/or $\tilde K$. For example, a natural question is whether $L_K=M(\tilde\Psi_m(z))$ for some $m$ and some CM point $z \in {\mathcal{CM}}(K, \Phi, {\mathcal O}_F)$?
\[cllem1\] Assume that $d_K=p^2 q$ with $p \equiv q \equiv 1
\mod 4$ being odd primes. Then ${\mathcal C \mathcal C}(\tilde K, \tilde\Phi) $ acts on ${\mathcal{CM}}(K, \Phi, {\mathcal O}_F)$ simply transitively. In particular, ${\mathcal{CM}}(K, \Phi, {\mathcal O}_F)$ is a single Galois orbit of a CM point.
Let ${\operatorname{CL}}_0(K)$ be the subgroup of ${\operatorname{CL}}(K)$ generated by ideal classes $[\mathfrak a]$ such that $$N_{K/F} \mathfrak a =\mu {\mathcal O}_F, \quad \text{$\mu \gg 0$ (totally positive)}.$$ Then [@BY] Lemma 5.3 asserts that the type norm $N_{\tilde
\Phi}$ gives an isomorphism between ${\operatorname{CL}}_0(\tilde K)$ and ${\operatorname{CL}}_0(K)$. It is clear by definition that $N_{\tilde \Phi}$ maps $I(\tilde K)$ to ${\operatorname{CL}}_0(K)$, so it is surjective. It is easy to check that the kernel is exactly $H(\tilde K)$. Indeed, if $[\mathfrak a] \in \ker N_{\tilde \Phi}$, then $$N_{\tilde \Phi} \mathfrak a =\mu {\mathcal O}_K.$$ This implies $$N \mathfrak a {\mathcal O}_F =N_{K/F} N_{\tilde \Phi} \mathfrak a= \mu \bar
\mu {\mathcal O}_F,$$ and thus $$N \mathfrak a = \mu \bar \mu \epsilon$$ for some unit $\epsilon$. Clearly $\epsilon$ is totally positive and thus a square $\epsilon_1^2$ since $F=\mathbb Q(\sqrt p)$. Replacing $\mu$ by $\mu \epsilon_1$, one sees that $\mathfrak a
\in H(\tilde K)$. So $${\mathcal C \mathcal C}(\tilde K) \cong {\operatorname{CL}}_0(K),$$ and $[L_K: M] = [H_{\tilde K}: \tilde K] =\# {\operatorname{CL}}_0(K)$. On the other hand, according to the remark after [@BY], Lemma 3.3, The forgetful map $${\mathcal{CM}}(K, \Phi, {\mathcal{O}}_F) \rightarrow {\operatorname{CL}}_0(K), \quad
(\mathbb C^2/\Phi(\mathfrak a), \imath, m) \rightarrow \mathfrak a$$ is a bijection. So ${\mathcal C \mathcal C}(\tilde K)$ acts on ${\mathcal{CM}}(K, \Phi, {\mathcal O}_F)$ simply transitively.
Let the assumption be as in Lemma \[cllem1\]. Let $z =(A, \imath, m) \in {\mathcal{CM}}(K, \Phi, {\mathcal O}_F)$ and let $k_z$ be the field of definition of $z$ containing $\tilde F$. Then $$\tilde\Psi_m ({\mathcal{CM}}(K, \Phi, {\mathcal O}_F))
= N_{M_z/M^+} \tilde\Psi_m(z).$$ Here $M_z= F k_z=M^+ k_z$, and $M^+ =F \tilde F$ is the maximal totally real subfield of $M$.
Recall that $k_z$ is the field of moduli of $(A, \imath, m)$ and that $H_{\tilde K} =\tilde K k_z$. Lemma 3.4(1) of [@BY] asserts that ${\mathcal{CM}}(K, \Phi, {\mathcal O}_F)$ is defined over $\tilde F$. So the lemma above implies that $k_z$ does not contain $\tilde K$ and $[k_z: \tilde F] =\#{\mathcal C \mathcal C}(\tilde K)$, and different embeddings of $k_z$ into $\mathbb C$ fixing $\tilde F$ map $z$ into different CM points in ${\mathcal{CM}}(K, \Phi, {\mathcal O}_F)$. Since $\tilde\Psi_m$ is defined over $F$, we obtain the corollary.
\[clcor1.3\] Let the assumption be as in Lemma \[cllem1\]. If $\tilde\Psi_m({\mathcal{CM}}(K))$ is not a $k$-power in $F$ for any odd integer $k >1$, then $\tilde\Psi_m(z)$ generates $L_K$ over $M$.
Recall that ${\mathcal{CM}}(K) ={\mathcal{CM}}(K, \Phi, {\mathcal O}_F) + {\mathcal{CM}}(K, \sigma^3\Phi, {\mathcal O}_F)$. If $\tilde\Psi_m(z)$ does not generate $L_K$ over $M$, then it does not generate $M^+ k_z$ over $M^+$. Let $L$ be the subfield of $M^+ k_z$ generated by $\tilde\Psi_m(z)$ over $M^+$. Then the above corollary implies that $$\tilde\Psi_m({\mathcal{CM}}(K, \Phi, {\mathcal O}_F)) = \left( N_{L/M^+}(\tilde\Psi_m(z))\right)^{[M^+k_z: L]}$$ is a $k$-th power with $k=[M^+k_z: L]>1$. Therefore $$\tilde\Psi_m({\mathcal{CM}}(K)) =N_{M^+/F}\tilde\Psi_m({\mathcal{CM}}(K, \Phi, {\mathcal O}_F))
=\left(N_{L/F}(\tilde\Psi_m(z))\right)^{k}.$$ Finally, the condition $d_K=p^2 q$ implies that $d_{\tilde
K} =q^2 p$ is an odd number and thus its class number $h({\tilde K})$ is odd [@ClassNumberParity]. In particular, $k | \#{\mathcal C \mathcal C}(\tilde K) | h(\tilde K)$ is odd.
\[rem:square\] Let the notation be as above, and let $c= \tilde\Psi_m({\mathcal{CM}}(K, \Phi, {\mathcal O}_F)) \in M^+$. The above proof implies $$N_{M^+/F} c = \tilde\Psi_m({\mathcal{CM}}(K)).$$ On the other hand, it follows from Remark \[rem:conj\] that $$N_{M^+ /\tilde F} c = 1.$$ The numerical examples in Section \[sect:examples\] suggest that $\tilde\Psi_m({\mathcal{CM}}(K))$ is a square and that $c
\in F$, that is, $$\tilde\Psi_m({\mathcal{CM}}(K, \Phi, {\mathcal O}_F)) = \tilde\Psi_m({\mathcal{CM}}(K, \sigma^3 \Phi, {\mathcal O}_F)).$$
We will try to compute $\tilde\Psi_m({\mathcal{CM}}(K))$ in the next section.
\[prop:pointsep\] Assume that $d_K=p^2 q$ with $p \equiv q \equiv 1 \mod 4$ being odd primes, and let $B$ be a set of positive integers. Then $L_K= M(\tilde\Psi_m(z), m \in B)$ for a $z \in {\mathcal{CM}}(K, \Phi,{\mathcal{O}}_F)$ if and only if the functions $\tilde\Psi_m$ ($m \in B$) separate the points in ${\mathcal{CM}}(K, \Phi, {\mathcal O}_F)$.
First assume that the $\tilde\Psi_m$ ($m \in B$) separate the points in ${\mathcal{CM}}(K, \Phi, {\mathcal O}_F)$. Clearly $L_K \supset M(\tilde\Psi_m(z), m \in B)$. Suppose that $\alpha \in {\operatorname{Gal}}(L_K/M) =
{\operatorname{Gal}}(H_{\tilde K}/\tilde K)$ fixes the field $M(\tilde\Psi_m(z), m \in B)$. Then $$\tilde\Psi_m(\alpha(z)) = \alpha (\tilde\Psi_m(z)) =
\tilde\Psi_m(z)$$ for every $m \in B$, and so $\alpha(z) =z$. This implies that $\alpha =1$, and $L_K= M(\tilde\Psi_m(z), m \in B)$.
Conversely, if there are $z_1 \ne z_2 \in {\mathcal{CM}}(K, \Phi, {\mathcal O}_F)$ such that $\tilde\Psi_m(z_1) = \tilde\Psi_m(z_2)$ for every $m \in B$, let $1 \ne \alpha \in {\operatorname{Gal}}(L_K/M)$ such that $\alpha(z_1) =z_2$, which exists by Lemma \[cllem1\]. Then $$\alpha(\tilde\Psi_m(z_1)) = \tilde\Psi_m(z_2) =\tilde\Psi_m(z_1)$$ for every $m \in B$ and thus $M(\tilde\Psi_m(z), m \in B)$ is fixed by $\alpha$. So $L_K \neq M(\tilde\Psi_m(z), m \in B)$.
For two positive integers $m$ and $n$ such that $mn$ is not a square, it is known that $\tilde T_{m}$ and $\tilde T_{n}$ has no common component [@HZ]. This implies that the rational map $$\phi_{m, n}: X \rightarrow \mathbb P^1 \times \mathbb P^1, \quad
z \mapsto (\tilde\Psi_m(z), \tilde\Psi_n(z))$$ is generically finite, i.e., $
[\mathbb C(X): \mathbb C(\tilde\Psi_m(z),\tilde\Psi_n(z))]
$ is finite.
\[cltheo6.6\] Let $F=\mathbb Q(\sqrt p)$ be a fixed real quadratic field. Let $K$ be a non-biquadratic CM quartic field with maximal totally real subfield $F$ and discriminant $d_K= p^2
q$ with $p \equiv q \equiv 1 \mod 4$ primes. Let $z \in {\mathcal{CM}}(K,
\Phi, {\mathcal O}_F)$ and $L_{m, n}(K) = M(\tilde\Psi_m(z),
\tilde\Psi_n(z))$ be the unramified abelian extension of $M$ generated by $\tilde\Psi_m(z)$ and $\tilde\Psi_n(z)$. Then there is a constant $d
>0$ depending on $F$, $m$, and $n$, but independent of $K$, such that
1. $[L_K: L_{m, n}(K)] \le d $.
2. $ \lim_{q \rightarrow \infty} \frac{\log [L_{m, n}(K): M]}{\log
\sqrt q} =1$.
Lemma \[cllem1\] implies that ${\operatorname{Gal}}(L_K/M)$ acts on ${\mathcal{CM}}(K, \Phi, {\mathcal O}_F)$ simply transitively, so $${\mathcal{CM}}(K, \Phi, {\mathcal O}_F) =\{ \sigma(z);\; \sigma \in {\operatorname{Gal}}(L_K/M)\}.$$ Here $z$ is a fixed CM point in ${\mathcal{CM}}(K, \Phi, {\mathcal O}_F)$. Set $$\begin{aligned}
A&= \{ z'\in {\mathcal{CM}}(K, \Phi, {\mathcal O}_F);\; \tilde\Psi_i(z')
=\tilde\Psi_i(z),\, i=m, n\}
\\
&=\{\sigma(z);\; \sigma\in {\operatorname{Gal}}(L_K/M), \tilde\Psi_i(\sigma(z))
=\tilde\Psi_i(z),\, i=m, n\}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $$\sigma(\tilde\Psi_m(z)) = \tilde\Psi_m(\sigma(z)),$$ one has that $\sigma(z) \in A$ if and only is $\sigma \in
{\operatorname{Gal}}(L_K/L_{m, n}(K))$. So $$[L_K:L_{m, n}(K)] =\# A \le \deg \phi_{m, n}$$ generically, that is, if $\phi_{m, n}(z) \notin B= \{ (a, b);\;
\phi_{m, n}^{-1}(a, b) \hbox{ is infinite} \}$. Notice that $B$ is a finite set. Since $\phi_{m, n}$ is defined over $F$, $\phi_{m, n}(z) \in B$ for some $z \in {\mathcal{CM}}(K, \Phi, {\mathcal O}_F)$ implies that $\phi_{m, n}( \sigma(z)) \in B$ for all $\sigma(z) \in {\mathcal{CM}}(K,
\Phi, {\mathcal O}_F)$, i.e., $${\mathcal{CM}}(K, \Phi, {\mathcal O}_F) \subset \phi_{m, n}^{-1} (B) \quad \hbox{ or } \quad {\mathcal{CM}}(K, \Phi, {\mathcal O}_F) \cap \phi_{m, n}^{-1}
(B)=\emptyset. $$ According to the equidistribution theorem of CM points on a Hilbert modular variety recently proved by Zhang (cf. [@Zhang], Theorem 2.1), which extends a well-known theorem of W. Duke on modular curves [@Duke], $\{ {\mathcal{CM}}(K,
\Phi, {\mathcal O}_F);\; d_K=p^2 q\}$ is equidistributed on $X$. On the other hand, $\phi_{m, n}^{-1}(B)$ is just a divisor of $X$, so there is $q_0
>0$ such that $q > q_0$ implies that $ {\mathcal{CM}}(K, \Phi, {\mathcal O}_F) \cap
\phi_{m, n}^{-1} (B) $ is empty. Let $$d_0 =\max \{[L_K: L_{m, n}(K)];\; q \le q_0\},\quad
\hbox{and}\quad d = \max\{\deg \phi_{m, n}, d_0\}.$$ Then we always find $$[L_K:L_{m, n}(K)] \le d.$$ This proves (i).
For (ii), one has $$[L_K:M] = \#{\mathcal{CM}}(K, \Phi, {\mathcal O}_F) = \# {\operatorname{CL}}_0(K) =c \frac{h_K R_K}{h_F
R_F} .$$ Here $h_F$ and $h_K$ are the class numbers of $F$ and $K$ respectively, $R_F$ and $R_K$ are the regulators of $F$ and $K$ respectively, and $\frac{1}2 \le c \le 2$. Indeed, $$\frac{R_F}{R_K} \le c= [{\operatorname{CL}}(F): N_{K/F} {\operatorname{CL}}(K)] \frac{R_F}{R_K}
\le [{\operatorname{CL}}(F): N_{K/F} {\operatorname{CL}}(K)].$$ Since $F$ is fixed, one sees from the Brauer-Siegel theorem (cf. [@Lang], Chapter XVI, Lemma 2 and Theorem 5) that $$\label{cleq6.5}
\lim_{q \rightarrow \infty} \frac{\log [L_K:M]}{\log \sqrt q}=1.$$ Now (ii) follows from (i).
Bas Edixhoven gave a very nice lower bound for the size of the Galois orbit of a CM point on a Hilbert modular surface in general (cf. [@Ed], Section 6). In particular, (\[cleq6.5\]) is implicitly given in his proof of [@Ed], Theorems 6.2 and 6.4. He also pointed out that using a result of Stark (instead of the Brauer-Siegel theorem) [@Stark], one gets an effective lower bound $ [L_{m,
n}(K): M] \gg q^{\frac{1}4}$.
The field $L_K$ is Galois over $F$.
By [@ShimuraCM], page 112, Main Theorem 1, $H_{\tilde K}$ is the field of moduli of a CM abelian variety $z=(A, \imath, m) \in {\mathcal{CM}}(K, \Phi, {\mathcal O}_F)$ over $\tilde K$. So $L_K$ is the field of moduli of a CM abelian variety $z \in {\mathcal{CM}}(K, \Phi, {\mathcal O}_F)$ over $M$. Let $\alpha $ be an embedding of $L_K$ into $\bar F$ fixing $F$, and $\alpha|_K$ is either the identity or the complex conjugation. So $(A^\alpha, i^\alpha, m^\alpha) \in {\mathcal{CM}}(K, \Phi, {\mathcal O}_F )$ or ${\mathcal{CM}}(K, \bar\Phi, {\mathcal O}_F)$. Clearly, $(K, \Phi, {\mathcal O}_F)$ and $(K, \bar\Phi, {\mathcal O}_F)$ have the same reflex field $\tilde K$, and the associated CM ideal class groups of $\tilde K$ are the same. This implies $\alpha(L_K) = L_K$, i.e., $L_K$ is Galois over $F$.
In general, $L_K$ is not abelian over $F$. Let $L_F$ be the composite of all $L_K$ with $K$ running through non-biquadratic CM quadratic extensions of $F$. Then one has an exact sequence $$1 \rightarrow \mathcal A \rightarrow {\operatorname{Gal}}(L_F/F) \rightarrow (\mathbb Z/2)^{(\mathbb N)} \rightarrow 0$$ for some abelian group $\mathcal A$. It might be interesting to study the Galois group ${\operatorname{Gal}}(L_F/F)$. We end this section with the following question.
Is $L_K$ independent of the choice of the CM types of $K$? This is equivalent to the question whether $L_K$ is Galois over $\mathbb Q$.
Examples {#sect:examples}
========
It would be very interesting to obtain closed formulas for the values of twisted Borcherds products at the CM cycles considered in the previous section in analogy to [@BY]. However, since the twisted Borcherds products are in general only defined over $F$ (in contrast to the untwisted Borcherds products, which are essentially defined over ${\mathbb{Q}}$), their CM values will lie in $F$. This makes computations more difficult. Moreover, taking the norm to ${\mathbb{Q}}$ does not provide any insight, since $\Psi(z,f)\cdot\Psi(z,f)'=1$ because of Remark \[rem:conj\]. Note that for numeric computations, in the same way as in [@BY], the problem arises that the product expansion of Theorem \[hilbert\] only converges near the cusps. The CM points usually do not lie in the domain of convergence. Therefore one has to find an alternative expression for the twisted Borcherds products one wants to evaluate.
Here we discuss some examples in the special case $p=5$ where $F={\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{5})$. The fundamental unit of ${\mathcal{O}}_F$ is equal to $\omega=\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}$. The structure of the graded ring of holomorphic Hilbert modular forms for the group $\Gamma={\operatorname{SL}}_2({\mathcal{O}}_F)$ was determined by Gundlach [@Gu], see also [@Mu]. In particular, it turns out that the graded ring $M_{2*}^{sym}(\Gamma)$ of holomorphic symmetric Hilbert modular forms of even weight for $\Gamma$ is the polynomial ring ${\mathbb{C}}[g_2,g_6,g_{10}]$, where $g_k$ denotes the Eisenstein series (in the cusp $\infty$ for $\Gamma$) of weight $k$ normalized such that the constant term is $1$. Often it is more convenient to replace the generators $g_6$ and $g_{10}$ by the cusp forms $$\begin{aligned}
s_6 &= 67\cdot(2^5\cdot 3^3\cdot 5^2)^{-1}\cdot(g_2^3-g_6),\\
s_{10}&= (2^{10}\cdot 3^5\cdot 5^5 \cdot 7)^{-1}\cdot (2^2\cdot 3\cdot 7\cdot 4231 \cdot g_2^5-5\cdot 67\cdot
2293\cdot g_2^2\cdot g_6 +412751\cdot g_{10}).\end{aligned}$$ We have $$M_{2*}^{sym}(\Gamma)={\mathbb{C}}[g_2,s_6,s_{10}].$$ Notice that $g_2,s_6,s_{10}$ all have rational integral and coprime Fourier coefficients. The cusp form $s_{10}$ is equal to the (untwisted) Borcherds lift $\Psi_1^2$ in the sense of [@BB].
Recall from Section \[sect:5\] that $\tilde\Psi_m$ is the symmetric Hilbert modular function of weight $0$ which is the twisted Borcherds lift in the sense of Theorem \[hilbert\] of the unique weakly holomorphic modular form $J_m=q^{-m}+O(q)\in {\mathbb{Z}}[j]$. By Gundlach’s theorem, $\tilde\Psi_m$ must be a rational function in $g_2,s_6,s_{10}$ with coefficients in $F$. We now discuss how it can be computed.
For simplicity, we assume that $m$ is a [*square-free*]{} positive integer. Then the Hirzebruch-Zagier divisor $T_{mp^2}$ decomposes into irreducible components $T_{mp^2}=T_m+F^+_{mp^2}+F_{mp^2}^-$. Recall that ${\operatorname{div}}(\tilde \Psi_m)= F_{mp^2}^+-F_{mp^2}^-$. On the other hand we can construct a symmetric holomorphic Hilbert modular form with divisor $F_{mp^2}^++F_{mp^2}^-$ of weight $k_m>0$ by taking the (untwisted) Borcherds lift $H_m=\Psi_{mp^2}/\Psi_m$ in the sense of [@BB] Theorem 9. For instance, for $m=1$ we have $k_1=60$, and $H_1$ it is obtained as the lift of the unique weakly holomorphic modular form $h\in W_0^+(p,\epsilon_p)$ whose Fourier expansion has the form $$h=\frac{1}{2} q^{-25}-q^{-1}+60+438864q+45271325304q^4+\dots.$$ The product $\tilde \Psi_m \cdot H_m$ is also a symmetric holomorphic Hilbert modular form of weight $k_m$. Its divisor is equal to $2
F_{mp^2}^+$. Hence there exist holomorphic Hilbert modular forms $\Psi_m^+$ and $\Psi_m^-$ of weight $k_m/2$ for $\Gamma$ such that $(\Psi_m^+)^2=H_m\cdot \tilde \Psi_m$ and $(\Psi_m^-)^2=
H_m/\tilde \Psi_m $.
The function $\Psi_m^\pm$ must also be symmetric, because any skew-symmetric Hilbert modular form automatically vanishes on $F_1$, contradicting ${\operatorname{div}}(\Psi_m^\pm)=F_{mp^2}^\pm$. Moreover, $\Psi_m^\pm$ is defined over $F$ and $$\begin{aligned}
(\Psi_m^+)'&=\Psi_m^-,\\
\label{eq:2}
\tilde \Psi_m &=\Psi^+_m/ \Psi_m^-,\\
\label{eq:1}
H_m &= \Psi^+_m\cdot \Psi_m^-.\end{aligned}$$
By Gundlach’s theorem, $\Psi_m^\pm$ is a homogeneous polynomial in $g_2,s_6,s_{10}$ with coefficients in $F$. Using the infinite product expansions, this polynomial can be determined explicitly. Its degree depends on the weight $k_m$. Unfortunately, it turns out that the $k_m$ are rather large which makes computations difficult. The smallest weights that occur are $k_1=k_2=60$. For all $m$ the weight $k_m$ is divisible by $60$, and if $m>2$ then $k_m\geq 120$.
A computation with Maple shows that $$\begin{aligned}
16 \Psi_1^+ &= (6+2 \sqrt{5}) g_2^{10} s_{10}+(10-2 \sqrt{5}) g_2^9 s_{6}^2+(-2308750-1031750 \sqrt{5}) g_2^7 s_{10} s_{6}\\
&\phantom{=}{}+(-1220450-543450 \sqrt{5}) g_2^6 s_{6}^3+(856853809375+383196837500 \sqrt{5}) g_2^5 s_{10}^2\\
&\phantom{=}{}+(-133751887500-59814018750 \sqrt{5}) g_2^4 s_{10} s_{6}^2\\
&\phantom{=}{}+(-309550426875-138434703750 \sqrt{5}) g_2^3 s_{6}^4\\
&\phantom{=}{}+(23003309053125000+10287392475000000 \sqrt{5}) g_2^2 s_{10}^2 s_{6}\\
&\phantom{=}{}+(-18093694595625000-8091745695000000 \sqrt{5}) g_2 s_{10} s_{6}^3\\
&\phantom{=}{}+(-16048066250700000-7176913583400000 \sqrt{5}) s_{6}^5\\
&\phantom{=}{}+(24527175191718750000+10968886216250000000 \sqrt{5}) s_{10}^3.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi_2^+ &= \scriptstyle
-g_2^{15}+(48072800+21493760 \sqrt{5}) g_2^{12} s_{6}\\
&\phantom{=}{}\scriptstyle
+(-12166677513088000-5441103582617600 \sqrt{5}) g_2^{10} s_{10}\\
&\phantom{=}{}\scriptstyle
+(4809336551424000 \sqrt{5}+10754003449472000) g_2^9 s_{6}^2\\
&\phantom{=}{}\scriptstyle
+(-343213552017810432000000-153489766622216192000000 \sqrt{5}) g_2^7 s_{10} s_{6}\\
&\phantom{=}{}\scriptstyle
+(356570717554737254400000+159463272647655096320000 \sqrt{5}) g_2^6 s_{6}^3\\
&\phantom{=}{}\scriptstyle
+(-1295691015382296818073600000000-579450637646108270264320000000 \sqrt{5}) g_2^5 s_{10}^2\\
&\phantom{=}{}\scriptstyle
+(773852433537584819077120000000 \sqrt{5}+1730386645943677691904000000000) g_2^4 s_{10} s_{6}^2\\
&\phantom{=}{}\scriptstyle
+(-463842956129634468495360000000-207436876158063085617152000000 \sqrt{5}) g_2^3 s_{6}^4\\
&\phantom{=}{}\scriptstyle
+(26896303882903769962250240000000000 \sqrt{5}+60141963825664373337292800000000000) g_2^2 s_{10}^2 s_{6}\\
&\phantom{=}{}\scriptstyle
+(-89933914258012151985733632000000000 \sqrt{5}-201098345763552732433612800000000000) g_2 s_{10} s_{6}^3\\
&\phantom{=}{}\scriptstyle
+(66189203273169170168775966720000000 \sqrt{5}+148003557895357846527777177600000000) s_{6}^5\\
&\phantom{=}{}\scriptstyle
+(-17950573674763054301052928000000000000 \sqrt{5}-40138702971888390552944640000000000000) s_{10}^3.\end{aligned}$$ These polynomial representations can be used to calculate the Fourier expansions, which in turn can be employed to compute the values of $\tilde \Psi_1$ and $\tilde \Psi_2$ at CM points.
A pleasant example is the CM point $z_0=(\zeta_5,\zeta_5^2)$ (where $\zeta_5=e^{2\pi i/5}$) corresponding to the cyclic CM extension $K={\mathbb{Q}}(\zeta_5)$ of $F$. It is known that $ z_0$ is an elliptic fixed point of $\Gamma$ of order $5$. The stabilizer of $z_0$ in $\Gamma$ is the cyclic subgroup generated by ${\left(\begin{smallmatrix} \omega' & 1 \\ -1 & 0\end{smallmatrix}\right) }$. This implies that every Hilbert modular form for $\Gamma$ of weight coprime to $5$ vanishes at $z_0$. In particular $g_2(z_0)=s_6(z_0)=0$. Consequently, only the term involving $s_{10}^3$ contributes to the value at $z_0$. We find that $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde \Psi_1(z_0) &=\Psi_1^+(z_0)/\Psi_1^-(z_0) \\
&=\frac{24527175191718750000+10968886216250000000 \sqrt{5}}{24527175191718750000-10968886216250000000 \sqrt{5}}\\
&=\frac{156973921227+70200871784\sqrt{5}}{156973921227-70200871784\sqrt{5}}\\
&=\left(\frac{\omega}{\omega'}\right)^{27}\cdot
\frac{(4+\omega')^5\cdot(5+\omega')^5}{(4+\omega)^5\cdot(5+\omega)^5}.\\
\intertext{Moreover,}
\tilde \Psi_2(z_0) &=\Psi_2^+(z_0)/\Psi_2^-(z_0) \\
&=-\frac{68476004313518731312+30623400094519340937\sqrt{5}}{68476004313518731312-30623400094519340937\sqrt{5}}\\
&=\left(\frac{\omega}{\omega'}\right)^{51}\cdot
\frac{(9+\omega')^5\cdot(10+\omega')^5}{(9+\omega)^5\cdot(10+\omega)^5}.\end{aligned}$$ Notice that $4+\omega$, $5+\omega$, $9+\omega$, $10+\omega$ are prime elements of ${\mathcal{O}}_F$ above $19$, $29$, $89$, $109$, respectively. In particular the same phenomenon as in [@BY] happens: the prime factors of the CM values are small.
We would like to evaluate $\tilde \Psi_m$ at other CM cycles as well, say, corresponding to CM extensions $K/F$ such that $K/{\mathbb{Q}}$ is non-Galois (and satisfies the assumptions of Section \[sect:class\]). Here it is rather difficult to compute the value exactly. To get a feeling for the problem, one can try to do some numerical computations. However, this is not so easy either, since the CM values will be large (or small) algebraic numbers in $F$. So from the floating point evaluation one cannot get the exact value. However, using the result of [@BY] one obtains a convincing heuristic how the values should look like. With this extra information, the problem becomes accessible. For simplicity let us assume that $m$ is square-free and that $p=5$ as before. (For $p=13,17$ the same argument applies.)
The value of the Petersson metric of $H_m$ at ${\mathcal{C}}{\mathcal{M}}(K)$ can be computed by means of the formula of [@BY]. Let ${\mathfrak l}\subset{\mathcal{O}}_F$ be a prime ideal above a prime $l\in {\mathbb{Z}}$. Using the notation of [@BY], to $m$ and $l$ we can associate the quantity $$\begin{aligned}
h_m(l)=\frac{W_{\tilde K}}{4}(b_{mp^2}(l)-b_{m}(l)).\end{aligned}$$ As explained in [@BY] (1.10) it should have a geometric interpretation as the intersection number of suitable models of ${\operatorname{div}}(H_m)$ and ${\mathcal{C}}{\mathcal{M}}(K)$ in the fiber above $l$ of the moduli space of abelian surfaces with ${\mathcal{O}}_F$-action and $\partial_F^{-1}$-polarization. In the same way, over ${\mathcal{O}}_F$, we could associate to $m$ and ${\mathfrak l}$ the intersection number $h_m({\mathfrak l})$ in the fiber above ${\mathfrak l}$. We should have $$h_m(l)=\begin{cases} 2 h_m({\mathfrak l}),& \text{if $l$ is ramified in ${\mathcal{O}}_F$,}\\
h_m({\mathfrak l}),& \text{if $l$ is inert in ${\mathcal{O}}_F$,}\\
h_m({\mathfrak l})+h_m({\mathfrak l}'),& \text{if $l$ is split in ${\mathcal{O}}_F$.}
\end{cases}$$ According to , one should be able to write $h_m({\mathfrak l})=h_m^+({\mathfrak l})+h_m^-({\mathfrak l}) $, where $h_m^\pm({\mathfrak l})$ denotes the intersection of ${\operatorname{div}}(\Psi^\pm_m)$ and ${\mathcal{C}}{\mathcal{M}}(K)$ in the fiber above ${\mathfrak l}$. Since $(\Psi^+_m)'=\Psi^-_m$, we would have $$h_m^+({\mathfrak l})=h_m^-({\mathfrak l}').$$ In view of the intersection number of ${\operatorname{div}}(\tilde\Psi_m)$ and ${\mathcal{C}}{\mathcal{M}}(K)$ in the fiber above ${\mathfrak l}$, would be given by $$\label{eq:3}
h_m^+({\mathfrak l})-h_m^-({\mathfrak l})=h_m^+({\mathfrak l})-h_m^+({\mathfrak l}').$$ But since $\tilde \Psi_m$ has weight $0$, this quantity would be equal to ${\operatorname{ord}}_{\mathfrak l}(\tilde\Psi_m({\mathcal{C}}{\mathcal{M}}(K)))$. Consequently, $$\begin{aligned}
|{\operatorname{ord}}_{\mathfrak l}(\tilde\Psi_m({\mathcal{C}}{\mathcal{M}}(K)))|\leq
\begin{cases}
0,& \text{if $l$ is ramified or inert in ${\mathcal{O}}_F$,}\\
h_m(l),& \text{if $l$ is split in ${\mathcal{O}}_F$.}
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ The quantities $h_m(l)$ can be computed by means of the formula of [@BY]. In that way there are only finitely many possibilities left for the prime ideal factorization of $\tilde\Psi_m({\mathcal{C}}{\mathcal{M}}(K))$. Using a computer algebra system one can now compute the CM value if the Fourier expansion of $\tilde \Psi_m$ is known.
In the special cases $p=5$ and $m=1,2$ considered before, we computed a few CM values corresponding to non-biquadratic CM fields $K$. We listed some data on a few CM fields in Table \[cmfielddata\], including the class number $h_K$, and a system of representatives for the ideal class group of $K$. The corresponding CM values are given in Tables \[twistedvalues\] and \[twistedvalues2\].
[16.2cm]{}[|r|@p[7cm]{}|l| ]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$q$ & $ \prod_l l^{h_1(l)}$ & $\tilde\Psi_1({\mathcal{CM}}(K))$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$5$ & $5^{40}\cdot 19^{10}\cdot 29^{10}$ & $\left(\frac{\omega}{\omega'}\right)^{54}
\frac{(4+\omega')^{10}\cdot(5+\omega')^{10}}{(4+\omega)^{10}\cdot(5+\omega)^{10}}$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$41$ &$2^{16}\cdot 5^{42}\cdot 23^4\cdot 31^4\cdot 37^2\cdot 61^4\cdot 107^2\cdot 127^2$&
$\left(\frac{\omega}{\omega'}\right)^{32}\frac{(5+2\omega)^2\cdot (7+3\omega')^2}{(5+2\omega')^2\cdot (7+3\omega)^2}$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$61$ & $3^{12}\!\cdot\! 5^{42}\!\cdot\! 13^4\!\cdot\! 41^4\!\cdot \!83^2\! \cdot\! 103^2\!\cdot\! 109^2\!\cdot\! 113^2\!\cdot \!199^2\!\cdot\! 379^2 $& $\left(\frac{\omega}{\omega'}\right)^{24}
\frac{(6+\omega)^2\cdot
(10+\omega')^2\cdot (13+3\omega)^2\cdot(19+\omega')^2}{
(6+\omega')^2\cdot (10+\omega)^2\cdot (13+3\omega')^2
\cdot (19+\omega)^2}$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$109$ &$3^{12}\!\cdot\! 5^{40}\!\cdot \!7^6\!\cdot\! 43^2\!\cdot\! 61^4\!\cdot\! 71^4\!\cdot\! 73^2\!\cdot\! 97^2\!\cdot\! 113^2\!\cdot\! 223^2\!\cdot\! 409^2\!\cdot\! 499^2$& $\left(\frac{\omega}{\omega'}\right)^{12}
\frac{(7+3\omega)^2\cdot (8+\omega)^2\cdot (19+3\omega)^2\cdot (20+9\omega)^2}{
(7+3\omega')^2\cdot(8+\omega')^2\cdot (19+3\omega')^2\cdot
(20+9\omega')^2}$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$241$ &$2^{50}\!\cdot\! 3^{36}\!\cdot\! 5^{126}\!\cdot\! 29^{14}\!\cdot\! 47^6\!\cdot\! 53^6\!\cdot\! 61^8\!\cdot\! 67^2\!\cdot\! 83^2\!\cdot\! 97^6\!\cdot\! 229^4\!\cdot\! 257^2\!\cdot\! 331^4\!\cdot\! 347^2\!\cdot\! 617^2$& $\left(\frac{\omega}{\omega'}\right)^{84}
\frac{(5+\omega')^2\cdot (17+3\omega')^2}{(5+\omega)^2\cdot (17+3\omega)^2}$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$281$ &$2^{44}\!\cdot\! 5^{128}\!\cdot\! 7^{22}\!\cdot\! 17^{12}\!\cdot\! 43^6\!\cdot\! 53^6\!\cdot\! 59^6\!\cdot\! 101^4\!\cdot\! 109^6\!\cdot\! 137^2
\!\cdot\! 191^4\!\cdot\! 317^2\!\cdot\! 421^4\!\cdot\! 647^2\!\cdot\! 787^2\!\cdot\! 857^2\!\cdot\! 877^2$& $\left(\frac{\omega}{\omega'}\right)^{72}
\frac{(7+2\omega)^2\cdot (10+\omega)^2\cdot (13+2\omega)^2\cdot(19+4\omega)^2}
{(7+2\omega')^2\cdot (10+\omega')^2\cdot (13+2\omega')^2\cdot (19+4\omega')^2}$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$409$ &$2^{48}\!\cdot\! 3^{42}\!\cdot\! 5^{120}\!\cdot\! 17^{12}\!\cdot\! 23^{14}\!\cdot\!
53^{10}\!\cdot\! 83^4\!\cdot\! 103^6\!\cdot\! 109^6\!\cdot\! 167^2\!\cdot\! 179^4\!\cdot\! 197^2\!\cdot\! 239^4\!\cdot\! 349^4
\!\cdot\! 571^4\!\cdot\! 1187^2\!\cdot\! 1277^2$& $\left(\frac{\omega}{\omega'}\right)^{72}
\frac{(10+\omega)^2\cdot (23+2\omega)^2}
{(10+\omega')^{2}\cdot (23+2\omega')^2}$\
[16.2cm]{}[|r|@p[5cm]{}|l| ]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$q$ & $ \prod_l l^{h_2(l)}$ & $\tilde\Psi_2({\mathcal{CM}}(K))$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$5$ & $2^{120}\cdot 5^{50}\cdot 89^{10}\cdot 109^{10}$ & $\left(\frac{\omega}{\omega'}\right)^{102}
\frac{(9+\omega')^{10}\cdot(10+\omega')^{10}}{(9+\omega)^{10}\cdot(10+\omega)^{10}}
$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$41$ &$2^{104}\!\cdot\! 5^{48}\!\cdot\! 23^{4}\!\cdot\! 37^2\!\cdot\! 41^2\!\cdot\! 43^2
\!\cdot \!73^2\!\cdot\!
83^2\!\cdot\! 113^2\!\cdot\! 349^2\!\cdot\! 449^2\!\cdot\! 769^2\!\cdot\! 829^2
\!\cdot \!1009^2$ & $\left(\frac{\omega}{\omega'}\right)^{84}
\frac{ ( 6+ \omega)^2\cdot (17+5\omega)^2\cdot (19+8\omega)^2\cdot
(25+9\omega')^2\cdot (26+9\omega')^2\cdot (29+8\omega)^2}
{( 6+ \omega')^2\cdot (17+5\omega')^2\cdot (19+8\omega')^2\cdot
(25+9\omega)^2\cdot (26+9\omega)^2\cdot (29+8\omega')^2}$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$61$ & $2^{120}\! \cdot \! 3^{14}\! \cdot\! 5^{48}\! \cdot\! 13^2 \! \cdot\! 41^4\! \cdot\! 47^4\! \cdot\! 61^2\! \cdot \!
73^2\! \cdot \! 229^2\! \cdot\! 283^2\! \cdot\! 443^2\! \cdot\! 503^2\! \cdot\! 1489^2$ & $\left(\frac{\omega}{\omega'}\right)^{80}
\frac{( 6+ \omega')^2\cdot (7+3\omega)^2\cdot (14+3\omega')^2\cdot
(35+11\omega)^2}{( 6+ \omega)^2\cdot (7+3\omega')^2\cdot (14+3\omega)^2
\cdot (35+11\omega')^2}
$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$109$ &$
2^{120}\!\cdot\! 3^{12}\! \cdot\! 5^{50}\! \cdot\! 7^{12}\! \cdot\! 43^2\!
\cdot\! 263^2\! \cdot\! 281^4
\! \cdot\! 307^2\! \cdot\! 523^2\! \cdot\! 683^2\! \cdot\! 823^2\!
\cdot\! 1429^2\! \cdot\! 2689^2$ & $\left(\frac{\omega}{\omega'}\right)^{66}
\frac{( 15+ 7\omega)^2\cdot (34+13\omega')^2\cdot (47+15\omega)^2}
{( 15+ 7\omega')^2\cdot (34+13\omega)^2\cdot (47+15\omega')^2}
$\
[|r|l|l|l|]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$q$ & $K=F(\sqrt{\Delta})$ & $h_K$ & ${\operatorname{CL}}(K)$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$5$ &$\Delta=-\frac{5+\sqrt{5}}{2}$& 1& $\mathcal{O}_K = { \mathcal{O}_F + \sqrt{\Delta} \mathcal{O}_F}$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
41 & $\Delta=- \frac{13+\sqrt{5}}{2}$ & 1& $\mathcal{O}_K ={ \mathcal{O}_F + \frac{1}{2}(\sqrt{\Delta}+\frac{3+\sqrt{5}}{2}) \mathcal{O}_F}$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
61 & $\Delta = - (9+2 \sqrt{5})$ & 1& $\mathcal{O}_K ={ \mathcal{O}_F + \frac{1}{2}(\sqrt{\Delta}+1) \mathcal{O}_F}$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
109 & $\Delta = -\frac{21+\sqrt{5}}{2} $& 1& $\mathcal{O}_K ={ \mathcal{O}_F + \frac{1}{2}(\sqrt{\Delta}+\frac{3+\sqrt{5}}{2}) \mathcal{O}_F}$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
241 & $\Delta=- \frac{33+5 \sqrt{5}}{2}$& 3& $\mathcal{O}_K = { \mathcal{O}_F + \frac{1}{2}(\sqrt{\Delta}+\frac{3+\sqrt{5}}{2}) \mathcal{O}_F}$,\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
&&& $\mathfrak{A} ={2 \mathcal{O}_F + \frac{1}{2}(\sqrt{\Delta}+\frac{9+3 \sqrt{5}}{2}) \mathcal{O}_F}$,\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
&&& $\mathfrak{B} ={4 \mathcal{O}_F + \frac{1}{2}(\sqrt{\Delta}+\frac{9+3 \sqrt{5}}{2}) \mathcal{O}_F}$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
281 & $\Delta=- \frac{37+7 \sqrt{5}}{2}$ & 3 & $\mathcal{O}_K = { \mathcal{O}_F + \frac{1}{2}(\sqrt{\Delta}+\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}) \mathcal{O}_F}$,\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
&&& $\mathfrak{A} = {2 \mathcal{O}_F + \frac{1}{2}(\sqrt{\Delta}+\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}) \mathcal{O}_F}$,\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
&&& $\mathfrak{B} = {4 \mathcal{O}_F + \frac{1}{2}(\sqrt{\Delta}+\frac{9+\sqrt{5}}{2}) \mathcal{O}_F}$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
409 & $\Delta=- \frac{41+3 \sqrt{5}}{2}$ & 3& $\mathcal{O}_K = { \mathcal{O}_F + \frac{1}{2}(\sqrt{\Delta}+\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}) \mathcal{O}_F}$,\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
&&& $\mathfrak{A} = {2 \mathcal{O}_F + \frac{1}{2}(\sqrt{\Delta}+\frac{7+ 3 \sqrt{5}}{2}) \mathcal{O}_F}$,\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
&&& $\mathfrak{B} = {4 \mathcal{O}_F + \frac{1}{2}(\sqrt{\Delta}+\frac{-1+3 \sqrt{5}}{2}) \mathcal{O}_F}$\
Combining the above considerations with Corollary 1.3 of [@BY] we are lead to the following conjecture.
\[conj\] Let $m$ be a positive integer, and let ${\mathfrak l}\subset{\mathcal{O}}_F$ be a prime ideal above a prime $l\in {\mathbb{Z}}$ such that ${\operatorname{ord}}_{\mathfrak l}(\tilde\Psi_m({\mathcal{C}}{\mathcal{M}}(K)))\neq 0$. Then ${\mathfrak l}'\neq {\mathfrak l}$ and $4 l| m^2 p^2 q - r^2$ for some $r\in {\mathbb{Z}}$ with $|r|<mp\sqrt{q}$.
Further remarks and open problems {#sect:7}
=================================
1\. Is there a nice moduli interpretation of $\tilde \Psi_1$ as an invariant of abelian surfaces with ${\mathcal{O}}_F$-multiplication and $\partial_F^{-1}$-polarization?
2\. In the numerical calculations it always happened that $$\tilde\Psi_m({\mathcal{CM}}(K,\Phi,{\mathcal{O}}_F))= \tilde\Psi_m({\mathcal{CM}}(K,\sigma^3\Phi,{\mathcal{O}}_F)).$$ This explains that the CM values in Tables \[twistedvalues\] and \[twistedvalues2\] are squares. Is it possible to prove this in general? (See also Remark \[rem:square\].) Moreover, it is striking that the CM values $\tilde\Psi_1({\mathcal{CM}}(K,\Phi,{\mathcal{O}}_F))$ corresponding to non-Galois CM fields are actually square-free elements of $F$. Is this a coincidence or a general phenomenon? Notice that by Corollary \[clcor1.3\] this would imply that $\tilde\Psi_1(z)$ generates the class field $L_K$. This is the case with the examples computed above.
3\. Is there a (finite) subset $B$ of the positive integers such that the functions $\tilde \Psi_m$ ($m\in B$) generate the function field of the symmetric Hilbert modular surface corresponding to ${\operatorname{SL}}_2({\mathcal{O}}_F)$?
4\. In terms of the generators $g_2$, $s_6$, $s_{10}$ of the ring of symmetric Hilbert modular forms of even weight for ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{5})$ the functions $\tilde \Psi_1$ and $\tilde \Psi_2$ look rather complicated. Are there other generators which yield a nicer description (possibly of all $\tilde \Psi_m$)?
5\. Describe how the correspondence of Theorem \[hilbert\] behaves under the action of the corresponding Hecke algebras. It should be Hecke equivariant, where the Hecke action on the image is multiplicative (see also [@Bo2] Problem 16.5).
6\. Generalize the results of the present paper to Hilbert modular surfaces of arbitrary discriminant.
[EMOT]{}\[secref\]
, Pocketbook of Mathematical Functions, Verlag Harri Deutsch, Thun (1984).
, Introduction to Analytic Number Theory, Springer-Verlag (1976).
, Automorphic forms on ${\operatorname{O}}_{s+2,2}({\mathbb{R}})$ and infinite products, Invent. Math. [**120**]{} (1995),161–213.
, Automorphic forms with singularities on Grassmannians, Invent. Math. [**132**]{} (1998), 491–562.
, Borcherds products and Chern classes of Hirzebruch-Zagier divisors, Invent. math. [**138**]{} (1999), 51–83.
, Borcherds products on ${\operatorname{O}}(2,l)$ and Chern classes of Heegner divisors, Lect. Notes Math. [**1780**]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2002).
, On Borcherds products associated with lattices of prime discriminant, Ramanujan J. [**7**]{} (2003), 49–61.
, CM values of Hilbert modular functions, Invent. Math., accepted for publication.
, Class Number Parity, Series in Pure Math. vol. [**8**]{}, World Scientific (1988).
, On the functional equation of certain Dirichlet series, Invent. Math. [**9**]{} (1969), 1–14.
, Hyperbolic distribution problems and half-integral weight Maass forms, Invent. Math. [**92**]{} (1988), 73–90.
, On the André-Oort conjecture for Hilbert modular surfaces, Moduli of abelian varieties (Texel Island, 1999), 133–155, Progr. Math. [**195**]{}, Birkhäuser, Basel (2001).
, Hilbert Modular Surfaces, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1988).
, Lectures on Hilbert Modular Varieties and Modular Forms, CRM Monograph Series [**14**]{}, American Mathematical Society (2002).
, On singular moduli, J. Reine Angew. Math. [**355**]{} (1985), 191–220.
, Die Bestimmung der Funktionen zur Hilbertschen Modulgruppe des Zahlkörpers ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{5})$, Math. Annalen [**152**]{} (1963), 226–256.
, The Selberg Trace Formula for $\mbox{PSL}(2,{\mathbb{R}})$, Lecture Notes in Mathematics [**1001**]{}, Springer-Verlag (1983).
, Intersection Numbers of Curves on Hilbert Modular Surfaces and Modular Forms of Nebentypus, Invent. Math. [**36**]{} (1976), 57–113.
, Algebraic Number Theory, Addison-Wesley, 1970.
, Hilbertsche Modulfunktionen zu ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt{5})$, Arch. Math. [**45**]{}, 239–251 (1985).
, On the coincidence of two Dirichlet series associated with cusp forms of Hecke’s “Neben”-type and Hilbert modular forms over a real quadratic field, J. Math. Soc. Japan [**25**]{} (1973), 547-555.
, A class of nonanalytic automorphic functions, Nagoya Math. J. [**52**]{} (1973), 133–145.
, A Relation Between the Fourier Coefficients and the Values of Holomorphic Modular Functions, in preparation.
, Abelian varieties with complex multiplication and modular functions, Princeton Univ. Press (1998).
, Some effective cases of the Brauer-Siegel theorem, Invent. Math. [**23**]{} (1974), 135–152.
, Modular Forms Associated to Real Quadratic Fields, Invent. Math. [**30**]{} (1975), 1–46.
, Modular forms whose Fourier coefficients involve zeta-functions of quadratic fields. In: Modular Functions of One Variable VI, Lecture Notes in Math. [**627**]{}, Springer-Verlag (1977), 105–169.
, Traces of singular moduli, Motives, polylogarithms, and Hodge theory (Eds. F. Bogomolov and L. Katzarkov) [**I**]{}, Intl. Press, Somerville (2003), 211–244.
, Equidistribution of CM-points on quaternion Shimura varieties, preprint (2004), pp35.
[^1]: T.Y. Yang is partially supported by NSF grants DMS-0302043, 0354353, and a NSA grant.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The recent search for a stochastic background of gravitational waves with LIGO interferometers has produced a new upper bound on the amplitude of this background in the 100 Hz region. We investigate the implications of the current and future LIGO results on pre-Big-Bang models of the early Universe, determining the exclusion regions in the parameter space of the minimal pre-Big Bang scenario. Although the current LIGO reach is still weaker than the indirect bound from Big-Bang nucleosynthesis, future runs by LIGO, in the coming year, and by Advanced LIGO ($\sim$2009) should further constrain the parameter space, and in some parts surpass the Big-Bang nucleosynthesis bound. It will be more difficult to constrain the parameter space in non-minimal pre-Big-Bang models, which are characterized by multiple cosmological phases in the yet not well understood stringy phase, and where the higher-order curvature and/or quantum-loop corrections in the string effective action should be included.'
author:
- Vuk Mandic
- 'Alessandra Buonanno$^{a,b}$'
title: 'Accessibility of the Pre-Big Bang Models to LIGO'
---
Introduction
============
The Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) has built three multi-kilometer interferometers, designed to search for gravitational waves (GWs). One of the possible targets of such a search is the stochastic background of gravitational waves. Many possible sources of such a background have been proposed (see, e.g., [@maggiore; @allen; @buonanno] for reviews). Some of these sources are astrophysical in nature, such as rotating neutron stars, supernovae or low-mass X-ray binaries. Others are cosmological, such as the amplification of quantum vacuum fluctuations during inflation [@par_ampl; @star], phase transitions [@PT], and cosmic strings [@CS]. Most of these sources are expected to be very weak and below the sensitivity of the LIGO interferometers. Furthermore, they are constrained by several observations.
The measurement of the cosmic microwave background by the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) bounds the logarithmic spectrum of gravitational waves [^1] to $\Omega_{\rm GW}(f) h_{100}^2 < 8\times 10^{-14}$ at $\sim10^{-16}$ Hz [@cobe1], where $h_{100} = H_0 / (100 {\rm \;
km / s/ Mpc}) \approx 0.72$ is the “reduced” Hubble parameter [@hubble]. Since in standard (slow-roll) inflationary models, the spectrum produced by the parametric amplification of quantum-vacuum fluctuations [@par_ampl] is expected to be (almost) flat at higher frequencies [@cobe2], a similar bound applies at higher frequencies, as well. In some inflationary models in which a cosmological phase with equation of state stiffer than radiation comes before the radiation era, the spectrum at high frequency could increase as function of frequency, thus avoiding the COBE bound. For example this happens in quintessential inflation [@PV99]. The GW spectrum could mildly increase as function of frequency in scenarios in which inflation occurs with an equation of state $w < -1$ [@LG] — some examples are given in Ref. [@FF] where inflation is obtained from a non-canonical Lagrangian. In other scenarios of superstring cosmology, as the cyclic/ekpyrotic models [@BST], the GW spectrum also increases as function of frequency, but its normalization makes it unobservable by ground- and space-based detectors.
The arrival times of the millisecond pulsars can be used to place a bound at $\sim 10^{-8}$ Hz [@pulsar]: $\Omega_{\rm GW}(f) h_{100}^2 < 9.3 \times 10^{-8}$. Doppler tracking of the Cassini spacecraft can be used to arrive at yet another bound, in the $10^{-6}-10^{-3}$ Hz band [@doppler]: $\Omega_{\rm GW}(f) h^2_{100} < 0.014$. The Big-Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) model and observations can be used to constrain the integral of the GW spectrum $\int \Omega_{\rm
GW} h_{100}^2 \; d(\ln f) < 6.3 \times 10^{-6}$ [@BBN; @maggiore; @allen]. Finally, the ground-based interferometers and resonant bars can probe the spectrum of gravitational waves in the band 10 Hz - few kHz. The most recent bound from LIGO is $\Omega_{\rm GW} h^2_{100} < 4.2 \times 10^{-4}$ for a flat spectrum in the 69-156 Hz band [@stochpaper].
In this paper, we focus on the implications of the recent LIGO result on pre-Big-Bang (PBB) models [@pbbrep], and we investigate their accessibility to future LIGO searches. The PBB models predict a stochastic GW spectrum whose amplitude can increase as a function of frequency in some frequency ranges. Hence, they can avoid the bounds due to the CMB, pulsar timing, and Doppler tracking, and predict relatively large background in the frequency band where LIGO is sensitive. In Sec. II we briefly review the GW spectrum in the minimal PBB models. In Sec. III we discuss the latest result from the LIGO search for the stochastic GW background. In Sec. IV we study how the new LIGO results, and the expected future results, constrain the free parameters of the minimal PBB models. In Sec. V we discuss how modifications of the minimal PBB model can affect the observability of the stochastic GW background. Finally, we conclude in Sec. VI.
The gravitational wave spectrum in the minimal Pre-Big-Bang model
=================================================================
In the PBB scenario (see, e.g., [@pbbrep; @pbb; @pbb2; @pbb3]), the initial state of the Universe is assumed to be the string perturbative vacuum, where the Universe can be described by the low-energy string effective action. The kinetic energy of the dilaton field drives the Universe through an inflationary evolution (henceforth denoted dilaton inflationary phase), which is an accelerated expansion in the string frame, or accelerated contraction (gravitational collapse) in the (usual) Einstein frame. The spacetime curvature increases in the dilaton inflationary phase, eventually reaching the order of the string scale. At this point, the low-energy string effective action is no longer an accurate description of the Universe, and higher order corrections (higher-curvature and/or quantum-loop corrections) should be included in the string action. These corrections are expected to reduce or stop the growth of the curvature, [*removing*]{} the would-be Big-Bang singularity. The exact evolution of the Universe in this high curvature and/or strong-coupling phase (henceforth denoted by [*stringy*]{} phase) is currently not known [@pbbrep]. The end of the stringy phase is what one could refer to as the “Big-Bang” — the Universe’s transition into the radiation phase, which is then followed by the matter-dominated and acceleration-dominated phases.
Although the transition between the inflationary PBB phase and the post-Big-Bang phase is not well understood, some models have been proposed in the literature which can partially describe it. In the following, we focus on the model derived in Ref. [@GMV] where, in the string frame, the dilaton-inflationary phase is followed by a phase of constant curvature with the dilaton field growing linearly in time. It is then assumed that at the end of this stringy phase the dilaton reaches the present vacuum expectation value and stops. This model has been denoted in the literature as the “minimal” PBB model. Within this model, the stochastic GW background has been evaluated [@BGGV; @RB; @BMU]. For simplicity, in this paper we use the result for the logarithmic spectrum of gravitational waves [@par_ampl] as evaluated in Ref. [@BMU]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{spectrum}
h_{100}^2 \Omega_{\rm GW}(f) & = & b(\mu) \frac{(2 \pi f_s)^4}{H_{100}^2
M_{Pl}^2} \Bigg( \frac{f_1}{f_s} \Bigg)^{2\mu +1} \Bigg(
\frac{f}{f_s} \Bigg)^{5-2\mu}
\nonumber \\
& \times & \Bigg| H_0^{(2)}\Bigg( \frac{\alpha f}{f_s} \Bigg)
J'_{\mu} \Bigg( \frac{f}{f_s} \Bigg) \nonumber \\
& + & H_1^{(2)} \Bigg( \frac{\alpha f}{f_s} \Bigg)
J_{\mu} \Bigg( \frac{f}{f_s} \Bigg) \nonumber \\
& - & \frac{ (1 - \alpha )}{2 \alpha} \frac{f_s}{f} H_0^{(2)} \Bigg(
\frac{ \alpha f}{f_s} \Bigg) J_{\mu} \Bigg( \frac{f}{f_s} \Bigg) \Bigg|^2\, ,
\label{main}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
b(\mu) & = & \frac{\alpha}{48} 2^{2\mu} (2\mu - 1)^2 \Gamma^2(\mu)\,,
\nonumber \\
\alpha & = & \frac{1}{1 + \sqrt{3}}\,, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $H^{(2)}_{0,1}, J_\mu,$ and $\Gamma$ are the Hankel, Bessel and Gamma functions, respectively, $H_{100} = 100$ km/s/Mpc, and $M_{Pl}$ is the Planck mass; $f_s$ is the GW frequency redshifted until today of fluctuations exiting the Hubble radius at the time of the transition between the dilaton and the stringy phase; $\mu$ is a dimensionless free parameter that measures the growth of the dilaton during the stringy phase, effectively determining the slope of the spectrum in the high-frequency limit (see below). The low-frequency limit of Eq. (\[spectrum\]) is given by [@BMU]: $$\begin{aligned}
h_{100}^2 \Omega_{\rm GW}(f) & \simeq & \frac{(2\mu -1)^2}{192 \mu^2
\alpha} \frac{(2\pi f_s)^4}{H_{100}^2 M_{Pl}^2} \Bigg(
\frac{f_1}{f_s} \Bigg)^{2\mu + 1}
\Bigg( \frac{f}{f_s} \Bigg)^3 \nonumber \\
& \times & \Bigg\{ (2 \mu \alpha - 1 + \alpha )^2 \nonumber \\
& + & \frac{4}{\pi^2}
\Bigg[ ( 2 \mu \alpha -1 + \alpha ) \Bigg( \ln \frac{\alpha f}{2 f_s} +
\gamma_E \Bigg) - 2 \Bigg]^2 \Bigg\} \nonumber \\
\gamma_E & = & 0.5772\,,
\label{lowfreq}\end{aligned}$$ while the high-frequency limit is [@BMU]: $$h_{100}^2 \Omega_{\rm GW}(f) \simeq \frac{4 b(\mu )}{\pi^2 \alpha}
\frac{(2 \pi f_1)^4 }{H_{100}^2 M_{Pl}^2} \Bigg( \frac{f}{f_1}
\Bigg)^{3-2\mu} \label{highfreq}\,.$$ The parameter $f_1$ appearing in the above equations is the GW frequency redshifted until today of fluctuations exiting the Hubble radius when the stringy phase ends. This is the largest frequency (smallest scale) for which fluctuations are amplified — hence, $f_1$ is also the high-frequency cut-off of the GW spectrum.
Thus, the GW spectrum in the minimal PBB scenario increases as $f^3$ for $f \ll f_s$, goes as $f^{3-2\mu}$ for $f_s \ll f \ll f_1$, and vanishes exponentially for $f>f_1$. An example of such a spectrum is shown in Fig. 3 of Ref. [@BMU], and we reproduce it in Fig. \[example\].
![$h_{100}^2 \Omega_{\rm GW}(f)$ vs $f$, as predicted by the PBB model with $f_s=100$ Hz, $f_1 = 4.3\times 10^{10}$ Hz, and $\mu=1.5$.[]{data-label="example"}](Omegavsf_mu1p5_fs100Hz.eps){width="3.3in"}
Let us now focus on the free parameters of the model. The parameter $\mu$ is, by definition, limited to positive values. We will only consider the case $\mu \le 1.5$ — for $\mu>1.5$ the decreasing spectrum would easily violate the existing experimental bounds [@BMU]. The parameter $f_s$ varies over the range $0 < f_s < f_1$. Since the spectrum sharply decreases for frequencies below $f_s$, LIGO’s reach for models where $f_s$ is above the LIGO band quickly diminishes. In particular, to avoid the $f^3$ dependence in the LIGO frequency band, $f_s \lesssim 30$ Hz is necessary. Furthermore, Eq. (\[highfreq\]) shows that in the high-frequency limit the spectrum does not depend on $f_s$. Hence, if $f_s
\lesssim 30 $ Hz, it does not matter what it is, as far as the accessibility to LIGO is concerned. Finally, the parameter $f_1$ can be approximated as [@BMU] [^2]: $$f_1 \simeq 4.3 \times 10^{10} {\rm \; Hz\; } \Bigg( \frac{H_s}{0.15 M_{Pl}}
\Bigg) \Bigg( \frac{t_1}{\lambda_s} \Bigg)^{1/2}\,,
\label{f1approx}$$ where $H_s$ is the (constant) Hubble parameter during the stringy phase, $t_1$ is the time when the string phase ends, and $\lambda_s$ is the string length. The values $H_s \approx 0.15 M_{Pl}$ and $t_1 \approx
\lambda_s$ are the most natural ones [@BMU] [^3], but they might vary by an order of magnitude. Since $\Omega_{\rm GW}(f) \sim f_1^4$ \[see Eq. (\[highfreq\])\], this variation leads to a very large variation in the amplitude of the GW spectrum. Hence, although the theoretically predicted value for $f_1$ is more robust than those for $f_s$ and $\mu$, we shall explore the possibility of varying $f_1$ around its most natural value [^4].
Searching for stochastic gravitational waves with LIGO
======================================================
The method of searching for stochastic gravitational waves with interferometers has been studied by many authors [@christensen; @flanegan; @allenromano]. Following Allen and Romano [@allenromano], we can define the following cross-correlation estimator: $$\begin{aligned}
Y & = & \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} Y(f) \; df\,, \\
& = & \int_{-\infty }^{+\infty } df \int_{-\infty }^{+\infty } df' \;
\delta_T (f-f') \; \tilde{s}_1(f)^{*} \; \tilde{s}_2(f') \; \tilde{Q}(f')\,,
\nonumber
\label{ptest}\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta_T$ is a finite-time approximation to the Delta function, $\tilde{s}_1$ and $\tilde{s}_2$ are the Fourier transforms of the strain time-series of two interferometers, and $\tilde{Q}$ is the optimal filter. Assuming that the detector noise is Gaussian, stationary, uncorrelated between the two interferometers, and uncorrelated with and much larger than the GW signal, the variance of the estimator $Y$ is given by: $$\sigma_Y^2 \approx \frac{T}{2} \int_0^{+\infty} df P_1(f) P_2(f)
\mid \tilde{Q}(f) \mid^2\,,
\label{sigma}$$ where $P_i(f)$ are the power spectral densities of the two interferometers, and $T$ is the measurement time. Finally, it can be shown that the optimal filter can be written in the form [@allenromano]: $$\tilde{Q}(f) = N \frac{\gamma(f) \Omega_t(f)}{f^3 P_1(f) P_2(f)}\,,$$ where $\gamma(f)$ is the overlap reduction function (arising from the different locations and orientations of the two interferometers), and $\Omega_t(f)$ is the template spectrum to be searched. Assuming the template spectrum $\Omega_t(f) = \Omega_{\alpha}
(f/100 {\rm \; Hz})^{\alpha}$, the normalization constant $N$ can be chosen such that $<Y> = \Omega_{\alpha} T$.
This analysis procedure was implemented in the recent analysis of the LIGO data, using the 4 km interferometers at Hanford, WA and Livingston, LA, for the science run S3 [@stochpaper]. This analysis yielded the 90% upper limit of $\Omega_0 < 8.4 \times
10^{-4}$ for the flat template spectrum $\Omega_t(f) = \Omega_0$. Once $Y(f)$ is estimated for the flat spectrum, one can apply simple scaling by the appropriate power law to obtain the estimates for different values of $\alpha$ (similar procedure can be followed for an arbitrary spectral shape). Fig. \[expreach\] shows the 90% UL on $\Omega_{\alpha}$ as a function of the spectral slope $\alpha$ for the S3 run, as well as the expected reach for LIGO and for Advanced LIGO. Here and in the following by expected LIGO (H1L1 and H1H2) we mean LIGO design sensitivity and one year of observation, and by Advanced LIGO we assume a sensitivity 10 times better than the LIGO design and one year of observation. \[LIGO has started the year-long run at design sensitivity in November 2005.\]
![The 90% UL on $\Omega_{\alpha}$ is shown as a function of the spectral slope $\alpha$ for the most recent LIGO result. Expected sensitivities of LIGO and of Advanced LIGO are also shown.[]{data-label="expreach"}](Omega_ULvsalpha_differentbounds.eps){width="3.3in"}
Scanning the parameter space
============================
We now study the accessibility of the minimal PBB model discussed in Sec. II to the most recent and future runs of LIGO, and to Advanced LIGO. Previous investigations, which did not use real data, were done in Refs. [@allenbrustein; @UV].
As discussed in Section 2, the amplitude of the GW spectrum in the PBB models is proportional to $f^3$ at frequencies below $f_s$. Hence, the sensitivity of LIGO to PBB models decreases as $f_s$ is increased. To avoid the $f^3$ dependence of the spectrum in the LIGO frequency band, we choose $f_s=30$ Hz. For such choice of $f_s$, the LIGO band falls in the relatively flat part of the GW spectrum. We vary $f_1$ by a factor of 10 around the most natural value estimated in Eq. (\[f1approx\]) (i.e., between $4.3 \times 10^9$ and $4.3 \times 10^{11}$) and we vary $\mu$ between $1$ and $1.5$ (models with $\mu<1$ are out of reach of LIGO, as shown below). For each point in the $\mu-f_1$ plane, we evaluate $\Omega_{\alpha} = \Omega_{\rm GW}(f = 100 {\rm \; Hz})$ predicted by the model, and we check whether it is excluded by the experimental (or future expected) results. We also integrate the predicted spectrum and check whether it passes the BBN bound [@BBN; @maggiore; @allen]: $$\int \Omega_{\rm GW}(f) h_{100}^2 d(\ln f) < 6.3 \times 10^{-6}\,,
\label{bbnlimit}$$ assuming the number of neutrino species $N_{\nu}<3.9$ [@copi; @BMU]. We use $h_{100}=0.72$ as the reduced Hubble parameter [@hubble]. Fig. \[f1mu\] shows the 90% UL exclusion curves obtained in this way. The latest result from LIGO (S3 run) is just beginning to probe this parameter space. The future runs of LIGO (and of Advanced LIGO) are expected to probe a more significant part of the parameter space, becoming comparable to or even surpassing the BBN bound. As expected, LIGO is most sensitive to models with $\mu=1.5$, which corresponds to the flat spectrum at high frequencies. As $\mu$ decreases from 1.5, the spectral slope increases, and the spectrum in the LIGO band drops quickly below LIGO sensitivity. Although the BBN bound also weakens for $\mu<1.5$, the effect is not as dramatic because this bound is placed on the integral of the spectrum over a large frequency range. Note that the LIGO S3 run is sensitive to PBB models with $f_1 \ge 2.7 \times 10^{11}$ Hz, relatively large compared to the most natural value estimated in Eq. (\[f1approx\]). This is true independent of $f_s$: for $f_s < 30$ Hz, Fig. \[f1mu\] would not change, while for $f_s > 30$ Hz all bounds would weaken. Finally, the Advanced LIGO is expected to reach models with the most natural value of $f_1 = 4.3 \times 10^{10}$ Hz.
![The 90% UL exclusion curves are shown in the $f_1-\mu$ plane for $f_s=30$ Hz (the excluded regions are above the corresponding curves). We show the latest result from LIGO, and the future expected reach of LIGO and of Advanced LIGO. The limit from the BBN is also shown. The horizontal gray dashed line denotes the most natural value of $f_1$, given by Eq. (\[f1approx\]).[]{data-label="f1mu"}](f1vsmu_fs30_contours_log.eps){width="3.3in"}
It is also possible to use Eq. (\[f1approx\]) to turn a bound on $f_1$ into an exclusion curve in the $t_1/\lambda_s$ vs $H_s/(0.15 M_{Pl})$ plane. In this way, the GW experiments can be used to constrain string-related parameters in the framework of the PBB model. As an example, we choose $\mu = 1.5$ and $f_s = 30$ Hz as the optimal case for LIGO, and determine the 90% UL exclusion curves for different experiments. These curves are shown in Fig. \[t1Hs\]. Again, the latest LIGO result is weaker than the BBN bound, but the future LIGO and Advanced LIGO searches are expected to explore a larger, more physical part of this parameter space.
![The 90% UL exclusion curves are shown in the $t_1/\lambda_s$ vs $H_s/(0.15 M_{Pl})$ plane, for $\mu=1.5$ and $f_s=30$ Hz (the excluded regions are above the corresponding curves). We show the latest result from LIGO, and the future expected reach of LIGO and of Advanced LIGO. The limit from the BBN is also shown. The black circle denotes the most natural point, as given in Eq. (\[f1approx\]).[]{data-label="t1Hs"}](t1vsHs_mu1p5_fs30_contours.eps){width="3.3in"}
One can also examine the accessibility of the models in the $f_s - \mu$ plane. For the relatively large value $f_1 = 4.3 \times 10^{11}$ Hz, which makes the model’s stochastic GW background accessible to the LIGO S3 run, we performed a scan in the $f_s - \mu$ plane. Fig. \[fsmu\] shows the results. Note that for the flat spectrum ($\mu=1.5$), the S3 run of LIGO is sensitive to models with $f_s \lesssim 120$ Hz; future runs of LIGO and Advanced LIGO are expected to probe higher values of $f_s$ as well. Also note that the exclusion curves in Fig. \[fsmu\] are almost vertical (i.e. not very sensitive to $f_s$). This is a consequence of the large value of $f_1$ - for smaller values of $f_1$, the accessibility of models to LIGO would depend more strongly on the value of $f_s$.
Several papers in the literature [@BGGV; @RB; @peak], parametrize the GW spectrum in the minimal PBB model in terms of $z_s = f_1/f_s$ and $g_s$, defined by $g_s/g_1 = (f_s/f_1)^\beta$, with $\beta$ given by $2 \mu = |2 \beta -3|$. The parameter $z_s$ is the total redshift during the stringy phase, thus it quantifies its duration, while $g_1$ and $g_s$ are the string couplings at the end and at the beginning of the stringy phase, respectively. Fig. \[zsgs\] shows the curves from Fig. \[fsmu\] converted into the $z_s - g_s$ plane, using $f_1 = 4.3 \times 10^{11}$ Hz, and setting $g_1$ to its most natural value given by $g_1^2/(4 \pi) = \alpha_{\rm GUT}$.
![The 90% UL exclusion curves are shown in the $f_s-\mu$ plane, for $f_1 = 4.3 \times 10^{11}$ Hz (the excluded regions are to the right from the corresponding curves). We show the latest result from LIGO, and the future expected reach of LIGO and of Advanced LIGO. The indirect limit from the BBN excludes the whole region shown in this plane.[]{data-label="fsmu"}](fs_vs_mu_f14p3e11.eps){width="3.3in"}
![The 90% UL exclusion curves are shown in the $z_s - g_s$ plane, for $f_1 = 4.3 \times 10^{11}$ Hz. We show the latest result from LIGO (thick solid), and the future expected reach of LIGO (thin solid for the H1L1 pair, dashed for the H1H2 pair) and of Advanced LIGO (dash-dotted). The two sets of curves correspond to positive (left) and negative (right) signs of $(2\beta - 3)$.[]{data-label="zsgs"}](zs_vs_gs_f14p3e11.eps){width="3.3in"}
Going Beyond the Minimal Pre-Big-Bang Model
===========================================
In this section we investigate how extensions of the minimal PBB model or variations of it can impact the accessibility of the stochastic GW background to LIGO and to Advanced LIGO.
The GW spectrum in the minimal PBB model was originally evaluated [@BGGV; @RB; @BMU] neglecting the higher-curvature corrections in the equation of tensorial fluctuations during the stringy phase. Gasperini [@MG] evaluated the higher-order equation for tensorial fluctuations and showed that these corrections modify the amplitude of the perturbation [*only*]{} by a factor of order one. Hence, these corrections are not expected to affect our results significantly.
In Refs. [@gasperini; @peak] the authors have examined the effect of radiation production via some reheating process occuring below the string scale. Such a process may be needed to dilute several relic particles produced during (or at the very end of) the PBB phase, whose abundance could spoil the BBN predictions [@BLO]. Depending on when and for how long the entropy production occurs, it can change both the shape and the amplitude of the GW spectrum in the frequency region around $100$ Hz. In general, the amplitude of the spectrum at these frequencies is reduced. If we assume that the reheating process occurs at the end of the stringy phase (i.e., all of the entropy is produced at the end of the stringy phase), then the effect of the process is a simple scaling of the original spectrum by the factor $(1-\delta
s)^{4/3}$, where $\delta s$ is the fraction of the present thermal entropy density that was produced in the process. Fig. \[fsmuds\] shows the exclusion curves in the $f_s-\mu$ plane for $\delta s=0.5$. By comparing to Fig. \[fsmu\], we can see that the effect weakens all bounds.
![The 90% UL exclusion curves are shown in the $f_s-\mu$ plane for $f_1=4.3\times 10^{11}$ Hz and for $\delta s = 0.5$ (the excluded regions are to the right of the corresponding curves). We show the latest result from LIGO, and the future expected reach of LIGO and of Advanced LIGO. The indirect BBN limit excludes all models shown in this plane.[]{data-label="fsmuds"}](fs_vs_mu_f14p3e11_ds0p5.eps){width="3.3in"}
Another possible, but somewhat arbitrary variation of the model, was examined by Allen and Brustein [@allenbrustein]. They assumed that stochastic gravitational waves are not produced during the stringy phase, but only during the dilaton phase. This is achieved by setting $f_1 = f_s$ and assuming that $\Omega_{\rm GW}$ vanishes for $f_s < f$. Such a model is not well motivated in the PBB scenario, but it is phenomenologically interesting as it represents a class of models whose spectrum peaks in the LIGO band. The spectrum of this model can, therefore, be approximated by: $$%\begin{displaymath}
\Omega_{\rm GW}(f) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\Omega_{\rm DO} \big(\frac{f}{f_s}\big)^3 & f<f_s \,,\\
0 & f>f_s\,.
\end{array}
\right.
%\end{displaymath}$$ The BBN bound becomes weaker because the integral in Eq. (\[bbnlimit\]) is performed over a much smaller frequency range, and it can be written as $\Omega_{\rm DO} < 3.8 \times 10^{-5}$. Fig. \[AB\] shows the bound from the latest LIGO result as a function of $f_s$. Note that this bound is already better than the BBN bound for $f \gtrsim 300$ Hz.
![The 90% UL on $\Omega_{DO}$ is shown as a function of $f_s$ for the models where stochastic gravitational background is not produced during the string phase. The latest LIGO result and the BBN bound are shown.[]{data-label="AB"}](S3H1L1_AB_ulvsfs.eps){width="3.3in"}
Finally, as first noticed in Ref. [@gasperini], it is well possible that many more cosmological phases are present between the pre- and the post-Big-Bang eras — some examples are given in Refs. [@gasperini; @BMUV]. If this is the case, the GW spectra during the high-curvature and/or strong coupling region will be characterized by several branches with increasing and decreasing slopes. Due to the dependence of the spectra on a larger number of parameters, it would be more difficult to constrain these non-minimal scenarios, even when LIGO overcomes the BBN bound.
Conclusions
===========
Using the most recent LIGO search for the stochastic gravitational background [@stochpaper], we determined the exclusion regions in the parameter space of the PBB minimal model [@pbbrep]. We found that the most recent S3 run can access the stochastic GW background only if $f_1$ is larger than the most natural value $4.3 \times 10^{10} {\rm Hz}$ (i.e. only if $f_1 > 2.7 \times 10^{11}$ Hz; see Fig. \[f1mu\]). In this case the S3 run of LIGO can exclude the region in the $(f_s,\mu)$ parameter space with $\mu \approx 1.5$ (i.e., almost a flat spectrum) and $f_s \lesssim 120\, {\rm Hz}$ (see Fig. \[fsmu\]). A one-year run of LIGO at the design sensitivity will be able to start excluding regions with sligthly increasing GW spectrum (as a function of frequency), while Advanced LIGO could exclude spectra with slopes of at most $\approx 0.5$. Models with larger values of $f_s$ will become accessible, as well as with lower values of $f_1$, including the most natural value $f_1 = 4.3 \times 10^{10}$ Hz.
As shown in Fig. \[f1mu\], the BBN bound already [*excludes*]{} all models accessible to the LIGO S3 run. However, it should be noted that: (i) the LIGO S3 bound is a result of a direct measurement of the stochastic background of gravitational waves while BBN bound is not, and (ii) future searches by LIGO and by Advanced LIGO are expected to approach and even surpass (in some parts of the parameter space) the BBN bound.
Analysis of the search in the parameter space more commonly used in the literature (see Fig. \[zsgs\]) shows that LIGO and Advanced LIGO can bound the duration of the stringy phase and the string coupling at the beginning (end) of the stringy phase (dilaton inflationary phase). Similarly, as shown in Fig. \[t1Hs\], by constraining $f_1$ these experiments can constrain other string-related parameters, such as $H_s$ (the Hubble parameter during the stringy phase) and $t_1/\lambda_s$ (the ratio of the end-time of the stringy phase and of the string length) or the value of the string coupling at the end of the stringy phase $g_1$.
As emphasized above, the stringy phase is not well understood, yet. Many variations to the minimal PBB model analyzed in this paper are possible and have been proposed [@peak; @gasperini; @BMUV]. They can significantly change the shape and the amplitude of the spectrum in the frequency range around $100$ Hz, hence improving or reducing the accessibility of the PBB models to LIGO. The presence of multi cosmological phases [@gasperini] during the stringy phase will make much harder the determination of the exclusion regions in the PBB parameter space. More robust predictions for the stringy phase would be strongly desirable.
The authors thank Albert Lazzarini, Joe Romano, and Stan Whitcomb for many useful discussions, Maurizio Gasperini for useful comments, and the LIGO Scientific Collaboration for making this study possible. V.M.’s work was supported by the NSF Cooperative Agreement No. PHY-0107417.
[999]{} M. Maggiore, . B. Allen, [*Lectures at Les Houches School*]{}, \[gr-qc/9604033\]. A. Buonanno, TASI [*Lectures on Gravitational Waves from the Early Universe*]{}, \[gr-qc/0303085\]. L.P. Grishchuk, Sov. Phys. JETP [**40**]{}, 409 (1975); Class. Quantum Grav. [**10**]{} 2449 (1993); Class. Quantum Grav. [**14**]{}, 1445 (1997). A.A. Starobinsky, Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**30**]{}, 719 (1979). A. Kosowsky, M.S. Turner and R. Watkins, ; ; A. Kosowsky and M.S. Turner, ; M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky and M.S. Turner, ; R. Apreda, M. Maggiore, A. Nicolis and A. Riotto, . R.R. Caldwell and B. Allen, ; R.R. Caldwell, R.A. Battye and E.P.S. Shellard, ; T. Damour and A. Vilenkin, ; . B. Allen and S. Koranda, . C.L. Bennet , . M. S. Turner, ; T.L. Smith, M. Kamionkowsky and A. Cooray, [*Direct detection of the inflationary gravitational-wave background*]{}, \[astro-ph/0506422\]; L.A. Boyle, P. Steinhardt and N. Turok, [*Inflationary predictions reconsidered*]{}, \[astro-ph/0507455\]. P.J.E. Peebles and A. Vilenkin, ; M. Giovannini, . L. Grishchuk, [*Relic gravitational waves and cosmology*]{}, \[astro-ph/0504018\]. M. Baldi, F. Finelli and S. Matarrese, . L. A. Boyle, P. Steinhardt and N. Turok, . M.P. McHugh , . J.W. Armstrong , . E. Kolb and R. Turner, [*The Early Universe*]{} (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1990). B. Abbot , [*Upper limit on a stochastic background of gravitational waves*]{}, \[astro-ph/0507254\]. M. Gasperini and G. Veneziano, . M. Gasperini and G. Veneziano, . M. Gasperini and G. Veneziano, . M. Gasperini and G. Veneziano, . M. Gasperini, M. Maggiore, and G. Veneziano, . R. Brustein, M. Gasperini, M. Giovannini, and G. Veneziano, . R. Brustein, [*Spectrum of cosmic gravitational wave background*]{}, \[hep-th/9604159\]. A. Buonanno, M. Maggiore, C. Ungarelli, . N. Christensen, . E. Flanagan, . B. Allen and J. Romano, . B. Allen and R. Brustein, . C. Ungarelli and A. Vecchio, [*Are pre-big bang models falsifiable by gravitational-wave experiment?*]{}, \[gr-c/9911104\]. C. Copi , . R. Brustein, M. Gasperini and G. Veneziano, . M. Gasperini, . M. Gasperini, [*Relic gravitons from the pre-big bang: what we know and what we do not know*]{}, \[hep-th/9607146\]. A. Buonanno, M. Lemoine, and K.A. Olive, . A. Buonanno, K. Meissner, C. Ungarelli and G. Veneziano, JHEP [**01**]{}, 004 (1997).
[^1]: Note that $\Omega_{\rm GW}$ here should not be confused with the ratio of the total energy density stored in gravitational waves and the critical density of the Universe, i.e., $\Omega_g = \rho_{\rm GW} / \rho_c$. The quantity $\Omega_{\rm GW}$ is the so-called GW spectrum per unit log of frequency: $\Omega_{\rm GW} \equiv (1/\rho_c) \;
d \rho_{\rm GW} / d \log f$. It would have been more appropriate to denote the GW spectrum by $d \Omega_{\rm GW}/d \log f$ and not $\Omega_{\rm GW}$.
[^2]: Note that in evaluating this equation and also the GW spectrum above, we did not include the very recent phase of acceleration of the Universe, but limited to radiation and matter eras. We expect that if the acceleration era were included, the effect on the results presented here would be mild.
[^3]: The most natural value for $H_s$ was obtained in Ref. [@BMU] by assuming $H_s \sim 1/\lambda_s$ and $\lambda_s^2 \sim (2/\alpha_{\rm GUT})\,L_{\rm Pl}^2$ with $\alpha_{\rm GUT} \sim 1/20$.
[^4]: We note that in the more common version of the minimal PBB model [@pbbrep; @BGGV; @BMUV], the frequency $f_1$ is obtained by imposing that the energy density becomes critical at the beginning of the radiation phase and that the photons we observe today originated from the amplified vacuum fluctuations during the dilaton-driven inflationary phase. Within these assumptions Eq. (\[f1approx\]) can be re-written as $f_1 \simeq g_1^{1/2}\,(H_s/(0.15\,M_{\rm Pl}))^{1/2}\,
(H_0\,M_{\rm Pl})^{1/2}\,\Omega_{\gamma}^{1/4}$, where $\Omega_\gamma =
4 \times 10^{-5}\, h^{-2}_{100}$ and $g_1$ is the string coupling at the end of the stringy phase.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Immunotherapy has the potential to change the way all cancer types are treated and cured. Cancer immunotherapies use elements of the patient immune system to attack tumor cells. One of the most successful types of immunotherapy is CAR-T cells. This treatment works by extracting patient’s T-cells and adding to them an antigen receptor allowing tumor cells to be recognized and targeted. These new cells are called CAR-T cells and are re-infused back into the patient after expansion in-vitro. This approach has been successfully used to treat B-cell malignancies (B-cell leukemias and lymphomas). However, its application to the treatment of T-cell leukemias faces several problems. One of these is fratricide, since the CAR-T cells target both tumor and other CAR-T cells. This leads to nonlinear dynamical phenomena amenable to mathematical modeling.
In this paper we construct a mathematical model describing the competition of CAR-T, tumor and normal T-cells and studied some basic properties of the model and its practical implications. Specifically, we found that the model reproduced the observed difficulties for in-vitro expansion of the therapeutic cells found in the laboratory. The mathematical model predicted that CAR-T cell expansion in the patient would be possible due to the initial presence of a large number of targets. We also show that, in the context of our mathematical approach, CAR-T cells could control tumor growth but not eradicate the disease.
address:
- 'Mathematical Oncology Laboratory (MOLAB), Departamento de Matemáticas, E. T. S. I. Industriales and Instituto de Matemática Aplicada a la Ciencia y la Ingeniería, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, 13071 Ciudad Real, Spain. `[email protected]` '
- 'Mathematical Oncology Laboratory (MOLAB), Departamento de Matemáticas, E. T. S. I. Industriales and Instituto de Matemática Aplicada a la Ciencia y la Ingeniería, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, 13071 Ciudad Real, Spain. `[email protected]` '
- 'Department of Mathematics, Universidad de Cádiz, Puerto Real, Cádiz, Spain. `[email protected]`'
- 'Translational Research Unit in Paediatric Haemato-Oncology, Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation and Cell Therapy, Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain and Paediatric Haemato-Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain'
author:
- 'Víctor M. Pérez-García'
- 'Odelaisy León-Triana'
- María Rosa
- 'Antonio Pérez-Martínez'
title: |
CAR T cells for T-cell leukemias:\
Insights from mathematical models
---
Mathematical Oncology, T-cell leukemias, CAR-T cell therapies
Introduction {#intro}
============
Cancer immunotherapies use elements of the patient immune system to attack tumor cells. These treatments encompass different therapeutic strategies typically involving collecting a specific set of cells from patients, modifying them to produce some kind of attack on cancer cells, and reinjecting them. Some examples are tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, engineered T-cell receptor, chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cells, cytotoxic T-lymphocytes, natural killer cells, and mesenchymal stem cells [@Rafei2019].
Of these, the most successful type of immunotherapy today is CAR-T cells. This treatment works by extracting patient’s T-cells and adding the CAR group to them, allowing them to recognize and target the cells carrying an antigen expressed in the tumor [@Feins2019]. The case of B-cell leukemias expressing CD19 has been particularly successful since this antigen is only expressed by B-lymphocytes and B-lymphoid leukemia cells. The clinical use of CAR-T cells engineered to recognize this antigen have led to the full recovery of a large fraction of Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia patients [@Feins2019; @ALL1; @Pan2017; @Militou]. Good results have been reported for large B-cell lymphomas [@Lymphoma1; @Lymphoma2] and multiple myelomas [@MMyeloma]. These successes have led to the approval of CAR-T therapies directed against CD19 for treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemias and diffuse large B-cell lymphomas [@Cell]. However, CAR-T cell therapies have not yet been as successful for solid tumors, for a variety of different reasons [@Yong2017; @Moon2019].
Mathematical modeling has the potential to help in finding optimal administration protocols, provide a deeper understanding of the dynamics, help in the design of clinical trials and more. The clinical relevance of CAR-T cells has attracted the attention of applied mathematicians that have started to construct mathematical models and study different aspects of these therapies [@Sahoo; @Baar; @Kimmel; @Rodrigues; @Anna; @Ode].
Given the success of CAR-T cells directed against CD19 in B-cell malignancies, new targets are being developed and tested. Specifically, there has been a lot of interest in the possibility of using CAR-T cells for the treatment of T-cell malignancies [@Alcantara2019; @Breman2018; @Fleischer2019; @Menendez2019]. However there are many challenges in translating this therapy for T-cell disease. The first one is fratricide, which refers to the mutual killing of CAR T-cells. This phenomenon may prevent the generation, expansion and persistence of CAR-T cells. The second one is the prolonged and profound T-cell aplasia induced by the destruction of normal T-cells, that exposes patients to severe opportunistic infections. The third one is the potential contamination of CAR T-cell products with malignant T-cells. Indeed, circulating tumor T-cells are often found in the peripheral blood of patients. Because tumor T-cells may harbor the same properties as normal T-cells, they may be harvested, transduced, expanded, and infused concomitantly with normal T-cells as described recently in the context of B-cell leukemias [@NatureMedicine2018]. Thus, developing CAR-T cells for T-cell malignancies requires avoiding contamination of the CAR-T cell product with malignant transduced T-cells [@Alcantara2019].
To the best of our knowledge, no mathematical model has yet considered CAR-T cell treatments for T-cell malignancies.
In this paper we want to build the first minimal mathematical model describing the dynamics of tumor cells in T-cell leukemias and normal T-cells plus a population of injected CAR-T cells. Our intention is to describe the effect of the fratricide mathematically and to obtain conclusions of practical interest. This interesting phenomenon, which involves a nonlinear self-interaction within the CAR-T cell compartment will be shown to place a limit on the production of these cells in vitro. Our theoretical and simulation results support that CAR T-cells could be able to control tumor growth in vivo to a certain extent. We will show that it may not be possible to get rid of all tumor cells, but that the treatment could be useful either as a bridge treatment or as a way of making the disease chronic.
Our focus in this paper was to perform a preliminary exploration of the biological problem and obtain conclusions of practical applicability, using numerical simulations of the mathematical model as a test bed.
The structure of the paper is as follows. First, in Sec. \[model\] we set out the mathematical model, estimate its parameters and perform a basic study of some of its properties and study the model’s equilibria. Next, in Sec. \[results\] we consider different scenarios including the generation of the CAR-T product in vitro and the in-vivo dynamics. Finally, Sec. \[conclu\] discusses our findings and summarizes our conclusions.
The Model {#model}
=========
Basic Mathematical Model {#Derivation}
------------------------
Our mathematical model accounts for the dynamics of several cell populations: CAR-T cells $C(t)$, leukemic T-cells $L(t)$, and normal T-cells $T(t)$. The equations describing the dynamics of these populations are
\[model1\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{model11}
\frac{dC}{dt} & = & \rho_C \left( T + L + C\right) C - \frac{1}{\tau_C} C - \alpha C^2 + \rho_I C, \\ \label{model12}
\frac{dL}{dt} & = & \rho_L L - \alpha L C, \\ \label{model13}
\frac{dT}{dt} & = & g(T,L,C) - \alpha T C.
\end{aligned}$$
CAR-T cells, described by Eq. (\[model11\]), have a finite lifespan $\tau_C$ and proliferate due to stimulation by target cells (either $L(t)$ or $T(t)$ or the CAR-T cell themselves $C(t)$). The parameter $\rho_C$ measures the stimulation of mitosis after encounters with target cells. The parameter $\alpha$ in Eq. (\[model11\]) is a cell kill term accounting for the fratricide. It measures the probability that CAR-T cell encounters lead to the death of one of the cells. Once the CAR-T cell identifies the target cell, killing and detachment are very fast processes [@KillingCAR]. We consider here only serial killing, excluding multiplexed killing, which would be a less relevant process and have a different kinetics.
In line with models for CAR-T cell dynamics in B-cell leukemias [@Ode], we did not include a CAR-T cell death term due to encounters with target cells. The reason is that CAR-T cells do not die after killing target cells [@SerialKillers1; @SerialKillers2]. Also, T-cells do not divide in vivo spontaneously [@Tough1995], their clonal expansion being dependent on the stimulation with the target antigen, thus in vivo $\rho_I = 0$. When CAR-T cells are expanded in-vitro cytokines are added externally forcing the cells to divide, thus in that context we will assume $\rho_I \neq 0$.
Leukemic cells \[Eq. (\[model12\])\] proliferate with a rate $\rho_L$ and die to the encounters with the CAR-T cells with the rate $\alpha$.
For the normal T-cell compartment we will only consider a simplified effective description accounting for the different lineages expressing the same target antigen in an aggregate form. These cells will be assumed to be killed at a rate $\alpha$ per cell assumed to be similar to that of the other subpopulations and will be produced at a rate $g(T,L,C)$. This function is expected to depend on the total number of T-cells via cytokine signaling, on the effect of CAR-T cell on T-cell progenitors, etc. In this paper we will assume $g(T,L,C)$ to be very small and contribute only to a minimal residual level of normal T-cells that would not be relevant for the nonlinear dynamics of the system. In what follows we will take $g(T,L,C) = 0$.
Figure \[fig1\] summarizes the relationships between the different cell subpopulations and the assumptions behind our model.
![**Cellular populations and biological processes included in the mathematical model (\[model1\])**. Normal $T(t)$ and leukemic $L(t)$ T-lymphocytes are killed by CAR-T cells $C(t)$ at a rate $\alpha$ and stimulate CAR-T cell proliferation at a rate $\rho_C$, both per cell. Tumor lymphocytes proliferate at a rate $\rho_L$. As a result of fratricide and self-stimulation, CAR-T cells are eliminated at a rate $\alpha-\rho_C$ per CAR-T cell. CAR-T cell finite lifetime $\tau_C$ also results in cell loss.[]{data-label="fig1"}](Figure1.png){width="\textwidth"}
In-vitro equilibria
-------------------
The in-vitro expansion during the CAR-T cell production can be described by setting $L=T=0$ in Eqs. (\[model1\]), and taking $\rho_I \neq 0$, thus $$\label{model2}
\frac{dC}{dt} = \hat{\rho} C - \hat{\alpha} C^2.$$ The parameter $\hat{\rho} = \rho_I- 1/\tau_C > 0$ always in vitro and the effective cell kill rate $\hat{\alpha} = \alpha - \rho_C \geq 0$, since the kill rate is expected to be larger than the stimulation rate due to the different speeds of the killing and replication processes.
Eq. (\[model2\]) is a logistic equation, that for positive initial values satisfies that $$\label{expansion}
C \stackrel[t \rightarrow \infty]{}{\longrightarrow} C_* = \hat{\rho}/\hat{\alpha}.$$ This result is in line with the observation that CAR-T cells targeting T-cell antigens cannot be expanded beyond a certain value [@Breman2018]. Here we show that this value will depend on the cytokine stimulation provided and the fratricidal cell killing rate.
Parameter estimation {#parapara}
--------------------
Some parameters in model Eq. (\[model1\]) can be estimated from biological data. Firstly, the typical lifetime of activated CAR-T cells $\tau_c$ is in the range 14-28 days [@Ghorashian]. T-cell leukemias are typically rather aggressive tumors with small doubling times that can be estimated to be around $\rho_L$ = 1/40 day$^{-1}$ in vivo [@Doubling], although chronic forms of the disease could have much smaller numbers [@PLL]. Finally, $\alpha$ and $\rho_C$ can be expected to be in the range of B-cell leukemias, where they have been found to be around $10^{-11}$ day$^{-1}$cell$^{-1}$ [@Ode]. One would expect $\rho_C$ to be of the order of or smaller than $\alpha$, since it corresponds to the number of new cells generated by each encounter of CAR-T cells with target cells.
As to the initial data, the total number of T-lymphocytes in the human body is around 10$^{11}$ and typical tumor loads in acute T-cell leukemias can be in a similar range [@Bains2009]. Most CAR-T administration regimes are preceded by a lympho-depleting treatment that creates a favorable cytokine profile, favoring the growth of injected cells [@Depletion1; @Depletion2]. Thus, the previous numbers are substantially reduced once the treatment is started. We will take our initial data to be around $\sim 10^{10}$ for tumor and normal T-cells.
Finally, the number of CAR-T cells injected would depend on the maximal expansion obtained in vitro, which could range from as low as $10^4$ when fratricide is present to larger numbers around $10^7$ depending on the strategies used to overcome it.
Large initial data display unbounded dynamics {#uns}
---------------------------------------------
For any non-negative initial data $(C_0,L_0,T_0)$ and all the parameters of the model being positive, the solutions to Eqs. (\[model1\]) exist for $t > 0,$ are non-negative and unique.
The ODE system (\[model1\]) has bounded coefficients and the right-hand side of the system is a continuous function of $(C,L,T)$, thus the local existence of solutions follows from classical ODE theory. Since the partial derivatives of the velocity field are continuous and bounded, uniqueness follows from the Picard-Lindelof theorem.
Let us rewrite Eqs. (\[model1\]) when $g = 0$ as
\[modelx1\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{modelx11}
\dot{C} & = & \left[ \rho_C \left( T + L + C\right) -1/\tau_C - \alpha C\right] C, \\ \label{modelx12}
\dot{L} & = & \left(\rho_L-\alpha C\right) L, \\
\dot{T} & = & - \left( \alpha C\right)T ,
\end{aligned}$$
then we may write
$$\begin{aligned}
C(t) & = & C_0 \exp \left(\int_{t_0}^t \left[ \rho_C T(t') + \rho_C L(t') + (\rho_C-\alpha)C(t') -\frac{1}{\tau_C} \right] dt' \right) , \\
L(t) & = & L(t_0) \exp \left(\int_{t_0}^t \left(\rho_L-\alpha C(t')\right) dt'\right), \\
T(t) & = & T(t_0) \exp \left(- \int_{t_0}^t \alpha C(t') dt' \right),
\end{aligned}$$
which leads to the positivity of solutions.
The sum of all cell populations studied will be denoted by $S(t)$, i.e. $$S(t) = C(t) + T(t) + L(t).$$
Let $C(t), L(t), T(t)$ be solutions of Eqs. (\[model1\]) with initial data $C(t_0) = C_0 > 0, L(t_0) = L_0 > 0, T(t_0)= T_0 > 0, S(t_0) = S_0>0$. If
H1
: $\rho_C >\alpha$
H2
: $(\rho_C-\alpha) \tau_C S_0 > 1$,
then $S(t)$ increases monotonically with time and $\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty} S(t) = \infty$.
Let us first sum the three equations Eq. (\[model1\]) to obtain $$\frac{dS}{dt} = \left(\rho_C-\alpha\right) SC - \frac{1}{\tau}C + \rho_L L.$$ Then, the positivity of $L(t)$ implies that, $\underline{S}$ defined as the solution of $$\label{derivi}
\frac{d\underline{S}}{dt} = \left(\rho_C-\alpha\right) \underline{S}C - \frac{1}{\tau}C,$$ satisfying $\underline{S}(t_0) = S_0$ with $C(t_0) = C_0$, is a subsolution of $S(t)$, i.e. satisfying $\underline{S}(t) < S(t), \forall t>t_0$. Clearly, under our hypothesis $$\left.\frac{d\underline{S}}{dt}\right|_{t=t_0} = \left[\left(\rho_C-\alpha\right) \underline{S}_0 - \frac{1}{\tau}\right]C_0 > 0,$$ but then, using Eqs. (\[derivi\]), this leads to $d\underline{S}/dt > 0$ for all $t>t_0$. Moreover, from Eq. (\[model11\]) and using the fact that $S(t) > C(t)$, for all $t>t_0$ we get $$\frac{dC}{dt} = \rho_C S C - \frac{1}{\tau_C} C - \alpha C^2 >
\left[ \left( \rho_C-\alpha\right) S - \frac{1}{\tau_C}\right] C,$$ where we have used $\rho_C S C - \frac{1}{\tau_C} C - \alpha C^2 > \rho_C S C - \frac{1}{\tau_C} C - \alpha C\left(C+L+T\right)$.
This means that $C(t) > C_0$ for any non-zero initial data, then $$\label{deriva}
\frac{d\underline{S}}{dt} > \left(\rho_C-\alpha\right) \underline{S}_0 - \frac{1}{\tau} C_0 \equiv Q_0 > 0,$$ then $S(t) > \underline{S}(t) > Q_0 t + S_0$, which proves the unboundedness of the total population $S(t)$, i.e. the fact that $\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty} S(t) = \infty$.
Taking reasonable initial numbers (see Sec. \[parapara\]) we will always initially be in the regime $(\rho_C-\alpha) \tau_C S_0 > 1$.
Equilibria of the model Eqs. (\[model1\]) and local stability analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The equilibria of Eqs. (\[model1\]) in the case of interest $g =0$, are given by the equations
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{equil11}
0 & = & \rho_C \left( T + L + C\right) C - \frac{1}{\tau_C} C - \alpha C^2, \\ \label{equil12}
0 & = & \rho_L L - \alpha L C, \\ \label{equil13}
0& = & - \alpha T C.
\end{aligned}$$
Eq. (\[equil13\]) leads to either $T = 0$ or $C=0$. The latter leads to $L=0$ using Eq. (\[equil12\]) and the former to either $L=0$ or $C=\rho_L/\alpha$. Then using Eq. (\[equil11\]) allows us to obtain the expressions for the three equilibrium points of Eqs. (\[model1\])
\[equi\] $$\begin{aligned}
E_1 & = & (0, 0, T_*),\\
E_2 & = & \left( \frac{\rho_L}{\alpha}, \frac{1}{\rho_C\tau_C} + \frac{\rho_L}{\rho_C}-\frac{\rho_L}{\alpha}, 0 \right). \\
E_3 & = & \left( \frac{1}{\tau_c \left(\rho_C-\alpha\right)}, 0, 0\right).
\end{aligned}$$
for any $T_*$. The Jacobian of the differential equations (\[model1\]) is $$\label{jacobo}
J = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} 2\left(\rho_C-\alpha\right) C - 1/\tau_C + \rho_C\left(T+L\right) & \rho_C C & \rho_CC \\
-\alpha L & \rho_L - \alpha C & 0 \\ - \alpha T & 0 & - \alpha C \end{array} \right) .$$ Let us now use Eq. (\[jacobo\]) to study the local stability of the different equilibria given by Eqs. (\[equi\]). Firstly, for $E_1$ we get $$J\left(E_1\right) = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} \rho_C T_*-1/\tau_C & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \rho_L & 0 \\ - \alpha T_* & 0 & 0 \end{array} \right).$$ The eigenvalues of $J\left(E_1\right)$ are $$\lambda_1 = 0, \lambda_2 = \rho_L, \lambda_3 = \rho_C T_* - 1/\tau_C,$$ thus the equilibrium point $E_1$ is unstable. For the second equilibrium point we get $$J\left(E_2\right) = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} \rho_L\left( \frac{\rho_C}{\alpha}-1\right) & \rho_C \rho_L/\alpha & \rho_C \rho_L/\alpha \\
-\alpha \left(\rho_L+1/\tau_C\right)/\rho_C + \rho_L & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & - \rho_L \end{array} \right).$$ Thus $\lambda_3 = - \rho_L < 0$ and $\lambda_{1,2}$ satisfy the equation $$\lambda^2 + \lambda \left(1 - \frac{\rho_C}{\alpha}\right) \rho_L + \rho_L^2 \left(1-
\frac{\rho_C}{\alpha}\right) + \frac{\rho_L}{\tau} = 0,$$ which leads to the eigenvalues $$\label{equifor}
\lambda_{\pm} = \frac{1}{2} \rho_L \left( \frac{\rho_C}{\alpha} - 1\right) \pm \frac{1}{2} D^{1/2},$$ with the discriminant $D$ being given by $$\frac{D}{\rho_L^2} = \left(1-\frac{\rho_C}{\alpha}\right)^2 - 4 \left(1-\frac{\rho_C}{\alpha}\right) - \frac{4}{\rho_L\tau_C}.$$ Let us consider the case $\rho_C/\alpha <1$ since the system will be unstable otherwise (Sec. \[uns\]). Then, $$0< 1-\frac{\rho_C}{\alpha}<1.$$ Since $(1-\rho_C/\alpha)^2 < 1-\rho_C/\alpha$, we get $$\frac{D}{\rho_L^2} < - 3 \left(1-\frac{\rho_C}{\alpha}\right) - \frac{4}{\rho_L\tau_C} < 0.$$ Thus, the equilibrium is a stable node-focus.
Finally, for $E_3$ we get $$J(E_3) = \frac{1}{\tau_C} \left( \begin{array}{ccc} 1 & \frac{\rho_C}{\rho_C-\alpha} & \frac{\rho_C}{\rho_C-\alpha} \\
0 & \rho_L\tau_c + \frac{\alpha}{\alpha-\rho_C} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \frac{\alpha}{\alpha-\rho_C} \end{array} \right).$$ The eigenvalues of $J(E_3)$ are
$$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_1 & = & 1/\tau_C > 0, \\
\lambda_2 & = & \rho_L\tau_c + \alpha/(\alpha-\rho_C) > 0,\\
\lambda_3 & = & \alpha/(\alpha-\rho_C) > 0,
\end{aligned}$$
thus $E_3$ is an unstable node.
In conclusion, there is only one stable equilibrium point $E_2$ given by Eqs. (\[equi\]) of node-focus type, which can be an attractor for the dynamics of the system (\[model1\]).
Applications. {#results}
=============
CAR-T cells allow for control of T-cell leukemias in the presence of fratricide
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To obtain further insight into the global dynamics of solutions of Eqs. (\[model1\]) we simulated different initial data in the biologically feasible parameter and initial data regions. In all cases studied, we found an oscillatory behavior of the solutions towards the stable node-focus point $E_2$ after a fast reduction of the initial normal T-cell number.
Figure \[fig2\] provides a typical example of the dynamics. There we see how tumor grows for a short time, typically 10-15 days, while CAR-T cells expand. The CAR-T cell expansion persists over more than four orders of magnitude in cell number (Figure \[fig2\](c)), with a peak at about 15 days after injection (Figure \[fig2\](b)). This leads to a substantial decrease of the tumor load and T-cell aplasia (Figure \[fig2\](a,b)). For this parameter set, tumor was not controlled for long periods of times and relapse was noticeable a few months after the injection date of CAR-T cells. After relapse oscillations of leukemic and CAR-T cells are observed in their course towards the equilibrium, in this case corresponding to $3\times 10^8$ CAR-T cells and $2.7\times 10^9$ tumor cells. Interestingly, the number of tumor cells in this case is one order of magnitude smaller than the initial tumor load ($2 \times 10^{10}$ cells), which supports the possibility of CAR-T cells effectively controlling tumor to clinically acceptable levels.
The numerical results used to construct Figure \[fig2\](c), show that in less than two months after injection, treatment was able to reduce tumor load from the initial level of $2\times 10^{10}$ cells down to a minimum level of $2.59 \times 10^{8}$ cells, i.e. a decrease of about two orders of magnitude.
![**Typical dynamics of cell populations governed by Eq. (\[model1\])**. Results of a simulation are shown for parameter values $\tau_C = 14$ days, $\rho_L = 1/60$ day$^{-1}$, $\alpha = 5.84 \times 10^{-11}$ day$^{-1}$ cell$^{-1}$, $\rho_C = \alpha/2$, and initial data $T_0 = 10^9, L_0 = 2\times 10^9, C_0 = 10^5$ cells. (a-c) Dynamics of the populations of CAR-T (green), tumor (red) and normal T cells (blue). Dynamics are depicted on the time intervals $t \in[0, 1200]$ (a,c) and $t \in[0, 50]$ (b) , and in linear (a,b) and logarithmic (c) scales. (d) Trajectory of the solution in the phase space. (e) Projection of the selected part of the trajectory on the $(T(t),C(t))$ plane.[]{data-label="fig2"}](Figure2a.png "fig:"){width="65.00000%"} ![**Typical dynamics of cell populations governed by Eq. (\[model1\])**. Results of a simulation are shown for parameter values $\tau_C = 14$ days, $\rho_L = 1/60$ day$^{-1}$, $\alpha = 5.84 \times 10^{-11}$ day$^{-1}$ cell$^{-1}$, $\rho_C = \alpha/2$, and initial data $T_0 = 10^9, L_0 = 2\times 10^9, C_0 = 10^5$ cells. (a-c) Dynamics of the populations of CAR-T (green), tumor (red) and normal T cells (blue). Dynamics are depicted on the time intervals $t \in[0, 1200]$ (a,c) and $t \in[0, 50]$ (b) , and in linear (a,b) and logarithmic (c) scales. (d) Trajectory of the solution in the phase space. (e) Projection of the selected part of the trajectory on the $(T(t),C(t))$ plane.[]{data-label="fig2"}](Figure2b.png "fig:"){width="65.00000%"}
Higher mitotic stimulation rates improve tumor control
------------------------------------------------------
The asymptotic equilibrium values of leukemic cells and CAR-T cells are given by $E_2$, i.e.
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{L2e}
L_2 & = & \frac{1}{\rho_C} \left( \rho_L + \frac{1}{\tau_C}\right) - \frac{\rho_L\rho_C}{\alpha}, \\
C_2 & = & \frac{\rho_L}{\alpha}. \end{aligned}$$
Interestingly, the equilibrium level of CAR-T cells does not depend on the mitotic stimulation rate $\rho_C$, but only on the growth and death rates of leukemic cells. However, the most important thing, due to the clinical implications, are the leukemia equilibrium levels $L_2$, and the maximum leukemic load $\max_{t} L(t)$. Maxima would typically be attained in time during the CAR-T cell expansion stage.
Let us note that $$\frac{dL_2(\rho_C)}{d\rho_C} = -\frac{1}{\rho^2_C} \left( \rho_L + \frac{1}{\tau_C}\right) - \frac{\rho_L}{\alpha} < 0,$$ this means that $L_2(\rho_C)$ is a monotonically decreasing function. Since $\rho_C \alpha>0$, the minimum of $L_2(\rho_C)$ over the range $\rho_C \in [0, \alpha]$ would be obtained when $\rho_C = \alpha$. Figure \[equilibriaL\] confirms that the asymptotic values of $L_2$ decrease with the mitotic stimulation rate $\rho_C$ and thus larger values of the mitotic stimulation rate lead to better tumor control. However, going beyond $\rho_C = \alpha$ destabilizes the system, as discussed in Sec. \[uns\]. Thus, it may be necessary to control in detail the CAR-T manufacturing process to get both high mitotic stimulation rates while at the same time not getting too close to the instability regime.
![**Higher mitotic stimulation rates provide better tumor control.** Dynamics of the leukemic population governed by Eq. (\[model1\]) for initial data $T_0 = 10^9, L_0 = 2\times 10^9, C_0 = 10^5$ cells, and parameter values $\tau_C = 14$ days, $\rho_L = 1/60$ day$^{-1}$, $\alpha = 5.84 \times 10^{-11}$ day$^{-1}$ cell$^{-1}$. The different curves correspond to stimulation rates $\rho_C = 0.2 \alpha$ (blue solid line), $\rho_C = 0.4 \alpha$ (red dashed line), $\rho_C = 0.6 \alpha$ (green, dash-dotted line), $\rho_C= 0.8 \alpha$ (black dotted line).[]{data-label="equilibriaL"}](Figure3.png){width="90.00000%"}
Initial number of CAR-T cells injected does not affect the outcome of therapy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
We next studied the effect of the number of CAR-T cells initially injected on the system’s dynamics. To do so, we performed an extensive number of simulations over the biologically feasible range and found a very weak dependence of the dynamics on the number of injected CAR-T cells. An example is shown in Fig. \[equilibriaX\] for a broad range of cells initially injected ranging from $10^4$ to $10^6$. Although there was a difference of two orders of magnitude in $C_0$, it led to a small variation in the time to peak expansion of a few days, a negligible increase of the maximum CAR-T and leukemic cell number, and a minor differences in the times to tumor relapse.
![**Initial number of CAR-T cells injected does not affect the outcome of therapy.** Dynamics of the number of CAR-T cells (a,b) and leukemic cells (c,d) governed by Eq. (\[model1\]) over the time range \[0,300\] days (a,c). We also show the details of the initial response of the treatment over the time interval \[0,30\] (b,d). Initial data used in the simulations were $T_0 = 10^9, L_0 = 2\times 10^9$ cells, and parameter values $\tau_C = 14$ days, $\rho_L = 1/60$ day$^{-1}$, $\alpha = 5.84 \times 10^{-11}$ day$^{-1}$ cell$^{-1}$. The curves correspond to different values of $C_0 = 10^4$ (blue solid line), $C_0 = 10^5$ (red dashed line), $C_0 = 10^6$ (green dash-dotted line).[]{data-label="equilibriaX"}](Figure4.png){width="90.00000%"}
Tumor proliferation rate did not essentially affect either the initial response or the asymptotic leukemic cell values, but did influence relapse time
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, we studied the dynamics under modifications of the tumor proliferation rate in the whole feasible range for fast-growing leukemias $\rho_C \in [1/60,1/20]$. The result of typical simulations are shown in Figure \[rhoLL\].
The short term dynamics in response to the CAR-T injection were found to be qualitatively similar independently of the tumor proliferation rate, with a peak tumor cell number around day 10 post-injection (Figure \[rhoLL\](b)). Small differences were observed in the peak number of tumor cells obtained, essentially due to the fact that faster growing leukemic cells could grow further during the initial CAR-T expansion phase. After CAR-T cell expansion, there was a response phase for the different tumor growth speeds and then a relapse was observed (Figure \[rhoLL\](a)). The relapse time was found to depend on the proliferation rate. This is in line with what one would expect for the amplitude and frequency of oscillations towards the equilibrium point $E_2$, which are both proportional to $\rho_L$ according to Eq. (\[equifor\]).
As expected from the expression for $E_2$, and the values of the parameters, there was a weak dependence of the number of leukemic cells in the equilibrium on $\rho_L$ in the range of relevance (Figure \[rhoLL\](c)), given analytically by $L_2 = 1.5289 \times 10^9 + 4.2808 \times 10^9 \rho_L$, with $\rho_L \in [1/60,1/20]$ day$^{-1}$. Thus the major contribution to the asymptotic tumor cell count was $L_2 \sim 1/(\rho_C \tau_C)$.
Although the therapy had a substantial effect, logarithmic scale plots (Figure \[rhoLL\]d) show the persistence of measurable disease for all times.
Let us define the maximum tumor cell load reduction achieved by the treatment as $$R = \max_t \left(T(t)\right) / \min_t \left(T(t)\right).$$ In the simulations shown in Figure \[rhoLL\], this quantity was found to be $R(\rho_L = 1/20) = 65$, $R(\rho_L = 1/30) = 72$, $R(\rho_L = 1/40) = 78$, $R(\rho_L = 1/50) = 82$, $R(\rho_L = 1/60) = 88$, thus always smaller than 100 (two orders of magnitude). It is easy to see that CAR-T cells decreased in number over time, as did the tumor load, but they were always above the numbers of cells initially injected. In fact, for most tumor proliferation rates the number of CAR-T cells was more than one order of magnitude above the level injected.
![**Tumor proliferation rate did not affect either the initial response or the asymptotic values, but did influence relapse time.** Dynamics of the leukemic population governed by Eq. (\[model1\]) for initial data $T_0 = 10^9, L_0 = 2\times 10^9, C_0 = 10^5$ cells, and parameter values $\tau_C = 14$ days, $\alpha = 5.84 \times 10^{-11}$ day$^{-1}$ cell$^{-1}$, $\rho_C=0.5 \alpha$, for different values of $\rho_L$. The different curves correspond to different values of $\rho_L = 1/60$ (blue line), $\rho_L = 1/50$ (red line), $\rho_L = 1/40$ (green line), $\rho_L = 1/30$ (magenta line), $\rho_L = 1/20$ (cyan line) (a) Dynamics over the time range \[0,800\] days. (b) Details of the dynamics for the time interval \[0,25\]. (c) Dependence of the asymptotic tumor values obtained from Eq. (\[L2e\]). (d) Tumor cell number evolution in logarithmic scale. The rate between maximum and minimum tumor load is indicated with an arrow for the case $\rho_L = 1/20$. (e) Evolution of the number of CAR-T cells.[]{data-label="rhoLL"}](Figure5.png "fig:"){width="95.00000%"} ![**Tumor proliferation rate did not affect either the initial response or the asymptotic values, but did influence relapse time.** Dynamics of the leukemic population governed by Eq. (\[model1\]) for initial data $T_0 = 10^9, L_0 = 2\times 10^9, C_0 = 10^5$ cells, and parameter values $\tau_C = 14$ days, $\alpha = 5.84 \times 10^{-11}$ day$^{-1}$ cell$^{-1}$, $\rho_C=0.5 \alpha$, for different values of $\rho_L$. The different curves correspond to different values of $\rho_L = 1/60$ (blue line), $\rho_L = 1/50$ (red line), $\rho_L = 1/40$ (green line), $\rho_L = 1/30$ (magenta line), $\rho_L = 1/20$ (cyan line) (a) Dynamics over the time range \[0,800\] days. (b) Details of the dynamics for the time interval \[0,25\]. (c) Dependence of the asymptotic tumor values obtained from Eq. (\[L2e\]). (d) Tumor cell number evolution in logarithmic scale. The rate between maximum and minimum tumor load is indicated with an arrow for the case $\rho_L = 1/20$. (e) Evolution of the number of CAR-T cells.[]{data-label="rhoLL"}](Figure5b.png "fig:"){width="95.00000%"}
CAR-T cell reinjection does not improve the therapy outcome.
------------------------------------------------------------
An interesting question is if one could control relapses by acting on the tumor by reinjecting CAR T cells. To study that we performed extensive numerical simulations over the parameter range of interest. Figure \[reinjected\] summarizes some results where we simulated the reinjection of $C =10^5$ CAR-T cells at different times post-injection for different tumor growth rates and quantified the variations in maximum tumor load with respect to the case without reinjection. In the best scenario, corresponding to slowly growing tumors, the improvement in the peak tumor cell number at relapse was around 2%. Thus, the CAR-T reinjection did not substantially improve the outcome for any delay nor tumor proliferation rate.
![**CAR-T cell reinjection does not improve the therapy outcome.** Variations of the maximum tumor load at the first relapse when reinjecting $C = 10^5$ CAR-T cells for different reinjection times using initial data $T_0 = 10^9, L_0 = 2\times 10^9, C_0 = 10^5$ cells, and parameter values $\tau_C = 14$ days, $\alpha = 5.84 \times 10^{-11}$ day$^{-1}$ cell$^{-1}$, $\rho_C=0.5 \alpha$. The different curves correspond to different values of the tumor proliferation rate $\rho_L = 1/60$ (blue line), $\rho_L = 1/50$ (red line), $\rho_L = 1/40$ (green line), $\rho_L = 1/30$ (magenta line), $\rho_L = 1/20$ (cyan line). []{data-label="reinjected"}](Figure6.png){width="95.00000%"}
Discussion and Conclusion {#conclu}
=========================
CAR-T cell therapies for B-cell malignancies is one the most resounding successes of the current immunotherapies, driving a strong interest on the topic [@Cell]. Several mathematical models have been constructed describing the observed dynamics [@Sahoo; @Baar; @Kimmel; @Rodrigues; @Anna; @Ode]. This has lead to very considerable interest in extending these therapies to other hematological tumors, such as malignant T-cell leukemias.
As stated in the introduction, one of the challenges faced by these treatments is fratricide, i.e. the fact that CAR-T cells, belonging to the T-cell lineage and expressing common antigens with the leukemic cells, would themselves become targets of the therapy. This poses the very interesting question of what the outcome of such a therapy would be, given that it poses challenges even for CAR-T cell production in vitro. Interestingly, our simple mathematical model captured the difficulties for CAR-T cell expansion in vitro, with a limit in cell production given by Eq. (\[expansion\]). Thus, the maximum number of CAR-T cells that can be produced in vitro depends on the stimulation provided by the cytokines and the excess CAR-T killing efficiency over the mitotic stimulation.
One might naively think that in-vivo expansion would also be limited, not having a substantial effect on the disease. However, this is not true. Our simulations showed that when they are injected, even in the small numbers that can be obtained in vitro, the CAR-T cells find many targets initially on both the healthy and tumor T-cells. During this initial stage, the CAR-T population is amplified even in the presence of fratricide. We also found in silico that the outcome of the therapy did not depend on the number of CAR-T cells injected.
A relapse was always observed in the framework of our model simulations and the number of tumor cells was initially reduced by a factor smaller than 100, with the persistence of measurable disease for all times, so the treatment did not eradicate the disease in our numerical simulations. However, CAR-T cells were able to control tumor growth after two weeks and then, even in spite of the oscillations, the high initial tumor loads were never found to appear again..
Relapse time after the CAR-T treatment was found to depend strongly on the proliferation rate. This makes us wonder if a combination with a post-CAR chemotherapy could prove useful in delaying tumor regrowth. The opposite strategy, i.e. first giving chemotherapy and then CAR-T before relapse, would not be recommended, however, since chemotherapy would be expected to reduce the number of target cells and then CAR-T would lack the substrate to expand.
Another question related to these treatments is whether re-challenging with CAR-T cells at any given time could be beneficial. For instance one may wonder if that process could be used to delay or even eliminate tumor relapse. On the basis of our computational results, additional injections were found to have no substantial effect on the dynamics. The reason is that CAR-T cells decreased in number transiently in time after reaching peak expansion, but their levels were always above the numbers of cells initially injected, typically by more than an order of magnitude. This means that injecting small numbers of CAR-T cells in relation to those already present would not have a substantial effect on the dynamics.
The fact that the equilibrium $L_2 \sim 1/(\rho_C \tau_C)$ implies that there are two ways to improve the long-term efficacy of CAR-T cell therapy for T-cell leukemias. The first would be to improve the persistence of the CAR-T cells, something that has been done for B-cell leukemias by using CD19 CAR (CAT) with lower affinity than FMC63, the high-affinity binder used in many clinical studies [@Ghorashian]. The second would be to improve the mitotic stimulation rate, but keeping in mind the restriction $\alpha > \rho_C$.
In conclusion, in this paper we have developed a mathematical model of the dynamics of leukemic cells, healthy T-cells and CAR-T cells, after the therapeutic injection of the latter population. The mathematical model showed the potential of the treatment to control, but not eradicate, the disease. This would result in a chronification of the disease that could last for a long time, or it could buy some time to try alternative therapeutic strategies. Our work is a first simple mathematical attempt to cast light on the potential outcomes of these treatments. There are different types of T-cell malignancies and specifically T-cell leukemias, and the particular features of each type could be incorporated into more detailed models including additional biological details. We hope our work will stimulate further work in this exciting sub-field of immunotherapy.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work has been partially supported by the Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La Mancha (grant number SBPLY/17/180501/000154), the James S. Mc. Donnell Foundation (USA) 21st Century Science Initiative in Mathematical and Complex Systems Approaches for Brain Cancer (Collaborative award 220020450), Junta de Andalucía group FQM-201, Fundación Española para la Ciencia y la Tecnología (FECYT, project PR214 from the University of Cádiz) and the Asociación Pablo Ugarte (APU). OLT is supported by a PhD Fellowship from the University of Castilla-La Mancha research plan.
We would like to acknowledge Gabriel F. Calvo, Carmen Ortega-Sabater, Juan Belmonte Beitia (MOLAB, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain), Manuel Ramírez-Orellana (Hospital Universitario Niño Jesús, Madrid, Spain) and Soukaina Sabir (University Mohamed V, Morocco) for discussions.
[1]{}
Rafei H, Mehta RS, Rezvani K (2019) Editorial: Cellular Therapies in Cancer. Front Immunol. 10:2788.
Feins S, Kong W, Williams EF, Milone MC, Fraietta JF (2019) An introduction to chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell immunotherapy for human cancer. Am J Hematol. 94(S1):S3-S9.
Maude SL, Laetsch TW, Buechner J, Rives S, Boyer M, Bittencourt H, Bader P, Verneris MR, Stefanski HE, Myers GD, Qayed M, De Moerloose B, Hiramatsu H, Schlis K, Davis KL, Martin PL, Nemecek ER, Yanik GA, Peters C, Baruchel R, Boissel N, Mechinaud F, Balduzzi A, Krueger J, June CH, Levine BL, Wood P, Taran T, Leung M, Mueller KT, Zhang Y, Kapildeb S, Lebwohl D, Pulsipher MA, Grupp SA(2018) Tisagenlecleucel in children and young adults with B-cell lymphoblastic leukemia. N Engl J Med. 378:439-448.
Pan J, Yang JF, Deng BP, Zhao XJ, Zhang X, Lin YH, Wu YN, Deng ZL, Zhang YL, Liu SH, Wu T, Lu PH, Lu DP, Chang AH, Tong CR (2017) High efficacy and safety of low-dose CD19$^-$directed CAR-T cell therapy in 51 refractory or relapsed B acute lymphoblastic leukemia patients. Leukemia 12:2587-2593.
Militou AN, Papadopoulou LC (2018) CAR T-cell Therapy: A New Era in Cancer Immunotherapy. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 19:5-18.
Locke FL, Ghobadi A, Jacobson CA, Miklos DB, Lekakis LJ, Oluwole OO, et al. (2019) Long-term safety and activity of axicabtagene ciloleucel in refractory large B-cell lymphoma (ZUMA-1): a single-arm, multicentre, phase 1-2 trial. Lancet Oncol 20:31-42.
Schuster SJ, Bishop MR, Tam CS, Waller EK, Borchmann P, McGuirk JP, et al. (2019) Tisagenlecleucel in adult relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 380:45–56.
D’Agostino M, Raje N. Anti-BCMA CAR T-cell therapy in multiple myeloma: can we do better? (2020) Leukemia 34:21–34.
Sadelain M (2017) CD19 CAR T Cells. Cell 171:1471.
Yong CSM, Dardalhon V, Devaud C, Taylor N, Darcy PK, Kershaw MH (2017) CAR T-cell therapy of solid tumors. Immunol Cell Biol. 95(4):356-363. Martinez M, Moon EK (2019) CAR T Cells for Solid Tumors: New Strategies for Finding, Infiltrating, and Surviving in the Tumor Microenvironment. Frontiers in Immunology 10:128.
Sahoo P, Yang X, Abler D, Maestrini D, Adhikarla V, Frankhouser D, Cho H, Machuca V, Wang D, Barish M, Gutova M, Branciamore S, Brown CE, Rockne RC (2020) Mathematical deconvolution of CAR T-cell proliferation and exhaustion from real-time killing assay data. J. R. Soc. Interface 17: 20190734.
Baar M, Coquille L, Mayer H, Holzel M, Rogava M, Tuting T, Bovier A (2016) A stochastic model for immunotherapy of cancer. Sci Rep 6:24169.
Kimmel GJ, Locke FL, Altrock PM (2019) Evolutionary Dynamics of CAR T Cell Therapy. bioRxiv 717074
Rodrigues BJ, Carvalho Barros LR, Almeida RC (2019) Three-Compartment Model of CAR T-cell Immunotherapy. bioRxiv 779793
Mostolizadeh R, Afsharnezhad Z, Marciniak-Czochra A (2018) Mathematical model of Chimeric Anti-gene Receptor (CAR) T cell therapy with presence of cytokine, Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization 8(1):63-80 León-Triana O, Soukaina S, Calvo GF, Belmonte-Beitia J, Chulián S, Martínez-Rubio A, Rosa M, Pérez-Martínez A, Ramírez-Orellana M, Pérez-García VM (2020) CAR T cell therapy in B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: Insights from mathematical models. biorxiv
Alcantara M, Tesio M, June CH, Houot R (2019) CAR T-cells for T-cell malignancies: challenges in distinguishing between therapeutic, normal, and neoplastic T-cells. Leukemia (11):2307-2315.
Breman E, Demoulin B, Agaugué S, Mauën S, Michaux A, Springuel L, Houssa J, Huberty F, Jacques-Hespel C, Marchand C, Marijsse J, Nguyen T, Ramelot N, Violle B, Daro D, De Waele P, Gilham DE, Steenwinckel V (2018) Overcoming Target Driven Fratricide for T Cell Therapy. Frontiers in Immunology 9:2940.
Ghorashian S, Kramer AM, Onuoha S, Wright G, Bartram J, Richardson R, Albon SJ, Casanovas-Company J, Castro F, Popova B, Villanueva K, Yeung J, Vetharoy W, Guvenel A, Wawrzyniecka PA, Mekkaoui L, Cheung GW, Pinner D, Chu J, Lucchini G, Silva J, Ciocarlie O, Lazareva A, Inglott S, Gilmour KC, Ahsan G, Ferrari M, Manzoor S, Champion K, Brooks T, Lopes A, Hackshaw A, Farzaneh F, Chiesa R, Rao K, Bonney D, Samarasinghe S, Goulden N, Vora A, Veys P, Hough R, Wynn R, Pule MA, Amrolia PJ s(2019) Enhanced CAR T cell expansion and prolonged persistence in pediatric patients with ALL treated with a low-affinity CD19 CAR. Nature Medicine 25:1408-1414.
Fleischer LC, Spencer HT and Raikar SS (2019) Targeting T cell malignancies using CAR- based immunotherapy: challenges and potential solutions. J Hematol Oncol 12:141.
Sánchez-Martínez D, Baroni ML, Gutierrez-Agüera F, Roca-Ho H, Blanch-Lombarte O, González-García S, Torrebadell M, Junca J, Ramírez-Orellana M, Velasco-Hernández T, Bueno C, Fuster JL, Prado JG, Calvo J, Uzan B, Cools J, Camos M, Pflumio F, Toribio ML, Menéndez P (2019) Fratricide-resistant CD1a-specific CAR T cells for the treatment of cortical T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood 133(21):2291-2304.
Ruella M, Xu J, Barrett DM, Fraietta JA, Reich TJ, Ambrose DE, Klichinsky M, Shestova O, Patel PR, Kulikovskaya I, Nazimuddin F, Bhoj VG, Orlando EJ, Fry TJ, Bitter H, Maude SL, Levine BL, Nobles CL, Bushman FD, Young RM, Scholler J, Gill SI, June CH, Grupp SA, Lacey SF, Melenhorst JJ (2018) Induction of resistance to chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy by transduction of a single leukemic B cell. Nature Medicine 24:1499-1503.
Davenport AJ, Jenkins MR, Ritchie DS, Prince HM, Trapani JA, Kershaw MH, Darcy PK, Neeson PJ (2015) CAR-T cells are serial killers. Oncoimmunology 4(12):e1053684.
Davenport AJ, Cross RS, Watson KA, Liao Y, Shi W, Prince HM, Beavis PA, Trapani JA, Kershaw MH, Ritchie DS, Darcy PK, Neeson PJ, Jenkins MR (2018) Chimeric antigen receptor T cells form nonclassical and potent immune synapses driving rapid cytotoxicity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115(9):E2068-E2076.
Tough DF, Sprent J (1995) Life span of naive and memory t cells. Stem Cells 13(3):242–249.
Benmebarek M, Karches CH, Cadilha BL, Lesch S, Endres S, and Kobold S (2019) Killing Mechanisms of Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T Cells. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 20(6):1283.
Skipper HE, Perr S (1970) Kinetics of Normal and Leukemic Leukocyte Populations and Relevance to Chemotherapy. Cancer Research 30:1883-1897.
Staber PB, Herling M, Bellido M, Jacobsen ED, Davids MS, Kadia TM, Shustov A, Tournilhac O, Bachy E, Zaja F, Porkka K, Hoermann G, Simonitsch-Klupp I, Haferlach C, Kubicek S, Mayerhoefer ME, Hopfinger G, Jaeger U, Dearden C (2019) Consensus criteria for diagnosis, staging, and treatment response assessment of T-cell prolymphocytic leukemia. Blood 134 (14): 1132–1143.
Bains I, Antia R, Callard R, Yates AJ (2009) Quantifying the development of the peripheral naive CD4+ T-cell pool in humans. Blood 113(22): 5480–5487.
Hay KA, Turtle CJ (2017) Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T cells: Lessons Learned from Targeting of CD19 in B cell malignancies. Drugs 77(3):237-245.
Hirayama AV, Gauthier J, Hay KA, Voutsinas JM, Wu Q, Gooley T, Li D, Cherian S, Chen X, Pender BS, Hawkins RM, Vakil A, Steinmetz RN, Acharya UH, Cassaday RD, Chapuis AG, Dhawale TM, Hendrie PC, Kiem HP, Lynch RC, Ramos J, Shadman M, Till BG, Riddell SR, Maloney DG, Turtle CJ (2019) The response to lymphodepletion impacts PFS in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma treated with CD19 CAR T cells. Blood 133(17):1876-1887.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
In recent years, academics and investigative journalists have criticized certain commercial risk assessments for their black-box nature and failure to satisfy competing notions of fairness. Since then, the field of interpretable machine learning has created simple yet effective algorithms, while the field of fair machine learning has proposed various mathematical definitions of fairness. However, studies from these fields are largely independent, despite the fact that many applications of machine learning to social issues require both fairness and interpretability.
We explore the intersection by revisiting the recidivism prediction problem using state-of-the-art tools from interpretable machine learning, and assessing the models for performance, interpretability, and fairness. Unlike previous works, we compare against two existing risk assessments (COMPAS and the Arnold Public Safety Assessment) and train models that output probabilities rather than binary predictions. We present multiple models that beat these risk assessments in performance, and provide a fairness analysis of these models. Our results imply that machine learning models should be trained separately for separate locations, and updated over time.
author:
- Caroline Wang
- Bin Han
- Bhrij Patel
- Feroze Mohideen
- Cynthia Rudin
bibliography:
- 'recidivism.bib'
title: 'In Pursuit of Interpretable, Fair and Accurate Machine Learning for Criminal Recidivism Prediction'
---
Abstract of Main Results for Criminal Justice Practitioners {#abstract-of-main-results-for-criminal-justice-practitioners .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------------------------------
Our goal is to study the predictive performance, interpretability, and fairness of machine learning models for pretrial recidivism prediction. Machine learning methods are known for their ability to automatically generate high-performance models (that sometimes even surpass human performance) from data alone. However, many of the most common machine learning approaches produce “black-box” models—models that perform well, but are too complicated for humans to understand. “Interpretable” machine learning techniques seek to produce the best of both worlds: models that perform as well as black-box approaches, but also are understandable to humans. In this study, we generate multiple black-box and interpretable machine learning models. We compare the predictive performance and fairness of the machine learning models we generate, against two models that are currently used in the justice system to predict pretrial recidivism—namely, the Risk of General Recidivism and Risk of Violent Recidivism scores from the COMPAS suite, and the New Criminal Activity and New Violent Criminal Activity scores from the Arnold Public Safety Assessment.
We first evaluate the predictive performance of all models, based on their ability to predict recidivism for six different types of crime (`general, violent, drug, property, felony, and misdemeanor`). Recidivism is defined as a new charge for which an individual is *convicted* within a specified time frame (which we specify as six months or two years). We consider each type of recidivism over the two time periods to control for time, rather than to consider predictions over an arbitrarily long or short pretrial period. Next, we examine whether a model constructed using data from one region suffers in predictive performance when applied to predict recidivism in another region. Finally, we consider the latest fairness definitions created by the machine learning community. Using these definitions, we examine the behavior of the interpretable models, COMPAS, and the Arnold Public Safety Assessment, on race and gender subgroups.
Our findings and contributions can be summarized as follows:
- We contribute a set of interpretable machine learning models that can predict recidivism as well as black-box machine learning methods and better than COMPAS or the Arnold Public Safety Assessment for the location they were designed for. These models are potentially useful in practice. Similar to the Arnold Public Safety Assessment, some of these interpretable models can be written down as a simple table that fits on one page of paper. Others can be displayed using a set of visualizations.
- We find that recidivism prediction models that are constructed using data from one location do not tend to perform as well when they are used to predict recidivism in another location, leading us to conclude that models should be constructed on data from the location where they are meant to be used, and updated periodically over time.
- We reviewed the recent literature on algorithmic fairness, but most of the fairness criteria don’t pertain to risk scores, they pertain only to yes/no classification decisions. Since we are interested in criminal justice risk scores in this work, the vast majority of the algorithmic fairness criteria are not relevant. We chose to focus on the evaluation criteria that were relevant, namely calibration, balance for positive/negative class (BPC/BNC), and balanced group AUC (BG-AUC). We present an analysis of these fairness measures for two of the interpretable models (RiskSLIM and Explainable Boosting Machine) and the Arnold Public Safety Assessment (New Criminal Activity score) on the two-year general recidivism outcome in Kentucky. We found that the fairness criteria were approximately met for both interpretable models for blacks/whites and males/females (that is, the models were fair according to these criteria). However, the Arnold Public Safety Assessment’s New Criminal Activity score failed to meet one fairness criterion (BPC/BNC). The results on fairness were not as consistent for the “Other” race category.
Introduction {#Introduction}
============
Predicting criminal recidivism using statistics has been the subject of almost a hundred years of research in criminal justice, psychology, and law. Today, actuarial risk assessments are in wide use across many countries, helping judges make life-changing decisions in pretrial release, sentencing, and probation. Risk assessments can help reduce costs, racial disparity, and incarceration rates—and these benefits have already been realized in some jurisdictions [@berk2017impact]. However, some of the most widely used algorithms are secret, black-box models created by corporations. As a result, individuals affected by these algorithms cannot know how these decisions were made, or whether they were made in error. These problems resulted in various lawsuits over the last decade, and came to the fore in 2016, when investigative journalists from the nonprofit organization ProPublica claimed that the COMPAS[^1] black-box recidivism prediction model was rife with racial bias [@LarsonMaKiAn16; @freemanloomis].
Though ProPublica’s findings were not validated [@Rudin19AgeofUnfairness; @flores16; @northpointeresponse], the COMPAS scandal demonstrated the issues with for-profit, secret algorithms making decisions in the justice system—namely, possible violations of defendants’ due process rights, difficulty in ensuring that the scores were calculated based on correct inputs, and the lack of independent fairness or performance guarantees. It highlighted the ways that systemic bias in data can be propagated into the future, and was symptomatic of growing public distrust in the algorithms that impact our daily lives [@nytoped; @oneil2016weapons; @nyt-computers-crim-justice].
To prevent errors, prevent due process violations, allow independent validation of models, and gain public trust, we must create transparent, interpretable and fair models. Fortunately, techniques for interpretable machine learning and theories of fairness have advanced considerably over the last few years. Multiple works have demonstrated that publicly available interpretable machine learning algorithms can perform as well as black-box machine learning algorithms [@ZengUsRu2017; @angelino2018; @loucaruana2013]. Moreover, high-dimensional data sets on criminal recidivism have become increasingly available. However, most machine learning papers treat recidivism prediction as a toy problem to test new machine learning algorithms. They do not consider factors such as data quality or ease of computation of model predictions, which are paramount for creating models that would be useful in practice. To our knowledge, there is only one prior work [@fairbydesign] that jointly considers interpretability, fairness, and predictive performance; however, it does not do so in a comprehensive way and focuses primarily on the design of a new algorithm.
Beyond the problem of model optimization, various methodological questions remain with existing risk assessment systems. First, existing systems—such as COMPAS (Correctional Offender Management Profiling System for Alternative Sanctions) and LSI-R (Level of Service Inventory Revised)—are often used across various states (or even countries) with only minor normalization [@LSI2017brochure; @compas]. However, populations in different states can significantly differ because the data generation process is not the same, so applying the same model across states may not lead to the best possible performance. Second, empirical evidence indicates that the underlying probability distribution of recidivism has changed over time in multiple locations [@changingdist]. For instance, a significant shift in the age distribution—a key predictor in many recidivism prediction models—has been observed in New York [@totalarrestrate]. Thus, rather than using a static model with uneven performance across districts, a better solution might be to algorithmically generate models, so that they can be trained for specific locations and retrained if recidivism distributions shift over time.
Using modern tools of both interpretable and black-box machine learning, we revisit the recidivism prediction problem. We define recidivism as a new charge that an individual is convicted for within a certain time frame (six months or two years). We find that (1) black-box models do not perform significantly better than interpretable models for any of the twelve recidivism problems we consider. (2) Interpretable models generally perform better than existing actuarial risk assessments. (3) Models do not generalize well across regions. (4) Only a small subset of the many proposed fairness definitions can be applied to regression problems and they vary across different models. We also note that existing techniques to enforce fairness generally require non-interpretable transformations, and therefore do not work well with interpretable models.
This paper is structured as follows. Section \[Contribution\] describes our contributions. Section \[Background\] discusses the evolution of risk assessment in America, the current debate over risk assessments, and briefly reviews the machine learning literature on risk assessment. Section \[Data\] describes the study’s data sources. Section \[Methodology\] discusses aspects of our methodology, including the prediction problems, problem setup, and the existing risk assessments we compare against. Section \[Baselines\] presents the performance of baseline, non-interpretable machine learning methods, while Section \[Interpretable\] presents the performance of interpretable machine learning methods. Section \[Generalization\] examines the generalization of recidivism prediction models across states. In Section \[Fairness\], we describe the selection of fairness metrics and assess the fairness of the interpretable models. In Section \[Discussion\], we discuss broader impacts and future lines of inquiry.
Contribution {#Contribution}
============
Our main contribution is a set of interpretable, risk-calibrated linear models that perform better than existing actuarial risk assessments, and predict specific crime types. Other important aspects of our contribution are as follows:
- We consider multiple types of recidivism (`general`, `violent`, `drug`, `property`, `felony`, and `misdemeanor`) at two time scales (six-month, two-year) for a total of 12 prediction problems.
- Our analysis was conducted on two criminal history data sets (one from Broward County, Florida, and the other from the state of Kentucky), which allowed us to understand variability in model performance across locations. We found that models do not generalize well between locations, and conclude that models should be trained on data from the location where they are meant to be used.
- We discuss how our models satisfy fairness and interpretability criteria. To our knowledge, beyond the fields of fair and interpretable machine learning, there are few paper that discuss both fairness and interpretability with the same attention as predictive performance.
- The risk models trained as part of this study are interpretable, and could potentially be useful in practice after a careful, location-specific evaluation of their accuracy and fairness.
Similar to @ZengUsRu2017, we use machine learning techniques optimized for interpretability, and address multiple prediction problems. This work is an improvement over that of @ZengUsRu2017 in the following ways. We use interpretable machine learning techniques to create risk scores representing probabilities of recidivism, rather than making binary predictions (the tools we use had not been not invented at the time of @ZengUsRu2017’s publication). We compare with COMPAS and the Arnold Public Safety Assessment (PSA), two models currently used in the justice system, whereas @ZengUsRu2017 compared only with other machine learning methods. We use data obtained at the pretrial stage rather than at prison-release. Since many jurisdictions utilize prediction instruments to determine pretrial release, this better aligns with the use cases of risk scores. Our data come from two locations, and include more detailed information than in @ZengUsRu2017, and are more recent than 1994. Finally, models are assessed for multiple definitions of fairness (in addition to performance).
Background {#Background}
==========
Algorithmic risk assessment dates back to the early 1900s [@history], and is used today at various stages of the criminal justice system, such as at pretrial, parole, probation, or even sentencing. In this work, we focus on forecasting recidivism at the pretrial stage. Though some states have implemented their own tools (Virginia, Pennsylvania, Kentucky), many utilize systems produced by companies, non-profits and other organizations [@kehl2017]. These externally-produced risk assessments and some of the jurisdictions that utilize them include COMPAS (Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin, Wyoming, New Mexico), the Public Safety Assessment (New Jersey, Arizona, Kentucky,[^2] Phoenix, Chicago, Houston), LSI-R (Delaware, Colorado, Hawaii), and the Ohio Risk Assessment System [@psaabout; @ohiorisk; @epic]. The United States is not alone in using actuarial risk assessments. Canada uses the Static-2002 to assess risk of violent and sexual recidivism [@hanson2003notes]; the Netherlands uses the Quickscan to assess static and dynamic risks of recidivism [@tollenaar2013method]; the U.K. uses the Offender Group Reconviction Scale to predict reoffense while on probation [@howard2009ogrs].
The Debate over Risk Assessments {#Debate}
--------------------------------
Since the inception of actuarial risk assessments, there has been debate over whether they should be used in the criminal justice system at all. Proponents claim that statistical models reduce overall violence levels and ensure the most efficient use of treatment and rehabilitative resources by helping judges identify the individuals that are truly dangerous. A large body of evidence appears to support this claim. Various studies have shown that statistical models are more accurate than human experts [@dawes1989clinical; @grove1996comparative]. Others have shown that a small percentage of individuals commit the majority of crimes [@wolfgang1987delinquency; @sherman2007power; @milgram2014ted], indicating that correctly identifying dangerous individuals could lead to substantial decreases in violence levels. Proponents also claim that risk assessments are instrumental to reducing racial/economic disparity, allocating social services, and reducing mass incarceration [@james2018congressional]. In particular, some jurisdictions have adopted risk assessments at the pretrial stage to replace cash bail, which is widely viewed as biased against poor defendants [@zweig2010bail; @desmarais2019rebuttal].
In practice, reducing overall violence levels, mass incarceration, and racial/economic disparity through actuarial risk assessment is complex. Critics have argued that as recidivism prediction models always rely on racially-biased features such as arrest records, actuarial risk assessment will only exacerbate racial and socioeconomic disparity, and should therefore be abolished [@civilrightsstatement; @pji2020]. In a well-known incident, ProPublica claimed that COMPAS was biased against African-Americans because there was a disparity in false positive rates and false negative rates between African-Americans and Caucasians [@AngwinLaMaKi16]. Follow-up research showed that this bias was likely a property of the data generation process rather than the COMPAS model, and that even a model that only relied on age showed a similar disparity in false positives and false negatives [@Rudin19AgeofUnfairness]. Actuarial risk assessment might be vulnerable to feature bias, but it is important to remember that other parts of the court system (such as bail and sentencing guidelines for judges) are not immune to feature bias either—they also use criminal history and arrest records. Similarly, in one of the first large-scale empirical studies, @mstevenson showed that in Kentucky, the use of the Arnold PSA seemingly increased disparity between whites and blacks at pretrial release. Because the risk scores were applied differently by judges in different counties, it seemed that white people benefited more than black people in terms of pretrial release numbers—but within the same county, white and black defendants saw similar increases in release. Thus, rather than eliminating the use of risk scores, using them uniformly across counties may have made risk assessments more fair across the state.
Others have argued that a fundamental flaw with risk assessments is that their simple labels obscure the true uncertainty behind their predictions [@nytoped]. This may be true for currently used risk assessments, but merely underscores the necessity for researchers to develop models which *do* quantify uncertainty. While actuarial risk assessments are not perfect, we must remember that in the absence of risk assessments, judges can only rely on their intuition—and human intuition has been shown to be less reliable than statistical models [@dawes1989clinical; @grove1996comparative; @desmarais2019rebuttal; @skeem].
Another problem is that some of the most widely used risk prediction algorithms are for-profit and secret (e.g., COMPAS [^3]), yielding concerns over due process rights. In the 2017 Wisconsin Supreme Court case, Loomis v. Wisconsin, Loomis challenged the use of the proprietary risk prediction software, COMPAS, on the grounds that this violated his due process and equal protection rights [@freemanloomis]. Yet today, there are plenty of equally accurate, transparent risk prediction tools that publish their guidelines and full models. See Table \[table:risk\_assessments\_comparison\] in the Appendix for examples. In this article, we compare against the Arnold PSA, an interpretable and publicly available tool which is used in multiple jurisdictions.
There is also a general fear that the use of risk assessments could lead to situations similar to those depicted in the movie, “Minority Report”. In Minority Report, individuals were punished *before* they committed a crime based on oracles’ visions of the future. However, one of the major principles common to American criminal justice texts [@sentencingbook; @criminalsourcebook] is that individuals should be punished based on the crimes they committed in the past. This illustrates why risk assessments have played only a minor role in sentencing. In reality, risk prediction tools are most heavily used in bail, parole, and social services decisions.
Risk scores are no “magic bullet,” but abolishing risk assessment without a useful alternative plan will not solve the problems above either. Reducing feature bias requires generations of community investment; jurisdictions must train judges on how to use risk scores; and communities must provide treatment resources for those deemed high risk. Risk assessments and other evidence-driven practices can be an important part of this solution. In the most recent revision of the Model Penal Code, the American Law Institute has supported giving people shorter prison terms or sending them to the community through the use of risk assessment tools [@starr2015riskassessment; @modelpenalcode2017]. By providing simple and transparent risk scores, we hope to mitigate the possibility that risk assessments are miscomputed, and enable judges and defendants to fully understand their scores.
Black-box and Interpretable Machine Learning for Predicting Criminal Recidivism
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is an abundance of past research on using machine learning methods to predict criminal recidivism. However, many of these studies utilize black-box, non-interpretable models, and only optimize for predictive performance. For instance, @neuilly2011predicting used random forests to predict homicide offender recidivism. Other black-box models applied to this problem include stochastic gradient boosting [@friedman2002stochastic] and neural networks [@paloscayneural].
In comparison, there is relatively little work using interpretable machine learning techniques to forecast recidivism. It is not even clear how interpretability should be defined in this domain[^4]. @berk2005developing used classical decision trees to build a simple screener for forecasting domestic violence for the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department. In 2016, @goelfrisk created a simple scoring system by rounding logistic regression coefficients, which helped address stop-and-frisk for the New York Police Department. @ZengUsRu2017 was the first work using modern machine learning methods that globally optimized over the space of sparse linear integer models to predict criminal recidivism. Despite the range of interpretable models that have been applied to the criminal recidivism problem, a common thread among these works is that simple, interpretable models can do just as well as black-box models, and better than humans. For instance, @angelino2018 found that COMPAS shows no benefit in accuracy over very simple machine learning models involving age and criminal history. @skeem showed that algorithms outperformed humans on predicting criminal recidivism in three data sets, and demonstrated that the performance gap was especially large when abundant risk factors were considered for risk prediction.
The approaches outlined above achieved interpretability through training models with interpretable forms. Another major approach is *post-hoc explainability*, in which a simpler model provides insights into a black-box model. However, post-hoc explanations are notoriously unreliable, or are not thorough enough to fully explain the black-box model [@Rudin18]. Additionally, there seems to be no clear benefit of black-box models over inherently interpretable models in terms of prediction accuracy on the criminal recidivism problem [@ZengUsRu2017; @tollenaar2013method]. Thus, for a high-stakes problem such as predicting criminal recidivism, we choose not to utilize these methods.
In fact, there have been cases in criminal justice where post-hoc explanations led to incorrect conclusions and pervasive misconceptions about what information some of the most common recidivism models use. The 2016 COMPAS scandal—where ProPublica reporters accused the proprietary COMPAS risk scores of an explicit dependence on race [@AngwinLaMaKi16]—was caused by a flawed, post-hoc explanation of a black-box model. In particular, ProPublica reasoned that if a post-hoc explanation of COMPAS depended linearly on race, then COMPAS depended on race (controlling for age and criminal history). However, as @Rudin19AgeofUnfairness demonstrated, just because an explanation model depends on a variable *does not* mean that the black box model depends on that variable. Thus, ProPublica’s reasoning was incorrect. In particular, this analysis found that COMPAS does not seem to depend linearly on some of its input variables (age), and does not seem to depend on race after conditioning on age and criminal history variables. Criminologists have also criticized the ProPublica work for other reasons [@flores16]. Despite the flaws in the ProPublica article, it is widely viewed as being a landmark paper on fairness in machine learning.
A notable advantage of interpretable modelling for criminal justice is that some interpretable models allow a decision-maker to incorporate factors not in the database in a way that black-box models cannot. For instance, scoring systems (linear models with integer coefficients) place all of the model inputs onto the same scale: every input receives a number of points. The points of each factor in the model provide clarity on how important each input is relative to the others.
Fair Machine Learning {#Fair_ML}
---------------------
Fairness is a crucial property of risk scores. As such, the recidivism prediction problem is a key motivator for many of these works. However, recidivism prediction is rarely the primary focus of fairness papers. Many of these papers seek to make theoretical contributions by proposing definitions of fairness and creating algorithms to achieve these definitions, using recidivism prediction as a case study [@hardt2016eqodds; @agarwal2018fairbinaryclass]. Others have proven fairness impossibility theorems, showing when different fairness constraints cannot be achieved simultaneously. For instance, the two fairness definitions at the heart of the debate over COMPAS’ fairness (calibration and balance for positive/negative class) cannot be achieved simultaneously in nontrivial cases [^5] [@kleinberginherent; @pleiss2017calib]. These theorems show that many fairness definitions directly conflict, so there cannot be a single universal definition of fairness [@kleinberginherent; @binnsfair; @verma2018fairnessreview]. Moreover, there is often a trade-off between performance and fairness [@berk2017; @berk2019; @corbettdavies2017faircost]. The emerging consensus is that any decision about the “best” definition of fairness must rely heavily on model characteristics and domain-specific expertise.
The question of what should count as fair in criminal recidivism prediction can be answered by discussion among ethicists, judges, legislators, and stakeholders in the criminal justice system. Existing American anti-discrimination law provides a general legal framework for addressing this question. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, there are two theories of liability: disparate impact and disparate treatment [@barocasdispimpact2016]. In this article, we use the definitions of fairness from the field of fair machine learning, as they apply directly to machine learning models and are more specific than the general legal guidelines of disparate impact and treatment. Moreover, some of the definitions of fairness proposed by the field of fair machine learning community are inspired by these guidelines. See @corbett-daviesmeasure for a detailed discussion of the relationship between algorithmic definitions of fairness and economic/legal definitions of discrimination.
Data {#Data}
====
In this study, we used criminal history data sets from Broward County, Florida, and the state of Kentucky, allowing us to analyze how models perform across regions. The Broward County data set consists of publicly available criminal history and court data from Broward County, Florida. This data set consists of the full criminal history, probational history, and demographic data for the 11,757 individuals who received COMPAS scores at the pretrial stage from 2013-2014 (as released by ProPublica [@AngwinLaMaKi16]). The probational history was computed from public criminal records released by the Broward Clerk’s Office. Though the full data set includes 11,757 individuals, this analysis includes only the 1,954 for which we could also compute the PSA. We processed the Broward data using the same methods as @Rudin19AgeofUnfairness. From the processed data, we computed various features such as number of prior arrests, prior charges, prior felonies, prior misdemeanors, etc.
The Kentucky pretrial and criminal court data was provided by the Department of Shared Services, Research and Statistics in Kentucky. The data came from two systems: the Pretrial Services Information Management System (PRIM) and CourtNet. The PRIM data contain records regarding defendants, interviews, PRIM cases, bonds, etc., that were connected with the pretrial service interviews conducted between July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2018. The data from CourtNet provided further information about cases, charges, sentences, dispositions, etc. When constructing features from the Kentucky data set, we computed features that were as similar as possible to the Broward features (e.g., prior arrests, prior charges with different types of crimes, age at current charge) in order to compare models between the two regions. There are several features from Broward data which could not be computed from the Kentucky data, such as “age at first offense” and “prior juvenile charges”. A limitation of the Kentucky data set is that the policies governing risk assessments changed over the period when the data was gathered, possibly impacting the consistency of the data collection.
A difference in the data processing between the two data sets is that when constructing prediction features and predictive labels, we considered non-convicted charges in the Broward data, but considered convicted charges in the Kentucky data. The reason for this choice is sample size. The processed Broward data contains only 1,954 records, and limiting the scope to convicted charges would yield only 1,297 records. The use of convicted versus non-convicted charges between the two regions might explain some discrepancies in the results in Section \[Generalization\], where we discuss the generalization of recidivism prediction models between states. Note that many models currently implemented within the justice system rely on non-convicted charges (for instance, counts of prior arrests), but for the applications such as bail and parole, the use of non-convicted charges could be problematic—it holds individuals accountable for crimes that they may not have committed. Please refer to the Appendix (Section \[App\]) for more details on the data processing and a full list of features for both data sets.
Methodology {#Methodology}
===========
Throughout our analysis, we compare with two tools that are currently used to predict recidivism in the U.S. justice system: COMPAS (Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions) and the Arnold PSA (Public Safety Assessment, created by Arnold Ventures[^6]). Although we would have liked to compare against more assessment tools, many of them use data that are not publicly available, or are owned by for-profit companies that do not release their models. For a detailed discussion of the other risk assessments we considered and the features we were missing, please consult the Appendix (Section \[App\]).
More specifically, we compared our models against the Arnold PSA’s New Criminal Activity (NCA) and New Violent Criminal Activity (NVCA) scores on the `general` and `violent` recidivism problems, respectively. Note that the time-frames and labels for prediction are important here, and our choices distinguish this study from past works on recidivism prediction. Let us explain the time-frames next.
It is important that we chose *fixed* time-frames for prediction, in our case, two years or six months past the current charge dates. In reality, the scores are used to assess risks during the pretrial period. However, there is a huge amount of variation in pretrial periods, which can span a few days to a few years: the average pretrial time-span in Kentucky is 109 days, and could last upwards of 3-4 years. Since the pretrial period depends on the jurisdiction, we chose to fix time-spans (of six months and two years) so that the models do not depend on the policy used for determining how long the pretrial period would be. That way, the risk calculations we produce depend mainly on the inherent characteristics of the individual, rather than the length of the pretrial period (potentially a characteristic of the jurisdiction). Also, this way, individuals with the same propensity to commit a new crime within six months (or two years depending on which risk score) are given identical risk scores, even if they have different expected time periods until their respective trials. The six-month time-span represents an approximate length of pretrial period. The two-year time-span provides more balanced labels, since two years provides more time to commit crimes than six months. Additionally, our evaluation metric is AUC, which is a rank-statistic, and considers relative risk rather than absolute risk; that is, an individual who actually commits crimes within two years of their current charge date should be ranked higher than an individual who does not. The relative risk within the two-year time-frame is related to the relative risk for other (shorter or longer) time-frames, allowing these models to potentially generalize to varying pretrial time-frames.
Another important aspect of our prediction problems is the *definition of recidivism* we chose. We predict the occurrence of a *convicted* charge within six months/two years for Kentucky. In other words, we would like to predict whether someone will be arrested, within six month or two years from their current charge, for another crime that they were later convicted for. This definition potentially alleviates a due process concern: if we instead include non-convicted charges, our models might be more likely to predict who will be arrested than who will be convicted, which is tied to policing practices. For Broward, where we did not have conviction information for later charges, we predicted *any charge* within six months/two years, which is the typical approach to recidivism prediction.
In Broward, we directly computed Arnold PSA scores, as the Arnold PSA is publicly available. The features used by the Arnold PSA are provided in Tables \[table:arnold\_psa\_nca\] & \[table:arnold\_psa\_nvca\] in the Appendix. In Kentucky, we used the unscaled Arnold PSA scores that came with the data set.[^7] We compared against COMPAS’ Risk of General Recidivism and Risk of Violent Recidivism risk scores on the two-year `general` and two-year `violent` prediction problems, respectively (both models are designed to predict recidivism within two years). The COMPAS suite is proprietary, but COMPAS General and Violent scores were provided with the Broward County data set (we do not compare against COMPAS on the Kentucky data set). The COMPAS General and COMPAS Violent scores appear to have been developed for a parole population [@compas], but have been applied for pretrial decisions in Broward. In this study, we consider the COMPAS scores for the outcomes they were actually applied for (pretrial decisions), rather than the outcomes they were developed for (parole decisions).
In Sections \[Baselines\] and \[Interpretable\], we compare the performance of black-box and interpretable algorithms on the Broward and Kentucky data sets. We caution readers against comparing an algorithm’s performance in Broward with its performance in Kentucky. An algorithm’s differences in performance between the data sets could be attributed to the many differences between the two regions. For instance, the Broward data set is at the county level while the Kentucky data set is at the state level. As the Kentucky data is at the state level, it embeds diverse information about 120 counties (e.g., demographics, legislation, culture, local policing practices). Thus, in Sections \[Baselines\] and \[Interpretable\], the comparisons between baseline models and interpretable models are conducted *within* each data set. In Section \[Generalization\], we discus in detail the regional differences between Broward County and Kentucky, and present a set of experiments that illustrate model performance gaps resulting from these regional differences.
Prediction Labels {#Labels}
-----------------
In addition to two-year `general` recidivism and two-year `violent` recidivism—the two types of criminal recidivism considered by COMPAS and the PSA—we computed recidivism prediction labels specific to various crime types, such as `property`, `drug` related recidivism and recidivism with `felony` or `misdemeanor` level charges.[^8] Note that an individual could have multiple positive labels, indicating that the newly committed crime involves multiple charge types. We defined recidivism as a recorded charge within a certain time frame. Out of all the possible recidivism prediction tasks we considered, we selected the six most balanced: `general`, `violent`, `drug`, `property`, `felony`, and `misdemeanor`. To investigate the effect of temporal scale on predictive performance, we generated these six tasks using the time windows `two-years` and `six-months` after the current charge date (or release date, if the individual went to prison for their current charge), for a total of twelve tasks. The summary of prediction tasks and the base rate of recidivism for each task is provided in Table \[table:prediction\_labels\].
Problem Setup {#Setup}
-------------
Due to the binary nature of recidivism tasks, we approached these prediction problems as binary classification problems, but do not binarize the final predicted probabilities/scores of the machine learning models for the following reasons. First, existing risk scores are usually nonbinary. For instance, the Arnold PSA’s unscaled New Criminal Activity (NCA) score takes integer values from 0 through 13, while the COMPAS Risk of Recidivism and Risk of Violent Recidivism scores take on integer values from 1 through 10 [@compas; @psaabout]. Second, we want to create more nuanced risk scores both by predicting highly-specific types of recidivism, (in addition to coarser categories like general recidivism), and by presenting non-binary scores which reflect a range of risk values.
Since the predictions are nonbinary, we use Area Under the Curve (AUC) as our evaluation metric. This decision also impacts the fairness metrics we assess, which we discuss in Section \[Fairness\]. We applied nested cross validation process to train the models. Please refer to the Appendix (Section \[App\]) for the details.
Baseline Machine Learning Methods {#Baselines}
=================================
To provide a basis of comparison for the interpretable models (presented in Section \[Interpretable\]), we evaluated the performance of six common, non-interpretable machine learning methods in this section. We present the baseline prediction results for Broward and Kentucky in Tables \[table:broward\_baseline\_pred\_res\] and \[table:kentucky\_baseline\_pred\_res\] respectively. Baseline models and descriptions are provided below. The tuned hyperparameters and packages used for each problem are provided in the Appendix (Section \[App\]).
- **$\ell_2$ Penalized Logistic Regression**: To prevent over-fitting, there is an $\ell_2$ penalty term on the sum of squared coefficients in the loss function for logistic regression. Although this method produces linear models, we consider $\ell_2$-penalized logistic regression to be non-interpretable because if the number of input features is large, there could be a large number of nonzero terms in the model.
- **$\ell_1$ Penalized Logistic Regression**: To prevent over-fitting, there is an $\ell_1$ penalty term on the sum of absolute values of coefficients in the loss function for logistic regression. This algorithm creates sparser models than $\ell_2$ penalized logistic regression. Notice that the sparsity of the model depends on the magnitude of the penalty and must be balanced with consideration of prediction performance. In our experiments, $\ell_1$ models with Broward data were sparse yet maintained good predictive performances. However, the best $\ell_1$ models with Kentucky data still had too many features, which made it difficult to interpret the results. Therefore, we classified $\ell_1$-penalized logistic regression as a non-interpretable algorithm.
- **SVM with a Linear Kernel [@vapnik1964svm]:** An algorithm that outputs a hyperplane that separates two classes by maximizing the sum of margins between the hyperplane and all points. Incorrectly classified points are penalized. Although SVM with linear kernel yields a linear model, the concerns with $\ell_1$ and $\ell_2$ penalized logistic regressions apply here as well: the number of nonzero terms could be large, making it difficult to interpret the model.
- **Random Forest [@breiman1984classification]**: An ensemble method that combines the predictions of multiple decision trees, each of which is trained on a bootstrap sample of the data. The implementation we use combines individual trees by averaging the probabilistic prediction of each tree. Random Forest is usually considered a black-box classifier because it is difficult to understand the individual contribution of each feature (which can be found in many trees), and the joint relationship between features.
- **Boosted Decision Trees [@freund1997decision]**: An ensemble method where a sequence of weak classifiers (decision trees) are fit to weighted versions of the data. Similar to random forest, boosted decision trees produce black-box models because it is difficult to understand the joint relationships of the features. We use the XGBoost implementation [@xgboost].
**Major Findings:** We found that all baseline machine learning algorithms performed similarly across recidivism problems for the Kentucky data set. We also found that models performed better on the six-month prediction problems than on the two-year problems on Kentucky data, but not on Broward data. These findings will be discussed throughout the following subsections.
Broward Baseline Results {#B_baselines}
------------------------
Table \[table:broward\_baseline\_pred\_res\] in the Appendix contains the performance of baseline algorithms on the Broward data; the results are visualized in Figure \[fig:broward\_baseline\_pred\_res\] (presented below). We noticed that no algorithm consistently performs better than the others. Simple linear models can even outperform black-box models in some prediction problems. For instance, in the two-year prediction problems, $\ell_2$-penalized logistic regression and LinearSVM tie in performance for the `general` recidivism prediction. XGBoost performs the best in `violent` and `property` prediction problems. $\ell_1$-penalized logistic regression has the best performance in `drug` and `felony` prediction tasks, while $\ell_2$-penalized logistic regression has the best performance in `misdemeanor` recidivism prediction. The largest performance gap is 5.1%, from `property` recidivism prediction.
In the six month prediction problems, we see the same phenomenon that no single model dominates the others in performance. Overall, the performance gaps across baseline models for the `general`, `felony`, and `misdemeanor` prediction tasks are small, while other prediction problems have larger gaps.
![Visualizations of Broward baseline results from Table \[table:broward\_baseline\_pred\_res\] in the Appendix. Within each prediction problem, all algorithms performed similarly. No single algorithm consistently outperformed others. \[fig:broward\_baseline\_pred\_res\]](figures/fl_baseline.png){width="13cm"}
Kentucky Baseline Results {#K_baselines}
-------------------------
In Kentucky, complex and nonlinear baselines perform slightly better than linear models (see Table \[table:kentucky\_baseline\_pred\_res\] in the Appendix and Figure \[fig:KY\_interpretable\_vis\], which is presented below), potentially due to the larger size of the Kentucky data set (1,956 records in Broward county versus 250K records in Kentucky). In particular, Random Forest and XGBoost uniformly perform slightly better than all the other algorithms on all prediction tasks, over both time periods we examined. XGBoost performs the best on all tasks. However, performance gaps, across all prediction problems and in both time frames, are very small. Thus, we conclude that all the baseline algorithms perform similarly over the Kentucky data set . One thing we noticed from the Kentucky results is that all algorithms perform slightly better on the six-month recidivism period than on the two-year period.
![Visualizations of Kentucky baseline results from Table \[table:kentucky\_baseline\_pred\_res\] in the Appendix. Random Forest and XGBoost consistently perform better than other models, but the results are similar across all models.[]{data-label="fig:KY_baselines_vis"}](figures/ky_baseline.png){width="13cm"}
Interpretable Machine Learning Methods {#Interpretable}
======================================
For recidivism prediction, we considered several different types of interpretable machine learning methods with different levels of interpretability, ranging from scoring systems to decision trees, to additive models. Since the Burgess model in 1928 [@burgess1928factors], recidivism risk assessments have traditionally been scoring systems, which are sparse linear models with positive integer coefficients. A scoring system can be visualized as a simple scoring table or set of figures. There have only recently been algorithms designed to optimally learn scoring systems directly from data, without manual feature selection or rounding. Scoring systems have several advantages: they allow an understanding of how variables act *jointly* to form the prediction; they are understandable by non-experts; risks can be computed without a calculator; and they are consistent with the form of model that criminologists have built over the last century, where “points” are given to the individual, and the total points are transformed into a risk of recidivism. Further, outside information (such as risk factors that are not in any database) can be more easily incorporated into the risk score: it is much easier to determine how many points to assign to a new factor if the points are integer-valued for the known risk factors (e.g., we could choose to subtract three points for drug treatment, to counteract four points of past drug-related arrests).
While scoring systems appear to be the accepted standard for interpretability in the domain of criminal justice, imposing the constraints of linearity, sparsity, and integrality of coefficients could potentially be strong enough to reduce accuracy. Thus, we also consider modern algorithms that satisfy a subset of the conditions of interpretability (sparsity in features, ability to visualize/explain any variable interactions, linearity, integer coefficients). Specifically, we tested four interpretable machine learning algorithms: Classification and Regression Trees (CART), Explainable Boosting Machine (EBM), Additive Stumps, and RiskSLIM (Risk-Calibrated Supersparse Linear Integer Models). Algorithm specifics are articulated below and the tested hyperparameters are provided in the Appendix (Section \[App\]). We also tested two existing risk assessments—the Arnold PSA and COMPAS—and compared their performances to both baseline and interpretable machine learning models.
- **Classification and Regression Trees (CART) [@breiman1984classification]**: A method to create decision trees by continuously splitting input features on certain values until a stopping criterion is satisfied. CART constructs binary trees using the feature and threshold that yields the largest information gain at each node. We constrain the maximum depth of the tree to ensure that it does not use too many features. CART models are nonlinear. They cannot be written as scoring systems, but can be written as logical models.
- **Explainable Boosting Machine (EBM) [@loucaruana2013]**: An algorithm that uses boosting to train Generalized Additive Models with a few interaction terms ($\mathrm{GA^2Ms}$). The contribution by each feature and feature interaction pair can be visualized. The models are interpretable and modular, thus editable by experts. The models are generally not sparse, and cannot be written as scoring systems.
- **RiskSLIM [@UstinRu2017riskSLIM]**: An algorithm that generates sparse linear models with integer coefficients that have risk-calibrated probabilities. The models generated by RiskSLIM have form similar to that of models used in criminal justice over the last century.
- **Additive Stumps**: An interpretable variation on $\ell_1$-penalized logistic regression: for each feature, we generate multiple binary stumps (this pre-processing technique is discussed further in the next section), and apply $\ell_1$-penalized logistic regression to these stumps. Ideally, the features will have monotonically increasing (or decreasing) contributions to the estimated probability of recidivism. Models constructed using this method generally use fewer features than those constructed with vanilla $\ell_1$-penalized logistic regression. These models are flexible and nonlinear. These models also cannot be written as scoring systems because they are not sparse in the number of nonlinearities.
- **Arnold PSA [@psaabout]**: A widely-used, publicly available, interpretable risk assessment system that consists of three scores: New Criminal Activity (NCA), New Violent Criminal Activity (NVCA), and Failure to Appear (FTA). We compare against the NCA for the `general` recidivism problem, and against the NVCA for the `violent` recidivism problem, on both two-year and six-month time scales. The NCA has 7 factors, while the NVCA has 5 factors.
- **COMPAS [@compas]**: A widely-used risk assessment system that consists of several scores, including the three that we study: Risk of General Recidivism (COMPAS General), Risk of Violent Recidivism (COMPAS Violent), and Risk of Failure to Appear. We compare against the COMPAS General score for the two-year `general` recidivism problem, and compare against the COMPAS Violent score for the two-year `violent` problem.
**Major Findings:** Overall, the best interpretable models performed approximately as well as the best black-box models on both regions and both prediction time periods we considered.
Pre-processing Features into Binary Stumps {#Stumps}
------------------------------------------
We performed a data pre-processing technique for two of the interpretable machine learning algorithms: RiskSLIM and Additive Stumps. This technique consists of transforming all original features into binary stumps (dummy variables) using Equation \[eq:stumps\]. Pre-processing the features into stumps allows us to include nonlinear interactions between the features (e.g. age, criminal history) and labels. It also allows us to visualize each Additive Stumps model as a set of monotonically increasing (or decreasing) curves.
Formally, stumps are binary indicators, which are created by splitting features at pre-specified thresholds. For a feature $X^{(j)}$, and a set of threshold values $K \in \mathbb{R}$, we generate **decreasing stumps** $S_{k}^{(j)}$ for all $k \in K$ as follows: $$\label{eq:stumps}
S_{k}^{(j)} = \begin{cases}
1, &\text{for } X^{(j)} \leq k\\
0, &\text{else}
\end{cases}$$ We can generate **increasing stumps** analogously by substituting $\geq$ for $\leq$ in the definition above. The rationale behind the naming convention is as follows. Linear models constructed from increasing (respectively, decreasing) stumps have the nice property that if one sums the contribution from all stumps corresponding to a fixed original feature (i.e., $f(X^{(j)}) = \sum\limits_{k \in K} c_k S_k^{(j)}$ for the feature $X^{(j)}$), and the coefficients $c_k$ are mostly non-negative [^9], the resulting function $f(X^{(j)})$ is monotonically increasing (respectively decreasing), which is desirable for interpretability.
More concretely, the “age\_at\_current\_charge” feature ranges from 18 to 70 in our data. For all age-related features, we construct decreasing stumps for $k = \{18, 19, ..., ,60\}$. We chose decreasing stumps for age features because based on past studies [e.g., @Rudin19AgeofUnfairness; @StevensonSl18] and criminological theory [@changingdist; @bindler2018agedistlondon; @bushway2007inextricable] , the probability of recidivism decreases with age. On the other hand, intuitively, the probability of recidivism should increase as criminal history increases. Thus, we construct increasing stumps for the remaining features (which relate to criminal history).
To select a collection of stumps for the RiskSLIM and Additive Stumps model, we selected threshold values for all features by examining each feature visualization from EBM and choosing the threshold values that correspond to sharp drops in the predicted scores.
Broward Prediction Results for Interpretable Models {#B_interpretable}
---------------------------------------------------
Table \[table:broward\_interpretable\_pred\_res\] in the Appendix and Figure \[fig:FL\_interpretable\_vis\] show the results of interpretable models on the Broward data set. For all prediction problems in both two-year and six-month prediction periods that we examined, we observed that CART consistently performed worse than other algorithms. Additive Stumps and EBM performed similarly on all the prediction tasks and outperformed other models, including the Arnold PSA and COMPAS, on most of the prediction tasks.
The performances of the best interpretable models are very similar to that of the best baseline models—this is true for each of the prediction problems we considered. The AUC gaps between the best interpretable models and best baseline models for all two-year prediction tasks range from 0.3% to 1.7% in absolute value, and range from 0.2% to 2.6% for six-month prediction tasks. The two maximum prediction gaps, 1.7% and 2.6%, both come from `drug` recidivism prediction tasks. Prediction gaps from all other problems are smaller than 1%.
![Broward interpretable model results. []{data-label="fig:FL_interpretable_vis"}](figures/fl_interpretable.png){width="13cm"}
Kentucky Prediction Results for Interpretable Models
----------------------------------------------------
The Kentucky prediction results are provided in Table \[table:kentucky\_interpretable\_pred\_res\] in the Appendix, and visualized in Figure \[fig:KY\_interpretable\_vis\]. For all prediction problems in both time frames we considered, CART, EBM, and Additive Stumps all had similar performances. RiskSLIM had relatively lower results compared to other interpretable models. All interpretable models performed better than the Arnold PSA, with the exception that the Arnold PSA performed slightly better (0.3%) than RiskSLIM on two-year `general` recidivism. Once more, we observed that the best interpretable models can perform approximately as well as the best black-box models (XGBoost). For the two-year prediction tasks, the differences in performance between the best interpretable and the best black-box models ranged from 0.7% to 0.9% in absolute value; for six-month problems, the difference ranged from 0.4% to 1.5%.
![Kentucky interpretable model results.[]{data-label="fig:KY_interpretable_vis"}](figures/ky_interpretable.png){width="13cm"}
**Summary of Interpretable Models’ Results:** We found that the best interpretable models performed approximately as well as the best black-box models, on both data sets and both time periods we considered, which is consistent with previous studies on other data sets [@ZengUsRu2017]. The best interpretable models possess the advantage of being transparent and interpretable, allowing judges and defendants a better understanding of the predictions that the model outputs.
Tables and Visualizations of Interpretable Models {#Tables}
-------------------------------------------------
Each of the interpretable machine learning methods produces models that can be visualized, either as a decision tree (CART), scoring table (RiskSLIM), or as a set of visualizations (EBM, Additive Stumps). In this section, we present these tables and visualizations for EBM, Additive Stumps and RiskSLIM, to give a clearer understanding of each model’s interpretability. Here we used the two-year `general` recidivism prediction problem on Kentucky data as an example.
### EBM Models {#EBM}
The EBM package provides visualizations for each feature in the data set along with a bar chart of feature importance, both of which are displayed in an interactive dashboard. The dashboard allows users (potentially judges) to see the scores corresponding to each bar or line by hovering the mouse over it. EBM models are not sparse in the number of features, so there could be visualizations for all features. Here, we show screenshots of the bar chart and visualizations for the three most important features. EBM visualizations are similar to those from Additive Stumps, in that each feature’s contribution to the score can be displayed separately. However, EBM scores do not tend to be monotonically increasing or decreasing in each feature.
0.1ex
### Additive Stumps {#Additive}
Additive Stumps models are constructed by thresholding the original features, such as age or criminal history, into binary stumps, followed by running $\ell_1$-penalized logistic regression on the stumps. Choosing an appropriate regularization value for $\ell_1$-penalized logistic regression can give us a model that is sparse in the number of original features—despite the fact that the regularization is directly on the stumps, not on the original features. For the Kentucky two-year `general` recidivism problem, the final model contains 28 stumps plus an intercept. These stumps are rooted under only 14 original features. Visualizations of the contributions for these 14 features are presented in Figure \[figure:stumpsfeatures\]. Table \[table:ky\_stumps\_general\], containing a scoring table that includes all 28 stumps plus an intercept, is provided in the Appendix (Section \[App\]).
0.01ex 0.01ex 0.01ex \[figure:stumpsfeatures\]
### RiskSLIM {#RiskSLIM}
RiskSLIM produces scoring tables with coefficients optimized to be integers (“points”), which makes the predictions easier to calculate and interpret for users, such as judges. The total points are translated into probabilities using the logistic function provided at the top of the table. By examining a RiskSLIM model, users can easily identify which features contribute to the final score and by how much. We provide scoring tables in Table \[table:riskslim\_table\_demonstration\] for two-year `general` recidivism prediction on both Broward and Kentucky data sets. More tables are provided in the Appendix (Section \[App\]).
We noticed that for each prediction problem, almost all five of the cross validation folds for the RiskSLIM algorithm yielded the same model on the (larger) Kentucky data set. In more detail, for Kentucky two-year `drug` and `violent` recidivism prediction problems, all five RiskSLIM models produced during cross validation were identical. For the rest of the prediction labels, four out of five cross validation models were the same. For the six-month recidivism prediction problems, the `misdemeanor` prediction problem resulted in five identical RiskSLIM models, and the `violent` recidivism prediction problem had four models that were the same. The fact that the Kentucky RiskSLIM models are often the same, despite being trained on different (albeit overlapping) subsets of data, suggests that they are robust to the exact subsample used for training.
Recidivism prediction models do not generalize well across regions {#Generalization}
==================================================================
It is common practice for recidivism prediction systems to be applied across states, or even countries, with only minor tuning on local populations. Implicit in this practice is the assumption that models trained on data from one collection of locations will perform well when used in another collection of locations—i.e., that models *generalize* across locations. For instance, the Arnold PSA, which was developed on 1.5 million cases from approximately 300 U.S. jurisdictions, has been adopted in the states of Arizona, Kentucky, New Jersey, and many large cities including Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, etc. [@psaabout]. These systems have remained in place for years without any updates.
However, based on our experimental results, we conjecture that different locations would benefit from specialized models that conform to the specific aspects of each location. For instance, let us briefly compare the state of Kentucky and Broward County in Florida. The demographics are completely different: Kentucky is not a diverse state (87.8% white, 7.8% black, and 4.4% other groups in 2019 [@kentucky]), whereas Broward County is more racially diverse (62.3%, white; 17.1% Hispanic or Latino; 12.2% black or African American; 5.07% Asian and other groups [@broward]. The geographies of the locations are drastically different as well: Kentucky is an interior state located in the Upland South with a humid subtropical climate, whereas Broward County is at the eastern edge of Florida with a tropical climate. Several studies have indicated an association between climate (temperature, humidity, and precipitation) and crime [@climate1; @climate2; @climate3]. There are many other factors that differ between the locations that might affect the generalization of the recidivism prediction models, such as different local prosecution practices, laws and the way they are administered, social service programs, local cultures, educational systems, and judges’ views.
Because models tend to be used broadly across locations, in this section we aim to investigate how well predictive models generalize between the two locations for which we have data. We trained models on Kentucky and tested on Broward (and vice versa). We looked more closely at *age*, and examined how the joint probability distribution of age and recidivism differs between Broward and Kentucky. We focused on age because of its important relationship to recidivism [@StevensonSl18; @bushway2007inextricable; @kleiman2007agedist].
**Major Findings:** Our analysis shows that models do not generalize well across regions, and the joint probability distribution of age and recidivism varies across states. Therefore, we suggest that different models be constructed in different regions, and be updated periodically.
Training on One Region and Testing on the Other
-----------------------------------------------
In order to construct models on one region and test them on the other, we only used the shared features from both data sets. Nested cross validation was used to train both the models that were trained in one region and tested in the other, and the models that were trained and tested in the same region. More details about this procedure can be found in Section \[nestedcv\] in the Appendix. Table \[table:train\_kentucky\_test\_broward\] and Table \[table:train\_broward\_test\_kentucky\] in the Appendix respectively show the performance of models trained on Kentucky and tested on Broward, and models trained on Broward and tested on Kentucky. Table \[table:train\_broward\_test\_broward\] and Table \[table:train\_kentucky\_test\_kentucky\] respectively show the performance of models trained and tested on Broward, and models trained and tested on Kentucky.
Comparing Table \[table:train\_kentucky\_test\_broward\] with Table \[table:train\_broward\_test\_broward\], we observed that there is an overall decrease in model performance when models were trained in Kentucky and tested on Broward. For instance, for the two-year `general` recidivism problem, the performances drop between 3.5% to 6.0% on the baseline models. A similar pattern can be observed for the interpretable models. Conversely, when we trained models on Broward and tested on Kentucky, we observed even larger performance decreases from the models trained and tested on only Kentucky (compare Table \[table:train\_broward\_test\_kentucky\] to Table \[table:train\_kentucky\_test\_kentucky\]). For the two-year `general` prediction task, performance gaps from baseline models range between 5.1% and 8.6%, while the gaps range from 4.6% to 12.0% for interpretable models.
Through this experimentation, we concluded that for at least the twelve prediction problems in our setup, models do not generalize across states. This could be attributable to differences in the joint probability distribution of features and outcomes between locations. To understand the difference in these distributions more closely, we examine the age feature.
Age-Recidivism Probability Distributions by Region {#Age}
--------------------------------------------------
Age has traditionally been a highly predictive factor for recidivism [@StevensonSl18; @bushway2007inextricable; @kleiman2007agedist]. Therefore, differences in the age distributions between two regions could significantly impact a model’s ability to generalize between regions.
![Probability of recidivism v. age at current charge—`general` recidivism[]{data-label="fig:age_distribution_general"}](figures/age_probability_distribution/general.pdf)
Consider the `general` recidivism problem as an example. In Kentucky, the probability of general recidivism for both six-month and two-year prediction periods peaks for individuals aged around the early to mid 30s and then decreases as age increases. In Broward County, the age distribution for the corresponding `general` recidivism problem is substantially different. From Figure \[fig:age\_distribution\_general\], the probabilities seem to peak around ages 18-29, and then decrease after age 29. There are less data for higher ages, causing greater variance in the probabilities. For the `violent` recidivism problem, please refer to Figure \[fig:age\_distribution\_violent\] in the Appendix (Section \[App\]).
Additionally, there is a large gap in the probability magnitudes between the two regions. For instance, the probabilities of `general` recidivism from the Broward data set can exceed 0.5, while the probabilities of general recidivism from Kentucky data are all less than 0.4. Thus, the populations of individuals from Broward and Kentucky who recidivate are different with respect to age.
This difference is directly manifested in the interpretable models presented in Section \[Tables\]. We found that the selection of features differs between interpretable models trained on Broward and Kentucky data. For instance, referring to the simple RiskSLIM models listed in Section \[riskslimtables\] in the Appendix, which show the most important features in each prediction problem, we noticed that with Broward data, almost all prediction problems contain at least one age feature, either “age at current charge” or “age at first offense.” This suggests that age is important in predicting recidivism across different problems trained on the Broward data. However, none of the RiskSLIM models trained on the Kentucky data set use age features. Almost all the models use “prior arrest” features, reflecting the fact that Kentucky recidivism prediction problems rely more on prior criminal history information than on age.
Fairness {#Fairness}
========
In this section, we conduct a technical discussion of a small fraction of the various fairness definitions that have emerged recently, and an evaluation of how well the interpretable models satisfy them on the Kentucky data set. We first describe our rationale for selecting fairness definitions (calibration, balance for positive/negative class, and balanced group AUC). Next, we evaluate how well the Arnold PSA, COMPAS, EBM (the best-performing interpretable models) and RiskSLIM (the most interpretable and most constrained models) satisfy these definitions on the two-year `general` recidivism and two-year `violent` recidivism problems in Kentucky. Finally, we discuss how current fairness-enforcement procedures interact with interpretability.
**Major Findings:** Empirically, we found no egregious violations of the three fairness definitions (group calibration, BPC/BNC, and BG-AUC) for both interpretable machine learning models we assessed (EBM and RiskSLIM) for the `two-year` general recidivism problem on the Kentucky data set. We found that the Arnold NCA raw score violated one of the fairness definitions (BPC/BNC). Overall, we observed a larger gap in fairness (for all three fairness measures we examined) between the largest and smallest sensitive groups, than between black and white sensitive groups. We also note that existing techniques to enforce fairness generally require non-interpretable transformations, and therefore do not work well with interpretable models.
Selection of Fairness Metrics: Calibration, Balance for Positive/Negative Class, Balanced Group AUC {#Fairness_metrics}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in Section \[Setup\], we do not wish to consider binary risk scores in this study. This decision limits us to a much smaller class of fairness definitions (e.g., statistical parity would not be relevant). Below, we summarize the definitions that apply to regression that we **do not** consider and the reasons why:
- **Fairness through unawareness** states that a model should not use any sensitive features [@verma2018fairnessreview]. However, if there are proxies for sensitive features present in the data set, the model can still learn an association between a sensitive group and the outcome. Fairness through unawareness could be used if one decides that a proxy feature is permissible to use (e.g., if one decided that age could be used, despite its correlation with race), but we do not presume that this is what is desired for this application. Of course, if fairness through unawareness *is* desired, it is easy to construct models that satisfy this definition.
- **Individual fairness** intuitively requires that “similar” individuals are treated “similarly” by the model—individuals with similar features should be given similar model scores. This type of fairness requires manually (and thus subjectively) defining a notion of similarity between individuals [@dwork2012fairaware]. This type of subjective choice goes beyond the scope of this paper.
Once we limited ourselves to real-valued outcomes and eliminated the above definitions, only a few definitions remained. In a literature search for non-binary fairness definitions, we found the following: calibration, balance for positive class/balance for negative class (BPC/BNC) and balanced group AUC (BG-AUC).
Below, $G$ denotes a (categorical) **sensitive attribute** such as race, and $g_i$ denotes one of the *sensitive groups* in $G$ (e.g. African-American, Caucasian, and Hispanic, for the sensitive attribute of race). $Y \in \{0, 1\}$ denotes the ground-truth label (recidivism status) and $S$ denotes the predicted score from a model.
- **Calibration**: We consider two notions of calibration. The first, **group calibration**, requires that for all predicted scores, the fraction of positive labels is the same across all groups. Mathematically, group calibration over the sensitive attribute $G$ requires: $$P(Y = 1 | S = s, G = g_i) = P(Y = 1 | S = s, G = g_j), \forall i, j$$ where $s$ is the given value of a risk score.[^10] In practice, it is common to bin the score $S$ if there are many possible values. The second, **monotonic calibration**, requires that if $s_1 < s_2$, then $P(Y = 1 | S = s_1) < P(Y = 1 | S = s_2)$. [^11]
These types of calibration are of particular concern to designers of current recidivism risk models. Group calibration means that a risk score holds the same “meaning” for each race. Monotonic calibration means that if the score increases, the risk also increases. These notions are important because human decision-makers expect risk scores to have these intuitive properties (but not all algorithms produce calibrated models) [@chouldechova2016dispimpact].
- **Balance for Positive Class (BPC)** requires that for all individuals with a positive label, the expected values of the predicted scores are the same across groups. Mathematically, a risk score $S$ satisfies BPC if: $$E[S |Y = 1,G = g_i] = E[S |Y = 1,G = g_j], \forall i, j.$$ Similarly, a risk score $S$ satisfies **Balance for Negative Class (BNC)** if: $$E[S |Y = 0,G = g_i] = E[S |Y = 0,G = g_j],\forall i, j.$$ BPC and BNC differ only in the label $Y$.[^12] Intuitively, BPC means that the average score for recidivists is the same in each group, while BNC means that the average score for non-recidivists is the same in each sensitive group.
BPC/BNC is an intuitive notion of fairness, which says that it is permissible to give consistently higher (respectively lower) scores to individuals who truly belong to the positive (respectively negative) class. However, BPC/BNC limits the set of attributes where it is permissible to “discriminate” between individuals, to the label $Y$. Suppose the count of prior offenses is an important feature for a recidivism prediction model—higher prior counts lead to higher scores. This is a reasonable model assumption because a higher prior count is correlated with higher recidivism rates. If on average, African-Americans have higher prior counts than Caucasians, the model will not satisfy BPC/BNC. For a model to satisfy BPC/BNC, it must give the same average score to individuals from a certain race and with a certain recidivism label, regardless of distributional differences in prior counts. Those who believe that prior counts and arrests are racially biased against African-Americans might find this a desirable property of a fairness definition. On the other hand, those who find this undesirable can fix this by conditioning on the prior counts attribute as well.
- **Balanced Group AUC (BG-AUC)** requires that the AUC of the risk score is the same for each sensitive group. This definition is our adaptation of **overall accuracy equality** [@berk2017], which asks that the score’s accuracy is the same for each sensitive group. Our risk scores are not binary so we do not assess accuracy in this work, but assessing the AUC for each group is the natural analog.
**Sensitive attributes**: The two sensitive attributes that are available in the Kentucky data sets are race and gender. In the Kentucky data set, all individuals are partitioned into `Caucasian, African-American, Indian, Asian, and Other`, but we group the `Indian` and `Asian` attributes into `Other` because there are very few individuals with these attributes. See Table \[table:FL\_KY\_sensitive\_attrs\] for the distribution of sensitive attributes in Kentucky. The Kentucky data set also partitions individuals into the genders `Female` and `Male`. To summarize, $$\begin{aligned}
\text{races in Kentucky} &= \{\texttt{Caucasian, African-American, Other}\} \\
\text{sexes in Kentucky} &= \{\texttt{Female, Male}\}.
\end{aligned}$$
We remark that the binary versions of calibration and BPC/BNC definitions conflicted during the COMPAS scandal. Investigative journalists from ProPublica found that COMPAS had a higher false negative rate for Caucasians and a higher false positive rate for African-Americans.[^13] In response, however, Northpointe claimed that COMPAS scores were calibrated.
Kleinberg et al.’s [@kleinberginherent] impossibility theorem demonstrated that the conflict between calibration and BPC/BNC holds in general. In particular, they show that if a model does not satisfy either of the two trivial cases—a model that always makes perfect predictions, or a data set where the base rates of recidivism are equal for each sensitive group—then the model cannot satisfy all three fairness definitions simultaneously. However, a relaxed version of the theorem states that, if either of the two conditions approximately hold (approximately perfect predictions, or approximately equal base rates), then the three fairness definitions can be approximately satisfied at the same time.
Figure \[fig:data\_recid\_distributions\] in the Appendix shows that the base rates for all sensitive attributes under each prediction problem on the Kentucky data. We noticed that for the two-year `general` and `violent` recidivism problems, the base rates are similar to each other (less than 3% in differences) across gender and race categories (except for “Other”). Given the relaxed version of the impossibility theorem, together with the relaxed criteria of the 3% difference we considered, we expect that the three fairness definitions can all be approximately satisfied.
Fairness Results {#Fairness_results}
----------------
We assessed model fairness only on the Kentucky data because the Broward data has a limited sample size, potentially making the fairness results unreliable. (We attempted the evaluation on Broward data, but conditioning on race/gender and the true label/score in the Broward data led to subgroups that were too small, and therefore noisy results.) We compared the interpretable models, EBM and RiskSLIM, to the Arnold PSA on Kentucky. EBM has the best performance on most of the prediction problems on the Kentucky data set. RiskSLIM performs relatively worse, but is considerably simpler as there are no more than five features in each model, coefficients are integers, and the model is linear.
We evaluated the two-year `general` and two-year `violent` problems, as they are the primary problems that the Arnold PSA is used for. For the two-year `general` problem, we evaluated the unscaled Arnold New Criminal Activity (NCA) score; for the two-year `violent` problem, we assessed the unscaled Arnold New Violent Criminal Activity (NVCA) score. Although Arnold Ventures provides a table to scale the Arnold scores, in Kentucky, judges are presented with the unscaled scores along with a categorization of the scores as low, medium, and high risk. Results for two-year `general` recidivism are presented directly in this section; results for two-year `violent` recidivism can be found in the Appendix.
Note that each of the fairness conditions implicitly has a threshold parameter. For instance, the fairness condition BPC is strictly satisfied if the mean scores between multiple groups are “equal” to each other. However, whether two numbers are approximately equal is subjective and requires a threshold. So one must always issue a disclaimer when stating that any of these fairness conditions are satisfied. Hence we remark that subjective thresholds were used to determine whether fairness conditions were approximately satisfied in what follows.
### Calibration {#Calibration_results .unnumbered}
As Figure \[fig:calib\_arnold\_nca\] shows, the Arnold NCA raw score does not satisfy monotonic calibration for race or gender groups. The score approximately satisfies group calibration for race (excluding the “Other” group) for all score values except for 13, and approximately satisfies group calibration for gender for all score values less than 11. The reason why higher Arnold NCA raw scores fail the calibration definitions may be that there are few individuals with higher scores in the data set , thus making the results less stable. Interestingly, we found that the scaled version of Arnold NCA fully satisfied monotonic and group calibration, but had slightly worse predictive performance. EBM and RiskSLIM both satisfy monotonic calibration and group calibration for all gender and race groups (excluding the “Other” group).
### Balance for Positive/Negative Class (BPC/BNC) {#Balance .unnumbered}
For models that provide risk probabilities as output (namely EBM and RiskSLIM models), we apply a 3% rule to determine whether BPC and BNC conditions are satisfied. The unscaled Arnold NCA produces scores between 0 and 13 rather than probabilities, so we use a 0.4 difference threshold to determine whether BPC and BNC are satisfied. That is, if the difference in scores between the two groups is greater than the threshold, then we conclude that the model violates BPC/BNC. All conclusions we present below exclude the “Other” race group, because of its small sample size.
Figure \[fig:arnold\_bpc\_bnc\] displays the BPC/BNC results for the Arnold NCA raw, and shows that Arnold NCA satisfies neither BNC nor BPC on gender or race groups. Figures \[fig:ebm\_bpc\_bnc\] shows that EBM satisfies both BPC and BNC on race groups. EBM also satisfies BNC, but not BPC, on gender groups. Figure \[fig:riskslim\_bpc\_bnc\] displays the results for RiskSLIM, which satisfies both BPC and BNC on race and gender groups.
### Balanced Group AUC (BG-AUC) {#Balance_AUC .unnumbered}
We determine whether the models satisfy BG-AUC using a 3% rule. In Kentucky, AUC values are stable across sensitive attributes for all models, satisfying BG-AUC for both gender and race. The discrepancies in AUC between African-Americans and Caucasians range from 0.3% (RiskSLIM) to 2.1% (Arnold NCA raw). The range gets smaller for gender groups, lying between 0.5% (Arnold NCA) to 1.3% (RiskSLIM). Hence, we found that the Arnold NCA raw, EBM and RiskSLIM all satisfy Balanced Group AUC for the race (excluding the “Other” group) and gender groups.
**Summary of Fairness Results:** For the `two-year` general recidivism problem on the Kentucky data set, we found no egregious violations of the three fairness definitions (group calibration, BPC/BNC, and BG-AUC) for either of the interpretable machine learning models we assessed (EBM and RiskSLIM), but we did find small violations. We found the Arnold NCA raw score violated one of the fairness definitions (BPC/BNC).
In more detail, we found that balanced group AUC were approximately satisfied for all three models with respect to both gender and race groups (except for “Other”). With respect to calibration, both EBM and RiskSLIM satisfied monotonic and group calibration on both gender and race groups (except for the “Other”). Arnold PSA approximately satisfied group calibration on race (excluding risk score 13) and gender groups for scores less than 11. Additionally, EBM satisfied both BPC and BNC on race categories, while it only satisfied BNC on gender categories. RiskSLIM satisfied both definitions on both sensitive attributes. The Arnold NCA satisfied neither BPC nor BNC on race and gender groups.
A caveat is that we limited the discussion of the race groups to Caucasians and African-Americans—otherwise the “Other” group would have caused all models to fail all definitions of fairness (calibration curves for the “Other” group are significantly beneath curves for other groups, average predicted scores vary substantially from the other groups, and prediction AUC is significantly lower for the “Other” group). This may be because we have the least data for the “Other” race group, which is only 2.49% of the total sample. To ensure fairness, it is important that comparable amounts of data are gathered for each sensitive group when possible. However, in non-diverse states such as Kentucky, there may not be enough individuals in minority groups to create a large enough statistical sample.
A Discussion on the Interaction between Fairness and Interpretability {#F_I}
---------------------------------------------------------------------
There are significant hurdles to using current fairness techniques with interpretable models. Moreover, the vast majority of the work on fairness has focused on the binary classification case. Thus, few definitions of fairness (let alone algorithms) work for problems where predictions are nonbinary.
We did not attempt to use fairness-enforcement techniques because many fairness techniques require a non-interpretable transformation (further discussed below). Once these transformations are made, there is no way to correct them to produce an interpretable model afterwards. There are generally three approaches to fairness algorithms: pre-processing of features [@zemel2013fairrepr], altering the training loss function [@berk2017convexfairness; @agarwal2019fairregression], and post-processing of predictions [@hardt2016eqodds; @agarwal2018fairbinaryclass; @pleiss2017calib]. The pre-processing steps are generally complicated transformations of the input features, which shreds the data’s natural meaning. Similarly, post-processing approaches either transform the predictions in some way, performing “fairness corrections” [@pleiss2017calib] (which are non-interpretable), or require threshold selection, which is contrary to our goals of providing non-binary risk assessments [@hardt2016eqodds]. The approaches to modify training loss functions are the most promising, but model optimization for both fairness and interpretability constraints would require new algorithms and is beyond the scope of this work.
In problems where fairness is a significant concern, machine learning outputs are likely to be used as decision tools rather than decision-makers, so it is surprising that so little work has thoroughly examined fairness for regression or probability estimation.
Discussion and Future Work {#Discussion}
==========================
From this analysis, we conclude that the interpretable models can indeed perform approximately as well as the black-box models in various recidivism prediction problems, and much can be gained in interpretability for small sacrifices in accuracy. On the Broward data set, we found that RiskSLIM, EBM, and Additive Stumps perform as well or better than the best black-box models. On the Kentucky data set, we observed that EBM and Additive Stumps have extremely close performance to the best black-box models—Random Forest and XGBoost— with average AUC differences around 1%, which is less than the uncertainty gap.
We observed that machine learning models for six-month outcomes generally outperform those for two-year outcomes (conditioning on the recidivism type). This may be because treatment/rehabilitation programs have a greater chance of taking effect over a two-year time span (as compared to the six-month time span), altering the probability of recidivism. Future work could investigate this hypothesis, or pose other hypotheses to explain this observation.
We also observed that machine learning models do not generalize well across states, perhaps due to differences in the feature distributions between regions—in particular, we observed that the age distributions for Kentucky and Broward County are considerably different. One might easily imagine regional feature distributions shifting over *time* as well, which is supported by several studies [@totalarrestrate; @violentrate; @homociderate; @agecrime]. Even though these studies focused on disparate crime types, they consistently observed a drop in the rate of offending among younger people since the 1990s. Studies have explicitly shown that the distributions of age versus arrest rate has changed over time as well. For instance, @totalarrestrate has reported that in the state of New York, the mean age of the total arrested population increased by two years between 1990 and 2010. They hypothesized that a decrease in arrests in younger people and an increase in arrests in older people together contributed to the increase in mean age.
There are many reasons why data would change over time and over jurisdictions. Changing policies (e.g., the NYC stop and frisk program) could potentially alter who would be arrested and for what types of crime. New cultural phenomena (e.g., in video games and media) could also influence people’s behavior at a large scale. The above observations lead us to conclude that different recidivism prediction models could be constructed for different locations and should be periodically updated. Machine learning models are well-suited for efficient creation and updating of these kinds of models. A possible future line of work is to separate the Kentucky data at the jurisdiction level, and perform a causal analysis of the effects of different judicial and policing practices on the recidivism distribution.
Simple, transparent models have been used for criminal justice applications for almost a century [@burgess1928factors; @hart1924parole]. They have the advantage that one can easily quantify the contributions of each feature to the predicted score. Judicial actors without much statistics background can understand these scores, and use them to help solve societal issues. Interpretable models are extremely valuable for current decision-making processes in criminal justice: they allow error-checking, help ensure due process, and allow judges to incorporate information outside the database into their decision-making process in a calibrated manner.
However, our work on interpretable risk prediction is only one step closer to what we view as the ultimate goal—placing recidivism prediction into the framework of formal decision analysis. Decision-making in the context of decision analysis involves the minimization of costs rather than risks. Towards this end, @lakkarajurudin2017 considered several costs related to pretrial release decisions; these include the societal cost of releasing an individual who might commit a crime before their trial, the cost of assigning an officer to an individual, and the cost to taxpayers of keeping an individual incarcerated. The importance of risk predictions vary between decision-making problems (release, parole, sentencing, etc.). In some cases, they play a minor role, yet in others, predictions may comprise the sole deciding factor. Because of this, it would be useful to have a cost-benefit analysis *per decision* that would help determine exactly when and where risk scores should participate.
Hence, an important and necessary direction for the future work would be to incorporate the framework of classical decision analysis into decision-making in the criminal justice system. Decision analysis tools would ideally allow practitioners to strike a balance between relevant considerations (e.g., future risks to society, costs of treatment programs to society, costs to families involved in the criminal justice system, costs to the individual, as well as more traditional modelling objectives such as fairness, interpretability, transparency, and predictive performance). While the full data measuring costs and risks to all stakeholders in the criminal justice process may never be available, it is important to move in this direction, as this would bring us closer to more consistent and informed decision making.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We acknowledge partial funding from Arnold Ventures, the Duke Computer Science Undergraduate Research Fellows Program, the Lord Foundation of North Carolina and the Duke Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. This report represents the findings of the authors and does not represent the views of any of the funding agencies. We thank the Broward County Sheriff’s office and the Kentucky Department of Shared Services, Research and Statistics for their assistance and provision of data. We would also like to thank Daniel Sturtevant from the Kentucky Department of Shared Services, Research and Statistics for providing significant insight into the Kentucky data set, and Berk Ustun for his advice on training RiskSLIM. Finally, we thank Brandon Garrett from Duke, Stuart Buck and Kristin Bechtel from Arnold Ventures, and Kathy Schiflett, Christy May, and Tara Blair from Kentucky Pretrial Services for their thoughtful comments on the article.
Code {#code .unnumbered}
====
Our code is here: <https://github.com/BeanHam/interpretable-machine-learning>
Appendix {#App}
========
Broward Data Processing
-----------------------
The Broward County data set consists of publicly available criminal history, court data and COMPAS scores from Broward County, Florida. The criminal history and demographic information were computed from raw data released by ProPublica [@AngwinLaMaKi16]. The probational history was computed from public criminal records released by the Broward Clerk’s Office.
The screening date is the date on which the COMPAS score was calculated. The features and labels were computed for an individual with respect to a particular screening date. For individuals who have multiple screening dates, we compute the features for each screening date, such that the set of events for calculating features for earlier screening dates is included in the set of events for later screening dates. On occasion, an individual will have multiple COMPAS scores calculated on the same date. There appears to be no information distinguishing these scores other than their identification number, so we take the scores with the larger identification number.
The recidivism labels were computed for the timescales of six months and two years. Some individuals were sentenced to prison as a result of their offense(s). We used only observations for which we have six months/two years of data subsequent to the individual’s release date.
Below, we describe details of the feature and label generation process.
- Degree “(0)” charges seem to be very minor offenses, so we exclude these charges. We infer whether a charge is a felony, misdemeanor, or traffic charge based off the charge degree.
- Some of our features rely on classifying the type of each offense (e.g., whether or not it is a violent offense). We infer this from the statute number, most of which correspond to statute numbers from the Florida state crime code.
- The raw Propublica data includes arrest data as well as charge data. Because the arrest data does not include the statute, which is necessary for us to determine offense type, we use the charge data to compute features that require the offense type. We use both charge and arrest data to predict recidivism.
- For each person on each COMPAS screening date, we identify the offense—which we call the current offense—that most likely triggered the COMPAS screening. The current offense date is the date of the most recent charge that occurred on or before the COMPAS screening date. Any charge that occurred on the current offense date is part of the current offense. In some cases, there is no prior charge that occurred near the COMPAS screening date, suggesting charges may be missing from the data set. For this reason we consider charges that occurred within 30 days of the screening date for computing the current offense. If there are no charges in this range, we say the current offense is missing. We exclude observations with missing current offenses. We used some of the COMPAS subscale items as features for our machine learning models. All such components of the COMPAS subscales that we compute are based on data that occurred prior to (not including) the current offense date.
- The events/documents data includes a number of events (e.g., “File Affidavit Of Defense” or “File Order Dismissing Appeal”) related to each case, and thus to each person. To determine how many prior offenses occurred while on probation, or if the current offense occurred while on probation, we define a list of event descriptions indicating that an individual was taken on or off probation. Unfortunately, there appear to be missing events, as individuals often have consecutive “On” or consecutive “Off” events (e.g., two “On” events in a row, without an “Off” in between). In these cases, or if the first event is an “Off” event or the last event is an “On” event, we define two thresholds, $t_{on}$ and $t_{off}$. If an offense occurred within $t_{on}$ days after an “On” event or $t_{off}$ days before an “Off” event, we count the offense as occurring while on probation. We set $t_{on}$ to 365 and $t_{off}$ to 30. On the other hand, the “number of times on probation” feature is just the count of “On” events and the “number of times the probation was revoked” feature is just the count of “File order of Revocation of Probation” event descriptions (i.e., we do not infer missing probation events for these two features).
- Current age is defined as the age in years, rounded down to the nearest integer, on the COMPAS screening date.
- A juvenile charge is defined as an offense that occurred prior to the defendant’s 18th birthday.
- Labels and features were computed using charge data.
- The final data set contains 1,954 records and 41 features.
Kentucky Data Processing
------------------------
The Kentucky pretrial and criminal court data was provided by the Department of Shared Services, Research and Statistics in Kentucky. The Pretrial Services Information Management System (PRIM) data contains records regarding defendants, interviews, PRIM cases, bonds etc., that are connected with the pretrial services’ interviews conducted between July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2018. The cases were restricted to have misdemeanor, felony, and other level charges. The data from another system, CourtNet, provided further information about cases, charges, sentences, dispositions etc. for CourtNet cases matched in the PRIM system. The Kentucky data can be accessed through a special data request to the Kentucky Department of Shared Services, Research and Statistics.
CourtNet and PRIM data were processed separately and then combined together. We describe the details below:
- For the CourtNet data, we filtered out cases with filing date prior to Jan. 1st, 1996, which were claimed to be less reliable records by the Kentucky Department of Shared Services, Research and Statistics (which provided the data). To investigate what types of crimes the individuals were involved in for each charge, such as drug, property, traffic-related crime, we used the Kentucky Uniform Crime Reporting Code (UOR Code), as well as detecting keywords in the UOR description.
- From the PRIM system data, we extracted the probation, failure to appear, case pending, and violent charge information at the PRIM case level, as well as the Arnold PSA risk scores computed at the time of each pretrial services’ interview. Since Kentucky did not use Arnold PSA until July 1st, 2013, we filtered out records before the this date. We omitted records without risk scores since we want to compare the performance of the PSA with other models. Only 33 records are missing PSA scores; therefore we do not worry about missing records impacting the results. Additionally, some cases in the PRIM system have “indictment” for the arrest type, along with an “original” arrest case ID, indicating that those cases were not new arrests. We matched these cases with the records that correspond to the original arrests to avoid overcounting the number of prior arrests. Then we inner-joined the data from the two systems using person-id and prim-case-id.
- For each individual, we used the date that is two years before the latest charge date in the Kentucky data, as a cutoff date. The data before the cutoff are used as criminal history information to compute features. The data after the cutoff are used to compute labels and check recidivism. In the data before the cutoff, the latest charge is treated as the current charge (i.e., the charge that would trigger a risk-assessment) for each individual. We compute features and construct labels using only convicted charges. However, the current charge can be either convicted or non-convicted. This ensures that our analysis includes all individuals that would receive a risk assessment, even if they were later found innocent of the current charge that triggered the risk assessment. It also ensures that criminal history features use only convicted charges, so that our risk assessments are not influenced by charges for crimes that the person may not have committed.
- In order to compute the labels, we must ensure that there are at least two years of data following an individual’s current charge date. For individuals who are sentenced to prison due to their current charge, we consider their *release date* instead of the current charge date. We omitted individuals for whom there were less than two years of data between their current charge date or release date, and the last date recorded in the data set.
- To get the age at current charge information, we first calculated the date of birth (DOB) for each individual, using CourtNet case filing date and age *at the CourtNet case filing date*. Then we calculated “age at current charge” using the DOB and charge date (the charge date sometimes differs from the case filing date). Notice that there are many errors in age records in the data. For instance, some people have age recorded over 150, which is certainly wrong but there is no way to correct it. To ensure the quality of our data, we limited the final current age feature to be inclusively between 18 and 70. This is also consistent with the range from Broward analysis. If the person was not sentenced to prison, we define current age as the age at current charge date. If the person was sentenced to prison, we compute current age by adding the sentence time to the age at the current charge date. Note that this differs from the way risk scores are computed in practice—usually risk scores are computed prior to the sentencing decision. This helps to handle distributional shift between the individuals with no prison sentence (for whom a 2-year evaluation can be handled directly) and the full population (some of whom may have been sentenced to prison and cannot commit a crime during their sentence).
- We computed features using the data before the current charge date. The CourtNet data is organized by CourtNet cases, and each CourtNet case has charge level data. The PRIM data is organized by PRIM cases. Each CourtNet case can connect to multiple PRIM cases.[^14] Therefore, to compute the criminal history information, we first grouped on PRIM case level to summarize the charge information. Next, we grouped on CourtNet case level to summarize PRIM case level information. Last, we grouped on the individual level to summarize the criminal histories.
- On computing the ADE feature: The ADE feature means number of times the individual was assigned to alcohol and drug education classes. Note that by Kentucky state law, any individual convicted for a DUI is assigned to ADE classes. This does not indicate whether the individual successfully completed ADE classes.
- We compute labels using the two years of data after the current charge date/release date. We constructed the `general` recidivism labels by checking whether a “convicted charge” occurred within two years or six months from the current charge (or release date). Then, using the charge types of the convicted charge, other recidivism prediction labels were generated, such as drug or property-related recidivism. The final data set contains 250,778 records and 40 features.
*Note: there are degrees of experimenter freedom in some of these data processing choices; exploring all the possible choices here is left for future studies.*
The Arnold PSA features that were included in the Kentucky data set (e.g., prior convictions, prior felony convictions etc.) were computed by pretrial officers who had access to criminal history data from both inside and outside of Kentucky. However, the Kentucky data set we received contained criminal history information from within Kentucky only. Thus, the Arnold PSA features for Kentucky (which are included in our models as well) use both in-state and out-of-state information, but the remaining features (which we compute directly from the Kentucky criminal history data) are limited to in-state criminal history.
Additionally, we were informed by Kentucky Pretrial Services team that the data set ’s sentencing information may not be reliable due to unmeasured confounding, including shock probation and early releases that would allow a prisoner to be released much earlier than the end date of the sentence. Because the sentence could be anywhere from zero days to the full length, we conducted a sensitivity analysis by excluding the sentence information in the data processing, which is equivalent to the assumption that no prison sentence was served. For that analysis, the current age of each individual was calculated to be the age at the current charge, and the prediction labels were generated from new charges within six months (or two years) from the current charge. The sensitivity analysis yielded predictive results that were almost exactly the same as the results in the main text, when the sentence information was used to determine age and prediction interval.
Why We Compare Only Against COMPAS and the PSA
----------------------------------------------
The variables included in risk assessments are often categorized into *static* and *dynamic* factors. Static factors are defined as factors that cannot be reduced over time (e.g. criminal history, gender, and age-at-first-arrest). Dynamic factors are defined as variables that can change over time to decrease the risk of recidivism; they allow insight into whether a high-risk individual can lower their risk through rehabilitation, and sometimes improve prediction accuracy. Examples of dynamic factors include current age, treatment for substance abuse, and mental health status [@kehl2017]. Dynamic factors are often included in *risk-and-needs-assessments* (RNAs), which in addition to identifying risk of recidivism, recommend interventions to practitioners (e.g., treatment programs, social services, diversion of individuals from jail).
With the exception of current age, our features all fall under the “static” classification. This renders us unable to compare against the risk assessment tools that use dynamic factors, whose formulas *are* public. The risk assessments that we examined are listed in Table \[table:risk\_assessments\_comparison\]. Since we have only criminal history and age variables, the only model we could compute from our data was the Arnold PSA.
However, as we demonstrated in the main body of the paper, the fact that we do not possess dynamic factors is not necessarily harmful to the predictive performance of our models. The goal behind including dynamic factors in models is to improve prediction accuracy as well as be able to recommend interventions that reduce the probability of recidivism. While an admirable goal, the inclusion of dynamic factors does not come at zero cost and may not actually produce performance gains for recidivism prediction. In Sections \[Baselines\] and \[Interpretable\], we show that standard machine learning techniques (using only the static factors) and interpretable machine learning models (using only static factors) are able to outperform a criminal justice model that utilizes both static and dynamic factors (COMPAS). Furthermore, the inclusion of additional, unnecessary factors increases the risk of data entry errors, or exposes models to additional feature bias [@corbett-daviesmeasure]. As @Rudin19AgeofUnfairness reveals, data entry errors appear to be common in COMPAS score calculations and could lead to scores that are either too high or too low.
Although the COMPAS suite is a proprietary (and thus black-box) risk-and-needs assessment, we were still able to compare against its risk assessments thanks to the Florida’s strong open-records laws. Created by Northpointe (a subsidiary company of Equivant), COMPAS is a recidivism prediction suite which is used in criminal justice systems throughout the United States. It is comprised of three scores: Risk of General Recidivism, Risk of Violent Recidivism, and Risk of Failure to Appear. In this work, we examine the two risk scores relating to violent recidivism and general recidivism. Each risk score is an integer from one to ten [@northpointe].
As COMPAS scores are proprietary instruments, the precise forms of its models are not publicly available. However, it is known that the COMPAS scores are computed from a subset of 137 input variables that include vocational/educational status, substance abuse, and probational history, in addition to the standard criminal history variables [@northpointe]. As such, we cannot directly compute these risk scores, and instead utilize the COMPAS scores released by ProPublica in the Broward County recidivism data set. We do not compare against COMPAS on the Kentucky data set, as our data set does not include COMPAS scores.
The PSA was created by Arnold Ventures, and is a publicly available risk assessment tool. Similar to the COMPAS suite, it is comprised of three risk scores: Failure to Appear, New Criminal Activity, and New Violent Criminal Activity. Again, we compare against latter two scores. Both are additive integer models which take nine factors as input, relating to age, current charge, and criminal history. The New Criminal Activity model outputs a score from 1 to 6, while the New Violent Criminal Activity model outputs a binary score [@psaabout]. The PSA is an interpretable model.
Hyperparameters
---------------
### Baseline Models, CART, EBM {#baseline-models-cart-ebm .unnumbered}
We applied nested cross validation to tune the hyperparameters. Please refer to Table \[baselineparameters\] for parameter details.
### Additive Stumps {#additive-stumps .unnumbered}
Stumps were created for each feature as detailed in Section \[Stumps\]. An additive model was created from the stumps using $\ell_1$-penalized logistic regression, and no more than 15 original features were involved in the additive models. But multiple stumps corresponding to each feature could be used in the models. We chose to limit the size of the model to 15 original features because then at most 15 plots would be generated to visualize the full model, which is a reasonable number of visualizations for users to digest.
We started with the smallest regularization parameter on $\ell_1$ penalty that provides at most 15 original features from the model. This will be our lower bound for nested cross validation. From there, we perform nested cross validation over a grid of regularization parameters, all of which are greater than or equal to the minimum value of the regularization parameter found above. Please refer to Table \[stumpsparameters\] for more details.
### RiskSLIM {#riskslim .unnumbered}
RiskSLIM is challenging to train, because it uses the CPLEX optimization software, which can be difficult to install and requires a license. Moreover, since RiskSLIM solves a very difficult mixed-integer nonlinear optimization problem, it can be slow to prove optimality, which makes it difficult to perform nested cross validation as nested cross validation requires many solutions of the optimization problem. A previous study [@auditDNN] also noted similar problems with algorithms that use CPLEX (this study trained on SLIM [@ustun2015slim], which is similar to the training process of RiskSLIM in that they both require CPLEX). Here we provide details of how we trained RiskSLIM to help others use the algorithm more efficiently.
- We ran $\ell_1$-penalized logistic regression on the stumps training data with a relatively large regularization parameter to obtain a small subset of features (that is, we used $\ell_1$-penalized logistic regression for feature selection). Then we trained RiskSLIM using nested cross validation with this small subset of features. The maximum run-time, maximum offset, and penalty value were set to 1,000 seconds, 100, and 1e-6 respectively. The coefficient range was set to \[-5, 5\], which would give us small coefficients that are easy to add/subtract.
- If the model converged to optimality (optimality gap less than 5%) within 1,000 seconds, we then ran $\ell_1$-penalized logistic regression again with a smaller regularization parameter to obtain a slightly larger subset of features to work with. We then trained RiskSLIM with nested cross validation again on this larger subset of features. If RiskSLIM also generated an optimality gap less than 5% within 1,000 seconds and had better validation performance, we repeated this procedure.
- Once either RiskSLIM could not converge to a 5% optimality gap within 1,000 seconds, or the validation performance did not improve by adding more stumps, we stopped there, using the previously obtained RiskSLIM model as the final model.
- This procedure generally stopped with between 12 and 20 stumps from $\ell_1$-penalized logistic regression. Beyond this number of stumps, we did not observe improvements in performance in validation.
Tables
------
Figures
-------
![Probabilities of two-year and six-month `violent` recidivism, given the age at current charge.[]{data-label="fig:age_distribution_violent"}](figures/age_probability_distribution/violent.pdf){width=".7\textwidth"}
Nested Cross Validation Procedure {#nestedcv}
---------------------------------
We applied five-fold nested cross validation to tune parameters. We split the entire data set into five equally-sized folds for the outer cross validation step. One fold was used as the holdout test set and the other four folds were used as the training set (call it “outer training set”). The inner loop deals only with the outer training set ($\frac{4}{5}$ths of the data). On this outer training set, we conducted five-fold cross validation and grid-searched hyperparameter values. After this point, each hyperparameter value had five validation results. We selected the parameter values with the highest average validation results and then trained the model with this best set of parameters on the entire outer training set and tested it on the holdout test set.
We repeated the process above until each one of the original five folds was used as the holdout test set. Ultimately, we had five holdout test results, with which we were able to calculate the average and standard deviation of the performance.
We applied a variant of the nested cross validation procedure described above to perform the analysis discussed in Section \[Generalization\]—where we trained models on one region and tested on the other region. For instance, when we trained models on Broward and tested them on Kentucky, the Kentucky data was treated as the holdout test set. We split the Broward data into five folds and used four folds to do cross validation and constructed the final model using the best parameters. We then tested the final model on the entire Kentucky data set, as well as the holdout test set from Broward. We rotated the four folds and repeated the above process five times.
RiskSLIM Tables {#riskslimtables}
---------------
Features
--------
[^1]: **COMPAS** stands for **C**orrectional **O**ffender **M**anagement **P**rofiling for **A**lternative **S**anctions.
[^2]: Kentucky created and implemented their own tool in 2006 but transitioned to the Arnold PSA in 2013.
[^3]: While COMPAS’ guidelines are published and validation studies have been performed, the full forms of the models are not available and some of the validation studies do not conform to standards of open science (i.e., the validation data is not publicly available [@pattern], or the studies’ authors are affiliated with the corporations that produced the models.
[^4]: See Section \[Interpretable\] for a discussion of what we consider interpretable for the domain of criminal recidivism prediction
[^5]: However, by placing relaxations on the conditions, the fairness definitions can be *approximately* satisfied simultaneously.
[^6]: previously named the Laura and John Arnold Foundation
[^7]: In Kentucky, Arnold PSA scores are reported to judges without scaling.
[^8]: For clarity, we apply the $\texttt{typewrite}$ font to indicate the prediction tasks.
[^9]: For decreasing (respectively increasing) stumps, if the coefficient for the largest (respectively smallest) stump is negative, the function $f$ will still be monotonic because the negative value will be subtracted from all values of the remaining stumps
[^10]: In the case where scores are binary, group calibration is equivalent to requiring *conditional use accuracy equality*.
[^11]: We note that a real-valued score $S$ between $0$ and $1$ is *well-calibrated* if $P(Y = 1 | S = s) = s$. Well-calibration says that the predicted probability of recidivism should be the same as the true probability of recidivism [@verma2018fairnessreview]. Although well-calibration is the definition of calibration that is standard in the statistics community, we consider monotonic-calibration here because any score that is monotonically-calibrated can be transformed to be well-calibrated.
[^12]: In the binary case, BPC/BNC is equivalent to *equalized odds* [@hardt2016eqodds], which requires that false positive rates and false negative rates are equal for each group.
[^13]: To determine false negative/positive rates, ProPublica binned COMPAS scores into binary scores,
[^14]: This occurs because a new PRIM case is logged when an update occurs in the defendant’s CourtNet case (for example, if the defendant fails to appear in court).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The article proposes generalizations of the macroscopic model of plasma of scalar charged particles to the cases of inter-particle interaction with multiple scalar fields and negative effective masses of these particles. The model is based on the microscopic dynamics of a particle at presence of scalar fields. The theory is managed to be generalized naturally having strictly reviewed a series of its key positions depending on the sign of particle masses. Thereby, it is possible to remove the artificial restriction contradicting the more fundamental principle of action functional additivity.'
---
[**Nonminimal Macroscopic Models of a Scalar Field Based on Microscopic Dynamics. I. Extension of the Theory for Negative Masses.**]{}\
Yu.G. Ignat’ev\
Kazan Federal University,\
Kremlyovskaya str., 35, Kazan 420008, Russia
[**keywords**]{}: Relativistic Kinetics, Phantom Scalar Fields, Scalar Interaction of Particles, Negatives Masses.\
[**PACS**]{}: 04.20.Cv, 98.80.Cq, 96.50.S 52.27.Ny
\#1\#2
This work was founded by the subsidy allocated to Kazan Federal University for the state assignment in the sphere of scientific activities.
Introduction {#intro}
============
In the previous articles the Author considered the statistical systems of scalar charged particles and constructed the cosmological models based on such systems [@Ignatev1; @Ignatev2; @Ignatev3; @Ignatev4]. Particularly, in [@Ignatev2; @Ignatev3] it was obtained the self-consistent set of equations describing a statistical system of particles with scalar interaction. In the recent Author’s works [@YuNewScalar1; @YuNewScalar2; @YuNewScalar3][^1] the macroscopic theory of the statistical systems has been improved significantly in part of formalism development and also it has been extended to the case of fantom scalar fields[^2]. In [@Ignatev14_1; @Ignat14_2] a question about possibility to include negative effective particle masses in the theory has been raised. The negative answer to this question has been given in [@Ignat14_2] since negative values have been obtained for particle number density in the statistical theory at given assumption. However as later more in-depth researches have shown, this answer was obtained incorrectly. It turned to be that it is required to review a series of key points of the relativistic kinetic theory which depend on a sign of particle effective masses in order to strictly resolve the question of possibility to include negative effective masses into the theory. These key points appear at earlier stages of the relativistic kinetic theory preceding the definition of the macroscopic moments. The generalization of the theory to the case of multiple scalar fields is being considered in this article. When an attempt to make such a generalization is made, it turns out that the developed theory contradicts to the fundamental principle of the action function additivity. The assumption of non-negativity of particles’ effective mass is proved to be a theory statement which exactly leads to the contradiction. Thus, there raises a requirement to revise the kinetic theory of systems of scalar charged particles. The results of this revision are presented in the article.
The Dynamics of Particles With The Scalar Interaction
=====================================================
The Canonical Equations of Motion
---------------------------------
A normalized invariant differential of volume of relativistic particle’s $\Gamma$ 8-dimensional phase space, being a vector bundle $\Gamma=X\times P$ with Riemann base $X(g)$ and vector bundle $P(X)$, with regard to a pair of canonically conjugated dynamic variables $x^{i} $ (configurational coordinates) and $P_{i}$ (coordinates of the generalized momentum) is [@Bogolyub][^3]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dG}
d\Gamma=\frac{\varrho}{(2\pi)^3}dXdP\equiv \nonumber\\
\frac{\varrho}{(2\pi)^3}dx^1dx^2dx^3dx^4dP_1dP_2dP_3dP_4,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
dX=\sqrt{-g}dx^1dx^2dx^3dx^4;\\
dP=\frac{1}{\sqrt{-g}}dP_1dP_2dP_3dP_4\end{aligned}$$ are invariant differentials of volumes of the configurational and momentum spaces correspondingly and $\varrho$ is a degeneration factor; for particles with spin $S$ it is $\varrho=2S+1$. Further to shorthand we introduce like phase space coordinates $\eta_a$, $a=\overline{1,8}$: $$\eta_i\equiv x^i,\quad \eta_{i+4}=P_i,\quad (i=\overline{1,4}),$$ where the expression for differential of volume of the phase space (\[dG\]) takes the simplest form: $$\label{dG1}
d\Gamma=\frac{\varrho}{(2\pi)^3}\prod\limits_{a=1}^8 d\eta_a.$$
The canonical equations of relativistic particle motion in the phase space $\Gamma$ have the following form (see e.g., [@Ignatev2]):
$$\label{Eq1}
\frac{dx^{i} }{ds} =\frac{\partial H}{\partial P_{i} } ;\quad \quad \frac{dP_{i} }{ds} =-\frac{\partial H}{\partial x^{i} } ,$$
where $H(x,P)$ is a relativistically invariant Hamilton function and $u^i=dx^i/ds$ is a particle velocity vector.
In consequence of antisymmetry of the canonical equations of motion (\[Eq1\]) and symmetry of the phase space (\[dG\]) the differential relation [@Bogolyub] known as [*Liouville theorem*]{} in classical dynamics, is fulfilled $$\label{Liuvill}
\frac{d\Gamma}{ds}=0.$$ According to this relation the phase volume of the world tube of particles is constant.
Calculating the full derivative of dynamic variables function $\Psi (x^{i} ,P_{k} )$ and taking into account (\[Eq1\]) we obtain: $$\label{Eq2}
\frac{d\Psi }{ds} =[H,\Psi ],$$ where the invariant Poisson brackets are introduced: $$\label{Eq3}
[H,\Psi ]=\frac{\partial H}{\partial P_{i}} \frac{\partial \Psi }{\partial x^{i} } -\frac{\partial H}{\partial x^{i} } \frac{\partial \Psi }{\partial P_{i} } \; .$$ Let us note that Poisson bracket can be rewritten in the explicitly covariant form using [*the operator of covariant Cartan differentiation*]{}, $\widetilde{\nabla}_i$, [^4], (see e.g., [@Bogolyub])[^5]: $$\label{Cartan}\widetilde{\nabla}_i = \nabla_i +
\Gamma_{ij}^k P_k\frac{\partial}{\partial P_j},$$ where $\nabla_i$ is an operator of covariant Ricci differentiation and $\Gamma^k_{ij}$ are Christoffel symbols of the second kind with respect to metrics $g_{ij}$ of base $X$. Operator $\widetilde{\nabla}$ is defined in such a way that $$\label{9.11}\widetilde{\nabla}_iP_k \equiv 0$$ and the following [*symbolic*]{} rule of functions differentiation is fulfilled:
$$\label{9.13}\widetilde{\nabla}_i\Psi(x,P) = \nabla_i[\Psi(x],P).$$
This rule means that in order to calculate Cartan derivative of function $\Psi(x,P)$ it would be enough to calculate its ordinary covariant derivative as if the momentum vector was covariant constant. Because of this equality the introduced operator is quite convenient for execution of differential and integral operations in the phase space $\Gamma$. Thus let us write the Poisson bracket in the explicitly covariant form: $$\label{H_Cart}
[H,\Psi ]\equiv \frac{\partial H}{\partial P_{i}} \widetilde{\nabla}_i\Psi-\frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial P_{i}} \widetilde{\nabla}_i H,$$ Further, as a result of (\[Eq3\]) the Hamilton function is an integral of particle motion: $$\label{Eq4}
\frac{dH}{ds} =[H,H]=0,\Rightarrow H= {\mathop{\rm Const}\nolimits}.$$ The relation (\[Eq4\]) can be called a normalization ratio. Due to linearity of the Poisson bracket any continuously differentiable function $f(H)$ is a Hamilton function as well. There is a sole possibility to introduce the invariant Hamilton function, square by the particle generalized momentum at presence of gravitational and scalar fields. It is the following one: $$\label{Eq7}
H(x,P)=\frac{1}{2} \left[\psi(x)(P,P)-\varphi(x) \right],$$ where $(a,b)$ here and further is a scalar product of the momentums $a$ and $b$ with respect to the base metrics: $$(a,b)=g_{ik} a^{i} b^{k} ,\nonumber$$ and $\psi(x)$ and $\varphi(x)$ are certain scalar functions of the scalar potentials. Let us choose a zero normalization of the Hamilton function in the relation [@YuNewScalar1; @Ignat_Popov]: $$\label{Eq7a}
H(x,P)=\frac{1}{2} \left[\psi(x)(P,P)-\varphi(x) \right]=0,$$ where from we find: $$\label{Eq7b}
(P,P)=\frac{\varphi}{\psi};$$ from the first group of the canonical equations of motion (\[Eq1\]) we obtain the relation between the generalized momentum and particle velocity vector: $$\label{Eq10a}
u^{i} \equiv \frac{dx^{i} }{ds} =\psi P^{i} \Rightarrow P^{i} =\psi^{-1} u^{i} ,$$ Substituting into the normalization ratio (\[Eq7b\]), we obtain: $$(u,u)=\psi\varphi.\nonumber$$ Hence for particle velocity vector’s normalization ratio fulfillment $$\label{Eq11}
(u,u)=1.$$ it should be: [$$\psi\varphi=1 \Rightarrow \psi=\varphi^{-1}. \nonumber$$]{} Thus particle’s Hamilton function can be defined by a single scalar function $\varphi(x)$. Taking into account the last relation, let us write the Hamilton function in the final form: $$\label{Eq7 }
H(x,P)=\frac{1}{2} \left[\varphi^{-1}(x)(P,P)-\varphi(x) \right]=0.$$ From the canonical equations (\[Eq1\]) we can obtain the relation between the generalized momentum and particle’s velocity vector: $$\label{Eq10} P^i=\varphi \frac{dx^i}{ds}.$$ From (\[Eq7b\]) it follows that the vector of generalized momentum if timelike: $$\label{Eq8} (P,P)=\varphi^2\geqslant 0.$$ Let us note a relation that could be useful further, being a consequence of (\[H\_Cart\]), (\[Eq7\]) and (\[Eq8\]): $$\label{Eq9}
[H,P^{k} ]=\nabla ^{k} \varphi \equiv g^{ik} \partial _{i} \varphi;$$ where $\nabla^i\equiv g^{ik}\nabla_k$ is a covariant derivative’s symbol.
The Equations of Motion In The Lagrange Definition
--------------------------------------------------
Let us obtain using (\[Eq1\]) the equations of motion in the Lagrange defintion [@Yubook1]:
$$\label{Eq12}
\frac{d^{2} x^{i} }{ds^{2} } +\Gamma _{jk}^{i} \frac{dx^{j} }{ds} \frac{dx^{k} }{ds} =\partial _{,k} \ln |\varphi|{\rm {\mathcal P}}^{ik} ,$$
where:
$$\label{Eq13}
{\rm {\mathcal P}}^{ik} ={\rm {\mathcal P}}^{ki} =g^{ik} -u^{i} u^{k}$$
is a tensor of orthogonal projection on the direction $u$ so that:
$$\label{Eq14}
{\rm {\mathcal P}}^{ik} u_{k} \equiv 0;\quad {\rm {\mathcal P}}^{ik} g_{ik} \equiv 3.$$
The strict consequence of the velocity and acceleration vectors orthogonality follows from these relations and the Lagrange equations (\[Eq12\]):
$$\label{Eq15}
g_{ik} u^{i} \frac{du^{k} }{ds} \equiv 0.$$
Let us notice that the Lagrange equations of motion (\[Eq12\]) are invariant with respect to a sign of the scalar function $\varphi(x)$: $$\label{Eq16a}
\varphi(x)\rightarrow -\varphi(x).$$ The Hamilton function (\[Eq7 \]) at its zero normalization is also invariant to the transformation (\[Eq16a\]). Therefore from (\[Eq8\]), (\[Eq10\]) and the Lagrange-Eiler equations (\[Eq12\]) it follows that $\varphi $ scalar’s square has a meaning of a square of *the effective inert mass of a particle, $m_{*} $ in the scalar field*:
$$\label{Eq16}
\varphi^2 =m_{*}^2 .$$
Let us notice that the following action function corresponds to the cited choice of the Hamilton function: $$\label{Eq17}
S=\int m_{*} ds.$$ It formally coincides with the Lagrange function of the relativistic particle with a rest mass $m_*$ in the gravitational field (see e.g., [@Land_Field]).
The Choice of A Mass Function
-----------------------------
Let there be now $n$ various scalar fields $\Phi_r$ in the system and each particle has $n$ corresponding fundamental scalar charges $q_r$ ($r=\overline{1,n}$) among which there can be some zero charges. Then the problem of choice of a function $m_{*} (\Phi_r)$ appears. Not specifying this function for now, let us note the next important circumstance: For equations of motion to allow the linear integral of motion $\Psi=(\xi,P)={\mathop{\rm Const}\nolimits}$, according to it is enough and sufficient that $[H,\Psi]=0$. This, in turn, is possible if and only if [@Ignatev14_1]: $$\label{Lin_Int}
(\xi,P)={\mathop{\rm Const}\nolimits}\Leftarrow\!\!\Rightarrow \ {\stackunder{\xi}{\rm L}}\varphi g_{ik}=0,$$ where ${\stackunder{\xi}{\rm L}}$ is a Lie derivative in the direction $\xi$ (see e.g., [@Petrov]).
Let us consider statistical fields $g_{ik} $ and $\Phi_r$ allowing timelike Killing vector $\xi ^{i} =\delta _{4}^{i} $ when the total energy of charged particle is conserved $P_{4} =E_{0}={\mathop{\rm Const}\nolimits}>0$. Let us choose a system of coordinates where $g_{\alpha 4} =0, \alpha,\beta=\overline{1,3}$ so that $x^{4} $ coincides with the world time $t$. Then from the relations connecting the kinematic velocity vector $u^{i} $ with the total momentum of a particle $P_{i} $ it follows: $$P_{4} ds=\varphi dt.\nonumber$$ Therefore, if we [*require*]{} to conserve the same orientation of the world time $t$ and proper time $s$ (i.e. $u^4=dt/ds>0$) then the mass function should be chosen in such a way that it is always nonnegative:
$$m_{*} =|\varphi| >0.\nonumber$$
However such a conservative approach had been being used in Author’s papers [@Ignatev1] – [@Ignatev4] and seeming at first sight the correct one, turns to be contradicting to the more fundamental principle of the Lagrange function’s additivity. As it was shown in [@Ignatev14_1], the negativeness of the particle’s effective mass function does not lead to any contradictions at the level of microscopic dynamics since the observable momentum of particle (as well as the 3-dimensional velocity $v^\alpha=u^\alpha/u^4$) conserves its orientation as opposed to the unobservable kinematic 4-velocity of a particle $u^i$: $$\label{Pp}
p^i=m_*\frac{dx^i}{ds}\equiv P^i.$$ Then the choice of a linear mass function in corresponds to the principle of action function’s additivity: $$\label{Eq27}
m_*=m_0+\sum\limits_r q^{(r)}\Phi_r,$$ where $m_0$ is a certain initial rest mass and $q^{(r)}$ is a charge of particle relative to the scalar field $\Phi_r$ which we presume functional independent. At $m_0=0$ the entire rest mass of particles is ensured by interaction with scalar fields: $$\label{Eq28}
m_*=\varphi=\sum\limits_r q_r\Phi_r.$$ This choice satisfies also aesthetic criteria since in this case the Hamilton function does not depend on the rest mass. From the other hand it is clear that if choose function $\varphi (\Phi)$ in form the Lagrange equations become symmetric with respect to the change $\Phi_r \to -\Phi_r $ or $q_r \to -q_r $. Therefore if particles $a$ and antiparticles $\bar{a}$ are different in sign of scalar charges then $\bar{m}_*=-m_*$, but trajectories of particle and antiparticle in gravitational and scalar fields are identical. In such case according to 4-vectors of their kinematic velocity are different in sign: $\bar{u}^i=-u^i$, and have coinciding vectors of the observable generalized momentum $\bar{P}^i=P^i$. Let us note that as this takes place, vectors of the 3-dimensional velocity $v^\alpha=u^\alpha/u^4$ ($\alpha=\overline{1,3}$) for particles and antiparticles also coincide with each other: $\bar{v}^\alpha=v^\alpha$. Nevertheless we do not assume $m_0=0$ [*for now*]{} postponing this for the future.
Having chosen the effective mass in form (\[Eq27\]), the Hamilton function and the normalization ratio (\[Eq8\]) for the generalized momentum take form: $$\label{H,m}
H(x,P)=\frac{1}{2} \left[m_*^{-1}(x)(P,P)-m_*\right]=0,$$ $$\label{P_norm}
(P,P)=m^2_*.$$ Let us notice identities valid for the Hamilton function which could be useful in future: $$\label{nabla_H}
\widetilde{\nabla}_iH=-\nabla_i m_*,$$ $$\label{HPsi}
[H,\Psi]=\frac{1}{m_*}P^i\widetilde{\nabla}_i\Psi+\partial_i m_*\frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial P_i},$$ where $\Psi(x,P)$ is an arbitrary function.
The Quantum Equations
---------------------
From the classical Hamilton function with a help of standard substitution :[^6] $$\label{quant_trans}
P_i\rightarrow i\hbar\nabla_i$$ we obtain the Hamilton operator: $$\label{Hamiltonian}
\hat{{\rm H}}=-\frac{1}{2}m_*^{-1}(\hbar^2 g^{ik}\nabla_i\nabla_k + m^2_*).$$ Thus for a free massive scalar field we obtain wave equations in form of standard Klein-Gordon equations with the only difference being bosons rest mass changed to the effective mass [@Ignatev14_1]: $$\label{free_bozon}
(\square+m_*^2/\hbar^2)\Psi=0.$$ For free fermions we obtain corresponding Dirac equations: $$\label{Dirac_eq}
(\hbar\gamma^i\nabla_i+m_*)\Psi=0,$$ where $\gamma$ are spinors.
Let us notice that from (\[free\_bozon\]) at substitution $\Psi=\Phi$ and choice of the mass function $m_*=q\Phi$ as well as for the mass function $m=|q\Phi|$ it straight away follows the equation of the scalar field with cubic nonlinearity: $$\label{Phi3}
\square\Phi+(q^2/\hbar^2)\Phi^3=0.$$ Thus the self-action constant in the equation of the scalar field takes well-defined meaning: [$$\lambda=\frac{q^2}{\hbar^2}, \nonumber$$]{} i.e., it is defined identically to the fine structure constant for the electromagnetic field.
Calculation of the macroscopic means
====================================
In order to extend the general relativistic kinetic theory to the case of negative effective masses of elementary particles it is required to review the key points of the relativistic kinetic theory which could depend on a sign of particle mass. It has been revealed that there are only two of such key points and they are defined by two circumstances: the relation between proper microscopic time of a particle and proper time of macroscopic observers and the relation between particle velocity vector and its generalized momentum.
The Invariant Distribution Function
-----------------------------------
Generalized formalism of invariant distribution functions was developed in articles [@Yubook1; @Bogolyub]. It is required to thoroughly apply this formalism to the case being considered in order to account the possibility of the negative sign of the effective mass of particles. According to this formalism, to define the macroscopic means in the relativistic phase space it is required to define the unit timelike field of the macroscopic observers $U_i(x) :(U,U)=1$. The synchronization of measurement acts for individual particles is carried out by the clocks of such observers. This timelike field in its turn defines certain spacelike three-diemensional surface $V_3$, displacements along which $\delta x^i$ are orthogonal to this field: $$\label{Sigma}
V_3:\; \delta x^iU_i=0,$$ and displacements along this field $dx^i$ define the synchronized proper time $\tau$ of observers: $$\label{tau}
\frac{dx^i}{d\tau}=U^i \Leftrightarrow \frac{dx^i}{d\tau}U_i=1\Rightarrow d\tau=dx^iU_i.$$ Thus in the observers’ macroscopic reference frame: $$\label{dXt}
X=V\times T \Rightarrow dX=dVd\tau.$$ Apparently, the connection between the proper time of particle $s$ and the synchronized proper time $\tau$ of observers in each point of the configurational space is established by the relation:$$\label{dtauds}
\frac{d\tau}{ds}=U_i\frac{dx^i}{ds}.$$ Now taking into account relation (\[Pp\]) being the consequence of the canonical equations (\[Eq1\]), we finally obtain: $$\label{dsdtau}
\frac{d\tau}{ds}=m_*^{-1}(U,P)\Rightarrow \frac{1}{m_*(s)}\frac{ds}{d\tau}=\frac{1}{(U(\tau),P(s))}.$$ The relation (\[s(tau)\]) can be considered as a differential equation in the function $s(\tau)$, resolving which we define the relation between proper time of particle and time measured by the clocks of synchronized observers: $$\label{s(tau)}
s=s(\tau).$$
The invariant 8-dimensional identical particles distribution function $F(x,P)$ is introduced in the following way [@Yubook1; @Bogolyub]. Let phase trajectory of particle being defined by the canonical equations (\[Eq1\]) in the phase space $\Gamma=P(X)\times X$ is: $$\label{x(s),P(s)}
x^i=x^i(s);\quad P_i=P_i(s)\Rightarrow \eta_a=\eta_a(s)\; (a=\overline{1,8}),$$ where $s$ is a proper time of particle. Then the number of particles registered by the observers in range $d\Gamma$ of the phase space can be defined as [@Yubook1; @Bogolyub]: $$\label{dN}
dN(\tau)=F(x,P)\delta(s-s(\tau))d\Gamma.$$ Let us notice that particle number is a scalar depending, however, on the choisce of observers’ field $U^i$, i.e., on the choice of reference frame in Riemann space $X$, while 8-dimensional distribution function itself $F(x,P)$ being introduced by the relation (\[dN\]), is an invariant in phase space $\Gamma$. Let us note also that it is impossible to provide any other definition for the invariant distribution function in the 8-dimensional phase space. All definitions of this function which were introduced earlier are special cases (\[dN\]) realized in the dedicated reference frames.
The Macroscopic Means of Dynamic Functions
------------------------------------------
The definition of the invariant distribution function (\[dN\]) and other dynamic functions together with it is a first key point of the relativistic kinetic theory which depends on the sign of particles’ mass. Let $\psi(x,P)\equiv\psi(\eta)$ is a certain scalar function of dynamic variables. Then according to (\[dN\]) its macroscopic mean $\Psi(\tau)$ in range $\Omega \subset\Gamma$ is defined in the following way: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Psi(tau)dG}
\Psi(\tau)=\int\limits_\Omega \psi(\eta(s))dN=\nonumber\\
\int\limits_\Omega F(\eta(s))\psi(\eta(s))\delta(s-s(\tau))d\Gamma.\end{aligned}$$ Let us emphasize one more time that distribution function $F(x,P)$ is an invariant in the phase space as opposed to the macroscopic means which are always defined with respect to observers’ field $U$. Putting further in accordance with , $X=V\times T$ $\Rightarrow dX=dVdt$, let us write expression запишем выражение (\[Psi(tau)dG\]) in the explicit form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Psi(tau)dVt}
\Psi(\tau)=\frac{2S+1}{(2\pi)^3}\int\limits_V dV\int\limits_T dt\times\nonumber\\
\int\limits_{P(X)} dP \psi(\eta) F(\eta)\psi(\eta)\delta(s-s(\tau))\end{aligned}$$ To carry out integration over $t$ in (\[Psi(tau)dVt\]) let us take into account the relation between $t(s)$ (\[Pp\]) and $\tau(s)$ (\[s(tau)\]) and the property of Dirac $\delta$-function: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{int_s}
\delta(s-s(\tau))dt=\left|\frac{d\tau}{ds}\right|\delta(t-\tau)ds\nonumber\\
\equiv |m_*|^{-1}(U,P)\delta(t-\tau)dt.\end{aligned}$$ At derivation of (\[int\_s\]) we took into account the fact that generalized momentum’s orientation does not depend on the sign of the effective mass as opposed to kinematic velocity vector’s orientation. Taking now the account of (\[int\_s\]) and (\[Psi(tau)dVt\]) and conducting integration over time coordinate, we finally obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Psi_7}
\Psi(\tau)=\frac{2S+1}{(2\pi)^3}\int\limits_V U_i dV \frac{1}{|m_*|}\times \nonumber\\
\int\limits_{P(X)} P^i dP \psi(\eta)F(\eta)\psi(\eta)\end{aligned}$$ Particularly, supposing $\psi=1$, we obtain the total number of particles in range $V$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{N}
N(V)=\frac{2S+1}{(2\pi)^3}\int\limits_V U_i dV \frac{1}{|m_*|}\times\nonumber\\
\int\limits_{P(X)} P^i F(\eta)dP\equiv \int\limits_V (U,n) dV,\end{aligned}$$ where [*particle flux density vector*]{} is introduced: $$\label{ni}
n^i(x)=\frac{2S+1}{(2\pi)^3|m_*|}\int\limits_{P(X)} P^i F(\eta)dP$$ This factor of effective mass modulus was not taken into account in the previous articles because of above cited conservatism reason.
Transformation to the 7-Dimensional Distribution Function
---------------------------------------------------------
As a result of generalized momentum normalization ratio (\[P\_norm\]) the invariant 8-dimensional distribution function $F(x,P)$ is a singular one on the mass surface. Therefore it is necessary to introduce a distribution function non-singular on this surface $f(x,P)$ by means of the relation: $$\label{f}
F(x,P)=\delta(H(x,P))f(x,P).$$ Calculating the relation $$F(x,P)dP\equiv\!\!\! \frac{1}{\sqrt{-g}}dP_1dP_2dP_3dP_4 \delta(H(x,P))f(x,P)\nonumber$$ with a help of Dirac $\delta$-function’s properties and the explicit form of the Hamilton function , we find: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{F,f}
F(x,P)dP=\hskip 3cm \nonumber\\
\frac{1}{\sqrt{-g}}dP_1dP_2dP_3 \frac{|m_*|}{P^4_+}\delta(P_4-P_4^+)f(x,P)\times\nonumber\\
\equiv |m_*|dP_0 \delta(P_4-P_4^+)f(x,P),\end{aligned}$$ where $P_4^+\equiv P_4$ is a positive root of the normalization equation (\[P\_norm\]) and $$\label{dP_0}
dP_0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{-g}}\frac{dP_1dP_2dP_3}{P^4}$$ is a differential of volume of the 3-dimensional momentum space.
As a result formulas for the macroscopic means can be written through the [*7-dimensional distribution function*]{} $f(x,P)$ in the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Psi_6}
\Psi(\tau)=\frac{2S+1}{(2\pi)^3}\int\limits_V U_i dV\!\!\!
\int\limits_{P_+(X)}\!\! P^i dP_0 \psi(\eta)f(\eta),\end{aligned}$$ where it is necessary to substitute $P_4$ by the positive root of the mass surface equation and $P_+$ is an upper part of the mass surface pseudosphere. Thus at transformation to the 7-dimensional distribution function the explicit dependency on the effective mass disappears.
Therefore the next symbolic rule being understood in a sense of integration over corresponding phase volumes, is valid: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{psi_rule}
\psi(\eta) F(\eta)\delta(s-s(\tau))d\Gamma\rightarrow \nonumber\\
\psi(\tilde{\eta})f(\tilde{\eta})(U,P)dVdP_0,\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{\eta}$ are dynamic variables on the 6-dimensional subspace $\Gamma_0(\tau)=V\times P_0\subset \Gamma$ with the differential of volume: $$\label{G0}
d\Gamma_0=dVdP_0.$$ In particular, for the [*particle number flux density vector*]{}[^7] from we find: $$\label{ni}
n^i(x)=\frac{2S+1}{(2\pi)^3}\int\limits_{P_0(X)} P^i f(\eta)dP.$$
Let us notice that in [@Ignat14_2] the incorrect conclusion was made regarding the absence of dependency between particle number flux density vector and the effective mass sign. This conclusion was a result of the fact that macroscopic means’ calculation has been started with a calculation of distribution function moments while in case of negative masses the correct calculations should have been started on the earlier stage, namely they should have been started with integral relations of form .
Yu.G. Ignat’ev, Russ. Phys. J., 25, 372-375 (1982). Yu.G. Ignat’ev, Russ. Phys. J., 26, 686-690 (1983). Yu.G. Ignat’ev, Russ. Phys. J., 26, 690-694 (1983). Yu.G. Ignat’ev, Russ. Phys. J., 26, 1068-1072 (1983). Yu. G. Ignat’ev, Russ. Phys. J., 55, 166-172 (2012); arXiv:1307.1787v1 \[gr-qc\].Yu. G. Ignatiev (Ignat’ev), Russ. Phys. J., 55, 550-560, (2012); arXiv:1307.2472 \[gr-qc\]. Yu. G. Ignatyev (Ignat’ev), Russ. Phys. J., 55, 1345-1350 (2013);arXiv:1307.2509 \[gr-qc\]. Yurii G. Ignatyev (Ignat’ev). Relativistic Kinetic Theory of Nonequilibrium Processes in Gravitational Fields. Kazan, Foliant-Press, – 2010; http://rgs.vniims.ru/books/const.pdf. Yurii G. Ignatyev (Ignat’ev). The Nonequilibrium Universe: The Kinetics Models of the Cosmological Evolution, Kazan: Kazan University Press, 2013; http://www.stfi.ru/archive\_rus/2013\_2\_ Ignatiev.pdf Yu.G. Ignatyev (Ignat’ev) and D.Yu. Ignatyev, Grav. and Cosmol., 20, 299-303 (2014).arXiV:1408.3404v1 \[gr-qc\] Yu,G. Ignat’ev, Space, Time and Foudamental Interections. 2014, No 1. - p. 47-69 (In Russian). Yu.G. Ignatyev (Ignat’ev), A.A. Agathonov and D.Yu. Ignatyev, Grav. and Cosmol., Grav. and Cosmol., 20, pp. 304-308 (2014); arXiV:1408.3419v1 \[gr-qc\]. Yu.G. Ignat’ev, Grav. and Cosmol., [**13**]{}, 59-81 (2007). E. Cartan, Les espaces de Finsler, Paris, 1934. A.A. Vlasov. Statistical Distribution Functions. Moskow, Nauka, 1966. Yu.G. Ignatev (Ignat’ev) and A.A. Popov, Actrophys. Space Sci., 163, 153-174 (1990); arXiv:1101.4303v1 \[gr-qc\]. L.D. Landau, E.M. Lifshitz. The Classical Theory of Fields. Pergamon Press. Oxford$\cdot$ New York$\cdot$ Toronto$\cdot$ Sydney$\cdot$ Paris$\cdot$ Frankfurt, 1971 A.Z. Petrov, Einstein spaces. Published by Pergamon Press (1969). Synge J.L.. The relativistic gas. Amsterdam, North-Holland Publishing Company, (1957).
[^1]: see also monographes [@Yubook1; @Yubook2].
[^2]: see also [@Ignatev14_1] and review [@Yu_stfi14].
[^3]: Here and further the universal system of units is used $G=c=\hbar =1$. In ordinary units it is $2\pi\to2\pi\hbar$.
[^4]: Covariant derivative in a bundle $\Gamma$ [@Cartan].
[^5]: Cartan covariant derivatives were first introduced into relativistic statistics by A.A. Vlasov [@Vlasov].
[^6]: In this section we temporarily renounce the use of the universal system of units where $\hbar=1$.
[^7]: Согласно J. Synge [@Sing].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
.0in 8.5in 6.2in 0.12in 3.0ex
**Integrable structure in supersymmetric gauge theories**
**with massive hypermultiplets**
[Changhyun Ahn]{} and [Soonkeon Nam]{} [^1]
[*Department of Physics and*]{}
[*Research Institute for Basic Sciences,*]{}
[*Kyung Hee University, Seoul 130-701, Korea*]{}
Abstract
0.2in We study the quantum moduli space of vacua of $N=2$ supersymmetric $SU(N_c)$ gauge theories coupled to $N_f$ flavors of quarks in the fundamental representation. We identify the moduli space of the $N_c = 3$ and $N_f=2$ massless case with the full spectral curve obtained from the Lax representation of the Goryachev-Chaplygin top. For the case with [*massive*]{} quarks, we present an integrable system where the corresponding hyperelliptic curve parametrizing the Laurent solution coincides with that of the moduli space of $N_{c}=3$ with $N_{f}=0, 1, 2$. We discuss possible generalizations of the integrable systems relevant to gauge theories with $N_c \neq 3 $ and general $N_f$.
PS.
\#1\#2\#3[( )]{}
\#1[[**\#1**]{}]{} \#1[Nucl. Phys. ]{} \#1[Phys. Lett. ]{} \#1[Phys. Rev. ]{} \#1[Phys. Rev. Lett ]{} \#1[Proc. Roc. Soc. ]{} \#1[Prog. Theo. Phys. ]{} \#1[Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. ]{} \#1[Theor. Math. Phys. ]{} \#1[Annals of Phys. ]{} \#1[Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA ]{}
For last several years important progress has been achieved in understanding the structure of $N=2$ supersymmetric gauge theories[@SW; @SW2]. The low energy description of these theories can be encoded by Riemann surfaces or complex algebraic curves and the integrals of meromorphic one differentials over the periods of them. Exact effective actions of these theories can be described by holomorphic functions, so-called prepotentials. There are many works which connect these low-energy effective theories with known integrable systems. Let us recall some known facts which are relevant to the problems we address in the present paper. To relate effective theories with integrable systems, one needs averaging over fast oscillations, i.e. Whitham averaging. It has been analyzed in Ref.[@GKMMM] that the periods of the modulated Whitham solution of periodic Toda lattice give rise to the mass spectrum in the BPS saturated states. Furthermore in Ref.[@MW] this framework of Whitham dynamics for the Toda lattice was generalized to other gauge groups. For the case of $SU(N_{c})$ gauge theory with a single hypermultiplet in the [*adjoint*]{} representation, the corresponding integrable system was found in Ref.[@DW] and was recognized to be the elliptic spin model of Calogero[@Mar]. This connection has been developed in Ref.[@IM] by identifying the coupling constant of Calogero system with the mass of a hypermultiplet in the adjoint representation, starting from the Lax operator for the Calogero model and calculating the full spectral curve explicitly. What was lacking so far was the integrable system related to gauge theories coupled to [*massive* ]{} hypermultiplets in the [*fundamental* ]{} representation.
In this letter, we will consider $N =2$ supersymmetric $SU(N_c)$ gauge theories with $N_c$ colors and $N_f$ flavors. The field content of the theories consists, in terms of $N=1$ superfields, a vector multiplet $W_\al$, a chiral multiplet $\Ph$, and two chiral superfields $Q^i_a$ and $\tilde{Q}_{ia}$ where $i= 1, \cdots, N_f$ and $a =1, \cdots, N_c$. The superpotential reads, W = \_i Q \^i + \_[i=1]{}\^[N\_f]{} m\_i \_i Q\^i, where $m_i$’s are the bare quark masses and color indices are suppressed. The curve representing the moduli space with $N_{f} < N_{c}$ case is as follows[@HO]: y\^2=(x\^[N\_[c]{}]{}-\_[i=2]{}\^[N\_[c]{}]{} u\_[i]{} x\^[N\_[c]{}-i]{})\^2- \_[N\_[f]{}]{}\^[2N\_[c]{}-N\_[f]{}]{} \_[i=1]{}\^[N\_[f]{}]{} (x+m\_[i]{}), \[eq:curve\] where the moduli $u_{i}$’s are the vacuum expectation values of a scalar field of the $N=2$ chiral multiplet, and $m_i$’s are the bare quark masses. It turns out that from the point of view of integrable theory, $u_{i}$’s correspond to the integrals of motion. The second term in Eq.(\[eq:curve\]) is due to the instanton corrections. For the $N_c \leq N_f < 2 N_c$ case, the correction due to matter is different and the curve is given as follows[@HO]: y\^2 & = & (x\^[N\_[c]{}]{}-\_[i=2]{}\^[N\_[c]{}]{} u\_[i]{} x\^[N\_[c]{}-i]{} + \_[i=0]{}\^[N\_f-N\_c]{} x\^[N\_f -N\_c - i]{} \_[j\_1 < <j\_i]{} m\_[j\_1]{} m\_[j\_i]{} )\^2\
& & - \_[N\_[f]{}]{}\^[2N\_[c]{}-N\_[f]{}]{} \_[i=1]{}\^[N\_[f]{}]{} (x+m\_[i]{}). \[eq:curve3\] Clearly the case of $N_f = 0$ corresponds to the periodic Toda lattice with $N_c$-particles, after an appropriate rescaling of the variables[@GKMMM]: y\^2 = P\_[N\_c]{} (x)\^2 - 1, where $P_n(x)$ is a polynomial of order $n$ whose coefficients are Schur polynomials of the Toda lattice. $N_f \neq 0$ cases are described by the following type of curves from Eq.(\[eq:curve\]): y\^2 = P\_n(x)\^2 - Q\_m (x), where $Q_m(x)$ is a polynomial of order $m(=N_f)$. It is natural to ask which integrable theories have such spectral curves. Our motivation is to identify the description of gauge theories with the data from the integrable theory on the line of Refs.[@GKMMM; @MW; @DW; @Mar; @IM]. We will start with the known case of $y^2 = P_3 (x)^2 - a x^2$ (a is some constant) which corresponds to the so called Goryachev-Chaplygin (GC) top, first introduced by Goryachev[@Gor] and later integrated by Chaplygin[@Chap] in terms of hyperelliptic integrals. It has been noted in Ref.[@Marsha] that there exists such a connection.
Let us review the classical mechanics of rotation of a heavy rigid body around a fixed point, which are described by the following Hamiltonian: H(M,p)= ++ +\_[1]{} p\_[1]{}+\_[2]{} p\_[2]{}+ \_[3]{} p\_[3]{}. \[eq:hamil\] The phase space of this system is six dimensional : $M_i$’s are the components of the angular momentum and $p_i$ are the linear momenta. The Poisson brackets of these variables are given by {M\_i, M\_j } = \_[ijk]{} M\_k, {M\_i, p\_j }= \_[ijk]{} p\_k, { p\_i, p\_j } =0, i,j,k=1,2,3. where $\ep_{ijk}$ is an antisymmetric tensor. $I_{1}, I_{2}, I_{3}$ are the principal moments of inertia of the body and $\gamma_{1}, \gamma_{2}, \gamma_{3}$ are the coordinates of the center of mass. There are four known integrable cases for the Hamiltonian in Eq.(\[eq:hamil\]). There is always one obvious integral of motion, the energy. It is necessary to get one extra integral independent of the energy for complete integrability according to Liouville’s theorem[@DKN].
1\) Euler’s case (1750): $\gamma_{1}=\gamma_{2}=\gamma_{3}=0$. The extra integral is $M_{1}^2+M_{2}^2+M_{3}^2$. The symmetry group is $SO(3)$.
2\) Lagrange’s case (1788): $I_{1}=I_{2}, \gamma_{1}=\gamma_{2}=0$. The new integral is $M_{3}$. The corresponding symmetry group is $SO(3,1)$.
3\) Kowalewski’s case (1889): $ I_{1}=I_{2}=2I_{3}, \gamma_{3}=0$. The extra integral can be found by the Painlevé test or the Kowalewski’s asymptotic method. Here the symmetry group is $SO(3,2)$.
4\) Goryachev-Chaplygin’s case (1900): $I_{1}=I_{2}=4I_{3}, \gamma_{3}=0$ and $M_{1} p_{1}+M_{2} p_{2}+M_{3} p_{3}=0$ which leads to a new integral of motion. This is a system which can be integrated in terms of hyperelliptic integrals after separation of the variables. In doing so, we obtain the following curve, y\^2 = 4\^2 x\^2 -(x\^3- H x -4 G )\^2, \[eq:curvegc\] where $\mu$ is a parameter, $H$ and $G$ are the Hamiltonian and the GC integral[@Koz]. The equations of motion of the GC top with some rescalings are as follows : & & = 3 M\_[2]{} M\_[3]{}, = -3 M\_[1]{} M\_[3]{}-2 p\_[3]{}, =2 p\_[2]{},\
& & = 4 M\_[3]{} p\_[2]{}- M\_[2]{} p\_[3]{}, =M\_[1]{} p\_[3]{}- 4 M\_[3]{} p\_[1]{}, = M\_[2]{} p\_[1]{}-M\_[1]{} p\_[2]{}, \[eq:diffgc\] where $\cdot$ means the time derivative. The curve in Eq.(\[eq:curvegc\]) can also be obtained from the Lax operator for the GC top[@BK]. It turns out that the Lax operator is related to that of the Kowalewski top in the $4 \times 4$ spinor representation of $SO(3,2)\simeq Sp(4)$. Although the underlying structure is not fully understood yet, the Lax operator for the GC top is then obtained by removing the first row and column of the Lax operator for the Kowalewski top and is given as follows[@BK]: L(z)= (
[ccc]{} 0 & -i p\_3/z & M\_2-i M\_[1]{}\
i p\_[3]{}/[z]{} & 2 i M\_[3]{} & -2 i z +(p\_[2]{}-i p\_[1]{})/z\
-M\_[2]{}-i M\_[1]{} & 2 i z+(p\_[2]{}+ i p\_[1]{})/z & -2 i M\_[3]{}\
). This Lax operator depends on the phase space variables, $M_i, p_i$ and on the spectral parameter, $z$. Then we can show that the Lax equation $\dot{L}=[ L, A ]$ gives the equations of motion with the following matrix $A$: A(z)= (
[ccc]{} 3 i M\_[3]{} & 0 & M\_[2]{}-i M\_[1]{}\
0 & 2 i M\_[3]{} & -2 i z\
-M\_[2]{}-i M\_[1]{} & 2 i z & -2 i M\_[3]{}\
). Now it is easy to calculate the spectral curve from the equation ${\bf C}:{\rm Det}( L(z)-x I ) =0$, which gives the spectral curve as follows: x\^3+2 x H -2 i G-x (4 z\^2+) =0, where $H=\frac{1}{2} ( M_{1}^2+M_{2}^2+4 M_{3}^2 )-2 p_{1}$ is the Hamiltonian, and $G=M_{3} (M_{1}^2+M_{2}^2)+2 M_{1} p_{3}$ is the GC integral. We also have the following constraints: p\_[1]{}\^2+p\_[2]{}\^2+p\_[3]{}\^2=\^2, M\_[1]{} p\_[1]{}+ M\_[2]{} p\_[2]{}+M\_[3]{} p\_[3]{}=0 . Now we see that the spectral curve depends on the special combinations of $M_i, p_i$’s, which are nothing but the integrals of motion. By introducing $y=x (4 z^2-\frac{\lambda^2}{z^2})$, we thus get y\^2=(x\^3+2 H x-2 i G)\^2-16 \^2 x\^2, \[eq:curve1\] which are the same as Eq.(\[eq:curvegc\]) with some rescalings. To relate this to the curve of supersymmetric gauge theory we make the following substitutions: H - u\_[2]{}, G - u\_[3]{}, \^2 \_[2]{}\^[4]{}, and it is easy to see that Eq.(\[eq:curve1\]) exactly coincides with Eq.(\[eq:curve\]) for the particular case of $N_{c}=3, N_{f}=2$ and $m_{1}=m_{2}=0$.
Since we have seen the intimate relation between the GC top and the supersymmetric $SU(3)$ gauge theory with two flavor massless hypermultiplets, it is natural for us to extend this to the massive case. For this purpose we need an integrable system which has both the GC top and the three body Toda lattice as particular limits, because the latter corresponds to pure gauge theory with no matter. The Hamiltonian system which realizes this is hard to imagine, but there exists a system of coupled seven nonlinear differential equations in mathematical literature[@BvM]. This system has the following “equations of motion": & = & -8 z\_[7]{}, = 4 z\_[5]{},\
& = & 2 (z\_[4]{} z\_[7]{}-z\_[5]{} z\_[6]{}), = 4 z\_[2]{} z\_[5]{}-z\_[7]{},\
& = & z\_[6]{}-4 z\_[2]{} z\_[4]{}, = -z\_[1]{} z\_[5]{}+2 z\_[2]{} z\_[7]{},\
& = & z\_[1]{} z\_[4]{}-2 z\_[2]{} z\_[6]{}-4 z\_[3]{}, \[eq:diff\] and the following five constants of motion: 6 a & = & z\_[1]{}+4 z\_[2]{}\^2-8 z\_[4]{},\
2 b & = & z\_[1]{} z\_[2]{}+4 z\_[6]{},\
c & = & z\_[4]{}\^2+z\_[5]{}\^2+z\_[3]{},\
d & = & z\_[4]{} z\_[6]{}+ z\_[5]{} z\_[7]{}+z\_[2]{} z\_[3]{},\
e & = & z\_[6]{}\^2+z\_[7]{}\^2- z\_[1]{} z\_[3]{}. \[eq:integral\]
Although the Lax operator for this system is not readily available, we can still apply the asymptotic method due to Kowalewski to this system and take $z_i=t^{-n_i} \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} A^{i}_{j} t^{j}$ where $n_i$’s are positive integers[@SE; @BvM]. Substituting these Laurent expansions into the system of Eqs.(\[eq:diff\]) and (\[eq:integral\]), one finds $n_i=1$ for $i=1, 2, 3$, $n_i=2$ for $i=4, 5, 6, 7$ and a relation between the coefficients of $A^{i}_{j}$’s. Then we obtain the Laurent solutions for this system with seven parameters, five of which are from the constants of motion, $a, b, c, d, e$ and two additional ones $x$ and $y$ where they satisfy the equation for an hyperelliptic curve[@BvM]: y\^2=P(x)\^2 -4 Q(x). \[eq:curve2\] Here the polynomials of $x$ are $P(x) = 2 x^3-3 a x+b $ and $ Q (x) = 4 c x^2+4 d x+ e$. We clearly see that with the following substitution this gives the algebraic curves given in Eq.(\[eq:curve\]) of $N=2$ supersymmetric $SU(3)$ gauge theories with massive quarks of two flavors of masses $m_1$ and $m_2$: & & y 2 y, a u\_[2]{}, b -2 u\_[3]{},\
& & c \_[2]{}\^[4]{}, d (m\_[1]{}+m\_[2]{}), e \_[2]{}\^[4]{} m\_[1]{} m\_[2]{}. \[eq:eq19\] When we consider the case of $c=0$, then this leads to gauge theory coupled to one massive quark of mass $m_1$ or massless one$(N_f=1)$ after the substitution: & & y 2 y, a u\_[2]{}, b -2 u\_[3]{},\
& & d , e \_[1]{}\^[5]{} m\_[1]{}.
For the case of $c=d=0$, the following transformations gives us to the usual periodic Toda lattice with three particles: & & z\_[1]{}=-e\^[q\_[1]{}-q\_[2]{}]{}+p\_[1]{} p\_[2]{}, z\_[2]{}=- p\_[3]{},\
& & z\_[3]{}=- e\^[q\_[2]{}-q\_[1]{}]{}, z\_[4]{}= ( e\^[q\_[2]{}-q\_[3]{}]{}+ e\^[q\_[3]{}-q\_[1]{}]{} ),\
& & z\_[5]{}=- ( e\^[q\_[2]{}-q\_[3]{}]{}-e\^[q\_[3]{}-q\_[1]{}]{} ), z\_[6]{}= ( p\_[2]{} e\^[q\_[3]{}-q\_[1]{}]{} +p\_[1]{} e\^[q\_[2]{}-q\_[3]{}]{} ),\
& & z\_[7]{}= ( p\_[2]{} e\^[q\_[3]{}-q\_[1]{}]{}-p\_[1]{} e\^[q\_[2]{}-q\_[3]{}]{} ). \[eq:tran\] Here the $q_{i}$’s are the coordinates of the Toda particles and $p_{i}$’s are corresponding momenta. Using Eq.(\[eq:tran\]), it is easy to see that the remaining integrals of motion can be written as those of the periodic Toda lattice: -6 a & = & \_[i=1]{}\^[3]{} p\_[i]{}\^2+\_[i=1]{}\^[3]{} e\^[q\_[i]{}-q\_[i+1]{}]{},\
2 b & = & - ( p\_[1]{} p\_[2]{} p\_[3]{} -p\_[1]{} e\^[q\_[2]{}-q\_[3]{}]{}- p\_[2]{} e\^[q\_[3]{}-q\_[1]{}]{}-p\_[3]{} e\^[q\_[1]{}-q\_[2]{}]{} ),\
e & = & - where $a$ and $b$ are now proportional to the Hamiltonians of Toda system.
It can be easily checked that this extended integrable system reduces to the GC top when we take $d=e=0$, and this is achieved by the following transformations: & & z\_[1]{}=M\_[1]{}\^2+M\_[2]{}\^2, z\_[2]{}=M\_[3]{}, z\_[3]{}= p\_[3]{}\^2,\
& & z\_[4]{}= p\_[1]{}, z\_[5]{}= p\_[2]{}, z\_[6]{}= M\_[1]{} p\_[3]{}, z\_[7]{}= M\_[2]{} p\_[3]{}. From (\[eq:integral\]), we can identify $a, b, c$ in terms of $H, G,
\lambda$ as follows: a=, b=, c=. Of course, Eq.(\[eq:diff\]) becomes Eq.(\[eq:diffgc\]). This is the $m_1 = m_2 = 0$ case, as we see from Eq.(\[eq:eq19\]). So the system of equations in Eq.(16) has both the Toda lattice and GC top as particular limits.
There are still several issues to be studied further. It was already noticed in Ref.[@GKMMM] that Whitham solution which is necessary to produce the effective action for slow variables plays the important role of nonperturbative analog of renormalization group approach of perturbative quantum field theory. If one wishes to obtain the prepotentials which are needed for exact effective action in supersymmetric gauge theory, we should consider quasiclassical $\tau$ fuctions in the context of integrable theory as in the case of pure gauge theory[@NT]. It would be interesting to find out intimate relation between them by using the explicit form of Baker-Akiezer function for GC top[@BK]. In fact, in Ref.[@EY], the Whitham equations for $SU(N_c)$ gauge theory with $N_f$ matter were considered, where to make connection with the gauge theory, all but one of the “time" variables was set to zero for the massless case. This is consistent with the form of the Baker-Akiezer function of GC top[@BK] which depends only on one time variable $t$. There are algebraic curves for higher rank cases with generic $N_c$ and $N_f$, as given by Eqs.(\[eq:curve\]) and (\[eq:curve3\]). The obvious thing to do would be to obtain a ‘higher’ dimensional generalization of GC top, at least for the massless cases. There in fact exists multi-dimensional generalization[@BRS] of Kowalewski top, by using the Lie algebra based on $SO(p,q)$ where the top is in $p$ dimensional under $q$ different constant fields. However, the spinor representation which was crucial in obtaining the Lax operator for GC top, is not available in higher dimensions. Furthermore, the mysterious fact that removal of the first column and row in the Lax operator of Kowalewski top is related to GC top is yet to be understood for the generalization to the higher dimensional cases[^2]. Nevertheless, with all the results from supersymmetric gauge theories pointing to the existence of higher dimensional generalizations, it is quite tempting to speculate that there exists higher dimensional GC top. As regards the massive cases, better understanding of the variables, $z_i$’s$(i=1, \cdots, 7)$ in Eq.(\[eq:diff\]) are needed as well as the symmetry of the system. In this respect, the relation to the quadratic algebra might shed further light in the problem in Refs.[@KT; @Kul]. Of course it would be nice to find similar integrable theories for other gauge theories coupled with real matter. This work is supported in part by Ministry of Education (BSRI-95-2442), KOSEF-JSPS exchange program, and by KOSEF 961-0201-001-2. The work of S.N. is also supported by CTP/SNU.
[\[00\]]{} N. Seiberg and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. [**B426**]{} (1994) 19; [*Err.*]{}: ibid. [**B430**]{} (1994) 485. N. Seiberg and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. [**B431**]{} (1994) 484. A. Gorsky, I. Krichever, A. Marshakov, A. Mironov, and A. Morozov, Phys. Lett. [**355B**]{} (1995) 466. E. Martinec and N. Warner, Nucl. Phys. [**B459**]{} (1996) 97. R. Donagi and E. Witten, [*“Supersymmetric Yang-Mills Theory and Integrable Systems”*]{}, preprint IASSNS-HEP-95-78, hep-th/9510101. E. Martinec, Phys. Lett. [**367B**]{} (1996) 91. H. Itoyama and A. Morozov, [*“Integrability and Seiberg-Witten Theory. Curves and Periods”*]{}, preprint ITEP-M5/95, OU-HET-227, hep-th/9511126. A. Hanany and Y. Oz, Nucl. Phys. [**B452**]{} (1995) 283. D. Goryachev, Math. Sb. [**21**]{} (1900) 3. S.A. Chaplygin, [*“A new case of rotation of a rigid body, supported at one point(Collected works)”*]{}, vol. 1, Moscow: Gostekhizdat, 1948, 118. A. Marshakov, [*“Exact solutions to quantum field theories and integrable equations”*]{}, preprint FIAN/TD-19/95, ITEP/TH-4/96, hep-th/9602005. B.A. Dubrovin, I.M. Krichever, and S.P. Novikov, [*“in Dynamical Systems. IV: symplectic geometry and its applications”*]{}, V.I. Arnol’d and S.P. Novikov(Eds.), Springer-Verlag (1990), New York. V.V. Kozlov, Russian Math. Surveys [**38**]{} (1983) 1. A.I. Bobenko and V.B. Kuznetsov, J. Phys. A : Math. Gen. [**21**]{} (1988) 1999. C. Bechlivanidis and P. van Moerbeke, Comm. Math. Phys. [**110**]{} (1987) 317. W.H. Steeb and N. Euler, [*“Nonlinear Evolution Equations and Painleve Test”*]{}, World Scientific (1988), Singapore. T. Nakatsu and K. Takasaki, [*“Whitham-Toda Hierarchy and $N=2$ Supersymmetric Yang-Mills Theory”*]{}, preprint KUCP-0083, hep-th/9509162. T. Eguchi and S.K. Yang, [*“Prepotentials of $N=2$ Supersymmetric Gauge Theories and Soliton Equations"*]{}, preprint UT-728, hep-th/9510183. A.I. Bobenko, A.G. Reyman, and M.A. S-T-Shansky, Comm. Math. Phys. [**122**]{} (1989) 321. V.B. Kuznetsov and A.V. Tsiganov, J. Phys. [**A**]{}: Math. Gen. [**22**]{} (1989) L73. P.P. Kulish, [*“Yang-Baxter equation and reflection equations in integrable models”*]{}, hep-th/9507070.
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: We thank A.I. Bobenko and M.A. Semenov-Tian-Shansky for correspondences on this matter.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Channel estimation for millimeter-wave (mmWave) massive MIMO with hybrid precoding is challenging , since the number of radio frequency (RF) chains is usually much smaller than that of antennas. To date, several channel estimation schemes have been proposed for mmWave massive MIMO over narrow-band channels, while practical mmWave channels exhibit the frequency-selective fading (FSF). To this end, this letter proposes a multi-user uplink channel estimation scheme for mmWave massive MIMO over FSF channels. Specifically, by exploiting the angle-domain structured sparsity of mmWave FSF channels, a distributed compressive sensing (DCS)-based channel estimation scheme is proposed. Moreover, by using the grid matching pursuit strategy with adaptive measurement matrix, the proposed algorithm can solve the power leakage problem caused by the continuous angles of arrival or departure (AoA/AoD). Simulation results verify that the good performance of the proposed solution.'
author:
- 'Zhen Gao, Linglong Dai, Chen Hu, and Zhaocheng Wang [^1] [^2]\'
title: 'Channel Estimation for Millimeter-Wave Massive MIMO with Hybrid Precoding over Frequency-Selective Fading Channels'
---
Millimeter-wave massive MIMO, frequency-selective fading, channel estimation, compressive sensing.
Introduction {#S1}
============
Millimeter-wave (mmWave) massive MIMO has been considered as a promising key technique for 5G since it can offer gigabit-per-second data rates [@dong]. For mmWave massive MIMO with the phase shifter network based hybrid precoding [@multi_user_precoding; @myWC; @dong] or electromagnetic lens based beamspace MIMO [@Brady; @Zeng], the number of radio frequency (RF) chains is usually much smaller than that of antennas for reduced hardware cost and power consumption. However, such architectures will lead to the challenging channel estimation due to only a limited number of RF chains but hundreds of antennas [@Han_ref]. To date, several channel estimation schemes [@SED; @Hea_JSTSP; @Han_ref] have been proposed for mmWave massive MIMO with hybrid precoding. Specifically, the reference signal was designed in [@Han_ref] for the estimation of angles of arrival or departure (AoA/AoD), but it assumes the discrete AoA/AoD. [@Hea_JSTSP] proposed an adaptive channel estimation for mmWave massive MIMO, but it is limited to single-user scenario. [@SED] can directly estimate the singular subspace with Krylov subspace method, but multiple amplify-and-forward operations between the transmitter and receiver will introduce much noise. More importantly, existing schemes [@SED; @Hea_JSTSP; @Han_ref] only consider the narrow-band flat fading channel model, while the practical mmWave channels exhibit the broad-band frequency-selective fading (FSF) due to the very large bandwidth and different delays of multipath [@FSF]. To this end, this letter proposes a multi-user uplink channel estimation scheme for mmWave massive MIMO systems, where the broad-band FSF channel is converted to multiple parallel narrow-band flat fading channels when OFDM is considered. Specifically, the mmWave channels exhibit the obviously angle-domain sparsity due to the much higher path loss for non-line-of-sight (NLOS) paths than that for line-of-sight (LOS) paths [@Hea_JSTSP]. Moreover, this sparsity is almost unchanged within the system bandwidth according to our derivation. By exploiting such angle-domain structured sparsity of mmWave FSF channels, we propose a distributed compressive sensing (DCS)-based channel estimation scheme, where both the transmit pilot signal and receive channel estimation algorithm are elaborated under the DCS theory for improved performance. By contrast, conventional scheme in [@Hea_JSTSP] fails to leverage the structured sparsity of channels. Moreover, by using the grid matching pursuit strategy with adaptive measurement matrix, the proposed algorithm can solve the power leakage problem caused by the continuous AoA/AoD. Simulation results verify the good performance of the proposed scheme. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper to investigate the FSF channel estimation for mmWave massive MIMO systems.
*Notation*: the boldface lower and upper-case symbols denote column vectors and matrices, respectively. The Moore-Penrose inversion, transpose, conjugate transpose, integer ceiling, and expectation operators are given by $(\cdot )^{\dag}$, $(\cdot )^{\rm T}$, $(\cdot )^{*}$, $\lceil \cdot \rceil$, and ${\rm E}\{\cdot \}$, respectively. $\left| \Gamma \right|$ is the cardinality of the set $\Gamma$. The support set of the vector $\mathbf{a}$ is denoted by ${\rm supp}\{\mathbf{a}\}$. $ \otimes $ is the Kronecker product, and ${\rm{vect}}\left( {\cdot} \right)$ is the vectorization operation according to the columns of the matrix. $\left[ {\bf a} \right]_i$ denotes the $i$th entry of the vector $\mathbf{a}$, and $\left[ {\bf A} \right]_{i,j}$ denotes the $i$th-row and $j$th-column element of the matrix $\mathbf{A}$.
System Model {#S2}
============
We consider a typical mmWave massive MIMO-OFDM system over FSF channels as shown in Fig. \[fig:Spectrum\] [@FSF], where the base station (BS) employs $N_a^{\rm BS}$ antennas but only $N_{\rm RF}^{\rm BS}$ RF chains with $N_a^{\rm BS}\gg N_{\rm RF}^{\rm BS}=K$ to support $K$ user equipments (UEs), and each UE has $N_a^{\rm UE}$ antennas but only $N_{\rm RF}^{\rm UE}$ RF chain with $N_a^{\rm UE}\gg N_{\rm RF}^{\rm UE}=1$. The hybrid analog-digital precoding at the BS can be used to realize the spatial multiplexing of multiple data streams with low hardware cost and energy consumption [@FSF]. Particularly, the uplink FSF channel associated with the $k$th user in the delay domain can be modeled as [@FSF] $$\label{equ0}
{{\bf{H}}^d_k}\left( \tau \right) = \sum\nolimits_{l = 0}^{L_k - 1} {{\bf{H}}_{l,k}^d\delta \left( {\tau - {\tau _{l,k}}} \right)} ,\vspace*{-1mm}$$ where $L_k$ is the number of multipath, $\tau_{l,k}$ is the delay of the $l$th path, ${{\bf{ H}}^d_{l,k}} \in {\mathbb{C}^{{N_{a}^{\rm BS}} \times {N_a^{\rm UE}}}}$ is given by $${\bf{ H}}^d_{l,k}{\rm{ = }}{\alpha _{l,k}}{{\bf{a}}_{\rm BS}}\left( {d\sin ({\theta _{l,k}})/\lambda } \right){{\bf{a}}}_{\rm UE}^*\left( d\sin ({\varphi _{l,k}}) /\lambda \right),\label{equ1}\vspace*{-1mm}$$ ${{\alpha _{l,k}}}$ is the complex gain of the $l$th path, and ${{\theta _{l,k}}}\in [0,2\pi]$ and ${{\varphi _{l,k}}}\in [0,2\pi]$ are azimuth AoA/AoD if we consider the typical uniform linear array (ULA). For path gains, we consider Rician fading channels consisting of one LOS path (the 0th path) and $L_k-1$ NLOS paths (the $l$th path for $1\le l \le L_k-1$), where path gains follow the mutually independent complex Gaussian distribution with zero means, and $K_{\rm factor}$ denotes the ratio between the power of LOS path and the power of NLOS paths. In addition, $$\begin{small}
\!\!\!\!\begin{array}{l}
{{\bf{a}}_{{\rm{BS}}}}\left( {\frac{{d\sin ({\theta _{l,k}})}}{\lambda }} \right) = {\left[ {{e^{j2\pi {n_{{\rm{BS}}}}d\sin ({\theta _{l,k}})/\lambda }}} \right]^{\rm{T}}}_{{n_{{\rm{BS}}}} \in \left[ {0,1, \cdots ,N_a^{{\rm{BS}}}} \right]}\\
{{\bf{a}}_{{\rm{UE}}}}\left( {\frac{{d\sin ({\varphi _{l,k}})}}{\lambda }} \right) = {\left[ {{e^{j2\pi {n_{{\rm{UE}}}}d\sin ({\varphi _{l,k}})/\lambda }}} \right]^{\rm{T}}}_{{n_{{\rm{UE}}}} \in \left[ {0,1, \cdots ,N_a^{{\rm{UE}}}} \right]}
\end{array}
\end{small}$$ are steering vectors at the BS and the $k$th user, respectively, where $\lambda $ denotes the wavelength and $d$ is the antenna spacing.
![Illustration of a multi-user broad-band mmWave massive MIMO system.[]{data-label="fig:Spectrum"}](fig1.eps){width="8.5cm"}
DCS-Based Channel Estimation Scheme {#S3}
===================================
In this section, we propose a DCS-based channel estimation scheme to jointly estimate the FSF channels.
Uplink Pilot Training {#channel estimation1}
---------------------
We consider that the training sequences used for channel estimation adopt OFDM to combat the FSF channels, where lengths of cyclic prefix (CP) and discrete Fourier transform (DFT) are ${L_{{\rm{CP}}}} > ({{\max \left\{ {{\tau _{l,k}}} \right\}_{l = 0,k = 1}^{{L_k}-1,K} - \min \left\{ {{\tau _{l,k}}} \right\}_{l = 0,k = 1}^{{L_k}-1,K}}}){{{f_s}}}$ and $P>{L_{{\rm{CP}}}}$, respectively, where $f_s$ is the sampling rate. At the BS, after the CP removal and DFT operation, the received signal at the $p$th ($1 \le p \le P$) subcarrier of the $t$th OFDM symbol in the frequency domain can be expressed as $$\label{equ:channelmode5} \!\!\!\!\!\!\begin{array}{l}
{\bf{r}}_p^{(t)} = {({\bf{Z}}_{{\rm{RF}}}^{(t)}{\bf{Z}}_{{\rm{BB}},p}^{(t)})^*}\sum\nolimits_{k = 1}^K {{{\bf{ H}}_{p,k}^f}{\bf{F}}_{{\rm{RF}},k}^{\left( t \right)}{\bf{F}}_{{\rm{BB}},p,k}^{\left( t \right)}{\bf{s}}_{p,k}^{\left( t \right)}} + {\bf{v}}_p^{(t)},
\end{array}
\vspace*{-2mm}$$where ${\bf{r}}_p^{(t)}\in \mathbb{C}^{N_{\rm{RF}}^{\rm BS}\times 1}$ is the received signal dedicated to the $p$th pilot subcarrier in the $t$th OFDM symbol, ${\bf{Z}}_{{\rm{BB}},p}^{(t)}\in \mathbb{C}^{N_{\rm RF}^{\rm BS}\times N_{\rm RF}^{\rm BS}}$ is the digital combining matrix, ${\bf{Z}}_{{\rm{RF}}}^{(t)}\in \mathbb{C}^{N_{a}^{\rm BS}\times N_{\rm RF}^{\rm BS}}$ is the RF combining matrix, ${\bf{Z}}_{p}^{(t)} = {\bf{Z}}_{{\rm{RF}}}^{(t)}{\bf{Z}}_{{\rm{BB}},p}^{(t)}\in \mathbb{C}^{N_{a}^{\rm BS}\times N_{\rm RF}^{\rm BS}}$ is the composite combining matrix at the BS, $$\label{equ:channelmode11}
\!\!\!\!\begin{array}{l}
{\bf{H}}_{p,k}^f = \sum\nolimits_{l = 0}^{{L_k} - 1} {{\bf{H}}_{l,k}^d{e^{ - j2\pi {f_s}{\tau _{l,k}}p/P}}} \\
= \sum\nolimits_{l = 0}^{{L_k} - 1} {{\alpha _{l,k}} {e^{ - \frac{{j2\pi {f_s}{\tau _{l,k}p}}}{P}}}{{\bf{a}}_{{\rm{BS}}}}\left( {\frac{{d\sin ({\theta _{l,k}})}}{\lambda }} \right){\bf{a}}_{{\rm{UE}}}^*\left( {\frac{{d\sin ({\varphi _{l,k}})}}{\lambda }} \right)} ,
\end{array}$$ denotes the frequency-domain channel matrix associated with the $p$th pilot subcarrier for the $k$th UE, ${\bf{F}}_{{\rm{RF}},k}^{\left( t \right)}\in \mathbb{C}^{N_{a}^{\rm UE}\times N_{\rm RF}^{\rm UE}}$, ${\bf{F}}_{{\rm{BB}},p,k}^{\left( t \right)}\in \mathbb{C}^{N_{\rm RF}^{\rm UE}\times N_{\rm RF}^{\rm UE}}$, ${\bf{s}}_{p,k}^{\left( t \right)}\in \mathbb{C}^{N_{\rm RF}^{\rm UE}\times 1}$ are the RF precoding matrix, digital precoding matrix, and transmitted training sequence for the $k$th UE, respectively, ${\bf{f}}_{p,k}^{\left( t \right)} = {\bf{F}}_{{\rm{RF}},k}^{\left( t \right)}{\bf{F}}_{{\rm{BB}},p,k}^{\left( t \right)}{\bf{s}}_{p,k}^{\left( t \right)}\in \mathbb{C}^{N_{a}^{\rm UE}\times 1}$ is considered as the pilot signal transmitted by the $k$th user, and ${\bf{v}}_p^{(t)}$ is the additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) at the BS. Note that RF precoding/combining is the same for all subcarriers, since the RF phase shifter network can provide constant phase shift response over a wide frequency range [@FSF].
Since the path loss for NLOS paths is much larger than that for LOS paths in mmWave systems, the mmWave channels appear the obvious sparsity in the angular domain, which indicates small $L_k$ and large $K_{\rm factor}$ in mmWave systems, e.g., $L_k=4$ and $K_{\rm factor}=20$ dB [@dong]. Hence, we can transform the frequency-domain channel matrix ${{\bf{ H}}^f_{p,k}}$ in (\[equ:channelmode11\]) into the sparse angle-domain channel matrix ${{\bf{ H}}^a_{p,k}}$ as [@Hea_JSTSP] $${{\bf{ H}}^a_{p,k}} = {{\bf{A}}_{\rm BS}^*}{{\bf{ H}}^f_{p,k}}{\bf{A}}_{\rm UE},\label{equangular}$$ where ${{\bf{A}}_{\rm BS}}\in \mathbb{C}^{N_a^{\rm BS}\times N_a^{\rm BS}}$ and ${{\bf{A}}_{\rm UE}}\in \mathbb{C}^{N_a^{\rm UE}\times N_a^{\rm UE}}$ are the DFT matrices by quantizing the virtual angular domain with the resolutions of $2\pi/N_a^{{\rm BS}}$ at the BS and $2\pi/N_a^{{\rm UE}}$ at the user, respectively. By vectorizing ${{\bf{ H}}^f_{p,k}}$, we can further obtain $${{\bf{h}}_{p,k}^f}\!\! =\!\! {\rm{vect}}\left(\! {{{\bf{H}}^f_{p,k}}}\! \right)\!\! = \! {({{\bf{A}}_{\rm UE}^*)}^{\rm{T}} \!\otimes \! {\bf{A}}_{\rm BS}} {\rm{vect}}\left( {{{{\bf{ H}}}^a_{p,k}}} \right) \!\!= \!\!{\bf{A}}{{\bf{ h}}^a_{p,k}},\label{equangular2}
\vspace*{-2mm}$$ where ${\bf{A}}={({{\bf{A}}_{\rm UE}^*)}^{\rm{T}} \otimes {\bf{A}}_{\rm BS}} $ and ${{\bf{ h}}^a_{p,k}}={\rm{vect}}\left( {{{{\bf{ H}}}^a_{p,k}}} \right) $. Due to the sparsity of ${{\bf{ H}}^a_{p,k}}$, only a minority of elements of ${\bf h}_{p,k}^a$ dominate the majority of the channel energy, and thus we have $$\label{equ:channelmode3} \left|\Theta_{p,k}\right| = \left| {\rm supp}\left\{ {\bf h}_{p,k}^a \right\} \right| = S_k \ll N_a^{\rm BS} N_a^{\rm UE} ,$$ where $\Theta_{p,k}$ is the support set, and $S_k$ is the sparsity level in the angular domain. Note that if we consider the quantized AoA/AoD have the same resolutions as ${\bf{A}}_{\rm UE}$ and ${\bf{A}}_{\rm BS}$, we have $S_k=L_k$ [@Hea_JSTSP].
According to (\[equangular\])-(\[equ:channelmode3\]), (\[equ:channelmode5\]) can be further expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equ:channelmode51} \!\!\!\!\!\!\begin{array}{l}
{\bf{r}}_p^{(t)} = {({\bf{Z}}_p^{(t)})^*}\sum\nolimits_{k= 1}^K {{{\bf{A}}_{\rm BS}}{\bf{ H}}_{p,k}^a{\bf{A}}_{\rm UE}^*{\bf{f}}_{p,k}^{(t)}} + {\bf{v}}_p^{(t)}\\
= {({\bf{Z}}_p^{(t)})^*}{{\bf{A}}_{\rm BS}}{{{\bf{\bar H}}}^a_p}{\bf{\bar A}}_{\rm UE}^*{\bf{\bar f}}_p^{(t)} + {\bf{v}}_p^{(t)}\\
= \left( {{{\left( {{\bf{\bar A}}_{\rm UE}^*{\bf{\bar f}}_p^{(t)}} \right)}^{\rm{T}}} \otimes {{({\bf{Z}}_p^{(t)})}^*}{{\bf{A}}_{\rm BS}}} \right){\rm{vect}}\left( {{{{\bf{\bar H}}}^a_p}} \right) + {\bf{v}}_p^{(t)}\\
= {{\bf{\Psi }}_p^{\left( t \right)}}{\bf{\bar h}}_p^{a} + {\bf{v}}_p^{(t)},
\end{array}\vspace*{-2mm}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{small}
\!\begin{array}{l}
{\bf{\bar H}}_p^a = \left[ {{\bf{H}}_{p,1}^a,{\bf{H}}_{p,2}^a, \cdots ,{\bf{H}}_{p,K}^a} \right] \in \mathbb{C}{^{N_a^{{\rm{BS}}} \times KN_a^{{\rm{UE}}}}},\\
{\bf{\bar A}}_{{\rm{UE}}}^* = {\rm{diag}}\left\{ {{\bf{A}}_{{\rm{UE}}}^*,{\bf{A}}_{{\rm{UE}}}^*, \cdots ,{\bf{A}}_{{\rm{UE}}}^*} \right\} \in\mathbb{C} {^{KN_a^{{\rm{UE}}} \times KN_a^{{\rm{UE}}}}},\\
{\bf{\bar f}}_p^{\left( t \right)} = {[{({\bf{f}}_{p,1}^{(t)})^{\rm{T}}},{({\bf{f}}_{p,2}^{(t)})^{\rm{T}}}, \cdots ,{({\bf{f}}_{p,K}^{(t)})^{\rm{T}}}]^{\rm{T}}} \in \mathbb{C}{^{KN_a^{{\rm{UE}}} \times 1}},\\
{\bf{\bar h}}_p^a = {\rm{vect}}\left( {{\bf{\bar H}}_p^a} \right) \in\mathbb{C} {^{KN_a^{{\rm{BS}}}N_a^{{\rm{UE}}} \times 1}},\\
{\bf{\Psi }}_p^{\left( t \right)} = {\left( {{\bf{\bar A}}_{{\rm{UE}}}^*{\bf{\bar f}}_p^{(t)}} \right)^{\rm{T}}} \otimes {({\bf{Z}}_p^{(t)})^*}{{\bf{A}}_{{\rm{BS}}}} \in \mathbb{C}{^{N_{{\rm{RF}}}^{{\rm{BS}}} \times KN_a^{{\rm{BS}}}N_a^{{\rm{UE}}}}}.
\end{array}\vspace*{-2mm}
\end{small}$$
Furthermore, we consider the mmWave channels remain unchanged in $G$ successive OFDM symbols within the channel coherence time [@Hea_JSTSP]. By jointly using the received pilot signals in $G$ successive OFDM symbols, we can obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equ:joint_process2} {\bf{\tilde r}}_p^{} = {\bf{\tilde \Psi }}_p^{}\bar {\bf{h}} _p^a + {\bf{\tilde v}}_p^{},\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf{\tilde r}}_p^{} \!\!= \!\!{[ {{{( {{\bf{r}}_p^{(1)}} )^{\rm{T}}}},{{( {{\bf{r}}_p^{(2)}} )^{\rm{T}}}}, \cdots ,{{( {{\bf{r}}_p^{(G)}} )^{\rm{T}}}}} ]^{\rm{T}}}\!\!\in \mathbb{C}^{GN_{\rm RF}^{\rm BS}\times 1}$ is the aggregate received signal, ${{\bf{\tilde \Psi }}_p^{}} \!\!\!\!= \!\!\!\!{[ {{{( {{{\bf{\Psi }}_p^{(1)}}} )^{\rm{T}}}},{{( {{{\bf{\Psi }}_p^{(2)}}} )^{\rm{T}}}}, \cdots ,{{( {{{\bf{ \Psi }}_p^{(G)}}} )^{\rm{T}}}}} ]^{\rm{T}}}\!\!\in\!\! \mathbb{C}^{GN_{\rm RF}^{\rm BS} \times KN_{a}^{\rm BS}N_{a}^{\rm UE}}$ is the aggregate measurement matrix, and ${\bf{\tilde v}}_p^{} \!\!= \!\!{[ {{{( {{\bf{v}}_p^{(1)}} )^{\rm{T}}}},{{( {{\bf{v}}_p^{(2)}} )^{\rm{T}}}}, \cdots ,{{( {{\bf{v}}_p^{(G)}} )^{\rm{T}}}}} ]^{\rm{T}}}$ is aggregate AWGN. The system’s SNR can be defined as $\mbox{SNR}\!\!=\!\!{\rm E}\Big\{\Big\|{\bf \tilde \Psi }_p^{}
\bar{\bf h}_p^{a }\Big\|_2^2\Big\} \Big/ {\rm E}\Big\{\Big\| {\bf \tilde v}_p^{}\Big\|_2^2\Big\}$ according to (\[equ:joint\_process2\]).
DCS-Based Channel Estimation {#channel estimation}
----------------------------
To accurately estimate channels from (\[equ:joint\_process2\]), $G$ in conventional algorithms, such as the minimum mean square error (MMSE) algorithm, is heavily dependent on the dimension of $\bar {\bf{h}} _p^a$, i.e., $KN_{a}^{\rm UE}N_{a}^{\rm BS}$. Usually, $GN_{\rm RF}^{\rm BS}\ge KN_{a}^{\rm UE}N_{a}^{\rm BS}$ is required, which leads $G$ to be much larger than the channel coherence time [@Hea_JSTSP]. Fortunately, the sparsity of mmWave massive MIMO channels motivates us to leverage the CS theory to estimate channels with much reduced pilot overhead. Moreover, according to (\[equ:channelmode11\]), it can be observed that $\{ {{\bf{H}}_{p,k}^f} \}_{p = 1}^P$ share the same AoA/AoD, and thus $\{{\bf h}^a_{p,k}\}_{p=1}^{P}$ obtained after (\[equangular\]) and (\[equangular2\]) have the structured sparsity within the system bandwidth, i.e., $$\label{eq5}
{\rm supp}\left\{{\bf h}^a_{1,k}\right\}\! = \!{\rm supp}\left\{{\bf h}_{2,k}^a\right\}\!
= \!\cdots \!= \!{\rm supp}\left\{{\bf h}^a_{P,k}\right\}\! = \!\Theta_k.$$ Specifically, given (\[equ:joint\_process2\]) and the sparse constraints of (\[equ:channelmode3\]) and (\[eq5\]), the channels can be estimated with standard DCS tool. However, due to the continuous AoA/AoD and the limited angle-domain resolution of ${\bf{A}}_{\rm BS}$ and ${\bf{A}}_{\rm UE}$, the sparsity of $\bar {\bf{h}} _p^a$ may be impaired due to the power leakage problem [@Hea_JSTSP], which will result in the poor channel estimation performance. To this end, we propose a distributed grid matching pursuit (DGMP) algorithm as listed in **Algorithm 1** including outer loop and inner loop. In each iteration of outer loop (steps 2.1-2.3 and 2.19-2.21), according to correlation operation (step 2.1), the UE index $\tilde k$ (step 2.2) and adaptive measurement matrix ${\bf {\bar\Upsilon}}_p$ (step 2.3) associated with the most possible path are acquired and input to inner loop; according to the output of inner loop, the $\tilde k$th UE’s transmit/receive steering vectors are acquired (steps 2.19-2.20), and $|\cal{K}|$ UEs’ LOS path gains and residue ${\bf b}_p$ are updated (step 2.21). The iteration of outer loop stops when AoA/AoD and path gains of all $K$ UEs’ LOS paths are estimated. For inner loop (steps 2.4-2.18), the AoA/AoD estimation associated with the $\tilde k$th UE’s LOS path is improved with the grid matching strategy. Specifically, according to the inputs $\tilde k$ and ${\bf {\bar\Upsilon}}_p$ from outer loop, AoA/AoD indices $n^{\rm BS}$ and $n^{\rm UE}$ of the most possible path are acquired (step 2.6), and the corresponding correlation value is recorded as $\beta$ (step 2.5); we construct the local over-complete measurement matrix ${\bf{\tilde \Upsilon }}_p^{}$ (steps 2.7-2.11), where the local resolution of AoA associated with the index $n^{\rm BS}$ and AoD associated with the index $n^{\rm UE}$ is increased by $(2J-1)$ times; according to correlation operation (step 2.12), finer AoA/AoD indices $m^{\rm BS}$ and $m^{\rm UE}$ can be acquired (step 2.13); finally, ${\bf{\bar\Upsilon }}_p^{}$ is adaptively updated, where the grid of AoA/AoD candidates is adjusted according to $m^{\rm BS}$ and $m^{\rm UE}$ (step 2.14-2.18). The iteration of inner loop stops when $\left| {{\beta _{{\rm{last}}}} - \beta } \right| < \varepsilon $.
With the joint process of ${{\bf{\tilde \Psi }}_p^{}}$ and ${\bf{b}}_p$ for $1\le p \le P$, the DGMP algorithm exploits the structured sparsity for improved performance, which can be found in steps 2.1, 2.4, and 2.12. Moreover, the adaptive measurement matrix ${\bf {\bar\Upsilon}}_p$ with grid matching pursuit strategy can achieve high resolution estimation of AoA/AoD. Additionally, the near-LOS mmWave channel property is exploited, where only $K$ USs’ LOS paths are estimated. Compared to the adaptive CS algorithm [@Hea_JSTSP] estimating single sparse narrow-band channel from single received signal, the proposed DGMP algorithm jointly estimates multiple sparse subchannels from multiple received signals, whereby the angle-domain structured sparsity of mmWave FSF channels is exploited for improved performance. Moreover, the grid matching pursuit strategy ([steps 2.4-2.18]{}) with adaptive ${\bf{\bar\Upsilon }}_p^{}$ can solve the problem of power leakage caused by the continuous AoA/AoD, which is different from the classical DCS algorithms [@STR_CS].
Received signals ${\bf{\tilde r}}_p^{}$ and sensing matrices ${\bf{\tilde \Psi }}_p^{}$ in (\[equ:joint\_process2\]) $\forall p$, AoA/AoD resolution factor $J$, and error threshold $\varepsilon $. The steering vector estimation of $k$th UE’s LOS path ${\bf{\hat a}}_{{\rm{BS}}}^{k,{\rm{LOS}}}$ and ${\bf{\hat a}}_{{\rm{UE}}}^{k,{\rm{LOS}}}$, and the estimation set of path gains $\hat {\bm{\alpha }} \in \mathbb{C}^{1\times K}$, where ${\left[ {\hat {\bm{\alpha }}} \right]_k}$ denotes the gain estimate of $k$th UE’s LOS path.\
${\kern -7pt}$$ \bullet $ **Step 1** (*Initialization*) The residue ${\bf b}_p \!=\!{\bf \tilde r}_p^{}$, the iteration index $k= 1$, [${\left[ {{\bf{\tilde \Psi }}_p^{}} \right]_{:,j}} = {\left[ {{\bf{\tilde \Psi }}_p^{}} \right]_{:,j}}/{\left\| {{{\left[ {{\bf{\tilde \Psi }}_p^{}} \right]}_{:,j}}} \right\|_2}$]{} for $1\le j \le KN_a^{\rm UE} N_a^{\rm BS}$, $\forall p$, and the matrix ${\bf{\Xi }}_p$ and set $\cal{K}$ are set to be empty.\
${\kern -7pt}$$ \bullet $ **Step 2** (*Estimate steering vectors and gains of $K$ UEs’ LOS paths*)\
$ \textbf{for}~k\le K ~\textbf{do} $\
$ \text{1.}$ [${\rho } \! = \!\arg \max\limits_{\widetilde{\rho}} \left\{ \! \sum\nolimits_{p=1}^{P} \!
\left\| \left[ {{{\left( {{\bf{\tilde \Psi }}_p^{}} \right)}^*}{\bf{b}}_p^{}} \right]_{\widetilde{\rho}} \right\|_2^2, \left\lceil {{\widetilde{\rho}} /(N_a^{{\rm{UE}}}N_a^{{\rm{BS}}})} \right\rceil \notin {\cal K} \right\}$]{};\
$ \text{2.}$ [$\tilde k \!\!=\!\!\left\lceil \!{{\rho }/({{N_a^{{\rm{UE}}}N_a^{{\rm{BS}}}}})} \right\rceil$, ${\cal{K}}={\cal{K}} \cup \tilde k$]{};\
$ \text{3.}$ [${\bf {\bar \Upsilon}}_p={\left[ {{\bf{\tilde \Psi }}_p^{}} \right]_{( {\tilde k - 1} ){N_a^{{\rm{BS}}}}{N_a^{{\rm{ UE}}}} + 1:\tilde k{N_a^{{\rm{BS}}}}{N_a^{{\rm{UE}}}},:}} $]{};\
$ \text{~~}$ $ \textbf{repeat} $\
$ \text{4.}$ [${\rho } \! = \!\arg \max\limits_{\widetilde{\rho}} \left\{ \! \sum\nolimits_{p=1}^{P} \!
\left\| \left[ {{{\left( {\bf {\bar\Upsilon}}_p \right)}^*}{\bf{b}}_p^{}} \right]_{\widetilde{\rho}} \right\|_2^2 \right\}$]{};\
$ \text{5.}$ [${\beta _{{\rm{last}}}} = \beta $, $\beta = \sum\nolimits_{p = 1}^P \left\| {{{\left[ {{{\left( {{{\bf{\bar\Upsilon }}_p}} \right)}^*}{\bf{b}}_p^{}} \right]}_\rho }} \right\|_2^2$]{};\
$ \text{6.}$ [$n^{{\rm{UE}}} = \left\lceil {\rho /N_a^{{\rm{BS}}}} \right\rceil $, $n^{{\rm{BS}}} = \rho - (n^{{\rm{UE}}} - 1)N_a^{{\rm{BS}}}$]{};\
$ \text{7.}$ [${\bf{\tilde A}}_{{{\rm{UE}}}}^{}\!\! = \!\!{\left[ {{{\bf{a}}_{{\rm{UE}}}}\left(( {n^{{\rm{UE}}} + \frac{{{j_{{\rm{UE}}}}}}{{2J}})/N_a^{{\rm{UE}}}} \right)} \right]_{{j_{{\rm{UE}}}} \in \left[ { - J, - J + 1, \cdots ,J} \right]}}$]{};\
$ \text{8.}$ [${\bf{\tilde A}}_{{{\rm{BS}}}}^{} \!\! = \! \!{\left[ {{{\bf{a}}_{{\rm{BS}}}}\left(( {n^{{\rm{BS}}} + \frac{{{j_{{\rm{BS}}}}}}{{2J}})/N_a^{{\rm{BS}}}} \right)} \right]_{{j_{{\rm{BS}}}} \in \left[ { - J, - J + 1, \cdots ,J} \right]}}$]{};\
$ \text{9.}$ [${{\bf{\tilde \Upsilon }}_p^{\left(t \right)}} = {\left( {{\bf{\tilde A}}_{{{\rm{UE}}}}^*{\bf{f}}_{p,\tilde k}^{(t)}} \right)^{\rm{T}}} \otimes {({\bf{Z}}_p^{(t)})^*}{{\bf{\tilde A}}_{{{\rm{BS}}}}}$]{};\
$ \text{10.}$ [${\bf{\tilde \Upsilon }}_p^{} = {[{({\bf{\tilde \Upsilon }}_p^{\left( {1} \right)})^{\rm{T}}},{({\bf{\tilde \Upsilon }}_p^{\left( {2} \right)})^{\rm{T}}}, \cdots ,{({\bf{\tilde \Upsilon }}_p^{\left( {G} \right)})^{\rm{T}}}]^{\rm{T}}}$]{};\
$ \text{11.}$ [${\left[ {{\bf{\tilde \Upsilon }}_p^{}} \right]_{:,j}} = {\left[ {{\bf{\tilde \Upsilon }}_p^{}} \right]_{:,j}}/{\left\| {{{\left[ {{\bf{\tilde \Upsilon }}_p^{}} \right]}_{:,j}}} \right\|_2}$, $1\le j \le (2J-1)^2$]{}, $\forall p$;\
$ \text{12.}$ [${\eta } \! = \!\arg \max\limits_{\widetilde{\eta}} \left\{ \! \sum\nolimits_{p=1}^{P} \!
\left\| \left[ {{{( {{\bf{\tilde \Upsilon }}_p^{}} )}^*}{\bf{b}}_p^{}} \right]_{\widetilde{\eta }} \right\|_2^2 \right\}$; ]{}\
$ \text{13.}$ [$m^{{\rm{UE}}} = \left\lceil {\eta /(2J-1)} \right\rceil $, $m^{{\rm{BS}}} = \eta - (m^{{\rm{UE}}} - 1)(2J-1)$]{};\
$ \text{14.}$ [${\bf{\tilde A}}_{{{\rm{UE}}}}^{}\!\! = \!\!{\left[ {{{\bf{a}}_{{\rm{UE}}}}\left(( {n^{{\rm{UE}}} + \frac{{{ -J+m^{\rm UE}-1 }}}{{2J}})/N_a^{{\rm{UE}}}} \right)} \right]_{{n^{{\rm{UE}}}} \in \left[ { 0, 1, \cdots ,N_{\rm UE}-1} \right]}}$]{};\
$ \text{15.}$ [${\bf{\tilde A}}_{{{\rm{BS}}}}^{} \!\! = \! \!{\left[ {{{\bf{a}}_{{\rm{BS}}}}\left(( {n^{{\rm{BS}}} + \frac{ -J+m^{\rm BS}-1 }{{2J}})/N_a^{{\rm{BS}}}} \right)} \right]_{{n^{{\rm{BS}}}} \in \left[ { 0, 1, \cdots ,N_{\rm BS}-1} \right]}}$]{};\
$ \text{16.}$ [${{\bf{\Upsilon }}_p^{\left(t \right)}} = {\left( {{\bf{\tilde A}}_{{{\rm{UE}}}}^*{\bf{f}}_{p,\tilde k}^{(t)}} \right)^{\rm{T}}} \otimes {({\bf{Z}}_p^{(t)})^*}{{\bf{\tilde A}}_{{{\rm{BS}}}}}$]{};\
$ \text{17.}$ [${\bf{\Upsilon }}_p^{} = {[{({\bf{\Upsilon }}_p^{\left( {1} \right)})^{\rm{T}}},{({\bf{\Upsilon }}_p^{\left( {2} \right)})^{\rm{T}}}, \cdots ,{({\bf{\Upsilon }}_p^{\left( {G} \right)})^{\rm{T}}}]^{\rm{T}}}$]{};\
$ \text{18.}$ [${\left[ {{\bf{\bar \Upsilon }}_p^{}} \right]_{:,j}} = {\left[ {{\bf{ \Upsilon }}_p^{}} \right]_{:,j}}/{\left\| {{{\left[ {{\bf{ \Upsilon }}_p^{}} \right]}_{:,j}}} \right\|_2}$, $1\le j \le N_a^{\rm UE}N_a^{\rm BS}$, $\forall p$]{};\
$ \text{~~}$ $ \textbf{until}$ $\left| {{\beta _{{\rm{last}}}} - \beta } \right| < \varepsilon $\
$ \text{19.}$$ \text{~~}$ ${\bf{\hat a}}_{{\rm{BS}}}^{{\tilde k},{\rm{LOS}}} = {\bf{a}}_{{\rm{BS}}}^{}(({n^{{\rm{BS}}}} + \frac{{ - J + {m^{{\rm{BS}}}} - 1}}{{2J}})/N_a^{{\rm{BS}}})$;\
$ \text{20.}$$ \text{~~}$ ${\bf{\hat a}}_{{\rm{UE}}}^{{\tilde k},{\rm{LOS}}} = {\bf{a}}_{{\rm{UE}}}^{}(({n^{{\rm{UE}}}} + \frac{{ - J + {m^{{\rm{UE}}}} - 1}}{{2J}})/N_a^{{\rm{UE}}})$;\
$ \text{21.}$$ \text{~~}$ ${\bf{\Xi }}_p = \left[ {{\bf{\Xi }}_p,{{\left[ {{{\bf{\Upsilon }}_p}} \right]}_{:,\eta }}} \right]$, ${\hat {\bm{\alpha }}_{\cal K}} = {({{\bf \Xi} _p})^\dag }{{{\bf{\tilde r}}}_p}$, $ {\bf{b}}_p = {\bf{\tilde r}}_p^{} - {{\bm \alpha} _{\cal K}}{\bf{\Xi }}_p$;\
$ \textbf{end for}$\
Pilot Design According to DCS Theory {#non-orthogonal}
------------------------------------
The measurement matrices ${\bf{\tilde \Psi }}_p^{}$, $\forall p$ in (\[equ:joint\_process2\]) are very important for guaranteeing the reliable channel estimation. Usually, we have $GN_{\rm RF}^{\rm BS}\ll KN_{a}^{\rm UE}N_{a}^{\rm BS}$. Since ${{\bf{\tilde \Psi }}_p^{}} \!\!\!\!= \!\!\!\!{[ {{{( {{{\bf{\Psi }}_p^{(1)}}} )^{\rm{T}}}},{{( {{{\bf{\Psi }}_p^{(2)}}} )^{\rm{T}}}}, \cdots ,{{( {{{\bf{ \Psi }}_p^{(G)}}} )^{\rm{T}}}}} ]^{\rm{T}}}$, ${{\bf{\Psi }}_p^{\left( t \right)}} = {( {{\bf{\bar A}}_{\rm UE}^*{\bf{\bar f}}_p^{(t)}} )^{\rm{T}}} \otimes {({\bf{Z}}_p^{(t)})^*}{{\bf{A}}_{\rm BS}}$, ${\bf{\bar A}}_{\rm UE}^* = {\rm{diag}}\left\{ {{\bf{A}}_{\rm UE}^*,{\bf{A}}_{\rm UE}^*, \cdots ,{\bf{A}}_{\rm UE}^*} \right\}$, and ${\bf{ A}}_{\rm UE}$, ${\bf{ A}}_{\rm BS}$ are determined by the geometrical structure of the antenna arrays, both $\{ {{\bf{f}}_{p,k}^{(t)}} \}_{p = 1,k = 1,t=1}^{P,K,G}$ transmitted by the $K$ users and $\{ {{{\bf{Z}}_p^{(t)}}} \}_{p = 1,t=1}^{P,G}$ at the BS should be elaborated to guarantee the desired robust channel estimation.
According to [@STR_CS], a measurement matrix whose elements follow an independent identically distributed (i.i.d.) Gaussian distribution can achieve the good performance for sparse signal recovery. Furthermore, diversifying measurement matrices ${\bf{\tilde \Psi }}_p^{}$, $\forall p$ can further improve the recovery performance of sparse signals according to DCS theory [@STR_CS]. This enlightens us to appropriately design pilot signals for mmWave massive MIMO systems. Specifically, as discussed above, ${\bf{Z}}_p^{(t)} = {\bf{Z}}_{{\rm{RF}}}^{(t)}{\bf{Z}}_{{\rm{BB}},p}^{(t)}$, ${\bf{f}}_{p,k}^{\left( t \right)} = {\bf{F}}_{{\rm{RF}},k}^{\left( t \right)}{\bf{F}}_{{\rm{BB}},p,k}^{\left( t \right)}{\bf{s}}_{p,k}^{\left( t \right)}= {\bf{F}}_{{\rm{RF}},k}^{\left( t \right)}{\bf{\tilde s}}_{p,k}^{\left( t \right)}$ if we define ${\bf{\tilde s}}_{p,k}^{\left( t \right)}={\bf{F}}_{{\rm{BB}},p,k}^{\left( t \right)}{\bf{s}}_{p,k}^{\left( t \right)}$ ($1\le k \le K$, $1 \le t \le G$, $1\le p \le P$). Hence, we propose that each element of pilot signals is given by $$\begin{small}
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\begin{array}{l}
{\left[ {{\bf{Z}}_{{\rm{RF}}}^{(t)}} \right]_{{i_1},{j_1}}} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!=\! {e^{j\phi _{{i_1},{j_1},t}^1}},1 \le {i_1} \le N_a^{{\rm{BS}}},1 \le {j_1} \le N_{{\rm{RF}}}^{{\rm{BS}}},\nonumber
\end{array}
\end{small}$$ $$\begin{small}
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\begin{array}{l}
{\left[ {{\bf{F}}_{{\rm{RF}},k}^{\left( t \right)}} \right]_{{i_2},{j_2}}} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!=\! {e^{j\phi _{{i_2},{j_2},t,k}^2}},1 \le {i_2} \le N_a^{{\rm{UE}}},1 \le {j_2}\! \le\! N_{{\rm{RF}}}^{{\rm{UE}}},\nonumber
\end{array}
\end{small}$$ $$\begin{small}
\!\!\!\!\!\begin{array}{l}
{\left[ {{\bf{Z}}_{{\rm{BB}},p}^{(t)}} \right]_{{i_4},{j_4}}} \!\!\!\!=\! {e^{j\phi _{{i_4},{j_4},p,t}^4}},1 \le {i_4} \le N_{{\rm{RF}}}^{{\rm{BS}}},1 \le {j_4} \le N_{{\rm{RF}}}^{{\rm{BS}}},\vspace*{-2mm}\nonumber
\end{array}
\end{small}$$ $$\begin{small}
\!\!\!\!\!\!\begin{array}{l}
{\left[ {{\bf{\tilde s}}_{p,k}^{\left( t \right)}} \right]_{{i_3}}} \!\!\!\!=\! {e^{j\phi _{{i_3},p,t,k}^3}},1 \le {i_3} \le N_{{\rm{RF}}}^{{\rm{UE}}},
\end{array}
\end{small}$$ where ${\phi^1_{i_1,j_1,t}}$, ${\phi^2 _{i_2,j_2,t,k}}$, ${\phi^3 _{i_3,p,t,k}}$, and ${\phi^4_{i_4,j_4,p,t}}$ follow the i.i.d. uniform distribution ${\cal{U}}\left[ 0, ~ 2\pi\right)$. Note that elements of RF precoding/combining matrices should meet the constant modulus property, and different subcarriers share the same RF precoding/combining. It is readily seen that the designed pilot signals guarantee that the elements of ${\bf{\tilde \Psi }}_p^{}$ obey the i.i.d. complex Gaussian distribution with zero mean. Moreover, ${\bf{\tilde \Psi }}_p^{}$ with different $p$ are diversified. Hence, the proposed pilot signal design is optimal in terms of the joint recovery of multi-user’s sparse angle-domain channels in the uplink.
Simulation Results {#S5}
==================
In this section, we investigate the performance of the proposed DCS-based channel estimation. In simulations, carrier frequency $f_c=30$GHz, $f_s=0.25$GHz, the maximum delay spread $\tau_{\rm max}=100$ ns, $L_{\rm CP}=\tau_{\rm max}f_s=25$, $P=32$, $N_a^{\rm UE}=32$, $N_{\rm RF}^{\rm UE}=1$, $N_{a}^{\rm BS}=128$, $N_{\rm RF}^{\rm BS}=4$, $d ={\lambda}/{2}$, $K_{\rm factor}=20$ dB, $J=10$, $\varepsilon=10^{-3} $, $K=4$, $L_k=4$ for $1\le k\le K$. The case with the ideal AoD/AoD known at the BS is used as the performance benchmark for comparison. The adaptive CS-based channel estimation scheme [@Hea_JSTSP] is also adopted for comparison.
![Comparison of spectral efficiency performance of different channel estimation schemes against the training overhead $G$ and SNR.[]{data-label="fig:mse_vs_T"}](fig2.eps){width="0.85\columnwidth"}
Fig. \[fig:mse\_vs\_T\] investigates the downlink spectral efficiency (bit per channel use \[bpcu\]) by using the hybrid analog-digital precoding scheme in [@multi_user_precoding], where the channels were estimated by the adaptive CS scheme [@Hea_JSTSP] and the proposed DGMP algorithm. The case with ideal AoA/AoD was adopted as the performance bound. From Fig. \[fig:mse\_vs\_T\], it can be observed that the adaptive CS scheme performs poorly, since it does not exploit the structured sparsity of mmWave massive MIMO channels. In contrast, the proposed DGMP algorithm can approach the performance bound with ideal AoA/AoD when $G \ge 20$. This is because the proposed DCS-based channel estimation scheme can leverage the angle-domain structured sparsity of mmWave FSF channels within the system bandwidth. By contrast, to approach the performance bound, the conventional adaptive CS algorithm requires larger $G$, e.g., $G>90$ is required at SNR = 0 dB. Hence, the proposed scheme can substantially reduce the required training overhead for FSF channel estimation compared to its counterpart.
Fig. \[fig:ber\_vs\_snr\] compares the downlink bit error rate (BER) performance, where 16-QAM is used, and $G$ for adaptive CS algorithm and DGMP algorithm are 40, and 30, respectively. It can be observed that the proposed channel estimation scheme outperforms its counterpart with reduced training overhead, and its BER performance is very close to the performance bound with ideal AoA/AoD.
Conclusions {#S6}
===========
In this paper, we have proposed a DCS-based uplink channel estimation scheme for the multi-user mmWave massive MIMO, which can effectively combat mmWave FSF channels. Specifically, we have designed an efficient pilot scheme and proposed a reliable DGMP algorithm under the framework of DCS theory, whereby the angle-domain structured sparsity of mmWave FSF channels is exploited for the reduced training overhead. Moreover, by using the grid matching pursuit strategy with adaptive measurement matrix, the proposed algorithm can effectively solve the power leakage problem. Simulation results have confirmed that our scheme can accurately estimate the FSF channels in mmWave massive MIMO with much lower pilot overhead than the existing scheme.
![BER performance comparison of different channel estimation schemes.[]{data-label="fig:ber_vs_snr"}](fig3.eps){width="0.85\columnwidth"}
[10]{}
X. Gao, L. Dai, S. Han, C.-L. I, and R. Heath, “Energy efficient hybrid analog and digital precoding for mmWave MIMO systems with large antenna arrays,” to appear in [*IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun.*]{}
Z. Gao, L. Dai, D. Mi, Z. Wang, M. Imran, and M. Shakir, “MmWave massive MIMO based wireless backhaul for 5G ultra-dense network," [*IEEE Wireless Commun.*]{}, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 13-21, Oct. 2015.
A. Alkhateeb, G. Leus, and R. W. Heath, “Limited feedback hybrid precoding for multi-user millimeter wave systems," [*IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.*]{}, vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 1536-1276, Jul. 2015.
J. Brady, N. Behdad, and A. M. Sayeed, “Beamspace MIMO for millimeter-wave communications: System architecture, modeling, analysis, and measurements,” [*IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag.*]{}, vol. 61, no. 7, pp. 3814-3827, Jul. 2013.
Y. Zeng and R. Zhang, “Millimeter wave MIMO with lens antenna array: A new path division multiplexing paradigm,” to appear in [*IEEE Trans. Commun.*]{} S. Han, C.-L. I, Z. Xu, and S. Wang, “Reference signals design for hybrid analog and digital beamforming," [*IEEE Commun. Lett.*]{}, vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 1191-1193, Jul. 2014.
A. Alkhateeb, O. E. Ayach, G. Leus, and R. W. Heath, “Channel estimation and hybrid precoding for millimeter wave cellular systems," [*IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal Process.*]{}, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 831-846, Oct. 2014.
H. Ghauch, M. Bengtsson, T. Kim, and M. Skoglund, “Subspace estimation and decomposition for hybrid analog-digital millimetre-wave MIMO systems,” in [*Proc. IEEE SPWAC’15,*]{} Sep. 2015, pp. 395-399.
A. Alkhateeb and R. W. Heath, “Frequency selective hybrid precoding for limited feedback millimeter wave systems,” to appear in [*IEEE Trans. Commun.*]{}
Y. Eldar and G. Kutyniok, [*Compressed Sensing: Theory and Applications*]{}, Cambridge University Press, May, 2012.
[^1]: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 61271266, 61571270, and 61302097), the Beijing Natural Science Foundation (Grant No. 4142027), and the Foundation of Shenzhen government. L. Dai is the corresponding author.
[^2]: Z. Gao, L. Dai, C. Hu, and Z. Wang are with Tsinghua National Laboratory for Information Science and Technology (TNList), Department of Electronic Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China (E-mails: [email protected]; {daill,zcwang}@mail.tsinghua.edu.cn).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study the that represents conformal blocks of Liouville theory on the sphere. This quantity is related through AGT conjecture to the Nekrasov instanton partition function of 4d $\mathcal{N}=2$ $SU(2)$ gauge theory with four flavors. We focus on the large $N$ limit, equivalent to the Nekrasov-Shatashvili limit where one of the $\O$-background deformation parameters is vanishing. A quantized Seiberg-Witten differential form is defined perturbatively in $\hbar$ as the singular part of the resolvent. Using the Dyson collective field action, we show that the free energy obeys the Seiberg-Witten relations. As suggested by Mironov and Morozov, the quantized differential form can be obtained from the classical one by the action of a differential operator in the hypermultiplet masses and the Coulomb branch modulus.'
---
[Large $N$ limit of $\b$-ensembles and deformed Seiberg-Witten relations]{}
Jean-Emile B[ourgine]{}\
\
[*Sogang University, Seoul 121-742, Korea*]{}
Introduction
============
Nekrasov and Shatashvili proposed in [@Nekrasov2009] to quantize the correspondence between the Seiberg-Witten low energy effective theory of 4d $\mathcal{N}=2$ supersymmetric gauge theories [@Seiberg1994; @*Seiberg1994a], and integrable models characterized by a complex curve, the Hitchin systems [@Gorsky1995]. The Yang-Yang function of the quantum integrable model [@Yang1968] is associated to a $\b$-deformed prepotential given by the Nekrasov instanton partition function of the gauge theory on the $\O$-background with one vanishing deformation parameter $\e_2=0$. The second deformation parameter $\e_1$ is then identified with the Planck constant. When this second parameter is also vanishing, the instanton partition function reduces to the Seiberg-Witten prepotential of the gauge theory on $\mathbb{R}^4$ [@Nekrasov2003; @Nekrasov2003a]. Based on this correspondence, it has been proposed in [@Mironov2010; @*Mironov2010a; @*Popolitov2010] to compute the quantized prepotential perturbatively in $\hbar$ from Bohr-Sommerfeld integrals appearing in the semi-classical treatment of the quantum mechanical system. This prepotential was then successfully compared to the instanton partition function at first orders.
On the other hand, the celebrated Alday-Gaiotto-Tashikawa (AGT) conjecture [@Alday2009] relate the instanton partition function of 4d $\mathcal{N}=2$ SUSY gauge theories with a product of $SU(2)$ gauge groups to a correlator of Liouville theory defined on a Riemann surface.[^1] This conjecture has been checked in a number of specific limiting cases [@Mironov2009a; @*Giribet2009; @*Marshakov2009a; @*Nanopoulos2009; @*Alba2009; @*Marshakov2009b; @*Belavin2011; @*Kanno2011; @Mironov2009], and even proven for a single $SU(2)$ gauge group and $N_f\leq2$ flavors [@Fateev2009; @*Hadasz2010]. We focus here on the $\mathcal{N}=2$ gauge theory with a $SU(2)$ gauge group and four scalar matter hypermultiplets in the fundamental representation. This theory is known to be scale invariant even at the non-perturbative level, and is sometimes referred to as superconformal QCD. The instanton contribution to the partition function is related to the Liouville conformal block, and the full partition function, integrated over the moduli space, to the Liouville four points function. Inspired by the CFT methods developed for matrix models in [@Marshakov1991; @*Kharchev1992] (see also [@Kostov1999; @*Kostov2009; @*Kostov2010]), Dijkgraaf and Vafa [@Dijkgraaf2009] suggested to realize the Liouville conformal block as a $\b$-deformed matrix model, the $\b$-ensemble. This proposal was soon generalized to higher genus and various gauge groups [@Itoyama2009; @Bonelli2011; @*Maruyoshi2011; @*Schiappa2009] and thoroughly investigated [@Mironov2009b; @Mironov2010c; @Mironov2010e; @*Itoyama2010a; @*Itoyama2011].
The proposal exposed in [@Dijkgraaf2009] reformulates the AGT conjecture as a relation between the integrals and the Nekrasov partition function. This identity has been proved in [@Mironov2010d] for the case $\b=1$ (Hermitian matrix model) which corresponds to the relation $\e_1=-\e_2$ between the gauge theory deformation parameters.[^2] In the large $N$ limit, where $N$ is the size of the matrix, the reproduces the Seiberg-Witten theory [@Eguchi2010; @Eguchi2010a], and the Seiberg-Witten curve in the Gaiotto form [@Gaiotto2009a] is recovered as the spectral curve of the matrix model.
The instanton partition function with $\e_2=0$ is believed to satisfy $\hbar$-deformed Seiberg-Witten relations [@Nekrasov2009; @Mironov2010]. Following the Dijkgraaf-Vafa formulation of the AGT conjecture, the free energy of the should also satisfies the same relations in the large $N$, or planar, limit. Until now, this claim has only been verified for $\b=1$ [@Chekhov2002]. One of the main purpose of this paper is to extend this demonstration using the Dyson collective field representation of the planar free energy [@Dyson1962]. When $\e$-deformation parameters are turned on, the differential form of Seiberg-Witten theory has to be modified. It is largely believed that the quantized differential form is given by the resolvent of the as $H(z)dz$ [@Mironov2011a]. Our study of the collective field action shows that this statement is slightly incorrect, and one has to withdraw a regular function from $H(z)$ to recover the differential form $\p \eta(z)dz$. This regular term is usually discarded from the cycle integrals of the Seiberg-Witten relations as a total derivative. However, it contains poles at the branch points which gives a non-zero contribution, as already noticed in [@Nishinaka2011]. Such poles do not pertain to the singularities of the logarithmic potential but are a general feature of the WKB expansion. The discrepancy between the resolvent and the differential form is vanishing at $\hbar=0$, it is related to the cut-off term of the Dyson action. Moreover, the resolvent $H(z)$ is the classical $U(1)$ current in the free field representation of the , and the relation \[decompo\_H\] between $H(z)$ and $\eta(z)$ is the transformation law of this current under the conformal mapping $\eta\to z(\eta)$. Thus, $\eta(z)$ can be interpreted as the change of coordinates which trivializes this classical current.
Superconformal QCD with $SU(2)$ gauge group is characterized by a four punctured Riemann sphere in the M-branes construction [@Gaiotto2009a]. In this simple case, the associated quantum Hitchin system takes the form of a Schrödinger equation [@Maruyoshi2010; @Bonelli2011a]. The quantized differential form can be defined from the solution of this Schrödinger equation, and computed explicitly in the WKB expansion. In [@Mironov2010; @*Mironov2010a] was suggested the existence of a differential operator in the parameters of the Seiberg-Witten curve (mass of the hypermultiplets, Coulomb branch modulus, gauge coupling) generating the higher order terms in the $\hbar$-expansion of the deformed differential $\p \eta(z)dz$ from the $\hbar$-classical differential. The existence of such a structure has been observed at first order in $\hbar$ in [@Maruyoshi2010], and will be demonstrated to hold at all orders.
The restriction to the gauge theory with four massive hypermultiplets here is mostly for simplicity, and we believe our results extend to theories with a smaller number of flavors. These theories may indeed be obtained by sending some of the hypermultiplet masses to infinity, a procedure which has an equivalent in Liouville theory and [@Gaiotto2009b; @*Marshakov2009; @*Itoyama2010]. We should more particularly emphasize that the demonstration of the planar free energy subjection to the Seiberg Witten relations does not depend on the explicit form of the potential. Extending the proof to higher orders in the large $N$, or topological, expansion is a challenging issue that may be addressed using the topological recursion tools. This matrix model technique recently extended to the s [@Chekhov2006; @Chekhov2010a; @Eynard2008a; @*Chekhov2009; @*Chekhov2010] allows to compute the full free energy of the model which is identified with the $(\e_1,\e_2)$-deformed prepotential. Whether this quantity satisfies the Seiberg-Witten relations is still an open question.
It would be interesting to consider further generalizations to higher gauge groups and quiver s. Another promising direction is the relation with the direct formulation of the Nekrasov partition function as a [@Klemm2008; @*Sulkowski2009]. Finally, one of the most intriguing open questions remains to find a connection with the deformed Seiberg-Witten curve introduced in [@Poghossian2010; @*Fucito2011; @*Huang2012], and derived with the method of Young tableaux profile density developed in [@Nekrasov2003a]. To do so, we need a definition of the quantized curve which is independent of the quantization scheme. This may be given by the underlying integrable models [@Mironov2010; @Teschner2012; @Zenkevich2011], or could also arise from a geometrical point of view [@Reffert2011; @*Hellerman2011; @*Hellerman2012].
Planar limit of the $\b$-ensemble
=================================
Definition of the model
-----------------------
To formulate the AGT conjecture on the partition function, we start from the Liouville correlator of four vertex operators inserted at the points $q_f=0,1,q,\infty$ and with respective charge $\a_f=\a_0,\a_1,\a_2,\a_\infty$. We further assume that the charges satisfy the neutrality condition $$\label{neutral}
\sum_{f=0,1,2,\infty}{\a_f}+Nb=Q_L,$$ where $N$ is a positive integer and $Q_L=b+1/b$ is the Liouville background charge. Following [@Alday2009], we shift two of the charges in order to absorb the background charge $Q_L$, $\a_0\to\a_0+Q_L/2$ and $\a_\infty\to \a_\infty+Q_L/2$. This manipulation corresponds to concentrate the curvature of the sphere equally at zero and infinity. Since we are interested in a semi-classical expansion of heavy fields [@Zamolodchikov1996], we introduce a scale $g$ and the rescaled quantities $m_f=-2ig\a_f$, $\hbar=-ig Q_L$.[^3] This scale $g$ plays the role of the Planck constant for Liouville theory, and we will later consider the expansion $g\to0$, $N\to\infty$ at fixed $gN,\hbar$ and $m_f$. In these new variables, the condition \[neutral\] is rewritten $$\label{neutral_mf}
\sum_{f=0,1,2,\infty}{m_f}+2\sqrt{\b}gN=0,\qquad (\text{with }b=i\sqrt{\b}).$$
After integration over the zero mode, the Liouville four points correlation function exhibits a pole when the relation \[neutral\] is satisfied. The residue can be expressed as a free field correlator with $N$ screening charges inserted [@Goulian1990]. The conformal blocks entering in the decomposition of such correlators have a well known integral representation which was studied by Dotsenko and Fateev [@Dotsenko1984; @*Dotsenko1984a]. According to the proposal of Dijkgraaf and Vafa [@Dijkgraaf2009], further studied in [@Mironov2009b; @Mironov2010c; @Mironov2010e], these integrals can be written as a partition function. The crucial issue is the specification of the integration contours for the screening operators, it has been resolved in the perspective of the AGT conjecture. This choice is believed to be equivalent to the quasiclassical approach to s we use in this paper, as shown at first orders in [@Morozov2010].
Using the representation for the Liouville conformal block, the AGT conjecture reads $$\label{AGT}
\CZb(a,m_i,g,\b)=q^{-((m_0-m_2)^2+4\hbar(m_0-\hbar))/4g^2}(1-q)^{2(m_1-2\hbar)(m_2-2\hbar)/4g^2}\mathcal{Z}_\text{Nekrasov}(a,\mu_i,\e_\a),$$ up to a $q$-independent constant factor that can be found in [@Mironov2010c].[^4] On the RHS, $\mathcal{Z}_\text{Nekrasov}$ refers to the full gauge theory partition function, including classical, one-loop and instantons contributions. It depends on the UV gauge coupling $\t$ through the parameter $q=e^{2i\pi\t}$ identified with the cross-ratio of the conformal block. On the LHS, the $\b$-ensemble partition function $\CZb$ is a multiple integral over $N$ variables, the eigenvalues $\l_I$, with a potential $V(\l)$ and a Van der Monde determinant at the power $2\b$, $$\label{def_beta_ens}
\CZb(a,m_i,g,\b)=\int{\prod_{I=1}^N{e^{\frac{\sqrt{\b}}{g}V(\l_I)}d\l_I }\prod_{{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{I,J=1}{I\neq J}}}^{N}{\left(\l_I-\l_J\right)^{\b}}}.$$ When $\b=1$, we recognize the eigenvalue integrals appearing in the Hermitian matrix model after integrating out the angular degrees of freedom, and the model \[def\_beta\_ens\] is sometimes also referred as a “$\b$-deformed” matrix model. The “Penner type” potential $V$ contains logarithmic terms taken at the finite insertion points of the vertex operators, $$\label{Penner}
V(z)=(m_0+\hbar)\log z+m_1\log(z-1)+m_2\log(z-q).$$ This potential is independent of the parameter $m_\infty$ which appears in \[def\_beta\_ens\] only through the matrix size $N$ following the relation \[neutral\_mf\]. The masses $\mu_i$ of the four matter hypermultiplets are related to the charge of the vertex operators through $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
&\mu_1=m_1+m_\infty,\qquad\qquad \mu_3=m_2+m_0,\\
&\mu_2=m_1-m_\infty,\qquad\qquad \mu_4=m_2-m_0,
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ and with a slight abuse of terminology we call the parameters $m_f$ “masses” associated to the insertion points $q_f=0,1,q,\infty$. The equivariant deformation parameters $\e_1$ and $\e_2$ are connected to the $\b$-ensemble quantities as $$g^2=-\dfrac14\e_1\e_2,\quad \b=-\dfrac{\e_1}{\e_2}=-b^2,\quad \hbar=\dfrac{g}{\sqrt{\b}}(\b-1)=\hf(\e_1+\e_2).$$ Finally, the Coulomb branch vev of the gauge theory $a$ is related to the momentum $\a$ of the conformal block in the intermediate channel as $a-\hbar=2ig\a$. In the quasiclassical approach, the eigenvalues of the condense on a continuum of saddle points neighboring the minima of the potential, leading to an eigenvalue density supported on several intervals. The potential \[Penner\] defines a model with two such intervals. These are the two branch cuts of the resolvent, the Cauchy transform of the eigenvalue density. The filling fraction $a$ describes the ratio of the eigenvalues that occupy one of these branch cuts. More precisely, this filling fraction condition will be later interpreted as one of the deformed Seiberg-Witten relations.\
The deformation parameters have dimension of a mass, and the Coulomb branch vev $a$ inherits the dimension of the scalar field in the gauge multiplet. The conformal invariance of the gauge theory implies the invariance under the rescaling $\mu_i\to\g\mu_i$, $a\to\g a$ and $\e_{1,2}\to\g\e_{1,2}$. [^5] This transformation allows to fix one of the $\e$-parameters to one, so that the theory depends only on the ratio $\b$. Similarly, the Liouville theory only depends on the parameter $b=i\sqrt{\b}$ and the scale $g$ has been introduced by hand. After a proper rescaling, correlators only depend on $\b$ through the parameter $\hbar$.[^6] Again, the parameters $(g,\hbar)$ are not independent but obey the invariance under rescaling $g\to\g g$, $\hbar\to\g\hbar$ together with $m_f\to\g m_f$ and $a\to\g a$.
In the large $N$ limit of the , we send $g\to0$ so that the fixed product $gN$ obeys the relation \[neutral\_mf\], and the large $N$ topological expansion is an expansion at small $g$. There are two possibilities to define this expansion, considering either $\b$ or $\hbar$ fixed. Due to the scale invariance mentioned above, it seems more natural in the context of AGT to fix $\b$ so that $\hbar=O(g)$. However, it reveals more convenient here to keep the two variables ($g,\hbar$) independent and take the double expansion of the $\b$-ensemble quantities. In this paper, we should focus on the zeroth order in $g$, but all orders in $\hbar$, which we refer as the “planar limit”. This limit is equivalent to the Nekrasov-Shatashvili limit [@Nekrasov2009] where one of the deformation parameters is set to zero, while the second one is identified with the Planck constant $2\hbar$. The remaining $\hbar$ expansion of planar quantities is interpreted as a WKB expansion. The planar limit also coincides with the semi-classical limit of Liouville theory in which $c\to\infty$.
Another interesting limit is $\hbar\to0$ with fixed $g$, i.e. $\b=1$, where the $\b$-ensemble is identified with an Hermitian matrix model. It corresponds to set $\e_1=-\e_2$ for the $\O$-background, and gives the $c\to 1$ limit of Liouville theory ($Q_L\to0$). In this limit, the AGT relation \[AGT\] between the instanton partition function and the has been demonstrated [@Mironov2010d]. Combining both limiting cases, we reach the planar limit of an Hermitian matrix model at $g=\hbar=0$. It corresponds to consider the gauge theory on the flat $\mathbb{R}^4$ background. On the Liouville side of the correspondence, we get the semi-classical limit of a $c=1$ free boson.
We define the planar free energy and the deformed Seiberg-Witten prepotential as $$\CF_\b=\lim_{g\to0}{g^2\log \CZ_\b},\qquad \CF_\text{SW}=-\lim_{\e_2\to0}{\e_1\e_2\log\CZ_\text{Nekrasov}},$$ and in the planar limit the AGT relation \[AGT\] reduces to $$\label{AGT_planar}
\CF_\text{SW}=4\CF_\b+\left((m_0-m_2)^2+4\hbar (m_0-\hbar)\right)\log q-2(m_1-2\hbar)(m_2-2\hbar)\log(q-1)+C$$ with $\e_1=2\hbar$ and a $q$-independent constant $C$. This constant is also believed to be independent of $a$. The relation \[AGT\_planar\] was shown to hold up to the order $O(\hbar,q^4)$ at the special point $m_0=m_\infty=0$, $m_1=m_2$ in [@Nishinaka2011] and this result has been extended very recently to the order $O(\hbar^2)$ [@Nishinaka2012].
Loop equation and Schrödinger equation
--------------------------------------
Over the past fifty years, matrix models have been thoroughly investigated and various methods have been developed to solve them. Unfortunately, only a part of these techniques have been successfully extended to s [@Morozov2012a; @*Mironov2012; @*Morozov2012]. Nonetheless, a $\b$-deformed version of the topological recursion has been developed in [@Chekhov2006; @Chekhov2010a]. These algebraic geometry methods provide a formal recursive solution to the loop equations that still needs to be analyzed in the framework of the AGT conjecture. In this context, we believe that the methods and ansatz used here in the planar limit have a straightforward generalization to higher orders.
Loop equations are derived by exploiting the invariance of the measure under a change of variables. The simplest equation is obtained from the shift $$\l_I\to\l_I+\dfrac{\e}{z-\l_I},$$ at the order $O(\e)$ and has been derived in [@Eguchi2010a] for the Penner type model \[Penner\]. It writes at the first order in $g$, $$\label{le1}
W(z)^2+\hbar W'(z)+V'(z)W(z)-U(z)=0,$$ where we defined the planar resolvent $W$ and the auxiliary correlator $U$ as $$\label{def_resol}
W(z)=\lim_{g\to0}g\sqrt{\b}\sum_{I=1}^N{\la\dfrac1{z-\l_I}\ra},\quad U(z)=\lim_{g\to0}g\sqrt{\b}\sum_{I=1}^N\la\dfrac{V'(z)-V'(\l_I)}{z-\l_I}\ra.$$ The quantity $U(z)$ is a sum of simple poles at $z=q_i$ where $q_0=0,\ q_1=1,\ q_2=q$, with residues proportional to $W(q_i)$. These three quantities are not independent but are related through two loop equations derived from the change of variable $\l_I\to\l_I+\e$ and $\l_I\to\l_I+\e\l_I$ respectively, $$\label{sym_rel_I}
\sum_{i=0}^2{(m_i+\d_{i0}\hbar)W(q_i)}=0,\quad 4\sum_{i=0}^2{q_i(m_i+\d_{i0}\hbar)W(q_i)}=m_\infty^2-\left(\sum_{i=0}^2{m_i}\right)^2.$$ These relations can also be obtained from the asymptotic of \[le1\] at large $z$, noting that $W(z)\sim \sqrt{\b}gN/z$. They allow to express $U(z)$ in terms of the mass parameters, the cross-ratio $q$, and the quantity $u=qm_2W(q)$. An interesting feature of the Penner-type potential \[Penner\] is that the resolvent evaluated at the insertion point $z=q$ is simply the derivative of the free energy with respect to this parameter. Combining this property with the planar AGT relation \[AGT\_planar\], we may write $$\label{deriv_q}
q\dfrac{\p\CF_\text{SW}}{\p q}=4u+(m_0-m_2)^2+4\hbar (m_0-\hbar)-2(m_1-2\hbar)(m_2-2\hbar)\dfrac{q}{q-1},\quad u=q\dfrac{\p\CF_\b}{\p q}.$$ The comparison between the matrix model at $\b=1$ and the Seiberg-Witten theory made in [@Eguchi2010a] relates the quantity $u$, up to a mass-dependent translation, to the Coulomb branch parameter $\la{{\rm tr~}}\Phi^2\ra$ where $\Phi$ is the scalar field in the $\mathcal{N}=2$ gauge multiplet.[^7] In the Seiberg-Witten theory, it is usual to consider $u$ as an independent parameter. On the other hand, $u$ being proportional to the planar resolvent taken at $z=q$, it has a natural expansion in $\hbar$. The relation between these two points of view, $u$ fixed ($a$ function of $u$ and $\hbar$) and $u$ function of $a$ (fixed) and $\hbar$, will be investigated in the last section, and for now we adopt the Seiberg-Witten perspective. In addition, to simplify the quantities, we shift the variable $u$ into $$\label{def_E}
E=4u+2m_2(m_0+2\hbar)+2m_1m_2\dfrac{q}{q-1}-m_0^2-m_2^2.$$ With a slight abuse of terminology, we will refer to $E$ as the Coulomb modulus parameter of the gauge theory.
Introducing $$\label{def_HT}
H(z)=W(z)+\hf V'(z),\quad T(z)=U(z)+\dfrac14V'(z)^2+\dfrac{\hbar}{2}V''(z),$$ the planar loop equation \[le1\] takes the form of a Riccati equation, $$\label{equa_diff}
H(z)^2+\hbar\p H(z)=T(z).$$ The meromorphic function $T(z)$ has double poles at $z=q_i$ and behaves as $O(1/z^2)$ at infinity. It has a linear dependence in $E$, $$T(z)=\dfrac{p_4(z)}{\prod_{i=0}^2{(z-q_i)^2}}+\dfrac{(q-1)E}{4\prod_{i=0}^2{(z-q_i)}},$$ where $p_4(z)$ is a polynomial of degree four in $z$ which is quadratic in $\hbar$, it can be expanded as $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}\label{expr_poly}
p_4(z)&=p_4^{(0)}(z)+\hbar p_4^{(1)}(z)+\hbar^2 p_4^{(2)}(z),\\
4p_4^{(0)}(z)&=m_\infty^2z^4+\left(q(-2m_\infty^2+3m_2^2+m_0^2)-m_\infty^2-2m_2^2+m_1^2-2m_0^2\right)z^3\\
&+\left(q^2(m_\infty^2-2m_2^2-m_0^2)+q(2m_\infty^2-2m_2^2-2m_1^2+2m_0^2)+2m_2^2+2m_0^2\right)z^2\\
&+\left(q^2(-m_\infty^2+2m_2^2+m_1^2)-q(m_2^2+3m_0^2)\right)z+m_0^2q^2\\
p_4^{(1)}(z)&=-\left(\dfrac{\p}{\p m_1}+\dfrac{\p}{\p m_2}\right)p_4^{(0)}(z),\quad 4p_4^{(2)}(z)=-(z-1)^2(z-q)^2.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
It is well known that the Riccati equation \[equa\_diff\] can be cast as a Schrödinger equation for the wave function $\psi$ defined as $H=\hbar\p\log\psi$, $$\label{Schrodinger}
\left(\hbar^2\p^2-\dfrac{p_4(z)}{\prod_{i=0}^2{(z-q_i)^2}}\right)\psi(z)=\dfrac{(q-1)E}{4\prod_{i=0}^2{(z-q_i)}}\psi(z).$$ This one dimensional quantum mechanical problem is the integrable system associated to the Riemann sphere with four punctures at $z=q_f$ [@Maruyoshi2010; @Tai2010]. Up to the pole factor, the parameter $E$ is seen as the energy of the system, whereas the ratio in the LHS is identified with the potential. In Liouville theory, the wave function $\psi(z)$ is constructed as the insertion of the degenerate operator $\phi_{2,1}(z)$ within the four point correlator. The Schrödinger equation \[Schrodinger\] is a consequence of the null state condition of level two obeyed by this operator. In the , the wave function is realized as the planar limit of the following correlator, $$\psi(z)=e^{\frac1{2\hbar}V(z)}\lim_{g\to0}\la\prod_{I=1}^N(z-\l_I)^{\frac{\sqrt{\b}g}{\hbar}}\ra.$$ This quantity is associated through the AGT correspondence to the vev of a surface operator in the gauge theory [@Alday2009a].
The appearance of the Schrödinger equation is at the origin of the “quantum spectral curve” notion defined for the $\b$-ensemble in [@Eynard2008a; @*Chekhov2009; @*Chekhov2010]. In this context, two non-commuting variable $x$ and $y$ satisfying $[y,x]=\hbar$ are introduced. The spectral curve is the rational fraction $\mathcal{E}(x,y)=y^2-T(x)$ and act on the wave functions $\psi(x)$ as $$\mathcal{E}(x,y)\psi(x)=0,\quad y=\hbar\dfrac{\p}{\p x}.$$ At finite $\hbar$, the branch cuts of the resolvent disappear, they are replaced by half-line of accumulation of zeros for $\psi$. Here, we take a different approach and keep $\hbar$ infinitesimal, using the WKB expansion to solve the Schrödinger equation. At each order in $\hbar$ the resolvent keeps the same branch cuts, which is suited for a comparison with a $\b$-deformed Seiberg-Witten theory.
Classical (or Hermitian) limit
------------------------------
The WKB solution consists in expanding the functions in $\hbar$ to solve the problem recursively at each order, $$\label{WKB}
H(z)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty{\hbar^nH_n(z)},\quad T(z)=\sum_{n=0}^2{\hbar^nT_n(z)}.$$ At the zeroth order, we recover the planar limit of an Hermitian matrix model. The equation for the critical resolvent $H_0(z)$ defines the spectral curve $(H_0,z)\in\mathbb{C}\times\mathbb{C}$ of the model, $$\label{spec_curve}
H_0(z)^2=\dfrac{P_4(z)}{\prod_{i=0}^2{(z-q_i)^2}},\quad P_4(z)=p_4^{(0)}(z)+\dfrac14(q-1)E\prod_{i=0}^2{(z-q_i)}.$$ In [@Eguchi2010; @Eguchi2010a], this curve has been identified with the Seiberg-Witten curve [@Seiberg1994; @*Seiberg1994a] of the $SU(2)$ superconformal gauge theory on $\mathbb{R}^4$ in the Gaiotto form [@Gaiotto2009a]. It describes a torus with singular points at $z=q_f$ which is a double cover of the four punctured Riemann sphere. In the complex $z$-plane, the function $H_0(z)$ has four branch points denoted $z_1$ to $z_4$, $$P_4(z)=\dfrac{m_\infty^2}{4}\prod_{\a=1}^4{(z-z_\a)}.$$ These branch points are functions of the masses $m_{f\in\{0,1,2,\infty\}}$, the Coulomb branch modulus $E$, and the gauge coupling $q$. The two dual cycles $\CA$ and $\CB$ on the torus will be defined as in the figure .
![Definition of the $\CA$ and $\CB$ cycles on the spectral curve.[]{data-label="fig1"}](./fig5b.pdf){width="10cm"}
In [@Eguchi2010a], the Seiberg-Witten differential has been identified with $dS_0=2H_0(z)dz$, and the filling fraction condition provides the first Seiberg-Witten relation [@Seiberg1994; @*Seiberg1994a],$$\label{SW_cl}
a(E)=\oint_\CA\dfrac{dS_0}{2i\pi}, \qquad \dfrac{\p\CF_\text{SW}^{(0)}}{\p a}(E)=\oint_\CB{dS_0}.$$ The planar free energy of the hermitian matrix model ($\b=1$) was shown to obey the second Seiberg-Witten relation \[SW\_cl\] in [@Chekhov2002]. It has been successfully compared to the limit $\CF_\text{SW}^{(0)}=\lim_{\e_1\to0}\CF_\text{SW}$ of the Nekrasov partition at the point $m_0=m_\infty=0$, $m_1=m_2$ [@Eguchi2010]. However, instead of performing the $\CB$-cycle integral, the $q$-derivative identity \[deriv\_q\] has been used, leaving the possibility to add a $q$-independent constant to the prepotential. The classical prepotential $\CF_\text{SW}^{(0)}$ can be recovered upon integration of the second Seiberg-Witten relation \[SW\_cl\], after inversion of the first relation into $E(a)$.
WKB expansion {#sec_WKB}
-------------
Pluging the WKB expansion \[WKB\] in the Riccati equation \[equa\_diff\], we obtain the recursion relation $$\label{rec_sol}
2H_0H_n=T_n-\p H_{n-1}-\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}{H_kH_{n-k}},$$ where $T_n$ vanishes for $n>2$. This equation has been solved up to $n=2$, and used to recover the free energy at the order $O(\hbar^2)$ [@Nishinaka2011; @Maruyoshi2010; @Nishinaka2012]. It is possible to go further by using the ansatz $H_n=H_n^{(r)}+H_n^{(s)}H_0$ with two meromorphic functions $H_n^{(r)}$ and $H_n^{(s)}$. The regular term of this decomposition arises naturally from the Riccati equation and can be observed at the first orders. The second term assumes that the function has the same branch points as the $\hbar$-classical current $H_0(z)$. This is in the spirit of [@Mironov2010] where the quantum prepotential is obtain from the cycle integral of a deformed differential form, the underlying curve remaining classical. The opportunity to keep the classical spectral curve is due to the possibility of expanding in $\hbar$ the branch points $z_\a(\hbar)$ of a $\b$-deformed curve, $\sqrt{z-z_\a(\hbar)}$ being at each order $O(\hbar^n)$ a meromorphic function with a pole of degree $n$ at $z=z_\a(0)$ times the “classical” square root $\sqrt{z-z_\a(0)}$. In this setting, branch points of negative order arise naturally. We should stress that these poles of $H_n^{(r)}$ and $H_n^{(s)}$ are not related to the singularities of the Penner type potential \[Penner\] but are a general property of the WKB expansion.
The recursion relation \[rec\_sol\] splits into two relations for regular and singular parts respectively, $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}\label{rec_Hn}
&2H_n^{(r)}=-\p H_{n-1}^{(s)}-2\sum_{k=2}^{n-1}{H_k^{(r)}H_{n-k}^{(s)}},\\
&2H_n^{(s)}=\dfrac{T_n}{T_0}-\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}{H_k^{(s)}H_{n-k}^{(s)}}-\dfrac1{H_0}\p\left(\dfrac{H_{n-1}^{(r)}}{H_0}\right)-\dfrac1{H_0^2}\sum_{k=2}^{n-2}{H_k^{(r)}H_{n-k}^{(r)}},
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $n>2$ and we used the expression of $H_1^{(r)}=-(1/2)\p H_0/H_0$.
We now analyze the singularities of the functions $H_n^{(r)}$ and $H_n^{(s)}$, we expect poles located at the branch points $z=z_\a$ and at the singularities $z=q_i$ of the spectral curve. We first notice that the ratios $T_n/T_0$ have only simple poles at $z=z_\a$, and no poles at $z=q_i$, they behave at most as a constant when $z\to\infty$. Next, we look at the first terms of the recursion \[rec\_Hn\], $$H_1^{(r)}(z)=\hf\sum_{i=0}^2\dfrac1{z-q_i}-\dfrac14\sum_{\a=1}^4\dfrac1{z-z_\a},\quad H_1^{(s)}(z)=\hf\dfrac{T_1(z)}{T_0(z)}.$$ These two functions have simple poles at the branch points $z=z_\a$, and $H_1^{(r)}$ has additional poles at $z=q_i$. At infinity, $H_1^{(r)}$ behaves as $1/2z$ and $H_1^{(s)}$ as $O(1/z)$.
From the recursion relation \[rec\_Hn\], it is possible to show that the functions $H_n^{(r)}$ and $H_n^{(s)}$ with $n\geq2$ have no poles at $z=q_i$. We further see that $H_n^{(r)}$ is at most $O(1/z^2)$ at infinity, and $H_n^{(s)}$ at most constant. These constants are actually vanishing due to the constraint $W(z)\sim \sqrt{\b}gN/z$ at $z\to\infty$ which imposes $H_n(z)\sim O(1/z^2)$ for $n\geq2$, and consequently $H_{n\geq1}^{(s)}(z)\sim O(1/z)$. Finally, we denote $\a_n^{(r)}$ and $\a_n^{(s)}$ the order of the pole at $z=z_\a$ for the functions $H_n^{(r)}$ and $H_n^{(s)}$. The recursion \[rec\_Hn\] suggests $\a_n^{(r)}=\a_{n-1}^{(s)}+1$ and $\a_n^{(s)}=\a_{n-1}^{(r)}+2$ which, together with the initial value $\a_1^{(r)}=\a_1^{(s)}=1$, is solved by $\a_n^{(r)}=\lfloor(3n-1)/2\rfloor$ and $\a_n^{(s)}=\lfloor3n/2\rfloor$ where $\lfloor x\rfloor$ denotes the lower integer bound of $x$. Coming back to the two equations \[rec\_Hn\], we check that indeed the orders of the poles at $z=z_\a$ in each terms of the LHS have upper bound $\a_n^{(r)}$ and $\a_n^{(s)}$ respectively. These analytical properties allow to write the functions $H_n^{(r)}$ and $H_n^{(s)}$ as $$\label{Hn}
H_n^{(r)}(z)=\sum_{p=1}^{\a_n^{(r)}}\sum_{\a=1}^4{\mu_{p,\a}^{(n)}(z-z_\a)^{-p}},\quad H_n^{(s)}(z)=\sum_{p=1}^{\a_n^{(s)}}\sum_{\a=1}^4{\mut_{p,\a}^{(n)}(z-z_\a)^{-p}},$$ with moments $\mu$ and $\mut$ independent of $z$. These expressions are convenient to compute the $\CA$ and $\CB$ cycles integrals of $H(z)$ which can now be formulated as hypergeometric functions. They also provide a good starting point for the star operator construction in the CFT methods developed in [@Kostov1999; @*Kostov2009; @*Kostov2010] since they exhibit the singular expansion of the classical current $H(z)$ at the branch points. The moments $\mu$ and $\mut$ obey a recursion relation inherited from \[rec\_Hn\], $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}\label{rec_mu}
\mu_{p,\a}^{(n)}&=\dfrac{p-1}{2}\mut_{p-1,\a}^{(n-1)}-\sum_{k=2}^{n-1}\Bigg(\sum_{q=1}^{\a_k^{(r)}}\sum_{r=1}^{\a_{n-k}^{(s)}}\mu_{q,\a}^{(k)}\mut_{r,\a}^{(n-k)}\d_{p-q-r}+\sum_{q=p}^{\a_k^{(r)}}\sum_{r=1}^{\a_{n-k}^{(s)}}\sum_{\b\neq\a}(-1)^{p-q}C_{q+r-p-1}^{r-1}z_{\a\b}^{p-q-r}\mu_{q,\a}^{(k)}\mut_{r,\b}^{(n-k)}\\
&+\sum_{q=1}^{\a_k^{(r)}}\sum_{r=p}^{\a_{n-k}^{(s)}}\sum_{\b\neq\a}(-1)^{p-r}C_{q+r-p-1}^{q-1}z_{\a\b}^{p-q-r}\mu_{q,\b}^{(k)}\mut_{r,\a}^{(n-k)}\Bigg)\\
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ and, $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}\label{rec_mut}
2\mut_{p,\a}^{(n)}&=\d_{p,1}\dfrac{4p_4^{(n)}(z_\a)}{m_\infty^2\prod_{\b\neq \a}z_{\a\b}}-r_\a^{(0)}\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\sum_{q=1}^{\a_k^{(r)}}{\sum_{r=1}^{\a_{n-k}^{(r)}}{\sum_{{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\b\neq\a}{\g\neq\a}}}{\mu_{q,\b}^{(k)}\mu_{r,\g}^{(n-k)}z_{\a\b}^{-q}z_{\b\g}^{-r}}}}\\
&-\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\Bigg(\sum_{q=1}^{\a_k^{(s)}}\sum_{r=1}^{\a_{n-k}^{(s)}}\mut_{q,\a}^{(k)}\mut_{r,\a}^{(n-k)}\d_{p-q-r}+2\sum_{q=p}^{\a_k^{(s)}}\sum_{r=1}^{\a_{n-k}^{(s)}}\sum_{\b\neq\a}(-1)^{p-q}C_{q+r-p-1}^{r-1}z_{\a\b}^{p-q-r}\mut_{q,\a}^{(k)}\mut_{r,\b}^{(n-k)}\Bigg)\\
&-\sum_{q=p-1}^{\a_{n-1}^{(r)}}{r_\a^{(q+1-p)}\mu_{q,\a}^{(n-1)}}-\d_{p,1}\sum_{q=1}^{\a_{n-1}^{(r)}}\sum_{\b\neq\a}r_\a^{(0)}\mu_{q,\b}^{(n-1)}z_{\a\b}^{-q}-\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\sum_{m=0}^{\a_k^{(r)}+\a_{n-k}^{(r)}}\equskip r_\a^{(m)}\Bigg(\sum_{q=1}^{\a_k^{(r)}}\sum_{r=1}^{\a_{n-k}^{(r)}}\mu_{q,\a}^{(k)}\mu_{r,\a}^{(n-k)}\d_{p+m-q-r-1}\\
&-2\sum_{q=p+m-1}^{\a_k^{(r)}}\sum_{r=1}^{\a_{n-k}^{(r)}}\sum_{\b\neq\a}(-1)^{p+m-q}C_{q+r-p-m}^{r-1}z_{\a\b}^{p+m-q-r-1}\mu_{q,\a}^{(k)}\mu_{r,\b}^{(n-k)}\Bigg)
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where we denoted $z_{\a\b}=z_\a-z_\b$, the binomial coefficient $C_p^q$, and $$r_\a^{(n)}=\oint_{z_\a}{\dfrac{(z-z_\a)^{-n}}{H_0(z)^2}\dfrac{dz}{2i\pi}},\quad H_0(z)^{-2}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}{(z-z_\a)^{n-1}r_\a^{(n)}}.$$
Formal resummation
------------------
The previous $\hbar$-expansion for singular and regular parts of $H$ can be formally resummed into the functions $H^{(r)}$ and $H^{(s)}$. These two functions are related to each other through $$H^{(r)}(z)=-(\hbar/2)\p\log(H^{(s)}(z)H_0(z)),$$ which is a resummed version of the first recursion relation in \[rec\_Hn\]. We further introduce the function $\eta(z)$ defined up to an additive constant by $H^{(s)}H_0=\p\eta$, so that $H^{(r)}=-(\hbar/2)\p\log\p \eta$. Reassembling singular and regular parts, we write the relation between $\eta$ and $H$ as $$\label{decompo_H}
H(z)=\p \eta(z)-\dfrac{\hbar}2\p\log\p\eta(z).$$ Inserting this definition into the Riccati equation, we find an equation over $\eta$ which takes the form $$\label{equ_h}
T(z)=(\p \eta(z))^2-\dfrac{\hbar^2}{2}\{\eta(z),z\},$$ where $\{\eta,z\}$ denotes the Schwartz derivative. This expression arises naturally in the Schrödinger equation context, [^8] and appears in the accessory parameters problem (see for instance [@Ferrari2012]). Indeed, combining the relation between $h$, $H$ and $\psi$, and given that $\eta$ and $-\eta$ satisfy the same equation \[equ\_h\], the two independent solutions of the Schrödinger equation write $$\label{sol_Schrod}
\hbar^2\p^2\psi^\pm(z)=T(z)\psi^\pm(z) \implies \psi^\pm(z)=\sqrt{\dfrac{\hbar}2}\dfrac{e^{\pm\hbar^{-1}\eta(z)}}{\sqrt{\p \eta(z)}},$$ where the constant factors are fixed by taking the Wronskian $\psi^-\p\psi^+-\psi^+\p\psi^-$ equal to one. At the order $O(\hbar)$, $\p \eta$ is equal to the classical momentum. The ratio of the two solutions, $r=\psi^-/\psi^+$ is known to satisfy $T=-(\hbar^2/2)\{r,z\}$, replacing $r=e^{-2\hbar^{-1}\eta}$ we recover the equation \[equ\_h\].
There is another interesting interpretation for the expressions \[decompo\_H\] and \[equ\_h\]. In the CFT formulation of matrix models [@Marshakov1991; @Kostov1999] extended to s [@Dijkgraaf2009; @Itoyama2009], the partition function $\CZ_\b$ reproduces the correlator of a free field with a background charge proportional to $\hbar$. Up to a Wick rotation, this field is the holomorphic part of the Liouville field after integration over the zero mode. In this framework, the planar limit is the classical limit of this Coulomb gas field, and $H(z)$ is interpreted as the $g$-classical $U(1)$ current $H=\p\phi$. Similarly, $T(z)$ corresponds to the $g$-classical stress-energy tensor, and the Riccati equation \[equa\_diff\] simply express the standard definition $T=(\p\phi)^2+\hbar\p^2\phi$. The relation \[equ\_h\] between $T(z)$ and $\eta(z)$ can be seen as the transformation of a constant stress-energy tensor under the inverse mapping $\eta\to z(\eta)$.[^9] When the background charge is non-zero, the $U(1)$ current is no longer a primary field, and the relation \[decompo\_H\] is the transformation of a constant current under the same conformal mapping $\eta\to z(\eta)$. Thus, in the coordinate $\eta$, both classical stress-energy tensor and $U(1)$ current are equal to one. Solving the Schrödinger equation in this coordinate, we get $$\label{coord_h}
\hbar^2\dfrac{\p^2}{\p \eta^2}\psi(\eta)=\psi(\eta)\implies \psi^\pm(\eta)=\sqrt{\dfrac{\hbar}2}e^{\pm\hbar^{-1}\eta},$$ which indeed gives $H(\eta)=\hbar\p_\eta\log\psi^+(\eta)=1$. The transformation law of the wave functions $\psi^\pm$ can be deduced from their relation to the classical current, they transform as primary fields of dimension $-1/2$ under $\eta\to z(\eta)$, $$\psi^\pm(\eta)\to (\p \eta(z))^{-1/2}\psi^\pm(\eta(z)),$$ and we recover the expression \[sol\_Schrod\] from \[coord\_h\].
Deformed Seiberg-Witten theory
==============================
Planar free energy and Seiberg-Witten relations {#subsec_SW}
-----------------------------------------------
We now show that the planar free energy $\CF_\b$ of the obeys the Seiberg-Witten relations with a deformed differential form $dS=2\p\eta dz$ given by only the singular part of the resolvent, $$\label{SW}
a(E)=\oint_\CA{\dfrac{dS}{2i\pi}},\qquad \dfrac{\p\CF_\b}{\p a}(E)=\dfrac14\oint_\CB{dS},$$ with the cycles $\CA$ and $\CB$ previously defined on the classical spectral curve. Let us emphasize that we consider here the formal resumation in $\hbar$, and these relations, together with all the identities below, only hold order by order in the $\hbar$ expansion. In the limit $\hbar\to0$, $\p \eta$ reduces to $H_0$ and we recover the standard Seiberg-Witten relations \[SW\_cl\].
To analyze the first relation in \[SW\], we decompose $H$ into regular and singular parts as in \[decompo\_H\], $$\label{int_H}
\oint_\CA{H(z)dz}=\oint_\CA{\p\eta dz}-\dfrac{\hbar}{2}\oint_\CA{\dfrac{\p H_0(z)}{H_0(z)}dz}-\dfrac{\hbar}{2}\oint_\CA{\p\log(H^{(s)}(z))dz}.$$ The last term in the RHS is proportional to the monodromy of $\log(H^{(s)}(z))$ around the cycle $\CA$. Since the expansion of the logarithm in $\hbar$ produces only regular terms at each order, it is vanishing. The second term in the RHS of \[int\_H\] exactly compensates the shift of $-\hbar$ for the filling fraction condition observed in [@Nishinaka2011], $$\label{filling_frac}
\oint_\CA{2H(z)\dfrac{dz}{2i\pi}}=a-\hbar.$$ This relation is believed to be exact at the order $O(\hbar^2)$ [@Nishinaka2012].\
To demonstrate the second relation \[SW\], we employ the collective field formulation of the at large $N$ derived by Dyson [@Dyson1962]. A similar calculation has been done in [@Chekhov2002] for $\hbar=0$ and we extend it here to the $\b$-deformation. Closely related considerations are found in the study of complex s in which the eigenvalues are integrated over the full complex plane, leading to a bidimensional Dyson gas [@Wiegmann2005].
We first review the derivation of the Dyson action [@Dyson1962]. In the large $N$ limit, the partition function can be written as a path integral over the density of eigenvalues $\rho(x)$ seen as a collective field, $$\label{collec_field}
\CZ_\b=\int{D[\rho]e^{\frac1{g^2}\CA[\rho]}},\quad \rho(x)=g\sqrt{\b}\la\sum_{I=1}^N\d(x-\l_I)\ra.$$ Since we work perturbatively in $\hbar$, the density at each order has a finite support $\G$ corresponding to the branch cuts of the classical resolvent $H_0(z)$. Again, this is no longer true at finite $\hbar$ where the eigenvalues remain isolated. The action appearing in \[collec\_field\] is obtained from the effective action for the eigenvalues $\l_I$ deduced from the definition \[def\_beta\_ens\], $$\dfrac1{g^2}\CA_\text{eff}[\l_I]=\dfrac{\sqrt{\b}}{g}\sum_{I=1}^N{V(\l_I)}+\b\sum_{I,J=1}^N{\log|\l_I-\l_J|}-\b\sum_{I=1}^N{\log l(\l_I)},$$ where we introduced a short distance cut-off $l(x)$ to regularize the sum of logarithms at coincident indices $I=J$. This cut-off is interpreted as the mean distance between the eigenvalues at the point $x$, it also arises in the Jacobian of the transformation, $$\prod_{I=1}^N{d\l_I}=N! J[\rho]D[\rho],\quad J[\rho]\propto\prod_{I=1}^N{l(\l_I)}.$$ Combining these two contributions, and introducing the density within the effective action, we derive the following collective field action $$\CA[\rho]=\int{V(x)\rho(x)dx}+\int{\log|x-y|\rho(x)\rho(y)dxdy}-\hbar\int{\rho(x)\log l(x)dx}+\text{cst}.$$ Since a “single” eigenvalue roughly occupies a segment of size proportional to the inverse of the local density, $l(x)\propto1/\rho(x)$ and the classical action reads $$\label{action_eff}
\CA[\rho]=\int_\G{V(x)\rho(x)dx}+\int_\G{\log|x-y|\rho(x)\rho(y)dxdy}+\hbar\int_\G{\rho(x)\log \rho(x)dx},$$ up to a constant set to zero by renormalization of $\CZ_\b$.
To confirm the expression \[action\_eff\] of the collective field action, we should analyze the equation of motion, $$\label{eom}
\dfrac{\p}{\p x}\dfrac{\d\CA[\rho]}{\d\rho(x)}=0\implies V'(x)+2\int_\G{\dfrac{\rho(y)dy}{x-y}}+\hbar\dfrac{\rho'(x)}{\rho(x)}=0,\quad x\in\G,$$ where the integral is considered as a principal value. The density solving this equation of motion is the $g$-classical, or planar, density, i.e. the limit of the density $\rho(x)$ defined in \[collec\_field\] as $g\to0$. Since we work only at the planar level, and the full density $\rho(x)$ will play no role below, we will keep the notation $\rho(x)$ now referring to the planar density. It is related to the planar resolvent \[def\_resol\] by a Cauchy transform $$W(z)=\int_\G{\dfrac{\rho(y)dy}{z-y}},\quad W(x\pm i0)=\mp i\pi\rho(x)+\int_\G{\dfrac{\rho(y)dy}{x-y}},\quad x\in\G.$$ Taking the discontinuity of the loop equation \[le1\] over the branch cut $\G$, we recover the equation of motion \[eom\]. In particular, the derivative of the resolvent which characterizes the $\b$-deformation is at the origin of the logarithmic derivative term $\p\log\rho$ in \[eom\].
The classical spectral curve \[spec\_curve\] describes a two cuts solution: the density support $\G$ is made of two disjoint intervals $\G=\G_-\cup\G_+$ with $\G_-=[z_1,z_2]$ and $\G_+=[z_3,z_4]$. The moduli of the solution are fixed by imposing the two filling fraction conditions $$\label{cond_mod}
\int_{\G_-}{\rho(x)dx}=\hf(a-\hbar),\quad \int_{\G_+}{\rho(x)dx}=\sqrt{\b}gN-\hf\left(a-\hbar\right).$$ The first identity is equivalent to the Seiberg-Witten relation \[SW\] involving the $\CA$-cycle integral which circles the branch cut $\G_-$. The second relation reflects the normalization of the density to $\sqrt{\b}gN$.
The planar free energy is the collective field action evaluated for the planar density that solves the equation of motion \[eom\]. Taking the $a$-derivative of the expression \[action\_eff\], we get $$\dfrac{\p \CF_\b}{\p a}=\int_\G{\dfrac{\p\rho(x)}{\p a}C(x)},\quad\text{with } C(x)=V(x)+2\int_\G{\log|x-y|\rho(y)dy}+\hbar\log\rho(x).$$ The equation of motion \[eom\] implies that $C(x)$ is a constant on each support $\G_\pm$ that we denote $C_\pm$. In the standard approach to matrix models, these two constants are supposed to be equal,which provides an extra requirement on $\rho$ [@Jurkiewicz1990]. As mentioned in [@Chekhov2002], this is no longer the case in the Seiberg-Witten theory. The derivative of the filling fraction conditions \[cond\_mod\] with respect to $a$ supplies two expressions that can be used to rewrite the free energy derivative as the difference of the two constants. $$\dfrac{\p \CF_\b}{\p a}=\hf(C_--C_+).$$ To rewrite this equation as a cycle integral, we need to extend the function $C(x)$ to the whole complex plane, i.e. we are looking for a function $C(z)$ with a branch cut on $\G$ where it satisfies $C(x+i0)+C(x-i0)=2C(x)$. This function can be chosen up to a constant term since we are only interested in the difference $C_--C_+$. Once it has been properly defined, it is possible to write $$\label{SW_rel2}
\dfrac{\p \CF_\b}{\p a}=-\hf\int_{z_2}^{z_3}{\dfrac{dC}{dz}dz}=\dfrac14\oint_\CB{\p C(z)dz},$$ provided that $\p C$ has no regular part. When $\b=1$, the function $C(z)$ is the classical bosonic field appearing in the CFT methods [@Marshakov1991; @Kostov1999; @Dijkgraaf2009; @Itoyama2009], $C(z)=2\phi(z)$ with $H(z)=\p\phi(z)$. When $\hbar\neq0$, we need an additional contribution $C(z)=2\phi(z)+\hbar L(z)$ because of the logarithmic term. This function $L(z)$ have a branch cut on $\G$ where it verifies $$L(x+i0)+L(x-i0)=2\log\rho(x).$$ To identify the function $L(z)$, we notice that since $\p \eta$ is by definition the singular part of $H$, it satisfies $\p \eta(x\pm i0)=\mp i\pi\rho(x)$ for $x\in\G$. It implies $$\log(\p \eta(x+i0))+\log(\p \eta(x-i0))=\log(\pi^2\rho(x)^2),$$ which leads to identify $L$ with $\log\p \eta$ up to an irrelevant additive constant. We conclude that $C(z)=2\eta(z)$, and \[SW\_rel2\] provides the second Seiberg-Witten relation \[SW\]. The difference $H^{(r)}=(\hbar/2)\p L$ between the two functions $H(z)$ and $\p \eta(z)$ is specific to the $\b$-deformation. It is related to the cut-off part of the Dyson action, i.e. the term $\rho\log\rho$ in \[action\_eff\]. The $\CB$-cycle integral of the relation \[SW\] is of course invariant under a regular shift of the differential, but again $H^{(r)}$ has poles at the branch points which require a special treatment.\
To summarize, we have shown that the Dyson representation of the planar free energy, $$\label{F_b}
\CF_\b=\oint_\G{\dfrac{dz}{2i\pi}\left[V(z)+\hbar\log\p\eta(z)\right]\p \eta(z)\ }+\oint_{\G}{\dfrac{dz}{2i\pi}\oint_\G{\dfrac{dz'}{2i\pi}\log|z-z'|\p \eta(z)\p \eta(z')}},$$ provides a new solution to the Seiberg-Witten relations \[SW\]. The potential $V(z)$ is chosen such that the function $T(z)$ defined in \[def\_HT\] satisfies the equation \[equ\_h\] in which the RHS is entirely defined by the differential form $dS=2\p\eta dz$. In \[F\_b\], the contours circle both branch cuts $\G_-$ and $\G_+$ but exclude the logarithmic branch points of the potential. In addition, the double integral in the RHS must be properly regularized at coincident point $z=z'$.
Differential operator
---------------------
In their study of the deformed Seiberg-Witten relations for the pure $SU(2)$ $\mathcal{N}=2$ gauge theory, Mironov and Morozov [@Mironov2010] introduced a differential operator in the Coulomb branch modulus and the gauge coupling to derive the $O(\hbar^2)$ corrections to the quantized differential form $dS$. A similar operator with derivatives in the parameters of the potential was observed in models with Gaussian and cubic potentials [@Aganagic2011]. In $SU(2)$ superconformal QCD, such a differential operator also appeared at first order in $O(\hbar)$ [@Maruyoshi2010], with a differentiation with respect to the masses. Here we demonstrate the existence of such operators at all order in $\hbar$. These relations ensures that the quantities considered in the last subsection are finite.
The summation of fractions in the expression \[Hn\] of $H_n^{(s)}$ can be reorganized as $$H_n^{(s)}(z)=\sum_{p=1}^{\a_n^{(s)}}{\dfrac{a_pz^3+b_pz^2+c_pz+d_p}{P_4(z)^p}}.$$ A recursion relation on the numerators can be derived directly from \[rec\_Hn\], and would involve Euclidean divisions of polynomials. Here we do not need the explicit expression of the coefficients $a_p,\ b_p,\ c_p$ and $d_p$ which are functions of the masses, the Coulomb branch modulus, and the gauge coupling. The degree four polynomial $P_4(z)$ decomposes as a sum of monomials, $$P_4(z)=\dfrac{m_\infty^2}{4}z^4+f_3z^3+f_2z^2+f_1z+f_0,$$ where the coefficients $f_j$ depends on the four masses $m_f$, as well as the parameters $q$ and $E$. Taking the derivative of the spectral curve \[spec\_curve\] with respect to $f_j$, we easily show that $$\dfrac{\p}{\p f_j}\left(\dfrac{\p}{\p f_0}\right)^{p-1}H_0(z)=(-1)^{p-1}\dfrac{\G[p-1/2]}{2\G[1/2]}\dfrac{z^{j}}{P_4(z)^p}H_0(z).$$ Using this identity, we rewrite the $n$-th term in the $\hbar$-expansion of the differential $\p\eta$ as a differential operator in $f_j$ acting on $H_0$, $$H_n^{(s)}H_0=\left[\sum_{p=1}^{\a_n^{(s)}}{(-1)^{p-1}\dfrac{2\G[1/2]}{\G[p-1/2]}\left(\dfrac{\p}{\p f_0}\right)^{p-1}\left(a_p\dfrac{\p}{\p f_3}+b_p\dfrac{\p}{\p f_2}+c_p\dfrac{\p}{\p f_1}+d_p\dfrac{\p}{\p f_0}\right)}\right]H_0$$ It now remains to change variable from $f_j$ to the three masses $m_0,m_1,m_2$ and the Coulomb branch modulus $E$. The Jacobian matrix of this change of variables is given by $$\label{Jacobian}
\left (
\begin{array}{c}
\frac{\p}{\p f_3} \\
\frac{\p}{\p f_2} \\
\frac{\p}{\p f_1} \\
\frac{\p}{\p f_0}
\end{array}
\right )=
\begin{pmatrix}\frac{2\,q}{m_2\,{\left( q-1\right) }^{2}} & \frac{2}{m_1\,{\left( q-1\right) }^{2}} & 0 & -\frac{8\,{q}^{2}}{{\left( q-1\right) }^{3}}\cr \frac{2}{m_2\,{\left( q-1\right) }^{2}} & \frac{2}{m_1\,{\left( q-1\right) }^{2}} & 0 & -\frac{4\,\left( 3\,q-1\right) }{{\left( q-1\right) }^{3}}\cr \frac{2}{m_2\,{\left( q-1\right) }^{2}\,q} & \frac{2}{m_1\,{\left( q-1\right) }^{2}} & 0 & -\frac{8\,\left( 2\,q-1\right) }{{\left( q-1\right) }^{3}\,q}\cr \frac{2}{m_2\,{\left( q-1\right) }^{2}\,{q}^{2}} & \frac{2}{m_1\,{\left( q-1\right) }^{2}} & \frac{2}{m_0\,{q}^{2}} & -\frac{4\,\left( {q}^{3}-3\,{q}^{2}+8\,q-4\right) }{{\left( q-1\right) }^{3}\,{q}^{2}}\end{pmatrix}
\left (
\begin{array}{c}
\frac{\p}{\p m_2} \\
\frac{\p}{\p m_1} \\
\frac{\p}{\p m_0} \\
\frac{\p}{\p E}
\end{array}
\right )$$ Its determinant is non-vanishing as long as the four punctures $q_f$ of the Riemann sphere remain separated, i.e. $q\neq0$ and $q\neq 1$. At first order in $\hbar$, we recover the result found in [@Maruyoshi2010], $$\label{Op_1}
H_1^{(s)}H_0=-\left(\dfrac{\p}{\p m_1}+\dfrac{\p}{\p m_2}\right) H_0.$$ This differential operator does not involve the derivative with respect to the Coulomb parameter $E$. This simplification is due to the previous change of variable \[def\_E\] from $u$ to $E$. We would have obtained exactly the same property if we had chosen instead of $E$ the variable $q\p\CF_\text{SW}/\p q$ related to $u$ through \[deriv\_q\]. However, the intermediate formulas such as the expression of the polynomials \[expr\_poly\], or the Jacobian matrix \[Jacobian\], would have been more complicated. It is not clear priori whether the higher order operators would involve a differentiation with respect to $E$, or if it can again be eliminated after a redefinition of the Coulomb branch parameter.
Interpretation of the differential form in Seiberg-Witten theory
----------------------------------------------------------------
We have shown in subsection that the planar free energy obeys the Seiberg-Witten relation with the differential $dS=2\p\eta dz$. It remains to see whether this differential is relevant to the Seiberg-Witten theory. In particular, since the Seiberg-Witten differential is commonly identified with the full resolvent $2H(z)dz$, we should compare here $H$ with $\p\eta$. We have seen previously that the $\CA$-cycle integral reproduces the correct result, including the shift of $-\hbar$ observed in [@Nishinaka2011]. The Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization rule applied to the underlying quantum integrable model provides a simple argument in favor of replacing $H$ by $\p\eta$: the classical momentum appearing within the cycle integrals is equal to $\p \eta(z)$ up to terms of order $O(\hbar^2)$, and to $H(z)$ only up to $O(\hbar)$. In this context, the shift of $-\hbar$ has indeed to be taken into account.
We now focus on the $\CB$-cycle integral. As a consequence of the relation \[Op\_1\], the planar free energy obeys the following identity, $$\label{CF_b_1}
\dfrac{\p}{\p a}\CF_\b^{(1)}=-\left(\dfrac{\p}{\p m_1}+\dfrac{\p}{\p m_2}\right)\dfrac{\p}{\p a}\CF_\b^{(0)},$$ where the superscript pertains to the $\hbar$-expansion of $\CF_\b$. The equality \[AGT\_planar\] between the prepotential and the free energy has been checked at first orders in $q$ up to a $q$-independent term in [@Nishinaka2011]. A priori, such a $q$-independent but $a$-dependent term could be related to a non-zero $\CB$-cycle integral of $H_1^{(r)}$, and would break the relation \[CF\_b\_1\] for the Seiberg-Witten prepotential. In order to discard this term, we have to verify that the prepotential $\CF_\text{SW}$ at the order $O(q^0)$, i.e. the one-loop contribution, satisfies \[CF\_b\_1\].[^10] The expression of the one-loop correction to the prepotential can be found in [@Alday2009], $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
&\CF_\text{SW,1-loop}=\CF_\text{vector}(a)+\sum_\pm\CF_\text{hyper}(\mu_i,\pm a),\quad \CF_\text{vector}(a)=\g_2(2a)+\g_2(2a+\e_1),\\
&\CF_\text{hyper}(\mu_i,a)=-\g_2(a-\mu_1+\e_1)-\g_2(a-\mu_2+\e_2)-\g_2(-a+\mu_3)-\g_2(-a+\mu_4),
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where we separated the $\mathcal{N}=2$ vector and hypermultiplet contributions, and denoted $\g_2$ the limit $\e_2\to0$ of the logarithm of Barnes’ double gamma function $\G_2(x|\e_1,\e_2)$, $$\g_2(x)=\lim_{\e_2\to0}{\e_1\e_2\log\G_2(x|\e_1,\e_2)}.$$ The $\e_1$-expansion of the function $\g_2$ satisfies the remarkable property $$\g_2(x)=\left(1-\dfrac{\e_1}{2}\dfrac{d}{dx}+\dfrac{\e_1^2}{12}\dfrac{d^2}{dx^2}\right)\g(x)+O(\e_1^3),\quad \g(x)=\lim_{\e_1\to0}\g_2(x).$$ Replacing the derivative $\g'(x)$ by a differentiation with respect to the $\mu_i$, and then changing variable from $\mu_i$ to $m_f$, it is possible to show that $$\CF_\text{hyper}^{(1)}(\mu_i,a)=-\left.\left(\dfrac{\p}{\p m_1}+\dfrac{\p}{\p m_2}\right)\right|_\text{$a$ fixed}\CF_\text{hyper}^{(0)}(\mu_i,a).$$ In this calculation we considered $a$ fixed, i.e. independent of the variables $\mu_i$ (or $m_f$) and $\hbar$. Since at the order $O(\e_1)$ the contribution of the vector multiplet is vanishing, the previous relation extends to the whole one-loop contribution, $$\CF_\text{SW,1-loop}^{(1)}=-\left.\left(\dfrac{\p}{\p m_1}+\dfrac{\p}{\p m_2}\right)\right|_\text{$a$ fixed}\CF_\text{SW,1-loop}^{(0)}.$$ We have not shown yet that the deformed Seiberg-Witten prepotential at the order $O(q^0)$ obeys the relation \[CF\_b\_1\]. There is indeed an important subtlety since we worked with $a$ fixed, and the relation \[CF\_b\_1\] holds only for $E$ fixed. It is actually possible to rewrite this relation at $a$ fixed, taking care of the reshuffling of the terms in the $\hbar$-expansion.[^11] Then, this result dismisses the regular contribution $H_1^{(r)}$ and confirms the identification of $dS=2\p\eta dz$ with the Seiberg-Witten differential, up to terms of order $O(\hbar^2)$.
Another important feature of the Seiberg-Witten differential is the residues at the punctures. The classical differential $dS_0=2H_0(z)dz$ is known to have residues $m_f$ at the $z=q_f\in\{0,1,q,\infty\}$. Both $2H(z)dz$ and $2\eta(z)dz$ get $\hbar$-corrections that take the form of constant shifts: $m_0\to m_0+\hbar$ and $m_\infty\to m_\infty-\hbar$ for the first one, and $m_{1,2}\to m_{1,2}-\hbar$ for the later. Up to now, there is no interpretation for such a shift, but it is possible to correct the differentials by adding a pole contribution at $z=q_f$ that does not modify the $\CA$ and $\CB$ cycle integrals.
Discussion: a direct approach to the prepotential {#sec_III}
=================================================
In the Seiberg-Witten context, $E$ is seen as a parameter independent of $\hbar$, and $a$ is a function of $E$ and $\hbar$. This is rather unusual from the matrix model perspective where $E$ is a function of $a$, which is fixed, and $\hbar$. But both approaches are related: $E$ is an intermediate parameter of the Seiberg-Witten theory, it can be taken as any function $E(a_\text{fixed},\hbar)$. When this function is the inverse function of $a(E,\hbar)$ determined by the first Seiberg-Witten relation \[SW\], we recover the matrix model point of view.
It is instructive to take this later standpoint, and compose the WKB-expansion of $E$ and $H$, thus defining a new expansion of the classical current [@Maruyoshi2010], $$E=\sum_{n=0}^\infty{\hbar^nE_n},\qquad H(z|E)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty{\hbar^n\tH_n(z|E_0,\cdots,E_n)},$$ where we highlighted the dependence in $E$. The WKB method presented in the section still works in the same way, replacing $H_n$ by $\tH_n$, $E$ by $E_0$ and shifting $$T_n\to \tilde{T}_n=T_n+\dfrac{(q-1)E_n}{4\prod_{i=0}^2{(z-q_i)}},\quad \text{for }n\geq1,$$ the quantities $\tilde{T}_n$ with $n>2$ being now non-vanishing. We notice that, $H_0(z|E)=\tH(z|E_0)$, and $\tH_n$ still decomposes into regular and singular parts which obey similar analytical properties. In particular, we may adapt the decomposition \[Hn\] to $\tH_n$ and write $$\label{tHn}
\tH_n^{(r)}(z)=\sum_{p=1}^{\a_n^{(r)}}\sum_{\a=1}^4{\mu_{p,\a}^{(n)}(z-z_\a)^{-p}},\quad \tH_n^{(s)}(z)=\dfrac18\dfrac{(q-1)E_n}{P_4(z)}\prod_{i=0}^2{(z-q_i)}+\sum_{p=1}^{\a_n^{(s)}}\sum_{\a=1}^4{\mut_{p,\a}^{(n)}(z-z_\a)^{-p}}.$$ Because of the shift in $\tH_n^{(s)}$, the coefficients $\mu_{p,\a}^{(n)}$ and $\mut_{p,\a}^{(n)}$ depend only on $E_0,\cdots,E_{n-1}$, they obey a slightly different recursion relation than \[rec\_mu\] and \[rec\_mut\] which is derived in a similar way. The Seiberg-Witten relations should also be expanded in $\hbar$, the zeroth order determines the relation between $a$ and $E_0$ as $$\label{SW_0}
\oint_\CA{2H_0(z|E_0)\dfrac{dz}{2i\pi}}=a,$$ where now $a$ is a fixed parameter. The next orders give the dependence of $E_n(E_0,\cdots,E_{n-1})$ which is, up to a $q$ integration, the planar free energy of the , as seen from the relation \[deriv\_q\],[^12] $$\label{SW_n}
E_n(E_0,\cdots,E_{n-1})=-\dfrac{dE_0}{da}\sum_{p=1}^{\a_n^{(s)}}\sum_{\a=1}^4{\mut_{p,\a}^{(n)}\oint_{\CA}\dfrac{H_0(z|E_0)}{(z-z_\a)^{p}}\dfrac{dz}{2i\pi}},$$ This method produces directly the prepotential $\CF_\b$, up to terms independent of $q$. And again, a differential operator may be used to obtain the contour integral from \[SW\_0\].
The previous calculation generates the $\b$-deformed electric prepotential $\CF_\b$, but it may also be interesting to determine directly the dual magnetic prepotential, related to $\CF_\b$ by a Legendre transform [@Galakhov2012]. Replacing the $\CA$-cycle by $\CB$-cycle integrals in the formulas \[SW\_0\] and \[SW\_n\], we obtain $E_0(a_D)$ and $E_n(E_0,\cdots,E_{n-1})$. Finally, we may use the identity \[deriv\_q\] with $\CF_\b$ replaced by $\CF_\b^D$ and the $q$-derivative at fixed $a$ by a derivative at fixed $a_D$ to recover the dual prepotential upon integration. Such a formulation may help to understand the S-duality from the point of view.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This paper presents satellite results of a common project with Takahiro Nishinaka and Chaiho Rim, to whom I am indebted for numerous enlightening discussions and a careful reading of preliminary versions of this manuscript. I also would like to thank the hospitality of the CEA Saclay were part of this work was completed, and B. Eynard, I. Kostov, V. Pasquier and S. Ribault for very valuable discussions. This work is partially supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (KNRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MEST) 2005-0049409.
[10]{}
N. Nekrasov and S. Shatashvili. . 2009.
N. Seiberg and E. Witten. . , B426:19–52, 1994.
N. Seiberg and E. Witten. . , B431:484–550, 1994.
A. Gorsky, I. Krichever, A. Marshakov, A. Mironov, and A. Morozov. . , B355:466–474, 1995.
Chen-Ning Yang and C. P. Yang. . , 10:1115–1122, 1969.
N. Nekrasov. . 2003.
N. Nekrasov and A. Okounkov. . 2003.
A. Mironov and A.Morozov. . , 04:040, 2010.
A. Mironov and A. Morozov. . , 43:195401, 2010.
A. Popolitov. . 2010.
L. Alday, D. Gaiotto, and Y. Tachikawa. . , 91:167–197, 2010.
N. Wyllard. . , 11:002, 2009.
G. Bonelli and A. Tanzini. . , B691:111–115, 2010.
A. Mironov and A. Morozov. . , 825:1–37, 2010.
A. Mironov and A. Morozov. . , 680:188–194, 2009.
G. Giribet. . , 01:097, 2010.
A. Marshakov, A. Mironov, and A. Morozov. . , 11:048, 2009.
D. Nanopoulos and Dan Xie. . , D80:105015, 2009.
V. Alba and A. Morozov. . , 90:708–712, 2009.
A. Marshakov, A. Mironov, and A. Morozov. . , 164:831–852, 2010.
A. Belavin and V. Belavin. . , B850:199–213, 2011.
S. Kanno, Y. Matsuo, and S. Shiba. . , D84:026007, 2011.
A. Mironov and A. Morozov. . , 682:118–124, 2009.
V. A. Fateev and A. V. Litvinov. . , 02:014, 2010.
L. Hadasz, Z. Jaskolski, and P. Suchanek. . , 06:046, 2010.
A. Marshakov, A. Mironov, and A. Morozov. . , B265:99–107, 1991.
S. Kharchev, A. Marshakov, A. Mironov, A. Morozov, and S. Pakuliak. . , B404:717–750, 1993.
I. Kostov. , 1999. Based on the talk of the author at the Third Claude Itzykson Meeting, Paris, July 27-29, 1998.
I. Kostov. . , B837:221–238, 2010.
I. Kostov and N. Orantin. . , 11:056, 2010.
R. Dijkgraaf and C. Vafa. . 2009.
H. Itoyama, K. Maruyoshi, and T. Oota. . , 123:957–987, 2010.
G. Bonelli, K. Maruyoshi, A. Tanzini, and F. Yagi. . , 1107:055, 2011.
K. Maruyoshi and F. Yagi. . , 1101:042, 2011.
R. Schiappa and N. Wyllard. . 2009.
A. Mironov, A. Morozov, and Sh. Shakirov. . , 02:030, 2010.
A. Mironov, A. Morozov, and Sh. Shakirov. . , A25:3173–3207, 2010.
A. Mironov, Al. Morozov, and A. Morozov. . , B843:534–557, 2011.
H. Itoyama and T. Oota. . , B838:298–330, 2010.
H. Itoyama and N. Yonezawa. . , A26:3439–3467, 2011.
A. Mironov, A. Morozov, and Sh. Shakirov. . , 02:067, 2011.
Hong Zhang and Yutaka Matsuo. . , 12:106, 2011.
T. Eguchi and K. Maruyoshi. . , 07:081, 2010.
T. Eguchi and K. Maruyoshi. . (YITP-09-94), 2010.
D. Gaiotto. , April 2009.
L. Chekhov and A. Mironov. . , B552:293–302, 2003.
F. J. Dyson. . , 3:140–156, 1962.
A. Mironov, A. Morozov, A. Popolitov, and Sh. Shakirov. . 2011.
T. Nishinaka and C. Rim. . 2011.
K. Maruyoshi and M. Taki. . , B841:388–425, 2010.
G. Bonelli, K. Maruyoshi, and A. Tanzini. . 2011.
D. Gaiotto. . August 2009.
A. Marshakov, A. Mironov, and A. Morozov. . , 682:125–129, 2009.
H. Itoyama, T. Oota, and N. Yonezawa. . , D82:085031, 2010.
L. Chekhov and B. Eynard. . , 12:026, 2006.
L. Chekhov. Logarithmic potential beta-ensembles and feynman graphs. (ITEP/TH-33/10), September 2010.
B. Eynard and O. Marchal. . , 03:094, 2009.
L. Chekhov, B. Eynard, and O. Marchal. . 2009.
L. O. Chekhov, B. Eynard, and O. Marchal. . , 166:141–185, 2011.
A. Klemm and P. Sulkowski. . , B819:400–430, 2009.
P. Sulkowski. . , 04:063, 2010.
R. Poghossian. . , 04:033, 2011.
F. Fucito, J. F. Morales, D. Ricci Pacifici, and R. Poghossian. . , 05:098, 2011.
Min xin Huang. . 2012.
J. Teschner. , March 2012.
Y. Zenkevich. . , B701:630–639, 2011.
S. Reffert. . , 04:059, 2012.
S. Hellerman, D. Orlando, and S. Reffert. . , 01:148, 2012.
S. Hellerman, D. Orlando, and S. Reffert. . 2012.
A. B. Zamolodchikov and Al. B. Zamolodchikov. . , 477:577, 1996.
M. Goulian and M. Li. . , 66:2051–2055, 1991.
V. S. Dotsenko and V. A. Fateev. . , B240:312, 1984.
V. S. Dotsenko and V. A. Fateev. . , B251:691, 1985.
A. Morozov and Sh. Shakirov. . , 08:066, 2010.
C. Rim and T. Nishinaka. .
A. Morozov. . 2012.
A. Mironov, A. Morozov, and Z. Zakirova. . 2012.
A. Morozov. . 2012.
Ta-Sheng Tai. . , 10:107, 2010.
L. Alday, D. Gaiotto, S. Gukov, Y. Tachikawa, and H. Verlinde. . , 01:113, 2010.
F. Ferrari and M. Piatek. Liouville theory, n=2 gauge theories and accessory parameters, February 2012.
P. Wiegmann and A. Zabrodin. . , A39:8933–8964, 2006.
J. Jurkiewicz. . , B245:178–184, 1990.
M. Aganagic, M. Cheng, R. Dijkgraaf, D. Krefl, and C. Vafa. . 2011.
D. Galakhov, A. Mironov, and A. Morozov. . 2012.
[^1]: The correspondence was later generalized to $SU(n)$ gauge groups and Toda field theory [@Wyllard2009; @*Bonelli2009; @Mironov2010b].
[^2]: This demonstration has been generalized to an $SU(n)$ gauge group in [@Zhang2011].
[^3]: Our case differ from [@Mironov2009] where the AGT conjecture has been proved in the semi-classical limit $c\to\infty$ (or $\e_2=0$) but only for light fields, i.e. $m_f=O(\e_2)$.
[^4]: We consider here the used in [@Eguchi2010; @Nishinaka2011]. To obtain the correct powers of $q$ and $q-1$ from [@Alday2009], one should take into account the flip $a\to-a$, $m_0\to-m_0$, $m_\infty\to-m_\infty$, $m_1\to2\hbar-m_1$ and $m_2\to2\hbar-m_2$ that leaves the $SU(2)$ instanton partition function invariant. This flip corresponds to the action of the Weyl group of $SU(2)$ gauge and flavor symmetry, and to the reflexion $\a\to Q_L-\a$ of Liouville vertex operators.
[^5]: The gauge theory side scale invariance should not be confused with the Liouville theory scale invariance which acts on the insertion position of the vertex operators and has already been used to fix these positions at $0,1,q,\infty$.
[^6]: This property can be used to fix $\b$ upon a change in the matrix size which controls the value of $g$. At $\b=1/2$ (or $\b=2$) the partition function is identified with the eigenvalue integrals of an orthogonal (or simplectic) matrix model. The limit $\b\to1$ with $\hbar$ fixed corresponds to send $g$ to infinity, or the matrix size toward zero.
[^7]: The precise identification with the results of [@Eguchi2010a] involves the change of notations from here to there: $m_0\to m_1$, $m_1\to m_2$, $m_2\to m_3$, $m_\infty\to m_0$ and $u$ is related to their quantity $U$ as $$(q+1)U=-4u(q-1)+qm_\infty^2-(2q-1)m_2^2-qm_1^2+m_0^2-4m_1m_2-2(q-1)m_0m_2$$ in our notations.
[^8]: We thank V. Pasquier for suggesting this connection.
[^9]: In the context of Hitchin systems, this is the transformation law of a projective connection [@Teschner2012].
[^10]: This is trivial for the classical part $\CF_\text{SW,cl}=a^2\log q$.
[^11]: Let $a$ and $g$ be two functions of $E$, $\hbar$ and some parameter $m$. Changing variable from $E$ to $a$, the $\hbar$-expansion $g(E,\hbar)=g^{(0)}(E)+\hbar g^{(1)}(E)+O(\hbar^2)$ is reshuffled into $g(E(a,\hbar),\hbar)=\tilde{g}^{(0)}(a)+\hbar \tilde{g}^{(1)}(a)+O(\hbar^2)$. The relation $g^{(1)}(E)=\p_m|_E g^{(0)}(E)$ is equivalent to $\tilde{g}^{(1)}(a)=\p_m|_a \tilde{g}^{(0)}(a)$ provided that the second term in the $\hbar$-expansion of $a(E,\hbar)$ obeys $a^{(1)}=\p_m a^{(0)}$, since $g^{(0)}(E)=\tilde{g}^{(0)}(a^{(0)}(E))$ and $\p_m|_a=\p_m|_E-\p_ma^{(0)}(E)|_E\p_{a^{(0)}}$.
[^12]: We used here $$\dfrac18(q-1)\oint_\CA{\dfrac{dz}{\sqrt{P_4(z)}}}=\dfrac{\p}{\p E_0}\oint_\CA{H_0(z|E_0)dz}.$$
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper we exhibit infinite families of embedded tori in 4-manifolds that are topologically isotopic but smoothly distinct. The interesting thing about these tori is that they are null-homologous, and in fact they each bound a (topologically embedded) solid handlebody in the 4-manifold.'
address:
- 'School of Mathematics and Statistics University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010 Australia'
- 'Department of Mathematics and Statistics Lederle Graduate Research Tower University of Massachusetts 710 N. Pleasant Street Amherst, MA 01003-9305'
author:
- Neil Hoffman
- 'Nathan S. Sunukjian'
title: 'Surfaces in 4-manifolds: Smooth isotopy'
---
.5cm
introduction
============
Just as a 4-manifold can have many inequivalent smooth structures, there can be many different smooth embeddings of surfaces into a 4-manifold which are topologically isotopic, but smoothly distinct. Two embeddings of the same surface that have this property are called *exotic embeddings*.
In this paper we will show that null-homologous tori first discovered by Fintushel and Stern in their knot surgery construction, in fact provide examples of exotic tori. Specifically,
\[t:main\] Let $X$ be a smooth 4-manifold with $b_2 \geq |\sigma | + 6$, non-trivial Seiberg-Witten invariant, and and embedded torus $T$ of self intersection 0 such that $\pi_1(X \setminus T) = 1$. Then $X$ contains an infinite family of distinct tori that are topologically isotopic to the unknotted torus (a torus that bounds a solid handlebody in $X$), but not smoothly isotopic to it.
The first examples of exotic embeddings come from Fintushel and Stern’s “rim surgery” technique [@FSsurf]. Their surfaces all have simply connected complement. A variation on rim surgery was given by Kim, and Kim-Ruberman which works in the case that the complement has non-trivial fundamental group ([@Kim; @RK; @RK2]). Tom Mark has used Heegaard-Floer homology to show that these constructions are also effective for constructing exotic embeddings of surfaces with negative self intersection ([@T]). On the other hand, all of these constructions involve surfaces whose complement has finite first homology, and moreover all of these constructions essentially begin with symplectically embedded surfaces in a symplectic 4-manifold. Such surfaces can never be null-homologous. The significance of our examples is that they are null-homologous.
It is not difficult to satisfy the hypotheses of the theorem. For example, any elliptic surface contains such a torus and has non-trivial Seiberg-Witten invariant by virtue of being a symplectic manifold.
The strategy of proof is as follows: The knot surgery construction of Fintushel and Stern produces an infinite family of exotic smooth structures on a 4-manifold through a series of log-transforms on null-homologous tori. These are the tori we will focus on. We will define a gauge theoretic invariant to distinguish the tori smoothly. Finally, we will show that all such tori are topologically isotopic by a theorem of the second author:
\[t:iso\] Let $\Sigma_0$ and $\Sigma_1$ be locally flat embedded surfaces of the same genus in a simply connected 4-manifold $X$. The surfaces are topologically isotopic when $\pi_1(X \setminus \Sigma_i) = \mathbb{Z}$ and $b_2 \geq |\sigma| + 6$.
Presumably if the surfaces are smooth, then the surfaces are topologically isotopic without the condition that $b_2 \geq |\sigma| + 6$. If one could show that, then one could similarly drop that condition from Theorem \[t:main\]. On the other hand, for locally flat surfaces this condition is necessary. Examples can be derived from [@HT] and [@HT2] wherein topological 4-manifolds are constructed with infinite cyclic fundamental group that are not connected sums with $S^1\times S^3$. In their examples, surgery on a loop generating $\pi_1$ will result in a surface in $n\mathbb{CP}^2$ that has cyclic fundamental group. However, this surface cannot be topologically isotopic to the trivial one, because surgery on the trivial surface results in a manifold which is a connect sum with $S^1\times S^3$. Furthermore, such a surface cannot be smoothly embedded, otherwise it would be possible to smooth the original topological 4-manifold it was derived from.
Also, one might wonder how robust these exotic embeddings are. That is, what does it take to make any of the exotically embedded topologically trivial surfaces constructed here smoothly equivalent again? In [@BS], Inanc Baykur and the second author show that these tori become smoothly equivalent once one increases the genus of each of these surfaces in the most trivial possible way. Namely, tubing any one of the topologically trivial surfaces of Theorem 1.1 with a smoothly trivial surface results in a smoothly trivial surface.
We conclude this introduction with an open question.
Do their exist exotically embedded surfaces in $S^4$? In particular, is there an embedded $S^2$ that is topologically isotopic to the unknot but not smoothly isotopic to the unknot?
If one could produce such an exotic unknot, its complement would be an exotic $S^1 \times D^3$, and surgery along it would be an exotic $S^1\times S^3$, two of the most elusive exotic creatures. The examples in this paper can be seen as prototypes for answering this sort of question: Since the tori we construct bound solid handlebodies in $X$, they are close to being exotic surfaces in $S^4$ in the sense that they are topologically isotopic to a surface lying in a ball in $X$.
**Acknowledgements:** Both authors would like to thank the Max Planck Institute for Mathematics for hosting them while they worked on this project, and Danny Ruberman and Tom Mark for their comments on an early draft of this paper.
Constructing the tori {#s:constructing}
=====================
Let $T$ be an embedded torus with self intersection zero in a 4-manifold $X$ such that $\pi_1(X \setminus T) = 1$. Such a torus is necessarily homologically essential. We will not construct exotic embeddings of $T$, but rather we will find exotic embeddings of nearby null-homologous tori which arise in the “knot surgery” construction of Fintushel and Stern ([@FSknot] and [@Fknot]). Knot surgery along torus $T$ using a knot $K\subset S^3$ is most straightforwardly defined as $X_K = (X \setminus \nu (T)) \cup (S^1\times S^3\setminus \nu (K))$ where the union is formed by taking the longitude of $K$ to the meridian of $T$ (apart from this requirement, the gluing is not, strictly speaking, well defined, but this is in general irrelevant). Fintushel and Stern proved that $X$ is homeomorphic to $X_K$ under the assumption that the complement of $T$ is simply connected, and they further proved that their Seiberg-Witten invariants are related by $SW_{X_K} = SW_X \cdotp \Delta_K(2[T])$ where $\Delta_K$ is the Alexander polynomial for $K$. Therefore, by varying $K$, one can construct infinitely many smooth structures on $X$. The Seiberg-Witten formula is proved by viewing knot surgery as a series of log-transforms on null-homologous tori. That is, rather than cutting out $\nu(T) = S^1 \times (S^1 \times D^2)$ and replacing it with $S^1\times S^3\setminus \nu (K)$, we can view knot surgery as a series of log-transforms in $S^1 \times (S^1 \times D^2)$ which eventually lead to $S^1\times S^3\setminus \nu (K)$. Forgetting the extra $S^1$ direction for the moment, one can go from $S^3\setminus \nu (K)$ to $(S^1 \times D^2)$, the complement of the unknot, by doing $\pm 1$ surgery along crossings of $K$ to unknot it. See Figure \[f:knotsurgery\]. Crossing this whole picture with $S^1$ gives the log-transforms needed for knot surgery.
at 168 140 at 260 82 at 18 29 ![\[f:knotsurgery\] +1 surgery on ${\mathcal{T}_K}$ unknots $K$.](knotsurgery "fig:")
Suppose for the moment, that $K$ is a knot of unknotting number 1. Then knot surgery is equivalent to a single log-transform on a null homologous torus ${\mathcal{T}_K}$. As long as the complement of $T$ is simply connected, then ${\mathcal{T}_K}$ will have $\pi_1(X\setminus {\mathcal{T}_K}) = \mathbb{Z}$. This is because $$\pi_1(X_K \setminus {\mathcal{T}_K}) = \frac{\pi_1(S^1 \times S^3\setminus (\nu K \cup {\mathcal{T}_K}))}{\langle S^1 \times pt, \mu_K,\lambda_K \rangle}$$ where $\mu_K$ and $\lambda_k$ are respectively the meridian and longitude of $K$. This implies that that all loops are homotopic to a multiple of the meridian to ${\mathcal{T}_K}$.
Already we see that this gives at least one exotically embedded torus. Specifically, ${\mathcal{T}_K}$ is topologically standard by Theorem \[t:iso\], and moreover, performing a log-transform on ${\mathcal{T}_K}$ will give an exotic smooth structure on $X$, whereas performing a log-transform on the standardly embedded torus, (i.e. the one that bounds a solid handlebody), will not. Therefore these tori are smoothly distinct, but by Theorem \[t:iso\] they must be topologically isotopic.
To construct infinite families of exotic surfaces, we need to be more careful. For instance, supposing that $K_i$ is the $i$-th twist knot, it might be possible to construct $X_{K_i}$ for any $i$ via some log-transform on ${\mathcal{T}_K}$. (The effect of $\frac{1}{n}$-log transforms on ${\mathcal{T}_K}$ is explored in [@FStori].) In other words, it is not always straightforward to distinguish the exotic tori that arise from different knots. To resolve this issue, we have to look more deeply at how the Seiberg-Witten invariant changes under log-transforms on ${\mathcal{T}_K}$, and restrict ourselves to certain classes of knots.
Smooth invariants of null-homologous tori
=========================================
The Seiberg-Witten invariant of a 4-manifold $X$ is a map $SW_X : \mathcal{S}\longrightarrow \mathbb{Z}$, where $\mathcal{S}$ is the set of isomorphism classes of [$spin^{\text{c}}$ ]{}structures on $X$. The *basic classes* of $X$ are defined to be the [$spin^{\text{c}}$ ]{}structures that map to non-zero integers. It is a well known property of the Seiberg-Witten invariant that a closed 4-manifold has only a finite number of basic classes. Below, we will often not distinguish between a [$spin^{\text{c}}$ ]{}structure and its first Chern class or even the Poincare dual of its first Chern class.
We will distinguish our null-homologous tori by computing an invariant that is, in a technical sense clarified below, related to the Seiberg-Witten basic classes of the complement of the tori. To do this we will need to understand how the Seiberg-Witten invariant of a 4-manifold is affected by log-transforms. Suppose we are given a 4-manifold with $T^3$ boundary, e.g. $X\setminus \nu T$, and suppose $H_1(T^3) = \mathbb{Z}[a,b,c]$. Denote the log-transformed 4-manifold constructed by gluing on a $D^2\times T^2$, where $[D^2]$ is glued to $[pa+qb+rc]$ as $X_T{(p,q,r)}$, and denote the core torus in the $D^2\times T^2$ part of this manifold as $T_{(p,q,r)}$.
A formula of Morgan-Mrowka-Szabo from [@MMS] give a formula relating the Seiberg-Witten invariants of various log-transforms:
$$\begin{aligned}
\sum_i & SW_{X_{T}(p,q,r)}(k_{(p,q,r)} + i[T_{(p,q,r)}]) = p\sum_i SW_{X_{T}(1,0,0)}(k_{(1,0,0)} + i[T_{(1,0,0)}]) \\
& +q\sum_i SW_{X_{T}(0,1,0)}(k_{(0,1,0)} + i[T_{(0,1,0)}]) + r\sum_i SW_{X_{T}(0,0,1)}(k_{(0,0,1)} + i[T_{(0,0,1)}])
\label{e:eq1}\end{aligned}$$
where the $k_{(a,b,c)}$ are [$spin^{\text{c}}$ ]{}structures that are equivalent on $X \setminus T$ and are trivial on the log-transformed torus $T_{(a,b,c)}$. The sums here are intended to indicate summing over all [$spin^{\text{c}}$ ]{}structures on $X_{(a,b,c)}$ which restrict to $k_{(a,b,c)}$ on $X\setminus T$. In particular, if $T_{(p,q,r)}$ is null-homologous, then the left hand side of the equation has only one term.
Moreover, since there are a finite number (not depending on $(p,q,r)$) of $k_{(1,0,0)}$ such that the sum $\sum_i SW_{X_T(1,0,0)}(k_{(1,0,0)} + i[T_{(1,0,0)}])$ is not zero (respectively for $k_{(0,1,0)}$ and $k_{(0,0,1)}$), then according to the MMS formula there is a fixed, finite number of homology classes that can be basic classes for $X_T(p,q,r)$ in the case that $T_{(p,q,r)}$ is null-homologous. To put this another way, there are only a finite number of [$spin^{\text{c}}$ ]{}structures on $X\setminus \nu T$ that can be extended to basic classes on $X_T(p,q,r)$ when $[T_{(p,q,r)}]=0$. Therefore, the following invariant is well defined:
Let $T$ be a null-homologous torus in $X$. Define $B(X,T)$ to be the maximum divisibility of the difference between any two basic classes of $X_{(p,q,r)}$ for any $(p,q,r)$ such that $[T_{(p,q,r)}] = 0$.
Families of unknotting number one knots, and the proof of Theorem 1
===================================================================
Now that we have a better understanding of the smooth invariants needed to distinguish potential infinite families of smooth tori, we can describe an explicit family of knots that will give rise to smoothly distinct ${\mathcal{T}_K}$. For the purposes of this paper, it will be sufficient to focus on a nice family of two-bridge knots. All two-bridge knots can be given in the form of Figure \[f:twobridge\] where $a_i$ is the number of right half-twists when $i$ is odd, and left half-twists when $i$ is even. We refer to two-bridge knots using Conway’s notation, $C(a_0,\ldots,a_m)$, and we note that it is well known (see [@BZ] for instance), that two 2-bridge knots are equivalent if and only if $[a_0,\ldots,a_m]$ and $[a'_0,\ldots,a'_{m'}]$ are continued fraction expansions of the same rational number.
\[p:unknotprop\] A two-bridge knot has unknotting number one if and only if it can be expressed as $$C(b,b_1,b_2,\ldots ,b_k,\pm 2, -b_k,\ldots, -b_2,-b_1).$$
at 43 18 at 92 53 at 146 18 at 192 53 at 286 53 at 240 32 ![The two-bridge knot $C(a_0,\ldots,a_{2n-1})$.[]{data-label="f:twobridge"}](twobridge "fig:")
The following proposition of Burde-Zieschang is stated in terms of our convention for presenting two-bridge knots as in the Figure \[f:twobridge\]. The two-bridge knot diagram in Figure \[f:twobridge\] can be converted to a 4-plat diagram in Burde-Zieschang by pulling the inner strand on the right hand side of the figure over the outer strand. This has the effect of adding a new crossing (i.e. $a_{2n}=+1$) and adjusting $a_{2n-1}$ by $+1$.
\[p:conwayprop\] The Conway polynomial of a two-bridge knot expressed as $C(a_0,\ldots , a_{2n-1})$ has degree $\sum_{j=0}^{n-1} |a_{2i}|$.
There exists an infinite family of unknotting number one knots whose Alexander polynomials have arbitrarily high degree.
Combining Propositions \[p:unknotprop\] and \[p:conwayprop\] shows that there exists an infinite family of two-bridge knots of unknotting number one such that the Conway polynomial has arbitrarily high degree. The lemma is thus immediate from the fact that the Conway polynomial is related to the Alexander polynomial by the formula $\nabla (t-t^{-1}) = \Delta (t^2)$.
Let $\{ K_i \}$ be a sequence of knots of unknotting number 1 such that the degree of their Alexander polynomials goes to infinity, and let ${\mathcal{T}_{K_i}}$ be the associated (topologically trivial) tori from Section \[s:constructing\].
Since there is a log-transform on ${\mathcal{T}_{K_i}}$ that gives $X_{K_i}$, we have that
$$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{i\to \infty} B(X,{\mathcal{T}_{K_i}}) \geq& \lim_{i\to \infty} \left( \begin{array}{ll}
\text{max divisibility of the difference} \\
\text{between any two basic classes of } X_{K_i}
\end{array} \right) \\
\geq& \lim_{i\to \infty} deg(\Delta_{K_i}) = \infty. \end{aligned}$$
Therefore, there are an infinite number of the ${\mathcal{T}_{K_i}}$ that are smoothly distinguished by their $B$ invariant.
[0]{}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'It is proposed that superoscillations play an important role in the interferences which give rise to superluminal effects. To exemplify that, we consider a toy model which allows for a wave packet to travel, in zero time and negligible distortion a distance arbitrarily larger than the width of the wave packet. The peak is shown to result from a superoscillatory superposition at the tail. Similar reasoning applies to the dwell time.'
author:
- |
Yakir Aharonov$^{a,b}$, Noam Erez$^{a}$, and Benni Reznik$^{a}$ [ ]{}\
a) [*School of Physics and Astronomy, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel*]{}\
b) [*Department of Physics, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208*]{}
date: 'October 16, 2001'
title: Superoscillations and tunneling times
---
Introduction
============
Superluminal effects have been predicted in conjunction with various quantum systems propagating in a forbidden zone. In these regimes, the probability density current is imaginary, and various operational definitions of the velocity of a wave packet have been proposed - in many examples, giving differing values. In recent years, a number of experiments with superluminal photons have been performed, reviving interest in the problem, as well as controversy. The theoretical predictions have been verified - in fact, different tunneling times have been measured in accordance with the different operational definitions appropriate for the various experimental set-ups. (An excellent review on the experimental situation, as well as the theoretical background is afforded by [@CS:rev].)
Causality is not directly violated. The signal velocity (the velocity of propagation of an *abrupt* disturbance) is always subluminal. Other “velocities” may well be superluminal, for example the group velocity of a wave packet. In the latter case, the (local) peak of the packet appears at a point where constructive interference builds up, much earlier than the arrival of a freely propagating wave function. Thus the information stored in the tail may be travelling way ahead of the peak and can possibly be used to anticipate it.
The purpose of this article is to investigate further the nature of the interferences that give rise to superluminality. It has been noted by Steinberg [@Steinberg1; @Steinberg2] that the superluminality phenomena is associated with post-selection: for instance, from a sample of particles that scatters of a barrier we examine only the subsample that tunnel through. When a pre- and post-selected system is subjected to a non-disturbing, “weak” measurement, the outcome of the measurement, known as the “weak value”, can attain values that lie outside the spectrum of eigenvalues of the measured observable[@YA:weak4]. Weak values may hence be naturally related to the superluminal phenomena, as indeed, Steinberg has already argued that the dwell time is a weak value of a projector to the tunneling domain. The appearance of unusual weak values has been associated with a unique interference structure [@aharonov], for which Berry [@berry] coined the term “[*superoscillations*]{}”. As an instructive example of a superoscillatory function $F(k)$ consider $$F(k; N, L) = \biggl[
\biggl({1-L/x_0\over2}\biggr)e^{i k x_0 /N}
+\biggl( {1+L/x_0\over2}\biggr)
e^{-i k x_0 /N}
\biggr]^N.
\label{func}$$ Here, $N>1$ is an integer, and $L$ and $x_0$ being the super and reference shifts. For small $k$ we expand $\exp(ik x_0 /N)$ and find: $$F(k; N, L) =e^{-ik L} \biggl[ 1+ {(L^{2}-x_0^2)k^2\over2N} +
O (N^{-2}) \biggr] \cong e^{-ikL }.$$ Although this function is a superposition of waves $e^{ikx}$ with $|x|\le x_0$, in the interval $|k|<<
\sqrt{N}/\sqrt{L^{2}-x_0^2}\equiv \Delta k$, $F(k)$ behaves nearly as a pure wave $e^{ikL}$ with $L$ arbitrary larger than $x_0$. In the regime $|k|<\Delta k$ the function oscillates rapidly. The number of these “superoscillations” is $\sim \sqrt N$. This remarkable feature is derived at the expense of having the function grow exponentially in other regions. In the example above, for $|k|>\Delta k$, we get $F\sim e^N$.
In this article we will suggest that at least for certain cases, the constructive interference giving rise to superluminal effects, originates from a similar structure of superoscillations. To exemplify that, we consider a toy model, (which extends on a previous proposal of Olkhovsky Recami and Salesi [@ORS:2barr]), which allows for a wave packet to traverse, in a vanishing time and negligible distortion (the transmitted wave packet is the first derivative of the incoming packet), a distance [*arbitrarily larger than the original size of the wave packet*]{}. Hence the peak is here reconstructed from the exponentially small tail of the wave function. As far as we know, in the examples discussed to date, the superluminal shift of the wave packet is restricted. It is comparable to or much smaller than the initial wave packet size. We then show that the resulting null group-delay and dwell times[^1] Finally, coming back to the role of post-selection we provide a rigorous proof for Steinberg’s claim [@Steinberg1; @Steinberg2] that the delay time is a weak value of a projector operator.
The article proceeds as follows. In section 2 we calculate the dwell time and the group delay time for tunneling through $n$ delta-function barriers. In the low energy limit, both turn out to be zero. We also derive the condition for the calculations to apply for a wave-packet. Using this condition, we see that for this system, the (negative) delay can be larger than the uncertainty associated with the length of the wave-packet. Section 3 deals with the relation between superluminality and interference effects in the tail of the wave function, and superoscillations. The applicability to the example of section 2, of the explanations of superluminality given in other cases, is discussed. Finally, in section 4 we elaborate on Steinberg’s claim that the dwell time is a weak value.
The group delay and dwell time for a particle tunneling through an $n$-delta-function potential
===============================================================================================
Olkhovsky Recami and Salesi [@ORS:2barr] showed that a Schrödinger particle tunneling through a double rectangular barrier traversed the distance between the bumps instantaneously in the limit that its kinetic energy was much smaller than the height of the barrier. Unlike previous examples of superluminal tunneling, the length of the region of superluminality consists of an arbitrarily long portion with zero potential, between the bumps. Replacing the rectangular barriers in the example discussed in [@ORS:2barr] by delta-function potentials, the calculations can be made somewhat simpler, and are easily generalized to $n$ arbitrary delta bumps (still using the approximation of low kinetic energy).
In this section we make a direct calculation of the transmission coefficient for the stationary scattering of a scalar particle obeying the Schrödinger equation, off a multiple delta-function potential. The time independent equation is the same as for the scalar relativistic wave equation, and we focus on the Schrödinger equation merely for a simple concrete interpretation.
Transmission through a multiple delta-function potential.
---------------------------------------------------------
Consider the Schrödinger equation with the following potential: $$V(x) = \Sigma \alpha_{i} \delta (x-L_{i});\ L_{0} = 0.
\label{potential}$$ The energy eigenfunctions have the form (for $x<0$ and $x>L_n$): $$\psi (x) = \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} Ae^{ikx}+Be^{-ikx} & x<0 \\
Ce^{ikx}+De^{-ikx} & x>L_{n} \end{array}
\right. \label{asympt}$$ The coefficients satisfy: $$\left( \begin{array}{c}
A \\ B \end{array} \right) =
M
\left( \begin{array}{c} C \\ D \end{array} \right),$$
$$M = \prod_{i=1}^{n} \left[ \beta_{i} \ \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & e^{-2ikL_{i}} \\ -e^{2ikL_{i}} & -1
\end{array}
\right) + I \right],\ \beta_j = \frac{m\alpha_j}{ik}
\label{tmatrix}$$
In the limit of small kinetic energy ($|\beta_{i}| \gg 1$), we can drop the $I$ matrices, as long as $n<\beta_i$. It is then straightforward to prove by induction on $n$ that:
$$M = \prod_{1}^{n} \beta_{i} \left( \begin{array}{cc}
\prod_{i=2}^{n} (1-z_{i}) & \prod_{i=2}^{n} (z_{i}^{-1}-1) \\
-\prod_{i=2}^{n} (1-z_{i}) & -\prod_{i=2}^{n} (z_{i}^{-1}-1)
\end{array}
\right) + O(1)$$
where $z_{1}=1, z_{i} = e^{2ik(L_{i}-L_{i-1})} \ (i=2..n)$
As usual, we examine the case of “stationary scattering”. To get the (amplitude) transmission coefficient for probability current flowing from the left,$t$, we put $A=1, B=r, C=t, D=0$ in eq. (\[asympt\]):
$$\psi (x) = \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} e^{ikx}+re^{-ikx} & x<0
\\ t e^{ikx} & x>L_{n} \end{array} \right. \label{eqtrans}$$
and we see that $t = M_{11}^{-1}$, so:
$$\begin{aligned}
t = M_{11}^{-1} \approx \frac {\beta_{1}^{-1} \cdots \beta_{n}^{-1}}
{\prod_{i=2}^{n}(1-z_{i})} = \beta_{1}^{-1} \cdots \beta_{n}^{-1}
\frac {\prod_{i=2}^{n} z_{i}^{-\frac{1}{2}}}
{\prod_{i=2}^{n}(z_{i}^{-\frac{1}{2}}-z_{i}^{\frac{1}{2}})}
\nonumber \\ = \frac{\prod\beta_i^{-1}}{(-2i)^{n-1}}
\frac{e^{-ikL_{n}}}{\prod_{i=2}^{n}\sin(k(L_{i}-L_{i-1}))}
\label{tforn}\end{aligned}$$
The stationary phase formula for the delay time, $\tau_g$:
$$\tau_g \equiv \hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial E} \arg (t),
\label{taug} \label{}$$
yields the value $\tau_g =
-\frac{mL}{\hbar k}=-\frac{L}{v(k)} $ for the delay, which cancels the time for a free particle, and we get an overall zero time for tunneling. Since this is true for all $k$, it should be true for an arbitrary wave packet, *as long as the stationary phase approximation holds.* The condition for that is derived in the next subsection.
The condition for superluminal tunneling of a packet
----------------------------------------------------
Restated for wave packets, our results so far can be summarized as:
$$\Psi (x,t) = \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} \int g(k)\left(e^{ikx}+r(k)e^{-ikx}\right)e^{-i\omega(k) t}dk & x<0 \\
\int (-ik)C(k)g(k)e^{ik(x-L_{n})}e^{-i\omega(k) t}dk & x>L_{n} \end{array} \right.
,$$
and $$C(k) =
\frac{\prod\beta_i^{-1}}{-ik(-2i)^{n-1}
\prod_{i=2}^{n}\sin(k(L_{i}-L_{i-1}))}$$
When $\Delta k$ is sufficiently small, the diffusion can be ignored and $C(k)$ can be considered constant (as will be shown shortly). Then we can again separate out the time dependence of the wave function and the spatial part can be written:
$$\psi (x) = \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} \phi(x) & x<0 \\
C\phi'(x-L_n) & x>L_{n} \end{array} \right.$$
where $\phi(x)$ in the two regions is related through analytic continuation.\
If where $R(x)$ is large and slowly varying in the region and $S(x)$ goes through a few cycles there, then the time of arrival distribution of the transmitted packet will be approximately that of the incoming one, shifted by $\frac{-L}{<v>}$. Note also that this is also true for a mixed state which can be decomposed into various pure states with this property.\
Let us now find the explicit condition for $C(k)$ to be approximately constant, for the case where , $\alpha_j = \alpha$, and as before, $n < |\beta|
= \frac{m\alpha}{k}$. In this case, we have
$$C(k) = \frac{\left( \frac{ik}{m\alpha}\right)^n}
{-2ik\left(2i \sin kL/n \right)^{n-1}}$$
Using the fact that $\frac{x}{\sin x} = 1 + \frac{x^2}{6} +
O(x^4)$, we get:
$$C(k) = -\frac{1}{m\alpha}\left(\frac{n-1}{2Lm\alpha}\right)^{n-1}
\left(1+ \frac{1}{6}(\frac{kL}{\sqrt{n-1}})^2 + O\left(\left(
\frac{kl}{n-1} \right)^3 \right) \right)$$
Thus, $C(k)$ will be approximately constant if the spectrum of the wave packet is limited to $k$ such that $|k| \approx
\frac{\sqrt{n-1}}{L}$. In other words, $\Delta k \approx
\frac{\sqrt{n-1}}{L}$, or $\Delta x \approx \frac{L}{\sqrt{n-1}}$. This means that the length of the barrier can be arbitrarily longer than the “length” of the tunneling packet as usually defined (standard deviation of the $x$ coordinate), the penalty paid being an exponential suppression of the amplitude. In passing notice the function $F(k)$ in eqs. (1-2) displays a similar behavior.
Calculation of the dwell time
-----------------------------
It is interesting to compare the “group delay” (which is zero in the low k limit) with the dwell time. For the sake of simplicity, we shall deal with the case . A direct calculation of the dwell time of the transmitted component can be made by calculating the transmission coefficient after adding a potential which is constant over the region between the delta spikes, and vanishing outside it. We get:
$$t \simeq \beta^{-1}\frac{e^{-ikL}}{-2i\sin k'L},$$ where $k' = \sqrt{2m(E-V_0)/\hbar} $ and $V_0$ is the value of the potential between the deltas. Clearly, $ \frac{\partial \arg
(t)}{\partial V_0} = 0 $, and the (conditional) dwell time is zero as expected.
Superluminality and its relation to interference in the tail of the wavefunction
================================================================================
The calculation of the transmission coefficient, $t$, can also be done in a way more suggestive of superoscillations. Let us explain this for the case of 2 delta functions (the $n=2$ case in (\[potential\]), “Fabry Perot interferometer”).
Suppose a quasimonochromatic wave packet with wave number $k$ arrives at the first delta spike. The transmitted component is the same as the original wave, except for an attenuation and phase which are independent of $k$. At the second delta spike, the wave splits into a (approximately unattenuated) reflected wave and a transmitted one which is apart from a $k$-independent multiplicative constant the same as the impinging wave. The reflected component is again reflected at the first delta, and arrives at the second delta with an additional phase of $2kL$, but with approximately the same amplitude as the original transmitted wave. In a like manner, one gets additional transmitted waves with additional phases of , and amplitudes which decrease very slowly. Thus we get the following formal sum for the resulting amplitude of the wave (up to a multiplicative constant):
$$\sum_n e^{ikx}(e^{ik 2L})^{n} = \frac {e^{ikx}}{1-e^{2ikL}} =
e^{ikx} \frac{e^{-ikL}}{-2i\sin kL} \label{eq:superosc}$$
which is in agreement with our previous calculation. This is an example of superoscillations since a sum of positive wave vectors rezults in a negative one (or, equivalently, a sum of positive shifts which results in a negative shift).[^2] This is true in the following sense: for $|k|<< 1/L$ the denominator of the right hand side can be considered constant. However, in such a small interval the function does not really oscillate, so it really doesn’t have a well defined frequency. To really speak about superoscillations we need to have a large number of delta-functions. The sum for the case $n>2$ factors into $n-1$ sums of the above form, in the low kinetic energy limit, since to leading order in $\beta^{-1}$, the only contributions are from waves which tunnel through each delta only once, but may be reflected any number of times between consecutive deltas. We then reproduce the results of subsection 2.2, where we had the weaker condition $k<\sqrt{n-1}/L$, allowing the function to complete many oscillations in the region. Note the similarity to the situation described by eqs. (1,2).
A different calculation of the (conditional) dwell time than that of section 2.3 assumes a “clock” which is activated by the presence of the particle in the region $[0,L]$, i.e.a degree of freedom $\tau$ with an interaction Hamiltonian , where $p_\tau$ is the canonical momentum conjugate to $\tau$. If the initial state of the clock has small enough $\Delta p_\tau$, one gets for the final phase of $\tau$ the same expression as eq. \[eq:superosc\], with $x,k$ replaced by the clock’s coordinates. This can be interpreted as the sum appropriate for a weak measurement of $\theta_{[0,L]}(x)$, as shown in the next section . Note that in this case, not only do the dwell and phase times coincide, but they are also described by the same mechanism.
The group delay in tunneling through a thick barrier follows from the fact that under the barrier, no phase accumulates, and the entire phase shift comes from the boundaries and is practically independent of the thickness. For cases where interference with a delayed wave, a few authors [@CKS93; @Stein94; @Stein95c; @Diener96] have suggested a different explanation. In Chiao and Steinberg’s words[@CS:rev]: “If destructive interference is set up between part of the wave travelling unimpeded and part which has suffered a delay $\Delta
t$ due to multiple reflections, one has $\Psi_{out}(t)=\Psi_{in}(t)-\xi\Psi(t-\Delta t)\approx
(1-\xi)\Psi_{in}(t)+\xi\Delta td\Psi_{in}(t)/dt\approx
(1-\xi)\Psi_{in}(t+\xi\Delta t/(1-\xi))$, which is already a linear extrapolation into the future. In cases where the dispersion is sufficiently flat, as in a bandgap medium, the extrapolation is in fact surprisingly better than this first-order approximation. As was suggested by Steinberg [@Stein95c] and recently discussed more rigourously by Lee and Lee [@2Lee] and Lee [@Lee96], this implies that even a simple Fabry-Perot interferometer exhibits superluminality when excited off resonance” \[presumably, $\xi << \frac{1}{\Delta t
\Psi'(t)}$ \]. We would like to explain this “better than first-order” approximation. Let us instead look at the momentum wave function. A spatial shift corresponds to a linear shift in this function. A positive spatial delay would correspond to a linear shift steeper than one, and the converse for a negative delay. In the Taylor expansion of the transmission coefficient for the momentum wave function, the zero term is insignificant, the second corresponds, as just explained, to the spatial shift, and the higher give the distortion. When many *large* and evenly distributed shifts waves interfere, their sum is for a wide range of momenta, zero, and in particular momentum independent. In other words, the momentum wave function is flat for a wide band of frequencies. This corresponds to a much better than first order approximation of the spatial wave function, as can be seem in the special case of the system of section 3 of this paper.
The dwell time as a weak value
===============================
We would like to calculate the expectation value of the time measured by a “clock” consisting of an auxiliary system which interacts weakly with our particle as long as it stays in a given region. Furthermore, we would like to restrict the calculation only to the subensemble of particles which ultimately end up on the right of the barrier. The simplest interaction is perhaps the one defined by the Hamiltonian: $$H_{\mbox{int}} = P_{\tau} X_{(0,L)}$$ Where $\tau$ is the degree of freedom of the clock and $P_\tau$ is its conjugate momentum, and $X_{(0,L)}(x)=\left\{
\begin{array}{cc} 1 & \mbox{if $0<x<L$} \\
0 & \mbox{otherwise} \end{array} \right. $. This is the effective form, for example of the potential , seen by a particle in an $S_z$ eigenstate, in the Stern-Gerlach experiment ($\tau$ being the $z$ coordinate, and $(0,L)$ the region of the magnetic field). Assuming the clock to have at large negative times the expectation value 0, a perturbation calculation shows that following the interaction with the particle and the subsequent post-selection of the particle state to be $|f\rangle$, the expectation value of $\tau$ at large positive times is given by the formula:
$$E(\tau, t \rightarrow \infty |i,f)=
\frac{\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dt \int_{0}^{L} dx
\Psi_f^*(x,t)\Psi_i(x,t)} {\int_{\infty}^{\infty} dx
\Psi_f^*(x,0)\Psi_i(x,0)} \label{eq:condexp}$$
Steinberg[@Steinberg1; @Steinberg2] has arrived at this formula under similar assumptions by a somewhat different line of reasoning. He introduced the term conditional (quantum) probability for the probability distribution of a system following post-selection, and we use the notation of conditional expectation in the formula above, in the same spirit. As noted by Steinberg, the last equation is a special case of a weak value.
This formula is valid when $\tau$ and $p_\tau$ do not appear in additional terms in the full Hamiltonian, but the generalization is straightforward. To prove the formula, let us work in the interaction picture. Denote the initial state of $\tau$ by $|\phi_\tau(t)\rangle$ (and the corresponding wave function by $\phi(\tau,t)$), and the initial (preselected) and final (post-selected) states of the tunneling particle by $|i(t)\rangle,|f(t)\rangle\ (\Psi_i(x,t),\Psi_f(x,t) )$, respectively. Using the interaction picture and expanding to first order in $P_\tau$[^3]
$$|\phi_\tau,t\rangle|i(t)\rangle= Te^{-{i\over\hbar}\int_{-\infty}^{t}
H_{I}(t')dt'} |\phi_\tau,t \rightarrow -\infty \rangle |i(t
\rightarrow -\infty)\rangle \simeq$$ $$\left(1-{i\over\hbar}\int_{-\infty}^{t} H_{I}(t')dt'\right)
|\phi_\tau,t \rightarrow -\infty \rangle |i(t \rightarrow
-\infty)\rangle$$where$$H_I(t)=Te^{{i\over\hbar}\int_{-\infty}^{t} H_0(t')}
H_{\mbox{int}}e^{-{i\over\hbar}\int_{-\infty}^{t} H_0(t')}.$$After making the post-selection of state $|f\rangle$ for the particle, the clock is left in the state given by the above expression, multiplied on the left by $ \frac{\langle f (t\rightarrow -\infty)|}{\langle
f,-\infty|i,-\infty \rangle}$. The expression we get after writing out the explicit form of $H_{int}$ is: $$\phi(\tau,t\rightarrow +\infty) \simeq
e^{-i\langle X_{(0,L)} \rangle_W P_\tau/\hbar} \phi(\tau,t
\rightarrow -\infty)$$ $$=\phi(\tau +
\langle X_{(0,L)}\rangle_W,t \rightarrow -\infty)$$ where $$\langle X_{(0,L)} \rangle_W = \frac{\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dt
\int_{0}^{L} dx \Psi_f^*(x,t)\Psi_i(x,t)} {\int_{\infty}^{\infty}
dx \Psi_f^*(x,0)\Psi_i(x,0)} \label{eq:condexp2}$$ (the integral in the denominator is evaluated at $t=0$ merely for convenience – it is of course, time invariant). The wave functions in the integral in the numerator can be taken in the Schrödinger representation. And the expectation for $\tau$ at large positive times is shifted (from its initial value of 0) by this value, as claimed. In contrast to the familiar eigenvalue spectrum of a physical operator, its weak values can take any complex values.[^4]
The research was supported in part by grant 62/01-1 of the Israel Science Foundation, established by the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, NSF grant PHY-9971005, and ONR grant N00014-00-0383.
[99]{}
R.Y. Chiao and A.M. Steinberg, 1997, Progress in Optics vol. XXXVII ,345.
A.M. Steinberg, 1995, Phys. Rev. A **52**, 32.
A.M. Steinberg, 1995, Phys. Rev. Lett. **74**, 2405.
Y. Aharonov, A. Casher, D. Albert, and L. Vaidman. Phys. Lett. A124, 199 (1987).
Aharonov , D. Albert and L. Vaidman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 1351 (1988)
and Gaussian beams. M.V. Berry, 2000, J. Phys. A. **27** L391, and [*Faster than Fourier*]{}, 1994, Fundamental Problems in Quantum Theory ed. J.A. Anandan and J. Safko.
V.S. Olkhovsky, E. Recami and G. Salesi, 2000, arXiv:quant-ph/0002022 v3. Y. Aharonov, P. G. Bergman and J.L. Lebowitz Phys. Rev. 134B, 1410-16 (1964)
Y. Aharonov, J. Anandan, S. Popescu and L. Vaidman Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 2965 (1990).
Y. Aharonov, C.K. Au and L. Vaidman, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 24, 2315 (1991)
B. Reznik and Y. Aharonov. Phys. Rev A, 52, 2538 (1995)
R.Y. Chiao, P.G. Kwiat and A.M. Steinberg, 1993, Sci. Am. **269** 52.
A.M. Steinberg, 1994, J. Phys. I (France) **4**, 1813.
A.M. Steinberg, 1995, La Recherche **281**, 46.
G. Diener, 1996, Phys. Lett. A **223**, 327.
B. Lee, and W. Lee. 1995, Superlattices and Microstructures **18**, 277.
B. Lee, 1996, in: O.S.A. Annual Meeting Abstracts, p. 185.
[^1]: We follow the terminology of [@CS:rev]. The group delay is defined as , where $t$ is the transmission coefficient for tunneling through the region. Sometimes however, the same name is used for the difference between this value and the time it would take the same packet to traverse an equal distance in free propagation (i.e. for the additional delay introduced by the barrier). Other names for it are: phase- Wigner- and stationary phase- time. In the following we refer to the forward conditional dwell time[@Steinberg1; @Steinberg2], as the dwell time.
[^2]: The sum in eq.(\[eq:superosc\]) actually diverges, the physical reason being that we have neglected the attenuation of the amplitude, in order to maintain consistency with the low kinetic energy approximation we have used so far. For the case $n=2$ it is easy to evaluate eq.(\[tmatrix\]) without resort to that approximation, and the resulting transmission amplitude is:
$$t(k) = \frac{\beta^{-2}}
{\left(1+\frac{2}{\beta}+\frac{1}{\beta^2}\right)-e^{2ikL}}$$
Similarly, the sum on the left of eq.(\[eq:superosc\]) should be replaced by the exact one: $$(1+\beta)^{-2}\sum_{j=0}^\infty
\left[\left(\frac{\beta}{1+\beta}\right)^2 e^{2ikL}\right]^j =
\frac{\beta^{-2}}
{\left(1+\frac{2}{\beta}+\frac{1}{\beta^2}\right)-e^{2ikL}}$$.
[^3]: We can satisfy the condition of small perturbation by choosing an initial clock wave function concentrated about $P_\tau$ = 0 with small enough uncertainty.
[^4]: To see this, let us develop the initial and final states of the particle in terms of the eigenfunctions of the operator to be measured, $A$: $$|i> = \sum_k \alpha_{k} |a_{k}>, |f> = \sum_k \beta_{k} |a_{k}>,
(A|a_{k}\rangle = a_k|a_{k}\rangle)$$ Then, $A_W=\frac{\langle f|A|i\rangle}{\langle f|i\rangle}=\frac{\sum
\beta^*_k \alpha_k a_k }{\sum \beta^*_k \alpha_k} $ If $A$ is nontrivial, it has more than one eigenvalue. Assume $k=1,2$ correspond to two of these, and take $\beta_1=\beta_2=
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$ Then the two equations: $A_W= \frac{\alpha_1
a_1+\alpha_2 a_2}{\alpha_1+\alpha_2}= z$, and $|\alpha_1|^2+|\alpha_2|^2=1$, are 3 real equations in 4 unknowns. They can be solved for any value of $z$, as can be verified easily.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We consider the problem of communicating quantum states by simultaneously making use of a noiseless classical channel, a noiseless quantum channel and shared entanglement. We specifically study the version of the problem in which the sender is given knowledge of the state to be communicated. In this setting, a trade-off arises between the three resources, some portions of which have been investigated previously in the contexts of the quantum-classical trade-off in data compression, remote state preparation and superdense coding of quantum states, each of which amounts to allowing just two out of these three resources. We present a formula for the triple resource trade-off that reduces its calculation to evaluating the data compression trade-off formula. In the process, we also construct protocols achieving all the optimal points. These turn out to be achievable by trade-off coding and suitable time-sharing between optimal protocols for cases involving two resources out of the three mentioned above.'
author:
- Anura Abeyesinghe
- Patrick Hayden
bibliography:
- 'triple.bib'
title: |
[Generalized remote state preparation:]{}\
Trading cbits, qubits and ebits in quantum communication
---
Introduction
============
Quantum information theory can be described as the effort to identify and quantify the basic resources required to communicate or, more generally, process information in a quantum mechanical setting. The dual goals of identifying new protocols and demonstrating their optimality have, respectively, helped to expose the surprising range of information processing tasks facilitated by quantum mechanics and highlighted the subtle ways in which physics dictates limitations on the transmission and processing of information.
Part of the appeal of the information theoretic paradigm is that it emphasizes the notions of interconvertibility and simulation. Identifying basic resources and evaluating their interconvertibility provides a general strategy for systematically charting the capabilities of quantum mechanical systems. Some early successes of this approach include Schumacher’s quantum noiseless coding theorem [@S95; @OP93], which demonstrated that a single number quantifies the compressibility of memoryless sources of quantum states, and the theory of pure state bipartite entanglement, where a single number, likewise, determines the asymptotic interconvertibility of entanglement [@BBPS96]. More recently, we have seen how to evaluate the interconvertibility of quantum memories [@K02] and even seen that the rate at which one noisy quantum channel can simulate any other (in the presence of entanglement and with certain restrictions on the input) is controlled again by a single number, the channel’s entanglement-assisted capacity [@QRST].
From the point of view of communication theory, these results identify three basic and inequivalent resources: noiseless classical channels, noiseless quantum channels and maximally entangled states. Other inequivalent resources exist, of course. One such, classically correlated bits, will prove useless for the problem we investigate. Noisy versions of the basic list of three resources identified above potentially adds many others but we don’t study them here. Those caveats aside, the three basic resources serve as formalized versions of abstract “classicality”, “quantumness” and “nonlocality”, quantifiable in units of classical bits (cbits), quantum bits (qubits) and maximally entangled qubits (ebits). While the three basic resources are inequivalent, relationships exist between them. Because cbits can be encoded in qubits and ebits can be established by sending qubits, the noiseless quantum channel is (in this narrow sense) the strongest of the three. Because it is impossible to establish entanglement using classical communication or to communicate using only entanglement, ebits and cbits are simply incomparable; neither is truly stronger than the other.
In the present work, we quantify the relationship between the three resources for a basic task in quantum information theory: communicating quantum states from a sender to a receiver (and, more generally, sharing entangled states between them). There are at least two variations on the task, depending on whether or not the sender has knowledge of the states she is required to communicate. If she is only given a copy of the quantum state and not a description, we describe the source as hidden and the encoding as oblivious (or blind). At the other extreme, if she is told which state she is required to transmit, we describe the source as visible and the encoding as non-oblivious. (Sometimes in the quantum information literature the adjective “visible” is also applied, somewhat nonsensically, to the encoding.) While the distinction makes no difference in classical information theory, quantum mechanical restrictions on the sender’s ability to measure without causing a disturbance lead to very different results for the two tasks in the quantum case. (Compare, for example, the results of Refs. [@BHJW01; @KI02] and [@HJW02].) Our emphasis here is on the visible scenario since there is generically only a trivial trade-off for the blind encoder case: using teleportation, two cbits and one ebit can be used to simulate a noiseless one-qubit channel but no other interesting trade-offs are possible.
In the visible scenario, the relationship between the three resources becomes much more varied. When no quantum channel is permitted, we recover the problem known as remote state preparation [@Lo99; @BDSSTW01], while forbidding use of the classical channel leads to superdense coding of quantum states [@BW92; @HHL03]. Likewise, if entanglement is not permitted, we recover the trade-off between classical and quantum communication solved in Ref. [@HJW02]. The present paper completely solves the problem of trading all three resources against each other, finding that optimal protocols for any combination of resources can be constructed by appropriate combinations of the protocols representing the extremes identified above. Such a clean resolution in terms of previously discovered building blocks is encouraging: it confirms yet again the simplifying power of the resource-based approach, this time yielding a manageable taxonomy of optimal protocols for the triple trade-off problem.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows. Section \[sec:defn\] defines the problem rigorously and describes previous results for the cases when one of the three resources is not used, along with some minor extensions. Section \[connections\] studies the relationship between the trade-off between qubits and cbits in quantum data compression (QCT) and the trade-off between ebits and cbits in remote state preparation (RSP). In section \[main\] these connections and the results described in section \[sec:defn\] are used to obtain optimal protocols and optimal resource trade-offs for communicating quantum states when all three resources are used simultaneously: the full “triple trade-off”.
We use the following conventions throughout the paper. If $\cE_{AB} = \{ \ph_i^{AB}, p_i \}$ is an ensemble of bipartite states then we write $\cE_A$ for the ensemble $\{ \ph_i^A, p_i \}$ of reduced states on system $A$. Sometimes we omit subscripts (or superscripts) labelling subsystems, in which case the largest subsystem on which the ensemble (or state) has been defined should be assumed: $\cE = \cE_{AB}$ and $\ph_i = \ph_i^{AB}$. We identify states with their density operators and if $\ket{\ph}$ is a pure state, we use the notation $\ph = \proj{\ph}$ for its density operator. The function $S(\rho)$ is the von Neumann entropy $S(\rho) = -\Tr \rho \log \rho$ and $S(\cE)$ the von Neumann entropy of the average state of the ensemble $\cE$. Functions like $S(A|B)_\r$ and $S(A:B|C)_\r$ are defined in the same way as their classical counterparts: $$S(A:B|C)_\r = S(\r^{AC}) + S(\r^{BC}) - S(\r^{ABC}) - S(\r^C),$$ for example. $\chi(\cE)$ is the Holevo $\chi$ quantity of $\cE$ [@H73]. Given a bipartite ensemble $\cE_{AB} = \{ \ph_i^{AB}, p_i \}$, we also make use the abbreviations $S=S(\cE_{B})$, $\bar{S} = \sum_i p_i \ph_i^B$, $\chi=\chi(\cE_{B})$ and $H=H(p_{i})$. Throughout, $\log$ and $\exp$ are taken base $2$.
Definition of the problem and previous results {#sec:defn}
==============================================
circuit.eepic
We now give a more formal definition of the task to be completed by the sender and receiver, henceforth, respectively Alice and Bob. The reader can also refer to figure \[fig:circuit\], which illustrates the definition. We consider an ensemble of bipartite quantum states $\cE = \{ \ket{\ph_i}^{AB}, p_i \}$ on a finite-dimensional Hilbert space $\cH_{AB} = \cH_A \ox \cH_B$ and the product ensembles $\cE^{\ox n} = \{ \ket{\ph_{i^n}}^{AB}, p_{i^n} \}$ on $\cH_{AB}^{\ox n}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
i^n &=& i_1 i_2 \dots i_n, \\
p_{i^n} &=& p_{i_1} p_{i_2} \dots p_{i_n} \quad \mbox{and} \\
\ket{\ph_{i^n}} &=&
\ket{\ph_{i_1}} \ox \ket{\ph_{i_2}} \ox \dots \ox \ket{\ph_{i_n}}.\end{aligned}$$ At the end of the protocol, Alice and Bob are to reproduce the states of the bipartite ensemble with high fidelity. (Regardless of whether pure states are *prepared* in Bob’s system, or entangled states are *shared* between Alice and Bob, we will always refer to the task simply as *communicating* from Alice to Bob.) We imagine that there is a noiseless classical channel from Alice to Bob capable of sending one of $d_C$ messages, a noiseless quantum channel capable of sending a $d_Q$-dimensional quantum system and a maximally entangled state $\ket{\Phi} = d_E^{-1/2} \sum_{i=1}^{d_E} \ket{i}\ket{i}$ of Schmidt rank $d_E$. A source provides Alice with $i^n$, drawn with probability $p_{i^n}$, at which point Alice applies a quantum operation $E_{i^n}$ to her half of $\ket{\Phi}$ that without loss of generality has output of the form $$\sum_{j=1}^{d_C} \r^{A B_1 B_2}_{i^n,j} \ox q(j|i^n) \proj{j}^C,$$ where $B_1$ is a $d_Q$-dimensional quantum system, $B_2$ is the quantum system supporting Bob’s half of $\ket{\Phi}$, the states $\{\ket{j}\}$ are orthonormal (*i.e.* classical) and $q(\cdot | i)$ is a probability distribution. Alice then sends register $B_1$ to Bob over her noiseless quantum channel and $C$ to Bob over the noiseless classical channel. The protocol is completed by Bob performing a quantum operation $D_j$ on registers $B_1$ and $B_2$. Write $\tilde{\ph}_{i^n}$ for the joint Alice-Bob output state averaged over different values of $j$. We say that the protocol has fidelity $1-\e$ if $$\sum_{i^n} p_{i^n} \bra{\ph_{i^n}} \tilde{\ph}_{i^n} \ket{\ph_{i^n}}
\geq 1 - \e.$$ Likewise, $(R,Q,E)$ is an achievable rate triple for the ensemble $\cE$ if for all $\d,\e > 0$ there exists $N$ such that for all $n > N$ there is a protocol for $\cE^{\ox n}$ with fidelity $1 - \e$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{n} \log d_C \leq R + \d \quad
\frac{1}{n} \log d_Q \leq Q + \d \quad
\frac{1}{n} \log d_E \leq E + \d.\end{aligned}$$
Our goal will be to identify these achievable triples. In particular, we will find a formula for the function $$E^*(R,Q) = \inf\{ E : (R,Q,E) \; \mbox{is achievable} \}.$$
We refer to rate triples of the form $(R,Q,E^{*}(R,Q))$ as optimal rate triples and the protocols that achieve them as optimal protocols. We will indicate that a rate triple $(R,Q,E)$ is optimal by writing it as $(R,Q,E)\optimal$. Throughout the paper, unless otherwise stated, all entropic quantities will be taken with respect to 4-partite states $\o$ of the following form: $$\label{eqn:omega}
\o = \sum_i p_i \proj{i}^X \ox \ph_i^{AB} \ox
\sum_{j=1}^{m+1} p(j|i) \proj{j}^C,$$ where $m$ is the number of states in $\cE_{AB}$ (if that number is finite), and $p(\cdot|\cdot)$ is a classical noisy channel. Note that for all such states $$\label{eqn:entomega}
S(X:B|C) = S(B|C)- \bar{S}, \quad \mbox{where}\;
\bar{S}=\sum_{i}p_{i}S(\ph_{i}^{B}),$$ a fact that will be useful later.
Before moving on to the general problem, we consider the special cases given by setting one of the three rates to zero.
$Q=0:$ Remote state preparation (RSP) {#sec:thmE}
-------------------------------------
This problem was studied extensively in Ref. [@BHLSW03]. It is impossible to achieve an entanglement rate of less than $\sum_i p_i \ph_i^B$, essentially because that is the amount of entanglement shared between Alice and Bob at the end of any successful protocol. The optimal cbit rate when the entanglement is minimal is just $H(p_i)$, meaning that the simple protocol consisting of Alice communicating $i^n$ to Bob and then the pair performing entanglement dilution is optimal. At the other extreme, the cbit rate is minimized (at least for irreducible sources) by a protocol achieving the rate $(\chi(\cE_B),0,S(\cE_B))$. In general, we introduce the function $$\label{eqn:defnE}
E^*(R) = \inf \{ E : (R,0,E) \;\mbox{is achievable} \}.$$ This choice, a slight abuse of notation given our earlier definition of a function $E^*$ with two arguments, is chosen for consistency with the remote state preparation paper. Note that $E^*(R) = E^*(R,0)$. We have the following theorem from Ref. [@BHLSW03]:
\[thm:RSP\] For the ensemble $\cE = \{\ket{\ph_i}^{AB},p_i\}$ of pure bipartite states and $R \geq 0$, $$\label{eqn:thmE}
E^*(R) = \min\{S(B|C) : S(X:BC) \leq R\},$$ where the entropic quantities are with respect to the state $\o$, minimization is over all $4$-partite states $\o$ of the form of Eq. (\[eqn:omega\]) with classical channels $p(j|i)$, and $m$ the number of states in $\cE$. $E^*$ is convex, continuous and strictly decreasing in the interval in which it takes positive values.
We will also use the simple fact that the inequality in Eq. (\[eqn:thmE\]) can be replaced by equality.
$E=0$: Quantum-classical trade-off (QCT)
----------------------------------------
The case where the ensemble $\cE$ consists only of product states $\ket{\ph_i}^{AB} = \ket{0}^A\ket{\ph_i}^B$ was the focus of Ref. [@HJW02]. At the extreme when $R=0$, only quantum communication is permitted so the problem of finding achievable rates is answered by the quantum noiseless coding theorem: $(0,S(\cE_B),0)$ is an *optimal point*, in the sense that none of the three rates can be reduced. Likewise, the optimal point when $Q=0$ is given by $(H(p_i),0,0)$, meaning that Alice has no better strategy than to communicate the label $i^n$ to Bob. More generally, when the ensemble is allowed to contain entangled states, the techniques of Refs. [@HJW02; @BHLSW03] are easily adapted to yield a formula for $$\label{eqn:eqnE}
Q^*(R) = \inf\{Q : (R,Q,0) \;\mbox{is achievable} \}.$$ In particular, we have the following analog of theorem \[thm:RSP\]:
\[thm:QCT\] For the ensemble $\cE = \{\ket{\ph_i}^{AB},p_i\}$ of pure bipartite states and $R \geq 0$, $$\label{eqn:thmQ}
Q^*(R) = \min\{S(B|C) : S(X:C) \leq R\},$$ where the entropic quantities are with respect to the state $\o$, minimization is over all $4$-partite states $\o$ of the form of Eq. (\[eqn:omega\]) with classical channels $p(j|i)$, and $m$ the number of states in $\cE$. $Q^*$ is convex, continuous and strictly decreasing in the interval in which it takes positive values. There exists a critical value of $R$, hereafter referred to as $H_c$ such that $R+Q^{*}(R)=S(B)$ for $R \leq H_c$ and $R+Q^*(R) > S(B)$ otherwise.
As before, the inequality in Eq. (\[eqn:thmQ\]) can be replaced by equality.
$R=0:$ Superdense coding of quantum states (SDC)
------------------------------------------------
Ref. [@HHL03] showed that it is possible to communicate arbitrary $d^2$-dimensional quantum states using $\log d + o(\log d)$ qubits, $\log d + o(\log d)$ ebits and shared random bits. For exploring the trade-off of quantum resources, we need a variation on this result that applies to ensembles of entangled states: using his coherent classical communication technique, Harrow has shown that $$\left(0,\smfrac{1}{2} \chi(\cE_B), S(\cE_B) - \smfrac{1}{2} \chi(\cE_B) \right)$$ is an achievable rate triple [@H03]. Using his construction, we can easily find the $R=0$ trade-off curve:
\[thm:sdc\] For the ensemble $\cE = \{\ket{\ph_i}^{AB},p_i\}$ of pure bipartite states and $Q \geq 0$, $$\label{eqn:thmS}
E^*(0,Q) = \left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
S(\cE_B) - Q & \quad \mbox{if}\; Q \geq \chi(\cE_B) / 2 \\
+\infty & \quad \mbox{otherwise}.
\end{array}
\right.$$
Since $(0,S,0)$ and $(0,\chi/2,S-\chi/2)$ ($S$ and $\chi$ are defined in the introduction) are both achievable rate triples, any convex combination of the two is an achievable rate triple corresponding to a time-shared protocol. Thus, if $0 \leq \l \leq 1$, $$\left(0,\l S + (1-\l) \chi / 2, (1-\l)(S - \chi / 2) \right)$$ is achievable. Suppose these points are not optimal. Then there exists $\e > 0$ such that $$\left(0,\l S + (1-\l) \chi / 2 , (1-\l)(S - \chi / 2) - \e \right)$$ is optimal. By using quantum communication to establish entanglement, however, protocols achieving this rate can be converted into protocols with the rate triple $$\begin{aligned}
\left(0,\l S + (1-\l) \chi / 2
+ (1-\l)(S - \chi / 2) - \e, 0 \right)
= (0, S- \e, 0),\end{aligned}$$ contradicting the optimality of Schumacher compression. We conclude that $E^*(0,Q) = S - Q$ when this conversion is possible, that is, when $Q \geq \chi / 2$. This condition is required by causality. (For a detailed proof, see section \[subsec:forbidden\].)
The simple argument used in the proof of theorem \[thm:sdc\] is characteristic of what will follow. Our evaluation of $E^*(R,Q)$ will be accomplished via operational reductions to the three extremal cases we have now completed, just as theorem \[thm:sdc\] was demonstrated using a reduction from the unknown $E^*(0,Q)$ curve to the known Schumacher compression point.
Later we will also have occasion to make use of the following analog of the QCT and RSP constructions. Given a state $\o$ of the form of Eq. (\[eqn:omega\]), the trade-off coding technique from Ref. [@HJW02] then gives protocols achieving all the rate triples of the form $$\label{eqn:superdensePoints}
\left(
S(X:C),\smfrac{1}{2}S(X:B|C), S(B|C) - \smfrac{1}{2}S(X:B|C)
\right).$$ Briefly, once an optimal channel $p(j|i)$ is chosen, Alice and Bob can share (typical) $j^n = j_1 \dots j_n$ at a cost of $nS(X:C)+o(n)$ bits of communication plus shared random bits using the Reverse Shannon Theorem [@BSST02]. Harrow’s protocol is then used on the induced “conditional” ensembles $$\begin{aligned}
\{ \ket{\ph_{i^n}}^{AB},q(i^n|j^n) &=& q(i_1|j_1)\dots q(i_n|j_n)\}, \quad
\mbox{where} \nonumber \\
q(i|j) &=& \left( \sum_{i'} p_{i'} p(j|i') \right)^{-1} p(j|i) p_i.\end{aligned}$$ The shared random bits are then seen to be unnecessary because we only require high fidelity on average (so that some particular value of the shared random bits can be used). Evaluation of the rates for the approach gives exactly Eq. (\[eqn:superdensePoints\]).
Given any $(R,Q^{*}(R),0)$ there is a state $\o$ of the form Eq. (\[eqn:omega\]) for which $(S(X:C),S(B|C),0) =(R,Q^{*}(R),0)$. For this state, we therefore find a new achievable rate triple: $$\label{eqn:SDC}
\left(S(X:C),\smfrac{1}{2}S(X:B|C), S(B|C) - \smfrac{1}{2}S(X:B|C)\right)= \left( R , \smfrac{1}{2}(Q^{*}(R)-\bar{S}) , \smfrac{1}{2}(Q^{*}(R)+\bar{S} ) \right),$$ where we have used Eq. (\[eqn:entomega\]) to arrive at the expression on the right hand side.
Relating optimal QCT and optimal RSP {#connections}
====================================
Any protocol for quantum-classical compression can be converted into an RSP protocol by using RSP to send the compressed qubits. One might hope that if the original QCT point was optimal that the resulting RSP point would also be optimal. For classical rates above $H_c$ this is indeed the case but otherwise it need not be. Consider, for example, the ensemble consisting of the orthonormal states $\ket{0}$ and $\ket{1}$, each occurring with probability $1/2$. In this case, $Q^*(0) = 1$ but the corresponding RSP protocol would wastefully consume $1$ cbit and $1$ ebit per signal when $1$ cbit and no entanglement are sufficient.
As an aside, while we have described a natural way to convert optimal QCT protocols into optimal RSP protocols (that works when $R \geq H_c$), there is no known way to do the opposite. An appendix to Ref. [@BHLSW03], however, demonstrates the existence of just such an operational reduction but only under the assumption that the mixed state compression conjecture is true. (See Refs. [@H00; @BCFJS01; @W02] for more details on the conjecture.)
The following two lemmas formally express the relationship between optimal QCT and optimal RSP:
\[lem:1\] When $R \geq H_c$, $E^{*}(R+Q^{*}(R)-\bar{S})= Q^{*}(R)$. Otherwise, $E^*(R+Q^*(R)-\bar{S}) = Q^*(H_c)$.
We begin by showing that $E^{*}(R+Q^{*}(R)-\bar{S})\leq Q^{*}(R)$. We know that $(S(X:BC),0,S(B|C))$ is an achievable rate triple for any $ \o $ of the form of Eq. (\[eqn:omega\]). In particular, it is achievable when $\left(S(X:C), S(B|C), 0\right) = \left(R, Q^{*}(R), 0 \right)$, in which case $$\begin{aligned}
\left( S(X:BC),0,S(B|C)\right) & = & \left(S(X:C)+S(B|C)-\bar{S},0,S(B|C)\right)\\
& = & \left(R+Q^{*}(R)-\bar{S},0,Q^{*}(R) \right).
\end{aligned}$$ This proves the claim. Note that this inequality is true regardless of whether $R$ is greater or less than $H_c$.
We now prove the opposite inequality: $E^{*}(R+Q^{*}(R)-\bar{S}) \geq Q^{*}(R)$ when $R \geq H_c$. Substituting our expressions for $E^{*}(R)$ and $Q^{*}(R)$ shows that what we need to prove is that $$\begin{aligned}
&\;& \min \{S(B|C):S(X:C)+S(B|C)=R+Q^{*}(R)\}\\
&\geq& \min\{S(B|C):S(X:C)=R\}.\end{aligned}$$ Let $ \omega $ be the state that minimizes the first expression for fixed $R$. If $S(X:C)_\o \leq R$ then we’re done so we may suppose not: $S(X:C)_\o = R+\Delta$ for some $ \Delta > 0$. By convexity and the definition of $H_c$, for any $R \geq H_c$, $$\frac{Q^{*}(R+\Delta)-Q^{*}(R)}{\Delta} > -1.$$ Rearranging this inequality yields $$(R+\Delta) + Q^{*}(R+\Delta) > R+Q^{*}(R).$$ Using the hypothesis $S(X:C)_\o = R+\D$ and the fact that the right hand side of the above inequality is $S(X:C)_\o + S(B|C)_\o$, we find that $S(B|C)_\o < Q^{*}(R+\Delta)$. But, again by hypothesis, $S(X:C)_\o=R + \D $ so we have a contradiction of the definition of $Q^{*}(R+\D)$. We conclude that $ S(X:C)_\o \leq R$.
Finally, $R+Q^*(R)-\bar{S} = \chi$ when $R < H_c$ so $E^*(R) = E^*(\chi)$ is constant. Using the first half of the lemma, we then find $E^*(\chi) = E^*(H_c+Q^*(H_c)-\bar{S}) = Q^*(H_c)$.
\[lem:2\] $Q^{*}(R-E^{*}(R)+\bar{S}) = E^{*}(R)$ when $R \geq \chi$. Otherwise $E^*(R) = +\infty$.
Let $H_c \leq R_1$ and consider $R = R_1 + Q^*(R_1) - \bar{S}$. $R$ is a strictly increasing function of $R_1$ by the definition of $H_c$, taking all values $\chi \leq R$. Substituting into lemma \[lem:1\] gives $$\begin{aligned}
Q^{*}(R-E^{*}(R)+\bar{S})
& = & Q^{*}(R_1+Q^{*}(R_1)-\bar{S}-Q^{*}(R_1)+\bar{S})\\
& = & Q^{*}(R_1)\\
& = & E^{*}(R_1+Q^{*}(R_1)-\bar{S})\\
& = & E^{*}(R).\end{aligned}$$ Also, $R < \chi$ is not achievable (by causality, see section \[subsec:forbidden\]), yielding the second half of the lemma.
The triple trade-off {#main}
====================
The following theorem is the main result of the paper: a prescription for calculating the minimal amount of entanglement required given any cbit and qubit rate.
\[mainThm\]
$$E^{*}(R,Q)\;=\; \left \{ \begin{array}{ll}
0 & \mbox{if \; $Q^*(R) < Q$} \\
Q^{*}(R)-Q & \mbox{if $\; \frac{1}{2}( Q^{*}(R)- \bar{S}) \leq Q \leq Q^{*}(R) $} \\
E^{*}(R+2Q)-Q & \mbox{if $\; \frac{1}{2} (\chi-R) \leq Q < \frac{1}{2}( Q^{*}(R)- \bar{S}) $}\\
+\infty & \mbox{if$ \; Q < \frac{1}{2} (\chi-R) $}
\end{array}
\right.$$
We discuss each of the four ranges for $Q$ separately, referring to them, in order, as the *QCT region*, the *low-entanglement region*, the *high-entanglement region* and the *forbidden region*. The names of the first and last regions should be self-explanatory. (QCT is optimal by definition in the QCT region and no amount of entanglement is sufficient in the forbidden region.) In the low-entanglement region we’ll find that optimal protocols can be found by time-sharing between QCT and SDC (the first of which does not use entanglement) while the optimal protocols for the high-entanglement region are found by time-sharing between RSP and SDC, *both* of which rely on entanglement.
While $H_c$ does not appear explicitly in our formula, it once again delineates the boundary between two qualitatively different regimes: for $R<H_c$ we have that $\smfrac{1}{2}(Q^{*}(R)-\bar{S})=\smfrac{1}{2}(\chi-R)$ so there is no high-entanglement region in this case. The region defined by $R<H_c$ and $Q\geq \smfrac{1}{2}(\chi-R)$ is entirely contained in low-entanglement region.
Before giving a proof of theorem \[mainThm\], we consider the standard example: $\cE_{AB}$ being the uniform (unitarily invariant) ensemble over qubit states on $B$. Devetak and Berger gave an explicit parametrization [@DB01] of the function identified as $Q^*(R)$ for this ensemble in Ref. [@HJW02] and the corresponding RSP curve appeared in Ref. [@BHLSW03]. We present the full trade-off surface $E^*(R,Q)$ in figure \[fig:qubit\]. (In the case of an infinite ensemble, theorems \[thm:RSP\] and \[thm:QCT\] need to be slightly modified: the $\min$ should be replaced by an $\inf$ as explained in theorem 10.1 of Ref. [@HJW02]. The only modification required to the argument of this paper is in the second half of lemma \[lem:1\], where a sequence of $\o_n$ needs to be considered instead of a fixed minimizing $\o$.)
=5.5in
We also summarize for convenience in table \[table:triples\] all the rate triples and conversions between them that we will use in the proof. We use the notation $(R,Q,E) \longrightarrow (R',Q',E')$ to indicate that if the rate triple $(R,Q,E)$ is achievable then so is the rate triple $(R',Q',E')$; *i.e.* $(R,Q,E)$ can be *converted* into $(R',Q',E')$. Similarly, if we write $(R,Q,E)\optimal \lrar (R',Q',E')$ then the conversion is possible conditional on $(R,Q,E)$ being optimal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------
Rate triple Description
\[0.5ex\] $(R,Q^{*}(R),0)$ QCT
$(R,0,E^{*}(R))$ RSP
$(R,\smfrac{1}{2}(Q^{*}(R)-\bar{S}),\smfrac{1}{2}(Q^{*}(R)+\bar{S}))$ SDC on QCT: Eq. (\[eqn:SDC\])
$(R+Q^{*}(R)-\bar{S},0,Q^{*}(R))$ for $R\geq H_c$ QCT to RSP: lemma \[lem:1\]
$(R-E^{*}(R)+\bar{S},E^{*}(R),0)$ RSP to QCT: lemma \[lem:2\]
$(R,Q,E)\longrightarrow(R+2Q,0,E+Q)$ Teleportation (of qubits)
$(R,Q,E)\longrightarrow Superdense coding (of cbits)
(0,Q+\smfrac{1}{2}R+Q,\smfrac{1}{2}R+E)$
$(R_1,Q_1,E_1) \;\&\; (R_2,Q_2,E_2)$
$\quad\quad\quad \longrightarrow \l (R_1,Q_1,E_1) Time-sharing
+ (1-\l) (R_2,Q_2,E_2)$
$(R,Q,E) \longrightarrow (R,Q+E,0)$ Sending entanglement using qubits
$(R,Q,E)\optimal \longrightarrow (R-E+Q-\bar{S},Q+E,0)$
if $R \geq \bar{S}$ and $E > Q + \bar{S}$ Lemma \[lem:4\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------
: Achievable rate triples and conversions[]{data-label="table:triples"}
The low-entanglement region: $\; \frac{1}{2}( Q^{*}(R)-\bar{S}) \leq Q \leq Q^{*}(R) $
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Define $\l=2(Q^{*}(R)-Q)/(Q^{*}(R)+\bar{S})$. By the definition of the low-entanglement region, $0 \leq \l \leq 1$. Both $(R, Q^{*}(R),0)$ and $(R, \frac{1}{2}(Q^{*}(R)-\bar{S}),\frac{1}{2}(Q^{*}(R)+\bar{S}) )$ are achievable so the convex combination $$\begin{aligned}
(R,Q,Q^{*}(R)-Q)
= \l (R,Q^{*}(R),0)\;+\;
(1-\l)\left(R,\frac{1}{2}(Q^{*}(R)-\bar{S}),\frac{1}{2}(Q^{*}(R)+\bar{S})\right)\end{aligned}$$ is achievable by time-sharing.
The proof that these points are optimal is very simple. Suppose they are not. Then there would exist an $\epsilon$ such that $ (R,Q,Q^{*}(R)-Q-\epsilon) $ were optimal. Now, using the conversion $(R,Q,E)\rightarrow (R,Q+E,0)$, it follows that $ (R,Q^{*}(R)-\epsilon,0) $ is achievable, which is a contradiction of the definition of $Q^*$.
The high-entanglement region: $\frac{1}{2} (\chi-R) \leq Q < \frac{1}{2}( Q^{*}(R)-\bar{S})$
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This region seems to require a more elaborate analysis. We first define two new variables $R_1$ and $R_2$ which are functions of $R$ and $Q$ but much easier to work with: $$\begin{aligned}
R_1 &=& R+2Q-E^{*}(R+2Q)+\bar{S} \\
R_2 &=& R-R_1+\bar{S}\;=\;E^{*}(R+2Q)-2Q.\end{aligned}$$ We collect for future use some simple facts about $R_1$ and $R_2$:
1. \[fact:0\] $R_1 \geq H_c \; :$\
The function $R' - E^*(R') + \bar{S}$ is a monotonically increasing function of $R'$. By causality, therefore, the minimum of this function over achievable $R'$ occurs when $R' = \chi$. From lemma \[lem:1\], $E^*(\chi) = Q^*(H_c) = S - H_c$, so $R' - E^*(R') + \bar{S} \geq H_c$.Since $R+2Q \geq \chi$ in the high-entanglement region, we conclude that $R_1 \geq H_c$.
2. \[fact:1\] $ Q=\frac{1}{2}(Q^{*}(R_1)-R_2) \; :$\
This follows by lemma \[lem:2\]: $ Q^{*}(R_1)\;=\; E^{*}(R+2Q)\;=\; R_2+2Q$.
3. \[fact:2\] $E^{*}(R+2Q)-Q \;=\;R_2+Q \;=\;\frac{1}{2}(Q^{*}(R_1)+R_2) \; :$\
This follows by the definition of $R_2$ and the previous fact.
4. \[fact:3\] $ R_2 \leq Q^{*}(R_1) \; :$\
By fact 1, $R_2=Q^{*}(R_1)-2Q $.
5. \[fact:4\] $Q^{*}(R_1) \geq \bar{S} \; :$\
$ Q^{*}(R_1)-\bar{S}
\;=\; S(B|C)-\bar{S}
\;=\;S(X:B|C)\geq 0$ (for optimal $\o$).
6. \[fact:5\] $R_2 \geq \bar{S}$ (for $Q \leq \frac{1}{2}( Q^{*}(R)-\bar{S})$) $\; :$\
This is equivalent to $ E^{*}(R+2Q) \geq 2Q +\bar{S} $. Since $2Q \leq Q^{*}(R)-\bar{S}$ in this region, we have by the monotonicity of $E^{*}$ and by lemma \[lem:1\] that $$\begin{aligned}
E^{*}(R+2Q) & \geq & E^{*}(R+Q^{*}(R)-\bar{S})\\
& = & Q^{*}(R)\\
& \geq & 2Q+\bar{S}.\end{aligned}$$
Equipped with these observations we can now proceed to the proof of theorem \[mainThm\] in the high-entanglement region. That is, we will prove that $ E^{*}(R,Q) = E^{*}(R+2Q)-Q$ when $\smfrac{1}{2}(\chi -R) \leq Q < \frac{1}{2}(Q^{*}(R)-\bar{S})$. Note that $$\label{eqn:highEntanglement}
\left(R,Q,E^{*}(R+2Q)-Q\right) =
\left(R_1+R_2-\bar{S}, \smfrac{1}{2}(Q^{*}(R_1)-R_2),
\smfrac{1}{2}(Q^{*}(R_1)+R_2) \right)$$ in terms of the new variables, by the definition of $R_1$ and $R_2$ as well as facts \[fact:1\] and \[fact:2\].
### Proof of achievability
$(R_1, \frac{1}{2}(Q^{*}(R_1)-\bar{S}),
\frac{1}{2}(Q^{*}(R_1)+\bar{S}) ) $ is achievable by Eq. (\[eqn:SDC\]) and $(R_1+Q^{*}(R_1)-\bar{S},0,Q^{*}(R_1)) $ is achievable by lemma \[lem:1\]. By facts \[fact:3\],\[fact:4\],and \[fact:5\], $\l = (Q^*(R_1) - R_2)/(Q^*(R_1)-\bar{S})$ is between $0$ and $1$. Therefore, the convex combination $$\begin{aligned}
&\;& \left(R_1+R_2-\bar{S}, \smfrac{1}{2}(Q^{*}(R_1)-R_2),
\smfrac{1}{2}(Q^{*}(R_1)+R_2)\right) \\
&=& \l \left(R_1, \smfrac{1}{2}(Q^{*}(R_1)-\bar{S}),
\smfrac{1}{2}(Q^{*}(R_1)+\bar{S}) \right) +
(1-\l) \left(R_1+Q^{*}(R_1)-\bar{S},0,Q^{*}(R_1)\right)\end{aligned}$$ is also achievable by time-sharing.
### Proof of optimality
We defer the proof of the following lemma, which is at the heart of our optimality proof, to the end of the section:
\[lem:4\] If $R_1, Q \geq 0$ and $R_2 > \bar{S}$, then there is a conversion $$(R_1+R_2,Q,R_2+Q)\optimal \longrightarrow (R_1+\bar{S},R_2+2Q,0).$$
(Note that when $R_2 = \bar{S}$, the conversion always exists, regardless of the optimality of the first rate triple.) Now suppose that points of the form of Eq. (\[eqn:highEntanglement\]) are not optimal. Then there exists some $\epsilon > 0 $ such that $$\label{eqn:optimal2}
\left (R_1+R_2-\bar{S}, \smfrac{1}{2}(Q^{*}(R_1)-R_2),\smfrac{1}{2}(Q^{*}(R_1)+R_2)-\epsilon \right)$$ is optimal. We handle the cases $R_2 > \bar{S} + \e$ and $R_2 \leq \bar{S} + \e$ separately.
Assume first that $R_2 > \bar{S} + \e$, then define $R_1^{\prime} = R_1-\bar{S}+\epsilon$ and $R_2^{\prime} = R_2-\epsilon$. Rewriting the triple (\[eqn:optimal2\]) in terms of $R_1^{\prime}$ and $R_2^{\prime}$, we have that $$\left(R_1^{\prime}+R_2^{\prime}, \smfrac{1}{2}(Q^{*}(R_1)-R_2), R_2^{\prime} + \smfrac{1}{2}(Q^{*}(R_1)-R_2)\right )$$ is optimal. Since $R_2^{\prime}>\bar{S}$, we can use lemma \[lem:4\] to obtain that $(R_1+\epsilon,Q^{*}(R_1)-\epsilon,0)$ is achievable. This implies that $ Q^{*}(R_1+\epsilon) \leq Q^{*}(R_1)-\epsilon $, which is a contradiction since, by fact \[fact:0\], $R_1 \geq H_c $.
If instead $R_2 \leq \bar{S}+\epsilon$, we apply the conversion $(R,Q,E) \longrightarrow (R,Q+E,0)$ obtained by using quantum communication to establish entanglement: $$\left(R_1+R_2-\bar{S}, \smfrac{1}{2}(Q^{*}(R_1)-R_2),\smfrac{1}{2}(Q^{*}(R_1)+R_2)-\epsilon \right)\optimal \longrightarrow \left(R_1+R_2-\bar{S},Q^{*}(R_1)-\epsilon,0 \right).$$ This implies that $ Q^{*}(R_1+R_2-\bar{S}) \leq Q^{*}(R_1)-\epsilon $. We also have $Q^{*}(R_1+\epsilon) \leq Q^{*}(R_1+R_2-\bar{S})$ by assumption and the monotonicity of $Q^{*}$. As before, we find that $Q^{*}(R_1+\epsilon) \leq Q^{*}(R_1)-\epsilon $, which is a contradiction.
[[**(Of lemma \[lem:4\])**]{}]{} Performing teleportation yields the conversion $$(R_1+R_2,Q,R_2+Q)\longrightarrow (R_1+R_2+2Q,0,R_2+2Q).$$ (Note that teleportation is appropriate here instead of RSP because the encoding map corresponding to the first triple will generally produce complicated entangled states between Alice and Bob, conditioned on the classical bits being communicated. Teleportation will preserve this entanglement.) It will suffice to prove that the resulting triple is optimal because an application of lemma \[lem:2\] would then show that $(R_1+\bar{S},R_2+2Q,0)$ is achievable.
Suppose then that $(R_1+R_2+2Q,0,R_2+2Q)$ is not optimal so that there exists some $ \epsilon > 0 $ such that $(R_1+R_2+2Q,0,R_2+2Q-\epsilon)$ is optimal. By lemma \[lem:2\] and then Eq. (\[eqn:SDC\]), there is a sequence of conversions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:TPoptimal}
&\;& (R_1+R_2+2Q,0,R_2+2Q-\epsilon) \optimal \\
&\longrightarrow& (R_1+\epsilon+\bar{S},R_2+2Q-\epsilon,0)\optimal
\label{eqn:step1} \\
&\longrightarrow& \left(R_1+\e+\bar{S},\smfrac{1}{2}(R_2+2Q-\e-\bar{S}),
\smfrac{1}{2}(R_2+2Q-\e+\bar{S})\right)\end{aligned}$$ We handle the cases $R_2 \geq \bar{S} + \e$ and $R_2 < \bar{S} + \e$ separately.
Assume first that $R_2 \geq \bar{S} + \epsilon $. Then if we define $\l = (R_2 - \bar{S} - \e)/(R_2 + 2Q - \e - \bar{S})$, we have $0 \leq \l \leq 1$ so the convex combination $$\begin{aligned}
&\;& (R_1 + R_2, Q, R_2 + Q - \e) \\
&=& \l (R_1+R_2+2Q,0,R_2+2Q-\e) \\
&\;& \quad + (1-\l) \left( R_1 + \e + \bar{S},
\smfrac{1}{2}(R_2+2Q-\e-\bar{S}),
\smfrac{1}{2}(R_2+2Q-\e+\bar{S})\right)\end{aligned}$$ is achievable, contradicting the optimality of $(R_1+R_2,Q,R_2+Q)$.
Now suppose that $R_2 < \bar{S} + \e$ and consider $\a = \e + \bar{S} - R_2$, which is by definition positive. Rewriting the triple (\[eqn:step1\]) in terms of $\a$, applying the SDC conversion of Eq. (\[eqn:SDC\]) and then regular superdense coding of the cbits gives $$\begin{aligned}
&\;& (R_1 + R_2 + \a, 2Q - \a + \bar{S}, 0)^* \\
&\longrightarrow& (R_1 + R_2 + \a, Q - \a/2, Q-\a/2 + \bar{S}) \\
&\longrightarrow& \left( 0, Q + \smfrac{1}{2}(R_1+R_2),Q
+ \smfrac{1}{2}(R_1+R_2)+\bar{S} \right).\end{aligned}$$ Choosing $\l = \a / (R_1 + R_2 + \a)$, we can time-share to achieve $$\begin{aligned}
&\;& (R_1+R_2,Q,Q+\bar{S}) \\
&=& \l \left( 0, Q + \smfrac{1}{2}(R_1+R_2),Q
+ \smfrac{1}{2}(R_1+R_2)+\bar{S} \right) \\
&\;& \quad + (1-\l) (R_1 + R_2 + \a, Q - \a/2, Q-\a/2 + \bar{S}),\end{aligned}$$ contradicting again the optimality of $(R_1+R_2,Q,R_2+Q)$ since $\bar{S} < R_2$ by the hypotheses of the lemma.
The forbidden region: $ Q < \frac{1}{2}(\chi-R) $ {#subsec:forbidden}
--------------------------------------------------
In keeping with the operational spirit of the other arguments in this paper, we argue that achievability in this region would lead to a violation of causality. A classical channel of dimension $d_C$ and a quantum channel of dimension $d_Q$ can be used to transmit at most $\log d_C + 2 \log d_Q$ bits of classical information by the optimality of superdense coding [@BW92; @H73]. Success in the ensemble communication task, however, results in Bob holding a high-fidelity copy of $\cE_B$. By using coding, Alice could then about communicate $\chi(\cE_B)$ classical bits to Bob per usage of the protocol [@SW97; @Holevo98b], a violation of causality (for sufficiently high fidelity and small $\d$ in the notation of section \[sec:defn\]) if $\chi(\cE_B) > R + 2Q$.
A simple entropic argument is also possible. Consider the state $$\rho = \sum_{i^{n},j} p_{i^n} \proj{i^n}^X
\ox \r_{i^n,j}^{A B_1 B_2} \ox q(j|i^n) \proj{j}^C,$$ which represents the output of Alice’s encoding operation for a given (unspecified) protocol of the form of figure \[fig:circuit\]. We can estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\smfrac{1}{n} \chi( \{ \tilde{\ph}_{i^n}^B, p_{i^n} \} )
&\leq& S(X:B_1 \, B_2 \, C ) \quad \mbox{(by monotonicity of $\chi$)} \\
&=& S(X:B_2) + S(X:C|B_2) + S(X:B_1|B_2 C) \\
&\leq& \log d_C + 2 \log d_Q,\end{aligned}$$ using the lemma \[lem:infoBound\] (see below) twice and the fact that $S(X:B_2)=0$ since $B_2$ is maximally mixed for all $i^n$. On the other hand, applying the Fannes inequality [@F73] and the fidelity condition implies that $$\smfrac{1}{n} \chi( \{ \tilde{\ph}_{i^n}^B, p_{i^n} \} )
\stackrel{\e \rar 0}{\longrightarrow} \chi,$$ giving the constraint $\chi \leq R + 2Q$.
\[lem:infoBound\] Let $\rho$ be a tripartite density operator of the form $$\rho = \sum_i p_i \proj{i}^X \ox \rho_i^{AB},$$ where the states $\{ \ket{i}^X \}$ are orthonormal and the $p_i$ are probabilities. Then $$S(X:A|B) \leq \min( \log \dim X, 2 \log \dim A ).$$
We can expand $S(X:A|B) = S(X|B) - S(X|AB)$. By subadditivity of the von Neumann entropy, the first term is less than or equal to $S(X)$, which is in turn no more than $\log \dim X$. Moreover, because $\r$ is separable across the $X/AB$ cut, $S(X|AB) \geq 0$. (This follows immediately from concavity of the entropy [@CA99; @HHH98].)
To prove the second inequality, we expand the definition of $S(X:A|B)$ differently: $$S(X:A|B)
= S(A|B)_{\r^{AB}} + \sum_i p_i S(A|B)_{\r_i^{AB}}.$$ Using subadditivity of the von Neumann entropy again, $S(A|B) \leq S(A)$ for any density operator. $S(A)$, in turn, is always less than or equal to $\log \dim A$.
Discussion
==========
The problem we posed here, communication using noiseless classical and quantum channels in addition to maximally entangled states, is the natural setting in which to unify many pre-existing results on quantum-classical compression, remote state preparation and quantum state superdense coding. While our goal was to provide a unified synthesis of these disparate results, our conclusion was ultimately that the the general problem can be understood in terms of those basic building blocks – the surface of optimal rate triples for the triple resource problem can be assembled by time-sharing appropriately between protocols designed for the special cases. Such a neat resolution confirms the simplifying power of the resource-based approach and justifies viewing trade-off coding, remote state preparation and quantum state superdense coding as fundamental primitives *instead* of special cases of a more general problem.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
---------------
We thank Debbie Leung for many helpful conversations and her patience when faced with our invasions of her office space. The authors acknowledge the support of the US National Science Foundation under grant no. EIA-0086038. PH is also supported by the Sherman Fairchild Foundation.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We begin a systematic investigation of universal norms for $p$-adic representations in higher rank Iwasawa theory. After establishing the basic properties of the module of higher rank universal norms we construct an Iwasawa-theoretic pairing that is relevant to this setting. This allows us, for example, to refine the classical Iwasawa Main Conjecture for cyclotomic fields, and also to give applications to various well-known conjectures in arithmetic concerning Iwasawa invariants and leading terms of $L$-functions.'
author:
- Dominik Bullach
- Alexandre Daoud
bibliography:
- 'literature.bib'
title: 'On Universal Norms for $\bm{p}$-adic Representations in Higher Rank Iwasawa Theory'
---
Introduction
============
The investigation of the deep connection between $L$-functions and arithmetic is at the heart of modern number theory. By now we have a number of partial results on this matter, many of which due to celebrated results obtained via the Euler system method that has been developed by Thaine, Kolyvagin, Rubin and Mazur.\
However, all of these (unconditional) results are restricted to cases where the order of vanishing of the $L$-function is at most one. Although a notion of *higher rank* Euler system was already established by Perrin-Riou more than 20 years ago, technical issues arising from the use of exterior powers hindered the theory surrounding higher rank Euler systems from being fully operational. These technical obstructions have only recently been overcome by Burns, Sakamoto and Sano in a series of articles ([@EulerSystemsSagaI], [@EulerSystemsSagaII], [@EulerSystemsSagaIII] and [@EulerSystemsSagaIV]). Key to their approach is the consistent use of *exterior biduals* instead of exterior powers, a notion that is based on the lattice introduced by Rubin in [@Rubin96 §1.2] and provides better functorial properties in many aspects.\
Since Euler systems are, by their very definition, universal norms on $\ZZ_p$-extensions, we feel that the study of *higher rank universal norms* undertaken in this article naturally fits into the chain of developments described above. As in the aforementioned works, the use of exterior biduals allows us to develop a theory that naturally extends the classical theory of universal norms to both the higher rank and equivariant settings.
#### Overview of results
To explain our results in a little more detail, we first introduce some notation. Let $L | K$ be a finite abelian extension of number fields, $p$ an odd prime and take $L_\infty = \bigcup_{n \geq 0} L_n$ to be a $\Z_p$-extension of $L$ that is abelian over $K$ and in which no finite place of $K$ splits completely. Denote by $\Lambda = \Z_p \llbracket \gal{L_\infty}{L} \rrbracket$ and $\bLambda = \Z_p \llbracket \gal{L_\infty}{K} \rrbracket$ the relevant Iwasawa algebras. For a $p$-adic representation $T$ of $K$ we shall below define natural modules $\UN^r_n (T)$ and $\NS^r (T)$ of universal norms and norm-coherent sequences, respectively, of rank $r$ and level $n$ along the $\Z_p$-extension $L_\infty |L$.\
Our first step in extending the classical theory of universal norms as established by, for example, Kuz’min [@Kuzmin] and Greither [@Greither] (see Remark \[structure-theorem-remark\] (a) for more details on the existing literature) is then the following theorem.
Fix an integer $1 \leq r \leq r_T$ where $r_T$ denotes the *basic rank* of $T$ (see \[main-hypothesis\] (2)). Then, under certain mild conditions, the natural codescent map induces an isomorphism of $\Z_p [\gal{L_n}{K}]$-modules $$\begin{aligned}
\NS^r \otimes_{\bLambda} \Z_p [\gal{L_n}{K}] \cong \UN^r_n (T).
\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, $\NS^r$ (resp. $\UN^r_n$) is a free module of rank $[L:K]\cdot {r_T \choose r}$ over $\Lambda$ (resp. $\Z_p [\gal{L_n}{L}]$).
While this result shows that non-trivial higher rank universal norms exist, its proof is inherently non-constructive. We shall, however, give an elementary construction of a large $\bLambda$-submodule $\NS^b$ of $\NS^{r_T}$ that is of arithmetic significance as the following result shows.
There exists a free rank one $\bLambda$-submodule $\NS^b$ of $\NS^{r_T}$ together with a perfect pairing of $\bLambda$-modules $$\begin{aligned}
\faktor{\NS^{r_T}}{\NS^b} \times \faktor{\bLambda}{\Fitt_{\bLambda}(H^2_{\Sigma,\Iw}(\cO_{L,S}, T))} \to \faktor{Q(\bLambda)}{\bLambda},
\end{aligned}$$ where $Q (\bLambda)$ denotes the total ring of quotients of $\bLambda$ and $H^2_{\Sigma,\Iw}(\cO_{L,S}, T))$ is a modified Iwasawa cohomology group.
This pairing combines with the cyclotomic equivariant Iwasawa Main Conjecture proven by Burns and Greither [@BurnsGreither] to give in Theorem \[IMC-refinement\] an explicit refinement of the classical cyclotomic Iwasawa main conjecture as follows (see Remark \[IMC-refinement-remark\] for more details of the precise nature of the relation to the Main Conjecture).
Let $K = \QQ$ and let $L$ be the maximal totally real subfield of the cyclotomic field $\Q (\xi_{pf})$ for an integer $f$ coprime to $p$. If $p \nmid [L:\QQ]$, then for every character $\chi$ of $\gal{L}{K}$ there is an isomorphism of $\Lambda_\chi := \ZZ_p(\im(\chi))\llbracket \Gamma \rrbracket$-modules $$\begin{aligned}
\faktor{U^{\infty,\chi}}{\Cyc^{\infty,\chi}} \cong \alpha \left ( \faktor{\Lambda_\chi}{\Fitt^0_{\Lambda_\chi}(A^{\infty,\chi})} \right),
\end{aligned}$$ where $(-)^\chi$ is the functor taking $\chi$-isotypic parts, $U^\infty := \varprojlim_n \cO_{L_n}^\times \otimes_\ZZ \ZZ_p$, $\Cyc^\infty$ is the inverse limit of the groups of $p$-completed cyclotomic units of the field $L_n$, $A^\infty$ is the inverse limit of $p$-parts of the class groups of the fields $L_n$, and $\alpha (-) = \Ext^1_{\Lambda_\chi} ( -, \Lambda_\chi)$ denotes the Iwasawa adjoint.
It is conjectured, in great generality, that $H^2_\Iw(\cO_{L,S}, T)$ should be finitely generated as a $\Z_p$-module (*c.f.* Conjecture \[mu-vanishing-conjecture\]). The above pairing allows us to give a reformulation of this conjecture in terms of the quotient $\NS^{r_T}/\NS^b$.
$H^2_\Iw(\cO_{L,S}, T)$ is finitely generated as a $\Z_p$-module if and only if the same is true of $\NS^{r_T}/\NS^b$.
Since the aforementioned conjecture is known to hold in several cases one can use this equivalence to obtain several unconditional examples of the finite generation of $\NS^{r_T}/\NS^b$ as a $\Z_p$-module. We give one such example in the setting of elliptic curves in Corollary \[mu-vanishing-example\].\
We also explore connections to Greenberg’s conjecture and equivariant leading term conjectures. For statements of these results the reader is referred to Proposition \[GreenbergCriterion\] and Theorem \[etnc-thm\], respectively.
The authors would like to extend their gratitude to David Burns and Takamichi Sano for several stimulating conversations and for their valuable comments on earlier versions of the present manuscript. They would also like to thank Andrew Graham, Martin Hofer and Daniel Macias Castillo for useful comments and discussions.
Higher rank universal norms
===========================
The set-up {#set-up-section}
----------
Fix an odd prime $p$ and let $K$ be a number field with $G_K$ its absolute Galois group. We write $S_\infty(K)$ for the set of archimedean places of $K$, and $S_p(K)$ for the set of $p$-adic places of $K$. Given a Galois extension $F| K$ we write $S_\ram(F|K)$ for the places of $K$ that ramify in $F$ and $S_\mathrm{split}(F|K)$ for the places of $K$ that split completely in $F$. If $S$ is a set of places of $K$, we denote by $S_F$ the set of places of $F$ that lie above those contained in $S$. We will however omit the explicit reference to the field in case it is clear from the context. For example, $\bigO_{F, S}$ shall denote the ring of $S_F$-integers of $F$.\
Given any commutative unital ring $R$ we write $Q(R)$ for the total quotient ring of $R$; that is to say, the localisation of $R$ at the multiplicative set of non-zero-divisors. If $M$ is an $R$-module, then we denote $M^\lor := \Hom_{R}(M, Q(R)/R)$.
For an abelian group $A$ we denote by $A_\tor$ its torsion-subgroup and by $A_\tf = \faktor{A}{A_\tor}$ its torsion-free part. If $A$ is finite, we denote by $\widehat{A} = \Hom_\Z (A, \C^\times)$ its character group, and for any $\chi \in \widehat{A}$ we let $$e_\chi = \frac{1}{|A|} \sum_{\sigma \in A} \chi (\sigma) \sigma^{-1} \quad \in \C [A]$$ be the usual primitive orthogonal idempotent associated to $\chi$.\
Let $\mathcal{Q}$ be a finite extension of $\Q_p$ with ring of integers $\mathcal{R}$. We also establish the following objects and notations:
- $L | K$ a finite abelian extension of number fields with Galois group $\cG$ in which every archimedean place splits completely,
- $L_\infty | L$ a $\Z_p$-extension in which no non-archimedean place splits and such that the extension $L_\infty | K$ is Galois and has Galois group $\Gamma \times \cG$, where $\Gamma = \gal{L_\infty}{L} \cong \Z_p$,
- $\Gamma^n = \gal{L_\infty}{L_n}$ the unique subgroup of $\Gamma$ of index $p^n$, and $\Gamma_n = \faktor{\Gamma}{\Gamma^n}$,
- $\cG_n = \gal{L_n}{K}$,
- $\Lambda = \mathcal{R} \llbracket \Gamma \rrbracket = \varprojlim_n \cR [\Gamma_n]$ the Iwasawa algebra and $\bLambda = \mathcal{R} \llbracket \gal{L_\infty}{K} \rrbracket = \varprojlim_n \cR [\cG_n]$ its equivariant counterpart. Due to our assumptions, we have a decomposition $\bLambda = \Lambda [\cG]$.
We now fix a $p$-adic representation $T$ with coefficients in $\cR$. That is to say, a free $\cR$-module endowed with a continuous $G_K$-action that we regard as a sheaf on the étale site of $\Spec K$. Assume that the set $S_{\ram}(T)$ of places of $K$ at which $T$ has bad reduction is finite. We then fix a finite set $S$ of places of $K$ containing $$\begin{aligned}
S_\infty(K) \cup S_p(K) \cup S_\ram(T).\end{aligned}$$ We write $S_n = S \cup S_\ram(L_n | K)$ and note that these sets stabilise for large enough $n$. Let $T^\ast (1) := \Hom_\cR (T, \cR(1))$, where $\cR (1) = \cR \otimes_{\Z_p} \Z_p (1)$.
Given a $\bLambda$-module $M$ we write $M^\#$ for the $\bLambda$-module which has the same underlying $\Lambda$-module structure as $M$ but with the $\cG$-action twisted by the involution $g \mapsto g^{-1}$ for $g \in \cG$. Similarly, if $\gamma$ is a topological generator of $\Gamma$, then we write $M^\circ$ for the $\bLambda$-module which has the same underlying $\cR[\cG]$-module structure as $M$ but with the $\Gamma$-action twisted by the involution $\gamma \mapsto \gamma^{-1}$.
#### $\Sigma$-modified étale cohomology
In this article it is necessary to slightly modify the usual compactly supported étale cohomology complex of the representation $T$ in order to ensure that the cohomology in the lowest degree is $\cR$-torsion free. This should, however, be regarded as a convenient technical device rather than an integral feature of the theory since in many interesting cases it can actually be disregarded (see the Examples \[RepExamples\]). We first briefly recall the definitions of the relevant complexes from [@EulerSystemsSagaI §2.3].\
Let $\Sigma$ be a finite set of places of $K$ that is disjoint from $S_n$ for all $n \in \N_0$. For any place $w \in \Sigma_{L_n}$ denote by $\kappa_w$ the residue field of $\bigO_{L_n, S}$ at $w$. Then we define the *$\bm{\Sigma}$-modified étale cohomology complex* of $T$ to be $$\text{R} \Gamma_\Sigma (\bigO_{L_n, S}, T) := \cone \Big \{ \text{R} \Gamma_{\et} ( \bigO_{L_n, S}, T) \to \bigoplus_{w \in \Sigma_{L_n}} \text{R} \Gamma_{\et} ( \kappa_w, T) \Big \} [-1]$$ and set $H^i_\Sigma (\bigO_{L_n, S}, T) := H^i (\text{R} \Gamma_\Sigma (\bigO_{L_n, S}, T))$ for all $i \in \Z$. We shall fix such a choice of $\Sigma$ for the remainder of this article. For any $i \in \Z$, the *$\bm{\Sigma}$-modified Iwasawa cohomology* of $T$ with respect to the $\Z_p$-extension $L_\infty$ is defined as $$H^i_{\Sigma, \text{Iw}} (\bigO_{L, S}, \; T) = \varprojlim_{n \in \N} H^i_\Sigma(\cO_{L_n, S}, T),$$ and this limit can be naturally endowed with the structure of a $\bLambda$-module.\
Throughout this article we suppose, unless explcitly stated otherwise, that the tuple $(T,L_\infty, \Sigma)$ satisfies the following mild hypotheses:
\[main-hypothesis\]
1. [For every $n \in \NN$ one has that the module of invariants $H^0_\Sigma(L_n, T)$ vanishes.]{}
2. [The $\cR$-free module $Y_K(T) = \bigoplus_{v \in S_\infty(K)} H^0(K_v,T^*(1))$ has non-zero rank $r_T$ (which we may often refer to as the *basic rank* of the tuple $(T, L_\infty, \Sigma)$).]{}
3. [$H^1_\Sigma(\cO_{L_n, S}, T)$ is $\cR$-torsion-free for every $n \in \N_0$]{}.
4. [$H^2_{\Sigma,\Iw}(\cO_{L,S},T)$ is a torsion $\Lambda$-module.]{}
\[HypothesesRemark\]
[ It is shown in [@daoud Lem. B.6], for example, that Hypothesis \[main-hypothesis\](3) is satisfied for any singleton $\Sigma = \{ v \}$ consisting of a place $v \not \in S$ that satisfies $H^0(K_v,T) = 0$. ]{}
[Hypothesis \[main-hypothesis\](4) is (the $\Sigma$-modified version of) the weak Leopoldt conjecture for $p$-adic representations due to Perrin-Riou [@PR95 §1.3]. In fact, in Lemma \[mu-vanishing-independent-lemma\] below we show that, under additional mild conditions on the tuple $(T,L_\infty, \Sigma)$, this hypothesis is independent of the choice of $\Sigma$ and is thus equivalent to requiring that $H^2 ( \gal{L^S}{L_\infty}, T \otimes_{\cR} \faktor{\cQ}{\cR} (1)) = 0$, where $L^S$ is the maximal Galois extension of $L$ unramified outside $S$ (see, for example, [@PR95 Prop. 1.3.2])). The conjecture is known in many cases naturally arising in arithmetic (see [@PR95 Appendix B]]{}) and we shall recall some of these examples below.
\[RepExamples\]
Let $\cR = \ZZ_p$ and $T = \ZZ_p(1)$, then $T$ always satisfies the hypotheses \[main-hypothesis\] (1) and (2). Moreover, for each $n \geq 1$, Kummer theory gives a canonical identification $$\begin{aligned}
H^1_\Sigma(\cO_{L_n, S}, T) = \Z_p \otimes_\Z \ker \Big \{
\bigO_{L_n, S }^\times \to \bigoplus_{w \in \Sigma_{L_n}} \Big ( \faktor{\bigO_{L_n, S}}{ w} \Big)^\times
\Big \}.
\end{aligned}$$ The group on the right is the $p$-completion of the $(S , \Sigma)$-unit group $\bigO_{L, S, \Sigma}^\times$ and plays an important role in the context of the Stark conjectures. In particular, if $L$ and $K$ are both totally real, then we may take $\Sigma = \varnothing$.\
The validity of the weak Leopoldt conjecture in this setting is known if $L_\infty | L$ is the cyclotomic $\Z_p$-extension (by a result of Iwasawa [@Iwasawa73], see [@PR95 §1.3, Rem. ii)]).
If $T = \text{T}_p E = H^1_\et ( E_{\overline{\Q}}, \Z_p)^\ast$ is the Tate module of an elliptic curve $E$ defined over $K$, then \[main-hypothesis\] (1) holds , and \[main-hypothesis\] (2) holds because $\text{T}_p E$ is an odd representation (due to the Weil pairing). If $E ( L_n)$ is $p$-torsion free for all $n \in \N_0$, then we may take $\Sigma = \emptyset$.
Since every elliptic curve defined over $\Q$ is modular, the validity of the weak Leopoldt conjecture \[main-hypothesis\](4) for $K = \Q$ follows from [@kato Thm. 12.4(i)].
Let $f$ be a normalised cuspidal newform of weight $k \geq 2$ and level $N \geq 5$, and take $\cR$ to be a finite extension of $\Z_p$ that contains the Fourier coefficients of $f$ (using some fixed embedding $\overline{\Q_p} \hookrightarrow \C$). Then one can attach a rational $p$-adic representation $V_f$ of $G_\Q$ to $f$, that is to say a finite dimensional $\mathcal{Q}$-vector space with a continuous $G_\Q$-action, see for example [@Deligne]. Let $T_f \subseteq V_f$ be a Galois-stable lattice. Since the complex absolute values of the eigenvalues of $\Frob_\q$ for $\q \nmid p N$ are $p^{(k - 1) / 2}$, the representation $T_f$ satisfies hypothesis \[main-hypothesis\] (1). Moreover, the representation $T_f$ is odd, so we have $H^0 (\R, V_f^\ast (1)) \neq 0$ and $T_f$ also satisfies hypothesis \[main-hypothesis\] (2). Finally, $T_f$ satisifies hypothesis \[main-hypothesis\] for $K = \Q$ by [@kato Thm. 12.4(i)].
Given these definitions, we have the *$\bm{\Sigma}$-modified compactly supported étale cohomology complex* $$\text{R}\Gamma_{c, \Sigma} ( \bigO_{L_n, S}, T) =
\text{R}\Hom_\cR ( \text{R} \Gamma_\Sigma ( \bigO_{L_n, S}, T^\ast (1)), \cR) [-3] \oplus \Big ( \bigoplus_{w \in S_\infty (L_n)} H^0 ( (L_{n})_w, T) \Big ) [-1]$$ as well as the complex $$\begin{aligned}
C_n^\bullet := \text{R}\Hom_\cR(\text{R}\Gamma_{c,\Sigma}(\cO_{L_n, S(L_n)}, T^*(1)), \cR)[-2].\end{aligned}$$ Below we record the properties of these constructions that are needed in this article.
\[FiniteComplex\]
[$C^\bullet_n$ is acyclic outside degrees zero and one, and is perfect as an element of the derived category $D(\cR [\cG_n])$.]{}
[There is a canonical isomorphism $$\begin{aligned}
H^0(C^\bullet_n) \cong H^1_{\Sigma}(\cO_{L_n, S}, T)
\end{aligned}$$ and a split short exact sequence $$\label{yoneda-extension-sequence-H2-finite}
\begin{tikzcd}
0 \arrow{r} & H^2_\Sigma ( \bigO_{L_n, S}, T) \arrow{r} & H^1 (C^\bullet_n) \arrow{r} & Y_K (T)^\ast \otimes_\cR \cR [\cG_n] \arrow{r} & 0
\end{tikzcd}$$ in which the first map is canonical and the second depends on the choice of a set of representatives of the orbits of $\gal{L_n}{K}$ on $S_\infty(K)$. ]{}
Next we introduce the Iwasawa-theoretic variants of the above constructions.\
If we denote by $C^\bullet_\infty$ the complex of $\bLambda$-modules $\varprojlim_n C^\bullet_n$ (where the limit is taken with respect to the natural codescent morphisms), then we have the following analogue of Proposition \[FiniteComplex\].
[$C^\bullet_\infty$ is acyclic outside degrees zero and one, and is perfect as an element of the derived category $D(\bLambda)$.]{}
[There is a canonical isomorphism $$\begin{aligned}
H^0(C^\bullet_\infty) \cong H^1_{\Sigma, \Iw}(\cO_{L,S}, T)
\end{aligned}$$ and a split short exact sequence $$\label{yoneda-extension-sequence-H2}
\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=small]
0 \arrow{r} & H^2_{\Sigma,\Iw}(\cO_{L, S}, T) \arrow{r} & H^1(C^\bullet_\infty) \arrow{r} & \varprojlim_n (Y_K(T)^* \otimes_\cR \cR[\cG_n]) \arrow{r} & 0,
\end{tikzcd}$$ where the injection is canonical and the surjection depends on a choice of a set of representatives of the orbits of $\gal{L_\infty}{K}$ on $S_\infty(K)$. ]{}
Let $\mathcal{P}$ be the abelian category of complexes of profinite $\bLambda$-modules. Then the inverse limit functor from the category of inverse systems pro-$\mathcal{P}$ to $\mathcal{P}$ is exact since each object of $\mathcal{P}$ is a complex of compact Hausdorff spaces. In particular, this functor commutes with passage to cohomology. Now, the inverse system given by the $C_n$ with their natural transition morphisms is an object of the category pro-$\mathcal{P}$. As such, the first claim of (a) and both claims of (b) follow immediately from Proposition \[FiniteComplex\]. The fact that $C_\infty^\bullet$ is a perfect complex is proven in [@fukaya-kato Lem. 1.6.5(ii)].
\[standard-representative-lemma\] There exists a quadratic standard representative $[\Pi \xrightarrow{\psi} \Pi]$ (in the sense of [@EulerSystemsSagaI Def. A.6]) of the complex $C_\infty^\bullet$ with respect to the surjection $H^1(C_\infty^\bullet) \xrightarrow{f} Y_K(T)^* \otimes_\cR \bLambda$.
By definition we are required to exhibit a representative $[\Pi \xrightarrow{\psi} \Pi]$ of $C_\infty^\bullet$ in $D(\bLambda)$ with the property that for the free module $\Pi$ there exists a basis $\{b_1,\dots, b_d\}$ of $\Pi$ and an exact sequence $$\begin{aligned}
\langle b_{r_T+1}, \dots, b_d\rangle_{\bLambda} \to H^1(C) \xrightarrow{f} Y_K(T)^* \otimes_\cR \Lambda \to 0
\end{aligned}$$ where the first map is induced by the natural map $\Pi \to H^1(C_\infty^\bullet)$. This is proved in [@BuSaNC Lem. 7.10] (where the complex $C_\infty^\bullet$ is denoted $C_{L_\infty, S(L_0)}(T)$ in *loc. cit.*).
Fix a representative $[\Pi \xrightarrow{\psi} \Pi]$ of $C_\infty^\bullet$ where $\Pi$ is a free $\bLambda$-module of rank $d$. Then for any given $n \in \NN_0$, the complex $C_n^\bullet$ is represented by $[\Pi_n \xrightarrow{\psi_n} \Pi_n]$ where we write $\Pi_n := \Pi \otimes_{\bLambda} \cR[\cG_n]$ and similarly for $\psi_n$. In particular, we have short exact sequences $$\begin{aligned}
\label{yoneda-extension-sequence}
& \begin{tikzcd}[ampersand replacement=\&]
0 \arrow{r} \& H^1_\Sigma(\cO_{L_n, S}, T) \arrow{r}{\phi_n} \& \Pi_n \arrow{r}{\psi_n} \& \Pi_n.
\end{tikzcd} \\
\label{yoneda-extension-sequence-Iwasawa}
& \begin{tikzcd}[ampersand replacement=\&]
0 \arrow{r} \& H^1_{\Sigma, \; \Iw}(\cO_{L, S}, T) \arrow{r}{\phi} \& \Pi \arrow{r}{\psi} \& \Pi.
\end{tikzcd}\end{aligned}$$
The structure of universal norms in higher rank
-----------------------------------------------
In this section we prove a number of basic results about higher rank universal norms. In doing so, we will heavily rely on the notion of *exterior biduals*. The theory of these objects is reviewed in Appendix \[AppendixBiduals\], and we shall use these results freely throughout this article.
#### Definition of universal norms
Given integers $m \geq n \geq 1$ we have the corestriction maps $$\begin{aligned}
\cores_{m,n} \: H^1_\Sigma(\cO_{L_m, S}, T) \to H^1_\Sigma(\cO_{L_n, S}, T).\end{aligned}$$ If $r \geq 0$, then these maps induce natural maps on the exterior biduals $$\begin{aligned}
\cores_{m,n}^r \: \bidual_{\cR[\cG_m]}^r H^1_\Sigma(\cO_{L_m, S}, T) \to \bidual_{\cR[\cG_n]}^r H^1_\Sigma(\cO_{L_n, S}, T).\end{aligned}$$
\[UN-definition\] Fix integers $r \in \N$ and $n \in \NN_0$.
We define the module of *universal norms* of rank $r$ and level $n$ for $T$ to be $$\begin{aligned}
\UN^r_n = \UN^r_n(T,L_\infty) := \bigcap_{m \geq n} \im(\cores_{m,n}^r)
\end{aligned}$$ We remark that $\UN^r_n(T,L_\infty)$ can be naturally regarded as an $\cR[\cG_n]$-module.
We define the module of *norm-coherent sequences* of rank $r$ for $T$ to be $$\begin{aligned}
\NS^r = \NS^r(T,L_\infty) := \varprojlim_{n \in \NN} \bidual_{\cR[\cG_n]}^r H^1_\Sigma(\cO_{L_n, S}, T)
= \bidual^r_\bLambda H^1_{\Sigma, \text{Iw}} ( \cO_{L, S}, T)
\end{aligned}$$ where the inverse limit is taken with respect to the maps $\cores_{m,n}^r$ and we have used Lemma \[BidualsLimits\] for the last identification. We remark that $\NS^r(T,L_\infty)$ can be naturally regarded as a $\bLambda$-module.
#### The descent isomorphism
The following is one of the main results of this article.
\[UN-structure-theorem\] Fix an integer $1 \leq r \leq r_T$.
The module $\bidual^r_\bLambda H^1_{\Sigma, \text{Iw}} ( \cO_{L, S}, T)$ is $\Lambda$-free of rank $[L : K] \cdot \binom{r_T}{r}$.
[The natural map $$\begin{aligned}
\NS^r \to \bidual_{\cR[\cG_n]}^r H^1_\Sigma(\cO_{L_n, S}, T)
\end{aligned}$$ induces an isomorphism of $\cR[\cG_n]$-modules $$\begin{aligned}
\NS^r \otimes_{\bLambda} \cR[\cG_n] \cong \UN_n^r.
\end{aligned}$$ In particular, $\UN_n^{r}$ is a free $\cR[\Gamma_n]$-module of rank $[L:K]\cdot{r_T \choose r}$. ]{}
There is a natural identification $$\UN^r_n = \bidual^r_{\cR [\cG_n]} \UN^1_n.$$
\[structure-theorem-remark\]
In the case of $r_T = 1$, universal norms have previously been studied by many authors: The first to obtain a result similar to Theorem \[UN-structure-theorem\] (for $T = \Z_p (1)$) was Kuz’min [@Kuzmin], later Greither [@Greither] also gave a proof in the abstract setting of a system of Galois modules satisfying certain natural axioms. The article [@kato2006universal] considers the non-commutative case but also gives an overview of the classical theory that is similar in spirit to our treatment. In the setting of elliptic curves a similar result is due to Mazur and Rubin [@MazurRubin03 Theorem 4.2].
Suppose $p \nmid [L:K]$. Then it is well-known that any $\bLambda$-module that is $\Lambda$-projective is necessarily $\bLambda$-projective (see, for example, [@NSW Lem. 5.4.16]). Since $\bLambda$ is a semi-local ring in this case, and $\NS^{r}$ has constant local rank ${r_T \choose r}$ by the calculation of the proof below, it follows that $\NS^{r}$ is necessarily $\bLambda$-free of rank ${r_T \choose r}$. An analogous statement for universal norms now also follows by codescent.
*Proof of Theorem \[UN-structure-theorem\]:* Consider the complex $D^\bullet$ represented by
\^r\_ & \_\^[r - 1]{}\_.
By virtue of Lemma \[LittleLemma\] (a) we have that $H^0 ( D^\bullet) = \bidual_{\bLambda}^{r} H^1_{\Sigma, \Iw}(\cO_{L, S}, T)$. In particular, $\left ( \bidual_{\bLambda}^{r} H^1_{ \Sigma, \Iw}(\cO_{L, S}, T) \right)^\Gamma = 0$ since $\exprod^r_\bLambda \Pi$ is $\Lambda$-free.\
Moreover, the complex $D^\bullet$ is clearly perfect and the complex $D_n^\bullet = D^\bullet \otimes_\bLambda^\mathbb{L} \cR [\cG_n]$ is represented by
\^r\_ \_n & \_n \_ \^[r - 1]{}\_ \_n
which has $H^0 ( D^\bullet_n) = \bidual_{\cR[\cG_n]}^{r} H^1_\Sigma(\cO_{L_n, S}, T)$ as its cohomology in its lowest degree.
Now fix a topological generator $\gamma_n$ of $\Gamma^n$. Then the decomposition $\bLambda = \Lambda[\cG]$ implies that there is an exact sequence
0 & & & 0 .
From this it follows that for any $\bLambda$-module $M$ and $i \geq 2$, the module $\Tor_i^\bLambda(\cR[\cG_n], M)$ vanishes. Since the complex $D^\bullet$ is acyclic outside degrees zero and one, we then deduce that the spectral sequence $$\label{spectral-sequence}
E^{i , j}_2 = \Tor_{ - i}^\bLambda ( \cR [\cG_n], \; H^j (D^\bullet)) \; \Rightarrow \; E^{i + j} = H^{i + j} ( D^\bullet \otimes_{\bLambda}^\mathbb{L} \cR [\cG_n] )$$ degenerates on its second page into a collection of short exact sequences. In particular, there is an injection $$\label{bidual-injection}
\left ( \bidual_{\bLambda}^{r} H^1_{\Sigma, \Iw}(\cO_{L, S}, T) \right) \otimes_\bLambda \cR [\cG_n] \hookrightarrow \bidual^r_{\cR [\cG_n]} H^1_\Sigma (\bigO_{L_n, S}, T)$$ from which one sees that the coinvariants module $\left ( \bidual_{\bLambda}^{r} H^1_{\Sigma, \Iw}(\cO_{L, S}, T) \right)_\Gamma$ is $\cR$-free. This implies that $\bidual_{\bLambda}^{r} H^1_{\Sigma, \Iw}(\cO_{L, S}, T)$ is $\Lambda$-free (see, for example, [@NSW Proposition 5.3.19]).
To prove Part (a) of Theorem \[UN-structure-theorem\] it now remains to demonstrate that the $\Lambda$-rank of $\NS^{r}$ is $[L:K]\cdot{r_T \choose r}$. Since $Q(\bLambda)$ is semi-simple, an analysis of the exact sequence (\[yoneda-extension-sequence-H2\]) implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\rank_{Q(\bLambda)}(Q(\bLambda) \otimes_{\bLambda} H^1(C^\bullet_\infty)) & =
\rank_{Q(\bLambda)}(Q(\bLambda) \otimes_{\bLambda} H^1_{ \Sigma, \Iw}(\cO_{L, S}, T)) \\
& \phantom{=} + \rank_{Q(\bLambda)}(Q(\bLambda) \otimes_{\bLambda} \varprojlim_{n \in \N} (Y_K(T) \otimes_\cR \cR[\cG_n])).\end{aligned}$$ By the assumed validity of the weak Leopoldt conjecture, one has an equality of ranks $$\begin{aligned}
\rank_{Q(\bLambda)}(Q(\bLambda) \otimes_{\bLambda} H^1_{\Iw, \Sigma}(\cO_{L, S(L)}, T)) &= \rank_{Q(\bLambda)}(Q(\bLambda) \otimes_{\bLambda} \varprojlim_n (Y_K(T) \otimes_\cR \cR[\cG_n])) = r_T.\end{aligned}$$ We may thus calculate $$\begin{aligned}
\rank_{Q(\Lambda)}(Q(\Lambda) \otimes_\Lambda \NS^{r}) &= [L:K]\cdot \rank_{Q(\bLambda)}(Q(\bLambda) \otimes_{\bLambda} \NS^{r})\\
&= [L:K] \cdot \rank_{Q(\bLambda)}\left(Q(\bLambda) \otimes_{\bLambda} \bidual_{\bLambda}^{r} H^1_{\Sigma, \Iw}(\cO_{L, S}, T)\right)\\
&= [L:K]\cdot \rank_{Q(\bLambda)}\left(\exprod_{Q(\bLambda)}^{r} Q(\bLambda) \otimes_{\bLambda} H^1_{\Sigma, \Iw}(\cO_{L, S}, T)\right)\\
&= [L:K]\cdot {r_T \choose r}.\end{aligned}$$
Before we proceed with the proof of Part (2) we first require the following Lemma which is presumably well-known but for which we include the proof for lack of a better reference.
\[compactness-argument\] Let $M = (M_n, \phi_{m,n})$ be an inverse system in the category of compact Hausdorff spaces with limit $M_\infty$. Fix $n \in \NN_0$ and write $$\begin{aligned}
\UN_n(M) := \bigcap_{m \geq n} \im(\phi_{m,n}).
\end{aligned}$$ Then the natural map $M_\infty \to M_n$ has image $\UN_n(M)$.
Without loss of generality (and for notational simplicity) we prove the statement for $n = 0$.\
Suppose to be given an element $u \in \UN_0(M)$. We shall inductively construct an element $m \in M_\infty$ with the property that $m_0 = u$. Suppose that for some $s \geq 1$ we have constructed a coherent tuple $(m_i)_{0 \leq i \leq s}$ such that $m_0 = u$ and each $m_0 \in \UN_i(M)$. For $j \geq s$ define the sets $$\begin{aligned}
X_s = \phi_{s+1,s}^{-1}(m_s), \quad Y_{j,s} = \im(\phi_{j,s+1})
\end{aligned}$$ Then both $X_s$ and $Y_{j,s}$ are closed. Indeed, the former is so by the fact that $\phi_{s+1,s}$ is continuous and the latter from the fact that $Y_{j,s}$ is a compact subspace of a Hausdorff space.\
It then follows that the intersection $X_s \cap Y_{j,s}$ is also closed and, by hypothesis, non-empty. In particular, the descending filtration $(X_s \cap Y_{j,s})_{j > s}$ satisfies the finite intersection property. Since $M_{s+1}$ is compact we then have that the intersection $\bigcap_{j > s} X_s \cap Y_{j,s}$ is non-empty. We can therefore take $m_{s+1}$ to be any element of this intersection. Continuing in this fashion we may inductively construct an element $m = (m_i)$ of $M_\infty$ with the desired property.
Returning now to the proof of Theorem \[UN-structure-theorem\] (b), we note that the augmentation ideal in $\bLambda$ relative to $\cG_n$ applied to $\NS^r$ is contained in the kernel of the natural map $$\begin{aligned}
\NS^r \to \bidual_{\cR[\cG_n]}^r H^1_\Sigma(\cO_{L_n, S}, T)\end{aligned}$$ Given this, we may apply the above Lemma \[compactness-argument\] to conclude that for all $r \in \NN$ and $n \in \N_0$ the induced map $$\begin{aligned}
\NS^{r} \otimes_\bLambda \cR[\cG_n] \longrightarrow \bidual_{\cR[\cG_n]}^{r} H^1_\Sigma(\cO_{L_n, S}, T).\end{aligned}$$ has image $\UN_{n}^{r}$. On the other hand, the map of (\[bidual-injection\]) clearly factors through this homomorphism and so it is in fact an isomorphism. This establishes part (b) of the Theorem.
Finally, for part (c) we first note that by applying Lemma \[RyotarosLemma1\] to the inclusion $\UN_n^1 \subseteq H^1_\Sigma(\cO_{L_n,S},T)$ one obtains a natural injection $$\bidual^r_{\cR [\cG_n]} \UN^1_n \hookrightarrow \bidual^r_{\cR [\cG_n]} H^1_\Sigma (\bigO_{L_n, S}, T).$$ Moreover, it is clear from the definitions that this map has image inside $\UN^r_n$. By Lemma \[BaseChangeLem\], the codescent map $$\left ( \bidual^r_\bLambda H^1_{\Sigma, \Iw}(\cO_{L, S}, T) \right ) \otimes_\bLambda \cR [\cG_n] \to \bidual^r_{\cR [\cG_n]} H^1_\Sigma (\bigO_{L_n, S}, T)$$ has image inside $\bidual^r_{\cR [\cG_n]} \UN^1_n$. This combines with part (b) to imply that $\bidual^r_{\cR [\cG_n]} \UN^1_n = \UN^r_n$.
An Iwasawa-theoretic pairing
----------------------------
#### Basic Norms
At the outset of this section we define the following projection map: $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta \: \Det_{\bLambda}(C^\bullet_\infty) &\hookrightarrow Q(\bLambda) \otimes_{\bLambda} \Det_{\bLambda}(C^ \bullet_\infty)\\
&\xrightarrow{\simeq} \Det_{Q(\bLambda)}(Q(\bLambda) \otimes_{\bLambda} C^\bullet_\infty)\\
&\xrightarrow{\simeq} Q(\bLambda) \otimes_{\bLambda} \bigg(\exprod_{\bLambda}^{r_T} H^1_{\Sigma, \Iw}(\cO_{L,S}, T) \otimes_{\bLambda} \Big(\exprod_{\bLambda}^{r_T} \varprojlim_n (Y_K(T)^* \otimes_\cR \cR[\cG_n])\Big)^*\bigg)\\
&\xrightarrow{\simeq} Q(\bLambda) \otimes_{\bLambda} \exprod_{\bLambda}^{r_T} H^1_{\Sigma, \Iw}(\cO_{L,S}, T),\end{aligned}$$ where the second arrow follows from the base-change property of determinant functors, the third follows by passing to cohomology and noting that the weak Leopoldt conjecture is assumed to hold, and the final arrow follows from collapsing the exterior power with respect to a fixed $\bLambda$-basis of the inverse limit.
We now have the following Lemma which will prove useful in the sequel.
\[projection-map-lemma-1\] The image of $\Theta$ is contained in $\NS^{r_T}$.
Recall that in Lemma \[standard-representative-lemma\] we have chosen a quadratic standard representative $[\Pi \stackrel{\psi}{\longrightarrow} \Pi]$ of the complex $C^\bullet_\infty$ and thereby also fixed a basis $\{ b_1, \dots, b_d \}$ of $\Pi$. By applying [@EulerSystemsSagaI Lem. A.7] to the complex $Q (\bLambda) \otimes_\bLambda^\mathbb{L} C^\bullet_\infty$ we then see that the projection map $\Theta$ coincides with the rank reduction map $$\pi_{\psi} = (-1)^{r_T (d - r_T)} \cdot \bigwedge_{r_T < i \leq d} (\psi \circ b_i^\ast) \: \exprod^{d}_\bLambda \Pi \to \exprod^{r_T}_\bLambda \Pi,$$ where each $b_i^\ast \in \Pi^\ast$ denotes the dual of $b_i$. By Lemma \[LittleLemma\], the image of $\pi_\psi$ is contained in $\bidual^{r_T}_\bLambda H^1_{\Sigma, \Iw} (\bigO_{L, S}, T)$.
We define the $\bLambda$-module of *basic norm-coherent sequences* $\NS^b = \NS^b(T, L_\infty)$ to be the image of the homomorphism $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta \: \Det_{\bLambda}(C^\bullet_\infty) \longrightarrow \bidual_{\bLambda}^{r_T} H^1_{\Sigma, \Iw}(\cO_{L,S}, T) .
\end{aligned}$$
\[basic-theorem\] The $\bLambda$-submodule $\NS^b = \NS^b(T,L_\infty)$ of $\NS^{r_T}$ is $\bLambda$-free of rank one. In particular, the quotient $\faktor{\NS^{r_T}}{\NS^b}$ is $\bLambda$-torsion.
It suffices to observe that $\Det_{\bLambda}(C^\bullet_\infty)$, and thus $\NS^b$, is a free $\bLambda$-module of rank one. In particular, both $\NS^{r_T}$ and $\NS^b$ are free $\Lambda$-modules of rank $[L:K]$ and so their quotient is $\bLambda$-torsion.
The following result shows that, at least conjecturally, the elements of $\NS^b(\ZZ_p(1), L_\infty)$ are familiar objects.
\[eimc-proposition\] Assume that for each $n \in \NN$ the $p$-part of the Rubin-Stark conjecture is valid for the data $(L_n | K, S, \Sigma, S_\infty(K))$ (as is formulated, for example, in [@BKS2 Conj. 2.1]) and let $\varepsilon_n$ be the corresponding Rubin-Stark element. Assume, moreover, that the equivariant Iwasawa Main Conjecture (eIMC) is valid for the data $(L_\infty | K, S, \Sigma, p)$ (as is formulated in [@BKS2 Conj. 3.1]). Then $$\begin{aligned}
\NS^b(\ZZ_p(1), L_\infty) = \langle(\varepsilon_n)_n\rangle_{\bLambda}.
\end{aligned}$$
It is well-known that the family $(\varepsilon_n)_n$ constitutes an element of the module\
$\NS^{r_T}(\ZZ_p(1), L_\infty)$, see [@Rubin96 Prop. 6.1]. Denote by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathfrak{z}_\infty \in Q(\bLambda) \otimes_{\bLambda} \Det_{\bLambda}(C_\infty)
\end{aligned}$$ the inverse image of $(\varepsilon_n)_n$ under the latter three arrows in the definition of $\Theta$. Then, after taking into account the equivalent formulation [@BKS2 Conj. 3.7] of the eIMC, one knows that $\mathfrak{z}_\infty$ is a $\bLambda$-basis of $\Det_{\bLambda}(C^\bullet_\infty)$. The Proposition now follows immediately from the definition of the module $\NS^b$.
The following Theorem provides a direct link between the Galois module structures of the quotient appearing in Theorem \[basic-theorem\] and $H^2_{\Sigma,\Iw}(\cO_{L, S}, T)$.
\[pairing-theorem\]
[There exists a canonical isomorphism of $\bLambda$-modules $$\begin{aligned}
\Ext^1_{\bLambda} \left ( \faktor{\NS^{r_T}}{\NS^b}, \; \bLambda \right ) \cong \faktor{\bLambda}{\Fitt^0_{\bLambda}(H^2_{\Sigma,\Iw}(\cO_{L,S}, T))}.
\end{aligned}$$ ]{}
[There exists a perfect pairing of $\bLambda$-modules $$\begin{aligned}
\faktor{\NS^{r_T}}{\NS^b} \times \faktor{\bLambda}{\Fitt^0_{\bLambda}(H^2_{\Sigma,\Iw}(\cO_{L,S}, T))} \to \faktor{Q(\bLambda)}{\bLambda}
\end{aligned}$$ which is explicitly given by the assignment $(u,v) \mapsto \overline{v}\cdot\eta^*(\overline{u})$, where $\eta$ is any choice of $\bLambda$-basis of $\NS^b$ and $\overline{u}$ and $\overline{v}$ are any lifts of $u$ and $v$ to $\NS^{r_T}$ and $\bLambda$, respectively. ]{}
[There exists a pseudo-isomorphism of $\Lambda$-modules $$\begin{aligned}
\faktor{\NS^{r_T}}{\NS^b} \approx \left ( \faktor{\bLambda}{\Fitt_{\bLambda}(H^2_{\Sigma,\Iw}(\cO_{L,S}, T))} \right)^\circ.
\end{aligned}$$ If $p \nmid [L:K]$ then this can be taken to be a pseudo-isomorphism of $\bLambda$-modules where $\circ$ now also inverts the $\cG$-action. ]{}
The existence of pairings of the displayed shape in part (2) of Theorem \[pairing-theorem\] was first observed (at least in the case of representations with coefficients in Gorenstein orders in finite-dimensional $\cQ$-algebras) by Burns, Sano and Tsoi in [@bst]. The above result can therefore be seen as a natural Iwasawa-theoretic analogue of the pairing constructed for $T$ by the aforementioned authors. Similar Iwasawa-theoretic results in the setting of $K =\Q$ have previously appeared in [@NQD14 Prop. 2.12], which in turn is based on [@KraftSchoof], and [@Solomon2014 Thm. 4].
*Proof of Theorem \[pairing-theorem\]:* By applying Lemma \[LittleLemma\] (c) to the representative of $C_\infty^\bullet$ given by Lemma \[standard-representative-lemma\], one has $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{Fitt}^0_{\bLambda}(H^2_{\Sigma,\mathrm{Iw}}(\mathcal{O}_{L,S}, T)) & = \mathrm{Fitt}^{r_T}_{\bLambda}(H^1 (C^\bullet_\infty))
= \left\{\phi(\eta) \mid \phi \in \exprod_{\bLambda}^{r_T} (H^1_{\Sigma, \Iw}(\cO_{L,S}, T))^*\right\} \\
& =: I(\eta),
\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta$ is any $\bLambda$-basis of $\NS^b$. On the other hand, by the definition of $I(\eta)$ we have an equality $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\exprod_{\bLambda}^{r_T} H^1_{\Sigma, \Iw}(\cO_{L,S}, T)^*\right)(\eta) = I(\eta)
\end{aligned}$$ and so the map which sends $\phi$ to $\phi(\eta)$ induces an isomorphism $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\bidual_\bLambda^{r_T} H^1_{\Sigma, \Iw}(\cO_{L,S}, T)\right)^* \cong I(\eta).
\end{aligned}$$ There is a $\bLambda$-module isomorphism (see (\[Exts\])) $$\begin{aligned}
\Ext^1_\bLambda\left(\bidual_\bLambda^r H^1_{ \Sigma, \Iw}(\cO_{L,S}, T), \; \bLambda\right)^\# \cong \Ext_{\Lambda}^1\left(\bidual_\bLambda^r H^1_{ \Sigma, \Iw}(\cO_{L,S}, \; T), \Lambda\right),
\end{aligned}$$ and so Theorem \[UN-structure-theorem\] (a) implies that the above module is trivial. One then deduces the existence of a commutative diagram
0 &(\_\^[r\_T]{} H\^1\_[ , ]{}(\_[L,S]{}, T))\^\* & ( )\^\* &\^1\_(, ) & 0\
0 &I() && &0
The isomorphism given in (a) now follows via an application of the Five-Lemma.\
To prove (c), note that $\NS^{r_T}/\NS^b$ has projective dimension 1 as a $\Lambda$-module and thus has no non-zero finite submodules (see, for example, [@NSW Prop. 5.3.19]). The pseudo-isomorphism of the Theorem is then obtained by virtue of [@NSW Prop. 5.5.13].\
It remains to demonstrate the existence of the pairing in (b). Observe that if $M$ is $\bLambda$-torsion, then by applying the functor $\Hom_\bLambda(M,-)$ to the tautological sequence $0 \to \bLambda \to Q(\bLambda) \to Q(\bLambda)/\bLambda \to 0$ one finds a canonical identification $M^\lor \cong \Ext_\bLambda^1(M, \bLambda)$. In addition, one knows by [@NSW Prop. 5.5.8(iv)] and the isomorphism (\[Exts\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
\left (\faktor{\bLambda}{I(\eta)}\right )^\lor \cong \left ( \faktor{\NS^{r_T}}{\NS^b}\right)^{\lor\lor} \cong \faktor{\NS^{r_T}}{\NS^b}.
\end{aligned}$$ These two facts taken together establish both the existence and the perfectness of the desired pairing. Since the quotient $\NS^{r_T}/\NS^b$ is $\bLambda$-torsion, we may regard $\eta^*$ as being an element of $\NS^{r_T,*} \otimes_\bLambda Q(\bLambda)$. A straightforward calculation then shows that one can in fact regard this as an element of $(\NS^{r_T}/\NS^b)^\lor$ from which one deduces the given explicit description of the pairing.
Results on finite level {#finite-level-section}
-----------------------
In analogy to the Iwasawa-theoretic definition of basic norm coherent sequences, it is natural to make the following corresponding definition on finite level.
For each $n \in \NN$, we define the $\cR[\cG_n]$-module of *basic universal norms* $\UN^b_n = \UN^b_n(T,L_\infty)$ to be the image of $\NS^b(T,L_\infty)$ under the map of Theorem \[UN-structure-theorem\] (b).
There is another, equivalent, way of constructing the module of basic universal norms that is closer in spirit to the definition of basic norm-coherent sequences. In order to explain this, we let $e_{L_n, T} \in \mathcal{Q}[\cG_n]$ be the sum of the primitive idempotents that annihilate $H^2_\Sigma (\bigO_{L_n, S}, T)$. In this regard we remark that Jannsen has conjectured in [@jannsen Conj. 1] that this module should be finite in all but a few exceptional cases. We then have the projection map $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta_{L_n} \: \Det_{\cR [\cG_n]} (C^\bullet_n) & \hookrightarrow
\mathcal{Q} \otimes_{\cR} \Det_{\cR [\cG_n]} (C^\bullet_n) \\
& \stackrel{\simeq}{\longrightarrow} \Det_{\mathcal{Q}[\cG_n]} ( \mathcal{Q} \otimes_{\cR} C^\bullet_n) \\
& \stackrel{\simeq}{\longrightarrow} \Det_{\mathcal{Q} [\cG_n]} ( \mathcal{Q} \otimes_\cR H^0 (C^\bullet_n)) \otimes_{\cQ [\cG_n]} ( \Det_{\cQ [\cG_n]} ( \cQ \otimes_{\cR} H^1 (C^\bullet_n)))^{-1} \\
& \stackrel{\cdot e_{L_n, T}}{\longrightarrow}
e_{L_n, T} \Big ( \Det_{\mathcal{Q} [\cG_n]} ( \mathcal{Q} \otimes_\cR H^0 (C^\bullet_n)) \otimes_{\cQ [\cG_n]} ( \Det_{\cQ [\cG_n]} ( \cQ \otimes_{\cR} H^1 (C^\bullet_n)))^{-1} \Big ) \\
& \stackrel{\simeq}{\longrightarrow} e_{L_n, T} \Big ( \exprod^{r_T}_{\cQ [\cG_n]} \cQ \otimes_\cR H^1_\Sigma (\bigO_{L, S}, T) \Big )
\otimes_{\cQ [\cG_n]} \exprod^{r_T}_{\cQ [\cG_n]} ( Y_K (T) \otimes_\cR \cQ [\cG_n])^\ast \\
& \stackrel{\simeq}{\longrightarrow}
e_{L_n, T} \Big ( \exprod^{r_T}_{\cQ [\cG_n]} \cQ \otimes_\cR H^1_\Sigma (\bigO_{L, S}, T) \Big ),\end{aligned}$$ where the second arrow follows from the base-change property of determinant functors, the third from the natural passage-to-cohomology map, the fourth by multiplication by the idempotent $e_{L_n, T}$, and the final one by applying the (non-canonical) isomorphism $ \exprod^{r_T}_{\cQ [\cG_n]} ( Y_K (T) \otimes_\cR \cQ [\cG_n])^\ast \cong \cQ [\cG_n]$ resulting from the fact that $Y_K (T) \otimes_\cR \cR [\cG_n]$ is a free $\cR [G_n]$-module of rank $r_T$.
\[FiniteLem\] The image of the map $\Theta_{L_n}$ is contained in $\left( \bidual^{r_T}_{\cR [\cG_n]} H^1_\Sigma (\bigO_{L_n, S}, T) \right ) [1 - e_{L_n, T}]$, and coincides with $\UN^b_n$.
Since the complex $C^\bullet_{L_n}$ admits a standard quadratic representative with respect to the map $H^1(C^\bullet_{L_n}) \to Y_K(T)^* \otimes_\cR \cR[\cG_n]$, the first claim is exactly [@EulerSystemsSagaI Prop. A.7 (i)]. As for the second claim, we observe that the descriptions of $\Theta$ and $\Theta_{L_n}$ in terms of rank reduction maps $\pi_{\psi_\infty}$ and $\pi_{\psi_n}$, respectively, yield a commutative diagram
\_( C\^\_) & \^[r\_T]{}\_H\^1\_[, ]{} (\_[L, S]{}, T)\
\_ ( C\^\_n) & \^[r\_T]{}\_ H\^1\_(\_[L\_n, S]{}, T),
where the vertical arrows are the natural codescent maps.
It turns out that the module of basic universal norms may not be very interesting at the bottom layers of the extension $L_\infty$. We remark however that the behaviour explicated in the next Lemma will always stop if one climbs high enough up the tower due to our assumption that no finite place splits completely in $L_\infty | K$.
Suppose there is a finite place $v \in S$ that splits completely in $L_n | K$ and is such that $H^0 (K_v, T^\ast (1))$ is non-zero. Then $\UN^b_n = 0$.
We have a commutative diagram
\^[r\_T]{} & \^[r\_T]{}\_ &\
\^[r\_T]{}\_n & \^[r\_T]{}\_ \_n,
where the vertical maps are the natural codescent maps. It therefore suffices to demonstrate that any basis $\eta$ of $\NS^b$ is contained in $I_{\Gamma^n} \cdot \exprod^{r_T}_{\cR [\cG_n]} \Pi$, where we write $$I_{\Gamma^n} = \ker \{ \bLambda \to \cR [\Gamma_n] \}$$ for the augmentation ideal relative to $\Gamma^n$. From [@EulerSystemsSagaI Prop. A.2 (ii)] we know that for any $f \in \exprod^{r_T}_\bLambda \Pi^\ast$ we have $$f (\eta) \in \Fitt_\bLambda^{r_T} (H^1 (C^\bullet_\infty)) = \Fitt^0_\bLambda ( H^2_{\Sigma, \Iw} ( \bigO_{L, S}, T)).$$ If $b_1, \dots, b_d \in \Pi$ constitutes a $\bLambda$-basis, then for any $\sigma \in \mathfrak{S}_{d, r_T}$ (see the definiton following (\[ExplicitFormula\])) the inclusion $$(b_{\sigma (1)}^\ast \wedge \dots \wedge b_{\sigma({r_T})}^\ast ) \in \Fitt^0_\bLambda ( H^2_{\Sigma, \Iw} ( \bigO_{L, S}, T))$$ holds. Since $\{ \bigwedge_{1 \leq i \leq r_T} b_{\sigma (i)} \mid \sigma \in \mathfrak{S}_{d, r_T} \}$ constitutes a basis of $\exprod^{r_T}_\bLambda \Pi$, we conclude that $$\eta \in \Fitt^0_\bLambda ( H^2_{\Sigma, \Iw} ( \bigO_{L, S}, T)) \cdot \exprod^{r_T}_\bLambda \Pi.$$ We are therefore reduced to showing that $\Fitt^0_\bLambda ( H^2_{\Sigma, \Iw} ( \bigO_{L, S}, T)) \subseteq I_{\Gamma^n}$. By Proposition \[SplitPrimesProp\] there is a surjection $$H^2_{\Sigma, \Iw} (\bigO_{L, S}, T) \twoheadrightarrow H^2_\Sigma (\bigO_{L_n, S}, T) \twoheadrightarrow H^0 (K_v, T^\ast (1)) \otimes_\cR \cR [\cG_n].$$ Since we assumed $H^0 (K_v, T^\ast (1)) \neq 0$, the module $H^0 (K_v, T^\ast (1)) \otimes_\cR \cR [\cG_n]$ is $\cR [\cG_n]$-free of non-zero rank $t$, say. The Lemma therefore follows from the inclusion $$\Fitt^0_\bLambda ( H^2_{\Sigma, \Iw} ( \bigO_{L, S}, T)) \subseteq
\Fitt_\bLambda^0 ( H^0 (K_v, T^\ast (1)) \otimes_\cR \cR [\cG_n]) = \Fitt^0_\bLambda ( \cR [\cG_n]^{t} ) = I_{\Gamma^n}^t. \tag*{\qedhere}$$
We next turn to a description of the quotient $\bidual^{r_T}_{\cR [\cG_n]} H^1_\Sigma (\bigO_{L, S}, T) / \UN^{r_T}_n$. This should be regarded as a complement to the study of the quotient $\bidual^{r_T}_{\cR [\cG_n]} H^1_\Sigma (\bigO_{L, S}, T) / \UN^{b}_n$ undertaken in [@bst].
\[Dodgy-Proposition\] Assume that $p \nmid |\cG|$.
We have an equality $$\Big\{ f (a) \mid a \in \UN^{r_T}_n, \; f \in \exprod^{r_T}_{\cR [\cG_n]} H^1_\Sigma ( \bigO_{L_n, S}, T)^\ast \Big\} = \Fitt^0_{\cR [\cG_n]} \big ( H^2_{\Sigma, \Iw}( \bigO_{L, S}, T)^{\Gamma^n, \vee}_\tor \big ).$$
The following holds: $$\left ( \faktor{\bidual^{r_T}_{\cR [\cG_n]} H^1_\Sigma ( \bigO_{L_n, S}, T)}{\UN^{r_T}_n} \right )_{\tor} \cong \left ( \faktor{\cR [\cG_n]}{\Fitt^0_{\cR [\cG_n]} ( H^2_{\Sigma, \Iw}( \bigO_{L, S}, T)^{\Gamma^n, \vee}_\tor )} \right)^\vee.$$
There is an injection $$\left ( \faktor{\exprod^{r_T}_{\cR [\cG]} H^1_\Sigma ( \bigO_{L, S}, T)}{\UN^{r_T}_0} \right )_{\tf} \hookrightarrow ( H^2_{\Sigma, \Iw} (\bigO_{L, S}, T)^\Gamma)_\tf \otimes_{\cR [\cG]} \exprod^{r_T - 1}_{\cR [\cG]} H^1_\Sigma ( \bigO_{L, S}, T)$$ that is induced by the boundary morphism $$\delta \: \left ( \faktor{
H^1_\Sigma (\bigO_{L, S}, T)
}{\UN^1_0 } \right )_\tf
\stackrel{\simeq}{\longrightarrow} H^2_{\Sigma, \Iw} (\bigO_{L, S}, T)^\Gamma_\tf.$$
By truncating the exact sequence representing the complex $C^\bullet_\infty$ we obtain an exact sequence
0 & H\^1\_[, ]{} ( \_[L, S]{}, T) & & & 0 .
Since $\im(\psi)$ has trivial $\Gamma^n$-invariants, this sequence descends to give an exact sequence $$\label{DescendedSequence}
\begin{tikzcd}
0 \arrow{r} & \UN^1_n \arrow{r} & \Pi_n \arrow{r} & (\im \psi)_{\Gamma^n} \arrow{r} & 0.
\end{tikzcd}$$ Dualising, and using the identification $\Ext^1_{\cR [\cG_n]} ( (\im \psi)_{\Gamma_n}, \cR [\cG_n]) \cong ( (\im \psi)_{\Gamma_n,\tor})^\vee$, we get the exact sequence
\_n\^ & (\^1\_n)\^ & (()\_[\_n, ]{} )\^ & 0.
We have observed in Remark \[structure-theorem-remark\] (b) that the assumption $p \nmid |\cG |$ implies that $\UN^1_n$ is $\cR [\cG_n]$-free of rank $r_T$, so the above exact sequence is in fact a free presentation of $((\im \psi)_{\Gamma^n, \tor})^\vee$. This implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\im \big \{ \exprod^{r_T}_{\cR [\cG_n]}
\Pi_n^\ast \to \exprod^{r_T}_{\cR [\cG_n]} (\UN^1_n )^\ast \cong \cR [\cG_n] \big \}
& = \Fitt^0_{\cR [\cG_n]} \left ( (\im \psi)_{\Gamma^n, _\tor}^\vee \right).\end{aligned}$$ Combining this with the identification $\UN^{r_T}_n = \bidual^{r_T}_{\cR [\cG_n]} \UN^1_n$ from Theorem \[UN-structure-theorem\] (c) then gives $$\Big \{ f (a) \mid a \in \UN^{r_T}_n, \; f \in \exprod^{r_T}_{\cR [\cG_n]} \Pi_n^\ast \Big\} = \Fitt^{0}_{\cR [\cG_n]} ( (\im \psi)_{\Gamma^n, \tor}^\vee).$$ The exact sequence
0 & & & H\^1 (C\^\_) & 0
gives the exact sequence
0 & H\^1 (C\^\_)\^[\^n]{} & ()\_[\^n]{} & \_n.
Since $\Pi_n$ is torsion-free, we deduce that $$(\im \psi)_{\Gamma^n, \tor} = H^1 (C^\bullet_\infty)^{\Gamma^n}_\tor = H^2_{\Sigma, \Iw}( \bigO_{L, S}, T)^{\Gamma^n}_\tor.$$
Finally, since the cokernel of $H^1_\Sigma (\bigO_{L_n, S}, T) \hookrightarrow \Pi_n$ is $\cR$-torsion free, the restriction map $
\Pi_n^\ast \to H^1_\Sigma (\bigO_{L_n, S}, T)^\ast
$ is surjective. This shows that $$\Big \{ f (a) \mid a \in \UN^{r_T}_n, \; f \in \exprod^{r_T}_{\cR [\cG_n]} \Pi_n^\ast \Big\}
=
\Big\{ f (a) \mid a \in \UN^{r_T}_n, \; f \in \exprod^{r_T}_{\cR [\cG_n]} H^1_\Sigma (\bigO_{L_n, S}, T)^\ast \Big\}$$ and concludes the proof of (a). For (b), let $C$ denote the cokernel of the map $\UN^{r_T}_n \to \bidual^{r_T}_{\cR [\cG_n]} H^1_\Sigma (\bigO_{L_n, S}, T)$. Then dualising gives a commutative diagram
& ( \^[r\_T]{}\_ H\^1\_(\_[L\_n, S]{}, T) )\^ & (\^[r\_T]{}\_n)\^ & \^1\_ ( C, ) & 0\
0 & \^0\_ ( H\^1 (C\^\_)\^[\^n, ]{}\_) & & & 0,
where the two vertical isomorphisms are given by evaluating at the generator of the free rank one module $\UN^{r_T}_n$. Applying the snake lemma to this diagram reveals that the rightmost downward map is an isomorphism as well. The claim follows now upon noting that $$\Ext^1_{\cR [\cG_n]} ( C, \cR [\cG_n] ) \cong \Ext^1_{\cR} ( C, \cR ) \cong ( C_\tor)^\vee.$$ Turning our sights now to (c), we first record that the spectral sequence (\[spectral-sequence\]) applied to the complex $C^\bullet_\infty$ gives an exact sequence
0 & \^1\_0 & H\^1\_(\_[L, S]{}, T) & H\^2\_[,]{} (\_[L, S]{}, T)\^ & 0.
Dualising this sequence, we obtain
0 & ( H\^2\_[,]{} (\_[L, S]{}, T)\^)\^ & H\^1\_(\_[L, S]{}, T)\^ & \^ & 0,
where $\iota^\ast$ denotes the dual map of $\iota$. This induces the exact sequence
( H\^2\_[, ]{} (\_[L, S]{}, T)\^)\^\_ \^[r\_T - 1]{}\_ H\^1\_(\_[L, S]{}, T)\^ & \^[r\_T]{}\_ H\^1\_(\_[L, S]{}, T)\^ &\^[r\_T]{}\_ \^ & 0 .
Dualising again, we find that there is an exact sequence
0 & ( \^[r\_T]{}\_ \^)\^ & \^[r\_T]{}\_ H\^1\_(\_[L, S]{}, T) & ( ( H\^2\_[, ]{} (\_[L, S]{}, T)\^)\^\_ \^[r\_T - 1]{}\_ H\^1\_(\_[L, S]{}, T)\^)\^.
Since $p \nmid |\cG|$, the module $H^1_\Sigma (\bigO_{L, S}, T)^*$ is $\cR [\cG]$-projective, so we have $$\begin{aligned}
& \phantom{=} \left ( ( H^2_{\Sigma, \Iw} (\bigO_{L, S}, T)^\Gamma)^\ast \otimes_{\cR [\cG]} \exprod^{r_T - 1}_{\cR [\cG]} H^1_\Sigma (\bigO_{L, S}, T)^\ast \right)^\ast \\
& =
( H^2_{\Sigma, \Iw} (\bigO_{L, S}, T)^\Gamma)^{\ast \ast} \otimes_{\cR [\cG]} \left ( \exprod^{r_T - 1}_{\cR [\cG]} H^1_\Sigma (\bigO_{L, S}, T)^\ast \right)^\ast \\
& \cong ( H^2_{\Sigma, \Iw} (\bigO_{L, S}, T)^\Gamma)_\tf
\otimes_{\cR [\cG]} \exprod^{r_T - 1}_{\cR [\cG]} H^1_\Sigma (\bigO_{L, S}, T).\end{aligned}$$ It therefore remains to show that $\faktor{\exprod^{r_T}_{\cR [\cG]} H^1_\Sigma (\bigO_{L, S}, T)}{\big ( \exprod^{r_T}_{\cR [\cG]} \im \iota^\ast \big)^\ast}$ is exactly the torsion-free part of $\faktor{\exprod^{r_T}_{\cR [\cG]} H^1_\Sigma (\bigO_{L, S}, T)}{\UN^{r_T}_0}$.\
The above exact sequence shows that the former quotient is torsion-free. From the exact sequence
0 & \^ & (\^1\_0)\^ & \^1\_ ( H\^2\_(\_[L, S]{}, T)\^, ) & 0
we see that $\im \iota^\ast$ has finite index inside $(\UN^1_0)^\ast$. Finally, from the diagram
\_\^[r\_T]{}\_ \^ & \_\^[r\_T]{}\_ (\^1\_0)\^\
\^[r\_T]{}\_ \^ & \^[r\_T]{}\_ (\^1\_0)\^
we get, via dualising, the commutative diagram
\_( \^[r\_T]{}\_ \^)\^& \_\^[r\_T]{}\_ \^1\_0\
( \^[r\_T]{}\_ \^)\^ & \^[r\_T]{}\_ \^1\_0
from which we deduce that $\UN^{r_T}_0 = \exprod^{r_T}_{\cR [\cG]} \UN^1_0$ injects with finite index into $\big ( \exprod^{r_T}_{\cR [\cG]} \im \iota^\ast \big)^\ast$.
As a byproduct of Proposition \[Dodgy-Proposition\] we obtain the following curious consequence.
Assume $r_T = 1$ and $p \nmid | \cG|$. Then the $\Z_p$-torsion submodule of $H^2_{\Sigma, \Iw} (\bigO_{L, S}, T)^{\Gamma}$ is a cyclic $\cR [\cG]$-module.
We have already observed in the proof of Proposition \[Dodgy-Proposition\] that the spectral sequence (\[spectral-sequence\]) gives an exact sequence
0 & \^1\_0 & H\^1\_(\_[L, S]{}, T) & H\^2\_[, ]{} (\_[L, S]{}, T)\^ & 0.
Combining this with Proposition \[Dodgy-Proposition\] (b) we find that $$\begin{aligned}
\left ( H^2_{\Sigma, \Iw} (\bigO_{L, S}, T)^{\Gamma} \right)_\tor
& \cong
\left ( \faktor{H^1_\Sigma (\bigO_{L, S}, T)}{\UN^1_0} \right )_\tor \\
& \cong \Ext^1_{\cR [\cG]} \Big ( \faktor{\cR [\cG_n]}{\Fitt^0_{\cR [\cG]} ( H^2_{\Sigma, \Iw}( \bigO_{L, S}, T)^{\Gamma, \vee}_\tor )}, \cR [\cG] \Big) .\end{aligned}$$ Since $p \nmid |\cG|$, the ideal $\Fitt^0_{\cR [\cG]} ( H^2_{\Sigma, \Iw}( \bigO_{L, S}, T)^{\Gamma, \vee}_\tor )$ is principal and generated by a non-zero divisor $x$, say (see [@Cornelius Prop. 2.2.2]). It is then immediate from the exact sequence
0 & & & & 0
that $\Ext^1_{\cR [\cG]} (\faktor{\cR [\cG]}{(x)}, \cR [\cG])$ is $\cR [\cG]$-cyclic.
Applications to arithmetic
==========================
In this section we exemplify how one can use the general framework laid out in the previous section to derive concrete arithmetic consequences.
Tate twist $T = \Z_p (1)$
-------------------------
We shall first specialise to the representation $T = \Z_p (1)$. This representation satisfies Hypothesis \[main-hypothesis\] as observed in Example \[RepExamples\] (b) and so the general results from the last section are applicable in this situation. We introduce the following additional notation.\
Let $F$ be a number field. For finite sets of places $V$ and $\Sigma$ of $F$ satisfying $V \cap \Sigma = \emptyset$ and $S_\infty (K) \cap \Sigma = \emptyset$ we denote
- $U_{F, V, \Sigma} = \Z_p \otimes_\Z \bigO_{F, V, \Sigma}^\times = H^1_\Sigma ( \bigO_{F, S}, \Z_p (1))$ the $p$-completion of the $(V, \Sigma)$-unit group of $F$,
- $A_{V,\Sigma} (F) = \Z_p \otimes_\Z \cl_{V,\Sigma} (F)$ the $p$-Sylow subgroup of the $V$-ray class group mod $\Sigma$ of $F$,
- $Y_{F, V} = \bigoplus_{v \in V} \Z_p$ the free $\Z_p$-module on the set of places contained in $V$,
- $X_{F, V}$ the kernel of the natural augmention map $Y_{F, V} \to \Z_p$.
When $\Sigma = \emptyset$, we omit the reference to $\Sigma$ from the above notation. If $F_\infty = \bigcup_{n \geq 0} F_n$ defines a $\Z_p$-extension of $F$, then for any of the objects $\square$ above we denote by $\square^\infty$ the projective limit over $n$ of the respective objects $\square$ for $F_n$, where the limits are taken with respect to the natural transition maps in each situation.
### Iwasawa Main Conjecture
In this section we give a straightforward application of the result of Theorem \[pairing-theorem\]. In particular, we show that the isomorphism of Theorem \[pairing-theorem\](a) refines the (plus-part of the) classical Iwasawa Main Conjecture.\
For any integer $m \geq 1$, let $\xi_m = e^{2 \pi i / m}$, which we regard as an element of $\overline{\Q}$ via a fixed embedding $\overline{\Q} \hookrightarrow \C$. Take $f >0$ to be an integer such that $f \not \equiv 2 \mod 4$ and $p \nmid f$. Then for every $n \geq 0$ we set $L_n = \Q (\xi_{f p^{n + 1}})$ and note that the collection of maximal totally real subfields $L_n^+$ constitutes a $\Z_p$-extension that satisfies the assumptions of §\[set-up-section\]. We will therefore resume the notation introduced there and hope that this does not cause any confusion.\
For every $n$ we denote by $\Cyc (L_n)$ the group of cyclotomic units of $L_n$. In other words, $$\begin{aligned}
\Cyc_n := \langle -1, 1 - \xi_d : d \mid f p^{n+1} \rangle_{\Z_p [\cG_n]} \cap \bigO_{L_n}^\times. \end{aligned}$$ We then set $\Cyc^\infty := \varprojlim_n \Cyc_n$, where the limit is taken with respect to the norm maps.
\[IMC-refinement\] Let $\chi \in \widehat{\cG}$ be an even character and assume that $p \nmid [L : \Q]$, where $L = L_0$. Then there is an isomorphism of $\Lambda_\chi := \ZZ_p(\im(\chi))\llbracket \Gamma \rrbracket$-modules $$\begin{aligned}
\faktor{U^{\infty,\chi}}{\Cyc^{\infty,\chi}} \cong \alpha \left ( \faktor{\Lambda_\chi}{\cchar_{\Lambda_\chi}(A^{\infty,\chi})} \right),
\end{aligned}$$ where $(-)^\chi$ is the functor $- \otimes_{\ZZ_p[\cG]} \ZZ_p(\im(\chi)) = - \otimes_\bLambda \Lambda_\chi$, and $\alpha (-) = \Ext^1_{\Lambda_\chi} ( -, \Lambda_\chi)$ denotes the Iwasawa adjoint.
\[IMC-refinement-remark\] Theorem \[IMC-refinement\] can bee seen as a refinement of the classical Iwasawa Main Conjecture for the following reason: [@NSW Prop. 5.5.13] gives a pseudo-isomorphism $\alpha (\Lambda_\chi/\text{char}_{\Lambda_\chi}(A^{\infty,\chi}))
\approx (\Lambda_\chi/\cchar_{\Lambda_\chi}(A^{\infty, \chi}))^\circ
$ and so taking characteristic ideals on both sides of the isomorphism stated in Theorem \[IMC-refinement\] yields $$\mathrm{char}_{\Lambda_\chi}\left ( \faktor{U^{\infty, \chi}}{\Cyc^{\infty, \chi}} \right) = \mathrm{char}_{\Lambda_\chi}(A^{\infty,\chi}).$$ This is one form of the classical Iwasawa Main Conjecture first proved by Mazur and Wiles [@MazurWiles] (see also [@LangRubin Thm. 5.1]). That is, Theorem \[IMC-refinement\] amounts to the assertion that not only the characteristic ideals of the aforementioned modules agree but that in fact their $\Lambda_\chi$-module structures are intimately related.
In order to prove Theorem \[IMC-refinement\] we require the following simple Lemma.
\[comparison-lemma\] Assume that $p \nmid [L : \Q]$ and let $\chi \in \widehat{\cG}$ be a character. If $M$ is a finitely generated torsion $\Lambda_\chi$-module, then we have $$\alpha \left ( \faktor{\Lambda_\chi}{\Fitt^0_{\Lambda_\chi} (M)} \right ) =
\alpha \left ( \faktor{\Lambda_\chi}{\cchar_{\Lambda_\chi} (M)} \right ).$$
Recall (for example from [@NQDV Lem. 3.4.2]) that we have $\Fitt^0_{\Lambda_\chi} (M) = \Fitt_{\Lambda_\chi}^0 ( M_\tor) \cdot \cchar_{\Lambda_\chi} ( M_\tf)$. In particular, $\Fitt^0_{\Lambda_\chi} (M) \subseteq \cchar_{\Lambda_\chi} (M)$ and hence there is a surjection $$\label{Map}
\faktor{\Lambda_\chi}{\Fitt^0_{\Lambda_\chi} (M)} \twoheadrightarrow \faktor{\Lambda_\chi}{\cchar_{\Lambda_\chi} (M)}.$$ Since $\Fitt^0_{\Lambda_\chi} (M)_\p = \cchar_{\Lambda_\chi} (M)_\p$ for any height one prime $\p$ of $\Lambda_\chi$, the map (\[Map\]) has finite kernel. The Lemma follows now from [@NSW Prop. 5.5.3 (ii)].
*Proof of Theorem \[IMC-refinement\]:* At the outset we remark that the equivariant Iwasawa Main Conjecture is known to be valid (by the work of Burns and Greither [@BurnsGreither]) for the data $(L_\infty | \Q, S \cup S_\infty (\Q), \varnothing, p)$, where $S = \{ v \mid f p \}$, and so Proposition \[eimc-proposition\] implies that $$\NS^b(\ZZ_p(1), L^+_\infty) = \langle e^+ \eta_{f} \rangle_{\bLambda},$$ where for each $m \mid f$ we put $\eta_m = ( 1 - \xi_{m p^{n + 1}})_{n \geq 0} \in U^\infty_S$ and use the idempotent $e^+ = \frac12 (1 + c)$ with complex conjugation $c \in \cG : = \gal{L}{\Q}$.\
Given this, part (a) of Theorem \[pairing-theorem\] implies that there is an isomorphism $$\begin{aligned}
e^+ \left ( \faktor{U_{S}^\infty}{\langle \eta_{f} \rangle} \right ) \cong
e^+
\Ext^1_\bLambda(
\faktor{\bLambda}{ \Fitt_{\bLambda}^0
(H^2_\Iw (\bigO_{L, S}, \Z_p (1))}
, \ \bLambda).
\end{aligned}$$ By assumption the order of $\cG$ is invertible in $\ZZ_p$ and hence $\Lambda_\chi$ is a projective $\bLambda$-module. In particular, the functor $(-)^\chi$ is exact and thus we obtain from Lemma \[comparison-lemma\] an isomorphism of $\Lambda_\chi$-modules $$\begin{aligned}
\faktor{U_S^{\infty,\chi}}{\langle e_\chi \eta_{f}\rangle_{\bLambda}} \cong
\Ext^1_{\Lambda_\chi}
\left ( \faktor{\Lambda_\chi}{\cchar_{\Lambda_\chi} (H^2_\Iw (\bigO_{L, S}, \Z_p (1)))},
\Lambda_\chi
\right).
\end{aligned}$$
The explicit description of the pairing given in Theorem \[pairing-theorem\] then shows that this isomorphism is induced by the map $$\label{TheIsom}
e^+ U^{\infty}_S \to e^+ \Hom_{\bLambda} ( \faktor{\bLambda}{\Fitt^0_\bLambda ( H^2_\Iw (\bigO_{L, S}, \Z_p (1))},
\; \faktor{Q (\bLambda)}{\bLambda} )
\quad e^+ u \mapsto \{ \lambda \mapsto e^+ (\lambda \cdot \eta_{f}^\ast (u)) \},$$ where $\eta^\ast_{f} \in Q (\bLambda) \otimes_\bLambda ( U^{\infty}_S)^\ast$ is the dual of $\eta_{f}$. We next note that the Euler system norm relation in this case reads $$\label{ESNormRelations}
N_{ \Q ( \xi_{f}) | \Q (\xi_{m})} ( \eta_k)
=
[\Q ( \xi_{f}) : \Q (\xi_{k})] \cdot \Big (
\prod_{\substack{l \mid k \\ l \nmid m}} (1 - \Frob_l^{-1}) \Big ) \cdot \eta_m$$ for any pair of integers $(k,m)$ satisfiying the divisibility relation $m \mid k \mid f$. Now let $d$ be the conductor of $\chi$, then for $d \mid k \mid f$ we get that $$e_\chi \eta_k = [\Q ( \xi_{k}) : \Q (\xi_{d})]^{-1} \cdot e_\chi \Big (
\prod_{\substack{l \mid k \\ l \nmid d}} (1 - \Frob_l^{-1}) \Big ) \cdot \eta_d$$ is a $\bLambda$-multiple of $\eta_d$. For any $m \nmid d$, on the other hand, we have $$e_\chi \eta_m = [\Q ( \xi_{f}) : \Q (\xi_{m})]^{-1} \cdot e_\chi N_{\Q ( \xi_{f}) | \Q (\xi_{m})} ( \eta_m) = 0$$ since $\chi$ is non-trivial on $\gal{\Q ( \xi_{f})}{\Q (\xi_m)}$. Let $T = (\gamma - 1)$ for a topological generator $\gamma$ of $\Gamma$, then the above reasoning shows that $$\Cyc^{\infty, \chi} =
\langle e_\chi T^{\delta_\chi} \eta_d \rangle_{\Lambda_\chi}
\qquad \text{ for } \delta_\chi = \begin{cases}
0 & \text{ if } \chi \neq 1, \\
1 & \text{ if } \chi =1,
\end{cases}$$ where we have used the fact that, if $d \neq 1$, both $\eta_d, T \eta_1 \in U^\infty$ since $p \nmid d$. Moreover, from (\[ESNormRelations\]) we deduce that the isomorphism (\[TheIsom\]) maps $e_\chi \eta_d$ onto the element corresponding to multiplication by $$\label{Image}
e_\chi \theta_d^{-1} =e_\chi \Big (
\prod_{\substack{l \mid f \\ l \nmid d}} (1 - \Frob_l^{-1}) \Big )^{-1}.$$ From the exact sequence
0 & A\_S\^ & H\^2\_(\_[L, S]{}, \_p (1)) & X\_S\^ & 0
one obtains, using the fact that characteristic ideals are multiplicative, an equality $$\begin{aligned}
\cchar_{\Lambda_\chi} ( H^2_\Iw (\bigO_{L, S}, \Z_p (1))^\chi)
& = \cchar_{\Lambda_\chi} ( A_S^{\infty, \chi})
\cdot \cchar_{\Lambda_\chi} ( X^{\infty, \chi}_S ).
\end{aligned}$$ An explicit calculation furthermore shows (*c.f.* [@Flach Lem. 5.5] but note that in our case $p \in S$) that $$\cchar_{\Lambda_\chi} ( X^{\infty, \chi}_S) =
\Big (e_\chi T^{\epsilon_\chi} \prod_{\substack{l \mid f \\ l \nmid d}} (1 - \Frob_l^{-1} ) \Big ) = (e_\chi T^{\epsilon_\chi }\theta_d),$$ where $$\epsilon_\chi = \begin{cases} 1 & \text{ if } \chi (p) = 1 \text{ and } \chi \neq 1, \\
0 & \text{ otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$ Hence we have the exact sequence
0 & & & & 0
that combines with the statement (\[Image\]) to give a commutative diagram
0 & & & & 0\
0 & ( ) & ( ) & ( ) & 0
An application of the snake lemma then implies that the right hand map is an isomorphism.
Now, observe that the module $\faktor{U^{\infty, \chi}}{\langle e_\chi T^{\delta_\chi} \eta_d \rangle} = \faktor{U^{\infty, \chi}}{\Cyc^{\infty, \chi}}$ is $\Lambda_\chi$-cyclic since $U^{\infty, \chi}$ is $\Lambda_\chi$-free of rank one. The aforementioned quotient is furthermore $\Z_p$-torsion free as it injects into $\faktor{U_S^{\infty, \chi}}{\langle e_\chi \eta_d \rangle} \cong \alpha ( \faktor{\Lambda_\chi}{T^{\epsilon_\chi} \cchar_{\Lambda_\chi} (A_S^\chi)})$. It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\Ann_{\Lambda_\chi} \left ( \faktor{U^{\infty, \chi}}{\Cyc^{\infty, \chi}} \right ) & =
\Fitt^0_{\Lambda_\chi} \left ( \faktor{U^{\infty, \chi}}{\Cyc^{\infty, \chi}} \right ) = \cchar_{\Lambda_\chi} \left ( \faktor{U^{\infty, \chi}}{\Cyc^{\infty, \chi}} \right ) \\
& =
\cchar_{\Lambda_\chi} ( A^{\chi} ),
\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the classical Iwasawa Main Conjecture [@LangRubin Thm. 5.1] to establish the final equality. By using an explicit description analogous to (\[TheIsom\]), we see that the image of $\faktor{U^{\infty, \chi}}{\Cyc^{\infty, \chi}}$ under the isomorphism $$\label{AnotherIsom}
\faktor{U^{\infty, \chi}_S}{\langle e_\chi \eta_d \rangle}
\cong
\alpha \left(
\displaystyle
\faktor{\Lambda_\chi}{T^{\epsilon_\chi} \cchar_{\Lambda_\chi} (A_S^\chi)}
\right)$$ coincides with the kernel of multiplication by a generator of $ \cchar_{\Lambda_\chi} ( A^{\chi} )$ on $\alpha \left(
\faktor{\Lambda_\chi}{\cchar_{\Lambda_\chi} (A_S^\chi)}
\right)$. An argument entirely similar to the one utilised above show that this kernel is exactly $\alpha (
\faktor{\Lambda_\chi}{\cchar_{\Lambda_\chi} (A^\chi)})$. Hence the isomorphism (\[AnotherIsom\]) restricts to give the isomorphism claimed in the statement of Theorem \[IMC-refinement\].
### Greenberg’s conjecture
In this subsection we will rely on the results of Appendix \[AppendixIwasawa\]. We resume the notation and assumptions of §\[set-up-section\].
\[GreenbergCriterion\] Assume the $\mu$-invariant of $A_{S, \Sigma}^\infty$ vanishes. The following are equivalent:
The module $A_{S, \Sigma}^\infty$ is finite,
there is an isomorphism $$\faktor{\NS^{r_T} ( \Z_p (1), L_\infty)}{\NS^b (\Z_p (1), L_\infty)} \cong \Ext^1_\bLambda \Big ( \faktor{\bLambda}{\Fitt^0_\bLambda ( X_{S \setminus S_\infty}^\infty)},\bLambda \Big).$$
If $L$ is a totally real field, we may take $\Sigma = \emptyset$ since $p$ is odd. Then $A_{S, \Sigma}^\infty$ agrees with the inverse limit of $S$-class groups $A_S^\infty$. Greenberg has conjectured [@Greenberg] that both the $\mu$ and $\lambda$-invariant of $A^\infty$ vanish, i.e. that $A^\infty$ is finite. It is well known (see, for example, [@Iwasawa Section 4]) that if one assumes that the coinvariants $(A_S^\infty)_\Gamma$ are finite (as is conjectured by Gross [@Gross] and Kuz’min [@Kuzmin]), then $$A_S^\infty \text{ is finite} \iff A^\infty \text{ is finite}.$$ The Gross-Kuz’min conjecture is known in a number of important cases including the case of $L | \Q$ being abelian and $L_\infty | L$ having only one ramified prime. We refer the reader to the recent article [@HoferKleine] for a more detailed discussion of known instances of the Gross-Kuz’min conjecture and its relation to other conjectures.
Theoretical evidence for Greenberg’s conjecture is still very sparse. The only general class of fields known to satisfy the conjecture are fields $L$ with a unique prime above $p$ and such that $A_{S_p} (L) = 1$ (in this case Greenberg’s conjecture follows from Nakayama’s Lemma). However, there are many explicit examples giving evidence for the conjecture, starting with Greenberg’s original article [@Greenberg §8]. For example, Kraft and Schoof [@KraftSchoof] have numerically verified the conjecture for $p = 3$ and all real quadratic fields $\Q ( \sqrt{f})$ such that $f \not \equiv 1 \mod 3$ and $f < 10000$.
The case $r_T = 1$ of Proposition \[GreenbergCriterion\] is classical and well-known. To the best of the knowledge of the authors, a result of this shape first appeared in [@Gold Lem. 1].
[Suppose that $L$ is not ramified at $p$ and that $L_\infty| L$ is the cyclotomic $\ZZ_p$-extension in which only one prime of $K$ ramifies. By considering the construction of *basic Iwasawa-Euler systems* of the second named author in [@daoud §4.3] one can show that the equality $\NS^{r_T} = \NS^b$ implies that any element of $\NS^{r_T}$ extends to an Euler system of rank $r_T$ for the pair $(T,\cK K_\infty)$ (in the sense of [@daoud Def. 2.2]) where $\cK$ is the maximal abelian extension of $K$ unramified at the primes in $S$ and $K_\infty$ is the cyclotomic $\ZZ_p$-extension of $K$.]{}
*Proof of Proposition \[GreenbergCriterion\]:* We have an exact sequence
0 & A\_[S, ]{}\^ & H\^2\_[, ]{} (\_[L, S]{}, \_p (1)) & X\^\_[S S\_]{} & 0
and it follows that at every regular height one prime $\p$ of $\bLambda$ there is an equality $$\label{factorisation}
\Fitt^0_\bLambda ( H^2_{\Sigma, \Iw} (\bigO_{L, S}, \Z_p (1)))_\p = \Fitt^0_\bLambda (A_{S, \Sigma}^\infty)_\p \cdot \Fitt^0_\bLambda ( X^\infty_{S \setminus S_\infty} )_\p$$ since $\bLambda_\p$ is a discrete valuation ring in this case. If $\p$ is a singular prime, in turn, then $H^2_{\Sigma, \Iw} (\bigO_{L, S}, \Z_p (1))_\p = \Fitt^0_\bLambda (A_{S, \Sigma}^\infty)_\p$ by Lemma \[IwasawaInvariants\] (a) because $X^\infty_{S \setminus S_\infty}$ has vanishing $\mu$-invariant.\
Let us now assume that $A_{S, \Sigma}^\infty$ is finite. The previous discussion combines with Lemma \[IwasawaInvariants\] (b) to imply that $\Fitt^0_\bLambda ( X^\infty_{S \setminus S_\infty})_\p = \Fitt^0_\bLambda (H^2_{\Sigma, \Iw} (\bigO_{L, S}, \Z_p (1)))_\p$ for all height one primes $\p$ of $\bLambda$. This implies that the surjection $$\faktor{\bLambda}{\Fitt^0_\bLambda (H^2_{\Sigma, \Iw} (\bigO_{L, S}, \Z_p (1)))} \to \faktor{\bLambda}{\Fitt^0_\bLambda ( X^\infty_{S \setminus S_\infty})}$$ is a pseudo-isomorphism and hence has finite kernel. Since the module on the left identifies with an $\Ext^1_\bLambda ( -, \bLambda)$ by Theorem \[pairing-theorem\], it cannot have any non-trivial finite submodules. The above map is thus in fact an isomorphism and the isomorphism of Theorem \[pairing-theorem\] becomes $$\faktor{\NS^{r_T}}{\NS^b} \cong \Ext^1_\bLambda \Big ( \faktor{\bLambda}{\Fitt^0_\bLambda ( X^\infty_{S \setminus S_\infty})},\bLambda \Big ).$$ Conversely, assume to be given such an isomorphism. Taking $\Ext^1_\bLambda ( - , \bLambda)$ and combining with Theorem \[pairing-theorem\], we obtain a pseudo-isomorphism $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pseudo-isomorphism}
\faktor{\bLambda}{\Fitt^0_\bLambda (H^2_{\Sigma, \Iw} (\bigO_{L, S}, \Z_p (1)))} \approx \faktor{\bLambda}{\Fitt^0_\bLambda ( X^\infty_{S \setminus S_\infty})}. \end{aligned}$$ Now let $\p$ be a regular height one prime, then the above pseudo-isomorphism gives $$\Fitt^0_\bLambda (H^2_{\Sigma, \Iw} (\bigO_{L, S}, \Z_p (1)))_\p \cong
\Fitt^0_\bLambda ( X^\infty_{S \setminus S_\infty})_\p.$$ Since $\bLambda_\p$ is a discrete valuation ring, this implies $$\begin{aligned}
(\p \bLambda_\p)^{\text{length}_{\bLambda_\p} (X^\infty_{S \setminus S_\infty})_\p + \text{length}_{\bLambda_\p} (A_{S, \Sigma}^\infty)_\p } & = \Fitt^0_\bLambda (A^\infty_{S, \Sigma})_\p \cdot \Fitt^0_\bLambda ( X^\infty_{S \setminus S_\infty} )_\p \\
& = \Fitt^0_\bLambda ( X^\infty_{S \setminus S_\infty} )_\p \\
& = (\p \bLambda_\p)^{\text{length}_{\bLambda_\p} (X^\infty_{S \setminus S_\infty})_\p}.\end{aligned}$$ We deduce that $\text{length}_{\bLambda} (A^\infty_{S, \Sigma})_\p = 0$, hence $(A^\infty_{S, \Sigma})_\p = 0$. Thus, the finiteness of $A_{S, \Sigma}^\infty$ follows now from the assumed vanishing of its $\mu$-invariant and Lemma \[IwasawaInvariants\].
### Leading term conjectures
We continue using the notations an assumptions of §\[set-up-section\]. In this section we describe a connection between Proposition \[GreenbergCriterion\] and conjectures concerning the leading terms of equivariant $L$-functions that appear in the literature. The central player in these conjectures is the *$S$-truncated and $\Sigma$-modified Dirichlet $L$-function* that is defined as $$L_{L_n | K, S, \Sigma} (\chi, s) = \prod_{v \in \Sigma} (1 - \chi ( \Frob_v) \text{N}v^{1 - s} ) \cdot \prod_{v \not \in S} (1 - \chi (\Frob_v) \text{N}v^{-s} )^{-1}$$ for any complex values $s$ satisfying $\text{Re} (s) > 1$, and any character $\chi \in \widehat{\cG_n}$. It is well known that $L_{L_n | K, S, \Sigma} (\chi, s)$ can be continued to a meromorphic function that is defined on the whole complex plane and holomorphic at $s = 0$. For any $r \geq 0$, we denote the $r^{th}$-th coefficient in the Taylor expansion of $L_{L_n | K, S, \Sigma} (\chi, s)$ at $s = 0$ by $$L^{(r)}_{L_n | K, S, \Sigma} (\chi, 0) = \lim_{s \to 0} s^{-r} L_{L_n | K, S, \Sigma} (\chi, s).$$ and define the *Stickelberger element* to be $$\theta_{L_n | K, S, \Sigma}^{(r)} (0) = \sum_{\chi \in \widehat{\cG_n}} e_{\overline{\chi}} L_{L_n | K, S, \Sigma}^{(r)} (0).$$ Fix an isomorphism $\C \cong \C_p$ and recall that the Dirichlet regulator defines a $\C_p [\cG_n]$-linear isomorphism $$\lambda_{L_n, S, \Sigma} \: \C_p \otimes_\Z \bigO_{L_n, S, \Sigma}^\times
\stackrel{\simeq}{\longrightarrow}
\C_p \otimes_\Z X_{L_n, S},
\quad
a \mapsto - \sum_{w \in S_{L_n}} \log (| a|_w ) \cdot w.$$ We remind the reader that the integer $r_T \geq 0$ for $T = \Z_p (1)$ is given by $r_T = | S_\infty (K) |$ under the running hypotheses. For every $v \in S$, we also fix a place $w \in S_{L_n}$ such that $w | v$.
Pick $w_0 \in S \setminus S_\infty$. The $r_T$-th *Rubin-Stark element* $\varepsilon_{L_n | K, S, \Sigma}$ is the preimage of $\theta^{(r_T)}_{L_n | K, S, \Sigma} (0) \cdot \bigwedge_{w \in S_\infty} (w - w_0)$ under the isomorphism $$\C_p \otimes_{\Z_p} \exprod^{r_T}_{\Z_p [\cG_n]} U_{L_n, S, \Sigma} \stackrel{\simeq}{\longrightarrow} \C_p \otimes_{\Z_p} \exprod^{r_T}_{\Z_p [\cG_n]} X_{L_n, S}$$ induced by the Dirichlet regulator $\lambda_{L, S, \Sigma}$.
We shall investigate the following conjectures.
\[conjectures\]
We have an inclusion $$\varepsilon_{L_n | K, S, \Sigma} \in \bidual^{r_T}_{\Z_p [\cG_n]} U_{L_n, S, \Sigma}.$$
There is a basis $\mathfrak{z}_{L_n} \in \Det_{\Z_p [\cG_n]} ( C^\bullet_n)$ such that $\Theta_{L_n} (\mathfrak{z}_{L_n}) = \varepsilon_{L_n | K, S, \Sigma}$.
There is a basis $\mathfrak{z}_{\infty} \in \Det_\bLambda (C^\bullet_\infty)$ such that $\Theta (\mathfrak{z}_\infty) = (\varepsilon_{L_n | K, S, \Sigma})_n$.
\[conjectures-remark\] The above are special cases of conjectures appearing in the literature. Conjecture \[conjectures\] (a) is the relevant case of the Rubin-Stark conjecture [@Rubin96 Conj. B’] in this setting. Conjecture \[conjectures\] (b) is a consequence of the equivariant Tamagawa number conjecture as stated, for example, in [@BKS2 Conj. 2.3] after taking [@BKS2 Prop. 2.5] into consideration. It is easy to see that if $L | K$ has a unique place above $p$ and $S = S_\infty (K) \cup S_p$, then Conjecture \[conjectures\] (b) in fact coincides with [@BKS2 Conj. 2.3]. Finally, Conjecture \[conjectures\] (c) is the higher rank equivariant Iwasawa main conjecture appearing in [@BKS2 Conj. 3.1].
The following is an analogue of the classical index formula for cyclotomic units (see [@Washington Thm. 8.2]).
\[IndexFormula\] Assume that all infinite places split in $L | K$ and that there is a unique place $\p$ above $p$ in $L$. Put $S = S_\infty (K) \cup S_p$ and assume that $A_{S, \Sigma} (L)$ is $\cG$-cohomologically trivial. Then $$(\bidual^r_{\Z_p [\cG]} U_{L, S, \Sigma} : \; \Z_p [\cG] \cdot \varepsilon_{L | K, S, \Sigma} ) = h_{L, S, \Sigma},$$ where $h_{L, S, \Sigma} = | A_{S, \Sigma} ( L) |$ is the $p$-part of the $(S, \Sigma)$-class number of $L$.
Since $\cG$ acts trivially on $\p$, the module $X_{L, S}$ is $\Z_p [\cG]$-free, generated by the $\Z_p [\cG]$-linearly independent set $\{ (w - \p) \}$, where $w$ ranges over our set of fixed places in $S_L$. It follows that $H^2 (C^\bullet)$ is $\cG$-cohomologically trivial and the isomorphism $$\widehat{H}^i (\cG, \ U_{L, S, \Sigma})\cong \widehat{H}^{i + 2} ( \cG, \ H^2 (C^\bullet))$$ for all $i \in \Z$ induced by the complex $C^\bullet$ shows that $U_{L,S, \Sigma }$ is $\cG$-cohomologically trivial, hence $\Z_p [\cG]$-projective. The Dirichlet regulator map $\lambda_{L, S, \Sigma}$ induces a rational isomorphism $\Q_p U_{L, S, \Sigma} \cong \Q_p X_{L, S}$ (see [@Tate §I.4.3]), which in this setting (see [@NSW Thm. 5.6.10 (ii)]) implies that there is an isomorphism $U_{L, S, \Sigma} \cong X_{L, S}$ and so $U_{L,S,\Sigma}$ is $\ZZ_p[\cG]$-free. Let $\{u_1, \dots, u_{r_T}\}$ be any $\ZZ_p[\cG]$-basis of this module. Then $$\bidual^{r_T}_{\Z_p [\cG]} U_{L, S, \Sigma} = \exprod^{r_T}_{\Z_p [\cG]} U_{L, S, \Sigma} = \Z_p [\cG] \cdot (u_1 \wedge \dots \wedge u_{r_T}).$$ It now suffices to calculate the index $$\Z_p [\cG] \cdot \lambda_{L, S, \Sigma} ( \varepsilon_{L | K, S, \Sigma}) = \Z_p [\cG] \cdot \theta^{(r_T)}_{L, S, \Sigma} (0)
\quad\text{ inside } \quad
\Z_p [\cG] \cdot \lambda_{L, S, \Sigma} ( u_1 \wedge \dots \wedge u_{r_T})$$ as sublattices of $\C_p \exprod_{\Z_p [\cG]}^r X_{L, S} \cong \C_p [\cG]$. If we can find a $\C_p$-linear isomorphism $f \: \C_p [\cG] \to \C_p [\cG]$ that maps the first of these two aforementioned lattices bijectively onto the latter, then by [@Sinnott Lem. 1.1 (b)] this index is given by the $\C_p$-determinant of $(\det f)^{-1}$.\
Define $f$ to be the $\C_p [\cG]$-linear extension of $1 \mapsto \theta^{(r_T)}_{L, S, \Sigma} (0)^{-1} \cdot \lambda_{L, S, \Sigma} ( u_1 \wedge \dots \wedge u_{r_T})$, then this map has the desired properties. Calculating the determinant of multiplication by $\theta^{(r_T)}_{L, S, \Sigma} (0)^{-1}$ with respect to the basis $\{ e_\chi \}_{\chi\in \widehat{\cG}}$, we find that it equals $$\prod_{\chi \in \widehat{G}} L^{(r_T)}_{L | K, S, \Sigma} (\overline{\chi}, 0)^{-1} = \zeta_{L, S, T}^{(r_T)} (0)^{-1} = (h_{L, S, \Sigma}\cdot R_{L, S, \Sigma})^{-1}$$ by the analytic class number formula, where $R_{L,S,\Sigma}$ is the $(S,\Sigma)$-regulator. Finally, using [@Bourbaki Ch. III, §9.4, Prop. 6], we conclude that multiplication by $\lambda_{L, S, \Sigma} ( u_1 \wedge \dots \wedge u_{r_T})$ has determinant $R_{L, S, \Sigma}$. This completes the proof of the Lemma.
\[etnc-thm\] Let $L$ be a totally real field. Assume that there is a unique ramified prime $\p$ in $L_\infty | K$ and that $p \nmid |\cG|$. If
1. the Rubin-Stark conjecture \[conjectures\] (a) holds for the data $(L_n | K, S, \Sigma)$ for all $n \in \N_0$,
2. Greenberg’s conjecture holds for $L$,
then the equivariant Iwasawa Main Conjecture [@BKS2 Conj. 3.1] for $L_\infty | K$ and the equivariant Tamagawa Number Conjecture [@BKS2 Conj. 2.3] for $L | K$ both hold true for $S = S_\infty \cup S_p$.
Since $S = S_\infty (K) \cup S_p$, the index of $\UN^{r_T}_0$ inside $\bidual^{r_T}_{\Z_p [\cG]} U_{L, S, \Sigma}$ is finite (this follows, for example, from Proposition \[Dodgy-Proposition\] (c)). By Proposition \[Dodgy-Proposition\] (b) and [@CornacchiaGreither Prop. 7], this index is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\left( \bidual^{r_T}_{\Z_p [\cG]} U_{L, S, \Sigma} \ : \ \UN^{r_T}_0 \right) &
= ( \Z_p [\cG] : \Fitt^0_{\Z_p [\cG]} ((A_{S, \Sigma}^\infty)^{\Gamma, \vee} ) = | (A_{S, \Sigma}^\infty)^{\Gamma, \vee} | = | (A_{S, \Sigma}^\infty)^{\Gamma} |,\end{aligned}$$ where we have used that $A_{S, \Sigma}^\infty$ is finite by assumption. This finiteness also implies that the Herbrand quotient of $A_{S, \Sigma}^\infty$ is trivial, hence $$| (A_{S, \Sigma}^\infty)^\Gamma | = | (A_{S, \Sigma}^\infty)_\Gamma | = | A_{S, \Sigma} (L) | = h_{L, S, \Sigma},$$ where the second equality follows from applying [@Washington Prop. 13.22]. By [@Rubin96 Prop. 6.1] we have $\varepsilon_{L | K, S, \Sigma} \in \UN_0^r$, so Lemma \[IndexFormula\] implies that $$\UN^{r_T}_0 = \Z_p [\cG] \cdot \varepsilon_{L | K, S, \Sigma}.$$ It follows now from Nakayama’s Lemma that the sequence $(\varepsilon_{L_n | K, S, \Sigma})_{n \geq 0}$ is a $\bLambda$-basis of $\NS^{r_T} ( L_\infty, \Z_p (1))$. Since we are assuming the validity of Greenberg’s Conjecture, Proposition \[GreenbergCriterion\] gives the equality $\NS^{r_T} = \NS^b$, hence the equivariant Iwasawa Main Conjecture \[conjectures\] (c) holds true. Moreover, we know from Lemma \[FiniteLem\] that $\im \Theta_L = \UN^b_0$, so we also find that $\UN^{r_T}_0 = \im \Theta_L$. Thus, Conjecture \[conjectures\] (b) is valid. Since we have already observed in Remark \[conjectures-remark\] that in this setting Conjecture \[conjectures\] (b) coincides with [@BKS2 Conj. 2.3], this concludes the proof.
$\mu$-invariant conjectures and the Tate module of elliptic curves {#mu-section}
------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section we use the result of Theorem \[pairing-theorem\] to give a reformulation of the various $\mu$-vanishing conjectures. To do this, we assume that $L_\infty | L$ is the cyclotomic $\ZZ_p$-extension and consider the following Hypothesis:
\[sigma-hypothesis\] $\Sigma$ is a finite (possibly empty) set of places of $K$, disjoint from $S$, such that for every $v \in \Sigma$ the module of invariants $H^0(K_v, T)$ vanishes.
We caution the reader that we are not yet assuming that $\Sigma$ is chosen in such a way that Hypothesis \[main-hypothesis\](3) and (4) are satisfied.\
It is then natural to formulate the following conjecture.
\[mu-vanishing-conjecture\] Assume that $\Sigma$ satisfies Hypothesis \[sigma-hypothesis\]. Then $H^2_{\Sigma, \Iw}(\cO_{L,S},T)$ is a torsion $\Lambda$-module and, furthermore, has vanishing $\mu$-invariant.
\[mu-vanishing-independent-lemma\] Conjecture \[mu-vanishing-conjecture\] is independent of the choice of $\Sigma$.
By the definition of $\Sigma$-modified cohomology one has, for each $n \in \NN_0$, an exact sequence
\_[w \_[L\_n]{}]{} H\^1 (\_w, T) & H\^2\_(\_[L\_n, S]{}, T) & H\^2(\_[L\_n, S]{}, T) & 0
Fix a place $v \in \Sigma$ and recall that the complex $\bigoplus_{w \mid v} \text{R}\Gamma_\et (\kappa_w,T)$ is represented in $D(\cR[\cG_n])$ by the complex $\bigoplus_{w \mid v}\; [T \xrightarrow{1-\Frob_w^{-1}} T]$. In particular, Hypothesis \[sigma-hypothesis\] implies that $\bigoplus_{w \mid v} H^1 (\kappa_w, T)$ is finite and its dimension as an $\FF_p$-vector space is bounded above by the $\cR$-rank of $\oplus_{w\mid v} T$.\
Since $L_\infty | L$ is the cyclotomic $\ZZ_p$-extension, there are only finitely many primes of $L_\infty$ lying above $v$. We may thus pass to the limit to deduce that $\bigoplus_{w \in \{v\}_{L_\infty}}\varprojlim_n H^1 (\kappa_w,T)$ has vanishing $\mu$-invariant.
This fact now combines with the exact sequence above to imply that $H^2_{\Sigma, \Iw}(\cO_{L, S}, T)$ is $\Lambda$-torsion and, moreover, has vanishing $\mu$-invariant if and only if the same is true of $H^2_{\Iw}(\cO_{L, S}, T)$.
\[mu-vanishing-examples\]Lemma \[mu-vanishing-conjecture\] shows that, under the current hypotheses, the question of whether $H^2_{\Sigma, \Iw}(\cO_{L,S}, T)$ is a torsion $\Lambda$-module is equivalent to the weak Leopoldt conjecture for the pair $(T^*(1),L_\infty)$. As for the $\mu$-invariant component of Conjecture \[mu-vanishing-conjecture\] we make the following observations:
When $K$ is totally real and $T = \ZZ_p(1)$, then Hypothesis \[sigma-hypothesis\] is satisfied for any choice of $\Sigma$. The exact sequence
0 & A\_[S, ]{}\^ & H\^2\_[, ]{} (\_[L,S]{},T) & X\_[S]{}\^ & 0
combines with Lemma \[mu-vanishing-independent-lemma\] to imply that Conjecture \[mu-vanishing-conjecture\] is equivalent to Iwasawa’s famous conjecture on the vanishing of the $\mu$-invariant of $A^\infty$. In particular, the theorem of Ferrero-Washington implies that Conjecture \[mu-vanishing-conjecture\] is valid whenever $L | \QQ$ is an abelian extension.
[Let $T = T_p(E)$ be the $p$-adic Tate module of an elliptic curve over $K$, and take $\Sigma$ to be a set of primes of $K$ disjoint from $S$. Since $E$ has good reduction at every prime in $\Sigma$ it follows that $\Sigma$ satisfies Hypothesis \[sigma-hypothesis\].\
As such, Conjecture \[mu-vanishing-conjecture\] is equivalent to the Coates-Sujatha conjecture [@coates-sujatha Conj. A] after taking into consideration Lemma 3.2 of *loc. cit.* In particular, if $K = \QQ$ and $L | \QQ$ is any finite abelian extension such that $E(L)[p^\infty] \neq 0$ then Conjecture \[mu-vanishing-conjecture\] is valid by [@coates-sujatha Cor. 3.6].]{}
[More generally, Lim has conjectured in [@lim Conj. A] that the $\mu$-invariant of $H^2_\Iw(\cO_{L,S}, T)$ vanishes and Conjecture \[mu-vanishing-conjecture\] is equivalent to his conjecture after taking into consideration Lemma 3.4 of *loc. cit.*]{}
We can now formulate the main result of this section.
\[mu-vanishing-result\] Suppose that $\Sigma$ is chosen to satisfy Hypothesis \[sigma-hypothesis\] and so that the triple $(T,L_\infty, \Sigma)$ satisfies Hypothesis \[main-hypothesis\]. Then Conjecture \[mu-vanishing-conjecture\] is valid if and only if $\NS^{r_T}/\NS^b$ is finitely generated as an $\cR$-module.
At the outset we first note that if $M$ is a finitely generated torsion $\bLambda$-module, then its $\mu$-invariant vanishes if and only if $M_\p = 0$ for every singular prime $\p$ of $\bLambda$ by Lemma \[IwasawaInvariants\]. To prove the Proposition we now fix such a prime $\p$ of $\bLambda$. By localising the isomorphism of Theorem \[pairing-theorem\] at $\p$ we obtain an isomorphism $$\begin{aligned}
\Ext_{\bLambda}^1\left(\faktor{\NS^{r_T}}{\NS^b}, \bLambda\right)_\fp \cong \faktor{\bLambda_\p}{\Fitt_{\bLambda_\p}(H^2_{\Sigma, \Iw}(\cO_{L,S}, T)_\p)}.
\end{aligned}$$
On the other hand, one knows by [@NSW Prop. 5.5.13] that $\faktor{\NS^{r_T}}{\NS^b}$ and $\Ext^1_\bLambda\left(\faktor{\NS^{r_T}}{\NS^b}, \bLambda\right)$ have the same $\mu$-invariant. As such, one deduces from the above discussion that the $\mu$-invariant of $H^2_{\Sigma, \Iw}(\cO_{L,S}, T)$ vanishes if and only if the same is true of that of $\faktor{\NS^{r_T}}{\NS^b}$.
Using this Proposition we can now appeal to the known validity of the Coates-Sujatha conjecture for particular elliptic curves over $\QQ$ to say something about the structure of the quotient module $\NS^{r_T}/\NS^b$.
\[mu-vanishing-example\] Let $K= \QQ$ and $E/\QQ$ be an elliptic curve. If $(T,L_\infty, \Sigma)$ satisfies Hypothesis \[main-hypothesis\] and $E(L)[p^\infty] \neq 0$, then $\NS^1/\NS^b$ is a free $\ZZ_p$-module of finite rank.
This follows by combining Proposition \[mu-vanishing-result\] with the observation of Example \[mu-vanishing-examples\](ii) and noting that $\NS^1/\NS^b$ has no non-zero finite submodules.
Let $K = L = \QQ$ and let $E/\QQ$ be an elliptic curve of algebraic rank 0 with finite Tate-Shaferevich group and such that $E(\QQ) \neq 0$. Suppose that $\Sigma$ is chosen so that $(T, \QQ_\infty, \Sigma)$ satisfies Hypothesis \[main-hypothesis\]. If $p > 7$ does not divide any of the Tamagawa numbers at primes of bad reduction for $E$ nor the order of the Tate-Shaferevich group of $E$, then Wuthrich has shown in [@wuthrich Prop. 9.1] that the fine Selmer group of $E$ over $\QQ_\infty$ is trivial.
If we assume, in addition, that for every $v \in S\setminus S_\infty(\QQ)$ the group $E(\QQ_v)$ has no points of order $p$, then a straightforward argument using the Weil pairing implies that the dual of the fine Selmer group of $E$ over $\QQ_\infty$ coincides with $H^2_\Iw(\cO_{\Q,S}, T)$.
Given this, the proof of Proposition \[mu-vanishing-result\] implies that, under all the above assumptions, $\NS^1(T,\QQ_\infty) = \NS^b(T,\QQ_\infty)$.
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
Finite places splitting in $L_\infty$
-------------------------------------
Key to the approach of the main body of the present article is the assumption that no finite place of $K$ splits completely in $L_\infty$. While this is not an incredibly strict assumption (it is always satisfied for the cyclotomic $\ZZ_p$-extension of $L$, for example), it is natural to ask whether one can weaken this hypothesis to include many other interesting situations that arise in arithmetic. For example, if $K = L$ is an imaginary quadratic field and $K_\infty$ is not the anti-cyclotomic $\ZZ_p$-extension of $K$, then only finitely many finite places of $K$ can split in $K_\infty$ (see, for example, [@emsalem]). In particular, to obtain a module of higher rank universal norms in this situation which incorporates all arithmetic data of interest one must modify the notion of basic rank given above to take into account these new non-archimedean places.\
In this appendix we briefly outline how one can can do this for general $p$-adic representations. Since this exposition will contain essentially no additional ideas we prefer to prove as little as we feel is necessary and refer to existing arguments to justify the claims.\
At the outset we adopt all notations in §\[set-up-section\] with the exception that $L_\infty | L$ is now a $\ZZ_p$-extension in which finitely many places (infinite or finite) of $K$ are allowed to split.
### $\Sigma$-modified Selmer complexes
In this subsection we introduce a $\Sigma$-modified Selmer complex which shall prove useful throughout this appendix.\
Denote by $S_f$ the subset of $S$ comprising the finite places. Let $V$ be a finite set of finite places of $K$, disjoint from $\Sigma$. For any abelian extension $F$ of $K$ we define the *$\Sigma$-modified $V$-supported* complex $\text{R}\Gamma_{\Sigma,V}(\cO_{F,S}, T)$ to be the mapping fibre in $D(\cR[\gal{F}{K}])$ of the morphism
(\_[F,S]{},T) \_[w (S\_fV)\_F]{} (F\_w, T) & \_[w S\_[f,F]{}]{} (F\_w, T) \_[w \_[F]{}]{} (\_w, T),
where $\phi$ is given by $(\oplus_{w \in S_{f,F}} \res_w, \oplus_{w \in \Sigma_{F}} \res_w)$ on the former summand and by $(\iota, 0)$ on the latter summand where $\iota$ is the natural inclusion map.\
Given this construction, we then have the following Lemma which results from a straightforward application of the octahedral axiom.
There is an exact triangle $$\label{selmer-complex-exact-triangle}
\begin{tikzcd}
\text{R}\Gamma_{\Sigma,V}(\cO_{F,S}, T) \arrow{r} & \text{R}\Gamma_{\Sigma}(\cO_{F,S}, T) \arrow{r} & \bigoplus_{w \in V_F} \text{R}\Gamma(F_w, T)
\end{tikzcd}$$ in $D(\cR[\cG_F])$.
We now use this Lemma to study the complex $C_n^\bullet$ defined in §\[set-up-section\].
\[SplitPrimesProp\] Fix $n \in \NN_0$. Denote by $V_n$ the subset of $S$ consisting of those finite places that split completely in $L_n$ and write $$\begin{aligned}
Y_{n,K}(T) := \qquad \mathclap{\bigoplus_{v \in S_\infty(K) \cup V_n}} \quad H^0(K_v, T^*(1)).
\end{aligned}$$ Then there is an exact sequence
H\^2\_[,V\_n]{}(\_[L\_n, S]{}, T) & H\^1(C\^\_n) & \_[v S\_(K) V\_n]{} Y\_[n,K]{}(T)\^\* \_ & 0
in which the first map is canonical and the second depends on a choice of a set of representatives of the orbits of $\Gal(L_n | K)$ on $V_n$.
From Proposition \[FiniteComplex\] there is a decomposition $$\begin{aligned}
H^1(C_n^\bullet) \cong H^2_{\Sigma}(\cO_{L_n, S}, T) \oplus \bigoplus_{v \in S_\infty(K)} H^0(K_v, T^\ast(1))^\ast.
\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, Tate local duality combines with the fact that $p$ is odd and the exact triangle (\[selmer-complex-exact-triangle\]) to imply the existence of an exact sequence
H\^2\_[, V\_n]{}(\_[L\_n, S]{}, T) & H\^2\_(\_[L\_n, S]{}, T) & \_[v V\_n]{} H\^0(K\_v, T\^(1))\^\_ & 0
in which the middle arrow depends on a choice of a set of representatives of the orbits of $\Gal(L_n/K)$ on $V_n$. In particular, if we write $K_n$ for the kernel of the left hand map then, since every prime in $V_n$ splits completely in $L_n$, we obtain a decomposition $$\begin{aligned}
H^1(C_n^\bullet) \cong K_n \oplus (Y_{n,K}(T)^* \otimes_{\cR} \cR[\cG_n])
\end{aligned}$$ which completes the proof of the claim.
### Universal norms
We write $S_\spc(L_\infty)$ for the set of places of $K$ that split completely in $L_\infty$ and remark that, by our assumptions and the standard properties of $\ZZ_p$-extensions, $S_\spc(L_\infty)$ contains all the archimedean places of $K$. We then fix a finite set of places $S$ containing $$\begin{aligned}
S_\spc(L_\infty) \cup S_p(K) \cup S_\ram(T)\end{aligned}$$ and we suppose that the tuple $(T,L_\infty, \Sigma)$ satisfies the following mild hypotheses:
\[main-hypothesis-appendix\]
1. [For every $n \in \NN_0$ one has that the module of invariants $H^0_\Sigma(L_n, T)$ vanishes.]{}
2. [The $\cR$-free module $Y_K(T) = \bigoplus_{v \in S_\spc(L_\infty)} H^0(K_v,T^*(1))$ has non-zero rank $r_T$.]{}
3. [$H^1_\Sigma(\cO_{L_n, S}, T)$ is $\cR$-torsion-free for every $n \in \N_0$]{}.
For every subextension $F$ of $L_\infty | K$ we write $$\begin{aligned}
H^2_{\Sigma,\spc}(\cO_{F, S}, T) := H^2(R\Gamma_{\Sigma, S_\spc(L_\infty)}(\cO_{F,S}, T)).\end{aligned}$$
Now fix $n \in \NN_0$. By considering the sum of primitive idempotents in $\cQ[\cG_n]$ that annihilate the kernel $K_n := \ker(H^2_{\Sigma,\spc}(\cO_{L_n,S}, T) \to H^1(C_n^\bullet))$ of the map of Proposition \[SplitPrimesProp\] one can construct, as in §\[finite-level-section\], a projection map $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta_{L_n} \: \Det_{\cR[\cG_n]}(C_{L_n}^\bullet) \to \bidual_{\cR[\cG_n]}^{r_T} H^1_\Sigma(\cO_{L_n,S},T).\end{aligned}$$
In particular, if there exists $n \in \NN$ for which the projection map $\Theta_{L_n}$ is non-zero, then the argument of [@EulerSystemsSagaIII Prop. 4.30(i)] can be used to show that $\varprojlim_n K_n$ is a torsion $\bLambda$-module.\
Given this, it is straightforward to check that the arguments used to prove Theorem \[UN-structure-theorem\] and Theorem \[pairing-theorem\] give analogous results under the running hypotheses of this appendix.
Equivariant Iwasawa algebras {#AppendixIwasawa}
----------------------------
This appendix serves the purpose of collecting useful facts on rings of the form $\bLambda = \cR \llbracket \Gamma \rrbracket [G]$, where
- $\cR$ is the ring of integers in a finite extension $\mathcal{Q}$ of $\mathbb{Q}_p$,
- $\Gamma \cong \Z_p$
- $G$ is a finite abelian group.
We shall also write $\Gamma^n$ for the unique subgroup of $\Gamma$ of order $p^n$ and $\Gamma_n$ for the quotient $\faktor{\Gamma}{\Gamma^n}$. Moreover, we set $\Lambda = \cR \llbracket \Gamma \rrbracket$.
### Basic properties
Let $P$ be the $p$-Sylow subgroup of $G$ and write $H \cong \faktor{G}{P}$. Then we have a character-part decomposition $$\bLambda \cong \bigoplus_{\chi \in \widehat{H} / \sim} \Lambda_\chi \quad \text{ with } \Lambda_\chi = \cR [\im \chi] \llbracket \Gamma \rrbracket [P].$$ Here the relation $\sim$ is defined as $\chi \sim \chi'$ if there is a $\sigma \in G_\mathcal{Q}$ such that $\chi = \sigma \circ \chi'$.
\[LambdaGorenstein\] The ring $\bLambda$ is Gorenstein.
Let $\gamma$ be a topological generator of $\Gamma$. For every $\chi \in \widehat{H} / \sim$, the quotient $\faktor{\Lambda_\chi}{(\gamma - 1)} \cong \bigO [\im \chi] [P]$ is a finite group ring and is therefore Gorenstein by [@CurtisReiner 10.29]. Since $\gamma - 1$ is a non-zero divisor in $\Lambda_\chi$, this implies that $\Lambda_\chi$ is Gorenstein as well.\
If $\p \subseteq \bLambda$ is any prime ideal, then the localisation $\bLambda_\p$ is given by the sum $\bigoplus_{\chi \in \widehat{H} / \sim} (\Lambda_\chi)_{\p_\chi}$, where $\p_\chi$ denotes the projection of $\p$ onto $\Lambda_\chi$. Each summand $(\Lambda_\chi)_{\p_\chi}$ is already a local ring, so we must have $\bLambda_\p = (\Lambda_\chi)_{\p_\chi}$ for a certain character $\chi$. Since $\Lambda_\chi$ is a Gorenstein ring, this shows that $\bLambda$ is Gorenstein as well.
We also note that for any $\bLambda$-module $M$, we have a natural isomorphism of $\bLambda$-modules $$\Hom_\Lambda (M, \Lambda) \xrightarrow{\sim} \Hom_\bLambda (M, \bLambda)^\#, \quad f \mapsto \Big \{ m \mapsto \sum_{\sigma \in G} \sigma^{-1} f(\sigma \cdot m) \Big \}$$ that extends to give an isomorphism $$\label{Exts}
\Ext^i_\Lambda (M, \Lambda) \cong \Ext^i_\bLambda (M, \bLambda)^\# \quad \text{ for all } i \geq 0.$$
### Height one primes {#HeightOnePrimesSection}
The aim of this section is to describe the relation between the classical Iwasawa $\lambda$ and $\mu$-invariants of a module $M$ and the localisation of $M$ at height one primes of $\bLambda$. In order to do this, it is useful to make the following distinction among the latter.
A height one prime $\p$ of $\bLambda$ is called *singular* if $p \in \p$ and *regular* otherwise.
If $\p$ is regular, then $\bLambda_\p$ is identified with the localisation of $\bLambda [\tfrac{1}{p}]$ at $\p \bLambda [\tfrac{1}{p}]$. From the decomposition $$\bLambda [\tfrac{1}{p}] = \bigoplus_{\chi \in \widehat{G} / \sim} \Lambda_\chi [\tfrac{1}{p}] \qquad
\text{ with } \Lambda_\chi [\tfrac{1}{p}] = \bigO [\im \chi] \llbracket \Gamma \rrbracket [\tfrac{1}{p}]$$ we deduce via an argument similar to the one used in the proof of Lemma \[LambdaGorenstein\] that the localisation $(\bLambda [\tfrac{1}{p}])_{\p \bLambda [\frac{1}{p}]}$ agrees with $(\Lambda_\chi [\tfrac{1}{p}])_{\p\Lambda_\chi [\frac{1}{p}] }$ for a certain character $\chi$. Note that $\Z_p [\im \chi] \llbracket \Gamma \rrbracket$ is a conventional Iwasawa algebra. In particular, its localisation $\Z_p [\im \chi] \llbracket \Gamma \rrbracket [\tfrac{1}{p}]$ is also a regular local domain. It follows that $\bLambda_\p$ is a discrete valuation ring.\
If $\p$ is such that $\bLambda_\p = (\Lambda_\chi [\tfrac{1}{p}])_{\p\Lambda_\chi [\frac{1}{p}] }$ for the character $\chi \in \widehat{G} / \sim$, then we say the character $\chi$ is *associated* to $\p$. Similarly, if $\p$ is a singular prime and $\bLambda_\p = (\Lambda_\chi)_{\p \Lambda_\chi}$ for some character $\chi \in \widehat{H} /\sim$, then we call $\chi$ to $\p$ as well. It should always be clear from the context what is meant.
\[IwasawaInvariants\] Let $M$ be a finitely generated $\bLambda$-torsion module.
The $\mu$-invariant of $M$ vanishes if and only if $M_\p = 0$ for every singular prime $\p$ of $\bLambda$.
The module $M$ is finite (equivalently, its $\mu$ and $\lambda$-invariant both vanish) if and only if $M_\p = 0$ for every height one prime $\p$ of $\bLambda$.
The ‘only if’ part of (a) follows from [@Flach Lem. 5.6] (see also [@BurnsGreither Lem. 6.3]). As for the converse implication, first observe that there is an embedding $M \subseteq \bigoplus_{\chi \in \widehat{\cG}} M_\chi$. Given $\chi \in \widehat{\cG}$, let $\p_\chi$ be the singular prime whose associated character is the prime-to-$p$ part of $\chi$. Then by *loc. cit.* one knows that the $\mu$-invariant of $M_\chi$ (as an $\cR(\chi)\llbracket\Gamma\rrbracket$-module) vanishes. In other words, $M_\chi$ is finitely generated as an $\cR(\chi)$-module. But each $\cR(\chi)$ is a finitely generated $\cR$-algebra. From this one deduces that $M$ is itself finitely generated as an $\cR$-module and so has vanishing $\mu$-invariant.\
For part (b) we first note that if the $\lambda$-invariant of $M$ vanishes then $M$ is necessarily $\ZZ_p$-torsion (*c.f.* [@NSW Rem. 3 following Def. 5.3.9]). It then follows that $M_\p = 0$ for any regular height one prime $\p$ of $\bLambda$. In combination with (a) this gives one direction of assertion (b).\
Conversely, assume that $M_\p = 0$ for any height one prime $\p$ of $\bLambda$. Appealing to [@Sakamoto20 Lemma B.11] one sees that $$0 = \Ext^1_\bLambda (M, \bLambda ) \cong \Ext^1_\Lambda (M, \Lambda ).$$ This combines with [@NSW Prop. 5.5.8(iv)] to imply that $M$ is finite as desired.
Exterior biduals {#AppendixBiduals}
----------------
In this appendix we both survey the existing theory of exterior biduals and also establish the new results concerning these objects that are needed in the main body of this article.
### Definition and general properties
Let $R$ be a commutative Noetherian ring, and for any $R$-module put $M^\ast = \Hom_R (M, R)$.
Let $M$ be an $R$-module. For any integer $r \geq 0$ we define the $r$-th *exterior bidual* of $M$ as $$\bidual^r_R M = \left ( \exprod^r_R M^\ast \right )^\ast.$$ In particular, the symbol $\bidual$ does *not* refer to an intersection in this context.
This definition is inspired by the notion of *Rubin lattice* introduced in [@Rubin96], and first appeared in the above formalised form in [@EulerSystemsSagaI]. See [@EulerSystemsSagaII Remark A.9] for the relation between these two definitions.
#### Some maps
Let us now introduce a collection of morphisms that is ubiquitous throughout the theory of exterior biduals. For this purpose, let $M$ and $N$ be $R$-modules. For any integer $r \geq 1$ and morphism $f \in \Hom_R (M, N)$ we define $$f^{(r)} \: \exprod^r_R M \to N \otimes_R \exprod^{r - 1}_R M$$ by $$f^{(r)} (m_1 \wedge \dots \wedge m_r) = \sum_{i = 1}^r ( - 1)^{i + 1} f (m_i) \otimes m_1 \wedge \dots \wedge \widehat{m_{i}} \wedge \dots \wedge m_r,$$ where we write $\widehat{m_i}$ to mean omission of this particular coefficient. By abuse of notation, we shall simply denote $f^{(r)}$ by $f$ as well.\
For any integer $s \leq r$ this construction (specialised at $N = R$ ) induces a natural morphism $$\exprod^r_R M^\ast \to \Hom_R \left( \exprod^r_R M, \; \exprod^{r - s}_R M\right), \quad
f_1 \wedge \dots \wedge f_r \mapsto f_r \circ \dots \circ f_1$$ which is sometimes referred to as the *rank reduction* by $f$. If $\mathfrak{S}_r$ is the permutation group on $r$ elements, then a more explicit description of the above map is given by $$\label{ExplicitFormula}
f_1 \wedge \dots \wedge f_r \mapsto
\bigg \{ m_1 \wedge \dots \wedge m_r \mapsto
\sum_{\sigma \in \mathfrak{S}_{r,s}} \text{sgn} (\sigma) \det( f_i (m_{\sigma_{j}})) m_{\sigma (s +1)} \wedge \dots \wedge m_{\sigma (r)}
\bigg \},$$ where $\mathfrak{S}_{r,s} = \{ \sigma \in \mathfrak{S}_r \mid \sigma (1) < \dots < \sigma (s) \text{ and } \sigma (s + 1) < \dots < \sigma (s) \}$. By virtue of this map, we shall regard any element of $\exprod^s_R M^\ast$ as an element of $\Hom_R (\exprod^r_R M, \; \exprod^{r - s}_R M^\ast)$.
#### General properties
Let $N$ and $M$ be $R$-modules, and $r \geq 0$ an integer. The following properties are immediate from the properties of the functors $\exprod^r_R -$ and $\Hom_R ( -, R)$:
- $\bidual^0_R M = R$ and $\bidual^1_R M = M^{\ast \ast}$.
- Every morphism of $R$-modules $N \to M$ induces a morphism $\bidual^r_R N \to \bidual^r_R M$.
- There is a natural morphism $$\xi^r_M \: \exprod^r_R M \to \bidual^r_R M, \quad m \mapsto \{ f \mapsto f (a) \}$$ which is neither injective nor surjective in general. For any $s \leq r$ and $f \in \exprod^s_R M^\ast$ the morphism $\xi^r_M$ fits into a commutative diagram
\^r\_R M & \^[r - s]{}\_R M\
\^r\_R M & \^[r - s]{}\_R M,
where the bottom map is define as the dual of $$\exprod^{r - s}_R M^\ast \to \exprod^r_R M^\ast, \quad g \mapsto f \wedge g.$$
For any finitely generated projective $R$-module $P$, the map $\xi^r_M$ is an isomorphism.
This is proved in [@EulerSystemsSagaI Lem. A.1].
### Functoriality aspects
We follow [@Sakamoto20 Appendix B3] in considering the following two conditions on $R$:
- The ring $R$ is said to satisfy the condition $(G_n)$ if the localisation $G_\p$ is Gorenstein for any prime $\p \in \Spec R$ of height $\text{ht} (\p) \leq n$.
- The ring $R$ is said to satisfy Serre’s condition $(S_n)$ if $\text{depth } R_\p \geq \text{inf} (n, \text{ht} (\p) )$ holds for any prime ideal $\p \in \Spec R$.
For example, $R$ is Cohen-Macaulay if and only if $R$ satsfies $(S_n)$ for all $n \in \N_0$. In particular, Gorenstein rings satisfiy both $(G_n)$ and $(S_n)$ for all $n \in \N_0$. Examples of Gorenstein rings include equivariant Iwasawa algebras (see Lemma \[LambdaGorenstein\]) and finite group rings (see [@CurtisReiner p. 779]).
\[RyotarosLemma1\] Suppose that $R$ satisfies both $(G_0)$ and $(S_1)$. If $N \hookrightarrow M$ is an injective morphism of $R$-modules, then for any integer $r \geq 1$ the induced map $$\bidual^r_R N \to \bidual^r_R M$$ is injective as well.
See [@Sakamoto20 Lemma C.1].
\[BidualsLimits\] Suppose that $R$ satisfies $(S_2)$ and $(G_1)$ and admits a presentation as an inverse limit $R = \varprojlim_{i \in I} R_i$ $(R_i)_{i \in I}$ of Noetherian rings satisfying $(S_2)$ and $(G_1)$. Let $C^\bullet$ be a perfect complex of $R$-modules and assume (without loss of generality) that $H^i (C^\bullet) = 0$ for $i < 0$. Then there is an isomorphism $$\bidual^r_R H^0 (C^\bullet) \stackrel{\simeq}{\longrightarrow} \varprojlim_{i \in I} \bidual^r_{R_i} H^0 (C^\bullet \otimes^\mathbb{L}_R R_n ).$$
See [@Sakamoto20 Lemma B.15].
\[BaseChangeLem\] Let $R$ be a Noetherian ring, and let $R \to R'$ be a ring morphism that endows $R'$ with the structure of an $R$-module of projective dimension at most one. If $M$ is an $R$-module such that $\Ext^1_R (M, R) = 0$, then there is a natural injection $$\left ( \bidual^r_R M \right ) \otimes_R R' \hookrightarrow \bidual^r_{R'} ( M \otimes_R R').$$
Unlike exterior powers, exterior biduals are not in general compatible with base change (see [@Sakamoto20 Rem. B.9] for a short discussion). Lemma \[BaseChangeLem\] is therefore an exceptional phenomenon.
*Proof of \[BaseChangeLem\]*: Since $R'$ is of projective dimension at most one, we have an exact sequence
0 & P\_2 & P\_1 & R’ & 0,
where $P_1$ and $P_2$ are projective $R$-modules. We therefore have a commutative diagram
& \_R (M, R) \_R P\_2 & \_R (M, R) \_R P\_1 & \_R (M, R) \_R R’ &0\
0 & \_R (M, P\_2) & \_R (M, P\_1) & \_R (M, R’) &.
Since $P_2$ is a direct summand of a free $R$-module, the assumption $\Ext^1(M,R) = 0$ implies that the bottom row of this diagram is exact on the right. Now, the exactness of the bottom row tells us that the top row is also exact on the left, so the snake lemma yields an isomorphism
\_R (M, R) \_R R’ \_R (M, R’) .
Taking $R'$-exterior powers and $R'$-duals, we deduce an isomorphism $$\begin{aligned}
\Hom_{R'} \left( \left(\exprod^r_{R} M^\ast \right) \otimes_R R', \; R'\right) & = \Hom_{R'} \left( \exprod^r_{R'} M^\ast \otimes_R R', \; R'\right) \\
& \cong \Hom_{R'} \left( \exprod^r_{R'} \Hom_R (M, R'), \; R'\right).\end{aligned}$$ The tensor-hom adjunction implies that $$\label{adjunction}
\Hom_R (M, R') = \Hom_R (M, \Hom_{R'} (R', R')) = \Hom_{R'} ( M \otimes_R R', R'),$$ so we infact have an isomorphism $$\Hom_{R'} \left( \left(\exprod^r_{R} M^\ast \right) \otimes_R R', \; R'\right) \cong \bidual^r_{R'} ( M \otimes_R R').$$ Using (\[adjunction\]) again, this time for the left hand side, we can restate this as $$\Hom_{R} \left( \exprod^r_{R} M^\ast, \; R'\right)\cong \bidual^r_{R'} ( M \otimes_R R').$$ By repeating the process that led to the commutative diagram that was used at the beginning of the proof, we also obtain an injection $$\left(\bidual^r_R M \right) \otimes_R R' = \Hom_R \left( \exprod^r_R M^\ast, \; R\right) \otimes_R R' \hookrightarrow \Hom_R \left( \exprod^r_R M^\ast, \; R'\right)$$ which in combination with the previously obtained isomorphism shows the Lemma.
### Further properties
\[LittleLemma\] Suppose that $R$ satisfies $(G_1)$ and $(S_2)$. Let $s \geq 1$ be an integer and
0 & X & Y & R\^[s]{} & Z & 0
an exact sequence of $R$-modules, where $Y$ is a free $R$-module of rank $d$. Fix an integer $r$ such that $s \leq r \leq d$ and consider the map $$\varphi = \bigwedge_{1 \leq i \leq s} \varphi_i \: \exprod^r_R Y \to \exprod^{r - s}_R Y.$$ Then the following hold:
There exists an exact sequence
0 & \^r\_R X & \^r\_R Y & \_[i = 1]{}\^s \^[r - 1]{}\_R Y .
We have an inclusion $$\im \varphi \subseteq \bidual^{r - s}_R X,$$ where we regard $\bidual^{r - s}_R X$ as a submodule of $\bidual^{r-s}_R Y = \exprod^{r - s}_R Y$ via Lemma \[RyotarosLemma1\].
There is an equality $$\left\{ f (a) \mid a \in \im \varphi, \; f \in \exprod^{r - s}_R X^\ast \right\} = \Fitt^{s}_R (Z).$$
Part (a) is [@Sakamoto20 Lem. B.12]. For (b) we first note that $\varphi$ is the dual of the map $$\exprod^r_R Y^\ast \to \exprod^{r + s}_R Y^\ast, \quad f \mapsto (\varphi_1 \wedge \dots \wedge \varphi_s) \wedge f.$$ The kernel of this map is the submodule generated by elements of the form $g \wedge h$, where $g \in \langle \varphi_i \mid 1 \leq i \leq s \rangle_R$ and $h \in \exprod^{r - 1}_R Y^\ast$. We therefore have an exact sequence $$\label{AnExactSequence}
\begin{tikzcd}
\langle \varphi_i \mid 1 \leq i \leq s \rangle_R \otimes_R \exprod^{r - s - 1}_R Y^\ast \arrow{r} & \exprod^{r - s}_R Y^\ast \arrow{r} & \exprod^{r}_R Y^\ast.
\end{tikzcd}$$ Dualising the exact sequence
0 & \_[i = 1]{}\^s \_i & R\^[ s]{} & Z & 0
yields the sequence
R\^[s]{} & ( \_[i = 1]{}\^s \_i)\^ & \^1\_R (Z, R) & 0.
The image of the map on the left is exactly the module $\langle \varphi_i \mid 1 \leq 1 \leq s \rangle_R$, so dualising a second time yields
0 & \^1\_R (Z, R)\^ & ( \_[i = 1]{}\^s \_i)\^ &\_i 1 1 s \_R\^.
Now, if $\p \in \Spec(R)$ is a prime of height $\text{ht } \p \leq 1$, then $$\Ext^1_R (Z, R)_\p = \Ext^2_R (\im \textstyle \bigoplus_{i = 1}^s \varphi_i, \; R)_\p = 0$$ since by assumption $R$ satisfies ($G_1$) and so $R_\p$ has injective dimension 1. That is, $\Ext^1_R (Z, R)$ is a pseudo-null module and it follows from [@Sakamoto20 Lem. B.11] that $\Ext^1_R (Z, R)^\ast = 0$. We therefore get a commutative diagram
0 & \^[r - s]{}\_R X & \^[r - s]{}\_R Y & ( \_[i = 1]{}\^s \_i ) \_R \^[r - s]{}\_R Y\
0 & A\^ & \^[r - s]{}\_R Y & \_i 1 i s \_R\^\_R \^[r - s]{}\_R Y,
where the top line comes from (a), the bottom line is obtained from (\[AnExactSequence\]) by setting $A = \im \{ \exprod^{r - s}_R Y^\ast \to \exprod^{r}_R Y^\ast \}$ and dualising, and the injectivity of the map on the right holds because the map $ \im \bigoplus_{i = 1}^s \varphi_i \to ( \im \bigoplus_{i = 1}^s \varphi_i)^{\ast \ast}$ is injective. Applying the snake lemma to this diagram then gives $A^\ast \cong \bidual^{r-s}_R X$. From the factorisation
A\^ & \^[r - s]{}\_R Y\^\
\^[r]{}\_R Y\^ &
it follows that indeed $\im \varphi \subseteq \bidual^{r - s}_R X$. As for (c), the proof of [@EulerSystemsSagaI Prop. A.2 (ii)] shows that $$\left\{ f (a) \mid a \in \im \varphi, \; f \in \exprod^{r - s}_R Y^\ast \right\} = \Fitt^{s}_R (Z).$$ Since $\im \varphi \subseteq \bidual^{r - s}_R X$, this set is certainly contained in $\{ f (a) \mid a \in \im \varphi, \; f \in \exprod^{r - s}_R X^\ast \}$.\
We shall therefore show the reverse inclusion. We first remind the reader that for any $x \in \bidual^{r - s}_R X$ and $f \in \exprod^{r - s}_R X^\ast$, the value $f(x) \in R$ is given by $x (f)$, where $x$ is regarded, true to its definition, as a map $\exprod^{r - s}_R X^\ast \to R$.\
We have seen above that $\bidual^{r - s}_R X = A^\ast$, so we can regard $x$ as an element of $A^\ast$, and so the value $x (f)$ coincides with $x$ evaluated at the restriction $f_{\mid_A}$ of $f$ to $A$. By construction, the map $\exprod^{r - s}_R Y^\ast \to A$ is surjective, so we can lift $f_{\mid_A}$ to an element $g$ of $\exprod^{r - s}_R Y^\ast$ as wanted.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">King’s College London, Department of Mathematics, London WC2R 2LS, United Kingdom</span>\
*Email address:* <[email protected]>\
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">King’s College London, Department of Mathematics, London WC2R 2LS, United Kingdom</span>\
*Email address:* <[email protected]>
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Thomas P. K. Martinsson'
- 'Marc A. W. Verheijen'
- 'Kyle B. Westfall[^1]'
- |
\
Matthew A. Bershady
- 'David R. Andersen'
- 'Rob A. Swaters'
bibliography:
- 'Martinsson\_DMS\_VII.bib'
date: 'Received 1 March 2013 / Accepted 12 July 2013'
title: |
The DiskMass Survey. VII. The distribution of luminous and\
dark matter in spiral galaxies
---
Introduction {#sec:Introduction}
============
For a spiral galaxy, it should be possible to derive the mass distributions of the different components by decomposing its observed rotation curve into separate contributions from the various baryonic components and a dark-matter halo. However, even though it has now been shown that a more or less flat rotation curve seems to be a general feature of spiral galaxies [e.g., @bosma1978; @bosma1981a; @bosma1981b; @begeman1987; @begeman1989; @sofue1999; @sofue2001], and although the concept of a dark-matter halo is well established and widely accepted[^2], there is still a huge uncertainty in the observationally inferred distribution of the dark matter. The main issue is that, since the stellar mass is unknown, the technique of decomposing the observed rotation curve does not put a strong constraint on the detailed shape of the dark-matter-halo density profile. In many cases the observed rotation curve can even be explained by a two-parameter dark-matter-halo model alone, with the disk containing no stellar mass at all. The most commonly used approach to circumvent this problem has been to go to the other extreme by assuming a maximum contribution from the baryons, thereby increasing the mass-to-light ratio of the stellar component ($\mls$) until the rotation curve of the baryons approximates the amplitude of the observed rotation curve in the inner region [the “maximum-disk hypothesis”; @AlbadaSancisi1986]. This approach sets an upper limit on the contribution from the baryons, but without knowledge of $\mls$ there is still a severe *disk-halo degeneracy*, making it impossible to determine the structural properties of the dark-matter halo.
Another approach is to use $\mls$ derived from stellar-population-synthesis models; however, these models suffer from large uncertainties since they require many assumptions regarding the star-formation and chemical-enrichment history, the initial mass function (IMF), and accurate accounting for late phases of stellar evolution [@maraston2005; @conroy2009]. For example, although [@kauffmann2003] find random errors of only 40% from the models, the choice of IMF alone results in a factor of two systematic uncertainty in the stellar mass.
While the maximum-disk hypothesis has been a commonly used refuge in the literature [e.g., @albada1985; @kent1986; @BroeilsCourteau1997], there is evidence that at least some galaxy disks are in fact submaximal, e.g., based on the lack of a surface-brightness dependency in the Tully-Fisher relation [TF; @tullyfisher1977] for a wide range of spirals [@zwaan1995; @courteau1999; @courteau2003]. However, observations have so far not lead to a consensus, and the maximality may depend on the galaxy type [@bottema1993; @weiner2001; @kranz2003; @kregel2005; @byrd2006; @herrmann2009; @dutton2011; @dutton2013; @barnabe2012].
One of the main goals of the DiskMass Survey [DMS; @bershady2010a hereafter ] is to break the disk-halo degeneracy using stellar and gas kinematics to determine the dynamical mass-to-light ratio of the galaxy disk ($\mldyn$). For a locally isothermal disk $$\mldyn = \frac{\sddisk}{I} = \frac{\sigz^2}{\pi G k \hz I} ,
\label{eq:mldyn}
$$ where $\sddisk$ is the dynamical mass surface density of the disk, $I$ the surface brightness, $\sigz$ the vertical component of the stellar velocity dispersion, $G$ the gravitational constant, $k$ a parameter dependent on the vertical mass distribution, and $\hz$ the disk scale height [@kruit1981; @bahcall1984]. Since $I$ is well known from photometry, and the relation between $\hz$ and the disk scale length ($\hr$) has been statistically determined from studies of edge-on spiral galaxies [e.g., @GrijsKruit1996; @kregel2002 see also the compilation in Fig. 1 of @bershady2010b, hereafter ], observations of $\sigz$ give us a direct estimate of $\mldyn$. The value of $k$ is expected to range between 1.5 to 2 [exponential to isothermal distribution; @kruit1988]. In this paper, we will assume an exponential distribution ($k$=1.5) as a reasonable approximation for the composite (gas+stars) density distribution . In the expected range of density distributions discussed by [@kruit1988], our adopted value of $k$ will effectively maximize the measurement of $\sddisk$ and $\mldyn$.
The strategy of measuring the stellar velocity dispersion to obtain the dynamical mass surface density has been attempted before [@kruit1984; @kruit1986; @bottema1993; @kregel2005]. These studies showed that the ratio of the maximum amplitude of the disk’s rotation curve (calculated from the observed velocity dispersion) and the maximum of the observed rotation speed ($\vmax$) was much lower than expected for a maximum disk. [@bottema1993] found that disks contribute only $63\pm10$% to the observed rotation speed. [@kregel2005] found an even smaller average disk contribution of $58\pm5$%, with a $1\sigma$ scatter of 18% when including two outliers. Excluding the outliers, they find an average disk contribution of $53\pm4$%, with a $1\sigma$ scatter of 15%. These results are significantly lower than the 85$\pm$10% which is typical for a maximum-disk case [@sackett1997]. In @bershady2011 [hereafter ], we followed the approach of using the relation between the central $\sigz$ of the disk and $\vmax$, and found that disks contribute only $47\pm8$% of the observed rotation speed; even lower than what was found by the earlier studies, but consistent within the errors. We also found that the disk contribution depends on color, absolute $K$-band magnitude, and $\vmax$, such that redder, more luminous, and faster-rotating galaxies have baryonic disks that make a relatively larger contribution to their observed rotation speeds.
With a measured distribution of the baryonic mass, together with the observed rotation speed, it is possible to derive the density distribution of the dark matter. While the flatness of the outer part of rotation curves suggests a halo with a dark-matter density distribution declining as $\rho \propto R^{-2}$, the inner slope is still debated [see, e.g., @deBlok2010]. The difficulty in determining the inner density distribution of the dark matter arises mainly due the uncertainty in the baryonic mass distribution. From numerical N-body simulations [e.g., @NFW1997] the inner density profiles and concentrations of the dark-matter halos are predicted in the absence of baryons. It is argued that the baryons in the disk will tend to contract the halo while it is forming [e.g., @blumenthal1986; @gnedin2004]. However, several processes may occur that could also expand the halo, such as dynamical friction between the halo and infalling galaxies [e.g., @el-zant2001], or mass outflows from central starbursts and active galactic nuclei [@read2005; @governato2012; @pontzen2012].
In this paper, we decompose the rotation curves of 30 spiral galaxies, using stellar kinematics from PPak [@verheyen2004; @kelz2006] and ionized gas kinematics from SparsePak [@bershady2004; @bershady2005], as well as 21-cm radio synthesis data from the WSRT, GMRT and VLA, near-infrared (NIR) photometry from the Two-Micron All-Sky Survey [2MASS; @skrutski2006] and MIPS 24-$\mu$m imaging from the Spitzer Space Telescope (hereafter [*Spitzer*]{}). The paper is organized in the following way: Section \[sec:DataSummary\] describes the sample and summarizes the used data. In Sect. \[sec:Sigma\], we derive mass surface densities of the atomic and molecular gas, and show how our stellar kinematic measurements from PPak [@martinsson2012a hereafter ] provide mass surface densities of the stars. We further investigate relative mass fractions of the baryons. In Sect. \[sec:RotationCurves\] the observed + rotation curves are combined. In Sect. \[sec:RCDecomp\] we calculate the baryonic rotation curves, derive measured dark-matter rotation curves and fit a pseudo-isothermal sphere or a NFW halo to these rotation curves. We also perform alternative rotation-curve decompositions, using maximum-$\mls$ solutions. From the observed + rotation curves and the calculated baryonic rotation curves, we derive the baryonic mass fractions as a function of radius and quantify the baryonic maximality in Sect. \[sec:DiskMaximality\]. In Sect. \[sec:DMRCshape\] we investigate how well the measured dark-matter rotation curves are fitted, and compare the NFW parameters with results from numerical N-body simulations. Section \[sec:Discussion\] contains a discussion on what we have found in this work, which is finally summarized in Sect. \[sec:Summary\_DeComp\]. Throughout this paper we adopt the Hubble parameter $H_0$$=$73 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$.
Observational Data {#sec:DataSummary}
==================
The data used in this paper are presented in more detail elsewhere. The following subsections briefly summarize these data.
Galaxy sample
-------------
The complete DMS sample is described in . Here, we use the subsample of 30 galaxies observed with the PPak IFU .[^3] We refer to these galaxies as the PPak sample. Observed properties of the galaxies in the PPak sample, such as distances, colors, coordinates and disk orientations, can be found in Table 1 and Table 5 of . In summary, these galaxies cover a range in morphological type from Sa to Im with 22 galaxies being Sc or later; absolute $K$-magnitudes ($M_K$) range from -21.0 to -25.4; $B-K$ colors are between 2.7 and 4.2; and the central disk face-on $K$-band surface brightness ($\mu_{0,K}^{i}$) ranges from 19.9 to 16.0 mag arcsec$^{-2}$. The galaxies have been selected to be close to face-on, and cover a range in inclination from $6\arcdeg$ to $45\arcdeg$.
Near-infrared photometry {#sec:Photometry}
------------------------
A description of our re-analysis of 2MASS NIR photometry of the galaxies in our sample is presented in . These data were used to produce pseudo-$K$-band surface brightness profiles, $\mu_{K}(R)$, derived by combining $J$-, $H$- and $K$-band images. The bulge/disk decomposition and the corrections to the bulge and disk surface brightness (face-on, Galactic-extinction, and k-corrections) resulted in corrected bulge ($\mu_{K,\rm bulge}$) and disk ($\mu_{K,\rm disk}^{i}$) radial surface brightness profiles. We defined the bulge radius ($\rbulge$) to be the radius where the light from the bulge contributes 10% to the light at that radius. The NIR surface brightness will be used to trace the stellar mass of the galaxy (Sect. \[sec:Sigma\]).
As described in , we have derived $\hr$ in an iterative way, fitting an exponential function to the observed $K$-band surface brightness profile between 1–4$\hr$. Using Eq. 1 in , we calculate $\hz$ from $\hr$ with a systematic error of 25%. The derived $\hz$ is used for our conversion from $\sigz$ to $\sddisk$ (Eq. \[eq:mldyn\]). Table \[tab:hRhz\] contains the derived $\hr$ and $\hz$ for each target galaxy. Other derived parameters, such as the fitted scale length in arcsec, central face-on-corrected surface brightness of the disk ($\mu_{0,K}^{i}$), bulge-to-disk ratio ($B/D$), and the absolute $K$-band magnitude ($M_K$), are tabulated in Table 1 and Table 5 of .
Stellar and ionized-gas kinematics {#sec:Kinematics}
----------------------------------
also presented the reduction and analysis of the stellar and ionized-gas ($\lambda$5007Å) kinematics from optical spectroscopy taken with PPak, where the stellar kinematics were derived as described in [@westfall2011a]. In the current paper, we will not use any of the derived kinematics; instead we will rely on our data taken with SparsePak on the WIYN 3.5m telescope.[^4] The reason why we exclude the kinematics is that, empirically, it show large scatter in the velocity fields, likely due to astrophysical properties of the gas such as local outflows associated with star-forming regions, and deviations from circular orbits. Generally, the data also have a lower signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) in the line compared to the data. Thus, the data suffer more severely from both systematic and random errors in the characterization of the gas rotation curve.
The SparsePak integral-field spectroscopy was obtained in the region for all galaxies in the PPak Sample using the setup as described in Table 1 of . Typically, a three-pointing dither pattern was followed, designed to fully sample the $72\arcsec \times 71\arcsec$ field-of-view of SparsePak. The reduction of these data, such as basic data reduction, spectral extraction and wavelength calibration, follows methods described in [@andersen2006], and will be described in a forthcoming paper.
The kinematics are measured in a similar way as the kinematics , following [@andersen2006; @andersen2008], with both single and double Gaussian line profiles fitted in a 20Å window centered around each line. Velocities are calculated using the wavelengths of the Gaussian centroids. Of all fitted line profiles, 27% are better fit by a double Gaussian profile (@andersen2008); in these cases, however, a single component is used to measure the line-of-sight velocity. The measured velocities are used in Sect. \[sec:RC\] to derive rotation curves by fitting tilted rings to the data.
24-$\mu$m [*Spitzer*]{} photometry {#sec:Spitzer}
----------------------------------
For the characterization of the molecular-gas content, we use 24-$\mu$m photometry obtained with [*Spitzer*]{}. The general motivation and survey strategy for our [*Spitzer*]{} observations is provided in . Images at 4.5, 8, 24, and 70 $\mu$m were obtained for all galaxies in the PPak Sample. Here, we will only use the 24-$\mu$m MIPS observations to infer the CO surface-brightness distribution from the 24-$\mu$m flux, motivated by the well-correlated relations between CO and infrared emission [e.g., @young1991; @paladino2006; @regan2006; @bendo2010]. The inferred CO surface brightness follows from the empirical relation derived by @westfall2011b [hereafter ] based on the CO and 24-$\mu$m data provided by [@leroy2008].
We obtained reliable 24-$\mu$m surface photometry and reached S/N$=$3 per spatial resolution element at $3\hr$, matching the extent of the kinematic IFU measurements. Images of the galaxies at 24 $\mu$m can be found in Fig. 9 of . More details on the reduction will be provided in a forthcoming paper.
21-cm radio synthesis imaging {#sec:HIdata}
-----------------------------
In [@martinsson2011], we presented the reduction and results from our 21-cm radio synthesis observations of 28 galaxies, of which 24 are part of the PPak sample. The observations were obtained using the VLA, WSRT and GMRT arrays, with three galaxies observed by both the VLA and WSRT. The data have been smoothed to $\sim$15$\arcsec$ angular resolution and $\sim$10 km s$^{-1}$ velocity resolution, giving typical column-density sensitivities of 2–5 $\times 10^{20}$ atoms cm$^{-2}$. Here, we will use the derived mass surface densities to estimate the amount of atomic gas in the disk (Sect. \[sec:SigmaHImod\]), and the measured rotation speed of the gas to obtain extended rotation curves (Sect. \[sec:RC\]).
Baryonic Mass Distributions {#sec:Sigma}
===========================
This section describes how the mass surface densities of the baryonic components are derived, closely following the analysis as outlined in . The mass surface densities will be used in Sect. \[sec:RCmod\] to calculate the baryonic rotation curves. While the atomic gas mass surface density ($\sda$) is observed directly from our observations, the molecular gas mass surface density ($\sdm$) is derived indirectly from 24-$\mu$m [*Spitzer*]{} observations. The stellar-kinematic observations of $\sigz$ are used to calculate dynamical mass surface densities ($\sddisk$), from which we obtain the stellar mass surface densities ($\sds$) by subtracting the gas mass contributions. From the derived $\sds$ and $\mu_{K,\rm disk}^{i}$, we calculate the average stellar mass-to-light ratio of the galaxy disk ($\overline{\mls}$). We assign the same $\mls$ to the bulge and the disk, and calculate the radial mass surface density profiles of the stellar disk ($\sds^{\rm disk}$) and bulge ($\sds^{\rm bulge}$) separately, as well as their total masses, using radial surface brightness profiles (Sect. \[sec:Photometry\]) of the disk and bulge, respectively. The total masses of the various baryonic components are tabulated in Table \[tab:Masses\]. At the end of this section, we include an investigation of the masses of the various dynamical components in relation to each other and to global photometric and kinematic properties of the galaxies.
Atomic gas mass surface density {#sec:SigmaHImod}
-------------------------------
From our 21-cm radio synthesis observations [Sect. \[sec:HIdata\]; @martinsson2011], we have measured the mass surface densities ($\sdhi$) for 28 galaxies, of which 24 galaxies are also part of the PPak sample. We found that the radial $\sdhi$ profiles of these galaxies are well fit with a Gaussian function, $$\Sigma_{\rm HI}(R) = \Sigma_{\rm HI}^{\rm max}
\exp \left[-\frac{\left(R-R_{\rm \Sigma,max}\right)^2}{2\sigma_{\Sigma}^2}\right] ,
\label{eq:Sigma_HI}
$$ with $R_{\rm \Sigma,max}$ being the radius at which the profile peaks, $\sigma_{\Sigma}$ the width of the profile, and $\Sigma_{\rm HI}^{\rm max}$ the peak density. The tightest fit is found when normalizing the radius with the radius, $R_{\rm HI}$, defined as the radius where $\sdhi$$=$$1\msol \rm pc^{-2}$. In [@martinsson2011], we also found another tight relation between the total mass ($\mhi$) and the diameter ($D_{\rm HI}$$=$$2 R_{\rm HI}$), $$\log(\mhi) = 1.72 \log(D_{\rm HI}) + 6.92,
\label{eq:MHIDHI}
$$ where $\mhi$ is the mass in units of solar masses and $D_{\rm HI}$ is measured in kpc.
We have direct measurements of $\sdhi$ for 24 out of 30 galaxies in this paper. For the remaining six galaxies lacking $\sdhi$ measurements, we use our results above to model their $\sdhi$ profiles. We calculate $\mhi$ from literature values of the flux from single dish observations taken from the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database[^5] (NED). These $\mhi$ are used in Eq. \[eq:MHIDHI\] to calculate $R_{\rm HI}$. We then use Eq. \[eq:Sigma\_HI\], with parameter values found from averaging all 28 galaxies ($R_{\rm \Sigma,max}$$=$$0.39R_{\rm HI}$, $\sigma_{\Sigma}$$=$$0.35R_{\rm HI}$), to calculate $\Sigma_{\rm HI}(R)$, where the normalization constant $\Sigma_{\rm HI}^{\rm max}$ is found by calibrating the $\Sigma_{\rm HI}$ profile to our estimated $\mhi$. The calculated $\Sigma_{\rm HI}^{\rm max}$ (Table \[tab:ModelSigmaHI\]) are typical of the values found for other galaxies in our sample.
We test how the use of Gaussian fits instead of actual $\sdhi$ measurements on these 6 galaxies affects our derived results in this paper by recalculating $\overline{\mls}$ (Sect. \[sec:ML\]) and the baryonic maximality at $2.2\hr$ ($\Fbary^{2.2\hr}$; Sect. \[sec:DiskMaximality\]) for the other 24 galaxies, using Gaussian fits based on their total fluxes [taken from @martinsson2011]. The effects appear to be small, with average absolute differences on $\overline{\mls}$ and $\Fbary^{2.2\hr}$ from using the measured $\sdhi$ profiles of 4% and 2%, respectively. The differences on individual galaxies are always well within the errors.
To calculate the atomic gas mass surface density, we follow earlier papers in this series , and multiply $\sdhi$ by a factor 1.4 to account for the helium and metal fraction; $\sda$$=$$1.4\sdhi$.
Molecular gas mass surface density
----------------------------------
The mass surface density of the molecular gas ($\sdm$) is inferred from our 24-$\mu$m [*Spitzer*]{} imaging (Sect. \[sec:Spitzer\]), as described in . This is done in three steps: First, we derive the $^{12}{\rm CO}$($J$$=$1$\rightarrow$0) column density ($I_{\rm CO} \Delta V$) from the 24-$\mu$m surface brightness using Eq. 1 in , converting the sky-subtracted 24-$\mu$m image to a CO column-density map. This conversion is expected to provide an estimate for $I_{\rm CO} \Delta V$ to within $\sim$30% . Subsequently, we calculate the molecular hydrogen ($\rm H_2$) mass surface density ($\sdmh$) from Eq. 2 in adopting the same conversion factor, $X_{\rm CO}$$=$(2.7$\pm$0.9)$\times$$\rm10^{20}~cm^{-2}~(K~km~s^{-1})^{-1}$, calculated from combining the Galactic measurement of $X_{\rm CO}$ from [@dame2001] with the measurements for M31 and M33 from [@bolatto2008]. Finally, we multiply by a factor 1.4 to add helium and metals to the molecular gas density; $\sdm$$=$1.4$\sdmh$.
The limitations in estimating the molecular-gas content from the observed 24-$\mu$m emission is discussed in more detail in . Here we note that the estimated systematic errors are fairly large ($\delta\sdmh/\sdmh$$=$42%) and often an important error contributor to the stellar mass-to-light ratios calculated below.
Dynamical and stellar disk mass surface densities
-------------------------------------------------
As mentioned in Sect. \[sec:Introduction\], the stellar velocity dispersion is a direct indicator of the local mass surface density. In particular, Eq. \[eq:mldyn\] directly relates $\sigz$ and $\sddisk$. The observed line-of-sight velocity dispersions ($\slos$) were presented in . These were deprojected into the three components ($\sigr,\sigp, \sigz$) of the stellar velocity ellipsoid (SVE), using the derived disk orientations from and an SVE shape as justified in with $\alpha$$\equiv$$\sigz/\sigr$$=$0.6$\pm$0.15 and $\beta$$\equiv$$\sigp/\sigr$$=$0.7$\pm$0.04 at all radii for all galaxies.
From Eq. \[eq:mldyn\], we calculate the total dynamical mass surface density of the disk. In this paper, we assume a disk with a single scale height and an exponential vertical density distribution [@kruit1988]. These assumptions on the structure of the disk have their limitations, especially in the very center of the galaxy where a non-negligible bulge or a bar may be present, and in the outer part of the disk, which could be affected by the dark-matter halo or may be flared [e.g., @GrijsPeletier1997]. However, in our analysis we exclude any kinematic measurements inside the bulge region, and measurements in the outer disk will be heavily down-weighted due to larger measurement errors. More discussion on the effects of possible systematic errors is presented in Sect. \[sec:Discussion\].
The measured stellar mass surface density ($\sds$) is derived by subtracting the atomic and molecular gas mass surface densities from $\sddisk$, $$\sds = \sddisk - \sda - \sdm.
\label{eq:Sigma_star}
$$ We assume that any dark matter in the disk is distributed in the same way as the stars, and is effectively incorporated into $\sds$.
In the following subsection, we calculate the average stellar mass-to-light ratios of the disks and use these together with the surface brightness to calculate $\sds$. We do this to be able to separate the bulge and disk, which have different density distributions and therefore need to be treated differently when modeling their rotation curves, and to calculate $\sds$ profiles that reach further out in radius, beyond our stellar-kinematic measurements. The measured and calculated $\sds$ profiles are provided in the Atlas (Appendix \[sec:Atlas\]).
Mass-to-light ratios {#sec:ML}
--------------------
![[ Distributions of radially-averaged dynamical (left) and stellar (right) mass-to-light ratios. ]{}[]{data-label="fig:MLhist"}](figures/MLhist.eps){width="50.00000%"}
We calculate dynamical ($\mldyn$) and stellar ($\mls$) mass-to-light ratios using our measurements of $\sddisk$ and $\sds$, respectively; both are calculated in the $K$-band using $\mu_{K,\rm disk}^{i}$. Error-weighted radial averages ($\overline{\mldyn}$ and $\overline{\mls}$) are calculated after excluding radial regions where our dynamical and/or structural assumptions are less robust. In particular, we exclude data within $R$$=$$\rbulge$, and $R$$=$$2\farcs5$ if no bulge is apparent. For UGC 7917, we extend the excluded region to $1\hr$ due to the presence of a bar. For UGC 4458, $\rbulge$ is larger than the field-of-view of the PPak IFU, and we shorten the radius to be able to include the outermost measurement. At this radius, the bulge contributes 21% to the light. For each galaxy, the excluded regions are indicated by gray shaded areas in the Atlas. For UGC 8196, our analysis gives us non-physical results when calculating the baryon maximality (see Sect. \[sec:DiskMaximality\]), possibly due to an erroneous measurement of $\mldyn$. We therefore exclude this galaxy from all our results in this paper related to $\mldyn$.
Figure \[fig:MLhist\] shows the distributions of $\overline{\mldyn}$ and $\overline{\mls}$. We find the weighted radial averages and scatter of the sample to be $\langle$$\overline{\mldyn}$$\rangle$$=$$0.39$$\pm$$0.08 \msol/\lksol$ and $\langle$$\overline{\mls}$$\rangle$$=$$0.31$$\pm$$0.07 \msol/\lksol$. The effective radius at which $\overline{\mls}$ is measured ($R_{\Upsilon}$; calculated using the same weights as used for $\overline{\mls}$) has a weighted sample average and scatter of $\langle$$R_{\Upsilon}$$\rangle$$=$1.0$\pm$0.3$\hr$. The calculated $\overline{\mls}$ and $R_{\Upsilon}$ of the individual galaxies are tabulated in Table \[tab:DMfit\].
The radially-averaged mass-to-light ratios are weighted more towards measurements in the inner region of the galaxy due to increasing errors with radius. Even if the galaxies have constant $\mls$ with radius, $\mldyn$ will still vary if the radial distribution of the gas is different from that of the stars. If there is relatively more gas further out in the disk than in the inner region (as seen in Fig. \[fig:Sigma\_bar\]), the error-weighted mean $\overline{\mldyn}$ will be lower than the [*total*]{} baryonic mass-to-light ratio $\ml_{\rm b}$$=$$\mb/\mathcal{L}_{K}$, which is calculated from the total integrated baryonic mass ($\mb$; Table \[tab:Masses\]) and the total $K$-band luminosity ($\mathcal{L}_{K}$). Figure \[fig:MvsL\] shows the baryonic and stellar mass as a function of $\mathcal{L}_{K}$ and demonstrates that $\mb$ tends to be larger than what is expected from $\langle$$\overline{\mldyn}$$\rangle$. In detail, we find $\langle$$\ml_{\rm b}$$\rangle$$=$$0.49 \msol/\lksol $$=$$
1.3\times$$\langle$$\overline{\mldyn}$$\rangle$ as expected given the generally larger radial extent of the disks [@martinsson2011].
![[ Mass ($\mathcal{M}$) versus luminosity ($\lk$). Total baryonic mass (stars+gas; gray symbols, slightly offset in $\lk$ for clarity) and stellar mass (disk+bulge; black symbols) as a function of luminosity. The solid lines indicate the average measured $\langle$$\overline{\mldyn}$$\rangle$ (gray) and $\langle$$\overline{\mls}$$\rangle$ (black). The average ratio $\mb/\lk$ of the sample ($\langle$$\ml_{\rm b}$$\rangle$; see text) is indicated with a gray dashed line. ]{}[]{data-label="fig:MvsL"}](figures/MvsL.eps){width="50.00000%"}
In many galaxies, we find that $\mls$ increases toward larger radii (see UGC 4107, UGC 4368 & UGC 9965 in the Atlas). Three possible explanations for this are:
1. The mass-to-light ratio of the stellar population could in fact be rising at larger radii. Even though color gradients are often seen in spiral galaxies [e.g., @deJong1996], these are usually small and do not sufficiently explain the increase in $\mls$ within the context of stellar-population variations .
2. There could be unknown systematic instrumental errors, such that the measurement of the observed velocity dispersion “hit the floor”, giving systematically larger measurements of $\slos$. Indeed, the skewed (non-Gaussian) shape of the velocity-dispersion error distribution for our data may indicate the presence of such an effect. However, with our relatively high velocity resolution ($\sinst$$\approx$16.6$\pm$1.4 ; ) and a rather conservative rejection cut ($\delta \slos$$\geq$8 ), we do not expect this to happen at the level where we see the increasing $\mls$ ($\slos$$>$20 ). Moreover, $\sigz$ often follows an exponential decline well, while changes in the light profile are the primary reason for the increased $\mls$ (e.g., UGC 1862).
3. Our assumptions for calculating $\sddisk$ using Eq. \[eq:mldyn\] may not be valid at larger radii. There are several reasons why we could get larger $\sigz$ values than what would be expected from the local mass surface density of the disk. If the stellar disk is flaring at larger radii, our assumption of a constant scale height no longer holds, resulting in an overestimate of $\sddisk$. The dark-matter halo could also have an effect on the stellar velocity dispersions, which might become more important at larger radii.
In this paper, we have simply assumed a constant $\mls$, calculated using all measurements outside the bulge region. However, since the errors increase with radius, our error-weighted mean $\overline{\mls}$ hinges on measurements in the inner, high S/N region of each galaxy. The variation of $\mls$ (within each galaxy and among different galaxies) are interesting in the context of star formation and the stellar initial mass function. Here, measurements of $\mls$ often have large systematic errors, partly due to the uncertain subtraction of the molecular gas from $\sddisk$. However, even though we see some scatter in Fig. \[fig:MvsL\], the measured $\overline{\mls}$ are in general consistent with being equal for all galaxies. A detailed discussion on mass-to-light ratios in the context of stellar populations and star formation, including an investigation of trends with other global properties of the disk such as luminosity, surface brightness, color, or scale length, will be presented in a forthcoming paper.
For all subsequent analysis, we calculate the radial mass surface density profiles of the stellar disk ($\sds^{\rm disk}$) and bulge ($\sds^{\rm bulge}$) based on the disk and bulge surface brightness profiles (Sect. \[sec:Photometry\]) and a single $\overline{\mls}$ calculated for each galaxy.
Baryonic mass surface density profiles and total mass fractions
---------------------------------------------------------------
The mass surface densities of the individual baryonic components ($\sda$, $\sdm$, $\sds^{\rm disk}$, $\sds^{\rm bulge}$) are plotted out to 50$\arcsec$ for every galaxy in the Atlas. For a majority of the galaxies in our sample, the total baryonic mass surface density is dominated by the stellar component over most of this radial range. However, some galaxies have a relatively large molecular-gas content distributed in a way similar to the stars; 12 galaxies have a molecular gas mass larger than 10% of the stellar mass, of which 8 galaxies have a molecular-gas content larger than 10% of the total baryonic mass. Two galaxies (UGC 4256 and UGC 6918) even have a larger molecular gas mass than stellar mass, although it should be noted that these two galaxies have the lowest $\mls$ in the sample, with large uncertainties in both the molecular and stellar mass.
$\sdm$ is often higher than $\sda$ out to $\sim$1–2$\hr$. In the outer parts of the disk, the atomic gas starts to dominate the mass surface density of the baryonic matter. Figure \[fig:Sigma\_bar\] shows the average fraction in mass surface density of the stars, atomic gas, and molecular gas. In the center, typically more than 90% of the baryonic matter is in stars, while the relative amount of atomic gas is steadily increasing with radius. On average, at about $4\hr$, the relative amount of gas and stars are comparable. The atomic gas then typically dominates the baryonic mass surface density at $R$$\gtrsim$$4\hr$.
![[ Relative fraction of stellar, atomic-gas, and molecular-gas mass surface densities as a function of radius. The solid thick and thin lines show the average $\sds/\Sigma_{\rm b}$ and $1 \sigma$ scatter, respectively. The dashed thick and thin lines (enclosing the light gray area) and the dashed-dotted thick and thin lines (enclosing the dark gray area) show the average $\sda/\Sigma_{\rm b}$ and $\sdm/\Sigma_{\rm b}$, respectively, again with the thin lines indicating $1 \sigma$ scatter. ]{}[]{data-label="fig:Sigma_bar"}](figures/Sigma_bar.eps){width="50.00000%"}
Figure \[fig:molgasfrac\] demonstrates that the molecular gas mass fraction (indicated with black symbols) is rather well correlated with the central surface brightness of the disk; the galaxy disks in our sample with higher surface brightness also have higher molecular gas mass fraction. More luminous galaxies also tend to have larger molecular gas mass fractions, but with large scatter, especially for high-luminosity galaxies. We see no correlation with the specific star-formation rate [sSFR; calculated from the 21-cm continuum flux in @martinsson2011], but note that the two galaxies with the largest molecular-gas fraction (UGC 4256 and UGC 6918) are among the galaxies with the largest sSFR. There is also a weak trend of increased SFR density [$\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$; @martinsson2011] for galaxies with larger molecular-gas fractions. However, it should be noted again that the molecular-gas content is an indirect estimate from the 24-$\mu$m emission.
The atomic gas mass fractions (indicated in Fig. \[fig:molgasfrac\] with gray symbols) are in general larger than the molecular gas mass fractions. Correlations with $\mu_{0,K}^{i}$, $M_K$, sSFR and $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$ are weak and have opposite sign to correlations found for the molecular gas mass fraction, resulting in total gas mass fractions that are consistent with having no correlations with $\mu_{0,K}^{i}$, $M_K$, sSFR or $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$.
![[ Molecular ($\mmol/\mbary$; black symbols) and atomic ($\matom/\mbary$; gray symbols) gas-mass fractions as a function of $\mu_{0,K}^{i}$, $M_K$, sSFR and $\Sigma_{\rm SFR}$. ]{}[]{data-label="fig:molgasfrac"}](figures/molgasfrac.eps){width="50.00000%"}
### Comparison to literature
To be able to compare our gas-mass fractions with the literature, we will below compare the atomic and molecular gas masses with the derived stellar masses instead of the total baryonic masses. It should however be noted that these measurements have larger uncertainties due to the additional uncertainties on the stellar masses.
Recent studies of the gas content in galaxies using CO and observations [@leroy2009; @saintonge2011] have found a molecular gas mass content that is typically 3–10% of the stellar mass. For the galaxies in our sample, we find that more than one third have a molecular gas mass larger than 10% of the stellar mass. This is larger than found by [@leroy2009] or [@saintonge2011], probably because of differences in the way the stellar mass is determined (see below). However, this could also be due to differences in the samples, as the molecular gas-mass fraction seems to correlate with some global galaxy parameters (Fig. \[fig:molgasfrac\]).
Figure \[fig:gasfrac\_hist\] shows the distributions of $\rm R_{mol}$$=$$\mmol/\matom$, $\rm f_{mol}$$=$$\mmol/\mstar$ and $\rm f_{atom}$$=$$\matom/\mstar$. We calculate the geometric means and scatter to be $\langle$$\rm R_{mol}$$\rangle$$=$$0.25^{+0.44}_{-0.16}$, $\langle$$\rm f_{mol}$$\rangle$$=$$0.10^{+0.17}_{-0.06}$, and $\langle$$\rm f_{atom}$$\rangle$$=$$0.38^{+0.36}_{-0.18}$. The values for individual galaxies cover two orders of magnitudes for ratios including the molecular gas (0.03$<$$\rm R_{mol}$$<$2.98, 0.02$<$$\rm f_{mol}$$<$1.93) and one order of magnitude for the atomic gas mass fraction (0.10$<$$\rm f_{atom}$$<$1.30). These averages and scatters are similar to what was found by [@leroy2009] and [@saintonge2011]. After correcting for differences in adopted $X_{\rm CO}$ values, these studies find average $\rm R_{mol}$ that are comparable to what we find, with similar scatter. They find gas-mass fractions ($\rm f_{atom}$ and $\rm f_{mol}$) that are $\sim$30-60% lower than what we report. The reason for this systematically lower gas-mass fractions are likely partly due to the differences in how the stellar masses are determined. While we measure the stellar masses dynamically, [@leroy2009] assume a constant $\mls$$=$0.5, which is $\sim$60% larger than our mean $\mls$ (Sec. \[sec:ML\]), and [@saintonge2011] calculate their stellar masses from spectral energy distribution (SED) fitting techniques. These could have factors of 2–3 systematic errors (e.g., @kauffmann2003; ); however, the discrepancies we find here are smaller than that.
The equivalents to our two extreme cases UGC 4256 and UGC 6918 (with $\rm f_{mol}$ equal to 1.1 and 1.9, both with low $\mls$) cannot be found in these two studies; [@leroy2009] and [@saintonge2011] find a highest measurement of 0.25 and 0.20, respectively. However, our extreme case UGC 463 with a $\rm R_{mol}$$=$2.98, can be compared to the extreme cases of 1.13 in [@leroy2009] and 4.09 in [@saintonge2011].
![[ Relations between gas-mass fractions and other global properties of the galaxies. The errorbars in the upper-right corners of the panels in the left column indicate typical (mostly systematic) errors. UGC 8196 is marked with a gray symbol. ]{}[]{data-label="fig:gasfrac_rel"}](figures/gasfrac_hist.eps){width="50.00000%"}
![[ Relations between gas-mass fractions and other global properties of the galaxies. The errorbars in the upper-right corners of the panels in the left column indicate typical (mostly systematic) errors. UGC 8196 is marked with a gray symbol. ]{}[]{data-label="fig:gasfrac_rel"}](figures/gasfrac_rel.eps){width="50.00000%"}
Figure \[fig:gasfrac\_rel\] shows relations between the mass fractions and color, surface brightness, absolute magnitude and morphological type. For $\rm R_{mol}$ we see trends with all four properties; redder, more luminous, higher surface brightness, and earlier-type galaxies have a larger fraction of molecular gas compared to the amount of atomic gas. [@saintonge2011] find similar, though weaker, trends with $\rm R_{mol}$, but the correlations with $\rm f_{mol}$ are somewhat different, especially compared to the surface brightness. While they find a weak negative trend with effective stellar surface density, we find a rather strong positive trend with the disk central surface brightness. However, note that the stellar surface density in [@saintonge2011] and our $\mu_{0,K}^{i}$ are defined and measured in very different ways. In accordance with [@catinella2010], $\rm f_{atom}$ is correlated with color, surface brightness and luminosity. We also find that the late-type galaxies in our sample tend to have larger $\rm f_{atom}$. We note that $\rm f_{mol}$ and $\rm f_{atom}$ have consistently opposite trends with $\mu_{0,K}^{i}$ and $M_K$; higher-surface-brightness and more luminous galaxies have larger $\rm f_{mol}$, while the opposite is true for $\rm f_{atom}$. This implies a trend in conversion rate of to $\rm H_2$ and/or in star-formation efficiency.
Assuming that molecular gas forms out of clouds of atomic gas, one might expect a tight correlation between $\matom$ and $\mmol$. However, as shown by [@saintonge2011] and from our own measured $\rm R_{mol}$, there is a large scatter in this relation. Figure \[fig:Matom\_mol\] shows $\mmol$ versus $\matom$. After accounting for the offset due to our adopted $X_{\rm CO}$ value, we find that our galaxies follow the relation from [@saintonge2011] rather well and with similar scatter.
![[ $\mmol$ versus $\matom$. The solid and two dashed lines show the fit from [@saintonge2011]; $\log \mmol$$=$$0.99(\log \matom)-0.42$$\pm$$1.5\sigma$, where $\sigma=0.41$ dex and $\mmol$ has been corrected for a 35% difference in the adopted $X_{\rm CO}$ value. ]{}[]{data-label="fig:Matom_mol"}](figures/Matom_mol.eps){width="50.00000%"}
Observed Rotation Curves And Their Shapes {#sec:RotationCurves}
=========================================
Combined and HI rotation curves {#sec:RC}
--------------------------------
The rotational velocities of the galaxy disks were measured in (stellar and gas) and in [@martinsson2011] (gas). Here, we exclude the stellar rotation curves, which are affected by asymmetric drift, as well as the rotation curves (see Sect. \[sec:Kinematics\]). Instead, we combine our rotation curves with rotation curves, derived from data taken with the SparsePak IFU (Sect. \[sec:Kinematics\]). We use the available kinematics to create rotation curves by azimuthally averaging velocity measurements in 5$\arcsec$ broad concentric tilted rings, sampled at radii $R_{j}$$=$$2.5\arcsec$+$j$$\times$$5\arcsec$ (where $j$$=$0,1,2,...), complementing the velocities sampled at radii $R_{j}$$=$$5\arcsec$+$j$$\times$$10\arcsec$. The rotation curves are derived in the same way as the stellar and rotation curves, as described in . Due to uncertainties in the instrumental position angle of the SparsePak instrument, we let the position angle be a free parameter while fitting the rotation curve. The differences in the derived position angles between the and velocity fields are however small [see Fig. 5.8 in @martinsson2011] and generally consistent with no offset, with an average absolute measured difference of $1\fdg8$ and a maximum difference of $5\arcdeg$.
Also, the adopted center of the galaxy might be slightly different between the two data sets. While the rotation velocities are measured using the morphological center obtained from fitting reconstructed continuum images of the PPak data to optical DSS and SDSS images , the rotation curves are derived using the fitted kinematic center. We expect the differences between the morphological and best-fitted kinematic centers to be less than $2\arcsec$ , and mostly dependent on the regularity of the velocity fields. The inclinations of the disks have been fixed to the inverse Tully-Fisher inclinations [$\itf$; @RixZaritsky1995; @verheyen2001b] as derived in . The combined and rotation curves are shown for each galaxy in the Atlas with open and solid symbols, respectively.
The velocities of the and gas are expected to be nearly identical with only minimal variations due to small differences in asymmetric drift. Indeed, the derived and rotation curves are typically in excellent agreement. However, for some galaxies (UGC 3140, UGC 3997, UGC 4256, UGC 7244; see Atlas), we note that the derived and rotation curves have slightly different shapes. We do not believe these differences to be physical, but likely the result of systematic errors in deriving the two rotation curves independently, e.g., due to the small differences in center and position angle mentioned above. In one extreme case (UGC 7244), the difference arises due to a large kinematic asymmetry between the receding and approaching side of the galaxy, with the rotation curve rising much steeper on the receding side than on the approaching side. This is reflected in the large errorbars on the velocities, where the errors are dominated by the difference between the receding and approaching side of the rotation curve [see @martinsson2011]. Curiously, we do not find the same asymmetry in the kinematics, which follow a more shallow shape on both the receding and approaching side.
The shapes of the observed rotation curves
------------------------------------------
![[ Observed rotation curves. Top: Radius in kpc and amplitude in . Bottom: Radius scaled by $\hr$ and amplitude scaled by the rotational velocity of the flat part of the rotation curve ($V_{\rm flat}$). Galaxies with $B/D$$>$0.1 have their first velocity measurement marked by a filled circle. In both panels, black and gray lines indicate high and low surface brightness, respectively. The thick, dashed line in the bottom panel indicates the rotation curve of a thin exponential disk with $\vmax$$=$$0.85\vc$. $R$$=$$2.2\hr$ is indicated with a vertical dashed line. ]{}[]{data-label="fig:Vobs"}](figures/Vobs.eps){width="50.00000%"}
![[ Observed rotation curves, divided into bins of high and low $\sigma_{z,0}/\vmax^{\rm OIII}$ (top row), $B/D$ (middle row), and $M_K$ (bottom row). Lines are coded as in Fig. \[fig:Vobs\]. ]{}[]{data-label="fig:Vobs_rel"}](figures/Vobs_rel.eps){width="50.00000%"}
The combined + rotation curves are shown together in Fig. \[fig:Vobs\]. As seen in this figure, galaxies with a higher bulge-to-disk ratio ($B/D$$>$0.1) have a steeper rise in their rotation curves, indicating a higher central concentration of mass. In the bottom panel we see that all rotation curves are fairly self-similar, and that they have reached the flat part by $3\hr$. No difference can be seen in the shape of the scaled rotation curves between low (17.84$<$$\mu_{0,K}^{i}$$<$19.89) and high (16.03$<$$\mu_{0,K}^{i}$$<$17.84) surface brightness galaxies. The dashed dark gray line in the bottom panel shows the rotation curve of a thin exponential disk which has a maximum rotation speed that is 85% of the observed circular speed at its maximum[^6], the fraction a maximum disk would have [@sackett1997]. As expected, even though the stellar disk often displays a close-to-exponential decline, we find that the observed rotation curves depart from the exponential-disk case, both at small and large radii. This is due to the presence of additional mass components, such as the bulge and the dark-matter halo.
In Fig. \[fig:Vobs\_rel\], we divide the rotation curves into bins of high and low dispersion/velocity ratio ($\sigma_{z,0}/\vmax$; an indicator of the disk maximality ), bulge/disk ratio ($B/D$) and absolute magnitude ($M_K$). In the upper row of Fig. \[fig:Vobs\_rel\] we see that galaxies with the steepest inner rise of the rotation curve tend to have a higher $\sigma_{z,0}/\vmax$ ratio. The separation in $B/D$ (middle row) shows the same, but even clearer, and in the bottom row we see it again (low-luminosity galaxies have often smaller bulges and tend to have a smaller $\sigma_{z,0}/\vmax$ ratio).
Rotation-Curve Mass Decompositions {#sec:RCDecomp}
==================================
This section describes how we decompose the observed rotation curves presented in the previous section into their baryonic components (Sect. \[sec:RCmod\]) and a parametrized dark-matter-halo component (Sect. \[sec:DM-RCs\]). We define two cases with different scaling of the stellar rotation curve; Case I (Sect. \[sec:UniqueRCDecomp\]) assumes our nominal $\overline{\mls}$ measurements, while Case II (Sect. \[sec:maxdisk\]) scales $\overline{\mls}$ by a galaxy-dependent factor $f_{\ast}$ to satisfy the maximum-disk hypothesis. These cases are divided into Cases Ia and IIa, which have a parameterized dark-matter halo modeled as a spherical pseudo-isothermal sphere [pISO; e.g., @ostriker1979; @schmidt1985; @kent1986], and Cases Ib and IIb which instead include a Navarro-Frenk-White [NFW; @NFW1997] dark-matter-halo model. In Sect. \[sec:compDMmod\] we compare how well the different cases fit the observed rotation curves, with the results discussed further in Sect. \[sec:Discussion\].
Rotation curves of the baryonic components {#sec:RCmod}
------------------------------------------
The rotation curves of the various baryonic components are calculated from their radial mass surface density profiles and an assigned three-dimensional axisymmetric density distribution using the task [ROTMOD]{} in [*GIPSY*]{}[^7] [@hulst1992; @vogelaar2001]. The shape of the stellar rotation curve follows from the light profile of the galaxy, while the amplitude is set by $\sqrt{\mls}$. We adopt an exponential vertical distribution for the stellar disk with a constant scale height $\hz$, as calculated in Sect. \[sec:Photometry\] and presented in Table \[tab:hRhz\]. For the stellar bulge, we assume a spherical density distribution. The atomic and molecular gas are assumed to be distributed in razor-thin disks.
Non-exponential features in the disk light profile result in “bumps” in the rotation curve and a peak that does not necessarily occur at $2.2\hr$. Due to the ring-like distribution of the gas, a “negative” rotation speed[^8] of the atomic-gas rotation curve is often found in the inner part of the galaxy. This arises due to the outward force from the atomic gas; the disk is not counter-rotating in the center. The derived rotation curves are shown for individual galaxies in the Atlas.
The total gravitational potential can be considered as being composed from independent and separable density distributions. This allows us to add the calculated circular velocities of the stellar disk ($V_{\rm disk,\ast}$), stellar bulge ($V_{\rm bulge,\ast}$), atomic gas ($V_{\rm atom}$) and molecular gas ($V_{\rm mol}$) in quadrature to obtain the total baryonic rotation curve $$\vbary = \left[ V_{\rm disk,\ast}^2 + V_{\rm bulge,\ast}^2 +
V_{\rm atom}^2 + V_{\rm mol}^2\right]^{1/2}.
\label{eq:Vbary}
$$
Parameterized rotation curves of the dark-matter halos {#sec:DM-RCs}
------------------------------------------------------
Although we have now calculated the rotation curves of all dynamically important baryonic components, and we can therefore, together with our observed rotation curves, directly determine the rotation curves of the dark-matter halos, we will also perform rotation-curve mass decompositions using two different parameterizations of the dark-matter halo; either using a pISO or a NFW halo model.
The pISO-halo is parameterized by its central density ($\rho_0$) and its core radius ($R_C$), with a rotation curve following from $$\vdm^{\rm pISO}(R) = \sqrt{4\pi G \rho_0 R_C^2\left[1-\frac{R_C}{R}
\arctan\left(\frac{R}{R_C}\right)\right]}.
\label{eq:pISO}
$$
The NFW halo is parameterized by its mass ($\mathcal{M}_{200}^{\rm halo}$) within the virial radius ($R_{200}$; defined as the radius of a sphere of mean interior density 200 times the critical density $\rho_{\rm crit}$$=$$3H_{0}^{2}/8 \pi G$) and its concentration ($C$) as defined in [@NFW1997]. The rotation curve is given by $$\frac{\vdm^{\rm NFW}(R)}{V_{200}} = \sqrt{\frac{1}{X}
\frac{\ln(1+CX)-(CX)/(1+CX)}{\ln(1+C)-C/(1+C)}},
\label{eq:NFW}
$$ where $V_{200}$ is the circular velocity at $R_{200}$ and $X$$=$$R/R_{200}$.
The pISO is an ad-hoc form of the density distribution, fitted to the observed rotation curves to describe the dark-matter distribution. The NFW halo, on the other hand, is a prediction from dark-matter-only simulations, and therefore predicts how the halo looked like prior to the galaxy forming in it. In principal, the baryons in the forming galaxy could affect the distribution of the dark matter. However, as discussed in Sect. \[sec:ISOvsNFW\], several processes may occur that could both contract and expand the halo, and even effectively leaving it unmodified.
Unique rotation-curve mass decompositions (Case I) {#sec:UniqueRCDecomp}
--------------------------------------------------
{width="100.00000%"}
Using the baryonic rotation curves derived in Sect. \[sec:RCmod\], we determine the dark-matter distribution in our galaxy sample taking an approach similar to traditional rotation-curve mass decompositions [e.g., @albada1985; @carignan1985; @begeman1991]. Assuming the and rotation curves trace the circular speed ($\vc$) of the composite potential, the circular speed of the dark-matter component ($\vdm$) is calculated from $$\vdm^2 = \vc^2 - \vbary^2.
\label{eq:RCdecomp}
$$ Therefore, our data provide $\vdm$ directly such that we calculate a unique, dynamically constrained, non-parametric dark-matter rotation curve for each galaxy in our sample.
The derived $\vdm$, calculated from Eq. \[eq:RCdecomp\], are plotted in the Atlas figures. In Fig. \[fig:RCs\_all\] we plot the baryonic ($\vbary$), dark matter ($\vdm$) and observed total rotation curves ($\vc$) in the same figure. What can already be noted from this figure is that the contribution from the dark-matter rotation curve to the observed total rotation curve is in general dominant at most radii. This is not unexpected given the result in (and Sect. \[sec:DiskMaximality\] of this paper), where we found that these galaxies are submaximal.
We use the [*GIPSY*]{} task [ROTMAS]{} to model the dark-matter rotation curves via a pISO or NFW-halo parameterization. The baryonic and dark-matter rotation curves are added together in quadrature into a total rotation curve, matching the observed rotation curve using a minimum $\chi^2$-fitting routine. Since all baryonic components are fixed, this is basically only fitting the two-parameter dark-matter-halo models to the measured dark-matter rotation curve. Each fitted halo is plotted in the Atlas and the fitted parameters are provided in Table \[tab:DMfit\].
Maximum-$\mls$ rotation-curve decompositions (Case II) {#sec:maxdisk}
------------------------------------------------------
Traditionally, without an independent measurement of $\mls$, rotation-curve mass decompositions have often been performed with the assumption of a maximum contribution from the stellar disk and bulge to the total potential [e.g., @albada1985; @kent1986; @BroeilsCourteau1997]. This approach sets a lower limit to the contribution of the dark matter, often with the result that no dark matter is needed in the inner part of the galaxy. For comparison, we consider a maximum-$\mls$ case here as well. The fitting is performed using a pISO or NFW halo with ${\overline{\mls}}$ scaled up by a factor $f_\ast$ (listed in Table \[tab:DMfit\]). This factor, which is usually (but not always exactly) the same for the NFW and pISO halo models, is forced to be as high as allowed by the observed rotation curve, which effectively sets $\vbary$ close to $\vc$ in the inner region of the galaxies. As for Case I, we enforce ${\overline{\mls}}$ of the stellar bulge and disk to be equal.
To enforce these galaxies to be maximal, $\overline{\mls}$ must on average be 3.6 times what was measured in Sect. \[sec:ML\], with a range in $f_\ast$ from 1.6 (UGC 7244)[^9] to 8.1 (UGC 6903), and with 70% of the galaxies having values of $f_\ast$ between 2.1 and 4.6. A detailed discussion on this difference between our measured $\mls$ and what is found for the maximum-$\mls$ cases, and the effects of our results on stellar-population models, will be the subject of a forthcoming paper. We find the ratio between the maximum-$\mls$ baryonic rotation curve and the measured total rotation curve at $R$$=$$2.2\hr$ ($\mathcal{F}_{\rm b,max}^{2.2\hr}$) to range between 0.66 (UGC 7244) and 1.03 (UGC 4622), with an average value of 0.92$\pm$0.08 (std)[^10]. As expected (see Sect. \[sec:Disc-maxi\]), this is somewhat higher than the 0.85$\pm$0.10 found by [@sackett1997]. Table \[tab:F\] includes $\mathcal{F}_{\rm b,max}^{2.2\hr}$ for the individual galaxies.
Comparison of $\chi^2$ for the various cases {#sec:compDMmod}
--------------------------------------------
![[ Relative difference in calculated $\chi^2$ between the fits using NFW and pISO dark-matter halos. Upper and lower row show the differences in the nominal-$\mls$ and maximum-$\mls$ case, respectively. ]{}[]{data-label="fig:Chi2"}](figures/Chi2.eps){width="50.00000%"}
Here we make a relative comparison between the quality of the decompositions of the modeled dark-matter+baryonic rotation curves to the observed rotation curves when using either our nominal-$\mls$ (submaximal) case (Case I; Sect. \[sec:UniqueRCDecomp\]) or the maximal-$\mls$ case (Case II; Sect. \[sec:maxdisk\]). For both cases, we have used two different models (pISO and NFW) for the dark-matter halo. We calculate the $\chi^2$ values from a weighted quadrature sum of the differences between the observed and modeled rotation velocities. Due to complex and non-Gaussian errors we will not consider the reduced $\chi^2$ values, but instead look at relative values.
We find that the nominal-$\mls$ fits produce significantly better $\chi^2$ results than the maximum-$\mls$ fits. The nominal-$\mls$ case with a pISO dark-matter halo (Case Ia) gives on average the best fit with the lowest $\chi^2$. The average relative difference in $\chi^2$ between Case Ia ($\chi^2_{\rm pISO}$) and Case Ib ($\chi^2_{\rm NFW}$), normalized to $\chi^2_{\rm pISO}$, is $(\chi^2_{\rm NFW}$$-$$\chi^2_{\rm pISO})/\chi^2_{\rm pISO}$$=$0.46. For the maximum-$\mls$ cases (Case IIa,b) we find the relative differences in $\chi^2$ compared to Case Ia to be $(\chi^2_{\rm pISO,II}$$-$$\chi^2_{\rm pISO})/\chi^2_{\rm pISO}$$=$1.42 and $(\chi^2_{\rm NFW,II}$$-$$\chi^2_{\rm pISO})/\chi^2_{\rm pISO}$$=$2.36.
Figure \[fig:Chi2\] shows the distribution of relative differences between the pISO and NFW-halo models (nominal-$\mls$ and maximum-$\mls$ case separately). Even though Case Ia on average results in a slightly better fit than Case Ib, and Case IIa is a better fit than Case IIb, the differences are not significant as indicated by the relative $\chi^2$-values. This inability to differentiate between a pISO and a NFW-halo parameterization of the observed data was also seen for luminous galaxies in THINGS [@deBlok2008]. However, for low-luminosity galaxies, they find that a pISO parameterization better fits the data.
We find no strong correlations between how well the different models fit the data and global properties of the galaxies [see @martinsson2011].
The Dynamical Importance of the Baryons {#sec:DiskMaximality}
=======================================
In this section we investigate the ratio $\Fbary$$=$$\vbary/\vc$, or the “baryonic maximality”, for the galaxies in our sample. This ratio is a measure of the dynamical importance of the baryons in the galaxy. We calculate $\Fbary$ as a function of radius for all galaxies. These are plotted together in Fig. \[fig:F\] and separately in Fig. \[fig:F\_all\].
![[ Baryonic mass fraction of all galaxies except UGC 8196 as a function of radius. As in Fig. \[fig:F\_all\], the shaded area shows 0.75$\leq$$\Fbary$$\leq$ 0.95, the vertical dashed line $R$$=$$2.2\hr$, and we exclude measurements within $R$$<$$\rbulge$. The two thick gray horizontal lines indicate the range $\Fbary$$=$0.4–0.7. ]{}[]{data-label="fig:F"}](figures/F.eps){width="50.00000%"}
{width="100.00000%"}
We find that the galaxies have a rather constant value of $\Fbary$ with radius, ranging in amplitude between $\sim$0.4–0.7 for the sample of galaxies (Fig. \[fig:F\]). The constancy of $\Fbary$ arises due to an increasing contribution from the atomic gas at larger radii where the contribution from the stellar disk is declining (Fig. \[fig:Sigma\_bar\]). This result has a consequence for the measurement of the maximality: with the assessment of the maximality of a galaxy using $\Fbary$, it is of less importance to measure exactly at the radius $R_{\rm max}^{\rm disk}$$\approx$$2.2\hr$ where the rotation curve of the stellar disk peaks.
In Fig. \[fig:F2.2hR\], we plot the measured $\Fbary$ at $R$$=$$2.2\hr$ ($\Fbary^{2.2\hr}$; tabulated in Table \[tab:F\]) versus $B-K$ color, absolute $K$-band magnitude, and central disk surface brightness. We confirm the result in that all our galaxies are submaximal, with a range in $\Fbary^{2.2\hr}$ of 0.34–0.73, equivalent to $\sim$10–50% of the total mass within $2.2\hr$ being baryonic. On average, after rejecting UGC 1862 which has no measurement of $\vc$ at $2.2\hr$, $\langle$$\Fbary^{2.2\hr}$$\rangle$$=$0.57$\pm$0.07 (std). This result is consistent with what was found by [@bottema1993] and [@kregel2005], and based on the correlations with $M_K$ and $\mu_{0,K}^{i}$ seen in Fig. \[fig:F2.2hR\], we conclude that small differences in the mean may be due to differences in the galaxy samples. However, also note that both [@bottema1993] and [@kregel2005] measured the [*disk*]{} mass fraction, excluding the contribution from the stellar bulge (see discussion in Sect. \[sec:Disc-maxi\]).
In we found that more luminous and redder galaxies are closer to be maximal, but with little dependence on both central surface brightness and morphology. Here, we again find a weak trend of larger $\Fbary^{2.2\hr}$ for more luminous galaxies, but also for galaxies with higher central disk surface brightness. Weighted linear fits give $\Fbary^{2.2\hr}$$=$(0.58$\pm$0.09)$-$(0.04$\pm$0.02)($M_K+24$) and $\Fbary^{2.2\hr}$$=$(0.56$\pm$0.09)$-$(0.08$\pm$0.03)($\mu_{0,K}^{i}-18$). Unlike the result in we find no correlation with color, and in contrast to [@herrmann2009], who had a similar range of morphologies, we find little dependence on morphological type.
{width="95.00000%"}
As can be seen in Fig. \[fig:F\_all\], UGC 8196 appears to be “supermaximal”, $\vbary$$>$$\vc$, which is a non-physical result. This might be either due to an overestimation of $\mls$ or an underestimation of $\vc$. The derived $\mls$ is indeed the highest in the sample. An overestimation of $\mls$ could be due to an incorrect assumption about the SVE ($\alpha$), the thickness of the disk ($\hz$), or its vertical mass distribution ($k$). As seen in the Atlas, the measured $\sigz$ of UGC 8196 is extremely high for a disk in the inner region compared to the other disks in our sample, and instead more comparable to other bulges. This could be an indication that we are not measuring the velocity dispersion of the disk and that Eq. \[eq:mldyn\] is therefore invalid. If we extend $\rbulge$ out to $15\arcsec$, excluding the measurement at this radius, we find a $\mls$ that is only 80% of the adopted value, resulting in $\Fbary$$=$0.98 at $2.2\hr$; much higher than all other galaxies, but physically possible. UGC 8196 has a rather low inclination of $16\fdg1$. If this inclination is instead $2\fdg7$ lower ($3\sigma$), this would result in a rotation curve with a larger amplitude, making the $\mls$ and $\Fbary$ estimates physically possible, and resulting in $\Fbary$$=$0.91$\pm$0.05 at $2.2\hr$. However, due to the uncertainties in what is causing the non-physical result, we have decided to exclude UGC 8196 from our analysis and results.
The Dark-Matter-Halo Rotation Curve {#sec:DMRCshape}
===================================
From our unique rotation-curve mass decompositions in Sect. \[sec:UniqueRCDecomp\], we have [*measured*]{} the dark-matter rotation curves for all galaxies. In this section, we will investigate the shape of these dark-matter rotation curves, and look at how well our parameterized halo models fit the data. We compare the resulting parameters in relation to one another and with respect to results from $\Lambda$CDM simulations.
For individual galaxies, we find in general no significant difference between the quality of the pISO and NFW fits to our measurements of $\vdm$; however, for our entire sample, the pISO model tends to result in a lower $\chi^2$ (Sect. \[sec:compDMmod\]). To further investigate any general differences between the shape of the pISO and NFW parameterization with respect to our data, we consider the $\vdm$ measurements of all galaxies simultaneously. In Fig. \[fig:DMmeasured\], we plot all the measured dark-matter rotation curves in the same panel with the radius normalized to either $R_C$ or $R_s$$=$$R_{200}/C$, and the velocity normalized to either $V^{\rm pISO}_{\infty}$ or $\vmax^{\rm NFW}$ (the velocity of the NFW rotation curve at $\sim$$2.2R_s$). Measurements of $\vdm$ inside of $R$$=$$5\arcsec$ have been excluded. On top of the measured points, we plot the parameterized rotation curves, which were fitted to each individual galaxy separately.
{width="100.00000%"}
The left panel of Figure \[fig:DMmeasured\] shows all measured points compared to the pISO case. In general, the data follow the fits well, with a weighted scatter of 0.024 for all data points. The right panel shows the same as the left panel, except it adopts the NFW-halo parameterization. The weighted scatter of all data points compared to the NFW model is 0.027; only slightly larger than for the pISO case. In [@martinsson2011] we investigated how well the dark-matter rotation curves are fitted for galaxies with low or high $\mu_{0,K}^{i}$ and $\Fbary^{2.2\hr}$. For both the pISO and the NFW cases, we find no dependencies on these parameters. In a few galaxies with a steep rise in the inner region of the dark-matter rotation curve (e.g., UGC 448 and UGC 3140; see Atlas), the NFW-halo model fails to follow the inner steep rise. For these galaxies, the pISO model is a better fit. The inner regions exhibit in general the largest residuals, with a scatter of 0.056 and 0.068 within $R$$=$$0.9R_C$ and $R$$=$$0.1R_s$ for the pISO and NFW fits, respectively. The measured $\vdm$ are here systematically lower than the fitted NFW rotation curve. In the outer regions the NFW rotation curve begins to decline at $R/R_s$$\approx$2, which is reached at a smaller radius in galaxies with a steep inner rise in the dark-matter rotation curve, whereas the observed dark-matter rotation curve stays flat. However, note that our measured dark-matter rotation curves are rather uncertain at both small and large $R$; uncertainties in the dynamical mass of the bulge and the possible effect of adiabatic contraction may affect the inner measurements of $\vdm$, while the outer measurements may be systematically in error for individual galaxies because we intentionally keep the observed rotation curves flat by introducing a linear inclination warp of the disk to “force” these galaxies onto the Tully-Fisher relation [@martinsson2011].
Derived parameters {#sec:DMRCshape_comp}
------------------
As a consequence of the submaximality of our galaxies, the dark-matter rotation curves rise quickly at small radii, with parameter values that differ significantly from what is found for the maximum-$\mls$ cases. This behavior, and the inferred dark-matter distributions, can be compared to what has been found from numerical simulations.
In Fig. \[fig:CvsM200\], we plot the two halo parameters from the dark-matter-halo fits against each other, for both the pISO and the NFW-halo parameterization. In addition to the nominal-$\mls$ case, we also include the results from the maximum-$\mls$ case for comparison. For the pISO fits, we find a strong correlation between $\rho_0$ and $R_C$. This is expected given the strong covariance between the two parameters as seen in the formula $V^{\rm pISO}_{\infty}$$=$$\sqrt{4\pi G \rho_0 R_C^2}$ and the relatively small range in dynamical masses of our galaxy sample, as indicated with the two lines in the figure showing constant $V^{\rm pISO}_{\infty}$. The spread along these lines is not explained by the measurement errors. We find that the maximum-$\mls$ fits have larger $R_C$ and smaller $\rho_0$. This is expected since the maximum-$\mls$ decompositions result in a much shallower rise of the dark-matter rotation curve. For the NFW halo, we again find a correlation between the two parameters with a lower concentration for larger halo masses, and with the maximum-$\mls$ case having much lower concentration than the nominal-$\mls$ case. The median values and ranges of the fitted parameters are presented in Table \[tab:DMpars\].
We have compared our results with parameter values found by [@deBlok2008]. Excluding the four least massive galaxies in their sample (leaving 13 galaxies similar to those in the PPak sample), and looking at the models with fixed stellar mass-to-light ratios derived using a Kroupa IMF, we find rather similar parameter values. However, there are some differences. In the case of fitting a pISO model, the core radius of our fitted halos are on average $\sim$50% smaller, but with a $\sim$65% larger central density. When fitting a NFW-halo model, the median value of the concentration parameter in the 13 galaxies from [@deBlok2008] is similar to what we find ($C=9$ and $C=11$, respectively), but with a much larger scatter.
![[ $\rho_0$ versus $R_C$. The two gray lines indicate $V^{\rm pISO}_{\infty}$$=$100 and 250 ; the range of $V^{\rm pISO}_{\infty}$ for the nominal-$\mls$ case. [**Right:**]{} Relation between the concentration ($C$) and mass ($\mathcal{M}_{200}^{\rm halo}$) of the NFW-halo profile. Filled and open circles indicate nominal-$\mls$ and maximum-disk fits, respectively. ]{}[]{data-label="fig:CvsM200"}](figures/CvsM200.eps){width="50.00000%"}
Comparison to cosmological simulations
--------------------------------------
[@bullock2001] studied dark-matter-halo density profiles in a high-resolution N-body simulation with $\Lambda$CDM cosmology. They found similar values and scatter compared to what we find here for the nominal-$\mls$ case, with $C$$\approx$10–20 in our mass range. The negative slope in the $\mathcal{M}_{200}^{\rm halo}$-$C$ relation can be seen clearly in their Fig. 4 (distinct halos) and, even stronger, in their Fig. 5 (subhalos). The concentrations found for our maximum-$\mls$ fits are much lower than for the nominal-$\mls$ case, with typical values around or lower than $C$$=$1. As discussed by [@deBlok2008], the value of $C$ indicates the amount of collapse the halo has undergone, where $C$$=$1 indicates no collapse and a value of $C$$<$1 is an unphysical result in the context of cold dark matter. There is also a lack of correlation between $\mathcal{M}_{200}^{\rm halo}$ and $C$ for the maximum-$\mls$ case. This result implies that for the galaxies in our sample, a maximum-$\mls$ solution is inconsistent with results from simulated NFW halos. However, for the nominal-$\mls$ case, the shapes of our inferred dark-matter rotation curves are well fit with parameters in agreement with what has been found from dark-matter-only simulations. Furthermore, this result suggests that the baryonic matter in our sample of submaximal galaxies may have only a minor effect on the dark-matter distribution.
Discussion {#sec:Discussion}
==========
In the previous sections, we presented results on the distribution of the baryonic matter and quantified the baryonic maximality. We derived the dark-matter rotation curves and compared results from the unique rotation-curve mass decompositions with the maximum-disk hypothesis. In this section, we further discuss the galaxy [*disk*]{} and [*total baryonic*]{} maximality (Sect. \[sec:Disc-maxi\]) and the arguments for and against maximal and submaximal disks (Sect. \[sec:Disc-maxdisk\]). We briefly discuss the difficulties in distinguishing between the pISO and NFW parameterizations of the dark-matter rotation curves (Sect. \[sec:ISOvsNFW\]). Finally, we include a discussion on our adopted assumptions and the introduced uncertainties in our analysis (Sect. \[sec:Disc-uncert\]).
Disk and baryonic maximality {#sec:Disc-maxi}
----------------------------
The “maximality” of a galaxy is often assessed on the basis of the [*stellar-disk*]{} mass fraction, $\mathcal{F}_{\rm disk,\ast}$$=$$V_{\rm disk,\ast}/\vc$, traditionally measured at $2.2\hr$, and including the total mass associated with the stellar disk (e.g., with a molecular-gas component assumed to have the same distribution as the stars). The most commonly adopted definition of a maximum disk was provided by [@sackett1997], who proposed $\mathcal{F}_{\rm disk,\ast}^{2.2\hr}$$=$0.85$\pm$0.10 to be an appropriate definition for maximum disks in galaxies of Hubble type similar to the Milky Way (Sb and Sc). The Sackett definition allows for small contributions from a bulge and a dark-matter halo with a non-hollow core, as well as a contribution from the gas, but the literature studies on which this number was based usually incorporated the molecular gas component in the stellar-disk mass distribution implicitly. In this paper, instead, we are considering the [*total baryonic*]{} mass fraction. In our analysis of the maximum-$\mls$ case in Sect. \[sec:maxdisk\], we define a [*galaxy*]{} to be maximal if $\Fbary$$\sim$1 in the inner region of the galaxy, keeping the contribution from the dark-matter halo minimal. We still compare our measured $\Fbary^{2.2\hr}$ values with the definition of a maximum disk in [@sackett1997], but note that in general $\Fbary^{2.2\hr}$$\geq$$\mathcal{F}_{\rm disk,\ast}^{2.2\hr}$. This is certainly true for all galaxies in our sample. Thus, for our definition of the baryonic maximality, the fraction should be larger than the Sackett definition and closer to one. Indeed, in Sect. \[sec:maxdisk\] we found that for the maximum-$\mls$ case, calculated by maximizing the masses of the stellar bulges and disks as much as possibly allowed by the observed rotation curves, we measure an average and scatter of $\langle$$\mathcal{F}_{\rm b,max}^{2.2\hr}$$\rangle$$=$0.92$\pm$0.08. If we instead calculate the sample average of the ratio between the scaled stellar disk and the observed rotation curve at $2.2\hr$, we find it to be 0.84$\pm$0.09, similar to what [@sackett1997] found. If we include the molecular gas into the stellar disk we get an average fraction of 0.87.
The sample average of $\Fbary^{2.2\hr}$ found in this paper, $\langle$$\Fbary^{2.2\hr}$$\rangle$$=$0.57$\pm$0.07, is larger than what we found for the same sample of galaxies using a different approach in , $\langle$$F_{\rm max}^{\rm disk}$$\rangle$$=$0.47$\pm$0.08. Although we are using the same sample of galaxies here and in , the maximality measurements presented are different in several ways. Values of $F_{\rm max}^{\rm disk}$ presented in were based on the central vertical velocity dispersion of the disk stars ($\sigma_{\rm z,0}$), excluding the bulge by extrapolating the fitted exponential increase of $\sigz$ to the center. However, here $\Fbary^{2.2\hr}$ is a measure of the [*baryonic*]{} maximality, with the stellar bulge included. We therefore expect $\Fbary^{2.2\hr}$$>$$F_{\rm max}^{\rm disk}$. The difference between the two is dependent on $B/D$; the generally small bulges in our galaxy sample, with the average bulge contributing $\sim$2% to the total rotation curve at $2.2\hr$, leads to an average difference of 0.02 between $\Fbary^{2.2\hr}$ and $F_{\rm max}^{\rm disk}$. A fundamental procedural difference in the calculation of $\Fbary^{2.2\hr}$ and $F_{\rm max}^{\rm disk}$ is that the former is directly tied to the observed surface brightness profile of each galaxy, while in we instead used only one extrapolated value of the central stellar velocity dispersion. In , we found that many galaxies have measured velocity dispersions in the outer disk which are larger than what is expected for an exponential decline. Therefore, it is possible that there is a systematic error introduced, such that the data points at larger radii lower the central velocity dispersion of the fit. However, the inner points are in general well fit by an exponential decline, with little influence from the outer data points which have larger errors. Thus, any systematic error should be small. To conclude, both random and systematic differences are expected between $F_{\rm max}^{\rm disk}$ and $\Fbary^{2.2\hr}$ due to differences in the methodology of deriving these quantities, and because these are intrinsically two different quantities.
Submaximal versus maximal disk {#sec:Disc-maxdisk}
------------------------------
Related to the maximality discussed above, we will here discuss arguments for both submaximal and maximal-disk cases. It has been pointed out [e.g., by @AlbadaSancisi1986] that there are several arguments to support the idea that disks in spiral galaxies are maximal. For example, the simplest way to explain why fitting a maximum disk works is that the disks actually are close to maximum. It has frequently been shown that the dynamical mass distribution follows the light distribution in the inner regions of galaxies [e.g., @kent1986; @sancisi2004; @noordermeer2007; @swaters2011; @fraternali2011], with a contribution from the stellar mass that can be scaled up to fully explain the shape of the inner part of the rotation curve within the radius typically reached by optical rotation curves. It has also been found that features in the rotation curve can be seen in the light profile as well. However, these arguments in favor of a maximum disk can be disputed.
Even though the rotation curves of the galaxies in our sample can be decomposed rather convincingly using a maximum $\mls$, our submaximal-$\mls$ cases result in significantly better fits (Sect. \[sec:compDMmod\]). Furthermore, in the context of Newtonian gravity, the extended, flat rotation curves require dark-matter halos to explain the non-declining outer part generally observed in spiral galaxies. If these observations indeed convince us of the existence of dark-matter halos, why should this dark matter be distributed in such a way that it is only required to explain the outer part of the rotation curves? With an all-over dominating dark-matter halo, the “conspiracy” [@bahcall1985] between the stellar disk and dark-matter halo to produce flat rotation curves weakens. Even though features in the observed rotation curve are often seen in the light profile, this only suggests that the gravitational potential of the visible stars or gas is non-negligible in the galaxy mid-plane; e.g., a bump in a non-dominant baryonic rotation curve that is added in quadrature to a smooth dominant dark-matter rotation curve may still be seen, especially in the inner regions where the baryons contribute most. We have two examples of this in our sample: UGC 4256 and UGC 6918 (see Atlas). Even though the rotation curves of these galaxies are dominated by $\vdm$, features in $V_{\rm mol}$ are still clearly seen in the observed rotation curves. Furthermore, the features seen in the rotation curves are often associated with non-axisymmetric structures such as spiral arms, i.e., perturbations on both velocity and surface brightness. This requires neither maximality nor submaximality.
A theoretical argument in favor of submaximal disks is presented in [@amorisco2010]. From constructed self-consistent models of nonspherical isothermal halos embedding a zero-thickness disk, they find a best-fit model that is significantly submaximal.
Observationally, one can infer that disk galaxies are submaximal given the lack of a surface-brightness dependence in the Tully-Fisher relation for a wide range of spiral galaxies [@zwaan1995; @courteau1999; @courteau2003]. Also barred galaxies, which are suspected to be close to maximal, show no offset from the Tully-Fisher relation. However, studies from kinematic observations have so far not reached a consensus. For example, [@weiner2001] used fluid-dynamical models of gas flows in a barred galaxy to constrain its dynamical properties. They found that maximum-disk values are highly favored for this galaxy, and argued that the luminous matter dominates inside the optical radius of high surface brightness disk galaxies in general. [@kranz2003] studied five high surface brightness late-type spiral galaxies using hydrodynamic gas simulations and draw the conclusion that high surface brightness galaxies possess maximal disks if their maximal rotation velocities are larger than 200 . If the maximal rotation velocity is less, the galaxies appear to have submaximal disks. Analyses of one barred, resonance-ring system [@byrd2006] and one gravitational-lens system [@dutton2011] indicate that these two galaxies are submaximal. However, in another lensed galaxy, [@barnabe2012] found that the dark-matter fraction within 2.2 optical disk scale lengths ($\hr$) was only $\sim$28%, implying a maximum disk. [@dutton2013] further investigated five gravitationally-lensed, bulge-dominated disk galaxies, and found that the [*disks*]{} of the galaxies are submaximal at 2.2$\hr$, but due to their large bulges, these galaxies are still baryon dominated at this radius. Results from the kinematics of planetary nebulae in several nearby galaxies suggest that the maximality may depend on Hubble type [@herrmann2009]. In conclusion, many different methods have resulted in many different results.
In addition to our own study, similar analysis of stellar-kinematic observations of normal spiral galaxies [e.g., @bottema1993; @kregel2005; @herrmann2009] generally show that spiral galaxies are submaximal with disks that contribute $\sim$60$\pm$10% to the observed rotation speed, with possible dependencies on morphological type, surface brightness, luminosity and color. The result presented in this paper is another strong argument against maximal disks, and it shows that normal, disk-dominated spiral galaxies are submaximal. To infer maximal disks on the basis of our stellar-kinematic measurements, we would on average have to increase the observed velocity dispersions by a factor of $\sim$2, or alternatively decrease $\hz$ or $k$ with a factor of 3.6 for the entire sample. Based on the available empirical evidence from edge-on galaxies [e.g., @kregel2002], this does not seem plausible.
In this paper, we compare our fitted NFW-halo parameters from both the submaximal and maximum-$\mls$ cases with what has been found from numerical N-body simulations [@bullock2001]. Interestingly, we find that the fitted parameters from the submaximal case show a $C$-$\mathcal{M}_{200}^{\rm halo}$ relation that is consistent with these simulations, with a concentration parameter typically between $C$$\sim$10–20. On the other hand, in the maximum-$\mls$ case the fitted concentration parameters are much lower, ($C$$\sim$1), and show little correlation with $\mathcal{M}_{200}^{\rm halo}$. The dark-matter-halo parameters derived from the maximum-$\mls$ decompositions are not consistent with these simulations.
The dark-matter distribution {#sec:ISOvsNFW}
----------------------------
The flatness of the outer part of rotation curves suggests a halo with a dark-matter density distribution declining as $\rho$$\propto$$R^{-2}$. The inner slope is still debated. The NFW and similar shapes of the dark-matter halo which have cuspy density profiles with a central slope of $\rho$$\propto$$R^{-1}$ to $\rho$$\propto$$R^{-1.5}$, have repeatedly been found in dark-matter-only numerical simulations [e.g., @NFW1996; @NFW1997; @moore1999; @klypin2001; @diemand2005]. Observationally, however, a core-like density distribution is often inferred [@deBlok2001; @swaters2003a; @swaters2003b; @KuziodeNaray2008; @KuziodeNaray2009; @deBlok2010; @oh2011].
Generally, it is thought [e.g., @blumenthal1986; @gnedin2004] that the baryons in the inner regions will tend to contract the halo while it is forming. The uncontracted halo in dark-matter-only simulations would then be more extended and have a lower concentration than in observed galaxies. This contraction of the dark-matter halo could be an issue when we fit our models to the data; however, for our light-weight disks we suspect this will only have a mild effect. Several processes may also occur that would instead expand the halo (see Sect. \[sec:Introduction\]). Recent results from, e.g., [@barnabe2012] and [@dutton2013] show that massive spiral galaxies have dark-matter distributions consistent with an unmodified NFW profile. In summary, there is no clear consensus on what can be expected for the inner slope of the dark-matter density distribution due to uncertainties in the baryon physics of galaxy formation. In this paper, we fit pISO and NFW models to our data. Fitting the dark-matter halo with alternative parameterizations to account for the uncertainty in the inner slope, e.g., using Einasto profiles [@einasto1979; @chemin2011], will be deferred to a forthcoming paper.
In general, the differences between our fitted pISO and NFW rotation curves are miniscule; both fits have similar $\chi^2$. In Sect. \[sec:DMRCshape\], we stacked data from all galaxies to investigate whether the pISO or NFW model fit the data better on average. Although we find slightly less scatter for the pISO-model fit, these results have little statistical significance, mainly due to limitations in our data close to the center and outside the optical disk where the pISO and NFW models tend to differ most. To better distinguish between pISO and NFW-halo distributions we recommend the following improvement at large and small radii for future observations.
Because inner regions often display large gradients in velocity, corrections for beam smearing are large and dependent on assumptions about the unresolved flux and velocity distribution. Corrections can be minimized with observations taken at sufficient physical resolution to resolve the inner rotation-curve rise. The influence of baryonic matter is also highest in the inner regions, primarily due to the presence of bulge or inner-disk components which may have systematically different $\mls$ than the outer disk. Direct, dynamical assessment of these innermost mass components would reduce systematic errors in this part of the baryonic rotation curve. Alternatively, observing pure-disk (bulgeless) galaxies might remove this extra complexity, but would naturally lead to an increased bias towards very late-type galaxies. However, chaotic motions in the innermost regions of such systems [@swaters2003b] may nullify potential advantages of this strategy.
In the outer regions, robust rotation curves require a detailed assessment of both inclination and position-angle warps. Inclination warps are difficult to constrain for nearly face-on galaxies, even with the availability of deep 21-cm aperture-synthesis observations [@martinsson2011]. Galaxies at higher inclination ($\sim$45$\arcdeg$ to 60$\arcdeg$) are required to properly measure inclination warps free of assumptions about the asymptotic shape of the rotation curve. Such high inclination would complicate the measurement of $\sigz$, but this is mitigated by the relations found in this paper, namely the calibration of $\mls$, and better knowledge of the SVE (presented in future papers of this series).
Uncertainties and assumptions {#sec:Disc-uncert}
-----------------------------
The steps in this paper, which have taken us from our observational data (stellar and gas line-of-sight kinematics, NIR, 24-$\mu$m and 21-cm imaging) to rotation-curve mass decompositions, include many systematic uncertainties as discussed in great detail in . Here we revisit the most significant ones.
Throughout our analysis, we have adopted a constant shape of the stellar velocity ellipsoid (SVE) for all galaxies. Fortunately, as part of our survey strategy , the resulting uncertainties in the conversion from $\slos$ to $\sigz$ are limited by the nearly face-on orientation of our galaxy sample. As discussed by [@herrmann2009], from both observations and theoretical works on the physics of disk scattering, we do not expect $\alpha$, which is the dominant contributor to the uncertainties in our deprojection of $\slos$ to $\sigz$, to be larger than one. If we assume $\alpha$$=$1 then the calculated $\Fbary$ will certainly be larger; however, we would still find that a majority of the galaxies in our sample are submaximal, with an average $\langle$$\Fbary^{2.2\hr}$$\rangle$$=$0.65 when excluding UGC 8196, and with only 6 out of 29 galaxies larger than 0.75. In , the shape of the SVE was derived directly from the data for one of our galaxies (UGC 463). We found that it has $\alpha$$=$0.48$\pm$0.09 and $\beta$$=$1.04$\pm$0.22. Even though these values differ from what we have adopted for this paper, $\alpha$ is still well within the errors, and the measured $\beta$ differs only $1.5\sigma$ from our assumed value. The shape of the SVE for the remaining galaxies in the sample will be revisited in a later paper of the DMS series, where a recalculation of $\sigz$ will be performed and the effect on earlier results will be examined.
Another contribution to the systematic errors comes from uncertainties in the vertical density distribution. It is possible that the distribution parameter ($k$) differs among and within galaxies. If $k$ is systematically higher than the adopted value, e.g., with a vertical isothermal $\rm sech^2$ distribution instead of the adopted exponential distribution, our nominal calculations produce an overestimate of $\sddisk$. This would imply that we overestimate $\Fbary$. If $k$ is systematically lower than the adopted value, we would instead underestimate $\Fbary$. Among the vertical mass distributions suggested by [@kruit1988], we have chosen a value of $k$$=$1.5, maximizing $\sddisk$ and $\Fbary$. In some cases, the effective value of $k$ could be lower; e.g., when the galaxy has a massive thin gas disk. However, the effect from a dark-matter halo (see below) would instead increase $k$, canceling the effect of the massive gas disk .
Since we observe nearly face-on galaxies, it is impossible to measure the vertical scale height $\hz$. Instead, we calculate $\hz$ from $\hr$, using the relation found from edge-on galaxies as described in . This introduces a significant systematic error (25%) within a galaxy; however, these errors are expected to be random when considering the sample as a whole.
Direct kinematic measurements of the disk inclination has been proven to be difficult for our nearly-face-on galaxies (@martinsson2011; ; Andersen & Bershady 2013, ApJ, [*in press*]{}), and we have adopted inclinations using the inverse Tully-Fisher relation . The uncertainties from these estimated inclinations, mainly introduced as systematic errors in the observed circular speed measurements, are again expected to be random for the sample.
The only known systematic uncertainty for the survey as a whole is the estimated 7% uncertainty on the Hubble constant . An error on $H_0$ results in an error on the derived distances, which would propagate to both the derived scale ($\hr$, $\hz$) and luminosity ($M_K$) of a galaxy. This would affect our measurement of $\Fbary$ in the sense that an error on $\hz$ propagates to $\vbary$ (via $\sddisk$), and an error on $M_K$ propagates to $\vc$ (via $\itf$). Although $\vbary$ and $\vc$ change in opposite direction (e.g., if $H_0$ is smaller, then $\vbary$ gets smaller and $\vc$ gets larger), thereby maximizing the error on $\Fbary$, the systematic uncertainty on $\Fbary$ due to the uncertainty on $H_0$ is only 5%.
Additional uncertainties are introduced by our limited accounting of all the baryonic components. We have only considered the four (presumably) dominant baryonic contributors to the total potential of the galaxy; the stellar bulge, stellar disk, atomic-gas disk, and molecular-gas disk. Our somewhat simplistic one-dimensional bulge-disk decompositions could introduce some errors, both due to an erroneous assumption of the mass distribution, and a possibly different $\mls$ for the bulge compared to the disk. We have limited the uncertainties from the bulge by excluding kinematic measurements inside $\rbulge$ (Sect. \[sec:Photometry\]), e.g., when calculating $\overline{\mls}$. The understanding of the bulge is critical to the inner shape of the dark-matter rotation curves. However, at larger radii (e.g., at 2.2$\hr$), the uncertainties from our bulge decompositions are negligible for most of the galaxies in our sample.
We have assumed that the stellar halo contains so little mass as to be dynamically negligible. This is also a valid argument for neglecting the contribution of the mass surface density of the dust in the disk, $\sdd$, which has been observed to have typical ratios $\sdd/\Sigma_{\rm HI}$$=$0.01–0.1 [@magrini2011]. However, dust may affect our measurements of $\mls$ due to extinction, but since we observe close-to face-on galaxies in the NIR, this effect should be small. We further assume that there is no hidden $\rm H_2$ gas, but that it is traced by the 24-$\mu$m emission. Finally, we do not include a thick disk component because, as mentioned in , the resulting differences in $k$ and $h_z$ tend to cancel when calculating $\sddisk$.
When calculating $\sddisk$ using Eq. \[eq:mldyn\], we include an infinite, plan-parallel, self-gravitating, isolated disk. For a disk embedded in a dark-matter halo, we expect $\sigz$ will [*increase*]{} for a given $\sddisk$ [@bottema1993]. This, again, results in estimates of $\mls$ that are upper limits. The shape of the halo is unknown, but is here assumed to be spherical. There have been studies showing that the dark-matter halo might be highly oblate or prolate [e.g., @amorisco2010; @vera-ciro2011]. This would further increase $\sigz$.
Summary and Conclusions {#sec:Summary_DeComp}
=======================
We have presented rotation-curve mass decompositions of 30 spiral galaxies. From our stellar-kinematic observations we measure vertical velocity dispersions of the stars in the galaxy disks ($\sigz$). These are used to calculate the disk’s dynamical mass surface density ($\sddisk$) from the relation $\sddisk$$=$$\sigz^2/(\pi G k \hz)$, where we assume a constant disk scale height ($\hz$) calculated from the disk scale length ($\hr$), and an exponential vertical distribution of the disk mass and luminosity ($k$$=$1.5). Together with measured atomic-gas mass surface densities from 21-cm radio synthesis observations, and molecular-gas mass surface densities estimated from 24-$\mu$m [*Spitzer*]{} observations, we derive the stellar mass surface density. Using near-infrared 2MASS photometry, we calculate the mass-to-light ratio of the stellar disk ($\mls$), and with the assumption of a constant $\mls$ with radius, we derive the stellar-bulge and stellar-disk mass surface densities from the observed surface brightness profiles. The rotation curves of the baryonic components are calculated from their radial mass surface density profiles. These are used together with and circular-speed measurements to derive the structural parameters of the dark-matter halo, modeled as either a pISO or NFW halo. We consider two different models for the mass content of the baryonic components; Case I, with mass surface densities dynamically derived directly from our kinematic and photometric observations, and Case II, with scaled-up stellar bulge and disk masses which disregards our dynamical mass-density estimates and instead is designed to contribute maximally to the total mass (a maximum-$\mls$ case).
Our derived gas-mass fractions have been compared to results in the recent literature. These agree fairly well, except that we find systematically higher gas-mass fractions. This is most likely due to different methods used to derive the stellar masses.
For individual galaxies, $\mls$ has systematic errors that are on average $\sim$70%, mainly due to the uncertainty in $\hz$ when converting $\sigz$ to $\sddisk$, and the uncertainty in the subtraction of the molecular gas from $\sddisk$. All galaxies have radially-averaged $K$-band $\overline{\mls}$ consistent with being equal. The error-weighted sample average and scatter is $\langle$$\overline{\mls}$$\rangle$$=$0.31$\pm$0.07. On average, we find a $\mls$ that is a factor of 3.6 lower than required by the maximum-disk hypothesis. This factor ranges between 1.6 to 8.1, with 20 of the galaxies having values in the range 2.1–4.6. In general, for the galaxies in our sample, the dark-matter halo dominates the potential at almost all radii.
We find the ratio of the baryonic to total rotation velocity, $\Fbary$$=$$\vbary/\vc$, to be nearly constant between 1–6$\hr$ within a galaxy, ranging from $\sim$0.4–0.7 among individual galaxies. This rather constant $\Fbary$ arises due to the atomic gas taking over at larger radii where the stellar-disk contribution is declining. The result has a consequence for measuring the maximality; for a comparison of the maximality between different galaxies, it is not critical to measure it at exactly $R_{\rm max}^{\rm disk}$$\approx$$2.2\hr$, and averaging over a band in radius, e.g., around $R$$=$(2.2$\pm$0.5)$\hr$, could be a way to obtain measurements with smaller errors.
All galaxies in the sample for which we have reliable measurements are submaximal. On average, $\Fbary^{2.2\hr}$$=$0.57$\pm$0.07, with a weak trend of larger $\Fbary^{2.2\hr}$ for more luminous galaxies, in agreement with our result in , but also with a trend of larger $\Fbary^{2.2\hr}$ for galaxies with higher central surface brightness.
The dark-matter rotation curves tend to be marginally better fit with a pISO than a NFW halo; however, due to limitations in our data both in the central and outer regions of the galaxies, this result has little statistical significance. The shapes of our inferred dark-matter rotation curves in the nominal-$\mls$ case are well fit with parameters in agreement with what has been found from dark-matter-only simulations. This result suggests that the baryonic matter in our sample of galaxies has had only a minor effect on the dark-matter distribution. However, when fitting a NFW halo in the maximum-$\mls$ case, we find a concentration parameter that is too low compared to the simulations.
A number of improvements may be made to the analysis presented in this paper. With SparsePak, we have observed the stellar kinematics of 12 additional galaxies that, when combined with the PPak data, will increase our sample by more than a third and broaden our parameter space further. Inclusion of our deep optical ($UBVRI$) and near-infrared ($JHK$) data from the KPNO 2.1-m telescope will dramatically improve our surface photometry. Work is ongoing to determine the SVE shape in individual galaxies, with one of the goals being to reduce the systematic errors introduced from deprojecting $\slos$ to $\sigz$. Future analysis will benefit from an improved understanding of the relation between $\hr$ and $\hz$, taking advantage of ongoing surveys of edge-on galaxies. In future papers, we will extend the analysis of the measured dark-matter distribution, e.g., to establish any correlation with the distribution.
In this paper, we have assumed Newtonian gravity. However, it would be interesting to investigate if the theory of modified Newtonian dynamics [MOND; @milgrom1983] can produce convincing results using submaximal disks. Until then, we conclude that with our assumed Newtonian gravity, the results presented in this paper indicate that the dark matter in spiral galaxies is not only needed to explain the non-declining rotation curves in the outer regions, but is also required to explain the rotation curves overall.
First, we wish to thank the referee for useful comments and suggestions. T.P.K.M. and M.A.W.V. acknowledge financial support provided by NOVA, the Netherlands Research School for Astronomy, and travel support from the Leids Kerkhoven-Bosscha Fonds. Support for this work has also been provided by the National Science Foundation (NSF) via grants AST-0307417 and AST-0607516 (M.A.B. and K.B.W.), OISE-0754437 (K.B.W.), and AST-1009491 (M.A.B.). K.B.W. is also supported by grant 614.000.807 from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). R.A.S. and M.A.B. acknowledge support from NASA/Spitzer grant GO-30894. 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 work is based in part on observations made with the Spitzer Space Telescope, which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under a contract with NASA.
The Atlas
=========
Content of the Atlas
--------------------
In this appendix we present data and results for individual galaxies. The next subsection (Sect. \[app:gal\]) provides some notes on the individual galaxies. In Sect. \[sec:Atlas\], an Atlas page is provided for each galaxy. Each page is divided into two columns, each with four panels. The left column demonstrates the progression from the observed surface brightness ($\mu_{K}$) and vertical velocity dispersions of the disk stars ($\sigz$) to mass surface densities ($\Sigma$) and mass-to-light ratios ($\ml$). The right column provides four rotation-curve mass decompositions.
The top panel in the left column shows the surface brightness profile. Gray dots represent the observed $K$-band surface brightness derived in . The dashed line shows the fitted bulge. This bulge has been subtracted from the total surface brightness to obtain the light profile of the disk (black errorbars). The second panel shows the measured $\sigz$ (errorbars), azimuthally averaged in 5$\arcsec$ wide rings. The dashed line indicates the exponential fit to the individual-fiber data . The third panel shows the derived mass surface density of the disk ($\sddisk$) and its three component; stars ($\sds$), atomic gas ($\sda$) and molecular gas ($\sdm$). The open circles indicate $\sddisk$, calculated directly from the measured $\sigz$. The filled dots with errorbars show the calculated $\sds$ (where the gas has been subtracted from $\sddisk$). The dotted and dash-dotted lines show measured $\sda$ and $\sdm$, respectively. The black dashed line shows $\sds^{\rm disk}$, calculated from the surface brightness (above) and the weighted average stellar mass-to-light ratio (below). The dark gray dashed line, falling of most rapidly with radius, indicates $\sds^{\rm bulge}$, calculated with the same mass-to-light ratio as the disk. The bottom panel shows the calculated dynamical ($\mldyn$; open circles) and stellar ($\mls$; filled circles with errorbars) mass-to-light ratios. The solid and dashed lines show the weighted average of $\mls$ and $\mldyn$, respectively. The arrow on the x-axis indicates $2.2\hr$. In all figures, the light gray shaded region indicates the region excluded from any analysis, typically the “bulge” region, delimited by the radius $\rbulge$ at which the light from the bulge contributes 10% to the total light. We have excluded any points within this region when calculating the average $\ml$. In all panels, the darker gray areas around the measured points indicate systematic errors.
The right column shows four different rotation-curve decompositions. Note that the panels in this column have different radial scaling than the panels in the left column. The observed and rotation curves are indicated with filled and open dots, respectively. The rotation curves of the stellar bulge (dark gray dashed line), stellar disk (black dashed line), molecular gas (dash-dotted line) and atomic gas (dotted line) have been calculated from the mass surface densities shown in the left column, as described in Sect. \[sec:RCmod\]. The solid gray line indicates the fitted dark-matter rotation curve. The solid black line is the quadrature sum of the various components. From top to bottom, the four panels in the right column show the rotation-curve mass decomposition results when using the nominal $\mls$ with a fitted pISO dark-matter halo (Case Ia); the nominal $\mls$ with a fitted NFW dark-matter halo (Case Ib); a maximum disk (scaled-up $\mls$) with a fitted pISO dark-matter halo (Case IIa); and a maximum disk with a fitted NFW dark-matter halo (Case IIb). The arrow in the bottom panel indicates $2.2\hr$, the theoretical radius of maximum rotation speed of an infinitely-thin exponential disk.
Notes on individual galaxies {#app:gal}
----------------------------
Here, we present a few notes on the individual galaxies. See for more detailed notes on the data products of the individual galaxies from PPak, for comments on emission, stellar and kinematics, kinematic flaring, known supernovae within the galaxies, and for notes on close field stars. See [@martinsson2011] for more comments on the observations of the individual galaxies, and for notes on close companion galaxies (detected in ).
[ ]{}
IC 43. High-quality kinematics, with regular stellar and gas kinematics. Significant bulge with second highest bulge-to-disk ratio in the sample ($B/D$$=$$0.32$). The rotation curve rises quite sharply. rotation curve corrected for an inclination warp [@martinsson2011]. A small bar and significant spiral structure are visible morphologically, but exhibit little kinematic influence.
NGC 234. High-quality kinematics. PPak and SparsePak data studied in detail in . Strong, three-arm spiral structure with minor streaming motions.
NGC 575, IC 1710. Strongly barred galaxy. Bright field star within the PPak field-of-view. A Type-II break exists in $\mu_K(R)$ at roughly $1\hr$ (approximately the same as the bar length). The mass surface density profile of the atomic gas is estimated using the results in [@martinsson2011].
“Ringing” present in $\mu_K(R)$ associated with the azimuthal coherence of the tightly wound spiral arms. rotation curve corrected for an inclination warp [@martinsson2011].
IC 193. High-quality kinematics. Sc galaxy, rather typical of our sample, apart from the high inclination ($\itf$$=39\arcdeg$). The mass surface density profile of the atomic gas is estimated using the results in [@martinsson2011].
IC 208. A Type-II break in $\mu_K(R)$ occurs at $\sim$1$\hr$ with a corresponding dip in the and rotation curves; any dynamical association between these features is unknown. Gas poor.
Unique among our sample: It has the lowest luminosity, $M_K$$=$$-21.0$, one magnitude fainter than the second least luminous galaxy (UGC 3701). Two Type-II breaks exist in $\mu_K(R)$ (at $\sim$23$\arcsec$ and $\sim$60$\arcsec$), but no indication of a bulge component; inner break is caused by the spiral arms. Appears to have a rather large bar. Data within $R$$=$$2\farcs5$ are excluded in the kinematic analysis, to avoid beam-smearing effects particularly strong in the center. The only galaxy in the sample for which the rotation curve does not reach $R$$=$$2.2\hr$. The mass surface density profile of the atomic gas is estimated using the results in [@martinsson2011].
NGC 927, Mrk 593. Barred galaxy with a weak Type-II break in $\mu_K(R)$ at $\sim$1$\hr$. Classified as a Starburst Nucleus Galaxy (SBNG), but its nucleus has an ambiguous activity classification between $\rm H_2$ and LINER [@contini1998]. The mass surface density profile of the atomic gas is estimated using the results in [@martinsson2011].
Since the bulge/disk fitting routine resulted in a non-existing bulge, the excess light in the central region is interpreted as an inner disk. As with UGC 1862, $\slos$ and $\sigz$ data within $R$$=$$2\farcs5$ are excluded from our analysis. The mass surface density profile of the atomic gas is estimated using the results in [@martinsson2011].
NGC 1642. Very close to face on with $\itf$$=$$14\arcdeg$. Nicely defined spiral structure but slightly lopsided. The $\mu_K$ profile breaks to a [*more extended*]{} disk (larger scale length) at $R$$\sim$$16\arcsec$. There is a small offset between the and rotation curves (Section \[sec:RC\]), possibly due to asymmetries. rotation curve corrected for an inclination warp [@martinsson2011].
Second lowest disk surface brightness in our sample. Some ringing in the $\mu_K$ profile due to the spiral arms. Rotation curve rises slowly. rotation curve corrected for an inclination warp [@martinsson2011].
Classified as Im by RC3 with low surface brightness. There is a small offset between the and rotation curves (Section \[sec:RC\]), maybe due to the warp in position angle, corrected for in the rotation curve [@martinsson2011] but not in the rotation curve.
NGC 2441. Observations are dominated by ring-like structure, probably due to weak bar. Streaming motions likely affect the observed rotation curve.
High-quality kinematics. Well-defined three-arm spiral structure. Type-II break in $\mu_K(R)$ at $R$$\sim$$20\arcsec$.
NGC 2532. Two close companions $\sim$$4\arcmin$ to the north connected by an bridge [@martinsson2011]. Interaction has likely produced the bright arm toward the east and the lopsidedness of the galaxy. High star-formation rate with very bright emission associated with visible star-formation regions . One of two galaxies in the sample with a molecular gas mass which is larger than the stellar mass. Note that the bump feature in the modeled molecular-gas rotation curve can also be seen in the observed rotation curve, and that the submaximal cases fit this feature better than the maximum-$\mls$ cases. There is a small offset between the and rotation curves (Section \[sec:RC\]), maybe due to its kinematic lopsidedness.
NGC 2575. Highest inclination in the sample ($\itf$$=$$45\arcdeg$). High-quality stellar kinematics. Type-II breaks in $\mu_K(R)$ at $R$$\sim$$16\arcsec$ and $R$$\sim$$30\arcsec$.
Low-inclination galaxy ($\itf$$=$$13\fdg8$) with a small apparent size and scale length. Stellar-kinematic data have limited radial extent. rotation curve corrected for an inclination warp [@martinsson2011].
NGC 2599, Mrk 389. Earliest morphological type in our sample (Sa), with the largest bulge-to-disk ratio ($B/D$$=$0.72). Some spiral structure visible at large radii, but very smooth morphology otherwise. rotation curve declines from 350 to 250 . The bulge dominates all stellar-kinematic data; $\overline{\mls}$ derived from the last measured point only.
NGC 2649. Strong spiral structure affects $\mu_K(R)$. High-quality stellar-kinematic data.
The most distant galaxy in the sample ($\vsys$$=$$12830$ ; $D$$=$$178$ Mpc). Stellar kinematics limited to $R$$<$$15\arcsec$. Type-II break in $\mu_K(R)$ at $R$$\sim$$15\arcsec$. Fourth highest bulge-to-disk ratio ($B/D$$=$0.16). rotation curve corrected for an inclination warp [@martinsson2011].
Barred galaxy with rather low surface brightness. Poorest quality of stellar-kinematic data in our sample (one hour observation with PPak). Strong dip in $\mu_K(R)$ at $R$$\sim$$20\arcsec$.
NGC 3982. High-surface-brightness member of the Ursa Major cluster. Very high-quality kinematic data. Classified as a Seyfert 1.9 [@veron2006]. Warped and lopsided extension to the gas [@martinsson2011]; PPak kinematics are regular. Included in DMS pilot sample as presented in early publications [@verheyen2004; @bershady2005; @westfall2009]. Type-II break in $\mu_K(R)$ at $R$$\sim$$1\hr$; $\slos$ transitions to a shallower slope at this radius. The galaxy with the highest molecular gas-to-stellar mass ratio in the sample; together with UGC 4256 the only galaxy with higher molecular-gas mass than stellar mass. Like UGC 4256, this galaxy also shows a bump feature in the calculated molecular gas rotation curve which can be seen in the observed rotation curve. rotation curve corrected for an inclination warp [@martinsson2011].
NGC 4195. Barred galaxy, modeled assuming no bulge; inner excess in $\mu_K(R)$ ($R$$\leq$$8\arcsec$) interpreted as an inner disk. As with UGC 1862, we exclude $R$$<$$2\farcs5$ from our analysis. Stellar-kinematic measurements only reach $R$$\sim$$20\arcsec$. The receding part of the rotation curve rises steeper than the approaching side [@martinsson2011]. This is not seen in the rotation curve, and results in some offsets between the and rotation curves (Section \[sec:RC\]). In optical images , this galaxy looks rather peculiar, with an offset bar and bent spiral arms.
NGC 4662. High-quality stellar kinematics. Gas-poor in the center, resulting in no measured and kinematics in that region. Excluded kinematic data at $R<1\hr$ (shaded region in the Atlas) to remove bar-associated regions. Type-II break in $\mu_K(R)$ at $R$$\sim$$25\arcsec$. Fifth highest bulge-to-disk ratio ($B/D=0.14$).
NGC 4977. Early-type spiral (SAb). Third highest bulge-to-disk ratio in the sample ($B/D$$=$0.24). Gas-poor [@martinsson2011]. rotation curve corrected for an inclination warp [@martinsson2011]. Low-surface-brightness, extended disk with strong spiral structure not probed by our kinematics. Rather complex $\mu_K(R)$, transitions to a shallower slope at $R$$\sim$$10\arcsec$, which may be an extent of the bulge not accounted for in our bulge-disk decomposition. Has a non-physical measurement of the maximality and is generally excluded from the results in this paper.
Well-defined spiral structure affecting $\mu_K(R)$. High inclination ($\itf$$=$$40\arcdeg$) and high-quality rotation curves. Measurements of $\slos$ limited to $R$$<$$25\arcsec$.
Stellar data has a limited radial extent. Weak morphological bar does not affect the kinematics. Shallower slope in $\mu_K(R)$ beyond $\sim$$1\hr$. Regular kinematics.
IC 1132. Very nearly face-on ($\itf$$=$$12\arcdeg$) with strong spiral structure visible in $\mu_K(R)$. Bulgeless galaxy; as with UGC 1862, we exclude data within $R$$=$$2\farcs5$ in the kinematic analysis. rotation curve corrected for an inclination warp [@martinsson2011].
NGC 6691. Barred galaxy. Lowest inclination in the sample ($\itf$$=$$5\fdg8$), yielding a very low-amplitude projected rotation curve. Type-II break in $\mu_K(R)$ at $\sim$$1\hr$.
NGC 7495. Type-II break in $\mu_K(R)$ at $R$$\sim$$25\arcsec$. The mass surface density profile of the atomic gas is estimated using the results in [@martinsson2011].
[^1]: National Science Foundation (USA) International Research Fellow
[^2]: Here and throughout this work we assume that the Newtonian gravitational theory holds. However, suggestions have been made that Newtonian dynamics need modification for use at low accelerations [e.g., @milgrom1983; @begeman1991; @sanders1996; @sanders1998].
[^3]: Based on observations collected at the Centro Astronómico Hispano Alemán (CAHA) at Calar Alto, operated jointly by the Max-Planck Institut für Astronomie and the Instituto de Astrofísica de Andalucía (CSIC).
[^4]: The WIYN Observatory, a joint facility of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Indiana University, Yale University, and the National Optical Astronomy Observatories.
[^5]: Operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
[^6]: In this paper we use $R_{\rm max}^{\rm disk}$$\equiv$$2.2\hr$, the radius at which the circular speed peaks for a razor-thin, radially exponential disk.
[^7]: Groningen Image Processing SYstem
[^8]: In fact, it is the [*square*]{} of the rotation speed that is negative. The rotation velocity itself is imaginary, but is by convention denoted as negative.
[^9]: When excluding UGC 8196; see Sect. \[sec:DiskMaximality\].
[^10]: As in Sect. \[sec:DiskMaximality\], we exclude UGC 1862.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
In this paper we show that payment computation essentially does not present any obstacle in designing truthful mechanisms, even for multi-parameter domains, and even when we can only call the allocation rule once. We present a general reduction that takes any allocation rule which satisfies “cyclic monotonicity” (a known necessary and sufficient condition for truthfulness) and converts it to a truthful mechanism using a single call to the allocation rule, with arbitrarily small loss to the expected social welfare.
A prominent example for a multi-parameter setting in which an allocation rule can only be called once arises in sponsored search auctions. These are multi-parameter domains when each advertiser has multiple possible ads he may display, each with a different value per click. Moreover, the mechanism typically does not have complete knowledge of the click-realization or the click-through rates (CTRs); it can only call the allocation rule a single time and observe the click information for ads that were presented. On the negative side, we show that an allocation that is truthful for any realization essentially cannot depend on the bids, and hence cannot do better than random selection for one agent. We then consider a relaxed requirement of truthfulness, only in expectation over the CTRs. Even for that relaxed version, making any progress is challenging as standard techniques for construction of truthful mechanisms (as using VCG or an MIDR allocation rule) cannot be used in this setting. We design an allocation rule with non-trivial performance and directly prove it is cyclic-monotone, and thus it can be used to create a truthful mechanism using our general reduction.
author:
- 'Moshe Babaioff [^1]'
- 'Robert D. Kleinberg [^2]'
- 'Aleksandrs Slivkins [^3]'
bibliography:
- 'bib-abbrv.bib'
- 'bib-slivkins.bib'
- 'bib-AGT.bib'
- 'bib-bandits.bib'
date: |
First version: February 2013\
This version: May 2013
title: 'Multi-parameter Mechanisms with Implicit Payment Computation[^4]'
---
.
algorithmic mechanism design, multi-parameter mechanisms, multi-armed bandits.
[^1]: Microsoft Research Silicon Valley, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA. Email: [[email protected]]{}.
[^2]: Computer Science Department, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA. Email: [[email protected]]{}. Parts of this research have been done while R. Kleinberg was a Consulting Researcher at Microsoft Research Silicon Valley, and R. Kleinberg was partially supported by NSF Awards CCF-0643934, AF-0910940, and IIS-0905467, and by a Microsoft Research New Faculty Fellowship.
[^3]: Microsoft Research Silicon Valley, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA. Email: [[email protected]]{}. Parts of this research have been done while A. Slivkins was a visiting researcher at Microsoft Research New York.
[^4]: This is the full version of a conference paper in *ACM EC 2013*.The multi-parameter transformation from Section \[sec:transform\] has appeared in [@Transform-ec10-jacm], the full version of [@Transform-ec10], but it is not a part of the conference version of [@Transform-ec10]. This result is an integral part of this manuscript and the corresponding conference submission.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'ExoEarth yield is a critical science metric for future exoplanet imaging missions. Here we estimate exoEarth candidate yield using single visit completeness for a variety of mission design and astrophysical parameters. We review the methods used in previous yield calculations and show that the method choice can significantly impact yield estimates as well as how the yield responds to mission parameters. We introduce a method, called Altruistic Yield Optimization, that optimizes the target list and exposure times to maximize mission yield, adapts maximally to changes in mission parameters, and increases exoEarth candidate yield by up to 100% compared to previous methods. We use Altruistic Yield Optimization to estimate exoEarth candidate yield for a large suite of mission and astrophysical parameters using single visit completeness. We find that exoEarth candidate yield is most sensitive to telescope diameter, followed by coronagraph inner working angle, followed by coronagraph contrast, and finally coronagraph contrast noise floor. We find a surprisingly weak dependence of exoEarth candidate yield on exozodi level. Additionally, we provide a quantitative approach to defining a yield goal for future exoEarth-imaging missions.'
author:
- 'Christopher C. Stark, Aki Roberge, Avi Mandell, Tyler D. Robinson'
bibliography:
- 'ms\_v2.bib'
title: Maximizing the ExoEarth Candidate Yield from a Future Direct Imaging Mission
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
The number of habitable extrasolar Earth-like planets (exoEarths) detected and spectroscopically characterized is a key scientific metric for future missions that aim to find habitable conditions on exoplanets and possibly signs of life. The predicted exoEarth yield will inform telescope design and mission lifetime, and may ultimately help select high-contrast imaging technologies. Radial velocity measurements and results from the *Kepler* Mission have constrained the fraction of M dwarfs that harbor roughly Earth-sized planets in their habitable zones (exoEarth candidates), $\eta_{\Earth} \sim 0.4$ , although the uncertainties of these estimates are large and the planet radius/mass and orbital period range used to define $\eta_{\Earth}$ vary within the literature. For Sun-like stars $\eta_{\earth}$ is even less certain, with estimates ranging from $\sim$ 0.05 – 0.2 [@2013PNAS..11019273P; @2014arXiv1404.2960M; @Silburt:2014aa]. For such low values of $\eta_{\earth}$ the expected total number of candidate exoEarths observed within the mission lifetime (exoEarth candidate yield) could be low, making yield maximization extremely important.
Many previous studies have estimated the exoEarth candidate yield for future exoplanet imaging missions. @2004ApJ...607.1003B introduced the concept of obscurational completeness to quantify the impact of a non-zero inner working angle (IWA) on exoplanet detection. In a landmark paper, @2005ApJ...624.1010B then built on this concept to include photometric completeness in combination with exposure time estimation to prioritize a target list and estimate exoEarth candidate yield for a coronagraphic mission. Other studies have followed, with models varying in complexity and realism [e.g., @2010ApJ...715..122B; @2010PASP..122..401S; @2012PASP..124..418T]. Most of these models seek to maximize the chance of observing an exoEarth around a given target and prioritize the target list based upon a cost to benefit ratio, but few have sought to optimize observations to maximize overall mission yield [@2007SPIE.6693E..22H].
Here we introduce the Altruistic Yield Optimization (AYO) method for target prioritization and exposure time allotment that has the single goal of maximizing the total yield of exoEarth candidates. In Section \[caveats\] we discuss the major assumptions and limitations of this work, then provide a detailed look at the astrophysical assumptions in Section \[astrophysical\_assumptions\_section\]. Section \[exoEarth\_yield\_section\] presents a review of yield calculation methods as well as our AYO method. In Section \[results\_section\], we compare the yield using AYO to previous methods and use AYO to estimate the yield as a function of several mission parameters. We discuss and summarize our findings in Sections \[discussion\] and \[conclusions\].
Framework & Caveats {#caveats}
===================
In this work we estimate exoEarth candidate yield using simple completeness and exposure time calculators, analogous to several previous studies [e.g., @2005ApJ...624.1010B; @2012PASP..124..418T]. Our exoEarth candidate yield calculations assume that all targets can be observed for the desired exposure time. We ignore mission scheduling constraints and realtime cost-based decision making that are included in more complex “mission execution simulators" [e.g., @2010PASP..122..401S]. However, the yield maximization methods described below run rapidly ($\sim$ few seconds on a single $2.4$ GHz processor) and can be used to inform realtime decisions in mission execution simulators.
We make a number of assumptions and approximations to simplify our estimates of exoEarth candidate yield. We budget one year of exposure time for all exoEarth observations. We do not include overheads associated with the observations (e.g., telescope slew times, coronagraph wavefront correction time, etc.) within this budget. Estimates for coronagraph overheads are poorly constrained at this time, as they depend strongly on many detailed mission design characteristics, including the coronagraph used, the telescope thermal and mechanical stability, and the wavefront control system used. We therefore ignore overheads for now and simply note that the total exposure time budget of one year is not the total time that must be devoted to exoplanet detection.
The study presented here focuses solely on broadband detections; we do not include spectral characterization time for any of the detected exoEarth candidates. The spectral characterization time depends on the bandpasses required for water and biosignature detection and the spectral resolving power, which in turn require well-defined mission science goals. In addition, the spectral characterization time can depend strongly on the observational procedure, e.g., will low resolution spectra be obtained for every potential point source to help discriminate between planets and background objects, or will spectra only be obtained after common proper motion is established? These complicating factors require additional analysis that is beyond the scope of this paper. We note that in the case $\eta_{\earth} \lesssim 0.1$, as we will assume, the spectral characterization time is a modest fraction of the total time budget because the proportion of exoEarth candidate spectra obtained to stars imaged is relatively small, and in the case of single-visit studies, as discussed below, the yield scales weakly with mission lifetime. Therefore, spectral characterization time should not greatly impact the single-visit yield estimates from this study.
Finally, we observe each star only once and ignore revisits in this study. Revisits can both increase and decrease mission yield. In the event that an exoEarth is not detected around a given star, revisiting that star at a later time, after any potential exoEarths have had a chance to move along their orbits, could result in a new detection. On the other hand, revisits will also be required to establish common proper motion and constrain the orbit of any detected exoEarth candidates, reducing the amount of time available for new exoEarth candidate detections around other stars. A proper calculation of how revisits impact mission yield requires optimizing the time between visits, which is work that we leave for future development. Because we do not include revisits, we place no restriction on the maximum exposure time for single-visit detection.
The astrophysical parameters assumed for our baseline study are listed in Table \[exoearth\_params\_table\]. We choose $\eta_{\Earth} = 0.1$, consistent with recent estimates ranging from $\sim$ 0.05 – 0.2 for Sun-like stars [@2013PNAS..11019273P; @2014arXiv1404.2960M; @Silburt:2014aa]. We assume all exoEarth candidates are Earth twins, an assumption we address in Appendix \[earth\_albedo\_appendix\]. We use the same habitable zone conventions as @2005ApJ...624.1010B, distributing all planets uniformly and linearly in semi-major axis from $0.7$–$1.5$ AU (scaled with stellar luminosity to maintain constant HZ temperature) and in eccentricity from $0$–$0.35$. The assumptions of this orbital distribution and the impact on yield will be addressed in a future paper. We assume the fraction of stars with an Earth-sized planet in the habitable zone is $\eta_{\Earth}=0.1$. Estimates of $\eta_{\Earth}$ include all habitable zone planets that are roughly Earth-sized—there is no guarantee that these planets are Earth-like. Strictly speaking, we calculate a yield of *candidate* exoEarths, a subset of which may be truly Earth-like.
Table \[baseline\_params\_table\] lists the baseline telescope and instrument parameters. We use optimistic parameters for a coronagraph under the assumption of a direct imaging mission several decades in the future. We ignore read noise and dark counts, implicitly requiring that future detector noise count rates be less than the astrophysical noise, and assume a diffraction-limited PSF.
We require a signal to noise ratio (S/N) of 10 for broadband detection. Given that the exposure time is proportional to S/N$^2$, this seemingly conservative assumption will negatively impact our yield estimates when compared to a S/N $\approx5$. However, @Kasdin:2006aa suggested that S/N $>7.1$ to ensure both a low false positive rate and low missed detection rate. Additionally, our exposure time calculations do not include unknown systematic uncertainties, which when added in quadrature to the estimated photon noise, will reduce the real-world S/N. We therefore do not consider our S/N$=10$ a conservative requirement.
Updates to Astrophysical Assumptions {#astrophysical_assumptions_section}
====================================
A number of astrophysical assumptions are required to estimate exoEarth candidate yield (see Table \[exoearth\_params\_table\]). These assumptions can have profound impacts on the yield and vary from study to study. Specifically, values used for the typical exoEarth candidate geometric albedo vary by 50% and the surface brightness of a Solar System-twin disk of exozodiacal dust varies by a factor of $2.5$ [e.g., @2010ApJ...715..122B; @2012PASP..124..418T]. In Appendices \[earth\_albedo\_appendix\]–\[exozodi\_appendix\] we examine these assumptions, along with the surface brightness of the local zodiacal cloud. Here we summarize those findings.
The typical albedo of an exoEarth candidate is unknown and may remain unknown prior to a direct imaging mission. For lack of observational constraints, previous works have commonly used Earth’s geometric albedo (though the value used has varied from $0.2$ to $0.3$). We found that a Lambert phase function with geometric albedo $A_G=0.2$ is a decent approximation of Earth’s reflectance, which is what we used in this work. A geometric albedo of $A_G=0.3$ overestimates the Earth’s reflectance by 50%. The Earth’s true phase function is non-Lambertian, with a number of processes increasing the reflectance in crescent phases [@2010ApJ...721L..67R]. Including these processes would lead to higher exoEarth candidate yield, but we avoided including these effects because there is no guarantee that exoEarth candidates would have atmospheres identical to Earth’s. The albedos and phase functions for exoEarth candidates may be the largest source of astrophysical uncertainty for exoEarth yield calculations. We found yield is roughly $\propto A_G^{0.8}$ for our baseline mission assuming Lambertian spheres.
We implemented a new treatment of the local zodiacal light. We calculated the zodiacal surface brightness for each target star as a function of ecliptic latitude. We found that as long as observations are made at solar longitudes $\gtrsim90^{\circ}$, the conventional treatment (a uniform zodiacal surface brightness of 23 mag arcsec$^{-2}$) is adequate. Our more realistic treatment did not significantly impact exoEarth candidate yield for the baseline mission, though it did slightly alter the prioritization of observed stars.
Finally, we investigated the assumptions that go into the calculation of exozodiacal light. We found that complex estimates of exozodiacal light that self-consistently calculate the exozodi surface brightness with the planet’s orbital orientation and phase do not significantly impact yield or target prioritization and require significant computational effort. On the other hand, the conventional treatment of exozodiacal dust as a uniform surface brightness independent of stellar type unfairly penalizes late type stars. We chose to define 1 “zodi" of dust as a constant habitable zone optical depth defined at the Earth-equivalent insolation distance, such that the exozodiacal surface brightness at wavelength $\lambda$, $I_{\rm EZ}(\lambda) \propto 10^{-0.4 M_{\lambda}^{\star}}/L_{\star}$, where $M_{\lambda}^{\star}$ is the absolute stellar magnitude at wavelength $\lambda$ and $L_{\star}$ is the bolometric stellar luminosity. Using this definition, yields are negligibly increased, but $\sim15\%$ more K and M dwarf type stars are observed.
Defining a Yield Goal {#yield_goals_section}
=====================
Given the caveats detailed in Section \[caveats\], the absolute yield numbers presented in this work will undoubtedly change as our calculations advance and our understanding of the assumptions improve. We emphasize that the absolute yield numbers are sensitive to quantities that we do not vary in detail: poorly constrained astrophysical quantities, like $\eta_{\Earth}$ and the typical exoEarth candidate albedo, as well as assumed telescope and instrument parameters, like the required SNR for detection and the system throughput. *Rather than the absolute exoEarth candidate yield numbers, the primary focus of this paper is the relative effectiveness of the yield calculation methods, and the dependencies on varied astrophysical and mission parameters.* Nonetheless, at some point one must decide upon a yield goal: the number of exoEarth candidates required to achieve a particular science goal. Here we present a quantitative approach to defining the yield goal most appropriate for missions that seek to find Earth-like planets.
The parameter $\eta_{\earth}$ is often casually referred to as the fraction of stars that have Earth-like planets in their habitable zones. Prior to planning a direct imaging mission, however, we will likely only measure the sizes of a small number of these planets. In truth, $\eta_{\earth}$ reflects the fraction of stars that harbor Earth-sized planets in their habitable zones, an exoEarth *candidate*.
Some unknown fraction of these Earth-sized planets will be barren rocks, some fraction will have liquid water on their surfaces ($\eta_{\rm H_2 O}$), and some fraction may have biomarkers consistent with the presence of life ($\eta_{\rm life}$). Thus, if a mission’s science goal is to find Earth-*like* planets by searching for signs of water and/or life, the completely unconstrained quantities $\eta_{\rm H_2 O}$ and $\eta_{\rm life}$ will determine the success of the mission. While we cannot know these quantities a priori, we can calculate how many exoEarth candidates are required to place compelling constraints on these factors.
The binomial distribution function, $$P\left(x,n,p\right) = \frac{n!}{x! (n-x)!}\, p^x\, \left(1 - p \right)^{n-x},$$ expresses the probability $P$ of $x$ successes out of $n$ tries, if each try has an independent probability $p$. For the exoEarth science goal at hand, $n=N_{\rm EC}$ represents the number of exoEarth candidates, $x$ is the number of candidates that exhibit the feature for which we are searching (e.g., water), $p = \eta_x \epsilon$ is the probability of detecting the feature, $\eta_x$ is the statistical fraction of exoEarth candidates that exhibit the feature, and $\epsilon$ is our detection efficiency of the feature.
In the worst case scenario of a null result in which zero detections of the desired feature are made, we should require a scientifically compelling constraint on the quantity $\eta_x$. Setting $x=0$ and assuming $\epsilon \approx 1$, we find the simple expression $$P\left(0,N_{\rm EC},\eta_x \right) = \left(1 - \eta_x \right)^{N_{\rm EC}}.$$ Solving for $N_{\rm EC}$ gives $$N_{\rm EC} = \frac{\log{(1-C)}}{\log{(1-\eta_x)}},$$ where $C = 1 - P$ is the confidence of the constraint on $\eta_x$. Figure \[confidence\_curves\] shows the number of exoEarth candidates required to place 1, 2, and 3$\sigma$ constraints on $\eta_x < \eta_x'$ as a function of $\eta_x'$. Alternatively, one could use Figure \[confidence\_curves\] to interpret the possible constraint on $\eta_x'$ given an expected number of exoEarth candidates.
![The required number of exoEarth candidates, $N_{\rm EC}$, to constrain $\eta_x < \eta_x'$ at a given confidence level, where $\eta_x$ represents the statistical fraction of exoEarth candidates that exhibit a desired feature (e.g., water). \[confidence\_curves\]](Required_Ncandidates_vs_eta_for_null_result.eps){width="4in"}
We posit that a reasonably compelling limit is $\eta_x < 0.1$, whether $\eta_x = \eta_{\rm H_2 O}$ or $\eta_x = \eta_{\rm life}$. *Thus, to place a 3$\sigma$ constraint that $\eta_x < 0.1$, we require approximately 55 exoEarth candidates.*
Figure \[confidence\_curves\] equivalently states the number of exoEarth candidates required to detect the desired feature in at least one candidate at the given level of confidence. *Given 55 exoEarth candidates, a mission would have a $99.7\%$ chance of detecting at least one exoEarth with water if $\eta_{\rm H_2 O} \ge 0.1$ and $\epsilon \approx 1$*. The most probable number of detections is of course equal to $\eta_x \times N_{\rm EC}$, as shown in the sample binomial distribution in Figure \[sample\_binomial\], for which we assume $\eta_x = 0.1$ and $N_{\rm EC} = 55$.
![The binomial probability distribution for $n=55$ and $p=0.1$ as a function of $x$, i.e. the probability of detecting $x$ exoEarths that exhibit a desired feature from a sample of 55 candidates assuming a statistical frequency of the feature $\eta_x = 0.1$. \[sample\_binomial\]](sample_binomial-N_55-eta_0_1.eps){width="4in"}
Calculating ExoEarth Candidate Yield {#exoEarth_yield_section}
====================================
The fundamentals of our exoEarth candidate yield calculations are based on @2005ApJ...624.1010B. Here we provide a brief summary of those techniques. We divide our exoEarth candidate yield calculations into four distinct steps: target list selection, completeness calculation for each star, exposure time calculation for each star, and yield maximization.
Target list
-----------
To select a pool of potential targets we followed the procedures outlined in @2005ApJ...624.1010B and @2012PASP..124..418T. We queried the *Hipparcos* catalog for all stars with parallax $>20\arcsec$ ($d<50$ pc); we found the 30 pc cutoff used by @2005ApJ...624.1010B and @2012PASP..124..418T insufficient when modeling our baseline mission with apertures $\gtrsim 10$ m. We then cross-referenced our list with the *Hipparcos* Double & Multiples Catalog and the Washington Double Star Catalog to remove stars with known companions within $10\arcsec$, leaving a total of 5449 potential targets. Stray light from such companions may impact the required planet exposure times by increasing the background light. For each target star, we calculated stellar luminosity from the *Hipparcos* parallax data, *Hipparcos* Johnson $V$ and $B-V$ values, and bolometric corrections given by Equations 1 and 2 from @2012PASP..124..418T. As discussed in @2012PASP..124..418T, the *Hipparcos* catalog is incomplete for late type stars. Since late type stars have compact habitable zones, the *Hipparcos* incompleteness may lead to underestimation of exoEarth candidate yields for large apertures with small inner working angles.
Completeness calculator
-----------------------
For exoEarth candidate yield, “completeness" is defined as the chance of observing an exoEarth candidate around a given star if that exoEarth candidate exists [@2004ApJ...607.1003B]. The chance of observing an exoEarth candidate is therefore the product of completeness and $\eta_{\earth}$. For an exoEarth candidate to be observable, it must appear exterior to the IWA of the instrument, interior to the outer working angle (OWA), and must be bright enough to observe at a given S/N within a given exposure time. Because we will know little about the majority of planetary systems prior to imaging them, completeness is calculated via a Monte Carlo simulation of all possible planets satisfying certain constraints.
We calculated single-visit obscurational and photometric completeness for each star in the target list using the same methods outlined in @2005ApJ...624.1010B. We started by simulating $10^5$ exoEarths around a Sun-like star at 1 pc using the planet parameters listed in Table \[exoearth\_params\_table\]. For each synthetic exoEarth, we calculated the projected angular separation of the planet and star, $s_{\rm p}$, and the flux ratio of the planet to the star, expressed as $$\Delta {\rm mag}_{\rm p} = -2.5 \log{\frac{f_{\rm p}}{f_{\star}}},$$ where $f_{\rm p}$ is the flux from the planet and $f_{\star}$ is the flux from the star.
[ccl]{} $\eta_{\earth}$ & $0.1$ & Fraction of stars with an exoEarth candidate\
$R_{\rm p}$ & $1$ $R_{\earth}$ & Planet radius\
$a$ & $[0.7,1.5]$ AU & Semi-major axis (uniform distribution)\
$e$ & $[0,0.35]$ & Eccentricity (uniform distribution)\
$\cos{i}$ & $[-1,1]$ & Cosine of inclination (uniform distribution)\
$\omega$ & $[0,2\pi)$ & Argument of pericenter (uniform distribution)\
$M$ & $[0,2\pi)$ & Mean anomaly (uniform distribution)\
$\Phi$ & Lambert & Phase function\
$A_G$ & $0.2$ & Geometric albedo (corresponds to spherical albedo $A_B = 0.3$)\
$z$ & 23 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ & Surface brightness of zodiacal light\
$x$ & 22 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ & Surface brightness of 1 zodi of exozodiacal dust\
$n$ & $3$ & Number of zodis for all stars\
For simplicity, we require habitable zones to receive a constant bolometric stellar flux regardless of spectral type. Thus, we only need to calculate the projected separations once; we can scale the habitable zone with stellar luminosity to maintain a constant bolometric stellar flux. For each star on the target list, we scaled the projected separations according to $$s_{{\rm p},i} = s_{\rm p} \sqrt{\frac{L_{\star,i}}{L_{\sun}}} \left(\frac{1\, \rm{pc}}{d_i}\right),$$ where $s_{{\rm p},i}$ is the projected separation of a single synthetic exoEarth from the $i^{\rm th}$ star, $L_{\star,i}$ is the stellar luminosity of the $i^{\rm th}$ star, $L_{\sun}$ is the solar luminosity, and $d_i$ is the distance to the $i^{\rm th}$ star. The flux ratio of the planet and star also changes with spectral type. For each star on the target list, we scaled the planet to star flux ratio according to $$\Delta {\rm mag}_{{\rm p},i} = \Delta {\rm mag}_{\rm p} + 2.5 \log{\frac{L_{\star,i}}{L_{\sun}}},$$ where $\Delta \rm{mag}_{{\rm p},i}$ is the magnitude flux ratio of a single synthetic exoEarth for the $i^{\rm th}$ star. Completeness $C_i(\Delta {\rm mag_{obs}}, \rm{IWA}, \rm{OWA})$ for the $i^{\rm th}$ star is then calculated as the fraction of synthetic exoEarths with ${\rm IWA} < s_{{\rm p},i} < {\rm OWA}$ and $\Delta {\rm mag}_{{\rm p},i} < \Delta {\rm mag_{obs}}$, where $\Delta {\rm mag_{obs}}$ expresses the faintest planet that can be detected at the desired S/N in a certain exposure time.
Exposure time calculator
------------------------
Assuming negligible read noise and dark counts, we approximate the exposure time required to image a planet with $\Delta {\rm mag_p} = \Delta {\rm mag_{obs}}$ as $$\label{tau_equation}
\tau = \left({\rm S/N}\right)^2 \left(\frac{{\rm CR_p} + 2\, {\rm CR_b} }{{\rm CR_p}^2}\right),$$ where $\rm{S/N}$ is the signal to noise ratio desired for the planet, ${\rm CR_p}$ is the photon count rate for the planet, ${\rm CR_b}$ is the photon count rate for the background, and $\Delta {\rm mag_{obs}} < \Delta {\rm mag_{floor}}$, where the systematic noise floor $\Delta {\rm mag_{floor}}$ is the dimmest planet detectable at the given S/N [@2005ApJ...624.1010B]. The factor of two in front of the background count rate is due to the necessity of background subtraction. The planet count rate is given by
$$\label{CRp_equation}
{\rm CR_p} = F_0\, 10^{-0.4\left({\rm m}_V + \Delta {\rm mag_{obs}}\right)}\, A\, \Upsilon\, T\, \Delta \lambda,$$
where $F_0$ is the zero-magnitude flux at $V$ band, $m_V$ is the stellar apparent $V$-band magnitude, $A = \pi D^2 / 4$ is the effective collecting area of the telescope aperture, $D$ is the telescope diameter, $\Upsilon$ is the fraction of the diffraction limited PSF contained within the aperture defined by the angular radius $\theta = X \lambda/D$, $\lambda = \lambda_V$ is the central wavelength of the $V$ bandpass, $T$ is total facility throughput, and $\Delta \lambda$ is the bandwidth. We assume simple aperture photometry with $X=0.7$ such that $\Upsilon=0.69$, which roughly maximizes the planet to background flux ratio. In reality, coronagraphs will broaden the PSF of the telescope, such that the optimal $\Upsilon \ne 0.69$. We leave a detailed analysis of how coronagraph PSF broadening will affect $\Upsilon$ to future work. Expanding all dependencies on $\lambda$ and $D$, we find $$\label{CRp_equation_expanded}
{\rm CR_p} = F_0\, 10^{-0.4\left({\rm m}_V + \Delta {\rm mag_{obs}}\right)}\, \frac{\pi D^2}{4}\, \Upsilon\, T\, \Delta \lambda,$$ such that the planet’s count rate is proportional to the collecting area of the telescope.
We assume negligible read noise for broadband detections using future detector technologies. Thus, three sources of background flux dominate ${\rm CR_b}$: the leaked stellar light (${\rm CR_{b,\star}}$), the local zodiacal light (${\rm CR_{b,zodi}}$), and the exozodiacal light (${\rm CR_{b,exozodi}}$). The count rate for leaked stellar light is expressed as $$\label{CRbstar_equation}
{\rm CR_{b,\star}} = F_0\, 10^{-0.4{\rm m}_V}\, \zeta\, {\rm PSF_{\rm peak}}\, \Omega\, A\, T\, \Delta \lambda,$$ where $\zeta$ is the uniform contrast level of suppressed starlight measured relative to the PSF peak per unit solid angle, ${\rm PSF_{\rm peak}} = \pi D^2/4 \lambda^2$ expresses the theoretical Airy pattern peak per unit solid angle under the assumption of a diffraction-limited PSF, and $\Omega = \pi(X\lambda/D)^2$ is the solid angle subtended by the photometric aperture. Expanding all dependencies on $\lambda$ and $D$, Equation \[CRbstar\_equation\] can be expressed as $$\label{CRbstar_equation_expanded}
{\rm CR_{b,\star}} = F_0\, 10^{-0.4{\rm m}_V}\, \zeta\, \frac{\pi^2 X^2}{4}\, \frac{\pi D^2}{4}\, T\, \Delta \lambda,$$ such that the leaked starlight’s count rate is proportional to the collecting area of the telescope.
The local zodiacal light is expressed as $$\label{CRbzodi_equation}
{\rm CR_{b,zodi}} = F_0\, 10^{-0.4z}\, \Omega\, A\, T\, \Delta \lambda,$$ where $z$ is the typical surface brightness of the zodiacal light in magnitudes per unit solid angle at $V$ band. Expanding all dependencies on $\lambda$ and $D$, we find $$\label{CRbzodi_equation_expanded}
{\rm CR_{b,zodi}} = F_0\, 10^{-0.4z}\, \frac{\pi^2 X^2}{4}\, \lambda_V^2\, T\, \Delta \lambda,$$ such that the local zodiacal light’s count rate is independent of telescope diameter.
Finally, the exozodiacal light is given by $$\label{CRbexozodi_equation}
{\rm CR_{b,exozodi}} = F_0\, n\, 10^{-0.4x}\, \Omega\, A\, T\, \Delta \lambda,$$ where $x$ is the surface brightness of 1 zodi of exozodiacal light in magnitudes per unit solid angle, and $n$ is the typical number of zodis assumed for all stars. Expanding all dependencies on $\lambda$ and $D$, we find $$\label{CRbexozodi_equation_expanded}
{\rm CR_{b,exozodi}} = F_0\, n\, 10^{-0.4x}\, \frac{\pi^2 X^2}{4}\, \lambda_V^2\, T\, \Delta \lambda,$$ such that the exozodiacal light’s count rate is independent of telescope aperture.
Note that ${\rm CR_p}$ and ${\rm CR_{b,\star}}$ are proportional to $D^2$ while ${\rm CR_{b,zodi}}$ and ${\rm CR_{b,exozodi}}$ are independent of $D$. Thus, we may be tempted to think that exozodis will affect larger apertures less. However, for a given star ${\rm CR_p}$ and ${\rm CR_{b,\star}}$ are proportional to $d^{-2}$ while ${\rm CR_{b,zodi}}$ and ${\rm CR_{b,exozodi}}$ are independent of stellar distance, as expected for resolved sources. Because larger apertures have shorter exposure times, missions with larger apertures will eventually observe more distant targets, for which the exozodi problem becomes worse. Thus the dependence of the yield on parameters like exozodi level and contrast cannot be intuited from the count rate equations above, and will be controlled by the combination of these equations and the target list selected for observation.
[ccl]{} $D$ & $8$ m & Telescope diameter\
$\lambda$ & $0.55$ $\mu$m & Central wavelength\
$\Delta \lambda$ & $0.11$ $\mu$m & Bandwidth\
IWA & $2\lambda/D$ (28.4 mas) & Inner working angle\
OWA & $15\lambda/D$ (213 mas) & Outer working angle\
$\zeta$ & $10^{-10}$ & Contrast level in detection region, relative to theoretical Airy peak\
$\Delta$mag$_{\rm floor}$ & $26$ & Systematic noise floor (i.e., dimmest point source detectable at S/N)\
$T$ & $0.2$ & End-to-end facility throughput\
S/N & $10$ & Signal to noise ratio required for broadband detection of a planet\
$F_0$ & $9500$ photons cm$^{-2}$ nm$^{-1}$ s$^{-1}$ & Flux zero-point at $V$ band\
$X$ & $0.7$ & Photometry aperture radius in $\lambda/D$\
$\Upsilon$ & $0.69$ & Fraction of Airy pattern contained within photometry aperture\
$\Omega$ & $\pi(X\lambda/D)^2$ radians & Solid angle subtended by photometry aperture\
Yield Maximization
------------------
The estimated exoEarth candidate yield for a mission is equal to $\eta_{\earth}$ times the total completeness obtained for all observed stars within the assumed mission lifetime. Therefore, to calculate exoEarth candidate yield, one must decide which stars to observe, how long to observe them, and in what order, necessitating a target prioritization metric. Completeness $C$, the chance of observing an exoEarth candidate around a given star, can be thought of as the “benefit" of observing a star. The “cost" of observing a star is the exposure time $\tau$. Thus, a reasonable prioritization metric is simply $C/\tau$, the benefit-to-cost ratio. The calculation of this ratio appears elementary, but combining completeness with exposure time is non-trivial and the method used can significantly impact the yield estimates as well as how the yield responds to changes in mission design parameters.
### A Review of Prioritization Methods
Completeness and exposure time both depend on a value of $\Delta {\rm mag}_{\rm obs}$, which defines the dimmest planet that can be detected at the desired S/N. Traditionally, models have chosen a value of $\Delta {\rm mag}_{\rm obs}$ for each star, but the choice of $\Delta {\rm mag}_{\rm obs}$ varies widely in the literature. @2010ApJ...715..122B assumed a fixed value of $\Delta {\rm mag}_{\rm obs}=\Delta {\rm mag}_{\rm floor}=26$ for all stars in the target list, where $\Delta {\rm mag}_{\rm floor}$ is the systematic noise floor, beyond which a point source can never be detected at the required S/N. We refer to this method as a strict limiting search observation (SLSO) method. An SLSO method is both straight-forward and computationally fast. However, exoEarth candidates around late type stars have smaller values of $\Delta {\rm mag_{p}}$, so observing late type stars to the noise floor would result in the detection of planets much smaller than 1 Earth radius; from an exoEarth candidate yield perspective, an SLSO method devotes too much observing time to late type stars.
@2005ApJ...624.1010B explored varying $\Delta {\rm mag}_{\rm obs}$ to maximize the mission yield, but kept $\Delta {\rm mag}_{\rm obs}$ the same for all stars. We refer to this method as a tuned limiting search observation (TLSO) method. Clearly the TLSO method performs better than the SLSO method. However, the TLSO method still fails to take advantage of the dependence of $\Delta {\rm mag_p}$ on stellar type and, requiring many calculations of photometric completeness and exposure time, is computationally inefficient. For typical mission parameters with modest aperture sizes, the TLSO method tunes $\Delta {\rm mag_{obs}} < 26$ such that the noise floor is never reached, but we explicitly required $\Delta {\rm mag_{obs}} \le 26$ when using the TLSO method in this paper.
@2012PASP..124..418T ignores the contribution of the planet’s Poisson noise and adjusts the exposure time for each star to roughly that required to detect an exoEarth at quadrature, effectively scaling $\Delta {\rm mag}_{\rm obs} \approx 25.2 + 2.5\log{(L_{\star}/L_{\sun})}$. This method exploits the dependence of $\Delta {\rm mag_p}$ on stellar type, but quadrature is not necessarily the ideal phase to detect exoEarths. We refer to this method as a stellar luminosity-adjusted (SLA) method. We required $\Delta {\rm mag}_{\rm obs} \le 26$ for this method as well.
### Altruistic Yield Optimization
The AYO method combines completeness and exposure time in a fundamentally different way from the methods discussed above. For each star, instead of calculating just one exposure time, we calculated an exposure time for each of the $10^5$ synthetic exoEarths simulated by our completeness calculator to achieve the assumed S/N$=10$. We then sorted the synthetic exoEarths by exposure time to obtain the completeness *as a function of exposure time* for each star. The completeness curves are then used as a metric to award exposure time to potential targets.
The top panel in Figure \[c\_vs\_t\_figure\] shows an example completeness curve for HIP 54035. This curve is similar to a vertical slice through the cumulative joint density function, as introduced by @2005ApJ...624.1010B and referred to by @2013savransky. Note that if we were to include overhead costs, they would simply be added on to the exposure time in this curve. This curve tells us the ultimate single visit completeness for the star in the limit of $\tau \rightarrow \infty$ is $\approx0.87$.
![*Top*: Single-visit completeness curve for HIP 54035, calculated for our baseline mission. *Bottom*: Prioritization metric (benefit-to-cost ratio) curve. The most efficient observation time for HIP 54035 alone occurs at $\tau = \tau_{\rm min}$. The exposure time that helps maximize mission yield occurs at $\tau = \tau_{\rm optimized}$. \[c\_vs\_t\_figure\]](c_vs_t.eps){width="4in"}
We then divided completeness by exposure time, as shown in the bottom panel of Figure \[c\_vs\_t\_figure\], to calculate the benefit to cost metric ($C_i/\tau$) as a function of $\tau$ for the $i^{\rm th}$ target. The peak of this curve represents the most efficient exposure time for a given target, i.e., the time at which we get the most “bang for our buck." Observing for a shorter time would be wasteful since the efficiency and completeness are both low. Therefore, we refer to the exposure time that maximizes efficiency for the $i^{\rm th}$ target as the minimum exposure time, $\tau_{{\rm min,}i}$, and set the exposure time for each target, $\tau_i = \tau_{{\rm min,}i}$. We then prioritized targets by $C_i(\tau_{{\rm min,}i})/\tau_{{\rm min,}i}$ and selected the highest priority targets whose total exposure time fits within the budget of the mission.
Although we have maximized the observational efficiency of each target and prioritized the target list, we have not necessarily maximized the mission yield. The lowest priority target selected has a long exposure time and relatively low completeness—this time might be better spent on another target. The last step of the AYO algorithm examines the prioritized target list in reverse order and allows the lowest priority targets to “altruistically" give their exposure time to higher priority targets. To do so, we used the following procedure:
1. Remove all exposure time from the lowest priority target selected for observation.
2. Divide the exposure time into many short segments $\Delta \tau$.
3. Calculate $dC_i(\tau_i)/d\tau$ for every target.
4. Allocate $\Delta \tau$ segments to more deserving targets:
1. Award one $\Delta \tau$ segment to the target with the highest $dC_i(\tau_i)/d\tau$.
2. Increase $\tau_i$ for awarded target by $\Delta \tau$.
3. Recalculate $dC_i(\tau_i)/d\tau$ for awarded target.
4. Continue until all $\Delta \tau$ segments are distributed.
5. Repeat procedure for the next lowest priority target.
The algorithm continues until all targets are examined. Figure \[c\_vs\_t\_figure\] shows the exposure time $\tau_{\rm optimized}$ assigned to HIP 54035 for our baseline mission after altruistic yield optimization. A movie illustrating the AYO procedure can be downloaded from http://www.starkspace.com/code. The exoEarth candidate detection yield is then calculated as the total completeness summed over all stars observed times $\eta_{\earth}$.
A method similar to AYO was briefly introduced by [@2007SPIE.6693E..22H]. This method achieves similar results by assuming that the slopes of all completeness curves are equal at their respective optimized observing times. While not strictly required, the assumption of equal slopes appears valid in practice due to the positive second derivative of the completeness curve prior to the inflection point. Using this method, one must numerically solve for the ideal slope that maximizes yield, then select the prioritized target list whose cumulative exposure times fit within the mission lifetime.
Results {#results_section}
=======
AYO compared to previous methods
--------------------------------
The AYO method can significantly increase exoEarth candidate yield. Figure \[Method\_Comparison-Yield\_vs\_D\_fig\] shows the number of stars observed and exoEarth candidates detected as functions of telescope diameter for each of the methods discussed above. The AYO method increases exoEarth candidate yield by $\sim20\%$ compared to the SLA method and $\sim100\%$ compared to the SLSO method. The AYO method typically observes a larger number of stars for shorter periods of time, skimming only the portion of $(\Delta {\rm mag_p}, s)$ space that has the highest probability of hosting an exoEarth. The exoEarth candidate yields for each method also respond differently to $D$. We fit the yield vs. $D$ using functions of the form $N_{\earth}=aD^b+c$ and found $b=1.45$ for SLSO and $b=1.80$ for AYO; AYO better takes advantage of increasing telescope diameter.
![Comparison of AYO with previous yield calculation methods for our baseline mission. *Left*: Number of stars observed vs. telescope diameter. *Right*: Number of exoEarth candidates detected vs. telescope diameter. AYO increases yield by up to $\sim$100%. \[Method\_Comparison-Yield\_vs\_D\_fig\]](Method_Comparison-Yield_vs_D.eps){width="6in"}
Figure \[Method\_Comparison-Yield\_vs\_IWA\_fig\] shows the number of stars observed and exoEarth candidates detected as functions of coronagraph IWA for all methods. The methods lead to qualitatively different IWA dependencies. The number of stars observed is independent of IWA for the SLSO method, in contrast to the AYO method. The SLSO method produces an exoEarth candidate yield that asymptotes at small IWA, whereas yield calculated via the AYO method continues to increase at small IWA. Additionally, for IWA $\gtrsim 3.5 \lambda/D$, the AYO method observes fewer stars than the SLA method, but detects more exoEarth candidates.
![Comparison of AYO with previous yield calculation methods for our baseline mission. *Left*: Number of stars observed vs. coronagraph IWA. *Right*: Number of exoEarth candidates detected vs. coronagraph IWA. Yields calculated with AYO respond maximally to any changes in mission parameters. \[Method\_Comparison-Yield\_vs\_IWA\_fig\]](Method_Comparison-Yield_vs_IWA.eps){width="6in"}
The reason for these qualitative differences can be seen in the prioritized target lists. Figure \[Target\_plot-SLSO\] plots the stellar luminosity as a function of distance for the SLSO prioritized target lists at ${\rm IWA}=\lambda/D$ and ${\rm IWA}=4\lambda/D$. Each target selected for observation is plotted as a point and the color of the point corresponds to the priority rank of the target: red points are high priority and black points are low priority. We have marked the approximate boundaries for A, F, G, K, and M main sequence stellar types for reference, though not all stars selected for observation are on the main sequence.
Although we should expect a reduced IWA to enable more observations of late type stars that have more compact habitable zones but higher planet-to-star flux ratios, there is little difference in the SLSO prioritized target lists when changing the IWA by a factor of 4. This is because the SLSO method assumes a fixed $\Delta {\rm mag_{obs}}$ and does not take advantage of the fact that later spectral types do not require as long of exposures. As a result, the unnecessarily long exposure time on late type stars outweighs the increase in observable habitable zone attained with a smaller IWA, preventing late type stars from moving up in priority rank.
![Prioritized target list for yields calculated via the SLSO method. *Left*: ${\rm IWA}=\lambda/D$. *Right*: ${\rm IWA}=4\lambda/D$. The prioritized target list remains largely unchanged as a function of IWA. \[Target\_plot-SLSO\]](Target_plot-SLSO-D_8-contrast_1e-10-nexozodis_3-eta_Earth_0p1-limmagfac_1-iwafactor_1-4.eps){width="6in"}
In contrast to the SLSO method, the AYO method readily adapts the prioritized target list to changes in mission parameters. Figure \[Target\_plot-AYO\] shows the prioritized target lists for the AYO method at ${\rm IWA}=\lambda/D$ and ${\rm IWA}=4\lambda/D$. Although the AYO method observes more stars than the SLSO method, the prioritized target list at IWA$=4\lambda/D$ looks qualitatively similar to those in Figure \[Target\_plot-SLSO\]. However, at IWA$=\lambda/D$ the AYO prioritized target list changes dramatically, shifting preference from early type stars to late type stars, as expected given the additional access to compact habitable zones.
![Prioritized target list for yields calculated via the AYO method. *Left*: ${\rm IWA}=\lambda/D$. *Right*: ${\rm IWA}=4\lambda/D$. The prioritized target list changes significantly using AYO, readily adapting to changes in mission parameters. \[Target\_plot-AYO\]](Target_plot-AYO-D_8-contrast_1e-10-nexozodis_3-eta_Earth_0p1-limmagfac_1-iwafactor_1-4.eps){width="6in"}
We note that for all prioritized target lists, the contours of constant priority resemble curves with the convex side pointing to the right, similar to a closing parenthetical sign. The shape for these curves can be understood by moving along lines of constant stellar luminosity and distance. Along a line of constant stellar luminosity, increasing the distance reduces the angular size of the habitable zone and increases the integration time required, explaining the fall-off in distance. Along a line of constant distance, we see that the priority falls off both for small and large values of luminosity. Decreasing the stellar luminosity reduces the proximity of the habitable zone to the star such that more exoEarth candidates fall within the IWA, while increasing the stellar luminosity reduces the planet-to-star flux ratio, increases the leaked stellar light, and thus the integration time.
Response of exoEarth candidate yield to mission parameters
----------------------------------------------------------
We used the AYO method to study the impact of altering high-level mission parameters on exoEarth candidate yield. To do so, we calculated the exoEarth candidate yield for $18\mathord{,}900$ sets of mission parameters. We examined 10 values of telescope diameter $D$ equally spaced from 2 to 20 m, 9 values of coronagraph IWA equally spaced from 1–5 $\lambda/D$, 7 values of contrast $\zeta$ in the detection region from $5\times10^{-11}$ to $1.5\times10^{-9}$, and 5 values of systematic noise floor $\Delta {\rm mag_{floor}}$ ranging from $-2.5\times\log{\zeta}$ mags to $4-2.5\times\log{\zeta}$ mags. We also examined 6 values of exozodi level $n$ ranging from 1–60 “zodis."
We emphasize that the systematic noise floor $\Delta {\rm mag_{floor}}$ defines the *dimmest planet that can be detected at the assumed S/N*. We will sometimes express $\Delta {\rm mag_{floor}}$ as $\zeta_{\rm floor} = 10^{-0.4\Delta {\rm mag_{floor}}}$. Because the systematic noise floor will be achieved by post-observation image processing methods, the performance of which will likely depend on $\zeta$, we will also refer to the metric $\zeta_{\rm floor}/\zeta$.
Figure \[AYO-Yield-multiplot\_fig\] shows the response of the exoEarth candidate yield for our baseline mission to the telescope and instrument parameters, varied one at a time, along with fits to each set of parameters. The fits are valid only for the data points shown and do not describe the yield function over other parameter ranges. In general, simple power laws of the form $y=ax^b$ fit the calculated yield poorly; we found that functions of the form $y=ax^b+c$ fit all yield curves well.
![Variations in exoEarth candidate yield from our baseline mission as we vary one telescope/instrument parameter at a time. Calculated yields are shown as points and fits are shown as solid lines. ExoEarth candidate yield is roughly $\propto D^{1.8}$ and plateaus at large values of systematic noise floor. \[AYO-Yield-multiplot\_fig\]](AYO-Yield-multiplot.eps){width="6in"}
As shown in the upper left panel, yield depends on $D^{1.8}$ for the baseline mission. The upper-right and lower-left plots show that yield is a function of coronagraph IWA$^{0.13}$ and $\zeta^{0.28}$. As shown in the lower-right plot, the exoEarth candidate yield also responds strongly to the systematic noise floor for $\Delta {\rm mag_{floor}} < 26$, but plateaus for $\Delta {\rm mag_{floor}} > 26$.
Because of the constant, $c$, in our fitting functions, the magnitude of the exponent does not entirely express the sensitivity of the yield to a given parameter. For example, doubling the IWA from our baseline mission reduces the yield by a factor of $2$ while doubling the contrast reduces the yield by a factor of $1.2$. To judge the sensitivity of the yield to a change in a given mission parameter, we calculated the sensitivity coefficients $$\phi_x = \frac{\Delta N_{\rm EC}}{\Delta x} \frac{x}{N_{\rm EC}},$$ where $N_{\rm EC}$ is the exoEarth candidate yield as a function of parameter $x$. This is equivalent to the percent change in yield per percent change in parameter $x$, and in the limit $\Delta x \rightarrow 0$ is equal to the partial derivative in normalized coordinates. We estimated $\phi_x$ at $(x, N_{\rm EC})$ using the midpoint method; given the sparseness of our grid, our values should be considered approximations. The magnitude of $\phi$ denotes the degree of sensitivity and the sign simply denotes the directionality of the dependence. At the baseline mission parameters, we find $\phi_D \approx 2$, $\phi_{\rm IWA} \approx -0.8$, $\phi_{\zeta} \approx -0.15$, and $\phi_{\zeta_{\rm floor}/\zeta} \approx -0.1$; for parameters near the baseline mission, the exoEarth candidate yield is most sensitive to changes in telescope diameter, followed by IWA, then contrast, and finally systematic noise floor.
Table \[yield\_sensitivities\_table\] lists the approximate sensitivity coefficients for each parameter and the single-visit exoEarth candidate yield, $N_{\rm EC}$, for a sparse sampling of parameter space. For any combination of parameters listed in Table \[yield\_sensitivities\_table\], under the assumption that the yield can be expressed as a power law function of parameter $x$ near that combination of parameters, the yield approximately scales as $N_{\rm EC} \propto x^{\phi_x}$. The sensitivity coefficients are approximately equal to the local power law exponent.
Figure \[AYO-Yield-exozodi\_fig\] shows the exoEarth candidate yield as a function of our one varied astrophysical parameter, the level of exozodiacal dust. A factor of 10 increase in the exozodi level reduces the yield by a factor of $\sim2$. Thus, constraining the frequency of 10 zodi dust disks, as expected from LBTI [@2012PASP..124..799R], should reduce the yield uncertainty associated with exozodi level to a factor of $\sim 2$.
![ExoEarth candidate yield for our baseline mission as a function of exozodi level. A factor of 10 increase in the exozodi level reduces yield by a factor of $\sim2$.\[AYO-Yield-exozodi\_fig\]](AYO-Yield_vs_nexozodis.eps){width="4in"}
In Figure \[AYO-Yield-time\], we plot the exoEarth candidate yield as a function of time for the baseline mission, assuming that stars are observed in priority rank order over the course of the one year of total exposure time. As the mission progresses, lower and lower priority targets are observed, such that the mission yield becomes a weaker function of time. For $t > 0.8$ years, the exoEarth candidate yield is roughly $\propto t^{0.35}$. Thus, modest changes to the total exposure time will not significantly impact the yield.
![ExoEarth candidate yield for our baseline mission over the course of the one year of total exposure time assuming all stars are observed in priority order. The dashed line shows the best power law fit. The yield becomes a weak function of time near the end of the mission lifetime.\[AYO-Yield-time\]](AYO-Yield_vs_time.eps){width="4in"}
As demonstrated above, the most important mission design parameter for a future direct imaging mission is the telescope diameter. Thus, it is useful to examine how the exoEarth candidate yield responds to telescope diameter more fully. Figure \[AYO-Yield\_vs\_D-multiplot-loglog\_fig\] shows plots of the exoEarth candidate yield as a function of telescope diameter while simultaneously varying one additional parameter.
![ExoEarth candidate yield for our baseline mission as a function of $D$ while simultaneously varying exozodi level ($n$, in zodis), inner working angle (IWA), contrast ($\zeta$), and noise floor ($\Delta{\rm mag}_{\rm floor}$). \[AYO-Yield\_vs\_D-multiplot-loglog\_fig\]](AYO-Yield_vs_D-multiplot-loglog.eps){width="6in"}
The upper-left plot shows the yield as a function of telescope diameter and exozodi level. All yield curves are parallel in log-log space, so varying the exozodi level $n$ does not impact how the yield responds to $D$. Additionally, keeping all other parameters fixed, the relative impact of increasing the exozodi level on the exoEarth candidate yield is independent of telescope diameter; a factor of 10 increase in exozodi level reduces exoEarth candidate yield by a factor of $\sim2$, regardless of telescope diameter for our baseline mission parameters.
The remaining plots in Figure \[AYO-Yield\_vs\_D-multiplot-loglog\_fig\] show that the curves are not parallel in log-log space, i.e. the response of exoEarth candidate yield to $D$ changes with these parameters. The yield is more sensitive to coronagraph IWA at smaller telescope diameters because the physical inner working angle ($\propto \lambda/D$) naturally increases for small $D$. Because the physical IWA increases for smaller $D$, small apertures are unable to observe the brightest gibbous phase planets and are stuck observing fainter, more distant planets near quadrature, hence contrast is also more important at small $D$. The lower-right plot shows that the plateau in exoEarth candidate yield at $\Delta {\rm mag_{floor}} \approx 26$ is roughly independent of $D$.
Figure \[AYO-Yield\_vs\_limmag\_vs\_contrast\_fig\] shows this asymptotic behavior of the yield for our baseline mission as a function of systematic noise floor and contrast. At poor contrast levels, $\zeta\sim10^{-9}$, little yield is gained by obtaining systematic noise floors $\Delta {\rm mag_{floor}} > 3-2.5\log{\zeta}$, i.e. $\zeta_{\rm floor} / \zeta = 0.06$ is sufficient. For contrasts $\zeta\lesssim10^{-10}$, a systematic noise floor $\Delta {\rm mag_{floor}} = 26$ ($\zeta_{\rm floor} = 4\times10^{-11}$) is sufficient.
We explicitly checked whether the plateau at $\Delta {\rm mag_{floor}} \approx 26$ is true for all simulations. To do so, we produced curves similar to those shown in Figure \[AYO-Yield\_vs\_limmag\_vs\_contrast\_fig\] for every set of mission parameters. We then divided the yield at each point in each curve by the maximum yield for that curve. This produced curves of the fractional exoEarth candidate yield as a function of systematic noise floor. Approximately $90\%$ of simulations with $26 < \Delta {\rm mag_{floor}} < 26.5$ have exoEarth candidate yields within $10\%$ of their maximum achievable yield. Given our assumptions and ranges of parameters varied, a systematic noise floor $\Delta {\rm mag_{floor}} > 26$ results in little increase in planet yield.
![ExoEarth candidate yield for our baseline mission as a function of systematic noise floor and contrast. For contrasts $\sim10^{-9}$, systematic noise floors $\le 3$ magnitudes greater than the raw contrast substantially increase yield. For contrasts $\sim10^{-10}$, systematic noise floors beyond $\Delta{\rm mag}_{\rm floor} \approx 26$ appear uneccessary. \[AYO-Yield\_vs\_limmag\_vs\_contrast\_fig\]](AYO-Yield_vs_limmag_vs_contrast.eps){width="4in"}
Discussion
==========
We find that exoEarth candidate yield is roughly $\propto D^{1.8}$ for the baseline mission. This is more-or-less in agreement with the analytic estimate of yield $\propto D^2$ by @2007MNRAS.374.1271A, but in contrast with the analytic estimate of yield $\propto D^3$ by @2008ApJ...684.1404B. The difference in these analytic estimates stems from the assumption of an observation time-limited sample by @2007MNRAS.374.1271A as opposed to a volume-limited sample by @2008ApJ...684.1404B. As shown by our calculations, one year of exposure time does not achieve a volume-limited sample. However, the analytic estimate of @2008ApJ...684.1404B suggests that increasing the exoplanet science time budget may increase the dependence of yield on $D$, a potentially important relationship that needs to be confirmed with future calculations.
Table \[yield\_sensitivities\_table\] lists the sensitivity of the yield to each varied parameter over a coarse sampling of the parameter space we investigated. As a general rule of thumb, a priority ranking of the importance of mission parameters would be $D$, IWA, $\zeta$, and then $\Delta {\rm mag_{floor}}$, with $D$ being the most important, in agreement with [@2007MNRAS.374.1271A]. Of course IWA and $D$ are connected in this work, such that an increase in $D$ produces a decrease in IWA. If IWA were independent of $D$, as would be the case for an external starshade, their impact on yield may be more equal; small IWAs are critical to achieving high exoEarth candidate yield. A hand full of entries in Table \[yield\_sensitivities\_table\] suggest that the yield can be more sensitive to coronagraph IWA than $D$ in cases with poor contrast ($\zeta \sim 10^{-9}$) and poor IWA (IWA$\approx4$). These are likely numerical artifacts due to the small numbers of exoEarths detectable out of those simulated.
The sensitivity of the yield with respect to exozodi level is surprisingly weak. In the limit of large $n$ (i.e., exozodi dominates the count rates) Equations \[tau\_equation\] and \[CRbexozodi\_equation\] show that the exposure time is linearly proportional to $n$ for a fixed $\Delta {\rm mag_{obs}}$. As a result, the number of observed targets decreases. We might naively think that the yield should therefore be proportional to $1/\tau$, or $n^{-1}$. However, two effects work together to produce a dependence on $n$ that is substantially weaker than $n^{-1}$.
First, increasing $n$ and reducing the number of observed targets preferentially eliminates poor targets. These targets are typically distant and have longer integration times, lower completeness, and a greater exozodi count rate relative to the planet count rate. Figure \[Target\_plot-AYO-exozodis\] shows the prioritized target lists for our baseline mission with $n=3$ and $n=30$ zodis. Larger values of $n$ primarily eliminate distant targets that have lower planet-to-exozodi count ratios, longer exposure times, and lower completeness per star. This selection procedure naturally biases the yield toward a weak exozodi dependence.
Second, as $n$ increases, the exposure time required to achieve a given $\Delta {\rm mag_{obs}}$ increases. For a fixed $\Delta {\rm mag_{obs}}$ for a given star, as is the case with most previous DRM codes, the calculated exposure time for that star is therefore linearly related to $n$. However, AYO actively changes $\Delta {\rm mag_{obs}}$ for each star as the mission parameters change. As a result, when $n$ increases, AYO can reduce $\Delta {\rm mag_{obs}}$ for a given star, sacrificing one star’s photometric completeness for the benefit of the overall yield. The left panel of Figure \[sample\_exposure\_time\_vs\_exozodis\_figure\] shows the exposure times as functions of $n$, normalized to the exposure time at $n=1$ zodi, for the 10 highest priority targets. The right panel shows the corresponding normalized completeness curves for each star. The completeness of some targets remains unchanged, leading to a linear relationship between $\tau$ and $n$. AYO reduces the completeness of other targets as $n$ increases, such that $\tau$ more weakly depends on $n$ for those targets.
![Prioritized target list for our baseline mission as a function of exozodi level. *Left:* 1 zodi of dust around every star. *Right:* 30 zodis of dust around every star. Only the nearest stars are observed in the 30 zodi case. \[Target\_plot-AYO-exozodis\]](Target_plot-AYO-D_8-contrast_1e-10-nexozodis_1-30-eta_Earth_0p1-limmagfac_1-iwafactor_2.eps){width="6in"}
![*Left:* Exposure times as a function of exozodi level, normalized to $\tau(n=1)$, for 10 high priority targets (different colored lines) using the baseline mission parameters. *Right:* Normalized completeness for the same 10 targets. AYO adapts $\Delta {\rm mag_{obs}}$ to each star, sacrificing photometric completeness to maximize mission yield, such that the dependence of $\tau$ on $n$ is weaker than linear in some cases.\[sample\_exposure\_time\_vs\_exozodis\_figure\]](AYO-sample_exposure_time_vs_nexozodis.eps){width="6.5in"}
For our baseline mission, an increase in the exozodi level from 3 to 30 zodis reduces the yield by a factor of just $1.8$, and a change to 100 zodis would reduce the yield by a factor of just $2.8$. In the event that LBTI constrains the frequency of exozodiacal dust disks down to the $\sim10$ zodi level, the astrophysical uncertainty in the yield associated with exozodis would be reduced to a factor of $\sim2$. The impact of exozodi level on yield becomes even less significant for poorer contrast: increasing the exozodi level from 3 to 100 zodis for our baseline mission with a contrast of $\zeta=10^{-9}$ reduces the yield from $4.9$ to $4.0$ exoEarth candidates, a factor of 1.2 reduction.
As expected from the optimized exposure times shown in Figure \[sample\_exposure\_time\_vs\_exozodis\_figure\] for 10 individual stars, the *average* optimized exposure time is also weakly dependent on exozodi level for our baseline mission, as illustrated in Figure \[exposure\_time\_vs\_exozodis\_figure\]. For example, increasing the exozodi level by a factor of 10 from 3 zodis to 30 zodis increases the average exposure time by a factor of $\sim2$. Table \[yield\_sensitivities\_table\] lists the average optimized exposure time at a variety of locations of parameter space, further illustrating the weak dependence on exozodi level. As long as the telescope diameter $\gtrsim 8$ m and the coronagraph does not perform poorly in all parameters (i.e., IWA $<4\lambda/D$, $\zeta<10^{-9}$, $\zeta_{\rm floor}/\zeta < 0.4$), the average exposure time for detection is $\lesssim 2$ days.
![Completeness-weighted average exposure time (optimized by AYO) as a function of exozodi level for our baseline mission. The average optimized exposure time is a weak function of exozodi level. \[exposure\_time\_vs\_exozodis\_figure\]](AYO-exposure_time_vs_nexozodis.eps){width="4in"}
Given that this work did not include revisits, we did not place a cap on the individual exposure times. As a result, some of the exposure times, as optimized by the code, are unrealistically long. Specifically, cases in which the coronagraph has a large inner working angle (IWA $=4\lambda/D$) and poor contrast ($\zeta=10^{-9}$) result in exposure times on the order of several tens of days or longer for some specific targets. In these cases a large fraction of the mission lifetime is devoted to just a handful of targets, a situation that is far from ideal. The dominant limiting factor is the coronagraph IWA; improving the obscurational completeness greatly reduces exposure times and increases the number of targets observed.
In contrast to the weak exozodi dependence, the yield appears to strongly depend on exoEarth candidate albedo, a value that may remain unconstrained prior to a direct imaging mission. Although not varied simultaneously with other mission parameters, we found that the exoEarth candidate yield for our baseline mission was roughly proportional to $A_G^{0.8}$, such that the sensitivity coefficient $\phi_{A_G} = 0.78$ at $A_G=0.2$, roughly 3 times the magnitude of $\phi_n$. *The uncertainty in the yield associated with the typical exoEarth candidate albedo could be significantly larger than the uncertainty associated with typical exozodi level*.
It is possible that this weak exozodi dependence is related to several simplifications we have made in our calculations, specifically the lack of revisits, spectral characterization time, and overheads, and we must verify this relationship in future calculations. Overheads may increase the impact of the exozodi on yield. Currently there is no penalty for the number of stars observed, and AYO prefers to observe many stars for shorter exposure times to skim the most easily observable phase space; loosely speaking, AYO favors obscurational completeness over photometric completeness. Once overheads are budgeted, AYO may be forced to observe fewer stars for longer times, thus increasing the impact of the exozodi. On the other hand, we expect that including revisits may further reduce the exozodi dependence, since revisits can trade off photometric completeness for obscurational completeness.
Our simulations suggest that systematic noise floors $\zeta_{\rm floor} < 4\times10^{-11}$ are unnecessary for contrasts $\lesssim 10^{-10}$. For contrasts $\sim 10^{-9}$, $\zeta_{\rm floor}$ may not need to be less than $\sim0.06\zeta$. We again remind the reader that our definition of systematic noise floor $\Delta{\rm mag_{floor}}$ is the dimmest planet that can be detected at an S/N $=10$, and we define $\zeta_{\rm floor} = 10^{-0.4\Delta{\rm mag_{floor}}}$.
In spite of their more compact habitable zones, the success rate of finding exoEarth candidates around K and M type stars is 37% for the baseline mission, compared to the 29% success rate for more massive stars. This does not incoporate the fact that exoEarth candidates may be more common around M stars, with estimates converging on $\eta_{\earth} \approx 0.4$ for M stars . Because of their compact habitable zones, only nearby M stars are selected for observation such that their exposure times are relatively short, $\sim 9$ hours for the baseline mission. In addition, their planet to star flux ratios are more favorable. Using our definition of 1 zodi being a constant habitable zone optical depth, M stars also have dimmer exozodi at V band (by a factor of $\sim2.5$). Finally, the orbital period for exoEarths around M type stars are shorter, imposing fewer constraints on the field of regard and observation timing for a future mission.
However, characterizing exoEarth candidates around very late type stars in the near-infrared will be exceedingly challenging, if at all possible. To keep the habitable zones of M stars accessible at 2 $\mu$m, the telescope diameter must increase by a factor of 4, or the coronagraph must work 4 times closer to the star, or a combination of the two. Given our baseline mission parameters of $D=8$ m and IWA$=2\, \lambda/D$, we find this unlikely. Unless an additional technology enabling even smaller IWAs is considered, such as an external starshade, a space-based observatory will likely not characterize exoEarth candidates around M stars in the near-IR.
It is important to remember that these exoEarth candidate yield calculations are based on single visit completeness and do not include revisits, integration time for spectral characterization, or overhead costs. Adding these components will change the yield numbers and may change the mission parameter scalings and sensitivities.
Conclusions
===========
We created a new exoplanet yield calculator that employs an Altruistic Yield Optimization (AYO) algorithm. AYO selects the target list and exposure times to maximize exoplanet yield and adapts maximally to changes in mission parameters. Optimization methods like AYO can increase exoEarth candidate yield by as much as 100% compared to previous methods.
We used our code to estimate the exoEarth candidate yield for a large suite of direct imaging mission parameters based on single-visit completeness calculations, summarized in Table \[yield\_sensitivities\_table\]. We found that exoEarth candidate yield responds most strongly to telescope diameter, followed by coronagraph inner working angle, followed by coronagraph contrast, and finally contrast floor. We suggest that the dimmest planet required for detection at an S/N $=10$ is 26 magnitudes fainter than its host star. For today’s coronagraph contrast levels $\sim10^{-9}$, the dimmest planet is slightly brighter, $25.5$ magnitudes fainter than its host star. However, this constraint on the noise floor likely scales with the typical, unknown exoEarth candidate albedo.
The dependence of exoEarth candidate yield and optimized exposure time on exozodiacal dust level is surprisingly weak at all telescope diameters (a factor of 10 increase in exozodi level decreases yield by $\sim2$). This weak exozodi dependence results from the combination of a natural target selection bias and the tendency for AYO to sacrifice photometric completeness on a given target for overall yield maximization. The dependence of yield on exoEarth candidate albedo, a parameter that may go unconstrained prior to a direct imaging mission, is comparatively strong. Future work that incorporates revisits, spectral characterization time, and overheads into our yield estimates are required to verify this weak exozodi dependence.
Similarly, additional work is required to better constrain the absolute exoEarth candidate yield numbers presented in this paper. Regardless, we suggest a target yield of 55 exoEarth candidates, which statistically ensures at least one exoEarth candidate with water at the 99.7% confidence level if the fraction of exoEarth candidates with water $\eta_{\rm H_2 O} \ge 0.1$ and the detection efficiency of water is $\approx 1$.
The authors are thankful for enlightening conversations with Karl Stapelfeldt, Michael McElwain, Ruslan Belikov, and Stuart Shaklan, as well as the anonymous referee whose suggestions substantially improved the clarity of this manuscript. This research was supported by appointments to the NASA Postdoctoral Program at Goddard Space Flight Center and Ames Research Center, administered by Oak Ridge Associated Universities through a contract with NASA. A.R. and A.M. acknowledge support by GSFC’s internal research and development fund.
ExoEarth Candidate Albedo and Phase Function {#earth_albedo_appendix}
============================================
For lack of better information, exoEarth candidate yield calculations regularly use Earth’s albedo and phase function for all synthetic exoEarth candidates. It’s unclear as to whether this is a reasonable assumption. Estimates of $\eta_{\earth}$ typically include all planets in the habitable zone ranging from $\sim0.5$–$1.4$ R$_{\earth}$, which likely have a wide range of albedos and are not necessarily Earth-like. In the Solar System, the approximate Bond albedos of Mars, Venus, and Mercury are $0.21$, $0.76$, and $0.12$, respectively [e.g. @1977JGR....82.4249K; @1985AdSpR...5..197M; @1988merc.book...37V]. We have almost no constraint on the typical albedo of an Earth-sized planet, and may have no additional observational constraints until such planets are directly imaged. In light of this, we continue to use the naïve assumption that the typical exoEarth candidate albedo and phase function is Earth-like.
The Bond albedo, defined as the bolometric spherical albedo, of Earth is widely reported as $A_B = 0.3$ [e.g., @2001GeoRL..28.1671G], with a similar V band spherical albedo $A_S$. For a Lambertian sphere, the geometric albedo $A_G = (2/3)\times A_S$; if the Earth’s phase function is Lambertian, then the appropriate V-band geometric albedo is $A_G=0.2$. But is the Earth’s phase function Lambertian?
Figure \[earth\_albedo\_fig\] shows the modeled V-band apparent albedo for Earth as a function of phase angle along with a modeled brightness for Earth. Calculations of Earth’s phase-dependent apparent albedo come from the Virtual Planetary Laboratory’s three-dimensional, line-by-line, multiple-scattering spectral Earth model [@2011AsBio..11..393R]. This model incorporates realistic absorption and scattering by the atmosphere and surface, including specular reflectance from the ocean, and direction-dependent scattering by clouds. Data from Earth-observing satellites are used to specify the time- and location-dependent state of the surface and atmosphere. The model has been extensively validated against observations of our planet, including data from NASA’s LCROSS and EPOXI missions [@2011AsBio..11..393R; @2014robinson_et_al], as well as Earthshine observations of Earth’s phase-dependent reflectivity [@2010ApJ...721L..67R].
The apparent albedo is the effective spherical albedo required to reproduce the brightness curve under the assumption of a Lambertian phase function. For a Lambertian sphere, the apparent albedo would be constant and equal to the true spherical albedo. For phase angles $<90^{\circ}$, the apparent albedo of Earth is roughly constant and equal to $0.3$. Thus, *for phase angles $<90^{\circ}$ the Earth can be approximated by a Lambertian sphere with spherical albedo $A_S = 0.3$ and geometric albedo $A_G=0.2$.* However, for phase angles $>90^{\circ}$, direction-dependent scattering from Earth’s atmosphere and surface increases the brightness in crescent phases relative to a Lambertian sphere, interpreted as a much higher apparent albedo. Given that phase angles $<90^{\circ}$ correspond to the brightest gibbous phases, the phases at which exoEarth candidates will likely be detected, approximating exoEarth candidates as a Lambertian sphere with V-band geometric albedo $A_G=0.2$ should be a reasonable choice.
![Observation-validated model of Earth’s apparent albedo (black) and brightness (gray) at V-band as a function of phase angle [@2010ApJ...721L..67R]. At phase angles $<90^{\circ}$, where most exoEarth candidates would be detected, the apparent albedo is flat; a Lambert sphere with spherical albedo of $0.3$ and geometric albedo of $0.2$ is a good fit to Earth’s brightness curve. \[earth\_albedo\_fig\]](earth_rad_refl_495_605nm_v3.eps){width="4in"}
We tested the impact of including direction-dependent scattering on exoEarth candidate yield. Assuming a Lambertian phase function, we calculated the exoEarth candidate yield for a small sample of mission parameters using a geometric albedo of $0.2$ and compared it to the exoEarth candidate yield calculated using $(2/3)$ times the apparent albedo shown in Figure \[earth\_albedo\_fig\]. We found that including direction-dependent scattering increases exoEarth candidate yield by just $\sim10\%$, validating our approximation of Earth’s phase function as Lambertian.
Models suggest that most Solar System planets should exhibit qualitatively similar non-Lambertian phase functions [@2005ApJ...627..520S]. However, given the large uncertainty in typical albedo, it is difficult to justify including this phase function complexity. Therefore, for all calculations in this work we use a Lambertian sphere with geometric albedo $A_G=0.2$.
We note that exoEarth candidate albedo and phase function together are among the largest sources of astrophysical uncertainty regarding exoEarth candidate yield calculations. For example, under the assumption of a Lambertian phase function, increasing the geometric albedo from $A_G=0.2$ to $A_G=0.3$ increases exoEarth candidate yield by 40%. For our baseline mission, we find that yield is roughly $\propto A_G^{0.8}$.
Zodiacal Surface Brightness {#zodi_appendix}
===========================
Previous calculations of exoEarth candidate yield have typically assumed a fixed, uniform value for the zodiacal light surface brightness $z$. This is not strictly correct, since the surface brightness of the zodiacal cloud changes with the target star’s ecliptic latitude and its longitude relative to the Sun. We therefore tried using a more realistic treatment for the zodiacal cloud surface brightness.
The V-band surface brightness of the local zodiacal cloud changes with ecliptic latitude $\beta$, longitude relative to the Sun $\Delta\lambda_{\Sun}$, and observation location . Assuming observations are made from a location near Earth, the V-band surface brightness of the zodiacal light is simply a function of ecliptic latitude and solar longitude, $$I_{\rm ZL} = I\!\left(\Delta\lambda_{\sun},\beta\right),$$ The zodiacal light reaches a minimum near $\Delta\lambda_{\sun} \approx 135^{\circ}$ and has a V-band surface brightness of $23.33^{+0.06}_{-0.05}$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$ at the ecliptic poles . We assume that most observations can be made within a few tens of degrees of $\Delta\lambda_{\sun}\!=\!135^{\circ}$, where the zodiacal light surface brightness changes slowly with $\Delta\lambda_{\sun}$. The zodiacal light surface brightness as a function of wavelength can then be calculated as $$\label{ZL_SB_equation}
I_{\rm ZL} = \frac{I\!\left(\Delta\lambda_{\sun}\!=\!135^{\circ},\beta\!=\!0^{\circ}\right)}{I\!\left(\Delta\lambda_{\sun}\!=\!90^{\circ},\beta\!=\!0^{\circ}\right)} I\!\left(\Delta\lambda_{\sun}\!=\!90^{\circ},\beta\!=\!0^{\circ}\right) f_{135}\!\left(\beta\right),$$ where $f_{135}(\beta)$ expresses the variation in the zodiacal light brightness as a function of ecliptic latitude at $\Delta\lambda_{\sun}=135^{\circ}$.
Using Table 17 of we find $$\frac{I\!\left(\Delta\lambda_{\sun}\!=\!135^{\circ},\beta\!=\!0^{\circ}\right)}{I\!\left(\Delta\lambda_{\sun}\!=\!90^{\circ},\beta\!=\!0^{\circ}\right)} = 0.69,$$ and we fit the latitudinal surface brightness variation with the third degree polynomial $$f_{135}\!\left(\beta\right) \approx 1.02 - 0.566\sin{|\beta|} - 0.884\sin^2 |\beta| + 0.853\sin^3 |\beta|.$$ Table 19 in lists the product $I(\Delta\lambda_{\sun}\!=\!90^{\circ},\beta\!=\!0^{\circ}) f_{\rm abs}$ as a function of wavelength. At $\lambda = 0.5$ $\mu$m, $f_{\rm abs} = 1$, such that $$\label{I90_equation}
I(\Delta\lambda_{\sun}\!=\!90^{\circ},\beta\!=\!0^{\circ}) = 5.1\times10^{-29}\text{ erg s}^{-1}\text{ cm}^{-2}\text{ Hz}^{-1}\text{ arcsec}^{-2}.$$
Together Equations \[ZL\_SB\_equation\]–\[I90\_equation\] define our calculation of zodiacal light surface brightness for each target star as a function of ecliptic latitude $\beta$. Using these equations, approximately valid near V-band only, we calculate a surface brightness of $23.4$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$ at the ecliptic poles and $22.5$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$ in the ecliptic plane. These equations produce a median zodiacal surface brightness for our target list of $23.0$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$, equal to the uniform surface brightness conventionally used [e.g., @2005ApJ...624.1010B; @2012PASP..124..418T].
To examine the impact of our more realistic treatment of the zodiacal light, we calculated the exoEarth candidate yield using the above expressions and compared it to the conventional treatment of a uniform surface brightness of $23$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$. We find no significant change in the exoEarth candidate yield, even at low exozodi levels where the zodiacal cloud contributes a greater fraction of the background. Upon more detailed inspection, we do find small changes in the target prioritization, with targets at high ecliptic latitudes shifting to higher priority and targets at low ecliptic latitudes shifting to lower priority ($\sim5\%$ change in rank). Though our more realistic treatment of zodiacal light does not appear to impact exoEarth candidate yield, it requires a trivial amount of computational effort, so we implemented it for all of our calculations.
Exozodiacal Surface Brightness {#exozodi_appendix}
==============================
Previous works have assumed a fixed, uniform value for the exozodiacal surface brightness $x$ for 1 zodi of dust, ranging from 23 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ [@2005ApJ...624.1010B] to 22 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ [@2012PASP..124..418T]. However, a uniform value does not account for the $1/r^2$ illumination factor we might expect for an optically thin disk. As a result, exoEarth candidates near the outer edge of the habitable zone are unfairly penalized while exoEarth candidates near the inner edge are unfairly favored. In addition, earlier workers have not scaled the surface brightness with stellar type. As a consequence, under this assumption of constant surface brightness, the optical depth of 1 zodi of dust varies from star to star. Here we examine the impact of these approximations.
Impact of disk geometry
-----------------------
We expect exozodiacal dust to be disk-like in geometry, such that disks viewed face-on should appear dimmer than those viewed edge-on. Assuming coplanar alignment of the planetary orbits and exozodiacal disk mid-planes, the surface brightness of the exozodiacal cloud should change with the orbital configuration of *each synthetic exoEarth*. Thus, a fixed value for surface brightness unfairly penalizes face-on orbits as well as distant exoEarth candidates due to the missing $1/r^2$ illumination factor.
It’s worthwhile to note that disks viewed face-on should appear dimmer than disks viewed edge-on for two reasons. First, assuming the disk’s radial width exceeds its scale height, the line of sight-integrated surface density of an exozodiacal cloud should be higher for edge-on disks than face-on disks, giving rise to a purely geometric dimming of face-on disks. Second, extrasolar debris disks show signs of preferential forward scattering of starlight [e.g. @2005Natur.435.1067K; @2006ApJ...650..414S; @2008ApJ...673L.191D; @2014stark_et_al], qualitatively consistent with what is expected from Mie theory. The zodiacal cloud also exhibits preferential forward scattering of sunlight . Preferential forward scattering will make face-on disks appear even dimmer since the majority of starlight is scattered into unobserved directions. Furthermore, for moderately inclined disks, the forward scattering portion of the disk will be in front of the plane of the sky, the region in which exoEarth candidates are in crescent phase and are dimmest.
To take these effects into account, we must assume something about the geometry of the exozodiacal disk. For lack of better information, we assumed that exozodiacal clouds are analogous to our zodiacal cloud. We used ZODIPIC [@2004ApJ...612.1163M] to estimate the V band surface brightness of the zodiacal cloud around a solar twin viewed from 1 pc as a function of inclination and projected position.
We then defined 1 zodi as an exact twin of our zodiacal cloud’s surface brightness distribution, scaled in circumstellar distance by $\sqrt{L_{\star}/L_{\sun}}$ to reflect the spectral type dependency of the habitable zone. To calculate $n$ zodis of exozodiacal light, we multiplied the surface brightness of our 1 zodi model by $n$. We note that our definition of 1 zodi here is still based upon V band surface brightness, not surface density. As a consequence, the surface density associated with “1 zodi" of exozodiacal light changes with spectral type, just like in the case of using a constant surface brightness.
We calculated 180 models of the zodiacal cloud to cover the full range of inclinations and saved the 2D surface brightness map of each model. We then calculated the appropriate exozodiacal surface brightness for each synthetic exoEarth by indexing the zodiacal cloud map with the planet’s inclination and 2D projected coordinates. For each star, we adjusted the scale of the zodiacal cloud map to reflect changes in the habitable zone location prior to indexing.
Figure \[exozodi\_treatment\_comparison\_fig\] compares the new ZODIPIC method of exozodi surface brightness calculation with previous methods. The left panels show the prioritized target lists for our baseline mission assuming the constant $x=22$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$ value used by @2012PASP..124..418T for $n=3$ zodis of exozodiacal dust and $n=30$ “zodis." The middle panels show the prioritized target lists using the new ZODIPIC method of calculating an exozodi surface brightness consistent with the synthetic exoEarth orbital parameters.
![Prioritized target lists for the baseline mission. The top row corresponds to $n=30$ zodis of dust and the bottom row corresponds to $n=3$ zodis of dust. *Left column:* 1 zodi defined as a constant surface brightness $x=22$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$. *Middle column:* 1 zodi calculated self-consistently with planet orientation and location via ZODIPIC. *Right column:* 1 zodi defined as a constant optical depth at the EEID, the definition we chose. Details of the exozodi treatment only affect planet yields at the few percent level and minimally alter the prioritized target list, most notably raising the priority of later type stars for the spectral type-adjusted approach.\[exozodi\_treatment\_comparison\_fig\]](exozodi_method_comparison.eps){width="6.5in"}
For a given value of $n$, the prioritized target lists are qualitatively similar, with the biggest difference occurring at the large distance limit for early type stars. For the two values of $n$ shown, the ZODIPIC treatment of exozodi surface brightness increased yield by $\sim 7\%$. We compared the yield calculated via both methods over a coarse grid of models and found that the ZODIPIC treatment increased yield anywhere from 0–12%, with a median increase of $\sim5$%.
Therefore, geometric and scattering effects appear to increase the exoEarth candidate yield by a negligible amount, and only marginally impact the prioritization of the target list. These changes come with the caveat that one must assume a given disk geometry, most notably the scale height and radial density distribution, as well as a given scattering phase function for the dust, which certainly will not be valid for all disks. Calculating an exozodiacal surface brightness for each synthetic exoEarth also increases the run time of the code by a few tens of percent. In light of this, *we opted not to include the effects of realistic disk geometry in our exozodi brightness calculations.*
Impact of spectral type
-----------------------
The V band surface brightness of a face-on optically thin disk with scale height $\ll1$ at circumstellar distance $r$, $$\label{disk_sb_equation}
I^{\rm disk}_{\rm V}\!\left(r\right) \propto F^{\star}_{\rm V}\!\left(r\right) \tau\!\left(r\right),$$ where $F^{\star}_{\rm V}(r)$ is the V band stellar flux at $r$ and $\tau(r)$ is the optical depth at $r$. Assuming all stars are equally “dusty," i.e. have equal optical depths in their habitable zones, the surface brightness should change with spectral type. Conversely, assuming a constant surface brightness for 1 zodi of exozodiacal light necessarily implies that late type stars have exozodiacal disks that are “dustier" than early type stars, for which no observational evidence exists. Thus, a constant surface brightness independent of spectral type unfairly penalizes late type stars.
Here we investigate the impact of using a constant habitable zone dust optical depth opposed to a constant surface brightness. In the previous section we showed that the disk geometry and the $1/r^2$ illumination factor within a given exozodiacal disk negligibly impact the exoEarth candidate yield and require a number of unconstrained assumptions. Here we ignore how the exozodiacal surface brightness may change with a planet’s position around a given star, and apply the surface brightness of an exozodiacal disk at the Earth-equivalent insolation distance (EEID) to all synthetic exoEarths around that star.
Using Equation \[disk\_sb\_equation\], we can express the optical depth of the zodiacal cloud at 1 AU as $$\label{ez_tau_equation}
\tau\!\left(r=1\, {\rm AU}\right) \propto I^{\rm zodiacal}_{\rm V}\!\left(r=1\, {\rm AU}\right) F^{\sun}_{\rm V}\!\left(r=1\, {\rm AU}\right).$$ Assuming the optical depth is constant at the EEID, $$I^{\rm disk}_{\rm V}\!\left(r\right) = \frac{F^{\star}_{\rm V}\!\left(r={\rm EEID}\right)}{F^{\sun}_{\rm V}\!\left(r=1\, {\rm AU}\right)} I^{\rm zodiacal}_{\rm V}\!\left(r=1\, {\rm AU}\right).$$ Given that EEID$=(1\, {\rm AU}) \times (L_{\star} / L_{\sun})^{0.5}$, $$\label{ez_sb_equation}
I^{\rm disk}_{\rm V}\!\left(r\right) = 10^{-0.4\left(M^{\star}_{\rm V} - M^{\sun}_{\rm V}\right)} \left(\frac{L_{\sun}}{L_{\star}}\right) I^{\rm zodiacal}_{\rm V}\!\left(r=1\, {\rm AU}\right),$$ where $M^{\sun}_{\rm V} = 4.83$ is the absolute V band magnitude of the Sun and $M^{\star}_{\rm V}$ is the absolute V band magnitude of the star.
As discussed in Appendix \[zodi\_appendix\], the V band surface brightness of the zodiacal cloud near 1 AU, when viewed from within the cloud, is approximately 23 mag arcsec$^{-2}$. When observed from afar, the zodiacal cloud should appear twice as bright ($\approx 22.25$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$), as we would typically observe the dust both above and below the mid-plane. The zodiacal cloud should appear even brighter from afar for two reasons: the additional dust is observed at forward scattering angles, and the $1/r^2$ illumination factor will bias the background flux in any photometric aperture toward brighter values. Thus, we set $I^{\rm zodiacal}_{\rm V}(r=1\, {\rm AU}) = 22$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$.
For later type stars, the V band flux drops off more rapidly than the bolometric flux; the decrease in surface brightness due to decreased V band flux outweighs the increase in surface brightness due to a more compact habitable zone. For typical correlations between $M^{\star}_{\rm V}$ and $L_{\star}$, Equation \[ez\_sb\_equation\] implies that each zodi of exozodiacal dust around a late M star is $\sim2.5$ times dimmer than around a Sun-like star in V band.
The right panels in Figure \[exozodi\_treatment\_comparison\_fig\] show the prioritized target lists using a constant habitable zone optical depth for $n=3$ and $n=30$ zodis of dust. Compared to the constant surface brightness method, shown in the left panels, the yield is increased by a few percent. The prioritized target lists also appear qualitatively similar, but on closer inspection the constant optical depth treatment increases the number of observed K and M stars by $\sim15\%$ and $\sim20\%$, respectively.
We compared the yield calculated via both methods over a coarse grid of models and found that the constant optical depth treatment increased yield anywhere from 0–17%, with a median increase of $\sim4$%. The largest gains occurred for cases with small inner working angles, such that the compact habitable zones of late type stars were accessible, and large exozodi levels such that exozodi strongly dominated the background count rate. Given that the additional run time to include this effect is negligible, *we opted to use this constant optical depth exozodi treatment.* Thus, we define one zodi of exozodiacal dust as the optical depth of the zodiacal cloud at 1 AU (see Equation \[ez\_tau\_equation\]), and for a given star approximate the exozodiacal surface brightness for all synthetic exoEarths as the surface brightness at the EEID.
[ccccccccccccc]{} $4$ & $2$ & $10^{-10}$ & $0.40$ & $3$ & 3.80 & 2.98 & 2.07 & -1.10 & -0.20 & -0.17 & -0.23\
$4$ & $2$ & $10^{-10}$ & $0.40$ & $30$ & 2.00 & 6.01 & 2.09 & -0.81 & -0.10 & -0.10 & -0.37\
$4$ & $2$ & $10^{-10}$ & $0.06$ & $3$ & 4.13 & 3.10 & 1.96 & -0.89 & -0.08 & -0.01 & -0.24\
$4$ & $2$ & $10^{-10}$ & $0.06$ & $30$ & 2.11 & 5.91 & 2.00 & -0.73 & -0.02 & -0.00 & -0.38\
$4$ & $2$ & $10^{-9}$ & $0.40$ & $3$ & 0.66 & 6.07 & 3.15 & -3.47 & -1.13 & -1.13 & -0.00\
$4$ & $2$ & $10^{-9}$ & $0.40$ & $30$ & 0.64 & 8.85 & 2.88 & -2.93 & -1.03 & -0.83 & -0.04\
$4$ & $2$ & $10^{-9}$ & $0.06$ & $3$ & 2.70 & 4.05 & 2.00 & -1.25 & -0.34 & -0.18 & -0.11\
$4$ & $2$ & $10^{-9}$ & $0.06$ & $30$ & 1.76 & 6.87 & 2.05 & -0.94 & -0.19 & -0.14 & -0.27\
$4$ & $4$ & $10^{-10}$ & $0.40$ & $3$ & 1.03 & 3.38 & 3.14 & -3.04 & -0.77 & -0.62 & -0.02\
$4$ & $4$ & $10^{-10}$ & $0.40$ & $30$ & 0.82 & 9.39 & 2.63 & -2.08 & -0.43 & -0.38 & -0.18\
$4$ & $4$ & $10^{-10}$ & $0.06$ & $3$ & 1.89 & 6.44 & 2.24 & -1.45 & -0.13 & -0.05 & -0.16\
$4$ & $4$ & $10^{-10}$ & $0.06$ & $30$ & 1.10 & 11.66 & 2.16 & -1.17 & -0.04 & -0.03 & -0.32\
$4$ & $4$ & $10^{-9}$ & $0.40$ & $3$ & 0.06 & 0.11 & 4.01 & -3.40 & -1.80 & -1.81 & -0.00\
$4$ & $4$ & $10^{-9}$ & $0.40$ & $30$ & 0.06 & 0.36 & 4.00 & -3.40 & -1.80 & -1.81 & 0.00\
$4$ & $4$ & $10^{-9}$ & $0.06$ & $3$ & 0.62 & 4.20 & 3.23 & -3.27 & -1.00 & -0.68 & -0.00\
$4$ & $4$ & $10^{-9}$ & $0.06$ & $30$ & 0.59 & 9.83 & 2.79 & -2.56 & -0.75 & -0.51 & -0.07\
$8$ & $2$ & $10^{-10}$ & $0.40$ & $3$ & 15.10 & 0.80 & 1.96 & -0.80 & -0.15 & -0.09 & -0.22\
$8$ & $2$ & $10^{-10}$ & $0.40$ & $30$ & 8.05 & 1.59 & 1.89 & -0.59 & -0.08 & -0.06 & -0.36\
$8$ & $2$ & $10^{-10}$ & $0.06$ & $3$ & 15.64 & 0.81 & 1.89 & -0.72 & -0.09 & -0.00 & -0.22\
$8$ & $2$ & $10^{-10}$ & $0.06$ & $30$ & 8.25 & 1.55 & 1.85 & -0.55 & -0.03 & -0.00 & -0.37\
$8$ & $2$ & $10^{-9}$ & $0.40$ & $3$ & 4.93 & 1.34 & 2.77 & -2.53 & -0.90 & -0.66 & -0.04\
$8$ & $2$ & $10^{-9}$ & $0.40$ & $30$ & 3.96 & 2.13 & 2.49 & -1.73 & -0.62 & -0.49 & -0.16\
$8$ & $2$ & $10^{-9}$ & $0.06$ & $3$ & 10.22 & 1.18 & 1.88 & -0.94 & -0.28 & -0.07 & -0.09\
$8$ & $2$ & $10^{-9}$ & $0.06$ & $30$ & 6.91 & 1.76 & 1.86 & -0.68 & -0.17 & -0.07 & -0.26\
$8$ & $4$ & $10^{-10}$ & $0.40$ & $3$ & 6.86 & 1.24 & 2.31 & -1.77 & -0.46 & -0.36 & -0.10\
$8$ & $4$ & $10^{-10}$ & $0.40$ & $30$ & 4.60 & 2.33 & 2.15 & -1.23 & -0.23 & -0.21 & -0.27\
$8$ & $4$ & $10^{-10}$ & $0.06$ & $3$ & 8.58 & 1.47 & 1.94 & -1.12 & -0.13 & -0.01 & -0.15\
$8$ & $4$ & $10^{-10}$ & $0.06$ & $30$ & 5.06 & 2.35 & 2.03 & -0.99 & -0.04 & -0.00 & -0.33\
$8$ & $4$ & $10^{-9}$ & $0.40$ & $3$ & 0.66 & 11.89 & 3.15 & -3.27 & -1.13 & -1.20 & -0.00\
$8$ & $4$ & $10^{-9}$ & $0.40$ & $30$ & 0.66 & 9.95 & 3.15 & -3.26 & -1.12 & -1.16 & -0.00\
$8$ & $4$ & $10^{-9}$ & $0.06$ & $3$ & 4.41 & 2.00 & 2.22 & -1.81 & -0.59 & -0.35 & -0.03\
$8$ & $4$ & $10^{-9}$ & $0.06$ & $30$ & 3.60 & 2.74 & 2.20 & -1.48 & -0.40 & -0.29 & -0.16\
$12$ & $2$ & $10^{-10}$ & $0.40$ & $3$ & 33.08 & 0.38 & 1.87 & -0.65 & -0.13 & -0.05 & -0.22\
$12$ & $2$ & $10^{-10}$ & $0.40$ & $30$ & 17.21 & 0.74 & 1.85 & -0.52 & -0.06 & -0.04 & -0.37\
$12$ & $2$ & $10^{-10}$ & $0.06$ & $3$ & 33.54 & 0.38 & 1.84 & -0.62 & -0.10 & -0.00 & -0.22\
$12$ & $2$ & $10^{-10}$ & $0.06$ & $30$ & 17.43 & 0.72 & 1.82 & -0.50 & -0.03 & -0.00 & -0.38\
$12$ & $2$ & $10^{-9}$ & $0.40$ & $3$ & 14.22 & 0.57 & 2.44 & -1.80 & -0.70 & -0.47 & -0.07\
$12$ & $2$ & $10^{-9}$ & $0.40$ & $30$ & 10.30 & 0.99 & 2.18 & -1.20 & -0.46 & -0.36 & -0.22\
$12$ & $2$ & $10^{-9}$ & $0.06$ & $3$ & 21.61 & 0.56 & 1.79 & -0.81 & -0.27 & -0.03 & -0.09\
$12$ & $2$ & $10^{-9}$ & $0.06$ & $30$ & 14.64 & 0.84 & 1.82 & -0.60 & -0.15 & -0.04 & -0.26\
$12$ & $4$ & $10^{-10}$ & $0.40$ & $3$ & 17.09 & 0.60 & 2.21 & -1.41 & -0.31 & -0.23 & -0.15\
$12$ & $4$ & $10^{-10}$ & $0.40$ & $30$ & 10.36 & 1.13 & 1.96 & -0.98 & -0.17 & -0.14 & -0.29\
$12$ & $4$ & $10^{-10}$ & $0.06$ & $3$ & 18.57 & 0.63 & 1.98 & -1.13 & -0.14 & -0.00 & -0.16\
$12$ & $4$ & $10^{-10}$ & $0.06$ & $30$ & 10.90 & 1.13 & 1.84 & -0.85 & -0.04 & -0.00 & -0.31\
$12$ & $4$ & $10^{-9}$ & $0.40$ & $3$ & 2.19 & 2.65 & 3.02 & -3.20 & -1.08 & -1.14 & -0.00\
$12$ & $4$ & $10^{-9}$ & $0.40$ & $30$ & 2.19 & 3.26 & 3.00 & -3.10 & -1.05 & -1.00 & -0.01\
$12$ & $4$ & $10^{-9}$ & $0.06$ & $3$ & 10.22 & 1.00 & 2.07 & -1.44 & -0.42 & -0.21 & -0.04\
$12$ & $4$ & $10^{-9}$ & $0.06$ & $30$ & 8.15 & 1.36 & 1.95 & -1.14 & -0.30 & -0.18 & -0.16\
$16$ & $2$ & $10^{-10}$ & $0.40$ & $3$ & 56.45 & 0.22 & 1.82 & -0.57 & -0.12 & -0.03 & -0.21\
$16$ & $2$ & $10^{-10}$ & $0.40$ & $30$ & 29.17 & 0.43 & 1.81 & -0.45 & -0.05 & -0.03 & -0.38\
$16$ & $2$ & $10^{-10}$ & $0.06$ & $3$ & 56.76 & 0.22 & 1.80 & -0.56 & -0.10 & -0.00 & -0.21\
$16$ & $2$ & $10^{-10}$ & $0.06$ & $30$ & 29.32 & 0.43 & 1.79 & -0.44 & -0.03 & -0.00 & -0.38\
$16$ & $2$ & $10^{-9}$ & $0.40$ & $3$ & 27.63 & 0.35 & 2.12 & -1.33 & -0.59 & -0.37 & -0.08\
$16$ & $2$ & $10^{-9}$ & $0.40$ & $30$ & 18.91 & 0.56 & 2.04 & -0.93 & -0.38 & -0.29 & -0.25\
$16$ & $2$ & $10^{-9}$ & $0.06$ & $3$ & 36.06 & 0.33 & 1.74 & -0.73 & -0.27 & -0.02 & -0.09\
$16$ & $2$ & $10^{-9}$ & $0.06$ & $30$ & 24.48 & 0.50 & 1.75 & -0.52 & -0.14 & -0.03 & -0.26\
$16$ & $4$ & $10^{-10}$ & $0.40$ & $3$ & 31.61 & 0.36 & 2.06 & -1.18 & -0.24 & -0.15 & -0.15\
$16$ & $4$ & $10^{-10}$ & $0.40$ & $30$ & 18.50 & 0.62 & 2.02 & -0.94 & -0.11 & -0.09 & -0.33\
$16$ & $4$ & $10^{-10}$ & $0.06$ & $3$ & 32.84 & 0.36 & 1.94 & -1.04 & -0.14 & -0.00 & -0.15\
$16$ & $4$ & $10^{-10}$ & $0.06$ & $30$ & 18.91 & 0.61 & 1.95 & -0.88 & -0.04 & -0.00 & -0.34\
$16$ & $4$ & $10^{-9}$ & $0.40$ & $3$ & 5.25 & 0.85 & 3.05 & -3.21 & -1.09 & -1.05 & -0.00\
$16$ & $4$ & $10^{-9}$ & $0.40$ & $30$ & 5.17 & 1.05 & 2.94 & -2.93 & -1.00 & -0.86 & -0.02\
$16$ & $4$ & $10^{-9}$ & $0.06$ & $3$ & 18.39 & 0.61 & 1.95 & -1.26 & -0.35 & -0.13 & -0.04\
$16$ & $4$ & $10^{-9}$ & $0.06$ & $30$ & 14.45 & 0.76 & 1.99 & -1.07 & -0.24 & -0.11 & -0.18\
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present late-time observations of the tidal disruption event candidate PS1-10jh. UV and optical imaging with HST/WFC3 localize the transient to be coincident with the host galaxy nucleus to an accuracy of 0.023 arcsec, corresponding to 66 pc. The UV flux in the F225W filter, measured 3.35 rest-frame years after the peak of the nuclear flare, is consistent with a decline that continues to follow a t$^{-5/3}$ power-law with no spectral evolution. Late epochs of optical spectroscopy obtained with MMT $\sim$ 2 and 4 years after the peak, enable a clean subtraction of the host galaxy from the early spectra, revealing broad helium emission lines on top of a hot continuum, and placing stringent upper limits on the presence of hydrogen line emission. We do not measure Balmer H$\delta$ absorption in the host galaxy strong enough to be indicative of a rare, post-starburst “E+A” galaxy as reported by @Arcavi2014. The light curve of PS1-10jh over a baseline of 3.5 yr is best modeled by fallback accretion of a tidally disrupted star. Its strong broad helium emission relative to hydrogen (He II $\lambda 4686$/H$\alpha > 5$) could be indicative of either the hydrogen-poor chemical composition of the disrupted star, or certain conditions in the tidal debris of a solar-composition star in the presence of an optically-thick, extended reprocessing envelope.'
author:
- 'S. Gezari, R. Chornock, A. Lawrence, A. Rest, D. O. Jones, E. Berger, P. M. Challis, & G. Narayan'
title: 'PS1-10jh Continues to Follow the Fallback Accretion Rate of a Tidally Disrupted Star'
---
Introduction
============
The tidal disruption of stars was first proposed by theorists as an inevitable dynamical consequence of a supermassive black hole in the nucleus in a galaxy [@Lidskii1979; @Rees1988]. While the first tidal disruption event (TDE) candidates were discovered in archival studies of X-ray surveys [see review by @Komossa2002], the detection of TDE candidates in high-cadence optical surveys such as CFHT SNLS [@Gezari2008], SDSS Stripe 82 [@vanVelzen2011], Pan-STARRS1 [@Gezari2012; @Chornock2014], PTF [@Arcavi2014], and ASASSN [@Holoien2014; @Holoien2015], have yielded light curves with excellent temporal sampling, such that predictions for the time-dependent radiation produced from the accretion flow in a TDE are being confronted in detail for the first time.
While it is encouraging that the optical TDE candidates have roughly the right luminosities, rates, and timescales predicted by basic TDE theory, there are some major disagreements between the theory and observations that remain to be resolved. i) Predictions for the evolution of the hot, thermal continuum in a newly-formed debris disk in a TDE [@Ulmer1999; @Lodato2011; @Guillochon2014] appear to be in conflict with the constant, relatively cooler ($T_{\rm eff} \sim 1-3 \times 10^{4}$ K) temperatures observed in the optical TDE candidates. ii) The optical light curve shapes seem to agree well with the rise time and canonical $t^{-5/3}$ power-law decay expected from the fallback of debris from a tidally disrupted star, however, this is surprising considering the potentially long circularization timescales, especially in low-mass black holes [@Shiokawa2015; @Hayasaki2015; @Guillochon2015], and the expected band effects in the optical from cooling of the emission with time [@Strubbe2009; @Lodato2011; @Guillochon2014]. iii) The total energies emitted are much smaller than expected for the tidal disruption and accretion of a star, and may suggest that either partial disruptions are common [@MacLeod2013; @Chornock2014], or the fraction of debris that is available for accretion on to the black hole is much smaller than the fraction of initially bound debris [@Ayal2000; @Metzger2015]
Solutions for these discrepancies have been proposed in the literature, including temperature regulation via winds [@Miller2015], invoking a reprocessing layer [@Loeb1997; @Guillochon2014], a radiation-dominated nebula [@Metzger2015; @Strubbe2015], or attributing the continuum emission directly to the circularization process [@Piran2015].
Here we present late-time observations of the TDE candidate PS1-10jh [@Gezari2012 hereafter G12]. This TDE candidate is of particular importance for two reasons. First, it has by far the best sampled UV/optical light curve of a TDE candidate to date. Second, its optical spectrum at peak was dominated by broad He II emission lines, strongly suggesting that the photoionized gas did not originate from the quiescent interstellar medium in the vicinity of the SMBH, or in a pre-existing accretion disk, but rather from the tidal debris of the disrupted star itself. Our aim in this study was to measure the UV flux of the event at late times, in order to localize the transient relative to its host galaxy nucleus with the high spatial resolution of HST, and compare its continued decay with models for the evolution of the accretion flow over time. In addition, we obtained a deeper late-time spectrum of the host galaxy, in order to construct a more reliable host-subtracted spectrum of the nuclear transient.
The paper is organized as follows. We present our HST observations in §\[sec:hst\], and in §\[sec:analysis\] we use the late-time UV emission measured by HST to pinpoint its origin to the nucleus of the host galaxy and its central SMBH, and probe the evolution of its light curve over a baseline of over 3 years after its peak. In §\[sec:spec\] we use late-time optical spectroscopy to perform a clean subtraction of the host galaxy contribution, and isolate the non-stellar continuum and emission lines powered by PS1-10jh. In §\[sec:disc\] we discuss the implications of these observations with respect to the geometry of the accretion flow, the evolution of its effective temperature with time, and the chemical composition of the star disrupted.
HST Observations {#sec:hst}
================
We obtained HST observations of PS1-10jh on UT 2014 June 13 with WFC3 UVIS in the F225W and F625W filters for 3.791 ksec and 5.014 ksec, respectively, with the goal of localizing the transient with respect to its host galaxy nucleus, and measuring its late-time UV flux. The source is clearly detected as a point source in the F225W filter, with no evidence of extended host emission, consistent with its deep *GALEX* pre-event imaging upper limit of $> 25.6$ mag (G12). The optical image is dominated by the host galaxy, and we use it to determine the precise position of the host galaxy centroid.
Analysis {#sec:analysis}
========
Position Relative to Host Nucleus
---------------------------------
We register the UV (F225W) and optical (F625W) images to each other using 7 reference stars in the field of view. We use the IRAF routines [geomap]{} and [geotran]{} to calculate and apply a geometrical transform of the UV image to the optical image. After this registration, we find that the source is coincident with the optical host galaxy centroid within $1\sigma$ = 0.57 pixels = $0\farcs 023$ (see Figure \[fig:centroid\]). The host galaxy is well resolved in the optical image, and is fitted with elliptical isophotes with a de Vaucouleurs surface brightness profile, and an effective (half-light) radius, $r_e = 0\farcs26$.
Late-Time UV Flux
-----------------
We perform aperture photometry on the UV image using the IDL routine [APER]{}, using a $0\farcs2$ radius aperture, and correcting for a fraction of 0.777 of the total energy enclosed at the filter effective wavelength of 235.9 nm, and find $m = 23.69 \pm 0.05$ mag in the AB system, and $NUV = 23.70 \pm 0.12$ mag in the *GALEX* AB system, measured from comparison to the *GALEX* AB magnitudes measured with a 6 arcsec radius aperture for 4 isolated point sources measured from a 28 ksec coadd (5$\sigma$ detection limit of $m_{\rm lim} = 24.7$ mag) constructed from observations taken during the *GALEX* Time Domain Survey [@Gezari2013].
We show the UV/optical light curve of PS1-10jh from *GALEX* and PS1 in Figure \[fig:lc\], with the late-time HST epoch in the NUV (F225W) filter at MJD 56821.434 (UT 2016 June 13.497), or 3.35 rest-frame years from the observed peak of the light curve. We have improved the PS1 image differencing photometry from G12 using the methods of @Rest2014. Making the (not necessarily correct) assumption that the emerging flux is directly proportional to the fallback rate, we fit the UV/optical light curve to models for the fallback rate, with different values for the polytropic exponent ($\gamma$) of the disrupted star, and the impact parameter of its orbit defined as $\beta \equiv r_t/r_p$. We show a fit to a model for a star with $\gamma = 5/3$ and $\beta = 1$ model from @Lodato2009 presented in G12, and $\beta= 1.8$ and $\gamma = 4/3$ model following the methodology of @Guillochon2013 (J. Guillochon, private communication). The time delay between the time of disruption ($t_D$) in the models, and the peak of the fallback rate ($t_0$), are $\Delta t = t_0-t_D = 76$ and 84 rest-frame days, respectively. The corresponding black hole masses for each model are $M_{\rm BH} \sim 2$ and $9 \times 10^{6} M_\odot r_\star^{-3} m_\star^2$, where $r_\star = R_\star/R_\odot$ and $m_\star=M_\star/M_\odot$. Independent of these models at late times, but adopting their values of $t_D$ (which is tightly constrained from the rising portion of the light curve), the UV decline of PS1-10jh is fitted with a power-law index, $\propto (t-t_D)^{-n}$, with $n = 1.66 \pm 0.03$, in nice agreement with the analytical $t^{-5/3}$ power-law calculated for fallback of tidally disrupted debris [@Rees1988; @Phinney1989].
The different black hole masses from the model fits are due to the different assumption in $\gamma$ as well as $\beta$. Note, that these are fits to the fallback rate $\dot{M}$, and do not include radiative transfer or band effects. For example, even if the bolometric luminosity is tracking $\dot{M}$, the flux in a given band will depend on the evolution of the spectral energy distribution (SED) with time. However, given the stable UV/optical colors in PS1-10jh over a year after peak, there is little evidence of cooling or of a changing accretion efficiency with time. Thus with a fixed SED shape, both $L_{\rm bol}$ and $L_\nu$ will follow the decline of $\dot{M}$.
Remarkably, the late-time UV flux measured by HST continues to follow the decline expected from the fallback rate predicted by both models. This persistent $t^{-5/3}$ power-law decline in the UV at late times again is evidence for both the lack of cooling (or heating) of the emission. While for a fixed radius the temperature of thermal emission would be expected to cool with a declining luminosity, the temperature of the emission might actually increase at late times due to a shrinking photosphere from a radiatively-driven wind [@Lodato2011]. A change in the SED temperature would cause the UV light curve to flatten or steepen, neither of which is observed. Furthermore, we don’t see evidence for viscous evolution, which is expected to occur on the timescale of tens to hundreds of years, and would result in a flatter power-law [@Cannizzo1990; @Shen2014].
The fact that the UV/optical emission so closely follows the fallback rate is in contradiction with debris disk models [@Ulmer1999; @Lodato2011; @Guillochon2013], and requires a reprocessing layer or outflow with a regulated temperature [@Guillochon2013], and may be the natural behavior of a radiation-dominated wind [@Miller2015] or expanding nebula [@Metzger2015], albeit with an unphysical receding photosphere. Alternatively, the optical emission may arise from the circularization process itself, and not accretion [@Piran2015]. While the larger emission radius in this scenario would produce an effective temperature well matched to PS1-10jh, the shock dissipation mechanism powering the emission is not expected to dissipate energy as smoothly, and monotonically evolving as observed in PS1-10jh.
Late-Time Spectroscopy {#sec:spec}
======================
We obtained two additional late-time epochs of spectroscopy with the 6.5m MMT Blue Channel spectrograph [@Schmidt1989] on UT 2012 September 16–17 ($2\times1800$ sec each night) and 2014 April 28 ($3\times1800$ sec). We used a 1$\arcsec$ slit at the parallactic angle [@Filippenko1982] and the 300 lines/mm grating, for a spectral resolution of $\sim$ 5.5 Å. This was the same instrumental setup used for the Day $-22$ and $+254$ observations in G12. When we subtract the 2012 and 2014 spectra from each other, we find no significant differences within the errors. At these epochs the optical emission from PS1-10jh has faded by factors $> 25$, and thus is no longer detectable above the host galaxy continuum. Thus we coadd these late-time spectra to create a host galaxy template. Note that we measure a Balmer H$\delta$ absorption equivalent-width (EW) in the host galaxy spectrum of 2.3 $\pm 0.3$ Å, which does not classify the galaxy as a rare post-starburst E+A galaxy [@Goto2003], as claimed by @Arcavi2014.
We subtract the host galaxy plus a hot blackbody ($T_{\rm bb} = 2.9 \times 10^{4}$ K) at $z=0.1696$ from the earlier spectral epochs presented in G12, in order to remove the continuum from PS1-10jh and its host, and isolate its emission line features. The resulting difference spectrum in Figure \[fig:spec\] is very similar to that presented in G12, in which we used a stellar-synthesis galaxy template subtraction, although there is some loss of S/N due to the noise in the true host spectrum. We detect broad He II emission lines at $\lambda 4686$, and $\lambda 3203$, including a “blue wing” to He II $\lambda$4686. This feature was also present in the original analysis, although we did not discuss it, since there was the possibility that this was an artifact from a template mismatch. Now that it has been confirmed to be real, it could result from an outflow or other velocity structure in the emission line, or the presence of additional lines, such as the CIII/NIII “Wolf-Rayet” blends seen in some supernovae (SNe) when the the temperature is high [e.g., @Niemela1985; @Leonard2000]. However, the second component can be modeled as a second Gaussian with a centroid near 4470 Å, which is too blue for the WR blends at zero velocity. Note that TDE candidate ASASSN-14li [@Holoien2015] also very clearly has velocity structure in its He II 4686 line, although it is double-peaked at a different velocity, so it is not the same line blended in the two objects.
The most striking aspect of the spectrum is still the lack of obvious hydrogen emission lines. Figure \[fig:ha\] shows a zoom in of the spectrum at the rest-frame velocity of He II $\lambda 4686$ and H$\alpha$. Dashed lines show the 9,000 km s$^{-1}$ FWHM of the Gaussian fit to the He II $\lambda 4686$ line measured in G12. If we integrate the flux in this velocity range for both lines, we measure a ratio of He II $\lambda 4686$/H$\alpha = 4.7 \pm 1.0$. In Figure \[fig:ha\] we plot Gaussians with a FWHM= 9,000 km s$^{-1}$ that have this flux ratio. Note that H$\alpha$ at this redshift is in the wing of the telluric A band, which corresponds to wavelengths in the rest-frame of PS1-10jh of $\sim 6490-6560$ Å. Furthermore, He II has a line at 6560 Å(the Pickering series $n=6\rightarrow 4$), in wavelength coincidence with H$\alpha$, but it is expected to be only $\sim 0.14$ times the strength of He II 4686 for photoionized gas [@Osterbrock1989]. Despite some of these systematic uncertainties, we do not find any significant residual emission at H$\alpha$. @Gaskell2014 reported residual emission at H$\alpha$ corresponding to He II $\lambda 4686$/H$\alpha$ = 3.7 based on a smoothed version of the model galaxy template subtraction we performed in G12. However, our late-time spectroscopy now enable us to perform a direct host galaxy subtraction that is more accurate, and is still consistent with the He II $\lambda 4686$/H$\alpha > 5$ ratio reported in G12. H$\beta$ is more difficult to measure an upper limit for, since it is located within the red wing of the much stronger broad He II $\lambda 4686$ line.
Discussion & Conclusions {#sec:disc}
========================
The nuclear position of PS1-10jh in its host galaxy further strengthens its association with the host galaxy’s central SMBH, and disfavors a SN origin, or a microlensing event by a star in an (unseen) foreground galaxy [@Lawrence2012]. Similarly, the persistence of the UV emission on the timescale of years is inconsistent with any known SN behavior. The continued decline of the UV light-curve at the rate expected for the fallback accretion of the tidally disrupted debris is incompatible with simple accretion-flow geometries, and requires an extended photosphere that evolves in such a way to keep the effective temperature fixed with time.
The strong detection of broad helium emission, and lack of hydrogen emission, is difficult to reproduce in standard conditions for photoionized gas. In G12, we argue that the lack of hydrogen emission is a signature of a low hydrogen fraction ($X < 0.2$) for the disrupted star. However, helium stars are extremely rare, and even tidally stripped evolved stars retain a large fraction of their H envelopes [@MacLeod2013], and would require multiple orbital passages of the SMBH to completely unbind their H envelope [@Bogdanovic2014]. Subsequent arguments have been made that avoid the problem of tidally disrupting a helium-rich star, by suppressing the hydrogen emission from a truncated broad-line region formed from the tidal debris of a main-sequence star [@Guillochon2014], in particular, at certain densities where thermalization becomes important [@Gaskell2014]. However, @Strubbe2015 find that these conditions in solar-composition photoionized gas are only sufficient to suppress the H$\alpha$ emission enough to yield He II $\lambda 4686$/H$\alpha \sim 3$, or in the presence of velocity gradients in the gas, only up to He II $\lambda 4686$/H$\alpha < 1$, well below the line ratio we measure for PS1-10jh of He II $\lambda 4686$/H$\alpha > 5$. While recent calculations by @Roth2015 find that certain conditions in an [*optically-thick*]{} extended reprocessing envelope in a TDE could reproduce a ratio of He II $\lambda 4686$/H$\alpha = 5$, or even higher.
While at least one other TDE candidate has a similar spectrum to PS1-10jh [@Arcavi2014], there are also TDE candidates reported with both hydrogen and helium broad emission lines [@Arcavi2014; @Holoien2014; @Holoien2015], as well as neither (only absorption) [@Chornock2014]. Clearly, hydrogen emission is not suppressed in all TDE candidates. While this may be a signature of the diversity in the hydrogen envelopes of disrupted stars, analogous to the hydrogen-free spectra of stripped core-collapse SNe, the radiative transfer effects in the complex photoionized debris stream or disk may also be a natural explanation, and must continue to be investigated in more detail before stronger conclusions can be made. Detailed spectroscopic monitoring of future TDEs is critical for testing these models, directly probing the structure of the stellar debris in a TDE, and providing insights on the population of stars in the harsh environment in the vicinity of its central SMBH.
We thank the anonymous referee for their helpful comments. S.G. was supported in part by NSF CAREER grant 1454816. RC thanks the Aspen Center for Physics, which is supported by National Science Foundation grant PHY-1066293, for their hospitality while some of this work was performed. Based on observations made with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope associated with program \# 13371. Support for program \# 13371 was provided by NASA through a grant from the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555. Some of the observations reported here were obtained at the MMT Observatory, a joint facility of the Smithsonian Institution and the University of Arizona.
[38]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
, I., [et al.]{} 2014, , 793, 38
, S., [Livio]{}, M., & [Piran]{}, T. 2000, , 545, 772
, T., [Cheng]{}, R. M., & [Amaro-Seoane]{}, P. 2014, , 788, 99
, J. K., [Lee]{}, H. M., & [Goodman]{}, J. 1990, , 351, 38
, R., [et al.]{} 2014, , 780, 44
, A. V. 1982, , 94, 715
, C. M., & [Rojas Lobos]{}, P. A. 2014, , 438, L36
, S., [et al.]{} 2008, , 676, 944
——. 2012, , 485, 217
——. 2013, , 766, 60
, T., [et al.]{} 2003, , 55, 771
, J., [Manukian]{}, H., & [Ramirez-Ruiz]{}, E. 2014, , 783, 23
, J., & [Ramirez-Ruiz]{}, E. 2013, , 767, 25
——. 2015, ArXiv e-prints, 1501.05306
, K., [Stone]{}, N. C., & [Loeb]{}, A. 2015, ArXiv e-prints, 1501.05207
, T. W.-S., [et al.]{} 2015, ArXiv e-prints, 1507.01598
——. 2014, , 445, 3263
, S., [Laguna]{}, P., [Phinney]{}, E. S., & [M[é]{}sz[á]{}ros]{}, P. 2004, , 615, 855
, S. 2002, in Lighthouses of the Universe: The Most Luminous Celestial Objects and Their Use for Cosmology, ed. [M. Gilfanov, R. Sunyeav, & E. Churazov]{}, 436–+
, A., [Gezari]{}, S., [Elvis]{}, M., [Ward]{}, M., [Smartt]{}, S., [Smith]{}, K., & [Wright]{}, D. 2012, in European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, Vol. 39, European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, 3002
, D. C., [Filippenko]{}, A. V., [Barth]{}, A. J., & [Matheson]{}, T. 2000, , 536, 239
, V. V., & [Ozernoi]{}, L. M. 1979, Soviet Astronomy Letters, 5, 16
, G., [King]{}, A. R., & [Pringle]{}, J. E. 2009, , 392, 332
, G., & [Rossi]{}, E. M. 2011, , 410, 359
, A., & [Ulmer]{}, A. 1997, , 489, 573
, M., [Ramirez-Ruiz]{}, E., [Grady]{}, S., & [Guillochon]{}, J. 2013, , 777, 133
, B. D., & [Stone]{}, N. C. 2015, ArXiv e-prints, 1506.03453
, M. C. 2015, , 805, 83
, V. S., [Ruiz]{}, M. T., & [Phillips]{}, M. M. 1985, , 289, 52
, D. 1989, [*Astrophysics of Gaseous Nebulae and Active Galactic Nuclei*]{} (Mill Valley, CA: University Science Books), 422
, E. S. 1989, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 136, The Center of the Galaxy, ed. [M. Morris]{}, 543–+
, T., [Svirski]{}, G., [Krolik]{}, J., [Cheng]{}, R. M., & [Shiokawa]{}, H. 2015, , 806, 164
, M. J. 1988, , 333, 523
, A., [et al.]{} 2014, , 795, 44
, N., [Kasen]{}, D., [Guillochon]{}, J., & [Ramirez-Ruiz]{}, E. 2015, ArXiv e-prints, 1510.08454
, G. D., [Weymann]{}, R. J., & [Foltz]{}, C. B. 1989, , 101, 713
, R.-F., & [Matzner]{}, C. D. 2014, , 784, 87
, H., [Krolik]{}, J. H., [Cheng]{}, R. M., [Piran]{}, T., & [Noble]{}, S. C. 2015, , 804, 85
, L. E., & [Murray]{}, N. 2015, ArXiv e-prints, 1509.04277
, L. E., & [Quataert]{}, E. 2009, , 400, 2070
, A. 1999, , 514, 180
, S., [et al.]{} 2010, ArXiv e-prints, 1009.1627
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
address: |
Physics Department, Queen Mary, University of London, Mile End Road, E1 4NS, UK.$\,^\dag$\
Physics Department, University of Liverpool, Oxford Street, Liverpool, L69 7ZE, UK.\
$\,^\dag$ current address.\
[email protected]
author:
- Adrian Bevan
title: 'Measurement of the CKM angle [$\alpha$]{} with the B-factories.'
---
SLAC-PUB-[11607]{}\
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Peter J. Forrester and Jesper R. Ipsen'
title: '**A generalisation of the relation between zeros of the complex Kac polynomial and eigenvalues of truncated unitary matrices**'
---
*School of Mathematics and Statistics, ARC Centre of Excellence for Mathematical and Statistical Frontiers, The University of Melbourne,\
Victoria 3010, Australia*
**Abstract**
[The zeros of the random Laurent series $1/\mu - \sum_{j=1}^\infty c_j/z^j$, where each $c_j$ is an independent standard complex Gaussian, is known to correspond to the scaled eigenvalues of a particular additive rank 1 perturbation of a standard complex Gaussian matrix. For the corresponding random Maclaurin series obtained by the replacement $z \mapsto 1/z$, we show that these same zeros correspond to the scaled eigenvalues of a particular multiplicative rank 1 perturbation of a random unitary matrix. Since the correlation functions of the latter are known, by taking an appropriate limit the correlation functions for the random Maclaurin series can be determined. Only for $|\mu| \to \infty$ is a determinantal point process obtained. For the one and two point correlations, by regarding the Maclaurin series as the limit of a random polynomial, a direct calculation can also be given. ]{}
Introduction
============
The Kac polynomial refers to the random $N$-th degree polynomial with coefficients given by independent standard real Gaussians [@Ka43]. The zeros form a two-component point process — one component is the real zeros, and the other the complex zeros, with the latter occurring in complex conjugate pairs. For finite $N$ the $k$-point correlation for the complex zeros is known [@Pr96] to be given by a so-called semi-permanent (or Hafnian [@IKO05]) of a $2k \times 2k$ matrix, which bears the same relation to a permanent as a determinant does to a Pfaffian. However the entries of the matrix depend on $k$, and only for $k=1$ have they been evaluated explicitly [@Pr96].
This situation simplifies dramatically in the limit $N \to \infty$. Then the zeros form a two-component Pfaffian point process [@Fo10a; @MS14], with the underlying (matrix) correlation kernel independent of the number of real and/ or complex eigenvalues being considered. Moreover, this Pfaffian point process is identical to that formed by the real and complex eigenvalues of any $(N-1) \times (N-1)$ sub-block, formed by deleting any one row and any one column, of a random real orthogonal matrix chosen with Haar measure in the limit $N \to \infty$ [@Fo10].
The class of results just revised were first discovered for the complex version of the Kac polynomial, i.e. the $n$-th degree polynomial with coefficients given by independent standard complex Gaussians. Thus in the limit $n \to \infty$ the zeros, which with probability one are complex and [*do not*]{} come in complex conjugate pairs, form a determinantal point process with correlation kernel [@PV03] $$\label{1}
K(w,z) = {1 \over \pi (1 - w \bar{z})^2}.$$ Here it is assumed that the zeros have modulus less than one — those with modulus greater than 1 are statistically independent. And moreover this determinantal point process is identical to that formed by the eigenvalues of any $(N-1) \times (N-1)$ sub-block of a random complex unitary matrix chosen with Haar measure in the limit $N \to \infty$ [@Kr06]. For a recent application of this latter coincidence to the problem of persistence exponents, see [@PS18].
A different, and more general, coincidence between the distribution of the zeros of a random power series with coefficients independently distributed as standard real Gaussians, and that of the eigenvalues of a particular random matrix ensemble, has been given by Tao [@Ta12]. Let $X$ be an $N \times N$ matrix with standard real Gaussian entries, let ${\mathbf 1}_N$ denote a vector with all entries equal to 1, and let $\mathbf{g}$ denote an $N \times 1$ column vector of independent standard real Gaussian entries. It was shown in [@Ta12] (without the specialisation to Gaussian entries, and thus in more general circumstances) that the eigenvalues of the random matrix $$\label{Xg}
{1 \over \sqrt{N}} \Big ( X + \mu {\mathbf 1}_N \mathbf{g}^T \Big ),$$ itself being motivated by a model in the theory of neural networks [@RA06], in the limit $N \to \infty$ and for $N \to \infty$ , for $|z| > 1$ are given by the zeros of the random Laurent series $$\label{L1a}
{1\over \mu} - \sum_{j=1}^\infty {c_j \over z^j}.$$ Here each $c_j$ is an independent standard real Gaussian. Note that in the limit $|\mu| \to \infty$ this, in the variable $1/z = w$, reduces to seeking the zeros of the limiting Kac polynomial. Our interest in this paper is on the complex analogue of this result, and moreover on the specification of the corresponding point process.
It is noted in [@Ta12 Remark 1.12] that choosing $X$ and $\mathbf{g}$ in (\[Xg\]) to have independent standard complex Gaussian entries, rather than independent standard real Gaussian entries, the eigenvalues in the limit $N \to \infty$ and for $|z| > 1$ are given by the zeros of the random Laurent series (\[L1a\]) with each $c_j$ an independent standard complex Gaussian. Our first result, Proposition \[P1\] below, is to show that the random matrix $UA$, with $U$ chosen with Haar measure from the classical unitary group $U(N)$, and $A = {\rm diag} \, (a,1,\dots,1)$ has upon setting $a =1/ \mu \sqrt{N}$ and taking the limit $N \to \infty$ its eigenvalues given by the zeros of (\[L1a\]), in the variable $w = 1/z$. This random matrix is a multiplicative rank 1 perturbation of $U$, and its eigenvalue probability density function (PDF) is known for finite $N$ [@Fy01; @FS03]. Moreover, the general $k$-point correlation function can be computed explicitly; see Proposition \[P2\]. It is given in terms of a sum of $k$ terms each dependent on a correlation kernel, although the point process itself is not technically determinantal (i.e. the $k$-point correlation is not given by the determinant of a correlation kernel which itself is independent of $k$.) In Section \[S3\] we show how the correlation functions for the zeros of (\[L1a\]) can be computed directly, and use this formalism to given independent derivations of the one and two point correlation functions.
The random matrix ensemble $UA$, for $U \in U(N)$, and $A = {\rm diag} \, (a,1,\dots,1)$
========================================================================================
Characterisation of the eigenvalues in the limit $N \to \infty$
---------------------------------------------------------------
Consider the random matrix $UA$, for $U \in U(N)$ chosen with Haar measure (see e.g. [@DF17 §5.2] for a practical construction), and $A = {\rm diag} \, (a,1,\dots,1)$. For $\mathbf{\psi}$ a normalised eigenvector with eigenvalue $\lambda$, one has that $\mathbf{\psi}^\dagger A^\dagger A \mathbf{\psi} =
| \lambda |^2$ and thus with $|a| < 1$ it must be that $|\lambda| < 1$. We assume henceforth that $|a| < 1$. As remarked, $UA$ is a multiplicative rank 1 perturbation of $U$. It is a simple exercise to make use of this fact to transform the characteristic polynomial for the eigenvalues of $UA$ to a form in which each coefficient can, in the limit $N \to \infty$, be determined explicitly.
\[P1\] Consider the random matrix $UA$ as specified above, and set $a = 1/ (\mu \sqrt{N})$. In the limit $N \to \infty$ the eigenvalues of $UA$ are given by the zeros of the random Laurent series (\[L1a\]) in the variable $\lambda = 1/z$, $|\lambda| < 1$, with each $c_j$ an independent standard complex Gaussian.
Let $\mathbf{e}_1$ denote the $N \times 1$ column vector with 1 in the first entry, and 0’s elsewhere, and set $I_N' = {\rm diag} \,(0,1,\dots,1)$. Simple manipulation gives the rewrite for the characteristic polynomial of the matrix $UA$, $$\label{Z1}
\det ( \lambda I_N - UA) = (-1)^N \det U A \det ( I_N - \lambda U^\dagger A^{-1} ).$$ Further simple manipulation shows that the final factor on the RHS of this expression can itself be factored according to $$\det ( I_N - \lambda U^\dagger A^{-1} ) \\
= \det (I_N - \lambda I_N' U^\dagger)
\det \Big ( I_N - {\lambda \over a} (I_N - \lambda U^\dagger I_N')^{-1} U^\dagger \mathbf{e}_1 \mathbf{e}_1^T \Big ).$$ Taking into consideration the above equalities, it follows that the condition for an eigenvalue of $UA$ can be written $$\label{W}
\det \Big ( I_N - {\lambda \over a} (I_N - \lambda U^\dagger I_N')^{-1} U^\dagger \mathbf{e}_1 \mathbf{e}_1^T \Big ) = 0.$$
Generally, for $C$ an $n \times m$ matrix and $D$ an $m \times n$ matrix, we have that (see e.g. [@Fo10 Exercises 5.2 q.2]) $$\det (I_n + C D) = \det (I_m + D C).$$ Applying this with $n=N$, $m=1$, $C= ( \lambda I_N - UI_N')^{-1}\mathbf{e}_1$ and $D = \mathbf{e}_1^T$ shows (\[W\]) can be rewritten as the scalar equation $$1 - {\lambda \over a} \mathbf{e}_1^T ( I_N - \lambda U^\dagger I_N')^{-1} U^\dagger \mathbf{e}_1 = 0.$$ For $|\lambda| < 1$, the inverse can be expanded according to the geometric series, and we obtain $$\label{Ue}
0 = 1 - {\lambda \over a} \sum_{k=0}^\infty \lambda^k \mathbf{e}_1^T (U^\dagger I_N')^k U^\dagger \mathbf{e}_1.$$
Now it is a known result [@Kr06] that for $V \in U(N)$ chosen with Haar measure, in the limit $N \to \infty$ $$\label{Va}
\sqrt{N} ( \mathbf{e}_1^T V \mathbf{e}_1, \mathbf{e}_1^T V^2 \mathbf{e}_1, \mathbf{e}_1^T V^3 \mathbf{e}_1, \dots )
\mathop{=}^{\rm d} (\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\alpha_3,\dots ),$$ where each $\alpha_i$ is an independent standard complex Gaussian. To make use of this, set $a = 1/ (\mu \sqrt{N})$ and note that $$\label{Va1}
\mathbf{e}_1^T (U^\dagger I_N')^k U^\dagger \mathbf{e}_1 =
\mathbf{e}_1^T (U^\dagger)^{k+1} \mathbf{e}_1 \Big ( 1 + {\rm O}(k/N) \Big ).$$ Up to the technical issue of tightness (see the discussion in [@HKPV08 proof of Th. 4.3.15, pg. 112]), and its resolution in [@Kr06]) use of (\[Va1\]) and (\[Va\]) together in (\[Ue\]) implies that in the limit $N \to \infty$ the RHS of the latter reduces to the stated random Laurent polynomial.
Correlations for the eigenvalues of the limiting random matrices $UA$
=====================================================================
The eigenvalue density
----------------------
Let $G = {\rm diag} \, (g_1, g_2, \dots, g_N)$ with each $g_i \ge 0$. With $U \in U(N)$ chosen with Haar measure, Wei and Fyodorov [@WF08] have given an explicit formula for the eigenvalue density of $U \sqrt{G}$. While this is quite complicated in general, in the special case $G = {\rm diag} \, (|a|^2, 1, \dots, 1)$ corresponding to the random matrix $UA$ as specified in the Introduction, this simplifies to read [@WF08 eq.(2.12)] $$\label{B1}
\rho_{(1)}(z) = {(|z|^2 - |a|^2)^{N-2} \over (1 - |a|^2)^{N-1} |z|^{2N}}
\Big ( (N-1) (|z|^{2N} + |a|^2) +
\sum_{k=0}^{N-2} \Big ( (N-2-k) + k |a|^2 \Big ) |z|^{2(N-1-k)} \Big ),$$ where $1 > |z| > |a|$.
Set $a = 1/(\mu \sqrt{N})$. In the limit $N \to \infty$ we have $$\label{R1}
\rho_{(1)}(z) = {1 \over \pi} {1 \over (1 - |z|^2)^2} \exp \Big ( {1 \over |\mu|^2} \Big ( 1- {1 \over |z|^2} \Big ) \Big )
\Big (1 +{1 \over |\mu|^2 |z|^4} (1 - |z|^2) \Big ),$$ restricted to $|z|<1$.
The restriction to $|z|<1$ follows immediately from the restriction on $|z|$ noted below (\[B1\]).
The summation over $k$ in (\[B1\]) can be evaluated according to $$|z|^2 (1 - |a|^2) {\partial \over \partial |z|^2}
{1 - |z|^{2(N-1)} \over 1 - |z|^2} + |a|^2 (N-2) {|z|^2 (1 - |z|^{2(N-1)} ) \over 1 - |z|^2}.$$ Hence with $|z| < 1$ and fixed, uniformly in $|a|<1$, $$\label{SR}
\rho_{(1)}(z) \mathop{\sim}_{N \to \infty}
{(|z|^2 - |a|^2)^{N-2} \over (1 - |a|^2)^N |z|^{2N}} \bigg (
N |a|^2 + |z|^4 (1 - |a|^2)
{\partial \over \partial |z|^2} {1 \over 1 - |z|^2} + |a|^2 N
{|z|^2 \over 1 - |z|^2} \bigg ).$$ We write $(|z|^2 - |a|^2)^{N-2} = |z|^{2(N-2)} (1 - |a|^2/|z|^2)^{N-2}$. Upon this manipulation, and with $|a| = 1/(|\mu| \sqrt{N})$, the elementary limit $(1-u/N)^N \to e^{-u}$ as $N \to \infty$ establishes (\[R1\]).
\[Re1\] We see from (\[R1\]) that the density vanishes at the rate of an essential singularity as $|z| \to 0$. Another feature is that as $|z| \to 1^-$, the leading form of $\rho_{(1)}(z)$ is independent of $\mu$.
The $k$-point correlation
-------------------------
Prior to the derivation of (\[B1\]), the general $k$-point correlation function for the eigenvalues of the random matrix $UA$, $A = {\rm diag} \,(|a|,1,\dots,1)$ with $|a|<1$ was calculated by Fyodorov [@Fy01] (see also [@FS03]), up to a proportionality. The starting point was the formula for the joint eigenvalue distribution $$(1 - |a|^2)^{1-N} \delta \Big ( |a|^2 - \prod_{l=1}^N | z_l|^2 \Big ) \prod_{l=1}^N \chi_{|z_l|<1}
\prod_{1 \le j < k \le N} | z_j - z_k|^2,$$ where $\chi_J = 1$ for $J$ true and 0 otherwise, valid up to an $N$ dependent normalisation.
To present the result for the corresponding $k$-point correlation, define $$\label{q}
q_j(z_1,\dots,z_k) = [s^j] \det \Big [ \Big (s + x {d \over dx} \Big ) {x^N - 1 \over x - 1} \Big |_{x = z_i \bar{z}_j}
\Big ]_{i,j=1}^k,$$ where $[s^j]$ denotes the coefficient of $s^j$ in the expression that follows. Then, up to a proportionality $c_{N,k}$ say, which may depend on $N,k$, we have from [@Fy01; @FS03] that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{12}
\rho_{(k)}(z_1,\dots,z_k) = c_{N,k} (1 - |a|^2)^{1-N}
\chi_{\prod_{l=1}^k | z_l|^2 \ge |a|^2} \prod_{l=1}^k \chi_{|z_l| < 1} \\
\times
\sum_{l=0}^k q_l(z_1,\dots,z_k) \Big ( {d \over dx} x \Big )^l
\Big [ {1 \over x} \Big ( 1 - {|a|^2 \over x} \Big )^{N-1} \Big ] \Big |_{x = \prod_{l=1}^k |z_l|^2}.\end{gathered}$$ To determine $c_{N,k}$ we consider the case $a=0$. The only nonzero term in (\[12\]) is then $l=0$, telling us that $$\label{qA}
\rho_{(k)}(z_1,\dots,z_k) \Big |_{a=0} = c_{N,k}
\prod_{l=1}^k \chi_{|z_l| < 1}
\det \Big [ {d \over dx} {x^N - 1 \over x - 1} \Big |_{x = z_i \bar{z}_j} \Big ].$$ This is the result for the eigenvalue $k$-point correlation of the ensemble formed by deleting one row and one column from $U \in U(N)$ chosen with Haar measure, first derived in [@ZS99]. Moreover, the latter contains the explicit form of the proportionality, which we read off to be $$\label{q1}
c_{N,k} = {1 \over \pi^k},$$ and in particular is independent of $N$. In the case $k=1$ we can check that with (\[q1\]) substituted in (\[12\]), (\[B1\]) is reclaimed.
Our specific interest is in the limiting form of (\[12\]) with $a = 1/(\mu \sqrt{N})$.
\[P2\] Consider (\[12\]) with the substitution (\[q\]), and scale $a$ to depend on $N$ according to $a = 1/(\mu \sqrt{N})$. Let $$\label{Q}
Q_j(z_1,\dots,z_k) = [s^j] \det \Big [ \Big (s + x {d \over dx} \Big ) {1 \over 1 - x} \Big |_{x = z_i \bar{z}_j}
\Big ]_{i,j=1}^k$$ (cf. (\[q\])). In the limit $N \to \infty$ we have $$\label{R2a}
\rho_{(k)}(z_1,\dots,z_k) = { e^{1 / |\mu|^2} \over \pi^k}
\sum_{l=0}^k Q_l(z_1,\dots,z_k) \Big ( {d \over dx} x \Big )^l
\Big ( {1 \over x} e^{- 1/ ( |\mu|^2 x )} \Big ) \Big |_{x = \prod_{l=1}^k |z_l|^2}.$$ restricted to $|z_j|<1$ ($j=1,\dots,k$).
This is immediate from (\[12\]), and the elementary limit $(1-u/N)^N \to e^{-u}$ as $N \to \infty$
Note that (\[R2a\]) does not correspond to a determinantal point process, as it is not of the form $\det [K(x_i,x_j)]_{i,j=1}^k$ for some function $K(x,y)$ independent of $k$. However it does approach a determinantal point process in the limit $|\mu| \to \infty$. Then, only the term $l=0$ contributes to the sum in (\[R2a\]), showing that $$\label{R3}
\lim_{|\mu| \to \infty} \rho_{(k)}(z_1,\dots,z_k) = {1 \over \pi^k} \det
\Big [ {d \over dx} {1 \over 1 - x} \Big |_{x = z_i \bar{z}_j}
\Big ]_{i,j=1}^k$$ This is just the result (\[1\]) for the correlations of the zeros of the limiting random complex Kac polynomial, as is consistent with $\{z_j\}$, before the limit $\mu \to \infty$, corresponding to the solutions of the equation $1/\mu = \sum_{j=1}^\infty c_j z^j$ with $c_j$ standard complex Gaussians.
In the case $k=1$, (\[R2a\]) reduces to (\[R1\]). For future reference, we note too that for $k=2$, (\[R2a\]) gives $$\label{L1}
\rho_{(2)}(z,w) = {e^{(1/|\mu|^2)(1 - 1/ \prod_{l=1}^2 | zw|^2)} \over \pi^2} \bigg ( {1 \over | zw|^2} Y_0(z,w)
+ {Y_1(z,w) - Y_2(z,w) \over |\mu|^2 |zw|^4} + {Y_2(z,w) \over |\mu|^4 |zw|^6} \bigg ),$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{L2}
Y_0(z,w) & = |zw|^2 \bigg ( {1 \over (1 - |z|^2)^2}{1 \over (1 - |w|^2)^2} - {1 \over (1 - z \bar{w})^2} {1 \over (1 - \bar{z} w)^2} \bigg )
\nonumber \\
Y_1(z,w) & = {|w|^2 \over (1 - |z|^2)(1 - |w|^2)^2} +{ |z|^2 \over (1 - |z|^2)^2(1 - |w|^2)} -
{1 \over |1 - z \bar{w}|^2} \Big ( {w \bar{z} \over 1 - w \bar{z}} + {z \bar{w} \over 1 - z \bar{w}} \Big ) \nonumber \\
Y_2(z,w) & ={|z-w|^2 \over (1 - |z|^2) (1 - |w|^2) |1 - z \bar{w} |^2}\end{aligned}$$ (in obtaining the formula for $Q_2$, use has been made of the Cauchy double alternant determinant formula; see e.g. [@Fo10 eq, (4.34)]).
Generally the truncated (or connected) $k$-point correlation is defined by the formula $$\label{T1}
\rho_{(k)}^T(x_1,\dots,x_k) = \sum_{m=1}^k \sum_G (-1)^{m-1} (m-1)! \prod_{j=1}^m \rho_{(|G_j|)}(x_{g_j(1)},
\dots, x_{g_j(|G_j|)}),$$ where the sum over $G$ is over all subdivisions of $\{1,2,\dots,k\}$ into $m$ subset $G_1,\dots,G_m$, with $G_j = \{g_j(1),\dots, g_j(|G_j|) \}$. For example $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{(2)}^T(x,y) & = \rho_{(2)}(x,y) - \rho_{(1)}(x) \rho_{(1)}(y) \\
\rho_{(3)}^T(x,y,z) & = \rho_{(3)}(x,y,z) - \rho_{(1)}(x) \rho_{(2)}(y,z) - \rho_{(1)}(y) \rho_{(2)}(x,z) \\
& \quad - \rho_{(1)}(z) \rho_{(2)}(x,y) + 2 \rho_{(1)}(x) \rho_{(1)}(y) \rho_{(1)}(z) .\end{aligned}$$ In the case of a determinantal point process with correlation kernel $K(x,y)$, $$\label{T2}
\rho_{(k)}^T(x_1,\dots,x_k) = (-1)^{k-1}
\sum_{{\rm cycles} \atop {\rm length} \,k}
K_N(x_{i_1},x_{i_2}) K_N(x_{i_2},x_{i_3}) \cdots
K_N(x_{i_k},x_{i_1}),$$ where the sum is over all distinct cycles $i_1 \to i_2 \to \cdots \to
i_k \to i_1$ of $\{1,\dots,k\}$ which are of length $k$ (see e.g. [@Fo10 Prop. 5.1.2]). Moreover, if the correlation kernel has the reproducing property $$\int_{\Omega} K(w_1,z) K(z,w_2) \, dz^{\rm r} dz^{\rm i} = K(w_1,w_2),$$ (here $z^{\rm r}, z^{\rm i}$ denotes the real and imaginary parts of $z$) as is true in the case of (\[1\]) for example with $\Omega = D_1$ the domain $|z| < 1$, then the structure (\[T2\]) implies the fundamental sum rule $$\label{T3}
\int_{D_1} \rho_{(k+1)}^T(z_1,\dots,z_k,z) \, dz^{\rm r} dz^{\rm i} = - k \rho_{(k)}^T(z_1,\dots,z_k)$$ (see e.g. [@Fo10 eq. (14.12)]).
One can ask if (\[T3\]) holds in the case of (\[R2a\]). Not being determinantal, this appears difficult to answer, even in the case of $k=1$ when we have the explicit functional forms (\[L1\]) and (\[R1\]).
The zero with the smallest modulus is a natural observable quantity. Let $E(0;r)$ denote the probability that the smallest modulus is greater than or equal to $r$, and denote by $D_r$ the disk of radius $r$. We know that $E(0;r)$ is given in terms of the correlation functions by (see e.g. [@Fo10 eq. (9.4)]) $$\label{E}
E(0;r) = 1 + \sum_{k=1}^\infty {(-1)^k \over k!} \int_{(D_r)^k} dz_1^{\rm r} dz_1^{\rm i} \cdots
dz_k^{\rm r} dz_k^{\rm i} \, \rho_{(k)}(z_1,\dots,z_k).$$ In the case $|\mu| \to \infty$, when $\rho_{(k)}$ is a $k \times k$ determinant with correlation kernel (\[1\]), $E(0;r)$ is given by the Fredholm determinant (see e.g. [@Fo10 eq. (9.15)]) $$\label{EK}
E(0;r) = \det ( I - \mathbb K_r),$$ where $\mathbb K_r$ is the integral operator on $D_r$ with kernel (\[1\]). The nonzero eigenvalues of the latter are $\{(2p+2)\}_{p=0}^\infty$, corresponding to the eigenfunctions $\bar{z}^p$ and so [@PV03] (see also [@Bu18]) $$\label{E2}
E(0;r) \Big |_{| \mu | \to \infty} = \prod_{p=0}^\infty (1 - r^{2p+2}).$$
For general $| \mu |$ there is no analogue of (\[E2\]), but some asymptotic results are possible. First, in the limit $r \to 0^+$, it follows from (\[E\]) and (\[R1\]) that $$\label{EK1}
E(0;r) \mathop{\sim}\limits_{r \to 0^+} 1 - {2 \over |\mu|^2} \int_0^r s^{-3} e^{-1/s^2|\mu|^2} \, ds = 1 - e^{-1/(r | \mu|)^2}.$$ Second, for $r \to 1^-$, in keeping with the final sentence of Remark \[Re1\], we might expect that the leading form of $E(0;r)$ is independent of $|\mu|$, and is thus that implied by (\[E2\]) [@PV03], $$\label{EK1}
E(0;r) \mathop{\sim}\limits_{r \to 1^-} e^{-\pi^2/(12(1-r))}.$$
One and two-point correlations for the zeros of the limiting Kac polynomial {#S3}
===========================================================================
With $z \mapsto 1/z$, the Laurent series (\[L1\]) becomes a Maclaurin series. Through the relation of Proposition \[P1\], the results of the previous section give the correlation functions for the equation $$\label{L2a}
0 = {1\over \mu} - \sum_{j=1}^\infty {c_j z^j},$$ with each $c_j$ is a standard complex Gaussian. Truncating the latter at the $N$-th term gives the random polynomial $$\label{L2}
{1\over \mu} - \sum_{j=1}^N {c_j z^j}.$$ Defining now $p_N(z) = \sum_{j=1}^N {c_j z^j}$, our interest is this section is in the statistical properties of the solutions of the polynomial equation $$\label{L2b}
p_N(z) = 1/\mu.$$ Taking the limit $N \to \infty$ must then reclaim the results of the previous section. We are able to carry out this program for the one and two-point correlations.
With $c_j^{\rm r}$ and $c_j^{\rm i}$ denoting the real and imaginary parts of $c_j$ respectively. The probability measure of the coefficients of $p_N(z)$ is then $$\label{11.92a}
\Big ( {1 \over \pi} \Big )^N \exp \Big ( - \sum_{j=1}^N |c_j|^2 \Big )
\prod_{j=1}^N d c_j^{\rm r} d c_j^{\rm i}.$$ We take up the task of specifying the $k$-point correlation function for solutions of (\[L2b\]).
Following [@Ha96], the first step is to introduce complex numbers $z_1^{(0)}, \dots,
z_k^{(0)}$ $(k < (N+1)/2)$ and to define $2k$ linear combinations of the coefficients $\{ c_j \}_{j=1}^N$ by $p(z_l^{(0)}) =: p_l$ and $p'(z_l^{(0)}) =: p_l'$ $(l=1,\dots,k)$, where the prime denotes differentiation. General properties of the Gaussian distribution (see e.g. [@Fo10 Exercises 15.3 q.3] give that in terms of these $2k$ complex variables (with the other $N+1-2k$ complex variables integrated out), the probability measure (\[11.92a\]) reduces to $$\label{A}
\Big ( {1 \over \pi} \Big )^{2k} {1 \over \det M}
\exp \Big ( - (\mathbf{p}, \mathbf{p}{\, '})^\dagger M^{-1}
(\mathbf{p}, \mathbf{p}\,') \Big ) \prod_{l=1}^k dp_l^{\rm r} dp_l^{\rm i}
dp_l'^{\rm r} dp_l'^{\rm i},$$ where $M$ is the covariance matrix $$\label{ABC}
M = \left [ \begin{array}{cc}
A & B \\ B^\dagger & C \end{array} \right ],
\: \: A := [\langle p_j \bar{p}_l \rangle]_{j,l=1,\dots,k}, \: \:
B := [\langle p_j \bar{p}_l' \rangle]_{j,l=1,\dots,k}, \: \:
C := [\langle p_j' p_l' \rangle]_{j,l=1,\dots,k}.$$ The averages specifying the matrix elements of $A,B,C$ are all with respect to the coefficients $\{ c_j \}_{j=1}^N$.
For given points $\{z_j^{(0)}\}_{j=1}^k$ (\[A\]) gives the p.d.f. for the corresponding values of $\{p_j\}_{j=1}^k$ and $\{p'_j \}_{j=1}^k$. The next step is to change variables so that the points $\{z_j^{(0)}\}_{j=1}^k$ replace the function values $\{p_j \}_{j=1}^k$ as the variables. Since $p(z) = p_j + (z - z_l^{(0)}) p_j' +
{\rm O}(( (z - z_l^{(0)})^2)$, the Jacobian for each such change of variables equals $|p_l'|^2$. Hence (\[A\]) transforms to $$\Big ( {1 \over \pi} \Big )^{2k} {1 \over \det M}
\exp \Big ( - (\mathbf{p}, \mathbf{p}{\, '})^\dagger { M}^{-1}
(\mathbf{p}, \mathbf{p}\,') \Big ) \prod_{l=1}^k |p_l'|^2
dz_l^{\rm r} dz_l^{\rm i}
{dp_l'}^{\rm r} {dp_l'}^{\rm i}.$$
A crucial point is that this last change of variables is only locally one to one, as there will in general be $N$ points giving the same function value. This shows that if we set $\mathbf{p} = {1 \over \mu} \mathbf{1}_k$, and integrate over each $p_l'^{\rm r}, p_l'^{\rm i}$ the $k$-point correlation function for the $N$ complex solutions of $p_N(z) = 1/\mu$ will result, giving $$\begin{gathered}
\label{11.zero}
\rho_{(k)}(z_1^{(0)}, \dots, z_k^{(0)}) = \\
\Big ( {1 \over \pi } \Big )^{2k} {1 \over \det M}
\int_{(-\infty,\infty)^{2k}}
\prod_{l=1}^k
dp_l'^{\rm r} dp_l'^{\rm i} \,
|p_l'|^2 \exp \Big ( - ({1 \over \mu} \mathbf{1}_k, \mathbf{p}{\, '})^\dagger { M}^{-1}
({1 \over \mu} \mathbf{1}_k, \mathbf{p}\, ') \Big ),\end{gathered}$$ where $({1 \over \mu} \mathbf{1}_k, \mathbf{p}\, ')$ denotes the $2k \times 1$ column vector obtained by concatinating $ \mathbf{1}_k$ and $ \mathbf{p}'$ (cf. [@Fo10 eq. (15.56)]). This can be viewed as a generalisation of the Kac-Rice formula; see e.g. [@AT07].
In the case $1/\mu = 0$ the multiple integral (\[11.zero\]) can be written in terms of a permanent [@Ha96], although the underlying matrix depends on $k$, making its explicit evaluation difficult except for small $k$ (or, as it turns out, large $N$). The permanent structure breaks down when $1/\mu \ne 0$, but nonetheless exact computation is still possible for small $k$; we restrict attention to $k=1$ and $k=2$. Analogous to the strategy for the case $1/\mu = 0$, we begin by eliminating the integrations in (\[11.zero\]) in favour of differentiations.
Write $$\label{NN}
M^{-1} = \left [ \begin{array}{cc}
N_1 & N_2 \\ N_2^\dagger & N_3 \end{array} \right ],$$ where each $N_i$ is of size $k \times k$ (cf. (\[ABC\])). Introduce the auxiliary vector $\mathbf{\nu} = (\nu_1,\dots, \nu_k)$, where each $\nu_j$ is a complex number, and let $\bar{\pmb \nu}$ denote its complex conjugate.
The multiple integral formula (\[11.zero\]) can be rewritten $$\begin{gathered}
\label{SM1}
\rho_{(k)}(z_1^{(0)}, \dots, z_k^{(0)}) = \Big ( {1 \over \pi} \Big )^k {1 \over \det A} e^{- {1 \over \overline{\mu}} \mathbf{1}_k^T N_1 {1 \over \mu} \mathbf{1}_k}
{\partial^k \over \partial \bar{\nu}_1 \cdots \partial \bar{\nu}_k}
\prod_{l=1}^k \Big ( ( \bar{\pmb \nu} + i {1 \over \bar{\mu}} {\mathbf 1}_k^T N_2) \cdot N_3^{-1} \mathbf{e}_l \Big ) \\
\times \exp \Big ( ( \bar{\pmb \nu} + i {1 \over \overline{\mu}} \mathbf{1}_k^T N_2) \cdot N_3^{-1} ({\pmb \nu} - i N_2^\dagger {1 \over \mu} \mathbf{1}_k \Big ) \Big |_{\mathbf{\nu} = \mathbf{0}}.\end{gathered}$$
Our initial reason to introduce differentiations is to eliminate the factor $\prod_{l=1}^k | p_l'|^2$ in the integrand of (\[11.zero\]). Thus we observe $$\begin{gathered}
\label{SM}
\rho_{(k)}(z_1^{(0)}, \dots, z_k^{(0)}) = \Big ( {1 \over \pi} \Big )^{2k} {1 \over \det M}
{\partial^{2k} \over \partial {\nu}_1 \cdots \partial {\nu}_k \partial \bar{\nu}_1 \cdots \partial \bar{\nu}_k} \\
\times
\int_{(-\infty,\infty)^{2k}}
\exp \Big ( - ({1 \over \mu} \mathbf 1_k, \mathbf{p}{\, '})^\dagger { M}^{-1}
({1 \over \mu} \mathbf{1}_k, \mathbf{p}\, ') + i \overline{\pmb \nu} \cdot \mathbf{p}' - i {\pmb \nu} \cdot \mathbf{p}'{}^* \Big ) \,
\prod_{l=1}^k
dp_l'^{\rm r} dp_l'^{\rm i}
\Big |_{{\pmb \nu} = \mathbf{0}},\end{gathered}$$ where here $\mathbf{p}'{}^*$ denotes the complex conjugate of the vector $\mathbf{p}'$. In terms of the notation (\[NN\]) we can expand $$({1 \over \mu} \mathbf 1_k, \mathbf{p}{\, '})^\dagger { M}^{-1}
({1 \over \mu} \mathbf{1}_k, \mathbf{p}\, ')
= ({1 \over \bar{\mu}} \mathbf{1}_k)^TN_1 {1 \over \mu} \mathbf{1}_k +
(\mathbf{p}')^\dagger N_3 \mathbf{p}' + i (-i {1 \over \bar{\mu}} \mathbf{1}_k N_2 \cdot \mathbf{p}') +
i (-i N_2^\dagger {1 \over \mu} \mathbf{1}_k) \cdot (\mathbf{p}')^*.$$ Substituting this in (\[SM\]) shows that the integrand is the exponential of a quadratic form in $\{ dp_l'^{\rm r}, dp_l'^{\rm i} \}_{l=1}^k$, allowing the integral to be evaluated (see e.g. [@Fo10 eq. (15.65)]). Once this is done, the differentiations over $\{ \nu_j \}_{j=1}^k$ can be carried out. Finally, using the fact that $\det M \det N_3 = \det A$, we arrive at (\[SM1\]).
Starting from (\[SM1\]), it is straightforward to obtain explicit formulas for $\rho_{(1)}$ and $\rho_{(2)}$. There are further simplifications in the limit $N \to \infty$, which is the case of interest for purposes of the present study. We begin by considering $\rho_{(1)}$.
In the limit $N \to \infty$, and requiring that $|z| < 1$, $\rho_{(1)}(z)$ is given by (\[R1\]).
In the case $k=1$ the quantities $\pmb \nu, \pmb \mu, A, N_2, N_3$ are then scalars, and (\[SM1\]) simplifies to $$\label{ABCS}
\rho_{(1)}(z) = {1 \over \pi} {1 \over A N_3} e^{-{N_1 \over |\mu|^2 }+ { |N_2|^2 \over |\mu|^2 N_3} }\Big ( 1 +
{|N_2|^2 \over |\mu|^2 N_3} \Big ).$$ Since $M$ is of size $2 \times 2$, its inverse is simple to compute, and in terms of (the scalars) $A,B,C$ we read off that $$N_1 = {C \over AC - |B|^2}, \quad N_2 = -{B \over AC - |B|^2}, \quad
N_3 = {A \over AC - |B|^2}.$$ Moreover, it follows from the definition (\[ABC\]) that in the limit $N \to \infty$ $$\label{ABCn}
A = {|z|^2 \over 1 - |z|^2}, \quad B = {z \over (1 - z \bar{z})^2}, \quad
C = {1 + z \bar{z} \over (1 - z \bar{z})^3}.$$ Thus $$AC - |B|^2 = {|z|^4 \over (1 - |z|^2)^4}, \quad N_1 = {1 \over |z|^4}(1 - |z|^4), \quad
{ |N_2|^2 \over N_3} = {1 \over |z|^4} (1 - |z|^2).$$ Substituting the above in (\[ABCS\]) gives (\[R1\]).
The difficulty with computing $\rho_{(k)}$ for $k \ge 2$ is that $A,B,C$ are no longer scalars, and correspondingly it is not immediate that there are structured formulas for the matrix elements of $N_1,N_2,N_3$. In the case $k=2$, the required computations can be carried out using computer algebra.
In the limit $N \to \infty$, and with $|w|, |z| < 1$, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Z2}
\rho_{(2)}(w, z) = \Big ( {1 \over \pi} \Big )^2
\exp \bigg ( {1 \over |\mu|^2} \Big ( 1- {1 \over |z|^2 |w|^2} \Big ) \bigg )
\\
\times {| z - w|^2 \over | 1 - w \bar{z} |^2} {1 \over |w|^2 |z|^2 (1 - |z|^2) (1 - |w|^2)}
\bigg ( {1 \over |\mu|^4 |w|^4 |z|^4} \\
+ {1 \over |\mu|^2} \Big ( {1 \over (1 - |w|^2)^2 |z|^2} + {1 \over (1 - |z|^2)^2 |w|^2} +
{1 \over w \bar{z} (1 - z \bar{w})^2 } + {1 \over z \bar{w} (1 - w \bar{z})^2 } \Big )\\
+ |w|^2 |z|^2 \Big (
{1 \over (1 - |w|^2)^2 (1 - |z|^2)^2 } + {1 \over (1 - z \bar{w})^2 (1 - \bar{z} w)^2} \Big ) \bigg ).\end{gathered}$$
Introduce the notation $$i {1 \over \bar{\mu}} \mathbf 1_2 N_2 \cdot N_3^{-1} \mathbf e_1 =: G_1, \quad
i {1 \over \bar{\mu}} \mathbf 1_2 N_2 \cdot N_3^{-1} \mathbf e_2 =: G_2, \quad
h_{jk} = \mathbf e_j \cdot N_3^{-1} \mathbf e_k.$$ Performing the differentiations as required by (\[SM1\]) shows, upon minor manipulation, that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{ER}
\rho_{(2)}(z, w) = {1 \over \pi^2} {1 \over \det A}
e^{-{1 \over |\mu|^2 } {\mathbf 1}_2^T N_1 {\mathbf 1}_2} e^{ {1 \over |\mu|^2 } ( {\mathbf 1}_2^T N_2) \cdot N_3^{-1} (N_2^\dagger {\mathbf 1}_2)}
\\
\times \Big ( (|G_1|^2 + h_{11}) (|G_2|^2 + h_{22}) + (G_1 \overline{G}_2 + \overline{h}_{12}) (\overline{G}_1 G_2 + h_{12}) - |G_1 G_2|^2 \Big ).\end{gathered}$$
The $k=2$ modification of (\[ABCn\]) is $$\label{ABCs}
A = \Big [ {z_i \overline{z}_j \over 1 - z_i \overline{z}_j} \Big ]_{i,j=1,2}, \quad B = \Big [ {z_i \over (1 - z_i \bar{z}_j)^2} \Big ]_{i,j=1,2} , \quad
C = \Big [ {1 + z_i \bar{z}_j \over (1 - z_i \bar{z}_j)^3} \Big ]_{i,j=1,2},$$ where $z_1 = z$ and $z_2 = w$. Use of the(see e.g. [@Fo10 eq, (4.34)]) known Cauchy double alternant determinant formula gives $${1 \over \det A} = {(1 - |w|^2) (1 - |z|^2) (1 - z \bar{w}) (1 - w \bar{z}) \over |z|^2 |w|^2 |w - z|^2}$$ For the other quantities in (\[ER\]), beginning with (\[ABCs\]), we make use of computer algebra to compute $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf 1}_2^T N_1 {\mathbf 1}_2 & = \Big ( - 1 + {1 \over |w|^4 |z|^4} \Big ) \\
( {\mathbf 1}_2^T N_2) \cdot N_3^{-1} (N_2^\dagger {\mathbf 1}_2) & = \Big ( {1 \over |w|^4 |z|^4} - {1 \over |w|^2 |z|^2} \Big ) \\
G_1 & = {i \over \bar{ \mu}} \Big ( {\bar{z} - \bar{w} \over
(1 - |z|^2) (1 - w \bar{z}) \bar{w} \bar{z} } \Big ) \\
h_{11} & = {|z|^2 | z - w|^2 \over (1 - |z|^2)^3 (1 - z \overline{w}) (1 - w \overline{z})} \\
h_{12} &= - {z \overline{w} | z - w|^2 \over (1 - |w|^2) (1 - |z|^2) (1 - z \overline{w})^3}
\end{aligned}$$ as well as $G_2 = G_1 |_{w \leftrightarrow z}$, $h_{22} = h_{11} |_{w \leftrightarrow z}$, $h_{21} = \overline{h}_{12} = h_{21} |_{w \leftrightarrow z}$. Substituting in (\[ER\]) and simplifying gives (\[Z2\]).
It remains to verify that (\[Z2\]) agrees with (\[L1\]). In the notation of (\[L1\]), this requires checking that $$\begin{aligned}
Y_0(z,w) & = {|z-w|^2 \over | 1 - w \bar{z} |^2} { |w|^2 |z|^2 \over (1 - |z|^2) (1 - |w|^2)} \nonumber \\
& \qquad \times \bigg ( {1 \over (|1 - |w|^2)^2 (1 - |z|^2)^2} +
{1 \over (|1 - z \overline{w})^2 (1 - \bar{z} w )^2} \bigg ) \label{Y0} \\
Y_1(z,w) - Y_2(z,w) & =
{ |z - w|^2 \over |1 - w\bar{z}|^2} {|wz|^2 \over (1 - |z|^2)(1 - |w|^2)} \nonumber \\
& \quad \times
\bigg ( {1 \over (1 - |w|^2)^2 |z|^2} + {1 \over (1 - |z|^2)^2 |w|^2} +
{1 \over w \bar{z} (1 - z \bar{w})^2} +
{1 \over z \bar{w} (1 - w \bar{z})^2} \Big ) \label{Y1} \\
Y_2(z,w) & = {|z-w|^2 \over |1 - w \bar{z} |^2 (1 - |z|^2) (1 - |w|^2)} \label{Y2}\end{aligned}$$ Comparing with (\[L2\]), we see that (\[Y2\]) is satisfied by definition, while (\[Y0\]) is equivalent to the Borchardt identity (see e.g. [@Si04]) $$\det \Big [ {1 \over (1 - x_j y_k)^2} \Big ]_{j,k=1}^N =
{\prod_{1 \le j < k \le N} (x_k - x_j) (y_k - y_j) \over \prod_{j,k=1}^N (1 - x_j y_k)}
{\rm perm} \, \Big [ {1 \over 1 - x_j y_k} \Big ]_{j,k=1}^N$$ in the case $N=2$ with $x_1=z, y_1=\bar{z}, x_2 = w, y_2 = \bar{w}$. While we don’t know of any structured explanation of (\[Y1\]), it can be recast as a polynomial identity in $z,\bar{z},w,\bar{w}$ upon clearing denominators, and verified by computer algebra.
The form (\[Z2\]) contains the factor $|z-w|^2$, showing a repulsion between near degenerate eigenvalues of the same form as that for complex Gaussian matrices (see e.g. [@Fo10 §15.1]).
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The work is part of a research program supported by the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Mathematical and Statistical Frontiers. PJF also acknowledges partial support from the Australian Research Council Grant DP170102028.
[10]{}
R.J. Adler and J.E. Taylor, *Random Fields and Geometry*, Springer, New York, 2007.
R. Butez, *The largest root of random Kac polynomials is heavy tailed*, Electron. Commun. Probab. **23** (2018), paper no. 20.
P. Diaconis and P.J. Forrester, *Hurwitz and the origin of random matrix theory in mathematics*, Random Matrix Th. Appl. **6** (2017), 1730001.
P.J. Forrester, *Log-gases and random matrices*, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2010.
P.J. Forrester, *The limiting Kac random polynomial and truncated random orthogonal matrices*, *J. Stat. Mech.* **2010** (2010), P12018.
Y.V. Fyodorov, *Spectra of random matrices close to unitary and scattering theory for discrete-time systems*, in Disordered and complex systems, AIP conference proceedings **553**, pages 191–196. Amer. Inst. Phys., Melville, NY, 2001.
Y.V. Fyodorov and H.-J. Sommers, *Random matrices close to hermitian or unitary: overview of methods and results*, J. Phys. A **36** (2003), 3303–3347.
J. H. Hannay, *Chaotic analytic zero points: exact statistics for those of a random spin state*, J. Phys. A **29** (1996), L101–L105.
J.B. Hough, M. Krishnapur, Y. Peres, and B. Virág, *Zeros of [G]{}aussian analytic functions and determinantal point processes*, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2009.
M. Ishikawa, H. Kawamuko, and S. Okanda, *A [P]{}affian-[H]{}afnian analogue of [B]{}orchardt’s identity*, Electronic J. Combinatorics **12** (2005), \# 9.
M. Kac, *On the average number of real roots of a random algebraic equation*, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 49 (1943), 314.
M. Krishnapur, *Zeros of random analytic functions*, Ann. Prob. **37** (2009), 314–346.
S. Matsumoto and T. Shirai, *Correlation functions for zeros of Gaussian power series and Pfaffians*, Elec. J. Prob. **18** (2013), paper no. 49.
Y. Peres and B. Virág, *Zeros of the i.i.d. [G]{}aussian power series: a conformally invariant determinantal process*, Acta. Math. **194** (2005), 1–35.
M. Poplavskyi and G. Schehr, *Exact persistence exponent for the $2d$-diffusion equation and related Kac polynomials*, arXiv:1806.11275.
T. Prosen, *Exact statistics of complex zeros for [G]{}aussian random polynomials with real coefficients*, J. Phys. A **29** (1996), 4417–4423.
K. Rajan and L.F. Abbott, *Eigenvalue spectra of random matrices for neural networks*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **97** (2006), 188104.
D. Singer, *A bijective proof of Borchardt’s identity*, Elec. J. Combin. **11** (2004), \#R48.
T. Tao, *Outliers in the spectrum of iid matrices with bounded rank perturbations*, Probab. Theory Relat. Fields **155** (2013), 231–263.
Y. Wei and Y.V. Fyodorov, *On the mean density of complex eigenvalues for an ensemble of random matrices with prescribed singular values*, J. Phys. A **41** (2008) 502001.
K. Zyczkowski and H.-J. Sommers, *Truncations of random unitary matrices*, J. Phys. A **33** (2000), 2045–2057.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Bistable Auxetic Metamaterials (BAMs) are a class of monolithic perforated periodic structures with negative Poisson’s ratio. Under tension, a BAM can expand and reach a second state of equilibrium through a globally large shape transformation that is ensured by the flexibility of its elastomeric base material. However, if made from a rigid polymer, or metal, BAM ceases to function due to the inevitable rupture of its ligaments. The goal of this work is to extend the unique functionality of the original kirigami architecture of BAM to a rigid solid base material. We use experiments and numerical simulations to assess performance, bistability and durability of rigid BAMs at 10,000 cycles. Geometric maps are presented to elucidate the role of the main descriptors of BAM architecture. The proposed design enables the realization of BAM from a large palette of materials, including elastic-perfectly plastic materials and potentially brittle materials.'
author:
- 'Xiao Shang$^1$, Lu Liu$^1$, Ahmad Rafsanjani$^2$ and Damiano Pasini$^{1}$'
title: Durable Bistable Auxetics Made of Rigid Solids
---
=5000
INTRODUCTION
============
Metamaterials are designer matter with unusual properties that are governed by their underlying architecture rather than their chemical composition. Firstly introduced in the field of electromagnetic materials [@Pendry1999], the concept quickly extended to mechanical systems [@Lee2012]. Since then, a great interest in the mechanics of materials arena has emerged due to the exotic and tunable properties that mechanical metamaterials can offer, such as negative modulus and mass density, vanishing shear modulus, and programmable properties among many others [@Ding2007; @Liu2011; @Kadic2012; @Milton1992; @Rafsanjani2015; @Haghpanah2016]. The Poisson’s ratio, ν, the ratio between the transverse and longitudinal strain in the direction of an applied stretch, is a property of interest here; for isotropic 3D materials $\nu$ can vary between -1 and 0.5 [@Greaves2011], whereas for 2D materials $-1<\nu<1$; for auxetics it is negative. Compared to solids with positive ν, auxetic materials offer enhanced shear moduli, indentation resistance, and fracture toughness [@Evans1991; @Lakes1987], thus providing mechanical gains in a large range of applications, such as medical stents and skin grafts [@Ali2014; @Gatt2015], porous dampers and acoustic foams [@Scarpa2004], as well as gas turbines [@Taylor2014; @Javid2017]. Several efforts have been recently devoted towards the creation of auxetic sheets obtained by perforating monolithic sheets with uniformly [@Grima2010], randomly [@Grima2016], as well as hierarchically [@Gatt2015] distributed incision patterns. In three-dimensions auxetic materials have been also obtained from re-entrant origami-based Tachi-Miura polyhedrons [@Yasuda2015] and origami tubes [@Filipov2015]. Other works on auxetic materials exploit elastic instability to modulate pattern switch and trigger distinct shape transformations. These include square planar lattices with buckled circular holes under compression [@Bertoldi2010]; metallic metamaterials designed to exploit instability in regular planar lattices [@Ghaedizadeh2016]; three-dimensional auxetics made up of sinusoidal buckling elements [@Findeisen2017]; and three-dimensional soft auxetics [@Babaee2013]. Whereas all these efforts demonstrate that elastic instability locally distributed in a monolithic material can bring about negative Poisson’s ratio, all of them return to their original shape once the elastic strain is removed. Multistable materials, on the other hand, can assume besides their initial position, additional configurations of equilibrium [@Rafsanjani2015; @Haghpanah2016; @Prasad2005; @Restrepo2015], but seldom do they exhibit auxeticity. So far in the literature, only few works combine auxeticity and multistability in monolithic materials [@Hewage2016; @Rafsanjani2016], with examples created mainly from origami patterns [@Yasuda2015; @Silverberg2015].
![Original BAM Architecture: (a) building block geometry, (b) a unit cell in its closed and open state (c) a natural latex rubber sample with $6\times6$ modules in its undeformed and fully open configuration [@Rafsanjani2016]. Cellular BAM made of rigid solid: (d) building block geometry, (e) a unit cell in its closed and open state (f), a cellular BAM sample with $6\times6$ modules fabricated from Delrin$^\text{\textregistered}$ Acetal Resin in its undeformed and fully open configuration. The sample is sandwiched between two Plexiglas plates to prevent out of plane deformation during tensile testing.[]{data-label="Fig1"}](Fig_1.png){width="\columnwidth"}
Bistable Auxetic Materials, in short BAMs, represent a class of monolithic perforated metamaterials with combined negative ν and pattern switch functionality, making them capable of expansion and contraction between two states of equilibrium. BAM can meet desired expandability, stiffness and bistability, at varying levels; they can do so by exploiting the functionality of the building block which is engineered from a set of slits with given rotational symmetry and well-defined geometric descriptors [@Rafsanjani2016]. The constituent solid BAM has been so far made of is an elastomer, whose constitutive relation enable shape transformations that are reversible and repeatable with high compliance and quite low strength. Fig. \[Fig1\](a) shows one example. Here the building block has point-wise living hinges (gray points) that connect rotating units \[green in Fig. \[Fig1\](b)\] and stationary elements \[pale yellow in Fig. \[Fig1\](b)\] working mainly as rigid bodies. Under an applied stretch, the rotating units rotate with respect to the living hinges, a mechanism that expands BAM to its opening state \[Fig. \[Fig1\](b)\]. This pattern switch is repeatable and it is ensured by the elastomer properties. With a rigid solid, such as a metal, however, BAM can no longer function because its hinges inevitably fracture at the first attempt to opening it. Realizing BAM made of rigid solids, on the other hand, can be an asset in several applications, because rigid solids can offer high melting and softening temperature, along with high strength and stiffness, characteristics that are sought after in aerospace applications, such as turbo engines and solar panels. The goal of this work is to extend the range of materials BAM can be made of to rigid materials without losing its hallmark function, i.e. reversible and repeatable switch of opening and closure. To give a context to this characteristic, we use here the term durability, which we define as the resistance to sustain more than 10,000 cycles of opening and closure. This function is considered preserved if BAM either responds elastically or experiences a moderate level of yield in very confined regions. 10,000 cycles is representatively chosen as our target value because such a number of cycles is considered sufficiently high for certain applications, such as mechanical switches [@Jensen1999] and deployable aerospace components [@Hanaor2001; @Zhao2009]. In Sec. II of this paper, the perforated pattern of the original BAM is extended by introducing slender ligaments in well-defined gaps bridging rigid bodies that can either rotate or simply translate. The results are then discussed in the following sections, where we present parametric charts defining a generalized geometry space that greatly expands the range of raw material selection for BAM.
METHODOLOGY
===========
BAM architecture: a compliant extension of the original pattern
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fig. \[Fig1\](a) to (c) illustrate one, among others, original BAM obtained by incising a planar sheet of natural latex rubber. The building block, shown in its closed and open configuration along with the monolitic perforated assembly of $6\times6$ units, comprises three mutually intersecting lines nesting an equilateral triangle within a triangular unit. Other unit types are also possible on square grids. The pattern in Fig. \[Fig1\](a) can work smoothly with an elastomeric material only. The original BAM can be considered as a kirigami architecture with living hinges localized at physical points and without any voids between building blocks in the undeformed state. To realize a BAM with a rigid solid, we present here a cellular alteration of the original pattern \[Fig. \[Fig1\](d), (e) and (f)\] that can sustain repeated cycles of opening and closure. The difference between the two, i.e. original and modified BAM, is that the former embeds point-wise hinges undergoing large strain, whereas the latter replaces them with slender compliant ligaments that define a distinct pattern of voids in the initial configuration. As a representative rigid solid, we chose here Delrin$^\text{\textregistered}$ Acetal Resin for its constitutive law, which is linear elastic-perfectly plastic resembling that of a metal, and for its easiness to perforate with a laser cutter. Fig. \[Fig1\](d) and (e) show the new geometric parameterization for the cellular BAM ligaments, all sharing length ($l$) and thickness ($t$). The generalized pattern here proposed is scalable in that the rotating unit length ($a$), the ligament length ($l$) and the ligament thickness ($t$) are all normalized by the edge length ($L$). For all samples investigated in this study, the normalized length of the rotating unit is representatively chosen as $a/L = 0.4$, and for this particular value we study the role of the normalized ligament length ($l/L$) and ligament thickness ($t/L$), both controlling bistability levels and failure conditions. The unit cell has edge length $L$ = 36mm, $l/L = 0.14$ and $t/L = 0.113$. The material properties of Delrin$^\text{\textregistered}$ Acetal Resin are obtained following the standard ISO 527-1:2012 applied to the testing of dog-bone samples with a thickness of 1.6mm, from which the following values were obtained: $E = 3.85$ GPa for the Young’s modulus, $\sigma_y = 41.18$ MPa for the yield strength, $\varepsilon_y = 0.012$ for the yield strain and $\sigma_{ult} = 80.16$ MPa for the ultimate strength. Fig. \[Fig1\](f) shows a sample with 66 units, along with the special fixture that was designed for BAM to constrain its out-of-plane deformation during expansion while allowing lateral expansion caused by the negative Poisson’s ratio of the metamaterial. $6\times6$ units were chosen because this number of units was proved capable of providing BAM with a smooth and reversible opening and closing.
Cellular BAM ligaments
----------------------
To realize a functional BAM with a periodic pattern of voids in a rigid planar solid, we first focus on the regions subjected to localized peaks of stress, i.e. the slender ligaments \[in gray in Fig. \[Fig1\](d)\]. For these ligaments, we study two compliant geometries, each defined by the slender beam profile and the fillets attaching to the rotating units. The first has a straight profile with sharp corners that are G$^0$ continuous \[Fig. \[Fig2\](a)\], where G represents [*geometry*]{} and the superscript indicates the degree of continuity of the curve. The second ligament type has a tailored geometry with curve profile and arc fillets satisfying G$^1$ continuity at the blending points \[Fig. \[Fig2\](d)\], whereby G$^1$ refers to the continuity of the first derivative along the inner boundary. In a straight ligament with sharp edges \[Fig. \[Fig2\](a)\], G$^0$ guarantees continuity only between the geometric primitives at the blending points A and B. On the other hand, the curved ligament with G$^1$ optimized fillets \[Fig. \[Fig2\](d)\] features continuous tangent at the blending points (B and C) between the arc ligament, BC, and the adjacent arcs, AB and CD. Alternating the straight ligament AB in Fig. \[Fig2\](a) with the shallow arc BC with radius R2 in \[Fig. \[Fig2\](c)\] is beneficial for an increase of BAM durability. In particular to further do so, we tailor R2 and R1 so as to minimize the maximum von Mises stress under a set of inequality constraints applied to the ligament geometry. In this process, we note that since the inner profile of the ligament (BC) is a quadratic polynomial, the thickness is not uniform, and t here refers to the average of the varying thickness between B and C. Further improvement of BAM durability can be potentially achieved by engineering G$^2$ optimized fillets [@Masoumi2013], a path that is not pursued here.
![Design of compliant ligaments for rigid BAM structures. (a) G$^0$ straight ligament with sharp edges and (d) Arc ligament with G$^1$ optimized fillets. Blending points are highlighted in red, and dark portions of ligaments in insets (a) and (d) are speckled regions used for DIC. (b, e) Finite element results for strain distribution in the direction of the ligament longitudinal axis y are compared with (c, f) experimental strains obtained by Digital Image Correlation (DIC) for G$^0$ and G$^1$ designs, respectively.[]{data-label="Fig2"}](Fig_2.png){width="\columnwidth"}
A set of numerical analyses and uniaxial tensile tests were undertaken on samples with $L = 144$mm, $l/L = 0.14$, $t/L = 0.013$, with both G$^0$ and G$^1$ ligaments to monitor the strain in the direction of the ligament ($\varepsilon_y$). The numerical results are shown in Fig. \[Fig2\](b) and (e) while Fig. \[Fig2\](c) and (f) show results obtained via digital image correlation (DIC). Red and purple represent area where the strain exceeds the yield strain of the solid material, i.e. $\varepsilon_y= 0.012$. The strain in the ligament with G$^1$ optimized fillets can redistribute more evenly with marginal areas of yield (about 8% of the ligament surface) at the blending points \[Fig. \[Fig2\](d)\], as opposed to the larger areas (about 40% of the ligament surface) appearing at the sharp edges of the G$^0$ ligament. We note that these results are representative of ligaments with a given set of geometric parameters here selected to show the relative gain between the two ligament types; for samples with other geometric parameters larger areas can appear with strain above the yield but the relative difference in strain does not vary significantly. By comparing Fig. \[Fig2\](b), (e) with Fig. \[Fig2\](c), (f), we find that the strain obtained from the numerical analysis parallel well the strain experimentally measured; this is valid for both the strain distribution as well as the numerical value that the strain assumes in each point. The strain distribution on the sample edges in Fig. \[Fig2\](c) and (f) is blank because DIC was unable to capture it. The good match between numerical results and experimental data further corroborate the validity of the numerical models here presented, the results of which are discussed in the following section.
![Bistability curves and failure plots for cellular BAM with straight ligaments and sharp edges (G$^0$). (a) strain energy density versus strain for unit cells with given values of $l/L$ under periodic boundary conditions, (b) $\eta$ versus $l/L$ showing the change in bistability. (c) maximum von Mises stress versus strain for unit cells with given values of $l/L$ under periodic boundary conditions, (b) $\xi$ versus $l/L$ showing the change in failure.[]{data-label="Fig3"}](Fig_3.png){width="\columnwidth"}
Bistability and failure analysis for rigid BAM
----------------------------------------------
To study bistability and failure conditions, we performed a set of nonlinear numerical analyses in ABAQUS 6.11 (Dassault Systèmes, France) Standard Implicit Dynamics solver on models pulled uniaxially until full expansion. Periodic boundary conditions were applied to the unit cells (Fig. \[Fig1\](e)) and modified quadratic plane stress elements (CPS6M) were used to discretize the models. A contact law with a hard contact is adopted in the numeric models to represent a normal direction behavior and a frictionless tangential direction behavior. In addition, no penetration is allowed at each constraint location. ABAQUS scripts are developed to generate parametric models that are used to study the role of $l/L$ and $t/L$ on bistability and failure.
To examine how ligament length $l/L$ affects structural bistability, the strain energy density is obtained for different $l/L$. In particular, we calculate the level of bistability, $\eta = E_{min}/E_{max}$, the ratio of the local minimum strain energy pertinent to the deformed stable state of BAM \[$E_{min}$, black triangular bullets in Fig. \[Fig3\](a)\] to its strain energy barrier \[$E_{max}$, black circular bullets in Fig. \[Fig3\](a)\]. We note that for bistable configurations $\eta \in [0,1)$ where smaller values infer to stronger bistability. With respect to failure, the maximum von Mises stress ($\sigma_{max}$) is calculated on the ligaments throughout BAM expansion to understand how ligament length $l/L$ controls failure. The detailed results discussed in Sec. III are visualized in contour plots \[Fig. \[Fig3\](c)\] of $\xi = \sigma_{max}/ \sigma_{ult}$, the ratio between $\sigma_{max}$ (black circular bullets) and the base material ultimate strength ($\sigma_{ult}$, the gray horizontal line). The ratio $\xi$ is used to assess the failure condition of rigid BAM, i.e., only for $\xi$ below 1, $\sigma_{max}$ is lower than $\sigma_{ult}$ and the rigid BAM can fully expand without structural failure.
![Force-time curves for a representative unit cell at the 1st (solid line), 1085th (dashed line) and 1200th (dotted line) cycle. (a) initial ligament, (b) ligament geometry after 1085 cycles, (c) broken ligament at 1200 cycles.[]{data-label="Fig4"}](Fig_4.png){width="\columnwidth"}
Durability test
---------------
The durability of the rigid BAM structures is assessed as the number of cycles a sample can resist prior to structural failure. We remark that because of the geometric peculiarity of this architected material, we did not perform a standard fatigue test. Most of previous studies on cyclic testing of architected materials were conducted under uniaxial stress or force control, whereas here BAM expansion is controlled by large displacement. In addition, the ASTM standard procedure for strain-controlled cyclic testing (ASTM E606/E606M) requires specimens with a uniform gage section or an hourglass shape. For rigid BAM, such a requirement cannot be satisfied. Hence here, we have opted to test BAM under fully reversed uniaxial displacement to assess the number of cycle to failure. We then set 10,000 loading cycles as the minimum level of durability for BAM. BAM unit cell samples were tested under large displacement control using a Bose ElectroForce$^\text{\textregistered}$ 3510 tester (Bose Corporation, United States). The samples were cut via a CM1490 CO$_2$ laser cutter (SignCut Inc., Canada) from 1.6mm thick Delrin$^\text{\textregistered}$ Acetal Resin sheets, with 60% power (100W full power) and 30mm/s speed. A saw-tooth displacement curve was used at a frequency of 1 Hz with an amplitude of 30mm to ensure that all the samples could be fully expanded. We note that the frequency used for the durability test influences the number of loading cycles a rigid BAM can resist prior to failure. A complimentary study investigating this issue on representative sample with $t/L = 0.09$ and $l/L = 0.00625$ has shown that despite the difference in frequency, all numbers of cycles prior to failure lie in a range that corresponds to the results presented in this paper for 1 Hz frequency. Hence, 1 Hz is deemed a frequency sufficiently appropriate to assess rigid BAM durability in this work. Force-time curves were recorded during each test, and the specimen failure was defined at the cycle when the peak-to-peak force amplitude drops 60% from that of the initial cycle. The number of cycles to failure ($n$) was then recorded to evaluate BAM durability. Fig. \[Fig4\] depicts how the durability level is assessed. All testing samples are realized with an edge length $L=72$mm, and three force-time curves are shown for one representative unit cell with $t/L=0.005$, $l/L=0.09$, respectively. The ligaments of the unit cell failed after 1085 cycles, as seen by comparing the insets Fig. \[Fig4\](a), (b) and (c). Each curve represents the variation of the reaction force in the uniaxial loading direction in a given cycle: the solid curve corresponds to the first loading cycle; the dashed curve corresponds to the 1085th cycle; the dot-dashed curve to the 1200th cycle. Following the first cycle, localized stress confined in small regions \[see Fig. \[Fig2\](c)\] appears in the ligaments where the von Mises stress $\sigma$ can be larger than the yield strength $\sigma_y$ of the solid material. Despite the accumulation of plastic deformation in narrowed regions, BAM can still preserve its ability to function and sustain repeated cycles of opening and closure until the 1085th cycle \[Fig. \[Fig4\](b)\], a condition at which the peak-to-peak amplitude, Ainitial, drops below 60% of its initial value. The failure peak-to-peak amplitude, Afailure, is defined as the value after which fast amplification of local plasticity in the ligament occurs with subsequent ligament fracture \[Fig. \[Fig4\](c)\].
![Contour plots obtained by numerical analysis showing how bistability is controlled by $l/L$ and $t/L$ for designs with (a) G$^0$ ligament and (b) G$^1$ optimized ligament.[]{data-label="Fig5"}](Fig_5.png){width="\columnwidth"}
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
=======================
Bistability and failure analysis
--------------------------------
We first focused on BAM with straight ligaments and sharp edges (G$^0$), and examined how ligament geometry influences bistability and failure. In particular, a set of numerical analyses were performed to study the impact of varying $l/L$ for given $t/L = 0.005$. The selected range of $l/L$ covers very short ($l/L = 0.08$) to long ligaments ($l/L = 0.18$). The results are plotted in Fig. \[Fig3\]for 6 models. We did not explore ligament length $l/L$ of 0, i.e. point-wise hinge of the original BAM, because BAM would fail instantly upon the first attempt to opening it. Numerical analysis was performed to calculate the strain energy density \[Fig. \[Fig3\](a)\] and the maximum von Mises stress on the ligaments \[Fig. \[Fig3\](c)\] throughout the expansion, as explained in the method section. The level of bistability, $\eta$, and failure condition, $\xi$, were calculated for each model. Shown in Fig. \[Fig3\](b) and (d), the results reveal that η increases with the length of the ligament as opposed to $\xi$. An increase in ligament length results in a reduction of the amount of deformation due to ligament buckling, further leading to a reduction of $E_{max}$, the maximum strain energy. As the difference between $E_{max}$ and the minimum strain energy, $E_{min}$, reduces, the cellular BAM features a decreased level of bistability. The reduction in the amount of deformation also leads to a reduction in $\sigma_{max}$, and when $\sigma_{max}$ is below $\sigma_{ult}$, i.e. $\xi<1$, no structural failure occurs during BAM expansion. This shows that incorporating slender and compliant ligaments ensures BAM opening without incurring in structural failure.
![Contour plots of failure with respect to $l/L$ and $t/L$ for (a) G$^0$ ligament and (b) G$^1$ optimized ligament.[]{data-label="Fig6"}](Fig_6.png){width="\columnwidth"}
We also performed a set of parametric studies to investigate the sensitivity of rigid BAM bistability over the design space. Models with a set of normalized ligament length ($l/L=0.08$ to 0.14) and normalized ligament thickness ($t/L=0.005$ to 0.015) were numerically analyzed to calculate the ratio $\eta$ for each set of parameters. Fig. \[Fig5\](a) and (b) show the contour plots of $\eta$ for rigid BAM with G$^0$ ligaments and G$^1$ optimized ligaments. The results indicate that an increase of $l/L$ or (and) $t/L$ corresponds to an improved level of bistability, as shown by the color gradient from dark to light. The plots also show that with a given combination of ligament length and thickness, η for a cellular pattern is smaller with G$^1$ optimized ligaments than with G$^0$ ligaments. This suggests that by modifying the ligament profile from G$^0$ to G$^1$, brings about an improved bistability. In addition, despite the presence of bistability with the parameters studied herein, we can expect that an increase of ligament length and (or) thickness would cause a transition response from bistable to monostable. The stress peak landscape was investigated by calculating the ratio $\xi$ for models with normalized ligament length $l/L = 0.08$ to 0.14 and normalized ligament thickness $t/L = 0.005$ to 0.015. The results are illustrated in Fig. \[Fig6\]. The contour plots in Fig. \[Fig6\](a) refer to the failure stress for BAM with G$^0$ ligaments and those in Fig. \[Fig6\](b) for BAM with G$^1$ optimized ligaments. In the figures, transition curves (black dash) to failure are illustrated, i.e. curves where $\xi = 1$, below which the peak von Mises stress in the ligament allows BAM to fully expand without structural failure. By comparing the extent of the domains in Fig. \[Fig6\](a) and (b), we can observe that the use of G$^1$ optimized ligaments can reduce the peak stress in BAM. Thus, failure prior to the first cycle can be postponed by integrating G$^1$ optimized ligaments in BAM.
{width="85.00000%"}
BAM Durability
--------------
A set of complementary experiments was conducted to assess the durability level of rigid BAM. A special fixture was designed to provide the necessary boundary condition for BAM expansion. In particular, the neighboring cells of the unit cell were constrained by fixing the stationary element at its two sides and its bottom, a condition that allows applying a pull at the top of the stationary element \[Fig. \[Fig7\](a)\]. Durability tests consisted of 110 unit cell samples tested with G$^0$ ligaments throughout the design space investigated in the numerical analysis of the previous section A. For each sample, 5 specimens were tested. The contour plot in Fig. \[Fig7\](b) shows the number of cycles the samples could resist prior to failure over the design space. The light-yellow area represents failed BAM, i.e. BAM ligaments broken at the first cycle, whereas the purple area represents durable BAM, i.e. BAM resists at least 10,000 cycles. Between those is a transition area with color gradient indicating levels of durability. The durability improvement achieved by introducing G$^1$ optimized ligament was also studied experimentally. Here the test was performed for given thickness and varying length of the ligament. Fig. \[Fig7\](c) shows the comparison of number of cycles to failure between BAM with G$^0$ ligament and G$^1$ optimized ligament for given $t/L = 0.0075$. Results for samples with $l/L$ (from 0.08 to 0.12) covering failure designs to durable designs with both G$^0$ ligaments and G$^1$ optimized ligaments are plotted \[Fig. \[Fig7\](c)\]. The area above the dash-dot staircase in Fig. \[Fig7\](c) is the durable area, where all BAM with longer $l/L$ can resist at least 10,000 cycles. The plot shows that with an increase of $l/L$, G$^1$ optimized ligaments allow BAM to enter the durable region much earlier than BAM with G$^0$ ligaments. In general for given $l/L$, the former resists at least one order of magnitude more cycles than the latter, a result that shows the benefit of tailoring the ligament geometry.
Geometric maps for bistability, failure and durability
------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we combine the results obtained numerically and experimentally to generate maps (Fig. \[Fig8\]) that guide the engineering of rigid BAMs with both G$^0$ ligaments and G$^1$ optimized ligaments. Over the background spectrum describing bistability levels are superimposed two boundary curves. One in black represents ligament parameters, $t/L$ and $l/L$, for which BAM fails at the first opening; the other in red indicates BAM geometry resisting up to 10,000 cycles of opening and closure. Between them are cellular BAM which can operate for a number of cycles below the durability level set in this work. Within the design space studied in this paper, BAM geometries with best durability and the highest level of bistability are located at the bottom left corner of the durable domain. The more slender (thinner and/or longer, within the area of bistability) the ligament is, the more durable is rigid BAM.
![Geometric maps illustrating how bistability, failure and durability are controlled by $t/L$ and $l/L$ for cellular patterns with (a) G$^0$ and (b) G$^1$ optimized ligaments.[]{data-label="Fig8"}](Fig_8.png){width="\columnwidth"}
We remark that the maps here presented are for the nominal geometry of BAM. Manufacturing constraints might impact the selection of the best geometric parameters to perforate a rigid BAM that is functional. In addition, the geometric charts provided here are specific to Delrin$^\text{\textregistered}$ Acetal Resin, selected as representative material. The approach followed in this work however can be used to generate charts to realize compliant BAM from other elasto-plastic materials, and might be also be used for ceramic, glass and other brittle materials. Finally, we remark the difference between the original BAM and the concept presented in this work. The rigid BAM design proposed here is an extension of our previous work introducing BAM [@Rafsanjani2016]. Both designs are fabricated from a monolithic planar sheet but there are clear distinctions between them. The original BAM is a kirigami with no gaps within building blocks, whereas the rigid BAM presented here features a cellular structure in its undeformed configuration. In addition, the original BAM made of natural rubber displays living hinges where rotation is localized at physical points, as opposed to the rigid BAM which functions via thin buckled ligaments with optimized shape profile. (For a visualization of the difference between the two BAMs, the reader is referred to the video in the supplementary material [@Movie]). The concept of rigid BAM is thus a generalization of the original concept, as a reduction of the aspect ratio of the thin ligaments lead to the archetype BAM with living hinges. In summary, this work provides a generalized metamaterial architecture that allows expanding the palette of materials to select for BAM, from elastomers to elastic-perfectly plastic materials with further possibilities of using brittle materials.
CONCLUSIONS
===========
This paper has proposed a generalization of the original architecture of bistable auxetic metamaterials (BAM) to allow their realization out of rigid solids. The revised design is cellular and features slender compliant ligaments bridging gaps between rotating and stationary units. The ligament geometry has been tailored to further smoothen stress peaks that localize in the ligaments. Maps presented here for Delrin$^\text{\textregistered}$ Acetal Resin are provided to engineer nominal architecture for durable BAM that can fulfill given engineering requirements. This work expands the selection of raw materials for BAM from solely elastomers to rigid materials, such as solids with elastic-perfectly plastic constitutive law and potentially brittle materials. By doing so, the potential use for BAM can be foreseen for solar panels and turbo engines, which require high mechanical performance. This study can be also applied in future to unit cells with other shapes introduced with the original BAM [@Rafsanjani2016].
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
A.R. also acknowledges the financial support provided by Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) under grant number 164648.
[20]{}
J. B. Pendry, A. J. Holden, D. J. Robbins, and W. J. Stewart, Magnetism from conductors and enhanced nonlinear phenomena. [IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech. 47, 2075 (1999)](https://doi.org/10.1109/22.798002).
J. H. Lee, J. P. Singer, and E. L. Thomas, Micro‐/nanostructured mechanical metamaterials. [Adv. Mater. 24, 4782 (2012)](https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201201644).
Y. Ding, Z. Liu, C. Qiu, and J. Shi, Metamaterial with simultaneously negative bulk modulus and mass density. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 093904 (2007)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.093904).
X. Liu, G. Hu, G. Huang, and C. Sun, An elastic metamaterial with simultaneously negative mass density and bulk modulus. [Appl. Phys. Lett. 98, 251907 (2011)](https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3597651).
M. Kadic, T. Bückmann, N. Stenger, M. Thiel, and M. Wegener, On the practicability of pentamode mechanical metamaterials. [Appl. Phys. Lett. 100, 191901 (2012)](https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4709436).
G. W. Milton, Composite materials with Poisson’s ratios close to -1. [J. Mech. Phys. Solids. 40, 1105 (1992)](https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5096(92)90063-8).
A. Rafsanjani, A. Akbarzadeh, and D. Pasini, Snapping mechanical metamaterials under tension. [Adv. Mater. 27, 5931 (2015)](https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201502809).
B. Haghpanah, L. Salari-Sharif, P. Pourrajab, J. Hopkins, and L. Valdevit, Multistable shape-reconfigurable architected materials. [Adv. Mater. 28, 7915 (2016)](https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201601650).
G. N. Greaves, A. L. Greer, R. S. Lakes, and T. Rouxel, Poisson’s ratio and modern materials. [Nat. Mater. 10, 823 (2011)](https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat3134).
K. E. Evans, M. A. Nkansah, I. J. Hutchinson, and S. C. Rogers, Molecular network design. [Nature. 353, 124 (1991)](https://doi.org/10.1038/353124a0).
R. Lakes, Foam Structures with a Negative Poisson’s Ratio. [Science. 235, 1038 (1987)](10.1126/science.235.4792.1038).
M. N. Ali, J. J. C. Busfield, and I. U. Rehman, Auxetic oesophageal stents: Structure and mechanical properties. [J. Mater. Sci.-Mater. Med. 25, 527 (2014)](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-013-5067-2).
R. Gatt, L. Mizzi, J. I. Azzopardi, K. M. Azzopardi, D. Attard, A. Casha, J. Briffa, and J. N. Grima, Hierarchical Auxetic Mechanical Metamaterials. [Sci. Rep. 5, 8395 (2015)](https://doi.org/10.1038/srep08395).
F. Scarpa, L. G. Ciffo, and J. R. Yates, Dynamic properties of high structural integrity auxetic open cell foam. [Smart Mater. Struct. 13, 49 (2004)](https://doi.org/10.1088/0964-1726/13/1/006).
M. Taylor, L. Francesconi, M. Gerendás, A. Shanian, C. Carson, and K. Bertoldi, Low Porosity Metallic Periodic Structures with Negative Poisson’s Ratio. [Adv. Mater. 26, 2365 (2014)](https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201304464).
F. Javid, J. Liu, A. Rafsanjani, M. Schaenzer, M. Q. Pham, D. Backman, S. Yandt, M. C. Innes, C. Booth-Morrison, M. Gerendas, T. Scarinci, A. Shanian, and K. Bertoldi, On the design of porous structures with enhanced fatigue life. [Extreme Mech. Lett. 16, 13 (2017)](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eml.2017.08.002).
J. N. Grima and R. Gatt, Perforated Sheets Exhibiting Negative Poisson’s Ratios. [Adv. Eng. Mater. 12, 460 (2010)](https://doi.org/10.1002/adem.201000005).
J. N. Grima, L. Mizzi, K. M. Azzopardi, and R. Gatt, Auxetic Perforated Mechanical Metamaterials with Randomly Oriented Cuts. [Adv. Mater. 28, 385 (2016)](https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201503653).
H. Yasuda and J. Yang, Reentrant Origami-Based Metamaterials with Negative Poisson’s Ratio and Bistability. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 185502 (2015)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.185502).
E. T. Filipov, T. Tachi, and G. H. Paulino, Origami tubes assembled into stiff, yet reconfigurable structures and metamaterials. [Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112, 12321 (2015)](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1509465112).
K. Bertoldi, P. M. Reis, S. Willshaw, and T. Mullin, Negative Poisson’s Ratio Behavior Induced by an Elastic Instability. [Adv. Mater. 22, 361 (2010)](https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.200901956).
A. Ghaedizadeh, J. Shen, X. Ren, and Y. M. Xie, Tuning the performance of metallic auxetic metamaterials by using buckling and plasticity. [Materials. 9, 54 (2016)](http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma9010054).
C. Findeisen, J. Hohe, M. Kadic, and P. Gumbsch, Characteristics of mechanical metamaterials based on buckling elements. [J. Mech. Phys. Solids. 102, 151 (2017)](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2017.02.011).
S. Babaee, J. Shim, J. C. Weaver, E. R. Chen, N. Patel, and K. Bertoldi, 3D Soft Metamaterials with Negative Poisson’s Ratio. [Adv. Mater. 25, 5044 (2013)](https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201301986).
J. Prasad and A. R. Diaz, Synthesis of Bistable Periodic Structures Using Topology Optimization and a Genetic Algorithm. [J. Mech. Des. 128, 1298(2005)](https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2338576).
D. Restrepo, N. D. Mankame, and P. D. Zavattieri, Phase transforming cellular materials. [Extreme Mech, Lett. 4, 52 (2015)](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eml.2015.08.001).
T. A. M. Hewage, K. L. Alderson, A. Alderson, and F. Scarpa, Double-Negative Mechanical Metamaterials Displaying Simultaneous Negative Stiffness and Negative Poisson’s Ratio Properties. [Adv. Mater. 28, 10323 (2016)](https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201603959).
J. L. Silverberg, J.-H. Na, A. A. Evans, B. Liu, T. C. Hull, ChristianD. Santangelo, R. J. Lang, R. C. Hayward, and I. Cohen, Origami structures with a critical transition to bistability arising from hidden degrees of freedom. [Nat. Mater. 14, 389 (2015)](https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat4232).
A. Rafsanjani and D. Pasini, Bistable auxetic mechanical metamaterials inspired by ancient geometric motifs. [Extreme Mech. Lett. 9, Part 2, 291 (2016)](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eml.2016.09.001).
B. D. Jensen, L. L. Howell, and L. G. Salmon, Design of Two-Link, In-Plane, Bistable Compliant Micro-Mechanisms. [J. Mech. Des. 121, 416 (1999)](https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2829477).
A. Hanaor and R. Levy, Evaluation of Deployable Structures for Space Enclosures. [Int. J. Space Struct. 16, 211 (2001)](https://doi.org/10.1260/026635101760832172).
J.-S. Zhao, F. Chu, and Z.-J. Feng, The mechanism theory and application of deployable structures based on SLE. [Mech. Mach. Theory. 44, 324 (2009)](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2008.03.014).
E. Masoumi Khalil-Abad, S. Arabnejad Khanoki, and D. Pasini, Fatigue design of lattice materials via computational mechanics: Application to lattices with smooth transitions in cell geometry. [Int. J. Fatigue. 47, 126 (2013)](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2012.08.003).
To view supplementary material for this article, please visit <https://doi.org/10.1557/jmr.2017.417>.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We observed the post-common-envelope eclipsing binary with a white dwarf component, QS Vir, using the 1.88 m telescope of Kotammia Observatory in Egypt. The new observations were analyzed together with all multicolor light curves available online (sampling a period of 25 years), using a full-feature binary system modeling software based on Roche geometry. This is the first time complete photometric modeling was done with most of these data. QS Vir is a detached system, with the red dwarf component underfilling its Roche lobe by a small margin. All light curves feature out-of-eclipse variability that is associated with ellipsoidal variation, mutual irradiation and irregularities in surface brightness of the tidally distorted and magnetically active red dwarf. We tested models with one, two and three dark spots and found that one spot is sufficient to account for the light curve asymmetry in all datasets, although this does not rule out the presence of multiple spots. We also found that a single spotted model cannot fit light curves observed simultaneously in different filters. Instead, each filter requires a different spot configuration. To thoroughly explore the parameter space of spot locations, we devised a grid-search procedure and used it to find consistent solutions. Based on this, we conclude that the dark spot responsible for light curve distortions has been stable for the past 15 years, after a major migration that happened between 1993 and 2002, possibly due to a flip-flop event.'
author:
- 'Olivera Latkovi['' c]{}'
- 'Attila Cs['' e]{}ki'
- 'Gojko Djura[š]{}evi[ć ]{}'
- Ahmed Essam
- 'Amal S. Hamed'
- 'Shahenaz M. Youssef'
title: |
Long-term spot stability in the post-common-envelope binary\
QS Vir
---
Introduction
============
is a binary system composed of a white dwarf and a low-mass M dwarf that nearly fills its Roche lobe, in a very tight orbit with a period of only 3.6 hours. Systems such as this are believed to be in the post-common-envelope phase of binary evolution and on the way to become semidetached cataclysmic variables, through further loss of angular momentum and shrinking of the orbit due to gravitational waves or magnetic breaking [see @kraft62; @paczynski67; @paczynski76; @verbunt81]. Thus, QS Vir can be classified (and is interchangeably referred to in literature) as either a post-common-envelope binary (PCEB) or a pre-cataclysmic variable (pre-CV).
PCEBs are attractive subjects for astrophysical studies for several reasons. Being in a transitional and therefore relatively short evolutionary phase, they often exhibit observable period changes associated with the shrinking of the orbit, as well as signs of weak mass accretion from the M dwarf (MD) to the white dwarf (WD). Since the MD is tidally locked to the WD, it rotates much more rapidly than what would be expected from a single main sequence star of the same mass and age. This in turn causes heightened stellar activity, which is indeed observed in almost all PCEBs regardless of spectral type of the main sequence component [@rebassa13].
Activity in M dwarfs is an interesting subject in its own right. As the oldest and most numerous main sequence stars in the Galaxy, M dwarfs are being studied as promising hosts for habitable extrasolar planets. Magnetic activity can affect the precision of radial velocity measurements and thus limit our ability to detect low-mass rocky planets in the habitable zone [@barnes15]. It might also be related to the known discrepancy between the radii predicted by stellar structure models and those derived from observations of eclipsing binaries with M dwarf components [@ribas06; @morales10]. PCEBs are ideal for determination of stellar parameters because the eclipses of the WD are very sharp and allow for precise radius measurements that can be used to test and calibrate the models.
QS Vir has received a lot of attention since its discovery in the Edinburgh-Cape blue object survey [@stobie97] and the seminal work of @donoghue03 because in addition to having all the characteristics of a detached pre-CV it also shows signs of significant and variable accretion [@matranga12]. @donoghue03 initially classified QS Vir as a hibernating cataclysmic variable, but it has since been demonstrated in several studies that the MD, although close to filling its Roche lobe, doesn’t yet actually fill it [@ribeiro10; @parsons11; @parsons16]. @matranga12 examine several possible explanations for the observed strength and variations of accretion in the absence of Roche overflow, but find none that are entirely satisfactory.
The system also displays significant and seemingly cyclic variations in eclipse times, recently discussed by @bours16. The possibility that they are caused by Applegate’s mechanism [@applegate92] was considered and rejected by @parsons10 on the grounds that the energy required for variations with observed amplitude was by an order of magnitude larger than the energy output of the MD. @almeida11 interpreted them as a result of perturbations by two circumbinary planets, but the proposed orbital configuration has been found to be unstable by @horner13, leaving the variations unexplained.
The most recent study of QS Vir (@parsons16, hereafter ) presents an analysis of high resolution spectroscopy that, among other results, confirms significant spot coverage and a high level of magnetic activity of the MD component.
We made new multicolor observations of QS Vir with the 1.88 m telescope of the Kottamia Observatory in Egypt in 2015 and 2016, and analyzed these data using the binary system modeling software of G. Djura[š]{}evi[' c]{} [@djur92a; @djur98]. Initially, we tested models with two and three dark spots on the MD. These gave physical and orbital parameters of the system in good agreement with the findings of previous studies, but failed to produce satisfactory simultaneous fits to light curves observed in *BVRI* filters. Individual fits were possible, but with diverging spot parameters (Section \[ssSimul\]). To investigate the issue, we included in our analysis all CCD light curves available in online archives. Our final dataset samples almost 25 years through six observational seasons. But the problems regarding simultaneous fitting of light curves in multiple filters persisted with the archival data too.
A grid-search procedure was finally devised to examine the parameter space of spot coordinates, determine the optimal number of spots and consistent spot locations across different filters (Section \[ssCoords\]). We find that a single dark spot is sufficient to account for all the asymmetries in the light curves (Section \[ssCount\]), and that adding more spots does not improve the fit of the models to the observations. While this does not preclude the existence of additional spots on the MD, it shows that the light curves alone do not contain enough information for reliable modeling of more than one dominant feature. We further find that this dominant feature has been stable for the past 15 years, after a major migration from a different location that happened between observations made in 1993 and 2002 (Section \[sRes\]). Given the high level of magnetic activity of the MD, we propose that this event was a part of a flip-flop cycle [@korhonen01].
New observations {#sNObs}
================
Photometric observations of QS Vir in Bessell *BVRI* filters were carried out on six nights in March 2015 and on another two nights in March and April 2016 with the EEV CCD 42-40 camera ($2048\times2048$ pixels) cooled by liquid nitrogen to -125 and attached to the Newtonian focus of the 1.88 m reflector telescope of Kottamia Observatory in Egypt. A total of 786 CCD science frames (432 in 2015 and 354 in 2016) were obtained and reduced using the Muniwin software package[^1]. Observations in the *VRI* filters were done sequentially[^2] in four observing sessions, and in the *B* filter separately[^3] in another four sessions. The summary of observations, with starting and ending dates and times of observations on each night and the counts of science frames in each filter, is given in Table \[tObsSum\].
Differential photometry was performed with respect to UCAC4 384-063825 (comparison star) and UCAC4 385-063763 (check star). Identifiers, coordinates and B, V, J and H magnitudes from the UCAC4 catalog [@zach12] are given in Table \[tStars\] for the variable, comparison and check stars. Exposure times were 300, 120, 60 and 30 seconds with the B, V, R and I filters, respectively. The long exposures in the B filter were necessary because of the declining condition of the mirrors.
The complete light curves are available in the online version of the article. An excerpt is given in Table \[tLC\] for guidance regarding its form and content.
\[tLC\]
[rrrcc]{} HJD & Phase & Magnitude & Filter & Season\
2457104.504 & 0.21739 & 14.99045 & B & S15\
2457104.508 & 0.24678 & 14.97470 & B & S15\
2457104.523 & 0.34475 & 14.95250 & B & S15\
2457104.534 & 0.41858 & 14.99359 & B & S15\
2457104.538 & 0.44305 & 15.00112 & B & S15\
2457104.542 & 0.46780 & 14.99084 & B & S15\
2457104.545 & 0.49221 & 15.01275 & B & S15\
2457104.549 & 0.51662 & 14.99965 & B & S15\
2457104.553 & 0.54109 & 14.99819 & B & S15\
2457104.557 & 0.56550 & 14.99046 & B & S15\
Ephemeris and times of minimum light {#ssEph}
------------------------------------
Twenty-two eclipses were recorded in different filters during our observations. The exact times of minimum light were determined using the software package AVE [@barbera], which is based on the method of @kwandvw56. Using these measurements and the orbital period taken from @parsons10, we updated the ephemeris (Equation \[eqEph\]) with the software package Peranso[^4]. The final linear ephemeris that we use with all data sets is given by Equation \[eqEph\]:
$$\label{eqEph}
HJD (Min I) = 2457102.511412 + 0.1507575 \times E$$
A comparison with the results of a recently published, long-term eclipse timings study done by @bours16, based on exquisite, high-speed photometry, shows that our own measurements of eclipse times are of too low precision to help constrain the nature of the period variation of QS Vir. The measurement errors of our eclipse timings are of the same order of magnitude as the amplitude of the period variation since we only have a few observations per minimum. They are nevertheless listed in Table \[tMin\].
\[tMin\]
[rccrr]{} Date & Type & Filter & Time & Error\
& & & (HJD) &\
20 Mar 2015 & I & V & 2457101.60684 & 0.00216\
20 Mar 2015 & I & R & 2457101.60806 & 0.00216\
20 Mar 2015 & I & I & 2457101.60573 & 0.00215\
21 Mar 2015 & I & V & 2457102.51241 & 0.00218\
21 Mar 2015 & I & R & 2457102.51058 & 0.00216\
21 Mar 2015 & I & I & 2457102.51129 & 0.00218\
21 Mar 2015 & II & V & 2457102.58619 & 0.00216\
21 Mar 2015 & II & R & 2457102.58743 & 0.00217\
21 Mar 2015 & II & I & 2457102.58816 & 0.00219\
25 Mar 2015 & II & B & 2457106.50664 & 0.02551\
25 Mar 2015 & I & B & 2457106.58512 & 0.00509\
26 Mar 2015 & II & V & 2457107.56280 & 0.00215\
26 Mar 2015 & II & I & 2457107.56321 & 0.01143\
2 Apr 2016 & II & V & 2457481.43922 & 0.00136\
2 Apr 2016 & II & R & 2457481.44020 & 0.00046\
2 Apr 2016 & II & I & 2457481.44020 & 0.00034\
3 Apr 2016 & II & V & 2457482.49604 & 0.00033\
3 Apr 2016 & II & R & 2457482.49470 & 0.00024\
3 Apr 2016 & II & I & 2457482.49570 & 0.00043\
3 Apr 2016 & I & V & 2457482.56910 & 0.00236\
3 Apr 2016 & I & R & 2457482.56990 & 0.00237\
3 Apr 2016 & I & I & 2457482.57060 & 0.00237\
Archival observations {#sAObs}
=====================
Initially we intended to analyze only the newly observed light curves, since previous studies of QS Vir were quite thorough. But when we encountered issues with simultaneous fitting of the model to light curves in all filters (to be addressed in Section \[ssSimul\]), we committed to the analysis of all available CCD photometry. This includes:
- [Johnson-Cousins *VRI* light curves observed sequentially on four nights in June 1993 with the SAAO 1-m telescope using the UCL camera with the RCA chip (hereafter season S93), analyzed and published by @donoghue03. There was a flare event on the MD during one of the nights; observations affected by it were easy to identify and we removed them.]{}
- [Johnson *BR* light curves recorded separately during three nights in April 2002 with the Mt Stromlo Observatory 74-inch telescope, the Monash Imager and a 2K $\times$ 4K camera (hereafter season S02K), analyzed and published by @kawka02.]{}
- [Sloan *u’g’r’* light curves recorded simultaneously[^5] on May 20, 2002 with the 4.2-m William Herschel Telescope on La Palma (hereafter season S02P), analyzed and published by @parsons10; and Sloan *u’g’i’* light curves recorded simultaneously on April 21, 2010 with the 3.5-m New Technology Telescope on La Silla (hereafter season S10), analyzed and published by . Both sets comprise high-speed photometry obtained with ULTRACAM [@dhillon07]. QS Vir was observed by the same group and with similar equipment in 2003, 2006 and 2011 too, but these light curves are incomplete (mostly focusing on the primary minimum) and are not suitable for seasonal modeling.]{}
All the light curves, including our own observations from 2015 and 2016 (hereafter seasons S15 and S16, respectively) were folded to phases according to the ephemeris given in Equation \[eqEph\] and normalized to the higher maximum (phase 0.75 for S93 and phase 0.25 for all other seasons). They are shown together with the models in Figs. \[fS93\] through \[fS16\].
Modeling of the light curves {#sMod}
============================
The first step in our study of QS Vir was exploratory modeling of the new observations (seasons S15 and S16) using the program by @djur92a generalized for the case of contact configurations [@djur98] and updated to make use of the limb-darkening coefficients for white dwarfs from @giann13. The program implements a robust binary star model based on Roche geometry that can be applied on a wide variety of binary configurations, including those with an accretion disk [e.g. @mennickent12]. A model of QS Vir with an accretion disk around the WD was tested in this preliminary phase and we found that photometric data does not support it. We instead adopted a marginally detached configuration with the MD just barely underfilling its critical Roche surface. The apparent asymmetry of the light curves can be reproduced by placing one or more dark spots on the MD.
A comprehensive list of model parameters, describing all the major physical processes in close binaries, can be found in our previous publications [see e.g. @caliskan2014]. For the present work, we adopted the spectroscopic elements (the mass ratio, $q$, and the orbital separation, $a_{\rm orb}$) as well as the effective temperature of the WD ($T_{\rm WD}$) from and kept them constant. The reflection coefficients ($A_{\rm WD}$ and $A_{\rm MD}$) and gravity darkening exponents ($\beta_{\rm WD}$ and $\beta_{\rm MD}$ ) were also kept fixed to the theoretical values appropriate for each component [@vonz; @lucy; @rucinski69]. We assume the components are tidally locked and rotate synchronously with the orbital motion, so that the nonsynchronous rotation coefficient, $f=\omega_{rot}/\omega_{orb}$, is constant and equal to 1. The contrast of the dark spots ($C$), defined as the ratio of the effective temperature of an affected elementary surface with and without the spot, is also kept constant at a value of 0.9. This roughly corresponds to a temperature difference of $\Delta \rm{T= 300K}$ which is appropriate for a spotted M dwarf star according to @berdyugina05. A summary of fixed parameters is given in Table \[tFixed\].
\[tFixed\]
[lr]{} Parameter & Value\
$q=m_{\rm MD}/m_{\rm WD}$ & 0.489\
$a_{\rm orb}\ [R_{\odot}]$ & 1.253\
$P\ [d]$ & 0.1507575\
$T_{\rm WD}\ [K]$ & 14200\
$A_{\rm WD}$ & 1.0\
$A_{\rm MD}$ & 0.5\
$\beta_{\rm WD}$ & 0.25\
$\beta_{\rm MD}$ & 0.08\
$f_{\rm WD}=f_{\rm MD}$ & 1.0\
${C=T_{\rm Spot}/T_{\rm MD}}$ & 0.9\
Treatment of limb darkening follows the nonlinear approximation of @claret00, with the coefficients for the appropriate filters interpolated from their tables based on the current values of effective temperature and effective gravity in each iteration. Limb-darkening coefficients for the WD were taken from @giann13. The reflection effect is accounted for by applying a temperature correction to affected elementary surfaces according to the prescription of @khruzina1985.
Spots are modeled as circular regions of uniform fillout and constant temperature contrast. This is clearly a rough approximation of what actually goes on on the surfaces of active stars [see e.g. @parsons16; @barnes15]. However, its usefulness has been proven in numerous studies of binary stars of all spectral types, including M dwarfs. @wilson17 recently published a study of CU Can, one of the few known eclipsing binaries in which both components are M dwarfs. Atmospheric activity, apparent in the asymmetry of the light curves, is explained with two dark, low-contrast spots on top of a binary system model based on Roche geometry similar to the one used in the present study. The same approach was taken in the study of another M dwarf binary, BX Tri, by @dimitrov10. This system is more similar to QS Vir, as it has a very short period of $P\approx 0.2 d$ and one of the components nearly fills its Roche lobe. As we go on to show in the following sections, the light curves of QS Vir can be adequately modeled with a single dark spot on the MD, likely representing a group of smaller spots similar to Doppler images presented by @barnes15.
Simultaneous and individual fitting of filter-specific light curves {#ssSimul}
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial photometric solutions, comprising the orbital and stellar parameters that produce a model which optimally fits the new observations, were found using the Marquart-Levenberg algorithm [@marquardt] with modifications described in detail in @djur92b to minimize the sum of squared residuals between the observed and calculated light curves. The following parameters were adjusted: the effective temperature of the MD ($T_{\rm MD}$), the orbital inclination ($i$), the filling factor, defined as the ratio of the polar radius and the critical polar radius for each component ($F_{\rm WD}$ and $F_{\rm MD}$); and for each dark spot on the MD: the longitude ($\lambda$), measured clock-wise from the intersection of the line of centers and the back of the MD (opposite to the $L_1$ Lagrange point) with values from 0$^{\circ}$ to 360$^{\circ}$, the latitude ($\varphi$) measured from the stellar equator towards the poles with values from -90$^{\circ}$ to 90$^{\circ}$, and the angular radius ($\theta$).
The standard approach in the analysis of multicolor light curves of eclipsing binaries is to fit the model simultaneously to observations in all filters, but in the case of QS Vir this resulted in fits of poor quality for both S15 and S16. Modeling each light curve individually produced fine fits to the data, but resulted in different parameters for each filter. The differences in main binary and stellar parameters (orbital inclination, temperature of the MD and the sizes of the stars) were within expected uncertainties; however, the coordinates and sizes of the dark spots on the MD varied significantly from filter to filter.
To eliminate the possibility that the issue arose from some fault with our data, we then analyzed the archival light curves (seasons S93, S02K, S02P and S10). In each of these seasons, simultaneous fitting of all filter failed, and individual fits resulted in significantly different spot configurations, same as with seasons S15 and S16.
Assuming the spots are magnetic in origin, such variations may be due to different configurations of the magnetic field at different depths in the atmosphere of the MD that we observe in different filters. Another possibility is the presence of additional magnetic structures, such as plages, in the vicinity of the spots. These phenomena might explain small variations in spot positions and moderate variations in spot sizes. However, the variations we found were significant. We judged these results to be implausible and attempted a different approach to finding the optimal photometric solution.
Search for consistent spot coordinates {#ssCoords}
--------------------------------------
In the following sections, we consider the question: can a model be found with consistent (or fixed) spot locations, that fits all individual light curves within an observational season, if we allow for minor variations in other model parameters (including spot size)?
We try to answer it by creating a coordinate grid covering the surface of the MD, and fitting a model to each light curve of a given season at each node of the grid, keeping spot coordinates fixed to grid values. We use the $\alpha$-constrained Nelder-Mead Simplex [@takahama03] for model optimization at grid nodes to avoid certain hard-coded behaviors of the Marquart-Levenberg algorithm implemented by @djur92b, such as unconditional fitting of spot latitudes.
This allows us to perform a survey of the parameter space of spot coordinates. For each light curve within a season, the procedure results in a list of trial solutions (one for each node in the grid) that can be ordered by the quality of the achieved fit (the reduced $\chi^2$ value). We then combine the filter-specific solutions in each node into a single “seasonal solution”.
A simple sum of filter-specific $\chi^2$ values is not the best measure for the quality of the seasonal solution because the worst fit will have the greatest weight in the sum. The worst fits are typically obtained for light curves in blue filters, dominated by the radiation from the WD, where the influence of spots on the MD is negligible. To get around this, we normalize the $\chi^2$ value of each trial model to the best achieved within a filter-specific trial set and use the normalized measure $\chi^2_n$ (Equation \[eNChi2\]) to compare seasonal solutions.
$$\label{eNChi2}
\chi^2_n= \frac{\chi^2}{min(\chi^2)}$$
The best individual solution for each light curve will have $\chi^2_n = 1$, and ideally the seasonal solution should have $\chi^2_n$ equal to the number of light curves within the season. But as expected after the preliminary analysis, different light curves within a season prefer different spot coordinates so the $\chi^2_n$ values for the best seasonal solutions are larger than that (see Table \[tRes\]).
Spot coordinates chosen in this way are usually found among the top 10 solutions for each light curve (with $\chi^2$ values roughly up to 10% larger than the best) and produce synthetic light curves that are negligibly different from filter-specific optimal solutions (see Figs. \[fS93\] to \[fS16\]).
One or more spots? {#ssCount}
------------------
identified three dark spot-like regions on the MD, but our preliminary analysis indicated that the light curves in all six seasons can be adequately modeled with only one spot (see discussion in Section \[ssComp\]). Since the search procedure we developed requires calculation of trial models in numbers that increase exponentially with dimensions and precision of the grid, we first constructed low-resolution grids with a step of $30^{\circ}$ in both longitudes and latitudes for one-spot and two-spot models to determine the merit of including additional spot(s).
Unsurprisingly, solutions obtained for two-spot models turned out to be statistically superior to those for one-spot models, but visual inspection of the best solutions from one- and two-spot grids (Fig. \[fComp\]) confirmed the results of the preliminary analysis and convinced us that the inclusion of a second (or third) spot does not significantly improve the fit of the model to data.
This result doesn’t mean that there’s only one spot on the MD component of QS Vir. It only shows that the light curves available to us do not contain enough information to uniquely identify and parameterize more than one spot. Thus, we limit the analysis to models with one spot.
Five degree grid for one spot {#ssGrid5}
-----------------------------
The choice of precision (grid step) in spot coordinates was informed by comparing the quality of filter-specific and seasonal solutions for test grids with steps of 30$^{\circ}$, 10$^{\circ}$, 5$^{\circ}$ and 2$^{\circ}$. These test grids were computed for only one season (S16) because the computation of 2$^{\circ}$ grids is quite time-consuming (of the order of 10 days with the available equipment[^6]). The comparison showed that switching from 30$^{\circ}$ to 10$^{\circ}$ grid brought the greatest improvement in quality of the solutions, with clear signs of diminishing returns for increasing precision. The solutions for 5$^{\circ}$ and 2$^{\circ}$ grids were almost indistinguishable. We therefore perform the complete analysis with 5$^{\circ}$ grids.
Principal physical parameters of the system and its components that are adjusted at every node of the spot coordinate grid are summarized in Table \[tAdjust\]. Initial values of the effective temperature for the MD, orbital inclination and the filling factors were adopted from ; the initial value for spot size is close to the mean spot size over all filters and seasons obtained in preliminary analysis. Two additional parameters, the phase shift and the magnitude shift, were also fitted for small (of the order of $10^{-5} - 10^{-3}$) translations along the phase and magnitude axes.
\[tAdjust\]
[l@lrrl@rrrrr]{} & & & &\
Parameters & & $\lambda\ [^{\circ}]$ & $\varphi\ [^{\circ}]$ & & $\theta\ [^{\circ}]$ & $i\ [^{\circ}]$ & $T_{\rm MD}\ {\rm [K]}$ & $F_{\rm MD}$ & $F_{\rm WD}$\
Initial value & & - & - & & 40 & 77.7 & 3100 & 0.977 & 0.020\
From & & 0 & -90 & & 10 & 75 & 3000 & 0.950 & 0.019\
To & & 355 & 90 & & 90 & 80 & 3500 & 0.990 & 0.022\
Step & & 5 & 5 & & - & - & - & - & -\
Results and discussion {#sRes}
======================
The final seasonal synthetic light curves are shown together with the observations and with individual, filter-specific fits for each of the six seasons in Figs. \[fS93\] through \[fS16\]. There is little to no deviation of seasonal fits from filter-specific fits. As a reminder, the seasonal fits all share the same spot model (the spot is located at the same longitude and latitude) for all the filters; whereas the filter-specific fits were made with spot coordinates as free parameters and resulted in models with spots located in different places in each filter.
![Data (black circles), filter-specific fits (orange line) and seasonal fit (green line) with corresponding O-C residuals for season S93.[]{data-label="fS93"}](fS93.eps){width="50.00000%"}
![Data (black circles), filter-specific fits (orange line) and seasonal fit (green line) with corresponding O-C residuals for season S02K.[]{data-label="fS02K"}](fS02K.eps){width="50.00000%"}
![Data (black circles), filter-specific fits (orange line) and seasonal fit (green line) with corresponding O-C residuals for season S02P.[]{data-label="fS02P"}](fS02P.eps){width="50.00000%"}
![Data (black circles), filter-specific fits (orange line) and seasonal fit (green line) with corresponding O-C residuals for season S10.[]{data-label="fS10"}](fS10.eps){width="50.00000%"}
![Data (black circles), filter-specific fits (orange line) and seasonal fit (green line) with corresponding O-C residuals season S15.[]{data-label="fS15"}](fS15.eps){width="\textwidth"}
![Data (black circles), filter-specific fits (orange line) and seasonal fit (green line) with corresponding O-C residuals for season S16.[]{data-label="fS16"}](fS16.eps){width="\textwidth"}
![Comparison of best one-spot and two-spot models for Season S16. The two-spot models (blue lines) were calculated for the 30$^\circ$ grid only. One-spot models are shown for both the 30$^\circ$ grid (orange lines) and the final 5$^\circ$ grid (green lines).[]{data-label="fComp"}](fComparison.eps){width="\textwidth"}
The differences are most notable in seasons S02P and S10 (Figs. \[fS02P\] and \[fS10\], respectively), where seasonal fits are noticeably worse than filter-specific ones and there clearly exists a structure in the residuals. This structure resembles a cyclic variation that might be associated with additional spots, but adding a second, and then a third spot to the models failed to eliminate it. Note also that the structure in the residuals is almost invisible in the $r'$ and $i'$ filters, as are the differences between the seasonal and filter-specific fits, indicating that the discrepancies are related to something other than spots on the MD. Perhaps gaseous structures inside the critical Roche lobe of the WD found by @parsons10 left an imprint on the light curves during these particular observations.
Overall, the seasonal solutions fit the observations nearly as well as the filter-specific ones, which validates our assumption that a unique single-spot model that fits all the light curves within a given season with little to no variation in orbital and stellar parameters can indeed be found.
The chief results of our analysis are the longitudes of the dominant dark spot on the MD component of QS Vir (Table \[tRes\]) over six observational seasons, sampling the period of almost 25 years (from 1993 to 2016). We find that it has been a stable feature for the past 15 years, with only minor variations in longitude. A major migration happened between season S93 and seasons S02K-S02P; the longitude of the spot in season S93 is nearly a mirror image of its longitude in all other seasons with regards to the plane defined by the poles of the MD and the $L_1$ Lagrange point (Fig. \[fSpots\]).
The behavior of active longitudes is summarized in Table \[tRes\], with seasonal and final values of other optimized parameters. Fig. \[fLon\] shows the dependence of $\chi^2$ from spot longitude, with each point representing the best-fitting model. (The $\chi^2$ values in this plot are normalized to the *maximal* value achieved for the given light curve for clarity.) Fig. \[fContours\] shows the stellar surface maps of the MD with color-coded $\chi^2$ values at each node of spot coordinate grid. Darker colors correspond to better-fitting models.
\[tRes\]
-------- ----- ------------ ----------------------- ----------------------- ---------------------- ------------------ ------------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
Season LCs $\chi^2_n$ $\lambda\ [^{\circ}]$ $\varphi\ [^{\circ}]$ $\theta\ [^{\circ}]$ $i\ [^{\circ}]$ $T_{\rm MD}\ {\rm [K]}$ $F_{\rm MD}$ $F_{\rm WD}$
S93 3 3.145 280 -80 62$\pm$ 8 78.5$\pm$1.3 3260$\pm$ 220 0.981$\pm$0.002 0.020$\pm$0.001
S02K 2 2.118 60 55 21$\pm$ 1 77.6$\pm$0.1 3100$\pm$ 20 0.982$\pm$0.003 0.021$\pm$0.001
S02P 3 7.011 45 -80 57$\pm$ 11 78.0$\pm$1.1 3160$\pm$ 80 0.963$\pm$0.014 0.021$\pm$0.001
S10 3 4.561 50 70 41$\pm$ 7 77.9$\pm$0.3 3290$\pm$ 110 0.969$\pm$0.011 0.021$\pm$0.001
S15 4 4.294 60 30 29$\pm$ 3 77.6$\pm$1.3 3190$\pm$ 170 0.979$\pm$0.012 0.021$\pm$0.002
S16 4 5.110 55 40 31$\pm$ 3 78.0$\pm$1.4 3180$\pm$ 180 0.978$\pm$0.014 0.021$\pm$0.002
**77.9$\pm$1.4** **3200$\pm$220** **0.975$\pm$0.014** **0.021$\pm$0.002**
-------- ----- ------------ ----------------------- ----------------------- ---------------------- ------------------ ------------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
: Seasonal solutions.
Figure \[fLon\] demonstrates that spot longitudes are uniquely determined by light curves. In Fig. \[fContours\], feasible spot locations coincide with the dark areas corresponding to well-fitting models; it is not surprising that these areas are most sharply defined in red filters, where the contribution of MD’s radiation is significant or dominant. The areas are shaped as tall rectangles, with width and height being representative of the uncertainties in determination of longitude and latitude, respectively. The white lines indicate the longitudes of seasonal solutions.
![$\chi_n^2$ values for best fitting models on each spot longitude present in the grid.[]{data-label="fLon"}](fLon.eps){width="\textwidth"}
![Goodness of fit (color) vs. spot longitude (on the x-axis) and spot latitude (on the y-axis) for all the light curves. Darker colors correspond to better fits. Every pixel is one node of the spot coordinate grid. White lines indicate active longitudes for seasonal solutions.[]{data-label="fContours"}](fContour.eps){width="\textwidth"}
Spot latitudes are poorly constrained by the light curves regardless of filter. Other than small, likely random variations, the goodness of fit is effectively constant over the entire range of latitudes. This is hardly surprising. Weak selection of spot latitudes in light curve modeling of eclipsing binaries is a geometrical inevitability, especially when the eclipse can only hide a tiny portion of the spotted component’s surface at a time, as is the case with QS Vir. Thus, the reported latitudes are provisional.
The final location and size of the spot on the MD in different seasons can be seen in Fig. \[fSpots\]. The spot appears at high latitudes in seasons S93 through S10, and at moderate latitudes in seasons S15 and S16. Spots on magnetically active members of close binaries are expected to develop at high latitudes due to rapid rotation caused by spin-orbital synchronization [@solanki92]. In seasons S93 and S02P the spot is extensive and covers the south pole. However, in season S02K (which is nearly simultaneous with season S02P), we find a small spot near the north pole. This inconsistency is another symptom of low spatial resolution provided by the eclipse by the WD: a large polar spot visible in all orbital phases, but with more coverage in the first quadrature will produce a similar (possibly indistinguishable) asymmetry in the light curve as a small spot at moderate to high latitudes that’s only visible in the first quadrature. This doesn’t affect the determination of spot longitude, which is well-constrained by the shape of the light curve (see discussion in Section \[ssMigration\]).
![Appearance of QS Vir with the spot on the MD in different seasons.[]{data-label="fSpots"}](f3D.eps){width="\textwidth"}
Comparison with other studies of spots in QS Vir {#ssComp}
------------------------------------------------
Due to the prominent asymmetry in the light curves of QS Vir in red filters, the presence of spots on the active MD component was discussed in almost every publication dealing with this object. No model can adequately reproduce its light curves without the inclusion of one or more light or dark spots. But an analysis of spot behavior through detailed light curve modeling has never been attempted prior to this work.
@ribeiro10 applied an image reconstruction method to the light curves observed by @donoghue03 and @kawka02 (data referred to as seasons S93 and S02K in this work) and obtained surface brightness maps of the MD that feature a total of four active regions: two dark spots and two bright spots. Apart from a small phase shift, these features look essentially the same in seasons S93 and S02K even though the shape of the light curves in the $R$ filter is markedly different, with the left-hand side maximum being the higher in S93, and the lower in S02K (Fig. 2 in @ribeiro10; compare Figs. \[fS93\] and \[fS02K\] in present paper and see discussion in Section \[ssMigration\]). A direct comparison between these surface maps and our spotted models would be difficult because we only work with one dark spot; moreover, our experiments with modeling additional spots convince us that the light curves of QS Vir do not contain enough information to extract the locations or even establish the existence of as many as four spots reliably. As we showed in Section \[ssCount\], even two spots are more than is required to adequately model the light curves.
performed a surface brightness reconstruction using high-resolution time-resolved spectroscopy. Roche tomograms (Fig. 13 in ) indicate the presence of three prominent, irregular dark areas on the MD, labeled ’A’, ’B’ and ’C’, that look about equally dark. Feature C is located at approximately the same place as the single spot in our models for seasons S02K, S10, S15 and S16.
As for features A and B, it is possible that they are accounted for by the gravity darkening in our model. Feature B is centered on the ’nose’ of the MD (near the Lagrange point $L_1$), and that is the coolest region of a tidally deformed star. Feature A is located at the ’rear’ of the MD (near $L_2$), the next coolest region. The temperature difference between the polar and frontal regions of the MD in our model is already about 200 K, of the same order of magnitude as the temperature difference between the spotted and unspotted stellar surface (taken to be about 300 K, as discussed in Section \[sMod\]). Modeling spots in these locations on top of the existing temperature variation would be superfluous, especially since such spots don’t contribute significantly to the asymmetries in the light curve and can’t be reliably parametrized through light curve modeling. Therefore, our single-spot model does not necessarily contradict the findings of the tomographic study by .
Spot migration between 1993 and 2002 {#ssMigration}
------------------------------------
Our analysis shows that the majority of spot activity (at least that part which is responsible for light curve asymmetry) has been located at and around the active longitude of $60^{\circ}$ during the past fifteen years (seasons S02K-S02P to S16), but was located at the active longitude of $280^{\circ}$ ten years prior to the earliest of those observations (during season S93).
This is evident from the available data even without an elaboration on the number and precise parameters of the spots. In S93, the asymmetry of the light curve is such that the maximum near phase 0.25 is brighter than the one at phase 0.75; but in all other seasons it is just the opposite: the maximum at phase 0.75 is the brighter one. To quantify this observation, we denote the light curve maximum that follows the eclipse of the WD as $MaxI$ (near phase 0.25), and the one preceding it as $MaxII$ (near phase 0.75). In Fig. \[fOConnell\], we plot their difference in magnitudes, $MaxII - MaxI$, averaged across all available filters, for each season in chronological order. Clearly, that side od QS Vir which we see at phase 0.25 was brighter than the opposite side in S93 – but darker in all other seasons. In the context of the spotted model, this means that spot coverage was more pronounced between longitudes $180^{\circ}$ and $360^{\circ}$ in S93, and between longitudes $0^{\circ}$ and $180^{\circ}$ after it. This is reflected in the results of our modeling.
![The variation of the light curve asymmetry with time. Max I corresponds to the magnitude at maximum brightness near phase 0.25, and Max II near phase 0.75. The value shown is the average across the filters of the indicated season.[]{data-label="fOConnell"}](fOConnell.ps){width="\textwidth"}
While the difference between the active longitudes pinpointed by our analysis is not exactly $180^{\circ}$, we believe a flip-flop event [@berdyugina05; @korhonen01] might be a reasonable explanation for the migration. Given the indications that both components of QS Vir might be magnetic [@matranga12; @parsons16], it is likely that the magnetic field of the MD has a complex structure and activity cycles. Regular long-term observations of QS Vir should be undertaken to investigate if the change in active longitudes between seasons S93 and S02 is part of a flip-flop cycle, which might further be connected to seemingly cyclic variations of the orbital period [@bours16].
Orbital and physical parameters of QS Vir
-----------------------------------------
The other parameters of QS Vir estimated by our light curve models are in good agreement with values derived in previous studies. Our solutions give a slightly higher effective temperature of the MD on average than that estimated by , but the difference ($\Delta \rm T \approx$ 100 K) is within the uncertainties usually associated with determining the effective temperature from color index.
Final average values of orbital inclination, effective temperature of the MD, and the filling factors of both components can be found in the bottom row of Table \[tRes\]. The absolute parameters of QS Vir were calculated for every season separately using the spectroscopic elements from ; we list their final average values in Table \[tAbs\].
\[tAbs\]
[lllllc]{} Parameter & Value\
${\cal L}_{\rm WD} {\rm [L_{\odot}]}$ & 0.0043 $\pm$ 0.0003\
${\cal L}_{\rm MD} {\rm [L_{\odot}]}$ & 0.014 $\pm$ 0.002\
${\cal M}_{\rm WD} {\rm [M_{\odot}]}$ & 0.783 $\pm$ 0.001\
${\cal M}_{\rm MD} {\rm [M_{\odot}]}$ & 0.383 $\pm$ 0.001\
${\cal R}_{\rm WD} {\rm [R_{\odot}]}$ & 0.011 $\pm$ 0.001\
${\cal R}_{\rm MD} {\rm [R_{\odot}]}$ & 0.387 $\pm$ 0.005\
${\rm log}(g)_{\rm WD}$ & 8.26 $\pm$ 0.03\
${\rm log}(g)_{\rm MD}$ & 4.85 $\pm$ 0.02\
$\Omega_{\rm WD}$ & 116 $\pm$ 3\
$\Omega_{\rm MD}$ & 2.90 $\pm$ 0.02\
Conclusions {#sCon}
===========
We observed the post-common envelope white dwarf + M dwarf close binary QS Vir in 2015 and 2016 in *BVRI* filters and obtained light curves that could not be modeled to our satisfaction following the usual approach of simultaneous fitting in all filters. When we applied our model to archival light curves observed in 1993, 2002 and 2010, we found that they could not be fitted simultaneously either. To cope with the issue, we devised a grid-search procedure that can effectively map spots on the surface of the MD. This led us to the following conclusions:
- [A single dark spot on the MD is sufficient to explain the asymmetries in the light curves across all filters and all observational seasons. Additional spots do not significantly improve the fit of the model to the data. While this does not disprove the existence of multiple spotted areas, it does indicate that light curves alone do not contain enough information to reliably parametrize more than one spot.]{}
- [The longitude of a single spot can be determined reliably and uniquely as a result of our analysis. The latitude can not.]{}
- [The single dark spot in our final models has been a stable feature at $60^{\circ}$ longitude for the past 15 years, after a major migration from $280^{\circ}$ longitude that happened between 1993 and 2002. The difference between these active longitudes is near enough to $180^{\circ}$ to suggest a flip-flop event as its likely cause.]{}
Further research into the behavior of spots on QS Vir would benefit immensely from regular photometric and spectroscopic observations. A long-term study could reveal if the flip-flop event between 1993 and 2002 was a part of a magnetic cycle, and whether such a cycle could be related to the unexplained period variations.
We extend our gratitude to S.G. Parsons and M.C.P. Bours for kindly sharing with us the observational data and research results that greatly increased the quality of this work. We also thank the anonymous referee for the careful reading of the manuscript and constructive suggestions. During the research presented in this paper, the authors received support from the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of Republic of Serbia (project No. 176004), and the Science and Technological Development Fund, Ministry for Scientific Research of Egypt (project ID 1335). We gratefully acknowledge the use of the Simbad database ([*http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/*]{}), operated at the CDS, Strasbourg, France, and NASA’s Astrophysics Data System Bibliographic Services ([*http://adsabs.harvard.edu/*]{}).
Almeida, L. A., & Jablonski, F. 2011, The Astrophysics of Planetary Systems: Formation, Structure, and Dynamical Evolution, 276, 495 Applegate, J. H. 1992, , 385, 621 Barbera, R., 1996, AVE (Analisis de Variabilidad Estelar) Version 2.5, http://www.gea.cesca.es Barnes, J. R., Jeffers, S. V., Jones, H. R. A., et al. 2015, , 812, 42 Berdyugina, S. V. 2005, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 2, 8 Bours, M. C. P., Marsh, T. R., Parsons, S. G., et al. 2016, , 460, 3873 al[i]{}[ş]{}kan, [Ş]{}., Latkovi[ć]{}, O., Djura[š]{}evi[ć]{}, G., et al. 2014, , 148, 126 Claret, A., & Bloemen, S., 2011, A&A, 529, 75 Davenport, J. R. A., Becker, A. C., West, A. A., et al. 2013, , 764, 62 Dhillon, V. S. , et al. 2007, , 378, 825 Dimitrov, D. P., & Kjurkchieva, D. P. 2010, , 406, 2559 Djuraševi' c G., 1992, Ap&SS, 196, 241 Djuraševi' c G., 1992, Ap&SS, 197, 17 Djuraševi' c G., Zakirov, M., Hojaev A., Arzumanyants G., 1998, A&AS 131, 17 Gianninas, A., Strickland, B. D., Kilic, M., & Bergeron, P. 2013, , 766, 3 Horner, J., Wittenmyer, R. A., Hinse, T. C., et al. 2013, , 435, 2033 Kawka, A., Vennes, S., Koch, R., & Williams, A. 2002, , 124, 2853 Khruzina, T. S. 1985, , 29, 55 Korhonen, H., Berdyugina, S. V., Strassmeier, K. G., et al. 2001, , 379, L30 Kraft, R. P., Mathews, J., & Greenstein, J. L. 1962, , 136, 312 Kwee, K. K., van Woerden, H., 1956, BAN, 12, 327 Lucy L. B., 1967, Zeitschritft f[" u]{}r Astrophysik, 65, 89 Marquardt D. W., 1963, J. Soc. Ind. Appl. Math. 11 (2), 431 Matranga, M., Drake, J. J., Kashyap, V., & Steeghs, D. 2012, , 747, 132 Mennickent, R. E., Djura[š]{}evi[ć]{}, G., Cabezas, M., et al. 2015, , 448, 1137 Morales, J. C., Gallardo, J., Ribas, I., et al. 2010, , 718, 502 O’Donoghue, D., Koen, C., Kilkenny, D., et al. 2003, , 345, 506 Paczy[ń]{}ski, B. 1967, , 17, 287 Paczynski, B. 1976, Structure and Evolution of Close Binary Systems, 73, 75 Parsons, S. G., Marsh, B. T., G[" a]{}nsicke, B.T. & Tappert, C., 2010, , 407, 2362 Parsons, S. G., Marsh, T. R., G[ä]{}nsicke, B. T., & Tappert, C. 2011, , 412, 2563 Parsons, S. G., Hill, C. A., Marsh, T. R., et al. 2016, , 458, 2793 Rebassa-Mansergas, A., Schreiber, M. R., & G[ä]{}nsicke, B. T. 2013, , 429, 3570 Ribas, I. 2006, , 304, 89 Ribeiro, T., Kafka, S., Baptista, R., & Tappert, C. 2010, , 139, 1106 Ruci[ń]{}ski, S.M. 1969, , 19, 245 Schuessler, M., & Solanki, S. K. 1992, , 264, L13 Stobie, R. S., Kilkenny, D., O’Donoghue, D., et al. 1997, , 287, 848 Takahama, T. & Sakai, S. , Systems and Computers in Japan, 34, 80 Verbunt, F., & Zwaan, C. 1981, , 100, L7 von Zeipel H., 1924, MNRAS, 84, 665 Wilson, R. E., Pilachowski, C. A., & Terrell, D. 2017, , 835, 251 Zacharias, N., Finch, C.T., Girard, T.M., Henden, A., Bartlett, J.L., Monet, D.G., Zacharias, M.I., 2012, VizieR Online Data Catalog 1322
[^1]: http://c-munipack.sourceforge.net
[^2]: Filters were changed after every observation in sequence.
[^3]: Observations were taken in only one filter.
[^4]: http://www.peranso.com
[^5]: Observations were made in all filters at the same time.
[^6]: 8 $\times$ Intel Core i7-4770K CPU with 16 GB RAM.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
RUNHETC-2013-20\
[**Ising Spectroscopy II:\
Particles and poles at $T > T_c$.**]{}
[**A.B. Zamolodchikov**]{}$^{1,2}$
${}^{1}$NHETC, Department of Physics and Astronomy\
Rutgers University\
Piscataway, NJ 08855-0849, USA\
${}^{2}$Institute for Information Transmission Problems\
Moscow 127994, Russia\
**Abstract**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
[October 2013]{}
Introduction
============
This paper is the second part of the project “Ising Spectroscopy” devoted to detailed study of the particle mass spectrum in the Ising field theory. The latter is the quantum field theory of the scaling domain of 2D Ising model in a magnetic field. It can be defined via the formal action $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ift}
{\cal A}_{\rm IFT} = {\cal A}_{\rm c={1/2}\ CFT}\, +\,
\frac{m}{2\pi}\int\varepsilon (x)\,d^2 x\, + \,h \int\sigma(x)\,d^2 x\ .\end{aligned}$$ Here $\cal{A}_{\text{c=1/2\ CFT}}$ represents the unitary conformal field theory with the central charge $1/2$ (which of course is the theory of free massless Majorana fermions), while $\varepsilon(x)$ and $\sigma(x)$ are two relevant primary fields of this CFT, with the conformal dimensions $(1/2,1/2)$ and $(1/16,1/16)$, respectively (see e.g. [@itzykson; @cft]). In terms of the Ising model, the parameter $h$ in is suitably scaled magnetic field, while $m \sim T_c - T$ describes the temperature deviation from the Curie point. Away from the critical point $m =0,\ h = 0$ the theory is massive, and therefore much of its physical content can be understood through its spectrum of particles, stable ones and resonances. Up to overall scale, physical content of the theory is controlled by a single dimensionless parameter
![[]{data-label="masses"}](Mhigh0.eps){width="13cm"}
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{etadef}
\eta = \frac{2\pi\,m}{\ \,|h|^{8/15}}\,.\end{aligned}$$
In particular, the number of stable particles and their masses $M_n$ change with this parameter. Figure 1 shows the behavior of few lowest masses $M_n(\eta)$ (measured in the units of $|h|^\frac{8}{15}$) at real $\eta$. This picture (obtained numerically in [@fz1]) substantiates the scenario originally proposed in Ref. [@McCoy]: when $\eta$ changes from $-\infty$ to $+\infty$ the particle spectrum evolves from a single particle to an infinite tower of “mesons” formed by weakly confined “quarks”. In the process, the mass spectrum exhibits rather intricate behavior. Understanding the mass spectrum at intermediate (and not less importantly, complex) values of $\eta$ is the main goal of this project.
In the first part, Ref.[@fz3], the focus was set on the “low-T” domain $\eta >0$, and an attempt was made to understand details of the mass spectrum there in terms of confined “quarks”. Although many interesting questions about the particle spectrum in that domain (especially the questions regarding how the masses behave near the stability thresholds, and their fate as the resonance states) were left open, here instead we make a foray into the “high-T” domain $\eta \leq 0$. In this region the spectrum of stable particles is actually relatively simple - there is always the lightest stable particle which we denote $A_1$ (and its mass $M_1$), and at sufficiently large $\eta$ in addition the heavier particles $A_2$ and $A_3$ appear. The behavior of the masses $M_1$, $M_2$ and $M_3$ as the functions of $\eta$ is shown in Fig.1. However, it is interesting to understand the analytic continuations of the functions $M_n(\eta)$ to the region where they no longer represent the masses of stable particles.
Convenient tool for addressing this question is the elastic $A_1 A_1 \to A_1
A_1$ scattering amplitude $S(\theta)$. It is a complex analytic function of the rapidity difference $\theta$ of the colliding particles, and its poles in this variable are associated with either stable particles of the theory or virtual or resonance states. In this work I address the question how the pattern of the poles of $S(\theta)$ evolves as $\eta$ changes form $0$ to $-\infty$. In fact, the domain of negative real $\eta$ represents only a part of interesting high-T region of parameters where the theory is “real”: at pure imaginary $h$ below the so called Yang-Lee critical point [@Fisher] the vacuum energy density and the particle mass $M_1$ remain real, and despite the fact that the theory is no longer unitary, it is still meaningful (and interesting) to study its S-matrix. Therefore, I will actually discuss the evolution of the pattern of poles in the wider region, when the parameter $h^2/(-m)^\frac{15}{4}$ changes from $+\infty$ to $0$, and then decreases further from $0$ to the Yang-Lee point $-\xi_{0}^2=-
0.035846...\ $. In this work I will concentrate attention on the “real” poles of $S(\theta)$, the ones that correspond to the stable particles and virtual states, because the real poles usually dominate the low-energy behavior of the scattering, and also because they are much easier to analyze. Nonetheless, remarks about some of the resonance poles will be made in Sect.4.
My analysis will be based on general principles, such as positivity of residues of the particle poles in the unitary domain of , as well as a combination of analytical and numerical data about the mass spectrum of . The analytical data include exact mass spectra at the integrable points [@itzykson; @e8; @cardy-mussardo], and the results of the perturbation theory expansions around them [@Mussardo1; @e8decay; @delfino2; @ZZy]. Numerical data is obtained by using the Truncated Free Fermion Space Approach (TFFSA) of [@fz1] (which is an adaptation of the TCSA of [@alz1] to the theory ). In this work I only use the numerical data on the masses of the stable particles, which is extracted from the finite-size energy spectra numerically evaluated via the TFFSA [@fz1]. The numerics is used as a general guidance, and also for estimating numerical values of the parameter associated with important waypoints in . Potentially, TFFSA can be also applied to for numerical evaluations of the scattering phases [@alz2], and masses and width of resonances [@tcsares]. This important task goes beyond the scope of this work.
$2\to 2$ S-matrix element. Generalities
=======================================
Since has the particle $A_1$ in its spectrum at all $\eta$, we find it useful to discuss the other particles in terms of poles in the S-matrix element $S(\theta)$ associated with the elastic $A_1 A_1 \to A_1
A_1$ scattering. Let us start with brief summary of general analytic properties of this amplitude[^1] [^2].
Analyticity and Poles
---------------------
As usual, it is convenient to characterize the kinematic states of the particles $A_1$ by their rapidities $\theta$ which parameterize the two-momenta as $p^\mu = (M_1\,\cosh\theta, M_1 \sinh\theta)$. We will use the notation $A_1(\theta)$ for the particle with the rapidity $\theta$. The $2\to
2$ S-matrix element $S(\theta)$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{s11}
\mid A_1(\theta_1)A_1(\theta_2)\,\rangle_\text{in} = S(\theta_1-\theta_2)
\mid A_1(\theta_1)A_1(\theta_2)\,\rangle_\text{out} + \text{inelastic
terms}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the “inelastic terms” include all kinematically admissible states of $n\geq 3$ particles $A_1$, as well as the states with the bound-state particles $A_2$, $A_3$, when present in the theory. By standard analyticity, $S(\theta)$ is analytic in the complex $\theta$-plane, except for poles (which will be of our primary interest here), and branching points associated with the inelastic thresholds. The $A_1 A_1 \to X$ thresholds are located at the points $\pm\,\theta_X + i\pi \mathbb{Z}\,$, where $\theta_X$ are real positive solutions of the threshold energy equations $2M_1\,\cosh(\theta_X/2)
= E_\text{min}(X)\,,$ $E_\text{min}(X)$ being the minimal energies of possible combinations $X \neq A_1 A_1$ of stable particles present in the theory. By introducing the branch cuts from $+\theta_\text{min} + i\pi\,N$ to $+\infty+i\pi\,N$, and from $-\theta_\text{min}+i\pi\,N$ to $-\infty+i\pi\,N$, $N \in \mathbb{Z}$, where $\theta_\text{min} = \inf_{X}
\theta_X$, one defines the “principal sheet” of the Riemann surface associated with $S(\theta)$ [^3]. Henceforth, speaking of complex $\theta$ we always refer to the values at the principal sheet. There, the function $S(\theta)$ satisfies the analytic conditions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{crossing}
S(\theta)=S(i\pi-\theta)\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{unitarity}
S(\theta)S(-\theta)=1\,.\end{aligned}$$ The first of them is just the standard expression of the crossing symmetry, while the second follows from elastic unitarity at real $\theta$ with $|\theta| < \theta_\text{min}$. Eq’s and imply periodicity $S(\theta+2\pi\,i)=S(\theta)$, and in what follows we concentrate attention at the strip $$\begin{aligned}
\label{fullstrip}
-\pi<\Im m\,\theta\leq\pi\,.\end{aligned}$$ In view of one may limit attention to the “physical strip” (PS) $\ 0 \leq \Im m\,\theta \leq \pi$ (which corresponds to the principal sheet of the Riemann surface for the invariant energy square $s =
4M_{1}^2\,\cosh^2(\theta/2)$), but we find it useful to keep view of the full strip . Since the values of $S(\theta)$ in the strip $-\pi
\leq \Im m\,\theta \leq 0$ are determined through its values in the physical strip via , we will refer to it as the “mirror strip” (MS).
In addition to the above analytic conditions, $S(\theta)$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
S(\theta) = S^* (-\theta^*)\,,\end{aligned}$$ i.e $S(\theta)$ is real analytic function of the variable $\alpha =
-i\theta$. It is often useful to distinguish between the positive and negative parts of the physical the mirror strips. These are defined as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{psp}
PS^{(\pm)}: \qquad \ \ \,0 \leq \Im m \,\theta \leq \pi \,, \quad \pm\,\,\Re e\,\theta > 0
\label{psm}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{msp}
MS^{(\pm)}: \qquad -\pi \leq \Im m \,\theta \leq 0 \,, \quad \pm\,\,\Re e\,\theta > 0\,.
\label{msm}\end{aligned}$$
![ []{data-label="thetaplane"}](alphaplane.eps){width="12cm"}
The amplitude $S(\theta)$ may have poles on the principal sheet. According to and , it can be generally written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{poleform}
S(\theta) = \prod_p\,\frac{\sinh\theta + i \sin\alpha_p}
{\sinh\theta - i \sin\alpha_p}\,
\ \exp\big({i\Delta(\theta)}\big)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the product factor accounts for all the poles, so that the “inelastic phase” $\Delta(\theta)$ is analytic everywhere within the principal sheet of the $\theta$-surface. It takes the real values in the lacunae $[-\theta_\text{min}: +\theta_\text{min}]$ of the real $\theta$-axis, and and hence it is a real analytic function of $\theta$ on the principal sheet. The discontinuity across the inelastic branch cut from $\theta_\text{min}$ to $\infty$ relates to the “total inelastic cross section” $\sigma_\text{tot}(\theta)$ - the total probability of all inelastic processes in the $A_1 A_1$ scattering at the center of mass energy $E=2M_1\,\cosh\frac{\theta}{2}$ - as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta(\theta+i0)-\Delta(\theta-i0) =
-i\,\,{{\log\big(1-\sigma_{\rm tot}(\theta)\big)}\over{\sinh\theta}}\end{aligned}$$ This of course is the 1+1 dimensional version of the optical theorem, which allows one to write down the dispersion relation expressing $\Delta(\theta)$ in terms of $\sigma_\text{tot}(\theta)$. Here I will not discuss the inelastic factor any further. I only note that in integrable theories all inelastic processes are forbidden, the function $\Delta(\theta)$ vanishes identically, and the function $S(\theta)$ reduces to the product factor in Eq..
Each factor in the product in is responsible for two poles on the principal sheet, located at $\theta = i\alpha_p$ and $i(\pi-\alpha_p)$, $\text{mod} \ 2i\pi \mathbb{Z}$. We denote $r_p$ the residue of $S(i\alpha)$ at the pole at $\alpha = \alpha_p$, $$\begin{aligned}
S(\theta) \simeq \frac{ir_p}{\theta - i\alpha_p}\,.\end{aligned}$$
The parameters $\alpha_p$ are subjects to certain general restrictions. Thus, the real analyticity of $S(i\alpha)$ as the function of $\alpha$ demands that $\alpha_p$ are either real or come in complex conjugated pairs; we will refer to the former as the “real poles” (as opposite to the “complex poles” with $\Im m\,\alpha_p \neq 0$). The real poles will be of the central interest in our discussion below. The residues $r_p$ at the real poles are real, and we will call the the real pole “positive” if $r_p > 0$, or “negative” if $r_p <
0$. As follows from , if the pole at $i\alpha_p$ is positive, the associated pole at $i(\pi-\alpha_p)$ is negative, and vice versa. For the complex poles we call the pole at $i\alpha_p^*$ conjugated to the pole at $i\alpha_p$.
Real poles located in the PS are generally interpreted in terms of the stable particles of the theory - the $A_1 A_1$ bound states. In unitary field theories the positivity requires that any positive pole with $\alpha_p \in
[0,\pi]$ is identified with the s-channel bound state with the mass $$\begin{aligned}
M_p = 2M_1\,\cos\frac{\alpha_{p}}{2}\,,\end{aligned}$$ while the associated negative pole at $i(\pi-\alpha_p)$ represents the same particle in the u-channel. In a non-unitary theory the s-channel bound state may be represented by a negative pole (we will encounter this situation in the theory at pure imaginary magnetic field $h$). Real poles located in the mirror strip do not correspond to any stable particles; borrowing terminology from the potential scattering, such poles are referred to as the virtual states.
The (non)symmetry of the action generally allows the particle $A_1$ to appear as the bound state pole in the $A_1 A_1$ scattering. This “$\varphi^3$ property” means that the product in always [^4] involves the factor with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{alpha1}
\alpha_1 = \frac{2\pi}{3}\,.\end{aligned}$$ This factor produces two poles in the PS; one at $\theta=2\pi i/3$, interpreted as the s-channel pole associated with the particle $A_1$, and another at $\theta=\pi i/3$, which is the corresponding u-channel pole.
Complex poles in the physical strip are forbidden by causuality. The complex poles in the MS are generally interpreted as the resonance states. Because of the crossing relation , which can be equivalently written as $S(-i\pi-\theta) = S(\theta)$, the pattern of the resonance poles in the MS is symmetric with respect to the inversion ($=180^o$ rotation) around the point $-i\pi/2$ in the $\theta$ plane. For this reason the resonance content of the elastic $A_1 A_1$ scattering is completely determined by the poles located in MS$^{(+)}$, Eq.. For a resonance pole at $\theta=i\alpha_p\ \in MS^{(+)}$ $$\begin{aligned}
i\alpha_p = \beta_p - i\gamma_p\end{aligned}$$ with real $\beta_p> 0\,$ and $\pi >\gamma_p>0\,$ the s-channel complex mass $M_p = 2M_1 \,\cos(\alpha_p/2)$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mpres}
M_p = {\bar M}_p -i\Gamma_p\,, \qquad {\bar M}_p = 2M_1\,\cos\frac{\gamma_p}{2}\,\,\cosh\frac{\beta_p}{2}\,,
\quad \Gamma_p = 2M_1\,\sin\frac{\gamma_p}{2}\,\,\sinh\frac{\beta_p}{2}\,,\end{aligned}$$ so that both ${\bar M}_p$ and $\Gamma_p$ are positive, and such poles admit interpretation as the resonance states in the s-channel, with ${\bar M}_p$ and $\Gamma_p$ identified with the center of mass mean energy and the width of the resonance state[^5]. Complex poles located in $MS^{(-)}$ are interpreted as the u-channel resonances.
Because of the crossing symmetry of the $A_1 A_1$ scattering, the resonance poles generally appear in the MS$^{(+)}$ in pairs: $i\alpha_p$ comes along with $i(-\pi-\alpha_{p}^*)$. We call these pairs “cross-conjugated”[^6]. Exceptions are the poles with $\gamma_p=\pi/2$; for such poles $-\pi-\alpha_{p}^* =
\alpha_p\ \text{mod}\ 2\pi\,\mathbb{Z}$. We call such special poles self cross-conjugated (not to be confused with real poles defined above).
Pole evolution
==============
Let us return to the specific field theory . In this work we concentrate attention at the high-T domain $m<0$, where the $h=0$ theory has an unbroken symmetry $\sigma \to -\sigma$. As the result, at $h\neq 0$ the most important characteristics (mass spectrum, S-matrix) are even functions of $h$. Therefore in this domain it is convenient to consider the dependence of the theory on the dimensionless variable $$\begin{aligned}
\label{xxidef}
\xi^2 = \frac{h^2}{(-m)^\frac{15}{4}}\,.\end{aligned}$$ It is commonly assumed that, as the functions of this variable, the characteristics of the theory admit analytic continuation to the whole complex $\xi^2$-plane with the branch cut along the negative real axis, from $-\infty$ to $-\xi_{0}^2$, as shown in Fig.3a. The numerical value $$\begin{aligned}
\label{xxi0}
\xi_{0}^2=0.035846(4)\end{aligned}$$
![[]{data-label="masses"}](xxiplane1-a.eps "fig:"){width="9cm"} ![[]{data-label="masses"}](M1xxi-b.eps "fig:"){width="7cm"}
was estimates in [@fz1][^7]. The point $-\xi_{0}^2$ is the so called Yang-Lee edge singularity. It is a critical point in the sense that the mass $M_1$ of the particle $A_1$ vanishes at this point (see Fig.3b) [@Fisher]. The CFT associated with this critical point was identified as the $\mathcal{M}_{2/5}$ nonunitary minimal model with the central charge $c_{YL}=-22/5$ [@Cardy].
At real positive $\xi^2$ the theory is unitary (both the parameters $m$ and $h$ can be taken real). The negative part of the real axis in Fig.3a is realized by pure imaginary values of the magnetic field $h$, so here the unitarity is violated. However, at real $\xi^2 > -\xi_{0}^2$ the theory remains “real” in the sense that the ground state energy and the particle mass remains real, and the S-matrix still enjoys all the real analyticity (but not positivity) conditions stated in Sect.2 [^8]. The most obvious manifestation of the non-unitarity in this domain is negative residue of the $A_1$-particle pole of $S(\theta)$ (see below).
In this work we discuss the theory at the values of the parameter $\xi^2$ along the segment $\xi^2 > -\xi_{0}^2$ of the real axis in the Fig.3a. The spectrum of stable particles is relatively simple - there is the particle $A_1$ at all these values of $\xi^2$, and at sufficiently large positive $\xi^2$ (at $\xi^2 > \xi_{2}^2$, and at $\xi^2 > \xi_{3}^2$, respectively, where $\xi_2 = 0.253(5)$, $\xi_3 = 41(2)$) the stable particles $A_2$ and $A_3$ appear in the spectrum [^9]. However, the spectrum of the virtual and resonance states is more rich. Below I describe the evolution of the pole structure of $S(\theta)$ as the parameter $\xi^2$ changes from $+\infty$ to $0$, and then from $0$ to the Yang-Lee point $-\xi_{0}^2$. I will pay most attention to the real poles; once a pole at $i\alpha_p$ leaves the imaginary $\theta$-axis, I usually will not attempt to follow its fate as a complex pole. The reasons for this are as follows. First, the low-energy behavior of the the elastic scattering amplitude $S(\theta)$ is usually dominated by its real-pole content. But more significantly, there still is very little amount of data, both analytical and numeric, about high-energy behavior of scattering amplitudes (see however [@ZZy]), and about high energy resonance states in particular. The main goal of this note is to put forward a scenario for the evolution of the real poles of $S(\theta)$ when $\xi^2$ changes from $-\infty$ down to $-\xi_{0}^2$. However, I will make remarks about evolution of some resonance poles in Sect.4.
Although the parameter $\xi^2$ is quite suitable for the needs of the present discussion, to facilitate comparison with Refs.[@fz1; @fz3] I will frequently discuss simultaneously in terms of the related scaling parameter $\eta$ defined in Eq.. Generally, these parameters are related by the complex-analytic map $$\begin{aligned}
\xi^2 = \frac{1}{(-\eta)^\frac{15}{4}}\,, \qquad
\left|\text{arg}(-\eta)\right| \leq \frac{4\pi}{15}\,,\end{aligned}$$ with the branch chosen in such a way that the negative part of the $\eta$-axis is mapped to real positive $\xi^2$. Then, while positive real $\xi^2$ are represented by negative real $\eta$, negative $\xi^2$ correspond to complex $\eta$ along certain rays in the $\eta$-plane, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{yrays}
\xi^2 <0 \ : \quad \rightarrow\quad \eta = y \,e^{\pm\frac{4\pi i}{15}}\quad
\text{with real} \ \ y<0\,.\end{aligned}$$ The segment $-\xi_{0}^2 < \xi^2 < 0$ is given by $y < -Y_0$, where $$\begin{aligned}
Y_0 = (\xi_{0}^2)^\frac{4}{15} = 2.42929(2)\,.\end{aligned}$$
Integrable points
-----------------
There are three special points in the parameter space of the theory where the amplitude $S(\theta)$ is known exactly:
**(a)**: $\xi^2=+\infty$ ($\eta=0$), which corresponds to $m=0$, $h\neq
0$. At this point the theory is integrable, and its spectrum involves 8 stable particles $A_1, \ A_1,\ ...,\ A_8$ whose masses $M_1,\
M_2,\ ..., M_8$ are given by the components of the Perron-Frobenius vector of the Cartan matrix of the Lie algebra $E_8$. The scattering theory is described by the reflection-less factorizable S-matrix [@e8]. $A_1$ is the lightest particle, and $A_1 A_1$ elastic scattering is given by with $\Delta(\theta)=0$ and three pole factors, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{szero}
S(\theta) = \frac{\sinh\theta+i\sin(2\pi/3)}{\sinh\theta-i\sin(2\pi/3)}
\,\frac{\sinh\theta+i\sin(2\pi/5)}{\sinh\theta-i\sin(2\pi/5)}
\,\frac{\sinh\theta+i\sin(\pi/15)}{\sinh\theta-i\sin(\pi/15)}\,.\end{aligned}$$ All the poles here are located in the physical strip, at $\theta= i\alpha_p$ and $\theta=i(\pi-\alpha_p)$, $p=1,2,3$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_1 =\frac{2\pi}{3}\,,\qquad\alpha_2 = \frac{2\pi}{5}\,,
\qquad \alpha_3 = \frac{\pi}{15}\,.\end{aligned}$$ While the pole at $\theta = 2\pi i/3$ represents the s-channel particle $A_1$ itself, the poles at $\theta=2\pi i/5$ and $\theta=i\pi/15$ correspond to heavier stable particles $A_2$ and $A_3$, with the masses $$\begin{aligned}
M_2 = 2 M_1\,\cos(\pi/5)\,, \qquad M_3 = 2 M_1\,\cos(\pi/30)\,.\end{aligned}$$ As usual, the poles at $i(\pi-\alpha_p)$ are the u-channel manifestations of the same particles. The pattern of poles and zeroes of $S(\theta)$ is shown in Fig.4a. Although the poles associated with the higher stable particles $A_4,\ ...\,, A_8$ are not present in $S(\theta)$, such poles show up in other elastic scattering amplitudes [@e8]. Observe that (i) $S(\theta)$ has no zeros in the PS, and (ii) There is one u-channel pole $i(\pi-\alpha_p)$ in between any two s-channel poles $i\alpha_i$. These two conditions, together with easily verified $S(0) = -1$, guarantee that the residues $r_p$ at the s-channel poles $i\alpha_p$, $p=1,2,3$, are all positive.
**(b)**: $\xi^2 =0$ ($\eta=-\infty$), which corresponds to $h=0$ with $m
<0$. At zero magnetic field the reduces to the theory of free Majorana fermi field with the mass $m$. The free particle is $A_1$, hence at this point $M_1 =m$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sh0}
S(\theta) = -1\,.\end{aligned}$$
**(c)**: $\xi^2 = -\xi_{0}^2+0$ ($\eta=(-Y_0-0)\,e^{\pm\frac{4\pi
i}{15}}$). The integrable theory appears in the scaling limit $\xi^2 \to
-\xi_{0}^2$ near the Yang-Lee critical point. As was already mentioned, as $\xi^2$ approaches the Yang-Lee point the mass $M_1$ of the particle $M_1$ vanishes as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{m1yl}
M_1 \sim (\xi^2 + \xi_0^2)^{5/12}\,,\end{aligned}$$ while the masses of all resonances (there are no other stable particles near the Yang-Lee point) remain finite in this limit. Therefore, when measured in the units of $M_1$, all these masses depart to infinity at $\xi^2 \to \xi_0^2
+ 0$. The resulting scattering theory of the particles $A_1$ turns out to be integrable, with the $2\to 2$ S-matrix given by [@cardy-mussardo] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{syl}
S(\theta) = \frac{\sinh\theta+i\sin\alpha_1}{\sinh\theta-i\sin\alpha_1}\,, \qquad
\alpha_1 = \frac{2\pi}{3}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Except for the poles at $i\alpha_1$, Eq., and $i(\pi-\alpha_1)$, which correspond to the s- and u- channel manifestations of the $A_1$, there are no real or complex poles. Note that $S(0)=-1$, and that $r_1 = -2\sqrt{3}$ is negative.
Positive $\boldsymbol{\xi^2}$ (real negative $\boldsymbol{\eta}$)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The goal of this subsection is to analyze how the pattern of poles in (see Fig.4a) evolves into the trivial pattern (no poles, no zeros) associated with the free particle S-matrix when $\xi^2$ changes from $+\infty$ down to $0$. The arguments will be based partly on the general properties of the S-matrix (see Sect.2), and partly on the numerical and perturbative data about the mass spectrum of . Since the theory with real $m$ and $h$ is unitary, the general properties include the condition that all s-channel poles associated with stable particles remain positive during the evolution. We also assume that the parameters $$\begin{aligned}
B_p = \sin\alpha_p\end{aligned}$$ depend on $\xi^2$ in an analytic way along the whole segment $(-\xi_{0}^2:+\infty]$ [^10]. The pole at $\theta = i\alpha_1$ is interpreted as the s-channel particle $A_1$, and therefore $\alpha_1$ remains fixed to the value during the whole evolution. We need to figure out the behavior of the remaining $\alpha_p$.
When $\xi^2$ is large (equivalently, $\eta$ is small) the theory is in the perturbative domain around the integrable point [**(a)**]{}. The leading corrections to the mass ratios $M_2/M_1$ and $M_3/M_1$ were found in [@Mussardo1; @delfino2], using the form factor perturbation theory. From these, and the numerical data, one finds $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_2 = \frac{2\pi}{5} + \alpha_2^{(1)}\,\eta + \alpha_{2}^{(2)}\,\eta^2 +
...\,,\qquad
\alpha_3 = \frac{\pi}{15} + \alpha_3^{(1)}\,\eta + \alpha_{3}^{(2)}\,\eta^2 +
...\,,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&&\alpha_{2}^{(1)} = 0.378325... \,, \qquad \alpha_2^{(2)} = -0.1153\,, \\
&&\alpha_{3}^{(1)} = 1.35226...\,, \qquad \ \, \alpha_3^{(2)} = -1.10\,,\end{aligned}$$ When $\eta$ decreases from $0$ to negative values, the parameters $\alpha_2$ and $\alpha_3$ both decrease, so that the associated poles move towards zero (see Fig.4b). Simultaneously, a number of additional complex poles appear; these resonance poles are ignored in Fig’s 4 and 5. I postpone comments about them to Sect.4. At certain value $\eta=\eta_3$ the pole at $i\alpha_3$ crosses zero. At this point $M_3/M_1=2$. Numerical data yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eta3}
\eta_3 = - 0.138(6) \qquad\quad (\xi_{3} = 41(3))\end{aligned}$$
![[]{data-label="patterns"}](pattern-0.00a.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"} ![[]{data-label="patterns"}](pattern-0.08b.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"} 0.3cm ![[]{data-label="patterns"}](pattern-0.27c.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"} ![[]{data-label="patterns"}](pattern-0.49d.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"}
and $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_3(\eta) = \alpha_{3}'\,(\eta-\eta_3) + O\left((\eta-\eta_3)^2\right)\,,
\qquad \alpha_{3}' \approx 1.65\,.\end{aligned}$$ At $\eta < \eta_3$ the pole $i\alpha_3$ leaves the PS and enters the MS (Fig.4c), so that the particle $A_3$ disappears from the spectrum of stable particles, becoming a virtual state. After crossing to MS $i\alpha_3$ becomes a negative pole (the residue $r_p \sim \sin\alpha_p$). However, we will still associate the pole at $i\alpha_3$ with the “particle” $A_3$, now a virtual state, and call it the “$A_3$ pole”. Note that although below $\eta_3$ the number of stable particles in changes from three to two, the number of pairs of real poles in $S(\theta)$ remains equal to three all the way down to somewhat lower value of $\eta$ (see Eq. below).
When $\eta$ continues to decrease from $\eta_3$ down, the next interesting event occurs at $$\begin{aligned}
\eta_{12} = -0.477(4) \qquad\quad (\xi_{12} = 4.01(6))\end{aligned}$$ where the mass ratio $M_2/M_1$ reaches the value $\sqrt{3}$. At this point the pole at $i\alpha_2$, on its way towards zero, crosses the point $i(\pi-\alpha_1)=i\pi/3$ where the u-channel pole of the particle $A_1$ sits. After that, these poles interchange their order along the imaginary $\theta$-axis. Without additional poles or zeros around, after such “pole crossing” the formerly positive pole $i\alpha_2$ would become a negative one, while the pole at $i\pi/3$ would become a positive pole. But unitarity demands that the poles must retain their signatures as long as $\eta$ remains real. The only way this can happen is if there is a zero of $S(\theta)$ located in the PS which passes through $i\pi/3$ at the same point $\eta=\eta_{12}$. There is only one pair of zeros in the PS in this domain of $\eta$ - the zeros at $-i\alpha_3$ and $i(\pi+\alpha_3)$ (these are the “mirror images” of the poles $i\alpha_3$ and $i(-\pi-\alpha_3)$ which at $\eta < \eta_3$ are already in the MS). Therefore, we must have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eta12a}
\eta_{12}: \qquad \alpha_2=\pi/3\,, \quad \alpha_3=-\pi/3\,.\end{aligned}$$ The pattern of poles at $\eta$ immediately above and immediately below $\eta_{12}$ are shown in Fig.4c and Fig.4d.
As $\eta$ decreases further from $\eta_{12}$, already negative $B_3=\sin\alpha_3$ continues to decrease, and at certain $\eta=\eta_{33}$ it crosses $-1$. At this point the poles $i\alpha_{3}$ and $-i(\pi+\alpha_3)$ collide at the middle of MS, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eta33a}
\eta_{33}: \qquad \alpha_{3} = -(\pi+\alpha_3) = -\pi/2\,,\end{aligned}$$
![ []{data-label="patterns"}](pattern-0.94a.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"} ![ []{data-label="patterns"}](pattern-1.87b.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"} 0.3cm ![ []{data-label="patterns"}](pattern-2.29c.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"} ![ []{data-label="patterns"}](pattern-4.35d.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"}
and at $\eta<\eta_3$ they become a pair of self cross-conjugated complex poles, moving away from the imaginary $\theta$-axis as $ -i\pi/2\mp
\beta_3$ with real $\beta_3$ (Fig.5a). Therefore, below $\eta_{33}$ the number of real poles changes from three to two. Note that at $\eta_{33}$ the analytic continuation of $M_3/M_1$ takes the value $\sqrt{2}$, and immediately below this point $M_3$ becomes complex. The numerical value $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eta33}
\eta_{33} = -0.51(2) \qquad\quad (\xi_{33}=3.5(3))\end{aligned}$$
![[]{data-label="patterns"}](B3plot.eps){width="10cm"}
was estimated by extrapolating the data for $B_3$ from the domain of $\eta$ above $\eta_3$, where the mass ratio $M_3/M_1$ is directly available from TFFSA. The plot in Fig.6 suggests that as $\eta$ decreases further down from $\eta_{33}$ the poles $i\alpha_3$ and $i\alpha_{3}^*$ rapidly move away from the real axis, so that almost immediately below $\eta_{33}$ the $A_3$ pole becomes a high energy resonance. At the moment we do not have anything but speculations about its fate at $\eta$ substantially below $\eta_{33}$ [^11].
As for the remaining real poles, at $\eta$ below $\eta_{33}$ the pole $i\alpha_2$ continues to move towards zero, and at $\eta = \eta_2$ it too crosses into MP. Again, from TFFSA data on $M_2/M_1$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eta2}
\eta_2 = -2.08(2)\qquad \quad (\xi_{2} =0.253(5))\,.\end{aligned}$$ Below $\eta_2$ the particle $A_2$ ceases to exist as a stable particle, becoming a virtual state instead, but as with $i\alpha_3$, we will continue to call $i\alpha_2$ the “$A_2$ pole”. At $\eta < \eta_2$ the real spectrum of stable particles of involves a single neutral particle $A_1$. The patterns of poles and zeros of $S(\theta)$ just above and just below $\eta_2$ are shown in Figures 5b and 5c, respectively. Note that since below $\eta_2$ the $A_2$ pole remains real, the analytic continuation of $M_2$ remains real and below $2 M_1$ as well; in fact, it is real for all $\xi^2 > \xi_{22}^2$ (see below).
As $\eta$ decreases further, the pole $i\alpha_2$ sinks deeper into MS, and eventually it approaches the point $-i\pi/3$ where the fixed zero (mirror image of the u-channel $A_1$ pole $i(\pi-\alpha_1)=i\pi/3$) sits. When $\alpha_2$ is close to $-\pi/3$ the residue $r_1$ at the $A_1$ pole $i\alpha_1=2\pi i/3$ becomes small (recall that in this limit the mirror zero of the u-cannel $A_2$ pole $i(\pi-\alpha_2)$ approaches the $A_1$ pole, as seen in Fig.5d), $$\begin{aligned}
\label{r1alpha}
r_1\ \sim\ \alpha_2+\pi/3\,.\end{aligned}$$ This is exactly what is expected in at small $h$. Indeed, the residue $r_1$ vanishes at $h=0$ since we have to have , and the leading perturbative contribution is [@ZZy] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{r1pert}
r_1 = 36\,{\bar s}^2\,\xi^2 + O(\xi^4)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bar s} = 2^{1/{12}}\,\,e^{-{3\over 2}\,\zeta'(-1)} =
1.35783834170660...$ is the constant appearing in the one-particle matrix element $\langle \,0\mid \sigma(0)\mid A_1 \,\rangle = {\bar
s}\,\,(-m)^\frac{1}{8}$ [@spinspin]. We conclude that at large negative $\eta$ $\ \alpha_2$ approaches $-\pi/3$ from above as $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_2 = - \frac{\pi}{3} + \frac{36\,{\bar s}^2}
{(-\eta)^\frac{15}{4}}
+ O\left((-\eta)^{-\frac{15}{2}}\right)\,.\end{aligned}$$ In the limit $\eta=-\infty$ (i.e. at $\xi^2=0$) the pole $i\alpha_2$ gets canceled by the fixed zero at $-i\pi/3$, and thus all real poles disappear, consistently with . Of course, also demands that all the resonance poles (which we left without attention so far) disappear in this limit as well.
Negative $\boldsymbol{\xi^2 > \xi_{0}^2}$
-----------------------------------------
In the previous subsection we have described the evolution of the real poles of $S(\theta)$ when $\xi^2$ changed from $+\infty$ to $0$ (equivalently, real $\eta$ changed from $0$ to $-\infty$). This evolution can be extended to negative $\xi^2$ above the Yang-Lee point $-\xi_{0}^2$. The latter values correspond to pure imaginary $h$ between zero and $\pm\,i\xi_{0}\,|m|^{15/8}$. In terms of $\eta$ we will be dealing with the values along the rays with $-\infty<y<-Y_0$.
As we have seen above, at small positive $\xi^2$ the $A_2$ pole is located close to the right of the fixed zero $i\pi/3$, and at $\xi^2=0$ this zero exactly cancels the pole, leading to the trivial amplitude . As $\xi^2$ becomes small negative the $A_2$ pole re-emerges to the left of the fixed zero $i\pi/3$. In terms of the variable $y$ defined in Eq. we have $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_2 = - \frac{\pi}{3} - \frac{36\,{\bar s}^2}
{(-y)^\frac{15}{4}}
+ O\left((-y)^{-\frac{15}{2}}\right)\,.\end{aligned}$$
![Poles and zeros of $S(i\alpha)$ in the complex $\alpha$-plane, at some values of the scaling parameter corresponding to pure imaginary magnetic field $h$, i.e. with $\eta$ is taken along the rays . (a) $\ y=-5.10$. The $A_2$ pole in the MS moves away to the left from the zero at $-i\pi/3$. (b) $y=-4.75$. The real poles at $\alpha_2$ and $-\pi-\alpha_2$ approach each other. (c) $y=-4.00$. After colliding at $-\pi/2$ the poles at $\alpha_2,-\pi-\alpha_2$ become complex poles. (d) $y = -2.65$. The poles $\alpha_2, \alpha_{2}^*$ move away from the real $\alpha$-axis, quickly becoming high-energy resonances. []{data-label="patterns"}](pattern-y-5.10a.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"} ![Poles and zeros of $S(i\alpha)$ in the complex $\alpha$-plane, at some values of the scaling parameter corresponding to pure imaginary magnetic field $h$, i.e. with $\eta$ is taken along the rays . (a) $\ y=-5.10$. The $A_2$ pole in the MS moves away to the left from the zero at $-i\pi/3$. (b) $y=-4.75$. The real poles at $\alpha_2$ and $-\pi-\alpha_2$ approach each other. (c) $y=-4.00$. After colliding at $-\pi/2$ the poles at $\alpha_2,-\pi-\alpha_2$ become complex poles. (d) $y = -2.65$. The poles $\alpha_2, \alpha_{2}^*$ move away from the real $\alpha$-axis, quickly becoming high-energy resonances. []{data-label="patterns"}](pattern-y-4.75b.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"} 0.3cm ![Poles and zeros of $S(i\alpha)$ in the complex $\alpha$-plane, at some values of the scaling parameter corresponding to pure imaginary magnetic field $h$, i.e. with $\eta$ is taken along the rays . (a) $\ y=-5.10$. The $A_2$ pole in the MS moves away to the left from the zero at $-i\pi/3$. (b) $y=-4.75$. The real poles at $\alpha_2$ and $-\pi-\alpha_2$ approach each other. (c) $y=-4.00$. After colliding at $-\pi/2$ the poles at $\alpha_2,-\pi-\alpha_2$ become complex poles. (d) $y = -2.65$. The poles $\alpha_2, \alpha_{2}^*$ move away from the real $\alpha$-axis, quickly becoming high-energy resonances. []{data-label="patterns"}](pattern-y-4.00c.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"} ![Poles and zeros of $S(i\alpha)$ in the complex $\alpha$-plane, at some values of the scaling parameter corresponding to pure imaginary magnetic field $h$, i.e. with $\eta$ is taken along the rays . (a) $\ y=-5.10$. The $A_2$ pole in the MS moves away to the left from the zero at $-i\pi/3$. (b) $y=-4.75$. The real poles at $\alpha_2$ and $-\pi-\alpha_2$ approach each other. (c) $y=-4.00$. After colliding at $-\pi/2$ the poles at $\alpha_2,-\pi-\alpha_2$ become complex poles. (d) $y = -2.65$. The poles $\alpha_2, \alpha_{2}^*$ move away from the real $\alpha$-axis, quickly becoming high-energy resonances. []{data-label="patterns"}](pattern-y-2.65d.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"}
Correspondingly, at small negative $\xi^2$ the zero $i(\pi+\alpha_2)$ appears close to the right from the $A_1$ pole (Fig.7a). The equation remains valid at negative $\xi^2$; the fact that the residue at the $A_1$ pole becomes negative is consistent with the non-unitarity of the theory at $\xi^2 <0$.
As $\xi^2$ continues to decrease further from zero, the parameter $B_2=\sin\alpha_2$, already negative at $\xi^2 < \xi_{2}^2$, continues to decrease as well, and at certain value $\xi_{22}^2$ it crosses the value $-1$. Although below $\xi_{2}^2$ $\ M_2$, and hence $B_2$, can not be extracted directly from the TFFSA data, it can be estimated using certain dispersion relation [@zyl]. This yields the numerical value of $\xi_{22}^2$, which we quote in terms of the variable $y$ (Eq.) as well as $\xi^2$, $$\begin{aligned}
y_{22}=-4.46(4) \qquad\quad (\xi_{22}^2 = -0.0036(2))\,.\end{aligned}$$ At $\xi_{22}^2$ the poles $i\alpha_2$ and $i(-\pi-\alpha_2)$ collide at $-i\pi/2$, and at $\xi^2 < \xi_{22}^2$ they move away from the imaginary $\theta$-axis as a pair of self cross-conjugated complex poles. The patterns of real poles of $S(\theta)$ slightly above and slightly below $\xi_{22}^2$ are shown in Figs 7b and 7c, respectively. Finally, as $\xi^2$ approaches $-\xi_{0}^2$ from above, the poles $(i\alpha_2,i\alpha_{2}^*) =
(-i\pi/2+\beta_2,-i\pi/2-\beta_2)$ depart to infinity[^12], and the only poles of $S(\theta)$ left are the s- and u- channel $A_1$ poles at $2\pi i/3$ and $\pi i/3$ (Fig.7d). Simultaneously, as $\xi^2 \to \xi_{0}^2 +0$ the discontinuities across the inelastic branch cuts disappear[^13], and in the limit $S(\theta)$ reduces to .
Resonances
==========
Although in this work I am not going to discuss behavior of the resonance poles in any systematic way, here some comments on this issue will be made.
Clearly, the amplitude $S(\theta)$ generally has some number of resonance poles. We have already observed that the $A_3$ and $A_2$ poles at $i\alpha_3$ and $i\alpha_3$, together with their cross-poles, become self cross-conjugated complex poles when $\xi^2$ gets below certain values $\xi_{33}^2$ and $\xi_{22}^2$, respectively. But certainly there may be more resonance poles. For instance, it was already mentioned that the integrable theory at $\eta=0$ involves eight stable particles which we refer to as $A_1$, $A_2$, ..., $A_8$. Only the first three of these particles, $A_1$, $A_2$ and $A_3$, remain stable when $\eta$ is shifted away from the integrable point $\eta=0$. The other five particles $A_4, A_5, ..., A_8$ loose stability becoming resonances, and their masses $M_4, M_5, ..., M_8$ acquire imaginary parts, as in . In fact, for the lowest of them, $A_4$ and $A_5$ the widths $\Gamma_4$ and $\Gamma_5$ were computed to the order $\eta^2$ via form-factor perturbation theory in $\eta$ [@e8decay]. Below I attempt to follow the fate of some of the associated complex poles at negative $\eta$, until the poles leave the principal sheet of the Riemann surface of $S(\theta)$.
Let me start with the following (well known) observation. At $\eta=0$ the mass $M_3$ of $A_3$ appears to be located very close below the threshold $2M_1$, i.e. the difference $$\begin{aligned}
\label{epsilon2}
\varepsilon_2 = 2 M_1-M_3 = 4M_1\,\sin^2 \frac{\pi}{60} \approx 0.0109562\ M_1\end{aligned}$$ is numerically small in the units of $M_1$. This means that at $\eta=0$ the particle $A_3$ can be interpreted as a weakly coupled two-particle $A_1 A_1$ bound state. It is also well known that in $1+1$ dimensions neutral particles that form two-particle bound state also tend to form three- four- and generally $k$-particle bound states, with the binding energies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{epsilonk}
\varepsilon_k \simeq \frac{k^3-k}{3!}\,\varepsilon_2\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\varepsilon_2$ is the binding energy of the two-particle bound state. This is because when the particles are weakly bound, the system is well approximated by non-relativistic Bose particles with attractive delta-function interaction, from which follows [@deltagas0; @deltagas1]. Indeed, typical momenta of the particles constituting a weakly coupled bound state are small in the units of $M_1$, making it possible to use non-relativistic theory. Also, the size of the bound state is much greater then the effective interaction range ($\sim
M_{1}^{-1}$), allowing to approximate the pairwise interactions by delta-function potentials. One can show that direct multi-particle interactions become negligible in the limit when the binding energy goes to zero. Note that even if $\varepsilon_2$ is small, this approximation applies only to finitely many lowest $k$-particle bound states since at sufficiently large $k$ the energies become comparable with $M_1$, and the approximation breaks down.
The above argument suggests, in particular, that at $\eta=0$ we have to observe weakly coupled three- , four- , and perhaps multi - particle bound states of $A_1$, with the binding energies approximately given by . And indeed, as it turns, $M_5$ is numerically close to $3M_1$, $M_7$ is close to $4M_1$, and $M_8$ is close to $5M_5$. Using exact mass ratios [@e8], let us compute the binding energies and compare them to the approximation , $$\begin{aligned}
&&3M_1 - M_5 = \left(3-4\,\cos\frac{\pi}{5}\,
\cos\frac{2\pi}{15}\right)\,M_1 =\,\,0.043704\ M_1\,, \quad
\varepsilon_3 = 0.043824\ M_1\,,\nonumber\\
&&4 M_1 - M_7 = \left(4-8\,\cos^2 \frac{\pi}{5}\,\cos\frac{7\pi}{30}\right)\,M_1 =
0.108843\ M_1\,, \quad
\varepsilon_4 = 0.109562\ M_1\,,\label{epsilons}
\\
&& 5 M_1 - M_8 = \left(5-8\,\cos^2 \frac{\pi}{5}\,
\cos\frac{2\pi}{15}\right)\,M_1 = 0.216613\ M_1\,, \quad
\varepsilon_5 = 0.219124\ M_1\,.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ I would like to emphasize that at $\eta=0$, while the mass spectrum of [@e8] is exact, is only an approximation – after all, $\varepsilon_2$ in is only numerically small. Nonetheless, numerical agreement between the exact mass spectrum and the weak binding approximation is remarkably good - curiously enough, the Perron-Frobenius vector of the Cartan matrix of $E_8$ “knows” about weakly interacting particles. Also note that $\varepsilon_5$ in is already comparable to $M_1$, so for greater values of $k$ one should not expect the above arguments to be too reliable.
Consider small nonzero $\eta$. Now the integrability of the theory is broken, and the particles $A_4$, $A_5$, ..., $A_8$ become unstable against decays into the lighter particles. Correspondingly, the masses $M_4, M_5, ..., M_8$ immediately become complex, with small imaginary parts $\Gamma_n \sim \eta^2$. Although all five particles $A_4$, $A_5$, ..., $A_8$ turn into resonances, below we argue that the widths of the resonances $A_5$, $A_7$, $A_8$ remain small at all $\eta$ between $0$ and $\eta_3$, and go back to zero as $\eta$ approaches $\eta_3$. When $\eta$ decreases below $\eta_3$ these three particles likely cease to exist even as the resonance states (the corresponding poles leave the principal sheet of the Riemann surface of $S(\theta)$). It is plausible that in a similar manner, the widths of the resonances $A_4$ and $A_6$ go to zero when $\eta$ approaches $\eta_2$ from above, and below $\eta_2$ these resonances disappear.
As was already discussed in Sect.3, as $\eta$ becomes negative, the parameter $\alpha_3$, already as small as $\pi/15$ at $\eta=0$, moves even closer to zero. As long as it remains positive, the particle $A_3$ remains stable, but its mass $M_3 = 2M_1\,\cos\frac{\alpha_3}{2}$ approaches $2M_1$, and its description as the weakly coupled bound state of two $A_1$ particles with the binding energy $$\begin{aligned}
\varepsilon_2 \simeq 4M_1\,\sin^2\frac{\alpha_3}{2}\end{aligned}$$ become yet more accurate. Therefore there is even better reason to expect the presence of weakly coupled $k$-particle bound states with $k$ greater then 2 when $\eta$ gets closer to $\eta_3$. Moreover, Eq. gives the better approximations of the binding energies the closer $\alpha_3$ to zero is. Of course, at nonzero $\eta$ exact integrability is violated, and the bound states with $k \geq 3$ are unstable against decays into lighter particles. However, it is possible to argue that the decay rates of the $k$-particle bound states are suppressed at least as $\varepsilon_{2}^{k-1}$, therefore these resonances become very narrow ($\Gamma \sim
(\eta-\eta_3)^{2(k-1)}$) as $\eta$ approaches $\eta_3$ from above. When $\eta$ crosses $\eta_3$ the resonance poles merge with inelastic thresholds, and then likely move on to further sheets of the Riemann surface of $S(\theta)$. Below $\eta_3$ the particles $A_5$, $A_7$, $A_8$ disappear even as the resonance states, at least in the definition given in Sect. 2. On the basis of the above argument I predict that the width of the resonances $A_5$, $A_7$, $A_8$ remain very small in the domain $\eta_3 < \eta < 0$, and their masses in this domain are very well approximated by the equation $\left(k-(k^3-k)\alpha_{3}^2/24\right)\,M_1$, $k=3,4,5$. It would be interesting to test this prediction against numerical data. Existing TFFSA data is consistent with the prediction, but substantial improvements (mostly in proper handling of the finite size effects) are needed in order to make meaningful comparison.
There are several questions related to the above argument. If the binding energy is sufficiently small, one expects to have $k$-particle bound states with any $k$. But at $\eta=0$ we do not see bound states with $k > 5$. Perhaps at this point the binding energy is not sufficiently small. However as $\eta$ decreases, and the binding energy becomes smaller, the higher bound states have to appear. Where they could come from? At this time I do not have good answer to this question. I could only speculate that their emergence can interfere with the formations of bound states of heavier resonances. Note in this connection that if the weak binding approximation with $k=6$ is applied at $\eta=0$, the resulting binding energy $\varepsilon_6 =
0.383467\ M_1$ would be numerically close to the difference $6 M_1 - M_4 -M_6
=0.3769\ M_1$.
Another question concerns the fate of the resonances $A_4$ and $A_6$, which were missed in the above scenario. Their $\eta=0$ masses [@e8] $$\begin{aligned}
&&M_4=4 M_1\,\cos\frac{\pi}{5}\, \cos\frac{7\pi}{30} =2.404867\ M_1 \,,\nonumber\\
&&M_6 = 4 M_1\,\cos\frac{\pi}{5}\,\cos\frac{\pi}{30} =3.218340\ M_1\end{aligned}$$ do not seem to suggest any weakly coupled bound state structure. At small $\eta \neq 0$, of course they too become resonances. Then, apart from the opening of narrow decay channel(s), there are no reasons to expect dramatic structural changes in these particles at small nonzero $\eta$. And indeed, TFFSA data show the presence of the $A_4$ and (somewhat less convincingly) $A_6$ resonances at $\eta$ well below $\eta_3$. However the ratios ${\bar
M}_4/M_1$ and ${\bar M}_6/M_1$ (${\bar M}_n$ are the real parts of the masses $M_n$, Eq.) increase as $\eta$ decreases from $0$. Recall that as $\eta$ approaches $\eta_2$ (Eq.) from above, the mass $M_2$ gets close to the threshold $2 M_1$ – now $A_2$ becomes weakly coupled $A_1
A_1$ bound state. Therefore, at $\eta$ slightly above $\eta_2$ one expects to have a number of narrow resonances with the (complex) masses close to $k
M_1$, $k=3,4,...$, and with the “binding energies” well approximated by , where now $\varepsilon_2=2M_1-M_2$. It is tempting to speculate that as $\eta$ decreases to the values slightly above $\eta_2$, the resonances $A_4$ and $A_6$ assume the role of the weakly coupled three- and four- particle bound states of $A_1$. This would suggest that at these values of $\eta$ the imaginary parts $\Gamma_4,\ \Gamma_6$ become small, while the real parts ${\bar M}_4$ and ${\bar M}_6$ appear closely below $3M_1$ and $4M_1$, respectively. Again, the existing TFFSA data seems to be consistent with this scenario, although more detailed analysis is desirable.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
I would like to thank Sergei Lukyanov, Alexei Tsvelik, and especially Barry McCoy for many invaluable discussions and interest. I gratefully acknowledge hospitality of the Simons Center for Geometry and Physics where parts of this work were done.
The research is supported in part by DOE grant DE-FG02-96ER40959.
[99]{}
C. Itzykson, J.-M. Drouffe, [*Statistical Field Theory*]{}, Cambridge University Press, 1989.
P. Fonseca, A. Zamolodchikov, [*Ising field theory in a magnetic field: Analytic properties of the free energy*]{}, J. Stat. Phys. 110, (2003) 527-590; hep-th/0112167
B.M.McCoy, T.T.Wu, [*Two-dimensionsl Ising field theory in a magnetic field: breakup of the cut in the two-point function*]{}, Phys. Rev. D18 (1978) 1259-1267.
P. Fonseca, A. Zamolodchikov, [*Ising spectroscopy. I. Mesons at $T < T_c$*]{}, RUNHETC-2006-13, Dec 2006. 44pp; hep-th/0612304
A. Zamolodchikov, [*Integrals of Motion and S Matrix of the (Scaled) T=T(c) Ising Model with Magnetic Field*]{}, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A4 (1989) 4235; [*Integrable field theory from conformal field theory*]{}, Adv. Stud. Pure Math. 19 (1989) 641-674
M.E. Fisher, [*Yang-Lee edge singularity and $\varphi^3$ field theory*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40 (1978) 1610-1613.
J. Cardy, G. Mussardo, [*S Matrix of the Yang-Lee Edge Singularity in Two-Dimensions*]{} Phys. Lett. B225 (1989) 275
G. Delfino, G. Mussardo, P. Simonetti, [*Nonintegrable quantum field theories as perturbations of certain integrable models*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B473 (1996), 496-508; hep-th/9603011.
P.Fonseca, A.Zamolodchikov, [*Ward identities and integrable differential equations in the Ising field theory*]{}, RUNHETC-2003-28, Sep 2003; hep-th/0309228
G. Delfino, P. Grinza, G. Mussardo [*Decay of particles above threshold in the Ising field theory with magnetic field*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B737 (2006) 291-303; hep-th/0507133
G. Delfino, [*Integrable field theory and critical phenomena: The Ising model in a magnetic field*]{}, J.Phys. A37 (2004) R45; hep-th/0312119
\[8\] G. Delfino, “Integrable field theory and critical phenomena: The Ising model in a magnetic field”, J. Phys. A 37 (2004) R45, hep-th/0312119
A. Zamolodchikov, I. Ziyatdinov, [*Inelastic scattering and elastic amplitude in Ising field theory in a weak magnetic field at $T>T_c$: Perturbative analysis*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B849 (2011) 654-674; arXiv:1102.0767 \[hep-th\]
V.P. Yurov, Al.B. Zamolodchikov, [*Truncated Conformal Space Approach To Scaling Lee-Yang Model*]{}, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A5 (1990) 3221-3246.
V.P. Yurov, Al.B. Zamolodchikov, [ *Truncated fermionic space approach to critical 2D Ising model with magnetic field*]{}, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A6 (1991) 464-485
B. Pozsgay, G. Takacs, [*Characterization of resonances using finite size effects*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B748 (2006) 485-523; hep-th/0604022
R.J. Eden, P.V. Landshoff, D.I. Olive and J.C. Polkinghorne, [*The Analytic S-Matrix*]{}, Cambridge U. Press, 1966.
A.Zamolodchikov, [*Ising field theory in a magnetic field: Yang-Lee singularity*]{}, in preparation.
J. Cardy, [*Conformal Invariance and Yang-Lee Edge Singularity in Two Dimensions*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54 (1985) 1354-1356.
T.T. Wu, B.M. McCoy, C.A. Tracy and E. Barouch, [*Spin-spin correlation functions for the two-dimensional Ising model - exact theory in the scaling region*]{}, Phys. Rev. B 13 (1976) 316-374
F.A. Berezin, G.P. Pochil, V.M. Finkelberg, Moscow Univ. Vestnik 1, 21 (1964); J.B. McGuire, J. Math. Phys. 5 (1964) 622; E. Brezin, J. Zinn-Justin, C. R. Acad. Sci. (Paris) B263 (1966) 670; C.N. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 19 (1967) 1312 and Phys. Rev. 168 (1968) 1920
F. Calogero, A. Degasperis, Comparison between the exact and Hartree solutions of a one-dimensional many-body problem, Phys. Rev. A 11 (1975) 265-269
[^1]: The content of this section is mostly an adaptation of the textbook basics of the S-matrix theory (see e.g. [@book]) to 1+1 dimensional kinematics. I include it in order to introduce suitable notations.
[^2]: Although we explicitly speak about the Ising field theory , the discussion of this section applies to any scattering theory involving a singlet neutral particle $A_1$.
[^3]: Certainly, analytic continuation under the inelastic branch cuts, to further sheets of the Riemann surface is possible. At the moment I do not have much to say about analytic properties of the amplitude there.
[^4]: At special values of the parameters in this pole factor can be canceled by another factor in the product; we will see that this happens only at $h=0$.
[^5]: Of course, only if $\gamma_p << \beta_p$ it is fair to associate the pole at $i\alpha_p$ with a metastable state with a long lifetime and well defined energy. However, for the luck of better term, we refer to all the complex poles in MS$^{(+)}$ as the s-channel resonances.
[^6]: Cross-conjugated points are complex conjugated in terms of the variable $u=\theta+i\pi/2$. In fact, it is easy to see that as the consequence of $S(i\alpha^*)=S^*(i\alpha)$ and the amplitude $S(u-i\pi/2)$ is real analytic function of $u$.
[^7]: The estimate in is slightly better then the one given in [@fz1]; it was obtained by detailed numerical analysis of the mass $M_1(\xi^2)$ near the Yang-Lee critical point [@zyl].
[^8]: At $\xi^2 < - \xi_0^2$ these properties are lost. The ground state becomes two-fold degenerate, with the complex conjugate values of the associated vacuum energies. The particle masses become complex as well, and all reality conditions of the S-matrix described in Sect.2 are violated. We do not discuss this interesting regime here.
[^9]: Also, at $\xi^2 = +\infty$, which corresponds to one of the integrable points (see below), five additional particles appear; at $\xi^2 < +\infty$ they become resonance states, as we briefly discuss in Sect.4
[^10]: Generally, there are no good reasons to expect $B_p$ themselves to be analytic in the whole range of the coupling parameter. Rather, one should expect analyticity of the coefficients of the polynomial $\prod (\sinh\theta -iB_p)$, while $B_p$ are allowed to have algebraic singularities. We will see below that this subtlety is irrelevant in the simple scenario suggested below.
[^11]: Simple form suggests that this pair of poles must depart to infinity either at $\xi^2=0$ or at some intermediate value between $0$ and $\xi_{33}^2$. The result of Ref.[@ZZy] seems to rule out the first possibility.
[^12]: It is possible that additional resonance poles exist in this domain. In any case, as $\xi^2$ approaches $-\xi_{0}^2$, by scaling arguments all the resonance poles are expected to move to infinity as $\alpha_p \simeq -\frac{5i}{6}\,
\log(\xi^2+\xi_{0}^2)$.
[^13]: The discontinuities across the inelastic branch cuts go down as fast as $(\xi^2+\xi_{0}^2)^\frac{14}{3}$, as we argue in [@zyl].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We consider the nonequilibrium work distribution of a quantum oscillator with modulated angular frequency. We examine the discrete-to-continuous transition of the distribution as the temperature and the degree of nonadiabaticity of the frequency transformation are increased. We further develop a perturbative approach to analyze the effect of weak quartic anharmonicities, as well as of a random electric field on a charged oscillator. We find in both cases that the degree of nonadiabaticity is enhanced by the perturbation.'
address: 'Department of Physics, University of Augsburg, D-86135 Augsburg, Germany'
author:
- Sebastian Deffner
- Obinna Abah
- Eric Lutz
title: Quantum work statistics of linear and nonlinear parametric oscillators
---
nanothermodynamics ,nonequilibrium statistics ,ion traps
05.30.-d ,05.70.Ln ,05.40.-a
Introduction\[intro\]
=====================
The modern trend of miniaturization leads to the development of smaller and smaller devices, such as nanoengines and molecular motors [@fen03; @cer09; @mar09]. On these very short length scales, thermal as well as quantum fluctuations become important, and usual thermodynamic quantities, such as work and heat, acquire a stochastic nature. The traditional framework of thermodynamics, which neglects fluctuations, thus fails to provide a complete description of nanosystems. Extensions of the second law to these small systems have been recently introduced in the form of the fluctuation theorem [@eva93; @gal95] and the Jarzynski equality [@jar97]. The Jarzynski work relation, $$\label{eq1}
{\left\langle}\exp{\left(-\beta W\right)}{\right\rangle}=\exp{\left(-\beta\Delta F\right)}$$ permits determination of an equilibrium free energy difference $\Delta F$ from the fluctuations of the nonequilibrium work $W$ done on the system during an arbitrary transformation, quasistatic or not. The classical Jarzynski equality is valid for both isolated and open systems [@jar02]. It should be noted that the system is initially assumed to be in a thermal state with inverse temperature $\beta$. However, it is not required to be in an equilibrium state at the end of the transformation; for a general process, the system may be arbitrarily far from equilibrium. For the case of an open system, the final free energy is that of the asymptotic state reached by the system after equilibration with the heat bath, while for an isolated system, it corresponds to that of the hypothetical equilibrium state that would be obtained after coupling to the bath. In Eq. the average of the exponentiated total work is taken over an ensemble of many realizations of the same process, the nonequilibrium fluctuations of the work being characterized by the probability distribution ${\cal P}(W)$. The classical Jarzynski equality has been verified experimentally using stretched biopolymers [@lip02], a mechanical torsion pendulum [@dou05], and a colloidal particle in an anharmonic trap [@bli06]. At the quantum level, the Jarzynski relation has been shown to hold for isolated [@tas00; @muk03] as well as for open systems [@tal08; @cam09], but an experimental investigation is still lacking. This is partly due to the fact that quantum work is not an observable in the usual sense, as it is not described by a Hermitian operator in Hilbert space, but by a two-time correlation function [@tal07]. A measurement scheme to determine the full quantum work statistics ${\cal P}(W)$, and hence verify the quantum Jarzynski equality, using ultracold trapped ions has been proposed in Ref. [@hub08]. We have recently explicitly evaluated the continuous envelop of the work distribution ${\cal P}(W)$ for a time-dependent harmonic oscillator, an analytically solvable model [@def08]. In the general quantum case, however, the work distribution is discrete, reflecting the quantized nature of the energy spectrum. In the present article, we provide a detailed discussion of the transition from discrete to continuous distributions by introducing the cumulative work function. We further analyze the effect of a weak anharmonicity on ${\cal P}(W)$ by using time-dependent perturbation theory. We finally examine the effect of a weak random electric field on the work statistics of a charged harmonic oscillator, a case of high relevance for the thermodynamic study of realistic modulated Paul traps [@lei03].
Time-dependent harmonic oscillator \[harm\]
===========================================
We begin by reviewing the solution of the quantum parametric oscillator, following the method developed by Husimi [@hus53]. We use this opportunity to extend the results of Ref. [@hus53] and correct some misprints. The Hamiltonian of a quantum mechanical harmonic oscillator with time-dependent angular frequency $\omega_t$ is $$\label{eq2}
H_t=\frac{p^2}{2M}+\frac{M}{2}\omega^2_t x^2 \ .$$ The parameterization $\omega_t$ starts at initial value $\omega_0$ at $t=t_0$ and ends at final value $\omega_1$ at $t=\tau$. We denote by $\phi_n^t$ the instantaneous eigenfunctions and by $E_n^t= \hbar\omega_t\left(n+1/2\right)$ the instantaneous eigenvalues of the quadratic Hamiltonian (\[eq2\]). The dynamics of the harmonic oscillator is Gaussian for any $\omega_t$. By introducing the Gaussian wave function ansatz, $$\label{eq3}
\psi_t (x)=\exp{\left(\frac{i}{2\hbar}\left[a_t x^2+2b_t x+c_t\right]\right)},$$ the Schrödinger equation for the oscillator can be reduced to a system of three coupled differential equations for the time-dependent coefficients $a_t$, $b_t$ and $c_t$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq4}
\frac{1}{M}\frac{da_t}{dt}&=&-\frac{1}{M^2}\,a^2_t-\omega^2_t,\\
\label{eq5}
\frac{db_t}{dt}&=&-\frac{1}{M}\,a_t b_t ,\\
\label{eq6}
\frac{dc_t}{dt}&=&\frac{i\hbar}{M}\,a_t-\frac{1}{M}\,b^2_t .\end{aligned}$$ The nonlinear equation (\[eq4\]) is of the Riccati type and is therefore solvable. It can be mapped to the equation of motion of a classical time-dependent harmonic oscillator via $a_t=M\,\dot X_t/X_t$, and we obtain $$\label{eq7}
\frac{d^2}{dt^2}\,X_t+\omega^2_t\,X_t=0 \ .$$ With the solutions of (\[eq4\])-(\[eq7\]) the Gaussian wave function $\psi_t(x)$ (\[eq3\]) is fully characterized by the time-dependence of the angular frequency $\omega_t$. The general form of the propagator can be determined from $\psi_t (x)$ by noting that $$\label{eq8}
\psi_t (x) = \int dx_0 \,U_{t,t_0}(x|x_0)\, \psi_{t_0}(x_0) \ .$$ It is explicitly given by [@hus53] $$\label{eq9}
U_{t,t_0} = \sqrt{\frac{M}{2\pi i \hbar X_t}} \exp{\left(\frac{i M}{2\hbar X_t} \left[\dot X_t x^2-2 xx_0+ Y_t x_0^2\right] \right)}\ ,$$ where $X_t$ and $Y_t$ are solutions of Eq. (\[eq7\]) satisfying the boundary conditions $X_0=0$, $\dot X_0=1$ and $Y_0=1$, $\dot Y_0=0$, the latter being an expression of the commutation relation between position and momentum.
Method of generating functions
------------------------------
The time variation of the angular frequency (\[eq2\]) induces transitions between different energy eigenstates of the oscillator. We are thus interested in the transition probabilities $p_{m,n}^\tau$ from an initial state ${|n\rangle}$ at $t_0=0$ to a final state ${|m\rangle}$ at $t=\tau$. In the following, we use the method of generating functions to evaluate $p_{m,n}^\tau$ [@hus53]. We start with the definition, $$\label{eq10}
p_{m,n}^{\tau}=\left|\int dx_0\int dx \, {\phi^*}_m^\tau(x)\, U_{\tau,0}(x|x_0)\,\phi^0_n(x_0)\right|^2\,,$$ and denote the complex conjugate of a number $z$ by ${z}^*$. The quadratic generating function of $\phi_n^t(x)$ is $$\label{eq11}
\begin{split}
\sum\limits_{n=0}^\infty\,u^n\,\phi_n^t(x)\,{\phi^*}^t_n(x_0)=\hspace{4cm} \\ \sqrt{\frac{M\omega_t}{\hbar\pi(1-u^2)}}\exp\left(-\frac{M\omega_t}{\hbar}\frac{(1+u^2)(x^2+x_0^2)-4u xx_0}{2(1-u^2)}\right),
\end{split}$$ which can be calculated by a Fourier expansion of the left-hand side of Eq. (\[eq11\]). The generating function $p_{m,n}^\tau$ is then defined as $$\label{eq12}
P(u,v)=\sum\limits_{m,n}\,u^m v^n p_{m,n}^\tau \ .$$ Combining Eqs. (\[eq10\]) and (\[eq11\]), we find $$\label{eq13}
\begin{split}
P(u,v)=\hspace{4cm}\\
\frac{\sqrt2}{\sqrt{Q^{*}(1-u^2)(1-v^2)+(1+u^2)(1+v^2)-4uv}}\,.
\end{split}$$ The $(u,v)$-dependence of the generating function $P(u,v)$ remains the same for all possible transformations $\omega_t$. Details about the specific parameterization of the angular frequency only enter through different numerical values of the parameter $Q^*$ given by, $$\label{eq14}
Q^{*}=\frac{1}{2\omega_0\omega_1}\left\{\omega_0^2\,\left[\omega_1^2\,X^2_\tau+\dot X^2_\tau\right]+\left[\omega_1^2\,Y^2_\tau+\dot Y^2_\tau\right]\right\}.$$ From a physical point of view, $Q^*$ can be regarded as a measure of the degree of adiabaticity of the process and will be discussed in more detail in the following subsection. Among the properties of the generating function $P(u,v)$, it is worth mentioning that the law of total probability $\sum\limits_n p_{m,n}^\tau=1$ is fulfilled and is equivalent to $$p(u,1)=\frac{1}{1-u}\,.$$ For a constant frequency, $\omega_t\equiv\omega_0$, we note that the solution of Eq. (\[eq7\]) is given by $$X_t=\frac{1}{\omega_0}\, \sin{\left(\omega_0\, t\right)}\,,\hspace{1em}\text{and}\,\hspace{1em} Y_t=\cos{\left(\omega_0\,t\right)}\, .$$ The latter imply with Eq. (\[eq14\]) that $Q^*= 1$ and Eq. (\[eq13\]) thus simplifies to $$P(u,v)\big|_{Q^*=1}=\frac{1}{1-uv}\,,$$ which is equivalent to $p_{m,n}^\tau=\delta_{m,n}$, indicating the absence of transitions, as expected. The symmetry relation of the generating function (\[eq13\]), $P(-u,-v)=P(u,v)$, further shows that $p_{m,n}^\tau=0$ if $m$, $n$ are of different parity. This is an expression of a selection rule $m=n\pm2k$, where $k$ is an integer. In subsection \[ideal\], we rederive this selection rule by means of time-dependent perturbation theory. We mention in addition that the transition probabilities are symmetric, $p_{m,n}^\tau=p_{n,m}^\tau$, following $P(u,v)=P(v,u)$. Explicit expressions for the transitions probabilities $p_{m,n}^\tau$ are given in terms of hypergeometric functions in \[trans\].
Measure of adiabaticity \[measure\]
-----------------------------------
The parameter $Q^*$ defined in (\[eq14\]) can be given a simple physical meaning [@hus53]. We base our discussion of adiabaticity on the equivalent classical harmonic oscillator (\[eq7\]) since the generating function $P(u,v)$ (\[eq13\]) is fully determined through the classical solutions $X_t$ and $Y_t$. For an adiabatic transformation, the action of the oscillator, given by the ratio of the energy to the angular frequency, is a time-independent constant. For quasistatic processes we have the two adiabatic invariants, $$\label{eq15}
\frac{\dot X^2_t + \omega^2_t X^2_t}{\omega_t}=\frac{1}{\omega_0},\hspace{1em}\text{and}\hspace{1em} \frac{\dot Y^2_t + \omega^2_t Y^2_t}{\omega_t}=\omega_0.$$ From the definition (\[eq14\]) of the parameter $Q^*$, we see that in this case we simply have $Q^*=1$. As mentioned earlier this implies $P(u,v)=(1-u v)^{-1}$ and $p^\tau_{m,n}= \delta_{m,n}$. The latter is an expression of the quantum adiabatic theorem: For infinitely slow transformations no transitions between different quantum states occur. For fast transformations, on the other hand, we can regard $Q^*$ as a measure of the degree of nonadiabaticity of the process. As an illustration, we evaluate mean and variance of the energy of the oscillator at time $\tau$ and express them as a function of $Q^*$. For a transition from initial state ${|n\rangle}$ to final state ${|m\rangle}$, the mean-quantum number of the final state ${\left\langle}m{\right\rangle}_n$ can be obtained by taking the first derivative of the generating function (\[eq13\]) of $p_{m,n}^\tau$, $$\label{eq16}
\begin{split}
\sum\limits_n u^n\sum\limits_m m \,p_{m,n}^\tau=&\frac{\partial P(u,v)}{\partial
v}\bigg|_{v=1}\\
=&\frac{Q^*(1+u)-(1-u)}{2(1-u)^2},
\end{split}$$ and expanding the left hand side of (\[eq16\]) in powers of $u$: $$\label{eq17}
{\left\langle}m{\right\rangle}_n = \sum_m m \,p_{m,n}^\tau = \left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right) Q^* -\frac{1}{2}.$$ Noting that $p_n^0=\exp(-\beta E_n^0)/Z_0$, the mean energy of the oscillator at time $\tau$ then reads $$\label{eq18}
\begin{split}
{\left\langle}H_\tau{\right\rangle}=\sum\limits_{n}\hbar\omega_1\left({\left\langle}m{\right\rangle}_n+\frac{1}{2}\right)\,p_n^0\\
=\frac{\hbar\omega_1}{2}\,Q^*\,\coth{\left(\frac{\beta}{2}\hbar\omega_0\right)}\,.
\end{split}$$ Since ${\left\langle}m{\right\rangle}_n\geq0$, and hence ${\left\langle}H_\tau{\right\rangle}\geq\hbar\omega_1/2$, the parameter $Q^*$ necessarily satisfies $Q^*\geq1$ for generic processes. In the zero temperature limit, Eq. (\[eq18\]) reduces to $${\left\langle}H_\tau{\right\rangle}=\frac{\hbar\omega_1}{2}\,Q^*$$ The above equation corrects a misprint appearing in Eq. (5.21) of Ref. [@hus53] ($\omega_0$ should be replaced by $\omega_1$). The mean-square quantum number ${\left\langle}m^2{\right\rangle}_n-{\left\langle}m{\right\rangle}_n^2$ at time $\tau$ can be calculated in a similar way by considering ${\left\langle}m(m-1){\right\rangle}_n$. By differentiating Eq. (\[eq13\]) twice, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq19}
\sum\limits_n u^n \sum\limits_m m(m-1)\,p_{m,n}^\tau = \hspace{2cm}\nonumber\\
\frac{1+(u-6)u+3 {Q^*}^2(u+1)^2+4 Q^*(u^2-1)}{4(u-1)^3}\ ,\end{aligned}$$ and a series expansion in powers of $u$ leads to $$\label{eq20}
\begin{split}
{\left\langle}~m(m-~1)~{\right\rangle}_n=&\frac{1}{4}\,\Big[1-2n\,\left(n+1\right)-4 \,Q^*\left(2n
+1\right)\\
+& 3 \,{Q^*}^2\left(2n^2 + 2n+ 1\right)\Big].
\end{split}$$ The mean-square quantum number is then obtained by combining Eqs. (\[eq17\]) and (\[eq20\]): $$\label{eq21}
{\left\langle}m^2{\right\rangle}_n-{\left\langle}m{\right\rangle}_n^2 = \frac{1}{2} \left({Q^*}^2 -1\right)\left(n^2+n+1\right).$$ From Eqs. (\[eq17\]), (\[eq18\]) and (\[eq21\]), we can finally write the variance of the energy as $$\label{eq22}
\begin{split}
{\left\langle}H^2_\tau{\right\rangle}-{{\left\langle}H_\tau{\right\rangle}}^2=\frac{\hbar^2\omega_1^2}{8}\,\text{csch}^2{\left(\frac{\beta}{2}\,\hbar\omega_0\right)}\hspace{1cm}\\
\times\,\left(1-4 {Q^*}^2-3
\cosh{\left(\beta\hbar\omega_0\right)}+4 Q^*\sinh{\left(\beta\hbar\omega_0\right)}\right)\,.
\end{split}$$ The zero-temperature limit, $${\left\langle}H^2_\tau{\right\rangle}-{{\left\langle}H_\tau{\right\rangle}}^2=\frac{\hbar^2\omega_1^2}{2}\,\left({Q^*}^2-1\right)\ ,$$ is again the correct version of Eq. (5.22) of Ref. [@hus53]. Equation (\[eq21\]) indicates that the parameter $Q^*$ directly controls the magnitude of the variance of the occupation number, $ {\left\langle}m^2{\right\rangle}_n-{\left\langle}m{\right\rangle}_n^2$. In the adiabatic limit, where $Q^*=1$, we readily get ${\left\langle}m{\right\rangle}_n=n $ and ${\left\langle}m^2{\right\rangle}_n-{\left\langle}m{\right\rangle}_n^2=~0$. We therefore recover that for adiabatic processes the system remains in its initial state, ${|m\rangle}={|n\rangle}$. On the other hand, for fast nonadiabatic processes, the mean ${\left\langle}m{\right\rangle}_n$ and the dispersion ${\left\langle}m^2{\right\rangle}_n-{\left\langle}m{\right\rangle}_n^2 $ increase with increasing values of $Q^*$, indicating that the quantum oscillator ends in a final state ${|m\rangle}$ which is farther and farther away from the initial state ${|n\rangle}$. The latter corresponds to larger and larger final values of the mean energy and energy variance, Eqs. and .
It is worth mentioning that the above discussion of the adiabaticity parameter $Q^*$ for the parametric oscillator is close in spirit to the Einstein criteria for adiabatic processes [@kul57]. Einstein noted that for an adiabatic process, the classical action of the oscillator, ${\left\langle}H_t{\right\rangle}/\omega_t$, should remain constant and the number of quanta should therefore remain unchanged. In the present situation, we have ${\left\langle}H_\tau{\right\rangle}/\omega_\tau\propto Q^*$, and the action only remains constant when $Q^*=1$. The latter is precisely the condition that we derived for an adiabatic transformation. For nonadiabatic processes, the parameter $Q^*>1$ thus gives a measure for the increase of the classical action of the oscillator. Further discussions of adiabatic measures can be found in Ref. [@tak92].
Work probability density function \[prob\]
==========================================
In this section, we introduce the probability distribution ${\cal P}(W)$ on the nonequilibrium work done on the parametric oscillator during a variation of its angular frequency. We give the expressions of its continuous envelop in the limit of high and low temperatures, for adiabatic and nonadiabatic transformations [@def08]. We further compare our nonadiabatic results with those recently derived by van Zon and coworkers in Ref. [@zon08].
In quantum mechanics, the probability density function of work is obtained by considering the difference between final and initial energy eigenstates, $E_{m}^{\tau }$ and $E_{n}^{0}$, averaged over all possible final and initial states. The probability distribution of the total work done during time $\tau$ can thus be written as [@tal07], $$\label{eq23}
{\cal P}(W)=\sum\limits_{m,n}\,\delta\left(W-(E_{m}^{\tau }-E_{n}^{0})\right)\,p_{m,n}^{\tau}\, p^0_{n},$$ where $p_n^0=\exp(-\beta E_n^0)/Z_0$ is the initial (thermal) occupation probability. Equation show that work is a random quantity because of the presence of both thermal and quantum uncertainties, encoded respectively in $p_n^0$ and $p_{m,n}^{\tau}$. The characteristic function of the work, defined as the Fourier transform of the probability distribution (\[eq23\]), $$\label{eq24}
G(\mu) = \int dW \exp{\left(i \mu W\right)} \,{\cal P}(W)\,,$$ can be written in closed form in terms of the energies, $\varepsilon_0=\hbar\omega_0$, $\varepsilon_1=\hbar\omega_1$ ($\Delta\varepsilon=\varepsilon_1-\varepsilon_0$). Using expression (\[eq13\]) of the generating function, we have $$\label{eq25}
G(\mu)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{n\left(Q^*\right)}}\left(1-\exp{\left(-\beta\varepsilon_0\right)}\right)\,\exp{\left(i\mu \,\frac{\Delta\varepsilon}{2}\right)}$$ where the denominator is given by $$\label{eq26}
\begin{split}
n\left(Q^*\right)=& Q^{*}\left(1-\exp{\left(2i \mu \varepsilon_1\right)}\right)\left(1-\exp{\left(-2(i \mu +\beta)\varepsilon_0\right)}\right)\\
+&\left(1+\exp{\left(2i \mu \varepsilon_1\right)}\right)\left(1+\exp{\left(-2(i \mu +\beta)\varepsilon_0\right)}\right)\\
-&4\,\exp{\left(i \mu \varepsilon_1\right)} \exp{\left(-(i \mu +\beta)\varepsilon_0\right)}.
\end{split}$$ The above equations for $G(\mu)$ are exact and fully characterizes the work distribution of the time-dependent quantum harmonic oscillator (\[eq2\]) for arbitrary parameterizations of the angular frequency $\omega_t$. As mentioned previously, different realizations of $\omega_t$ merely lead to different values of the parameter $Q^*$. The direct analytic evaluation of the nonequilibrium work distribution ${\cal P}(W)$ by Fourier inverting Eq. (\[eq25\]) is not feasible in the general case due to the nonanalytic denominator of $G(\mu)$. We here provide analytical approximations in various limits of interest. The detailed derivation of the following probability distributions can be found in Ref. [@def08].
#### Adiabatic transformations
As discussed in subsection \[measure\], adiabatic transformations are characterized by $Q^*=1$. By approximating Eq. in the limit of zero-temperature, $\hbar\beta\gg 1$, we get $$\label{eq27}
{\cal P}(W)=\delta\left(W-\frac{\Delta\varepsilon}{2}\right)\, .$$ Equation (\[eq27\]) expresses the deterministic nature of adiabatic processes at zero-temperature: the oscillator starts and ends in its ground state. Work is hence simply given by the difference of final and initial ground state energies. In the opposite classical limit, $\hbar\beta\ll 1$, we find $$\label{eq28}
{\cal P}(W)=\frac{\beta\omega_0}{\Delta\omega}\exp{\left(-\frac{\beta\omega_0}{\Delta\omega}\,W\right)}\,\Theta(W).$$ Equation (\[eq28\]) is identical to the classical work probability distribution derived by Jarzynski [@jar97a]. Note that in this case only positive work fluctuations occur, whose magnitude is controlled by the finite temperature.
#### Nonadiabatic transformations
We next consider nonadiabatic transformation which correspond to $Q^* >1$. In the zero-temperature limit, $\hbar\beta\gg 1$, the work distribution can be approximated in the limit of small $\varepsilon_1$ by, $$\label{eq29}
{\cal P}(W)=\frac{\exp{\left(-\frac{W-\Delta \varepsilon/2}{(Q^*-1)\varepsilon_1}\right)}}{\sqrt{\pi (Q^*-1) \,\varepsilon_1\,(W-\Delta \varepsilon/2)}}\ .$$ The zero-temperature nonadiabatic work distribution (\[eq29\]) is valid when $W\geq\Delta\varepsilon/2$. This condition follows from the existence of the minimal ground state energy of the oscillator. An expansion of Eq. (\[eq25\]) in the classical limit, $\hbar\beta\ll 1$, leads to $$\label{eq30}
\begin{split}
{\cal P}(W)=&\sqrt{\frac{\beta^2\omega_0^2/\pi^2}{2 Q^*\omega_0\omega_1-\omega_0^2-\omega_1^2}}\\
\times&\exp{\left(\frac{Q^*\omega_0\omega_1-\omega_0^2}{2 Q^*\omega_0\omega_1-\omega_0^2-\omega_1^2}\,\beta W\right)}\\
\times& K_0\left(\frac{\beta\omega_0\omega_1\,\sqrt{{Q^*}^2-1}}{\left|2Q^*\omega_0\omega_1-\omega_0^2-\omega_1^2\right|}\,|W|\right),
\end{split}$$ where $\Gamma(x)$ denotes the Euler Gamma function and $K_{\nu}(x)$ is the Macdonald function, that is the modified Bessel function of the third kind. Equation is well-defined provided the term under the square-root is positive. This implies that the parameter $Q^*$ is larger than the value $Q^*_{\text{ss}}$ that corresponds to a sudden (instantaneous) switch of the frequency from $\omega_0$ to $\omega_1$, $$\label{eq31}
Q^*>\frac{\omega_0^2+\omega_1^2}{2 \omega_0\omega_1}=Q^*_{\text{ss}}\,.$$ An example for a frequency parameterization resulting in an unbounded, divergent value of $Q^*$ can be found in Ref. [@gal09]. In the regime where $Q^*<Q^*_{\text{ss}}$, the work distribution has been derived by van Zon and coworkers by explicitly evaluating the complex integral of the inverse Fourier transform [@zon08]. It reads in our notation $$\label{eq32}
\begin{split}
{\cal P}(W)=&\sqrt{\frac{\beta^2\omega_0^2}{\omega_0^2-2 Q^*\omega_0\omega_1+\omega_1^2}}\\
\times&\exp{\left(\frac{Q^*\omega_0\omega_1-\omega_0^2}{2 Q^*\omega_0\omega_1-\omega_0^2-\omega_1^2}\,\beta W\right)}\\
\times& I_0\left(\frac{\beta\omega_0\omega_1\,\sqrt{{Q^*}^2-1}}{\left|2Q^*\omega_0\omega_1-\omega_0^2-\omega_1^2\right|}\,|W|\right)\Theta(W)\,,
\end{split}$$ where $I_0 (x)$ denotes the modified Bessel function of the first kind. It is worth mentioning that, in contrast to the adiabatic and nonadiabatic results, negative work values can occur in Eq. (\[eq30\]) for large values of the parameter $Q^*$ [@zon08].
![Cumulative work distribution $\phi(W)$ (\[eq33\]) for the exact quantum expression (\[eq23\]) (red) and the approximated classical form (\[eq30\]) (blue, dashed) for the parameters $\omega_0=1$, $\omega_1=1.5$, $\hbar=1$, $\beta=0.5$ and $Q^*=3$. The discrete structure of the quantum distribution is easily recognized as compared to the continuous classical distribution.\[fig1\]](Pwork1){width="47.00000%"}
Transition between discrete and continuous nonequilibrium work distributions\[discr\]
=====================================================================================
We now turn to the analysis of the transition from the discrete work probability density to the continuous analytical approximations Eqs. (\[eq28\]), (\[eq29\]), (\[eq30\]) and (\[eq32\]), and provide a criterion for the observation of the discreteness of ${\cal P}(W)$. The definition (\[eq23\]) makes clear that the nonequilibrium work distribution consists of a discrete sum of delta peaks when the energy spectrum of the system is quantized. This is in stark contrast to classical work distributions which are continuous. The discreteness of ${\cal P}(W)$ can therefore be regarded as the hallmark of the quantum nature of work. In order to quantitatively investigate the discrete-to-continuous transition, we introduce the cumulative probability distribution $\phi(W)$ defined as, $$\label{eq33}
\phi(W)=\int\limits_{\chi}^{W}dW'\,{\cal P}(W') \ .$$ In the above equation, the constant $\chi$ has to be chosen according to the range validity of the work distribution, e.g. in the zero-temperature limit $\chi=\Delta\varepsilon/2$. The cumulative distribution is a staircase function in the case of a discrete distribution ${\cal P}(W)$ and turns over to a smooth function in the continuous limit. Figure \[fig1\] shows the exact quantum function $\phi(W)$ for a given set of parameters, together with the continuous classical approximation corresponding to Eq. (\[eq30\]). The numerical value of the parameter $Q^*$ has been chosen to describe realistic experiments with ion traps [@hub08a]. In order to obtain a criterion for the discreteness of the work distribution ${\cal P}(W)$, we consider the mean energy of the harmonic oscillator as given by Eq. (\[eq18\]). The energy spectrum of the harmonic oscillator is usually considered to be quasi-continuous when the mean quantum number is much larger than the level separation [@mes61], or in other words, when the mean energy is much larger than the energy quantum, ${\left\langle}H_\tau{\right\rangle}\gg\hbar\omega_1$. An inspection of Eq. (\[eq18\]) reveals that this limit can be achieved in two ways:
![In the limit of high temperatures, the cumulative work function $\phi(W)$ for the exact discrete case (\[eq23\]) (red) is indistinguishable from the continuous approximation (\[eq30\]) (blue, dashed). Here $\omega_0=1$, $\omega_1=1.5$, $\hbar=1$, $\beta=0.05$ and $Q^*=3$.\[fig2\]](Pwork2){width="47.00000%"}
#### High temperatures
In the limit of high temperatures, $\hbar\beta\ll1$, we have $\coth{\left(\beta/2\,\hbar\omega_0\right)}\gg1$. For a fixed value of $Q^*$, we therefore expect the nonequilibrium work distribution to become continuous when the temperature is increased. Figure \[fig2\] depicts the exact cumulative distribution $\phi(W)$ and the approximate result corresponding to Eq. (\[eq30\]) for the same parameters as in Fig. \[fig1\] except the temperature which has been increased by a factor ten; the two curves are indistinguishable.
#### Large $Q^*$ values
Another way to reach a large mean energy (\[eq18\]) is to increase the value of $Q^*$, while keeping the temperature constant. The work distribution can thus become continuous when the degree of nonadiabaticity of the process is increased. Figure \[fig3\] shows the exact and approximate cumulative distribution $\phi(W)$ for a value of $Q^*$ twenty times larger than in Fig. \[fig1\], all other parameters being the same: the two curves are again not distinguishable. It is interesting to notice that the transition to a continuous work distribution occurs faster when augmenting the temperature than the degree of nonadiabaticity $Q^*$ (a factor two for the parameters of Fig. \[fig1\]), the reason being that the mean energy (\[eq18\]) does not depend linearly on temperature in contrast to $Q^*$ (the temperature dependence becomes linear only for high temperatures).
![In the limit of high $Q^*$ values, the cumulative work function $\phi(W)$ for the exact discrete case (\[eq23\]) (red) is indistinguishable from the continuous approximation (\[eq30\]) (blue, dashed). Here $\omega_0=1$, $\omega_1=1.5$, $\hbar=1$, $\beta=0.5$ and $Q^*=60$.\[fig3\]](Pwork3){width="47.00000%"}
#### Noninteger ratios $\varepsilon_1/\varepsilon_0$
One may wonder whether it is possible to have continuous work distributions, for any values of $Q^*$ and $\beta$, by for instance considering non-rational quotients $\varepsilon_1/\varepsilon_0$. In this limit, the gaps between $\delta$-peaks could be filled and ${\cal P}(W)$ would appear continuous. This is not the case, however. We note indeed that for any ratio $\varepsilon_1/\varepsilon_0$, we do not obtain real continuous distributions with respect to the real set. The $\delta$-functions in Eq. (\[eq23\]) only contribute to the total sum if their argument is zero. The only permitted work values are therefore of the form, $$\label{eq35}
W=\varepsilon_1\left(m+\frac{1}{2}\right)-\varepsilon_0\left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right)\,.$$ Now since $m$ and $n$ are integers, only countably infinite values of $W$ can occur, implying that the work distribution is discrete in any case. The latter follows from the fact that rational numbers are densely distributed within the real set.
#### Effect of the selection rule
Finally, we examine the effect of the selection rule, $m=n\pm2k$, noted in section \[harm\] on the work distribution ${\cal P}(W)$. The existence of this selection rule limits the possible values that the step sizes of the cumulative distribution $\phi(W)$ can take. For simplicity, we consider a harmonic oscillator which is initially prepared in a given energy eigenstate ${|n_0\rangle}$. A direct consequence of Eq. and of the selection rule is then that the allowed work values are, $$W=\hbar\left(\omega_1-\omega_0\right)\,\left(n_0+\frac{1}{2}\right)\,\pm\,\hbar\omega_1
\, 2k\,,$$ where $k$ are integers. For two neighboring work values, the step size is constant and reads, $$\Delta W=2 \hbar\omega_1\,.$$ In Fig. \[fig4\] we illustrate the effect of the selection rule by plotting the corresponding cumulative distribution with the same parameters as in Fig. \[fig1\].
![Cumulative work distribution (\[eq33\]) for an initially pure state ${|n_0\rangle}$, illustrating the sum rule, $m=n\pm 2k$, which limits the possible sizes of the work steps ($n_0=3$, $\varepsilon_0=1$, $\varepsilon_1=1.5$ and $Q^*=3$).\[fig4\]](select){width="47.00000%"}
Perturbation theory \[pert\]
============================
We develop in the present section a perturbative approach to determine the quantum work distribution ${\cal P}(W)$. We treat in detail the case of a small anharmonic correction to the potential, as well as the effect of a small external fluctuating electric field on a charged harmonic oscillator. Both situations are motivated by the experimental study of the quantum work statistics in linear Paul traps [@hub08]. We begin by giving a simple perturbative derivation of the sum rule of section \[harm\], which does not require the full solution of the Schrödinger equation.
Selection rule \[ideal\]
------------------------
We start by rewriting Hamiltonian (\[eq2\]) as $$\label{eq36}
H_t=H_0+\Omega_t \ ,$$ where we have introduced the unperturbed Hamiltonian $$\label{eq37}
H_0=\frac{p^2}{2M} +\frac{M}{2} \omega_0^2 x^2,$$ and a “perturbation” term$$\label{eq38}
\Omega_t=-\frac{M}{2}\, \left(\omega_0^2-\omega_t^2\right)\,x^2\,.$$ The latter can be considered small for small frequency changes. In first order time-dependent perturbation theory, the transition probabilities between initial state ${|n\rangle}$ and final state ${|m\rangle}$ are given by [@coh1], $$\label{eq39}
p_{m,n}^\tau=\left|\delta_{m,n}+\frac{1}{i\hbar}\int\limits_0^\tau dt\, \exp{\left(i\omega_{m,n} t\right)}\,\Omega_{m,n}^t\right|^2 \ ,$$ where $\hbar\omega_{m,n}=E_m^0-E_n^0$ denotes the difference of the unperturbed energy eigenvalues and $\Omega_{m,n}^t={\langle m|}\Omega_t{|n\rangle}$ are the corresponding interaction matrix elements. By expressing the position operator, $x=\sqrt{\hbar/2 M \omega_0}\left(a^\dagger+a\right)$, in terms of the usual ladder operators, $a^\dagger{|n\rangle}=\sqrt{n+1}\,{|n+1\rangle}$ and $a\,{|n\rangle}=\sqrt{n}\,{|n-1\rangle}$, the interaction matrix elements can be written explicitly as $$\label{eq40}
\begin{split}
\Omega_{m,n}^t=&-\frac{\hbar}{4\omega_0}\,\left(\omega_0^2-\omega^2_t\right)\,\Big[\sqrt{n+1}\sqrt{n+2}\,\delta_{m,n+2}\\
+&\,\left(2n+1\right)\,\delta_{m,n}\,+\,\sqrt{n-1}\sqrt{n}\,\delta_{m,n-2}\Big],
\end{split}$$ with the Kronecker-delta $\delta_{m,n}$. Equation (\[eq40\]) shows that only transitions that satisfy $m=n\pm2$ are possible, which is precisely the selection rule noted earlier. It should be emphasized that this selection rule is at variance with usual textbook examples which contain the selection rule $m=n\pm1$. The latter applies to a quantum oscillator driven by a small perturbation linear in the position, whereas we here deal with a perturbation (\[eq38\]) which is quadratic in $x$. The full expression of the transitions probabilities (\[eq39\]) that follow from Eq. (\[eq40\]) is given in \[trans\_per\].
Anharmonic corrections\[anharmonic\]
------------------------------------
A method to experimentally measure the quantum work distribution in modulated ion trap systems has been proposed in Ref. [@hub08]. In these systems, the confining potential is harmonic to a very good accuracy [@hub08a]. One attractive feature of linear Paul traps is however the possibility to modify the shape of the potential with the help of external gate voltages. We here investigate the influence of a small quartic anharmonicity on the work distribution ${\cal P}(W)$. As before, we write the total Hamiltonian as $$\label{eq41}
H_t = H_0 + \Omega_t + A_t\ ,$$ where the first anharmonic correction is given by, $$\label{eq42}
A_t=\alpha_t\, x^4\,.$$ The total transition probabilities can then be written as $$\label{eq43}
p_{m,n}^{\tau} = \left| \delta_{m,n} + \frac{1}{i\hbar} \int\limits_{0}^{\tau} \, dt \, \exp{\left(i \omega_{m,n} \, t\right)}\, \left( \Omega_{m,n}^t + A_{m,n}^t \right) \right|^2\,,$$ where $A_{m,n}^t$ are the anharmonic interaction matrix elements. The analytic transition probabilities $p_{m,n}^{\tau}$ are again given in \[trans\_per\]. For the sake of clarity, we will continue with a numerical discussion of the results.
![Variance and mean (inset) work for an oscillator with weak anharmonic corrections (red) (\[eq41\]) compared with those of the unperturbed oscillator (blue, dashed) (\[eq2\]) ($\omega_0=0.5$, $\tau=1$, $\beta=0.5$, $M=1$, $\hbar=1$ and $\sigma_\alpha=0.025$). \[fig5\]](plotvar){width="47.00000%"}
For the numerical analysis, we choose the parameterization of $\omega^2_t$ to be linear in time, $$\label{eq44}
\omega_t^2=\omega_0^2+\left(\omega^2_1-\omega_0^2\right)\frac{t}{\tau}\,.$$ Since the anharmonic corrections are given by the geometric set-up and hence directly scale with the angular frequency of the harmonic oscillator, we assume that $$\label{eq45}
\alpha_t= \sigma_\alpha\left(\omega^2_1-\omega_0^2\right)\frac{t}{\tau}\,.$$ The parameter $\sigma_\alpha$ controls the strength of the perturbation. In Fig. \[fig5\], we have plotted the mean work ${\left\langle}W{\right\rangle}$ and the variance, $var(W)={\left\langle}W^2{\right\rangle}-{\left\langle}W{\right\rangle}^2$, of the work distribution for the anharmonically perturbed harmonic oscillator (\[eq41\]), together with the exact result for the unperturbed oscillator (\[eq2\]). We observe that both quantities are enhanced by the anharmonicity. From the analytical expressions of the transition probabilities (\[C3\]), we see that additional transitions, $m=n\pm4$, now become possible because of the quartic correction. These additional transitions lead to a larger mean and variance of the work. Based on our discussion in section \[measure\], we can therefore conclude that the anharmonic perturbation increases the degree of nonadiabaticity of the frequency change. Numerical comparison further shows that the effect of $A_t$ can be neglected up to a strength of roughly one percent, $\sigma_\alpha\lesssim0.01$, of the harmonic amplitude $\Omega_t$. For a standard trap configuration with trap frequencies of the order kHz-MHz, the harmonic assumptions is fulfilled up to energies of the order of eV, see Ref. [@hub08a], and the effect of anharmonic corrections are negligible for these energies.
Random electric field corrections \[thermal\]
---------------------------------------------
Linear Paul traps are almost perfectly isolated from their surroundings. They however suffer from the presence of random electric fields that are generated in the trap electrodes [@tur00]. These weak fluctuating fields are the source of motional heating of the charged ions confined in the harmonic trap. The Hamiltonian of the quantum oscillator in the presence of the field is $$\label{eq46}
H_t = H_0 + \Omega_t + \Lambda_t$$ where the small perturbation $\Lambda_t$ is linear in position, $$\label{eq47}
\Lambda_t =\lambda_t x\,.$$ The function $\lambda_t= q E_t$ is proportional to the random electric field $E_t$ ($q$ is the charge of the ion) and is taken to be Gaussian distributed with $$\label{eq48}
{\left\langle}\lambda_t{\right\rangle}=0\hspace{2em}\text{and}\hspace{2em}{\left\langle}\lambda_t\,\lambda_s{\right\rangle}= \kappa_{t,s}\,.$$ The heating rate of the trap is related to the spectral density of the noise $\lambda_t$ [@sav97] $$\label{eq49}
{\left\langle}\dot n{\right\rangle}\simeq\frac{1}{4\,M\,\hbar \omega_t}\,\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty} ds \,\exp{\left(i \omega_t s\right)\,{\left\langle}\lambda_t\,\lambda_{t+s}{\right\rangle}}\,.$$ We first calculate the transition probabilities $p_{m,n}^{\tau}$ for a fixed value of $\lambda_t$ and then average over $\lambda_t$ using Eq. . In complete analogy to Eq. (\[eq43\]), we obtain $$\label{eq50}
p_{m,n}^{\tau} = \left|\delta_{m,n} + \frac{1}{i\hbar} \int\limits_0^{\tau} dt \, \exp{\left(i \omega_{m,n} \, t\right)} \, (\Omega_{m,n}^t + \Lambda_{m,n}^t) \right|^2\,,$$ with the interaction matrix elements $\Lambda_{m,n}^t$ given by, $$\label{eq51}
\Lambda_{m,n}^t = \lambda_t \sqrt{\frac{\hbar}{2\,M \, \omega_0}} \, \left(\sqrt{n+1} \, \delta_{m,n+1} + \sqrt{n} \, \delta_{m,n-1} \right)\,.$$ The explicit expression of the transition probabilities can be found in \[thermal\_pert\]. After averaging over all possible $\lambda_t$, the transition probabilities can be divided into two distinct contributions coming from the parametric variation of the frequency ($\Omega_t$ in Eq. ) and the noise term ($\Lambda_t$ in Eq. ), $$\label{eq52}
{\left\langle}p_{m,n}^\tau{\right\rangle}_{\lambda_t}=p_{m,n}^\tau(\omega_t)+p_{m,n}^\tau\left({\left\langle}\lambda_t\,\lambda_s{\right\rangle}\right)\,.$$ Similarly, we can separate the mean final energy into a deterministic and a stochastic part, $$\label{eq53}
\begin{split}
{\left\langle}H_\tau{\right\rangle}&=\sum\limits_{m,n} E_m^\tau\,
\left(p_{m,n}^\tau(\omega_t)+p_{m,n}^\tau\left({\left\langle}\lambda_t\,\lambda_s{\right\rangle}\right)
\right)\, p_n^0\\
&=\frac{\hbar\omega_1}{2}\, \left(Q^*+Q^*_{\lambda_t}\right)
\coth{\left(\frac{\beta}{2}\,\hbar\omega_0\right)}\,.
\end{split}$$ Here the parameter $Q^*_{\lambda_t}$ is defined as $$Q^*_{\lambda_t}=\frac{{\left\langle}H_\tau{\right\rangle}_{\lambda_t}}{\hbar\omega_1/2\,\coth{\left(\beta/2\,\hbar\omega_0\right)}}$$ with $${\left\langle}H{\right\rangle}_{\lambda_t}=\sum\limits_{n,m} \hbar\omega_1 \left(m+\frac{1}{2}\right)\,p_{m,n}^\tau\left({\left\langle}\lambda_t\,\lambda_s{\right\rangle}\right)\,p_n^0\,.$$
![Variance and mean (inset) work for a charged oscillator with weak electric noise (red) (\[eq41\]) compared with those of the unperturbed oscillator (blue, dashed) (\[eq2\]) ($\omega_0=0.5$, $\tau=1$, $\beta=0.5$, $M=1$, $\hbar=1$ and $\sigma_\alpha=0.025$).\[fig6\]](plotvarl){width="47.00000%"}
Equation shows that the effect of the random electric field is to renormalize the adiabaticity parameter $Q^* \rightarrow Q^*+Q^*_{\lambda_t}$. Both the mean and the variance of the work distribution are increased as depicted in Fig. \[fig6\]. The fluctuating field thus enhances the degree of nonadiabaticity. This effect can be understood by noting that the perturbation $\Lambda_t$ generates additional transitions between states (the latter obey $m=n\pm1$). We observe that the variance is more sensitive to the perturbation than the mean, since it depends quadratically on $Q^*$ and not linearly. For the numerical analysis we have chosen a white noise of the form, $$\label{eq54}
\kappa_{t,s}=\sigma_\lambda\,\left(\omega_0^2-\omega_1^2\right)\,\delta(t-s)\,,$$ where the relative noise strength is given by $\sigma_\lambda$. As for the case of the anharmonic perturbation, we note that one can neglect the influence of the electric noise up to a relative strength of roughly one percent, $\sigma_\lambda\lesssim0.01$.
Conclusion
==========
We have considered the statistics of the nonequilibrium work of a quantum oscillator when its angular frequency is varied in time. Due to the quantized nature of the energy spectrum, the work probability distribution is discrete. We have analyzed the discrete-to-continuous transition of the work distribution in various limits by introducing the cumulative function. We have shown that the cumulative work distribution becomes smooth in the limit of high temperatures and of large values of the adiabaticity parameter $Q^*$; in both regimes, the mean energy of the oscillator is much larger than the energy separation, and the spectrum can be considered quasi-continuous. We have moreover developed a perturbative approach to investigate the effects of small quartic anharmonicities on the work distribution. We have found that the latter increase both the mean and the variance of the final energy of the oscillator, indicating an augmentation of the nonadiabaticity of the frequency change. In a similar way, we have studied the influence of a weak electric noise on a charged harmonic oscillator and obtained an analogous enhancement of the degree of nonadiabaticity. Our results permit an accurate description of measured quantum work distributions in modulated Paul trap under realistic experimental conditions.
##### Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Peter Talkner for discussions and comments. This work is based on OA’s project within the NIM summer research program, and was supported by the Emmy Noether Program of the DFG (contract LU1382/1-1) and the cluster of excellence Nanosystems Initiative Munich (NIM).
Analytical expression for $Q^*$\[Q\*\]
======================================
Closed expressions for the adiabaticity parameter $Q^*$ can be found whenever the classical equation (\[eq7\]) $$\label{A1}
\frac{d^2}{dt^2}\,X_t+\omega^2_t\,X_t=0$$ can be solved analytically. Equation (\[A1\]) is of the general form of a Hill equation which can be solved under various conditions [@tak86a; @tak86]. Equation (\[A1\]) reduces to common differential equations in the case of specific parameterizations $\omega_t$. Thus for the case of linear parameterizations (\[eq44\]), the solutions are given in terms of the Airy-functions [@def08]. On the other hand, for a sinusoidal parameterization $$\label{A2}
\omega_t^2=\omega_1^2-\left(\omega_1^2-\omega_0^2\right)\, \cos{ \left(\frac{\pi}{2}\,\frac{t}{\tau}\right)}$$ Eq. (\[A1\]) takes the form of the Mathieu equation. The solutions $X_t$ and $Y_t$ can then be written as, $$\label{A3}
\begin{split}
X_t=&\frac{4 \tau}{\pi}\, \Bigg(\text{S}\left[d_1,d_2,0\right]\text{C}\left[d_1,d_2,\frac{\pi t}{4 \tau }\right]\\
-&\text{C}\left[d_1,d_2,0\right]\text{S}\left[d_1,d_2,\frac{\pi t}{4 \tau }\right]\Bigg)\\
\times& \Bigg(\text{C'}\left[d_1,d_2,0\right]\text{S}\left[d_1,d_2,0\right]\\
-&\text{C}\left[d_1,d_2,0\right]\text{S'}\left[d_1,d_2,0\right]\Bigg)^{-1}
\end{split}$$ and $$\label{A4}
\begin{split}
Y_t=& \Bigg(\text{S'}\left[d_1,d_2,0\right]\text{C}\left[d_1,d_2,\frac{\pi t}{4 \tau}\right]\\
-&\text{C'}\left[d_1,d_2,0\right] \text{S}\left[d_1,d_2,\frac{\pi t}{4 \tau}\right]\Bigg)\\
\times&\Bigg(\text{C}\left[d_1,d_2,0\right]\text{S'}\left[d_1,d_2,0\right]\\
-&\text{C'}\left[d_1,d_2,0\right]\text{S}\left[d_1,d_2,0\right]\Bigg)^{-1}\,.
\end{split}$$ Here the functions C and S denote the corresponding Mathieu functions [@abra]. The parameters $d_1$ and $d_2$ are given by, $$\label{A5}
d_1=\frac{16}{\pi^2}\,\omega_1^2\tau^2$$ and $$\label{A6}
d_2=\frac{8}{\pi^2}\,\left(\omega_1^2-\omega_0^2\right)\,\tau^2\,.$$ Further analysis of the parameter $Q^*$ in the context of vacuum squeezing can be found in Ref. [@gal09].
Exact transition probabilities\[trans\]
=======================================
We here collect the analytical expressions of the transition probabilities $p_{m,n}^\tau$ [@hus53]. Despite its apparent simplicity, the generation function $P(u,v)$ (\[eq13\]) cannot be expanded in powers of $u$ and $v$ in an exact series. We thus make use of the $p_{m,n}^\tau$ as defined by the matrix elements of the propagator $U_{\tau,0}(x|x_0)$, $p_{m,n}^{\tau}=\left|U_{m,n}^\tau\right|^2$ (\[eq10\]). This matrix elements are given by $$\label{B1}
U_{m,n}^\tau=\int dx_0\int dx \, {\phi^*}_m^\tau(x) U_{\tau,0}(x|x_0)\phi^0_n(x_0).$$ We use again the method of generating functions. We use the linear generating function of $\phi^t_n(x)$ [@coh1], $$\label{B2}
\begin{split}
\sum\limits_{n=1}^{\infty}\left(\frac{\sqrt{\pi}\,2^n}{n!}\right)^{1/2}\,z^n {\phi_n^t}(x)=\hspace{2cm}\\
\sqrt[4]{\frac{M \omega_t}{\hbar}}\exp{\left(-{\frac{M\omega_t}{2\hbar}}\,x^2+2\sqrt{\frac{M \omega_t}{\hbar}}\,z\,x-z^2\right)} \ ,
\end{split}$$ to evaluate the generating function of the propagator, $$\label{B3}
U(u,v)=\sum\limits_{m,n} \left(\frac{\pi\,2^{n+m}}{n!\,m!}\right)^{1/2}\,u^n v^m U_{m,n}^\tau \ .$$ By introducing the complex parameters, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{B4}
\zeta &=& \omega_1\omega_0 X_\tau -\omega_0 i \dot X_\tau+\omega_1 i Y_\tau +\dot Y_\tau\nonumber\\
|\zeta|^2 &=& 2\omega_0\omega_1\,(Q^*-1) \\
\label{B5}
\sigma &=& \omega_1\omega_0 X_\tau-\omega_0 i \dot X_\tau -\omega_1 i Y_\tau -\dot Y_\tau\nonumber\\
|\sigma|^2 &=& 2\omega_0\omega_1(Q^*+1)\end{aligned}$$ we can write $$\label{B6}
U(u,v)=\frac{\sqrt[4]{\omega_0\omega_1}}{\sqrt{i\sigma/2\pi}}\exp{\left(\frac{\zeta u^2-4i\sqrt{\omega_0\omega_1}uv+{\zeta}^* v^2}{\sigma}\right)}.$$ The matrix elements $U_{m,n}^\tau$ can then be obtained by a series expansion of (\[B6\]) in powers of $u$ and $v$ [@hus53] $$\label{B7}
\begin{split}
U_{m,n}^\tau=&\sqrt[4]{2 \omega_0\omega_1} \sqrt{\frac{n!\,m!\,\zeta^n {\zeta^*}^m }{2^{n+m-1}i\sigma^{n+m+1}}}\\
\times&\sum\limits_{l=0}^{\min{(m,n)}}\frac{[-2 i \sqrt{2/(Q^*-1)}]^l}{l!\,[(n-l)/2]!\,[(m-l)/2]!} \ .
\end{split}$$ According to the selection rule $m=n\pm2k$, $l$ runs over even numbers only, if $m$, $n$ are even, and over odd numbers only, if $m$, $n$ are odd. The explicit expression for the matrix elements $U_{m,n}^\tau$ then reads for even elements $$\label{B8}
\begin{split}
U_{2\mu,2\nu}^\tau=&\sqrt{\frac{2\nu!2\mu!}{2^{2\nu+2\mu-1}i}}\\
\times&\sqrt{\frac{\zeta^{2\nu} {\zeta^*}^{2\mu}}{\sigma^{2\nu+2\mu+1}}}\frac{\sqrt[4]{2 \omega_0\omega_1}}{\Gamma(\mu+1)\,\Gamma(\nu+1)}\\
\times&_2 F_1\left(-\mu,\,-\nu;\,\frac{1}{2};\,\frac{2}{1-Q^*}\right)
\end{split}$$ and for odd elements $$\label{B9}
\begin{split}
U_{2\mu+1,2\nu+1}^\tau=&-\sqrt{\frac{8i\,(2\nu+1)!(2\mu+1)!}{(Q^*-1)\,2^{2\nu+2\mu+1}}}\\
\times&\sqrt{\frac{\zeta^{2\nu+1}{\zeta^*}^{2\mu+1}}{\sigma^{2\nu+2\mu+1}}}\frac{\sqrt[4]{2 \omega_0\omega_1}}{\Gamma(\mu+1)\,\Gamma(\nu+1)}\\
\times&_2 F_1\left(-\mu,\,-\nu;\,\frac{3}{2};\,\frac{2}{1-Q^*}\right).
\end{split}$$ We have here introduced the hypergeometric function $_2 F_1$ [@abra] in order to simplify the sums and write the matrix elements $U_{m,n}^\tau$ in closed form. $\Gamma(x)$ denotes the Euler Gamma function. Combining everything, we get the explicit expressions for the transition probabilities which reads for even transitions $$\label{B10}
\begin{split}
p_{2\mu,2\nu}^{\tau}=&\frac{2^{1/2}}{(Q^*+1)^{1/2}}\,\left(\frac{Q^*-1}{Q^*+1}\right)^{\mu+\nu}\\
\times&\frac{\Gamma(1/2 +\mu)\,\Gamma(1/2+\nu)}{\pi\Gamma(1+\mu)\,\Gamma(1+\nu)}\\
\times&\left[_2F_1\left(-\mu,\,-\nu;\,\frac{1}{2};\,\frac{2}{1-Q^*}\right)\right]^2
\end{split}$$ and for odd transitions $$\label{B11}
\begin{split}
p_{2\mu+1,2\nu+1}^{\tau}=&\frac{2^{7/2}}{(Q^*+1)^{3/2}}\,\left(\frac{Q^*-1}{Q^*+1}\right)^{\mu+\nu}\\
\times&\frac{\Gamma(3/2 +\mu)\,\Gamma(3/2+\nu)}{\pi\Gamma(1+\mu)\,\Gamma(1+\nu)}\\
\times&\left[_2F_1\left(-\mu,\,-\nu;\,\frac{3}{2};\,\frac{2}{1-Q^*}\right)\right]^2.
\end{split}$$
Perturbational transition probabilities\[trans\_per\]
=====================================================
In this appendix, we provide the approximate first-order transition probabilities calculated with the help of time-dependent perturbation theory.
Isolated harmonic oscillator
----------------------------
Following Eqs. (\[eq39\]) and (\[eq40\]), the transition probabilities for an isolated harmonic oscillator are $$\label{C1}
\begin{split}
p_{m,n}^\tau=&\Bigg| \delta_{m,n} + \frac{i}{4\omega_0} \int\limits_0^{\tau} dt \, \exp{\left(i\omega_{m,n} t\right)}\left(\omega_0^2 - \omega^2_t\right)\\
\times&\bigg[ \sqrt{n + 1}\sqrt{n+2} \, \delta_{m,n+2} + (2n +1) \, \delta_{m,n}\\
+&\sqrt{n}\sqrt{n-1} \, \delta_{m,n-2}\bigg]\Bigg|^2\,.
\end{split}$$ The selection rule $m=n\pm2$ finds its origin in the presence of the Kronecker deltas.
Anharmonic corrections
----------------------
The interaction matrix element $A_{m,n}^t$ (\[eq42\]) are given by $$\label{C2}
\begin{split}
A_{m,n}^t =& \alpha_t \left(\frac{\hbar}{2\, M \omega_0}\right)^2 \\
\times&\bigg[ \sqrt{n+1} \sqrt{n+2} \sqrt{n+3} \sqrt{n+4} \, \delta_{m,n+4}\\
+& \left(4 n + 6\right) \sqrt{n+1} \sqrt{n+2} \, \delta_{m,n+2}\\
+& \left(6 n^2+6 n +3\right) \, \delta_{m,n} \\
+& \left(4n-2\right) \sqrt{n} \sqrt{n-1} \, \delta_{m,n-2}\\
+& \sqrt{n} \sqrt{n-1} \sqrt{n-2} \sqrt{n-3} \, \delta_{m,n-4} \bigg]\,.
\end{split}$$ The transition probabilities (\[eq43\]) for a harmonic oscillator with quartic corrections then read $$\label{C3}
\begin{split}
p_{m,n}^{\tau} =& \Bigg| \delta_{m,n} + \frac{1}{i\hbar} \int\limits_{0}^{\tau} dt \, \exp{\left(i \omega_{m,n} \, t\right)}\\
\times& \Bigg\{ -\frac{\hbar}{4 \omega_0}\, \left(\omega_0^2 - \omega^2_t\right) \bigg[\sqrt{n + 1}\sqrt{n+2} \, \delta_{m,n+2} \\
+& \, (2n +1) \, \delta_{m,n} + \sqrt{n}\sqrt{n-1} \, \delta_{m,n-2}\bigg]\\
+& \alpha_t \left(\frac{\hbar}{2 M \omega_0}\right)^2\\
\times& \bigg[ \sqrt{n+1} \sqrt{n+2} \sqrt{n+3} \sqrt{n+4} \, \delta_{m,n+4} \\
+& \left(4 n + 6\right) \sqrt{n+1} \sqrt{n+2} \, \delta_{m,n+2} \\
+& \left(6 n^2+6 n +3\right)\,\delta_{m,n} \\
+& \left(4n-2\right) \sqrt{n} \sqrt{n-1} \, \delta_{m,n-2} \\
+& \sqrt{n} \sqrt{n-1} \sqrt{n-2} \sqrt{n-3} \,\delta_{m,n-4} \bigg] \Bigg\}\Bigg|^2
\end{split}$$ where additional transitions $m=n\pm4$ become possible.
Random electric field corrections\[thermal\_pert\]
--------------------------------------------------
In the presence of an external electric field (\[eq47\]), the transition probabilities (\[eq50\]) become $$\label{C4}
\begin{split}
p_{m,n}^{\tau} =&
\Bigg| \delta_{m,n} + \frac{1}{i\hbar} \int\limits_0^{\tau} dt \, \exp{\left(i\omega_{m,n} t\right)}\\
\times&\Bigg\{ - \frac{ \hbar}{4 \omega_0}\,\left(\omega_0^2 - \omega^2_t\right)\,\bigg[ \sqrt{n + 1}\sqrt{n+2} \, \delta_{m,n+2}\\
+& \left(2n +1\right) \, \delta_{m,n} + \sqrt{n}\sqrt{n-1} \, \delta_{m,n-2}\bigg]\\
+& \lambda_t \sqrt{\frac{\hbar}{2 M\omega_0}} \, \bigg(\sqrt{n+1} \, \delta_{m,n+1} + \sqrt{n} \, \delta_{m,n-1} \bigg)\Bigg\}\Bigg|^2\,.
\end{split}$$ The Kronecker deltas now also allow next-neighbor transitions $m=n\pm1$. Averaging over the noise $\lambda_t$ using Eq. (\[eq48\]), we finally obtain, $$\label{C5}
\begin{split}
{\left\langle}p_{m,n}^{\tau}{\right\rangle}_{\lambda_t} =&
\Bigg| \delta_{m,n} + \frac{1}{i\hbar} \int\limits_0^{\tau} dt \, \exp{\left(i\omega_{m,n} t\right)}\\
\times&\Bigg\{ - \frac{ \hbar}{4 \omega_0}\,\left(\omega_0^2 - \omega^2_t\right)\,\bigg[ \sqrt{n + 1}\sqrt{n+2} \, \delta_{m,n+2}\\
+& \left(2n +1\right) \, \delta_{m,n} + \sqrt{n}\sqrt{n-1} \, \delta_{m,n-2}\bigg]\Bigg\}\Bigg|^2\\
+&\frac{1}{2 M\,\hbar\omega_0}\,\left[\left(n+1\right) \, \delta_{m,n+1} + n \, \delta_{m,n-1} \right]\\
\times&\left| \int\limits_0^{\tau} dt\int\limits_0^{\tau} ds \, \exp{\left(i\omega_{m,n} \left(t-s\right)\right)}\,{\left\langle}\lambda_t\,\lambda_s{\right\rangle}\right|\,.
\end{split}$$
[99]{} A. Fennimore, T. Yuzvinsky, W. Han, M. Fuhrer, J. Cumings and A. Zettl, Nature **424**, 408 (2003).
G. Cerefolini, [*Nanoscale Devices*]{}, (Springer, Berlin, 2009). P. Hänggi and F. Marchesoni, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**81**]{}, 387 (2009).
D.J. Evans, E.G.D. Cohen, and G.P. Morriss, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{}, 2401 (1993). G. Gallavotti and E.G.D. Cohen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 2694 (1995). C. Jarzynski, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 2690 (1997). C. Jarzynski, Eur. Phys. J. B [**64**]{}, 331 (2008). J. Liphardt, S. Dumont, S. Smith, I. Tinoco Jr. and C. Bustamante, Science [**296**]{}, 1832 (2002). F. Douarche, S. Ciliberto, A. Petrosyan, and I. Rabbiosi, Europhys. Lett. [**70**]{}, 593 (2005). V. Blickle, T. Speck, L. Helden, U. Seifert, and C. Bechinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 070603 (2006). H. Tasaki, e-print arXiv:cond-mat/0009244v2. S. Mukamel, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 170604 (2003). P. Talkner, M. Campisi, and P. Hänggi, J. Stat. Mech. [**P02025**]{} (2009). M. Campisi, P. Talkner, and P. Hänggi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 210401 (2009). P. Talkner, E. Lutz and P. Hänggi, Phys. Rev. E [**75**]{}, 50102(R) (2007). G. Huber, F. Schmidt-Kaler, S. Deffner and E. Lutz, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 70403 (2008). S. Deffner and E. Lutz, Phys. Rev. E [**77**]{}, 021128 (2008). D. Leibfried, R. Blatt, C. Monroe, D. Wineland, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**75**]{}, 281 (2003). K. Husimi, Prog. Theo. Phys. [**9**]{}, 381 (1953). K. Takayama, Phys. Rev. A [**45**]{}, 2618 (1992). R. Kulsrud, Phys. Rev. [**106**]{}, 205 (1957). C. Jarzynski, Phys. Rev. E [**56**]{}, 5018 (1997). R. van Zon, L. Hernández de la Peña, G. Peslherbe and J. Schofield, Phys. Rev. E [**78**]{}, 41103 (2008); [*ibid*]{} [**78**]{}, 41104 (2008). F. Galve and E. Lutz, Phys. Rev. A **79**, 055804 (2009). A. Messiah, [*Quantum Mechanics*]{}, (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1961). G. Huber, T. Deuschle, W. Schnitzler, R. Reichle, K. Singer and F. Schmidt-Kaler, New J. Phys. **10**, 013004 (2008). C. Cohen-Tannoudji, B. Diu, F. Laloë, [*Quantum Mechanics, Vol. 1,2*]{} (Paris: Hermann, 1997). Q. Turchette, D. Kielpinski, B. King, D. Leibfried, D. Meekhof, C. Myatt, M. Rowe, C. Sackett, C. Wood, W. Itano, C. Monroe and D. Wineland, Phys. Rev. A **61**, 063418 (2000). T.A. Savard, K.M. O’Hara, and J.E. Thomas, Phys. Rev. A [**56**]{}, R1095 (1997). K. Takayama, J. Math. Phys. [**27**]{}, 1747 (1986). K. Takayama, Phys. Rev. A [**34**]{}, 4408 (1986). M. Abramowitz and I. E. Stegun, [*Handbook of Mathematical Functions*]{} (Washington: United States department of commerce, 1972).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
Two dimensional nonmonotonic conservative maps are recognized to be of relevance in modeling a number of nonlinear systems, as for instance laser acceleration of charged particles [@how84; @car92; @ita92; @how95; @nos95; @lili91], and the nonlinear flow of magnetic field lines in fusion machines like tokamaks and others [@oda96; @cor97]. As opposed to the more traditional monotonic versions, nonmonotonic maps are characterized by frequency curves that are not monotonic functions of the action variable. In laser accelerators, nonmonotonicity arises as a result of the relativistic mass variation of the accelerating particles [@nos95]; in tokamaks, it arises as a result of the geometrical peculiarities of the relevant background magnetic fields. In any case, nonmonotonicity has strong influence on the types of bifurcations that can occur in the associated nonlinear dynamics. Indeed, monotonic maps typically allow only period doubling bifurcations of fixed points but if one adds nonmonotonicity, tangent bifurcations involving pairs of elliptic and hyperbolic fixed points also become possible in the appropriate phase-space.
Period doubling cascades of periodic orbits generally precede a transition to chaotic regimes of these orbits, but tangent bifurcations bear no direct relationship to nonintegrability. Indeed, it has been argued that the most noticeable effects of a tangent bifurcation are to be seen while the system lies in predominantly integrable regimes. Although we will show that this sort of argument is questionable, consider the process depicted in the integrable case of Fig.(\[fig1.ps\]) [@car92]. Two chains of fixed points undergo tangent bifurcation, or actually an inverse tangent bifurcation, starting from the leftmost panel down to the rightmost. Before the bifurcation itself where elliptic fixed points collapse against hyperbolic points, the separatrices defining the upper chain undergo a reconnecting process with those defining the lower chain - this is seen in Fig.(\[fig1.ps\]b). It is precisely due to the smoothness caused by integrability that the reconnection can be seen so clearly. This is why reconnection is thought to be of relevance only in integrable cases. In contrast, the process is generally regarded as of little significance in chaotic regimes because in those situations all separatrices - which shall be correctly called stable and unstable manifolds then - would be already interlaced with little global response as relevant control parameters are varied. Speaking in more precise terms, effects associated with reconnections are thought to be unobservable when the elliptic fixed points of the reconnecting chains undergo full cascades of period doublings, [*before*]{} any sort of mutual contact of the relevant manifolds takes place.
While it is true that reconnections are not easily visualized in chaotic regimes, it is our purpose here to show that their effect can still be quite appreciable. What happens is that even in chaotic regimes the unstable or stable manifolds of originally hyperbolic points may still make a transition from a situation where their mutual crossings are absent - or, actually, relatively infrequent - to a situation where the mutual crossings become very frequent. We shall illustrate the process with a set of figures from which one will be able to see that this change in topology is a reminiscent of the corresponding behavior of regular regimes. The macroscopic result of this type of transition is that as soon as the crossings become frequent, stochastic diffusion undergoes an abrupt jump from slower to faster rates.
From this point on, the discussion relies on more technical grounds. Therefore we introduce here the model map we shall be working with. The map is called the nonmonotonic twist map and reads: $$p_{n+1} = p_n - k \sin \phi_n \>,\>\>\> \phi_{n+1} = \phi_n + f(p_{n+1}),
\label{mapa}$$ where $(p,\phi)$ is a pair of discrete canonical variables - $p$ representing an action and $\phi$ a $2 \pi$-periodic angular coordinate - and where the map itself is totally simpletic given that the left-hand-side of the second Eq.(\[mapa\]) depends on $p_{n+1}$ instead of $p_n$. Function $f(p)$ is of foremost importance here. It is in fact a measure of the frequency with which the discrete orbits move on the $(p,\phi)$ phase-space. In standard monotonic maps it reads $f(p)=p$, but as we wish to incorporate nonmonotonic features we add a quadratic term such that $f$ becomes $f(p) = p - \alpha p^2$ as in Ref.[@how84]. In this case one has effectively a nonmonotonic frequency curve with maximum located at $p=1/(2 \alpha)$, where $df(p)/dp=0$. The map (\[mapa\]) has several families of fixed points. Let us focus here on the first order family (period one orbits) which is characterized by $p_{n+1} = p_n \>\>\> {\rm and} \>\>\> \phi_{n+1} = \phi_n + 2\,m\,\pi$, with $m$ as an arbitrary positive or negative integer; we shall refer to the fixed points as $(p_m^\ast,\phi_m^\ast)$. Eq.(\[mapa\]) informs that the fixed points are located at $\phi_m^\ast=0,\pi \>\>\> {\rm and} \>\>\> p_m^\ast =
[1 \pm \sqrt{1 - 8 m \pi \alpha}/(2 \alpha)]$. In this case of period one orbits, let us have a brief look at the distribution of the various fixed points over the phase-space. For $m=0$ one has four points located at $p_o^\ast = 0,\,1/\alpha$. If $m>0$ the fixed points lie in the finite interval $0 < p < 1/\alpha$, and if $m<0$ the points lie in any of the intervals $-\infty < p < 0$ or $1/\alpha < p < +\infty$. The existence of points located in the finite interval must satisfy the condition $m < 1/(8 \pi \alpha)$, so it may well happen that no fixed point can be actually found there if $\alpha$ is large enough. What happens is that as $\alpha$ grows from some small value, all the fixed points originally located in the sub-interval $0<p<1/(2\alpha$), collapse, at $p=1/(2\alpha)$, against the corresponding points originally located in the sub-interval $1/(2\alpha)<p<1/\alpha$ via a sequence of inverse tangent bifurcations. Meanwhile, the points placed externally to the interval $(0,1/\alpha)$, as well as the points of the pair $m=0$, simply approach each other but never touch. We point out that although this latter two types of fixed points never undergo inverse tangent bifurcation, their manifolds can naturally undergo the reconnection processes. In previous works [@how84] the $m=1$ case has been investigated. It has been shown that when chaos is absent, in the sense that elliptic points of the various chains have not yet period doubled to chaos, initial conditions at negative values of $p$ do not move up to positive values unless the separatrices of the two chains corresponding to the $m=1$ resonances touch each other. In addition it has been argued that for those situations where the elliptic fixed points have already undergone full cascades of period doublings, no detectable difference in the global aspects of the dynamics should be observed as arising from a possible contact of separatrices. We now proceed to show that this is not quite exact; even under chaotic conditions, some noticeable effects resulting from manifold reconnections can be in fact observed. Specifically we shall show that after what could be best called a reconnection-like process, diffusion makes a somewhat abrupt jump from lower to higher values.
Let us focus the discussion on the $m=0$ case because this resonance is the largest one in the system. The linear stability of the fixed points can be examined from the characteristic equation $\lambda = [(2-\kappa) \pm \sqrt{(\kappa-2)^2 -4}] / 2$, with $\kappa \equiv \cos(\phi_o^\ast) (1-2 \alpha p_o^\ast) k$. $\lambda$ is the eigenvalue of the linearized map; if complex (purely real) the corresponding fixed point is unstable (stable). One then sees that for the chain located at $p_o^\ast = 0$, the fixed point at $\phi_o^\ast = \pi$ is always unstable, while that at $\phi_o^\ast = 0$ is unstable only when $k > 4$, being stable otherwise. As for the chain at $p_o^\ast = 1/\alpha$, the point at $\phi_o^\ast=0$ is always unstable, while that at $\phi_o^\ast= \pi$ is unstable when $k > 4$; in both cases, de-stabilization occurs via period doubling of the elliptic points. One can also make an estimate of the condition to be observed for separatrix touching. To do so, let us first imagine that we are working in a situation where $k$ is small and the dynamics is therefore mostly regular. What happens then is that the advance within any particular resonant island tends to be slow. One can thus approximate $p_{n+1}-p_n$ and $\phi_{n+1}-\phi_n$ by their respective infinitesimal increments $dp$ and $d\phi$ and finally write an expression valid in the vicinity of a $m=0$ chain: $dp / d\phi = -k \sin(\phi) / f(p)$. Then, with obvious notation, one obtains an expression for the separatrix of the lower chain: $$\int^{p_{sep}} f(p) dp = k (1 + \cos(\phi_{sep})).
\label{sepint}$$ The upper separatrix of the ($p_{o}=0,\phi_{o}=\pi$) fixed point touches the ($p_{o}=1/\alpha,\phi_{o}=0$) fixed point of the corresponding upper chain (see Fig.(\[fig1.ps\])) when $k=k_t \equiv 1/(12 \alpha^2)$; such value for $k$ is also known as the reconnection threshold in regular regimes. We shall extend this definition for the threshold into chaotic regimes. If we do that we can draw Fig.(\[fig2.ps\]). The figure is similar to corresponding figures shown in Refs. [@how84; @how95]. It displays simultaneously the threshold and period doubling curves in the parameter space. The period doubling curve, in the $m=0$ case analyzed here, is simply a horizontal line at $k=4$. It is thus seen that for values of $\alpha$ below $\alpha \sim 0.144$ period doublings occur before reconnection. Previous works have focused interest on the region $\alpha > 0.144$ because in that region one could clearly speak in terms of reconnection - recall that in this region reconnection takes place before period doublings. In the present paper we shall concentrate efforts to see what happens deep into chaotic regimes when $\alpha < 0.144$.
To start with the investigation, let us consider the vicinity of the threshold curve at $k = 5$. For this value of $k$, elliptic points have been totally destroyed by full cascades of period doublings. Therefore, as we increase $\alpha$ the theoretical reconnection threshold can be attained while the system remains in a deep chaotic regime. Let us try to examine how the relevant manifolds of the $m=0$ resonances behave on the phase-space. The analysis is made with help of the panels of Fig.(\[fig3.ps\]) were we focus attention on the upper unstable and lower stable manifolds (respective orientation indicated by arrows) of the originally hyperbolic points (points indicated by black dots) of the lower and upper chain respectively; in order to draw the manifolds we launch 1000 initial conditions along the linearized manifolds, iterating the dynamics forward or backwards according to the case.
First of all we note that in integrable cases separatrices describe homoclinic loops. Now, even in our nonintegrable case, when $\alpha$ is small it is seen that the tendency of the unstable manifold of the lower chain is to follow the homoclinic loop of the integrable approximation. Of course, due to the nonintegrable features the unstable manifold eventually starts to execute increasingly large oscillations after it first intersects the stable manifold of the same point. As the orbit is about to complete the homoclinic loop the oscillations grow and as the oscillations grow it may happen that the unstable manifold of the lower chain crosses the stable manifold of the upper chain as well. But what must be observed here is that this latter intersection occurs only after the stable manifold of the lower chain crosses the unstable manifold of the same lower chain many times. In this situation one can safely look at the process as closely resembling the integrable case, although, as mentioned before, one lies in a deeply chaotic regime; this feature is somewhat puzzling and shall be considered in detail later.
Then, when one increases the value of $\alpha$, the overall topology of manifold crossings appears to undergo a substantial change. This can be observed in Fig.(\[fig3.ps\]b) where it is seen that this change in topology is in fact very similar to what happens in the purely integrable model; to our knowledge this had not been realized before. Here the unstable manifold of the hyperbolic point of the lower chain makes direct connection with the stable manifold of the upper chain. This leads to the opening of a new diffusive channel connecting the regions located below the lower chain and above the upper chain. In other words, although one lies in a deep chaotic regime since the original elliptic points have fully period doubled to chaos, noticeable changes can be expected as a result of clear alterations on the topology of the manifolds. This behavior of the manifolds is rather conservative in the sense that while the elliptic points have bifurcated, the manifolds still try to preserve some aspects of integrability. As it appears this feature takes place because near the midpoint between the two chains, the orbital frequency attains a maximum $d f(p) / d p = 0$ in view of nonmonotonicity. As a result, the local dynamics is relatively linear and nonintegrable effects are relatively smaller than in other regions of the phase-space.
We now proceed to show that reconnections in chaotic regimes may have direct influence on macroscopic processes, such as diffusion. We actually measure a fraction of particles that are transmitted across the region where $d f (p) / d p \sim 0$ in a numerical experiment that goes as follows.
A set of 1000 initial conditions is launched in the region below the lower reconnecting chain and iterated many times. All particles arriving at the region above the upper reconnecting chain are reinjected into the initial lower region such as to create a steady state in the long run. The simulation is optimized by reflecting particles that move into the region below the injection momentum $p=-2.0$. The mental picture one can form of the system is that of a multicomponent gas placed in a vessel divided by a semi-permeable membrane whose role is played by the reconnecting chains. The gas is placed below the lower chain, and some of the particles are able to crossover up to the region above the upper chain. As time evolves, one reaches a steady state and we measure transmission by computing the number of particles in the upper region divided by the total number of particles.
Figure (\[fig4.ps\]) shows the fraction of particles transmitted after many iterations, versus $\alpha$, for $k=5$ and $6$. On this range of $k$, as suggested by Fig.(\[fig2.ps\]), there is no KAM curve in the phase space. In Fig.(\[fig4.ps\]) we see an increase in particle transmission starting at the reconnection. The starting point of the increase can be evaluated analytically using Eq.(\[sepint\]). For $k=5$ one obtains $\alpha=0.128$ in good agreement with the simulation. It is also observed that for $k=5$ the transmission reaches a plateau around $\alpha=0.15$; presumably at this value the reconnection is fully completed.
In Fig.(\[fig5.ps\]) we finally display surface of sections of $20$ trajectories initially placed at $p=-2.0$ with uniform distribution along $\phi$. Fig.(\[fig5.ps\]a) is made for a value of $\alpha$ prior to the reconnection, $\alpha = 0.10$, and Fig.(\[fig5.ps\]b) with $\alpha$ past the reconnection threshold, $\alpha = 0.16$. The alterations in the diffusive pattern suggested by all the previous analysis can be seen in those figures as well - while in Fig.(\[fig5.ps\]a) the particles remain mostly in the lower region, in Fig.(\[fig5.ps\]b) particles can be easily transmitted across the barrier at $p \sim 0$.
To summarize, in this paper we have investigated the effect that reconnections involving unstable manifolds of deeply chaotic regimes can have on some macroscopically observable features like particle diffusion. We have used a nonmonotonic map to create reconnecting chains. Examining a particular family of fixed point for which $m=0$ in the notation of the text, we have seen that the topology of manifolds of unstable fixed points may have a similar behavior as in an integrable approximation. As we vary convenient parameters, manifolds of differents chains of islands can be clearly seen to undergo reconnection process even in deep chaotic regimes. This is somewhat unexpected, since if one lies in chaotic regimes where manifolds are already strongly interlaced, any reconnection would be expected of little influence in macroscopic features. FBR would like to acknowledge the hospitality at the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, UC Berkeley, where part of this work was developed. We deeply thank Prof. Allan Lichtenberg for his enlightening suggestions on the paper. GC has been supported by the Coordenadoria de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES), Brazil and we receive additional support from Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos (FINEP) and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Brazil.
[99]{} J.E. Howard and S. M. Hohs, Phys. Rev A [**29**]{} 418 (1984).
R.E. de Carvalho and A.M.O. de Almeida Phys. Lett. A [**162**]{} 457 (1992).
D. Farina and R. Pozzoli, Phys. Rev. A [**45**]{} 153 (1992).
J.E. Howard and J. Humphreys, Physica D [**80**]{} 256 (1995).
G. Corso and F.B. Rizzato, Phys. Rev. E [**52**]{} 3591 (1995): and Physica D, [**80**]{} 296 (1995).
A.J. Lichtenberg and M.A. Lieberman, Regular and Stochastic Motion, (Springer, Berlin, 1991).
G.A. Oda and I.L. Caldas, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, [**5**]{} 15 (1995).
G. Corso, G.A. Oda, and I.L. Caldas, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, [*to appear*]{} (1997).
FIGURE LEGENDS
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We consider Lipschitz- and Arens-Eells-type function spaces constructed for magnetic graphs, which are adapted to this setting from the area of optimal transport on discrete spaces. After establishing the duality between these spaces, we prove a characterization of the extreme points of the unit ball in the magnetic Lipschitz space as well as a result identifying the magnetic Arens-Eells space as a quotient of the classical Arens-Eells space of an associated classical graph called the lift graph.'
address: University of Oklahoma
author:
- Sawyer Jack Robertson
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
nocite: '[@*]'
title: Kantorovich Duality and Optimal Transport Problems on Magnetic Graphs
---
[^1] [^2]
[^1]: The author sincerely thanks his advisor, Javier Alejandro Chávez-Domínguez at the University of Oklahoma who has provided years of support and mentorship.
[^2]: This research was supported in part by a National Merit Scholarship provided to the author jointly by the National Merit Scholarship Corporation and the University of Oklahoma.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
In this study, we begin a comprehensive characterisation of temperature extremes in Ireland for the period 1981-2010. We produce return levels of anomalies of daily maximum temperature extremes for an area over Ireland, for the 30-year period 1981-2010. We employ extreme value theory (EVT) to model the data using the generalised Pareto distribution (GPD) as part of a three-level Bayesian hierarchical model. We use predictive processes in order to solve the computationally difficult problem of modelling data over a very dense spatial field. To our knowledge, this is the first study to combine predictive processes and EVT in this manner. The model is fit using Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithms. Posterior parameter estimates and return level surfaces are produced, in addition to specific site analysis at synoptic stations, including Casement Aerodrome and Dublin Airport. Observational data from the period 2011-2018 is included in this site analysis to determine if there is evidence of a change in the observed extremes. An increase in the frequency of extreme anomalies, but not the severity, is observed for this period. We found that the frequency of observed extreme anomalies from 2011-2018 at the Casement Aerodrome and Phoenix Park synoptic stations exceed the upper bounds of the credible intervals from the model by 20% and 7% respectively.
Keywords: Bayesian, Gaussian Processes, Predictive Processes, Ireland, spatial, extreme value analysis, climate extremes, GPD
author:
- 'John O’Sullivan, Conor Sweeney, Andrew C. Parnell'
bibliography:
- 'mybib.bib'
title: '**Bayesian spatial extreme value analysis of maximum temperatures in County Dublin, Ireland**'
---
Introduction
============
In this study, we produce return-levels of anomalies of daily maximum temperature extremes for an area over Ireland, for the 30-year period of 1981-2010. We apply Bayesian hierarchical modelling [@gelman2013bayesian] combined with a reduced-rank method called predictive processes to solve the computationally difficult problem of modelling data over a very dense spatial field [@banerjee2008gaussian]. The role of extreme value theory (EVT) [@coles2001introduction] is increasingly important in furthering our understanding of climate change and climate extremes. With an increase in maximum temperature extremes through the current century projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it is important to have a better understanding of recent observations of climate extremes [@IPCCAR5WG1]. Ireland is “completely off course in terms of achieving its 2020 and 2030 emission reduction targets", according to the Climate Change Advisory Council’s Annual Review 2018. Without urgent action leading to substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, they warn that Ireland is unlikely to deliver on its national, EU and international obligations [@CCAC]. A better understanding of our current climate extremes is essential to enable both the general public and policymakers to plan better in order to mitigate or avoid the many impacts of climate change; whether social, infrastructural, environmental, or economic [@IPCCAR5WG3].\
In order to model extremes of daily maximum temperature, the chosen statistical models must use EVT because extremes of temperature are rare (by definition), and occur in the tails of the distribution. Since extremes of temperature vary by location on any given day, the statistical models used should account for this spatial dependence. And since these distributions are governed by parameters that depend not only on the data, but on other (e.g., physical or mathematical) principles and constraints, it is natural to use a Bayesian framework. With this in mind, we apply a Bayesian hierarchical spatial extreme value model to a dataset of daily maximum temperatures in Ireland.\
Estimating hierarchial Bayesian models using Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods involves matrix factorisations of the order of $n^{3}$, where $n$ is the number of locations [@guhaniyogi2011adaptive]. In our case, with a dataset of daily maximum temperature from 1981 to 2010 at more than $\sim$72,000 locations, this becomes computationally infeasible. In order to overcome this problem, we focus our attention on the capital city of Ireland and its surroundings, and employ reduced-rank spatial models. These are very popular models for analysing large spatial datasets [@banerjee2008gaussian]. In particular, we work with a flexible class of low-rank models called predictive process models.\
We aim to begin a comprehensive characterisation of temperature extremes in Ireland for the period 1981-2010. Our contribution here expands upon existing research on historical temperature extremes in Ireland, which to our knowledge, consists only of site-specific analysis with no spatial component to the models used (*e.g.*, @walsh2012summary and @osman2015modelling - described in the next section). All code needed to reproduce our analysis is available in a public repository on GitHub at <https://github.com/jackos13/extremes>. We note that this repository does not include the data; they are available upon request from Met Éireann.\
The structure of the rest of the article is as follows. Section 2 reviews the body of literature of previous work in the area. Section 3 describes the dataset and covariates used in this study. Section 4 comprises four subsections describing the methodology: the first subsection provides an overview of EVT; the second provides an overview of standard spatial statistics theory and predictive processes; the third discusses the issue of threshold selection for our data; and in the fourth subsection, we detail our selected model. Section 5 illustrates the main results from the model-fitting stage. Section 6 discusses these results, putting them in context with other studies, and concludes the article.
Previous relevant work in climate extremes and spatial modelling
================================================================
Extreme climate work in Ireland
-------------------------------
In a study of Ireland’s climate from 1981 to 2010, @walsh2012summary produces a table of monthly values of mean daily maximum temperatures for two synoptic stations, one at Casement Aerodrome and one at Valentia Observatory. At Casement Aerodrome (in Dublin), the annual mean daily maximum temperature is found to be 13.4. The monthly mean daily maximum temperature at this station ranges from 8 in January to 19.8 in July. A further breakdown by individual days is not provided. @osman2015modelling investigate temperature extremes at six different locations in Ireland. They fit a generalised Pareto distribution (GPD) to the observed extremes at each location (for the period 1961-2000), allowing the scale parameter to vary as a function of large-scale climate variables derived from reanalysis data. From these models, they then produce return-level plots for all six locations, leading them to conclude that significant changes in extreme temperature events are projected to occur in Ireland over the course of the 21st century. These include hotter summers and milder winters.
Spatial modelling for large data sets
-------------------------------------
In the context of using Bayesian hierarchical spatial models to analyse the large spatial datasets that occur frequently in environmental sciences, @guhaniyogi2011adaptive discuss predictive process models. They point out the flexibility of these models, explaining how they can overcome the ‘big $n$’ problem of large datasets, where matrix factorisations of the order of $n^3$ (where $n$ is the number of locations) can make the direct estimation of hierarchical spatial models infeasible. @finley2012bayesian, using a Bayesian hierarchical framework, apply a predictive process model to mean temperature data from 2000-2005 from weather stations situated across the northeastern U.S.A. They found that the low-dimensional predictive process model was highly effective at borrowing information over space to make accurate and precise predictions for new locations. In addition to this, the choice of a Bayesian framework meant that the authors could determine the full posterior predictive distribution at any location.
Spatial extreme value analysis
------------------------------
In order to produce maps of precipitation return levels and uncertainty measures over a region in Colorado in the U.S.A., @cooley2007bayesian construct two separate Bayesian hierarchical models for extreme precipitation events: one for the intensity (using the GPD), and another for the frequency (using the Binomial distribution) of such events. The assumption underlying both models is that regional extreme precipitation is driven by a latent spatial process, characterised by geographical and climatological covariates. Their approach involves pooling all of the information from different stations in order to produce a 25-year daily precipitation return level map, which directly takes into account the parameter and interpolation uncertainty in the method itself. @shaby2012bayesian apply a Bayesian hierarchical spatial extreme value model to temperature extremes across Europe in order to assess the changes in the risk of widespread extremely high temperatures across agricultural land. For their data, they use annual maximum temperatures on a selected subgrid of 985 locations. They find that the risk of large percentages of cropland exceeding a high temperature threshold has probably increased in the last century, but only slightly so. @lehmann2016spatial use a Bayesian hierarchical framework and a block-maxima approach to model extremes of precipitation of different durations from over 1,300 weather stations in two different regions in Australia. The parameters of the distribution are modelled as spatial Gaussian processes. They found that pooling the data across space, and thus borrowing strength from neighbouring stations, leads to more precise parameter estimates and therefore superior posterior inference. This borrowing of strength is particularly important when dealing with extremes, which are, by definition, rare. In a similar study, @dyrrdal2015bayesian also used spatial Gaussian processes in a Bayesian hierarchical model in order to produce spatial maps of extreme hourly precipitation over Norway. They specify a generalised extreme value distribution at each point in space, and allow the parameters to depend on location-specific geographic and meteorological variables, a structure similar to generalised linear modelling. Variable uncertainty is accounted for using Bayesian Model Averaging (BMA). They find that their approach performs well at estimating extreme hourly precipitation return levels, both in terms of magnitude and spatial distribution. @ghosh2011hierarchical, using a Bayesian hierarchical approach, compare two separate data models (a GEV distribution and a variation of the GPD) to model precipitation extremes over continental U.S.A. from 1900 to 1998. They find that the peaks-over-threshold approach (i.e., using the GPD) shows better fit and improved forecast ability to the block-maxima approach (i.e., the GEV).
Data
====
For this study, we make use of a gridded dataset of daily maximum temperatures over Ireland. The data is on a $1 \times 1$ km$^{2}$ grid ($\sim$72,000 gridpoints), consisting of daily values of maximum temperature for the 30-year period 1981-2010. This was produced by Met Éireann’s Climatology and Observation division, using observational data from 138 stations and independent variables available at each grid point, such as elevation, latitude, and longitude. This observational data was interpolated onto the grid, using an inverse distance weighted algorithm [@walsh2017] (available following a suitable request to the Climate Enquiries Office at Met Éireann: https://www.met.ie/). Figure \[fig:dublin\] shows the domain of the dataset. The image on the left illustrates the extent of the full dataset, which covers the state of Ireland. Geographic covariates of latitude, longitude and altitude are available on the same $1 \times 1$ km$^{2}$ grid as the temperature data. The plot on the right of Figure \[fig:dublin\] shows the region we chose to focus on in our research.
[.5]{} ![The data domain showing the outline of the state of Ireland (with county outlines included) is on the left of the image. The area within the black box is our study region, and is blown-up and shown on the right. Here, the full grid (grey circles) and the selected subgrid (black circles) are illustrated. A red triangle marks the location of Casement Aerodrome, for which we have synoptic station data that is used later in the paper for model evaluation purposes.[]{data-label="fig:dublin"}](full-domain.jpeg "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}
[.5]{} ![The data domain showing the outline of the state of Ireland (with county outlines included) is on the left of the image. The area within the black box is our study region, and is blown-up and shown on the right. Here, the full grid (grey circles) and the selected subgrid (black circles) are illustrated. A red triangle marks the location of Casement Aerodrome, for which we have synoptic station data that is used later in the paper for model evaluation purposes.[]{data-label="fig:dublin"}](dublin-domain.jpeg "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}
Study domain
------------
Due to the large number of gridpoints in the dataset, we decided to focus on a smaller section to ensure that running the model was computationally feasible. We focused on an area covering County Dublin, which includes the capital city and its surroundings, located in the east of the island. This study domain is shown in Figure \[fig:dublin\](b). It contains approximately 1,700 gridpoints. The full grid is displayed with grey circles and the selected subgrid is shown with black circles. The subgrid is constructed by selecting every second gridpoint in both the horizontal and vertical directions. Also marked here with a red triangle is the location of Casement Aerodrome, where a synoptic meteorological station is situated. This is used in the specific-site analysis later in this section and in section 4.
Data verification
-----------------
We performed various checks of the gridded data in order to compare it to the underlying synoptic station observations which were used in generating it. Two of these site-specific checks are illustrated in Figures \[fig:verify1\] and \[fig:verify2\]. The observations here are taken from the synoptic station at Casement Aerodrome (location shown in Figure \[fig:dublin\](b)), while the gridded data is taken from the nearest gridpoint (approximately 540 m away).\
Firstly, we created a scatterplot of observed *vs.* gridded data. This shows (Figure \[fig:verify1\]) a very strong positive correlation between the observed and the gridded data, as would be expected. At all 9 sites checked across the full domain (i.e., nationwide), there was a correlation of $>0.985$ between the observations at the synoptic station there and the gridded observations at the nearest gridpoint. For the data illustrated here, the correlation is 0.997.
![Shown is a scatterplot of observed *vs.* gridded temperatures at Casement Aerodrome. A very strong positive correlation between the observed and the gridded data is clearly visible (correlation = 0.997).[]{data-label="fig:verify1"}](casement-scatterplot.jpeg){width="0.6\linewidth"}
Secondly, in order to focus on the tail of the data (which is where our interest lies), we then considered only the data above the 99th percentile in both cases: observations and gridded data. The second panel (Figure \[fig:verify2\]) shows these two smoothed densities overlaid (where the respective thresholds were subtracted from the two datasets in order to have them both begin at 0 to aid comparison). A very close relationship can be seen between the two densities: the observations and the gridded data have a very similar shape (area of overlap calculated from the two kernel density estimations for the empirical data = 0.95). For all 9 sites nationwide checked in this manner (namely, Ballyhaise, Belmullet, Carlow Oakpark, Casement Aerodrome, Dublin Airport, Fermoy Moorepark, Malin Head, Roches Point, and Valentia Observatory), there was an overlap of $>$ 0.89 between the overlaid densities of exceedances of the threshold for the observations and the gridded data from the nearest gridpoint.
![Shown are the two overlaid densities (of the daily maximum temperature gridded data and observations) of the exceedances above the 99th percentile at Casement Aerodrome (area of overlap = 0.95).[]{data-label="fig:verify2"}](casement-densities.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"}
Temperature Anomalies
---------------------
In order to focus our research on maximum temperatures which would be considered extreme relative to the time of year in which they occurred, we chose to create and then analyse temperature anomalies. Adapting a procedure used by @brown2008global, we created the anomalies by removing the mean annual cycle at each location. To do this, we first calculated a 31-day moving average for each location over the 30 years of data, using only values at that location. We then averaged by calendar date in order to get a climate value for the first of January, a climate value for the second of January *etc.* at that location. Using these 366 values provided a distinct climate curve for each location - a mean annual cycle at that gridpoint. Each of these values were then subtracted from the 30 years of raw data for the corresponding day, resulting in a dataset of anomalies at each location. It is the extreme values of these anomalies that we wish to analyse.\
We first selected those anomalies which exceeded the 99th percentile at their gridpoint, in order to further explore the values which would be considered extreme. Figure \[fig:anomaly\](a) illustrates this threshold surface: it shows the value at each point above which only 1% of anomalies at that point lie, and ranges here from 5.2 - 6.2. The threshold is generally lower near the coast - this is unsurprising, as the temperatures here are moderated by their proximity to the sea. Examining the standard deviation of the excesses at each point (Figure \[fig:anomaly\](b)) shows a similar trend. Not only are values of the threshold higher as you move away from the coast - the excesses above this threshold are also more variable, indicating more extreme temperature anomalies inland.
[.5]{} ![The figure on the left (a) is the threshold anomaly (the 99th percentile) - that is, the value for each location above which only 1% of observations lie; the figure on the right (b) illustrates the standard deviation of the excesses of this threshold. Both scales are in degrees Celsius.[]{data-label="fig:anomaly"}](99thpercentile.jpeg "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}
[.5]{} ![The figure on the left (a) is the threshold anomaly (the 99th percentile) - that is, the value for each location above which only 1% of observations lie; the figure on the right (b) illustrates the standard deviation of the excesses of this threshold. Both scales are in degrees Celsius.[]{data-label="fig:anomaly"}](99thsd.jpeg "fig:"){width="0.92\linewidth"}
Methodology
===========
Extreme Value Theory
--------------------
A comprehensive introduction to the field of extreme value theory (EVT) may be found in @coles2001introduction. One common approach is to model the block maxima. We consider a sequence of independent and identically-distributed random variables, $Z_1, Z_2, \ldots$, and let $M_n=\max \left(Z_1,\ldots,Z_n\right)$ be the maximum over a block of $n$ values; for example, we may take $M_n$ to be the annual maxima in a multi-year set of daily maximum temperature data. The extremal types theorem states that, under certain regularity conditions, the distribution function of the $M_n$ will converge to a specific three-parameter distribution, known as the generalised extreme value (GEV) distribution. A major disadvantage to this approach is the fact that, by using only the maxima from a given block size, the data selected may not fully capture all extreme events [@brown2008global]. For example, the two most extreme events in a dataset may occur in the same year - with an annual maxima approach, only one of these will be retained.\
Here we consider our dataset of daily temperature maximum values, $T_{max}$ (the fact that these are anomalies is omitted from the notation, but should be remembered). Choosing to model this dataset with, for example, annual maxima would be quite inefficient, leading to posterior parameter estimates with large variance. An alternative is to model the excesses over a given threshold, often called a peaks-over-threshold (POT) approach [@pickands1975statistical]. For this, we assume that our sequence of independent random variables, $Z_1, Z_2, \ldots$, satisfies the extremal types theorem described above. For a large enough threshold $u$, the distribution function of the excesses $Y = Z - u$, conditional on $Z > u$, is described approximately by the generalised Pareto distribution (GPD) with cumulative distribution function: $$\label{eqn:gpd}
F(y) = 1 - \left( 1 + \frac{\xi y}{\sigma} \right)^{-1/\xi}$$ defined on the set $ \left\{ y : y>0 \enskip {\rm and } \enskip (1+\xi y/\sigma)>0 \right\} $. Here, $\xi$ and $\sigma$ are known as the shape and scale parameters, respectively, and have ranges $-\infty < \xi < \infty$ and $\sigma > 0$.\
Both the block-maxima and the POT approach to EVT have been applied extensively to maximum temperatures from different sources. Examples of the use of GEV models for maximum temperatures are to be found in @plavcova2011evaluation, @kharin2013changes, and @wang2016evaluation. Examples of the use of GPD models for maximum temperatures can be found in @laurent2007estimation, @brown2008global, and @osman2015modelling. In addition, a number of papers have compared the two approaches; see, for example, @unkavsevic2009changes, @parey2010different, and @kioutsioukis2010statistical.\
Given the parameters of the GPD distribution, we can compute the $N$-year return level. For the GPD in (\[eqn:gpd\]), we have $$\label{eqn:Pzu}
P(Z>z | Z>u) = \left( 1 + \frac{\xi (z - u)}{\sigma} \right)^{-1/\xi}$$ Writing $\zeta_u = P(Z>u)$, we can then find the return level $z_m$, the level which is exceeded on average once every $m$ observations, by solving: $$P(Z>z_m) = \zeta_u \, \left( 1 + \frac{\xi (z_m - u)}{\sigma} \right)^{-1/\xi} = \frac{1}{m}.$$ Letting $m = N\,n_y$, where $n_y$ is the number of observations per year, we arrive at the following expression for the $N$-year return level: $$\label{eqn:rl_gpd}
z_N = u + \frac{\sigma}{\xi} \left[ (N n_y \zeta_u)^{\xi} -1 \right]$$
Spatial methods
---------------
Typically when dealing with random variables recorded as point-referenced (or geostatistical) data, the location index **s** is assumed to vary continuously over *D*, a fixed subset of $\mathbb{R}^d$ [@banerjee2014hierarchical]. Let $T(\textbf{s})$ be a vector of random variables (a random vector) at locations **s**. This could be, for example, measurements of daily maximum temperatures at locations **s**. While it is sensible to conceptually assume such values exist at all possible sites in the spatial domain, in practice the data is a partial realisation of this continuous spatial process. Given this partial realisation, the problem then becomes inference about this spatial process $T(\textbf{s})$ as well as prediction at new locations. To this end, it is assumed that the covariance between the random variables at two locations depends on the distance between these locations. That is, $Cov(T(s_i), T(s_j)) = C(s_i, s_j) = C(d_{ij})$ is a function of $d_{ij}$ where $d_{ij}$ is the distance between locations $s_i$ and $s_j$ (for brevity, the dependence on sites $i$ and $j$ is dropped below). The method of calculating this distance must be specified (with Euclidean distance the most common approach). There are many choices of covariance functions (see @gelfand2010handbook for a description of several parametric models, and their relative merits). In this work, we use the Matérn class of covariance functions [@matern2013spatial] with univariate form:
$$C(d) = \begin{cases}
\frac{\varsigma^2}{2^{\nu - 1} \Gamma(\nu)} (\phi d)^{\nu} K_{\nu} (\phi d) & \hspace{3 pt} \text{if} \hspace{3 pt} d \neq 0 \\
\tau^2 + \varsigma^2 & \hspace{3 pt} \text{if} \hspace{3 pt} d = 0.
\end{cases}$$
Here, $\varsigma^2$ is the partial sill (variance of the spatial effect), $\tau^2$ is the nugget (variance of the non-spatial effect), $\nu$ is a parameter controlling the smoothness of the spatial field, $\phi$ is a spatial decay parameter controlling how quickly the covariance decreases with distance, $\Gamma()$ is the gamma function, and $K_{\nu}$ is the modified Bessel function of the second kind of order $\nu$.\
There are alternatives to using the Matérn class of covariance functions, such as kernel convolution (or moving average) models, and convolutions of covariance models [@gelfand2004nonstationary]. However, we decided to work with the Matérn class of functions as it is a flexible class, with parameters that have attractive interpretations, and includes as special cases the exponential and Gaussian covariance functions [@banerjee2014hierarchical].
### Gaussian Processes {#GPs}
The process $T(\textbf{s})$ is said to be Gaussian if, for any $n \geq 1$ and any set of sites $\{s_1, s_2, ... s_n\}$, $\textbf{T} = (T(s_1), T(s_2), ... T(s_n))^T$ has a multivariate normal distribution [@banerjee2014hierarchical]. Gaussian Processes (GPs) can be thought of as extending the finite multivariate normal distribution to infinitely many random variables; in other words, a GP is an infinite collection of variables such that every finite subset follows a multivariate normal distribution. This is a very flexible framework for modelling spatial data, as the covariance matrix can be specified using any valid covariance function.\
Given realisations of the the process $T(\textbf{s})$, and $p$ spatially-referenced covariates at the same locations **s**, let $X(\textbf{s})$ be the $n \times (p+1)$ matrix associated with the spatial regression model:
$$T(\textbf{s}) = X^T(\textbf{s}) \alpha + w(\textbf{s}) + \epsilon(\textbf{s})$$
where $X^T(\textbf{s}) \alpha$ is the mean response, $w(\textbf{s})$ is a zero-centred GP with covariance function $ C(\textbf{s}, \textbf{s}')$ and $\epsilon(\textbf{s}) \overset{iid}{\sim} N(0, \tau^2)$ is an independent measurement error (see, e.g., @finley2009improving and @cressie2015statistics).\
There are alternative spatial methods to GPs such as the integrated nested Laplace approximation (INLA) approach proposed by @rue2009approximate, and INLA combined with a stochastic partial differential equation approach (INLA-SPDE) proposed by @lindgren2011explicit. However, we have chosen to use GPs due to the ease with which they fit into a Bayesian hierarchical framework. They are flexible empirical models, which are appropriate for an irregularly fluctuating and real-valued spatial surface [@diggle2007springer], as we have here.\
Bayesian inference using GPs typically involves the need to invert or factor the covariance matrix. This becomes computationally impractical as the dimension $n$ becomes large (that is, a large number of gridpoints), particularly when using an algorithm such as Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) which involves inverting or factoring this matrix hundreds of thousands of times in one run of a model fitting. For this reason, we decided to use reduced-rank representations focusing on Gaussian predictive process models.
### Gaussian Predictive Process Models {#GPsection}
A comprehensive overview of hierarchical Gaussian predictive process models is given in @banerjee2014hierarchical. We offer a brief summary below. Following the notation from section \[GPs\], we can avoid dealing with the dense covariance matrix induced by the zero-centred GP $w(\textbf{s})$ by projecting it onto a subspace spanned by its realisation over the $n^*$-dimensional $S^*$ where $n^*$ $ \ll$ $n$. An optimal projection of the process $w$ at location $s$, based upon its realisation over $S^*$ is given by the kriging equation:
$$\label{eqn:kriging}
\tilde{w}(s) = E(w(s) | w^*)$$
where $w^* = (w(s_1^*), w(s_2^*), ... w(s_n^*))^T$. $\tilde{w}(s)$ is referred to as the predictive process derived from the parent process $w(s)$.\
Further expanding the above:
$$\tilde{w}(s) = C(s, S^*)^T \hspace{5 pt} C(S^*, S^*)^{-1} \hspace{5 pt} w(S^*)$$
where $C(s, S^*)$ is the $n^* \times 1$ vector with $C(s, s_j^*)$ as the $j^{th}$ element; $C(S^*, S^*)^{-1}$ is the $n^* \times n^*$ covariance matrix on the subspace $S^*$; and $w(S^*)$ is the $n^* \times 1$ values of the process $w$ on the subspace $S^*$. The important point now is that inference on the process $w$ will now involve inverting or factoring an $n^*$-dimensional matrix rather than an $n$-dimensional one.
Hierarchical Model
------------------
The aim of this study is to produce $N-$year return levels of anomalies of extreme temperature ($T_{max}$). The dataset we want to model has already been described. In summary, anomalies were calculated at each location; site-specific thresholds ($u_i$) of the 99.5th percentile were calculated; only declustered excesses above this threshold were kept for modelling. We require location-specific estimates of the parameters from the GPD ($\sigma_i$ and $\xi_i$), as well as the probability of exceeding the threshold ($\zeta_i$) in order to calculate return levels using equation (\[eqn:rl\_gpd\]).\
Following the approach of @cooley2007bayesian, we employ a Bayesian hierarchical model with three layers (see the directed acyclic graph in Figure \[fig:DAG\]). There are two separate hierarchies - both with three layers. The first hierarchy models the parameters of the GPD; the second models the probability of exceeding the threshold. The first layers in both of these hierarchies consist of modelling the data; the second layers describe the latent spatial process underlying the extremes; while the third layers consist of the prior distributions on the parameters controlling the second.
![A directed acyclic graph (DAG) of the Bayesian hierarchical model fitted to the spatial dataset. Details of each layer and the parameters involved may be found in the text.[]{data-label="fig:DAG"}](dag.pdf){width="100.00000%"}
Let the declustered extreme anomalies of $T_{max}$ be denoted by $z_k(x_i)$ where the indices $i$ and $k$ are such that $z_k(x_i)$ refers to the $k$-th exceedance ($k = 1 \dots n_i$) at gridpoint $x_i$ ($i = 1 \dots n_x$). Let $M_i$ refer to the number of exceedances. The layers in the hierarchies are described in detail below.
### Layer 1: Extremal Data and Probability of Exceedance
We model the extremal data $z_k(x_i)$ using the GPD. This is the first layer in the first hierarchy. To ensure a positive scale parameter throughout the computations, we reparameterise $\phi = log(\sigma)$. We have two spatially-varying parameters for the distribution. The first layer in the first hierarchy is then given by:
$$z_k(x_i) \sim GPD(u(x_i), \sigma(x_i), \xi(x_i))$$
The first layer in the second hierarchy involves the parameter $\zeta_i$ (the probability of exceeding the threshold $u_i$ - or more precisely, following declustering, the probability of being a cluster maximum at gridpoint $i$). This needs to be modelled in order to calculate return level surfaces using equation (\[eqn:rl\_gpd\]). Following the methodology of @cooley2007bayesian, we model this as a binomial random variable. Here, the probability of being a cluster maximum is modelled using the empirical probability as our data. It is assumed that the observed number of cluster maxima $M_i$ at gridpoint $i$ is a binomial random variable with $m_i$ trials (the total number of observations in the period of study), each with a probability $\zeta(x_i)$ of being a cluster maximum:
$$M_i \sim Bin(m_i, \zeta(x_i))$$
From this point, we omit all dependence on location $x_i$ for ease of notation, unless emphasis at a particular point is necessary.
### Layer 2: Process
We assume that the GPD parameters vary smoothly over space and thus model the two variables ($\phi=log(\sigma)$ and $\xi$) as GPs. Following our decision to model these parent processes using the reduced-rank representation of predictive processes, at this layer we thus directly model $\phi^* =log(\sigma^*)$ and $\xi^*$ (where $\phi^*$ and $\xi^*$ are defined on a smaller grid, and are thus lower-dimensional, than $\phi$ and $\xi$, which are defined on the full grid). The second layer for $\phi^*$ in this hierarchy then is:
$$\phi^* \sim MVN(\mu_\phi, \Sigma_\phi)$$
Here, $\mu_\phi = X \alpha_\phi$ where $X$ is a matrix of covariates for the linear regression component of the model, and $\alpha_\phi$ is a vector of coefficients. $\Sigma_\phi$ is the covariance matrix of the spatial process, and is modelled using the Matérn covariance function described earlier. This has parameters $\beta_\phi$ consisting of a matrix of range parameters (controlling how quickly the correlation drops off in different directions), $\varsigma_\phi$ is the partial sill, $\tau_\phi$ is the nuggest, and $\nu_\phi$ is the smoothness parameter. The $n$-dimensional $\tilde{\phi}$ is then calculated using the kriging equation (\[eqn:kriging\]) detailed in section \[GPs\]. The layer for $\xi^*$ is similar.\
In a similar manner (and again following the methodology of @cooley2007bayesian), we assume $\zeta$ to vary smoothly over space. We let $\zeta^*$ be a reduced-rank representation of $\zeta$, and then apply the transformation $\zeta' = \text{logit}(\zeta^*)$, and use predictive processes to model this reduced-rank transformed representation. As before, the kriging equation is used to calculate $\tilde{\zeta}$ given $\zeta'$.
### Layer 3: Hyperparameters
The third and final layers of the hierarchies consist of the 15 prior distributions on the parameters in the second layers - that is, the distributions of the $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\varsigma$, $\tau$ and $\nu$ hyperparameters, for each of the three parameters $\phi^*$, $\xi^*$ and $\zeta'$.\
Using Bayesian inference allows additional information about a process to be incorporated in the form of prior information. This could be of great benefit in our case, due to the scarcity of extreme data. However, @coles1996bayesian argue that with such scarce data, an expert may not be able to independently formulate prior beliefs about this process. With this in mind, we aim to use semi-informative prior distributions which are based on physically plausible values, but with enough flexibility so that the data is not restricted from informing the posterior distributions.\
We constructed the regression matrix $X$ to model an intercept parameter in addition to the covariates of latitude, longitude, and elevation. As elevation had a strong positive skew (skewness = 2.36), we transformed it using a log-transform. The three covariates were then scaled to be centred on 0 and with a standard deviation of 1.\
For the prior distributions for the corresponding vectors of regression coefficients $\alpha_{\phi}$, $\alpha_{\xi}$, and $\alpha_{\zeta}$, we chose Normal distributions centred on 0, 0 and -6 respectively for the intercept parameters. Remembering that $\phi^*$ is the log of the scale parameter, this corresponds to a prior distribution for the scale parameter $\sigma$ which is centred on 1. The prior for the intercept for $\xi^*$ is centred on 0, which assumes the data to have infinite support. The prior for the intercept for $\zeta'$ is centred on -6, which is approximately the logit of the probability of an observation selected at random exceeding the chosen threshold. Standard deviations of 2 are used for all three intercepts. This is arguably a little too wide in some cases (e.g., @coles1996bayesian point out that a shape of -1 rarely occurs when modelling the maxima of environmental data), but as the shape parameter is particularly difficult to model, we preferred to err on the side of caution, and allow the data play the dominant role in informing the posterior distribution for this parameter.\
The following details regarding the non-intercept $\alpha$ coefficients, and the $\beta$, $\nu$, $\varsigma^2$ and $\tau^2$ hyperparameters are identical for the $\phi^*$, $\xi^*$ and $\zeta'$ parameter surfaces. For the non-intercept $\alpha$ coefficients for the scaled covariates of latitude, longitude and altitude, we chose $N(0, 1)$ distributions (as proposed by @dyrrdal2015bayesian). Although we expect to see a relationship between the covariates and the parameter surfaces (e.g, more extreme excesses are expected further from the sea, and so the scale surface is likely to increase as the distance from the sea increases), we wanted to assume no relationship *a priori* and allow the data to inform the relationship between the parameter surfaces and the covariates. A standard deviation of 1 is, again, arguably a little too wide (with the scaled covariates, a value of 1 would imply a parameter surface which increases by at least 3 across the fields of latitude, longitude or altitude - a slope of this magnitude is unrealistic for all three parameters under consideration in this study). We have aimed to use physical arguments in informing the prior distributions, but again have chosen to err on the side of caution in order to allow the data play the dominant role in informing the posterior distributions.\
The $\beta$ and $\nu$ priors needed to be considered together. Looking again at the univariate Matérn function for the covariance between two gridpoints, where $d$ is the distance between the gridpoints $s$ and $s'$:
$$C(s, s') = C(d) = \begin{cases}
\frac{\varsigma^2}{2^{\nu - 1} \Gamma(\nu)} (\beta d)^{\nu} K_{\nu} (\beta d) & \hspace{3 pt} \text{if} \hspace{3 pt} d \neq 0 \\
\varsigma^2 + \tau^2 & \hspace{3 pt} \text{if} \hspace{3 pt} d = 0,
\end{cases}$$
it can be seen that the shape of the parameter surface depends on the spatial decay parameter $\beta$ (which controls how quickly the covariance decreases with distance) and $\nu$ (which controls the smoothness of the spatial field).\
In order to allow the spatial decay parameter $\beta$ to differ depending on the direction of its two-dimensional coordinates (longitude and latitude), it is necessary to extend the univariate case above to incorporate a $2\times2$ positive definite matrix $\beta$. With this approach, the (1, 1) entry in the matrix represents the spatial decay in the direction of longitude, the (2, 2) entry represents the spatial decay in the direction of latitude, and the (1, 2) entry represents the covariance between the two. The covariance function between two points $s$ and $s'$ now becomes:
$$C(s, s') = C(d) = \begin{cases}
\frac{\varsigma^2}{2^{\nu - 1} \Gamma(\nu)} \Big(\sqrt{d^T \beta^{-1} d}\Big)^{\nu} K_{\nu} \Big(\sqrt{d^T \beta^{-1} d}\Big) & \hspace{3 pt} \text{if} \hspace{3 pt} d \neq 0 \\
\varsigma^2 + \tau^2 & \hspace{3 pt} \text{if} \hspace{3 pt} d = 0,
\end{cases}$$
where $d$ is now a 2-dimensional vector of the distance between the two points.\
In order to construct a set of prior matrices $\beta$, all possible combinations of matrices were formed using values from the set {0, 0.05, 1, 10}, from which only the positive definite ones were retained. This led to a set of 20 matrices. The smoothness parameter $\nu$ is assigned a prior support of {0.5, 2.5}. It is common to use such values for $\nu$, as the data can rarely inform about smoothness of higher orders [@finley2009improving]. This means there are 20 x 2 = 40 prior ($\beta$, $\nu$) combinations to model the spatial decay across the parameter field and the smoothness of the resulting field.\
Though it is possible for the spatial dependence of individual extreme observations to have a short range, the surfaces being modelled here refer to a climatological quantity rather than a weather quantity - and so it is reasonable to assume the climate will be similar at two nearby locations [@cooley2007bayesian]. With this in mind, the ($\beta$, $\nu$) combinations above allow for either very short or very long effective spatial ranges, which we take to be the distance at which the correlation equals 0.05 [@finley2013spbayes]. The extent of these combinations means that correlation can either drop off very quickly with distance (with an effective spatial range of 10 km) or else reduce very slowly (reducing from 1 to 0.67 between the two furthest points on the grid). This latter combination means all points can be well within the effective spatial range of all other points in the domain of the study. We feel that this represents a sufficiently broad selection to allow for great flexibility in modelling the spatial fields of the parameters. Though physically plausible (but conservative approach), we will check that the posteriors for $\beta$ assign negligible probabilities to the extreme combinations in the specified prior range [@diggle2007springer].\
The remaining two parameters in the Matérn covariance function, $\varsigma^2$ and $\tau^2$, represent the partial sill (variance of the spatial effect) and the nugget (variance of the non-spatial effect - essentially representing the measurement error in repeated measurements at any site) respectively. It is difficult to have information on these parameters *a priori*, so we chose relatively uninformative priors. As both of these quantites are positive, we chose to model their log: $\text{log}(\varsigma^2) \sim N(0, 1)$ and $\text{log}(\tau^2) \sim N(-2.3, 1)$ (i.e., we assume $\varsigma^2$ has a mode of 1, and $\tau^2$ has a mode of $\sim 0.1$). The standard deviations of 1 (for the priors on $\text{log}(\varsigma^2)$ and $\text{log}(\tau^2)$) are again sufficiently large to allow the data play the dominant role in informing the posterior distributions for these parameters, without allowing for unrealistic larger values to occur.
Threshold selection
-------------------
In order to ensure independence of observations in time, we declustered the dataset of extremes anomalies by removing all observations which occurred in clusters except for the maximum of this cluster (a process described by @coles2001introduction, p.99). That is, if two or more consecutive days at any point exceeded the threshold, only the maximum of these values was retained. The model was run for varying thresholds from the 98th percentile upwards. As detailed in @coles2001introduction, threshold selection involves a trade-off between bias and variance (higher thresholds lead to reduced bias, but increased variance). In our case, choosing too low a threshold will result in many less-extreme exceedances (i.e., extremes which are marginally above the threshold), which will threaten the asymptotic nature of the GPD model. Choosing too high a threshold will result in too few datapoints, and result in large uncertainties in the posterior estimates. Here, we selected a threshold of the 99.5th percentile - results for simulations below this tended to be overly dominated by the large number of excesses marginally above the threshold, and failed to model the extreme excesses sufficiently well. Following declustering of excesses above this 99.5th percentile threshold, there was a median number of 40 independent excesses retained across the domain (the 2.5th percentile value of the number of independent excesses retained was 35, and the corresponding number for the 97.5th percentile value was 50 (see Table \[tab:table1\])).
**** 98th 98.5th 99th 99.5th 99.7th 99.9th
------- ------ -------- ------ -------- -------- --------
2.5% 136 105 73 35 21 8
25% 148 114 76 37 22 9
50% 152 117 79 40 27 10
75% 162 126 86 46 29 11
97.5% 176 137 93 50 31 11
: This table shows, for six selected threshold surfaces of the 98th percentile and above, the remaining number of declustered excesses across the surface for the 2.5%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 97.5% percentile levels. For example, the 98th percentile threshold has a median number of excesses at a gridpoint of 152, with a 2.5th percentile value of 136 excesses and a 97.5th percentile value of 176 excesses.[]{data-label="tab:table1"}
Model implementation
--------------------
We implemented our model using the programming language R [@R] and the package Rcpp [@Rcpp]. A Metropolis-Hastings MCMC algorithm was used to draw samples from the posterior distributions of all parameters in the hierarchy. For both components of the model, three chains were run for 50,000 iterations. A burn-in of 10,000 iterations was discarded from each chain. The remaining chains were then thinned by retaining only every 10th sample to reduce auto-correlation. Convergence was then assessed using the $\hat{R}$ criterion [@gelman1992inference], with values below the suggested criterion of 1.2 taken to imply convergence. The resulting simulations are presented in the next section. All code needed to reproduce this analysis is available in a public repository on GitHub at\
<https://github.com/jackos13/extremes>.
Results
=======
Posterior parameter estimates
-----------------------------
Posterior median surfaces for the scale and shape parameters of the GPD are shown in Figure \[fig:params\]. The scale parameter (indicating the variance of the distribution) increases with increasing distance from the coast. Along the coastline, it has a median value of between 0.75 and 1. Further inland, it exceeds 1 at most locations, extending upwards of 1.5 in the west and south-west of the study domain. This is consistent with the surface of the standard deviation in Figure \[fig:anomaly\](b), which showed that the excesses of the threshold farther from the coast had larger variance. In other words, more variable temperature extremes are observed farther from the coast, due to the increased distance from the moderating effect of the Irish Sea. This corresponds to standard meteorological theory where the diurnal range of temperature generally increases with distance from the sea [@rafferty2011climate].
[.5]{} ![Shown are the posterior estimates for the median surface of the scale parameter on the left (a) and the shape parameter on the right (b).[]{data-label="fig:params"}](scale.jpeg "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}
[.5]{} ![Shown are the posterior estimates for the median surface of the scale parameter on the left (a) and the shape parameter on the right (b).[]{data-label="fig:params"}](shape.jpeg "fig:"){width="0.92\linewidth"}
The shape parameter is slightly more difficult to interpret. A negative shape indicates a finite upper-bound to the corresponding posterior distribution; a shape of 0 indicates that the data has infinite support; while a positive shape indicates a finite lower-bound to the corresponding posterior distribution. The scale and shape are known to be generally negatively correlated [@cooley2010spatial]. This is evident here, where the median shape is seen to have the opposite trend to the median scale - the shape surface generally decreases with increasing distance from the coast (Figure \[fig:params\](b)).\
The median surface of the zeta parameter is shown in Figure \[fig:params2\]. The relatively simple nature of this parameter (essentially, it models the binomial probability that a randomly chosen day is a cluster maximum) led it to converge quite quickly, with very little uncertainty in its posterior distribution. The general pattern here is for higher values nearer the coast. This indicates that extreme temperatures exceeding the threshold are more likely to be isolated incidents here, whereas further inland extremes are more likely to occur in clusters (and therefore there are fewer independent excesses retained here). The higher frequency of isolated excesses near the coast is due to the moderating effect of the sea, which makes it more unlikely for prolonged periods where successive days exceed the threshold to occur.
![Shown is the posterior estimate for the median surface of the zeta parameter, the probability of a randomly selected day being a cluster maximum.[]{data-label="fig:params2"}](zeta.jpeg){width="0.5\linewidth"}
Posterior return level estimates
--------------------------------
20- and 100-year return-level median surfaces are shown in Figure \[fig:rlsurfaces\]. The 20-year median surface is seen to range from just below 8 to almost 10. The lowest levels are seen along the north-eastern coast of the study domain, while higher return levels are observed inland. The highest return levels are observed on the western side of the domain. The 100-year median surface ranges from 8 to just under 10.7. A similar pattern to the 20-year return level is observed - lowest values appear along the sea in the north-east of the domain, with highest values on the western boundary. The highest part of the mean climate curve calculated for Casement Aerodrome (its location is shown in Figure \[fig:dublin\](b)) exceeds 20 in July. This means that if the temperature anomaly return levels seen in Figure \[fig:rlsurfaces\] occur at this time of year, daily maximum temperatures will be in excess of 30.5. Since observations began at this location in 1944, there have been only two days recorded here with temperatures exceeding 30 - one in 1975 (before the time period of this study) and one in 2006.
![Shown are the 20- and 100-year return level median surfaces of the temperature anomaly.[]{data-label="fig:rlsurfaces"}](rl-surfaces-20and100.jpeg){width="0.8\linewidth"}
Comparison with recent observations
-----------------------------------
Figure \[fig:rlcurves\] shows the return level curve at Casement Aerodrome (location shown in Figure \[fig:dublin\]), with the observations from the synoptic station overlaid on the plot. The return period (measured in years) is displayed on a log scale for ease of interpretation. The median return level curve is shown in black; a 95% credible interval is contained within the upper and lower bounds in grey. Observations are included by plotting their empirical return period against their return level anomaly. This is found by ordering the observed excesses in a vector $y$ such that $y_1 \leq y_2 \leq \dots \leq y_n$ for the $i = 1 \dots n$ excesses at that location, and then calculating the corresponding vector of return periods $x$ with entries given by:
$$x_i = \frac{1}{1 - \sfrac{i}{(n+1)}} \times \frac{1}{npy}$$
Here $npy$ refers to the number of observations per year. Observations from the time period of the study (1981-2010) are plotted with blue circles. Observations from the most recent eight years (2011-2018) are plotted with orange circles. There were more excesses per year in the period 2011-2018 (12 in total - 1.5 per year) than there were in the period of the study (34 in total - 1.33 per year). However, this increase in the frequency of threshold excesses does not appear to be due to an increase in the severity of threshold excesses: as can be seen in the plot, all of the more recent excesses appear in the lower region of the return level curve. For reasons of clarity, the graph only includes those points with a return period of 2 years or greater. 11 points from 1981-2010 are included in this set, and 7 points from 2011-2018. The greatest empirical return period calculated for an anomaly from 1981-2010 is almost 39 years, whereas the greatest empirical return period calculated for an anomaly for the 2011-2018 period is just under 4 years. This again demonstrates the increase in the frequency of threshold excesses at this location, but shows that there is no corresponding increase in their severity.
![Shown is the return level curve for Casement Aerodrome showing the median (black) and the 95% credible interval (grey) curves, with observations superimposed for 1981-2010 (blue dots) and 2011-2018 (orange dots).[]{data-label="fig:rlcurves"}](rl-at-casement.pdf){width="100.00000%"}
This increase in the frequency of threshold excesses from recent observational data is seen at more than one location. Figure \[fig:newzeta\] shows posterior 95% credible intervals (black line segments, with a filled circle indicating the median) of the probability of a particular day being a cluster maximum at four synoptic stations across the domain of the study: Casement Aerodrome, Dublin Airport, Dun Laoghaire, and the Phoenix Park. Superimposed on these credible intervals is the data used to fit the model - the observed site-specific probability of being a cluster maximum for the period 1981-2010 (blue diamonds). Also superimposed is the more recent (2011-2018) observed site-specific probability of being a cluster maximum (red diamonds). From this plot, it can be seen that the greatest increase in the frequency of threshold excesses is at Casement Aerodrome (where the 2011-2018 observed probability is 20% greater than the upperbound of the credible interval at that site). The next largest increase is seen at the Phoenix Park station, where the 2011-2018 observed probability is 7% greater than the upperbound of the corresponding credible interval. Of the remaining two stations, the 2011-2018 observed probability at Dun Laoghaire is marginally outside the credible interval bounds (it is 2% greater than the upperbound at this location), while the corresponding probability for Dublin Airport is within the credible interval bounds.
![Shown in black is the 95% credible interval of the probability of being a cluster maximum ($\zeta$) at four synoptic stations: Casement Aerodrome, Dublin Airport, Dun Laoghaire, and the Phoenix Park; black dots show the posterior median values; blue diamonds show the observed (1981-2010) probability of being a cluster maximum - that is, the data used to fit the model; red diamonds show the more recent (2011-2018) observed probability of being a cluster maximum.[]{data-label="fig:newzeta"}](four-locations.pdf){width="100.00000%"}
Discussion and conclusion
=========================
In this research, we began a comprehensive characterisation of temperature extremes in Ireland for the period 1981-2010. We produced return-level surfaces of daily maximum temperature across County Dublin, the domain of the study. We also produced site-specific return-level curves at synoptic stations, and super-imposed data from 2011-2018 onto these plots. To our knowledge, this is the first study to combine predictive processes and EVT in the manner we have used here.\
We modelled a spatial dataset of daily maximum temperatures over the domain of County Dublin, Ireland, in order to better understand the nature of temperature extremes there. We first created a dataset of anomalies to focus attention on temperatures which would be considered extreme relative to the time of year in which they occurred. In order to make the best use of this dataset, we chose a peaks-over-threshold approach, and declustered the exceedances of this threshold to remove successive days of extremes, retaining only the maximum excess from a cluster. We then used the GPD and the reduced-rank representation of predictive processes in the first component of two three-level Bayesian hierarchical models. This resulted in (samples of) posterior densities for the scale and shape surfaces, the parameters which uniquely determine the distribution and behaviour of the temperature anomaly excesses. The second Bayesian hierarchical model was applied in a similar manner to the surface of the probability that a day selected at random is a cluster maximum which exceeds the threshold. Our chosen Bayesian approach means that uncertainty is accounted for directly in the estimate of the full posterior density, in contrast to approaches which yield only summary statistics from the target density. Values from these posterior densities for the three surfaces were drawn at random in order to calculate estimates of return-level surfaces using equation (\[eqn:rl\_gpd\]). This direct accounting for uncertainty in the parameter distributions means that the uncertainty of the return-level surfaces can be quantified directly, as the process yields posterior densities for these values too. We used the reduced-rank representation of predictive processes to significantly reduce the computational burden of MCMC by modelling the surfaces of interest directly on a sub-grid of the domain, while still being able to incorporate and make use of the data at every gridpoint in the domain.\
Extremes are, by defintion, rare - our approach ensured that valuable information about the observed extremes was not neglected in pursuit of a relatively fast model-fitting algorithm. Modelling the GPD and binomial parameters as GPs which vary continuously over space also allowed us to make the best use of the limited data which we had - parameter values at a gridpoint are not only informed by the data at that gridpoint, but by the data at surrounding gridpoints too, with nearby gridpoints having more influence than those at a greater distance. This reduces the (large) uncertainties which result in parameter estimates from a single-site analysis (e.g, maximum-likelihood estimation at a single point). This is particularly helpful when it comes to the shape parameter, on which it can be very difficult to perform inference.\
One of the problems with modelling large spatial datasets with a likelihood-based approach using MCMC algorithms is the need to invert large and dense matrices thousands of times. We tackled this problem with the use of reduced-rank representations of the latent spatial processes, and hence the computational burden was vastly reduced. The problem of modelling extremes (that is, the unavoidable scarcity of data) was approached by using spatial models to make best use of the information contained in the data, and a Bayesian hierarchy in order to set prior distributions for the parameters which were based on physical principles.\
Following model fitting and convergence diagnostics, posterior parameter estimates and return level surfaces were produced. These were presented in the previous section. The median return level surfaces showed that, for example, for both 20- and 100-year time periods, exceedances of these values in July would mean maximum daily temperatures in excess of 30.5 at Casement Aerodrome. Further site-specific analysis here showed that, for the period 2011-2018, an increase in the frequency of extreme anomalies, but not the severity, was observed. This increased frequency of extreme anomalies at Casement Aerodrome is such that the observed probability of being a cluster maximum was 20% greater here than the upperbound of the credible interval produced by the model using the 1981-2010 data. This increase was also present to a lesser extent at the Phoenix Park and Dun Laoghaire stations (where the observed probability of being a cluster maximum was 7% and 2% respectively above their corresponding upperbounds).
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors are grateful to S[é]{}amus Walsh and Sandra Spillane for making the gridded dataset available and for their initial input into this research. This work was supported by the Environmental Protection Agency grant number 2012-CCRP-PhD.3. Andrew Parnell’s work was supported by a Science Foundation Ireland Career Development Award grant 17/CDA/4695 and by the Insight Centre for Data Analytics SFI/12/RC/2289.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We introduce a class of two-dimensional non-resonant single-phase phononic materials and investigate its peculiar dispersion characteristics. The material consists of a thin plate-like structure with an embedded periodic lattice of Acoustic Black Holes. The use of these periodic tapers allows achieving remarkable dispersion properties such as Zero Group Velocity in the fundamental modes, negative group refraction index, bi-refraction, and mode anisotropy. The dispersion properties are numerically investigated using a three-dimensional supercell plane wave expansion method. The effect on the dispersion characteristics of key geometric parameters of the black hole, such as the taper profile and the residual thickness, are also explored.'
author:
- Hongfei Zhu
- Fabio Semperlotti
bibliography:
- 'Dispersion\_ABH\_ref.bib'
title: '**Phononic Thin Plates with Embedded Acoustic Black Holes**'
---
Phononic Crystals (PC) are artificial media made of two or more materials combined together to form a periodic structure. These materials offer unusual wave propagation characteristics such as acoustic bandgaps [@Liu; @Yang; @Helios; @Garcia; @Vasseur], localized and guided defect modes [@Torres; @Kafesaki; @Khelif], filtering of acoustic waves [@Pennec1; @Pennec2; @Zhu], acoustic lenses [@Zhu2; @Semperlotti], and negative refraction [@Morvan; @Pierre], that are typically not achievable in conventional materials. PCs are often classified in two categories, non-resonant and locally-resonant [@Cui2009], in order to highlight the difference between their operating modes. The locally-resonant materials exhibit low frequency resonances (typically in the metamaterial range) localized at the inclusion while the non-resonant materials exhibit inclusion resonances only in the high frequency range. Owing to this mechanism, the wave propagation characteristics in the low frequency range are mostly (acoustic) impedance-driven for the non-resonant materials and inertia-driven for the locally resonant materials. These local resonances have been shown to be strictly related to the generation of negative effective properties (such as density and bulk modulus) which are at the basis of double negative properties [@Lee].
Despite such remarkable dynamic properties, the integration of these materials into practical devices and applications is still lacking. The fabrication complexity (particularly for the locally resonant type) and the non-structural character (i.e. not load bearing materials) of typical PC designs are among the main limiting factors. In this study, we propose a class of two-dimensional PCs obtained by tailoring the geometry of a single-phase isotropic material able to provide the same high-level characteristics of locally resonant PCs. These materials are synthesized by embedding a periodic lattice of carefully engineered geometric inhomogeneities consisting of tapered holes. These inhomogeneities can be introduced (virtually) in any material by simply manufacturing tapers having prescribed profiles in the host structure. Among the fabrication advantages of this design, we highlight that it does not require interfacing multiple materials and it can be retrofitted even to existing structures. This could have critical implications to develop highly absorbing thin-walled structures with embedded passive vibration and acoustic control capabilities. The proposed phononic structure (Fig.\[Fig1\]) consists in a thin plate made of a periodic lattice of exponential-like circular tapers, often referred to as *Acoustic Black Holes* (ABH).
The physical principle exploited in ABHs was first observed by Pekeris [@Pekeris] for waves propagating in stratified fluids and later extended to acoustics in solids by Mironov [@Mironov]. Mironov observed that, under certain conditions, flexural waves propagating in a thin plate with an exponentially tapered edge will theoretically never reflect back, therefore resulting in the so-called *zero reflection* condition. More recently Krylov [@Krylov1; @Krylov2] exploited this concept to achieve passive vibration control of structural elements. The ABH consists in a variable thickness exponential-like circular taper able to produce a progressive reduction of the phase and group velocity as the wave approach the center of the hole. Typical thickness profiles are of the form $h(x)=\varepsilon x^m$ where $\{ m$, $\varepsilon \}$ $\in \mathbb{R}$, $m \geq 2$, and $\varepsilon \ll (3 \rho \omega^2 / E)^{1/2}$ to satisfy the smoothness criterion [@Mironov; @Feurtado]. In ideal ABH tapers, where the thickness decreases to zero, the phase and group velocities tend to zero as they approach the center of the ABH. Under this condition, the wave never reaches the center of the hole therefore the reflection coefficient approaches zero (the wave is not reflected back) and the hole appears as an ideal absorber. Energy balance considerations show that, in the absence of damping, the center of the hole becomes a point of singularity for both the particle displacement [@Mironov] and the vibrational energy [@Zhao]. In practice, the residual thickness at the center of the ABH cannot be made zero due to both fabrication and structural constraints. In the absence of damping the residual thickness can produce appreciable levels of reflected energy (up to 70 % [@Mironov2]) even for a small residual thickness. Nevertheless, wave speed reduction will still take place.
In this study, we consider an infinite thin plate with a periodic distribution of ABH-like tapers as shown in Figure \[Fig1\]a. The plate has thickness $h=8 $ mm and a taper profile $h(x)=\varepsilon x^m + h_r$ where $h_r$ is the residual thickness. The lattice structure is assembled from a square unit cell as shown in Figure \[Fig1\]b.
The elastodynamic response of the phononic thin plate is governed by the Navier’s equations: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho {{\frac{\partial ^2 u_i}{\partial t^2}}}=(C_{ijkl}u_{k,l})_{,j} \qquad i=1,2,3 \label{Navier}\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho$ is the density, $C_{ijkl}$ is the stiffness tensor, and $u_i$ are the components of the displacement field. Eqn. (\[Navier\]) is also subjected to traction free boundary conditions $T_{xz}=T_{yz}=T_{zz}=0$ at the upper and lower surfaces. This condition is applied at $z= h(x)$ on the bottom surface and at $z= h/2$ if $0 \leq x \leq r$ or at $z=- h/2$ if $r \leq x \leq 0.5 a_1$ on the top surface.
The dispersion relations are obtained solving eqns. (\[Navier\]) using a three dimensional Supercell Plane Wave Expansion (PWE) approach [@3DPWE]. We define a unit cell as shown in Figure \[Fig1\]c. The material is rendered periodic also in the out-of-plane direction $z$ by alternating the thin plate with vacuum layers. Under these conditions, the material properties can be approximated using a three dimensional Fourier series expansion. Bloch periodic boundaries are enforced along the in-plane directions to simulate an infinite plate.
In order to solve eqns. (\[Navier\]) the position dependent density $\rho (\vec{r})$ and elastic coefficients $C_{ijkl} (\vec{r})$ are expanded in Fourier series using the reciprocity vector $\vec{G}=(G_x,G_y,G_z )$:
$$\begin{aligned}
C_{ijkl}(\vec{r})=\sum_G e^{i\vec{G}\bullet\vec{r}}{C_{ijkl}}_G \label{C}\end{aligned}$$
and $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(\vec{r})=\sum_G e^{i\vec{G}\bullet\vec{r}}{\rho}_G \label{rho}\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho_G$ and ${C_{ijkl}}_G$ are the corresponding Fourier coefficients and are defined as:
$$\begin{aligned}
{C_{ijkl}}_G=\frac{1}{V}\int_V C_{ijkl}(\vec{r})e^{-i\vec{G}\bullet\vec{r}}dr^{3}\end{aligned}$$
and $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_G=\frac{1}{V}\int_V \rho(\vec{r})e^{-i\vec{G}\bullet\vec{r}}dr^{3}\end{aligned}$$
After using the Bloch theorem and expanding the displacement vector $\vec{u(x, y, z, t)}$ in Fourier series, we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
\vec{u}(\vec{r})=\sum_{G\prime} A_{G\prime}e^{i[(\vec{k}+\vec{G'})\bullet\vec{r}-\omega t]} \label{disp}\end{aligned}$$ where $\vec{k}=(k_x,k_y,0)$ is the Bloch plane wave vector, $\omega$ is the circular frequency, and $A_{G'}$ is the amplitude of the displacement vector. Substituting eqns. (\[C\]),(\[rho\]), and (\[disp\]) into eqn. (\[Navier\]) and collecting terms, we obtain the $3n \times 3n$ set of equations:
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\begin{pmatrix}
C^{11}_{G,G'} & C^{12}_{G,G'} & C^{13}_{G,G'} \\
C^{21}_{G,G'} & C^{22}_{G,G'} & C^{23}_{G,G'} \\
C^{31}_{G,G'} & C^{32}_{G,G'} & C^{33}_{G,G'} \\
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
A^{1}_{G'} \\
A^{2}_{G'} \\
A^{3}_{G'} \\
\end{pmatrix}
= \\
\omega^2
\begin{pmatrix}
\rho_{G,G'} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \rho_{G,G'} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \rho_{G,G'} \\
\end{pmatrix}
& \begin{pmatrix}
A^{1}_{G'} \\
A^{2}_{G'} \\
A^{3}_{G'} \\
\end{pmatrix}
\end{split} \label{eigen}\end{aligned}$$
where the $n \times n$ sub-matrices $C_{G,G'}$ are functions of the Bloch wave vector $\vec{k}$, the reciprocal lattice vectors $\vec{G}$, the circular frequency $\omega$, and the Fourier coefficients $\rho_G$ and ${C_{ijkl}}_G $. The detailed expression can be found in [@3DPWE]. Equation (\[eigen\]) can be written in the form of an eigenvalue problem whose solution provides the eigenfrequencies and the eigenmodes of the system.
In the following numerical study, we consider a reference configuration consisting in a 8 mm thick aluminum plate with tapers characterized by $m$=2.2, $\varepsilon$=5, radius $r$=0.05 m, and residual thickness $h_r$=0.0011m. The lattice has a squared configuration with lattice constant $a_1$=0.14 m. The reciprocal lattice constants retained for the expansion are $G_x = G_y= \pm(3,2,1,0)2 \pi/a_1$ and $G_z =\pm(4,3,2,1,0)2\pi/a_2$, where $a_2$=0.064m. The constant $a_2$ was selected so to dynamically isolate the different slabs in the $z$ direction. The band structure along the boundary of the first Brillouin Zone (BZ) for normalized frequencies $\Omega= \frac{\omega a}{2\pi C_t} $ up to 0.25 is shown in Figure \[Fig2\].
The dispersion relations show several peculiar properties that are typically observable only in locally resonant materials. Several non-monotonous branches can be found in the low frequency range. In particular, for the fundamental non-monotonous modes, the constitutive branches are associated with different mode types and group velocity regions. As an example, the $S_0$ mode evolves into the $A_0$ after crossing a zero group velocity point (ZGVP) along the $\Gamma-X $ boundary. Similar behavior is observed for the $SH_0$ mode that evolves into a higher order flexural mode along the $\Gamma-X$ boundary. The ZGVP point also separates regions with positive and negative group velocity. It has long been known [@ZGVP] that the higher order Lamb modes in plates can display zero group velocity points corresponding to waves having finite phase velocity but vanishing group velocity. However, this behavior is quite unexpected for the fundamental modes. The ZGVP is related to the existence of a standing wave associated with a local resonance of the plate. The branch of the dispersion curve beyond the ZGVP is characterized by negative group velocity which corresponds to backward wave propagation. This phenomenon was never noticed on fundamental Lamb modes. The occurrence of the ZGVP and of the negative group velocity branch is related to the ability of the ABH cell to bend the wave in the direction of decreasing phase velocity gradient, that is towards the ABH center. Depending on the properties of the incoming wave and on the geometric characteristics of the taper, particularly on the taper exponent and the residual thickness, the wave can be either slowed down and captured by the ABH (Figure \[Fig2\], inset a) or bent in the backward direction (Figure \[Fig2\], inset b). This behavior was verified by performing a geometric acoustic analysis (insets in Figure \[Fig2\]) to identify the trajectory of a ray traveling through the ABH. These two conditions can be related to the generation of a ZGVP and to backward propagation, respectively.
Another interesting property of these metamaterials is the existence of several singularity points particularly at the $\Gamma$ and $X$ locations of the BZ. Each singularity point results from the intersection of upper and lower branches where only a degenerate mode at $\vec{k}=0$ exists. These points exhibit similar behavior to the well-known *Dirac Points* (DP) [@Dirac]. An example of this Dirac-point-like singularity at $\Gamma$ is shown in Figure \[Fig3\]. By analyzing the branches radiating outward from the singularity point(either along the $\Gamma-X$ or the $\Gamma-M$ boundary), we observe that they correspond to pairs of dissimilar flexural modes having different modal displacements (see insets in Fig \[Fig3\]a). The modal displacement shape evolves from a $2\times3$ poles to a $4\times1$ poles as we transition from $\Gamma-X$ to $\Gamma-M$. More interestingly, if we follow the EFC for either the upper or lower branches, not only the modal displacement shape changes but also the axis of symmetry of the mode rotates. A close-up view of the Equi-Frequency-Surfaces around the DP-like singularity point is shown in Figure \[Fig3\]b. We note that the shape of the lower branch clearly indicates anisotropic behavior. On the contrary, the upper branch (close to the DP point) is a quasi-circular cone, therefore suggesting quasi-isotropic characteristics in the selected frequency range. It is important to note that the cone is composed of different modes in different directions therefore indicating that the ABH-PC presents a *“mode anisotropy”*. This concept is, in principle, equivalent to the super-anisotropy observed already in certain type of metamaterials [@Dirac].
To better understand the wave propagation produced by the ABH lattice structure, we extract the Equi-Frequency-Contours (EFC) for the fundamental non-monotonous mode $S_0-A_{0f}$ (Figure \[Fig4\]). Results highlight the existence, in the same band, of a dual EFC contour associated with different group velocity directions. This aspect is of particular interest because it was shown in previous studies [@Bi-refra; @Pichard] to be a fundamental condition for the existence of bi-refraction.
To illustrate this phenomenon we superimpose the EFC corresponding to an incident wave at a fixed frequency in the homogeneous (constant thickness) area of the plate (solid black circle). The wave vector of the refracted beam must satisfy the $k_{\parallel}$-conservation relation [@Pichard]: $k^{inc}_{\parallel}=k^{ref}_{\parallel}+G_{\parallel}$, where $k^{inc}_{\parallel}$ and $k^{ref}_{\parallel}$ are the components of the wave vector of the incident and refracted beam parallel to the interface, $G_{\parallel}$ is the parallel component of the reciprocal lattice vector. The group velocity is given by $V_g=\nabla\Omega(\vec{k})$ which is always perpendicular to the EFCs and pointing towards the direction of increasing frequency. In our case, dual EFCs with positive and negative group velocities co-exist at the same frequency, therefore bi-refraction should be expected. In particular, depending on the angle of incidence both positive-positive and positive-negative bi-refraction (see Figure \[Fig4\]b) can be achieved. As shown in Figure \[Fig4\](a), $\Gamma-X$ is assumed as the interface boundary and the two black solid arrows represent two possible incident beams with different angle of incidence. The refracted beam are determined by finding the intersection point between the corresponding EFC and the conservation line (marked by the black dashed lines perpendicular to the $\Gamma-X$ boundary). Since the refracted beams are in the direction of the group velocity at the crossing point (red and blue arrows), two different bi-refraction cases with either positive-positive or positive-negative directions can be achieved. It is also worth mentioning that, in selected frequency ranges, the EFC is square-like therefore suggesting that the PC can produce self-collimation of an incoming diffused wave [@Ao].
The dispersion relations also reveal remarkable coupling between the different mode types highlighting the existence of a phenomenon known as *mode hybridization* [@Pichard]. By inspecting the modal displacement of the fundamental non-monotonous mode along the $\Gamma-X$ direction, we observe that the branch to the left of the ZGVP (red solid line) is a dilatational $S_0$ mode while the branch on the right hand side is a flexural $A_0$ mode (green solid line). The change in the mode structure occurs very rapidly in the neighborhood of the zero group velocity point (ZGVP). It is interesting to study how these modes develop and how they are affected by the ABH parameters, namely the residual thickness and taper exponent. Figure \[Fig5\] shows the evolution of the dispersion relations with the residual thickness. Figure \[Fig5\](a), (b), and (c) correspond to different residual thickness cases where the coefficient $\varepsilon$ are set to 1, 3, and 5 meaning that the hole geometry vary from shallow to deep. Figure \[Fig5\](a) represents the shallow hole case ($h_r$ =0.00626) where the effects of the ABH should be less evident. As expected, the dispersion curves are quite similar to those of guided waves in a flat plate. In the low frequency range, we observe the $S_0$, $SH_0$ and $A_0$ modes and several folded branches of the $A_0$ mode due to the folding effect induced by the periodicity. The only significant difference is observed in correspondence to the mode crossing points. At these points, we observe splitting of the original modes and the generation of the non-monotonous hybrid modes connected by the ZGVP. The remaining part of the dispersion relations is essentially unaffected. By increasing the ABH slope (Figure \[Fig5\](b) and \[Fig5\](c)) the splitting and hybridization mechanisms become more evident even at higher frequency. A physical interpretation of this anomalous dispersion can be made in term of the coupled-wave theory [@AULD]. When two modes are coupled by a distributed mechanism (in our case the periodic inhomogeneity created by the ABH taper), significant interaction only occurs at synchronism, that is, near points where their dispersion curves cross. The coupling causes a characteristic splitting of the dispersion curves at the crossing point while, elsewhere, the modes are essentially unaffected.
The other key design parameter is the exponential taper coefficient $m$. We consider a progression of the ABH profile from smooth (low $m$) to sharp (high $m$). For all cases the residual thickness is maintained constant at $h_r=0.0011$m by properly adjusting the coefficient $\epsilon$. The dispersion relations are shown in Figures \[Fig6\](a), (b), and (c) for $m=$3, 5, and 7. Of interest is the appearance of a bandgap between the fundamental flexural mode $A_0$ and the negative branch of the fundamental non-monotonous mode $A_{0f}$ (see green dashed box) following the splitting of the folded $A_0$ mode. This bandgap is considered to be related to the increased back-scattering occurring at large $m$ where the ABH smoothness criterion is no more satisfied [@Mironov; @Feurtado]. Overall, the higher frequency modes (above the fundamental) are more evidently affected by the change in the taper exponent. As an example, mode I and II show substantial changes as $m$ increases. These two modes are characterized by monopole-like and dipole-like modal displacement fields inside the ABH and therefore are very sensitive to changes of the ABH profiles. Note also the formation (around $\Omega=0.1244$) of a nearly flat band (mode I). This flat mode suggests the existence of a deaf band which does not couple with any external wave [@C.T.Chan].
In conclusion, we have introduced a class of 2D non-resonant single-phase phononic crystals made of a periodic lattice of Acoustic Black Holes. The remarkable dispersion characteristics of this material are even more surprising when considering the extremely simple design procedure that does not rely on the classical multi-phase material approach. Despite their outstanding simplicity, ABH PCs provide the same plethora of wave propagation effects typically observed in locally resonant materials, including negative refraction, bi-refraction and hybridization. They also present some peculiar phenomena, such as zero group velocity points on the fundamental Lamb modes and mode anisotropy, that were not observed before.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
address: |
Institut für Physik (THEP), Johannes Gutenberg-Universität\
D-55099 Mainz, Germany
author:
- SUSANNE WESTHOFF
title: 'TOP-QUARK FORWARD-BACKWARD SYMMETRY'
---
Introduction
============
Since the discovery of the top quark in 1995, the experiments at the Tevatron have made remarkable achievements in measuring the properties of the heaviest fermion in the Standard Model (SM). The motivation behind this effort is evident: due to its particularly large mass, the top quark is supposed to play a key role in understanding the mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking. Within the SM, all quarks possess the same gauge couplings, which prevents us from explaining their strong mass hierarchy by a fundamental interaction. Extensions of the SM addressing the origin of quark masses commonly imply new gauge interactions that distinguish the heavy top quark from the light quarks. We will concentrate on massive color-octet gauge bosons with strong couplings to top quarks, which occur in a wide class of models. Examples include colorons in topcolor models, axigluons from flavor non-universal chiral color, and Kaluza-Klein (KK) gluons in warped extra dimensions. They all share the feature to yield characteristic effects in top-quark observables, which serve as probes of the underlying theory. Our framework will be the Randall-Sundrum (RS) model, where the fermion mass hierarchy can be explained by the localization of fermion fields in the bulk of a warped extra dimension. These localizations manifest themselves in flavor- and chirality-specific couplings of quarks to KK excitations of the gluon. Since the coupling to top quarks in this setup is typically strong, the exchange of a massive KK gluon is expected to affect top-quark pair production.
Let us briefly summarize the status of measurements in top-antitop quark production at the Tevatron. In proton-antiproton collisions at a center-of-mass (CM) energy of $\sqrt{s}=1.96\,\rm{TeV}$, the production of $t\bar t$ pairs is dominated by the partonic process $q\bar q\rightarrow t\bar t$. The measured total cross section and its distribution with respect to the invariant mass of the top-antitop pair, [@CDFnotetot; @Aaltonen:2009iz] $$\label{eq:cs}
\sigma_{t\bar t} = (7.50 \pm 0.48)\,{\rm pb}\,, \qquad (d\sigma_{t\bar t}/d M_{t\bar t})^{M_{t\bar t}\in [0.8,1.4]\,\rm{TeV}} = (0.068\pm 0.034)\,\frac{\rm fb}{\rm GeV}\,,$$ are in good agreement with their SM predictions. In contrast, the forward-backward asymmetry of the top quark is in variance with the result in Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD): the measured total asymmetry in the laboratory frame and the result at $t\bar t$ invariant mass measured at CDF, [@Aaltonen:2011kc] $$\label{eq:afbt}
(A_{\rm{FB}}^t)_{\rm{exp}}^{p\bar p} = (15.0\pm 5.0_{\rm{stat}}\pm 2.4_{\rm{syst}})\%\,, \qquad (A_{\rm{FB}}^t)_{\rm{exp}}^{M_{t\bar t}\,>\,450\,\rm{GeV}} = (47.5\pm 11.2)\%\,,$$ exceed the SM predictions by about $1.3\,\sigma$ and $3.2\,\sigma$, respectively. [^1] The situation is displayed in Figure \[fig:SMexplab\], where we show the ratio of the SM prediction with respect to the CDF measurement for the four observables discussed above. The observed pattern suggests new physics (NP) with a large positive contribution to the asymmetry, but only little impact on the cross section.
In a theory with CP-conserving couplings, the forward-backward asymmetry is equivalent to a charge asymmetry, $$A_{\rm FB}^t = \frac{\sigma_a}{\sigma_s}\,,\qquad \sigma_{a(s)} = \int_{0}^{1}\cos\theta\left[\frac{d\sigma(p\bar p\rightarrow t\bar{t} X)}{d\cos\theta} -(+) \frac{d\sigma(p\bar p\rightarrow \bar{t}t X)}{d\cos\theta}\right]\,.$$ It requires a production amplitude that is antisymmetric under the interchange of $t$ and $\bar t$ in the final state for a fixed top-quark scattering angle $\theta$. In QCD, $t\bar t$ production is charge-symmetric at tree level. The asymmetry arises at next-to-leading order (NLO) from the interference of the tree-level gluon exchange with QCD box diagrams and from the interference of final- and initial-state radiation. Up-to-date QCD calculations predict a small value of the asymmetry in the laboratory frame, $(A_{\rm FB}^{t})_{\rm SM}^{p\bar p} = (4-5.6)\%$ [@Ahrens:2011mw]. A large charge asymmetry is expected to be generated by the positive interference of new physics (NP) with the SM gluon exchange at tree level. Any new particle in the $s$ channel of $t\bar t$ production ought to exhibit large axial-vector couplings to both light quarks, $g_A^q$, and top quarks, $g_A^t$, fulfilling $g_A^q\,g_A^t < 0$ for a mass of $\mathcal{O}(1\,\rm{TeV})$. The product of vector couplings, $g_V^q\,g_V^t$, however, is restricted to be small in order to fit the measured charge-symmetric cross section $\sigma_{t\bar t}$ and the spectrum $d\sigma_{t\bar t}/dM_{t\bar t}$.
Within the RS model, KK gluons have axial-vector couplings to quarks, due to the different localizations of left- and right-handed quark fields in the extra dimension. We explore the possibility of a large top-quark forward-backward asymmetry from KK gluon exchange in the RS model with an anarchic flavor structure. It will turn out that within this setup axial-vector couplings of KK gluons to top quarks are large, but strongly suppressed for light quarks. The asymmetry at tree level is thus negligibly small. We will explain how the suppression is lifted at NLO, yielding the leading RS contributions to the asymmetric cross section $\sigma_a$. These effects, however, partially cancel with tree-level contributions to the symmetric cross section $\sigma_s$, which normalizes the forward-backward asymmetry. The observable $A_{\rm{FB}}^t$ thus cannot be increased with respect to its SM prediction within the flavor-anarchic RS model.
Randall-Sundrum model with flavor anarchy {#sec:RSfa}
=========================================
The Randall-Sundrum model was originally designed to explain the large hierarchy between the electroweak and the Planck scales by gravitational red-shifting in a warped extra dimension [@Randall:1999ee]. If the SM fermions are allowed to propagate into the bulk of the fifth dimension, the RS model also offers a geometrical description of flavor. As anticipated, the fermion mass hierarchy is explained by different localizations in the extra dimension: the wave functions of light fermions are exponentially localized in the ultraviolet (UV), while the heavy fermions reside in the infrared (IR). The effective Yukawa couplings, resulting from wave-function overlap with the IR-localized Higgs boson, therefore exhibit an exponential hierarchy. Starting from flavor anarchy, i.e. arbitrary five-dimensional Yukawa couplings of $\mathcal{O}(1)$, one naturally obtains a strong hierarchy of fermion masses, quantified by the warp factor of the extra dimension, $\exp(L) = \Lambda_{\rm UV}/\Lambda_{\rm IR} \approx 10^{16}$. The actual localization of fermions is determined by bulk mass parameters $c_f$. For quarks, the measured masses and CKM mixings require $c_q < -1/2$ and $c_t > -1/2$, corresponding to UV and IR localization, respectively.
The pattern of localization of the quark fields has a crucial impact on their couplings to KK gluons. Since KK excitations of the SM particles are associated with a scale $M_{\rm{KK}} \gtrsim 1\,\rm{TeV}$, virtual RS effects in top-quark pair production can be described in terms of dimension-six operators in the framework of an effective theory. The low-energy Lagrangian for the exchange of a KK gluon in the $s$ channel of $q\bar q\rightarrow t\bar t$ is given by [^2] $$\label{eq:leff}
\mathcal{L}_{\rm{eff}} = \sum_q\sum_{A,B=L,R}\,C_{q\bar q}^{AB}\,Q_{q\bar q}^{AB}\,,\qquad Q_{q\bar q}^{AB} = (\bar q_A\,\gamma_{\mu}T^a\,q_A)(\bar t_B\,\gamma^{\mu}T^a\,t_B)\,,$$ where $A,B=L,R$ denote the quark chiralities and $T^a$ are the generators of color $SU(3)$. For phenomenology, it is useful to consider the combinations of Wilson coefficients that correspond to vector and axial-vector structures, $$\label{eq:cvca}
C_{q\bar q}^V = \sum_{A,B=L,R} C_{q\bar q}^{AB}\,,\qquad C_{q\bar q}^A = \sum_{A\neq B} (C_{q\bar q}^{AA} - C_{q\bar q}^{AB})\,.$$ These effective couplings depend on the overlap of the quark wave functions with the IR-localized KK gluons. The size of the couplings is governed by the quark profiles, given to good approximation by [@Casagrande:2008hr] $$\label{eq:profiles}
F^2(c_t) \approx 1 + 2 c_t \,, \qquad F^2(c_q) \approx (-1
- 2 c_q) \, e^{L \hspace{0.25mm} (2 c_q + 1)} \,.$$ For mass parameters $c_t > -1/2$ and $c_q < -1/2$, the profile function is of $\mathcal{O}(1)$ for top quarks, but exponentially suppressed for light quarks. In terms of these quark profiles, the Wilson coefficients for KK gluon exchange from Eq. (\[eq:cvca\]) read [@Casagrande:2008hr; @Bauer:2009cf] $$\begin{aligned}
C_{q\bar q}^V & \approx & -\frac{\pi\alpha_s}{M_{\rm KK}^2}\,\left[F^2(c_{t_R})+F^2(c_{t_L})\right]\,,\\
C_{q\bar q}^A & \approx & -\frac{\pi\alpha_s}{M_{\rm KK}^2}\,L\,\left[F^2(c_{q_R})-F^2(c_{q_L})\right]\left[F^2(c_{t_R})-F^2(c_{t_L})\right]\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha_s$ is the strong coupling constant of QCD. The vector coefficient $C_{q\bar q}^V$ is dominated by the top-quark profiles. Comparing with Eq. (\[eq:profiles\]), one observes that it is large and positive due to the IR localization of the top quark. We define the dimensionless coefficient $\tilde{C}_{q\bar q}^{V} \equiv 1\,{\rm{TeV}}^2\,C_{q\bar q}^{V} = \mathcal{O}(1)$. The axial-vector coefficient $C_{q\bar q}^A$ is enhanced by the warp factor $L\approx 37$. It is proportional to the difference between the profiles for left- and right-handed quarks. For top quarks, this difference may be large, yielding a sizeable axial-vector coupling $g_A^t$ to KK gluons. The axial-vector coupling of light quarks, however, is doubly suppressed: firstly, left- and right-handed light quarks’ profiles ought to be largely identical, in order to accommodate the measured quark masses and mixings. Secondly, and even more severely, light quarks are localized in the UV and thereby exponentially suppressed, as stated below Eq. (\[eq:profiles\]). The effective axial-vector coefficient is thus strongly suppressed, $\tilde{C}_{q\bar q}^{A} \equiv 1\,{\rm{TeV}}^2\,C_{q\bar q}^{A} = \mathcal{O}(10^{-3})$.
Top-quark pair production
=========================
What are the resultant effects of KK gluons on the forward-backward asymmetry in top-quark pair production? The charge-asymmetric (-symmetric) cross section defined in Eq. (\[eq:afbt\]) is given by $$\label{eq:sigma}
\sigma_{a(s)} = \frac{\alpha_s}{m_t^2} \, \sum_{q} \int_{4m_t^2}^s
\frac{d \hat s}{s} \, \Big [ f\hspace{-0.4em}f_{q\bar q}\big( \hat s/s,\mu_f\big) - (+) f\hspace{-0.4em}f_{\bar{q} q}\big( \hat s/s,\mu_f\big) \Big ] \, A_{q\bar q}\,(S_{q\bar q})\,,$$ where $\hat s$ denotes the partonic CM energy, and the sum is taken over all quark flavors $q$ inside the proton. The parton luminosities $f\hspace{-0.4em}f_{q\bar q}\big( \hat s/s,\mu_f\big)$ as well as the hard-scattering kernels $A_{q\bar q}$ and $S_{q\bar q}$ in QCD are defined in [@Bauer:2010iq]. RS contributions at leading order (LO) arise from the interference of the $s$-channel exchange of a KK gluon with the tree-level gluon diagram. For the charge-asymmetric contribution, this is shown on the left-hand side of Figure \[fig:nplo-npnlo\]. The corresponding hard-scattering kernels for inclusive symmetric and asymmetric $t\bar t$ production are readily computed using the effective Lagrangian in Eq. (\[eq:leff\]), $$\label{eq:kernelLO}
S_{q\bar q}^{\rm LO} = \frac{\hat s}{M_{\rm{KK}}^2}\frac{\rho}{216}\sqrt{1-\rho}\left(2+\rho\right)\,\tilde{C}_{q\bar q}^V\,,\qquad A_{q\bar q}^{\rm LO} = \frac{\hat s}{M_{\rm{KK}}^2}\frac{\rho}{144}\left( 1-\rho \right)\,\tilde{C}_{q\bar q}^A\,,$$ with $\rho = 4m_t^2/\hat{s}$ and $M_{\rm{KK}}$ in units of $1\,\rm{TeV}$. Referring to our considerations in Section \[sec:RSfa\], we expect significant contributions of KK gluons to the cross section $\sigma_{t\bar t}$, which is sensitive to the vector coefficient $\tilde{C}_{q\bar q}^V=\mathcal{O}(1)$. Tree-level effects on the charge-asymmetric amplitude, however, are negligibly small due to the strongly suppressed axial-vector coefficient $\tilde{C}_{q\bar q}^A=\mathcal{O}(10^{-3})$. Thus there is no large forward-backward symmetry at tree level.
The suppression can be lifted by going to NLO, after paying the price of a loop factor $\alpha_s/(4\pi)$. The interference of a tree-level KK gluon exchange with a QCD box diagram, shown on the right-hand side of Figure \[fig:nplo-npnlo\], has the same topology as the leading contribution to the asymmetry in QCD. The charge-asymmetric amplitude thus involves the unsuppressed vector coefficient $C_{q\bar q}^V$. The asymmetric hard-scattering kernel at NLO is given by $$\label{eq:kernelNLO}
A_{q\bar q}^{\rm NLO} = \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\frac{\hat s}{M_{\rm{KK}}^2}\frac{\tilde{A}_{q\bar q}}{16\pi}\,\tilde{C}_{q\bar q}^V\,,$$ with the SM coefficient $\tilde{A}_{q\bar q} \equiv A_{q\bar q}^{(1)}/\alpha_s$ defined in [@Bauer:2010iq]. Roughly, these NLO vector contributions are dominant if the condition $\alpha_s/(4\pi)\cdot (1+c_{t_L}+c_{t_R}) \gtrsim L \exp[L(1+c_{q_L}+c_{q_R})]$ is fulfilled by the bulk mass parameters. For parameter sets that reproduce the quark masses and mixings, the NLO contributions to $\sigma_a$ exceed the LO contributions by a factor of about $100$.
Discussion and conclusions
==========================
After having assessed the size of vector and axial-vector RS contributions in top-quark pair production, we discuss the numerical effects on the observables. Using Eqs. (\[eq:sigma\]), (\[eq:kernelLO\]), and (\[eq:kernelNLO\]), and focussing on the dominant contributions from $u\bar u$ initial states, one obtains [^3] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ttbarobs}
(\sigma_{t\bar t})_{\rm RS} & = & \left [ 1 + 0.053 \hspace{0.5mm} \tilde C_{u \bar u}^V \right ]
\left ( 6.73^{+0.52}_{-0.80} \right ) {\rm pb} \,, \nonumber \\
\left (\frac{d \sigma_{t\bar t}}{dM_{t\bar t}} \right )^{M_{t\bar t} \, \in \, [0.8, 1.4]\,\rm{TeV}}_{ \rm RS} & = & \left [ 1 + 0.33 \hspace{0.5mm} \tilde C_{u \bar
u}^V \right ] \left ( 0.061^{+0.012}_{-0.006} \right ) \frac{\rm fb}{\rm GeV} \,,\\
(A_{\rm{FB}}^t)_{\rm{RS}}^{p\bar p} & = & \left [ \frac{1 + 0.22 \, \tilde C_{u \bar u}^A + 0.034 \,
\tilde C_{u \bar u}^V}{1 + 0.053 \, \tilde C_{u \bar u}^V} \right
] \! \left ( 5.6^{+0.8}_{-1.0} \right ) \% \,. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Discarding the axial-vector contributions, proportional to $\tilde{C}_{u\bar u}^A = \mathcal{O}(10^{-3})$, we inspect the interplay of NP effects mediated by the vector coefficient $\tilde{C}_{u\bar u}^V$. The corrections with respect to the SM prediction are at the percent level for all observables. Outstanding is the large correction to the cross section at high $M_{t\bar t}$ of about $30\%$ for $\tilde{C}_{u\bar u}^V=\mathcal{O}(1)$, compared to a moderate $5\%$ effect in the total cross section. This behavior is understood by noticing the increase of the NP contribution in the effective theory as $M_{t\bar t}^2/M_{\rm{KK}}^2$ at LO, cf. Eq. (\[eq:kernelLO\]). The high-$M_{t\bar t}$ bin of the distribution $d\sigma_{t\bar t}/dM_{t\bar t}$ in Eq. (\[eq:ttbarobs\]) constrains the vector coefficient to $\tilde{C}_{u\bar u}^V \in [-3.4,3.5]$ at $95\%$ CL. From the total cross section $\sigma_{t\bar t}$, one obtains an allowed range of $\tilde{C}_{u\bar u}^V \in [-1.5,7.4]$. These model-independent constraints limit the vector corrections to the charge-asymmetric cross section $\sigma_a$ to $[-6,+8]\%$ and $[-10,+3]\%$ of the SM prediction, respectively. Notice that the NLO effects in the numerator of $(A_{\rm{FB}}^t)_{\rm{RS}}^{p\bar p}$ are over-compensated by the charge-symmetric LO effects in the normalization. In the case of a positive vector coefficient $\tilde{C}_{u\bar u}^V$, the forward-backward asymmetry is thus always decreased with respect to its QCD value. The constraints on the effective couplings $C_{u\bar u}^V$ and $C_{u\bar u}^A$ are summarized in Figure \[fig:CACV\], where we show a combined fit to the $t\bar t$ observables $\sigma_{t\bar t}$, $(d\sigma_{t\bar t}/dM_{t\bar t})^>$, and $A_{\rm{FB}}^{t,p\bar p}$.
It is clearly visible that the forward-backward asymmetry (vertical dashed lines) cannot be increased beyond $A_{\rm{FB}}^{t,p\bar p} = 5.8\%$ ($6.0\%$) at the $95\%$ (99%) CL by vector contributions alone. To reach the best-fit point $(\tilde{C}_{u\bar u}^A,\tilde{C}_{u\bar u}^V)=(8.3,1.4)$, large axial-vector contributions at tree level are required. [^4] In the RS model with flavor anarchy, one typically has $\tilde{C}_{q\bar q}^{V}\approx +0.5$ in the regime of perturbative Yukawa couplings. The resulting absolute correction to the asymmetry amounts to $\delta (A_{\rm{FB}}^t)_{\rm{RS}}^{p\bar p} = -0.05\%$, assuming a KK scale of $M_{\rm{KK}}=1\,\rm{TeV}$. For this scale, the first KK excitation of the gluon exhibits a mass of around $2.5\,\rm{TeV}$. Notice that for new particles with masses below about $2\,\rm{TeV}$, the treatment in terms of an effective theory does not apply any longer and width effects have to be taken into account.
In summary, top-quark pair production in the RS model with flavor anarchy is essentially forward-backward symmetric: axial-vector contributions from KK gluons at tree level are strongly suppressed, because the light quarks are localized in the UV regime of the extra dimension. At NLO, a charge asymmetry arises from vector contributions, but these effects are over-compensated by the simultaneous LO contributions in the symmetric cross section, which normalizes the forward-backward asymmetry. On general grounds, it is therefore not possible to achieve a large forward-backward asymmetry from vector contributions alone. The asymmetry has to be generated at tree level either by NP with large axial-vector couplings in the $s$ channel or flavor-changing couplings in the $t$ channel. In the model at hand, the forward-backward asymmetry is slightly decreased with respect to the SM value. A larger asymmetry in the RS framework can theoretically be obtained by moving the localization of the light quarks more towards the IR regime. The prize to pay is to give up the appealing feature of explaining the quark mass hierarchy exclusively by localization in the extra dimension. The LHC starts to probe charge-asymmetric top-quark pair production. However, KK gluons - if existing - will rather show up as resonances in the symmetric $t\bar t$ cross section. They naturally generate a large top-quark forward-backward *symmetry*.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
It is a pleasure to thank the organizers of *Les Rencontres de Moriond 2011 EW* for an interesting and inspiring conference, as well as Martin Bauer, Florian Goertz, Uli Haisch, and Torsten Pfoh for an enjoyable collaboration on this subject. Many thanks to Paul Archer and Uli Haisch for proofreading the manuscript. This research is supported by the Helmholtz-Institut Mainz.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{} E. Thomson [*et al.*]{} \[CDF Collaboration\], Conference Note 9913, October 19, 2009. T. Aaltonen [*et al.*]{} \[CDF Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 222003 (2009), arXiv:0903.2850 \[hep-ex\]. T. Aaltonen [*et al.*]{} \[CDF Collaboration\], arXiv:1101.0034 \[hep-ex\]. CDF Collaboration, CDF Note 10398, March 10, 2011. Collaboration, Conference Note 6062-CONF, July 23, 2010. V. Ahrens, A. Ferroglia, M. Neubert, B. Pecjak and L.L. Yang, arXiv:1103.0550 \[hep-ph\]. L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 3370 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9905221.
S. Casagrande, F. Goertz, U. Haisch, M. Neubert and T. Pfoh, JHEP [**0810**]{}, 094 (2008), arXiv:0807.4937 \[hep-ph\]. M. Bauer, S. Casagrande, U. Haisch and M. Neubert, JHEP [**1009**]{}, 017 (2010), arXiv:0912.1625 \[hep-ph\]. M. Bauer, F. Goertz, U. Haisch, T. Pfoh and S. Westhoff, JHEP [**1011**]{}, 039 (2010), arXiv:1008.0742 \[hep-ph\].
[^1]: This excess has also been observed in $t\bar t$ dilepton events at CDF [@CDFdileptonnote] and by the D0 collaboration [@D0brandnew].
[^2]: Further contributions of KK gluons in the $t$ channel, as well as of $Z$, $\gamma$, their KK excitations, and the Higgs boson, are numerically subleading and therefore neglected.
[^3]: For details on the inputs and the numerical calculation, please consult [@Bauer:2010iq].
[^4]: To satisfy the measured asymmetry at high $M_{t\bar t}$, axial-vector contributions have to be even larger.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper we use methods developed in Part 1 of The Dipion Cocktail, to fit the $p_t$ dependence of dipions for mid-central Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$=200 GeV. For the minijet fragmentation part we use PYTHIA fragmentation as described in Part 1. For the thermal resonance production we use an exponential growth behavior. The interference between the direct production of dipion pairs from non-resonance minijet fragmentation and re-scattering through resonance states gives a measure of the size of the re-scattering region. This size is contain in the $\alpha$ parameter of Part1. We assumed a relationship between the $\alpha$ parameter and the mass shift of the $\rho$ resonance. The data used for the fits comes from the RHIC collider as measured in the STAR experiment.'
---
=0.4cm =0.0in =-0.0in =9.0in =6.5in =0.1in
\
Introduction
============
The ultra-relativistic heavy ion collision starts out as a state of high density nuclear matter called the Quark Gluon Plasma(QGP) and expands rapidly to freeze-out. During the freeze-out phase quarks and gluons form a system of strongly interacting hadrons. These hadrons continue to expand in a thermal manner until no further scattering is possible because the system becomes to dilute. However this transition from quarks and gluons(partons) into hadrons is not a smooth affair. The expansion is very rapid and some faster or hard scattered partons fragment directly into hadron through a minijet[@Trainor] process. Thus we have thermal and minijet hadrons present in the last scattering of the hadrons. The Dipion Cocktail Part 1 considered this mixture of sources and applied it to the dipion mass spectrum of the heavy ion fireball formed in Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$=200. Part 1 showed that both thermal or soft production of hadrons and the minijet fragmented hadrons can be described through a set of unified formal equations. Part 2(this paper) applies this formalism to the $p_t$ dependence of dipions for Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = $ 200 GeV and 40% to 80% centrality.
The paper is organized in the following manner:
Sec. 1 Introduction. Sec. 2 Review of the two component model which we use to fit the dipion data within a set of $p_t$ ranges. Sec. 3 Discussion of the relationship between the $\alpha$ parameter and the mass and widths of resonances. Sec. 4 we present a fit to 19 $p_t$ ranges for Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = $ 200 GeV and 40% to 80% centrality. Sec. 5 Summary and Discussion.
Two component model with Breit-Wigner parameters
================================================
In this section we will alter equation 6 of Part 1 so it can use Breit-Wigner parameters (mass, width) instead of phase shifts. We will also need to modify the re-scattering part of the equation in order to have the correct threshold behavior we have introduced in Part 1 for the minijet partial waves. The phase shift can be written for the $\ell^{th}$ wave as $$cot\delta_\ell = \frac{(M_{\ell}^2 - M_{\pi\pi}^2)}{M_{\ell}\Gamma_{\ell}},$$ where $M_{\ell}$ is the mass of the resonance in the $\ell$wave and $\Gamma_{\ell}$ is its total width. $$\Gamma_{\ell} = \Gamma_{0\ell} {\frac{qB_{\ell}(q/q_s)}{M_{\pi \pi}}\over{\frac{q_{\ell}B_{\ell}(q_{\ell}/q_s)}{M_{\ell}}}}$$ with $\Gamma_{0\ell}$ the total width at resonance, $B_{\ell}$ is the Blatt-Weisskopf-barrier factor[@Hippel] for the $\ell$ of the resonance, $q$ is the $\pi\pi$ center mass momentum, $q_{\ell}$ is $q$ at resonance, $M_{\ell}$ is the mass of the resonance, and $q_s$ is center mass momentum related to the size(1.0 fm is used $q_s$ = .200 GeV/c).
Using equation 1 we rewrite equation 6 of Part 1 as $$|T_{\ell}|^2 = |D_{\ell}|^2 \frac{sin^2\delta_{\ell}}{PS_{\ell}} +
\frac{|A_{\ell}|^2sin^2\delta_{\ell}}{PS_{\ell}} \left| \alpha + PS_{\ell} cot\delta_\ell \right|^2$$
The $D_{\ell}$ is the thermal production term and is constant except for the Boltzmann weight(see equation 13 in Part 1). The expected threshold behavior $q^{2\ell+1}$ comes from the $sin\delta_{\ell}$ term. Since there is $sin^2\delta_{\ell}$ one of the $q^{2\ell+1}$ is killed off by dividing by $PS_{\ell}$. In Figure 6 of Part 1 we see we have put into our minijet $A_{\ell}$ the correct threshold $q^{2\ell+1}$ so we need to kill off the $q^{2\ell+1}$ of the other $sin\delta_{\ell}$ term. Therefore the above equation for our minijet $A_{\ell}$ we will use $$|T_{\ell}|^2 = |D_{\ell}|^2 \frac{sin^2\delta_{\ell}}{PS_{\ell}} +
\frac{|A_{\ell}|^2sin^2\delta_{\ell}}{PS_{\ell}^2} \left| \alpha + PS_{\ell} cot\delta_\ell \right|^2$$
Rewriting equation 6 of Part 1 for each partial wave with Breit-Wigner parameters the first term becomes
$$|T_{\ell}|_1^2 = |D_{\ell}|^2 \frac{M_{\pi\pi}^2}{\sqrt{M_{\pi\pi}^2 + p^2_t}} exp \frac{-\sqrt{M_{\pi\pi}^2 + p^2_t}}{T} \frac{M_{\ell}\Gamma_{\ell}}{(M_{\ell}^2 -M_{\pi\pi}^2)^2 + M_{\ell}^2\Gamma_{\ell}^2},$$
while the second term $$|T_{\ell}|_2^2 = |A_{\ell}|^2 \frac{M_{\ell}^2\Gamma_{\ell}^2}{(M_{\ell}^2 -M_{\pi\pi}^2)^2 + M_{\ell}^2\Gamma_{\ell}^2}\left|\alpha + \frac{2qB_{\ell}(\frac{q}{q_s})(M_{\ell}^2 -M_{\pi\pi}^2)}{M_{\pi\pi}M_{\ell}\Gamma_{\ell}}\right|^2 \left(\frac{M_{\pi\pi}^2}{4q^2B_{\ell}^2(\frac{q}{q_s})}\right).$$
$$|T|^2 = \sum_{\ell} |T_{\ell}|^2$$
where $$|T_{\ell}|^2 = |T_{\ell}|_1^2 + |T_{\ell}|_2^2$$ and $|A_0|^2 = S(M_{\pi^+\pi^-})$,$|A_1|^2 = P(M_{\pi^+\pi^-})$,$|A_2|^2 = D(M_{\pi^+\pi^-})$, and $|A_3|^2 = F(M_{\pi^+\pi^-})$. S, P, D and F comes from subsection 5.2 of Part 1.
A Relationship between the $\alpha$ parameter and the mass and widths of resonances.
====================================================================================
Equation 6 of Part 1 has an important factor the coefficient $\alpha$. This coefficient is related to the real part of the $\pi \pi$ re-scattering loop and is given by equation 9. When the pions re-scatter or interact at a close distance or a point the real part of the loop $\alpha$ has its maximum value of $\alpha_0$. While if the pions re-scatter or interact at a distance determined by the diffractive limit the value of $\alpha$ is zero. The $\alpha$ which is the real part of the re-scattering factor has a simple form given by $$\alpha = (1.0 - \frac{r^2}{r_0^2}) \alpha_0$$ where $r$ is the radius of re-scattering in fm’s and $r_0$ is 1.0 fm or the limiting range of the strong interaction ranging to $r$ = 0.0 for point like interactions.
When $\pi \pi$ pairs interact at the diffractive limit their phase shift should be the same as the phase shift of the vacuum. The same statement is true for $\pi \pi$ interacting at a point since asymptotic freedom demands that the strong interaction should have no effect. However values of $\alpha$ in between zero and $\alpha_0$ represent a confined volume where strongly interacting gluons, quarks and virtual mesons may influence the phase shift of the $\pi \pi$ system. Phase shifts under a Breit-Wigner parameters assumption depend on the mass and width of the resonance parameter. In the next section we use fits to data to determine the relationship between Breit-Wigner parameters and the value of $\alpha$.
STAR data dipion $p_t$ range (0.2 GeV/c $<$ $p_t$ $<$ 4.0 GeV/c)
================================================================
We have fitted 19 dipion $p_t$ ranges(see Table I) using equation 7 above for the STAR Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = $ 200 GeV 40% to 80% centrality data. We included minijets up to $\ell$ = 3 and resonances $\sigma$ $\ell$ = 0, $\rho(770)$ $\ell$ = 1, and $f_2(1270)$ $\ell$ = 2. Using the arguments of Sec. 3 of Part 1, we added the $f_0$ as a direct thermal term ($|T_0|_1^2$) and only the $\sigma$ interfered with $\ell$ = 0 minijet background. Two other thermal terms are present in the cocktail, the $k^0_s$ and the $\omega_0$. All the thermal terms have an exponential behavior with dipion $p_t$. The spectrum of the minijet partial waves is obtained from PYTHIA[@pythia](see Sec. 5.2 of Part 1). We let the data determine which minijet partial wave to add. We find only Swave minijet background is important until $p_t$ equal to 1.1 GeV/c. Above 1.5 GeV/c all four minijet partial waves are used up to Fwave. It should be noted Dwave and Fwave are small effects. We used PDG[@PDG] for the $f_2(1270)$ mass = 1.275 GeV and width = .185 GeV. The $f_0$ was fitted obtaining mass = 0.9727 $\pm$ .0039 GeV and width = 0.04512 $\pm$ 0.01128 GeV. The $\sigma$ mass and width used was fixed because it was ill determined. The mass used was mass = 1.011 GeV and width = 1.015 GeV. The $\rho$ mass and width is explained below.
Finally the threshold effective mass region .280 GeV to .430 GeV is dominated by the Swave and receives contributions from minijet fragmentation, $\pi \pi$ Swave phase shift, $\eta$ decay, HBT adding to the like sign $\pi \pi$ distribution that has been subtracted away from the unlike sign $\pi \pi$ and the coulomb correction between the charged pions. The minijet fragmentation is the least known of the effects since we relied on PYTHIA, however there are large uncertainty in all the other effects. So for these fits we let the minijet fragmentation be free to fit the data and let the Breit-Wigner parameters for the $\sigma$ determine the Swave phase shifts plus leaving out all other effects.
For the $\alpha$ parameter in $p_t$ bins up to 1.1 GeV/c the minijet Swave interference is the determining factor. Above 1.1 GeV/c the Pwave interference becomes most important. The values of $\alpha$ which gives a reasonable fit are shown in Table II.
We have determined that the $\sigma$ pole or Breit-Wigner parameters is so far away from the real axis thus it is too short lived to be influenced by hadronic interactions. The $\rho$ phase shift being of a life time comparable to hadronic interaction taking place becomes most sensitive. We have found as a function of $\alpha$ the best of $\rho$ width is always 0.147 GeV with an error of $\pm$ .007 GeV. The mass however decreases as $\alpha$ grows, reaching a minimum of 0.738 GeV at an $\alpha$ of 0.907. This is a mass shift of 37 MeV. An $\alpha$ of 0.504 is the smallest $\alpha$ we find in our fits. A mass of 0.775 GeV is the best fit when the value of $\alpha$ is at 0.504. Using equation 9 in Table II we determine the radius of $\pi \pi$ re-scattering for each $p_t$ bin. The value of $\alpha_0$ used in Table II is equal to 2.0 as determined in Appendix B of Part 1. Table II shows an interesting density effect around dipion $p_t$ of 0.6 to 1.0 GeV/c. If one consider that $p_t$ maybe related to fireball size through the idea of hubble flow, then pions with a $p_t$ of around 0.4 GeV/c maybe coming from a less dense region in the central part of the fireball. This could be a density wave effect.
**Table I. The $p_t$ ranges bins we fit.**
[|r|r|r|]{}\
$p_t$ bin number & lower edge(GeV/c) & upper edge(GeV/c)\
1 & 0.2 & 0.4\
2 & 0.4 & 0.6\
3 & 0.6 & 0.8\
4 & 0.8 & 1.0\
5 & 1.0 & 1.2\
6 & 1.2 & 1.4\
7 & 1.4 & 1.6\
8 & 1.6 & 1.8\
9 & 1.8 & 2.0\
10 & 2.0 & 2.2\
11 & 2.2 & 2.4\
12 & 2.4 & 2.6\
13 & 2.6 & 2.8\
14 & 2.8 & 3.0\
15 & 3.0 & 3.2\
16 & 3.2 & 3.4\
17 & 3.4 & 3.6\
18 & 3.6 & 3.8\
19 & 3.8 & 4.0\
**Table II. The $\alpha$ value, $\rho$ mass value and radius in each $p_t$ range.**
[|r|r|r|r|]{}\
$p_t$(GeV/c) & $\alpha$ & $\rho$ mass(GeV) & radius(f)\
0.3 & 0.907 $\pm$ .028 & 0.738 $\pm$ .004 & .739 $\pm$ .010\
0.5 & 0.806 $\pm$ .025 & 0.748 $\pm$ .003 & .773 $\pm$ .008\
0.7 & 0.706 $\pm$ .022 & 0.755 $\pm$ .002 & .804 $\pm$ .007\
0.9 & 0.706 $\pm$ .022 & 0.755 $\pm$ .002 & .804 $\pm$ .007\
1.1 & 0.806 $\pm$ .025 & 0.748 $\pm$ .003 & .773 $\pm$ .008\
1.3 & 0.806 $\pm$ .025 & 0.748 $\pm$ .003 & .773 $\pm$ .008\
1.5 & 0.806 $\pm$ .025 & 0.748 $\pm$ .003 & .773 $\pm$ .008\
1.7 & 0.806 $\pm$ .025 & 0.748 $\pm$ .003 & .773 $\pm$ .008\
1.9 & 0.806 $\pm$ .025 & 0.748 $\pm$ .003 & .773 $\pm$ .008\
2.1 & 0.605 $\pm$ .019 & 0.759 $\pm$ .002 & .835 $\pm$ .006\
2.3 & 0.504 $\pm$ .016 & 0.775 $\pm$ .001 & .865 $\pm$ .004\
2.5 & 0.504 $\pm$ .016 & 0.775 $\pm$ .001 & .865 $\pm$ .004\
2.7 & 0.504 $\pm$ .016 & 0.775 $\pm$ .001 & .865 $\pm$ .004\
2.9 & 0.504 $\pm$ .016 & 0.775 $\pm$ .001 & .865 $\pm$ .004\
3.1 & 0.504 $\pm$ .016 & 0.775 $\pm$ .001 & .865 $\pm$ .004\
3.3 & 0.504 $\pm$ .016 & 0.775 $\pm$ .001 & .865 $\pm$ .004\
3.5 & 0.504 $\pm$ .016 & 0.775 $\pm$ .001 & .865 $\pm$ .004\
3.7 & 0.504 $\pm$ .016 & 0.775 $\pm$ .001 & .865 $\pm$ .004\
3.9 & 0.504 $\pm$ .016 & 0.775 $\pm$ .001 & .865 $\pm$ .004\
The 19 dipion spectrum for the $p_t$ bins are shown in Figure 1 through Figure 19.
The direct cross sectional yield of the thermally produced states into $\pi^+$ $\pi^-$ is shown in Figure 20. The states are $k_s$, $\rho$, $f_0$ and $f_2$ and the yields come from the exponential fits to the direct thermal component of equation 7.
Summary and Discussion
======================
The Dipion Cocktail Part 2 applies a formalism derived in The Dipion Cocktail Part 1 which considered a mixture of sources present in the dipion mass spectrum of the heavy ion fireball. Part 1 showed that both thermal or soft production of hadrons and the minijet fragmented hadrons can be described through a set of unified formal equations. Part 2(this paper) applies this Part 1 formalism to the $p_t$ dependence of dipions for Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = $ 200 GeV and 40% to 80% centrality.
Part 1 started with the basic definition of elastic $\pi \pi$ scattering. Next showed how re-scattering of pions depends on the unitary condition that interactions present in the phase shift of an orbital state must interact all the time. The process of parton fragmentation into dipion states through unitarity leads to a equation of production and re-scattering in a given orbital quantum number. This equation(equation 7) has two components in each orbital state: one being the thermal production of resonances in a dipion orbital state, the other is the re-scattering of dipions coming from parton or minijet fragmentation into the dipion orbital state which do not come directly from the resonance. Unitarity requires that there most be re-scatter through resonance phase shifts which we defined through Breit-Wigner parameters (mass, width).
We have fitted 19 dipion $p_t$ ranges(see Table I) using equation 7. We included minijets up to $\ell$ = 3 and resonances $\sigma$ $\ell$ = 0, $\rho(770)$ $\ell$ = 1, and $f_2(1270)$ $\ell$ = 2. Using the arguments of Sec. 3 of Part 1, we added the $f_0$ as a direct thermal term ($|T_0|_1^2$) and only the $\sigma$ interfered with $\ell$ = 0 minijet background. Two other thermal terms are present in the cocktail, the $k^0_s$ and the $\omega_0$. All the thermal terms have an exponential behavior with dipion $p_t$ and are shown Figure 20. The spectrum of the minijet partial waves is obtained from PYTHIA[@pythia](see Sec. 5.2 of Part 1). We let the data determine which minijet partial wave to add. We find only Swave minijet background is important until $p_t$ equal to 1.1 GeV/c. Above 1.5 GeV/c all four minijet partial waves are used up to Fwave. It should be noted Dwave and Fwave are small effects. We used PDG[@PDG] for the $f_2(1270)$ mass = 1.275 GeV and width = .185 GeV. The $f_0$ was fitted obtaining mass = 0.9727 $\pm$ .0039 GeV and width = 0.04512 $\pm$ 0.01128 GeV. The $\sigma$ mass and width used was fixed because it was ill determined. The mass used was mass = 1.011 GeV and width = 1.015 GeV.
For the $\alpha$ parameter in $p_t$ bins up to 1.1 GeV/c the minijet Swave interference is the determining factor. Above 1.1 GeV/c the Pwave interference becomes most important. The values of $\alpha$ which gives a reasonable fit are shown in Table II.
We have determined that the $\sigma$ pole or Breit-Wigner parameters is so far away from the real axis thus it is too short lived to be influenced by hadronic interactions. The $\rho$ phase shift being of a life time comparable to hadronic interaction taking place becomes most sensitive. We have found as a function of $\alpha$ the best of $\rho$ width is always 0.147 GeV with an error of $\pm$ .007 GeV. The mass however decreases as $\alpha$ grows, reaching a minimum of 0.738 GeV at an $\alpha$ of 0.907. This is a mass shift of 37 MeV. An $\alpha$ of 0.504 is the smallest $\alpha$ we find in our fits. A mass of 0.775 GeV is the best fit when the value of $\alpha$ is at 0.504. Using equation 9 in Table II we determine the radius of $\pi \pi$ re-scattering for each $p_t$ range. Table II shows an interesting density effect around dipion $p_t$ of 0.6 to 1.0 GeV/c. If one consider that $p_t$ maybe related to fireball size through the idea of hubble flow, then pions with a $p_t$ of around 0.4 GeV/c maybe coming from a less dense region in the central part of the fireball. This could be a density wave effect.
Acknowledgments
===============
This research was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-98CH10886. The author thanks William Love for the STAR analysis of the angular correlation data from Run 4. Also for his assistance in the production of figures. It is sad that he is gone.
[99]{} T. Trainor, Phys. Rev. C 80 (2009) 044901. F. von Hippel and C. Quigg, Phys. Rev. 5 (1972) 624. T. Sjostrand, M. van Zijil, Phys. Rev. D 36 (1987) 2019. J. Beringer et al. (Particle Data Group), J. Phys. D86 (2012) 010001.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We propose a electron-pumping mechanism called Chern pump to explain the integer quantum Hall effect(IQHE) in the Chern insulator. By using the parallel transport gauge in the hybrid Wannier representation we establish the bulk and edge states correspondence in the Chern insulator. The same correspondence can also be established in two dimensional(2D) topological insulator(TI). So we can consider 2D TI as two time reversal(TR) related Chern insulators put together. The quantum spin Hall effect(QSHE) can be viewed as two TR related Chern pumps pumping electrons to opposite directions. Compared with the $Z_2$ spin pump, the two Chern pumps explanation of QSHE is inherently 2D and predict that the QSHE can be detected in isolated device, thus make the QSHE directly measurable.'
author:
- 'Yi-Dong Wu'
title: 'Chern pump: a bridge between integer quantum Hall effect and quantum spin Hall effect'
---
The quantization of the Hall conductance in integer quantum Hall effect has been explained from different perspectives since its discovery. Laughlin’s gauge argument played a major role in the development of the theory of IQHE [@Laughlin1981]. He considered the two dimensional electron gas as a electron pump. Integer number of electrons are pumped from one edge of the cylinder to another when the magnetic flux threading the cylinder varies by one flux quantum $hc/e$. Halperin refined Laughlin’s argument and stressed the role of the nonlocal edge states[@Halperin1982].\
Thouless, Kohmoto, Nightingale and den Nijs calculated the Hall conductance of 2D electron gas in uniform magnetic field and period potential by using Kubo formula[@Thouless1982]. The precise quantization of the Hall conductance of the bulk 2D system is related to the topological invariant called TKNN number or Chern number of the occupied energy bands on the magnetic Brillouin zone. Haldence proposed an insulator with occupied band that has nonzero Chern number even in the absence of macroscopic magnetic field[@Haldane1988]. We refer those materials as “Chern insulators" (CI). In this letter we show CI can also be considered as electron pump.\
Recently quantum spin Hall effect is proposed in 2D topological insulators(TIs)[@Kane2005a; @Kane2005b; @Bernevig2006; @Konig2007; @Roth2009; @Fu2006]. The 2D TI has gapless edge states on the boundary while the bulk is insulating. Kane and Mele proposed a $Z_2$ topological invariant to characterize the gapless edge states[@Kane2005b] and a $Z_2$ adiabatic spin pump to explain the QSHE in 2D TI[@Fu2006]. Though the $Z_2$ pump picture of QSHE has been widely accept by the community, we find that it may not be the true story. The claim “an isolated $Z_2$ pump returns to its original state after two cycles" is especially doubtful, which means QSHE can never been observed in isolated device. In this letter we explore the similarity of the QHE in CI and QSHE in 2D TI and explain why the QSHE can be realized in isolated 2D TIs.\
First we show that CI can be considered as an electron pump. We consider a cylinderical configuration as indicated in Fig. 1(a). $\mathbf{a_1}$ and $\mathbf{a_2}$ are the primary vectors of the 2D lattices, and $\mathbf{a_2}$ is parallel to the edges of the cylinder. $\mathbf{b_1}$ and $\mathbf{b_2}$ are the primary vectors of the reciprocal lattices which satisfy the $\mathbf{a_i}\cdot \mathbf{b_j}=2\pi\delta_{ij}$. We use the Berry-phase definition of the bulk polarization of CI as proposed in ref [@Coh2009] $$\bar{\mathbf{r}}_n=i\frac{S}{(2\pi)^2}\int_{[\mathbf{k_0}]}d\mathbf{k}\langle u_{n\mathbf{k}}|\nabla_{\mathbf{k}}|u_{n\mathbf{k}}\rangle$$ $|u_{n\mathbf{k}}\rangle$ are the cell-periodic Bloch functions, $S$ is the cell area and $[\mathbf{k_0}]$ indicates the parallelogram reciprocal-space unit cell with origin at $\mathbf{k_0}$. This definition of the bulk polarization depend on the choice of $\mathbf{k_0}$. To see this, we focus on the polarization perpendicular to the edges. $$\overline{x}_n=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{k_{20}}^{k_{20}+2\pi}dk_2 l\Phi_n(k_2)$$ $$\Phi_n(k_2)=i\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{k_{10}}^{k_{10}+2\pi}dk_1\langle u_{n\mathbf{k}}|\frac{\partial}{\partial k_1}|u_{n\mathbf{k}}\rangle$$ where $k_i=\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{a_i}$, $k_{i0}=\mathbf{k_0}\cdot\mathbf{a_{i}}$ and $l$ is the distance between two adjacent lattice lines as indicated in Fig. 1(a). $\Phi_n(k_2)$ gives the x position(in unit of $l$) of the one dimensional(1D) Wannier function center for a given $k_2$. Here, we have used the hybrid Wannier representation as in ref [@Soluyanov2011]. $\Phi_n(k_2)$, defined modulo $1$, is gauge independent and the continuous variation of $\Phi_n$ when $k_2$ increases by $2\pi$ defines the Chern number $C_n$ of the band[@Bohm2003]. we can see $\overline{x}_n$ is just the average x position of the hybrid Wannier function centers. When the $C_n$ is nonzero, $\overline{x}_n$ depends on $k_{10}$. However, as pointed out in ref[@Coh2009], the adiabatic change of the polarization is independent of $\mathbf{k_0}$. For example, when the magnetic flux threading the cylinder increase by one flux quantum $\phi_0=hc/e$ a 1D hybrid Wannier state with $k_2$ will evolve into a state with $k_2+2\pi/N$, so $\overline{x}_n$ will change by $C_nl/N$($N$ is the number of the lattices along $\mathbf{a_2}$ direction). In this process, the Hamiltonian experiences a cycle and $C_n$ electrons pass through a cross section of the cylinder, that is, $C_n$ electrons are pumped, we refer to this process as a Chern pump.\
Intuitively, the existence of the gapless edge states is inevitable. There must be room to accommodate the pumped electrons and the holes left at the other edge. If the edge states are gaped and the Fermi level is in the gap, pumping electrons from one edge to another will cost a large mount of energy in an isolated device, which can’t be achieved by adiabatic change of Hamiltonian in one cycle.\
The relationship between edge states and bulk property in quantum Hall systems and TIs has been discussed in several works[@Halperin1982; @Kane2005b; @Fu2006; @Hatsugai1993]. Halperlin calculated the energy of electron gas near the edge by using vanishing boundary conditions at the edges[@Halperin1982]. The radial wave functions of edge states and the bulk states have same number of nodes. When the magnetic flux vary the edge and bulk states can continuously evolve to each other. We can take the view that the bulk states are pushed upward by the edge potential to form the gapless edge states.\
Recently, in a brilliant work the topology of the edge states in insulator is identified with that of the spectrum of a certain gluing function by using a simple model for the boundary between the insulator and vacuum[@Fidkowski2011]. In the 2D case for a given $k_2$ the gluing functions are just the centers of the 1D general Wannier functions when using the parallel transport gauge[@Vanderbilt1993; @Kivelson1982]. Those 1D general Wannier functions span the same space as the occupied Bloch bands and are maximally localized in 1D real space.\
![(a)The geometrical configuration of the 2D insulator. (b)-(e) The centers of 1D MLWFs $\Phi_n$s as functions of $k_2$ when four,three,two and one band(s) is(are) occupied with $q/p=2/5$ in the tight-binding model. The $\Phi_n$s of the trivial bands are constantly zeros module one, so they aren’t shown. (f)The energy spectrum of the tight-binding model. the red lines are the edge states, solid lines on one edge and the doted lines on the other. The correspondence between the $\Phi_n$s and the edge states is obviously. (g)An intuitive illustration of how the 1D maximally localized Wannier states are pushed upward to form the gapless edge states. The solid lines at edge are occupied and the doted lines are unoccupied. The magnetic flux $\phi=0$ ,Fermi levels of the two edge are equal. The system is in its ground state. (h)An illustration of the change of occupation of the edge states when the magnetic flux varies from zero to a finite value. With the electrons pumped from one edge to the other, the Fermi levels of the two edges become different. []{data-label="fin"}](fin.eps "fig:"){width="3.7"}\
Using the centers of the maximally localized Wannier functions(MLWF) $\Phi_n$ as function of $k_2$ to characterize the edge state has several advantages. First, it’s a very general conclusion, which can be applied in both TR symmetric and broken insulators. Second, it’s more accurate in characterizing edge states than Chern numbers or the $Z_2$ invariants. The actual boundary conditions of insulators are quite complicated, we don’t expect such a simple model can accurately determine the shape of the edge states. However, as indicated in Fig 1., there is a remarkable geometrical resemblance between the $\Phi_n$s and the edge states calculated with the tight-binding model in ref[@Hatsugai1993]. We have calculated the centers of the 1D MLWFs of 2D, 3D TIs and topological semi-metals[@Wu2011a]. We find they accurately predict the topological properties and even provide some geometrical information of the edge states. Finally, it provides an intuitive view of how the edge states are formed at the boundaries of the material as illustrated in Fig.1.(g). Similar to the discussion of electron gas in ref[@Halperin1982], in the CI or TIs we can think it’s the maximally localized hybrid Wannier states that are pushed upward to form the gapless edge states as illustrated in Fig. 1.(g). In this way we establish the bulk and edge states correspondence. When magnetic flux varies they can adiabatically evolve to each other .\
In Fig. 1(h) we demonstrate the adiabatic evolution of the hybrid Wannier states and the edge states when the magnetic flux varies. The centers of the MLWFs can be smoothly jointed at $k_2=0$ and $k_2=2\pi$, so the hybrid Wannier states in bulk remain occupied. However, the filling of the edge states will change adiabatically and there will be a difference in Fermi levels of the two edges( because of the net charges at the edges, there will also be electrostatic potential between the two edges). Thus, we can create a quantum Hall state by adiabatic evolution when the device is isolated. By “isolated" we mean there are no reservoirs connected to the edges of the cylinder.\
Once how the CIs pump electrons is understood, the mechanism of the QSHE in 2D TIs becomes clear. The only difference between TIs and CIs is the TIs respect TR symmetry. Because of the TR symmetry, the hybrid Wannier functions constructed by sing the parallel gauge in TR symmetric insulators are also TR related, that is, the MLWFs at $k_2$ and $-k_2$ are related by TR operator[@Fidkowski2011]. Transformed back to the Bloch representation, the two group of 2D bands are also TR related. Because the $\Phi_n$s are equal at $k_2$ and $-k_2$ as indicated in Fig. 2, the two group of bands have opposite Chern numbers $\pm C$. $C$ is odd in 2D TI and even in trivial insulator. In fact, the occupied bands of 2D TIs can only be decomposed to two groups of bands with odd Chern number if we insist the two group of bands are TR related[@Wu2011b]. In contrast, the trivial insulator can be decomposed to two groups TR related trivial bands with zero Chern number. So $Z_2$ is just the parity of the Chern number of one of groups of bands decomposed using the parallel transport gauge.\
The bulk and edge states correspondence discussed in the Chern insulators is still valid here, two groups TR related maximally localized hybrid Wannier states correspond to two branches of TR related edge states as indicated in Fig. 2. So 2D TI can be viewed as two TR related Chern insulators put together. If we consider a geometrical configuration in Fig.1.(a) with 2D TI, when the magnetic flux change one flux quantum, the two TR related CIs will each pump $C$ electrons to the opposite directions. If the 2D TI is initially in its ground state as indicated in Fig 2, there will be $C$ electrons added and $C$ holes left at each of the two edges after one pump. If the average values of spins of the edge states are nonzero, net spin will accumulate at the edges after one pump. In this way, the spins are pumped from one edge to another. However, because spins aren’t conserved in most of the materials, so in general we can’t get an integer quantum spin Hall conductance as in ref[@Bernevig2006]. When the magnetic flux changes continuously the two Chern pumps will continuously pump electrons to opposite directions. If the device is isolated the difference of the Fermi levels of the two branches edge states at each edge will increase as indicated in Fig 2.(f).\
![(a)-(d)The centers of MLWFs $\Phi_n$s with the tight-binding model in ref[@Kane2005b]. The parameters are $\lambda_{SO}=0.06t$, $\lambda_R=0.05t$ and $\lambda_v=0,0.1t,0.29t,0.4t$ respectively. They illustrate a TI and normal insulator transition. (f)-(i) show the corresponding energy spectrum of the model. The lines at the bulk gap are edge states. They have topology of the $\Phi_n$s. (d) and (j) show the results of HgTe quantum well by using the tight-binding model in ref[@Bernevig2006]. To make the edge state more localized we use a parameter $M=-0.1$. (k) An illustration of the formation of edge states similar to the CI case in Fig.1.(1) The occupation of the edge states when electrons are pumped by the two Chern pumps to opposite directions. Net spins and currents present at the two edges. []{data-label="s2d"}](s2d.eps "fig:"){width="3.7"}\
Now we discuss why we prefer the two Chern pumps to the $Z_2$ adiabatic spin pump proposed in ref[@Fu2006] in explaining the QSHE. Our first objection to use the $Z_2$ pump is that the $Z_2$ pump isn’t a primary pump in the 2D system. By definition a pump means that the Hamiltonian of the system experiences a cycle and returns to its origin form. However, because $Z_2$ pump is defined in a 1D system, the external parameter $t$ or $k_2$ must varies by $2\pi$ to finish a cycle. In a 2D system illustrated in Fig 1.(a), this means the Hamiltonian returns to its origin form $N$ times. In a general 2D system, e.g. a Corbino disc, when the $k_2$ can’t be defined, it isn’t clear how many times the Hamiltonian returns to its origin form to achieve a $Z_2$ pump. Even in the special case that the $Z_2$ pump can be defined, the claim that “an isolated $Z_2$ pump returns to its original state after two cycles" can never be realized in real 2D system. In fig 2. after two $Z_2$ cycles $k_2$ will varies by $4\pi$, the electrons at the edge state will adiabatically evolve to the bulk valence bands if the single particle picture remains valid.\
Contrary to the $Z_2$ pump picture, in our two Chern pumps picture we don’t need coupling to the reservoir to explain why 2D TIs can pump spins. If coupling to the reservoirs must be include in the QSHE, the QSHE would become more or less an external property of the TI, which isn’t aesthetically satisfactory. Besides, the interactions between spins and reservoirs are very complicated in general, which make it difficult to observe the QSHE experimentally. In our opinion, the edge states serve as natural reservoirs to accommodate the spins pumped by bulk energy bands in an isolated device.\
![A suggested device to test the TR Chern pump picture. The Corbino disc is constructed from HgTe quantum well. The device is isolate. By varying the magnetic flux $\phi$ spins are pumped to the edges. The red(yellow) lines are the spin up(down) edge state. Solid lines have higher Fermi level than the dashed lines. The arrows denote the direction of the speed of the electrons. There are net up(down) spins at the inner(outer) edge. The directions of the currents are same at the two edges(opposite to the higher Fermi level electrons).[]{data-label="disc"}](pict.eps "fig:"){width="2"}\
The most outstanding advantage of two TR Chern pumps picture is that it make the quantum spin Hall effect directly measurable. So far the experimental researches on the QSHE have focused on the existence of the nonlocal edge states[@Konig2007; @Roth2009; @Fu2006]. Only recently are the edge states confirmed to be spin-polarized[@Brune2012]. However, no QSHE has been directly observed, that is, no net spin accumulation at the edge of the 2D TI caused by the traverse electric field has been detected.\
Since we view the 2D TI as two TR related CIs and the Hall conductances of the CIs aren’t affected by the geometrical configuration of the device, the 2D TI can still be considered as two Chern pumps in a Corbino disc as indicated in Fig.3. The bulk band and the edge states correspondence guarantees the existence of the TR related gapless edge states. So when the magnetic flux varies the two Chern pumps will pump electrons to opposite directions, spins will accumulate at the edges. In this process the spins are transported through bulk instead of the edge channels, so we don’t have to worry about the complicated interaction between the spin currents at the edges and the reservoirs.\
We can use HgTe quantum well to construct such a device and spins accumulated at the edge will be out of plane. This is a very interesting state, the Fermi levels of spin up and down electrons are different at each edge. So there are electric currents at the edges and the currents are in the same direction. This state can be detected either by measuring the spins at the edge directly or by measuring the edge current.\
For a constant magnetic flux, if the single particle picture remains valid and there are no TR symmetry breaking impurities, the current at the edge will be nondissipative. In this sense, the edge states are ideal reservoirs for the pumped spins since the spin-polarized states at the edges have long if not infinite relaxation time. However, when these states are far from equilibrium, the many-particle effect will certainly cause some relaxation. Therefore, with our proposition not only can the pumped spins be detected but also the relaxation of the pumped spins can be studied experimentally.\
In conclusion, we proposed a spin pump in 2D TI in analogy to the Laughlin’s charge pump or the Chern pump in CI. We consider the 2D TI as two TR related CIs which can pump electrons to opposite directions and the edge states serve as natural and ideal reservoirs for the pumped spin. In this way, we establish a coherent physical picture of the QSHE and make the QSHE directly measurable.
R.B. Laughlin, Phys. Rev. B **23**, 5632-5633 (1981).
B. I. Halperin, Phys. Rev. B **25**, 2185-2190 (1982).
Phys. Rev. Lett. ****, 405 (1982)
Phys. Rev. Lett. ****, 2015 (1988).
C.L. Kane and E.J. Mele Phys. Rev. Lett. **95**, 226801 (2005).
C.L. Kane and E.J. Mele, Phys. Rev. Lett. **95**, 146802 (2005).
B.A. Bernevig, T.L. Hughes and S.C. Zhang, Science **314**, 1757-1761 (2006).
König, M. *et al*. *Science* **318**, 766-770 (2007).
Roth, A. *et al*. *Science* **325**, 294 (2009).
L. Fu and C.L. Kane, Phys. Rev. B. **74**, 195312 (2006).
S. Coh, and D. Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. Lett. **102**, 107603 (2009).
A.A. Soluyanov, D. Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. B. **83**, 035108 (2011).
A. Bohm, *et al.* The Geometric Phase in Quantum Systems. Springer (2003).
Phys. Rev. Lett. ****, 3697 (1993).
L. Fidkowski, T.S. Jackson and I.Klich, Phys. Rev. Lett. **107**, 036601 (2011).
Vanderbilt, D. & King-Smith, R.D. *Phys. Rev. B*. **48**, 4442-4455 (1993).
S. Kivelson, Phys. Rev.B **26**, 4269-4277 (1982).
Y.D. Wu, arXiv:1112.5865(unpublished).
Y.D. Wu, arXiv:1108.4728(unpublished).
C. Brüne, *et al.* Nat. Phys. **8**,486¨C491 (2012).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- |
B. Carballo Pérez[^1] and M. Socolovsky[^2]\
\
title: 'Charge conjugation from space-time inversion in QED: discrete and continuous groups'
---
**Abstract**\
We show that the CPT groups of QED emerge naturally from the $\cal{PT}$ and $\cal{P}$ (or $\cal{T}$) subgroups of the Lorentz group. We also find relationships between these discrete groups and continuous groups, like the connected Lorentz and Poincaré groups and their universal coverings.\
**Keywords:** CPT groups; space-time inversion; Lorentz and Poincaré groups
Introduction
============
It was shown in [@CPT; @group] that the CPT group, $G_{\hat{\theta}}(\hat{\psi})$ ($\hat{\theta}=\hat{C}*\hat{P}*\hat{T}$), of the Dirac quantum field is a non abelian group with sixteen elements isomorphic to the direct product of the quaternion group, $Q$, and the cyclic group, $\mathbb{Z}_2$: $$G_{\hat{\theta}}(\hat{\psi})\cong Q \times \mathbb{Z}_2.$$
Unlike $G_{\hat{\theta}}(\hat{\psi})$ [@CPT; @group; @B2; @B1], the CPT group, $G_{\hat{\theta}}(\hat{A_{\mu}})$, of the electromagnetic field is an abelian group of eight elements with three generators [@B2]: $$G_{\hat{\theta}}(\hat{A_{\mu}})\cong\mathbb{Z}_2^{3}.$$
As the CPT transformation properties of the interacting $\hat{\psi}-\hat{A_{\mu}}$ fields are the same as for the free fields [@Azcarraga], the complete CPT group for QED, $G_{\hat{\Theta}}(QED)$, is the direct product of the above mentioned two groups, $G_{\hat{\Theta}}(\hat{\psi})$ and $G_{\hat{\Theta}}(\hat{A_{\mu}})$, i.e.,
$$G_{\hat{\Theta}}(QED)=G_{\hat{\Theta}}(\hat{\psi})\times G_{\hat{\Theta}}(\hat{A_{\mu}})\cong (Q \times \mathbb{Z}_{2})\times \mathbb{Z}_{2}^{3}.$$
C from $\mathbf{\cal{PT}}$
==========================
It was shown in [@B1] that $Q$ becomes isomorphic to a subgroup $H$ of $SU(2)$, being $\lambda$ the isomorphism: $$\begin{aligned}
Q \buildrel {\lambda}\over \longrightarrow H < SU(2),\nonumber\\
1 \mapsto I, \quad \iota \mapsto -i \sigma_{1}, \quad \gamma\mapsto -i \sigma_{2}, \quad \kappa\mapsto -i \sigma_{3},
\label{lambda}\end{aligned}$$ where $\iota$, $\gamma$, $\kappa$ are the three imaginary units of the quaternion group and $\sigma_k$ ($k=1,2,3$) are the Pauli matrices; and taking also into account that $\mathbb{Z}_2$ is isomorphic to the center of $SU(2)$: $\lbrace I,-I \rbrace$, then:
$$G_{\hat{\theta}}(\hat{\psi}) \cong H\times (center \ \ of \ \ SU(2)).$$
Since $SU(2)$ is the universal covering group of $SO(3)$:
$$SU(2) \buildrel {\Phi}\over \longrightarrow SO(3),
\label{Phi}$$
then $\Phi(H)$ has 4 elements and, for that reason, the unique candidates are groups isomorphic to $C_4$ and $D_2\cong \mathbb{Z}_2\times \mathbb{Z}_2$, the Klein group. A simple application of $\Phi$ to the elements of $H$ led to: $$\Phi (H)=\{I, \ R_x(\pi), \ R_y(\pi), \ R_z(\pi)\},$$ with $R_x(\pi)$, $R_y(\pi)$, $R_z(\pi)$ the rotations in $\pi$ around the axes $x$, $y$ and $z$, respectively, and $I$, the unit matrix in $SO(3)$. It was then immediately verified that the multiplication table of $\Phi(H) < SO(3)$ is the same as for $D_2$.
Then, we have: $$G_{\hat{\theta}}(\hat{\psi}) \cong \Phi^{-1}(D_2)\times \mathbb{Z}_2.$$
Within the Lorentz group $O(3,1)$, the transformations of parity $\cal{P}$ and time reversal $\cal{T}$, together with their product $\cal{PT}$ and the 4$\times$4 unit matrix $E$, lead to the subgroup of the Lorentz group, called the $\cal{PT}$-group, which is also isomorphic to $D_2$.
On the other hand, $\cal{P}$ or $\cal{T}$ separately, together with the unit 4$\times$4 matrix $E$, give rise to the group $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$. Then, we obtain the desired result for the Dirac field:
$$G_{\hat{\theta}}(\hat{\psi})\cong \Phi^{-1}(<\lbrace {\cal{P}},{\cal{T}} \rbrace>)\times <\lbrace {\cal{P}} \rbrace>$$
or $$G_{\hat{\theta}}(\hat{\psi})\cong \Phi^{-1}(<\lbrace {\cal{P}},{\cal{T}} \rbrace>)\times <\lbrace {\cal{T}} \rbrace>;$$ while, for the electromagnetic field, we have: $$G_{\hat{\Theta}}(\hat{A_{\mu}})\cong <\lbrace {\cal{P}},{\cal{T}} \rbrace>\times<\lbrace {\cal{P}} \rbrace>$$ or $$G_{\hat{\Theta}}(\hat{A_{\mu}})\cong <\lbrace {\cal{P}},{\cal{T}} \rbrace>\times<\lbrace {\cal{T}} \rbrace>.$$
The above result suggests that the Minkowskian space-time structure of special relativity, in particular the unconnected component of its symmetry group, the real Lorentz group $O(3,1)$, implies the existence of the CPT group as a whole, and therefore the existence of the charge conjugation transformation, and thus the proper existence of antiparticles.
Discrete and continuous groups
==============================
The relationships between the discrete groups: $Q$, $G_{PT}=<\lbrace {\cal{P}},{\cal{T}} \rbrace>$, $G_{\hat{\theta}}(\hat{\psi})$ and $G_{\hat{\Theta}}(\hat{A_{\mu}})$ and continuous groups, like the Lorentz group and its universal covering group, can be summarized in the following diagram: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}[c]{cccccccccc}
\mathbb{Z}_{2} & & \mathbb{Z}_{2} & & \mathbb{Z}_{2} & & \mathbb{Z}_{2} & & \mathbb{Z}_{2}\\
\downarrow\scriptstyle{}& &\downarrow\scriptstyle{} & &\downarrow\scriptstyle{} & &\downarrow\scriptstyle{} & &\downarrow\scriptstyle{} & \\
G_{\hat{\theta}}(\hat{\psi})\cong Q \times \mathbb{Z}_2 & \stackrel{\alpha}{\leftarrow} & Q & \stackrel{\mu}{\rightarrow} & SU(2) & \stackrel{\beta}{\rightarrow} & SL_{2}(\mathbb{C}) & \stackrel{\gamma}{\rightarrow} & \mathbb{R}^{4}\rtimes SL_{2}(\mathbb{C})\\
\downarrow\scriptstyle{\psi}& &\downarrow\scriptstyle{\rho} & &\downarrow\scriptstyle{\Phi} & &\downarrow\scriptstyle{\overset{\sim}{\Phi}} & &\downarrow\scriptstyle{\overset{\approx}{\Phi}} &\\
G_{\hat{\theta}}(\hat{A_{\mu}})\cong\mathbb{Z}_2^{3} & \stackrel{\bar{\alpha}}{\leftarrow} & G_{PT}\cong \mathbb{Z}_2^{2}& \stackrel{\bar{\mu}}{\rightarrow} & SO(3) & \stackrel{\bar{\beta}}{\rightarrow} & SO^{c}(3,1) & \stackrel{\bar{\gamma}}{\rightarrow} & \mathbb{R}^{4}\rtimes SO^{c}(3,1).
\end{array}
\label{diagrama1}\end{aligned}$$
The homomorphism $\mu$ is defined by $\mu(q)=\lambda(q)$ (see (\[lambda\])) and the homomorphism $\Phi$ was described in (\[Phi\]); $\overset{\sim}{\Phi}$ and $\overset{\approx}{\Phi}$ are the homomorphisms between the conected Lorentz ($SO^{c}(3,1)$) and Poincaré ($\mathbb{R}^{4}\rtimes SO^{c}(3,1) \equiv {\cal{P}}_{4}^{c}$) groups, respectively, and their universal coverings ($SL_{2}(\mathbb{C})$ and $\mathbb{R}^{4}\rtimes SL_{2}(\mathbb{C})\equiv \bar{\cal{P}}_{4}^{c}$); while $\rho$, $\psi$, $\bar{\mu}$, $\alpha$, $\bar{\alpha}$, $\beta$, $\bar{\beta}$, $\gamma$ and $\bar{\gamma}$ are given by:
$$\begin{aligned}
Q \buildrel {\rho}\over \longrightarrow \frac{Q}{\mathbb{Z}_{2}}\cong G_{PT}, \quad q \mapsto [q],
\label{rho}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
G_{\hat{\theta}}(\hat{\psi})\buildrel {\psi}\over \longrightarrow \frac{Q\times\mathbb{Z}_{2}}{\mathbb{Z}_{2}}\cong G_{\hat{\theta}}(\hat{A_{\mu}}), \quad (q,1) \mapsto [(q,1)], \quad (q,-1) \mapsto [(q,1)],
\label{psi}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
G_{PT} \buildrel {\bar{\mu}}\over \longrightarrow SO(3), \quad [q] \mapsto \Phi(h),\quad h=\lambda(q),
\label{mu}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
Q \buildrel {\alpha}\over \longrightarrow G_{\hat{\theta}}(\hat{\psi}), \quad q \mapsto (q,1),
\label{alpha}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
G_{PT} \buildrel {\bar{\alpha}}\over \longrightarrow G_{\hat{\theta}}(\hat{A_{\mu}}), \quad [q] \mapsto [(q,1)],
\label{baralpha}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
SU(2) \buildrel {\beta}\over \longrightarrow SL_{2}(\mathbb{C}), \quad A \mapsto A,
\label{beta}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
SO(3) \buildrel {\bar{\beta}}\over \longrightarrow SO^{c}(3,1), \quad R \mapsto
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \cr 0 & R \cr
\end{pmatrix},
\label{barbeta}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
SL_{2}(\mathbb{C}) \buildrel {\gamma}\over \longrightarrow \mathbb{R}^{4}\rtimes SL_{2}(\mathbb{C}), \quad B \mapsto (\bold{0},B),
\label{gamma}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
SO^{c}(3,1) \buildrel {\bar{\gamma}}\over \longrightarrow \mathbb{R}^{4}\rtimes SO^{c}(3,1), \quad \Lambda \mapsto (\bold{0},\Lambda).
\label{bargamma}\end{aligned}$$
Let $\nu$ the function which goes from $Q\times \mathbb{Z}_{2}$ to $SU(2)$: $$\begin{aligned}
Q\times \mathbb{Z}_{2} \buildrel {\nu}\over \longrightarrow SU(2), \quad (q,g) \mapsto \nu(q,g):=sg(g)\lambda(q),
\label{gamma}\end{aligned}$$ where $sg(g)=1$ if $g=1$ and $sg(g)=-1$ if $g=-1$.
Then, it holds:
- $\nu$ is an homomorphism.\
Proof: $$\begin{aligned}
\nu((q',g')(q,g))&=&\nu(q'q,g'g)=sg(g'g)\lambda(q'q)=sg(g')sg(g)\lambda(q')\lambda(q)\nonumber\\
&=&(sg(g')\lambda(q'))(sg(g)\lambda(q))=\nu(q',g')\nu(q,g).\end{aligned}$$
- $\nu$ is 2 to 1.\
Proof: $$\nu(q,-1)=\nu(-q,1).$$
$\bar{\nu}$ is determined by $\nu$ due to the commutative diagram: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}[c]{cccccc}
G_{\hat{\theta}}(\hat{\psi}) & \stackrel{\nu}{\rightarrow} & SU(2)\\
\downarrow\scriptstyle{\psi}& &\downarrow\scriptstyle{\Phi} & \\
G_{\hat{\theta}}(\hat{A_{\mu}}) & \stackrel{\bar{\nu}}{\rightarrow} & SO(3) &
\end{array}
\label{diagrama2}\end{aligned}$$ and is also a 2 to 1 homomorphism. If $x \in \mathbb{Z}_{2}^{3}$ then $\psi^{-1}(\lbrace x \rbrace)=\lbrace y_{1},y_{2}\rbrace \subset Q\times \mathbb{Z}_{2}$. Hence: $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\nu}(x)&=&\bar{\nu}(\psi(y_{k}))=\bar{\nu} \circ \psi (y_{k})=\Phi \circ \nu (y_{k})\nonumber\\
&=&\Phi(\nu (y_{k}))=\Phi(\nu (q_{k}, g_{k})),\end{aligned}$$ with $k=1$ or $2$. Then:
- $\bar{\nu}$ is an homomorphism.\
Proof: $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\nu}(x'x)&=&\Phi(\nu ((q'_{k}, g'_{k})(q_{l}, g_{l})))=\Phi(\nu (q'_{k}, g'_{k}))\Phi(\nu(q_{l}, g_{l}))\nonumber\\
&=&\Phi \circ \nu (q'_{k}, g'_{k})\Phi \circ \nu(q_{l}, g_{l})=\bar{\nu} \circ\ \psi (q'_{k}, g'_{k})\bar{\nu} \circ \psi(q_{l}, g_{l})\nonumber\\
&=&\bar{\nu}(x')\bar{\nu}(x),\end{aligned}$$ with $l=1$ or $2$.
- $\bar{\nu}$ is 2 to 1.\
Proof: From $\Phi \circ \nu = \bar{\nu} \circ \psi$ and the fact that $\Phi$, $\nu$ and $\psi$ are 2 to 1, it follows that $\bar{\nu}$ is also 2 to 1.
Taking into account diagrams (\[diagrama1\]) and (\[diagrama2\]), the group homomorphisms: $$\varphi=\gamma \circ \beta \circ \nu$$ and $$\bar{\varphi}=\bar{\gamma} \circ \bar{\beta} \circ \bar{\nu},$$ make commutative the following diagram: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}[c]{cccc}
G_{\hat{\theta}}(\hat{\psi}) & \stackrel{\varphi}{\rightarrow} & \bar{\cal{P}}_{4}^{c}\\
\downarrow\scriptstyle{\psi}& &\downarrow\scriptstyle{\overset{\approx}{\Phi}} &\\
G_{\hat{\theta}}(\hat{A_{\mu}})& \stackrel{\bar{\varphi}}{\rightarrow} & {\cal{P}}_{4}^{c};
\end{array}
\label{diagrama3}\end{aligned}$$ making explicit the close and possibly deep relationship between these discrete and continuous groups.
Discussion
==========
In summary, we have that $G_{\hat{\theta}}(\hat{\psi})$ and $G_{\hat{\Theta}}(\hat{A_{\mu}})$, which are groups acting at the quantum field level that include the charge conjugation operator, emerge in a natural way from the $\cal{PT}$-group and its $\cal{P}$ (or $\cal{T}$) subgroups. That is, from matrices acting on Minkowski classical space-time.
It is important to note that $G_{PT}$ generates $G_{\hat{\Theta}}(\hat{A_{\mu}})$, the CPT group of the electromagnetic field, without passing through $SU(2)$. That is, without the need of using spinors; while the group $SU(2)$ is needed in order to generate $G_{\hat{\theta}}(\hat{\psi})$, the CPT group of the Dirac field.
Finally, another important thing that we found is the relationship between discrete groups, like $G_{\hat{\Theta}}(\hat{A_{\mu}})$ and $G_{\hat{\theta}}(\hat{\psi})$, and continuous groups, like the connected Poincaré group (${\cal{P}}_{4}^{c}$) and its universal covering ($\bar{\cal{P}}_{4}^{c}$). This is shown in diagram (\[diagrama3\]).
Acknowledgment
==============
This work was partially support by the project PAPIIT IN 118609-2, DGAPA-UNAM, México.
[99]{}
M. Socolovsky, *The CPT group of the Dirac Field*, Int J Theor Phys, **43** (2004), pp. 1941-1967; arXiv: math-ph/0404038.
B. Carballo Pérez and M. Socolovsky, *Irreducible representations of the CPT groups in QED*, IJPAM (in press) (2010); arXiv: math-ph/0906.2381v3.
B. Carballo Pérez and M. Socolovsky, *Charge conjugation from space-time inversion*, Int J Theor Phys, **48** (2009), pp. 1712-1716; arXiv: hep-th/0811.0842v1.
J. A. de Azcárraga, *P, C, T, $\theta$ in Quantum Field Theory*, GIFT 7/75 (1975), 69.
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
The availability of open-source software is playing a remarkable role in the popularization of speech recognition and deep learning. Kaldi, for instance, is nowadays an established framework used to develop state-of-the-art speech recognizers. PyTorch is used to build neural networks with the Python language and has recently spawn tremendous interest within the machine learning community thanks to its simplicity and flexibility.
The PyTorch-Kaldi project aims to bridge the gap between these popular toolkits, trying to inherit the efficiency of Kaldi and the flexibility of PyTorch. PyTorch-Kaldi is not only a simple interface between these software, but it embeds several useful features for developing modern speech recognizers. For instance, the code is specifically designed to naturally plug-in user-defined acoustic models. As an alternative, users can exploit several pre-implemented neural networks that can be customized using intuitive configuration files. PyTorch-Kaldi supports multiple feature and label streams as well as combinations of neural networks, enabling the use of complex neural architectures. The toolkit is publicly-released along with a rich documentation and is designed to properly work locally or on HPC clusters.
Experiments, that are conducted on several datasets and tasks, show that PyTorch-Kaldi can effectively be used to develop modern state-of-the-art speech recognizers.
address: |
$^1$ Mila, Université de Montréal , $^*$CIFAR Fellow\
$^2$ LIA, Université d’Avignon
bibliography:
- 'mybib.bib'
title: 'The PyTorch-Kaldi Speech Recognition Toolkit'
---
**Index Terms**: speech recognition, deep learning, Kaldi, PyTorch.
Introduction
============
Over the last years, we witnessed a progressive improvement and maturation of Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) technologies [@lideng; @ravanelli_thesis], that have reached unprecedented performance levels and are nowadays used by millions of users worldwide.
A key role in this technological breakthrough is being played by deep learning [@Goodfellow-et-al-2016-Book], that contributed to overcoming previous speech recognizers based on Gaussian Mixture Models (GMMs). Beyond deep learning, other factors have played a role in the progress of the field. A number of speech-related projects such as AMI [@ami] and DIRHA [@lrec] and speech recognition challenges such as CHiME [@chime3], Babel, and Aspire, have remarkably fostered the progress in ASR. The public distribution of large datasets such as Librispeech [@librispeech] has also played an important role to establish common evaluation frameworks and tasks.
Among the others factors, the development of open-source software such as HTK [@htkbook], Julius [@julius], CMU-Sphinx, RWTH-ASR [@rwth], LIA-ASR [@lia_asr] and, more recently, the Kaldi toolkit [@kaldi_short] have further helped popularize ASR, making both research and development of novel ASR applications significantly easier.
Kaldi currently represents the most popular ASR toolkit. It relies on finite-state transducers (FSTs) [@mohri] and provides a set of C++ libraries for efficiently implementing state-of-the-art speech recognition systems. Moreover, the toolkit includes a large set of recipes that cover all the most popular speech corpora. In parallel to the development of this ASR-specific software, several general-purpose deep learning frameworks, such as Theano [@theano], TensorFlow [@tensorflow], and CNTK [@CNTK], have gained popularity in the machine learning community. These toolkits offer a huge flexibility in the neural network design and can be used for a variety of deep learning applications.
PyTorch [@PyTorch] is an emerging python package that implements efficient GPU-based tensor computations and facilitates the design of neural architectures, thanks to proper routines for automatic gradient computation. An interesting feature of PyTorch lies in its modern and flexible design, that naturally supports dynamic neural networks. In fact, the computational graph is dynamically constructed on-the-fly at running time rather than being statically compiled.
The PyTorch-Kaldi project aims to bridge the gap between Kaldi and PyTorch[^1]. Our toolkit implements acoustic models in PyTorch, while feature extraction, label/alignment computation, and decoding are performed with Kaldi, making it suitable to develop state-of-the-art DNN-HMM speech recognizers. PyTorch-Kaldi natively supports several DNNs, CNNs, and RNNs models. Combinations between deep learning models, acoustic features, and labels are also supported, enabling the use of complex neural architectures. For instance, users can employ a cascade between CNNs, LSTMs, and DNNs, or run in parallel several models that share some hidden layers. Users can also explore different acoustic features, context duration, neuron activations (e.g., ReLU, leaky ReLU), normalizations (e.g., batch [@batchnorm] and layer normalization [@layer_norm]), cost functions, regularization strategies (e.g, L2, dropout [@dropout]), optimization algorithms (e.g., Adam [@adam], RMSPROP), and many other hyper-parameters of an ASR system through simple edits of configuration files.
The toolkit is designed to make the integration of user-defined acoustic models as simple as possible. In practice, users can embed their deep learning model and conduct ASR experiments even without being fully familiar with the complex speech recognition pipeline. The toolkit can perform computations on both local machines and HPC cluster, and supports multi-gpu training, recovery strategy, and automatic data chunking.
The experiments, conducted on several datasets and tasks, have shown that PyTorch-Kaldi makes it possible to easily develop competitive state-of-the-art speech recognition systems.
The PyTorch-Kaldi Project
=========================
Some other speech recognition toolkits have been recently developed using the python language. PyKaldi [@pykaldi], for instance, is an easy-to-use Python wrapper for the C++ code of Kaldi and OpenFst libraries. Differently from our toolkit, however, the current version of the PyKaldi does not provide several pre-implemented and ready-to-use neural models. Another python project is ESPnet [@ESPnet]. ESPnet is an end-to-end speech processing toolkit, mainly focuses on end-to-end speech recognition and end-to-end text-to-speech. The main difference with our project is the current version of PyTorch-Kaldi implements hybrid DNN-HMM speech recognizers.
An overview of the architecture adopted in PyTorch-Kaldi is reported in Fig. \[fig:arch\]. The main script *$run\_exp.py$* is written in *python* and manages all the phases involved in an ASR system, including feature and label extraction, training, validation, decoding, and scoring. The toolkit is detailed in the following sub-sections.
![An overview of the PyTorch-Kaldi architecture.[]{data-label="fig:arch"}](pytorch-kaldi-image.pdf)
Configuration file
------------------
The main script takes as input a configuration file in INI format[^2], that is composed of several sections. The section $[Exp]$ specifies some high-level information such as the folder used for the experiment, the number of training epochs, the random seed. It also allows users to specify whether the experiments have to be conducted on a CPU, GPU, or on multiple GPUs. The configuration file continues with the $[dataset*]$ sections, that specify information on features and labels, including the paths where they are stored, the characteristics of the context window [@acw_sc], and the number of chunks in which the speech dataset must be split. The neural models are described in the $[architecture*]$ sections, while the $[model]$ section defines how these neural networks are combined. The latter section exploits a simple meta-language that is automatically interpreted by the $run\_exp.py$ script. Finally, the configuration file defines the decoding parameters in the $[decoding]$ section.
Features
--------
The feature extraction is performed with Kaldi, that natively provides c++ libraries (e.g., *compute-mfcc-feats*, *compute-fbank-feats*, *compute-plp-feats*) to efficiently extract the most popular speech recognition features. The computed coefficients are stored in binary archives (with extension *.ark*) and are later imported into the python environment using the *kaldi-io* utilities inherited from the kaldi-io-for-python project[^3]. The features are then processed by the function *load-chunk*, that performs context window composition, shuffling, as well as mean and variance normalization. As outlined before, PyTorch-Kaldi can manage multiple feature streams. For instance, users can define models that exploit combinations of MFCCs, FBANKs, PLP, and fMLLR [@mllr] coefficients.
Labels
------
The main labels used for training the acoustic model derive from a forced alignment procedure between the speech features and the sequence of context-dependent phone states computed by Kaldi with a phonetic decision tree. To enable multi-task learning, PyTorch-Kaldi supports multiple labels. For instance, it is possible to jointly load both context-dependent and context-independent targets and use the latter ones to perform monophone regularization [@ravanelli15; @mono_reg]. It is also possible to employ models based on an ecosystem of neural networks performing different tasks, as done in the context of joint training between speech enhancement and speech recognition [@ravanelli_SLT; @joint2] or in the context of the recently-proposed cooperative networks of deep neural networks [@ravanelli_icassp].
Chunk and Mini-batch Composition
--------------------------------
PyTorch-Kaldi automatically splits the full dataset into a number of chunks, which are composed of labels and features randomly sampled from the full corpus. Each chunk is then stored into the GPU or CPU memory and processed by the neural training algorithm $run\_nn.py$. The toolkit dynamically composes different chunks at each epoch. A set of mini-batches are then derived from them. Mini-batches are composed of few training examples that are used for gradient computation and parameter optimization.
The way mini-batches are gathered strongly depends on the typology of the neural network. For feed-forward models, the mini-batches are composed of randomly shuffled features and labels sampled from the chunk. For recurrent networks, the minibatches must be composed of full sentences. Different sentences, however, are likely to have different duration, making zero-padding necessary to form mini-batches of the same size. PyTorch-Kaldi sorts the speech sequences in ascending order according to their lengths (i.e., short sentences are processed first). This approach minimizes the need of zero-paddings and turned out to be helpful to avoid possible biases on batch normalization statistics. Moreover, it has been shown useful to slightly boost the performance and to improve the numerical stability of gradients.
DNN acoustic modeling
---------------------
Each minibatch is processed by a neural network implemented with PyTorch, that takes as input the features and as outputs a set of posterior probabilities over the context-dependent phone states. The code is designed to easily plug-in customized models. As reported in the pseudo-code reported in Fig. \[fig:code\], the new model can be simply defined by adding a new class into the *neural\_nets.py*. The class must be composed of an initialization method, that specifies the parameters with their initialization, and a forward method that defines the computations to perform.
class my_NN(nn.Module):
def __init__(self, options):
super(my_NN, self).__init__()
# Definition of Model Parameters
# Parameter Initialization
def forward(self, minibatch):
# Definition of Model Computations
return [output_prob]
\[fig:code\]
As an alternative, a number of pre-defined state-of-the-art neural models are natively implemented within the toolkit. The current version supports standard MLPs, CNNs, RNNs, LSTM, and GRU models. Moreover, it supports some advanced recurrent architectures, such as the recently-proposed Light GRU [@li_gru] and twin-regularized RNNs [@twin_reg]. The SincNet model [@SincNet; @sincnet_irasl] is also implemented to perform speech recognition from raw waveform directly. The hyperparameters of the model (such as learning rate, number of neurons, number of layers, dropout factor, etc.) can be tuned using a utility that implements the random search algorithm [@random_search].
Decoding and Scoring
--------------------
The acoustic posterior probabilities generated by the neural network are normalized by their prior before feeding the HMM-based decoder of Kaldi. The decoder merges the acoustic scores with the language probabilities derived by an n-gram language model and tries to retrieve the sequence of words uttered in the speech signal using a beam-search algorithm. The final Word-Error-Rate (WER) score is computed with the NIST SCTK scoring toolkit.
Experimental Setup {#sec:setup}
==================
In the following sub-sections, the corpora, and the DNN setting adopted for the experimental activity are described.
Corpora and Tasks
-----------------
The first set of experiments was performed with the TIMIT corpus, considering the standard phoneme recognition task (aligned with the Kaldi s5 recipe [@kaldi_short]).
To validate our model in a more challenging scenario, experiments were also conducted in distant-talking conditions with the DIRHA-English dataset[^4] [@dirha_asru; @rav_is16]. Training was based on the original WSJ-5k corpus (consisting of $7,138$ sentences uttered by $83$ speakers) that was contaminated with a set of impulse responses measured in a domestic environment [@rav_is16]. The test phase was carried out with the real part of the dataset, consisting of $409$ WSJ sentences uttered in the aforementioned environment by six native American speakers.
Additional experiments were conducted with the CHiME 4 dataset [@chime3], that is based on speech data recorded in four noisy environments (on a bus, cafe, pedestrian area, and street junction). The training set is composed of $43,690$ noisy WSJ sentences recorded by five microphones (arranged on a tablet) and uttered by a total of $87$ speakers. The test set *ET-real* considered in this work is based on $1,320$ real sentences uttered by four speakers, while the subset *DT-real* has been used for hyperparameter tuning. The CHiME experiments were based on the single channel setting [@chime3].
Finally, experiments were performed with the LibriSpeech [@librispeech] dataset. We used the training subset composed of $100$ hours and the *dev-clean* set for the hyperparameter search. Test results are reported on the *test-clean* part using the *fglarge* decoding graph inherited from the Kaldi s5 recipe.
DNN setting
-----------
The experiments consider different acoustic features, i.e., $39$ MFCCs ($13$ static+$\Delta$+$\Delta\Delta$), $40$ log-mel filter-bank features (FBANKS), as well as $40$ fMLLR features [@mllr] (extracted as reported in the s5 recipe of Kaldi), that were computed using windows of $25$ ms with an overlap of $10$ ms. The feed-forward models were initialized according to the *Glorot*’s scheme [@xavier], while recurrent weights were initialized with orthogonal matrices [@orth_init]. Recurrent dropout was used as a regularization technique [@drop_asru]. Batch normalization was adopted for feed-forward connections only, as proposed in [@ravanelli_is17]. The optimization was done using the RMSprop algorithm running for $24$ epochs. The performance on the development set was monitored after each epoch and the learning rate was halved when the relative performance improvement went below $0.1\%$. The main hyperparameters of the model (i.e., learning rate, number of hidden layers, hidden neurons per layer, dropout factor, as well as the twin regularization term $\lambda$) were tuned on the development datasets.
Baselines
=========
In this section, we discuss the baselines obtained with TIMIT, DIRHA, CHiME, and LibriSpeech datasets. As a showcase to illustrate the main functionalities of the PyTorch-Kaldi toolkit, we first report the experimental validation conducted on TIMIT.
Table \[tab:res1\] shows the performance obtained with several feed-forward and recurrent models using different features. To ensure a more accurate comparison between the architectures, five experiments varying the initialization seeds were conducted for each model and feature. The table thus reports the average *phone error rates* (PER)[^5].
MFCC FBANK fMLLR
-------- ------ ------- ---------- --
MLP 18.2 18.7 16.7
RNN 17.7 17.2 15.9
LSTM 15.1 14.3 14.5
GRU 16.0 15.2 14.9
Li-GRU 15.3 14.9 **14.2**
: PER(%) obtained for the test set of TIMIT with various neural architectures.
\[tab:res1\]
Results show that, as expected, fMLLR features outperform MFCCs and FBANKs coefficients, thanks to the speaker adaptation process. Recurrent models significantly outperform the standard MLP one, especially when using LSTM, GRU, and Li-GRU architecture, that effectively address gradient vanishing through multiplicative gates. The best result (PER=$14.2$%) is obtained with the Li-GRU model [@li_gru], that is based on a single gate and thus saves $33$% of the computations over a standard GRU.
Table \[tab:res2\] details the impact of some popular techniques implemented in PyTorch-Kaldi for improving the ASR performance.
RNN LSTM GRU Li-GRU
----------------------- ------ ------ ------ ---------- --
Baseline 16.5 16.0 16.6 16.3
+ Incr. Seq. length 16.6 15.3 16.1 15.4
+ Recurrent Dropout 16.4 15.1 15.4 14.5
+ Batch Normalization 16.0 14.8 15.3 14.4
+ Monophone Reg. 15.9 14.5 14.9 **14.2**
: PER(%) obtained on TIMIT when progressively applying some techniques implemented within PyTorch-Kaldi.
\[tab:res2\]
The first row (Baseline) reports the performance achieved with a basic recurrent model, where powerful techniques such as dropout and batch normalization are not adopted. The second row highlights the performance gain that is achieved when progressively increasing the sequence length during training. In this case, we started the training by truncating the speech sentence at $100$ steps (i.e, approximately 1 second of speech) and we progressively double the maximum sequence duration at every epoch. This simple strategy generally improves the system performance since it encourages the model to first focus on short-term dependencies and learn longer-term ones only at a later stage. The third row shows the improvement achieved when adding recurrent dropout. Similarly to [@drop_asru; @ravanelli_is17], we applied the same dropout mask for all the time steps to avoid gradient vanishing problems. The fourth line, instead, shows the benefits derived from batch normalization [@batchnorm]. Finally, the last line shows the performance achieved when also applying monophone regularization [@mono_reg]. In this case, we employ a multi-task learning strategy by means of two softmax classifiers: the first one estimates context-dependent states, while the second one predicts monophone targets. As observed in [@mono_reg], our results confirm that this technique can successfully be used as an effective regularizer.
The experiments discussed so far are based on single neural models. In Table \[tab:res3\] we compare our best Li-GRU system with a more complex architecture based on a combination of feed-forward and recurrent models fed by a concatenation of features. To the best of our knowledge, the PER=$13.8$% achieved by the latter system yields the best-published performance on the TIMIT test-set.
Architecture Features PER (%)
---------------- ------------------ ----------
Li-GRU fMLLR 14.2
MLP+Li-GRU+MLP MFCC+FBANK+fMLLR **13.8**
: PER(%) obtained by combining multiple neural networks and acoustic features.
\[tab:res3\]
Previous achievements were based on features computed with Kaldi. However, within PyTorch-Kaldi users can employ their own features. Table \[tab:res4\] shows the results achieved with convolutional models fed by standard FBANKs coefficients or by the raw waveform directly.
Model Features PER (%)
--------- -------------- ----------
CNN FBANK 18.3
CNN Raw waveform 18.1
SincNet Raw waveform **17.2**
: PER(%) obtained with standard convolutional and with the SincNet architectures.
\[tab:res4\]
The standard CNN based on raw samples performs similarly to the one fed by FBANK features. A performance improvement is observed with SincNet [@SincNet], whose effectiveness in speech recognition is here highlighted for the first time.
We now extend our experimental validation to other datasets. With this regard, Table \[tab:res5\] shows the performance achieved on DIRHA, CHiME, and Librispeech ($100$h) datasets.
DIRHA CHiME LibriSpeech
-------- ---------- ---------- ------------- --
MLP 26.1 18.7 6.5
LSTM 24.8 15.5 6.4
GRU 24.8 15.2 6.3
Li-GRU **23.9** **14.6** **6.2**
: WER(%) obtained for the DIRHA, CHiME, and LibriSpeech ($100$h) datasets with various neural architectures.
\[tab:res5\]
The Table consistently shows better performance with the Li-GRU model, confirming our previous achievements on TIMIT. The results on DIRHA and CHiME show the effectiveness of the proposed toolkit also in noisy condition. To give a comparison, the best Kaldi baseline proposed in $egs/chime4/s5\_1ch$ has a WER(%)=18.1%. An end-to-end system trained with ESPnet reaches a WER(%)=44.99%, confirming how critical is end-to-end speech recognition is challenging acoustic conditions. DIRHA represents another very challenging task, that is characterized by the presence of considerable levels of noise and reverberation. The WER=$23.9$% obtained on this dataset represents the best performance published so-far on the single-microphone task. Finally, the performance obtained with Librispeech outperforms the corresponding *p-norm* Kaldi baseline ($WER=6.5\%$) on the considered $100$ hours subset.
Conclusions
===========
This paper described the PyTorch-Kaldi project, a new initiative that aims to bridge the gap between Kaldi and PyTorch. The toolkit is designed to make the development of an ASR system simpler and more flexible, allowing users to easily plug-in their customized acoustic models. PyTorch-Kaldi also supports combinations of neural architectures, features, and labels, allowing users to possibly employ complex ASR pipelines. The experiments have confirmed that PyTorch-Kaldi can achieve state-of-the-art results in some popular speech recognition tasks and datasets.
The current version of the PyTorch-Kaldi is already publicly-available along with a detailed documentation. The project is still in its initial phase and we invite all potential contributors to participate in it. We hope to build a community of developers larger enough to progressively maintain, improve, and expand the functionalities of our current toolkit. In the future, we plan to increase the number of pre-implemented models, support neural language model training/rescoring, sequence discriminative training, online speech recognition, as well end-to-end training.
Acknowledgment
==============
We would like to thank Maurizio Omologo, Enzo Telk, and Antonio Mazzaldi for their helpful comments. This research was enabled in part by support provided by Calcul Québec and Compute Canada.
[^1]: [github.com/mravanelli/pytorch-kaldi/](github.com/mravanelli/pytorch-kaldi/).
[^2]: The configuration file is fully described in the project documentation.
[^3]: [github.com/vesis84/kaldi-io-for-python](github.com/vesis84/kaldi-io-for-python)
[^4]: This dataset is distributed by the Linguistic Data Consortium (LDC).
[^5]: Standard deviations range between $0.15$ and $0.2$ for all the experiments.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'A possible assignment of the new resonance observed at the $B$ factories to a four-quark meson, $\hat F_I^+ \sim \{[cu][\bar s\bar u] - [cd][\bar s\bar d]\}$, is proposed and two-body decays of four-quark mesons through $I$-spin conserving strong interactions are studied. It is expected that some of them can be observed as narrow resonances. Implication of existence of four-quark mesons in hadronic weak interactions is also discussed.'
author:
- 'K. Terasaki'
date: 'May 20, 2003'
title: 'The BABAR resonance as a four-quark meson[^1] '
---
Recently a scalar $D_s^+\pi^0$ resonance with a mass $\simeq 2.32$ GeV and a width $\sim 10$ MeV has been observed at the $B$ factories [@B-fact]. The above values of the mass and the width have been obtained from Gaussian fits, and then it has been concluded that the intrinsic width is equal to or narrower than $\sim 10$ MeV. While it has been interpleted as an ordinary $c\bar s$ state such as the chiral partner of $D_s^+$ [@chiral] or the excited $c\bar s$ state [@CJ], their predicted mass values are still in controversy [@mass]. In addition, possible assignments to exotic hadron states such as a ($DK$) molecule [@BCL] (or atom [@Szczepaniak]), an isospin ($I$) singlet four-quark meson [@CH], a mixed scalar state of a $c\bar s$ and an iso-singlet four-quark meson [@BP], etc. have also been proporsed. In all the above proporsals, however, the dominant decay of the new resonance into the $D_s^+\pi^0$ final state proceeds through $I$-spin non-conserving interactions since it has been assigned to an iso-singlet state, and therefore it should be extremely narrow. In this talk, we will propose another possible assignment to a singly charged component of iso-triplet scalar four-quark mesons in contrast with the above proposals.
Four-quark mesons, $\{qq\bar q\bar q\}$, can be classified into four types [@Jaffe], $$\{qq\bar q\bar q\} = [qq][\bar q\bar q] \oplus (qq)(\bar q\bar q)
\oplus \{[qq](\bar q\bar q)\pm (qq)[\bar q\bar q]\},
\label{eq:Jaffe}$$ where parentheses and square brackets denote symmetry and anti-symmetry, respectively. Only the $[qq][\bar q\bar q]$ and $(qq)(\bar q\bar q)$ can have $J^{P(C)}=0^{+(+)}$ at the lowest level. Each of them is again classified into two classes since there exist two different configurations to produce color singlet scalar states, i.e., ${\bf 6}\times{\bf \bar 6}$ and ${\bf \bar 3}\times{\bf 3}$ of color $SU_c(3)$. However, these two can mix with each other, so that they are classified into heavier and lighter ones. The former is dominated by the ${\bf 6}\times{\bf \bar 6}$ of $SU_c(3)$ while the latter by the ${\bf \bar 3}\times{\bf 3}$ since the force between two quarks is repulsive when they form a ${\bf 6}$ of $SU_c(3)$ while attractive when ${\bf \bar 3}$ [@Hori]. We discriminate these two by putting $\ast$ on the former in accordance with Ref. [@Jaffe] in which the four-quark mesons were studied within the framework of $q=u,\,d$ and $s$. It can be extended straightforwardly to the one including $q=u,\,d,\,s$ and $c$ [@charm].
In this talk, we concentrate on the $[cq][\bar q\bar q]$ mesons (with $q=u,\,d,\,s$). We now assign the new resonance to $\hat F_I^+ \sim \{[cu][\bar s\bar u] - [cd][\bar s\bar d]\}$ and estimate the masses of the lighter class of the $[cq][\bar q\bar q]$ mesons using the simple quark counting and taking $\Delta m_s = m_{s} - m_n \simeq 0.1$ GeV, ($n=u,\,d$), at $\sim 2$ GeV scale and the measured $m_{\hat F_I} = 2.32$ GeV as the input data [@Terasaki-PRD03]. To estimate the mass values of the heavier class of $[cq][\bar q\bar q]$ mesons, we use $\Delta m_c = m_c - m_n \simeq 1.5$ GeV and $m_{\hat \kappa^*}\simeq 1.6$ GeV [@Jaffe] as the input data. Their estimated mass values are listed in [**TABLE 1**]{}.
> [**TABLE 1.**]{} Ideally mixed scalar $[cq][\bar q\bar q]$ mesons (with $q=u,\,d,\,s)$, where $S$ and $I$ denote the strangeness and the isospin.
[c c c c c]{} $\,\, S\,\,$ &$\,\, I=1\,\,$ &$\,\,I={1\over 2}\,\,$ &$\,\, I=0\,\,$ &$\,\,$Mass(GeV)$\,\,$\
$1$ &
--------------
$\hat F_I$
$\hat F_I^*$
--------------
& &
--------------
$\hat F_0$
$\hat F_0^*$
--------------
&
---------------------
[2.32($\dagger$)]{}
[(3.1)]{}
---------------------
\
0 & &
-------------------
[$\hat D$]{}
[$\hat D^*$]{}
[$\hat D^s$]{}
[$\hat D^{s*}$]{}
-------------------
& &
-----------
[2.22]{}
[(3.0)]{}
[2.42]{}
[(3.2)]{}
-----------
\
-1 & & &
---------------
$\hat E^0$
$\hat E^{0*}$
---------------
&
----------
[2.32]{}
(3.1)
----------
\
\
$(\dagger)$ : Input data
As seen in [**TABLE 1**]{}, the four-quark mesons with $\ast$ have large masses enough to decay into two vector mesons in addition to two pseudoscalar mesons, so that they will be broad. On the contrary, the estimated masses of $[cq][\bar q\bar q]$ without $\ast$ are near (or lower than) the thresholds of two body decays through $I$-spin conserving strong interactions, so that their phase space volumes are small even if kinematically allowed. Besides, it is seen [@yitpws], from the crossing matrices for color and spin in Ref. [@Jaffe], that the wavefunction overlapping between the scalar $[qq][\bar q\bar q]$ meson and the two pseudoscalar $q\bar q$ meson state is small since the former is dominated by the ${\bf \bar 3}\times{\bf 3}$ of color $SU_c(3)$ and the ${\bf 1}\times{\bf 1}$ of spin $SU(2)$. Therefore, some of them can decay through $I$-spin conserving interactions but their rates will be small and they can be observed as narrow resonances such as the new resonance. Since some of them are not massive enough to decay into two pseudoscalar mesons through $I$-spin conserving interactions, their dominant decays may be $I$-spin non-conserving ones (unless their masses are higher than the expected ones).
The $\hat F_I$ mesons form an iso-triplet, $\hat F_I^{++}$, $\hat F_I^+$ and $\hat F_I^0$, where the $I$-spin symmetry is always assumed in this talk unless we note. Then all of them can have the same type of kinematically allowed decays, $\hat F_I\rightarrow D^+_s\pi$, with different charge states. The $\hat D$ and $\hat D^s$ form two independent iso-doublets. The $\hat D$ can decay into $D\pi$ final states and the kinematical condition is similar to the one in the decay, $\hat F_I\rightarrow D^+_s\pi$, as long as the mass value of $\hat D$ in [**TABLE 1**]{} is taken. The dominant decay of $\hat D^s$ which contains an $s\bar s$ pair would be $\hat D^s\rightarrow D\eta^s \rightarrow D\eta$. Because of $m_{\hat D^s}\simeq m_D + m_\eta$, however, it is not clear if such a decay is allowed kinematically, as long as the value of $m_{\hat D^s}$ in [**TABLE 1**]{} is taken. Even if allowed, the rate would be much smaller than the ones for the above decays because of smaller phase space volume. The $\hat F_0^+$ is an iso-singlet counterpart of the $\hat F_I$ mesons. It cannot decay into the $D^+_s\pi^0$ as long as the $I$-spin is conserved, so that it will decay dominantly through $I$-spin non-conserving interactions. In this case, the width of the $\hat F_0^+$ will be extremely narrow (much narrower than the $\hat F_I$ and $\hat D$ mesons). If its mass should be higher (by $\sim 50$ MeV or more) because of some $I$-spin dependent force, it could decay dominantly into the $DK$ final states (but could be still narrow.) The $\hat E^0$ is an iso-singlet scalar meson with charm $C=1$ and strangeness $S=-1$, i.e., $\hat E^0 \sim [cs][\bar u\bar d]$. It cannot decay into $D\bar K$ final states unless it is massive enough. If its mass is almost the same as the $\hat F_0^+$, it cannot decay through strong interactions or electromagnetic interactions [@exotic] as there are no ordinary mesons with $C=1$ and $S=-1$. If it can be created, therefore, it will have a very long life.
Now we study numerically decays of the $[cq][\bar q\bar q]$ mesons. Consider a decay, $A({\bf p})\rightarrow B({\bf p'})\, +\, \pi({\bf q})$, as an example. The rate for the decay is given by $$\Gamma(A \rightarrow B\pi)
= {1\over 2J_A + 1}{q_c\over 8\pi m_A^2}
\sum_{spins}|M(A \rightarrow B\pi)|^2,
\label{eq:rate}$$ where $J_A$, $q_c$ and $M(A \rightarrow B\pi)$ denote the spin of $A$, the center-of-mass momentum of the final mesons and the decay amplitude, respectively. To calculate the amplitude, we here use the PCAC (partially conserved axial-vector current) hypothesis and a hard pion approximation in the infinite momentum frame (IMF), i.e., ${\bf p}\rightarrow\infty$ [@hard-pion; @suppl]. In this approximation, the amplitude is evaluated at a slightly unphysical point, i.e., $m_\pi^2\rightarrow 0$, and is given approximately by the asymptotic matrix element of $A_\pi$, $\langle{B|A_{\bar \pi}|A}\rangle$, as $$M(A \rightarrow B\pi)
\simeq \Bigl({m_A^2 - m_B^2 \over f_\pi}\Bigr)
\langle{B|A_{\bar \pi}|A}\rangle,
\label{eq:amp}$$ where $A_{\pi}$ is the axial counterpart of the $I$-spin. [*Asymptotic matrix elements*]{} (matrix elements taken between single hadron states with infinite momentum) of $A_{\pi}$ can be parameterized by using [*asymptotic flavor symmetry*]{} (flavor symmetry of the asymptotic matrix elements). For asymptotic symmetry and its fruitful results, see Ref. [@suppl] and references therein. We here list only the related asymptotic matrix elements [@charm], $$\begin{aligned}
&&\langle{D_s^+|A_{\pi^-}|\hat F_I^{++}}\rangle
= \sqrt{2}\langle{D_s^+|A_{\pi^0}|\hat F_I^{+}}\rangle
= \langle{D_s^+|A_{\pi^+}|\hat F_I^{0}}\rangle
\nonumber\\
&&=-\langle{D^0|A_{\pi^-}|\hat D^{+}}\rangle
= 2\langle{D^+|A_{\pi^0}|\hat D^{+}}\rangle
\nonumber\\
&&=-2\langle{D^0|A_{\pi^0}|\hat D^{0}}\rangle
= -\langle{D^+|A_{\pi^+}|\hat D^{0}}\rangle.
\label{eq:axial-ch}\end{aligned}$$ Inserting Eq.(\[eq:amp\]) with Eq.(\[eq:axial-ch\]) into Eq.(\[eq:rate\]), we can calculate approximate rates for the allowed two-body decays mentioned before. Here we equate the calculated width for the $\hat F_I^+\rightarrow D_s^+\pi^0$ decay to the measured one of the new resonance, i.e., $\Gamma(\hat F_I^+\rightarrow D^+_s\pi^0) \sim 10\,\, {\rm MeV}$, as an example, since we do not find any other decays which can have large rates, and use it as the input data when we estimate the rates for the other decays. \[However, the number $\sim 10$ MeV should not be taken too literally since it is still tentative, i.e., a possibility to take $\Gamma(\hat F_I^+\rightarrow D^+_s\pi^0) \sim {a\,\, few\,\,
{\rm or}\,\, several}$ MeV is not excluded.\] The results are listed in [**TABLE 2**]{}. All the calculated rates of the $\hat F_I$ and $\hat D$ mesons are lying in the region near the input data, so that they will be observed as narrow resonances in the $D_s^+\pi$ and $D\pi$ channels, respectively. As for the $\hat D^s\rightarrow D\eta$ decays, because of $m_{\hat D^s}\simeq m_D\,+\,m_\eta$, it is not clear if they are kinematically allowed. Besides, the decay is sensitive to the $\eta$-$\eta'$ mixing scheme which is still model dependent [@Feldmann]. Therefore, we
> [ [**TABLE 2.**]{} Dominant decays of scalar $[cq][\bar q\bar q]$ mesons and their estimated widths. $\Gamma(\hat F_I^+\rightarrow D_s^+\pi^0) \sim 10$ MeV is used as the input data. The decays into the final states between angular brackets are not allowed kinematically as long as the parent mass values in the parentheses are taken. ]{}
[c c c ]{}
---------------
Parent
(Mass in GeV)
---------------
&Final State &
Width (MeV)\
-----------------------
$\hat F_I^{++}(2.32)$
$\hat F_I^+(2.32)$
$\hat F_I^0(2.32)$
-----------------------
&
--------------
$D_s^+\pi^+$
$D_s^+\pi^0$
$D_s^+\pi^-$
--------------
& $\sim$10\
&
----------------
[$D^0\pi^+$]{}
[$D^+\pi^0$]{}
----------------
&
--------------
[$\sim$10]{}
[$\sim$ 5]{}
--------------
\
[$\hat D^0(2.22)$]{} &
----------------
[$D^+\pi^-$]{}
[$D^0\pi^0$]{}
----------------
&
----------
$\sim$10
$\sim$ 5
----------
\
&$D\eta$ &–\
&
-------------------
[$<D_s^+\eta>$]{}
$D_s^+\pi^0$
-------------------
&
------------------
–
($I$-spin viol.)
------------------
\
& $<D\bar K>$ & –\
\
need more precise and reliable values of $m_{\hat D^s}$, $\eta$-$\eta'$ mixing parameters and decay constants in the $\eta$-$\eta'$ system to obtain a definite result.
In summary we have studied the decays of the scalar $[cq][\bar q\bar q]$ mesons into two pseudoscalar mesons by assigning the new resonance to the $\hat F_I^+$ and assuming the $I$-spin conservation. All the allowed decays are not very far from the corresponding thresholds, so that their rates have been expected to saturate approximately their total widths. Therefore, we have used the measured width as the input data. The $\hat F_I$ and $\hat D$ could be observed as narrow resonances such as the new observation. It is very much different from the results in Ref. [@CH] in which the new resonance was assigned to $\tilde D_{0s}$ \[$\hat F_0^+$ in our notation\] and all the other $[c\bar qq\bar q]$ mesons were predicted to be much broader ($\sim 100$ MeV or more). To distinguish the present assignment from the other models and to confirm it, therefore, it is important to observe these narrow resonances. Although we have not studied numerically, we can qualitatively expect that the $\hat D^s$ will be much narrower than the $\hat F_I$ and $\hat D$ mesons. The $\hat F_0^+$ decays through $I$-spin non-conserving interactions, so that it should be extremely narrow. The $\hat E^0$ will decay through weak interactions if it is created as long as its mass is below the $\hat E^0\rightarrow D\bar K$ threshold.
We have studied, so far, the strong decay properties of a group of the four-quark mesons. If their existence is confirmed, it will be very helpful in understanding of hadronic weak decays of $K$ and charm mesons. The heavier class of $[qq][\bar q\bar q]$ and $(qq)(\bar q\bar q)$ mesons can play an important role in hadronic weak decays of charm mesons, since the masses of some of the related members are expected to be close to the ones of the parent charm mesons. For example, the expected mass, $m_{\hat\sigma^{s*}}\simeq 1.8$ GeV, of the $\hat \sigma^{s*}\sim [us][\bar s\bar u]+[ds][\bar s\bar d]$ is close to the $m_{D^0}$ but the one, $m_{\hat\sigma^*}\simeq 1.45$ GeV, of the $\hat\sigma^* \sim [ud][\bar d\bar u]$ is much lower than the $m_{D^0}$ as seen in Ref. [@Jaffe]. Therefore, the former can contribute to the intermediate state of the $D^0\rightarrow K^+K^-$ decay and enhance strongly the decay while the latter can contribute to the $D^0\rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$ decay but cannot so strongly enhance it. In this way, we can obtain a solution to the long standing puzzle [@PDG02], $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\Gamma(D^0\rightarrow K^+K^-)
\over \Gamma(D^0\rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-)}
\simeq 3,\end{aligned}$$ consistently with the other two-body decays of charm mesons [@charm]. Furthermore, the lighter $(qq)(\bar q\bar q)$ mesons are useful to understand the violation of the $|\Delta {\bf I}|= 1/2$ rule in $K\rightarrow \pi\pi$ decays consistently with the $K_L$-$K_S$ mass difference, the $K_L\rightarrow \gamma\gamma$ and the Dalitz decays of $K_L$ [@Terasaki01].
Confirmation of the existence of four-quark mesons is very much important not only in hadron spectroscopy but also in hadronic weak interactions of $K$ and charm mesons.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The author would like to thank Professor T. Onogi for providing information of the new resonance, discussions and encouragements, and Professor T. Kunihiro for discussions and encouragements.
[99]{}
B. Aubert et al., the BABAR Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 242001 (2003); D. Besson et al., the CLEO Collaboration, hep-ex/0305017; K. Abe et al., the BELLE Collaboration, hep-ex/0307041. M. A. Nowak, M. Rho and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. D [**48**]{}, 4370 (1993); W. A. Bardeen and C. T. Hill, Phys. Rev. D [**49**]{}, 409 (1994). R. N. Cahn and J. D. Jackson, hep-ph/0305012. For example, S. Godfrey, hep-ph/0305122; G. S. Bali, hep-ph/0305209; R. D. Kenway, C. M. Maynard and C. MacNeile, the UKQCD Collaboration, hep-lat/0307001; A. Deandra, G. Nardulli and A. D. Polosa, hep-ph/0307069; Y. -B. Dai, C. -S. Huang, C. Liu and S. L. Zhu, hep-ph/0306274. T. Barnes, F. E. Close, and H. J. Lipkin, hep-ph/0305025. A. P. Szczepaniak, hep-ph/0305060. H.-Y. Chen and W.-S. Hou, hep-ph/0305038. T. E. Browder, S. Pakvasa and A. A. Petrov, hep-ph/0307054. R. L. Jaffe, Phys Rev. D[**15**]{}, 267 (1977); [**15**]{}, 281 (1977). S. Hori, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**36**]{}, 131 (1966). K. Terasaki and S. Oneda, Phys. Rev. D [**38**]{}, 132 (1988); [**47**]{}, 199 (1993); K. Terasaki, [*ibid*]{} [**59**]{}, 114001 (1999). K. Terasaki, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 011501 (2003). K. Terasaki, hep-ph/0309119. H. J. Lipkin, Phys. Lett. [**B70**]{},113 (1977); M. Suzuki and S. F. Tuan, [*ibid*]{} [**B133**]{}, 125 (1983). K. Terasaki, S. Oneda and T. Tanuma, Phys. Rev. D [**29**]{}, 456 (1984). S. Oneda and K. Terasaki, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. [**82**]{}, 1 (1985). T. Feldmann, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**15**]{}, 159 (2000). Particle Data Group, K. Hagiwara et al, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 1001 (2002). K. Terasaki, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**16**]{}, 1605 (2001) and references quoted therein.
[^1]: Talk given at Hadron2003, the X-th International Conference on Hadron spectroscopy, August 31 – September 6, 2003, Aschaffenburg, Germany
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- |
Laurent Feuilloley[^1]\
[École Normale Supérieure de Cachan,]{}\
[France]{}\
title: 'Brief Announcement : Average Complexity for the LOCAL Model'
---
Introduction
============
In the LOCAL model [@Peleg00], the processors are located at the nodes of the network, have distinct identifiers, and work in rounds. At each round, each processor sends messages to its direct neighbours, receives messages from them, and computes its new state. In some variants of this model, e.g., when $n$ is not known [@KormanSV13; @Musto11], every node can choose its output at an arbitrary round, yet it must continue to transmit the messages it receives. The classic measure of the running time is the number of rounds before all the nodes have output. We consider an alternative measure which is the average, over the nodes, of the running time before they output.
An equivalent way to describe the LOCAL model is to consider that every node gathers all the information in a ball around itself and output a function of this ball. For example a node can increment the radius of the ball it sees, until it has enough information to output. This second vision of the LOCAL model is more convenient for this paper. Therefore, in the following, we mostly consider radiuses, and not rounds. When the algorithm, the graph, and the identifiers are set, the “radius of the node $v$” refers to the radius at which the algorithm chooses to output, and we denote it by $r(v)$. From this point of view, the classic measure of the running time is the maximum of the radiuses of these balls, and the alternative measure is the average of these radiuses. More precisely for a given size $n$, the running time is usually: $$\max_{G:|G|=n} \left( \max_{v\in G}r(v)\right),$$ and, in this paper, we consider: $$\max_{G:|G|=n}\left( \sum_{v\in G}r(v)/n \right).$$
In this brief announcement, the computation is always deterministic, and the average is always over the nodes. In particular, remark that we consider the worst case for the distribution of the identifiers.
On one hand, we show that there is a natural problem for which there exists an algorithm with average running time exponentially smaller than the worst case complexity. In this problem, called *largest ID*, every vertex of a cycle must decide if it has the largest ID or not, which is a classic way to elect a leader. On the other hand, we show that Linial’s lower bound on colouring [@Linial92] holds for the average node measure, i.e. the vertices need an average radius of $\Omega(\log^*n)$ to compute a valid 3-colouring. Note that this lower bound matches the upper bound as it is possible to 3-colour the $n$-node ring in $O(\log^*n)$ rounds even without the knowledge of $n$ [@KormanSV13][@Musto11].
The goal of this work is to continue the study of locality by proposing a new measure of the running time. This measure is suited to algorithms in which some vertices may stop very early. An example of application is in the context of dynamic networks. The average time to update the labels of the graph after a change at a random node, can be estimated using the average measure. Also in the context of parallel computations that simulate distributed computations, we can take advantage of the fact that a job is finished earlier to process an other job, and then the average running time is the relevant measure.
Algorithm for the largest ID in a cycle
=======================================
In this section, we show that the *largest ID* problem on a cycle has a linear worst case complexity, and that there exists an algorithm with logarithmic average radius. In this problem, each vertex must output *Yes* if it has the largest identifier in the graph, and *No* otherwise. The worst case complexity of the problem is linear because, for any algorithm, the vertex with the maximum ID needs to see all the cycle. The following straightforward algorithm gives a linear upper bound: each node increases its radius until it discovers an ID that is larger than its own ID, or until it has seen all the cycle. We show that the average running time of this algorithm is logarithmic in $n$.
The vertex with the maximum identifier needs $n/2$ rounds to discover that it has the largest ID. We can consider that the other vertices are in a path, and that reaching an endpoint is sufficient to stop and output *No*. The radius needed by these other vertices is the minimum distance to a vertex with larger ID or an endpoint. Note that the vertex with largest ID of the segment must reach an endpoint. We can then subdivide the vertices of the segment into three parts: the one with the largest ID, the ones in the segment on the left, and the ones on the right. Let $a(p)$ be the maximum (over the permutations of the identifiers) sum of radiuses in a segment with $p$ vertices. Then the following recurrence relation follows from the decomposition into three pieces, and from the symmetry: $$a(p) = \max_{1 \leq k \leq \lceil p/2\rceil}\left\{ k + a(k-1) + a(p-k) \right\}.$$
This sequence $a(n)$, with initial values $a(0)=0$, and $a(1)=1$, is known to be in $\theta(n\ln(n))$ (see for example the sequence A000788 of the OEIS [@oeisA000788]). Thereafter, the average radius is logarithmic in $n$, which is exponentially smaller than the worst case complexity.
Lower bound for colouring
=========================
The classic algorithm for distributed 3-colouring a ring is the Cole-Vishkin algorithm [@ColeV86], that uses $O(\log^*n)$ rounds for every vertex. This is basically optimal for the classic measure, as Linial proved that this task requires $\Omega(\log^*n)$ rounds[@Linial92]. One could try to improve the average complexity, using less rounds for some vertices. In this section, we show that this is useless: Linial’s lower bound also holds for this new measure.
\[thm:col\] The average complexity of 3-colouring a ring with $n$ nodes is $\Omega(\log^*n)$.
We say that an algorithm $A$ for 3-colouring is minimal, if there is no other algorithm $A'$ that behaves strictly better. More precisely, $A$ is minimal if there does not exist $A'$ that uses at most the same radius as $A$ for every neighbourhood, and a strictly smaller radius for at least one neighbourhood. Without loss of generality we prove the theorem only for minimal algorithms. We first prove two lemmas about the regularity of the distribution of the radiuses. For technical reasons, we begin with 4-colouring and then come back to 3-colouring.
\[lem:threshold\] In a graph $G$ with identifiers, given two arbitrary vertices $x$ and $y$, separated by $k$ vertices, if an algorithm $A$ is minimal for 4-colouring, then the radiuses of the vertices between $x$ and $y$ are at most $\max\{r(x),r(y)\}+k$.
For the sake of contradiction, suppose that there exists $G$, $x$, $y$, $k$ and $A$ as in the lemma, and some vertices between $x$ and $y$ with radiuses strictly larger than the threshold, $\max\{r(x),r(y)\}+k$. Let $N$ be the slice of identifiers that contains $x$, $y$, the vertices between them, and the views of $x$ and $y$. We show how to transform $A$ into a strictly smaller algorithm $A'$, by decreasing the radiuses of some vertices in the neighbourhood $N$. For every vertex $v$, if when running $A$, $v$ discovers that it is not in the neighborhood $N$ between $x$ and $y$, or if it stops before reaching the threshold, then it does the same with $A'$. Otherwise, $v$ knows that it is in this particular neighbourhood, stops at radius $\max\{r(x),r(y)\}+k$, and outputs obeying two simple rules that depend only on the two direct neighbours. Assume without loss of generality that $ID(x)>ID(y)$, and let $d$, be the distance between $v$ and $x$. First, if a neighbour has stopped strictly before the threshold, choose a different colour. Second, if a neighbour has not stopped before the threshold, then if $d$ is even, $v$ outputs a colour in $\{1,2\}$, else $v$ outputs a colour in $\{3,4\}$. One can check that this new algorithm $A'$ produces a valid 4-colouring for every graph and identifiers. Moreover for every neighbourhood the radius given by $A'$ is at most the one given by $A$, and, for at least one neighbourhood, strictly smaller. This contradicts the fact that $A$ is minimal.
We use lemma \[lem:threshold\] to prove the following more practical result.
\[lem:neighbourhood\] If a vertex $v$ uses radius $r$, in a minimal algorithm $A$ for 3-colouring, then the average of the radiuses of the vertices at distance at most $r/2$ from $v$, is $\Omega(r)$.
First note that it is sufficient to prove the result for 4-colouring, as it implies the result for 3-colouring. Let $d$ in $\{1,2,..., \lfloor{} r/2 \rfloor{} \}$, and let $u_d$ and $w_d$ be the two vertices at distance $d$ from $v$ on the cycle. Lemma \[lem:threshold\] implies $$r \leq \max\{r(u_d),r(w_d)\} + 2d -1,$$ then $$r- 2d +1 \leq r(u_d)+ r(w_d).$$ Then by summing over $d$: $$\sum_{d=1}^{\lfloor{} r/2 \rfloor{}} (r -2d +1)
\leq \sum_{d=1}^{\lfloor r/2 \rfloor{}} r(u_d) +r(w_d).$$ If we add $r$ on both side of the equation, the right-hand term is the sum of the radiuses of the vertices at distance at most $r/2$ from $v$, and the left-hand term is quadratic in $r$. The lemma follows.
The end of the proof of theorem \[thm:col\] uses the following corollary of Linial’s lower bound as a black box. For every algorithm that 3-colours a cycle of length larger than $n/2$, there exists a permutation of the node identifiers such that at least one vertex needs a radius of $\frac{1}{2}.\log^*(n/2)$. Given a minimal algorithm $A$, we show that we can build a permutation $\pi$ of the identifiers that leads to an average running time in $\Omega(\log^*n)$.
First, consider an $n$-cycle and a permutation of the identifiers, such that one vertex has radius at least $\frac{1}{2}.\log^*(n/2)$. We take the slice of identifiers that are in the ball of radius $\frac{1}{2}.\log^*(n/2)$ around this vertex, and put it at the beginning of $\pi$. Then, consider the rest of the identifiers, and repeat the operation: remove from the original set of identifier a $\frac{1}{2}.\log^*(n/2)$-ball around a vertex with large radius, and concatenate it to $\pi$. We do it until there are less than $n/2$ vertices remaining in the original set. Finally, we put the rest of the identifiers at the end of $\pi$ in an arbitrary order.
The vertex at the centre of each slice has exactly the same $\frac{1}{2}\log^*(n/2)$-neighbourhood as when it was removed from the original set of identifiers, hence its radius in $\pi$, with the same algorithm $A$, is at least $\frac{1}{2}\log^*(n/2)$. Thanks to lemma \[lem:neighbourhood\], the average radius in each slice is $\Omega(\log^*(n/2))$, that is $\Omega(\log^*(n))$. Then the average radius in $\pi$ is $\Omega(\log^*(n))$. This concludes the proof of the theorem.
Conclusion and further work
===========================
This paper presents a new measure of the locality. It is close to the classic measure for some problems, and very different for others. It would be interesting to characterise the problems of the first and second types. Also, we only consider the cycle topology, and results for more general graphs are missing. Last, as the average we consider is over the nodes, but it would also be interesting to begin to study the expectancy of the running time on graphs where the permutation of the identifiers is taken uniformly at random, for both the classic and the new measure.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
I would like to thank Pierre Fraigniaud, Juho Hirvonen, Tuomo Lempiäinen and Jukka Suomela for helpful discussions.
[1]{}
Richard Cole, and Uzi Vishkin. Deterministic Coin Tossing with Applications to Optimal Parallel List Ranking. , 70(1):32–53,1986.
Amos Korman, Jean[-]{}S[é]{}bastien Sereni, and Laurent Viennot. Toward more localized local algorithms: removing assumptions concerning global knowledge. , 26(5-6):289–308, 2013.
Nathan Linial. Locality in distributed graph algorithms. , 21(1):193–201, 1992.
Topi Musto. Knowledge of degree bounds in local algorithms. Master’s thesis, University of Helsinki, 2011.
David Peleg. Distributed Computing: A Locality- Sensitive Approach. SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 2000.
N. J. A. Sloane. The [O]{}n-[L]{}ine [E]{}ncyclopedia of [I]{}nteger [S]{}equences. [A000788](http://oeis.org/A000788).
[^1]: *Part of this work was done while the author was visiting LIAFA at university Paris Diderot, with additional support from ANR project DISPLEXITY.*
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We recognise that *Stegosaurus* exhibited exterior chirality and could, therefore, have assumed either of two distinct, mirror-image forms. Our preliminary investigations suggest that both existed. *Stegosaurus*’s exterior chirality raises new questions such as the validity of well-known exhibits whilst offering new insights into long-standing questions such as the function of the plates. We inform our discussions throughout with examples of modern-day animals that exhibit exterior chirality.'
author:
- 'Robert P. Cameron$^\ast$, John A. Cameron and Stephen M. Barnett'
title: 'Were there two forms of *Stegosaurus*?'
---
*Stegosaurus* was discovered well over a century ago, during the infamous Bone Wars [@Marsh77]. It remains one of the most readily recognisable genera of dinosaurs, owing to its distinctive plates. The precise arrangement of these plates and, indeed, their function, have been the subject of much debate, however [@Lull1910a; @Lull1910b; @Gilmore14; @Farlow76; @Buffrenil86; @Czerkas87; @Carpenter98a; @Carpenter98b]. The currently favoured reconstruction sees them stand upright in two staggered rows that run the length of the beast, as evidenced for *Stegosaurus stenops* in particular by the holotype of this species [@Marsh87; @Gilmore14; @Gilmore15; @Gilmore18] and other articulated skeletons besides [@Carpenter98a]. The present paper is concerned with a subtle geometrical property inherent to *Stegosaurus*’s plates and its implications.
The word *chiral* was introduced to describe any geometrical figure or group of points that cannot be brought into coincidence with its mirror image, thus possessing a sense of handedness [@Kelvin94]. It derives from the Greek word for hand; $\chi\epsilon \acute{\iota}\rho\alpha$ [@Electra15]. Chirality pervades the natural world, from the enigmatic preferences of fundamental physical forces [@Lee56; @Wu57] to the arms of spiral galaxies [@Kondepudi01]. It is of particular importance to life, as the molecules that comprise living things are invariably chiral and their chirality is crucial to their biological function [@Gardner90; @Lough02].
In spite of this, the overwhelming majority of living things possess rather symmetrical, achiral exterior forms, leaving but a small handful of living things that instead boast exterior chirality, outwardly defying mirror symmetry [@Neville76; @Gardner90; @Lough02; @website15a]. The shell of the escargot snail *Helix pomatia*, for example, is manifestly chiral as it may exhibit either a left- or a right-handed twisting form, these being non-superposable mirror images of each other, as seen in FIG. 1.
![*Helix pomatia*’s shell differs from its mirror image and is thus chiral [@FIGURE1CAP].[]{data-label="Fig1"}](fig1 "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}\
![*Stegosaurus*’s plates differ from their mirror image and are thus chiral.[]{data-label="Fig2"}](fig2 "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}\
It seems that *Stegosaurus* also exhibited exterior chirality. The currently favoured arrangement of *Stegosaurus*’s plates is clearly distinct from its mirror image, as seen in FIG. 2. Moreover, some of the plates display subtle exterior chirality individually [@Lull1910a; @Gilmore14] and no two plates of the same size and shape have ever been found for the same specimen [@Lull1910a; @Gilmore14; @Czerkas87]. In spite of its simplicity, this observation, that *Stegosaurus* exhibited exterior chirality, does not appear to have been made explicitly before and, more importantly, its implications do not appear to have been recognised. *Stegosaurus*’s plates and their arrangement have certainly been described as being “asymmetrical” [@Lull1910a; @Gilmore14; @Czerkas87], but this is not quite synonymous with being chiral [@Barron04]. Chirality carries with it the connotation that the mirror-image form is also viable, whether it exists naturally or not. In this sense, chirality is as much about symmetry as the lack thereof. The term *dissymmetry*, introduced by Pasteur, comes to mind in this regard. As Barron wrote “Dissymmetric figures are not necessarily *asymmetric*, that is devoid of all symmetry elements ... However, dissymmetry excludes improper rotation axes, that is centres of inversion, reflection planes and rotation-reflection axes.” [@Barron04].
Just as one can distinguish between two distinct, mirror-image forms of snail on the basis of whether the shell twists in a left- or a right-handed manner, we distinguish between two distinct, mirror-image forms of *Stegosaurus*, depending on whether the largest plate, located over the base of the tail for *Stegosaurus stenops* at least [@Gilmore14; @Gilmore15; @Carpenter98a], tilts to the left or to the right as seen when looking down upon a specimen. We designate these (L) *Stegosaurus* and (R) *Stegosaurus*, respectively.
A variety of interesting questions follow. Our goal here is not to try and answer these definitively but rather to highlight their existence for the benefit of future discussions. Many of these ideas may be subtly interrelated, of course.
In what proportion did (L) *Stegosaurus* and (R) *Stegosaurus* specimens exist, for a given species, gender and location? Perhaps one form was genetically favoured with the other being found only rarely due to mutation, as in the case of *Helix pomatia* which is found predominantly in its right-handed form, with perhaps 1 in 20,000 specimens having a left-handed form instead [@Lough02]. Another possibility is that (L) *Stegosaurus* and (R) *Stegosaurus* existed in equal proportion, as in the case of the Portugese man-o’-war *Physalia physalis* which is equally likely to be born with its sail pointing to the left or to the right, perhaps to reduce the risk of all offspring being washed ashore [@Neville76]. For the species *Stegosaurus stenops* (gender unknown) in Colorado, the holotype [@Marsh87; @Gilmore14; @Gilmore15; @Gilmore18; @Czerkas87] appears to have belonged to an (R) specimen whereas the “Small skeleton” [@Carpenter98a] may, perhaps, have belonged to an (L) specimen, an assignment that seems to be in accord with Carpenter’s own figures at least [@Carpenter98a]. Tentatively then, it seems we have a positive answer to our question: yes, there *were* two forms of *Stegosaurus*. The interpretation of these remains is far from unambiguous, however, and there may yet be a subtle twist besides: the illustrations of the holotype seen in [@Gilmore14; @Gilmore15; @Czerkas87] appear to derive from lithographic plates and could, therefore, indicate the wrong chirality, as lithographic techniques often yield reversed images [@Lough02]. In an attempt to clarify this issue, we scrutinised the wonderful monograph by Gilmore [@Gilmore14], who prepared the holotype for exhibition at the United States National Museum in Washington D.C., now the National Museum of Natural History. There we found an explicit statement by him that the specimen was indeed found lying “on its left side”, which is in accord with our suggestion of (R) chirality. Gilmore justifies this statement, however, by quoting a letter written by Welch (who discovered the specimen) to Marsh (who announced the discovery [@Marsh87]) in turn as “the animal lay on its left side and up against the bank of our river bed, bringing its left \[right\] hip the highest, the right \[left\] hip and some bones having slid downhill toward the bottom of the bed”. Without Gilmore’s corrections, in square brackets, this description is, in fact, ambiguous with regards to the chirality of the specimen. It seems likely that Gilmore and, indeed, Lucas (who examined the holotype before Gilmore [@Gilmore14]) would have had additional information that guided these choices. Further digging on this matter is required in order to be certain, however.
Did *Stegosaurus* chirality vary between species? For example, the American lightning whelk *Busycon contrarium* is found predominantly with its shell twisting in a left-handed manner whereas the American channelled whelk *Busycon canaliculatum* is found predominantly with its shell twisting in a right-handed manner [@Lough02]. One of the most complete *Stegosaurus* skeletons in the world was initially ascribed to the species *Stegosaurus armatus* and named “Sarah”, after the daughter of one John Ed Anderson; the owner of the “Red Canyon Ranch” in Wyoming where “Sarah” (the *Stegosauru*s, gender unknown) was found [@Siber09]. “Sarah” appears to have been an (R) specimen [@Siber09], matching the (R) chirality suggested above for the *Stegosaurus stenops* holotype . “Sarah” has recently been ascribed to the species *Stegosaurus stenops* and renamed “Sophie”, after the daughter of one Jeremy Herrmann; a generous donor to the Natural History Museum in London [@website15b].
![Exterior chirality can yield information about migration, as in the case of *Velella velella*, specimens of which tack in different directions depending upon the orientation of their sails relative to their bodies [@Gardner90; @FIGURE3CAP].[]{data-label="Fig3"}](fig3 "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}\
Did *Stegosaurus* chirality vary between genders? For example, the *Papaya* flower has petals that twist clockwise for females but anticlockwise for males [@Lough02]. This is a rather timely question, as it has been suggested recently that the plates of *Hesperosaurus mjosi*, closely related to the *Stegosaurus* genus, differed in size and shape between males and females. If correct, this would constitute one of the few examples known of sexual dimorphism in dinosaurs [@Saitta15]. It is conceivable also that the chirality of the plates was important for the mechanics of *Stegosaurus* mating, which remain very poorly understood. An example of note here is that of the South American tooth-carp *Anableps anableps*, both genders of which possess chiral sex organs such that any given specimen is only capable of mating with half of the population of the opposite gender [@Neville76].
Did *Stegosaurus* chirality vary with geography? For example, the marine polyp *Velella velella* is found on the Japanese side of the Pacific with its sail directed one way and the North American side of the Pacific with its sail directed the other way, as depicted in FIG. 3. It is believed that these distinct, mirror-image forms occur in equal proportion in the middle of the Pacific and that the wind separates them [@Gardner90]. Analogously, geographical variations in *Stegosaurus* chirality, if found, could aid in our understanding of *Stegosaurus* migration: it was thought until very recently that *Stegosaurus* lived exclusively in North America; a paradigm that shifted with the unexpected discovery of a skeleton in Portugal ascribed to the species *Stegosaurus ungulates* [@Escaso07]. Unfortunately, this skeleton is insufficiently complete for us to speculate as to chirality of the specimen for comparison with the chiralities suggested above of *Stegosaurus* specimens from North America.
![This (R) *Stegosaurus stenops* skeleton on display at the Natural History Museum in London [@website15b] seems to be a faithful representation of the original specimen. The validity of other *Stegosaurus* exhibits is less clear [@FIGURE4CAP].[]{data-label="Fig4"}](fig4 "fig:"){width="0.8\linewidth"}\
A particularly interesting question is whether or not skeletal reconstructions are truly faithful representations of the animals to which the bones originally belonged. It could be, for example, that a skeleton unwittingly mounted as an (R) *Stegosaurus* originally belonged to an (L) *Stegosaurus* or *vice-versa* and is thus a subtle misrepresentation. Gilmore exhibited the remains of the *Stegosaurus stenops* holotype in the same layout as they were supposedly found [@Gilmore14], with (R) chirality. He also installed a large mirror to make the underside of the skeleton visible [@Gilmore14]. The creature seen in this mirror would have had the opposite chirality, of course, to that of the exhibit itself. We can say with certainty then that one of the two views of the *Stegosaurus stenops* holotype on offer constituted a faithful representation of the original specimen whilst the other did not. “Sophie” is also mounted with (R) chirality at present, as seen in FIG. 4. This matches the (R) chirality suggested above of the original specimen. Analogous questions can be raised with regards to depictions of *Stegosaurus* in popular culture. The specimens shown in the 1997 film “The Lost World: Jurassic Park”, for example, appear once more to be of (R) chirality.
Three main hypotheses for the function of *Stegosaurus*’s plates have been put forward over the years. The chirality of the plates offers new insights here. (i) It was first suggested that the plates served as a form of armour [@Marsh77]. This is now thought to be unlikely, however, as the plates were seemingly too fragile and ill-placed [@Carpenter98a]. Indeed, it is known that *Stegosaurus* engaged in fierce battles with *Allosaurus*, during which *Allosaurus* would occasionally bite off sizeable portions of *Stegosaurus*’s plates with apparent ease [@Carpenter05]. The chiral arrangement of the plates may be regarded as further evidence against their use in a mechanically protective role, as it would have seen a specimen slightly more vulnerable to attack from one side than the other with no obvious benefit. (ii) Another possibility is that the plates served to regulate body temperature [@Farlow76; @Buffrenil86]. The suggestion in particular that they acted as “forced convection fins” would seem to necessitate a staggered or “interrupted” pattern [@Farlow76]. That is, the chiral arrangement of the plates but with no obvious reason to prefer (L) *Stegosaurus* over (R) *Stegosaurus* or *vice-versa*. These ideas are now thought to be unlikely as similar dinosaurs with analogous but smaller dermal features such as *Kentrosaurus* apparently flourished in comparable climates [@Carpenter98a]. (iii) The most popular idea at present is that the plates served as display structures, perhaps to ward off potential predators, to aid in identification or as a means of attracting mates [@Gilmore14; @Carpenter98a; @Carpenter98b]. The high degree of vascularisation evident in the plates [@Buffrenil86] has led in particular to claims that they could “blush” so as to embellish their appearance [@Carpenter98a; @Carpenter98b]. The chirality of the plates makes the idea that they served as display structures seem all the more plausible to us, for it is integral to their appearance. We note in particular that two staggered rows of plates gives a more substantial lateral profile than would two parallel rows of plates, for example, as the latter yields visible gaps where the former has none. We are reminded here of the eel *Leptocephalus diptychus*, which is seen in its post-larval stage to possess four spots on one side of its body and three on the other. These spots alternate in position such that all seven can be seen from either side of the eel, which is otherwise transparent [@Neville76]. The chiral arrangement of the plates may be thought of then as a means of giving a body-length sail of maximised apparent area whilst permitting freedom of movement. If we suppose that the purpose of this sail was to ward off potential predators, we see no obvious reason to prefer (L) *Stegosaurus* over (R) *Stegosaurus* or *vice-versa*, as the size alone of the sail would likely be its most important characteristic. More subtle possibilities arise if we suppose that the sail aided in identification or as a means of attracting mates. A given specimen would have appeared somewhat different when viewed from the left or from the right and may, therefore, have preferred to display one side over the other, clearly distinguishing its head and tail ends in the process. Such chiral behaviour would likely need to be hard-wired given *Stegosaurus*’s apparently limited mental capacity and so would seem to demand consistent exterior chirality between similar specimens. Chiral behaviour is exhibited by kangaroos and wallabies, for example, which show a preference for their left forelimbs [@Giljov15]. We recognise another possibility here. It seems likely that *Stegosaurus* would have spent much of its time grazing in amongst luscious vegetation so as to maintain its enormous size, all the while hoping to avoid fierce antagonists like *Allosaurus*. *Stegosaurus*’s angular and slightly curved plates are not entirely unlike the fronds of a fern, for example. It is at least conceivable then that the plates functioned as a form of camouflage, with their chirality serving simply to give a more convincing appearance. We are reminded here of various salamanders, frogs, butterflies and snakes that exhibit chiral patternings as a form of camouflage [@Neville76]. In this role there is again no obvious reason to prefer (L) *Stegosaurus* over (R) *Stegosaurus* or *vice-versa*.
![An illustration of *Stegosaurus*’s exterior chirality.[]{data-label="Fig5"}](fig5 "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}\
*Stegosaurus*’s exterior chirality may be of particular interest to evolutionary biologists. It is one of the earliest examples known to us of exterior chirality in a living thing. Moreover, exterior chirality is especially rare amongst present-day reptiles and birds [@Lough02].
Tacit in the above is a focus upon adolescent and adult specimens. It has been suggested that the “asymmetry” of the plates’ arrangement may have been absent from juveniles, appearing only in later life, the dermal spikes of the rhinoceros iguana *Cyclura cornuta* having been cited by way of example [@Czerkas87]. Remains found more recently suggest that juveniles may not have had plates at all [@Galton10]. We are reminded here of flatfish such as the starry flounder *Platichthys stellatus*. These too are born as seemingly symmetrical creatures only to develop exterior chirality thereafter [@Policansky82; @Gardner90]. If it is indeed the case that the principal role of the plates was for display in courtship, then it is even possible that only males had well-developed plates. This would go some way, of course, towards demystifying the mechanics of *Stegosaurus* mating.
Progress would be greatly advanced, of course, by a more expansive survey of *Stegosaurus*’s exterior chirality. At first glance this would seem to require that more articulated skeletons be discovered. Certainly chirality should be in the minds of those lucky enough to make such finds. An expansive survey may already be viable, however, given the current fossil record. It may be possible to distinguish between (L) and (R) specimens by considering the size and shape of individual plates alone [@Lull1910a; @Gilmore14], which would negate the need for articulated skeletons. Partial skeletons or even single plates may also be of value in this exercise if they bear marks from predation. A predator, such as *Allosaurus*, would have bitten into plates closest to it and if the orientation of the bite can be determined from the remaining teeth marks in damaged *Stegosaurus* plates [@Carpenter05], then the arrangement of the plates and hence the specimen’s exterior chirality should follow.
It is our hope that the present paper will inspire explicit consideration of exterior chirality in future investigations of *Stegosaurus* and, indeed, other such dinosaurs.
This work was supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council under grants EP/M004694/1 and EP/I012451/1. We thank Revinder Chahal at the Natural History Museum in London for her swift and helpful correspondences.
[99]{}
O. C. Marsh. A new order of extinct Reptilia (Stegosauria) from the Jurassic of the Rocky Mountains. *Am. J. Sci.* 1877 **3**, 513-514.
V. de Buffrénil, J. O. Farlow and A. de Ricqlès. Growth and function of *Stegosaurus* plates: evidence from bone histology. *Paleobiology*. 1986 **12**, 459-477.
K. Carpenter. Armor of *Stegosaurus stenops*, and the taphonomic history of a new specimen from Garden Park, Colorado. *Mod. Geol.* 1998 **23**, 127-144.
K. Carpenter, D. Chure and J. I. Kirkland in *The Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation: An Interdisciplinary Study, Part 2*. (Gordon $\&$ Breach, U.S.A., 1998).
S. A. Czerkas in *Dinosaurs Past $\&$ Present, Volume II*. (Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, U.S.A., 1987).
J. O. Farlow, C. V. Thompson and D. E. Rosner. Plates of the dinosaur *Stegosaurus*: forced convection heat loss fins? *Science*. 1976 **192**, 1123-1125.
C. W. Gilmore. Osteology of the armoured Dinosauria in the United States National Museum, with special reference to the genus *Stegosaurus*. *U.S. Nat’l Mus. Bull.* 1914 **89**, 1-143.
R. S. Lull. The armor of *Stegosaurus*. *Amer. J. Sci.* 1910 **29**, 201-210.
R. S. Lull. *Stegosaurus ungulatus* Marsh, recently mounted at the Peabody Museum of Yale University. *Amer. J. Sci.* 1910 **30**, 361-377.
C. W. Gilmore. A new restoration of *Stegosaurus*. *Proc. U.S. Nat’l Mus.* 1915 **49**, 355-357.
C. W. Gilmore. A newly mounted skeleton of the dinosaur *Stegosaurus stenops*, in the United States Museum. *Proc. U.S. Nat’l Mus.* 1918 **54**, 383-390.
O. C. Marsh. Principal characters of American Jurassic dinosaurs, part IX. The skull and dermal armour of *Stegosaurus*. *Am. J. Sci.* 1887 **3**, 413-417.
Lord Kelvin. The molecular tactics of a crystal. *J. Oxford Univ. Junior Scientific Club.* 1894 **183**, 3-57.
Dr. Electra Eleftheriadou. *Private Communication*. 2015.
T. D. Lee and C. N. Yang. Question of parity conservation in weak interactions. *Phys. Rev.* 1956 **104**, 254-258.
C. S. Wu, E. Ambler, R. W. Hayward, D. D. Hoppes and R. P. Hudson. Experimental test of parity conservation in beta decay. *Phys. Rev.* 1957 **105**, 1413-1415.
D. K. Kondepudi and D. J. Durand. Chiral asymmetry in spiral galaxies? *Chirality*. 2001 **13**, 351-356.
M. Gardner. *The New Ambidextrous Universe*. (W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, U.S.A., 1990).
C. J. Welch in *Chirality in Natural and Applied Science*. (Blackwell Publishing, Cornwall, U.K., 2002).
A. C. Neville. *Animal Asymmetry*. (Edward Arnold Publishers, London, U.K., 1976).
*www.biology.ualberta.ca/palmer.hp/asym/asymmetry.htm* (Last accessed 1st of June 2015).
FIG. \[Fig1\] adapted from Wikimedia Commons image “Helix pomatia MHNT.ZOO.2002.0.33.jpg” by “Archaeodontosaurus”, licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.
L. D. Barron. *Molecular Light Scattering and Optical Activity*. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 2004).
H. J. Siber and U. Möckli. *The Stegosaurs of the Sauriermuseum Aathal*. (Sauriermuseum Aathal, Aathal, Switzerland, 2009).
*www.theguardian.com/science/2014/dec/04/sophie-stegosaurus-london-natural-history-museum* (Last accessed 1st of June 2015).
E. T. Saitta. Evidence for sexual dimorphism in the plated dinosaur *Stegosaurus mjosi* (Ornithischia, Stegosauria) from the Morrison Formation (Upper Jurassic) of Western USA. *PLoS ONE*. 2015 **10**, e0123503.
FIG. \[Fig3\] adapted from Wikimedia Commons image “Velellavelella.jpg” by “Notafly”, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
F. Escaso, F. Ortega, P. Dantas, E. Malafaia, N. L. Pimentel, X. Pereda-Suberbiola, J. L. Sanz, J. C. Kullberg, M. C. Kullberg and F. Barriga. New evidence of shared dinosaur across Upper Jurassic Proto-North Atlantic: *Stegosaurus* from Portugal. *Naturwissenschaften*. 2007 **94**, 367-374.
FIG. \[Fig4\] adapted from Image No. 100947 of the Picture Library of the Natural History Museum in London under license (copy available upon request)
K. Carpenter in *The Carnivorous Dinosaurs*. (Indiana University Press, Bloomington $\&$ Indianapolis, U.S.A., 2005).
A. Giljov, K. Karenina, J. Ingram and Y. Malashichev. Parallel emergence of true handedness in the evolution of marsupials and placentals. *Curr. Biol.* 2015 **25**, 1-7.
P. M. Galton. Juveniles of the stegosaurian dinosaur *Stegosaurus* from the Upper Jurassic of North America. *J. Vertebr. Paleontol.* 2010 **2**, 47-62.
D. Policansky. The asymmetry of flounders. *Sci. Am.* 1982 **246**, 116-122.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study the self-adjoint Pauli operators that can be realized as the square of a self-adjoint Dirac operator and correspond to a magnetic field consisting of a finite number of Aharonov-Bohm solenoids and a regular part, and prove an Aharonov-Casher type formula for the number of zero-modes for these operators. We also see that essentially only one of the Pauli operators are spin-flip invariant, and this operator does not have any zero-modes.'
address: |
Department of Mathematical Sciences\
Chalmers University of Technology\
and University of Gothenburg\
SE-412 96 Gothenburg\
Sweden
author:
- Mikael Persson
bibliography:
- 'mp.bib'
title: |
On the Dirac and Pauli operators with\
several Aharonov-Bohm solenoids
---
**Keywords:** Pauli operator, Dirac operator, self-adjoint extensions, Aharonov-Bohm effect, Aharonov-Casher formula.
**AMS 2000 Subject Classification:** 35P15, 35Q40, 81Q10
Introduction
============
Two-dimensional spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ non-relativistic quantum systems with magnetic fields are described by the Pauli operator. For regular magnetic fields the Pauli operator is usually defined as the square of the Dirac operator. However, for more singular magnetic fields, such as the delta field, an Aharonov-Bohm (AB) solenoid, generates (see [@ab]), the situation is more complicated. Then there are many self-adjoint extensions of both the Dirac and the Pauli operator, originally defined on smooth functions with compact support not touching the singular points. The different extensions describe different physics, and it is not clear which extensions describe the real physical situation.
We consider the case of a magnetic field consisting of finitely many AB solenoids and a smooth field with compact support. Up to now only two different Pauli extensions have been studied for this type of magnetic field (see [@ervo; @per]), both defined via a quadratic form. Since the Pauli operator classically is the square of the Dirac operator it is motivated to study the self-adjoint Pauli extensions that can be obtained in this way. This is the purpose of the present paper.
A natural property to expect from the Pauli operator is that it transforms in an (anti)-unitarily way when the sign of the magnetic field is changed and the spin-up and spin-down components are switched. This property is usually called spin-flip invariance, and we want to answer the question of which Pauli operators defined in different ways satisfy it.
Another natural property to expect is the possibility to approximate our operator with operators corresponding to regular magnetic fields. In [@bopu] it was studied which Pauli extensions are possible to approximate, and the condition was expressed in terms of the asymptotics of the functions in the domain at the singular points.
One of the ways to control the properties of self-adjoint extensions consists in the analysis of the dimension of the kernel of the operator. The dimension of the kernel of the Pauli operator is usually given by the Aharonov-Casher formula (see [@ac]). The formula has been proved in different settings, see [@cfks; @gegr; @mi]. Recently this formula was also proved for one of the extensions for a very singular magnetic field (containing the case with AB solenoids) in [@ervo]. Another extension was introduced in [@gegr], and in [@per] an Aharonov-Casher type formula was established for that extension.
The Dirac operator with strongly singular magnetic field has been studied before in [@ar; @arha; @deSo; @hiog; @ta]. In [@hiog] a formula for the dimension of the kernel of the Dirac operator was proved for two different asymmetric self-adjoint extensions (i.e. those with different behavior of spin-up and spin-down components), and it was demonstrated that, in fact, this dimension may differ for self-adjoint realizations, although, each of them seems to be quite natural. These extensions are closely related to the ones introduced in [@ar]. In both these articles the magnetic field is the same as the one we consider (the one in [@ar] does not have the regular part), with the addition of even more singular terms containing derivatives of the delta distributions. Using gauge transformations one can dispose of these derivatives.
In [@ta] it was proved that one of these asymmetric Dirac extensions can be approximated by operators corresponding to more regular magnetic fields. However, this extension, as we show, lacks the property of being spin-flip invariant.
In Section \[sec:dirac\] we study the Dirac operator. In order to be able to treat the general case, we need first to repeat in details the description of all self-adjoint extensions corresponding to only one AB solenoid, given in [@ta]. To extend this description to the case of several solenoids, we use the glue-together procedure, proposed in [@agro]. This procedure enables one to glue together operators with different behavior at different points; however it is natural to restrict oneself to the case of the same behavior at all points. After that we check which extensions are spin-flip invariant and finally we prove a formula for the dimension of the kernel of the Dirac extensions.
In Section \[sec:pauli\] we consider the Pauli operators that are the square of some self-adjoint Dirac operator defined in Section \[sec:dirac\]. We show exactly which Pauli extensions are obtained in this way, in terms of the asymptotics of functions in the domain of the Pauli operator at the points where the singular AB solenoids are located. We also find an Aharonov-Casher type formula for these Pauli operators. It turns out that there are only two of them that have zero-modes. These two extensions are very asymmetric though, admitting singularities in one component only, which looks rather non-physical. All the other extensions have singularities in both the spin-up and spin-down components, and they are coupled.
It turns out that the Pauli operator studied in [@ervo] is a mixture of these two asymmetric extensions, admitting different physical situations at different AB solenoids. This has to do with the normalization of the AB intensities. In that article the AB intensities were chosen to be normalized to the interval $[-1/2,1/2)$. If any of the intervals $(0,1)$ or $(-1,0)$ would have been chosen instead, then the Pauli operator would have been one of the asymmetric ones studied in this article. Both these asymmetric operators have the advantage that they describe the same physics at all AB solenoids. In the end of the article we present a discussion of the properties of the self-adjoint Pauli extensions with respect to different ways of normalization of AB intensities.
The Dirac operator with singular magnetic field {#sec:dirac}
===============================================
The goal in this section is to describe the self-adjoint Dirac operators corresponding to a magnetic field consisting of several (but finitely many) AB solenoids together with a smooth field, and to find an Aharonov-Casher type formula for the dimension of the kernel of these self-adjoint operators. Let us introduce some notations that will be used throughout the article. We identify a point $(x_1,x_2)$ in $\mathbb{R}^2$ with the complex number $z=x_1+ix_2$, and we will often write $z$ in polar coordinates, $z=re^{i\theta}$. Sometimes it will be convenient to use the polar coordinates $r_je^{i\theta_j}$ with $z_j$ as the origin. The magnetic field will consist of a regular part $B_0\in C^1_0(\mathbb{R}^2)$ and a singular part consisting of $n$ AB solenoids located at the points $\Lambda=\{z_j\}_1^n$, so that the magnetic field $B$ has the form $$\label{eq:magn}
B(z)=B_0(z)+\sum_{j=1}^n 2\pi \alpha_j \delta_{z_j}.$$ Owing to gauge equivalence (see [@ta]) we can assume that all the AB intensities $\alpha_j$ (fluxes divided by $2\pi$) belong to the interval $(0,1)$. All derivatives will be considered in the distribution space ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}'(\mathbb{C}\setminus\Lambda)$. We will denote by $h$ a magnetic scalar potential satisfying $\Delta h=B$. The magnetic scalar potential is uniquely defined modulo addition of a harmonic function. We will use the scalar potential $$\label{eq:scalarpot}
h(z)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int B_0(\zeta)\log|z-\zeta|d\lambda(\zeta)+\sum_{j=1}^n \alpha_j\log|z-z_j|=h_0(z)+\sum_{j=1}^n h_j(z),$$ where $d\lambda$ is the Lebesgue measure. The *actions* ${\ensuremath{q}}^h_\pm$, which will be used to describe how the Dirac operator acts, are defined by $${\ensuremath{q_{+}}}^h u = -2i\tfrac{\partial}{\partial \bar{z}}\left(ue^{-h}\right)e^h$$ and $${\ensuremath{q_{-}}}^h u = -2i \tfrac{\partial}{\partial z}\left(ue^h\right)e^{-h}.$$ These actions ${\ensuremath{q}}_+^h$ and ${\ensuremath{q}}_-^h$ are usually called the spin-up and spin-down actions, respectively. The Dirac action is given by $${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{d}}}^h =
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & {\ensuremath{q_{-}}}^h\\
{\ensuremath{q_{+}}}^h & 0\\
\end{pmatrix}.\\$$ To be able to describe the self-adjoint Dirac operators with several AB solenoids we first study the self-adjoint extensions of the Dirac operator with one AB solenoid, originally defined on smooth functions with compact support not touching the singular point.
The Dirac operator with one AB solenoid
---------------------------------------
The case of one AB solenoid has been studied before (see [@deSo; @ta]), and we just sketch the way it was done since we need the detailed information about these extensions for our further analysis. We let the AB solenoid have intensity $\alpha=\alpha_1\in(0,1)$ and be located at the origin. We will describe all self-adjoint extensions of the Dirac operator originally defined on $({\ensuremath{C_0^\infty(\mathbb{R}^2\setminus\{0\})}})^2$. Let us drop the superscript $h$ of ${\ensuremath{q}}_\pm^h$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{d}}}^h$ in this subsection. The actions ${\ensuremath{q}}_\pm$ can in this case be written as $$\label{eq:qplus}
{\ensuremath{q_{+}}}= -2i\left({\ensuremath{\frac{\partial}{\partial \bar{z}}}}-\frac{\alpha}{2\bar{z}}\right)=-ie^{i\theta}\left({\ensuremath{\frac{\partial}{\partial r}}}+\frac{i}{r}{\ensuremath{\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}}}-\frac{\alpha}{r}\right)$$ and $$\label{eq:qminus}
{\ensuremath{q_{-}}}= -2i\left({\ensuremath{\frac{\partial}{\partial z}}}+\frac{\alpha}{2z}\right)=-ie^{-i\theta}\left({\ensuremath{\frac{\partial}{\partial r}}}-\frac{i}{r}{\ensuremath{\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}}}+\frac{\alpha}{r}\right).$$ The minimal Dirac operator ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}_{\text{min}}}}$, obviously symmetric, is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\mathscr{D}}}({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}_{\text{min}}}})&=({\ensuremath{C_0^\infty(\mathbb{R}^2\setminus\{0\})}})^2,\\
{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}_{\text{min}}}}\psi&={\ensuremath{\mathfrak{d}}}\psi,\quad\text{for}\ \psi\in{\ensuremath{\mathscr{D}}}({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}_{\text{min}}}}).
\end{aligned}$$ It can be seen that ${\ensuremath{\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}}_{\text{min}}}}$ has deficiency index $(1,1)$, and the deficiency spaces $\chi_\pm=\ker({\ensuremath{\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}}^*_{\text{min}}}}\mp i)$ are spanned by $$\label{eq:defbas}
\xi_\pm(re^{i\theta})=
\begin{pmatrix}
K_{1-\alpha}(r)e^{-i\theta}\\
\pm K_{\alpha}(r)
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Denote by $U$ any unitary operator from $\chi_+$ to $\chi_-$. Then $U$ takes $\xi_+$ to $e^{i\tau}\xi_-$ for some $\tau\in[0,2\pi)$. According to the theorem of Krein and von Neumann, described in [@akgl], all self-adjoint extensions of ${\ensuremath{\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}}_{\text{min}}}}$ can be parameterized by $\tau$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:defdirac}
{\ensuremath{\mathscr{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^\tau)&=\left\{\psi\in(L_2(\mathbb{R}^2))^2:\ \psi=\psi_0+\mu(\xi_++e^{i\tau}\xi_-),\psi_0\in{\ensuremath{\mathscr{D}}}({\ensuremath{\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}}_{\text{min}}}}),\ \mu\in\mathbb{C}\right\}\\
\label{eq:dirac}
{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^\tau \psi&={\ensuremath{\mathfrak{d}}}\psi_0+i\mu(\xi_+-e^{i\tau}\xi_-),\quad\text{for}\ \psi\in{\ensuremath{\mathscr{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^\tau).\end{aligned}$$ It is also possible to describe the self-adjoint extensions by studying the asymptotic behavior of the functions in the domain at the origin. To see this, let us define the linear functionals $c_{-\alpha}^\pm$ and $c_{\alpha-1}^\pm$ on ${\ensuremath{\mathscr{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^\tau)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:boundary}
c_{-\alpha}^{\pm}(\psi_\pm) &= \lim_{r\to 0}r^\alpha\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\psi_\pm(re^{i\theta}) d\theta,\ \text{and}\\
c_{\alpha-1}^{\pm}(\psi_\pm) &= \lim_{r\to 0}r^{1-\alpha}\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\psi_\pm(re^{i\theta}) e^{i\theta} d\theta.\end{aligned}$$ For $\psi=\psi_0+\mu(\xi_++e^{i\tau}\xi_-)$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathscr{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^\tau)$, where $\psi_0\in{\ensuremath{\mathscr{D}}}({\ensuremath{\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}}_{\text{min}}}})$, applying these functionals gives no contribution from $\psi_0$ since the limit of functions in ${\ensuremath{\mathscr{D}}}({\ensuremath{\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}}_{\text{min}}}})$ tends to zero at the origin. Let us introduce the notation ${\ensuremath{\sigma(\alpha)}}=\Gamma(\alpha)2^\alpha$. Using the asymptotics for the Bessel functions we get $$\label{eq:funktional}
\begin{aligned}
c_{-\alpha}^+({\ensuremath{\psi_+}}) &=0\\
c_{-\alpha}^-({\ensuremath{\psi_-}}) &=\frac{\mu}{2}(1-e^{i\tau}){\ensuremath{\sigma(\alpha)}}\\
c_{\alpha-1}^+({\ensuremath{\psi_+}}) &= \frac{\mu}{2}(1+e^{i\tau}){\ensuremath{\sigma(1-\alpha)}}\\
c_{\alpha-1}^-({\ensuremath{\psi_-}}) &=0
\end{aligned}$$ for such functions $\psi\in{\ensuremath{\mathscr{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^\tau)$. Here $\mu$ is the same constant as in . An equivalent description of all self-adjoint Dirac extensions is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:defdiracalt}
{\ensuremath{\mathscr{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^\tau)&=\Big\{\psi\in(L_2(\mathbb{R}^2))^2:\
{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{d}}}\psi\in(L_2(\mathbb{R}^2))^2;\\
\nonumber&\quad\quad\frac{c_{\alpha-1}^+({\ensuremath{\psi_+}})}{c_{-\alpha}^-({\ensuremath{\psi_-}})}=i\cot(\tau/2)\frac{{\ensuremath{\sigma(1-\alpha)}}}{{\ensuremath{\sigma(\alpha)}}},\ \text{and}\\
\nonumber&\quad\quad c_{-\alpha}^+({\ensuremath{\psi_+}})=c_{\alpha-1}^-({\ensuremath{\psi_-}})=0\Big\},\\
\label{eq:diracalt}
{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^\tau \psi&={\ensuremath{\mathfrak{d}}}\psi,
\quad \text{for}\ \psi\in{\ensuremath{\mathscr{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^\tau).\end{aligned}$$
The Dirac operator with several AB solenoids together with a regular field
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection we are going to study the Dirac operator for a magnetic field consisting of a finite number of AB solenoids together with a regular background field. We will use the same method as in [@agro] to glue together the different self-adjoint Dirac operators corresponding to only one AB solenoid and the self-adjoint Dirac operator corresponding to the regular magnetic field.
Note here that we do not study all self-adjoint extensions but only the ones that are subject to the natural locality principle; which says that the asymptotics at a singular point of functions in the domain should be independent of the asymptotics at the other singular points.
We start by defining the Dirac operator with two AB solenoids together with a smooth field. The general case does not give any extra difficulties. Let the magnetic field $B$ consist of a smooth field $B_0$ with compact support and two AB solenoids located at $z_1$ and $z_2$ with intensities $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$, $$\label{eq:magntva}
B(z)=B_0(z)+2\pi\alpha_1\delta_{z_1}+2\pi\alpha_2\delta_{z_2}.$$ In this case our scalar potential $h$ can be written as $$h(z)=h_0(z)+h_1(z)+h_2(z)=\frac{1}{2\pi}(\log|\cdot|*B_0)(z)+\alpha_1\log|z-z_1|+\alpha_2\log|z-z_2|.$$ From the previous section we have self-adjoint Dirac operators ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^{\tau_1,h_1}$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^{\tau_2,h_2}$ corresponding to each of the AB solenoids separately. Let us drop the parameters $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$ from the superscripts. So, for example, when we write ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^{h_1}$ we mean some self-adjoint extension with one AB solenoid located at $z_1$.
Let $\phi_j\in C_0^\infty(\mathbb{R}^2)$, $j=1,2$, be equal to $1$ in a neighborhood of $z_j$ and have small support not touching a neighborhood of $z_k$, $k\neq j$ and $0\leq \phi_j\leq 1$. Let $\phi_0=1-\phi_1-\phi_2$. We denote by $E_{jk}$ the set $\operatorname{supp}\phi_j\cap\operatorname{supp}\phi_k$.
Let us introduce the multiplication operators $V^{h_j}$ as $$V^{h_j}=
2i
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & -{\ensuremath{\frac{\partial}{\partial z}}}h_j\\
{\ensuremath{\frac{\partial}{\partial \bar{z}}}}h_j & 0\\
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Note that $V^{h_0}$ is bounded from $(L_2)^2$ to $(L_2)^2$. For $j\neq 0$ we will be sure to apply the operators $V^{h_j}$ only on functions being zero in a neighborhood of the singular points $z_j$.
\[def:dirac\] The Dirac operator ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^{h}$ corresponding to the magnetic field $B$ in is defined as $${\ensuremath{\mathscr{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^{h})=\{\psi\in(L_2(\mathbb{R}^2))^2:\ \phi_j\psi\in{\ensuremath{\mathscr{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^{h_j}),\ j=0,1,2\}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^{h}\psi=& ({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^{h_0}+V^{h_1}+V^{h_2})(\phi_0\psi)\\
+&({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^{h_1}+V^{h_0}+V^{h_2})(\phi_1\psi)\\
+&({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^{h_2}+V^{h_0}+V^{h_1})(\phi_2\psi)\\
\end{aligned}$$ for $\psi\in{\ensuremath{\mathscr{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^{h})$.
It is easily verified that the definition is independent of the partition of unity $1=\phi_0+\phi_1+\phi_2$.
\[thm:sa\] The Dirac operator ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h$ is self-adjoint.
For the proof, we need some lemmas.
The Dirac operator ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}:(L_2)^2\to (L_2)^2$ without any magnetic field is a self-adjoint operator with the Sobolev space $(H^1)^2$ as domain.
See [@th].
The Dirac operator ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^{h_0}$ corresponding to the magnetic field $B_0$ is self-adjoint with domain $(H^1)^2$.
The operator ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^{h_0}$ can be written as ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^{h_0}={\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}+V^{h_0}$ and the multiplication operator $V^{h_0}$ is relatively bounded with respect to ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}$ with relative bound zero, so the lemma follows from the Kato-Rellich theorem.
\[lem:tozero\] Let $T$ be a bounded operator from $(L_2)^2$ to $(H^1)^2$ and let $V$ be a function, $V(z)\to0$ as $|z|\to\infty$. Then the composition $VT$ is compact in $(L_2)^2$.
For $n=1,2,\ldots$ we write $V$ as $V=V_n+\tilde{V}_n$, where $$V_n(z)=\begin{cases}
V(z) & |V(z)|>\frac{1}{n}\\
0 & |V(z)|\leq \frac{1}{n}.
\end{cases}$$ The functions $V_n$ all have compact support, so the operators $V_nT$ are compact. But $||V_nT-VT||\leq \frac{1}{n}||T||$ for all $n=1,2,\ldots$, so $VT$ is also compact.
Lemma \[lem:tozero\] is also true for $2\times2$ matrix valued functions $V$ where all components tend to zero at infinity. It also holds if $T$ is bounded from $L_2$ to $H^1$.
\[lem:compact\] Let $0\neq s\in\mathbb{R}$ and let $\phi\in C^\infty_0(\mathbb{R}^2)$ with zero in its support. Then the operator $\phi R$ is compact, where $R=({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^{\tau}+is)^{-1}$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^{\tau}$ is any self-adjoint extension of the Dirac operator corresponding to one AB solenoid (which is assumed to be located at the origin).
First, $\phi R$ is compact if and only if $\phi R (\phi R)^*=\phi RR^*\phi$ is compact. To show that $\phi RR^*\phi$ is compact, it is sufficient to show that $\phi RR^*$ is compact.
The operator $RR^*$ is equal to $\left(({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^\tau)^2+s^2\right)^{-1}$. Note that $({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^\tau)^2$ is a self-adjoint Pauli operator corresponding to the same magnetic field (see Section \[sec:pauli\] for a discussion of the Pauli operators that are the square of some Dirac operator). If we denote by ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}}$ any other self-adjoint Pauli operator corresponding to this magnetic field, then by the Krein resolvent formula (see [@akgl]) the resolvents of $({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^\tau)^2$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}}$ differ by a finite rank operator. Thus, it is enough to show that $\phi({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}}+s^2)^{-1}$ is compact for a convenient choice of self-adjoint Pauli extension ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}}$. Let us choose ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}}$ to be the Friedrichs extension. The functions in the domain of this extension ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}}$ vanish at the origin so $${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}}=
\begin{pmatrix}
H & 0\\
0 & H
\end{pmatrix},$$ where $H$ is the Friedrichs extension of the Schrödinger operator corresponding to the same magnetic field (see [@gest] for a discussion of this). Hence it is enough to show that $\phi(H+s^2)^{-1}$ is compact.
Let $H_0=-\Delta$ be the Schrödinger operator corresponding to no magnetic field. Then, by the diamagnetic inequality (see [@meouro]) it follows that $|\phi(H+s^2)^{-1}u|\leq \phi(H_0+s^2)^{-1}|u|$ (pointwise) for all $u\in L_2$. This inequality implies that $\phi(H+s^2)^{-1}$ is compact if $\phi(H_0+s^2)^{-1}$ is compact (see [@dofr; @pi]).
The compactness of $\phi(H_0+s^2)^{-1}$ follows from Lemma \[lem:tozero\] since $(H_0+s^2)^{-1}$ is bounded from $L_2$ to $H^1$.
\[lemma:symmetric\] The operator ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h$ is symmetric.
Let $\psi$ and $\tilde{\psi}$ belong to ${\ensuremath{\mathscr{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h)$. Then $$\langle {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h\psi,\tilde\psi\rangle = \int ({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h \psi)\cdot \bar{\tilde\psi}d\lambda(z) = \int ((\phi_0+\phi_1+\phi_2){\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h \psi)\cdot \bar{\tilde\psi}d\lambda(z).$$ The symmetry now follows from integration by parts, noticing that (for example) $$\int \phi_0 ({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^{h_0}+V^{h_1}+V^{h_2})(\phi_0\psi)\cdot\bar{\tilde\psi}d\lambda(z)=\int \phi_0\psi\cdot\overline{({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^{h_0}+V^{h_1}+V^{h_2})(\phi_0\tilde\psi)}d\lambda(z)$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\int \phi_1 ({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^{h_0}+V^{h_1}+V^{h_2})(\phi_0\psi)\cdot\bar{\tilde\psi}d\lambda(z)&=\int_{E_{01}}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^{h_0}+V^{h_1}+V^{h_2})(\phi_0\psi)\cdot\overline{\phi_1\tilde\psi}d\lambda(z)\\
&=\int \phi_0\psi\cdot\overline{({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^{h_1}+V^{h_0}+V^{h_2})(\phi_1\tilde\psi)}d\lambda(z)
\end{aligned}$$ and similar for the other terms. Adding all terms we see that ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h$ is symmetric.
In the following lemma we look at our operator as acting from its domain ${\ensuremath{\mathscr{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h)$ considered as a Hilbert space equipped with graph norm $$\begin{aligned}
||\psi||_{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h}^2&=||({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^{h_0}+V^{h_1}+V^{h_2})(\phi_0 \psi)||^2 + ||({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^{h_1}+V^{h_0}+V^{h_2})(\phi_1 \psi)||^2\\
&+||({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^{h_2}+V^{h_0}+V^{h_1})(\phi_2 \psi)||^2 + ||\psi||^2,
\end{aligned}$$ to $(L_2)^2$.
\[lemma:fredholm\] Let $0\neq s\in\mathbb{R}$ be fixed. The operator ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h+is:({\ensuremath{\mathscr{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h),||\cdot||_{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h})\to (L_2(\mathbb{R}^2))^2$ is a bounded Fredholm operator with index zero.
First, it is clear that ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h+is$ is bounded from the domain space with graph norm. To show that ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h+is$ is a Fredholm operator, it is enough to find a left and a right parametrix (see [@agr]). We start by finding a right parametrix. Let $R_j$ denote the resolvent $R_j=({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^{h_j}+is)^{-1}$, $j=0,1,2$, and define the operator $R:(L_2)^2\to(L_2)^2$ as $$Ru=\phi_0 R_0u+\phi_1R_1u+\phi_2R_2u,\quad\text{for}\ u\in (L_2)^2.$$ For $u\in (L_2)^2$ we have $\phi_j\phi_kR_ju\in (H^1)^2$ and being zero in a neighborhood of the singular point(s) if $j\neq k$. Thus $$({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^{h_k}+V^{h_j})(\phi_j\phi_kR_ju)=({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^{h_j}+V^{h_k})(\phi_j\phi_kR_ju),\quad j\neq k.$$ From this it follows that, if $u\in(L_2)^2$ and $j,k,l\in\{0,1,2,\ j\neq k\neq l\}$, then $$({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h+is)(\phi_jR_ju) = \phi_j u+((V^{h_k}+V^{h_l})\phi_j+{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}(\phi_j))R_ju.$$ Thus $$({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h+is)Ru = u+K_R u$$ where $K_R:(L_2)^2\to(L_2)^2$ is the operator $$\begin{aligned}
K_R u&=\left((V^{h_1}+V^{h_2})\phi_0+{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}(\phi_0)\right) R_0u\\
&+\left((V^{h_0}+V^{h_2})\phi_1+{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}(\phi_1)\right) R_1u\\
&+\left((V^{h_0}+V^{h_1})\phi_2+{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}(\phi_2)\right) R_2u.\\
\end{aligned}$$ $K_R$ is compact. Indeed, the first term is compact according to Lemma \[lem:tozero\] since $R_0$ is bounded from $(L_2)^2$ to $(H^1)^2$ and the matrix-valued function $(V^{h_1}+V^{h_2})\phi_0+{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}(\phi_0)$ tends to zero at infinity. The other two terms are compact by Lemma \[lem:compact\]. Hence $K_R$ is compact, so $R$ is a right parametrix.
The operator $L=R_0 \phi_0+ R_1 \phi_1+R_2 \phi_2$ is a left parametrix. Indeed, a calculation similar to the one above shows that
$$L({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h+is)\psi= \psi+K_L\psi$$
where $$\begin{aligned}
K_L \psi &= R_0 \left((V^{h_1}+V^{h_2})\phi_0-{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}(\phi_0)\right)\psi\\
&+ R_1 \left((V^{h_0}+V^{h_2})\phi_1-{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}(\phi_1)\right)\psi\\
&+R_2 \left((V^{h_0}+V^{h_1})\phi_2-{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}(\phi_2)\right)\psi.
\end{aligned}$$ The compactness of $K_L^*$ follows in the same way as the compactness of $K_R$. Hence $K_L$ is compact. We see that any of $R$ and $L$ works as a parametrix and hence ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h+is$ is a Fredholm operator.
To see that ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h+is$ has index zero, we note that since ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}$ with domain $(H^1)^2$ is self-adjoint, it has index zero and $R_s:=({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}+is)^{-1}$ is a parametrix for ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}+is$. The operator $$R-R_s=\phi_0 R_0+\phi_1 R_1+\phi_2 R_2-R_s$$ is compact. To see this, write $R-R_s$ as $$R-R_s=(\phi_0-1)R_0+\phi_1R_1+\phi_2R_2+(R_0-R_s).$$ The first term is compact according to Lemma \[lem:tozero\], the second and third according to Lemma \[lem:compact\]. For the last term we note that $R_0-R_s=-R_0V^{h_0}R_s$. The compactness of $V^{h_0}R_s$ follows from Lemma \[lem:tozero\]. Composition with the bounded operator $R_0$ preserves compactness. Thus $R-R_s$ is compact. It follows that $$\operatorname{ind}(R)=\operatorname{ind}(R_s).$$ Since $R$ and $R_s$ are parametrices for ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h+is$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}+is$ respectively, it holds that $$\operatorname{ind}(R)+\operatorname{ind}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h+is)=\operatorname{ind}(R({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h+is))=0,$$ and $$\operatorname{ind}(R_s)+\operatorname{ind}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}+is)=\operatorname{ind}(R_s({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}+is))=0.$$ Hence $$\operatorname{ind}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h+is)=-\operatorname{ind}(R)=-\operatorname{ind}(R_s)=\operatorname{ind}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}+is)=0.$$
We know from Lemma \[lemma:symmetric\] that ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h$ is symmetric, so for $0\neq s\in\mathbb{R}$ we have $$||({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h+is)\psi||^2=||{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h\psi||^2+s^2||\psi||^2
\geq s^2||\psi||^2.$$ It follows that $\dim\ker({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h+is)=0$. From Lemma \[lemma:fredholm\] we have that ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h+is$ has index zero, so it follows that $\dim\ker(({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h)^*-is)=0$. Choosing $s$ positive and negative respectively gives that the deficiency indices for ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h$ is $(0,0)$, so ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h$ is self-adjoint.
Spin flip invariance {#sec:diracspinflip}
--------------------
Since the particle we are studying moves only in a plane, and the magnetic field is orthogonal to this plane, physically it should be no difference if the sign of the magnetic field is changed. This transformation has to come together with a flip of the spin-up and spin-down components and a normalization of the AB intensities. We say that a self-adjoint extension is spin flip invariant if, after applying these transformations, we end up with a (anti)-unitarily equivalent operator. We will show that there are only two values of $\tau$ for which the Dirac operator ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^{\tau,h}$ is spin flip invariant. Let $\btau=(\tau_1,\ldots,\tau_n)$ and denote the Dirac operator by ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^{\btau,h}$. We will use the linear functionals $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:diracboundarygen}
c_{-\alpha_j}^{\pm}(\psi_\pm) &= \lim_{r_j\to 0}r_j^{\alpha_j}\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\psi_\pm(r_je^{i\theta_j}) d\theta_j,\ \text{and}\\
\label{eq:diracboundarygentwo}
c_{\alpha_j-1}^{\pm}(\psi_\pm) &= \lim_{r_j\to 0}r_j^{1-\alpha_j}\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\psi_\pm(r_je^{i\theta_j}) e^{i\theta_j} d\theta_j.\end{aligned}$$ We define anti-unitarily operator $V:(L_2(\mathbb{R}^2))^2\to(L_2(\mathbb{R}^2))^2$ as the spin-flip operator that takes $({\ensuremath{\psi_+}},{\ensuremath{\psi_-}})^t$ to $(\overline{{\ensuremath{\psi_-}}},\overline{{\ensuremath{\psi_+}}})^t$.
\[prop:spinflip\] The operators ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^{\btau',-h}$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^{\btau,h}$ are anti-unitarily equivalent via the operator $V$ if and only if for all $j=1,\ldots,n$ we have $\tau_j'+\tau_j=\pi$ or $\tau_j'+\tau_j=3\pi$.
Let $\beta_j=1-\alpha_j$ be the normalized AB intensities for the magnetic field $-B$ that corresponds to ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^{\btau',-h}$. A function $\psi$ in the domain of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^{\btau',-h}$ has the asymptotics $$\psi \sim \frac{\mu_j}{2}
\begin{pmatrix}
(1+e^{i\tau_j'}){\ensuremath{\sigma(1-\beta_j)}}r_j^{\beta_j-1}+O(r_j^{1-\beta_j})\\
(1-e^{i\tau_j'}){\ensuremath{\sigma(\beta_j)}}r^{-\beta_j}e^{i\theta_j}+O(r_j^{\beta_j})
\end{pmatrix}$$ as $z\to z_j$ for some constant $\mu_j\in\mathbb{C}$. We see that $V\psi$ has the asymptotics $$\begin{aligned}
V &\psi\sim
\frac{\bar{\mu}_j}{2}
\begin{pmatrix}
(1-e^{-i\tau_j'}){\ensuremath{\sigma(1-\alpha_j)}}r_j^{\alpha_j-1}e^{-i\theta_j}+O(r_j^{1-\alpha_j})\\[5pt]
(1+e^{-i\tau_j'}){\ensuremath{\sigma(\alpha_j)}}r_j^{-\alpha_j}+O(r_j^{\alpha_j})
\end{pmatrix}
\end{aligned}$$ Applying the functionals and we see that $V\psi$ satisfies $$\frac{c_{\alpha_j-1}^+((V\psi)_+)}{c_{-\alpha_j}^-((V\psi)_-)}=i\tan(\tau_j'/2)\frac{{\ensuremath{\sigma(1-\alpha_j)}}}{{\ensuremath{\sigma(\alpha_j)}}}$$ and $c_{\alpha_j-1}^-((V{\ensuremath{\psi_-}})_-)=c_{-\alpha_j}^+((V{\ensuremath{\psi_+}})_+)=0$, so the requirements that the domain change properly is that $$\tan(\tau_j'/2)=\cot(\tau_j/2),\quad\text{for}\ j=1,\ldots,n.$$ We see that $\tau_j/2$ and $\pi/2-\tau_j'/2$ must differ by a integer multiple of $\pi$. Both $\tau_j$ and $\tau_j'$ belong to the interval $[0,2\pi)$, so the only possibilities are $\tau_j'+\tau_j=\pi$ or $\tau_j'+\tau_j=3\pi$.
The operators ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^{\btau,-h}$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^{\btau,h}$ are anti-unitarily equivalent via the operator $V$ if and only if for all $j=1,\ldots,n$ we have $\tau_j=\pi/2$ or $\tau_j=3\pi/2$.
Take $\tau_j'=\tau_j$ in the previous Proposition.
If we let $W:(L_2(\mathbb{R}^2))^2\to(L_2(\mathbb{R}^2))^2$ be the operator that takes $({\ensuremath{\psi_+}},{\ensuremath{\psi_-}})^t$ to $({\ensuremath{\psi_-}},{\ensuremath{\psi_+}})^t$ we get some other symmetries if we compose it with the gauge transform that only act on the spin-up component.
The operators ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^{\btau',-h}$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^{\btau,h}$ are unitarily equivalent via the operator $W$ composed with a gauge multiplication of $e^{-2i\sum\theta_j}$ of the spin-up component if and only if $|\tau_j'-\tau_j|=\pi$ for all $j=1,\ldots,n$.
The proof goes on as in the proof of Proposition \[prop:spinflip\]. This time the requirement on $\tau_j$ and $\tau_j'$ becomes $$-\tan(\tau_j'/2)=\cot(\tau_j/2),\quad\text{for}\ j=1,\ldots,n$$ which gives $|\tau_j'-\tau_j|=\pi$ for all $j=1,\ldots,n$.
Zero-modes
----------
Let us calculate the dimension of the kernel of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h$ under the assumption that $\tau_j=\tau$ for all $j=1,\ldots,n$, which means that we assume that we have the same physical conditions of the behavior of the particle close to all solenoids. Denote by $\Phi$ the total flux of $B$ divided by $2\pi$, that is $$\Phi=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int B(z)d\lambda(z)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int B_0(z)d\lambda(z)+\sum_{j=1}^n\alpha_j.$$ As usual, the definition of the total flux is a matter of agreement, due to the arbitrariness in the choice of normalization for AB intensities. The asymptotics of $e^h$ at infinity and at the singular points $\Lambda$ are given by $$\label{eq:asymp}
e^h\sim
\begin{cases}
|z|^\Phi & |z|\to\infty\\
|z-z_j|^{\alpha_j} & z\to z_j.
\end{cases}$$ Remember also that the functions in the domain of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h$ must satisfy $$\label{eq:singasymp}
\frac{c_{\alpha_j-1}^+({\ensuremath{\psi_+}})}{c_{-\alpha_j}^-({\ensuremath{\psi_-}})}=i\cot(\tau_j/2)\frac{{\ensuremath{\sigma(1-\alpha_j)}}}{{\ensuremath{\sigma(\alpha_j)}}},\quad j=1,\ldots,n.$$ Let $\{x\}$ denote the lower integer part, that is $$\{x\}=
\begin{cases}
\lfloor x\rfloor & x>1\ \text{and}\ x\not\in\mathbb{N}\\
x-1 & x>1\ \text{and}\ x\in\mathbb{N}\\
0 & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$
\[thm:ACDirac\] If $\tau_j=\tau$, $j=1,\ldots,n$ then the dimension of the kernel of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h$ is given by $$\dim\ker {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h =
\begin{cases}
\{|n-\Phi|\}&\text{if}\ \tau=0,\\
\{|\Phi|\}&\text{if}\ \tau=\pi,\\
0&\text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$
The proof follows the same idea as the original proof by Aharonov-Casher with the same changes as in [@per] and using the fact that the spin-up and spin-down components are coupled if $\tau\not\in\{0,\pi\}$.
We start by calculating the zero-modes as if the spin-up and spin-down components were not coupled; so these components are studied separately.
Let us start with the spin-up component, that is, we consider the solutions to ${\ensuremath{q_{+}}}{\ensuremath{\psi_+}}=0$. This is equivalent to ${\ensuremath{\frac{\partial}{\partial \bar{z}}}}(e^{-h}{\ensuremath{\psi_+}})=0$, and thus the function $f_+=e^{-h}{\ensuremath{\psi_+}}$ must be analytic in $\mathbb{C}\setminus\Lambda$. The behavior of $f_+$ at the singular points $\Lambda$ is different for different values of the parameter $\tau$, but a pole of order at most $\{-\Phi\}-1$ at infinity is allowed independently of the value of $\tau$.
[**Case I**]{}, $\tau=\pi$: For ${\ensuremath{\psi_+}}$ to belong to $L_2$, as we see from , the function $f_+$ is not allowed to have any poles at the singular points $\Lambda$. Thus, if $\tau=\pi$ then $f_+$ may be a polynomial of order at most $\{-\Phi\}-1$. There are as many as $\{-\Phi\}$ many linearly independent such polynomials.
[**Case II**]{}, $\tau\neq\pi$: From we see that a pole of order at most one is allowed at each $z_j\in\Lambda$. The calculation in [@per] then yields that the dimension is $\{n-\Phi\}$.
Let us now turn to the spin-down component. We look for solutions to the equation ${\ensuremath{q_{-}}}{\ensuremath{\psi_-}}=0$, which is equivalent to finding solutions to ${\ensuremath{\frac{\partial}{\partial z}}}(e^h{\ensuremath{\psi_-}})=0$. If we now let $f_-=e^h{\ensuremath{\psi_-}}$, then $f_-$ must be anti-analytic in $\mathbb{C}\setminus\Lambda$, and from the asymptotics we see that $f_-$ may have a polynomial part of degree at most $\{\Phi\}-1$ independent of the value of the parameter $\tau$. Again we get two different cases for the behavior of the functions at the singular points $\Lambda$.
[**Case I**]{}, $\tau=0$: In this case we see from that no singular parts for ${\ensuremath{\psi_-}}$ are allowed at $\Lambda$, and hence $f_-$ must have a zero of order at least 1 at each point in $\Lambda$. That is we have a polynomial in $\bar{z}$ of degree $\{\Phi\}-1$ with $n$ predicted zeroes. There are $\{\Phi-n\}$ linearly independent polynomials of this type.
[**Case II**]{}, $\tau\neq 0$: Now $f_-$ must be a polynomial in $\bar{z}$ of degree at most $\{\Phi\}-1$, but without any forced zeroes. Thus the dimension of the kernel is $\{\Phi\}$.
Since the spin-up and spin-down components are not coupled in the cases $\tau=0$ and $\tau=\pi$ the calculations above yield $$\dim\ker {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h =
\begin{cases}
\{|n-\Phi|\}&\text{if}\ \tau=0,\\
\{|\Phi|\}&\text{if}\ \tau=\pi.\\
\end{cases}$$ Let us now assume that $\tau\not\in\{0,\pi\}$. We should evaluate how the spin-up zero-modes match the spin-down zero-modes to satisfy the conditions at the singularities. First we note that to be able to have zero-modes both $\{n-\Phi\}$ and $\{\Phi\}$ must be positive. From the calculations in the last two paragraphs of the proof of Theorem 3.3 in [@per] it follows that $f_+$ must be of the form $$f_+(z)=\sum_{j=1}^n \frac{\eta_j}{z-z_j}$$ where $\eta_j\in\mathbb{C}$ satisfy $$\label{eq:cjkrav}
\sum_{j=1}^n \eta_j z_j^k=0,\quad \text{for}\ k=0,1,\ldots,n-\{n-\Phi\}-1$$ and $f_-(z)$ must be a polynomial in $\bar{z}$ of degree at most $\{\Phi\}-1$. Actually, we will show that even if the degree of the polynomial $f_-$ is $\{\Phi\}$ or in some cases $\{\Phi\}+1$, all coefficients of the polynomial must be zero. Let us define the natural number $m$ as $m=n-\{n-\Phi\}-1$ and note that $m=\lfloor \Phi\rfloor$. Let $$\label{eq:polynom}
f_-(z)=\sum_{j=0}^{m}a_j \bar{z}^j.$$ From the asymptotics we see that $$\frac{\eta_j}{f_-(z_j)}=e^{-2h_0(z_j)}\prod_{l\neq j}\left(|z_j-z_l|^{-2\alpha_l}\right)i\cot(\tau/2)\frac{{\ensuremath{\sigma(1-\alpha_j)}}}{{\ensuremath{\sigma(\alpha_j)}}},\quad j=1,\ldots,n.$$ From the requirements of the coefficients $\eta_j$ we get $$\label{eq:nollekv}
0=\sum_{j=1}^n \eta_j z_j^k=i\cot(\tau/2)\sum_{j=1}^n b_j f_-(z_j) z_j^k,\quad k=0,1,\ldots,m,$$ where $$b_j=e^{-2h_0(z_j)}\prod_{l\neq j}\left(|z_j-z_l|^{-2\alpha_l}\right)\frac{{\ensuremath{\sigma(1-\alpha_j)}}}{{\ensuremath{\sigma(\alpha_j)}}}>0.$$ We introduce the vector $\mathbf{a}=(a_0,\ldots,a_{m})^t$ where $a_j$ are the coefficients in . Let us also introduce the matrix $V$ as $$V=
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 1 & \cdots & 1\\
z_1 & z_2 & \cdots & z_n\\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
z_1^m & z_2^m & \cdots & z_n^m\\
\end{pmatrix},$$ and the diagonal matrix $B$ having the positive number $b_j$ at the $j$th diagonal position. Then can be written as $$i\cot(\tau/2)VBV^*\mathbf{a}=0.$$ The matrix $VBV^*$ is clearly Hermitian and since $B$ is positive, we can write $VBV^*$ as $(V\sqrt{B})(V\sqrt{B})^*$. Hence the null space of $VBV^*$ is the same as that of the matrix $(V\sqrt{B})^*=\sqrt{B}V^*$. Since $V^*$ is (a part of) a Vandermonde matrix it has full rank, so the dimension of the null space of $\sqrt{B}V^*$ is zero. Hence the polynomial $f_-$, and thus also ${\ensuremath{\psi_-}}$, must be zero. Since the spin-up and spin-down components are coupled, it follows that ${\ensuremath{\psi_+}}$ is also zero. Consequently, $\dim\ker{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h=0$, and the proof is complete.
The Pauli operator {#sec:pauli}
==================
In this section we will study the Pauli operator corresponding to the magnetic field , obtained as the square of a self-adjoint Dirac operator from the previous section.
\[def:pauli\] We define the Pauli operator ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}}^h$ as $({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h)^2$ where ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h$ is a self-adjoint Dirac operator defined in Definition \[def:dirac\]. This means that $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\mathscr{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}}^h) &= \{\psi\in (L_2)^2:\ {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{d}}}^h\psi\in{\ensuremath{\mathscr{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h)\},\\
{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}}^h\psi &= ({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{d}}}^h)^2\psi,\quad\text{for}\ \psi\in{\ensuremath{\mathscr{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}}^h).
\end{aligned}$$
Let us again introduce the boundary value linear functionals acting on ${\ensuremath{\mathscr{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}}^h)$, but this time for all singular points $\Lambda$. For $j=1,\ldots,n$, let $$\begin{aligned}
c_{-\alpha_j}^{\pm}(\psi_\pm) &= \lim_{r_j\to 0}r_j^{\alpha_j}\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\psi_\pm(r_je^{i\theta_j}) d\theta_j,\\
c_{\alpha_j}^{\pm}(\psi_\pm) &= \lim_{r_j\to 0}r_j^{-\alpha_j}\left(\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\psi_\pm(r_je^{i\theta_j}) d\theta_j-r_j^{-\alpha_j}c_{-\alpha_j}^{\pm}(\psi_\pm)\right),\\
c_{\alpha_j-1}^{\pm}(\psi_\pm) &= \lim_{r_j\to 0}r_j^{1-\alpha_j}\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\psi_\pm(r_je^{i\theta_j}) e^{i\theta_j} d\theta_j,\ \text{and}\\
c_{1-\alpha_j}^{\pm}(\psi_\pm) &= \lim_{r_j\to 0}r_j^{\alpha_j-1}\left(\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\psi_\pm(r_je^{i\theta_j}) e^{i\theta_j}d\theta_j-r_j^{\alpha_j-1}c_{\alpha_j-1}^{\pm}(\psi_\pm)\right).\end{aligned}$$ Since there are more self-adjoint Pauli extensions than Dirac extensions corresponding to our singular magnetic field, it is clear that not all Pauli operators can be obtained as the square of a self-adjoint Dirac operator.
For an arbitrary self-adjoint Pauli extension ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}}$, it is the square of some self-adjoint Dirac extension ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h$ if and only if the following equations are satisfied for all $\psi\in{\ensuremath{\mathscr{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}})$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:pcondf}
\frac{c_{\alpha_j-1}^+({\ensuremath{\psi_+}})}{c_{-\alpha_j}^-({\ensuremath{\psi_-}})}&=i\cot(\tau_j/2)\frac{{\ensuremath{\sigma(1-\alpha_j)}}}{{\ensuremath{\sigma(\alpha_j)}}},\\
\label{eq:pauliextra}
\frac{c_{\alpha_j}^-({\ensuremath{\psi_-}})}{c_{1-\alpha_j}^+({\ensuremath{\psi_+}})}&=i\cot(\tau_j/2)\frac{{\ensuremath{\sigma(-\alpha_j)}}}{{\ensuremath{\sigma(\alpha_j-1)}}},\\
c_{-\alpha_j}^+({\ensuremath{\psi_+}}) &=0,\ \text{and}\\
\label{eq:pcondl}
c_{\alpha_j-1}^-({\ensuremath{\psi_-}}) &=0.\end{aligned}$$
Let ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h$ be a given self-adjoint Dirac extension, and let $\psi$ belong to ${\ensuremath{\mathscr{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h)$. Then for some constants $\mu_j$ we have $$\psi\sim
\frac{\mu_j}{2}
\begin{pmatrix}
(1+e^{i\tau_j}){\ensuremath{\sigma(1-\alpha_j)}}r_j^{\alpha_j-1}e^{-i\theta_j}+O(r_j^{\alpha_j})\\[5pt]
(1-e^{i\tau_j}){\ensuremath{\sigma(\alpha_j)}}r_j^{-\alpha_j}+O(r_j^{1-\alpha_j})
\end{pmatrix},\quad \text{for}\ j=1,\ldots,n$$ We want to find the next term in the asymptotical expansion for $\psi$ such that $${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h(\psi)\sim
\frac{\nu_j}{2}
\begin{pmatrix}
(1+e^{i\tau_j}){\ensuremath{\sigma(1-\alpha_j)}}r_j^{\alpha_j-1}e^{-i\theta_j}\\[5pt]
(1-e^{i\tau_j}){\ensuremath{\sigma(\alpha_j)}}r_j^{-\alpha_j}
\end{pmatrix},\quad j=1,\ldots,n$$ for some constants $\nu_j$. This means that $\psi$ must have the asymptotics
$$\psi\sim
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\mu_j}{2}(1+e^{i\tau_j}){\ensuremath{\sigma(1-\alpha_j)}}r_j^{\alpha_j-1}e^{-i\theta_j}-\frac{i\nu_j}{2}(1-e^{i\tau_j}){\ensuremath{\sigma(\alpha_j-1)}}r_j^{1-\alpha_j}e^{-i\theta_j}+O(r_j^{2-\alpha_j})\\[5pt]
\frac{\mu_j}{2}(1-e^{i\tau_j}){\ensuremath{\sigma(\alpha_j)}}r_j^{-\alpha_j}-\frac{i\nu_j}{2}(1+e^{i\tau_j}){\ensuremath{\sigma(-\alpha_j)}}r^\alpha_j+O(r_j^{1+\alpha_j})
\end{pmatrix}$$
as $z$ tends to $z_j$, for $j=1,\ldots,n$. From this it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:coefff}
c_{\alpha_j-1}^+({\ensuremath{\psi_+}}) &=\frac{\mu_j}{2}(1+e^{i\tau_j}){\ensuremath{\sigma(1-\alpha_j)}},\\
c_{1-\alpha_j}^+({\ensuremath{\psi_+}}) &=-\frac{i\nu_j}{2}(1-e^{i\tau_j}){\ensuremath{\sigma(\alpha_j-1)}},\\
c_{-\alpha_j}^-({\ensuremath{\psi_-}}) &=\frac{\mu_j}{2}(1-e^{i\tau_j}){\ensuremath{\sigma(\alpha_j)}},\ \text{and}\\
c_{\alpha_j}^-({\ensuremath{\psi_-}}) &= -\frac{i\nu_j}{2}(1+e^{i\tau_j}){\ensuremath{\sigma(-\alpha_j)}}.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover $$\begin{aligned}
c_{-\alpha_j}^+({\ensuremath{\psi_+}})&=0,\ \text{and}\\
c_{\alpha_j-1}^-({\ensuremath{\psi_-}})&=0\end{aligned}$$ since no such singular functions belong to ${\ensuremath{\mathscr{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h)$. The coefficients $$\begin{aligned}
c_{\alpha_j}^+({\ensuremath{\psi_+}})&=\text{arbitrary},\ \text{and}\\
\label{eq:coeffl}
c_{1-\alpha_j}^-({\ensuremath{\psi_-}})&=\text{arbitrary}\end{aligned}$$ since such terms disappear (near the singular point) when applying ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h$.
The definition of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}}^h$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\mathscr{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}}^h) &= \Big\{\psi\in(L_2(\mathbb{R}^2))^2:\
{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{d}}}^2 \psi\in(L_2(\mathbb{R}^2))^2;\\
&\quad\quad \text{equations~\eqref{eq:pcondf}--\eqref{eq:pcondl} hold for all $\psi$}\Big\}.
\end{aligned}$$ We see also that ${\ensuremath{\mathscr{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}}^h)$ is exactly the subset of ${\ensuremath{\mathscr{D}}}({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h)$ for which also the condition holds.
Spin-flip invariance and Zero-modes
-----------------------------------
The only self-adjoint Pauli extensions ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}}^{\btau,h}=({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^{\btau,h})^2$ that are spin-flip invariant under the transform V are these where for all $j=1,\ldots,n$ we have $\tau_j=\pi/2$ or $\tau_j=3\pi/2$.
The proof is the same as for the Dirac operators, see Proposition \[prop:spinflip\].
\[thm:ACPauli\] If $\tau_j=\tau$, $j=1,\ldots,n$ then the dimension of the kernel of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}}^h$ is given by $$\dim\ker {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}}^h =
\begin{cases}
\{|n-\Phi|\}&\text{if}\ \tau=0,\\
\{|\Phi|\}&\text{if}\ \tau=\pi,\\
0&\text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$
This is a direct consequence of Theorem \[thm:ACDirac\] since $\ker {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}}^h=\ker {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h$.
Discussion {#sec:disc}
----------
Let us compare the different self-adjoint Pauli operators from [@ervo] (which we will denote by ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}_{\text{EV}}}}$) and [@per] (which we will denote by ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}_{\text{max}}}}$) with the ones obtained above as the square of a self-adjoint Dirac operator. It is easier to do this comparison if we have the same AB flux normalization for all operators. Thus, we let all AB intensities $\alpha_j$ belong to the interval $(0,1)$. In the case of the Pauli operator ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}_{\text{EV}}}}$, where the AB intensities were normalized to $[-1/2,1/2)$, we have to do a gauge transformation if there are intensities $\alpha_j$ belonging to $[-1/2,0)$. This is not a problem, since ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}_{\text{EV}}}}$ is gauge invariant.
In Table \[tab:pauli\] we see a comparison of the boundary conditions of the Pauli operators obtained above that are the square of a Dirac operator and the Maximal and EV Pauli operators (see [@per; @ervo]). We see that ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}_{\text{max}}}}$ is not the square of a Dirac operator. However, if we let $$\tau_j=
\begin{cases}
\pi, & \text{if}\quad 0<\alpha_j<1/2\\
0, & \text{if}\quad 1/2\leq\alpha_j<1
\end{cases},\quad j=1,\ldots,n,$$ and $\btau=(\tau_1,\ldots,\tau_n)$, then ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}_{\text{EV}}}}$ is the square of the self-adjoint Dirac operator corresponding to $\btau$. Note that it is possible to have different physical situations at the singular points $\Lambda$. Indeed, if not all intensities $\alpha_j$ belong to either $(0,1/2)$ or $[1/2,1)$ then this is the case.
[l|lll]{} & ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}}}^h=({\ensuremath{\mathfrak{D}}}^h)^2$ & ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}_{\text{max}}}}$ & ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}_{\text{EV}}}}$\
$\frac{c_{\alpha_j}^+}{c_{-\alpha_j}^+}$ & $\infty$ & $\infty$ & $\infty$\
\
$\frac{c_{1-\alpha_j}^+}{c_{\alpha_j-1}^+}$ & $-\frac{\nu_j}{\mu_j}\frac{{\ensuremath{\sigma(\alpha_j-1)}}}{{\ensuremath{\sigma(1-\alpha_j)}}}\tan(\tau_j/2)$ & $0$ &
$\begin{cases}\infty, & \text{if}\quad 0<\alpha_j<1/2\\ 0, & \text{if}\quad 1/2\leq\alpha_j<1\end{cases}$
\
\
\
$\frac{c_{\alpha_j}^-}{c_{-\alpha_j}^-}$ & $\frac{\nu_j}{\mu_j}\frac{{\ensuremath{\sigma(-\alpha_j)}}}{{\ensuremath{\sigma(\alpha_j)}}}\cot(\tau_j/2)$ & $0$ &
$\begin{cases}0, & \text{if}\quad 0<\alpha_j<1/2\\ \infty, & \text{if}\quad 1/2\leq\alpha_j<1\end{cases}$
\
\
$\frac{c_{1-\alpha_j}^-}{c_{\alpha_j-1}^-}$ & $\infty$ & $\infty$ & $\infty$\
If the AB intensities in [@ervo] would have been normalized to $(0,1)$ instead of $[-1/2,1/2)$, then the operator ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}_{\text{EV}}}}$ would have become the square of the Dirac operator where $\tau_j=\pi$ for all $j=1,\ldots,n$. If the AB intensities would have been normalized to $(-1,0)$ then ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{P}_{\text{EV}}}}$ would have been the square of the Dirac operator where $\tau_j=0$ for all $j=1,\ldots,n$.
Among the Pauli operators studied in this article, the ones for $\tau=\pi/2$ (which is (anti)-unitarily equivalent to the one for $\tau=3\pi/2$), $\tau=0$ and $\tau=\pi$ seems to be the most interesting ones. For $\tau=\pi/2$ we get a very symmetric domain of the operator, which implies that the operator is spin-flip invariant. Lacking zero-modes, it does not satisfy the original Aharonov-Casher formula, but it can be approximated component-wise according to Table \[tab:pauli\] and the result in [@bopu]. See the end of [@per] for a discussion of this.
The Pauli operators corresponding to $\tau=0$ and $\tau=\pi$ have very asymmetric domains. Only one of the components contain singular terms at the points $\Lambda$. This lack of symmetry implies that these extensions are not spin-flip invariant. On the other hand, the Pauli operator corresponding to $\tau=\pi$ does satisfy the original Aharonov-Casher formula and there is no doubt that both of these Pauli operators can be approximated as in [@bopu], even as Pauli Hamiltonians.
The Maximal Pauli operator studied [@per] is spin-flip invariant and has zero-modes, even more than is present in the original Aharonov-Casher formula. It can be approximated component-wise as in [@bopu]. However, it is not the square of a self-adjoint Dirac operator.
It is still not clear which Pauli extension that describes the physics in the best way.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
I would like to thank my supervisor, Professor Grigori Rozenblum, for assisting me during the work and coming up with the idea of the proof of Lemma \[lem:compact\].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
=14 pt = 6.0in = 8.5in -0.25truein 0.30truein 0.30truein
[**The order $O(\overline{\alpha}~\overline{\alpha}_s)$ and $O(\overline{\alpha}^2)$ corrections to the decay width of the neutral Higgs boson to the $\overline{b}b$ pair**]{}
[**A.L. Kataev**]{}
[*Institute for Nuclear Research of the Academy of Sciences of Russia,\
117312 Moscow, Russia*]{}
[**Abstract**]{}
We present the analytical expressions for the contributions of the order $O(\overline{\alpha}~\overline{\alpha}_s)$ and $O(\overline{\alpha}^2)$ corrections to the decay width of the Standard Model Higgs boson into the $\overline{b}b$-pair. The numerical value of the mixed QED and QCD correction of order $O(\overline{\alpha}~\overline{\alpha}_s)$ is comparable with the previously calculated terms in the perturbative series for $\Gamma(H^0\rightarrow\overline{b}b)$.
To be published in Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. v 66, N5 (1997)\
(JETP Lett. v 66 (1997)).
Amongst the most important problems of the modern high energy physics are the investigations of the properties of the experimentally still unobserved Higgs boson of the Standard Model of electroweak interactions (see e.g. the reviews of Ref. [@Rev]). The analysis of the experimental data of the LEP1 collider resulted in the derivation of the lower bound on the Higgs boson mass $M_H>65~GeV$. The experimental program of the LEP2 and LHC accelerators are thus including the searches of the Higgs boson mass in the mass region $65~GeV<M_H\leq 2M_W\approx 160~GeV$, where the main decay mode of the $H^0$-boson should be the decay to the $\overline{b}b$-pair.
Various effects of the perturbative QCD corrections to $\Gamma(H^0\rightarrow\overline{b}b)$ were already calculated and analyzed by the theoreticians (see e.g. [@BL]-[@ChS]). In Ref. [@EW] the leading order electroweak contributions to this fundamental quantity were also found. The level of the achieved accuracy of the calculations of $\Gamma(H^0\rightarrow\overline{b}b)$ is putting on the agenda the consideration of the new theoretical contributions, which [*a priori*]{} can be comparable to the already calculated terms in the perturbative series for $\Gamma(H^0\rightarrow
\overline{b}b)$.
In this note, following the analogous calculations of the QED and QCD corrections to the hadronic $Z^0$-boson decay width [@KatQED], we are presenting the analytical results for the coefficient of the order $O(\overline{\alpha}~\overline{\alpha}_s)$-term in the expression for $\Gamma(H^0\rightarrow
\overline{b}b)$ (previously found in the process of the work of Ref.[@KK1], but still unpublished) and for the order $O(\overline{\alpha}^2)$-correction to the same quantity. Our results will be related to the $\overline{MS}$-scheme.
In the limit $M_H>>2m_b$ we are interested in (where $m_b$ is the $b$-quark pole mass) the corresponding perturbative approximation for $\Gamma(H^0\rightarrow\overline{b}b)$ can be presented in the following form $$\Gamma(H^0\rightarrow\overline{b}b) =
\overline{\Gamma}_0^{(b)}\bigg[
1+\Delta\Gamma_1\overline{a}_s+\Delta\Gamma_2\overline{a}_s^2
+\Delta\Gamma_3\overline{a}_s^3+...$$ $$-6\frac{\overline{m}_b^2}{M_H^2}\bigg(1+\Delta\Gamma_1^{(m)}\overline{a}_s
+\Delta\Gamma_2^{(m)}\overline{a}_s^2+...\bigg)+\Delta_t+\Delta^{QED}\bigg]
\eqno (1)$$ where $\overline{\Gamma}_0^{(b)}=3\sqrt{2}/(8\pi)G_FM_H\overline{m}_b^2$ and $\overline{m}_b=\overline{m}_b(M_H)$, $\overline{a}_s=\overline{\alpha}_s(M_H)/\pi$ are the defined in the $\overline{MS}$-scheme running parameters of QCD, which are normalized at the Higgs boson pole mass. The coefficients $\Delta\Gamma_1$ and $\Delta\Gamma_2$ are well known [@BL],[@GKLS]: $$\Delta\Gamma_1=\frac{17}{4}C_F\approx 5.667$$ $$\Delta\Gamma_2=\bigg[\bigg(\frac{893}{4}-62\zeta(3)\bigg)C_A
-\bigg(65-16\zeta(3)\bigg)Tf+\bigg(\frac{691}{4}-36\zeta(3)\bigg)C_F\bigg]
\frac{C_F}{16}
\eqno(2)$$ $$-\pi^2\bigg(\frac{11C_A-4Tf+18C_F}{48}\bigg)C_F\approx 29.147$$ where $C_F=4/3$, $C_A=3$, $T=1/2$, $f=5$ and $\zeta(3)$=1.202.... The value of the coefficient $\Delta\Gamma_1^{(m)}$ can be extracted from the results of the calculations of Ref. [@ST]: $$\Delta\Gamma_1^{(m)}=5C_F\approx 6.667~~~~.
\eqno(3)$$ The corrections $\Delta\Gamma_2^{(m)}$ and $\Delta\Gamma_3$ were calculated in the works of Ref. [@S] and [@ChH] correspondingly. We are presenting them in the numerical form in the case of $f=5$ numbers of active flavours: $$\Delta\Gamma_2^{(m)}\approx
14.621~~~,~~~ \Delta\Gamma_3\approx 41.758~~~.
\eqno(4)$$ The most convenient for phenomenological purposes expressions for the virtual $t$-quark contribution in the expression for $\Gamma(H^0\rightarrow\overline{b}b)$ was recently obtained in the work of Ref. [@ChS]. It has rather complicated form: $$\Delta_t=\overline{a}_s^2\bigg(3.111-0.667L_t-\frac{\overline{m}_b^2}{M_H^2}
(-10+4L_t+\frac{4}{3}ln(\overline{m}_b^2/M_H^2)\bigg)
+\overline{a}_s^3\bigg(50.474-8.167L_t-1.278L_t^2\bigg)$$ $$+
\overline{a}_s^2\frac{M_H^2}{m_t^2}\bigg(0.241-0.070L_t\bigg)
+X_t\bigg(1-4.913\overline{a}_s+\overline{a}_s^2(-72.117-20.945L_t)\bigg)
+....
\eqno(5)$$ where $L_t=ln(M_H^2/m_t^2)$, $X_t=G_Fm_t^2/(8\pi^2\sqrt{2})$ and $m_t$ is the $t$-quark pole mass.
Let us turn to the calculation of the Quantum Electrodynamic part $\Delta^{QED}$ in Eq.(1), which is defined as: $$\Delta^{QED}=\bigg[\Delta\Gamma_{1,QED}-6\frac{\overline{m}_b^2}{M_H^2}
\Delta\Gamma_{1,QED}^{(m)}\bigg]\frac{\overline{\alpha}}{\pi}
+\Delta\Gamma_{2,QED}\bigg(\frac{\overline{\alpha}}{\pi}\bigg)^2
+\Delta\Gamma_{QED\times
QCD}\frac{\overline{\alpha}}{\pi}\frac{\overline{\alpha}_s}{\pi}
\eqno(6)$$ where $\overline{\alpha}$=$\overline{\alpha}(M_H)$ is the normalized on the Higgs boson pole mass QED running coupling constant of the $\overline{MS}$-scheme. The coefficients $\Delta\Gamma_{1,QED}$, $\Delta\Gamma_{1,QED}^{(m)}$ and $\Delta\Gamma_{2,QED}$ can be found from the analytic formulae of Eqs.(2),(3) after the following substitutions: $C_A\rightarrow0$, $C_F\rightarrow Q_b^2$ ¨ $Tf\rightarrow
(3\sum_{j=u}^{b}Q_j^2+N)$, where $N=3$ is the number of leptons and $Q_j$ are the charges of quarks of the corresponding flavour. As the result we obtain: $$\Delta\Gamma_{1,QED}=\frac{17}{4}Q_b^2\approx 0.472~~~,~~~
\Delta\Gamma_{1,QED}^{(m)}=5Q_b^2\approx 0.556 ~~~ ,$$ $$\Delta\Gamma_{2,QED}=\bigg(\frac{691}{64}-\frac{9}{4}\zeta(3)
-\frac{3\pi^2}{8}\bigg)Q_b^4 -
\bigg(\frac{65}{16}-\zeta(3)-\frac{\pi^2}{12}\bigg)Q_b^2
\bigg(3\sum_{j=u}^{b}Q_j^2+3\bigg) \approx -1.455~~~.
\eqno(7)$$
In order to calculate the value of the coefficient of the $O(\overline{\alpha}~\overline{\alpha}_s)$ correction in Eq.(6) it is necessary to make the following changes in the analytic expression of Eq.(2): $C_A\rightarrow 0$, $Tf\rightarrow 0$, $C_F^2\rightarrow 2C_FQ_b^2$, where factor 2 is the symmetry coefficient and $C_F=4/3$. After these substitutions we arrive to the result we are interested in: $$\Delta\Gamma_{QED\times
QCD}=\bigg(\frac{691}{24}-6\zeta(3)-\pi^2\bigg)Q_b^2\approx 1.301~~~.
\eqno(8)$$
It is rather instructive to raise the question about the numerical values of the contributions considered by us in the expression for $\Gamma(H^0\rightarrow\overline{b}b)$. Here we will limit ourselves by the consideration of the hypothetical case $M_H\sim M_Z\approx 91~GeV$, which will allow us to simplify the related numerical estimates. In this case the value of the parameter $\overline{\alpha}(M_H)$ will be practically undistinguished from the high-energy value of the QED invariant charge $\alpha_{inv}(M_Z)\approx 1/129$, determined in the number of works on the subject (see e.g. Ref. [@alpha]). Other parameters of the theory will be fixed as : $m_b\approx
4.62~GeV$, $m_t\approx 175~GeV$, $G_F\approx 1.166\times
10^{-5}~GeV^{-2}$, $X_t\approx 3.2\times 10^{-3}$, $\overline{m}_b(M_Z)\approx 2.8~GeV$ (which corresponds to the central value of the result of the analysis of the DELPHI collaboration data for the rate of the heavy-quark production in the 3-jet events [@bmass]) and $\alpha_s(M_Z)\approx 0.117$ ( it corresponds to the central value of the QCD coupling constant, extracted recently from the next-to-next-to-leading order QCD analysis of the Tevatron data for the $xF_3$ structure function of $\nu N$ deep-inelastic scattering [@KKPS]).
Substituting the above given input data into Eq.(6) and taking into account the numerical values of the related coefficients (see Eqs.(7),(8)) we find the following numerical estimates of the different QED contributions into the factor $\Delta^{QED}$: $$\Delta^{QED}=1.16\times
10^{-3}-7.79\times 10^{-6}-8.86\times 10^{-6} +1.19\times
10^{-4}~~~~~. \eqno(9)$$
Thus the correction of order $O(\overline{\alpha}~\overline{\alpha}_s)$ turn out to be the order of magnitude smaller then the calculated in Ref.[@ChH] four-loop QCD correction $\Delta\Gamma_3\overline{a}_s^3$, which under our assumptions gives the following numerical contribution into $\Gamma(H^0\rightarrow\overline{b}b)/\overline{\Gamma}_{0}^{(b)}$: $+2.16\times10^{-3}$. However, it is important to include selfconsistently the order $O(\overline{\alpha}~\overline{\alpha}_s)$-term into the final expression for $\Gamma(H^0\rightarrow\overline{b}b)$. Indeed, its numerical value turns out to be comparable with the previously calculated in Ref.[@S] term of order $O(\overline{a}_s^2\overline{m}_b^2/M_H^2)$ and with the presented in Ref.[@ChS] corrections of order $O(\overline{a}_s^2M_H^2/m_t^2)$, $O(X_t\overline{a}_s)$ and $O(X_t\overline{a}_s^2)$. Indeed, in the considered by us case these corrections have the following order of magnitude: $-1.15\times10^{-4}$ and $1.24\times 10^{-4}$, $-5.85\times 10^{-4}$, $-1.98\times 10^{-4}$. We hope to include the information about all these corrections into the computer code SEEHIGGS (for the discussions of its present possibilities see the note of Ref. [@KK3]).
We are grateful to V.T. Kim for the pleasant collaboration, which was started in 1992 during our simultaneous stay at CERN.
This work was done within the framework of the scientific program of the Projects N 96-01-01860; N 96-02-18897, supported by the Russian Foundation of the Fundamental Research.
[99]{} B.A. Kniehl, [*Phys. Rep.*]{} [**240**]{} (1994) 211;\
M. Spira, preprint CERN-TH/97-68 (hep-ph/9705337).
E. Braaten and J.P. Leveille, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D22**]{} (1980) 715;\
N. Sakai, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D22**]{} (1980) 2220;\
T. Inami and T. Kubota, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B179**]{} (1981) 171;\
S.G. Gorishny, A.L. Kataev and S.A. Larin, [*Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**40**]{} (1984) 329.
S.G. Gorishny, A.L. Kataev, S.A. Larin and L.R. Surguladze, [*Mod. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**A5**]{} (1990) 2703; [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D43**]{} (1991) 1633.
A.L. Kataev and V.T. Kim, Report ENSLAPP-A-407/92 (1992) (hep-ph/930482).
A.L. Kataev and V.T. Kim, [*Mod. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**A9**]{} (1994) 1309. L.R. Surguladze, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B341**]{} (1994) 60. K.G. Chetyrkin and A. Kwiatkowski, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B461**]{} (1996) 3. S.A. Larin, T. van Ritbergen and J.A.M. Vermaseren, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B362**]{} (1995) 134. K.G. Chetyrkin, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B390**]{} (1997) 390. K.G. Chetyrkin, B.A. Kniehl and M. Steinhauser, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**78**]{} (1997) 594. K.G. Chetyrkin and M. Steinhauser, preprint MPI/PhT/97-032 (hep-ph/9706462) D.Yu. Bardin, B.M. Vilensky and P. Khristov, [*Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**53**]{} (1991) 152;\
B.A. Kniehl, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B376**]{} (1992) 3;\
A. Dabelstein and W. Hollik, [*Z. Phys.*]{} [**C53**]{} (1992) 507.
A.L. Kataev, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B287**]{} (1992) 209.
L.R. Surguladze and F.V. Tkachov, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B331**]{} (1990) 35.
R.B. Nevzorov, A.V. Novikov and M.I. Vysotskii, [*JETP Lett.*]{} [**60**]{} (1994) 399;\
B.V. Geshkenbein and V.L. Morgunov, [*Phys.Lett.*]{} [**B340**]{} (1994) 185;\
N.V. Krasnikov, [*Mod. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**A9**]{} (1994) 2825.
G. Rodrigo, A. Santamaria and M. Bilenkii, [*Phys.Rev.Lett.*]{} [**79**]{} (1997) 193.
A.L. Kataev, A.V. Kotikov, G. Parente and A.V. Sidorov, preprint INR-947/97; JINR E2-97-194; US-FT/20-97 (hep-ph/9706534).
A.L. Kataev and V.T. Kim, preprint INR-918/96 (hep-ph/9603246); published in PNPI Research Report of 1994-1995; St. Petersburg, 1996.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
bibliography:
- 'largeN.bib'
title: 'Anomalous dimensions of scalar operators in QED$_3$'
---
Introduction and summary {#INTRO}
========================
Quantum electrodynamics in 2+1 dimensions (QED$_3$) with $N$ (two-component complex) charged fermions can be shown to flow to an interacting CFT perturbatively in the $1/N$ expansion [@Appelquist:1988sr; @Nash:1989xx]. In this CFT, there are many quantities that have been computed to various orders in $1/N$. Examples include: the scaling dimensions of the lowest $SU(N)$ singlet scalars [@Gracey:1993iu; @Gracey:1993sn; @Rantner:2002zz; @2008PhRvB..78e4432X], adjoints [@Hermele05; @Kaul:2008xw], and a couple of other scalar operators [@2008PhRvB..78e4432X]; the scaling dimensions of monopole operators [@Borokhov:2002ib; @Pufu:2013vpa; @Dyer:2013fja]; the two-point functions of the canonically-normalized stress-energy tensor and of the conserved currents [@Huh:2013vga; @Huh:2014eea; @Giombi:2016fct]; the $S^3$ free energy [@Klebanov:2011td]; as well as various finite temperature quantities [@Kaul:2008xw].[^1] Our goal here is to add to this list the scaling dimensions of many more operators: For each $SU(N)$ irreducible representation with two columns of fixed lengths, we identify the $3$ lowest-lying scalar operators with zero monopole charge, and we compute their scaling dimensions to order $1/N$.
Our interest in the scaling dimensions of scalar operators transforming in non-trivial representations of $SU(N)$ comes in part from the recent conformal bootstrap study [@Chester:2016wrc] of QED$_3$. This study focused on unitarity and crossing symmetry constraints on the four-point function of monopole operators carrying a single unit of topological charge. The OPE of such a monopole operator and its conjugate contains operators transforming under the flavor $SU(N)$ as precisely the irreps considered in this paper, namely two-column irreps of the form [$$\label{OPEreps} \begin{split}
SU(N) \text{ irreps: } \qquad N-n \left\{ \rule{0pt}{1.65cm} \right. \begin{ytableau}
{}& {} \\
{} & {} \\
\none[\vdots] & \none[\vdots] \\
{} & {} \\
{} \\
\none[\vdots]\\
{}
\end{ytableau}\raisebox{.62cm}{$\left. \rule{0pt}{.95cm} \right\}n$} = \left(1^{N-2n},2^n\right) \,,\qquad n=0\,,1\,,\dots\,,N/2\,,
\end{split}$$]{} where $\left(\lambda_1^{\nu_1},\lambda_2^{\nu_2},\dots\right)$ denotes a Young tableau with $\nu_i$ rows of length $\lambda_i$, and the $n=1$ case is the adjoint. In tensor notation, the irrep can be represented as a traceless tensor with $n$ antisymmetric fundamental indices and $n$ antisymmetric anti-fundamental indices. While the bootstrap study [@Chester:2016wrc] only examined relatively small values of $N$ (namely $N=2, 4$, and $6$), future studies may be able to access larger values of $N$, and in order to assess their accuracy, one would benefit from more large $N$ analytical approximations than those currently available in the literature. We thus develop the large $N$ expansion for the scaling dimensions of scalar operators transforming as under $SU(N)$. Of course, such large $N$ expansions could also be useful independently of the conformal bootstrap program, for instance if one engineers a new material that exhibits critical behavior described by QED$_3$ with a sufficiently large number of flavors.
An additional motivation exists for computing the scaling dimensions of lowest-lying parity even $SU(N)$ singlet operators. As we explain below, the lowest such operator has scaling dimension approximately equal to 4 at $N = \infty$, with negative $1/N$ corrections. If this operator becomes relevant at some finite value of $N$, it may completely change the IR physics if no tuning is performed. It is conceivable that for $N \leq N_\text{crit}$, the deep IR corresponds to a chiral symmetry breaking phase and that $N_\text{crit}$ can be estimated from when the scaling dimension of the lowest lying $SU(N)$ singlet approaches $3$ [@DiPietro:2015taa; @2008PhRvB..78e4432X; @Giombi:2015haa]. Computing this scaling dimensions as a function of $N$ would allow us to estimate $N_\text{crit}$.
Let us present a summary of our results. For any $n\geq 0$, for which the $SU(N)$ irrep is given by , we denote the lowest dimension operator by ${\cal O}_{n}$. As we show in Section \[numOps\], $SU(N)$ group theory requires that for $n>0$, ${\cal O}_{n}$ must be constructed from a product of precisely $n$ distinct fermions anti-symmetrized in their $SU(N)$ indices and symmetrized in their spinor indices and a product of $n$ distinct anti-fermions with the same property. Furthermore, only a single operator can be built in this way, namely[^2] [$$\label{kOpMain} \begin{split}
({{\cal O}}_n)^{i_1\ldots i_n}{}_{i_{n+1} \ldots i_{2n}}=&\psi^{[i_1}_{(\alpha_{1}}\dots\psi^{i_n]}_{\alpha_{n)}}\bar\psi_{[i_{n+1}}^{(\alpha_{1}}\dots\bar\psi_{i_{2n}]}^{\alpha_{n})} - \text{($SU(N)$ traces)}
\end{split}$$]{} where $\alpha_m = 1, 2$ are Lorentz spinor indices and $i_m = 1, \ldots, N$ are flavor indices—see Section \[review\] for our conventions. This operator is parity even (odd) depending on whether $n$ is even (odd). We provide a formula for the scaling dimension $\Delta_n$ of this operator to order $1/N$ in Eq. for all $n>0$. This formula is rather complicated, so we record the scaling dimensions here only for the first several cases:[^3] [$$\label{246} \begin{split}
&\Delta_1=2-\frac{64}{3\pi^2N}+O(1/N^2)\,, \qquad
\Delta_2=4-\frac{64}{\pi^2N}+O(1/N^2) \,, \\
&\Delta_3=6-\frac{128}{\pi^2N}+O(1/N^2) \,,
\qquad \Delta_4=8-\frac{640}{3\pi^2N}+O(1/N^2) \,, \\
& \text{etc.}
\end{split}$$]{}
Next, we consider the lowest dimension operator in the same $SU(N)$ irrep as ${{\cal O}}_n$ but with opposite parity. For that purpose, we must consider an operator constructed with one more $\psi$ and $\bar\psi$ each than ${{\cal O}}_n$. As we will show, for $0<2n<N$ there are two linearly independent such operators, which can be taken to be[^4] [$$\label{kOp2Main} \begin{split}
( {{\cal O}}_n')^{i_1\ldots i_n}{}_{i_{n+1} \ldots i_{2n}} &=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{k=2n+1}^N\psi^{[i_1}_{(\alpha_{1}}\dots\psi^{i_n}_{\alpha_{n}}\psi^{k]}_{\alpha_{n+1)}}\bar\psi_{[i_{n+1}}^{(\alpha_{1}}\dots\bar\psi_{i_{2n}}^{\alpha_{n}}\bar\psi_{k]}^{\alpha_{n+1})}-\text{($SU(N)$ traces)}\,,\\
( {{\cal O}}_n'')^{i_1\ldots i_n}{}_{i_{n+1} \ldots i_{2n}} &=({{\cal O}}_n)^{i_1\ldots i_n}{}_{i_{n+1} \ldots i_{2n}} \frac{\bar\psi_i^\alpha \psi^i_\alpha }{\sqrt{N}}\,.
\end{split}$$]{} By considering the mixing of these two operators , we calculate the scaling dimensions $\Delta_{n,\pm}'$ to order $1/N$ for all $n>0$. Since the final expression (Eq. ) is rather complicated, we will only record here the scaling dimensions for the first several cases: [$$\label{2462} \begin{split}
&\Delta_{1,\pm}'=4+\frac{8\left(25\pm\sqrt{2317}\right)}{3\pi^2N}+O(1/N^2)\,,
\qquad\Delta_{2,\pm}'=6+\frac{32\pm160}{\pi^2N}+O(1/N^2)\,,\\
&\Delta_{3,\pm}'=8+\frac{4\left(-21\pm\sqrt{19189}\right)}{3\pi^2N}+O(1/N^2)\,,\qquad\Delta_{4,\pm}'=10+\frac{64\left(-26\pm\sqrt{2362}\right)}{15\pi^2N}+O(1/N^2)\,,\\
&\text{etc.}
\end{split}$$]{}
Lastly, the case $n=0$ ($SU(N)$ singlet) requires special treatment. The lowest dimension parity odd $SU(N)$ singlet is ${{\cal O}}_0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\bar\psi_i^\alpha \psi^i_\alpha$. Its scaling dimension is [@Rantner:2002zz] [$$\label{DeltaSinglet} \begin{split}
\Delta_{0} = 2 + \frac{128}{3 \pi^2 N} + O(1/N^2) \,.
\end{split}$$]{} The two lowest dimension parity even operators are mixtures of the operators $\left(\bar\psi_i\psi^i\right)\left(\bar\psi_j\psi^j\right)$ and $F_{\mu\nu} F^{\mu\nu}$. We find that the scaling dimensions are [$$\label{ScalingSinglet} \begin{split}
\Delta'_{0,\pm} =4 + \frac{64 (2 \pm \sqrt{7} ) }{3 \pi^2} \frac 1N + O(1/N^2) \,.
\end{split}$$]{} This result agrees with that of Ref. [@2008PhRvB..78e4432X] that was obtained through a different method.[^5] Extrapolating to finite $N$, one finds that all parity-even $SU(N)$ singlets are irrelevant for all values of $N>1$. This result might suggest that the interacting CFT obtained in the $1/N$ expansion extends to all values of $N>1$, in agreement with the recent lattice simulations of [@Karthik:2015sgq].[^6] It is worth mentioning that the scaling dimension of the four-fermion parity-even singlet was also estimated from the $4-\epsilon$ expansion in [@DiPietro:2015taa], where it was found that this operator is irrelevant only for $N>2$ [@DiPietro:2015taa]. It would be interesting to understand how the mixing between the four-fermion operator and $F_{\mu\nu}^2$ studied here affects the $4-\epsilon$ expansion estimates.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section \[review\], we set up our conventions and Feynman rules for QED$_3$. Sections \[kferm\] and \[4singlet\] contain the bulk of our computations.
Setup and conventions {#review}
=====================
Before we delve in the computations of the various scaling dimensions mentioned above, let us describe our conventions and the setup of our computation. The Euclidean signature Lagrangian of QED$_3$ with $N$ fermion flavors is [$$\label{LEuc} \begin{split}
{\cal L} = \frac{1}{4e^2} F_{\mu\nu} F^{\mu\nu} - \bar \psi_i \gamma^\mu (\partial_\mu + i A_\mu) \psi^i \,,
\end{split}$$]{} where $e$ is the gauge coupling. The gamma matrices obey the Clifford algebra $\{\gamma^\mu, \gamma^\nu\} = 2 \delta^{\mu\nu} I$ and can be taken to be equal to the Pauli matrices $\gamma^\mu = \sigma_\mu$, for $\mu = 1, 2, 3$. We choose to write fundamental spinor indices as lower and fundamental $SU(N)$ indices as upper, as in $\psi^i_\alpha$, with $i=1, \ldots, N$ and $\alpha = 1, 2$. Anti-fundamental indices have the opposite index placement, as in $\bar \psi_i^\alpha$. In the following we try to avoid as much as possible writing down explicit spinor indices, but we do write down the $SU(N)$ flavor indices explicitly. Repeated indices are always summed over.
As will become clear shortly, the gauge coupling $e$ drops out of all computations in the IR CFT. Therefore, one can think of the fermions in as carrying any gauge charge, and not necessarily the smallest unit of charge allowed by the $U(1)$ gauge symmetry. The results of this paper are thus independent of the gauge charge of the fermions.
Derivation of Feynman rules
---------------------------
### Feynman rules with standard gauge fixing
A slightly cumbersome but natural option is to work with the Feynman rules derived directly from the Lagrangian supplemented by the standard gauge fixing term [$$\label{GaugeFixing} \begin{split}
{\cal L}_\text{gauge fixing} = -\frac {1}{2e^2} \frac 1{\xi} (\partial_\mu A^\mu)^2 \,.
\end{split}$$]{} In momentum space, the fermion propagator $G(p)$ and the gauge field propagator $D_{\mu\nu} (p)$ are [$$\label{GFerm} \begin{split}
G(p) = \frac{i \gamma_\mu p^\mu}{p^2} \,, \qquad
D_{\mu\nu}^\text{Max} (p) = \frac{e^2}{p^2} \left(\delta_{\mu\nu} - (\xi + 1) \frac{p_\mu p_\nu}{p^2} \right) \,.
\end{split}$$]{}
The gauge-fermion vertex factor is simply $i \gamma^\mu$. See Figure \[FeynmanMaxwell\]. Computing diagrams using these rules is then straightforward. The IR CFT behavior can be extracted by taking the limit of small external momenta. This limit is equivalent to taking $e^2 \to \infty$ in all correlation functions because by dimensional analysis $e^2$ always appears as $e^2/{\left\lvert p \right\rvert}$, where $p$ is one of the external momenta.
Using the Feynman rules in Figure \[FeynmanMaxwell\] is cumbersome for two reasons. The first reason is that at the CFT fixed point the Maxwell term is irrelevant, so there should be a way of performing the computation such that $e^2$ never appears and no limit needs to be taken at the end. In other words, there should be a way of performing the computation where the $e^2 \to \infty$ limit is taken from the very beginning. The second reason is that at each order in $1/N$ there is an infinite number of fermion bubble diagrams that always get resummed in the same way, so one should resum them once and for all.
Let us address the second concern first. In order to avoid resumming the same bubble diagrams every time, one can define an effective gauge field propagator obtained after the resummation. See Figure \[EffectivePropag\]. In order to obtain an explicit expression for the effective gauge propagator, it is convenient to work with the position-space fermion Green’s function obtained by Fourier transforming : [$$\label{psiTwoPoint} \begin{split}
\langle \psi^{i}(x) \bar \psi_{j}(y) \rangle_\infty
= \delta^i_j\, G(x, y) \,, \qquad
G(x, y) = \int \frac{d^3 p}{(2 \pi)^3} G(p) e^{-i p \cdot (x - y)} = \frac{ \gamma_\mu (x^\mu - y^\mu)}{4 \pi {\left\lvert x-y \right\rvert}^3} \,.
\end{split}$$]{} Each fermion bubble is nothing but the two-point function of the gauge current $j^\mu = \bar \psi_i \gamma^\mu \psi^i$; in position space, it is [$$\label{GotPiPhi} \begin{split}
\Pi^{\mu\nu}(x, y) &= \langle j^\mu(x) j^\nu(y) \rangle_\infty = - \frac{N}{8 \pi^2 {\left\lvert x \right\rvert}^6} \left( \delta^{\mu\nu} x^2 - 2 x^\mu x^\nu \right) \,,
\end{split}$$]{} as follows from performing the required Wick contraction and using . Passing to momentum space, one has [$$\label{PiMom} \begin{split}
\Pi^{\mu\nu}(x, y) = \int \frac{d^3p}{(2 \pi)^3} \Pi^{\mu\nu} (p) e^{-i p \cdot (x - y)} \,, \qquad \Pi^{\mu\nu}(p)= \frac{N {\left\lvert p \right\rvert}}{16} \left(\delta^{\mu\nu} - \frac{p^\mu p^\nu}{p^2} \right) \,,
\end{split}$$]{} as follows from the formulas given in . As defined above, the effective gauge field propagator is just the sum of the fermion bubbles and takes the form of a geometric series: [$$\label{DEff} \begin{split}
D^\text{eff}_{\mu\nu}(p) &= D_{\mu\nu}^\text{Max}(p) - D_{\mu\rho}^\text{Max}(p) \Pi^{\rho\sigma}(p) D_{\sigma\nu}^\text{Max}(p) + \ldots \\
&= - \frac{\xi e^2 p_\mu p_\nu}{p^4} + \frac{16}{N {\left\lvert p \right\rvert}} \left( \delta_{\mu\nu} - \frac{p_\mu p_\nu}{p^2} \right) + O(p^2/e^2) \,.
\end{split}$$]{} One can thus replace the gauge propagator with in order to not have to resum the bubble diagrams every time, and otherwise compute Feynman diagrams as usual.
### Feynman rules with non-standard gauge fixing
As already mentioned, it would be nice to have a way of performing computations at the CFT fixed point without having to carry around $e^2$ and to take the limit $e^2 \to \infty$ at the end of the computation. Unfortunately, the Maxwell propagator and the effective propagator do not generally have finite limits as $e^2 \to \infty$, so this limit cannot in general be taken at the beginning of the computation.
An exception occurs in the gauge $\xi = 0$, where the effective gauge propagator does have a finite limit as $e^2 \to \infty$ and one can indeed take $e^2 \to \infty$ from the beginning. As we now show, it is also possible to modify the gauge fixing term so as to have a one-parameter family of gauge-fixing terms, not just that for $\xi = 0$, for which one can take $e^2 \to \infty$ from the beginning.
Instead of , one can consider the non-local gauge-fixing term [$$\label{GaugeFixingAgain} \begin{split}
\tilde {\cal S}_\text{gauge fixing} = \frac{N}{32(\zeta-1)} \int d^3x \, \int d^3 y\, \frac{\partial_\mu A^\mu(x) \partial_\nu A^\nu(y)}{2 \pi^2 {\left\lvert x - y \right\rvert}^2}
= \frac{N}{32 (\zeta-1)} \int \frac{d^3 p}{(2 \pi)^3} \frac{p_\mu p_\nu A^\mu(p) A^\nu(-p)}{{\left\lvert p \right\rvert}}
\end{split}$$]{} where $\zeta$ is a gauge-fixing parameter. Using instead of , the Maxwell gauge field propagator in gets replaced by [$$\label{GaugePropTilde} \begin{split}
\tilde D_{\mu\nu}^\text{Max}(p) = \frac{e^2}{p^2} \left(\delta_{\mu\nu} - \frac{p_\mu p_\nu}{p^2} \right)
+ \frac{16(\zeta-1) }{N} \frac{p_\mu p_\nu}{{\left\lvert p \right\rvert}} + O(p^2/e^2)\,,
\end{split}$$]{} and the effective gauge propagator in gets replaced by [$$\label{GaugePropEffTilde} \begin{split}
\tilde D_{\mu\nu}^\text{eff} (p) = \frac{16}{N {\left\lvert p \right\rvert}} \left( \delta^{\mu\nu} - \zeta \frac{p^\mu p^\nu}{p^2} \right) + O(p^2/e^2) \,.
\end{split}$$]{} As advertised, this expression has a finite limit as $e^2 \to \infty$ for any $\zeta$. Gauge invariant observables should of course be independent of $\zeta$.
Summary of Feynman rules
------------------------
To summarize, the momentum and position space Feynman rules we will work with are: [$$\label{Summary} \begin{split}
G(p) &= \frac{i \gamma_\mu p^\mu}{p^2}\,, \qquad D_{\mu\nu} (p) = \frac{16}{N {\left\lvert p \right\rvert}} \left( \delta_{\mu\nu} - \zeta \frac{p_\mu p_\nu}{p^2} \right) \,, \\
G(x_1, x_2) &= \frac{ \gamma_\mu x_{12}^\mu }{4 \pi {\left\lvert x_{12} \right\rvert}^3} \,, \qquad
D^{\mu\nu}(x_1, x_2) = \frac{8}{\pi^2 N {\left\lvert x_{12} \right\rvert}^2} \left[ (1 - \zeta) \delta^{\mu\nu} + 2 \zeta \frac{x_{12}^\mu x_{12}^\nu }{{\left\lvert x_{12} \right\rvert}^2} \right] \,,
\end{split}$$]{} where $x_{12} \equiv x_1 - x_2$ and the position space expression for $D_{\mu\nu}$ is derived in . The vertex factor is $i \gamma^\mu$. See Figure \[fig:feynman\].
In working with the effective gauge field propagator $D^{\mu\nu}$ one should keep in mind that this propagator stands for the sum of the bubble diagrams in Figure \[EffectivePropag\], so one should not count the same Feynman diagram multiple times. In particular, one should not consider any effective gauge propagators renormalized by fermion bubbles, for instance as on the RHS of Figure \[EffectivePropag\] if the dotted lines were replaced by wavy lines.
General strategy for anomalous dimension computation {#GENERALANOMALOUS}
----------------------------------------------------
In this paper, we compute anomalous dimensions from the matrix of two point functions in $1/N$ perturbation theory. Suppose that there are $r$ operators ${\cal O}_a$, $a = 1, \ldots, r$ that have the same quantum numbers and scaling dimension $\Delta^{(0)}$ at leading order in $N$. The matrix of two-point functions has a large $N$ expansion of the form [$$\label{TwoPointGeneral} \begin{split}
{\cal M}_{ab}(x) \equiv \langle {\cal O}_a(x) \bar {\cal O}_b(0) \rangle
= {\cal M}_{ab}^{(0)}(x) + {\cal M}_{ab}^{(1)}(x) \frac{1}{N} + \ldots \,.
\end{split}$$]{} We expect the following $x$ dependence of the first two coefficients: [$$\label{DefineM} \begin{split}
{\cal M}_{ab}^{(0)}(x) = \frac{{\bf N}_{ab}}{{\left\lvert x \right\rvert}^{2 \Delta^{(0)}}} \,, \qquad
{\cal M}_{ab}^{(1)}(x) = \frac{1}{ {\left\lvert x \right\rvert}^{2 \Delta^{(0)}}} \left[- {\bf M}_{ab}\log ({\left\lvert x \right\rvert}^2 \Lambda^2) + O({\left\lvert x \right\rvert}^0) \right] \,.
\end{split}$$]{} This expression serves as a definition of the $r\times r$ matrices ${\bf N}$ and ${\bf M}$. Here, $\Lambda$ is the UV cutoff, which is required in order to make the argument of the logarithm dimenisonless. At order $1/N$ the anomalous dimensions are the eigenvalues $\Delta^{(1)}_a$ of the matrix [$$\label{gammaDef} \begin{split}
\Delta^{(1)} = {\bf N}^{-1} {\bf M}
\end{split}$$]{} (see for instance [@Constable:2002vq]). The total scaling dimensions are thus [$$\label{TotalScaling} \begin{split}
\Delta_a = \Delta^{(0)} + \Delta^{(1)}_a \frac 1N + O(1/N^2) \,.
\end{split}$$]{} In the examples below, we compute the matrices ${\bf N}$ and ${\bf M}$ and use this procedure to extract $\Delta_a$.
Previous results
----------------
In the following we will use the previously computed results for the leading $1/N$ corrections to the scaling dimensions of the fermion field $\psi$ and that of the 2-fermion singlet ${{\cal O}}_0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\bar\psi_i\psi^i$ [@Hermele05; @Rantner:2002zz].
### Correction to fermion propagator
Because the gauge fixing term is conformally invariant, the two point function of $\psi$ has powerlaw decay for any $\zeta$. However, the corresponding scaling dimension $\Delta_\psi$ will depend on $\zeta$ and does not have to obey the unitarity bound for a spin-$1/2$ operator. We have [$$\label{FermCorrel} \begin{split}
\langle \psi(x_1) \bar \psi(x_2) \rangle \propto \frac{ \gamma_\mu x_{12}^\mu}{4 \pi {\left\lvert x_{12} \right\rvert}^{1 + 2 \Delta_\psi}} \,.
\end{split}$$]{} Expanding in $1/N$, we have $\Delta_\psi = 1 + \Delta_\psi^{(1)} \frac 1N + O(N^{-2}) $ and [$$\label{FermCorrelExpansion} \begin{split}
\langle \psi(x_1) \bar \psi(x_2) \rangle = G(x_1, x_2) \left[ 1 + \left(- \Delta_\psi^{(1)} \log (x^2 \Lambda^2) + O({\left\lvert x \right\rvert}^0) \right) \frac 1N + O(N^{-2}) \right] \,.
\end{split}$$]{}
The correction coefficient $\Delta_\psi^{(1)}$ can be found from the diagram in Figure \[FermProp\]. It is found to be [@Rantner:2002zz] [$$\label{DeltaPsi} \begin{split}
\Delta_\psi^{(1)} = \frac{4}{\pi^2} \left( \frac 13 - \zeta \right) \,.
\end{split}$$]{}
### $2$-fermion singlet {#SINGLET}
The dimension of ${{\cal O}}_0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\bar\psi_i\psi^i$ is [@Rantner:2002zz] [$$\label{Delta0Large} \begin{split}
\Delta_0 = 2 + \Delta_0^{(1)} \frac 1N + O(N^{-2}) \,, \qquad \Delta_0^{(1)} = \frac{128}{3\pi^2} \,.
\end{split}$$]{} We exhibit the diagrams that were used in evaluating $\Delta_0^{(1)}$ in Figure \[Delta0Diagrams\].
### $2$-fermion adjoint {#TWOADJOINT}
Similarly, the dimension of the 2-fermion adjoint ${{\cal O}}_1=\bar\psi_i\psi^j - \frac 1N \delta^j_i \bar\psi_k\psi^k$ is [@Hermele05] [$$\label{Delta1Large} \begin{split}
\Delta_1 = 2 + \Delta_1^{(1)} \frac 1N + O(N^{-2}) \,, \qquad \Delta_1^{(1)} = -\frac{64}{3\pi^2} \,.
\end{split}$$]{} The diagrams that contribute to $\Delta_0^{(1)}$ are the same as those in Figure \[Delta0Diagrams\] except for the last two.
Operators in representation $\left(1^{N-2n},2^{n}\right)$ {#kferm}
=========================================================
In this section we consider the three lowest-lying scalar operators transforming in the irrep $(1^{N-2n}, 2^n)$ of $SU(N)$, with $n>0$. For a Young diagram representation, see Eq. . In the case $n=1$, the lowest-lying operator is the 2-fermion adjoint discussed in Section \[TWOADJOINT\].
Number of operators {#numOps}
-------------------
The scalar operators in $\left(1^{N-2n},2^{n}\right)$, being gauge invariant, must be constructed from an equal number of $\psi$’s and $\bar \psi$’s. Let us count how many linearly independent operators we can construct out of $m$ $\psi$’s and $m$ $\bar \psi$’s and determine the smallest value of $m$ that is necessary in order to be able to construct at least one such operator.
$$\mbox{\Large $m$ } \left\{ \rule{0pt}{2.4cm} \right. \begin{ytableau}
{} \\
{} \\
{}\\
\none[\vdots] \\
{} \\
{}\\
{}\\
\end{ytableau}=\mbox{\Huge$\sum\limits_{\mbox{\large$j=\left\{ \frac m2\right\}$}}^{ \mbox{\large$\frac m2$}}$}\left(
\overbrace{\begin{ytableau}
{} &{} &{}&\none[\hdots] & {}\\
\end{ytableau}}^{\mbox{\Large$2j$}} \,\,\mbox{\Large$,$}\, \, \mbox{\Large$\frac m2+j$} \left\{ \rule{0pt}{2.4cm} \right. \begin{ytableau}
{}& {} \\
{} & {} \\
\none[\vdots] & \none[\vdots] \\
{} & {} \\
{} \\
\none[\vdots]\\
{}
\end{ytableau}\raisebox{1cm}{$\left. \rule{0pt}{1.45cm} \right\} \mbox{\Large$\frac m2-j$}$} \right)$$\
$$\mbox{\large$SU(2N)\qquad\qquad\qquad SU(2)\qquad\qquad \qquad \qquad SU(N) \quad$}$$
\[tab\]
Let us consider the $m$ $\psi$’s and the $m$ $\bar\psi$’s separately at first. The $\psi$’s transform as fundamentals both under the flavor group $SU(N)$ and the space-time group $SU(2)$. Since there are $2N$ such $\psi$’s, we can formally combine them in a fundamental vector of a larger group $SU(2N)$, which is not a symmetry group of the theory but nevertheless a convenient bookkeeping device. In terms of the product group $SU(2N)$, the product of $m$ $\psi$’s, denoted $[\psi]^m$, transforms as $\left(1^{m}\right)$ because the $\psi$’s are all anti-commuting. The representation $\left(1^{m}\right)$ of $SU(2N)$ decomposes under $SU(2)\times SU(N)$ as [$$\label{decomp} \begin{split}
[\psi]^m:\quad\left(1^{m}\right)\to\bigoplus_{j=\{m/2\}}^{m/2}\left((2j), \left(1^{2j},2^{m/2-j}\right) \right) \,,
\end{split}$$]{} where $\{x\}$ denotes the fractional part of $x$ and $(2j)$ denotes the spin-$j$ irrep of $SU(2)$. See Figure \[DECOMP\]. The product $[\bar \psi]^m$ transforms in the representation conjugate to : [$$\label{decompConj} \begin{split}
[\bar \psi]^m:\quad\left(1^{m}\right)\to\bigoplus_{j=\{m/2\}}^{m/2}\left((2j), \overline{\left(1^{2j},2^{m/2-j}\right)} \right) \,.
\end{split}$$]{}
The product $[\psi]^m \times [\bar\psi]^m$ transforms in a reducible representation of $SU(2) \times SU(N)$ that can be obtained by simply multiplying and . It contains operators with spin ranging from $0$ to $m$. The spin-0 operators appear only when multiplying a spin $j$ irrep in with a spin $j$ irrep in , and so they transform under $SU(N)$ as [$$\label{singlets} \begin{split}
\left[[\psi]^m\times[\bar\psi]^m\right]_{\text{$SU(2)$ singlets}}=\bigoplus_{j=\{m/2\}}^{m/2}\left[\left(1^{2j},2^{m/2-j}\right) \otimes \overline{\left(1^{2j},2^{m/2-j}\right)}\right]\,.
\end{split}$$]{}
Each term in the sum can be further decomposed as a sum of irreducible representations of $SU(N)$. Performing this decomposition is a straightforward group theory exercise, and one can then count how many times the irrep $\left(1^{N-2n},2^{n}\right)$ we are interested in appears in this decomposition. The result is that if $m<n$, the irrep $\left(1^{N-2n},2^{n}\right)$ does not appear at all: we need at least $n$ $\psi$’s and $n$ $\bar \psi$’s in order to construct an operator transforming in $\left(1^{N-2n},2^{n}\right)$. If $m=n$, the irrep $\left(1^{N-2n},2^{n}\right)$ appears in the decomposition of only once, and it comes from the term $j=n/2$; the corresponding operator can be written explicitly as [$$\label{kOp} \begin{split}
({{\cal O}}_n)^{i_1\ldots i_n}{}_{i_{n+1} \ldots i_{2n}} = \psi^{[i_1}_{(\alpha_{1}}\dots\psi^{i_n]}_{\alpha_{n)}}\bar\psi_{[i_{n+1}}^{(\alpha_{1}}\dots\bar\psi_{i_{2n}]}^{\alpha_{n})} - \text{($SU(N)$ traces)} \,,
\end{split}$$]{} where we symmetrize and anti-symmetrized with unit weight, and the traces are over $SU(N)$ indices. This operator is non-zero only for $2n \leq N$. When $m=n+1$, the irrep $\left(1^{N-2n},2^{n}\right)$ appears in twice, once coming from $j=m/2$ and once form $j=m/2 - 1$. The corresponding linearly independent operators can be taken to be [$$\label{kOp2} \begin{split}
({{\cal O}}_n')^{i_1\ldots i_n}{}_{i_{n+1} \ldots i_{2n}} &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{k=1}^N\psi^{[i_1}_{(\alpha_{1}}\dots\psi^{i_n}_{\alpha_{n}}\psi^{k]}_{\alpha_{n+1)}}\bar\psi_{[i_{n+1}}^{(\alpha_{1}}\dots\bar\psi_{i_{2n}}^{\alpha_{n}}\bar\psi_{k]}^{\alpha_{n+1})}- \text{($SU(N)$ traces)}\,,\\
({{\cal O}}_n'')^{i_1\ldots i_n}{}_{i_{n+1} \ldots i_{2n}} &= \frac{\left(\bar\psi_i\psi^i\right)}{\sqrt{N}} ({{\cal O}}_n)^{i_1\ldots i_n}{}_{i_{n+1} \ldots i_{2n}} \,,
\end{split}$$]{} where ${\cal O}_n'$ corresponds to $j=m/2$ and ${\cal O}_n''$ is a linear combination of an operator from $j=m/2-1$ and $j=m/2$ that is easy to write down. Note that ${\cal O}_n'$ is non-zero only if $2n<N$ and ${\cal O}_n''$ is non-zero only for $2n \leq N$. It is straightforward to use the same method to also count the multiplicity of the irrep $\left(1^{N-2n},2^{n}\right)$ when $m \geq n+2$, but we will not be concerned with those cases here.
Scaling dimension of ${\cal O}_n$ {#scalDim}
---------------------------------
We consider a particular operator representing by taking $i_k = k$: [$$\label{NOpDef} \begin{split}
{{\cal O}}^{}_n = \psi^{[1}_{(\alpha_1}\dots\psi^{n]}_{\alpha_n)}\bar\psi_{[n+1}^{(\alpha_1}\dots\bar\psi_{2n]}^{\alpha_n)} \,,
\end{split}$$]{} where the trace term in does not contribute because all the $i_k$ are distinct. This operator can be rewritten as [$$\label{NOp} \begin{split}
{{\cal O}}^{}_n =
(-1)^{\frac{n(n+1)}{2}}\frac{1}{n!}\sum_{\sigma\in S_n}\text{sig}(\sigma) {{\cal O}}_n^{(\sigma)}(x)\,,
\qquad
{{\cal O}}_n^{(\sigma)}\equiv \bar\psi_{n+1}\psi^{\sigma(1)}\dots\bar\psi_{2n}\psi^{\sigma(n)} \,,
\end{split}$$]{} where the spinor indices are contracted between adjacent fermions, and $\text{sig}(\sigma)$ is the signature of the permutation $\sigma \in S_n$. The conjugate of ${{\cal O}}_n^{(\sigma)}$ is [$$\label{NOpconj} \begin{split}
\bar{{\cal O}}_n^{(\sigma)}\equiv\bar\psi_{\sigma(1)}\psi^{n+1}\dots\bar\psi_{\sigma(n)}\psi^{2n} \,.
\end{split}$$]{}
We would like to express the two-point function of ${\cal O}_n$ as in Section \[GENERALANOMALOUS\]. Directly from the definition , we can write [$$\label{TwoPointPermTmp} \begin{split}
\langle{{\cal O}}_n(x) \bar{{\cal O}}_n(0)\rangle
= \frac{1}{(n!)^2} \sum_{\sigma', \sigma'' \in S_n}
\text{sig}(\sigma') \text{sig}(\sigma'') \langle {{\cal O}}_n^{(\sigma')}(x) \bar{{\cal O}}_n^{(\sigma'')}(0) \rangle \,.
\end{split}$$]{} For any permutation $\tau \in S_n$, we can perform the relabeling $\psi_i \to \psi_{\tau(i)}$, which shows that $\langle {{\cal O}}_n^{(\sigma')}(x) \bar{{\cal O}}_n^{(\sigma'')}(0) \rangle = \langle {{\cal O}}_n^{(\sigma' \tau)}(x) \bar{{\cal O}}_n^{(\sigma'' \tau)}(0) \rangle$. We can freely apply such a transformation to each term in separately. Taking $\tau = (\sigma')^{-1}$ and denoting $\sigma'' \tau = \sigma$, we see that reduces to [$$\label{TwoPointPerm} \begin{split}
\langle{{\cal O}}_n(x) \bar{{\cal O}}_n(0)\rangle
= \frac{1}{n!} \sum_{\sigma \in S_n}
\text{sig}(\sigma) \langle {{\cal O}}_n^{(I)}(x) \bar{{\cal O}}_n^{(\sigma)}(0) \rangle \,,
\end{split}$$]{} where $I$ is the identity permutation. Noticing that each permutation in a given conjugacy class gives an equal contribution to the two-point function, we can express as a sum over conjugacy classes $C_{n,i}$ of the symmetric group $S_n$: [$$\label{N2p} \begin{split}
\langle{{\cal O}}_n(x) \bar{{\cal O}}_n(0)\rangle = \frac{1}{n!}\sum_{C_{n,i}\in\text{Cl}(S_n)} \text{sig}(C_{n,i})|C_{n,i}|\langle{{\cal O}}_n^{(I)}(x) \bar{{\cal O}}_n^{(C_{n,i})}(0)\rangle \,.
\end{split}$$]{}
Since conjugacy classes of the symmetric group $S_n$ will appear several times in this section, let us briefly review their properties. Conjugacy classes of $S_n$ are in one-to-one correspondence with integer partitions of $n$. Suppose we write such an integer partition corresponding to a conjugacy class $C_{n,i}$ as [$$\label{Partition} \begin{split}
n = \sum_{j=1}^n a_{ij} j \,,
\end{split}$$]{} for some positive integers $a_{ij}$. All permutations in $C_{n,i}$ have $a_{ij}$ cycles of length $j$. In terms of this data, the size and signature of $C_{n,i}$ can be expressed as [$$\label{conjSize} \begin{split}
|C_{n,i}| = \frac{n!}{\prod_{j=1}^n(j)^{a_{ij}}(a_{ij}!)} \,, \qquad
\text{sig}(C_{n,i}) = (-1)^{\sum_{j=1}^n a_{ij} (j-1) } \,.
\end{split}$$]{} See Table \[vals\].
$n$ $i$ partition for $C_{n, i}$ $a_{i}$ ${\left\lvert C_{n, i} \right\rvert}$ $\text{sig}(C_{n, i})$
----- ----- -------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- ------------------------
1 1 1 $\begin{pmatrix} 1 \end{pmatrix}$ 1 1
1 $2$ $\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}$ $1$ $-1$
2 $1+1$ $\begin{pmatrix} 2 & 0 \end{pmatrix}$ $1$ $1$
1 $3$ $\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}$ $2$ $1$
2 $2+1$ $\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 & 1 \end{pmatrix}$ $3$ $-1$
3 $1+1+1$ $\begin{pmatrix} 3 & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}$ $1$ $1$
1 $4$ $\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}$ $6$ $-1$
2 $3+1$ $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix}$ $8$ $1$
3 $2+2$ $\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 2 & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}$ $3$ $1$
4 $2+1+1$ $\begin{pmatrix} 2 & 2 & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}$ $6$ $-1$
5 $1+1+1+1$ $\begin{pmatrix} 4 & 0 & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}$ $1$ $1$
: Conjugacy class data for $n=1\,,2\,,3\,,4$.[]{data-label="vals"}
### Leading order
At leading order at large $N$, we can evaluate $\langle{{\cal O}}_n^{(I)}(x) \bar{{\cal O}}_n^{(C_{n,i})}(0)\rangle$ using Wick contractions with the propagator in . Since each permutation cycle of length $j$ contributes $- \tr \left[G(x, 0) G(0, x) \right]^j$, we have [$$\label{OsOsleading} \begin{split}
\langle{{\cal O}}_n^{(I)}(x) \bar{{\cal O}}_n^{(C_{n,i})}(0)\rangle_{(0)}
&= \prod_{j=1}^n \left( - \tr \left[G(x, 0) G(0,x) \right]^j \right)^{a_{ij}}
= \text{sig}(C_{n,i}) \frac{2^{\sum_{j=1}^n a_{ij}}}{(4\pi)^{2n}|x|^{4n}} \,,
\end{split}$$]{} where we used and the fermion propagator in . Then, using , we find [$$\label{NOpleading} \begin{split}
\langle{{\cal O}}_n(x) \bar{{\cal O}}_n(0)\rangle_{(0)}
=&\frac{1}{n!}\sum_{C_{n,i}\in\text{Cl}(S_n)}|C_{n,i}|\left(\frac{2^{\sum_{j=1}^n a_{ij}}}{(4\pi)^{2n}|x|^{4n}}\right) \,.
\end{split}$$]{} The sum $\sum_{j=1}^n a_{ij}$ gives the number of cycles in conjugacy class $C_{n,i}$. Explicitly, [$$\label{NOpleading246} \begin{split}
\langle{{\cal O}}^{}_1(x) \bar{{\cal O}}^{}_1(0)\rangle_{(0)}=&\frac{1}{8\pi^2|x|^2} \,, \\
\langle{{\cal O}}^{}_2(x) \bar{{\cal O}}^{}_2(0)\rangle_{(0)}=&\frac{1}{2(4\pi)^4|x|^8}\left(4+2\right)=\frac{3}{256\pi^4|x|^8} \,, \\
\langle{{\cal O}}^{}_3(x) \bar{{\cal O}}^{}_3(0)\rangle_{(0)}=&\frac{1}{6(4\pi)^6|x|^{12}}\left(8+12+4\right)=\frac{1}{1024\pi^6|x|^{12}} \,,
\end{split}$$]{} and so on.
### Next-to-leading order {#kfermNext}
For the next order in $1/N$, we should consider diagrams with one photon line. In [$$\label{OOSub} \begin{split}
\langle{{\cal O}}_n^I(x) \bar{{\cal O}}_n^{C_{n,i}(I)}(0)\rangle_{(1)} \,,
\end{split}$$]{} there are several possibilities for where to draw the photon line:
- the photon line can connect a fermion line to itself. Each such diagram gives [$$\label{LegLowest} \begin{split}
\mathbb{L} = \langle{{\cal O}}_n^I(x) \bar{{\cal O}}_n^{C_{n,i}(I)}(0)\rangle_{(0)} \left[-\frac{\Delta_\psi^{(1)}}{N} \log (x^2 \Lambda^2) + O({\left\lvert x \right\rvert}^0) \right] \,.
\end{split}$$]{} There are $2j$ such diagrams for a permutation cycle of length $j$, for a total of $2n$ diagrams. See Figure \[LEGEXAMPLE\] for an example.
- the photon line can connect fermion lines belonging to different cycles of $C_{n,i}$. These diagrams cancel in pairs—See Figure \[CANCEL\].
- the photon line can connect distinct fermion lines of opposite types (one $G(x, 0)$ and one $G(0, x)$) within the same cycle of $C_{n,i}$. See the lefthand diagram in Figure \[OPPOSITE\]. Let this cycle have length $k$. In position space, such a diagram is [$$\label{DiagOpposite} \begin{split}
&{\mathbb{D}_k}(x) =-\left(\frac{(-1)^{k}2^{-1+\sum_ja_{ij}}}{(4\pi)^{2(n-k)}|x|^{4(n-k)}}\right)\text{sig}(C_{n,i}) \int d^3z\, d^3 w\, D_{\mu\nu}(z, w)\\
&\times\tr \left[G(x, z) \gamma^\mu G(z, 0) (G(0, x) G(x, 0))^{k_1} G(0, w) \gamma^\nu G(w, x) (G(x, 0) G(0, x))^{k_2} \right] \,,
\end{split}$$]{}
where the first term in parentheses comes from the cycles without photon lines, and the contribution we exhibited is that coming from the photon line. The number of fermion propagators between those containing photon lines is $k_1$ and $k_2$, with $k_1 + k_2 = k-1$.
- the photon line can connect distinct fermion lines of the same type (either both $G(x, 0)$ or both $G(0, x)$) within in the same cycle of $C_{n,i}$. See the righthand diagram in Figure \[OPPOSITE\]. For instance, if the photon line connects two $G(x, 0)$’s in a cycle of length $k$ we have a contribution equal to [$$\label{DiagSame} \begin{split}
&\mathbb{E}_k(x) = -\left(\frac{(-1)^{k}2^{-1+\sum_ja_{ij}}}{(4\pi)^{2(n-k)}|x|^{4(n-k)}}\right) \text{sig}(C_{n,i}) \int d^3z\, d^3 w\, D_{\mu\nu}(z, w)\\
&\times\tr \left[G(x, z) \gamma^\mu G(z, 0) G(0, x) (G(x, 0) G(0, x))^{k_1} G(x,w) \gamma^\nu G(w, 0) G(0, x) (G(x, 0) G(0, x))^{k_2} \right]
\end{split}$$]{} where again the first term in parentheses comes from the cycles without photon lines, and the contribution we exhibited is that coming from the photon line. Here, $k_1 + k_2 = k-2$.
From $\mathbb{D}_k$ and $\mathbb{E}_k$ we have to extract the logarithmic divergence. While these are very complicated diagrams and their full evaluation would be an onerous task, the extraction of the logarithmic divergence is quite easy, because it comes either from when $z$ and $w$ are both close to $x$ or to $0$. Both limits give the same answer, so we can just take the limit where both $z$ and $w$ are close to $0$ and multiply the answer by $2$. For $\mathbb{D}_k$, Eq. thus becomes [$$\label{DiagOppositeIntermediate} \begin{split}
&{\mathbb{D}_k}(x) \approx - \left(\frac{\text{sig}(C_{n,i}) 2^{\sum_ja_{ij}}}{(4\pi)^{2n}|x|^{4n}}\right)\int d^3z\, d^3 w\, D_{\mu\nu}(z, w)
\tr \left[ \gamma^\mu G(z, 0)G(0, w) \gamma^\nu \right] \,,
\end{split}$$]{} where we used $G(x, 0) G(0, x) = - \frac{1}{(4 \pi)^2 x^4} I$. The position space integral can be written in Fourier space as an integral over a Fourier momentum $q$: [$$\label{DiagOppositeIntermediate2} \begin{split}
\int d^3z\, d^3 w\, D_{\mu\nu}(z, w)
\tr \left[ \gamma^\mu G(z, 0)G(0, w) \gamma^\nu \right] &=\int \frac{d^3q}{(2\pi)^3}\tr\left[\gamma^\mu i\slashed q i\slashed q\gamma^\nu\right]\frac{D_{\mu\nu}(q)}{q^4} \,.
\end{split}$$]{} This expression can be seen to evaluate to $-8 (3 - \zeta) \log \Lambda^2 / (N \pi^2) $ after performing the required gamma matrix algebra and using the gauge field propagator in . Here, $\Lambda$ is the UV cutoff and it must appear inside the logarithm in the combination $\Lambda {\left\lvert x \right\rvert}$. Thus, $\mathbb{D}_k(x)$ evaluates to [$$\label{evenDiag2} \begin{split}
\mathbb{D}_k &= \langle{{\cal O}}_n^I(x) \bar{{\cal O}}_n^{C_{n,i}(I)}(0)\rangle_{(0)} \left[\frac{8}{\pi^2N}(3-\zeta)\log\Lambda^2|x|^2
+ O({\left\lvert x \right\rvert}^0) \right]\,.
\end{split}$$]{}
A similar strategy works for evaluating the logarithmic divergence in $\mathbb{E}_k$. Taking the limits when $z, w$ go to $x$ or $0$, one obtains [$$\label{oddDiagApprox} \begin{split}
\mathbb{E}_k(x)
\approx \left(\frac{\text{sig}(C_{n,i}) 2^{\sum_ja_{ij}}}{(4\pi)^{2n}|x|^{4n}}\right)\int \frac{d^3q}{(2\pi)^3}\tr\left[\gamma^\mu i\slashed q\gamma^\nu i\slashed q\right]\frac{D_{\mu\nu}(q)}{q^4} \,.
\end{split}$$]{} The momentum space integral now gives $8 (1 + \zeta) \log \Lambda^2 / (N \pi^2) $, so in the end [$$\label{oddDiag} \begin{split}
\mathbb{E}_k(x)
= \langle{{\cal O}}_n^I(x) \bar{{\cal O}}_n^{C_{n,i}(I)}(0)\rangle_{(0)} \left[ \frac{8}{\pi^2N}(1+\zeta)\log\Lambda^2|x|^2 + O({\left\lvert x \right\rvert}^0) \right] \,.
\end{split}$$]{}
Due to the various ways of placing the gauge propagator, there are $k^2$ diagrams that give $\mathbb{D}_k$ and $k(k-1)$ diagrams that give $\mathbb{E}_k$. Along with the leg contributions, we have [$$\label{DiagramSum} \begin{split}
\langle{{\cal O}}_n^I(x) \bar{{\cal O}}_n^{C_{n,i}(I)}(0) =
\sum_{k=1}^n a_{ik} \left[ k^2 \mathbb{D}_k(x) + k(k-1) \mathbb{E}_k(x) + 2k \mathbb{L}(x) \right] \,.
\end{split}$$]{} Quite nicely, after plugging in , , and into one obtains an expression independent of $\zeta$: [$$\label{Mdiag} \begin{split}
\langle{{\cal O}}_n^I(x) \bar{{\cal O}}_n^{C_{n,i}(I)}(0)\rangle & = \langle{{\cal O}}_n^I(x) \bar{{\cal O}}_n^{C_{n,i}(I)}(0)\rangle_{(0)}
\left[
\sum_{k=1}^n \frac{32k(3k-1) \log\Lambda^2|x|^2}{3 \pi^2N} + O({\left\lvert x \right\rvert}^0) \right] \,.
\end{split}$$]{} Using and , we can write the ratio between the $1/N$ correction to the two-point function and the leading result as [$$\label{NOpsub} \begin{split}
\frac{\langle{{\cal O}}_n(x) \bar{{\cal O}}_n(0)\rangle_{(1)}}{\langle{{\cal O}}_n(x) \bar{{\cal O}}_n(0)\rangle_{(0)}}
= \frac{32 \sum_{C_{n,i}\in\text{Cl}(S_n)}|C_{n,i}|2^{\sum_ja_{ij}}\sum_{k}a_{ik} k(3k-1)}{3\pi^2N\sum_{C_{n,i}\in\text{Cl}(S_n)}|C_{n,i}|2^{\sum_ja_{ij}}}\log |x|^2\Lambda^2 + O({\left\lvert x \right\rvert}^0) \,.
\end{split}$$]{}
The results of Section \[GENERALANOMALOUS\] then imply that the scaling dimension of ${\cal O}_n$ is [$$\label{NOpFinal} \begin{split}
\Delta^{}_n=2n- \frac{32}{3 \pi^2} \frac{ \sum_{C_{n,i}\in\text{Cl}(S_n)}|C_{n,i}|2^{\sum_ja_{ij}}\sum_{k}a_{ik} k(3k-1)}{\sum_{C_{n,i}\in\text{Cl}(S_n)}|C_{n,i}|2^{\sum_ja_{ij}}} \frac 1N +O(1/N^2)\,.
\end{split}$$]{} This expression can be evaluated for any $n$ using the data for the conjugacy classes of the permutation group. When $n=1$, one has only one conjugacy class $C_1$ of size ${\left\lvert C_1 \right\rvert} = 1$ and $a_{11} = 1$; it is easy to see that reduces to .
Scaling dimension of ${\cal O}_n'$ and ${\cal O}_n''$ {#scalDim2}
-----------------------------------------------------
We consider particular operators representing by choosing $i_k = k$: [$$\label{kOp2Def2} \begin{split}
{{\cal O}}_n'&= \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{k=1}^N\psi^{[1}_{(\alpha_{1}}\dots\psi^{n}_{\alpha_{n}}\psi^{k]}_{\alpha_{n+1)}}\bar\psi_{[n+1}^{(\alpha_{1}}\dots\bar\psi_{2n}^{\alpha_{n}}\bar\psi_{k]}^{\alpha_{n+1})}\,,\\
{{\cal O}}_n'' &= \frac{\left(\bar\psi_i\psi^i\right)}{\sqrt{N}}\psi^{[1}_{(\alpha_1}\dots\psi^{n]}_{\alpha_n)}\bar\psi_{[n+1}^{(\alpha_1}\dots\bar\psi_{2n]}^{\alpha_n)}
= {\cal O}_n {\cal O}_0\,,
\end{split}$$]{} with ${\cal O}_n$ as in and ${\cal O}_0$ as in Section \[SINGLET\]. Since we have two operators that mix together, we must consider the matrix of 2-point functions [$$\label{defM} \begin{split}
{\cal M}_n(x) = \begin{pmatrix}
\langle {\cal O}_{n}'(x) \bar {\cal O}_{n}'(0) \rangle & \langle {\cal O}_{n}'(x) \bar {\cal O}_{n}''(0) \rangle \\
\langle {\cal O}_{n}''(x) \bar {\cal O}_{n}'(0) \rangle & \langle {\cal O}_{n}''(x) \bar {\cal O}_{n}''(0) \rangle
\end{pmatrix} \,,
\end{split}$$]{} as in Section \[GENERALANOMALOUS\] and expand it in $1/N$.
Note that we can write [$$\label{OpRewrite} \begin{split}
{\cal O}_n' &=
(-1)^{\frac{(n+1)(n+2)}{2}}\frac{1}{(n+1)!} \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \sum_{\sigma \in S_{n+1}}\sum_{k=1}^N \text{sig}(\sigma) \tilde {{\cal O}}_n^{(\sigma, k)}(x)\,,
\\
\tilde {{\cal O}}_n^{(\sigma, k)} &\equiv \bar\psi_{n+1}\psi^{\sigma_k(1)}\dots\bar\psi_{2n}\psi^{\sigma_k(n)}
\bar \psi_k \psi^{\sigma_k(n+1)}\,,
\end{split}$$]{} where $\sigma$ is a permutation of the set $\{1, \ldots, n+1\}$, and $\sigma_k = \pi_k \circ \sigma$, $\pi_k$ being the map $\pi_k(i) = i$ for $i=1, \ldots, n$ and $\pi_k(n+1) = k$. This expression is somewhat similar to that for ${\cal O}_{n+1}$, which is an observation that will simplify some of our computations.
### $\langle {\cal O}_{n}''(x) \bar {\cal O}_{n}''(0) \rangle$
The two-point function $\langle {\cal O}_{n}''(x) \bar {\cal O}_{n}''(0) \rangle$ is the simplest to calculate because it factorizes not just at leading order in $1/N$, but also at the first subleading order: [$$\label{2pt22} \begin{split}
\langle {\cal O}_{n}''(x) \bar {\cal O}_{n}''(0) \rangle= \langle {\cal O}_{n}^{}(x) \bar {\cal O}_{n}^{}(0) \rangle \langle {\cal O}_0(x) \bar {\cal O}_0(0)\rangle+O(1/N^2) \,.
\end{split}$$]{} The factorization at next-to-leading order is because the diagrams formed by photon lines between ${\cal O}_n$ and ${\cal O}_0$ all cancel in pairs. From and , we have the following ratio of subleading to leading orders [$$\label{2pt22Expanded} \begin{split}
\frac{\langle {\cal O}_{n}''(x) \bar {\cal O}_{n}''(0) \rangle_{(1)}}{\langle {\cal O}_{n}''(x) \bar {\cal O}_{n}''(0) \rangle_{(0)}} = \left[ \frac{ \sum_{C_{n,i}\in\text{Cl}(S_n)}|C_{n,i}|2^{\sum_ja_{ij}}\sum_{k}a_{ik} k(3k-1)}{\sum_{C_{n,i}\in\text{Cl}(S_n)}|C_{n,i}|2^{\sum_ja_{ij}}} - 4\right]\frac{32\log |x|^2\Lambda^2}{3 \pi^2 N} + O({\left\lvert x \right\rvert}^0) \,.
\end{split}$$]{}
### $\langle {\cal O}_{n}'(x) \bar {\cal O}_{n}'(0) \rangle$ and $\langle {\cal O}_{n}'(x) \bar {\cal O}_{n}''(0) \rangle$
Calculating the two-point functions $\langle {\cal O}_{n}'(x) \bar {\cal O}_{n}'(0) \rangle$ and $\langle {\cal O}_{n}'(x) \bar {\cal O}_{n}''(0) \rangle$ is harder. First, notice that [$$\label{TwoPointPermNew} \begin{split}
\langle{{\cal O}}_n''(x) \bar{{\cal O}}_n'(0)\rangle
&= \frac{1}{(n+1)!} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{k=1}^N \sum_{\sigma \in S_{n+1}}
\text{sig}(\sigma) \left\langle \tilde {{\cal O}}_n^{(I, k)}(x) \overline{\tilde {{\cal O}}_n^{(\sigma, k)}}(0) \right\rangle \,, \\
\langle{{\cal O}}_n'(x) \bar{{\cal O}}_n'(0)\rangle
&= \frac{1}{(n+1)!} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{k=1}^N \sum_{\sigma \in S_{n+1}}
\text{sig}(\sigma) \left\langle \left[ \frac{\tilde {{\cal O}}_n^{(I, k)}(x)}{n+1}
+ \frac{n\tilde {{\cal O}}_n^{(\tilde I, k)}(x)}{n+1} \right] \overline{\tilde {{\cal O}}_n^{(\sigma, k)}}(0) \right\rangle \,,
\end{split}$$]{} where $I$ is the identity permutation, and $\tilde I$ is the transposition that flips $n$ and $n+1$. These expressions are valid to all orders in $1/N$. The terms in the $k$ sum vanish if $k\leq 2n$, because then $\tilde {\cal O}_n^{(\sigma, k)}$ as defined in vanishes automatically.
At leading order in $1/N$, Eqs. simplify, and they become equal to the leading order two point function of the operator ${\cal O}_{n+1}$ that was studied in the previous section: [$$\label{2pt20} \begin{split}
\langle {\cal O}_{n}'(x) \bar {\cal O}_{n}'(0) \rangle_{(0)}=\langle {\cal O}_{n}'(x) \bar {\cal O}_{n}''(0) \rangle_{(0)}=\langle{{\cal O}}^{}_{n+1}(x) \bar{{\cal O}}^{}_{n+1}(0)\rangle_{(0)}\,.
\end{split}$$]{}
At sub-leading order, the two-point functions have the same diagrams as $\langle{{\cal O}}^{}_{n+1}\bar{{\cal O}}^{}_{n+1}\rangle_{(1)}$, but also differ from $\langle{{\cal O}}^{}_{n+1}\bar{{\cal O}}^{}_{n+1}\rangle_{(1)}$ due to the occurrence of additional diagrams where the $\psi_k$ and $\bar \psi^k$ belonging to either ${\cal O}_n'$ or ${\cal O}_n''$ are joined together by a fermion line. See Figure \[BUBBLES\]. These additional diagrams are similar to the last two diagrams in Figure \[Delta0Diagrams\]. We thus obtain [$$\label{fermdiagram21} \begin{split}
\langle {\cal O}_{n}'(x) \bar {\cal O}_{n}''(0) \rangle_{(1)}
&= \langle{{\cal O}}^{}_{n+1}(x) \bar{{\cal O}}^{}_{n+1}(0)\rangle_{(1)} \\
{}&+ \left(\frac{1-n/2}{n+1}\right)\langle {\cal O}_{n+1}(x) \bar {\cal O}_{n+1}(0) \rangle_{(0)}\left[ -\frac{64}{\pi^2N} \log|x|^2\Lambda^2 + O({\left\lvert x \right\rvert}^0) \right]\,,
\end{split}$$]{} [$$\label{fermdiagram22} \begin{split}
\langle {\cal O}_{n}'(x) \bar {\cal O}_{n}'(0) \rangle_{(1)}
&= \langle{{\cal O}}^{}_{n+1}(x) \bar{{\cal O}}^{}_{n+1}(0)\rangle_{(1)} \\
{}&+ \left(\frac{1-n/2}{n+1}\right)^2\langle {\cal O}_{n+1}(x) \bar {\cal O}_{n+1}(0) \rangle_{(0)}\left[ -\frac{64}{\pi^2N} \log|x|^2\Lambda^2 + O({\left\lvert x \right\rvert}^0) \right]\,.
\end{split}$$]{}
The $n$-dependent prefactors in the second lines of and can be understood as follows. In the case where $\psi^k$ and $\bar \psi_k$ belong to ${\cal O}_n'$, we either have that $\psi^k$ can be contracted with $\bar\psi_k$, or $\psi^k$ and $\bar\psi_k$ can be part of a bigger cycle. Out of $(n+1)!$ total possibilities, the first case occurs $n!$ times, while the latter occurs $n!n$ times and has an extra factor of $-1/2$ relative to the first, because there is one fewer trace and permutation for this diagram. Summing both cases we find that whenever ${\cal O}_n'$ is involved we must include a factor of [$$\label{prefactor} \begin{split}
\frac{n!-n!n/2}{(n+1)!} = \frac{1-n/2}{n+1}
\end{split}$$]{} relative to the $n=0$ case of the last two diagrams in Figure \[Delta0Diagrams\]. For ${\cal O}_n''$ we do not need any extra factors. Thus contains one power of and contains two powers of .
Gathering the previous results we can write down the ${\bf M}$ and ${\bf N}$ matrices defined in : [$$\label{k2Final} \begin{split}
\bold{N}_{n}&=\begin{pmatrix}
A & A \\
A &B
\end{pmatrix}\,,
\qquad
\bold{M}_{n}=\begin{pmatrix}
C& D \\
D &E
\end{pmatrix}\,,
\end{split}$$]{} where [$$\label{ABDefs} \begin{split}
A&=\frac{1}{(n+1)!}\sum_{C_{n+1,i}\in\text{Cl}(S_{n+1})}|C_{n+1,i}|\left(\frac{2^{\sum_{j=1}^{n+1} a_{ij}}}{(4\pi)^{2n+2}}\right)\,,\qquad B=\frac{2}{n!}\sum_{C_{n,i}\in\text{Cl}(S_n)}|C_{n,i}|\left(\frac{2^{\sum_{j=1}^n a_{ij}}}{(4\pi)^{2n+2}}\right)\,,\\
C&= \frac{4}{\pi^4(n+1)!N} \sum_{C_{n+1,i}\in\text{Cl}(S_{n+1})}|C_{n+1,i}|\left(\frac{2^{\sum_{j=1}^{n+1} a_{ij}}}{(4\pi)^{2n}}\right)\left[-\left(\frac{1-n/2}{n+1}\right)^2+\sum_{k=1}^{n+1}\frac{a_{ik} k(3k-1)}{6}\right]\,,\\
D&= \frac{4}{\pi^4(n+1)!N} \sum_{C_{n+1,i}\in\text{Cl}(S_{n+1})}|C_{n+1,i}|\left(\frac{2^{\sum_{j=1}^{n+1} a_{ij}}}{(4\pi)^{2n}}\right)\left[-\frac{1-n/2}{n+1}+\sum_{k=1}^{n+1}\frac{a_{ik} k(3k-1)}{6}\right]\,,\\
E&= \frac{8}{\pi^4n!N} \sum_{C_{n,i}\in\text{Cl}(S_{n})}|C_{n,i}|\left(\frac{2^{\sum_{j=1}^{n} a_{ij}}}{(4\pi)^{2n}}\right)\left[-\frac23+\sum_{k=1}^{n}\frac{a_{ik} k(3k-1)}{6}\right]\,.
\end{split}$$]{}
From this expression and , we can extract the anomalous dimensions by diagonalizing $ {\bf N}^{-1} {\bf M}$, which yields [$$\label{knOPs} \begin{split}
\Delta'_{n,\pm}=&2n+2+\frac{2AD-CB-AE}{2A\left(A-B\right)}\pm\frac{\sqrt{\left(CB+AE-2AD\right)^2-4A\left(A-B\right)\left(D^2-CE\right)}}{2A\left(A-B\right)} \,.
\end{split}$$]{} Particular cases are given in in the Introduction.
The mixing of lowest parity-even $SU(N)$ singlets {#4singlet}
=================================================
We now consider the parity-even $SU(N)$ singlets. At large $N$, all these operators are irrelevant. As mentioned in the Introduction, it is important to estimate down to what value of $N$ this situation persists, because if a parity-even $SU(N)$ singlet becomes relevant, it can be generated during the RG flow and change the fate of the infrared physics.
At infinite $N$, there are two lowest-dimension parity even operators that mix in $1/N$ perturbation theory. They are [$$\label{O12DefSinglets} \begin{split}
{\cal O}_1 = \frac{1}{N} (\bar \psi_i \psi^i) (\bar \psi_j \psi^j) \,, \qquad
{\cal O}_2 = \frac{N}{4} F_{\mu\nu} F^{\mu\nu} \,,
\end{split}$$]{} where the factors of $N$ have been chosen such that the two-point functions of these operators scale as $N^0$ at large $N$. Both operators in are real, and their scaling dimension is $\Delta_0 = 4$ at $N=\infty$.
Before we start calculating the mixing between these two operators, let us explain why there are only two such operators. The counting argument of Section \[numOps\] implies that there are actually two linearly-independent four-fermion operators that are $SU(N)$ singlets. They can be taken to be ${\cal O}_1$ and ${\cal O}_3 = \frac{1}{N} (\bar \psi_i \gamma_\mu \psi^i) (\bar \psi_j \gamma^\mu \psi^j)$. However, ${\cal O}_3$ is proportional to the large $N$ equation of motion operator $E_\mu = \bar \psi_i \gamma_\mu \psi^i = 0$ of the large $N$ theory obtained by varying the action with respect to $A_\mu$. As such, ${\cal O}_3$ does not contribute to the matrix of two-point functions. Indeed, it can be checked that at separated points we have $\langle {\cal O}_3(x) {\cal O}_3 (0) \rangle = 0$. For instance, at order $N^0$, the diagrams in Figure \[fig:diagCancel\] can be seen to cancel exactly.[^7]
Let us thus focus on the matrix of two-point functions of ${\cal O}_i$, with $i=1, 2$ and write it at large $N$ in the form given in Section \[GENERALANOMALOUS\]. In particular, let us compute the matrices ${\bf M}$ and ${\bf N}$ defined in .
At leading order in $N$, we have [$$\label{psi4Leading} \begin{split}
\langle {\cal O}_1(x) {{\cal O}}_1(0) \rangle_{(0)} = 2 \tr \left[ G(x, 0) G(0, x) \right] \tr \left[ G(x, 0) G(0, x) \right] = \frac{1}{32 \pi^4 {\left\lvert x \right\rvert}^8} \,.
\end{split}$$]{} Rewriting ${\cal O}_2$ as [$$\label{O2Rewrite} \begin{split}
{\cal O}_2 = \frac{N}{2} \left[ \partial_\mu A_\nu \partial^\mu A^\nu - \partial_\mu A_\nu \partial^\nu A^\mu \right] \,,
\end{split}$$]{} and using the gauge field propagator $D_{\mu\nu}$ in gives [$$\label{O2TwoPoint} \begin{split}
\langle {\cal O}_2 (x) {{\cal O}}_2 (0) \rangle_{(0)}
&= 3 \frac{512 }{\pi^4 {\left\lvert x \right\rvert}^8} \,.
\end{split}$$]{} Since at order $N^0$, the two-point function $\langle {\cal O}_1(x) {{\cal O}}_2(0) \rangle_{(0)}$ vanishes, the matrix ${\bf N}$ defined in is [$$\label{M0Singlet} \begin{split}
{\bf N} = \frac{1}{\pi^4 }
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{1}{32} & 0 \\
0 & 3 \times 512
\end{pmatrix} \,.
\end{split}$$]{}
In order to compute ${\bf M}$, it is natural to think of each ${\cal O}_1$ as a composite between $\bar \psi_i \psi^i$ and $\bar \psi_j \psi^j$, and of ${\cal O}_2$ as the composite between $F_{\mu\nu}$ and $F^{\mu\nu}$. There are many diagrams that contribute to ${\bf M}$ but they can be split into diagrams referred to as leg corrections coming from each of the factors of the composites as well as diagrams referred to as vertex corrections that mix together the two factors.
The leg correction diagrams have already been computed. Since the operator $\bar \psi_i \psi^i$ acquires an anomalous dimension given by $128/(3 \pi^2 N) + O(1/N^2)$ (see ) and $F_{\mu\nu}$ has no anomalous dimension, we have that the leg contribution to ${\bf M}$ is [$$\label{M1Leg} \begin{split}
{\bf M}^\text{leg} = \frac{1}{\pi^4}
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{1}{32} \times \frac{256}{3 \pi^2 } & 0 \\
0 & 0
\end{pmatrix} \,.
\end{split}$$]{}
Let us now compute the leading vertex corrections. The two-point function $\langle {\cal O}_1(x) {\bar{\cal O}}_1(0) \rangle$ does not receive any such corrections. (The diagrams cancel in pairs as in Figure \[CANCEL\].) On the other hand, $\langle {\cal O}_1(x) {\bar{\cal O}}_2(0) \rangle = \langle {\cal O}_2(x) {\bar{\cal O}}_1(0) \rangle$ and $\langle {\cal O}_2(x) {\bar{\cal O}}_2(0) \rangle$ might.
Let’s start with $\langle {\cal O}_1(x) {\bar{\cal O}}_2(0) \rangle$ (bottom diagram in Figure \[fig:diags\]). In position space, this diagram can be written as [$$\label{O21VertexSimp} \begin{split}
\langle {\cal O}_2(x) {\bar{\cal O}}_1(0) \rangle_\text{vertex} &= 4 N^2 \int d^3z \, d^3 w\, d^3 y \, d^3 t \,
\partial_\mu D_{\nu \lambda}(x, z)
\left(- \partial^\mu D_{\rho}{}^\nu(w, x)
+ \partial^\nu D_{\rho}{}^{\mu}(w, x) \right) \\
&\times D_{\sigma\tau}(y, t) \tr \left[G(0, z) \gamma^\lambda G(z, y) \gamma^\sigma G(y, 0) \right]
\tr \left[G(0, t) \gamma^\tau G(t, w) \gamma^\rho G(w, 0) \right] \,.
\end{split}$$]{} As in the previous sections, we are content with extracting only the logarithmic divergence of this diagram, leaving its full evaluation to future work. The log divergences come from regions where $z$, $w$, $y$, $t$ are either close to $x$ or to $0$. The first one is [$$\label{O21Vertex1} \begin{split}
\langle {\cal O}_2(x) {\bar{\cal O}}_1(0) \rangle_\text{vertex}^{(x)} &\approx 4N^2 \int d^3z \, d^3 w\, d^3 y \, d^3 t \,
\partial_\mu D_{\nu \lambda}(x, z)
\left(- \partial^\mu D_{\rho}{}^\nu(w, x)
+ \partial^\nu D_{\rho}{}^{\mu}(w, x) \right) \\
&\times D_{\sigma\tau}(y, t) \tr \left[G(0, x) \gamma^\lambda G(z, y) \gamma^\sigma G(x, 0) \right]
\tr \left[G(0, x) \gamma^\tau G(t, w) \gamma^\rho G(x, 0) \right] \,.
\end{split}$$]{} This is just a one-loop diagram, written in Fourier space as [$$\label{O21Vertex1Again} \begin{split}
\langle {\cal O}_2(x) {\bar{\cal O}}_1(0) \rangle_\text{vertex}^{(x)} &\approx -4N^2
\int \frac{d^3 q}{(2 \pi)^3} q_\mu D_{\nu \lambda}(q) \left( q^\mu D_{\rho}{}^\nu(q)
- q^\nu D_{\rho}{}^{\mu}(q) \right) \\
&\times D_{\sigma\tau}(q) \tr \left[(-\slashed{x}) \gamma^\lambda i \slashed{q} \gamma^\sigma \slashed{x} \right]
\tr \left[(-\slashed{x}) \gamma^\tau i \slashed{q} \gamma^\rho \slashed{x} \right]
\frac{1}{(4 \pi)^4 {\left\lvert x \right\rvert}^{12} {\left\lvert q \right\rvert}^4 } \,.
\end{split}$$]{} This expression evaluates to [$$\label{O21Vert1Final} \begin{split}
\langle {\cal O}_2(x) {\bar{\cal O}}_1(0) \rangle_\text{vertex}^{(x)} &\approx \frac{512}{N \pi^4 {\left\lvert x \right\rvert}^8} \int \frac{d^3 q}{(2 \pi)^3} \frac{1}{{\left\lvert q \right\rvert}^3}
= \frac{128}{N \pi^6 {\left\lvert x \right\rvert}^8} \log (\Lambda^2 {\left\lvert x \right\rvert}^2) \,.
\end{split}$$]{}
To evaluate the contribution from when $z$, $w$, $y$, $t$ are close to $0$ in one has to be more careful. To obtain the log divergence, one has to expand the $D$’s in the first line of to linear order in $z$ and $w$ as these quantities tend to zero: [$$\label{O21VertexSimp0} \begin{split}
\langle {\cal O}_2(x) {\bar{\cal O}}_1(0) \rangle_\text{vertex}^{(0)} &\approx 4 N^2
\partial_\mu \partial_\alpha D_{\nu \lambda}(x)
\partial_\beta \left( \partial^\mu D_{\rho}{}^\nu(x)
- \partial^\nu D_{\rho}{}^{\mu}(x) \right) F^{\alpha \lambda \beta \rho} \,,
\end{split}$$]{} where [$$\label{FDef} \begin{split}
F^{\alpha \lambda \beta \rho}(x)&= \int d^3z \, d^3 w\, d^3 y \, d^3 t \, D_{\sigma\tau}(y, t)\, z^\alpha w^\beta \\
&\times
\tr \left[G(0, z) \gamma^\lambda G(z, y) \gamma^\sigma G(y, 0) \right] \tr \left[G(0, t) \gamma^\tau G(t, w) \gamma^\rho G(w, 0) \right] \,.
\end{split}$$]{} (The terms proportional to $z^\alpha z^\beta$ and $w^\alpha w^\beta$ in the expansion give vanishing contribution to the final answer and can be dropped.) In , the $x$ dependence appears only implicitly as $\Lambda {\left\lvert x \right\rvert}$, $\Lambda$ being the UV cutoff. This is a 3-loop diagram [$$\label{FMom} \begin{split}
F^{\alpha \lambda \beta \rho}(x)&= \int \frac{d^3q}{(2 \pi)^3} \frac{d^3r}{(2 \pi)^3} \frac{d^3s}{(2 \pi)^3} \frac{16}{N {\left\lvert q \right\rvert}} \left( \delta_{\sigma \tau} -\zeta \frac{q_\sigma q_\tau}{q^2} \right)
\frac{1}{{\left\lvert r \right\rvert}^2 {\left\lvert s \right\rvert}^2 {\left\lvert r + q \right\rvert}^2 {\left\lvert s + q \right\rvert}^2} \\
&\times
\tr \left[\left( -\frac{\partial}{\partial r_\alpha} i \frac{\slashed{r}}{{\left\lvert r \right\rvert}^2} \right) \gamma^\lambda i \slashed{r} \gamma^\sigma i (\slashed{r} + \slashed{q}) \right] \tr \left[i (\slashed{s} + \slashed{q}) \gamma^\tau i \slashed{s} \gamma^\rho \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial s_\beta} i \frac{\slashed{s}}{{\left\lvert s \right\rvert}^2} \right) \right]
\,.
\end{split}$$]{} It can be evaluated by first performing the $r$ and $s$ integrals, which give [$$\label{FMomFinal} \begin{split}
F^{\alpha \lambda\beta \rho}(x)&\approx
\frac{\delta^{\alpha \beta} \delta^{\lambda \rho} - \delta^{\alpha \rho} \delta^{\beta \lambda} }{96 \pi^2 N } \log (\Lambda^2 {\left\lvert x \right\rvert}^2) \,.
\end{split}$$]{} Going back to , we have [$$\label{O21VertexSimp0Again} \begin{split}
\langle {\cal O}_2(x) {\cal O}_1(0) \rangle_\text{vertex}^{(0)} &\approx 4 N^2
\partial_\mu \partial_\alpha D_{\nu \lambda}(x)
\partial_\beta \left( \partial^\mu D_{\rho}{}^\nu(x)
- \partial^\nu D_{\rho}{}^{\mu}(x) \right) \frac{\delta^{\alpha \beta} \delta^{\lambda \rho} - \delta^{\alpha \rho} \delta^{\beta \lambda} }{96 \pi^2 N } \log (\Lambda^2 {\left\lvert x \right\rvert}^2) \,.
\end{split}$$]{} Comparing with , we obtain [$$\label{O21VertexSimpAgain} \begin{split}
\langle {\cal O}_2(x) {\cal O}_1(0) \rangle_\text{vertex}^{(0)} &\approx
\langle {\cal O}_2(x) {\cal O}_2(0) \rangle_{(0)}
\frac{1 }{12 \pi^2 N } \log (\Lambda^2 {\left\lvert x \right\rvert}^2)
= \frac{1}{\pi^4 {\left\lvert x \right\rvert}^8}
\frac{128 }{ \pi^2 N } \log (\Lambda^2 {\left\lvert x \right\rvert}^2) \,.
\end{split}$$]{}
Adding up and , we see that [$$\label{O2O1VertexTotal} \begin{split}
\langle {\cal O}_2(x) {\cal O}_1(0) \rangle_\text{vertex} \approx \frac{1}{\pi^4 {\left\lvert x \right\rvert}^8}
\frac{256}{\pi^2 N} \log \left( \Lambda^2 {\left\lvert x \right\rvert}^2 \right) \,.
\end{split}$$]{}
Next, let’s move on to $\langle {\cal O}_2(x) {\cal O}_2(0) \rangle$. The diagrams that contribute are the top two diagrams in Figure \[fig:diags\]. They are [$$\label{O2O2VertexSimp} \begin{split}
\langle {\cal O}_2(x) {\cal O}_2(0) \rangle_\text{vertex}^{(1)}
&= -N^3 \int d^3z\, d^3w\, d^3y\, d^3 t\, \partial_\mu D_{\nu \lambda}(x, z)
\left(- \partial^\mu D_{\rho}{}^\nu(w, x)
+ \partial^\nu D_{\rho}{}^{\mu}(w, x) \right) \\
&\times \partial_\alpha D_{\beta \gamma}(0, y)
\left(- \partial^\alpha D_{\delta}{}^\beta(t, 0)
+ \partial^\beta D_{\delta}{}^{\alpha}(t, 0) \right) \\
&\times \Biggl[ \tr \left[ G(z, y) \gamma^\gamma G(y, t) \gamma^\delta G(t, w) \gamma^\rho G(w, z) \gamma^\lambda \right] \\
&+ \frac 12 \tr \left[ G(z, y) \gamma^\gamma G(y, w) \gamma^\rho G(w, t) \gamma^\delta G(t, z) \gamma^\lambda \right] \Biggr] \,,
\end{split}$$]{} where the third and fourth lines represent the contributions of the top left and top right diagrams of Figure \[fig:diags\], respectively. There are potential divergences from when the intermediate points are close to $x$ and from when they are close to $0$, giving equal contributions, so we can consider the case when they’re close to $0$ and multiply the answer by $2$. Expanding to quadratic order in $z$ and $w$, we obtain [$$\label{O2O2VertexExpansion} \begin{split}
\langle {\cal O}_2(x) {\cal O}_2(0) \rangle_\text{vertex}
&\approx -2 N^3 \biggl[ \left[ \partial_\sigma \partial_\mu D_{\nu \lambda}(x) \right]
\partial_\tau \left( \partial^\mu D_{\rho}{}^\nu(x)
- \partial^\nu D_{\rho}{}^{\mu}(x) \right) H_1^{\sigma \lambda \tau \rho}(x) \\
&+\left[ \partial_\sigma \partial_\tau \partial_\mu D_{\nu \lambda}(x) \right]
\left( \partial^\mu D_{\rho}{}^\nu(x)
- \partial^\nu D_{\rho}{}^{\mu}(x) \right) H_2^{\sigma \lambda \tau \rho}(x) \\
&+ \left[ \partial_\mu D_{\nu \lambda}(x) \right]
\partial_\sigma \partial_\tau \left( \partial^\mu D_{\rho}{}^\nu(x)
- \partial^\nu D_{\rho}{}^{\mu}(x) \right) H_3^{\sigma \lambda \tau \rho}(x) \biggr] \,,
\end{split}$$]{} where [$$\label{NewFDef} \begin{split}
H_i^{\sigma \lambda \tau \rho}(x) &= \int d^3z\, d^3w\, d^3y\, d^3 t\,
\partial_\alpha D_{\beta \gamma}(0, y)
\left(- \partial^\alpha D_{\delta}{}^\beta(t, 0)
+ \partial^\beta D_{\delta}{}^{\alpha}(t, 0) \right) \\
&\times \Biggl[ \tr \left[ G(z, y) \gamma^\gamma G(y, t) \gamma^\delta G(t, w) \gamma^\rho G(w, z) \gamma^\lambda \right] \\
&+ \frac 12 \tr \left[ G(z, y) \gamma^\gamma G(y, w) \gamma^\rho G(w, t) \gamma^\delta G(t, z) \gamma^\lambda \right] \Biggr] \\
&\times \begin{cases}
z^\sigma w^\tau \qquad \text{if $i=1$} \,, \\
-z^\sigma z^\tau \qquad \text{if $i=2$} \,, \\
-w^\sigma w^\tau \qquad \text{if $i=3$} \,,
\end{cases}
\end{split}$$]{} and the factor of $2$ in is precisely because we’re also accounting from the divergent contribution from the regime where the internal points are close to $x$. The $x$ dependence of $H^{\sigma \lambda \tau \rho}_i$ is again implicit and appears only through $\Lambda {\left\lvert x \right\rvert}$, where $\Lambda$ is the UV cutoff. In momentum space, $H_1$ can be written as [$$\label{FNewMom} \begin{split}
&H_1^{\sigma \lambda \tau \rho} = -\int \frac{d^3q}{(2 \pi)^3} \frac{d^3r}{(2 \pi)^3}
\left[ \frac{\partial}{\partial q_\sigma} \left( q_\alpha D_{\beta \gamma}(q) \right) \right]
\left[ \frac{\partial}{\partial q_\tau} \left(q^\alpha D_{\delta}{}^\beta(q) - q^\beta D_{\delta}{}^\alpha(q) \right) \right] \\
&\times \Biggl[ \tr \left[G(r) \gamma^\gamma G(r + q) \gamma^\delta G(r) \gamma^\rho G(r) \gamma^\lambda \right] + \frac 12 \tr \left[G(r) \gamma^\gamma G(r + q) \gamma^\rho G(r + q) \gamma^\delta G(r) \gamma^\lambda \right] \Biggr] \,.
\end{split}$$]{} The expressions for $H_2$ and $H_3$ differ from only in the placement of the derivatives $\partial_\sigma$ and $\partial_\tau$. It is tedious but straightforward to perform the $r$ integral first and then the $q$ integral using the formulas in [@Smirnov:2012gma]. The result is that these integrals do not have logarithmic divergences.
Putting everything together, we have that [$$\label{GotM1} \begin{split}
{\bf M}^\text{vertex} = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & \frac{256}{\pi^6} \\
\frac{256}{\pi^6} & 0
\end{pmatrix} \,.
\end{split}$$]{} Combining with with and , we can write down the anomalous dimension matrix [$$\label{AnomSinglet} \begin{split}
{\bf N}^{-1} {\bf M} = {\bf N}^{-1} \left({\bf M}^\text{leg}+{\bf M}^\text{vertex} \right)
= \begin{pmatrix}
\frac{256}{3 \pi^2} & \frac{8192}{\pi^2 } \\
\frac{1}{6\pi^2 } & 0
\end{pmatrix} \,.
\end{split}$$]{} From the eigenvalues of this matrix, [$$\label{Evalues} \begin{split}
\frac{64 (2 \pm \sqrt{7} ) }{3 \pi^2} \,,
\end{split}$$]{} we conclude that the two parity even $SU(N)$ singlet operators have scaling dimensions given in .
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank Simone Giombi, John Gracey, Igor Klebanov, Mark Mezei, Grisha Tarnopolsky, and Cenke Xu for useful discussions. This work was supported in part by the US NSF under Grant No. PHY-1418069.
Useful Integrals and Fourier transforms in 3d {#Appendix}
=============================================
The following Fourier transform formulas are useful for the computations in this paper: [$$\label{FT4} \begin{split}
\int d^3 x\, \frac{e^{i p \cdot x}}{{\left\lvert x \right\rvert}^2} &= \frac{2 \pi^2}{{\left\lvert p \right\rvert}} \,, \\
\int d^3 x \, \frac{e^{i p \cdot x}}{{\left\lvert x \right\rvert}^4} &= -\pi^2 {\left\lvert p \right\rvert} \,, \\
\int d^3 x \, \frac{e^{i p \cdot x}}{{\left\lvert x \right\rvert}^6} &= \frac{\pi^2}{12} {\left\lvert p \right\rvert}^3 \,, \\
\int d^3 x \, \frac{e^{i p \cdot x}}{{\left\lvert x \right\rvert}^8} &= -\frac{\pi^2}{360} {\left\lvert p \right\rvert}^5 \,.
\end{split}$$]{}
Since [$$\label{Derp} \begin{split}
\partial_\mu \partial_\nu {\left\lvert p \right\rvert} = \frac{1}{{\left\lvert p \right\rvert}} \left( \delta_{\mu\nu} - \frac{p_\mu p_\nu}{p^2} \right)
\end{split}$$]{} we have [$$\label{IFTD} \begin{split}
\int d^3 x\, e^{i p \cdot x} \left[A \frac{\delta_{\mu\nu}}{{\left\lvert x \right\rvert}^2} + B \frac{x_\mu x_\nu}{{\left\lvert x \right\rvert}^4} \right] = \pi^2 \frac{1}{{\left\lvert p \right\rvert}} \left( (2A+B) \delta_{\mu\nu} - B \frac{p_\mu p_\nu}{p^2} \right) \,.
\end{split}$$]{} To find the position space representation of the gauge propagator, we need [$$\label{ABGauge} \begin{split}
A = \frac{8(1 - \zeta)}{\pi^2 N} \,, \qquad B = \frac{16 \zeta}{\pi^2 N} \,.
\end{split}$$]{}
[^1]: See also [@DiPietro:2015taa; @Giombi:2015haa; @Chester:2015wao] for estimates of some of the same quantities coming from the $4-\epsilon$ expansion.
[^2]: The construction of this operator requires $n \leq N/2$. The regime where $n$ is comparable to $N$ is outside of the validity range of our approximation—we first fix $n$ and then take $N$ to be large.
[^3]: The scaling dimension $\Delta_1$ was already computed in [@Hermele05; @Kaul:2008xw]. $\Delta_2$ agrees with the result of Sections II.B and II.C of [@2008PhRvB..78e4432X]. The other operator in Section II.C of [@2008PhRvB..78e4432X], with scaling dimension $4 + \frac{64}{3 \pi^2 N} + O(N^{-2})$, is a four-fermion operator transforming under $SU(N)$ as the irrep $(2^{N-1}, 4^1)$.
[^4]: The construction of ${\cal O}_n'$ requires $n \leq N/2 - 1$, and the construction of ${\cal O}_n''$ requires $n \leq N/2$. The regime where $n$ is comparable to $N$ is outside of the validity range of our approximation—we first fix $n$ and then take $N$ to be large.
[^5]: Ref. [@2008PhRvB..78e4432X] studied the mixing of the operators $\left(\bar\psi_i\psi^i\right)\left(\bar\psi_j\psi^j\right)$ and $\left(\bar\psi_i\gamma_\mu\psi^i\right)\left(\bar\psi_j\gamma^\mu\psi^j\right)$ by adding these operators to the action and studying the renormalization of their couplings as one integrates out momentum shells. In our approach, we extract the scaling dimensions from the matrix of two-point functions, and in doing so we can make use of the equations of motion. The gauge field equation of motion, $\bar\psi_i\gamma_\mu\psi^i= 0$, implies that the two-point function of $\left(\bar\psi_i\gamma_\mu\psi^i\right)\left(\bar\psi_j\gamma^\mu\psi^j\right)$ vanishes at separated points. Instead of considering the mixing of $\left(\bar\psi_i\psi^i\right)\left(\bar\psi_j\psi^j\right)$ and $\left(\bar\psi_i\gamma_\mu\psi^i\right)\left(\bar\psi_j\gamma^\mu\psi^j\right)$, we consider the mixing of $\left(\bar\psi_i\psi^i\right)\left(\bar\psi_j\psi^j\right)$ and $F_{\mu\nu} F^{\mu\nu}$, as we do in Section \[4singlet\]. Despite the different methods, we obtain the same result as Ref. [@2008PhRvB..78e4432X]. It would be interesting to perform a similar computation to the one in this paper in the case of an $SU(2)$ gauge theory and compare with the results of [@2008PhRvB..78e4432X].
[^6]: See, however, [@Strouthos:2008kc] where it was observed that for $N=2$ there is spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking. Also, the $F$-theorem [@Giombi:2015haa] implies that chiral symmetry breaking is ruled out for $N\geq 10$.
[^7]: We thank Mark Mezei for discussions on this issue.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We formulate the work output and efficiency for linear irreversible heat engines working between a finite-sized hot heat source and an infinite-sized cold heat reservoir until the total system reaches the final thermal equilibrium state with a uniform temperature. We prove that when the heat engines operate at the maximum power under the tight-coupling condition without heat leakage the work output is just half of the exergy, which is known as the maximum available work extracted from a heat source. As a consequence, the corresponding efficiency is also half of its quasistatic counterpart.'
author:
- Yuki Izumida$^1$ and Koji Okuda$^2$
title: ' Work Output and Efficiency at Maximum Power of Linear Irreversible Heat Engines Operating with a Finite-Sized Heat Source '
---
[*Introduction.–*]{} Utilizing heat as the motive power has been an indispensable basis for our modern industrial society. The Carnot theorem is a cornerstone for heat-energy conversion, where a heat engine converts the heat $Q_h$ into the work output $W$ between the hot heat reservoir (source) at the temperature $T_h$ and the cold heat reservoir (sink) at the temperature $T_c$ ($T_c < T_h$). The theorem states that the efficiency $\eta=\frac{W}{Q_h}$ of the heat-energy conversion is bounded from above as $$\begin{aligned}
\eta \le 1-\frac{T_c}{T_h}\equiv \eta_{\rm C} \ ({\rm Carnot \ efficiency}),\label{eq.carnot_theorem} \end{aligned}$$ showing that we need to discard a certain amount of heat $Q_c\equiv Q_h-W$ into the cold heat reservoir. Although the upper bound is achieved by reversible heat engines with infinitely slow (quasistatic) operation such as in the Carnot cycle, the power (work output per unit time), which is another important performance criterion, vanishes in the quasistatic limit by definition. In this regard, for more practical relevance, the efficiency at maximum power $\eta^*$ has been intensively studied [@CA; @Y; @N; @LL; @G; @B; @SNGAL; @VB; @CH; @ELB2; @SS; @GMS; @EKLB2; @US; @IO4].
In terms of practicality, it would also be relevant to consider the finiteness of the heat source. Even though the hot heat source may usually be treated as an infinite-sized heat reservoir in the thermodynamics of heat engines, it can actually be “fuel" as a finite resource with a finite amount of substance (e.g., burning coal in a steam engine) but not necessarily an infinite resource like the heat reservoir. This issue is becoming increasingly important due to the need for an urgent solution to the worldwide depletion of energy resources. To achieve a sustainable society, we need to consider this kind of fundamental thermodynamic limitation.
Reversible heat engines utilizing a finite-sized hot heat source have been considered in the context of exergy [@JWG; @Z; @C; @MSBB]. Exergy is the maximum available work defined as the upper bound of the work output extracted from a finite-sized hot heat source until the hot heat source is brought to the final thermal equilibrium state sharing the same temperature as a cold heat reservoir (see the details below). The corresponding efficiency also achieves a maximum, but again, the power vanishes while the maximum work is extracted. Even though some previous literature addressed the available work extracted from a finite-sized heat source during finite-time operation and the corresponding efficiency [@ARB; @ABOS; @YC; @ORB], their results depended on phenomenological models with specific assumptions.
Our purpose is to formulate the work output and efficiency at the maximum power for linear irreversible heat engines working between a finite-sized hot heat source and an infinite-sized cold heat reservoir until the total system reaches the final thermal equilibrium state with a uniform temperature. Our theory is based on a general framework of linear irreversible thermodynamics [@O; @GM]. We prove that, when the heat engines operate at the maximum power under the tight-coupling condition without heat leakage, the work output is just half of the exergy, and as a consequence, the corresponding efficiency is also half of its quasistatic counterpart. Our results also include $\eta^*=\frac{\eta_{\rm C}}{2}$, obtained in [@VB] for linear irreversible heat engines working between two infinite-sized heat reservoirs under the tight-coupling condition as a special case.
[*Exergy.–*]{}
![ (a) Energetically infinitesimal Carnot cycle working between a finite-sized hot heat source at a temperature $T$ and the cold heat reservoir at the temperature $T_c$. The total system ends up in the final thermal equilibrium state sharing the uniform temperature $T_c$. (b) Linear irreversible heat engine working between a finite-sized hot heat source at $T$ with a heat capacity at constant volume $C_V$ and a cold heat reservoir at $T_c$.[]{data-label="fig"}](schematic_exergy_revise1.eps)
The maximum work can be extracted by an energetically infinitesimal reversible heat engine between the temperatures $T$ and $T_c$ (e.g., the Carnot cycle), where $T$ is the temperature of the hot heat source. Such a heat engine successively transforms the infinitesimal heat $dQ_h$ into the infinitesimal work $dW$ with the efficiency $\eta^T$ at each $T$ being the highest Carnot efficiency $\eta_{\rm C}^{T}\equiv1-\frac{T_c}{T}$ until the temperature $T$ of the hot heat source decreases from $T_h$ to $T_c$ \[Fig. \[fig\] (a)\]. The total work extracted by a heat engine from the finite-sized hot heat source defined by $W=\int dW=\int \eta^T dQ_h$ is bounded from above for the scenario in Fig. \[fig\] (a) as $$\begin{aligned}
W \le \int \eta_{\rm C}^TdQ_h&&=-\int_{T_h}^{T_c} \eta_{\rm C}^TC_VdT\nonumber\\
&&=U_h-U_c-T_c(S_h-S_c)\equiv E,\label{eq.def_e}\end{aligned}$$ where $U_i$ ($S_i$) ($i=h, c$) are the internal energies (entropies) of the initial and final equilibrium states of the hot heat source using the definitions $U_h-U_c\equiv \int_{T_c}^{T_h} C_VdT$ and $S_h-S_c\equiv \int_{T_c}^{T_h} \frac{C_V}{T}dT$, with $C_V=C_V(T)$ denoting the heat capacity at constant volume of the hot heat source. This maximum work $E$ is called the “exergy" [@Z]. Although the significance of the exergy is rarely considered in a context of physics (but see, e.g., [@C; @DL]), it is a practically important concept that is often introduced in thermodynamics textbooks for engineers [@MSBB]. The exergy is not a state function since it depends on a condition under which the hot heat source supplies heat to the heat engine during the process. Although here we consider a constant-volume condition for simplicity, the concept of the exergy itself can also be considered for other thermodynamic conditions (e.g., a constant-pressure condition). The corresponding efficiency $\eta=\frac{W}{Q_h}=\frac{W}{U_h-U_c}$ is bounded from above as [@OAMB; @L] $$\begin{aligned}
\eta \le \frac{E}{U_h-U_c}=1-\frac{T_c(S_h-S_c)}{U_h-U_c}\equiv \eta_{\rm max}\label{eq.effi_qs_thermo}.\label{eq.def_effi_qs}\end{aligned}$$ In the case that the hot heat source is a heat reservoir as $C_V \to \infty$, $\eta_{\rm max}$ recovers the usual Carnot efficiency $\eta_{\rm C}$ by the definition $\frac{U_h-U_c}{T_h}=\frac{Q_h}{T_h}=S_h-S_c$ for an isothermal environment. Consequently, Eq. (\[eq.def\_effi\_qs\]) for a finite-sized hot heat source is a generalization of the Carnot theorem in Eq. (\[eq.carnot\_theorem\]) for an infinite-sized hot heat source.
[*Linear irreversible thermodynamics framework.–*]{} The setup of our model is as follows \[Fig. \[fig\] (b)\]: consider a linear irreversible heat engine [@VB] working between a finite-sized hot heat source and a cold heat reservoir at the temperature $T_c$. We assume that the hot heat source is always in an equilibrium state with a well-defined temperature $T$ between $T_c$ and $T_h$ and the heat capacity at constant volume $C_V$. Initially at time $t=0$, $T$ is assumed to be $T_h$. We also assume that the heat engine successively transforms the heat (a small part of the internal energy of the hot heat source) into work at an efficiency depending on the working regime, and $T$ continuously decreases from $T_h$ to $T_c$ accompanying the operation of the heat engine. We note that these assumptions could physically be realized under the two following relevant conditions: (i) the hot heat source rapidly relaxes to an equilibrium state with a well-defined temperature upon providing the heat energy to the heat engine and (ii) the internal energy of the hot heat source is sufficiently larger than the amount of the heat energy supplied to the heat engine per cycle or unit time, which implies that it takes sufficiently many cycles or a long time to deplete the hot heat source.
The behavior of our heat engine during the process is described by linear irreversible thermodynamics, starting from consideration of the entropy production rate $\dot{\sigma}$ of the total system consisting of the heat engine, hot heat source, and cold heat reservoir. Here, the dot indicates a quantity per unit time or the derivative with respect to time. Because the internal state of the heat engine returns to the original state after a unit time for cyclic heat engines if the unit time is chosen as one cycle or remains unchanged for steady-state heat engines, we express $\dot{\sigma}$ only by the sum of the entropy increase rates of the hot heat source and cold heat reservoir as $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\sigma}=-\frac{\dot{Q}_h}{T}+\frac{\dot{Q}_c}{T_c}=
-\frac{\dot{W}}{T_c}+\dot{Q}_h\biggl(\frac{1}{T_c}-\frac{1}{T}\biggr).\end{aligned}$$ Defining a generalized external force $F$ that acts on its conjugate variable $x$, we write the power $\dot{W}$ as $\dot{W}=-F\dot{x}$. Then, we naturally decompose $\dot{\sigma}=\frac{F\dot{x}}{T_c}+\dot{Q}_h\bigl(\frac{1}{T_c}-\frac{1}{T}\bigr)$ as $\dot{\sigma}=J_1X_1+J_2X_2$, defining the thermodynamic fluxes $J_1$ (the motion speed of the heat engine) and $J_2$ (the heat flux from the hot heat source) in response to their conjugate thermodynamic forces $X_1$ (the external force) and $X_2$ (the thermal gradient), respectively, as $$\begin{aligned}
&&X_1\equiv \frac{F}{T_c}, \ \ J_1\equiv \dot{x},\\
&&X_2\equiv \frac{1}{T_c}-\frac{1}{T}=\frac{T-T_c}{TT_c}, \ \ J_2\equiv \dot{Q}_h.\end{aligned}$$ We assume that these variables are related to the linear Onsager relations [@VB; @O; @GM] as $$\begin{aligned}
&&J_1=L_{11}X_1+L_{12}X_2,\label{eq.J1}\\
&&J_2=L_{21}X_1+L_{22}X_2,\label{eq.J2} \end{aligned}$$ where $L_{ij}$ denotes the Onsager coefficients with the reciprocal relation $L_{12}=L_{21}$. We note that, from the nonnegativity of $\dot{\sigma}=J_1X_1+J_2X_2\ge 0$, the possible values of $L_{ij}$ are restricted as $$\begin{aligned}
L_{11}\ge 0, \ L_{22}\ge 0, \ L_{11}L_{22}-L_{12}L_{21}\ge 0.\label{eq.onsager_coeffi_range}\end{aligned}$$ For a simpler formulation, we change the variable from $X_1$ to $J_1$ as $X_1=(J_1-L_{12}X_2)/L_{11}$ through Eq. (\[eq.J1\]) and replace the Onsager relations with $J_2$ and the heat flux to the cold heat reservoir $J_3\equiv \dot{Q}_c=\dot{Q}_h-\dot{W}=J_2+J_1 X_1 T_c$ [@IO4]: $$\begin{aligned}
&&J_2=\frac{L_{21}}{L_{11}}J_1+L_{22}(1-q^2)X_2,\label{eq.J2-2}\\
&&J_3=\frac{L_{21}T_c}{L_{11}T}J_1+L_{22}(1-q^2)X_2+\frac{T_c}{L_{11}} {J_1}^2,\label{eq.J3-2} \end{aligned}$$ where $q$ is the coefficient of the coupling strength defined as [@KC] $$\begin{aligned}
q\equiv \frac{L_{21}}{\sqrt{L_{11}L_{22}}}, \ \ (|q|\le 1).\end{aligned}$$ The restriction of $q$ comes from Eq. (\[eq.onsager\_coeffi\_range\]). Each term in Eqs. (\[eq.J2-2\]) and (\[eq.J3-2\]) has a clear physical interpretation [@IO4]: the first terms in Eqs. (\[eq.J2-2\]) and (\[eq.J3-2\]) imply the reversible heat transfer from the hot heat source and that to the cold heat reservoir, which do not contribute to $\dot{\sigma}$ at all. The second terms in Eqs. (\[eq.J2-2\]) and (\[eq.J3-2\]) imply the heat leakage from the hot heat source to the cold heat reservoir with $\frac{L_{22}(1-q^2)}{TT_c}$ being the thermal conductance, which remain irrespective of the operation of the heat engine with $|q|\ne 1$. The third term in Eq. (\[eq.J3-2\]) implies the dissipation into the cold heat reservoir accompanying the operation of the heat engine.
Under the condition $|q|=1$ called “tight-coupling," the heat-leakage terms vanish, and the heat fluxes go to zero simultaneously in the quasistatic limit of $J_1\to 0$. This idealized but most interesting condition can be realized, e.g., by a finite-time Carnot cycle [@IO2].
The power $\dot{W}=J_2-J_3$ is rewritten by using Eqs. (\[eq.J2-2\]) and (\[eq.J3-2\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{W}=\frac{L_{12}}{L_{11}}\eta_{\rm C}^T J_1-\frac{T_c}{L_{11}}J_1^2.\label{eq.power}\end{aligned}$$
The decreasing rate of the temperature $T$ of the hot heat source during the operation of the heat engine is given by $$\begin{aligned}
C_V\frac{dT}{dt}=C_V\dot{T}=-J_2,\label{eq.T_change}\end{aligned}$$ where $J_2$ is given by Eq. (\[eq.J2-2\]). Equation (\[eq.T\_change\]) can also be considered as a relation that connects the temperature $T$ to the time $t$. Although $J_i$, $X_i$, $L_{ij}$, and $C_V$ may depend on $T$ \[or $t$ through Eq. (\[eq.T\_change\])\] in general, we write the $T$ dependence explicitly only when we stress it. Equations (\[eq.J2-2\]) and (\[eq.J3-2\]) together with Eq. (\[eq.T\_change\]) constitute the time-evolution equations of $T(t)$ for a given working regime $J_1(t)$.
After these preparations, we consider the work output and efficiency of this system. The heat from the hot heat source $Q_h$ and the work output $W$ between the initial time $t=0$ and the final time $t=\tau$ are given as $$\begin{aligned}
Q_h&&=\int_0^{\tau} J_2(t)dt=-\int_{T_h}^{T_c} C_VdT=U_h-U_c,\label{eq.total_heat}\\
W&&=\int_0^{\tau} \dot{W}(t)dt
=U_h-U_c-\int_0^{\tau}J_3(t)dt,\label{eq.total_work}\end{aligned}$$ respectively, where we used Eq. (\[eq.T\_change\]), $T(0)=T_h$, and $T(\tau)=T_c$. $W$ is a functional of $J_1$ \[or equivalently $T$ through Eq. (\[eq.T\_change\])\] via $J_3$ in Eq. (\[eq.J3-2\]). We also express the total power $P$ and the efficiency $\eta$ as $$\begin{aligned}
P&&=\frac{W}{\tau}=\frac{U_h-U_c-\int_0^{\tau}J_3(t)dt}{\tau},\label{eq.total_power}\\
\eta&&=\frac{W}{Q_h}=1-\frac{\int_0^{\tau}J_3(t)dt}{U_h-U_c},\label{eq.total_efficiency}\end{aligned}$$ respectively.
[*Main results.–*]{} We maximize Eq. (\[eq.total\_power\]) by first minimizing the integral $\int_0^{\tau}J_3(t)dt$ in Eq. (\[eq.total\_power\]) under the fixed time $\tau$ and then maximizing $P(\tau)$ as follows. By solving Eq. (\[eq.T\_change\]) with respect to $J_1$, we express $J_1(t)$ as a function of $T$ and $\dot{T}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
J_1(T, \dot{T})=-\frac{L_{11}}{L_{21}}C_V\dot{T}-\frac{L_{11}L_{22}(1-q^2)}{L_{21}}X_2.\end{aligned}$$ Then we express the integrand $J_3(t)=J_3(T, \dot{T})$ as $$\begin{aligned}
J_3(T,\dot{T})&&=-T_cC_V\frac{\dot{T}}{T}+\frac{L_{22}(1-q^2)X_2^2T_c}{q^2}+\frac{T_cC_V^2}{q^2L_{22}}\dot{T}^2\nonumber \\
&& +\frac{2T_c}{q^2}C_V\dot{T}(1-q^2)X_2\label{eq.variation_eq}\end{aligned}$$ by substituting $J_1(T, \dot{T})$ into Eq. (\[eq.J3-2\]). We minimize the integral $\int_0^{\tau}J_3(T,\dot{T})dt$ in Eq. (\[eq.total\_power\]) by solving the following Euler-Lagrange (EL) equation for $T(t)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{\partial J_3(T,\dot{T})}{\partial \dot{T}}\right)-\frac{\partial J_3(T,\dot{T})}{\partial T}=0.\label{eq.el_eq}\end{aligned}$$ By substituting Eq. (\[eq.variation\_eq\]) into Eq. (\[eq.el\_eq\]), we obtain the EL equation to be solved as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{2C_V^2}{q^2L_{22}}\ddot{T}+\dot{T}^2\frac{\partial}{\partial T}\Bigl(\frac{C_V^2}{q^2L_{22}}\Bigr)\nonumber\\
-\frac{\partial}{\partial T}\Bigl(\frac{L_{22}(1-q^2)X_2^2}{q^2}\Bigr)=0.\label{eq.el_simp}\end{aligned}$$ Note that $C_V$, $L_{22}$, and $q$ may depend on $T$. By multiplying both sides by $\dot{T}$, Eq. (\[eq.el\_simp\]) is simplified to $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt}\Biggl(\frac{C_V^2}{q^2L_{22}}\dot{T}^2-\frac{L_{22}(1-q^2)X_2^2}{q^2}\Biggr)=0.\label{eq.el_eq_solution}\end{aligned}$$ It may be difficult to find an explicit form of the general solution of $T(t)$ from Eq. (\[eq.el\_eq\_solution\]).
However, under the tight-coupling condition $|q|=1$ which is idealized but is the most interesting condition, we can calculate the integral $\int_0^{\tau}J_3(T,\dot{T})dt$ by utilizing Eq. (\[eq.el\_eq\_solution\]) without solving it explicitly as follows. By integrating Eq. (\[eq.el\_eq\_solution\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{C_V}{\sqrt{L_{22}}}\dot{T}=A \ ({\rm integral \ const}).\label{eq.el_eq_solution2}\end{aligned}$$ By integrating Eq. (\[eq.el\_eq\_solution2\]) from $t=0$ to $t=\tau$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
A=\frac{\int_{T_h}^{T_c}\frac{C_V}{\sqrt{L_{22}}}dT}{\tau}\equiv \frac{B}{\tau},\label{eq.integral_const}\end{aligned}$$ where $B$ is a constant independent of $\tau$. By using Eqs. (\[eq.variation\_eq\]), (\[eq.el\_eq\_solution2\]), and (\[eq.integral\_const\]), we calculate the integral $\int_0^{\tau}J_3(T,\dot{T})dt$ and the total power in Eq. (\[eq.total\_power\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^{\tau}J_3dt&&=-T_c \int_0^{\tau} \left(\frac{C_V \dot{T}}{T}-A^2\right) dt\nonumber \\
&&=T_c(S_h-S_c)+\frac{T_cB^2}{\tau},\label{eq.integrand_after_minimization}\\
P_{|q|=1}&&=\frac{E}{\tau}-\frac{T_cB^2}{\tau^2},\label{eq.total_power_after_variation}\end{aligned}$$ respectively. Note that $\eta_{|q|=1}$ in Eq. (\[eq.total\_efficiency\]) $\to \eta_{\rm max}$ in Eq. (\[eq.def\_effi\_qs\]) and $P_{|q|=1}\to 0$ in the quasistatic limit $\tau \to \infty$.
By maximizing Eq. (\[eq.total\_power\_after\_variation\]) with respect to $\tau$, we obtain the maximum power as $$\begin{aligned}
P_{|q|=1}^*=\frac{E^2}{4T_cB^2}\ \ \left({\rm at}\ {\tau}^*=\frac{2T_cB^2}{E}\right).\label{eq.total_time_at_pmax}\end{aligned}$$ Using Eq. (\[eq.total\_time\_at\_pmax\]), we finally obtain the work output at the maximum power under the tight-coupling condition as $$\begin{aligned}
W^*_{|q|=1}=P_{|q|=1}^{*}\tau^*=\frac{E}{2},\label{eq.work_global_pmax}\end{aligned}$$ which is just half of the exergy. Then, as a consequence of Eq. (\[eq.work\_global\_pmax\]), we also conclude that the efficiency at the maximum power under the tight-coupling condition $\eta^*_{|q|=1}$ is also half of the maximum efficiency in Eq. (\[eq.def\_effi\_qs\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
\eta^*_{|q|=1}=\frac{W^*_{|q|=1}}{U_h-U_c}=\frac{1}{2}\eta_{\rm max}.\label{eq.effi_at_max_pow}\end{aligned}$$ We note that in the case where the hot heat source is a hot heat reservoir as $C_V \to \infty$, $\eta^*_{|q|=1}$ in Eq. (\[eq.effi\_at\_max\_pow\]) recovers $\frac{\eta_{\rm C}}{2}$, as previously derived for the linear irreversible heat engines working between the heat reservoirs [@VB]. Although we considered only the tight-coupling case, it is quite natural to expect that Eqs. (\[eq.work\_global\_pmax\]) and (\[eq.effi\_at\_max\_pow\]) also serve as the [*upper bounds*]{} for the work output and efficiency at the maximum power, respectively, as the heat-leakage terms in Eqs. (\[eq.J2-2\]) and (\[eq.J3-2\]) do not contribute to the work output at all but just reduce the available internal energy of the hot heat source. This would also be consistent with the fact that the tight-coupling case serves as the upper bound of the efficiency at the maximum power $\eta^*$ for linear irreversible heat engines with the infinite-sized heat reservoir $C_V \to \infty$ as in Eq. (9) of [@VB] because our theory should also lead to Eq. (9) of [@VB] in that limit.
[*Concluding remarks.–*]{} We formulated the work output and efficiency for linear irreversible heat engines working between a finite-sized hot heat source and an infinite-sized cold heat reservoir until the total system reaches the final thermal equilibrium state with a uniform temperature. We proved that, when the heat engines operate at the maximum power under the tight-coupling condition without heat leakage, the work output is just half of the exergy reached at the quasistatic limit, and as a consequence, the corresponding efficiency is also half of its quasistatic counterpart. Because our results can be applied to any type of working substance and do not assume any specific form of the Onsager coefficients and the heat capacity, we expect that they are universal, as are Eqs. (\[eq.def\_e\]) and (\[eq.def\_effi\_qs\]) derived by equilibrium thermodynamics.
Finally, we remark on some possible extensions of the present study. First, further extension of our formulation to systems operating with a finite-sized cold heat sink instead of a cold heat reservoir [@ORB; @L; @YC] is straightforward. Second, the idea presented here could naturally be applied to other types of heat devices such as refrigerators and heat pumps [@CH2; @BK; @BB] because their original function is cooling or heating a system to a desirable temperature [@BK; @BB], where the system should be regarded as a finite-sized heat source or sink. Third, an extension to nonlinear response regimes [@ELB2; @SS; @GMS; @EKLB2; @US; @IO4] would also be a challenging task for possible future studies. Fourth, seeing that optimization of fluctuating nano- and micron-sized heat engines has become a hot topic with recent technological advances [@BB2; @ARJDSSL; @RASSL], we are naturally motivated to apply the exergetic concept to these systems. In relation to this, it is also interesting that a nonequilibrium equality such as the Crooks fluctuation theorem [@Cr] has also been extended to a finite-sized heat reservoir [@CTH]. Fifth, we stress that our theory could serve as a “zeroth approximation" for a possible future theory describing heat engines with a far-from-equilibrium heat source, such as a steam engine powered by burning coal.
We expect that the present work not only expands the scope of finite-time thermodynamics but also provides a design principle and an operational scheme for actual thermodynamic devices and power plants for a sustainable society.
Y. I. acknowledges the financial support from a Grant-in-Aid for JSPS Fellows (Grant No. 25-9748). The authors thank A. Calvo Hernández for useful comments on the manuscript.
[9999]{} F. Curzon and B. Ahlborn, Am. J. Phys. **43**, 22 (1975). J. Yvon, [*Proceedings of the International Conference on Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy*]{}, (United Nations, Geneva, 1955), Vol. [**2**]{}, p. 337. I. I. Novikov, J. Nucl. Energy **7**, 125 (1958). P. T. Landsberg and H. S. Leff, J. Phys. A **22**, 4019 (1989). J. M. Gordon, Am. J. Phys. **57**, 1136 (1989). A. Benjamin, J. Appl. Phys. **79**, 1191 (1996). P. Salamon, J. D. Nulton, G. Siragusa, T. R. Andersen, and A. Limon, Energy **26**, 307 (2001). C. Van den Broeck, Phys. Rev. Lett. **95**, 190602 (2005). B. Jiménez de Cisneros and A. Calvo Hernández, Phys. Rev. Lett. **98**, 130602 (2007). M. Esposito, K. Lindenberg, and C. Van den Broeck, Phys. Rev. Lett. **102**, 130602 (2009). T. Schmiedl and U. Seifert, Europhys. Lett. **81**, 20003 (2008). B. Gaveau, M. Moreau, and L. S. Schulman, Phys. Rev. Lett. **105**, 060601 (2010). M. Esposito, R. Kawai, K. Lindenberg, and C. Van den Broeck, Phys. Rev. Lett. **105**, 150603 (2010). U. Seifert, Phys. Rev. Lett. **106**, 020601 (2011). Y. Izumida and K. Okuda, Europhys. Lett. **97**, 10004 (2012). J. W. Gibbs, Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences **2**, 382 (1873), reprinted in [*The Scientific Papers of J. Willard Gibbs*]{} (Dover, New York, 1961), Vol. 1, p. 33. Z. Rant, Forschung auf dem Gebiete des Ingenieurwesens **22**, 36 (1956). H. Callen, [*Thermodynamics and an Introduction to Thermostatistics*]{} (Wiley, New York, 1985), 2nd ed., Chap. 4. M. J. Moran, H. N. Shapiro, D. D. Boettner, and M. B. Bailey, [*Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics*]{} (Wiley, New York, 2010), 7th ed., Chap. 7. Z. Yan and L. Chen, J. Phys. A **30**, 8119 (1997). M. J. Ondrechen, M. H. Rubin, and Y. B. Band, J. Chem. Phys. **78**, 4721 (1983). B. Andresen, M. H. Rubin, and R. S. Berry, J. Phys. Chem. **87**, 2704 (1983). B. Andresen, R. S. Berry, M. J. Ondrechen, and P. Salamon, Acc. Chem. Res. **17**, 266 (1984). L. Onsager, Phys. Rev. **37**, 405 (1931). S. R. de Groot and P. Mazur, [*Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics*]{} (Dover, New York, 1984). S. Deffner and E. Lutz, Phys. Rev. Lett. **107**, 140404 (2011). M. J. Ondrechen, B. Andresen, M. Mozurkewich, and R. S. Berry, Am. J. Phys. **49**, 681 (1981). H. S. Leff, Am. J. Phys. **55**, 701 (1987). O. Kedem and S. R. Caplan, Trans. Faraday Soc. **61**, 1897 (1965). Y. Izumida and K. Okuda, Phys. Rev. E **80**, 021121 (2009). B. Jiménez de Cisneros, L. A. Arias-Hernández, and A. Calvo Hernández, Phys. Rev. E **73**, 057103 (2006). C. Van den Broeck and R. Kawai, Phys. Rev. Lett. **96**, 210601 (2006). M. van den Broek and C. Van den Broeck, Phys. Rev. Lett. **100**, 130601 (2008). O. Abah, J. Ro[ß]{}nagel, G. Jacob, S. Deffner, F. Schmidt-Kaler, K. Singer, and E. Lutz, Phys. Rev. Lett. **109**, 203006 (2012). J. Ro[ß]{}nagel, O. Abah, F. Schmidt-Kaler, K. Singer, and E. Lutz, Phys. Rev. Lett. **112**, 030602 (2014). V. Blickle and C. Bechinger, Nat. Phys. **8**, 143 (2012). G. E. Crooks, Phys. Rev. E **60**, 2721 (1999). M. Campisi, P. Talkner, and P. Hänggi, Phys. Rev. E **80**, 031145 (2009).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Classification is an important statistical learning tool. In real application, besides high prediction accuracy, it is often desirable to estimate class conditional probabilities for new observations. For traditional problems where the number of observations is large, there exist many well developed approaches. Recently, high dimensional low sample size problems are becoming increasingly popular. Margin-based classifiers, such as logistic regression, are well established methods in the literature. On the other hand, in terms of probability estimation, it is known that for binary classifiers, the commonly used methods tend to under-estimate the norm of the classification function. This can lead to biased probability estimation. Remedy approaches have been proposed in the literature. However, for the simultaneous multicategory classification framework, much less work has been done. We fill the gap in this paper. In particular, we give theoretical insights on why heavy regularization terms are often needed in high dimensional applications, and how this can lead to bias in probability estimation. To overcome this difficulty, we propose a new refit strategy for multicategory angle-based classifiers. Our new method only adds a small computation cost to the problem, and is able to attain prediction accuracy that is as good as the regular margin-based classifiers. On the other hand, the improvement of probability estimation can be very significant. Numerical results suggest that the new refit approach is highly competitive.'
author:
- Guo Xian Yau
- Chong Zhang
bibliography:
- 'ref\_mac\_refit.bib'
title: 'Multi-category Angle-based Classifier Refit'
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Classification is one of the founding pillars in the statistical learning literature. It has achieved many successes on real applications in various scientific disciplines, such as artificial intelligence, cancer research, and econometrics. Given a training data set with both predictors and labels observed, one can obtain a classifier for future prediction. Typical examples of classification methods include logistic regression, Fisher’s linear discriminant analysis, nearest neighbours, and many more. See @Hastie2009 for a comprehensive review of existing methods.
For classification problems, the primary goal is to train the classifier with a high prediction accuracy. A classifier is optimal if its corresponding prediction error rate achieves the Bayes error rate, i.e., the smallest error rate among all possible classifiers. Besides prediction accuracy, class probability estimation is also very important in practice, especially for non-separable classification problems. In particular, when the density of two or more classes overlaps, there are random errors involved in class label prediction. In this case, class probability estimation can provide practitioners with valuable information on the confidence of classifying one subject into a certain category. For example, given the prediction that the stock market index would rise (as opposed to fall), the future investment strategies can be quite different if the estimated probabilities are $0.51$ and $0.99$ respectively.
In practice, if the dimension of the classification problem is low, traditional classifiers such as nearest neighbours are known to work well. Furthermore, class probability estimation can also be very accurate. However, recent technology development has enabled scientists to collect big data sets with very high dimensions. For example, microarray data can measure the expression levels of millions of genes simultaneously, whereas the number of observations is often limited. In this case, traditional learning methods are known to suffer from the potential danger of overfitting. That is, even if the classifier has a high prediction accuracy on the training data set, its generalization error on future testing data sets can be very large. To overcome this difficulty, many new classifiers have been proposed in the literature. For example, @cai2011direct proposed a generalization of Fisher’s LDA method to handle high dimensional problems, and @Wahba00 suggested the penalized logistic regression.
In this paper, we focus on margin-based classification methods. This family was originally introduced in the machine learning literature, and has become increasingly popular partly because of their ability to handle high dimensional classification problems. A typical margin-based classifier solves an optimization problem in the [*loss*]{} + [*regularization*]{} form. Here the loss term is used to measure the goodness of fit of the classifier on the training data set. The regularization term prevents overfitting by imposing penalty on complexity of the functional space, aiming to obtain a classifier with accurate prediction on future testing data sets. Many existing margin-based classifiers have been proposed in this framework, including penalized logistic regression [@Wahba00], Support Vector Machines [SVM, @Vapnik92; @Cortes95], import vector machines [@Zhu05], Adaboost in Boosting [@Freund97; @Friedman00], $\Psi$-learning [@Shen03], and large margin unified machines [@LUM].
Binary margin-based classifiers have been well studied. To address a multicategory classification problem, one can first consider a sequence of binary margin-based classifiers, such as the one-versus-one and one-versus-rest approaches. Although these methods are simple in concept and implementation, they have certain drawbacks. For example, the one-versus-one method has a potential tie-in-vote problem, and the one-versus-rest method can be inconsistent [@Liu07]. Therefore, in this paper, we focus on simultaneous margin-based classifiers. In the literature, most simultaneous margin-based classifiers use $k$ classification functions for a $k$-class problem. These methods often employ a sum-to-zero constraint in the corresponding optimization to reduce the parameter space and to ensure some theoretical properties such as Fisher consistency [also known as classification calibration, see @Bartlett06]. Many proposed classification methods follow this procedure. See, for example, @Lee04, @Zhu05, @Wang2007, @Park10, @RMSVM, @MLUM, among others. However, this approach of using $k$ functions and reducing to $k-1$ by the sum-to-zero constraint, despite its simplicity, can be inefficient. To circumvent this difficulty, @MAC proposed a new framework for simultaneous margin-based classification, namely, the angle-based classification, which only uses $k-1$ functions for classification. More details of angle-based classifiers are given in Section \[sec:review\]. @MAC showed that their method is free of the sum-to-zero constraint, hence for high dimensional problems, the angle-based method can enjoy faster computational speed and higher prediction accuracy. In this paper, we employ the angle-based framework for multicategory classification.
For margin-based classifiers, to estimate class probabilities, one commonly used approach is to explore their relationship with respect to the theoretical minimizer, and use the obtained classification functions for probability estimation (more details are given in Section \[sec:review\]). Many existing classifiers in the literature use this method to estimate class probabilities. See, for example, @Wahba00, @Park10, @LUM, and @MLUM, among others. Despite the simplicity of this approach, it does not take into account the effect of the regularization term on classification function estimation. For binary problems, @refit showed that the regularization terms can lead to severe bias in class probability estimation. In particular, for high dimensional problems, we often need a heavy penalty in the corresponding optimization to ensure a good generalization ability of the resulting classifier. However, heavy penalties can introduce significant shrinkage effect on the fitted classification functions. Consequently, the estimated probabilities would be biased. To alleviate this difficulty, for binary margin-based classifiers, @refit proposed a two-stage refit method. The idea of @refit is that despite the bias in probability estimation, margin-based classifiers can often find near optimal classification boundaries. Consequently, one can project all observations in the training data set onto the norm vector of the separating hyperplane, and perform a second step classifier training using the projected coordinates as the only predictor. Because there is only one predictor in the refit step, the regularization term is no longer needed, thus it does not suffer from the shrinkage effect. Through numerical examples, @refit showed that the refit method works very well for binary problems, in the sense that the second step classifier has similar prediction accuracy compared with the original one, and the corresponding probability estimation can be significantly improved.
Despite the progress of obtaining accurate probability estimation for binary margin-based classifiers, the effect of regularization terms on probability estimation for multicategory problems remains unclear. In this paper, we fill the gap by showing the shrinkage effect of the penalty on probability estimation for multicategory classification, and propose a new multicategory refit method to alleviate this difficulty. Our contribution is two fold. First, we provide some theoretical insights on why heavy penalty is often needed for high dimensional problems, and show that the fitted classification functions would have small norms. This leads to that the estimated probabilities would shrink towards $1/k$ for a $k$-class problem. Our second contribution is that we propose a multicategory refit method for simultaneous margin-based classifiers. Note that for multicategory problems, because there are more than one separating boundaries, how to perform appropriate projection becomes more involved. We propose to use the $k-1$ classification functions introduced in @MAC as the coordinates for the second step classifier training, and show that our new method can significantly improve class probability estimation in empirical studies.
The rest of this article is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:review\], we give a brief review of both binary and multicategory margin-based classifiers, and introduce how to estimate class conditional probability. In Section \[sec:method\], we first give some theoretical insights on why heavy penalty is often needed for high dimensional low sample size problems, then discuss the corresponding consequence on class probability estimation. Then, we propose our multicategory refit method to alleviate such difficulties. Numerical examples including simulation and real data analysis in Section \[sec:numeric\] demonstrates the usefulness of our new method. Some concluding remarks are given in Section \[sec:discussion\]. All technical proofs are collected in the Supplementary Materials.
Review of Margin-based Classifiers {#sec:review}
==================================
For a classification problem, suppose the training data set $\{({\boldsymbol{x}}_i,y_i); \ i=1,\ldots,n\}$ is obtained from an unknown underlying distribution $P({\boldsymbol{X}},Y)$, where ${\boldsymbol{X}}\in {\mathbb{R}}^p$ is a vector of predictors, and $Y \in \{+1,-1\}$ is the label for a binary problem. The typical learning goal is to obtain a classifier from the training data set, such that the future prediction error rate is minimized. In other words, we aim to find a prediction rule $\hat{y}(\cdot)$ that minimizes the expected $0$-$1$ loss $E [I \{ \hat{y}({\boldsymbol{X}}) \ne Y \}]$, where $I(\cdot)$ is the indicator function. Binary margin-based classifiers use a single function $f({\boldsymbol{x}})$ for classification, and the corresponding prediction rule is $\hat{y}({\boldsymbol{x}}) = \textrm{sign}\{f({\boldsymbol{x}})\}$. Consequently, minimizing the expected $0$-$1$ loss is equivalent to minimizing $E [I \{ Y f({\boldsymbol{X}}) < 0 \}]$. However, because the indicator function is non-convex and discontinuous, direct minimization of the empirical $0$-$1$ loss can be difficult. To overcome this challenge, a common approach is to use a surrogate convex loss function $\ell$ in place of the indicator function. In particular, a typical binary margin-based classifier solves the optimization $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{f \in {\mathcal{F}}} \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n \ell \{y_i f({\boldsymbol{x}}_i)\} + \lambda J(f),\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathcal{F}}$ is the functional space of $f$, $J(f)$ is the regularization term on $f$ to prevent overfitting, and $\lambda$ is a tuning parameter to balance the loss and regularization terms. In practice, an appropriate choice of $\lambda$ can be critical for the performance of the resulting classifier. Note that for an observation $({\boldsymbol{x}},y)$, $yf({\boldsymbol{x}})$, known as the functional margin, is positive if and only if the prediction is correct. Therefore, many binary margin-based classifiers use a non-increasing loss function $\ell$ to encourage large functional margins $yf$.
When the number of classes $k > 2$, it is common to have $Y\in\{1,\ldots,k\}$. In this case, one cannot use a single function $f$ for classification. In the literature, many simultaneous margin-based classifiers use $k$ functions ${\boldsymbol{f}}= (f_1,\ldots,f_k)$ for learning, and the corresponding prediction rule is $\hat{y} = \argmax_{j=1,\ldots,k} f_j$. A typical simultaneous classifier solves the following optimization $$\begin{aligned}
& \min_{{\boldsymbol{f}}\in {\mathcal{F}}} \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n \phi \{y_i,{\boldsymbol{f}}({\boldsymbol{x}}_i)\} + \lambda J({\boldsymbol{f}}), \nonumber \\
& \textrm{subject~to~} \sum_{j=1}^k f_j = 0,
\label{eqn:regular_multiclassifier}\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi$ is a multicategory margin-based loss function. Here, to reduce the parameter space and to ensure theoretical properties such as Fisher consistency, the sum-to-zero constraint on ${\boldsymbol{f}}$, namely $\sum_{j=1}^k f_j({\boldsymbol{x}}) = 0$ for all ${\boldsymbol{x}}$, is often imposed. Different loss functions correspond to different simultaneous margin-based classifiers. For example, the Multicategory SVM (MSVM) proposed by @Lee04 uses $\phi (y, {\boldsymbol{f}}) = \sum_{j \ne y} [1+f_j]_+$, where $[u]_+ = \max(0,u)$, the MSVM by @multipsi06 uses $\phi (y, {\boldsymbol{f}}) = \sum_{j \ne y} [ 1 - \min_j (f_y-f_j)]_+$, and the multicategory large margin unified machine by @MLUM uses $\phi (y, {\boldsymbol{f}}) = \gamma V(f_y) + (1-\gamma) \sum_{j\ne y} V(-f_j)$, where $\gamma \in [0,1]$ is a convex combination parameter, and $V$ is the binary large margin unified machine loss function (see the appendix for more details). Note that these methods all encourage a large value of $f_{y_i}({\boldsymbol{x}}_i)$, which can be regarded as the functional margin in multicategory problems.
Recently, @MAC pointed out that for a $k$-class problem, using $k$ classification functions and the sum-to-zero constraint can be inefficient, and proposed an angle-based classification framework to overcome this challenge. The details of angle-based classifiers are as follows. Consider a centered simplex with $k$ vertices ${\boldsymbol{W}}= \{{\boldsymbol{W}}_1,\ldots,{\boldsymbol{W}}_k\}$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^{k-1}$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\boldsymbol{W}}_j=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
(k-1)^{-1/2} {\bf 1} & \ \ \ j=1,\\
-(1+k^{1/2}) / \{(k-1)^{3/2}\} {\bf 1} + \{k/(k-1)\}^{1/2}e_{j-1} & \ \ \ 2 \le j \le k,
\end{array} \right.\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf 1}$ is a vector of $1$, and $e_j$ is a vector with $j$th element $1$ and $0$ elsewhere. One can verify that ${\boldsymbol{W}}$ defines a symmetric simplex in ${\mathbb{R}}^{k-1}$. Without loss of generality, assume class $j$ is assigned to ${\boldsymbol{W}}_j$. [@MAC] proposed to use ${\boldsymbol{f}}({\boldsymbol{x}}) = \{ f_1({\boldsymbol{x}}),\ldots,f_{k-1}({\boldsymbol{x}})\}: {\mathbb{R}}^p \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^{k-1}$ as the classification function vector. Each ${\boldsymbol{f}}\in {\mathbb{R}}^{k-1}$ defines $k$ angles with respect to ${\boldsymbol{W}}_1,\ldots,{\boldsymbol{W}}_k$, namely, $\angle ({\boldsymbol{W}}_j,{\boldsymbol{f}}); \ j=1,\ldots,k$. The prediction rule is $\hat{y}({\boldsymbol{x}}) = \textrm{argmin}_{j \in \{1,\ldots,k\}} \angle ({\boldsymbol{W}}_j,{\boldsymbol{f}})$. Note that the smaller $\angle ({\boldsymbol{W}}_j,{\boldsymbol{f}})$, the larger the corresponding inner product $\langle {\boldsymbol{W}}_j,{\boldsymbol{f}}\rangle$. Therefore, the goal of the angle-based classifier is equivalent to maximizing $\langle {\boldsymbol{W}}_y,{\boldsymbol{f}}({\boldsymbol{x}}) \rangle$, which can be regarded as functional margins in the angle-based classification. In particular, an angle-based classifier solves the optimization problem $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{{\boldsymbol{f}}\in {\mathcal{F}}} \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n \ell \{ \langle {\boldsymbol{W}}_{y_i}, {\boldsymbol{f}}({\boldsymbol{x}}_i) \rangle \} + \lambda J({\boldsymbol{f}}),
\label{eqn:mac_loss}\end{aligned}$$ where $\ell$ is a binary margin-based loss function. The angle-based classifiers are free of the sum-to-zero constraint, therefore can enjoy a more efficient computational speed. @MAC showed that angle-based classifiers are highly competitive for high dimensional classification problems.
Besides class prediction accuracy, estimation of class probabilities can be very important. For example, in clinical trials, physicians may have different treatments for patients based on their estimated probabilities of a certain disease. In the margin-based classification literature, to estimate the probabilities, a common approach is to use the fitted classification functions. In particular, we denote by $P_j({\boldsymbol{x}}) = {\textrm{pr}}(Y=j \mid {\boldsymbol{X}}={\boldsymbol{x}})$ the class conditional probability for class $j$. Define the conditional expected loss $$\begin{aligned}
S({\boldsymbol{x}}) = E [\phi \{Y, {\boldsymbol{f}}({\boldsymbol{X}})\} \mid {\boldsymbol{X}}={\boldsymbol{x}}],
\label{eqn:conditional_loss}\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi$ is a margin-based loss function. Note that if ${\boldsymbol{f}}$ is one dimensional and one chooses $\phi$ appropriately, (\[eqn:conditional\_loss\]) can include binary classifiers as special cases. Next, define the theoretical minimizer of (\[eqn:conditional\_loss\]) to be $$\begin{aligned}
{\boldsymbol{f}}^*({\boldsymbol{x}}) = \arginf_{{\boldsymbol{f}}} S({\boldsymbol{x}}) = \arginf_{{\boldsymbol{f}}} E [\phi \{Y, {\boldsymbol{f}}({\boldsymbol{X}})\} \mid {\boldsymbol{X}}={\boldsymbol{x}}].
\label{eqn:theo_minimizer}\end{aligned}$$ For a classification problem with $Y \in \{1,\ldots,k\}$, under mild conditions (e.g., the loss function $\phi$ is differentiable), one can find the relationship between $P_j({\boldsymbol{x}})$ and ${\boldsymbol{f}}^*({\boldsymbol{x}})$, namely, $P_j({\boldsymbol{x}}) = g_j\{{\boldsymbol{f}}^*({\boldsymbol{x}})\}$ for all $j$. When the fitted classification function $\hat{{\boldsymbol{f}}}$ is obtained for a new observation ${\boldsymbol{x}}$, one can use $\hat{P}_j({\boldsymbol{x}}) = g_j\{\hat{{\boldsymbol{f}}}({\boldsymbol{x}})\}$ to estimate the probability of class $j$ for ${\boldsymbol{x}}$. For example, in binary margin-based classification, under mild conditions, one can estimate $P_{+1}({\boldsymbol{x}})$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\ell'(-\hat{f}) / \{ \ell'(-\hat{f}) + \ell'(\hat{f})\},
\label{eqn:binary_prob}\end{aligned}$$ where $\ell$ is the corresponding binary margin-based loss function [@Zou08; @refit]. For the angle-based classification, @MAC showed that the relationship between $P_j$ and ${\boldsymbol{f}}^*$ is such that $$\begin{aligned}
P_j= \frac{\ell'(\langle{\boldsymbol{W}}_j,{\boldsymbol{f}}^*\rangle)^{-1} }{\sum_{i=1}^k \ell'(\langle{\boldsymbol{W}}_i,{\boldsymbol{f}}^*\rangle)^{-1}},
\label{eqn:mac_prob_estimate}\end{aligned}$$ for all $j \in \{1,\ldots,k\}$ and differentiable loss function $\ell$. Consequently, one can estimate $P_j$ by $\hat{P}_j=\{\ell'(\langle{\boldsymbol{W}}_j,\hat{{\boldsymbol{f}}}\rangle)^{-1} \} / \{ \sum_{i=1}^k \ell'(\langle{\boldsymbol{W}}_i,\hat{{\boldsymbol{f}}}\rangle)^{-1} \}$. Note that @WangShenLiu2008 and @multiprob proposed methods for class conditional probability estimation using SVM classifiers.
Methodology {#sec:method}
===========
In this section, we first explore the effect of the regularization term on class probability estimation in Section \[sec:shrink\], then propose a new refit method for multicategory classification in Section \[sec:refit\].
Shrinkage Effect of Probability Estimation in Multicategory Classification {#sec:shrink}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
For binary margin-based classifiers, @refit observed that the $L_2$ regularization term can have a shrinkage effect on the estimated classification function, which can further lead to biased probability estimation. Despite the progress, many challenges remain. For example, whether $L_1$ type and other regularization terms such as the smoothly clipped absolute deviation [SCAD, @fan2001variable] penalty have a similar shrinkage effect was not explored, and the consequence of regularization terms for multicategory classification is unclear. In this section, we extend the discussion to angle-based classifiers for various regularization methods, and demonstrate that the shrinkage effect is common for high dimensional problems.
To begin with, we first provide some theoretical insights on why heavy penalty is often needed for high dimensional low sample size classification problems. Recall that the primary goal of classification is to obtain a classifier with high prediction accuracy for future testing data sets. Traditional methods such as ordinary logistic regression minimize the empirical loss function on the training data set, and it is known that this approach can result in a classifier that fits the training data too well with suboptimal future prediction. For high dimensional problems, the overfitting issue is more severe. To overcome this difficulty, it is common to use regularization terms in the optimization to guarantee the generalization ability of the resulting classifier. In the next theorem, we focus on the angle-based classifier (\[eqn:mac\_loss\]) with linear learning and $L_1$ and $L_2$ penalties, and show that in order to have a good classifier for problems with large $p$ and small $n$, we often need $\lambda$ to be large. Note that $f_j({\boldsymbol{x}}) = {\boldsymbol{\beta}}_j^T {\boldsymbol{x}}+ \beta_{0,j}$ for all $j \in \{1,\ldots,k-1\}$ in linear learning. In this paper, we assume the domain of ${\boldsymbol{X}}$ is bounded, and the loss function $\ell$ is continuously differentiable. One can verify that this assumption is mild and can be satisfied by many practical problems.
Define $I\{y, {\boldsymbol{f}}({\boldsymbol{x}})\}$ to be the indicator function of misclassification for the observation $({\boldsymbol{x}},y)$, using ${\boldsymbol{f}}(\cdot)$ and the angle-based prediction rule. We have that, with probability at least $1-\delta$, $$\begin{aligned}
E[I\{Y, \hat{{\boldsymbol{f}}}({\boldsymbol{X}})\}] \le \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n I\{y_i, \hat{{\boldsymbol{f}}}({\boldsymbol{x}}_i)\} + 3 \left\{ \frac{\log(2/\delta)}{n}\right\}^{1/2} + Z,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
Z = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\frac{C_1}{\lambda} \sqrt{\frac{\log(p)}{n}} & \textrm{for linear learning with $L_1$ penalty,} \\
\frac{C_2}{\lambda} \sqrt{\frac{p}{n^{1/2}}} & \textrm{for linear learning with $L_2$ penalty,}
\end{array} \right.\end{aligned}$$ and $C_1,C_2$ are constants independent of $\lambda$, $n$ and $p$. \[thm:why\_penalty\]
Theorem \[thm:why\_penalty\] shows that for a trained classification function vector $\hat{{\boldsymbol{f}}}$ from (\[eqn:mac\_loss\]), the corresponding prediction error rate on a large testing data set can be bounded by the error rate on the training set, plus a penalty term that depends on $\lambda$, $n$ and $p$. For a problem with large $p$ and small $n$, one can verify that we need a large $\lambda$ in order to guarantee that the future error rate is small. This helps to shed some light on why heavy penalty is often needed for high dimensional problems.
For brevity, in Theorem \[thm:why\_penalty\] we focus on linear learning in angle-based classifiers using $L_1$ and $L_2$ regularization. One can verify that similar results hold for many other settings, for example learning in a Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Space [RKHS, @Schlkopf2002; @kernelbook], using other penalties such as the SCAD [@fan2001variable] and the elastic-net [@elasticnet] methods, and classification with $k$ functions and the sum-to-zero constraint (\[eqn:regular\_multiclassifier\]). See the proof of Theorem \[thm:why\_penalty\] in the appendix for more details.
Next, we show that the regularization term with large $\lambda$ can significantly shrink the norm of $\hat{{\boldsymbol{f}}}$, which further leads to the bias in probability estimation using (\[eqn:mac\_prob\_estimate\]) for angle-based classifiers. As in Theorem \[thm:why\_penalty\], we focus on $L_1$ and $L_2$ penalties in linear learning in the following proposition.
The solution $\hat{{\boldsymbol{f}}}$ to (\[eqn:mac\_loss\]) satisfies that $\|\hat{{\boldsymbol{f}}}\|_1 \le C / \lambda$ for the $L_1$ and $L_2$ regularized learning, where $C$ is a universal constant independent of $\lambda$, $n$ and $p$. \[prop:fhat\_boundary\]
Because every element of ${\boldsymbol{W}}_j$ is bounded by $1$, we have that $\langle {\boldsymbol{W}}_j, \hat{{\boldsymbol{f}}}({\boldsymbol{x}}) \rangle$ is bounded by $C / \lambda$ for all $j$ and ${\boldsymbol{x}}$. For high dimensional problems, Theorem \[thm:why\_penalty\] shows that the classifier tends to use a large $\lambda$ for the regularization term. As a result, the functional margins in the angle-based classification framework, $\langle {\boldsymbol{W}}_j, \hat{{\boldsymbol{f}}}({\boldsymbol{x}}) \rangle$, tend to shrink towards zero. This, however, does not affect the label prediction performance of the classifier, as a correct prediction only requires that the corresponding angle-based functional margin $\langle {\boldsymbol{W}}_y, \hat{{\boldsymbol{f}}}({\boldsymbol{x}}) \rangle$ is the largest. Therefore, with a large $\lambda$, the future prediction error rate $E I\{Y, \hat{{\boldsymbol{f}}}({\boldsymbol{X}})\}$ can be close to the optimal (assuming that the empirical error rate on the training set is small), although the estimated $\hat{{\boldsymbol{f}}}$ has a small norm. On the other hand, the estimated probabilities tend to shrink towards $1/k$. In particular, recall from (\[eqn:mac\_prob\_estimate\]) that we use $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{P}_j ({\boldsymbol{x}}) = \frac{\ell'\{\langle {\boldsymbol{W}}_j, \hat{{\boldsymbol{f}}} ({\boldsymbol{x}}) \rangle\}^{-1} }{\sum_{i=1}^k \ell'\{\langle {\boldsymbol{W}}_i,\hat{{\boldsymbol{f}}} ({\boldsymbol{x}}) \rangle\}^{-1}}
\label{eqn:multi_prob}\end{aligned}$$ to estimate $P_j({\boldsymbol{x}})$. By Proposition \[prop:fhat\_boundary\], we have that $\langle {\boldsymbol{W}}_j, \hat{{\boldsymbol{f}}}({\boldsymbol{x}}) \rangle \to 0 $ for large $\lambda$. Consequently, $\ell'\{ \langle {\boldsymbol{W}}_j, \hat{{\boldsymbol{f}}}({\boldsymbol{x}}) \rangle \} \to \ell'(0)$. Therefore, for a high dimensional problem where the selected $\lambda$ is large, $\hat{P}_j ({\boldsymbol{x}}) \to 1/k$ for all $j$ and $k$.
Using similar proofs as that of Proposition \[prop:fhat\_boundary\], one can verify that the shrinkage effect also exists for many other regularization methods, such as the SCAD and elastic-net penalties, and for learning in nonlinear functional spaces such as RKHS. See the proof and discussion of Proposition \[prop:fhat\_boundary\] in the appendix for more details.
To alleviate the bias in probability estimation, in the next section, we propose a new refit method for angle-based classifiers. We show that our method can improve probability estimation accuracy, at the cost of an additional optimization problem that can be solved very efficiently.
A New Refit Method for Angle-based Classifiers {#sec:refit}
----------------------------------------------
With appropriate regularization terms and tuning parameters in high dimensional problems, Theorem \[thm:why\_penalty\] and Proposition \[prop:fhat\_boundary\] show that margin-based classifiers can deliver accurate class prediction, however, the estimated functional margins could shrink towards $0$. This can result in suboptimal probability estimation. To overcome this difficulty, in this section, we propose a new multicategory refit method that can significantly alleviate the bias in probability estimation.
To begin with, recall that it is common to perform probability estimation using (\[eqn:binary\_prob\]) in binary problems. The following proposition shows that all the information about class conditional probability for binary margin-based classification is contained in the estimated $\hat{f}({\boldsymbol{x}})$.
Suppose for two observations ${\boldsymbol{x}}$ and ${\boldsymbol{z}}$, we have that $\hat{P}_1({\boldsymbol{x}}) = \hat{P}_1({\boldsymbol{z}})$ using (\[eqn:binary\_prob\]). Then, it must be that $\hat{f}({\boldsymbol{x}}) = \hat{f}({\boldsymbol{z}})$. \[prop:all\_prob\_info\]
Notice that the mapping ${\boldsymbol{x}}\rightarrow \hat{f}({\boldsymbol{x}})$ is equivalent to finding the separating hyperplane in the feature space, and projecting all training observations onto its corresponding norm vector (see Figure \[fig:bin\_proj\] for an illustration). From Theorem \[thm:why\_penalty\] and Proposition \[prop:fhat\_boundary\], one can conclude that the sign of $\hat{f}({\boldsymbol{x}})$ can be accurate, yet the scale would shrink towards $0$ for high dimensional problems. To circumvent this challenge, @refit proposed to learn a second step classifier using $\{(\hat{f}({\boldsymbol{x}}_i),y_i); \ i=1,\ldots,n\}$ as the training data set, and employ probability estimation based on the result from the refit step. In other words, we employ the projected coordinates on the norm vector as the new variable. @refit proved that for binary classifiers where there is shrinkage effect, the refit step can help to “restore" the norm of estimated classification functions, which can lead to better probability estimation.
![[For binary margin-based classifiers, the classification function $f({\boldsymbol{x}})$ maps ${\boldsymbol{x}}$ onto the norm vector of the separating hyperplane. ]{}[]{data-label="fig:bin_proj"}](binary_projection1.jpeg){width="45.00000%"}
Despite the progress, how to perform the projection step in multicategory classification problems is challenging. For example, in the simultaneous margin-based classification with $k$ functions and the sum-to-zero constraint, one can verify from similar arguments as in Theorem \[thm:why\_penalty\] and Proposition \[prop:fhat\_boundary\] that the label prediction based on $(\hat{f}_1,\ldots,\hat{f}_k)$ can be accurate, yet the probability estimation is biased because the norm of $(\hat{f}_1,\ldots,\hat{f}_k)$ shrinks. To alleviate this difficulty, a possible approach is to use $(\hat{f}_1,\ldots,\hat{f}_k)$ as the second step input for classification without penalty terms. Similarly, in the angle-based classification framework, because class conditional probability estimation depends on $\langle \hat{{\boldsymbol{f}}} , {\boldsymbol{W}}_j \rangle$ for all $j$, one can use $\langle \hat{{\boldsymbol{f}}} , {\boldsymbol{W}}_j \rangle; \ j=1,\ldots,k$ as the predictors for a naive refit approach. However, because of the commonly used sum-to-zero constraint for regular classifiers and the sum-to-zero property for angle-based methods, one of the $k$ predictors in the second step refit approach mentioned above is unnecessary. It is unclear how to choose predictors that are not redundant, and simultaneously contain all information about class conditional probability. To overcome this challenge, for angle-based classifiers, we propose to use the $k-1$ dimensional $\{\hat{{\boldsymbol{f}}}({\boldsymbol{x}}_i); i=1,\ldots,n\} = \{(\hat{f}_1({\boldsymbol{x}}_i),\ldots,\hat{f}_{k-1}({\boldsymbol{x}}_i)); i=1,\ldots,n\}$ as predictors for our second step refit method. The next theorem shows that the $k-1$ functions contain the same information about class conditional probabilities as $\langle \hat{{\boldsymbol{f}}} , {\boldsymbol{W}}_j \rangle; \ j=1,\ldots,k$.
There is a one-to-one correspondence between ${\boldsymbol{f}}\in {\mathbb{R}}^{k-1}$ and $\langle {\boldsymbol{f}}, {\boldsymbol{W}}_j \rangle; \ j=1,\ldots,k$, such that ${\boldsymbol{f}}= {\boldsymbol{g}}$ if and only if $\langle {\boldsymbol{f}}, {\boldsymbol{W}}_j \rangle = \langle {\boldsymbol{g}}, {\boldsymbol{W}}_j \rangle; \ j=1,\ldots,k$. Moreover, if for two observations ${\boldsymbol{x}}$ and ${\boldsymbol{z}}$, we have that $(\hat{P}_1({\boldsymbol{x}}),\ldots,\hat{P}_k({\boldsymbol{x}})) = (\hat{P}_1({\boldsymbol{z}}),\ldots,\hat{P}_k({\boldsymbol{z}}))$ using (\[eqn:multi\_prob\]), then $\hat{{\boldsymbol{f}}}({\boldsymbol{x}}) = \hat{{\boldsymbol{f}}}({\boldsymbol{z}})$. \[thm:one\_to\_one\]
Because the norm of $\langle \hat{{\boldsymbol{f}}} , {\boldsymbol{W}}_j \rangle$ is an increasing function with respect to the norm of $\hat{{\boldsymbol{f}}}$, Theorem \[thm:one\_to\_one\] suggests that if we can restore the norm of $\hat{{\boldsymbol{f}}}$, we can alleviate the shrinkage effect on class conditional probability estimation. We summarize our refit step for probability estimation in the angle-based classification framework as follows.
[**Algorithm for Multicategory Refit Method**]{}
1. Fit the classifier on the training data set to obtain $\hat{{\boldsymbol{f}}}$ with proper tuning on $\lambda$.
2. Create the training data set for the second step refit method. In particular, for the $i$th observation, we use $\hat{{\boldsymbol{f}}}({\boldsymbol{x}}_i)$ as the corresponding predictor vector with $k-1$ elements, and $y_i$ as the label.
3. Fit the classifier again on the training data set from Step 2, without any penalty terms. Denote by $\tilde{{\boldsymbol{f}}}$ the obtained classifier.
4. Estimate the class conditional probability $P_j({\boldsymbol{x}})$ by $\tilde{P}_j({\boldsymbol{x}}) = \frac{\ell'[\langle {\boldsymbol{W}}_j, \tilde{{\boldsymbol{f}}} \{\hat{{\boldsymbol{f}}}({\boldsymbol{x}})\} \rangle]^{-1} }{\sum_{q=1}^k \ell'[\langle {\boldsymbol{W}}_q, \tilde{{\boldsymbol{f}}} \{\hat{{\boldsymbol{f}}}({\boldsymbol{x}})\} \rangle]^{-1}}$.
Note that in Step 3 in the above algorithm, we train the refit classifier without regularization terms. This is because in most applications, the number of observations $n$ is much larger than the number of classes $k$. Hence, there is little danger for overfitting, and no penalty is needed. Consequently, there would be no shrinkage effect on the estimated $\tilde{{\boldsymbol{f}}}$, and we can obtain better probability estimation accuracy.
In the next section, we perform numerical analysis on simulated and real data sets to demonstrate the effectiveness of our refit approach for multicategory classification problems.
Numerical Examples {#sec:numeric}
==================
In this section, we conduct numerical experiments to demonstrate the effectiveness of our new refit method for multicategory classification. In particular, we perform simulation analysis in Section \[sec:simu\], and test on some real data sets in Section \[sec:real\].
Simulation {#sec:simu}
----------
We investigate the performance of our refit method using two simulated examples with high dimensional predictors in this section. In particular, we compare the class prediction accuracy, as well as probability estimation accuracy, for the traditional method and our new refit method. To measure the probability estimation accuracy, we report the mean absolute difference (MAD) between the true class conditional probability and the estimated value. The MAD is defined to be $$\begin{aligned}
\textrm{MAD} = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{j=1}^k |P_j({\boldsymbol{x}}_i) - \hat{P}_j({\boldsymbol{x}}_i)|.\end{aligned}$$ For all examples and classifiers, we train the model on a training data set, and select the best tuning parameters from a candidate set $\{2^{-10},2^{-9},\ldots,2^{9},2^{10}\}$ that correspond to the smallest prediction error on a separate tuning data set. Then, we measure the class prediction and probability estimation accuracy on a large testing data set. For the choice of loss functions, we use the logistic regression deviance loss (logi) and the soft large-margin unified machine loss [soft, @LUM] for demonstration. We emphasize that our method can be generalized in a straightforward manner to other differentiable convex loss functions. We also train support vector machines using kernlab (KSVM) and report the corresponding classification accuracy as a comparison. Note that traditional SVM does not provide class conditional probability estimation. For each example, the prior probabilities for each class are the same.
[**Example 1.**]{} In this example, we let $k=3$. The classification signal depends on $10$ independent predictors $X_1,\ldots,X_{10}$. Given $Y$, the marginal distribution of each predictor is normal with variance $\sigma = 2$. For class 1, the mean vector of the normal distribution is $(3,3,3,3,0,0,0,0,0,0)^T$. For class 2, the mean vector of the normal distribution is $(0,0,0,3,3,3,3,0,0,0)^T$. For class 3, the mean vector of the normal distribution is $(0,0,0,0,0,0,3,3,3,3)^T$. Next, we generalize noise predictors for high dimensional learning. In particular, we use $1490$ variables, each following $i.i.d.$ $N(0,0.02)$. The training and tuning sets have size $300$ each, and the testing set has $29400$ observations.
[**Example 2.**]{} We generalize a $10$-class problem for this example, where the classification signal depends on two predictors. The marginal distribution of $X_1$ and $X_2$ contains classification signal, and we generate another 498 variables that follow $i.i.d.$ $N(0,0.01)$. For each class, the marginal distribution of $(X_1, X_2)$ is joint normal with constant variance matrix $I_2$, and the corresponding mean vectors are uniformly distributed on the circle $X_1^2+X_2^2 = 9$.
The results for simulated Examples 1 and 2 are reported in Table \[tab:simu\]. From the outcome, one can conclude that our refit method can significantly improve the accuracy of class conditional probabilities, compared to the original method proposed by @MAC. Moreover, the corresponding classification accuracy of the original angle-based method is close to that of our refit ones. Hence, the refit approach is highly competitive. Note that the SVM performs poorly.
------------ ------- ------ ------- ------
Error MAD Error MAD
Bayesian 5.51 - 35.0 -
Soft 5.58 15.4 36.9 13.9
Refit Soft 7.23 4.22 38.0 5.80
Logi 5.53 23.6 38.5 12.0
Refit Logi 7.13 3.94 43.0 8.81
KSVM 28.87 - 87.4 -
------------ ------- ------ ------- ------
Real Data Analysis {#sec:real}
------------------
In this section, we investigate the performance of our proposed refit method by applications on some real data sets. In particular, we apply the original angle-based classifier with probability estimation, as well as our refit method, on two benchmark data sets that can be found on the UCI machine learning repository. The first data set that we consider is Wine, which depicts the quality of 3 categories of wine with 13 variables. The second data set is Phishing websites, which contains 30 attributes and 2456 observations. More details for these data can be found at <https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/>.
For both examples, we split the entire data into 6 parts. We use one of the parts as the testing set, and perform a four-fold cross validation on the remaining training data to select the best classifiers. The selection of tuning parameters is similar to that of the simulation examples. Since we do not know the underlying class conditional probability, we use the Cross Entropy Error [CRE, @MAC] to measure the goodness of fit of the estimated probabilities. In particular, for a testing set with $n$ observations, the CRE is given as $$\begin{aligned}
\textrm{CRE} = - \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n \hat{p}_{y_i} ({\boldsymbol{x}}_i) \log \{ \hat{p}_{y_i} ({\boldsymbol{x}}_i) \}.\end{aligned}$$ We report the average results for $100$ replicates in Table \[tab:real\]. Notice that one can draw similar conclusions as in the simulation section, which demonstrates the effectiveness of our refit approach.
------------ ------- ------ ------- ------
Error CRE Error CRE
Soft 52.9 5.85 47.0 2.03
Refit Soft 28.1 3.76 47.8 0.77
Logi 58.4 6.40 36.6 1.92
Refit Logi 31.6 5.79 42.3 1.29
------------ ------- ------ ------- ------
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
In this paper, we investigate the effect of penalty terms for multicategory margin-based classifiers. In particular, we provide some theoretical insights on why heavy penalty is often needed for high dimensional low sample size classification problems. Then we show that such penalty can lead to severely biased class conditional probability. To overcome the difficulty, we propose a new multicategory refit approach for the angle-based classifiers. Numerical experiments show that the new method can improve class probability estimation with very low computation burden, hence can be very useful.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'This review covers selected developments in maser theory since the previous meeting, [*Cosmic Masers: From Proto-Stars to Black Holes*]{} (Migenes & Reid 2002). Topics included are time variability of fundamental constants, pumping of OH megamasers and indicators for differentiating disks from bi-directional outflows.'
date: '?? and in revised form ??'
---
Fun with Masers
===============
Rather then maser theory, the first couple of items covered here can be more properly described as “fun with masers”. These items were selected for discussion because they do not belong under the title of any other talk in this meeting. Both involve weak OH signals that lead to spectacular results.
How do we know masers exist?
----------------------------
There are numerous arguments why the radiation from various astronomical sources involves maser amplification (e.g., Elitzur 1992). But the only direct proof can come from measurements of excitation temperatures that yield negative values. The well known technique for measuring a line excitation temperature, $T_x$, requires a molecular cloud in front of a distance continuum source that provides background radiation with measurable brightness temperature $T_b$ at the transition frequency. The measured brightness temperatures in the “off” and “on” positions, away from and toward the background source, obey $$T^{\rm off} = T_x\left(1 - e^{-\tau}\right), \qquad
T^{\rm on} = \left(T_x - T_e\right)\left(1 - e^{-\tau}\right)$$ where $\tau$ is the line optical depth of the cloud. The two measurements yield two equations for the two unknowns $T_x$ and $\tau$. In the classic experiment by Rieu (1976), the OH main lines from a cloud in front of the extragalactic radio source 3C123 switched from emission in the off-source position to on-source absorption. The excitation temperature of both lines is $T_x \simeq$ 5–7 K. But in the case of the 1720 MHz line, off-source emission turned into even stronger emission in the on-source position, indicating that the cloud amplifies the background radiation with $\tau \simeq -0.1$. The corresponding excitation temperature is $T_x(1720) \simeq -10$ K.
Almost 30 years later, Weisberg (2005) came up with a beautiful variant of this approach in OH spectral measurements toward 18 pulsars. One member of the sample, pulsar B1641–45, emits every 0.455 seconds a pulse of radio radiation that passes through an OH cloud on its way toward Earth. The entire system is positioned in front of an H[II]{} region that provides additional, steady background radiation. When the pulsar is off, spectra of the OH ground-state lines detected from the cloud display absorption features in the 1612, 1665 and 1667 MHz lines and an emission feature at 1720 MHz. When the pulsar is on, passage of its radiation through the cloud deepens the absorption features. But at 1720 MHz the emission feature becomes stronger, showing that at this frequency the pulsar radiation is amplified by passing through the intervening screen. This is the equivalent of an object amplifying a background light instead of casting a shadow. It is the same effect as observed earlier by Rieu , but it does not involve any change in the telescope pointing. The pulsar method also increases confidence in the results, thanks to the repeated detection of amplified signals that arrive more than twice every second. The amplification again is modest, $\tau$ is only $\sim -0.05$. Although the input signals are amplified by only a few percent in both cases, these weak masers are the only unambiguous direct evidence for amplification.
-- -----------------------------------------
{width="0.9\hsize"}
-- -----------------------------------------
Are fundamental constants truly constant?
-----------------------------------------
A cosmological implication of many variants of string theories is that fundamental constants such as the fine structure constant $\alpha = e^2/\hbar
c$, the electron-proton mass ratio $m_{\rm e}/m_{\rm p}$, etc. should vary with time. Indeed, from measurements of QSO absorption lines it has been suggested that a variation $\Delta\alpha/\alpha$ has possibly occurred between the $z$ = 3.5 epoch and the present (Murphy 2001). However, the uncertainty in this suggestion is substantial because measurements based on atomic lines are faced with fundamental difficulties. Comparing the frequencies of different lines of the same atom does not yield information on $\alpha$ because the entire spectrum of a given species has the same $\alpha$-dependence, therefore frequency shifts that would result from a change in $\alpha$ cannot be distinguished from the effects of redshift. And comparison of lines of different atoms suffers from the uncertainty arising from the possibly different locations, and different $z$, of the species.
Darling (2003) pointed out that the complexity of the OH spectrum makes it most suitable for getting around this problem. The centimeter OH transitions are a combination of hyperfine splitting and $\Lambda$-doubling, and the two effects depend differently on $\alpha$. As a result, by comparing the frequencies of different OH radio transitions one can constrain the cosmic evolution of $\alpha$ from a single species, avoiding systematic errors in $\alpha$ measurements from multiple species which may have relative velocity offsets. The problem of different locations still exists, though, because different OH lines may still arise from different locations because of preferential excitations in different environments. This problem was solved by Kanekar (2005) who noted that many weak signals from the OH ground-state satellite lines appear in conjugate pairs of absorption and emission. The two halves of the $\Lambda$-doublet consist of pairs of hyperfine states. Because of the different overall spins of hyperfine states, their coupling to different excited states makes it easy to transfer population between them without affecting the overall population of each half of the $\Lambda$-doublet. The result is an overpopulation, or even inversion, of one satellite line and a mirror under-population of the other (see, e.g., Elitzur 1992).
Taking OH spectra from the $z$ 0.765 gravitational lens toward PMN J0134–0931, Kanekar identified a conjugate pair of 1612 MHz absorption and 1720 MHz emission, shown in Figure \[fig:Kanekar\]. As is evident from the figure’s bottom panel, the sum of the two satellite lines produces a flat spectrum consistent with noise, a strong indication that they originate from the same region. The deduced line frequencies place tight bounds on the variation of fundamental constants over the past 6.5 G yr: $\Delta\alpha/\alpha < $ 6.7 and a similarly strong upper limit of 1.4 for $m_{\rm e}/m_{\rm p}$. These fundamental constants have not changed, to within this tight tolerance, for half the age of the Universe.
OH Megamasers
=============
OH megamasers (OHM) are extremely luminous extragalactic sources with isotropic luminosities a million or more times greater than their Galactic OH maser counterparts. They are found in the nuclear regions of luminous infrared galaxies where intense star formation is occurring. The “standard model" for OHM was introduced by Baan (1985), who proposed that the maser emission is produced by low gain unsaturated amplification of background radio continuum. This proposal was confirmed by the Henkel & Wilson (1990) comprehensive study of OHM. However, compact maser emission discovered in subsequent VLBI observations produced conflicts with the standard model, conflicts that reached their climax around the time of the previous maser meeting (Lonsdale 2002). Strong compact masers without correspondingly bright continuum background implied amplification factors in excess of 800. In addition, the 1667/1665 line ratios of the compact masers greatly exceeded those of the diffuse OHM emission. An additional surprise of these observations was that linewidths remained large (tens of ) even on the smallest observed angular scales. This has led to the suggestion that there are two different modes of OHM operation — low gain, unsaturated amplification responsible for the diffuse maser emission and high gain, saturated emission producing the compact sources. It was also suggested that the two classes may have different pumping mechanisms (Lonsdale 2002).
A major recent development is the realization that a two-component picture is not necessary. The compact masers can be explained within the standard model as chance alignment of low-gain maser clumps. The key was the interferometric observations of IIIZw35 by Pihlstr[ö]{}m (2001) and the modeling by the same authors and later, in greater detail, by Parra (2005). The model explains both the diffuse and compact emission from IIIZw35 by assuming a clumpy maser medium. Each cloud generates low gain, unsaturated emission, and strong compact emission occurs when the line of sight intersects more than one cloud. A similar model has subsequently been used to explain the megamaser emission from IRAS 17208-0014 (Momjian 2006). The clumpy maser model also explains the observation that compact masers are always found embedded in the diffuse emission and do not occur in isolation (Lonsdale 2002). Thus the only additional ingredient necessary to supplement Baan’s “standard model” is clumpiness — the OHM phenomenon is explained as the amplification of background radio continuum by low gain ($\tau_{1667}$ 1) clumps.
Lockett & Elitzur (2007) performed pumping calculations to explain the OHM inversion process. Pumping models should explain the outstanding properties of OHM emission: (1) The line ratio of observed fluxes always obeys $F(1667)/F(1665) > 1$ and the satellite lines are always weaker than the main lines. By comparison, in evolved stars the main lines emission region displays a similar behavior — 1667 MHz is the strongest maser, and the satellite line emission from that region is weaker than either main line. In contrast, Galactic star forming regions show a different, more complex emission pattern. Generally, the main lines are stronger than the satellite lines and display $F(1667)/F(1665) < 1$, the opposite of EHM and evolved stars. But there are sources in which the strongest line is the 1665 MHz is and some where it is a satellite line.
![ Dependence of the 1667 MHz maser optical depth, $\tau_{1667}$, on the parameters of the IR pumping flux (see eq. \[eq:Dust\]). [*Left:*]{} $\tau_{1667}$ versus dust temperature for varying dust optical depth. [*Right:*]{} $\tau_{1667}$ versus dust opacity for different dust temperatures (Lockett & Elitzur 2007). []{data-label="fig:FIR"}](OHM1.eps "fig:"){height="0.4\hsize"} ![ Dependence of the 1667 MHz maser optical depth, $\tau_{1667}$, on the parameters of the IR pumping flux (see eq. \[eq:Dust\]). [*Left:*]{} $\tau_{1667}$ versus dust temperature for varying dust optical depth. [*Right:*]{} $\tau_{1667}$ versus dust opacity for different dust temperatures (Lockett & Elitzur 2007). []{data-label="fig:FIR"}](OHM2.eps "fig:"){height="0.4\hsize"}
In the Lockett & Elitzur models, the inversion arises from radiative excitations by far-IR radiation (FIR). The FIR radiation field is described by the simple expression corresponding to emission from dust with a uniform temperature $T_d$ and optical depth $\tau_\nu$. The frequency dependence of $\tau_\nu$ follows that of standard interstellar dust so the only free parameters are $T_d$ and $\tau_V$, the dust optical depth at visual. Combinations of parameters that produce main lines inversion are shown in figure \[fig:FIR\]. The left panel shows the 1667 MHz optical depth versus dust temperature for a range of dust opacities. A minimum dust temperature of 45 K is needed for maser production. Increasing the dust temperature increases the maser strength up to a point, after which it decreases. Maximum maser inversion occurs for dust temperatures between 70 – 120 K. The right panel shows the 1667 MHz optical depth versus dust opacity for a range of dust temperatures. Two important results can be seen in this figure. First, when the opacity becomes large the dust radiation approaches that of a black-body and the maser begins to thermalize. At 200 there is little dependence of maser strength on dust temperature. Second, for each dust temperature there is a minimum dust opacity needed for inversion. This implies that a minimum FIR pumping flux is needed for maser production. Further understanding can be found by examining the maser dependence on the FIR intensity in the maser pump line at 53 . The pumping flux is determined by the product of the two factors in equation \[eq:Dust\]. The first is the Planck function, which depends on dust temperature, the second is the self-absorption term, which depends on the dust opacity at the pumping frequency. The FIR flux is increased by increasing either the dust temperature or its opacity. As a result, a larger flux is needed for a lower dust temperature, indicating that the FIR spectral shape is important for maser pumping. Thus a smaller IR luminosity can support inversion as long as the dust temperature is sufficiently high — in agreement with observations (Baan 1989, Darling & Giovanelli 2002). Similarly, inversion requires a minimum dust temperature. Below 50 K, the Planck function at 53 decreases very rapidly with dust temperature. The flux can be increased by raising the dust opacity but cannot exceed the black-body limit, which is insufficient for inversion at dust temperatures below about 45 K.
An important correlation is the increase of with . Early OHM observations revealed an approximately quadratic relation between the two (Baan 1989), but subsequent studies established the flatter dependence $\LOH\
\varpropto \LIR^{1.2}$ (Darling & Giovanelli 2002). Low gain amplification of background radio continuum implies that is proportional to the radio luminosity, which in turn is proportional to over the relevant luminosity range. Since the observed correlation is steeper than linear, Baan (1989) conjectured that maser optical depth $\tau_{\rm maser}$ also varies linearly with the pump luminosity . However, the Lockett & Eitzur model results show that, depending on the different parameters, $\tau_{\rm maser}$ in fact can either increase or decrease with the IR luminosity. The increase of in excess of linear proportion to may be explained by the results of the Gao & Solomon (2004) of HCN emission from luminous IR galaxies. They find a tight proportionality between IR and HCN luminosities, and conclude that the amount of dense molecular gas, which is traced by the HCN, is linearly proportional to . It is thus reasonable to assume that, together with the increase of dense molecular gas, the number of OH maser clouds is also increasing with .
![“Color-color" diagram of OH maser line ratios. The line shows the variation when all four lines have the same excitation temperature, which is the situation when the linewidth exceeds 10 , as $\tau_{1667}$ increases from 0.5 at the curve’s lower end to 4 at its upper end. Data are from Baan 1989, 1992 and Martin et al 1989 (Lockett & Elitzur 2007). []{data-label="fig:ratios"}](OHM3.eps){width="0.6\hsize"}
Line overlap is a major component of the OHM inversion and the calculations show that the linewidth, , is the most important factor in determining the 1667/1665 MHz line ratio. Widths in excess of 2 cause the 1667/1665 ratio to be consistently larger than one, while widths 2 can cause this ratio to be greater than or less than one, depending on the actual . Large linewidths ( 10 ) produce ground state hyperfine transitions that are all inverted with approximately the same (negative) excitation temperature. Detailed comparison with observations is difficult because the satellite lines are very weak and have only been detected for relatively nearby sources. Even in those cases the signal to noise ratio is small, resulting in large uncertainties in line strength ratios. Figure \[fig:ratios\] plots the 1667/1720 MHz line ratio versus the 1667/1665 MHz line ratio for four relatively nearby OHM. The agreement is surprisingly good considering the large uncertainties in the line ratios.
The variation of line ratios with suggests that FIR might be a common pump of all OH main line masers, Galactic as well as megamasers, with the magnitude of velocity controlling line overlap the factor explaining the observed differences. The maser patterns in Galactic star forming regions stand apart because of the relatively small values of in these sources. The similarity between OHM and evolved stars may reflect the large velocities controlling line overlap in both environments.
-- ------------------------------------------
{width="0.9\hsize"}
-- ------------------------------------------
Disks and Outflows
==================
Class II methanol maser emission often shows linear structures in both spatial maps and in position–velocity ($p$–$v$) diagrams. It has been suggested that these structures delineate protostellar edge-on disks (Norris 1998). However, similar structures can be produced also in bi-directional outflows, a geometry that actually seems more appropriate in a large fraction of methanol masers (De Buizer 2003). The fact that such disparate maser geometries can produce such similar signatures raises a fundamental question: Short of proper motion measurements, is there a reliable way to distinguish between the two? The methanol maser source toward IRS 1N in NGC 7538 may offer an answer. Its unique emission contours display a centrally-peaked large, elongated structure in the $p$–$v$ diagram, shown in figure \[fig:NGC7538\]; in contrast, most other sources typically display in such diagrams a string of maser features. The structure in NGC 7538 was successfully modeled in great detail by Pestalozzi (2004) with an edge-on Keplerian disk. Although this interpretation was questioned by De Buizer & Minier (2005), Kraus (2006) have demonstrated the existence of jet precession in this source, settling the issue in favor of the disk geometry.
![Position-velocity diagram of maser amplification contours for bipolar outflow with representative properties. The outflow axis is in the plane of the sky in the left panel, aligned with the line-of-sight in the right panel and 60 off the line-of-sight in the center one (Pestalozzi 2007). []{data-label="fig:outflow"}](Outflow.eps){width="\hsize"}
![Position-velocity diagram for maser amplification in an edge-on disk. [*Left*]{}: A quiescent disk, only thermal velocities. [*Right*]{}: The same disk subjected to solid-body rotation with angular velocity $\Omega$ (Pestalozzi 2007). []{data-label="fig:disk"}](Disk1.eps "fig:"){width="0.45\hsize"} ![Position-velocity diagram for maser amplification in an edge-on disk. [*Left*]{}: A quiescent disk, only thermal velocities. [*Right*]{}: The same disk subjected to solid-body rotation with angular velocity $\Omega$ (Pestalozzi 2007). []{data-label="fig:disk"}](Disk2.eps "fig:"){width="0.45\hsize"}
It turns out that the $p$–$v$ structure seen in figure \[fig:NGC7538\] implies fairly tight constraints that significantly narrow the range of possible geometries (Pestalozzi 2007). Consider first a bipolar outflow. When the outflow axis is in the plane of the sky, the emission from each lobe is centered on velocity $v = 0$. Because the density declines rapidly with radial distance, the emission is peaking at two regions displaced symmetrically from the outflow origin. The resulting structure in the $p$–$v$ diagram is two blobs that straddle the origin at $v = 0$, as seen in the left panel of figure \[fig:outflow\]. When the outflow axis is along the line-of-sight, the emission from both cones occurs at the same position, but at different velocities — blue and red shifted by the same amount from the systemic velocity. The $p$–$v$ diagram, shown in the right panel of figure \[fig:outflow\], again displays two blobs, only this time they are in the same position but at different velocities. In essence, rotating the outflow axis by 90 effects a similar rotation of the emission contours in the $p$–$v$ diagram. It is not surprising that an intermediate orientation of the outflow axis likewise produces an intermediate rotation in the $p$–$v$ diagram, as can be seen from the center panel of figure \[fig:outflow\]. Whatever the inclination of its axis, a bipolar outflow cannot produce the single centrally peaked structure seen in figure \[fig:NGC7538\]. A smooth outflow will produce two mirror features displaced symmetrically from the center. Fragmentation of the outflow may introduce an asymmetry between the two halves but will always avoid the center, never producing a centrally peaked feature.
Consider now the case of an edge-on disk. When the disk does not rotate, its optical depth obeys $\tau(p,v) = \tau(p)\phi(v)$; that is, the positional variation of the amplification is controlled solely by the length of the amplifying column because the velocity profile $\phi$ is the same at every position. For uniform inversion, $\tau(p)$ is simply proportional to the pathlength through the disk, which is maximal at the two tangents to the disk inner radius. The $p$–$v$ diagram of the amplification contours in this case is shown in the left panel of figure \[fig:disk\]. Similar to the outflow geometry, the contours show two distinct peaks, displaced symmetrically from the center. The center does show amplification in this case, but it is a local minimum. When the disk is set in rotation, the Doppler velocity of the emission from a point at radius $r$ and impact parameter $p$ obeys $v = \Omega(r)p$, where $\Omega(r)$ is the local angular velocity. Therefore, in solid body rotation the material along each impact parameter remains fully velocity coherent, only the velocity profile is centered on $v = \Omega p$; that is, the optical depth obeys $\tau(p,v) = \tau(p)\phi(v - \Omega p)$. As a result, the structure of amplification contours in the $p$–$v$ diagram remains the same, only rotated by the angle tan$^{-1}\Omega$ (and slightly stretched to maintain the peak positions at the two tangents to the inner radius), as shown in the right panel of figure \[fig:disk\]. Similar to bipolar outflow, an edge-on disk rotating as a solid body will never produce a centrally peaked structure as observed in NGC 7538 (figure \[fig:NGC7538\]). Only differential rotation, such as Keplerian motion, can produce such structure. Furthermore, even in that case, turning the local minimum at the center of the $p$–$v$ diagram into a local maximum requires rotation rates in excess of a certain threshold (Pestalozzi 2007). Detailed analysis of the $p$–$v$ diagram is, evidently, a powerful tool that deserves more study.
Open Problem — Maser Polarization
=================================
Maser polarization behaves differently according to whether the Zeeman shift is larger or smaller than the linewidth . The case $\nuB \gg \DnuD$ is well understood. Spontaneous decays occur in pure transitions, producing in each transition radiation that is fully polarized and centered on a different Zeeman frequency. Under these circumstances the amplification process preserves the polarization, therefore thermal and maser polarizations are the same. The only difference between the two cases is the disparity between the $\pi$ and $\sigma$ maser intensities, reflecting their different growth rates (Elitzur 1996).
In the opposite limit, $\nuB \gg \DnuD$, the Zeeman components overlap and the amplification mixes the different polarizations. The pumping processes produce radiation in three different modes of polarization with respect to the magnetic field ($\Delta m = 0, \pm1$), but only two independent combinations propagate in any direction because the electric field must be perpendicular to the wave vector. Elimination of the longitudinal component implies specific phase relations among the three pump-generated electric fields; only waves launched with these phase relations produce superpositions that are purely transverse so that they can be amplified by propagation in the inverted medium. The phase relations translate to the following polarization for maser radiation propagating at angle $\theta$ from the magnetic axis: where $x = (\nu - \nu_0)/\DnuD$ and = /. This solution, which was first derived by Goldreich, Keeley & Kwan (1973) in the limit = 0 and extended by Elitzur (1996) to finite $\xB < 1$, is obtained also from the requirement that the four Stokes parameters produce fractional polarizations that remain unaffected by the amplification process.
How the unpolarized radiation produced in spontaneous decays evolves into this stationary polarization solution remains an open problem. Numerical calculations that follow the growth of the Stokes parameters do not reach the stationary solution for any reasonable amount of amplification, and this slow growth can be understood from simple analytic considerations. However, the Stokes parameters are intensities, quadratic in the electric fields of the waves, and in formulating their growth equations all information about the phases of the electric vectors is lost. Since the stationary solution reflects specific phase relations between the $\pi$ and $\sigma$ components, the formalism employed for calculating the growth of the Stokes parameters negates the very effect it seeks to describe. Eliminating the phase information, the interactions selecting the stationary polarization are removed from the calculation. What is still missing is a full simulation of the ensemble evolution of interacting particles and electric fields. Such simulations are preformed in studies of laboratory plasma but have not yet been attempted for astronomical maser radiation.
Coupled Escape Probability (CEP)
================================
Pumping models require reliable calculations of the population distribution in multi-level systems. The radiative terms in the statistical rate equations require the local radiation field, which must be determined from a separate solution of the radiative transfer equation for each and every line. Because of the complexity and computational demands of exact solution methods, most codes bypass altogether the radiative transfer equations, employing instead the escape probability approximation. In this approach only the level populations are considered, calculated from rate equations that include photon escape factors which are meant to account approximately for the effects of radiative transfer. This approach amounts to an uncontrolled approximation without internal error estimates because it is founded on a plausibility assumption right from the start. Nevertheless, this inherent shortcoming is often tolerated because of the simplicity and usefulness of the escape probability approach.
Elitzur & Asensio Ramos (2006) have recently developed a new exact method, the Coupled Escape Probability (CEP), that retains all the advantages of the naive escape probability approach. In this new technique the source is divided into zones, and formal level population equations are derived rigorously from first principles. Different zones are coupled through terms resembling standard escape probability expressions, resulting in a set of coupled algebraic equations for level populations that are self-consistent with the line radiation they generate. Any desired accuracy can be achieved by increasing the number of zones. In comparative studies of a number of standard problems, the CEP method outperformed the current leading techniques by substantial margins. While the new method holds a great performance edge, its greatest advantage is its simplicity and ease of implementation. The CEP method employs a set of algebraic equations that are already incorporated in all codes based on the escape probability approximation. All that is required for an exact solution is to augment the escape probability in such codes with a zone-coupling sum. With this simple modification, the multi-level line transfer problem is solved exactly and efficiently.
For my own pumping calculations I developed over the years the escape probability code MOLPOP that can handle any arbitrary atom or molecule for which atomic data exist. For any species, the energy levels, collision rates and Einstein A-coefficients are tabulated in ordinary ASCII text files and MOLPOP selects from its database the appropriate files according to input instructions. We are in the process of implementing the CEP technique into MOLPOP, creating a general purpose tool for atomic and molecular line analysis that will become publicly available. In addition, the atomic and molecular data team at Meudon Observatory has embarked on the development of another tool that accesses through the web their central database and creates on the user’s local computer atomic and molecular data files in the format required by MOLPOP. This auxiliary tool will become part of the MOLPOP/CEP package and will provide users the most current atomic data at all times. The complete package will enable exact pump modeling for every maser molecule. We hope to have a first release by the end of 2007.
The author’s maser research is supported by NSF through grant AST-0507421.
Baan, W. 1985, Nature, 315, 26 Baan, W. 1989, ApJ, 388, 804 Baan, W. A., Haschick, A., & Henkel, C. 1989, ApJ, 346, 680 Baan, W. A., Haschick, A., & Henkel, C. 1992, AJ, 103, 728 Darling, J. 2003, Physical Review Letters, 91, 011301 Darling, J. & Giovanelli, R. 2002, AJ, 124,100 De Buizer, J. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 277 De Buizer, J. M., & Minier, V. 2005, ApJ, 628, L151 Elitzur, M. 1992, Astronomical Masers (Kluwer Academic Publishers) Elitzur, M. 1996, ApJ 457, 415 Elitzur, M. & Asensio Ramos, A. 2006, MNRAS 365, 779 Gao, Y., & Solomon, P.M. 2004, ApJ, 606, 271 Goldreich, P., Keeley, D.A. & Kwan, J.Y. 1973, ApJ, 179 111 Henkel, C., Wilson, T. L. 1990, A&A, 229, 431 Kanekar, N., et al. 2005, Physical Review Letters, 95, 261301 Kraus, S., et al. 2006, A&A, 455, 521 Lockett, P. & Elitzur, M. 2007, in preparation Lonsdale, C. J. 2002, Cosmic Masers: From Proto-Stars to Black Holes, IAU Symposium \#206, 413 Martin, J., Bottinelli, Dennedeld, M., Gougenheim, L., Lesqueren, A., 1989, A&A, 208,39 Migenes, V., & Reid, M. J. 2002, Cosmic Masers: From Proto-Stars to Black Holes, IAU Symposium \#206 (San Francisco: ASP) Momjian, E., Romney, J. D., Carilli, C. L., & Troland, T. H. 2006, ApJ, 653, 1172 Murphy, M. T., Webb, J. K., Flambaum, V. V., Dzuba, V. A., Churchill, C. W., Prochaska, J. X., Barrow, J. D., & Wolfe, A. M. 2001, MNRAS, 327, 1208 Parra, R., Conway, J. E., Elitzur, M., & Pihlstrom. Y. M. 2005, A&A, 443, 383 Pestalozzi, M. R., Elitzur, M., Conway, J. E., & Booth, R. S. 2004, ApJ, 603, L113; Erratum: 2004, ApJ, 606, L173 Pestalozzi, M. R., Elitzur, M. & Conway, J. E., 2007, in preparation Pihlstr[ö]{}m, Y. M., Conway, J. E., Booth, R. S., Diamond, P. J., & Polatidis, A. G. 2001, A&A, 377, 413 Norris, R., Byleveld, S., & Diamond, P. e. 1998, ApJ, 508, 275 Rieu, N.Q., Winnberg, A., Guibert, J., Lepine, J.R.D., Johansson, L.E.B. & Goss, W.M. 1976, A&A, 46, 413 Weisberg, J.M., Johnston, S., Koribalski, B. & Stanimirovic, S. 2005, Science 309, 106
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'A generalized definition of intrinsic and extrinsic transport coefficients is introduced. We show that transport coefficients from the intrinsic origin are solely determined by local electronic structure, and thus the intrinsic spin Hall effect is not a transport phenomenon. The intrinsic spin Hall current is always accompanied by an equal but opposite intrinsic orbital-angular-momentum Hall current. We prove that the intrinsic spin Hall effect does not induce a spin accumulation at the edge of the sample or near the interface.'
author:
- 'S. Zhang and Z. Yang'
title: 'Intrinsic Spin and Orbital-Angular-Momentum Hall Effect'
---
Recently, there are emerging [*theoretical*]{} interests on the spin Hall effect in a spin-orbit coupled system [@Sinova; @Culcer; @Nomura; @Murakami; @Rashba; @Rashba2; @Loss; @Loss2; @Loss3; @Inoue; @Mishchenko; @Dimitrova; @Hu; @Ma]. The spin Hall effect refers to a non-zero [*spin*]{} current in the direction transverse to the direction of the applied electric field. Earlier studies had been focused on an extrinsic effect [@Hirsch; @Zhang], namely, when conduction electrons scatter off an impurity with the spin-orbit interaction, the electrons tend to deflect to the left (right) more than to the right (left) for a given spin orientation of the electrons. Thus the impurity is the prerequisite in the extrinsic spin Hall effect. Recently, the spin Hall effect has been extended to semiconductor heterostructures where the spin-orbit coupled [*bands*]{} are important. It has been shown that the spin current exists in the absence of impurities, termed as the intrinsic or dissipationless spin Hall effect (ISHE) in order to distinguish the impurity-driven extrinsic spin Hall effect (ESHE) mentioned above. In general, the magnitude of ISHE is two to three orders larger than that of ESHE; this immediately generates an explosive interest in theoretical research on the ISHE since the spin current is regarded as one of the key variables in spintronics application.
However, the spin current generated via ISHE is fundamentally different from conventional spin-polarized transport in many ways. First, the spin current is carried by the entire spin-orbit coupled Fermi sea, not just electrons or holes at the Fermi level [@Murakami; @Sinova]. Second, ISHE exists even for an equilibrium system (without external electric fields) [@Rashba] and ISHE is closely related to the dielectric response function that characterizes the electronic deformation [@Rashba2]. Most recently, it is proposed that the intrinsic spin Hall effect exists even in insulators [@Murakami2]. The above unconventional properties cast serious doubts on experimental relevance of the intrinsic spin current. It has been already alerted by Rashba [@Rashba; @Rashba2] that the ISHE may not be a transport phenomenon. Due to the ill-defined nature of the spin current in the spin-orbit coupled Hamiltonian, theories utilizing different approaches produce contradicting results: some predicted a zero spin Hall current in the presence of an arbitrary weak disorder and some claimed a universal spin conductivity at weak disorder. In this letter, we do not try to resolve the above theoretical debate, instead we reveal the spurious nature of the intrinsic spin Hall effect and discuss its experimental consequences. We first define generalized intrinsic and extrinsic transport coefficients from the semiclassical transport equation. We show that the intrinsic spin current is always accompanied by an equal but opposite orbital-angular-momentum (OAM) current for a spin orbit coupled system. Thus, the intrinsic magnetization current which is the sum of the spin current and the orbital angular momentum current is identically zero. Next, we construct the equation of motion for the spin density in the presence of the intrinsic and extrinsic mechanisms. We find that the intrinsic spin current is exactly canceled by a spin torque and thus the spin accumulation at the edge of the sample is solely determined by the extrinsic spin current. The above results make us conclude that the intrinsic spin current has [*no experimental consequences*]{} in terms of the spin transport measurement for an arbitrary strength of the intrinsic Hall conductivity. Therefore, the intrinsic spin current is a pure theoretical object, at least, in the limit of the semiclassical picture of the spin transport. Finally, we brief comment on the most recent experimental results [@Wunderlich].
Let us consider a spin-dependent Hamiltonian $$H= - \frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \nabla^2 + V({\bf r}, \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$})
+ eEx + V_i ({\bf r}, \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$})$$ where the second term represents a periodic spin-orbit potential, the third term is the interaction with a DC electric field $E$ in the $x$-direction, and the last term is the impurity potential that may or may not depend on spin. Now let us consider how an arbitrary dynamic variable $\hat{G}$ responds to the electric field. A standard semiclassical version of the linear response function ${\cal J} ({\bf r})$ is $${\cal J}({\bf r}) = \sum_{{\bf k} \lambda} G_{{\bf k}\lambda}
f( \epsilon_{{\bf k}\lambda} , {\bf r} )$$ where $\hat{G}$ can be any dynamic variable such as the current density, the spin current density, the magnetic moment, etc., $G_{{\bf k}\lambda} = \int d{\bf r} \Psi^+_{{\bf k}\lambda} (\bf r)
\hat{G} \Psi_{{\bf k}\lambda} (\bf r) \equiv
<\Psi_{{\bf k}\lambda}|\hat{G}| \Psi_{{\bf k}\lambda}>$ is the expectation value for the eigenstate $\Psi_{{\bf k}\lambda} (\bf r)$ (Bloch states) determined by the first three terms in Eq. (1), $\lambda = \pm 1 $ represents the index of the spin sub-band, and $f( \epsilon_{{\bf k}\lambda} ,
{\bf r} )$ is the distribution function that depends on the detail of the scattering potential $V_i ({\bf r}, \sigma)$, the last term of Eq. (1). The dependence of ${\cal J} ({\bf r})$ on the electric field enters in two places: the wavefunctions and the distribution function. We may expand them up to the first order in the electric field. The wavefunction is written as, $$\Psi_{{\bf k}\lambda} ({\bf r}) = \Psi^{(0)}_{{\bf k}\lambda}
({\bf r}) + \Psi^{(1)}_{{\bf k}\lambda} ({\bf r})$$ where $\Psi^{(0)}_{{\bf k}\lambda}({\bf r})$ is the unperturbed electronic structure determined by the first two terms in Eq. (1), and $$\Psi^{(1)}_{{\bf k}\lambda} ({\bf r}) = \sum_{{\bf k}' \lambda ' \neq
{\bf k}\lambda }
\frac{<\Psi^{(0)}_{{\bf k}'\lambda'} | eEx | \Psi^{(0)}_{{\bf k} \lambda}>}
{\epsilon_{{\bf k}\lambda} - \epsilon_{{\bf k}'\lambda'}}
\Psi^{(0)}_{{\bf k}'\lambda'} ({\bf r}),$$ is the first order perturbation to the third term in Eq. (1). Similarly, we write the distribution function in terms of the equilibrium and non-equilibrium parts, $$f( \epsilon_{{\bf k}\lambda} , {\bf r} ) = f^0
( \epsilon_{{\bf k}\lambda} ) + \left( - \frac{\partial f^0}{\partial
\epsilon_{{\bf k}\lambda}} \right)
g({\bf k}\lambda, {\bf r})$$ where $f^0$ is the equilibrium distribution function and the non-equilibrium function $g({\bf k}\lambda, {\bf r})$ is proportional to the electric field. By placing Eqs. (3) and (5) into Eq. (2) and keeping only the first order term in the electric field, we have ${\cal J}({\bf r})
\equiv {\cal J}_{int}+{\cal J}_{ext}$ where $${\cal J}_{int} = 2 {\rm Re} \sum_{{\bf k} \lambda}
<\Psi^{(0)}_{{\bf k}\lambda}
|\hat{G}|\Psi^{(1)}_{{\bf k}\lambda}> f^0 (\epsilon_{{\bf k}\lambda})$$ is defined as the intrinsic linear response and ${\rm Re}$ stands for the real part, and $${\cal J}_{ext} = \sum_{{\bf k} \lambda} <\Psi^{(0)}_{{\bf k}\lambda}|\hat{G}|
\Psi^{(0)}_{{\bf k}\lambda}>
\left( - \frac{\partial f^0}{\partial
\epsilon_{{\bf k}\lambda}} \right)
g({\bf k}\lambda, {\bf r})$$ is called the extrinsic linear response. The above distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic contributions to the transport properties has been already introduced by a number of groups, in particular, by Jungwirth [*et al.*]{} [@Jungwirth] in their study of the anomalous Hall effect in itinerant ferromagnets. Equation (6) shows that the intrinsic linear response coefficient is not related to the transport phenomenon since ${\cal J}_{int}$ is determined by the equilibrium distribution function and the [*local electronic structure*]{}. Thus, there are no transport length scales such as the mean free path or spin diffusion length in ${\cal J}_{int}$. The extrinsic linear response, ${\cal J}_{ext}$, is a true transport quantity because it is directly proportional to the non-equilibrium distribution function that is determined by various scattering mechanisms. At low temperature, the factor of $\partial f^0/\partial \epsilon_{{\bf k}\lambda}$ limits the transport states to the Fermi level. Comparing Eq. (6) and Eq. (7), we realize that the intrinsic effect is simple and easy to calculate while the extrinsic effect is much more complicated. As long as we know the Bloch states $\Psi^{(0)}_{{\bf k}\lambda}$, the intrinsic transport coefficient can be straight-forwardly evaluated since $f^0$ is known. The extrinsic transport coefficient not only depends on the Bloch states, but also on the non-equilibrium distribution function that is usually the center of the relevant physics. Here, however, we should concentrate on the easy problem: calculation of the intrinsic transport from Eq. (6) by using a model Hamiltonian.
We choose a Rashba Hamiltonian to illustrate the physics of the intrinsic transport properties. A similar calculation can also be performed for a Luttinger Hamiltonian [@Luttinger]. For the Rashba Hamiltonian, the second term of Eq. (1) is $V({\bf r}, \sigma) = (\alpha/\hbar)
\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$} \cdot ({\bf p} \times \hat{\bf z}) $ where [**p**]{} is the momentum in $xy$ plane, $\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}$ is the Pauli matrix and $\alpha$ is the coupling constant. Before we calculate the spin and the OAM Hall currents from Eq. (6), we list the wavefunction and the dispersion relation of the Rashba Hamiltonian so that one can easily follow our derivation at each step $$\Psi^{(0)}_{{\bf k}\lambda} ({\bf r}) = \frac{e^{i{\bf k}\cdot {\bf r}}}
{\sqrt{2A}} \left( \begin{array}{c}
1 \\
-i \lambda (k_x +ik_y)k^{-1} \\
\end{array}
\right)$$ where $A$ is the area of the 2-dimensional electron gas, and $$\epsilon_{{\bf k}\lambda} = \frac{\hbar^2 k^2}{2m} + \lambda \alpha k$$ where $k=|{\bf k}|=\sqrt{k_x^2 + k_y^2}$. By placing above two equations into (4), we have [@Rashba] $$\Psi^{(1)}_{{\bf k}\lambda} ({\bf r}) = - \frac{\lambda eE k_y}{
4 \alpha k^3}
\Psi^{(0)}_{{\bf k}-\lambda} ({\bf r}).$$ In obtaining the above result, we have used $<\Psi^{(0)}_{{\bf k}'\lambda'}
|x|\Psi^{(0)}_{{\bf k}\lambda}> = -\frac{\lambda \lambda'}{2} \delta_{
{\bf kk}'} \frac{k_y}{k^2} $.
We now proceed to calculate the spin Hall current by taking the operator $\hat{G}= (1/2)[ s_z v_y + v_y s_z] $ where $s_z = (\hbar/2)\sigma_z$ is the z-component of the spin operator and $v_y$ is the y-component of the velocity. By placing the above definition along with Eqs. (8) and (10), and by taking the distribution function a step function at zero temperature, we obtain the intrinsic spin Hall current from Eq. (6), $${\cal J}^{spin}_{int} = \frac{e}{8\pi} E;$$ where we have assumed that the Fermi energy is larger than the spin-orbit coupling energy so that both spin sub-bands cross the Fermi level. Equation (11) represents the universal spin conductivity ($e/8\pi$) obtained by many groups [@Murakami; @Sinova].
Our central question is: what is the physical meaning of this spin current derived from the equilibrium distribution function? To see clearly what this spin current represents, we recall that the spin is not a conserved quantity in a spin-orbit coupled system. If one is interested in the [*magnetization current*]{} or the total angular momentum current, one should also include the OAM Hall current. The OAM Hall current can be similarly calculated by introducing an operator for the OAM Hall current $$\hat{G} =\frac{1}{2} \left[
({\bf r}\times {\bf p})_z v_y + v_y ({\bf r}\times {\bf p})_z
\right]$$ where $({\bf r}\times {\bf p})_z = xp_y-yp_x$ is $z$-component of the OAM. The same straightforward evaluation of Eq. (6) leads to $$J^{orbit}_{int} = - \frac{e}{8\pi} E.$$ Thus the OAM current is exactly equal and opposite to the spin current. This result is not surprising at all: the total angular momentum ($z$-component), spin plus orbital, is conserved for the Rashba Hamiltonian and thus we can choose the Bloch states that are simultaneous eigenstates of the total angular momentum and the Hamiltonian. In fact, one can directly show that the total angular momentum current vanishes if we use $[s_z +L_z, H] =0$ to the Rashba Hamiltonian.
Having discussed that the intrinsic spin current is always accompanied with the OAM current in a bulk spin-orbit coupled material, our next question is whether the intrinsic spin current can produce a spin accumulation at the edge of the sample? To answer this question, we recall the basic idea of the spin accumulation for the extrinsic spin current. When an extrinsic spin current spatially varies, non-equilibrium spins will be accumulated so that the spin-diffusion is balanced by the spin-drift current. Equivalently, the spin accumulation results in the chemical potential splitting between two spin sub-bands and a voltage can be measured experimentally when the sample is attached to a ferromagnetic lead [@Zhang]. Mathematically, the non-equilibrium spin-dependent chemical potential or spin accumulation is the average of the [*non-equilibrium distribution function*]{} [@Valet]. For the intrinsic spin Hall current, the distribution is an equilibrium distribution and one would expect that the concept of the spin-dependent chemical potential breaks down. Indeed, we show next that the the intrinsic spin Hall current does not lead to spin accumulations at the sample edge and across an interface.
To calculate the spin accumulation or the position-dependent spin density ${\bf S} ({\bf r}, t)$ at the edge of the sample or across an interface, one relies on the semiclassical equation of motion that can be generally written as $$\frac{\partial {\bf S} ({\bf r}, t)}{\partial t} + \mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}
\cdot [ {\bf J}_{int} + {\bf J}_{ext}] = \mbox{\boldmath $\tau$}
+ \mbox{\boldmath $\tau$}_{ext} + \left( \frac{\partial {\bf S}}{\partial t}
\right)_{colli}$$ where ${\bf J}_{int}$ and ${\bf J}_{ext}$ are the intrinsic and extrinsic spin current densities, $\mbox{\boldmath $\tau$}$ and $\mbox{\boldmath $\tau$}_{ext}$ are the intrinsic and extrinsic spin torques due to non-commutivity of the Hamiltonian with the spin operator, i.e., the spin torque is calculated by replacing $\hat{G}$ by $[{\bf s}, H]/i\hbar$ in Eqs. (6) and (7), and the last term in Eq. (14) is a collision term that is to relax the nonequilibrium distribution function to an equilibrium one. To explicitly obtain the spin accumulation ${\bf S} ({\bf r}, t)$ in a closed form, it is necessary to use a wave-package description so that the position-dependence can be readily included. Culcer [*et al.*]{} [@Culcer] have already formulated that the spin torque can be written as two terms. In our notation, we find the expression for the intrinsic spin torque is $\mbox{\boldmath $\tau$} = \mbox{\boldmath $\tau$}_{0}+
\mbox{\boldmath $\tau$}_1 $ where $$\mbox{\boldmath $\tau$}_0 = \sum_{{\bf k}\lambda} <{\bf k}\lambda|
\frac{1}{i\hbar}[{\bf s},H]|
{\bf k}\lambda> f^0 ({\bf k}\lambda, {\bf r} )$$ and $$\mbox{\boldmath $\tau$}_1 = - \mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}\cdot
\sum_{{\bf k}\lambda}
<{\bf k}\lambda|\frac{1}{i\hbar}[{\bf s},H] {\bf r} | {\bf k}\lambda>
f^0 ({\bf k}\lambda, {\bf r})$$ where the symmetrization of the product of $[{\bf s},H]$ and ${\bf r}$ is implied. We emphasize that $\mbox{\boldmath $\tau$}_1$ comes from the position-dependence of the center of the wave-packet. By using the fact that the wavefunction is an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian, $H|{\bf k}\lambda> = E_{{\bf k}\lambda}
|{\bf k}\lambda>$, we immediately see that the expectation value of $[{\bf s}, H]$ is zero, i.e., $\mbox{\boldmath $\tau$}_0 = 0$. To calculate $\mbox{\boldmath $\tau$}_1$, we use the commuting relation $[H,{\bf r}] = -i \hbar {\bf v} +
i \alpha ({\bf e}_z \times
\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$})$, where ${\bf v}$ is the velocity operator. After a straight-forward algebra simplification, we have found [@footnote] $$\mbox{\boldmath $\tau$} = \mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$} \cdot
\sum_{{\bf k}\lambda} <{\bf k}\lambda|\frac{{\bf vs}+{\bf sv}}{2}
| {\bf k}\lambda> f^0 ({\bf k}\lambda, {\bf r} )
\equiv \mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}\cdot {\bf J}_{int} .$$ Therefore, the intrinsic spin torque exactly equals the divergence of the intrinsic spin current. The equation of motion, Eq. (14), now becomes $$\frac{\partial {\bf S} ({\bf r}, t)}{\partial t} + \mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}
\cdot {\bf J}_{ext} = \mbox{\boldmath $\tau$}_{ext}
+ \left( \frac{\partial {\bf S}}{\partial t} \right)_{colli}.$$ We conclude that the intrinsic spin current does not enter into the play in the equation of motion. The spin accumulation ${\bf S} ({\bf r}, t)$ is solely determined by the extrinsic part of the current density ${\bf j}_{ext}$, the spin torque $\mbox{\boldmath $\tau$}_{ext}$, and the spin relaxation in the collision term.
We now return to our central issue on the problem, namely, whether the intrinsic spin Hall conductivity can be measured via conventional meanings of the spin transport. Since the spin current is not directly measurable, two schemes are usually employed: one is the realization of measuring the electric field induced by the [*magnetization current*]{} [@Meier] and the other is the spin accumulation at the sample of the edge or across an interface [@Johnson]. We should discuss them separately below.
If there is a net magnetization current in a bulk material, a circular electric field outside the sample will be induced. This phenomenon is analogous to the magnetic field induced by a charge current, known as Biot-Savart law or Ampere’s law. For example, it was proposed that a spin current generated via spin waves propagation through a nanowire can be detected by an induced electric field just outside the nanowire [@Meier; @Hong]. However, the above proposal is applied to the case where the OAM current is absent. In the present case, the OAM current is exactly opposite to the spin current so that the net magnetization current is zero. Therefore, we conclude that there is no electric field associated with the intrinsic spin current.
The more efficient method to detect the spin current is by measuring the spin accumulation due to spatial variation of the spin current, e.g., the Johnson-Silsbee’s experiment [@Johnson]. Based on the equation of motion given by Eq. (18), the divergent of the [*extrinsic but not intrinsic*]{} spin currents can lead to a buildup of spin accumulation. To determine the spin accumulation, one usually makes a relaxation-time approximation so that the collision term in Eq. (18) is modeled by $ -{\bf S}/\tau_{sf}$. Since the intrinsic spin current does not contribute to the equation of motion for the spin accumulation, the measurement based on the detection of the spin accumulation will produce a null contribution from the spin Hall effect, no matter how large the intrinsic spin current is.
Two experimental groups have recently observed the spin Hall effect by detecting spin accumulation at the edges of the samples [@Wunderlich]. Kato [*et al.*]{} argued that the effect is extrinsic based on their experimental results that the spin accumulation is independent of the strain direction, while Wunderlich [*et al*]{} claimed that their observed effect is intrinsic based on the assumption that the impurity scattering is weaker than the spin-orbit coupling in their samples (clean limit). We point our here that the clean limit in the experiment does not imply the spin accumulation from the intrinsic origin. Instead, our analysis has shown that no matter how large is the intrinsic spin current, the observed effect has to be an extrinsic origin because the spin accumulation is independent of the intrinsic spin current.
We finally draw a picture on why the intrinsic spin Hall fails to produce experimental consequences. Consider a contact between a Rashba material and a non-magnetic material with no spin-orbit coupling. The spin current, as well as the orbital angular momentum current, would exist in the the Rashba material. However, the spin current drops to zero across the interface of the non-magnetic material, i.e., the spin current is not continuous; this is because the spin torque produces a mechanism to transfer the spin current to the orbital angular momentum current or vice versus. As a result, when the spin orbit coupling vanishes at the non-spin-orbit coupled material, both the spin and orbital angular momentum currents drop to zero. The loss of the spin current exactly equals to the gain of the OAM current so that the total angular momentum current or magnetization current is continuous across the interface of the layers; they are both zero. For the same reason, the edge of the sample never develops spin accumulation because the usual boundary condition of zero spin current at the surface is no more valid, instead, the total angular momentum current is zero at the surface for the intrinsic spin Hall effect.
In conclusion, we have constructed a general framework for calculating intrinsic linear response coefficients. We have shown that the intrinsic spin Hall effect is accompanied by the intrinsic orbital-angular-momentum Hall effect so that the magnetization current is zero in a spin-orbit coupled system. The intrinsic spin Hall effect is not a useful source of spin currents because the intrinsic spin current does not enter into the equation of motion for the spin transport. Most of the proposed experimental detections of the intrinsic spin Hall effect are the artifact of the boundary conditions that are not valid for the intrinsic spin Hall current.
This work is partially supported by DARPA-SPINS and by NSF-DMR-0314456.
[1]{}
J. Sinova, D. Culcer, Q. Niu, N. A. Sinitsyn, T. Jungwirth, and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 126603 (2004). D. Culcer, J. Sinova, N. A. Sinitsyn, T. Jungwirth, A. H. MacDonald, and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 046602 (2004). K. Nomura, J. Sinova, T. Jungwirth, Q. Niu, and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. B[**71**]{}, 041304 (2005). S. Murakami, N. Nagaosa, and S. C. Zhang, Science [**301**]{}, 1348 (2003). E. I. Rashba, Phys. Rev. B [**68**]{}, 241315 (2003). E. I. Rashba, Phys. Rev. B[**70**]{}, 161201 (2004). J. Schliemann and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. B [**69**]{}, 165315 (2004). S. I. Erlingsson, J. Schliemann, and D. Loss, cond-mat/0406531. O. Chalaev and D. Loss, cond-mat/0407342. J. Inoue, G. E. W. Bauer, and L. W. Molenkamp, Phys. Rev. B[**70**]{}, 041303 (2004). E. G. Mishchenko, A. V. Shytov, and B. I. Halperin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 226602 (2004). O. V. Dimitrova, cond-mat/0405339. L. Hu, J. Gao, and S. Q. Shen, Phys. Rev. B[**70**]{}, 235323 (2004). X. Ma, L. Hu, R. Tao, and S. Q. Shen, Phys. Rev. B[**70**]{}, 195343 (2004). J. E. Hirsch, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 1834 (1999). S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 393 (2000). S. Murakami, N. Nagaosa, and S. C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 156804 (2004). Y. K. Kato, R. C. Myers, A. C. Gossard, and D. D. Awschalom, Science [**306**]{}, 1910 (2004); J. Wunderlich, B. Kaestner, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 047204 (2005). T. Jungwirth, Q. Niu, and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 207208 (2002). J. M. Luttinger, Phys. Rev. [**102**]{}, 1030 (1956). T. Valet and A. Fert Phys. Rev. B **48**, 7099(1993). For the Luttinger Hamiltonian, Culcer [*et al.*]{} [@Culcer] obtains a spin torque which does not exactly cancel the divergence of the intrinsic spin current. Our approach would produce an exact cancellation. The origin of this discrepancy may be from a different definition in calculating the spin torque. M. Johnson and R. H. Silsbee, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**55**]{}, 1790 (1985). F. Meier and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 167204 (2004). Q. -F Sun, H. Guo, J. Wang, Phys. Rev. B [**69**]{}, 054409 (2004).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In recent years, geotagged social media has become popular as a novel source for geographic knowledge discovery. Ground-level images and videos provide a different perspective than overhead imagery and can be applied to a range of applications such as land use mapping, activity detection, pollution mapping, etc. The sparse and uneven distribution of this data presents a problem, however, for generating dense maps. We therefore investigate the problem of spatially interpolating the high-dimensional features extracted from sparse social media to enable dense labeling using standard classifiers. Further, we show how prior knowledge about region boundaries can be used to improve the interpolation through spatial morphing kernel regression. We show that an interpolate-then-classify framework can produce dense maps from sparse observations but that care must be taken in choosing the interpolation method. We also show that the spatial morphing kernel improves the results.'
address: |
University of California, Merced\
Electrical Engineering and Computer Science\
5200 N Lake Rd, Merced, CA, United States
bibliography:
- 'refs.bib'
title: Spatial morphing kernel regression for feature interpolation
---
Feature interpolation, kernel regression, land use classification, convolutional neural network
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Mapping geographic phenomena on the surface of the Earth is an important scientific problem. Remote sensing is a traditional approach in which analysis is performed on overhead images from satellites and aircraft. This can produce dense maps but is limited by the overhead view. For example, one cannot see inside buildings.
The widespread availability of geotagged social media has enabled novel approaches to geographic discovery. In particular, “proximate sensing” [@leung2010proximate] using ground-level images and videos available at sharing sites like Flickr and YouTube provides a different perspective from remote sensing, one that can see inside buildings and detect phenomena not observable from above. Proximate sensing has been applied to map land use classes [@zhu2015land], public sentiment [@zhu2016spatio], human activity [@Zhu2017Activity], air pollution [@li2015using], and natural events [@wang2016tracking], among other things.
A fundamental challenge in using geotagged social media to create dense maps is its sparse and uneven spatial distribution. For example, figure \[fig:flickr\_sf\] shows the spatial distribution of Flickr images for a region of San Francisco. Even if one was able to use these images to accurately label land use, for example, the resulting map would itself be sparse and uneven.
We therefore investigate an alternate approach in which the high-dimensional features extracted from the geotagged social media are spatially interpolated before classification is performed. To our knowledge, there has been very little work on this interpolate-then-classify problem. Workman et al. in [@workman2017unified] spatially interpolate features extracted from Google Street View images to match the spatial density of features extracted from overhead imagery. But, they do not investigate how best to do the interpolation. Our work in this paper performs an in-depth evaluation of the interpolate-then-classify problem using synthetic as well as real datasets.
![Distribution of Flickr images in San Francisco. While these images can be used to map geographic phenomena such as land use, the resulting maps are sparse and uneven. We therefore investigate methods to interpolate the high-dimensional image features before performing classification.[]{data-label="fig:flickr_sf"}](flickr_sf){width="4cm"}
{width="15cm"}
We also investigate how to use prior knowledge about spatial heterogeneity to modulate the interpolation. We take inspiration from [@pozdnoukhov2010spatial] which proposes a novel kernel that incorporates prior knowledge on spatial similarities, discontinuities, and physical and administrative boundaries to spatially interpolate a continuous variable. For example, [@pozdnoukhov2010spatial] shows that knowledge of building boundaries can improve the interpolation of temperature as the indoor and outdoor temperature can be quite different. However, [@pozdnoukhov2010spatial] only interpolates a single continuous variable and the interpolation is the final result–no classification is performed. We instead interpolate high-dimensional features extracted by convolutional neural networks (CNNs) with the goal of performing dense classification. The prior knowledge is incorporated through a graph Laplacian. We consider two types of graph Laplacians, one constructed using a mesh grid and another constructed using the sparse feature locations themselves.
To summarize the salient aspects of our work, we investigate the novel problem of spatially interpolating high dimensional features for dense geographic classification. We incorporate prior knowledge of spatial heterogeneity through spatial morphing kernels. And, we show results using synthetic as well as real data for mapping land use.
Methodology
===========
Our framework consists of three steps as shown in figure \[fig:framework\]: feature extraction, feature interpolation, and dense classification. We use a pre-trained CNN without the final fully connected (fc) layers to perform the feature extraction. We investigate various interpolation methods including ones that incorporate prior knowledge of spatial heterogeneity. Finally, the fc layers of the CNN are used to classify the densely interpolated features.
Convolutional Neural Network
----------------------------
Our CNN is a ResNet-101 [@he2016deep] model that has been trained to label ground-level images as depicting one of 45 different land use classes. (Please see [@zhu2018arxiv] for more details on this model.) We separate the network into two parts: 1) a feature extractor consisting of the convolutional layers that outputs a 2,048 dimensional feature vector, and 2) a classifier consisting of the fc layer.
Interpolation
-------------
Our interpolation problem is defined as follows. Suppose we have a sparse set of $n$ image locations ***S***={$s_{1},s_{2},...,s_{n}$} from which we have extracted high-dimensional features $f(s_{i})$. Our goal is to use these features and their locations to estimate the feature at a novel location $f(l)$. We can then create a dense feature map by densely sampling the locations $l$. We now describe the different interpolation methods we consider.
### Inverse Distant Weighting
Inverse distance weighting (IDW) [@Shepard1968] is a commonly used approach to interpolate a spatially smooth surface. IDW assumes that locations that are close to one another are more alike than those that are far apart. IDW interpolation is computed as
Method IDW noise (%) Gaussian noise (%) SMSK noise (%) SMMK noise (%)
-------- ------ ----------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ----------- ---------- -----------
1 45.5 13.4 72.6 1.9 **73.2** 0.5 70.2 2.9
2 56.8 3.1 74.6 1.5 **77.2** 0.1 75.5 1.5
3 61.1 4.8 77.1 1.3 77.8 0.2 **79.8** 1.5
5 68.1 17.8 81.3 3.7 81.8 0.4 **83.9** 2.3
10 80.5 4.9 83.6 1.9 84.7 0.0 **87.4** 1.8
\[tab:quan\_toy\]
$$f (\textit{l})=\begin{cases}
\sum_{i=1}^{N}w_{i}(\textit{l})f(s_{i}), & \text{if $d(l,s_{i})\neq 0$ for all $i$}.\\
f(s_{i}), & \text{if $d(l,s_{i})=0$ for some $i$}.
\end{cases}$$
where $N$ is the number of locations used to perform the interpolation, and $w_{i}(l)={1}/{d(l,s_{i})}$ is the weight given to feature of the $i$th location. $d(l,s_{i})$ is commonly computed as the Euclidean distance between locations $l$ and $s_{i}$ in 2D geographic space.
### Kernel Regression
We also interpolate the features using Nadaraya-Waston kernel regression as is done in [@workman2017unified]. This interpolation is computed as
$$f(l)=\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{N}w_{i}(l)f(s_{i})}{\sum_{j=1}^{N}w_{j}(l)}$$
where $w_{i}(l)=\it{k}(\bf{x},\bf{x^{'}})$ is a kernel based on the locations $\bf{x}$ and $\bf x^{'}$. In our case, $\bf{x}$ is the 2D location $l$ and $\bf x^{'}$ is the 2D location $s_i$. We consider a standard Gaussian kernel as well as a spatial morphing kernel inspired by [@pozdnoukhov2010spatial].
[**Gaussian kernel:**]{} *k* ($\bf{x},\bf{x^{'}}$) = $\exp(-d(l,s_{i};\Sigma)^{2})$ where $d(l,s_{i};\Sigma)$ is the normalized Euclidean distance. The diagonal covariance matrix $\Sigma$ controls the kernel bandwidth. For our 2D case, $\Sigma$ contains two non-zero values which are learned during a training phase.
[**Spatial morphing kernel:**]{} [@pozdnoukhov2010spatial] describes how a graph Laplacian based on spatial adjacency/connectivity can incorporate prior spatial knowledge into the regression kernel. First, an adjacency matrix **W** is computed in which $w_{ij} = 1$ if locations $i$ and $j$ are connected and $w_{ij} = 0$ otherwise. This can encode, for example, the connectivity between locations given building boundaries, etc. The graph Laplacian is then computed as $\bf{L=D-W}$ where **D** is the diagonal node degree matrix in which $d_{ii}=\sum_{j}w_{ij}$. The spatial morphing kernel is then computed as $$\tilde{k}(\bf{x},\bf{x^{'}})=\it{k}(\bf{x},\bf{x^{'}})-k^{T}_{x}(I+\gamma LK)^{-1}\gamma L k_{x^{'}}$$ where $\bf{I}$ is the identity matrix, $\bf{K}$=$\{k(x_{i},x_{j})\}_{i,j=1,...,N}$ is the kernel matrix for all data samples, and $\bf{k}_{x}$ and $\bf k_{x^{'}}$ are the vectors \[$k(x,x_1),...,k(x,x_{N})$\] and \[$k(x^{'},x_1)$,...,$k(x^{'},x_{N})$\]. ($k(\cdot,\cdot)$ is the Gaussian kernel above.) The hyper parameter $\gamma$ controls how much the kernel is spatially morphed based on the prior knowledge.
We compute the adjacency matrix $\bf{W}$ in two ways. First, similar to [@pozdnoukhov2010spatial], a dense mesh grid is laid over the study area and the locations of this grid form the nodes of the graph. We refer to this as the spatial morphing mesh kernel (SMMK). Second, the nodes of the graph are the locations of our observed features (our images). We refer to this as the spatial morphing sample kernel (SMSK). In either case, we set $w_{ij} = 1$ if locations $i$ and $j$ are in the same region and $w_{ij} = 0$ otherwise.
Experiments
===========
We focus on the problem of dense land use mapping from sparse ground level images. We conduct experiments using synthetic as well as real data. We know the ground truth land use map for the synthetic data which allows us to perform quantitative evaluation. The Gaussian kernel bandwidth is tuned using leave-one-out cross validation, and we set $\gamma=100$ for the spatial morphing kernels.
{width="\textwidth"}
{width="\textwidth"}
Synthetic Data
--------------
We partition a 100m $\times$ 100m piece of land into three regions with different land use classes as shown on the left in figure \[fig:simu\_toy\]. This is considered the ground truth. Our goal is to generate this map at the 1m $\times$ 1m scale from sparsely located images. We then randomly pick three (real) ground level images from our San Francisco dataset with different land use labels (as assigned by our CNN). We then place these images at random locations in the ground truth regions. We consider different densities of images: 1, 2, 3, 5, and 10 per region. See figure \[fig:simu\_toy\] for example configurations.
We then perform feature interpolation over the entire 100 $\times$ 100 area. We compute one feature per 100 $\times$ 100 location which is then used to classify the location. The resulting map is compared to the ground truth by computing the mean Intersection over Union (mIoU) [@long2015fully] between the predicted regions and the true regions using the 100 $\times$ 100 grid. We also compute the percentage of locations that are assigned a class other than the three in the ground truth. This gives an indication of how stable the interpolation is with respect to the classifier. We call this value the noise percentage. We compute the average mIoU and noise percentage over 20 trials.
The graph Laplacian for the spatial morphing kernels is computed using the known locations of the region boundaries.
Real Dataset: San Francisco
---------------------------
We create a land use map of San Francisco using ground level images from Flickr. We download land parcel footprints from the City of San Francisco website. These footprints are used to construct the graph Laplacians for the spatial morphing kernels.
Results and discussion
======================
Figure \[fig:simu\_toy\] shows the results for the synthetic data. The top row corresponds to one image per region and the bottom row corresponds to two images per region. IDW interpolation is seen to have difficulty especially when the images are very sparse. For example, it actually introduces a completely new class (10) in the one image case. Gaussian kernel regression is see to perform much better. This demonstrates the importance of the interpolation method in our framework.
The spatial morphing kernels produce maps with more accurate boundaries and fewer spurious classes. As shown in the bottom row of figure \[fig:simu\_toy\], for the two image case, Gaussian kernel regression introduces two spurious classes while SMSK do not introduce any. This shows the SMSK interpolation is more stable with respect to the classifier.
Table \[tab:quan\_toy\] shows the qualitative results for the synthetic data. SMSK and SMMK outperform the interpolation methods that do not incorporate prior spatial knowledge. SMSK does better than SMMK for very sparse image configurations while the opposite is true for more dense configurations. We will investigate this further in future work.
Figure \[fig:sf\_results\] shows the results for the real data of San Francisco. On the left is shown the land parcels with the labels that have been assigned to the Flickr images by our classifier. (This is not the ground truth–in general, we do not know the ground truth for the real data.) On the right are the maps produced using the different interpolation methods. Here, SMMK clearly produces the best results. Its map has much more accurate boundaries than the other approaches. It is also less affected by images that fall outside the parcels.
See the supplementary materials for more details on the synthetic and real data.
Conclusion
==========
We investigated the problem of spatially interpolating high-dimensional features extracted from sparse ground-level images for dense mapping. We compared different interpolation methods including ones which incorporate prior knowledge of spatial heterogeneity. We evaluated the methods on synthetic as well as real data. We observed that the choice of interpolation method is important. We also showed that the methods that incorporate spatial knowledge result in more accurate regions.
In future work, we plan to have tighter integration between the CNN and the interpolation. One possible way to do this is train the CNN to be more robust with respect to interpolation between classes that frequently occur next to each other geographically.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- |
MAXIME HAURAY and ANNE NOURI\
\
LATP, Aix-Marseille University, France
title: 'WELL-POSEDNESS OF A DIFFUSIVE GYROKINETIC MODEL.'
---
[**Abstract.**]{} We study a finite Larmor radius model used to describe the ions distributions in the core of a tokamak plasma, that consist in a gyro-kinetic transport equation, coupled with an electro-neutrality equation. Since the last equation do not provide enough regularity on the electric potential, we introduce a simple linear collision operator adapted to the finite Larmor radius approximation. Next we study the two-dimensional dynamics in the direction perpendicular to the magnetic field and prove thanks to the smoothing effects of the collisions and of the gyro-average the global existence of solutions, as well as short time uniqueness and stability.\
Introduction.
=============
The model studied in that article describes the density of ions in the core of a tokamak plasma. In such highly magnetized plasma, the charged particles have a very fast motion of gyration around the magnetic lines, called the Larmor gyration. A good approximation is then to consider that the particles are uniformly distributed on gyro-circle, parametrized by their gyro-center, and Larmor radius $r_L$ (that is proportionnal to the speed of rotation $u$, and in our article, we will forget the physical constant and write $r_L = u$). The models obtained in that new variables are kinetic in the direction parallel to the magnetic field lines, and fluids (precisely a superposition of fluid models) in the perpendicular direction. For rigorous derivation of such models and more complete discussion on its validity, we refer to [@FreSon] and our previous work [@GheHauNou09], in which the derivation is perform from a Vlasov equation in the limit of large magnetic field.
Such gyro-kinetic models are usually closed by an electro-neutrality equation, that as usual provide very few regularity for the eletric field, so that the well-posedness of gyro-kinetic models is, at least at our knowledge unknown. In this article, we add a “gyro-averaged” collision operator to the model and study the dynamics in the directions perpendicular to the field only. Let us now describe our precise model. The ion distribution function $f(t,x,u)$ in gyro-coordinates depends on the time $t$, the gyro-center position $x \in
{\mathbb{T}}^2$ and the velocity of the fast Larmor rotation $u \in {\mathbb{R}}^+$ (which is also proportional to the Larmor radius). The electric potential $\Phi$ depends only on $(t,x)$. They satisfy the following system of equation on $\Omega = {\mathbb{T}}^2
\times {\mathbb{R}}^+$ $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial f}{\partial t} + (J^0_u \nabla_x \Phi)^\perp \cdot \nabla_x
f = \beta
u \partial_u f + 2\beta f + \nu \left( \Delta_x f + \frac{1}{u} \partial_u ( u
\partial_u f) \right) \label{eq:gyroFP2D} \\
(\Phi - \Phi \ast _x H_T )(t,x)= T \left( \rho(t,x) -1 \right)
\label{eq:elecneutr} \\
\rho(t,x) = \int (J^0_w f(t,x,w)2\pi wdw) \label{eq:defrho} \\
f(0,x,v) = f_i(x,v) \qquad \forall (x,u) \in \Omega \label{eq:indata}\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta$ and $\nu$ are two positive constant, $\rho$ is the density in physical space, $T$ is the ion temperature, $$\label{eq:J0}
J^0_{u} h(x_g) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_0^{2\pi} h(x_g +u e^{i\varphi_c}) \,d\varphi_c \, ,$$ is the well known zero-order Bessel operator [@Watson] and $$\label{eq:dfH}
H_T(x)= \frac{e^{-\frac{| x| ^2}{4T}}}{2\pi ^{\frac{3}{2}}\sqrt{T} | x| } \,.$$ We also used the notation $b^\perp =(-b_2,b_1)$, for any vector $b=(b_1,b_2)$ of ${\mathbb{R}}^2$.
That model without the Fokker-Planck operator ($\nu=\beta=0$) was studied in our previous work [@GheHauNou09] - to which we refer for an heuristical derivation of the electro-neutrality equation - and is used by physicists for simulation, by instance in Gysela code [@Gysela06]. Here we just mention that is obtained in a close to equilibrium setting, with an adiabatic hypothesis on the distribution of the electrons $n_e =n_0 e{-\frac{e \Phi}{T_e}} \approx n_0 \left( 1 + \frac{e
\Phi}{T_e}\right)$, and an hypothesis of adiabatic response of the ions on the gyro-circle which gives rise to the $\Phi \ast H_T$ term. As usual in quasi-neutral equation, we have no good a priori estimates on the regularity of $E = - \nabla \Phi$.
Remark that even if that equation is derived from a Vlasov model (A rigourous derivation of a more general $3D$ model is performed for fixed field $E$ in section \[sect:dif\]), it is of “fluid” nature. In fact there is no transport in the remaining of the velocity variable $u$, and the position of the gyro-center is transported by the eletric drift $(J^0_u
E)^\perp$. So that the equation is similar to the $2D$ Navier-Stokes equation written in vorticity. More precisely, we have a family of fluid model depending on a parameter $u$, which are coupled thanks to diffusion in the $u$ variable, and by the closure used for $E$ described below.
Moreover, we will prove in the following that thanks to gyro-average $J^0_u$, equation has the same regularity than the NS2D equation in vorticity. In fact, the force field $J^0_u \nabla_x \Phi$ belongs naturally to $H^1$ if $f \in L^2$ with some weight. That is why we obtain the same result that are known about the NS2D equation : global existence and short time uniqueness and stability. However, our model present an additional difficulties which is the lose of regularity for small $u$. In fact, for small value of $u$ the $H^1$ bound (in $x$ only) of $J^0_u \nabla_x \Phi$ explodes.
To state our reuslts properly, we will need the following definitions and notations :
- In the sequel, the letter $C$ will design a numerical constant, that may change form line to line. Unless it is mentioned, such constants are independent of everything.
- $L^2_u(\Omega)=L^2(\Omega, u dx du)$ is the space of square integrable functions with respect to the measure $u dxdu$.
- We shall use various norm on ${\mathbb{T}}^2$ or on $\Omega$. To avoid confusion, we will use the following convention. All the norm performed on the whole $\Omega$ will have their weight with respect to $u$ as additional indice. By instance $\| \cdot\|_{2\pi u}$, $\| \cdot \|_{H^1_{2\pi u(1+u^2)}}$. All the norms without any indices are norm on ${\mathbb{T}}^2$ only.
- For any weight function $k : {\mathbb{R}}^+ \mapsto {\mathbb{R}}^+$, the norm $\| \cdot \|_{2,m}$ is defined for any function $f$ on $\Omega$ by $$\| f \|_{2,k} = \left( \int \| F(\cdot,u)\|_2 k(u) \,du \right)^{\frac12}$$
- The most usefull weights will be $m(u) = 2 \pi u (1+ u^2)$ and ${{\tilde{m}}}(u)=1+u^2$.
- We change a litlle bit the duality used to define distributions in the following definition
Using distributions with the weight $u$ means that duality is performed as $$\langle f, g \rangle_u = \int f g \, dx_g dv_{{_{||}}}u du \, .$$
This definition may seem a little artificial because the simple definition of derivative with respect to $u$, is not valid. Instead, $$\langle \partial_u f, g \rangle_u = - \langle f, \partial_u g \rangle_u -
\langle \frac{f}{u}, g \rangle_u \, .$$ However, this weight respects the underlying physics ($u$ is in fact the 1D norm of a 2D velocity variable) and has many advantages. For instance the operator $(1/u) \partial_u(u\partial_u )$ is self-adjoint with this weight.
Our precise result are the following. We prove global existence under the hypothesis $\|f_i \|_{2,m} <+ \infty$.
\[thm:existence\] Let $f_i$ satisfy $\|f_i \|_{2,m} <+ \infty$. Then there exists at least one weak solution $f \in L^{\infty }( {\mathbb{R}}^+,L^2_u(\Omega ))\cap L^{2}({\mathbb{R}}^+, H^1_u(\Omega ))$ to - with initial condition $f_i$, which also satisfies for any $t>0$ $$\|f(t)\|_{2,u}^2 + \nu \int_0^t \|(\nabla_x,\partial_u) f \|^2_{2,u} \,ds \leq \|f_i \|_{2,u} \,,$$ and all the a priori estimates of the previous section (Lemma \[lem:u-moment\], \[lem:disp\], \[lem:grad\_xf\]) if their initial hypothesis are satisfied.
And we prove short time uniqueness and stability under the additional hypothesis $\|\nabla_x f \|_{2,m} < + \infty$.
\[thm:uniqueness\] Let $f_i$ satisfy $$\| f_i \|_{2,m} + \| \nabla_x f \|_{2,m} <+\infty \,.$$ Then the positive time $\tau^\star$ defined in Lemma \[lem:grad\_xf\] is such that the weak solution to - , defined in Theorem \[thm:existence\], is unique on $[0,\tau^\star]$ .
Moreover, that solution is stable on that interval of time in the following sense. Assume that $(f^n)_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}}$ is a family of solutions given by theorem \[thm:existence\] with initial conditions $f^n_i$ satisfying $$\lim_{n \rightarrow +\infty} \| f^n_i -f_i \|_{2,m} =0 \,, \quad \text{and } \quad \sup_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}} \|f^n_i\|_{L^2_m(L^4)} < + \infty \,.$$ Then $$\lim_{n \rightarrow +\infty} \sup_{t \in [0,\tau^*]} \| f^n(t) -f(t) \|_{2,m} = 0 \,.$$
This local result has some more consequence when relating it to the bound on $\nu \int_0^T \|\nabla_x f\|_{2,m}^2 \,dt \leq \| f_i\|_{2,m}^2
+ C(T) \|f_i\|_2^2$ satisfied by any solution in the sense of \[thm:existence\]. The last bound implies that $\|\nabla_x f\|_{2,m}$ is almost surely finite. The local result implies more : that the norm of gradient may blow up only on a closed and negligeable set, of $4/5$-capicity zero.....
In the next section the diffusive operator of is rigourously derived from a linear Vlasov-Fokker-Planck equation in the limit of large magnetic field. In the third section, some useful lemmas are established, proving regularizing properties of the gyro-average, global preservation of some weighted norm of $f$, the short time preservation of the $u(1+u^2)$-moment of $\nabla_x f$ by the system -), and controlling the electric potential by the physical density. This allows to prove the global existence (Theorem \[thm:existence\]) of solutions to the Cauchy problem in the fourth section and their short time uniqueness and stability (Theorem \[thm:uniqueness\]) in the fifth section. Finally some useful properties of the first Bessel function $J^0$ are proven in the appendix.
Derivation of the gyro-Fokker-Planck operator
=============================================
\[sect:dif\]
In that section, we rigorously justify the form of the Fokker-Planck appearing in the right-hand side of . The usual collision operator for plasmas is the nonlinear Landau operator originally introduced by Landau [@Landau]. Because of its complexity, simplified collision operators have been introduced. An important physical litterature exists on the subject, also in the gyro-kinetic case (See [@Brizard04] and the references therein). In this paper we choose the simplest possible operator possible, namely a linear Fokker-Planck operator. The reasons of this choice are :
- Its simplicity will allow to focus on the other difficulties of the model,
- The fact that physicists studying gyro-kinetic models for the core of the plasma mainly assume that the dynamics stays close to equilibrium, in which case a linear approximation of the collision operator is relevant.
- The aim of the paper is not a precise description of collisions. In fact, even if they exists in tokamaks, being needed to produce energy, their effect is small compared to the turbulent transport. However, we are interested by their regularizing effect, since the electro-neutrality equation do not provide enough regularity to get a well-posed problem. This is a major difference to the Poisson equation setting.
We start from a simple model for a $3D$ plasma, i.e. a linear Vlasov-Fokker-Planck equation with [an external electric field]{}, an external uniform magnetic field and linear collision and drift terms, and obtain in the limit of large magnetic field a 3D (in position) equation analog to . In particular, we show that a usual linear Fokker-Planck term on the speed variables turns into an equation with diffusion terms both in space and Larmor radius variables in the limit.
Precisely, for any small parameter ${\epsilon}>0$ we study the distribution $f_{\epsilon}(t,x,v)$ of ions submitted to an exterior electric field $E(t,x)$ (independent of ${\epsilon}$) and an uniform magnetic field $B_{\epsilon}=(1/{\epsilon},0,0)$. We also model collisions (with similar particles and the others species) by a simple linear Fokker-Planck operator. To avoid any problem with possible boundary collisions, which are really hard to take into account in gyro-kinetic theory, we assume that $(x,v) \in {\mathbb{T}}^3 \times {\mathbb{R}}^3$, where ${\mathbb{T}}^3$ is the 3D torus. When the scale length of all the parameters are well chosen (in particular the length scale in the direction perpendicular to the magnetic field should be chosen of order ${\epsilon}$ times the length scale in the parallel direction, we refer to our previous work [@GheHauNou09] for more details on the scaling), the Vlasov equation $f_{\epsilon}$ satisfies is $$\label{eq:vlares}
\frac{\partial f}{\partial t} + v_{_{\parallel}} \partial_{x_{_{\parallel}}} f + E \cdot \nabla_v f +\frac{1}{{\epsilon}}(v_\perp \cdot \nabla_{x_\perp} f + v^\perp \cdot \nabla_{v_\perp} f )= \operatorname{div}_v(\beta v f_{\epsilon}) + \nu \Delta_v f_{\epsilon}\,,$$ where $\beta,\nu$ are two positive parameters, the subscript $\parallel $ (resp. $\perp$) denotes the projection on the direction parallel (resp. on the plane perpendicular) to $B$, and the superscript $\perp$ denotes the projection on the plane perpendicular to $B$ composed with the rotation of angle $\pi/2$. In others words if $v=(v_1,v_2,v_3)$, $$v_\perp = (v_1,v_2,0), \quad v_{{_{||}}}=(0,0,v_3), \quad v^\perp = (-v_2,v_1,0) \, .$$
The next results require the additional notation, $$\label{eq:J0tilde}
\tilde{J}^0_u g(x_g,\rho_{_L},v_{\parallel}) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_0^{2\pi} g(x_g + u e^{i\varphi_c}, \rho_{_L} e^{i(\varphi_c-\frac{\pi}{2})} + v_{\parallel} e_{\parallel}) \,d\varphi_c \, ,$$ which is a gyro-average performed in phase space, that will be used as an initial layer to adapt the initial condition to the fast Larmor gyration.
\[thm:FPgyro\] Let $E \in L^\infty_t(L^2)$ and $f_{\epsilon}$ be a family of solutions to equation with initial condition $f_i \in L^2$ satisfying . Then the family $\bar{f}_{\epsilon}$ defined by $$\label{eq:cov}
\bar{f}_{\epsilon}(t,x_g,v) = f(t,x_g + v^\perp,v)$$ admits a subsequence that converges in the sense of distributions towards a function $\bar{f}$ depending only on and solution to $$\label{eq:FPlim}
\begin{split}
\partial_t \bar{f} + v_{\parallel} \, \partial_{x_{\parallel}} \bar{f} + J^0_u E_{\parallel} \, \partial_{v_{\parallel}} \bar{f} + & (J^0_u E)^\perp \cdot \nabla_{x_g} \bar{f} = \\
& \beta( v_{{_{||}}}\partial_{v_{{_{||}}}} \bar{f} + u \partial_u \bar{f} + 3 \bar{f}) + \nu \left( \Delta_{{{x_{g}}}_\perp} \bar{f} + \frac1 u \partial_u ( u \partial_u \bar{f} ) \right)\, ,
\end{split}$$ in the sense of distributions with the weight $u$, with the initial condition $\tilde{J}^0_u(f^0)$.
The reason for the change of variables is that the $1/{\epsilon}$-term in equation induces a very fast rotation in the perpendicular direction both in the $x$ and $v$ variables, $$v(t) = v^0 e^{i t/{\epsilon}} \, , \qquad x(t) = x^0 + v^{0 \perp} + v^0 e^{i( t/{\epsilon}- \pi/2)} \, .$$ But in the gyro-coordinates this fast rotation is simply described by a rotation in $v$, $$v(t) = v^0 e^{i t/{\epsilon}} \, , \qquad x_g(t) = x_g^0.$$
The final diffusion appears in all dimensions except the ${{x_{g}}}_{{_{||}}}$ one. It does not mean that there is no regularization in that direction. Indeed, the models have diffusion in $v_{{_{||}}}$, which after some time regularize in the ${{x_{g}}}_{{_{||}}}$ direction. This mechanism is well known for the Fokker-Planck equation (see for instance [@bouchut]). However, we are not able to prove this phenomena in the non-linear setting because the electric field of the model lacks regularity. This is the reason why we will only study the $2D$ model.
We proved in a previous work [@GheHauNou09] that, provided $f^0 \in L^2$ and $E \in L^1_t(W^{1,2}_x)$, a subsequence of $f_{\epsilon}$ solutions of without the collision term converges towards a solution of without the collision term. In order to simplify the presentation, we will neglect the electric field and the parallel translation terms. To obtain the result in full generality, the only thing to do is to add the argument given in our previous work to the one given below. For the same reason, we shall also not treat the problem of initial conditions.
So consider the above Vlasov Fokker-Planck equation without electric force field and parallel translation, $$\label{eq:vlaFP}
\partial_t f +\frac{1}{{\epsilon}}(v_\perp \cdot \nabla_{x_\perp} f + v^\perp \cdot \nabla_{v_\perp} f ) = \operatorname{div}_v(\beta v f) + \nu \Delta_v f\, .$$ The first step is to use the change of variables $(x,v) \rightarrow (x_g=x+v^\perp,v)$. Since $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_v f & = & \nabla_v \bar{f} - \nabla^\perp_{{x_{g}}}\bar{f}, \\
\Delta_v f & = & \Delta_v \bar{f} + \Delta_{{{x_{g}}}_\perp} \bar{f} -
2 \nabla_v \cdot \nabla_{{x_{g}}}^\perp \bar{f}, \\
\nabla_v \cdot (v f) & = & v \cdot \nabla_v \bar{f} + 3 \bar{f} - v \cdot \nabla_{{x_{g}}}^\perp \bar{f} \, ,\end{aligned}$$ equation becomes $$\partial_t \bar{f}_{{\epsilon}} +\frac{1}{{\epsilon}}v^\perp \cdot \nabla_v\bar{f}_{{\epsilon}} = -\beta \Big( v\cdot \nabla _v\bar{f}_{{\epsilon}} +3\bar{f}_{{\epsilon}} -v\cdot \nabla _{x_g}^{\perp }\bar{f}_{{\epsilon}}\Big) \\
+ \nu \Big( \Delta_v \bar{f}_{{\epsilon}}+\Delta _{x_g}\bar{f}_{{\epsilon}}-2\nabla _v\cdot \nabla _{x_g}\bar{f}_{{\epsilon}}\Big) \, .$$ By hypothesis $\bar{f}_{\epsilon}$ is bounded in $L_t^\infty(L^2_{x;v})$. Therefore, at least a subsequence of $(\bar{f}_{\epsilon})$ converges weakly to some $\bar{f} \in L_t^\infty(L^2)$. Passing to the limit in , it holds that $$v^\perp \cdot \nabla _v\bar{f} = 0 \, ,$$ since all the other terms are bounded. For $v=(u e^{i\varphi},v_{{_{||}}})$ where $\varphi$ is the gyro-phase, the previous equality means that $\bar{f}$ is independent of the gyro-phase (in the sense of distribution and thus as a $L^2$ function).
Equation tested against a smooth function $g$ independent of the gyro-phase writes $$\label{eq:FP2}
\int \bar{f}_{\epsilon}\left( \partial_t g - \beta( v \cdot \nabla_v g - v \cdot \nabla_{{x_{g}}}^\perp g) - \nu (\Delta_v g + \Delta_{{{x_{g}}}_\perp} g -
2 \nabla_{{x_{g}}}^\perp \cdot \nabla_v g) \right) \, dx_gdv = 0 \, .$$ We may also pass to the limit when ${\epsilon}$ tends to zero in this equation and obtain that the same equality holds for $\bar{f}_{\epsilon}$ replaced by $\bar{f}$, considered as a function defined on ${\mathbb{T}}^3\times {\mathbb{R}}^3$.
For the change of variable $v=(u e^{i\varphi}, v_{{_{||}}})$, $$\nabla_v g =(e^{i \varphi} \partial_u g + i e^{i \varphi} \partial_\varphi g , \partial_{v_{{_{||}}}}).$$ Hence, for any function $g$ independent on the gyrophase $\varphi$, it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Delta_{{v_g}}g = \partial^2_{v_{{_{||}}}} g + \frac{1}{u}\partial_u (u \partial_u g) \, , \\
&&(\nabla_{{x_{g}}}^\perp \cdot \nabla_{{v_g}}) g = \nabla_{{x_{g}}}^\perp \cdot ( e^{i\varphi} \partial_u g ) = e^{i\varphi} \cdot \nabla_{{x_{g}}}^\perp \partial_u g, \\
&& v \cdot \nabla_v g = v_{{_{||}}}\partial_{v_{{_{||}}}} g + u \partial_u g \, .\end{aligned}$$ The other terms appearing in remain unchanged. Then, $$\label{eq:FPuphi}
\begin{split}
\int \bar{f} \Big( \partial_t g - \beta( v_{{_{||}}}\partial_{v_{{_{||}}}} g + u \partial_u g & - u e^{i \varphi} \cdot \nabla_{{x_{g}}}^\perp g)- \nu (\partial^2_{v_{{_{||}}}} g + \frac{1}{u}\partial_u (u \partial_u g) \\
& + \Delta_{{{x_{g}}}_\perp} g -
2 e^{i\varphi} \cdot \nabla_{{x_{g}}}^\perp \partial_u g) \Big) \, dx_g dv_{{_{||}}}2\pi u du d \varphi = 0 \, .
\end{split}$$ Since $\bar{f}$ is independent of $\varphi$, performing the integration in $\varphi$ first makes the term containing $\varphi$ vanish. So the function $\bar{f}$ of the five variables $(x_g,u,v_{{_{||}}})$ satisfies $$\label{eq:FPuphi2}
\int \bar{f} \Big( \partial_t g - \beta( v_{{_{||}}}\partial_{v_{{_{||}}}} g + u \partial_u g )
-\nu (\partial^2_{v_{{_{||}}}} g + \frac{1}{u}\partial_u (u \partial_u g) + \Delta_{{{x_{g}}}_\perp} g
) \Big) \, dx_g dv_{{_{||}}}u du = 0 \, .$$ It exactly means that $\bar{f}$ satisfies the equation $$\partial_t \bar{f} = \beta( v_{{_{||}}}\partial_{v_{{_{||}}}} \bar{f} + u \partial_u \bar{f} + 3 \bar{f}) + \nu \left( \partial^2_{v_{{_{||}}}} \bar{f} + \Delta_{{{x_{g}}}_\perp} \bar{f} + \frac1 u \partial_u ( u \partial_u \bar{f} ) \right)\, ,$$ in the sense of distributions with weight $u$. It is the equation without parallel transport nor electric field.
If we look at solutions of this equation invariant by translation in the direction of $B$, we exactly get the 2D-model announced in the introduction. In fact, if $\bar{f}$ is a solution of , then $$f(t,x,u)= \int \bar{f}(t,x,u,v_{{_{||}}}) \,dv_{{_{||}}}\,$$ is a solution of . Such an assumption on $f$ is reinforced by experiments and numerical simulations, where it is observed that the distribution of ions is quite homogeneous in $x_{_\parallel}$.
Some useful lemmas
==================
\[sect:apriori\]
We prove here some a priori estimates useful for the proof of our theorem. In order to simplify the proof of some of the following Lemmas, we sometimes uses the following formulation of with the genuine two-dimensional velocity variable. Denote by ${{\tilde f}}(t,x,{{\vec{u}}}) = f(t,x,|{{\vec{u}}}|)$, ${{\vec{u}}}\in {\mathbb{R}}^2 $. It is solution (in the sense of distribution with usual duality) of the following equation with $4D$ in space and velocity variables $$\label{eq:VFP4D}
\partial_t {{\tilde f}}-\nabla _x^\perp (J^0_{|{{\vec{u}}}|}\Phi )\cdot \nabla _x {{\tilde f}}= \nu ( \Delta _x {{\tilde f}}+ \Delta_{{\vec{u}}}{{\tilde f}}) + \beta ( 2 {{\tilde f}}+ {{\vec{u}}}\cdot \nabla_{{\vec{u}}}{{\tilde f}}) .$$ Heuristically, radial in ${{\vec{u}}}$ solution of equation is a solution of . We can state for instance a precise Lemma in the case where $\phi$ is fixed and smooth.
\[lem:3Deq4D\] For a fixed smooth potential $\Phi$, $f$ is the unique solution of with initial condition $f_i$ if and only if ${{\tilde f}}$ is the unique solution of with intial condition ${{\tilde f}}_i$.
[ **Proof of the Lemma \[lem:3Deq4D\]** ]{}: The proof relies on the uniqueness of the solution to (See [@Ladyzen] and the conservation of the radial symmetry of the solution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regularizing properties of the gyro-average.
--------------------------------------------
In this section, some regularizing property of the gyro-average operato are proven. They are based on the fact that $\hat{J^0} \sim k^{-\frac12}$ for large $k$ (the precise bound are proved in \[App:A\]), which implies that $J^0 $ maps $H^s$ onto $H^{s+\frac{1}{2}}$. It is important since the formula giving the gyro-averaged potential in terms of the distribution $f$ involves two gyro-averages, and thus a gain of one derivative for the gyro-averaged potential w.r.t. $f$. However, the regularizing properties of $J^0_u$ are bad for small $u$, which raises difficulties.
The first lemma of this section gives the regularity of the gyro-averaged potential in term of the potential $\Phi$. The second one gives the regularity of the density $\rho$ in terms of the distribution $f$. We will need the two following definitions before stating it.
Let $f$ be a measurable function defined on $\Omega$. Denote by $$\|f\|_{L^2_m(H^s)} = \left( \int \| f(\cdot,u)\|^2_{H^s} m(u)
\,dw\right)^{\frac12}$$ the norm with the weight $m(u) = 2\pi u(1+u^2)$.\
For any $U>0$, let $F$ be a measurable function defined on $\Omega_U = {\mathbb{T}}^2 \times [0,U]$. Denote by $$\| F \|_{H^1_U} = \left( \int_{{\mathbb{T}}^2} \! \int_0^U \Big( |f|^2 + |\nabla_x f |^2 + |\partial_u f|^2 \Big) 2\pi u \,du\right)^{\frac12}.$$
The lemmas stating the regularity of $\Phi$ and $\rho$ are the following.
\[lem:phireg\] For any $s \in {\mathbb{R}}$, $u >0$ and $\Phi$ with $0$-mean, it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
& i) & \| J^0_u\Phi \|_{H^s} \leq \| \Phi \|_{H^s}, \\
&ii) & \| J^0_u\Phi \|_{H^{s+\frac12}} \leq \frac{2^{\frac14}}{\sqrt u} \|\Phi \|_{H^s} \, , \\
&iii)& \| \partial_u J^0_u\Phi \|_{H^s} \leq \frac 1 {\sqrt u} \|\Phi \|_{H^{s + \frac12}}.\end{aligned}$$ As a consequence, for any $U>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
&iv)& \| J^0_u \Phi \|_{H^1_U} \leq 4 \sqrt U \|\Phi\|_{H^{\frac12}}.\end{aligned}$$
\[lem:rhoreg\] For any $s >0$, if $\int f\, 2\pi u \,dxdu =1$ and $\rho$ is defined by , then $$\|\rho -1 \|_{H^{s+\frac12}} \leq 2^{\frac14} \pi \|f \|_{L^2_m(H^s)}.$$
\
Denote by $ \hat{\Phi}(k)$ the $k$ Fourier coefficient of $\Phi$. Then $$\| J^0_u \Phi \|_{H^s}^2 = \sum_{k=1}^\infty |J^0_u(k)|^2|\Phi(k)|^2 \leq \sum_{k=1}^\infty |\Phi(k)|^2 =
\| \Phi \|_{H^s}^2 \,,$$ using the bound $\|\hat{J^0}\|_\infty \leq 1$ proved in Lemma \[lem:boundJ\]. It is the inequality $i)$. For the second inequality, remark that $$\label{eq:calc}
\quad \frac{1+|k|^2}{1+w^2|k|^2} = \frac1 {w^2} \frac{1 + \frac1{|k|^2}}{1 + \frac1{w^2|k|^2}} \leq \frac2{w^2} \;, \quad \, k\in {\mathbb{Z}}^*,$$ and use it together with $ii)$ of Lemma \[lem:boundJ\] in $$\begin{aligned}
\|J^0_u\Phi \|_{H^{s+\frac12}}^2 & = & \sum_{k \neq 0} |\hat{J^0_u\Phi }(k,u)|^2 (1+|k|^2)^{s+\frac12} \\
& = & \sum_{k \neq 0} |\hat{\Phi}(k)|^2 |\hat{J}^0(|k|u)|^2 (1+|k|^2)^{s+\frac12} \\
& \leq & \sum_{k \neq 0} |\hat{\Phi}(k)|^2 (1+|k|^2)^s \sqrt{\frac{1+|k|^2}{1+|k|^2 u^2}} \\
& \leq & \frac{\sqrt{2}}{u} \|\Phi\|^2_{H^s}\,.\end{aligned}$$ For the third estimate of Lemma \[lem:phireg\], remark that $$\left( \partial_u \hat{J^0_u\Phi }\right) (k) = \partial_u \left( \hat{J^0}(|k|u) \hat{\Phi}(k) \right) = |k| \hat{\Phi}(k) \hat{J^0}'(|k|u) \,$$ and use the bound $iii)$ of Lemma \[lem:boundJ\] to get $$\begin{aligned}
|( \partial_u \hat{J^0_u\Phi })(k)| & \leq & \sqrt{\frac{|k|}u} | \hat{\Phi}(k)|\, .\end{aligned}$$ From this, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\| \partial_u (J^0_u\Phi) \|_{H^s} & \leq & \frac1{\sqrt u} \|\Phi \|_{H^{s + \frac12}}.\end{aligned}$$
The point $iv)$ uses the previous inequalities. First remark that the norm $\| \hspace*{0.02in}\|_{H^1_U}
$ is also equal to $$\| F \|_{H^1_U}= \left( \int_0^U \Big( \| \partial_u F(\cdot,u)\|_{L^2}^2 + \| F(\cdot,u)\|_{H^1}^2\Big) 2\pi u \,du \right)^{\frac12} \,.$$ Using this formulation and $ii)$- $iii)$ leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\| J^0_u \Phi \|_{H^1_U}^2 & = & \int_0^U \Big( \| \partial_u J^0 \Phi \|_{L^2}^2 + \| J^0 \Phi\|_{H^1}^2\Big) 2\pi u \,du \\\
& \leq & 2 \pi \| \Phi \|_{H^{\frac12}}^2\int_0^U \frac{1 + \sqrt 2} u u \,du \leq 16 U \| \Phi \|_{H^{\frac12}}^2,\end{aligned}$$ which gives the desired result and ends the proof of Lemma \[lem:phireg\].\
\
Denote by ${\hat{\rho}}(k)$ the $k$-th Fourier term of $\rho $ with respect to the space variable, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
{\hat{\rho}}(k) & = & 2\pi \int J^0(|k|w) \hat{f}(k,w) w \,dw.\end{aligned}$$ By \[lem:boundJ\], $$\begin{aligned}
|{\hat{\rho}}(k)| & \leq & 2 \pi \int \frac{|\hat{f}|(k,w) w}{(1 + w^2 |k|^2)^{1/4}} \,dw.\end{aligned}$$ It follows from that for $k \neq 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
(1+|k|^2)^{\frac {2s +1}4} |{\hat{\rho}}(k)| &\leq &2^{\frac{5}{4}} \pi \int_0^\infty |\hat{f}|(k,w) (1+|k|^2)^{\frac s 2}\sqrt w \,dw \\
&\leq &2^{\frac54} \pi \left(\int_0^\infty |\hat{f}|^2 (k,w) (1+|k|^2)^s w(1+w^2) \,dw \right)^{1/2} \left( \int_0^\infty \frac{dw}{(1+ w^2)} \right)^{1/2} \\
&= &2^{\frac14} \pi \left(\int_0^\infty |\hat{f}|^2 (k,w) (1+|k|^2)^s 2 \pi w(1+w^2) \,dw \right)^{1/2} .\end{aligned}$$ Hence, since ${\hat{\rho}}(0) = \int_{{\mathbb{T}}^2} \rho(x)\,dx =1$ by mass conservation, $$\begin{aligned}
\|\rho -1\|_{H^{s +\frac12}} & \leq & 2^{\frac14} \pi \sqrt{\sum_{k \neq 0} \left( \int_0^\infty |\hat{f}(k,w)|^2 (1+|k|^2)^{\frac s 2} 2\pi w(1+w^2) \,dw \right)} \\
& \leq & 2^{\frac14} \pi \left( \int_0^\infty \|f(w)\|_{H^s}^2 2\pi w(1+w^2) \,dw \right)^{1/2} \,,\end{aligned}$$ and Lemma \[lem:rhoreg\] is proved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control of the potential by the density.
----------------------------------------
Denote by $L_T$ the operator that maps any function $\Phi$ on ${\mathbb{T}}^2$ with zero mean to $\frac 1T (\Phi - \Phi \ast _x H_T)$ and by $H^s_0({\mathbb{T}}^d)$ the space of $H^s$ functions with zero mean. This section is devoted to a proof of the boundedness of $L^{-1}$ from $H^s_0({\mathbb{T}}^d)$ onto $H^s_0({\mathbb{T}}^d)$. Recall that in a Fourier setting (See the Appendix of [@GheHauNou09] for more details), the operator $H_T = I -T L_T $ is the multiplication by $$\hat{H_T} (k) = \frac{2}{T} \int_0^{+\infty} J^0(ku)^2 e^{- u^2/ T} u\,du.$$
\[lem:boundL\] The Fourier multipliers $\hat H_T(k)$ satisfy, $$\nonumber
|1 - \hat{H} (k)| \geq \frac{|k|^2 T}4 \left( 1 - e^{-\frac 1 {|k|^2 T}}\right)\,, \quad \forall\, k\in {\mathbb{Z}}^2 \setminus
\{ (0,0)\} .$$ As a consequence, the operator $L_T^{-1}$ maps any $H^s_0$, $s\in {\mathbb{R}}$, into itself with norm $$\| L^{-1}\|_{H^s_0} \leq c_T := \frac 4 {1 - e^{-\frac 1 T }}.$$
Lemma \[lem:boundL\] shows that $\| L^{-1}\| $ is bounded for small $T$, and of order $T$ for large $T$, the physical case of interest.\
The boundedness of the spatial domain is essential. When defined on the whole space ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ rather than on the torus, the operator $L^{-1}$ is not bounded. Its norm explodes in the low frequency range.
\
Two bounds on $J^0(l)$ are used, namely one of the bounds of Lemma \[lem:boundJ\] for $l\geq 1$ and the following bound given by the Taylor expansion of $J^0$ near $0$ for $l\leq 1$, $$0 \leq (J^0(l))^2 \leq 1 - \frac{ l^2}{4} \,, \quad \text{if } 0\leq
l \leq 1 \, .$$ Consequently, $$\begin{aligned}
|\hat{H_T}(k) | & \leq & \frac{2}{T} \int_0^{\frac 1 {|k|}} \left( 1-
\frac{(|k|u)^2}{4}\right) e^{- u^2/ T} u\,du +
\frac{\sqrt 2}{|k|T} \int_{\frac 1 {|k|}}^\infty e^{- \frac{u^2} T} \,du \\
& \leq & 2 \int_0^{w} \left( 1-
\frac{x^2}{4 w^2}\right) e^{- x^2} x\,dx
+ \sqrt 2 w \int_{w}^\infty e^{-x^2} \,dx \\
& \leq & 1 - \frac{3}{4}e^{-w^2} - \frac{1}{4w^2} ( 1 - e^{-w^2} ) +
\sqrt 2 w \int_w^\infty e^{-x^2}\,dx,\end{aligned}$$ where $w=(|k|\sqrt{T})^{-1}$. Now, using the bounds $2^{-\frac12} < \frac34$ and $$w \int_w^\infty e^{-x^2}\,dx \leq \int_w^\infty x e^{-x^2}\,dx =
\frac{e^{-w^2}}{2} \,,$$ it holds that $$1 - |\hat{H_T}(k) | \geq \frac{1}{4w^2} ( 1 - e^{-w^2} ).$$ This is the first claim of lemma \[lem:boundL\] The function of $w$ in the right-hand side of the previous inequality on $|\hat{H}(k) |$ is decreasing and goes from $\frac14$ at $0$ to $0$ at $+\infty$. Consequently its minimal value are obtained for large $w$ i.e. for small $|k|$, namely $|k|=1$. Precisely , $$1 - \sup_{k \neq 0} |\hat{H_T}(k) | \geq \frac{T}{4} \left( 1 - e^{-\frac 1 T
} \right).$$ Since the Fourier representation of $L_T^{-1}$ is the multiplication by $ T(1 -\hat{H}(k))^{-1}$ we obtain that in any $H^s_0$, $s\in {\mathbb{R}}$, $$\| L_T^{-1} \|_{H^s_0} = \sup_{ k \neq 0} \frac T {|1 -\hat{H}(k)|} \leq \frac 4 {1 -
e^{-\frac 1 T }},$$ which is the desired result.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Propagation of $L^2_m$ and $L^2_m(L^4)$ norms of $f$. {#sec:moment}
-----------------------------------------------------
The two following lemmas will be useful in the sequel.
\[lem:u-moment\] Assume that $\| f_i\|_{2,u}^2 < +\infty $. Then, any solution of and , for regular potential $\phi$, satisfies $$\forall\, t>0, \quad \| f(t) \|_{2,u} \leq e^{\beta t} \| f_i \|_{2,u} \,.$$ Assume moreover that $\| f_i\|_{2,m} < +\infty $. Then any solution $f$ satisfies $$\label{eq:u-moment}
\| f(t) \|^2_{2,m} \leq \| f_i \|^2_{2,m} + (2\nu +\beta) \frac{e^{2 \beta t} -1 } \beta \| f_i \|^2_{2,2\pi u} \,.$$ with the convention that $\frac{e^{2 \beta t} -1 } \beta = 2t$ if $\beta =0$.
\[lem:disp\] Assume $\| f_i \|_{L^2_m(L^4)}
< +\infty$ and $f$ is a solution of with initial condition $f_i$ with a regular potential $\phi$. Then $f$ satisfies $$\label{eq:disp}
\| f(t) \|_{L^2_m(L^4)} \leq e^{(\beta + 2 \nu) t } \| f_i \|_{L^2_m(L^4)}$$
A more careful analysis will show that $$\| f(t) \|^2_{L^2_m(L^4)} \leq \| f_i \|^2_{L^2_m(L^4)} + (2\nu +\beta) \frac{e^{2 \beta t} -1 } \beta \| f_i \|^2_{L^2_{2\pi u}(L^4)} \,,$$ but the simple estimate of Lemma \[lem:disp\] will be sufficient.
\] Multiply equation by ${{\tilde f}}$. Using the notations $$u=|{{\vec{u}}}|,\quad g(t,u) = \frac12 \|{{\tilde f}}(t,\cdot,{{\vec{u}}})\|^2_2,$$ and integrating in the $x$ variable leads to $$\partial_t g - \nu \Delta_{{\vec{u}}}g = - \|(\nabla_x,\nabla_u) {{\tilde f}}(t,\cdot,u)\|^2_2 + \beta ( 4g + {{\vec{u}}}\cdot \nabla_{{\vec{u}}}g ) .$$
Multiply the previous equation by $k({{\vec{u}}})$, where $k$ is a smooth function on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ with compact support and integrate in the velocity variable ${{\vec{u}}}$ leads to $$\begin{split}
\partial_t \left( \int g(t,u) k({{\vec{u}}}) \,d{{\vec{u}}}\right) + \int
\|(\nabla_x,\nabla_{{\vec{u}}}) & {{\tilde f}}(t,\cdot,u)\|^2_2 k({{\vec{u}}}) \,d{{\vec{u}}}= \\
& \int (\nu \Delta_{{\vec{u}}}k({{\vec{u}}}) + 4 \beta k(u) - \beta \operatorname{div}(k({{\vec{u}}}){{\vec{u}}})
)g(t,u) \,d{{\vec{u}}}.
\end{split}$$ By approximation, this is still true for functions $k$ with unbounded supports. For $k({{\vec{u}}})=1$, $$\partial_t \left( e^{- 2 \beta t} \int g(t,u) \,d{{\vec{u}}}\right) = - e^{- 2 \beta t} \int \|(\nabla_x,\nabla_u) {{\tilde f}}(t,\cdot,u)\|^2_2 \,d{{\vec{u}}}\leq 0.$$ Coming back to the 1D original quantities, it means that $$\label{eq:calc2}
\| f(t) \|_{2,u} \leq e^{\beta t} \|f_i\|_{2,u}.$$
For $k({{\vec{u}}}) = {{\tilde{m}}}(u)$, then $\Delta k = 4$ and $$4 {{\tilde{m}}}(u) - \operatorname{div}({{\tilde{m}}}(u) {{\vec{u}}}) = 2 {{\tilde{m}}}(u) - {{\tilde{m}}}'(u) u = 2 \,.$$ Therefore, $$\int g(t,u) {{\tilde{m}}}(u) \,d{{\vec{u}}}\leq \int g(0,u) {{\tilde{m}}}(u) \,d{{\vec{u}}}+ 2(2\nu +\beta) \int_0^t \int g(s,u) \,d{{\vec{u}}}\,ds
$$ Or in other words $$\| f(t) \|^2_{2,m} \leq \| f_i \|^2_{2,m} + 2(2\nu +\beta) \int_0^t \| f(s) \|^2_{2,u} \,ds \,.$$ Using the bound of equation , we get $$\| f(t) \|^2_{2,m} \leq \| f_i \|^2_{2,m} + (2\nu +\beta) \frac{e^{2 \beta t} -1 } \beta \| f_i \|^2_{2,u} \,.$$ with the convention that $\frac{e^{2 \beta t} -1 } \beta = 2t$ if $\beta =0$.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to simplify the presentation, we will first performed calculation without justifying every integration by parts and division. But once we obtain an a-priori result, we will explain the small adaptation needed to make it rigorous. First, we denote $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha (t,{{\vec{u}}})= \int | {{\tilde f}}(t,x,{{\vec{u}}})| ^4 dx = \| f \|_4^4 \,, \qquad \gamma(t,{{\vec{u}}}) = \int |{{\tilde f}}|^2|\nabla_{{\vec{u}}}{{\tilde f}}|^2\,dx \end{aligned}$$ Multiply equation by $3 \operatorname{sign}(f) |f|^3$ and integrating with respect to $x$ leads to $$\label{eq:alpha}
\partial_t \alpha = - 12 \nu \int f^2 |(\nabla_x,\nabla_{{\vec{u}}}) f |^2 \,dx +
\nu \Delta_{{\vec{u}}}\alpha + 8 \beta \alpha + \beta {{\vec{u}}}\cdot \nabla_{{\vec{u}}}\alpha \,.$$ Hence, dividing by $\sqrt \alpha$ $$\partial_t \sqrt \alpha = \frac { \partial_t \alpha }{2 \sqrt \alpha} \leq - 6 \nu \frac \gamma {\sqrt \alpha} + \frac{\nu\Delta_{{\vec{u}}}\alpha}{2 \sqrt \alpha}
+ 4 \beta \sqrt \alpha + \beta \frac{{{\vec{u}}}\cdot \nabla_{{\vec{u}}}\alpha}{2 \sqrt \alpha}$$ Now, we multiply by ${{\tilde{m}}}(u)$, integrate with respect to ${{\vec{u}}}$ $$\partial_t \left( \int \sqrt \alpha \, {{\tilde{m}}}(u) d{{\vec{u}}}\right) \leq - 6 \nu \int \frac \gamma{\sqrt \alpha}\, {{\tilde{m}}}(u)\,d{{\vec{u}}}+ \frac \nu 2 \int \frac{\Delta_{{\vec{u}}}\alpha }{\sqrt \alpha} {{\tilde{m}}}(u) d{{\vec{u}}}+ 4 \beta \int \sqrt \alpha \,{{\tilde{m}}}(u)\,d{{\vec{u}}}+ \beta \int \frac{{{\vec{u}}}\cdot \nabla_{{\vec{u}}}\alpha}{2 \sqrt \alpha} {{\tilde{m}}}(u)\,d{{\vec{u}}}$$ With the help of some integration by parts, we get that $$\begin{aligned}
\int \frac{{{\vec{u}}}\cdot \nabla_{{\vec{u}}}\alpha}{2 \sqrt \alpha} {{\tilde{m}}}(u)\,d{{\vec{u}}}& = & - 2 \int \sqrt \alpha ({{\tilde{m}}}(u) + u^2) \,d{{\vec{u}}}\\
\int \frac{\Delta_{{\vec{u}}}\alpha }{\sqrt \alpha} {{\tilde{m}}}(u) d{{\vec{u}}}& = & - 2 \int \frac{{{\vec{u}}}\cdot \nabla_{{\vec{u}}}\alpha}{\sqrt \alpha} \,d{{\vec{u}}}+ \int \frac{|\nabla_{{\vec{u}}}\alpha|^2}{2 \alpha^{\frac32}} {{\tilde{m}}}(u) \,d{{\vec{u}}}\\
& = & 8 \int \sqrt \alpha \,d{{\vec{u}}}+ \int \frac{|\nabla_{{\vec{u}}}\alpha|^2}{2 \alpha^{\frac32}} {{\tilde{m}}}(u) \,d{{\vec{u}}}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Thanks to that, the previous inequality simplify in $$\partial_t \left( \int \sqrt \alpha \, {{\tilde{m}}}(u) d{{\vec{u}}}\right) \leq - 6 \nu \int \frac \gamma{\sqrt \alpha}\, {{\tilde{m}}}(u)\,d{{\vec{u}}}+ \frac \nu 4 \int \frac{|\nabla_{{\vec{u}}}\alpha|^2}{\alpha^{\frac32}} {{\tilde{m}}}(u) \,d{{\vec{u}}}+ 2 (\beta + 2 \nu) \int \sqrt \alpha \,d{{\vec{u}}}$$ Next we can estimate $|\nabla_{{\vec{u}}}\alpha|$ in terms of $\gamma$. In fact by Hölder inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_{{\vec{u}}}\alpha & = & \nabla_{{\vec{u}}}\left( \int f^4 \,dx \right) = 4 \int f^3 \nabla_{{\vec{u}}}f \,dx \\
|\nabla_{{\vec{u}}}\alpha|^2 & \leq & 16 \left( \int f^4 \,dx \right) \left( \int f^2 | \nabla_{{\vec{u}}}f|^2 \,dx\right) = 16 \alpha \gamma\end{aligned}$$ So that the second term in the right hand side of the previous inequality is controlled up to a constant to the first one. We precisely get $$\label{eq:ineqdiff}
\partial_t \left( \int \sqrt \alpha \, {{\tilde{m}}}(u) d{{\vec{u}}}\right) \leq - 2 \nu \int \frac \gamma{\sqrt \alpha}\, {{\tilde{m}}}(u)\,d{{\vec{u}}}+ 2 (\beta + 2 \nu) \int \sqrt \alpha \,d{{\vec{u}}}$$ From which we conclude easily.
In the previous calculation, we have not justified all the integrations by part. To make the argument rigorous, a possibility is to choose a smooth function $\xi_1$ from ${\mathbb{R}}^+$ into $[0,]$ such that $\xi(u) =1$ if $u \in [0,1]$ and $\xi(u) = 0$ if $u \in [1,+\infty)$, and define for all $U >0$ $\xi_U(u) = \xi \left( \frac u U\right)$. Remark that $ |U \xi_U' |_\infty \leq |\xi'|_\infty$ and $|U^2 \xi_U'' |_\infty \leq |\xi''|_\infty$. Then, we performed the previous calculation with the weight ${{\tilde{m}}}_U = {{\tilde{m}}}\xi_U$, we obtain an inequality very similar to $$\label{eq:diffapprox}
\partial_t \left( \int \sqrt \alpha \, {{\tilde{m}}}_U(u) d{{\vec{u}}}\right) \leq - 2 \nu \int \frac \gamma{\sqrt \alpha}\, {{\tilde{m}}}_U(u)\,d{{\vec{u}}}+ \left[ 2 (\beta + 2 \nu) + \frac C {U^2} \right] \int \sqrt \alpha \,d{{\vec{u}}}$$ from which we get $\| f(t) \|_{L^2_{{{\tilde{m}}}_U}(L^4)} \leq e^{(\beta + 2 \nu+ \frac C {U^2}) t } \| f_i \|_{L^2_{{{\tilde{m}}}_U}(L^4)} $, which give the desired result letting $U$ going to infinity.
The other point not rigorously justified is the division by $\sqrt \alpha$ that may be zero. However, since we have a diffusion equation, it may be proved that for $t > 0$, $\alpha>0$ everywhere. Or we can use a family of smooth approximation of $\sqrt \cdot $. Or we can say that $\alpha + {\epsilon}$ satisfy with a additional term that has the good sign, so that it will satisfy , and we will obtain the desired inequality letting ${\epsilon}$ going to zero and then $U$ going to infinity. It is well justified since the maximum principle applies there so that any solution with non-negative initial condition remains non-negative.
Short time estimate of the $m$-moment of $\nabla _x f$. {#sec:moment-grad_xf}
-------------------------------------------------------
The following lemma provide is central in the proof of the stability and uniqueness of the solution for short time.
\[lem:grad\_xf\] Assume that $f$ is a solution of the system - satisfying initially $\| \nabla_x f_i\|_{2,m} < +\infty$. Then there exists a constant $C^*$ and a time $\tau^*$ depending on $(T,\nu,\|\nabla_x
f_i\|_{2,m})$, such that $$\|\nabla_x f_i\|^2_{2,m} + \frac \nu 2 \int_0^{\tau^*} \|
(\nabla_x,\partial_u) \nabla_x f \|^2_{2,m} \,dt \leq C^*$$
We also mention that the result is true if the definition of $\Phi$ in is replaced by another definition which still satisfies the bound given in Lemma \[lem:rhoreg\] and \[lem:phireg\]. Precise bounds by below for $\tau^*$ are given at the end of the proof (only in the case $\beta=0$).
We take the $x$-gradient of equation , written in $2D$ in ${{\vec{u}}}$ (with $u =|{{\vec{u}}}|$), and obtain $$\partial_t \nabla_x {{\tilde f}}- \nabla_x^\perp (J_{u }^0\Phi )
\nabla_{x,x}^2 {{\tilde f}}= \beta(2\nabla_x {{\tilde f}}+ {{\vec{u}}}\cdot \nabla_{{\vec{u}}}({{\tilde f}})) + \nu \Delta_{x, {{\vec{u}}}} (\nabla_x {{\tilde f}}) - \nabla
_x(\nabla_x^\perp (J_{ u}^0\Phi ) \nabla_x {{\tilde f}}.$$ If we now multiply by $\,^t \nabla_x {{\tilde f}}$ on the left and integrate in $x$, the function $h$ defined by $h(t,u) = \frac12 \int |\nabla_x
{{\tilde f}}|^2 \,dx$ satisfies, $$\label{eq:gevol}
\partial_t g(u) = \beta (4 g(u) + {{\vec{u}}}\cdot \nabla_{{\vec{u}}}g(u)) \nu \Delta_{{{\vec{u}}}} g(u) - \nu \| \nabla_{x,{{\vec{u}}}} \nabla_x
{{\tilde f}}\|_2^2 - \int ~^t\nabla_x {{\tilde f}}\, \nabla_x (\nabla_x^\perp
J_u^0\Phi) \, \nabla_x {{\tilde f}}\,dx.$$ We may also multiply this equation by ${{\tilde{m}}}(u )= (1+u^2)$ and integrate it in ${{\vec{u}}}$. We obtain after that $$\label{eq:gevol2}
\frac12 \partial_t \|\nabla_x {{\tilde f}}\|_{2,{{\tilde{m}}}}^2 + \nu \| \nabla_{x,{{\vec{u}}}}
\nabla_x {{\tilde f}}\|_{2,{{\tilde{m}}}} ^2 = (4 \nu + 2\beta) \|\nabla_x {{\tilde f}}\|_{2,u^0}^2 -
\int \int ~^t\nabla_x {{\tilde f}}\Big( \nabla_x (\nabla_x^\perp J_u^0\Phi) \Big)
\nabla_x {{\tilde f}}\, {{\tilde{m}}}(u) \,dx\,d{{\vec{u}}}.$$
To go on, we need to understand a little better the matrix $M(t,x,u) = \nabla_x
(\nabla_x^\perp J_u^0\Phi)$. First remember that $\Phi = L_T^{-1}(\rho-1)$, and then remark that from there definition, $J^0$ and $L^{-1}$ commute with derivation in $x$. So that our term may be rewritten $ M = J_u^0 L^{-1}
(\nabla_x (\nabla_x^\perp \rho))$. Using the bound of the Lemma \[lem:rhoreg\] and \[lem:boundL\] we obtain that $$\forall u>0\,, \quad
\| M(t,u) \|_{H^1} = \| J_u^0 L^{-1} (\nabla_x (\nabla_x^\perp \rho)) \|_{H^1}
\leq \frac{2^{\frac14} c_T} {\sqrt u} \| \rho -1 \|_{H^{\frac 52}} \leq \frac{C
c_T} {\sqrt u} \| f \|_{L^2(H^2_m)} \,.$$ Moreover, the $H^2_m$-norm of $f$ appears in the right-hand side of . So that we may use it to control $M$.
With a control on the $H^1$ norm of $M$, we do not get an infinite bound on $M$, like $\|M\|_\infty \leq C \|f\|_{H^2}$. In that case, we will be able to use a classical tool to conclude. But this is almost true, we are in a critical case $(d=2$ and $p=2$) for the Sobolev imbeddings, but we still know that the square of $M$ is exponentially integrable. Precisely, since $M$ is of average $0$, we have for all $u >0$ the following Trüdinger inequality $$\int_x e^{\frac{M^2}{6 \|M\|^2_{H^1}}}\,dx \leq 2$$ We refer to [@Moser] for a proof of that result. To estimate $\int \! \int \,^t \nabla {{\tilde f}}M \nabla {{\tilde f}}(1+u^2) \,dx
du $, we first perform the integral in $x$. For this, we apply the inequality $$ab \leq e^a -b + b \ln b \,, \qquad \forall\, a,b >0,$$ to $(a,b)= \left( \left(\frac{|M|}{ 6 \|M\|^2_{H^1}}\right)^2 ,\frac{|\nabla
{{\tilde f}}|^2}{\|\nabla {{\tilde f}}\|^2_2} \right) $. The previous inequality comes from the Legendre transform of $e^a$, as the Young inequality, so that our application will be a log-exp analog of the Hölder inequalities. We obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\| M \nabla {{\tilde f}}\|_2 & = & 6 \|M \|_{H^1}
\|\nabla {{\tilde f}}\|_2 \left( \int \left( \frac{|M|}{ 6
\|M\|^2_{H^1}}\right)^2
\left(\frac{|\nabla {{\tilde f}}|^2}{\|\nabla {{\tilde f}}\|^2_2}\right)^2 \,dx
\right)^{\frac12} \\
& \leq & \frac{C c_T} {\sqrt u} \| {{\tilde f}}\|_{L^2_{{\tilde{m}}}(H^2)} \|\nabla {{\tilde f}}\|_{2}
\left( 2 - 1 + \int
\frac{|\nabla {{\tilde f}}|^2}{\|\nabla {{\tilde f}}\|^2_{2}} \ln \left( \frac{|\nabla {{\tilde f}}|^2}{\|\nabla {{\tilde f}}\|^2_2} \right) \,dx \right)^{\frac12} \,, \\
& \leq & \frac{C c_T} {\sqrt u} \| {{\tilde f}}\|_{L^2_{{\tilde{m}}}(H^2)} \|\nabla {{\tilde f}}\|_{2} \left(
1 + \ln \left( \frac{\|\nabla_x {{\tilde f}}\|^4_4}{\|\nabla_x {{\tilde f}}\|^4_2} \right)
\right)^{1/2} \,, \\
& \leq & \frac{C c_T} {\sqrt u} \| {{\tilde f}}\|_{L^2_{{\tilde{m}}}(H^2)} \|\nabla {{\tilde f}}\|_{2} \left(
1 + \ln \left( \frac{c_s \|\nabla^2_{x,x} {{\tilde f}}\|^2_2}{\|\nabla_x {{\tilde f}}\|^2_2} \right) \right)^{\frac12} \,,\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the Jensen inequality - precisely, for a function $g$ of integral $1$, $\int g \ln g \leq \ln ( \int g^2)$ - in the last but one line, and the Sobolev imbedding from $H^1$ into $L^4$ with constant $c_s$ in the last one. The constant $C$ may change from line to line. Using this and Jensen inequality in the previous equation, we get $$\begin{split}
\int \! \int | \,^t \nabla & {{\tilde f}}M \nabla {{\tilde f}}| \, {{\tilde{m}}}(u) \,dx du
\leq \int \| M \nabla {{\tilde f}}\|_2 \|\nabla {{\tilde f}}\|_2 {{\tilde{m}}}(u) \,du \,, \\
& \leq C c_T | {{\tilde f}}\|_{L^2_{{\tilde{m}}}(H^2)} \int \|\nabla {{\tilde f}}\|_2^2 \left( 1
+ \ln \left( {\textstyle \frac{c_s \|\nabla^2_{x,x} {{\tilde f}}\|^2_2}{\|\nabla_x {{\tilde f}}\|^2_2} } \right) \right)^{\frac12} \frac{{{\tilde{m}}}(u)} {\sqrt u} \,du \,, \\
& \leq C c_T \| {{\tilde f}}\|_{L^2_{{\tilde{m}}}(H^2)} \|\nabla f\|_{2,\frac{{\tilde{m}}}u}
\|\nabla {{\tilde f}}\|_{2,{{\tilde{m}}}} \left( 1+ \int \frac{{{\tilde{m}}}(u)\|\nabla {{\tilde f}}\|^2_2
}{\|\nabla {{\tilde f}}\|^2_{2,{{\tilde{m}}}} } \ln \left( \frac{ c_s\|\nabla^2_{x,x} {{\tilde f}}\|^2_2}{\|\nabla_x {{\tilde f}}\|^2_2} \right) \,du \right)^{\frac12} \,,\\
& \leq C c_T \| {{\tilde f}}\|_{L^2_{{\tilde{m}}}(H^2)} \|\nabla
f\|_{2,\frac {{\tilde{m}}}u} \|\nabla {{\tilde f}}\|_{2,{{\tilde{m}}}} \left( 1+ \ln \left(
{\textstyle \frac{
c_s \|\nabla^2_{x,x} {{\tilde f}}\|^2_{2,{{\tilde{m}}}}}{\|\nabla_x {{\tilde f}}\|^2_{2,{{\tilde{m}}}}} }\right)\right)^{\frac12}
\end{split}$$ Remark that the fraction inside the logarithm is always greater than $1$ so that the square root is well defined.
In order to get a bound on $\| \nabla_x {{\tilde f}}\|_{2,\frac {{\tilde{m}}}u}$, we use that $$\begin{aligned}
\| \nabla_x {{\tilde f}}\|^2_{2,\frac1 u}& = & 2 \int h(u) \frac{d{{\vec{u}}}}{|u|} = 2 \int
h(u) \operatorname{div}_{ {{\vec{u}}}}\left( \frac{{{\vec{u}}}}{|u|} \right) d{{\vec{u}}}\nonumber \\
& = & - \int \nabla_{{\vec{u}}}(|\nabla_x {{\tilde f}}|^2) \cdot
\frac{{{\vec{u}}}}{|u|} \,dxd{{\vec{u}}}\leq 2 \|\nabla^2_{{\vec{u}}}{{\tilde f}}\|_2 \|\nabla_x {{\tilde f}}\|_2 \,, \label{eq:trick}\end{aligned}$$ so that $$\| \nabla_x {{\tilde f}}\|^2_{2,\frac {{\tilde{m}}}u} = \| \nabla_x {{\tilde f}}\|^2_{2,u} +
\| \nabla_x {{\tilde f}}\|^2_{2,\frac1 u} \leq 2 \left( \|\nabla_x {{\tilde f}}\|_{2,{{\tilde{m}}}}
+ \|\nabla_{{\vec{u}}}\nabla_x {{\tilde f}}\|_{2,{{\tilde{m}}}} \right) \|\nabla_x f \|_{2,{{\tilde{m}}}}$$ Therefore, $$\label{eq:gevol3}
\begin{split}
\frac12 \partial_t & \|\nabla_x {{\tilde f}}\|_{2,{{\tilde{m}}}} + \nu \|
\nabla_{x,{{\vec{u}}}} \nabla_x {{\tilde f}}\|_{2,{{\tilde{m}}}} ^2 \leq (4 \nu + 2\beta) \|\nabla_x {{\tilde f}}\|_{2,u^0}^2 + \\
& C c_T \| \nabla^2_{x,x} {{\tilde f}}\|_{2,{{\tilde{m}}}} \|\nabla {{\tilde f}}\|_{2,{{\tilde{m}}}}^{\frac32} \left(
\|\nabla_x {{\tilde f}}\|_{2,{{\tilde{m}}}}^{\frac12} + \|\nabla_{{\vec{u}}}\nabla_x {{\tilde f}}\|_{2,{{\tilde{m}}}}^{\frac12} \right)
\left( 1+ \ln \left( \frac{ c_s \|\nabla^2_{x,x} {{\tilde f}}\|^2_{2,{{\tilde{m}}}}}{\|\nabla_x {{\tilde f}}\|^2_{2,{{\tilde{m}}}}} \right)\right)^{\frac12} \,.
\end{split}$$ We next use the inequality $\; 1 + \ln(x) \leq \frac{x^{\epsilon}}{\epsilon}$, valid for any ${\epsilon}\in (0,1), \; x >0$, and get $$\begin{split}
\partial_t & \|\nabla_x {{\tilde f}}\|_{2,{{\tilde{m}}}} + \nu \|
\nabla_{x,{{\vec{u}}}} \nabla_x {{\tilde f}}\|_{2,{{\tilde{m}}}} ^2 \leq (4 \nu +2\beta) \|\nabla_x {{\tilde f}}\|_{2,u^0}^2 + \ldots \\
& C({\epsilon}) \| \nabla_{x,{{\vec{u}}}} \nabla_x {{\tilde f}}\|_{2,{{\tilde{m}}}}^{1+{\epsilon}} \|\nabla_x
{{\tilde f}}\|_{2,{{\tilde{m}}}}^{\frac32 -{\epsilon}} \left( \|\nabla_x {{\tilde f}}\|_{2,{{\tilde{m}}}}^{\frac12} +
\|\nabla_{x,{{\vec{u}}}} \nabla_x {{\tilde f}}\|_{2,{{\tilde{m}}}}^{\frac12}\right) \,.
\end{split}$$ with $C({\epsilon}) = \frac{C c_T}{{\epsilon}} \sqrt{c_s}$. Now, with the temporary notations $a = \| \nabla_x {{\tilde f}}\|_{2,{{\tilde{m}}}}$ and $b = \| \nabla_{x,{{\vec{u}}}} \nabla_x {{\tilde f}}\|_{2,{{\tilde{m}}}}$, what we need is to eliminate all the $b$ in the right hand side, with the help of the $b$ of the left hand side. Precisely, in the right hand side, we have the two terms $$b^{1+{\epsilon}} a^{2-{\epsilon}} \,, \quad \text{and } b^{\frac32 + {\epsilon}} a^{\frac32 -{\epsilon}}
\,.$$ We will use the Young inequalities $xy \leq \frac{x^p}p + \frac{y^q}q$, where $\frac1p + \frac1q=1$. For the first term, with $p = \frac2{1+{\epsilon}}$ and then $q
=\frac2{1-{\epsilon}}$, and for the second with $p=\frac4{3 + 2{\epsilon}}$ and then $q=\frac4{1-2{\epsilon}}$. We obtain the following bounds $$b^{1+{\epsilon}} a^{2-{\epsilon}} \leq \frac{1+{\epsilon}}2 b^2 + \frac{1-{\epsilon}}2
a^{4+\frac{2{\epsilon}}{1-{\epsilon}}}\,, \quad \text{and }
b^{\frac32 + {\epsilon}} a^{\frac32-{\epsilon}} \leq \frac{3+2{\epsilon}}4 b^2 + \frac{1-2{\epsilon}}4
a^{6+\frac{8{\epsilon}}{1-2{\epsilon}}} \,,$$ valid for ${\epsilon}<\frac12$. Taking into account the two constants $\nu$ and $C({\epsilon})$ we get for ${\epsilon}<\frac12$ $$\begin{split}
\frac12 \partial_t \|\nabla_x {{\tilde f}}& \|_{2,{{\tilde{m}}}}^2 + \frac \nu 2 \|
\nabla_{x,{{\vec{u}}}} \nabla_x {{\tilde f}}\|_{2,{{\tilde{m}}}} ^2 \leq (4 \nu + 2\beta) \|\nabla_x {{\tilde f}}\|_{2,m}^2 + \ldots \\
& C({\epsilon})^{\frac2{1-{\epsilon}}} \nu^{- \frac{1+{\epsilon}}{1-{\epsilon}}}
\| \nabla_x {{\tilde f}}\|_{2,{{\tilde{m}}}}^{4+\frac{2{\epsilon}}{1-{\epsilon}}} +
C({\epsilon})^{\frac4{1-2 {\epsilon}}}
\nu^{-\frac{3+2{\epsilon}}{1-2{\epsilon}}} \| \nabla_x
{{\tilde f}}\|_{2,{{\tilde{m}}}}^{6+\frac{8{\epsilon}}{1-2{\epsilon}}} \,.
\end{split}$$ where $C({\epsilon})$ has only change from a numerical constant. With the notation $h =
\|\nabla_x {{\tilde f}}\|_{2,{{\tilde{m}}}}^2$, it gives $$\frac12 \partial_t h \leq (4 \nu + 2\beta) h + C({\epsilon})^{\frac2{1-{\epsilon}}} \nu^{-
\frac{1+{\epsilon}}{1-{\epsilon}}}
h^{2+\frac{{\epsilon}}{1-{\epsilon}}} + C({\epsilon})^{\frac4{1-2 {\epsilon}}}
\nu^{-\frac{3+2{\epsilon}}{1-2{\epsilon}}} h^{3+\frac{4{\epsilon}}{1-2{\epsilon}}} \,.$$ That is a differential inequality with a growth faster than linear, that give a solution that may explode in a finite time. The time of explosion $\tau^*$ may be bounded below by something depending only on $\nu, \, {\epsilon}, \, T$ and $h(0) = \| \nabla_x {{\tilde f}}_i
\|_{2,m}$. Since ${\epsilon}$ may be choosen arbitrairy between $0$ and $\frac12$, $\tau^*$ depends only on $\nu$,$\beta$, $T$ and the initial value $h_0$.
Using that in the inequality , and turning back to the original $u$ variable, we obtain the existence of a constant $C_3(T, \nu,\|\nabla_x
f_i\|_m)$ such that $$\|\nabla_x f_i\|^2_{2,m} + \frac \nu 2 \int_0^{\tau^*} \|
(\nabla_x,\partial_u) \nabla_x f \|^2_{2,m} \,dt\leq C_3(T,\nu,\|\nabla_x f_i\|_{2,m})$$
In order to simplify the next two paragraphs, we assume that $\beta \leq \nu$. A careful analysis of the term in the right hand side of the previous equation shows that if ${\epsilon}$ is choosen small enough so that $\nu \leq C({\epsilon})$, then for $h \leq \bar h := \left( \frac \nu {C({\epsilon})}\right)^2$ the dominant term is $4 \nu h$ and for $h \geq \bar h $ the dominant term is $h^{6+\frac{8{\epsilon}}{1-2{\epsilon}}}$.
Then, if $h(0) \geq \bar h$, the explosion time is given by the equation $$\partial_t h \leq C({\epsilon})^{\frac2{1-2 {\epsilon}}}
\nu^{-\frac{3+2{\epsilon}}{1-2{\epsilon}}} h^{3+\frac{8{\epsilon}}{1-2{\epsilon}}} \,.$$ For that equation, we get that the explosion time is larger than $$\tau^* = C({\epsilon})^{- \frac4{1-2 {\epsilon}}}
\nu^{\frac{3+2{\epsilon}}{1-2{\epsilon}}} h(0)^{- \frac{2}{1-2{\epsilon}}}$$
In the case $h(0) \leq \bar h$, then for the early time, the equation may be rewritten $$\partial_t h \leq 12 \nu h \,,$$ till $h(0) = \bar h$. It take a time greater than $T^1 = \frac1{12\nu}
\ln\left(\frac{\bar h}{h(0)}\right)$. And after that time, the explosion time is given by the later calculation, and due to simplification it comes $\frac C \nu$. Finally, we get an explosion time $$\tau^* = \frac1{12\nu} \ln\left(\frac{\bar h}{h(0)}\right) + \frac C \nu$$
It is quite difficult to optimize that quantity in ${\epsilon}$. But, as the condition on ${\epsilon}$ are $0 < {\epsilon}< \frac12$ and $\nu \leq C({\epsilon}) = C \frac{c_T} {\epsilon}$, we can choose $${\epsilon}= \min \left( \frac18 , C \frac{ c_T}{\nu} \right)$$ With that choice, we get
- If $\nu \leq 8 C c_T$, $\displaystyle \tau^* = \begin{cases}
C \nu^{\frac{13}3} h_0^{-\frac83} \quad \text{if } h_0 \geq C \left( \frac \nu {c_T}\right)^2 \\
\frac C \nu \left( 1 + \ln\left( {\textstyle \frac{C \nu^2}{c_T^2 h_0 }}\right) \right) \quad \text{ else}
\end{cases}$
- If $\nu \geq 8 C c_T$, $\displaystyle \tau^* = \begin{cases}
C \nu^{\frac{13}3} h_0^{-\frac83} \quad \text{if } h_0 \geq 1 \\
\frac C \nu ( 1 - \ln h_0 ) \quad \text{ else}
\end{cases}$
It is then clear that the value of $\tau^*$ depends only on $\nu,h_0$ and the temperature $T$.
The case of physical interest is the first one. Since in core of tokamaks, we have a large temperature $T$ which implies a constant $c_T$ large, and a small colisionnality, in other words a small $\nu$.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existence of solutions.
=======================
\[sect:existence\] In this section, we prove the existence theorem \[thm:existence\]. The proof will use the following notation and a preliminary lemma. A priori estimates of the Lemma \[lem:u-moment\] on the solution $(f,\Phi )$ to \[eq:gyroFP2D\]-\[eq:elecneutr\] on $[0,T]$ lead to the definition of the set $K$ of functions $f$ such that $$\|f(t) \|_{2,m} \leq \sqrt M, \quad a.a. t\in 0,T,$$ where $$M= \| f_i \|^2_{2,m} + (2\nu +\beta) \frac{e^{2 \beta t} -1 } \beta \| f_i \|^2_{2,2\pi u}$$ For each $n >0$, we also introduce an approximation of the potential $\Phi_n$ defined for any $f \in L^2_m$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:phiapprox}
\Phi _n (t,x):= \sum _{|k|\leq n; k\neq 0}e^{ik\cdot x} \frac{1} {1-\hat{H}(k)}\Big( \int 2 \pi J^0_w\hat{f_n}(t,k,w)wdw-1\Big) ,\end{aligned}$$
\[lem:approx\] For any $n \in {\mathbb{N}}^*$ and any $T>0$, there is a unique $f_n$ in $K\cap L^2(0,T; H^1_u(\Omega ))$ solution to with the potential $\Phi$ replaced by $\Phi _n= \Phi _n(f_n)$ and initial condition $f_i$. That solution satisfy all the a priori estimate of the previous section.
Let $S$ be the map defined on $K$ by $S(f)= g$, where $g$ is the solution in $K\cap L^2(0,T; H^1_u(\Omega ))$ to with the potential $\Phi _n(f)$ and initial condition $f�$. The existence and uniqueness of $S(F)$ follows from [@Lions-Magenes] Thm 4.1 p 257, since $\nabla \Phi _n$ is bounded in $L^{\infty }(0,T; H^3({\mathbb{T}}^2 ))$ by $c_n M$ for some constant $c_n$. Then $S$ maps $K$ into $K$. Moreover, $S$ is a contraction in $L^{\infty }(0,T;L^2_u(\Omega ))$ for $T$ small enough. Indeed, let $g_1= S(f_1)$ (resp. $g_2= S(f_2)$). By estimates very similar to the one performed in Lemma \[lem:rhoreg\] it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
\forall t\geq 0, \quad \| (\Phi _n(f_1)- \Phi _n(f_2))(t, \cdot) \|_{L^{\infty }({\mathbb{T}}^2)}\leq \bar{c_n}\| (f_1- f_2)(t,\cdot ) \|_{2,m},\end{aligned}$$ for some constant $ \bar{c_n}$. Substracting the equation satisfied by $g_2$ from the equation satisfied by $g_1$ and integrating over $\Omega $ leads to $$\begin{split}
\frac{e^{2(2\nu + \beta)t} }{2} & \frac{d}{dt} \left( e^{- 2(2\nu + \beta)t}\| g_1 - g_2\|_{2,m}^2 \right) \\
& \leq - \nu \| (\nabla_x,\partial_u)(g_1 - g_2)\|_{2,m}^2 - \int g_2 \nabla^\perp (J_u^0(\Phi_n(f_2)-\Phi_n(f_1))) \cdot \nabla (g_1-g_2) \,m(u) \,dxdu \\
& \leq - \nu \| (\nabla_x,\partial_u)(g_1 - g_2)\|_{2,m}^2 + \bar{c_n}\| (f_1 - f_2)\|_{2,m}\| \nabla _x(g_1 - g_2)\|_{2,m}\|g_2\|_{2,m} \\
& \leq \frac{\bar{c_n}^2}{4 \nu^2} \| (f_1 - f_2)\|_{2,m}^2\|g_2\|_{2,m}^2 \leq \frac{\bar{c_n}^2 M }{4 \nu^2} \| (f_1 - f_2)\|_{2,m}^2
\end{split}$$ And so $$\begin{aligned}
\| g_1- g_2 \|_{L^{\infty }(0,T; L^2_m) } \leq c Te^{2(\nu +\beta )T}\| f_1- f_2 \|_{L^{\infty }(0,T; L^2_m) }.\end{aligned}$$ Hence there is a unique fixed point of the map $S$ on $[0,T_1]$ for $T_1$ small enough. The bounds used for defining $T_1$ being independent of $T_1$, a unique solution of the problem can be determined globally in time by iteration. The fact that this unique solution satisfy the a-priori estimates of the next section is clear since these estimates only depends on the bound satisfied by $\Phi$ and not on its precise form.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The sequence $(f_n)$ is compact in $L^2_{loc,u}((0,T)\times \Omega )$. Indeed, it is bounded in\
$L^{\infty }(0,T;L^2_u(\Omega_U))\cap L^2(0,T;H^1_u(\Omega_U))$ for any bounded subset $U >0$ (Recall of $\Omega_U = {\mathbb{T}}^2 \times {\mathbb{R}}^+$). It follows from the interpolation theory that $(f _n)$ is bounded in $L^{\frac{10}{3}}_u((0,T)\times {\mathbb{T}}^2\times U)$. Together with the boundedness of $(\nabla _ x\Phi _n(f _n))$ in $L^2_{loc,u}((0,T)\times \Omega )$, this implies that $(\frac{\partial f_n}{\partial t})$ is bounded in $W^{-1,\frac{5}{4}}_{loc,u}((0,T)\times \Omega_U )$. By the Aubin lemma [@Lions-Magenes], it holds that $(f _n)$ is compact in $L^2_u((0,T)\times \Omega_U)$, so converges up to a subsequence to some function $f$ in $L^2_u$.\
It remains to pass to the limit when $n\rightarrow +\infty $ in the weak formulation satisfied by $f _n$. A weak form of - is that for every smooth test function $\alpha $ with compact support in $[0,T[\times \Omega $, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:weakform}
\int f_i(x,u)\alpha (0,x,u) \,u\,dxdu+\int _0^t \int f _n\Big( \frac{\partial \alpha }{\partial t}+\nabla _ x^{\perp }(J_u^0\Phi _n(f_n))\cdot \nabla _x \alpha \Big) \,u\,dxduds \\
= \int _0^t \int \Big( u \nu \nabla _x f_n\cdot \nabla _x \alpha + \partial_u f_n \partial_u \alpha + \beta u^2 f_n\partial_u \alpha \Big) \,dxduds \,. \end{gathered}$$ The passage to the limit in when $n\rightarrow +\infty $ can be performed if $$\begin{aligned}
\lim _{n\rightarrow \infty }\int _0^t \int uf _n\nabla _ x^{\perp }(J_u^0(\Phi _n(f_n))\cdot \nabla _x \alpha dxduds= \int _0^t \int uf\nabla _ x^{\perp }(J_u^0(\Phi (f))\cdot \nabla _x \alpha dxduds.\end{aligned}$$ This holds since $(f_n)$ (resp. $(\nabla _ x (J_u^0(\Phi _n)(f _n)))$ strongly (resp. weakly) converges to $f$ (resp. $\nabla _ x (J_u^0(\Phi (f))$) in $L^2_{loc,u}((0,T)\times \Omega )$. And since the $f_n$ satisfy all the a priori bound, the limit $f$ also satisfies them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short time uniqueness and stability of the solution.
====================================================
\[sect:uniqueness\]
In this section we prove the shot time uniqueness and stability theorem \[thm:uniqueness\]
Denote by $f_1$ (resp. $f_2$) a solution to \[eq:gyroFP2D\] for the field $\Phi_1$ (resp. $\Phi_2$), by $\delta f= f_1-f_2$ and by $\delta \Phi = J_u^0(\Phi _1-\Phi _2)$. Multiplying the equation satisfied by $(1+u^2) \delta f$ by $\delta f$ and integrating w.r.t. $(x,u)$ with the weight $u$ leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2} \frac{d}{dt} \| \delta f\|_{2,m}^2 & \leq &
- \nu \| (\nabla_x,\partial_u)\delta f\|_{2,m}^2 + (4 \nu +2 \beta) \|\delta f \|_{2,u}^2+\int \delta f\nabla_x^{\perp }(\delta \Phi)\cdot \nabla_x f_2 \,m(u)\,dxdu \\
& \leq & - \nu \| (\nabla_x,\partial_u)\delta f\|_{2,m}^2 + 4 \nu \|\delta f
\|_{2, m}^2 + \|\delta f \nabla_x(\delta \Phi)\|_{2, um} \|\nabla_x f_2\|_{2,\frac m u }.\end{aligned}$$ To estimate $\|\delta f \nabla(\delta \Phi)\|_{2,u\,m }$, apply the inequality $$ab \leq e^a -b + b \ln b \,, \qquad a,b >0,$$ to $(a,b)= \left( \left(\frac{\nabla_x \delta \Phi}{ 6\|\nabla_x^2 \delta
\Phi\|_2}\right)^2 ,\left( \frac{\delta f}{\|\delta f\|_2} \right)^2 \right) $ for every nonnegative $u$ and apply the Trüdinger inequality (See [@Moser]) $$\label{eq:exp-int}
\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^2} e^{\left( \frac{\nabla_x \delta \Phi}{6\|\nabla_x^2\psi
\|_2}\right)^2 } \,dz \leq 2 \,.$$ Therefore, using $\|\nabla_x^2 \delta \Phi \|_2 \leq \frac{C c_T}{\sqrt u} \| \nabla
\delta f\|_{2,m}$ (Lemmas \[lem:rhoreg\] and \[lem:phireg\] and \[lem:boundL\]) and the Jensen inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\|\delta f \nabla_x (\delta \Phi) \|_2^2 & = & C \|\nabla^2 \delta \Phi\|_2^2
\|\delta f\|_2^2 \int \left(\frac{\delta f}{\|\delta f\|_2}
\right)^2
\left(\frac{ |\nabla_x \delta \Phi| }{ 6 \|\nabla^2 \delta \Phi\|_2}\right)^2
\,dx \\
& \leq & C \|\nabla^2 \delta \Phi\|_2^2
\|\delta f\|_2^2 \left( 1+ \int \frac{ (\delta f)^2 }{\|\delta f\|_2}
\ln\left(\frac{(\delta f)^2}{\|\delta f \|_2^2}\right)\,dx \right). \\
& \leq & \frac{C c_T^2 }{u} \| \nabla_x \delta f\|_{2,m}^2
\|\delta f\|_2^2 \left( 1+ \ln \left( \frac{\|\delta f\|^4}{\|\delta f \|_2^4}
\right) \right)\end{aligned}$$ Integrating in $u$ with the weight $um$, it holds using again Jensen inequality that $$\begin{aligned}
\| \delta f \nabla(\delta \Phi) \|^2_{2,um}
& \leq & 2C c_T^2 \| \nabla_x \delta f\|_{2,m}^2 \| \delta f\|_{2,m}^2
\int \frac{\|\delta f\|_2^2 }{\| \delta f\|_{2,m}^2} \left( 1+ \ln \left(
\frac{\|\delta f\|^2_4}{\|\delta f \|_2^2}
\right)\right) m(u)\,du \\
& \leq & C c_T^2 \| \nabla_x \delta f\|_{2,m}^2 \| \delta f\|_{2,m}^2
\left( 1+ \ln \left( \frac{\|\delta f\|^2_{L^2_m(L^4)}}{\|\delta f \|_{2,m}^2}
\right)\right) \,. \\\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, $$\begin{split}
\frac{1}{2} \frac{d}{dt} \| \delta f\|_{2,m}^2 \leq C c_T \|\nabla_x \delta
f\|_{2,m} & \| \delta f \|_{2,m} \sqrt{1+ \ln \left( \frac{\|\delta
f\|^2_{L^2_m(L^4)}}{\|\delta f \|_{2,m}^2}
\right)} \, \|\nabla f_2\|_{2,\frac m u } \\
& - \nu \| (\nabla_x,\partial_u)\delta f\|_{2,m}^2 + (4 \nu+ 2 \beta) \|\delta
f \|_{2,m}^2 \,,
\end{split}$$ and finally using the inequality $\|f(t)\|_{L^2_m(L^4)} \leq e^{(\beta-2\nu)t} \|f_i\|_{L^2_m(L^4)}$ from lemma \[lem:disp\] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2} \frac{d}{dt} \| \delta f\|_{2,m}^2 & \leq & \frac{C c_T^2}{4\nu}
\| \delta f \|^2_{2,m} \ln\left(\frac{2 e \|\delta
f\|^2_{L^2_m(L^4)}}{\|\delta f \|_{2,m}} \right) \|\nabla
f_2\|^2_{2, \frac m u} + (4 \nu + 2\beta) \| \delta f\|_{2,m}^2 \,, \\
& \leq & \frac{C c_T^2}{4\nu}
\| \delta f \|^2_{2,m} \ln \left( \frac{r^2 e^{2(\beta + 2 \nu) t+ 1}}{\|\delta f \|^2_{2,m}} \right) \|\nabla
f_2\|^2_{2, \frac m u} + (4 \nu + 2\beta) \| \delta f\|_{2,m}^2 \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
r = e^{\frac12} \,\left(\| f_{1,i} \|_{L^2_m(L^4)} + \| f_{2,i} \|_{L^2_m(L^4)} \right) \,.
$$ Defining $s(t) = \frac 1 {r^2} \| \delta f\|_{2,m}^2 e^{-2(\beta + 2 \nu) t}$, we get $$\dot s (t) \leq \frac{C c_T^2}{4\nu} \|\nabla f_2\|^2_{2, \frac m u} \, s(t) \ln \frac 1 {s(t)} \,.$$ It follows from the Osgood lemma that $$\label{eq:osg}
s(t) \leq s(0)^{e^{-H(t)}}$$ with $H(t) = \frac{C c_T^2}{4\nu} \int_0^t \|\nabla f_2(s)\|^2_{2, \frac m u} \,ds$. We will show below that $H$ is well defined on $[0,\tau^*]$, the time defined in Lemma \[lem:grad\_xf\]. It implies $$\| \delta f (t) \|_{2,m} \leq e^{(\beta+2\nu)t}\, r^{1-e^{-H(t)}} \, \| \delta f (t) \|_{2,m}^{e^{-H(t)}} \,$$ and from that inequality we get the short time uniqueness and stability. Remark that the previous calculation do not use $\nabla_x f_1$ and this is why we do not need an assumption on this quantity in the stability result.
It remains to prove that $H$ is bounded on $[0,\tau^*]$. In fact, $$\int_0^{\tau^*} \|\nabla f_2\|^2 _{2,(1+u^2)^{\frac72}} \,dt \leq 2^{\frac52} \int_0^{\tau^*} \|\nabla f_2\|^2 _{2,(1+u^7)} \,dt ,$$ since $(1+u^2)^{\frac72} \leq 2^{\frac52} (1+ u^7)$. Moreover, $\int_0^{\tau^*} \|\nabla f_2\|^2 _{2,u^0} \,dt $ may be bounded using Lemma \[lem:grad\_xf\] and the inequality (we emphasize that the form used here is slighty different because we are in here in the $1D$ setting for the variable $u$) $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^{\tau^*} \|\nabla f(t)\|^2 _{2,u^0} \,dt & \leq & 2 \int_0^{\tau^*} \|\nabla^2_{x,{{\vec{u}}}} f(t) \|_{2,u} \|\nabla_x f(t) \|_{2,u} \\
& \leq & \sup_{t \leq \tau^*} \|\nabla_x f(t) \|_{2,u} \sqrt{\tau^*} \left( \int_0^{\tau^*} \|\nabla^2_{x,{{\vec{u}}}} f(t) \|_{2,u} \,dt \right)^{\frac12} \\
& \leq & C^* \sqrt{\frac{\tau^*} \nu } \,.\end{aligned}$$ And $\int_0^{\tau^*} \|\nabla f_2\|^2 _{2,u^7} \,dt $ is bounded by Lemma \[lem:u-moment\], with $n=3$.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix: Some controls on the Bessel function of zero-th order. {#App:A}
================================================================
The first Bessel function $J^0$ is much used in this paper. Indeed, in Fourier space, $J^0_1$ that appears in the definition of the gyroaverage of the electric field, is the multiplication by $J^0$. Some properties of the function $J^0$ are given in [@Watson]. In this appendix, some bounds on $J^0$ and its derivative are proven.
\[lem:boundJ\] $J^0$ satisfies the following estimates for all $k \in {\mathbb{R}}$ $$\begin{aligned}
& i) &\qquad |J^0(k)| \leq \min \left( 1, \frac{1}{2^{1/4} \sqrt{ k}} \right) ,\\
& ii) &\qquad |J^0(k)| \leq (1+k^2)^{^{-\frac14}} \,, \\
& iii) &\qquad |(J^0)'(k)| \leq \min \left( 1, \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi k }} \right) \,, \\
& iv) & \qquad |(J^0)'(k)| \leq (1+k^2)^{^{-\frac14}} \,.\end{aligned}$$
[*First Inequality :*]{} The bound $|J^0(k)| \leq 1$ is clear from the definition of $J^0$, $$\label{eq:J0bis}
J^0(k) = \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} e^{ik\cos \theta} \,d\theta = \frac{1}{\pi} \int_0^\pi \cos(k\cos \theta)\,d\theta \,.$$ The bound by $(\sqrt 2 k)^{-\frac12}$ is obtained as follows. $J^0$ is solution of the ordinary differential equation $$k^2 (J^0)'' + k (J^0)' + k^2 J^0 = 0 \,, \quad J^0(0)=1 \,, \; (J^0)'(0) = 0 \,.$$ The new unknown $u = \sqrt{k}J^0$ is solution to $$u'' + \left( 1 + \frac{1}{4k^2} \right) u = 0 \,. \qquad$$ There are no exact initial conditions for $u$. However, $$u(k) \underset{ \scriptscriptstyle k \rightarrow 0^+}{=} \sqrt k [1+ O(k^2)] \,, \quad u'(k) \underset{\scriptscriptstyle k \rightarrow 0^+}{=} \frac1{2\sqrt k} [1+ O(k^2)] .$$
The second equation admits the $k$-dependent energy, $$H(k) = H(k,u,u')= \frac{u'^2}{2} + \frac{u^2}{2}\left( 1+ \frac{1}{4k^2} \right) \,,$$ that satisfies $$H(k) - H(k_0) = - \int_{k_0}^k \frac{u^2(l)}{4l^3} \,dl .$$ It follows from the behaviour of $u$ near $0$ that $$H(k) \underset{ \scriptscriptstyle k \rightarrow 0^+}{=} \frac1{4k} + O(k) \,.$$ Moreover the series expansion of $J^0$ near $k=0$, $$J^0(k) = \sum_{j=0}^\infty (-1)^{j} \frac{k^{2j}}{2^{2j}(j!)^2}$$ and its alternate character if $k \leq 2$ imply that $u^2(k) \geq k - \frac{k^3}{2}$ (valid for $k \leq \sqrt{2}$). Using, the inequality and the behavior of $H$ near $0$, we get if $0 < k_0 \leq k \leq \sqrt 2$ $$\begin{aligned}
H(k) & \leq & \frac{1}{4 k_0} + O(k_0) - \int_{k_0}^k \left( \frac{1}{4l^2} - \frac{1}{8} \right) \,dl, \nonumber\\
H(k) & \leq & \frac{1}{4k} + \frac{k}{8} \,, \label{eq:Hk}\end{aligned}$$ since the first line is satisfied for any $k_0 >0$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
u^2(k) & \leq & k \frac{k^2+2}{4k^2+1}, \quad k \leq \sqrt{2} \,.\end{aligned}$$ A simple calculation shows that the function appearing in the right hand side is increasing in $k$, so that $$u^2(k) \leq \frac1{\sqrt 2},\quad k\in [0,\sqrt 2]\,.$$ For $k \geq \sqrt 2$, simply remark that $H$ is decreasing and that from $$u^2(k) \leq 2 H(k) \leq 2 H(\sqrt 2) \leq \frac1{\sqrt2}$$ In any case we get $u^2(k) \leq 2^{-\frac12}$ which gives the desired inequality.
[ *Second inequality :* ]{} It is a consequence of the first, for $k \geq 1$. For $k \leq 1$, it may be obtain from a comparison of the entire development of $J^0$ and $(1+k)^{-1/4}$ around the origin. We get $$J^0(k) \leq 1 - \frac{k^2}{4} + \frac{k^4}{64} \leq 1 - \frac{k^2}{4} + \frac{5 k^4}{32} - \frac{15 k^6}{128} \leq (1+k^2)^{-1/4}$$
[ *Third inequality :*]{} Taking the derivative of $J^0$ in the definition , $$(J^0)'(k) = \frac{i}{2\pi} \int _0^{2\pi} \cos \theta e^{i k \cos \theta} \,d\theta = - \frac{1}{\pi} \int _0^\pi \cos \theta \sin(k \cos \theta) \,d\theta\, ,$$ from which it is clear that $| (J^0)'(k)| \leq 1$ for all $k$. Next we transform the previous integral in $$\begin{aligned}
(J^0)'(k) & = & -\frac{2}{\pi} \int_0^1 \frac{\alpha \sin(k\alpha)}{\sqrt{1-\alpha^2}}\,d\alpha \, ,\\
& = & \sum_{i=0}^{j-1} (-1)^j \int_{h_i}^{h_{i+1}} \frac{|\sin (k\alpha)|}{\sqrt{1-\alpha^2}} \alpha \,d\alpha := \sum_{i=0}^{j-1} (-1)^j s_j\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $(h_i)_{1\leq i\leq j}$ are the points where $\sin(k\theta)$ vanishes and $1$, $$h_0=0 < h_1=\frac{\pi}{k} < h_2 = \frac{2\pi}{k} < \ldots < h_{j-1} = \frac{(j-1)\pi}{k} < h_j = 1.$$ The previous sum has alterned sign, the larger terms occuring for large $i$. Its terms are with increasing absolute values, except for the last one which is incomplete and may be smaller than the next to last term. However, $$-s_1 \leq s_0 -s_1 \leq \sum_{i=0}^{j} (-1)^j s_j \leq s_0 -s_1 + s_2 \leq s_0,$$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
|(J^0)'(k)| & \leq & \max(s_0,s_1) \leq \frac{2}{\pi} \int_{1-\pi/k}^1 \frac{\alpha d\alpha}{\sqrt{1-\alpha^2}} \\
& \leq & \frac{1}{\pi} \sqrt{\frac{2\pi}{k} - \frac{\pi^2}{k^2}} \leq \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi k}},\quad k \geq \pi .\end{aligned}$$ This ends the proof of the third inequality.\
The proof of $iv)$ is similar to the proof of $ii)$, since $\sqrt{\frac2\pi} < 2^{-\frac14}$.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The solution to the BFKL equation grows like a power of center of mass energy, $s$, violating unitarity conditions at high energies. The growth of the cross section can be tamed by taking into account multiple pomeron exchanges. This is known as saturation and it is expressed in the Balitsky-Kovchegov equation, [@e6]. Conservation of energy should also slow down the growth of the cross section, and our aim in this work is to study the effects of enforcing energy conservation in DIS-events. Using the dipole picture, onium-onium collisions can be viewed, in the large $N_c$ and the leading logarithmic limits, as the scattering of a collection of color dipoles. We construct a Monte Carlo program, based on Mueller’s model, [@e2; @e3; @e4; @e5], and using energy conservation, to study onium-onium and onium-nucleus collisions. Dipole fusion processes will be important at high gluon densities and should also slow down the growth of the cross section. We propose an expression for the fusion factor and use it in our Monte Carlo to study its effects.'
---
hep-ph/0406150\
LU TP 04 - 24\
June, 2004
[**Saturation In Deep Inelastic Scattering**]{}\
[Master of Science Thesis by Emil Avsar]{}\
\[2mm\] [Thesis advisor: Gösta Gustafson]{}\
\[2mm\] [*Department of Theoretical Physics,*]{}\
[*Lund University, Lund, Sweden*]{}
Introduction
============
> *It remains that, from the same principles, I now demonstrate the frame of the System of the World.\
> Isaac Newton\
> Book III, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, 1687*
Deep Inelastic Scattering (DIS) is a scattering process where the target particle disintegrates and what comes out is very different from what came in. If on the other hand the system after the collision looks exactly like the system before the collision we call the process elastic. A very common process to study is the collision between an electron and a proton. This process is usually deeply inelastic at high energies, which is due to the fact that the proton is not an elementary particle but is instead made up of even smaller particles, the quarks. This was observed in 1968, and it was found that the proton consist of three quarks, two up-quarks and one down-quark. However, the picture is not as simple as that. Since the quarks interact via the strong force which is mediated by the gluons, there are also a lot of gluons in the proton. These gluons can create quark-antiquark pairs or split into new gluons, and thus the proton structure is much more complicated. It was indeed observed in these collisions that almost half of the proton’s momentum is carried by particles that don’t interact electromagnetically, namely the gluons. Gluons and quarks are collectively called partons.
Let us consider a typical electron-proton scattering event, see figure 1. We have an incoming electron with four-momentum $p$ and an incoming proton with four-momentum $P$ interacting via the exchange of a virtual photon with virtuality $Q^{2}=-q^{2}$.
(250,150)(0,0) (0,0)(200,0) (0,5)(200,5) (0,10)(100,10) (100,10)(110,50) (0,100)(100,100) (100,100)(110,50)[4]{}[5]{} (100,100)(200,140) (110,50)(200,50) (50,90)\[\][$p$]{} (50,20)\[\][$P$]{} (115,30)\[\][$P'$]{} (115,80)\[\][$q$]{} (150,60)\[\][$P'+q$]{}
With $P'$ we denote the four-momentum of the parton which absorbs the virtual photon. The simplest possible process is that it stays on the mass-shell after the absorption, with a momentum $P'+q$. We define the variable $x$, as the fraction of the proton’s momentum carried by the parton, which is struck by the virtual photon; thus $ x=P'/P$. Since the mass of the proton, and naturally its partons, can be neglected at the energy scales we are concerned about, we get $ (P'+q)^{2}=0$ and $P'^{2}+2P'\cdot q+q^{2}=2xP\cdot q-Q^{2}=0$, and hence $x=\frac{Q^{2}}{2P\cdot
q}$. This variable $x$ is called the Bjorken scaling variable, usually denoted by $x_{Bj}$.
Theory
======
We define, the parton distribution function $f(x)$, as the probability for finding a parton carrying a momentum fraction $x$ of the proton. Usually we use subscripts to denote which parton we are considering, for example with $f_q(x)$ we denote the probability for finding a quark with momentum fraction $x$. To specify the flavor of the quark we use the subscripts u,d etc. The parton model predicts that these distribution functions depend only on the variable $x$. This behavior is known as scaling, which is also why $x$ is called the Bjorken scaling variable. If a parton has a certain $x$ it could either have this momentum fraction from the beginning, or it could initially have a larger momentum fraction and reduce it to $x$ through emission of gluons . The avaliable phase space for radiating gluons is larger when $Q^2$ is large. Therefore the distribution functions will show a greater probability to have smaller $x$, and smaller probability for carrying large $x$ for larger $Q^2$. This implies that the distribution functions are not only functions of $x$, but they are functions of $x$ and $Q^2$, $f(x)=f(x,Q^2)$. This is a central feature of QCD, and it is called scaling violation. It is possible to derive evolution equations for the distribution functions in the variable $Q$ ($\log Q$ is often used instead) if one considers the various processes in the proton, such as quarks radiating gluons or gluons splitting into gluons or quark-antiquark pairs. Thus, if one knows the distribution function for a certain value of $Q$, the value for any other $Q$ can be calculated using these equations, which in the case of QCD are known as the *Altarelli-Parisi Equations*. These equations can be found in any book on Quantum Field Theory.
The distribution functions are important because the cross sections for different events (both in QED and QCD) can be expressed in these function. Thus, for the process we considered above, an electron hitting a proton, the cross section can be written as $$\sigma = \sum_{q,\bar{q}} \int dx[f_q(x,Q^2) \sigma (e^- q \to e^- q) +
f_{\bar{q}}(x,Q^2) \sigma (e^- \bar{q} \to e^- \bar{q})]
\label{eq:e1}$$ Here the cross sections in the integrand are the cross sections for the sub-collisions between the electron and the partons, and the sum runs over the quark and the antiquark flavors.
From now on we will use capital letters to denote the densities in the variable ln$1/x$, $F(x,Q^2)$ for fermions and $G(x,Q^2)$ for gluons.
DGLAP, BFKL and the LDC Models
------------------------------
### DGLAP evolution
Consider now the emission of many gluons before the parton is hit by the photon. This is represented by a fan diagram, see figure 2.
(200,210)(0,0) (0,0)(20,30) (20,30)(30,60) (30,60)(36,90) (36,90)(40,120) (40,120)(40,150) (40,150)(35,180) (0,210)(35,180)[4]{}[6]{} (20,30)(70,30)[4]{}[5]{} (30,60)(80,60)[4]{}[5]{} (36,90)(86,90)[4]{}[5]{} (40,120)(90,120)[4]{}[5]{} (40,150)(90,150)[4]{}[5]{} (35,180)(85,180) (5,20)\[\][$k_0$]{} (20,50)\[\][$k_1$]{} (28,80)\[\][$k_2$]{} (30,170)\[\][$k_n$]{} (85,30)\[\][$q_1$]{} (95,60)\[\][$q_2$]{} (105,150)\[\][$q_n$]{}
We define $z_i$ as, $z_i=k_{+i}/k_{+i-1}$, hence $1-z_i$ is the fraction of positive light cone momentum, $p_+=p_0+p_l$, carried away by the quasi-real gluon, $q_i$. This implies that the Bjorken variable, $x$, is given by $x=\prod_{i=1}^n
z_ix_0$. In the double leading log approximation the gluon ladder is strongly ordered in transverse momentum $$q_{\perp 1}^{2} < q_{\perp 2}^{2} < \cdots q_{\perp n}^{2} < Q^2
\label{eq:e3}$$ and in $x$, $z_i \ll 1$. The probability, in the leading log approximation, to emit a gluon is given by $$P \sim \frac{4 \alpha _s}{3 \pi} \frac{dz_i}{1-z_i}
\frac{dq_{\perp ,i}^2}{q_{\perp ,i}^2}
\label{eq:e4}$$
This factor must however be modified because the ordering in implies that no gluon is emitted with $q_\perp$ between $q_{\perp,i-1}$ and $q_{\perp,i}$. Thus we must also take into account the probability that no emission has occurred between these two values. This correction factor is called a Sudakov form factor, and it is, in this case, given by $$S(q_{\perp ,i}^2 ,q_{\perp ,i-1}^2 )=exp\biggl[-\int_{q_{\perp ,i-1}^2}^{q_{\perp
,i}^2} \frac{4 \alpha _s}{3 \pi} \frac{dq_{\perp ,i}^2}{q_{\perp ,i}^2}
\int_{0}^{1-\epsilon } \frac{dz_i}{1-z_i} \biggr]$$ where the $\epsilon$ is introduced as a cutoff since the integral diverges for $z=1$. Generally, if we have an ordering in a variable $t$ and the probability, $P(t)$, for something to occur at a certain $t$ value, the Sudakov form factor is given by $$S(t_1 ,t_2 )=exp\biggl[-\int_{t_1}^{t_2} dtP(t) \biggr]$$ Here $(t_1,t_2)$ is the interval where an emission was allowed but did not occur. Summing over the number, $n$, of links in the chain, the following expression for the structure function can be derived (for a quark chain) $$F\sim \sum_{n} \prod_{i=1}^{n} \biggl[ \int \frac{4 \alpha _s}{3
\pi} \frac{dq_{\perp ,i}^2}{q_{\perp ,i}^2} \frac{dz_i}{1-z_i} S(q_{\perp
,i}^2 ,q_{\perp ,i-1}^2 ) \theta (q_{\perp ,i} - q_{\perp ,i-1})\biggr] \delta (x -
\prod_{j}^{n} z_j x_0 ) \theta ( Q^2 - q_{\perp, n}^2)
\label{eq:dglap}$$
Subleading corrections in ln$1/x$ are taken into account by replacing the $1/(1-z_i)$ term by the full splitting function, $P(z)$. Including spin effects gives $$\frac{1}{1-z} \longrightarrow \frac{1}{2} \frac{1+z^2}{1-z}$$ By taking the derivative of eq. with respect to ln$Q^2$ we obtain the DGLAP (Dokshitzer-Gribov-Lipatov-Altarelli-Parisi) evolution equation $$\frac{\partial F(x,Q^2)}{\partial \textrm{ln}Q^2} = \frac{4 \alpha _s}{3 \pi} \int
dzdx'\hat{P}(z)F(x',Q^2)\delta (x-zx')$$ Here we have replaced $P$ with $\hat{P}$ (we describe $\hat{P}$ below), and using $\hat{P}$ one can let $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$. This can be done since the divergence can be treated by defining a distribution that can be integrated by subtracting a delta function from the singular term. We define the distribution, $\frac{1}{(1-z)_+}$, such that for any given smooth function $f(z)$ we have $$\int_{0}^{1} dz\frac{f(z)}{(1-z)_+} = \int_{0}^{1} dz\frac{f(z) - f(1)}{(1-z)}$$ and then we replace the splitting function $P$ with $\hat{P}$ given by $$\hat{P} = \frac{1}{2} \frac{1+z^2}{(1-z)_+} + \frac{3}{2} \delta (1-z)$$
In fact, it is $\hat{P}$ and not $P$ that appears in the AP equations. The delta function comes from the fact that we have to take into account that a parent quark splitting into a quark and a gluon disappears. Thus, we get contributions from the new particles but the one in the initial state no longer exists, and this must be taken into account. The coefficient in front of the delta function, $3/2$, is found by the requirement that the number of quarks is conserved, which means that the integral of $\hat{P}$ over $z$ must be zero. In the case of gluons (i.e a process where a gluon splits into two gluons) the number of gluons is not conserved but the total energy is, therefore, in this case, the integral of $z\hat{P}$ over $z$ is zero.
### BFKL region
Assume that $Q^2$ is only moderately large and that $x$ is kept small. The splitting function for the process where a gluon splits into two gluons, $P_{gg}$, contains a pole, $1/z$. This implies that for small $x$ and moderately large $Q^2$, this process is very probable and will dominate over splitting events involving quarks. Therefore we now consider gluonic chains where a parton emits a gluon which then develops a chain of gluons by successive splittings into new gluons. In this region, non-ordered ladders, though suppressed, will be more important and they have to be taken into account. This means that the transverse momenta, $k_\perp$, can now also decrease. Considering this new possibility, Balistky, Fadin, Kuraev and Lipatov derived a more complex evolution equation, which is known as the BFKL equation. The evolution in $x$ is given by $$\frac{\partial \mathcal{F}(x,k_{\perp}^2)}{\partial \textrm{ln}(1/x)} = \int dk_{\perp}^{'2}
K(k_{\perp}^2,k_{\perp}^{'2})\mathcal{F}(x,k_\perp^{'2})
\label{eq:BFKL}$$ Here we have introduced the unitegrated distribution function, $\mathcal{F}$. There are various definitions of $\mathcal{F}$, and in the LDC model (which is discussed in the next section) it satisfies the following relation $$F(x,Q^2)=\int^{Q^2} \frac{dk_{\perp}^2}{k_{\perp}^2} \mathcal{F}(x,k_{\perp}^2) +
\int_{Q^2} \frac{dk_{\perp}^2}{k_{\perp}^2} \mathcal{F}(x\frac{k_\perp^2}{Q^2},k_{\perp}^2)\frac{Q^2}{k_\perp^2}$$
The kernel of the integral, $K$, in equation , is known as the BFKL kernel. The important thing here is to find the eigenvalues of this kernel. To leading order in $\textrm{ln}(1/x)$, and for a fixed coupling constant $\alpha _S$, the largest eigenvalue is given by $\lambda = 12\alpha _S \log (2)/\pi$. It can then be shown that the gluon distribution function is given by $$G \sim \sum _{n} \frac{(\lambda \log (1/x))^n}{n!} = x^{- \lambda}$$
We will come back to the BFKL equation, and the so called BFKL pomeron, later when we discuss saturation. For now, one can note that BFKL and DGLAP are applicable in different regions. In the next section we will describe two models which interpolate between these two different regions, thus containing both the DGLAP and the BFKL physics.
### CCFM and the LDC Models
The first such model was proposed by Catani, Ciafaloni, Fiorani and Marchesini and is thus called the CCFM model. We will discuss purely gluonic chains and the last gluon in the chain is assumed to interact with a color neutral probe. One can usually order emissions in different variables, such as color, rapidity, transverse momentum and so on. Due to soft color coherence [@15] the ordering in rapidity and in color are equivalent however. This is used in the CCFM model where the initial state radiation is made up of gluons which are not followed, in rapidity, by a gluon with more energy, or equivalently positive light-cone momentum, $q_+ =q_0 + q_l$.
With the selection of the initial state radiation described above, it was shown by the authors that the unintegrated distribution function is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{G}(x,k_{\perp}^2 , \bar{q} ) & \sim & \sum_{n} \prod_{i=1}^{n}
\biggl[ \int \bar{\alpha } \frac{dq_{\perp ,i}^2}{q_{\perp ,i}^2} \biggl(
\frac{1}{z_i} \Delta _{ne} (z_i ,k_{\perp ,i}^2 ,\bar{q_i})+\frac{1}{1-z_i}
\biggr) \Delta _S \times \\
& & \theta (\bar{q_i}-\bar{q}_{i-1}z_{i-1}) \biggr] \delta (x -
\prod_{j}^{n} z_j ) \theta ( \bar{q}-\bar{q}_n z_n) \delta(k_{\perp}^2
-k_{\perp n}^2)
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar{q}_i$ is defined by $\bar{q}_i \equiv q_{\perp ,i}/(1-z_i)$. $\Delta_{ne}$ stands for a non-eikonal form factor and $\Delta _S$ is the Sudakov form factor. They are given by $$\Delta _{ne}=\textrm{exp}
\biggl(-\bar{\alpha}\textrm{ln}\frac{1}{z}\textrm{ln}\frac{k_{\perp}}{z\bar{q}^2}\biggr);
\;\; \Delta _S =\textrm{exp} \biggl(-\bar{\alpha}\int \frac{dq_{\perp ,i}^2}{q_{\perp
,i}^2} \frac{dz}{1-z} \Theta _{order} \biggr)$$ Here $\Theta _{order}$ specifies the kinematic region allowed by the ordering constraints, and $\bar{\alpha}\equiv 3\alpha _s/\pi$. In the CCFM model, only the singular terms, $1/z$ and $1/(1-z)$, in the splitting functions are included. The $1/z$ pole is important in the BFKL region and the $1/(1-z)$ pole and the Sudakov factor are more important in the DGLAP region. Since the non-singular terms in the splitting function are not included, DGLAP is not fully reproduced in the large $Q^2$ and the large $x$ limits.
The LDC (Linked Dipole Chain) model, [@e1], is a reformulation and a generalization of the CCFM model. The main idea in this model is that certain gluons in the initial state radiation of the CCFM model, namely those gluons which satisfy the constraint $q_{\perp i}< \textrm{min}(q_{\perp (i-1)},q_{\perp (i+1)} )$, can be treated as final state emissions from dipoles, which are formed by the remaining initial state gluons. These remaining gluons, the initial state gluons in the LDC model, will then satisfy $q_{\perp i}\approx \textrm{max}(k_{\perp
i},k_{\perp (i-1)})$. They will be ordered in both positive and negative light-cone momenta, $q_{-}=q_0-q_l$. A single chain in the LDC model corresponds to several chains in CCFM, and it was shown in [@e1] that the non-eikonal factors in CCFM add up to one, when one considers all contributions from these chains. The ordering, in both $p_+$ and $p_-$, and the absence of the non-eikonal form factors, implies that LDC is forward-backward symmetric. If one starts from the probe end, which has large $q_{-}$, and follows the chain towards the proton end, which has large $P_+$, the situation will look the same, the minus and plus components will just change roles and we will have exactly the same ordering and the same distribution function. In the LDC model the distribution function satisfies the following evolution equation (see eq.43 in [@e1]) $$\frac{\partial \mathcal{F}(x,k_{\perp}^2)}{\partial \log (1/x)} \approx \bar{\alpha}
\biggl[\int^{k_{\perp}^2}
\frac{dk_{\perp}^{'2}}{k_{\perp}^{'2}}\mathcal{F}(x,k_{\perp}^{'2}) + \int_{k_{\perp}^2}
\frac{dk_{\perp}^{'2}}{k_{\perp}^{'2}} \frac{k_{\perp}^{2}}{k_{\perp}^{'2}}
\mathcal{F}(x\frac{k_{\perp}^{'2}}{k_{\perp}^{2}}, k_{\perp}^{'2}) \biggr]$$ Here $k_{\perp}^{2}$ is the transverse momentum of the last gluon in the chain while $k_{\perp}^{'2}$ is the momentum in the step before. The first term here is the DGLAP contribution where the transverse momentum increases in the last step, while the second term contains the probability that the transverse momentum decreases in the last step. For a more detailed discussion on these models, see [@e11].
Mueller’s Dipole Formulation
----------------------------
The idea of dipoles as emitters of radiation is quite natural in QCD. Consider the two diagrams in figure 3.
(400,80)(0,0) (0,80)(30,50) (0,20)(30,50) (30,50)(60,50)[3]{}[4]{} (60,50)(90,80) (60,50)(90,20) (70,60)(110,60)[3]{}[3]{} (200,80)(230,50) (200,20)(230,50) (230,50)(260,50)[3]{}[4]{} (260,50)(290,80) (260,50)(290,20) (270,40)(305,40)[3]{}[3]{} (65,65)\[\][$r$]{} (65,35)\[\][$\bar{r}$]{} (265,65)\[\][$b$]{} (265,35)\[\][$\bar{b}$]{} (115,65)\[\][$\bar{b}$]{} (115,55)\[\][$r$]{} (85,30)\[\][$\bar{r}$]{} (90,70)\[\][$b$]{} (315,45)\[\][$\bar{b}$]{} (315,35)\[\][$r$]{} (285,30)\[\][$\bar{r}$]{} (290,70)\[\][$b$]{}
The two diagrams will interfere and the two final states are identical. Thus, it is not possible to tell whether the quark or the antiquark emitted the gluon. Therefore it makes sense to regard the quark-antiquark pair as a color dipole, radiating coherently. In the region between the quark and the gluon, the blue and antiblue color separation will give rise to the emission of softer gluons. But in directions further away the emissions from blue and antiblue will interfere destructively. Therefore, in these directions, the emission of softer gluons will correspond to a red antired color dipole. In the restframe of the quark and the gluon however, emission of softer gluons corresponds to a blue antiblue color dipole. Therefore the emission of softer gluons corresponds to two independent color dipoles. This generalizes and a system of a quark, an antiquark and $n-1$ gluons will correspond, in the large $N_c$ limit, to a system of $n$ independent color dipoles. Each time a gluon is radiated a dipole splits into two new dipoles and the process continues. This is used in the Dipole Cascade Model, [@13; @14], which is formulated in momentum space.
A large part of this thesis is based on Mueller’s Dipole model [@e2; @e3; @e4; @e5] and we will be using it in our MC program. In Mueller’s model we start with a heavy quark-antiquark pair, an onium state, and consider successive emissions of softer and softer gluons. The main idea here is also based on the observation that, in the large $N_c$ limit and in the leading logarithmic approximation the complete, multi-gluon, wavefunction of an onium state can be regarded as a collection of dipoles. This is so since, as we saw above, each gluon will act like a quark-antiquark pair. Mueller’s approach is formulated in transverse position, $\bold{x}$, instead of transverse momentum, $\bold{k}$. These two variables are naturally connected by a Fourier transform $$\psi_{\alpha \beta}^{(0)}(\bold{x}_1,Y)=\int
\frac{d^2\bold{k}_1}{(2\pi)^2}e^{i\bold{k}_1\cdot\bold{x}_1}\psi_{\alpha
\beta}^{(0)}(\bold{k}_1,Y)$$ Here $\psi$ is the light-cone wavefunction (the zero on $\psi$ indicating that there are 0 gluons present) and $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are heavy quark and antiquark spinor indices, $\bold{x_0}$ and $\bold{x_1}$ are the transverse coordinates of the quark and the antiquark respectively. Finally, $Y$ is the total rapidity range determined by the center of mass energy, $Y\sim$ln$s/M^2$, $M$ being the mass of the onium. We also define $\bold{x}_{10}=\bold{x}_1-\bold{x}_0$, which means that the transverse size of the initial dipole is, $x_{10} \equiv \vert \bold{x}_{10}\vert$. The reason we choose to work with transverse coordinates instead of transverse momenta is that one can assume the partons to be frozen during emissions and the evolution process, which makes the analysis much easier. This is justified since the time scales for the processes that we consider are very short. Denoting the square of the wave function with $\phi$, Mueller showed that $$\phi^{(1)}(\bold{x}_1,Y)=\frac{\bar{\alpha}}{2\pi}\int d^2\bold{x}_2
\int_{0}^{Y}
dy\frac{x_{10}^2}{x_{20}^2x_{12}^2}\phi^{(0)}(\bold{x}_1,Y)
\label{eq:mueller2}$$ where $\bold{x_2}$ is the transverse position of the emitted gluon and $\phi^{(0)}$ and $\phi^{(1)}$ are the squared wave functions for the onia state without and with a gluon respectively. The factor $d^2\bold{x}_2\frac{x_{10}^2}{x_{20}^2x_{12}^2}$ plays the same role as the splitting functions we hade earlier. Observe that the $\bold{x}_2$ integral diverges for small $x_{20}$ or $x_{12}$. This means that the probability to emit a dipole goes to infinity as the dipole size approaches zero. To deal with this a cutoff, $\rho$, is introduced, which later can be sent to zero and will not appear in any physical quantities. Generally, if we have $n$ dipoles and we consider the emission of the $n$th gluon, we will get a contribution $$\sum_{ij}\int d^2\bold{x}_n\frac{x_{ij}^2}{x_{in}^2x_{nj}^2}$$ where $ij$ runs over all the indices for which there exist a dipole.
(400,200)(0,0) (100,60)(100,140) (100,140)(140,160) (100,60)(140,160) (100,60)(160,40) (140,160)(160,40) (100,140)[2]{} (100,60)[2]{} (140,160)[2]{} (160,40)[2]{} (140,160)(180,175) (180,175)(160,40) (180,175)[2]{} (100,150)\[\][$0$]{} (100,50)\[\][$1$]{} (140,170)\[\][$2$]{} (165,40)\[\][$3$]{} (190,175)\[\][$4$]{} (185,116)\[\][$\bold{\cdots}$]{}
The complete formula for the wave function with arbitrarily many gluons is derived from a generating functional. Mueller derived a non-linear integral equation for this generating functional. Taking into account not only real gluon emissions, but also the leading logarithmic virtual corrections, the formula reads $$\begin{aligned}
Z(\bold{b}_0,\bold{x}_{10},Y,u)&=&u(\bold{b}_0,\bold{x}_{10})exp\biggl[-2\bar{\alpha}\textrm{ln}\biggl(\frac{x_{10}}{\rho}\biggr)Y\biggr]+
\nonumber \\
& & +\frac{\bar{\alpha}}{2\pi}\int_0^Y dyexp\biggl[-2\bar{\alpha}\textrm{ln}\biggl(\frac{x_{10}}{\rho}\biggr)(Y-y)\biggr] \times \label{eq:mueller} \\
& & \times \int_\rho d^2\bold{x}_2\frac{x_{10}^2}{x_{20}^2x_{12}^2}Z(\bold{b}_0
+\frac{1}{2}\bold{x}_{12},\bold{x}_{20},y,u)Z(\bold{b}_0
-\frac{1}{2}\bold{x}_{20},\bold{x}_{12},y,u)
\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Here the $\rho$ under the second integral indicates that we are integrating over a region satisfying, $x_{20}\geqslant \rho$ and $x_{21}\geqslant
\rho$. The vector $\bold{b}_0$ is the position of the center of the initial dipole in transverse coordinates. The two exponentials have the meaning of Sudakov factors, where in the first one we consider the probability that nothing happens within the allowed rapidity interval, which means that there are no gluons present. The second exponential contains the probability that nothing happens after the last gluon is emitted at rapidity $y$.
Saturation and The Balitsky-Kovchegov Equation
-----------------------------------------------
Consider the scattering of two onium states against each other. Using the dipole formulation described above, this process can be viewed as the scattering of a collection of color dipoles against each other. The single pomeron exchange then corresponds to the approximation in which two dipoles (from the two different states) interact via the exchange of a color neutral gluon pair, independently of the rest of the dipoles. This pomeron is known as the BFKL pomeron. The total cross section would then be given by the number of dipoles in one onium state times the number of dipoles in the other onium state times the cross section for dipole-dipole scattering due to the two gluon exchange. However, as the center of mass energy increases the number of dipoles will increase, and when the number becomes sufficiently large the total cross section will violate the unitarity bounds. The reason is that at higher energies, second order processes must be taken into account, and these will slow down the growth of the total cross section. The higher order scatterings are called multiple pomeron exchanges.
Consider the scattering of a photon off a nucleus. We assume that the photon splits into a quark-antiquark pair, on which we apply the dipole formulation, that is we work in the large $N_c$ and the leading logarithmic limits. This means that the photon will develop a cascade of color dipoles, which interact with the nucleus. The nucleus is assumed to be at rest. We assume that each dipole interacts with the nucleus by a two gluon exchange, independent from the rest of the dipoles. The nucleus is approximated by a cylinder which makes the calculations easier. The multiple pomeron exchanges will correspond to the simultaneous interactions of multiple dipoles with the nucleus, which means that the $k$:th pomeron exchange corresponds to $k$ dipoles simultaneously interacting with the nucleus by exchanging $k$ color neutral gluon pairs. With these considerations and summing pomeron exchanges up to all orders, Kovchegov, in [@e6], derived the following non-linear differential-integral equation for the forward scattering amplitude off the nucleus: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial N(\bold{x}_{10},\bold{b}_0,Y)}{\partial
Y}&=&\frac{\bar{\alpha}}{2\pi}\int_\rho
d^2\bold{x}_2\frac{x_{10}^2}{x_{20}^2x_{12}^2}\biggl(
N(\bold{x}_{20},\bold{b}_0 +
\frac{1}{2}\bold{x}_{12},Y) + \label{eq:BK}\nonumber \\
& & +N(\bold{x}_{12},\bold{b}_0 -
\frac{1}{2}\bold{x}_{20},Y)-N(\bold{x}_{10},\bold{b}_0,Y)- \\
& & -N(\bold{x}_{20},\bold{b}_0 +
\frac{1}{2}\bold{x}_{12},Y)N(\bold{x}_{12},\bold{b}_0 -
\frac{1}{2}\bold{x}_{20},Y)\biggr)\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
Here the imaginary part of $N$ gives the total cross section. This equation is known as the Balistky-Kovchegov (BK) equation (a very similar equation was proposed by Balitsky in [@e12]), and as we mentioned above, it contains all the multiple pomeron exchanges. The linear part of the equation is the BFKL part which dominates for small values of $N$ and which causes the cross section to rise exponentially. The non-linear part comes from the multiple pomeron exchanges and causes the amplitude to saturate for values near 1. The equation has a nice physical interpretation, the first two terms on the right hand side are the contributions to the scattering amplitude from the creation of the new dipoles, 12 and 20, while the third term comes from the fact that the original dipole, 10, no longer exists. The reader might guess that the non-linear term is the contribution from the recombination of the two dipoles, 12 and 20, into the original dipole 10, but as we said above the non-linear term comes from the multiple pomeron exchanges. The Balitsky-Kovchegov equation does not contain the process of two dipoles recombining into one. This fusion process should also contribute to saturation. For large gluon densities it should be non-negligible, but it is not an easy task to estimate this effect. In fact, in the derivation of , Kovchegov used , which does not contain the fusion process of dipoles. We will come back to dipole fusion processes on section 5.
(400,300)(0,0) (0,200)(50,200)[3]{}[5]{} (175,200)(75,125)(360) (300,200)(350,200)[3]{}[5]{} (100,250)(250,250) (100,245)(250,245) (95,225)(255,225) (95,220)(255,220) (90,200)(260,200) (90,195)(260,195) (95,180)(255,180) (95,175)(255,175) (100,160)(250,160) (100,155)(250,155) (150,230)(150,50)[3]{}[15]{} (155,230)(155,50)[3]{}[15]{} (115,215)(115,50)[3]{}[15]{} (120,215)(120,50)[3]{}[15]{} (200,190)(200,50)[3]{}[14]{} (205,190)(205,50)[3]{}[14]{} (230,165)(230,50)[3]{}[11]{} (235,165)(235,50)[3]{}[11]{} (145,40)(3,10)(90) (160,40)(3,10)(90) (110,40)(3,10)(90) (125,40)(3,10)(90) (195,40)(3,10)(90) (210,40)(3,10)(90) (225,40)(3,10)(90) (240,40)(3,10)(90) (145,50)(160,50) (145,30)(160,30) (110,50)(125,50) (110,30)(125,30) (195,50)(210,50) (195,30)(210,30) (225,50)(240,50) (225,30)(240,30)
MC Simulation of Onium Evolution With Energy Conservation
=========================================================
The Main Idea
-------------
As we mentioned earlier, the probability to emit small dipoles becomes infinitely large as the dipole size approaches zero. To deal with this we introduced a cutoff, $\rho$. This cutoff is an ultraviolet cutoff since a small dipole corresponds to two hard gluons. This follows from the relation $\frac{1}{r}\sim p_\perp$, where $r$ is the transverse size of the dipole and $p_\perp$ is the transerverse momentum. We will now develop an onium state using an ordering in rapidity, $y$, such that the rapidity increases for each emission. We find it convenient to define $y=$ln$\frac{p_\perp}{p_+}$, hence $p_+=p_\perp e^{-y}$. We see that, for fixed $y$, $p_+\rightarrow \infty$ as $r\rightarrow 0$. This means that, if we allow very small $r$ we will violate energy conservation since the energy of the gluon will become larger than the energy of the mother dipole. Hence, we cannot allow too small dipole sizes. The positive light-cone momentum is essentially equal to the energy, and from now on we will refer to it as energy. Let $p_+$ be the energy of the parent dipole and let the gluon be emitted at a rapidity $y$. Denote by $p_{+g}$ the energy of the gluon. We then have $$p_{+g}\leqslant p_+\Rightarrow p_{\perp g}e^{-y}=\frac{1}{r}e^{-y}\leqslant
p_+, \; \; \textrm{hence}\; r\geqslant \frac{e^{-y}}{p_+}$$
This means that we get a very natural cutoff for small dipoles, given by, $\rho (y)=e^{-y}/p_+$. To make the program right-left symmetric, which means that the theory looks the same independent of which way we evolve, we must also demand $p_-$ conservation, which is described later. These observations are the main motivations for this thesis. We will now describe the Monte Carlo program, including energy conservation, developed to study the deeply inelastic scattering between a photon and a nucleus, and between two onium states.
Recoil Formulas
---------------
Since we demand energy to be conserved, we must also take into account the full recoil effects. A single gluon will, in the dipole model, be a part of two independent dipoles and the question is how the two dipoles share the recoil from the emission. We solve this by assuming that when a dipole emits a gluon, the initial gluons, which make up the parent dipole, may contribute with all their energy. This means that the next time a neighboring dipole emits a gluon, the avaliable energy is reduced because one of its gluons has lost energy from an earlier emission. How much energy does each parton in the dipole give to the emitted gluon? Obviously the answer should be such that if the new gluon comes very close to one of the partons, that parton should take most of the recoil, while the other one should be less affected. There are, however, different ways to share the amount of energy between the partons.
Consider the emission of gluon $n$ from the dipole $ij$. Let $r_{in}$ and $r_{nj}$ denote the distance between the new gluon and parton $i$ and parton $j$ respectively. Denote the recoil by $p_+''$, while $p_+'$ is the amount of energy left after the emission, which implies that $p_+=p_+''+p_+'$. We then make the ansatz that $$p_{+i}''=\frac{r_{jn}}{r_{jn}+r_{in}}p_{+n} \; \; \textrm{and}\; \;
p_{+j}''=\frac{r_{in}}{r_{jn}+r_{in}}p_{+n}$$
Thus we assume that $p_{+i}''/p_{+j}''=r_{jn}/r_{in}$. We have also studied alternative ways to share the recoils but the result does not depend sensitively on the exact formula. When we have generated an emission we always check that $p_+''\leqslant p_+$, which obviously must be satisfied.
To make the analysis simple, transverse momentum, $\bold{p}_\perp$, is only approximately conserved in the program. Exact conservation of $\bold{p}_\perp$ would be possible but is not essential for the purpose of this study. When a new gluon is emitted its transverse momentum is decided by $$p_{\perp n}=\textrm{max}\biggl(\frac{1}{r_{in}},\frac{1}{r_{jn}}\biggr)$$
The recoils on the emitters are given by $$\begin{aligned}
& &\textrm{If} \; p_{\perp i}\leqslant \frac{1}{r_{in}} \textrm{then} \;
p_{\perp i}'=\frac{1}{r_{in}} \\
& &\textrm{If} \; p_{\perp j}\leqslant \frac{1}{r_{jn}} \textrm{then} \;
p_{\perp j}'=\frac{1}{r_{jn}} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Otherwise we simply set $p_\perp =p_\perp'$, i.e we don’t change the transverse momenta. This simply means that the transverse momentum is decided only by the largest contribution. Hence the transverse momentum of a parton will always be determined by the shortest distance to another parton, with which it has formed a dipole. Since we change $p_+$ and $p_\perp$ we must, to be consistent, also change the rapidity $y$. This is obviously done by setting $$y'=\textrm{ln}\frac{p_\perp'}{p_+'}\geqslant y$$ The inequality is due to the fact that $p_\perp'\geqslant p_\perp$ and $p_+'\leqslant p_+$. Therefore the rapidity will always increase due to a recoil. There is however a problem with this; as we order the emissions in rapidity the last emitted gluon will always have the largest rapidity, and we would like it to remain so. Since the rapidity of the emitters increase due to recoil, there is the possibility that one of the emitters, or both of them, after the recoil ends up with a rapidity larger than the rapidity of the emitted gluon. The next time we emit a gluon, the rapidity of that emitter would then determine the region in which the new emission can occur, in a sense violating the ordering we had. To prevent this we require that $y_i',y_j'\leqslant y_n$; if this constraint is not satisfied a new gluon is generated. Without this constraint there would also be a lot of gluons in the final state which have rapidities larger than the maximum rapidity, due to the recoils.
Upper Bound for the Dipole Size
-------------------------------
The $p_+$ conservation, as we mentioned, will give a cutoff for small dipoles, limiting the number of small dipoles. We can, however, also get extremely large dipoles, especially when the avaliable energy is low and the rapidity is not very large. This follows immediately from the fact that $\rho
(y)=e^{-y}/p_+$ gets very large for limited $y$ and small $p_+$. We can also take extremely small steps in rapidity because the phase space avaliable permits this, see figure \[pminus\]. When we are about to emit a new gluon we let the computer generate an emission for each existing dipole, and then we choose the emission which has the lowest $y$. Because of what we said above, the step sizes in $y$ can, and indeed will, be extremely small which result in a huge number of dipoles and very long running times. This can be fixed by imposing an ordering in negative light cone-momentum, $p_-$, such that $$p_{-n}\geqslant max(p_{-i},p_{-j}) \label{eq:pmin}$$
There is also a physical argument for doing this. As we described in section 3.1 we want the cascade to be right-left symmetric, and by imposing $p_-$ ordering we can achieve this. This ordering will make very small steps in $y$ less probable, and it will also limit the radius of a dipole from above. To see this let the larger negative light-cone momenta be $p_-$ which implies $$p_{-n}\geqslant p_-\Rightarrow p_\perp e^y=\frac{1}{r}e^y\geqslant p_-\;
\textrm{hence}\; r\leqslant \frac{e^y}{p_-}$$
(400,260)(0,0) (300,20)(70,20) (100,20)(200,220) (300,20)(200,220) (200,220)(200,240) (210,250)\[\][ln$p_\perp^2$]{} (65,20)\[\][$y$]{} (290,135)\[\][ln$p_+$]{} (110,135)\[\][ln$p_-$]{} (250,120)(270,135) (150,120)(130,135) (250,60)[2]{} (220,80)[2]{} (190,20)(245,130) (220,180)(220,20) (270,20)(185,190) (255,60)\[\][$i$]{} (215,80)\[\][$j$]{} (220,10)\[\][$y_j$]{} (270,10)\[\][ln$p_{+i}$]{} (190,10)\[\][ln$p_{-j}$]{}
We are limiting the small dipoles with the energy avaliable in the emitting dipole, so the smallest dipole that can be created is the same for both partons of the mother dipole. A more realistic way might be to set two different lower limits for the two partons. If one of them has greater energy than the other, it should be possible for the emitted gluon to form a smaller dipole with this parton than with the other one. Thus, the energy of the gluon should be bounded by the energy of the two partons separately, and not by their sum. We would then have $$r_{in}\geqslant \frac{e^{-y}}{p_{+i}} \; \textrm{and} \; r_{jn}\geqslant
\frac{e^{-y}}{p_{+j}}$$ This is however already satisfied in our program due to our constraint $y_i'\leqslant y_n$, which is necessary for conserving the $y$ ordering. The constraint $$\begin{aligned}
& &y_i'\leqslant y_n \; \; \textrm{implies} \; \; e^{-y_i'}\geqslant e^{-y_n}. \; \;
\textrm{The relation} \; \;
e^{-y_i'}=e^{-ln\frac{p_{\perp i}'}{p_{+i}'}}=\frac{p_{+i}'}{p_{\perp
i}'} \; \textrm{then implies}\nonumber \\
& &\frac{1}{p_{\perp i}'}\geqslant
\frac{e^{-y_n}}{p_{+i}'}\geqslant \frac{e^{-y_n}}{p_{+i}} \; \; \textrm{which together with the relation}\nonumber \\
& & \frac{1}{p_{\perp i}'}=\frac{1}{max\biggl(p_{\perp
i},\frac{1}{r_{in}}\biggr)}\leqslant r_{in} \\
& &\textrm{gives} \; r_{in}\geqslant \frac{e^{-y_n}}{p_{+i}} \nonumber \end{aligned}$$
Formulas for Generating y and r
-------------------------------
We have above described the main ideas of our program. In this section we will write down the explicit equations used to generate $y$ and $\bold{r}$ values. As we mentioned in section 2.2, the $r_x$ and $r_y$ factors in have the meaning of a splitting function. Taking into account also the Sudakov factor, the total formula for emission is given by $$\frac{\bar{\alpha}}{2\pi}\int_{\rho (y'')}
d^2\bold{r}_n\frac{r_{ij}^2}{r_{in}^2r_{jn}^2}exp\biggl[-\frac{\bar{\alpha}}{2\pi}\int_{y'}^{y} dy''
\int_{\rho (y'')}d^2\bold{r}_n\frac{r_{ij}^2}{r_{in}^2r_{jn}^2} \biggr]
\label{eq:splittingweigth}$$
The Sudakov factors in section 2.2 were trivial, since we had no $y$ dependence on the $\bold{r}$ integral. Demanding energy conservation implies, however, that the lower limit of the integral depends on $y$ and the Sudakov factor will therefore be more complex. To make the calculations simpler, we set $\bold{r}_i=(0,0)$ and $\bold{r}_j=(1,0)$, so that $r_{ij}=1$. This we can always do by applying a translation of $-\bold{r}_i$, then rotating the vector $\bold{r'}_j=\bold{r'}_{ij}$ onto the $x$-axis and finally by scaling with $r_{ij}$. After we have generated values for $\bold{r}$ we transform the system back to the original one. To generate the $y$ and $\bold{r}$ values we use the well known veto algorithm, and the $y$ values are given by the distribution $$y=-\textrm{ln}\sqrt{1+\frac{p_+^2}{4}}+\sqrt{(\textrm{ln}\sqrt{1+\frac{p_+^2}{4}}+y')^2-\frac{\textrm{ln}R}{4\bar{\alpha}}}\label{eq:rap}$$ where $R$ is a random number, $y'$ is the maximum rapidity before the emission, and $p_+$ is the total energy of the emitting dipole. The values for $r_x$ and $r_y$ are chosen from the distribution $$\begin{aligned}
& &r_x=\sqrt{\frac{\rho^2(1+\frac{1}{4\rho^2})^{R_2}}{1+4\rho^2-4\rho^2(1+\frac{1}{4\rho^2})^{R_2}}}\cos{2\pi
R_1} \label{eq:r}\\
& &r_y=\sqrt{\frac{\rho^2(1+\frac{1}{4\rho^2})^{R_2}}{1+4\rho^2-4\rho^2(1+\frac{1}{4\rho^2})^{R_2}}}\sin{2\pi
R_1} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho =\rho (y)$ and $R_1$ and $R_2$ are two, independent, random numbers. Note that we use the generated $y$-value for generating $r_x$ and $r_y$. Finally, we accept the generated values with the probability $$\frac{\textrm{ln}(1+\frac{p_+^2}{4}e^{2y})((r_x-1)^2+r_y^2+0.25)(r_x^2+r_y^2+0.25)}{(\textrm{ln}(1+\frac{p_+^2}{4})+2y)\biggl(((r_x-1)^2+r_y^2)((r_x-1)^2+r_y^2+0.25)+(r_x^2+r_y^2+0.25)(r_x^2+r_y^2)\biggr)}\label{eq:sann}$$ This formula is derived in the appendix.
Summary of the Program
----------------------
In this section we will summarize the important points from the earlier sections about the MC program. The algorithm is
1. For each dipole, pick a $y$ value from and $r_x$ and $r_y$ from .
2. For these values calculate the weight in . If $<R$ go back to 1 and start over. Otherwise go to 3.
3. If $p_{+i}\leqslant p_{+i}''$ or $p_{+j}\leqslant p_{+j}''$ go back to 1 and start over. Otherwise go to 4.
4. Check . If the inequality is not satisfied, then go back to 1 and start over. Otherwise go to 5.
5. Check if $y_i',y_j'\leqslant y$. If the inequality is not satisfied, then go back to 1 and start over. Otherwise generate a gluon.
6. Set the new values for $p_{+i,j}$, $p_{\perp i,j}$ and $y_{i,j}$.
7. Select the dipole which gives the lowest $y$.
8. If $y < y_{max}$ let the selected dipole emit the generated gluon. Otherwise stop the process.
9. Delete all other generated gluons and continue.
Applications of the MC Program
==============================
In this section we consider the applications of the program. We use the program to calculate cross-sections for two processes, onium-nucleus scattering and onium-onium scattering.
Onium-Onium Scattering
----------------------
We start with onium-onium collisions. There has been other studies of this process, in particular there is another MC program called OEDIPUS, developed by Salam, [@e8], which is also based on Mueller’s Dipole formulation, but without energy conservation. To study this process we generate two onium states independent of each other, one developed up to a rapidity $y$ and the other developed up to $Y - y$, and after that we let them collide. The collisions will occur between the dipoles from the two onium states and to calculate the cross section we need an expression for the $S$ matrix. It is here in order to present the theoretical background for how we arrive at an expression for the S matrix. The amplitude for one pomeron exchange between two colliding onia is, in the BFKL approximation, given by $$F^{(1)}(\bold{r}_1,\bold{r}_2,\bold{b},Y)=-\int \frac{d^2 \bold{c} d^2\bold{c}'}{2\pi c^2 2\pi c'^2}d^2 \bold{r}d^2\bold{r}'
f(\bold{r}-\bold{r}',\bold{c},\bold{c}')n(c,r_1,r,y)n(c',r_2,\vert \bold{r}'-\bold{b}\vert,Y-y)$$ Here $r_1$ and $r_2$ are the sizes for the two initial dipoles, $c$ is the size of a dipole in the right moving onium while $c'$ is the size of a dipole in the left moving onium and $\bold{r}$ and $\bold{r}'$ are their positions relative the initial dipoles respectively. $n(c,r_1,r,y)$ is the density of dipoles of size $c$ and at a distance $r$ from the initial dipole after evolution through some rapidity $y$. $Y$ is the maximum rapidity determined by the cms energy. The expression for the dipole-dipole interaction is given in [@e3; @e8; @e9], where it is written as the square of the two-dimensional dipole-dipole potential $$f(\bold{r},\bold{c},\bold{c}')=\frac{\alpha_s^2}{2}\biggl[\log
\frac{\vert \bold{r} + \bold{c}/2 -\bold{c}'/2 \vert \vert \bold{r} - \bold{c}/2
+ \bold{c}'/2\vert}{\vert \bold{r} + \bold{c}/2 + \bold{c}'/2 \vert \vert \bold{r} - \bold{c}/2
- \bold{c}'/2\vert}\biggr]^2
\label{eq:salam}$$
Onium-onium scattering can be formally expressed in the operator formalism presented in [@e3]. To that end we define the operators $\mathcal{A}^\dagger (\bold{r},\bold{b})$ and $\mathcal{A}(\bold{r},\bold{b})$, where the first one creates a dipole of size $r$ and with impact parameter $\bold{b}$ while the second one destroys the same dipole. One usually uses $\mathcal{A}^\dagger$ and $\mathcal{A}$ for the right moving onium and $\mathcal{D}^\dagger$ and $\mathcal{D}$ for the left moving onium. In the operator formalism there are two vertices, the first one, $\mathcal{V}_1$, is the vertex for a dipole splitting process while the second one, $\mathcal{V}_2$ is the vertex containing the virtual corrections. These are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{V}_1&=&\bar{\bar{\alpha}}\int d^2\bold{r}_{ij}d^2\bold{r}_{in}d^2\bold{r}_{jn}d^2\bold{b}_{ij}\delta (\bold{r}_{ij}+\bold{r}_{in}+\bold{r}_{jn})
\frac{r_{ij}^2}{r_{in}^2r_{jn}^2}\times \nonumber \\
& &\times \mathcal{A}^\dagger (\bold{r}_{in},\bold{b}_{ij}-\frac{1}{2}\bold{r}_{jn})\mathcal{A}^\dagger (\bold{r}_{jn},\bold{b}_{ij}+\frac{1}{2}\bold{r}_{in})
\mathcal{A}(\bold{r}_{ij},\bold{b}_{ij})
\label{eq:op1}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\mathcal{V}_2=-2\bar{\alpha}\int d^2 \bold{r}_{ij}d^2\bold{b}_{ij}\textrm{ln}\biggl(\frac{r_{ij}}{\rho}\biggr)\mathcal{A}^\dagger (\bold{r}_{ij}, \bold{b}_{ij})\mathcal{A}(\bold{r}_{ij}, \bold{b}_{ij})
\label{eq:op2}$$ where, in , we have defined $\bar{\bar{\alpha}}=\bar{\alpha}/2\pi$.
Equation is just the vertex for the splitting of dipole $ij$ into $in$ and $jn$, and here the delta function guarantees that the dipoles are connected. The second vertex simply takes care of the disappearing mother dipole, which is indicadet by the minus sign. This must be taken into account just as we did in section 2.1.1. We define $\mathcal{V}_R=\mathcal{V}_1+\mathcal{V}_2$ for the right moving onium and $\mathcal{V}_L$ is defined similarly. The amplitude for multiple scatterings is then given by $$F^{(k)}(\bold{b},Y)=\langle 0\vert e^{\mathcal{A}_1+\mathcal{D}_1}\frac{(-f)^k}{k!}e^{y\mathcal{V}_R+(Y-y)\mathcal{V}_L}\mathcal{D}^\dagger (\bold{b},\bold{r}_2)
\mathcal{A}^\dagger (\bold{0},\bold{r}_1)\vert 0\rangle
\label{eq:ampk}$$ where we always choose our coordinate system such that $r_1$ has impact parameter $\bold{0}$. Here $\vert 0\rangle$ is the state defined by $\mathcal{A}\vert 0\rangle=\mathcal{D}\vert 0\rangle =0$. $\mathcal{A}_1$ is defined by $$\mathcal{A}_1=\int d^2\bold{b}d^2\bold{c}\mathcal{A}(\bold{b},\bold{c})$$ with a similar expression for $\mathcal{D}_1$. In the factor $f$ describes the interaction, the factor involving $\mathcal{V}$ describes the evolution of the onia states where we create any given number of dipoles for all possible positions and sizes. $\mathcal{D}^\dagger$ and $\mathcal{A}^\dagger$ simply create the initial dipoles while $e^{\mathcal{A}_1+\mathcal{D}_1}$ searches for any given number of dipoles for all possible positions and sizes. The quantity $f$, in , is given by $$f=\int d^2\bold{r}d^2\bold{r}'d^2\bold{c}d^2\bold{c}'f(\bold{r}-\bold{r}',\bold{c},\bold{c}')\mathcal{D}^\dagger (\bold{r}',\bold{c}')\mathcal{D}(\bold{r}',\bold{c}')\mathcal{A}^\dagger (\bold{r},\bold{c})\mathcal{A}(\bold{r},\bold{c})$$ The meaning of the integral is that we count the number of dipoles for all possible positions and sizes in the right and left moving onia ($\mathcal{D}^\dagger\mathcal{D}$ and $\mathcal{A}^\dagger\mathcal{A}$ are approximately the number operators). We then multiply by the interaction amplitude for the dipoles and finally we sum all contributions. Thus $f$ has the meaning of a total amplitude. Summing pomeron exchanges to all orders one arrives at the formula for the $S$ matrix (which is our goal) $$\begin{aligned}
S(\bold{r}_1,\bold{r}_2, \bold{b},Y)&=& 1+F(\bold{r}_1,\bold{r}_2, \bold{b},Y)\nonumber \\
&=&\langle 0\vert e^{\mathcal{A}_1+\mathcal{D}_1}e^{-f}e^{y\mathcal{V}_R+(Y-y)\mathcal{V}_L}\mathcal{D}^\dagger (\bold{b},\bold{r}_2)
\mathcal{A}^\dagger (\bold{0},\bold{r}_1)\vert 0\rangle\end{aligned}$$
To be used in a MC simulation however, this expression for the $S$ matrix is not so good. To find a more suitable expression we first note that the probability to find $n$ dipoles in an onium state with initial dipole given by $b_0$ and $r_0$, and at a rapidity $Y$, is in the operator formalism given by $$P_n(\bold{b}_0,\bold{r}_0,Y)=\langle n\vert e^{Y\mathcal{V}}\mathcal{A}^\dagger(\bold{b}_0,\bold{r}_0)\vert 0\rangle$$
Assume that we connect the two onium states at the center, i.e $y=Y/2$. Then the $S$ matrix can be written in the following form $$S(\bold{r}_1,\bold{r}_2, \bold{b},Y)=\sum_{a,a'}P_a(\bold{r},\bold{0},Y/2)P_{a'}(\bold{r}',\bold{b}',Y/2)e^{-f_{a,a'}}
\label{eq:Smatrix}$$ where the sum runs over all possible configurations, $a$ and $a'$, and $f_{a,a'}$ is given by $$f_{a,a'} =
\sum_{i=1}^{N_a}\sum_{j=1}^{N_{a'}}f(\bold{r}_i-\bold{r}'_j,\bold{c}_i,\bold{c}'_j)$$ $N_a$($N_{a'}$) is the total number of dipoles for the configuration $a$($a'$). In arriving at the formula for the $S$ matrix, it is important that one sums the contributions from the multiple scatterings for a particular configuration before the averaging over all possible configurations is done. The reason to this is that the multiple scattering series does not converge, which is due to the fact that rare configurations give large contributions to the series, especially for higher orders. It is easy to see that the $S$ matrix, as given in , satisfies the unitarity constraints $$S\leqslant \sum_{a,a'} P_aP_{a'} \leqslant 1$$ since $f_{a,a'}\geqslant 0$. The unitarised amplitude is thus given by $$\vert F\vert=1-S = 1 - \sum_{a,a'}P_aP_{a'}e^{-f_{a,a'}}= \sum_{a,a'}P_aP_{a'}(1-e^{-f_{a,a'}})
\label{eq:uniamp}$$
A multiple scattering series for the amplitude emerges when one expands the $e^{-f}$ term in the $S$ matrix. Therefore the one pomeron amplitude is given by $$\vert F^{(1)}\vert= 1 - \sum_{a,a'}P_aP_{a'}(1-f_{a,a'})=\sum_{a,a'}P_aP_{a'}(1-(1-f_{a,a'}))=\sum_{a,a'}P_aP_{a'}f_{a,a'}
\label{eq:unione}$$ The factor $1-e^{-f_{a,a'}}$, in , has the meaning of the total reaction probability for the onium-onium collision. Therefore all we need to do is to calculate $1-e^{-f_{a,a'}}$ for randomly chosen initial conditions, and the unitarised cross-section for onium-onium scattering will be given by $$\sigma = \int d^2\bold{b}(1-e^{-f_{a,a'}})
\label{eq:sigmaonioni}$$ To evaluate the integral one must choose a finite area over which the random positions are chosen. This is quite easy to do, since the amplitude decreases very fast for large $b$. By checking the amplitude for large $b$ one easily finds a good value for the maximal value of $b$. In order to obtain the one pomeron amplitude we just do the same thing, but with $1-e^{-f_{a,a'}}$ replaced by $f_{a,a'}$, which is easily seen from . Therefore the one pomeron cross section is given by $$\sigma^{(1)} = \int d^2\bold{b}f_{a,a'}$$
Some comments on formula are in order here. The four terms in the logarithm are the four distances between the ends of the dipoles, see figure 7.
(400,150)(0,0) (100,20)(200,30) (120,130)(180,90) (103,75)\[\][$r_1$]{} (135,58)\[\][$r_2$]{} (165,83)\[\][$r_3$]{} (195,60)\[\][$r_4$]{} (100,10)\[\][$r$]{} (205,23)\[\][$\bar{r}$]{} (120,140)\[\][$b$]{} (187,97)\[\][$\bar{b}$]{} (100,20)(120,130)[2]{} (100,20)(180,90)[2]{} (120,130)(200,30)[2]{} (180,90)(200,30)[2]{} (100,20)[2]{} (120,130)[2]{} (180,90)[2]{} (200,30)[2]{}
![*The average number of dipoles with sizes greater than or equal to the initial dipole. Although the number of dipoles increase exponentially, the number of large dipoles increase very slowly.*[]{data-label="numberdip"}](./exsize052.eps)
If the size of one of the dipoles is much smaller than the other $r_1\rightarrow r_2$ and $r_4\rightarrow r_3$ and thus the amplitude will tend to zero. Therefore small dipoles interact weakly. Also, if the size of one of the dipoles tends to infinity and one of its ends is not very close to the other dipole, the distances will again be mutually equal and the interaction very weak.
![*The average dipole size divided by the initial dipole size as a function of the rapidity, $y$. We see that the dipole size drops rapidly as $y$ increases, just as we expect.*[]{data-label="dipolesize"}](./exsize05.eps)
The number of dipoles in an onium state increases exponentially with $y$. However, as $y$ increases it is easy to see that the average dipole size will decrease very fast. This is so because $\rho=e^{-y}/p_+$ gets very small for large $y$, and the probability to get small dipoles increase as $\rho$ decrease. Since $\rho$ drops exponentially we also expect the average dipole size to drop rapidly. This can be seen in figure \[dipolesize\]. As the number of dipoles increases, the interaction term between the two onium states will of course increase, and since the number of dipoles increases exponentially one would expect that the cross section also increases exponentially with $y$. However, because of what we just said above, and the fact that interactions involving small dipoles are very weak, the growth rate is reduced. In fact, the number of large dipoles rises very slowly (with large we here mean dipoles which are larger than the initial dipole), see figure \[numberdip\].
![*The unitarised amplitude as a function of $b_0/r_0$, $r_0$ being the size of the two initial dipoles, for Y=14.*[]{data-label="uniamp"}](./exoniampuni.eps)
In figure \[uniamp\] we plot the unitarised amplitude as a function of the impact parameter $b_0$, at a rapidity $Y=14$, and for $r_1=r_2=r_0$. We see that the amplitude is well below 1 for all impact parameters and that it drops quite fast with increasing $b_0$. We also plot the one pomeron amplitude as a function of $b_0$ and for $Y=14$, see figure \[1pomamp\]. It is interesting to see that the one pomeron amplitude is below 1 for all $b_0$ and that it is very similar to the unitarised amplitude.
![*The One Pomeron amplitude as a function of $b_0/r_0$ for Y=14.*[]{data-label="1pomamp"}](./exoniamp1pom.eps)
This is in sharp contrast to previous studies, for example [@e9], in which energy conservation is not included. Here the difference between the unitarised and the one pomeron amplitudes is quite large. In [@e9] one can also see that the one pomeron amplitude is above 1 for $b_0\lesssim r_0$ and that both amplitudes are above zero for $b_0\lesssim 10r_0$.
Onium-Nucleus Scattering
------------------------
As a second application we study scattering off a nucleus. As in section 2 we consider a nucleus of cylinder shape with some radius $B$. In the transverse plane the nucleus will look like a circle with radius $B$. The center of the nucleus is located at $\bold{b}_0$. The position of our initial dipole is kept fixed, its coordinates are given by $\bold{r}_0=(-0.5r_{10},0)$ and $\bold{r}_1=(0.5r_{10},0)$. The impact parameter is then simply equal to $\bold{b}_0$. In order to calculate the cross section for this event we have to find an expression for the interaction between the dipoles and the nucleus. First of all one should note that the amplitude, for dipole-nucleus scattering, is going to depend on five parameters. Two of the parameters give the position of the center of the nucleus in the transverse space, namely $b_0 \equiv \vert \bold{b}_0 \vert$ and $\psi_b$, the third parameter is the size of the initial dipole, $r_0$, the fourth is the angle describing the relative orientation between the target and the initial dipole and finally the fifth parameter is the rapidity. The relative orientation however, is not needed when the nucleus is cylindrical, which is quite obvious. The rapidity and the size of the initial dipole come in naturally in a MC simulation and are not needed explicitly in the interaction formulas. Therefore we are left with two parameters instead of five.
As mentioned above we picture the nucleus as a circle in transverse space. We will view the nucleus as a collection of color dipoles and the interaction between an incoming dipole and the nucleus will be given by the interaction between the incoming dipole and the target dipole in the nucleus, convoluted with the dipole distribution of the nucleus. The interaction formula between two dipoles is again given by . The dipole distribution can be chosen in a variety of ways but not arbitrarily. First of all, we want the dipole density to go to zero as the dipole size goes to zero. This is because, as mentioned in section 3.1, small dipoles correspond to hard gluons and if we allow too small dipoles in the nucleus we will violate energy conservation. The dipole density should also go to zero when the dipole size approaches infinity, we do not want dipoles which are larger than the nucleus. The dipole density should also be large at the center of the nucleus, an incoming dipole with zero impact parameter should have a larger chance to interact with the nucleus than a dipole with non zero impact parameter. Let $\bold{b}_i$ be the impact parameter of the target dipole $i$ , i.e a dipole belonging the nucleus. The position of dipole $i$ relative to the center of the nucleus is then simply given by $\bold{b}=\bold{b}_i-\bold{b}_0$. We also expect the dipole density to drop quite fast for large $b$. With these considerations we have chosen the following distribution $$d\mathcal{P}=d^2r_id^2br_i^2e^{-r_i^4}e^{-\frac{2b^2}{B^2}}$$
Note that this whole expression is dimensionless, the $r_i$ and $b$ are all divided by a unit parameter with the dimension length. Of course, in this expression, there should also be a normalization constant, which may come from energy conservation. We are here less interested in the precise value of the amplitude however, primarily we want to investigate how the amplitude behaves. In future studies a normalization constant should be included. In our calculations we have studied an example where $B$ is equal to five unit lengths. We see that the nucleus will consist of a collection of dipoles, with sizes small compared to the nucleus, and a higher density near the center. The interaction between an incoming dipole $j$ and the nucleus is then given by $$\bar{f}(\bold{b}_j-\bold{b}-\bold{b}_0,\bold{r}_i,\bold{r}_j)=\int d\mathcal{P}f(\bold{b}_j-\bold{b}-\bold{b}_0,\bold{r}_i,\bold{r}_j)
\label{eq:nucl1}$$
Once we have this expression we just sum over all incoming dipoles $j$ and the total cross section is, in analogy to , given by $$\sigma=\int d^2b_0\biggl[1-exp\biggl(-\sum_{j}\bar{f}(\bold{b}_j-\bold{b}-\bold{b}_0,\bold{r}_i,\bold{r}_j)\biggr)\biggr]
\label{eq:nucl2}$$ The amplitude contains multiple pomeron exchanges up to all orders and it satisfies the unitarity bounds. We calculate and using MC techniques. For this one has to choose a finite area in which the last integral is evaluated. This is quite easy to do since the amplitude falls off quite fast for large impact parameters. It is usually more than enough to take $b_{0max}\approx5(r_0+B)$.
Results
-------
In this section we present the results we obtained from our program. To start we like to point out that all calculations have been performed using a fixed coupling constant, $\bar{\alpha}=0.2$. Although a running coupling constant would obviously be more justified, we have avoided it in order to make the whole Monte Carlo program simpler. As we described in the last section, the main objective has been to obtain the cross-sections for the events we studied. Therefore we start by presenting the cross-section for onium-onium scattering for different configurations.
![*Comparing the cross-section calculated from one pomeron and unitarised amplitudes, as a function of the rapidity $Y$.*[]{data-label="fig:oo1"}](./eemiloo1.eps)
In figure \[fig:oo1\] we compare cross-sections obtained from one-pomeron and unitarised amplitudes. We see that the difference, hence the saturation, is quite small. We could observe this already in section 4.1, where we compared the amplitudes as functions of the impact parameter. Observe that the scale in figure \[fig:oo1\] is not logarithmic like in other figures. If plotted on logarithmic scale the difference between the cross-sections would barely be visible. One can see that the difference increases with $Y$, this is no surprise since $f$ will increase with $Y$ and therefore the difference between $f$ and $(1 - exp(-f))$ will also increase.
![*$\sigma/r_2^2$ for various initial conditions as function of the rapidity Y. Here $r_1$ is kept fixed while we vary $r_2$. All calculations are done using the unitarised amplitude and for $y=Y/2$.*[]{data-label="fig:oo2"}](./eemiloo3.eps)
Figure \[fig:oo2\] shows the cross-sections for different initial conditions obtained from our MC program. The difference compared to previous studies, [@e9], is clear, our cross-sections grow much more slowly. One of the reasons for this is, as explained in section 4.1, that the average dipole size decrease rapidly as $Y$ increases and since small dipoles interact weakly, the growth of the cross section is reduced. The other reason is discussed below.
In figure \[fig:pureoo\] we show $\sigma/r^2$ as a function of the rapidity calculated for onium evolution with constant ultraviolet cut-off $\rho$, i.e without energy conservation. Comparing with figure \[fig:oo2\] we clearly see that $\sigma$ grows much faster in this case.
![*$\sigma/r_0^2$, $r_0$ being the size of the two initial dipoles, using the unitarised amplitude, as a function of rapidity Y and without energy conservation.Note that the cross-section grows more rapidly compared to figure 13.* []{data-label="fig:pureoo"}](./pureoni02.eps)
It is again interesting to see that the unitarised cross-section in figure \[fig:pureoo\] grows even faster than the one pomeron cross-sections in figure \[fig:oo1\], we could see a hint of this already in section 4 where we plotted the amplitudes. We see that energy conservation has a non-negligible effect on the growth of the cross section. It seem as if one does not even has to use the unitarised amplitude, at least for the $Y$ intervals we investigated.
![*$\lambda$, plotted as a function of $r_2/r_1$, calculated from the unitarised cross-section for onium-onium collisions.*[]{data-label="fig:lambda"}](./lambda.eps)
Recall from section 2.1.2 that the gluon distribution function in the BFKL region is given by $G\sim x^{-\lambda}$. Here ln$1/x\sim y$, which gives $G\sim e^{\lambda y}$. Therefore the BFKL equation predicts an exponential rise of the cross section, $\sigma \sim e^{\lambda y}$. Thus ln$\sigma \sim \lambda y$ where, in the leading log approximation, $\lambda$ is given by $\frac{4\alpha_sC_A}{\pi}$ln2$=4\bar{\alpha}$ln2$\approx 0.55$ for $\bar{\alpha}=0.2$. By trying to fit a straight line for ln$\sigma$ between $Y=10$ and $Y=19$ we have obtained values for $\lambda$. The results are shown in figure \[fig:lambda\]. We see that the $\lambda$ we have obtained is much lower than $\lambda_{BFKL}$. We explained one of the reasons for this above. The second reason is that the steps in $y$, $\Delta y$, gets larger when we have energy conservation, which results in fewer dipoles. That $\Delta y$ gets larger can be seen from the phase space diagram in figure \[pminus\]. Since we have both $p_+$ and $p_-$ conservation the avaliable phase space for emitting a gluon with a small $\Delta y$ is small. Therefore it is more likely to take bigger steps in $y$. If $\Delta y$ is the typical rapidity interval where the number of dipoles double, we can estimate the total number of dipoles with $N \sim 2^{Y/\Delta y}$. This can be written as $N \sim exp\biggl(\frac{\textrm{ln}2}{\Delta y}Y\biggr)$. Therefore we get $\lambda \sim$ ln$2/\Delta y$. It is not really true that $\sigma$ increase proportional to $N$ as the average dipole size is also important. The large $\Delta y$ does, however, give a very essential contribution to the reduction of the parameter $\lambda$. Thus it is expected that we obtain a lower $\lambda$ than in [@e9]. This is also expected from theoretical considerations. Taking into account higher order corrections reduces the value of $\lambda_{BFKL}$. For values, $\alpha_S \approx 0.2$, the value for $\lambda$ in NLO is even negative. This is of course not so realistic and there are different calculations that give some other values but it gives an idea of how $\lambda$ behaves. A large fraction of these higher order corrections are related to energy conservation, and therefore it is expected that one obtains lower values for $\lambda$. Observe that our values for $\lambda$ are not exact, there is some uncertainty in trying to fit a straight line for ln$\sigma$. We have calculated $\lambda$ also for constant $\rho$, and, for $\rho =0.02r_0$, $r_0$ being the size of the two initial dipoles, we get $\lambda=0.32$. This is a bit lower than $\lambda_{BFKL}=0.55$ but the value of $\lambda_{BFKL}$ is valid in the limit $\rho \rightarrow 0$.
![*$\sigma/r_0^2$ for unitarised and one pomeron calculations for onium-nucleus scattering as function of the rapidity Y, for $B/r_0=10$.* []{data-label="fig:on1"}](./eemilon1.eps)
Figures \[fig:on1\] and \[fig:on2\] show the results for onium-nucleus scattering. The saturation effects are more visible here. For small $Y$ we see the power like rise of $\sigma$ and as $Y$ increases the cross section starts to saturate. The reason that we can see the difference between the one pomeron and the unitarised amplitudes even for small $Y$ is because the onium now interacts with a much denser object. Observe also that the $Y$ in onium-onium collisions and the $Y$ in onium-nucleus scattering has different meaning for the evolution of an onium state. In onium-onium scattering events, the onium states are evolved up to $Y/2$ while in onium-nucleus scattering, the state is evolved up to $Y$. For a low rapidity, such as $Y=2$ ($Y=4$ in onium-onium events) the onium state often consists only of the initial dipole, therefore an onium-onium collision will just mean a collision between two dipoles. Hence it will be very difficult to see any difference between the one pomeron and unitarised amplitudes. In nucleus collisions however, that single dipole will collide with a much denser object, which consists of many dipoles, and therefore the amplitudes will not be so small and the difference will be more visible. There is a difference here compared to the case of constant $\rho$. If one uses a constant $\rho$ , which is sufficiently small of course, the steps in $y$ will be smaller and therefore there will always be additional dipoles even for smaller $Y$. Hence the difference in the amplitudes will be visible, though small. This can be seen in [@e9].
![*$\sigma/r_0^2$ for unitarised and one pomeron calculations for onium-nucleus scattering as function of the rapidity Y, for $B/r_0=5$.* []{data-label="fig:on2"}](./eemilon2.eps)
More on Saturation
==================
The Dipole Fusion Factor
------------------------
In this section we will focus on a process that we excluded in our analysis, namely the question of dipole fusion processes, the creation of a dipole by destroying two. To make the analysis easier we abandon energy conservation and switch to a constant cut-off, $\rho$. We mentioned the fusion process a little when we presented the Balitsky-Kovchegov equation, . As we said, the BK equation does not contain this possibility. This is so because Mueller’s Dipole formulation does not contain it, and the BK equation is obtained from by summing multiple pomeron exchanges up to all orders. The inclusion of dipole fusion processes in the wave function formalism is not an easy task and is yet to be solved.
Let us return to Mueller’s formulation. As we recall from section 2, Mueller’s model gives us the squared wave function for an onium state with arbitrarily many gluons. We also saw that, when two new dipoles, $in$ and $jn$, were created as the result of a gluon emission from dipole $ij$, there was a factor $\bar{\bar{\alpha}}d^2x_n\frac{x_{ij}^2}{x_{in}^2x_{jn}^2}$ associated with this splitting. The wave function, $\phi^{(n)}$, is then obtained from $\phi^{(0)}$ by considering all possible ways in which we can arrive at a state with $n$ gluons.
(400,100)(0,0) (0,50)(50,50) (110,50)[2]{} (310,50)[2]{} (0,100)(70,75) (0,0)(70,25) (70,75)(70,25) (70,25)(110,50) (70,25)(110,50) (110,50)(150,75) (110,50)(150,25) (70,75)(150,75) (70,25)(150,25) (70,75)(110,50) (110,5)\[\][Before]{} (200,50)(250,50) (200,100)(270,75) (200,0)(270,25) (270,75)(270,25) (270,25)(310,50) (270,25)(310,50) (310,50)(350,75) (310,50)(350,25) (270,75)(350,75) (270,25)(350,25) (270,75)(310,50) (310,5)\[\][After]{} (350,75)(350,25) (362,50)(400,50) (95,64)\[\][$a$]{} (95,36)\[\][$b$]{} (135,62)\[\][$c$]{} (135,40)\[\][$d$]{} (110,20)\[\][$e$]{} (110,80)\[\][$f$]{} (65,50)\[\][$r_0$]{} (295,64)\[\][$a$]{} (295,36)\[\][$b$]{} (335,62)\[\][$c$]{} (335,40)\[\][$d$]{} (310,20)\[\][$e$]{} (310,80)\[\][$f$]{} (265,50)\[\][$r_0$]{} (357,50)\[\][$r_1$]{}
Look at figure \[fusion\], where we follow some evolution that leads to the formation of the dipole labeled by $r_0$. Then $r_0$ splits into $a$ and $b$ , where $a$ in turn splits into $f$ and $c$, and $b$ splits into $d$ and $e$. Then, from what we said above, we will get a factor (denote the gluon at the center with $A$) $$d^2r_A\frac{r_0^2}{a^2b^2}\frac{a^2}{f^2c^2}\frac{b^2}{d^2e^2}
\label{eq:fusion2}$$ for these splittings (of course we will also get factors, $d^2r$, from the gluons on the top right and bottom right corners, but these factors are not interesting for our analysis). Note that in the large $N_c$ limit only dipoles that share a common gluon, i.e neighboring dipoles, can fuse. After these splittings we let $c$ and $d$ fuse and form $r_1$. The fusion process will be associated with some weight $\mathcal{Z}\cdot dy$, and the question is what this factor looks like. Observe also that we do not need to write $r_0^2$ in since there will be a factor $1/r_0^2$ from the time $r_0$ was formed and therefore these factors cancel. Instead we can include a factor $r_1^2$ which will be present when the dipole $r_1$ emits a gluon, later in the process. Thus we get $$d^2r_A\frac{1}{f^2c^2}\frac{1}{d^2e^2}\mathcal{Z}(r_1;c,d)r_1^2
\label{eq:fusion12}$$ where the arguments of $\mathcal{Z}$ indicate that the dipole $r_1$ is formed out of the dipoles $c$ and $d$. As discussed above, we require that the theory looks the same if we view the process from the other end. If we start from the right and follow the evolution we will see $r_1$ form first, then $r_1$ will split into $d$ and $c$, $c$ will in turn split into $a$ and $f$ while $d$ splits into $b$ and $e$, and finally $a$ and $b$ go together to create $r_0$ and the process continues. Now we will get the factor $$d^2r_A\frac{r_1^2}{c^2d^2}\frac{c^2}{f^2a^2}\frac{d^2}{b^2e^2}\mathcal{Z}(r_0;a,b)$$
Applying the same arguments as above we get rid of the factor $r_1^2$ and we can include $r_0^2$. Hence we obtain $$d^2r_A\frac{1}{f^2a^2}\frac{1}{b^2e^2}\mathcal{Z}(r_0;a,b)r_0^2
\label{eq:fusion22}$$ By the symmetry argument and should be equal, hence $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{r_0^2}{a^2b^2e^2f^2}\mathcal{Z}(r_0;a,b)&=&\frac{r_1^2}{c^2d^2e^2f^2}\mathcal{Z}(r_1;c,d) \nonumber \\
\frac{r_0^2}{a^2b^2}\mathcal{Z}(r_0;a,b)&=&\frac{r_1^2}{c^2d^2}\mathcal{Z}(r_1;c,d)
\label{eq:fusionn3}\end{aligned}$$
Most cascade models are semi-classical but despite this they are very successful in describing experimental results, such as in $e^+e^-$ annihilation. The DGLAP region in DIS is also successfully described despite the fact that DGLAP, which contains probabilities instead of amplitudes, is not fully quantum mechanical. In this, semi-classical, spirit we assume that the fusion factor, just like the splitting factor, is local and only depends on the dipoles involved in the fusion. A full quantum mechanical treatment would give contributions which include interference factors but, given the success of these semi-classical models, we will primarily try a locally factorizing approximation. The assumption that the fusion factor is local means that $\mathcal{Z}(r_0;a,b)$ ($\mathcal{Z}(r_1;c,d)$) only contains the lengths $r_0, a$ and $b$ ($r_1, c$ and $d$). Thus the only possibility gives $$\mathcal{Z}(r_0;a,b)\propto \frac{a^2b^2}{r_0^2} \; \; \textrm{and}\; \; \mathcal{Z}(r_1;c,d)\propto \frac{c^2d^2}{r_1^2}
\label{eq:fusion3}$$ Generally, if dipoles $r_{in}$ and $r_{jn}$ go together and form $r_{ij}$ we get a factor $\frac{r_{in}^2r_{jn}^2}{r_{ij}^2}$. To make the formulas in complete we note that the fusion factor $\mathcal{Z}$ must be dimensionless. Therefore the expressions in should be divided by a factor which has the dimension of an area. A reasonable choice would be to take the area of the triangle that is formed by the two disappearing dipoles and the dipole that is created. If this is done however, we get a factor $1/\mathcal{A}_1$ on the LHS of while we get $1/\mathcal{A}_2$ on the RHS, where $\mathcal{A}_1$ is the area of triangle formed by $a$, $b$ and $r_0$ while $\mathcal{A}_2$ is the area of the triangle $r_1cd$. Since in general $\mathcal{A}_1\neq\mathcal{A}_2$, the equality, hence the symmetry, will be violated. In order to keep the symmetry one can easily see that we must have something that looks like $1/\sqrt{\mathcal{A}_1\mathcal{A}_2}$. Including $\mathcal{A}_1$ ($\mathcal{A}_2$) in the fusion factor, $\mathcal{Z}(r_1;c,d)$ ($\mathcal{Z}(r_0;a,b)$), means that we remember the steps that we took before. From what we said above however, we avoid this possibility and assume that the fusion factor is local. Therefore $\mathcal{Z}(r_1;c,d)$ ($\mathcal{Z}(r_0;a,b)$) will not contain $\mathcal{A}_1$ ($\mathcal{A}_2$), but as we just saw we cannot get a theory which is symmetric by only including $\mathcal{A}_2$ ($\mathcal{A}_1$). Thus the only possibility is that the fusion factor contains a parameter, which has the dimension $(length)^2$, and is a fundamental parameter in the theory. One can ask what kind of fundamental scales there are. The fundamental scale of QCD is $\Lambda_{QCD}$ which has the dimension of energy. Therefore one can make the heuristic argument that $\mathcal{Z}\propto \Lambda_{QCD}^2$. It is also reasonable to assume that the fusion process, just like the splitting process, is associated with a factor $\bar{\bar{\alpha}}$. The complete formula for the fusion of dipoles $in$ and $jn$ into $ij$ is then given by $$\mathcal{Z}(r_{ij};r_{in},r_{jn})=\bar{\bar{\alpha}}\xi \frac{r_{in}^2r_{jn}^2}{r_{ij}^2}\Lambda_{QCD}^2
\label{eq:fusion4}$$ where $\xi$ is a dimensionless, free parameter in the theory.
Putting the Fusion Factor in a MC Program
-----------------------------------------
Now that we have the fusion factor we can use it to generate new $y$ values, which we denote by $\hat{y}$. As mentioned in section 3 we generate, for each existing dipole, a $y$ value and then we accept the gluon with the lowest $y$-value. For each dipole we also generate $\hat{y}$-values for possible dipole fusions and if the lowest $\hat{y}$ happens to be lower than all the other $y$ we accept the corresponding fusion process. The $\hat{y}$-values are given by $$\hat{y}=y-\frac{1}{\bar{\bar{\alpha}}\xi}\frac{1}{\Lambda_{QCD}^2}\frac{r_{ij}^2}{ r_{in}^2r_{jn}^2}\textrm{ln}R,
\label{eq:raphat}$$ where $R$ is a random number and $y$ is the maximum rapidity before the fusion process.
(400,200)(0,0) (0,200)(10,160) (10,160)(0,130) (0,130)(20,100) (20,100)(40,60) (40,60)(20,20) (80,200)(90,160) (90,160)(80,130) (80,130)(100,100) (100,100)(100,20) (100,100)(120,60)[2]{} (120,60)(100,20)[2]{} (160,200)(170,160)[2]{} (160,200)(180,180) (180,180)(170,160) (170,160)(160,130) (160,130)(180,100) (180,100)(180,20) (20,10)\[\][$y$]{} (100,10)\[\][$\hat{y}$]{} (180,10)\[\][$y'$]{} (0,0)(180,0) (220,200)(230,160) (230,160)(220,130) (220,130)(240,100) (240,100)(260,60) (260,60)(240,20) (300,200)(310,160) (310,160)(300,130) (300,130)(320,100) (320,100)(340,60) (340,60)(320,20) (320,100)(320,20)[2]{} (380,200)(400,180)[2]{} (400,180)(390,160)[2]{} (380,200)(390,160) (390,160)(380,130) (380,130)(400,100) (400,100)(400,20) (240,10)\[\][$y$]{} (320,10)\[\][$\hat{y}$]{} (400,10)\[\][$y'$]{} (400,0)(220,0) (200,0)(200,200)[3]{} (15,180)\[\][$a$]{} (40,80)\[\][$b$]{} (40,40)\[\][$c$]{} (90,60)\[\][$d$]{} (95,180)\[\][$a$]{} (180,190)\[\][$e$]{} (180,170)\[\][$f$]{}
One may ask what physical meaning $\hat{y}$ has. Consider the processes on figure \[yhat\], where we picture the evolution of an onium state for some rapidity intervals and then we view the same steps backward. When we come to $y$ we generate and choose $\hat{y}$ and let $b$ and $c$ go together to form $d$. When viewed backward the meaning of $\hat{y}$ will be the rapidity at which $d$ splits into $b$ and $c$. The same thing goes for the process where $a$ splits into $e$ and $f$ at $y'$. Viewing the process backward we see $e$ and $f$ undergo fusion and create $a$ and the rapidity $y'$ would then be the rapidity which we would have obtained from for the backward evolution.
Stability
---------
Let us return to figure \[fusion\] and the gluon at the center denoted by A. What happens if we vary $\bold{r}_A$? In particular consider events where $A$ is emitted far away from the mother dipole. After the fusion of $c$ and $d$ into $r_1$ there will be no terms left that depend on $\bold{r}_A$. Therefore, if we integrate $d^2r_A$ over large distances we will get an infinite contribution. The problem is that even though the probability to emit the gluon $A$ at very large distances goes to zero, the probability of having the fusion event $c+d\rightarrow r_1$ goes to infinity. This can be easily seen from the fusion factor $\frac{c^2d^2}{r_1^2}$. Hence in order to make the theory stable the contribution from very large dipoles must be suppressed. Enforcing energy conservation we got a cut-off for the large dipoles from $p_-$ conservation but in the case of constant $\rho$ there is no limit for how large a dipole can be. It should be reasonable to use an infrared cut-off even if one does not consider fusion processes. This has to do with the Froissart bound, which says that the cross section cannot grow faster than ln$^2s$. The Froissart bound follows from the assumption that a field, which acts with the exchange of massive particles, has a finite range. Therefore one should cut off contributions that come from too large distances, which means that it is not right to allow too large dipoles. In QCD this is expressed in the confinement mechanism, which suppresses large dipoles. A reasonable infrared cutoff is given by $1/\Lambda_{QCD}$. In a Monte Carlo program the easiest way to implement this would be to generate the $y$, $r_x$ and $r_y$ as before and afterwards accept these values with a probability, $\mathcal{P}\sim e^{-(r_1+r_2)\Lambda_{QCD}}$. Here $r_1$ and $r_2$ are the sizes of the dipoles which were created in the splitting process.
Next, let us study what happens when the gluon $A$ is emitted very close to one of its mother partons. Denote the smaller distance to the mother partons by $\delta$. Then for very small $\delta$, the probability to emit $A$ gets very large but in order to have a fusion process, involving a dipole that contains $A$, we must first have an emission from the dipole with length $\delta$, which then will get a weight proportional to $\delta^2$. Therefore the total probability for the whole process will not be large, and since the value of $\delta$ varies over a small space we will not get a divergent contribution. Therefore we see that including fusion processes causes no unpleasant instabilities in the theory.
One can ask how large effect the fusion processes will have on the onium evolution. Since the probability to create small dipoles is high (of course we assume that $\rho$ is small) there will be a lot of small dipoles. On the other hand, the probability to have fusion processes involving small dipoles is very low and therefore it would seem as if the fusion effects would not be so visible. Small dipoles interact very weakly however, therefore it does not make so much difference if many of them disappear due to fusion processes or not. The largest contribution to interactions come from the larger dipoles and these have non-vanishing probabilities to undergo fusion, therefore for a state with many large dipoles the effects of fusion processes should be visible.
Results
-------
In this section we present the results we obtained from our MC simulations including dipole fusion processes. We have run the program for different $\xi$ and studied how the cross section behaves for these $\xi$-values, in onium-onium collisions.
![$\sigma/r_0^2$ plotted as a function of $Y$ for various $\xi$ and for constant $\rho=0.02r_0$.[]{data-label="puref"}](./purefusion.eps)
In figure \[puref\] we see some of the result obtained by including fusion effects. We choose $r_0$ such that $r_0\Lambda_{QCD}=0.166$. The cross sections were calculated for fix $\rho$. We see that $\lambda$ decreases as $\xi$ increases and ln$\sigma$ still seems to depend linearly on $Y$. It doesn’t seem as if the growth starts to saturate but of course it might be that the saturation sets in for larger $Y$. This is actually expected in the large $N_c$ limit where only neighboring dipoles can fuse. From these result we have also calculated the different $\lambda$ and in figure \[lambdaxi\], $\lambda$ is plotted as a function of $\xi$.
Let $\lambda_F$ denote the $\lambda$-value we obtain from onium evolution including fusion processes.
![$\lambda$ plotted as a function of $\xi$.[]{data-label="lambdaxi"}](./lambdaxi.eps)
Similarly we introduce $\lambda_{EC}$, where EC stands for energy conservation. From figure \[lambdaxi\] we see that $\lambda_F$ drops slowly for small $\xi$. This is not strange since for small $\xi$ ($\xi < 1$), any fusion process will have very a small probability to occur, and changing $\xi$ will not affect this much. As $\xi$ increases we see that $\lambda_F$ starts drop more sharply since the fusion processes become more probable. We have not gone any further than $\xi=1000$ since running the program for larger $\xi$ is extremely time consuming. The reason is that the steps in $y$ gets extremely small when $\xi$ is very large, which follows immediately from .
Looking at the figures \[fig:lambda\] and \[lambdaxi\] we see that $\lambda_F >\lambda_{EC}$. This means that energy conservation has more effect on the growth of $\sigma$ than fusion processes. It can be that the fusion processes become more important than energy conservation at higher rapidities. Of course when estimating $\lambda_{EC}$ we used values within the interval $10\leqslant Y\leqslant 19$ but for $\lambda_F$ we used values between $Y=8$ and $Y=14$. The results would be slightly modified if one uses this interval to determine $\lambda_{EC}$. For the lower $Y$ range we would, for $r_1=r_2$, find $\lambda_{EC}=0.12$ instead of $\lambda_{EC}=0.10$. The new $\lambda_{EC}$ still satisfies $\lambda_{EC} < \lambda_F$ though.
If we calculate the cross section without fusion processes but imposing the infrared cut off we get $\lambda\approx0.21$. This might seem strange since $\lambda_F$ for $\xi=0.1$ is approximately equal to $0.22$. This is not surprising though since there are some uncertainties in the $\lambda$-values. Also, $\lambda_F(\xi=0.1)$ should more or less be equal to $\lambda$, since any fusion process will be highly unlikely for these values. Especially when we have an infrared cut off. Finally we note that the fusion processes have little impact on $\lambda$ for $\xi \lesssim 10$.
Outlook
=======
In this section we will present three problems that can be investigated in future studies. The first problem is certainly something very interesting. Consider two onia states that we connect at some rapidity, see figure \[connect\]. Denote the right (left) moving onium with $\mathscr{R}$ ($\mathscr{L}$). Assume that the interaction between the two states occurs between the dipoles $a$ and $b$, where $a$ ($b$) belong to $\mathscr{R}$ ($\mathscr{L}$).
(400,70)(0,0) (0,35)(50,35)[2]{}[4]{} (400,35)(350,35)[2]{}[4]{} (50,35)(80,70) (50,35)(80,0) (350,35)(320,70) (350,35)(320,0) (125,70)(175,55) (125,0)(175,15) (175,55)(175,15) (275,70)(225,55) (275,0)(225,15) (225,55)(225,15) (200,35)(180,35) (200,35)(220,35) (170,35)\[\][$a$]{} (230,35)\[\][$b$]{} (150,35)\[\][$\mathscr{R}$]{} (250,35)\[\][$\mathscr{L}$]{} (200,43)\[\][connect]{} (100,35)\[\][$\cdots$]{} (300,35)\[\][$\cdots$]{}
The formula we used for the interaction between two dipoles is given by . This formula can be written in the form $$\frac{\alpha_s^2}{2}\textrm{ln}^2\frac{cd}{ef}=\frac{\alpha_s^2}{8}\textrm{ln}^2\frac{c^2d^2}{e^2f^2}
\label{eq:emil}$$ For the meaning of $c$, $d$, $e$ and $f$, see figure \[cd\]. Observe that figures 22 and 23 are extremely simplified, just to give an idea of what happens. In general it is highly unlikely that two onia collide head on and the dipoles $a$ and $b$ can have any relative orientation.
(400,70)(0,0) (0,35)(50,35)[2]{}[4]{} (400,35)(350,35)[2]{}[4]{} (350,35)(320,70) (350,35)(320,0) (50,35)(80,70) (50,35)(80,0) (125,70)(175,55) (125,0)(175,15) (175,55)(175,15) (275,70)(225,55) (275,0)(225,15) (225,55)(225,15) (175,55)(225,55) (175,15)(225,15) (175,55)(225,15) (175,15)(225,55) (170,35)\[\][$a$]{} (230,35)\[\][$b$]{} (200,60)\[\][$e$]{} (200,7)\[\][$f$]{} (185,30)\[\][$c$]{} (215,30)\[\][$d$]{} (150,35)\[\][$\mathscr{R}$]{} (250,35)\[\][$\mathscr{L}$]{} (100,35)\[\][$\cdots$]{} (300,35)\[\][$\cdots$]{}
The expression above does not factorize in the same way as the rest of the splitting factors in the chain. However, if the separation between the dipoles is large compared to their sizes it does reproduce an expression that is similar to the splittings factors. Thus $e$ and $f$ are much larger than $a$ and $b$. We can choose the vectors such that $\bold{c}=\bold{a}+\bold{e}$, $\bold{d}=\bold{e}+\bold{b}$ and $\bold{f}=\bold{a}+\bold{e}+\bold{b}$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
c^2&=&a^2+e^2+2ae\cos \theta \nonumber \\
d^2&=&b^2+e^2+2be\cos \phi \nonumber \\
f^2&=&a^2+b^2+e^2+2ae\cos \theta + 2be\cos \phi +2ab\cos \psi\end{aligned}$$ where, using our definitions of the vectors, we have $\psi = \theta - \phi$. Of course one can choose the orientations such that $\psi = \theta + \phi$ also, but this will not change the result. Next, we define $\epsilon = \frac{a}{e}$ and $\delta = \frac{b}{e}$. Then we get $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{c^2}{e^2}&=&1+\epsilon^2+2\epsilon \cos \theta \nonumber \\
\frac{d^2}{e^2}&=&1+\delta^2+2\delta \cos \phi \nonumber \\
\frac{f^2}{e^2}&=&1+\epsilon^2+\delta^2+2\epsilon \cos \theta + 2\delta \cos \phi +2\epsilon \delta \cos \psi\end{aligned}$$ Using these relations we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\textrm{ln}\frac{c^2}{e^2}&\approx& \epsilon^2+2\epsilon \cos \theta -\frac{1}{2}(\epsilon^2+2\epsilon \cos \theta)^2\nonumber \\
\textrm{ln}\frac{d^2}{e^2}&\approx& \delta^2+2\delta \cos \phi -\frac{1}{2}(\delta^2+2\delta \cos \phi)^2\nonumber \\
\textrm{ln}\frac{f^2}{e^2}&\approx& \epsilon^2+\delta^2+2\epsilon \cos \theta + 2\delta \cos \phi + 2\epsilon \delta \cos \psi - \nonumber \\
& &-\frac{1}{2}(\epsilon^2+\delta^2+2\epsilon \cos \theta + 2\delta \cos \phi + 2\epsilon \delta \cos \psi)^2\end{aligned}$$ Therefore we get $$\begin{aligned}
\textrm{ln}\frac{c^2d^2}{e^2f^2}&=&\textrm{ln}\frac{c^2}{e^2}+\textrm{ln}\frac{d^2}{e^2}-\textrm{ln}\frac{f^2}{e^2} \nonumber \\
&\approx&-2\epsilon \delta \cos \psi + 2\epsilon^2 \delta^2 \cos \psi + \epsilon^2 \delta^2+2\epsilon^2 \delta \cos \phi+ 2\epsilon^3 \delta \cos \psi + 2\epsilon \delta^3 \cos \psi + \nonumber \\
&+& 2\epsilon \delta^2 \cos \theta + 4\epsilon \delta \cos \phi \cos \theta+ 4\epsilon^2 \delta \cos \theta \cos \psi + 4\epsilon \delta^2 \cos \psi \cos \phi \nonumber \\
&\approx& 4\epsilon \delta \cos \phi \cos \theta -2\epsilon \delta \cos \psi \end{aligned}$$ where we have kept terms to second order in $\epsilon$ and $\delta$. Using the relation $\psi = \theta - \phi$ we get $$\textrm{ln}\frac{c^2d^2}{e^2f^2}\approx 2\epsilon \delta (\cos \phi \cos \theta-\sin \phi \sin \theta)$$ Squaring this expression we get $$4\epsilon^2 \delta^2 (\cos^2 \phi \cos^2 \theta-2\cos \phi \sin \theta \cos \phi \sin \theta + \sin^2 \phi \sin^2 \theta)$$ If we consider all the possible orientations of $\bold{a}$ and $\bold{b}$, while keeping $\bold{e}$ fixed, we should take the average of the expression above $$4\epsilon^2 \delta^2 \langle \cos^2 \phi \cos^2 \theta-2\cos \phi \sin \theta \cos \phi \sin \theta + \sin^2 \phi \sin^2 \theta \rangle_{\theta,\phi}
= 4\epsilon^2 \delta^2(\frac{1}{4}+\frac{1}{4})$$ Hence we have $$\frac{\alpha_s^2}{8}\textrm{ln}\frac{c^2d^2}{e^2f^2}\approx \frac{\alpha_s^2}{8}2\epsilon^2\delta^2\approx \biggl(\frac{\alpha_s}{2}\biggr)^2\frac{a^2b^2}{e^2f^2} \sim \bar{\bar{\alpha}}^2\frac{a^2b^2}{e^2f^2}$$ Thus with the approximation that the separation bewteen the interacting dipoles is much larger than their sizes we can write the dipole-dipole amplitude as $$\bar{\bar{\alpha}}^2\frac{a^2b^2}{e^2f^2}
\label{eq:amplitude}$$
Let us return to the onia states in figures \[connect\] and \[cd\]. It is easy to see that, using , we do not get the same result if we connect the states at different rapidities. This is somewhat disturbing, we would like to have an amplitude such that we can connect the onia states at any given rapidity and get the same results. This would be true if the total weight for the evolution of the states $\mathscr{R}$ and $\mathscr{L}$, multiplied with the amplitude between $a$ and $b$ would be equal to the weight of a single chain, which is spanned between the ends. The weight for a chain is simply the product of all the splitting factors (to make things simpler we assume no fusion processes). To make the weight symmetric the reader can easily verify that we must have an amplitude that is equal to .
It would be interesting to find out what the splitting factors would be, if one wants to have the same symmetry by using the amplitude . Obviously such a splitting factor would be similar to . It would perhaps follow from next to leading order calculations, which is a better approximation of Mueller’s model. Then, just as we did in deriving , it would be possible that one obtains the splitting factor in Mueller’s model as an approximation of the new splitting factor. In this new splitting factor, the contributions from the different dipoles would not factorize as before, but it would contain different interference terms, which can be seen from .
We leave the first problem and go on to the second. As mentioned earlier we have tried to construct a theory that is right-left symmetric. The weights we use are symmetric but everything is not exactly symmetric. Consider figure \[RL\], where the rapidity increases to the right. Recall from section 3.2 that the transverse momentum of a gluon is decided by the shortest distance to another gluon, with which it has formed a dipole.
(400,150)(0,0) (20,20)(30,100) (30,100)(60,100) (20,20)(60,100) (80,20)(20,20) (60,100)(80,20) (100,110)(80,20) (60,100)(100,110) (100,110)(150,110) (150,110)(80,20) (150,110)(155,40) (80,20)(155,40) (155,40)(160,110) (150,110)(160,110) (100,110)[2]{} (100,120)\[\][a]{} (70,10)(90,10) (240,20)(250,100) (250,100)(280,100) (240,20)(280,100) (300,20)(240,20) (280,100)(300,20) (320,110)(300,20) (280,100)(320,110) (320,110)(370,110) (320,110)(375,40) (370,110)(375,40) (300,20)(375,40) (375,40)(380,110) (370,110)(380,110) (320,110)[2]{} (320,120)\[\][a]{} (310,10)(290,10) (110,70)\[\][b]{} (355,75)\[\][c]{} (5,30)(5,80) (5,88)\[\][$\bold{r}$]{} (5,0)(50,0) (58,0)\[\][$y$]{}
We look closer at the gluon denoted by $a$, as we can see this gluon has different links connecting it to the other gluons in the two figures. Therefore it can have different $p_\perp$ values depending on which side we start from. When we evolve from left to right the dipole denoted by $b$ forms at some stage but when we start from right, the same dipole never forms, instead we get the dipole $c$ which is not seen on the left figure. Observe that the weights will be the same in both the right and the left figures since there will be no factors depending on $b$ and $c$. Therefore it is not a big problem that we do not have the $p_\perp$ symmetry. An improvement would be to make a better approximation, in choosing the $p_\perp$ values for an emission, that respects $\bold{p}_\perp$ conservation. Another, and a very natural, improvement would of course be to use a running coupling constant $\alpha$, which can be an interesting project for the future.
Finally, we look at the third problem which might also be interesting. Going back to the BK equation, , we mentioned that this equation was derived from which uses a constant ultraviolet cut-off $\rho$. It would be interesting to try to modify the BK equation with a energy conserving, i.e $y$ dependent, cut-off. One obvious change would be in the Sudakov factors of . As we mentioned in section 2.2 the first Sudakov factor of described the probability that nothing happens during the evolution, from $y=0$ to $y=Y$. This Sudakov factor has the form $$S=exp\biggl[-\bar{\bar{\alpha}}\int_0^Y dy\int_\rho d^2r_2\frac{r_{10}^2}{r_{12}^2r_{20}^2}\biggr]=exp\biggl[-2\bar{\alpha}\textrm{ln}\biggl(\frac{r_{10}}{\rho}\biggr)Y\biggr]$$ for constant $\rho$. If we make the cut-off y dependent we get $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&exp\biggl[-\bar{\bar{\alpha}}\int_0^Y dy\int_{\rho (y)} d^2r_2\frac{r_{10}^2}{r_{12}^2r_{20}^2}\biggr]=exp\biggl[-2\bar{\alpha}\int_0^Y dy\textrm{ln}\biggl(\frac{r_{10}}{\rho (y)}\biggr)\biggr] \nonumber \\
&=&exp\biggl[-2\bar{\alpha}\int_0^Y dy(\textrm{ln}(r_{10}p_+) + y)\biggr]=exp\biggl[-2\bar{\alpha}(\textrm{ln}(r_{10}p_+)Y + \frac{Y^2}{2})\biggr]\end{aligned}$$ where, recall from section 3.1, $p_+$ is the positive light cone-momentum of the onium. So the $Y$ dependence of the Sudakov factors changes slightly. The second factor in contained the probability that nothing happened after the last gluon is emitted at a rapidity $y$, which can be anywhere between $0$ and $Y$. This Sudakov factor is then given by, for a constant $\rho$ $$S=exp\biggl[-\bar{\bar{\alpha}}\int_y^Y dy\int_\rho d^2r_2\frac{r_{10}^2}{r_{12}^2r_{20}^2}\biggr]=exp\biggl[-2\bar{\alpha}\textrm{ln}\biggl(\frac{r_{10}}{\rho}\biggr)(Y-y)\biggr]$$ Now one could think that we just do the same as we did above when we switch to a $y$ dependent cut-off. That is true but there is also a problem, we must know what $p_+$ is, now it won’t be just given by the energy of the onium. This problem will also appear in the $x_2$ integral in , $\rho (y)$ will now change in every emission and for every dipole we will have a different $\rho$. Therefore one would need to keep track of all the emissions during the evolution, this is not a problem in a MC simulation, after all that is what we have been doing in this thesis, but for a theoretical approach it is a major problem (for a constant $\rho$, these problems does not appear since it doesn’t matter how many emissions there have been or which dipole is about to emit, the cut-off is the same anyway). It seems to be difficult to write down an equation for a generating functional as in . However, it would be interesting if this was done. If one could just find such an equation, deriving a modified BK equation would not be difficult. Of course the new equation should not be too difficult to analyze, if one finds an equation that is not even numerically solvable it would not be so interesting.
Conclusions and Summary
=======================
Let us summarize the thesis. In other studies energy conservation has frequently been found to have a quantitatively large effect, and also to correspond to a significant part of NLO corrections. Our main objective has been to study saturation effects in DIS. To do this, we have constructed a Monte Carlo program which is based on Mueller’s dipole formulation and respects energy conservation. Using our model we have studied $\lambda$, which is, in the BFKL approximation, defined by the relationship $\sigma \sim e^{\lambda y}$, and seen that there is a clear difference compared to previous studies, such as [@e9], where energy conservation is not included. Throughout the thesis we have been working in the large $N_c$ limit.
In onium-onium collisions we have seen that the difference between the one pomeron and the unitarised cross sections are quite small. It is hard to say if the cross section saturates but its growth with energy is reduced and we obtain $\lambda$ in the interval 0.10-0.15. In onium-nucleus collisions the difference between the unitarised and the one pomeron cross sections are larger, and the growth of the cross section slows down quite rapidly. It is also clearer in onium-nucleus scattering that ln$\sigma$ does not depend linearly on $Y$, except for small $Y$. The saturation sets in quite early and the growth of the cross section becomes smaller and smaller. In the onium-nucleus case however, one should be quite careful before drawing any conclusions. This process was not studied in detail in this thesis but it is going to be studied more deeply in future investigations. As we mentioned in the text the dipole distribution for the nucleus should be modified by taking into account normalization. The distribution we used was a very simple one and can be improved.
In the second part of the thesis we studied the effects of dipole fusion processes. Using symmetry arguments, and in a factorizing approximation, we proposed an expression for the fusion factor, presented in . We used this expression in our Monte Carlo program, calculating cross sections for onium-onium collisions. Due to lack of time we only studied the effects on the unitarised amplitude and without energy conservation. The value for the fusion parameter, $\xi$, cannot be determined by theoretical arguments however, and we have here considered various values for this parameter. Varying $\xi$ we obtained different values for $\lambda$, and we saw that fusion processes are not as important as energy conservation, in slowing down the growth of $\sigma$, at least for $Y\leqslant 14$. Before any definite conclusions are made though, the program should be tested more and it should be run with better statistics. It would also be interesting to study larger rapidity intervals, especially when including fusion processes. Fusion processes become interesting when the gluon density is high, which occurs at high rapidites. Studying larger $Y$ intervals is very time consuming however, especially for onium evolution without energy conservation. The problem is that the number of dipoles becomes very large as $Y$ increases, which limits the $Y$-range avaliable for numerical studies.
We should also repeat that one needs to use a large $\xi$-values, larger than 10 at least, to see any significant effects of fusion processes. Since we derived in the large $N_c$ limit, which means that only neighboring dipoles can undergo fusion, the effects of fusion events are not so large for small and moderate $Y$, ($Y \lesssim 14$). Energy conservation has a larger effect on the growth of the cross section and its effects are seen earlier than fusion processes. Therefore energy conservation should have higher priority than fusion processes in DIS investigations.
Acknowledgments
===============
I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Gösta Gustafson who spent a lot of time answering my many questions, and from whom I certainly learned a lot. I would also like to thank Leif Lönnblad for his, much appreciated, help with the Monte Carlo program. This thesis could not have been done without his help. Finally I would like to thank Torbjörn Sjöstrand for helping me with Gnuplot and my fellow masters students for keeping me good company.
Appendix
========
In this appendix we derive the formula . To find the $y$ distribution we use the formula . Remember that $\bold{r}_i=(0,0)$ and $\bold{r}_j=(1,0)$. Therefore we can write the splitting factor as $$\bar{\bar{\alpha}}\int d^2\bold{r}_n \frac{r_{ij}^2}{r_{in}^2r_{jn}^2}=\bar{\bar{\alpha}}\int dr_xdr_y \frac{1}{(r_x^2+r_y^2)((r_x-1)^2+r_y^2)}=\int dr_xdr_y f(r_x,r_y)=F(y)
\label{eq:a1}$$ The integration is done over all of $\mathbb{R}^2$ except for two circles with radius $\rho(y)$ where the first one is centered at $\bold{0}$ and the second one at $(1,0)$. The rapidity dependence in $F$ comes from the fact that $\rho=\rho (y)$. Using the veto algorithm the $y$ distribution is given by $$y=\bar{F}^{-1}(\bar{F}(y_i)-\textrm{ln}R)
\label{eq:veto}$$ Here $\bar{F}$ is the primitive function of $F$, $y_i$ is the initial value of $y$ and $R$ is a random number. Finding $\bar{F}^{-1}$ is easy as long as $\rho$ is sufficiently small. But the integral in is difficult to evaluate when $\rho$ is not small and since we have a running $\rho$ we cannot always be sure that $\rho$ is sufficiently small. Therefore one needs to use an auxiliary function $g$, satisfying $g \geqslant f$. Before we do this, we note that $f(r_x,r_y)$ is symmetric around $r_x=1/2$. Therefore we do not have to consider the whole $\mathbb{R}^2$ plane but it is enough to look at the plane where $r_x<1/2$. We choose $$g(r_x,r_y)=\frac{2\bar{\bar{\alpha}}}{(r_x^2+r_y^2)(r_x^2+r_y^2+0.25)}$$ We easily see that $g(r_x,r_y) \geqslant f(r_x,r_y)$ for all $(r_x,r_y)$ with $r_x <1/2$. Then we have $$\int dr_xdr_yg(r_x,r_y)=16\pi \bar{\bar{\alpha}}\textrm{ln}\frac{\sqrt{\rho^2+0.25}}{\rho}=8\pi\bar{\bar{\alpha}}\textrm{ln}(1+\frac{e^{2y}p_+^2}{4})$$
We use $g(r_x,r_y)$ to generate the $r_x$ and $r_y$ values, which can be easily verified. Next we introduce a second auxiliary function, $h(y)$ given by $$h(y)=8\pi\bar{\bar{\alpha}}\textrm{ln}(e^{2y}+\frac{e^{2y}p_+^2}{4}) \geqslant 8\pi\bar{\bar{\alpha}}\textrm{ln}(1+\frac{e^{2y}p_+^2}{4})=g(y)$$ where the inequality follows from $y\geqslant 0$. Finding the primitive, $H$, of $h$ is easy, and it is also easy to find the inverse $H^{-1}$. Using , with $H$, we immediately obtain . To obtain the correct distribution we must accept the generated $r_x, r_y$ and $y$ values with the probability $$\frac{f(r_x,r_y)}{g(r_x,r_y)}\frac{g(y)}{h(y)}
\label{eq:app1}$$ We are not done however since we considered only the plane where $r_x <1/2$. When we generate the $r_x$, we reflect them around the symmetry axis, $r_x=1/2$, with a $0.5$ probability. Therefore instead of $g(r_x,r_y)$ we should in use $$g(r_x,r_y)=\frac{\bar{\bar{\alpha}}}{(r_x^2+r_y^2)(r_x^2+r_y^2+0.25)}+\frac{\bar{\bar{\alpha}}}{((r_x-1)^2+r_y^2)((r_x-1)^2+r_y^2+0.25)}$$ Using this $g$, the correct formula is given by $$\frac{f(r_x,r_y)}{g(r_x,r_y)}\frac{g(y)}{h(y)}=\frac{\textrm{ln}(1+\frac{e^{2y}p_+^2}{4})}{\textrm{ln}(e^{2y}+\frac{e^{2y}p_+^2}{4})}\biggl[\frac{1}{\frac{(r_x-1)^2+r_y^2}{r_x^2+r_y^2+0.25}+\frac{r_x^2+r_y^2}{(r_x-1)^2+r_y^2+0.25}}\biggr]$$ which gives .
[99]{} B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, J. Samuelsson Nucl. Phys. B467 (1996) 443-478 A.H. Mueller, Nucl. Phys. B415 (1994) 373 A.H. Mueller, Nucl. Phys. B437 (1995) 107 A.H. Mueller and B. Patel, Nucl. Phys. B425 (1994) 471 Z. Chen, A.H. Mueller, Nucl. Phys. B451 (1995) 579 Yuri V. Kovchegov, Phys. Rev. D60 (1999) 034008 G.P. Salam, Comput. Phys. Commun. 105 (1997) 62-76 G.P. Salam, Nucl. Phys. B461 (1996) 512-538 A.H. Mueller and G.P. Salam, Nucl. Phys. B475 (1996) 293-320 G. Gustafson, Acta Phys. Polon. B34 (2003) 2963-2988 I. I. Balitsky, Nucl. Phys. B463 (1996) 99 G. Gustafson, Phys. Lett. B175 (1986) 453 G. Gustafson and U. Pettersson, Nucl. Phys. B306 (1988) 746 A.H. Mueller, Phys. Lett. B104 (1981) 161,\
B.I. Ermolaev and V.S. Fadin, JETP Lett. 33 (1981) 269,\
A. Basetto, M. Ciafaloni, G. Marchesini, and A.H. Mueller, Nucl. Phys. B207 (1982) 189,\
G. Marchesini and B. Webber, Nucl. Phys. B238 (1984) 1
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We complement the results for the radiative corrections to the ${\hat {\mathbf s}_2} \cdot {\hat {\mathbf l}}$ angular correlation of baryon semileptonic decays of Ref. [@neri08] with the final results in the rest frame of the decaying baryon.'
author:
- 'C. Juárez-León'
- 'A. Mart[í]{}nez'
- 'M. Neri'
- 'J. J. Torres'
- 'Rubén Flores-Mendieta'
- 'A. Garc[í]{}a'
title: ' Radiative corrections to the three-body region of the Dalitz plot of baryon semileptonic decays with angular correlation between polarized emitted baryons and charged leptons: The initial-baryon rest frame case '
---
In a recent paper [@neri08] we obtained the radiative corrections (RC) to the Dalitz plot of the semileptonic decay of a spin-1/2 baryon $A$, $$A^{\substack{-\\0}}(p_1) \to B^{\substack{0\\+}}(p_2) + \ell^-(l) + \overline{\nu}_\ell(p_\nu),$$ when the angular correlation ${\hat {\mathbf s}_2} \cdot {\hat {\mathbf l}}$ between the spin ${\hat {\mathbf s}_2}$ of the emitted baryon $B$ and the direction ${\hat {\mathbf l}}$ of the emitted charged lepton $\ell$ is observed. As is customary, the results were presented in the rest frame of $B$ where $p_2=(M_2,0,0,0)$. However, due to experimental conditions, it may be more convenient to produce such RC in the rest frame of $A$ where $p_1=(M_1,0,0,0)$. It is not possible to translate directly the final result of Ref. [@neri08] into the final result of the latter RC. The calculation must be retaken starting at earlier stages. In this paper we shall complement the analysis of Ref. [@neri08] and present the final result for the RC to the ${\hat {\mathbf s}_2} \cdot {\hat {\mathbf l}}$ angular correlation in the rest frame of $A$.
We shall follow the same procedure and use the same conventions and notation of Ref. [@neri08]. We shall omit a detailed discussion, which can be found in this reference. Let us just recall that our results for the virtual part will be model-independent, gauge invariant, finite in the ultraviolet, and will contain the infrared divergence. In order to avoid repetition of long expressions, it will be convenient to trace a close parallelism with the analysis of the RC for the angular correlation ${\hat {\mathbf s}_1} \cdot {\hat {\mathbf l}}$ between the spin ${\hat {\mathbf s}_1}$ of $A$ and the direction ${\hat {\mathbf l}}$ of $\ell$ which were obtained in Ref. [@mar01].
Without further ado, the differential decay rate with virtual RC in the rest frame of $A$ including the ${\hat {\mathbf s}_2} \cdot {\hat {\mathbf l}}$ correlation and covering the two charge assignments of $A^{\substack{-\\0}}$ is $$d\Gamma_V = d\Gamma_V^\prime - d\Gamma_V^{(s)}.$$
The unpolarized part was already calculated in Ref. [@mar01]. It has the form $$d\Gamma_V^\prime = d\Omega \left[ A_0^\prime + \frac{\alpha}{\pi} \left(A_1^\prime\phi + \phi^\prime A_1^{\prime \prime} \right) \right]. \label{eq:dVp}$$
The full expressions for $A_0^\prime$, $A_1^\prime$, $A_1^{\prime \prime}$, $\phi$, and $\phi^\prime$ can be found in Eqs. (B1), (B2), (B3), (11), and (12) of this reference. Here the phase space factor $d\Omega = (1/2) (G_V^2/2) dE_2dEd\Omega_{\ell}d\phi_2 2M_1/(2\pi)^5$ is one-half the phase space factor of Eq. (25) of this same reference. The polarization appears in $$d\Gamma_V^{(s)} = d\Omega \left[ A_0^{(s)} + \frac{\alpha}{\pi} \left( B^\prime\phi + \phi^\prime B^{\prime \prime} \right) \right] {\hat {\mathbf s}_2} \cdot {\hat {\mathbf l}}. \label{eq:dV}$$ ${\hat {\mathbf s}_2}$ is introduced with the spin projector $\Sigma(s_2) = (1-\gamma_5 {\not \! s_2})/2$ applied to the $u_{B}$ spinor. The four vector $s_2$ obeys $s_2 \cdot s_2 = -1$ and $s_2 \cdot p_2 = 0$. The trace calculation will lead to products $s_2 \cdot a$ with $a=l,p_\nu, p_1$. These products are specialized to the rest frame of $A$ using the relation [@gins71] $$s_2 \cdot a = {\mathbf s}_2^A \cdot \left[ \frac{{\mathbf p}_2}{E_2}a_0 - {\mathbf a} \right] = {\hat {\mathbf s}_2}^B \cdot \left[ \frac{{\mathbf p}_2}{M_2} \left(a_0 - \frac{{\mathbf p}_2 \cdot {\mathbf a}}{E_2 + M_2} \right) - {\mathbf a}\right], \label{eq:ginstr}$$ which corresponds to the Lorentz transformation from the rest frame of $B$ to the rest frame of $A$. In the first equality of (\[eq:ginstr\]) it is understood that ${\mathbf p}_2$, ${\mathbf s}_2^A$, and the components of the 4-vector $a=(a_0,{\mathbf a})$ are specialized in the rest frame of $A$. In the second equality of (\[eq:ginstr\]) only ${\hat {\mathbf s}_2}^B$ still remains in the rest frame of $B$. The upper indices $A$ and $B$ on the spin of the emitted baryon emphasize this fact. In addition, the contribution of the correlations ${\hat {\mathbf s}_2}^B \cdot {\hat {\mathbf p}_2}$ and ${\hat {\mathbf s}_2}^B \cdot {\hat {\mathbf p}_\nu}$ to the ${\hat {\mathbf s}_2}^B \cdot {\hat {\mathbf l}}$ correlation over the Dalitz plot are taken into account with the substitution rule [@mar01] ${\hat {\mathbf s}_2}^B \cdot {\hat {\mathbf p}} \to ({\hat {\mathbf s}_2}^B \cdot {\hat {\mathbf l}})({\hat {\mathbf p}} \cdot {\hat {\mathbf l}})$, with ${\hat {\mathbf p}} = {\hat {\mathbf p}_2}, {\hat {\mathbf p}_\nu}$, which is valid under integration of the variables, other than $E$ and $E_2$, contained in $d\Omega$. These steps will be extended to the bremsstrahlung part, where ${\hat {\mathbf p}}={\hat {\mathbf k}}$ will also appear.
The results in Eq. (\[eq:dV\]) are new. Their explicit expressions are $$A_0^{(s)} = Q_1^\prime \left[ p_2 y_0 \frac{M_1}{M_2} \right] + Q_2^\prime \left[ \frac{p_2 y_0}{M_2} \left(E - \frac{
p_2ly_0}{E_2 + M_2} \right) - l \right], \label{eq:aprime}$$ $$B^\prime = -D_4 E_\nu^0 l + D_3E (p_2 y_0 +l), \label{eq:bprime}$$ $$B^{\prime\prime} = -D_3E {\hat {\mathbf l}} \cdot {\mathbf p}_\nu,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
Q_1^\prime & = & (F_1^2-G_1^2) \frac{EE_2 - {\mathbf p}_2 \cdot {\mathbf l}}{M_1} - (F_1^2+G_1^2-2F_1G_1) \frac{M_2E}{M_1} \nonumber \\
& & \mbox{} + (F_1G_2+F_2G_1) \frac{EM_2^2 + (E-E_\nu^0) (EE_2 - {\mathbf p}_2 \cdot {\mathbf l})}{M_1^2} \nonumber \\
& & \mbox{} - (F_1G_2-F_2G_1) \frac{M_2(EE_2 - {\mathbf p}_2 \cdot {\mathbf l} + m^2)}{M_1^2} \nonumber \\
& & \mbox{} + (F_1G_3+F_3G_1) \frac{m^2}{M_1^3} (EE_2 - {\mathbf p}_2 \cdot {\mathbf l} + M_2^2) \nonumber \\
& & \mbox{} - (F_1G_3-F_3G_1) \frac{M_2 m^2}{M_1^2} + (F_1F_2+G_1G_2) \frac{Ep_2^2 - E_2 {\mathbf p}_2 \cdot {\mathbf l}}{M_1^2} \nonumber \\
& & \mbox{} - F_2 G_2 \frac{M_2}{M_1^2} (-l^2 - {\mathbf p}_2 \cdot {\mathbf l} + EE_\nu^0) - (F_2G_3+F_3G_2) \frac{M_2 m^{2}E_\nu^0}{M_1^3} \nonumber \\
& & \mbox{} - F_3G_3 \frac{M_2 m^2}{M_1^4} ( EE_\nu^0 + l^2 + {\mathbf p}_2 \cdot {\mathbf l}), \label{eq:q1}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
Q_2^\prime & = & (F_1^2+G_1^2) \frac{M_2}{M_1} (M_1-E_2) - (F_1^2-G_1^2) \frac{E_2 M_1-M_2^2}{M_1} + 2F_1G_1 \frac{M_2}{M_1} (E_\nu^0-E) \nonumber \\
& & \mbox{} + (F_1G_2+F_2G_1) \frac{E_2}{M_1} (E_\nu^0-E) - (F_1G_2-F_2G_1) \frac{M_2}{M_1} (E_\nu^0-E) \nonumber \\
& & \mbox{} - (F_1G_3+F_3G_1) \frac{E_2 m^2}{M_1^2} + (F_1G_3-F_3G_1) \frac{M_2 m^2}{M_1^2} - (F_1F_2+G_1G_2) \frac{p_2^2}{M_1}, \label{eq:q2}\end{aligned}$$ $D_3=2(f_1^\prime g_1^\prime-{g_1^\prime}^2)$, and $D_4=2(f_1^\prime g_1^\prime+{g_1^\prime}^2)$. In Eqs. (\[eq:aprime\])-(\[eq:q2\]) and hereafter $p_2$ and $l$ will denote the magnitudes of the corresponding 3-momenta. To avoid making the notation more cumbersome, we did not put primes on the form factors on the r.h.s. of Eqs. (\[eq:q1\]) and (\[eq:q2\]). However, it must be kept in mind that it is the primed form factors $f_1^\prime$ and $g_1^\prime$, where all the model-dependence has been absorbed, that appear in these equations. We have limited ourselves to put primes on $Q_1^\prime$ and $Q_2^\prime$, as a reminder of this fact.
To the virtual RC of Eq. (\[eq:dVp\]) one must add the bremsstrahlung RC. It arises from the radiative decay $$A \to B + \ell + \nu_\ell + \gamma,$$ where $\gamma$ is a real photon with 4-momentum $k=(\omega,{\mathbf k})$ and which, in order to regulate the infrared divergence, is emitted with mass $\lambda$ and with an additional longitudinal degree of freedom. The summation over its polarization is performed according to Ref. [@gins] and its model-independent contribution is controlled with the Low theorem [@low]. The integrations over $k$ are performed covariantly following Ref. [@gins].
Introducing the projector $\Sigma(s_2)$ in the radiative decay transition amplitude, following the usual steps of squaring it and summing over all polarizations including the summation over the $\gamma$ polarization [@gins], and extracting the ${\hat {\mathbf s}_2}^B \cdot {\hat {\mathbf l}}$ correlation as explained in the virtual part, one obtains for the differential decay rate the result $$d\Gamma_B = d\Gamma_B^\prime - d\Gamma_B^{(s)},$$ where $d\Gamma_B^\prime$ is independent of ${\hat {\mathbf s}_2}^B$ and can be identified with one-half the unpolarized decay rate of Eq. (27) of Ref. [@mar01]. The $B$ spin-dependent part is given by $$d\Gamma_B^{(s)} = \frac{\alpha}{\pi}d\Omega \left( I_0B^\prime + D_3 \rho_3 + D_4 \rho_4 \right) {\hat {\mathbf s}_2}^B \cdot {\hat {\mathbf l}}.$$ $I_0(E,E_2)$ is the infrared-divergent integral given in Eq. (26) of Ref. [@mar01], $B^\prime$ is identified with Eq. (\[eq:bprime\]) of this work. The contributions which are different with respect to the corresponding ones of Ref. [@mar01] are $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_3 & = & \frac{p_2l}{4\pi} \int_{-1}^{1} dx \int_{-1}^{y_0}dy \int_0^{2\pi} \frac{d\phi_k}{D(1-\beta x)}\left\{(p_2 y+l+\omega x) \left[ \frac{\beta^2 (1-x^2)}{1-\beta x} + \frac{\omega}{E} \right] \right. \nonumber \\
& & \mbox{} \left. + \frac{\beta^2(1-x^2)}{1-\beta x} \left[ xE-\frac{D}{\beta} \right] \right\}, \label{eq:rho3}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_4 & = & \frac{p_2l}{4\pi} \int_{-1}^{1} dx \int_{-1}^{y_0}dy \int_0^{2\pi} \frac{d\phi_k}{D(1-\beta x)} \left\{ \left[ \frac{\beta^2(1-x^2)}{1-\beta x} \right] l \right. \nonumber \\
& & \mbox{} \left. + E_\nu \left[ -\beta + \left( \frac{1-\beta^2}{1-\beta x} - 1 - \frac{\omega}{E} \right) x\right] \right\}, \label{eq:rho4}\end{aligned}$$ where $$D = E_\nu^0 + ({\mathbf p}_2 + {\mathbf l}) \cdot {\hat {\mathbf k}},$$ and $$\omega =\frac{p_2l (y_0-y)}{D}.$$
The neutrino energy is $E_\nu=E_\nu^0-\omega$, where $E_\nu^0=M_1-E_2-E$, and $y_0=({E_\nu^0}^2-p_2^2-l^2)/2p_2l$. In Eqs. (\[eq:rho3\]) and (\[eq:rho4\]) ${\mathbf k}$ is refered to a coordinate axis system where ${\hat {\mathbf l}}$ points along the $z$-direction and ${\hat {\mathbf p}_2}$ lies on the $(x,z)$ plane. The integration over ${\mathbf k}$ is performed with the variables $y={\hat {\mathbf p}_2} \cdot {\hat {\mathbf l}}$, $x={\hat {\mathbf k}} \cdot {\hat {\mathbf l}}$, and the azimuthal angle $\phi_k$. They are ready to be performed numerically.
In contrast with Ref. [@neri08] where the integrals contained in the parts corresponding to Eqs. (\[eq:rho3\]) and (\[eq:rho4\]) –namely, Eq. (35) of this reference– were most of them new and required a substantial effort to be performed analytically, all the integrals contained in Eqs. (\[eq:rho3\]) and (\[eq:rho4\]) have already been performed analytically in our previous work. It is here where the parallelism between the present analysis and the one for the ${\hat {\mathbf s}_1} \cdot {\hat {\mathbf l}}$ calculation [@mar01] becomes very useful. One can compare Eqs. (\[eq:rho3\]) and (\[eq:rho4\]) with their counterparts Eqs. (34) and (35) of this last reference and observe that the integrals with the common factor $D_4$ correspond to the integrals in our $\rho_3$, while those with the common factor $D_3$ correspond to our $\rho_4$. Looking at the analytical results of the integrals in those Eqs. (34) and (35), given in Eqs. (46) and (47) of this same reference, we can establish the following connection $$\rho_3^{{\hat {\mathbf s}}_2^B \cdot {\hat {\mathbf l}}} = (\rho_2^l + \rho_4^l )^{{\hat {\mathbf s}_1} \cdot {\hat {\mathbf l}}},$$ and $$\rho_4^{{\hat {\mathbf s}_2}^B \cdot {\hat {\mathbf l}}} = (\rho_1^l + \rho_3^l)^{{\hat {\mathbf s}_1} \cdot {\hat {\mathbf l}}},$$ where $\rho_1^l,\dots,\rho_4^l$ are given explicitly in Eqs. (48) and (49) of such Ref. [@mar01]. Here the upper labels ${\hat {\mathbf s}}_2^B \cdot {\hat {\mathbf l}}$ and ${\hat {\mathbf s}_1} \cdot {\hat {\mathbf l}}$ are introduced to stress this correspondence. Using these results, and after some rearrangement to get somewhat more compact expressions, the analytical forms of Eqs. (\[eq:rho3\]) and (\[eq:rho4\]) are $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_3 & = & \frac{p_2}{2} \left[ E^2(Y_2-Y_3) - 2\theta_0E + Z_1 + \frac12 m^2 [2(1-\beta^2) \theta_2 - 5\theta_3] + \frac12 (3E^2-2l^2) \theta_4 \right. \nonumber \\
& & \mbox{} \left. - \frac{3}{2}El\theta_5 - (1-\beta^2) \frac{E}{2} \theta_6 + \frac{3}{2}E\theta_7 + \frac{\theta_9}{4} + l^2\theta_{10} - \frac{l}{2} \theta_{14} - \frac12(4E+E_\nu^0) \eta_0 + \frac{\zeta_{21}}{2E} \right],\end{aligned}$$ $$\rho_4 = \frac{p_2}{2} \left[ l^2Y_2 - \frac12(2E-E_\nu^0)\eta_0 - \frac12(E+2E_\nu^0) \gamma_0 + \frac{Y_4E}{2} + \frac{l^2}{2}\theta_3 \right].$$ The explicit forms of the functions $\theta_i$, $\gamma_0$, $\eta_0$, $\zeta_{ij}$, $Y_i$ and $Z_1$ need not be reproduced here. They are all found in Ref. [@torres04].
Collecting the virtual and bremsstrahlung RC our final result is $$d\Gamma \left( A^- \to B^0 e^- \overline{\nu} \right) = d\Omega \left\{ \left[ A_0^\prime + \frac{\alpha}{\pi} \Theta_I \right] - \left[ A_0^{(s)} + \frac{\alpha}{\pi} \Theta_{II} \right] {\hat {\mathbf s}_2}^B \cdot {\hat {\mathbf l}} \right\}, \label{eq:dgT}$$ where the explicit forms of $\Theta_I$ and $A_0^\prime$ coincide with $\Phi_1$ of Eq. (54) and $A_0^\prime$ of Eq. (B1) of Ref. [@mar01], respectively. Our new results are $A_0^{(s)}$ of Eq. (\[eq:aprime\]) and $$\Theta_{II} = B^\prime \left[ \phi + I_0(E,E_2) \right] + B^{\prime \prime} \phi^\prime + D_3\rho_3 + D_4\rho_4, \label{eq:fhis}$$ where all the entries are defined above. The final result is infrared convergent.
We should recall that the practical application in the Monte Carlo analysis may be to use the RC in the form $$\Theta_i = a_if_1^2 + b_if_1g_1 + c_ig_1^2, \label{eq:fhi}$$ and to calculate the numerical values of the coefficients $a_i$, $b_i$, $c_i$ throughout the Dalitz plot in the form of arrays. Such arrays would be fed into the Monte Carlo simulation as a matrix multiplication. This procedure should save a substantial computer effort. In Eq. (\[eq:fhi\]) the index is $i=I,II$.
The present results complement the ones of Ref. [@neri08]. The RC to the Dalitz plot when the ${\hat {\mathbf s}_2}^B \cdot {\hat {\mathbf l}}$ angular correlation is observed have been obtained both in the rest frame of the emitted baryon $B$ and in the rest frame of the decaying baryon $A$. They cover the three-body region of the Dalitz plot, they can be used for all charge assignments of $A$ and $B$ [@rfm02], and $l$ may be $e^\pm$, $\mu^\pm$, or $\tau^\pm$. They are presented in a form which is not compromised to fixing the values of the form factors at prescribed values. They provide a good approximation to RC of medium- (several tens of thousands) and low- (several thousands) statistics experiments in light- and heavy-quark baryon semileptonic decays, respectively. As a final remark, let us stress that even if we use the same notation of our previous work, the expressions here apply only to the present case and there should arise no confusion.
The authors acknowledge financial support from CONACYT (México). J.J.T. and A.M. are grateful for partial support of COFAA-IPN (México). R.F.-M. also acknowledges financial support from FAI-UASLP (México).
[99]{}
M. Neri, J. J. Torres, R. Flores-Mendieta, A. Martinez, and A. Garcia, Phys. Rev. D **78**, 054018 (2008).
A. Martinez, J. J. Torres, R. Flores-Mendieta and A. Garcia, Phys. Rev. D **63**, 014025 (2000). E. S. Ginsberg, Phys. Rev. D **4**, 2893, (1971).
E. S. Ginsberg, Phys. Rev. **162**, 1570 (1967) \[Erratum-ibid. **187**, 2280 (1969)\]. F. E. Low, Phys. Rev. **110**, 974 (1958). H. Chew, Phys. Rev. **123**, 377 (1961). J. J. Torres, R. Flores-Mendieta, M. Neri, A. Martinez and A. Garcia, Phys. Rev. D **70**, 093012 (2004) \[Erratum-ibid. D **75**, 019903 (2007)\] and references therein. R. Flores-Mendieta, A. Garcia, A. Martinez and J. J. Torres, Phys. Rev. D **65**, 074002 (2002).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
[**An overview of simply pulsed qubits**]{}
3em
[ A. Chalastaras, L. Kaplan, Kh. Kh. Shakov, M. Smith, and J. H. McGuire]{}
1em
*Physics Dept., Tulane University, New Orleans, LA 70118, USA*
2em
4em
[**Abstract**]{}: The behavior of simply pulsed qubits (quantum systems with two linearly independent states) may be characterized by the energy difference $\Delta E$ between the two states of the qubit and by an external stimulating potential $V(t)$ that causes transitions between them. Thus, the operation of such quantum mechanical systems may be categorized in various regions that explicitly depend on $\Delta E$ and $V(t)$. Limiting cases of degenerate, perturbative, and adiabatic regions are discussed. A comprehensive and illustrative map for simply pulsed qubits is presented that can be used as a visual tool for students. Furthermore, analytic solutions may be obtained when the interaction $V(t)$ is proportional to $\delta(t-t_k)$, namely when a fast interaction, called a kick, is used.
Introduction
============
Just as classical information and computation are built upon on-off bits, quantum information and computation may be constructed on the basis of two-state (on-off) quantum systems known as qubits [@nielsen; @waser]. These quantum building blocks are used to describe and to control atomic and molecular reactions [@malinovsky; @smith], electron dynamics [@mcbook], and time ordering in quantum systems [@progress]. However, properties of dynamic two-state quantum systems, such as transition rates from one state to the other, are usually found numerically since analytic solutions are relatively rare. In this paper we describe some simply pulsed qubits where the occupation probability of each of the two states, i.e., the likelihood of being in the on state or the off state, can be easily controlled.
The difference between classical and quantum bits is that the classical occupation probability of the on state must be either 1 or 0 (definitely on or definitely off) at *all* times, while for a qubit the probability $P(t)$ of being on may be any number between $0$ and $1$ until an observation is made. That is, before an observation the qubit may be in a combination or superposition of on and off states, similar to a superposition of classical waves. After a qubit is observed, $P(t)$ collapses to 1 or 0 for that qubit. If $N$ qubits (where $N$ is large), initially all in the off state, are switched by the same external potential and then observed at time $t$, $N \cdot P(t)$ of them will be found to be in the on state and $N \cdot (1-P(t))$ will remain in the off state. It is this feature, namely that before an observation a qubit can be simultaneously on *and* off, that distinguishes the qubit from the classical bit that simply switches between on or off (*never* being in a superposition of on and off states). In this regard, the mathematical rules (i.e., logic) differ for qubits and bits. The more sophisticated qubits can in principle perform more complex operations [@nielsen; @roadmap].
Qubits
======
Since bits can only be on or off (e.g., corresponding to small magnets that can be magnetized in one of two directions), they are simpler than qubits. Before the measurement, a qubit can be in both of its two states at the same time. Reliably manipulating this coherent linear superposition of states, e.g., with external fields, is essential for quantum computation [@nielsen] and quantum control [@malinovsky], but often difficult to achieve. The phenomenon of quantum parallelism [@roadmap] allows a quantum processor to execute actions in parallel (performing many classical computations at the same time). The classical computer, no matter how fast, can only execute commands in series, which limits its computational power. Hence, a quantum computer is more suitable for solving certain computational problems such as factorization of large numbers and database search. Indeed, computer algorithms specifically designed to take advantage of the phenomenon of quantum parallelism in qubits have been developed [@shor; @grover]. Various physical systems that are good candidates for qubits are listed at the end of Section 2.
Conceptual Description
----------------------
Here we describe a conceptually simple way of controlling a qubit, that retains the key features of manipulating more general qubits. The simplicity of the following description helps to clarify the concepts without losing the essence of more complicated quantum systems.
We consider a two-state system with possible energies $E_1$ and $E_2$, where $\hbar\omega=\Delta E=E_2-E_1$ is the energy splitting between these two states. Since the zero point of overall energy is arbitrary, the two eigenergies may be written as $+\Delta E/2$ and $-\Delta E/2$ without loss of generality. The unperturbed Hamiltonian $\hat{H_0}$ does not couple the two eigenstates, i.e., $\hat{H_0}$ does not cause transition of population between the two states of the qubit. Such a system by itself is not very interesting since the observable properties do not evolve with time. For example, if the system is initially populated with any population number $N_1 = N \cdot P_1$ in state 1 and population $N_2 = N \cdot P_2$ in state 2, then without an external switching potential $N_1$ and $N_2$ do not change with time.
What makes a qubit interesting and useful is the ability to change the populations of its states in a controlled way. This is desirable, for example, in a device such as a computer, where one wishes to switch the state of a storage location back and forth from on to off at will. In classical computers, the logic of these binary operations is simple, and is described in terms of Boolean algebra [@boolean], which is a formal way of working with states that may be described as either on or off. In such a classical device, the on or off state is usually implemented physically by an on or off magnetic field at a given storage location.
Quantum information is similar, except that the system is generally in a linear combination (linear superposition) of on and off states. In both classical bits and qubits, the switching between on and off states is done with an external field $V$. Since the state is to be switched from on to off at various times, $V$ is some function of time $t$, i.e., $V = V(t)$. It is this external switching field $V(t)$ that enables a computer to manipulate information, performing logic operations dynamically. In our model we choose a $V(t)$ that simply couples the two states without changing the eigenenergies $+ \Delta E/2$ and $- \Delta E/2$ of the unperturbed Hamiltonian $\hat{H_0}$. While there are more complex ways to manipulate a two-level system, this is sufficient to illustrate how a simple qubit works.
Mathematical Description
------------------------
In quantum mechanics, the state of a system at any time $t$ is fully described by its wave function $\psi(t)$. If there are two linearly independent states of the system, labeled by $\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\
0\end{array} \right]$ (e.g., corresponding to on) and $\left[\begin{array}{c} 0 \\ 1 \end{array} \right]$, (e.g., corresponding to off), then in the most general case $\psi(t)$ is a linear superposition of these two states. Mathematically this corresponds to
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{psi} \psi(t) = a_1(t) \left[
\begin{array}{c} 1 \\ 0 \end{array} \right] + a_2(t) \left[
\begin{array}{c} 0 \\ 1 \end{array} \right]
=\left[
\begin{array}{c} a_1(t) \\ a_2(t) \end{array} \right]
\,.\end{aligned}$$
Here $a_1(t)$ and $a_2(t)$ are the probability (wave-like) amplitudes such that the probability of finding $\psi(t)$ in the on state is $P_1(t) = |a_1(t)|^2$, and the probability that $\psi(t)$ is in the off state is $P_2(t) = |a_2(t)|^2$. This is analogous to linear superpositions of electromagnetic fields in classical wave mechanics, where the observed intensity is proportional to the square of either the electric or the magnetic field. Normalization condition in quantum mechanics requires the constraint $P_1(t) + P_2(t)=1$ (conservation of probability), meaning that no dissipation[^1] has occurred since the system was initially formed.
A two-state system can be coupled (i.e., the particle population can be transferred between the two states) by applying an external potential $V(t)$. In this paper, the external potential has the shape of a single pulse that can be sensibly characterized by a single time duration, $\tau$. A simple pulse could be for example a Gaussian, an instantaneous kick (delta function), or a rectangular pulse. The energy of the system is described by the full Hamiltonian $\hat{H}(t)$, which includes the energy difference term $\Delta E$ and a time-dependent external potential term $V(t)$. Here we take $\Delta E$ to be constant in time, corresponding to most applications. Hence all the time dependence in the system’s Hamiltonian $\hat{H}(t)$ comes from $V(t)$. This full Hamiltonian can be written in terms of the Pauli spin matrices (problem 1), namely
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{genh0} \hat H(t) &=& \hat H_0 + \hat V(t) \nonumber\\
&=& \left[ \begin{array}{cc} -\Delta E/2 & 0 \\ 0 & +\Delta E/2
\end{array} \right] + \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} 0 & V(t) \\ V(t) &
0 \end{array} \right] \\
&=& -{\Delta E \over 2} \sigma_z + V(t) \sigma_x, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
where the widely used Pauli spin matrices [@arfken] are defined as
$$\label{pauli}
\\ I = \left[\begin{array}{rr} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{array} \right], \hspace{2pt}
\sigma_x = \left[\begin{array}{rr} 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0
\end{array}
\right],
\hspace{2pt} \sigma_y = \left[\begin{array}{rr} 0 & -i \\ i
& 0 \end{array} \right], \hspace{2pt} \sigma_z =
\left[\begin{array}{rr} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \end{array} \right].$$
Inserting the Hamiltonian $\hat{H}(t)$ from expression (\[genh0\]) and the wave function $\psi(t)$ from expression (\[psi\]) into the time-dependent Schrödinger equation,
$$\label{schrod}
\\ i\hbar\frac{d\psi(t)}{dt} = \hat{H}(t)\psi(t),$$
we obtain (problem 2) a differential equation for the on and off probability amplitudes, $a_1(t)$ and $a_2(t)$, as functions of the energy splitting and the external potential:
$$\label{eqmo} i\hbar \left [ \begin{array}{c} \dot a_1(t) \\ \dot
a_2(t)\end{array} \right] = \left[
\begin{array}{cc} -\Delta E/2 & V(t) \\ V(t) & +\Delta E/2 \end{array} \right ]
\left [ \begin{array}{c} a_1(t) \\ a_2(t)\end{array} \right] \,.$$
Separating the equations, we can also write,
$$\label{eqmo1}\left.
\begin{array}{lll}
i\hbar\displaystyle\frac{da_1(t)}{dt} = i\hbar\ \dot a_1(t) &=& -\displaystyle\frac{\Delta E}{2} a_1(t)+ V(t)a_2(t)\\[10pt]
i\hbar\displaystyle\frac{da_2(t)}{dt} = i\hbar\ \dot a_2(t) &=& V(t)a_1(t) + \displaystyle\frac{\Delta E}{2} a_2(t)
\end{array}
\right\}.$$
Conceptually and mathematically, it is convenient to isolate the time dependence of the system by defining the evolution operator [@sakurai] or matrix $\hat{U}(t, t_0)$ that connects the initial state $\psi(t_0)$ with the final state $\psi(t)$,
$$\label{psievol}
\psi(t)=\hat{U}(t, t_0)\psi(t_0) \,.$$
All the time dependence of the system is contained in the time evolution operator (or Green’s function) $\hat U(t,t_0)$, while the initial conditions are specified in $\psi(t_0)$. Throughout the rest of this paper, we take $t_0 = 0$ and write the evolution operator as $\hat{U}(t, t_0) = \hat{U}(t)$. Then, the evolution operator in equation (\[psievol\]), has the following matrix representation
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{uoperatorzero} \hat{U}(t) = \left [
\begin{array}{cc}
U_{11}(t,t_0) & U_{12}(t,t_0) \\
U_{21}(t,t_0) & U_{22}(t,t_0)
\end{array} \right] = \left [
\begin{array}{cc}
U_{11}(t) & U_{12}(t) \\
U_{21}(t) & U_{22}(t)
\end{array} \right].\end{aligned}$$
It is then straightforward to express the time-dependent probability amplitudes, $a_1(t)$ and $a_2(t)$, using the evolution operator $\hat U(t)$, namely
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{amps} \left [ \begin{array}{c} a_1(t) \\ a_2(t) \end{array} \right]
= \hat{U}(t) \left [ \begin{array}{c} a_1(0) \\ a_2(0) \end{array}
\right]\ = \left [ \begin{array}{cc}
U_{11}(t) & U_{12}(t) \\
U_{21}(t) & U_{22}(t)
\end{array} \right]
\left [ \begin{array}{c} a_1(0) \\ a_2(0) \end{array} \right] \,.\end{aligned}$$
The evolution operator $\hat U(t)$ may be obtained by solving a differential equation very similar to (\[eqmo\]):
$$\label{eqmou} i\hbar
\left [ \begin{array}{cc} \dot U_{11}(t) &
\dot U_{12}(t) \\ \dot U_{21}(t) & \dot U_{22}(t) \end{array} \right] = \left[
\begin{array}{cc} -\Delta E/2 & V(t) \\ V(t) & +\Delta E/2 \end{array} \right ]
\left [ \begin{array}{cc} U_{11}(t) &
U_{12}(t) \\ U_{21}(t) & U_{22}(t) \end{array} \right]
\,,$$
and we require the time evolution operator to start out as the identity matrix $I$, $$\hat{U}(0) =
\left [ \begin{array}{cc}
U_{11}(0) & U_{12}(0) \\
U_{21}(0) & U_{22}(0)
\end{array} \right] = I =
\left [ \begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{array} \right]$$ so that $\psi(t)=\psi(0)$ at the initial time $t=t_0=0$.
Formally, the solution to equation (\[eqmou\]) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{uoperator} \hat{U}(t) = \left [ \begin{array}{cc}
U_{11}(t) & U_{12}(t) \\
U_{21}(t) & U_{22}(t)
\end{array} \right] = Te^{-i \int_{0}^{t} \hat{H}(t') dt' / \hbar} = Te^{-i \int_{0 }^{t} [\hat H_0+ \hat{V}(t')] dt' / \hbar} \,,\end{aligned}$$
where $T$ is the Dyson time ordering symbol [@goldwatson; @merzbacher] that enforces $\hat{H}(t_1)$ acting on the system prior to $\hat{H}(t_2)$ if $t_1<t_2$.
Equations (\[psi\]), (\[genh0\]), (\[schrod\]), (\[psievol\]), (\[amps\]), (\[eqmou\]), and (\[uoperator\]) form the basic equations for a qubit. These equations are governed by the energy splitting $\Delta E$ and the external potential $V(t)$. Depending on the complexity of the time evolution operator, these equations may or may not have analytic solutions. In the latter case, numerical solutions of the coupled differential equations (\[eqmo1\]) may obscure information about these quantum systems. Analytic solutions, when possible, are more convenient and easy to analyze.
Practical Considerations for a System of Qubits
-----------------------------------------------
Up to this point, we have treated the qubit as an abstract mathematical structure. However, in applications some practical issues have to be addressed. For a system of qubits to be capable of performing quantum computation [@nielsen; @progress; @roadmap], control of population transfer between the two states of the qubit is not sufficient. The following list, dubbed the “DiVincenzo checklist" [@divcenzo] after its developer in 1997, addresses some practical issues for a quantum computer:
- A large number of *coupled* qubits need to be reliably controlled.
- It should be possible to prepare the qubits in a desired initial state. Commonly, in the initial state all qubits are on or all qubits are off.
- Decoherence should be minimized. In terms of the energy splitting $\Delta E$ between the two states, the decoherence time $t_{d}$ over which quantum phase information is lost must satisfy $t_{d}\gg 2\pi\hbar/\Delta E$ [@waser].
- Quantum gates need to be designed that will control the operation of the qubits (these gates play a role similar to classical gates).
- The information contained in the qubits must be extractable at the end of the computation if the outcome of the qubit operations is to be used in a productive manner.
A number of quantum systems satisfy these requirements. Optical photons [@imayama], nuclear spins [@divincenzo2; @cory; @gershenfeld], ion traps [@cirac], nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) [@schulman], and electrons on superfluid helium [@platzman] are some commonly discussed examples.
The *QIST Quantum Computation Roadmap* [@roadmap] addresses the key issues in quantum computation and the latest advances in the field. In the last few years, considerable progress has been made in overcoming the problem of decoherence, i.e., loss of phase control. Decoherence is an important but complicated issue and is discussed elsewhere [@rau].
Next, we discuss different physical limits for simply pulsed qubits and the graphical qubit map is introduced.
Map
===
Significance of the Qubit Map
-----------------------------
A qubit map, such as that shown in Figure 1, is a tool that enables one to visualize how the behavior of simply pulsed qubits may depend on the variables $\Delta E$ and $V(t)$. In order to make the qubit map a helpful visual tool, the map coordinates are taken to be ${\Delta E\tau}/{2\hbar}$ (where $\tau$ is the time duration of $V(t)$) and $\int^\infty_0 V(t')dt'/\hbar$. These two variables are dimensionless and range in absolute value from 0 to $\infty$. The variable ${\Delta E\tau}/{2\hbar}$ determines the effect of the unperturbed Hamiltonian $\hat{H_0}$ on the evolution operator $\hat{U}(t)$, while $\int^\infty_0 V(t')dt'/\hbar$ measures the influence of the external potential on $\hat{U}(t)$. It is useful to think of these variables as independent phase angles or action-like integrals [@messiah; @goldstein].
It should be noted here that the boundaries separating the qubit map regions are not precisely defined. The regions overlap each other (see curly lines in the map) when either of the two phases ${\Delta E\tau}/{2\hbar}$ or $\int^\infty_0 V(t')dt'/ \hbar$ is of the order of $2\pi$. This behavior should not be surprising since the definitions of the degenerate, perturbative, and adiabatic limits are of an approximate nature. The map helps to identify the regions where qubit behavior may be described analytically, and indicate ballpark values of the parameters for which various analytic solutions are applicable. For instance, if we wish to investigate slow weakly perturbed qubits, we look for large phases $\Delta E\tau/{2\hbar}$ and small $\int^\infty_0 V(t')dt'/\hbar$. For strongly perturbed degenerate qubits, we look for small $\Delta E\tau/{2\hbar}$ but large values of $\int^\infty_0 V(t')dt'/\hbar$.
The arrow pointing toward the lower left corner of the Figure indicates the “fast" or short-time limit $\tau
\to 0$. Here the time $\tau$ of the pulse is too short to allow for significant phase accumulation due either to the external potential $V(t)$ or to the energy splitting $\Delta E$, i.e., both $\Delta E\tau/{2\hbar}$ and $\int^\infty_0 V(t')dt'/\hbar$ are small. The opposite $\tau \to \infty$ or “slow" limit indicated by the arrow pointing toward the upper right corner is where the pulse is long enough for both the energy splitting and the external potential to have a large effect over the duration of the pulse.
\[c\]\[c\]\[1.5\]\[0\][$\frac{\int_0^\infty {V(t')}
dt'}{\hbar}$]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[90\][$2 \pi$]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][$\infty$]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1.5\]\[90\][$\frac{\Delta E \tau}{2
\hbar}$]{} \[l\]\[l\]\[1\]\[0\][$\tau \rightarrow 0$ Fast]{} \[c\]\[c\]\[1\]\[0\][$\tau \rightarrow \infty$ Slow]{} {width="100.00000%"}
Regions of the Map
------------------
It is sensible to separate our map into four regions including the interesting central region and to examine each one individually. Analytic solutions[^2] exist only for some regions of the map. It should be emphasized that this map is valid only for singly pulsed qubits. Multiply pulsed qubits [@kaplantime], including periodically pulsed qubits [@eberly], are not discussed here since an additional time parameter, e.g., the typical time between pulses or the period of oscillation of the potential, would require a more complicated map.
### Degenerate Region {#secdegen}
When the energy splitting between the two states of the qubits is much less than the strength of the external interaction (i.e., $\Delta E\ll V(t)$), we are in the degenerate region of the map. The diagonal extending from the lower left (“fast”) corner to the upper right (“slow") corner of the Figure forms the boundary of the degenerate region: the behavior of the system is dominated by the external interaction $V(t)$ whenever we are to the right of or below this diagonal line. The evolution of the system is then given by simple sine and cosine functions, and the mathematical complexity is greatly reduced. It can easily be shown (problems 3 and 4) that as $\Delta E\to 0$ in equation (\[uoperator\]), the evolution matrix of the degenerate qubit or dit[^3] [@shakovMc] becomes $$\label{degen}
\hat{U}(t) \to \hat{U}_{\rm dit}(t) =
\left[\begin{array}{cc}
\cos \alpha &
-i \sin \alpha \\
-i \sin \alpha & \cos \alpha
\end{array} \right] \ \ ,$$ where $$\alpha = {\int_0^t V(t') dt' \over \hbar}$$
is the action integral. When $\alpha$ is an integer multiple of $\pi/2$, the degenerate bit becomes a classical bit where the occupation probabilities simply get switched between 1 and 0.
The analytic expression (\[degen\]) is only valid when two conditions $\Delta E \tau/2\hbar \ll \int_0^t
V(t') dt'/\hbar$ and $(\Delta E \tau/2\hbar)^2 \ll \int_0^t V(t') dt'/\hbar$ are simultaneously satisfied. The need for the second condition may be removed, thereby extending the solution to the entire degenerate region to the right of the diagonal, by replacing $\alpha$ with $$\theta = {\int_0^t \Omega(t') dt' \over \hbar} \,,$$ where $\Omega(t')=\sqrt{V^2(t')+(\Delta E/2)^2}$. We notice that $\Omega(t')=V(t')$ and thus $\theta=\alpha$ for $\Delta E \to 0$.
We will see below that the degenerate region overlaps other regions of the map, such as the perturbative, adiabatic, and kicked regions. In these areas of overlap, two or more analytic solutions become mathematically equivalent.
### Perturbative Region
When the external potential $V(t)$ is small, we are in the perturbative region. The perturbative region includes both upper and lower left quadrants of the qubit map. In this particular region $\int_0^\infty V(t') dt'/{\hbar}
\ll 2\pi$. The external interaction $V(t)$ is sufficiently weak that the qubit remains essentially in its initial on or off state, acquiring only an overall phase associated with the energy $\pm \Delta E/2$. It can be shown (problem 5a) that the evolution operator in equation (\[uoperator\]) becomes $$\label{perturb}
\!\!\!\! \hat{U}_{\rm pert}(t) =
\left[\begin{array}{cc}
e^{it(\Delta E /2\hbar)} &
-i\int_0^\infty e^{\frac{i(t-2t')\Delta E}{2\hbar}}V(t')dt'/\hbar \\
-i\int_0^\infty e^{\frac{-i(t-2t')\Delta E}{2\hbar}}V(t')dt'/\hbar & e^{-it (\Delta E /2\hbar)} \end{array}
\right]
\\.$$
For the extreme special case where $V(t)= 0$ at all times(problem 5b), the evolution operator in equation (\[perturb\]) becomes
$$\label{zero}
\hat{U}(t) \to \hat{U}_{\rm zero}(t) =
\left[\begin{array}{cc}
e^{it (\Delta E /2\hbar)}&
0 \\ 0 & e^{-it (\Delta E/2\hbar)}
\end{array} \right] \\.$$
Setting $V(t)= 0$ uncouples the differential equations in expression (\[eqmo1\]) making the math trivial. We obtain $a_1(t)=a_1(0) e^{it\Delta
E/2\hbar}$ and $a_2(t)= a_2(0) e^{-it \Delta E/2\hbar}$, i.e. the amplitudes of being in the on or off state acquire phases as time evolves but the probabilities $|a_1(t)|^2$ and $|a_2(t)|^2$ remain what they were at the initial time $t=0$.
The perturbative region is of little interest in our case since the system does not change appreciably from its original state. In the case of zero external potential, the qubit does not change its state at all.
### Adiabatic Region
The adiabatic region covers the upper right, upper left, and lower right quadrants of the qubit map, excluding only part of the lower left (“fast") quadrant and the central region. The explicit condition for adiabaticity is [@kaplantime] $$\label{adiabatic} \hbar \dot{V}(t)\Delta E \ll [V^2(t)+ (\Delta E/2)^2]^{3/2} \,,$$ which can be further simplified in the degenerate and nondegenerate limits. In the degenerate adiabatic case $\Delta E \ll V(t)$, so (\[adiabatic\]) yields the condition $\hbar \dot{V}(t)\Delta E \ll V^3(t)$ or $\hbar
\Delta E /\tau \ll V^2(t)$. The time derivative of the external potential is of the order $V(t)/\tau$, i.e., $\dot V \sim V/\tau$, which is the typical slope of the single-pulse potential. In the nondegenerate adiabatic case $\Delta E \gg V(t)$, and the validity condition (\[adiabatic\]) becomes $\hbar \dot{V}(t) \ll (\Delta
E)^2$ or $\hbar V(t)/\tau \ll (\Delta E)^2$.
The meaning of the adiabatic region is that the external potential changes slowly, so that the quantum system is able continuously to adjust to the new Hamiltonian. Consider for example a classical system of two pendulums connected by a spring. The system can oscillate in one of two normal modes: a lower-frequency swinging mode where the two pendulums move left and then right in unison, and a higher-frequency vibrational mode where the spring is alternately stretched and compressed. If we move the pivot point of one or both pendulums slowly and carefully enough, the pendulums continue to oscillate in the same (lower or higher) mode they started in, because not enough energy is provided by the external perturbation to switch the motion from the lower-frequency oscillation to the higher-frequency oscillation or vice versa. Similarly, an adiabatically driven qubit that is initialized in the lower energy ($-\Delta E/2$ or off) state before the pulse is turned on will at any future time remain in the lower energy state of the full Hamiltonian $\hat H(t)$. After the pulse is over and the Hamiltonian returns to the unperturbed Hamiltonian $\hat H_0$, the qubit must return to the off state with energy $-\Delta E/2$. Thus, the adiabatic region is of no great interest in the case of pulsed qubits since we wish to completely transfer the population of a qubit from one state to the other.
Mathematically, the evolution operator for an adiabatically driven qubit is $$\label{uadiab}
\hat{U}_{\rm adiab}(t) =
\left[\begin{array}{cc}
\cos \theta(t) + i {\Delta E\over 2\Omega(t)} \sin \theta(t) &
-i {V(t) \over \Omega(t)} \sin \theta(t) \\
-i {V(t) \over \Omega (t)} \sin \theta(t) &
\cos \theta(t) - i {\Delta E\over 2\Omega(t)} \sin \theta(t)
\end{array} \right]\,,$$ where $\theta(t)$ and $\Omega(t)$ are defined as in Section \[secdegen\], and for simplicity we assume $V(t)=V(0)$, i.e., the external potential returns to its initial value at the end of the pulse. Equation (\[uadiab\]) can be reduced (problem 6) to equations we presented above for the degenerate and zero external potential cases.
### Central Region
None of the limits discussed previously overlap with the central region of the map. Here the two independent variables $\Delta E\tau/{2\hbar}$ and $\int^\infty_0 V(t') dt'/{\hbar}$ are both of order $2\pi$, and there is no large or small parameter to simplify the solution of the problem. If the pulse has a particularly simple (e.g., rectangular) shape, an analytic expression is possible [@kaplantime] even in this region, but for a general pulse shape no analytic solution exists and the evolution must be computed numerically.
Kicked Qubit Approximation
==========================
There is a useful approximation for simply pulsed qubits, namely the sharp, narrow pulse or “kick" limit in which the width $\tau$ of the pulse goes to zero, while the integrated strength or the area under the external potential curve
$$\alpha_k = \int_0^t V(t') dt'/\hbar$$
remains fixed. Formally, the shape of a very narrow pulse of finite total strength $\alpha$ may be expressed by a delta function: $V(t')=\alpha_k \hbar\delta(t-t_k)$, where $t_k$ is the time at which the pulse is applied. The kicked region corresponds to the lower half of the qubit map in Figure 1. Here the duration of the pulse is so short that $\Delta E \tau/2\hbar \ll 2\pi$, i.e., there is not enough time for the energy splitting $\Delta E$ to have a significant effect while the pulse is active. The integrated strength of the pulse, $\alpha_k$, may be either large or small in this region. If $\alpha_k$ is large, we are in the lower right quadrant of the map, where the kicked region overlaps with the adiabatic region. If $\alpha_k$ is small, we are in the lower left quadrant, where the kicked region overlaps with the perturbative region.
In the kicked region, the evolution of the qubit can be described as follows: (i) before the kick, the qubit evolves in accordance with the unperturbed Hamiltonian $\hat H_0$, i.e. the on and off probability amplitudes $a_1(t)$ and $a_2(t)$ acquire phases proportional to the energy splitting $\Delta E$ (as in (\[zero\])), while the on and off probabilities, given by $|a_1(t)|^2$ and $|a_2(t)|^2$, remain unchanged. (ii) For the duration of the kick, the energy splitting associated with the unperturbed Hamiltonian $\hat H_0$ may be ignored, and a transfer of population between on and off states may occur, depending only on the integrated strength $\alpha_k$ of the kick. (iii) Finally, free evolution governed by $\hat H_0$ resumes after the kick is complete, and no further population transfer occurs. This sequence of events is very similar to the collision approximation studied in introductory physics, where (i) a particle initially moves freely with constant velocity, (ii) then undergoes an instantaneous collision with a wall, during which the velocity is changed but there is not enough time for the particle to move, and (iii) finally, the particle once again resumes free flight with a (new) constant velocity.
For such kicks, the integration over time in equation (\[uoperator\]) is straightforward (problem 7) and the time evolution matrix becomes a product of three parts, $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{U}_{\rm kicked}(t) &=& e^{i{\Delta E\over 2\hbar}(t-t_k)\sigma_z} e^{-i
\int_{t_k - \epsilon}^{t_k + \epsilon} V(t') dt' \sigma_x / \hbar} e^{i{\Delta
E\over 2\hbar}t_k\sigma_z} \nonumber
\\
\label{kickedut} &=& \left [ \begin{array}{cc}
e^{i\Delta Et/2\hbar} \cos \alpha_k & -i e^{i\Delta E(t-2t_k)/2\hbar} \sin
\alpha_k \\ -i e^{-i\Delta E(t-2t_k)/2\hbar} \sin \alpha_k & e^{-i\Delta
Et/2\hbar} \cos \alpha_k
\end{array} \right ] \,.\end{aligned}$$
Here, we may set[^4] the Dyson time ordering symbol $T\rightarrow1$ for the duration of the pulse ($t_k-\epsilon < t<t_k+\epsilon$). It can also be shown (problem 8) that equation (\[kickedut\]) will reduce to other limiting cases discussed previously.
Moreover, the occupation probabilities for a kicked qubit initially in state 1 are, from equation (\[amps\]),
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{Pk1}
P_1(t) &=& |a_1(t)|^2 = |U_{11 \ \rm kicked}(t)|^2
= \cos^2 \alpha_k \nonumber \\
P_2(t) &=& |a_2(t)|^2 = |U_{21 \ \rm kicked}(t)|^2
= \sin^2 \alpha_k \ .\end{aligned}$$
Since $\sin^2 \alpha_k \ + \cos^2 \alpha_k \ = 1$ for this closed two-state system, the conservation of population holds, i.e., there is no dissipation. We notice also that the transfer probability $P_2(t)$ does not depend on the energy splitting $\Delta
E$. This simple instructional example may be extended to a series of kicks [@kaplantime]. It is one of the few cases in which analytic solutions may be obtained for qubits controlled by external potentials.
Summary
=======
A primary motivation of this paper has been to give an overview of simply pulsed qubits. We have developed a simple, yet comprehensive and instructive, two-dimensional map for such qubits. Analytic solutions with limited applicability are found and their corresponding regions on the map are identified. One promising class of analytic solutions for dynamic qubits are the kicked solutions, valid for qubits subject to fast interactions. These provide clear and useful examples to students and offer an alternative to the well-established rotating wave approximation (RWA) [@eberly; @shore; @milonni]. The RWA method assumes a sinusoidal external perturbation with frequency chosen to be in resonance with the desired transition between two states. The solutions presented in this paper are, in principle, valid for a wide spectrum of pulse widths $\tau$ and energy splittings $\Delta E$.
Qubits are building blocks for quantum computation and quantum information. Their behavior and interaction with each other and the environment have to be addressed before a quantum computer becomes a reality. Ultimately, N-qubit systems and their interactions will have to be successfully controlled. The simply pulsed qubits discussed in this paper may form a basic building block for more complex interconnected N-qubit systems.
*APPENDIX*\
[Problems for Students]{}
=========================
- **Problem 1**: (a) Show that a 2x2 matrix that corresponds to a two-state quantum mechanical observable can be written in terms of the Pauli matrices. \[Hint: Write down a generic Hermitian 2x2 matrix and try to expand it as a sum of the Pauli matrices with appropriate prefactors\]. (b) If the qubit is implemented as a spin-1/2 particle, $\left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\ 0
\end{array} \right]$ represents a state where the spin points in the $+z$ direction, and $\left[
\begin{array}{c} 0 \\ 1 \end{array} \right]$ represents a state where the spin points in the $-z$ direction, then what do operators $\sigma_x$, $\sigma_y$, and $\sigma_z$ correspond to physically?
- **Problem 2**: Using equations (\[psi\]), (\[genh0\]), and (\[schrod\]), verify equation (\[eqmo\]). Rules for simple matrix operations are available in many elementary math books and on the web.
- **Problem 3**: (a) Solve the evolution of the degenerate qubit or dit by plugging $\Delta E = 0$ into equation (\[eqmo\]), thus proving that the probability amplitudes, $a_1(t)$ and $a_2(t)$, oscillate sinusoidally with $\alpha=\int_0^t V(t')dt'/\hbar$. (b) Make plots of the probabilities $P_1=|a_1(t)|^2$ and $P_2=|a_2(t)|^2$. What can you deduce from the plots about dissipation in the system? (c) Find the condition for complete transfer from state 1 to state 2.
- **Problem 4**: (a) Solve the evolution of the degenerate qubit or dit by using the evolution operator in equation (\[uoperator\]) and then plugging $\hat{U}(t)$ into equation (\[amps\]). \[Hint: Since $\Delta E=0$, $\hat H_0$ vanishes and time ordering effects disappear ($T=1$). Then $\hat U(t) = e^{-i\int_0^t V(t)\sigma_x/\hbar}$, and the following identities may be useful: $e^{i\theta\sigma_z} = I \cos(\theta) + i\sigma_z \sin(\theta)= \left[\begin{array}{rr} e^{i\theta} & 0 \\ 0 &
e^{-i\theta}\end{array} \right]$ and $e^{i\theta\sigma_x} = I \cos(\theta) + i\sigma_x \sin(\theta)$.\] (b) Do you get the same probability amplitudes as in problem (3b)? (c) Check to see that the evolution operator is unitary, that is $\hat U(t)^\dag \hat U(t)= I$.
- **Problem 5**: (a) Show that in the perturbative limit, the evolution operator in equation (\[perturb\]) satisfies equation (\[eqmou\]). (b) Do the same for the case of zero external potential. That is, prove equation (\[zero\]). You may use the result from part (a).
- **Problem 6**: (a) Show that the adiabatic equation (\[uadiab\]) for the evolution operator reduces to the degenerate equation (\[degen\]) in the limit $\Delta E \to 0$. (b) Show that the adiabatic equation (\[uadiab\]) reduces to the zero potential equation (\[zero\]) in the limit $V(t) \to 0$.
- **Problem 7**: Prove equation (\[kickedut\]) by integrating and then multiplying out the exponentials in the first line, thus obtaining the matrix in the second line of equation (\[kickedut\]) \[Hint: You may find useful the identities given in problem (4)\].
- **Problem 8**: (a) Show that equation (\[kickedut\]) for a kicked qubit is equivalent to the perturbative equation (\[perturb\]) when the kick strength is small, i.e., $\alpha_k \ll 1$ \[Hint: When $\alpha_k \ll 1$, $\cos\alpha_k \approx 1$ and $\sin \alpha_k \approx \alpha_k $. In equation (\[perturb\]), replace $t'$ with $t_k$ since we are in the kicked region in this problem\]. (b) Show that the equation (\[kickedut\]) for a kicked qubit reduces to the degenerate equation (\[degen\]) in the limit $\Delta E \to 0$.
[99]{}
M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, [*Quantum Computation and Quantum Information*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000).
R. Waser (editor), [*Nanoelectronics and Information Technology: Advanced Electronic Materials and Novel Devices*]{} (Wiley, New York, 2003).
Proceedings of Ann Arbor Conference on “Building Computational Devices using Coherent Control," June 7-9, 2004, edited by V. Malinovsky (2004); C. Rangan, A. M. Bloch, C. Monroe, and P. H. Bucksbaum, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **92**, 113004 (2004); D. J. Wineland *et al.*, *Chem. Phys.* **267**, 1 (2001).
F. T. Smith, *Phys. Rev.* **179**, 111 (1969).
J. H. McGuire, [*Electron Correlation Dynamics in Atomic Scattering*]{}, (Cambridge University Press, 1997).
J. H. McGuire, A. L. Godunov, Kh. Kh. Shakov, Kh. Yu. Rakhimov, and A. Chalastaras, in [*Progress in Quantum Physics Research*]{}, edited by V. Krasnoholovets (Nova Science, NY, 2004).
R. Hughes *et al.*, [*A Quantum Information Science and Technology Roadmap*]{}, A.R.D.A, Los Alamos National Laboratory, http://qist.lanl.gov, **LA-UR-04-1778**.
P. W. Shor, *Proc. of the 35th Annual Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Science, ed. S. Goldwasser*, (IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 1994).
L. K. Grover, *In Proceedings 28th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing*, (1996).
J. D. Monk and R. Bonnet (editors), [*Handbook of Boolean Algebras*]{}, 3 Volumes (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1989).
G. B. Arfken and H. J. Weber, [*Mathematical Methods for Physicists*]{}, (Academic Press, New York, 1995).
J. J. Sakurai, *Modern Quantum Mechanics (Revised Edition)*, (Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, New York, 1994), pp. 69.
M. L. Goldberger and K. M. Watson, [*Collision Theory*]{} (Wiley, New York, 1967).
E. Merzbacher, *Quantum Mechanics (3rd Edition)*, (Wiley, New York, 1997).
D. P. DiVincenzo, [*Topics in Quantum Computers, in Mesoscopic Electron Transport*]{}, edited by L. Kowenhoven, G. Schon, and L. Sohn, *NATO ASI Series E* (Kluwar Ac. Publ., Dordrecht, 1997).
A. Imamoglou and Y. Yamamoto, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **72**, 210 (1994).
D. P. DiVincenzo, *Science* **270**, 255 (1995).
D. G. Cory, A. F. Fahmy, and T. F. Havel, *Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.* **94**, 1634 (1997).
N. Gershenfeld and I. L. Chuang, *Science* **275**, 350 (1997).
J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **74**, 4091 (1995).
L. J. Schulman and U. Vazirani, *Scalable NMR quantum computation*, in *Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computation (STOC)*, El Paso, Texas (ACM Press, New York, 1998).
P. M. Platzman and M. I. Dykman, *Science* **284**, 1967 (1999).
A. R. P. Rau and R. A. Wendell, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **89**, 220405 (2002).
L. Kaplan, Kh. Kh. Shakov, A. Chalastaras, M. Maggio, A. L. Burin, and J. H. McGuire, *Phys. Rev. A* **70**, 063401 (2004).
Albert Messiah, [*Quantum Mechanics Volume I*]{} (Wiley, New York, 1961), p. 41.
H. Goldstein, [*Classical Mechanics*]{} (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1959), pp. 228, 293.
Kh. Kh. Shakov and J. H. McGuire, *Phys. Rev. A* **67**, 033405 (2003).
J. Allen and J. H. Eberly, [*Optical Resonance in Two-Level Atoms*]{} (Dover, New York, 1987).
B. W. Shore, *Theory of Coherent Atomic Excitation* (Wiley, New York, 1990).
P. Milonni and J. H. Eberly, [*Lasers*]{} (Wiley, New York, 1985).
[^1]: Dissipation corresponds to leakage of some population out of the two-state system. While dissipation can be a significant problem in some practical applications, in this paper we assume it is negligible.
[^2]: While solutions of two-state systems with rapidly changing external potentials were already examined about 40 years ago [@smith], the focus has now shifted to quantum control.
[^3]: Our usage of the term “dit" is not universal.
[^4]: For a single kick setting $T\rightarrow1$ corresponds to the limit of no time ordering, which is beyond the scope of this paper. For some useful discussions on time ordering see reference [@progress].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study structural and electronic properties of graphene grown on SiC substrate using scanning tunneling microscope (STM), spot-profile-analysis low energy electron diffraction (SPA-LEED) and angle resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES). We find several new replicas of Dirac cones in the Brillouin zone (BZ). Their locations can be understood in terms of combination of basis vectors linked to SiC 6 $\times$ 6 and graphene $6\sqrt{3} \times 6\sqrt{3}$ reconstruction. Therefore these new features originate from the Moiré caused by the lattice mismatch between SiC and graphene. More specifically, Dirac cones replicas are caused by underlying weak modulation of the ionic potential by the substrate that is then experienced by the electrons in the graphene. We also demonstrate that this effect is equally strong in single and tri-layer graphene, therefore the additional Dirac cones are intrinsic features rather than result of photoelectron diffraction. These new features in the electronic structure are very important for the interpretation of recent transport measurements and can assist in tuning the properties of graphene for practical applications.'
author:
- Lunan Huang
- Yun Wu
- 'M. T. Hershberger'
- Daixiang Mou
- Ben Schrunk
- 'Michael C. Tringides'
- Myron Hupalo
- Adam Kaminski
bibliography:
- 'Graphene.bib'
title: 'The effects of Moiré lattice on the electronic properties of graphene.'
---
Introduction
============
In the last decade, graphene has become a topic of intense research because of its unique structural and electronic properties such as presence of Dirac dispersion, which leads to high thermal conductivity [@doi:10.1021/nl0731872], ballistic transport [@Du2008], and ultrahigh electron mobility [@Bolotin2008351]. Each carbon atom has a $\pi$-bond perpendicular to the graphene plane. These bonds are jointly hybridized to form $\pi$-bands and $\pi$\* bands[@Cooper2012]. Graphene can be readily grown on large area insulating, semiconducting and metallic substrates. Lattice mismatch at the substrate interface leads to the formation of Moiré patterns (i.e. a superlattice) with larger periodicity than the lattice constants of each of the two separate lattices. This is a standard way to obtain weak periodic potentials superimposed on the graphene potential with characteristic periodicity of several nanometers. The strain caused by lattice mismatch is one of important ways to tune the graphene electronic structure and properties [@Park2008a; @Park2008; @Ponomarenko2013; @Decker2011]. Recently, tuning the periodicity of the ionic potential experienced by electrons in graphene grown on boron nitride substrate and measuring its fractional quantum Hall resistance enabled the engineering of the energy spectrum of Hofstadter butterfly [@Hofstadter1976; @Dean2013; @Hunt2013; @Yu2014; @Wang2015].
Silicone carbide (SiC) is one of the most common substrates to grow graphene because of its hexagonal crystal structure with lattice constant a$_{SiC}$ = b$_{SiC}$ = 3.073 Å, c = 10.053 Å. The 6H-SiC consists of Si-C bilayers that are stacked in the pattern of ABCACB[@0953-8984-20-32-323202]. Because of different lattice constants of SiC and graphene, when graphene is grown, an intermediate layer will be constructed at the SiC surface between substrate and graphene. This intermediate layer may exhibit rotational disorder, forming Moiré patterns[@VanBommel1975463; @PhysRevB.58.16396].
Epitaxial graphene grown by thermal annealing of SiC has been studied extensively with several complementary techniques to reveal its structural and electronic properties. These studies helped to better understand many aspects of graphene layer on SiC (ionic center position, thickness uniformity, stacking, relative layer orientation and variation of the band structure with number of graphene layers) [@VanBommel1975463; @starke1997large; @PhysRevB.58.16396; @PhysRevB.77.155426; @0953-8984-20-32-323202; @Xu2014; @PhysRevLett.98.206802]. However, a number of questions still remain about the nature of the graphene-substrate interface and how it affects the Dirac fermions. The layer at the interface, referred to as the “buffer" or “zeroth" layer graphene, has no $\pi$-bands[@PhysRevLett.99.126805]. This layer increases the carrier concentration and shifts the Femi level, without modifying the shape of the Dirac cones [@PhysRevLett.99.126805]. Structurally, the buffer layer was represented in terms of the two coincidence lattices, which form two distinct diffraction patterns: (1) 6 $\times$ 6 (oriented along the SiC unit cell) and (2) $6\sqrt{3} \times 6\sqrt{3}$ rotated 30$^\cdot$ from the 6 $\times$ 6 unit cell. A new type of buffer layer was grown with linear $\pi$-bands separated by a measurable gap [@Zhou2007]. This study motivated new experiments to correlate structural and electronic information necessary for understanding and controlling the properties of graphene. The surface reconstruction has been studied by several techniques in the past, including LEED [@VanBommel1975463; @PhysRevB.58.16396; @starke1997large], auger electron spectroscopy [@VanBommel1975463; @starke1997large], scanning tunneling microscope [@starke1997large; @Xu2014] and ARPES [@PhysRevLett.98.206802; @Bostwick2006; @Ohta951; @1367-2630-9-10-385; @Mucha-Kruczyfmmodecutenlseniski2008; @1367-2630-10-2-023034; @PhysRevLett.101.086402; @PhysRevB.83.121408; @Walter2011; @Ohta2012; @Nevius2015]. Coincidence lattices have been used routinely to probe buried interfaces and deduce information about geometric or electronic corrugations[@Emtsev2008].
{width="7in"}
The structure of the buffer layer is still an open question. The first detailed work explored this using LEED and STM and proposed a commensurate model based on the Si-dangling bonds [@Emtsev2008]. The electronic structure of this model was predicted to be insulating. Recent work [@Ohta2012] has shown that the buffer layer can be semiconducting if the right annealing conditions are followed with a small gap opening up. This was shown to be related to a hidden incommensurate structure present in the buffer layer and that the structure of the buffer layer is strongly coupled to the SiC bilayer[@Conrad2017]. Additional ARPES and STM work has mapped out the initial stage of the buffer layer and the corresponding changes to the band structure. The work has shown that the small gap is seen to evolve from the initial electronic features of the buffer layer to the semiconducting phase with the 6x6 SiC periodicity visible in constant energy ARPES maps [@Nair2017]. Our work shows the same three Dirac replica cones for both monolayer and trilayer. The cones are defined by the same 6x6 sublattice reciprocal lattice vectors so it is consistent and complement the previous measurements [@Rotenberg2015]. It is very puzzling why even after the graphene layer is complete the key remaining wavevectors are the 6x6 and not the 13x13 despite the graphene layer becoming uniform. It was also shown [@Riedl2009] that hydrogen intercalation of decouples the graphene layer from the substrate.
Here we focus on the 6x6 reconstruction that marks the onset of formation of the buffer layer and it remains present even after additional graphene layers are grown. This reconstruction leads to appearance of new features in the electronic structure, namely additional replicas of the Dirac cones. The photoelectron intensity of these objects does not decrease with increasing number of graphene layers and each replica has very different pattern of intensities rapidly changing with momentum and binding energy. This demonstrates their intrinsic origin, rather than trivial photoelectron diffraction. In fact, the pattern of the band dispersion within these replica cones and the corresponding wavevectors they appear at, prove that they arise due to weak modulation of the electronic potential of graphene. The modulation is caused by the interplay of lattice periodicities, i. e. formation of Moiré pattern. This modulation of the graphene potential is very relevant to recent transport results and provides a pathway for understanding its properties.
Experimental Details
====================
We use commercial 6H-SiC substrate to grow graphene. We first anneal the 2$\times$12 mm substrate at 600 $^{\circ}$C for 3 hours to clean its surface and then increase the temperature of the SiC to 1200 $^{\circ}$C for 10 minutes. This procedure results in a growth of a single layer of graphene, as confirmed by STM, LEED and ARPES. Tri-layer graphene is grown by heating up the same sample for another 10 minutes at 1200 $^{\circ}$C. ARPES measurements were performed at Ames Laboratory using a high precision ARPES spectrometer that consists of a Scienta SES2002 electron analyzer and a GammaData Helium UV lamp equipped with custom designed refocusing optics. All data were acquired using the HeI line with a photon energy of 21.2 eV. The angular resolution was 0.13$^\circ$ and $\sim$ 0.5$^\circ$ along and perpendicular to the direction of the analyzer slits, respectively. The energy corresponding to the chemical potential was determined from the Fermi edge of a polycrystalline Au reference in electrical contact with the sample. The energy resolution was set at $\sim$20meV - confirmed by measuring the energy width between 90% and 10% of the Fermi edge from the same Au reference. The data were measured using several samples yielding consistent results.
D1 D2 D3
------------------------------------------------------ ------- ------- -------
Calculated position (in units of $\Gamma$K distance) 0.230 0.384 0.615
Measured position 0.240 0.390 0.619
Error (%) 4.3 1.6 0.7
: Comparison of calculated and measured wavevectors of the Dirac cones.[]{data-label="table1"}
![ (a) Fermi surface of monolayer graphene grown on 6H-SiC substrate. (b) Energy dispersion along $\Gamma$ - K direction. (c - f) Energy dispersion of Dirac cones D0, D1, D2 and D3 (along directions marked as Cut 0 - 3 in (a). (g) MDCs at Fermi energy from (c - f). (h) MDCs at 0.8 eV below E$_F$ from (c - f).[]{data-label="fig:fig2"}](fig2.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Results and Discussion
======================
Figure \[fig:fig1\]a shows the topography of graphene layer measured by STM. Clear Moiré pattern is visible as periodic “checkerboard"-like pattern. The intensity variations are due to the combination of the periodic changes in layer height and electronic densities. A small rhombus is used to outline the 6 $\times$ 6 “quasi cell". Figure \[fig:fig1\]b shows the Fourier transform of \[fig:fig1\]a. The bright points in white circles are due to the $6\sqrt{3} \times 6\sqrt{3}$ lattice modulation. This data is consistent with the result of SPA-LEED shown in Figure \[fig:fig1\]c. The zero order spot is located at the center of the image and surrounded by six “$6 \times 6$" spots. The first order diffraction peaks from SiC are surrounding the center peak with smaller radius. The graphene first order peaks are further away and rotated by 30$^\circ$ from the SiC pattern. Each of the diffraction peaks is surrounded by six “$6 \times 6$" spots as expected. The ratios of the positions of graphene and SiC first diffraction spots is 1.26, are consistent with ratios of their respective reciprocal lattice constants (3.08 : 2.46). In between zeroth and first order diffraction peaks of graphene there are four additional, weaker peaks due to the $6\sqrt{3} \times 6\sqrt{3}$ lattice modulation. A schematic drawing of all observed diffraction peaks is shown in Figure \[fig:fig1\]d based on data in panels (b) and (c). Vectors S$_1$ and S$_2$ are pointing to SiC reciprocal points, while vectors G$_1$ and G$_2$ are of graphene layer. All other points arise due to combinations of the S and G vectors. For example, vector $v_1$ is obtained as G$_1$ + G$_2$ - 2S$_1$ and points to one of the six satellite peaks around the center. In defining the four vectors $v_1$, $v_2$, $v_3$, $v_4$ it is important to define the lattice constants of the two unit cells of the 6 $\times$ 6 and $6\sqrt{3} \times \sqrt{3}$ coincidence lattices. If we use the graphene BZ (BZ = $\frac{2\pi}{a_G}$) as 100$\%$ then the 6 $\times$ 6 reciprocal space unit cell has a magnitude $\alpha = 13.3\%$ BZ and the $6\sqrt{3} \times 6\sqrt{3}$ reciprocal space unit cell has a magnitude $\beta = 7.7\%$ BZ. Peaks $v_1$, $v_2$, $v_3$ in the diffraction pattern of Figure \[fig:fig1\]d can be written in terms of vectors along the 6 $\times$ 6 reciprocal lattice directions which are multiples of $\alpha$, added to fundamental spots. Point $v_1$ is separated by a vector of magnitude $\alpha$ from (0, 0), point $v_2$ is separated by a vector of magnitude 6$\alpha$ from fundamental spot G$_1$ - G$_2$ and point $v_3$ is separated by 6$\alpha$ from fundamental spot G$_2$. On the other hand the point $v_4$ belongs to the reciprocal lattice of the $6\sqrt{3} \times 6\sqrt{3}$ coincidence lattice at positions 5$\beta$ measured from (0, 0). The origin of the $v_4$ vector has been debated in the literature over long time (both in the more recent case of graphene and the older literature discussing thermal annealing of SiC to form graphite in terms of being incommensurate spots or as spots originating only from multiple scattering). Our recent high resolution SPA-LEED measurements indicate that the $v_4$ leads to strongest diffraction spots of the coincidence 6$\sqrt{3}$ lattice. These spots are present only when the buffer layer and first layer graphene form. On the other hand the spots corresponding to vectors $v_1$, $v_2$, $v_3$ are still present even when multilayer graphene is grown.
The replicas of the main Dirac cones observed in ARPES data, described by a set of above mentioned vectors, are shown in \[fig:fig1\]e. The three replica cones originate from the three vectors $v_1$, $v_2$, $v_3$ measured from the corner of the BZ $K_2$. They are related to the corresponding wavevectors of the LEED pattern in Fig. \[fig:fig1\]d if the LEED vectors are translated by the vector $\Gamma K_4$. The three vectors are separated by $\alpha$ (the $v_1$ vector), 1.666$\alpha$ ($v_2$) and 2.666$\alpha$ ($v_3$), respectively, measured from $K_2$. The vectors $v_2$ and $v_3$ are symmetrically located about the midpoint of the side $K_2\Gamma$ and their separation is $\alpha$. When they are compared to the experimental ratios seen in Fig. \[fig:fig2\] (a) and in Table \[table1\] (normalized to the length of $K_2\Gamma$, 4.33$\alpha$) they result in ratios 0.23 for $v_1$, 0.384 for $v_2$ and 0.615 for $v_3$, which are in excellent agreement with the measured values 0.24 for $v_1$, 0.390 for $v_2$ and 0.619 for $v_3$. Furthermore if the vectors $v_2$ and $v_3$ are measured from the opposite corner $K_5$ of $K_2$ (by adding 4.33$\alpha$), they correspond to vectors 6$\alpha$ (4.33$\alpha$ + 1.66$\alpha$) and 7$\alpha$ (4.33$\alpha$ + 2.66$\alpha$). All wavevectors for the three replicas seen in the current experiments are the same as the replicas seen in ref. [@Nevius2015] (the first replica closest to the BZ was measured from the original corner $K_3$ so it corresponds to a separation of $\alpha$). In ref. [@Nevius2015] only the buffer layer was grown but the current work shows that they are the relevant vectors, even for much thicker graphene. A fainter spot is seen at D4 with wavevector $v_4$ which becomes extinct in the LEED pattern after the monolayer is complete. The green first Brillouin zone border is the same as in Fig. \[fig:fig1\]d.
![ (a) Fermi surface of three-layer graphene grown on 6H-SiC substrate. (b) Constant energy contour after MDC second order differentiation with respect to k at E = 0.8 eV below Fermi level of Dirac cones D0, D1, D2 and D3. $k_1$ is perpendicular to $\Gamma$ - K direction and k2 is along $\Gamma$ - K. (c - f) Energy dispersion at Dirac cones D0, D1, D2. D3 in the direction perpendicular to $\Gamma$ - K. (g) MDCs at Fermi level in (c - f). (h) MDCs at 0.8 eV below Fermi level in (c - f).[]{data-label="fig:fig3"}](fig3.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
The plot of ARPES intensity at E$_F$ for a single layer graphene grown on SiC is shown in Figure \[fig:fig2\]a and is based on a measurement over one sixth of the Brillouin zone and symmetrization. In addition to the “main" Dirac cones at the corners of the BZ, there are several replicas of the main Dirac cones shifted by a set of vectors from the K point. Namely, there are three replicas along each symmetry line connecting the center and corners of the BZ and are located at 0.240, 0.390, 0.619 $|a_{\Gamma-K}|$ from K point. The $|a_{\Gamma-K}|$ = $\frac{4\pi}{3\sqrt{3}a_G}$ = 0.983 Å^-1^ is the distance between $\Gamma$ point and K point in the graphene’s first Brillouin zone. The location of each of the replicas can be constructed as a combination of the first order diffraction vectors of the graphene and SiC lattices as explained in \[fig:fig1\]e. Therefore, each main Dirac cone D0 is surrounded by three sets of 6 replicas Dirac cones. Taking Dirac cone D0 at K$_1$ as an example, it has one replica at D1s (D1 and its 6-fold symmetry points) (vector v$_1$), two replicas at D2s (vector v$_2$ and v$_2$’), and three replicas at D3s (vector v$_3$, v$_3$’ and S$_1$) which can be written as v3+v3’ within first BZ. The obvious mechanism for creating such signal in ARPES is photoelectron diffraction, however our data demonstrates that this is not the case here: this effect is due to the weak modulation of the ionic potential in the graphene layer caused by the interface with the substrate. This weak modulation of the potential is “felt" by conduction electrons as perturbation of the graphene periodic ionic potential. Such effect is quite important as it likely impacts the transport properties of graphene grown on SiC substrates.
The band dispersion along the $\Gamma$ - K symmetry direction is shown in Figs. \[fig:fig2\]b. Figure \[fig:fig2\]c-f show the band dispersion along cuts perpendicular to the symmetry axis - marked in panel (a). The main Dirac cone consists of a single band, a clear signature of a single-layer graphene [@PhysRevLett.98.206802]. The intensity of each Dirac replica is significantly weaker but still clearly visible on top of the background with D3 being the strongest and D1 the weakest. The shapes of replica dispersions D1 - D3 are identical to D0. The momentum distribution curves (MDC’s) at the $E_F$ and -0.8 eV are shown in panels (g) and (h), respectively. The separation of the MDC peaks at E$_F$ is very similar demonstrating close relation between main cone D0 and replicas D1,D2 and D3.
![ (a) Fermi surface of Dy-doped graphene on 6H-SiC substrate. (b) Energy dispersion along $\Gamma$ - K direction. (c - f) Energy dispersion along the directions marked in (a).[]{data-label="fig:fig4"}](fig4.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Figure \[fig:fig3\]a shows the Fermi surface of a three-layer graphene. The replica cones are at the same positions as in single-layer graphene. Their crossections have slightly different shapes than the ones in Fig. 2(a), which may be due to additional sheets of FS originating from three atomic layers of graphene. Fig. \[fig:fig3\]b shows constant energy contours at 0.8 eV below the Fermi level for the main Dirac cone and the three replicas. The main Dirac cone and D1 have an oval crossection with long axis being horizontal (i.e. along $\Gamma$ - K ). This is because the vector connecting them is parallel to the $\Gamma$ - K symmetry direction. D2 and D3 cones also have an oval shape, but are oriented perpendicular to the $\Gamma$ - K . This is because they are connected with translation vectors to the adjacent main Dirac cone that is perpendicular to the $\Gamma$ - K direction (v2,v3 in Fig. 1(e)) confirming our model shown in Fig. \[fig:fig1\]e. The band dispersion for each cut along the perpendicular direction to $\Gamma$ - K is shown in \[fig:fig3\]c - \[fig:fig3\]f. There are three bands clearly visible below the Dirac point consistent with three-layer graphene [@PhysRevLett.98.206802]. The overall intensity of the Dirac cone replicas are similar to the ones in single-layer graphene, signifying that they are not due to photoelectron diffraction. If that would be the case, one would expect the replicas to be much weaker in tri-layer graphene. Definitive evidence for intrinsic origin of the Dirac cones can be directly seen in the relative intensities of the three bands. In each of the dispersion data shown in Figs. \[fig:fig3\]c - \[fig:fig3\]f, the pattern of the intensities of each band is different. In D0, the inner and outermost bands are more intense below the Dirac point and there is also very strong intensity above that point. D1 has very weak intensity above the Dirac point and weaker inner band below. D2 is similar to D1, but here the two inner bands below the Dirac points are strongest. On the other hand, D3 has strong intensity above the Dirac point, whereas below the middle band is the most visible. If the replicas of the Dirac cone had originated from photoelectron diffraction, the pattern of the intensities would exactly match the one seen in the main Dirac cone. This is because the scattering form factors are expected to vary slowly with scattering vector and should be independent of small variations of photoelectron kinetic energy. This is clearly not the case here. Since each of the four Dirac cones D0-D3 shown in Figs. 3(c-f) corresponds to a different wavevector (as defined earlier by multiple of $\alpha$=13.33% of BZ), the observed intensity differences confirm that the Dirac cone replicas we report here are intrinsic to graphene. They are due to weak modulation of the ionic potential experienced by the graphene electrons caused by the Moiré pattern that forms at the interface of the SiC substrate and graphene. Further evidence that the Dirac cone replicas are related to the interface Moiré can be seen in Fig. 4. Monolayer graphene was intercalated after deposition of 1ML of Dy at room temperature followed by heating to 800$^{\circ}C$. A primary bilayer Dirac cone is still present as seen in Fig. 4(a) judging from the number of visible bands, except that there is additional intensity at the M point. More remarkably, no replica cones are seen away from the K-point - Figs. 4(d-f). It is known that the intercalated Dy is bonded between graphene and the SiC substrate, converting the buffer to graphene and therefore the monolayer to bilayer graphene. The intercalation destroys the Moire modulation and the component of the ionic potential responsible for the replica cones at the LEED wavevectors of Fig. 1(d). This supports the previous conclusion for the pristine sample that the replica cones are not due to photoelectron diffraction.
conclusion
==========
In summary, we report the presence of additional features in the electronic structure of graphene grown on SiC substrates. Namely there are three sets of replica cones of the main Dirac cones at wavevectors observed in the LEED patterns that are expressed as linear combinations of the reciprocal vectors of graphene and the SiC substrate. We also demonstrate that these replica cones are intrinsic rather than due to the photoelectron diffraction process because they exist in single and tri-layer graphene and the pattern of intensities ( of the bands measured in the ARPES spectra) is very distinct from the ones present in the main Dirac cone. This indicates that the ionic potential experienced by the graphene electrons is modulated with these additional periodicities which originate at the graphene-SiC interface. From these combined LEED, STM and ARPES experiments we demonstrate that the interface of 2-d material can only be understood when real space structure and band structure are measured in parallel. The current experiments show that the wavevectors of the three replica cones observed in ARPES spectra with different intensity modulation are correlated to the real space Moire periodicity deduced from the LEED patterns and STM images. The presence of these features and the modulation should play a key role in understanding recent transport measurements.
This work was supported by the US Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Division of Materials Sciences and Engineering. Ames Laboratory is operated for the US Department of Energy by the Iowa State University under Contract No. DE-AC02-07CH11358.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: '**** In this work we present the results of our investigation of [$\text{SU}(2)$]{} gauge theory with two Dirac fermions in the adjoint representation, also known as Minimal Walking Technicolour. We have done numerical lattice simulations of this theory at two different values of the gauge coupling and several fermion masses. Our results include the particle spectrum and the mass anomalous dimension. The spectrum contains so far unconsidered states, a fermion-gluon state and flavour singlet mesons. The mass anomalous dimension is determined from the scaling of the masses and the mode number. The remnant dependence of the universal mass ratios and mass anomalous dimension on the gauge coupling indicates the relevance of scaling corrections.'
author:
- |
Georg Bergner\
*Albert Einstein Center for Fundamental Physics*\
*Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Bern*\
*Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland*\
*E-mail: [<[email protected]>]{}*\
Pietro Giudice, Gernot Münster\
*University of Münster, Institute for Theoretical Physics*\
*Wilhelm-Klemm-Str. 9, D-48149 Münster, Germany*\
*E-mail: [<[email protected]>]{}, [<[email protected]>]{}*\
Istvan Montvay\
*Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY*\
*Notkestr. 85, D-22603 Hamburg, Germany*\
*E-mail: [<[email protected]>]{}*\
Stefano Piemonte\
*University of Regensburg, Institute for Theoretical Physics*\
*Universitätsstr. 31, D-93040 Regensburg, Germany*\
*E-mail: [<[email protected]>]{}*
title: |
[ ]{}\
The spectrum and mass anomalous dimension of SU(2) adjoint QCD with two Dirac flavours
---
Introduction
============
New strongly interacting gauge theories are interesting possibilities for an extension of the Standard Model of particle physics. This leads to the general theoretical question about possible realisations of these interactions and, in particular, whether a dynamics and a particle spectrum completely different from QCD can be observed. These questions motivate the investigation of SU(N) gauge theories with fermions in higher representations of the gauge group.
An example for such kind of extensions of the Standard Model are Technicolor theories [@Weinberg:1975gm; @Susskind:1978ms]. They provide a more natural representation of the electroweak sector by introducing a new strongly interacting sector on a higher energy scale. The Higgs particle emerges as a bound state of particles in the new sector. In order to generate fermion masses, a further extension of this sector is required, leading to an Extended Technicolor theory, which is expected to become relevant at an even much higher energy scale, see [@Hill:2002ap; @Piai:2010ma] for reviews.
Based on phenomenological considerations, constraints for Technicolor realisations have been derived, even though their concrete implications might severely depend on the chosen phenomenological model. In particular, the low energy effective theory that arises from the Extended Technicolor theory should explain the fermion masses without being in conflict with electroweak precision measurements. This requires an enhancement of the fermion condensate compared to other operators in the effective theory. Furthermore the appearance of the Higgs particle without other similar bound states requires a mechanism for the generation of a strong mass hierarchy with a light scalar. This can not be achieved by a simple modification of standard QCD.
In the Walking Technicolor approach both of these non-QCD like features are a conjectured consequence of a near conformal behaviour of the gauge coupling [@Holdom:1981rm]. The running of the gauge coupling typically decreases with an increasing number of fermions, which is already evident from the perturbative beta function. With a suitable set of fermions a conformal window appears, in which the running terminates at an infrared fixed point, where the theory becomes scale independent. The upper boundary of the conformal window, where the fixed point disappears due to the loss of asymptotic freedom, is determined by the perturbative running in the weak coupling regime, whereas the lower boundary can only be investigated by non-perturbative methods. Several analytical [@Sannino:2004qp; @Dietrich:2006cm; @Braun:2010qs] and numerical lattice studies [@Catterall:2007yx; @Hietanen:2009zz; @DelDebbio:2010hx; @DeGrand:2011qd; @Appelquist:2011dp; @DeGrand:2010na; @Fodor:2016wal; @Brower:2015owo; @Athenodorou:2014eua] have been dedicated to the investigation of the conformality of different gauge theories. For a review concerning the lattice results see [@Appelquist:2016viq; @DeGrand:2015zxa; @Nogradi:2016qek; @Giedt:2015alr].
The possible realisations of strong interactions that might be relevant for extensions of the Standard Model are a main motivation for our current investigation of theories with fermions in the adjoint representation of the gauge group. The adjoint representation is particularly interesting among the higher representations of the gauge group. This representation is employed in several interesting theories, including supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory and Technicolor candidates. Theories with fermions in higher representations are favoured in this approach since they allow for a near conformal behaviour with a relatively small number of fermions. In particular, the theory with $N_f=2$ Dirac fermions in the adjoint representation of [$\text{SU}(2)$]{}, called Minimal Walking Technicolor (MWT), has interesting applications in phenomenological models [@Foadi:2007ue]. In addition, the related questions about the size of the conformal window and theories with different realisations of strong interactions are also of general theoretical interest.
Other interesting gauge theories with fermions in the symmetric and anti-symmetric tensor representation are related to models in the adjoint representation by large $N_c$ equivalence. This leads to constraints for the conformal window of models in the symmetric representation that can be deduced from the adjoint one [@Bergner:2015dya].
In this work we present our results for Minimal Walking Technicolor, including a comparison to our previous studies of supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory. We focus on conditions related to the Technicolor approach: the near conformal behaviour, the appearance of a light scalar particle, and a large mass anomalous dimension. Our results include the investigation of states that have not been considered so far, and the determination of the mass anomalous dimension with a new method similar to the one introduced in [@Fodor:2016hke] for the determination of the mode number.
The existence of an infrared fixed point is a universal feature of a given theory, but the direct determination of the conformality from the running of the coupling might be biased by technical difficulties and the scheme dependence. An alternative approach for the determination of universal properties like the existence of the fixed point and the mass anomalous dimension is the investigation of mass deformed theories. The conformal behaviour of such a theory manifests itself in the particle spectrum. In the first approximation the masses $M$ of all states should scale to zero according to $M\propto m^{1/(1+\gamma^\ast)}$, where $m$ is the residual quark mass, and the mass anomalous dimension $\gamma^\ast$ is the same for all states [@DelDebbio:2010jy]. This hyperscaling should be observable if $m$ is below a certain threshold. It is quite different from the chiral symmetry breaking scenario, where a clear separation between the pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone bosons (pNGb) and the rest of the spectrum appears at small $m$, and eventually the mass of the pNGb goes to zero in the chiral limit, whereas the masses of the other particles remain finite. It is in general difficult to discern to which of the two classes the considered theory belongs, since one is always restricted to a limited range of $m$ in the lattice simulations, and the chiral limit $m=0$ can only be reached by extrapolation. An additional difficulty is the influence of the gauge coupling, which is expected to be irrelevant at the infrared fixed point, but can in principle still be nearly marginal, i. e. the scaling exponent is $y_0 \lesssim 0$. The inclusion of the related scaling corrections has been the subject of recent investigations [@Cheng:2013xha]. It turned out that the inclusion of these correction was essential to arrive at universal results from simulations with different lattice actions. In our current work we want to investigate the significance of these scaling corrections without a complete analysis of these effects that would require a larger number of simulations. The investigation of these effects is important since they might explain the differences in various estimations of the universal behaviour of Technicolor candidates.
In a QCD-like theory asymptotic freedom implies that the continuum limit is at vanishing gauge coupling. The dependence of physical quantities on the gauge coupling is hence essential to determine the universal continuum limit. On the other hand, in a theory in the conformal window the gauge coupling is usually assumed to be irrelevant as long as it is not in the strong or weak coupling regime. However, the position and even the existence of the infrared fixed point are not known a priori and hence one cannot rely beforehand on these assumptions.
A comparison with supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory, which is clearly below the conformal window, might help to resolve the differences between the conformal and the chiral symmetry breaking scenario. In such a comparison it is important to choose a comparable lattice realisation since lattice artefacts might have a significant influence on the scaling behaviour.
This paper is organised as follows: in Section \[sec:gadjQCD\] we present an overview of the general chiral symmetry pattern and the continuum formulation of adjoint QCD. In Section \[sec:LMWT\] we present our general setup for the numerical investigations of MWT including the considered lattice action. In Section \[sec:parameters\] we discuss the range of the simulation parameters. Section \[sec:specMWT\] summarises our numerical results for the particle spectrum of this theory with a focus on the most important states, the glueball, the fermionic [$\text{spin\,1/2\ }$]{}state, and the scalar singlet meson. This includes details about the uncertainties in the numerical estimations. Estimates for the mass anomalous dimension from the particle spectrum and the mode number are provided in Section \[sec:gam\]. We also include a short explanation of the method for the mode number estimation since it is different from the one used in earlier investigation of this theory. In Section \[sec:concl\] we finally discuss implications of our results and possible directions for further investigations.
Chiral symmetry breaking scenario and conformality in adjoint QCD {#sec:gadjQCD}
=================================================================
The MWT theory investigated in this work is [$\text{SU}(2)$]{} adjoint QCD with two Dirac fermions ($N_f=2$). The Lagrangian of adjoint QCD has the following form $$\mathcal{L}=
\operatorname{Tr}\left[-\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}
+\sum_{i=1}^{N_f}{\bar{\psi}}_{i}(\slashed{D}+m_0)\psi_{i}\right].$$ Here $\psi$ is a Dirac-Fermion in the adjoint representation of [$\text{SU}(2)$]{} with the covariant derivative $$D_\mu \psi = \partial_{\mu}\psi + {\ensuremath{\mathrm{i}}}g [A_{\mu},\psi]\,.$$ The adjoint representation is consistent with the Majorana condition $\lambda=C\lambda^T$, which means that each Dirac fermion $\psi_k$ can be decomposed into two Majorana fermions $\lambda_i$, and the two Majorana flavours are not mixed by the action. In particular using $\psi_k=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\lambda_{2k}+{\ensuremath{\mathrm{i}}}\lambda_{2k+1})$ one gets $$\mathcal{L}=
\operatorname{Tr}\left[-\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}
+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=1}^{2N_f}\bar{\lambda}_{k}(\slashed{D}+m)\lambda_{k}\right].$$ In this way, theories with an odd number of Majorana flavours can be considered to have half integer Dirac flavours.
Chiral symmetry breaking results from the formation of a condensate in the massless theory or from a mass term. In our present case the breaking pattern is different from QCD and related to the transformation properties of the Majorana flavours. The left handed and right handed Weyl components of the $2N_f$ Majorana field are, however, not independent since they are related by the Majorana condition. Considering the action formulated in terms of Majorana fermions in the Weyl representation one observes the chiral symmetry breaking pattern [@Munster:2014cja] $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\text{SU}(2N_f)}} \rightarrow {\ensuremath{\text{SO}(2N_f)}}\,.
\label{chiralbreak}\end{aligned}$$ As a consequence, there are $2N_f^2+N_f-1$ pseudo Nambu-Goldstone bosons (pNGb) generated in adjoint QCD, if the chiral symmetry is broken by the chiral condensate as in QCD. The chiral symmetry for the Dirac fermions, ${\ensuremath{\text{SU}(N_f)}}\times{\ensuremath{\text{SU}(N_f)}}\times{\ensuremath{\text{U}(1)}}_V$ broken to ${\ensuremath{\text{SU}(N_f)}}_V\times{\ensuremath{\text{U}(1)}}_V$, is of course included as a subgroup of the above ${\ensuremath{\text{SU}(2N_f)}}$. In particular, the unbroken ${\ensuremath{\text{SO}(2N_f)}}$ contains always the vector-like ${\ensuremath{\text{U}(1)}}_V$ and the same pseudoscalar mesonic states (pions), which can be formulated with Dirac fermions for $N_f>1$, provide a signal for pNGb. For $N_f<2$ the operator $\psi^T C \gamma_5 \psi$ describes a pNGb [@Athenodorou:2014eua]. This signal can also be used for chiral symmetry breaking in supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory considered in a partially quenched setup [@Munster:2014cja]. In the chiral limit the spectrum is expected to be separated into the light pNGb and the other heavier states.
If the theory is inside the conformal window, a completely different behaviour of the spectrum is expected. In the conformal limit, where the fermions become massless, there is no remnant mass scale. The beta function approaches the infrared fixed point in this limit. Consequently all masses scale to zero according to $M\propto m^{1/(1+\gamma^\ast)}$ with the renormalised quark mass $m$ and the mass anomalous dimension $\gamma^\ast$ at the fixed point. The ordering of the different states is not determined in this scaling relation. Nevertheless, one might expect a light scalar as an approximate *dilaton* due to the restoration of dilatation symmetry in the conformal limit. Indeed, several investigations have found indications for a light scalar in (near) conformal theories. Even though all masses scale to zero, their ratios can be extrapolated to the conformal limit. It seems that these ratios are a universal characteristic for each (near) conformal theory [@Athenodorou:2016ndx].
Minimal Walking Technicolor on the lattice {#sec:LMWT}
==========================================
Our lattice formulation of the theory employs the Wilson gauge action built from the plaquette variables $U_p$ and the Wilson-Dirac operator in the adjoint representation. In its basic form the lattice action reads $$\mathcal{S}_L =
\beta \sum_p\left(1-\frac{1}{N_c}\mbox{Re}\,\mathrm{tr} U_p\right)
+\sum_{xy,N_f} \bar{\psi}_x^{n_f}(D_w)_{xy}\psi_y^{n_f}\, ,$$ where $D_w$ is the Wilson-Dirac operator $$\begin{aligned}
(D_w)_{x,a,\alpha;y,b,\beta}
&=&\delta_{xy}\delta_{a,b}\delta_{\alpha,\beta}\nonumber\\
&&-\kappa\sum_{\mu=1}^{4}
\left[(1-\gamma_\mu)_{\alpha,\beta}(V_\mu(x))_{ab}
\delta_{x+\mu,y} \right .\nonumber \\
&&\left. +(1+\gamma_\mu)_{\alpha,\beta}(V^\dag_\mu(x-\mu))_{ab}
\delta_{x-\mu,y}\right].\end{aligned}$$ The hopping parameter $\kappa$ is related to the bare fermion mass via $\kappa=1/(2m_0+8)$, and the index $N_f$ runs over the number of different fermion flavours, where $N_f=2$ for MWT.
The link variables $U_{\mu}(x)$ are in the fundamental representation of the gauge group [$\text{SU}(2)$]{}. The adjoint gauge field variables $V_{\mu}(x)$ in the Wilson-Dirac operator are the corresponding elements in the adjoint representation. They are defined by $[V_\mu(x)]^{ab}=2\,\mathrm{tr} [
U^\dag_\mu(x) T^a U_\mu(x) T^b]$, where $T^a$ are the generators of the gauge group normalised such that $2\,\mathrm{tr} [T^a T^b]=\delta^{ab}$.
The basic lattice action has been applied in earlier studies of MWT [@Catterall:2007yx; @DelDebbio:2010hx; @DelDebbio:2015byq]. In our simulations we use an improved version of this lattice action with a tree-level Symanzik improved gauge action and stout smearing for the link fields in the Wilson-Dirac operator [@Morningstar:2003gk]. It is expected that these modifications reduce the lattice artefacts. In most of our runs the stout smearing is iterated three times with the smearing parameter $\rho=0.12$.
Our numerical lattice simulations have been performed with the two-step polynomial hybrid Monte Carlo (PHMC) algorithm [@Montvay:2005tj]. This algorithm is based on polynomial approximations of the inverse powers of the lattice action. The first polynomial gives a crude approximation which is corrected by the second polynomial. This correction is especially important near zero fermion mass, where the inverse power has a singularity. In our simulations we have chosen the second polynomial in such a way that the lower bound of the approximation interval was by about a factor 10 smaller than the smallest occurring eigenvalues. In this case the approximation is already so good that in practice no further correction by a reweighting factor is necessary.
Simulation parameters and continuum limit {#sec:parameters}
=========================================
![The results for the mass spectrum of MWT at $\beta=1.5$. The masses, pseudoscalar decay constant, and string tension $\sigma$ as a function of the renormalised fermion mass ${\ensuremath{m_{\text{\tiny PCAC}}}}$ in lattice units, see Table \[tab:data\] in Section \[ap:data\].[]{data-label="fig:massres15a"}](plotmasses150.eps){width="80.00000%"}
![The ratio between the different quantities and the pseudoscalar meson mass at $\beta=1.5$. The plot includes a fit assuming an approximately constant value of these ratios as a function of the fermion mass, see Table \[tab:massrat\].[]{data-label="fig:massres15b"}](plotratiosb150.eps){width="80.00000%"}
In a confining gauge theory with a mass gap the lattice spacing is determined by the coupling constant $\beta$. It can be defined in terms of a scale setting quantity such as the Sommer scale $r_0$ or the string tension $\sqrt{\sigma}$. Due to asymptotic freedom, the lattice spacing decreases as $\beta$ is increased.
Close to the fixed point in a conformal gauge theory $\beta$ is an irrelevant parameter which implies only a weak dependence on this parameter. In the conformal theory the continuum limit can be defined only in terms of the lattice spacing in units of the volume, the only remaining scale. Nevertheless, the theories in the conformal window are still asymptotically free and the continuum limit corresponds to the limit where $\beta$ goes to infinity. Consequently a relevant dependence on $\beta$ is expected further away from the infrared fixed point and closer to the Gaussian fixed point. In a first approximation the $\beta$ dependence appears as a correction of the scaling close to the fixed point. This has been investigated in a finite size scaling analysis [@Cheng:2013xha], where an agreement between results from different lattice action has been possible in this way. The connection between scaling corrections and discretisation errors has been pointed out in [@Giedt:2015alr].
A finite mass breaks conformal symmetry and implies further corrections to the simple scaling picture. The mass term in the action is a relevant parameter and the renormalisation group flow hence does not approach the infrared fixed point. However the running of $\beta$ is still expected to be rather weak at least for smaller masses. At a fixed mass, the influence of lattice artefacts can be investigated by comparing different values of $\beta$, where the largest value corresponds to the smallest lattice spacing.
In fact, in numerical simulations it is for several reasons impossible to reach the limit of an exactly vanishing fermion mass. In a conformal theory this limit would introduce severe finite size effects and hence the interpretation of the particle spectrum would be difficult. In addition, the range of fermion masses is limited by the updating algorithm, where the cost of the simulation rises exponentially if the fermion masses are approaching zero.
The possible range of $\beta$ values in MWT is constrained from below by the bulk phase transition. The bare parameters of this transition in our investigations are different from those in previous investigations, which is related to the change of the gauge action. With our lattice action we determined the position of the bulk transition to be around $\beta=1.4$. The control of finite volume effects is important in the investigations of a conformal theory. Therefore in our first analysis we have chosen $\beta=1.5$, which is not much above the bulk transition. This allows changing the lattice volume in a wide range. In a second step we have also done simulations at $\beta=1.7$ to check for possible lattice artefacts and scaling corrections.
The pseudoscalar meson mass in lattice units in these runs was in the range between $0.9$ and $0.2$. Finite size effects are generally quite significant in simulations of (near) conformal theories. We have found that at small lattice volumes the ordering of the states is significantly changed. The most relevant scale for the finite size effects is the mass of the lightest bound state, in MWT the $0^{++}$ glueball. The finite size effects lead, however, to a larger mass of this particle, which makes the estimate ambiguous. Therefore we have considered the mass of the pseudoscalar meson which can be easily determined quite precisely.
In general it is possible that there are also phase transitions and indications of deconfinement at small box sizes. We have checked the distribution of the Polyakov line at the smaller masses for any signal of a transition. In none of the simulations we have found an indication for a transition, but at $\beta=1.5$, $\kappa=0.1350$ on the $24^3\times 64$ lattice there is a significant broadening of the spatial Polyakov line distribution. Therefore we have excluded this run from the analysis.
A known difficulty of numerical simulations near the continuum limit is the freezing of the topological charge of the gauge field in the finite physical volume of the simulation (*topology freezing*). This effect can be made mild by choosing longer Hybrid Monte Carlo (HMC) trajectories [@Meyer:2006ty; @McGlynn:2014bxa]. Therefore, in most cases we ran the PHMC updates by HMC trajectory of length 2, which mostly resulted in acceptable integrated autocorrelation times of the topological charge. For the smallest fermion masses, however, this autocorrelation time is drastically increased to about 500 in HMC time, a value which is just by a factor of 10 shorter than the total HMC time of the simulations. This problem is present in the runs at ($\beta=1.5,\;\kappa=0.135$) and ($\beta=1.7,\;\kappa=0.13$). In these cases the sampling of different topological sectors is poor. As shown below, these are the runs that are also affected by large finite size effects and therefore they are not considered for the main results.
The lightest particles in Minimal Walking Technicolor {#sec:specMWT}
=====================================================
The primary focus of our investigation is the spectrum of lowest lying bound states in Minimal Walking Technicolor. The bound state spectrum consists of mesonic states, glueballs, and mixed fermion-gluon states. We consider these states as functions of the renormalised fermion mass, which we take to be the PCAC mass ${\ensuremath{m_{\text{\tiny PCAC}}}}$, determined through the partially conserved axial-vector current relation. In addition to the particle masses, we have determined the string tension $\sigma$ from the static quark-antiquark potential and the pseudoscalar decay constant $F_\pi$.
The considered mesonic states include the pseudoscalar ones created by $\bar{\psi_i}\gamma_5 \delta_{ij} \psi_j$ in the singlet and $\bar{\psi_i}\gamma_5 \tau^{a}_{ij} \psi_j$, $a=1,2,3$, in the triplet channel, where $\tau^{a}$ are the Pauli matrices, corresponding to the adjoint eta prime meson ($m_{{\text{a--}\eta'}}$) and the pseudoscalar meson (${\ensuremath{m_{\text{PS}}}}$), respectively. The triplet and singlet channel for the operator $\bar{\psi_i}
\psi_j$ correspond to the scalar meson (${\ensuremath{m_{\text{S}}}}$) and the adjoint $f_0$ ($m_{{\text{a--}f_0}}$) meson. In addition, also the vector meson (${\ensuremath{m_{\text{V}}}}$), created by $\bar{\psi_i}\gamma_k \psi_j$ ($k$ in spatial direction), and the pseudovector meson (${\ensuremath{m_{\text{PV}}}}$) in the triplet channel, created by $\bar{\psi_i}\gamma_5 \gamma_k \psi_j$, have been considered. In the current analysis we have also measured the scalar glueball (${\ensuremath{m_{0^{++}}}}$) and a mixed fermion-gluon state with [$\text{spin\,1/2\ }$]{}(${\ensuremath{m_{1/2}}}$).
![As Figure \[fig:massres15a\] but with $\beta=1.7$.[]{data-label="fig:massres17a"}](plotmasses170.eps){width="80.00000%"}
![As Figure \[fig:massres15b\] but with $\beta=1.7$.[]{data-label="fig:massres17b"}](plotratiosb170.eps){width="80.00000%"}
![Further details concerning the plot in Fig. \[fig:massres15b\]. These Figures now include the data at $\kappa=0.1350$ too. The left hand side shows the string tension and the pseudoscalar decay constant. On the right hand side the complete set of ratios is shown in the lower mass region.[]{data-label="fig:massres15d"}](plotratiosb150d2.eps "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} ![Further details concerning the plot in Fig. \[fig:massres15b\]. These Figures now include the data at $\kappa=0.1350$ too. The left hand side shows the string tension and the pseudoscalar decay constant. On the right hand side the complete set of ratios is shown in the lower mass region.[]{data-label="fig:massres15d"}](plotratiosb150d1.eps "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
The results for the masses of the different states are shown in Figs. \[fig:massres15a\], \[fig:massres15b\], \[fig:massres17a\] and \[fig:massres17b\]. First of all, it can clearly be observed that the mass hierarchy is different from the one in the chiral symmetry breaking scenario. Instead of the would-be Goldstone particle (${\ensuremath{m_{\text{PS}}}}$) the scalar ($0^{++}$) glueball is the lightest state in the theory. Furthermore, the ratios of different quantities divided by ${\ensuremath{m_{\text{PS}}}}$ are not divergent in the zero fermion mass limit, as it would be the case for Goldstone particles. Instead, they approach approximately constant values. These observations are consistent with a conformal behaviour of the theory.
At the smallest fermion masses, in particular for $\kappa=0.135$ at $\beta=1.5$, the results deviate significantly from the expected constant mass ratios. The vector meson mass ratio is relatively stable, but for the glueball even an inversion of the mass hierarchy with ${\ensuremath{m_{\text{PS}}}}<{\ensuremath{m_{0^{++}}}}$ is observed. The ratios of string tension and pseudoscalar decay constant over ${\ensuremath{m_{\text{PS}}}}$ raise in this region, see Fig. \[fig:massres15d\]. A similar observation has been made for the string tension in [@DelDebbio:2010hx], where it has been traced back to a finite size effect at small ${\ensuremath{m_{\text{PS}}}}L$. We therefore conclude that the inverted mass hierarchy at these small fermion masses is not a physical feature, but rather a finite size effect. A more detailed investigation of this effect would require simulations on very large lattices, which is beyond the scope of our current investigations. In the estimates of the mass ratios we have therefore excluded the run at $\beta=1.5$, $\kappa=0.1350$ and, for the same reason, the run at $\beta=1.7$, $\kappa=0.1300$.
State $\beta=1.5$ $\beta=1.7$ Ref. [@DelDebbio:2015byq]
---------------------------------------------- --------------------------- -------------------------- ---------------------------
${\ensuremath{m_{\text{V}}}}$ 1.0825(58) 1.051(12) 1.044(43)
${\ensuremath{m_{\text{S}}}}$ 1.285(24) 1.190(14) 1.222(52)
${\ensuremath{m_{\text{PV}}}}$ 1.329(21) 1.232(13) 1.26(35)
${\ensuremath{m_{0^{++}}}}$ 0.620(35) 0.398(48) 0.458(15)
$F_\pi$ 0.1831(23) 0.15156(72) 0.178(5)
$\sqrt{\sigma}$ 0.163(15) 0.1352(46) 0.0959(14) – 0.1319(10)
${\ensuremath{m_{1/2}}}$ 0.948(24) 0.86394(52) –
${\ensuremath{m_{\text{\tiny PCAC}}}}$ range 0.1808(22) – 0.2490(12) 0.2457(12) – 0.26776(42) 0.1872(84) – 0.2323(35)
$a{\ensuremath{m_{\text{PS}}}}$ range 0.29986(46) – 0.58848(98) 0.5360(25) – 0.57247(16) 0.6401(11) – 1.183(1)
: The masses of the different states in units of the pseudoscalar mass ${\ensuremath{m_{\text{PS}}}}$. The estimation is based on the approximate independence of ${\ensuremath{m_{\text{\tiny PCAC}}}}$. At $\beta=1.5$ the results from simulations on $32^3\times 64$ and $48^3\times 64$ lattices with a $\kappa$ range between 0.1325 and 0.1344 are taken into account. The results for $\beta=1.7$ are obtained from the average of the $\kappa=0.1285$ and $\kappa=0.1290$ simulations on a $32^3\times 64$ lattice. For comparison the results of [@DelDebbio:2015byq] are shown, where for each state we have taken the result at the smallest value of $m_0$. $F_\pi$ is an estimate from a plot in [@DelDebbio:2015byq] and for the string tension we have shown the values for two different $m_0$ since there are considerable deviations. In the last line also the range of the reference scale ${\ensuremath{m_{\text{PS}}}}$ in lattice units is provided. Note that $F_\pi$ corresponds to the unrenormalised bare value.[]{data-label="tab:massrat"}
In spite of the limitations on the mass ranges, we are able to provide estimates for the universal ratios between the different observables and the pseudoscalar meson mass ${\ensuremath{m_{\text{PS}}}}$. These are based on at least two values of the mass for each $\beta$. The results are shown in Table \[tab:massrat\], where also the results of [@DelDebbio:2015byq] are presented for comparison. The general ordering of the masses at both $\beta$ values is preserved, but all the ratios of masses to ${\ensuremath{m_{\text{PS}}}}$ decrease from $\beta=1.5$ to $\beta=1.7$. For the meson masses the changes are below $8\%$, and for the [$\text{spin\,1/2\ }$]{}state they are slightly larger. The glueball mass, however, gets corrections of the order of $50\%$. Consequently, the gap between the glueball and the meson masses is significantly increased at the larger $\beta$ value. This considerable difference cannot be explained by the slightly different range of ${\ensuremath{m_{\text{\tiny PCAC}}}}$ in units of ${\ensuremath{m_{\text{PS}}}}$ for $\beta=1.5$ and $\beta=1.7$. In particular, the $a{\ensuremath{m_{\text{PS}}}}$ range is consistent for the two $\beta$ values. Therefore we conclude that towards the continuum limit the difference between the scalar glueball and the rest of the spectrum is in fact increased.
We would like to note that the data in [@DelDebbio:2015byq] are all approximately between our results at $\beta=1.5$ and $\beta=1.7$. Hence it seems that our results at the coarse lattice spacing have larger lattice artefacts, while the finer lattice spacing is closer to the continuum limit than in [@DelDebbio:2015byq]. The string tension deviates from this observation, but the values provided in the literature show a considerable variance and hence seem to be subject to significant systematic uncertainties. The uncertainties in our measurements are indicated by the broad plateau estimation of the mass ratio, see Fig. \[fig:massres15d\]. Further details of our measurement can be found in Section \[sec:gbstr\].
Our arguments concerning the continuum limit in this section are based simply on the asymptotic freedom of the gauge theory, which implies a decreasing lattice spacing approaching $\beta=\infty$. If we assume that the theory is already close the the conformal fixed point, the differences between the results in Table \[tab:massrat\] are an indication for scaling corrections. These effects seem to be relevant and to produce a significant correction for the mass ratio of the scalar glueball and the pseudoscalar meson mass.
Scalar glueball and string tension {#sec:gbstr}
----------------------------------
The $0^{++}$ glueball appears to be the lightest scalar particle in MWT. Despite a possible mixing with the scalar singlet meson operators, it seems to have a reasonable overlap with the ground state in the scalar sector as will be detailed in Section \[sec:singmeson\]. Hence it provides the signal for a possible Higgs-like bound state in MWT. In some cases we have also obtained an estimate for the $0^{-+}$ glueball mass (see Table \[tab:singmass\]). It appears to be lighter than the pseudoscalar singlet meson, but the systematic uncertainties are quite large.
We determine the $0^{++}$ glueball mass using as interpolating operator the fundamental plaquette built from four links and the $0^{-+}$ is given by the product of eight links with suitable shape. In order to reduce the contamination from excited states and thus determining the effective mass already at small time-slice separations we used the variational method based on APE smeared operators. In total, between $L = 16$ and $L = 20$ smearing levels were used in the variational method, each separated by 4 or 5 steps; the smearing parameter was fixed to $\epsilon_{APE}=0.5$.
Fig. \[fig:glub\] shows an example of the fitted mass value for different ranges $[t_{\text{min}},t_{\text{min}}+l]$. A clear plateau appears already at $t_{min}=2$. Using this approach we can determine the mass value with a relative error starting from $10\%$ for some ensembles.
![Mass of the $0^{++}$ glueball obtained from fitting time slice correlation functions in a range of time separations $[t_{\text{min}},t_{\text{min}}+l]$.[]{data-label="fig:glub"}](plot_Run32c64_StoutB150C083k1335_glueball0++.eps){width="80.00000%"}
![Static quark-antiquark potential for two values of $\kappa$. At large values of $r/a$ a few points are missing because of very large error bars.[]{data-label="fig:sigma"}](plot_potential_b1.50_k1350_k1325.eps){width="80.00000%"}
For a theory in the confined phase, the potential between a static quark-antiquark pair in the fundamental representation grows linearly at large separations. The coefficient of the linear rise is the string tension $\sigma$. In a theory with adjoint matter the chromoelectric field is not screened and $\sigma$ is a well defined quantity. In a conformal theory the string tension will vanish in the limit of massless fermions.
We determine the string tension from the expectation value of the Wilson loop $\langle W(r,t) \rangle$. To this purpose we first define the generalised potential: $$V(r,t)=\ln{\frac{\langle W(r,t) \rangle}{ \langle W(r,t+1) \rangle }}\, .$$ The method consists of two steps: in the first one we determine the static quark-antiquark potential fitting $V(r,t)$ for every $r$, in the interval $[t_{\text{min}},t_{\text{max}}=L_T/2-1]$, to the function [@Bali:1994de] $$V(r,t)=V(r)+c_1 e^{-c_2 t}\, ;$$ in the second step we fit the potential $V(r)$ to the form of the Cornell potential, in the interval $[r_{\text{min}},r_{\text{max}}=L_S/2-1]$, and we determine the value of the string tension. We have verified that, compared to supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory, the value of $t_{\text{min}}$, in the first fit, has to be increased from the value 2 to the value 3 and the value of $r_{\text{min}}$, in the second fit, has to be increased from 2 to 4. As a consequence, the potential $V(r)$ is characterised by large error bars, in particular at large $r/a$ as can be seen in Fig. \[fig:sigma\], and the final string tension has a relative error $\sim 10$ times larger than the case of supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory.
Singlet meson states and a second signal for the scalar channel {#sec:singmeson}
---------------------------------------------------------------
In our work we investigated the singlet meson sector of MWT for the first time. The measurement of these states is more challenging than for the rest of the spectrum, because their correlation functions contain disconnected fermion contributions. For the calculation of these contributions we have used the same methods that we have already applied in our studies of supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory. It turns out that there are significant systematic uncertainties in the measurement of these states and therefore the reported errors are most likely underestimated. The results for the masses are shown in Table \[tab:singmass\].
The primary aim of these investigation is to obtain a second signal for the scalar channel. The ${\text{a--}f_0}$ has the same quantum numbers as the $0^{++}$ glueball, and hence both operators have overlap with the ground state in the scalar channel. The overlap with the ground state might, however, be small such that a significant contribution from excited states is present. In the case of supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory and one-flavour adjoint QCD it turned out that there is a reasonable agreement between the two signals in the scalar channel.
$L_S$ $L_T$ $\beta$ $\kappa$ $a m_{{\text{a--}f_0}}$ $a m_{{\text{a--}\eta'}}$ $a{\ensuremath{m_{\text{PS}}}}$ $a{\ensuremath{m_{\text{S}}}}$ $a{\ensuremath{m_{0^{++}}}}$ $a{\ensuremath{m_{0^{-+}}}}$
------- ------- --------- ---------- ------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------------- -------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------
24 64 1.5 0.1325 0.511(53) 0.634(14) 0.58710(27) 0.767(12) 0.350(25) 0.62(9)
32 64 1.5 0.1335 0.295(70) 0.474(49) 0.44212(28) 0.561(12) 0.260(25) 0.44(5)
48 64 1.5 0.1344 0.320(69) 0.342(36) 0.29986(46) 0.3816(87) 0.180(30) 0.32(4)
32 64 1.7 0.1285 0.515(52) 0.574(28) 0.57247(16) 0.6902(62) 0.230(25) 0.43(1)
32 64 1.7 0.1290 0.419(66) 0.504(31) 0.5360(25) 0.6312(23) 0.210(30) 0.36(2)
: This Table contains the masses for the singlet mesons ${\text{a--}f_0}$ and ${\text{a--}\eta'}$ in lattice units and, for comparison, also for some triplet mesons and the glueballs.[]{data-label="tab:singmass"}
In MWT, the measurement of the connected and disconnected contributions of the correlators leads to quite different results in the scalar and the pseudoscalar case. While for the ${\text{a--}\eta'}$ meson the disconnected contribution is almost negligible, see Fig. \[fig:disc\] (rhs), it is the dominant contribution for the ${\text{a--}f_0}$, as shown in Fig. \[fig:disc\] (lhs). The large disconnected contribution is the reason for the large difference between ${\ensuremath{m_{\text{S}}}}$ and $m_{{\text{a--}f_0}}$. The scalar singlet meson mass ($m_{{\text{a--}f_0}}$) is consequently much smaller than the mass in the triplet channel (${\ensuremath{m_{\text{S}}}}$). Nevertheless, there is no degeneracy with the light scalar glueball. The mass of the scalar singlet meson is of the order of the pseudoscalar meson mass ${\ensuremath{m_{\text{PS}}}}$ or even lighter. It is interesting that in several investigations of near conformal theories a similar approximate degeneracy between the scalar singlet and the pseudoscalar meson has been observed [@Brower:2015owo; @Fodor:2015vwa].
![In this Figure the disconnected and connected contributions to the ${\text{a--}f_0}$ (left hand side) and ${\text{a--}\eta'}$ (right hand side) correlators are shown. The sum of both parts gives the final correlation function. The mass is obtained from the exponential decay of this function at large distances.[]{data-label="fig:disc"}](f011disconnected1.eps "fig:"){width="48.00000%"} ![In this Figure the disconnected and connected contributions to the ${\text{a--}f_0}$ (left hand side) and ${\text{a--}\eta'}$ (right hand side) correlators are shown. The sum of both parts gives the final correlation function. The mass is obtained from the exponential decay of this function at large distances.[]{data-label="fig:disc"}](etadisconnected.eps "fig:"){width="48.00000%"}
Our results are an indication that the ground state in the scalar channel is dominated by the glueball state. An analysis of the mixing between the glueball and the ${\text{a--}f_0}$ meson will provide further information about the overlap of the different operators with the lightest state.
Taking into account the systematic error in the evaluation of the singlet mesons, the ${\text{a--}\eta'}$ meson is almost degenerate with the pseudoscalar meson. The difference between these states, which in QCD is related to the axial anomaly, is negligible within the current precision.
Spin one-half states and possible fractionally charged particles
----------------------------------------------------------------
A specific feature of theories with fermions in the adjoint representation of the gauge group is the presence of mixed fermion-gluon states, which do not occur in QCD. The most interesting one is a fermionic [$\text{spin\,1/2\ }$]{}particle represented by the operator $$O_{\text{spin-1/2}}
= \sum_{\mu,\nu} \sigma_{\mu\nu} \operatorname{Tr}\left[F^{\mu\nu} \lambda \right].$$ This particle is of particular importance in supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory, where this gluino-glue particle is the fermionic member of the scalar supermultiplet of bound states. Unbroken supersymmetry implies a degenerate mass for all the states of the supermultiplet, and hence it has the same mass as the lightest scalar and pseudoscalar particle in this model.
In MWT the [$\text{spin\,1/2\ }$]{}state is relevant for phenomenological considerations, since it leads to fractionally charged particles, when a naive hypercharge assignment is assumed. Even though the mass of these particles is unknown, they have been considered to disfavour the phenomenological relevance of the theory. This was essentially one of the motivations to consider [$\text{SO}(4)$]{} gauge theory as an alternative [@Hietanen:2013gva]. On the other hand, in [@Kouvaris:2007iq] the existence of such particles has been considered as an alternative dark matter scenario.
Our results for the mass of the [$\text{spin\,1/2\ }$]{}state are contained in Table \[tab:massrat\]. They show that the mass of the [$\text{spin\,1/2\ }$]{}state is well separated from the lightest scalar particle. On the other hand, it is slightly lighter than the pseudoscalar meson, which means that it could be one of the first experimentally observable “new physics” states if this theory is realised in nature.
The mass anomalous dimension {#sec:gam}
============================
Besides the ratios of different observables, also the mass anomalous dimension $\gamma^\ast$ is an important universal property of a conformal gauge theory. Given the ratios and the value of $\gamma^\ast$, the main properties of the theory are determined. The mass anomalous dimension is of particular importance for phenomenological considerations, since in the *Walking Technicolor* scenario a large value of $\gamma^\ast$ is required. We apply two different methods to determine of $\gamma^\ast$. They are based on the properties of particle spectrum and of the mode number.
Scaling of the particle spectrum
--------------------------------
Observable $\beta$ $\gamma^\ast$
-------------------------------- --------- ---------------
${\ensuremath{m_{\text{PS}}}}$ 1.5 0.2958(45)
${\ensuremath{m_{\text{V}}}}$ 1.5 0.295(26)
$F_\pi$ 1.5 0.391(20)
average 1.5 0.300(20)
${\ensuremath{m_{\text{PS}}}}$ 1.7 0.289(17)
${\ensuremath{m_{\text{V}}}}$ 1.7 0.263(28)
$F_\pi$ 1.7 0.265(12)
average 1.7 0.272(11)
: The values of the mass anomalous dimension determined from the fit of the particle spectrum. These results are based on a linear fit in a double logarithmic representation. At $\beta=1.5$ only the result on the $32^3 \times 64$ and the $48^3 \times 64$ lattices without $\kappa=0.1350$ are considered. At $\beta=1.7$ the values on the $32^3 \times 64$ lattice without $\kappa=0.1300$ are taken into account. Only states with an error less then $10\%$ are included.[]{data-label="tab:gammass"}
![This Figure illustrates the fit for the mass anomalous dimension $\gamma^\ast$ from the particle spectrum. The considered subset of the data and the fit results are given in Table \[tab:gammass\]. The left hand side corresponds to $\beta=1.5$, while the data on the right hand side show the results at $\beta=1.7$.[]{data-label="fig:gammass"}](plotratiosb150logred.eps "fig:"){width="48.00000%"} ![This Figure illustrates the fit for the mass anomalous dimension $\gamma^\ast$ from the particle spectrum. The considered subset of the data and the fit results are given in Table \[tab:gammass\]. The left hand side corresponds to $\beta=1.5$, while the data on the right hand side show the results at $\beta=1.7$.[]{data-label="fig:gammass"}](plotratiosb170logred.eps "fig:"){width="48.00000%"}
![This Figure shows a check for the consistency of the scaling of the particle spectrum, with the mass anomalous dimension determined from the fit of the mode number, see Table 4 for the values used. The left hand side is for $\beta=1.5$ and the right hand side for $\beta=1.7$. The approximate volume scaling has been taken into account, where $L=N_s$ is the box size in lattice units. The linear fit lines show the predicted approximate finite size scaling relation.[]{data-label="fig:scalinggam"}](scaling150vps.eps "fig:"){width="48.00000%"} ![This Figure shows a check for the consistency of the scaling of the particle spectrum, with the mass anomalous dimension determined from the fit of the mode number, see Table 4 for the values used. The left hand side is for $\beta=1.5$ and the right hand side for $\beta=1.7$. The approximate volume scaling has been taken into account, where $L=N_s$ is the box size in lattice units. The linear fit lines show the predicted approximate finite size scaling relation.[]{data-label="fig:scalinggam"}](scaling170vps.eps "fig:"){width="48.00000%"}
The fact that the masses of all states should scale according to the universal formula $$M \propto ({\ensuremath{m_{\text{\tiny PCAC}}}})^{1/(1+\gamma^\ast)}\, ,$$ can be used to determine the mass anomalous dimension directly from the particle spectrum. The simplest way to determine the exponent is a linear fit in a double logarithmic representation. The results of this fit are shown in Table \[tab:gammass\] and Fig. \[fig:gammass\]. Note that the data has been restricted to the most relevant subset with the smallest fit errors. The full set of fit results for all observables spreads over a rather large range of $\gamma^\ast$ between 0.13 and 0.57. However, most of the data have large errors and therefore it is reasonable to consider only the most precise ones. From these data one obtains a mass anomalous dimension around $\gamma^\ast=0.3$, and there is a tendency towards a smaller value at the larger $\beta$.
The large errors for several observables are a signal that a precise determination of the mass anomalous dimension requires more control over the parameter range. This can be achieved by fits of the mode number, where an ultraviolet and infrared cutoff is introduced by the fit boundaries. The consistency with the scaling of the spectrum can then be confirmed subsequently. In the scaling formula also the approximate influence of the finite volume can be taken into account by expressing the states in units of the box size $L$. This scaling with the value of $\gamma^\ast$ obtained from the mode number is shown in Fig. \[fig:scalinggam\] (see Section \[sec:moden\]). As can be seen, within the current precision the data of the particle spectrum are consistent with the scaling obtained from the mode number. Note that in both cases the value of $\gamma^\ast=0.274$ is preferred in comparison to $\gamma^\ast=0.376$ by the smaller chi-square in the linear fit of ${\ensuremath{m_{\text{PS}}}}$.
Mode number {#sec:moden}
-----------
$N_s\times N_t$ $\beta$ $\kappa$ fit range $\gamma^\ast$
---------------------------- --------- ---------- ----------- ---------------
$24\times 64$ 1.5 0.1325 0.21-0.40 0.39(3)
$32\times 64$ 1.5 0.1335 0.21-0.40 0.38(1)
$48\times 64$ 1.5 0.1344 0.15-0.38 0.380(10)
$32\times 64$ 1.5 0.1350 0.11-0.37 0.375(4)
average 1.5 0.376(3)
$32\times 64$ 1.7 0.1285 0.38-0.57 0.270(15)
$32\times 64$ 1.7 0.1290 0.36-0.59 0.260(20)
$32\times 64$ 1.7 0.1300 0.28-0.50 0.285(15)
average 1.7 0.274(10)
Ref. [@Patella:2012da] 0.371(20)
Ref. [@Perez:2015yna] 0.269(2)(5)
Ref. [@Rantaharju:2015yva] 0.20(3)
Ref. [@DeGrand:2011qd] 0.31(6)
Ref. [@DelDebbio:2010hx] 0.22(6)
Ref. [@Giedt:2015alr] 0.50(26)
: The mass anomalous dimension obtained from fits of the mode number. For comparison we provide also some reference values from the literature obtained with several different methods: Ref. [@Patella:2012da] and [@Perez:2015yna] are based on the mode number analysis. In [@Perez:2015yna] this is done in a volume reduced large $N_c$ gauge theory. Ref. [@Rantaharju:2015yva] and [@DeGrand:2011qd] apply a Schrödinger functional analysis. Ref. [@DelDebbio:2010hx] and [@Giedt:2015alr] use finite size scaling for the determination of the mass anomalous dimension.[]{data-label="tab:modenumber"}
![This Figure shows a test of the projection method and the Chebyshev expansion method for the determination of the mode number. The two methods are compared to the numerical diagonalisation of the complete matrix on a $4^4$ lattice for one configuration. In case of the projection method we also included the stochastic error from the five noise vectors. The Chebyshev expansion is based on a polynomial of order $N_p=1000$ and $N_s=10$ estimators.[]{data-label="fig:modenumberchecks1"}](plotp3.eps){width="70.00000%"}
![The comparison of the projection method and the Chebyshev expansion method for the determination of the mode number for one configuration on a $32^3\times 64$ lattice ($\beta=1.7$, $\kappa=0.1290$) with $N_p=2000$, $N_s=10$ for the Chebyshev expansion and only one estimator for the projection method. The projection method is based on a polynomial approximation of order 32.[]{data-label="fig:modenumberchecks2"}](plotmodenumberB170K1290p.eps){width="70.00000%"}
The mode number, which is the integrated eigenvalue density of the Dirac operator, allows for a more precise estimate of the mass anomalous dimension [@Patella:2012da; @Cheng:2013bca; @Fodor:2014zca]. On the lattice the most practicable definition is obtained from the spectral density of the Dirac operator. Let $$\rho(\omega)=\frac{1}{V}\sum_k \langle \delta(\omega-\lambda_k) \rangle$$ be the spectral density of the massless Dirac operator. The mode number $\nu(\Omega)$, defined to be the number of eigenvalues of the positive-definite operator $D_w^\dag D_w$ below some limit $\Omega^2$, is given by $$\nu(\Omega)=2\int_0^{\Lambda} \rho(\omega)d\omega\, ,$$ where the cutoff for the integral is $\Lambda=\sqrt{\Omega^2-m_R^2}$, and $m_R$ corresponds to the renormalised quark mass, i.e. is proportional to ${\ensuremath{m_{\text{\tiny PCAC}}}}$. Finally, the mass anomalous dimension is obtained from a fit of the mode number (see [@Patella:2012da]) according to $$\label{eq:modenumber}
\nu(\Omega)=a_1+a_2(\Omega^2-a_3^2)^{2/(1+\gamma^\ast)}\; .$$ The constant $a_1$ is expected to scale like ${\ensuremath{m_{\text{PS}}}}^4$, and $a_3$ is proportional to ${\ensuremath{m_{\text{\tiny PCAC}}}}$, but for our considerations these constants are not relevant.
The projection method used in the earlier investigations of the mode number was first proposed in [@Giusti:2002sm]. It is based on a rational approximation of the projection operator ${\mathbb{P}}$ in the region below a certain threshold of the eigenvalues. The mode number is hence defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\nu(\Omega) = \langle\operatorname{Tr}{\mathbb{P}}(\Omega) \rangle \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where the trace is obtained by a stochastic estimate. The projection operator is approximated by means of a polynomial approximation of the step function $h(x)$ using $${\mathbb{P}}(\Omega)\approx h(\mathbb{X})^4\; , \qquad\text{with}\quad
\mathbb{X}=1-\frac{2\Omega_\ast^2}{D_w^\dag D_w+\Omega_\ast^2} \, .$$ The parameter $\Omega_\ast\approx \Omega$ is adjusted in such a way that the error of the approximation is minimised (see [@Giusti:2002sm] for further details).
More recently a different method, based on a Chebyshev expansion of $\rho$, has been proposed in [@Fodor:2016hke]. We have mainly used a variant of this method, but we also checked the consistency with the projection method. For the Chebyshev expansion method the spectrum has to be rescaled to the interval $[-1,1]$ according to $$\begin{aligned}
M=\frac{2D_w^\dag D_w - \lambda_{max}-\lambda_{min}}{\lambda_{max}-\lambda_{min}}\; ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda_{max}$ and $\lambda_{min}$ are the maximal and minimal eigenvalues of the operator $D_w^\dag D_w$. The integral of the spectral density $\rho_M$ of the rescaled operator multiplied by the Chebyshev polynomial $T_n$ of order $n$ $$\begin{aligned}
c_n=\int_{-1}^{1} \rho_M(x) T_n(x) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ is estimated stochastically with $N_S$ random $Z_4$ noise vectors $v_l$: $$\begin{aligned}
c_n\approx \frac{1}{N_S} \sum_l^{N_s} \langle v_l| T_n(M) | v_l \rangle .\end{aligned}$$ Based on the orthogonality relations for the $T_n$, the spectral density $\rho_M$ is now approximated by $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_M(x) \approx
\frac{1}{\pi \sqrt{1-x^2}} \sum_{k=0}^{N_p} (2-\delta_{k0}) c_n T_n(x).\end{aligned}$$ The eigenvalue density of $D_w^\dag D_w$ is obtained from a simple map of the the interval $[-1,1]$ back to the original eigenvalue region.
The integral in the definition of the mode number can be performed analytically. In our measurements we considered polynomials of order $N_p$ between 2000 and 4000.
![Results for $\gamma^\ast$ and $\chi^2/\mbox{dof}$ for different fit ranges $[\Omega_{\text{min}},\Omega_{\text{max}}]$. Left: lattice $32^3 \times 64$, $\beta=1.5$, $\kappa=0.1350$. Right: lattice $32^3 \times 64$, $\beta=1.7$, $\kappa=0.1290$.[]{data-label="fig:modenfit"}](plot_Run32c64_StoutB150C083k1350.eps "fig:"){width="48.00000%"} ![Results for $\gamma^\ast$ and $\chi^2/\mbox{dof}$ for different fit ranges $[\Omega_{\text{min}},\Omega_{\text{max}}]$. Left: lattice $32^3 \times 64$, $\beta=1.5$, $\kappa=0.1350$. Right: lattice $32^3 \times 64$, $\beta=1.7$, $\kappa=0.1290$.[]{data-label="fig:modenfit"}](plot_Run32c64_StoutB170C083k1290.eps "fig:"){width="48.00000%"}
As a check we have compared the results of the two methods with the mode number obtained from a complete numerical diagonalisation of $D_w^\dag D_w$ on small lattices. In addition we performed measurements with both methods on a small number of configurations on $24^3\times 64$ lattices. The results of these checks are shown in Figures \[fig:modenumberchecks1\] and \[fig:modenumberchecks2\]. Additional investigations and comparisons will be done in the future for further understanding of the different methods. At the moment, for the present measurements of the anomalous dimension based on a limited range of $\Omega$ both methods are compatible.
The fitting procedure of the mode number $\nu(\Omega)$ deserves special mention. Because the fitting data are strongly correlated, to determine correctly the value of $\chi^2/\mbox{dof}$, we used the usual $\chi^2$ method, taking into account the correlation matrix. As discussed in [@Michael:1993yj], to estimate correctly the value of $\chi^2/\mbox{dof}$, the square of the number of fitted data has to be smaller than the number of configurations used. Because the mode number is measured on a number of configurations ranging in the interval $[100,1000]$, the number of fitted points ranges in the interval $[10,30]$. For comparison, the fitting parameters have been also determined by means of uncorrelated fits, using in this case a number of fitted data of the order of the number of configurations [@Michael:1994sz], giving compatible results.
Another issue in the fitting procedure is related to the fact that Eq. (\[eq:modenumber\]) can be used only in a certain intermediate range of eigenvalues, that can be determined only by a systematic study of the quality and the stability of the fit. As shown in Fig. \[fig:modenfit\], we fit the data for different values of the range $[\Omega_{\text{min}},\Omega_{\text{max}}]$, looking for values which guarantee a plateau in $\chi^2/\mbox{dof} \sim 1$ and in the value of the mass anomalous dimension $\gamma^\ast$.
![The mode number data that have been used in the final fit to obtain the results presented in Table \[tab:modenumber\].[]{data-label="fig:modenumberdata"}](plotallmeanp.eps){width="80.00000%"}
Our results for the mass anomalous dimension are presented in Fig. \[fig:modenumberdata\]. The results of the fits are shown in Table \[tab:modenumber\]. In this table we also considered the runs with sizeable finite size effects, because we assume that these effects only influence the far infrared region and not the part relevant for the fits. The results for these runs are compatible with the other runs.
The values of $\gamma^\ast$ obtained via mode number are in reasonable agreement with those from the mass spectrum, especially for the smaller lattice spacing at $\beta=1.7$.
Our result at $\beta=1.5$ is consistent with [@Patella:2012da], where $\gamma^\ast=0.371(20)$ has been reported. The value at $\beta=1.7$, however, appears to be significantly smaller. Thus there is still a remaining $\beta$ dependence of the mass anomalous dimension, reducing its value towards larger $\beta$ values. It is interesting to note that such smaller values have also been reported in other works, for example in [@Rantaharju:2015yva].
Conclusions {#sec:concl}
===========
We have presented results for the particle spectrum of MWT and general signals for conformality at two different values for the inverse gauge coupling $\beta$ and several masses of the two adjoint Dirac fermions. The structure of the low-lying spectrum of particle masses shows clear indications for a conformal behaviour. This qualitative observation was complemented with quantitative results for the universal mass ratios and the mode number.
Our results at the smaller $\beta$ value are consistent with earlier investigations in [@DelDebbio:2015byq] for the particle spectrum and [@Patella:2012da] for the mode number. At the larger $\beta$ value we find significantly lower results for the masses in units of the pseudoscalar mass, especially for the glueball, and a smaller mass anomalous dimension. This might be an indication that the mass anomalous dimensions with the unimproved action in [@Patella:2012da] and the ones with the clover improved fermion action in [@Rantaharju:2015yva] might converge towards a universal value in the continuum limit, if possible scaling corrections are included. It seems that towards that limit MWT becomes even more conformal in the sense that the gap between the scalar particle and the rest of the spectrum is increased and the mass anomalous dimension gets smaller. In fact, our results indicate that the differences between various numerical results for the mass anomalous dimension could be rather related to scaling corrections than to the differences between the considered approaches.
Our work also provides a connection to the large $N_c$ results presented in [@Perez:2015yna]. The mass anomalous dimension in conformal [$\text{SU}(N_c)$]{} adjoint QCD is expected to depend only weakly on $N_c$. Therefore the investigation in a large $N_c$ volume reduced theory might be a valid approximation. The mass anomalous dimension obtained in this approach is consistent with our results at $\beta=1.7$.
In addition to these results, we have also been able to investigate particle states in MWT that have not been considered before. The one with the most interesting phenomenological consequences is the [$\text{spin\,1/2\ }$]{}state. We have found that it is considerably lighter than the mesons, and therefore it cannot be discarded from the phenomenological point of view.
The general picture of the particle spectrum in MWT appears to be ordered starting with low mass pure gluonic states (glueballs), followed by heavier mixed fermion-gluon objects, and finally the rather heavy triplet mesons.
We have also measured the singlet mesons in the particle spectrum of MWT for the first time. The most interesting state is the scalar singlet meson, since it provides independent information about the light scalar particle in the theory. Due to the dominance of the disconnected contributions, the mass of this particle is comparable or even below that of the pseudoscalar meson, the lightest meson in the triplet channel. This is similar to the observations reported in other studies [@Brower:2015owo; @Fodor:2015vwa] of (near) conformal theories. However, the ground state in this channel seems to be dominated by the gluonic contributions, and hence the mass remains still much higher than that of the scalar glueball. Therefore it is not sufficient to measure only the mesonic contribution to get a complete picture for the lightest scalar in this theory.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank Agostino Patella, Biagio Lucini, Anna Hasenfratz, and Kieran Holland for interesting discussions.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Gauss Centre for Supercomputing (GCS) for providing computing time for a GCS Large-Scale Project on the GCS share of the supercomputer JUQUEEN at Jülich Supercomputing Centre (JSC) and on the supercomputer SuperMUC at Leibniz Computing Centre (LRZ). GCS is the alliance of the three national supercomputing centres HLRS (Universität Stuttgart), JSC (Forschungszentrum Jülich), and LRZ (Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften), funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and the German State Ministries for Research of Baden-Württemberg (MWK), Bayern (StMWFK) and Nordrhein-Westfalen (MIWF). Further computing time has been provided by the compute cluster PALMA of the University of Münster.
[99]{}
S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D **13** (1976) 974.
L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. D **20** (1979) 2619.
C. T. Hill and E. H. Simmons, Phys. Rept. **381** (2003) 235, Erratum: Phys. Rept. **390** (2004) 553 \[hep-ph/0203079\].
M. Piai, Adv. High Energy Phys. **2010** (2010) 464302 \[arXiv:1004.0176 \[hep-ph\]\].
B. Holdom, Phys. Rev. D **24** (1981) 1441.
F. Sannino and K. Tuominen, Phys. Rev. D **71** (2005) 051901 \[hep-ph/0405209\].
D. D. Dietrich and F. Sannino, Phys. Rev. D **75** (2007) 085018 \[hep-ph/0611341\].
J. Braun, C. S. Fischer and H. Gies, Phys. Rev. D **84** (2011) 034045 \[arXiv:1012.4279 \[hep-ph\]\].
S. Catterall and F. Sannino, Phys. Rev. D **76** (2007) 034504 \[arXiv:0705.1664 \[hep-lat\]\].
A. Hietanen, J. Rantaharju, K. Rummukainen and K. Tuominen, Nucl. Phys. A **820** (2009) 191C. L. Del Debbio, B. Lucini, A. Patella, C. Pica and A. Rago, Phys. Rev. D **82** (2010) 014510 \[arXiv:1004.3206 \[hep-lat\]\].
T. DeGrand, Y. Shamir and B. Svetitsky, Phys. Rev. D **83** (2011) 074507 \[arXiv:1102.2843 \[hep-lat\]\].
T. Appelquist, G. T. Fleming, M. F. Lin, E. T. Neil and D. A. Schaich, Phys. Rev. D **84** (2011) 054501 \[arXiv:1106.2148 \[hep-lat\]\].
T. DeGrand, Y. Shamir and B. Svetitsky, Phys. Rev. D **82** (2010) 054503 \[arXiv:1006.0707 \[hep-lat\]\].
Z. Fodor, K. Holland, J. Kuti, S. Mondal, D. Nogradi and C. H. Wong, Phys. Rev. D **94** (2016) 014503 \[arXiv:1601.03302 \[hep-lat\]\].
R. C. Brower, A. Hasenfratz, C. Rebbi, E. Weinberg and O. Witzel, Phys. Rev. D **93** (2016) 075028 \[arXiv:1512.02576 \[hep-ph\]\].
A. Athenodorou, E. Bennett, G. Bergner and B. Lucini, Phys. Rev. D **91** (2015) 114508 \[arXiv:1412.5994 \[hep-lat\]\].
T. Appelquist *et al.*, Phys. Rev. D **93** (2016) 114514 \[arXiv:1601.04027 \[hep-lat\]\].
T. DeGrand, Rev. Mod. Phys. **88** (2016) 015001 \[arXiv:1510.05018 \[hep-ph\]\].
D. Nogradi and A. Patella, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A **31** (2016) 1643003 \[arXiv:1607.07638 \[hep-lat\]\].
J. Giedt, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A **31** (2016) 1630011 \[arXiv:1512.09330 \[hep-lat\]\].
R. Foadi, M. T. Frandsen, T. A. Ryttov and F. Sannino, Phys. Rev. D **76** (2007) 055005 \[arXiv:0706.1696 \[hep-ph\]\].
G. Bergner, T. A. Ryttov and F. Sannino, JHEP **1512** (2015) 054 \[arXiv:1510.01763 \[hep-th\]\].
Z. Fodor, K. Holland, J. Kuti, S. Mondal, D. Nogradi and C. H. Wong, PoS LATTICE **2015** (2016) 310 \[arXiv:1605.08091 \[hep-lat\]\].
L. Del Debbio and R. Zwicky, Phys. Lett. B **700** (2011) 217 \[arXiv:1009.2894 \[hep-ph\]\].
A. Cheng, A. Hasenfratz, Y. Liu, G. Petropoulos and D. Schaich, Phys. Rev. D **90** (2014) 014509 \[arXiv:1401.0195 \[hep-lat\]\].
G. Münster and H. Stüwe, JHEP **1405** (2014) 034 \[arXiv:1402.6616 \[hep-th\]\].
A. Athenodorou, E. Bennett, G. Bergner, D. Elander, C.-J. D. Lin, B. Lucini and M. Piai, JHEP **1606** (2016) 114 \[arXiv:1605.04258 \[hep-th\]\].
L. Del Debbio, B. Lucini, A. Patella, C. Pica and A. Rago, Phys. Rev. D **93** (2016) 054505 \[arXiv:1512.08242 \[hep-lat\]\].
C. Morningstar and M. J. Peardon, Phys. Rev. D **69** (2004) 054501 \[hep-lat/0311018\].
I. Montvay and E. Scholz, Phys. Lett. B **623** (2005) 73 \[hep-lat/0506006\].
H. B. Meyer, H. Simma, R. Sommer, M. Della Morte, O. Witzel and U. Wolff, Comput. Phys. Commun. **176** (2007) 91 \[hep-lat/0606004\].
G. McGlynn and R. D. Mawhinney, Phys. Rev. D **90** (2014) 074502 \[arXiv:1406.4551 \[hep-lat\]\].
G. S. Bali, K. Schilling and C. Schlichter, Phys. Rev. D **51** (1995) 5165 \[hep-lat/9409005\].
Z. Fodor, K. Holland, J. Kuti, S. Mondal, D. Nogradi and C. H. Wong, PoS LATTICE **2014** (2015) 244 \[arXiv:1502.00028 \[hep-lat\]\].
A. Hietanen, C. Pica, F. Sannino and U. S[ø]{}ndergaard, PoS LATTICE **2013** (2014) 105 \[arXiv:1311.3841 \[hep-lat\]\].
C. Kouvaris, Phys. Rev. D **76** (2007) 015011 \[hep-ph/0703266 \[HEP-PH\]\].
A. Patella, Phys. Rev. D **86** (2012) 025006 \[arXiv:1204.4432 \[hep-lat\]\].
A. Cheng, A. Hasenfratz, G. Petropoulos and D. Schaich, PoS LATTICE **2013** (2014) 088 \[arXiv:1311.1287 \[hep-lat\]\].
Z. Fodor, K. Holland, J. Kuti, D. Nógrádi and C. H. Wong, PoS LATTICE **2013** (2014) 089 \[arXiv:1402.6029 \[hep-lat\]\].
M. García Pérez, A. González-Arroyo, L. Keegan and M. Okawa JHEP **1508** (2015) 034 \[arXiv:1506.06536 \[hep-lat\]\].
L. Giusti, C. Hoelbling, M. Lüscher and H. Wittig, Comput. Phys. Commun. **153** (2003) 31 \[hep-lat/0212012\].
C. Michael, Phys. Rev. D **49** (1994) 2616 \[hep-lat/9310026\].
C. Michael and A. McKerrell, Phys. Rev. D **51** (1995) 3745 \[hep-lat/9412087\].
J. Rantaharju, T. Rantalaiho, K. Rummukainen and K. Tuominen, Phys. Rev. D **93** (2016) 094509 \[arXiv:1510.03335 \[hep-lat\]\].
Data {#ap:data}
====
$L_S$ $L_T$ $\beta$ $\kappa$ $a^2\sigma$ $a{\ensuremath{m_{\text{\tiny PCAC}}}}$ $aF_{PS}$ $am_{PS}$ $N_\text{configs}$
------- ------- --------- ---------- ------------- ----------------------------------------- ------------- ------------- --------------------
24 64 1.5 0.13 0.0477(48) 0.22429(88) 0.1573(12) 0.90080(67) 2130
24 64 1.5 0.1315 0.0229(22) 0.16775(25) 0.12891(44) 0.72149(44) 9900
24 64 1.5 0.1325 0.0081(17) 0.128730(46) 0.10634(27) 0.58710(27) 9800
24 64 1.5 0.135 0.0037(40) 0.03136(15) 0.0514(29) 0.1593(20) 1720
32 64 1.5 0.13 0.0388(30) 0.22539(47) 0.1561(13) 0.90030(91) 1480
32 64 1.5 0.1325 0.0109(15) 0.128840(55) 0.10617(40) 0.58848(98) 3448
32 64 1.5 0.1335 0.0035(15) 0.089619(74) 0.08125(28) 0.44212(28) 5627
32 64 1.5 0.135 0.00140(60) 0.030414(45) 0.04204(68) 0.17063(65) 4432
48 64 1.5 0.1344 0.0030(13) 0.054202(59) 0.05645(47) 0.29986(46) 1122
64 64 1.5 0.1344 0.00395(12) 0.05417(11) 0.0576(10) 0.3009(15) 418
32 64 1.7 0.1275 0.00708(41) 0.17697(22) 0.09717(29) 0.66093(22) 5069
32 64 1.7 0.1285 0.00605(21) 0.147091(22) 0.08690(16) 0.57247(16) 11901
32 64 1.7 0.129 0.00461(20) 0.131717(22) 0.08007(14) 0.5360(25) 11891
32 64 1.7 0.13 0.00366(34) 0.100878(47) 0.06591(23) 0.42116(32) 3941
: These two tables contain the raw data obtained from the simulations at the two different $\beta$ values. All values are provided in lattice units.[]{data-label="tab:data"}
$L_S$ $L_T$ $\beta$ $\kappa$ $am_{V}$ $am_{1/2}$ $am_{0^{++}}$ $am_{S}$ $am_{PV}$
------- ------- --------- ---------- ------------- ------------ --------------- ------------ ------------
24 64 1.5 0.13 0.9622(12) 0.933(14) 0.490(70) 1.179(97) 1.288(18)
24 64 1.5 0.1315 0.77990(45) 0.727(19) 0.470(25) 0.983(14) 1.029(21)
24 64 1.5 0.1325 0.63742(40) 0.551(23) 0.350(25) 0.767(12) 0.793(21)
24 64 1.5 0.135 0.1802(43) 0.292(13) 0.190(30) 0.400(22) 0.38(11)
32 64 1.5 0.13 0.9628(25) 0.917(18) 0.48(20) 1.223(41) 1.358(29)
32 64 1.5 0.1325 0.6387(11) 0.554(15) 0.390(35) 0.779(19) 0.796(24)
32 64 1.5 0.1335 0.47937(56) 0.406(22) 0.260(25) 0.561(12) 0.585(18)
32 64 1.5 0.135 0.18111(91) 0.282(25) 0.220(35) – 0.299(24)
48 64 1.5 0.1344 0.31963(99) 0.296(12) 0.180(30) 0.3816(87) 0.390(15)
64 64 1.5 0.1344 0.3272(27) 0.248(12) 0.26(15) 0.3700(72) 0.399(37)
32 64 1.7 0.1275 0.69117(32) 0.564(24) 0.280(15) 0.7967(72) 0.832(13)
32 64 1.7 0.1285 0.60436(94) 0.4945(92) 0.230(25) 0.6902(62) 0.7115(56)
32 64 1.7 0.129 0.54693(26) 0.464(22) 0.210(30) 0.6312(23) 0.6514(38)
32 64 1.7 0.13 0.44244(62) 0.394(24) 0.210(25) – 0.479(48)
: These two tables contain the raw data obtained from the simulations at the two different $\beta$ values. All values are provided in lattice units.[]{data-label="tab:data"}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In the minimal seesaw model, we derive required constraints on Dirac neutrino masses inducing maximal CP violation in neutrino oscillations. If the maximal atmospheric neutrino mixing is further assumed, Dirac neutrino masses are uniquely determined to respect $\mu$-$\tau$ flavored CP symmetry for neutrinos.'
author:
- Teruyuki Kitabayashi
- Masaki Yasuè
date: 'May, 2016'
title: Maximal CP Violation in Minimal Seesaw Model
---
\[sec:1\]Introduction
=====================
Neutrino oscillations have been theoretically predicted [@PMNS] and experimentally observed as atmospheric, solar, accelerator and reactor neutrino oscillations for more than a decade [@atmospheric; @solarold; @solar; @reactor; @accelerator; @sin13]. Extensive analyses of the current experimental data on neutrino oscillations seem to suggest the presence of the Dirac CP violation in neutrino physics [@NuData]. The Dirac CP violation is described by the CP-violating Dirac phase $\delta_{CP}$, which turns out to lie in the $1\sigma$-region of $\delta_{CP}/\pi = 1.13-1.64$ for the normal mass hierarchy (NH) or of $\delta_{CP}/\pi = 1.07-1.67$ for the inverted mass hierarchy (IH) [@NuData1]. There is another type of CP violation called Majorana CP violation. The relevant CP-violating phases are the Dirac phase and the Majorana phase [@CPViolationOrg], which enter into the Pentecorvo-Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata mixing matrix $U_{PNMS}$ [@PMNS] that converts the mass eigenstates of neutrinos $\nu_{1,2,3}$ into the flavor neutrinos $\nu_{e,\mu,\tau}$. Denoting the atmospheric neutrino mixing angle by $\theta_{23}$, the solar neutrino mixing angle by $\theta_{12}$ and the reactor neutrino mixing angle by $\theta_{13}$, the standard parametrization of $U_{PNMS}$ is given by the Particle Data Group (PDG) [@PDG] to be $U_{PDG}=U^{PDG}_\nu K^{PDG}$: $$\begin{aligned}
U_\nu^{PDG}&=&\left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{{c_{12}}{c_{13}}}&{{s_{12}}{c_{13}}}&{{s_{13}}{e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}}}\\
{ - {{s_{12}{c_{23}}} - {c_{12}}{s_{23}}{s_{13}}{e^{i{\delta _{CP}}}}} }&{{c_{12}}{c_{23}} - {s_{12}}{s_{23}}{s_{13}}{e^{i{\delta _{CP}}}}}&{{s_{23}}{c_{13}}}\\
{{s_{12}}{s_{23}} - {c_{12}}{c_{23}}{s_{13}}{e^{i{\delta _{CP}}}}}&{ - {c_{12}}{{s_{23}} - {s_{12}}{c_{23}}{s_{13}}{e^{i{\delta _{CP}}}}} }&{{c_{23}}{c_{13}}}
\end{array}} \right),
\nonumber\\
{K^{PDG}} &=& \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{{e^{i{\phi _1}/2}}}&0&0\\
0&{{e^{i{\phi _2}/2}}}&0\\
0&0&{{e^{i{\phi _3}/2}}}
\end{array}} \right),
\label{Eq:U_PDG}\end{aligned}$$ for $c_{ij}=\cos\theta_{ij}$, $s_{ij}=\sin\theta_{ij}$ and similarly $t_{ij}=\tan\theta_{ij}$ ($i,j$=1,2,3), where $\phi_{1,2,3}$ stand for the Majorana phases, from which two independent combinations become the CP-violating Majorana phases.
It is interesting to note that the experimentally allowed region of $\delta_{CP}$ includes $\delta_{CP} = 3\pi/2$ indicating maximal CP violation. From the theoretical point of view, $\delta_{CP}$ arises from phases of flavor neutrino masses to be denoted by $M_{ij}$ ($i,j=e,\mu,\tau$). We have been advocating the following useful relation among $\delta_{CP}$ and $M_{ij}$ [@Useful1; @Useful2]: $$\frac{{{M_{\tau \tau }} - {M_{\mu \mu }}}}{2}\sin 2{\theta _{23}} - {M_{\mu \tau }}\cos 2{\theta_{23}} = \tan {\theta_{13}}\left( {{M_{e\mu }}\cos {\theta_{23}} - {M_{e \tau }}\sin {\theta_{23}}} \right){e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}},
\label{Eq:M_nu for 23}$$ which is used to express $\theta_{23}$ in terms of $M_{ij}$. The maximal CP violation can be induced if $$M_{\tau \tau } - M_{\mu \mu } = {\rm imaginary},
\label{Eq:Maximal-CP1}$$ as well as $$M_{\mu \tau } = {\rm imaginary},
\quad
M_{e\mu}\cos\theta_{23} - M_{e\tau}\sin\theta_{23}= {\rm real},
\label{Eq:Maximal-CP2}$$ for $\cos 2\theta_{23}\neq 0$, or $$M_{e\mu}-\sigma M_{e\tau}= {\rm real},
\label{Eq:Maximal-CP2 and ATM}$$ for $\cos 2\theta_{23}= 0$ indicating the maximal atmospheric neutrino mixing, where $\sigma=\pm 1$ takes care of the sign of $\sin\theta_{23}$.
From the recent result of the Planck [@Planck2015arXiv], the upper limit of the neutrino masses is given by $\sum m_\nu \le 0.17$ eV. On the other hand, the neutrino oscillation experiments measure $\Delta m_{31}^2 = m_3^2-m_1^2$ and $\Delta m_{32}^2 = m_3^2-m_2^2$. Choosing $\Delta m_{31}^2= 2.46\times 10^{-3}$ eV$^2 (\sim m_3^2)$ for NH with $m^2_3\gg m^2_2\gg m^2_1$ and $\Delta m_{32}^2 = -2.45\times 10^{-3}$ eV$^2 (\sim -m_2^2)$ for IH with $m^2_2> m^2_1 \gg m^2_3$ [@NuData], we obtain that the heaviest neutrino mass, either $m_3$ or $m_2$, is approximately estimated to be $0.05$ eV. Why neutrinos are so light is a puzzling question to be solved. One of the promising theoretical ideas is the one based on the seesaw mechanism [@Seesaw], which utilizes right-handed neutrinos. The right-handed neutrinos can provide Dirac masses for flavor neutrinos and light flavor neutrinos can be generated if the right-handed neutrinos are very heavy. Furthermore, CP violation in the early universe is able to be induced by the heavy right-handed neutrinos via the Dirac mass terms supplemented by the Higgs scalar. If the heavy right-handed neutrinos come in two families, all of CP-violating phases associated with the Dirac neutrino masses can be converted into the CP-violating Dirac and Majorana phases associated with the light flavor neutrino masses. The model with two extra heavy right-handed neutrinos is called minimal seesaw model [@MinimalSeesaw]. If the seesaw mechanism is the right answer to give tiny neutrino masses, our relation Eq.(\[Eq:M\_nu for 23\]) is also described by more fundamental quantities, namely the Dirac neutrino masses.
In this article, within the framework of the minimal seesaw model, we would like to argue how Dirac neutrino masses are constrained so as to induce maximal CP violation and simultaneously to induce maximal atmospheric neutrino mixing as well [@MassTextureCPEarlier; @mu-tau-CP]. In Sec.\[sec:2\], we introduce six Dirac neutrino masses associated with two extra heavy right-handed neutrinos. Three relations determining three neutrino mixing angles such as Eq.(\[Eq:M\_nu for 23\]) are expressed in terms of these six Dirac neutrino masses and the CP-violating Dirac phase, which are used to find constraints to induce maximal CP violation. To obtain simple and useful relations in the minimal seesaw model, we choose one combination of Dirac neutrino masses to vanish, which includes texture one zero. The detailed discussions to reach various constraints on Dirac neutrino masses are presented in Appendix \[sec:Appendix\]. In Sec.\[sec:3\], we derive necessary constraints on the Dirac neutrino masses to induce maximal CP violation. Finally, further assuming maximal atmospheric neutrino mixing, we determine six Dirac neutrino masses to be real or imaginary. The final section Sec.\[sec:4\] is devoted to summary and discussions, which include a preliminary argument on the creation of the baryon number of the universe via the leptogenesis based on our constraints on the Dirac neutrino masses.
\[sec:2\]Dirac masses and Dirac CP violation
============================================
The minimal seesaw model contains two extra right-handed neutrinos. We understand that a $2 \times 2$ heavy neutrino mass matrix $M_R$ and a charged lepton mass matrix are transformed into diagonal and real ones. After the heavy right-handed neutrinos are decoupled, the minimal seesaw mechanism generates a symmetric $3 \times 3$ light neutrino mass matrix $M_\nu$ containing $M_{ij}$ as elements to yield $M_\nu = -m_D M_R^{-1} m_D^T$, where $m_D$ is a $3 \times 2$ Dirac neutrino mass matrix. We parameterize $M_R$ by $$\begin{aligned}
M_R = \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
M_1 & 0 \\
0 & M_2
\end{array}
\right)\quad (M_1<M_2),\end{aligned}$$ and $m_D$ by $$\begin{aligned}
m_D =
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\sqrt{M_1}a_1 & \sqrt{M_2}b_1 \\
\sqrt{M_1}a_2 & \sqrt{M_2}b_2 \\
\sqrt{M_1}a_3 & \sqrt{M_2}b_3 \\
\end{array}
\right),\end{aligned}$$ which result in $$\begin{aligned}
M_\nu &=& \left( \begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
M_{ee}&M_{e\mu }&M_{e\tau }\\
M_{e\mu }&M_{\mu \mu }&M_{\mu \tau }\\
M_{e\tau }&M_{\mu \tau }&M_{\tau \tau }
\end{array} \right)
=
-\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
a_1^2 + b_1^2 & a_1a_2 + b_1b_2 & a_1a_3 + b_1b_3 \\
a_1a_2 + b_1b_2 & a_2^2 + b_2^2 & a_2a_3 + b_2b_3 \\
a_1a_3 + b_1b_3 & a_2a_3 + b_2b_3 & a_3^2 + b_3^2 \\
\end{array}
\right),
\label{Eq:Mnu}\end{aligned}$$ where the minus sign in front of the mass matrix is discarded for the later discussions. One of the masses of $\nu_{1,2,3}$ is required to vanish owing to $\det\left(M_\nu\right)=0$.
The useful relation Eq.(\[Eq:M\_nu for 23\]) expressed in terms of $M_{ij}$ is converted into $$\begin{aligned}
{a_ + }{a_ - } + {b_ + }{b_ - } = - {t_{13}}\left( {{a_1}{a_ - } + {b_1}{b_ - }} \right){e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}},
\label{Eq:23 for seesaw} \end{aligned}$$ where ${a_ + } = {s_{23}}{a_2} + {c_{23}}{a_3}$, ${b_ + } = {s_{23}}{b_2} + {c_{23}}{b_3}$, ${a_ - } = {c_{23}}{a_2} - {s_{23}}{a_3}$ and ${b_ - } = {c_{23}}{b_2} - {s_{23}}{b_3}$. There are two more similar relations to Eq.(\[Eq:M\_nu for 23\]) that determine $\theta_{12,13}$ for given $M_{ij}$ [@Useful2] and these two relations give rise to $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\sin 2{\theta _{12}}\left[ {\frac{{c_{13}^2\left( {a_1^2 + b_1^2} \right) - s_{13}^2\left( {a_ + ^2 + b_ + ^2} \right)}{e^{2i{\delta _{CP}}}}}{{\cos 2{\theta _{13}}}} - \left( {a_ - ^2 + b_ - ^2} \right)} \right] = - 2\cos 2{\theta _{12}}\frac{{{a_1}{a_ - } + {b_1}{b_ - }}}{{{c_{13}}}},
\label{Eq:12 for seesaw}\\
&&
\sin 2{\theta _{13}}\left[ {\left( {a_ + ^2 + b_ + ^2} \right){e^{i{\delta _{CP}}}} - \left( {a_1^2 + b_1^2} \right){e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}}} \right] = 2\cos 2{\theta _{13}}\left( {{a_1}{a_ + } + {b_1}{b_ + }} \right).
\label{Eq:13 for seesaw}\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, neutrino masses accompanied by Majorana phases are calculated to be: $$\begin{aligned}
{m_1}{e^{ - i{\phi _1}}} &=& a_ - ^2 + b_ - ^2 - \frac{{{a_1}{a_ - } + {b_1}{b_ - }}}{{{t_{12}}{c_{13}}}},
\nonumber\\
{m_2}{e^{ - i{\phi _2}}} &=& a_ - ^2 + b_ - ^2 + \frac{{{t_{12}}}}{{{c_{13}}}}\left( {{a_1}{a_ - } + {b_1}{b_ - }} \right),
\label{Eq:masses for seesaw}\\
{m_3}{e^{ - i{\phi _3}}} &=& \frac{{c_{13}^2\left( {a_ + ^2 + b_ + ^2} \right) - s_{13}^2\left( {a_1^2 + b_1^2} \right)}{e^{ - 2i{\delta _{CP}}}}}{{\cos 2{\theta _{13}}}}.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ These three relations Eqs.(\[Eq:23 for seesaw\]), (\[Eq:12 for seesaw\]) and (\[Eq:13 for seesaw\]) can be casted into more compact forms since one of three neutrino masses turns out be zero owing to $\det(M_\nu)=0$. For NH, we have $m_1=0$ leading to $$a_ - ^2 + b_ - ^2 = \frac{1}{{{t_{12}}{c_{13}}}}\left( {{a_1}{a_ - } + {b_1}{b_ - }} \right),
\label{Eq:m1=0 for seesaw}$$ and obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
&&
{a_ + }{a_ - } + {b_ + }{b_ - } = - {t_{13}}\left( {{a_1}{a_ - } + {b_1}{b_ - }} \right){e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}},
\label{Eq:23 for NHseesaw}\\
&&
a_1^2 + b_1^2 - t_{12}^2\left( {a_ - ^2 + b_ - ^2} \right) = {t_{13}}\left( {{a_1}{a_ + } + {b_1}{b_ + }} \right){e^{i{\delta _{CP}}}},
\label{Eq:12 for NHseesaw}\\
&&
c_{13}^2\left( {a_1^2 + b_1^2} \right) - s_{13}^2\left( {a_ + ^2 + b_ + ^2} \right){e^{2i{\delta _{CP}}}} = \left( {c_{13}^2 - s_{13}^2} \right)t_{12}^2\left( {a_ - ^2 + b_ - ^2} \right),
\label{Eq:13 for NHseesaw}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{m_2}{e^{ - i{\phi _2}}} &=& \frac{1}{{c_{12}^2}}\left( {a_ - ^2 + b_ - ^2} \right),
\nonumber\\
{m_3}{e^{ - i{\phi _3}}} &=& \frac{1}{{c_{13}^2}}\left[ {a_ + ^2 + b_ + ^2 - s_{13}^2t_{12}^2\left( {a_ - ^2 + b_ - ^2} \right){e^{ - 2i{\delta _{CP}}}}} \right].
\label{Eq:masses for NHseesaw}\end{aligned}$$ For IH, we have $m_3=0$ leading to $$a_ + ^2 + b_ + ^2 = t_{13}^2\left( {a_1^2 + b_1^2} \right){e^{ - 2i{\delta _{CP}}}},
\label{Eq:m3=0 for seesaw}$$ and obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
&&
{a_ + }{a_ - } + {b_ + }{b_ - } = - {t_{13}}\left( {{a_1}{a_ - } + {b_1}{b_ - }} \right){e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}},
\label{Eq:23 for IHseesaw}\\
&&
\sin 2{\theta _{12}}\left( {\frac{{a_1^2 + b_1^2}}{{c_{13}^2}} - \left( {a_ - ^2 + b_ - ^2} \right)} \right) = - 2\cos 2{\theta _{12}}\frac{{{a_1}{a_ - } + {b_1}{b_ - }}}{{{c_{13}}}},
\label{Eq:12 for IHseesaw}\\
&&
{a_1}{a_ + } + {b_1}{b_ + } = - {t_{13}}\left( {a_1^2 + b_1^2} \right){e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}},
\label{Eq:13 for IHseesaw}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{m_1}{e^{ - i{\phi _1}}} &=& a_ - ^2 + b_ - ^2 - \frac{{{a_1}{a_ - } + {b_1}{b_ - }}}{{{t_{12}}{c_{13}}}},
\nonumber\\
{m_2}{e^{ - i{\phi _2}}} &=& a_ - ^2 + b_ - ^2 + \frac{{{t_{12}}}}{{{c_{13}}}}\left( {{a_1}{a_ - } + {b_1}{b_ - }} \right).
\label{Eq:masses for IHseesaw}\end{aligned}$$ We would like to obtain simple solutions to these equations for $a_{1,+,-}$ and $b_{1,+,-}$ and choose several plausible sets of the solutions, which are consistent with the hierarchical condition of $m^2_3\gg m^2_2$ requiring that $\left| a_ + ^2 + b_ + ^2 \right|^2\gg\left| a_ - ^2 + b_ - ^2 \right|^2$ for NH or $m^2_1\approx m^2_2$ requiring that $\left|a_ - ^2 + b_ - ^2 \right|^2\gg\left|{{a_1}{a_ - } + {b_1}{b_ - }} \right|^2$ for IH. As stated in the Introduction, we choose one combination of Dirac neutrino masses to vanish, which includes texture one zero. The discussions on our choices of the solutions are presented in Appendix \[sec:Appendix\], from which we can summarize our results as follows: For NH,
1. in the case of $a_1 = 0$, $a_{+,-}$ and $b_{1,+,-}$ should satisfy ${a_ - } = - {{{s_{13}}}}{a_ + }{e^{i{\delta _{CP}}}}/{{{t_{12}}}}$ and ${b_1} = {{{t_{12}}}}{b_ - }/{{{c_{13}}}} + {t_{13}}{b_ + }{e^{i{\delta _{CP}}}}$ as well as ${a_ + }{a_ - } = - \left( {{b_ + } + {t_{13}}{b_1}e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}} \right){b_ - }$ and $a_ - ^2 + b_ - ^2 = {b_1}{b_ - }/{{{t_{12}}{c_{13}}}}$;
2. in the case of $b_1 = 0$, $a_{1,+,-}$ and $b_{+,-}$ should satisfy relations in the case of $a_1 = 0$ with the interchange of $a\leftrightarrow b$;
3. in the case of $a_- = 0$, $a_{1,+}$ and $b_{1,+,-}$ should satisfy ${a_1} = {t_{13}}{a_ + }{e^{i{\delta _{CP}}}}$, ${b_ - } = b_1/{t_{12}c_{13}}$ and ${b_ + } = - {t_{13}}{b_1}{e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}}$;
4. in the case of $b_- = 0$, $a_{1,+,-}$ and $b_{1,+}$ should satisfy relations in the case of $a_- = 0$ with the interchange of $a\leftrightarrow b$;
5. in the cases of $a_+ = 0$ and $b_+ = 0$, no simple linear expressions arise.
and, for IH, we find that
1. in the case of ${{a_ + } = - {t_{13}}{a_1}{e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}}}$, $a_-$ and $b_{1,+,-}$ should satisfy ${b_ + } = - {t_{13}}{b_1}{e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}}$;
2. in the case of $a_1 = 0$, $a_{-,+}$ and $b_{1,+,-}$ should satisfy ${a_ + } = 0$ and ${b_ + } = - {t_{13}}{b_1}{e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}}$;
3. in the case of $b_1 = 0$, $a_{1,+,-}$ and $b_{+,-}$ should satisfy relations in the case of $a_1 = 0$ with the interchange of $a\leftrightarrow b$;
4. the case of $a_+ = 0$ ($b_+ = 0$) is identical to the case 2 (the case 3);
5. the case of $a_- = 0$ ($b_- = 0$) is included in the case 1 or 2 (the case 1 or 3) as an additional requirement.
The case of 5 for NH is not further discussed because it does not supply no useful linear relations with respect $a_{1,+,-}$ and $b_{1,+,-}$ and the cases of 4 and 5 for IH are irrelevant.
\[sec:3\]Maximal CP Violation
=============================
In this section, we would like to find appropriate conditions on $a_{1,2,3}$ and $b_{1,2,3}$, which are similar to Eqs.(\[Eq:Maximal-CP1\]) and (\[Eq:Maximal-CP2\]), to induce maximal CP violation. From the discussions in Sec.\[sec:2\], we find several such candidates in both NH and IH. We choose the phase to be ${e^{-i{\delta _{CP}}}}$ appearing in the equations as much the same way as in Eq.(\[Eq:M\_nu for 23\]). The results are summarized in TABLE \[Tab:NH\] for NH and TABLE \[Tab:IH\] for IH that show which Dirac neutrino masses are real or imaginary. In these tables, the real or imaginary Dirac neutrino masses give maximal CP violation through the relevant constraint(s).
case relevant constraint for $\delta _{CP}=\pm \pi/2$ real imaginary
------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- --------------
1 ${a_ - }{e^{-i{\delta _{CP}}}} = - {{{s_{13}}}}{a_ + }/{{{t_{12}}}}$ $a_-$ $a_+$
2 ${b_ - }{e^{-i{\delta _{CP}}}} = - {{{s_{13}}}}{b_ + }/{{{t_{12}}}}$ $b_-$ $b_+$
3 ${a_1}{e^{-i{\delta _{CP}}}} = {t_{13}}{a_ + }$, ${b_ + } = - {t_{13}}{b_1}{e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}}$ $a_1$, $b_1$ $a_+$, $b_+$
4 ${b_1}{e^{-i{\delta _{CP}}}} = {t_{13}}{b_ + }$, ${a_ + } = - {t_{13}}{a_1}{e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}}$
: \[Tab:NH\]Constraints for NH to induce maximal CP violation
case relevant constraint for $\delta _{CP}=\pm \pi/2$ real imaginary
------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- --------------
1 ${a_ + } = - {t_{13}}{a_1}{e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}}$, ${b_ + } = - {t_{13}}{b_1}{e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}}$ $a_1$, $b_1$ $a_+$, $b_+$
2 ${b_ + } = - {t_{13}}{b_1}{e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}}$ $b_1$ $b_+$
3 ${a_ + } = - {t_{13}}{a_1}{e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}}$ $a_1$ $a_+$
: \[Tab:IH\]Constraints for IH to induce maximal CP violation
If the atmospheric neutrino mixing is maximal as well, $a_+$ and $a_-$ turn out to be ${a_ + } = (\sigma{a_2} + {a_3})/{\sqrt 2}$ and ${a_ - } = \sigma (\sigma{a_2}- {a_3})/{\sqrt 2}$. Therefore, it can be observed that the relation of ${a_3} = -\sigma{a_2}^\ast$ as long as $a_+\neq 0$ and $a_-\neq 0$ ensures the appearance of the imaginary $a_+$ in all focused cases requiring $a_-$ to be real and similarly for $b_{+,-}$. This constraint on $a_{2,3}$ (or $b_{2,3}$) is equivalent to Eqs.(\[Eq:Maximal-CP1\]) and (\[Eq:Maximal-CP2 and ATM\]). In terms of $a_{1,+,-}$ and $b_{1,+,-}$, Eqs.(\[Eq:Maximal-CP1\]) and (\[Eq:Maximal-CP2 and ATM\]) can be expressed as ${\rm Re} \left( {{a_ + }{a_ - } + {b_ + }{b_ - }} \right) = 0$ and ${\rm Im} \left( {{a_1}{a_ - } + {b_1}{b_ - }} \right) = 0$.
So far, we have assumed that one of $a_{1,+,-}$ and $b_{1,+,-}$ vanishes but more general conclusion can be obtained without making any assumptions. It is known that the relations of $M_{e\tau} = -\sigma M_{e\mu}^\ast$ and $M_{\tau\tau} = M_{\mu\mu}^\ast$ supplemented by $M_{ee,\mu\tau}$=real lead to maximal CP violation as well as maximal atmospheric neutrino mixing [@MassTextureCPEarlier; @MassTextureCP]. In our point of view, it is understood that these relations serve as specific solutions to Eqs.(\[Eq:Maximal-CP1\]) and (\[Eq:Maximal-CP2 and ATM\]) [@Useful1]. In terms of $a_{1,+,-}$ and $b_{1,+,-}$, the solution consists of ${a_3} = -\sigma{a_2}^\ast$ and ${b_3} = -\sigma{b_2}^\ast$ supplemented by ${a_1} = {\rm real}$ and ${b_1} = {\rm real}$. The Dirac neutrino masses are uniquely determined to be: $$\begin{aligned}
m_D =
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\sqrt{M_1}a_1 & \sqrt{M_2}b_1 \\
\sqrt{M_1}a_2 & \sqrt{M_2}b_2 \\
\sqrt{M_1}(-\sigma a^\ast_2) & \sqrt{M_2}(-\sigma b^\ast_2) \\
\end{array}
\right),
\label{Eq:MaximalCPmD}\end{aligned}$$ where $a_1$ and $b_1$ are real. As in Ref.[@MassTextureCP; @FlavoredSym], if a unitary matrix $S$ is defined to be $$\begin{aligned}
S = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
1&0&0\\
0&0&{ - \sigma }\\
0&{ - \sigma }&0
\end{array}} \right),
\label{Eq:mu-tau}\end{aligned}$$ on the $\left(\nu_e,\nu_\mu,\nu_\tau\right)$ basis, which provides $\mu$-$\tau$ flavored CP symmetry for the flavor neutrinos [@FlavoredSym] subjected to the interchange of $\nu_\mu$ and $\nu_\tau$, it is found that $m_D$ of Eq.(\[Eq:MaximalCPmD\]) satisfies that $S^Tm_D = m^\ast_D$ as expected.
\[sec:4\]Summary and Discussions
================================
We are able to derive the useful and simple relations to induce maximal CP violation, which dictate that $a_+$=imaginary and $a_1$=real and/or $b_+$=imaginary and $b_1$=real for both NH and IH. For NH, either $a_+$=imaginary and $a_-$=real or $b_+$=imaginary and $b_-$=real also arises. These relations are limited to hold in specific textures where at least one of $a_{1,+,-}$ and $b_{1,+,-}$ vanishes. If the atmospheric neutrino mixing is also maximal, we have obtained ${a_3} = -\sigma{a_2}^\ast$, ${b_3} = -\sigma{b_2}^\ast$, $a_1$=real and $b_1$=real applicable to more general textures. These relations turn out to be equivalent to the familiar relations of $M_{e\tau}=-\sigma M^\ast_{e\mu}$,$M_{\tau\tau}=M^\ast_{\mu\mu}$, $M_{ee}={\rm real}$ and $M_{\mu\tau}={\rm real}$ for flavor neutrinos.
Our findings about various relations among the Dirac masses giving the maximal CP violation for flavor neutrinos become useful when neutrino physics is affected by phases of the Dirac masses. The immediate such an example is to apply our method to the process of the creation of the baryon number of the universe via the leptogenesis. In fact, the result indicates that the CP-violating Majorana phases for the leptogenesis come from $a_{2,3}$ and $b_{2,3}$ (see Eq.(\[Eq:Delta\])) although there is no Majorana CP violation for flavor neutrinos if the above relations are satisfied.
To see how the baryon-photon ratio in the universe via the leptogenesis scenario can be predicted by the use of our requirement on the Dirac neutrino masses for the maximal CP violation, we provide a preliminary result as a viable example. First of all, we summarize the recipes, which are known as follows [@leptogenesis; @FlavoredLeptogenesis]:
- The CP asymmetry parameters from the decay of the lightest right-handed neutrino $N_1$ (we assume $M_1 \ll M_2$) is obtained from $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon_i= -\frac{3M_1}{16\pi v^2}\frac{{\rm Im}[a_i^\ast b_i(a_1^\ast b_1 + a_2^\ast b_2 + a_3^\ast b_3)]}{\vert a_1 \vert^2+\vert a_2 \vert^2+\vert a_3 \vert^2},\end{aligned}$$ where $i=e,\mu,\tau=1,2,3$ and $v \simeq 174$ GeV.
- The baryon number in the co-moving volume is calculated to be $$\begin{aligned}
Y_B \simeq -\frac{12}{37 g_\ast} \left [(\epsilon_e+\epsilon_\mu)\eta\left(\frac{417}{589}(\vert a_1\vert^2 + \vert a_2\vert^2 )\right) + \epsilon_\tau \eta\left(\frac{390}{589} \vert a_3 \vert^2\right) \right],\end{aligned}$$ for $10^9 \le M_1 {\rm [GeV]} \le 10^{12}$ where washout effect on $\epsilon_i$ in the expanding universe is controlled by $$\begin{aligned}
\eta(x) = \left( \frac{8.25\times 10^{-3} {\rm eV}}{x} + \left( \frac{x}{2\times 10^{-4} {\rm eV}} \right)^{1.16} \right)^{-1},\end{aligned}$$ and $g_\ast$ denotes the effective number of relativistic degree of freedom. We take $g_\ast = 106.75$.
- The baryon-photon ratio $\eta_B$ is estimated to be $\eta_B=7.04Y_B$.
Next, we estimate the baryon-photon ratio by assuming the maximal CP violation and the maximal atmospheric neutrino mixing in the neutrino sector: e.g., $a_1={\rm real}$, $b_1={\rm real}$, $a_3=-\sigma a_2^\ast$ and $b_3=-\sigma b_2^\ast$. In this case, there are only two independent phases ${\rm arg}(a_2)$ and ${\rm arg}(b_2)$. The CP asymmetry parameter $\epsilon_i$ are obtained as $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon_e &=& 0, \nonumber \\
\epsilon_\mu &=& -\frac{3M_1}{16\pi v^2}\frac{(|a_1||b_1| + 2{\rm Re}[a_2^\ast b_2] ){\rm Im}[a_2^\ast b_2]}{|a_1|^2+2 \vert a_2 \vert^2} \nonumber \\
&=& -\frac{3M_1}{16\pi v^2}\frac{(|a_1||b_1| + 2|a_2||b_2|\cos\Delta)|a_2||b_2|\sin\Delta}{|a_1|^2+2 |a_2|^2}, \nonumber \\
\epsilon_\tau &=& -\epsilon_\mu,
\label{Eq:epsilon_maxCP_maxAtm}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\Delta = {\rm arg}(b_2)-{\rm arg}(a_2).
\label{Eq:Delta}$$ From Eq.(\[Eq:epsilon\_maxCP\_maxAtm\]), as we expected, the phase difference $\Delta$ has crucial role in the baryon asymmetry generation in the universe and $\Delta \neq n\pi$ $(n=0, \pm 1, \pm 2 \cdots)$ is required for nonvanishing baryon-photon ratio.
To confirm results of our discussions more concretely, we estimate the CP asymmetry parameters shown in Eq.(\[Eq:epsilon\_maxCP\_maxAtm\]) with the horizontal equality in the Dirac mass matrix [@Barger2004PLB]. There are the following three cases of the horizontal equality for elements denoted by $X$: $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm I}:\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
X & X\\
* & *\\
* & *\\
\end{array}
\right),
\quad
{\rm II}:\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
* & *\\
X & X\\
* & *\\
\end{array}
\right),
\quad
{\rm III}:\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
* & *\\
* & *\\
X & X\\
\end{array}
\right),\end{aligned}$$ where the mark “$*$" denotes a nonvanishing element. The vertical equality is also discussed [@He2011PRD]. In the case II and case III, we obtain $\Delta=0$. The case I only survives for the maximal CP violation as well as the maximal atmospheric neutrino mixing for nonvanishing baryon-photon ratio. The phenomenological consequences with the horizontal equality have been obtained by numerical calculations. In this paper, we show the clear constraint on the models with horizontal equality by exact analytical expressions. This is an advantage of our research.
We show a numerical example of the baryon-photon ratio in the case I of the horizontal equality requiring $\sqrt{M_1}a_1=\sqrt{M_2}b_1$ for the maximal CP violation and the maximal atmospheric neutrino mixing. The effective mass of the neutrino less double beta decay is estimated as $M_{ee}= (1+M_1/M_2)a_1^2$. For the sake of simplicity, we assume $|a_2|=|b_2|$ and $\Delta = \pi/2$. The CP asymmetry parameter $\epsilon_\mu$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon_\mu = -\frac{3M_1}{16\pi v^2}\sqrt{\frac{M_1}{M_2}}\frac{|M_{ee}| |a_2|^2}{|M_{ee}|+2 (1+M_1/M_2) |a_2|^2},\end{aligned}$$ and we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\eta_B=6.1\times 10^{-10},\end{aligned}$$ for $M_1=9.7\times 10^{11}$ GeV, $M_2=100M_1$, $|M_{ee}|=0.069$ eV and $|a_2|=0.063$ eV, which is consistent with the observed value of $\eta_B = (6.02-6.18) \times 10^{-10}$ [@etaB]. More general analysis will be found elsewhere [@New].
\[sec:Appendix\]Useful Constraints
==================================
In this appendix, we describe how to obtain various constraints on $a_{1,+,-}$ and $b_{1,+,-}$ as solutions to the equations, Eqs.(\[Eq:m1=0 for seesaw\])-(\[Eq:13 for NHseesaw\]) for NH and Eqs.(\[Eq:m3=0 for seesaw\])-(\[Eq:13 for IHseesaw\]) for IH. We use constraints on $a_{1,+,-}$ as initial conditions to find our solutions, which can be transformed into other solutions based on those on $b_{1,+,-}$ by the interchange of $a\leftrightarrow b$. The initial setup for $a_{1,+,-}$, where one combination of Dirac neutrino masses to vanish, turns out to be given by $a_1=0$, $a_+=0$, $a_-=0$ or ${{a_ + } + {t_{13}}{a_1}{e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}} = 0}$. For NH,
1. $a_1=0$: From Eq.(\[Eq:m1=0 for seesaw\]), ${a_ - ^2 = - \left( {{b_ - } - \frac{1}{{{t_{12}}{c_{13}}}}{b_1}} \right){b_ - }}$ is required to have $m_1 = 0$. From Eq.(\[Eq:23 for NHseesaw\]) for $\theta_{23}$ and Eq.(\[Eq:12 for NHseesaw\]) for $\theta_{12}$, we, respectively, obtain ${a_ + }{a_ - } = - \left( {{b_ + } + {t_{13}}{e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}}{b_1}} \right){b_ - }$ and ${b_1} = \frac{{{t_{12}}}}{{{c_{13}}}}{b_ - } + {t_{13}}{b_ + }{e^{i{\delta _{CP}}}}$, which turn out to satisfy (\[Eq:13 for NHseesaw\]) for $\theta_{13}$. Inserting the expression of $b_1$ into those of $a_ - ^2$ and $a_+a_-$, finally, gives a simpler relation ${a_ - } = - \frac{{{s_{13}}}}{{{t_{12}}}}{a_ + }{e^{i{\delta _{CP}}}}$. We obtain that ${b_1} = \frac{{{t_{12}}}}{{{c_{13}}}}{b_ - } + {t_{13}}{b_ + }{e^{i{\delta _{CP}}}}$ and ${a_ - } = - \frac{{{s_{13}}}}{{{t_{12}}}}{a_ + }{e^{i{\delta _{CP}}}}$ as useful relations together with $a_-=0$.
2. $a_+=0$: It is readily recognized that no simple linear relations are deduced from the equations and $a_{1,-}$ and $b_{1,+,-}$ should satisfy $a_ - ^2 + b_ - ^2 = \frac{1}{{{t_{12}}{c_{13}}}}\left( {{a_1}{a_ - } + {b_1}{b_ - }} \right)$ from Eq.(\[Eq:m1=0 for seesaw\]), ${b_ + }{b_ - } = - {t_{13}}{e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}}\left( {{a_1}{a_ - } + {b_1}{b_ - }} \right)$ from Eq.(\[Eq:23 for NHseesaw\]), $a_1^2 + b_1^2 - t_{12}^2\left( {a_ - ^2 + b_ - ^2} \right) = {t_{13}}{b_1}{b_ + }{e^{i{\delta _{CP}}}}$ from Eq.(\[Eq:12 for NHseesaw\]) and $c_{13}^2\left( {a_1^2 + b_1^2} \right) - s_{13}^2{e^{2i{\delta _{CP}}}}b_ + ^2 = \left( {c_{13}^2 - s_{13}^2} \right)t_{12}^2\left( {a_ - ^2 + b_ - ^2} \right)$ from Eq.(\[Eq:13 for NHseesaw\]).
3. $a_-=0$: From Eq.(\[Eq:m1=0 for seesaw\]), ${b_ - } = \frac{1}{{{t_{12}}{c_{13}}}}{b_1}$ is required to have $m_1 = 0$. From Eq.(\[Eq:23 for NHseesaw\]) and Eq.(\[Eq:12 for NHseesaw\]), we, respectively, obtain ${b_ + } = - {t_{13}}{b_1}{e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}}$ and ${a_1} = {t_{13}}{a_ + }e^{i{\delta _{CP}}}$, which turn out to satisfy (\[Eq:13 for NHseesaw\]) for $\theta_{13}$. We obtain that ${b_ + } + {t_{13}}{b_1}{e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}}=0$, ${b_ - } = \frac{1}{{{t_{12}}{c_{13}}}}{b_1}$ and ${a_1} = {t_{13}}{a_ + }e^{i{\delta _{CP}}}$ together with $a_1=0$.
For IH, the combined use of Eqs.(\[Eq:m3=0 for seesaw\]) and (\[Eq:13 for IHseesaw\]) yields ${a_1}{a_ + } + {b_1}{b_ + } = -{t_{13}}\left( {a_1^2 + b_1^2} \right){e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}}$ for Eq.(\[Eq:13 for IHseesaw\]) giving $$\left( {{a_ + } + {t_{13}}{a_1}{e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}}} \right){a_1} + \left( {{b_ + } + {t_{13}}{b_1}{e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}}} \right){b_1} = 0,
\label{Eq:13-simplerIH}$$ by which Eq.(\[Eq:m3=0 for seesaw\]) is further reduced to $$\left( {{a_ + } + {t_{13}}{a_1}{e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}}} \right){a_ + } + \left( {{b_ + } + {t_{13}}{b_1}{e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}}} \right){b_ + } = 0.
\label{Eq:m3=0-simplerIH}$$ Similarly, Eq.(\[Eq:23 for IHseesaw\]) leads to $$\left( {{a_ + } + {t_{13}}{a_1}{e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}}} \right){a_ - } + \left( {{b_ + } + {t_{13}}{b_1}{e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}}} \right){b_ - } = 0.
\label{Eq:23-simplerIH}$$ Considering Eqs.(\[Eq:13-simplerIH\])-(\[Eq:23-simplerIH\]), we find the following cases:
1. ${\frac{{{b_ + } + {t_{13}}{b_1}{e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}}}}{{{a_ + } + {t_{13}}{a_1}{e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}}}} = - \frac{{{a_1}}}{{{b_1}}} = - \frac{{{a_ + }}}{{{b_ + }}} = - \frac{{{a_ - }}}{{{b_ - }}}}$ for ${{a_ + } + {t_{13}}{a_1}{e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}}}\neq 0$, ${{b_ + } + {t_{13}}{b_1}{e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}}}\neq 0$ as well as $a_{1,+,-}\neq 0$ and $b_{1,+,-}\neq 0$: Eq.(\[Eq:23-simplerIH\]) with ${a_ + } = {b_ + }{a_1}/{b_1}$ yields either ${b_ + } + {t_{13}}{b_1}{e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}} = 0$, which is not allowed by the initial conditions, or ${a_1}{a_ - } + {b_1}{b_ - } = 0$ giving $\left| {{m_1}} \right| = \left| {{m_2}} \right|$ from Eq.(\[Eq:masses for IHseesaw\]), which contradicts the fact that $\left| {{m_1}} \right| < \left| {{m_2}} \right|$. This case cannot provide a solution.
2. ${{a_ + } + {t_{13}}{a_1}{e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}} = 0}$: It is readily found that ${{b_ + } + {t_{13}}{b_1}{e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}} = 0}$ is the solution. We obtain that ${{a_ + } + {t_{13}}{a_1}{e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}} = 0}$ and ${{b_ + } + {t_{13}}{b_1}{e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}} = 0}$.
3. $a_1 = 0$: $\left( {{b_ + } + {t_{13}}{b_1}{e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}}} \right){b_ 1 } = 0$ is required and ${{b_ + } + {t_{13}}{b_1}{e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}}} = 0$ is the solution because ${b_ 1 } = 0$ gives $\left| {{m_1}} \right| = \left| {{m_2}} \right|$. The remaining conditions from Eqs.(\[Eq:13-simplerIH\])-(\[Eq:23-simplerIH\]) are fulfilled by $a_+=0$. For Eq.(\[Eq:12 for IHseesaw\]), $\sin 2{\theta _{12}}\left( {b_1^2 - c_{13}^2\left( {a_ - ^2 + b_ - ^2} \right)} \right) = - 2\cos 2{\theta _{12}}{c_{13}}{b_1}{b_ - }$ should be satisfied. We obtain that ${{b_ + } + {t_{13}}{b_1}{e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}}} = 0$ and $a_1 = a_+=0$.
4. $a_ + = 0$: Either ${{b_ + } + {t_{13}}{b_1}{e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}} = 0}$ or $b_+=0$ is the solution. If $b_+=0$, Eq.(\[Eq:23-simplerIH\]) yields ${{a_1}{a_ - } + {b_1}{b_ - } = 0}$, which results in ${\left| {{m_1}} \right| = \left| {{m_2}} \right|}$ from Eq.(\[Eq:masses for IHseesaw\]). For ${{b_ + } + {t_{13}}{b_1}{e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}} = 0}$, $a_1=0$ is derived. We obtain that ${{b_ + } + {t_{13}}{b_1}{e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}} = 0}$ and $a_ 1 = a_+=0$.
5. $a_ - = 0$: $\left( {{b_ + } + {t_{13}}{b_1}{e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}}} \right){b_ - } = 0$ is required and ${{b_ + } + {t_{13}}{b_1}{e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}}} = 0$ is the solution because ${b_ - } = 0$ gives $\left| {{m_1}} \right| = \left| {{m_2}} \right|$ from Eq.(\[Eq:masses for IHseesaw\]). The remaining conditions are fulfilled by either ${a_ + } + {t_{13}}{a_1}{e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}} = 0$ or ${a_1} = {a_ + } = 0$. We obtain that ${a_ + } + {t_{13}}{a_1}{e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}} = 0$, ${{b_ + } + {t_{13}}{b_1}{e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}}} = 0$ and $a_ - = 0$ or that ${{b_ + } + {t_{13}}{b_1}{e^{ - i{\delta _{CP}}}}} = 0$ and ${a_1} = {a_ + } =a_ - = 0$.
All of the cases for IH are not independent. For instance, the case 5 is included in the case 2 or in the case 3 both with the additional condition of $a_-=0$.
[99]{} B. Pontecorvo, \[\];\
Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa and S. Sakata, . Y. Fukuda, et al. (Super-Kamiokande Collaboration), ; ;\
T. Kajita, .\
See also, T. Kajita and Y. Totsuka, . J.N. Bahcall, W.A. Fowler, I. Iben and R.L. Sears, ;\
J.N. Bahcall, ;\
R. Davis Jr., ;\
R. Davis Jr., D.S. Harmer and K.C. Hoffman, ;\
J.N. Bahcall, N.A. Bahcall and G. Shaviv, ;\
J.N. Bahcall and R. Davis Jr., . Y. Fukuda, et al. (Super-Kamiokande Collaboration), ; , Erratum;\
B.T. Clevel, et al. (Super-Kamiokande Collaboration), ;\
W. Hampel, et al. (GNO Collaboration), ;\
Q.A. Ahmed, et al. (SNO Collaboration), ; . See for example, K. Eguchi, et al. (KamLAND Collaboration), ;\
S. Abe, et al. (KamLAND Collaboration), ;\
F.P. An, et al., . See for example, K. Abe, et. al. (T2K Collaboration), ;\
P. Adamson, et. al. (MINOS Collaboration), . K. Abe et al. (T2K Collaboration), ;\
P. Adamson et al. (MINOS Collaboration), ;\
F. P. An et al. (Daya Bay Collaboration), ;\
S.-B. Kim et al. (RENO Collaboration), ;\
Y. Abe et al. (Double Chooz Collaboration), . D.V. Forero, M. Tortola and J.W.F. Valle, ;\
M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni and T. Schwetz, ;\
F. Capozzi, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, D. Montanino and A. Palazzo, “Neutrino masses and mixings: Status of known and unknown 3$\nu$ parameters“ (Invited contribution prepared for the Nuclear Physics B Special Issue on ”Neutrino Oscillations" celebrating the Nobel Prize in Physics 2015), arXiv:1601.07777 \[hep-ph\]. F. Capozzi, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, D. Montanino and A. Palazzo, in Ref.[@NuData]. S.M. Bilenky, J. Hosek and S.T. Petcov, ;\
J. Schechter and J.W.F. Valle, ;\
M. Doi, T. Kotani, H. Nishiura, K. Okuda and E. Takasugi, . J. Beringer, et.al. (Particle Data Group), .\
See also, L.-L. Chau and W.-Y. Keung, . T. Kitabayashi and M. Yasuè, .\
See also, T. Kitabayashi and M. Yasuè, ;\
I. Aizawa and T. Kitabayashi and M. Yasuè, ; ;\
I. Aizawa and M. Yasuè, . T. Kitabayashi and M. Yasuè, .\
See also, V. Barger, D. A. Dicus, H.-J. He and T. Li, ;\
H.-J. He and F.-R. Yin, ;\
H.-J. He, W. Rodejohann and X.-J. Xu, . P. A. R. Ade, et al. (Planck Collaboration), “Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters", arXiv:1502.01589v2 (Feb. 2015). P. Minkowski, ;\
T. Yanagida, in [*Proceedings of the Workshop on the Unified Theory and Baryon Number in the Universe*]{}, KEK, 1979, edited by O. Sawada and A. Sugamoto (KEK report 79-18, 1979), p.95; ;\
M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky, in [*Supergravity, Proceedings of the Supergravity Workshop*]{}, Stony Brook, 1979, edited by P. van Nieuwenhuizen and D.Z. Freedmann (North-Holland, Amsterdam 1979), p.315;\
S.L. Glashow, in [*Proceedings of the 1979 Carg$\grave{e}$se Summer Institute on Quarks and Leptons*]{}, Carg$\grave{\rm e}$se, 1979, edited by M. L$\grave{\rm e}$vy, J.-L. Basdevant, D. Speiser, J. Weyers, R. Gastmans, and M. Jacob (Plenum Press, New York, 1980), p.687;\
R.N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, .\
See also, P. Minkowski, in [*Proceedings of the XI International Workshop on Neutrino Telescopes in Venice*]{}, Venice, 2005, edited by M. Baldo Ceolin (Papergraf S.p.A, Italy, 2005), p.7. T. Endoh, S. Kaneko, S.K. Kang, T. Morozumi, and T. Tanimoto, ;\
P.H. Frampton, S.L. Glashow, and T. Yanagida, ;\
M. Raidal and A. Strumia, ;\
R.G. Felipe, F.R. Joaquim, and B.M. Nobre, . K. Fukuura, T. Miura, E. Takasugi and M. Yoshimura, ;\
T. Miura, E. Takasugi and M. Yoshimura, . For discussions on CP violation induced by approximately $\mu$-$\tau$ symmetric seesaw mechanism, see for example,\
T. Baba and M. Yasuè, ;\
S.-F. Ge, H.-J. He and F.-R. Yin, ;\
H.-J. He and F.-R. Yin, in Ref.[@Useful2]. E. Ma, ; ;\
P.F. Harrison and W.G. Scott, ; ;\
K.S. Babu, E. Ma and J.W.F. Valle, ;\
W. Grimus and L. Lavoura, ; . R.N. Mohapatra and C.C. Nishi, .\
See also, X.-G. He, “A Model of Neutrino Mass Matrix With $\delta=-\pi/2$ and $\theta_{23}=\pi/4$", arXiv:1504.01560 \[hep-ph\]\
G.-N. Li and X.-G. He, ;\
H.-J. He, W. Rodejohann and X.-J. Xu, in Ref.[@Useful2]. M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, ;\
M. A. Luty, ;\
L. Covi, E. Roulet and F. Vissani, ;\
W. Buchmüller and M. Plümacher, ;\
E. Kh. Akhmedov, M. Frigero and A.Y. Smirnov, ;\
W.L. Guo and Z.Z. Xing, . A. Abada, S. Davidson, F.-X. Josse-Michaux, M. Losada, and A. Riotto, ;\
E. Nardi, Y. Nir, E. Roulet, and J. Racker, ;\
A. Abada, S. Davidson, A. Ibarra, F.X. Josse-Michaux, M. Losada, and A. Riotto, ;\
M. Yasuè, . V. Barger, D.A. Dicus, H.-J. He and T. Li, in Ref.[@Useful2]. H.-J. He and F.-R. Yin, in Ref.[@Useful2]. P.A.R. Ade et al. (Planck Collaboration), ; “Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters", arXiv:1502.01589 \[astro-ph.CO\]. T. Kitabayashi and M. Yasuè, in preparation.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Many pulsars propagate through the interstellar medium (ISM) with supersonic velocities, and their pulsar winds interact with the interstellar medium (ISM), forming bow shocks and magnetotails (PWN). We model the propagation of pulsars through the inhomogeneous ISM using non-relativistic axisymmetric magneto-hydrodynamic (MHD) simulations. We take into account the wind from the star, and the azimuthal and poloidal components of the magnetic field, and investigate the PWN at different levels of magnetization (the ratio of magnetic to matter energy-densities) in the wind. We consider the interaction of PWN with small-scale and large-scale imhomogeneities in the ISM at different values of magnetization. We conclude that the inhomogeneities in the ISM can change the shapes of the bow shocks and magnetotails at different values of the magnetization. We compare the results of our simulations with the images of the Guitar Nebula and other PWN that show irregularities in the shapes of their bow shocks and magnetotails. We conclude that these irregularities may be caused by the interaction of PWN with the inhomogeneities in the ISM.'
author:
- |
O.D. Toropina,$^1$[^1], M.M. Romanova,$^2$, and R.V.E. Lovelace,$^{2}$\
$^1$ Space Research Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Profsoyuznaya 84/32, Moscow 117997, Russia\
$^2$ Department of Astronomy, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-6801
title: 'Modelling the bow shock Pulsar Wind Nebulae propagating through a non-uniform ISM'
---
\[firstpage\]
neutron stars — magnetic field — MHD — Pulsar Wind Nebulae — Guitar Nebula
Introduction
============
Pulsars emit winds of relativistic particles and magnetic fields, and are often surrounded by the Pulsar Wind Nebulae (PWN) (e.g., @ReesGunn1974 [@KennelCoroniti1984]). Many pulsars have high velocities and propagate supersonically through the ISM, and their PWN interact with the ISM, forming bow shocks and magnetotails. The bow shocks are often observed in the $H_\alpha$ spectral line (e.g., @BrownsbergerRomani2014). Many interesting structures (bow shocks, very long tails, and jet-like features) are observed in the X-ray (e.g., @KargaltsevPavlov2010) and radio (e.g., @NgEtAl2010) wavebands.
Pulsars have a wide range of velocities, $10~\rm{km
s}^{-1}\lesssim v \lesssim 1500~\rm{km s}^{-1}$, with two peaks in their distribution at $v\approx 90~\rm{km s}^{-1}$ and $v\approx
500~\rm{km s}^{-1}$, so that many of them propagate supersonically through the ISM [@ArzoumanianEtAl2002].
One remarkable PWN is the Guitar Nebula, which is powered by the pulsar PSR B2224+65 that travels at a high velocity of about 1600 km/sec (see left panel of Figure \[fig:guitar-obs\], from @CordesEtAl1993). The high-resolution observations in the $H_\alpha$ line, performed with the Hubble Space Telescope in the years of 1994, 2001, and 2006, show that the shape of the Nebula’s head becomes wider with time (see right panels of Figure \[fig:guitar-obs\], from @GautamEtAl2013). The variation in shape may be connected with the variation in the density of the ISM (@ChatterjeeCordes2002 [@ChatterjeeCordes2004]). @DolchEtAl2016 observed the Guitar Nebula with the 4-meter Discovery Channel Telescope (DCT) at the Lowell Observatory in 2014. They compared the DCT observations with the 1995 observations by the Palomar 200-inch Hale telescope and found changes in both the spatial structure and the surface brightness of the nebula.
Another interesting example of PWN is the $H_{\alpha}$ pulsar bow shock connected with the pulsar PSR J0742-2822. Figure \[fig:PSR-J0742\] shows an image of PSR J0742-2822 taken by @BrownsbergerRomani2014. This PWN shows multiple irregularities in its shape, which suggests that the pulsar may be travelling through small-scale fluctuations in the ISM.
In the X-ray band, many of the PWN show irregularities in their shapes, as well as very long tails (see review by @KargaltsevEtAl2017). Even longer tails are observed in the radio band (e.g., @NgEtAl2010). Figure \[fig:mouse-obs\] shows two examples of PWN, observed in the X-ray and radio bands: the PWN associated with the pulsar PSR J1509-5850 (top panels), and the Mouse Nebula (bottom panels), powered by the pulsar PSR J1747-2958 [@KargaltsevEtAl2012]. One can see that both PWN have long tails in the X-ray band (red colour), and even longer tails in the radio band (blue colour). Polarization obtained in the radio band shows that the magnetic field is mainly transversal in the case of PSR J1509-5850 (top right panel), and mainly longitudinal in the Mouse PWN (bottom right panel). Both the heads of the PWN and their tails have different irregularities in their shapes.
According to theoretical studies, a pulsar loses its rotational energy in the form of the magnetic (Poynting flux) wind [@GoldreichJulian1969; @AronsTavani1994; @Arons2004]. The magnetic energy of this wind should be somehow converted to the energy of the relativistic particles that interact with the ISM, radiate and form observed PWN (see, e.g., @ReesGunn1974 [@KennelCoroniti1984]). Different mechanisms were proposed for conversion of the magnetic energy to the energy of particles (e.g., @SironiSpitkovsky2011 [@LyubarskyKirk2001; @Amato2014]). The magnetization $\sigma$ (the relative amount of magnetic energy flux compared to the energy flux of relativistic particles) varies from $\sigma>>1$ near the light cylinder of the pulsar, to much lower values at the shock front, where the pulsar wind interacts with the ISM or with a supernova remnant. The early attempts to built a theoretical model of the Crab nebula using the ideal relativistic MHD approximation resulted in a conclusion that the pulsar wind has to have $\sigma\sim 10^{-3}$ near its termination shock [@ReesGunn1974; @KennelCoroniti1984; @BegelmanLi1992]. A higher magnetization, $\sigma\sim 10^{-2}$, was later derived in axisymmetric numerical simulations (e.g., @KomissarovLyubarsky2003 [@DelZannaEtAl2004; @BogovalovEtAl2005]). @Komissarov2013 argued that the magnetization in the Crab nebula can be much higher (than $\sigma\sim 10^{-2}$, as high as $\sigma\sim 1$. Global 3D MHD simulations confirmed that the magnetization may be high, $\sigma\gtrsim 1$ [@PorthEtAl2013; @PorthEtAl2014].
If a pulsar propagates supersonically through the ISM, then the PWN interacts with the ISM, forming a bow shock and magnetotails. In the bow shock, the energy of accelerated particles may dominate over magnetic energy-density. However, in the magnetotails, the magnetic energy-density may be comparable to or larger than the energy-density of the particles. Long, magnetically-dominated magnetotails are expected to form in the PWN [@RomanovaEtAl2005]. They may be visible, if the accelerated particles propagate into the magnetotails, or invisible otherwise. In modelling the supersonic PWN, it is important to take into account both, the matter and the magnetic field components of the PWN.
Supersonic propagation of pulsars through the ISM has been studied in a number of axisymmetric non-relativistic and relativistic hydrodynamic simulations (e.g., @Bucciantini2002 [@vanderSwaluwEtAl2003; @GaenslerEtAl2004]). Simulations have shown that the interaction of pulsar winds with the ISM leads to the formation of several shocks, which have similar properties in non-relativistic and relativistic simulations. The bow shock can be approximately described by the formulae derived theoretically by @Wilkin1996, though the set of shocks and the dynamics of matter flow are more complex. @BucciantiniEtAl2005 performed axisymmetric relativistic *magnetohydrodynamic* simulations of the supersonic propagation of PWN through the ISM. They have shown that a similar set of shocks forms as in the hydrodynamic simulations of the same problem. They studied the PWN at different values of the magnetization parameter $\sigma$ in the wind. They took into account the wind of relativistic particles and the azimuthal component of the magnetic field.
Observations of the bow shock PWN show a variety of shapes, which may be connected with the interaction of the PWN with the inhomogeneities in the ISM (e.g., @ChatterjeeCordes2004 [@BrownsbergerRomani2014]). @Wilkin2000 derived the shape of asymmetric bow shocks interacting with the inhomogeneous medium analytically (where the ISM has a density gradient). @VigeliusEtAl2007 studied intrinsically-asymmetric PWN and the bow shocks interacting with inhomogeneous medium numerically, using hydrodynamic 3D simulations. They have shown that the shape of a bow shock changes when a pulsar propagates through a region with a density gradient. However, there is a variety of shapes of the PWN, which can also be explained by the inhomogeneities in the ISM (e.g., small-scale wiggles observed in different bow shocks in Figs. \[fig:guitar-obs\] - \[fig:mouse-obs\]). On the other hand, the long tails observed in some PWN in the X-ray and radio bands may be connected with the propagation of relativistic particles along the long magnetotails (e.g., @RomanovaEtAl2005).
The goals of our paper are twofold. On one hand, we study the propagation of the PWN through the ISM taking into account both toroidal and poloidal components of the magnetic field, and the properties of the bow shocks and magnetotails at different magnetizations in the pulsar wind. On the other hand, we investigate the interaction of the PWN with the inhomogeneities in the ISM.
{height="4.3cm"} {height="4.3cm"}
{width="14cm"}
{width="12cm"}
{width="12cm"}
Model Description $M$ $M_w$ $B$ $\Omega $ $\sigma$
------------ ----------------- ----- ------- ----- ----------- ----------
$B1M20w50$ low $\sigma$ 20 50 1 1 0.01
$B5M20w50$ medium $\sigma$ 20 50 5 1 0.1
$B5M20w0$ high $\sigma$ 20 0 5 0 $> 1$
$B1M50w50$ Guitar Nebula 50 50 5 1 0.1
: Parameters of the main simulation models. Here, $M$ is the Mach number of the pulsar, $M_w$ is the Mach number of the matter in the wind at the base of the flow, $B$ and $\Omega$ are the magnetic field and angular velocity of the star in dimensionless units, and $\sigma$ is the typical maximum value of magnetization in the magnetotail.[]{data-label="tab:models"}
Numerical Model
===============
We performed MHD simulations to investigate the supersonic propagation of a wind-ejecting magnetized neutron star through the uniform and non-uniform ISM. We used an axisymmetric, non-relativistic resistive MHD code. The code incorporates the methods of local iterations [@ZhukovEtAl2012] and flux-corrected transport [@BorisBook1973]. The flow is described by the resistive MHD equations [@LandauLifshitz1960]:
$${\partial \rho \over
\partial t}+
{\bf \nabla}{\bf \cdot}
\left(\rho~{\bf v}\right) =0{~ ,}$$ $$\rho\frac{\partial{\bf v}} {\partial t}
+\rho ({\bf v}
\cdot{\bf \nabla}){\bf v}=
-{\bf \nabla}p+
{1 \over c}{\bf J}\times {\bf B} + {\bf F}^{g}{ ~,}$$ $$\frac{\partial {\bf B}}
{\partial t} =
{\bf \nabla}{\bf \times}
\left({\bf v}{\bf \times} {\bf B}\right)
+
\frac{c^2}{4\pi\sigma_e}
\nabla^2{\bf B} {~,}$$ $$\frac{\partial (\rho\varepsilon)
}{\partial t}+
{\bf \nabla}\cdot \left(\rho
\varepsilon{\bf v}\right) =
-p\nabla{\bf \cdot}
{\bf v} +\frac{{\bf J}^2} {\sigma_e}{~.} \eqno(1)$$
We assume axisymmetry $(\partial/\partial \phi =0)$, but calculate all three components of velocity ${\bf v}$ and magnetic field ${\bf B}$. We consider the equation of state for an ideal gas, $p=(\gamma-1)\rho \varepsilon$, where $\gamma=5/3$ is the specific heat ratio and $\varepsilon$ is the specific internal energy of the gas. The gravitational force ${\bf F}^{g} = -GM\!\rho{\bf
R}/\!R^3$. The equations incorporate Ohm’s law, ${\bf
J}=\sigma_e({\bf E}+{\bf v} \times {\bf B}/c)$, where $\sigma_e$ is the electric conductivity. The associated magnetic diffusivity, $\eta_{\rm m} \equiv c^2\!/(4\pi\sigma_e)$, is assumed to be constant. Diffusivity is important at the sites of reconnection of the magnetic field lines. In this study, we take a small diffusivity. It is only slightly larger than the numerical diffusivity, which is low at our high grid resolution (see @ToropinaEtAl2001 for an analysis of diffusivity in our models).
We use a cylindrical, inertial coordinate system $\left(r,\phi,z\right)$, with the $z-$axis parallel to the star’s dipole moment ${\mu}$ and rotation axis ${\bf \Omega}$. The vector potential $\bf A$ is calculated so that the condition ${\bf
\nabla}\cdot{\bf B}=0$ is satisfied at all times. We rotate the star at an angular velocity ${\Omega}$. The intrinsic magnetic field of the star is taken to be an aligned dipole, with vector potential ${\bf A}={\mu} \times{\bf R}/{R^3}$. A detailed description of the numerical model can be found in @ToropinaEtAl2001 [@ToropinaEtAl2006; @ToropinaEtAl2012].
We measure length in units of the Bondi radius [@Bondi1952], $R_B \equiv {GM}/c_{s}^2$, where $c_s$ is the sound speed at infinity. The size of the computational region is $R_{\rm
max}=1.2$, $Z_{\rm min}=-0.8$ and $Z_{\rm max}=3.2$ in units of the Bondi radius. The radius of the numerical star (inner boundary) is $R_s=0.025$. The grid $N_R\times N_Z$ is $385\times
1281$ in most cases.
We measure velocity $v$ in units of the pulsar’s velocity, $v_p$, and time in units of $t_0=(Z_{max} -
Z_{min})/v_p$, which is the crossing time of the computational region with the pulsar’s velocity, $v_p$. The density is measured in units of density of the interstellar medium, $\rho_0$, and the magnetic field strength is measured in units of $B_0$, which is the field determined at the distance $r=0.25 R_s$. The conversion from dimensionless to dimensional variables is described in @ToropinaEtAl2001.
{width="18cm"}
{width="18.0cm"}
{height="5.cm"} {height="5.cm"}
Results of simulations
======================
Modelling PWN around non-moving pulsars
---------------------------------------
As a first step, we studied the PWN in the case where the pulsar has zero velocity. A pulsar’s winds represent the relativistic flow of particles and a predominantly azimuthal magnetic field (e.g., @ReesGunn1974 [@KennelCoroniti1984]). The wind originates at the light cylinder and propagates to much larger distances, where it interacts with a supernova remnant or with the ISM (e.g., @KaspiEtAl2006). The magnetization varies from large values near the light cylinder to smaller values at larger distances from the star. In our study, we are interested in the external parts of the wind, which interact with the ISM. This is why we suggest that a neutron star and its light cylinder are located deeply inside our inner boundary (numerical star), and we model only the external regions of the PWN. As soon as many parameters of the PWN are not known, such as the magnetization, we suggest that the wind should incorporate some matter and magnetic field. We suggest that the poloidal component of the magnetic field should also be present, and consider a general case where matter and both components of the field are present in the wind.
To model the pulsar wind, we placed a ring about our numerical star at radii $1.5 R_s < R_w <
2.2 R_s$ and generated a radial wind from this ring. The wind has density $\rho_w$ and poloidal velocity $v_w$, corresponding to the Mach number $M_w=v_w/c_s=50$ (where $c_s$ is the sound speed in the ISM). We also rotate the ring with an angular velocity of $\Omega$. The star has a dipole magnetic field. The axis of the dipole is aligned with the symmetry axis. The kinetic energy of matter [flowing from the ring]{} is higher than the magnetic energy, so that the magnetic field is stretched out by the blowing wind. It is also twisted by the azimuthal component of the wind. The ratio between the poloidal and the azimuthal components is regulated by the value of $\Omega$. This way, we obtain the flow of matter and the magnetic field, including both azimuthal and poloidal components.
Our wind is non-relativistic. Experiments with different velocities and densities in the wind have shown that the modelled PWN has similar characteristics between the cases of very low-density, high-velocity winds (at $M_w=200-1,000$), and higher-density, lower-velocity winds with the same kinetic energy. We chose the latter approach because, in magnetohydrodynamics, simulations are much longer in the presence of low densities. We chose $M_w=50$ and $\rho_w=1$ (equal to the reference density in the ISM) in our reference models.
We varied the magnetic field at the surface of the numerical star so as to obtain different levels of magnetization in the wind. We measure the magnetization in the flow using the non-relativistic version of $\sigma$: $$\sigma = \frac{B^2/8\pi}{p+\rho (v_r^2 + v_z^2 + v_\phi^2)} .$$ Here, $p$ is the local gas pressure. We investigate PWN which have different levels of the magnetization. For our representative runs, we took two values of the magnetic field at the surface of the numerical star: $B=1$ and $B=5$, which provided lower and higher levels of magnetization, respectively.
Fig. \[fig:pwn-rho-sigma-4\] shows examples of PWN in the cases of $B=1$ (top panels) and $B=5$ (bottom panels). The nebula expands into an ISM of constant density. One can see that the shock wave in case of lower field is more spherical, compared with the case of a higher field. The density decreases rapidly, as $\rho\sim (r/R_w)^{-2}$, from $\rho=\rho_0$ at $r=R_w=0.055$ up to $6\times 10^{-4}$ at $r=1$. At $B=1$, the shock wave slightly differs from the spherical one due to the action of the magnetic field. At $B=5$, the shock wave becomes more elongated in the equatorial direction. The right panels show the magnetization. Red line corresponds to $\sigma=0.01$ in case of $B=1$ (top panel) and $\sigma=0.1$ in case of $B=5$ (bottom panel). Therefore, we call the model with $B=1$ as the ‘low magnetization’ model, and the model with $B=5$, the “high magnetization" model. Nebulae continue to expand into the ISM, so that we show only an intermediate time during expansion, with the goal to demonstrate our numerical PWN for a non-moving star.
{width="14cm"}
{width="14cm"}
Propagation of PWN through an ISM of constant density
-----------------------------------------------------
As a next step, we investigate the propagation of a magnetized PWN through the ISM. Instead of moving the star through the simulation region, we fixed the star and moved the ISM with Mach number $M$. In our representative runs, we took Mach number $M=20$ and the Mach number in the wind $M_w=50$ . We observed that the PWN formed a set of shocks which were earlier observed in different hydrodynamic and MHD simulations (e.g., @Bucciantini2002 [@vanderSwaluwEtAl2003]). Fig. \[fig:b1m20-shock-sigma\] shows an example of matter flow in the model with relatively low magnetization, $\sigma\approx 0.01$ (model $B1M20w50$). One can see: (a) a bow shock (BS), where the ISM matter is stopped by the PWN, (b) the bullet-shaped termination shock (TS), where the wind from the star interacts with the ISM matter, and the contact discontinuity (CD) shock, where the matter that passed through the BS interacts with the matter that passed through the TS. The stand-off distance of the bow shock can be calculated from the balance of the ram pressure in the stellar wind and the ISM: $\rho_w v_w^2=\rho_0 v_0^2$. The density of the wind from the star (from the ring) decreases with distance as $\rho_w=\rho_0 (r/R_w)^{-2}$, where $R_w=2.2 R_s =
0.055$ in our dimensionless units. Taking into account the fact that the velocity of matter in the ISM is $v_0=M c_{s0}$ and the velocity of matter at the base of the ring is $v_w=M_w c_{s0}$, we obtain the stand-off distance: $$R_{\rm sd} =R_w \frac{M_w}{M} \approx 0.14 \frac{(M_w/50)}{(M/20)}
~.$$ Fig. \[fig:b1m20-shock-sigma\] shows that the bow shock has a stand-off distance of $R_{\rm sd}\approx 0.14$.
Fig. \[fig:b5m20-shock-sigma\] shows a similar plot for the case of higher magnetization, $\sigma\approx 0.1$ (model $B5M20w50$). One can see that there is no bullet-shaped PWN, but instead the PWN wind propagates to larger distances along the poloidal field lines of the magnetotail. We suggest that this is the result of relatively high magnetization in the flow. Earlier, @BucciantiniEtAl2005 concluded that in their case of high magnetization, $\sigma=0.2$, the flow is governed by the magnetic field, and the shape of the termination shock differs from the shapes in cases of the lower magnetization. In our model, the magnetization is also high, $\sigma\sim 0.1$, and also the poloidal component is present, which influenced the structure of matter flow in the magnetotail.
The stand-off distance of the bow shock, $R_{\rm sd}$, is approximately the same as in the case of lower magnetization (in model $B1M20w50$), because, although the magnetic field is stronger, but matter energy-density is still larger than the magnetic energy-density.
{width="16cm"}
{width="14cm"}
Propagation of PWN through the inhomogeneous ISM
------------------------------------------------
Next, we investigate the propagation of a PWN through the ISM with an inhomogeneous matter distribution. Observations point to large and small-scale inhomogeneities, and therefore we consider two types of imhomogeneities: (1) small-scale clouds, whose size is comparable with the width of the bow shock at the place of interaction, and (2) large-scale clouds, which are much larger than the size of the bow shock. We model small-scale inhomogeneities as a set of small clouds with the Gaussian distribution of density, with the maximum density of $\rho_{\rm max}$ and the half-width of the Gaussian at $\Delta r=0.2$. To keep the pressure balance between the clouds and the rest of the ISM, we take the temperature in the cloud to be $T_{\rm cloud}=T_{\rm
ISM}*\rho_0/\rho_{\rm cloud}$. We experimented with clouds of different densities, and found that the shape of the bow shock varies significantly if the density in the cloud is $\rho_{\rm cloud} \gtrsim 2 \rho_0$. At $\rho_{\rm
cloud} = 2 \rho_0$, a wavy structure starts to become visible, while at $\rho_{\rm cloud} = 3 \rho_0$, the bow shock changes its local shape significantly.
Fig. \[fig:chess-2\] shows a wavy variation of density in the bow shocks that appears after the propagation of clouds of density $\rho_{\rm cloud} = 3 \rho_0$ in the models with low and medium magnetizations ($B1M20w50$ and $B5M20w50$, respectively). Such an interaction with small-scale inhomogeneities may explain the wiggles in the shape of the bow shock observed in PSR J0742-2822 (see Fig. \[fig:PSR-J0742\]).
Fig. \[fig:b1-cloud-l-6\] shows an example of propagation of a large cloud of density $\rho_{\rm cloud}=3 \rho_0$ through the PWN in the model ($B1M20w50$) with a lower magnetization. The left panels show that the cloud compresses the bow shock and, in the final state, when the star enters the cloud completely, the bow shock has a smaller opening angle (the Mach cone). Our cloud is in pressure balance with the rest of the ISM, so that the sound speed in the cloud is three times lower than in the rest of the ISM. Therefore, the Mach number of the star inside the cloud is $M_{\rm new}= v_p /c_s=3
M_{\rm old}=60$. This is why we observed a smaller opening angle of the Mach cone. It is interesting to note that the interaction of the bow shock with the smaller-scale clouds can also be interpreted this way. The right panels of Fig. \[fig:b1-cloud-l-6\] show that the magnetic flux becomes compressed.
Fig. \[fig:1d-b1-cloud-4\] compares different quantities across the magnetotail at the distance of $z=1$ from the star at the moment of time $t=t_1$, corresponding to the top panels of Fig. \[fig:b1-cloud-l-6\] (before entering the cloud), and at $t=t_3$, corresponding to the bottom panels of Fig. \[fig:b1-cloud-l-6\] (after entering the cloud). The top left panel shows that, after entering the cloud, the density in the bow shock is a few times larger. The magnetization also becomes larger (see top right panel of the same figure). The $B_z$ component of the magnetic field increases by a few times (bottom left panels), while the azimuthal component, $B_\phi$ (which was originally on the order of the $B_z-$ component), slightly decreases and becomes a few times smaller than the $B_z$ component. These plots show that the bow shock becomes more narrow, while the magnetotail becomes even narrower with a stronger poloidal field. This example demonstrates that the interaction with the ISM may lead to an enhancement of the magnetic field, which may possibly be a reason for the re-brightening of the magnetotail in X-ray [@KargaltsevEtAl2017].
Propagation of strongly-magnetized PWN through inhomogeneous ISM
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the above examples, the magnetotails are matter-dominated. Here, we consider the case where a significant part of the magnetotail is magnetically-dominated. To model this situation, we take a model similar to $B5M20w50$, but suggest that there is no pulsar wind, $v_w=0$ (model $B5m20w0)$). In this case, a strongly-magnetized star propagates through the ISM, and the ISM matter stretches its magnetosphere, forming a strongly-magnetized magnetotail. The top panels of Fig. \[fig:b5w0-stripe-6\] show the distributions of density (left panel) and magnetization (right panel) in the beginning of interaction with the cloud. The red colour in the right panel shows the region where $\sigma>1$. One can see that the magnetotail has a high magnetization and stretches out to large distances from the star.
Next, we investigate the interaction of strongly-magnetized PWN with the inhomogeneities in the ISM. We take a cloud of density $\rho_{\rm cloud}=6 \rho_0$, which has the shape of a cylinder of width $\Delta z\approx 0.5$, and let this cloud move towards the bow shock and interact with it. Top panels of Fig. \[fig:b5w0-stripe-6\] show the density distribution (left panel) and $\sigma$ distribution (right panel) in undisturbed bow shock at time $t=t_1$. Other panels show the density and $\sigma$ distribution at two moments in time ($t_2$ and $t_3$) when the cloud passes through the bow shock. One can see that the magnetotail is compressed and a limb-brightening appears (as in the cases of weaker-magnetized magnetotails). The panels show that the magnetic flux is compressed in the region of the cloud.
We also calculated a model with a lower density in the cloud, $
{\rho} / {\rho}_0 = 3 $, and compared the density distributions with those of the higher-density cloud, $ {\rho} / {\rho}_0 = 6 $, and with the case of a homogeneous ISM, $ {\rho} / {\rho}_0 = 1 $. The left panel of Figure \[fig:1d-d5w0-2\] shows the density distribution across the magnetotail at a distance of $z=0.5$ and at time $t=0.33 t_0 $ (the time is taken to be the same for all three models). The dotted line represents a uniform medium with constant density ${\rho}_0$. The dashed line represents the cloud density $ {\rho} / {\rho}_0 = 3$, and the solid line represents the cloud density $ {\rho} / {\rho}_0 = 6 $. The density maximum corresponds to $r=0.32, 026$ and $0.23$, for these three cases. Therefore, the tail of the magnetosphere becomes narrower, when the density in the cloud increases.
The right panel of Figure \[fig:1d-d5w0-2\] shows the distribution of the $B_z$ component of the magnetic field across the magnetotail at the same distance, $z=0.5$. The dotted line represents a uniform medium with constant density ${\rho}_0$. The dashed line represents the cloud density $ {\rho}
/ {\rho}_0 = 3 $, and the solid line represents the cloud density $ {\rho} / {\rho}_0 = 6$. One can see that the magnetic field is largest in the case of the cloud of higher density.
{width="14cm"}
Modelling the Guitar Nebula
---------------------------
Fig. \[fig:guitar-obs\] shows that in the years of 2001 and 2006, the head of the bow shock of the Guitar Nebula was observed to expand, compared with the observations of year 1994 [@ChatterjeeCordes2002; @ChatterjeeCordes2004; @GautamEtAl2013]. In addition, in the years of 2001 and 2006, the head of the nebula was observed to have changed morphologically, showing new regions where the opening angle of the bow shock is nearly zero. That is, the opposite sides of the bow shock are almost parallel to each other. This part of the bow shock also shows higher levels of radiation in the $H_\alpha$ spectral line. @ChatterjeeCordes2004 suggested that the pulsar entered the low-density region (so that the head expanded) with a positive density gradient, so that parts of bow shock become compressed, providing the lower opening angle of the Mach cone (see also @VigeliusEtAl2007 [@MorlinoEtAl2015]).
We modelled the propagation of a bow shock through the density gradient using cylindrical cloud of width $z_1<z<z_2$. Experiments have shown that, to match the observations, the density in the cloud should initially increase, and then decrease. We chose the following density distribution: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{\rm cloud}=\rho_0[1+k_{\rm
grad}(z_1-z)(z_c-z_1)] ~~~ at ~~ z_1<z<z_c ~, \nonumber\\
\rho_{\rm cloud}=\rho_0[1+k_{\rm
grad}(z_2-z)(z_2-z_c)]~~~ at ~~ r_c<r<r_2, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $z_c$ is the position of the middle of the cloud, $z_c=(z_2-z_1)/2$, and $k_{\rm grad}$ is the gradient. Fig. \[fig:guitar-4\] shows the results of our simulations. We took a model with parameters similar to those of the model $B1M20w50$, but with a higher Mach number, $M=50$, so as to model the small Mach cone observed in the head of the Guitar Nebula. The top left panel shows the bow shock before its interaction with the cloud. The other panels show the bow shock after its shape has been modified by the cloud. The plots correspond to the density gradients $k_{\rm grad}=1, 2$ and $3$. The maximum density in the cloud is equal to to $\rho_{\rm cloud}=2, 3$ and $4$, respectively. One can see that, in the right two panels, there is a part of the bow shock with a Mach cone that is approximately equal to zero. The density is enhanced in this cylindrically-shaped region, as in the observations of the Guitar Nebula’s head in the years of 2001 and 2006. This density enhancement may explain the brightening of those parts of the bow shock in the Guitar Nebula. We should note that only this type of cloud (with a smoothly decreasing density towards the edges) provides a good match. For example, the passage through a much larger cloud with a density gradient will not provide the observed shape.
@ChatterjeeCordes2004 also suggested that the widening of the head of the Guitar Nebula observed in the year of 2001, compared with the observations of year 1996, may be connected with its entering the region of 0.7 times lower density. In 2006, the head appeared to be even wider, so it may enter an ISM of even lower density. We decreased the density in the ISM by the factor of $0.7$ and $0.5$, and observed that the head of the bow shock becomes larger and also the Mach cone becomes wider, as expected. We agreed that this may be a possible reason for the widening of the cone in the Guitar Nebula.
Conclusions
===========
We performed MHD simulations of the bow shock PWN propagating through a uniform and non-uniform ISM at three levels of magnetization. Our main findings are the following:
**1.** The interaction of the bow shock with the small-scale inhomogeneities in the ISM leads to a wavy structure in the bow shock. The amplitude of the “waves" in the bow shock increases with the ratio $\rho_{\rm cloud}/\rho_0$. For example, variation in the shape of the bow shock of pulsar PSR J0742-2822 can be explained by the propagation through a series of clouds with a density ratio of $\rho_{\rm cloud}/\rho_0\approx 3$.
**2.** The interaction of the bow shock with a large-scale, dense cloud leads to the compression of the bow shock and the formation of a new bow shock with a smaller opening angle. In the opposite scenario, where the bow shock passes a cloud of lower density than that of the ISM, then the opening angle increases.
**3.** The shape of the head of the Guitar Nebula (the density cylinder) can be explained by the density gradient in the cloud, if the gradient coefficient is $k_{\rm grad}\gtrsim 2$. The passage of the cloud of lower density may explain the expansion of the bow shock in the Guitar Nebula (as suggested earlier by @ChatterjeeCordes2004).
**4.** The compression of the magnetotail by the cloud leads to a higher level of magnetization and the stronger magnetic field in the magnetotail. The passage of the cloud through the magnetotail may lead to a local amplification of the magnetic field and to a re-brightening of the magnetotail in the X-ray at large distances from the star (as suggested earlier by @KargaltsevEtAl2017).
**5.** In the cases of strongly-magnetized magnetotails, the passage of the cloud also leads to: (a) the local compression of the magnetotail, (b) a wavy structure, and (c) a local enhancement of the magnetic field, which can lead to a re-brightening of the tail in X-ray.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank Dr. V.V. Savelyev for the development of the original version of the MHD code and Alisa Blinova for help. This work was supported by RFBR grant 17-02-00760 and by Russian Academy of Science program I.28P. MMR and RVL were partially supported by NASA through *Chandra* Award GO3-14082C. Resources supporting this work were provided by the NASA High-End Computing (HEC) Program through the NASA Advanced Supercomputing (NAS) Division at the NASA Ames Research Center and the NASA Center
Amato E., 2014, International Journal of Modern Physics Conference Series, 28, 60160
Arons, J. 2004, Adv. Space Res., 33, 466
Arons, J., & Tavani, M. 1994, ApJS, 90, 797
Arzoumanian, Z., Chernoff, D. F., & Cordes, J. M. 2002, ApJ, 568, 289
Begelman M. C., Li Z.-Y., 1992, ApJ, 397, 187
Bogovalov, S. V. 1999, A&A, 349, 1017
Bogovalov S. V., Chechetkin V. M., Koldoba A. V., Ustyugova G. V., 2005, MNRAS, 358, 705
Bondi, H. 1952, MNRAS, 112, 195
Bondi, H. and Hoyle, F.: 1944, MNRAS, 104, 273
Boris, J.P., Book, D.L., 1973, J. Comput. Phys., 11, 38.
Brownsberger, S., Romani, R.W., 2014, ApJ, Volume 784, Issue 2, article id. 154, 14 pp.
Bucciantini, N., 2002, A&A, 387, 1066
Bucciantini N., Amato E., Del Zanna L., 2005, A&A, 434, 189
Chatterjee S. & Cordes J. M., 2002, ApJ, Volume 575, Issue 1, pp. 407-418.
Chatterjee S. & Cordes J. M., 2004, ApJ, Volume 600, Issue 1, pp. L51
Cordes, J. M. & Chernoff, D. F. 1998, ApJ, 505, 315
Cordes, J.M.; Romani, R.W.; Lundgren, S.C., 1993 Nature, Volume 362, no. 6416, pp. 133-135.
Del Zanna L., Amato E., Bucciantini N., 2004, A&A, 421, 1063
Dolch, T.; Chatterjee, S.; Clemens, D.P.; Cordes, J.M.; Cashmen, L.R.; Taylor, B.W., 2016, Journal of Astronomy and Space Sciences, Vol. 33, p. 167-172.
Gaensler, B.M., van der Swaluw, E., Camilo, F., Kaspi, V.M., Baganoff, F. K., Yusef-Zadeh, F., & Manchester, R. N. 2004, ApJ, 616, 383
Goldreich P., Julian W. H., 1969, The Astrophysical Journal, 157, 869
Gautam, A., Chatterjee, S., Cordes, J. M., Deller, A. T., Lazzio, J., 2013, American Astronomical Society, AAS Meeting \#221, id.154.04.
Kargaltsev, O., Durant, M., Pavlov, G., Garmire, G. 2012, ApJ Supplement, Volume 201, Issue 2, article id. 37, 7 pp.
Kargaltsev, O., & Pavlov, G.G. 2010, AIPC, 1248, 25
Kargaltsev, O., Pavlov, G.G., Klingler, N., & Rangelov, B. 2017, J. Plasma Phys., Vol. 83, pp. 1-25
Kaspi, V. M., Roberts, M. S. E., & Harding, A. K. In: Compact stellar X-ray sources. Edited by Walter Lewin & Michiel van der Klis. Cambridge Astrophysics Series, No. 39. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, p. 279 - 339
Kennel, C. F. & Coroniti, F. V. 1984, ApJ, 283, 710
Komissarov, S. S. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 2459
Komissarov S. S., Lyubarsky Y. E., 2003, MNRAS, 344, L93
Komissarov, S. S., & Lyubarsky, Y. E. 2004, MNRAS, 349, 779 Landau, L.D. & Lifshitz, E.M. 1960, [*Electrodynamics of Continuous Media*]{} (Pergamon Press: New York), ch. 8
Lyubarsky Y., Kirk J. G., 2001, ApJ, 547, 437
Morlino, G., Lyutikov, M. & Vorster, M. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 3886
Ng, C.-Y. et al. 2010, ApJ, 712, 596
Porth, O., Komissarov, S. S. & Keppens, R., 2013, MNRAS, 431, L48 Porth, O., Komissarov, S. S. & Keppens, R., 2014, MNRAS, 438, 278 Three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic simulations of the Crab nebula"
Porth, O., Buehler, R., Olmi, B., Komissarov, S., Lamberts, A., Amato, E., Yuan, Y., Rudy, A. 2017, Space Science Reviews, 207, 137 Rees, M. J. & Gunn, J. E. 1974, MNRAS, 167, 1
Romanova, M. M.; Chulsky, G. A.; Lovelace, R. V. E. ApJ, Volume 630, Issue 2, pp. 1020-1028
Sironi L., Spitkovsky A., 2011, ApJ, 741, 39
Toropina, O.D., Romanova, M.M., Toropin, Yu.M.,& Lovelace, R. V. E. 2001, ApJ, Volume 561, p.964
Toropina, O.D., Romanova, M.M. & Lovelace, R.V.E. 2006, MNRAS, Volume 371, 569
Toropina, O.D., Romanova, M.M. & Lovelace, R.V.E. 2012, MNRAS, Volume 420, Issue 1, pp. 810-816
Vigelius, M., Melatos, A., Chatterjee, S., Gaensler, B. M., & Ghavamian, P. 2007, MNRAS, 374, 793
van der Swaluw E., Achterberg A., Gallant Y. A., Downes T. P., Keppens R., 2003, A&A, 397, 913
Wang Y.-M., 1996, ApJ, 465, L111
Wilkin, F. P., 1996, ApJ, 459, L31 Wilkin, F. P., 2000, ApJ, 532, 400 Zhukov, V. T., Zabrodin, A. V., & Feodoritova, O. B. 1993, Comp. Maths. Math. Phys., 33, No. 8, 1099
[^1]: E-mail:[email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We give an upper bound for the zero order of the difference between a Mahler function and an algebraic function. This complements estimates of Nesterenko, Nishioka, and Töpfer, among others, who considered polynomials evaluated at Mahler functions.'
address: |
School of Math. and Phys. Sciences\
University of Newcastle\
Callaghan\
Australia
author:
- Michael Coons
title: Zero order estimates for Mahler functions
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
When Kurt Mahler was quite young and sick in bed, he set out to prove that the number $\sum_{n\geqslant 0}2^{-2^n}$ is transcendental. He did so by exploiting the functional equation $$F(z^2)=F(z)-z,$$ which the series $\sum_{n\geqslant 0}z^{2^n}$ satisfies. In doing so, Mahler discovered an important method in the theory of Diophantine approximations with applications to transcendence and algebraic independence.
Mahler’s results were generalised and extended by several authors. The most general of generalisations, which seems to capture all previous versions considered, was given by Töpfer [@T1995; @T1998], who considered formal power series $f_1(z),\ldots,f_d(z)\in{\mathbb}{C}[[z]]$ that satisfy functional equations $$A_0(z,f_1(z),\ldots,f_d(z))\cdot f_i(T(z))=A_i(z,f_1(z),\ldots,f_d(z))\quad (1\leqslant i\leqslant d),$$ where $T(z)\in{\mathbb}{C}(z)$ and $A_i(z,y_1,\ldots,y_d)\in{\mathbb}{C}[z,y_1,\ldots,y_d]$ for $i=0,\ldots,d$. For this version, Töpfer produced both a zero order estimate [@T1998] for $Q(z,f_1(z),\ldots,f_d(z))$ with $Q(z,y_1,\ldots,y_d)\in{\mathbb}{C}[z,y_1,\ldots,y_d]$ as well as algebraic independence results for some special cases of his generalisation [@T1995].
Of all of the generalisations, two stand out and are arguably the most important; they are also the simplest. The first was given by Mahler himself [@M1929], who considered[^2] functions $f(z)\in{\mathbb}{C}[[z]]$ satisfying $$f(z^k)= R(z,f(z)),$$ for an integer $k\geqslant 2$ and a rational function $R(z,y)\in{\mathbb}{C}(z,y)$. The second is harder to attribute, but goes back at least to the 1960s or 1970s. In this case, one considers a function $f(z)$ for which there are integers $k\geqslant 2$ and $d\geqslant 1$ such that $$\label{MFE}a_0(z)f(z)+a_1(z)f(z^k)+\cdots+a_d(z)f(z^{k^d})=0,$$ for some polynomials $a_0(z),\ldots,a_d(z)\in{\mathbb}{C}[z]$. These two generalisations coincide when $d=1$, and for this value of $d$ the strongest results have been shown. While there are few natural examples of the other classes, functions satisfying are readily available and certain cases are of particular importance in theoretical computer science; the generating functions of automatic and regular sequences satisfy . See the works of Allouche and Shallit [@AS1992; @ASbook; @AS2003], Christol, Kamae, Mend[è]{}s France, and Rauzy [@CKMR1980], Dekking, Mend[è]{}s France, and van der Poorten [@DMP1982], Loxton [@L1988], and Becker [@pgB1994] for further details and specific examples.
In this paper, we are concerned with the algebraic approximation of functions satisfying . We call a function satisfying a [*$k$-Mahler function*]{}, or just a [*Mahler function*]{} when $k$ is clear. The minimal such $d$ for which holds for $f(z)$ is called the [*degree*]{} of the Mahler function $f(z)$, denoted $d_f$, and we define the [*height*]{} of the Mahler function $f(z)$ by $A_f:=\max\{\deg a_i(z):i=0,\ldots,d_f\}$.
Our main result is a zero order estimate for the difference of a Mahler function with an algebraic function. To this end, let $\nu:{\mathbb}{C}((z))\to{\mathbb}{Z}\cup\{\infty\}$ be the valuation defined by $\nu(0):=\infty$ and $$\nu\left(\sum c_n z^n \right):=\min\{i:c_i\neq 0\}$$ when $\sum_{n} c_n z^n$ is nonzero. Also, for $G(z)$ an algebraic function with minimal polynomial $P(z,y)\in{\mathbb}{C}[z,y]$, we call $\deg_y P(z,y)$ the [*degree*]{} of $G(z)$ and we call $\exp\left(\deg_z P(z,y)\right)$ the height of $G(z)$.
\[main\] If $F(z)$ is an irrational $k$-Mahler function of degree $d_F$ and height $A_F$, and $G(z)$ is an algebraic function of degree at most $n$ and height at most $H_G$, then $$\nu\big(F(z)-G(z)\big)\leqslant (d_F+1)\cdot A_F\cdot n^{d_F+1}+\frac{k^{d_F+1}-1}{k-1}\cdot\log H_G\cdot n^{d_F}.$$
Previous results on zero estimates of Mahler functions focussed on upper bounds for $\nu(Q(z,F(z)))$ for polynomials $Q(z,y)\in{\mathbb}{C}[z,y]$ and used quite deep methods, relying on Nesterenko’s elimination-theoretic method [@Nes1977; @Nes1984]; see also Becker [@B1991], Nishioka [@N1991], and Töpfer [@T1998]. While the estimate provided by Theorem \[main\] is essentially of the same order as the best bounds for $\nu(Q(z,F(z)))$, our proof is much simpler—it avoids the use of Nesterenko’s and Nishioka’s methods—and is by all means, elementary.
Algebraic approximation of Mahler functions
===========================================
In recent work with Jason Bell [@BC2016], we proved the following result.
\[BC2016\] Let $F(z)$ be an irrational $k$-Mahler function of degree $d_F$ and height $A_F$, and let $P(z)/Q(z)$ be any rational function with $Q(0)\neq 0$. Then $$\nu\left(F(z)-\frac{P(z)}{Q(z)}\right)\leqslant A_F+\frac{k^{d_F+1}-1}{k-1}\cdot\max\{\deg P(z), \deg Q(z)\}.$$
Theorem \[main\] is the generalisation of this result to approximation by algebraic functions. To prove this generalisation, we use a resultant argument.
\[degrees\] Let $f(z)$ and $g(z)$ be two algebraic functions of degrees at least $2$ satisfying polynomials of degrees ${\Delta}_f$ and ${\Delta}_g$ with coefficients of degree at most ${\delta}_f$ and ${\delta}_g$, respectively. Then the algebraic function $f(z)+g(z)$ satisfies a polynomial of degree $${\Delta}_{f+g}\leqslant {\Delta}_f{\Delta}_g$$ with coefficients of degree $${\delta}_{f+g}\leqslant {\delta}_f{\Delta}_g+{\delta}_g{\Delta}_f.$$
This result follows by using the Sylvester matrix to calculate a certain resultant. For $R$ a ring and $P,Q\in R[y]$ with $$P(y)=\sum_{i=0}^{\deg_y P} p_i y^i\quad\mbox{and}\quad Q(y)=\sum_{i=0}^{\deg_y Q} q_i y^i,$$ the resultant of $P$ and $Q$ with respect to the variable $y$ is denoted by ${\rm res}_y(P,Q)$ and may be calculated as the determinant of the $(\deg_y Q+\deg_y P)\times (\deg_y Q+\deg_y P)$ Sylvester matrix; that is $${\rm res}_y(P,Q):=\det\left(\begin{matrix}
p_0 & p_1 & p_2 &\cdots &p_{\deg_y P} & & & \\
& p_0 & p_1 & p_2 &\cdots &p_{\deg_y P} & & \\
& & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & &\ddots & \\
& & & p_0 & p_1 & p_2 &\cdots &p_{\deg_y P} \\
q_0 & q_1 & q_2 &\cdots &q_{\deg_y Q} & & & \\
& q_0 & q_1 & q_2 &\cdots &q_{\deg_y Q} & & \\
& & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & &\ddots & \\
& & & q_0 & q_1 & q_2 &\cdots &q_{\deg_y Q} \\
\end{matrix}\right),$$ where there are $\deg_y Q$ rows of the coefficients of $P$ and $\deg_y P$ rows of the coefficients of $Q$. Now suppose $R={\mathbb}{C}[z,x]$, so that the entries of the above Sylvester matrix are polynomials in the variables $z$ and $x$, and set $D(x,z):={\rm res}_y(P,Q)$. Since polynomial degrees are additive, using the Leibniz formula for the determinant, we have immediately that $$\label{degzD}\deg_z D(x,z)\leqslant \deg_y Q \deg_z P+\deg_y P \deg_z Q$$ and $$\label{degxD}\deg_x D(x,z)\leqslant \deg_y Q \deg_x P+\deg_y P \deg_x Q.$$
The lemma now follows immediately by combining and with the fact that given algebraic functions $f(z),g(z)\in{\mathbb}{C}[[z]]$ and polynomials $P_f(z,y),P_g(z,y)\in{\mathbb}{C}[z,y]$ with $P_f(z,f)=P_g(z,g)=0$, the algebraic function $f(z)+g(z)$ is a root of the polynomial ${\rm res}_y(P_f(z,y),P_g(z,x-y))$ viewed as a polynomial in $x$.
Because of Lemma \[BC2016\], we may focus on algebraic functions of degree at least $2$.
\[MGprops\] Let $a_0(z),\ldots,a_d(z)$ be polynomials of degree at most $A$. If $G(z)\in{\mathbb}{C}[[z]]$ is an algebraic function of degree ${\Delta}_G\geqslant 2$ satisfying a minimal polynomial with coefficients of degree at most ${\delta}_g$, then the function $$M_G(z):=\sum_{i=0}^d a_i(z)G(z^{k^i})$$ is an algebraic function satisfying a polynomial of degree $${\Delta}_{M_G}\leqslant {\Delta}_G^{d+1}$$ whose coefficients have degree $${\delta}_{M_G}\leqslant (d+1)A\cdot{\Delta}_G^{d+1}+\frac{k^{d+1}-1}{k-1}\cdot{\delta}_G\cdot{\Delta}_G^{d}.$$
Since $G(z)$ is an algebraic function, so is $\sum_{i=0}^d a_i(z)G(z^{k^i})$. One can easily gain information about the sum using the theory of resultants.
To get an upper bound on $\nu(M_G(z))$, we apply the idea of the previous paragraph by including the terms $G_i(z):=a_i(z)G(z^{k^i})$ one at a time. To do this, let $$P_{G}(z,y):=g_{{\Delta}_{G}}y^{{\Delta}_{G}}+\cdots+g_1y+g_0$$ be the minimal polynomial of $G(z)$. Here we have denoted the degree of $G(z)$ by $\Delta_G$. Set ${\delta}_G:=\deg_z P_G(z,y)$. Then $$P_{G_i}(z,y)=a_i(z)^{\Delta_G}P_{G}(z^{k^i},y/a_i(z))$$ is a polynomial with $P_{G_i}(z,G_i(z))=0$, where, of course, we only form this polynomial when $a_i(z)\neq 0$. Here, we have that $P_{G_i}(z,y)$ is still minimal with respect to the degree of $y$, but there is no guarantee that it is minimal with respect to the degree of $z$ for this degree of $y$. However, we do have that the minimal polynomial of $G_i(z)$ divides $P_{G_i}(z,y)$ and the remainder is just a polynomial in $z$. In any case, the above gives that $$\label{DGi}\Delta_{G_i}:=\deg_y P_{G_i}(z,y)=\deg_y P_G(z,y)=\Delta_G$$ and $$\label{dGi}\delta_{G_i}:=\deg_z P_{G_i}(z,y)\leqslant A\Delta_G+k^i\delta_G.$$ The lemma now follows by combining and with Lemma \[degrees\].
\[nuG\] Let $G(z)\in{\mathbb}{C}[[z]]$ be an algebraic function of degree at least $2$ satisfying the polynomial $P_G(z,y)=a_n(z)y^n+a_{n-1}(z)y^{n-1}+\cdots+a_1(z)y+a_0(z),$ with $a_0(z)\neq 0$. Then $\nu(G(z))\leqslant \nu(a_0(z)).$ In particular, $\nu(G(z))\leqslant \deg_z P_G(z,y)$.
Since $P_G(z,y)$ is a minimal polynomial, we have $a_0(z)\neq 0$. We thus have, identically, $$\left(a_n(z)G(z)^{n-1}+a_{n-1}(z)G(z)^{n-2}+\cdots+a_1(z)\right) G(z)=-a_0(z).$$ The fact $G(z),a_n(z),\ldots,a_0(z)\in{\mathbb}{C}[[z]]$ then gives $$\nu\left(a_n(z)G(z)^{n-1}+a_{n-1}(z)G(z)^{n-2}+\cdots+a_1(z)\right)+\nu( G(z))=\nu(a_0(z)),$$ which proves the lemma, since each of the terms is a nonnegative integer.
Let $F(z)$ be a $k$-Mahler function satisfying of degree $d_F$ and height $A_F$ and let $G(z)$ be an algebraic function of degree at most $n$ and height at most $H_G$. Since by Lemma \[BC2016\], the theorem holds for $n=1$, we may assume without loss of generality that $n\geqslant 2$.
Set $M:=\nu(F(z)-G(z))$, and write $$F(z)-G(z)=z^{M}T(z),$$ where $T(z)\in{\mathbb}{C}[[z]]$ with $T(0)\neq 0$. Then also $$\sum_{i=0}^d a_i(z)F(z^{k^i})-\sum_{i=0}^d a_i(z)G(z^{k^i})=\sum_{i=0}^d a_i(z)z^{k^iM}T(z^{k^i}),$$ which since $F(z)$ satisfies reduces to $$M_G(z):=\sum_{i=0}^d a_i(z)G(z^{k^i})=-\sum_{i=0}^d a_i(z)z^{k^iM}T(z^{k^i}).$$ This immediately implies that $$\nu(F(z)-G(z))=M\leqslant \nu\left(M_G(z)\right)\leqslant \delta_{M_G},$$ where the last inequality follows from Lemma \[nuG\]. By definition, $\delta_G=\log H_G$, hence applying Lemma \[MGprops\] proves the theorem.
Concluding remark
=================
The $n$-dependence in the estimate of Theorem \[main\] is the best that can be attained by this method, that is, a bound of $n$-order $n^{d_F}$; this is the same $n$-order for the best known bounds on $\nu(Q(z,F(z)))$ as well [@T1998]. While at first glance, the $n$-dependence in Theorem \[main\] looks like $n^{d_F+1}$, when using the results one usually first takes a limit through the height $H_G$. With this in mind, one assumes that $\log H_G\geqslant n\geqslant 1$ so that our estimate gives $$\nu\left(F(z)-G(z)\right)\leqslant \left((d_F+1)\cdot A_f+\frac{k^{d_F+1}-1}{k-1}\right)\cdot\log H_G\cdot n^{d_F}.$$
The immediate question is whether or not this is the best bound possible; probably the answer is ‘no.’ Presumably a ‘Roth-type’ estimate holds, so that one has a bound that is linear in $n$. This would imply that a Mahler function $F(z)$ is an $S$-number in the suitable function-field analogue of Mahler’s classification (see Bugeaud [@B2004] for the relevant definitions), which is a question that has been circulating within the area for some time now.
\#1[0=]{} \[2\][ [\#2](http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=#1) ]{} \[2\][\#2]{}
[10]{}
Jean-Paul Allouche and Jeffrey Shallit, *The ring of [$k$]{}-regular sequences*, Theoret. Comput. Sci. **98** (1992), no. 2, 163–197.
, *Automatic sequences*, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003, Theory, applications, generalizations.
, *The ring of [$k$]{}-regular sequences. [II]{}*, Theoret. Comput. Sci. **307** (2003), no. 1, 3–29, Words.
Paul-Georg Becker, *Effective measures for algebraic independence of the values of [M]{}ahler type functions*, Acta Arith. **58** (1991), no. 3, 239–250.
, *[$k$]{}-regular power series and [M]{}ahler-type functional equations*, J. Number Theory **49** (1994), no. 3, 269–286.
Jason P. Bell and Michael Coons, *Transcendence tests for mahler functions*, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., to appear.
Yann Bugeaud, *Approximation by algebraic numbers*, Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics, vol. 160, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004.
G. Christol, T. Kamae, M. Mend[è]{}s France, and G. Rauzy, *Suites algébriques, automates et substitutions*, Bull. Soc. Math. France **108** (1980), no. 4, 401–419.
Michel Dekking, Michel Mend[è]{}s France, and Alf van der Poorten, *Folds*, Math. Intelligencer **4** (1982), no. 3, 130–138.
J. H. Loxton, *Automata and transcendence*, New advances in transcendence theory ([D]{}urham, 1986), Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1988, pp. 215–228.
K. Mahler, *Arithmetische [E]{}igenschaften der [L]{}ösungen einer [K]{}lasse von [F]{}unktionalgleichungen*, Math. Ann. **101** (1929), no. 1, 342–366.
Ju. V. Nesterenko, *Estimate of the orders of the zeroes of functions of a certain class, and their application in the theory of transcendental numbers*, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat. **41** (1977), no. 2, 253–284, 477.
Yu. V. Nesterenko, *Algebraic independence of algebraic powers of algebraic numbers*, Mat. Sb. (N.S.) **123(165)** (1984), no. 4, 435–459.
Kumiko Nishioka, *Algebraic independence measures of the values of [M]{}ahler functions*, J. Reine Angew. Math. **420** (1991), 203–214.
Thomas T[ö]{}pfer, *Algebraic independence of the values of generalized [M]{}ahler functions*, Acta Arith. **70** (1995), no. 2, 161–181.
, *Zero order estimates for functions satisfying generalized functional equations of [M]{}ahler type*, Acta Arith. **85** (1998), no. 1, 1–12.
[^1]: The research of M. Coons was supported by ARC grant DE140100223.
[^2]: Actually, Mahler only considered the base field $\overline{{\mathbb}{Q}}$ and not all of ${\mathbb}{C}$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
**Fluctuation limits of the super-Brownian**
**motion with a single point catalyst[^1]**
Zenghu Li and Li Wang[^2]
Laboratory of Mathematics and Complex Systems,
School of Mathematical Sciences, Beijing Normal University,
Beijing 100875, P.R. China
and [[email protected]]{}
Introduction
============
In recent years, there has been growing interest in the study of branching systems in singular media. Although from the viewpoint of applications some of the models can be artificial, they give useful insight into the behavior of more realistic systems. The extremely simple case of the single non-random branching catalyst described by a Dirac function was introduced in Dawson and Fleischmann (1994). The model has been studied extensively since then; see, e.g., Dawson et al. (1995), Fleischmann and Le Gall (1995) and Fleischmann and Xiong (2006).
In the present paper, we study the fluctuation limits of the single point catalytic super-Brownian motion (SBM) with small branching. Our limit theorem shows that the asymptotic fluctuating behavior of the processes around the Lebesgue measure can be approximated by a Schwarz distribution-valued Ornstein-Uhlenbeck type process. We also show that the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck type process solves a Langevin type equation driven by a one-dimensional Brownian motion. The pathwise uniqueness for the stochastic equation is established by an explicit construction of the solution. To prove the weak convergence of the fluctuating processes on the path space, we first give an extension of a tightness criterion in Ethier and Kurtz (1986). The results of this work extend those of Li (2009) and Li and Zhang (2006) on Dawson-Watanabe superprocesses with immigration; see also Bojdecki and Gorostiza (1986), Gorostiza and Li (1998) and Dawson et al. (1989) for some earlier results.
Single point catalytic SBM
==========================
Let $C(\mbb{R})$ be the Banach space of bounded continuous functions on $\mbb{R}$ endowed with supremum norm $\|\cdot\|$. Write $C_0(\mbb{R})$ for the space of functions in $C(\mbb{R})$ vanishing at infinity. Let $C^2(\mbb{R})$ denote the space of smooth functions on $\mbb{R}$ with continuous derivatives up to the second order belonging to $C(\mbb{R})$. We fix a constant $p>1$ and let $h_p(x)=(1+x^2)^{-p/2}$ for $x\in \mbb{R}$. Let $C_p(\mbb{R})$ denote the set of continuous functions $f\in C_0(\mbb{R})$ satisfying $|f|\le \const\cdot h_p$ and let $C_p(\mbb{R})^+$ be the subset of its nonnegative elements. Let $M_p(\mbb{R})$ be the space of $\sigma$-finite measures $\mu$ on $\mbb{R}$ satisfying $\int_{\mbb{R}}h_pd\mu< \infty$. Write $\<\mu,f\> = \int_{\mbb{R}}
fd\mu$ for $\mu\in M_p(\mbb{R})$ and $f\in C_p(\mbb{R})$. The topology on $M_p(\mbb{R})$ is defined by the convention: $$\mu_n\to \mu ~\mbox{if and only if}~\<\mu_n,f\>\to \<\mu,f\>
~\mbox{for all}~ f\in C_p(\mbb{R}).$$ We denote the Lebesgue measure on $\mbb{R}$ by $\lambda$, which clearly belongs to $M_p(\mbb{R})$. Let $(P_t)_{t\ge 0}$ be the transition semigroup of the one-dimensional standard Brownian motion $\xi$ generated by $A := \itDelta/2$ and let $\sigma>0$ be a constant. Let $p(t,x,y) = p(t,y-x)$ denote the transition density of the Brownian motion. A time-homogeneous Markov process $X = (\Omega,
\mcr{F}, \mcr{F}_t, X_t, \mbf{P}_\mu)$ with state space $M_p(\mbb{R})$ is called a *SBM with single point catalyst* at $c\in \mbb{R}$ if it has transition semigroup $(Q_t)_{t\ge 0}$ given by \[2.1\] \_[M\_p()]{} \^[-,f]{}Q\_t(,) = {-,V\_tf}, where $f \in C_p(\mbb{R})^+$ and $v(t,x) := V_tf(x)$ is the unique positive solution of the integral evolution equation \[2.2\] v(t,x)=P\_tf(x)-\_0\^tp(t-s,c-x)v(s,c)\^2 ds, t0, x. The following theorems are generalizations of the results in Dawson and Fleischmann (1994). In particular, the existence of the single point catalytic SBM is a consequence of the first theorem.
\[t2.1\] The time-homogeneous Markov process $X =
(\Omega, \mcr{F}, \mcr{F}_t, X_t, \mbf{P}_\mu)$ determined by equation (\[2.2\]) via the Laplace transition functional (\[2.1\]) can be constructed on the space $C([0,\infty),
M_p(\mbb{R}))$ of continuous $M_p(\mbb{R})$-valued trajectories satisfying $X_t(\{c\})=0$ for all $t>0$. The following expectation and covariance formulas hold: \[2.3\] \_X\_t,f =P\_t,f,\
\[2.4\] \_X\_t,f =\^2\_ (dx)\_0\^tp(t-s,c-x)P\_sf(c)\^2 ds, where $\mu\in M_p(\mbb{R})$ and $f\in C_p(\mbb{R})$.
\[t2.2\] There is a version of $X$ such that there exists a jointly continuous random field $x=\{x_t(z): t>0, z\neq
c\}$ satisfying $$X_t(dz)=x_t(z) dz ~~\mbox{for all}~t>0, ~\mbf{P}_\mu\mbox{-a.s.}$$ The random field $x$ has the Laplace transforms $$\mbf{E}_\mu\exp\bigg\{-\sum_{i=1}^k x_t(z_i)\theta_i\bigg\}
=
\exp\left\{-\langle \mu,u(t)\rangle\right\}, \quad t>0, \theta_i\ge
0, z_i\neq c, 1\le i\le k,$$ where $u(t,x)\ge 0$ solves $$u(t,x)=\sum_{i=1}^k\theta_ip(t,z_i-x)-\frac{\sigma^2}{2}\int_0^t
p(t-s,c-x)u(s,c)^2 ds, \quad t>0.$$ Moreover, the function $f$ in formulas (\[2.3\]) and (\[2.4\]) can be replaced by Dirac function $\delta_z$ for any $z\neq c$.
By the sample path continuity of the single point catalytic SBM, we may introduce the occupation time process $Y=\{Y_t: t\ge 0\}$ related to $X$, defined by Y\_t, f=\_0\^tX\_s, fds, fC\_p()\^+. Of course, by the integration, $Y$ is smoother than $X$, and \[2.5\] y\_t(z):=\_0\^tx\_s(z) ds, t0,zc, yields a density field of $Y$, which is $\mbf{P}_\mu$-a.s. jointly continuous on $\mbb{R}_+\times\{z\neq c\}$. The next result shows that we have a everywhere jointly continuous occupation density.
\[t2.3\] There is a version of $X$ such that the density field $y$ of $Y$ defined by (\[2.5\]) extends continuously to all of $\mbb{R}_+\times \mbb{R}$. Moreover, $$\mbf{E}_\mu\exp\bigg\{-\sum_{i=1}^k y_t(z_i)\theta_i\bigg\}
=
\exp\left\{-\langle \mu,u(t)\rangle\right\}, \quad t\ge 0,
\theta_i\ge 0, z_i\in \mbb{R}, 1\le i\le k,$$ where $u(t,x)\ge 0$ solves $$u(t,x)=\sum_{i=1}^k\theta_i\int_0^tp(t-s,z_i-x)\ ds -
\frac{\sigma^2}{2}\int_0^tp(t-s,c-x)u(s,c)^2 ds, \quad t\ge 0.$$ Moreover, for $s\le t$ and $z\in \mbb{R}$ the following expectation and variance formulas hold: \[2.6\] \_y\_t(z) =\_ (dx)\_0\^t p(s, z-x) ds,\
\[2.7\] \_y\_t(z) =\^2\_(dx) \_0\^t p(s,c-x)\^2 ds.
We call $y_t(z)$ the occupation density of the single point catalytic SBM at $z\in \mbb{R}$ during the time period $[0,t]$. Set $\mcr{D}_p(A)=\{f\in C_p(\mbb{R})\cap C^2(\mbb{R}): Af\in
C_p(\mbb{R})\}$.
\[t2.4\] For all $f\in\mcr{D}_p(A)$, $$M_t(f):=\langle X_t,f\rangle-\langle X_0,f\rangle-\int_0^t \langle
X_s,A f\rangle ds,\quad t\ge 0,$$ is a continuous martingale with quadratic variation process $$\langle M(f)\rangle_t:=\sigma^2 f^2(c)y_t(c), \quad t\ge 0.$$
*Proof of Theorems \[t2.1\].* We here give a simple construction of the catalytic SBM by summing up an infinite sequence of processes taking values of finite measures. This construction is also useful in deriving some properties of the catalytic SBM. For any $\mu\in M_p(\mbb{R})$ we can find a sequence of finite measures $\{\mu_i\}_{i\ge 1}$ such that $\mu=\sum_{i=1}^\infty \mu_i$. For each $i\ge 1$ let $X_i =
\{X_i(t): t\ge 0\}$ be a single point catalytic SBM with initial measure $\mu_i$. We assume the sequence of processes $X_i$, $i\ge 1$ are defined on the same probability space and are independent. Then we can define a single point catalytic SBM $X = \{X(t): t\ge 0\}$ with initial measure $\mu$ by \[2.8\] X(t) = \_[i=1]{}\^X\_i(t), t0. For $n\ge k\ge 1$ it is easy to see that $$X_{k,n}(t) = \sum_{i=k}^n X_i(t), \qquad t\ge 0$$ is a continuous finite measure-valued catalytic SBM with initial state $\mu_{k,n} := \sum_{i=k}^n\mu_i$. By applying Theorem \[2.4\] to the process $X_{k,n}(t)$ we have 2\_[k,n]{},h\_p\^2 + 16\^2 h\_p\^2(c)(\_ \_[k,n]{}(dx)\_0\^t p(s, c-x) ds ) + 4 t\_0\^t(\^2\_\_[k,n]{}(dx) \_0\^s p(s-u,c-x)P\_uAh\_p(c)\^2 du + \_[k,n]{} P\_s,Ah\_p\^2)ds. The right hand side tends to zero as $k, n \to \infty$. This implies that $\{X(t): t\ge 0\}$ can be realized in $C([0,\infty),
M_p(\mbb{R}))$. The moment formulas (\[2.3\]) and (\[2.4\]) follow from Theorems 1.2.1 and 1.2.4 in Dawson and Fleischmann (1994) and the construction (\[2.8\]).
[*Proof of Theorems \[t2.2\], \[t2.3\] and \[t2.4\].*]{} The existence and the characterizations of the Laplace transforms of the density fields $x = \{x_t(z): t>0, z\neq
c\}$ and $y = \{y_t(z): t>0, z\in\mbb{R}\}$ follow from the construction (\[2.8\]) of the catalytic SBM. The moment formulas can be derived from the Laplace transforms. The continuity properties of the fields follow from the three lemmas given below. The martingale problem characterization also follows from the construction (\[2.8\]). We leave the details to the reader.
Now we give three lemmas which were already used in the above proof. These are modifications of Lemmas 2.6.2, 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 in Dawson and Fleischmann (1994). The proofs are similar to theirs and are omitted here. Fix $f\in C_p(\mbb{R})$ and set $$u_\theta(t,x) := \theta P_tf(x)-v_\theta(t,x), \quad t\ge 0,
x\in\mbb{R}, \theta\ge 0,$$ where $v_\theta(t,x)=V_t(\theta f)(x)$. We denote by $u_\theta^{(k)}$ the $k$th derivative of $u_\theta$ with respect to $\theta$ taken at $\theta=0$. For $T\ge 0$ and $f\in C_p(\mbb{R})$ put $$\|Pf\|_T=\sup\{|P_rf(c)|: 0\le r\le T\}.$$
\[l2.5\] For each $k\ge 2$ there is a constant $c_k>0$ so that the power series $\sum_{k\ge 2}c_k\theta^k$ has a positive radius of convergence and that $$|u_\theta^{(k)}(t,x)|
\le
2^{1-k}k! c_k\sigma^{2(k-1)}\|Pf\|^k_T t^{(k-1)/2}\exp
\bigg\{-\frac{|c-x|^2}{2t}\bigg\},$$ where $x\in\mbb{R}$, $0\le t\le T$ and $k\ge 2$.
Set $Z_t = X_t-X_0P_t$. Then we have $\mbf{E}_\mu Z_t = 0$.
\[l2.6\] For each $k\ge 2$ there exists a constant $C_k\ge 0$ such that $$|\mbf{E}_\mu\<Z_t, f\>^k|
\le
C_k t^{k/4}\|Pf\|^k_T\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}\left\<\mu,\exp
\bigg\{-\frac{|c-\cdot|^2}{2t}\bigg\}\right\>^i,$$ where $0\le t\le T$, $\mu\in M_p(\mbb{R})$ and $f\in C_p(\mbb{R})$.
\[l2.7\] Let $k\ge 1$, $T>0$ and $\mu\in M_p(\mbb{R})$. Then there exists a constant $C_k(T,\mu)\ge 0$ such that $$\mbf{E}_\mu\<Z_{t+h}-Z_t, f\>^{2k}
\le
C_k(T,\mu) \left(\|P(P_hf-f)\|_T^{2k}+h^{k/2}\|Pf\|^k_T\right),$$ where $0\le t\le t+h\le T$ and $f\in C_p(\mbb{R})$.
A tightness criterion
=====================
A tightness criterion based on the martingale problems were given in Ethier and Kurtz (1986, p.145). However, the martingales considered there have absolutely continuous increasing processes. In this section, we give a generalized version of the result. Although the proof is similar to that of Ethier and Kurtz (1986), we give it here for reader’s convenience.
Let $E$ be a metric space and let $\bar{C}(E)$ be the space of bounded and uniformly continuous functions on $E$. (Since $E$ is an arbitrary metric space, the bounded support property does not make any restriction.) For each index $\alpha$, let $X_\alpha$ be a process with sample paths in $D([0,\infty),E)$ defined on a probability space $(\Omega_\alpha,\mcr{F}^\alpha, P_\alpha)$ and adapted to a filtration $\{\mcr{F}_t^\alpha\}$. Let $A_\alpha$ be an increasing process which is adapted to the filtration $\{\mcr{F}_t^\alpha\}$ and satisfies \[3.1\] \_[0]{}\_=0. Let $\mcr{L}_\alpha$ denote the Banach space of real-valued $\{\mcr{F}_t^\alpha\}$-progressive processes with norm $\|Y\| =
\sup_{t\ge 0} \mbf{E}[|Y(t)|]< \infty$. Given $T\ge 0$ and $h\in
\mcr{L}_\alpha$, define $$\|h_\alpha\|_{p,T}
=
\bigg[\int_0^T|h_\alpha(t)|^pdA_\alpha(t)\bigg]^{1/p}$$ for $0<p<\infty$ and define $\|h\|_{\infty,T} = {\rm{ess}}\sup_{0\le
t\le T}|h(t)|$. Let $$\mcr{A}_\alpha=\Big\{(Y,Z)\in \mcr{L}_\alpha\times\mcr{L}_\alpha:
Y(t)-\int_0^t Z(s) d A_\alpha(s) ~\mbox{is an}~
\{\mcr{F}_t^\alpha\}\mbox{-martingale}\Big\}$$ Let $Q$ denote the set of rational numbers. Then we have
\[t3.1\] Suppose that $C_a$ is a subalgebra of $\bar{C}(E)$. Let $D$ be the collection of $f\in \bar{C}(E)$ such that for every $\varepsilon>0$ and $T>0$ there exist $(Y_\alpha,Z_\alpha)\in \mcr{A}_\alpha$ with \[3.2\] \_< and \[3.3\] \_\[ Z\_\^p\_[p,T]{}\]< p(1,\]. If $C_a$ is contained in the closure of $D$ (in the sup norm), then $\{f\circ X_\alpha\}$ is tight in $D([0,\infty),\mbb{R})$ for each $f\in C_a$.
Since $D$ is actually closed, we may assume that $C_a\subset
D$. Let $\varepsilon>0$ and $T>0$. For $f\in C_a$ we have $(Y_\alpha,Z_\alpha)\in \mcr{A}_\alpha$ such that (\[3.2\]) and (\[3.3\]) hold. Since $f^2\in C_a$, there are $(Y'_\alpha,Z'_\alpha)\in \mcr{A}_\alpha$ such that $$\sup_\alpha \mbf{E}\bigg[\sup_{t\in[0,T+1]\cap Q}|Y'_\alpha(t) -
f(X_\alpha(t))^2|\bigg]< \varepsilon$$ and $$\sup_\alpha\mbf{E}[\| Z'_\alpha\|^{p'}_{p',T}]<\infty ~~\mbox{for
some}~~p'\in (1,\infty].$$ Let $0<\delta<1$. For each $t\in[0,T]\cap Q$ and $u\in[0,\delta]\cap
Q$ we have = - 2f(X\_(t)) 2 + 4f + + 2f. It follows that \[3.4\] . where \[3.5\] \_() =2 \_[tQ]{}|f(X\_(t))\^2-Y’\_(t)| + 4f\_[tQ]{}|f(X\_(t))-Y\_(t)| + \_[0tT]{}\_t\^[t+]{}|Z’\_(s)| dA\_(s) + 2f\_[0tT]{}\_t\^[t+]{} |Z\_(s)| dA\_(s). Note that the inequality (\[3.4\]) actually holds for all $0\le
t\le T$ and $0\le u\le \delta$ by the right continuity of $X_\alpha$. Let $1/p+1/q=1$ and $1/p'+1/q'=1$. By (\[3.5\]) and Hölder’s inequality we have \_\[\_()\] 2(1+2f)+ B(,T)\^ \_\^ + 2fB(,T)\^ \_\^ , where B(,T) = \_. Then we may select $\varepsilon$ depending on $\delta$ in such a way that $$\lim_{\delta\to 0}\sup_\alpha\mbf{E}[\gamma_\alpha(\delta)]=0.$$ Therefore, $\{f\circ X_\alpha\}$ is tight in $D([0,\infty),\mbb{R})$ by Theorem 8.6 in Ethier and Kurtz (1986, pp.137-138).
A fluctuation limit theorem
===========================
For each integer $k\ge1$, let $\{X_k(t): t\ge 0\}$ be the single point catalytic super-Brownian motion characterized by (\[2.1\]) and (\[2.2\]) with $\sigma^2/2$ replaced by $\sigma^2/2k^2$. Let $\{x^k_t(z): t>0, z\neq c\}$ and $\{y^k_t(z): t>0, z\in\mbb{R}\}$ be the corresponding density and occupation density fields. For simplicity, we assume $X_k(0) =\lambda$, so X\_k(t), f = P\_t,f=,f, t0, fC\_p(). We define a centered signed-measure-valued Markov process $\{Z_k(t): t\ge 0\}$ by Z\_k(t) := k(X\_k(t)-), t0. Then $\mbf{E}\<Z_k(t), f\>=0$ for each $f\in C_p(\mbb{R})$.
Let $C^\infty(\mbb{R})$ be the set of bounded infinitely differentiable functions on $\mbb{R}$ with bounded derivatives. Let $\mcr{S}(\mbb{R})\subset C^\infty(\mbb{R})$ denote the Schwartz space of rapidly decreasing functions. That is, a function $f\in
\mcr{S}(\mbb{R})$ is infinitely differentiable and for every $k\ge
0$ and every $n\ge 0$ we have \_[|x|]{}|x|\^n| f(x)|=0. The topology of $\mcr{S}(\mbb{R})$ is defined by the increasing sequence of norms $\{p_0, p_1, p_2, \cdots\}$ given by p\_n(f) = \_[0kn]{}\_[x]{} (1+|x|\^2)\^[n/2]{} | f(x)|. Let $\mcr{S}^\prime(\mbb{R})$ be the dual space of $\mcr{S}(\mbb{R})$ endowed with the strong topology. Then both $\mcr{S}(\mbb{R})$ and $\mcr{S}^\prime(\mbb{R})$ are nuclear spaces; see, e.g., Treves (1967, p.514 and p.530). Thus we can regard $\{Z_k(t): t\ge 0\}$ as a process taking values from $\mcr{S}^\prime(\mbb{R})$.
\[l4.1\] For any $t\ge 0$ and $f\in C_p(\mbb{R})$ we have \[4.1\] \[Z\_k(t),f\^2\] = \^2\_ (dx)\_0\^tp(t-s,c-x)P\_sf(c)\^2 ds.
By Theorem \[t2.1\], we have \[Z\_k(t),f\^2\] =X\_k(t),kf = \^2\_ (dx)\_0\^tp(t-s,c-x)P\_sf(c)\^2 ds Thus (\[4.1\]) follows.
\[l4.2\] For any $t\ge 0$ and $f\in \mcr{S}(\mbb{R})$ we have \_[k1]{} 8\^2f(c)\^2t+ 2t\^2\_0\^tds\_(dx) \_0\^sp(s-u,c-x)P\_uAf(c)\^2 du.
By Theorem \[t2.4\] we have X\_k(t),f = ,f + M\_k(t,f) + \_0\^t X\_k(s),Af ds, where $\{M_k(t,f): t\ge 0\}$ is a continuous martingale with increasing process \[4.2\] M\_k(f)\_t = f(c)\^2y\^k\_t(c). It is easy to show that for any $f\in \mcr{S}(\mbb{R})$, $Af\in
\mcr{S}(\mbb{R})$ and $\<\lambda, A f\> = 0$. Then we get \[4.3\] Z\_k(t),f = kM\_k(t,f) + \_0\^t Z\_k(s),Af ds. By Doob’s inequality, 2k\^2+ 2 8\^2+ 2t\_0\^t ds 8\^2f(c)\^2\[y\^k\_t(c)\] + 2t\^2\_0\^tds\_(dx) \_0\^sp(s-u,c-x)P\_uAf(c)\^2 du = 8\^2f(c)\^2t+2t\^2\_0\^tds\_(dx) \_0\^sp(s-u,c-x)P\_uAf(c)\^2 du. That gives the desired estimate.
\[l4.3\] For any $G\in C^2(\mbb{R})$ and $f\in \mathcal
{D}_p(A)$ we have G(Z\_k(t),f) =\_0\^tG\^(Z\_k(s),f)Z\_k(s),Af ds + \_0\^tG\^(Z\_k(s),f)f(c)\^2d y\_s\^k(c) +
By (\[4.2\]), (\[4.3\]) and Itô’s formula, it is easy to see that G(Z\_k(t),f) =\_0\^tG\^(Z\_k(s),f)Z\_k(s),Af ds + \_0\^tG\^(Z\_k(s),f)f(c)\^2d y\_s\^k(c) + Since the local martingale in the above equality is actually a square-integrable martingale, we obtain the desired equality.
\[l4.4\] As $k\to \infty$, $\{y^k_t(c): t\ge 0\}$ converges in distribution on $C([0,\infty),\mbb{R}_+)$ to $\{t:t\ge
0\}$.
From the moment formula (\[2.6\]) we have \[4.4\] \[y\^k\_t(c)\]=(dx)\_0\^t p(s, z-x) ds=t, t0. Using (\[2.7\]) it is not hard to show that \[4.5\] \[y\^k\_t(z)\]=(dx)\_0\^tp(s,c-x) \^2 ds. Then $y^k_t(c)$ converges in probability to $t$ for each fixed $t>0$. Consequently, $\{y^k_t(c): t\ge 0\}$ converges in finite dimensional distributions to deterministic process $\{t: t\ge 0\}$ as $k\to \infty$. Further, by similar calculations as in Dawson and Fleischmann (1994, p.33), we can show that, for any $T>0$ $$\mbf{E}[|y_{t+h}^k(c)-y_t^k(c)|^{2n}]\le C_n(T,\lambda) h^{n/2},
\quad 0<t\le t+h\le T,$$ where $C_n(T,\lambda)>0$ is a constant depending only on $T$, $n$ and $\lambda$. Therefore, $\{y^k_t(c):t\ge 0\}_{k\ge 1}$ is tight and $\{y^k_t(c): t\ge 0\}$ converges weakly to $\{t: t\ge 0\}$ as $k\to \infty$.
\[l4.5\] For any $T>0$, $$\lim_{\delta\rightarrow 0}\sup_{k\ge 1}\mbf{E}\bigg[\sup_{0\le r\le
T}\left(y^k_{r+\delta}(c)-y_r^k(c)\right)\bigg]=0.$$
For each $k\ge 1$, since $y_t^k(c)$ is continuous in $t$ and $\sup_{0\le r\le T}\left(y^k_{r+\delta}(c)-y_r^k(c)\right)$ is decreasing in $\delta$, we have $$\lim_{\delta\rightarrow 0}\sup_{0\le r\le
T}\left(y^k_{r+\delta}(c)-y_r^k(c)\right)=0,
~~\mbf{P}_\lambda\mbox{-a.s.}$$ We may assume $0<\delta<1$, then \_[0rT]{}(y\^k\_[r+]{}(c)-y\_r\^k(c))y\^k\_[T+1]{}(c), \_ In view of (\[4.4\]) we can use Fatou’s lemma to obtain \[4.6\] \_[0]{}=0. Observe that for each fixed $T>0$, $$\sup_{0\le r\le T}|y^k_{r}(c)-r|\le y^k_{T}(c)+T$$ and the family $\{y^k_{T}(c)\}_{k\ge 1}$ is uniformly integrable by (\[4.4\]) and (\[4.5\]). Then $\{\sup_{0\le r\le T}
|y^k_{r}(c)-r|\}_{k\ge 1}$ is uniformly integrable. On the other hand, by Lemma \[l4.4\] we have $$\sup_{0\le r\le T}|y_r^k(c)-r|\to 0 ~\mbox{in probability as}~ k\to
\infty.$$ It follows that \_[k]{}=0. Then for any given $\varepsilon>0$, there exists $K = K(\varepsilon)
\ge 1$ so that when $k\ge K$, < . Thus for $k\ge K$ and $0<\delta<\varepsilon/2$ we have \[4.7\] + + 2+ . By (\[4.6\]) we can choose $0<\delta_0 = \delta_0(K)<
\varepsilon/2$ so that when $0<\delta<\delta_0$, \_[1kK]{}< . A combination of this and (\[4.7\]) completes the proof.
\[l4.6\] The sequence $\{Z_k(t): t\ge 0\}_{k\ge 1}$ is tight in $C([0,\infty), \mcr{S}^\prime(\mbb{R}))$.
We shall prove that for every $f\in \mcr{S}(\mbb{R})$ the sequence $\{\<Z_k(t),f\>: t\ge 0\}$ is tight in $D([0,\infty),\mbb{R})$, so the result follows by a theorem of Mitoma (1983); see also Kallianpur and Xiong (1995, p.82). Let $A_k(t) = t + \frac{\sigma^2}{2}y_t^k(c)$. By Lemma \[l4.3\], for any $G\in C^\infty(\mbb{R})$ we have G(Z\_k(t),f) =\_0\^tG\^(Z\_k(s),f)Z\_k(s),Af ds + \_0\^tG\^(Z\_k(s),f)f(c)\^2d y\_s\^k(c) + =\_0\^t dA\_k(s) + where $b_k(s)$ and $h_k(s)$ denote the densities of $ds$ and $\frac{\sigma^2}{2}dy_s^k(c)$ with respect to $dA_k(s)$, respectively. From (\[4.4\]) it is elementary to see that \_[k1]{}< . By Theorem \[t3.1\] and Lemma \[l4.5\], we infer that $\{G(\<Z_k(t),f\>): t\ge 0\}_{k\ge 1}$ is tight first in $D([0,\infty),\mbb{R})$ and then in the closed subspace $C([0,\infty),\mbb{R})$. By Lemma \[l4.2\] and Chebyshev’s inequality we have \_[k1]{}0 as $\alpha \to \infty$. Then $\{\<Z_k(t),f\>: t\ge 0\}_{k\ge 1}$ satisfies the compact containment condition and hence it is tight by Theorem 9.1 in Ethier and Kurtz (1986, p.142).
\[l4.7\] Let $\{Z_0(t): t\ge 0\}$ be any limit point of $\{Z_k(t): t\ge 0\}$ in the sense of distributions on $C([0,\infty),
\mcr{S}^\prime(\mbb{R}))$. Then for $G\in C^\infty(\mbb{R})$ and $f\in \mcr{S}(\mbb{R})$ we have G(Z\_0(t),f) =\_0\^tG\^(Z\_0(s),f)Z\_0(s),Af d s + \_0\^tG\^(Z\_0(s),f)f(c)\^2 d s +
By passing to a subsequence and using the Skorokhod representation, we may assume $\{Z_k(t): t\ge 0\}$ and $\{Z_0(t):
t\ge 0\}$ are defined on the same probability space and $\{Z_k(t):
t\ge 0\}$ converges a.s. to $\{Z_0(t): t\ge 0\}$ in the topology of $C([0,\infty), \mathscr{S}^\prime(\mbb{R}))$. From Lemma \[l4.3\] we have \[4.8\] G(Z\_k(t),f) =\_0\^tG\^(Z\_k(s),f)Z\_k(s),Af d s +\_0\^t G\^(Z\_k(s),f)f(c)\^2 d s + f(c)\^2(\_0\^tG\^(Z\_k(s),f)d y\_s\^k(c)-\_0\^tG\^(Z\_k(s),f) d s)\
+ Let $0=s_0<s_1<\cdots<s_{n-1}<s_n=t$ be a partition of $[0,t]$ so that $\max_{1\le i\le n}(s_i-s_{i-1})\to 0$ as $n\to\infty$. Then we have \[4.9\] = G\^ G\^\_[n]{}\_[i=1]{}\^n G\^\_[n]{}\_[i=1]{}\^n \^[1/2]{}. Using (\[2.7\]) it is not hard to show that (y\_[s\_i]{}\^k(c)-y\_[s\_[i-1]{}]{}\^k(c)) =\_(dx)\^[s\_i]{}\_[s\_[i-1]{}]{} p(s,c-x) \^2ds (s\_i-s\_[i-1]{})\^2. Then the right hand side of (\[4.9\]) tends to zero as $k\to\infty$. From (\[4.1\]) it is easy to show that for any $f\in
\mcr{S}(\mbb{R})$, the sequence $\{\<Z_k(s),f\>\}_{k\ge 1}$ is uniformly integrable on $ \Omega\times[0, t]$ relative to the product measure $\mbf{P}(d\omega)ds$. Letting $k\rightarrow\infty$ in (\[4.8\]) we obtain the desired result.
\[p4.8\] For every $\mu\in \mcr{S}^\prime(\mbb{R})$ there is a process $\{Z(t): t\ge 0\}$ with sample paths in $C([0,\infty), \mcr{S}^\prime(\mbb{R}))$ so that for $G\in
C^\infty(\mbb{R})$ and $f\in \mcr{S}(\mbb{R})$ we have \[4.10\] G(Z(t),f) =G(,f) + \_0\^t G\^(Z(s),f)Z(s),Af ds + \_0\^t G\^(Z(s),f)f(c)\^2 ds +
Let $\{Z_0(t): t\ge 0\}$ be the process mentioned in Lemma \[l4.7\] and let $Z(t) = P_t\mu + Z_0(t)$. Then (\[4.10\]) clearly holds.
\[p4.9\] Let $\{Z(t): t\ge 0\}$ be a solution to the martingale problem (\[4.10\]) with sample paths in $C([0,\infty)$, $\mcr{S}^\prime(\mbb{R}))$. Then we have the Langevin type stochastic equation \[4.11\] Z(t),f = ,f + B(t)f(c) + \_0\^t Z(s),Af ds, t0, f(), where $\{B_t: t\ge 0\}$ is a standard one-dimensional Brownian motion.
By applying (\[4.10\]) to suitable truncations of the function $G(z)=z$ we get \[4.12\] Z(t),f = Z(0),f + M\_t(f) + \_0\^t Z(s),Af ds, where $\{M_t(f)\}$ is a local martingale. By Itô’s formula, Z(t),f\^2 = Z(0),f\^2 + 2\_0\^t Z(s),fZ(s),Af ds + M(f)\_t + On the other hand, if we apply (\[4.10\]) directly to suitable truncations of the function $G(z)=z^2$, then Z(t),f\^2 = Z(0),f\^2 + 2\_0\^t Z(s),fZ(s),Af ds + \^2f(c)\^2t + Comparing the above two equations we have \[4.13\] M(f)\_t = \^2f(c)\^2t, t0, f(). Clearly, (\[4.12\]) and (\[4.13\]) determine a continuous orthogonal martingale measure on $[0,\infty)\times \mbb{R}$ with intensity $\sigma^2\delta_c(x)dsdx$. By El Karoui and Méléard (1990, Proposition II-1) we have M\_t(f) = B\_tf(c), t0, f(). for a standard one-dimensional Brownian motion $\{B(t): t\ge 0\}$.
\[p4.10\] Let $\{Z(t): t\ge 0\}$ be a solution to the stochastic equation (\[4.11\]) with sample paths in $C([0,\infty)$, $\mcr{S}^\prime(\mbb{R}))$. Then we have a.s. \[4.14\] Z(t),f = ,P\_tf + \_0\^t P\_[t-s]{}f(c) dB(s), t0, f().
If $\{Z(t): t\ge 0\}$ is a solution of (\[4.11\]) with sample paths in $C([0,\infty)$, $\mcr{S}^\prime(\mbb{R}))$, we have \_0\^tZ(s),P\_[t-s]{}f ds =\_0\^t,P\_[t-s]{}f ds + \_0\^tP\_[t-s]{}f(c)B(s) ds +\_0\^t ds\_0\^sZ(u),P\_[t-s]{}Af du =\_0\^t,P\_[t-s]{}f ds + \_0\^tP\_[t-s]{}f(c)B(s) ds +\_0\^t du\_u\^tZ(u),P\_[t-s]{}Af ds =\_0\^t,P\_[t-s]{}f ds + \_0\^tP\_[t-s]{}f(c)B(s) ds - \_0\^t Z(u),f du + \_0\^t Z(u),P\_[t-u]{}f du. It follows that $$\int_0^t\<Z(s),f\> ds
=
\int_0^t\<\mu,P_{t-s}f\> ds + \sigma\int_0^tP_{t-s}f(c)B(s) ds.$$ Consequently, we have \_0\^tZ(s),Af ds =\_0\^t,P\_[t-s]{}Af ds + \_0\^tP\_[t-s]{}Af(c)B(s) ds =,P\_tf - ,f - f(c)B(t) + \_0\^t P\_[t-s]{}f(c) dB(s), where in the last equality we have used the formula of integration by parts. Then we use (\[4.11\]) again to see (\[4.14\]) holds.
A combination of the above propositions shows that the Langevin type equation (\[4.11\]) has a pathwise unique solution and the martingale problem (\[4.10\]) is well-posed. Moreover, by (\[4.14\]) it is easy to show that $\{Z(t): t\ge 0\}$ is a Markov process with transition semigroup $(Q^c_t)_{t\ge 0}$ defined by \[4.15\] \_[\^(\^d)]{}\^[i,f]{}Q\^c\_t(,) = {i,P\_tf - \_0\^t P\_sf(c)\^2 d s}. A distribution-valued Markov process with transition semigroup in this form is usually called an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck type process. The process $\{Z(t): t\ge 0\}$ describes the asymptotic fluctuations of the single point catalytic SBM as the branching mechanisms are small. More precisely, we have the following theorem.
\[t4.11\] As $k\to\infty$, the process $\{Z_k(t): t\ge
0\}$ converges weakly in $C([0,\infty)$, $\mcr{S}^\prime(\mbb{R}))$ to the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process $\{Z(t): t\ge 0\}$ with transition semigroup $(Q^c_t)_{t\ge 0}$ and $Z(0)=0$.
By Lemma \[l4.6\] the family $\{Z_k(t): t\ge 0\}_{k\ge 1}$ is tight in the space $C([0,\infty), \mcr{S}^\prime(\mbb{R}))$. Then the result follows from Lemma \[l4.7\] and the well-posedness of the martingale problem.
[99]{}
Bojdecki, T. and Gorostiza, L.G.: Langevin equation for ${\cal
S}^\prime$-valued Gaussian processes and fluctuation limits of infinite particle systems. *Probab. Theory Relat. Fields* **73** (1986), 227-244.
Dawson, D.A. and Fleischmann, K.: A super-Brownian motion with a single point catalyst. *Stoch. Proc. Appl.* **49** (1994), 3-40.
Dawson, D.A., Fleischmann, K. and Gorostiza, L.G.: Stable hydrodynamic limit fluctuations of a critical branching particle system in a random medium. *Ann. Probab.* **17** (1989), 1083-1117.
Dawson, D.A., Fleischmann, K., Li, Y. and Mueller, C.: Singularity of super-Brownian local time at a point catalyst. *Ann. Probab.* **23** (1995), 37-55.
El Karoui, N. and Méléard, S.: Martingale measures and stochastic calculus. *Probab. Theory Rel. Fields* **84** (1990), 83-101.
Ethier, S.N. and Kurtz, T.G.: *Markov Processes: Characterization and Convergence*. John Wiley and Sons, New York (1986).
Fleischmann, K. and Le Gall, J-F: A new approach to the single point catalytic super-Brownian motion. *Probab. Theory Relat. Fields* **102** (1995), 63-82.
Fleischmann, K. and Xiong, J.: Large deviation principle for the single point catalytic super-Brownian motion. *Markov Process. Relat. Fields* **11** (2005), 519-533.
Gorostiza, L.G. and Li, Z.H.: Fluctuation limits of measure-valued immigration processes with small branching. Stochastic Models (Guanajuato, 1998). In: *Aportaciones Matemáticas: Investigación* **14** (1998), 261-268. Edited by Gonzalez-Barrios, J.M. and Gorostiza, L.G. Sociedad Matemática Mexicana.
Kallianpur, G. and Xiong, J.: *Stochastic Differential Equations in Infinite-Dimensional Spaces*. Inst. Math. Statist., Hayward, California (1995).
Li, Z.H.: *Measure-Valued Branching Markov Processes*. Forthcoming book (2009).
Li, Z.H. and Zhang, M.: Fluctuation limit theorems of immigration superprocesses with small branching. *Statist. Probab. Letters* **76** (2006), 401-411.
Mitoma, I.: Tightness of probabilities on $C([0,1],\mcr{S})$ and $D([0,1],\mcr{S}^\prime)$. *Ann. Probab.* **11** (1983), 989-999.
Treves, F.: *Topological Veactor Spaces, Distributions and Kernels*. Academic Press, New York (1967).
[^1]: Supported by NSFC and CJSP grants.
[^2]: Corresponding author.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In the current quest for efficient and experimentally feasible platforms for implementation of multimode squeezing and entanglement in the continuous variable regime, we underpin and complement our results on the generation of versatile multimode entanglement and cluster states in nonlinear waveguide arrays presented in \[[*D. Barral et al., arXiv:1912.11154v3*]{}\]. We present detailed derivations of the equations that describe the propagation of light through this system, and then we focus on parameter regimes where these equations can be solved analytically. These analytical solutions build an intuition for the wide landscape of quantum states that are accessible through the activation of pumping, coupling and measurement schemes. Furthermore, we showcase the acquired insights by using one of the identified analytical solutions to exhibit the generation, optimization and scalability of spatial linear cluster states.'
author:
- David Barral
- Mattia Walschaers
- Kamel Bencheikh
- Valentina Parigi
- Juan Ariel Levenson
- Nicolas Treps
- Nadia Belabas
date: 'May 14, 2020'
title: Quantum state engineering in arrays of nonlinear waveguides
---
Introduction {#I}
============
The optical continuous variable (CV) framework is a true contender for quantum communication and quantum information processing [@Braunstein2005]. Demonstrations of protocols putting the field fluctuations to good use have been achieved since 1992 [@Ou1992; @Furusawa1998; @Jia2004; @Coelho2009; @Miwa2009; @Jouguet2013] towards large-scale entangled states for quantum computing [@Larsen2019; @Asavanant2019]. However, all these major advances were achieved with table-top experiments and for research purposes only. Integrated optics can fill the gap towards the development of real-world quantum technologies [@Wang2019]. Entanglement and superposition underpin the advantage of quantum protocols. Thus, an integrated synthesizer of multimode entangled states is a key component for the boost of quantum technologies. Entanglement on chip has been demonstrated for two parties [@Lenzini2018], in an integrated version of the bulk optics implementations that cascade squeezers and beamsplitters [@Yukawa2008]. We discuss here the versatility of a monolithic device –with no bends in the active region nor specific functionalized regions– where nonlinearity and coupling act simultaneously: the array of nonlinear waveguides (ANW) [@Christodoulides2003].
Such arrays have been used in the discrete variable domain [@Kruse2013; @Solntsev2014] and have been proposed to achieve specific multimode states in the CV domain with $N=2$ waveguides [@Herec2003; @Barral2017b] or scaling up the number of waveguides [@Rai2012; @Barral2019b; @Barral2020b]. Recently, the ANW has been proposed as a versatile source [[ to engineer tailored]{}]{} cluster states for measurement-based quantum computing [@Barral2020]. [[ Here we provide a complementary perspective by exploring both the mathematical backbone of these results and the physical insight that can be obtained from it. We showcase how entanglement and squeezing manifests in optical modes that are produced by the ANW, and we detail possible tuning parameters, derive analytical and semi-analytical solutions, and harness them to find a good working point for the generation of linear clusters.]{}]{}
Our framework is based on the choice and use of different sets of available eigenmodes of the ANW which simplify the dynamics of the system and open up new possibilities to encode quantum information. [[ The use of eigenmodes]{}]{} is [[ the key to demonstrate]{}]{} tunable multipartite entanglement in the frequency domain [@Roslund2013; @Cai2017]. We [[ establish parallels between the ANW and such frequency combs, [[ thus]{}]{} connecting spatial and frequency encoding [[ through a joint]{}]{} mathematical framework]{}]{}. [We further show that full engineering of multimode squeezed states can be achieved in the spatial domain]{} i) by specific design of the ANW shaping the nonlinearity and coupling, and designing a suitable phase matching (as suggested before [@Barral2020] and further exemplified here); and externally, ii) by adjusting the pumping profile and by adapting the measurement strategies of the output fields.
The main conceptual, practical and technological assets of the ANW in comparison with other platforms are i) the large number of degrees of freedom available that enable to reconfigure its operation, ii) a number of analytical solutions based on symmetries present in arrays of waveguides that are a guide to develop specific quantum protocols, iii) the possibility to encode quantum information in the individual mode basis or in any other basis based on linear combinations of individual modes, iv) the small footprint, from few millimeters to centimeters, and v) the simplicity of the pumping-detection optical setup that can be based on available telecom fiber-optic components. [[ Notably, quantum information encoded in the individual spatial modes can be distributed to different locations of a quantum network in a natural way, which is harder to implement in [[ the frequency]{}]{} domain [@Arzani2018].]{}]{}
The article is organized as follows: we first derive the governing equations of propagation and squeezing in ANW in section \[II\]. We then detail and illustrate an inventory of the tuning parameters for squeezing and entanglement engineering in section \[Engineer\]. Notably, we give in this section \[Engineer\] various sets of analytical solutions that provide considerable insight on the impact of the pumping phase profile on the generation of entanglement. We build on this formalism and intuition to demonstrate multimode squeezing in section \[Multimode\] and detail the possibilities to produce linear cluster states in ANW in section \[Clusters\].
The array of nonlinear waveguides: possible encodings and general solutions {#II}
===========================================================================
The array of nonlinear waveguides {#IIA}
---------------------------------
The array of nonlinear waveguides consists of $N$ identical $\chi^{(2)}$ waveguides in which degenerate spontaneous downconversion (SPDC) and evanescent coupling between the generated fields take place. The array can be made up of, for instance, periodically poled lithium niobate (PPLN) waveguides as sketched in Figure \[F1\]a. In each waveguide, an input harmonic field at frequency $\omega_{h}$ is type-0 downconverted into a signal field at frequency $\omega_{s}$. We consider that the phase matching condition $\Delta\beta\equiv\beta(\omega_{h})-2\beta(\omega_{s})=0$, with $\beta(\omega_{h,s})$ the propagation constant at frequency $\omega_{h,s}$, is fulfilled all along the coupling zone and in the coupling zone only. The energy of the signal modes propagating in each waveguide is exchanged between the coupled waveguides through evanescent waves, whereas the interplay of the second harmonic waves is negligible for the considered propagation lengths due to their high confinement into the guiding region. We set our calculation in the reasonable regime of pump undepletion [@Barral2017b]. We consider a general array of $N$ identical waveguides and continuous-wave propagating fields. The physical processes involved are then described by the [@Linares2008] $$\label{one}
\frac{d \hat{A}_{j}}{d z}=\, i C_{0} (f_{j-1} \hat{A}_{j-1}+ f_{j}\hat{A}_{j+1}) +2 i \eta_{j} \hat{A}_{j}^{\dag}, \\$$ where $\hat{A}_{0}=0$ and $\hat{A}_{N+1}=0$, $f_{0}=f_{N}=0$ and $j=1,\dots, N$ is the individual mode index. $\hat{A}_{j}\equiv \hat{A}_{j}(z, \omega_{s})$ are monochromatic slowly-varying amplitude annihilation operators of signal (s) photons corresponding to the $j$th waveguide – in the individual mode basis – $[\hat{A}_{j}(z,\omega), \hat{A}_{j'}^{\dag}(z',\omega')]=\delta(z-z') \delta(\omega-\omega')\delta_{j,j'}$. The effective nonlinear coupling constant corresponding to the $j$th waveguide is given by $\eta_{j}=g\, \alpha_{h,j}$, where $g$ is the nonlinear constant – proportional to $\chi^{(2)}$ and to the spatial overlap of the signal and harmonic fields in each waveguide – and $\alpha_{h,j}$ is the strong coherent undepleted pump field propagating in the $j$th waveguide. The parameters $\eta_{j}$ can be tuned by means of a suitable set of pump phases and amplitudes at each waveguide. $C_{j}=C_{0} f_{j}$ is the linear coupling constant between modes $j$ and $j+1$, and $z$ is the coordinate along the direction of propagation. Both the coupling and nonlinear constants depend on the set signal frequency, $C_{0} \equiv C_{0}(\omega_{s})$ and $g \equiv g(\omega_{s})$, and they are taken as real without loss of generality.
![\[F1\]](Figure1.pdf){width="49.00000%"}
-------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Function Frequency combs [@Arzani2018] ANWs
\[0.5ex\] Individual modes $\hat{a}_{j}$ $\hat{A}_{j}$
\[1ex\] Generator indiv. mod. $\hat{\mathcal{H}}=i\hbar \frac{\eta}{2}\sum_{j,k=1}^{N} \tilde{\mathcal{L}}_{j,j'} \hat{a}_{j}^{\dag} \hat{a}_{j'}^{\dag} + H.c.$ $\hat{\mathcal{M}}=\hbar \sum_{j=1}^{N} \{C_{0} (f_{j} \hat{A}_{j+1} \hat{A}_{j}^{\dag}+f_{j-1} \hat{A}_{j-1} \hat{A}_{j}^{\dag})+ \eta_{j} \hat{A}_{j}^{\dag \,2}+ H.c.\}$
\[1ex\] Linear supermodes n.a. $\hat{B}_{S,k}=\hat{A}_{S,k}\,e^{-i\lambda_{k}z}=\sum_{j=1}^{N} M_{k,j}\,\hat{A}_{j} \,e^{-i\lambda_{k}z}$
\[1ex\] Generator lin. superm. n.a. $\hat{\mathcal{M}}_{S}^{L}=-i\hbar \frac{\tilde{\eta}}{2}\sum_{k,k'=1}^{N} \mathcal{L}_{k,k'} (z) \hat{B}_{S,k}^{\dag} \hat{B}_{S,k'}^{\dag} + H.c.$
\[1ex\] Coupling matrix $\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_{j,j'}=sinc [\phi(\omega_{j}, \omega_{j'})] \alpha(\omega_{j} + \omega_{j'})$ $\mathcal{L}_{k,k'} (z)=2i\sum_{j=1}^{N} \frac{\vert \eta_{j}\vert}{\tilde{\eta}} M_{k,j} M_{k',j}\,e^{i\{\phi_{j}-(\lambda_{k}+\lambda_{k'})z\}}$
\[1ex\] Nonlinear supermodes $\hat{b}_{m}=\sum_{j=1}^{N}V^{\dag}_{m,j} \hat{a}_{j}$ $ \hat{C}_{S,m}=\sum_{k,j=1}^{N} (\Upsilon_{m,k}^{\dag}(z)\, M_{k,j}\,e^{-i\lambda_{k} z}) \hat{A}_{j}$
\[1ex\] Gen. nonl. sup. basis $\hat{\mathcal{H}}_{S}=i\hbar \frac{{\eta}}{2}\sum_{m=1}^{N} \Lambda_{m, m}(\hat{b}_{m}^{\dag})^{2} + H.c.$ $\hat{\mathcal{M}}_{S}=i\hbar \frac{\tilde{\eta}}{2}\sum_{m=1}^{N} \Lambda_{m,m} (z) (\hat{C}_{S,m}^{\dag})^{2} + H.c.$
\[1ex\]
-------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since we are interested in CV squeezing and entanglement, we will also use along the paper the field quadratures $\hat{x}_{j}$ and $\hat{y}_{j}$, where $\hat{x}_{j}=(\hat{A}_{j}+\hat{A}_{j}^{\dag})$ and $\hat{y}_{j}=i (\hat{A}_{j}^{\dag}-\hat{A}_{j})$ are, respectively, the amplitude and phase quadratures corresponding to a signal optical mode ${A}_{j}$ (Figure \[F1\]b). The system of equations ($\ref{one}$) in terms of the individual-modes quadratures can be rewritten in compact form as $$\label{Sz}
\frac{d \hat{\xi}}{d z} = {\Delta}(z)\, \hat{\xi},$$ where ${\Delta}(z)$ is a $2N\times2N$ matrix of coefficients and $\hat{\xi}=(\hat{x}_{1},\dots, \hat{x}_{N}, \hat{y}_{1},\dots,\hat{y}_{N})^T$.
In general, either Equation (\[one\]) or Equation (\[Sz\]) can be solved numerically for a specific set of parameters $(C_{j},\eta_{j},N)$, or even analytically if $N$ is small. However, it is difficult to gain physical insight from numerical or low-dimension analytical solutions due to the increasing complexity of the system with the number of waveguides. We propose below and use throughout the paper two modal approaches – complementary to the individual-mode approach – that enlighten the problem of propagation in ANWs. We thus use
i\) [*Linear (propagation) supermodes*]{}, i.e. the eigenmodes of the corresponding linear array of waveguides assuming $\eta_{j}\propto g=0$. In the actual array of nonlinear waveguides where $\eta_{j}\propto g\neq 0$, these modes are squeezed and coupled through the nonlinearity. This basis has analytical solutions independently of the number $N$ of waveguides for specific pump-field distributions. We show these solutions in section \[Engineer\].
ii\) [*Nonlinear (squeezing) supermodes*]{}, i.e. the eigenmodes of the full nonlinear system. These modes are squeezed and by construction fully decoupled but $z$-dependent. We point out that, in some cases (see section \[Engineerb1\]), both linear and nonlinear supermodes are degenerate up to local phases.
These two complementary approaches connect our work and our result of [spatial multimode squeezed states]{} exhibited in sections \[Multimode\] and \[Clusters\] to the spectral [@Roslund2013; @Chen2014; @Cai2017], spatial [@Su2012; @Armstrong2012; @Armstrong2015] or temporal [@Yoshikawa2016; @Takeda2019] modes of previous works. In the next section \[III\], we introduce both linear and nonlinear supermode bases, work out the corresponding propagation equations, and give the general solution to the propagation problem. Furthermore, we use the relationship between the two bases to draw mathematical parallels with SPDC frequency modes [@Patera2010; @Arzani2018; @Fabre2019].
Propagation equations {#III}
---------------------
The general solutions to the propagation in ANWs have been recently introduced in [@Barral2020]. [Below we present a detailed calculation of those solutions in both the complex and quadratures representation of the optical fields, and compare our spatial domain solutions with those obtained in similar physical systems working with frequency modes.]{}
### Complex optical fields {#IIIa}
Considering coupling only between nearest-neighbor waveguides, a linear waveguide array – i.e. Equation (\[one\]) with $\eta_{j}=0$ – presents supermodes $\hat{A}_{S,k}$, i.e. propagation eigenmodes [@Kapon1984]. In general, any linear waveguide array is represented by a Hermitian tridiagonal matrix – Jacobi matrix – with non-negative entries and thus by a set of non-degenerate eigenvalues and eigenvectors given in terms of orthogonal polynomials [@Bosse2017]. These eigenvectors, that we call the linear supermodes, form a basis and are represented by an orthogonal matrix $M$ with real elements $M_{k,j}$. The individual modes of the waveguides and the linear supermode basis are thus related by $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\hat{A}_{S,k}=\sum_{j=1}^{N} M_{k,j}\,\hat{A}_{j}.\end{aligned}$$ The supermodes are orthonormal $$\label{orto}
\sum_{j=1}^{N}M_{k,j} M_{k',j}= \delta_{k,k'},$$ with a spectrum of eigenvalues $\lambda_{k}$. We consider here a constant coupling along propagation $C_{j}(z)=C_{j}$. Note that in the case of z-dependent [coupling strength $C_{j}(z)$, the eigenmode basis becomes local with $M\equiv M(z)$]{}. Equation (\[one\]) for the nonlinear waveguide array can be written as $$\label{three}\nonumber
\frac{d {\hat{A}}_{S,k}}{d z}=i\sum_{j=1}^{N} \sum_{k'=1}^{N} M_{k,j}\,M_{k',j} (\lambda_{k'}\hat{A}_{S,k'}+2\eta_{j}\hat{A}_{S,k'}^{\dag}),$$ in the supermode basis, where we have used the eigenvalue condition $C_{0}(f_{j-1} M_{k', j-1}+f_{j} M_{k',j+1})= \lambda_{k'} M_{k', j}$. Using slowly-varying supermode amplitudes $\hat{B}_{S,k}=\hat{A}_{S,k}\,e^{-i\lambda_{k}z}$, and the orthogonality of the supermodes Equation (\[orto\]), the following propagation equation is obtained $$\label{four}
\frac{d\hat{B}_{S,k}}{d z}=2i\sum_{j=1}^{N} \sum_{k'=1}^{N} \eta_{j}\,M_{k,j}\,M_{k',j} \hat{B}_{S,k'}^{\dag} e^{-i(\lambda_{k}+\lambda_{k'})z}.$$ The momentum operator in the interaction picture which produces Equation (\[four\]) by means of the Heisenberg equations $d\hat{B}_{S,k}/d z=(i/\hbar)[\hat{B}_{S,k},\hat{\mathcal{M}}_{S}^{L}]$ is thus $$\label{five}\nonumber
\hat{\mathcal{M}}_{S}^{L}=-i\hbar \frac{\tilde{\eta}}{2}\sum_{k,k'=1}^{N} \mathcal{L}_{k,k'} (z) \hat{B}_{S,k}^{\dag} \hat{B}_{S,k'}^{\dag} + H.c.$$ The coupling matrix $\mathcal{L}(z)$ is the local joint-spatial supermode distribution of the ANW and its elements are given by $$\label{six}
\mathcal{L}_{k,k'} (z)=2i\sum_{j=1}^{N} \frac{\vert \eta_{j}\vert}{\tilde{\eta}} M_{k,j} M_{k',j}\,e^{i\{\phi_{j}-(\lambda_{k}+\lambda_{k'})z\}},$$ with $\eta_{j}= \vert\eta_{j}\vert\,e^{i\phi_{j}}$ and $\tilde{\eta}$ an arbitrary parameter, e.g. the highest $\vert\eta_{j}\vert$. $\eta_{j}$ can also be a function of the position $\eta_{j}\equiv \eta_{j}(z)=g(z) \,\alpha_{h, j}$ [@Barral2019c]. $\mathcal{L}(z)$ is a complex symmetric matrix which gathers all the information about the spatial shape of the pump, i.e. amplitudes and phases in each waveguide, and the signal supermodes coupling. Finally, the Heisenberg equations in the linear supermode basis can be simply written as $$\label{Hei}
\frac{d\hat{B}_{S,k}}{d z}=\tilde{\eta} \sum_{k'=1}^{N} \mathcal{L}_{k,k'} (z) \,\hat{B}_{S,k'}^{\dag}.$$ The formal solution to Equation (\[Hei\]) is given by $$\label{Bsol}
\begin{small}
\begin{pmatrix}
\vec{B}_{S}(z) \\
\vec{B}^{\dag}_{S}(z)
\end{pmatrix}= \exp \left\lbrace \tilde{\eta}
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & \int_{0}^{z} \mathcal{L}(z') dz' \\
\int_{0}^{z} \mathcal{L}^{*}(z') dz' & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\right\rbrace
\begin{pmatrix}
\vec{B}_{S}(0) \\
\vec{B}^{\dag}_{S}(0)
\end{pmatrix},
\end{small}$$ with $\vec{B}_{S}=(\hat{B}_{S,1}, \dots, \hat{B}_{S,N})^{T}$. This solution displays the effect of the nonlinearity on the linear supermodes: $z$-dependent amplification and coupling. A simpler solution can be obtained diagonalizing the matrix argument of the exponential in Equation (\[Bsol\]) through the nonlinear supermodes. In general, the linear supermode basis does not diagonalize the propagation in the ANWs and the solution of Equation (\[Bsol\]) is configuration-dependent. However, Equation (\[Hei\]) presents analytical solutions independently of the dimension $N$ for specific pump-field distributions as we show in section \[Engineer\].
A feature of the ANWs is that the evanescent coupling produces a phase mismatch between the pump and the generated signal waves which results in a $z$-dependent interaction, in such a way that the eigenmodes of the full nonlinear system –the nonlinear supermodes– are local. This coupling-based phase mismatch affects the amount of squeezing and entanglement generated in the ANWs. The local nonlinear supermode basis displays independently squeezed modes and helps to quantify the amount of nonclassicality generated in the array at different propagation distances. The local nonlinear supermodes $\hat{C}_{S}$ basis is such that $$\label{eight}
\hat{C}_{S,m}=\sum_{k=1}^{N} \Upsilon_{m,k}^{\dag}(z)\,\hat{B}_{S,k},$$ where $[\hat{C}_{S,m}(z),\hat{C}_{S,m'}^{\dag}(z')]=\delta(z-z')\,\delta_{m,m'}$, and $\Upsilon(z)$ is an unitary matrix which diagonalizes the complex symmetric matrix $\int_{0}^{z} \mathcal{L}(z') dz'$ by a congruence transformation – the Autonne-Takagi transformation [@Cariolaro2016]–, such that $$\label{seven}
\Upsilon(z) \,[\int_{0}^{z} \mathcal{L}(z') dz' ] \,\Upsilon^{T}(z)= \tilde{ \Lambda}(z),$$ with $\tilde{\Lambda}(z)$ a local diagonal matrix with non-negative real entries. Applying Equations (\[eight\]) and (\[seven\]) on Equation (\[Bsol\]) we obtain a simple solution in the diagonal local basis $$\begin{aligned}
\label{nineC}
\hat{C}_{S,m}(z)=\cosh[\tilde{r}_{m}(z)] \,\hat{C}_{S,m}(0)+\sinh[\tilde{r}_{m}(z)]\,\hat{C}_{S,m}^{\dag}(0).\end{aligned}$$ Each local nonlinear supermode is a single-mode squeezed state. The $\tilde{r}_{m}(z)=\tilde{\eta}\,\tilde{\Lambda}_{m,m}(z)$ are the downconversion gains at a propagation distance $z$ and quantify the available nonlinearity and thus squeezing. The relation between the nonlinear supermodes and the individual modes is $$\label{NSup}\nonumber
\hat{C}_{S,m}=\sum_{k=1}^{N} \sum_{j=1}^{N} (\Upsilon_{m,k}^{\dag}(z)\, M_{k,j}\,e^{-i\lambda_{k} z}) \hat{A}_{j} .$$ This expression encapsulates the mechanisms at play in the ANWs: the evanescent coupling generates the linear supermodes ($M_{k,j}$) which get a phase due to propagation ($\lambda_{k} z$) and the nonlinearity couples them locally ($\Upsilon_{m,k}^{\dag}(z)$). In terms of the individual modes, the solution to the nonlinear system is $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\hat{A}_{j}(z)=&\sum_{k, m, j'=1}^{N} (M_{j,k} \Upsilon_{k,m}(z) M_{m,j'}\, e^{i \lambda_{k} z}) \\ \label{IndGenSol}
&\{\cosh[\tilde{r}_{m}(z)]\,\hat{A}_{j'}(0)+\sinh[\tilde{r}_{m}(z)] \,\hat{A}_{j'}^{\dag}(0)\}.\end{aligned}$$ Equations (\[Bsol\]), (\[nineC\]) and (\[IndGenSol\]) are the general solutions to the propagation problem in ANW in the linear supermodes, nonlinear supermodes and individual mode bases, respectively. These three solutions represent a resource for encoding quantum information. Particularly, Equation (\[IndGenSol\]) is a useful tool in the DV framework to explore further, for instance, driven quantum walks [@Hamilton2014].
Remarkably, the kind of equations that we find here for spatial modes are formally similar to those that appear in the context of SPDC in frequency combs [@Patera2010; @Arzani2018; @Fabre2019]. We draw parallels between the spectral approach that leads to multimode entanglement and our spatial approach in ANW in Table \[Table1\]. In frequency combs, the individual modes are a discrete set of $N$ frequency modes $\hat{a}_{j}$ that are nonlinearly coupled in a bulk crystal with a quadratic nonlinearity. The diagonalization of the corresponding coupling matrix $\tilde{\mathcal{L}}$ produces a set of nonlinear supermodes $\hat{b}_{m}$, whose eigenvalues $\eta\, \Lambda_{m, m}$ are proportional to SPDC gains. Table \[Table1\] (left) shows the main elements involved in frequency-comb SPDC and the related Hamiltonian in the individual $\hat{\mathcal{H}}$ and nonlinear supermode $\hat{\mathcal{H}}_{S}$ basis. In ANWs the evanescent coupling between the individual modes $\hat{A}_{j}$ generates the linear supermodes $\hat{A}_{S, k}$ and the nonlinear coupling mediated by the pump fields mixes them. Table \[Table1\] (right) shows the main elements involved in spatial ANWs and the related momenta in the individual $\hat{\mathcal{M}}$, linear supermode basis $\hat{\mathcal{M}}_{S}^{L}$, and nonlinear supermode $\hat{\mathcal{M}}_{S}$ basis. Note that $\hat{\mathcal{M}}_{S}$ does not represent a real dynamical generator. It is indeed a formal squeezing momentum with singular values $ \Lambda_{m,m}(z)=d_{z} \tilde{ \Lambda}_{m,m}(z)$ defined only at a set $z$ that we define for the sake of comparison. The coupling matrix $\mathcal{L}(z)$ is defined here in the linear supermode basis and the diagonalization of $\int_{0}^{z} \mathcal{L}(z') dz' $ produces a set of nonlinear supermodes $\hat{C}_{S,m}$. The consequence of this diagonalization in two steps to get to nonlinear coupling (see Table \[Table1\]) is that the nonlinear supermodes are $z$-dependent – i.e. local. At each propagation plane $z$ a different set of nonlinear supermodes diagonalizes Equation (\[Bsol\]) with SPDC gains $\tilde{r}_{m}(z)$. This feature is the main conceptual difference between frequency combs and spatial ANWs. It makes the ANW system very complex but, equally, highly versatile for the generation of multimode quantum states.
### Quadratures of the optical fields {#IIIb}
In terms of individual modes quadratures $\hat{x}_{j}$ and $\hat{y}_{j}$, the full evolution of the system is obtained by solving Equation (\[Sz\]). The formal solution of this equation is given by $$\nonumber
\hat{\xi}(z)={S}(z)\, \hat{\xi}(0),$$ with ${S}(z)=\exp\{\int_{0}^{z}{\Delta}(z')\, d z' \}$. The propagator ${S}(z)$ is a symplectic matrix which contains all the information about the propagation of the quantum state of the system. We can apply on it a Bloch-Messiah decomposition as follows [@Braunstein2005a] $$\nonumber
{S}(z)=R_{1}(z) K(z) R_{2}(z),$$ where $R_{1}(z)$ and $R_{2}(z)$ are both orthogonal and symplectic matrices and $K(z)=\operatorname{diag}\{e^{r_{1}(z)}, e^{r_{2}(z)},\dots, e^{r_{N}(z)}, e^{-r_{1}(z)}, e^{-r_{2}(z)}, \dots, e^{-r_{N}(z)}\}$ is a phase-squeezed diagonal matrix. The nonlinear supermodes are the same as those obtained equation (\[eight\]) by the Autonne-Takagi factorization and thus $K(z)$ is given by [@Cariolaro2016] $$\nonumber
K(z)=\exp \left\lbrace \tilde{\eta} \begin{pmatrix} \tilde{\Lambda}(z) & 0 \\ 0 & - \tilde{\Lambda}(z) \end{pmatrix} \right\rbrace.$$ Therefore we can identify the squeezing parameters as $r_{m}(z)=\tilde{r}_{m}(z) \equiv \tilde{\eta}\, \tilde{\Lambda}_{m,m}(z)$. The spatial profiles of the nonlinear supermodes are obtained from the complex representation of $R_{1}$.
The quantum states generated in ANWs are Gaussian. The most interesting observables in Gaussian CV are the second-order moments of the quadrature operators, properly arranged in the covariance matrix ${V}$ [@Adesso2014]. The elements of this matrix can be efficiently measured by means of homodyne detection. For a quantum state initially in vacuum, the covariance matrix at any plane $z$ is given by ${V}(z)={S}(z)\,{S}^{T}(z)$, with 1 the value of the shot noise related to each quadrature in our notation. Evolution of variances $V(\xi_{i}, \xi_{i})$ and quantum correlations $V(\xi_{i}, \xi_{j})$ can be obtained at any length from the elements of this matrix. The covariance matrix can also be computed from the Bloch-Messiah decomposition as $$\label{BMD}
V(z)={R}_{1}(z) K^{2}(z){R}^{T}_{1}(z).$$ Thus, $K^{2}(z)$ is the covariance matrix in the nonlinear supermode basis and $R_{1}(z)$ the symplectic transformation matrix between the individual and nonlinear supermode basis \[equivalent to Equation (\[NSup\]) for complex fields\]. The $m$th nonlinear supermode is squeezed and thus nonclassical if $K^{2}_{N+m}(z)= e^{-2 r_{m}(z)}<1$, and the smallest value of $K^{2}_{N+m}(z)$ is called the generalized squeezed variance and it is a measure of the nonclassicality of the quantum state [@Simon1994].
Note that the complex and real approaches are equivalent [@Cariolaro2016]. The first method is applied to the complex joint-spatial supermode distribution and is numerically easier to compute. It gives the relative downconversion gains and therefore the amount of squeezing available in the ANW. The second method is applied to the propagator in the symplectic form and it enables to work out directly the noise properties of the quantum state. We detail how these noise properties can be engineered in the following sections.
Engineering toolbox for production and detection of multimode squeezing {#Engineer}
=======================================================================
To operate the ANW, several knobs are accessible experimentally. A reconfigurable multimode shaper at pump frequency inputs the desired profile ($\vec{\eta}, \vec{\phi}$) in the array through a V-groove fiber array. Bent waveguides conduct the pump modes to the periodically poled ANWs where signal modes are generated and evanescently coupled. The coupling profile, wavevector phasematching poling period and coupling phasematching poling period ($\vec{f}, \Lambda_{\Delta\beta}, \Lambda_{C}$) can be suitably engineered for a specific operation mode. The output light is collected by V-groove fiber arrays and directed to a multimode balanced homodyne detector (BHD) where modes are measured using adapted local-oscillator (LO) phase and electronic gain profiles ($\vec{\theta}, \vec{G}$).
The class of ANWs which we introduced in section \[IIA\] thus presents a number of parameters that can be engineered for a desired operation. The evanescent coupling profile $\vec{f}=(f_{1},\dots ,f_{N})$, the length of the sample $L$, the number of waveguides $N$ –and notably its parity– and the poling periods [@Barral2019c] are built-in and cannot be tuned once the sample is fabricated. In contrast, the power and phase pump profile, given respectively by $\vec{\eta}=(\vert\eta_{1}\vert, \dots, \vert\eta_{N}\vert)$ and $\vec{\phi}=(\arg{(\eta_{1})}, \dots, \arg{(\eta_{N})})$, the coupling strength $C_{0}$ and the basis of detection can be set for a required operation or encoding of information. $C_{0}\equiv C_{0}(\omega_{s})$ can indeed be adjusted by tuning the phase matching $\Delta \beta \equiv \Delta \beta (T)$ with the temperature $T$ of the sample and adjusting the frequency $\omega_{p}$ of the pump laser accordingly to recover the degeneracy point [@Vainio2011]. We introduce below a number of engineering strategies related to the coupling, pumping, phase matching and detection parameters that can be used to produce and detect a desired multimode squeezed state:
i\) In section \[Engineera\] we review and extend the analytical expressions for the linear supermodes and the propagation constant for three specific coupling $\vec{f}$ profiles. These coupling profiles are put to good use in section \[Multimode\] to exemplify different squeezing behaviors.
ii\) In section \[Engineerb\] we establish analytical joint spatial supermode [[ distributions]{}]{} for specific pumping ($\vec{\eta}, \vec{\phi}$) configurations, we deduce in three [[ limiting]{}]{} cases analytical expressions for the covariance matrices that are valid for any ANWs –any $\vec{f}$–, for any number of waveguides $N$ and any propagation distance $z$. We display covariance matrices in these [[ limiting]{}]{} cases and in an intermediate [[ scenario]{}]{}. We further use and comment these propagation results on the modes when discussing the generation of squeezing and entangled states in section \[Multimode\].
iii\) In section \[Engineerc\] we describe engineering of the propagation solutions using dedicated phase matching in ANW ($\Lambda_{C}$) to favor specific supermodes towards entanglement generation.
iv\) In section \[Engineerd\] we recall LO shaping in multimode BHD used to detect squeezing and entanglement in a given basis.
Coupling profile engineering {#Engineera}
----------------------------
As introduced section \[III\], every set of nearest-neighbor coupled waveguides has a family of propagation supermodes given by a matrix $M$. The slowly varying amplitude corresponding to the $k$th supermode propagates along the array with a propagation constant $\lambda_{k}$. Each family of linear supermodes depends on the coupling profile $\vec{f}$. The engineering of this profile enables a specific operation or logic gate [@Moison2009]. A number of demonstrations with optical lattices has been exhibited over the last years [@Keil2011; @Chapman2016; @Weimann2016]. Very recently, the production of topologically protected quantum states in a Su-Schrieffer-Heeger lattice has been demonstrated [@Blanco2018].
A summary of properties of the supermodes can be found in ref. [@Efremidis2005]. Particularly, every family of supermodes corresponding to an array of identical waveguides fulfill the following relations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Rel1}
\lambda_{k}&=-\lambda_{N+1-k},\\ \label{Rel1a}
M_{N+1-k,j}&=(-1)^{j+1} M_{k,j}.\end{aligned}$$ We label the supermodes connected two by two by Equation (\[Rel1\]) as side supermodes ($k, N+1-k$). In arrays with an odd number of waveguides there is also a central supermode $k=(N+1)/2\equiv l$ with propagation constant $\lambda_{l}=0$. We thus refer to it as the zero supermode.
Applying the above relations in the orthonormalization condition Equation (\[orto\]), we find the following modified orthonormality conditions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Rel1b}
\sum_{j=1}^{N} (-1)^{j+1} M_{k,j} &M_{k',j}=\delta_{k,N+1-k'}, \\ \label{Rel1c}
\sum_{2\leq 2j \leq N} M_{k,2j} M_{k',2j}=&\frac{1}{2}(\delta_{k, k'} - \delta_{k,N+1-k'}),\\ \label{Rel1d}
\sum_{1\leq 2j-1\leq N} M_{k,2j-1} M_{k',2j-1}=&\frac{1}{2}(\delta_{k, k'} + \delta_{k,N+1-k'}).\end{aligned}$$ These relations are general and, notably, they are instrumental to configure the pump to obtain simple analytical solutions through Equation (\[six\]). We derive and give such solutions in section \[Engineerb\].
We exhibit below three paradigmatic examples of coupling profile engineering: the homogeneous profile array, the parabolic profile array and the square root profile array. We display the supermodes that each array produces and their respective propagation constants.
### Homogeneous profile array {#Engineera1}
The homogeneous linear array exhibits a constant coupling between waveguides $f_{j}=1$. It is thus a symmetric lattice. The supermodes are orthonormal Chebyshev polynomials that can be written in terms of simple trigonometric functions as [@Meng2004] $$\nonumber
M_{k,j}=M_{j,k}\equiv\frac{\sin(\frac{jk\pi}{N+1})}{\sqrt{\sum_{j'=1}^{N}\sin^{2}(\frac{j' k\pi}{N+1})}}.$$ The Chebyshev supermodes for $N=5$ waveguides are sketched in Figure \[F1a\]a. The spectrum of its eigenvalues is given by $$\nonumber
\lambda_{k}=2 C_{0} \cos(\frac{k \pi}{N+1}),$$ which are the propagation constants related to each supermode.
### Parabolic profile array {#Engineera2}
The parabolic linear array exhibits a coupling between waveguides given by the profile $f_{j}=\sqrt{j(N-j)}/2$. It is a symmetric lattice. The supermodes are orthonormal Krawtchouk polynomials that can be written in terms of Jacobi polynomials as [@Perez2013; @Bosse2017] $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
M_{k,j}&=2^{(j-\frac{N+1}{2})} \sqrt{\frac{(j-1)! (N-j)!}{(k-1)! (N-k)!}} P_{j-1}^{N-k+1-j,k-j}(0)\\ \nonumber
&=M_{j,k}.\end{aligned}$$ The Krawtchouk supermodes for $N=5$ waveguides are sketched in Figure \[F1a\]b. Note that for a small number of waveguides the Krawtchouk and Chebyshev supermodes are very similar. The eigenvalues are in this case equally spaced as given by $$\nonumber
\lambda_{k} = \frac{N-2k+1}{2}\,C_{0}.$$ The continuous limit ($N \rightarrow \infty$) of these discrete eigenfunctions are the Hermite-Gaussian functions [@Weimann2016]. Remarkably, a parametric generalization of this set of supermodes, so-called para-Krawtchouk supermodes, allows fractional revivals and thus generalizes beam splitters –or directional couplers– to N dimensions [@Bosse2017].
### Square-root profile array {#Engineera3}
The square-root or Glauber-Fock linear array exhibits a coupling between waveguides given by the profile $f_{j}=\sqrt{j}$. It is an asymmetric lattice that can be symmetrized. The eigenvalues $\lambda_k$ are obtained as the roots of the $N$th Hermite polynomial given by [@Leija2010; @Rodriguez2011] $$\nonumber
H_{N}[\lambda_{k'}/(\sqrt{2} C_{0})] = 0,$$ with $k'\equiv k-1=0, \dots N-1$. The Glauber-Fock supermodes can be written in terms of normalized Hermite polynomials evaluated at these roots $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
M_{k,j}=\frac{H_{j-1}(\frac{\lambda_{k'}}{\sqrt{2} C_{0} } )}{\sqrt{2^{j-1} \,(j-1)!\, \tilde{N}_{k'}}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{N}_{k'}=\sum_{j'=0}^{N-1} H_{j'}[\lambda_{k'}/(\sqrt{2} C_{0})]^{2}/(2^{j'} (j')!)$. The Glauber-Fock supermodes for $N=5$ waveguides are sketched in Figure \[F1a\]c. Emulation of a driven quantum harmonic oscillator has been demonstrated in this lattice [@Keil2012].
\
\
Pump profile engineering {#Engineerb}
------------------------
Suitable manipulation of individual power and phase pump fields by means of off-the-shelf elements as fiber attenuators and phase shifters, followed by input into the ANWs through V-groove arrays, enables an on-demand pump distribution engineering.
The pump profile couples the propagation supermodes generating the joint-spatial supermode distribution Equation (\[six\]). In general, this generates complicated connections between the linear supermodes. However, the orthogonality and symmetry properties of the linear supermodes \[Equations (\[orto\]) and (\[Rel1\]) to (\[Rel1d\])\] lead to simple analytical solutions in some cases. An outstanding simplification of the system is obtained when pumping all the waveguides with the same power $\vert \eta_{j}\vert=$ constant. From now on, we refer to this as a flat pump profile. Another simplified solution is obtained when pumping only the even or odd waveguides, or when pumping only the central waveguide in an odd ANWs. Below we give the joint-spatial supermode distributions obtained with these input configurations and the analytical solutions to the Heisenberg Equations (\[Hei\]) in the simplest cases.
### Flat pump profile: uniform phase {#Engineerb1}
When all waveguides are equally pumped such that $\vert\eta_{j}\vert=\vert\eta\vert=\tilde{\eta}$ and $\phi_{j}=\phi$, the local joint-spatial supermode distribution Equation (\[six\]) is notably simplified to $$\label{L1}\nonumber
\mathcal{L}_{k,k'} (z)=2i\, \delta_{k,k'} e^{i \{\phi-(\lambda_{k}+\lambda_{k'})z\}},$$ where we have used the orthonormality of the linear supermodes Equation (\[orto\]). This pump configuration diagonalizes the momentum and the following Heisenberg equations are obtained $$\label{sixB}\nonumber
\frac{d\hat{B}_{S,k}}{d z}=2 i \tilde{\eta} \,e^{i \{\phi-2 \lambda_{k}z\}} \hat{B}_{S,k}^{\dag}.$$ The solutions are $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\hat{B}_{S,k}=&\{\cos(F_{k} z) \hat{B}_{S,k}(0) \\ \label{k-sol}
&+i\frac{\sin(F_{k} z) }{F_{k}}[\lambda_{k} \hat{B}_{S,k}(0)+ 2\vert\eta\vert e^{i \phi} \hat{B}_{S,k}^{\dag}(0)]\} e^{-i \lambda_{k} z},\end{aligned}$$ with $F_{k}=\sqrt{\lambda_{k}^{2}-4\vert\eta\vert^{2}}$. For typical evanescent coupling, nonlinearities and pump powers found in quadratic ANWs $\vert \lambda_{k}\vert >2 \vert\eta\vert$ and thus $F_{k} \in \mathbb{R}$. We consider cases only in this power regime in the remainder of the article. Equation (\[k-sol\]) simplifies into Equations (6)-(7) of ref. [@Barral2017b] for the nonlinear directional coupler ($N=2$). The supermodes evolution is similar to the one found there for the individual modes: the power of the SPDC supermode periodically oscillates between a maximum and zero with oscillation periods $L_{k}=\pi/(2 F_{k})$.
It is interesting to note that waveguide arrays with odd number of waveguides $N$ exhibit a zero supermode $l=(N+1)/2$. As introduced in section \[Engineera\], this is a propagation eigenmode with zero eigenvalue $\lambda_{l}=0$ in the slowly-varying amplitude approximation [@Efremidis2005]. The oscillation period of the zero-supermode is imaginary $L_{l}=\pi/(4i\vert \eta\vert)$, thus leading to hyperbolic solutions as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{l-sol}
\hat{B}_{S,l}(z)=\cosh(2\vert\eta\vert z) \hat{B}_{S,l}(0)+i e^{i \phi} \sinh(2\vert\eta\vert z)\hat{B}_{S,l}^{\dag}(0).\end{aligned}$$ Note that Equations (\[k-sol\]) and (\[l-sol\]) are respectively the solutions of a non phasematched and perfectly phasematched degenerate parametric amplifiers [@Mollow1967]. The supermode solution Equation (\[k-sol\]) can be written in the individual mode basis as the following Bogolyubov transformations $$\label{IndSol1}
\hat{A}_{j}(z) = \sum_{j'=1}^{N} [\tilde{U}_{j, j'}(z) \hat{A}_{j'}(0)+\tilde{V}_{j,j'}(z) \hat{A}_{j'}^{\dag}(0) ],$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\tilde{U}_{j,j'}(z)=\sum_{k=1}^{N} &M_{j,k} M_{k, j'} [\cos(F_{k} z)+i \frac{\lambda_{k}}{F_{k}} \sin(F_{k} z)], \\ \nonumber
\tilde{V}_{j, j'}(z)=\sum_{k=1}^{N} &M_{j,k} M_{k, j'} [\frac{2 i \vert\eta\vert e^{i \phi}} {F_{k}} \sin(F_{k} z)], \end{aligned}$$ with $\sum_{j=1}^{N}[\vert \tilde{U}_{j, j'}(z) \vert^{2} - \vert \tilde{V}_{j, j'}(z) \vert^{2}]=1$. Note that for $\vert \eta \vert =0$, $\tilde{U}_{j, j'}(z)= U_{j, j'}(z)$ and $\tilde{V}_{j, j'}(z)=0$, with $U_{j, j'}(z)\equiv \sum_{k=1}^{N} M_{j,k} M_{k, j'} e^{i \lambda_{k} z}$, we recover the solution corresponding to the linear array.
From these equations, it is straightforward to obtain the elements of the covariance matrix $V(z)$, which read $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&V(x_{i}, x_{j})=\sum_{k=1}^{N} \frac{M_{i,k} M_{j, k} }{F_{k}^{2}} \{\lambda_{k}^{2} - 4\vert\eta\vert ^{2} \cos(2F_{k} z) \\ \nonumber
&-4\vert\eta\vert \sin(F_{k} z) [F_{k} \sin(\phi) \cos(F_{k} z) + \lambda_{k} \cos(\phi) \sin(F_{k}z)]\},\\ \nonumber
&V(y_{i}, y_{j})=\sum_{k=1}^{N} \frac{M_{i,k} M_{j, k} }{F_{k}^{2}} \{\lambda_{k}^{2} - 4\vert\eta\vert ^{2} \cos(2F_{k} z) \\ \nonumber
&+4\vert\eta\vert \sin(F_{k} z) [F_{k} \sin(\phi) \cos(F_{k} z) + \lambda_{k} \cos(\phi) \sin(F_{k}z)]\},\\ \nonumber
&V(x_{i}, y_{j})=\sum_{k=1}^{N} \frac{M_{i,k} M_{j, k} }{F_{k}^{2}} \times \\ \label{V0}
&\quad 4\vert\eta\vert \sin(F_{k} z) [F_{k} \cos(\phi) \cos(F_{k} z) - \lambda_{k} \sin(\phi) \sin(F_{k}z)].\end{aligned}$$ This configuration generates quantum correlations between the individual modes –off-diagonal components of the covariance matrix (as shown in Figure \[F2\]a)–, and hence entanglement is possible in that basis. Likewise, the mean number of signal photons generated in the $j$th waveguide at any propagation length can be directly calculated from Equations (\[V0\]) as $\bar{N}_{j}=V(x_{j}, x_{j})+V(y_{j}, y_{j})-2$.
Remarkably, the results displayed in this section are general for any ANWs –any evanescent coupling profile $\vec{f}$– since they are based only on the orthonormality of the supermodes. Equations (\[V0\]) remain valid for any number of waveguides $N$ or propagation distance $z$. Thus they are a valuable tool which we use in section \[Clusters\] to engineer linear clusters.
### Flat pump profile: alternating $\pi$ phase {#Engineerb2}
When all waveguides are equally pumped such that $\vert\eta_{j}\vert=\vert\eta\vert=\tilde{\eta}$ with an alternating phase $\phi_{j}=(j+1) \pi + \phi$, the joint-spatial supermode matrix Equation (\[six\]) is notably simplified to $$\label{L2}\nonumber
\mathcal{L}_{k,k'} (z)=2i \, \delta_{k,N+1-k'} e^{i\{\phi-(\lambda_{k}+\lambda_{k'})\}z}$$ via Equation (\[Rel1b\]). This pump configuration antidiagonalizes the momentum and the following Heisenberg equations are obtained $$\label{sixC2}\nonumber
\frac{d\hat{B}_{S,k}}{d z}=2 i \tilde{\eta} e^{i \phi} \hat{B}_{S,N+1-k}^{\dag},$$ The downconversion gains are proportional to $2\vert\eta\vert$. The solution to the above equation is $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\hat{B}_{S,k}(z)=&\cosh(2\vert\eta\vert z) \hat{B}_{S,k}(0)\\ \label{sixD2}
&+i e^{i \phi} \sinh(2\vert\eta\vert z)\hat{B}_{S,N+1-k}^{\dag}(0),\end{aligned}$$ Note that this is the solution of a perfectly phase-matched nondegenerate parametric amplifier [@Mollow1967]. The supermode solution Equation (\[sixD2\]) can be written in the individual mode basis as the following transformation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{IndSol2} \nonumber
\hat{A}_{j}(z&) = \sum_{j'=1}^{N} {U}_{j, j'}(z) \times \\
&[\cosh(2\vert\eta\vert z) \hat{A}_{j'}(0) + (-1)^{j'+1} i e^{i \phi} \sinh(2\vert\eta\vert z) \hat{A}_{j'}^{\dag}(0) ],\end{aligned}$$ where we have used Equations (\[Rel1a\]), (\[Rel1b\]) and the propagator related to the linear array ${U}_{j, j'}(z)$ introduced above. The solution is thus decoupled in this configuration: input single-mode squeezed states of light squeezed along the axis $(j'+1) \pi + \phi $ propagate in the corresponding linear array with propagation matrix ${U}_{j, j'}(z)$. From this equation, after a long but straightforward calculation, we obtain the elements of the covariance matrix $V(z)$, which read as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&V(x_{i}, x_{j})=[\cosh(4\vert \eta \vert z) + (-1)^{j} \sin(\phi) \sinh(4\vert \eta \vert z)] \,\delta_{i,j}, \\ \nonumber
&V(y_{i}, y_{j})=[\cosh(4\vert \eta \vert z) - (-1)^{j} \sin(\phi) \sinh(4\vert \eta \vert z)] \,\delta_{i,j}, \\ \label{Vpi}
&V(x_{i}, y_{j})=(-1)^{j} \cos(\phi) \sinh(4\vert \eta \vert z) \,\delta_{i,j}.\end{aligned}$$ Then, in this case quantum correlations are efficiently generated in the supermode basis but they disappear in the individual mode basis –no off-diagonal elements of the covariance matrix (Figure \[F2\]b)–. The device thus produces independent squeezed fields. The results obtained in this section are general for any coupling profile $\vec{f}$ since they rely on Equations (\[Rel1\]) - (\[Rel1b\]) only. Equations (\[Vpi\]) remain valid for any number of waveguides $N$ or propagation distance $z$. Notably, this is an interesting regime for discrete variables since N-dimensional two-photon NOON states are generated [@Barral2019c].
### Flat pump profile: any alternating phase {#Engineerb3}
Both cases analyzed in sections \[Engineer\].B.1 and \[Engineer\].B.2 are encompassed through the use of Equations (\[Rel1c\]) - (\[Rel1d\]). In the case of an array composed of N waveguides equally pumped such that $\vert\eta_{j}\vert=\vert\eta\vert=\tilde{\eta}$ and alternating phases $\phi_{2j}$ and $\phi_{2j-1}$, the joint-spatial supermode matrix Equation (\[six\]) is notably simplified to $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&\mathcal{L}_{k,k'} (z)=\\ \label{Case3}
&2i e^{i\Delta\phi^{+}}[\cos{(\Delta\phi^{-})} e^{-2i\lambda_{k} z} \delta_{k,k'} - i \sin{(\Delta\phi^{-})} \delta_{k,N+1-k'} ],\end{aligned}$$ with $\Delta\phi^{\pm}=(\phi_{2j}\pm\phi_{2j-1})/2$. Thus the solution of the system oscillates between Equations (\[L1\]) and (\[L2\]) for a general phase difference $\Delta\phi^{-}$. Particularly, for $\phi_{2j}=\phi+\pi/2$ and $\phi_{2j-1}=\phi$ both the diagonal and antidiagonal terms have the same weight such as $$\nonumber
\mathcal{L}_{k,k'} (z)=\sqrt{2} \,i e^{i(\phi + \pi/4)}\,[e^{-2i \lambda_{k} z} \delta_{k,k'} -i \,\delta_{k,N+1-k'}].$$ The solution will present then both oscillatory and hyperbolic terms. More light is shed on the features that this configuration produces in section \[Multimode\].
### Pumping only the even or odd waveguides {#Engineerb4}
Another simplified joint-spatial supermode matrix is obtained if either even waveguides only ($\vert\eta_{2j}\vert=\tilde{\eta}$, $\vert\eta_{2j-1}\vert=0$ and $\phi_{2j}=\phi$) or odd waveguides only ($\vert \eta_{2j-1}\vert=\tilde{\eta}$, $\vert\eta_{2j}\vert=0$ and $\phi_{2j-1}=\phi$) are pumped, such that $$\nonumber
\mathcal{L}_{k,k'} (z)=i e^{i\phi}\,[e^{-2i \lambda_{k} z} \delta_{k,k'} \pm \delta_{k,N+1-k'}],$$ with plus for odd and minus for an even pump profile through Equations (\[Rel1c\]) - (\[Rel1d\]). The solutions are here more complex that those of cases \[Engineerb1\] and \[Engineerb2\]. For instance, pumping only the odd waveguides we have the following solution to Equation (\[Hei\]) with $\tilde{F}_{k}=\sqrt{\lambda_{k}^{2}-\vert\eta\vert^{2}}$ and where we have set $\phi=0$ for the sake of simplicity. This solution shows that the side linear supermodes are symmetrically coupled two by two –$k$ with $N+1-k$–, being the zero supermode the only one independently squeezed. The solution in the individual mode basis can be written as Equation (\[IndSol1\]) with $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\tilde{U}_{j,j'}(z)=&\sum_{k=1}^{N} M_{j,k} M_{k, j'} [\cosh(\vert\eta\vert z)\cos(\tilde{F}_{k} z) \\ \nonumber
&+i \frac{\lambda_{k}\cosh(\vert\eta\vert z)+(-1)^{j'+1}\vert \eta \vert \sinh(\vert\eta\vert z)}{\tilde{F}_{k}} \sin(\tilde{F}_{k} z)], \\ \nonumber
\tilde{V}_{j, j'}(z)=&\sum_{k=1}^{N} M_{j,k} M_{k, j'} (-1)^{j'+1} [i\sinh(\vert\eta\vert z)\cos(\tilde{F}_{k} z) \\ \nonumber
&+ i\frac{i\lambda_{k}\sinh(\vert\eta\vert z)+(-1)^{j'+1} \vert \eta \vert \cosh(\vert\eta\vert z)}{\tilde{F}_{k}} \sin(\tilde{F}_{k} z)],\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the property of the supermodes Equation (\[Rel1a\]). The elements of the covariance matrix $V(z)$ are in this case the following $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
V(x_{i}, x_{j})=\sum_{k=1}^{N} & M_{i,k} M_{j, k} [\cosh(2\vert\eta\vert z) (\frac{\lambda_{k}+\vert \eta \vert \cos(2\tilde{F}_{k}z)}{\lambda_{k}+\vert \eta \vert})\\ \nonumber
&+(-1)^{j}\sqrt{\frac{\lambda_{k}-\vert \eta \vert}{\lambda_{k}+\vert \eta \vert}} \sinh(2\vert\eta\vert z)\sin(2\tilde{F}_{k}z)],
\\ \nonumber
V(y_{i}, y_{j})=\sum_{k=1}^{N} & M_{i,k} M_{j, k} [\cosh(2\vert\eta\vert z) (\frac{\lambda_{k}-\vert \eta \vert \cos(2\tilde{F}_{k}z)}{\lambda_{k}-\vert \eta \vert})\\ \nonumber
&-(-1)^{j}\sqrt{\frac{\lambda_{k}+\vert \eta \vert}{\lambda_{k}-\vert \eta \vert}} \sinh(2\vert\eta\vert z)\sin(2\tilde{F}_{k}z)],
\\ \nonumber
V(x_{i}, y_{j})=\sum_{k=1}^{N} & M_{i,k} M_{j, k} [(-1)^{j+1} \sinh(2\vert\eta\vert z)\cos(2\tilde{F}_{k}z) \\ \nonumber
&\qquad \qquad + \frac{\vert \eta \vert}{\tilde{F}_{k}} \cosh(2\vert\eta\vert z)\sin(2\tilde{F}_{k}z) ].\end{aligned}$$ Thus, quantum correlations between the individual modes are generated. These solutions generalize to $N$ dimensions the paradigmatic example of pumping one waveguide in a nonlinear directional coupler [@Kruse2015]. Similar solutions are obtained when pumping only the even waveguides.
### Pumping the central waveguide in an odd ANW {#Engineerb5}
A common and simple way of pumping an odd ANWs is to inject the pump only in the central waveguide $j=l\equiv(N+1)/2$ (see Figure \[F1\]a) [@Solntsev2014]. The following joint-spatial supermode distribution is then obtained $$\label{onepump}
\mathcal{L}_{k,k'} (z)=2 i e^{i\phi_{l}} M_{k, l} M_{k', l} \,e^{-i(\lambda_{k}+\lambda_{k'}) z}.$$ Notably, in the case of symmetric coupling profile arrays like the homogeneous or the parabolic profiles shown above, the elements of the zero supermode have zeros in the even elements, i.e. $M_{k,l}=0$ for $k$ even. Thus, only odd supermodes are produced in the ANWs under this configuration. For instance, for N=5 and a homogeneous coupling profile we obtain as approximated solutions Equation (\[l-sol\]) for the zero supermode ($l=3$) and Equation (\[sixD2\]) for the $k=1,5$ side supermodes after rescaling $\vert\eta\vert$ to $\vert\eta\vert/l$. Figure \[F2\]c shows the covariance matrix in the individual mode basis related to this pump configuration in an ANWs with a homogeneous coupling profile.
The above five cases exhibit the versatility of the ANWs through pump engineering and shed light on propagation in these devices. We further discuss the relationship between linear and nonlinear supermodes, and the generated squeezing along propagation in section \[Multimode\]. The generation of multipartite entanglement in ANW has been recently tackled in [@Barral2020; @Barral2020b] and we further present in section \[Clusters\] an efficient protocol for the generation of linear cluster states based on the analytical solution obtained in section \[Engineerb1\].
Phase-matching engineering {#Engineerc}
--------------------------
A common phase-matching technique for efficient frequency conversion in $\chi^{(2)}$ nonlinear waveguides is obtained through wavevector quasi-phase matching ($\Delta \beta$-QPM). A standard implementation of $\Delta \beta$-QPM is periodical inversion of the second-order susceptibility $\chi^{(2)}$ with period $\Lambda_{\Delta\beta}=2\pi/\Delta\beta$, like for instance in PPLN waveguides [@Alibart2016]. However, in the case of waveguide arrays, a second cause of phase mismatch –the coupling– is present, as shown in Equation (\[six\]). In this case a similar strategy can be used to phase match specific supermodes through a second periodical inversion $\Lambda_{C}(k')$ –coupling quasi-phase matching (C-QPM)– [@Barral2019c]. This slow modulation will match the propagation constant $\lambda_{k'}$ of the $k'$th slowly varying supermode amplitude. We consider, for instance, a homogeneous coupling profile where $\lambda_{k'}=-\lambda_{N+1-k'}\equiv 2C_{0} \cos{[k'\pi/(N+1)]}$. In this case, the periodical inversion –coupling period– can be set as $\Lambda_{C}({k'})=\left| \pi/\lambda_{k'}\right|$, thus phase matching the $k'$th and $(N+1-k')$th side supermodes. Equation (\[six\]) is then written as $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&\mathcal{L}_{k,k'} (z)\approx \\ \label{Lqpm}
&\frac{8 i}{\pi} \sum_{j=1}^{N} \frac{\vert \eta_{j}\vert}{\tilde{\eta}} M_{k,j} M_{k',j} \cos{(2\lambda_{k'} z)} e^{i\{\phi_{j}-(\lambda_{k}+\lambda_{k'})z\}},\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the first-order Fourier series of square-wave C-QPM domains with duty cycles of $50\%$. Thus, using a flat pump profile, Equation (\[Lqpm\]) is simplified to $$\nonumber
\mathcal{L}_{k,k'} (z)\approx \frac{8i}{\pi} \cos{(2\lambda_{k'} z)} \delta_{k,k'} \,e^{i \{\phi-(\lambda_{k}+\lambda_{k'})z\}},$$ and the Heisenberg equations read $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\frac{d\hat{B}_{S,k}}{d z} &\approx \frac{4 i \tilde{\eta}}{\pi} e^{i \phi} \hat{B}_{S, k}^{\dag}, \quad &k=k', N+1-k',\\ \nonumber
\frac{d\hat{B}_{S,k}}{d z} &\approx \frac{4 i \tilde{\eta}}{\pi} e^{i \{\phi-2 \lambda_{k}z\}} \hat{B}_{S,k}^{\dag}, \quad &k\neq k', N+1-k'.\end{aligned}$$ Hyperbolic solutions as Equation (\[l-sol\]) are obtained for the $k'$th and $(N+1-k')$th supermodes and oscillatory solutions like Equation (\[k-sol\]) for the other supermodes. Note that the gains are reduced by a factor $2/\pi$ in comparison with the no C-QPM case which can be compensated with a propagation distance $\pi/2$ longer.
This powerful technique allows to control the supermodes efficiently building up. In terms of individual-modes entanglement it would be interesting to build up supermodes but with light in all the individual modes. Remarkably, in the case of parabolic arrays with an even number of waveguides all the supermodes can efficiently build up. This interesting case will be presented elsewhere.
![\[F1b\]](Figure4-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
\
\
\
Balanced homodyne detection {#Engineerd}
---------------------------
The measurement of quantum noise variances and correlations is carried out by multimode balanced homodyne detection (BHD) [@Fabre2019]. In a fully fibered approach the multimode squeezed state generated in the array can be collected in optical fibers through a V-groove array. A laser at signal frequency is demultiplexed into a number of individual optical fibers with fiber attenuators and phase shifters and individually mixed with the output SPDC through 3 dB fibered beam splitters as sketched in Figure \[F1b\]. Each pair of mixed signals is sent to a BHD where the current of each photodiode is subtracted and suitably amplified.
We point out that the spatial profile of the LO in the multimode BHD has to be adapted to the strategy of entanglement generation and the entangled state basis. Access to the quantum information encoded in the individual or any of the supermode bases will indeed depend on a suitable BHD [@Dauria2009]. Figure \[F1b\] displays the possible knobs at the measurement stage. The local oscillator can be tuned to detect correlations between the individual output signals of the array – in the individual mode basis $\hat{A}$ – or shaped to match any supermode – in the linear supermode basis $\hat{A}_{S}$, nonlinear supermode basis $\hat{C}_{S}$ or any other basis. This LO shaping can be accomplished using attenuator and phase shifters or can be emulated with electronic gains. Remarkably, LO shaping enables the measurement of entangled states encoded in bases based on nonlinear supermodes. We have discussed these issues elsewhere [@Barral2020] and mentioned the existing implementations in other domains [@Armstrong2012; @Cai2017].
Multimode squeezing {#Multimode}
===================
The ANW is a natural platform for generating multimode squeezing due to the distributed coupling and nonlinearity. Such a distributed configuration combines the necessary squeezing and coupling instrumental to produce multimode entanglement in a new way, accessible only to guided-wave nonlinear components. As shown above, the different methods of detection available enable the encoding of quantum information in three ways: individual modes, linear and nonlinear supermodes. We now investigate multimode squeezing focusing on the nonlinear supermodes, which maximize the resources available at every propagation length in terms of squeezing and can generate entanglement through LO shaping or emulation [@Barral2020]. We thus display in this section the outcomes in terms of [squeezing obtained from numerical solutions of Equation (\[BMD\]) using the general method of Bloch-Messiah. The large parameter space of the ANW enables an infinite number of configurations. We focus on the configurations displayed in section \[Engineer\] in terms of pumping profile –in amplitude and phase–, propagation length and coupling profile. This allows us to discuss the relationship of these numerical results in terms of nonlinear supermodes with the analytical solutions obtained in section \[Engineer\] in terms of individual modes and linear supermodes.]{}
[For the purpose of assessing multimode squeezing, i) we start displaying the connection between the individual and nonlinear supermode bases through the covariance matrices in both bases at a fixed propagation length. We then move to the evolution of squeezing in the nonlinear supermode basis. ii) We first focus on the case of flat pumping to ii.a) analyze the evolution of squeezing along propagation with any alternating pumping phase, and to ii.b) display the influence of different coupling profiles and strengths on the squeezing. Finally, we discuss ii.c) the connection between the nonlinear supermodes and the linear supermodes for an uniform phase. iii) We finish exhibiting the squeezing obtained for other pumping profiles: iii.a) pumping only the odd waveguides, and iii.b) the simplest configuration, pumping only the central waveguide in an ANW with an odd number of waveguides.]{}
### Covariance matrices in the individual and nonlinear supermode bases
We begin with the analysis of Figure \[F2\] [where we compare the covariance matrices in the individual and nonlinear supermode bases at a propagation distance of $z=20$ mm. We exhibit the covariance matrices in the individual mode basis $V(z)$ in Figures \[F2\]a-\[F2\]c, the Bloch-Messiah’s transformation matrices $R_{1}(z)$ in Figures \[F2\]d-\[F2\]f, and the diagonal covariance matrices in the nonlinear supermode mode basis $K^{2}(z)$ in Figures \[F2\]g-\[F2\]i. The Bloch-Messiah decomposition of Equation (\[BMD\]) has been computed numerically.]{} We display three of the pumping cases analyzed in Section \[Engineer\] in a 5-waveguide homogeneous coupling-profile ANW. Figures \[F2\]a and \[F2\]b display respectively the results for a flat pump profile and uniform phase \[$\Delta \phi^-=0$, Equation (\[V0\])\], where strong quantum correlations between specific quadratures of the fields are generated, and for a flat pump profile and alternating $\pi$ phase \[$\Delta \phi^-=\pi$, Equation (\[Vpi\])\], where single-mode squeezing is generated but no correlation in achieved in the individual basis. Figures \[F2\]g and \[F2\]h display the respective diagonal covariance matrix in the supermode basis, and Figures \[F2\]d and \[F2\]e the corresponding transformations between individual and supermode bases. Likewise, Figure \[F2\]c displays the covariance matrix in the individual mode basis obtained when pumping only the central waveguide. This case resembles the one shown in Figure \[F2\]a, with a similar topology of quantum correlations, but different strength and sign. Figures \[F2\]i and \[F2\]f display the diagonal covariance matrix $K^{2}(z)$ and the transformation between bases $R_{1}(z)$, making more obvious the difference with the flat pump case of Figures \[F2\]d and \[F2\]g. Overall, these figures show the versatility of our approach, yielding different multimode squeezing features for different input pump profiles. We analyze in more depth the obtained squeezing $K^{2}_{N+m}$ exploring further the parameter space along propagation $z$, coupling $C_{j}$ and pumping $\eta_{j}$.
### Evolution of multimode squeezing for a flat pump profile
[*a. Alternating pumping phase $\Delta\phi^{-}$ and nonlinear supermodes squeezing behavior*]{}. Figure \[F3\] shows the evolution of noise squeezing ($K^{2}_{N+m}(z)<1$) of the five nonlinear supermodes for a flat pump profile in a $N=5$ ANW. We show the effect of the coupling profile $\vec{f}$, the value of the coupling constant $C_{0}$ and the relative pump phase $\Delta\phi^{-}$ \[Equation (\[Case3\])\] on $K^{2}(z)$. Figures \[F3\]a, \[F3\]b and \[F3\]c show the result for a homogeneous, parabolic and square-root coupling profile, respectively. Figure \[F3\]c shows the result for a coupling strength three times lower than that used in Figures \[F3\]a and \[F3\]b. The squeezed eigenvalues are degenerate two by two for the $m$th and $(N+1-m)$th nonlinear supermodes. We refer to them as side nonlinear supermodes. Likewise, the zero nonlinear supermode [[ $[m=l\equiv (N+1)/2)]$]{}]{} is the only nondegenerate supermode and it is always efficiently built-up and squeezed, independently of the value of $\Delta\phi^{-}$ (solid, green). The oscillatory and hyperbolic limit cases we pointed out for propagation in Equations (\[k-sol\]) and (\[l-sol\]) explain and match the squeezing behaviors displayed in each case. Full degeneracy and efficient squeezing –hyperbolic– is obtained for all the supermodes for $\Delta\phi^{-}=\pi/2$ (solid, green). $\Delta\phi^{-}=0$ produces oscillatory squeezing (solid, blue and orange) in the side nonlinear supermodes which decreases as the coupling strength $C_{0}$ increases (Figures \[F3\]a-\[F3\]c). Notably, for intermediate cases $\Delta\phi^{-}=\pi/8$ (dotted), $\pi/4$ (dashed), $3\pi/8$ (dot-dashed), squeezing builds up smoothly for the side nonlinear supermodes and it approaches degeneracy for long propagation distances, whereas at short distances it is disturbed by the oscillatory part of Equation (\[Case3\]). However, this disturbance is important since it mixes the individual downconverted modes and thus triggers quantum correlations and entanglement in the individual basis as we show in section \[Clusters\].
[*b. Influence of the coupling strength and coupling profile on multimode squeezing*]{}. In addition to the effect of increased homogeneous coupling on oscillatory behavior exemplified by the comparison of Figures \[F3\]a and \[F3\]c, we display the different features obtained for homogeneous and parabolic coupling profiles (Fig. \[F3\]a-\[F3\]b). For $\Delta\phi^{-}=0$, there are certain lengths for the parabolic coupling profile where only the zero nonlinear supermode survives due to the equal spacing between the supermode propagation constants. Remarkably, for even number of waveguides and a parabolic coupling profile (not shown), there are propagation distances where destructive interference destroys all the SPDC generated light due to a evolving phase mismatch that periodically switches the system from downconversion to upconversion. Recently, bipartite entanglement between non-coupled pump fields has been demonstrated through this effect for two waveguides in the optical parametric amplification and second harmonic generation regimes [@Barral2017; @Barral2018]. Thus, this effect can also produce multipartite entanglement between non-interacting fields. We outline that the parabolic-coupling profile excited with a flat pump profile represents the spatial analogous case to the case of a frequency comb pumped with a Gaussian spectral shape since the Krawtchouk supermodes are Hermite-Gaussian functions in the continuous limit [@Patera2010].
[*c. Linear vs nonlinear supermodes for a flat pump profile with uniform phase*]{}. [We would like to end this section with a small discussion on the connection between solutions in terms of linear and nonlinear supermodes. To that end we use the flat pump configuration with uniform phase $\Delta\phi^{-}=0$.]{} The nonlinear supermodes diagonalize the covariance matrix as shown in Figures \[F2\]a and \[F2\]g. However, in that case the linear supermodes also diagonalize the covariance matrix as shown in section \[Engineerb1\]. Both basis exhibit the same levels of squeezing, but different spatial profile evolution [@Note0]. The spatial profile related to the zero nonlinear supermode [[ $[m=l\equiv (N+1)/2)]$]{}]{} obtained from $R_{1}(z)$ coincides with that calculated with Equation (\[l-sol\]), but the side nonlinear supermodes [[ $(m\neq l)$]{}]{} are slightly different from the side linear supermodes [[ $(k\neq l)$]{}]{} obtained through Equation (\[k-sol\]) and change with propagation. The cause of this disagreement is that the flat pump configuration diagonalizes the system up to a local phase rotation –the covariance matrix in the linear supermode basis is block-diagonal–, i.e. the quadratures of the linear supermodes are not at the maximum and minimum of the squeezing ellipse, whereas the Bloch-Messiah decomposition yields a fully diagonal covariance matrix. From the point of view of the experiment, this phase does not make any difference since the local oscillator of the balanced homodyne detector will sweep the entire squeezing ellipse. However, the linear supermode approach is here far more insightful and practical than Bloch-Messiah’s one since the spatial profile is invariant along propagation and thus the $k$th supermode squeezing can be measured with a fixed LO profile $\vec{\theta}_{k}=\{M_{k, 1}, M_{k,2},\dots, M_{k,N}\}$, [[ whereas the LO profile used to measure the $m$th nonlinear supermode squeezing]{}]{} would depend indeed on the length of the sample, the pump power and the coupling strength. More details on this are found in appendix \[apA\].
### Evolution of multimode squeezing with non-flat pumping profile
[*a. Pumping every other waveguide*]{}. Figure \[F4\]a shows the evolution of noise squeezing when pumping only the odd waveguides ($\vert \eta_{2j-1}\vert=\vert\eta\vert$, $\vert\eta_{2j}\vert=0$) of a $N=5$ waveguides homogeneous coupling-profile nonlinear array. This pump configuration indeed excites the five nonlinear supermodes, with a zero nonlinear supermode efficiently squeezed (green) and side nonlinear supermodes squeezing building up hyperbolically with an oscillatory modulation. The analytical solution obtained for the linear supermodes Equation (\[BEO\]) anticipated this feature, since the side supermodes $(k, N+1-k)$ are coupled two by two in that basis. We outline that in the case of pumping the even waveguides ($\vert \eta_{2j}\vert=\vert\eta\vert$, $\vert\eta_{2j-1}\vert=0$), we obtain the same solution for the side nonlinear supermodes but with the zero nonlinear supermode in vacuum state. This is due to the inability to excite a supermode composed of odd elements when pumping the even waveguides in arrays with symmetric coupling profiles. Thus, in terms of multimode squeezing as a resource for quantum information the odd pumping is more efficient. Note that this does not happen in arrays with asymmetric coupling profiles like the square-root coupling profile (see Figure \[F1a\]c). In the case of an ANW made up of an even number of waveguides we excite all the supermodes independently on the parity of the total number of waveguides since there is no zero supermode.
(A)(B) (B)(C) (C)(D) (D)(E)
[*b. Pumping the central waveguide in an odd ANW*]{}. Figure \[F4\]b shows the evolution of noise squeezing when pumping only the central waveguide ($\vert \eta_{j}\vert= \vert \eta \vert\, \delta_{j,l}$) of a $N=5$ waveguides homogeneous coupling-profile nonlinear array. This pump configuration leads to the excitation of only three out of five nonlinear supermodes –the odd ones–, with the other two in vacuum state along propagation. The comparison between Figure \[F3\]a and Figure \[F4\]b thus further sheds light on the difference between Figure \[F2\]g and Figure \[F2\]i. The squeezing increases hyperbolically with an oscillatory modulation. Note that in this pumping configuration there is no direct correlation between linear and nonlinear supermodes anymore. However, the nonlinear supermode squeezing exhibited in this case can be also explained in terms of the linear supermodes as in Section \[Engineer\].B.5. The leading terms of the zero [[ ($k=l=3$)]{}]{} and side [[ ($k=1,5$)]{}]{} linear supermode equations correspond to degenerate and nondegenerate parametric amplifiers, respectively, leading to hyperbolic squeezing. First-order terms introduce a z-dependent coupling between the zero and the side supermodes with period $z_{p}\approx 2\pi/\vert \lambda_{1 (5)}\vert$ for $\vert \lambda_{1 (5)}\vert \gg 2 \vert \eta\vert$. The main difference here with respect to the flat pump profile case is that with central pumping the linear supermodes do not evolve independently but together, leading to coupling. The Bloch-Messiah decomposition evidences the squeezing arising from this effect, as exhibited in Figure \[F4\]b. The period shown in the figure agrees with that calculated $z_{p}=2\pi/(\sqrt{3} \,C_{0})=15.1$ mm. The level of squeezing is lower than that obtained in Figure \[F3\] at the same distance since we use the same input pump power per waveguide, but the total power available per individual mode is $1/5$. We finally outline that this configuration, being the more simple in terms pumping profile, is not an efficient resource for quantum information since only a subset of the available nonlinear supermodes is squeezed.
In conclusion of this section \[Multimode\], we have demonstrated how the insight gained in section \[Engineer\] from the mode propagation can be used to engineer multipartite squeezing in ANW. The tuning of the pumping and coupling parameters, together with suitable encoding leads to different configurations of squeezing. The multimode squeezing presented above is a resource for multimode entanglement. We have indeed demonstrated very recently a protocol for the generation of large multimode entangled states for quantum networks [@Barral2020b] and the versatile production of cluster states for quantum computing in ANW [@Barral2020]. In the next section we focus on a specific class of entangled states useful for quantum computing –the cluster states [@Raussendorf2001]. We show that pumping with a flat profile as introduced in section \[Engineer\] is a good strategy to generate large linear cluster states. In particular we demonstrate how to choose a good working point in an analytically and semi-analytically scanned parameter space and how to further numerically optimize the parameters.
Efficient generation of linear cluster states {#Clusters}
=============================================
An ideal CV cluster state is a simultaneous eigenstate of specific quadrature combinations called nullifiers [@Raussendorf2001; @Menicucci2006]. Cluster states are associated with a graph or adjacency matrix $B$. The nodes of the graph represent the modes of the cluster state in a given basis, and the edges the entanglement connections among the nodes. Moreover, the label of the modes that are part of the cluster can be suitably set to maximize the entanglement between nodes. The nullifiers are given by $$\label{Nul}\nonumber
\hat{\delta}_{i}\equiv \hat{x}_{i}(\theta_{i}+\pi/2)-\sum_{l=1}^{N} B_{i, i'}\, \hat{x}_{i'}(\theta_{i'}) \quad \forall i=1,\dots, N,$$ where $B$ is the graph associated to the cluster and $\hat{x}_{i}({\theta_{i}})=\hat{x}_{i} \cos{(\theta_{i})}+\hat{y}_{i} \sin{(\theta_{i})}$ is the $i$th generalized quadrature in a given basis. We consider unit-weight cluster states with $B_{i,i'} = 1$ for modes $i$ and $i'$ being nearest neighbors in the graph and all the other entries of $B$ are zero.
Cluster states are the resource of CV measurement-based quantum computing (MBQC) [@Gu2009]. The computation relies in this framework on the availability of a large multimode entangled state on which a specific sequence of measurements is performed. The choice of basis widens the range of application in MBQC [@Ferrini2013]. The nullifier variances tend to zero in the ideal limit of infinite squeezing. Experimentally, a cluster state can be certified if two conditions are satisfied: i) the noise of a a set of normalized nullifiers lies below shot noise $$\label{VNul}\nonumber
V(\bar{\delta}_{i})<1 \quad \forall i=1,\dots, N,$$ where $\bar{\delta}_{i}\equiv \delta_{i}/\sqrt{1+n(i)}$ is the normalized nullifier and $n(i)$ is the number of nearest neighbors to the $i$th node of the cluster, and ii) the cluster state is fully inseparable, i.e. it violates a set of multipartite entanglement inequalities [@vanLoock2003; @Yukawa2008].
We exhibit here how linear cluster states encoded in the individual mode basis are produced naturally in the flat pump configuration – introduced in section \[Engineer\] and explored from a squeezing point of view in section \[Multimode\]. Notably, in the context of MBQC, a linear 4-mode cluster state is a sufficient resource for an arbitrary single-mode Gaussian unitary [@Ukai2010]. Hence, linear cluster states represent key resources in this domain. The adjacency matrix $B_{lin}$ corresponding to a linear cluster is the same as that related to the coupling in an homogeneous array when the encoding $i$th node = $j$th mode is used. Thus, the ANWs can be a natural platform for the generation of this class of cluster states.
The normalized nullifiers for a linear cluster composed of $N$ modes are given by $$\nonumber
\bar{\delta}_{i}=\frac{y_{i} (\theta_{i}) - x_{i-1}(\theta_{i-1}) - x_{i+1}(\theta_{i+1})}{\sqrt{1+n(i)}},$$ with $x_{0}(\theta_{0})=x_{N+1}(\theta_{N+1})=0$ and where we have related the $i$th node of the cluster with the $j$th individual mode of the ANWs ($i=j=1, \dots, N$). The full inseparability of the cluster nodes can also be assessed by means of the Van Loock - Furusawa multipartite entanglement witness (VLF) [@vanLoock2003]. For a linear cluster the VLF is given in terms of the following $N-1$ inequalities [@Yukawa2008] $$\label{VLFlinear}\nonumber
V(\bar{\delta}_{i})+V(\bar{\delta}_{i+1})\geq
\begin{cases}
\sqrt{\frac{8}{3}} \quad &\text{for $i=1, N-1$},\\
\quad \frac{4}{3} \quad \quad &\text{for $i=2, \dots, N-2$}.
\end{cases}$$ Thus, simultaneous values of $V(\bar{\delta}_{i}) < 2/3$ ensure the production of a linear cluster. Below we exhibit the use of the analytical solutions Equations (\[V0\]) in the generation of linear cluster states as that shown in Figure \[F5\]. These solutions are a suitable initial working point in the huge space of parameters for the production of a linear cluster. This is very important in order to design a sample: we have a starting point from which optimization via pumping profile, LO phases and electronic gains can improve the result. Remarkably, we have found that these solutions are not very far from the best working point to produce this kind of states [@Barral2020].
Figure \[F8a\] maps the nullifier variances characterizing a $N=5$ linear cluster state produced in an ANWs with homogeneous coupling and propagation length $z=20$ mm. Due to the symmetry of the system the nullifiers are degenerate two by two, but the $l$th nullifier: $V(\bar{\delta}_{1})=V(\bar{\delta}_{5})$ (Figure \[F8a\]a), $V(\bar{\delta}_{2})=V(\bar{\delta}_{4})$ (Figure \[F8a\]b), and $V(\bar{\delta}_{3})$ (Figure \[F8a\]c). The contour plots display common areas fulfilling the condition $V(\bar{\delta}_{i}) < 2/3$ (blue areas). For instance, for $\vert \eta \vert=0.06$ mm$^{-1}$ and $C_{0}=0.16$ mm$^{-1}$, we get $V(\bar{\delta}_{1(5)})=0.34$, $V(\bar{\delta}_{2(4)})=0.42$, and $V(\bar{\delta}_{3})=0.40$. These values are of the order of those obtained in the frequency domain with frequency combs [@Medeiros2014].
In order to gain insight about the scalability of this configuration, Figure \[F8b\] pictures the evolution along propagation of the nullifier variances related to linear cluster states made up of $N=5$ (Figure \[F8b\]a) and $N=15$ (Figure \[F8b\]b) modes. Now, we optimize the amount of power per waveguide $\eta$ for a given coupling constant. We use the sum of the five (fifteen) nullifier variances $F_{C}(\eta)=\sum_{i=1}^{5(15)} V(\bar{\delta}_{i})$ at each $z$ as the fitness function to optimize. We use an evolution-strategy algorithm to tackle this optimization [@Beyer2002]. As commented above, the nullifier variances are degenerate due to the symmetry of the system. Remarkably, the linear cluster condition $V(\bar{\delta}_{i}) < 2/3$ is fulfilled in both cases for a large range of distances. In order to connect Figures \[F8a\] and \[F8b\], we have marked as a black dot in Figures \[F8a\]a, b and c, the coordinates $(C, \eta)=(0.08, 0.033)$ mm$^{-1}$ corresponding to the variances of the nullifiers at $z=20$ mm shown in Figure \[F8b\]a. The maxima values of $\eta$ used in the optimization are 0.038 and 0.035 mm$^{-1}$ for $N=5$ and 15, respectively. These values are attainable with current technology [@Mondain2019; @Takanashi2020; @Kashiwazaki2020]. Note that the coupling constant is wavelength dependent $C_{0}=C_{0}(\omega_{s})$ [@Kruse2015]. Thus, for a fixed ANW length, modifying the operating wavelength $\lambda_{s}$ and the temperature of the sample $T$, we can access to more favorable conditions to obtain multipartite entanglement. This is clearly shown in Figure \[F8a\] when fixing the value of nonlinear strength $\vert\eta\vert$ and checking the value of the nullifiers for different values of coupling strength $C_{0}$.
We have demonstrated the production of linear cluster states with our analytical solutions Equations (\[V0\]). However, the parameter space of the full approach is much larger than that corresponding to this special case. This enables the optimized generation of linear and other classes of cluster states in the individual mode basis or any other basis [@Barral2020].
conclusions
===========
[[ In particular, we have unfolded how the available internal and external parameters of the ANW affect the generated multimode squeezing, which is at the root of multimode entanglement.]{}]{} We have especially detailed how the fields propagate and how their fluctuations are squeezed in three relevant [[ mode]{}]{} bases, related to three encodings of quantum information. The practical individual [[ mode]{}]{} basis, where each mode corresponds to an individual waveguide, naturally provides individual outputs [[ which are]{}]{} useful in quantum networks architectures[[ . The]{}]{} linear supermode basis provides insight through analytical solutions and simple detection with a constant LO profile[[ . Finally,]{}]{} the local nonlinear supermode basis maximizes the squeezing resources and is instrumental for multimode entanglement through LO shaping or postprocessing. We have provided insights on the engineering choices that can be made in terms of coupling strength and profile, measurement strategy and pumping geometry in phase and amplitude. We have exemplified the usefulness of our analytical solutions and further numerical optimization providing working points in the parameter space to produce linear cluster and assess their scalability. The quantum information-encoding strategies and extended toolbox, [[ that are]{}]{} provided here, are applicable to all implementation[[ s]{}]{} of nonlinear waveguide arrays including very recent and promising development[[ s]{}]{} [@Mondain2019; @Takanashi2020; @Kashiwazaki2020; @Boes2018; @Loncar2018]. The analyzed compact and original interplay of nonlinearity and coupling in the nonlinear arrays of waveguides produces multimode entanglement in a way that is accessible only to guided-wave nonlinear components and serve the purpose of quantum technologies. [[ Our results thus provide an innovation to implement quantum protocols with integrated optics in a compact way.]{}]{}
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors thank G. Patera for useful comments. This work was supported by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche through the INQCA project (Grants No. PN-II-ID-JRP-RO-FR-2014-0013 and No. ANR-14-CE26-0038), the Paris Ile-de-France region in the framework of DIM SIRTEQ through the project ENCORE, and the Investissements d’Avenir program (Labex NanoSaclay, reference ANR-10-LABX-0035).
{#apA}
The covariance matrix in the linear supermode basis $V_{S}$ obtained directly from Equation (\[k-sol\]) is block diagonal. Suitable rotations (phase shifts) in the phase space related to each supermode can however diagonalize fully the linear supermode covariance matrix $V_{S}$. From Equation (\[k-sol\]), we can straightforwardly calculate the covariance matrix $V_{S}$ related to the uncoupled $k$th linear supermode. A rotation in the $k$th supermode phase space of an angle $$\nonumber
\vartheta_{k}=\frac{1}{2} \arctan{[\frac{2V(x_{S,k}, y_{S,k})}{V(y_{S,k}, y_{S,k})-V(x_{S,k}, x_{S,k})}]} + \frac{\pi}{2},$$ diagonalizes the covariance matrix $V_{s}$ yielding $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&V(x_{S,k}', x_{S,k}')= \frac{V(x_{S,k}, x_{S,k})+V(y_{S,k}, y_{S,k})}{2} \\ \nonumber
&\qquad+\frac{\sqrt{(V(y_{S,k}, y_{S,k})-V(x_{S,k}, x_{S,k}))^{2}+4 V(x_{S,k}, y_{S,k})^{2}}}{2},\\ \nonumber
&V(y_{S,k}', y_{S,k}')= \frac{V(x_{S,k}, x_{S,k})+V(y_{S,k}, y_{S,k})}{2} \\ \nonumber
&\qquad-\frac{\sqrt{(V(y_{S,k}, y_{S,k})-V(x_{S,k}, x_{S,k}))^{2}+4 V(x_{S,k}, y_{S,k})^{2}}}{2}.\end{aligned}$$ This diagonal matrix is the same as $K^{2}(z)$ obtained by the Bloch-Messiah decomposition Equation (\[BMD\]). $R_{1}(z)$ can be factorized thus as $R_{1}(z)=M R(\vec{\vartheta})$, with $$\label{Rtheta} \nonumber
\quad R(\vec{\vartheta})=\begin{pmatrix} \cos{(\vec{\vartheta})} & \sin{(\vec{\vartheta})} \\ -\sin{(\vec{\vartheta})} & \cos{(\vec{\vartheta})} \end{pmatrix},$$ and $\cos{(\vec{\vartheta})}=\operatorname{diag}\{\cos{(\vartheta_{1})}, \dots, \cos{(\vartheta_{k})}, \dots, \cos{(\vartheta_{N})}\}$ \[equally for $\sin{(\vec{\vartheta})}$\].
We show an example for the sake of clarification. For a pump phase profile $\Delta\phi^{-}=0$ with $\phi=0$, the covariance matrix elements in the propagation supermode basis are $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
V(x_{S,k}, x_{S,k})&= [\cosh{(r_{k})} + \sinh{(r_{k})} \cos{(2 F_{k} z)}] e^{-r_{k}},\\ \nonumber
V(y_{S,k}, y_{S,k})&= [\cosh{(r_{k})} - \sinh{(r_{k})} \cos{(2 F_{k} z)}] e^{r_{k}}, \\ \nonumber
V(x_{S,k}, y_{S,k})&= \sinh{(r_{k})} \sin{(2 F_{k} z)},\end{aligned}$$ with $r_{k}=(1/2) \ln{[(\lambda_{k}+2\vert \eta \vert)/(\lambda_{k}-2\vert \eta \vert)]}$. The squeezing phase is given by $\vartheta_{k}=\pi/2 - (1/2) \arctan{\{[(\cosh{(r_{k})} \tan{(F_{z} z)}]^{-1}\}}$. It depends on the pump power via $\vert \eta \vert$, the coupling strength $C_{0}$ and the propagation length $z$ –and thus $R_{1}(z)$–. The larger squeezing is obtained periodically at distances $z_{k}=(2n+1)\pi/(2 F_{k})$ different for each $k$th supermode, with $n$ any positive integer. The diagonalized variances at those distances are $V(x_{S,k\neq l}', x_{S,k \neq l}')=e^{2 r_{k}}$, $V(y_{S,k \neq l}', y_{S,k \neq l}')=e^{-2 r_{k}}$. These are the same values as the minima of the blue and orange curves in Figure \[F3\]. The $k$th mode squeezing disappears at periodic distances $z_{k}'=n\pi/F_{k}$, the maxima of blue and orange curves in Figure \[F3\]. In the case of an odd number of waveguides, a $\vartheta_{l}=\pi/4$ rotation in phase space diagonalizes the covariance matrix corresponding to the zero supermode independently of z, with $V(x_{S,l}', x_{S,l}')=e^{4\vert \eta \vert z}$, $V(y_{S,l}', y_{S,l}')=e^{-4\vert \eta \vert z}$ (green curves in Figure \[F3\]). The zero supermode is therefore the same for both bases.
In summary, the total available squeezing of the linear and nonlinear supermodes is the same, but it is distributed in a different way.
Bibliography {#bibliography .unnumbered}
============
[80]{}
S.L. Braunstein and P. van Loock. [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**77**]{}, 513 (2005). Z.Y. Ou, S.F. Pereira, H.J. Kimble and K.C. Peng. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**68**]{}(25), 3663-3666 (1992). A. Furusawa, J.L. Sorensen, S.L. Braunstein, C.A. Fuchs, H.J. Kimble and E.S. Polzik. [*Science*]{} [**282**]{}, 706 (1998). X. Jia, X. Su, Q. Pan, J. Gao, C. Xie and K. Peng. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**93**]{}, 250503 (2004). A.S. Coelho, F.A.S. Barbosa, K.N. Cassemiro, A.S. Villar, M. Martinelli and P. Nussenzveig. [*Science*]{} [**326**]{}, 823 - 826 (2009). Y. Miwa, J. Yoshikawa, P. van Loock and A. Furusawa. [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**80**]{}, 050303(R) (2009). P. Jouguet, S. Kunz-Jacques, A. Leverrier, P. Grangier and E. Diamanti. [*Nature Photon.*]{} [**7**]{}, 378 (2013). M.V. Larsen, X. Guo, C.R. Breum, J.S. Neergaard-Nielsen and U.L. Andersen. [*Science*]{} [**366**]{}, 369 - 372 (2019). W. Asavanant, Y. Shiozawa, S. Yokoyama, B. Charoensombutamon, H. Emura, R.N. Alexander, S. Takeda, J. Yoshikawa, N. C. Menicucci, H. Yonezawa and A. Furusawa. [*Science*]{} [**366**]{}, 373 - 376 (2019). J. Wang, F. Sciarrino, A. Laing and M.G. Thompson. [*Nature Phot.*]{}, s41566-019-0532-1 (2019).
F. Lenzini, J. Janousek, O. Thearle, M. Villa, B. Haylock, S. Kasture, L. Cui, H.-P. Phan, D.V. Dao, H. Yonezawa, P.K. Lam, E.H. Huntington and M. Lobino. [*Science Advances*]{} [**4**]{} (12), eaat9331 (2018). M. Yukawa, R. Ukai, P. van Loock and A. Furusawa. [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**78**]{}, 012301 (2008).
D.N. Christodoulides, F. Lederer and Y. Silberberg. [*Nature*]{} [**424**]{} (6950), 817-23 (2003). R. Kruse, F. Katzschmann, A. Christ, A. Schreiber, S. Wilhelm, K. Laiho, A. Gábris, C.S. Hamilton, I. Jex and Ch. Silberhorn. [*New. J. Phys.*]{} [**15**]{}, 083046 (2013). A.S. Solntsev, F. Setzpfandt, A.S. Clark, C.W. Wu, M.J. Collins, C. Xiong, A. Schreiber, F. Katzschmann, F. Eilenberger, R. Schieck, W. Sohler, A. Mitchell, Ch. Silberhorn, B.J. Eggleton, T. Pertsch, A.A. Sukhourukov, D.N. Neshev and Y.S. Kivshar. [*Phys. Rev. X*]{} [**4**]{}, 031007 (2014). J. Herec, J. Fiurasek and L. Mista Jr. [*J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclass. Opt.*]{} [**5**]{}, 419-426 (2003). D. Barral, N. Belabas, L.M. Procopio, V. D’Auria, S. Tanzilli and J.A. Levenson. [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**96**]{}, 053822 (2017). A. Rai and D.G. Angelakis. [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**85**]{}, 052330 (2012). D. Barral, K. Bencheikh, N. Belabas and J.A. Levenson. [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**99**]{}, 051801 (R) (2019).
D. Barral, K. Bencheikh, J.A. Levenson and N. Belabas. [*In preparation*]{}, (2020). D. Barral, M. Walschaers, K. Bencheikh, V. Parigi, J.A. Levenson, N. Treps and N. Belabas. arXiv:1912.11154v3, (2020).
J. Roslund, R. Medeiros de Araujo, S. Jiang, C. Fabre and N. Treps. [*Nature Phot.*]{} [**8**]{}, 109 - 112 (2013). Y. Cai, J. Roslund, G. Ferrini, F. Arzani, X. Xu, C. Fabre and N. Treps. [*Nature Comm.*]{} [**8**]{}, 15645 (2017). F. Arzani, C. Fabre and N. Treps. [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**97**]{}, 033808 (2018).
J. Liñares, M.C. Nistal and D. Barral. [*New J. Phys.*]{} [**10**]{}, 063023 (2008).
M. Chen, N.C. Menicucci and O. Pfister. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**112**]{}, 120505 (2014). X. Su, Y. Zhao, S. Hao, X. Jia, C. Xie, and K. Peng. [*Opt. Lett.*]{} [**37**]{}, 5178-5180 (2012). S. Armstrong, J.-F. Morizur, J. Janousek, B. Hage, N. Treps, P.K. Lam and H.-A. Bachor. [*Nature Comm.*]{}, 3:1026 (2012). S. Armstrong, M. Wang, R.Y. Teh, Q. Gong, Q. He, J. Janousek, H.-A. Bachor, M.D. Reid and P.K. Lam. [*Nature Phys.*]{} [**11**]{}, 167-172 (2015). J.-I. Yoshikawa, S. Yokoyama, T. Kaji, Ch. Sornphiphatphong, Y. Shiozawa, K. Makino and A. Furusawa. [*APL Photonics*]{} [**1**]{}, 060801 (2016). S. Takeda, K. Takase and A. Furusawa. [*Science Advances*]{} [**5**]{} (5), eaaw4530 (2019). G. Patera, N. Treps, C. Fabre and G.J. Valcarcel. [*Eur. Phys. J. D*]{} [**56**]{}, 123-140 (2010). C. Fabre and N. Treps. [*arXiv*]{}: 1912.09321 (2019).
E. Kapon, J. Katz and A. Yariv. [*Opt. Lett.*]{} [**10**]{} (4), 125-127 (1984). E.-O. Bossé and L. Vinet. [*SIGMA*]{} [**13**]{}, 074 (2017). D. Barral, N. Belabas, K. Bencheikh and J.A. Levenson. [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**100**]{}, 013824 (2019).
G. Cariolaro and G. Pierobon. [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**94**]{}, 062109 (2016). C.S. Hamilton, R. Kruse, L. Sansoni, Ch. Silberhorn and I. Jex. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**113**]{}, 083602 (2014). S.L. Braunstein. [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**71**]{}, 055801 (2005). G. Adesso, S. Ragy and A.R. Lee. [*Open Syst. Inf. Dyn.*]{} [**21**]{}, 1440001 (2014). R. Simon, N. Mukunda and B. Dutta. [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**49**]{} (3), 1567-1583 (1994). M. Vainio and L. Halonen. [*Opt. Lett.*]{} [**36**]{} (4), 475-477 (2011).
J.M. Moison, N. Belabas, C. Minot and J.A. Levenson. [*Opt. Lett.*]{} [**34**]{}(16), 2462-2464 (2009). R. Keil, A. Perez-Leija, F. Dreisow, M. Heinrich, H. Moya-Cessa, S. Nolte, D.N. Christodoulides and A. Szameit. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**107**]{}, 103601 (2011). R.J. Chapman, M. Santandrea, Z. Huang, G. Corrielli, A. Crespi, M.-H. Yung, R. Osellame and A. Peruzzo. [*Nat. Comm.*]{} [**7**]{}, 11339 (2016). S. Weimann, A. Perez-Leija, M. Lebugle, R. Keil, M. Tichy, M. Grafe, R. Heilmann, S. Nolte, H. Moya-Cessa, G. Weihs, D.N. Christodoulides and A. Szameit. [*Nat. Comm.*]{} [**7**]{}, 11027 (2016). A. Blanco-Redondo, B. Bell, D. Oren, B.J. Eggleton and M. Segev. [*Science*]{} [**362**]{}(6414), 568-571 (2018). N.K. Efremidis and D.N. Christoulides. [Opt. Comm.]{} [**246**]{}, 345 - 356 (2005).
Y.-C. Meng, Q.-Z. Guo, W.-H. Tan and Z.-M. Huang. [*JOSA A*]{} [**21**]{}(8), 1518 (2004). A. Perez-Leija et al. [*Phys. Rev. A*]{}, [**87**]{}, 022303 (2013). A. Perez-Leija, H. Moya-Cessa, A. Szameit and D.N. Christodoulides. [Opt. Lett.]{}, [**35**]{}(14), 2409-2411 (2010). B.M. Rodriguez-Lara. [*Phys. Rev. A*]{}, [**84**]{}, 053845 (2011). R. Keil, A. Perez-Leija, P. Aleahmad, H. Moya-Cessa, S. Nolte, D.N. Christodoulides and A. Szameit. [*Opt. Lett.*]{} [**37**]{}, 3801-3803 (2012).
D. Barral, N. Belabas, L.M. Procopio, V. D’Auria, S. Tanzilli and J.A. Levenson. [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**96**]{}, 053822 (2017). B.R. Mollow and R.J. Glauber. [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**160**]{} (5), 1076-1096 (1967). R. Kruse, L. Sansoni, S. Brauner, R. Ricken, C.S. Hamilton, I. Jex and Ch. Silberhorn. [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**92**]{}, 053841 (2015). O. Alibart, V. D ’Auria, M. De Micheli, F. Doutre, F. Kaiser, L. Labont[é]{}, T. Lunghi, E. Picholle and S. Tanzilli. [*J.Opt.*]{} [**18**]{}, 104001 (2016).
V. D’Auria, S. Fornaro, A. Porzio, S. Solimeno, S. Olivares and M.G.A. Paris. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**102**]{}, 020502 (2009). D. Barral, K. Bencheikh, V. D’Auria, S. Tanzilli, N. Belabas and J.A. Levenson. [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**98**]{}, 023857 (2018). This can be seen by comparing Figure \[F3\]a with Figure 2 of ref. [@Barral2020].
R. Raussendorf and H.J. Briegel. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**86**]{}, 5188 (2001). N.C. Menicucci, P. van Loock, M. Gu, C. Weedbroock, T.C. Ralph and M.A. Nielsen. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**97**]{}, 110501 (2006). M. Gu, C. Weedbrook, N.C. Menicucci, T.C. Ralph and P. van Loock. [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**79**]{}, 062318 (2009). G. Ferrini, J.P. Gazeau, T. Coudreau, C. Fabre and N. Treps. [*New. J. Phys.*]{} [**15**]{}, 093015 (2013). P. van Loock and A. Furusawa. [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**67**]{}, 052315 (2003).
R. Ukai, J.-I. Yoshikawa, N. Iwata, P. van Loock and A. Furusawa. [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**81**]{}, 032315 (2010). R. Medeiros de Araujo, J. Roslund, Y. Cai, G. Ferrini, C. Fabre and N. Treps. [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**89**]{}, 053828 (2014). H.-G. Beyer and H.-P. Schwefel. [*Natural Computing*]{} [**1**]{}, 3-52 (2002). F. Mondain, T. Lunghi, A. Zavatta, E. Gouzien, F. Doutre, M. De Micheli, S. Tanzilli and V. D’Auria. [*Photon. Res.*]{} [**7**]{}, A36 (2019). N. Takanashi, T. Kashiwazaki, T. Kazama, K. Enbutsu, R. Kasahara, T. Umeki and A. Furusawa. [*IEEE J. Quant. Electr.*]{} [**56**]{} (3),6000100 (2020). T. Kashiwazaki, N. Takanashi, T. Yamashima, T. Kazama, K. Enbutsu, R. Kasahara, T. Umeki and A. Furusawa. [*APL Photon.*]{} [**5**]{}, 036104 (2020).
A. Boes, B. Corcoran, L. Chang, J. Bowers and A. Mitchell. [*Laser & Photon. Rev.*]{}, 1700256 (2018). Ch. Wang, C. Langrock, A. Marandi, M. Jankowski, M. Zhang, B. Desiatov, M.M. Fejer and M. Loncar. [*Optica*]{} [**5**]{} (11), 1438 - 1441 (2018).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'F. Pedreros Bustos'
- 'R. Holzlöhner'
- 'S. Rochester'
- 'D. Bonaccini Calia'
- 'J. Hellemeier'
- 'D. Budker'
bibliography:
- 'BibList.bib'
date: 'Received: date / Revised version: date'
title: 'Frequency chirped continuous-wave sodium laser guide stars'
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
Laser guide stars (LGS) along with adaptive optics (AO) systems are fundamental tools for modern observatories, since together they allow to reach the telescope’s diffraction limit. Three new large-telescope projects, the Giant Magellan Telescope (GMT), Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) and Extremely Large Telescope (ELT) will employ several LGS units as they play a significant role in reaching the ultimate optical performance of their instruments.
Sodium LGS exploit the naturally occurring atomic layer in the upper mesosphere between 85 km and 100 km altitude. Laser light tuned to the wavelength of 589.1591 nm in vacuum, resonant with the $3^2$S$_{1/2} - 3^2$P$_{3/2}$ transition of sodium (also known as D$_2$ line), is absorbed and spontaneous emission from the sodium layer is generated. The light from the LGS is used as a reference for the AO system on the telescope to compensate the distortions introduced by the atmospheric turbulence in the wavefront of an astronomical object. A brighter LGS can reduce the residual error and increase the performance of an AO system, which is particularly important for observations in the visible part of the spectrum and during daytime.
Over the last decades, several laser formats have been explored to create brighter sodium LGS [@dOrgeville:2016]. Single-frequency continuous-wave (CW) lasers based on Raman-fiber-amplifier technology are currently in use because they can efficiently pump the sodium layer generating high photon-return flux and offer a high reliability for operation in astronomical observatories [@Bonaccini:2014]. In spite of the high efficiency of current LGS technology, there are three factors that reduce the return from an LGS, namely Larmor precession, transition saturation, and recoil [@Holz:2010a].
At large angles between the laser beam and the geomagnetic field lines in the sodium layer, Larmor precession redistributes atomic populations among the ground-state magnetic sublevels, which reduces the number of atoms that can be optically pumped on the stronger optical transition. As a consequence, fluorescence from sodium atoms is reduced. Synchronous pumping of the sodium layer with intensity or polarization modulation of the laser beam has been proposed and demonstrated to mitigate this effect [@Higbie:2011; @Kane:2018; @Pedreros:2018b]. An additional laser (or spectral line) with a frequency offset of +1713 MHz from the D$_2$ line can be used as a “repumper”, in order to compensate the effect of downpumping of atomic populations from the $F=2$ to $F=1$ ground state (where $F$ is the total angular momentum), which becomes severe as the effect of Larmor precession takes place.
When the irradiance in the sodium layer approaches the saturation intensity, there is an increasing probability of stimulated emission by an excited atom. The stimulated emitted photon is directed into space and, as a result, the net photon-return flux seen by an observer on earth is reduced. Finally, at larger irradiances the atomic medium becomes more transparent to resonant light and the LGS is less efficient.
In this paper we address the third factor that reduces the LGS photon-return flux, i.e. recoil. When a sodium atom absorbs and reemits a photon, there is a small change of its velocity due to conservation of momentum given by:
$$\Delta v = \hbar k/M,$$
where $\hbar$ is the reduced Planck constant $\hbar = h/2\pi = 1.05\times10^{-34}$ J$\cdot$s, $k=2\pi/\lambda$ is the wavenumber, $\lambda$ is the resonant wavelength of sodium, and $M=3.81\times 10^{-26}$ kg is the atomic mass of sodium. In the mesosphere, spontaneously emitted photons are radiated randomly in all directions, although with a spatial point symmetry about the center of the atom when the medium is excited with polarized light. Therefore, the average recoil due to spontaneous emission is zero. However, as the absorbed laser photons (each with momentum $\hbar k$) travel in the same direction, there is a net increase in the velocity of the atomic ensemble in the direction of the incoming photons as shown in Fig. \[fig:chirping\]. This net recoil translates into a Doppler shift equal to $\Delta \nu_\text{r} = \Delta v /\lambda = 50.2$ kHz, which changes the resonant frequency of the atom with respect to the incoming light (redshift of the laser light as seen from the moving atom, blueshift as seen from the emitter when tracking the resonance frequency). After many absorption/emission cycles, an atom accumulates a frequency shift until it leaves the laser beam (transit time) or until it collides with another atom or molecule. The number of cycles can be estimated as: $$n_c = T_t/T_c,$$ where $T_t$ is the transit time (or the collision coherence time) and $T_c$ is the cycling time. At an irradiance of 62.6 W/m$^2$ (saturation intensity of sodium) the cycling time, hence the mean time between two spontaneous emissions is $T_c=64$ ns for the case of a pure two-level system and circularly polarized light. Given an average recoil frequency shift of $\Delta \nu_\text{r} = 50.2$ kHz per cycle, the rate of change of the atom’s resonant frequency is $(50.2~\text{kHz})/(64~\text{ns})=0.78$ MHz/$\mu$s. For the purpose of illustration, assuming a typical mean time between collisions in the mesosphere of 35 $\mu$s, it takes approximately $546$ cycles on average before the atomic velocities are randomized due to collisions with another particle. Then, the accumulated frequency shift of one atom during the collision coherence time is $\delta \nu = n_c \Delta \nu_\text{r} = 28$ MHz. However, after only $\approx$ 200 cycles the atom’s resonant frequency shifts by 10 MHz which corresponds to the natural linewidth of sodium. Beyond this point, the atom is no longer resonant with a single-frequency light source. Nevertheless, after several collisions the atom may re-enter the resonant velocity class and become available for optical pumping again. In this simplified discussion we have ignored other relaxation effects such as downpumping and Larmor precession, but it shows, in principle, how recoil decreases the efficiency of optical excitation of sodium.
![Upon spontaneous emission, an atom recoils in the same direction of the incoming photons due to linear momentum conservation. On each absorption/emission cycle, the resonance frequency of the recoiled atom is raised by $\Delta \nu_\text{r}$ with respect to the frequency of the laser. After many cycles, recoil can shift the velocity class out of optical resonance.[]{data-label="fig:chirping"}](images/Recoil_2.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"}
One way to deal with the effect of recoil is to compensate the atomic redshift by blueshifting the optical frequency of the excitation laser. This technique, generally called frequency chirping, was first proposed for atomic cooling [@Hansch:1975; @Wineland:1978], and later demonstrated as a mechanism to slow down the velocity of an atomic beam [@Ertmer:1985; @Watts:1986; @Littler:1991; @Phillips:1998] and for trapping neutral atoms in a confined volume with sub-Kelvin temperatures [@Ashkin:1978; @Chu:1985]. Frequency chirping for increasing the brightness of an LGS was proposed by @Jeys:1992 and first numerically modeled in pulse-train excitation of sodium by @Bradley:1992. These simulations showed a significant increase in steady-state upper-level populations by a factor of two compared to an unmodulated laser. An alternative model of chirped LGS was presented by @Kibblewhite:2008 using a Monte Carlo rate-equation approach for pulsed and CW excitation formats, including the effects of optical pumping, downpumping, recoil, and magnetic fields. Measurements carried out by the same group using the Chicago/Palomar sum-frequency micro/macro pulsed laser system ($1$ ns pulses at 100 MHz under a 150 $\mu$s pulse envelope at 400 Hz) showed an enhancement of the return flux by a factor of 1.8 using laser chirping [@Kibblewhite:website]. Additionally, @Hillman:2008 presented another model based on rate equations for the CW laser format. Sophisticated on-sky experiments using two overlapping CW lasers (one pump laser and a second probe laser) by the same group attempted to measure the atomic velocity distribution of sodium to show the effect of recoil in the mesosphere; however, the experiments yielded inconclusive results.
Here, we present a study of the return flux of an LGS excited with a single-frequency CW laser and with frequency chirping, using a state-of-the-art numerical model based on optical Bloch equations. This work is, to the best of our knowledge, the most in-detailed investigation to quantify the benefits of chirping with single-frequency CW lasers and to determine the best possible chirp rate. Section \[sec:method\] describes the model and the parameters used for the calculations. Results are presented in Sect. \[sec:results\] showing the changes in return flux due to varying a set of parameters. Finally, we discuss the optimal chirping parameters and the benefits and possible limitations of the chirping scheme for laser guide stars.
Method {#sec:method}
======
Laser excitation of mesospheric sodium and the expected fluorescence are modeled using the optical Bloch equations in the atomic density matrix formalism [@Rochester:2012]. The density matrix describes the statistical state of an ensemble of atoms in the 24 Zeeman sublevels of the state space of the Na D$_2$ transition. As the transition is Doppler broadened the density matrix is a function of the atomic velocity along the laser propagation direction. This velocity dependence is treated by dividing the Doppler distribution into discrete velocity groups ($\Delta v_\text{v.g.}$). The evolution of the density matrix is given by the generalization of the Schrödinger equation (the Liouville-von Neumann equation): $$\dfrac{d}{dt}\rho = \frac{1}{i\hbar}[H,\rho] + \Lambda(\rho) + \beta, \label{eq:schrodinger}$$
where the atomic level structure and interaction with external fields are described by the total Hamiltonian $H$. For chirped light, $H$ depends on time due to the frequency sweep. The term $\Lambda$ accounts for relaxation and repopulation processes, namely spontaneous decay, collisions, changes in atomic velocity and exit of atoms from the light beam; $\beta$ describes the additional repopulation process due to the entrance of atoms into the beam, which is independent of $\rho$. Recoil is modeled phenomenologically by allowing a fraction $\Delta v/\Delta v_\text{v.g.}$ of the excited-state atoms in each velocity group to be transferred upon decay into the next higher velocity group.
Equation \[eq:schrodinger\] provides a linear system of differential equations for the density-matrix elements (Bloch equations), which can be written as $\dot{\rho} = A \rho + b$, where $A$ and $b$ are a matrix and a vector, respectively, and $\rho$ is a column vector of $n_\text{v.g.}\times24^2$ density-matrix elements (where $n_\text{v.g.}$ is the total number of velocity groups).
The density-matrix evolution equations are generated using the LGSBloch package for Mathematica, which is based on the Atomic Density Matrix package[^1]. The system of ordinary differential equations (ODE) is solved using code based on the open-source ODE solver CVODE from the SUNDIALS package [@Sundials].
The fluorescent photon flux per solid angle emmitted in a given direction can be found from the solution for $\rho$ as the expectation value of a fluorescence operator [@Corney:1977; @Auzinsh:2010].
Standard parameters
-------------------
Besides fundamental constants, the model presented above needs several input parameters related to the laser beam characteristics and the kinematics of gases in the mesosphere that must be estimated beforehand. The accuracy of these input parameters plays a fundamental role in the prediction of the return flux of an LGS.
In order to model the laser beam size, we assume an effective Gaussian beam in the mesosphere whose full-width-half-maximum (FWHM) has been estimated using simulated physical optics propagation through a turbulent atmosphere with a seeing of 1.0 arcsec at 500 nm and zenith [@Holz:2008].
Vertical profiles of atmospheric temperatures, molecular number densities, and winds were used as inputs to estimate atomic collisions and transit times. Profiles of molecular number densities and temperature in the mesosphere are obtained from the MSISE-00 atmospheric model[^2] [@MSISE:2010], while wind profiles are obtained from the Horizontal Wind Model 2014 (HWM14) [@HWM14] assuming a quiet atmosphere. For example, Figs. \[fig:relaxation\].(a) and \[fig:relaxation\].(b) show the relevant molecular densities and temperature profiles between 83 km and 105 km above sea level at La Palma (latitude:$+28.75$, longitude:$-17.89$, elevation: 2396 meters above sea level) used as inputs to calculate the rate of atomic collisions in the mesosphere. The diffusion coefficient of sodium in the gas mixture can be estimated from Chapman-Enskog gaseous diffusion theory [@Chapman:1970] and from the diffusion model in multicomponent systems by @Fairbanks:1950. Along with wind profiles from the HWM14 model and calculations of the beam size in the mesosphere, we can estimate the exchange rate of sodium atoms in the laser beam.
In a mixture of gases, binary collision rates between a particle of mass $M_1$ and particles of mass $M_2$ and number density $n_2$ can be calculated with $$\gamma_{12} = n_2 \sigma_{12}\sqrt{\frac{8 k_\text{B}T}{\pi} \left( \frac{1}{M_1} + \frac{1}{M_2}\right)},$$ where $k_\text{B}=1.38\times10^{-23}$ J/K is the Boltzmann constant, and $\sigma_{12}=\pi(r_1 +r_2)^2$ is the collisional cross section with the Van-der-Waals radii of each particle $r_1$ and $r_2$. We follow the approach for calculating atomic collision rates described by @Holz:2010a using updated versions of the atmospheric models. Figure \[fig:relaxation\].(c) shows the atomic collision rates above La Palma following the presented model. The dominant relaxation mechanism is the velocity-changing collisions due to Na$-$O$_2$ and Na$-$N$_2$ colliding atoms.
![Vertical profiles of (a) molecular number densities, (b) temperature, and (c) collisions and beam exchange rate ($\gamma_\text{vcc}:$ velocity-changing collisions, $\gamma_\text{s}:$ spin-damping collisions, $\gamma_\text{ex}:$ atom-beam exchange) for La Palma. (d) Reference vertical sodium density profile obtained with the Large Zenith Telescope LIDAR facility in Vancouver, (BC, Canada), normalized with a sodium column abundance of $C_\text{Na}=4.0 \times 10^{9}$ atoms$/\text{cm}^2$.[]{data-label="fig:relaxation"}](images/density_rate_profileLaPalma.pdf){width="0.99\linewidth"}
A standard vertical sodium profile obtained with a lidar at the Large Zenith Telescope (LZT) [@Pfrommer:2014] is shown in Fig. \[fig:relaxation\].(d). This profile is used throughout the simulations as a reference for calculating the final fluorescence from the sodium layer. Although the sodium profile is highly variable, we believe that a measured typical profile yields a more realistic modeling of the system than a standard Gaussian profile.
Typically, CW guidestar lasers use an additional spectral line with a frequency offset of $+1713$ MHz relative to the $3^2$S$_{1/2}(F=2) - 3^2$P$_{3/2}(F'=3)$ transition (D$_2$a line). This sideband pumps atoms from the $F=1$ ground state to the $F'=2$ upper state (D$_2$b line) that decay into the $F=2$ ground state, and as a result, a high degree of optical pumping can be obtained increasing the brightness of an LGS in a factor of 1.5–2 [@Holz:2016]. The additional spectral line is called the repumper. The repumping fraction $q$ is defined here as the fraction of laser power in the repumper line ($P_\textbf{D2b}$) with respect to the power content in the D$_2$a and D$_2$b lines ($P_\textbf{D2a}+P_\textbf{D2b}$), and it is given by $$q = \dfrac{P_\textbf{D2b}}{P_\textbf{D2a} + P_\textbf{D2b}}. \label{eq:repumping}$$
A summary of the nominal standard parameters used for the simulations is presented in Table \[Table:parameters\].
Value
-------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------
D$_2$a transition wavelength in vacuum ($\lambda$) 589.15905 nm
Laser linewidth 0 MHz
Polarization Circular
Repumping fraction (*q*) 0.1
Repumping frequency offset $+$1713 MHz
Sodium column density ($C_\text{Na}$) $4.0 \times 10^{9}$ atoms/cm$^2$
One-way atmospheric transmission at zenith 0.89
Temperature at 91 km above sea level 185 K
Magnetic polar angle ($\theta_B$) 0
Beam atom exchange rate ($\gamma_\text{ex}$) 1/(6 ms)
Velocity-changing collision rate ($\gamma_\text{vcc}$) 1/(35 $\mu$s)
Spin-exchange collision rate ($\gamma_\text{s}$) 1/(490 $\mu$s)
: Nominal parameters used for simulations.[]{data-label="Table:parameters"}
Results {#sec:results}
=======
Atomic populations and velocity distribution
--------------------------------------------
![Comparison of ground-state and excited-state velocity distributions when recoil is included and neglected in the model for irradiance of 100 W/m$^2$. The additional feature seen at $+45$ MHz in the ground-state distribution (red line) is due to the repumping transition.[]{data-label="fig:velocity_noRecoil"}](images/Velocity_CW_Recoil_noRecoil.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"}
![Ground-state occupation density evolution at $0$ MHz, $+10$ MHz and $+20$ MHz velocity classes with fixed laser frequency for $I=100$ W/m$^2$ and standard parameters, including recoil.[]{data-label="fig:occupation_density"}](images/Total_occupation_density_NoChirp_I=100.pdf){width="0.75\linewidth"}
![Hole burning in the Maxwell-Boltzman velocity distribution for light intensities of 1, 100 and 500 W/m$^2$, including recoil and for zero magnetic field.[]{data-label="fig:velocity_Maxwell"}](images/Chirp_Mesosphere_Velocity_Distribution_I=1_100_500.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"}
{width="0.8\linewidth"}
We assume mesospheric sodium in thermal equilibrium, therefore atoms move in all directions with different velocities following the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. The most probable speed $v_p$ of sodium atoms at temperature $T$ is given by $v_p = \sqrt{2 k_\text{B}T/M}$, which for $T=185$ K corresponds to $v_p=367$ m/s. When high-intensity single-frequency light propagating in the $z$ direction is used to pump the atomic medium, a depletion of atomic populations in the ground state of the resonant velocity class occurs as a result of saturation of the transition. If one observes the velocity distribution, for instance, via velocity-selective saturation spectroscopy, a hole will be seen at $v_z = (\omega - \omega_0)/k$, where $\omega$ is the optical frequency around the resonance frequency for stationary atoms $\omega_0$, and $k$ is the wavenumber. In the absence of recoil, only a single dip with saturated width $\gamma_s=\gamma \sqrt{1+S_0}$ will be created, where $\gamma$ is the homogeneous width of the transition and $S_0 \geq 0$ is the saturation parameter defined as the ratio of pumping rate to the average relaxation rate at $\omega_0$. However, when recoil shift $\Delta \nu_\text{r}$ is considered in the model, an excess of atomic populations or a bump in the velocity distribution is produced as depicted in Fig. \[fig:velocity\_noRecoil\]. The peak represents a larger amount of ground-state populations that recoil with increasing velocity towards the neighbor velocity group and that see the laser light with a lowered frequency. On the other hand, atomic population in the excited states diminishes with respect to a system without recoil, because a large fraction of the resonant atoms have shifted out of resonance and cannot be excited any longer. Consequently, atomic recoil reduces return flux for atomic excitation with narrow-band lasers. This result shows that our model properly represents the existing physical mechanisms, and that recoil is an important factor that reduces the efficiency of an LGS.
The time evolution of the ground-state populations at zero detuning, $+10$ MHz, and $+20$ MHz is shown in Fig. \[fig:occupation\_density\]. In the first 30 $\mu$s, more than half of the atoms resonant with the laser have recoiled, while the population in the neighboring non-resonant velocity class 10 MHz higher has doubled. The effect of recoil continues reducing the population at $+10$ MHz detuning and populating a velocity class at $+20$ MHz from resonance. After 150 $\mu$s, the system reaches a steady state and a large fraction of resonant atoms are lost. The complete velocity distribution at this point is the one shown in Fig. \[fig:velocity\_noRecoil\].
The effect of irradiance on the velocity distributions can be observed in Fig. \[fig:velocity\_Maxwell\]. At low irradiance ($I=1$ W/m$^2$, $S_0\approx 0.02$), the small perturbation at zero detuning is hardly visible. In this regime, the effect of recoil is negligible, as previously concluded by @Milonni:1999. At irradiances near/above saturation ($I=100$ W/m$^2$, $S_0\approx 1.6$), the hole burning in the resonant velocity class is evident and a large fraction of atoms ($\approx 60$%) are displaced to the next higher velocity class. With even larger irradiance ($I=500$ W/m$^2$, $S_0\approx 8.0$), the depth of the hole is as large as in the previous case and power broadening is noticeable. The peak of recoiled atoms is lower with respect to the peak at $I=100$ W/m$^2$ as populations are spread over a wider range of the distribution. We believe that our model is able to predict fundamental effects and that the underlying atomic physics mechanisms are being modeled accurately in our simulations.
![Time evolution of the return flux for excitation with irradiance of 100 W/m$^2$ (top) and 500 W/m$^2$ (bottom), during a chirping period $\tau_\text{chirp}=150$ $\mu$s and for several chirping amplitudes including the case of fixed frequency excitation (no chirp). The chirping rate or slope ($s_c$) is indicated for each chirping amplitude.[]{data-label="fig:return_evolution"}](images/Chirp_TimeEvolution_100_500.pdf "fig:"){width="0.8\linewidth"}\
Evolution of atomic population during chirping
----------------------------------------------
In order to boost pumping of sodium, the optical frequency of light can be periodically swept (chirped). The chirping is characterized by the amplitude or frequency range $A_\text{chirp}$ of the sweep, and the rise time or period of the chirp $\tau_\text{chirp}$. We define the chirp rate or slope by $s_c\vcentcolon = A_\text{chirp}/\tau_\text{chirp}$. It is the purpose of this section to understand how the atomic population, and ultimately the emission of photons, depends on the chirp parameters.
Figure \[fig:velocity\_sequence\] shows a sequence of the evolution of the velocity distribution for chirp parameters $\tau_\text{chirp}=150$ $\mu$s and $A_\text{chirp}=(75\,,100\,,300)$ MHz. The ground-state population (blue), excited-state population (orange), and laser frequency detuning (red vertical line) are depicted for every given time. As a reference, the evolution with fixed frequency pumping (no chirping) is shown at the bottom of the figure. At $t=0$, the optical frequency is tuned to $\omega=\omega_0-A_\text{chirp}/2$. Here, a group of atoms in a blueshifted velocity class with respect to $\omega_0$ is resonant with the incoming photons and a bump starts to build up in the following velocity class due to recoil. Initial conditions are the same in all cases, except for the different absorption cross section for each starting laser detuning. Due to atoms being pumped to the $\ket{F'=2, m'=+2}$ excited state (where $m$ is the magnetic quantum number) by the laser repumping sideband ($q=0.1$ in all cases), there is a small contribution to fluorescence in a group with a detuning of $+60$ MHz with respect to the laser frequency.
The laser frequency $\omega$ is increased, tracking the atomic population. At $t=\tau_\text{chirp}/2=75$ $\mu$s, the laser frequency is exactly $\omega_0$. At this point, the absorption cross section is the highest and more atoms are resonant with the laser, increasing saturation and the number of recoiled atoms. The large peak in the ground-state distribution for $A_\text{chirp}=75$ MHz indicates a suboptimal chirping rate with respect to $A_\text{chirp}=150$ MHz and $300$ MHz, because a large fraction of atoms are pushed to higher non-resonant velocity groups. For this case, the chirp rate is too low. With $A_\text{chirp}=150$ MHz, the peak and the dip observed in the ground-state distribution are smaller. The contribution to fluorescence, i.e. the excited-state distribution, is larger when the chirped laser can more efficiently follow the shifting atomic population. The center of the hole appears here behind the current laser frequency detuning, accounting for relaxation mechanisms (collisions) slower than the chirp rate. For $A_\text{chirp}=300$ MHz, the hole and the peak are the smallest of all cases, although fluorescence is still larger than in the no chirping scenario. The chirping rate is so high that saturation and therefore optical pumping on each velocity class does not develop efficiently, although the atoms that recoil can be re-excited by the laser. The vestiges of the initial hole burning at $-150$ MHz are barely visible as a consequence of the relaxation mechanisms taking place during the rapid chirp.
At $t=\tau_\text{chirp}=150$ $\mu$s, only the ground-state distribution with $A_\text{chirp}=75$ MHz shows a slight increase on its peak, while other cases seem to reach a steady state. Raising the laser frequency further would decrease the efficiency of the process as the absorption cross section becomes smaller. Indeed, this is the reason why the range of chirp frequencies is symmetric with respect to the central velocity class.
The evolution of the instantaneous return flux (fluorescence opposite to the direction of laser propagation) along $\tau_\text{chirp}$ for $I=(100\,,500)$ W/m$^2$ is shown in Fig. \[fig:return\_evolution\] for the same chirping (and non-chirping) parameters shown in Fig. \[fig:velocity\_sequence\]. For $I=100$ W/m$^2$, the largest return flux is obtained with $A_\text{chirp}=150$ MHz ($s_c=1$ MHz/$\mu$s), more than twofold higher than the steady state flux in the case of no chirping. As observed in the velocity-distribution sequence for the case of $A_\text{chirp}=75$ MHz, even at $t=150$ $\mu$s the return flux is slightly increasing towards some steady state. Increasing the irradiance on the sodium layer always raises the return flux, although the efficiency of absorption becomes smaller. For $I=500$ W/m$^2$ the largest return flux among the simulated cases is obtained with $A_\text{chirp}=300$ MHz ($s_c=2$ MHz/$\mu$s), although the relative enhancement with respect to the return flux with fixed frequency is smaller than what can be obtained at $I=100$ W/m$^2$. The largest return occurs with a rapid chirp because saturation occurs faster in the presence of higher irradiance and therefore less time needs to be spent to saturate the velocity class along the frequency sweep.
These two examples indicate that the optimal chirp parameters depend on the irradiance level, and the observation that steady state is reached for different values of the chirp period introduces the chirp rise time as an additional degree of freedom.
{width="0.23\linewidth"} {width="0.23\linewidth"} {width="0.23\linewidth"} {width="0.23\linewidth"}\
{width="0.23\linewidth"} {width="0.23\linewidth"} {width="0.23\linewidth"} {width="0.23\linewidth"}
Chirp rate
----------
With an optimal chirp rate, a balance between high optical pumping and quick tracking of the shifting atomic populations must be reached. Figure \[fig:chirp\_AcTc\] shows the simulated specific return $\psi$ in units of (photons/s/sr/atom)/(W/m$^2$) and the enhancement factor $\kappa$ for several irradiance values, as a function of the frequency range and rise time for $A_\text{chirp}=10$–$300$ MHz and $\tau_\text{chirp}=10$–$300$ $\mu$s, respectively. The enhancement factor or gain $\kappa$ is here introduced and defined as the ratio between the specific return with chirped light $\psi_\text{chirping}$ and the specific return without chirp (fixed frequency at zero detuning) $\psi_\text{no-chirping}$, such that $$\kappa =\dfrac{\psi_\text{chirping}}{\psi_\text{no-chirping}}.$$
For each irradiance value shown in Fig. \[fig:chirp\_AcTc\] we calculate a linear slope function over which the optimal performance (return flux and enhancement) can be obtained. The maximum performance is, however, only achieved at a particular point over this slope function. The optimal set of parameters $A_\text{chirp}$ and $\tau_\text{chirp}$ is typically constrained to experimental factors. Generally speaking, a long $\tau_\text{chirp}$ and a small $A_\text{chirp}$ would be easier to implement in a real laser system.
The maximum specific return is obtained at $I=50$ W/m$^2$ at the chirp slope $s_c=0.7$ MHz/$\mu$s, while the maximum enhancement $\kappa=1.85$ is found at $I=100$ W/m$^2$ with $s_c=1.0$ MHz/$\mu$s. With higher light intensities the gain of chirping is slowly reduced, which is attributable to power broadening effects as shown in Fig. \[fig:velocity\_Maxwell\].
The optimal chirping slope at which maximum return is obtained can be characterized with the following empirical expression: $$s_c(I) = a-\exp{\left( \frac{b}{c+\sqrt{I}} \right)}, \label{eq:fit_sc}$$ where $a$, $b$, and $c$ are fit parameters, $I$ is the irradiance in W/m$^2$ and $s_c$ is expressed in MHz/$\mu$s. The optimal chirping slopes found in Fig. \[fig:chirp\_AcTc\] are calculated for $\theta_B=0$, although we also simulated for $\theta_B=(30\,,60\,, 90)$ and up to $I=1000$ W/m$^2$. All chirping slopes are shown in Fig. \[fig:sc\_maximum\_return\] where we calculated a slope fit function for each curve. We find that there is no significant difference in the optimal chirping rate as a function of the magnetic polar angle $\theta_B$, as it is shown in Fig. \[fig:sc\_maximum\_return\] in a yellow band. The mean value of the fit parameters are $a=3.57$, $b=38.74$, and $c=29.61$, for $s_c$ and $I$ measured in MHz/$\mu$s and $W/$m$^2$, respectively.
![Calculated chirping slope ($s_c$) of maximum return as a function of irradiance for $\theta_B=(0\,,30\,,60\,,90)$ with the fit function defined in Eq. \[eq:fit\_sc\] (brown curve) and the corresponding averaged fit parameters $a$, $b$ and $c$.[]{data-label="fig:sc_maximum_return"}](images/Model_chirping_slope.pdf "fig:"){width="0.8\linewidth"}\
Repumping
---------
It has been found that the optimal repumping fraction $q$, defined in Eq. \[eq:repumping\], lies between 0.1 to 0.15 for 20 W-class guidestar lasers and the question is whether the same applies for the case of laser chirping. Figure \[fig:Repumping\] shows the specific return flux and the enhancement for a range of irradiance and repumping fractions. In this case, the magnetic field is taken into account in the model ($B=0.36$ G) and we plot for the two cases of the angle between the laser and the magnetic field of $\theta_B=0$ and $\theta_B=90$. The maximum return flux efficiency with chirped light is obtained for $q$ near 0.1 (10%) for both cases and near an irradiance of 100 W/m$^2$. This irradiance is expected as it corresponds to the optimal point for a chirping rate of 1 MHz/$\mu$s, according to Eq. \[eq:fit\_sc\]. The maximum enhancement can be found for repumping fractions around $q=0.05$ (5%). Even though this does not lead to the maximum return, it shows that the maximum efficiency of the chirping mechanism, compared to the traditional fixed frequency pumping, can be obtained with a rather small $q$.
![Specific return flux $\psi_\text{chirp}$ (top) and enhancement factor $\kappa$ (bottom) as a function of the irradiance and repumping fraction $q$. Magnetic field is 0.36 G and chirping parameters are $A_\text{chirp}=200$ MHz and $\tau_\text{chirp}=200$ $\mu$s.[]{data-label="fig:Repumping"}](images/Chirp_Mesosphere_Repumping_Tc=200_Ac=200_B=036_Combined){width="0.99\linewidth"}
{width="0.9\linewidth"}
Return flux
-----------
So far all calculations have been performed for fixed collision rates. To obtain a closer answer to the actual return flux with the chirping technique, we include in the calculations vertical profiles of atomic densities and temperature, leading to the collision rates shown in Fig. \[fig:relaxation\].(c). To quantify the return flux contribution of the chirping method with respect to a fixed-frequency LGS, we calculate the specific return along the vertical profile between 83 km and 105 km with the corresponding collision rates. Then, we take the product of a normalized reference sodium profile with the difference between the chirped and non-chirped specific-return profiles. In this way, we can estimate where in the vertical profile the additional contribution to the overall fluorescence due to chirping is maximum. Results of applying this method to mesospheric irradiance of 50 W/m$^2$, 100 W/m$^2$ and 250 W/m$^2$ are shown in Fig. \[fig:profile\_return\] for several chirp rates. The total return flux can be estimated by integrating the specific-return profiles weighted with the sodium profile. The enhancement factor is then calculated as the ratio of the integrated profiles. For each curve in Fig. \[fig:profile\_return\], the enhancement factor is shown as a legend on each panel.
Several observations can be made from these simulations. The chirping slope at which the maximum enhancement occurs depends on the irradiance in the same way as seen before, that is, for higher irradiance a higher chirp rate is desired. There is a trend to obtain more return at higher altitudes with increasing irradiance. Although all curves at $I=250$ W/m$^2$ suddenly drop at approximately 96 km altitude due to the drastic reduction in sodium density, the increasing return flux contribution from laser chirping is explained by the fact that at high altitude collision are fewer and more atoms can be “snow-ploughed” before they dissipate in the velocity space. Indeed, it is likely that a rise in the sodium centroid maximizes the benefits of laser chirping. Finally, we perform a comprehensive simulation of the expected return flux of an LGS that would be measured on the ground, taking the location of La Palma as a representative site of an astronomical observatory, motivated by ongoing experimental tests on laser chirping at the Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos (ORM) in La Palma. We assume a near-collimated laser beam of 30 cm launched diameter which is propagated through the atmosphere and sodium layer. We discretize the vertical profiles in 23 layers and calculate the return flux contribution for each. The Gaussian beam cross section is divided in contours of six irradiance levels and the calculation of the specific return is performed on each of them. After integration over the beam profile, we obtain the product of the beam integration $B_i$ with a discretized sodium column density $C_{\text{Na},i}$ pertaining to the reference sodium profile, which results in the photon flux contribution on each layer $i$ in the vertical direction. The total photon flux $\Phi$ in units of (photons/s/m$^2$) on the detector can be estimated as $$\Phi = \sum_{i=1}^N \dfrac{X \eta^X C_{\text{Na},i} B_i}{L^2},$$ where $\eta$ is the one-way vertical atmospheric transmission, $X=\sec(\xi)$ is the airmass and $\xi$ is the zenith angle, $L$ is the distance between the telescope and the sodium centroid, and $N$ is the number of layers.
Figure \[fig:SkyPlot\_LaPalma\] shows a series of sky plots with contour lines indicating the photon return flux in units of $10^6$ photons/s/m$^2$ received if the laser is pointed in the corresponding direction in the sky for a given laser power. The sky plots cover the full azimuth range and a zenith angle up to 60. We perform a simulation with and without chirping for a launched laser power of 20 W and also for 50 W single-frequency guidestar lasers. Results obtained for fixed frequency excitation are consistent with those from simulations and experiments in Tenerife [@Holz:2016], which due to its close proximity and almost same elevation as La Palma, has the same experimental parameters. For both laser formats, the maximum return flux is obtained when pointing in a direction where the laser is parallel to the geomagnetic field lines ($\theta_B=0\degree$). In other directions the return flux is reduced due to Larmor precession, although chirping can still raise the increasing return flux with respect to the fixed frequency format. The predicted return flux enhancement with laser chirping is substantial, particularly with a 50 W class laser.
![Sky plots comparing the return flux on the ground $\Phi$ ($10^6$ photons/s/m$^2$) obtained with CW guidestar lasers with and without chirping above La Palma, for launched laser power of 20 W and 50 W and chirp parameters $A_\text{chirp}=250$ MHz and $\tau_\text{chirp}=300$ $\mu$s ($s_c=0.83$ MHz/$\mu$s).[]{data-label="fig:SkyPlot_LaPalma"}](images/SkyPlot_LaPalma_P=20W_seeing_100_Tc=300_Ac=250_no_bar.pdf "fig:"){width="0.98\linewidth"}\
![Sky plots comparing the return flux on the ground $\Phi$ ($10^6$ photons/s/m$^2$) obtained with CW guidestar lasers with and without chirping above La Palma, for launched laser power of 20 W and 50 W and chirp parameters $A_\text{chirp}=250$ MHz and $\tau_\text{chirp}=300$ $\mu$s ($s_c=0.83$ MHz/$\mu$s).[]{data-label="fig:SkyPlot_LaPalma"}](images/SkyPlot_LaPalma_P=50W_seeing_100_Tc=300_Ac=250_no_bar.pdf "fig:"){width="0.98\linewidth"}
Sky plots with the enhancement factor $\kappa$ obtained from these simulations are shown in Fig. \[fig:SkyPlot\_Gain\_LaPalma\], where an enhancement up to 82% (factor of 1.82) can be obtained with a 50 W laser and even more than 30% at high zenith angles. It is interesting to note that the direction of maximum enhancement tends to deviate to the north (towards larger $\theta_B$) with increasing laser power.
A simulation of the magnetic polar angle dependence for magnetic fields strengths typical for La Palma, Paranal, and Starfire Optical Range (SOR) is shown in Fig. \[fig:sodium\_ThetaB\]. This simulation does not include any atmospheric propagation contribution nor beam or vertical integration and it has the purpose of isolating the behaviour of chirping as a function of the magnetic polar angle only. Although the specific return flux is in all cases a monotonically decreasing function with increasing $\theta_B$, the enhancement factor raises with increasing $\theta_B$ which supports the northward drift of the enhancement factor observed in the sky plots for La Palma.
![The enhancement factor $\kappa$ for the two examples shown in Fig. \[fig:SkyPlot\_LaPalma\]. An almost twofold enhancement in return flux could be achieved with future 50 W class CW guidestar lasers.[]{data-label="fig:SkyPlot_Gain_LaPalma"}](images/SkyPlot_LaPalma_P=20W_seeing_100_Tc=300_Ac=250_Gain.pdf "fig:"){width="0.48\linewidth"} ![The enhancement factor $\kappa$ for the two examples shown in Fig. \[fig:SkyPlot\_LaPalma\]. An almost twofold enhancement in return flux could be achieved with future 50 W class CW guidestar lasers.[]{data-label="fig:SkyPlot_Gain_LaPalma"}](images/SkyPlot_LaPalma_P=50W_seeing_100_Tc=300_Ac=250_Gain.pdf "fig:"){width="0.48\linewidth"}
Conclusions
===========
The simulations conducted in this study suggest that a significant enhancement in the return flux from sodium LGS can be obtained with frequency chirping of the guidestar laser. The enhancement factor depends mainly on the chirp rate and on the irradiance in the sodium layer. We have developed an empirical expression for the optimal chirp rate within the irradiance regime of operation; however, in a real scenario, the distribution of laser irradiance in the mesosphere is a dynamic function of atmospheric turbulence. A real-time monitoring of atmospheric seeing at the time of laser propagation could be useful to estimate the effective LGS irradiance in order to continuously optimize the chirp rate for maximum enhancement. Ideally, wavefront correction of the uplink laser could be used to obtain a more stable and high-irradiance spot in the mesosphere suitable for optimal chirping.
Our simulations indicate no strong dependence of the optimal chirp rate on the magnetic polar angle. In fact, the return flux always decreases for increasing magnetic polar angle due to Larmor precession. Simulations suggest that for a given chirp rate there is a higher effectiveness of chirping (larger enhancement factor) with increasing magnetic polar angles. The peak enhancement as a function of $\theta_B$ also depends on the strength of the magnetic field. The physical mechanisms that explain this effect are complex as there is a dynamic interplay between the precession of polarized atoms in a resonant velocity class and the chirping through the velocity distribution which carries precessing polarized atoms into the next velocity group (due to recoil) and that also pumps fresh unpolarized atoms. The increasing efficiency of chirping with increasing $\theta_B$ can be interpreted as a counteracting effect of Larmor precession up to the point where precession is strong enough (large $\theta_B$ and/or large magnetic field) such that it lowers the efficiency of chirping again.
Realistic simulations of the return flux for the site of La Palma, which included the influence of average atmospheric conditions in the mesosphere and also the distribution of intensities on a Gaussian beam, show a significant enhancement up to 60% using current generation laser guide star systems. It is worthwhile performing on-sky experiments to demonstrate the benefits of chirping in real conditions, as currently ongoing using the ESO Wendelstein Laser Guide Star facility located at ORM in La Palma. The confirmation of these simulations could motivate the integration of chirping schemes in the increasing number of 20 W-class lasers being commissioned in several astronomical observatories nowadays. Certainly, more return flux will be necessary in the near future to extend routine LGS-AO operations to serve instruments working at visible wavelengths and for higher-order and extreme AO.
![Specific return $\psi$ and enhancement factor $\kappa$ as a function of the magnetic polar angle $\theta_B$ for different strenght of magnetic field (Paranal: 0.22 G, La Palma: 0.36 G, SOR: 0.48 G). $I=100$ W/m$^2$, $s_c=1.0$ MHz/$\mu$s with $A_\text{chirp}=200$ MHz.[]{data-label="fig:sodium_ThetaB"}](images/Chirp_Mesosphere_ThetaDependence_Combined_I=100_sc10.pdf "fig:"){width="0.8\linewidth"}\
Acknowledgement
===============
We thank Martin Enderlein and Frank Lison for stimulating discussions. F.P.B. acknowledges the support of a doctoral scholarship from the Carl-Zeiss Foundation. Part of this research was conducted using the supercomputer Mogon/HIMsterII and advisory services offered by Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (hpc.uni-mainz.de).
[^1]: Available at <http://rochesterscientific.com/ADM/>
[^2]: <https://ccmc.gsfc.nasa.gov/modelweb/models/nrlmsise00.php>
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We study a location-routing problem in the context of capacitated vehicle routing. The input to is a set of demand locations in a metric space and a fleet of $k$ vehicles each of capacity $Q$. The objective is to [*locate*]{} $k$ depots, one for each vehicle, and [*compute routes*]{} for the vehicles so that all demands are satisfied and the total cost is minimized. Our main result is a constant-factor approximation algorithm for . To achieve this result, we reduce to the following generalization of $k$ median, which might be of independent interest. Given a metric $(V,d)$, bound $k$ and parameter $\rho\in\mathbb{R}_+$, the goal in the [*$k$ median forest*]{} problem is to find $S{\subseteq}V$ with $|S|=k$ minimizing: $$\sum_{u\in V} d(u,S) \quad + \quad \rho\cdot d\big(\,\mbox{MST}(V/S)\,\big),$$ where $d(u,S)=\min_{w\in S} d(u,w)$ and $\mbox{MST}(V/S)$ is a minimum spanning tree in the graph obtained by contracting $S$ to a single vertex. We give a $(3+\epsilon)$-approximation algorithm for $k$ median forest, which leads to a $(12+\epsilon)$-approximation algorithm for , for any constant $\epsilon>0$. The algorithm for $k$ median forest is $t$-swap local search, and we prove that it has locality gap $3+\frac2t$; this generalizes the corresponding result for $k$ median [@AGKMMP04].
Finally we consider the $k$ median forest problem when there is a different cost function $c$ for the MST part, i.e. the objective is $\sum_{u\in V} d(u,S) \,+ \,c (\,\mbox{MST}(V/S)\,)$. We show that the locality gap for this problem is unbounded even under multi-swaps, which contrasts with the $c=d$ case. Nevertheless, we obtain a constant-factor approximation algorithm, using an LP based approach along the lines of [@KKNSS11].
author:
- 'Inge Li G[ø]{}rtz[^1]'
- 'Viswanath Nagarajan[^2]'
bibliography:
- 'lvrp.bib'
title: Locating Depots for Capacitated Vehicle Routing
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
In typical facility location problems, one wishes to locate centers and connect clients directly to centers at minimum cost. On the other hand, the goal in vehicle routing problems (VRPs) is to compute routes for vehicles originating from a given set of depots. Location routing problems represent an integrated approach, where we wish to make combined decisions on facility location and vehicle routing. This is a widely researched area in operations research, see eg. surveys [@BWW87; @L88; @L89; @BJS95; @MJS98; @NS07]. Most of these papers deal with exact methods or heuristics, without any performance guarantees. In this paper we present an approximation algorithm for a location routing problem in context of capacitated vehicle routing.
Capacitated vehicle routing (CVRP) is an extensively studied vehicle routing problem [@TV02] which involves distributing identical items to a set of demand locations. Formally we are given a metric space $(V,d)$ on vertices $V$ with distance function $d:V\times V\rightarrow \mathbb{R}_+$ that is symmetric and satisfies triangle inequality. Each vertex $u\in V$ demands $q_u$ units of the item. We have available a fleet of $k$ vehicles, each having capacity $Q$ and located at specified depots. The goal is to distribute items using the $k$ vehicles at minimum total cost. There are two versions of CVRP depending on whether or not the demand at a vertex may be satisfied over multiple visits. We focus on the [*unsplit delivery*]{} version in the paper, while noting that this also implies the result under split-deliveries. We consider the question “where should one locate the $k$ depots so that the resulting vehicle routing solution has minimum cost?” This is called [*$k$-location capacitated vehicle routing*]{} (). The problem bears obvious similarity to the well-known [*$k$ median*]{} problem, where the goal is to choose $k$ centers to minimize the sum of distances of each vertex to its closest center. The difference is that our problem also takes the routing aspect into account. Not surprisingly, our algorithm for builds on approximation algorithms for the $k$ median problem.
In obtaining an algorithm for we introduce the [*$k$ median forest*]{} problem, which might be of some independent interest. The objective here is a combination of $k$-median and minimum spanning tree. Given metric $(V,d)$, bound $k$ and parameter $\rho\in\mathbb{R}_+$, the goal is to find $S{\subseteq}V$ with $|S|=k$ minimizing $\sum_{u\in V} d(u,S) \, + \, \rho\cdot d\big(\,\mbox{MST}(V/S)\,\big)$. Here $d(u,S)=\min_{w\in S} d(u,w)$ is the minimum distance between $u$ and an $S$-vertex; $\mbox{MST}(V/S)$ is a minimum spanning tree in the graph obtained by contracting $S$ to a single vertex. Note that when $\rho=0$ we have the $k$-median objective, and $\rho$ being very large reduces to MST.
Our Results
-----------
The main result is the following.
\[th:lcvrp\] There is a $(12+\epsilon)$-approximation algorithm for , for any constant $\epsilon>0$.
Our algorithm first reduces to $k$ median forest, at the loss of a constant approximation factor of four. This step is fairly straightforward and makes use of known lower-bounds [@HK85] for the CVRP problem. We present this reduction in Section \[sec:redn\].
Then we prove the following result in Section \[sec:kmf\] which implies Theorem \[th:lcvrp\].
\[th:kmed-forest\] There is a $(3+\epsilon)$-approximation algorithm for $k$ median forest, for any constant $\epsilon>0$.
This is the technically most interesting part of the paper. The algorithm is straightforward: perform local search using multi-swaps. It is well known that (single swap) local search is optimal for the minimum spanning tree problem. Moreover, Arya et al. [@AGKMMP04] showed that $t$-swap local search achieves exactly a $(3+\frac2t)$-approximation ratio for the $k$-median objective (this proof was later simplified by Gupta and Tangwongsan [@GT08]). Thus one can hope that local search performs well for $k$ median forest, which is a combination of both MST and $k$-median objectives. However, the local moves used in proving the quality of local optima are different for the MST and $k$-median objectives. Our proof shows we can [*simultaneously*]{} bound both MST and $k$-median objectives using a common set of local moves. In fact we prove that the locality gap for under $t$-swaps is also $(3+\frac2t)$. Somewhat surprisingly, it suffices to consider exactly the same set of swaps from [@GT08] to establish Theorem \[th:kmed-forest\], although [@GT08] does not take into account any MST contribution. The interesting part of the proof is in bounding the change in MST cost due to these swaps— this makes use of non-trivial exchange properties of spanning trees and properties of the potential swaps from [@GT08]. We remark that the $k$-median, $k$-tree (i.e. choose $k$ centers $S$ to minimize $d(MST(V/S))$), and objectives are incomparable in general: Appendix \[app:example\] gives an instance where near-optimal solutions to these three objectives are mutually far apart.
Finally we consider the [*non-uniform $k$ median forest*]{} problem in Section \[sec:non-unif-kmf\]. This is an extension of $k$ median forest where there is a different cost function $c$ for the MST part in the objective. Given vertices $V$ with two metrics $d$ and $c$, and bound $k$, the goal is to find $S{\subseteq}V$ with $|S|=k$ minimizing $\sum_{u\in V} d(u,S) \, + \, c\big(\,\mbox{MST}(V/S)\,\big)$. Here $\mbox{MST}(V/S)$ is a minimum spanning tree in the graph obtained by contracting $S$ to a single vertex, [*under metric $c$*]{}. In contrast to the uniform case $c=d$, we show that the locality gap here is unbounded even for multi-swaps. In light of this, Theorem \[th:kmed-forest\] appears a bit surprising. Still, we show that a different LP-based approach yields:
\[th:gen-kmed-forest\] There is a 16-approximation algorithm for non-uniform $k$ median forest.
This algorithm follows closely that for the matroid median problem [@KKNSS11]. We consider the natural LP relaxation and round it in two phases. The first phase sparsifies the solution (using ideas from [@CGTS99]) and allows us to reformulate a new LP-relaxation using fewer variables; this is identical to [@KKNSS11]. The second phase solves the new LP-relaxation, which we show to be integral.
Related Work
------------
The basic capacitated vehicle routing problem involves a single fixed depot. There are two versions of CVRP: [*split delivery*]{} where the demand of a vertex may be satisfied over multiple visits; and [*unsplit delivery*]{} where the demand at a vertex must be satisfied in a single visit (in this case we also assume $\max_{u\in V} q_u\le Q$). Observe that the optimal value under split-delivery is at most that under unsplit-delivery. The best known approximation guarantee for split-delivery is $\alpha+1$ [@HK85; @AG90] and for unsplit-delivery is $\alpha+2$ [@AG87], where $\alpha$ denotes the best approximation ratio for the Traveling Salesman Problem. We make use of the following known lower bounds for CVRP with single depot $r$: the minimum TSP tour on all demand locations, and $\frac{2}Q\sum_{u\in V}
d(r,u)\cdot q_u$. Similar constant factor approximation algorithms [@LS90] are also known for the CVRP with multiple depots which was defined in the introduction.
The $k$ median problem is a widely studied location problem and has many constant factor approximation algorithms. Starting with the LP-rounding algorithm of [@CGTS99], the primal-dual approach was used in [@JV01], and also local search [@AGKMMP04]. A simpler analysis of the local search algorithm was given in [@GT08]; we make use of this in our proof for the $k$ median forest problem. Several variants of $k$ median have also been studied. One that is relevant to us is the matroid median problem [@KKNSS11], where the set of open centers are constrained to be independent in some matroid; our approximation algorithm for the non-uniform $k$ median forest problem is based on this approach.
Recently [@HKM10] studied (among other problems) a facility-location variant of CVRP: there are opening costs for depots and the goal is to open a set of depots and find vehicle routes so as to minimize the sum of opening and routing costs. The problem in this paper can be thought of as the $k$-median variant of [@HKM10]. In [@HKM10] the authors give a 4.38-approximation algorithm for facility-location CVRP. Following an approach similar to [@HKM10] one can obtain a bicriteria approximation algorithm for , where more than $k$ depots are opened. However more work is needed to obtain a true approximation, and this is where we need an algorithm for the $k$ median forest problem.
Reducing to $k$ median forest {#sec:redn}
=============================
Here we show that the problem can be reduced to $k$ median forest at the loss of a constant approximation factor. This makes use of known lower bounds for CVRP [@HK85; @LS90; @HKM10].
For any $S{\subseteq}V$, let $\flow(S) := \frac2Q \, \sum_{u\in V} q_u\cdot d(u,S)$ and $\tree(S) = d(MST(V/S))$ be the length of the minimum spanning tree in the metric obtained by contracting $S$. The following theorem is implicit in previous work [@HK85; @LS90; @HKM10]; this uses a natural MST splitting algorithm.
\[th:cvrp\] Given any instance of CVRP on metric $(V,d)$ with demands $\{q_u\}_{u\in V}$, vehicle capacity $Q$ and depots $S{\subseteq}V$,
The optimal value (of the split-delivery CVRP) is at least $\max\{\flow(S),\,\tree(S)\}$.
There is a polynomial time algorithm that computes an unsplit-delivery solution of length at most $2\cdot \flow(S)+2\cdot \tree(S)$.
Based on this it is clear that the optimal value of the CVRP instance given depot positions $S$ is roughly given by $\flow(S)+\tree(S)$, which is similar to the objective. The following lemma formalizes this reduction. We will assume an algorithm for the $k$ median forest problem with vertex-weights $\{q_u:u\in V\}$, where the objective becomes $\sum_{u\in V} q_u\cdot d(u,S) \, + \, \rho\cdot d\big(\,\mbox{MST}(V/S)\,\big)$.
\[lem:lrp2kmed\] If there is a $\beta$-approximation algorithm for $k$ median forest then there is a $4\beta$-approximation algorithm for .
Let denote the optimal value of the instance. Using the lower bound in Theorem \[th:cvrp\], $$\opt \ge \min_{S:|S|=k} \, \max\left\{ \flow(S), \, \tree(S)\right\} \ge \min_{S:|S|=k} \, \left[\epsilon\cdot \flow(S) + (1-\epsilon)\cdot \tree(S)\right],$$ where $\epsilon\in [0,1]$ is any value; this will be fixed later. Consider the instance of $k$ median forest on metric $(V,d)$, vertex weights $\{q_u\}_{u\in V}$ and parameter $\rho=\frac{1-\epsilon}\epsilon \cdot \frac{Q}2$. For any $S{\subseteq}V$ the objective is: $$\sum_{u\in V} q_u\cdot d(u,S) + \rho\cdot d(MST(V/S)) = \frac{Q}2 \cdot \flow(S) + \rho\cdot \tree(S) =
\frac{Q}{2\epsilon} \cdot \left[\epsilon\cdot \flow(S) + (1-\epsilon)\cdot \tree(S)\right]$$ Thus the optimal value of the instance is at most $\frac{Q}{2\epsilon} \cdot \opt$. Let $S_{alg}$ denote the solution found by the $\beta$-approximation algorithm for . It follows that $|S_{alg}|=k$ and: $$\label{eq:lrp2kmed}
\epsilon\cdot \flow(S_{alg}) + (1-\epsilon)\cdot \tree(S_{alg}) \le \beta\cdot \opt$$ For the instance, we locate the depots at $S_{alg}$. Using Theorem \[th:cvrp\], the cost of the resulting vehicle routing solution is at most $2\cdot \flow(S_{alg}) + 2\cdot \tree(S_{alg}) = 4\cdot \left[\epsilon\cdot \flow(S_{alg}) +
(1-\epsilon)\cdot \tree(S_{alg}) \right]$ where we set $\epsilon= 1/2$. From Inequality it follows that our algorithm is a $4\beta$-approximation algorithm for .
We remark that this reduction already gives us a constant factor [*bicriteria*]{} approximation algorithm for as follows. Let $S_{med}$ denote an approximate solution to $k$-median on metric $(V,d)$ with vertex-weights $\{q_u:u\in
V\}$, which can be obtained by directly using a $k$-median algorithm [@AGKMMP04]. Let $S_{mst}$ denote the optimal solution to $\min_{S: |S|\le k} \, d(MST(V/S))$, which can be obtained using the greedy MST algorithm. We output $S_{bi}=S_{med}\bigcup S_{mst}$ as a solution to , along with the vehicle routes obtained from Theorem \[th:cvrp\] applied to $S_{bi}$. Note that $|S_{bi}|\le 2k$, so we open at most $2k$ depots. Moreover, if $S^*$ denotes the location of depots in the optimal solution to then:
$\flow(S_{med})\le (3+\delta)\cdot \flow(S^*)$ since we used a $(3+\delta)$-approximation algorithm for $k$-median [@AGKMMP04].
$\tree(S_{mst})\le \tree(S^*)$ since $S_{mst}$ is an optimal solution to the MST part of the objective.
Clearly $\flow(S_{bi}) \le \flow(S_{med})$ and $\tree(S_{bi}) \le \tree(S_{mst})$, so: $$\frac12\cdot \flow(S_{bi}) + \frac12\cdot \tree(S_{bi}) \le \frac{3+\delta}2 \cdot \left[
\flow(S^*) + \tree(S^*)\right] \le (3+\delta)\cdot \opt$$ Using Theorem \[th:cvrp\] the cost of the CVRP solution with depots $S_{bi}$ is at most $4(3+\delta)\cdot \opt$. So this gives a $(12+\delta,\, 2)$ bicriteria approximation algorithm for , where $\delta>0$ is any fixed constant. We note that this approach combined with algorithms for facility-location and Steiner tree immediately gives a constant factor approximation for the facility location CVRP considered in [@HKM10]. The algorithm in that paper [@HKM10] has to do some more work in order to get a sharper constant. For this approach clearly does not give any true approximation ratio, and for this purpose we give an algorithm for .
Multi-swap local search for {#sec:kmf}
============================
The input to [*$k$ median forest*]{} consists of a metric $(V,d)$, vertex-weights $\{q_u\}_{u\in V}$ and bound $k$. The goal is to find $S{\subseteq}V$ with $|S|=k$ minimizing: $$\Phi(S)= \sum_{u\in V} q_u\cdot d(u,S) \quad + \quad d\big(\,{\ensuremath{\textrm{MST}}}(V/S)\,\big),$$ where $d(u,S)=\min_{w\in S} d(u,w)$ and ${\ensuremath{\textrm{MST}}}(V/S)$ is a minimum spanning tree in the graph obtained by contracting $S$ to a single vertex. Note that this is slightly more general than the definition in Section \[sec:intro\] (which is the special case when $q_u=1/\rho$ for all $u\in V$).
We analyze the natural $t$-swap local search for this problem, for any constant $t$. Starting at an arbitrary solution $L$ consisting of $k$ centers do the following until no improvement is possible: if there exists $D{\subseteq}L$ and $A{\subseteq}V\setminus L$ with $|D|=|A|\le t$ and $\Phi(L\setminus D \bigcup A) < \Phi(L)$ then $L\gets L\setminus D \bigcup A$. Clearly each local step can be performed in $n^{O(t)}$ time which is polynomial for fixed $t$. The number of iterations to reach a local optimum may be super-polynomial; however this can be made polynomial by the standard method [@AGKMMP04] of performing a local move only if the cost $\Phi$ reduces by some $1+\frac1{poly(n)}$ factor. Here we omit this (minor) detail and bound the local optimum under the swaps as defined above.
Let $F{\subseteq}V$ denote the local optimum solution (under $t$-swaps) and $F^*{\subseteq}V$ the global optimum. Note that $|F|=|F^*|=k$. Define map $\eta: F^*\rightarrow F$ as $\eta(w)=\arg\min_{v\in F} d(w,v)$ for all $w\in F^*$. For any $S{\subseteq}V$, let $\med(S) := \sum_{u\in V} q_u\cdot d(u,S)$, and $\tree(S) = d(MST(V/S))$ be the length of the minimum spanning tree in the metric obtained by contracting $S$; so $\Phi(S) = \med(S)+\tree(S)$. For any $D{\subseteq}F$ and $A{\subseteq}V\setminus F$ with $|D|=|A|\le t$ we refer to the swap $F-D+A$ as a “$(D,A)$ swap”. We use the following swap construction from [@GT08] for the $k$-median problem.
\[th:GT-swap\] For any $F,F^*{\subseteq}V$ with $|F|=|F^*|=k$, there are partitions $\{F_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ of $F$ and $\{F^*_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ of $F^*$ such that $|F_i|=|F^*_i|$ $\forall i\in[\ell]$; and there is a unique $c_i\in F_i$ (for each $i\in[\ell]$) with $\eta(w)=c_i$ for all $w\in F^*_i$ and $\eta^{-1}(v)=\emptyset$ for all $v\in F_i\setminus \{c_i\}$. Define set $\swap$ of $t$-swaps with multipliers $\{\alpha(s) : s\in \swap\}$ as:
- For any $i\in[\ell]$, if $|F_i|\le t$ then swap $(F_i, F^*_i)\in \swap$ with $\alpha(F_i,F^*_i)=1$.
- For any $i\in[\ell]$, if $|F_i|> t$ then for each $a\in F^*_i$ and $b\in F_i\setminus \{c_i\}$ swap $(b,a)\in
\swap$ with $\alpha(b,a)=\frac1{|F_i|-1}$.
Then we have:
- $\sum_{(D,A)\in \swap} \alpha(D,A)\cdot \left( \med(F-D+A)-\med(F)\right) \le (3+2/t)\cdot \med(F^*) -
\med(F)$.
- For each $w\in F^*$, the extent to which $w$ is added $\sum_{(D,A)\in \swap: w\in A} \alpha(D,A)=1$.
- For each $v\in F$, the extent to which $v$ is dropped $\sum_{(D,A)\in \swap: v\in D} \alpha(D,A)\le 1+\frac1t$.
We use the same set $\swap$ of swaps for the problem and will show the following: $$\label{eq:tree-swap}
\sum_{(D,A)\in \swap} \alpha(D,A)\cdot \left( \tree(F-D+A)-\tree(F)\right) \le (3+2/t)\cdot \tree(F^*) -
\tree(F)$$
Combined with the similar inequality in Theorem \[th:GT-swap\] (for $\med$) and using local optimality of $F$, we would obtain the main result of this section:
The $t$-swap local search algorithm for is a $\left(3+\frac2t\right)$-approximation.
It remains to prove , which we do in the rest of the section. Consider a graph $H$ which is the complete graph on vertices $V\bigcup\{r\}$ (for a new vertex $r$). If $E={V\choose 2}$ denotes the edges in the metric, $H$ has edges $E \bigcup \{(r,v) :\, v\in V\}$; the edges $\{(r,v) :\, v\in V\}$ are called [*root-edges*]{} and edges $E$ are [*true-edges*]{}. Let $M$ denote the [*spanning tree*]{} of $H$ consisting of edges $MST(V/F) \bigcup \{(r,v) :
v\in F\}$; similarly $M^*$ is the spanning tree $MST(V/F^*) \bigcup \{(r,v) : v\in F^*\}$. For ease of notation, for any subset $S{\subseteq}V$, when it is clear from context we will use $S$ to also denote the set $\{(r,v) : v\in S\}$ of root-edges. We start with the following exchange property (which holds more generally for any matroid), see Equation (42.15) in Schrijver [@Schr-book].
\[th:mat-exch\] Given two spanning trees $T_1$ and $T_2$ in a graph $H$ and a partition $\{T_1(i)\}_{i=1}^p$ of the edges of $T_1$, there exists a partition $\{T_2(i)\}_{i=1}^p$ of edges of $T_2$ such that $(T_2\setminus T_2(i)) \bigcup T_1(i)$ is a spanning tree in $H$ for each $i\in[p]$. (This also implies $|T_2(i)|=|T_1(i)|$ for all $i\in[p]$).
![The partitions used in local search proof (eg. has $k=8$ and $t=2$).\[fig:partn\]](partn.pdf)
We will apply Theorem \[th:mat-exch\] on trees $M^*$ and $M$. Throughout, $M^*$ and $M$ represent the corresponding edge-sets. Recall the partition $\f^*_0 := \{F^*_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ of $F^*$ from Theorem \[th:GT-swap\]; we refine $\f^*_0$ by splitting parts of size larger than $t$ into singletons, and let $\f^*$ denote the resulting partition (see Figure \[fig:partn\]). The reason behind splitting the large parts of $\{F^*_i\}_{i=1}^\ell$ is to ensure the following property (recall swaps from Theorem \[th:GT-swap\]).
\[cl:fstar-partn\] For each swap $(D,A)\in\swap$, $A{\subseteq}F^*$ appears as a part in $\f^*$. Moreover, for each part $A'$ in $\f^*$ there is some swap $(D',A')\in\swap$.
Consider the partition $\p^*$ of $M^*$ with parts $\f^*\bigcup \{e\}_{e\in M^*\setminus F^*}$, i.e. each true edge lies in a singleton part and the root edges form the partition $\f^*$ defined above. Let $\p$ denote the partition of $M$ obtained by applying Theorem \[th:mat-exch\] with partition $\p^*$ of $M^*$; note also that there is a [*pairing*]{} between parts of $\p$ and $\p^*$. Let $M'{\subseteq}M\cap E$ denote the true edges of $M$ that are paired with true edges of $M^*$; and $M''=(M\cap E) \setminus M'$ are the remaining true edges of $M$ (see also Figure \[fig:partn\]). We will bound the cost of $M'$ and $M''$ separately.
\[cl:kmf-m’\] $\sum_{e\in M'} d_e \le \sum_{h\in E\cap M^*} d_h$.
Fix any $e\in M'$. By the definition of $M'$ it follows that there is an $h\in E\cap M^*$ such that part $\{h\}$ in $\p^*$ is paired with part $\{e\}$ in $\p$. In particular, $M-e+h$ is a spanning tree in $H$. Note that the root edges in $M-e+h$ are exactly $F$, and so $M-e+h$ is a spanning tree in the original metric graph $(V,E)$ when we contract vertices $F$. Since $M=MST(V/F)$ is the minimum such tree, we have $d(M)-d_e+d_h\ge
d(M)$ or $d_e\le d_h$. Summing over all $e\in M'$ and observing that each edge $h\in E\cap M^*$ can be paired with at most one $e\in M'$, we obtain the claim.
Consider the connected components (in fact a forest) induced by true-edges of $M$: for each $f\in F$ let $C_f{\subseteq}V$ denote the vertices connected to $f$. Note that $\{C_f:f\in F\}$ partitions $V$.
Now consider the forest induced by true edges of $M^*$ (i.e. $E\cap M^*$) and direct each edge towards an $F^*$-vertex (note that each tree in this forest contains exactly one $F^*$-vertex). Observe that each vertex $v\in V\setminus F^*$ has exactly one out-edge $\sigma_v$, and $F^*$-vertices have none.
For each $f\in F$, define $T_f := \{\sigma_v : v\in C_f\}$ the set of out-edges from $C_f$.
\[cl:kmf-m\*\] $\sum_{f\in F} d(T_f) = d(E\cap M^*)$.
It is clear that $\{T_f\}_{f\in F}$ partitions $E\cap M^*$.
We are now ready to bound the increase in the $\tree$ cost under swaps . By Claim \[cl:fstar-partn\] it follows that for each swap $(D,A)\in \swap$, $A$ is a part in $\f^*$ (and so in $\p^*$); define $E_A$ as the true-edges of $M$ (possibly empty) that are paired with the part $A$ of $\p^*$.
\[cl:kmf-Ea\] $\{E_A : (D,A)\in \swap\}$ is a partition of $M''$.
Consider the partition $\p$ of $M$ given by Theorem \[th:mat-exch\] applied to $\p^*$. By definition, $M'{\subseteq}E\cap
M$ are the true edges of $M$ paired (by $\p$ and $\p^*$) with true edges of $M^*$; and $M''=(E\cap M)\setminus M'$ are paired with parts from $\f^*$ (i.e. root edges of $M^*$). For each part $\pi\in \f^*$ (and also $\p^*$) let $E(\pi){\subseteq}M''$ denote the $M''$-edges paired with $\pi$. It follows that $\{E(\pi) : \pi\in \f^*\}$ partitions $M''$. Using the second fact in Claim \[cl:fstar-partn\] and the definition $E_A$s, we have $\{E_A : (D,A)\in \swap\} = \{E(\pi) :
\pi\in \f^*\}$, a partition of $M''$.
We prove the following key lemma.
\[lem:kmf-main\] For each swap $(D,A)\in \swap$, $\tree(F-D+A)-\tree(F)\le 2\cdot \sum_{f\in D} d(T_f) - d(E_A)$.
By Claim \[cl:fstar-partn\], $A{\subseteq}F^*$ is a part in $\p^*$. Recall that $E_A$ denotes the true-edges of $M$ paired with $A$; let $F_A$ denote the root-edges of $M$ paired with $A$. Then using Theorem \[th:mat-exch\] it follows that $(M\setminus E_A \setminus F_A)\bigcup A$ is a spanning tree in $H$. Hence $S_A := (E\cap M) \setminus E_A$ is a forest with each component containing some vertex from $F\cup A$; for any $f\in F\cup A$ let $C'_f$ denote vertices in the component containing $f$. In other words, $S_A$ connects connects each vertex to some vertex of $F\cup A$.
Consider the edge set $S'_A := S_A \bigcup_{f\in D} T_f$. We will add some edges $N$ so that $S'_A\bigcup N$ connects each $D$-vertex to some vertex of $F-D+A$. Since $S_A$ already connects all vertices to $F\cup A$, it would follow that $S'_A\bigcup N$ connects all vertices to $F-D+A$, i.e. $$\tree(F+A-D)\le d(S'_A) + d(N) \le \tree(F) - d(E_A) +\sum_{f\in D} d(T_f)+ d(N).$$ To prove the lemma it now suffices to construct a set $N$ with $d(N)\le \sum_{f\in D} d(T_f)$, such that $S'_A\bigcup
N$ connects each $D$-vertex to $F-D+A$. Below, for any $V'{\subseteq}V$ we use $\delta(V')$ to denote the edges of $S'_A$ between $V'$ and $V\setminus V'$.
#### Constructing $N$
Consider any minimal $U{\subseteq}D$ such that $\delta\left(\bigcup_{f\in U} C'_f\right)=\emptyset$; recall that $C'$s are the connected components of $S_A{\subseteq}S'_A$. By minimality of $U$, it follows that $\bigcup_{f\in U} C'_f$ is connected in $S'_A$. We now prove two simple claims:
\[cl:tree-loc2\] For any $f^*\in F^*\setminus A$ we have $\eta(f^*)\not\in D$.
By construction of the swaps in Theorem \[th:GT-swap\].
\[cl:tree-loc3\] There exists $f^*\in F^* \bigcap \left(\bigcup_{f\in U} C'_f\right)$ and $f'\in U$ such that $\bigcup_{f\in U} T_f$ contains a path between $f'$ and $f^*$.
Let any $f'\in U$. Consider the directed path $P$ from $f'$ obtained by following [*out-edges $\sigma$*]{} until the [*first occurrence*]{} of a vertex $v\in F^*$ or $v\in V\setminus \left(\bigcup_{f\in U} C'_f\right)$. Since $F^*$-vertices are the only ones with no out-edge $\sigma$, and $\{\sigma_w : w\in V\}=E\cap M^*$ is acyclic, there must exist such a vertex $v\in F^* \bigcup \left( V\setminus \left(\bigcup_{f\in U} C'_f\right)\right)$. Observe that $C'_f{\subseteq}C_f$ for all $f\in D\supseteq U$; recall that $C$s (resp. $C'$s) are the connected components in $M$ (resp. $S_A{\subseteq}M$). So $P{\subseteq}\{\sigma_w : w\in \bigcup_{f\in U} C'_f\}{\subseteq}\{\sigma_w : w\in \bigcup_{f\in U} C_f\} = \bigcup_{f\in U} T_f$. Suppose that vertex $v\not\in F^*$, then $v\in V\setminus \left(\bigcup_{f\in U} C'_f\right)$ which implies $\delta\left(\bigcup_{f\in U} C'_f\right) \ne \emptyset$ since path $P{\subseteq}S'_A$ leaves $\bigcup_{f\in U} C'_f$. So we have $v\in F^* \bigcap \left(\bigcup_{f\in U} C'_f\right)$ and $P{\subseteq}\bigcup_{f\in U} T_f$ is a path from $f'$ to $v$.
Consider $f^*$ and $f'$ as given Claim \[cl:tree-loc3\]. If $f^*\in A$ then the component $\bigcup_{f\in U} C'_f$ of $S'_A$ is already connected to $F-D+A$. Otherwise by Claim \[cl:tree-loc2\] we have $\eta(f^*)\not\in D$; in this case we add edge $\left(f^*,\eta(f^*)\right)$ to $N$ which connects component $\bigcup_{f\in U} C'_f$ to $\eta(f^*)\in
F-D{\subseteq}F-D+A$. Now using Claim \[cl:tree-loc3\], $d\left(f^*,\eta(f^*)\right)\le d(f^*,f')\le \sum_{f\in U}
d(T_f)$.[^3] In either case, $U$ is connected to $F-D+A$ in $S'_A\bigcup N$, and cost of $N$ increases by at most $\sum_{f\in U}
d(T_f)$.
We apply the above argument to [*every minimal*]{} $U{\subseteq}D$ with $\delta\left(\bigcup_{f\in U} C'_f\right)=\emptyset$. The increase in cost of $N$ due to each such $U$ is at most $\sum_{f\in U} d(T_f)$. Since such minimal sets $U$s are disjoint, we have $d(N)\le \sum_{f\in D} d(T_f)$. Clearly $S'_A\bigcup N$ connects each $D$-vertex to $F-D+A$.
Using this lemma for each $(D,A)\in\swap$ weighted by $\alpha(D,A)$ (from Theorem \[th:GT-swap\]) and adding, $$\begin{aligned}
&& \sum_{(D,A)\in \swap} \alpha(D,A)\cdot \left[ \tree(F-D+A)-\tree(F) \right] \notag \\
&\le &2\cdot \sum_{(D,A)\in \swap} \alpha(D,A)\cdot \sum_{f\in D} d(T_f) - \sum_{(D,A)\in \swap} \alpha(D,A)\cdot d(E_A) \label{eq:kmf-ls1}\\
& = & 2\, \sum_{f\in F} \left( \sum_{(D,A)\in\swap : f\in D} \alpha(D,A) \right) \cdot d(T_f) - \sum_{e\in M''} \left(
\sum_{(D,A)\in\swap : e\in E_A} \alpha(D,A) \right)\cdot d_e \label{eq:kmf-ls2}\\
& \le & 2\left(1+\frac1t\right) \, \sum_{f\in F} d(T_f) - \sum_{e\in M''} d_e \label{eq:kmf-ls3}\\
&=& 2\left(1+\frac1t\right)\cdot d(E\cap M^*) - d(M'') \label{eq:kmf-ls4}\end{aligned}$$ Above is by Lemma \[lem:kmf-main\], is by interchanging summations using the fact that $E_A{\subseteq}M''$ (for all $(D,A)\in\swap$) from Claim \[cl:kmf-Ea\]. The first term in uses the property in Theorem \[th:GT-swap\] that each $f\in F$ is dropped (i.e. $f\in D$) to extent at most $1+\frac1t$; the second term uses the property in Theorem \[th:GT-swap\] that each $f^*\in F^*$ is added to extent one in and Claim \[cl:kmf-Ea\]. Finally is by Claim \[cl:kmf-m\*\].
Adding the inequality $0\le d(E\cap M^*) - d(M')$ from Claim \[cl:kmf-m’\] yields: $$\sum_{(D,A)\in \swap}
\alpha(D,A)\cdot \left[ \tree(F-D+A)-\tree(F) \right] \le \left(3+\frac2t\right)\cdot d(E\cap M^*) - d(E\cap
M),$$ since $M'$ and $M''$ partition the true edges $E\cap M$. Thus we obtain Inequality .
Non-uniform $k$ median forest {#sec:non-unif-kmf}
=============================
In this section we study the following extension of $k$ median forest. There is a set of vertices $V$ with weights $\{q_u\}_{u\in V}$, two metrics $d$ and $c$ defined on $V$, and a bound $k$. The goal is to find $S{\subseteq}V$ with $|S|=k$ minimizing $\sum_{u\in V} q_u\cdot d(u,S) \, + \, c\big(\,\mbox{MST}(V/S)\,\big)$. Here $\mbox{MST}(V/S)$ is a minimum spanning tree in the graph obtained by contracting $S$ to a single vertex under metric $c$. The difference from the problem is that the cost functions for the $k$-median and MST parts in the objective are different.
It is natural to consider the local search algorithm in this setting as well, since local search achieves good approximations for both $k$-median and MST. However the next lemma shows that the locality gap is unbounded even if we allow multiple swaps. The example is similar to the locality gap in [@KKNSS11].
The locality gap of non-uniform with multi-swaps is unbounded.
Fix values $M\gg w\gg 1$. Let $V=\left\{ u_{i,j} : i\in[k],\, j\in\{1,2\}\right\}$, so $|V|=2k$. Define vertex-weights as follows: $q(u_{k,2})=1$ and all other vertices have weight $w$. The metric $d$ for the $k$-median part is: $$d(x,y) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0 & \mbox{ if either }x=y \mbox{ or }\{x,y\} = \{u_{i,2},u_{i+1,1}\} \mbox{ for some }i\in [k-1]\\
1 & \mbox{ otherwise} \end{array}\right.$$ The second metric $c$ for the MST part of the objective is: $$c(x,y) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0 & \mbox{ if either }x=y \mbox{ or }\{x,y\} = \{u_{i,1},u_{i,2}\} \mbox{ for some }i\in [k]\\
M & \mbox{ otherwise} \end{array}\right.$$ Observe that for any $S{\subseteq}V$ with $|S|=k$, we have $c(MST(V/S))<M$ iff $|S\bigcap \{u_{i,1}, u_{i,2}\}|=1$ for all $i\in[k]$. So the non-uniform objective is smaller than $M$ only if $|S\bigcap \{u_{i,1}, u_{i,2}\}|=1,\, \forall
i\in[k]$.
We claim that the optimal value is at most one. Consider the solution $S^*=\{u_{i,1}\}_{i=1}^k$. It is clear that $c(MST(V/S^*))=0$. Moreover, $\sum_{u\in V} q(u)\cdot d(u,S^*) = 1$ with vertex $u_{k,2}$ being the only contributor.
We now claim that the solution $L=\{u_{i,2}\}_{i=1}^k$ is locally optimal under even $(k-1)$-swaps. First, observe that $c(MST(V/L))=0$ and $\sum_{u\in V} q(u)\cdot d(u,S^*) = w$ with vertex $u_{1,1}$ being the only contributor. So $L$ has objective value of $w$. Secondly, notice that every solution $S$ obtained by some $(k-1)$-swap of $L$ has either MST-objective of $M$ or median-objective of $w$. Thus $L$ is a local optimum and the locality gap is $w\gg 1$.
We remark that the near-optimality proof of local search in the previous section only requires the following consistency property between the two metrics: for any pair $e,f$ of edges $d_e\le d_f \implies c_e\le c_f$. In spite of the large locality gap, we show that non-uniform admits a constant factor approximation algorithm via an LP approach.
#### The algorithm.
We make use of the following natural LP relaxation for non-uniform . The variables $y_v$ denote the probability of locating a depot at $v$; $x_{uv}$ denotes the extent to which vertex $u$ is connected to a depot at $v$ (for the $k$-median part); and $z_e$ denotes the extent to which edge $e$ is used in the MST part of the objective. Also $E={V\choose 2}$ is the set of all edges in the metric. Define $H$ to be the complete graph on vertices $V\bigcup\{r\}$ (for a new vertex $r$) with edges $E \bigcup \{(r,v) :\, v\in V\}$. $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\mbox{minimize } \sum_{u \in V} q_u \cdot \sum_{v \in V} d(u,v) x_{uv} & + \sum_{e\in E} c_e\cdot z_e & &
\tag{$\mathsf{LP}$} \\
\mbox{subject to } \sum_{v \in V} x_{uv} &= 1 & \qquad & \forall \,
u \in V \label{eq:1} \\
x_{uv} &\leq y_{v} & \qquad & \forall \, u \in
V, v \in V \label{eq:2} \\
\sum_{v \in V} y_{v} &\leq k & \qquad & \label{eq:3}\\
(y,z) &\in \spp(H)& \qquad & \label{eq:4}\\
x_{uv}, y_{v}, z_e &\geq 0 & \qquad & \forall \, u, v \in V,\,\,\, \forall e\in E \label{eq:5}\end{aligned}$$ Above $\spp(H)$ denotes the spanning tree polytope of graph $H$, which admits a linear description in terms of its edge variables; see eg. [@Schr-book]. Also $(y,z) \in \spp(H)$ corresponds to the fractional spanning tree in $H$ with values $z_e$ on edges $e\in E$ and value $y_v$ on each edge $(r,v)$. It can be checked directly that this is a valid relaxation of non-uniform . Moreover this LP can be solved exactly in polynomial time to obtain solution $(x^*,y^*,z^*)$ using the Ellipsoid algorithm.
We now describe the rounding procedure. Let [${\mathcal{I}}$]{}denote the instance of and ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{LP_{med}}\xspace}}= \sum_{u \in V} \sum_{v \in V}
d(u,v) x^*_{uv}$ denote the median part of the optimal LP solution. Apply Stage I of the rounding algorithm in [@KKNSS11] to modify variables $x^*$ to $\overline{x}$ (here $y^*$ and $z^*$ remain unchanged), with the following properties:
Set $R{\subseteq}V$ of representatives with weights $w_u$ for each $u\in R$, which defines a new instance [${\mathcal{M}}$]{}of non-uniform (the weights of vertices in $V\setminus R$ are zero).
Any solution to the new instance [${\mathcal{M}}$]{}with objective $C$ is a solution to the original instance [${\mathcal{I}}$]{}having objective at most $C+4{\ensuremath{\mathsf{LP_{med}}\xspace}}$.
$(\overline{x},y^*,z^*)$ is feasible for ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{LP}\xspace}}({\ensuremath{{\mathcal{M}}}\xspace})$.
Disjoint collection of subsets $\{{{\mathcal{P}}}(u){\subseteq}V\}_{u\in R}$ with $\sum_{v \in {{\mathcal{P}}}(u)} y_{v}\ge \frac12$ for all $u\in R$.
Collection of pseudoroots $\{(a_i,b_i)\in {R\choose 2}\}_{i=1}^t$ with each representative in at most one pseudoroot.
Map $\sigma:R\rightarrow R$ where $\sigma(u)$ lies in a pseudoroot for each $u\in R$.
Each $u\in R$ is connected (under $\overline{x}$) only to ${{\mathcal{P}}}(u)\cup \{\sigma(u)\}$.
$\sum_{u\in R} \,\,w_u \cdot \left[ \sum_{v\in {{\mathcal{P}}}(u)} d_{u,v}\cdot \overline{x}_{u,v} \, + \, d_{u,\sigma(u)}\cdot
\left(1- \sum_{v\in {{\mathcal{P}}}(u)} \overline{x}_{u,v} \right) \right] \le 4\cdot {\ensuremath{\mathsf{LP_{med}}\xspace}}$.
Now apply the LP reformulation from Stage II in [@KKNSS11] to eliminate $x$-variables in [$\mathsf{LP}\xspace$]{}, using the above structure of $(\overline{x},y,z)$, and obtain:
$$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\mbox{minimize } \sum_{u\in R} \,\,w_u \cdot \bigg[ \sum_{v\in {{\mathcal{P}}}(u)} d_{u,v}\cdot y_v \, + \, d_{u,\sigma(u)}\cdot
& \left(1- \sum_{v\in {{\mathcal{P}}}(u)} y_v \right) \bigg] + & \sum_{e\in E} c_e\cdot z_e & \tag{$\mathsf{LP_{new}}$} \\
\mbox{subject to } \sum_{v \in {{\mathcal{P}}}(u)} y_{v} &\le 1 & \qquad & \forall \, u \in R \label{nlp:1} \\
\sum_{v \in {{\mathcal{P}}}(a_i)} y_{v} + \sum_{v \in {{\mathcal{P}}}(b_i)} y_{v} &\geq 1 & \qquad & \forall \, \mbox{pseudoroots} (a_i,b_i) \label{nlp:2} \\
\sum_{v \in V} y_{v} &\leq k & \qquad & \label{nlp:3}\\
(y,z) &\in \spp(H)& \qquad & \label{nlp:4}\\
y_{v}, z_e &\geq 0 & \qquad & \forall \, v \in V,\,\,\, \forall e\in E \label{nlp:5}\end{aligned}$$
Based on the above properties, it follows that $(y^*,z^*)$ is a feasible solution to $\mathsf{LP_{new}}$ with objective at most $4\cdot {\ensuremath{\mathsf{LP_{med}}\xspace}}+ c\cdot z^*$, i.e. at most four times the optimal value of ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{LP}\xspace}}({\ensuremath{{\mathcal{I}}}\xspace})$. The advantage of the new LP is:
Any basic feasible solution to $\mathsf{LP_{new}}$ is integral.
Let $(y,z)$ denote any basic feasible solution. The constraints from - define a laminar family on just $y$ variables. By a standard uncrossing argument, we can choose a maximum linearly independent set of tight rank constraints in to be a chain on $y,z$ variables. Thus a maximum linearly independent set of tight constraints in $\mathsf{LP_{new}}$ can be described as the intersection of two laminar families– this is always a totally unimodular matrix, and hence $(y,z)$ must be integral.
$\mathsf{LP_{new}}$ can be solved exactly in polynomial time to obtain an extreme point solution using the Ellipsoid algorithm and the approach in Jain [@J01]; by the above lemma this solution is integral. Finally using Lemma 3.3 in [@KKNSS11], any integral solution to $\mathsf{LP_{new}}$ of value $L$ is also a valid solution to the instance [${\mathcal{M}}$]{}of value at most $3\cdot L$. Altogether we obtain an integral solution $S^*$ to [${\mathcal{M}}$]{}of value at most 12 times the optimum of ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{LP}\xspace}}({\ensuremath{{\mathcal{I}}}\xspace})$. Combined with the relation between instances [${\mathcal{I}}$]{}and [${\mathcal{M}}$]{}, we have $S^*$ is a valid solution to [${\mathcal{I}}$]{}of objective at most 16 times the optimum of [${\mathcal{I}}$]{}, thereby proving Theorem \[th:gen-kmed-forest\].
Example comparing $k$-median, $k$-tree and {#app:example}
===========================================
We give an example which shows that near-optimal solutions to the $k$-median, $k$-tree and problems can be very far from each other. This implies that an approximation algorithm for must simultaneously take into account both the median and tree parts of its objective. (For eg. we cannot merely solve $k$-median and $k$-tree separately and take the better of those solutions.)
The underlying metric consists of six vertices $\{u_0,u_1,u_2\}\bigcup \{v_0,v_1,v_2\}$. Let $\ell$ be a parameter that will be set to be arbitrarily large. The distance between any $u_i$ and $v_j$ (for all $i,j\in\{0,1,2\}$) is infinite; $d(u_0,u_1)=d(u_0,u_2)=\ell^3$, $d(u_1,u_2)=\ell^2$; and $d(u_0,u_1)=d(u_0,u_2)=\ell^4$, $d(u_1,u_2)=\ell$. The weights of vertices are $q(u_1)=q(u_2)=q(v_1)=q(v_2)=\ell^4$ and $q(u_0)=q(v_0)=1$. The bound $k=4$ and parameter $\rho=\ell^2$ for the problem. Let $S_{med}$, $S_{tree}$ and $S_{kmf}$ denote solutions that are $o(\ell)$-approximately optimal for the $k$-median, $k$-tree and objectives respectively. We claim that $S_{med}$, $S_{tree}$ and $S_{kmf}$ are mutually disjoint.
It can be checked directly that the optimal $k$-median value is $\ell^3+\ell^4\le 2\,\ell^4$. Moreover the only solution of value $o(\ell^5)$ is $\{u_1,u_2,v_1,v_2\}$; so $S_{med}$ consists of just this solution.
The optimal $k$-tree value is $\ell+\ell^2\le 2\,\ell^2$. For any solution $F\in S_{tree}$ (i.e. having value $o(\ell^3)$), we must have $u_0,v_0\in F$, $|F\cap \{u_1,u_2\}|=1$ and $|F\cap \{v_1,v_2\}|=1$. So $S_{tree}$ consists of these 4 solutions.
For the objective it can be seen that the optimal value is $\rho\cdot \ell^3 + \ell^4\cdot \ell=2\,\ell^5$; from the solutions $\{u_1,u_2,v_0,v_1\}$ and $\{u_1,u_2,v_0,v_2\}$. Moreover, any other solution has value $\Omega(\ell^6)$; so $S_{kmf}$ consists of the above two solutions. Clearly $S_{med}$, $S_{tree}$ and $S_{kmf}$ are disjoint.
[^1]: Technical University of Denmark.
[^2]: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center.
[^3]: This is the only place in the proof where we use uniformity in the metrics for $k$-median and MST.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Functional soft materials, comprising colloidal and molecular building blocks that self-organize into complex structures as a result of their tunable interactions, enable a wide array of technological applications. Inverse methods provide systematic means for navigating their inherently high-dimensional design spaces to create materials with targeted properties. While multiple physically motivated inverse strategies have been successfully implemented *in silico*, their translation to guiding experimental materials discovery has thus far been limited to a handful of proof-of-concept studies. In this Perspective, we discuss recent advances in inverse methods for design of soft materials that address two challenges: (1) methodological limitations that prevent such approaches from satisfying design constraints and (2) computational challenges that limit the size and complexity of systems that can be addressed. Strategies that leverage machine learning have proven particularly effective, including methods to discover order parameters that characterize complex structural motifs and schemes to efficiently compute macroscopic properties from the underlying structure. We also highlight promising opportunities to improve the experimental realizability of materials designed computationally, including discovery of materials with functionality at multiple thermodynamic states, design of externally directed assembly protocols that are simple to implement in experiments, and strategies to improve the accuracy and computational efficiency of experimentally relevant models.'
author:
- 'Zachary M. Sherman'
- 'Michael P. Howard'
- 'Beth A. Lindquist'
- 'Ryan B. Jadrich'
- 'Thomas M. Truskett'
bibliography:
- 'References.bib'
title: Inverse methods for design of soft materials
---
Introduction
============
Soft materials with tailored properties have found application in a variety of technologies including waveguides in photonic circuits [@Bogaerts2002], collectors for energy harvesting devices,[@Nakayama2008] membranes for energy storage cells,[@Kanamura2005; @Darling2014] and tunable-rheology fluids in brake lines, artificial joints, and vibrational dampeners. [@Klingenberg2001] The use-inspired behaviors of these materials derive from the physicochemical properties of their constituent components as well as their internal spatial organization (i.e., structure). Because fabrication methods that enable top-down control of structure at the nanoscale can be prohibitively expensive and slow for industrial-scale manufacturing processes [@Girard2006], bottom-up strategies based on self-assembling materials have been explored as promising alternatives. [@Whitesides2002] Colloidal nanoparticles, polymers, and proteins can serve as powerful material building blocks for self-assembly because their mutual interactions, which help determine the favored equilibrium state of the system, can be systematically varied through, e.g., their size, shape, charge, composition/sequence, and surface functionalization [@Glotzer2007], providing a rich design space. A key challenge is to determine which building blocks reliably self-assemble a material with a targeted structure or desired macroscopic properties.
{width="\textwidth"}
*Forward* strategies for discovering new self-assembling materials are commonly adopted. In such approaches, an initial set of material building blocks is synthesized and protocols are chosen to promote their self-assembly in an experiment or a computer simulation. The structure and properties of the resulting material are subsequently characterized. These steps are then repeated (typically many times) with different choices for the building blocks or protocols to screen for materials with superior attributes. To make materials discovery more systematic and amenable to meeting specified design constraints, it can be helpful to instead formulate this process as an *inverse* problem (Fig. \[fig:design\]). For example, one can define a figure of merit (FOM) based on a desired structure or macroscopic property and then apply methods of constrained optimization to help navigate the multidimensional design space and determine which available building blocks, interactions, or protocols are most suitable for realizing a material.
Progress on statistical mechanical approaches to inverse problems for designing soft matter has been chronicled in recent reviews and perspective articles. Topics covered include the design of colloidal interactions to stabilize self-assembled target structures [@Torquato2009] (Fig. \[fig:design\]C $\to$ \[fig:design\]B) and the discovery of structures optimal for realizing desired macroscopic properties across a range of soft materials [@Jain2014] (Fig. \[fig:design\]D $\to$ \[fig:design\]C). Inverse methods have proven powerful for designing granular materials [@Jaeger2015; @Jaeger2016; @Murugan2019], block copolymer assemblies [@Jaeger2016; @Gadelrab2017; @Murugan2019], and bio-inspired materials [@Murugan2019]. Recent reviews [@Ferguson2018; @Jackson2019] have highlighted inverse techniques that leverage machine learning (ML) to effectively process the high-dimensional data obtained from computer simulations of materials to analyze and design their novel structural and dynamic properties. Inverse methods have also been widely applied in related fields including the design of molecules and chemical reactions[@SanchezLengeling2018; @GomezBombarelli2018; @Coley2019A; @Coley2019B].
In this Perspective, we explore recent advances in the use of inverse methods for computational soft-material design. We split the discussion into methods related to structure design in Section \[sec:structdesign\] and macroscopic property design in Section \[sec:propdesign\]. For structure design, a major challenge is discovering a FOM that can (1) discriminate between the target structure and its competitors and (2) encourage spontaneous assembly of the target. For property design, the FOM is often known in advance and related to the property of interest. The challenge is to find an efficient way to compute and optimize it. The latter can be carried out either directly by varying the possible building block interactions (Fig. \[fig:design\]D$\to$\[fig:design\]B) or in two stages by first discovering optimal structure (Fig. \[fig:design\]D$\to$\[fig:design\]C) and then using that information to determine optimal interactions (Fig. \[fig:design\]C$\to$\[fig:design\]B). Within each section, we compare inverse methods recently demonstrated to be successful for addressing these problems. Promising methods that utilize ML algorithms have been proposed for both structure and property design strategies, and we discuss how they may be effectively incorporated into inverse schemes. Despite the successes of *in silico* structure and property design, inverse techniques are not routinely used to design materials in experiments, [@Wilken2015; @Walsh2019; @Aharoni2018; @Man2013; @Miskin2013; @Miskin2014; @Auzinger2018; @Reid2019; @Hannon2013; @Hannon2013B; @Qin2013] and improving the experimental realizability of computational design remains an outstanding challenging. In Section \[sec:future\], we outline some promising future areas for which inverse strategies may be particularly effective and useful for directing experimental materials design.
Design for structure {#sec:structdesign}
====================
{width="\textwidth"}
To design interactions that promote self-assembly into a specific structure (Fig. \[fig:design\]C$\to$\[fig:design\]B), a target ensemble comprising the configuration data of the building blocks in the desired phase must be considered. Ideally, a single FOM can be constructed that is descriptive of the material’s high-dimensional configurations and can be used to favor the target structure over those of competing phases. FOMs can include thermodynamic quantities, statistical distances from information theory, and structural order parameters. In this section, we discuss strategies that have used these types of FOMs to successfully design interactions for self-assembly of model materials into various target structures. Some of these methods are depicted schematically in Fig. \[fig:methods\].
Thermodynamic descriptors {#subsec:thermoFOM}
-------------------------
One of the pioneering approaches in computational design of self-assembly was to determine interactions that maximize the potential energy difference between a target structure and its competitors while ensuring mechanical stability of the target, effectively sculpting the ground-state potential energy landscape [@Rechtsman2005; @Rechtsman2006; @Rechtsman2007B; @Torquato2009; @Marcotte2011; @Marcotte2011B; @Marcotte2013]. In this strategy, the target structure and a pool of possible competitors are selected, and then the optimization is performed over a set of design parameters ${{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}$ characterizing the interaction potential between assembling components. While there are few inherent constraints on the functional form of the interactions, most research to date using this approach has focused on isotropic, pairwise potentials. A forward calculation of the ground-state phase diagram of the model with the optimized interactions can reveal if the list of the competitors considered needs to be expanded and further optimizations performed.
Using this method, interactions that stabilize several two-dimensional (e.g., honeycomb and square [@Rechtsman2005; @Rechtsman2006; @Marcotte2011; @Marcotte2011B]) and three-dimensional (e.g. diamond [@Rechtsman2007B; @Marcotte2013]) crystalline phases have been discovered. Modifications to this approach have enabled the optimization of interactions to ensure target stability over a wide range of particle concentrations. [@Jain2013; @Jain2014B; @Pineros2016; @Pineros2016B; @Pineros2017] Finite-temperature effects can also be treated approximately by minimizing the Lindemann criterion quantifying fluctuations from the target structure.[@Torquato2009; @Rechtsman2005; @Rechtsman2006; @Rechtsman2007B] While these methods are straightforward to implement for the design of interactions that stabilize crystalline targets, it is not clear how to extend them to target specific types of local structuring in disordered states of matter. Ensuring the kinetic accessibility of the target structure via self-assembly (e.g., from a disordered fluid) is also an outstanding challenge for ground-state-based strategies.
Long and Ferguson recently developed a free-energy “landscape engineering” method (Fig. \[fig:methods\]A) that goes beyond potential-energy minimization. In this approach, the free energy of a desired structural motif is directly minimized relative to other possible emergent structures in a low-dimensional space of collective coordinates. Importantly, the collective coordinates, or “order parameters” (OPs), are machine-learned from the high-dimensional space of raw particle coordinates to maximize information retention. Diffusion maps[@Ferguson2010; @Long2014; @Chiavazzo2017; @Long2018] and autoencoders[@Chen2018C; @Chen2018D; @Ribeiro2018; @Sultan2018] have been shown to be particularly useful for this reduction, but in principle other ML techniques or physically informed OPs (Section \[sec:orderparameters\]) could be used. The free-energy landscape is computed in the low-dimensional OP space using enhanced sampling techniques [@Long2018; @Chiavazzo2017; @Chen2018C; @Chen2018D]. The free-energy differences between the target and its competitors are extracted from the landscape and used to update the design parameters in an iterative loop, depicted in Fig. \[fig:methods\]A. In contrast to potential-energy minimization methods, landscape engineering naturally incorporates temperature effects and automatically enumerates competitors from the free-energy landscape. Landscape engineering has been used to construct patchy colloids that self-assemble into targeted clusters [@Long2018] which in turn assemble into open crystals [@Ma2019], as seen in the snapshots in the right side of Fig. \[fig:methods\]A.
Constructing an entire free-energy landscape is difficult due to its computational costs, so landscape engineering has not yet been applied to more general target structures. However, even if the landscape cannot be computed, it can still be navigated and updated in simulations. Van Anders, Glotzer, and coworkers proposed a design approach using simulations in an “alchemical” (or “expanded”) ensemble (Fig. \[fig:methods\]B) [@vanAnders2015; @Geng2019]. Their work focused on a family of hard particles, the shapes of which are described by a set of variables, ${{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}$. For athermal particles, the free energy for a given shape is purely entropic with contributions from positions, $\mathbf{x}$, and orientations, $\mathbf{q}$. The particles were initially constrained to a target lattice using a tethering potential $E(\mathbf{x})$. Alchemical Monte Carlo simulations were performed in an ensemble where particles not only rotated and translated but also fluctuated in shape. The partition function $Z_{\rm AMC}$ of an ensemble of $N$ identical particles can be expressed as $$\label{eq:alchemical}
Z_{\rm AMC} = \int d\mathbf{x} \, d\mathbf{q}\, d{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}\, e^{-\beta [U(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{q} | {{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}) - N \boldsymbol{\mu}\cdot{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}+ E(\mathbf{x})]},$$ where $\boldsymbol{\mu}$ are alchemical potentials (conjugate to the shape parameters) and $U(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{q} | {{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}})$ is the interparticle potential.
Because $\boldsymbol{\mu}$ cannot be controlled in real systems, $\boldsymbol{\mu}$ was set to zero to avoid biasing the particle shape, and the external tethering potential was slowly reduced. If the crystal structure is stable in the limit $E\rightarrow 0$, the free energy (entropy) for the target lattice has been minimized (maximized) with respect to particle shape. As shown in Fig. \[fig:methods\]B, the particle shape can be additionally symmetrized to improve the thermodynamic stability of the target.[@Geng2019] Because the free energy, rather than a free energy difference, is the FOM, alchemical Monte Carlo does not explicitly consider competitors. This is computationally efficient because it avoids having to fully sample the free-energy landscape but does not ensure that competitors are disfavored and thus the target may only be metastable. Nonetheless, this method has been used successfully to optimize hard-particle shapes that assemble into many complex crystals (see, e.g., right side of Fig. \[fig:methods\]B).[@Geng2019] Alchemical methods are not limited to hard particles and ${{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}$ may include parameters characterizing other particle interactions [@Zhou2019].
Statistical distances
---------------------
Information theory provides quantities, so called “statistical distances”, that characterize differences between data samples. The Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence is one such quantity; [@Barber2012; @Chialvo2015] the KL divergence of a target distribution, $P_{\rm t}(\mathbf{x})$, with respect to a model probability distribution, $P(\mathbf{x} | {{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}})$, is defined as $$\label{eq:relent}
D_{\rm KL} (P_{\rm t}(\mathbf{x}) || P(\mathbf{x} | {{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}})) = \int d\mathbf{x} P_{\rm t}(\mathbf{x}) \ln\left[P_{\rm t}(\mathbf{x})/P(\mathbf{x}|{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}})\right].$$ In the case of equilibrium self-assembly, $P(\mathbf{x} | {{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}})$ is the Boltzmann weight of a configuration $\mathbf{x}$, and ${{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}$ are the parameters that characterize the potential energy function. By optimizing ${{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}$ so that $D_{\rm KL}$ is minimized, the structures self-assembled from the model system are made to resemble the target configurations. Minimization of $D_{\rm KL}$ is conceptually appealing and intuitive as a design objective because it is equivalent to maximizing the likelihood that the probabilistic model $P(\mathbf{x} | {{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}})$ will sample the configurations contained in the target ensemble. [@Jadrich2017]
While various computational approaches have been applied to minimize $D_{\rm KL}$, [@Shell2008; @Chaimovich2011; @Bilionis2013] updates to ${{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}$ consistent with a steepest-descent optimization are particularly simple to compute in the canonical ensemble when the interaction potential is pairwise and isotropic (denoted here as $u(r|{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}})$). In particular, the potential parameters used in a molecular simulation during the $(i+1)^{th}$ iteration of the minimization, ${{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}_{i+1}$, are determined from those used in the $i^{th}$ iteration, ${{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}_{i}$, as $$\label{eq:relentiter}
{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}_{i+1} = {{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}_i + \alpha \int d\mathbf{r} \, \Big( g(r | {{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}_i) - g_{\rm t}(r) \Big) \big[ \nabla_{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}u(r | {{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}) \big]_{{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}_i},$$ where $ g(r | {{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}_i)$ and $g_{\rm t}(r)$ are the radial distribution functions of the simulated model in the $i^{th}$ iteration and that of the target ensemble, respectively, and $\alpha$ is a tunable parameter that controls the magnitude of the update. This iterative update process is depicted schematically in Fig. \[fig:methods\]C. Unlike the thermodynamic-descriptor-based methods discussed in Sect. \[subsec:thermoFOM\], which are not guaranteed to result in self-assembly of the target in a forward simulation, Eq. \[eq:relentiter\] uses the structures measured from the self-assembly process as input to the parameter update at each optimization step. In this way, spontaneous assembly of the target structure is strongly promoted over its competitors by the interactions optimized using such “on-the-fly” methods. [^1]
The strategy described above has been used to design model isotropic pair potentials that self-assemble exotic structures (Fig. \[fig:methods\]C) including open lattices,[@Lindquist2016B; @Jadrich2017] Frank-Kasper phases[@Lindquist2018], multi-component crystals,[@Pineros2018] and colloidal strings.[@Banerjee2019]. Some desirable features of this approach include: (1) by manipulating the form of $u(r| {{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}})$, physically motivated interaction potentials can be discovered, [@Lindquist2016; @Lindquist2019] (2) by varying the ensemble in which the iterative simulations are performed, simultaneous control of structure and thermodynamic quantities, such as the pressure of the self-assembled system, can be achieved, [@Lindquist2019] and (3) the minimization can also be performed in Fourier space, which may be computationally convenient for some design problems. [@Adorf2018]
The Kullback-Leibler divergence is also termed the relative entropy. Its minimization has been used to parameterize molecular coarse-grained models, where many atoms might be represented as a single bead, that are intended to stand in for more computationally expensive all-atom target simulations. [@Noid2013; @Shell2008; @Chaimovich2011] In both design for self-assembly and coarse-graining, the goal is to discover the parameters for a probabilistic model that are most likely to reproduce a target data set, whether that data set comes from an all-atom simulation or a contrived set of configurations that display a desired structural motif. Given these similarities, it is perhaps not surprising that other techniques from the coarse-graining literature have found success in design for self-assembly applications as well. For example, iterative Boltzmann inversion, which utilizes a heuristic update scheme with the same stationary point as Eq. \[eq:relentiter\] for a pair potential that is infinitely flexible, has been used to discover isotropic pair interactions that self-assemble cluster fluids[@Jadrich2015] as well as mesoporous materials[@Lindquist2016; @Lindquist2017].
The relationship between coarse-graining and design for self-assembly problems suggests multiple avenues for future work on the latter. For example, coarse-graining has been performed with multi-body[@Sanyal2016; @Zhang2018B] and anisotropic[@Paramonov2008] interactions. These more complex models are compatible with the relative entropy framework described above. Because many interactions commonly used to assemble structures in experiments are many-body and/or anisotropic in nature, including those mediated by electric charges,[@Kalsin2006] electric and magnetic fields,[@Yethiraj2003; @Swan2012] surface tension,[@Yao2015; @Sharifi-Mood2015] nematic liquid crystals[@Smalyukh2018], and heterogeneous surfaces[@Chen2011; @Wang2012], embedding these features into the design space may allow for stronger coupling between computational and experimental materials assembly. Additionally, certain target structures may require very complex interactions (or may even be impossible) to assemble if the potential is restricted to isotropic and pairwise forms. Nonetheless, there may be a “simpler” many-body and/or anisotropic potential that will readily assemble the structure. For example, the formation of capsid-like structures would undoubtedly be difficult for particles with isotropic interactions, but patchy particles with relatively simple short-ranged interactions are known to self-assemble into them with high fidelity.[@Long2018].
Finally, other statistical distances can also serve as FOMs. For example, one drawback of relative entropy minimization is that $D_{\rm KL}$ is not readily amenable to optimizing singular interactions such as a hard core-potential. A hard core produces regions in configuration space of zero weight (i.e., $P(\mathbf{x}|{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}) = 0$) which leads to a divergent $D_{\rm KL}$ if $P_{\rm t}(\mathbf{x}) \ne 0$ for the same configurations. In such cases, the relevant gradients cannot be computed to minimize $D_{\rm KL}$. In contrast, the Bhattacharyya distance[@Chialvo2015] $$\label{eq:bhatta}
D_{\rm B}(P_{\rm t}(\mathbf{x}), P(\mathbf{x|{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}})) = -\ln\left[ \int {\rm d}\mathbf{x} \sqrt{P(\mathbf{x|{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}}) P_{\rm t}(\mathbf{x})} \right]$$ does not share this limitation and might be used as an alternative metric for inverse design of hard-particle systems.
Structural order parameters {#sec:orderparameters}
---------------------------
Many of the preceding descriptors are statistical mechanical quantities that must be computed on the basis of an ensemble of configurations. This limits their usefulness for systems where the relative statistical weights of configurations are not readily known (e.g., non-equilibrium systems). A more generically applicable strategy is to instead use a structural OP that serves as a low-resolution description of a high-dimensional configuration. When such OPs reliably distinguish between a target structure and its competitors,[@Keys2011B] they can be used to steer an iterative scheme using the OPs as the FOM, like in Figs. \[fig:transferlearning\]A–C. For example, Kumar *et al.* recently used the Steinhardt bond-order parameters based on spherical harmonics of local neighbor orientations[@Steinhardt1983; @Lechner2008] to design pair interactions for assembly of body-centered-cubic colloidal crystals [@Kumar2019]. However, OPs that are sufficiently discriminatory between target structures and competitors can be challenging to construct, particularly for complex structures like open lattices, crystals with large unit cells, and quasicrystals as well as cases where potential competitor structures are not known in advance. Machine learning offers possible solutions to automatically discover OPs from structural data for design.
Several supervised ML methodologies using neural networks have successfully classified input configurations according to a library of known structures.[@Geiger2013; @DeFever2019; @Fulford2019] The ML classifiers outperform classifications using traditional OPs based on local orientations,[@Steinhardt1983; @Lechner2008] angles,[@Chau1998; @Errington2001] and neighbor-graph topology[@Larsen2016] in discriminating complex crystal phases[@Geiger2013; @Fulford2019] and can be trained to identify interfacial structures.[@DeFever2019] If relevant structures are not known ahead of time or are difficult to produce, unsupervised ML methods leveraging clustering algorithms can categorize similar structures together.[@Phillips2013; @Spellings2018; @Adorf2019]
These methodologies primarily classify configurations into discrete categories, but continuous OPs are desirable for optimization. These OPs can be local, for example, computing a descriptor for each particle, or global, computing one value for an entire configuration. The spatial resolution of local descriptors makes them useful for characterizing interfaces; however, many conventional local order parameters (e.g., the Steinhardt parameters) are not constructed to accurately identify interfaces. Therefore, Reinhart and coworkers developed an unsupervised ML method, called neighborhood graph analysis [@Reinhardt2017A; @Reinhardt2017B; @Reinhardt2018], that uses diffusion maps to discern a few continuous OPs characterizing local structural motifs; their method efficiently discriminated between not only a variety of colloidal crystals but also their surfaces and defects. Neighborhood graph analysis has also been useful for understanding properties of grain boundaries.[@Snow2019]
Global OPs are useful to compute a single FOM to update parameters in an iterative design loop. One fruitful strategy for generating global OPs is to perform dimensionality reduction on a large data set of configurations and use the low-dimensional representation as an OP. While discovery of the OP requires multiple configurations, once defined, the OP can be computed on a per-configuration basis. Dimensionality reduction methods such as diffusion maps [@Ferguson2010; @Long2014; @Chiavazzo2017; @Long2018], autoencoders [@Chen2018C; @Chen2018D; @Ribeiro2018], and variational dynamics encoders [@Sultan2018] have been used to construct global OPs that are continuous and differentiable. The underlying principle of such dimensionality reduction approaches is to find an intermediate compressed representation that when uncompressed is as close to the input data as possible, as depicted in Fig. \[fig:transferlearning\]A. Such OPs have been leveraged for enhanced sampling of molecular dynamics trajectories directly in the low-dimensional OP space.[@Long2014; @Chiavazzo2017; @Long2018; @Chen2018C; @Chen2018D; @Ribeiro2018; @Sultan2018; @Yang2018B] Similarly, Jadrich *et al.* used sorted arrays of pairwise distances and orientations to obtain global OPs through principal component analysis (PCA). [@Jadrich2018A; @Jadrich2018B] The resulting OPs were able to detect a variety of phase transitions including freezing in hard disks/spheres, liquid-gas and compositional phase separation, nematic ordering in ellipses, and a non-equilibrium phase transition. A similar method utilized nonnegative matrix factorization to compute global OPs in a ternary lipid mixture.[@Lopez2019]
For structural design, the machine-learned OPs of a target can serve as a convenient, numerical design objective, as shown in Fig. \[fig:transferlearning\]B. The output OPs can be employed in an iterative scheme (Fig. \[fig:transferlearning\]C) whereby configurations are converted to OPs and parameters can be tuned to push the OPs towards the desired value. This may be especially useful to design complex structures for which good descriptors are lacking. However, it is not necessarily straightforward to perform such an optimization. Learning the OPs requires generating a large amount of data. This data must be representative of the structures likely to be sampled during design so that the OPs can discriminate between the target structure and competitors. For machine-learned OPs to be reliably ported into inverse schemes, it would be beneficial to have systematic methods for determining the minimimum amount of data required to learn sufficiently accurate OPs, where in the design space this data should be collected, and if the data can be acquired on-the-fly and/or recycled between designs using transfer learning. Similarly, automated ways to select the best FOM, ML strategy, and iterative scheme for a certain design problem would be useful for non-experts. Such methods have not been fully explored for structural design problems and remain an important area for future research.
Design for properties {#sec:propdesign}
=====================
Unlike the design of interactions for self-assembling a target structure, where determining a suitable FOM was challenging, there is an obvious choice for a FOM in property design—the property itself. Each iteration of the optimization involves computing the property from the underlying structure, i.e., evaluating the “structure–property relationship”. If the structure–property relationship is known or readily computed, material properties can be designed using a variety of optimization routines. For example, Miskin and Jaeger designed an unusual strain-stiffening granular material using an evolutionary optimization algorithm [@Miskin2013; @Miskin2014], while elastic networks with maximally negative Poisson ratios [@Reid2019] and targeted allosteric response [@Yan2017] have been designed using gradient-descent and simulated-annealing algorithms, respectively. Dynamic properties like diffusivity and viscosity can be optimized by similar techniques [@Goel2008; @Carmer2012; @Monroe2018].
More often though, material properties are complex functions of structure that can depend on dynamic or nonequilibrium behavior, and the structure–property relationship is prohibitively expensive to evaluate frequently. In this case, either (1) the iterative optimization algorithm must be significantly improved to reduce the total number of structure–property evaluations required for convergence or (2) the cost of computing the property must be reduced by evaluating the structure–property relationship approximately.
Iterative schemes
-----------------
Many techniques have been developed to improve optimization routines relevant for design of soft matter, and it is beyond the scope of this Perspective to comprehensively cover them. Inverse methods leveraging Bayesian optimization appear particularly promising and have been recently adapted for design of material properties.[@Yang2018B; @Ju2017; @Tran2019] In addition to navigating design spaces efficiently, these methods also provide estimates for uncertainties and sensitivities of solutions, which may be useful for finding and prioritizing degenerate solutions. For example, the solution that is least sensitive to perturbations in the design parameters of a model might be the best to fabricate in experiments, where deviations from the model are bound to occur.
We highlight one particular approach to improve the convergence of optimizations that is physically motivated and has been applied to property design of self-assembled materials. Jaeger, de Pablo, and coworkers proposed a statistical physics “design engine” [@Miskin2016], depicted in Fig. \[fig:methods\]D, $$\label{eq:designengine}
{{\frac{{\rm d} P(\mathbf{x}|{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}})}{{\rm d} t}}} = P(\mathbf{x}|{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}}) \left(f(\mathbf{x}) - {{\left\langle f(\mathbf{x}) \right\rangle}}_{P(\mathbf{x}|{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}})} \right),$$ that prescribes dynamics to the optimization with an artificial time $t$. Here, $f$ is an objective function of the configuration $\mathbf{x}$ and sets the design goal, and ${{\left\langle \cdot \right\rangle}}_P$ is an ensemble average over the probability distribution $P(\mathbf{x}|{{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}})$. The design engine leverages information about the entire probability distribution; configurations that contribute more to $f(\mathbf{x})$ than average increase their likeliness, while those that contribute less than average become more unfavorable. The form of Eq. \[eq:designengine\] enforces conservation of probability and ensures the probability distribution is normalized. The design engine converges more quickly than standard optimizers (like steepest descent or simulated annealing) for certain classes of problems. There is considerable flexibility in choosing $f$ so that various OPs or materials properties can be incorporated for either structure or property design. The design engine has been successfully applied to a sampling of inverse problems shown in the right side of Fig. \[fig:methods\]D, including colloidal crystallization,[@Kumar2019] polymer folding, self-assembly of block copolymers, and even nonequilibrium systems.[@Miskin2016] Other types of physically motivated iterative schemes may also be useful; for example, alchemical-ensemble methods have been suggested for property design. [@Zhou2019]
Machine learning for accelerated property design {#sec:structprop}
------------------------------------------------
ML has proven effective for reducing the cost of determining material properties (Fig. \[fig:transferlearning\]C–D). One ML strategy is to discover an easier-to-compute OP that serves as a proxy for difficult-to-compute properties. Support vector machines have been used to analyze the “softness” of glassy systems from their structural features [@Schoenholz2016; @Schoenholz2017; @Cubuk2017]. PCA of particle configurations has been used to find OPs for the mechanical properties of polycrystalline materials[@Paulson2017] and the effective diffusivity through membranes [@Cecen2014], and the OPs were then regressed to simulated material properties. More accurate predictions can be obtained by using supervised ML methods to learn the structure–property relationship directly. Neural networks were trained to predict the elastic modulus of a lattice model of a binary elastic composite from its configuration, outperforming linear regression of OPs from PCA.[@Yang2018] Neural networks similarly outperformed regression to predict the activity of antifreeze proteins from the structure and hydrogen-bonding dynamics of nearby water.[@Kozuch2018]
Learning these relationships can require large training sets, which are impractical to generate if the material property is difficult to compute in the first place. Transfer-learning strategies can be used to accelerate training. Yang, Agrawal, and coworkers trained a generative adversarial network (GAN) for heterogeneous, disordered two-dimensional optical materials.[@Yang2018B] The GAN was initially trained on a large data set of configurations that were easy to produce; this learning was leveraged to initialize a new network for computing optical adorption using a smaller, more expensive-to-produce training set of configuration–adsorption pairs (Fig. \[fig:transferlearning\]D). The transfer-learned structure–property network is more accurate than a network trained from scratch for a fixed number of iterations and training set size, or equivalently, requires smaller training sets and fewer iterations to achieve the same prediction accuracy. Transfer-learning may also be useful in cases where a design optimization pushes the target property outside the bounds of the training set so that retraining of the ML structure–property relationship is required, but such methods have yet to be fleshed out for materials design.
During training, generative ML methods learn a small set of OPs from which they are able to generate new configurations statistically indistinguishable from those in the training set. The generator from a GAN was recently used to perform inverse design directly in the OP space to find structures with high optical absorption (Fig. \[fig:transferlearning\]E).[@Yang2018B] Because OP space is much lower-dimensional than configuration space, it is easier to explore. Other ML approaches for dimensionality reduction can be used similarly for inverse design; for example, Guo, Ren, and coworkers designed density (spatial) distributions of heat-transfer materials with optimal thermal properties using the decoder from a pretrained autoencoder network to perform the optimization in OP space.[@Guo2017] Similarly, structural OPs discovered using the ML methods of Sec. \[sec:orderparameters\] can serve as the design space. Combining both ML OP design spaces and ML structure–property relationships in the same inverse cycle could provide even more efficient design schemes.
Multiobjective design
---------------------
The highlighted inverse methods are primarily intended for design of a single material property, but many applications require materials with multiple functionalities. For example, bulletproof vests should be lightweight and flexible yet highly energy-dissipative,[@Jaeger2015] while membranes used in flow batteries must be both mechanically strong and electrically conductive. [@Kanamura2005]. Methods that can efficiently address inverse problems with several design objectives will be useful for such state-of-the-art materials.
One possible strategy is to reduce these “multiobjective” design problems into a single objective that depends on multiple material properties. This idea was used to engineer several mechanical properties of a gallium-iron alloy [@Liu2015] and to design multifunctional optical ports.[@Hughes2018] However, there are many ways to incorporate several criteria into a single objective function, and the arbitrary choice has a large effect on the final solution.[@Liu2015; @Hughes2018] Such design problems may be better approached using algorithms developed for multiobjective optimization,[@Laumanns2002; @Marler2004] but this application has not been thoroughly explored for soft-materials design.
{width="90.00000%"}
Future directions {#sec:future}
=================
The methods summarized in this article have been remarkably successful for designing soft materials *in silico*. Inverse approaches have similarly been used to design materials in experiments,[@Wilken2015; @Walsh2019; @Aharoni2018; @Man2013; @Miskin2013; @Miskin2014; @Auzinger2018; @Reid2019; @Hannon2013; @Hannon2013B; @Qin2013] but these strategies have not taken advantage of the methods developed for *in silico* design. As a result, there are compelling future opportunities to address the translation of effective computational strategies for the discovery of new materials to the laboratory. These opportunities include the application of inverse approaches to find robust solutions subject to experimentally realistic design constraints (Sec. \[sec:multistate\]), the adaptation of design assembly protocols that are simple to implement in experiments (Sec. \[sec:externalfields\]), and the development of strategies to improve the accuracy and computational efficiency of experimentally relevant models (Sec. \[sec:experimentconnect\]).
Multistate design {#sec:multistate}
-----------------
Most inverse methods for structure design are intended for a single target structure at one thermodynamic state point (e.g., temperature and pressure). This is problematic in practice because processing and operating conditions are rarely constant over a material’s lifetime. Materials designed only for one state may have different structures and properties that are suboptimal or even unusable at other conditions. Alternatively, a material with a structural transition may be the design objective. For example, reconfigurable materials that change their structure in response to their conditions are useful for sensing applications[@Holtz1997; @Lee2000] and as responsive materials capable of controlled, on-the-fly modulation of properties.[@Klingenberg2001; @Ge2011] Methods allowing for design of multiple target structures and multiple state points can efficiently address these inverse problems.
The coarse-graining community has addressed a problem closely related to “multistate” design: developing an optimal coarse-grained representation from atomistic data sampled at different thermodynamic states.[@Mullinax2009; @Moore2014; @Sanyal2019; @Sharp2019] Such approaches could be leveraged for inverse schemes to find a single interaction potential that assembles different structures under different conditions. In principle, entire phase diagrams could be designed by tessellating state points with target structures and simultaneously designing for them. This approach could systematically find materials with exotic phase behavior like those that “inverse melt” upon cooling. [@Feeney2003] However, computational demands for this procedure may be intense, and a feasible solution that assembles all target structures may not exist. Investigation is needed to demonstrate the possibilities for and limitations of multistate design.
In addition to equilibrium thermodynamic considerations, reconfigurable materials require kinetic transitions from one structure to another. Particularly challenging are fluid–solid and solid–solid transitions, which have many kinetic barriers but are essential for controlled manipulation of material properties.[@Grzelczak2010; @Sherman2019] Objective functions that vary during the optimization may help find solutions with transitions specifically embedded. For example, an objective function that periodically switched between two states of reconfigurable circuits [@Kashtan2005] and of allosteric networks [@Hemery2015] found solutions prioritizing transitions between states. Murugan and Jaeger recently suggested applying this same “switching” strategy to self-assembling materials [@Murugan2019], and we agree that this is a potentially fruitful area for further study.
Engineering assembly protocols with external controls {#sec:externalfields}
-----------------------------------------------------
If interactions among building blocks can be controlled with an external stimulus, the stimulus may be used to facilitate self-assembly. Many such systems have been studied experimentally, including materials that respond to light, temperature, electric/magnetic field, and flow.[@Grzelczak2010] This approach for assembly is attractive because it is often easier to control and modulate the external processing conditions than it is to change the physicochemical properties of the building blocks.
If the interactions induced by the external stimuli can be represented with simple expressions, for example in terms of an equilibrium interparticle pair potential, they are amenable to design using inverse methods such as those in Sections \[sec:structdesign\] and \[sec:propdesign\]. Often though, these interactions are many-bodied (*e.g.* electrostatic), anisotropic (*e.g.* dipolar), and out-of-equilibrium (*e.g.* flow-induced). This complicates design of the parameters of externally induced interactions, but if robust methods for this inverse problem could be developed, the solutions may be easier to realize experimentally.
A particularly promising feature of induced interactions is the ability to vary them over time. For example, these approaches show promise for enhancing crystallization rates while reducing defects[@Tang2016; @Tang2017; @Swan2012; @Howard2018] as well as assembling structures not stable at equilibrium.[@Sherman2019] Processing conditions may offer greater design flexibility when complicated interactions discovered from inverse methods are challenging to realize experimentally.[@Lindquist2016B; @Jadrich2017; @Adorf2018] However, a systematic inverse approach is likely required to find these optimal protocols given the complexity of the design space.
Computational modeling for experimental materials design {#sec:experimentconnect}
--------------------------------------------------------
Though inverse design has been successful *in silico*, connecting these techniques with experiments to realize new materials remains a key challenge. Inverse methods can be applied directly to experiments [@Wilken2015], but this approach is ineffective when the experiments are slow, sensitive, or not amenable to automation. In these cases, computation can be leveraged to rapidly screen materials using inverse techniques, and computational predictions can be verified with experiments. This approach has been applied to find bottlebrush polymers with targeted morphologies [@Walsh2019], an optimal director field for a liquid crystal [@Aharoni2018], and disordered materials with targeted acoustic and photonic properties [@Batten2008; @Florescu2009; @Man2013]. The success of the combined computational–experimental approach hinges on (1) the availability of fast and accurate computational models and (2) the ability to constrain the design to experimentally controllable, feasible parameters. The design of block copolymers has given particularly successful demonstrations of this [@Hannon2013; @Hannon2013B; @Qin2013; @Khaira2014; @Jaeger2016; @Paradiso2016; @Khadikar2017], where well-established techniques such as self-consistent field theory can be coupled to inverse schemes.
For other classes of soft materials, reliable models that can access the appropriate length and time scale for assembly may not exist or may be challenging to connect to experiments. Detailed models, where the designable parameters are usually clearer, are often too computationally demanding to use in inverse schemes, while models with effective interactions may not be readily mapped onto experiments. Implementing coarse-graining techniques within inverse frameworks may help bridge this disconnect. One such strategy is to define the design space in terms of experimentally controllable parameters of a detailed model, including parameter constraints. Systematic coarse-graining can then be used to map these parameters to a simpler model for simulating assembly. For example, for the current value of the design parameters, a fully atomic simulation may be used to compute the effective pair potential between two colloidal particles. The coarse-grained potential can then be used to simulate assembly of a much larger system of many particles. The design parameters would then be updated directly and the process iterated. Such an integrated coarse-graining–inverse scheme has not yet been demonstrated but is potentially powerful for connecting computation and experiments to design new materials.
Conclusion
==========
Inverse approaches suggest systematic means for designing soft materials with complex target structures and desired macroscopic properties. In this Perspective, we reviewed the methodological and computational challenges associated with various design problems in soft matter and the strategies developed to address them. Methods for assembling target structures focus mainly on determining an optimal FOM that is descriptive of the target and preferentially encourages its assembly. Metrics based on thermodynamic energies, statistical distance measures, and structural OPs have all been implemented as FOMs to design interactions that successfully self-assemble a variety of phases with complex structures. These methods may further benefit from ML strategies to automatically discover structural FOMs. For design problems of materials with target properties, the FOM is typically more obvious (i.e., the property itself), so effective strategies focus on developing efficient strategies for determining the relevant structure–property relationships. Since such relations are often computationally demanding to compute, they may benefit from ML strategies to accelerate property evaluation. The advances presented here expand the scope of application for computational design of soft materials and open up promising new opportunities, including the synthesis of reconfigurable materials with multiple functionalities, the engineering of nonequilibrium assembly protocols, and the strengthening of connections between computational and experimental approaches to material discovery.
MPH acknowledges support from the Center for Materials for Water and Energy Systems, an Energy Frontier Research Center funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences under Award \#DE-SC0019272. BAL acknowledges support from the Darleane Christian Hoffman Distinguished Postdoctoral Fellowship at Los Alamos National Laboratory. TMT acknowledges support of the Robert A. Welch Foundation (Grant No. F-1696).
Data Availability {#data-availability .unnumbered}
=================
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.
[^1]: In practice, this necessitates that at each optimization step the system is started from a disordered state and not configurations from the previous step.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we introduce the notion of infinity branches as well as approaching curves. We present some properties which allow us to obtain an algorithm that compares the behavior of two implicitly defined algebraic plane curves at the infinity. As an important result, we prove that if two plane algebraic curves have the same asymptotic behavior, the Hausdorff distance between them is finite.'
author:
- |
Angel Blasco and Sonia Pérez-Díaz\
Departamento de Física y Matemáticas\
Universidad de Alcalá\
E-28871 Madrid, Spain\
[email protected], [email protected]
title: Asymptotic Behavior of an Implicit Algebraic Plane Curve
---
[**Keywords:**]{} Implicit Algebraic Plane Curve; Infinity Branches; Convergent Branches; Asymptotic Behavior; Approaching Curves
Introduction
============
Unirational algebraic varieties, play an important role in the frame of practical applications (see [@HSW] and [@HL97]). In particular, many authors have studied different problems related to plane algebraic curves that are defined implicitly (see e.g. [@SWP] and [@Walker]). In this paper, we deal with the notion of infinity branches which is a very important tool to analyze the behavior of an implicitly defined algebraic plane curve at the infinity. For instance, determining the infinity branches of an implicit real algebraic plane curve is an important step in sketching its graph as well as in studying its topology (see e.g. [@Gao], [@lalo], [@Hong] and [@Zeng]).
Intuitively speaking, the infinity branch of a real plane algebraic curve reflects the status of a curve at the points with sufficiently large coordinates. An infinity branch is associated to a projective place centered at an infinity point, and it can be [*parametrized*]{} by means of Puiseux series. We show how to obtain this parametrization.
The concept of infinity branch allows us to introduce the notion of convergent branches and approaching curves. Intuitively speaking, two infinity branches converge if they get closer as they tend to infinity. This notion allows us to analyze whether two given implicit algebraic plane curves approach each other at the infinity.
More precisely, we say that a curve $\overline{\cal C}$ [*approaches*]{} ${\cal C}$ at its infinity branch $B$ if the distance between $\overline{\cal C}$ and $B$ approaches zero as they tend to infinity. We provide some results that characterize whether two plane algebraic curves are approaching.
Using these results, we present a method to compare the asymptotic behavior of two curves (i.e. the behavior of two curves at the infinity). In particular, we prove that if two plane algebraic curves have the same [*asymptotic behavior*]{}, the Hausdorff distance between them is finite. As a consequence of the results obtained in this paper, in [@paper2], we present an algorithm for computing all the [*generalized asymptotes*]{} of a real plane algebraic curve $\cal C$ defined implicitly. The algorithm is based on the notion of perfect curve that, intuitively speaking, defines a curve of degree $d$ that cannot be approached by any curve of degree less than $d$.
The structure of the paper is as follows: In Section 2, we present the terminology that will be used throughout this paper as well as some previous results. In Section 3, the notion of [*infinity branch*]{} is introduced and some important properties are proved. In Section 4, we provide the notions of [*convergent branches*]{} and [*approaching curves*]{}. In addition, we develop some results that characterize whether two plane algebraic curves approach each other. The results presented in this section will be used in Section 5, where an algorithm to compare the asymptotic behavior of two algebraic plane curves is developed. In addition, we prove that if two plane curves have the same asymptotic behavior, the Hausdorff distance between them is finite.
Preliminaries and Terminology
=============================
In this section, we present some notions and terminology that will be used throughout the paper. In particular, we need some previous results concerning local parametrizations and Puiseux series. For further details see [@Duval89], Section 2.5 in [@SWP], [@Stad00], and Chapter 4 (Section 2) in [@Walker].
We denote by ${\Bbb C}[[t]]$ the domain of [*formal power series*]{} in the indeterminate $t$ with coefficients in the field ${\Bbb C}$, i.e. the set of all sums of the form $\sum_{i=0}^\infty a_it^i$, $a_i \in {\Bbb C}$. The quotient field of ${\Bbb C}[[t]]$ is called the field of [*formal Laurent series*]{}, and it is denoted by ${\Bbb C}((t))$. It is well known that every non-zero formal Laurent series $A \in {\Bbb C}((t))$ can be written in the form $A(t) = t^k\cdot(a_0+a_1t+a_2t^2+\cdots), {\rm\ where\ }
a_0\not= 0 {\rm\ and\ } k\in \Bbb Z.$ In addition, the field ${{\Bbb C}\ll t\gg}:= \bigcup_{n=1}^\infty {\Bbb C}((t^{1/n}))$ is called the field of [*formal Puiseux series*]{}. Note that Puiseux series are power series with fractional exponents. In addition, every Puiseux series, $\varphi$, has a bound for the denominators of exponents with non-vanishing coefficients, which is known as [*the ramification index*]{} of the series. We denote it as $\nu(\varphi)$ (see [@Duval89]).
The [*order*]{} of a non-zero (Puiseux or Laurent) series $A$ is the smallest exponent of a term with non-vanishing coefficient in $A$. We denote it by $\ord(A)$. We let the order of 0 be $\infty$.
In the following, we introduce the notion of projective local parametrization for a projective plane curve (see Definition 2.69, and Lemma 2.70 in [@SWP]).
Let ${\cal C}^* \subset {\Bbb P}^2({\Bbb C})$ be a projective plane curve defined by the homogeneous polynomial $F(x,y,z) \in {\Bbb R}[x,y,z]$. Let $A^*,B^*,C^*$ be series in ${\Bbb C}((t))$ such that: (i) $F(A^*(t):B^*(t):C^*(t))=0$ (where the three series converge), and (ii) there is no $D \in {\Bbb C}((t))\setminus \{0\}$ such that $D\cdot(A^*,B^*,C^*) \in {\Bbb C}^3$. Then ${\cal P^*}=(A^*:B^*:C^*) \in {\Bbb P}^2({\Bbb C}((t))\,)$ is called a [*projective local parametrization*]{} of $\cal C^*$. In addition, one can always find such a parametrization having $\min\{\ord(A^*),\ord(B^*),\ord(C^*)\}=0$, and the point ${\cal P^*}(0)\in
\cal C^*$ is called the [*center*]{} of $\cal P^*$.
For an affine plane curve, the above notion can be stated as follows:
Let ${\cal C}$ be a real plane algebraic curve over ${\Bbb C}$ defined implicitly by the irreducible polynomial $f(x,y) \in {\Bbb R}[x,y]$. Let $A,B$ be series in ${\Bbb C}((t))$ such that: (i) $f(A(t),B(t))=0$ (where both series converge), and (ii) not both, $A$ and $B$, are constants. Then ${\cal P}=(A,B)$ is called an [*(affine) local parametrization*]{} of $\cal C$. Moreover, if $\ord(A),\ord(B)\geq 0$, the point ${\cal P}(0)=(a,b)\in {\cal C}$ is called the [*center*]{} of $\cal P$.
In the following, we deal with affine curves. The results and notions presented can be adapted for projective curves in an obvious way.
Two local parametrizations, ${\cal P}_1$ and ${\cal P}_2$, of an algebraic plane curve $\cal C$ are called [*equivalent*]{} if there exists $R\in {\Bbb C}[[t]]$, with $\ord(R)=1$, such that ${\cal P}_1 ={\cal
P}_2(R)$. It can be proved that this equivalence of local parametrizations is actually an equivalence relation.
If a local parametrization ${\cal P}$, or one equivalent, satisfies that ${\cal P}(t) = {\cal P}'(t^k)$ for some parametrization ${\cal P}'$ and for some natural number $k>1$, then ${\cal P}$ is said to be [*reducible*]{}. Otherwise, ${\cal P}(t)$ is said to be [*irreducible*]{}. Under these conditions, we introduce the notion of [*place*]{} as follows.
An equivalence class of irreducible local parametrizations of the algebraic plane curve $\cal C$ is called a [*place*]{} of $\cal C$. The common center of the local parametrizations (if it exists) is the [*center*]{} of the place.
In the following definition, we introduce the notion of [*branch*]{} of a plane curve.
Given a local parametrization $(X,Y)$ of a plane curve $\cal C$, the set of all points $(X(t),Y(t))$ obtained by allowing $t$ to vary within some neighborhood of $0$ where $X(t)$ and $Y(t)$ converge is called a [*branch*]{} of $\cal C$.
It can be shown that two equivalent local parametrizations provide the same branch. Therefore, one obtains a branch for each place of a given algebraic plane curve.
One may prove that the center of a local parametrization of $\cal C$ is a point on $\cal C$. Conversely, from the following theorems, we also obtain that every point on $\cal C$ is the center of at least one place of $\cal C$ (see Theorems 2.77 and 2.78 in [@SWP]).
\[T-Puiseux\] [**(Puiseux’s Theorem)**]{} The field $K\ll x\gg$ is algebraically closed.
A proof of Puiseux’s Theorem can be given constructively by the Newton Polygon Method (see e.g. Section 2.5 in [@SWP]). This method solves the construction of solutions of non-constant univariate polynomial equations over $K\ll x\gg$.
\[T-puiseux-place\] Let $\cal C$ be a plane curve defined by $f(x,y)\in {\Bbb R}[x,y]$. To each root $Y(x) \in {\Bbb C}\ll x\gg$ of $f(x,y)=0$ with $\ord(Y)>0$ there corresponds a unique place of $\cal C$ with center at the origin. Conversely, to each place $(X(t),Y(t))$ of $\cal C$ with center at the origin there correspond $\ord(X)$ roots of $f(x,y)=0$, each of order greater than zero.
If $Y(x)$ is a Puiseux series solving $f(x,y)=0$, $\ord(Y)>0$, and $n$ is the least integer for which $Y(x) \in {\Bbb C}((x^{1\over
n}))$ (i.e., $\nu(Y)=n$), then we set $x^{1\over n}=t$, and $(t^n, Y(t^n))$ is a local parametrization with center at the origin. The solutions of $f(x,y)$ of order 0 correspond to places with center on the $y$-axis but different from the origin, and the solutions of negative order correspond to places at infinity (places with center at an infinity point).
Note that several different Puiseux series may correspond to equivalent local parametrizations, and then these series provide a unique place. More precisely, let $Y(x)=\sum_{i\geq r}a_ix^{i/n}$ be a Puiseux series with ramification index $\nu(Y)=n$. The series $\sigma_{\epsilon}(Y)$, $\epsilon^n=1$, are called the [*conjugates*]{} of $Y$, where $$\sigma_{\epsilon}(Y)=\sum_{i\geq r}\epsilon^ia_ix^{i/n}.$$ The set of all (distinct) conjugates of $Y$ is called the [*conjugacy class*]{} of $Y$. The number of different conjugates of $Y$ is $\nu(Y)$. Two Puiseux series provide the same place if they belong to the same conjugacy class (see [@Duval89] and [@verger]).
Infinity Branches {#sec-Infinity branches}
=================
In this section, we introduce the notion of [*infinity branch*]{} (see Definition \[D-infinitybranch\]), and we obtain some properties concerning to these algebraic entities.
For this purpose, we consider an algebraic affine plane curve $\cal C$ over $\mathbb{C}$, defined implicitly by the irreducible polynomial $f(x,y) \in {\Bbb R}[x,y]$. Let ${\cal C}^*$ be its corresponding projective curve defined by the homogeneous polynomial $F(x,y,z) \in {\Bbb R}[x,y,z]$. Furthermore, let $P=(1:m:0),\,m\in {\Bbb C},$ be an infinity point of ${\cal C}^*$, and we consider the curve defined implicitly by the polynomial $g(y,z)=F(1:y:z)$. Observe that $g(p)=0,$ where $p=(m,0)$.
By applying Theorem \[T-Puiseux\], we compute the series expansion for the solutions of $g(y,z)=0$. There exist exactly $\deg_{Y}(g)$ solutions given by different Puiseux series that can be grouped into conjugacy classes. Let one of these solutions be given by the following Puiseux series: $$\varphi(z)=m+a_1z^{N_1/N}+a_2z^{N_2/N}+a_3z^{N_3/N} +
\cdots\in{\Bbb C}\ll z\gg,\quad a_i\not=0,\, \forall i\in {\Bbb
N},$$ where $\nu(\varphi)=N\in {\Bbb
N}$, $N_i\in {\Bbb N},\,\,i=1,\ldots$, and $0<N_1<N_2<\cdots$. We have that $g(\varphi(z), z)=0$ in some neighborhood of $z=0$ where $\varphi(z)$ converges. Then, there exists some $M \in {\Bbb R}^+$ such that $$F(1:\varphi(t):t)=g(\varphi(t), t)=0,\quad \mbox{for\, $t\in {\Bbb C}$\, and
$|t|<M$},$$ which implies that $F(t^{-1}:t^{-1}\varphi(t):1)=f(t^{-1},t^{-1}\varphi(t))=0$, for $t\in {\Bbb C}$ and $0<|t|<M$. We set $t^{-1}=z$, and we obtain that $$f(z,r(z))=0,\quad \mbox{$z\in {\Bbb C}$\, and
$|z|>M^{-1}$,\qquad where}$$ $$r(z)=z\varphi(z^{-1})=mz+a_1z^{1-N_1/N}+a_2z^{1-N_2/N}+a_3z^{1-N_3/N} + \cdots,\quad a_i\not=0,\, \forall i\in {\Bbb N}$$ $N,N_i\in {\Bbb N},\,\,i=1,\ldots$, and $0<N_1<N_2<\cdots$.
Since $\nu(\varphi)=N$, we get that there are $N$ different series in its conjugacy class. Let $\varphi_1,\ldots,\varphi_N$ be these series, and $$\label{Eq-conjugates}r_i(z)=z\varphi_i(z^{-1})=mz+a_1c_i^{N_1}z^{1-N_1/N}+a_2c_i^{N_2}z^{1-N_2/N}+a_3c_i^{N_3}z^{1-N_3/N}
+ \cdots$$ where $c_1,\ldots,c_N$ are the $N$ complex roots of $x^N=1$. Now we are ready to introduce the notion of infinity branch.
\[D-infinitybranch\] The set $\displaystyle B=\bigcup_{i=1}^NL_i$ where $$L_i=\{(z,r_i(z))\in {\Bbb
C}^2: \,z\in {\Bbb C},\,|z|>M_i\}$$ is called an [*infinity branch*]{} of the affine plane curve $\cal C$. The subsets $L_1,\ldots,L_N$ are called the [*leaves*]{} of the infinity branch $B$.
1. We observe that an infinity branch is uniquely determined from one leaf, up to conjugation. That is, if $\displaystyle B=\bigcup_{i=1}^NL_i$, where $L_i=\{(z,r_i(z))\in
{\Bbb C}^2: \,z\in {\Bbb C},\,|z|>M_i\}$, and $$r_i(z)=z\varphi_i(z^{-1})=mz+a_1z^{1-N_1/N}+a_2z^{1-N_2/N}+a_3z^{1-N_3/N} + \cdots$$ then $r_j=r_i,\,j=1,\ldots,N$, up to conjugation; i.e. $$r_j(z)=z\varphi_j(z^{-1})=mz+a_1c_j^{N_1}z^{1-N_1/N}+a_2c_j^{N_2}z^{1-N_2/N}+a_3c_j^{N_3}z^{1-N_3/N}
+ \cdots$$ where $c_j^N=1,\,\,j=1,\ldots,N$, and $N,N_i\in\mathbb{N}$.
2. Let $M:=\max\{M_1,\ldots,M_N\}$. In the following, we consider $L_i=\{(z,r_i(z))\in {\Bbb
C}^2: \,z\in {\Bbb C},\,|z|>M\}$.
Let $\varphi(z)=m+a_1z^{N_1/N}+a_2z^{N_2/N}+a_3z^{N_3/N} + \cdots$ be a series expansion for a solution of $g(y,z)=0$. We consider $\psi(t):=\varphi(t^N),$ and we observe that $(1:\psi(t):t^N)$ is a local projective parametrization, with center at $P$, of the projective curve ${\cal C}^*$.
Thus, from $\psi_i(t):=\varphi_i(t^N),\,\,i=1,\ldots,N$ ($\varphi_i$ are the $N$ different series in the conjugacy class of $\varphi$), we obtain $N$ equivalent local projective parametrizations, $(1:\psi_i(t):t^N)$ (note that they are equivalent since $\varphi_1,\ldots\varphi_N$ belong to the same conjugacy class). Therefore, the leaves of $B$ are all associated to a unique infinity place.
Conversely, from a given infinity place defined by a local projective parametrization $(1:\psi(t):t^N)$ (see Theorem 2.5.3 in [@SWP]), we obtain $N$ Puiseux series, $\varphi_j(t)=\psi(c_j{t}^{1/N})$, $c_j^N=1$, that provide different expressions $r_j(z)=z\varphi_j(z^{-1}),\,j=1,\ldots,N$. Hence, the infinity branch $B$ is defined by the leaves $L_j=\{(z,r_j(z))\in
{\Bbb C}^2: \,z\in {\Bbb C},\,|z|>M\},\,\,j=1,\ldots,N.$
From the above discussion, we deduce that there exists a one-to-one relation between infinity places and infinity branches. In addition, we can say that each infinity branch is associated to a unique infinity point given by the center of the corresponding infinity place. Reciprocally, taking into account the above construction, we get that every infinity point has associated, at least, one infinity branch. Hence, every algebraic plane curve has, at least, one infinity branch. Furthermore, every algebraic plane curve has a finite number of branches.
Observe that the above construction can be applied to any infinity point of the form $(a:b:0),\,a\not=0$. In the following, we assume that $a=0$; that is, we take the infinity point $P=(0:1:0)$. In this case, we consider the curve defined implicitly by the polynomial $h(x,z)=F(x:1:z)$. Observe that $h(p)=0,$ where $p=(0,0)$. In this situation, we get that there exists $M \in {\Bbb R}^+$ such that $$F(\varphi(t):1:t)=h(\varphi(t), t)=0,\quad \mbox{for\, $t\in {\Bbb C}$\, and
$|t|<M$,\,\,\quad where}$$ $$\varphi(z)=a_1z^{N_1/N}+a_2z^{N_2/N}+a_3z^{N_3/N} + \cdots\in{\Bbb C}\ll z\gg,\quad a_i\not=0,\, \forall i\in {\Bbb N}$$ $N,N_i\in {\Bbb N},\,\,i=1,\ldots$, and $0<N_1<N_2<\cdots$, is a series expansion for a solution of $h(x,z)=0$. We set $z=t^{-1}$, and we get that $$f(r(z),z)=0,\quad \mbox{$z\in {\Bbb C}$\, and
$|z|>M^{-1}$,\qquad where}$$ $$r(z)=z\varphi(z^{-1})=a_1z^{1-N_1/N}+a_2z^{1-N_2/N}+a_3z^{1-N_3/N} + \cdots,\quad a_i\not=0,\, \forall i\in {\Bbb N}$$ $N,N_i\in {\Bbb N},\,\,i=1,\ldots$, and $0<N_1<N_2<\cdots$.
Thus, we obtain an infinity branch $\displaystyle
B=\bigcup_{i=1}^NL_i$ whose leaves have the form: $$L_i=\{(r_i(z),z)\in {\Bbb
C}^2: \,z\in {\Bbb C},\,|z|>M\}.$$ Observe that we may apply this construction to any infinity point of the form $(a:b:0),\,b\not=0$.
These two approaches lead us to consider two types of infinity branches.
Let ${\cal C}$ be an affine plane curve over ${\Bbb C}$ defined by an irreducible polynomial $f(x,y) \in {\Bbb R}[x,y]$.
- An [*infinity branch of ${\cal C}$ of type 1*]{} associated to the infinity point $P=(1:m:0),\,m\in {\Bbb C}$, is a set $\displaystyle
B=\bigcup_{i=1}^NL_i$, where $L_i=\{(z,r_i(z))\in {\Bbb C}^2: \,z\in
{\Bbb C},\,|z|>M\}$, $i=1,\ldots,N$, $M\in {\Bbb R}^+$, and $r_1,\ldots,r_N$ are the conjugates of $$r(z)=mz+a_1z^{1-N_1/N}+a_2z^{1-N_2/N}+a_3z^{1-N_3/N} + \cdots,\quad a_i\not=0,\, \forall i\in {\Bbb N}$$ $N,N_i\in {\Bbb N},\,\,i=1,\ldots$, and $0<N_1<N_2<\cdots$.
- An [*infinity branch of ${\cal C}$ of type 2*]{} associated to the infinity point $P=(m:1:0),\,m\in {\Bbb C}$, is a set $\displaystyle
B=\bigcup_{i=1}^NL_i$, where $L_i=\{(r_i(z),z)\in {\Bbb C}^2: \,z\in
{\Bbb C},\,|z|>M\}$, $i=1,\ldots,N$, $M\in {\Bbb R}^+$, and $r_1,\ldots,r_N$ are the conjugates of $$r(z)=mz+a_1z^{1-N_1/N}+a_2z^{1-N_2/N}+a_3z^{1-N_3/N} + \cdots,\quad a_i\not=0,\, \forall i\in {\Bbb N}$$ $N,N_i\in {\Bbb N},\,\,i=1,\ldots$, and $0<N_1<N_2<\cdots$.
1. In the following, we assume w.l.o.g that the given algebraic plane curve $\cal C$ only has type 1 infinity branches; that is, all the infinity points are of the form $(1:m:0)$, $m\in {\Bbb C}$. Otherwise, we may consider a linear change of coordinates.
2. By abuse of notation, we will say that $N$ is [*the ramification index*]{} of the branch $B$, and we will write it as $\nu(B)=N$. Note that $B$ has $\nu(B)$ leaves.
In the following example, we compute the infinity branches for a given plane curve.
\[Ej-ramas infinitas\] Let ${\cal C}$ be the plane curve defined implicitly by the irreducible polynomial $$f(x,y)=y^5-4y^4x+4y^3x^2+2y^2x-y^2x^2+2yx^2+2yx^3+x+x^2\in {\Bbb R}[x,y].$$ The corresponding projective curve ${\cal C}^*$ is defined by $F(x:y:z)=$ $$y^5-4y^4x+4y^3x^2+2y^2z^2x-zy^2x^2+2z^2yx^2+2yzx^3+z^4x+z^3x^2\in {\Bbb R}[x,y,z].$$ Note that $P=(1:0:0)$ is an infinity point of ${\cal C}^*$. Let us compute the infinity branches associated to $P$. For this purpose, we consider the curve defined implicitly by the polynomial $g(y,z)=F(1:y:z)$, and we observe that $g(p)=0,$ where $p=(0,0)$.
We compute the series expansion for the solutions of $g(y,z)=0$. For this purpose, we use for instance the [algcurves]{} package included in the computer algebra system [Maple]{}. We get that: $$\varphi_1(z)=-1/2z^2+1/8z^4-1/8z^5+1/16z^6+1/16z^7+\cdots\in{\Bbb C}\ll z\gg,\quad \mbox{and}$$ $$\varphi_2(z)=\frac{-(-2z)^{1/2}}{2}-\frac{z}{8} +\frac{27}{256} (-2 z)^{3/2}-\frac{7}{32} z^2+\frac{4057}{65536} (-2 z)^{5/2}+\cdots\in{\Bbb C}\ll z\gg.$$
That is, $g(\varphi_j(z), z)=0,\,j =1,2$ (see e.g. Section 2.5 in [@SWP]). Note that $\nu(\varphi_1)=1$, which implies that we only have one Puiseux series in the conjugacy class of $\varphi_1$. However, $\nu(\varphi_2)=2$ and then, we have the following conjugate Puiseux series in the conjugacy class of $\varphi_2$: $$\varphi_{2,1}(z)=\frac{-(-2z)^{1/2}}{2}-\frac{z}{8} +\frac{27}{256} (-2 z)^{3/2}-\frac{7}{32} z^2+\frac{4057}{65536} (-2
z)^{5/2}+\cdots$$ $$\varphi_{2,2}(z)=\frac{+(-2z)^{1/2}}{2}-\frac{z}{8} -\frac{27}{256} (-2 z)^{3/2}-\frac{7}{32} z^2-\frac{4057}{65536} (-2
z)^{5/2}+\cdots$$ Thus, we obtain two infinity branches: $$B_1=L_1=\{(z,r_1(z))\in {\Bbb C}^2: \,z\in {\Bbb C},\,|z|>M\},\qquad \mbox{where}$$ $$r_1(z)=z\varphi_1(z^{-1})=-1/(2z)+1/(8z^3)-1/(8z^4)+1/(16z^5)+1/(16z^6)+\cdots$$ and $B_2=L_{2,1}\cup L_{2,2}$, where $L_{2,i}=\{(z,r_{2,i}(z))\in {\Bbb C}^2:
\,z\in {\Bbb C},\,|z|>M\}$, $i=1,2$ and $$r_{2,1}(z)=z\varphi_{2,1}(z^{-1})=-\frac{(-2z)^{1/2}}{2}-\frac{1}{8}+\frac{ 27(-2z)^{-1/2}}{64}-\frac{7z^{-1}}{32}+\frac{ 4057(-2z)^{-3/2}}{4096}+\cdots.$$ $$r_{2,2}(z)=z\varphi_{2,2}(z^{-1})=+\frac{(-2z)^{1/2}}{2}-\frac{1}{8}-\frac{ 27(-2z)^{-1/2}}{64}-\frac{7z^{-1}}{32}-\frac{
4057(-2z)^{-3/2}}{4096}+\cdots.$$
In Figure \[F-ramas infinitas2\], we plot the curve ${\cal C}$ and some points of the infinity branches $B_1$ and $B_2$ associated to $P$.
$$\begin{array}{cc}
\psfig{figure=Ejemplo1a.eps,width=4.5cm,height=4.5cm,angle=270} &
\psfig{figure=Ejemplo1b.eps,width=4.5cm,height=4.5cm,angle=270}
\end{array}$$
In the following, we prove that any point of the curve with sufficiently large coordinates belongs to some infinity branch. For this purpose, we recall the reader that if $h$ is a complex-valued function of a complex variable, $h: {\Bbb C} \rightarrow {\Bbb C}$, we say that the limit of $h(z)$ as $z$ approaches $\infty$ is $L$, written $\displaystyle\lim_{z\rightarrow\infty}h(z)=L$, if whenever $\{z_n\}_{n\in {\Bbb N}}$ is a sequence of points with $\displaystyle\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} z_n =\infty$, it holds that $\displaystyle\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}h(z_n)=L$ (see e.g. [@Ahlfors] or [@conway]).
\[L-BolaMaxima\] Let $\cal C$ be an algebraic plane curve. There exists $K\in\mathbb{R}^+$ such that for every $p=(a,b)\in\mathcal{C}$ with $|a|>K$, it holds that $p\in B_p$, where $B_p$ is an infinity branch of ${\cal C}$.
**Proof:** Let us assume that the lemma does not hold, and we consider a sequence $\{K_n\}_{n\in {\Bbb N}}\subset \mathbb{R}^+$ such that $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}K_n=\infty$. Then, for every $n\in {\Bbb N}$ there exists a point $p_n=(a_n,b_n)\in\mathcal{C}$ such that $|a_n|>K_n$, and $p_n$ does not belong to any infinity branch of $\cal C$.
Let $P_n=(a_n:b_n:1)$. Since $F(P_n)=f(p_n)=0$, then $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}F(P_n)=0$. Thus, we distinguish two different cases:
1. If there exists a monotone subsequence $\{b_{n_l}/a_{n_l}\}_{l\in {\Bbb N}}$ that is not bounded, we have that $\lim_{l\rightarrow\infty}b_{n_l}/a_{n_l}=\infty$, and then $\lim_{l\rightarrow\infty}a_{n_l}/b_{n_l}=0$. Hence, $$\lim_{l\rightarrow\infty}F(Q_{n_l})=F(0:1:0)=0,\qquad Q_{n_l}=(a_{n_l}/b_{n_l}:1:1/b_{n_l})$$ which implies that $P=(0:1:0)$ is an infinity point of ${\cal C}^*$.
2. If there exists a monotone subsequence $\{b_{n_l}/a_{n_l}\}_{l\in {\Bbb N}}$ that is bounded, we have that $\lim_{l\rightarrow\infty}b_{n_l}/a_{n_l}=m$. Thus, $$\lim_{l\rightarrow\infty}F(Q_{n_l})=F(1:m:0)=0,\qquad Q_{n_l}=(1:b_{n_l}/a_{n_l}:1/a_{n_l})$$ which implies that $P=(1:m:0)$ is an infinity point of ${\cal C}^*$.
From both situations, we conclude that there exist a sequence $\{Q_n\}_{n\in {\Bbb N}}$ that approaches to an infinity point $P$ as $n$ tends to infinity; that is, there exists $M\in {\Bbb R}^+$ such that $\|Q_n-P\|\leq \epsilon$, for $n\geq M$. Thus, we deduce that $\{Q_n\}_{n\in {\Bbb
N},\,n\geq M}$ can be obtained by a place centered at $P$. Hence, $p_n$ belongs to some infinity branch of ${\cal C}$, which contradicts the hypothesis. $\Box$
\[R-BolaMaxima\] Reasoning similarly as in Lemma \[L-BolaMaxima\], one has that there exists $K\in\mathbb{R}^+$ such that for every $p=(a,b)\in\mathcal{C}$ with $|b|>K$, it holds that $p\in B_p$, where $B_p$ is an infinity branch of ${\cal C}$.
Convergent Branches and\
Approaching Curves
========================
In this section, we introduce the notions of convergent branches and approaching curves. Intuitively speaking, two infinity branches converge if they get closer as they tend to infinity. This concept will allow us to analyze whether two curves approach each other at the infinity.
The results presented in this section will be used in Section 5, where a method to compare the asymptotic behavior of two curves is developed.
Given two leaves, $L=\{(z,r(z))\in
{\Bbb C}^2:\,z\in {\Bbb C},\,|z|>M\}$ and $\overline{L}=\{(z,\overline{r}(z))\in {\Bbb C}^2:\,z\in {\Bbb
C},\,|z|>\overline{M}\}$, we say that they are convergent if $\lim_{z\rightarrow\infty} (\overline{r}(z)-r(z))=0.$
\[L-DistVertical\] Two leaves $L=\{(z,r(z))\in {\Bbb C}^2:\,z\in {\Bbb C},\,|z|>M\}$ and $\overline{L}=\{(z,\overline{r}(z))\in {\Bbb C}^2:\,z\in {\Bbb
C},\,|z|>\overline{M}\}$ are convergent if and only if the terms with non negative exponent in the series $r(z)$ and $\overline{r}(z)$ are the same.
**Proof:** Let $$r(z)=mz+a_1z^{\frac{N-N_1}{N}}+a_2z^{\frac{N-N_2}{N}}+\cdots ,\,\, N, N_i\in {\Bbb N},\, 0<N_1<N_2<\cdots,\, \, a_i\not=0$$ and $$\overline{r}(z)=\overline{m}z+b_1z^{\frac{\overline{N}-\overline{N}_1}{\overline{N}}}+b_2z^{\frac{\overline{N}-\overline{N}_2}{\overline{N}}}
+\cdots,\,\, \overline{N}, \overline{N}_i\in {\Bbb N},\,
0<\overline{N}_1<\overline{N}_2<\cdots,\,\,b_i\not=0.$$ Then, $$r(z)-\overline{r}(z)=mz-\overline{m}z+a_1z^{\frac{N-N_1}{N}}-b_1z^{\frac{\overline{N}-\overline{N}_1}{\overline{N}}}
+a_2z^{\frac{N-N_2}{N}}-b_2z^{\frac{\overline{N}-\overline{N}_2}{\overline{N}}}+\cdots.$$ Note that $\lim_{z\rightarrow\infty}(r(z)-\overline{r}(z))=0$ if and only if $r(z)-\overline{r}(z)$ has no terms with non negative exponent. This situation holds if the terms with non negative exponent in both series, $r(z)$ and $\overline{r}(z)$, are the same. $\Box$
\[R-DistVertical\]
1. From Lemma \[L-DistVertical\], we deduce that $m=\overline{m}$ and then, $L$ and $\overline{L}$ are associated to the same infinity point.
2. Note that the number of terms with positive exponent in both series is finite.
\[D-distance0\] Two infinity branches, $B$ and $\overline{B}$, are convergent if there exist two convergent leaves $L\subset B$ and $\overline{L}\subset
\overline{B}$.
\[R-common-inf-point\] From Remark \[R-DistVertical\], statement 1, we get that two convergent infinity branches are associated to the same infinity point.
\[P-convergent-branches\] Two infinity branches $B$ and $\overline{B}$ are convergent if and only if for each leaf $L\subset B$ there exists a leaf $\overline{L}\subset
\overline{B}$ convergent with $L$, and reciprocally.
**Proof:** Let $B$ and $\overline{B}$ be two convergent infinity branches, and let us prove that for any $L_i\subset B$ there exists $\overline{L}_j\subset \overline{B}$ convergent with $L_i$ (using Definition \[D-distance0\], we clearly have the reciprocal). From Definition \[D-distance0\], there exist two leaves $L=\{(z,r(z))\in {\Bbb C}^2:\,z\in {\Bbb
C},\,|z|>M\}\subset B$, and $\overline{L}=\{(z,\overline{r}(z))\in
{\Bbb C}^2:\,z\in {\Bbb C},\,|z|>\overline{M}\}\subset \overline{B}$ convergent. Let $$r(z)=z\varphi(z^{-1})=mz+u_1z^{1-\frac{N_1}{N}}+\cdots+u_kz^{1-\frac{N_k}{N}}+u_{k+1}z^{1-\frac{N_{k+1}}{N}}+\cdots,\, \, u_i\not=0,$$ $$\overline{r}(z)=z\overline{\varphi}(z^{-1})=mz+\overline{u}_1z^{1-\frac{\overline{N}_1}{\overline{N}}}
+\cdots+\overline{u}_kz^{1-\frac{\overline{N}_k}{\overline{N}}}
+\overline{u}_{k+1}z^{1-\frac{\overline{N}_{k+1}}{\overline{N}}}+\cdots,\,
\, \overline{u}_i\not=0,$$ where $\nu(B)=N$, $\nu(\overline{B})=\overline{N}$, $N_k\leq N<N_{k+1}$ and $\overline{N}_k\leq \overline{N}<\overline{N}_{k+1}$.
From Lemma \[L-DistVertical\], we deduce that the terms with non negative exponent in $r$ and $\overline{r}$ must coincide. Thus, $u_l=\overline{u}_l=a_l$, for $l=1,\ldots,k$, and $$r(z)=mz+a_1z^{1-\frac{n_1}{n}}+\cdots+a_kz^{1-\frac{n_k}{n}}+u_{k+1}z^{1-\frac{N_{k+1}}{N}}+\cdots,\, \, a_i,u_i\not=0$$ $$\overline{r}(z)=mz+a_1z^{1-\frac{n_1}{n}}+\cdots+a_kz^{1-\frac{n_k}{n}}+\overline{u}_{k+1}z^{1-\frac{\overline{N}_{k+1}}{\overline{N}}}
+\cdots,\, \, a_i,\overline{u}_i\not=0,$$ where $n, n_i\in {\Bbb
N},\, 0<n_1<\cdots<n_k<n$, $N_{k+1}>N$,$\overline{N}_{k+1}>\overline{N}$. Observe that we have simplified the non negative exponents such that $\gcd(n,n_1,\ldots,n_k)=1$. That is, for $l=1,\ldots,k$, there are $b,\overline{b}\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $N_l=bn_l$, $N=bn$, $\overline{N}_l=\overline{b}n_l$, and $\overline{N}=\overline{b}n$.
Under these conditions, we observe that the different leaves of $B$ and $\overline{B}$ are obtained by conjugation on $r(z)$ and $\overline{r}(z)$. That is (see equation (\[Eq-conjugates\])), $$r_i(z)=mz+u_1c_i^{N_1}z^{1-\frac{N_1}{N}}+\cdots+u_kc_i^{N_k}z^{1-\frac{N_k}{N}}+u_{k+1}c_i^{N_{k+1}}z^{1-\frac{N_{k+1}}{N}}+\cdots$$ $$\overline{r}_j(z)=mz+\overline{u}_1d_j^{\overline{N}_1}z^{1-\frac{\overline{N}_1}{\overline{N}}}+\cdots+
\overline{u}_kd_j^{\overline{N}_k}z^{1-\frac{\overline{N}_k}{\overline{N}}}
+\overline{u}_{k+1}d_j^{\overline{N}_{k+1}}z^{1-\frac{\overline{N}_{k+1}}{\overline{N}}}+\cdots,$$ where $c_1,\ldots,c_{N}$ are the $N$ complex roots of $x^{N}=1$, and $d_1,\ldots,d_{\overline{N}}$ are the $\overline{N}$ complex roots of $x^{\overline{N}}=1$.
We simplify the exponents and, using that $u_l=\overline{u}_l=a_l,\,
l=1,\ldots,k$, we get that: $$r_i(z)=mz+a_1c_i^{N_1}z^{1-\frac{n_1}{n}}+\cdots+a_kc_i^{N_k}z^{1-\frac{n_k}{n}}+u_{k+1}c_i^{N_{k+1}}z^{1-\frac{N_{k+1}}{N}}+\cdots$$ $$\overline{r}_j(z)=mz+a_1d_j^{\overline{N}_1}z^{1-\frac{n_1}{n}}+\cdots+a_kd_j^{\overline{N}_k}z^{1-\frac{n_k}{n}}
+\overline{u}_{k+1}d_j^{\overline{N}_{k+1}}z^{1-\frac{\overline{N}_{k+1}}{\overline{N}}}+\cdots.$$
Hence, we only have to show that for each $i\in\{1,\ldots,N\}$ there exists $j\in\{1,\ldots,\overline{N}\}$ such that $c_i^{N_l}=d_j^{\overline{N}_l}$ for every $l=1,\ldots,k$. Indeed: since $c_i,\,i=1,\ldots,N$ are the $N$ complex roots of $x^{N}=1$, we have that $c_i=e^{\frac{2(i-1)\pi I}{N}}$, where $I$ is the imaginary unit. Taking into account that $N=bn$, we deduce that $c_i^b=e^{\frac{2(i-1)\pi I}{n}}$,$i=1,\ldots,N$, and $c_i^b=c_{i+(m-1)n}^b$ for each $i=1,\ldots,n$, and $m=1,\ldots,b$. That is, $(c_i^{b})^n=1$,$i=1,\ldots,n$. Reasoning similarly, we have that $d_j^{\overline{b}}=e^{\frac{2(j-1)\pi
I}{n}}$,$j=1,\ldots,\overline{N}$, and $d_j^{\overline{b}}=d_{j+(m-1)n}^{\overline{b}}$ for each $j=1,\ldots,n$, and $m=1,\ldots,\overline{b}$. That is, $(d_j^{\overline{b}})^n=1$,$j=1,\ldots,n$. Therefore, $c_i^b=d_{i+(m-1)n}^{\overline{b}}$,$m=1,\ldots,\overline{b}$, and using that $N_l=bn_l$ and $\overline{N}_l=\overline{b}n_l$,$l=1,\ldots,k$, it follows that $c_i^{N_l}=d_{j}^{\overline{N}_l}$,$j=i+(m-1)n,\,m=1,\ldots,\overline{b}$. $\Box$
Two convergent infinity branches may have different ramification indexes i.e., they may have different number of leaves. However, the value $n\in\mathbb{N}$ obtained by simplifying the non negative exponents, is the same in both branches. We refer to it the [*degree of the infinity branch*]{}. Observe that the proof of Proposition \[P-convergent-branches\] implies that two convergent infinity branches have the same degree.\
In order to illustrate this remark, we consider the curves ${\cal C}$ and $\overline{{\cal C}}$, defined by the polynomials $f(x,y)=y^4-2xy^2+x^2-y$, and $\overline{f}(x,y)=y^2-x$, respectively. ${\cal C}$ has only the infinity branch $B=\bigcup_{i=1}^4 L_i$, where $L_i=\{(z,r_i(z))\in {\Bbb C}^2:
\,z\in {\Bbb C},\,|z|>M\}$, $$r_i(z)=c_i^{2}
z^{1/2}+\frac{1}{2}c_i^{5}z^{-1/4}-\frac{1}{64}c_i^{11}z^{-7/4}+\frac{1}{128}c_i^{14}z^{-10/4}+\cdots,$$ and $c_1=1$, $c_2=I$, $c_3=-1$, $c_4=-I$. Note that the first term of these series is $z^{1/2}$ or $-z^{1/2}$. The curve $\overline{{\cal C}}$ also has one infinity branch defined by $\overline{B}=\bigcup_{i=1}^2 \overline{L}_i$, where $\overline{L}_i=\{(z,\overline{r}_i(z))\in {\Bbb C}^2: \,z\in {\Bbb
C},\,|z|>\overline{M}\}$, $\overline{r}_i(z)=d_i z^{1/2},$ and $d_1=1$, $d_2=-1$. We get that $B$ and $\overline{B}$, are convergent since $L_1$ and $\overline{L}_1$ converge. In fact, $L_1$ and $L_3$ converge with $\overline{L}_1$ and, on the other hand, $L_2$ and $L_4$ converge with $\overline{L}_2$ (see Lemma \[L-DistVertical\]).
Two convergent infinity branches may be contained in the same curve or they may belong to different curves. In this second case we will say that those curves [*approach each other*]{}. In order to define this concept in a more formal way, we first introduce the following distance:
\[D-distance\] Given an algebraic plane curve ${\cal C}$ over $\Bbb C$ and a point $p\in {\Bbb
C}^2$, we define [*the distance from $p$ to ${\cal C}$*]{} as $ d(p,{\cal C})=\min\{d(p,q):q\in{\cal C}\}.$
Observe that this minimum exists because ${\cal C}$ is a closed set.
\[D-distance1\] Let ${\cal C} $ be an algebraic plane curve over ${\Bbb C}$ with an infinity branch $B$. We say that a curve ${\overline{{\cal C}}}$ [*approaches*]{} ${\cal C}$ at its infinity branch $B$ if there exists one leaf $L=\{(z,r(z))\in {\Bbb C}^2:\,z\in {\Bbb
C},\,|z|>M\}\subset B$ such that $\lim_{z\rightarrow\infty}d((z,r(z)),\overline{\cal C})=0.$
We will show that this condition is satisfied for one leaf of $B$ if and only if it is satisfied for every leaf of $B$. It will be derived as a consequence of the following theorem.
\[T-curvas-aprox\] Let ${\cal C}$ be a plane algebraic curve over $\Bbb C$ with an infinity branch $B$. A plane algebraic curve ${\overline{{\cal C}}}$ approaches ${\cal C}$ at $B$ if and only if ${\overline{{\cal C}}}$ has an infinity branch, $\overline{B}$, such that $B$ and $\overline{B}$ are convergent.
**Proof:** Suppose that ${\overline{{\cal C}}}$ approaches ${\cal C}$ at $B$. Then, there exists a leaf $L=\{(z,r(z))\in {\Bbb C}^2:\,z\in {\Bbb C},\,|z|>M\}\subset B$ such that $\lim_{z\rightarrow\infty}d((z,r(z)),\overline{\cal C})=0.$ In addition, let $P=(1:m:0)$ be the infinity point associated to $B$, and let $\{z_n\}_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ be a sequence in ${\Bbb C}$ such that $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} z_n= \infty$. We have that $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}d((z_n,r(z_n)),\overline{\cal C})=0$ which implies that $$\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}d((z_n,r(z_n)),(p_n,q_n))=0,$$ where, for each $z_n$ such that $|z_n|>M$, $(p_n,q_n)$ is the point of ${\overline{{\cal C}}}$ closest to the point $(z_n,r(z_n))$ (this point exists because of Definition \[D-distance\]). Note that the above equality implies that $$\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}|p_n-z_n|^2+|q_n-r(z_n)|^2=0,$$ and hence we have that:
- $\displaystyle\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}(p_n-z_n)=0$. Then, $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} p_n/z_n=1$ which implies that $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} p_n=\infty$. Hence, $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}1/p_n=0.$
- $\displaystyle\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}(q_n-r(z_n))=0$. Then, $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}(q_n/z_n-r(z_n)/z_n)=0$ which implies that $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} q_n/z_n =\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} r(z_n)/z_n =m.$
Therefore, $$\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} q_n/p_n =\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} \frac{q_n/z_n}{p_n/z_n} =m.$$ Now, taking into account Lemma \[L-BolaMaxima\] and that $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} p_n=\infty$, we get that there exits $n_0\in {\Bbb N}$ such that for $n\geq n_0$, the points $(p_n,q_n)$ are in some infinity branch of ${\overline{{\cal C}}}$. Moreover, since any curve has a finite number of infinity branches and a finite number of leaves, we can find a subsequence $\{z_{n_l}\}_{l\in {\Bbb N}}$ and $l_0\in {\Bbb N}$ such that for $l\geq l_0$, the points $(p_{n_l},q_{n_l})$ are all in a same leaf $\overline{L}=\{(z,\overline{r}(z))\in {\Bbb C}^2:\,z\in {\Bbb
C},\,|z|>\overline{M}\}$, belonging to some branch $\overline{B}\subset{\overline{{\cal C}}}$.
Under these conditions, we deduce that for $l\geq l_0$, $q_{n_l}=\overline{r}(p_{n_l})$, and then $$\displaystyle\lim_{l\rightarrow\infty}\overline{r}(p_{n_l})/p_{n_l}=\lim_{l\rightarrow\infty}q_{n_l}/p_{n_l}=m.$$ Since the limit $\lim_{z\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\overline{r}(z)}{z}=\lim_{z\rightarrow\infty}\overline{\varphi}(z^{-1})$ exists, we get $\lim_{z\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\overline{r}(z)}{z}=m$.
In addition, note that $$|r(z_{n_l})-\overline{r}(z_{n_l})|=d((z_{n_l},r(z_{n_l})),(z_{n_l},\overline{r}(z_{n_l})))\leq$$ $$d((z_{n_l},r(z_{n_l})),(p_{n_l},\overline{r}(p_{n_l})))
+d((p_{n_l},\overline{r}(p_{n_l})),(z_{n_l},\overline{r}(z_{n_l})))\qquad \mbox{(I)}$$ and $$d((z_{n_l},r(z_{n_l})),(p_{n_l},\overline{r}(p_{n_l})))=d((z_{n_l},r(z_{n_l})),(p_{n_l},q_{n_l}))_{\overrightarrow{l\rightarrow
\infty}}0.$$ Now, let us prove that $d((p_{n_l},\overline{r}(p_{n_l})),(z_{n_l},\overline{r}(z_{n_l})))_{\overrightarrow{l\rightarrow
\infty}}0.$ For this purpose, we show that $\lim_{l\rightarrow\infty} (\overline{r}(p_{n_l})-\overline{r}(z_{n_l}))=0$. Indeed: let $$\overline{r}(z)=mz+b_1z^{\frac{s-s_1}{s}}+b_2z^{\frac{s-s_2}{s}}+\cdots,\,\,\, s, s_i\in {\Bbb N},\, 0<s_1<s_2<\cdots.$$ Thus, $$\overline{r}\,'(z)={m} +\frac{s-s_1}{s}b_1z^{\frac{-s_1}{s}}+\frac{s-s_2}{s}b_2z^{\frac{-s_2}{s}}+\cdots\,_{\overrightarrow{z\rightarrow
\infty}} \,{m}.$$ Therefore, there exist $K>0$ and $\delta>0$ such that $|\overline{r}\,'(z)|\leq K$, for $|z|>\delta$. Applying the Mean Value Theorem (see [@Ahlfors]), we have that $$\Re\left(\frac{\overline{r}(p_{n_l})-\overline{r}(z_{n_l})}{p_{n_l}-z_{n_l}}\right)=\Re (\overline{r}\,'(c_1)),\qquad
\Im\left(\frac{\overline{r}(p_{n_l})-\overline{r}(z_{n_l})}{p_{n_l}-z_{n_l}}\right)=\Im (\overline{r}\,'(c_2)),$$ where $\Re(q)$ and $\Im(q)$ denote the real part and the imaginary part of $q(z)\in {\Bbb C}(z)$, respectively, and $c_1, c_2\in ]p_{n_l}, z_{n_l}[$, where $]p_{n_l}, z_{n_l}[:= \{z \in {\Bbb C}:\, z =p_{n_l}+ (p_{n_l} - z_{n_l})t,\, t\in (0,1)\}.$ Thus, $$|\overline{r}(p_{n_l})-\overline{r}(z_{n_l})|^2=(\Re (\overline{r}\,'(c_1))^2+\Im (\overline{r}\,'(c_2))^2)|p_{n_l}-z_{n_l}|^2.$$ Now, since $\lim_{l\rightarrow\infty}p_{n_l}=\lim_{l\rightarrow\infty}z_{n_l}=\infty$, and $\lim_{l\rightarrow\infty}p_{n_l}-z_{n_l}=0$, we deduce that given $\varepsilon>0$, there exists $l_1\in {\Bbb N}$ such that, for $l\geq l_1$, $$|p_{n_l}|>\delta+\varepsilon,\quad |z_{n_l}|>\delta+\varepsilon, \quad \mbox{and}\quad
|p_{n_l}-z_{n_l}|<\varepsilon.$$ Then, $|c_j|>\delta$ and $|\overline{r}\,'(c_j)|\leq K$ for $j=1,2$, which implies that, for $l\geq l_1$, $$|\overline{r}(p_{n_l})-\overline{r}(z_{n_l})|\leq \sqrt{2}K|p_{n_l}-z_{n_l}|_{\overrightarrow{l\rightarrow
\infty}}0$$ (note that $\Re (\overline{r}\,'(c_1))\leq |\overline{r}\,'(c_1)|\leq K$, and $\Im (\overline{r}\,'(c_2))\leq |\overline{r}\,'(c_2)|\leq K$). Therefore, $\lim_{l\rightarrow\infty} (\overline{r}(p_{n_l})-\overline{r}(z_{n_l}))=0$, which implies that there exists a sequence $\{z_{n_l}\}_{l\in {\Bbb N}}$ with $\lim_{l\rightarrow\infty} z_{n_l}=\infty$, such that $$\lim_{l\rightarrow\infty}(r(z_{n_l})-\overline{r}(z_{n_l}))=0$$ (see inequality (I)). Then, the terms with positive exponent of the series $r(z)$ and $\overline{r}(z)$ are the same (see the proof of Lemma \[L-DistVertical\]). Hence, we conclude that (see Lemma \[L-DistVertical\]) $$\lim_{z\rightarrow\infty}(r(z)-\overline{r}(z))=0$$ and thus $B$ and $\overline{B}$ are convergent (see Definition \[D-distance0\]).
Reciprocally, let us assume that $B$ and $\overline{B}$ are convergent. Then, by definition, there exist two leaves $L=\{(z,r(z))\in {\Bbb
C}^2:\,z\in {\Bbb C},\,|z|>M\}\subset B$ and $\overline{L}=\{(z,\overline{r}(z))\in {\Bbb C}^2:\,z\in {\Bbb
C},\,|z|>\overline{M}\}\subset \overline{B}$ such that $\displaystyle\lim_{z\rightarrow\infty}(r(z)-\overline{r}(z))=0$. Therefore, $$\lim_{z\rightarrow\infty}d((z,r(z)),\overline{\cal C})\leq
\lim_{z\rightarrow\infty}d((z,r(z)),(z,\overline{r}(z)))=\lim_{z\rightarrow\infty}(r(z)-\overline{r}(z))=0.\qquad \mbox{\hfill $\Box$}$$
1. From Theorem \[T-curvas-aprox\], we get that “[*proximity*]{}” is a symmetric relation; i.e., ${\overline{{\cal C}}}$ approaches ${\cal C}$ at some infinity branch $B$ iff ${\cal C}$ approaches ${\overline{{\cal C}}}$ at some infinity branch $\overline{B}$. In the following, we say that ${\cal C}$ and ${\overline{{\cal C}}}$ approach each other or that they are [*approaching curves*]{}.
2. Theorem \[T-curvas-aprox\] and Remark \[R-common-inf-point\] imply that two approaching curves have a common infinity point.
3. From Theorem \[T-curvas-aprox\] and Proposition \[P-convergent-branches\], we get that ${\overline{{\cal C}}}$ [*approaches*]{} ${\cal C}$ at an infinity branch $B$ if and only if for every leaf $L=\{(z,r(z))\in {\Bbb C}^2:\,z\in {\Bbb
C},\,|z|>M\}\subset B$, it holds that $\displaystyle\lim_{z\rightarrow\infty}d((z,r(z)),\overline{\cal
C})=0$.
\[C-approaching-curves\] Let $\cal C$ be an algebraic plane curve with an infinity branch $B$. Let ${\overline{{\cal C}}}_1$ and ${\overline{{\cal C}}}_2$ be two different curves that approach $\cal C$ at $B$. Then ${\overline{{\cal C}}}_1$ and ${\overline{{\cal C}}}_2$ approach each other.
**Proof:** From Theorem \[T-curvas-aprox\], there exist two infinity branches $B_1\subset {\overline{{\cal C}}}_1$ and $B_2\subset
{\overline{{\cal C}}}_2$, convergent with $B$. Thus, for each leaf $L=\{(z,r(z))\in {\Bbb C}^2:\,z\in {\Bbb
C},\,|z|>M\}\subset B$, there exist two leaves $L_1=\{(z,r_1(z))\in
{\Bbb C}^2:\,z\in {\Bbb C},\,|z|>M_1\}\subset B_1$ and $L_2=\{(z,r_2(z))\in {\Bbb C}^2:\,z\in {\Bbb C},\,|z|>M_2\}\subset
B_2$ such that $\lim_{z\rightarrow\infty}(r(z)-r_1(z))=0$ and $\lim_{z\rightarrow\infty}(r(z)-r_2(z))=0$. Then $$|r_1(z)-r_2(z)|\leq |r_1(z)-r(z)|+|r(z)-r_2(z)|_{\overrightarrow{z\rightarrow
\infty}}0.$$ Therefore, ${\overline{{\cal C}}}_1$ and ${\overline{{\cal C}}}_2$ approach each other.$\Box$
In the following, we illustrate the above results with an example.
Let $\cal C$ and $\overline{{\cal C}}$ be two plane curves defined implicitly by the polynomials $$f(x,y)=2y^3x-y^4+2y^2x-y^3-2x^3+x^2y+3\in {\Bbb R}[x,y],\qquad \mbox{and}$$ $$\overline{f}(x,y)=y^3x-y^4+y^2x-y^3-x^3+x^2y+2\in {\Bbb R}[x,y],$$ respectively. Let us prove that $\cal C$ and $\overline{{\cal C}}$ approach each other (see Figure \[Ej-approaching curves\]) at the infinity branch associated to the infinity point $P=(1:0:0)$ (note that both curves have $P$ as an infinity point). Reasoning as in Example \[Ej-ramas infinitas\], we get that the infinity branch of $\cal C$ associated to $P$ is given by $B=L_1\cup L_2\cup L_3$, where $L_i=\{(z,r_i(z))\in {\Bbb
C}^2:\,z\in {\Bbb C},\,|z|>M\}$, $$r_i(z)=c_i^2z^{2/3}-1/3+1/9c_i^2z^{-2/3}-2/81c_i^4z^{-4/3}-1/2c_i^7z^{-7/3}+\cdots$$ and $c_i,\,i=1,2,3$ are the complex roots of $x^3=1$. On the other hand, the infinity branch of $\overline{{\cal C}}$ associated to $P$ is given by $\overline{B}=\overline{L}_1\cup \overline{L}_2\cup
\overline{L}_3$, where $\overline{L}_i=\{(z,\overline{r}_i(z))\in
{\Bbb C}^2:\,z\in {\Bbb C},\,|z|>M\}$, $$\overline{r}_i(z)=c_i^2z^{2/3}-1/3+1/9c_i^2z^{-2/3}-2/81c_i^4z^{-4/3}-2/3c_i^7z^{-7/3}+\cdots$$ and $c_i,\,i=1,2,3$ are the complex roots of $x^3=1$ (to compute $r_i$ and $\overline{r}_i$, we use the [*algcurves*]{} package included in [*Maple*]{}). From Lemma \[L-DistVertical\], we conclude that both branches converge, since the terms with non negative exponent in both series, $r_i$ and $\overline{r}_i$, are the same.
$$\begin{array}{lcr}
\psfig{figure=Ejemplo2a.eps,width=4.3cm,height=4.3cm,angle=270} &
\psfig{figure=Ejemplo2b.eps,width=4.3cm,height=4.3cm,angle=270} &
\psfig{figure=Ejemplo2c.eps,width=4.3cm,height=4.3cm,angle=270}
\end{array}
\vspace*{-0.5cm}$$
Asymptotic Behavior
===================
Using the results presented in the previous sections, in the following we analyze the behavior of two curves at the infinity (the [*asymptotic behavior*]{}). More precisely, in this section we present an algorithm that provides a method to compare the behavior of two algebraic plane curves as they tend to infinity. In addition, we prove that if two plane algebraic curves have the same [*asymptotic behavior*]{}, the Hausdorff distance between them is finite.
To start with, we first introduce the following definition.
We say that two algebraic plane curves, ${\cal C}$ and ${\overline{{\cal C}}}$, have the same asymptotic behavior if every infinity branch of ${\cal C}$ converges to another branch of ${\overline{{\cal C}}}$, and reciprocally.
\[R-same-asymp-behav\] From Theorem \[T-curvas-aprox\], we deduce that ${\cal C}$ and ${\overline{{\cal C}}}$ have the same asymptotic behavior if and only if ${\cal C}$ approaches ${\overline{{\cal C}}}$ at all its infinity branches, and reciprocally.
Now, we recall the notion of [*Hausdorff distance*]{}.
\[D-Hausdorff\] Given a metric space $(E,d)$ and two subsets $A, B\subset E\setminus \{\emptyset\}$, the [*Hausdorff distance*]{} between them is defined as: $$d_H(A,B)=\max\{\sup_{x\in A}\inf_{y\in B}d(x,y),\sup_{y\in B}\inf_{x\in A}d(x,y)\}.$$ If $E=\mathbb{C}^2$ and $d$ is the Euclidean distance, the Hausdorff distance between two curves ${\cal C}$ and ${\overline{{\cal C}}}$ can be expressed as: $$d_H({\cal C},{\overline{{\cal C}}})=\max\{\sup_{p\in {\cal C}}d(p,{\overline{{\cal C}}}),\sup_{\overline{p}\in {\overline{{\cal C}}}}d(\overline{p},{\cal C})\}.$$
\[P-Hausdorff\] Let ${\cal C}$ and ${\overline{{\cal C}}}$ be two algebraic plane curves having the same asymptotic behavior. Then, the Hausdorff distance between them is finite.
**Proof:** Let $r$ be the number of infinity branches of ${\cal C}$. Then, ${\cal C}=B_1\cup \cdots \cup B_r \cup \widehat{B},$ where $\widehat{B}$ is the set of points of ${\cal C}$ that do not belong to any infinity branch. Thus, $$\sup_{p\in {\cal C}}d(p,{\overline{{\cal C}}})=\max\{\sup_{p\in {B_1}}d(p,{\overline{{\cal C}}}),...,\sup_{p\in {B_r}}
d(p,{\overline{{\cal C}}}),\sup_{p\in
\widehat{B}}d(p,{\overline{{\cal C}}})\}.$$ For each $i=1,...,r$, let $B_i=\bigcup_{j=1}^{N_i}L_{i,j}$, where $L_{i,j}=\{(z,r_{i,j}(z))\in {\Bbb C}^2:\,z\in {\Bbb C},\,|z|>M_i\}$, and $N_i=\nu(B_i)$. Then, $$\sup_{p\in {B_i}}d(p,{\overline{{\cal C}}})=\max_{j=1,\ldots,N_i}\left\{\sup_{|z|>M_i}d((z,r_{i,j}(z)),{\overline{{\cal C}}})\right\}.$$ Moreover, from Remark \[R-same-asymp-behav\], ${\overline{{\cal C}}}$ approaches ${\cal C}$ at $B_i$, so $\lim_{z\rightarrow\infty}d((z,r_{i,j}(z)),\overline{\cal C})=0$ for every $j=1,\ldots,N_i$. Hence, given $\varepsilon>0$ there exists $\delta>0$ such that $d((z,r_{i,j}(z)),\overline{\cal
C})<\varepsilon$, for $|z|>\delta$. Then, since $r_{i,j}$ is a continuous function, and $\{z\in {\Bbb
C}:\,M_i\leq|z|\leq\delta\}$ is a compact set, we deduce that $$\sup_{p\in {B_i}}d(p,{\overline{{\cal C}}})\leq \max_{j=1,\ldots,N_i}\max\left\{\sup_{M_i\leq|z|\leq\delta}d((z,r_{i,j}(z)),
{\overline{{\cal C}}}),\varepsilon\right\}<\infty.$$
Now, let $p=(a,b)\in \widehat{B}$. From Lemma \[L-BolaMaxima\] and Remark \[R-BolaMaxima\], we have that there exists $K\in \mathbb{R}^+$ such that $|a|,|b|\leq K$. Thus, $d(p,{\cal O})\leq K$, where ${\cal O}$ is the origin and, $$d(p,{\overline{{\cal C}}})\leq d(p,{\cal O})+d({\cal O},{\overline{{\cal C}}})\leq K+d({\cal O},{\overline{{\cal C}}}).$$ Note that $K<\infty$, and $d({\cal O},{\overline{{\cal C}}})<\infty,$ which implies that $\sup_{p\in \widehat{B}}d(p,{\overline{{\cal C}}})<\infty$.
Therefore, we conclude that $\sup_{p\in {\cal C}}d(p,{\overline{{\cal C}}})<\infty$. Reasoning similarly, we deduce that $\sup_{\overline{p}\in
{\overline{{\cal C}}}}d(\overline{p},{\cal C})<\infty$, which implies that $d_H({\cal C},\overline{\cal C})<\infty$. $\Box$
The following algorithm allow us to compare the asymptotic behavior of two curves $\cal C$ and $\overline{{\cal C}}$. We assume that we have prepared $\cal C$ and $\overline{{\cal C}}$ such that by means of a suitable linear change of coordinates (the same change applied to both curves), $(0:1:0)$ is not a point of infinity of ${\cal C}^*$ and $\overline{{\cal C}}^*$.
In the following, we illustrate the performance of algorithm [Asymptotic Behavior]{} with an example.
Let $\cal C$, and $\overline{{\cal C}}$ be two plane curves defined implicitly by the polynomials $$f(x,y)=2y^3x-y^4+2y^2x-y^3-2x^3+x^2y+3,\qquad \mbox{and}$$ $$\overline{f}(x,y)=2y^3x-y^4+2y^2x-y^3-2x^3+x^2y-3x^2-xy+2x-3y+1,$$ respectively. We apply the algorithm [Asymptotic Behavior]{} to decide whether $\cal C$ and $\overline{{\cal C}}$ have the same asymptotic behavior:
- Compute the infinity points of $\cal C$ and $\overline{{\cal C}}$. We obtain that $\cal C$ and $\overline{{\cal C}}$ have the same infinity points: $P_1=(1:0:0)$ and $P_2=(1:2:0)$.
We start by analyzing the infinity branches associated to $P_1$:
- Reasoning as in Example \[Ej-ramas infinitas\], we get that the only infinity branch associated to $P_1$ in $\cal C$ is given by $B_1=L_{1,1}\cup L_{1,2}\cup L_{1,3}$ where $L_{1,i}=\{(z,r_{1,i}(z))\in {\Bbb C}^2:\,z\in {\Bbb C},\,|z|>M_1\}$, $i=1,2,3$, and $$r_{1,i}(z)=z^{2/3}-1/3+1/9z^{-2/3}-2/81z^{-4/3}+\cdots,$$ up to conjugation.
- We also have that there exists only one infinity branch associated to $P_1$ in $\overline{{\cal C}}$. It is given by $\overline{B}_1=\overline{L}_{1,1}\cup \overline{L}_{1,2}\cup
\overline{L}_{1,3}$ where $\overline{L}_{1,i}=\{(z,\overline{r}_{1,i}(z))\in {\Bbb C}^2:\,z\in
{\Bbb C},\,|z|>\overline{M}_1\}$, $i=1,2,3$, and $$\overline{r}_{1,i}(z)=z^{2/3}-1/3+1/2z^{-1/3}+19/36z^{-2/3}+\cdots,$$ up to conjugation.
- and $r_{1,1}(z)$ and $\overline{r}_{1,1}(z)$ have the same terms with non negative exponent. Thus, ${B}_1$ and $\overline{B}_1$ converge.\
Now we analyze the infinity branches associated to $P_2$:
- Reasoning as in Example \[Ej-ramas infinitas\], we get that the only infinity branch associated to $P_2$ in $\cal C$ is given by $B_2=L_2=\{(z,r_2(z))\in {\Bbb
C}^2:\,z\in {\Bbb C},\,|z|>M_2\}$, where
$$r_2(z)=2z+3/8z^{-3}-9/64z^{-4}+27/512z^{-5}+\cdots.$$
- The only infinity branch associated to $P_2$ in $\overline{{\cal C}}$ is given by $\overline{B}_2=\overline{L}_2=\{(z,\overline{r}_2(z))\in {\Bbb
C}^2:\,z\in {\Bbb C},\,|z|>\overline{M}_2\}$, where
$$\overline{r}_2(z)=2z-5/8z^{-1}-17/64z^{-2}-145/512z^{-3}+\cdots.$$
- and $r_2(z)$ and $\overline{r}_2(z)$ have the same terms with non negative exponent. Thus, ${B}_2$ and $\overline{B}_2$ converge.
Since every infinity branch of $\cal C$ converges to another branch of $\overline{{\cal C}}$, and reciprocally, the algorithm returns that $\cal C$ and $\overline{{\cal C}}$ have the same asymptotic behavior (see Figure \[Ej-comportamiento asintotico\]).
$$\begin{array}{lcr}
\psfig{figure=Ejemplo2a.eps,width=4.3cm,height=4.3cm,angle=270} &
\psfig{figure=Ejemplo3b.eps,width=4.3cm,height=4.3cm,angle=270} &
\psfig{figure=Ejemplo3c.eps,width=4.3cm,height=4.3cm,angle=270}\end{array}
\vspace*{-0.5cm}$$
[00]{}
Ahlfors, L.V. (1979). [*Complex Analysis*]{}. McGraw-Hill, Third Edition.
Blasco, A., Pérez-Díaz, S. (2013). [*Asymptotes and Perfect Curves*]{}. arxiv.org/abs/1307.6153. Submitted to Computer Aided Geometric Design.
Conway, J.B. (1995). [*Functions of One Complex Variable I*]{}. Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag. New York.
Duval, D. (1989). [*Rational Puiseux Expansion.*]{} Compositio Mathematica. Vol. 70, pp. 119–154.
Gao, B., Chen, Y. (2012). [*Finding the Topology of Implicitly defined two Algebraic Plane Curves.*]{} Journal of Systems Science and Complexity. Vol 25, Issue 2, pp. 362-374.
González-Vega, L., Necula, I. (2002). [*Efficient Topology Determination of Implicitly defined Algebraic Plane Curves.*]{} Comput. Aided Geom. Design. Vol. 19(9), pp. 719–743
Hong, H. (1996). [*An Effective Method for Analyzing the Topology of Plane Real Algebraic Curves.*]{} Math. Comput. Simulation. Vol. 42, pp. 572–582
Hoffmann, C.M., Sendra, J.R., Winkler, F. (1997). [*Parametric Algebraic Curves and Applications*]{}. J. Symbolic Computation. Vol. 23.
Hoschek, J., Lasser, D. (1993). [*Fundamentals of Computer Aided Geometric Design*]{}. A.K. Peters Wellesley MA., Ltd.
Sendra, J.R., Winkler, F., Pérez-Díaz, S. (2007). [*Rational Algebraic Curves: A Computer Algebra Approach*]{}. Series: Algorithms and Computation in Mathematics. Vol. 22. Springer Verlag.
Stadelmeyer, P. (2000). [*On the Computational Complexity of Resolving Curve Singularities and Related Problems.*]{} Ph.D. thesis, RISC-Linz, J. Kepler Univ. Linz, Austria, Techn. Rep. RISC 00-31.
Verger-Gaugry, J-L. (2011). [*Beta-Conjugates of Real Algebraic Numbers as Puiseux Expansions*]{}. Integers: Electronic Journal of Combinatorial Number Theory. Proceedings of the Leiden Numeration Conference 2010. Vol. 11B.
Walker, R.J. (1950). [*Algebraic Curves*]{}. Princeton University Press.
Zeng, G. (2007). [*Computing the Asymptotes for a Real Plane Algebraic Curve.*]{} Journal of Algebra. Vol. 316, pp. 680–-705.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Multiphoton ionization of sodium by laser pulses of 800nm wavelength and 57fs duration is studied in the range of laser peak intensities belonging to over-the-barrier ionization regime. Photoelectron momentum distributions (PMD) and the energy spectra are determined numerically by solving the time dependent Schrödinger equation. The calculated spectra agree well with the spectra obtained experimentally by Hart [*et al.*]{} \[Phys. Rev. A **93**, 063426 (2016)\]. The contributions of photoelectrons with different values of the orbital quantum number in the PMD are determined by expanding the photoelectron wave function in terms of partial waves. Partial wave analysis of the spectral peaks related to Freeman resonances has shown that each peak has photoelectron contributions from different ionization channels which are characterized by different photoelectron energies and different symmetries of released photoelectron wave-packets. These findings are justified by calculating the populations of excited states during the pulse. Our analysis indicates that the contribution of specific ionization channels in the total photoelectron yield might be selectively increased by varying to some extent the values of pulse parameters used here.'
author:
- 'A. Bunjac'
- 'D. B. Popović'
- 'N. S. Simonović'
title: 'Partial-wave analysis of multiphoton ionization of sodium by femtosecond laser pulses of 800 nm wavelength in over-the-barrier ionization regime'
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
Strong-field ionization of the alkali-metal atoms has been studied intensively over the past ten years, both experimentally and theoretically including [*ab initio*]{} numerical calculations [@wollenhaupt; @krug; @schuricke; @JJ; @morishita; @schuricke2; @hart2016; @pccp; @wessels]. A specific feature of this group of atoms – a low ionization potential, which ranges from $I_p \approx 3.89$eV (for cesium) to 5.39eV (for lithium), causes that a considerably smaller number of photons of a given energy $\hbar\omega$ is required for their photoionization than for the ionization of other atoms. For example, with the laser wavelength of around 800 nm ($\hbar \omega
\approx 1.55$eV) it takes four photons to ionize an alkali-metal atom, unlike to the case of frequently used noble gases where this number is of the order of ten. Since for a dipole transition requiring $N$ photons the lowest order perturbation theory predicts that the photon absorption rate $W$ is proportional to the $N$-th power of the laser intensity $I$ ($W \sim I^N$ if $I
\ll I_a$, where $I_a = 3.50945 \times 10^{16}\,\mathrm{W/cm}^2$ is the atomic unit value for intensity, see e.g. [@JKP].), measurable effects in experiments with multiphoton ionization (MPI) of alkali can be observed at relatively low laser intensities, available in table-top laser systems.
The perturbative treatment, however, is not applicable at higher intensities which can be achieved today. One indication of the nonperturbative regime is the so-called above threshold ionization (ATI) [@mittleman; @dk2000; @JKP] in which the atom absorbs more photons than the minimum required. Under these conditions the photoelectron spectra (PES, electron yield versus their excess energy $\epsilon$) were seen to consist of several peaks, separated by the photon energy $\hbar\omega$, and appearing at energies $\epsilon^{(s)} = (N_0 + s)\hbar\omega - I_p$, where $N_0$ is the minimum number of photons needed to exceed the ionization potential $I_p$ and $s = 0,1,\ldots$ is the number of excess (“above-threshold”) photons absorbed by the atom. (For the alkali-metal atoms and the laser of 800nm wavelength, $N_0 =
4$.) By increasing the intensity over a certain value, $W$ does not follow further the prediction $I^{N_0+s}$ of the perturbation theory.
At even larger intensities, the electric component of the laser field becomes comparable with the atomic potential, opening up another ionization mechanism – the tunnel ionization. In this case the field distorts the atomic potential forming a potential barrier through which the electron can tunnel. Multiphoton and tunneling ionization regimes are distinguished by the value of Keldysh parameter [@keldysh] which can be written as $\gamma =
\sqrt{I_p/(2U_p)}$, where $U_p = e^2F^2/(4m_e\omega^2)$ is the ponderomotive potential of ejected electron with mass $m_e$ and charge $e$. The value of the electric field $F$ in the expression for $\gamma$ corresponds to the peak value of laser intensity. Multiphoton and tunneling regimes are characterized by $\gamma \gg
1$ (high-intensity, long-wavelength limit) and $\gamma \ll 1$ (low-intensity, short-wavelength limit), respectively. The transition regime at $\gamma \approx 1$ for alkali-metal atoms is reached at considerably lower intensities than for other atoms, again due to the small ionization potential $I_p$. The experiments accessing the strong-field regime with alkali [@schuricke; @schuricke2; @hart2016; @wessels] have revealed that the commonly used strong-field ionization models in the form of a pure MPI or tunnel ionization cannot be strictly applied. The problem, however, goes beyond by using an [*ab-initio*]{} numerical method for solving the time-dependent Schrödinger equation (TDSE).
Finally, at a sufficiently high laser intensity, the field strength overcomes the atomic potential. This can be considered as the limiting case of tunnel ionization when the barrier is suppressed below the energy of atomic state. This regime is usually referred to as over-the-barrier ionization (OBI). Such a barrier suppression takes place independently of the value of Keldysh parameter. For neutral atoms the threshold value of field strength for OBI is estimated as $F_\mathrm{OBI} \approx I_p^2/4$ (in atomic units). $F_\mathrm{OBI}$ values for alkali, determined more accurately, are given in Ref. [@MS]. The corresponding laser intensities can be obtained by formula $I = I_a F^2$, where $F$ is expressed in atomic units and $I_a$ is the above introduced atomic unit for intensity. For noble gas atoms irradiated by the laser of wavelength from the visible light domain, OBI was occurring well into the tunneling regime [@mevel]. This is, however, not a general rule. For atoms with low ionization potentials, as the alkali-metal atoms are, the OBI threshold, compared to that for hydrogen or noble gases, is shifted to significantly lower values of the field strength. For example, the laser peak intensity that corresponds to the OBI threshold for sodium is about $3.3 \, \mathrm{TW/cm}^2$ ($F_\mathrm{OBI} =
0.0097$a.u. [@MS]), whereas the value of Keldish parameter for the sodium atom interacting with the radiation of this intensity and 800nm wavelength is $\gamma = 3.61$. Thus, the OBI threshold in this case belongs to the MPI regime. Previous experiments and theoretical studies have already mentioned this peculiar situation for sodium and other alkali [@schuricke; @schuricke2; @hart2016; @morishita; @JJ; @wessels]. In addition, it is demonstrated that at intensities above the OBI threshold the atomic target is severely ionized before the laser’s peak intensity is reached [@morishita]. Thus, the ionization occurs at the leading edge of the pulse only, that is equivalent to the ionization by a shorter pulse.
A remarkable feature of the photoelectron spectra obtained using short (sub-picosecond) laser pulses is the existence of substructures in ATI peaks, known as Freeman resonances. The mechanism which is responsible for occurrence of these substructures is the dynamic (or AC) Stark shift [@mittleman; @dk2000; @dk1999] which brings the atomic energy levels into resonance with an integer multiple of the photon energy. Freeman et al. [@freeman; @gibons] have shown that when atomic states during the laser pulse transiently shift into resonance, the resonantly enhanced multiphoton ionization (REMPI) [@dk2000; @grossmann; @JKP]) takes place, increasing the photoelectron yield, and one observes peaks at the corresponding values of photoelectron energy. Thus, the peaks in the PES can be related to the REMPI occurring via different intermediate states.
The resonant dynamic Stark shift of energy levels corresponding to sodium excited states $nl$ ($n \le 6$), relative to its ground state (3s) energy, is recently calculated for the laser intensities up to $7.9\,\mathrm{TW/cm}^2$ and wavelengths in the range from 455.6 to 1139nm [@pccp]. These data are used to predict the positions of REMPI peaks in the PES of sodium interacting with an 800nm laser pulse. Freeman resonances in the PES of alkali-metal atoms have been studied in papers [@wollenhaupt; @krug; @schuricke; @JJ; @morishita; @schuricke2; @hart2016; @pccp; @wessels], mentioned at the beginning of Introduction, where a number of significant results have been reported.
The dynamic Stark shift also appears as an important mechanism in the strong-field quantum control of various atomic and molecular processes [@rabitz; @shapiro; @sussman; @g-vazquez]. Focusing on the MPI of atoms, a particular challenge would be the selective ionization of an atom through a single energy level which could produce a high ion yield. By increasing simply the laser intensity one increases the yield, but also spreads the electron population over multiple energy levels [@gibons] and, in turn, reduces the selectivity. Krug [*et al*]{} [@krug] have shown in the case of multiphoton ionization of sodium that chirped pulses can be an efficient tool in strong-field quantum control of multiple states. Hart [*et al*]{} in their paper [@hart2016] claim that improved selectivity and yield could be achieved by controlling the resonant dynamic Stark shift via intensity of the laser pulse of an appropriate wavelength ($\sim 800$nm).
In this paper we study the photoionization of sodium by the laser pulse of 800nm wavelength and 57fs duration with the peak intensities ranging from $3.5$ to 8.8TW/cm$^2$, which belong to OBI domain in the MPI regime and which have been used in the experiment by Hart [*et. al.*]{} [@hart2016]. Using the single-active-electron approximation we calculate the corresponding photoelectron momentum distribution (PMD) and the PES by solving numerically the TDSE and perform a similar analysis as it has been done in Refs. [@wollenhaupt; @krug; @schuricke; @JJ; @morishita; @schuricke2; @hart2016; @pccp; @wessels]. In order to make a deeper insight into the ionization process, in addition, we perform a partial-wave analysis of the calculated PMD. In the next section we describe the model and in Sec. \[sec:scheme\] consider the excitation scheme and ionization channels. In Sec. \[sec:results\] we analyze the calculated photoelectron momentum distribution and energy spectra. A summary and conclusions are given in Sec. \[sec:conc\].
The model {#sec:model}
=========
Singly-excited states and the single ionization of the alkali-metal atoms are, for most purposes, described in a satisfactory manner using one-electron models. This follows from the structure of these atoms, which is that of a single valence electron moving in an orbital outside a core consisting of closed shells. In that case the valence electron is weakly bound and can be considered as moving in an effective core potential $V_\mathrm{core}(r)$, which at large distances $r$ approaches the Coulomb potential $-1/r$. One of the simplest models for the effective core potential, applicable for the alkali-metal atoms, is the Hellmann pseudopotential [@hellmann] which reads (in atomic units) $$V_\mathrm{core}(r) = - \frac{1}{r} + \frac{A}{r}\,e^{-ar}.
\label{hellmannECP}$$ The parameters $A = 21$ and $a = 2.54920$ [@MS] provide the correct value for the ionization potential of sodium $I_\mathrm{p}
= 5.1391\,\mathrm{eV} = 0.18886$a.u. and reproduce approximately the energies of singly-excited states [@sansonetti] (deviations are less than 1%). The associated eigenfunctions are one-electron approximations of these states and have the form $\psi_{nlm}(\mathbf{r}) = R_{nl}(r) Y_{lm}(\Omega)$. Radial functions $R_{nl}(r)$ can be determined numerically by solving the corresponding radial equation.
Here we use this single-active-electron approximation to study the single-electron excitations and ionization of the sodium atom in a strong laser field. Assuming that the field effects on the core electrons can be neglected (the so-called frozen-core approximation [@MS]), the Hamiltonian describing the dynamics of valence (active) electron of the sodium atom in an alternating field, whose electric component is $F(t) \cos\omega t$, reads (in atomic units) $$H = -\frac{1}{2}\nabla^2 + V_\mathrm{core}(r) - F(t) z \cos\omega
t. \label{hamiltonian}$$
We consider the linearly polarized laser pulse whose amplitude of the electric field component (field strength) has the form $$F(t) = F_\mathrm{peak} \sin^2(\pi t/T_\mathrm{p}),\quad 0 < t <
T_\mathrm{p} \label{pulse}$$ \[otherwise $F(t) = 0$\]. Here $\omega$, $F_\mathrm{peak}$ and $T_\mathrm{p}$ are the frequency of the laser field, the peak value of $F$ and the pulse duration, respectively. Since the system is axially symmetric, the magnetic quantum number $m$ of the active electron is a good quantum number for any field strength. In the sodium ground state (when $F = 0$) the orbital and the magnetic quantum number are equal to zero and in our calculations we set $m = 0$.
The photoionization process is simulated by solving numerically the TDSE for the active electron wave function $\psi(\mathbf{r},t)$ (i.e. by calculating its evolution), assuming that at $t = 0$ the atom is in the ground state represented by the lowest eigenstate of Hamiltonian (\[hamiltonian\]) for $F = 0$. We have used the second-order-difference (SOD) scheme [@askar] that is for this purpose adapted to cylindrical coordinates $(\rho,\varphi,z)$ [@pccp; @epjd2017]. Due to the axial symmetry of the system, Hamiltonian (\[hamiltonian\]) and the electron’s wave function do not depend on the azimuthal angle and the dynamics reduces to two degrees of freedom ($\rho$ and $z$). The calculations were performed on $1000 \times 2000$ grid in the wave-packet propagation domain $\rho \le 500$a.u., $-500\,\mathrm{a.u.} \le z \le 500\,\mathrm{a.u.}$
Energy scheme and photoionization channels {#sec:scheme}
==========================================
Fig. \[fig:diagram\] shows the lowest energy levels corresponding to singly-excited states of sodium and possible multiphoton absorption pathways during the interaction of the atom with a laser radiation of 800nm wavelength ($\hbar\omega =
0.05695\,\mathrm{a.u.} \approx 1.55\,\mathrm{eV}$). At this wavelenghth there are two dominant REMPI channels: (i) (3+1)-photon ionization via excitation of 5p, 6p and 7p states (including 2+1+1 process via nearly resonant two-photon transition $3\mathrm{s} \to 4\mathrm{s}$ and subsequent excitation of P-states), giving rise to photoelectrons with s and d-symmetry, and (ii) (3+1)-photon ionization via excitation of 4f, 5f and 6f states, giving rise to photoelectrons with d and g-symmetry [@krug; @hart2016].
0.45
Theoretically, if the multiphoton ionization occurs by absorbing $N$ photons, the excess energy of ejected electrons in the weak field limit is $\epsilon^{(0)} = N\!\hbar\omega - I_p$. At stronger fields, however, the dynamic Stark shift of the ground state ($\delta E_\mathrm{gr}$), as well as that of the continuum boundary ($\delta E_\mathrm{cb}$), change effectively the ionization potential $I_p$ to $I_p - \delta E_\mathrm{gr} + \delta
E_\mathrm{cb}$ and the excess energy becomes dependent on the field strength (see the inset in Fig. \[fig:diagram\]). Within quadratic approximation $\delta E \approx -\alpha(\omega) F^2\!/4$ one has [@pccp] $$\epsilon(F) \approx N\!\hbar\omega - I_p -
\bigg(\!\alpha_\mathrm{gr}^\mathrm{stat} +
\frac{e^2}{m_{\!e\,}\omega^2}\!\bigg)\frac{F^2}{4},
\label{excess-e}$$ where the dynamic polarizability $\alpha(\omega)$ in the ground state and at the continuum boundary is approximated by its static value for the sodium ground state $\alpha_\mathrm{gr}^\mathrm{stat} = 162.7$a.u. [@mitroy] and by its asymptotic value in the high frequency limit $\alpha_\mathrm{cb}(\omega) \approx -e^2/(m_{\!e\,}\omega^2)$, respectively. Thus, $\delta E_\mathrm{cb} \approx U_p$, where $U_p$ is the ponderomotive potential of the active electron, whereas $\delta E_\mathrm{gr} \approx -0.53\,U_p$.
Formula (\[excess-e\]) for $N = N_0$ (here $N_0 = 4$) and $F =
F_\mathrm{peak}$ gives the energy of photoelectrons whose contribution in the total yield is maximal, i.e. the position of main nonresonant peak in the PES. However, if we enter the field strength values $F_{nl}$ at which the atomic levels $nl$ shift into resonance with the laser field, the same formula estimates the positions of REMPI peaks $\epsilon^{(nl)}$ in the spectrum. The field strengths at which 4f, 5p, 5f and 6p states shift into the three-photon resonance with the laser field of 800 nm wavelength are determined in a previous work [@pccp]. They are given in Table \[table1\] together with the corresponding values for $\epsilon^{(nl)}$ obtained by formula (\[excess-e\]). Note that the atomic states will be transiently shifted into resonance twice during the pulse, once as the laser pulse “turns-on” and again as the pulse “turns-off”. Of course, the condition for this is that $F_\mathrm{peak} > F_{nl}$.
Notice that for the 3+1 REMPI via atomic state $nl$ (which energy is then in the three-photon resonance with the laser filed, i.e. $E_{nl} = -I_p + \delta E_\mathrm{gr} + 3\hbar\omega$) formula (\[excess-e\]) reduces to $\epsilon^{(nl)} = E_{nl} - U_p +
\hbar\omega$. Since the dynamic Stark shift for the high lying levels takes approximately the same value as that for the continuum boundary, the photoelectron energy at the 3+1 REMPI via considered state will be (see Table \[table1\]) $$\epsilon^{(nl)} \approx E_{nl}^{(0)} + \hbar\omega, \label{Eenl-approx}$$ where $E_{nl}^{(0)}$ is the energy of the state $nl$ for the field-free atom. The positions of REMPI maxima in the PES are, therefore, almost independent on the peak intensity of the laser pulse, in contrast to the position of the nonresonant four-photon ionization maximum $\epsilon(F_\mathrm{peak})$. Since usually $\delta E_{nl} + \delta E_\mathrm{gr} > 0$ (at least for P and F states, see the inset in Fig. \[fig:diagram\]), the states which can be shifted into three-photon resonance are those with $E_{nl}^{(0)} \le 3\hbar\omega - I_p$. As a consequence the REMPI maxima are in the spectrum located below the theoretical value for photoelectron energy in the weak field limit ($\epsilon^{(nl)} \le
\epsilon^{(0)}$).
[0.45]{}[@ccccc]{}\
state ($nl$) & $E_{nl}^{(0)}$(eV) & $F_{nl}$(a.u.) & $\epsilon^{(nl)}$(eV) & $E_{nl}^{(0)} \!+\! \hbar\omega$(eV)\
\
4f & -0.851 & 0.0105 & 0.707 & 0.699\
5p & -0.795 & 0.0092 & 0.789 & 0.755\
5f & -0.545 & 0.0043 & 1.001 & 1.005\
6p & -0.515 & 0.0028 & 1.035 & 1.035\
6f & -0.378 & - & - & 1.172\
7p & -0.361 & - & - & 1.189\
Results {#sec:results}
=======
Photoelectron momentum distribution {#sec:pmd}
-----------------------------------
The photoelectron momentum distribution (PMD) is determined from the electron probability density in the momentum space $|\bar\psi(\mathbf{k},t)|^2$ at $t = T_p$. Transformation of the wave function from the coordinate to momentum representation can be done by the Fourier transform. In our case, due to the axial symmetry of the problem, it is not necessary to calculate the full 3D Fourier transform. The PMD in the $(k_\rho,k_z)$-subspace has been obtained directly from the outgoing wave part of the function $\psi(\rho,z)$ by transformation $$\bar\psi(k_\rho,k_z) = \frac{1}{(2\pi)^2} \int_{-\infty}^\infty
\!\!dz\,e^{-ik_z z} \int_0^\infty \!\! \rho\, d\rho\, J_0(k_\rho
\rho) \psi(\rho,z). \label{ftpsi}$$ In order to get a clear PMD, before the transformation one has to remove the atomic (bound) part of the active electron wave function $\psi(\mathbf{r},t)$ and leave only the outgoing wave. It is found that at $t = T_p$ two parts of $\psi(\mathbf{r},t)$ separate approximately at $r = 90$a.u.
0.45\
0.45\
0.45
Fig. \[fig:kdis\] shows the calculated PMD for the photoionization of sodium by 800nm wavelength laser pulse of the form (\[pulse\]) with 57fs duration for three values of the peak intensity: $3.5$, $4.9$ and $8.8$TW/cm$^2$ (the corresponding field strength are: $F_\mathrm{peak} = 0.0100$, $0.0118$ and $0.0158$a.u.).
The radial ($k$) dependence of the PMD contains information about the photoelectron energies ($\epsilon = \hbar^2 k^2\!/2m_{\!e}$). The dashed semicircles of radii $k_0 = 0.279$a.u. ($\epsilon^{(0)} = 1.060$eV) and $k_0^\prime = 0.438$a.u. ($\epsilon^{(0)\prime} = 2.610$eV), drawn in the PMD plots, mark the asymptotic values of momenta (energies) of the photoelectrons generated in the nonresonant MPI with four and five photons, respectively, in the weak field limit. Compared to these values, the radial maxima of PMD determined numerically are shifted toward the origin of $(k_\rho,k_z)$-plane. (The related energy maxima are shifted to lower energies, see Sec. \[sec:pwe-pes\].) We point out that some of these maxima are related to the nonresonant MPI for different numbers of absorbed photons, while others can be attributed to the REMPI (Freeman resonances). The shift of nonresonant maxima $\delta k = \hbar^{-1}
\sqrt{2m_{\!e}\epsilon(F_\mathrm{peak})} - k_0$, referring to Eq. (\[excess-e\]), is determined by the dynamic Stark shift of the ground state and the continuum boundary at the given laser peak intensity. The positions of Freeman resonances are, on the other hand, almost independent on the field strength, but they are also located below $k_0$ due to inequality $\epsilon^{(nl)} \le
\epsilon^{(0)}$ discussed at the end of Sec. \[sec:scheme\].
The angular structure of the PMD, the so-called photoelectron angular distribution (PAD), carries information about the superposition of accessible emitted partial waves, which, according to selection rules for the four-photon absorption, can be s, d and g-waves (see Fig. \[fig:diagram\]). Indeed, apart from the strong emission along the laser polarization direction ($\vartheta = 0^\circ$ and $180^\circ$), which can be attributed to all three partial waves, the PADs also show maxima at $\vartheta = 90^\circ$, which characterize d and g-waves and at $\vartheta \approx 45^\circ$ and $135^\circ$, which characterize the g-wave. Analogously, accessible emitted partial waves for the five-photon absorption can be p, f and h-waves (see Fig. \[fig:diagram\]).
Partial wave expansion of the outgoing wave and photoelectron energy spectra {#sec:pwe-pes}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally, the expansion of the outgoing wave in momentum representation in terms of partial waves reads $$\bar\psi(\mathbf{k}) = \sum_l \Phi_l(k) Y_{l0}(\vartheta),
\label{superpos}$$ where $Y_{l0}(\vartheta)$ are the spherical harmonics with $m = 0$ and $\Phi_l(k) = \int Y_{l0}^*(\vartheta)\, \bar\psi(\mathbf{k})\,
\mathrm{d}\Omega$ are the corresponding radial functions. Using the representation of $\bar\psi$ in cylindrical coordinates determined numerically by Eq. (\[ftpsi\]), the radial functions can be calculated as $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_l(k) = 2\pi\! \int_0^\pi \!
\bar\psi(k\sin\vartheta,k\cos\vartheta)\, Y_{l0}(\vartheta)\,
\sin\vartheta\,\mathrm{d}\vartheta. \label{radfun}\end{aligned}$$
0.45\
0.45\
0.45
0.45
According to partial wave expansion (\[superpos\]), the radial probability density of photoelectrons in momentum space is the sum $w(k) = \sum_l w_l(k)$, where $$w_l(k) = |\Phi_l(k)|^2\,k^2 \label{partw}$$ are the partial probability densities. These quantities for $l =
0,\ldots,5$, as functions of the photoelectron excess energy $\epsilon = \hbar^2k^2/2m_{\!e}$, are shown in Fig. \[fig:wl\] for three values of the laser peak intensity: $3.5$, $4.9$ and $8.8$TW/cm$^2$. The corresponding total probability densities $w$ are shown in Fig. \[fig:pes\](a). The graphs in Fig. \[fig:pes\](a) represent the photoelectron energy spectra (PES) for the considered three values of laser intensity. For comparison, the corresponding spectra obtained experimentally [@hart2016] are shown in Fig. \[fig:pes\](b).
The spectra, both the calculated and experimental, exhibit typical ATI structure with prominent peaks separated by the photon energy $\hbar\omega \approx 1.55\,\mathrm{eV}$. Fig. \[fig:pes\] shows the peaks corresponding to lowest three orders of ATI (MPI by $4+s$ photons, $s = 0,1,2$) which are located approximately at $\epsilon = 0.8\,\mathrm{eV} + s\hbar\omega$. The partial wave analysis recovers the character of these peaks. We see in Fig. \[fig:wl\] that for the photoelectron energies around the threshold peak ($s = 0$, $\epsilon \approx 0.8$eV) and around the second-order ATI peak ($s = 2$, $\epsilon \approx 3.9$eV) dominant contributions in the total probability density come from the partial waves with even $l$ (s, d, g-waves). Thus, the photoelectrons with these energies are generated by absorbing an even number of photons ($N = 4$ and 6). Contrarily, in the vicinity of the first-order ATI peak ($s = 1$, $\epsilon \approx
2.35$eV) the partial waves with even $l$ are suppressed and those with odd $l$ (p, f, h-waves) dominate. Therefore, in this case odd number of photons is absorbed (here $N = 5$).
Each ATI peak, in addition, has an internal structure in the form of local peaks which can be attributed to the nonresonant MPI and to the REMPI via different excited states.
Nonresonant photoionization {#sec:nores}
---------------------------
The position of the nonresonant threshold peak (four-photon ionization maximum) predicted by formula (\[excess-e\]) for laser peak intensities 3.5, 4.9 and 8.8TW/cm$^2$ is $\epsilon(F_\mathrm{peak}) = 0.74$eV, 0.61eV and 0.26eV, respectively. This peak can be observed in Figs. \[fig:wl\] and \[fig:pes\](a). Since the energy of photoelectrons produced by the nonresonant MPI does not depend on $l$, a feature of the nonresonat peak is that the maxima of contributing partial densities $w_l$ have the same positions on the energy axis. At the laser peak intensity of $3.5$TW/cm$^2$, however, the nonresonat peak overlaps with the most prominent REMPI peak \[see Figs. \[fig:wl\](a) and \[fig:pes\](a)\] and it is difficult to estimate the position of former from the numerical data. The position of this peak at intensities $4.9$TW/cm$^2$ and $8.8$TW/cm$^2$ is 0.69eV and 0.43eV (numerical values), respectively \[see Figs. \[fig:wl\](b,c) and \[fig:pes\](a)\]. A discrepancy between the values obtained by formula (\[excess-e\]) and from numerical calculations is attributed to the approximative character of the former and to the fact that probability densities $w_l$ are calculated shortly after the end of the pulse (not in the asymptotic domain). In addition, it should be mentioned that in experimental spectra the nonresonant peak is less prominent (almost invisible). This observation is reported also in an earlier work presenting a comparison between calculated and experimental data for the photoionization of lithium [@morishita]. Nonresonant peaks of the first and of the second ATI order can be observed in Fig. \[fig:pes\], too, at positions which are shifted by one and two-photon energy relative to the threshold peak at a given laser intensity.
Resonantly enhanced multiphoton ionization {#sec:rempi}
------------------------------------------
In contrast to the nonresonant peaks the positions of REMPI peaks (Freeman resonances), as explained in Sec. \[sec:scheme\], are almost independent on the laser peak intensity. We saw that photoelectrons belonging to the threshold peak reach the continuum along two pathways which involve the 3+1 REMPI via intermediate P and F states. For the most prominent peak at $\epsilon \approx
0.8$eV the corresponding intermediate states are 5p and 4f, whereas the subpeaks at $\epsilon \approx 1$eV and at $\epsilon
\approx 1.2$eV \[the positions in Fig. \[fig:pes\](b)\] are related to 3+1 REMPI via states 6p and 5f and via states 7p and 6f, respectively. \[The corresponding values in Fig. \[fig:pes\](a) are slightly shifted upwards since the PMD and probability densities are calculated immediately after the end of the pulse.\] Note, however, that for a pulse of 800nm wavelength the transfer of population from the ground state to states 7p and 6f is only near resonant ($E_\mathrm{7p},
E_\mathrm{6f} > 3\hbar\omega - I_p$, see the inset in Fig. \[fig:diagram\]) and, strictly speaking, the four-photon ionization via these states is not 3+1 REMPI (see the last paragraph of Sec. \[sec:scheme\]). In this case formula (\[excess-e\]) is not applicable, but the photoelectron energy can be estimated using relation (\[Eenl-approx\]).
Here we focus on the threshold peak at 0.8eV. Taking into account the possible ionization pathways (via states 5p and 4f) the electron outgoing wave in the energy domain of this peak can be written as the superposition of two wave-packets $$\bar\psi = \bar\psi^\mathrm{(5p)} + \bar\psi^\mathrm{(4f)},
\label{wp5p+wp4f}$$ which, according to diagram in Fig. \[fig:diagram\], have forms $$\begin{aligned}
\bar\psi^\mathrm{(5p)} \!\!&=&\!\! \Phi_0^\mathrm{(5p)} Y_{00} +
\Phi_2^\mathrm{(5p)} Y_{20}, \label{wp5p}
\\[.5ex]
\bar\psi^\mathrm{(4f)} \!\!&=&\!\! \Phi_2^\mathrm{(4f)} Y_{20} +
\Phi_4^\mathrm{(4f)} Y_{40}. \label{wp4f}\end{aligned}$$ Since states 5p and 4f are shifted into the three-photon resonance at different field strengths (see Table \[table1\] and Fig. \[fig:diagram\]), wave packets (\[wp5p\]) and (\[wp4f\]) are formed at different phases of the laser pulse and characterized by different mean energies ($\approx 0.8$eV and 0.7eV, respectively, referring to Table \[table1\]).
Expression (\[wp5p+wp4f\]) with components (\[wp5p\]), (\[wp4f\]) is compatible with the partial wave expansion of function $\bar\psi$. As Fig. \[fig:wl\] demonstrates, the outgoing wave in the domain of threshold peak decomposes into s, d and g-waves $$\bar\psi = \Phi_0 Y_{00} + \Phi_2 Y_{20} + \Phi_4 Y_{40}.
\label{decomp}$$ Radial functions $\Phi_l$ for considered values of the laser intensity are determined numerically using formula (\[radfun\]). Some parameters of these functions are given in Table \[table2\]. The positions of maxima of $|\Phi_l|$ confirm the existence of two ionization channels with different energies. Referring to Table \[table2\] the photoelectrons with s and d-symmetry have higher expected energy ($\approx 0.86$eV) than those with g-symmetry (around $0.76$eV). (A discrepancy between the values for $\epsilon^{(nl)}$ in Tables \[table1\] and \[table2\] originates from the same reasons as explained in Sec. \[sec:nores\].) Since the maximum of $|\Phi_2|$ is close to that of $|\Phi_0|$ we conclude that the majority of d-electrons are generated in the 3+1 REMPI via 5p state, i.e. their contribution in the wave packet (\[wp4f\]) is minor ($\Phi_2^\mathrm{(4f)} \approx 0$). Taking into account the latest, the comparison between expansion (\[decomp\]) and expressions (\[wp5p+wp4f\]), (\[wp5p\]), (\[wp4f\]) gives $\Phi_0^\mathrm{(5p)} = \Phi_0$, $\Phi_2^\mathrm{(5p)} \approx
\Phi_2$ and $\Phi_4^\mathrm{(4f)} = \Phi_4$.
[0.45]{}[@cccccc]{}\
partial wave: & s ($l = 0$) & &\
$I$ (TW/cm$^2$) & $\epsilon$(eV) & $\epsilon$(eV) & $|\Phi_2|/|\Phi_0|$ & $\epsilon$(eV) & $|\Phi_4|/|\Phi_0|$\
\
3.5 & 0.85 & 0.84 & 1.77 & 0.75 & 2.42\
4.9 & 0.88 & 0.87 & 1.68 & 0.77 & 2.65\
8.8 & 0.86 & 0.86 & 1.54 & 0.76 & 2.27\
A similar analysis indicates that the subpeaks at $\epsilon
\approx 1$eV and at $\epsilon \approx 1.2$eV should be related to 3+1 REMPI via states 5f and 6p and to 3+1 or 2+1+1 REMPI via state 6f and sequence $4\mathrm{s} \to 7\mathrm{p}$, respectively. Thus, each of them includes contributions of two ionization channels of different energies (see Table \[table1\]), as in the case of peak at $\epsilon \approx 0.8$eV.
Selective enhancement of photoionization channels {#sec:select}
-------------------------------------------------
By comparing the amplitudes of radial functions $|\Phi_l|$ ($l =
0,2,4$) given in Table \[table2\] (or alternatively the corresponding partial densities $w_l$ shown in Fig. \[fig:wl\]) it follows that the contribution of g-electrons in the peak at 0.8eV is larger than the contributions of d and s-electrons. The electrons of g-symmetry also dominate in the peak around 1eV, but the largest contribution in the peak around 1.2eV is that of d-electrons (see Fig. \[fig:wl\]). Dominant ionization channel for the peaks at 0.8eV and 1eV is, therefore, the 3+1 REMPI via states 4f and 5f, respectively. For the peak around 1.2eV, however, dominant channel is the 2+1+1 REMPI via nearly resonant two-photon transition $3\mathrm{s}\to 4\mathrm{s}$ and subsequent excitation of state 7p. The populations of bound states $nl$ of the unperturbed atom (i.e. transition probabilities $|\langle
nl|\psi(t)\rangle|^2$), calculated during the laser pulse while solving the TDSE, justify these statements. Fig. \[fig:pop\] shows the populations of 3s, 4s and several P and F unperturbed states during 57fs pulse of 800nm wavelength and 3.5TW/cm$^2$ peak intensity. Although this intensity corresponds to the OBI threshold, still there is a significant population of unionized atoms at all phases of the pulse. It can be seen that the population of states 4f and 5f is generally higher than that of states 5p and 6p, respectively, but the population of state 7p is higher than the population of state 6f. At higher laser intensities the atoms enter deeply in the OBI domain and in the second half of pulse the populations significantly drop down (not shown here) since the majority of atoms becomes quickly ionized.
0.45\
0.45\
0.45
The populations of relevant states at different phases of the laser pulse can be well understood by analyzing the energy diagram for single-electron excitations and taking into account dynamic Stark shift of energy levels. From the level diagram shown in Fig. \[fig:diagram\] one sees that three-photon transitions from the ground state to states 4f and 5p are not resonant with the radiation of 800nm in the weak field limit, but these states shift into resonance at field strength $F \approx 0.01$a.u. (see Table \[table1\]), that is in the middle of laser pulse of 3.5TW/cm$^2$ peak intensity. Fig. \[fig:pop\](a) shows that the population of states 4f and 5p increases rapidly right around $T_p/2$. Contrarily, three-photon transitions from the ground state to states 5f and 6p are near resonant with the radiation of 800nm in the weak field limit. These states shift into the true resonance at small values of the field strength, which are reached two times during the pulse at its opposite sides, as it is visible in Fig. \[fig:pop\](b).
In a similar way we can analyze the transfer of the population from the ground state to P states via intermediate 4s state. Since the two-photon transition $3\mathrm{s}\to 4\mathrm{s}$ is resonant with the radiation of 777nm wavelength in the weak field limit, applying the laser pulse of 800nm wavelength and 3.5TW/cm$^2$ peak intensity will maximally populate the 4s state at the beginning of the pulse (around $T_p/4$, see Fig. \[fig:pop\]), when the field is not strong enough to shift the state far from the resonance (see the inset in Fig. \[fig:diagram\]). On the other hand, the single-photon transitions $4\mathrm{s}\to
5\mathrm{p}$, $4\mathrm{s}\to 6\mathrm{p}$ and $4\mathrm{s}\to
7\mathrm{p}$ are in the weak field limit resonant with radiations of 1075nm, 865nm and 781nm wavelength, respectively. Therefore, only the transition $3\mathrm{s} \to 4\mathrm{s} \to
7\mathrm{p}$ is fully near resonant and has a significant rate. Since the dynamic Stark shift for P states increases with the field strength approximately with the same rate as for the 4s state (see the inset in Fig. \[fig:diagram\]), the transition $4\mathrm{s}\to 7\mathrm{p}$ remains nearly resonant all the time and this part of transfer occurs during the rest of the pulse (see Fig. \[fig:pop\](c)).
We conclude this consideration with a speculation that for the laser pulse of a shorter wavelength, such that the 4s level during the pulse transiently shifts into resonance ($\lambda = 780$nm or less), the 2+1+1 REMPI via 4s and subsequent excitation of a P-state may become more prominent process, increasing in this way the selectivity of ionization via specific state.
Summary and conclusions {#sec:conc}
=======================
In this paper we studied the photoionization of sodium by laser pulses of 800nm wavelength, 57fs duration and 3.5 - 8.8TW/cm$^2$ peak intensities. This falls into over-the-barrier ionization (OBI) domain occurring in the multiphoton ionization (MPI) regime. Using the single-active-electron approximation we calculated the photoelectron momentum distributions (PMD) by numerically solving the time dependent Schrödinger equation with these pulse parameters. The contributions of photoelectrons with different values of orbital quantum number $l$ in the PMD are determined by expanding the photoelectron wave function in terms of partial waves. The corresponding partial probability densities $w_l$ depend on the photoelectron energy $\epsilon$ and the total density $\sum_l w_l(\epsilon)$ represents the photoelectron energy spectrum (PES). The spectra calculated for the above mentioned pulse parameters agree well with the spectra obtained experimentally by Hart [*et. al.*]{} [@hart2016].
Partial wave analysis of the spectral peaks related to Freeman resonances has shown that each peak has photoelectron contributions from different ionization channels which are characterized by different photoelectron energies and different symmetries of released photoelectron wave-packets. It is found that the most prominent peak around 0.8eV is the overlap of two Freeman resonances related to resonantly enhanced multiphoton (3+1) ionization (3+1 REMPI) via the states 4f and 5p, but also has a contribution from the nonresonant four-photon ionization. The local peak around 1eV is related to 3+1 REMPI via the states 5f and 6p, whereas the dominant ionization channel for the peak around 1.2eV is 2+1+1 REMPI via the near resonant 4s state and subsequently excited 7p state. These findings are justified by calculating the populations of excited states during the pulse. Our analysis indicates that the contribution of specific ionization channels might be selectively increased using laser pulses of a shorter wavelength, at which the intermediate states are taken in a better resonance with the laser field.
N.S.S. thanks J-M. Rost for helpful discussion and gratefully acknowledges the hospitality at Max-Plank-Institute for the Physics of Complex Systems in Dresden. We acknowledge support from the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of Republic of Serbia under Project No. 171020.
[99]{} M. Wollenhaupt, M. Krug, J. Köhler, T. Bayer, C. Sarpe-Tudoran, and T. Baumert, Appl. Phys. B [**95**]{}, 245 (2009). M. Krug, T. Bayer, M. Wollenhaupt, C. Sarpe-Tudoran, T. Baumert, S. S. Ivanov, and N. V. Vitanov, New J. Phys. [**11**]{}, 105051 (2009). M. Schuricke, G. Zhu, J. Steinmann, K. Simeonidis, I. Ivanov, A. Kheifets, A.N. Grum-Grzhimailo, K. Bartschat, A. Dorn, J. Ullrich, Phys. Rev. A [**83**]{}, 023413 (2011). S.-D. Jheng and T. F. Jiang, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. [**46**]{}, 115601 (2013). T. Morishita and C. D. Lin, Phys. Rev. A [**87**]{}, 063405 (2013). M. Schuricke, K. Bartschat, A. N. Grum-Grzhimailo, G. Zhu, J. Steinmann, R. Moshammer, J. Ullrich, and A. Dorn, Phys. Rev. A [**88**]{}, 023427 (2013). N. A. Hart, J. Strohaber, A. A. Kolomenskii, G. G. Paulus, D. Bauer, and H. A. Schuessler, Phys. Rev. A [**93**]{}, 063426 (2016). A. Bunjac, D. B. Popović and N. S. Simonović, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., [**19**]{}, 19829 (2017). P. Wessels, B. Ruff, T. Kroker, A. K. Kazansky, N. M. Kabachnik, K. Sengstock, M. Drescher, and J. Simonet, Communications Physics [**1**]{}, 32 (2018). M. H. Mittleman, [*Introduction to the Theory of Laser-Atom Interactions*]{} (Plenum Press, New York, 1982). N. B. Delone and V. P. Krainov, [*Multiphoton Processes in Atoms*]{}, Vol. 13 (Springer, Heidelberg, 2000). C. J. Joachain, N. J. Kylstra, R. M. Potvliege, [*Atoms in Intense Laser Fields*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012). L. V. Keldysh, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**47**]{}, 1945 (1964). M. Z. Milošević and N. S. Simonović, Phys. Rev. A [**91**]{}, 023424 (2015). E. Mevel, P. Breger, R. Trainham, G. Petite, P. Agostini, A. Migus, J.-P. Chambaret, and A. Antonetti, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 406 (1993). N. B. Delone and V. P. Krainov, Physics – Uspekhi [**42**]{}, 669 (1999). R. R. Freeman, P. H. Bucksbaum, H. Milchberg, S. Darack, D. Schumacher, and M. E. Geusic, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**59**]{}, 1092 (1987). G. N. Gibson, R. R. Freeman, and T. J. McIlrath, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 1904 (1992). F. Grossmann, Theoretical Femtosecond Physics (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2008). H. Rabitz, R. de Vivie-Riedle, M. Motzkus and K. Kompa, Science [**288**]{}, 824 (2000). M. Shapiro and P. Brumer, [*Principles of the Quantum Control of Molecular Processes*]{}, Wiley, New York, 2003. B. J. Sussman, D. Townsend, M. Yu. Ivanov and A. Stolow, Science [**314**]{}, 278 (2006). J. González-Vázquez, I. R. Sola, J. Santamaria, and V. S. Malinovsky, Chem. Phys. Lett. [**431**]{}, 231 (2006). H. Hellmann, J. Chem. Phys. [**3**]{}, 61 (1935). J. E. Sansonetti, J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data [**37**]{}, 1659 (2008). A. Askar and A. S. Cakmak, J. Chem. Phys. [**68**]{}, 2794 (1978). A. Bunjac, D. B. Popović, and N. S. Simonović, Eur. Phys. J. D [**71**]{}, 208 (2017). J. Mitroy, M. S. Safronova, and C. W. Clark, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. [**43**]{}, 202001 (2010).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Programming has been an important skill for researchers and practitioners in computer science and other related areas. To learn basic programing skills, a long-time systematic training is usually required for beginners. According to a recent market report, the computer software market is expected to continue expanding at an accelerating speed, but the market supply of qualified software developers can hardly meet such a huge demand. In recent years, the surge of text generation research works provides the opportunities to address such a dilemma through automatic program synthesis. In this paper, we propose to make our try to solve the program synthesis problem from a data mining perspective. To address the problem, a novel generative model, namely [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{}, will be introduced in this paper. [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} effectively parses program code into abstract syntax trees (ASTs), where the tree nodes will contain the program code/comment content and the tree structure can capture the program logic flows. Based on a new unit model called [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hsu</span>]{}]{}, [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} can effectively capture both the hierarchical and sequential patterns in the program ASTs. Extensive experiments will be done to compare [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} with the state-of-the-art text generation methods, and the experimental results have demonstrated the effectiveness of [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} in addressing the program synthesis problem.'
author:
- 'Jiawei Zhang$^1$, Limeng Cui$^2$, Fisher B. Gouza$^1$'
bibliography:
- '12\_reference.bib'
title: 'EgoCoder: Intelligent Program Synthesis with Hierarchical Sequential Neural Network Model'
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Formally, programing denotes the process of developing and implementing computer instructions to enable a computer to perform certain tasks. These instructions are usually written in one or several programing languages, and a sequence of computer instructions (implementing the pre-specified functions) will be called a computer program, which helps the computer to operate smoothly. To learn necessary programing skills, a long-time systematic training is usually required for beginners. Generally, to be a qualified programmer, people may need to master knowledge from various areas, including *programing language*, *discrete mathematics*, *data structure* and *algorithm*, etc.
Computer programing continues to be a necessary and important skill for both academic researchers and industry practitioners as the Internet and AI applications continue to expand. As introduced in [@grow], the computer software market is expanding at an accelerating speed and is estimated to grow from $19.98$ Billion USD in 2014 to more than $50.34$ Billion USD in 2022. Meanwhile, according to the latest market analysis report [@market], there exists a huge gap between the market supply and demand of software developers. For instance, from January 2016 to February 2017, more than $115,000$ job postings requesting for qualified software engineers have been posted in each month, but the average monthly hire number is merely $33,579$. Such a huge demand-supply gap also motivates many large IT companies to seek for other ways to address such a problem.
For effective program code storage and maintenance, inside all the well-known big IT and related technology companies, they are maintaining a company-internal program codebase for storing all the developed program code of company systems, web services, software products and research projects. The program code in these codebases is normally of a tremendous amount. A recent report [@codebase] releases the lines of code used in several companies and software systems, among which Google ranks the top with more than 2 billion lines of code [@google] used in all its Internet services. These company codebase repositories cover very diverse yet high-quality code, which are also the most valuable intellectual property of companies, but fail to be effectively exploited.
Programing has been long-time treated as one of the most challenging skills mastered by a very small number of people from some untrained eyes. In this paper, we will make our try to attack this holy-grail pride of software engineers by training a model to write programs automatically. The [[automatic program synthesis]{}]{} problem is a fundamental problem from the technology, business and society development perspectives. Successfully addressing the problem will effectively bridge the market supply&demand gap for qualified practitioners, greatly stimulate the development of IT and other related areas, intelligently recycle the company internal codebase for secondary-development, and promisingly free human from the tedious coding positions to other more challenging jobs.
In recent years, due to the surge of deep learning developments [@GBC16], many text generation research works and models have been proposed, which introduce many novel yet interesting research problems. Meanwhile, slightly different from the unstructured sentences written in natural languages, the program code written in programing languages is highly structured, which can be precisely parsed into a hierarchical structure according to the specific programming language grammar. For instance, for the program written in an advanced programing language, Python, its code will consist of hierarchical structures like *class*, *function*, *statements* and *expressions*, etc. Therefore, instead of handling the program characters by characters (like the existing text generation research works [@SMH11]), new techniques that can handle the program according to its own structure will be necessary.
The [[automatic program synthesis]{}]{} problem is extremely challenging to solve due to several reasons:
- *Lack of Problem Definition*: The [[automatic program synthesis]{}]{} problem is still an open problem to this context so far. A formal definition of [[automatic program synthesis]{}]{} will be required before proposing potential solutions to address it.
- *Program Hierarchical Structure Extraction*: There usually exists a concrete hierarchical-sequential structure of program code according to its logic flows hierarchically and sequentially. Generally, code tokens at the lower level of programs will precisely implement the desired physical functions of the program components at higher levels; meanwhile, at each level, the logic will flow in a sequential manner from the beginning to the end. Extraction of such a hierarchical-sequential program structure will be useful for effective program information modeling and representation learning.
- *Unit Model*: For each component in the hierarchical-sequential structure aforementioned, depending on the specific running mode, it will accept the input from the components above/below and before/after the component. A new unit model for implementing such an intertwined relationships in the learning process will be desired.
- *Program Intention Incorporation*: Besides the program code itself, there usually exist some textual descriptions of the program code in a natural language, which indicates the physical function of the program, e.g., *ranking*, *shuffling*, *searching*, *factorization* and *dynamic programing*, etc. Effectively incorporating the program intention into the learning process will allow both program generation and interpretation across natural languages and programing languages.
To effectively resolve the above challenges, in this paper, we will introduce a novel neural network model, namely [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{}, with a deep architecture. [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} provides a formal definition of the [[automatic program synthesis]{}]{} problem, which covers three different sub-problems respectively: program generation, program interpretation and program completion. Instead of learning the models based on the pure text information in the program code, [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} extracts the hierarchical-sequential structure with a programming language parser, which translates the input program code into abstract syntax tree (AST) structured diagrams. For each node in the extracted ASTs, it contains both syntax types and tokens as its content. Meanwhile, the structure of the extracted ASTs will also effectively indicate the semantic logic flows of the program. To capture both the syntax contents of the program components and the semantical logic flow of the program, a new unit model, namely [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hsu</span>]{}]{} (hierarchical sequential unit), will be used as the basic component in [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{}. Unit model [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hsu</span>]{}]{} can accept inputs from sibling nodes at the same levels, as well as evolving information from the child nodes and inheriting information from the father node simultaneously. Based on a set of sampled sub-tree batches from the extracted program ASTs, [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} can be trained effectively to capture the substructures covered in the ASTs. These new technical terms mentioned above will be clearly illustrated in great details in this paper.
Problem Formulation {#sec:formulation}
===================
In this section, we will first define several important concepts used in this paper, based on which we will provide the formulation of the studied problem and its three different running modes.
Terminology Definition
----------------------
Computer program usually has a highly structured hierarchy, involving the code components belonging to different syntax types.
(Program Syntax Type): Formally, we can represent the set of syntax types involved in the program as set $\mathcal{C} = \{$*module*, *class*, *function*, *statement*, *expression*$\} \cup \{$*unit token syntax type*$\}$, where the unit token syntax type set involves various variable and operator types used in the program.
Based on the *program syntax type* set, we can translate a program into a *program abstract syntax tree*, where the nodes denote program code components (i.e., code blocks) belonging to different syntax types, and the links represent the semantic logic flows among the code components.
(Program AST): Formally, a *program AST* can be represented as a graph structured diagram: $T = (\mathcal{V}, \mathcal{E}, root)$, where $\mathcal{V}$ denotes the set of program component nodes, and $\mathcal{E}$ denotes the set of *logic-flow* relationships among the nodes at either different hierarchical levels or at the same hierarchical levels. In $T$, the $root \in \mathcal{V}$ represents the top program component node, which usually denotes the program *module* component by default.
(Program Component Node): Each *program component node* $v \in \mathcal{V}$ in the *program AST* can be denoted as a triple $v = (c, t, f)$, where $c \in \mathcal{C}$ denotes its syntax type, $t$ represents its textual content and $f$ denotes the functional intention of the program component. The overall program intention can be represented as the AST root node intention by default.
![An Example of Program Abstract Syntax Tree.[]{data-label="fig:example"}](./example.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
For instance, as shown in Figure \[fig:example\], given the input program on the left, we can represent its corresponding *program AST* on the right, where the top *program component* is *module*. The *program module* covers the one *import* statement and one *class* component, which further involves two *function* components. The first function componennt *contains* multiple statements with *sequential* relationships, and each statement further *contains* multiple *sequential* expressions, i.e., sequences of tokens. Different from natural language, the program code is well-structured, and each token also has a corresponding concept denoting its type, e.g., *key words* vs *variables* vs *operators*, which can be precisely extracted with the corresponding programming language interpreter/parser.
Problem Formulation {#problem-formulation}
-------------------
The [[automatic program synthesis]{}]{} problem studied in this paper actually covers three sub-problems simultaneously, each of which describes a special case of the “problem synthesis” problem. Formally, these three sub-problems covered in the [[automatic program synthesis]{}]{} problem are illustrated as follows:
- *Program Generation*: Given the *program intention* of the top program module component in the *program AST*, the *program generation* problem aims at generating the program source code that can implement the specified intentions.
- *Program Interpretation*: With the complete program source code or merely a fragment, the *program interpretation* problem aims at inferring the potential intention of the program, i.e., interpreting the physical functions of the program code.
- *Program Completion*: Given a fragment of the program code, which can be either a function or merely several statements of the code, the *program completion* problem aims at completing the missing components of the program.
Proposed Methods {#sec:method}
================
In this section, we will introduce the [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} framework to solve the [[automatic program synthesis]{}]{} problem (including all these three aforementioned sub-problems). Framework [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} involves several crucial steps: (1) program parsing, (2) hierarchical sequential statement encoding with [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hsu</span>]{}]{}, and (3) framework learning. In the following part of this section, we will introduce these three steps in great detail.
Program Parsing {#subsec:parsinng}
---------------
Different from natural languages, the program written in programing languages is highly structured. Instead of handling the code characters by characters, we propose to translate the program code into program ASTs in this paper, which will be taken as the input for modeling to be introduced in the next subsection. For instance, given a program statement “pivot\_value = seq\[pivot\_index\]”, it assigns an entry (with index “pivot\_index”) from list “seq” to a variable “pivot\_value”, where “=” and “\[\]” are the operators, and “pivot\_value”, “seq”, “pivot\_index” denote the assignment target, source list, and index variables respectively. For many programming languages, like Python, the space among the tokens has no impact on the program functions. For instance, the program statement “pivot\_value=seq\[pivot\_index\]” (with no space between the tokens) will work exactly as “pivot\_value = seq \[ pivot\_index \]” (with tokens well separated by the space). However, such a characteristic will create lots of challenges for partitioning the program line into unit tokens. Traditional text mining and natural language processing techniques will either partition the code line into a sequence of characters, i.e., ‘p’, ‘i’, ‘v’, ‘o’, $\cdots$, ‘x’, ‘\]’, or separate the string by certain characters among them. Neither of these two partition methods will work well for programs, and they will also create lots of problems for modeling the program code and understanding the program intention.
In addition, in most of the cases, program operators will be deeply buried in the variables. For instance, the expression “seq\[pivot\_index\]” actually represents an entry in a list, where “\[\]” is an operator. Without differentiating ‘\[’ and ‘\]’ from the remaining characters, it is highly likely that we will treat “seq\[pivot\_index\]” merely as a new variable name and fail to process the code correctly. In this paper, to resolve such a problem, we propose to parse the program code lines into a program AST instead.
![An Example of Program Abstract Syntax Tree.[]{data-label="fig:syntax_tree"}](./syntax_tree.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
For instance, in Figure \[fig:syntax\_tree\], we show two examples of *program ASTs* corresponding to two input program statements. The first statement involves the assignment of value “seq\[pivot\_index\]” to variable “pivot\_value”. In its AST, we have “pivot\_value”, “seq” and “pivot\_index” as the variable tokens, and “=” and “\[\]” as the operator tokens. Furthermore, “seq”, “\[\]” and “pivot\_index” together will compose an expression in the syntax tree. For the nodes in the same level, i.e., the siblings, we will add sequential links connecting them, which are denoted by the dashed links as shown in Figure \[fig:syntax\_tree\].
The second example shown in Figure \[fig:syntax\_tree\] is more complicated, it is a “FOR”-statement. According to the provided syntax tree shown in the figure, this statement contains the “FOR-Condition”-statement and “FOR-Body”-statement as the child nodes of the root. For the “FOR-Condition”-statement, it starts with a reserved keyword token “for”, followed by variable token and another reserved keyword token “in” respectively, and ends with an expression “range(left, right)” (involving function call token “range()” as well as variable tokens “left” and “right”). Furthermore, in the “FOR-Body”-statement, it contains an “IF”-statement, involving both the “IF-Condition”-statement and “IF-Body”-statement respectively. For long programs, their ASTs will be in an extremely deep structure, which may cause many computational problems in model learning. In this paper, we will allow [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} to truncate ASTs to shrink the tree depth. For instance, if we use *statement* as the smallest basic syntax type in the AST leaf nodes, then the ASTs of program statements 1 and 2 in Figure \[fig:syntax\_tree\] will be of a much simpler structure, whose involved nodes are marked in green circles in Figure \[fig:syntax\_tree\]. There exist some open-source tools which can generate the syntax tree of Python code automatically, e.g., the Python AST package[^1]. With these tools, instead of modeling the program raw textual code, we can translate the program into its AST, and the following learning steps will be all based on the obtained ASTs by default.
Hierarchical Sequential Unit (HSU)
----------------------------------
![The Hierarchical Sequential Unit (HSU) Model[]{data-label="fig:unit_model"}](./unit.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
As shown in the constructed ASTs, among the nodes in the tree structured diagram, there exist two different relationship types: *hierarchical relationship* between the father nodes and children nodes at different levels, and *sequential relationship* between sibling nodes at the same levels. To effectively model the contents of the nodes as well as the hierarchical-sequential relationships among the nodes, in this section, we will introduce a novel unit model, namely HSU (Hierarchical Sequential Unit). [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hsu</span>]{}]{} will be used as the basic structure for constructing the [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} model (to be illustrated in the next subsection), which involves two sub-units, ESU (Evolutional Sequential Unit) and ISU (Inherited Sequential Unit), for handling the program generation and interpretation tasks respectively. The general structure of the HSU is provided in Figure \[fig:unit\_model\], where the arrows denote the information flow directions, black/red dots represent the concatenation operations of vectors, $\sigma$ and $\tanh$ denote the sigmoid and hyperbolic tangent functions respectively, and icons $\otimes$, $\oplus$ represent the entry-wise vector product and sum operators.
### Evolutional Sequential Unit
In Figure \[fig:unit\_model\], the component on the left is an ESU, which accepts the input from the children nodes, i.e., ${\mathbf}{h}^{\tau+1}_{1}, {\mathbf}{h}^{\tau+1}_{2}, \cdots, {\mathbf}{h}^{\tau+1}_{n}$ and the left sibling node, i.e., ${\mathbf}{h}^{\tau}_{i-1}$. For the input from sibling node, ESU adopts a “forget gate”, which may choose one part of ${\mathbf}{h}^{\tau}_{i-1}$ to update. In programs, the scope of variables can be different between statements, which may be updated as the code runs into a new statement. Formally, we can represent the “forget gate” together with the updated left-sibling node state as $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{{\mathbf}{h}}^\tau_{i-1} = {\mathbf}{f}^\tau_i \otimes {\mathbf}{h}^\tau_{i-1}, \mbox{ where }{\mathbf}{f}^\tau_i = \sigma \left( {\mathbf}{W}_f \left[{{\mathbf}{h}^\tau_{i-1}}, {{\mathbf}{h}^{\tau +1}} \right]^\top \right).\end{aligned}$$ Here, ${\mathbf}{h}^{\tau +1} = \left[{\mathbf}{h}^{\tau+1}_{1}, {\mathbf}{h}^{\tau+1}_{2}, \cdots, {\mathbf}{h}^{\tau+1}_{n} \right]$ denotes the concatenated input state vector from the children nodes and matrix ${\mathbf}{W}_f$ represents the variables of the “forget gate” in ESU.
Meanwhile, for the inputs from the children nodes, ESU introduces a gate, namely the “evolve gate”, which can evolve the children input states to the upper level. Here, the term “evolve” models the changes from the lower-level program expression to higher-level program statement, which is effective to represent the changes in the scope of variables and other program context information across levels in program ASTs. Formally, we can represent the “evolve gate” as well as the updated children node state vector as $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{{\mathbf}{h}}^{\tau+1} = {\mathbf}{e}^{\tau}_i \otimes {\mathbf}{h}^{\tau+1}, \mbox{ where }{\mathbf}{e}^{\tau}_i = \sigma \left( {\mathbf}{W}_e \left[{{\mathbf}{h}^\tau_{i-1}}, {{\mathbf}{h}^{\tau +1}} \right]^\top \right),\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathbf}{W}_e$ denotes the variable matrix in the “evolve gate” in ESU.
ESU computes the output with the original inputs from sibling and children nodes, i.e., ${\mathbf}{h}^{\tau}_{i-1}$, ${\mathbf}{h}^{\tau +1}$, as well as the updated sibling-node state vector $\tilde{{\mathbf}{h}}^\tau_{i-1}$ and the evolved child-node state vector $\tilde{{\mathbf}{h}}^{\tau+1}$. ESU allows different combinations of the state vectors, which are controlled by two new selection gates ${\mathbf}{z}_i^\tau$ and ${\mathbf}{r}^\tau_i$ respectively. Formally, we can represent the final output of ESU as $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf}{h}^{\tau}_i &= {\mathbf}{z}_i^\tau \otimes {\mathbf}{r}^\tau_i \otimes tanh \left({\mathbf}{W}_u [\tilde{{\mathbf}{h}}^\tau_{i-1}, \tilde{{\mathbf}{h}}^{\tau+1}]^\top \right)\\
&\oplus ({\mathbf}{1} \ominus {\mathbf}{z}_i^\tau) \otimes {\mathbf}{r}^\tau_i \otimes tanh \left({\mathbf}{W}_u [{{\mathbf}{h}}^\tau_{i-1}, \tilde{{\mathbf}{h}}^{\tau+1}]^\top \right)\\
&\oplus {\mathbf}{z}_i^\tau \otimes ({\mathbf}{1} \ominus {\mathbf}{r}^\tau_i) \otimes tanh \left({\mathbf}{W}_u [\tilde{{\mathbf}{h}}^\tau_{i-1}, {{\mathbf}{h}}^{\tau+1}]^\top \right)\\
&\oplus ({\mathbf}{1} \ominus {\mathbf}{z}_i^\tau) \otimes ({\mathbf}{1} \ominus {\mathbf}{r}^\tau_i) \otimes tanh \left({\mathbf}{W}_u [{{\mathbf}{h}}^\tau_{i-1}, {{\mathbf}{h}}^{\tau+1}]^\top \right),\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathbf}{z}_i^\tau = \sigma ( {\mathbf}{W}_z [{{\mathbf}{h}^\tau_{i-1}}, {{\mathbf}{h}^{\tau +1}} ]^\top ), {\mathbf}{r}_i^\tau = \sigma ( {\mathbf}{W}_r [{{\mathbf}{h}^\tau_{i-1}}, {{\mathbf}{h}^{\tau +1}} ]^\top )$, and ${\mathbf}{1}$ denotes a vector filled with value $1$. Matrices ${\mathbf}{W}_u$, ${\mathbf}{W}_z$, ${\mathbf}{W}_r$ represent the variables involved in the components. Vector ${\mathbf}{h}^{\tau}_i$ will be the output to both the right sibling node and the father node in ESU.
{width="85.00000%"}
### Inherited Sequential Unit
The component on the right of Figure \[fig:unit\_model\] is called the ISU, which accepts input from the left sibling node, i.e., ${\mathbf}{h}^{\tau}_{i-1}$, higher-level father node, i.e., ${\mathbf}{h}^{\tau-1}_{i}$, and generates the output for the right sibling node and children nodes at the lower level. Similar to ESU, there also exists a “forget gate” in ISU for updating some information from the sibling state input. Slightly different from ESU, the “forget gate” in ISU is controlled by the states of sibling and father nodes, which together with the updated input from the left-sibling node can be represented as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{{\mathbf}{h}}^\tau_{i-1} = {\mathbf}{g}^\tau_i \otimes {\mathbf}{h}^\tau_{i-1}, \mbox{ where }{\mathbf}{g}^\tau_i = \sigma \left( {\mathbf}{W}_g\left[{{\mathbf}{h}^\tau_{i-1}}, {{\mathbf}{h}^{\tau -1}_j} \right]^\top \right).\end{aligned}$$ Here, ${\mathbf}{W}_g$ is the variable of the “forget gate” in ISU.
Another significant difference between ISU and ESU is, for inheriting and updating the program context from the father node, e.g., the scopes of variables and other program information, ISU has an “inherit gate” for changing the input states of the father node. Formally, we can represent the “inherit gate” together with the updated input from the father node as $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{{\mathbf}{h}}^{\tau-1}_j = {\mathbf}{t}^{\tau}_i \otimes {\mathbf}{h}^{\tau-1}_j, \mbox{ where }{\mathbf}{t}^{\tau}_i = \sigma \left( {\mathbf}{W}_t \left[{{\mathbf}{h}^\tau_{i-1}}, {{\mathbf}{h}^{\tau-1}_j} \right]^\top \right),\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathbf}{W}_t$ is the variable of the “inherit gate” in ISU.
ISU will compute the final output based on the combination of the original input vectors and the updated vectors, which is controlled by the gates ${\mathbf}{y}_i^\tau$ and ${\mathbf}{s}^\tau_i$ respectively. Formally, we can represent the final output of ISU as $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf}{h}^{\tau}_i &= {\mathbf}{y}_i^\tau \otimes {\mathbf}{s}^\tau_i \otimes tanh \left({\mathbf}{W}_v [\tilde{{\mathbf}{h}}^\tau_{i-1}, \tilde{{\mathbf}{h}}^{\tau-1}_j]^\top \right)\\
&\oplus ({\mathbf}{1} \ominus {\mathbf}{y}_i^\tau) \otimes {\mathbf}{s}^\tau_i \otimes tanh \left({\mathbf}{W}_v [{{\mathbf}{h}}^\tau_{i-1}, \tilde{{\mathbf}{h}}^{\tau-1}_j ]^\top \right)\\
&\oplus {\mathbf}{y}_i^\tau \otimes ({\mathbf}{1} \ominus {\mathbf}{s}^\tau_i) \otimes tanh \left({\mathbf}{W}_v [\tilde{{\mathbf}{h}}^\tau_{i-1}, {{\mathbf}{h}}^{\tau-1}_j ]^\top \right)\\
&\oplus ({\mathbf}{1} \ominus {\mathbf}{y}_i^\tau) \otimes ({\mathbf}{1} \ominus {\mathbf}{s}^\tau_i) \otimes tanh \left({\mathbf}{W}_v [{{\mathbf}{h}}^\tau_{i-1}, {{\mathbf}{h}}^{\tau-1}_j ]^\top \right),\end{aligned}$$ where gates ${\mathbf}{y}_i^\tau = \sigma ( {\mathbf}{W}_y [{{\mathbf}{h}^\tau_{i-1}}, {{\mathbf}{h}^{\tau -1}} ]^\top ), {\mathbf}{s}_i^\tau = \sigma ( {\mathbf}{W}_s [{{\mathbf}{h}^\tau_{i-1}}, {{\mathbf}{h}^{\tau -1}} ]^\top )$ and matrices ${\mathbf}{W}_y$, ${\mathbf}{W}_s$, ${\mathbf}{W}_v$ denote the variables of ISU. Vector ${\mathbf}{h}^{\tau}_i$ will be the output to both the right sibling node as well as all the children nodes. In sum, the ESU and ISU components covered in the HSU unit model have a lot in common, as they (1) both have the forget gate, (2) both have the evolve/inherit gate, and (3) both combine the original states and updated states to generate the output. There also exist many difference between ESU and ISU. Besides the input/output among the sibling nodes, ISU also accepts input from higher-level father nodes to generate output to the children nodes; while ESU accepts input from the children nodes instead and generate output to the father node. The evolve/inherit gates in ESU and ISU effectively adapt the program context changes between different levels but in different directions. In the training and testing stages of [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{}, ESU and ISU will be mainly used as the unit structure for program interpretation and program generation to be introduced as follows.
Framework Learning
------------------
With the HSU introduced before, we can represent the architecture of [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} in Figure \[fig:architecture\], which is also in a tree structured diagram. Based on the ASTs parsed from the input program source code, a set of sub-trees will be sampled for training [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{}. For the $n$ children HSU nodes at the lower level, they are fed with their raw encoding features and sibling node states as the inputs. Here, $n=d_{max}$ denotes the maximum node degree in the program AST, and dummy padding will be used for the sub-trees with less than $n$ children nodes. Among these $n$ children nodes, the data flow is bi-directed, which can effectively model the sequential patterns in ASTs in both directions. Furthermore, the outputs of the children HSU nodes will be all fed to a father node at the higher level, which accepts no sibling node input. The output of the father HSU node will effectively recover its content. Besides the bottom-up mode, [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} can also work well in a top-down mode, where the input of father HSU node will generate the contents of children HSU nodes. In this part, we will introduce the [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} model in great detail to illustrate how to train the model with program ASTs.
### Token Raw Encoding
As introduced before, in the program ASTs, the nodes denote the program components, which contain program syntax types, token contents and program intentions (optional). Based on the parsing results obtained from the program, we can obtain the syntax type set and the set of concrete keyword, variable, operator and other tokens used in the program, which will be represented as sets $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{T}$ respectively. Formally, for each node $v_i \in \mathcal{V}$ in the program ASTs, its representation can be represented as a vector ${\mathbf}{x}_{i} = [{\mathbf}{x}_{i}^c, {\mathbf}{x}_{i}^t] \in \{0, 1\}^{|\mathcal{C}| + k \cdot |\mathcal{T}|}$, where ${\mathbf}{x}_{i}^c \in \{0, 1\}^{|\mathcal{C}|}$ and ${\mathbf}{x}_{i}^t \in \{0, 1\}^{k \cdot |\mathcal{T}|}$ represent the one-hot feature vector of syntax types and tokens respectively and $k$ represents the maximal number of tokens contained in the tree nodes. For the tree nodes with less than $k$ tokens, dummy padding will be adopted.
### Program Generation: Top-Down Training of [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{}
Based on the input raw feature vector ${\mathbf}{y}$ from the father node in [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} as illustrated in Figure \[fig:architecture\], we can denote its output result of the father node via the ISU model as $${\mathbf}{h}^{\tau} = \mbox{ISU}({\mathbf}{y}, {\mathbf}{null}; {\mathbf}{W}_{I}),$$ where ${\mathbf}{null}$ denotes a dummy padding vector and ${\mathbf}{W}_I$ covers all the variables involved in the ISU model introduced before.
By feeding ${\mathbf}{h}^{\tau}$ as the input to the children nodes at the lower level, model [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} will generate the output representations of the children nodes. We can denote the state and output vectors of the $i_{th}$ child node as $$\begin{cases}
{\mathbf}{h}_i^{\tau+1} &= \mbox{ISU} ({\mathbf}{h}^{\tau}, {\mathbf}{h}^{\tau+1}_{i-1}; {\mathbf}{W}_{I} ),\\
\hat{{\mathbf}{x}}_i &= \mbox{softmax}({\mathbf}{W}_{down} {\mathbf}{h}_i^{\tau+1} + {\mathbf}{b}_{down}),
\end{cases}$$ where ${\mathbf}{h}^{\tau+1}_{i-1}$ denotes the input from the left sibling node, $\mbox{softmax}(\cdot)$ represents the softmax function and ${\mathbf}{h}^{\tau+1}_{0} = {\mathbf}{null}$ for the first child node without left sibling. ${\mathbf}{W}_{down}$ and ${\mathbf}{b}_{down}$ are the variables involved to project node state to the output.
Compared with the ground-truth representation of the children nodes in the sampled sub-tree, i.e., $\{ {\mathbf}{x}_i \}_{i=1}^{d_{max}}$, the loss introduced by the ISU model on the sub-tree can be represented as $$\mathcal{L}_{\mbox{\textsc{isu}}} = \sum_{i=1}^{ d_{max} } \sum_{j = 1}^{|\mathcal{C}| + k\cdot |\mathcal{T}|} - {\mathbf}{x}_i [j] \log \hat{{\mathbf}{x}}_i [j],$$ which is defined based on the cross-entropy loss function, and index $j$ enumerates all the syntax types and tokens involved in the node representation vector.
### Program Interpretation: Bottom-Up Training of [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{}
On the other hand, besides the top-down direction, we will also train the [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} model in a bottom-up manner. Based on the input for the children nodes, we can generate the contents of the father node as well. Formally, we can represent the input vectors for the children nodes as $\{ {\mathbf}{x}_i \}_{i = 1}^{d_{max}}$. By feeding these vectors to the children nodes, we can represent the output vector from the $i_{th}$ child node as vector ${\mathbf}{h}_i^{\tau+1}$: $${\mathbf}{h}_i^{\tau+1} = \mbox{ESU}({\mathbf}{x}_i, {\mathbf}{h}_{i-1}^{\tau+1}; {\mathbf}{W}_{E}),$$ where ${\mathbf}{h}_{0}^{\tau+1} = {\mathbf}{null}$ for the first children node, and ${\mathbf}{W}_E$ represents the variables involved in the ESU model.
Furthermore, based on the children node representations, we will be able to represent the state vector and output vector of the father node as $$\begin{cases}
{\mathbf}{h}^\tau &= \mbox{ESU}( {\mathbf}{h}^{\tau+1}, {\mathbf}{null}; {\mathbf}{W}_{E} ),\\
\hat{{\mathbf}{y}} &= \mbox{softmax}( {\mathbf}{W}_{up} {\mathbf}{h}^\tau + {\mathbf}{b}_{up} ),
\end{cases}$$ where vector ${\mathbf}{h}^{\tau+1} = [{\mathbf}{h}^{\tau+1}_1, {\mathbf}{h}^{\tau+1}_2, \cdots, {\mathbf}{h}^{\tau+1}_n]^\top$ contains all the children node states. ${\mathbf}{W}_{up}$ and ${\mathbf}{b}_{up}$ are the variables used to project the father node state to the its output.
The introduced loss based on the input sub-tree by comparing $\hat{{\mathbf}{y}}$ with the ground-truth vector ${\mathbf}{y}$ can be represented as $$\mathcal{L}_{\mbox{\textsc{esu}}} = \sum_{j = 1}^{|\mathcal{C}| + k\cdot |\mathcal{T}|} - {\mathbf}{y} [j] \log \hat{{\mathbf}{y}} [j].$$
### Program Completion: Sequential Training of [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{}
In the case when only a fragment of the program is provided for feeding the child nodes, the training process for the ESU will encounter great challenges, since the incomplete input will mislead the model to generate a wrong output. This happens very often, since missing any line of the program code will introduce an incomplete sub-tree structured diagram in the program AST. To resolve such a problem, we propose to generate the complete child node input information based on the program fragments by training the bi-directed HSU structure in [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{}.
As introduced before, based on the input of children nodes $\{ {\mathbf}{x}_i \}_{i=1}^{d_{max}}$, we can represent their state vectors as $\{ {\mathbf}{h}_i^{\tau+1} \}_{i=1}^{d_{max}}$. In the bi-directed HSU, based on the state vectors of the $i_{th}$ child node, we can represent the inferred output vectors for the tokens on the left and on the right as vectors $\hat{{\mathbf}{x}}_{i, l}$ and $\hat{{\mathbf}{x}}_{i, r}$ respectively: $$\begin{cases}
\hat{{\mathbf}{x}}_{i, l} = \mbox{softmax}( {\mathbf}{W}_{left} {\mathbf}{h}_i^{\tau+1} + {\mathbf}{b}_{left} ),\\
\hat{{\mathbf}{x}}_{i, r} = \mbox{softmax}( {\mathbf}{W}_{right} {\mathbf}{h}_i^{\tau+1} + {\mathbf}{b}_{right} ),\\
\end{cases}$$ where ${\mathbf}{W}_{left}$, ${\mathbf}{b}_{left}$, and ${\mathbf}{W}_{right}$, ${\mathbf}{b}_{right}$ are the variables used to project the states to the output in the left and right HSUs respectively. Compared with the ground truth, we can represent the loss introduced in generating children node tokens as: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{\mbox{\textsc{hsu}}} &= \sum_{i = 2}^{d_{max}} \sum_{j = 1}^{(|\mathcal{C}| + k\cdot |\mathcal{T}| )} -{{\mathbf}{x}}_{i}[j] \log \hat{{\mathbf}{x}}_{i-1, r}[j] \\
&+ \sum_{i = 1}^{(d_{max}-1)} \sum_{j = 1}^{(|\mathcal{C}| + k\cdot |\mathcal{T}|)} -{{\mathbf}{x}}_{i}[j] \log \hat{{\mathbf}{x}}_{i+1, l}[j].\end{aligned}$$
### Joint Optimization Objective Function
Based on the above descriptions, we can represent the joint optimization function of model [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} as $$\min_{{\mathbf}{W}_I, {\mathbf}{W}_E, {\mathbf}{W}_P} \mathcal{L}_{\mbox{\textsc{isu}}} + \alpha \cdot \mathcal{L}_{\mbox{\textsc{esu}}} + \beta \cdot \mathcal{L}_{\mbox{\textsc{hsu}}},$$ where ${\mathbf}{W}_P$ covers all the variables adopted to project the state vector to the output space introduced above, and $\alpha$, $\beta$ denote the weights of the last two loss terms (in the experiments $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are both assigned with value $1.0$).
Formally, to solve the above objective function, the learning process of [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} can be done based on the sub-tree structures (involving one parent node and all its child nodes) sampled from the program AST. To optimize the above loss function, we utilize Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) as the optimization algorithm. To be more specific, the training process involves multiple epochs. In each epoch, the training data is shuffled and a minibatch of the instances are sampled to update the parameters with SGD. In addition, for each sampled sub-tree, we will feed the [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} model to minimize the loss terms $\mathcal{L}_{\mbox{\textsc{isu}}}$, $\mathcal{L}_{\mbox{\textsc{esu}}}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{\mbox{\textsc{hsu}}}$ iteratively for parameter learning. Such a process continues until convergence.
Experiments {#sec:experiment}
===========
To test the effectiveness of the proposed unit model [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hsu</span>]{}]{} and the learning framework [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{}, we have conducted extensive experiments on a real-world program-comment dataset, and compared [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} with several existing text generation methods. In the following part of this section, we will first introduce the experimental settings, including dataset descriptions, detailed experiment setup, comparison methods and evaluation metrics. After that, the experimental results and case studies will be provided and analyzed.
Experimental Setting
--------------------
### Dataset Description
In the experiments, we will take the program code written in Python programing language as an example. The program dataset used in the experiments covers the Python implementation code of basic algorithms, like different sort algorithms, search algorithms, hash algorithms and dynamic program algorithms. In the program source code file, besides the source code, there also exist a sequence of comments indicating the functions of the program, which will be used as the program intention in the experiments. The dataset will be released as a benchmark for code generation soon.
### Experimental Setup
In the experiments, instead of modeling the program code characters by characters, we propose to parse the code into ASTs, in which the smallest syntax type is the basic statement in the experiments. From the ASTs, we can sample a set of sub-tree structured diagrams. The contents attached to the sub-tree nodes together with its structure will be fed to learn the [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} model. Based on the program ASTs, we can denote the maximum children node number as $d_{max}$, and the maximum number of tokens attached to each node as $k$. For the nodes with less than $d_{max}$ nodes or $k$ tokens, a dummy one-hot key feature vector representation will be used for padding. At the same time, for the AST root node, we extract the textual comments of the whole program as its content, which will be represented as a sequence of natural language tokens actually, and can be modeled with the [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hsu</span>]{}]{} model effectively as well. Based on the sampled sub-trees, we propose to train [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} iteratively as introduced at the end of Section \[sec:method\] to learn the variables.
### Comparison Methods
In the experiments, we will compare [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} with various existing prediction and generative models, which are listed as follows:
- *[[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} Model*: The [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} model proposed in this paper is based on the new [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hsu</span>]{}]{} unit model, which can learn the information in program code based on its ASTs.
- *[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ast-BiRnn-LSTM</span>]{}*: The [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ast-BiRnn-LSTM</span>]{}]{} model is an AST based bi-directional RNN model [@SP97] using LSTM [@HS97] as the unit cell. [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ast-BiRnn-LSTM</span>]{}]{} can capture the sequential patterns in program code textual data in bi-directions simultaneously, which is able to infer the tokens ahead of and after the input.
- *[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ast-BiRnn-GRU</span>]{}*: The [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ast-BiRnn-GRU</span>]{}]{} model is also an AST based bi-directional RNN [@SP97] model using GRU [@CGCB14] as the unit cell. [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ast-BiRnn-GRU</span>]{}]{} can capture the sequential patterns in program code textual data in bi-directions as well.
- *[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ast-BiRnn-Basic</span>]{}*: In the experiments, we also compare with the bi-directional RNN model [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ast-BiRnn-Basic</span>]{}]{} [@SP97], which uses the basic neuron cell as the unit cell.
- *[[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ast-AutoEncoder</span>]{}]{}*: Via two hidden layers, we propose to use the deep Autoencoder model [@VLLBM10] as another baseline method in the experiments. [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ast-AutoEncoder</span>]{}]{} can effectively capture the patterns for sequential program components extracted from the ASTs.
- *[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">BiRnn-LSTM</span>]{}*: To show the advantages of modeling the program code textual information based on the AST, we also compare the methods with the traditional bi-directional RNN [@SP97] models based on the raw program textual information. Model [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">BiRnn-LSTM</span>]{}]{} splits the program code and comment into tokens based on the space among them.
- *[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">BiRnn-GRU</span>]{}*: Model [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">BiRnn-GRU</span>]{}]{} using GRU [@CGCB14] as the unit model also splits the program code and comment into tokens based on the space among them and infers the following tokens iteratively.
- *[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">BiRnn-Basic</span>]{}*: Model [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">BiRnn-Basic</span>]{}]{} is of the same architecture as [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">BiRnn-LSTM</span>]{}]{} and [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">BiRnn-GRU</span>]{}]{}, but it uses the basic neuron as the unit model in the learning process.
### Evaluation Metrics
We formulate the program code generation (from comments to program code), program code interpretation (from program code to program comments), and program completion problems as a multi-class classification problem, where the inferred tokens can be used as labels. In the experiments, we will use traditional classification evaluation metric Accuracy, Precision, Recall and F1 for measuring the performance of models. Here, the Precision, Recall and F1 metrics cover the micro, macro and weighted versions respectively. In addition, we will also show the number of iterations required in training the models as another evaluation metric. Here, we need to add a remark that, as indicated in page[^2], for the weighted-F1 metric which considers the label imbalance, its value may not be between the corresponding weighted precision and recall in the experimental results.
Experimental Result
-------------------
### Program Generation from Comments
In Table \[tab:generation\], we show the performance of different methods in generating the program code (line by line). Based on the input program code line, the models will predict the next line of the program code, and the inferred tokens in the new line are treated as the labels in evaluation.
According to the results in Table \[tab:generation\], model [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} can achieve much better performance generating the program code line compared with the other baseline methods. For instance, the Accuracy achieved by [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} is $0.949$, which is almost the triple of the Accuracy achieved by [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ast-AutoEncoder</span>]{}]{} and also surpasses [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ast-BiRnn-LSTM</span>]{}]{}, [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ast-BiRnn-GRU</span>]{}]{} and [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ast-BiRnn-Basic</span>]{}]{} by more than $10\%$ and outperforms [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">BiRnn-LSTM</span>]{}]{}, [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">BiRnn-GRU</span>]{}]{} and [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">BiRnn-Basic</span>]{}]{} by more than $22.6\%$. Similar results can also be observed for the other evaluation metrics. In addition, model [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} takes far less iterations before convergence based on the training set. As shown in Table \[tab:generation\], the iteration required for [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} to converge is merely about $43,000$, which is about $\frac{1}{100}$ of the required iterations by [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ast-AutoEncoder</span>]{}]{}, $\frac{1}{2}$ of the required iterations by [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ast-BiRnn-LSTM</span>]{}]{}, [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ast-BiRnn-GRU</span>]{}]{}, [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ast-BiRnn-Basic</span>]{}]{}, and about $\frac{1}{10}$ of the required iterations by [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">BiRnn-LSTM</span>]{}]{}, [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">BiRnn-GRU</span>]{}]{} and [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">BiRnn-Basic</span>]{}]{}. In Table \[tab:generation\_complete\], we show the results obtained by [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} in generating the complete program code based on the input program comments. Here, the generation process involves the iterative inferences of the program tokens at the next lines based on the input program comments without any interactions with the outside world. Among the $43$ input program comments, [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} is able to generate $35$ of them without making any mistakes, which outperform the baseline methods with great advantages. For the AST-BiRNN methods, they can generate $11$-$13$ of the program without any mistakes. For the traditional BiRNN methods, they can only generate 1-2 programs, while [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ast-AutoEncoder</span>]{}]{} cannot generate any program at all.
### Program Interpretation based on Code
In Table \[tab:interpretation\], we provide the experimental results of the comparison methods in generating the program comments based on the program code input. Compared with the program code, the program comments are of a shorter length and have less tokens to be predicted, and the evaluation scores achieved by the baseline methods in Table \[tab:interpretation\] are also slightly larger than the scores in Table \[tab:generation\].
Among the baseline methods, [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} can still achieve much better results than the baseline methods with great advantages. Among all the program code input, [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} can correctly generate about $0.978$ the program comment tokens. The AST-BiRNN methods can also achieve a very good performance, and they can obtain an average Accuracy around $0.8$, which is better than the traditional BiRNN methods. Method [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ast-AutoEncoder</span>]{}]{} performs the worst in the program interpretation task, which can merely achieve an average Accuracy score around $0.321$.
### Program Completion with Code Fragments
Table \[tab:completion\] covers the program code completion experimental results of the comparison methods. Here, for each program in the dataset, we randomly pick one line in the program as the input for the models to complete the program code (i.e., generate the code ahead of or after the input line). Slightly different from the program generation as shown in Table \[tab:generation\_complete\], where the input is the tree root node content, the input in the program completion can be any lines in the program code, results obtained in which are slightly lower than those in Table \[tab:generation\_complete\].
Among these $43$ programs in the dataset, [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} completes $34$ of the correctly, which is much better than the other baseline methods. The AST-BiRNN methods can still complete about $10$ of the programs correctly, while the remaining methods cannot complete the program code at all. The program completion task may require the model to be able to generate contents in both the sequential directions and the hierarchical directions, i.e., ahead of the input, after the input, above the input and below the input, which can demonstrate the advantages of the [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hsu</span>]{}]{} model compared against the traditional RNN models.
### Experimental Discoveries
Generally, according to the program generation, program interpretation and program completion experimental results, [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} performs very well in inferring both the contents at both the children nodes and father node. The main reason can be due to that the [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hsu</span>]{}]{} model effectively captures both the sequential and hierarchical information patterns in the ASTs, which performs much more effectively than the models merely capturing the sequential patterns. In addition, the AST will also greatly improve the model performance, since the tree diagram will effectively help the models outline the program hierarchical structure. The [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ast-AutoEncoder</span>]{}]{} model cannot achieve a good performance in these content generation tasks.
Case Study
----------
In this part, we will provide a study about the succeeded and failed cases of [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} in the experiments.
### Succeeded Cases
In Figures \[fig:succeeded\], we show the program code that [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} can handle very well in both generation, interpretation and completion. The left program code is about the Binary Search algorithm and the right code is about the Quick Sort algorithm. We show both the original and the generated program code of both algorithms in the plots. By checking these two program code blocks, we can observe that the code generated by [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} can implement exactly the same function as the original program code in the dataset. Furthermore, we can also observe some differences between the program code blocks: (1) many of the operator and variable tokens in the original code blocks are connected, while the tokens in the generated code block are well separated; (2) in the generated code block, some extra parentheses are inserted, especially for some expressions in statements; (3) the code indent in the original code uses two space keys, but in the generated code involves 1 tab key instead. These differences are mainly due to our model [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} is trained based on the AST, whose contents are well organized and structured by the program parser.
### Failed Cases
Besides the succeeded cases aforementioned, in Figure \[fig:failed\], we also provide two cases that [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} cannot handle well, especially in program code generation and completion. The left program code is about the Sieve of Atkin algorithm, and the right code is about the Union Find class with compressed path. The main problem with the code is that it contains so many duplicated contents. In the blocks, we can identify several common statements (in the same colors), which will make the [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} fail to work. For instance, in the Union Find class code, given a statement “self.\_\_validate\_ele(y)” (in bolded blue font), it will be very hard for the model to generate the statement after it, since there are two different options “x\_root = self.\_\_find(x)” and “return self.find(x) == self.find(y)”. Such a problem can be hopefully addressed by incorporate a even deeper architecture in [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{}. Just like this failed case, if we can effectively incorporate the father node of “self.\_\_validate\_ele(y)” (i.e., “def union(self, x, y):” and “def is\_connected(self, x, y):”), the conflict can be resolved promisingly. We will leave it as a potential future work.
Related Work {#sec:related_work}
============
The problem studied in this paper is strongly correlated with research problems about *deep neural network*, *text generation* and *program synthesis*.
**Deep Neural Networks**: The essence of deep learning is to compute hierarchical features or representations of the observational data [@GBC16; @LBH15]. With the surge of deep learning research and applications in recent years, lots of research works have appeared to apply the deep learning methods, like deep belief network [@HOT06], deep Boltzmann machine [@SH09], Deep neural network [@J02; @KSH12] and Deep autoencoder model [@VLLBM10], in various applications, like speech and audio processing [@DHK13; @HDYDMJSVNSK12], language modeling and processing [@ASKR12; @MH09], information retrieval [@H12; @SH09], objective recognition and computer vision [@LBH15], as well as multimodal and multi-task learning [@WBU10; @WBU11].
**Text Generation**: Text generation has been an important problem in both text mining and natural language processing. Depending on the input information, the text generation problem can be categorized into text generation from *keywords* [@UIS02], *concepts* [@KL13], *topics* [@CH15], *ontologies* [@B05] and *images* [@VTBE14]. In [@UIS02], the authors propose a method consisting of candidate-text construction and evaluation for sentence generation from keywords/headwords. Konstas et al. [@KL13] introduced a global model for concept-to-text generation, which refers to the task of automatically producing textual output from non-linguistic input. In terms of the objective output, the text generation problem includes *question generation* [@CH15], *image captions* [@VTBE14] and *image descriptions* [@KPDLCBB11]. Various models have been used in the text generation problems, including *RNN* [@SMH11], *Autoencoder* [@LLJ15] and *GAN* [@ZGFCHSC17].
**Program Synthesis**: The problem studied in this paper is also closely related with the *program synthesis* problem studied in software engineering. Formally, the goal of software program synthesis is to generate programs automatically from high-level specifications, lots of research works have been done on this topic already. Program synthesis is a challenging problem, which may require external supervisions from either *template* [@SGF13], *examples* and *type information* [@OZ15], and *oracles* [@JGST10]. In [@JGST10], the authors present a novel approach to automatic synthesis of loop-free programs based on a combination of oracle-guided learning from examples. Based on the program templates, [@SGF13] introduces an approach to generate the programs from the templates. Osera et al. [@OZ15] introduce an algorithm for synthesizing recursive functions that process algebraic datatypes, which exploits both type information and input-output examples to prune the search space. Some other program synthesis works address the problem with *recursive algorithms* [@AGK13], *deductive approach* [@MW80], *crowd-sourcing* [@CDLMV15], and *program verification* [@SGF10].
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
In this paper, we have studied a novel research problem about program generation, which covers the tasks about *program code generation*, *program interpretation* and *program completion*. To address such a challenging problem, a new learning model, namely [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{}, has been introduced. [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} learns the program code contents by parsing the program code into ASTs, whose nodes contain the program code/comment contents while the AST structure can indicate the program logic flows. To effectively capture both the hierarchical and sequential patterns in the ASTs, a new unit model, i.e., [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hsu</span>]{}]{}, is introduced as the basic structure covered in [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{}. We have tested the effectiveness of [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} on real-world program datasets, and [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">EgoCoder</span>]{}]{} can achieve very outstanding performance than the other state-of-the-art baseline methods in addressing the program generation tasks.
[^1]: https://docs.python.org/2/library/ast.html
[^2]: http://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/generated/sklearn.metrics.precision\_recall\_fscore\_support.html
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We investigate key electrostatic features of charged dendrimers at hand of the biomedically important dendritic polyglycerol sulfate (dPGS) macromolecule using multi-scale computer simulations and Zetasizer experiments. In our simulation study, we first develop an effective mesoscale Hamiltonian specific to dPGS based on input from all-atom, explicit-water simulations of dPGS of low generation. Employing this in coarse-grained, implicit-solvent/explicit-salt Langevin dynamics simulations, we then study dPGS structural and electrostatic properties up to the sixth generation. By systematically mapping then the calculated electrostatic potential onto the Debye-H[ü]{}ckel form – that serves as a basic defining equation for the effective charge – we determine well-defined effective net charges and corresponding radii, surface charge densities, and surface potentials of dPGS. The latter are found to be up to one order of magnitude smaller than the bare values and consistent with previously derived theories on charge renormalization and weak saturation for high dendrimer generations (charges). Finally, we find that the surface potential of the dendrimers estimated from the simulations compare very well with our new electrophoretic experiments.'
author:
- Xiao Xu
- Qidi Ran
- Rainer Haag
- Matthias Ballauff
- Joachim Dzubiella
title: 'Charged dendrimers revisited: Effective charge and surface potential of dendritic polyglycerol sulfate'
---
Introduction
============
Charged dendritic macromolecules have attracted strong and broad interest from both academic and industrial researchers due to their versatile bioapplications, such as drug delivery, tissue engineering, and biological imaging [@Ballauff2004; @Lee:review; @Tian2013]. Recently, a high potential candidate for the use in future medical treatments has been identified based on dendritic polyglycerol sulfate (dPGS). [@Khandare2012] The latter has been found very efficient for the treatment of neurological disorders arising from inflammation [@Maysinger2015], therapeutics for preventing the process of tissue damage [@Reimann2015], acting as delivery platform [@Groeger2013; @Vonnemann2014], e.g., transporting to tumor cells, [@Sousa-Herves2015] and as imaging agent for the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis [@Vonnemann2014]. Due to its charged terminal groups dPGS interacts mainly through electrostatics. The high anionic surface charge is therefore basis for dPGS’ high anti-inflammatory potential. [@JensDernedde2010; @Hoshino2014].
The important applications of dendrimeric macromolecules have initiated large efforts in their detailed microscopic characterization by theory and computer simulations [@Ballauff2004; @Tian2013]. While there is no simulation work yet in literature characterizing the basic structural features of dPGS, a large number of atomistic computer simulations, for example, of PAMAM \[poly(amidoamine)\]-based dendrimers have been performed. [@Maiti2004; @Naylor1989; @Lee2002; @Han2005; @Maiti2005; @Maiti2008] On the other hand, to overcome the limitation of the system size of atomistic simulations, coarse-grained (CG) monomer-resolved models with more or less inclusion of specific chemical features have led to plentiful structural insight [@Muratt1996; @Welch1998; @Lyulin2004:1; @Lyulin2004; @Giupponi2004; @Lee2006; @Lee2008; @Lee2009; @Chong2015; @Gurtovenko2006; @Blaak:2008; @Carbone2010; @Huismann2010; @Huismann2010B; @Tian2012; @Das2014; @Welch2000; @Lenz2012; @Klos2009; @Maiti2009; @Tian2011; @Klos2010; @Klos2011; @Klos2013; @Huismann2012; @Tian2010]. For the case of (internally and surface) charged dendrimers, one focus has been set on the dominant role of condensed counterions and charge renormalization [@Ohshima1982; @Alexander1983; @Ramanath1988; @Belloni1998; @Bocquet2002; @Netz2003; @Manning2007; @DavidA.J.Gillespie2014] in modulating the conformation and effective charge of the dendrimers. [@Klos2010; @Klos2011; @Klos2013; @Huismann2012; @Tian2010]
However, it has been hardly attempted to consistently calculate the effective surface potential (and its location) of charged dendrimers so far, despite its significance for electrostatic interactions. One reason could be that the identification of condensed counterions requires the definition of a cut-off region in space that contains condensed-types of ions distinct from those in the diffusive double layer, with highly varying definitions in the just cited literature. As a consequence, effective charges and the spatial delimitation of diffusive double-layer behavior have been inconsistently defined, hampering a meaningful comparison to analytical theory and experiments. Regarding specifically the calculation of surface potentials, one notable exception is the simulation report on charged PAMAM dendrimers that revealed a superlinear increase of the effective charge and the surface potential with generation number [@Maiti2008]. In view of the theoretically predicted saturation (or at least very weak, sublinear increase) of the effective charge with bare charge for simple charged spheres [@Ohshima1982; @Alexander1983; @Ramanath1988; @Belloni1998; @Bocquet2002; @Netz2003; @Manning2007; @DavidA.J.Gillespie2014], this result, however, is unexpected and not well understood. In fact, in the case of carboxyl-terminated dendrimers capillary electrophoretic experiments demonstrated that higher generation dendrimers (generation 5) even have a smaller effective surface charge than lower generations (generation 2). [@Huang2000] Hence, despite the large body of studies on charged dendrimers in the last two decades, key electrostatic features have not been yet consistently addressed.
Driven by the urgent need to develop accurate modeling tools and interpretation for the interactions between charged dendritic drugs that are predominantly of electrostatic nature, we here investigate dPGS with a particular focus on the determination of its electrostatic surface properties. Compared to the relatively large and steady growing number of experimental publications on dPGS, a deeper molecular characterization of dPGS is still lacking. Hence, in this paper, based on all-atom MD simulations, a CG model specific to dPGS is reported for its future modeling in biological environments (e.g., interacting with proteins or membranes). In particular, we introduce a simple but accurate scheme how to systematically calculate well-defined effective surface charges and potentials of charged dendrimers in the case of dPGS based on the most practical definition by mapping the calculated potentials directly to the Debye-H[ü]{}ckel potential in the far-field regime. We compare them to available theories and new experimental $\zeta$-potential measurements (also included in this contribution) with consistent outcome. Our study thus paves the way for future simulations and interpretations of the dPGS’ and related dendritic polyelectrolytes’ action in biological context (e.g., interacting with proteins or membranes) to understand and optimize their proven selective binding properties and efficacy in the medical treatment of inflammatory diseases.
Models and methods
==================
All-atom model and explicit-water MD simulations
------------------------------------------------
We start the development of the dPGS coarse-grained (CG) force–field from fully atomistic (explicit-water) MD simulations of dPGS of generations $n=0$ and 1 (i.e., G$_0$ and G$_1$) from which effective intra-bead potentials are derived. The constituting elements are the initiator core C$_3$H$_5$, repeating side chain units C$_3$H$_5$O, as well as the terminal sulfate groups, see the exemplary chemical structure of G$_0$, in Fig. 1. All our simulations are carried out by the [GROMACS 4.5.4]{} software package [@Hess2008], where the [GROMOS 45a3]{} force field [@Schuler2001] is applied. The latter is optimized to model lipids with long aliphatic chains or branches, which makes it an appropriate force field to model dPGS. The water is represented by the extended simple point charge (SPC/E) model [@Berendsen1987]. The partial charges of dPGS are calculated according to the Gaussian 09 software [@Frisch] with the cc-PVTZ DFT basis set and used here in combination with the [GROMOS 45a3]{} force field. The assigned partial charges among the glycerol groups stay close to the re-optimized parameters for ethers. [@Horta2011] And those for the sulfate group agree with recent work [@Jozic2013] which have been applied, for instance, in the simulation of sodium dodecyl sulfate micelles. [@Tang2014] The calculations of partial charges of the dPGS atoms and the influence of their particular choices on the dendrimeric structure are summarized in the Supplementary Information (SI).
The initial configurations of G$_0$ and G$_1$-dPGS are constructed in vacuum with the program ChemDraw [@Evans2014]. A single dendrimer is then placed in the center of a cubic simulation cell with an initial side length $L = 7.9$ nm with periodic boundary conditions in all three directions. The dendrimer is subsequently hydrated with 16543 water molecules. To preserve the overall charge neutrality of G$_0$ and G$_1$, six or twelve Na$^+$-counterions are added, respectively. The electrostatic interactions are calculated via the Particle-Mesh-Ewald (PME) [@Essmann1995] summation where the long-range potential is evaluated in the reciprocal space using the Fast-Fourier Transform (FFT) with a grid spacing of $0.16$ nm and a cubic interpolation of fourth order. A cut-off radius of 1 nm is defined for both PME summation and van der Waals real-space interactions. After a 100 ns equilibration in the isobaric $NPT$ ensemble at conditions of $P=1$ bar and $T=310$ K, a production run of 1 $\mu$s generates a working trajectory in a canonical $NVT $ simulation. We utilize the Berendsen thermostat and the Rahman-Parrinello barostat. To integrate Newton’s equation of motion we employ the leap-frog algorithm with a time step of 2 fs.
Coarse-graining procedure
--------------------------
For our CG model we now define three coarse-grained bead types A, B, and C, chosen to be located at the center-of-mass position of repeating units, cf. Fig. 1. While type A simply models the central core unit (C$_3$H$_5$), the natural choice for B and C is reflected in the chemical formula C$_3$H$_5$(C$_3$H$_5$S$_2$O$_9$)$_3$ for G$_0$-dPGS which defines the repeating units C$_3$H$_5$O as type B and the terminal group SO$_4$ as monomer C. As one can see in the chemical structure in Fig. 1, the intra-bead potentials between B and C beads (as well as between B and B beads in higher generations) depend on how the corresponding atomistic groups are connected: in a given triplet of units around a connecting central hub unit, two units feature an extra bond so that it is needed to introduce ‘short’ and ‘long’ bead types B and C for intermediate branching cycles $m = 0..n$. In the following we therefore distinguish between B$_s^m$ and B$_l^m$ as well as C$_s$ and C$_l$ beads, respectively. Hence, for the coarse-grained force field we need to define bond potentials of types A-B$_j^{0}$, B$_i^m$-B$_j^{m+1}$, B$_i^n$-C$_j$, with $i=s,l$ and angle potentials for all relevant triplets, for example, A-B$_i^0$-B$_j^1$, B$_i^{m}$-B$_j^{m+1}$-B$_k^{m+2}$, B$_i^{m+1}$-B$_j^{m}$-B$_k^{m+1}$, B$_i^{n-1}$-B$_j^{n}$-C$_k$, etc. Note that there must be ’up-down’ symmetry in the potentials, e.g., B$_i^m$-B$_j^{m+1}$=B$_i^m$-B$_j^{m-1}$ for the bond potentials and analogous rules for the angular potentials. Finally, non-bonded inter-bead interactions have to be defined between types A, B, and C.
We employ harmonic potentials for the intramolecular (bond and angular) interactions and use the Lennard-Jones (LJ) interaction for all inter-bead potentials. Additionally, the beads of type C and ions carry charges. Hence, the CG force field can be formally summarized by the CG Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
U^{\rm CG} &=& \sum_{\rm bonds} \frac{1}{2}k_b(l -l_0)^2 + \sum_{\rm angle}\frac{1}{2} k_a (\theta - \theta_0)^2 \nonumber \\
&+&
\sum_{i<j} 4\epsilon_{ij}\left[\left(\frac{\sigma_{ij}}{r_{ij}}\right)^{12}-\left(\frac{\sigma_{ij}}{r_{ij}}\right)^6\right] + U_{\rm elec} .
\label{H_intra}\end{aligned}$$ where $r_{ij}$ is the bead–bead distance, $k_b$ and $k_a$ are the bond and angular spring constants, respectively, $l$ represents the distance between consecutive beads and $l_0$ is the equilibrium bond length. The variable $\theta$ refers to the angle formed by a triplet of consecutive beads and $\theta_0$ is the equilibrium value. Only the C bead, representing the terminal sulfate group, carries a bare Coulomb charge $q_s = -e$. It follows that the net charge valency for the CG dPGS molecule of generation $n$ is $Z_{\rm bar} = -6(2^{n+1} - 2^{n})$ and thus the terminal beads number $N_{\rm ter} = |Z_{\rm bar}|$. The electrostatic interactions for all charged beads (type C and ions) are included in $U_{\rm elec}$, via the Coulomb law $$U_{\rm elec} = {\sum^{N_{\rm ter} + N_{\rm ion}}_{i=1} \sum^{N_{\rm ter} + N_{\rm ion}}_{j=1, j\ne i}} {{l_B}\over {2r_{ij}}}.
\label{ele_CG}$$ The variable ${l_\mathrm{B}}= e^2/$($4\pi \epsilon_0 \epsilon_r {k_\mathrm{B}}T$) stands for the Bjerrum length, which is ${l_\mathrm{B}}= 0.7$ nm in this study at body temperature $T= 310$ K and for water with a permittivity constant $\epsilon_r = 78.2$, $N_{\rm ion}$ denotes the number of ions, $e$ is the elementary charge, and $\epsilon_0$ is the permittivity of vacuum.
We derive the bonded potentials by Boltzmann–inverting the corresponding target spatial distribution functions of the beads $f(x)$ we obtain from the atomistic MD simulation, via $$U(x) = -{k_\mathrm{B}}T\ln f(x),
\label{Binver}$$ where $x$ is either a bond length or angle variable and $f(x)$ is an equilibrium average over the fluctuations of all identical groups in the dendrimer. All potentials involving beads A and C are derived from simulations of G$_0$. All potentials involving beads only of type B are derived from simulations of G$_1$ as B-B bonds are absent in G$_0$. The results and final parameters of the bonded CG potentials are discussed and summarized in the next section.
The extraction of the non-bonded A-A, B-B and C-C potentials directly from the atomistic MD simulation of G$_0$ or G$_1$-dPGS is very difficult due to the convoluted spatial structure of the dendritic dPGS. Therefore, a mapping using the iterative Boltzmann inversion (IBI) scheme [@Mueller-Plathe2002; @Reith2003] is out of reach. We therefore resort to the simplest approximation and perform explicit-water simulations of a one-component fluid of isolated A, B, and C monomers in explicit water, respectively, at relatively high dilution. The respective non-bonded pair potentials are then obtained by the simple Boltzmann–inversion according to Eq. (3), where $f(x)$ then simply represents the radial distribution function. The charged sulfate monomers corresponding to subunit C are protonated to separate out approximately the electrostatic monopole repulsion which later in the CG simulation are added again. The partial charges of the A, B, C chemical subunits are calculated according to the Gaussian 09 software [@Frisch] with the cc-PVTZ DFT basis set, and used here in combination with the [GROMOS 45a3]{} force field, see the data in the SI. We set the concentration of the one-component bead fluid to $c \sim 400$ mM that is chosen high enough to obtain sufficient sampling and low enough to avoid large many-body effects and possibly aggregated states. After obtaining the LJ parameters $\epsilon_{ii}$ and $\sigma_{ii}$ by fitting the LJ potentials to the obtained effective interaction (see next section) for the three subunits, $i=$A,B,C, the corresponding values for the cross interactions are obtained by the conventional Lorentz-Berthelot mixing rules, i.e., $\sigma_{ij} = (\sigma_{ii}+\sigma_{jj})/2$ and $\epsilon_{ij} = \sqrt{\epsilon_{ii}\epsilon_{jj}}$.
The simple Boltzmann-inversion scheme for the inter-bead potentials that neglects many-body and connectivity effects is approximative. However, the excluded-volume part of the LJ is hardly affected by this treatment, only the attractive (van der Waals) part of the LJ interaction is expected to be affected by the many-body contributions. (Note that most CG simulations in the literature do not include the van der Waals attraction.) Therefore, we tested the influence of varying the bead $\epsilon_{ii}$ on some of the key structural and electrostatic of the dendrimers. The results (presented in the SI) show hardly any influence on the results for dispersion variations in a reasonable window and therefore leave our results quantitatively essentially unchanged.
![The (a) B$_i^{0}$-B$_j^{1}$ bond, (b) B$_i^{m}$-C$_j$ bond, (c) C$_i$-B$_j^{m}$-C$_k$ angular ($m=0$ for G$_0$ and $m=1$ for G$_1$), and (d) A-A/B-B/C-C effective inter-bead potentials extracted from the all-atom MD simulations (AA; solid lines). The dashed lines are the fits according to the coarse-grained (CG) Hamiltonian Eq. (\[H\_intra\]). For the atomistic simulations, the coordinate $r$ is defined as the bead-bead center-of-mass distance. The indices $i,j=s,l$ distinguish between beads having short or long bond connections in the molecular structure, respectively. In the bottom panels the density distributions of the terminal sulfate groups (e) and counterions (f) around the dPGS center-of-mass from atomistic and CG simulations are compared for the G$_0$ and G$_1$ dPGS, respectively. The simulations were performed at salt concentrations $c = 30$ mM for G$_0$ and $c = 50$ mM for G$_1$.[]{data-label="E_intra"}](fig2a.pdf "fig:") ![The (a) B$_i^{0}$-B$_j^{1}$ bond, (b) B$_i^{m}$-C$_j$ bond, (c) C$_i$-B$_j^{m}$-C$_k$ angular ($m=0$ for G$_0$ and $m=1$ for G$_1$), and (d) A-A/B-B/C-C effective inter-bead potentials extracted from the all-atom MD simulations (AA; solid lines). The dashed lines are the fits according to the coarse-grained (CG) Hamiltonian Eq. (\[H\_intra\]). For the atomistic simulations, the coordinate $r$ is defined as the bead-bead center-of-mass distance. The indices $i,j=s,l$ distinguish between beads having short or long bond connections in the molecular structure, respectively. In the bottom panels the density distributions of the terminal sulfate groups (e) and counterions (f) around the dPGS center-of-mass from atomistic and CG simulations are compared for the G$_0$ and G$_1$ dPGS, respectively. The simulations were performed at salt concentrations $c = 30$ mM for G$_0$ and $c = 50$ mM for G$_1$.[]{data-label="E_intra"}](fig2b.pdf "fig:") ![The (a) B$_i^{0}$-B$_j^{1}$ bond, (b) B$_i^{m}$-C$_j$ bond, (c) C$_i$-B$_j^{m}$-C$_k$ angular ($m=0$ for G$_0$ and $m=1$ for G$_1$), and (d) A-A/B-B/C-C effective inter-bead potentials extracted from the all-atom MD simulations (AA; solid lines). The dashed lines are the fits according to the coarse-grained (CG) Hamiltonian Eq. (\[H\_intra\]). For the atomistic simulations, the coordinate $r$ is defined as the bead-bead center-of-mass distance. The indices $i,j=s,l$ distinguish between beads having short or long bond connections in the molecular structure, respectively. In the bottom panels the density distributions of the terminal sulfate groups (e) and counterions (f) around the dPGS center-of-mass from atomistic and CG simulations are compared for the G$_0$ and G$_1$ dPGS, respectively. The simulations were performed at salt concentrations $c = 30$ mM for G$_0$ and $c = 50$ mM for G$_1$.[]{data-label="E_intra"}](fig2c.pdf "fig:") ![The (a) B$_i^{0}$-B$_j^{1}$ bond, (b) B$_i^{m}$-C$_j$ bond, (c) C$_i$-B$_j^{m}$-C$_k$ angular ($m=0$ for G$_0$ and $m=1$ for G$_1$), and (d) A-A/B-B/C-C effective inter-bead potentials extracted from the all-atom MD simulations (AA; solid lines). The dashed lines are the fits according to the coarse-grained (CG) Hamiltonian Eq. (\[H\_intra\]). For the atomistic simulations, the coordinate $r$ is defined as the bead-bead center-of-mass distance. The indices $i,j=s,l$ distinguish between beads having short or long bond connections in the molecular structure, respectively. In the bottom panels the density distributions of the terminal sulfate groups (e) and counterions (f) around the dPGS center-of-mass from atomistic and CG simulations are compared for the G$_0$ and G$_1$ dPGS, respectively. The simulations were performed at salt concentrations $c = 30$ mM for G$_0$ and $c = 50$ mM for G$_1$.[]{data-label="E_intra"}](fig2d.pdf "fig:") ![The (a) B$_i^{0}$-B$_j^{1}$ bond, (b) B$_i^{m}$-C$_j$ bond, (c) C$_i$-B$_j^{m}$-C$_k$ angular ($m=0$ for G$_0$ and $m=1$ for G$_1$), and (d) A-A/B-B/C-C effective inter-bead potentials extracted from the all-atom MD simulations (AA; solid lines). The dashed lines are the fits according to the coarse-grained (CG) Hamiltonian Eq. (\[H\_intra\]). For the atomistic simulations, the coordinate $r$ is defined as the bead-bead center-of-mass distance. The indices $i,j=s,l$ distinguish between beads having short or long bond connections in the molecular structure, respectively. In the bottom panels the density distributions of the terminal sulfate groups (e) and counterions (f) around the dPGS center-of-mass from atomistic and CG simulations are compared for the G$_0$ and G$_1$ dPGS, respectively. The simulations were performed at salt concentrations $c = 30$ mM for G$_0$ and $c = 50$ mM for G$_1$.[]{data-label="E_intra"}](fig2e.pdf "fig:") ![The (a) B$_i^{0}$-B$_j^{1}$ bond, (b) B$_i^{m}$-C$_j$ bond, (c) C$_i$-B$_j^{m}$-C$_k$ angular ($m=0$ for G$_0$ and $m=1$ for G$_1$), and (d) A-A/B-B/C-C effective inter-bead potentials extracted from the all-atom MD simulations (AA; solid lines). The dashed lines are the fits according to the coarse-grained (CG) Hamiltonian Eq. (\[H\_intra\]). For the atomistic simulations, the coordinate $r$ is defined as the bead-bead center-of-mass distance. The indices $i,j=s,l$ distinguish between beads having short or long bond connections in the molecular structure, respectively. In the bottom panels the density distributions of the terminal sulfate groups (e) and counterions (f) around the dPGS center-of-mass from atomistic and CG simulations are compared for the G$_0$ and G$_1$ dPGS, respectively. The simulations were performed at salt concentrations $c = 30$ mM for G$_0$ and $c = 50$ mM for G$_1$.[]{data-label="E_intra"}](fig2f.pdf "fig:")
Coarse-grained potentials
-------------------------
Selected results of our mapping procedure are plotted in Fig. \[E\_intra\]. As we see in panels (a) to (c), the intra-bond potentials can be fitted well by a harmonic function. We find that the asymmetry in the glycerol repeat unit leads to an equilibrium bond length that differs if ‘short’ or ‘long’ beads are connected at the upper cycle branch $m+1$. The shift between the bond lengths corresponds to a single covalent bond length on the Ångstrom scale. The structure asymmetry is also reflected in the angular potential $U_{\rm ana}$ (provided in the SI), although in that case the effect is less notable as compared to the bond potential. As shown in Fig. \[E\_intra\](c), the angle $\theta$ formed by a triplet of monomers C–B–C has a distribution ranging from $60^\circ$ to $150^\circ$ and is thus relatively broad when compared to typical atomistic potentials. Note that in all of the previous CG dendrimers models angular potentials were typically neglected. All bonded bead potentials are summarized in Table 1.
In Fig. \[E\_intra\](d), we present the non-bonded LJ potentials between pairwise groups A-A, B-B, and C-C. At small separation, $r \lesssim 0.4$ nm, a strong repulsion demonstrates the excluded–volume interaction, while in the intermediate distance $r \simeq 0.6$ to 0.7 nm, a small energy barrier signifies effects of the first hydration shell around the beads. We neglect these small barriers and fit the curve via the LJ potentials, cf. the dashed lines in Fig. \[E\_intra\] (d). The final parameters for the CG $\epsilon_{ii}$ and $\sigma_{ii}$ values for all three bead types are very similar. This can be seen as a justification to set a generic LJ potential for all CG beads as typically utilized in previous CG studies of monomer-resolved dendrimers [@Ballauff2004; @Huismann2010; @Huismann2010B; @Das2014]. We complement the CG force-field by effective potentials for a symmetric monovalent salt where, for simplicity, we chose the same LJ parameters as for the charged C bead. The corresponding LJ size for the ions is actually the same as for the effective CG sodium-chloride cross interaction in water [@Smith1993; @Kalcher2010], so it seems a reasonable choice to model a simple monovalent salt. The relatively small energy parameter $\epsilon_{\rm LJ}$ parameter of 0.1 kJ/mol models hard-sphere like ions without any strong ion pairing behavior. [@Kalcher2010] The parameters for the non-bonded interaction are summarized in Table \[dPGS\_nonbonded\].
In order to further scrutinize the validity of the CG force field, we compare density profiles of the terminal sulfate groups, Fig. \[E\_intra\](e), and the cations, Fig. \[E\_intra\](f), extracted from atomistic and CG simulations (see next section for methods) of generation $n=0$ and 1. A good agreement is reached between the two approaches in both profiles for both generations, consolidating earlier conclusion on the validity of CG force field for charged dendrimers [@Huismann2012]. For G$_1$, we find that the width of the distribution of the terminal groups appears to be a bit narrower in the CG force field. Yet, the global structure represented by the location of the density peaks appears to be similar for both approaches. This similarity applies to the counterion distribution as well, indicated by the density peak at $r \sim 0.82$ nm produced by both levels of modeling.
[p[2.25cm]{}||P[1.32cm]{}|P[0.7cm]{}||P[1.4cm]{}|P[0.5cm]{} ]{} & $k_{b}$ & $l_0$ & $k_{a}$ & $\theta$\
group &[(${k_\mathrm{B}}T$nm$^{-2}$)]{} &[(nm)]{} &[(${k_\mathrm{B}}T$deg$^{-2}$)]{} &[(deg)]{}\
A–[B$_l^0$]{} & 1381 & 0.380 & – & –\
A–[B$_s^0$]{} & 5100 & 0.337 & – & –\
B$_{s,l}^m$–B$_l^{m+1}$ & 1052 & 0.395 & – & –\
B$_{s,l}^m$–B$_s^{m+1}$ & 3105 & 0.351 & – & –\
–[C$_l$]{} & 1633 & 0.380 & – & –\
[B$_{s,l}^n$]{}–[C$_s$]{} & 6160 & 0.312 & – & –\
B$_{s,l}^0$–A–B$_{s,l}^0$ & – & – & 0.003 & 115\
B$_{s,l}^1$–B$_{s,l}^0$–A & – & – & 0.003 & 115\
B$_{s,l}$–B$_{s,l}$–B$_{s,l}$ & – & – & 0.003 & 115\
C$_{s,l}$–B$_{s,l}^{n}$–B$_{s,l}^{n-1}$ & – & – & 0.003 & 121\
C$_{s,l}$–B$_{s,l}^0$–A & – & – & 0.003 & 121\
C$_{s}$–B$_{s,l}^n$–C$_{l}$ & – & – & 0.005 & 108\
\[dPGS\_bonded\]
[p[2.3cm]{}||P[2.3cm]{}|P[2.3cm]{}]{} group & $\sigma_{\rm LJ}$ (nm) & $\epsilon_{\rm LJ}$ (${k_\mathrm{B}}$T)\
A & 0.41 & 0.60\
B & 0.41 & 0.53\
C & 0.40 & 0.70\
cation & 0.40 & 0.10\
anion & 0.40 & 0.10\
\[dPGS\_nonbonded\]
Coarse-grained simulations
--------------------------
Having established a CG force field, all generations $n$ of dPGS can be now readily constructed. Higher generations G$_n$ with index $n > 0$ are created by iteratively bonding two extra glycerol units to the original one (dendritic segment) on the outer shell of generation G$_{n-1}$. This Cayley tree-like [@Voit1995] structure gives an exponentially growing of the polymerization $N_g = 3(2^{n+1}-1) + 1$ with its generation index $n$, which thereby leads to the sulfate group number $N_{\rm ter} = 6(2^{n+1} - 2^{n})$ and the gross number $N_{\rm dP} = 6 \times 2^{n+1} -2$ of the CG segments. Note the above structure only fits to a perfect dendrimer, whereas an imperfect dendrimer bears a small number of linear segments that corresponds to most experimental dPGS realizations [@JensDernedde2010]. In our work we investigate seven different generations $n=0$ up to $n=6$, depicted and with some features summarized in Table \[dPGS\_para\].
For the CG simulations the dPGS macromolecules are placed in a cubic box with a side length of $L = 35$ nm with periodic boundary conditions in all three directions. We treat the solvent implicitly via a uniform dielectric background, however, ions are treated explicitly to account for ionic correlation effects. In view of the charge status of dPGS, a number of monovalent counterions, $n_c = 6(2^{n+1} - 2^{n})$, is added to maintain an electroneutral system. Apart from the counterions, in all simulations, dPGS is immersed in a salt solution with $N_i = 257$ to 5140 pairs of monovalent cations and anions, resulting into bulk salt concentrations from $c_0 = N_i/L^3 \simeq 10$ mM to 200 mM. The initial dendrimer configuration is assembled according to the equilibrium bond length $l_0$ and angle $\theta_0$ appeared in Eq. (\[H\_intra\]).
We perform Langevin dynamics simulations on CG dPGS of generation number ranging from 0 to 6 also using the GROMACS package. All the implicit water simulations used the second-order stochastic dynamics (SD) integrator in GROMACS with the friction in the Langevin equation set with a time constant of $\tau_t = 1$ ps and integration time of 2 fs. We set all CG beads to have a small mass of $m_i = 0.5$ amu to decrease inertial effects and lower the intrinsic viscosity (i.e., internal relaxation time) of the dPGS. Equilibrium properties, as investigated in this work, are not affected by any reasonable mass choices as long as the simulations are ergodic. With an increasing number of the terminal beads the electrostatic interaction becomes more profound and the cut-off radius for the PME summation and short-range van der Waals interactions is extended to $r_\textrm{cut}=4$ nm as compared to the above atomistic simulation. The choice of the cutoff is verified by reference simulations with increased cutoff value $r_\textrm{cut}=6.0$ nm. Unless specifically stated otherwise, the temperature was set to 310 K as the default. The static dielectric constant of the solvent is $\epsilon_r = 78.2$ at this temperature. After energy minimization of the initial structure and a 1 ns equilibration period, the production run of a $NVT$ simulation lasts around 60 ns. That time has been proven to be sufficient for equilibrium sampling for all generations as in detail verified in the SI by scrutinizing relaxation times and time unit scalings between all-atom and CG simulations.
Analysis of the CG simulations
------------------------------
### dPGS radius of gyration and asphericity
The size of a dendrimer can be characterized by the radius of gyration $R_g$ which is defined as the trace of the gyration tensor (${\bold R}^2$) [@Carbone2010] $${\bold R_{\alpha,\beta}}^2 = \frac{1}{N_{\rm dP}}\sum^{N_{\rm dP}}_{i=1} ({\bold r}^i_{\alpha} - {\bold r}^M_{\alpha}) ({\bold r}^i_{\beta} - {\bold r}^M_{\beta}), \,\,\, \alpha, \beta = x,y,z,$$ where ${\bold r}^i_{\alpha}$ is the coordinate of the $i$th segment and ${\bold r}^M_{\alpha}$ is the dPGS COM position along the $\alpha$ direction. The square of the radius of gyration is then $${R_g}^2 = \langle tr({\bold R}^2)\rangle = \langle \sum^3_{i=1} {\lambda_i}^2\rangle,$$ where ${\lambda_i}^2$ is the $i$th eigenvalue of the gyration tensor, representing the characteristic length of the equivalent ellipsoid which mimics the dendrimer. $\langle \cdots \rangle$ stands for the ensemble average. The degree of asphericity $A$ of dPGS is defined in terms of the eigenvalue ${\lambda_i}^2$, which can be written as $$A = \frac{\langle (T_r^2 - 3M)\rangle}{\langle T_r^2 \rangle},
\label{define_A}$$ with $T_r = {\lambda_1}^2 + {\lambda_2}^2 + {\lambda_3}^2$ and $M = {\lambda_1}^2 {\lambda_2}^2 + {\lambda_2}^2 {\lambda_3}^2 + {\lambda_1}^2 {\lambda_3}^2$. Fot a perfect sphere $A$ equals 0, whereas $A = 1$ corresponds to the extreme of an infinitely thin rod.
### The radial electrostatic potential
The electrostatic potential $\phi$ is available through the framework of Poisson’s equation $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla ^2 \phi = - {\sum_{i=+,-,C} Z_i \rho_i(r)}/{\epsilon_0 \epsilon_r},\end{aligned}$$ where in our CG system $\rho_+(r)$, $\rho_-(r)$ and $\rho_{\rm C}(r)$ are the distance–resolved radial density profiles for all charged species, namely cations, anions and sulfate (C) beads, respectively. We integrate Poisson’s equation numerically feeding in the $\rho_i(r)$ generated from simulation to obtain the local electrostatic potential $\phi(r)$. In addition to the potential profile, we calculate the running coordination number of charged beads of type $i=\pm,C$: $$N_{i}(r) = \int^r_0 \rho_{i}(s) 4\pi s^2 ds .$$ Since dPGS is negatively charged, $N_{+}(r)$ explicitly represents for the number of counterions located in a distance $r$ away from the dPGS COM. It follows that the total accumulated charge is $$\begin{aligned}
Z_{\rm acc}(r) = N_{+}(r) - N_{-}(r) - N_{C}(r),
\label{acc}\end{aligned}$$ which gives the accumulated dPGS charge deduced from the structural one by adding the ionic shell.
For the definition of the effective charge of a dendrimer (and thus the effective surface potential) we take the basic Debye-Hückel (DH) theory for the radial electrostatic potential distribution around a charged sphere with radius $r_{\rm eff}$ and valency $Z_{\rm eff}$ as reference [@Belloni1998], $$e \beta \phi_{\rm DH}(r) = {Z_{\rm eff}} l_B \frac{e^{\kappa r_{\rm eff}}}{1 + \kappa r_{\rm eff}} \frac{e^{-\kappa r}}{r},
\label{DH_solution}$$ where $e$ is the elementary charge and $\kappa = \sqrt{8\pi {l_\mathrm{B}}c_0}$ is the inverse Debye length for a symmetric, monovalent salt. This solution is derived with the Dirichlet boundary condition, [[*[i.e.]{}*]{}]{}, fixing the surface potential $\phi(r_{\rm eff})$ and the one far away $\phi(\infty) = 0$. The DH potential usually works well in the region far from the colloid, where nonlinear effects, such as ion–ion correlations and condensation, become irrelevant. For the “correlated Stern layer” at the interface of the charged sphere, the electrostatic potential $\phi$ is expected to deviate strongly from the DH potential $\phi_{\rm DH}$ and all nonlinear effects are adsorbed into the effective charge $Z_{\rm eff}$ (as, e.g., based on solutions of the full non-linear Poisson-Boltzmann theory [@Ohshima1982; @Alexander1983; @Ramanath1988; @Belloni1998; @Bocquet2002]). By taking the logarithm of eq. (\[DH\_solution\]) and mapping directly on the far-field behavior of the electrostatic decay calculated in the simulation, the double-layer behavior can be quantified with high accuracy. [@Kalcher2009] This provides also the basis to define the position of the Stern layer, or better expressed, the exact location $r_{\rm eff}$ of the interface between the diffusive double layer in the DH sense and the correlated condensed ion layers. The effective surface potential is then simply $\phi_0 = \phi_{\rm DH}{(r_{\rm eff})}$.
Experimental Materials and Methods
----------------------------------
[p[2.0cm]{}||P[1.1cm]{}|P[1.1cm]{}|P[1.1cm]{}|P[1.1cm]{}]{} Label & G$_2$ & G$_4$ & G$_{4.5}$ & G$_{5.5}$\
$M_{\rm n, dPG}$ \[kD\] & 2 & 7 & 10 & 20\
PDI & 1.7 & 1.7 & 1.5 & 1.2\
DS \[%\] & 100 & 100 & 99 & 98\
$N_{\rm ter}$ & 28 & 102 & 135 & 266\
$M_{\rm n, dPGS}$ \[kD\] & 5 & 18 & 24 & 47\
$\eta$ \[mV\] & -47.71 & -58.46 & -58.73 & -70.9\
\[dpgs\_data\]
Dendritic polyglycerol (dPG) was synthesized by anionic ring opening polymerization of glycidol [@Sunder1999]. Gel permeation chromatography (GPC) is empolyed to measure the number averaged molecular weight of the core $M_{\rm n,dPG}$ and Polydispersity index (PDI). Afterwards dPGS was prepared by the sulfation of dPG with SO$_3$-pyridine complex in dimethylformamide (DMF) according to reported procedure [@Turk2004]. The degree of sulfation (DS) was determined by elemental analysis. Properties of dPGS in different generations are summarized in Tab. \[dpgs\_data\].
Size and $\zeta$-potential (electrophoretic mobility) measurements were performed with a Zetasizer Nano ZS instrument (ZEN 3500, Malvern Instruments, Herrenberg, Germany) equipped with a 18 mW He-Ne laser ($\lambda$=633 nm). The molecule size $r_{\rm hd}$ was measured by dynamic light scattering (DLS) in UV-transparent disposable cuvettes (VWR, Germany) at a back scattering angle of 173$^{\circ}$. The compounds were dissolved in 10 mM MOPS buffer (adding NaCl to adjust ionic strength to 10 mM) pH 7.4 at concentration of 1 mg/ml and were filtered through 0.8 $\mu$m polyethersulfone syringe filter (PALL, USA). Prior to measurement, each sample was equilibrated for 2 min at 37$^{\circ}$ and measured with 10 scans each lasting for 10 s. The stated values for the hydrodynamic diameter are the mean of three independent measurements. The electrophoretic mobility was measured at 5 mg/ml in the same buffer as above also in three independent measurements (with all values reported in the SI). The solutions were filtered through 0.2 $\mu$m polyethersulfone syringe filter and equilibrated for 10 min at 37$^{\circ}$ in folded DTS 1060 capillary cells (Malvern, UK). The shown data for the $\zeta$-potential in the resulting figure are based on the Henry function with the Ohshima approximation $$f(\kappa r_{\rm hd}) = 1 + \frac{1}{2[1+\delta/(\kappa r_{\rm hd})]^3},
\label{Oappro}$$ with $\delta = (5/2)[1+2\exp(-\kappa r_{\rm hd})]^{-1}$ for the conversion of mobilities to potentals [@Ohshima1994]. The following reported $\zeta$-potential are the mean of the three independent measurements.
Results and Discussion
======================
![ (a) Log–log plot of the radius of gyration $R_g$ versus the total beads number $N_{\rm dP}$ for generations G$_0$ to G$_6$. The red line is the fitted power law function $R_g \sim N^{0.33}_{\rm dP}$ for all generations, while the dotted cyan line is a fitted power law function $R_g \sim N^{0.30}_{\rm dP}$ for generations $G_2$ to $G_6$ only. Inset (b): the asphericity parameter $A$ (bottom panel) versus generation of the CG dPGS molecules.[]{data-label="asph"}](fig3.pdf)
Size, sphericity and molecular density distributions
----------------------------------------------------
![ Radial density distribution $\rho_i(r)$ with respect to the dPGS core of (a) the terminal sulfate beads, $i=$C, (b) the cations (counterions; $i=+$), and (c) the anions (coions; $i=-$) for generations G$_0$ to G$_6$. In the inset of panel (c) we show the anion density profile at longer distance up to $r = 10$ nm, with the limiting bulk anion density $c_0$ marked by a dashed horizontal line. []{data-label="rdf_dpgs"}](fig4.pdf)
[P[2.3cm]{}|P[1.7cm]{}|P[1.7cm]{}|P[1.7cm]{}|P[1.7cm]{}|P[1.7cm]{}|P[1.7cm]{}|P[1.7cm]{}|]{} & & &  &  &  &  & \
Label & G$_0$ & G$_1$ & G$_2$ & G$_3$ & G$_4$ & G$_5$ & G$_6$\
MW \[KDa\] &0.79 & 1.72 & 4.10 & 8.32 & 16.77 & 33.67 &68.00\
$N_{\rm dP}$ & 10 & 22 & 46 & 94 & 190 & 382 & 766\
$N_{\rm ter}$ & 6 & 12 & 24 & 48 & 96 & 192 & 384\
$Z_{\rm bar}$ \[$e$\] & -6 & -12 & -24 & -48 & -96 & -192 & -384\
$R_g$ \[nm\] & 0.52 & 0.71 & 0.92 & 1.16 & 1.43 & 1.76 &2.17\
$r_d$ \[nm\] & 0.65 & 0.83 & 1.10 & 1.35 & 1.65 & 2.05 &2.55\
$\sigma_d$ \[$e$/nm$^{-2}$\] & -1.28 & -1.34 & -1.58 & -2.10 & -2.81 & -3.64 & -4.70\
$r_{\rm eff}$ \[nm\] & 0.7 & 1.6 & 1.9 & 2.4 & 2.8 & 3.3 & 3.8\
$Z_{\rm eff}$ \[$e$\] & -6.0 & -7.3 & -10.6 & -14.3 & -18.7 & -24.5 & -32.9\
$\sigma_{\rm eff}$ \[$e$/nm$^{-2}$\] & -0.97 & -0.23 & -0.23 & -0.20 & -0.19 & -0.18 & -0.18\
$\phi(r_{\rm eff})$ \[${k_\mathrm{B}}T$\] & -4.20 &-2.12 & -2.37 & -2.22 & -2.28 & -2.25 & -2.40\
$r_{\rm inf}$ \[nm\] & – & 1.1 & 1.5 & 1.8 & 2.1 & 2.6 & 3.1\
$Z_{\rm inf}$ \[$e$\] & – & -9.9 & -14.9 & -22.9 & -37.5 & -52.2 & -85.8\
$\sigma_{\rm inf}$ \[$e$/nm$^{-2}$\] & – & -0.65 & -0.53 & -0.56 & -0.68 & -0.62 & -0.71\
\[dPGS\_para\]
### Radius of gyration and asphericity
The radius of gyration $R_g$ of the dPGS macromolecules as a function of generation $n$ is summarized in Table \[dPGS\_para\]. We find that $R_g$ increases from $0.52$ nm to $2.17$ nm from G$_0$ to G$_6$. A linear behavior is revealed in a log–log plot of $R_g$ in terms of the total number of the CG segments, $N_{\rm dP}$, in Fig \[asph\](a). Hence, the dPGS size follows the scaling law $R_g \sim N^{\nu}_{\rm dP}$, where we find the scaling exponent $\nu = 0.33$ if we fit all generations, while it decreases slightly to $\nu = 0.30$ if we only fit through the larger generations $G_2$ to $G_6$, cf. Fig \[asph\](a). Such a scaling close to 1/3 is fully consistent with the now well established ’dense-core’ picture of dendrimers, where details, however, can depend on the particular dendrimer architecture, see the deeper discussions in exemplary previous work. [@Ballauff2004; @Tian2013; @Maiti2009; @Klos2013].
In Fig \[asph\](b), we plot the asphericity versus the generation number. For all inspected generations we find values lower than ${\rm A}\sim0.07$, which suggests an almost perfect spherical shape for dPGS molecules. Larger generations show higher sphericity, very likely due to a more homogeneous distribution of the larger number of closer packed beads and a thus higher compactness. We show snapshots of the CG dendrimers for all investigated generations G$_0$ to G$_6$ in Table \[dPGS\_para\].
### Density distributions and ‘intrinsic’ radius
Figure \[rdf\_dpgs\] shows the radial density distributions $\rho_i(r)$ of selected components with respect to the distance $r$ to the dendrimer core bead. Fig \[rdf\_dpgs\](a) shows the distribution of the terminal sulfate beads. For the smaller generations $G<4$, we find a single-peaked distribution, corresponding to the picture that most of the charged terminal beads stay on the molecular surface [@Huismann2010; @Huismann2010B; @Klos2010; @Klos2013]. For the larger generations, however, a bimodal distribution signified by a small peak at $r\simeq 0.6$ nm appears, indicating a small number of dendrons backfolding toward the dendrimer core. (Better visible in density plots re-scaled to refer to the position of the sulfate peak, see the SI.) The backfolding effect was already detected for other terminally-charged CG dendrimer models [@Huismann2010; @Huismann2010B; @Klos2010; @Klos2013] contributing to a dense-core in contrast to a dense-shell arrangement. [@Ballauff2004] An ‘intrinsic’ dPGS radius $r_d$ can be roughly deduced from the location of maximum density of the terminal groups. As implied in Fig. \[rdf\_dpgs\](a), we find a dPGS radius $r^{G_0}_{d} \simeq~0.6$ nm for generation G$_0$ increasing to $r^{G_6}_{d} \simeq 2.6$ nm for generation G$_6$. All values are summarized in Table \[dPGS\_para\].
The radial density $\rho_+(r)$ of the cations, shown in Fig. \[rdf\_dpgs\](b), is found to have qualitatively the expected response to the distribution of terminal beads and follows roughly the sulfate distribution. In particular, for all generations $\rho_+(r)$ decreases as expected in an exponential (Yukawa or DH-like) fashion to the bulk concentration for large distances. For closer distances, $r\simeq r_d$ highly nonlinear effects are visible, e.g., in the response to the backfolding of the terminal beads we observe the enrichment of cations at $r \simeq 0.5$ nm inside the dPGS, corresponding to the lower sulfate peaks close to the core in Fig. \[rdf\_dpgs\](a). On the contrary and as expected, coions are repelled by the dPGS due to the electrostatic repulsion.
![ (a) Hydrodynamic diameter and (b) surface potential as determined via Zetasizer measurements (blue bars) and simulations (symbols; dashed lines are guided to the eye). In a) the simulation results are plotted for the intrinsic dPGS diameter $d_d = 2r_d$ and the effective diameter $d_{\rm eff}=2 r_{\rm eff}$. In b) simulation results are plotted for the effective surface potential $\phi_{\rm eff}=\phi(r_{\rm eff})$ at the location $r_{\rm eff}$ and that at one solvation layer shifted, i.e., $r_{\rm eff}+0.3$ nm and $r_{\rm eff}-0.3$ nm, respectively. []{data-label="DLS"}](fig5a.pdf "fig:") ![ (a) Hydrodynamic diameter and (b) surface potential as determined via Zetasizer measurements (blue bars) and simulations (symbols; dashed lines are guided to the eye). In a) the simulation results are plotted for the intrinsic dPGS diameter $d_d = 2r_d$ and the effective diameter $d_{\rm eff}=2 r_{\rm eff}$. In b) simulation results are plotted for the effective surface potential $\phi_{\rm eff}=\phi(r_{\rm eff})$ at the location $r_{\rm eff}$ and that at one solvation layer shifted, i.e., $r_{\rm eff}+0.3$ nm and $r_{\rm eff}-0.3$ nm, respectively. []{data-label="DLS"}](fig5b.pdf "fig:")
In Fig \[DLS\](a), we plot the hydrodynamic diameter measured via Zetasizer experiments of generation 2, 4, 4.5 and 5.5, respectively. As expected it increases with the molecular weight. A comparison to the dPGS size estimated from the sulfate peak in Fig. \[rdf\_dpgs\](a) from the simulation, $2r_d$, shows not a good agreement, probably because the correlated solvation layer, i.e., the Stern layer, is relatively thick and reaches out further into the bulk. The analysis in the next section, where an effective dPGS radius based on the ionic charge distribution is calculated, fully supports this conjecture.
Electrostatic properties of dPGS
--------------------------------
![ Distance–resolved (a) normalized running coordination number of counterions $N_{+}$/$Z_{\rm bar}$, (b) normalized accumulated effective charge $Z_{acc}(r)/Z_{\rm bar}$, (c) the product of distance $r$ and dimensionless radial electrostatic potential $|e\beta\phi|$. We put a log-scale in (c) at the $y$-axis to examine the exponential decay. The long dashed line in (c) are fits according to the DH potential $\phi_{\rm DH}$, see Eq.(\[DH\_solution\]). The vertical dashed lines signify the effective radius $r_{\rm eff}$ of dPGS, whereas the circles mark the inflection radius $r_{\rm inf}$. The dPGS generation for that plot ranges from $0$ to $6$ in condition of salt concentration $c_0=10$ mM. The exponential decay with standard inverse DH length $\kappa = 0.33$ nm$^{-1}$ derived by DH theory is plot in panel (c) as a further comparison. []{data-label="phi_dpgs"}](fig6.pdf)
### Electrostatic potential, charge renormalization and effective ‘charge’ radius
From the ionic density profiles we can now in detail investigate local charge accumulation and electrostatic potential distributions. The accumulated number $N_{+} (r)$ of counterions and the locally total accumulated dPGS charge $Z_{\rm acc} (r)$ (i.e., the local effective charge according to Eq. (\[acc\])) are presented in Fig \[phi\_dpgs\](a) and Fig \[phi\_dpgs\](b), respectively. It is found that both $N_{+} (r)$ and $Z_{\rm acc} (r)$ increase sharply with distance $r$ from the dPGS core due to the rising accumulation of charged beads. While $N_{+} (r)$ naturally rises, $Z_{\rm acc}(r)$ jumps to a maximum at a distance $r_Z$ and drops gradually. At this distance, a large portion of the sulfate charges are neutralized by counterions. As implied by Fig \[phi\_dpgs\](b), we find for instance that more than 70$\%$ of the charges at $r = r_Z$ for G$_6$ are compensated by bound counterions. This charge renormalization effect has been extensively studied at hand of simple charged spheres with smooth surfaces, and theories for the effective charge and size have been developed [@Belloni1998; @DavidA.J.Gillespie2014; @Ohshima1982; @Bocquet2002; @Manning2007]. One important outcome is that one can define the critical location for counterion-condensation in terms of the inflection point in a plot of $Z_{\rm acc}$ as a function of the inverse radial distance $1/r$ [@Belloni1998; @DavidA.J.Gillespie2014]. The equation ${d^2 Z_{\rm acc}}/{d(1/r)^2}|_{r=r_{\rm inf}} = 0$ leads to the inflection radius, $r_{\rm inf}$, within ions are deemed condensed. We marked $r_{\rm inf}$ by circle symbols for all generations in Fig \[phi\_dpgs\]. Note that $r_{\rm inf}$ is larger than $r_Z$ and could be used to read off an effective charge size and charge of the macromolecule.
A more practical concept to define an effective size and charge is to quantitatively map the double-layer decay of the potential onto the basic DH-theory, Eq. (\[DH\_solution\]). Fig. \[phi\_dpgs\](c) plots the rescaled potential $|re\beta\phi|$ versus distance $r$ in a log–linear scale. For the potential far away a homogeneously charged sphere, the DH potential $\phi_{\rm DH}$ with a renormalized charge should apply, yielding an exponential decay ${e^{-\kappa(n) r}}/{r}$ attributed to the electrostatic screening. The plot indeed shows the expected linear decay at large separations unambiguously for all presented dPGS with a slope as expected to be close to the standard inverse DH length $\kappa = 0.33$ nm$^{-1}$ for the salt concentration $c_0=10$ mM. In detail, we find slopes of $\kappa(n)$ to monotonically increase with $n$ from $\kappa(0) = 0.36$ nm$^{-1}$ to $\kappa(6) = 0.41$ nm$^{-1}$. That slight increase is due to the increasing number of counterions in the finite system which also contribute to screening. In contrast to the simple exponential decay at large separations, for smaller distances the potential term $|re\beta \phi(r)|$ climbs up quickly with decreasing distance $r$ to a maximum before it decays to almost vanishing potential close to the dPGS core. This highly nonlinear behavior is expected from the high electrostatic and steric correlations between sulfate beads and counterions in this dense Stern layer.
As indicated by Fig. \[phi\_dpgs\](c), the potential can now be naturally divided into two parts: a DH-regime $r > r_{\rm eff}$, where the DH potential describes correctly the potential, and a non-DH regime $r_d < r < r_{\rm eff}$, where a non-monotonic and highly non-exponential behavior is revealed. In that sense, $r_{\rm eff}$ now acts as a measure of the dPGS effective radius at which we can attain an effective dPGS charge $Z_{\rm eff}$ [@Belloni1998] (see also the SI). We depict the position of the DH radius $r_{\rm eff}$ by vertical dashed lines in Fig \[phi\_dpgs\]. We list $r_{\rm eff}$ and $Z_{\rm eff}$ in the Table \[dPGS\_para\] for generations 0 to 6. We find an increase of both $r_{\rm eff}$ and $Z_{\rm eff}$ with dPGS generation index and substantial charge renormalization effects. For instance, the bare charge for G$_6$–dPGS is $-384$ $e$ (still presents at a radius $r_d$, cf. Fig. 5(b)) is effectively renormalized to $Z_{\rm eff} = -32.9$ $e$ at large distances $r>r_{\rm eff}$. An exception is G$_0$ in which case we find $r_d \approx r_{\rm eff}$ and hardly any renormalization by condensed counterions takes places. In agreement, the accumulated counterions profile $N_{+}$ for G$_0$ in Fig \[phi\_dpgs\](a) reveals DH behavior almost in the full range of $r$ and no inflection radius could be identified.
Note that both $r_{\rm inf}$ and $r_{\rm eff}$ can in principle be taken as definition for the effective size and charge of the charge-renormalized sphere. Although the difference between them appears not so large in Fig. \[phi\_dpgs\], still a significant charge renormalization happens in between as the gradient $d N_{+}(r)/d r$ at $r_{\rm inf}$ is relatively large, [[*[i.e.]{}*]{}]{}, there is a marked density decrease of the counterions from distance $r_{\rm inf}$ to $r_{\rm eff}$. In the following, we base our analysis only on $r_{\rm eff}$ as we believe that the inflection point criterion holds only for more idealized systems (smooth surfaces, no salt). The procedure to obtain $r_{\rm eff}$ rests on the assumption that we can treat the dPGS as simple DH spheres, so it exactly serves our purpose. Interestingly, a comparison of the corresponding effective diameter, $2r_{\rm eff}$ to the size measured in the Zetasizer experiments in Fig \[DLS\](a) shows satisfying agreement. This demonstrates that the thickness of the correlated Stern layer in our simulation is of reasonable size and resembles the size of the bound solvation layer revealed by the experiments.
![dPGS effective surface charge density $\sigma_{\rm eff}= Z_{\rm eff}/(4\pi r^2_{\rm eff})$ versus dPGS generation number $n$. The solid circles are simulation results ranging from G$_1$ to G$_6$. The empty upward triangles, squares, diamonds are effective charge based on various theories as expressed by $\sigma_{\rm M}, \sigma_{\rm N}, \sigma_{\rm O}$ in eqs. (\[Manning\]), Eq. (\[Netz\]), and Eq. (\[Oshima\]), respectively. []{data-label="sigma"}](fig7.pdf)
### Effective surface charge density and potential
Considering the intrinsic radius $r_d$ and the DH radius $r_{\rm eff}$, the estimates of $Z_{\rm bar}$ and $Z_{\rm eff}$ lead to the dPGS bare surface charge density $\sigma_d$ and effective surface charge density $\sigma_{\rm eff}= Z_{\rm eff}/(4\pi r^2_{\rm eff})$, respectively. Numbers are also summarized in Table \[dPGS\_para\]. We find a monotonic decrease on $\sigma_d$ with generation $n$, in response to the growing number of the surface beads. (The small portion of backfolding terminal beads increasing with generation decreases the surface charge valency slightly but not significant). Due to the large counterion-binding and charge renormalization effect, the effective charge density $\sigma_{\rm eff}$ is about one order of magnitude smaller than the bare one. Interestingly, it virtually remains constant, even slightly decreases from $-0.23$ $e$ nm$^{-2}$ for G$_1$ to a saturated value $-0.18$ $e$ nm$^{-2}$ for G$_5$ and G$_6$. Experiments of carboxyl-terminated dendrimers at $pH$ much larger than the $pKa$ (i.e., almost full ionization) also found higher effective charge densities of a lower generation G$_2$ than for G$_5$ [@Huang2000].
The results for the effective surface charge can be compared to available theories of charge renormalization of highly charged spheres, typically valid in low or high salt limits. Early approaches are based on approximate solutions of the nonlinear Poisson-Boltzmann equation for isolated spheres at infinite dilution, e.g., improvements of the now classical Ohshima potential [@Ohshima1982] lead to [@Bocquet2002] $$\sigma^{\rm O}_{\rm eff} = \frac{-2e[1+\kappa(n) r_{\rm eff}]^2}{\pi {l_\mathrm{B}}r_{\rm eff} [1+2\kappa(n) r_{\rm eff}]}
\label{Oshima}$$ and should be valid for large $\kappa r_{\rm eff}\gtrsim 1$, i.e., large spheres and/or high screening by salt. In the framework of standard counterion-condensation theory, Manning later derived a different but related expression for the saturation surface charge density of an isolated sphere in the same regime ($\kappa r_{\rm eff}\rightarrow 0$) as [@Manning2007] $$\sigma^{\rm M}_{\rm eff} = \frac{e[1+\kappa(n) r_{\rm eff}]\ln[\kappa(n) {l_\mathrm{B}}]}{2\pi {l_\mathrm{B}}r_{\rm eff}}.
\label{Manning}$$ In the other limit ($\kappa r_{\rm eff}\rightarrow 0$), Netz [*et al.*]{} [@Netz2003] instead provide an estimate on the effective charge density explicitly dependent on the bare charge valency, $Z_{\rm bar}$, by means of variational techniques, via $$\sigma^{\rm N}_{\rm eff} = \frac{-e}{4\pi r_{d} {l_\mathrm{B}}} \ln{\left( \frac{{l_\mathrm{B}}|Z_{\rm bar}|}{r_{d}^3 \kappa^2} \right)}.
\label{Netz}$$ For our dPGS systems, intermediate values $0.25 < \kappa r_{\rm eff} < 1.6$ are established, for which an accurate analytical description apparently is difficult to achieve. We plot $\sigma_{\rm eff}$ in terms of generation number $n$, together with $\sigma^{\rm M}_{\rm eff}, \sigma^{\rm N}_{\rm eff}$ and $\sigma^{\rm O}_{\rm eff}$ in Fig. \[sigma\]. We find that simulation and theory both yield the same trend, i.e., the absolute effective surface charge density decreases with generation $n$. Given the enormous charge renormalization effects of about one order of magnitude, the agreement to all theories is actually satisfactory, especially for the Manning theory. The relative error with respect to the magnitude of the bare surface charge is thus less than 10%. Based on this empirical comparison, the Manning approach can thus serve as a simple and analytical extrapolation to other systems and experiments.
Correspondingly, we define the dPGS surface potential $\phi(r_{\rm eff})$, also summarized in Table \[dPGS\_para\]. Similarly as the effective surface charge the surface potential is staying relatively constant with generation number. An inspection and comparison to $\zeta$-potentials derived from our electrophoretic mobility experiments is made in Fig \[DLS\](b). Recall that the shear plane, where the $\zeta$-potential is located, should lie beyond the Stern layer which refers to a position very close to $r_{\rm eff}$ where our effective surface potential $\phi(r_{\rm eff})$ is in the simulation [@Lyklem1995; @Ahualli2016]. Indeed, as we see in Fig \[DLS\](b), $\phi(r_{\rm eff})$ reproduces the experimental $\zeta$-potential very well at all generations. The sources of the remaining deviations can be of various origin, e.g., missing explicit water contributions to the electrostatic potential in the CG simulations or simply the lack of the exact knowledge of the shear plane. If, for instance, we assume an up- or down-shift of the location of the shear plane only about one solvation layer, say to be $\simeq r_{\rm eff} \pm 0.3$ nm, the experimental range is well matched, cf. Fig \[DLS\](b). Note also that in the experiments not directly the potential is measured but the electrophoretic mobility (presented in the SI) and their conversion is based on idealized models [@Hunter; @Huang2000].
, but now for different salt concentrations $c = 10$, 100, and 200 mM. The dashed lines depict the corresponding DH potential $\phi_{\rm DH}$ after fitting to the linear decay regime. []{data-label="phi_c"}](fig8.pdf)
We finally inspect the dependence of the effective dPGS radius $r_{\rm eff}$ and charge density $\sigma_{\rm eff}$ on the salt concentration. We plot the radial electrostatic potential $|re\beta\phi|$ for G$_5$-dPGS under three salt concentrations $c = 10$ mM, 100 mM, and 200 mM in Fig. \[phi\_c\]. As one can see the exponential regime $\exp(-\kappa r)$ for large distances survives for all cases. Interestingly, a similar $r_{\rm eff} \simeq 3.2$ nm is found with hardly any dependence on the salt concentration. The effective surface charge density goes down from $\sigma_{\rm eff} = -0.18~e$/nm$^{-2}$ (10 mM) to $\sigma_{\rm eff} = -0.14~e$/nm$^{-2}$ (100 mM) and $\sigma_{\rm eff} = -0.10~e$/nm$^{-2}$ at 200 mM. Eq. (\[Oshima\]) predicts an opposite trend than that and than Eqs. (\[Manning\]) and (\[Netz\]). The latter two treatments consistently point to the generic screening effect leading to a smaller surface potential $\phi(r_{\rm eff})$ for higher salt concentrations.
Conclusions
===========
In summary, we have investigated the electrostatic (surface) properties of highly charged dendrimers for various generations at hand of the biomedically important dPGS polyelectrolyte. We have defined an effective charge, effective surface charge and potential of dPGS for various generations and salt concentrations by a direct mapping procedure of the calculated electrostatic potentials onto the long-range Debye-H[ü]{}ckel-like electrostatic decay which defines the effective charge in its most practical level. The dPGS effective radius $r_{\rm eff}$ is accordingly addressed as a distance separating double-layer and condensation regimes and therefore gives the dPGS effective charge without ambiguity. Evidently, with that procedure the effective charge and the surface potential and their trends with generation can be consistently described by counterion-condensation theory and show very good agreement with new experimental $\zeta$-potential measurements as well.
In future, our model can be easily applied to dPGS-involved intermolecular interaction studies in biological context (e.g., binding to proteins or membranes), quantifying electrostatic interactions, in particular counterion-release effects on binding [@Yu2015; @Yigit2015b; @Yigit2016]. Those studies could serve as important references to guide experiments and optimize dPG-based particles as a potent anti-inflammatory drug in biomedical applications. In particular, the strength of specific counterion binding and condensation has significant influence on binding affinity of dPGS or other charge-functionalized polyglycerol-based dendrimers, such a carboxylated or phosphorylated dPG [@Weinhart2011; @Weinhart2011a].\
Xiao Xu thanks the Chinese Scholar Council for financial support. The authors acknowledge fruitful discussions with Rohit Nikam and Rafael Roa Chamorro.
\[1\][\#1]{} @ifundefined
[81]{}
Ballauff, M.; Likos, C. N. Dendrimers in Solution: Insight from Theory and Simulation. *Angew. Chem., Int. Ed.* **2004**, *43*, 2998 Lee, C. C.; MacKay, J. A.; Fr[é]{}chet, J. M.; Szoka, F. C. Designing dendrimers for biological applications. *Nature Biotechnology* **2005**, *23*, 1517–1526 Tian, W.; Ma, Y. Theoretical and computational studies of dendrimers as delivery vectors. *Chem. Soc. Rev.* **2013**, *42*, 705 Khandare, J.; Calder[ó]{}n, M.; Dagiaa, N. M.; Haag, R. Multifunctional dendritic polymers in nanomedicine: opportunities and challenges. *Chem. Soc. Rev.* **2012**, *41*, 2824 Maysinger, D.; Gr[ö]{}ger, D.; Lake, A.; Licha, K.; Weinhart, M.; Chang, P. K.-Y.; Mulvey, R.; Haag, R.; McKinney, R. A. Dendritic Polyglycerol Sulfate Inhibits Microglial Activation and Reduces Hippocampal CA1 Dendritic Spine Morphology Deficits. *Biomacromolecules* **2015**, *16*, 3073–3082 Reimann, S.; Gr[ö]{}ger, D.; K[ü]{}hne, C.; Riese, S. B.; Dernedde, J.; Haag, R. Shell Cleavable Dendritic Polyglycerol Sulfates Show High Anti-Inflammatory Properties by Inhibiting L-Selectin Binding and Complement Activation. *Adv. Healthcare Mater* **2015**, *4*, 2154–2162 Gr[ö]{}ger, D.; Paulus, F.; Licha, K.; Welker, P.; Weinhart, M.; Holzhausen, C.; Mundhenk, L.; Gruber, A. D.; Abram, U.; Haag, R. Synthesis and Biological Evaluation of Radio and Dye Labeled Amino Functionalized Dendritic Polyglycerol Sulfates as Multivalent Anti-Inflammatory Compounds. *Bioconjug. Chem.* **2013**, *24*, 1507–1514 Vonnemann, J.; Beziere, N.; B[ö]{}ttcher, C.; Riese, S. B.; Kuehne, C.; Dernedde, J.; Licha, K.; von Schacky, C.; Kosanke, Y.; Kimm, M.; Meier, R.; Ntziachristos, V.; Haag, R. Polyglycerolsulfate Functionalized Gold Nanorods as Optoacoustic Signal Nanoamplifiers for In Vivo Bioimaging of Rheumatoid Arthritis. *Theranostics* **2014**, *4*, 629–641 Sousa-Herves, A.; W[ü]{}rfel, P.; Wegner, N.; Khandare, J.; Licha, K.; Haag, R.; Welker, P.; Calder[ó]{}n, M. Dendritic polyglycerol sulfate as a novel platform for paclitaxel delivery: pitfalls of ester linkage. *Nanoscale* **2015**, *7*, 3923–3932 Dernedde, J.; Rausch, A.; Weinhart, M.; Enders, S.; Tauber, R.; Licha, K.; Schirner, M.; Zügel, U.; von Bonin, A.; Haag, R. Dendritic polyglycerol sulfates as multivalent inhibitors of inflammation. *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.* **2010**, *107*, 19679–19684 Hoshino, Y.; Lee, H.; Miura, Y. Interaction between synthetic particles and biomacromolecules: fundamental study of nonspecific interaction and design of nanoparticles that recognize target molecules. *Polym. J.* **2014**, *46*, 537 Maiti, P. K.; Cagin, T.; Wang, G.; Goddard, W. A. Structure of PAMAM Dendrimers: Generations 1 through 11. *Macromolecules* **2004**, *37*, 6236 Naylor, A. M.; Goddard, W. A.; Kiefer, G. E.; Tomalia, D. A. Starburst dendrimers. 5. Molecular shape control. *J. Am. Chem. Soc.* **1989**, *111*, 2339–2341 Lee, I.; Athey, B. D.; Wetzel, A. W.; Meixner, W.; James R. Baker, J. Structural molecular dynamics studies on polyamidoamine dendrimers for a therapeutic application: effects of pH and generation. *Macromolecules* **2002**, *35*, 4510–4520 Han, M.; Chen, P.; Yang, X. Molecular dynamics simulation of PAMAM dendrimer in aqueous solution. *Polymer* **2005**, *10*, 3481 Maiti, P. K.; Cagin, T. T.; Lin, S.-T.; Goddard, W. A. Effect of Solvent and pH on the Structure of PAMAM Dendrimers. *Macromolecules* **2005**, *38*, 979–991 Maiti, P. K.; Messina, R. Counterion Distribution and [$\zeta$]{}-Potential in PAMAM Dendrimer. *Macromolecules* **2008**, *41*, 5002 Murat, M.; Grest, G. S. Molecular Dynamics Study of Dendrimer Molecules in Solvents of Varying Quality. *Macromolecules* **1996**, *29*, 1278 Welch, P.; Muthukumar, M. Tuning the Density Profile of Dendritic Polyelectrolytes. *Macromolecules* **1998**, *31*, 5892 Lyulin, S. V.; Evers, L. J.; van der Schoot, P.; Darinskii, A. A.; Lyulin, A. V.; Michels, M. A. J. Effect of Solvent Quality and Electrostatic Interactions on Size and Structure of Dendrimers. Brownian Dynamics Simulation and Mean-Field Theory. *Macromolecules* **2004**, *37*, 3049–3063 Lyulin, S. V.; Darinskii, A. A.; Lyulin, A. V.; Michels, M. A. J. Computer Simulation of the Dynamics of Neutral and Charged Dendrimers. *Macromolecules* **2004**, *37*, 4676–4685 Giupponi, G.; Buzza, D. M. A. Monte Carlo simulation of dendrimers in variable solvent quality. *J. Chem. Phys.* **2004**, *120*, 10290 Lee, H.; Larson, R. G. Molecular Dynamics Simulations of PAMAM Dendrimer-Induced Pore Formation in DPPC Bilayers with a Coarse-Grained Model. *J. Phys. Chem. B* **2006**, *110*, 18204–18211 Lee, H.; Larson, R. G. Coarse-grained molecular dynamics studies of the concentration and size dependence of fifth- and seventh-generation PAMAM dendrimers on pore formation in DMPC bilayer. *J. Phys. Chem. B* **2008**, *112*, 7778–7784 Lee, H.; Larson, R. G. A molecular dynamics study of the structure and inter-particle interactions of polyethylene glycol-conjugated PAMAM dendrimers. *J. Phys. Chem. B* **2009**, *113*, 13202–13207 Chong, L.; Aydin, F.; Dutt, M. Implicit solvent coarse-grained model of polyamidoamine dendrimers: Role of generation and pH. *J. Comput. Chem.* **2016**, *37*, 920–926 Gurtovenko, A. A.; Lyulin, S. V.; Karttunen, M.; llpo Vattulainen, Molecular dynamics study of charged dendrimers in salt-free solution: Effect of counterions. *J. Chem. Phys.* **2006**, *124*, 094904 Blaak, R.; Lehmann, S.; Likos, C. N. Charge-Induced Conformational Changes of Dendrimers. *Macromolecules* **2008**, *41*, 4452–4458 Carbone, P.; Lue, L. Prediction of Bulk Density and Molecular Packing in Model Dendrimers with Different Chain Stiffness. *Macromolecules* **2010**, *43*, 9191–9197 Hui[ß]{}mann, S.; Wynveen, A.; Likos, C. N.; Blaak, R. The effects of pH, salt and bond stiffness on charged dendrimers. *J. Phys.: Condens. Matter* **2010**, *22*, 232101 Hui[ß]{}mann, S.; Wynveen, A.; Likos, C. N.; Blaak, R. Conformations of high-generation dendritic polyelectrolytes. *J. Mat. Chem.* **2010**, *20*, 10486–10494 Tian, W.; Ma, Y. pH-responsive dendrimers interacting with lipid membranes. *Soft Matter* **2012**, *8*, 2627 Das, A. K.; Hsiao, P.-Y. Charged Dendrimers in Trivalent Salt Solutions under the Action of DC Electric Fields. *J. Phys. Chem. B* **2014**, *118*, 6265–6276 Welch, P.; Muthukumar, M. Dendrimer-Polyelectrolyte Complexation: A Model Guest-Host System. *Macromolecules* **2000**, *33*, 6159 Lenz, D. A.; Blaak, R.; Likos, C. N. Structural properties of dendrimer-colloid mixtures. *J. Phys.: Condens. Matter* **2012**, *24*, 284119 K[ł]{}os, J. S.; Sommer, J.-U. Properties of Dendrimers with Flexible Spacer-Chains: A Monte Carlo Study. *Macromolecules* **2009**, *42*, 4878 Maiti, P. K.; Li, Y.; Cagin, T.; Goddard, W. A. Structure of polyamidoamide dendrimers up to limiting generations: A mesoscale description. *J. Chem. Phys.* **2009**, *130*, 144902 Tian, W.; Ma, Y. Coarse-grained molecular simulation of interacting dendrimers. *Soft Matter* **2011**, *7*, 500 K[ł]{}os, J. S.; Sommer, J.-U. Simulations of Terminally Charged Dendrimers with Flexible Spacer Chains and Explicit Counterions. *Macromolecules* **2010**, *43*, 4418–4427 K[ł]{}os, J. S.; Sommer, J.-U. Monte Carlo simulations of charged dendrimer-linear polyelectrolyte complexes and explicit counterions. *J. Chem. Phys.* **2011**, *134*, 204902 K[ł]{}os, J. S.; Sommer, J.-U. Simulations of Neutral and Charged Dendrimers in Solvents of Varying Quality. *Macromolecules* **2013**, *46*, 3107–3117 Hui[ß]{}mann, S.; Likos, C. N.; Blaak, R. Explicit vs Implicit Water Simulations of Charged Dendrimers. *Macromolecules* **2012**, *45*, 2562 Tian, W.; Ma, Y. Effects of valences of salt ions at various concentrations on charged dendrimers. *Soft Matter* **2010**, *6*, 1308 Ohshima, H.; Healy, T. W.; White, L. R. Accurate analytic expressions for the surface charge density/surface potential relationship and double-layer potential distribution for a spherical colloidal particle. *J. Colloid Interface Sci.* **1982**, *90*, 17–26 Alexander, S.; Chaikin, P. M.; Grant, P.; Morales, G. J.; Pincus, P. Charge renormalization, osmostic pressure, and bulk modulus of colloidal crystals: Theory. *J. Chem. Phys.* **1983**, *80*, 5776 Ramanathan, G. V. Counterion condensation in micellar and colloidal solutions. *J. Chem. Phys.* **1988**, *88*, 3887 Belloni, L. Ionic condensation and charge renormalization in colloidal suspensions. *Colloids Surf., A* **1998**, *140*, 227–243 Bocquet, L.; Trizac, E.; Aubouy, M. Effective charge saturation in colloidal suspensions. *J. Chem. Phys.* **2002**, *117*, 8138 Netz, R.; Orland, H. Variational charge renormalization in charged systems. *Eur. Phys. J. E* **2003**, *11*, 301 Manning, G. S. Counterion Condensation on Charged Spheres, Cylinders, and Planes. *J. Phys. Chem. B* **2007**, *111*, 8554–8559 Gillespie, D. A. J.; Hallett, J. E.; Elujoba, O.; Hamzah, A. F. C.; Richardson, R. M.; Bartlett, P. Counterion condensation on spheres in the salt-free limit. *Soft Matter* **2014**, *10*, 566–577 Huang, Q. R.; Dubin, P. L.; Moorefield, C. N.; Newkome, G. R. Counterion Binding on Charged Spheres: Effect of pH and Ionic Strength on the Mobility of Carboxyl-Terminated Dendrimers. *J. Phys. Chem. B* **2000**, *104*, 898–904
Hess, B.; Kutzner, C.; van der Spoel, D.; Lindahl, E. GROMACS 4: Algorithms for Highly Efficient, Load-Balanced, and Scalable Molecular Simulation. *J. Chem. Theory Comput.* **2008**, *4*, 435–447 Schuler, L. D.; Daura, X.; van Gunsteren, W. F. An improved GROMOS96 force field for aliphatic hydrocarbons in the condensed phase. *J. Comput. Chem.* **2001**, *22*, 1205–128 Berendsen, H. J. C.; Grigera, J. R.; Straatsma, T. P. The missing term in effective pair potentials. *J. Phys. Chem.* **1987**, *91*, 6269–6271 Frisch, M. J. e. a. Gaussian 09 [R]{}evision [D]{}.01. 2009; Gaussian Inc. Wallingford CT 2009 Horta, B. A. C.; Fuchs, P. F. J.; van Gunsteren, W. F.; H[ü]{}nenberger, P. H. New Interaction Parameters for Oxygen Compounds in the GROMOS Force Field: Improved Pure-Liquid and Solvation Properties for Alcohols, Ethers, Aldehydes, Ketones, Carboxylic Acids, and Esters. *J. Chem. Theory Comput.* **2011**, *7*, 1016–1031 Jozica, D. GROMOS Developer. *Private Communication* **2013**, Tang, X.; Koenig, P. H.; Larson, R. G. Molecular Dynamics Simulations of Sodium Dodecyl Sulfate Micelles in Water - The Effect of the Force Field. *J. Phys. Chem. B* **2014**, *118*, 3864–3880 Evans, D. A. History of the Harvard ChemDraw Project. *Angew. Chem., Int. Ed.* **2014**, *53*, 11140 Essmann, U.; Perera, L.; Berkowitz, M. L.; Darden, T.; Lee, H.; Pedersen, L. G. A smooth particle mesh Ewald method. *J. Chem. Phys.* **1995**, *103*, 8577 M[ü]{}ller-Plathe, F. Coarse-graining in polymer simulation: from the atomistic to the mesoscopic scale and back. *ChemPhysChem* **2002**, *3*, 754 Reith, D.; P[ü]{}tz, M.; M[ü]{}ller-Plathe, F. Deriving effective mesoscale potentials from atomistic simulations. *J. Comput. Chem.* **2003**, *24*, 1624 Smith, D. E.; Dang, L. X. Computer simulations of NaCI association in polarizable water. *J. Chem. Phys.* **1993**, *100*, 3757 Kalcher, I.; Schulz, J. C. F.; Dzubiella, J. Electrolytes in a nanometer slab-confinement: Ion-specific structure and solvation forces. *J. Chem. Phys.* **2010**, *133*, 164511 Voit, B. I. Dendritic polymers: from aesthetic macromolecules to commercially interesting materials. *Acta Polym.* **1995**, *46*, 87–99 Kalcher, I.; Dzubiella, J. Structure - thermodynamics relation of electrolyte solutions. *J. Chem. Phys.* **2009**, *130*, 134507 Sunder, A.; Hanselmann, R.; Frey, H.; M[ü]{}lhaupt, R. Controlled synthesis of hyperbranched polyglycerols by ring-opening multibranching polymerization. *Macromolecules* **1999**, *32*, 4240–4246 T[ü]{}rk, H.; Haag, R.; Alban, S. Dendritic polyglycerol sulfates as new heparin analogues and potent inhibitors of the complement system. *Bioconjugate chemistry* **2004**, *15*, 162–167 Ohshima, H. Electrophoretic mobility of soft particles. *J Colloid Interface Sci* **1994**, *163*, 474–483 Lyklema, J. *Fundamentals of interface and colloid science: vol. II, Solid-liquid interfaces*; Academic Press, London, 1995 Ahualli, S.; Delgado, [Á]{}. V.; Carrique, F.; Jim[é]{}nez, M. L. *AC Electrokinetics of Concentrated Suspensions of Soft and Hairy Nanoparticles: Model and Experiments*; John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2016 Hunter, R. J. *Foundations of Colloid Science*; Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001 Yu, S.; Xu, X.; , C.; van der Giet, M.; Zidek, W.; Jankowski, J.; Dzubiella, J.; Ballauff, M. Interaction of human serum albumin with short polyelectrolytes: a study by calorimetry and computer simulations. *Soft Matter* **2015**, *11*, 4630–4639 Yigit, C.; Heyda, J.; Ballauff, M.; Dzubiella, J. Like-charged protein-polyelectrolyte complexation driven by charge patches. *J. Chem. Phys.* **2015**, *143*, 064905 Yigit, C.; Kanduc, M.; Ballauff, M.; Dzubiella, J. Interaction of charged patchy protein models with like-charged polyelectrolyte brushes. *Langmuir* **2016**, *33*, 417–427 Weinhart, M.; Gr[ö]{}ger, D.; Enders, S.; Dernedde, J.; Haag, R. Synthesis of Dendritic Polyglycerol Anions and Their Efficiency Toward L-Selectin Inhibition. *Biomacromolecules* **2011**, *12*, 2502–2511 Weinhart, M.; Gr[ö]{}ger, D.; Enders, S.; Riese, S. B.; Dernedde, J.; Kainthan, R. K.; Brooks, D. E.; Haag, R. The Role of Dimension in Multivalent Binding Events: Structure-Activity Relationship of Dendritic Polyglycerol Sulfate Binding to L-Selectin in Correlation with Size and Surface Charge Density. *Macromol. Biosci.* **2011**, *11*, 1088–1098
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The attention mechanism has seen wide applications in computer vision and natural language processing. Recent works developed the dot-product attention mechanism and applied it to various vision and language tasks. However, the memory and computational costs of dot-product attention grows quadratically with the spatiotemporal size of the input. Such growth prohibits the application of the mechanism on large inputs, , long sequences, high-resolution images, or large videos. To remedy this drawback, this paper proposes a novel efficient attention mechanism, which is equivalent to dot-product attention but has substantially less memory and computational costs. The resource efficiency allows more widespread and flexible incorporation of efficient attention modules into a neural network, which leads to improved accuracies. Empirical evaluations on object recognition and image classification demonstrated the effectiveness of its advantages. Models with efficient attention achieved state-of-the-art performance on MS-COCO 2017 and significant improvement on ImageNet. Further, the resource efficiency of the mechanism democratizes attention to complicated models, which were unable to incorporate original dot-product attention due to prohibitively high costs. As an exemplar, an efficient attention-augmented model achieved state-of-the-art accuracies for stereo depth estimation on the Scene Flow dataset.'
author:
- |
Shen Zhuoran$^\dagger$[^1]\
Google AI\
601 N 34th St, Seattle, WA 98103, United States\
[[email protected]]{}
- |
Zhang Mingyuan[^2], Zhao Haiyu, Yi Shuai\
SenseTime International\
71 Robinson Road \#14-128, Singapore\
[zhangmingyuan,zhaohaiyu,[email protected]]{}
- |
Li Hongsheng\
The Chinese University of Hong Kong\
Sha Tin, Hong Kong\
[[email protected]]{}
bibliography:
- 'egbib.bib'
title: 'Efficient Attention: Attention with Linear Complexities'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Attention is a mechanism in neural networks that focuses on long-range dependency modeling, a key challenge to deep learning that convolution and recurrence struggle to solve. A recent series of works developed the highly successful dot-product attention mechanism, which facilitates easy integration into a deep neural network. The mechanism computes the response at every position as a weighted sum of features at all positions in the previous layer. In contrast to the limited spatial and temporal receptive fields of convolution and recurrence, dot-product attention expands the receptive field to the entire input in one pass. Using dot-product attention to efficiently model long-range dependencies allows convolution and recurrence to focus on local dependency modeling, in which they specialize. Dot-product attention-based models now hold state-of-the-art records on nearly all tasks in natural language processing [@transformer; @gpt; @bert; @gpt2]. The non-local module [@nonlocal], an adaptation of dot-product attention for computer vision, achieved state-of-the-art performance on video classification [@nonlocal] and generative adversarial image modeling [@sagan; @biggan] and demonstrated significant improvements on object detection [@nonlocal], instance segmentation [@nonlocal], person re-identification [@video-reid], and image de-raining [@deraining], .
However, global dependency modeling on large inputs, long sequences, high-definition images, and large videos, remains an unsolved problem. The quadratic[^3] memory and computational complexities with respect to the input size of existing dot-product attention modules inhibit their application on such large inputs. For instance, a non-local module uses over 1 GB of GPU memory and over 50 GMACC[^4] of computation for a 64-channel $128 \times 128$ feature map or over 68 GB and over 3.2 TMACC for a 64-channel $64 \times 64 \times 32$ video feature volume. The high memory and computational costs constrain the application of dot-product attention to the low-resolution or short-temporal-span parts of models [@nonlocal; @sagan; @biggan] and prohibits its use for resolution-sensitive or resource-hungry tasks.
![**An illustration of the learned attention maps in a non-local module.** The first image identifies five query positions with colored dots. Each of the subsequent images illustrates the attention map for one of the positions. Adapted from [@sagan].[]{data-label="fig:factorizing"}](figures/factorizing.png){width="\linewidth"}
The need for global dependency modeling on large inputs greatly motivates the exploration for a resource-efficient attention algorithm. An investigation into the non-local module revealed an intriguing phenomenon. The attention maps at each position, despite generated independently, are correlated. As [@nonlocal] and [@sagan] analyzed, the attention map of a position mainly focuses on semantically related regions. Figure \[fig:factorizing\] shows the learned attention maps in a non-local module. When generating an image of a bird before a bush, pixels on the legs tend to attend to other leg pixels for structural consistency. Similarly, body pixels mainly attend to the body, and background pixels focus on the bush.
This observation inspired the design of the efficient attention mechanism that this paper proposes. Similar to dot-product attention, the mechanism first generates a key feature map, a query feature map, and a value feature map from an input. It interprets each channel of the key feature map as a global attention map. Using each global attention map as the weights, efficient attention aggregates the value feature map to produce a global context vector that summarizes an aspect of the global features. Then, at each position, the module regards the query feature as a set of coefficients over the global context vectors. Finally, the module computes a sum of the global context vectors with the query feature as the weights to produce the output feature at the position. This algorithm avoids the generation of the pairwise attention matrix, whose size is quadratic in the spatiotemporal size of the input. Therefore, it achieves linear complexities with respect to input size and obtains significant efficiency improvements.
The principal contribution of this paper is the efficient attention mechanism, which:
1. has linear memory and computational complexities with respect to the spatiotemporal size of the input;
2. possesses the same representational power as the widely adopted dot-product attention mechanism;
3. allows the incorporation of significantly more attention modules into a neural network, which brings substantial performance boosts to tasks such as object detection and instance segmentation (on MS-COCO 2017) and image classification (on ImageNet); and
4. facilitates the application of attention on resource-hungry tasks, such as stereo depth estimation (on the Scene Flow dataset).
Related Works
=============
Dot-Product Attention
---------------------
[@attention] proposed the initial formulation of the dot-product attention mechanism to improve word alignment in machine translation. Successively, [@transformer] proposed to completely replace recurrence with attention and named the resultant architecture the Transformer. The Transformer architecture is highly successful on sequence tasks. They hold the state-of-the-art records on virtually all tasks in natural language processing [@bert; @gpt2; @xlnet] and is highly competitive on end-to-end speech recognition [@speech-tfm; @deep-san]. [@nonlocal] first adapted dot-product attention for computer vision and proposed the non-local module. They achieved state-of-the-art performance on video classification and demonstrated significant improvements on object detection, instance segmentation, and pose estimation. Subsequent works applied it to various fields in computer vision, including image restoration [@nlrn], video person re-identification [@video-reid], and notably generative adversarial image modeling, where SAGAN [@sagan] and BigGAN [@biggan] substantially advanced the state-of-the-art using the non-local module.
Efficient attention mainly builds upon the version of dot-product attention in the non-local module. Following [@nonlocal], the team conducted most experiments on object detection and instance segmentation. The paper compares the resource efficiency of the efficient attention module against the non-local module under the same performance and their performance under the same resource constraints.
Scaling Attention
-----------------
Besides dot-product attention, there are a separate set of techniques the literature refers to as attention. This section refers to them as scaling attention. While dot-product attention is effective for global dependency modeling, scaling attention focuses on emphasizing important features and suppressing uninformative ones. For example, the squeeze-and-excitation (SE) module [@senet] uses global average pooling and a linear layer to compute a scaling factor for each channel and then scales the channels accordingly. SE-enhanced models achieved state-of-the-art performance on image classification and substantial improvements on scene segmentation and object detection. On top of SE, CBAM [@cbam] added global max pooling beside global average pooling and an extra spatial attention submodule. It further improved SE’s performance.
Despite both names containing attention, dot-product attention and scaling attention are two completely separate sets of techniques with very different goals. When appropriate, one might take both techniques and let them work in conjunction. Therefore, it is unnecessary to make any comparison of efficient attention with scaling attention techniques.
Object Detection
----------------
Since the introduction of R-CNN [@rcnn], deep learning methods have achieved remarkable progress on object detection. Mask R-CNN [@mask-rcnn] is one of the most successful deep detector recently. It is efficient and accurate and supports instance segmentation in addition to object detection. Because of these advantages and that [@nonlocal] used Mask R-CNN as their baseline, this work also selected Mask R-CNN as the baseline.
Feature pyramid [@fpn] is a module specifically for object detection that aggregates features across scales and network depths to improve feature expressiveness. It is lightweight but highly effective. Therefore, this work incorporated it into the baseline model.
MegDet [@megdet], the winning entry of the MS-COCO Detection Challenge 2017, reported that large batch sizes and cross-GPU synchronous batch normalization is significantly beneficial to the performance of a deep detector. The baseline incorporated these two techniques.
Method {#sec:method}
======
This section introduces the efficient attention mechanism. It is mathematically equivalent with the widely adopted dot-product attention mechanism in computer vision (, the attention mechanism in the Transformer [@transformer] and the non-local module [@nonlocal]). However, efficient attention has linear memory and computational complexities with respect to the number of pixels or words (hereafter referred to as positions).
Section \[sec:ca\] reviews the dot-product attention mechanism and identifies its critical drawback on large inputs to motivate efficient attention. The introduction of the efficient attention mechanism is in Section \[sec:ea\]. Section \[sec:proof\] shows the equivalence between dot-product and efficient attention. Section \[sec:interpretation\] discusses the interpretation of the mechanism. Section \[sec:efficiency\] analyzes its efficiency advantage over dot-product attention.
{width="\linewidth"}
A Revisit of Dot-Product Attention {#sec:ca}
----------------------------------
Modeling long-range dependencies has been a central challenge for natural language processing and computer vision. [@attention] initially proposed dot-product attention for machine translation. Subsequently, the Transformer [@transformer] adopted the mechanism to model long-range temporal dependencies between words. [@nonlocal] introduce dot-product attention for the modeling of long-range dependencies between pixels in image and video understanding.
For each input feature vector $\bm{x}_i \in \mathbb{R}^d$ that corresponds to the $i$-th position, dot-product attention first uses three linear layers to convert $\bm{x}_i$ into three feature vectors, , the query feature $\bm{q}_i \in \mathbb{R}^{d_k}$, the key feature $\bm{k}_i \in \mathbb{R}^{d_k}$, and the value feature $\bm{v}_i \in \mathbb{R}^{d_v}$. The query and key features must have the same feature dimension $d_k$. One can measure the similarity between the $i$-th query and the $j$-th key as $\rho(\bm{q}_i^\mathrm{T}\bm{k}_j)$, where $\rho$ is a normalization function. In general, the similarities are asymmetric, since the query and key features are the outputs of two separate layers. The dot-product attention module calculates the similarities between all pairs of positions. Using the similarities as weights, position $i$ aggregates the value features from all positions via weighted summation to obtain its output feature.
If one represents all $n$ positions’ query, key, and value features in matrix forms as $\bm{Q} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d_k}$, $\bm{K} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d_k}, \bm{V} \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times d_v}$, respectively, the output of dot-product attention is $$\label{eq:ca}
\bm{D}(\bm{Q}, \bm{K}, \bm{V}) = \rho\left(\bm{Q}\bm{K}^\mathrm{T}\right)\bm{V}.$$ The normalization function has two common choices: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:ca-norm}
\text{Scaling: } & \rho(\bm{Y}) = \frac{\bm{Y}}{n}, \\
\text{Softmax: } & \rho(\bm{Y}) = \sigma_\text{row}(\bm{Y}),
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma_\text{row}$ denotes applying the softmax function along each row of matrix $\bm{Y}$. An illustration of the dot-product attention module is in Figure \[fig:ca-ea\] (left).
The critical drawback of this mechanism is its resource demands. Since it computes a similarity between each pair of positions, there are $n^2$ such similarities, which results in $O(n^2)$ memory complexity and $O(d_kn^2)$ computational complexity. Therefore, dot-product attention’s resource demands get prohibitively high on large inputs. In practice, application of the mechanism is only possible on low-resolution features.
Efficient Attention {#sec:ea}
-------------------
Observing the critical drawback of dot-product attention, this paper proposes the efficient attention mechanism, which is mathematically equivalent to dot-product attention but much faster and more memory efficient. In efficient attention, the individual feature vectors $\bm{X} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d}$ still pass through three linear layers to form the query features $\bm{Q} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d_k}$, key features $\bm{K} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d_k}$, and value features $\bm{V} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d_v}$. However, instead of interpreting the key features as $n$ feature vectors in $\mathbb{R}^{d_k}$, the module regards them as $d_k$ single-channel feature maps. Efficient attention uses each of these feature maps as a weighting over all positions and aggregates the value features from all positions through weighted summation to form a global context vector. The name reflects the fact that the vector does not correspond to a specific position, but is a global description of the input features.
The following equation characterizes the efficient attention mechanism: $$\label{eq:ea}
\bm{E}(\bm{Q}, \bm{K}, \bm{V}) = \rho_q(\bm{Q})\left(\rho_k(\bm{K})^\mathrm{T}\bm{V}\right),$$ where $\rho_q$ and $\rho_k$ are normalization functions for the query and key features, respectively. The implementation of the same two normalization methods as for dot-production attention are $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:ea-norm}
\text{Scaling: } & \rho_q(\bm{Y}) = \rho_k(\bm{Y}) = \frac{\bm{Y}}{\sqrt{n}}, \\
\text{Softmax: } & \rho_q(\bm{Y}) = \sigma_\text{row}(\bm{Y}), \\
& \rho_k(\bm{Y}) = \sigma_\text{col}(\bm{Y}),
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma_\text{row}, \sigma_\text{col}$ denote applying the softmax function along each row or column of matrix $\bm{Y}$, respectively.
The efficient attention module is a concrete implementation of the mechanism for computer vision data. For an input feature map $x \in \mathbb{R}^{h \times w \times d}$, the module flattens it to a matrix $\bm{X} \in \mathbb{R}^{hw \times d}$, applies the efficient attention mechanism on it, and reshapes the result to $h \times w \times d_v$. If $d_v \ne d$, it further applies a 1x1 convolution to restore the dimensionality to $d$. Finally, it adds the resultant features to the input features to form a residual structure.
Equivalence between Dot-Product and Efficient Attention {#sec:proof}
-------------------------------------------------------
Following is a formal proof of the equivalence between dot-product and efficient attention when using scaling normalization. Substituting the scaling normalization formula in Equation into Equation gives $$\label{eq:ca-scaling}
\bm{D}(\bm{Q}, \bm{K}, \bm{V}) = \frac{\bm{Q}\bm{K}^\mathrm{T}}{n}\bm{V}.$$ Similarly, plugging the scaling normalization formulae in Equation into Equation results in $$\label{eq:ea-scaling}
\bm{E}(\bm{Q}, \bm{K}, \bm{V}) = \frac{\bm{Q}}{\sqrt{n}}\left(\frac{\bm{K}^\mathrm{T}}{\sqrt{n}}\bm{V}\right).$$
Since scalar multiplication is commutative with matrix multiplication and matrix multiplication is associative, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:proof}
\bm{E}(\bm{Q}, \bm{K}, \bm{V}) &= \frac{\bm{Q}}{\sqrt{n}}\left(\frac{\bm{K}^\mathrm{T}}{\sqrt{n}}\bm{V}\right) \\
&= \frac{1}{n}\bm{Q}\left(\bm{K}^\mathrm{T}\bm{V}\right) \\
&= \frac{1}{n}\left(\bm{Q}\bm{K}^\mathrm{T}\right)\bm{V} \\
&= \frac{\bm{Q}\bm{K}^\mathrm{T}}{n}\bm{V}.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Comparing Equations and , we get $$\label{eq:qed}
\bm{E}(\bm{Q}, \bm{K}, \bm{V}) = \bm{D}(\bm{Q}, \bm{K}, \bm{V}).$$ Thus, the proof is complete.
The above proof works for the softmax normalization variant with one caveat. The two softmax operations on $\bm{Q}, \bm{K}$ are not exactly equivalent to the single softmax on $\bm{Q}\bm{K}^\mathrm{T}$. However, they closely approximate the effect of the original softmax function. The critical property of $\sigma_\text{row}\left(\bm{Q}\bm{K}^\mathrm{T}\right)$ is that each row of it sums up to $1$ and represents a normalized attention distribution over all positions. The matrix $\sigma_\text{row}(\bm{Q})\sigma_\text{col}
(\bm{K})^\mathrm{T}$ shares this property. Therefore, the softmax variant of efficient attention is a close approximate of that variant of dot-product attention. Section \[sec:vs\] demonstrates this claim empirically.
Interpretation of Efficient Attention {#sec:interpretation}
-------------------------------------
Efficient attention brings a new interpretation of the attention mechanism. In dot-product attention, selecting position $i$ as the reference position, one can collect the similarities of all positions to position $i$ and form an attention map $\bm{s}_i$ for that position. The attention map $\bm{s}_i$ represents the degree to which position $i$ attends to each position $j$ in the input. A higher value for position $j$ on $\bm{s}_i$ means position $i$ attends more to position $j$. In dot-product attention, every position $i$ has such an attention map $\bm{s}_i$, which the mechanism uses to aggregate the value features $\bm{V}$ to produce the output at position $i$.
In contrast, efficient attention does not generate an attention map for each position. Instead, it interprets the key features $\bm{K} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d_k}$ as $d_k$ attention maps $\bm{k}^\mathrm{T}_j$. Each $\bm{k}^\mathrm{T}_j$ is a global attention map that does not correspond to any specific position. Instead, each of them corresponds to a semantic aspect of the entire input. For example, one such attention map might cover the persons in the input. Another might correspond to the background. Section \[sec:vis\] gives several concrete examples. Efficient attention uses each $\bm{k}_j^\mathrm{T}$ to aggregate the value features $\bm{V}$ and produce a global context vector $\bm{g}_j$. Since $\bm{k}^\mathrm{T}_j$ describes a global, semantic aspect of the input, $\bm{g}_j$ also summarizes a global, semantic aspect of the input. Then, position $i$ uses $\bm{q}_i$ as a set of coefficients over $\bm{g}_0, \bm{g}_1, \ldots, \bm{g}_{d_k - 1}$. Using the previous example, a person pixel might place a large weight on the global context vector for persons to refine its representation. A pixel at the boundary of an object might have large weights on the global context vectors for both the object and the background to enhance the contrast.
Efficiency Advantage {#sec:efficiency}
--------------------
This section analyzes the efficiency advantage of efficient attention over dot-product attention in memory and computation. The reason behind the efficiency advantage is that efficient attention does not compute a similarity between each pair of positions, which would occupy $O(n^2)$ memory and require $O(d_kn^2)$ computation to generate. Instead, it only generates $d_k$ global context vectors in $\mathbb{R}^{d_v}$. This change eliminates the $O(n^2)$ terms from both the memory and computational complexities of the module. Consequently, efficient attention has $O((d_k + d)n + d_kd)$ memory complexity and $O((d_kd + d^2)n)$ computational complexities, assuming the common setting of $d_v = d$. Table \[tab:complexity\] shows complexity formulae of the efficient attention module and the non-local module (using dot-product attention) in detail. In computer vision, this complexity difference is very significant. Firstly, $n$ itself is quadratic in image side length and often very large in practice. Secondly, $d_k$ is a parameter of the module, which the designer of a network can tune to meet different resource requirements. Section \[sec:channels\] shows that, within a reasonable range, this parameter has minimal impact on performance. This result means that an efficient attention module can typically have a small $d_k$, which further increases its efficiency advantage over dot-product attention. Table \[tab:complexity-res\] compares the complexities of the efficient attention module with the ResBlock. The table shows that the resource demands of the efficient attention module are on par with (less than in most cases) the ResBlock, which gives an intuitive idea on the level of efficiency of he module.
Metric Efficient attention module Non-local module
-------------------------- ---------------------------- ----------------------------------------
Memory (floats) $(2d_k + 3d)n + d_kd$ $(2d_k + 3d)n + n^2$
Computation (MACC) $(8d_kd + 2d^2 + d)n$ $(4d_kd + 2d^2 + d)n + (2d_k + 2d)n^2$
Memory complexity $O((d_k + d)n + d_kd)$ $O((d_k + d)n + n^2)$
Computational complexity $O((d_kd + d^2)n)$ $O((d_kd + d^2)n + (d_k +d)n^2)$
Module ResBlock EA module
-------------------- ------------------ -----------------------
Memory (floats) $5dn$ $4dn + \frac{d^2}{2}$
Computation (MACC) $(36d^2 + 11d)n$ $(6d^2 + d)n$
Mem. complexity $O(dn)$ $O(dn + d^2)$
Comp. complexity $O(d^2n)$ $O(d^2n)$
: **Comparison of resource usage of the efficient attention module and the ResBlock.** Since the ResBlock does not have parameters $d_k, d_v$, this table sets $d_v = d, d_k = \frac{d}{2}$, the typical values for these parameters.[]{data-label="tab:complexity-res"}
![**Resource requirements under different input sizes.** The blue and orange bars depict the resource requirements of the efficient attention and non-local modules, respectively. The calculation assumes $d = d_v = 2d_k = 64$. The figure is in log scale.[]{data-label="fig:complexity"}](figures/complexity.png){width="3.25in"}
The rest of this section will give several concrete examples comparing the resource demands of the efficient attention and non-local modules. Figure \[fig:complexity\] compares their resource consumption for image features with different sizes. Directly substituting the non-local module on the $64 \times 64$ feature map in SAGAN [@sagan] yields a 17-time saving of memory and 32-time saving of computation. The gap widens rapidly with the increase of the input size. For a $256 \times 256$ feature map, a non-local module would require impractical amounts of memory (17.2 GB) and computation (412 GMACC). With the same input size, an efficient attention module uses 1/260 the amount of memory and 1/515 the amount of computation. The difference is more prominent for videos. Replacing the non-local module on the tiny $28 \times 28 \times 4$ feature volume in res3 of the non-local I3D-ResNet-50 network [@nonlocal] results in 2-time memory and computational saving. On a larger $64 \times 64 \times 32$ feature volume, an efficient attention module requires 1/32 the amount of memory and 1/1025 the amount of computation.
Experimental Results {#sec:experiment}
====================
Comparison with the Non-Local Module and the State-of-the-Art {#sec:vs}
-------------------------------------------------------------
### MS-COCO Task Suite {#sec:vs-coco}
This section presents comparison experiments on the MS-COCO 2017 dataset for object detection and instance segmentation. The section first compares the efficient attention module with the non-local module, which uses dot-product attention. Then, it compares models using efficient attention with other state-of-the-art methods. The baseline is a ResNet-50 Mask R-CNN with a 5-level feature pyramid [@fpn]. Figure \[fig:net\] illustrates the architecture. The backbones initialize from ImageNet pretrainings. All other modules use random initialization. All models trained for 24 epochs on 32 NVIDIA GTX 1080 Ti GPUs. The batch size is 64. The learning rate is 1.25e-4 at the beginning of training and drops by a factor of 10 at the start of the 18th and 21st epochs. All experiments used softmax normalization and $d_k = 64$.
![**Architecture of the Mask R-CNN FPN baseline.** Red dots are potential locations for the insertion of efficient attention or non-local modules.[]{data-label="fig:net"}](figures/net.png){width="\linewidth"}
Table \[tab:vs-ca\] reports the comparison against the non-local module. As rows res3 and fpn3 show, inserting an efficient attention module or a non-local module at the same location in a network has nearly identical effects on the performance. However, at layers where the input is large, inserting a non-local module leads to out-of-memory errors, while inserting an efficient attention module improved performance significantly and consumed little additional resources. Consequently, using the best insertion schemes for each module, the efficient attention module outperforms the non-local module by 0.9 box AP and 0.8 mask AP.
Layer(s) EA module Non-local Input size
---------- ----------------------- ------------- ------------------
None $39.4/35.1$ $39.4/35.1$ N/A
res3 $40.2/36.0$ $40.3/35.9$ $56 \times 80$
fpn1 $39.9/35.8$ OOM $224 \times 320$
fpn2 $39.7/35.7$ OOM $112 \times 160$
fpn3 $39.7/35.5$ $39.8/35.5$ $56 \times 80$
Best $\bm{41.2}/\bm{36.7}$ $40.3/35.9$ N/A
: **Comparison between the efficient attention and non-local modules.** Each numeric cell is in the format box AP/mask AP. The best configuration for the efficient attention module inserted at FPN layers 1-5 and backbone layers res3,4. The best for the non-local module inserted at res3.[]{data-label="tab:vs-ca"}
Table \[tab:vs-sota\] compares efficient attention-augmented detectors with other state-of-the-art methods on the MS-COCO 2017 dataset. EA Mask R-CNN with a ResNeXt-101 backbone set a new state-of-the-art. The version with a ResNet-101 backbone also outperformed all other ResNet-101-based models.
Model Backbone AP
---------------------------- ------------------- -------------
TDM Faster R-CNN [@tdm] Inc.-ResNet-v2 $36.8$
Mask R-CNN [@mask-rcnn] ResNeXt-101 $39.8$
Soft-NMS [@softnms] Algn.-Inc.-ResNet $40.9$
LH R-CNN [@lh-rcnn] ResNet-101 $41.5$
Fitness NMS [@fitness-nms] ResNet-101 $41.8$
**EA Mask R-CNN** ResNet-101 $43.1$
**EA Mask R-CNN** ResNeXt-101 $\bm{44.9}$
: **Comparison with the state-of-the-art on MS-COCO 2017.** *Inc.-ResNet-v2* and *Algn.-Inc.-ResNet* represent Inception-ResNet-v2 and Aligned-Inception-ResNet, respectively.[]{data-label="tab:vs-sota"}
### Stereo Depth Estimation {#sec:vs-stereo}
This section will present the experimental results of efficient attention-augmented models for stereo depth estimation. The experiments used the Scene Flow dataset. The baseline is the state-of-the-art published model, PSMNet [@psmnet]. The experiments empirically determined an optimal set of hyperparamters, which includes a batch size of 24, a learning rate of 2e-3, and 100 training epochs. Other hyperparamters remain the same as in [@psmnet].
Model EPE
------------------- --------------
PSMNet (original) $1.09$
PSMNet (baseline) $0.513$
**EA-PSMNet** $\bm{0.477}$
Nonlocal-PSMNet OOM
: **Experiments on the Scene Flow dataset.** EA-PSMNet is the proposed approach. *OOM* indicates out-of-memory errors.[]{data-label="tab:vs-ca-stereo"}
As Table \[tab:vs-ca-stereo\] shows, the proposed EA-PSMNet demonstrated significant improvement over the highly competitive baseline, which already surpassed the former state-of-the-art by a substantial margin. Table \[tab:vs-sota-stereo\] compares EA-PSMNet with other state-of-the-art methods. EA-PSMNet set a new state-of-the-art on the Scene Flow dataset.
Model EPE
-------------------------- -------------
iResNet-i2 [@crl] $1.40$
PSMNet [@psmnet] $1.09$
EdgeStereo [@edgestereo] $1.12$
CSPN [@cspn] $0.78$
**EA-PSMNet** $\bm{0.48}$
: **Comparison with the state-of-the-art on the Scene Flow dataset.** *EPE* stands for end-point error and is lower the better. The table rounded EPE for EA-PSMNet to the second decimal place following the format of previous works.[]{data-label="tab:vs-sota-stereo"}
### Image Classification {#sec:vs-class}
This section presents the experimental results of efficient attention-augmented models on the ImageNet dataset for image classification. The baseline is ResNet-50 [@resnet]. As in Table \[tab:vs-ca-class\], insertions at res1 and res2 both lead to significant improvements. Inserting simultaneously at both layers resulted in the largest gain of performance. In comparison, experiments with the same settings but with the non-local module all encountered OOM errors.
Layer(s) EA module Nonlocal
----------------------- --------------------------- -----------------
Baseline $76.052/92.952$ $76.052/92.952$
$\mathrm{res_1}$ $76.932/93.252$ OOM
$\mathrm{res_2}$ $76.532/93.274$ OOM
$\mathrm{res_{1, 2}}$ $\bm{77.312}/\bm{93.650}$ OOM
: **Experiments on ImageNet.** All results are in the form top-1/top-5. All experiments used single-crop testing.[]{data-label="tab:vs-ca-class"}
Ablation Studies {#sec:ablation}
----------------
### Attention Normalization
These experiments empirically validated the necessity of attention normalization and compared the two methods Section \[sec:ea\] specified, namely scaling and softmax normalization. Table \[tab:norm\] reports the experimental outcomes. The results demonstrate that while attention normalization is critical for the training of efficient attention-augmented models, the effectiveness does not depend on the specific normalization technique. Following [@nonlocal], all other experiments used softmax normalization.
Method Box AP Mask AP
--------- ------------- ----------
None NaN NaN
Scaling $\bm{40.2}$ $35.9$
Softmax $\bm{40.2}$ **36.0**
: **Experiments for attention normalization methods**. All experiments inserted a single efficient attention module at res3.[]{data-label="tab:norm"}
### Layer of Insertion {#sec:layer}
Table \[tab:layer\] shows experiments contrasting models with EA modules inserted at different layers. When adding a single module, the reader can infer a general trend that among the same type of layers (, among FPN levels or among ResNet levels), the higher the resolution at a layer, the more performance gain the insertion of an efficient attention module brings. This result reiterates the significance of efficient attention. Since attention is more beneficial on higher-resolution inputs, the efficiency advantage of efficient attention is highly impactful. The layer res4 is the only one where insertion lead to degraded performance. A hypothesis is that the low resolution and large gap between the dimensionality of the input (2048) and the keys (64) might be the cause. A defect in the implementation caused the experiments for res1 and res2 to fail, so the results are not available for report in this paper.
Subsequent experiments explored adding multiple efficient attention modules to a network. Adding an efficient attention module to res3, res4, and every FPN level resulted in an improvement of 1.8 box AP and 1.6 mask AP. The results back the hypothesis in Section \[sec:intro\] that a core advantage of attention is the ability to model multi-hop long-range dependencies.
Interestingly, although a single insertion at res4 decreased performance, removing the module at res4 from the fpn1-5 & res3,4 model caused a significant decrease in performance, as the row of fpn1-5 & res3 shows. This result further reinforces the importance of multi-hop dependency modeling, as even efficient attention modules which cannot improve performance independently can make contributions when collaborating with other efficient attention modules. The low complexities of the efficient attention module enable multiple insertion and realize this previously hypothetical advantage of attention.
Layer(s) Box AP Mask AP Input size
----------------- ------------- ------------- ------------------
None $39.4$ $35.1$ -
res3 $\bm{40.2}$ $\bm{36.0}$ $56 \times 80$
res4 $39.1$ $34.8$ $28 \times 40$
fpn1 $39.9$ $35.8$ $224 \times 320$
fpn2 $39.7$ $35.7$ $112 \times 160$
fpn3 $39.7$ $35.5$ $56 \times 80$
fpn4 $39.7$ $35.4$ $28 \times 40$
fpn5 $39.6$ $35.3$ $14 \times 20$
fpn1-5 $40.6$ $36.2$ -
fpn1-5 & res3 $40.8$ $36.3$ -
fpn1-5 & res3,4 $\bm{41.2}$ $\bm{36.7}$ -
: **Comparison between insertions at different layers.**[]{data-label="tab:layer"}
### Dimensionality of the Keys {#sec:channels}
These experiments tested the impact of the dimensionality of the keys on the effect of efficient attention. As in Table \[tab:channels\], decreasing the dimensionality of the keys from 128 to 32 caused minimal performance change. This result reinforces the hypothesis in Section \[sec:intro\] that most attention maps are expressible as linear combinations of a limited set of basis attention maps. Therefore, researchers can reduce the dimensionality of the keys and queries in efficient attention modules, if there is a need to further save resources.
$d_k$ Box AP Mask AP
------- ------------- -------------
$32$ $40.4$ $36.1$
$64$ $\bm{40.6}$ $\bm{36.2}$
$128$ $40.3$ $36.1$
: **Experiments with different dimensionalities of the keys.** All experiments inserted efficient attention modules at FPN levels 1-5.[]{data-label="tab:channels"}
### Backbone Architecture
This section reports experiments with different backbone networks. Table \[tab:backbone\] reports the results using three selected architectures, ResNet-50, ResNet-101 and ResNeXt-101. The significant and robust performance gains across all three backbones demonstrate the generalizability of efficient attention.
Backbone Baseline APs With EA modules
------------- -------------- -----------------
ResNet-50 $39.4/35.1$ $41.2/36.7$
ResNet-101 $41.3/36.6$ $43.1/37.9$
ResNeXt-101 $43.5/38.5$ $44.9/39.5$
: **Experiments with different backbone architectures.** All results have format box AP/mask AP. The *with EA modules* variants inserted the modules at fpn1-5 & res3,4. Experiments for ResNet-101 and ResNeXt-101 used batch sizes of 32, not 64.[]{data-label="tab:backbone"}
Visualization {#sec:vis}
-------------
![**Visualization of global attention maps.** The left-most column displays 4 images from MS-COCO 2017. The other three columns show three of the corresponding global attention maps from the efficient attention module at FPN level 1 for each respective example.[]{data-label="fig:coco"}](figures/vis.png){width="\linewidth"}
Figure \[fig:coco\] shows visualization of the global attention maps for various examples from the efficient attention module at fpn1 in the model corresponding to the last row in Table \[tab:layer\]. The figure illustrates 3 sets of global attention maps each with a distinct, semantic focus. Column 2 tends to capture the foreground, column 3 tends to capture the core parts of objects, and column 4 tends to capture the peripheral of objects. The semantic distinctiveness of each set of global attention maps supports the analysis in Section \[sec:intro\] that the attention maps are linear combinations of a set of basis attention maps each focusing on a semantically significant area.
Conclusion
==========
This paper has presented the efficient attention mechanism, an attention mechanism that is quadratically more memory- and computationally-efficient than the widely adopted dot-product attention mechanism. By dramatically reducing the resource usage, efficient attention enables a large number of new use cases of attention, particularly in domains with tight resource constraints or large inputs.
The experiments verified its effectiveness on four distinct tasks, object detection, instance segmentation, stereo depth estimation, and image classification. It brought significant improvement for each task. On object detection and stereo depth estimation, efficient attention-augmented models have set new states-of-the-art. Besides the tasks this paper evaluated efficient attention on, it has promising potential in other fields where attention has demonstrated effectiveness. These fields include generative adversarial image modeling [@sagan; @biggan] and most tasks in natural language processing [@transformer; @gpt; @bert; @gpt2]. Future plans include generalizing efficient attention to these fields, as well as other fields where the prohibitive costs have been preventing the application of attention.
[^1]: Work during internship at SenseTime.
[^2]: Equal contributions
[^3]: The complexities are quadratic with respect to the spatiotemporal size of the input, which is quartically w.r.t. the side length of an input image or sextically w.r.t. the dimension of an input video.
[^4]: MACC stands for multiply-accumulation. 1 MACC means 1 multiplication or addition operation.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- Francesca Crispo
- Carlo Romano Grisanti
- Paolo Maremonti
title: 'Singular -Laplacian parabolic system in exterior domains: higher regularity of solutions and related properties of extinction and asymptotic behavior in time. '
---
[**Abstract**]{} - [We consider the IBVP in exterior domains for the $p$-Laplacian parabolic system. We prove regularity up to the boundary, extinction properties for $p\in\left(\frac{2n}{n+2},\frac{2n}{n+1}\right)$ and exponential decay for $p=\frac{2n}{n+1}$.]{}
.1cm
[**Keywords:**]{} $p$-Laplacian, regularity, extinction and asymptotic behavior of the solution.
.1cm
[**Mathematics Subject Classification:**]{} 35K92, 35B65, 35B40.
-0.7true cm
\[section\] \[theorem\][Lemma]{} \[theorem\][Corollary]{} \[theorem\][Remark]{} \[theorem\][Definition]{} \[theorem\][Proposition]{} \[theorem\][Inequality]{}
Introduction
============
The $p-$Laplace equation is a prototype example of non linear PDE. We consider the parabolic singular case $1<p<2$ for vector valued functions, namely \[PF\]
[ll]{}u\_t-(|u|\^[p-2]{}u)= 0,&-0.2cm(0,T)Ø,\
2.4cmu(t,x)=0, &-0.2cm (0,T),\
2.4cm u(0,x)=u\_(x),&-0.2cm{0}Ø.
where $\O$ is a bounded or exterior $C^2$ domain of $\R^n$ and $u:\O\longrightarrow\R^N$ a vector valued function, with $n\ge2$ and $N\ge1$.
Problem is widely studied in the case of bounded domains $\O$ and in the case of the Cauchy problem. We would like to say that, in the case of $\O$ bounded, the literature can be split in two branches. A former is a classical theory which is essentially devoted to the analysis of the Hølder’s regularity of the gradient of weak solutions, see [@AMS], [@BDM], [@CDB], [@choe1], [@choe], [@DB], [@DB1], [@DBF1], [@DBF], [@DMSt], [@LMV], [@misawa], [@misawa1], [@Miz], [@Sch1], [@W]. The latter is more recent and it is based on the local or global $W^{2,q}$-regularity for suitable exponents $q$, see [@AMS], [@BDV], [@CM], [@LVP], [@Sch2]. In this connection it is important to point out that only in [@CM] is obtained the $L^\infty(0, T; W^{2,q}(\O))$ regularity up to the boundary with an exponent $q\geq 2$. It is deduced by the aid of the results in [@CBDV] and [@CM2014] related to the boundary value problem associated to the elliptic case. On the other hand if we exclude the special case of the Cauchy problem, the initial boundary value problem in unbounded domains appears overlooked. The same is for the boundary value problem associated to the steady equations. The last problem very recently has received contributions for the elliptic problem and for a perturbed elliptic problem [@CGM; @CMmod].
The aim of this paper is to fill the gap of results between the cases of the IBVP for $\O$ bounded and IBVP for $\O$ exterior domain. Particular regards are posed to the questions of the regularity and extinction properties of the solutions.
This paper is the natural evolution of a project, concerning the regularity of the $p$-Laplace system, whose previous chapters are the papers [@CM; @CGM]. The former deals with the parabolic problem on bounded domains and the latter concerns the elliptic system on exterior domains. A common feature of the high integrability results in [@CM; @CGM] (likewise [@CBDV; @CM2014; @CMmod]) is the connection between the power $q$ of summability of the second spatial derivatives and the exponent $p$ which describes the singularity of the operator: as $q$ increases, $p$ must approach 2 from below. Roughy speaking, in the scalar parabolic case, the second derivatives become more integrable as the equation get closer to the heat equation. Together with this constraint, even for bounded domains (see [@CM]) we can find other restrictions on $p$ which sound to be more technical than intrinsic to the problem. To get rid of some of these, we refine the duality method exploited in the quoted paper, resorting to a further adjoint problem. The result is obtained for a bounded domain and extended to the case of an exterior one. Our technique allows us also to push upward the exponent of integrability of $D^2u$. In this respect we remark that we obtain a power that is higher than the space dimension, achieving the Hölder continuity of $\nabla u$ up to the boundary, even for an exterior domain.
We like to point out that the special issue about the square summability of $D^2u$ deserves a particular consideration, since the result becomes very clean requiring simply $p>\frac{2n}{n+2}$.
We want to remark that we do not analyze the regularity of the solution, instead we exhibit the existence of a regular solution and we use its uniqueness.
In order to tackle the mathematical question related to the extinction of the solutions, we need a $L^s$-theory for $s\in(1,2)$. In this respect we point out that the result of uniqueness holds with the stronger hypothesis of initial data in $L^s\cap L^2$. We would like to remark that we cannot omit the $L^2$ assumption on $u_\circ$. Actually the difficulties are related with the non-linear character of the system and the weakness of the $L^s$-theory for $s<2$. However the same difficulties are met in the IBVP on bounded domains. The character of unbounded domains and the non-linearity of the $p$-laplacian give a special interest to the technique and to the results. Among the results, we obtain the following generalized energy relation: \[GER\] u(t)\_s\^2+c0t u()\^p\_[2]{} u\_\_s\^2,t>0,where $c$ is independent of $u_\circ$. The above generalized energy inequality assumes a particular interest even in the case of linear parabolic systems. Actually, for the following IBVP \[LPP\]
[rll]{}u\_t-u&-.2cm= 0,&(0,T)Ø,\
u(t,x)&-.2cm=0, & (0,T),\
u(0,x)&-.2cm=u\_(x),&{0}Ø.
it is well known that the energy equality \[GERLPS\] u(t)\_2\^2+20t u()\_2\^[ 2]{}= u\_\_2\^2holds for any $t>0$. In the case of a $L^q$-theory, $q\in(1,n]$, the above relation is replaced by estimates of the kind \[GELqN\]u(t)\_qc(t-t\_0)\^[-12]{}u(t\_0)\_q,t>t\_00.It is evident that (\[GELqN\]) cannot imply $$\intll{t_1}t\|\nabla u(\tau)\|_q^2d\tau\leq c\|u_\circ\|^2_q,\mbox{ for all }t>t_1>t_0,$$ but it can only furnish the weaker property $\|\nabla u\|_q\in L^2_w(t_0,\infty)$, where $L^2_w$ is the Lorentz space. Hence estimate (\[GER\]) has a special interest in the case of $p=2$ (linear case), because it reproduces for all $s\in(1,2]$ a property that was relegated only to the $L^2$-theory.
The following theorems are proved in Sections \[L2\], \[Lq\] and \[extinction\].
\[W22IN\] Let be $p\in\left(\frac{2n}{n+2},2\right)$, $\O$ a bounded or exterior $C^2$ domain of $\R^n,\ n\ge2$ and $u_\circ\in L^2(\O)$. Then, for any $\ve>0,\ D^2u\in L^\infty(\ve,T;L^2(\O))$, where $u$ is the unique solution $u$ of and \[D2L2Omega\]D\^2 u(t)\_2c[t\^]{}u\_\_2\^+c[t\^[1p]{}]{}u\_\_2\^[2p]{}with $\ov\gamma=\frac{(n-2)(2-p)}{p(n+2)-2n}$ if $n\ge 3$ or $\ov\gamma=\frac{r-2}{r(p-2)}$ for any $r\in\left(2,\frac2{p-1}\right)\cap\left[2,2+\frac{4(p-1)}{(2-p)^2}\right]$ if $n=2$. Moreover, for any $q\in\left[2,2+\frac{4(p-1)}{(2-p)^2}\right]$ and $\ve>0$ we have that $u_t\in L^\infty(\ve,T;L^q(\O))$ and \[Lqu\_t\]u\_t(t)\_[q]{} u\_\_2\^[(2-p)+1]{}, (0,T),with $\gamma=\gamma(q')$ given by .
\[W2qbounded\] Let $E\subset\R^n,\ n\ge2$ be a bounded $C^2$ domain, $p>\frac{2n}{n+2}$ and $q\in\left[2,2+\frac{4(p-1)}{(2-p)^2}\right]$. Moreover, following Definition \[C(q)\], let $$\phi(q)=\left\{\ba{ll}2-\frac1{\ov C(q)}&\mbox{ if }q\not= n\\
\inf\limits_{q>n}\left\{2-\frac1{\ov C(q)}\right\}&\mbox{ if } q=n.\ea\right.$$ If $p>\max\{\phi(2),\phi(q)\}$ then, the unique solution of belongs to $L^\infty(\ve,T;W^{2,q}(E))$, for any $\ve>0$.
\[W2qexterior\] Let $\O$ be an exterior $C^2$ domain of $\R^n,\ n\ge2$ and $p>\frac{2n}{n+2}$. For any $q\in\left[2,2+\frac{4(p-1)}{(2-p)^2}\right]$, there exists $\ov p(q)<2$ such that if $p\in(\ov p(q),2)$ and $u$ is the unique solution of then $D^2u\in L^\infty(\ve,T;L^q(\O))$.
\[EXTIN\]Let $\O$ be an exterior $C^2$ domain of $\R^n$. Assume $p\in (\frac{2n}{n+2},\frac{2n}{n+1})$ and $u_\circ\in L^{s_{\rm ex}}(\O)\cap L^s(\OO)$, with $s_{\rm ex}:=n(\frac2p-1)$ and $s>s_{\rm ex}$. Then there exists a solution $u$ of problem, in the sense of Definition \[weaksolutionLs\], which enjoys the extinction property \[EXT-I\]u(t)=0tT\_[ex]{}where $$T_{\rm ex}\leq \frac c{2-p}\|u_\circ\|_\sex^2.$$ If $u_\circ\in L^{s_{\rm ex}}(\O)\cap L^2(\O)$, then the solution $u$ is unique. Moreover, if $p=\frac {2n}{n+1}$ and $u_\circ\in L^1(\O)\cap L^s(\O)$, $s\in (1,2]$, then we get the exponential decay \[ESP-I\]u(t)\_2c[\^]{}u\_\_s\^e\^[-c(t-)u\_\_1\^[-1/(n+1)]{}]{}, t>>0.
Theorem\[EXTIN\] furnishes a result typical of the $p$-laplacian parabolic problem, that is the extinction of the solution in a finite time. This property depends on the nature of the domain $\O$ of the IBVP. For $\O$ bounded we refer to DiBenedetto [@DB]. The known result in the case of unbounded domains is related to the Cauchy problem see [@DB] and [@HV]. This case is characterized by the fact that the extinction of the solution holds with initial data belonging to $L^{\sex}(\O)$ with $\sex:=n(\frac2p-1)$. In Theorem\[EXTIN\] we prove this kind of result for $p\in (\frac {2n}{n+2},\frac{2n}{n+1})$. It is important to stress that we need an $L^s$-theory $s<2$ of existence as a key tool in order prove the extinction. This is in harmony with the result of the Cauchy problem. In Theorem \[Lsexistence\] we develop a $L^s$-theory of existence of solutions which are for $t>0$. However we are not able to prove uniqueness unless for initial data $u_\circ\in L^s(\O)\cap L^2(\O)$. We complete this kind of results by proving that in the case $p=\frac{2n}{n+1}$ the solutions admit an exponential decay in time.
We complete the introduction furnishing a generalized energy inequality related to the solutions of the linear IBVP for parabolic systems
\[LPS\]Let $\O$ be an exterior domain and $u_\circ\in L^\sigma(\O)$ with $\sigma\in(1,2]$. Then there exists a unique solution to problem such that $u$ is smooth for $t>0$ and \[LPS-I\] u(t)\_\^2+2(-1)\_0\^tu()\^2\_du\_\_\^2,t>0.
Theorem \[LPS\] is proved in Section \[energyLq\].
The plan of the paper is the following. In Section \[not\] we introduce the notation, the function spaces, our notion of solution and some results concerning the elliptic problem. In Section \[exi\] we quote the existence theorem for the parabolic problem on bounded domains furnishing the explicit estimates which are hidden in the original result; further we prove our existence theorem on exterior domains. Section \[adj\] contains two adjoint parabolic problems which are used in Section \[ut\] to estimate the time derivative in $L^q(\O)$ by duality. The integrability of the second spatial derivatives is investigated in Section \[L2\] and Section \[Lq\], respectively in $L^2$ and $L^q$, using the elliptic results with $u_t$ acting as a force term. In Section \[C1alpha\] we obtain the Hölder regularity of the gradient by Sobolev-Morrey embedding results. Section \[Lstheory\] is entirely devoted to the existence theory with initial data in $L^s(\O)$. In Section \[extinction\] we investigate the extinction and exponential decay of the solutions. Finally, in Section \[energyLq\] we apply the methods of Section \[extinction\] to prove the energy inequality in $L^s(\O)$, with $ 1<s<2$, for linear parabolic IBVP.
[Acknowledgments]{} -
The authors are grateful to the referee who pointed out three critical points in the proof.
This research is partially supported by MIUR via the PRIN 2015 “Hyperbolic Systems of Conservations Laws and Fluid Dynamics: Analysis and Applications”. The research activity of F. Crispo and P. Maremonti is performed under the auspices of National Group of Mathematical Physics (GNFM-INdAM). The research activity of C. R. Grisanti is performed under the auspices of National Group of Mathematical Analysis, Probability and their Applications (GNAMPA-INdAM)
.
Notation and preliminary results {#not}
================================
We denote by $\O$ an exterior domain i.e. the complementary of a compact connected set of $\R^n$. In this context, we can find a real number $R_0>0$ such that $(\R^n\setminus\O)\subset B(0,R_0)$. On the other hand, we reserve the letter $E$ for bounded subsets of $\R^n$. In some statements the letter $\O$ is used at the same time for bounded or exterior domains and the occurrence is explicitly enhanced.
For any $R>0$ we define a smooth cut-off function $h_R:\R^n\longrightarrow[0,1]$ such that \[hR\]h\_R(x)={1&|x|R\
0&|x|2R,.|h\_R|cR.
Together with the usual Lebesgue, Sobolev and Bochner spaces we also make use of some other suitable spaces in the framework of exterior domains. First the space $\widehat W_0^{1,p}(\O)$ which is the completion of $C^\infty_0(\O)$ in the norm $|\vp|_{1,p}:=\|\nabla\vp\|_p$ and that, in the case of a bounded domain, coincides with $W^{1,p}_0(\O)$. We introduce also the Banach space $V(\O):=\widehat W^{1,p}_0(\O)\cap L^2(\O)$ and the Bochner space $V^{p,p'}(0,T;\O):=\{\psi\in L^p(0,T;V(\O)):\psi_t\in L^{p'}(0,T;V(\O)')\}$ with the norm $\|\psi\|:=\|\psi\|_{L^p(0,T;V(\O))}+\|\psi_t\|_{L^{p'}(0,T;V(\O)')}$ (see [@Zei Sec. 23.6]). The symbol $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle$ stands for the duality pairing between a Banach space and its dual.
We begin with the definition of a quantity which is crucial in most of our results.
\[C(q)\] Let $E$ be a bounded $C^2$ set of $\R^n$. For any $q\ge2$ we set $$\ov C(q)=\sup_{v\in W_0^{1,2}(E)\cap W^{2,q}(E)}\frac{\|D^2 v\|_q}{\|\Delta v\|_q}.$$
We remark that $\ov C(q)$ is always finite and it is related to the Calderón-Zygmund Theorem. Moreover it is possible to show that there exists a constant $K$, not depending on $q$ (but depending on $E$), such that $\ov C(q)\le K q$. For the details see [@Yud].
Let us introduce our notion of solution, which retains more regularity than an ordinary weak solution. We want to focus the attention also on the set of test functions which is chosen in order to apply previous regularity results. In Remark \[testsmooth\] we state the equivalence with other sets of test functions to which we will switch from time to time, as needed by the context.
\[defnomu\] Let $\O$ be a bounded or exterior domain with boundary of class $C^2$ and $u_{\circ}\in L^2(\O)$. A field $u\!:(0,T)\times \O\to\R^N$ is said a solution of system if \[ago151\] uL\^[p]{}(0,T; V(Ø))C(\[0,T\];L\^2(Ø)), t\^1p uL\^(0,T;L\^p(Ø)), \[ago252\]u\_tL\^[p’]{}(0,T;V(Ø)’), tu\_tL\^(0,T;L\^2(Ø)),t\^u\_t L\^[2]{}(0,T; L\^p(Ø)),\[testW12\]1\_0\^T \[(u,\_t)-(|u|\^[p-2]{} u,)\]dt= -(u\_, (0)), C\^\_0(\[0,T)Ø) and $$\lim_{t\to 0^+}\|u(t)-u_\circ\|_2=0\,.$$
\[testsmooth\] We observe that, since $u(t)\in C([0,T];L^2(\O))$, by using a suitable cut-off function in time, we obtain that, for any $0\le s<t\le T$ \[testsmoothst\]\_s\^t \[(u,\_)-(|u|\^[p-2]{} u,)\]d= (u(t),(t)) -(u(s), (s)),C\^\_0(\[0,T)Ø).Moreover, resorting to a density argument, we can take the test functions $\psi$ in the space $W^{1,2}(0,T;L^2(\O))\cap L^p(0,T;V(\O))$, obtaining an equivalent definition of solution which coincides with the one given in [@CM]. Always by density (see [@Zei Prop. 23.23]), $u$ is a solution in the sense of Definition \[defnomu\], if and only if, for any $0\le s<t\le T$ \[testW1p\]1\_s\^t \[u,\_-(|u|\^[p-2]{} u,)\]d=(u(t), (t))-(u(s), (s)),\
V\^[p,p’]{}(0,T;Ø)u(0)=u\_. hence we can test the equation with the solution itself.
In view of Sections \[L2\] and \[Lq\] we report, for the reader’s convenience, three results on the regularity of the $p-$Laplacean elliptic system. If we set \[rhat\]r={1&n3\
(2,2[p-1]{})&n=2..we have
\[CGMThm1.2\] Let $\O$ be a $C^2$ bounded or exterior domain of $\R^n$ and $p\in(1,2)$. Assume that $f\in L^{\hat r}(\O)\cap(\widehat W^{1,p}(\O))'$. Then the unique weak solution of the system \[ellipticPB\]-(|u|\^[p-2]{}u)=f&Ø\
u=0&Øhas second derivatives in $L^2(\O)$ and $$\|D^2 u\|_2\le c\left(\|f\|_{-1,p'}^{\frac1{p-1}}+\|f\|_{\hat r}^{\frac1{p-1}}\right).$$
\[CMThm1.1\] Let be $E$ a bounded $C^2$ domain of $\R^n,\ n\ge2$, $p\in\left(2-\frac1{\ov C(2)},2\right)$ with $\ov C(2)$ as in Definition \[C(q)\]. If $f\in L^q(E)$ with $q\ge\frac{2n}{n(p-1)+2(2-p)}$ for $n\ge3$ or $q>2$ for $n=2$ and $$\hat q=\left\{\ba{ll}\frac{nq(p-1)}{n-q(2-p)}&\mbox{ if }q<n\\
\mbox{any number }<n&\mbox{ if }q=n\\
q&\mbox{ if }q>n\ea\right.$$ then there exists a unique $u$ solution of such that $u\in W_0^{1,\hat q}(E)\cap W^{2,\hat q}(E)$ and $$\|u\|_{2,\hat q}\le c\|f\|_q^{\frac1{p-1}}.$$
\[CGMThm1.1\] Let $\O$ be a $C^2$ exterior domain of $\R^n,\ n\ge2$. Assume that $f\in L^r(\O)\cap(\widehat W_0^{1,p}(\O))'$, with $r\in(n,\infty)$. Then, there exists $\ov p(r)\in(1,2)$ such that if $p\in(\ov p(r),2)$ there exists a unique solution $u$ of with $$\|D^2 u\|_r\le c\left(\|f\|_{-1,p'}^{\frac1{p-1}}+\|f\|_r^{\frac1{p-1}}\right).$$
We observe that, by Remark \[testsmooth\], the notion of solution used in the above results (see [@CGM; @CM2014]) is compatible with the one given in Definition \[defnomu\].
We end this section with a “reverse” version of the Hölder inequality ([@ADAFOU Theorem 2.12])
\[reverse\]Let $0<p<1$ and $p'=\frac p{p-1}$. If $f\in L^p(\O)$ and $0<\int_\O|g(x)|^{p'}\,dx<\infty$ then $$\int_\O\left|f(x)g(x)\right|\,dx\ge\left(\int_\O\left|f(x)\right|^p\,dx\right)^{1/p}\left(\int_\O\left|g(x)\right|^{p'}\,dx\right)^{1/p'}.$$
Existence results {#exi}
=================
In the case of a bounded domain we quote here the following result taken from [@CM Theorem 1.1]. The statement is not exactly as the original one, where the quantitative estimates are not present. They are somehow hidden in the proof and we want to make them explicit since we need them in view of the corresponding result in the case of an exterior domain.
\[existencebounded\] Let $E$ be a bounded $C^2$ subset of $\R^n$ and $u_0\in L^2(E)$. Then, for any $p\in(1,2)$, there exists a unique solution of problem in the sense of Definition \[defnomu\]. Moreover we have the following estimates with constants $c$ not depending on $|E|$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{LinfinityL2}\vs1\|u(t)\|_2^2&\le2\|u_\circ\|_2^2&\mbox{for a.e. } t\in[0,T],\\
\label{nablauLinfinityLp}\vs1t^{\frac1p}\|\nabla u(t)\|_p&\le \|u_\circ\|_2^{\frac2p}&\mbox{for a.e. } t\in[0,T],\\
\label{LinftyW-1p'estimate}\vs1t^{\frac1{p'}}\|u_t(t)\|_{-1,p'}&\le c\|u_\circ\|_2^{\frac2{p'}}&\mbox{for a.e. }t\in[0,T],\\
\label{tu_tLinfinityL2}\vs1t\|u_t(t)\|_2&\le c\|u_\circ\|_2&\mbox{for a.e. }t\in[0,T],\\
\label{LpLp}\dy\vs1\int_0^T\|\nabla u(t)\|_p^p\,dt&\le \|u_\circ\|_2^2,\\
\label{tp+2nablaut}\dy\int_0^Tt^{\frac{p+2}2}\|\nabla u_t(t)\|_p^2\,dt&\le c\|u_\circ\|_2^{\frac4p}.\end{aligned}$$
The proof is based on a two steps approximation of the singular system via parabolic systems depending on two parameters. Furthermore the authors use the Faedo-Galerkin approximation method with smooth initial data and then they pass to the limit by density. It results that the estimates depend on four parameters and the passage to the limit has to be carefully managed. It is of no interest to replicate here the actual existence proof but, for the reader convenience, we perform only the formal computations treating the solution as it was smooth enough. We refer to the original paper [@CM Appendix] for the rigorous proof.
We begin with the classical energy estimate to get and . We fix $s\in(0,T]$ and we multiply $_1$ by $u$. Integration in time and space gives \[energy\]12u(s)\_2\^2+\_0\^[s]{}u(t)\_p\^pdtu\_\_2\^2Now we multiply $_1$ by $u_t$ and integrate over $E$ $$\|u_t(t)\|_2^2+\frac 1p\frac d{dt}\|\nabla u(t)\|_p^p=0.$$ Multiplying by $t$ the above equation we get $$t\|u_t\|_2^2+\frac1p\frac d{dt}\left(t\|\nabla u\|_p^p\right)=\frac1p\|\nabla u\|_p^p$$ and integrating this identity over $(0,s)$ \[LinftyW1p\]\_0\^[s]{}tu\_t(t)\_2\^2dt+su(s)\_p\^p\_0\^[s]{}u(t)\_p\^pdt.Hence by and \[L2tu\_t\]\_0\^[s]{}tu\_t(t)\_2\^2dt+su(s)\_p\^pu\_\_2\^2which gives .
Let us differentiate with respect to $t$ getting $$u_{tt}-\nabla\cdot\left((p-2)|\nabla u|^{p-4}(\nabla u\otimes\nabla u)\cdot\nabla u_t+|\nabla u|^{p-2}\nabla u_t\right)=0.$$ Multiplying the above identity by $u_t$ and integrating over $E$ we obtain $$\frac12\frac d{dt}\|u_t\|_2^2+\left\| |\nabla u|^{\frac{p-2}2}\nabla u_t\right\|_2^2\le(2-p)\left\| |\nabla u|^{\frac{p-2}2}\nabla u_t\right\|_2^2$$ and, multiplying by $t^2$ $$\frac12\frac d{dt}\left(t^2\|u_t\|_2^2\right)-t\|u_t\|_2^2+(p-1)t^2\left\| |\nabla u|^{\frac{p-2}2}\nabla u_t\right\|_2^2\le 0.$$ Finally, integrating in time over $(0,s)$, using and we achieve \[gradugradut\]1s\^2u\_s(s)\_2\^2+2(p-1)\_0\^s t\^2 |u|\^[2]{}u\_t\_2\^2dt2\_0\^stu\_t\_2\^2dt\
2\_0\^su\_p\^pdt2u\_\_2\^2and is proved.
By the definition of negative Sobolev norm and using estimate in we get $$\|u_s(s)\|_{-1,p'}=\|\nabla\cdot\left(|\nabla u(s)|^{p-2}\nabla u(s)\right)\|_{-1,p'}\le\|\nabla u(s)\|_p^{p-1}\le \frac c{s^{\frac{p-1}p}}\|u_\circ\|_2^{\frac{2(p-1)}p}$$ that gives .
Concerning estimate , by Hölder’s inequality with exponent $\frac2p,\ \frac2{2-p}$, using and , we have $$\ba{l}\dy\vs1\int_0^st^{\frac{p+2}p}\|\nabla u_t\|_p^2\,dt
=\int_0^s t^{\frac{2-p}p}\,t^2\left(\int_E|\nabla u|^{\frac{p(p-2)}2}|\nabla u_t|^p|\nabla u|^{\frac{p(2-p)}2}\,dx\right)^{\frac2p}\,dt\\
\hfill\dy\vs1\le\int_0^s t^2\left(\int_E|\nabla u|^{p-2}|\nabla u_t|^2\,dx\right)t^{\frac{2-p}p}\left(\int_E|\nabla u|^p\,dx\right)^{\frac{2-p}p}\,dt\\
\hfill\dy=\int_0^st^2\left\||\nabla u|^{\frac{p-2}2}\nabla u_t\right\|_2^2\left(t\|\nabla u\|_p^p\right)^{\frac{2-p}p}\,dt\le c\|u_\circ\|_2^2\|u_\circ\|_2^{\frac{2(2-p)}p}=c\|u_\circ\|_2^{\frac4p}.
\ea$$
\[existenceexterior\] The same results of Theorem \[existencebounded\] hold true for an exterior $C^2$ domain.
To prove the thesis for an exterior domain we define a sequence of bounded sets invading $\O$. For any $k\in\N, \ k>R_0$, let be $u^k$ the unique solution of problem on $E_k:=\O\cap B(0,k)$ in place of $E$. First we extend $u^k$ to $0$ in $[0,T]\times(\O\setminus E_k)$ obtaining a function defined in $[0,T]\times\O$. We remark that the estimates - in Theorem \[existencebounded\] do not depend on the measure of the domain, hence we can consider all the norms computed on $\O$ instead of $E_k$.
Let be $k_0$ the smallest integer greater than $R_0$ and consider the sequence $\{u^k\}_{k\ge k_0}$.
By , and we can extract a subsequence (not relabeled) such that \[weakLinfinityL2\]u\^k\^\* u\^\* L\^(0,T;L\^2(Ø)),\[weakLpV\]u\^kuL\^p(0,T;V(Ø)),\[L2aet\]u\^k(t)u(t)L\^2(Ø) t.
Let us fix $t\in(0,T]$ and $\psi\in V^{p,p'}(0,T;\O)$. By the weak convergences and we get at once \[weaku\_t\]\_0\^tu\^k(s),\_s(s)ds\_0\^tu(s),\_s(s)ds,\[weakL2ae\](u\^k(t),(t))(u(t),(t))t.By we get that there exists a function $\chi\in L^{p'}(0,T;L^{p'}(\O))$ such that \[weaktochi\]|u\^k|\^[p-2]{}u\^kL\^[p’]{}(0,T;L\^[p’]{}(Ø)).We want to prove that $\chi=|\nabla u|^{p-2}\nabla u$. Since $u^k$ is a solution of problem , by Remark \[testsmooth\], we can use $u^k$ itself as a test function in getting \[nablaunnablaun\]1\_0\^T(|u\^k|\^[p-2]{}u\^k,u\^k)dt=\_0\^Tu\^k,u\^k\_tdt+(u\_,u\^k(0))-(u\^k(T),u\^k(T))\
=-12u\^k(T)\_2\^2+12u\_\_2\^2.For any fixed $R>0$ let us consider the function $h_R$ defined in . If $k>2R$, we can use $uh_R$ as a test function in equation to get $$\int_0^T\left(|\nabla u^k|^{p-2}\nabla u^k,\nabla (uh_R)\right)\,dt=\int_0^T\langle u^k,(uh_R)_t\rangle\,dt+\|u_\circ(h_R)^\frac12\|_2^2-(u^k(T),u(T)h_R).$$ By , and we can pass to the limit as $k\to\infty$ in the above identity to gain \[chinablauhR\]\_0\^T(,(uh\_R))dt=\_0\^Tu,(uh\_R)\_tdt+u\_(h\_R)\^12\_2\^2-u(T)h\_R\^12\_2\^2.In order to pass to the limit as $R\to\infty$, we will examine each term separately. $$\int_0^T(\chi,\nabla (uh_R))\,dt=\int_0^T(\chi,(\nabla u)h_R)\,dt+\int_0^T(\chi,u\otimes\nabla h_R))\,dt$$ As far as the first term is concerned, by dominated convergence we have $$\int_0^T(\chi,(\nabla u)h_R)\,dt\longrightarrow\int_0^T(\chi,\nabla u)\,dt.$$ For the second one, considering that $\nabla h_R\not=0\iff R\le |x|\le 2R$, we have $$|u\otimes\nabla h_R|\le c\left|\frac{u}R\right|\le2c\left|\frac ux\right|.$$ Since $1<p<2$, by Hardy inequality (it is not restrictive to suppose that $0\not\in\Omega$) we get \[hardy\]uh\_R\_pc\_pcu\_p<+hence $$\int_0^T\left|\left(\chi,u\otimes\nabla h_R\right)\right|\,dt\le\int_0^T\|\chi\|_{p'}\left\|u\otimes\nabla h_R\right\|_p\,dt\le c\int_0^T\|\chi\|_{p'}\|\nabla u\|_p\,dt<+\infty.$$ Once again we can apply the dominated convergence theorem to obtain $$\int_0^T(\chi,u\otimes\nabla h_R)\,dt\longrightarrow 0.$$ Now we remark that \[stronguhR\]u h\_Ru L\^p(0,T;V()).Indeed $$\nabla u-\nabla(uh_R)=\nabla u(1-h_R)-u\otimes\nabla h_R$$ and, since $u\in L^p(0,T;V(\Omega))$, by the absolute continuity of the Lebesgue integral with respect to the domain of integration and , we get the claim. This allows us to pass to the limit in the term containing the time derivative $$\int_0^T\langle u,(uh_R)_t\rangle\,dt=\int_0^T\langle uh_R,u_t\rangle\,dt\longrightarrow\int_0^T\langle u,u_t\rangle\,dt$$ by and since $u_t\in L^{p'}(0,T;V(\Omega)')$. In the end, by dominated convergence, we also get $$\|u_\circ(h_R)^\frac12\|_2^2-\|u(T)h_R^\frac12\|_2^2\longrightarrow\|u_\circ\|_2^2-\|u(T)\|_2^2.$$ Collecting the above results and passing to the limit in , we have \[chinablau\]\_0\^T(,u)dt=\_0\^Tu,u\_tdt+u\_\_2\^2-u(T)\_2\^2=12u\_\_2\^2-12u(T)\_2\^2 .
By monotonicity we have $$0\le\int_0^T\left(|\nabla u^k|^{p-2}\nabla u^k-|\nabla\psi|^{p-2}\nabla\psi,\nabla u^k-\nabla\psi\right)\,dt$$ Hence, using , , and the lower semicontinuity of the norm in the weak limit, we have $$\ba{l}\dy\vs10\le\limsup_k-\frac12\|u^k(T)\|_2^2+\frac12\|u_\circ\|_2^2-\int_0^T(|\nabla u^k|^{p-2}\nabla u^k,\nabla\psi)\,dt\\
\hfill\dy\vs1-\int_0^T(|\nabla\psi|^{p-2}\nabla\psi,\nabla u^k-\nabla\psi)\,dt\\
\hfill\dy\le-\frac12\|u(T)\|_2^2+\frac12\|u_\circ\|_2^2-\int_0^T(\chi,\nabla\psi)\,dt-\int_0^T(|\nabla\psi|^{p-2}\nabla\psi,\nabla u-\nabla\psi)\,dt.
\ea$$ Substituting in the above inequality we get $$0\le\int_0^T\left(\chi-|\nabla\psi|^{p-2}\nabla\psi,\nabla u-\nabla\psi\right)\,dt.$$ If we choose $\psi=u+\lambda\phi$ for generic $\phi\in V^{p,p'}(0,T;\O)$ and $\lambda\not=0$, we divide by $\lambda$ and finally we let $\lambda$ to 0, by the dominated convergence theorem we get that $$\chi=|\nabla u|^{p-2}\nabla u.$$ Passing to the limit on $k$ in the definition of solution written for $u^k$, we get that $u$ is a solution in $\O$. The estimates - for $u$ on $\O$ follow by the lower semicontinuity of the norms in the weak limits.
$L^q$ estimates for parabolic auxiliary problems {#adj}
================================================
In this section we deduce some estimates on the $L^q$ norm for the solution of some parabolic systems with smooth coefficients. The aim is to use them in the next section for the evaluation in $L^q$ of the time derivative of the solution of problem .
Let $v(t,x)$ be a function such that \[beeta2\]\_[s]{}s(+|v(s)|\^2)\^[12]{}\_p\^p=:M(,v)<+.In order to apply known regularity results we introduce a time-space Friedrichs’ mollifier $J_\eta$ and we define the following smooth tensor \[beeta\]1 (B\_(t;s,x))\_[ij]{}:=\
-(2-p).For any fixed $\sigma\in(0,t]$ and $\nu>0$ let us consider the parabolic problem \[doubleadjoint\] \_()-()-(B\_(t;-,x)())&=0,&(0,)E,\
(,x)&=0,&(0,)E,\
(0,x)&=\_(x),&{0}E.
\[adjointLq\] Let $E$ be a bounded $C^2$ domain of $\R^n$. For any $\psi_\circ\in C^\infty_0(E)$ let $\psi$ be the unique solution of . Then, for any $p\in(1,2)$ and $q\in\left[2,2+\frac{4(p-1)}{(2-p)^2}\right]$ it results $$\|\psi(\tau)\|_q\le\|\psi_\circ\|_q,\qquad\forall\tau\in[0,\sigma].$$
The existence and uniqueness of the solution of follows, for instance, by [@LSU Theorem IV.9.1] which also gives $\psi\in L^q(0,\sigma;W^{2,q}(E)\cap W^{1,2}_0(E)),\ \psi_\tau\in L^q(0,\sigma;L^q(E))$. For brevity of notation we set $$a_\eta(\mu,v):=\left(\mu+|J_\eta(\nabla
v)|^2\right)^\frac{(p-2)}{2}\,.$$
Since $q\ge2$ we can multiply the system by $|\psi|^{q-2}\psi$ and integrate over $E$ obtaining $$\ba{l}\dy\vs1\frac1q\frac d{dt}\|\psi\|_q^q+\nu\int_E|\psi|^{q-2}|\nabla\psi|^2\,dx+\nu(q-2)\int_E|\psi|^{q-4}|\nabla\psi\cdot\psi|^2\,dx\\
\hfill\dy\vs1+\int_E a_\eta(\mu,v(\sigma-\tau))|\nabla\psi|^2|\psi|^{q-2}\,dx
+(q-2)\int_E a_\eta(\mu,v(\sigma-\tau))|\psi|^{q-4}|\nabla\psi\cdot\psi|^2\,dx\\
\hfill\dy\vs1=(p-2)\int_E\frac{|\psi|^{q-2}|J_\eta(\nabla v(\sigma-\tau))\cdot\nabla\psi|^2}
{\left(\mu+|J_\eta(\nabla v(\sigma-\tau))|^2\right)^{\frac{4-p}2}}\,dx\\
\hfill\dy\vs1+(p-2)(q-2)\int_E\frac{|\psi|^{q-4}(J_\eta(\nabla v(\sigma-\tau)\cdot\nabla\psi)(J_\eta(\nabla v(\sigma-\tau)\cdot\psi)(\nabla\psi\cdot\psi)}
{\left(\mu+|J_\eta(\nabla v(\sigma-\tau))|^2\right)^{\frac{4-p}2}}\,dx\\
\hfill\dy=:(p-2)I_1+(p-2)(q-2)I_2.\ea$$ We observe that $$|I_1|\le\int_E a_\eta(\mu,v(\sigma-\tau))|\psi|^{q-2}|\nabla\psi|^2\,dx=:J_1.$$ By Cauchy-Schwarz’s and Hölder’s inequalities it results $$\ba{l}\dy\vs1|I_2|\le\int_E\left(\mu+|J_\eta(\nabla v(\sigma-\tau))|^2\right)^{\frac{p-4}2}|\psi|^{q-4}|J_\eta(\nabla v(\sigma-\tau))|^2|\nabla\psi||\psi||\nabla\psi\cdot\psi|\,dx\\
\hfill\dy\vs1\le
\left(\int_E a_\eta(\mu,v(\sigma-\tau))|\psi|^{q-4}|\nabla\psi|^2|\psi|^2\,dx\right)^{\frac12}
\left(\int_E a_\eta(\mu,v(\sigma-\tau))|\psi|^{q-4}|\nabla\psi\cdot\psi|^2\,dx\right)^{\frac12}\\
\hfill\dy=:J_1^{\frac12}J_2^{\frac12}\ea$$ hence \[Lqdecresing\]1qd[dt]{}\_q\^q+(p-1)J\_1+(q-2)J\_2(2-p)(q-2)J\_1\^[12]{}J\_2\^[12]{}1[2]{}J\_1+2(2-p)\^2(q-2)\^2J\_2.We want to choose $\ve$ such that \[rangeforeps\]1[2]{}p-1,2 (2-p)\^2(q-2)\^2q-2and this is always possible if $$\frac1{2(p-1)}\le\frac2{(q-2)(2-p)^2}.$$ An easy computation shows that the above inequality is verified for any $p\in(1,2)$ if $$q\in\left[2,2+\frac{4(p-1)}{(2-p)^2}\right].$$ Choosing an $\ve$ satisfying and substituting it in we get $$\frac1q\frac d{dt}\|\psi\|_q^q\le0.$$
For any fixed $t\in(0,T), \nu>0$ and $\vp_\circ\in C^\infty_0(E)$ we consider the following problem, adjoint of
\[AD1\]
[rll]{}1 \_s(s)-(s)- (B\_(t;s,x)(s))&= 0,&-0.2cm(0,t)E,\
13.5cm (s,x)&=0,&-0.2cm (0,t)E,\
3.5cm (0,x)&=\_(x),&-0.2cm{0}E,
Let $E$ be a bounded $C^2$ domain of $\R^n$. For any $\vp_\circ\in C^{\infty}_0(E)$ let $\vp$ be the unique solution of . Then for any $p\in(1,2)$ and $r\in\left[2-\frac{4(p-1)}{p^2},2\right]$ $$\|\vp(s)\|_r\le\|\vp_\circ\|_r,\qquad\forall s\in[0,t].$$
For any arbitrary function $\psi_\circ\in C^\infty_0(E)$ and $\sigma\in[0,t]$, let $\psi$ be the solution of problem . The system has an unique solution, by [@LSU Theorem IV.9.1], and the solution $\vp$ is also regular enough to multiply by $\psi(\sigma-s)$. Integrating the product by parts on $[0,\sigma]\times\O$ gives $$\ba{l}\dy\vs1\left(\vp(\sigma),\psi_\circ\right)-\left(\vp_\circ,\psi(\sigma)\right)+\int_0^\sigma\left(\vp(s),\psi_s(\sigma-s)\right)\,ds
-\nu\int_0^\sigma\left(\vp(s),\Delta\psi(\sigma-s)\right)\,ds\\
\hfill\dy-\int_0^\sigma\left(\nabla\cdot\left(B_\eta(t;s)\nabla\psi(\sigma-s)\right),\vp(s)\right)\,ds=0.\ea$$ Since $\psi$ is a solution of , substituting in the integrals $\sigma-s=\tau$, we get \[dualpsiphi\]((),\_)=(\_,()).Since $r\in\left[\frac{2p^2+4}{p^2+4p},2\right]$ we have that $r'\in\left[2,2+\frac{4(p-1)}{(2-p)^2}\right]$ and we can apply Lemma \[adjointLq\] to get $$\left|\left(\vp_\circ,\psi(\sigma)\right)\right|\le\|\vp_\circ\|_r\|\psi(\sigma)\|_{r'}\le\|\vp_\circ\|_r\|\psi_\circ\|_{r'}$$ for any $\psi_\circ\in C^\infty_0(E)$. By a density argument and we get the thesis.
\[phiL2Lr\] Let $E$ be a bounded $C^2$ domain of $\R^n$, $p>\frac{2n}{n+2},\ r\in\left[2-\frac{4(p-1)}{p^2},2\right]$ and $\vp_\circ\in C^\infty_0(E)$. If $\vp$ is the solution of problem we have $$\|\vp(s)\|_2\le c M(\mu,v)^{\frac{(2-p)\gamma}2}\|\vp_\circ\|_r\left(t^{\frac1p}-(t-s)^{\frac1p}\right)^{-p\gamma},\qquad\forall s\in(0,t],$$ with $M(v,\eta)$ defined in and \[Maxpostraa\] =(r):=.
We refer to [@CM Lemma 2.4] remarking that even if the range for $r$ is different, the proof remains unchanged.
Estimates for the time derivative {#ut}
=================================
We begin the section gathering some results taken from [@CM Section 3] concerning the following non-singular ($\mu>0$, $\nu>0$) parabolic system on the bounded $C^2$ domain $E$ \[PFepv\]
[rll]{}1 v\_t-v- ((+|(v)|\^2)\^v)&-.3cm= 0,&-0.2cm(0,T)E,\
1 v(t,x)&-.3cm=0,&-0.2cm (0,T)E,\
v(0,x)&-.3cm=v\_(x),&-0.2cm{0}E.
We have the following results, for which we refer to [@CM Propositions 3.1 and 3.2]
\[existence\] [*Let $\nu>0$, $\mu>0$ and $p\in(1,2)$. Assume that $v_\circ$ belongs to $C_0^\infty(E)$. Then there exists a unique weak solution $v$ of system such that $$v\in C(0,T;L^2(E))\cap L^{2}(0,T;
W_0^{1,2}(E)),$$ $$v_t\in L^{\infty}(0,T;L^2(E))\cap
L^2(0,T;W^{1,2}(E)),$$ $$\lim_{t\to
0^+}\|v(t)-v_\circ\|_2=0\,.$$ Moreover \[iv\]t\^1p v\_[L\^(0,T;L\^p(E))]{}cB(,v\_)\^1p,\[v\]tv\_t\_[L\^(0,T;L\^2(E))]{}c B(,v\_)\^[12]{}where \[defB\]B(, w):= w\_2\^2+\^p2T|E|.* ]{}
With this tool at our disposal we can state the following crucial result
\[ut1\] [*Let $p>\frac{2n}{n+2}$, $q\in \left[2,2+\frac{4(p-1)}{(2-p)^2}\right]$ and $\O$ a bounded or exterior $C^2$ domain of $\R^n$. Let $u$ be the unique solution of corresponding to $u_\circ\in L^2(\O)$. Then $t^{1+\gamma}\,u_t\in
L^\infty(0,T;L^{q}(\O))$, with $\gamma=\gamma(q')$ given by . Moreover the following estimate holds \[estvt\]u\_t(t)\_[q]{} u\_\_2\^[(2-p)+1]{}, (0,T).*]{}
The proof follows substantially the one of [@CM Proposition 5.1]. For the reader’s convenience we reproduce here only the main lines to make clear the fundamental role played by the adjoint problem . First we consider a bounded $C^2$ domain $E$ and a solution $v$ of the system . We have to keep in mind that $v$ depends on the parameters $\nu,\mu$ an also another one, say $m$, used in the approximation of the initial data in $L^2(E)$ by means of smooth functions. We regularize $_1$ in time, introducing another parameter $\rho$ arising from the mollifier, and we differentiate with respect to $t$. Finally we multiply the result by $\vp(t-\tau)$ where $\vp$ is a solution of hence it depends on $\eta$. Omitting the indexes $\nu,\mu,m,\rho,\eta$ and performing only the formal computations we get $$\ba{l}\dy\vs1\left(v_{\tau\tau}(\tau)-\nu\Delta v_\tau(\tau)-(p-2)\nabla\cdot\left(\mu+|\nabla v(\tau)|^2\right)^{\frac{p-4}2}\left(\nabla v(\tau)\otimes\nabla v(\tau)\right)\cdot\nabla v_\tau(\tau)\right.\\
\hfill\dy\left.+\left(\mu+|\nabla v(\tau)|^2\right)^{\frac{p-2}2}\nabla v_\tau(\tau)\right)\cdot\vp(t-\tau)=0\ea$$ An integration of the above identity on $E$ and between $\frac t2$ and $t$ with respect to $\tau$, provides $$\ba{l}\dy\vs1\left(v_t(t),\vp_\circ\right)-\left(v_t\left(\frac t2\right),\vp\left(\frac t2\right)\right)\\
\hfill\dy\vs1=-\int_{\frac t2}^t\left(v_\tau(\tau),\vp_\tau(t-\tau)\right)\,d\tau-\nu\int_{\frac t2}^t\left(\nabla v_\tau(\tau),\nabla\vp(t-\tau)\right)\,d\tau\\
\hfill\dy\vs1-(p-2)\int_{\frac t2}^t\left(\left(\mu+|\nabla v(\tau)|^2\right)^{\frac{p-4}2}\left(\nabla v(\tau)\otimes\nabla v(\tau)\right)\cdot\nabla v_\tau(\tau),\nabla\vp(t-\tau)\right)\,d\tau\\
\hfill\dy\vs1-\int_{\frac t2}^t\left(\left(\mu+|\nabla v(\tau)|^2\right)^{\frac{p-2}2}\nabla v_\tau(\tau),\nabla\vp(t-\tau)\right)\,d\tau\\
\hfill\dy=\int_{\frac t2}^t\left(v_\tau(\tau),-\vp_\tau(t-\tau)+\nu\Delta\vp(t-\tau)\right)\,d\tau\\
\hfill\dy\vs1-(p-2)\int_{\frac t2}^t\left(\frac{\nabla v(\tau)\otimes\nabla v(\tau)\cdot\nabla\vp(t-\tau)}{\left(\mu+|\nabla v(\tau)|^2\right)^{\frac{4-p}2}},\nabla v_\tau(\tau)\right)\,d\tau\\
\hfill\dy\vs1-\int_{\frac t2}^t\left(\frac{\nabla\vp(t-\tau)}{\left(\mu+|\nabla v(\tau)|^2\right)^{\frac{2-p}2}},\nabla v_\tau(\tau)\right)\,d\tau\\
\hfill\dy\vs1=\int_{\frac t2}^t\left(v_\tau(\tau),-\vp_\tau(t-\tau)+\nu\Delta\vp(t-\tau)\right)\,d\tau\\
\hfill\dy+\int_{\frac t2}^t\left(\nabla\cdot\left(\frac{\nabla v(\tau)\otimes\nabla v(\tau)\cdot\nabla\vp(t-\tau)}{\left(\mu+|\nabla v(\tau)|^2\right)^{\frac{4-p}2}}+\frac{\nabla\vp(t-\tau)}{\left(\mu+|\nabla v(\tau)|^2\right)^{\frac{2-p}2}}\right),v_\tau(\tau)\right)\,d\tau.\ea$$ At this point we have to remark that if we replace $\nabla v$ with $J_\eta(\nabla v)$ in the denominators of the last integral, we obtain that the right-hand side is zero, since $\vp$ is a solution of . This can be made rigorous by a careful passage to the limit as $\eta$ goes to 0. The details are completely described in the proof of [@CM Proposition 5.1]. In the end, by and Lemma \[phiL2Lr\], we get $$\ba{l}\dy\vs1(v_t(t),\vp_\circ)=\left(v_t\left(\frac t2\right),\vp\left(\frac t2\right)\right)\le \left\|v_t\left(\frac t2\right)\right\|_2\left\|\vp\left(\frac t2\right)\right\|_2\\
\hfill\dy\le \frac{c B(\mu,v_\circ)^{\frac12}}t\,\frac{M(\mu,v)^{\frac{(2-p)\gamma}2}\|\vp_\circ\|_{q'}}{t^{\gamma}}.\ea$$ Using the definition of $M(\mu,v)$ given in and , we get $$M(\mu,v)\le c\left(\mu^{\frac p2}T|E|+B(\mu,v_\circ)\right)\le c B(\mu,v_\circ)$$ hence $$(v_t(t),\vp_\circ)\le \frac{c B(\mu,v_\circ)^{\frac{(2-p)\gamma}2}}{t^{1+\gamma}}\|\vp_\circ\|_{q'}$$ for any $\vp_\circ\in L^{q'}(E)$. It follows that $v_t(t)\in L^q(E)$ and $\|v_t(t)\|_q\le\frac{c B(\mu,v_\circ)^{\frac{(2-p)\gamma}2}}{t^{1+\gamma}}$. To conclude the proof we need to pass to the limit in all the parameters. The process is quite involved and it is described in [@CM Proposition 3.2 and Theorem 1.1]. The result is the convergence of $v$ to the solution $u$ of likewise the smooth initial data $v_\circ$ approximate $u_\circ$ in $L^2(E)$. Moreover we get that $B(\mu,v_\circ)\to c\|u_\circ\|_2^2$ and the thesis for a bounded domain follows.
To extend the result to an exterior domain $\O$ we use the same sequence $\{E_k\}$ of bounded sets invading $\O$ as in the proof of Theorem \[existenceexterior\]. In estimate the norm of $u_\circ$ is evaluated on $E_k$ but it can be increased uniformly with respect to $k$ to the norm on the whole $\O$. Hence we have that $t^{1+\gamma}u(t)\in L^\infty(0,T;L^q(\O))$ and holds true also in $\O$.
$L^2$ estimates for $D^2u$. {#L2}
===========================
In this section we prove $L^\infty(\ve,T;L^2(\O))$ estimates for the solution of problem . Despite the fact that our main interest goes towards exterior domains, we consider also the case of a bounded domain. Indeed, in this case, we improve [@CM Theorem 1.2] removing some constraints on $p$ and moving down its lower bound.
Let us fix $t>0$ and consider the system as an elliptic problem in the variable $x$. By Proposition \[ut1\] we get that $u_t(t)\in L^q(\O)$ for any $q\in\left[2,2+\frac{4(p-1)}{(2-p)^2}\right]$. We want to apply Theorem \[CGMThm1.2\] using $u_t(t)$ as the force term. To this aim, we show that $u_t$ belongs to $L^{\hat r}(\O)$ with $\hat r$ defined in . We remark that the number $2+\frac{4(p-1)}{(2-p)^2}$ is an increasing quantity with respect to $p\in(1,2)$. In our hypotheses $p\in\left(\frac{2n}{n+2},2\right)$, hence we have that, for any $p$ in this interval, $$2+\frac{4(p-1)}{(2-p)^2}>\frac{n^2+4}4.$$ We need to compare the two quantities $\frac{n^2+4}4$ and $\hat r$. Consider first the case $n\ge3$. By a straightforward computation it is easy to check that $$\frac{n^2+4}4>\frac{2n}{n(p-1)+2(2-p)}\iff p>\frac{n^3-4n^2+12n-16}{(n^2+4)(n-2)}$$ and $$\frac{n^3-4n^2+12n-16}{(n^2+4)(n-2)}<\frac{2n}{n+2}\iff n^4-2n^3+4n^2-24n+32>0.$$ But $$n^4-2n^3+4n^2-24n+32=(n-2)^2(n^2+2n+8)>0\qquad \forall n\in\N, n\ge3.$$ Hence, for any $p\in\left(\frac{2n}{n+2},2\right)$ we have that $\hat r\in\left[2,2+\frac{4(p-1)}{(2-p)^2}\right]$.
If $n=2$ it is enough to observe that the intersection $\left(2,\frac2{p-1}\right)\cap\left[2,2+\frac{4(p-1)}{(2-p)^2}\right]$ is not empty.
In both cases, by Proposition \[ut1\], $u_t(t)\in L^{\hat r}(\O)$ and, by Theorem \[existenceexterior\], $u_t(t)\in W^{-1,p'}(\O)$. We can apply Theorem \[CGMThm1.2\] with $f(x)=u_t(t,x)$ obtaining that $u(t)\in W^{2,2}(\O)$ and, by , \[D2L2E\]D\^2 u(t)\_2c(u\_t(t)\_[r]{}\^[1[p-1]{}]{}+u\_t(t)\_[-1,p’]{}\^[1[p-1]{}]{})c[t\^]{}u\_\_2\^+c[t\^[1p]{}]{}u\_\_2\^[2p]{}with $\ov\gamma=\gamma(\hat r')=\frac{(n-2)(2-p)}{p(n+2)-2n}$ if $n\ge3$ (for the notation see and ) or $\ov\gamma=\gamma(r')=\frac{r-2}{r(p-2)}$ for any $r\in\left(2,\frac2{p-1}\right)\cap\left[2,2+\frac{4(p-1)}{(2-p)^2}\right]$ if $n=2$.
Higher integrability of $D^2u$ {#Lq}
==============================
In this section we increase the integrability of $D^2u$ to a power greater than 2. The greatest exponent of integrability depends on $p$ and increases as $p$ approaches 2 from below. In a fashion that is common to this kind of results, see [@BDV; @CBDV; @CGM; @CM; @CM2014], the range for $p$ is constrained to be close to 2 in dependence of the summability $q$ required for the second derivatives. For a bounded domain, the following theorem improves the previous result obtained in [@CM Theorem 1.2] extending the range for $q$ and removing some constraints on $p$.
We set $g(p)=2+\frac{4(p-1)}{(2-p)^2}$ and we remark that $g$ is an increasing function on the interval $(1,2)$. Hence $$g(p)\ge g\left(\frac{2n}{n+2}\right)=1+\frac{n^2}4\qquad\forall p\in\left(\frac{2n}{n+2},2\right).$$ Since $1+\frac{n^2}4>n$ for any $n\ge3$ we have that $g(p)>n$ for any $p,n$ in the hypotheses of our theorem, hence the interval for $q$ goes beyond $n$ (in the case $n=2$ the whole interval is trivially beyond $n$). Since the behavior is different for $q$ over, behind or equal to $n$, we will distinguish three cases.
Let us consider first the case $q\in\left(n,2+\frac{4(p-1)}{(2-p)^2}\right]$. By Proposition \[ut1\] we have that $u_t\in L^\infty(\ve,T;L^q(E))$. Since $p>\max\{\phi(2),\phi(q)\}$ and $q>n$ we can use $u_t$ as the force term in Theorem \[CMThm1.1\] to get that $u\in L^\infty(\ve,T;W^{2,q}(E))$.
If $q=n$, choose any $p>\inf\limits_{q>n}\left\{2-\frac1{\ov C(q)}\right\}$. There exists $q_1>n$ such that $p>2-\frac1{\ov C(q_1)}$ and, by Proposition \[ut1\], $u_t\in L^\infty(\ve,T;L^{q_1}(E))$. Again, by Theorem \[CMThm1.1\], $u\in L^\infty(\ve,T;W^{2,q_1}(E))\subset L^\infty(\ve,T;W^{2,n}(E))$.
If $q\in[2,n),\ n\ge3$ then let $\ov q=\frac{qn}{n(p-1)+q(2-p)}$. We remark that, since $2\le q<n$, we have $$\ov q> \frac{2n}{n(p-1)+n(2-p)}=2,\quad \ov q<\frac{qn}{q(p-1)+q(2-p)}=n<g(p).$$ Applying Proposition \[ut1\] we get that $u_t\in L^\infty(\ve,T;L^{\ov q}(E))$. Following the notation of Theorem \[CMThm1.1\] we have that $\hat{\ov q}=q$ and $\ov q>\frac{2n}{n(p-1)+2(2-p)}$. Since $p>\phi(q)$ we can apply the quoted theorem achieving that $u\in L^\infty(\ve,T;W^{2,q}(E)).$
Let us fix $q\in\left[2,2+\frac{4(p-1)}{(2-p)^2}\right]$ and $\ve>0$. By Theorem \[W22IN\] we have that $u_t\in L^\infty(\ve,T;L^q(\O))$ and by Theorem \[existenceexterior\] $u_t\in L^\infty(\ve,T;(\widehat W_0^{1,p}(\O))')$. As in the proof of Theorem \[W2qbounded\] we consider different ranges for $q$.
If $q>n$ then, by Theorem \[CGMThm1.1\] there exists $\ov p(q)$ such that for any $p\in(\ov p(q),2)$, $D^2u\in L^\infty(\ve,T;L^q(\O))$.
If $2\le q\le n$ we set $\hat p=\inf\left\{\ov p(q):n<q\le2+\frac{4(p-1)}{(2-p)^2}\right\}$. For any $p>\hat p$ there exists $\ov q_1>n$ such that $p>\ov p(q_1)$. Using the result just achieved we get that $D^2u\in L^\infty(\ve,T;L^{q_1}(\O))$. By Theorem \[W22IN\] $D^2u\in L^\infty(\ve,T;L^2(\O))$ and we get the thesis by interpolation.
The above result is at first sight a little bit confusing about a sort of cross reference between $p$ and $q$. Which one depends on the other, or there is simply a mutual dependence between them? For instance, if we choose $p>\frac{2n}{n+2}$, which is the best $q$ we can reach? We point out that, generally speaking, for an exterior domain, the highest does not necessarily means the best. Fortunately, for our solution we always have $D^2u\in L^\infty(\ve,T;L^2(\O))$ hence we can interpolate and the best $q$ is actually the highest we can achieve. Hence, for fixed $p>\frac{2n}{n+2}$ we can expect to find $q$ which is at best $2+\frac{4(p-1)}{(2-p)^2}$. But now we have to take one step back and check if $p>\ov p(q)$. In this framework, the best $q$ is $\sup\{q\le2+\frac{4(p-1)}{(2-p)^2}:\ov p(q)<p\}$. As a result, the statement of the theorem is not very charming, especially because we are not able to prove (although it sounds very reasonable) that the quantity $\ov p(q)$ is increasing with respect to $q$. Hence we choose to give the result leaving someway implicit the relation between $p$ and $q$. On the other side, if we ask which is the lowest $p$ that is allowed to get $D^2 u$ in $L^q$ there is a very clean answer which is stated in the following
\[W2qcorollary\] Let $\O$ be an exterior $C^2$ domain of $\R^n$ and $q>2$. If $$p>\max\left\{\frac{2n}{n+2},\frac{2(q-1-\sqrt{q-1})}{q-2},\ov p(q)\right\}$$ with $\ov p(q)$ as in Theorem \[W2qexterior\], then $D^2u\in L^\infty(\ve,T;L^q(\O))$, where $u$ is the unique solution of .
The result follows straightforward solving the inequality $q\le2+\frac{4(p-1)}{(2-p)^2}$ with respect to $p$. We only remark that the condition $q>2$ in the statement is not necessary, since for $q=2$ the quantity $\frac{2(q-1-\sqrt{q-1})}{q-2}$ tends to 1, giving a trivial constraint for $p$. This is perfectly in line with the result of Theorem \[W2qexterior\] which holds true also for $q=2$. Nevertheless we want to notice that the case $q=2$ is covered also by Theorem \[W22IN\] which is sharper, since allows the whole range $p\in\left(\frac{2n}{n+2},2\right)$.
Hölder continuity of $\nabla u$ {#C1alpha}
===============================
In this section we investigate the Hölder continuity of $\nabla u$, up to the boundary of the exterior domain $\O$. We start introducing the relevant quantity for evolution problems that is the parabolic Hölder seminorm defined by \[holderseminorm\]\[w\]\_=\_t\_[x=y]{}+\_x\_[t=s]{}.We rely on the following result on Bochner spaces (see [@Sol77 Theorem 2.1] and [@CM Lemma 2.7]).
\[solonnikov\] Let $\O$ be a bounded or exterior $C^2$ domain of $\R^n$, $\ve>0$ and $q>n$. There exists a constant $C$, such that if $u\in L^\infty(\ve,T;W^{2,q}(\O)\cap W_0^{1,q}(\O))$ and $u_t\in L^\infty(\ve,T;L^q(\O))$ then $$[\nabla u]_\lambda\le C\left(\sup_t\left(\|u_t(t)\|_q+\|D^2u(t)\|_q\right)+\sup_t\|u(t)\|_q\right)$$ with $\lambda=1-\frac nq$.
The case $\O$ bounded is considered in [@CM Lemma 2.7]. If $\O$ is exterior it is enough to remark that [@Sol77 Theorem 2.1] is based on an extension argument and does not make use of the boundedness of $\O$.
Let $u$ be the solution of problem . We choose $q>n$ and we consider $p$ satisfying the hypotheses of Corollary \[W2qcorollary\]. By the Sobolev-Nirenberg-Gagliardo inequality we have \[interpolation\]u(t)\_qcD\^2u(t)\_q\^u(t)\_2\^[1-]{}with $\theta=\frac{(q-2)n}{(q-2)n+4q}$. Hence, by Corollary \[W2qcorollary\] and , $u\in L^\infty(\ve,T;W^{2,q}(\O))$. Since $p>\frac{2(q-1-\sqrt{q-1})}{q-2}$ we have that $q<2+\frac{4(p-1)}{(2-p)^2}$ hence, by Proposition \[ut1\], $u_t\in L^\infty(\ve,T;L^q(\O))$. We are now in the position to apply Lemma \[solonnikov\] and obtain the Hölder continuity of $\nabla u$. Gathering together the estimates for $\|u_t\|_q,\ \|D^2 u\|_q$ and the interpolation estimate we can formulate the following result. In a fashion similar to Corollary \[W2qcorollary\], we write the statement choosing the Hölder exponent $\lambda$ and finding the correct range for $p$
Let $\O$ be an exterior $C^2$ domain of $\R^n$, $\ve>0$ and $\lambda\in(0,1)$. If $$p>\max\left\{\frac{2n}{n+2},\frac{2(n+\lambda-1-\sqrt{(1-\lambda)(n+\lambda-1)}}{n+2\lambda-2},\ov p\left(\frac n{1-\lambda}\right)\right\}$$ with $\overline p(\cdot)$ as in Theorem \[W2qexterior\], and $u$ is the unique solution of problem , then $\nabla u$ is Hölder continuous in $[\ve,T]\times\ov\O$ and its parabolic seminorm is evaluated by $$[\nabla u]_\lambda\le \frac c{\ve^\beta}\|u_0\|_2^\alpha$$ where $$\theta=\frac{n-2+2\lambda}{n+2+2\lambda},\quad \alpha=\max\left\{(2-p)\gamma+1,\frac2 p,(2-p)\gamma\theta+1\right\},\quad \beta=\max\{1+\gamma,p'\}$$ and $\gamma=\gamma\left(\frac n{n-1+\lambda}\right)$ (see ).
Existence with data in $L^s(\O)$ {#Lstheory}
================================
In this section we investigate the existence of a solution of problem when the initial data are in $L^s(\O)$ with $1\le s<2$. To this purpose we need to adapt the definition of solution to the new framework in the following way
\[weaksolutionLs\] Let $\O$ be a bounded or exterior domain with boundary of class $C^2$ and $u_{\circ}\in L^s(\O)$, $1\le s<2$. A field $u\!:(0,T)\times \O\to\R^N$ is said a solution of system if $$u\in L^{\infty}(0,T;L^s(\O))\cap
L^{\frac{ps}2}(0,T;\widehat W_0^{1,\frac{ps}2}(\O))\,,$$ \[testforLs\]\_0\^T \[(u,\_t)-(|u|\^[p-2]{} u,)\]dt= -(u\_, (0)),C\^\_0(\[0,T)Ø)and $$\lim_{t\to 0^+}\|u(t)-u_\circ\|_s=0\,.$$
Before we state the main theorem of this section, we need to define a number which will be crucial for the existence of the solution. Let be $$\sex=\left\{\ba{ll}n\left(\frac2p-1\right)&\mbox{if }\frac{2n}{n+2}<p<\frac{2n}{n+1}\\
1&\mbox{if }\frac{2n}{n+1}\le p<2.\ea\right.$$
\[Lsexistence\] Let $\O$ be a bounded or exterior domain of class $C^2$ and $p\in\left(\frac{2n}{n+2},2\right)$. If $u_\circ\in L^s(\O)$ with $s\in(\sex,2)$, then there exists a solution $u$ of problem in the sense of Definition \[weaksolutionLs\]. Moreover we have that, for any $\ve>0$ the estimates - hold true in the interval $t\in[\ve,T]$ assuming $u(\ve)$ as initial data in place of $u_\circ$ and, for suitable $\gamma,\alpha>0$ \[L2leqLs\]u(t)\_2ct>0.
Let be $\O$ an exterior domain and, for any $k\in\N$, $E_k=\O\cap B(0,k)$. We take $k$ large enough to have $(\R^n\setminus\O)\subset B(0,k)$. If $\O$ is a bounded domain we simply take $E_k=\O$ for any $k$. We can find a sequence $\{u^k_\circ\}\subset C^\infty_0(E_k)$ converging to $u_\circ$ in $L^s(\O)$. Since $u_\circ^k\in L^2(E_k)$, by Theorem \[existencebounded\], there exists a unique solution of problem in $(0,T)\times E_k$, corresponding to the initial data $u_\circ^k$, that we denote by $u^k$. Following Remark \[testsmooth\] we fix $\delta>0$ and we use $(\delta+|u^k|^2)^{\frac{s-2}2}u^k$ as a test function in equation . Integrating by parts we get $$\int_0^t\langle u^k_t,(\delta+|u^k|^2)^{\frac{s-2}2}u^k\rangle\,d\tau+\int_0^t\int_{E_k}|\nabla u^k|^{p-2}\nabla u^k\cdot\nabla\left((\delta+|u^k|^2)^{\frac{s-2}2}u^k\right)\,dx\,d\tau=0$$ hence $$\ba{l}\dy\vs1\frac1s\|(\delta+|u^k(t)|^2)^\frac12\|_s^s+\int_0^t\int_{E_k}|\nabla u^k|^p(\delta+|u^k|^2)^{\frac{s-2}2}\,dx\,d\tau\\
\hfill\dy+(s-2)\int_0^t\int_{E_k}|\nabla u^k|^{p-2}|\nabla u^k\cdot u^k|^2(\delta+|u^k|^2)^{\frac{s-4}2}\,dx\,d\tau
=\frac1s\|(\delta+|u_\circ^k|^2)^\frac12\|_s^s.\ea$$ Since $$|\nabla u^k|^{p-2}|\nabla u^k\cdot u^k|^2(\delta+|u^k|^2)^{\frac{s-4}2}\le|\nabla u^k|^p(\delta+|u^k|^2)^{\frac{s-2}2}$$ we have that \[nrgy\](+|u\^k(t)|\^2)\^12\_s\^s+s(s-1)\_0\^t\_[E\_k]{}|u\^k|\^p(+|u\^k|\^2)\^[2]{}dxd(+|u\_\^k|\^2)\^12\_s\^s.Since $1<s<2$ it follows that \[ukLinftyLs\]u\^k(t)\_s\^s(+|u\^k(t)|\^2)\^12\_s\^s\^[s2]{}|E\_k|+u\_\^k\_s\^s.We can apply the Inequality \[reverse\] with exponents $\frac s2$ and $\frac s{s-2}$ to obtain $$\int_{E_k}|\nabla u^k|^p(\delta+|u^k|^2)^{\frac{s-2}2}\,dx\ge\left(\int_{E_k}|\nabla u^k|^{\frac{ps}2}\,dx\right)^{\frac2s}\left(\int_{E_k}\left(\delta+|u^k|^2\right)^{\frac s2}\,dx\right)^{\frac{s-2}s}.$$ Hence, by $$\ba{l}\dy\vs1\int_{E_k}|\nabla u^k|^{\frac{ps}2}\,dx\le\left(\int_{E_k}|\nabla u^k|^p(\delta+|u^k|^2)^{\frac{s-2}2}\,dx\right)^{\frac s2}\left(\int_{E_k}\left(\delta+|u^k|^2\right)^{\frac s2}\,dx\right)^{\frac{2-s}2}\\
\hfill\dy\le c\left(\int_{E_k}|\nabla u^k|^p(\delta+|u^k|^2)^{\frac{s-2}2}\,dx\right)^{\frac s2}\left\|\left(\delta+|u_\circ^k|^2\right)^{\frac12}\right\|_s^{\frac{s(2-s)}2}\ea.$$ Integrating in time, by means of the Hölder inequality and , we have \[boundLps2Lps2\]\_0\^t\_[E\_k]{}|u\^k|\^[2]{}dxdc(+|u\_\^k|\^2)\^[12]{}\_s\^s t\^[2]{}c(\^[s2]{}|E\_k|+u\_\^k\_s\^s)t\^[2]{}.Since the sequence $\{u_\circ^k\}$ converges to $u_\circ$ in $L^s(\O)$, we have that $\|u_\circ^k\|_s^s\le c\|u_\circ\|_s^s$ and, letting $\delta\to0$, by we get \[boundLinftyLs\]u\^k(t)\_s\^su\^k\_\_s\^scu\_\_s\^sk, tand, by , also \[nablauks-22\]\_0\^t\_[E\_k]{}|u\^k|\^[2]{}dxdcu\_\_s\^s,t.Extending to 0 the functions $u^k$ in $\O\setminus E_k$ and using the uniform bounds , we can extract a subsequence (not relabeled) and find a function $u$ such that \[weakLsLps2\]u\^k\^\*u\^\* L\^(0,T;L\^s(Ø)),u\^kuL\^[2]{}(0,T;L\^[2]{}(Ø)).By the strong convergence of $u_\circ^k$ towards $u_\circ$ in $L^s(\O)$ and by the weak convergence of $\nabla u^k$, letting $k\to\infty$ in and in we get \[uLinftyLs\]u\_[L\^(0,T;L\^s(Ø))]{}u\_\_s,u\_[L\^[2]{}(0,T;L\^[2]{}(Ø))]{}cu\_\_s\^[2p]{}.Let us define $v^k=u^k(\delta+|u^k|^2)^{\frac{s-2}{2p}}$. A straightforward computation shows that \[nablavknablauk\]|v\^k|\^p(1+()\^p) |u\^k|\^p(+|u\^k|\^2)\^[2]{}.The Sobolev’s inequality, and lead to $$\int_0^t\left(\int_{E_k}|v^k|^{p^*}\,dx\right)^{\frac{n-p}n}\,d\tau\le c\int_0^t\int_{E_k}|\nabla v^k|^p\,dx\,d\tau\le c\left\|(\delta+|u_\circ^k|^2)^\frac12\right\|_s^s.$$ In terms of $u_k$ the above inequality becomes $$\int_0^t\left(\int_{E_k}|u^k|^{\frac{np}{n-p}}\left(\delta+|u^k|^2\right)^{\frac{(s-2)n}{2(n-p)}}\,dx\right)^{\frac{n-p}n}\,d\tau\le c\left(\delta^{\frac s2}|E_k|+\|u_\circ^k\|_s^s\right).$$ Since $s<2$, letting $\delta\to0$, by monotone convergence we get $$\int_0^t\left(\int_{E_k}|u^k|^{\frac{n(p+s-2)}{n-p}}\,dx\right)^{\frac{n-p}n}\,d\tau\le c\|u_\circ\|_s^s.$$ If we set $s_1=\frac{n(p+s-2)}{n-p}$ we have that $u^k\in L^{\frac{s_1(n-p)}n}(0,T;L^{s_1}(E_k))$ uniformly in $k$. We have that $$s_1-s=\frac{p(s+n)-2n}{n-p}$$ and if $s>\sex$ then $s_1-s>0$ hence, iterating the process, we obtain an increasing sequence $\{s_m\}$ such that $s_{m+1}-s_m>s_m-s_{m-1}$. In a finite number of steps we get that $u^k\in L^{\frac{\bar s(n-p)}n}(0,T;L^{\bar s}(E_k))$ with $\bar s\ge2$. We remark that, if $p>\frac{2n}{n+1}$ then $s_1-s>0$ for any $s\in(1,2)$ and we have no restrictions on $s$. On the contrary, if $p\le\frac{2n}{n+2}$ then $s_1-s\le0$ for any $s\in(1,2)$ and the iteration is useless. In the end we get \[LinftyLbars\]\_0\^tu\^k\_[|s]{}\^[n]{}dcu\_\_s\^sand, since $\bar s\ge2$ we can interpolate $L^2$ between $L^s$ and $L^{\bar s}$ obtaining \[interpol\]u\^k\_2u\^k\^[1-]{}\_su\^k\_[|s]{}\^,=.It we set $a=\frac{\bar s(n-p)}{n\vartheta}=\frac{2(n-p)(\bar s-s)}{2-s}$, by , and we get \[LaL2\]\_0\^tu\^k\_2\^a\_u\^k()\_s\^[a(1-)]{}\_0\^tu\^k\_[|s]{}\^[a]{}cu\_\_s\^.Now we go back to the equation , we use $u^k$ as a test function and we differentiate with respect to $t$ getting \[energyuk\]12d[dt]{}u\^k(t)\_2\^2+u\^k(t)\_p\^p=0 t.By the above equality it follows that, if there exists $\bar t$ such that $\|u^k(\bar t)\|_2=0$ then $\|u^k(t)\|_2=0$ for any $t\ge\bar t$ hence we can suppose $\|u^k(t)\|_2>0$ for any $t$, otherwise what follows is trivially true. Multiplying by $t$ we have $$\ba{l}\dy\vs1 0\ge\frac t2\frac d{dt}\|u^k(t)\|_2^2=t\|u^k(t)\|_2\frac d{dt}\|u^k(t)\|_2=t\|u^k(t)\|^{2-a}_2\left(\|u^k(t)\|_2^{a-1}\frac d{dt}\|u^k(t)\|_2\right)\\
\hfill\dy=\frac ta\|u^k(t)\|_2^{2-a}\frac d{dt}\|u^k(t)\|_2^a\ea$$ and, multiplying by $a\|u^k(t)\|_2^{a-2}$ $$0\ge t \frac d{dt}\|u^k(t)\|_2^a=\frac d{dt}\left(t\|u^k(t)\|_2^a\right)-\|u^k(t)\|_2^a.$$ Integrating the above inequality, by , we have \[LinftyL2epsilonT\]u\^k(t)\_2c[t\^[1a]{}]{}u\_\_s\^ t(0,T\]with the constant $c$ not depending on $k$. Fixing $\ve>0$ and integrating in time the identity , by we get \[LpW1pepsilonT\]\_\^T\_[E\_k]{}|u\^k()|\^pdxdc[\^[2a]{}]{}u\_\_s\^.Estimates and are enough to say that, up to a subsequence \[weakLinftyL2\]u\^k\^\*u\^\* L\^(,T;L\^2(Ø)),$$\nabla u^k\rightharpoonup\nabla u\hbox{ weakly in }L^p(\ve,T;L^p(\O)).$$ We remark that the limit point of above convergences is actually $u$ by the convergences and the uniqueness of the weak limit.
By and up to further subsequences, we can find $\Theta,\Lambda\in L^2(\O)$ such that \[weakepsilonT\]u\^k(),u\^k(T)L\^2(Ø).The estimate allows to find a function $\chi\in L^{p'}(\ve,T;L^{p'}(\O))$ such that, up to a subsequence \[weakchi\]|u\^k|\^[p-2]{}u\^kL\^[p’]{}(,T;L\^[p’]{}(Ø)).Let us choose $\psi\in C^\infty_0((\ve,T)\times\O)$ and $k$ large enough to have $\psi(t,x)=0$ for any $(t,x)\in(\ve,T)\times(\O\setminus E_k)$. Since $u^k$ is a solution on $E_k$ we can use $\psi$ as a test function in (substituting $u^k$ in place of $u$ and $E_k$ in place of $\O$). Integrating by parts we get $$\int_\ve^T(u^k,\psi_t)\,dt-\int_\ve^T\left(|\nabla u^k|^{p-2}\nabla u^k,\nabla\psi\right)\,dt=0.$$ Passing to the limit as $k\to\infty$, thanks to and , we have $$\int_\ve^T(u,\psi_t)\,dt-\int_\ve^T(\chi,\nabla\psi)\,dt=0\qquad\forall\psi\in C^\infty_0\left((\ve,T)\times \O\right).$$ As a consequence of the above identity $u_t\in L^{p'}(\ve,T;\widehat W^{1,p}_0(\O)')$ and, by density \[testLpV\]\_\^Tu\_t,dt+\_\^T(,)dt=0L\^p(,T;W\_0\^[1,p]{}(Ø)).Now we take $\psi\in C^\infty_0\left([\ve,T]\times \O\right)$ in to get \[u\^ktest\[epT\]\]\_\^T(u\^k,\_t)-(|u\^k|\^[p-2]{}u\^k,)dt=(u\^k(T),(T))-(u\^k(),()).Passing to the limit for $k\to\infty$ and remembering we obtain \[ThetaLambda\]\_\^T(u,\_t)-(,)dt=(,(T))-(,()).Since $u\in C([\ve,T];L^2(\O))$ we can integrate by parts to gain \[uepsilonuT\]-\_\^T(u,\_t)dt+(u(T),(T))-(u(),())+\_\^T(,)dt=0.Comparing the identity with , by the arbitrariness of $\psi$ we get \[Theta=u(ve)\]u()=,u(T)=.Now we choose an arbitrary function $\psi\in C^\infty_0\left([\ve,T)\times\O\right)$ and we use it in equation obtaining \[u\^kpsiepT\]\_\^T(u\^k,\_t)-(|u\^k|\^[p-2]{}u\^k,)dt=-(u\^k(),()).If we apply Theorem \[W22IN\] to the function $u^k$ on $\left(\frac\ve2,T\right)\times E_k$, using $u^k(\frac\ve2)$ as initial data, we get $$\|D^2u^k(t)\|_2\le\frac c{\left(t-\frac\ve2\right)^\gamma}\left\|u^k\left(\frac\ve2\right)\right\|_2^\alpha,\qquad \forall t\in\left(\frac\ve2,T\right]$$ for suitable $\alpha,\gamma >0$. We remark that the constant $c$ does not depend on $k$. This is not totally trivial but it is a consequence of Theorem \[CGMThm1.2\] and [@CGM Corollary 3.1] and it relies on the fact that $c$ depends on the geometric properties of the boundary of $E_k$ and not on its measure. Now we use with $t=\ve$ to get \[D2estimateonK\]D\^2u\^k(t)\_2c[\^[\_1]{}]{}u\_\_s\^[\_1]{},tfor suitable $\alpha_1,\gamma_1>0$ and $c$ not depending on $k$. Now let be $K\subset\R^n$ an open bounded set such that $\psi(t,x)=0$ for any $(t,x)\in[\ve,T]\times(\R^n\setminus K)$. By estimate we have that $u^k\in L^\infty(\ve,T,W^{2,2}(K))$ uniformly in $k$ and, by the Rellich-Kondrachov theorem, $$\nabla u^k(t,x)\longrightarrow \nabla u(t,x)\ \mbox{a.e. in } [\ve,T]\times K$$ up to a subsequence. Since, by $$\int_\ve^T\int_K\left||\nabla u^k|^{p-2}\nabla u^k\right|^{p'}\,dx\,dt\le c$$ uniformly in $k$, we can apply [@lions Lemma I.1.3] to obtain that \[convnablauktonablau\]|u\^k|\^[p-2]{}u\^k|u|\^[p-2]{}u L\^[p’]{}(,T,L\^[p’]{}(K))and, by $$\chi=|\nabla u|^{p-2}\nabla u\qquad\mbox{for a.e. }(t,x)\in(\ve,T)\times K.$$ We remark once again that the function $u$ is defined by the global weak convergences hence, by the arbitrariness of $\psi$ and $\ve$, we get that the above identity holds almost everywhere in $(0,T)\times\O$. Passing to the limit for $k\to\infty$ in equation with the aid of we have \[equationforuoneT\]\_\^T(u,\_t)-(|u|\^[p-2]{}u,)dt=-(u (),()).Now we complete the existence proof taking a test function $\psi\in C^\infty_0\left([0,T)\times\O\right)$. By equation we get \[equationforuon0T\]\_0\^T(u,\_t)-(|u|\^[p-2]{}u,)dt=\_0\^(u,\_t)-(|u|\^[p-2]{}u,)dt-(u(),()).Using the continuity of the Lebesgue integral with respect to the domain of integration we get that the first integral on the right-hand side of the above identity vanishes as $\ve\to0$. It resmains to estimate the term $\left(u(\ve),\psi(\ve)\right)$. We have \[A+B+C\]1|(u(),())-(u\_,(0))|\
1|(u()-u\^k(),())| +|(u\^k(),())-(u\_\^k,(0))| +|(u\^k\_-u\_,(0))|\
=:A\_k()+B\_k()+C\_kBy and we get, for any $\ve>0$ $$\lim_{k\to\infty} A_k(\ve)=0.$$ Since $u^k$ is a solution in $E_k$, for any $k$ large enough to contain the spatial support of $\psi$, we have (see ) $$\ba{l}\dy\vs1B_k(\ve)\le\int_0^\ve\left|(u^k,\psi_t)-\left(|\nabla u^k|^{p-2}\nabla u^k,\nabla\psi\right)\right|\,dt\\
\hfill\dy\vs1\le \|u^k\|_{L^\infty(0,T;L^s(\O))}\|\psi_t\|_{L^1(0,\ve;L^{s'}(\O))}\\
\hfill\dy\vs1+\|\nabla u^k\|_{L^{\frac{ps}2}(0,T;L^{\frac{ps}2}(\O))}^{p-1}\|\nabla\psi\|_{L^{\left(\frac{ps}{2(p-1)}\right)'}(0,\ve;L^{\left(\frac{ps}{2(p-1)}\right)'}(\O))}\\
\hfill\dy\le B(\ve)
\ea$$ where, by and , $B(\ve)$ is a function not depending on $k$ and infinitesimal as $\ve\to0$. Finally, $$C_k\le\|u_\circ^k-u_\circ\|_s\|\psi(0)\|_{s'}\longrightarrow 0\quad\mbox{for }k\to\infty$$ by hypothesis on $u_\circ^k$. Passing to the limit for $k\to\infty$ in we get \[B(eps)\]|(u(),())-(u\_,(0))|B()and passing to the limit for $\ve\to0$ in we get that $u$ is a solution with initial data $u_\circ\in L^s(\O)$.
It remains to prove that the initial datum is assumed strongly in $L^s(\O)$. Let us fix $\vp\in C^\infty_0(\O)$, $0<\delta<T$ and set $\Phi(x,t)=\vp(x)\theta(t)$ with $\theta\in C^\infty\left([0,T)\right)$ and $\theta(t)=1$ for any $t\in[0,\delta]$. Using $\Phi$ as a test function and reasoning exactly as in the evaluation of $B_k(\ve)$, by we can get $$\left|\left(u(t)-u_\circ,\vp\right)\right|\le B(t)$$ for any $t\in[0,\delta]$, hence $$\lim_{t\to0^+}\left(u(t)-u_\circ,\vp\right)=0\qquad\forall\vp\in C^\infty_0(\O).$$ The density of $C^\infty_0(\O)$ in $L^s(\O)$ gives the weak convergence in $L^s(\O)$ of $u(t)$ to $u_\circ$. By lower semicontinuity we also get $$\|u_\circ\|_s\le\liminf_{t\to0^+}\|u(t)\|_s.$$ By we have $$\limsup_{t\to0^+}\|u(t)\|_s\le\|u_\circ\|_s$$ hence $$\lim_{t\to0^+}\|u(t)\|_s=\|u_\circ\|_s$$ and the uniform convexity of $L^s(\O)$ gives the strong convergence $$\lim_{t\to0^+}\|u(t)-u_\circ\|_s=0.$$ Finally, the estimate follows passing to the limit as $k\to\infty$ in using and lower-semicontinuity.
Extinction of the solutions {#extinction}
===========================
Let us consider, for any $R>0$, the smooth cut-off function $h_R$ defined in . Let us fix $\sigma\in(\sex,s]$ and consider the solution $u$ solution obtained in Theorem \[Lsexistence\] with initial data $u_\circ\in L^\sigma(\O)$. Then, for any $\ve>0$ we have that $u$ solves equation in $(\ve,T)\times\O$ hence we can differentiate it with respect to $t$ obtaining \[differential2.5\]u\_t,=-(|u|\^[p-2]{}u,) V\^[p,p’]{}(,T;Ø).For any $\delta>0, $ and $R$ suitably large, we have that $$h_R u(|u|^2+\delta)^{\frac{\sigma-2}2}\in V^{p,p'}(\ve,T;\O)$$ hence we can use it as a test function in obtaining $$\ba{l}\dy\vs1-\frac1\sigma\frac d{dt}\left\|h_R^{1/\sigma}\left(|u|^2+\delta\right)^{1/2}\right\|_\sigma^\sigma
=\int_\O|\nabla u|^{p-2}\nabla u\cdot(\nabla h_R\otimes u)\left(|u|^2+\delta\right)^{\frac{\sigma-2}2}\,dx\\
\hfill\dy+\int_\O|\nabla u|^ph_R\left(|u|^2+\delta\right)^{\frac{\sigma-2}2}\,dx
+(\sigma-2)\int_\O|\nabla u|^p h_R |u|^2 \left(|u|^2+\delta\right)^{\frac{\sigma-4}2}\,dx.\ea$$ Since $\sigma\le2$, setting $E_{R,2R}=\left\{x\in\O:R<|x|<2R\right\}$, we have \[diffineq\]11d[dt]{}h\_R\^[1/]{}(|u|\^2+)\^[1/2]{}\_\^+(-1)\_Ø|u|\^p h\_R(|u|\^2+)\^[2]{}dx\
cR\_[E\_[R,2R]{}]{}|u|\^[p-1]{}(|u|\^2+)\^[2]{}dx.Applying the Hölder inequality with exponents $\frac{p\sigma}{2(p-1)},\ \frac\sigma{\sigma-1}$ and $\frac{\sigma p}{2-p}$ on the integral on the right-hand side of we get \[right\]\_[E\_[R,2R]{}]{}|u|\^[p-1]{}(|u|\^2+)\^[2]{}dx cu\_[L\^2(E\_[R,2R]{})]{}\^[p-1]{}(|u|\^2+)\^[1/2]{}\_[L\^(E\_[R,2R]{})]{}\^[-1]{}R\^.Using Inequality \[reverse\] with exponents $\frac\sigma2$ and $\frac\sigma{\sigma-2}$ on the integral on the left-hand side of we have \[left\]1\_Ø|u|\^ph\_R(|u|\^2+)\^[2]{}dx=\_Ø|u|\^ph\_R\^[3-]{}((|u\^2|+)h\^2\_R)\^[2]{}dx\
|u|h\_R\^[p]{}\_[2]{}\^p(|u|\^2+)\^[1/2]{}h\_R\_\^[-2]{} |u|h\_R\^[p]{}\_[2]{}\^p(|u|\^2+)\^[1/2]{}h\_R\^[1/]{}\_\^[-2]{} .Now we remark that $$\frac d{dt}\left\|\left(|u|^2+\delta\right)^{1/2}h_R^{1/\sigma}\right\|_\sigma^2=\frac2\sigma\left\|\left(|u|^2+\delta\right)^{1/2}h_R^{1/\sigma}\right\|_\sigma^{2-\sigma}\frac d{dt}\left\|\left(|u|^2+\delta\right)^{1/2}h_R^{1/\sigma}\right\|_\sigma^\sigma$$ hence we multiply inequality by $\left\|\left(|u|^2+\delta\right)^{1/2}h_R^{1/\sigma}\right\|_\sigma^{2-\sigma}$ obtaining, by and $$\ba{l}\dy\vs1\frac12\frac d{dt}\left\|\left(|u|^2+\delta\right)^{1/2}h_R^{1/\sigma}\right\|_\sigma^2+(\sigma-1)\left\||\nabla u|h_R^{\frac{3-\sigma}p}\right\|_{\frac{p\sigma}2}^p\\
\hfill\dy\le c\|\nabla u\|_{L^{\frac{p\sigma}2}(E_{R,2R})}^{p-1}\left\|\left(|u|^2+\delta\right)^{1/2}\right\|_{L^\sigma(E_{2R})} R^{\frac{n(2-p)}{\sigma p}-1}.\ea$$ Let us integrate in time the above inequality to get $$\ba{l}\dy\vs1\left\|\left(|u(t)|^2+\delta\right)^{1/2}h_R^{1/\sigma}\right\|_\sigma^2+2(\sigma-1)\int_\ve^t\left\||\nabla u|h_R^{\frac{3-\sigma}p}\right\|_{\frac{p\sigma}2}^p\,d\tau\\
\hfill\dy\le cR^{\frac{n(2-p)}{\sigma p}-1}\int\limits_\ve^t \|\nabla u\|_{L^{\frac{p\sigma}2}(E_{R,2R})}^{p-1}\left\|\left(|u|^2+\delta\right)^{1/2}\right\|_{L^\sigma(E_{2R})}d\tau +\left\|\left(|u(\ve)|^2+\delta\right)^{1/2}h_R^{1/\sigma}\right\|_\sigma^2.\ea$$ Keeping count that all the above integrals are evaluated on the bounded set $E_{2R}$, we can apply the dominated convergence theorem letting $\delta\to0$ in order to obtain \[hRsigma\]1u(t)h\_R\^[1/]{}\_\^2+2(-1)\_\^t|u|h\_R\^[p]{}\_[2]{}\^pd\
cR\^[-1]{}\_\^t u\_[L\^[2]{}(E\_[R,2R]{})]{}\^[p-1]{}u\_[L\^(E\_[2R]{})]{}d+u()h\_R\^[1/]{}\_\^2.We remark that $$\frac{n(2-p)}{\sigma p}-1<0 \iff \sigma>n\left(\frac2p-1\right)=\sex$$ hence, passing to the limit as $R\to\infty$ in we have \[usigmaepsilon\]u(t)\_\^2+2(-1)\_\^tu\_[2]{}\^pdu()\_\^2.Using the strong continuity of $u$ in $L^\sigma$ for $t=0$ (see Theorem \[Lsexistence\]) we can pass to the limit for $\ve\to0$ in the above inequality obtaining \[usigmau0sigma\]u(t)\_\^2+2(-1)\_0\^tu\_[2]{}\^pdu\_\_\^2.Now we remark that, being the right-hand side of bounded, we have \[sigmatosex\]\_u(t)\_=u(t)\_,\_u\_\_=u\_\_,\_u(t)\_[2]{}=u(t)\_[2]{}and, by Fatou lemma $$\int_\ve^t\|\nabla u\|_{\frac{p\sex}2}^p\,d\tau\le\liminf_{\sigma\to\sex}\int_\ve^t\|\nabla u\|_{\frac{p\sigma}2}^p\,d\tau.$$ Passing to the $\liminf$ in inequality we get \[liminf\]u(t)\_\^2+2(-1)\_\^tu\_[2]{}\^pdu()\_\^2.By means of the Sobolev inequality, observing that $\left(\frac{p\sex}2\right)^*=\sex$, we have \[diffinequal\]u(t)\_\^2+c\_\^tu()\_\^pdu()\_\^2.Now we set $w(t)=\|u(t)\|_\sex^2$ obtaining \[integrineqw\]w(t)+c\_\^t w()\^[p2]{}dw(),0t.Let us consider the Cauchy problem $$\left\{\ba{l}z'+cz^{\frac p2}=0\\
z(0)=\|u_\circ\|_\sex^2\\
z(t)\ge0\ea\right.$$ whose solution is $z(t)=\left(\|u_\circ\|_\sex^{2-p}-c\frac{2-p}2t\right)^{\frac2{2-p}}$ which exists if $t\le\frac2{c(2-p)}\|u_\circ\|_\sex^2=:T_{ex}$.
We want to prove that $w(t)\le z(t)$ for any $t$. By contradiction, let us suppose that there exists $\bar t<T_{ex}$ and $\delta>0$ such that $w(\bar t)=z(\bar t)$ and $w(t)>z(t)$ for any $t\in (\bar t,\bar t+\delta)$ (we remind that $u\in C([0,T];L^2(\Omega)$). By integration we get \[integralz\]z(t)+c\_[|t]{}\^tz()\^[p2]{}d=z(|t).Writing with $\ve=\bar t$ and subtracting from it identity we have $$w(t)-z(t)+c\int_{\bar t}^t w(\tau)^{\frac p2}-z(\tau)^{\frac p2}\,d\tau\le w(\bar t)-z(\bar t)=0,\qquad \forall t\in(\bar t,\bar t+\delta)$$ which is impossible since $w(t)>z(t)$. This concludes the proof in the case of finite time extinction.
The uniqueness of the solution if $u_\circ\in L^\sex(\O)\cap L^2(\O)$ follows by Theorem \[existenceexterior\].
Let us now consider the case $p=\frac{2n}{n+1}$ and $u_\circ\in L^1(\O)\cap L^s(\O)$ with $1<s\le2$. We remark that in this case $\sex=1$ and, as before, we consider the solution $u$ provided by Theorem \[Lsexistence\]. With this choice of exponents, inequality becomes \[L1normdecreas\]u(t)\_1u\_\_1.Substituting $\psi$ with $u$ in equation we get \[energyL2\]d[dt]{}u(t)\_2\^2+2u(t)\_\^=0t(,T).By means of the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality we have $$\|u(t)\|_2\le c\|\nabla u(t)\|_{\frac{2n}{n+1}}^{\frac n{n+1}}\|u(t)\|_1^{\frac1{n+1}}$$ hence, by , we obtain $$\|\nabla u(t)\|_{\frac{2n}{n+1}}^{\frac{2n}{n+1}}\ge c\,\frac{\|u(t)\|_2^2}{\hskip.1cm\|u(t)\|_1^{\frac2{n+1}}}\ge c\,\frac{\|u(t)\|_2^2}{\|u_\circ\|_1^{\frac2{n+1}}}.$$ Substituting the above estimate in identity we get the differential inequality $$\frac d{dt}\|u(t)\|_2^2+\frac c{\|u_\circ\|_1^{\frac2{n+1}}}\|u(t)\|_2^2\le0\qquad\forall t\in(\ve,T)$$ which gives $$\frac d{dt}\log\left(\|u(t)\|_2^2\right)\le-\frac{c}{\|u_\circ\|_1^{\frac2{n+1}}\hskip-.4cm}$$ and, integrating on $(\ve,t)$ $$\|u(t)\|_2^2\le\|u(\ve)\|_2^2 \,e^{-c(t-\ve)\|u_\circ\|_1^{-2/(n+1)}}.$$ Thanks to we finally get $$\|u(t)\|_2\le \frac c{\ve^\gamma}\|u_\circ\|_s^\alpha e^{-c(t-\ve)\|u_\circ\|_1^{-1/(n+1)}}\qquad\forall t>\ve.$$
The energy relation for linear parabolic systems: an extension to $L^q$ norm, $q\in(1,2]$ {#energyLq}
=========================================================================================
In this last section we prove Theorem \[LPS\].
The existence and uniqueness for this problem is a classical result. To obtain the estimate we multiply equation $_1$ by $u(|u|^2+\delta)^{\frac{\sigma-1}2}h_R$, with $h_R$ defined in . We remark that, Theorem \[EXTIN\] is stated for $p<2$ but the computations in its proof make perfectly sense also for $p=2$, since the existence is known. Hence we can proceed as in the proof of Theorem \[EXTIN\], substituting $p=2$ to get that becomes $$\|u(t)\|_\sigma^2+2(\sigma-1)\int_0^t\|\nabla u\|_\sigma^2\,d\tau\le\|u_\circ\|_\sigma^2,\qquad\forall t>0.$$
[20]{}
E. Acerbi, G. Mingione and G.A. Seregin, [*Regularity results for parabolic systems related to a class of non-Newtonian fluids*]{}, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire, [**21**]{} (2004), 25–60.
R.A. Adams and J.J.F. Fournier, “Sobolev spaces. Second edition”, Pure and Applied Mathematics (Amsterdam) 140, Elsevier/Academic Press, Amsterdam, 2003.
H. Beirão da Veiga, [*Singular parabolic $p$-Laplacian systems under non-smooth external forces. Regularity up to the boundary*]{}, In: “Proceedings of the St. Petersburg Mathematical Society. Vol. XV. Advances in mathematical analysis of partial differential equations”, Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. Ser. 2, 232, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2014, 1-10.
H. Beirão da Veiga and F. Crispo, [*On the global $W^{2,q}$ regularity for nonlinear N-systems of the $p$-Laplacian type in $n$ space variables*]{}, Nonlinear Analysis, [**75**]{} (2012), 4346–4354.
V. Bogelein, F. Duzaar and G. Mingione, [*The regularity of general parabolic systems with degenerate diffusion*]{}, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc., [**221**]{} (2013).
Y.Z. Chen and E. DiBenedetto, [*Boundary estimates for solutions of nonlinear degenerate parabolic systems*]{}, J. Reine Angew. Math., [**395**]{} (1989), 102–131.
H. Choe, [*Hölder regularity for the gradient of solutions of certain singular parabolic systems*]{}, Comm. Partial Differential Equations, [**16**]{} (1991), 1709–1732. H. Choe, [*Hölder continuity of solutions of certain degenerate parabolic systems*]{}, Nonlinear Anal., [**8**]{} (1992), 235–243.
F. Crispo, C.R. Grisanti and P. Maremonti, [*On the high regularity of solutions to the $p-$Laplacian boundary value problem in exterior domains*]{}, Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4), [**195**]{} (2016), 821–834.
F. Crispo and P. Maremonti, [*Higher regularity of solutions to the singular [$p$]{}-[L]{}aplacian parabolic system*]{}, Adv. Differential Equations, [**18**]{} (2013), 849–894.
F. Crispo and P. Maremonti, [*On the higher regularity of solutions to the p-Laplacean system in the subquadratic case*]{}, Riv. Mat. Univ. Parma (N.S.), [**5**]{} (2014), 39-63. F. Crispo and P. Maremonti, [*A high regularity result of solutions to modified p-Stokes equations*]{}, Nonlinear Anal., [**118**]{} (2015), 97–129.
E. DiBenedetto, “Degenerate Parabolic Equations”, Universitext, New York, Springer-Verlag. XV, 1993.
E. DiBenedetto, [*On the local behavior of solutions of degenerate parabolic equations with measurable coefficients*]{}, Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. (4) XIII (1986), 487–535.
E. DiBenedetto and A. Friedman, [ *Regularity of solutions of nonlinear degenerate parabolic systems*]{}, J. Reine Angew. Math., [**349**]{} (1984), 83–128.
E. DiBenedetto and A. Friedman, [*Hölder estimates for non-linear degenerate parabolic systems*]{}, J. Reine Angew. Math., [**357**]{} (1985), 1–22.
F. Duzaar, G. Mingione and K. Steffen, [*Parabolic Systems with Polynomial Growth and Regularity*]{}, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc., [**214**]{} (2011).
M.A. Herrero and J.L. Vazquez, [*Asymptotic behaviour of the solutions of a strongly nonlinear parabolic problem*]{}, Ann. Fac. Sci. Toulouse Math., [**3**]{} (1981), 113–127.
O.A. Ladyzhenskaya, V.A. Solonnikov, N.N. Ural’ceva, “Linear and Quasi-linear equations of Parabolic Type”, American Mathematical Society, Providence R.I., 1968.
C. Leone, A. Verde and G. Pisante, [*Higher integrability results for non smooth parabolic systems: the subquadratic case*]{}, Discrete Contin. Dynam. Syst. B, [**11**]{} (2009), 177–190.
C. Leone, M. Misawa and A. Verde, [*The regularity for nonlinear parabolic systems of p-Laplacian type with critical growth*]{}, Journal of Differential Equations, [**256**]{} (2014), 2807–2845.
J.-L. Lions, “Quelques méthodes de résolution des problèmes aux limites non linéaires”, Dunod; Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1969. M. Misawa, [*Local Hölder regularity of gradients for evolutional p-Laplacian systems*]{}, Ann. Mat. Pura Appl., [**181**]{} (2002), 389–405.
M. Misawa, [*Partial regularity results for evolutional p-Laplacian systems with natural growth*]{}, Manuscripta Math., [**109**]{} (2002), 419–454.
M. Mizuno, [*Remarks on Hölder continuity for solutions of the p-Laplace evolution equations*]{}, J. Math. Anal. Appl., [**382**]{} (2011), 785–791. C. Scheven, [*Regularity for subquadratic parabolic systems: higher integrability and dimension estimates*]{}, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh, [**140 A**]{} (2010), 1269–1308.
C. Scheven, [*Partial regularity for subquadratic parabolic systems by A-caloric approximation*]{}, Rev. Mat. Iberoam., [**27**]{} (2011), 751–801.
V.A. Solonnikov, [*Estimates for solutions of nonstationary Navier-Stokes equations*]{}, J. Soviet Math., [**8**]{} (1977), 467–528.
V.I. Yudovic, [*Some estimates connected with integral operators and with solutions of elliptic equations*]{}, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, [**138**]{} (1961) 805–808, English translation in Soviet Math. Dokl., [**2**]{} (1961), 746–749.
M. Wiegner, [*On $C_{\alpha}$-regularity of the gradient of solutions of degenerate parabolic systems*]{}, Ann. Mat. Pura Appl., [**145**]{} (1986), 385–405.
E. Zeidler, “Nonlinear functional analysis and its applications II/A - Linear monotone operators”, Springer, New York, 1990.
5.4cm Dipartimento di Matematica e Fisica\
Università degli Studi della Campania “L. Vanvitelli”\
Viale Lincoln 5, 81100 Caserta, Italy\
[email protected]
Dipartimento di Matematica\
Università di Pisa\
Via Buonarroti 1, 56127 Pisa, Italy\
[email protected]
Dipartimento di Matematica e Fisica\
Università degli Studi della Campania “L. Vanvitelli”\
Viale Lincoln 5, 81100 Caserta, Italy\
[email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We discuss the submillimeter properties of Extremely Red Objects (EROs) in the two Canada-UK Deep Submillimeter Survey (CUDSS) fields. We measure the mean submillimeter flux of the ERO population (to [[$K^\prime$]{}]{}$<$ 20.7) and find 0.40 $\pm$ 0.07 mJy for EROs selected by $(I-K)>$ 4.0 and 0.56 $\pm$ 0.09 mJy for EROs selected by $(R-K)> $ 5.3 but, these measurements are dominated by discrete, bright submillimeter sources. We estimate that EROs produce 7-11% of the far-infrared background at 850. This is substantially less than a previous measurement by @weh02 and we discuss possible reasons for this discrepancy. We show that ERO counterparts to bright submillimeter sources lie within the starburst region of the near-infrared color-color plot of @poz00. Finally, we claim that pairs or small groups of EROs with separations of $\lesssim$ 10 arcsec often mark regions of strong submillimeter flux.'
author:
- 'T.M.A Webb, M. Brodwin, S. Eales, S.J. Lilly'
title: The Submillimeter Properties of Extremely Red Objects in the CUDSS Fields
---
Introduction
============
A complete accounting of all the systems which produce the extragalactic background light is key to our understanding of galaxy assembly and evolution. Observations of the early universe have revealed a wide variety of objects whose relationship to each other, importance to galaxy formation, and contribution to the extragalactic background energy remains unclear. The fact that these systems have been selected over different wavelength ranges and using different selection criteria has made it is difficult to determine if we are studying different aspects of the same objects, or completely orthogonal populations. Many of these objects are found over similar redshift ranges and are co-evolving, while others may be linked through time by evolutionary processes.
At near-infrared wavelengths a population of red objects begins to emerge at faint, $K\gtrsim$ 18, magnitudes [@els88; @mcc92; @hu94]. This class of systems, labeled Extremely Red Objects (EROs), is photometrically defined by NIR color, typically $(I-K)>$ 4 or $(R-K)> $ 5 $-$ 5.3. Two different galaxy populations are selected by this color definition: an old stellar population at $z\sim$1, or alternatively, a young starburst at high-redshift, deeply enshrouded in dust. Low-mass stars and brown-dwarfs within the Galaxy also have similar NIR colors but have such low surface densities relative to faint galaxies that they do not significantly contaminate ERO samples.
Determining the fraction EROs belonging to each category has been difficult work, hindered by the faintness of these objects at optical and NIR wavelengths. Spectroscopic observations indicate that evolved stellar populations and dusty starbursts are present in roughly equal numbers [@dun96; @gra96; @coh99; @cim02a] and this picture is generally supported by larger studies employing less expensive, but more ambiguous, techniques such as color [@poz00; @mar01; @sma02a], radio emission [@sma02a], or morphology [@yan03; @gil04]. There is substantial variation between the results however, stemming from different survey depths, varying color-selection criteria, and clustering effects [@dad00; @mccar01; @smi02; @sma02a; @dad02; @yan03].
The detection of submillimeter emission from an ERO is a direct confirmation of a starburst nature (ignoring for the moment the problem of confusion within the beam). At current observational limits however submillimeter imaging can only detect the most luminous star forming EROs, those that overlap with the discrete submillimeter-bright population at high-redshift discovered with SCUBA (SMGs) [@sma97; @bar98; @hug98; @eal00; @sco02] which are sites of perhaps the most substantial star formation in the high-redshift universe. Though still suffering from small number statistics $\sim$20-30% of the systems detected deep submillimeter surveys are EROs (when observed in the NIR) [@sma99; @ivi02; @cha03a; @web03c] though this fraction obviously depends on the relative depths of the the 850 and $K$-band imaging and the uncertainty in the in the identifications of the counterparts of non-radio detected SMGs. What is not clear, however, is how many of the $K$-selected EROs are discrete, bright submillimeter sources and the submillimeter propeties of EROs below the current detection limits of submillimeter surveys. These less luminous systems, though not individually submillimeter-bright could together produce a substantial fraction of the FIR background light. Two previous studies have attempted to address these issues through statistical studies EROs [@moh02; @weh02] and the results of both groups indicate that as a population these systems emit substantial submillimeter flux. In particular, @weh02 (hereafter W02) found $K^{\prime} <$ 21.6 EROs produce $\sim$50% of the FIR background light at 850$\mu$m, with this contribution peaking at $K^{\prime}\sim$20. However, as with all ERO studies, these results may depend on ERO selection criteria and field-to-field variance.
Thus, the relationship between EROs and bright SMGs, and the submillimeter properties of EROs below the detection limit of SCUBA, remain open questions, as does the ERO contribution to the far-infrared background energy. Those EROs which are extremely luminous in the submillimeter are a minority of both the ERO population and the SMGs (at least to current $K$ depths) but must represent an important phase of galaxy evolution. Understanding their natures will provide a key link between these two populations. Isolating the properties of EROs which are individually or statistically submillimeter bright which differentiate them from the rest of the ERO population is an important step toward this understanding. Such properties may include the NIR colors and magnitudes [@poz00; @weh02], morphologies, redshifts and the local environment. Environment plays a key role in galaxy evolution and there is growing evidence of a correlation between submillimeter emission and high-density regions or galaxy merging and interactions [@ivi00; @sma03; @ale03; @web03c; @ner03; @cha03c] and this may be be an important driver of star-formation in the ERO population. Additionally, the different redshift distributions of the EROs and SMGs (as far as we know them) [@cha03b] hint at an evolutionary relationship between these populations perhaps with SMGs fading into less luminous star-forming EROs at later times. Addressing these issues will not only illuminate the natures of these two populations but the process of galaxy evolution in general.
The paper is organized as follows. In §2 and §3 we present the data and define our ERO samples. In §4 we measure the measure submillimeter flux of EROs. We discuss the ERO contribution to the extragalactic background light in §5. In §6 we present the @poz00 color-color plot for these systems. In §7 we discuss the effect of ERO companions in the analysis. We finish in §8 with some thoughts difference between submillimeter-bright and faint EROs. Throughout we have used a flat, $\Lambda$=0.7 cosmology and H$_{\circ}=$ 72 km/s/Mpc.
Observations
============
Submillimeter Data
------------------
The Canada-UK Deep Submillimeter Survey (CUDSS) was a deep, random-field submillimeter survey carried out from 1998-2002 at 850 using SCUBA on the JCMT. The submillimeter data and catalogs are discussed extensively in @eal00 and @web03b. The survey consists of two fields, CUDSS14 and CUDSS03, which cover 48 arcmin$^2$ and 60 arcmin$^2$ respectively, to a roughly uniform 3$\sigma$ depth of 3 mJy. The chopping and nodding technique employed by SCUBA to remove sky-flux creates distinct beam pattern on the maps: each positive source is flanked by two negative “sources” with half the flux-density, offset from the positive source by a distance equal to the chop throw (in our survey this is 30). This results in a map which has a total flux of zero. In addition to the bright source catalog (i.e. $S_{850{\mu}m} >$ 3 mJy) the contiguous nature of the maps allow an extraction information to fainter flux levels [@web03a].
Optical and NIR Imaging
-----------------------
The two CUDSS fields were originally selected to lie within Canada-France Redshift Survey fields [@lil95] and are well studied at many wavelengths. The Canada-France Deep Fields Survey has obtained new deep optical imaging, including $RIz$, over these areas [@mcc01; @bro04] using the CFHT 12K camera. The pixel scale of these data is 0.207 arcsec/pixel, and reaches 2$\sigma$ depths of $I$=25.58 (25.06), $R$=25.72 (25.72), and $z$=24.55 (24.75) for CUDSS03 (CUDSS14).
The [[$K^\prime$]{}]{} data were obtained in 2000 with the CFHT-IR camera on the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope (CFHT) [@hut02; @web03c]. The data cover $\sim$ 2/3 of the two CUDSS fields, and areas of 35.4 and 55.8 for CUDSS14 and CUDSS03 respectively. The CFHT-IR camera field-of-view is 3.6$\times$3.6 and the final images are mosaics of many individual pointings. The pixel scale is identical to that of the $RIz$ data, 0.207 arcseconds/pixel, and conditions during the run were stable with seeing typically 0.8. The depth over the two fields is not uniform but a 5$\sigma$ limit of $K^{\prime}$= 20.7 is reached over most of the area.
ERO Sample Selection
====================
Object detection was performed on the [[$K^\prime$]{}]{} images using the source extraction package SExtractor [@ber96] and magnitudes were extracted through 3 aperture photometry. The [[$K^\prime$]{}]{} source counts are presented in Fig.\[kcounts\] and are in good agreement with other surveys, though for clarity we plot only the K20 counts [@cim02b]. Colors were measured in 2.5 apertures on images degraded to common seeing of 1.3. The effects of galactic extinction were removed in both fields [@mcc01]
We selected EROs by two criteria commonly used in the literature, $(I-K)>$ 4 and $(R-K)>$ 5.3. For objects without $R$ or $I$ detections or detections at $<$ 2$\sigma$ (as determined from the average noise properties of the $R$ and $I$ images) the $2\sigma$ limit on their magnitude was adopted. This provides a lower (blue) limit on their color, and they were taken to be EROs if this limit met the above selection criteria. We present the ERO source counts (as a function of [[$K^\prime$]{}]{} magnitude) in Fig. \[erocounts\] and compare them with other surveys which apply the same selection criteria. We find the source counts of each field, using both color criteria, are in good agreement with these other surveys and therefore conclude that these fields do not contain exceptional over or under-densities of EROs.
In CUDSS03 (CUDSS14) we select 130 (111) objects with $(I-K)>$ 4 and 77 (87) with $(R-K)>$ 5.3. There are 51 and 77 galaxies in common between the two samples for CUDSS03 and CUDSS14 respectively. Thus, $(I-K)>$ 4.0 appears to be a more generous ERO definition than $(R-K)>$ 5.3, an effect also seen by @sma02a . However. the reddest colors we can measure for our faintest $K$ magnitudes are $(I-K)=$ 5.0 ($(I-K)=$ 4.6) for CUDSS03 (CUDSS14) and $(R-K)=$ 5.2 for both fields and therefore we probe EROs to slightly deeper K-magnitudes using $(I-K)$-selection.
The submillimeter flux of EROs
==============================
The overlap of the ERO and discrete submillimeter populations
-------------------------------------------------------------
A number of recent papers have investigated the near-infrared properties of SMGs which have been robustly identified through radio detections [@ivi02; @cha03a; @web03c]. While these systems show a range of near-infrared colors, and some are composite systems with components of different colors, the average $(I-K)$ color for these systems is significantly redder than that of the background $K$-selected population, and many SMGs are classified as EROs.
In the CUDSS catalog there are ten bright (discrete) SMGs ($S_{850{\micron}} > $ 3mJy) whose most likely counterpart is an ERO (Table \[brightsmg\]) and these objects are discussed in detail in @web03c and @cle03. These papers also describe the statistical identification methods which were used to select these counterparts, but we briefly outline them again here. We worked with radio (1.4 GHz) and $IK$ imaging and selected the statistically most likely counterparts based on positional probability analysis using surface densities determined from either the 1.4 GHz data or $I$ and $K$ magnitudes and colors. In @web03c we showed that the $IK$ identification algorithm blindly and unambiguously selected the same counterpart as the radio data. We concluded that if the SMG source properties are similar to the radio-identified systems at redshifts beyond the reach of the radio, the $IK$ identification algorithm will remain successful at selecting the correct counterparts. Three of the ten EROs are detected at 1.4GHz which allows us to state with further confidence that these particular identifications are correct. The remaining seven, however, are not detected in the radio (perhaps because they lie at redshifts beyond the radio limit) and so, although statistically very likely, some (or all) of these identifications could be incorrect. Thus, between 6-20% of the discrete SMGs in the CUDSS catalogue have ERO counterparts to $K$ = 20.7.
[llllll]{}
14.1 & 19.3 $\pm$ 0.1 & 5.1 $\pm$ 0.3 & $>$ 6.3 & 8.7 $\pm$ 1.0 & 1.4GHz det.\
14.2 & 19.6 $\pm$ 0.1 & 4.9 $\pm$ 0.4 & 5.7 $\pm$ 0.4 & 5.5 $\pm$ 0.9 & ...\
14.5 & 20.7 $\pm$ 0.1 & 4.1 $\pm$ 0.5 & $>$ 4.9 & 4.6 $\pm$ 1.0 .& ...\
14.7 & 20.6 $\pm$ 0.1 & 4.1 $\pm$ 0.5 & $>$ 4.9 & 3.2 $\pm$ 0.9 & ...\
14.8 & 19.7 $\pm$ 0.1 & 4.3 $\pm$ 0.3 & 4.8 $\pm$ 0.2 & 3.4 $\pm$ 0.9 & ...\
14.9 & 19.2 $\pm$ 0.1 & $>$ 5.7 & $>$ 6.3 & 4.3 $\pm$ 1.0 & 1.4GHz det.\
14.23 & 20.0 $\pm$ 0.1 & $>$ 4.7 & $>$ 5.3 & 2.8 $\pm$ 0.9 & ...\
3.4 & 19.8 $\pm$ 0.1 & 4.0 $\pm$ 0.2 & $>$ 4.6 & 8.0 $\pm$ 1.0 & ...\
3.7 & 20.4 $\pm$ 0.1 & $>$ 5.0 & $>$ 5.1 & 8.2 $\pm$ 1.5 & 1.4GHz det.\
3.22 & 19.6 $\pm$ 0.1 & 4.2 $\pm$ 0.2 & 5.7 $\pm$ 0.5 & 3.1 $\pm$ 1.0 & ...\
The mean submillimeter flux of the EROs
----------------------------------------
To estimate the mean 850$\mu$m flux of the ERO population we measure the flux on the SCUBA map at the [[$K^\prime$]{}]{}-selected position of each ERO (see also @web03a). The combination of the large beam size of the JCMT at 850 (15 FWHM) and the chopping technique (30 in EW) means the measured flux of an ERO could be contaminated by a nearby bright submillimeter source which is unrelated to the ERO. For example, if the location of an ERO fell within the negative off-position of a bright submillimeter source we would measure an erroneous [*negative*]{} flux for the ERO. To reduce this effect we have removed all of the discrete submillimeter sources from the maps which are securely identified (i.e. identified through radio-detections) with non-EROs [@eal00; @web03b; @web03c; @cle03] before extracting the ERO fluxes. We then compute the noise-weighted mean of these measurements (see @eal00 [@web03b] for noise discussion). These results are listed in Table \[smmflux\]. In practice, removing the discrete submillimeter sources which are securely identified with non-EROs has not significantly (i.e. within the uncertainties) changed the mean flux measurements. It has lead to an increase in the measured mean flux of 0.12mJy for CUDSS03 and a decrease of 0.05mJy for CUDSS14 (remembering the change can be either negative or positive because of the negative-positive nature of the beam profile) and thus the combined measurement has remained constant within the uncertainties.
Though we use the true [[$K^\prime$]{}]{}-determined position for the EROs, the submillimeter-determined position (if it were possible to measure) will always be offset from this location due to noise and confusion [@eal00; @web03c]. At the [[$K^\prime$]{}]{}-position there is an equal chance of noise boosting the signal up or down, while if we attempt to search for the peak flux of th ERO we would be pulled toward positive noise spikes and thus the measurement of the average submillimeter flux would be biased upward. To investigate the effect of the beam on the mean measurement we have performed this analysis for the 850-detected radio sources in the CUDSS14 field (i.e. we measure the average submillimeter flux at the radio-determined position). The true average submillimeter flux of these systems is 5.4 $\pm$ 0.4 mJy and our recovered average is 5.2 $\pm$ 0.4 mJy. Thus this technique recovers the true average flux within the uncertainties.
There are two further complications in this analysis, that we have not yet considered. (1) Are the results strongly affected by confusion? (2) To what degree are these measurements dominated by a small number of very bright submillimeter sources? We have already addressed the issue of confusion between the EROs and those submillimeter-sources which are [*not*]{} EROs by removing their submillimeter flux from the map but we have not discussed confusion between EROs themselves. If two or more EROs are separated by a distance roughly less than the beam size ($\sim$ 15) they will be confused and their measured flux densities will be incorrect. In the simplest case where two EROs lie directly on top of one another, each emitting 1mJy at 850$\mu$m, we would erroneously measure 2 mJy for each. As we will discuss in more detail in §7 a number of the EROs associated with discrete SMGs have apparent ERO companions (§4) and therefore the näive treatment outlined above will lead to an over-estimate of the mean submillimeter flux.
We now employ a more sophisticated statistical analysis, accounting for this confused flux in the following way. Consider two confused EROs with true submillimeter fluxes of $I_1$ and $I_2$ and separated by a distance $r$ which is less than the approximate beam size. The measured fluxes $f_1$ and $f_2$ may be written as follows:
$$f_1 = I_1 + I_2 e^{(-r^2/2{\sigma})}$$
$$f_2 = I_2 + I_1 e^{(-r^2/2{\sigma})}$$
As we know $f_1$, $f_2$, and $r$ we may solve for $I_1$ and $I_2$. These equations are easily expanded for any number of confused objects though in these data groups of more than three EROs are rare and there are no groups which contain more than four objects. Using this procedure will result in an improved estimate of the mean submillimeter flux for the ERO sample as a whole though the measured flux densities of individual EROs may be incorrect since in reality only one of the confused EROs may be responsible for the submillimeter emission.
We present the average submillimeter flux for the different samples, obtained using this method, in Table \[smmflux\]. The beam correction is important for 14% (11%) of the EROs in the $(I-K)>$ 4 ($(R-K)>$ 5.3) sample, and the corrections to their individual flux measurements vary from $\sim$ 10 - 50%. For example, source CUDSS03.7 (shown in Figure 6) contains three EROs within 4 of eachother, and within the beam of a discrete SMG. The flux measurements for these three EROs before the beam correction are 7.7 mJy, 7.3 mJy, and 6.6 mJy, with a non-weighted average of 7.2 mJy. After the beam correction has been applied these fluxes become 6.2 mJy, 3.8 mJy and 3.8 mJy respectively, with a non-weighted average of 4.6 mJy. Looking at the entire sample this method has lead to a decrease in the measured mean flux of $\sim$ 20% (Table \[smmflux\]).
In Fig. \[colsmmp\] we show the mean 850 flux the K-selected galaxies in both fields as a function of their color, for both color definitions. Clearly, the mean submillimeter flux is a strong function of color, with redder objects producing more submillimeter emission, regardless of the color definition. We also plot the results of W02, denoted by the filled triangles and same trend is seen, though W02 measure systematically higher flux above $(I-K)\gtrsim$ 3.5.
The question of whether these measurements are dominated by a small number of bright objects remains. W02 concluded that their signal did not arise from a minority of objects; after removing the five most positive and five most negative measurements from their analysis they saw little change in the measured value. If we perform a similar analysis on these data our detection also remains significant. This does not mean, however, that the signal is not dominated by a minority of sources. Firstly, out of the few hundred EROs in our sample, ten are the best identified counterparts of SMGs and simply removing five of these does not fully address the issue of all ten dominating the emission. A more important point, however, which we have already touched on and which we discuss later in §7, is that these submillimeter-bright EROs are often found in pairs or triplets with other EROs. Thus, though ten ERO (defined by $(I-K)>$ 4) have been identified as SMG counterparts, 17 (again for $(I-K)>$ 4) are associated with discrete SMGs. By associated we mean that they are found within the beam of a discrete SMG. The mean measurement is dominated by these EROs, which themselves are a minority of the ERO population and which are associated with an even smaller number of discrete SMGs. As we show in Table \[smmflux\], significant flux is not detected from EROs which are not found within the confused beam of a bright, discrete SMG.
[lllll]{}
both fields & $(I-K)>$ 4.0 & 0.59 $\pm$ 0.07 & 0.40 $\pm$ 0.07 & 0.10 $\pm$ 0.07 (17)\
both fields & $(R-K)>$ 5.3 & 0.61 $\pm$ 0.09 & 0.56 $\pm$ 0.09 & 0.22 $\pm$ 0.09 (11)\
CUDSS+03 & $(I-K) >$ 4.0 & 0.36 $\pm$ 0.11 & 0.31 $\pm$ 0.11 & 0.16 $\pm$ 0.12 (5)\
CUDSS+03 & $(R-K)>$ 5.3 & 0.12 $\pm$ 0.16 & 0.11 $\pm$ 0.16 & -0.05 $\pm$ 0.17 (2)\
CUDSS+14 & $(I-K)>$ 4.0 & 0.74 $\pm$ 0.09 & 0.45 $\pm$ 0.09 & 0.06 $\pm$ 0.10 (12)\
CUDSS+14 & $(R-K)>$ 5.3 & 0.82 $\pm$ 0.11 & 0.76 $\pm$ 0.11 & 0.34 $\pm$ 0.12 (9)\
The contribution of EROs to the FIR background light
====================================================
Accounting for all of the objects which produce the cosmic background light is crucial for our understanding of the cosmic star formation history. W02 estimate that EROs, with $(I-K)> $ 4.0 and [[$K^\prime$]{}]{} = 21.6 produce $\sim$ 50% of the integrated background at 850, and that half of this energy is emitted by objects with [[$K^\prime$]{}]{}$<$ 20. Taking our mean 850 flux, and the surface density of EROs in our fields we estimate that EROs produce 7-11% of the background at 850 where the range in values encorporates the two ERO selection techniques we have used and the values for the background given by @pug96 and @fix98. Clearly a marked disagreement exists between these results and W02. The fact that W02 reach one magnitude deeper in [[$K^\prime$]{}]{}cannot resolve this disagreement since they estimate that half of their measured flux is emitted from objects with [[$K^\prime$]{}]{}$<$ 20.
The difference in these two estimates stem from a larger surface density of EROs in the W02 fields and a higher mean 850 flux per ERO, and we discuss each in turn. The W02 data cover 11.5 arcmin$^2$ over three cluster fields and at [[$K^\prime$]{}]{} = 21.6 they find a surface density of 8 arcmin$^{-2}$ which is significantly higher than seen over larger areas [@smi02]. Though their source counts are dominated by a single field when this field is removed the surface density still remains high (though within acceptable range). If the surface density measured by [@smi02] is used this reduces their estimate of the background contribution by a factor of 0.7. We have covered roughly ten times the area of W02 and therefore our surface density should be a better reflection of the true surface density of EROs.
The second issue is the mean 850 flux per individual ERO. The largest difference here may stem from the effect of the beam correction (§4.2) which does not appear to have been included in the W02 analysis. In the case of our data this correction reduced the measured flux by roughly 20%. At our deepest limits we have a source density of $\sim$ 2 arcmin$^{-2}$ and, assuming no clustering, this corresponds to an average separation of EROs of roughly 48, and the beam correction is important for $\sim$12% of the EROs. At the surface density of W02 sample of 8 arcmin$^{-2}$ the average separation of sources of about half this value (24) and the beam correction will be important for 45% of the EROs. If the highest density field of W02 is removed then about 19% of the sources will be effected. Thus, even for the lowest surface density used by W02 the correction is likely $\sim$ 30% (and more than 50% if the highest surface density is used).
We can also make some very simple arguments against such a large ERO contribution to the background light. We claim that the mean 850 flux of EROs is dominated by a minority of discrete SMGs with $S_{850{\micron}}> $ 3mJy. In blank field submillimeter surveys such objects produce $\sim$15-30% of the FIR background at 850 [@bla99; @bar99; @cow02; @sma02b; @web03b] and 20% of these objects have possible ERO counterparts to our magnitude-limits (§4). Therefore, a contribution on order 6% from these EROs is expected. The lack of a significant detection of EROs below the 3 mJy means that the total contribution to the background cannot be much higher than this.
In Fig. \[magsmmp\] we plot the mean 850 flux of EROs in our sample as a function of their K-magnitude, and over-plot the measurements of W02. W02 reported a strong increase in submillimeter flux to brighter magnitudes which is not reflected in our data. This is difficult to understand as it implies too many [[$K^\prime$]{}]{}-bright counterparts to discrete SMGs. Specifically, the average 850 flux of [[$K^\prime$]{}]{}$\sim$ 19 EROs in the W02 sample is $\sim$ 3mJy and the integrated source counts of EROs at this magnitude roughly equals the integrated source counts of discrete SMGs with $S_{850{\micron}}>$ 3mJy. This implies that a significant fraction of the discrete SMG population should have ERO counterparts brighter than [[$K^\prime$]{}]{}$\sim$ 19, and it is well established that this is not the case [@web03c; @cle03; @sma02b; @ivi02]. This holds even if we take the more realistic view that the average flux measurement reflects a wide range in actual ERO submillimeter emission. Thus, While it is clear that the W02 sample contains a number of submillimeter-bright EROs at bright $K$-magnitudes it is not reasonable to extrapolate this flux to the entire [[$K^\prime$]{}]{}-bright population.
The NIR Color-Color Diagram
===========================
In the above analysis we have treated the entire sample of EROs as a uniform population while the well-known reality is the population is heterogeneous. The presence of old elliptical galaxies which have no substantial dust will dilute any submillimeter signal from the dusty galaxies. @poz00 argued that old passively evolving stellar populations may be statistically distinguished from young dusty starbursts based on their locations on a NIR color-color diagram. The reason for this is straight-forward. Between redshifts $z\sim$ 1-2 the $RIJK$ filter bands span the 4000A break seen in elliptical galaxies resulting in (extremely) red $(I-K)$ and $(R-K)$ colors while the $(J-K)$ colors remain moderate. Dusty starbursts have a relatively smooth SED in this region producing red colors in all filter combinations. The success of this technique to isolate dusty EROs, at least in a statistical sense, has also been reported by W02.
In Fig. \[colbc\] we show the NIR color-color diagrams for the ERO samples, using $z$ (9000A) in place of $J$. Also shown are the locations or limits of the EROs identified with discrete submillimeter sources ($S_{850\micron} >$ 3mJy). Overlaid are the tracks of two template galaxies ranging from $z$ = 1 - 2: a starburst with dust and an early-type. The dotted line shows the rough division line between areas inhabited by each SED.
This rough division can be used to group the EROs into those with elliptical-like colors and those consistent with starbursts provided the redshifts are restricted to $z$ = 1 - 2. Beyond this redshift old early-types will begin to contaminate the starburst side of the plot. Though the error-bars are substantial the submillimeter luminous objects clearly lie on the expected star-burst side of the diagram. Ideally one would now repeat the mean 850$\mu$m flux measurement on each separate group to see if the dusty starbursts as a population indeed produce more submillimeter emission than the early-types. In this case however, the original measurement on the heterogeneous population was entirely dominated by the discrete submillimeter sources which now almost exclusively lie on the starburst side of the plot. Thus, a repeat of this analysis would increase the submillimeter signal (by statistically removing old elliptical-like EROs) but would not provide any new information since we would still only be detecting these bright systems.
ERO companions
==============
It is well established that the ERO population is strongly clustered [@dad00; @roc02; @fir02; @roc03] over a wide range of magnitudes and color selection criteria, and this is easily interpreted in the framework of hierarchical models: galaxies which are old at $z\sim$ 1 (as a significant fraction of the EROs are) must have formed in the highest density regions in the early universe, and these regions themselves are highly clustered. Since separating the old elliptical-like galaxies from the starbursts is not trivial the contribution of each of these groups to the clustering signal difficult is to disentangle. @dad02 however, have shown that while old ellipticals are indeed highly clustered, the dusty starburst population is not (@dad02, $K\lesssim$ 19, $(R-K)>$ 5). @roc03 have investigated the frequency of close pairs of EROs ((I$_{775}-K_s$) $>$ 3.92, $Ks<$ 22) and found no evidence that dusty star-forming EROs are more likely to exist in close pairs than old passive EROs, or even optically selected galaxies [@pat02]. Thus, there is very little evidence for strong spatial correlations between dusty starburst EROs.
The small areas observed thus far with SCUBA have not allowed a reliable clustering measurement for the SMG population [@sco02; @web03b; @bor03]. These systems may be the result of purely stochastic processes and therefore would not be clustered, as seen for the local FIR-selected population [@mor94; @kim98]. An alternative scenario is one in which the SMGs are strongly clustered, and represent sign-posts for high-density, active environments at high-redshift. This latter picture is generally supported by the large mass estimates for a small number of these systems ($>$10$^{11}$ M$_{\odot}$) [@fra99; @ivi00; @gen03; @ner03]. Thus, though dusty EROs as a group may not be highly clustered, perhaps there is a subset of systems which are found in high-density regions and it is these which are related to the bright SMG population. If so, this implies environmental effects are driving the star-formation in these systems.
There are ten SMGs in the CUDSS catalog which are best identified with EROs (see §4.1). Of these, five have another ERO within 10, and three of these five have two additional EROs within this distance (Fig. \[postages\]). To quantify the significance of this we note that a randomly chosen ERO in our sample will have a companion within 10 $\sim$30% of the time. As there is no spectroscopic redshift information for these groups of EROs, it is impossible to know if all of these are true physical pairs or simply projections, and to determine their true separations. Nor can photometric redshifts constrain the redshifts with enough accuracy since all of these systems are very faint and the photometric wavelength coverage is insufficient for reliable redshift estimates. However, there is circumstantial evidence which suggests that most of these pairs are real. Four out of the five groups consist of EROs with similar apparent $K$ magnitudes and NIR colors (the exception being CUDSS14.5). If the groups were due to the chance alignment of galaxies at different redshifts such uniformity would not be expected. This argument is clouded by the fact that one of the EROs in each of the CUDSS03.7 and CUDSS14.9 groups have radio emission, while their neighbors do not, which could indicate different redshifts.
The offsets between these EROs range from $\sim$ 2 to 10 which correspond to projected distances of roughly 20-100 $h^{-1}$Kpc at redshifts of $z\sim$ 1-2. At these distances the systems are unlikely to be strongly interacting (for example, in the late stages of a merger), but could be bound systems either influencing each other, or experiencing the same global environmental influences. Due to the faintness of the objects and the quality of the $K$ data the morphologies are inconclusive: though some objects show asymmetries, there are no clear indications of merger-like activity.
In Fig. \[comp\] we show the mean 850 flux of EROs as a function of their nearest neighbor distance. That is we measure the mean submillimeter flux of those EROs with at least one companion within a given distance, for varying distances. We find EROs with companions mark on average regions of strong submillimeter emission. Though these measurements are dominated by the very bright groups discussed above and shown in Fig \[postages\] there are very few close pairs of EROs which do not show evidence of any submillimeter emission.
This result can be interpreted in two ways. Firstly, the submillimeter emission is produced or dominated by only one ERO within these groups, and this object serves as a marker for an over-density of EROs. This view is supported by radio detection of one ERO in two of these systems (CUDSS14.9 and CUDSS03.7) which likely marks the true location of the submillimeter emission. The isolation of the submillimeter emission to one component of a composite system has been seen by other authors (e.g. @ivi01 [@ner03]) though generally on smaller angular scales than seen here. Secondly, all of the EROs confused within the SCUBA beam may be responsible for the submillimeter emission each at a relatively equal level. Though individually the objects could likely lie below the 3$\sigma$ detection limit of these submillimeter maps, the combined submillimeter emission from all would result in a single observed submillimeter source. This type of effect was clearly seen during the Monte Carlo noise and source detection analysis of our maps in @eal00. These two scenarios have different implications for the strength of the submillimeter emission from individual objects, but both imply some level of interaction is driving up the average star-formation rate in these systems.
The spatial association between bright SMGs and regions of galaxy over-densities has been previously observed for a number of systems identified with high star formation rates or AGN activity, including Ly$\alpha$ emitters, radio galaxies, EROs, and x-ray sources [@ivi00; @sma03; @ale03], and indeed between these systems themselves regardless of submillimeter information. In hierarchical formation models such regions, characterized by enhanced numbers of extreme objects, may subsequently evolve into the most massive galaxy clusters in the present-day universe.
The nature of the submillimeter-bright EROs
===========================================
Ultimately, we wish to understand why some EROs are so luminous in the submillimeter while others show very little submillimeter emission, if at all. Obviously, the most dominant and trivial effect is whether an ERO is a dusty star-burst galaxy, rather than an old early-type, but even within the star-bursts there is clear variation. We have seen in the previous section that environment plays a role, such that EROs within small groups or pairs often show strong submillimeter emission.
The strong increase in the mean submillimeter flux of EROs with NIR color seen in Fig. \[colsmmp\] could be indicative of a relationship between submillimeter flux and redshift within the ERO population, since a given starburst SED will become increasingly red when placed at higher redshifts. Thus, the EROs which show submillimeter emission may lie at predominantly higher redshifts than those that do not. The median redshift of the submillimeter-selected population of SMGs is $z\sim$2-3 [@sma02b; @ivi02; @cha03b], and so the lower redshift sources in this distribution may over-lap with the high-redshift tail of this ERO sample. Of course, redder NIR color may simply be an indication of an increased level of extinction within these EROs, such that redder EROs are more submillimeter-bright because they are dustier [@cha03a].
In Fig. \[colmag\] we show the color and magnitude of EROs associated with the discrete submillimeter sources. Since we plot all of the EROs within the beam of a discrete source it is possible that not all of these systems are true submillimeter emitters. The bulk of the objects with measured colors are among the brightest objects in the field at each given color. Again, if we treat NIR color as a very rough redshift indicator then the submillimeter-bright EROs are intrinsically more luminous than average $K$-selected EROs a given redshift. Thus not only are these systems currently experiencing higher than average star-formation rates but they may also have substantial populations of evolved stars compared to the rest of the starbursting EROs (provided they lie at $z\lessim$ 2). The fact that at least some of these systems exist in over-dense regions may indicate that these EROs have experienced a continual series of mergers (even the ones that currently appear isolated) over an extended time-scale, building up significant evolved populations through a series so strong bursts.
Conclusions
===========
We investigated the submillimeter properties of EROs in the CUDSS fields and found the following:
1. [ We detect significant submillimeter flux from EROs in the CUDSS fields of 0.40 $\pm$ 0.07 mJy or 0.56 $\pm$ 0.09 mJy for $(I-K)>$ 4.0 and $(R-K)>$ 5.3 ERO selection criteria, respectively. This implies EROs to a depth of $K<$ 20.7 produce 7-11% of the extragalactic background light at 850. However, the flux is dominated by a minority of systems which are very bright at submillimeter wavelengths and overlap with the discrete population of submillimeter-bright galaxies discovered with SCUBA.]{}
2. [EROs with strong submillimeter flux lie on the expected starburst side of the NIR color-color diagram, as suggested by @poz00. ]{}
3. [Pairs or small groups of EROs mark, on average, regions of strong submillimeter flux, indicating that star formation rates are enhanced within these high-density areas. This implies, some fraction of strong submillimeter emitters trace over-dense regions in the early universe. We are unable to tell from these data if more than one object within these groups is responsible for the submillimeter emission]{}.
4. [We tentatively suggest that EROs which show submillimeter emission are the higher-redshift and higher-luminosity tail of the dusty starburst EROs within these data, and may have a history of significant and extended merger activity.]{}
[*ACKNOWLEDGMENTS*]{}
We thank the anonymous referee for many helpful comments. Research by Tracy Webb is supported by the NOVA Postdoctoral Fellowship program. Research by Steve Eales is funded through the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council and Leverhulme Trust. We wish to thank Natascha Förster Schreiber, Doug Johnstone, and Kirsten Kraiberg Knudsen for very helpful discussions. The JCMT is operated by the Joint Astronomy Center on behalf of the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council in the UK, the National Research Council of Canada and the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research. The Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope is jointly operated by the National Research Council of Canada, the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique of France and the University of Hawaii.
Alexander, D.M. et al., 2003, , 125, 383 Barger, A.J., Cowie, L.L., Sanders, D.B., Fulton, E., Taniguchi, Y., Sato, Y., Kawara, K., & Okuda, H., 1998, , 394, 248 Barger, A.J., Cowie, L.L., & Sanders, D.B., 1999, , 518, L5 Bertin, E. & Arnouts, S., 1996, A&AS,, 117, 393 Blain, A.W., Kneib, J.-P., Ivison, R.J., & Smail, I., 1999, , 512, L87 Borys, C., Chapman, S.C., Halpern, M., & Scott, D. 2003, , in press. Bruzual, A.G. & Charlot, S., 1993, , 405, 538 Brodwin, M., Lilly, S.J., Porciani, C., McCracken, H.J., Le Fevre, O., Foucaud, S., Crapton, D., & Mellier, Y., 2004, submitted to , astro-ph/0310038 Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R.C., Kinney, A.L., Koornneef, J., & Storchi-Bergmann, T., 2000, , 533, 682 Chapman, S.C. et al. 2003, , 585, 57 Chapman, S.C., Blain, A.W., Ivison, R.J., & Smail, I.R. 2003, , 422, 695 Chapman, S.C., Windhorst, R., Odewahn, S., Yan, G., & Conselice, C., 2003, , in press. Cimatti, A. et al., 2002, A&A, 381, L68 Cimatti, A. et al., 2002, A&A, 392, 395 Clements, D.L. et al. 2003, submitted to Cohen, J.G., Hogg, D.W., Pahre, M.A., Blandford, R., Shopbell, P.L., & Richberg, K., 1999, , 120, 171 Cowie, L.L., Barger, A.J., & Kneib, J.-P., 2002, AJ, 123, 2197 Daddi, E., Cimatti, A., Pozzetti, L., Hoekstra, H., Rottgering, H.J.A., Renzini, A., Zamorani, G., & Mannucci, F., 2000, A&A, 361, 535 Daddi, E. et al., 2002, A&A, 384, 1 Dunlop, J., Peacock, J., Spinrad, H., Dey, A., Jimenez, R., Stern, D., & Windhorst, R., 1996, , 381, 581 Eales, S., Lilly, S., Gear, W., Dunne, L., Bond, J.R., Hammer, F. Le Fevre, O., & Crampton, D., 1999, , 515, 518 Eales, S., Lilly, S.J., Webb, T., Dunne, L., Gear, W., Clements, D., & Yun, M., 2000, , 120, 2244 Elston, R., Rieke, G.H., & Rieke, M.J., 1998, , 331, 77 Firth, A.E. et al.2002, , 332, 617 Fixsen, D.J., Dwek, E., Mather, J.C., Bennet, C.L, & Schafer, R.A., 1998, , 508, 123 Frayer, D.T. et al., 1999, , 514, 13 Genzel, R., Baker, A.J., Tacconi, L.J., Lutz, D., Cox, P., Guilloteau, S., & Omont, A., 2003, , 584, 633 Gilbank, D.G., Smail, I., Ivison, R.J., & Packham, C., submitted to , astro-ph/0308318 Graham, J.R. & Dey, A., 1996, , 471, 720 Hu, E.M. & Ridgway, S.E., , 107, 1303 Hughes, D.H. et al., 1998, , 394, 241 Hutchings, J.B., Stetson, P.B., Robin, A., & Webb, T., 2002, PASP, 114, 761 Ivison, R.J., Dunlop, J.S., Smail, I., Dey, A., Liu, M.C., & Graham, J.R., 2000, , 542, 27 Ivison, R.J., et al., 2002, , 337, 1 Ivison, R.J., Smail, I., Frayer, D.T., Kneib, J.-P. & Blain, A.W., 2001, , 561, 145 Lilly, S.J., Le Fevre, O., Crampton, D., Hammer, F., & Tresse, L. 1995, , 455, L50 Kim, D.-C. & Sanderes, D.B., 1998, ApJS, 119, 41 Mannucci, F., Pozzetti, L, Thompson, D., Oliva, E., Baffa, C., Comoretto, G., Gennari, S., & Lisi, F., 2001, , 329, 57 Martini, P., 2001, , 121, 2301 McCarthy, P.J., Persson, S.E., & West, S.C., 1992, , 386, 52 McCarthy, P.J. et al., 2001, , 560, 131 McCracken, H.J., Le Fevre, O., Brodwin, M., Foucaud, S., Lilly, S.J., Crampton, D., & Mellier, Y., 2001, A&A, 376, 756 Mohan, N.J., Cimatti,, A., Rottgering, H.J.A., Anreani, P., Severgnini, P., Tilanus, R.P.J., Carilli, C.L., & Stanford, S.A., 2002, A&A, 383, 440 Moore, B., Frenk, C.S., Efstathiou, G., & Saunders, W., 1994, , 269, 742 Neri, R. et al. 2003, , in press Patton, D.R., et al., 2002, , 565, 208 Puget, J.-L., Abergel, A., Bernard, J.-P., Boulanger, F., Burton, W.B., Desert, F.-X., & Hartmann, D., 1996, A&A, 308, 5 Pozzetti, L. & Mannucci, F., 2000, , 317, L17 Roche, N.D., Almaini, O., Dunlop, J., Ivison, R.J., & Willott, C.J., 2002, , 337, 1282 Roche, N.D., Dunlop, J., & Almaini, O., 2003, submitted to Scott, S. et al., 2002, , 331, 817 Smail, I., Ivison, R.J., & Blain, A.W., 1997, , 490, 5 Smail, I., Ivison, R.J., Kneib, J.-P., Cowie, L.L., Blain, A.W., Barger, A.J., Owen, F.N., & Morrison, G., 1999, , 308, 1061 Smail, I., Owen, F.N., Morrison, G.E., Keel, W.C., Ivison, R.J., & Ledlow, M.J., 2002a, , 581, 844 Smail, I., Ivison, R.J., Blain, A., & Kneib, J.-P, 2002b, , 331, 495 Smail, I., Ivison, R.J., Gilbank, D.G., Dunlop, J.S., Keel., W.C., Motohara, K., & Stevens, J.A., 2003, , 583, 551 Smith, G.P., et al., 2002, , 330, 1 Webb, T.M. et al. 2003, , 582, 6 Webb, T.M.A., Eales, S.A., Lilly, S.J., Clements, D.L., Dunne, L., Gear, W.K., Ivison, R.J., Flores, H., & Yun, M., 2003, , 587, 41 Webb, T.M.A. et al., 2003, , in press Wehner, E.H., Barger, A.J., & Kneib, J.-P., 2002, , 577, L83. Yan, L. & Thompson, D., 2002, , in press
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study the $D$-dimensional high-density correlation energy ${E_{\rm c}}$ of the singlet ground state of two electrons confined by a harmonic potential with Coulombic repulsion. We allow the harmonic potential to be anisotropic, and examine the behavior of ${E_{\rm c}}$ as a function of the anisotropy $\alpha^{-1}$. In particular, we are interested in the limit where the anisotropy goes to infinity ($\alpha\to0$) and the electrons are restricted to a lower-dimensional space. We show that tuning the value of $\alpha$ from $0$ to $1$ allows a smooth dimensional interpolation and we demonstrate that the usual model, in which a quantum dot is treated as a two-dimensional system, is inappropriate. Finally, we provide a simple function which reproduces the behavior of ${E_{\rm c}}$ over the entire range of $\alpha$.'
author:
- Yan Zhao
- 'Pierre-François Loos'
- 'Peter M. W. Gill'
title: Correlation energy of anisotropic quantum dots
---
[^1]
\[sec:intro\] Introduction
===========================
The two-electron problem is one of the fundamental problems of quantum physics [@BetheSalpeter; @Hylleraas29; @Hylleraas30; @Hylleraas64] and, although it looks simple, it has only been solved in certain very special cases [@Santos68; @Moshinsky68; @Kais89; @Alok90; @Kais93; @Taut93; @LoosHook; @Quasi09; @LoosExcitSph]. Many of the methods that have been developed to provide approximate solutions to the two-electron problem have been central in the development of molecular physics and quantum chemistry [@Kohn99; @Pople99].
The familiar Hartree-Fock (HF) model [@Szabo] treats a system as a separable collection of electrons, each moving in the mean field of the others. The HF solution provides us with a good approximation to the energy and is widely applied to model complex molecular systems [@Helgaker]. However, it is essential to understand its error [@Lowdin59] $${E_{\rm c}}= E - E_{\text{HF}},$$ which Wigner called the correlation energy [@Wigner34]. Studies of correlation effects in two-electron systems are interesting in their own right, but also provide simple examples to test computational models [@ParrYang] and shed light on more complicated systems [@ONeill03; @TEOAS09; @LoosConcentric]. They have been extensively studied, for various confining external potentials, interacting potentials and degrees of freedom [@EcLimit09; @LoosBall10; @EcProof10; @Frontiers].
However, most previous studies have focussed on spherically symmetric external potentials, for anisotropy significantly complicates the mathematical analysis. This is unfortunate, for most real systems are not isotropic, and it is therefore important to understand how anisotropy affects the correlation energy.
\[sec:QD\] Quantum dots at high density
========================================
Quantum dots are often modeled by electrons in a harmonic potential with Coulombic repulsion [@Kestner62; @Alhassid00; @Ando82; @Reimann02]. Because experimental conditions strongly confine the electrons in one dimension, the model potentials are usually spherical and two-dimensional. Calculations on such quantum dots have been used extensively in the development of exchange-correlation density functionals for low-dimensional systems in the framework of density-functional theory (DFT) [@Pittalis07; @Helbig08; @Pittalis09; @Pittalis10; @Rasanen10; @Sikaroglu10].
In addition to experimental progress [@Ashoori93; @Tarucha96; @Kouwenhoven97], many theoretical investigations have studied the effects of the confinement strength in the third dimension on the energy of the quantum dot. These studies have used DFT [@Lee98; @Jiang01], HF [@Fujito96], exact diagonalization [@Sun03] and exact solutions [@Lin01; @Zhu05; @Liu07]. However, despite the importance of the correlation energy, only a few studies [@Sloggett05; @Dong05; @Waltersson07] have explored the confinement effect on ${E_{\rm c}}$.
In this paper, we examine the effects of anisotropy on the energy of the nodeless ground state of two electrons in a $D$-dimensional harmonic potential, using atomic units throughout. We define the external potential by $$V(\bm{r}) = \frac{\lambda^4}{2} \sum_{j=1}^D \frac{x_j^2}{\alpha_j^4},$$ where $\lambda$ governs the overall strength of the potential and $\alpha_j \in (0,1]$ is the force constant for the Cartesian coordinate $x_j$. The isotropic case is obtained when all $\alpha_j$’s are equal. We are particularly interested in the behavior where one or more of the $\alpha_j$ approach $0$ for, in such limits, the system is constrained towards a lower dimensionality.
We restrict our attention to the high-density ($\lambda\to\infty$) limit [@GellMann57; @White70; @Benson70; @Vignale] for it has been found that the high-density behavior of electrons is surprisingly similar to that at typical atomic and molecular electron densities [@EcLimit09; @LoosBall10; @EcProof10; @Frontiers].
The Hamiltonian describing this system is $$\Hat{H} = - \frac{1}{2} \left(\nabla_1^2 + \nabla_2^2\right) + V(\bm{r}_1) + V(\bm{r}_2) + \frac{1}{r_{12}},$$ where $r_{12}=|\bm{r}_1-\bm{r}_2|$ is the interelectronic distance and $\nabla^2$ is the $D$-dimensional Laplace operator [@Herschbach86; @Avery91]. Scaling all lengths by $\lambda$, we obtain $$\label{generalH}
\Hat{H} = \lambda^2 \left[-\frac{\nabla_1^2}{2} - \frac{\nabla_2^2}{2} + V(\bm{r}_1) + V(\bm{r}_2) + \frac{1}{\lambda}\frac{1}{r_{12}}\right],$$ which is suitable for large-$\lambda$ perturbation theory with the zeroth-order Hamiltonian $$\Hat{H}^{(0)} = - \frac{\nabla_1^2}{2} - \frac{\nabla_2^2}{2} + V(\bm{r}_1) + V(\bm{r}_2),$$ and the perturbation $$\Hat{H}^{(1)} = \frac{1}{r_{12}}.$$
The Hamiltonian $\Hat{H}^{(0)}$ is separable and its eigenfunctions and energies are $$\begin{gathered}
\Psi_{\bm{n}_1,\bm{n}_2}^{(0)}(\bm{r}_1,\bm{r}_2) = \frac{1}{\pi^{D/2}} \prod_{j=1}^D \frac{\exp[-(x_{1,j}^2+x_{2,j}^2)/(2\alpha_j^2)]}
{2^{(n_{1,j}+n_{2,j})/2} \alpha_j \sqrt{n_{1,j}! n_{2j}!}}
\\
\times H_{n_{1,j}}(x_{1,j}/\alpha_j) H_{n_{2,j}}(x_{2,j}/\alpha_j),\end{gathered}$$ and $$E_{\bm{n}_1,\bm{n}_2}^{(0)}
= \sum_{j=1}^D \frac{n_{1,j}+n_{2,j}+1}{\alpha_j^2},$$ where $\bm{n}_i=(n_{i,1},\ldots,n_{i,D})$ holds the quantum numbers of the $i$th electron, $x_{i,j}$ is the $i$th coordinate of the $j$th electron, and $H_n(x)$ is the $n$th Hermite polynomial [@NISTbook].
Expanding the exact and HF energies as power series $$\begin{aligned}
E & = \lambda^2 E^{(0)} + \lambda E^{(1)}
+ E^{(2)} + O(\lambda^{-1}),\\
E_{\text{HF}} & = \lambda^2 E_{\text{HF}}^{(0)}
+ \lambda E_{\text{HF}}^{(1)}
+ E_{\text{HF}}^{(2)} + O(\lambda^{-1}),\end{aligned}$$ one finds [@White70; @Benson70; @Katriel05; @HookCorr05] that $$\begin{aligned}
E^{(0)} & = E_{\text{HF}}^{(0)},&
E^{(1)} & = E_{\text{HF}}^{(1)},\end{aligned}$$ and, therefore, that the limiting correlation energy is $$\label{Ec-def}
{E_{\rm c}}= \lim_{\lambda\to\infty} \left(E - E_{\text{HF}}\right) = E^{(2)} - E_{\text{HF}}^{(2)}.$$
In this paper, we show that ${E_{\rm c}}$ is strongly affected by the anisotropy and dimensionality of the potential. In Sec. \[sec:AH\], we use perturbation theory to obtain integral expressions for $E^{(2)}$ and $E_{\text{HF}}^{(2)}$ in an anisotropic quantum dot. In Sec. \[sec:solutions\], we use the integral to express ${E_{\rm c}}$ as a infinite sum in a special case. Finally, in Sec. \[sec:numerical\], we present numerical results and discuss some of the implications with regard to quantum dots and dimensional interpolation.
\[sec:AH\] Second-order energies
=================================
The exact and HF second-order energies are [@HookCorr05; @EcLimit09] $$\begin{aligned}
E^{(2)} & = \sum_{(\bm{m},\bm{n})\ne0} \frac{\left<\Psi_{\bm{m},\bm{n}}^{(0)}\left|r_{12}^{-1}\right|\Psi_{0,0}^{(0)}\right>^2}
{E_{\bm{m},\bm{n}}^{(0)}-E_{0,0}^{(0)}}, \\
E_{\text{HF}}^{(2)} & = 2\sum_{\bm{m}\ne0}\frac{\left<\Psi_{\bm{m},0}^{(0)}\left|r_{12}^{-1}\right|\Psi_{0,0}^{(0)}\right>^2}
{E_{\bm{m},0}^{(0)}-E_{0,0}^{(0)}}.\end{aligned}$$ Whereas the summation for the exact energy includes all states, the summation for the HF energy includes only singly-excited states [@HookCorr05].
Employing the Fourier representation $$\frac{1}{r_{12}} = \frac{\Gamma\left(\frac{D-1}{2}\right)} {2\pi^{(D+1)/2}} \int \frac{d\bm{k}}{k^{D-1}} e^{i\bm{k}\cdot(\bm{r}_1-\bm{r}_2)},$$ one finds $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E2-3}
E^{(2)} = & -\frac{\Gamma\left(\frac{D-1}{2}\right)^2} {4\pi^{D+1}} \sum_{\bm{n}\ne\bm{0}} \frac{\prod_{j=1}^D (-\alpha_j^2)^{n_j}/n_j!}
{\sum_{j=1}^D n_j/\alpha_j^2}
\notag
\\
& \times \left[\int \frac{d\bm{k}}{k^{D-1}} \prod_{j=1}^D k_j^{n_j} \exp(-k_j^2 \alpha_j^2 / 2)\right]^2,
\\
\label{E2HF-3}
E_{\text{HF}}^{(2)} = & - \frac{\Gamma(\frac{D-1}{2})^2} {2\pi^{D+1}} \sum_{\bm{n}\ne\bm{0}} \frac{\prod_{j=1}^D (-\alpha_j^2/2)^{n_j}/n_j!}
{\sum_{j=1}^D n_j/\alpha_j^2}
\notag
\\
& \times \left[\int \frac{d\bm{k}}{k^{D-1}} \prod_{j=1}^D k_j^{n_j} \exp(-k_j^2 \alpha_j^2 / 2) \right]^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $\Gamma$ is the gamma function [@NISTbook].
\[sec:solutions\] Correlation energy
=====================================
We now try to solve the integral $$\label{integral}
\mathcal{K} = \int \frac{d\bm{k}}{k^{D-1}} \prod_{j=1}^D k_j^{n_j} \exp(-k_j^2 \alpha_j^2 / 2)$$ for special values of $\alpha_j$. The isotropic case, [*i.e.*]{} where all $\alpha_j$ are equal, has been considered in detail in Ref. [@EcLimit09]. In the present paper, we generalize this to case where the $\alpha_j$ take two distinct values. Without loss of generality, we let $\delta$ be an integer such that $0<\delta<D$, and set $$\begin{gathered}
\alpha_1 = \cdots = \alpha_\delta = \alpha,\\
\alpha_{\delta+1} = \cdots= \alpha_D = 1.\end{gathered}$$ We assume $\alpha\in(0,1]$, [*i.e.*]{} the potential is stronger in the first $\delta$ dimensions.
The integral vanishes if any of the $n_i$ is odd. When all are even, it can be evaluated in hyperspherical coordinates [@Louck60] and one finds $$\begin{gathered}
\label{integralhg}
\mathcal{K} = \frac{2^{\frac{n+1}{2}} \Gamma(\frac{n+1}{2})}{\Gamma(\frac{n+D}{2})}
\prod_{j=1}^D \Gamma\left(\frac{n_j+1}{2}\right) \\
\times F\left[\frac{n+1}{2} , \frac{m+\delta}{2} , \frac{n+D}{2} ; 1-\alpha^2\right],\end{gathered}$$ where $F$ is the Gauss hypergeometric function [@NISTbook] and $$\begin{aligned}
m & = \sum_{j=1}^\delta n_j, & n & = \sum_{j=1}^D n_j.\end{aligned}$$
Since we only need to sum over terms where $n_j$ is even for all $1\le j\le D$, we can replace $n_j\to 2n_j$ throughout. Substituting Eq. into Eqs. and yields $$\begin{split}
\label{Ec-4}
{E_{\rm c}}(\alpha,D,\delta)
& = \frac{\Gamma\left(\frac{D-1}{2}\right)^2}
{4\pi\Gamma\left(\frac{\delta}{2}\right)\Gamma\left(\frac{D-\delta}{2}\right)}
\\
& \quad \times \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}
\left(1-\frac{1}{2^{2n-1}}\right)
\frac{\Gamma\left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right)^2}
{\Gamma\left(n+\frac{D}{2}\right)^2}
\\
& \quad \times \sum_{m=0}^{n}
\frac{\alpha^{4m+2}\Gamma\left(m+\frac{\delta}{2}\right)\Gamma\left(n-m+\frac{D-\delta}{2}\right)}
{m!(n-m)!\left[\alpha^2n+(1-\alpha^2)m\right]}
\\
& \quad \times F \left[n+\frac{1}{2} , m+\frac{\delta}{2} , n+\frac{D}{2} ; 1-\alpha^2\right]^2.
\end{split}$$
In the isotropic limit ($\alpha=1$), this becomes $$\begin{split}
{E_{\rm c}}(1,D,\delta) & =
-\frac{\Gamma\left(\frac{D-1}{2}\right)^2}{4\pi\Gamma\left(\frac{D}{2}\right)}
\\
& \quad \times
\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}
\left(1-\frac{1}{2^{2n-1}}\right)
\frac{\Gamma\left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right)^2}{\Gamma\left(n+\frac{D}{2}\right)n!n}
\\
& = {E_{\rm c}}(D),
\end{split}$$ as presented in Ref. [@EcLimit09].
In the anisotropic limit ($\alpha\to0$), we must consider two cases. If $\delta=D-1$, becomes infinite, because the second-order energies and the correlation energy are unbounded for the one-dimensional dot [@Doren87; @Herschbach86; @Goodson87; @Morgan93]. However, if $\delta<D-1$, we have $$\label{Ec0}
\begin{split}
{E_{\rm c}}(0,D,\delta)
& = -\frac{\Gamma\left(\frac{D-\delta-1}{2}\right)^2}{4\pi\Gamma\left(\frac{D-\delta}{2}\right)}
\\
& \quad \times \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}
\left(1-\frac{1}{2^{2n-1}}\right)
\frac{\Gamma\left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right)^2}{\Gamma\left(n+\frac{D-\delta}{2}\right)n!n}
\\
& = {E_{\rm c}}(D-\delta),
\end{split}$$ which confirms that, as the electrons are squeezed from a $D$-dimensional space to a $(D-\delta)$-dimensional space, their correlation energy tends smoothly toward the expected value for $(D-\delta)$ dimensions.
\[sec:numerical\] Numerical Results and Discussion
===================================================
[ccccccccc]{} $D$ & $\delta$ & [7]{}[c]{}[Anisotropy $\alpha$]{}\
& & 0 & 1/32 & 1/16 & 1/8 & 1/4 & 1/2 & 1\
[1]{}[\*]{}[3]{} & 1 & 239.6 & 210.3 & 187.4 & 152.8 & 109.3 & 68.6 & 49.7\
\
[2]{}[\*]{}[4]{} & 1 & 49.7 & 48.9 & 47.4 & 43.8 & 36.6 & 26.4 & 19.9\
& 2 & 239.6 & 195.8 & 163.9 & 119.7 & 70.8 & 33.3 & 19.9\
\
[3]{}[\*]{}[5]{} & 1 & 19.9 & 19.8 & 19.5 & 18.8 & 16.9 & 13.3 & 10.4\
& 2 & 49.7 & 48.3 & 45.7 & 39.7 & 29.2 & 16.7 & 10.4\
& 3 & 239.6 & 185.8 & 148.7 & 100.3 & 51.8 & 19.9 & 10.4\
\
[4]{}[\*]{}[6]{} & 1 & 10.4 & 10.4 & 10.4 & 10.1 & 9.4 & 7.9 & 6.4\
& 2 & 19.9 & 19.7 & 19.3 & 17.9 & 14.8 & 9.7 & 6.4\
& 3 & 49.7 & 47.7 & 44.2 & 36.6 & 24.2 & 11.6 & 6.4\
& 4 & 239.6 & 178.0 & 137.5 & 87.0 & 40.4 & 13.2 & 6.4\
\
[5]{}[\*]{}[7]{} & 1 & 6.4 & 6.4 & 6.3 & 6.3 & 5.9 & 5.1 & 4.3\
& 2 & 10.4 & 10.4 & 10.3 & 9.8 & 8.6 & 6.2 & 4.3\
& 3 & 19.9 & 19.6 & 19.0 & 17.2 & 13.1 & 7.4 & 4.3\
& 4 & 49.7 & 47.1 & 42.9 & 34.0 & 20.7 & 8.6 & 4.3\
& 5 & 239.6 & 171.6 & 128.6 & 77.2 & 32.8 & 9.4 & 4.3\
![ \[fig:Eplots\] Variation of $-{E_{\rm c}}$ with $D+(1-\sqrt{\alpha})\delta$, showing the correlation “pathways” that start from $D=3$ (solid blue), $D=4$ (dotted red), $D=5$ (dot-dashed yellow), $D=6$ (dashed green) and $D=7$ (solid black).](fig1){width="40.00000%"}
The correlation energies of quantum dots with various anisotropies $\alpha$, for $D=3,\ldots,7$ and $\delta=1,\ldots,D-2$ are presented in Table \[tab:Ectable\]. The energies for the spherically-symmetric states ($\alpha=0,1$) coincide with the closed-form expressions reported in Ref. [@Frontiers]. When $\delta$ increases, the variation in correlation energy around $\alpha=1/2$ becomes flatter, but more pronounced near $\alpha=0$. In contrast, near $\alpha=1$, ${E_{\rm c}}$ remains independent of $\delta$. Although not unique, pathways between dimensionalities are smooth, and provide proper dimensional interpolations [@Loeser85; @Herschbach86].
Figure \[fig:Eplots\] shows the different correlation “pathways” when one starts from $D=3,\ldots,7$ to reach $\delta=1,\ldots,D-2$; the lower and the upper curves correspond to the smaller ($\delta=1$) and larger ($\delta=D-2$) values of $\delta$, respectively.
![ \[fig:EcD3R1\] Variation of $-{E_{\rm c}}(\alpha,3,1)$ with $\alpha$ (solid). The fitting equation is also shown (dashed).](fig2){width="40.00000%"}
The $D=3$ and $\delta=1$ case models a quasi-2D quantum dot, confined in a three-dimensional harmonic well whose force constant is higher in one of the dimensions. However, we see from Fig. \[fig:EcD3R1\] that, even when the anisotropy is large ($\alpha \ll 1$), the correlation energy is significantly smaller than the $D=2$ limit, which is frequently used to approximate the correlation energy of the quantum dot. Indeed, for $\alpha>1/2$, the correlation energy is much better approximated by the $D=3$ limit.
To illustrate the difference in correlation energy between a strict and quasi 2D quantum dot, one can calculate ${E_{\rm c}}\left(\alpha,3,1\right)$ for various values of $\alpha$ found in the literature. In this way, we have found ${E_{\rm c}}= 73.8$ for $\alpha = 0.43$ [@Ashoori93; @Lin01], ${E_{\rm c}}= 88.6$ for $\alpha = 0.33$ [@Ashoori93; @Fujito96] and ${E_{\rm c}}= 110.0$ ${{\rm m}E_{\rm h}}$ for $\alpha = 0.24$ [@Tarucha96; @Jiang01]. Even for the smallest of these $\alpha$ values, the correlation energy is less than half of the 2D limit (239.6 ${{\rm m}E_{\rm h}}$).
The correlation energy ${E_{\rm c}}(\alpha,3,1)$ (in ${{\rm m}E_{\rm h}}$) can be accurately approximated using $$\label{EcApprox}
{E_{\rm c}}\left(\alpha,3,1\right) \approx
\left(c_0 + c_1 \alpha + c_2 \alpha^2\right) e^{-\zeta \alpha},$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
c_0 & = 239.6,&
c_1 & = -360.3,\nonumber\\
c_2 & = 557.5,&
\zeta & = 2.1736,\end{aligned}$$ as shown in Fig. \[fig:EcD3R1\]. By construction, this approximation is exact for $\alpha=0$ and $\alpha=1$.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we have studied the electron correlation of anisotropic quantum dots in the high-density limit. Using perturbation theory, we have solved the general Hamiltonian , and we have obtained integral expressions for $E^{(2)}$ and $E_{\text{HF}}^{(2)}$. In the case where $\delta$ dimensions are scaled by a factor of $\alpha$ with respect to the remaining $(D-\delta)$ dimensions, we have expressed the correlation energy ${E_{\rm c}}$ as a infinite sum.
Our numerical results reveal that ${E_{\rm c}}$ remains similar to that of the $D$-dimension system for most $\alpha<1$, only increasing to that of the $(D-\delta)$-dimensional state near $\alpha=0$. In the physically important $D=3$ and $\delta=1$ case, the correlation energy is well approximated by the $D=2$ limit only if $\alpha \lesssim 0.1$. Such extreme anisotropy is probably difficult to realize experimentally.
P.M.W.G. thanks the NCI National Facility for a generous grant of supercomputer time and the Australian Research Council (Grants DP0984806 and DP1094170) for funding.
[64]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty @noop [**]{} (, ) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.42.1178) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.48.3561) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.81.032510) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.123008) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/RevModPhys.71.1253) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/RevModPhys.71.1267) @noop [**]{} (, ) @noop [**]{} (, ) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRev.46.1002) @noop [**]{} (, ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.68.022505) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.79.062517) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.81.052510) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.113001) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRev.128.2687) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/RevModPhys.72.895) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/RevModPhys.54.437) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/RevModPhys.74.1283) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.76.235314) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.77.245106) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.79.085316) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.81.115108) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.81.195103) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.82.012505) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.71.613) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.3613) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.57.9035) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.63.045317) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.53.9952) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.64.195323) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.72.022501) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.71.235326) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.72.075326) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.76.045314) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRev.106.364) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [**]{} (, ) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} , , , and , eds., @noop [**]{} (, , ) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} “,” (, ) p. @noop [****, ()]{}
[^1]: Corresponding author
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We define and study natural ${{\mathrm{SU}}}(2)$-structures, in the sense of Conti-Salamon, on the total space ${{\cal S}}$ of the tangent sphere bundle of any given oriented Riemannian 3-manifold $M$. We recur to a fundamental exterior differential system of Riemannian geometry. Essentially, two types of structures arise: the contact-hypo and the non-contact and, for each, we study the conditions for being hypo, nearly-hypo or double-hypo. We discover new double-hypo structures on $S^3\times S^2$, of which the well-known Sasaki-Einstein are a particular case. Hyperbolic geometry examples also appear. In the search of the associated metrics, we find a Theorem for determining the metric, which applies to all ${{\mathrm{SU}}}(2)$-structures in general. Within our application to tangent sphere bundles, we discover a whole new class of metrics specific to 3d-geometry. The evolution equations of Conti-Salamon are considered; leading to a new integrable ${{\mathrm{SU}}}(3)$-structure on ${{\cal S}}\times{{\mathbb{R}}}_+$ associated to any flat $M$.'
author:
- |
R. Albuquerque\
[email protected]
title: 'Natural ${{\mathrm{SU}}}(2)$-structures on tangent sphere bundles'
---
\
[**Key Words:**]{} tangent bundle, ${{\mathrm{SU}}}(n)$-structure, hypo structure, nearly-hypo structure, evolution equations.\
[**MSC 2010:**]{} Primary: 53C15, 53C25, 53C44; Secondary: 53C38, 53D18; 58A15, 58A32;
[30]{}
I. Agricola, The Srní lectures on non-integrable geometries with torsion, *Arch. Math. (Brno)*, [42]{} (2006), Suppl., 5–84.
M. T. K. Abbassi, [*Note on the classification theorems of $g$-natural metrics on the tangent bundle of a Riemannian manifold $(M,g)$*]{}, Comment. Math. Univ. Carolinae 45(4) (2004), 591–596.
M. T. K. Abbassi and O. Kowalski, [*On Einstein Riemannian g-natural metrics on unit tangent sphere bundles*]{}, Ann. Global Anal. Geom. 38(1) (2010), 11–20.
R. Albuquerque, *A fundamental differential system of Riemannian geometry*, 2012, 31 pp, http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.3213.
—, *Curvatures of weighted metrics on tangent sphere bundles*, Riv. Mat. Univ. Parma [2]{} (2011), no. 2, 299–313.
—, *Weighted metrics on tangent sphere bundles*, Quart. J. Math. [63]{} (2012), no. 2, 259–273.
—, *Homotheties and topology of tangent sphere bundles*, J. Geom. [105]{} (2014), no. 2, 327–342.
—, *A fundamental differential system of 3-dimensional Riemannian geometry*, April 2015, 19 pp, http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.04659.
— and J. Rawnsley, [*Twistor Theory of Symplectic Manifolds*]{}, J. Geom. Phys. 56 (2006), 214–246.
L. Bedulli and L. Vezzoni, [*Torsion of ${{\mathrm{SU}}}(2)$-structures and Ricci curvature in dimension 5*]{}, Differential Geom. Appl. 27 (2009), 85–99.
D. Blair, *Riemannian geometry of contact and symplectic manifolds*, Progr. Math., vol. 203, Birkhaüser Boston Inc., Boston, MA, 2002.
Ch. P. Boyer, K. Galicki and S. Simanca, *Canonical Sasakian Metrics*, Comm. Math. Phys. 279 (2008), 705–733.
Ch. P. Boyer, *Maximal Tori in Contactomorphism Groups*, Differential Geom. Appl. 31 (2013), 190–216.
G. Calvaruso, [*Contact Metric Geometry of the Unit Tangent Sphere Bundle*]{}, in [*Complex, Contact and Symmetric Manifolds*]{}, 2005, O. Kowalski, E. Musso and D. Perrone editors, Progr. Math., Volume 234, Birkhäuser Boston.
D. Conti, M. Fernández and J. A. Santisteban, [*Solvable Lie algebras are not that hypo*]{}, Transform. Groups, March 2011, Volume 16, Issue 1, 51–69.
D. Conti and S. Salamon, [*Generalized Killing spinors in dimension 5*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 359 (2007), 5319–5343.
L. C. de Andrés, M. Fernández, A. Fino and L. Ugarte, [*Contact 5-manifolds with a hypo ${{\mathrm{SU}}}(2)$-structure*]{}, Quart. J. Math. 60 (2009), 429–459.
S. Druta-Romaniuc and V. Oproiu, [*Tangent sphere bundles which are eta-Einstein*]{}, Balkan J. Geom. Appl., Volume 16 (2011), No. 2, 48–61.
M. Fernández, S. Ivanov, M. Muñoz and L. Ugarte, [*Nearly hypo structures and compact Nearly Kähler 6-manifolds with conical singularities*]{}, J. London Math. Soc. (2) 78 (2008), 580–604.
J. P. Gauntlett, D. Martelli, J. Sparks and D. Waldram, [*Sasaki-Einstein metrics on $S^2\times S^3$*]{}, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 8 (2004) 711–734.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">R. Albuquerque</span>
[`[email protected]`]{}
Centro de Investigação em Matemática e Aplicações
Rua Romão Ramalho, 59, 671-7000 Évora, Portugal
\
The research leading to these results has received funding from the People Programme (Marie Curie Actions) of the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under REA grant agreement n PIEF-GA-2012-332209.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The theory of Wilson loops for gauge theories with unitary gauge groups is formulated in the language of symmetric functions. The main objects in this theory are two generating functions, which are related to each other by the involution that exchanges an irreducible representation with its conjugate. Both of them contain all information about the Wilson loops in arbitrary representations as well as the correlators of multiply-wound Wilson loops. This general framework is combined with the results of the Gaussian matrix model, which calculates the expectation values of $\frac12$-BPS circular Wilson loops in $\mathcal{N}=4$ Super-Yang-Mills theory. General, explicit, formulas for the connected correlators of multiply-wound Wilson loops in terms of the traces of symmetrized matrix products are obtained, as well as their inverses. It is shown that the generating functions for Wilson loops in mutually conjugate representations are related by a duality relation whenever they can be calculated by a Hermitian matrix model.'
author:
- 'Wolfgang Mück [^1]'
bibliography:
- 'WL-comb.bib'
title: 'Combinatorics of Wilson loops in $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM theory'
---
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
I would like to thank Anthonny Canazas Garay and Alberto Faraggi for their collaboration in an earlier project. This work was supported in part by the INFN, research initiative STEFI.
[^1]: E-mail: `[email protected]`
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We investigate the behavior of oxygen vacancies in three different metal-oxide semiconductors (rutile and anatase TiO$_2$, monoclinic WO$_3$, and tetragonal ZrO$_2$) using a recently proposed hybrid density-functional method in which the fraction of exact exchange is material-dependent but obtained *ab initio* in a self-consistent scheme. In particular, we calculate charge-transition levels relative to the oxygen-vacancy defect and compare computed optical and thermal excitation/emission energies with the available experimental results, shedding light on the underlying excitation mechanisms and related materials properties. We find that this novel approach is able to reproduce not only ground-state properties and band structures of perfect bulk oxide materials, but also provides results consistent with the optical and electrical behavior observed in the corresponding substoichiometric defective systems.'
author:
- Matteo Gerosa
- Carlo Enrico Bottani
- Lucia Caramella
- Giovanni Onida
- Cristiana Di Valentin
- Gianfranco Pacchioni
title: 'Defect calculations in semiconductors through a dielectric-dependent hybrid DFT functional: the case of oxygen vacancies in metal oxides'
---
Introduction
============
Oxygen vacancies represent a prototypical intrinsic point defect in metal-oxide materials, where they are inevitably formed throughout the synthesis process, as a result of the exposition of the samples to high temperatures and strongly reducing atmospheres.
The presence of oxygen vacancies substantially alters the optical and electrical properties of metal-oxide semiconductors,[@ganduglia2007; @pacchioni2003] and a correct interpretation of experiments requires these modifications to be properly taken into account. Moreover, defects control and engineering play a fundamental role in a wide range of applications, such as in catalysis and photocatalysis,[@pacchioni2015a; @divalentin2013] information technology,[@sawa2008] gas sensors[@krotcenkov2007] and smart windows.[@niklasson2007]
The standard approach to point defects computational modeling in materials is rooted within density-functional theory (DFT) and the supercell approximation.[@freysoldt2014] The simplest interpretation of the spectroscopic features of defective materials may be provided by analysis of the corresponding Kohn-Sham (KS) electronic band structures. However, it is well known that KS energy eigenvalues represent a very crude approximation to quasiparticle energies probed in spectroscopies. The limits of such approximation noticeably manifest themselves in the failure of standard DFT in predicting accurate electronic band gaps. An exact xc functional, providing exact total energies, would be able to yield exact defect states through comparison of defect formation energies corresponding to variations of the charge state of the defect (*charge-transition levels*, CTLs).[@scherz1993; @vandewalle2004; @lany2008] In principle, CTLs can be rigorously put in correspondence with experimentally measurable excitation and emission energies in defective semiconductors and insulators;[@gallino2010] in an analogous spirit, the delta-self-consistent-field method allows one to compute electronic excitations in finite systems from total-energy differences.[@onida2002] In practice, of course, the error due to an approximate form of the xc term would affect total energies and hence the computed CTLs. Notice in fact that standard local/semilocal DFT functionals often predict defect states to be resonant with the bulk band edges, even when experiments indicate a deep donor or acceptor behavior; in this case, computed total energies, and the corresponding CTLs, would be largely incorrect.[@deak2011pssb] Hence, improving the functional with respect to local/semilocal ones is a prerequisite for the application of the method. Promising results have been achieved by adopting exact-exchange hybrid DFT functionals[@becke1993a] for the description of exchange and correlation.[@divalentin2014] Such functionals have been proven to yield band gaps in more quantitative agreement with experiments, as well as to help correcting for the self-interaction error inherent in local/semilocal approximations.
In the frame of hybrid DFT calculations on extended systems, a connection between the fraction of exact exchange to be admixed in the hybrid functional and the dielectric constant of the material has been proposed.[@alkauskas2011; @marques2011] The obtained functional has proved capable of predicting band gaps, structural properties and total energies for semiconductors in quantitative agreement with experiments.[@marques2011; @skone2014; @gerosa2015] In particular, in our recent work[@gerosa2015] we tested the performance of this approach in calculating various properties of metal-oxide semiconductors.
Motivated by this success, we devote the present work to an assessment of the efficiency of our method in describing defective oxide semiconductors, with particular concern to oxygen vacancies, which constitute a prototypical case study in this kind of materials. In this respect, we investigate the properties of three different oxide semiconductors of great both fundamental and applicative interest: rutile and anatase titanium dioxide (TiO$_2$), tungsten trioxide (WO$_3$) in its room-temperature (RT) $\gamma$-monoclinic crystal structure, and tetragonal zirconium dioxide (ZrO$_2$).
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:methods\], details on the performed DFT calculations are given, the dielectric-dependent hybrid DFT method is discussed and the charge-transition levels formalism is reviewed. In Section \[sec:results\], results are discussed and interpreted in the light of the available experiments on reduced oxide samples. Finally, the most important conclusions are summarized in Section \[sec:conclusions\].
Computational approach {#sec:methods}
======================
DFT calculations
----------------
All the calculations were performed using the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">crystal09</span> code,[@dovesi2005; @crystal09-manual] based on linear combination of atomic orbitals and Gaussian-type basis sets. Adoption of small-sized localized atomic-like functions for representing KS orbitals (compared, e.g., to much larger plane-wave basis sets) allows one to considerably reduce the computational cost of hybrid-functional calculations almost down to that of standard local/semilocal DFT calculations. This in turn allows to employ moderately large supercells (containing roughly a hundred atoms) for modeling defective materials, requiring a reasonable computational effort also when performing structural optimizations.
In the case of TiO$_2$, calculations were performed in the all-electrons scheme, using the basis set from Ref. for Ti. Small-core effective-core pseudopotentials were employed for modeling core electrons for W and Zr atoms[@hay1985] in WO$_3$ and ZrO$_2$, while valence electrons were described using the basis sets defined in Ref. ($5p$, $5d$, $6sp$ W electrons in the valence) and Ref. ($4d$, $5sp$ Zr electrons in the valence), respectively. The O atom was always treated at the all-electron level, using the basis set from Ref. for TiO$_2$ and WO$_3$, and from Ref. for ZrO$_2$.
We considered bulk 72-atom $2\times2\times3$ and 96-atom $2\sqrt{2}\times2\sqrt{2}\times2$ supercells for rutile and anatase TiO$_2$, respectively. For RT $\gamma$-monoclinic WO$_3$, we adopted a model supercell comprising 64 atoms, obtained by doubling the primitive cell along the $a$ crystallographic axis. For tetragonal ZrO$_2$, a 108-atom $2\times2\times3$ supercell was employed. The O vacancy was modeled by removing one O atom from the corresponding supercells. The Brillouin zone was sampled using $2\times2\times2$ $\Gamma$-centered Monkhorst-Pack grids,[@monkhorst1976] corresponding to 6 or 8 $k$ points in the irreducible wedge.
Structural optimizations were performed by allowing all the atoms in the cell to relax their positions, keeping the lattice parameters fixed to that of the optimized bulk cell. Convergence thresholds in geometry optimizations were set at their standard values in the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">crystal09</span> code: the defined thresholds for the maximum and the root-mean-square of the energy gradients (atomic displacements) are $0.00045$ a.u. ($0.00180$ a.u.) and $0.00030$ a.u. ($0.00120$ a.u.), respectively.[@crystal09-manual]
Dielectric-dependent self-consistent hybrid functional
------------------------------------------------------
The xc potential was approximated within the generalized KS scheme,[@seidl1996] using a full-range hybrid functional[@becke1993a] in which the fraction of exact exchange $\alpha$ is computed self-consistently with the static electronic dielectric constant $\epsilon_{\infty}$.[@alkauskas2011; @skone2014; @gerosa2015] In the framework of many-body perturbation theory (and in particular within the $GW$ scheme), it can be proven that $\alpha\approx 1/\epsilon_{\infty}$, provided that microscopic components of the dielectric function are averaged out over the cell and dynamical effects are neglected (in which case the $GW$ self-energy reduces to the Hedin’s Coulomb-hole-plus-screened-exchange approximation[@hedin1965]).
The electronic dielectric constant $\epsilon_{\infty}$ was computed within first-order perturbation theory using the coupled-perturbed Kohn-Sham approach implemented in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">crystal09</span>,[@ferrero2008] allowing for evaluation of the xc contribution to electronic screening beyond the random-phase approximation.
The dielectric-dependent self-consistent hybrid functional was defined for the bulk pristine crystal, and then applied to the corresponding defective system. This procedure is justified by the facts that (i) the method proved able to provide electronic gaps, structural properties and ground-state energies in quantitative agreement with experiment for bulk systems,[@marques2011; @skone2014; @gerosa2015] and (ii) the presence of point defects is expected to negligibly affect the dielectric properties in the dilute limit of defect concentration which is ultimately addressed.
The self-consistent procedure yielded the following values for the exchange fraction: $15.2\%$ for rutile and $18.4\%$ for anatase TiO$_2$, $21.9\%$ for RT monoclinic WO$_3$, $20.8\%$ for tetragonal ZrO$_2$. Notice that these values are close to, but do not exactly match, those entering the definition of standard hybrid functionals, such as PBE0 ($25\%$) and B3LYP ($20\%$).[@perdew1996; @stephens1994; @becke1993b] Also, the corresponding dielectric constants are found close to the experimental values, deviating from them by at most four percent (see also Refs. ).
Charge-transition levels
------------------------
The position of the electronic levels introduced by O vacancies in the band gap of the material was computed on the basis of the CTLs formalism.[@scherz1993; @lany2008; @vandewalle2004; @freysoldt2014] The latter constitutes a rigorous framework for computing excitation and emission energies in defective semiconductors that can be directly compared with experiments (see the Introduction).
At fixed experimental conditions, corresponding for instance to exposing the material to high-temperature O-rich or O-poor atmospheres in the case of oxide-based materials, the formation energy of the defect (O vacancy) depends only on the chemical potential (which at $T=0$ and without an external field can be identified with the Fermi energy) of the electrons that can be exchanged between the defect and the host crystal subsystems, following some external (e.g., optical) perturbation.
The optical transition level $\mu^{\text{opt}} (q/q')$ is defined as the Fermi energy at which the formation energies of the defect in the (dimensionless) charge states $q$, $E_{\text D,q}^{\text{f}}$, and $q'$, $E_{\text{D},q'}^{\text{f}}$, become equal. Since we are dealing with optical (vertical) excitations, occurring over time-scales much shorter than the phonon time-scale, the atomic configuration is kept frozen at that of the initial defect charge state, and all the quantities of interest (e.g., the formation energy) are evaluated at that configuration for both charge states.[@note1] The optical transition level, referred to the top of the valence band (VB), $\varepsilon_{\text v}$, of the host crystal, can thus be expressed as $$\mu^{\text{opt}} (q/q') = \frac{E_{\text D,q'}-E_{\text D,q}}{q-q'} - \varepsilon_{\text v},
\label{eq:tl}$$ where the the ground-state total energies of the defective supercells with defect in the charge states $q$ and $q'$, $E_{\text D,q}$ and $E_{\text D,q'}$, are presently assumed to incorporate any corrections due to electrostatic interactions between charged image defects and to the definition of a common energy reference for the two bulk calculations.[@komsa2012]
Using Janak’s theorem,[@janak1978] and in the spirit of Slater’s transition-state theory,[@slater1972] the total energy difference appearing in Eq. can be approximated as[@alkauskas2007; @gallino2010] $$E_{\text D,q'}-E_{\text D,q} \approx \frac{1}{2}\left[\varepsilon_N (N;q') + \varepsilon_{N}(N-1;q=q'+1)\right],
\label{eq:janak-slater}$$ where $\varepsilon_N (N;q')$ is the KS eigenvalue of the highest occupied spin-orbital of the $N$-electron system (corresponding to defect charge state $q'$) and $\varepsilon_N (N-1;q=q'+1)$ is the KS eigenvalue of the lowest unoccupied spin-orbital of the $(N-1)$-electron system, corresponding, for instance, to excitation of an excess electron into the host crystal (defect charge state $q=q'+1$).[@note2]
Two issues have to be considered in the evaluation of the KS eigenvalues in Eq. :
- The KS eigenvalues obtained from the two bulk calculations (defective supercells corresponding to different charge states $q$ and $q'$) have to be referenced to some common energy scale. We chose the zero of the energy to be the $1s$ KS eigenvalue of O (located $\sim 500$ eV below the VB edge), averaged over the whole supercell.
- For charged defects, the electrostatic interactions between image defects arising from usage of finite-size supercells have to be taken into account.[@lany2008; @komsa2012] The corresponding correction to the KS defect level $\varepsilon_{\text D}$ reads[@chen2013] $$\Delta \varepsilon_{\text D}(N;q) = -\frac{2}{q} \Delta E_{\text D,q}^{\text{MP}} = -2 (1+f) \left(\frac{\alpha_{\text M}}{2L}\right) \frac{q}{\epsilon_{\infty}},$$ where the correction $\Delta E_{\text D,q}^{\text{MP}}$ to the total energy of the charged supercell is evaluated in the Makov-Payne scheme;[@leslie1985; @makov1995] $\alpha_{\text M}$ is the Madelung constant, $L$ is the average distance between image defects, and $\epsilon_{\infty}$ is the static electronic dielectric constant of the host crystal, computed within the self-consistent hybrid scheme.[@note3] The prefactor $f\approx-0.35$ approximately takes into account the interaction energy of the defect charge with the neutralizing jellium background (scaling as $L^{-3}$) introduced to renormalize total energy in charged defect calculations.[@lany2008]
Thermodynamic levels $\mu^{\text{therm}}(q/q')$, corresponding to excitations $q_i \rightarrow q_f$ in which the system is allowed to relax in the final charge state $q_f$ (adiabatic transitions) are obtained from optical levels by adding or subtracting the relaxation energy[@gallino2010] $$E_{\text{rel}}=\left.E_{\text D,q_f}\right|_{q_i\,\text{geom}}-\left.E_{\text D,q_f}\right|_{q_f\,\text{geom}},
\label{eq:rel-energy}$$ according to whether $q\equiv q_f=q_i+1\equiv q'+1$ (electron excitation) or $q'\equiv q_f=q_i-1 \equiv q-1$ (electron trapping).[@gallino2010] Notice that in Eq. electrostatic corrections to formation energies would have to be evaluated for the same charge state $q_f$, and they thus cancel against each other.[@deak2011]
Results and discussion {#sec:results}
======================
TiO$_2$
-------
The optoelectronic properties of O-deficient TiO$_2$ (TiO$_{2-x}$) have been extensively investigated both experimentally[@diebold2003] and theoretically,[@finazzi2008; @janotti2010; @mattioli2010; @mattioli2008; @deak2012; @malashevich2014; @divalentin2014] making this system an ideal model for testing the performance of the dielectric-dependent hybrid method in describing the electronic properties of defective semiconductors.
The observed $n$-type conductivity of TiO$_2$ samples has been related to the presence of O vacancies, acting as intrinsic donors, formed under strongly reducing synthesis conditions.[@diebold2003] The larger intrinsic conductivity of the anatase phase, which also makes it more appealing for applications, has been explained with the different behavior of the O vacancy in the two polymorphs.[@mattioli2010; @deak2012]
On the other hand, optical experiments found the associated defect levels to be located deep in the band gap. Infrared absorption (IR),[@cronemeyer1959] ultraviolet photoelectron,[@nolan2008] and electron energy-loss experiments[@henderson2003] on reduced rutile samples all agree in attributing a feature at about 1 eV below the conduction band (CB) to the presence of O vacancies. Theoretical calculations have revealed that the apparent contradiction between the observed $n$-type conductivity and the deep nature of optical levels in TiO$_{2-x}$ is rationalized by the different character (shallow versus deep) of the O-vacancy thermodynamic and optical transition levels.[@deak2012; @mattioli2010]
Furthermore, the excess charge due to O deficiency has been shown to redistribute differently in the host crystal, according to whether the rutile or anatase polymorph is considered, resulting in the localization of the extra electrons on topologically different Ti atoms.[@setvin2014]
It is the goal of the present part of the work to re-investigate these issues within the dielectric-dependent hybrid approach, which by construction is sensitive to the different electronic screening characteristic of the rutile and anatase phases.
### Rutile {#sec:rutile}
The ground state of rutile TiO$_2$ with a neutral O vacancy is found to be a triplet, with the two excess electrons redistributing over the whole (110) plane containing the vacancy \[Figure \[fig\_1\](a)\]. Most of the excess charge is contributed by the fully-coordinated Ti$_2$ (spin density $n_s = n_{\uparrow} - n_{\downarrow}=0.70$), Ti$_3$ (two equivalent atoms, $n_s=0.15$ each) and Ti$_4$ ($n_s = 0.65$) atoms. The two under-coordinated Ti$_1$ atoms instead accommodate a smaller fraction of it ($n_s=0.13$ each). This picture is in qualitative agreement with recent scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) measurements on the rutile (110) surface,[@setvin2014] suggesting the localization of the extra electrons on Ti atoms away from the vacancy,[@note4] with the formation of a polaron. Electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) measurements also confirmed the presence of Ti$^{3+}$ ionic species formed as a consequence of electron trapping at Ti$^{4+}$ centers in TiO$_{2-x}$ crystals.[@yang2009; @brandao2009]
Notice that the localization of the unpaired electrons at Ti$^{3+}$ centers is correctly described only within the hybrid-functional scheme,[@divalentin2006] at variance with the case of standard local/semilocal functionals which commonly fail, due to incomplete cancellation of the self-interaction error. Notice also that the above physical picture is correctly captured only at the level of spin-polarized DFT, while neglecting spin polarization leads to a completely different description, with the excess charge trapped in the vacancy void,[@janotti2010; @malashevich2014] in a configuration typical of a color center (F center). We found the corresponding closed-shell ground state to be highly unstable, being above the triplet solution by nearly 2 eV in total energy. In the spin-compensated case, the two under-coordinated Ti atoms relax towards the vacancy, shortening their distance to $2.90\,\text{\AA}$ (compared with an unrelaxed distance of $2.99\,\text{\AA}$); instead, in the true, spin-polarized ground state (triplet), they move away from the vacancy, resulting in an equilibrium distance of $3.37\,\text{\AA}$.
![O vacancy in rutile TiO$_2$. (a) Isosurface plot of the charge density associated with the excess electrons for the neutral vacancy. The yellow (large) and red (small) spheres represent Ti and O atoms, respectively. Only the atomic plane containing the O vacancy is shown. (b) Corresponding electronic band structure (only spin majority is shown) computed at the equilibrium geometry. (c) Optical (solid, black) and thermodynamic (dashed, red) charge-transition levels. Positions (in eV) are given with respect to the top of the valence band (VB).[]{data-label="fig_1"}](fig_1.eps)
Our found magnetic ground state is compatible with the evidence of triplet and doublet signals obtained in EPR measurements[@yang2009; @brandao2009] on rutile TiO$_{2-x}$ crystals, and attributed to neutral and singly-charged O vacancies, respectively.
We succeeded in stabilizing a triplet configuration in which nonetheless the excess charge is confined at the vacancy void,[@note5] a situation typically encountered in non-reducible O-deficient oxides.[@pacchioni2015] However, we found the corresponding ground-state energy to be $\sim 0.8$ eV higher than that of the triplet polaron-like solution represented in Figure \[fig\_1\](a). This finding definitely rules out the possibility of an F-center-like behavior of O vacancies in rutile, in favor of the polaron picture, which is in agreement with all the available experimental evidence. This conclusion is also corroborated by previous theoretical investigations using larger supercells.[@deak2012]
The bulk band gap of rutile TiO$_2$, as computed using the self-consistent hybrid functional, is found to be 2.99 eV, a value compatible with the available data from photoemission/inverse photoemission experiments, yielding an electronic gap of $3.3 \pm 0.5$ eV (Ref. ) and $\sim 3.1$ eV (Ref. ). Upon removal of an O atom, the two resulting excess electrons occupy two triplet defect states appearing in the band gap at about $0.5-1$ eV below the CB \[Figure \[fig\_1\](b)\]. As the vacancy is ionized, the remaining excess electron localizes on the three Ti atoms in the row of the O vacancy, again with a dominant contribution from the fully-coordinated Ti$_2$ atom ($n_s = 0.68$). The associated occupied defect level is still localized at about 1 eV below the CB.
Figure \[fig\_1\](c) shows the computed charge-transition levels. The optical levels lie deep in the band gap, resulting in excitation energies from the defect states to the CB of 0.47 eV, 1.20 eV and 0.84 eV for the $(+1/0)$, $(+2/+1)$ and $(+2/0)$ transitions, respectively. Notice that, as a result of the finite supercell size, the residual defect-defect interaction (i.e. overlap between polarons)[@sezen2014] leads to a small dispersion of the highest-occupied defect band (about 0.2 eV). This should be considered as indicative of the numerical accuracy of the computed level. Being aware of this limitation, our results can be considered consistent with the features, found at about 1 eV below the bottom of the CB, observed in experimental spectra.[@cronemeyer1959; @henderson2003; @nolan2008] In particular, IR measurements[@cronemeyer1959] revealed two absorption peaks at 0.75 eV and 1.18 eV for the single and double ionization, which correlate well with our computed first and second optical ionization energies for the O vacancy.[@note7]
Thermodynamic transition levels are significantly higher in energy, reflecting the sizable structural relaxation associated with the polaronic distortion. The $(+1/0)$ adiabatic transition is located about 0.1 eV below the CB, indicating that the neutral O vacancy may be stable at sufficiently low temperature. The second transition $(+2/+1)$ is at 0.81 eV, while the double ionization \[$(+2/0)$ transition\] requires 0.46 eV. These values should be compared with measured thermal ionization energies observed in a range between 0.3 and 0.6 eV.[@ghosh1969]
### Anatase
The nature of the neutral O vacancy in anatase TiO$_2$ has been extensively studied in the theoretical literature.[@finazzi2008; @deak2012; @mattioli2010; @mattioli2008; @morgan2010; @divalentin2009; @deangelis2014] However, no consensus has been achieved so far concerning the redistribution of the associated excess electrons in the host crystal. This difficulty may be rationalized with the presence of several minima on the relevant adiabatic potential energy surface. The realization of a specific configuration is strongly related to the description of the structural relaxation around the vacancy, which is affected, for instance, by the employed DFT xc approximation.
Our calculations yield a triplet ground state for the system with a neutral O vacancy, with a corresponding substantial rearrangement of the atomic positions around the vacancy. As shown in Figure \[fig\_2\](a), this implies a reduction of the local symmetry around the vacancy, with a nearest-neighbor O atom breaking its bond with a bulk Ti atom (Ti$_2$) and considerably relaxing towards the vacancy void.[@note6] The same behavior was observed in all previous calculations in which symmetry-breaking relaxation was allowed for.[@mattioli2008; @finazzi2008; @morgan2010] The two excess electrons are found to be localized on two Ti atoms (the under-coordinated Ti$_1$, with $n_s = 0.92$, and the bulk Ti$_2$, with $n_s = 0.84$), similarly to a previous DFT+U investigation.[@morgan2010] This finding is again in qualitative agreement with the STM investigation of Diebold and coworkers,[@setvin2014] which suggests that the excess charge preferably stays close to the vacancy in anatase, as opposed to the case of rutile in which the major contribution is given by the fully-coordinated Ti atoms (see Section \[sec:rutile\]).
![O vacancy in anatase TiO$_2$. (a) Isosurface plot of the charge density associated with the excess electrons for the neutral vacancy. The yellow (large) and red (small) spheres represent Ti and O atoms, respectively. (b) Corresponding electronic band structure (only spin majority is shown) computed at the equilibrium geometry. (c) Optical (solid, black) and thermodynamic (dashed, red) charge-transition levels. Positions (in eV) are given with respect to the top of the VB.[]{data-label="fig_2"}](fig_2.eps)
For the system with a neutral vacancy, the computed electronic structure shows two triplet defect states at $\sim 0.7-1$ eV below the CB \[Figure \[fig\_2\](b)\]. The computed band gap is 3.69 eV, larger than the value of 3.42 eV obtained from optical absorption experiments at low temperature.[@tang1995] To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no data for the photoemission gap of stoichiometric anatase TiO$_2$ are available in the experimental literature. However, our computed gap is consistent with previous $GW$ calculations.[@landmann2012; @kang2010; @gerosa2015]
When the vacancy is ionized, a doublet occupied defect state locates at $\sim 0.7$ eV below the CB. The extra electron remains localized ($n_s = 0.92$) at the under-coordinated Ti$_1$ atom.
The computed thermodynamic transition levels are significantly shallower than in rutile \[compare Figure \[fig\_1\](c) and Figure \[fig\_2\](c)\]. In particular, the $(+1/0)$ level is practically resonant with the CB, suggesting that an electron can be thermally excited into the CB, thus accounting for the observed larger conductivity of anatase samples.
Similarly to the case of rutile, optical levels are substantially deeper than the corresponding thermodynamic ones. We computed excitation energies of 0.64 eV, 1.15 eV and 0.89 eV for the $(+1/0)$, $(+2/+1)$ and $(+2/0)$ transitions. Experimentally, a feature at $\sim 1.0-1.1$ eV below the CB has been reported in different experiments (combined x-ray photoemission/absorption spectroscopy,[@thomas2007] as well as scanning tunneling spectroscopy[@setvin2014]) on reduced anatase surfaces, and has been attributed to O vacancies. Notice that, since the stable charge state of the O vacancy is $q=+1$ at room temperature, it seems likely that the $(+2/+1)$ transition is mainly probed in optical experiments; accordingly, our computed excitation energy of 1.15 eV matches excellently with the measured spectroscopic features.
In conclusion, the present approach proved capable of explaining several experimental signatures related to the different behavior of O vacancies in the two most common TiO$_2$ polymorphs, rutile and anatase. In particular, the larger conductivity of anatase can be understood by analysis of the thermodynamic transition levels, whereas the deep nature of the electronic features observed in spectroscopies is rationalized on the basis of the computed optical transition levels. Our findings are in qualitative, and sometimes quantitative, agreement with previous investigations at the hybrid-functional[@deak2012; @divalentin2014] and DFT+U[@mattioli2010] level.
![O vacancy in RT monoclinic WO$_3$. Isosurface plot of the charge density associated with the excess electrons for the (a) neutral and (c) singly-charged vacancy. The yellow (large) and red (small) spheres represent W and O atoms, respectively. Corresponding electronic band structures, computed at the equilibrium geometry, for the (b) neutral and (d) singly-charged vacancy (only spin majority is shown). (e) Optical (solid, black) and thermodynamic (dashed, red) charge-transition levels. Positions (in eV) are given with respect to the top of the VB.[]{data-label="fig_3"}](fig_3.eps)
WO$_3$
------
The optical and electrical properties of substoichiometric WO$_3$ (WO$_{3-x}$) have been extensively investigated experimentally, particularly in relationship with the electrochromism exhibited by this material.[@deb1973] However, the microscopic origin of this effect, which is intimately connected with the typical blue coloration of WO$_{3-x}$ films,[@deneuville1978; @hollinger1976] has been longly debated, and several models have been put forward for rationalizing experimental observations.[@deb1973; @faughnan1975; @deb2000]
On the theory side, a few first-principle investigations have been performed on O-deficient RT monoclinic WO$_3$,[@lambert2006; @chatten2005; @migas2010] but among them only one[@wang2011a] employed state-of-the-art methods yielding a correct description of the bulk electronic structure. The latter study of Wang *et al.*[@wang2011a] revealed a delicate interplay between the concentration of O vacancies and the metallic or insulating nature of WO$_{3-x}$. Furthermore, different behaviors were observed according to the orientation of the W-O-W chain along which the O atom is removed. For the sake of simplicity, we will limit the present discussion to the case of an O vacancy created along the $a$ crystallographic axis of the monoclinic cell,[@note8] which we have evidence to believe to be the main responsible for the observed optical features of WO$_{3-x}$, namely its blue coloration. A more comprehensive investigation will be subject of a future publication.
Our calculations indicate the closed-shell singlet solution to be more stable (by 0.17 eV) than the open-shell triplet one for the system with a neutral vacancy. Correspondingly, the two extra electrons occupy a defect state located at about $1.0-1.5$ eV below the CB \[Figure \[fig\_3\](a)\]; they localize mainly at the vacancy void, with a contribution from the two under-coordinated W atoms \[Figure \[fig\_3\](b)\].
As the vacancy is ionized, the extra electron localizes on one of the under-coordinated W atoms \[Figure \[fig\_3\](c)\], leading to the formation of a reduced W$^{5+}$ ionic state. In fact, one of the proposed models for the chromic mechanism in WO$_{3-x}$ suggests that the presence of W$^{5+}$ centers results from the localization of excess electrons on W$^{6+}$ sites upon light absorption.[@faughnan1975] As shown in Figure \[fig\_3\](d), this $5d$ electron occupy a defect state $\sim 1.3$ eV below the CB ($\sim 2$ eV if the geometry of the neutral vacancy is retained).
Several experiments have been performed to elucidate the spectroscopic properties of substoichiometric WO$_3$ samples. The coloration efficiency of WO$_{3-x}$ ($x<0.4$) films has been reported to increase with increasing O deficiency.[@bechinger1997] Their typical blue coloration has been correlated with a broad absorption band with a maximum at 900 nm ($\sim 1.38$ eV),[@hollinger1976; @deneuville1978] although this feature has been observed in amorphous films. Photoluminiscence (PL) spectra[@paracchini1982] exhibited an emission peak at 550 nm ($\sim 2.26$ eV), and photoelectron measurements[@hollinger1976; @brigans1981] confirmed the presence of a defect state attributed to O vacancies at $\sim 2$ eV above the VB.
The computed optical transition levels reported in Figure \[fig\_3\](e) are consistent with these observations, being positioned in the band gap in the range from 1.72 eV to 2.33 eV above the VB. The dispersion of the neutral-vacancy defect state limits the accuracy of the calculated transition levels to $\sim 0.2$ eV. Notice that the computed band gap is larger than the reported values from absorption measurements (see Ref. and references therein), but in excellent agreement with ultraviolet direct/inverse photoemission experiments (3.45 eV from Ref. ), as well as with $GW$ calculations.[@gerosa2015; @ping2013] Thus, the excitation energy pertaining to, e.g., the $(+1/0)$ transition, which is obtained to be $1.12$ eV, is compatible with the experimentally observed features in the absorption spectra.
The corresponding thermodynamic levels are predicted to be well-detached from the bottom of the CB, with a minimum excitation energy of $0.46$ eV computed for the $(+1/0)$ transition. This implies that the specific kind of O vacancy considered here cannot contribute to the observed $n$-type conductivity of WO$_{3-x}$ films, which has been attributed to O vacancies.[@gillet2003] Thus, although the present work clarifies the nature of the spectroscopic features commonly evidenced in reduced WO$_3$, in agreement with the previous investigation of Wang *et al.*,[@wang2011a] further study is called for to elucidate the possibly different behavior of other inequivalent O vacancy sites.
$x$ Formation energy (eV)
----------------------- ------ -----------------------
TiO$_{2-x}$ (rutile) 1/24 5.2
TiO$_{2-x}$ (anatase) 1/32 4.7
WO$_{3-x}$ 1/16 5.3
ZrO$_{2-x}$ 1/36 6.6
: \[tab\_1\] Formation energy for the O vacancy in the different materials, computed with respect to $(1/2)E[\text{O}_2]$, where $E[\text{O}_2]$ is the ground-state total energy of the triplet O$_2$ molecule.
ZrO$_2$
-------
The O vacancy in reduced zirconia (ZrO$_{2-x}$) has been reported to exhibit features similar to those of the F centers typically observed in non-reducible oxides,[@pacchioni2015] the extra charge being trapped in the vacancy void.[@gionco2013] EPR studies[@gionco2013] indicate that ZrO$_2$ is generally less prone to lose oxygen than other reducible oxides, such as TiO$_2$. This is confirmed by our calculations, giving a formation energy for the O vacancy in ZrO$_{2-x}$ larger by more than 1 eV with respect to the other oxides (see Table \[tab\_1\]), in agreement with previous investigations.[@ganduglia2007; @wang2011a]
As shown in Figure \[fig\_4\](a), upon removal of an O atom in ZrO$_2$, the two excess electrons stabilize in the vacancy void, with a contribution from the $4d$ orbitals of two nearest-neighbor Zr atoms (Zr$_1$ and Zr$_2$); the corresponding ground state is a closed-shell singlet. As expected, the neighboring Zr atoms relax towards the vacancy, resulting in a shrinking of the distance Zr$_1$-Zr$_2$ from 3.61 $\text{\AA}$ to 3.48 $\text{\AA}$, and of Zr$_1$-Zr$_3$ from 3.65 $\text{\AA}$ to 3.61 $\text{\AA}$. The corresponding band structure \[Figure \[fig\_4\](b)\] exhibits a flat defect state positioned at $\sim 3.3$ eV above the VB, in close agreement with a previous B3LYP study.[@gionco2013]
As the vacancy is ionized, the remaining extra electron distributes on the two Zr$_1$ and Zr$_2$ atoms, as well as in the space between them, in a typical bonding configuration. The extra electron occupies a doublet state in the band gap at $\sim 3.6$ eV above the VB.
We also studied the case of the negatively-charged O vacancy, which can be realized as a consequence of the trapping of an electron from the bulk CB. Such trapping phenomena can affect, for instance, the performance of electronic devices, for which high-$\kappa$ oxide materials such as zirconia or hafnia (HfO$_2$) have been proposed as gate electrodes.[@robertson2004] The trapped electron occupies an additional defect state in the band gap at $\sim 1.2$ eV above the (now spin-resolved, with spin majority shown) states associated with the neutral vacancy \[Figure \[fig\_4\](d)\], in a bonding configuration between the Zr$_1$ and the Zr$_2$ atoms \[Figure \[fig\_4\](c)\].
The computed CTLs corresponding to both vacancy ionization and electron trapping are shown in Figure \[fig\_4\](e). A band gap of 5.73 eV is calculated, to be compared with the experimental value of 5.78 eV deduced from optical absorption measurements;[@french1994] typically $GW$ calculations give a band gap larger by $\sim 0.1-0.2$ eV (see Ref. and references therein).
Much experimental work is available in the literature investigating the PL properties of ZrO$_{2-x}$. However, a clear understanding of the underlying mechanisms seems to be lacking. Several emission features in the region between 2.0 and 3.5 eV are typically observed, and have been related to the presence of O vacancies.[@smits2010] The large uncertainty in experimental results may be the consequence of the practical difficulty in obtaining high-purity single crystals of zirconia with a well-defined phase.
PL measurements on tetragonal nanocrystalline ZrO$_{2-x}$ showed an emission peak at 350 nm ($\sim 3.54$ eV), which was attributed to electron-hole recombination involving F-center states in the band gap. Analysis of the PL spectrum evolution with annealing allowed to assign this feature to O vacancies.[@cong2009] Our computed position of the $(+1/0)$ optical transition level (3.40 eV above the top of the VB) may account for this observation.
Another study on undoped tetragonal zirconia nanocrystals[@smits2007] evidenced the presence of an emission peak at $\sim 2.8$ eV. This may be related to a PL process involving the $(+2/+1)$ optical level, which we found at 2.77 eV above the top of the VB.
The thermodynamic levels are found below the CB by at least 1.5 eV, indicating that all the O-vacancy charged states are stable at room temperature. An exception is represented by the $(0/-1)$ level, which is separated from the CB by $\sim 0.3$ eV. This level is associated to electron trapping processes causing the O-vacancy to become negatively-charged. Our calculations suggest that such trapping center is stable at room temperature, and the same conclusion was obtained from a similar investigation on hafnia[@broqvist2006] in which, due to analogous chemical behavior of the Hf and Zr cations, O vacancies are expected to induce similar effects as in zirconia.[@zheng2007] In this respect, trapping/detrapping experiments on HfO$_2$ found the activation energy for the trap level to be 0.35 eV,[@ribes2006] which is in agreement with our calculations.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
We reviewed the behavior of the O vacancy in prototypical reducible (TiO$_2$, WO$_3$) and non-reducible (ZrO$_2$) oxide semiconductors adopting a novel DFT computational approach based on hybrid functionals with the exact-exchange fraction obtained *ab initio* for the bulk non-defective material. Its capability of yielding accurate electronic band structures, together with structural properties and total energies, makes it an ideal tool for investigating defect levels in semiconductors.
The computed optical transition levels are generally found in agreement with various spectroscopy experiments, providing support for their interpretation. Instead, thermodynamic levels allow one to infer about the intrinsic degree of $n$-type conductivity of substoichiometric oxide materials through analysis of the stability of the different O-vacancy charge states. Residual discrepancies between theory and experiment may arise from two main sources: (i) the always present approximate treatment of xc terms, and (ii) usage of finite supercells. While the former is intrinsically related to the adopted functional, the latter may show up also as consequence of the evaluation of CTLs via the Janak’s theorem, Eq. , instead of by direct computation of total energy differences,[@note9] due to the defect band dispersion introduced by the residual polaron overlapping in neighboring cells.
Fundamental differences are evidenced in the behavior of reducible and non-reducible oxides. Upon creation of an O vacancy, the former tend to exhibit polaron-like features: the excess charge mainly localizes on the metallic ions, reducing their formal charge, and the relaxation of the atomic environment is not restricted to the atoms in the immediate vicinity of the defect. Instead, in non-reducible oxides such as ZrO$_2$, the excess charge is stabilized in the vacancy void, and the relaxation is more local; furthermore, transition levels are deeper, being situated near the center of the band gap. These are the fingerprints of the F-center-like behavior of O vacancies in these materials.
In conclusion, we believe that the present approach is able to characterize defect levels in semiconductors in a way that makes it valuable for predictive studies also on extrinsically-doped semiconductors. Notice however that, while the method is straightforwardly applied to point (zero-dimensional) defects, its extension to the treatment of higher-dimensional defect structures, such as surfaces, requires facing unprecedented difficulties. For instance, modeling the interface between two different semiconductors implies the exchange fraction to become a space-dependent quantity, and this eventually calls for a phenomenological model of the optical properties of the interface. To the best of the author’s knowledge, the issue has not yet been considered in the literature, and its solution would make it possible to apply the method to investigate the rich physical-chemical phenomena occurring at interfaces.
This work has been supported by the Italian MIUR through the FIRB Project RBAP115AYN “Oxides at the nanoscale: multifunctionality and applications”. The support of the COST Action CM1104 “Reducible oxide chemistry, structure and functions” is also gratefully acknowledged. G.O. and L.C. acknowledge the ETSF-Italy[@etsf] for computational support.
[98]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [**]{} (, , ) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} in @noop [**]{}, , Vol. , (, ) pp. @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} **, @noop , () @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} ****, ()
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study radiation emitted during the gravitational collapse from two different types of shells. We assume that one shell is made of dark matter and is completely transparent to the test scalar (for simplicity) field which belongs to the standard model, while the other shell is made of the standard model particles and is totally reflecting to the scalar field. These two shells have exactly the same mass, charge and angular momentum (though we set the charge and angular momentum to zero), and therefore follow the same geodesic trajectory. However, we demonstrate that they radiate away different amount of energy during the collapse. This difference can in principle be used by an asymptotic observer to reconstruct the physical properties of the initial collapsing object other than mass, charge and angular momentum. This result has implications for the information paradox and expands the list of the type of information which can be released from a collapsing object.'
author:
- 'De-Chang Dai$^1$, Dejan Stojkovic$^2$'
title: Collapsing objects with the same gravitational trajectory can radiate away different amount of energy
---
Introduction
============
In Einstein-Maxwell theory a stationary black hole solution is generally characterized by its mass, electric charge and angular momentum. In more general theories, some scalar field hairs have also been found [@Herdeiro:2014goa; @Herdeiro:2015waa; @Volkov:2016ehx], and they can be considered as generalized (or Noether) charges. All additional information about the initial state of matter that formed the black hole is lost during the collapse. This includes the global charges (e.g. lepton number, baryon number, flavor [@Stojkovic:2005zq]), angular momentum, charge and energy distributions (as opposed to their total values which are conserved) etc. To recover this information after the black hole is formed seems to be impossible without invoking some exotic physics. Instead of looking at the $t \rightarrow \infty$, i.e. an exact Schwarzschild solution in an asymptotically flat space-time, we can take a look at the near horizon region. Information about the initial state might be released during the collapse, since once the collapse is over there is no much one can do. It is well known that during the collapse an object radiates away its higher multipoles and other irregularities in the so-called balding phase before a perfect spherically symmetric horizon is formed. The problem is that these are all gravitational degrees of freedom, and cannot account for other non-gravitational information content. In [@Vachaspati:2006ki; @Vachaspati:2007hr], it was shown that gravitational collapse is followed by the so-called pre-Hawking radiation from the very beginning of the collapse, simply because the metric is time dependent. This radiation becomes completely thermal Hawking radiation only in $t \rightarrow \infty$ limit when the event horizon is formed. Since the collapsing object has only finite amount of mass, an asymptotic observer would never witness the formation of the horizon at $t \rightarrow \infty$. For him, the collapsing shell will slowly get converted into not-quite-thermal radiation before it reaches its own Schwarzschild radius. It was demonstrated in [@Saini:2015dea] that the evolution is completely unitary in such a setup.
In this paper, we also concentrate on the pre-Hawking radiation, but we are using the standard analysis as defined in [@Davies; @1984qfcs.book.....B]. We explicitly construct an example in which two shells have exactly the same mass, charge and angular momentum (though we set the charge and angular momentum to zero for simplicity). By construct, they follow the same gravitational trajectory, however they emit different radiation during the collapse. We achieve this by giving different physical properties to the collapsing shells, other than mass, charge and angular momentum. In particular, one of the shells is completely transparent to radiation, and the other is totally reflecting. This is for example the situation where one of the shells is made of dark matter and the other of the standard model particles. If one studies emission of the standard model particles from these shells, then the dark matter shell will be completely transparent to radiation, and the standard model shell will be totally or partially reflecting. Of course, there is a whole continuum of cases between the totally reflecting and totally transparent shells, but for the purpose of illustration, these two extremes will suffice. For simplicity, we use a spherically symmetric falling shell. In this case only s-wave scalar field is relevant, and therefore the radiation field is chosen to be a scalar field. In the realistic standard model, one could use any other field. We show that the flux of energy and power spectra of radiation emitted from these two shells is notably different, though in the limit of $t \rightarrow \infty$ the fluxes become identical. Thus, an observer studying the flux of the standard model particles from a collapsing shell could in principle tell if the shell is made of the dark or ordinary matter.
The trajectory of the collapsing shell
======================================
For our purpose, we consider a freely falling massive spherical shell. The time dependent radius of the shell is $R(\tau)$, where $\tau$ is the proper time of the observer located on the shell. The geometry outside the shell is Schwarzschild $$\begin{aligned}
&&ds^2=-\left(1-\frac{2M}{r}\right)dt^2+\left(1-\frac{2M}{r}\right)^{-1} dr^2+r^2d\Omega\\
&&d\Omega=d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta d\phi^2 .\end{aligned}$$ The geometry inside the shell is by the Birkhoff theorem flat Minkowski space $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2=-dT^2+dr^2+r^2d\Omega\end{aligned}$$ The motion of the shell can be found by matching the geometry inside and outside the shell [@Lightman]. The equation of motion is given in terms of the conserved quantity $\mu$, which is just the rest mass of the shell. $$\label{mu}
\mu=-R\left[ (1-\frac{2M}{R}+\dot{R}^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}-(1+\dot{R}^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right] .$$ Here, $\dot{R}=\frac{dR}{d\tau}$. From Eq. (\[mu\]) we have $$\label{trajectory}
\dot{R}=\Big( \frac{M^2}{\mu^2}-1+\frac{M}{R}+\frac{\mu^2}{4R^2}\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$ Then, the proper time on the shell is given by $$\tau = \int d\tau =\int \frac{dR}{\dot{R}}$$ The time coordinate of an asymptotic observer on the shell is $$\label{out}
t = \int dt =\int \frac{\Big(1+\frac{\dot{R}^2}{1-\frac{2M}{R}}\Big)^\frac{1}{2}}{\Big(1-\frac{2M}{R}\Big)^\frac{1}{2}}d\tau$$ The time coordinate of an observer on the shell shell is $$\label{in}
T = \int dT =\int \Big(1+\dot{R}^2\Big)^\frac{1}{2}d\tau$$
Reflecting and transparent shells
=================================
We are set to study whether two massive shells with the same gravitational trajectory can have different pre-Hawking radiation. To achieve this we consider two shells of equal mass, but one is completely transparent to a scalar field that propagates in this background, while the other one reflects the scalar field totally. The evolution of the scalar field in a curved background outside the shell is described by $$\Box \phi =0$$ where the $\Box$ operator is covariant. Inside the shell, the $\Box$ operator is Minkowski. Because of the spherical symmetry, as usual, we simplify the discussion and focus on a $1+1$ dimensional scalar field, $\phi (t,r)$, which satisfies the wave equation
$$\begin{aligned}
&& \partial_t^2 \phi- \partial_{r^*}^2\phi =0 \mbox{, for $r>R$}\\
&& \partial_T^2 \phi- \partial_r^2 \phi =0 \mbox{, for $r<R$}\end{aligned}$$
Here $r^*=\int \frac{dr}{1-\frac{2M}{r}}$ is the usual tortoise coordinate. The trajectory of the spherical shell is given by Eq. (\[trajectory\]), and it is the same for both shells since they have the same mass (and carry no charge nor angular momentum). There are two types of solutions to the wave equation for $r> R$, i.e. $f(t\pm r^*)$. The function $f(t-r^*)$ represents a wave moving to the right, while $f(t+r^*)$ represents a wave moving to the left. When a plane wave is propagating inward toward the origin, it is considered as an ingoing mode and can be written as $$\phi_{\rm in} \sim \exp(-i\omega v)$$ where we defined the ingoing and outgoing null coordinates $v=t+r^*$ and $u=t-r^*$. When the ingoing mode passes through the center, it starts propagating outward (away from the center), and it becomes an outgoing mode. The form of wave function is the same as before, but its argument must be a function of an outgoing coordinate $f(u)$, i.e. $$\phi_{\rm out} \sim \exp(-i\omega p(u)) ,$$ where $p(u)$ is a function of the coordinate $u$.
The shells in our discussion here are massive, which is different from the massless shells discussed in usual cases. The massless scalar field is moving faster than the shell and will pass through or be reflected by the matter on the shell.
We now consider the transparent shell first. While the shell is collapsing, the incoming scalar field mode passes through the shell and reaches the center of the shell. Once it passes through the center, it becomes an outgoing mode. As shown in Fig. \[Tran\], the mode crosses the shell at some initial time $\tau_i$, passes through the center, and crosses again at some final time $\tau_f$. Since the field moves at the speed of light, $\tau_i$ and $\tau_f$ must satisfy the condition $$\label{con1}
R(\tau_f)+R(\tau_i)=T(\tau_f)-T(\tau_i) .$$ A scalar field coming from $R(\tau_i)$ passing through the center and arriving to $R(\tau_f)$ travels the distance $R(\tau_i)+R(\tau_f)$. An inside observer measures the time of this process $T(\tau_f)-T(\tau_i)$. Since the massless field travels at the speed of light, we arrive to Eq. (\[con1\]).
![Penrose diagram for the transparent collapsing shell. The mode crosses the shell at some initial time $\tau_i$, passes through the center, and crosses again at some final time $\tau_f$.[]{data-label="Tran"}](Tran.eps){width="5cm"}
The shell’s radius at the moments of these two crossings is shown in Fig. \[radius\].
![In this figure we set $u=t(\tau_f)-r^*(\tau_f )$ and $M =1$. $R_i$ is the radius of the shell when the scalar field mode crosses it for the first time at $\tau_i$ on the way inside the shell, and $R_f$ is the radius when the mode crosses it for the second time on the way out $\tau_f$. []{data-label="radius"}](radius.eps){width="9cm"}
When the wave mode comes out of the shell we have $u=t(\tau_f)-r^*(\tau_f)$, but $p=v(\tau_i)=t(\tau_i)+r^*(\tau_i)$. The function $p$ can be written in terms of the variable $u$ with the help of Eq. (\[con1\]).
The totally reflecting case is shown in Fig. \[Ref\]. An ingoing mode is reflected by the shell immediately at $\tau_f$. Therefore in this case $p=v(\tau_f)=t(\tau_f)+r^* (\tau_f)$ and $u=t(\tau_f)-r^* (\tau_f)$. The function $p$ can now be written in terms of the variable $u$ by replacing $\tau_f$ with $u$.
We will now study the energy flux coming from the shell in these two cases.
![Penrose diagram for the totally reflecting collapsing shell. The scalar field ingoing mode is reflected by the shell at time $\tau_f$.[]{data-label="Ref"}](Ref.eps){width="5cm"}
Energy flux and power spectrum
==============================
The renormalized stressed-energy tensor for a massless scalar field was computed in terms of $p(u)$ by Fulling and Davies[@Davies; @1984qfcs.book.....B]. In a $1+1$ dimensional spacetime, it can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
T_{uu}&=&\frac{1}{24\pi}\Bigg( -\frac{M}{r^3}+\frac{3}{2}\frac{M^2}{r^2}+\frac{3}{2}\Big(\frac{p''}{p'}\Big)^2-\frac{p'''}{p'}\Bigg)\\
T_{uv}&=&-\frac{1}{24\pi}\Big( 1-\frac{2M}{r}\Big) \frac{M}{r^3}\\
T_{vv}&=&\frac{1}{24\pi}\Big( -\frac{M}{r^3}+\frac{3}{2}\frac{M^2}{r^2}\Big)\end{aligned}$$ Primes denote derivatives with respect to the coordinate $u$. As $r\rightarrow \infty$, only $T_{uu}$ survives, which is the radiated energy flux we are looking for. To get concrete numerical results, for simplicity we set $\mu =M =1$. We can find the coordinates $t$ and $T$ from Eqs.(\[out\]) and (\[in\]). There will be an arbitrary integration constant in these two integrals, but their values will not affect the result, so we set them to zero.
We plot the term $T_{uu}$ as a function of $r$ in Fig. \[flux\]. It is obvious that these two shells emits different fluxes as seen at infinity. The reflecting shell has stronger pre-Hawking radiation and emits more energy than the transparent shell. The difference is maximal around the value of the time parameter $u\approx -8.3$ (see Fig. \[diff\]).
Obviously, the totally reflecting shell emits more energy than a transparent shell (Fig. \[flux\]). This difference is coming from the interaction between the shell and the $\phi$ field in vacuum. Since the reflecting shell can interact with $\phi$ field, it affects the vacuum stronger than the transparent shell does. This interaction that does not exist in the transparent case may be interpreted as that the fact that reflecting shell contains more information than the transparent one. This information then needs to be released before a static featureless black hole is formed. At late time, in the $t\rightarrow \infty$ limit, radiation from both shells is indistinguishable and matches the radiation from a static black hole. In this limit, all the black holes with the same mass emit the same radiation, no matter what they are made of (e.g. dark vs. ordinary matter). As the main result of our analysis, we state that pre-Hawking radiation from two shells is different, even though the gravitational trajectories are the same.
![The black curve represents the energy flux $T_{uu}$ at $r\rightarrow \infty$ for the totally reflecting shell. The dashed curve represents the energy flux $T_{uu}$ at $r\rightarrow \infty$ for the totally transparent shell. The doted curve is the Hawking radiation for a static black hole, which is just $\frac{1}{768\pi}$. At late times, the two shells match the Hawking radiation from a pre-existing black hole, but the fluxes are substantially different during the collapse. []{data-label="flux"}](flux.eps){width="9cm"}
![The black curve represents the energy flux difference between totally reflecting shell and transparent shell, $\Delta T_{uu}$, at $r\rightarrow \infty$. At first, at $u\rightarrow -\infty$, there is no radiation and therefore no difference, so $\Delta T_{uu}\rightarrow 0$. $\Delta T_{uu}$ achieves its maximal at $u\approx -8.3$. After that, radiation from both shells becomes very close to Hawking radiation, and $\Delta T_{uu}$ goes back to zero. []{data-label="diff"}](diff.eps){width="9cm"}
Conclusion
==========
In Einstein-Maxwell theory, physical properties of a black hole are completely determined by its mass, electric charge and angular momentum. There is no additional information left after a black hole is formed. Therefore black holes made of matter with different properties (other than mass, charge and angular momentum) emit exactly the same Hawking radiation. Then one cannot recover any additional information with conventional physics if only Hawking radiation from a static black hole is considered.
It is well known that a collapsing object can shed its higher multipole moments in the so-called balding phase before reaching a perfect spherically symmetric form. However it is important to extend this balding phase to other non-gravitational degrees of freedom.
In this paper, we considered a specific problem whether a collapsing object made of dark matter radiates away energy in the same way as an object made of the standard model particles. If an asymptotic observer registers the flux of the standard model particles (for a simplicity a standard model scalar field), then the collapsing shell made of dark matter will be almost completely transparent to the scalar field due to the very weak interactions between the dark matter and the standard model. In contrast, the shell made of the standard model particles will be almost completely reflecting. These two shells have the same mass, charge and angular momentum, therefore, their trajectories dictated by gravity will be exactly the same. Both of these shells will give rise to pre-Hawking radiation, so the question is whether this radiation will be identical for both shells or not. We calculate the trajectory for the massive shell, and then the components of energy momentum tensor in a $(1+1)$-dim spherically symmetric space-time defined by $(t,r)$. The scalar field ingoing mode passes through the transparent shell, reaches the center and then reappears on the other side of the shell as an outgoing mode. In contrast, scalar field ingoing mode gets reflected back from the reflecting shell and becomes an outgoing mode immediately. This difference is sufficient to give different amount and power spectrum of radiation. The main results are shown in Fig. \[flux\]. The shells indeed radiate in a different way before becoming a black hole. The reflecting shell emits more energy than the transparent shell. This difference is caused by the interaction between the shell and the vacuum. At late time, in the $t\rightarrow \infty$ limit, radiation from both shells is indistinguishable and matches the radiation from a static black hole.
We therefore demonstrated that pre-Hawking radiation can be used in principle to recover some physical quantities of the collapsing matter. In this concrete example, an observer can tell if an object was made of ordinary or dark matter. This information is released out during the collapse and it should be part of the balding phase in the black hole formation. One should not confuse this result with the usual balding phase, which only includes quantities that affect gravity, i.e. mass, charge, angular momentum and position. This is an extra balding effect which reveals other physical quantities of the collapsing object.
D.C Dai was supported by the National Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 11433001 and 11447601), National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program 2015CB857001), No.14ZR1423200 from the Office of Science and Technology in Shanghai Municipal Government, the key laboratory grant from the Office of Science and Technology in Shanghai Municipal Government (No. 11DZ2260700) and the Program of Shanghai Academic/Technology Research Leader under Grant No. 16XD1401600. DS partially supported by the US National Science Foundation, under Grant No. PHY-1417317.
[99]{}
C. A. R. Herdeiro and E. Radu, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**112**]{}, 221101 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.221101 \[arXiv:1403.2757 \[gr-qc\]\]. C. A. R. Herdeiro and E. Radu, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D [**24**]{}, no. 09, 1542014 (2015) doi:10.1142/S0218271815420146 \[arXiv:1504.08209 \[gr-qc\]\]. M. S. Volkov, arXiv:1601.08230 \[gr-qc\]. D. Stojkovic, F. C. Adams and G. D. Starkman, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D [**14**]{}, 2293 (2005) \[gr-qc/0604072\].
T. Vachaspati, D. Stojkovic and L. M. Krauss, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{}, 024005 (2007) \[arXiv:gr-qc/0609024\]; T. Vachaspati and D. Stojkovic, Phys. Lett. B [**663**]{}, 107 (2008) \[arXiv:gr-qc/0701096\]. A. Saini and D. Stojkovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**114**]{}, no. 11, 111301 (2015) \[arXiv:1503.01487 \[gr-qc\]\]. P. C. W. Davies, S. A. Fulling, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 348 (1976) 393.
N. D. Birrell, and P. C. W. Davies, Quantum Fields in Curved Space, ISBN 0521278589. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, April 1984.,
A.P. Lightman, W.H. Press, R.H. Price, and S.A. Teukolsky, Problem Book in Relativity and Gravitation (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1979).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We present a laboratory study of silicate glasses of astrophysically relevant compositions including olivines, pyroxenes and melilites. With emphasis on the classic Si–O stretching feature near 10$\mu$m, we compare infrared spectra of our new samples with laboratory spectra on ostensibly similar compositions, and also with synthetic silicate spectral data commonly used in dust modeling. Several different factors affect spectral features including sample chemistry (e.g., polymerization, Mg/Fe ratio, oxidation state and Al-content) and different sample preparation techniques lead to variations in porosity, density and water content. The convolution of chemical and physical effects makes it difficult to attribute changes in spectral parameters to any given variable. It is important that detailed chemical and structural characterization be provided along with laboratory spectra. In addition to composition and density, we measured the glass transition temperatures for the samples which place upper limits on the formation/processing temperatures of these solids in space.
Popular synthetically-generated optical functions do not have spectral features that match any of our glass samples. However, the $\sim$10$\mu$m feature generated by the synthetic data rarely exactly matches the shape and peak position of astronomically observed silicate features. Our comparison with the synthetic spectra allows astronomers to determine likely candidates amongst our glass samples for matching astronomical observations.
author:
- 'Angela K. Speck, Alan G. Whittington Anne. M. Hofmeister'
title: 'Disordered Silicates in Space: a Study of Laboratory Spectra of “Amorphous” Silicates'
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
Understanding the nature and formation of cosmic dust is crucial to our understanding of the cosmos. Over its 50-year history, infrared (IR) astronomy has shown that dust contributes to the physical processes inherent in star formation and mass-loss from evolved stars, as well as to several interstellar processes such as gas heating and the formation of molecules [e.g. @vk02; @draine03; @krishna05; @krugel08]. In particular, silicate grains dominate dust emission in many astrophysical environments. The “amorphous” $\sim10\mu$m and $\sim18\mu$m silicate spectral features have been observed in almost every direction and to almost any distance, but the precise nature of this silicate dust remains a mystery. Here we present a laboratory investigation of amorphous silicates, the type of dust grains most frequently inferred to exist from observational data.
A brief history of the “amorphous” silicate spectral features {#history}
-------------------------------------------------------------
The classic “10$\mu$m” silicate feature was first observed in the late sixties in the IR spectra of several M-type giants and red supergiants [RSGs; @gillett68]. Shortly thereafter a 10$\mu$m absorption feature was discovered in the interstellar medium [ISM; @knacke69; @hackwell70]. Since then, it has been found to be almost ubiquitous, occurring in many astrophysical environments including the solar system and extrasolar planetary systems [e.g., @mann06 and references therein], the circumstellar regions of both young stellar objects and evolved intermediate mass stars [asymptotic giant branch; AGB stars, and planetary nebulae; e.g., @speck00; @casassus01]; many lines of sight through the interstellar medium in our own galaxy [e.g., @chiar07]; and in nearby and distant galaxies [e.g., @hao05]. Initially this feature was attributed to silicate minerals [@woolf69], based on mixtures of spectra of crystalline silicate species predicted to form by theoretical models [@gaustad63; @gilman69]. However, laboratory spectra of crystalline silicate minerals showed more structure within the feature than observed in the astronomical spectra [see e.g., @woolf73; @huffman73]. Subsequent comparison with natural glasses [obsidian and basaltic glass; from e.g., @pollack73] and with artificially disordered silicates [@day79; @kh79] showed that “amorphous” silicate was a better candidate for the 10$\mu$m feature than any individual crystalline silicate mineral. Since then, it has been commonly assumed that description of silicate as disordered or “amorphous” is synonymous with glassy silicate. However, this is an oversimplification. The term “glass” has a specific definition, i.e. the solid has no long-range order beyond nearest-neighbor atoms. “Crystalline” is often taken to mean single crystals, but it is possible to form poly-nanocrystalline agglomerates, with a continuum which essentially extends from a true glass to a single crystal grain. Furthermore, natural and synthetic “glasses” often contain microlites[^1] In addition, one might expect agglomerated particles to be polymineralic, and possibly to contain both crystalline and glassy constituents. @NuthHecht introduced the idea of “chaotic silicate” in which the level of disorder is even greater than for glass. A chaotic silicate does not have to be stoichiometric, can contain different compositional zones within a single grain, and may be porous, and therefore much lower density than a glass. This range of possible grain types is demonstrated schematically in Fig. \[fig:XtalC\].
In astrophysical environments, whether a solid is glassy, crystalline or some combination of the two has implications for its formation, and subsequent processing, evolution and destruction, and thus it is important to have tools to distinguish between such grain types. For example, true glasses with no inclusions will not transform into crystals below their glass transition temperature ($T_g$; see § \[silglass\]), whereas a glass already containing microlites can continue to crystallize at slightly lower temperatures. In the case of terrestrial obsidians, with 900K $ < T_g < $ 1000K, elemental diffusion profiles suggest that crystal growth can continue down to $\sim$700K [e.g., @watkins09]. If poly-nano-crystalline grains can be distinguished spectroscopically in the lab from truly glassy grains, we can test for their presence in astrophysical environments. For instance @SH04 showed that there is a difference between single crystal and polynanocrystalline silicon carbide (SiC), while @STH05 showed that glassy SiC looks different than various crystalline samples. These laboratory data were invoked to explain changes in SiC grains formed as carbon stars evolve. For silicates, laboratory data on poly-nano-crystalline samples are lacking. Whether grains are glassy or poly-nano-crystalline is an indicator of whether grains form or are processed above $T_g$. If the two forms cannot be distinguished in laboratory spectra, then the “amorphous” nature of silicates in space would no longer necessarily imply a truly glassy structure, allowing the possibility of higher dust formation temperatures.
Many observations have shown that the 10$\mu$m silicate feature varies from object to object and even within a single object both temporally [e.g., @monnier98] and spatially (e.g. in $\eta$ Car, N. Smith, Pers. Comm). Within a single type of astrophysical object, the feature shows huge variations in terms of its peak position, width and its ratio to the $\sim 18\mu$m feature [e.g. @speck98; @ohm92]. Variations in feature shape from star to star cannot be explained in terms of optical depth or grain temperature effects. Several interpretations of these observations have been suggested including: grain size effect [e.g., @papoular83]; Mg/Fe ratio and (Mg+Fe)/Si ratio [e.g. @dorschner95]; inclusion of oxide grains [e.g., @speck00]; increasing crystallinity [e.g., @sylvester98; @bouwman01]; grain shape [e.g., @min07]; and grain porosity [e.g., @vh08; @henning93]. However, all models of these effects utilize laboratory spectra, and are only as reliable as the data that goes into them.
The near ubiquity of “amorphous” silicate features and their variations in strength, width, peak position and the ratio of the 10$\mu$m/18$\mu$m features potentially provide the diagnostic tools to understand the detailed mechanisms by which dust is formed, processed and destroyed. However, existing laboratory and synthetic spectra are not sufficiently well understood to achieve this goal.
A brief synopsis of existing laboratory and synthetic spectra for disordered silicates {#prevlab}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the discovery of the 10$\mu$m feature, there have been many laboratory studies producing IR spectra and optical functions[^2] of various samples for comparison with and modeling of observational data. In addition, synthetic optical functions have been derived from observational spectra, often combined with laboratory mineral data, in order to match the observed features [e.g., @dl84; @vk88; @ohm92].
The first laboratory spectra used in astronomical silicate studies were of crystalline silicates and natural glasses [obsidian and basaltic glass, which contain some microlites; e.g., @pollack73]. Various studies produced “amorphous” samples through chemical vapor deposition [e.g., @day79], smokes [e.g., @nd82], ion-irradiation of crystalline samples [e.g., @kh79], laser ablation of crystalline samples [@sd96], and quenching melts to glass [e.g., @dorschner95; @jager03]. However, these techniques yield different results. For instance the peak positions, full width at half maxima (FHWMa) and ratios of the strengths of the 10 and 18$\mu$m features vary between datasets even though the materials investigated are ostenibly the same composition. Spectra from samples with the same reported composition vary, which should not occur if the samples had the same structures, and if all spectra were obtained under optically thin conditions. A detailed comparison between existing and new laboratory data are given in § \[comparison\]. The sample preparation techniques vary widely and lead to a range of disordered structures. Unfortunately we do not have sufficient information on the physical structure or chemical characteristics of previously studied samples to determine the effects quantitively, but a qualitative analysis presented here highlights the need to make such sample information available.
The data used most commonly for modeling astronomical environments are synthetic optical functions such as @dl84 [hereafter DL] and @ohm92 [hereafter OHM]. These data are favored over laboratory spectra because they have broad wavelength coverage, which is not true of individual laboratory datasets. However, these synthetic functions were produced using compilations of laboratory spectral data and astronomical observed dust opacities from which new optical functions were calculated. The derived optical functions were then modified specifically to match the astronomical observations. For instance, in the @dl84 data, the 9.7$\mu$m feature is entirely derived from observational opacities, while the NIR-NUV section of their optical function uses laboratory data from crystalline olivine studies, and the FUV/X-ray region uses laboratory data for crystalline alumina (Al$_2$O$_3$). Both @dl84 and @ohm92 blend laboratory and astronomical data and their optical functions will match some spectral features, and can be used for comparison of optical depths between different dusty environments. However, they do not represent real solids and thus cannot be used to determine the true nature of dust in space, how it varies spatially or temporally, or why.
A brief guide to the structure of silicate minerals, glasses and the glass transition {#silglass}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The basic building block of silicates is the SiO$_{4}^{4-}$ tetrahedron. These can be linked in a framework, with each oxygen shared between two tetrahedra (e.g. SiO$_2$ minerals and feldspars), or they can be linked in chains (e.g. pyroxenes such as diopside \[Di; CaMgSi$_2$O$_6$\], enstatite \[En;MgSiO$_3$\]) or they can be isolated tetrahedra (e.g. the olivines series: forsterite \[fo; Mg$_2$SiO$_4$\] to fayalite \[fa; Fe$_2$SiO$_4$\]). In all cases, the non-shared oxygens (known as non-bridging oxygens or NBOs) are charge-balanced by other cations (e.g. Mg$^{2+}$, Fe$^{2+}$, Ca$^{2+}$, Na$^+$, etc). The Ca-Mg-Al silicates that are expected to form in circumstellar environments are dominantly of pyroxene and olivine composition.
Within each mineral group, solid solution allows compositions to vary between end-members. In the case of similarly-sized cations the solution may be continuous e.g., enstatite to ferrosilite (fs; FeSiO$_3$) and the olivine series. Given the availability of other cations, end-member pyroxenes rarely occur in terrestrial or meteoritic samples. Where the substituting cation is a different size, solid solution is more limited, for example between enstatite and diopside. In such cases, solid solution becomes less extensive at lower temperatures, so that cooling may lead to “exsolution” of two different pyroxene compositions from an initially homogeneous high-temperature solid.
Minerals occur as crystals that possess long-range order, with very narrow distributions of bond angles and lengths. This leads both to anisotropy (properties varying with crystal orientation) and narrow spectral features. Silicate glasses are the “frozen” structural equivalents of liquids, possessing short-range order (so that local charge-balance is conserved for example) but lacking the long-range order that gives rise to symmetry and anisotropy in crystals. Glasses are therefore both isotropic and have broad spectral features.
The basic structural unit of silicate glasses and melts is the SiO$_{4}^{4-}$ tetrahedron, as is the case in crystalline silicate minerals. Oxygens linking tetrahedra are known as bridging oxygens (BO), while non-bridging oxygens (NBO) are coordinated by metal cations, which are termed network-modifiers in this role. Tetrahedral cations (T) include not only Si$^{4+}$, but also trivalent cations such as Al$^{3+}$ and Fe$^{3+}$; these must be charge-balanced by other cations (usually alkalis or alkaline earths; Fig. \[cartoon\]). The degree of polymerization of a melt or glass can be summarized by the ratio of NBO/T, which can range from 0 (fully polymerized, e.g. SiO$_2$) to 4 (fully depolymerized, e.g. Mg$_2$SiO$_4$). In general, more polymerized melts are more viscous and have higher glass transition temperatures. On quenching a melt, its structure is “frozen in” at the glass transition if cooling is rapid enough to prevent crystallization. The glass transition is actually an interval, often approximated by the glass transition temperature ($T_g$) which is usually taken to be the temperature at which the viscosity is 10$^{12}$ Pa.s ($T_{12}$). Rapid cooling from a given temperature preserves the network present in the liquid at that particular temperature. Because of this behavior, glasses of any given composition can have subtle differences in structure that depend on cooling rates. The temperature at which the glass has the same structure as the melt is called the fictive temperature ($T_f$). See @mysen05 for a comprehensive review of melt structure and properties.
Two issues whose importance will be discussed in the current work are the role of water and the oxidation state of iron. At low water contents (less than about 1 wt.% total H$_2$O), water dissolves in silicate glasses almost exclusively as hydroxyl (OH$^-$) ions [@stolper82], and acts as a network modifier (Fig. \[cartoon\]). Compared to other modifier oxides such as Na$_2$O and MgO, water has a more dramatic effect in reducing melt viscosity and glass transition temperatures [@dingwell96]. Iron can play the role of network modifier (octahedral Fe$^{2+}$ or Fe$^{3+}$) or network-forming cation (tetrahedral Fe$^{3+}$). Consequently, the oxidation state of an iron-bearing glass or melt has a significant effect on its structure and properties.
From the perspective of cosmic dust formation, the glass transition temperature is essentially the temperature above which a given composition should form as or convert to crystalline solids, whereas solids formed below this temperature will be glassy if they cool sufficiently rapidly [@richet1993; @swt08]. More depolymerized melts are more difficult to quench, and melts less polymerized than pyroxenes (NBO/T $>$ 2) typically require extreme quench rates (100s Ks$^{-1}$) using methods such as containerless laser processing to achieve truly glassy samples [@tangeman01a]. For a given composition, faster cooling rates result in a higher T$_g$. This dependence can be determined by differential scanning calorimetry using different heating and cooling rates, and is used to determine the cooling rate of natural lava samples [@wilding95].
For depolymerized silicates (e.g. olivines and pyroxenes), if glassy grains form they must do so below their $T_g$ because the cooling rate required for quenching to a glass is extremely rapid. Highly polymerized silicates (e.g. silica, obsidian) can be cooled more slowly, over hours or days, and not crystallize [@bowen]. However, the cooling timescales (months) determined by @swt08 for AGB star circumstellar shells are sufficiently long as to preclude the preservation of glassy/chaotic solids that form above $T_g$, because annealing timescales are shorter than those for cooling for all but the most polymerized silicates.
The need for new data
---------------------
Modeling of silicate dust in space has been limited by the available laboratory data The influence of various model parameters was investigated by @jm76, who found that using so-called “clean” (i.e. pure magnesium) silicate grains to model the observed 9.7$\mu$m features did not yield a good fit due to the lack of absorption by these grains in the visible and near-IR. They also found that just mixing in more absorbing grains did not solve the problem. This led to the suggestion that the grains responsible for the 9.7$\mu$m feature are “dirty” silicates, i.e. Mg-silicates with impurities introduced into the matrix giving more opacity in the optical and near-IR.
It is known that NBO/T (polymerization) affects the spectra of amorphous silicates such that the peak position of the 10$\mu$m feature shifts redwards as NBO/T increases (e.g. @ohm92). Aluminium (Al) is a network former and consequently Al content strongly affects NBO/T. @mutschke98 suggested that Al may be an important component of silicates in space that could explain why previous laboratory spectroscopic studies failed to match observational data. Other cations may be equally important. Ca$^{2+}$ and Fe$^{2+}$ both substitute for Mg, while Fe$^{3+}$ will substitute for tetrahedral site (e.g. Si$^4+$ or Al$^{3+}$). Therefore, the oxidation state is another important variable in addition to elemental substitutions.
Existing laboratory spectral data for “amorphous” silicates were produced using samples that are not sufficiently well-characterized to allow astronomers to interpret their observations without ambiguity. Here we present new laboratory spectra of several silicate glasses of astronomical relevance, and discuss compositional factors that influence their spectral features. We compare these new data with those previously available for “amorphous” silicates and discuss how these samples compare to successfully-applied synthetic optical functions. We find that the synthetic spectra cannot be well matched by the conventionally assumed glassy silicate composition and discuss whether astrophysical silicates need to be truly glassy.
Experimental Methods {#exp}
====================
Sample selection
----------------
The bulk composition of silicate stardust lies somewhere between pyroxene (M$_2$Si$_2$O$_6$) and olivine (M$_2$SiO$_4$), where M indicates metal cations, with Mg and Fe being the most abundant. The cosmic Mg/Si ratio is predicted to be $\sim$1.02, while Fe/Si $\sim$0.84 [e.g., @lf99]. However, most Fe is expected to combine with S, Ni, Cr, Mn and other siderophile elements into metallic grains [@gs99; @lf99]. This partitioning is reflected in the Earth, where most iron resides in the metallic core while the mantle is dominated by magnesium-rich silicate with Mg/Fe $\sim$9. The predicted bulk cosmic silicate would then be close to MgSiO$_3$, with minor amounts of iron leading to an atomic (Mg+Fe)/Si ratio slightly greater than 1. Determining the spectra of various olivine and pyroxene glasses is therefore of critical importance for identifying the silicate mineralogy. The focus of this study is glass compositions for which data already exist in the astronomy literature i.e. predominantly olivines and pyroxenes (See Table \[litdata\] and references therein). Mg-rich endmembers are forsterite and enstatite, respectively. Another mineral that is commonly discussed in astromineralogy is diopside, which is also a pyroxene. Diopside has been invoked to explain observed crystalline silicate features [e.g. @Demyk2000; @Kemper2002; @Hony09; @OO03] and appears in the classic condensation sequence for dust formation [e.g. @tielens90 see Fig. \[condseqfig\]]. Furthermore, aluminous diopside formed in the experimental condensation study by @Toppani2006, and @Demyk2004 showed that crystalline diopside grains can easily be amorphized by heavy ion irradiation.
To complement the olivines and pyroxenes (Table \[litdata\]) we include four samples from the melilite series, whose endmembers are gehlenite (Ge; Ca$_2$Al$_2$SiO$_7$) and kermanite (k; Ca$_2$MgSi$_2$O$_7$). gehlenite is predicted to be among the first-formed silicate grains [e.g., @tielens90; @lf99 see Figure \[condseqfig\]], and the major repository for calcium and aluminum in dust, whereas pyroxenes are predicted to be among the most abundant grains, and the major repository for Mg and Si [e.g., @tielens90; @lf99; @gs99]. Furthermore aluminium and calcium are highly depleted from the gas phase and are assumed to be included in dust [@Whittet1992]. Aluminum-rich silicates like gehlenite and other melilites are major constituents of Calcium-Aluminum-rich Inclusions (CAIs) and gehlenite has been identified in red supergiants [@speck00] and Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) environments [@jaffe04] and in meteorites [@stroud08; @vollmer07]. Furthermore, a recent Type Ib supernova (SN2005E) has been shown to contain more calcium than expected [@perets]. Indeed almost 50% of its ejecta mass (or $>$0.1M$_\odot$) is attributed to calcium. @chihara07 reported laboratory spectra of crystalline melilites every 10% along the solid-solution join between kermanite and gehlenite. @mutschke98 reported laboratory spectra of two glasses: end-member gehlenite, and k50-ge50. Given that the cosmic Mg/Ca ratio is $\sim$16, it seems likely that melilites could have substantial kermanite contents. The difference in the structure of the glasses is profound: NBO/T is 0.67 for gehlenite and 3.0 for kermanite, while Al/Si is 2 for gehlenite and 0 for kermanite.
Both theoretical models [@lili] and observations [@jm76] suggest that some iron is incorporated into silicates. @jager94 presented spectra for two silicate glasses containing the most abundant dust forming elements (i.e. Mg, Si, Fe, Ca, Al, Na). However, iron in their sample was partially oxidized (FeO/Fe$_2$O$_3 \sim$1) which leads to problems in interpreting the spectrum (see § \[silglass\]). With this in mind we present a sample we call “Basalt” ($\rm Na_{0.09}Mg_{0.62}Ca_{0.69}Fe_{0.39}Ti_{0.10}Al_{0.06}Si_{2.16}O_6$), which contains ferrous iron (Fe$^{2+}$). While iron has been invoked to explain opacity problems, most iron is expected to combine with other siderophile elements to form metal or metal sulfide grains rather than silicate [@gs99; @lf99]. Consequently, we have synthesized an iron-free silicate glass using cosmic abundance ratios for Mg, Si, Al, Ca, and Na, yielding $\rm (Na_{0.10}Ca_{0.12}Mg_{1.86})(Al_{0.18}Si_{1.84})O_6 $. This sample does not include volatile elements or iron and is quite close to enstatite in composition. This “cosmic silicate” is designed to test the @stencel90 hypothesis that dust forms as chaotic solids with the elemental abundances of the gas.
@pollack73 provided spectra of obsidian, a naturally occurring glassy silicate. Consequently we include obsidian glass in our sample, in part because this is the origin of the attribution of the $\sim$10$\mu$m feature to amorphous silicates. It is also useful for studying the effect of silicate structure and composition on spectral parameters because it is different from the more commonly assumed olivines and pyroxenes.
Finally, we include silica (SiO$_2$) glass in our sample. Like obsidian, the structure of SiO$_2$ is significantly different from olivines and pyroxenes and thus provides potential insight into the effects of structure on silicate spectral features. Furthermore, silica dust grains have been invoked to explain observed astronomical spectral features in both evolved stars [@speck00] and in young stellar objects [e.g. @sargent06].
The samples investigated here are listed in Table \[tab:samples\].
Sample synthesis and preparation {#synth}
--------------------------------
Samples designated with “synthetic” in their name are generated from mixtures of reagent-grade oxides and carbonates, providing glasses with compositions like those of end-member minerals. The “cosmic” silicate was also synthesized in this way. In contrast, samples designated as “remelt” were generated by melting natural mineral samples. Consequently the “remelt”-samples have compositions whose additional components reflect the impurities[^3] found in natural crystalline samples of the relevant minerals. Using both synthetic and remelted samples helps to demonstrate the effect and importance of small compositional variations in silicates.
Synthesis of silicate glasses from oxide and carbonate starting materials, was undertaken at the MU experimental petrology facility and the procedures are described in detail by @getson07. Melilite glasses were prepared by fusion in Pt crucibles and quenched by pouring into graphite molds (slow cooling), or on to a copper plate (faster cooling for less polymerized compositions). Glasses in the pyroxene series (including “cosmic” compositions) vary in their quenchability; diopside (CaMgSi$_2$O$_6$) is an excellent glass-former, while enstatite (MgSiO$_3$) crystallizes extremely rapidly.
Glass of forsterite (Fo, Mg$_2$SiO$_4$) or olivine (Mg$_{2x}$Fe$_{2-2x}$SiO$_4$) can only be formed in the laboratory under special conditions. Specifically, Fo glass in the form of 50 to 200$\mu$m diameter beads was first produced by @tangeman01a at Containerless Research by suspending small particles in argon gas and melting/quenching by pulsing with a laser. In addition to providing rapid cooling of $\sim$700K/sec, the lack of container promotes crystal-free glass formation. Commercially prepared samples of Fo were purchased from Containerless Research, Inc. Iron-bearing olivine samples were not available. We were able to prepare “basalt glass” at Washington U. by flash melting rock on a glassy carbon substrate in a vacuum chamber with a CO$_2$ laser followed by rapid cooling. When applied to iron-bearing olivine or fayalite (Fe$_2$SiO$_4$) crystals this approach failed to produce glass.
Chemical Analyses for Sample Composition Determination
------------------------------------------------------
Samples were characterized by wavelength dispersive analysis (WDS) using standard procedures on the JEOL-733 and JXA-8200 electron microprobes at Washington University using “Probe for Windows” for data reduction (see http://www.probesoftware.com/). The measured data were corrected using CITZAF after @Armstrong1995. Oxide and silicate standards were used for calibration (e.g., Amelia albite for Na, Si; microcline for K; Gates wollastonite for Ca; Alaska Anorthite for Al; synthetic fayalite for Fe; synthetic forsterite for Mg; synthetic TiO$_2$ for Ti; synthetic Mn-olivine for Mn; synthetic Cr$_2$O$_3$ for Cr). Microprobe analyses are given in Table \[microprobe\], and the resulting compositions are given as chemical formulae in Table \[tab:samples\]. Table \[microprobe\] also lists water contents, which we determined from near-IR spectra using the method in @hofmeister09.
Viscosimetric Determination of Glass Transition Temperature
-----------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in § \[silglass\], the glass transition temperature ($T_g$) is essentially the temperature above which a given composition should form as or convert to crystalline solids, while solids formed below this temperature should be glassy. We determine $T_{12}$ values as a proxy for $T_g$ for our silicate samples to provide an upper limit on temperature for models of glass formation in space. $T_g$ depends on composition and cooling rate. Viscosity was measured over a range of temperatures using a Theta Instruments Rheotronic III parallel plate viscometer, following procedures described by @whittington09. Viscosity is calculated from the measured longitudinal strain rate, known load and calculated instantaneous surface area, assuming perfect slip between sample and plates. The measurements are interpolated to find $T_{12}$ with an uncertainty of less than 2K.
Spectroscopy
------------
Room temperature (18–19$^{\circ}$C) IR absorption spectra were acquired using an evacuated Bomem DA 3.02 Fourier transform spectrometer (FTIR) at 1cm$^{-1}$ resolution The accuracy of the instrument is $\sim$0.01cm$^{-1}$. Far-IR data ($\nu < 650 {\rm cm}^{-1}$) were collected for five samples using a SiC globar source, a liquid helium cooled bolometer, and a coated mylar beam-splitter. Mid-IR data ($\nu =$ 450–4000cm$^{-1}$) were collected for all samples using a SiC globar source, a liquid nitrogen cooled HgCdTe detector, and a KBr beam-splitter. The spectra were collected from powdered samples pressed in a diamond anvil cell (DAC). The empty DAC was used as the reference spectrum which allows reflections to be removed. The methodology is described by @hofm03.
Interference fringes exist in many of our spectra because the diamond faces are parallel and are separated by a distance within the wavelength range studied. The spacing is larger than film thickness. Fringes are associated with a sideburst in the interferogram. Due to mathematical properties of Fourier transforms, the fringes are convolved with the spectrum and therefore do not affect peak shape or the parameters used to describe the peak (position, width and height).
Comparison of new laboratory spectra with previous laboratory and synthetic spectra {#comparison}
===================================================================================
New laboratory spectra {#newlabdata}
----------------------
The new laboratory spectra, shown in Figure \[newlabdatafig\], are the highest resolution spectra of silicate glasses to date. These data are available online from http://galena.wustl.edu/$\sim$dustspec/idals.html The main observable parameters of astronomical spectra are the peak position of the absorption/emission features at $\sim 10\mu$m and $\sim 18\mu$m; their FWHMa and the ratio of their strengths (see e.g., @ohm92 and references therein). For instance, the ratio of band strengths between the 10 and 18$\mu$m features in observations varies markedly, as do the peak positions. Therefore we have extracted the most important spectral parameters from our data using the NOAO onedspec package within the Image Reduction and Analysis Facility (IRAF). The spectral parameters (the peak position, barycentric position, full width half maximum, FWHM, and equivalent width) were determined for the $\sim10$ and $\sim18\mu$m features. Figure \[newlabdatafig\] shows the barycentric position of the $\sim10\mu$m feature for all samples, while Figure \[newlabdatafig20um\] shows the barycentric positions of both the $\sim 10$ and $\sim18\mu$m features for the five compositions for which far-IR data were collected. The barycentric positions, along with the peak positions and FWHMa from absorbance measurements are listed in Table \[tab:samples3\].
There are multiple terms and symbols for the various ways in which absorption of light by solids is described. In order to prevent confusion, we will explain precisely how each term we use is defined. This is particularly important for applying laboratory spectra to astrophysical studies because our spectra are initially in the form of absorbance ($a$), but we typically use either absorption efficiency (Q-values), optical depth or extinction in astronomy.
Transmittance, $T$ [which is also referred to as [*transmissivity*]{} in @fox02] is defined as the ratio of the intensity of transmitted ($I_{\rm trans}$) and incident ($I_0$) light, i.e. $I_{\rm trans}/I_0$. Similarly reflectivity, $R$ and absorptivity, $A$ are the ratios of absorbed to incident light and reflected to incident light, respectively[^4].
$$I_0 = I_{\rm abs} + I_{\rm trans} + I_{\rm refl}$$
$$\frac{I_{\rm trans}}{I_0} = 1 - \frac{I_{\rm abs}}{I_0} - \frac{I_{\rm refl}}{I_0}$$
$$T = 1 - R - A$$
For simplicity we will assume the reflectivity is negligible or has been accounted for [see @hofmeister09 for how we can account for reflections] . Then,
$$T = 1 - A
$$
When light passes through a solid the absorption can be expressed as:
$$\label{tau1}
I_x = I_0 e^{-\alpha L}$$
where $L$ is pathlength or thickness of the solid sample and $\alpha$ is usually called the absorption coefficient, but is sometimes called opacity. In addition $\alpha = \kappa \rho$, where $\kappa$ is the mass absorption coefficient, and $\rho$ is the mass density.
$$\label{tau2}
T = e^{-\alpha L}= e^{-a}$$
Absorbance, $a$, is the exponent in the decay of light due to absorption: $a = \alpha L = \kappa \rho L$. Optical depth $\tau_\lambda$ of an absorbing material is defined by:
$$\label{tau3}
I_x = I_0 e^{-\tau_\lambda}$$
[From, e.g. @glass99].
From equations \[tau1\], \[tau2\] and \[tau3\] we see that the absorbance $a$ is similar to optical depth $\tau_\lambda$. In order to compare astronomical data in which we have a wavelength-dependent optical depth we can use absorbance (which is how we present our transmission spectra in Fig. \[newlabdatafig\] and Fig. \[newlabdatafig20um\] after accounting for surface reflections.) Now we can relate the absorbance ($a$) and absorptivity ($A$) via equation \[tau2\]:
$$A = 1 - e^{-a}$$
To compare with some astronomical observations we still need to extract a version of the laboratory data that is comparable to the absorption efficiency, $Q$-values. To get this we need to consider how $Q$-values are defined. For a non-blackbody dust grain we define an absorption cross-section $C_{\rm abs}$ as the effective geometrical cross-section of the particle once we account for it not being a blackbody:
$$C_{\rm abs} = Q_{\rm abs} \times \Upsilon$$
where $\Upsilon$ is the geometrical cross-sectional area of a dust grain. Now if we consider how the absorption cross section gives rise to absorption we get:
$$\label{sigma1}
\frac{I_{\rm abs}}{I_0} = A = C_{\rm abs} n L$$
where $n$ is the number density of absorbing particles and $L$ is the pathlength or thickness of the absorbing zone. $$\label{rho}
n = \frac{\rho}{M_{\rm mol} \times m_H}$$
where $M_{\rm mol}$ is the molar mass of the solid and $ m_H$ is the mass of a hydrogen atom. Combining equations \[sigma1\] and \[rho\] we get:
$$\label{Qeq}
Q_{\rm abs} = \frac{A \times M_{\rm mol} \times m_H}{ \Upsilon \rho L}
$$
It is clear from equation \[Qeq\] that Q-values $\propto$ absorptivity such that:
$$Q_{\rm abs} = \zeta A$$
where,
$$\zeta = \frac{M_{\rm mol} \times m_H}{ \Upsilon \rho L}$$
Consequently, while the shape, peak position and FWHM of spectral features shown in $Q$-values will be identical to those for $A$, the absolute values depend on the pathlength and on the cross-section areas of a given grain distribution. The uncertainty in the thickness of our samples and in potential grain size makes the absolute $Q$-values uncertain. Consequently we normalize our $Q$-value spectra to peak at unity. These Q-value spectra are stacked in Fig \[newlabdatafig2\] to demonstrate the shift in both barycentric position and FWHM with composition. Table \[tab:samples3\] also includes the FWHM in Q-value.
How to compare disparate data sets {#how2comp}
----------------------------------
Here we compare the new laboratory spectra with those previously published to distinguish which factors are most important in determining spectral feature parameters. Previously published data are available as complex refractive indices ($n$ and $k$). To make a fair comparison between the many available datasets we converted our absorbance data to the wavelength-dependent imaginary part of the complex refractive index ($k$) for each sample. This absorption index $k$ is chosen as the best comparison of different datasets, as it does not depend on grain sizes or shapes and can be extracted equally well from transmission or reflectance data [see e.g., @hofmeister09; @fox02]. Comparing absorption efficiency $Q_{\rm abs}$ requires assumptions about grain shape, which have been shown to affect the shapes and positions of spectral features [e.g. @Min03; @DePew06]. The conversion of the absorbance spectrum to $k$-values uses:
$$k = 2.303 a /(d 4 \pi \nu)$$
where $a$ is the absorbance, $d$ is the sample thickness (in cm) and $\nu$ is the frequency (wavenumber) in cm$^{-1}$. There is some uncertainty in the measurement of the sample thickness which is estimated to be 0.5 – 1.5$\mu$m thick [@HB06]. Consequently, for comparison our data has been normalized to peak at a $k$-value of 1. In Figure \[compare1\] we compare spectra of forsterite, enstatite, gehlenite and kermanite composition “amorphous” silicates.
Comparison of new glass spectra with existing laboratory data. {#comparesect}
--------------------------------------------------------------
Various synthesis techniques are associated with samples studied in the laboratory, as described in § \[prevlab\] and listed in Table \[litdata\]. Considering, for example, forsterite composition samples shown in the upper left panel of Figure \[compare1\], it is clear that the spectral parameters vary even for ostensibly the same composition. The ion irradiation technique used by @kh79 apparently does not produce a fully amorphized sample, as this spectrum is closer to that of crystalline forsterite, which was their starting material. The sample from @day79 was produced via chemical vapor deposition; the @sd96 sample was produced by laser ablation of crystalline samples; and the sol-gel method was used by @jager03.
The spectra of three different samples produced by chemical vapor deposition, laser ablation and sol-gel techniques are similar. However, although these samples may be “amorphous” they are not necessarily glassy. The samples generated by these three techniques may represent chaotic silicates rather than the glassy silicates investigated herein. The difference between previous samples and those presented here is most likely a combination of density and porosity. Glasses should be less porous and denser than chaotic silicates.
Among the enstatite composition samples, those from @day79 and @sd96 are, again, similar to each other. Samples produced by melting and quenching [e.g. ours, @dorschner95] show some variability in the spectral features. However, the peak positions and FWHMa are similar (see Tables \[litdata\] and \[tab:samples\]). The difference in breadth may result from different cooling rates and fictive temperatures. @jager03 investigated amorphous MgO-SiO$_2$ solids prepared using the sol-gel method. The spectra vary markedly with changes in SiO$_2$ content, and hence with polymerization (Fig. \[compare2\]). However, these samples also contained a reported 0.8 to 1.2 wt.% H$_2$O, which equates to $\sim$3 mol.% H$_2$O, all dissolved as network-modifying hydroxyl (OH$^-$) ions (see § \[silglass\]). Glasses quenched from melts at atmospheric pressure [e.g. those presented here and in @dorschner95] contain much less water, typically 0.02–0.1wt.%. In previous laboratory studies it has been suggested that the changes in peak positions are due to differing silica contents, and hence polymerization states (NBO/T), i.e. forsterite has a redder peak position than enstatite, which in turn is redder than silica [see e.g., @ohm92 and reference therein]. This is demonstrated in Fig. \[compare2\]. Thus, even the modest levels of water remaining in samples prepared using the sol-gel method will affect the structure of the silicate and thus its spectrum. This makes precise interpretation of spectra from sol-gel samples difficult, especially of the more silica-rich compositions whose structure will be the most affected by the incorporation water. Therefore the sample/material structure is not well known. Spectral differences between the sol-gel MgSiO$_3$ of @jager03 and the quenched MgSiO$_3$ glass of @dorschner95 emphasize the point, especially around the 10$\mu$m feature (Fig. \[compare1\]).
The bottom left panel of Fig. \[compare1\] compares spectra for the gehlenite, the Al-rich endmember of the melilite series. All data were produced by the melt-quench method. Gehlenite from this study closely matches spectra of the @mutschke98 sample, while the sample we generated by melting a natural crystal of gehlenite (designated gehlenite remelt) shows significant differences which can be attributed to the deviation from stoichiometry which results in large shifts in both Al/(Al$+$Si) and NBO/T (see Table \[tab:samples\]). The bottom right panel compares the mid-composition melilite (k50Ge50) from @mutschke98 with our end-member synthetic melilites. The peak position of the @mutschke98 melilite is similar to our Al-rich endmember, while the feature shape is closer to that of our Mg-rich endmember. @mutschke98 discussed the low contrast feature in the 12–16$\mu$m range in various aluminous silicates. This feature moves from $\sim14.5$$\mu$m in gehlenite towards shorter wavelengths, with the kermanite feature peaking closer to 13.5$\mu$m (Fig. \[compare1\]). @mutschke98 did not investigate the kermanite-rich melilites because their focus was on the effect of aluminium, but their findings, and those seen here may pertain to the carrier of the observed “$\sim13$$\mu$m” feature [e.g. @sloan03 and references therein].
Figure \[compare3\] shows a comparison between our “cosmic silicate”, “basalt” and the “dirty silicate” produced by @jager94. The 10$\mu$m features are very similar in peak position and FWHM, but the ratio of the $\sim$10 and $\sim18$$\mu$m features vary. This comparison shows that samples containing several elements give rise to very similar 10$\mu$m spectral features even though they differ in Fe/(Mg+Fe), oxidation state, NBO/T and other compositional parameters.
In single crystal silicates, the Mg/Fe ratio affects the spectral features [e.g., @koike03; @hp07]. @dorschner95 investigated the effect of Mg/Fe ratio on the spectra of (Mg,Fe)SiO$_3$ glasses produced by quenching melts in air. The peak positions shift slightly, and the ratio of the 10$\mu$m and 18$\mu$m feature heights varies markedly (Fig. \[compare2\]). Substitution of Ca for Mg produces substantial broadening of the 10$\mu$m feature, consequently the peak (and barycenter) shift redward. The viscosity and glass transition data in Table \[tab:samples\] show that small impurities can have important effects on melt properties (and structure). For example, compare synthetic and remelted kermanite and gehlenites. This is why it is important to consider Ca in pyroxenes, in addition to the En-Fs series. Indeed based on the spectra presented here, the effect of calcium substitution is larger than that of iron. @dorschner95 reported that the FeO/Fe$_2$O$_3$ ratios of their samples were $\approx$1. Whether molar or weight ratio (unspecified in their paper), these samples do not have pyroxene stoichiometry, and thus have a structure differing from that of our pyroxene glasses. Using their reported compositions, and assuming all Fe$^{3+}$ acts as a network former, calculated NBO/T values ranges from 2.1 for En95 to $\sim$0.8 for En50 and En40 glasses, considerably lower than the value of 2.0 for a true (Mg,Fe)SiO$_3$ composition. Furthermore, the effect of tetrahedral Fe$^{3+}$ on neighboring Si–O bonds, which give rise to the 10$\mu$m feature, may be sufficient to produce marked changes in the shape and peak position of the feature even if Mg-Fe substitution does not. Therefore existing lab data on glasses do not allow astronomical spectra to be interpreted reliably in terms of either M$^{2+}$/Si or Mg/Fe ratio, which are important tools for discriminating between competing dust formation models. We will address the roles of oxidation state and Al-content in silicates in future papers.
Comparison with Synthetic Spectra
---------------------------------
As discussed in § \[prevlab\] the most popular silicate spectral data used in astronomy are the synthetic optical functions (complex refractive indices/complex dielectric functions) from @dl84 and @ohm92. In the spectral regions considered here, both groups derived dielectric functions from astronomical observations. @dl84 used observations of the ISM while @ohm92 produced two sets of optical constants designated as warm O-deficient and cold O-rich. The warm O-deficient is intended to match circumstellar dust features where the @NuthHecht predicted that non-stoichiometric silicates form in the outflows. The cold O-rich silicate is meant to represent dust formed in molecular clouds, where the cool temperatures and slow dust formation lead to stoichiometric compositions. For the circumstellar (O-deficient warm), opacities are derived by [@vk88] based on averaging approximately 500 IRAS LRS spectra of evolved stars. However, this approach is less than ideal. It is well known that the observed “silicate” features vary markedly from source to source [see e.g. @NuthHecht; @mutschke98; @speck00] and thus averaging can smear out such differences and give rise to an opacity that is close to matching many objects and actually matches none.
To provide a fair comparison, parameters for these synthetic silicate spectra have been included in Table \[litdata\]. Whereas the @dl84 spectra provide a reasonable match to the features observed in the ISM, the spectra from @ohm92 provides a narrower $\sim10\mu$m feature which matches the circumstellar silicate features more closely [e.g. @Sargent2010 and references therein]. However, neither @dl84 nor @ohm92 provide perfect matches to the observed astronomical mid-IR features; nor do they reflect the diversity of features seen in astronomical environments. Although synthetic spectra do not match astronomical data perfectly, they are widely used and come close to matching many astronomical observations. Consequently, comparing our new laboratory data to these synthetic spectra allows us to assess whether any true glasses show promise as carriers of observed silicate features.
Figures \[synthcomp1\] to \[synthcomp4\] show how the spectral properties of the new laboratory samples compare to those of synthetic silicates from @dl84 and @ohm92. In all cases the comparison is made with the absorption index $k$, which is the imaginary part of the complex refractive index, and was chosen to avoid complications arising from grain shape and grain effects (see § \[how2comp\]). None of the samples presented here precisely match the spectral features of the synthetic silicates. In particular, the 10$\mu$m feature in the spectra from @dl84 is too broad to be matched by any of the laboratory samples, with the possible exception of gehlenite (both “synthetic” and “remelt”; see Fig. \[synthcomp2\], bottom row). However, the relative cosmic abundances calcium and aluminium make this an unlikely attribution for the ISM dust. It is usually assumed that astronomical silicates are largely comprised of “amorphous” Mg-rich olivine and pyroxene compositions. Therefore, we compare the interstellar feature as represented by @dl84 with such compositions in Fig. \[synthcomp5\]– \[synthcomp3\]. The spectra of the four Mg-rich pyroxene-like glasses (Synthetic Enstatite, Enstatite Remelt, Cosmic Silicate and Basalt) have grossly similar spectra. In all four cases, the laboratory data match the blue side of the @dl84 feature, but are too narrow and fail to match the red side. This is also true for the broader diopside feature (Fig. \[synthcomp5\]). While forsterite composition glass has a redder feature than the pyroxenes, it is still too narrow and still not red enough to match the @dl84 10$\mu$m feature.
If glasses do produce the astronomical 10$\mu$m band, the excess breadth needs accounting for and may suggest processing of dust in the ISM [@NuthHecht]. The physical changes to the dust that give rise to the broader interstellar feature remain unknown, but there are numerous interpretations. In circumstellar environments the red-side broadening of the 10$\mu$m feature has been interpreted as being due to oxide inclusions [e.g., @speck00]; increasing crystallinity [e.g., @sylvester98; @bouwman01]; changes in grain shape [e.g., @min07]; or grain porosity [e.g., @henning93; @vh08]. The silicate feature is fairly constant and broad for the diffuse ISM, but varies more and is narrower for molecular clouds [see e.g. @vanbreeman and references therein]. These variations have been attributed to a combination of grain agglomeration and ice mantle formation [see @chiar06; @chiar07; @mcclure08; @vanbreeman], but the results of those studies depend on the optical properties input into their models.
The spectra of @ohm92 have been used somewhat successfully in modeling circumstellar silicate features [e.g. @Sargent2010 and references therein]. Of the new laboratory glasses, only forsterite comes close to matching the @ohm92 synthetic spectra (Fig. \[synthcomp4\]), but there is still a problem with the breadth and redness of the feature. Most other compositions have 10$\mu$m features that are too blue. However, 10$\mu$m silicate emission features seen in AGB stars spectra and observed by ISO and IRAS are consistently slightly bluer than those in the synthetic spectra [@wheeler07; @wheeler09]. Consequently our samples may provide better matches than the OHM synthetic spectra.
Discussion
==========
Amorphousness at different scales: Glasses vs. Nanocrystalline solids
---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have shown that differences exist between spectra of amorphous samples of ostensibly the same composition due to structural differences arising from synthesis methods. In this section we discuss the range of structures that may be considered amorphous, and other factors such as composite or polycrystalline grains that may produce different spectral features to those obtained from studies of single crystals. The range of structures is shown schematically in Fig. \[fig:XtalC\].
Disordered (but not glassy) silicates may form at temperatures above $T_g$ by ion bombardment of initially crystalline materials. Depending on the extent of damage done by ion radiation, an initially crystalline sample may be amorphized and could be indistinguishable spectroscopically from a truly glassy sample [see e.g. @Demyk2004]. As discussed in § \[prevlab\], limited heavy ion irradiation may not completely amorphize a crystalline sample [e.g. @kh79]. Consequently ion-irradiation of initially crystalline material should lead to a continuum of structures ranging from perfect crystals to completely disordered, with the accompanying range of spectral features. Furthermore @Demyk2004 showed that ion irradiation leads to more porous samples than simple splat-quenched glasses. While lower densities should not directly affect the spectra, voids give rise to extra reflections which increases extinction and feature widths through increased scattering even though absorption is unchanged. The structures of ion-irradiated crystals may be more similar to smokes than glasses because of ion damage (see Fig. \[fig:XtalC\]).
Another potential carrier of the observed silicate spectral features is polycrystalline silicate. Spectra of single composition (monomineralic) polycrystals will be affected by multiple scattering which should broaden and smear out the features as demonstrated for hematite in @icarus. During annealing and crystallization of an initially glassy grain the final structure would depend strongly on composition. For a glass of pure enstatite composition, one may expect either a single crystal of enstatite or a mono-mineralic polycrystalline agglommeration (if crystallization starts at more than one point in the grain.) However, since glassy grains are expected to form to include all the atoms in the outflowing gas, fractional crystallization is possible. For instance, our “cosmic” silicate has a bulk composition close to enstatite, but contains a significant amount of other elements. Consequently we might expect an annealed sample of this composition to be poly-mineralic polycrystals with a large abundance of enstatite crystals. Depending on the spectral contributions from other constituents of the polymineralic grain, we may not perceive sharp crystalline features in the spectrum. This is beyond the scope of the present work but will be investigated in the future.
Given that there are multiple mechanisms for the formation of both amorphous and crystalline silicate grains, and that processing can lead from one to the other and vice versa, it is possible that many types of grains represented on Fig. \[fig:XtalC\] are found in space.
Potential application to astronomy {#astroapp}
----------------------------------
AGB stars present an interesting environment in which to study dust formation because they are relatively benign and the stability of CO molecules simplifies the chemistry. Whereas many AGB stars exhibit the $\sim10\mu$m feature, this feature varies in peak position and shape from object to object, and even temporally within a single object [@speck00; @sloan03; @monnier98]. @speck00 showed that several Galactic objects show silicate features peaking as short as 9.2$\mu$m, while @swt08 found a very red 10$\mu$m absorption feature in the spectrum of an obscured AGB star. While the synthetic spectra are commonly used to model the observed features, they rarely match the details of peak position and width. The new laboratory data presented here provide a framework to interpret the observed variations in AGB star spectral features. For example, the red feature seen by @swt08 can be best matched by something forsteritic, while the observed 9.2$\mu$m feature needs very silica-rich dust.
Recent studies by @chiar06 [@chiar07], @mcclure08 and @vanbreeman have shown that the shape and peak position of the classic 10$\mu$m interstellar silicate absorption feature varies depending on the line of sight. Whereas the $\sim10\mu$m feature remains the same for all diffuse lines of sight, its shape and position varies once the line of sight includes a molecular cloud. This has been attributed to a combination of grain agglomeration and ice mantle formation within the molecular clouds ([*op. Cit.*]{}). The diffuse ISM is well characterized by @dl84 but for molecular clouds this $\sim$10$\mu$m feature is too broad [@vanbreeman]. The competing hypotheses explaining the molecular cloud spectra could be tested by comparing with the glass spectra presented herein.
The importance of dust to astrophysical processes cannot be over stated. For example, observations of high redshift ($Z>7$) galaxies and quasars demonstrate that there was copious dust produced by the time the Universe was $\sim$700 million years old [e.g., @sugerman06; @dwek07]. Furthermore, in Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN), the observed silicate absorption feature is shifted to peak at a longer wavelength, and is broader than that observed in our own Galaxy. This spectral shift has been attributed to calcium-aluminum rich silicates [@jaffe04] or porous particles [@li08]. Moreover, data from Spitzer (SAGE-IRS Legacy program) show a number of both AGB and YSO sources with remarkably blue silicate features. Given that Mg, Fe and Si are formed in different nucleosynthetic processes, the abundance ratios of these elements do not necessarily scale with metallicity. Disentangling dust formation mechanisms through observations of dust requires the optical properties of a range of silicate samples of varying Mg- Fe- and Si- contents and other components as provided here. The work presented here is a subset of a larger study and further sample compositions and structures will be presented in the near future.
Conclusions
===========
We have presented new laboratory spectra of astrophysically relevant silicate glasses and compared them to existing data in the literature. We have shown that (1) “disordered” is not synonymous with glassy. In addition to structural disorder, porosity also affects spectral features. (2) Sample preparation and characterization are important. (3) We confirm the general trend of decreasing peak wavelength with increasing polymerization for the $\sim$10$\mu$m feature. However the scatter about this overall trend indicate that other compositional factors must be important. (4) Nothing quite matches the diffuse ISM in peak position and breadth.
Spectral parameters of disordered silicates are sensitive to composition and sample synthesis techniques, which reflect degree of disorder, porosity, oxidation states and water content. To understand dust formation we must disentangle these parameters through further systematic study of major compositional series using high resolution spectroscopy on thoroughly characterized samples. Further studies of the parameters will follow. These new data can be used for interpretation of more esoteric environments e.g. high redshift galaxies and novae.
This work is supported by NSF AST-0908302 (A.K.S. and A.G.W.) and NSF AST-0908309 (A.M.H.) and by NSF CAREER AST-0642991 (for A.K.S.) and NSF CAREER EAR-0748411 (for A.G.W.). We would like to thank Bryson Zullig and Josh Tartar for their help with this work.
Armstrong, J.T. 1995, Microbeam Anal, 4, 177. Bouwman, J., Meeus, G., de Koter, A., Hony, S., Dominik, C., Waters, L. B. F. M. 2001, , 375, 950.
Casassus, S., Roche, P. F., Aitken, D. K., Smith, C. H. 2001, , 320, 424.
Chiar, J. E., Tielens, A. G. G. M. 2006, , 637, 774.
Chiar, J. E., Ennico, K., Pendleton, Y. J., et al. 2007, , 666, L73.
Chihara, H., Koike, C., Tsuchiyama, A. 2007, , 464, 229.
Day, K.L. 1979, , 234, 158.
Demyk, K., Dartois, E., Wiesemeyer, H., et al. 2000, , 364, 170.
Demyk, K., d’Hendecourt, L., Leroux, H., Jones, A. P., Borg, J. 2004, , 420, 233.
DePew, K., Speck, A., Dijkstra, C., 2006, , 640, 971.
Dingwell, D.B., Romano, C., Hess, K.-U., 1996, Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 124, 19.
Dorschner, J., Begemann, B., Henning, T., Jaeger, C., Mutschke, H. 1995, , 300, 503.
Draine, B.T., 2003, ARA&A, 41, 241
Draine, B. T., Lee, H. M. 1984, , 285, 89.
Dwek, Eli, Galliano, Fr�d�ric, Jones, Anthony P. 2007, , 662, 927.
Fox, M. 2002 “Optical Properties of Solids” Oxford University Press.
Gail, H.-P., Sedlmayr, E. 1999, , 347, 594
Gaustad, John E. 1963, , 138, 1050.
Getson, J.M., Whittington, A.G. 2007Journal of Geophysical Research, 112, B10203, Gillett, F. C., Low, F. J., Stein, W. A. 1968, , 154, 677.
Gilman, R.C. 1969, , 155, L185.
Glass, I.S., 1999, “Handbook of Infrared Astronomy” Cambdridge University Press
Grossman, Lawrence 1972, Geochim. Cosmchim. Acta, 36, 597.
Hackwell, J. A., Gehrz, R. D., Woolf, N. J. 1970, Nature, 227, 822.
Hao, Lei, Spoon, H. W. W., Sloan, G. C., et al. 2005, , 625, L75.
Henderson, G.S., 2005, The Canadian Mineralogist, 43, 1921. Henning, Th., Stognienko, R. 1993 , 280, 609.
Hofmeister, A. M., Pitman, K. M., Goncharov, A. F., Speck, A. K. 2009, , 696, 1502.
Hofmeister, A. M., Pitman, K. M. 2007, Phys. Chem. Min, 34, 319.
Hofmeister, A, M., Bowey, J. E., 2006 , 367, 577.
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 367, Issue 2, pp. 577-5
Hofmeister, A.M., Keppel, E., Speck, A.K., 2003, , 345, 16.
Hony, S., Heras, A. M., Molster, F. J., Smolders, K. 2009, , 501, 609.
Huffman, D. R., Stapp, J. L. 1973, in Interstellar Dust and Related Topics. IAU Symp. 52, (Eds) J. Mayo Greenberg and H. C. van de Hulst. Dordrecht, Boston, Reidel, p.297
Jaffe, W., Meisenheimer, K., R�ttgering, H. J. A., et al. 2004, Nature, 429, 47.
Jäger, C., Mutschke, H., Begemann, B., Dorschner, J., Henning, Th. 1994, , 292, 641.
Jäger, C., Dorschner, J., Mutschke, H., Posch, Th., Henning, Th. 2003, , 408, 193.
Jones, T. W., Merrill, K. M. 1976, , 209, 509.
Kemper, F., de Koter, A.,Waters, L. B. F. M., Bouwman, J., & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 2002, , 384, 585.
Knacke, R. F., Gaustad, J. E., Gillett, F. C., Stein, W. A. 1969, , 155, L189.
Koike, C., Chihara, H., Tsuchiyama, A., Suto, H., Sogawa, H., Okuda, H. 2003, , 399, 1101.
Krätschmer, W., Huffman, D. R. 1979, , 61, 195.
Krishna Swarmy, K. S., 2005 “Dust in the Universe: Similarities And Differences”, World Scientific Series in Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 7. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing, ISBN 981-256-293-1, 2005, XI + 252 pp.
Krugel, E. 2008, “An Introduction to the Physics of Interstellar Dust” Taylor & Francis Group, LLC, New York, p387.
Li, A. in The Central Engine of Active Galactic Nuclei, ASP Conference Series, Vol. 373, 2007, (Eds) Luis C. Ho and Jian-Min Wang, p.561.
Li, M. P., Shi, Q. J., Li, Aigen 2008, , 391, L49.
Li, M. P., Li, Aigen American Astronomical Society, AAS Meeting \#214, \#402.20
Lodders, K., Fegley, B., Jr. 1999, in IAU Symp. 191, Asymptotic Giant Branch Stars, ed. T. Le Bertre, A. Lebre, C. Waelkens (New York: Springer), 279
Mann, Ingrid, Köhler, Melanie, Kimura, Hiroshi, Cechowski, Andrzej, Minato, Tetsunori, 2006, A&ARev, 13, 159.
Marra, A.C., Lane, M.D., Orofino, C., Blanco, A., Fonti, S., 2011, Icarus, 211, 839. McClure, M. 2009, , 693, L81.
Min, M., Hovenier, J. W., de Koter, A., 2003, , 404, 35.
Min, M., Waters, L. B. F. M., de Koter, A., et al. 2007, , 462, 667
Monnier, J. D., Geballe, T. R., Danchi, W. C. 1998, , 502, 833.
Mutschke, H., Begemann, B., Dorschner, J., et al. 1998, , 333, 188.
Mysen, B.O., Richet, P. Silicate Glasses and Melts: Properties and Structure. Developments in Geochemistry 10, Elsevier, 544 pp.
Nuth, J. A., III, Donn, B. 1982, , 257, L103
Nuth, J. A., III, Hecht, J. H., 1990, , 163, 79.
Onaka, T. Okada, Y., 2003, , 585, 872.
Ossenkopf, V., Henning, Th., & Mathis, J. S. 1992, , 261, 567.
Papoular, R., Pégourié, B. 1983, , 128, 335.
Perets, H.B., Gal-Yam, A., and Mazali, P.A., et al. 2010, Nature, 465, 322.
Pollack, J. B., Toon, O. B., Khare, B. N. 1973, Icarus, 19, 372.
Richet, P., Leclerc, F., Benoist, L. 1993, Geophys. Res. Lett., 20, 1675.
Sargent, B., Srinivasan, S., Meixner, M., et al., 2010, , 716, 878.
Sargent, B., Forrest, W. J., D’Alessio, P, et al., 2006, , 645, 395.
Scott, A., Duley, W. W. 1996, , 105, 401.
Schairer, J.F., Bowen, N.L. 1956, American Journal of Science, 254, 129.
Sloan, G. C., Kraemer, Kathleen E., Goebel, J. H., Price, S. D., 2003, , 594, 483.
Speck, A. K. 1998, PhD Thesis.
Speck, A. K., Barlow, M. J., Sylvester, R. J., Hofmeister, A. M. 2000, , 146, 437.
Speck, A.K., Hofmeister, A.M., 2004, , 600, 986.
Speck, A.K., Thompson, G.D., Hofmeister, A.M., 2005, ApJ, 634, 426.
Speck, Angela K., Whittington, Alan G., Tartar, Josh B. 2008, , 687, L91.
Speck, Angela K., Corman, Adrian B., Wakeman, Kristina, Wheeler, Caleb H., Thompson, Grant 2009, , 691, 1202.
Stencel, Robert E., Nuth, Joseph A., III, Little-Marenin, Irene R., Little, Stephen J. 1990, , 350, L45
Stolper, E. 1982, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 46, 2609.
Stroud, R. M., Nguyen, A. N., Alexander, C. M. O’d., Nittler, L. R., Stadermann, F. J. 2008, Meteoritics & Planet. Sci, Abst. 43, 5201.
Sugerman, Ben E. K., Ercolano, Barbara, Barlow, M. J., et al. 2006, Science, 313, 196.
Sylvester, R. J., Kemper, F., Barlow, M. J., et al. 1999, , 352, 587.
Tangeman, J.A., Phillips, B.L., Navrotsky, A., Weber, J.K.R., Hixson, A.D., Key, T.S. 2001a, Geophys. Res. Letters, 28, 2517.
Tielens, A. G. G. M. 1990, in From Miras to Planetary Nebulae: Which Path for Stellar Evolution?, ed. M. O. Mennessier A. Omont (Gif-sur-Yvette: Editions Frontieres), 186
Toppani, A., Libourel, G., Robert, F., Ghanbaja, J. 2006, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 70, 5035.
van Breemen, J. M.; Min, M.; Chiar, J. E.; et al. 2011, , in press.
Videen, G., Kocifaj, M., 2002 Optics of Cosmic Dust: proceedings of a NATO Advanced Research Workshop NATO Science Series. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002.
Volk, K., Kwok, S., 1988, ApJ, 331, 435.
Vollmer, C., Stadermann, F. J., Bose, M., Floss, C., Hoppe, P., Brenker, F. E. 2007 Meteoritics & Planet. Sci, Abst. 42, 5107.
Voshchinnikov, N. V., Henning, T. 2008, , 483, L9.
Watkins, J., Manga, M., Huber, C., Martin, M. 2009. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, in press, DOI 10.1007/s00410-008-0327-8
Wheeler, Caleb, Speck, A. K. 2007, BAAS, 39, 890.
Wheeler, Caleb, Speck, A. K. 2011, in prep.
Whittet, D. C. B., 1992, “Dust In The Galactic Environment”, IoP Publishing.
Whittington AG, Hellwig BM, Behrens H, Joachim B, Stechern A, and Vetere F, 2009, Bulletin of Volcanology, 71, 185.
Wilding, M.C., Webb, S.L., Dingwell, D.B. 1995. Chemical Geology, 125, 137.
Woitke, P. 2006, , 460, L9.
Woolf, N. J. Woolf, N. J., Ney, E. P. 1969, , 155, L181.
Zachariasen, W. H., 1932, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 54, 3841.
![\[fig:XtalC\] (a) Cartoon of possible grain structures, including single and polycrystalline grains. (b) Schematic of grain porosity vs structural disorder for different experimental sample materials. (c) Simple phase diagram illustrating the location of the glass transition range, below the melting point of crystalline materials. Which side of the phase diagram is relevant depends on the cooling rate of the system. ](f1.eps)
![\[cartoon\] Schematic structure of silicate glasses showing bridging oxygens joining tetrahedral units, and non-bridging oxygens coordinated by network-modifying cations. Trivalent tetrahedral cations (Al$^{3+}$, Fe$^{3+}$) must be charge-balanced by metal cations occupying interstices in the structure (e.g. Na$^{+}$, Ca$^{2+}$). The real three-dimensional structure of glass is a modified random network [e.g. @henderson].](f2.eps)
![\[condseqfig\] Predicted condensation sequence for O-rich environments [@grossman72]. ](f3.eps)
![\[newlabdatafig\] New laboratory absorbance spectra of glasses. In all cases, $x$-axis is wavelength in $\mu$m; $y$-axis is absorbance. The dotted line indicates the barycentric position for each “10$\mu$m” feature. The wavelength of these positions, along with the peak position and FWHMa are listed in Table \[tab:samples3\]. The precise compositions for each sample are listed in Table \[tab:samples\].](f4.ps)
![\[newlabdatafig20um\] New laboratory absorbance spectra where data extends to far-IR. In all cases, $x$-axis is wavelength in $\mu$m; $y$-axis is absorbance. The dotted line indicates the barycentric position for the “10$\mu$m” and “18$\mu$m” features. The wavelength of these positions, along with the peak position and FWHMa are listed in Table \[tab:samples3\]. The precise compositions for each sample are listed in Table \[tab:samples\]. Interference wide fringes are indicated by arrows for gehlenite remelt and enstatite, while narrow fringes are marked on the spectrum of Cosmic Silicate. The attributions for the observed features at $\sim10, 14,$ and $18\mu$m are indicated in the lower right panel.](f5.ps)
![\[newlabdatafig2\] Calculated Q values (absorption efficiency factors) for our samples In all cases, $x$-axis is wavelength in $\mu$m; $y$-axis is $Q_{\rm abs}$. The spectra are plotted such that the barycentric position of the feature is reddest at the top and bluest at the bottom and are offset for clarity. The values for the offsets in $y$, along with the barycentric positions, peak position and FWHMa are listed in Table \[tab:samples3\].](f6.ps)
![\[compare1\] Laboratory optical data for amorphous silicates. Grey dots are our high-resolution spectra . S&D96 = @sd96; Mutschke = @mutschke98; K&H (1979) = @kh79. Symbols are the actual data points (except K&H79, which was digitized from a figure). ](f7.ps)
![\[compare2\] Laboratory spectra demonstrating changes in peak position and shape with composition. a) [*top panel*]{}: the effect of SiO$_2$ content, data from @jager94 and @dorschner95; b) [*middle panel*]{}: the effect of SiO$_2$ content, our data on Mg-endmember glasses; c) [*bottom panel*]{}: the effect of Fe content on “pyroxene” glasses, where En\# = 100 $\times$ Mg/(Mg+Fe) in the glass. The iron-bearing glasses are substantially oxidized. Data from @dorschner95. ](f8.ps)
![\[compare3\] Comparison of “dirty” silicates. Solid black line is our “Cosmic” silicate \[Fe/(Mg+Fe)=0\]; dotted black line is our “Basalt” \[Fe/(Mg+Fe)=0.39\]; dotted-dashed light grey line is Enstatite Remelt \[Fe/(Mg+Fe)=0.07\] dashed dark grey line is the “dirty” silicate from @jager94](f9.ps)
![\[synthcomp1\] Comparison of synthetic spectra from @dl84 and @ohm92 with new laboratory spectra on kermanite. $x$-axis is wavelength in $\mu$m; $y$-axis is the imaginary part of the complex index of refraction ($k$). [*Left panels*]{}: synthetic kermanite; [*right panels*]{}: kermanite remelt; [*top row:*]{} comparison to cool oxygen-rich silicate from OHM; [*middle row*]{}: comparison to warm oxygen-deficient silicate from OHM; [*bottom row*]{}: comparison to DL astronomical silicate. Solid lines are the synthetic spectra; dotted lines are the new laboratory spectra. ](f10.ps)
![\[synthcomp2\] Comparison of synthetic spectra from @dl84 and @ohm92 with new laboratory spectra on gehlenite. $x$-axis is wavelength in $\mu$m; $y$-axis is the imaginary part of the complex index of refraction ($k$). [*Left panels*]{}: synthetic gehlenite; [*right panels*]{}: gehlenite remelt; [*top row:*]{} comparison to cool oxygen-rich silicate from OHM; [*middle row*]{}: comparison to warm oxygen-deficient silicate from OHM; [*bottom row*]{}: comparison to DL astronomical silicate.](f11.ps)
![\[synthcomp5\] Comparison of synthetic spectra from @dl84 and @ohm92 with new laboratory spectra on forsterite and enstatite. $x$-axis is wavelength in $\mu$m; $y$-axis is the imaginary part of the complex index of refraction ($k$). [*Left panels*]{}: forsterite; [*right panels*]{}: enstatite; [*top row:*]{} comparison to cool oxygen-rich silicate from OHM; [*middle row*]{}: comparison to warm oxygen-deficient silicate from OHM; [*bottom row*]{}: comparison to DL astronomical silicate.](f12.ps)
![\[synthcomp3\] Comparison of synthetic spectra from @dl84 and @ohm92 with new laboratory spectra with Enstatite Remelt and Basalt $x$-axis is wavelength in $\mu$m; $y$-axis is the imaginary part of the complex index of refraction ($k$). [*Left panels*]{}: enstatite remelt [*right panels*]{}: basalt; [*top row:*]{} comparison to cool oxygen-rich silicate from OHM; [*middle row*]{}: comparison to warm oxygen-deficient silicate from OHM; [*bottom row*]{}: comparison to DL astronomical silicate.](f13.ps)
![\[synthcomp4\] Comparison of synthetic spectra from @dl84 and @ohm92 with new laboratory spectra on “Cosmic Silicate” and Diopside. $x$-axis is wavelength in $\mu$m; $y$-axis is the imaginary part of the complex index of refraction ($k$). [*Left panels*]{}: Cosmic silicate; [*right panels*]{}: diopside; [*top row:*]{} comparison to cool oxygen-rich silicate from OHM; [*middle row*]{}: comparison to warm oxygen-deficient silicate from OHM; [*bottom row*]{}: comparison to DL astronomical silicate.](f14.ps)
\[litdata\]
Citation Sample Preparation Technique
-------------- ---------------------------------------- ------ -- -- -- -- --
@day79 chemical vapor condensation
@sd96 laser ablation of crystalline samples
@kh79 ion-irradiation of crystalline samples
Jena Melting and Quenching
@dorschner95 Melting and Quenching
@jager03 Sol-Gel
@jager94 Melting and Quenching $^1$
@mutschke98 Melting and Quenching
@dl84 synthetic
@ohm92 warm synthetic
@ohm92 cold synthetic
: Laboratory spectral data from astronomical literature
----------------------------------------------------------
$^1$ Mg$_{0.50}$Fe$_{0.43}$Ca$_{0.03}$Al$_{0.04}$SiO$_3$
----------------------------------------------------------
: Laboratory spectral data from astronomical literature
\[tab:samples\]
Name Formula $\rho$ (kgm$^{-3}$) $T_g$ (K) Al/(Al$+$Si) NBO/T$^a$
---------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------- ----------- -------------- -----------
Synthetic Gehlenite $\rm (Na_{0.01}Ca_{1.99})Al(Al_{1.03}Si_{0.98})O_7 $ 2879 1111 0.68 0.65
Gehlenite Remelt $\rm Na_{0.02}Ca_{1.97}Mg_{0.37}Fe_{0.06}Al_{1.14}Si_{1.44}O_7$ 2927 1032 0.44 1.43
Synthetic Akermanite $\rm Ca_{2.04}Mg_{0.98}Al_{0.02}Si_{1.97}O_7$ 2951 1012 0.01 3.04
Forsterite $\rm Mg_{2.035}Si_{0.983}O_4$ 2920 1040$^b$ 0.00 4.00
Diopside $\rm Ca_{1.02}Mg_{0.92}Si_{2.03}O_6$ 2853 999 0.00 1.91
Akermanite Remelt $\rm Na_{0.30}Ca_{1.70}Mg_{0.47}Fe_{0.29}Al_{0.54}Si_{1.64}O_7$ 2995 932 0.25 2.15
Basalt $\rm K_{0.01}Na_{0.06}Mg_{0.45}Ca_{0.54}Fe_{0.32}Ti_{0.09}Al_{0.70}Si_{1.72}O_6$ 0.03 1.48
Synthetic Enstatite $\rm (Mg_{1.98}Al_{0.02})(Al_{0.01}Si_{1.99})O_6 $ 2735 1037 0.02 1.94
Enstatite remelt $\rm Ca_{0.02}Mg_{1.81}Fe_{0.14}Al_{0.03}Si_{2.00}O_6$ 2769 1022 0.01 1.93
“Cosmic Silicate” $\rm (Na_{0.11}Ca_{0.12}Mg_{1.86})(Al_{0.18}Si_{1.85})O_6 $ 2772 1001 0.09 1.92
Herasil $\rm Si0_2 [>0.1wt\% H_2O]$ 2200$^c$ 1420 0.00 0.00
Obsidian $\rm K_{0.28}Na_{0.29}Ca_{0.02}Fe_{0.04}Al_{0.64}Si_{3.35}0_8$ 0.16 0.02
: Glass Sample Compositions and physical parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$^a$ NBO/T ${\rm = (K + Na + 2Ca + 2Mg + 2Fe^{2+} - Al - Fe^{3+}) / (Si + Ti + Al + Fe^{3+})}$
$^b$ from Tangeman et al.
$^c$ from manufacturer
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Glass Sample Compositions and physical parameters
\[microprobe\]
--------------------- --------- --------- ------------------- ------- ------ ------- ------- --------- -------- ------------ -------- ------------
Water content$^a$
name SiO$_2$ TiO$_2$ Al$_2$O$_3$ FeO MnO MgO CaO Na$_2$O K$_2$O P$_2$O$_5$ total (ppm)
Synthetic gehlenite 21.53 na 37.88 na na na 40.85 0.12 na na 100.37 76
Gehlenite remelt 31.46 0.01 21.11 1.58 0.01 5.47 40.26 0.27 0.02 0.04 100.22 85
Synthetic kermanite 43.12 na 0.44 na na 14.33 41.62 na na na 99.51 80
Forsterite 41.17 na na na na 57.19 na na na na 98.36 bd
Diopside 54.82 na na na na 16.55 25.58 na na na 96.95 57
kermanite remelt 34.34 0.89 9.65 6.85 0.52 6.53 33.32 3.08 0.49 2.03 97.72 125
Basalt 45.92 3.04 15.99 10.16 0.13 8.04 13.45 0.80 0.18 na 97.71 bd
Synthetic enstatite 59.69 na 0.68 na na 39.88 na na na na 100.25 80
Enstatite remelt 58.30 0.02 0.66 4.74 0.12 35.43 0.54 0.02 0.01 na 99.85 63
Cosmic silicate 54.26 na 4.34 na na 36.58 3.27 1.61 na na 100.05 81
Obsidian 74.82 0.03 12.09 0.95 0.03 0.01 0.39 3.39 4.91 na 96.62 $\sim$3000
Herasil$^b$ 100.00 na na na na na na na na na 100.00 940
--------------------- --------- --------- ------------------- ------- ------ ------- ------- --------- -------- ------------ -------- ------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
na = not analyzed (mostly for synthetic melts where the ingredients were well known)
bd = below detection limit
$^a$ determined from near-IR spectra using the method in Hofmeister et al. (2009)
$^b$ pure SiO$_2$ with 15-26 ppm metals (Hofmeister and Whittington, in review)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[tab:samples3\]
----------------- ----------- ------------ ------ ------ ------------ ---------- ------ --------------- ------ ------ ---------
SAMPLE
NAME Peak Barycenter Peak Barycenter Offset$^\dag$
( $\mu$m) ($\mu$m) $a$ $Q$ ($\mu$m) ($\mu$m) $a$ $Q$ $a$ $Q$
Gehlenite 10.3 10.8 2.71 2.86 $+$3.25
Gehlenite RM 10.8 10.6 2.69 2.88 —$^\ddag$ 20.0 4.08 4.45 3.74 4.25 $+$2.75
Akermanite 10.3 10.6 2.31 2.46 $+$2.50
Forsterite 10.2 10.4 2.25 2.43 $+$2.25
Diopside 10.1 10.2 2.33 2.46 19.2 19.4 4.34 4.12 1.65 1.26 $+$1.50
Akermanite RM 10.3 10.1 2.63 2.70 21.0 20.9 4.45 4.70 1.78 1.57 $+$1.25
Basalt 10.0 9.9 2.27 2.41 $+$1.00
Enstatite 9.9 9.9 2.38 2.58 17.6 18.5 3.99 4.70 3.03 2.25 $+$0.75
Entatite remelt 10.0 9.8 2.33 2.48 $+$0.50
Cosmic silicate 9.8 9.7 2.76 3.15 18.3 18.7 4.64 4.54 4.87 4.79 $+$0.25
Obsidian 9.0 9.1 1.91 2.14 0.00
Herasil 9.0 8.9 1.24 1.34 $-$0.5
----------------- ----------- ------------ ------ ------ ------------ ---------- ------ --------------- ------ ------ ---------
: Spectral parameters of sample glasses. In all cases the parameters are measured from the absorbance data and the $Q_{\rm abs}$ data as plotted in Fig. \[newlabdatafig\] and Fig. \[newlabdatafig2\], respectively
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$^\ast$ strength is defined as the equivalent width (EW) of the feature, rather than the peak-to-continuum ratio. Therefore the strength ratio is EW$_{10\mu \rm m}$/ EW$_{18\mu \rm m}$.
Peak position for the Gehlenite remelt sample cannot be accurately measured because of interference fringes.
$^\dag$ the offset is added to the normalized $Q$-values and is applied in Figure \[newlabdatafig2\] for clarity.
$^\ddag$ strong fringing prevents measurement of peak position.
RM designates remelted samples (see § \[synth\])
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Spectral parameters of sample glasses. In all cases the parameters are measured from the absorbance data and the $Q_{\rm abs}$ data as plotted in Fig. \[newlabdatafig\] and Fig. \[newlabdatafig2\], respectively
[^1]: micro- or nano-crystalline inclusions within a glassy matrix [see e.g., @pollack73; @jager94]. Prior to @zachariasen the difference between nanocrystalline (i.e. ceramic) and glassy solids was not understood.
[^2]: Usually these are called optical “constants”, but they are wavelength-dependent quantities, so we prefer “functions”
[^3]: Unlike minerals, glasses do not have to have well-defined formulae. Some studies describe such non-stoichiometric glasses as having large quantities of impurities, but these non-mineral-end-member compositions are simply what the glass is made of.
[^4]: note that [*absorbance*]{} is the reciprocal of the log of the [*transmittance*]{}, in contrast to the absorptivity defined here; see also @STH05
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Significant effort toward the automation of general anesthesia has been made in the past decade. One open challenge is in the development of control-ready patient models for closed-loop anesthesia delivery. Standard depth-of-anesthesia tracking does not readily capture inter-individual differences in response to anesthetics, especially those due to age, and does not aim to predict a relationship between a control input (infused anesthetic dose) and system state (commonly, a function of electroencephalography (EEG) signal). In this work, we developed a control-ready patient model for closed-loop propofol-induced anesthesia using data recorded during a clinical study of EEG during general anesthesia in ten healthy volunteers. We used principal component analysis to identify the low-dimensional state-space in which EEG signal evolves during anesthesia delivery. We parameterized the response of the EEG signal to changes in propofol target-site concentration using logistic models. We note that inter-individual differences in anesthetic sensitivity may be captured by varying a constant cofactor of the predicted effect-site concentration. We linked the EEG dose-response with the control input using a pharmacokinetic model. Finally, we present a simple nonlinear model predictive control *in silico* demonstration of how such a closed-loop system would work.'
address:
- 'Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114'
- 'Picower Institute for Learning and Memory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139'
- 'Division of Sleep Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115'
- 'Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139'
- 'Institute of Medical Engineering and Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139'
- '[email protected]'
author:
- 'John H. Abel'
- 'Marcus A. Badgeley'
- 'Taylor E. Baum'
- Sourish Chakravarty
- 'Patrick L. Purdon'
- 'Emery N. Brown'
bibliography:
- 'condensed\_library.bib'
title: 'Constructing a control-ready model of EEG signal during general anesthesia in humans'
---
Biomedical control, medical applications, nonlinear control, model predictive control, power spectral density
Introduction
============
General anesthesia (GA) is a profound state of unconsciousness, analgesia, and amnesia [@Brown2010]. Anesthesiologists control the depth of unconsciousness during GA by assessing patient signs and symptoms and/or using a brain monitor summary score and then making concomitant changes to the infusion of hypnotic medications at irregular time intervals. Automatic control of unconsciousness with closed loop anesthesia delivery (CLAD) would afford anesthesiologists more attention on other aspects of anesthesia care and provide more regular and frequent adjustments to hypnotic infusions. A diagram of a CLAD system is shown in Figure \[fig:clad\].
Clinically available depth of unconsciousness summary monitors have been used as the control signal for prior studies on CLAD [@Absalom2009; @Soltesz2012; @VanHeusden2014; @Gentilini2001; @Haddad2003] as well as commercially available CLAD products [@Liu2015]. Commercially available consciousness summary monitors include bispectral index (BIS, Medtronic) and NeuroSENSE (Neurowave Systems). These monitors indicate the “depth of anesthesia” with a single scalar between 0 and 100. Patients have been shown to have inter-individual differences in both pharmcodynamic (sensitivity) and pharmacokinetic (drug uptake and elimination) monitor responses to hypnotic [@Gentilini2001; @Absalom2009], particularly for children [@Soltesz2012; @VanHeusden2014]. Depth of anesthesia summary monitors are insensitive to patient characteristics and anesthetic agents, and defining the underlying physics of general anesthesia remains a significant barrier for CLAD [@Absalom2011a].
The summary scores produced by consciousness monitors are dervied from recordings of the brain’s electrical activity: the electroencephalogram (EEG). Custom metrics dervied from the EEG have been used for automatic control of medically-induced coma. Specifically, the probability of brain activity senescence (the “burst suppression probability”) was computed from EEG in real-time and used as the control signal for developing linear-quadratic regulator [@Shanechi2013; @Yang2019] and proportional-integral-derivative [@Ching2013] medically-induced coma controllers. Medically-induced coma is only indicated for patients with aberrant brain activity, and targets an even greater reduction in brain activity than GA. EEG can provide a richer representation of neural activity than summary monitors, but an EEG signature would need to be identified specifically for GA.
CLAD models have a wide-range of personalization and adaptability. Many fit model parameters on patient populations [@Absalom2009; @Soltesz2012; @VanHeusden2014; @Gentilini2001]. Some have developed personalization via an initial calibration period prior to control tests [@Shanechi2013; @Ching2013]. Calibration during control has been previously performed for medically-induced coma [@Yang2019] and in numerical simulations of general anesthesia [@Haddad2003].
Here, we develop a proof-of-concept EEG-based CLAD system for general anesthesia. We first derive an EEG-based control signal from a clinical trial on EEG response to the hypnotic agent propofol. We then assess PK and PD model fitting differences across patients. Next we formalize the application of a model-based controller with a adaptive phase of control that adjusts to an individual’s susceptibility. Finally, we perform simulations to demonstrate the proposed system’s performance.
![Diagram of a closed-loop anesthesia delivery (CLAD) system. This work focuses on development of the control signal appropriate for closed-loop delivery of propofol.[]{data-label="fig:clad"}](f1){width="8.4cm"}
Problem Formulation and Approach
================================
We seek to ensure unconsciousness during anesthesia by regulating neural activity as recorded via EEG. To do so, we aimed to develop a pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PKPD) model of EEG power spectral density (PSD) that evolves over time $t$ according to: $$\frac{dp}{dt} = g(t, p, u)$$ where system $p\in\mathbb{R}^D$ is some $D$-dimensional measure of the relevant EEG characteristics and control input $u\in\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$ is the anesthetic infusion dosing (concentration/time). By noting that the PSD is a function of effect-site concentration of the drug $$p \equiv p(c(t))$$ the model may be separated into two components: $$\frac{dp}{dt} = \left(\frac{dp}{dc}\right)\left(\frac{dc}{dt}\right)$$ where $c(t)$ is the drug concentration at the effect site. The latter term, $dc/dt$, is the pharmacokinetic term and has been studied extensively and implemented clinically in the target-controlled infusion (TCI) paradigm [@Schnider1998; @Schnider1999; @Levitt2005; @Barakat2007; @Absalom2009]. In this work, we focus on developing the former pharmacodynamic term, $dp/dc$, in a manner that enables control and is robust to inter-individual variability in drug responses.
Identification of low-dimensional state space model from EEG
------------------------------------------------------------
We developed a control signal using the EEG data recorded from prefrontal cortex (Fp1 electrode) during a clinical trial of ten healthy volunteers where the effect-site concentration of propofol was varied systematically for each individual. For details on the study and data collection, see [@Purdon2013]. Because the power spectral density is known to vary reliably depending upon propofol-induced anesthetic state, we first performed a multitapered spectral analysis of the full Fp1 EEG time series to arrive at the multitaper spectrogram $M_s\in\mathbb{R}^{F\times N}$, where $F$ is the number of frequency bins and $N$ is the number of time windows of the spectrogram. Here, the subscript $s$ denotes the individual subject from which the data was collected. Each column of $M_s$ is denoted $m_{s,t}\in\mathbb{R}^{F\times 1}$ is the PSD in each of $F$ frequencies at time window $t$ for subject $s$.
We performed multitaper spectral analysis in Python using the NiTime package [@nitime] using window length $2$s with no overlap, normalized half-bandwidth $TW=3$, and a spectral resolution of $2$ Hz. An adaptive weighting routine was used to combine estimates of different tapers [@Thomson1982], and the resulting multitaper spectrogram from each patient was converted to decibels.
The manifold along which the EEG PSD evolves during anesthesia is of reduced dimensionality compared to $F$, and many spectral features co-occur, e.g., slow-delta (0.1-4 Hz) and alpha (8-12 Hz) [@Purdon2013]. Thus, we sought to reduce the dimensionality of the observations to independent linear combinations of spectral power via projecting the PSD (each $m_{s,t}$) onto $D$ principal components. That is, we compressed $M_s\in\mathbb{R}^{F\times N}$ to $P_s\in\mathbb{R}^{D\times N}$ by: $$p_{i,s,t} = e_i \cdot m_{s,t}$$ where $e_i \in\mathbb{R}^{1\times F}$ is the $i$th principal component, ordered by the magnitude of the corresponding eigenvalue. We computed the principal components performing PCA on all ten resulting spectrograms $[M_1, \cdots, M_S]$, thus, the principal components are not a signature specific to each subject. The result of this approach is shown in Figure \[fig:pca\].
We eliminated PCs above PC3, which each contained $<2$% of the observed variance in the spectrogram. We chose to use two PCs ($p_1$ = PC2, $p_2$ = PC3) due to their clear concentration-dependence and good dynamic range, thus enabling control to be applied. We did not use PC1 due to its unclear dependence on concentration. Furthermore, these two PCs correspond with unconscious or conscious state, as shown by the separation between conscious and unconscious signal in Figure \[fig:cu\], and thus enable a controller to use a set point relative to conscious state.
![Spectral characteristics of EEG during propofol anesthesia. (A) Multitaper spectrogram of EEG signal in a healthy volunteer, from [@Purdon2013]. (B) Drug effect-site concentration corresponding to the multitaper spectrogram in A, with loss of consciousness (LOC) and restoration of consciousness (ROC) labeled. (C) Fraction of the explained variance in each of the first ten principal components. (D) Eigenvectors $e_1$, $e_2$, and $e_3$ corresponding to the first three principal components. (E) First three principal component score of the multitaper spectrogram furing the timecourse in (A,B).[]{data-label="fig:pca"}](f2){width="8.4cm"}
![Example of $p_{1,t}$ (PC2 scores) vs. $p_{2,t}$ (PC3 scores) plotted for one subject, demonstrating the feasibility of using values of $p$ as targets for control that ensure unconsciousness.[]{data-label="fig:cu"}](f3){width="8.4cm"}
State-space dynamics and inter-individual variation
---------------------------------------------------
Having reduced the dimensionality along which the PSD evolves during anesthesia, we next sought to characterize pharmacodynamics (PD) by parameterizing a function $h_i(c)$ that generates $p_i(c)$. Each $h_i(c)$ varies between patients (as seen in Figure \[fig:pca\]), and parameterization of these functions is important for performing control. We sought to find a universal parameter set so that control may be implemented for any individual, and so $h_i(c) = h_i(c;a_i)$ where $a_i$ is a fixed parameter set for function $h_i$, common to all subjects.
Ideally the PD model we developed would apply without any subject-specific tuning. Although the shapes of $h_i(c)$ are consistent across individuals, they appear to be scaled by a constant parameter (Figure \[fig:fit\], top). Because we have $S=10$ subjects, we can then state that for subject $s$, $$h_i(c) = h_{i,s}(c;a_i,k_s) = h_{i,s}(k_s c;a_i)$$ where $k_s$ is a the subject’s anesthetic sensitivity and a high $k_s$ denotes high sensitivity. A higher sensitivity indicates a larger response to a given anesthetic dose. This is of additional use because, since $k_s$ is always a coefficient of $c$, $$\frac{dp}{dc} = \frac{d}{dc} h(k_s c) = k_s h'(k_s c)$$ where $h'(c) = \partial h/\partial c$. Thus the equation we seek to control for subject $s$ becomes: $$\frac{dp_s}{dt} = k_sh'(k_sc)\left(\frac{dc}{dt}\right).$$ By parameterizing $h_1$ and $h_2$ and taking the derivative, we found an analytic form of $dp/dt$ which depends on the anesthetic sensitivity.
By inspection, we postulated that these functions may be captured with logistic equations, specifically: $$\label{eq:hdef}
\begin{split}
h_{1,s}(k_s c ; a_1) =& \frac{a_{1,1}}{1+\exp(k_sc - a_{1,2})} - a_{1,3}\\
h_{2,s}(k_s c ; a_2) =& \frac{a_{2,1}}{1+\exp(k_sc - a_{2,2})} - \frac{a_{2,3}}{1+\exp(k_sc - a_{2,4})}.
\end{split}$$ Thus, parameter set $a_1\in\mathbb{R}_{\geq0}^3$, parameter set $a_2\in\mathbb{R}_{\geq0}^4$, and patient-specfic parameter set $k = {k_1,\cdots, k_s}\in\mathbb{R}_{\geq0}^S$.
We used a least-squares fitting to parameterize $h$, that is: $$\label{min}
\begin{split}
A = \arg\min_{a_1, a_2, k}&\sum_i\sum_s\sum_t ||(h_{i,s}(k_s c_t ; a_i) - p_{i,t,s})||_2\\
&\text{subject to:} \\
&\text{Eqn. \eqref{eq:hdef}}
\end{split}$$ This optimization resulted in parameters $$\begin{split}
a_1=&[70.1,\,6.8,\,36.2],\\
a_2=&[37.0,\,3.6,\,17.4,\,10.0],\\
k = &[2.44,\,6.78,\,3.22,\,2.88,\,3.55,\\
&\,\,\,5.79,\,4.63,\,2.97,\,4.15,\,2.61],
\end{split}$$ as shown in Figure \[fig:fit\]. Finally, taking $dh/dc$ yields our PD control model in differential equation form: $$\begin{split}
\label{eq:diffeq}
&\frac{dp}{dc} = \frac{d}{dc}
\begin{bmatrix}
h_{1,s}\\
h_{2,s}
\end{bmatrix}
\\
&=k_s
\begin{bmatrix}
\frac{-a_{1,1}\exp(k_sc - a_{1,2})}{(1+\exp(k_sc- a_{1,2}))^2}\\
\frac{-a_{2,1}\exp(k_sc - a_{2,2})}{(1+\exp(k_sc - a_{2,2}))^2} + \frac{a_{2,3}\exp(k_sc-a_{2,4})}{(1+\exp(k_sc-a_{2,4}))^2}
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{split}$$ We note that $k_s$ is still a subject-specific parameter which we do not know *a priori*. Luckily, we may estimate and update this parameter in the same way an anesthesiologist may adjust dosing to determine an individual’s anesthetic sensitivity.
![Example of two-dimensional control signal identified for two representative subjects, one with a high anesthetic sensitivity (left, $k_7=4.63$) and one with a low anesthetic sensitivity (right, $k_1=2.44$).[]{data-label="fig:fit"}](f4){width="8.4cm"}
Incorporating pharmacokinetics
------------------------------
There are numerous PK models used under varying circumstances in the operating room [@Schnider1998; @Schnider1999; @Levitt2005; @Barakat2007; @Absalom2009]. These are most generally two- or three-compartment models, but may be increasingly complicated and multicompartmental. Model parameters are also typically a function of patient body mass and age [@Schnider1998; @Schnider1999]. The model from [@Schnider1999] was used in [@Purdon2013] to provide the $c$ values we have used in this study, directly supporting the utility of this approach in conjunction with the methods we have developed. For our control implementation here, we used the same four-compartment PK model from [@Schnider1998; @Schnider1999] and used in [@Chakravarty2017]: $$\label{eq:pk}
\begin{split}
\frac{d}{dt}
\begin{bmatrix}
c_1\\
c_2\\
c_3\\
c
\end{bmatrix}
&=\\
&\begin{bmatrix}
-k_{12}-k_{10}-k_{13}-k_{1e} & k_{21} & k_{31} & k_{e1}\\
k_{12} & -k_{21} & 0 & 0\\
k_{13} & 0 & -k_{31} & 0\\
k_{1e} & 0 & 0 & -k_{e1}
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
c_1\\
c_2\\
c_3\\
c
\end{bmatrix}\\
&+
\begin{bmatrix}
1\\
0\\
0\\
0
\end{bmatrix}
u(t)
\end{split}$$ where $u$ is the anesthetic infusion concentration, $c_{1,2,3}$ are non-effect compartment concentrations, and $c$ is the effect site concentration all in $\mu g/mL$. We used parameters corresponding to a 24 year old female patient with a mass of 65kg and a height of 163cm. We note that this would be replaced with a model parameterized by patient characteristics in a real-world implementation.
Implementation of Control
=========================
Formulating the control problem
-------------------------------
The model developed in the prior sections may now be used to formulate an *in silico* control problem to test the feasibility of this approach. The nonlinear nature of the control equations lends itself to a nonlinear model predictive control (NMPC) approach. NMPC has been used in biological applications previously, with good successes [@Abel2019; @Dassau2017]. In this case, we set desired $p = [p_1,\,p_2]$ and control the system to remain stably at those values. In the future, the desired $p$ values may be selected by training classifiers using the conscious state of the subject (e.g., sedation may correspond to one $p^{sed}$, whereas general anesthesia might correspond to another $p^{ga}$).
We still retain the problem of the unspecified $k_s$. In practice, a standard induction bolus is given to each patient, and the dosing is then modified depending upon how the patient responds. In the same manner, we may initialize the controller with a set $k_s$ value, and update this value as we observe how the system responds. One possible marker for identifying $k_s$ is the zero-cross of $p_2$ (PC3), as it varies systematically with $k$ and is observed prior to deep unconsciousness. Figure \[fig:nadir\] shows the relationship between the observed zero-cross of PC3 and $k$, given the parameterization we have previously identified.
![Finding $k_s$ is enabled by the dependence of the zero-cross of $p_2$ on $k_s$. Left, $h_2(c;a_2,k_s)$ is plotted for two values of $k_s$. The initial zero-cross of these depends upon $k_s$. Given the parameterization of $h$ we have developed, the relationship between $k_s$ and the PK effect-site concentration at the predicted zero-cross of $p_2$ is shown here. Thus, by updating the controller parameterization when $p_2$ is observed to cross zero, we may attain individualized control.[]{data-label="fig:nadir"}](f5){width="8.4cm"}
The state of the patient updates every 2 s, given the multitaper parameters we have selected. Anesthetic infusion pumps update more infrequently, so we parameterized $u$ as piecewise-constant with 10 s steps with control input bounded on $[0, u_{max}]$. The anesthetic takes several minutes to deliver its effect, and so we used control and prediciton horizons of 300s ($M = 30$ steps of 10 s) with the predicted value $p^{pred}$ computed at the end of each of the steps. We initialized the model with an initial sensitivity $k_{init} = 2$ and update this sensitivity once $p_2$ crosses zero. The predicted states starting at time $t_0$ are given by integrating Eqn. forward 10 s at a time. $$\label{eq:pred}
\begin{split}
p^{pred}_{m+1}(u_m; a, k_{e}) &=\\
p^{pred}_m &+ \int_0^{10} \left(\frac{dh}{dc}(c;a,k_e)\right)\left(\frac{dc}{dt}(c,u_m)\right) dt
\end{split}$$ where $p^{pred}_m$ is the value at the end of the previous step and $p^{pred}_{m=0}$ is the current observed state of the system. We denote the current estimate of $k_s$ as $k_{e}$, which is initialized at a value of $k_{init}=2$ and updated following the zero-cross of $p_2$.
Thus, we formulated the NMPC finite-horizon optimal control problem for finding the optimal control $u_{\rm MPC}^\star$ over the predictive horizon as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber u^\star_{\rm MPC} &= \arg\min\limits_{u} \;\sum_{m=1}^{M} w_p||p^{pred}_m-p^{ga}|| +w_u||u_m||\\
\label{eq:mpcoptim} &\text{subject to:}\\
\nonumber &\text{Eqn. \eqref{eq:diffeq}}\\
\nonumber &\text{Eqn. \eqref{eq:pk}}\\
\nonumber &\text{Eqn. \eqref{eq:pred}}\\
\nonumber &0 \le u_{m}\le u_{\max},\end{aligned}$$ where $w_p=1$, $w_u=0.0001$ to scale the minimization and $u_{max}=10$mg/kg/min. We chose $p^{ga} = h(10; a, k_{init})$ because this corresponds to where the system is definitely unconscious (projected value for a high effect site concentration). We are prevented from overdosing the patient (the trivial solution to ensuring unconsciousness) by the tunable control input penalty and the restriction on pump concentration rate.
We applied this NMPC controller to a model of the system given by: $$\begin{split}
\frac{dp}{dt} =& \left(\frac{dh}{dc}(c;a,k_s)\right)\left(\frac{dc}{dt}(c,u)\right)\\
p(t=0) =& h(0;a,k_s)
\end{split}$$ and note that we have isolated system-model mismatch to the $k$ parameter and ignored measurement noise. Further testing would be needed to determine robustness of this approach to other parameter errors and observer design.
Two *in silico* examples
------------------------
First, we simulated an example where the individual is more sensitive to the anesthetic than the initial sensitivity $k_s=2k_{init}$. The risk in such a case is unintentional overdosing of a patient. This can be avoided by simple bounds on control input $u$, which may be relaxed or tightened after $k_s$ is found. Next, we simulated an example where the individual is less sensitive to the anesthetic than the initial sensitivity $k_s=0.75k_{init}$. The risk in such a case is underdosing of anesthesia and the patient retaining consciousness.
The results of these simulations are shown in Figure \[fig:control\]. We found that this controller design performs well in generating a signal corresponding to unconsciousness in our model without excess or insufficient delivery of the anesthetic, i.e., it is sensitive to patient characteristics. Both $k_s$ values (1.5, 4.0) are extremes near the range observed in the clinical study of healthy volunteers. A large difference in effect-site concentration between these two cases (despite all patient characteristics remaining identical) resulting in the same PD underlines the need for PD-based control, rather than simple control of plasma or effect-site concentration. Further testing of response to signal noise, system-model mismatch, and disturbance rejection is necessary, however, these simple examples provide a proof-of-concept.
{width="16cm"}
Discussion
==========
Several additional steps should be taken to validate the control signal we have selected. First, the signal should be analyzed in clinical cases to determine if it follows the same dynamics in the presence of other drugs that may affect EEG. Additionally, there are deeper states of anesthesia, such as burst-suppression, which should be avoided if they are not clinically desired [@Brown2010]. Currently, the controller avoids deeper-than-needed anesthesia by minimizing the control input needed to attain the depth of anesthesia setpoint, however, if the control signal continues to evolve as anesthesia deepens, a control signal corresponding to burst-suppression may be avoided explicitly. Characterization of these states may be achieved using data recorded during clinical administration of anesthesia in the operating room [@Purdon2015]. Running the controller retroactively on EEG recorded during clinical cases and comparing controller suggestions with anesthesiologist action is a reasonable next step in testing the control system we have presented. We note that observer design will also be important in applying control in this fashion.
Despite these barriers, there are two main benefits to using NMPC to control this system in comparison to LQR or PID controllers. First, NMPC does not attempt to use a linear approximation of model dynamics, and therefore requires less simplification of the complex underlying neural system. Second, safety mechanisms may be readily implemented in NMPC. We anticipate that a clinical NMPC system would involve safety features such as anesthesia-on-board constraints to prevent overdosing (as in [@Ellingsen2009]) and modifying controller responsiveness via confidence indexes (as in [@Pinsker2018; @Laguna2017]).
Significant barriers remain to realizing closed-loop control of general anesthesia in clinical settings [@Absalom2011a]. By developing physiologically interpretable PD models of anesthesia, we seek to bridge the gap in understanding between the anesthesiologist and the controls engineer.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'It is proposed that fragmentation functions should be used to identify exotic hadrons. As an example, fragmentation functions of the scalar meson $f_0(980)$ are investigated. It is pointed out that the second moments and functional forms of the $u$- and $s$-quark fragmentation functions can distinguish the tetraquark structure from $q\bar q$. By the global analysis of $f_0 (980)$ production data in electron-positron annihilation, its fragmentation functions and their uncertainties are determined. It is found that the current available data are not sufficient to determine its internal structure, while precise data in future should be able to identify exotic quark configurations.'
author:
- 'M. Hirai'
- 'S. Kumano'
- 'M. Oka'
- 'K. Sudoh'
date: 'November 16, 2007'
title: '**Proposal for exotic-hadron search by fragmentation functions**'
---
In the hadron mass region below 1 GeV, there are scalar mesons, $f_0(600)$, $f_0(980)$, and $a_0(980)$, whose internal configurations are not obvious [@summary]. Their flavor compositions could be $f_0(600) = (u\bar u+d\bar d)/\sqrt{2}$, $f_0(980) = s\bar s$, $a_0(980) =u\bar d$, $(u\bar u-d\bar d)/\sqrt{2}$, $\bar ud$ in a simple quark model by considering the mass relation, $m_u \sim m_d < m_s$. However, this assignment implies a mass sequence, $m(f_0(600)) \sim m(a_0(980)) < m(f_0(980))$, which contradicts with the observed one, $m(f_0(600)) < m(a_0(980)) \sim m(f_0(980))$. If $f_0(980)$ and $a_0(980)$ are exotic states such as tetraquark ones, the observed spectrum could be naturally understood. Since $f_0(980)$ and $a_0(980)$ are experimentally established resonances, they provide a good opportunity to study exotic mesons beyond a naive $q\bar q$-type quark model.
First, a brief outline of recent studies is given for the $f_0(980)$ structure. In a simple quark model, a light scalar meson $f_0$ with $J^{PC}=0^{++}$ is identified as a $^3 P_0$ quarkonium with the flavor structure $(u\bar u+d\bar d)/\sqrt{2}$. However, if such an ordinary $q\bar q$ configuration is assigned for $f_0(980)$, the strong decay width is very large, $\Gamma(f_0 \rightarrow \pi\pi)=500-1000 \ {\rm MeV}$, according to various theoretical calculations [@f0width-th]. The small experimental width 40$-$100 MeV [@pdg] cannot be consistently explained by simple quark models.
The strong-decay width suggests that $f_0(980)$ should not be an ordinary nonstrange $q\bar q$-type meson. The Fermilab-E791 collaboration measured the decay $D_s^+ \rightarrow \pi^- \pi^+ \pi^+$ [@e791], which can proceed via intermediate states, for example, $D_s^+ \rightarrow f_0 (980) \pi^+$ with $s\bar s$ quarks in $f_0 (980)$. This experiment suggested a sizable strange-quark component in $f_0 (980)$. The simplest configuration is a pure strange quarkonium $s\bar s$ for $f_0 (980)$. In addition, since its mass is just below the $K\bar K$ threshold, it could be considered as a $K\bar K$ molecule [@kkbar]. If two color-singlet states of $K$ and $\bar K$ are not well separated, it corresponds to a tetraquark state, $(u\bar u s\bar s+d\bar d s\bar s)/\sqrt{2}$, which was originally suggested in the MIT bag model [@tetra]. Recent QCD-sum-rule studies support this idea of a tetraquark state [@qcdsum07]. Furthermore, there are lattice-QCD studies that $f_0(980)$ corresponds to the tetraquark state because the scalar tetraquark mass is about 1.1 GeV [@lattice-4q]. In addition, $f_0(980)$ used to be considered as a glueball candidate; however, recent lattice QCD calculations rule out such a possibility because the mass of a $0^{++}$ glueball is estimated about 1700 MeV [@lattice-glue]. The situation of scalar mesons with masses in the 1 GeV region is summarized in Ref. [@summary]. All the possible $f_0(980)$ configurations are listed in Table \[tab:f0-config\] although the nonstrange-$q\bar q$ and glueball states seem to be unlikely according to the recent studies.
--------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- ------------------------------------
Type Configuration Second moments Peak positions
Nonstrange $q\bar q$ $(u\bar u+d\bar d)/\sqrt{2}$ $M_s<M_u<M_g$ $z_u^{\rm max}>z_s^{\rm max}$
Strange $q\bar q$ $s\bar s$ $M_u < M_s \lesssim M_g$ $z_u^{\rm max}<z_s^{\rm max}$
Tetraquark (or $K\bar K$) $(u\bar u s\bar s+d\bar d s\bar s)/\sqrt{2}$ $M_u \sim M_s \lesssim M_g$ $z_u^{\rm max} \sim z_s^{\rm max}$
Glueball $gg$ $M_u \sim M_s < M_g$ $z_u^{\rm max} \sim z_s^{\rm max}$
--------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- ------------------------------------
In the following, the notation $f_0$ indicates the $f_0(980)$ meson and $f_0(600)$ is not discussed. There were proposals to find the structure by a $\phi$ radiative decay into $f_0$ [@cik93; @ag97; @phi1]. Since it is an electric dipole decay, the width should reflect information on its size, namely its internal structure [@cik93]. The experimental measurements of VEPP-2M [@vepp] and DA$\Phi$NE [@daphne] were reported for the decay $\phi \rightarrow f_0 \gamma$. The data may suggest the tetraquark picture; however, there are still discussions on their interpretation [@phi1]. Another possible experimental probe is the $\gamma\gamma\rightarrow\pi^+\pi^-$ process in the $f_0$ mass region. The two-photon decay width of $f_0(980)$ was recently reported as $0.205^{+0.095}_{-0.083}({\rm stat})^{+0.147}_{-0.117}({\rm syst})$ keV by the Belle collaboration [@belle07]. Model calculations indicate $1.3-1.8$ keV in the nonstrange $q\bar q$ picture; however, the measurement is consistent with the $s\bar s$ and $K\bar K$-molecule configurations. There are also ideas to use elliptic flow and nuclear modification ratios in heavy-ion reactions for finding exotic hadron structure [@heavy-ion].
There are compelling theoretical and experimental evidences that the scalar meson $f_0(980)$ is not an ordinary nonstrange $q\bar q$ meson. However, a precise configuration is not determined yet, and a clear experimental evidence is awaited. It is the purpose of this paper to show that the internal structure of exotic hadrons should be determined from their fragmentation functions by noting differences in favored and disfavored functions. We investigate $f_0(980)$ as an example in this work.
A fragmentation function is defined by a hadron-production cross section and the total hadronic cross section: $
F^h(z,Q^2) = \frac{1}{\sigma_{tot}}
\frac{d\sigma (e^+e^- \rightarrow hX)}{dz} .
$ Here, the variable $z$ is defined by the hadron energy $E_h$ and the center-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s}$ ($=\sqrt{Q^2}$) by $z \equiv E_h/(\sqrt{s}/2)$. The fragmentation occurs from primary partons, so that it is expressed by the sum of their contributions: $
F^h(z,Q^2) = \sum_i C_i(z,\alpha_s) \otimes D_i^h (z,Q^2),
$ where $\otimes$ indicates the convolution integral, $f (z) \otimes g (z) = \int^{1}_{z} dy f(y) g(z/y)/y$, $D_i^h(z,Q^2)$ is the fragmentation function of the hadron $h$ from a parton $i$ ($=u,\ d,\ s,\ \cdot\cdot\cdot,\ g$), $C_i(z,\alpha_s)$ is a coefficient function, and $\alpha_s$ is the running coupling constant. The favored fragmentation means a fragmentation from a quark or an antiquark which exists in a hadron as a constituent in a quark model, and the disfavored means a fragmentation from a sea quark. The favored and disfavored functions are assigned in the following discussions by considering the naive quark configurations in Table \[tab:f0-config\].
We first consider a possible $s\bar s$ configuration for $f_0$. Then, the $u$- and $d$-quark fragmentation functions are disfavored ones and the $s$-quark function is a favored one. For example, the favored fragmentation from $s$ is possible if a gluon is radiated from $s$, and then it splits into a $s\bar s$ pair to form the $f_0$ meson as shown in Fig. \[fig:ssbar\]. The notations $O(g^2)$ and $O(g^3)$ indicate the second and third orders of the coupling constant $g$. In the disfavored process from $u$, there are processes in the order of $O(g^3)$ without an $O(g^2)$ term, so that its probability is expected to be smaller than the favored one from $s$. It leads to the relation for the second moments of fragmentation functions: $M_u < M_s$, where $M_i \equiv \int dz z D_i^{f_0} (z)$. The second moment $M_i$ is the energy fraction for $f_0$ which is created from the parton $i$. In the same way, fragmentations occur from a gluon as shown in the figure. Since there are two processes in $O(g^2)$ with a soft gluon radiation, the second moment for the gluon is expected to be larger than the others. These considerations lead to the relation $M_u<M_s \lesssim M_g$ in Table \[tab:f0-config\]. Such a naive estimation should be a crude one, but it has been shown to work for the moments of the pion, kaon, and proton [@hkns07], so that it is also expected to be a reasonable guideline in other hadrons.
![(Color online) Schematic diagrams for $f_0$ production in the tetraquark configuration.[]{data-label="fig:tetraquark"}](1_ssbar.eps){width="34.00000%"}
![(Color online) Schematic diagrams for $f_0$ production in the tetraquark configuration.[]{data-label="fig:tetraquark"}](2_tetraquark.eps){width="34.00000%"}
Next, functional forms are discussed in the $s\bar s$ picture. More energy is transferred to $f_0$ from the initial $s$ in the $O(g^2)$ process than the one from the initial $u$ due to an extra gluon emission in Fig. \[fig:ssbar\]. It means that the fragmentation function $D_s^{f_0}(z)$ is distributed in the larger $z$ region in comparison with $D_u^{f_0}(z)$ because the $f_0$ energy is directly proportional to $z$. Namely, they should have different functional forms and their peak positions are different at small $Q^2$ ($\sim$1 GeV$^2$). We express this situation as $z_u^{\rm max}<z_s^{\rm max}$ in Table \[tab:f0-config\]. The form of the gluon fragmentation function may not be simply compared with the quark processes.
In the same way, the second moments and functional forms are roughly estimated for the tetraquark picture. Since the fragmentations from $u$ and $s$ quarks are equally favored processes in this case, their moments and functions forms should be almost the same. The fragmentations into $f_0$ proceed by creating $u\bar u$ (or $d\bar d$) and $s\bar s$ pairs as shown in Fig. \[fig:tetraquark\]. There are more fragmentation processes from a gluon, so that the gluon moment is expected to be larger than the others. In this way, we obtain the relations, $M_u \sim M_s \lesssim M_g$ and $z_u^{\rm max} \sim z_s^{\rm max}$, in Table \[tab:f0-config\]. Since the flavor composition of $f_0$ is simply considered in the above discussions, this relation could be also applied to the $K\bar K$ case. However, the $K\bar K$ is a loose and extended bound state so that its production probability in the fragmentation is expected to be much smaller than that of the tetraquark state.
Although the nonstrange-$q\bar q$ and glueball configurations seem to be unlikely according to recent theoretical investigations, we also estimated possible relations in Table \[tab:f0-config\]. Since the estimation method is essentially the same, derivations are not explained here. If $f_0$ were a nonstrange-$q\bar q$ meson, the relations $M_s<M_u<M_g$ and $z_u^{\rm max}>z_s^{\rm max}$ are expected, whereas they are $M_u \sim M_s < M_g$ and $z_u^{\rm max} \sim z_s^{\rm max}$ if it were a glueball.
The fragmentation functions are determined by a global analysis of hadron-production data in $e^+ e^-$ annihilation [@ffs]. There is recent progress on their analysis. Uncertainties of the fragmentation functions are determined in Ref. [@hkns07], and it was shown that the gluon and light-quark functions have large uncertainties for the pion, kaon, and proton. Then, a global analysis with data in lepton scattering and proton-proton collisions was also reported [@dss]. This kind of global analysis is suitable for finding exotic hadrons by noting the typical features in the favored and disfavored functions.
All the possible configurations for $f_0$ indicate that up- and down-quark compositions are the same; however, they are generally different from the strange-quark and other ones. Therefore, a natural and model-independent parametrization is $$\begin{aligned}
D_{u}^{f_0} (z,Q_0^2) & = D_{\bar u}^{f_0} (z,Q_0^2)
= D_{d}^{f_0} (z,Q_0^2) = D_{\bar d}^{f_0} (z,Q_0^2)
\nonumber \\
& = N_{u}^{f_0} z^{\alpha_{u}^{f_0}}
(1-z)^{\beta_{u}^{f_0}},
\nonumber \\
D_{s}^{f_0} (z,Q_0^2) & = D_{\bar s}^{f_0} (z,Q_0^2)
= N_{s}^{f_0} z^{\alpha_{s}^{f_0}}
(1-z)^{\beta_{s}^{f_0}},
\nonumber \\
D_{g}^{f_0} (z,Q_0^2) &
= N_{g}^{f_0} z^{\alpha_{g}^{f_0}}
(1-z)^{\beta_{g}^{f_0}},
\\
D_{c}^{f_0} (z,m_c^2) & = D_{\bar c}^{f_0} (z,m_c^2)
= N_{c}^{f_0} z^{\alpha_{c}^{f_0}} (1-z)^{\beta_{c}^{f_0}} ,
\nonumber \\
D_{b}^{f_0} (z,m_b^2) & = D_{\bar b}^{f_0} (z,m_b^2)
= N_{b}^{f_0} z^{\alpha_{b}^{f_0}} (1-z)^{\beta_{b}^{f_0}} ,
\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where $N_i$, $\alpha_i$, and $\beta_i$ are the parameters to be determined by a $\chi^2$ analysis of the data for $e^++e^- \rightarrow f_0+X$ [@e+e-f0-data]. The initial scale is taken $Q_0^2$=1 GeV$^2$, and the masses are $m_c$=1.43 GeV and $m_b$=4.3 GeV. The details of the analysis method in the next-to-leading order are explained in Ref. [@hkns07]. Uncertainties of the determined functions are estimated by the Hessian method [@hkns07], which has been used also in the studies of various parton distribution functions [@unpol-error; @errors]: $$[\delta D_i^{f_0} (z)]^2=\Delta \chi^2 \sum_{j,k}
\left( \frac{\partial D_i^{f_0} (z,\xi)}{\partial \xi_j} \right)_{\hat\xi}
H_{jk}^{-1}
\left( \frac{\partial D_i^{f_0} (z,\xi)}{\partial \xi_k} \right)_{\hat\xi}
.
\label{eqn:ddih}$$ Here, $\delta D_i^{f_0} (z)$ is the uncertainty of the fragmentation function $D_i^{f_0} (z)$, $\Delta \chi^2 $ value is taken so that the confidence level $P$ becomes the one-$\sigma$-error range ($P=0.6826$) by assuming the normal distribution in the multi-parameter space, $H_{ij}$ is the Hessian matrix, $\xi_i$ is a parameter, and $\hat\xi$ indicates the optimum parameter set.
![(Color online) Determined fragmentation functions of $f_0 (980)$ by the global analysis. The functions $zD_u^{f_0}$, $zD_s^{f_0}$, and $zD_g^{f_0}$ are shown at $Q^2$=1 GeV$^2$, and the functions $zD_c^{f_0}$ and $zD_b^{f_0}$ are at $Q^2=m_c^2$ and $m_b^2$, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:f0-ffs"}](3_f0-ffs.eps){width="34.00000%"}
The number of $f_0$ data is very limited at this stage. In fact, available data are merely twenty three. This situation makes the analysis difficult in obtaining the minimum $\chi^2$ point. There are irrelevant parameters which do not affect the total $\chi^2$. We decided to fix three parameters at $\beta_g=1$, $\alpha_u=10$, and $\alpha_s=10$ because of the lack of data. Then, the total number of parameters becomes twelve. The minimum $\chi^2$ is obtained $\chi^2$/d.o.f.=0.907 in our analysis.
The determined functions are shown in Fig. \[fig:f0-ffs\]. It is interesting to find that the up- and strange-quark functions are distributed relatively at large $z$, and both functions have similar shapes, whereas the gluon, charm-, and bottom-quark functions are distributed at smaller $z$. It may indicate that both functions, $D_u^{f_0}$ and $D_s^{f_0}$, are equally favored ones, which implies that the up-quark (and down-quark) is one of main components of $f_0$ as well as the strange-quark. Furthermore, they are peaked almost at the same points of $z$ ($z_u^{\rm max} \sim z_s^{\rm max}$), which may be also considered as an evidence for the tetraquark structure according to Table \[tab:f0-config\]. However, if it is judged from their second moment ratio ($M_u/M_s=0.43$), it looks like the $s\bar s$ configuration.
This conflict is mainly caused by the inaccurate determination of the fragmentation functions although it may be understood by admixture of the $s\bar s$ and tetraquark configurations. In Fig. \[fig:f0-ffs-error\], the uncertainties of $zD_u^{f_0}$, $zD_s^{f_0}$, and $zD_g^{f_0}$ are shown at $Q^2$=1 GeV$^2$ together with the functions themselves. We notice huge uncertainties which are an order of magnitude larger than the determined functions. If their moments are calculated, they have large errors: $ M_u = 0.0012 \pm 0.0107$, $ M_s = 0.0027 \pm 0.0183$, and $ M_g = 0.0090 \pm 0.0046$. From these results, the error of the moment ratio is estimated as $M_u/M_s=0.43\pm 6.73$, which makes it impossible to discuss the effect of the order of 50%. In this way, we find the structure of $f_0$ cannot be determined by the current $e^+e^-$ data.
![(Color online) Fragmentation functions, $zD_u^{f_0}$, $zD_s^{f_0}$, and $zD_g^{f_0}$, and their uncertainties are shown at $Q^2$=1 GeV$^2$. The uncertainties are shown by the shaded bands.[]{data-label="fig:f0-ffs-error"}](4_f0-ffs-errors.eps){width="34.00000%"}
It is the purpose of this work to point out that structure of exotic hadrons should be determined by the fragmentation functions. Accurate measurements of hadron-production cross sections can be used for determining their internal quark and gluon configurations as explained in this paper by taking $f_0(980)$ as an example. We have shown that $s\bar s$ and tetraquark configurations, and also nonstrange-$q\bar q$ and glueball states, should be distinguished by the second moments and functional forms of the favored and disfavored functions. Especially, the ratio of the $u$-quark moment to the $s$-quark one should be useful to judge the configuration.
In order to determine the internal structure, the flavor separation is important especially because the difference between the up- and strange-quark functions is the key to find the structure of $f_0$. First, charm- and bottom-quark tagged data should be provided for $f_0$ as they have been obtained for the pion, kaon, and proton. Then, the charm- and bottom-quark functions should be determined accurately. Second, semi-inclusive $f_0$-production data in lepton-proton scattering can be used for distinguishing between up- and strange-quark fragmentations because the initial quark distributions are different in the proton. These flavor separations will become possible by future experimental analyses. Our work is a starting point for exotic hadron search by suggesting the relations in the second moments and the functional forms and by indicating the current experimental situation as the uncertainty bands.
The fragmentation functions of $f_0$ and their uncertainties have been determined by the global analysis of $f_0$ production data. At this stage, the $e^+e^-$ data are not precise enough; however, accurate experimental measurements could create a field of exotic hadrons which are beyond the naive $q\bar q$ and $qqq$ type ones. Currently, analyses are in progress by the Belle collaboration [@belle-ffs] to provide accurate fragmentation functions. They are especially important because the functions are measured at small $Q^2$ ($\ll M_Z^2$), so that scaling violation can be investigated to find the gluon functions [@hkns07]. It is also important to have accurate measurements for ordinal mesons such as $\phi (1020)$ and $f_2 (1270)$ in order to establish the $f_0$ configuration by comparing their favored and disfavored functions with the ones of $f_0$. We could investigate other exotic hadrons in the same way by their fragmentation functions.
[00]{} F. E. Close and N. A. Törnqvist, J. Phys. G [**28**]{}, R249 (2002); C. Amsler and N. A. Törnqvist, Phys. Rept. [**389**]{}, 61 (2004); M. Oka, Nucl. Phys. [**A790**]{}, 462 (2007). R. Kokoski and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D [**35**]{}, 907 (1987); S. Kumano and V. R. Pandharipande, Phys. Rev. D [**38**]{}, 146 (1988). Particle data are listed in http://ccwww.kek.jp/pdg/. E. M. Aitala [*et al.*]{} (E791 collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 765 (2001). J. D. Weinstein and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D [**41**]{}, 2236 (1990). R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. D [**15**]{}, 267 & 281 (1977). H.-X. Chen, A. Hosaka, S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Lett. B [**650**]{}, 369 (2007); J. Sugiyama [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{}, 114010 (2007). H. Suganuma, K. Tsumura, N. Ishii, and F. Okiharu, PoS LAT2005, 070 (2006) (hep-lat/0509121). For recent results, see Y. Chen [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 014516 (2006). F. E. Close, N. Isgur, and S. Kumano, Nucl. Phys. [**B389**]{}, 513 (1993). N. N. Achasov and V. V. Gubin, Phys. Rev. D [**56**]{}, 4084 (1997). For recent progress, see N. N. Achasov and A. V. Kiselev, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 054029 (2006); Erratum, [**74**]{}, 059902 (2006); hep-ph/0606268; Y. S. Kalashnikova [*et al.*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. A [**24**]{}, 437 (2005). R. R. Akhmetshin [*et al.*]{} (CMD-2 collaboration), Phys. Lett. B [**462**]{}, 371 (1999); M. N. Achasov [*et al.*]{} (SND collaboration), Phys. Lett. B [**485**]{}, 349 (2000). A. Aloisio [*et al.*]{} (KLOE collaboration), Phys. Lett. B [**537**]{}, 21 (2002). T. Mori [*et al.*]{} (Belle collaboration), Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{}, 051101 (2007); N. N. Achasov and G. N. Shestakov, Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{}, 013006 (2005). C. Nonaka [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**69**]{}, 031902 (2004); L. Maiani [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**645**]{}, 138 (2007). M. Hirai, S. Kumano, T.-H. Nagai, and K. Sudoh, Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{}, 094009 (2007). B. A. Kniehl, G. Kramer, and B. Pötter, Nucl. Phys. [**B582**]{}, 514 (2000); S. Kretzer, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 054001 (2000); S. Albino, B. A. Kniehl, and G. Kramer, Nucl. Phys. [**B725**]{}, 181 (2005). D. de Florian, R. Sassot, and M. Stratmann, Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{}, 114010 (2007). S. Abachi [*et al.*]{} (HRS collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**57**]{}, 1990 (1986); P. Abreu [*et al.*]{} (DELPHI collaboration), Zeit. Phys. C [**65**]{}, 587 (1995); Phys. Lett. B [**449**]{}, 364 (1999); K. Ackerstaff [*et al.*]{} (OPAL collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C [**4**]{}, 19 (1998). J. Pumplin [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 014013 (2001); JHEP, [**0207**]{}, 012 (2002); A. D. Martin [*et al.*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. C [**28**]{}, 455 (2003); [**35**]{}, 325 (2004). M. Hirai, S. Kumano, and N. Saito, Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{}, 054021 (2004); [**74**]{}, 014015 (2006); M. Hirai, S. Kumano, and T.-H. Nagai, Phys. Rev. C [**70**]{}, 044905 (2004). M. Grosse Perdekamp, R. Seidl, and S. Uehara, personal communications.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study infinite covolume discrete subgroups of higher rank semisimple Lie groups, motivated by understanding basic properties of Anosov subgroups from various viewpoints (geometric, coarse geometric and dynamical). The class of Anosov subgroups constitutes a natural generalization of convex cocompact subgroups of rank one Lie groups to higher rank. Our main goal is to give several new equivalent characterizations for this important class of discrete subgroups. Our characterizations capture “rank one behavior” of Anosov subgroups and are direct generalizations of rank one equivalents to convex cocompactness. Along the way, we considerably simplify the original definition, avoiding the geodesic flow. We also show that the Anosov condition can be relaxed further by requiring only non-uniform unbounded expansion along the (quasi)geodesics in the group.'
author:
- 'Michael Kapovich, Bernhard Leeb, Joan Porti'
date: 'March 3, 2017'
title: |
Anosov subgroups:\
Dynamical and geometric characterizations
---
Introduction
============
This paper is devoted to studying basic properties of Anosov subgroups of semisimple Lie groups from various viewpoints (geometric, coarse geometric and dynamical). The class of Anosov subgroups, introduced by Labourie [@Labourie] and further extended by Guichard and Wienhard [@GW], constitutes a natural generalization of convex cocompact subgroups of rank one Lie groups to higher rank. Our main goal here is to give several new equivalent characterizations for this important class of discrete subgroups, including a considerable simplification of their original definition. For convex cocompact subgroups as well as for word hyperbolic groups, it is very fruitful to have different viewpoints and alternative definitions, as they were developed by many authors starting with Ahlfors’ work on geometric finiteness in the 60s, and later by Beardon, Maskit, Marden, Thurston, Sullivan, Bowditch and others. Besides a deeper understanding, it enables one to switch perspectives in a nontrivial way, adapted to the situation at hand. A main purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that much of this theory extends to Anosov subgroups, and we hope that the concepts and results presented here will be useful for their further study. In our related work, they lay the basis for the results on the Higher Rank Morse Lemma [@mlem], compactifications of locally symmetric spaces for Anosov subgroups [@bordif], the local-to-global principle and the construction of Morse-Schottky subgroups [@morse]. We refer to the surveys [@anosov; @manicures] for more details on these developments.
In rank one, among Kleinian groups and, more generally, among discrete subgroups of rank one Lie groups, one distinguishes [*geometrically finite*]{} subgroups. They form a large and flexible class of discrete subgroups which are strongly tied to the negatively curved symmetric spaces they act on. Therefore they have especially good geometric, topological and dynamical properties and one can prove many interesting results about them. The simplest are geometrically finite subgroups [*without parabolics*]{}, which are lie at the root of this paper. They can be characterized in many (not obviously) equivalent ways: As convex cocompact subgroups, as undistorted subgroups, as subgroups with conical limit set, as subgroups which are expanding at their limit set, and as intrinsically word hyperbolic subgroups with Gromov boundary equivariantly homeomorphic to their limit set, to name some.
In higher rank, a satisfying and sufficiently broad definition of geometric finiteness, with or without parabolics, remains yet to be found. Convex cocompactness turns out to be much too restrictive a condition: it was shown by Kleiner and the second author [@convcoco] that in higher rank only few subgroups are convex cocompact. Undistortion by itself, on the other hand, is way too weak: undistorted subgroups can even fail to be finitely presented. Thus, one is forced to look for suitable replacements of these notions in higher rank. It turns out that some of the other equivalent characterizations of convex cocompactness in rank one do admit useful modifications in higher rank, which lead to the class of Anosov subgroups. The Anosov condition is not too rigid and, at the same time, it imposes enough restrictions on the subgroups making it possible to analyze their geometric and dynamical properties. One way to think of Anosov subgroups is as geometrically finite subgroups without parabolics which exhibit some [*rank one behavior*]{}. Indeed, they are intrinsically word hyperbolic and we will see that also extrinsically they display hyperbolic behavior in a variety of ways.
In this paper, we primarily consider four notions generalizing convex cocompactness to higher rank, all equivalent to the Anosov condition, see the Equivalence Theorem \[thm:eqvi\] below:
\(i) asymptotic embeddedness
\(ii) expansivity
\(iii) conicality
\(iv) Morse property
Whereas the conditions Anosov, (i) and (ii) are dynamical, (iii) is a condition on the asymptotic geometry of the subgroup, and (iv) is coarse geometric.
We now describe in more detail some of our concepts and results.
Let $X=G/K$ be a symmetric space of noncompact type and, for simplicity, let the semisimple Lie group $G$ be the connected component of its isometry group. Our approach to studying Anosov subgroups $\Ga<G$ begins with the observation that they satisfy a strong form of discreteness which we call [*regularity*]{} and which is primarily responsible for their extrinsic “rank one behavior” alluded to above. Discreteness of a subgroup $\Ga<G$ means that for sequences $(\ga_n)$ of distinct elements the distance $d(x,\ga_nx)$ in $X$ diverges to infinity. For higher rank symmetric spaces there is a natural vector-valued refinement $d_{\De}$ of the Riemannian distance $d$, which takes values in the euclidean Weyl chamber $\De$ of $X$. The regularity assumption on $\Ga$, in its strongest form of [*$\simod$-regularity*]{}, means that $d_{\De}(x,\ga_nx)$ diverges away from the boundary of $\De$. We will work more generally with relaxations of this condition, called $\taumod$-regularity, associated with a face $\taumod$ of the model spherical Weyl chamber $\simod$, where one only requires divergence of $d_{\De}(x,\ga_nx)$ away from some of the faces of $\De$, depending on $\taumod$. To be precise, think of $\simod$ as the visual boundary of the euclidean Weyl chamber, $\simod\cong\geo\De$. Given a face $\taumod\subseteq\simod$, we define [*$\taumod$-regularity*]{} by requiring that $d_{\De}(x,\ga_nx)$ diverges away from the faces of $\De$ whose visual boundaries do not contain $\taumod$. We will also need the stronger notion of [*uniform $\taumod$-regularity*]{} where one requires the divergence to be linear in terms of $d(x,\ga_nx)$. Most of the discussion in this paper will take place within the framework of $\taumod$-regular subgroups.
Classically, the asymptotic behavior of discrete subgroups $\Ga<G$ is captured by their visual limit set $\La(\Ga)$ which is the accumulation set of their orbits $\Ga x\subset X$ in the visual boundary $\geo X$. In our context of $\taumod$-regular subgroups, the visual limit set is replaced by the [*$\taumod$-limit set*]{} $\LatGa$ contained in the partial flag manifold $\Flagt=G/P_{\taumod}$ and defined as the accumulation set of $\Ga$-orbits in the bordification $X\sqcup\Flagt$ of $X$, equipped with the topology of [*flag convergence*]{} (see section \[sec:conv\]). Here, $P_{\taumod}$ is a parabolic subgroup in the conjugacy class corresponding to $\taumod$. The notion of $\taumod$-limit set extends to arbitrary discrete subgroups.
We call a $\taumod$-regular subgroup $\Ga<G$ [*nonelementary*]{} if $|\LatGa|\geq3$, and [*antipodal*]{} if it satisfies the visibility condition that any two distinct limit simplices in $\LatGa$ are antipodal. The latter means that they can be connected by a geodesic in $X$ in the sense that the geodesic is asymptotic to interior points of the simplices. It is worth noting that the action of a $\taumod$-regular antipodal subgroup on its $\taumod$-limit set enjoys the classical convergence property, which is a typical rank one phenomenon.
Regularity, which is a condition on the asymptotic geometry of orbits in the symmetric space, can be converted into an equivalent dynamical condition about a certain contraction behavior of the subgroup on suitable flag manifolds (see Definition \[def:contracting\_sequence\]), allowing one to switch between geometry and dynamics. The contraction behavior here is a higher rank version of the classical convergence (dynamics) property in the theory of Kleinian groups. This yields an equivalent characterization of $\taumod$-regular subgroups as [*$\taumod$-convergence subgroups*]{} (see Definition \[def:conv\]). Also the limit sets, respectively, limit simplices can be defined purely dynamically as the possible limits of contracting sequences in $\Ga$, i.e. of sequences converging to constants on suitable open and dense subsets of the flag manifolds, see Definition \[def:flagl\].
Much of the material in section \[sec:regcontr\] can be found in some form already in the work of Benoist, see [@Benoist §3], in the setting of Zariski dense subgroups of reductive algebraic groups over local fields, notably the notions of [*regularity*]{} and [*contraction*]{}, their essential equivalence, and the notion of [*limit set*]{}. For the sake of completeness we give independent proofs in our setting of discrete subgroups of semisimple Lie groups. Also our methods are rather different. We give here a geometric treatment and present the material in a form suitable to serve as a basis for the further development of our theory of discrete isometry groups acting on Riemannian symmetric spaces and euclidean buildings of higher rank, such as in our papers [@coco15; @morse; @mlem; @bordif].
We now (mostly) restrict to the class of $\taumod$-regular, equivalently, $\taumod$-convergence subgroups and introduce various geometric and dynamical conditions in the spirit of geometric finiteness. We begin with three dynamical ones:
1. We say that a subgroup $\Ga<G$ is [*$\taumod$-asymptotically embedded*]{} if it is an antipodal $\taumod$-convergence subgroup, $\Ga$ is word hyperbolic and there exists a $\Ga$-equivariant homeomorphism $$\label{eq:mapalphatauintro}
\alpha: \geo \Gamma \stackrel{\cong}{\lra}
\LatGa\subset \Flagt$$ from its Gromov boundary onto its $\taumod$-limit set.
This condition can be understood as a continuity at infinity property for the orbit maps $o_x:\Ga\to\Ga x\subset X$: By extending an orbit map $o_x$ to infinity by the boundary map $\al$, one obtains a continuous map $$o_x\sqcup\al:\Ga\sqcup\geo\Ga\lra X\sqcup\Flagt$$ from the Gromov compactification of $\Ga$ (see Proposition \[prop:asyembprp\]).
2. Our next condition is inspired by Sullivan’s notion of [*expanding actions*]{} [@Sullivan]. Following Sullivan, we call a subgroup $\Ga< G$ [*expanding at infinity*]{} if its action on the appropriate partial flag manifold is expanding at the limit set. More precisely:
We call a $\taumod$-convergence subgroup $\Ga< G$ [*$\taumod$-expanding at the limit set*]{} if for every limit flag in $\LatGa$ there exists a neighborhood $U$ in $\Flagt$ and an element $\ga\in\Ga$ which is uniformly expanding on $U$, i.e. for some constant $c>1$ and all $\tau_1,\tau_2\in U$ it holds that $$d(\ga\tau_1,\ga\tau_2)\geq c\cdot d(\tau_1,\tau_2) .$$ Here, and in what follows the distance $d$ is induced by a fixed Riemannian background metric on the flag manifold.
Now we can formulate our second condition:
We say that a subgroup $\Ga <G$ is [*$\taumod$-CEA*]{} (Convergence Expanding Antipodal) if it is an antipodal $\taumod$-convergence subgroup which is expanding at the limit set.
We note that the CEA condition does not a priori assume word hyperbolicity, not even finite generation.
3. The next condition is motivated by the original definition of Anosov subgroups. It is a hybrid of the previous two definitions, where we weaken asymptotic embeddedness (to boundary embeddedness) and strengthen expansivity. We drop the regularity/convergence assumption and, accordingly, make no use of the limit set in our definition. Compared to asymptotic embeddedness, we keep the word hyperbolicity of the subgroup but, instead of identifying its Gromov boundary with the limit set as in asymptotic embeddedness, we only require a boundary map embedding the Gromov boundary into the flag manifold. Compared to CEA, we require a stronger form of expansivity, now at the image of the boundary map.
We call a subgroup $\Ga<G$ [*$\taumod$-boundary embedded*]{} if $\Ga$ is word hyperbolic and there exists a $\Ga$-equivariant continuous embedding $$\beta:\geo\Ga\lra\Flagt$$ sending distinct visual boundary points to antipodal simplices. If $\Ga$ is virtually cyclic, we require in addition that it is discrete in $G$. (Otherwise, discreteness is a consequence.) We will refer to $\beta$ as a [*boundary embedding*]{}. In general, boundary embeddings are not unique.
The [*infinitesimal expansion factor*]{} of an element $g\in G$ at a simplex $\tau\in\Flagt$ is $$\eps(g, \tau)= \min_u |dg(u)|$$ where the minimum is taken over all unit tangent vectors $u\in T_\tau \Flagt$, again using the Riemannian background metric.
Now we can formulate our version of the Anosov condition:
We say that a subgroup $\Ga<G$ is [*$\taumod$-Anosov*]{} if it is $\taumod$-boundary embedded with boundary embedding $\beta$ and satisfies the following expansivity condition: For every ideal point $\zeta\in \geo \Ga$ and every normalized (by $r(0)=e\in \Ga$) discrete geodesic ray $r: \N\to \Ga$ asymptotic to $\zeta$, the action $\Ga\acts\Flagt$ satisfies $$\eps(r(n)^{-1}, \beta(\zeta))\ge A e^{Cn}$$ for $n\geq 0$ with constants $A, C>0$ independent of $r$. (Here, we fix a word metric on $\Ga$.)
The uniformity of expansion in this definition can be significantly weakened:
We say that a subgroup $\Ga<G$ is [*non-uniformly $\taumod$-Anosov*]{} if it is $\taumod$-boundary embedded with boundary embedding $\beta$ and, for every ideal point $\zeta\in \geo \Ga$ and every discrete geodesic ray $r: \N\to \Ga$ asymptotic to $\zeta$, the action $\Ga\acts\Flagt$ satisfies $$\sup_{n\in\N}\, \eps(r(n)^{-1}, \beta(\zeta))=+\infty.$$
The original definition of Anosov subgroups in [@Labourie; @GW] is rather involved. It is based on geodesic flows for word hyperbolic groups and formulated in terms of expansion/contraction properties for lifted flows on associated bundles over the geodesic flow spaces (see section \[sec:onos\]). Our definition requires only an expansion property for the group action on a suitable flag manifold and avoids using the geodesic flow, whose construction is highly technical for word hyperbolic groups which do not arise as the fundamental group of a closed negatively curved Riemannian manifold. The geodesic flow is replaced by a simpler coarse geometric object, the space of quasigeodesics.
Now we come to the geometric notions.
4. The first geometric condition concerns the [*orbit asymptotics*]{}. The notion of conicality of limit simplices, due to Albuquerque [@Albuquerque Def. 5.2], generalizes a well-known condition from the theory of Kleinian groups: In the case $\taumod=\simod$, a limit chamber $\si\in\LasGa$ of a $\simod$-regular subgroup $\Ga<G$ is called [*conical*]{} if there exists a sequence $\ga_n\to\infty$ in $\Ga$ such that for a(ny) point $x\in X$ the sequence of orbit points $\ga_nx$ is contained in a tubular neighborhood of the euclidean Weyl chamber $V(x,\si)$ with tip $x$ and asymptotic to $\si$. For general $\taumod$ and limit simplices $\tau\in\LatGa$ of $\taumod$-regular subgroups $\Ga<G$, one replaces the euclidean Weyl chamber with the Weyl cone $V(x,\st(\tau))$ over the star of $\tau$, that is, by the union of the euclidean Weyl chambers $V(x,\si)$ for all spherical Weyl chambers $\si\supset\tau$. A $\taumod$-regular subgroup $\Ga<G$ is called [*conical*]{} if all limit simplices are conical. Here is our forth condition:
We say that a subgroup $\Ga<G$ is [*$\taumod$-RCA*]{} if it is $\taumod$-regular, conical and antipodal.
For nonelementary $\taumod$-regular antipodal subgroups, this extrinsic notion of conicality is equivalent to an intrinsic one defined in terms of the dynamics on the $\taumod$-limit set (Proposition \[prop:concon\]), which enables one to relate it to the dynamical notions above.
5. The last set of definitions concerns the [*coarse extrinsic geometry*]{}. We recall that a finitely generated subgroup $\Ga<G$ is [*undistorted*]{} if the orbit maps $\Ga\to X$ are quasiisometric embeddings. They then send discrete geodesics in $\Ga$ (with respect to a fixed word metric) to uniform quasigeodesics in $X$. Undistortion by itself is too weak a restriction, compared with the other notions defined previously. We will strengthen it in two ways. The first is by adding uniform regularity:
We say that a subgroup $\Ga<G$ is [*$\taumod$-URU*]{} if it is uniformly $\taumod$-regular and undistorted.
According to the classical [*Morse Lemma*]{} in negative curvature, quasigeodesic segments in rank one symmetric spaces are uniformly Hausdorff close to geodesic segments with the same endpoints. This is no longer true in higher rank because it fails already in euclidean plane. Another way of strengthening undistortion is therefore by imposing a “Morse” type property on the quasigeodesics arising as orbit map images of the discrete geodesics in $\Ga$.
As in the case of conicality above, where one replaces rays with Weyl cones when passing from rank one to higher rank, it is natural to replace geodesic segments with “diamonds” in a higher rank version of the Morse property. (This is suggested, for instance, by the geometry of free Anosov subgroups, see our examples of Morse-Schottky subgroups [@morse; @manicures].) We define diamonds as follows: If $\taumod=\simod$ and $xy$ is a $\simod$-regular segment, then the [*$\simod$-diamond*]{} with tips $x,y$ is the intersection $$\diamo(x,y) = V(x,\si)\cap V(y,\hat\si)$$ of the euclidean Weyl chambers with tips at $x$ and $y$ containing $xy$. In the case of general $\taumod$, the euclidean Weyl chambers are replaced with $\taumod$-Weyl cones (see section \[sec:diamo\]).
We say that a subgroup $\Ga<G$ is [*$\taumod$-Morse*]{} if it is $\taumod$-regular, $\Ga$ is word hyperbolic and an(y) orbit map $o_x:\Ga\to\Ga x\subset X$ satisfies the following Morse condition: The images $o_x\circ s$ of discrete geodesic segments $s:[n_-,n_+]\cap\Z\to\Ga$ are contained in uniform tubular neighborhoods of $\taumod$-diamonds with tips uniformly close to the endpoints of $o_x\circ s$ (see Definition \[def:mrs\]).
The definition does not a priori assume undistortion, but we show in this paper that Morse implies URU. That, conversely, URU implies Morse may seem unexpected at first but follows from our Higher Rank Morse Lemma for regular quasigeodesics [@mlem].
We now arrive at our main result on the equivalence of various conditions introduced above. We state it for nonelementary subgroups because we use this assumption in some of our proofs.
\[thm:eqvi\] The following properties for subgroups $\Ga<G$ are equivalent in the nonelementary case:
\(i) $\taumod$-asymptotically embedded
\(ii) $\taumod$-CEA.
\(iii) $\taumod$-Anosov
\(iv) non-uniformly $\taumod$-Anosov
\(v) $\taumod$-RCA
\(vi) $\taumod$-Morse
These properties imply $\taumod$-URU.
Moreover, the boundary maps for properties (i), (iii) and (iv) coincide.
Here, “nonelementary” means $|\geo\Ga|\geq3$ in the Anosov conditions (iii) and (iv), which assume word hyperbolicity but no $\taumod$-regularity, and means $|\LatGa|\geq3$ in all other cases.
\(i) We prove in [@mlem] that, conversely, $\taumod$-URU implies $\taumod$-Morse (without assuming nonelementary).
\(ii) All implications between properties (i)-(vi) hold without assuming nonelementary, with the exception of (ii)$\Rightarrow$(v)$\Rightarrow$(i). In particular, the properties (i),(iii),(iv),(vi) and $\taumod$-URU are equivalent in general.
\(iii) The implication Anosov$\Rightarrow$URU had been known before [@GW].
\(iv) Some of the implications in the theorem can be regarded as a description of geometric and dynamical properties of Anosov subgroups. Different characterizations of Anosov subgroups are useful in different contexts. For example: Expansivity (ii) is used in [@coco13; @coco15] to establish the cocompactness of $\Ga$-actions on suitable domains of discontinuity in flag manifolds. Asymptotic embeddedness is used in [@bordif] to construct Finsler compactifications of locally symmetric spaces for Anosov subgroups. The Morse property is used in [@morse] to prove a [*local-to-global principle*]{} for Anosov subgroups. The latter in turn leads to new proofs of openness and structural stability of Anosov representations, to a construction of free Anosov subgroups (Morse-Schottky subgroups), and to the semidecidability of Anosovness, see [@morse].
\(v) In our paper [@bordif] we establish two more characterizations of Anosov subgroups among uniformly regular subgroups, namely as [*coarse retracts*]{} and by [*$S$-cocompactness*]{}. The former property is a strengthening of undistortion. The latter means the existence of a certain kind of compactification of the corresponding locally symmetric space.
\(vi) Other characterizations of Anosov subgroups can be found in [@GGKW].
Boundary embeddedness appears to be a considerable weakening of asymptotic embeddedness, even in the regular case. Nevertheless two results in this paper establish a close relation between the two concepts:
\(i) For $\simod$-regular subgroups, boundary embeddedness, conversely, implies asymptotic embeddedness, while the boundary embedding may have to be modified (see Theorem \[thm:bemmdsi\]).
\(ii) For general $\taumod$-regular subgroups, there is the following [*dichotomy*]{} for boundary embeddings (see Theorem \[thm:bemblim\]) which is useful for verifying asymptotic embeddedness:
Either the image of the boundary embedding equals the $\taumod$-limit set and the subgroup is asymptotically embedded. Or the image is disjoint from the limit set, and the limit set is not Zariski dense. The latter cannot happen for Zariski dense subgroups.
While the main results in this paper concern discrete subgroups of Lie groups, in section \[sec:mqg\], motivated by the Morse property, we discuss [*Morse quasigeodesics*]{} and [*Finsler geodesics*]{}. We characterize Morse subgroups as word hyperbolic subgroups whose intrinsic geodesics are extrinsically uniform Morse quasigeodesics. Furthermore, we characterize Morse quasigeodesics as bounded perturbations of Finsler geodesics. Lastly, we analyze the $\De$-distance along Finsler geodesics and Morse quasigeodesics. We show that, via the $\De$-distance function, they project to Finsler geodesics and Morse quasigeodesics in $\De$.
Most of the results in this paper were already contained in chapters 1-6 of the preprint [@morse], however the presentation in this paper is more efficient. The further material on the Morse property in [@morse §7] will appear elsewhere.
[**Acknowledgements.**]{} The first author was partly supported by the NSF grants DMS-12-05312 and DMS-16-04241. He is also thankful to KIAS (the Korea Institute for Advanced Study) for its hospitality. The third author was partially supported by grant FEDER/Mineco MTM2015-66165-P.
Geometry of symmetric spaces {#sec:prelim}
============================
In this section, we collect some material from the geometry of symmetric spaces and buildings. We explain the notions which are most important for the purposes of this paper, establish notation and give proofs for some of the less standard facts. No attempt of a complete review is made. For more detailed discussions, we refer the reader to [@Eberlein], [@BGS], [@qirigid] and [@habil].
We give a brief description of where various parts of this section are used in the paper:
Sections \[sec:spherical\]-\[sec:stars\] are used essentially everywhere.
While the vector valued distance function $d_{\De}$ is used in many places in the paper, the rest of the material in sections \[sec:VVD\] and \[sec:refined\] is used primarily in section \[sec:sepnest\] on the separation of nested Weyl cones and in section \[sec:mqg\] where we analyze projections of Morse quasigeodesics to the euclidean model Weyl chamber $\De$.
The material of section \[sec:ascones-shadows\] dealing with shadows at infinity is used in section \[sec:reg-con\] when we prove the equivalence of [*regularity*]{} and [*contractivity*]{} for sequences of isometries of $X$. The main result of section \[sec:sepnest\] on the separation of nested Weyl cones is used in section \[sec:asyemb\] to prove that Morse subgroups are URU (Theorem \[thm:asymbur\]).
The main results of sections \[sec:horocycles\] and \[sec:contraction\] are Theorem \[thm:expand\] and Proposition \[prop:expand\] establishing estimates for the contraction and expansion of isometries of $X$ acting on flag manifolds. (The other results are only used only in sections \[sec:horocycles\] and \[sec:contraction\]). Theorem \[thm:expand\] and Proposition \[prop:expand\] are used in sections \[sec:expa\] and \[sec:anosov\] while discussing discrete subgroups satisfying expansion properties (CEA and Anosov).
The material of section \[sec:fins\] is used only in section \[sec:mqg\] where it is proven that Morse quasigeodesics are uniformly closed to Finsler geodesics and that $\De$-distance projections of Finsler geodesics are again Finsler geodesics.
General metric space notation {#sec:general}
-----------------------------
We will use the notation $B(p,r)$ for the open $r$-ball with center $p$ in a metric space, and $\ol B(p,r)$ for the closed $r$-ball.
A [*geodesic*]{} in a metric space $(Z,d)$ is an isometric embedding $I\to Z$ from a (possibly infinite) interval $I\subset\R$. In the context of finitely generated groups equipped with word metrics, we will also work with [*discrete geodesics*]{}; these are isometric embeddings from intervals $I\cap\Z$ in $\Z$. The notion of [*discrete quasigeodesic*]{} will be used similarly.
Spherical buildings {#sec:spherical}
-------------------
Spherical buildings occur in this paper as the visual boundaries of symmetric spaces of noncompact type, equipped with their structures of thick spherical Tits buildings.
### Spherical geometry {#sec:sphgeom}
Let $S$ be a unit sphere in a euclidean space, and let $\si\subset S$ be a spherical simplex with dihedral angles $\leq\pihalf$. Then $\diam(\si)\leq\pihalf$.
For a face $\tau\subseteq\si$, we define the [*$\tau$-boundary*]{} $\D_{\tau}\si$ as the union of faces of $\si$ which do not contain $\tau$, and the [*$\tau$-interior*]{} $\inte_{\tau}(\si)$ as the union of open faces of $\si$ whose closure contains $\tau$. We obtain the decomposition $$\si=\inte_{\tau}(\si)\sqcup\D_{\tau}\si.$$ If $\tau'\subset\tau$, then $\D_{\tau'}\si\subset\D_{\tau}\si$ and $\inte_{\tau'}(\si)\supset\inte_{\tau}(\si)$. Note that $\D_{\si}\si=\D\si$ and $\inte_{\tau}(\si)=\inte(\si)$.
We need the following fact about projections of spherical simplices to their faces:
\[lem:sphprjfc\] The nearest point projection $\inte_{\tau}(\si)\to\inte(\tau)$ is well-defined.
In other words, for every point $x\in\inte_{\tau}(\si)$ there exists a point $p\in\inte(\tau)$ such that $px\perp\tau$. In view of $\diam(\si)\leq\pihalf$, this point is necessarily unique.
We argue by induction on the dimension of $\si$.
Let $x\in\inte_{\tau}(\si)$. We apply the induction assumption to the link $\Si_v\si$ at a vertex $v$ of $\tau$. Note that $\D_{\Si_v\tau}\Si_v\si =\Si_v \D_{\tau}\si$. Since $\oa{vx}\in\inte_{\Si_v\tau}(\Si_v\si)$, the nearest point projection $\bar\de$ of this direction to $\Si_v\tau$ is contained in $\inte(\Si_v\tau)$ and has angle $<\pihalf$ with $\oa{vx}$. It follows that the nearest point projection $p$ of $x$ to $\tau$ is different from $v$ and lies on the arc in direction $\bar\de$, $\oa{vp}=\bar\de$. In particular, it is not contained in a face of $\tau$ with vertex $v$. Letting run $v$ through the vertices of $\tau$, we conclude that $p\in\inte(\tau)$.
As a consequence of the lemma, the nearest point projection $\inte_{\tau}(\si)\to\tau$ agrees with the nearest point projection $\inte_{\tau}(\si)\to s$ to the geodesic sphere $s\subset S$ spanned by $\tau$ (i.e. containing $\tau$ as a top-dimensional subset), and its image equals $\inte(\tau)$.
### Spherical Coxeter complexes
A [*spherical Coxeter complex*]{} $(\amod,W)$ consists of a unit sphere (in a euclidean space) $\amod$ and a finite reflection group $W$ acting isometrically on $\amod$. We will refer to $\amod$ as the [*model apartment*]{} (because it will serve as the model for apartments in spherical buildings, see below).
A [*wall*]{} in $\amod$ is the fixed point set of a reflection in $W$. A [*half-apartment*]{} is a closed hemisphere in $\amod$ bounded by a wall. A [*singular sphere*]{} in $\amod$ is an intersection of walls.
A [*chamber*]{} in $\amod$ is the closure of a connected component of the complement of the union of the walls. The group $W$ acts transitively on the set of chambers. The chambers are simplices with diameter $\leq\pihalf$ iff $W$ fixes no point in $\amod$, equivalently, the Coxeter complex does not split off a spherical join factor (in the category of Coxeter complexes). In this case, the collection of chambers defines on $\amod$ the structure of a simplicial complex, the simplices being intersections of chambers.
Every chamber is a fundamental domain for the action $W\acts\amod$. The [*spherical model chamber*]{} can be defined as the quotient $\simod=\amod/W$. We identify it with a chamber in the model apartment, $\simod\subset\amod$, which we refer to as the [*fundamental chamber*]{}.
We call the natural projection $$\theta:\amod\to\amod/W\cong\simod$$ the [*type*]{} map for $\amod$. It restricts to an isometry on every chamber. A [*face type*]{} is a face of $\simod$. The type of a simplex $\bar\tau\subset\amod$ is then defined as $\theta(\bar\tau)$. Throughout the paper, we will use the notation $\taumod,\taumod',\numod,\numod',\ldots$ for face types. Furthermore, we will denote by $\Wt\leq W$ the stabilizer of the face type $\taumod\subseteq\simod$.
The [*longest element*]{} of the Weyl group is the unique element $w_0\in W$ sending $\simod$ to the opposite chamber $-\simod$. The [*standard involution*]{} (also known as the [*opposition involution*]{}) of the model chamber is given by $\iota:=-w_0:\simod\to\simod$.
### Spherical buildings {#sec:sphbld}
A [*spherical building*]{} modeled on a Coxeter complex $(\amod,W)$ is a CAT(1) metric space $\B$ equipped with a collection of isometric embeddings $\kappa:\amod\to\B$, called [*charts*]{}. The image of a chart is an [*apartment*]{} in $\B$. One requires that any two points are contained in an apartment and that the coordinate changes between charts are induced by isometries in $W$. (The precise axioms can be found e.g. in [@qirigid] and [@habil].) We will use the notation $\angle$ for the metric on $\B$.
We assume that $W$ fixes no point, equivalently, that $\simod$ is a simplex with diameter $\leq\pihalf$.
Via the atlas of charts, the spherical building inherits from the spherical Coxeter complex a natural structure of a [*simplicial complex*]{} where the simplices are the images of the simplices in the model apartment. As already mentioned, the images of the charts are called [*apartments*]{}. Accordingly, the images of chambers (walls, half-apartments, singular spheres) in $\amod$ are called chambers (walls, half-apartments, singular spheres) in the building. The codimension one faces are called [*panels*]{}. The [*interior*]{} $\inte(\tau)$ of a simplex $\tau$ is obtained by removing all proper faces; the interiors of simplices are called [*open simplices*]{}. The simplex [*spanned*]{} by a point is the smallest simplex containing it, equivalently, the simplex containing the point in its interior. We will sometimes denote the simplex spanned by $\xi$ by $\tau_{\xi}$.
A spherical building is [*thick*]{} if every wall is the bounds at least three half-apartments, equivalently, if every panel is adjacent to (i.e. contained in the boundary of) at least three chambers. One can always pass to a thick spherical building structure by reducing the Weyl group, thereby coarsifying the simplicial structure.
The [*space of directions*]{} $\Si_\xi \B$ at a point $\xi\in \B$ is the space of germs $\oa{\xi\eta}$ of nondegenerate geodesic segments $\xi\eta\subset \B$, equipped with the natural angle metric $\angle_{\xi}$. Two segments $\xi\eta$ and $\xi\eta'$ represent the same direction in $\Si_\xi \B$, $\oa{\xi\eta}=\oa{\xi\eta'}$, iff they initially agree. The space of directions is again a spherical building.
A subset $C\subset \B$ is called ($\pi$-)[*convex*]{} if for any two points $\xi, \eta\in C$ with distance $\angle(\xi,\eta)<\pi$ the (unique) geodesic $\xi\eta$ connecting $\xi$ and $\eta$ in $\B$ is contained in $C$.
Due to the compatibility of charts, i.e. the property of the building atlas that the coordinate changes are induced by isometries in $W$, there is a well-defined [*type*]{} map $$\theta: \B\to\simod .$$ It is 1-Lipschitz and restricts to an isometry on every chamber $\si\subset \B$. We call the inverse $\kappa_{\si}=(\theta|_{\si})^{-1}: \si_{mod}\to\si$ the [*chart*]{} of the chamber $\si$. For a simplex $\tau\subset \B$, we call the face $\theta(\tau)\subseteq\simod$ the [*type*]{} of the simplex and $\kappa_{\tau}=(\theta|_{\tau})^{-1}:\theta(\tau)\to\tau$ its [*chart*]{}. We define the [*type*]{} of a point $\xi\in \B$ as its image $\theta(\xi)\in\simod$. A point $\xi\in \B$ is called [*regular*]{} if its type is an interior point of $\simod$, $\xi\in\inte(\simod)$, and [*singular*]{} otherwise.
We will sometimes say that a singular sphere has type $\taumod$ if it contains a top-dimensional simplex of type $\taumod$. (A singular sphere has in general several types.)
For a singular sphere $s\subset \B$, we define $\B(s)\subset \B$ as the union of all apartments containing $s$. It is a convex subset and splits off $s$ as a spherical join factor. Moreover, $\B(s)$ is a subbuilding, i.e. it inherits from $\B$ a spherical building structure modeled on the same Coxeter complex; the apartments of $\B(s)$ are precisely the apartments of $\B$ containing $s$. This building structure is however not thick, except in degenerate cases. In order to pass to a thick spherical building structure, take a maximal atlas of charts $\kappa:\amod\to \B(s)$ for which the maps $\kappa^{-1}|_s:s\to\amod$ coincide, and reduce the Weyl group to the pointwise stabilizer of $s$ in $W$.
Two points $\xi, \hat\xi\in \B$ are [*antipodal*]{} or [*opposite*]{} if $\angle(\xi,\hat\xi)=\pi$, equivalently, if they are antipodal in one (every) apartment containing them. We then define the singular sphere $s(\xi,\hat\xi)\subset \B$ [*spanned*]{} by the points $\xi, \hat\xi$ as the smallest singular sphere containing them. Moreover, we define the [*suspension*]{} $\B(\xi,\hat\xi)\subset \B$ of $\{\xi, \hat\xi\}$ as the union of all geodesics connecting $\xi$ and $\hat\xi$, equivalently, as the union of all apartments containing $\xi$ and $\hat\xi$. Then $\B(\xi,\hat\xi)=\B(s(\xi,\hat\xi))$. As above, a thick spherical building structure on $\B(\xi,\hat\xi)$ is obtained by taking all charts $\kappa:\amod\to \B(\xi,\hat\xi)$ so that $\kappa^{-1}(\xi)=\theta(\xi)\in\simod$, and reducing the Weyl group to the stabilizer of $\theta(\xi)$ in $W$.
Similarly, one defines [*antipodal*]{} or [*opposite faces*]{} $\tau,\hat\tau\subset \B$ as faces which are antipodal in the apartments containing them both, equivalently, whose interiors contain a pair of antipodal points $\xi\in\inte(\tau)$ and $\hat\xi\in\inte(\hat\tau)$. We define the singular sphere $s(\tau,\hat\tau)\subset \B$ [*spanned*]{} by the simplices $\tau,\hat\tau$ again as the smallest singular sphere containing them, and the suspension $\B(\tau,\hat\tau)$ as the union of all apartments containing $\tau \cup \hat\tau$; then $s(\tau,\hat\tau)= s(\xi,\hat\xi)$ and $\B(\tau,\hat\tau)= \B(\xi,\hat\xi)$.
We will need some facts about antipodes.
Recall that in a spherical building $\B$ every point $\xi\in \B$ has an antipode in every apartment $a\subset \B$, and hence for every simplex $\tau\subset \B$ there exists an opposite simplex $\hat\tau\subset a$, cf. e.g. the first part of [@qirigid Lemma 3.10.2]. We need the more precise statement that a point has [*several*]{} antipodes in an apartment unless it lies itself in this apartment:
\[lem:oneantip\] Suppose that $\xi\in \B$ has only one antipode in the apartment $a\subset \B$. Then $\xi\in a$.
Suppose that $\xi\not\in a$ and let $\hat\xi\in a$ be an antipode of $\xi$. We choose a“generic” segment $\xi\hat\xi$ of length $\pi$ tangent to $a$ at $\hat\xi$ as follows. The suspension $\B(\xi,\hat\xi)$ contains an apartment $a'$ with the same unit tangent sphere at $\hat\xi$, $\Si_{\hat\xi}a'=\Si_{\hat\xi}a$. Inside $a'$ there exists a segment $\xi\hat\xi$ whose interior does not intersect simplices of codimension $\geq2$. Hence $\hat\xi\xi$ leaves $a$ at an interior point $\eta\neq\xi,\hat\xi$ of a panel $\pi\subset a$, i.e. $a\cap\xi\hat\xi=\eta\hat\xi$ and $\pi\cap\xi\hat\xi=\eta$, and $\eta\xi$ initially lies in a chamber adjacent to $\pi$ but not contained in $a$. Let $s\subset a$ be the wall containing $\pi$. By reflecting $\hat\xi$ at $s$, one obtains a second antipode for $\xi$ in $a$.
In thick buildings, simplices can be represented as intersections of apartments:
\[lem:intapts\] In a thick spherical building $\B$, any simplex $\tau\subset \B$ equals the intersection of the apartments containing it.
Since every simplex is an intersection of chambers, we are reduced to the case when $\tau$ is a chamber. Furthermore, since every chamber is an intersection of half-apartments, we are reduced to the corresponding assertion for half-apartments. The latter holds by thickness.
Hadamard manifolds {#sec:had}
------------------
In this section only, $X$ denotes a Hadamard manifold, i.e. a simply connected complete Riemannian manifold with nonpositive sectional curvature. We will use the notation $\Isom(X)$ for the full isometry group of $X$.
Any two points in $X$ are connected by a unique geodesic segment. We will use the notation $xy$ for the oriented geodesic segment connecting $x$ to $y$.
For points $x\neq y,z$ we denote by $\angle_x(y,z)$ the angle of the geodesic segments $xy$ and $xz$. Furthermore, we denote by $\Si_xX$ the [*space of directions*]{} of $X$ at $x$ equipped with the angle metric $\angle_x$. It coincides with the unit tangent sphere at $x$.
A basic feature of Hadamard manifolds is the [*convexity of the distance function*]{}: Given any pair of geodesics $c_1(t), c_2(t)$ in $X$, the function $t\mapsto d(c_1(t), c_2(t))$ is convex.
Two geodesic rays $\rho_1,\rho_2:[0,+\infty)\to X$ are called [*asymptotic*]{} if the convex function $t\mapsto d(\rho_1(t),\rho_2(t))$ on $[0,+\infty)$ is bounded, and they are called [*strongly asymptotic*]{} if $d(\rho_1(t),\rho_2(t))\to 0$ as $t\to+\infty$.
Two geodesic lines $l_1, l_2\subset X$ are [*parallel*]{} if they have finite Hausdorff distance. Equivalently, $l_1\cup l_2$ bounds a flat strip in $X$.
The [*ideal*]{} or [*visual boundary*]{} $\geo X$ of $X$ is the set of asymptote classes of geodesic rays in $X$. Points in $\geo X$ are called [*ideal points*]{}. For $x\in X$ and $\xi\in \geo X$ we denote by $x\xi$ the unique geodesic ray emanating from $x$ and asymptotic to $\xi$, i.e. representing the ideal point $\xi$. There are natural identifications $\log_x:\geo X\to\Si_xX$ sending the ideal point $\xi$ to the direction $\oa{x\xi}$.
The [*cone*]{} or [*visual topology*]{} on $\geo X$ is characterized by the property that the maps $\log_x$ are homeomorphisms with respect to it. Thus, $\geo X$ is homeomorphic to the sphere of dimension $\dim(X)-1$. The visual topology has a natural extension to $\ol{X}=X\sqcup \geo X$ which can be described as follows in terms of sequential convergence: A sequence $(x_n)$ in $\ol X$ converges to an ideal point $\xi\in \geo X$ iff, for some (any) base point $x\in X$, the sequence of geodesic segments or rays $xx_n$ converges to the ray $x\xi$ (in the pointed Hausdorff topology with base points at $x$). This topology makes $\ol{X}$ into a closed ball. We define the [*visual boundary*]{} of a subset $A\subset X$ as the set $\geo A=\bar A\cap\geo X$ of its accumulation points at infinity.
The visual boundary $\geo X$ carries the natural [*Tits angle metric*]{} $\tangle$ defined as $$\tangle(\xi,\eta)= \sup_{x\in X} \angle_{x}(\xi,\eta) ,$$ where $\angle_{x}(\xi,\eta)$ is the angle between the geodesic rays $x\xi$ and $x\eta$. The [*Tits boundary*]{} $\tits X$ is the metric space $(\geo X,\tangle)$. The Tits metric is lower semicontinuous with respect to the visual topology and, accordingly, the [*Tits topology*]{} induced by the Tits metric is finer than the visual topology. It is discrete if there is an upper negative curvature bound, and becomes nondiscrete if $X$ contains nondegenerate flat sectors. For instance, the Tits boundary of flat $r$-space is the unit $(r-1)$-sphere, $\tits\R^r\cong S^{r-1}(1)$. An isometric embedding $X\to Y$ of Hadamard manifolds induces an isometric embedding $\tits X\to\tits Y$ of their Tits boundaries.
Let $\xi\in \geo X$ be an ideal point. For a geodesic ray $\rho:[0,+\infty)\to X$ asymptotic to $\xi$ one defines the [*Busemann function*]{} $b_\xi$ on $X$ as the uniform monotonic limit $$b_\xi(x)=\lim_{t\to+\infty} (d(x, \rho(t))-t).$$ Along the ray, we have $$b_\xi(\rho(t))=-t.$$ Altering the ray $\rho$ changes $b_\xi$ by an additive constant. [The point at infinity $\xi$ thus determines $b_\xi$ up to an additive constant. To remove this ambiguity, given $x\in X$, we define $b_{\xi,x}$ to be the Busemann function $b_{\xi,x}$ normalized at the point $x$ by $b_{\xi,x}(x)=0$.]{}
The Busemann function $b_\xi$ is convex, 1-Lipschitz and measures the relative distance from the ideal point $\xi$. The sublevel sets $$\Hb_{\xi,x}:=\{b_{\xi}\leq b_{\xi}(x)\}\subset X$$ are called (closed) [*horoballs*]{} centered at $\xi$. As sublevel sets of convex functions, they are convex. The visual boundaries of horoballs are $\pihalf$-balls at infinity with respect to the Tits metric, $$\geo \Hb_{\xi,x}= \ol B(\xi,\pihalf):=\{\tangle(\xi, \cdot)\le \pi/2\}\subset\geo X .$$ The level sets $$\Hs_{\xi,x}:=\{b_{\xi}= b_{\xi}(x)\} =\D \Hb_{\xi,x}$$ are called [*horospheres*]{} centered at $\xi$.
As convex Lipschitz functions, Busemann functions are [*asymptotically linear*]{} along rays. If $\rho:[0,+\infty)\to X$ is a geodesic ray asymptotic to $\eta\in\geo X$, $\rho(+\infty)=\eta$, then $$\lim_{t\to+\infty} \frac{b_\xi(\rho(t))}{t}=-\cos \tangle(\xi, \eta).$$
Symmetric spaces of noncompact type: basic concepts {#sec:symmbas}
---------------------------------------------------
In this section, we go through some well known material and establish notation. Standard references are [@Eberlein] and [@BGS].
A symmetric space, denoted by $X$ throughout this paper, is said to be of [*noncompact type*]{} if it is nonpositively curved and has no euclidean factor. In particular, it is a Hadamard manifold. We will write the symmetric space as $$X=G/K$$ where $G$ is a connected[^1] semisimple Lie group with finite center acting isometrically and transitively on $X$, and $K<G$ is a maximal compact subgroup. The natural epimorphism $G\to\Isom(X)_o$ then has compact kernel. Every connected semisimple Lie group with finite center occurs in this way. The Lie group $G$ carries a natural structure of a real algebraic group.
By the definition of symmetric spaces, in every point $x\in X$ there is a [*point reflection*]{} or [*Cartan involution*]{}, that is, an isometry $\si_x$ which fixes $x$ and has differential $-\id_{T_xX}$ in $x$.
A [*transvection*]{} of $X$ is an isometry which is the product $\si_{x'}\si_{x}$ of two point reflections; it preserves the oriented geodesic through $x$ and $x'$ and the parallel vector fields along it. The transvections preserving a geodesic line $c(t)$ form a one parameter subgroup $(T^c_t)$ of $\Isom(X)_o$ where $T^c_t$ denotes the transvection mapping $c(s)\mapsto c(s+t)$.
An isometry $\phi$ of $X$ is called [*axial*]{} if it preserves a geodesic $l$ and does not fix $l$ pointwise. Thus, $\phi$ acts as a nontrivial translation on $l$. (Note that an axial isometry need not be a transvection.) The geodesic $l$ is called an [*axis*]{} of $\phi$. Axes are in general not unique, but they are parallel to each other. For each axial isometry $\phi$, the displacement function $x\mapsto d(x, \phi(x))$ on $X$ attains its minimum on the convex subset of $X$ which is the union of axes of $\phi$. An isometry $\phi$ of $X$ is [*parabolic*]{} if $$\inf_{x\in X} d(x, \phi(x))=0$$ but $g$ does not fix a point in $X$. Isometries fixing points are called [*elliptic*]{}.
A [*flat*]{} in $X$ is a complete totally geodesic flat submanifold, equivalently, a convex subset isometric to a euclidean space. A maximal flat in $X$ is a flat which is not contained in any larger flat; we will use the notation $F$ for maximal flats. The group $\Isom(X)_o$ acts transitively on the set of maximal flats; the common dimension of maximal flats is called the [*rank*]{} of $X$. The space $X$ has rank one if and only if it has strictly negative sectional curvature.
A maximal flat $F$ is preserved by all transvections along geodesic lines contained in it. In general, there exist nontrivial isometries of $X$ fixing $F$ pointwise. The subgroup of isometries of $F$ which are induced by elements of $G$ is isomorphic to a semidirect product $W_{aff}:= \R^r \rtimes W$, the [*affine Weyl group*]{}, where $r$ is the rank of $X$. The subgroup $\R^r$ acts simply transitively on $F$ by translations. The linear part $W$ is a finite reflection group, called the [*Weyl group*]{} of $G$ and $X$. Since maximal flats are equivalent modulo $G$, the action $W_{aff}\acts F$ is well-defined up to isometric conjugacy.
We will think of the Weyl group as acting on a [*model flat*]{} $\Fmod\cong \R^r$ fixing the origin $0\in\Fmod$, and on its visual boundary sphere at infinity, the [*model apartment*]{} $a_{mod}=\tits\Fmod\cong S^{r-1}$. The pair $(\amod,W)$ is the [*spherical Coxeter complex*]{} associated to $G$. We identify the [*euclidean model Weyl chamber*]{} $\De$ with the complete cone $V(0,\simod)\subset\Fmod$ with tip in the origin and visual boundary the [*spherical model Weyl chamber*]{} $\simod\subset\amod$.
For every maximal flat $F\subset X$, we have an induced Tits isometric embedding $\geo F\subset\geo X$ of its visual boundary sphere. The natural identification $F\cong\Fmod$, unique up to the action of $W_{aff}$, induces a natural identification $\geo F\cong a_{mod}$, unique up to the action of $W$.
The Coxeter complex structure on $a_{mod}$ induces simplicial structures on the visual boundary spheres $\geo F$ of the maximal flats $F\subset X$. The spheres $\geo F$ cover $\geo X$, and their simplicial structures are compatible (i.e. the intersections are simplicial and the simplicial structures on the intersections agree). One thus obtains a $G$-invariant piecewise spherical [*simplicial structure*]{} on $\geo X$ which makes $\geo X$ into a [*thick spherical building*]{} and, also taking into account the visual topology, into a [*topological*]{} spherical building. It is called the [*spherical*]{} or [*Tits building*]{} $\tits X$ associated to $X$. The Tits metric is the path metric with respect to the piecewise spherical structure, unless $\rank(X)=1$, in which case $\tits X$ is discrete with distance $\pi$ between distinct points. We will sometimes refer to the simplices in $\tits X$ also as [*faces*]{}. The visual boundaries of the maximal flats in $X$ are precisely the [*apartments*]{} in $\geo X$, which in turn are precisely the convex subsets isometric, with respect to the Tits metric, to the unit sphere $S^{r-1}$.
We call a flat $f\subset X$ [*singular*]{} if it is the intersection of maximal flats. Its visual boundary $\geo f$ is then a [*singular sphere*]{} in $\geo X$.
We define the [*Weyl sector*]{} $V=V(x,\tau)\subset X$ with tip $x$ and asymptotic to a simplex $\tau\subset\geo X$ as the union of rays $x\xi$ for the ideal points $\xi\in\tau$. Weyl sectors are contained in flats; they are isometric images of Weyl sectors $V(0, \tau_{mod})\subset\De$ under charts $\Fmod\to X$. These apartment charts restrict to canonical [*sector charts*]{} $\kappa_{x,\tau}=\kappa_{V(x,\tau)}: V(0,\taumod)\to V(x,\tau)$; at infinity, they induce simplex charts, $\geo\kappa_{x,\tau}=\kappa_{\tau}$.
If $\si\subset\geo X$ is a chamber, the sector $V(x,\si)$ is a [*euclidean Weyl chamber*]{}.
For a flat $f\subset X$, the [*parallel set*]{} $P(f)\subset X$ is the union of all flats $f'\subset X$ [*parallel*]{} to $f$, equivalently, with the same visual boundary sphere $\geo f'=\geo f$. The parallel set is a symmetric subspace and splits as the metric product $$\label{eq:parsplit}
P(f)\cong f\times CS(f)$$ of $f$ and a symmetric space $CS(f)$ called the [*cross section*]{}. The latter has no euclidean factor iff $f$ is singular. Accordingly, the Tits boundary metrically decomposes as the spherical join $$\label{eq:bdparsersusp}
\tits P(f)\cong\tits f\circ\tits CS(f) .$$ It coincides with the subbuilding $(\tits X)(\geo f)\subset\tits X$ consisting of the union of all apartments in $\geo X$ containing $\geo f$, see section \[sec:sphbld\].
For a singular sphere $s\subset\geo X$, we define the parallel set $P(s)\subset X$ as the union of the (necessarily singular) flats $f\subset X$ with visual boundary sphere $\geo f=s$, i.e. $P(s)=P(f)$; we denote its cross section by $CS(s)$. For a pair of opposite points $\xi,\hat\xi\in\geo X$, we define $P(\xi,\hat\xi)\subset X$ as the parallel set of the singular sphere $s(\xi,\hat\xi)\subset\geo X$ spanned by them, $P(\xi,\hat\xi)=P(s(\xi,\hat\xi))$. Similarly, for a pair of opposite simplices $\tau,\hat\tau\subset\geo X$, we define $P(\tau_-, \tau_+)=P(s(\tau_-,\tau_+))$.
The action $G\acts\geo X$ on ideal points is not transitive if $\rank(X)\geq2$. However, every $G$-orbit meets every chamber exactly once. The quotient is naturally identified with the spherical model chamber, and the projection $$\theta:\geo X\to\geo X/G \cong\simod$$ is the [*type*]{} map, cf. section \[sec:sphbld\].
A nondegenerate geodesic segment $xy\subset X$ is called [*regular*]{} if the unique geodesic ray $x\xi$ extending $xy$ is asymptotic to a regular ideal point $\xi\in \geo X$.
Two ideal points $\xi,\eta\in\geo X$ are [*antipodal*]{}, $\tangle(\xi, \eta)=\pi$, iff there exists a geodesic line $l\subset X$ asymptotic to them, $\geo l=\{\xi, \eta\}$. Their types are then related by $\theta(\xi_2)=\iota(\theta(\xi_1))$.
We say that two simplices $\tau_1,\tau_2\subset\geo X$ are $x$-[*antipodal*]{} or $x$-[*opposite*]{} if $\tau_2=\si_x\tau_1$, using the induced action of the point reflection $\si_x$ on $\geo X$. Two simplices $\tau_1,\tau_2$ are opposite iff they are $x$-opposite for some point $x\in X$. Their types are then related by $\theta(\tau_2)=\iota(\theta(\tau_1))$. We will frequently use the notation $\tau, \hat\tau$ and $\tau_{\pm}$ for pairs of antipodal simplices. A pair of opposite chambers $\si_{\pm}$ is contained in a unique apartment, which we will denote by $a(\si_-,\si_+)$. It is the visual boundary of a unique maximal flat $F(\si_-, \si_+)\subset X$.
We will sometimes say that a singular flat $f\subset X$ has [*type $\taumod$*]{} if its visual boundary $\geo f$ has type $\taumod$, i.e. contains a top-dimensional simplex of type $\taumod$. (A singular flat has in general several types.) The set ${\mathcal F}_{\taumod}$ of singular flats of type $\taumod$ is a homogeneous $G$-manifold. The flats of type $\simod$ are the maximal flats and we denote ${\mathcal F}={\mathcal F}_{\simod}$. A family of flats in ${\mathcal F}_{\taumod}$ is [*bounded*]{} if these flats intersect a fixed bounded subset of $X$.
Also, we will sometimes call the parallel set $P(s)$ of a singular sphere $\subset\geo X$ of [*type $\taumod$*]{} or a [*$\taumod$-parallel set*]{} if $s$ has type $\taumod$.
The stabilizers $P_{\tau}<G$ of the simplices $\tau\subset\geo X$ are the [*parabolic subgroups*]{} of $G$. The space $\Flagt$ of simplices of type $\taumod$ is called a (generalized) [*(partial) flag manifold*]{}. The action $G\acts\Flagt$ is transitive and we can write the flag manifold as a quotient $\Flagt \cong G/P_{\taumod}$, where $P_{\taumod}$ stands for a parabolic subgroup in the conjugacy class of parabolic subgroups $P_{\tau}$ of type $\theta(\tau)=\taumod$. Flag manifolds are compact smooth manifolds; they admit natural structures of projective real algebraic varieties (see e.g. [@Jantzen p. 160]). The topology on flag manifolds induced by the visual topology on $\geo X$ agrees with their manifold topology as homogeneous $G$-spaces. For ideal points $\xi\in\geo X$ with type $\theta(\xi)\in\inte(\taumod)$, there is a natural $G$-equivariant homeomorphic identification of the $G$-orbit $G\xi\subset\geo X$ with $\Flagt$ by assigning to the point $g\xi$ the (unique) simplex of type $\taumod$ containing it.
The flag manifolds $\Flagt$ and $\Flagit$ are [*opposite*]{} in the sense that the simplices opposite to simplices of type $\taumod$ have type $\iota\taumod$. To ease notation, we will denote the pair of opposite flag manifolds also by $\Flagpmt$ whenever convenient, i.e. we put $\Flagpt:=\Flagt$ and $\Flagmt:=\Flagit$. The latter is also reasonable, because the simplices $-\taumod, \iota\taumod\subset \amod$ lie in the same $W$-orbit, i.e. $-\taumod$ has type $\iota\taumod$. (Here we extend the notion of type to the model apartment, defining the type of a simplex in $\amod$ as its image under the natural quotient projection $\amod\to\amod/W\cong\simod$.) Similarly, we will use the notation $P_{\pm\taumod}$ for a pair of parabolic subgroups fixing opposite simplices in $\Flagpmt$.
The stabilizers $B_{\si}<G$ of the chambers $\sigma\subset \geo X$ are the [*minimal parabolic subgroups*]{}[^2] of $G$; they are conjugate. The space $\DF X:=\Flags$ of chambers is called the (generalized) [*full flag manifold*]{} or [*Furstenberg boundary*]{} of $X$, and we can write $\DF X=G/B$, where again $B$ stands for a minimal parabolic subgroup.
For a simplex $\hat\tau\in\Flagit$ we define the [*open Schubert stratum*]{} $C(\hat\tau)\subset \Flagt$ as the subset of simplices opposite to $\hat\tau$; it is the open and [*dense*]{} $P_{\hat\tau}$-orbit. With respect to the algebraic structure on $\Flagt$, it is Zariski open, i.e. its complement is a proper subvariety.
We note that, if $\rank(X)=1$, then there is only one flag manifold, namely $\geo X$, and the open Schubert strata are the complements of points.
Stars, cones and diamonds {#sec:stars}
-------------------------
### Stars and suspensions {#sec:star}
We first work inside the spherical model chamber $\simod$.
We recall from section \[sec:sphgeom\] that, for a face type $\taumod\subseteq\simod$, the [*$\taumod$-boundary*]{} $\Dt\simod$ of $\simod$ is the union of the faces of $\simod$ which do not contain $\taumod$. The [*$\taumod$-interior*]{} $\inte_{\taumod}(\simod)$ of $\simod$ is the union of the open faces of $\simod$ whose closure contains $\taumod$. There is the decomposition $$\simod=\inte_{\taumod}(\simod)\sqcup\Dt\simod .$$ In particular, $\inte_{\simod}(\simod)=\inte{\simod}$ and $\Ds\simod=\D\simod$.
We say that a type in $\simod$ is [*$\taumod$-regular*]{} if it lies in $\inte_{\taumod}(\simod)$.
Now let $\B$ be a spherical building. As before, we assume that $\diam(\simod)\leq\pihalf$.
A point $\xi\in \B$ is called [*$\taumod$-regular*]{} if its type is, $\theta(\xi)\in\inte_{\taumod}(\simod)$. We will [*quantify*]{} $\taumod$-regularity as follows: Given a compact subset $\Theta\subset\inte_{\taumod}(\simod)$, we will say that a $\taumod$-regular point $\xi\in \B$ is [*$\Theta$-regular*]{} if $\theta(\xi)\in\Theta$.
It will often be natural to impose a convexity property on $\Theta$:
A subset $\Theta\subseteq\simod$ is [*$\taumod$-Weyl convex*]{} if its symmetrization $\Wt\Theta\subset\amod$ is convex.
Let $\tau\subset \B$ be a simplex of type $\taumod$. The [*$\taumod$-star*]{} $\st(\tau)\subset \B$ is the union of all chambers containing $\tau$. Its boundary $\D\st(\tau)$ is the union of all simplices in $\st(\tau)$ which do not contain $\tau$; it consists of the points in $\st(\tau)$ with type in $\Dt\simod$. The [*open $\taumod$-star*]{} $\ost(\tau)$ is the complement $\ost(\tau)=\st(\tau)-\D\st(\tau)$; it consists of the $\taumod$-regular points in $\st(\tau)$ and is open in $\B$. For any simplex $\hat\tau$ opposite to $\tau$, the star $\st(\tau)$ is contained in the suspension $\B(\tau,\hat\tau)$.
Furthermore, we define the [*$\Theta$-star*]{} $\stTh(\tau)\subset\ost(\tau)$ as the subset of points with type $\Theta$, that is, $\stTh(\tau)=\st(\tau)\cap\theta^{-1}(\Theta)$.
We will use the following [*separation*]{} property: If $\angle(\Theta,\Dt\simod)\geq\eps>0$, then $\ost(\tau)$ contains the open $\eps$-neighborhood of $\stTh(\tau)$.
Note that for chambers $\si$ we have $\st(\si)=\si$ and $\ost(\si)=\inte(\si)$.
The next result implies that stars are [*convex*]{}:
\[Convexity of stars\] \[lem:starconv\] (i) $\st(\tau)$ is an intersection of simplicial $\pihalf$-balls.
\(ii) For any simplex $\hat\tau$ opposite to $\tau$, the star $\st(\tau)$ is an intersection of the suspension $\B(\tau,\hat\tau)$ with simplicial $\pihalf$-balls containing $\st(\tau)$ and centered at points in $\B(\tau,\hat\tau)$.
\(i) Let $\si\not\subset\st(\tau)$ be a chamber, and let $a$ be an apartment containing $\si$ and $\tau$. We can separate $\si$ and $\st(\tau)\cap a$ by a wall in $a$, i.e. there exists a half-apartment $h\subset a$ which contains $\st(\tau)\cap a$ but not $\si$. Indeed, choose points $\xi\in\inte(\tau)$ and $\eta\in\inte(\si)$ such that the segment $\xi\eta$ intersects $\D\si$ in a panel, and take the wall containing this panel. The simplicial $\pihalf$-ball with the same center as $h$ then contains $\st(\tau)$ but not $\si$.
\(ii) Note first that $\st(\tau)\subset \B(\tau,\hat\tau)$. Then we argue as in part (i), observing that if $\si\subset \B(\tau,\hat\tau)$ then $a$ can be chosen inside $\B(\tau,\hat\tau)$.
We extend convexity to $\Theta$-stars:
\[lem:thetastarconv\] Let $\Theta\subseteq\simod$ be $\taumod$-Weyl convex, and let $\tau$ be a simplex of type $\taumod$. Then $\stTh(\tau)$ is an intersection of $\pihalf$-balls.
For any apartment $a\supset\tau$, the intersection $\stTh(\tau)\cap a$ is convex, as a consequence of the Weyl convexity of $\Theta$.
Let $\zeta\in \B$. Every point in $\stTh(\tau)$ lies in an apartment $a\supset\tau,\zeta$.
For any two apartments $a,a'\supset\tau,\zeta$ there exists an isometry $a\to a'$ fixing $\tau$ and $\zeta$. (This follows from the compatibility of apartment charts axiom in the definition of spherical buildings.) It carries $\stTh(\tau)\cap a$ to $\stTh(\tau)\cap a'$. Hence, $\ol B(\zeta,\pihalf)$ contains the first intersection iff it contains the second. Letting $a'$ vary, it follows that $\ol B(\zeta,\pihalf)$ contains $\stTh(\tau)$ iff it contains $\stTh(\tau)\cap a$.
Let $\xi\not\in\stTh(\tau)$. Then there is an apartment $a\supset\tau,\xi$ and, due to the convexity of $\stTh(\tau)\cap a$, a point $\zeta\in a$ such that $\ol B(\zeta,\pihalf)$ contains $\stTh(\tau)\cap a$ but not $\xi$. By the above, $\stTh(\tau)\subseteq\ol B(\zeta,\pihalf)$.
In the following, we restrict ourselves to the case $\B=\geo X$ and, besides the metric, also take into account the visual topology on the flag manifolds $\Flagt$. The discussion readily generalizes to arbitrary [*topological*]{} spherical buildings.
The [*$\taumod$-regular part*]{} $\geot X$ of the visual boundary equals the union of the open $\taumod$-stars. The natural projection $$\label{eq:ostfib}
\geot X=\bigcup_{\tau\in\Flagt}\ost(\tau)\to\Flagt$$ is a fiber bundle.
Let $\tau\in\Flagt$ and let $\hat\tau$ be opposite to $\tau$. Then $\tau$ is the [*only*]{} simplex in $\B(\tau,\hat\tau)$ which is opposite to $\hat\tau$. In other words, the closed subset $$\label{eq:oppinsusp}
\{ \tau'\in\Flagt: \tau'\subset \B(\tau,\hat\tau) \}$$ intersects the open Schubert stratum $C(\hat\tau)$ in the single point $\tau$, which is therefore an [*isolated*]{} point of this subset.
We know that $\ost(\tau)$ is an open subset of $\B(\tau,\hat\tau)$ with respect to the (Tits) metric.
\[lem:opst\] $\ost(\tau)$ is open in $\B(\tau,\hat\tau)$ also with respect to the visual topology.
Consider the fiber bundle (\[eq:ostfib\]). The union $U$ of the open $\taumod$-stars over the simplices in $C(\hat\tau)$ is open in $\geo X$. Since $\tau$ is an isolated point of (\[eq:oppinsusp\]), the suspension $\B(\tau,\hat\tau)$ intersects $U$ precisely in $\ost(\tau)$, which is therefore open in the suspension.
### Cones and parallel sets {#sec:cones}
We transfer notions about stars by coning off. Our discussion takes place in $X$ and $\Fmod$.
Consider first the euclidean model chamber $\De=V(0,\simod)$. Its [*$\taumod$-boundary*]{} $$\Dt\De:=V(0,\Dt\simod)\subseteq\D\De$$ is the union of the faces which do not contain the face $V(0,\taumod)$. In particular $\Ds\De=\D\De$.
In the symmetric space $X$, we define for a point $x\in X$ and a subset $A\subset\geo X$ the [*cone*]{} $V(x, A)\subset X$ as the union of the rays $x\xi$ for $\xi\in A$. We put $V(x, \emptyset):= \{x\}$.
Let $\tau\subset\geo X$ be a simplex of type $\taumod$. The [*Weyl cone*]{} $V(x, \st(\tau))$ with tip at $x\in X$ is the union of the euclidean Weyl chambers $V(x,\si)$ for all chambers $\si\subseteq\st(\tau)$, equivalently, $\si\supseteq\tau$. Its [*boundary*]{} is given by $\D V(x, \st(\tau))=V(x,\D\st(\tau))$, and its [*interior*]{} by $V(x,\ost(\tau))-\{x\}$. We call the Weyl sector $V(x,\tau)$ the [*central sector*]{} of the Weyl cone $V(x, \st(\tau))$. Similarly, we will refer to $V(0,\taumod)\subseteq\De$ as the [*central sector*]{} of the cone $\Wt \De=V(0,\Wt\simod)\subset\Fmod$.
For the unique simplex $\hat\tau$ $x$-opposite to $\tau$, the Weyl cone $V(x, \st(\tau))$ is contained in the parallel set $P(\tau,\hat\tau)$. We say that the cone [*spans*]{} the parallel set.
Furthermore, for a compact subset $\Theta\subset\inte_{\taumod}(\simod)$, we define the [*$\Theta$-cone*]{} $V(x, \stTh(\tau))$.
Note that for chambers $\si\subset\geo X$ we have $V(x, \st(\si))=V(x,\si)$.
We will call two Weyl cones or $\Theta$-cones [*asymptotic*]{} if their visual boundary stars coincide.
The [*Hausdorff distance*]{} of asymptotic Weyl cones $V(y,\st(\tau))$ and $V(y',\st(\tau))$ is finite and bounded by the distance $d(y,y')$ of their tips. This follows immediately from the corresponding fact for rays.
The distance between boundaries of Weyl cones will be discussed later in section \[sec:sepnest\].
We will need a fact about [*projections*]{}. Let $$\label{eq:prjwcocntsect}
\pi_{x,\tau}=\pi_{V(x,\tau)}:V(x,\st(\tau))\to V(x,\tau)$$ denote the nearest point projection of the Weyl cone to its central sector.
\[lem:proj\] $\pi_{x,\tau}$ maps the interior of the Weyl cone to the interior of its central sector.
In other words, for every point $y$ in the interior of the Weyl cone there exists a point $p$ in the interior of its central sector such that $py\perp V(x,\tau)$.
This is a consequence of the general Lemma \[lem:sphprjfc\] on projections of spherical simplices to their faces. It yields at infinity that, for every chamber $\si\supseteq\tau$, the nearest point projection $\inte_{\tau}(\si)\to\inte(\tau)$ is well-defined. Equivalently, the nearest point projection $\ost(\tau)\to\inte(\tau)$ is well-defined. The assertion follows by coning off.
As a consequence of the lemma, $\pi_{x,\tau}$ agrees with the nearest point projection of the Weyl cone to the singular flat spanned by the sector $V(x,\tau)$, because it does so on the interior.
Now we address [*convexity*]{}. We will see that the results on stars carry over to cones. First of all, by the definition of Weyl convexity, the cone $V(0,\Wt\Theta)=\Wt V(0,\Theta)\subset\Fmod$ is convex iff $\Theta$ is $\taumod$-Weyl convex.
\[Convexity of cones\] \[prop:thconeconv\] (i) The cones $V(x, \st(\tau))$ are convex.
\(ii) If $\Theta$ is $\taumod$-Weyl convex, then also the cones $V(x,\stTh(\tau))$ are convex.
It suffices to verify (ii). We show that cones are intersections of horoballs.
The horoball $\Hb_{\zeta,x}$ contains the cone $V(x,\stTh(\tau))$ iff $\stTh(\tau)\subseteq\ol B(\zeta,\pihalf)$ in $\geo X$.
Let $y\neq x$ be a point and let $x\xi$ be a ray extending $xy$. Then $y\not\in V(x,\stTh(\tau))$ iff $\xi\not\in\stTh(\tau)$. Let $F\subset X$ be a maximal flat such that $xy\subset F$ and $\tau\subset\geo F$. According to the proof of Lemma \[lem:thetastarconv\], there exists a point $\zeta\in\geo F$ such that $\ol B(\zeta,\pihalf)$ contains $\stTh(\tau)$ but not $\xi$. Since $\Hb_{\zeta,x}\cap F$ is a half-space containing $x$ in its boundary, it follows that also $y\not\in \Hb_{\zeta,x}$.
The convexity of cones implies their nestedness:
\[Nestedness of cones\] \[cor:nestcone\] (i) If $y\in V(x,\st(\tau))$, then $V(y,\st(\tau))\subseteq V(x,\st(\tau))$.
\(ii) If $y\in V(x,\stTh(\tau))$, then $V(y,\stTh(\tau))\subseteq V(x,\stTh(\tau))$.
Next we show an [*openness*]{} property for Weyl cones in the parallel sets spanned by them:
\[lem:open-cone\] Let $x\in P(\tau,\hat\tau)$. Then the boundary $\D V(x,\st(\tau))$ of the Weyl cone $V(x, \st(\tau))$ disconnects the parallel set, and its interior $V(x,\ost(\tau))-\{x\}$ is one of the connected components.
Since parallel sets are cones over their visual boundaries, $P(\tau,\hat\tau)=V(x,\geo X(\tau,\hat\tau))$, this follows from the visual openness of stars, cf. Lemma \[lem:opst\].
### Diamonds {#sec:diamo}
We say that a nondegenerate oriented geodesic segment $xy\subset X$ is [*$\taumod$-regular*]{} if the unique geodesic ray $x\xi$ extending $xy$ is asymptotic to a $\taumod$-regular ideal point $\xi\in \geo X$. In this case, we denote by $\tau(xy)\in\Flagt$ the unique simplex such that $\xi\in\ost(\tau)$. Furthermore, we say that $xy$ is [*$\Theta$-regular*]{} with $\Theta\in\inte_{\taumod}(\simod)$ if $\theta(\xi)\in\Theta$.
Note that $xy$ is $\taumod$-regular if and only if $yx$ is $\iota\taumod$-regular, and $\Theta$-regular iff $yx$ is $\iota\Theta$-regular. The types of the simplices $\tau(xy)$ and $\tau(yx)\in\Flagit$ are then related by $$\theta(\tau(yx))= \iota \theta(\tau(xy)).$$ Let $xy$ be a $\taumod$-regular segment. We define its [*$\taumod$-diamond*]{} as the intersection of Weyl cones $$\diamot(x, y)=V(x,\st(\tau_+))\cap V(y,\st(\tau_-))\subset P(\tau_-,\tau_+)$$ where $\tau_+=\tau(xy)$ and $\tau_-=\tau(yx)$. The points $x, y$ are the [*tips*]{} of the diamond. Furthermore, if $xy$ is $\Theta$-regular, we define its [*$\Theta$-diamond*]{} $$\diamoTh(x,y)=
V(x,\stTh(\tau_+))\cap V(y,\stTh(\tau_-)) \subset \diamot(x, y).$$
The convexity of cones (Proposition \[prop:thconeconv\]) implies:
\(i) $\diamot(x,y)$ is convex.
\(ii) If $\Theta$ is $\taumod$-Weyl convex, then also $\diamoTh(x,y)$ is convex.
And furthermore:
\[Nestedness of diamonds\] \[cor:nestdiamo\] Suppose that $xy$ and $x'y'$ are $\taumod$-regular segments such that $\tau(x' y')=\tau(xy)$, $\tau(y' x')=\tau(yx)$ and $x'y'\subset\diamot(x, y)$. Then:
\(i) $\diamot(x', y')\subseteq\diamot(x, y)$.
\(ii) If $xy$ and $x'y'$ are $\Theta$-regular, where $\Theta$ is $\taumod$-Weyl convex, and if $x'y'\subset\diamoTh(x, y)$, then $\diamoTh(x', y')\subseteq\diamoTh(x, y)$.
Vector valued distances {#sec:VVD}
-----------------------
The Riemannian distance is not the complete two-point invariant on the symmetric space $X$, if $\rank(X)\geq2$. In view of the natural identifications $X\times X/G\cong X/K \cong \De$, the full invariant is given by the quotient map $$d_{\De}:X\times X\to \De$$ arising from dividing out the $G$-action, which we refer to as the [*$\De$-distance*]{}. We will think of the elements of $\De\subset\Fmod$ as vectors and of $d_\De$ as a [*vector-valued distance*]{}. It relates to the Riemannian distance $d$ on $X$ by $$d= \|d_\Delta\|,$$ where $\|\cdot\|$ is the euclidean norm on $\Fmod$.
For the model flat, there are corresponding identifications $\Fmod\times\Fmod/W_{aff}\cong\Fmod/W\cong\De$ and a $\De$-distance $$d_{\De}:\Fmod\times\Fmod\to \De.$$ It is compatible with the $\De$-distance on $X$ in that the charts $\Fmod\to X$ are $d_{\De}$-isometries.
Similarly, one defines the $\De$-distance on [*euclidean buildings*]{} via apartment charts, see [@ccm].
The distance $d_\Delta$ is not symmetric, but satisfies $$d_{\De}(y,x)=\iota d_{\De}(x,y) .$$ We refer the reader to [@ccm] and [@Parreau] for the detailed discussion of [*metric properties*]{} (such as “triangle inequalities” and “nonpositive curvature behavior”) of $d_\Delta$.
We note that a geodesic segment $xy\subset X$ is regular iff $d_\Delta(x,y)\in\inte(\De)$. Similarly, $xy$ is $\Theta$-regular iff $d_\Delta(x,y)\in V(0, \Theta)$.
We define certain coarsifications of $d_{\De}$ by composing it with linear maps: For a face type $\taumod$, let $$\pi^{\De}_{\taumod}:\De \to V(0,\taumod)$$ denote the nearest point projection. The composition $$\label{eq:vvdt}
d_{\taumod} := \pi^{\De}_{\taumod} \circ d_{\De}$$ can also be regarded as a vector-valued distance on $X$, with values in the Weyl sector $V(0,\taumod)\subset\De$. Note that $d_{\simod}=d_{\De}$. Obviously, $$\label{eq:shrk}
\|d_{\taumod}\| \leq d$$ because $\pi^{\De}_{\taumod}$ is 1-Lipschitz.
Given a compact subset $\Theta\subset \inte_{\taumod}(\simod)$, for $\Theta$-regular segments $xy\subset X$ it holds that $$\label{eq:urgtdst}
\|d_{\taumod}(x,y)\| \geq \eps(\Theta)\cdot d(x,y)$$ with a constant $\eps(\Theta)>0$, where $\|\cdot\|$ denotes the euclidean norm. For the constant $\eps(\Theta)$ one can take the sine of the angular distance $\angle(\Theta,\Dt\simod)$.
Refined side lengths of triangles {#sec:refined}
---------------------------------
In this section, we assume more generally that $X$ is a [*CAT(0) model space*]{}, i.e. a nonpositively curved Riemannian symmetric space or a thick euclidean building. We denote by $${\mathcal P}_3(X)\subset\De^3$$ the set of possible $\De$-side lengths $(d_{\De}(x_1,x_2),d_{\De}(x_2,x_3),d_{\De}(x_3,x_1))$ of triangles $\De(x_1,x_2,x_3)$ in $X$. The following general result reduces the problem of determining ${\mathcal P}_3(X)$ from the symmetric space case to the euclidean building case:
\[thm:slgthsbleqssp\] ${\mathcal P}_3(X)$ depends only on the Weyl group $W$, and not on whether $X$ is a Riemannian symmetric space or a thick euclidean building.
In the paper [@ccm], a detailed description of the set ${\mathcal P}_3(X)$ is given.
The next result concerns the $\De$-side lengths of triangles $\De(x,y,z)$ in $X$ such that the broken geodesic $xyz$ is a Finsler geodesic (in the sense of section \[sec:fins\] below):
\[prop:prjwcon\] (i) If $y\in V(x,\st(\tau))$ and $z\in V(y,\st(\tau))$ with $\tau\in\Flagt$, then $$d_{\De}(x,z) \in V(d_{\De}(x,y),\Wt\simod)\cap \De.$$ (ii) If $z\in V(y,\stTh(\tau))$, where $\Theta\subset\inte_{\taumod}(\simod)$ is $\taumod$-Weyl convex, then $$d_{\De}(x,z) \in V(d_{\De}(x,y),\Wt\Theta)\cap \De.$$
Here, the cones $V(d_{\De}(x,y),\cdot)$ are to be understood as subsets of $\Fmod$. We prove the stronger claim (ii).
The triangle $\De(x,y,z)$ lies in the parallel set $P=P(\hat\tau,\tau)$ for the simplex $\hat\tau\in\Flagit$ $x$-opposite to $\tau$. The parallel set $P$ is itself a symmetric space (with euclidean factor) with Weyl group $W'=\Wt\subset W$. There is a natural inclusion $\simod\subset\simod'\subset\amod$ of spherical Weyl chambers such that $\simod'$ equals the convex hull of $\simod$ and the simplex $-\taumod$ opposite to $\taumod$, and a corresponding inclusion $\De\subset\De'\subset\Fmod$ of euclidean Weyl chambers such that $\De'$ is the convex hull of $\De$ and the sector $-V(0,\taumod)$.
Our claim is then a consequence of the following assertion on $\De'$-side lengths: If $d_{\De'}(x,y)\in\De$ and $d_{\De'}(y,z)\in V(0,\Theta)\subset\De$, then $$d_{\De'}(x,z)\in V(d_{\De'}(x,y),\Wt\Theta)\cap\De .$$ Using Theorem \[thm:slgthsbleqssp\], we may pass from symmetric spaces to euclidean buildings: The assertion is equivalent to the same assertion for any thick euclidean building $\tilde P$ with the same Weyl group $W'$. (For instance, one can take $\tilde P$ to be the complete euclidean cone over the spherical building $\tits P$, which is a non-locally compact euclidean building with just one vertex.) It is easier to verify [the statement]{} in the building case due to the [*locally conical*]{} geometry of euclidean buildings.
Suppose therefore that $\De(\tilde x,\tilde y,\tilde z)$ is a triangle in a euclidean building $\tilde P$ with Weyl group $W'$, satisfying the same assumptions $d_{\De'}(\tilde x,\tilde y)\in\De$ and $d_{\De'}(\tilde y,\tilde z)\in V(0,\Theta)$. Taking advantage of the local conicality of buildings, we will do “induction along $\tilde y\tilde z$” and show that $$\label{eq:triineqfinspsind}
d_{\De'}(\tilde x,\tilde z')\in V(d_{\De'}(\tilde x,\tilde y),\Wt\Theta)\cap\De$$ for all points $\tilde z'\in \tilde y\tilde z$. Since this is a closed condition on $\tilde z'$, it suffices to show that the subset of points satisfying it is half-open to the right. Moreover, since the points $\tilde z'\in \tilde y\tilde z$ satisfying (\[eq:triineqfinspsind\]) also satisfy, like $\tilde y$, the assumptions that $d_{\De'}(\tilde x,\tilde z')\in\De$ and $d_{\De'}(\tilde z',\tilde z)\in V(0,\Theta)$, it suffices to verify (\[eq:triineqfinspsind\]) for all points $\tilde z'\in \tilde y\tilde z$ sufficiently close to $\tilde y$.
This however reduces our claim to the [*flat*]{} case, because there exists a maximal flat $\tilde F\subset\tilde P$ which contains $\tilde x\tilde y$ along with a nondegenerate initial portion of the segment $\tilde y\tilde z$.[^3] We may therefore assume that the triangle $\De(\tilde x,\tilde y,\tilde z)$ lies entirely in $\tilde F$. Identifying $\tilde F\cong\Fmod$, we can once more reformulate our claim: If $\de\in\De$ and $v\in V(0,\Wt\Theta)$, then $$\label{eq:triineqfinsflind}
d_{\De'}(0,\de+tv)\in V(\de,\Wt\Theta)\cap\De$$ for all sufficiently small $t\geq0$.
The stabilizer of $\de$ in $W'=\Wt$ is a subgroup $\Wn\leq\Wt$ for a face type $\numod$ with $\taumod\subseteq\numod\subseteq\simod$ (namely, for the minimal face type $\numod\supseteq\taumod$ such that $\de\in V(0,\numod)$). We observe that the cone $\de+V(0,\Wt\Theta)$ is $\Wn$-invariant and can be represented [*locally*]{} near $\de$ as $$\de+V(0,\Wt\Theta) = \Wn\bigl((\de+V(0,\Wt\Theta))\cap\De\bigr) .$$ The $\Wt$-invariance of $d_{\De'}(0,\cdot)$ yields the assertion.
Strong asymptote classes {#sec:strongasy}
------------------------
Let $\rho_1(t)$ and $\rho_2(t)$ be asymptotic geodesic rays in $X$, i.e. with the same ideal endpoint $\rho_1(+\infty)=\rho_2(+\infty)=\xi$. Equivalently, the convex function $t\mapsto d(\rho_1(t),\rho_2(t))$ on $[0,+\infty)$ is bounded. The rays are called [*strongly asymptotic*]{} if $d(\rho_1(t),\rho_2(t))\to 0$ as $t\to+\infty$. One sees then using Jacobi fields that $d(\rho_1(t),\rho_2(t))$ decays exponentially with rate depending on the type of $\xi$ (see [@Eberlein]).
Strong asymptote classes are represented by rays in a parallel set:
\[lem:exstrasygeo\] Let $\xi, \hat\xi\in\geo X$ be antipodal. Then every geodesic ray asymptotic to $\xi$ is strongly asymptotic to a geodesic ray in the parallel set $P=P(\xi,\hat\xi)$.
Let $c_1(t)$ be a geodesic line forward asymptotic to $\xi$ (extending the given ray). Then the function $t\mapsto d(c_1(t),P)$ is convex and bounded on $[0,+\infty)$, and hence non-increasing. We claim that the limit $$D:=\lim_{t\to+\infty} d(c_1(t),P)$$ equals zero. To see this, we choose a geodesic line $c_2(t)$ in $P$ forward asymptotic to $\xi$ and use the transvections $T^{c_2}_t$ along $c_2$ to “pull back” $c_1$: The geodesics $c_1^s:=T^{c_2}_{-s}c_1(\cdot+s)$ form a bounded family as $s\to+\infty$ and subconverge to a geodesic $c_1^{+\infty}$. Since the transvections $T^{c_2}_s$ preserve $P$, the distance functions $d(c_1^s(\cdot),P)=d(c_1(\cdot+s),P)$ converge locally uniformly on $\R$ and uniformly on $[0,+\infty)$ to the constant $D$. It follows that the limit geodesic $c_1^{+\infty}$ has distance $\equiv D$ from $P$. The same argument, applied to $c_2$ instead of the parallel set, implies that $c_1^{+\infty}$ is parallel to $c_2$. Thus, $c_1^{+\infty}\subset P(c_2)= P$ and, hence, $D=0$.
Now we find a geodesic in $P$ strongly asymptotic to $c_1$ as follows. Let $t_n\to+\infty$. We choose geodesics $c'_n(t)$ in $P$ forward asymptotic to $\xi$ by requiring that $c'_n(t_n)\in P$ is the nearest point projection of $c_1(t_n)$. Then $d(c_1(t_n),c'_n(t_n))=d(c_1(t_n),P)\to0$. The geodesics $c'_n\subset P$ are parallel, and their mutual Hausdorff distances $d_{mn}$ are bounded above by the distances $d(c'_m(t),c'_n(t))$ independent of $t$. To estimate the Hausdorff distances, we observe that $$d_{mn}\leq d(c'_m(t),c'_n(t))\leq d(c'_m(t),c_1(t))+d(c_1(t),c'_n(t))\leq d(c'_m(t_m),c_1(t_m))+d(c_1(t_n),c'_n(t_n))$$ for $t\geq t_m,t_n$. The right-hand side converges $\to0$ as $m,n\to+\infty$, and hence also $d_{mn}$. Thus, the geodesics $c'_n$ form a Cauchy sequence and therefore converge to a geodesic in $P$. The limit geodesic is strongly asymptotic to $c_1$.
We now derive a [*criterion*]{} for the [*strong asymptoticity of rays*]{}.
Consider a geodesic line $c(t)$ asymptotic to $\xi\in\geo X$. We observe that for every $\eta\in\geo P(c)$ the restriction $b_{\eta}\circ c$ is [*linear*]{}, because there exists a flat $f$ containing $c$ with $\eta\in\geo f$.
As a consequence, for any two strongly asymptotic geodesic lines $c_1(t)$ and $c_2(t)$ asymptotic to $\xi$, the restricted Busemann functions $b_{\eta}\circ c_i$ [*coincide*]{} for every $\eta\in\st(\tau_{\xi})\subset\geo P(c_1)\cap\geo P(c_2)$, where $\tau_{\xi}$ denotes the simplex spanned by $\xi$.
There is the following useful criterion for strong asymptoticity:
\[lem:strasycrit\] For geodesic lines $c_1(t)$ and $c_2(t)$ asymptotic to $\xi$ the following are equivalent:
\(i) $c_1(t)$ and $c_2(t)$ are strongly asymptotic.
\(ii) $b_{\eta}\circ c_1=b_{\eta}\circ c_2$ for every $\eta\in\st(\tau_{\xi})$.
(ii’) $b_{\eta}\circ c_1=b_{\eta}\circ c_2$ for every $\eta\in B(\xi,\eps)$ for some $\eps>0$.
(i)$\Ra$(ii) follows from the above discussion and (ii)$\Ra$(ii’) is immediate.
In order to prove (ii’)$\Ra$(i), we replace the geodesics $c_i$ by a pair of parallel ones without changing their strong asymptote classes, applying Lemma \[lem:exstrasygeo\]. Using the implication (i)$\Ra$(ii), which we already proved, we see that the $c_i$ keep satisfying hypothesis (ii’). Since they now lie in a common flat, (ii’) immediately implies that they coincide, i.e. (i) follows.
We generalize the discussion of strong asymptoticity to [*sectors*]{}.
Two Weyl sectors in $X$ are [*asymptotic*]{} iff their visual boundary simplices coincide, equivalently, iff they have finite Hausdorff distance.
Fix a simplex $\tau\in\Flagt$ and consider two asymptotic sectors $V(x_1,\tau)$ and $V(x_2,\tau)$. The function $V(0,\taumod)\to[0,+\infty)$ given by $$\label{eq:distsect}
y\mapsto d(\kappa_{x_1,\tau}(y),\kappa_{x_2,\tau}(y)) ,$$ where $\kappa_{x_i,\tau}$ are the sector charts, is convex and bounded. We denote its infimum by $d_{\tau}(x_1,x_2)$. This defines a pseudo-metric $d_{\tau}$ on $X$, viewed as the set of (tips of) sectors asymptotic to $\tau$.[^4]
We say that the sectors $V(x_1,\tau)$ and $V(x_2,\tau)$ are [*strongly asymptotic*]{} if $d_{\tau}(x_1,x_2)=0$. For any ideal point $\xi\in \inte(\tau)$ this is equivalent to the rays $x_1\xi$ and $x_2\xi$ being strongly asymptotic. We denote by $$X_{\tau}^{par}=X/\sim_{d_{\tau}}$$ the [*space of strong asymptote classes*]{} of Weyl sectors asymptotic to $\tau$.
We show now that, also in the case of sectors, parallel sets represent strong asymptote classes. For a simplex $\hat\tau$ opposite to $\tau$ we consider the restriction $$\label{eq:parasy}
P(\tau,\hat\tau)\to X_{\tau}^{par}$$ of the natural projection $X\to X_{\tau}^{par}$.
\[prop:strasspariso\] The map (\[eq:parasy\]) is an isometry.
For points $x_1,x_2\in P(\tau,\hat\tau)$ the function (\[eq:distsect\]) is constant $\equiv d(x_1,x_2)$. Hence (\[eq:parasy\]) is an isometric embedding. To see that it is also surjective, we need to verify that every sector $V(x,\tau)$ is strongly asymptotic to a sector $V(x',\tau)\subset P(\tau,\hat\tau)$. This follows from the corresponding fact for geodesic rays, see Lemma \[lem:exstrasygeo\].
Asymptotic Weyl cones {#sec:ascones-shadows}
---------------------
### Separation of nested Weyl cones {#sec:sepnest}
Suppose that $y\in V(x,\st(\tau))$ with $\tau\in\Flagt$. By nestedness (Coroillary \[cor:nestcone\]), we have the inclusion of Weyl cones $V(y,\st(\tau))\subseteq V(x,\st(\tau))$. We now determine the separation of their boundaries:
\[prop:hdstwcones\] The nearest point distance of the boundaries $\D V(x,\st(\tau))$ and $\D V(y,\st(\tau))$ equals $d(\de,\Dt\De)=d(y,\D V(x,\st(\tau)))$, where $\de=d_{\De}(x,y)$.
The natural submersion $$d_{\De}(x,\cdot) : X\to\De$$ is 1-Lipschitz and restricts to an isometry on every euclidean Weyl chamber with tip at $x$. By restricting it to the Weyl cone $V(x,\st(\tau))$, one sees that $$d(\cdot,\D V(x,\st(\tau))) = d\bigl(d_{\De}(x,\cdot) , \Dt\De \bigr)$$ on $V(x,\st(\tau))$. According to Proposition \[prop:prjwcon\](i), the values of $d_{\De}(x,\cdot)$ on $V(y,\st(\tau))$ are contained in $$V(\de,\Wt\simod) \cap\De ,$$ and clearly all these values are attained (on a euclidean Weyl chamber with tip at $x$ and containing $y$). It follows that the nearest point distance of $V(y,\st(\tau))$ and $\D V(x,\st(\tau))$ equals the nearest point distance of $V(\de,\Wt\simod) \cap\De$ and $\Dt\De$.
In order to see that the latter is given by $d(\de,\Dt\De)$, note that $d(\cdot,\Dt\De)$ is the minimum of finitely many root functionals on $\De$, namely of those corresponding to the walls of $\De$ not containing the sector $V(0,\taumod)$, equivalently, of those which are nonnegative on $\Wt\De$. Each of these functionals attains its minimum on the cone $V(\de,\Wt\simod)$ at its tip $\de$.
### Shadows at infinity and strong asymptoticity of Weyl cones {#sec:shadw}
For a simplex $\tau_-\in\Flagit$ and a point $x\in X$, we consider the function $$\label{eq:distfrpar}
\tau\mapsto d(x,P(\tau_-,\tau))$$ on the open Schubert stratum $C(\tau_-)\subset\Flagt$. We denote by $\tau_+\in C(\tau_-)$ the simplex $x$-opposite to $\tau_-$.
\[lem:contpr\] The function (\[eq:distfrpar\]) is continuous and proper.
This follows from the fact that $C(\tau_-)$ and $X$ are homogeneous spaces for the parabolic subgroup $P_{\tau_-}$. Indeed, continuity follows from the continuity of the function $$g\mapsto d(x,P(\tau_-,g\tau_+))=d(g^{-1}x,P(\tau_-,\tau_+))$$ on $P_{\tau_-}$ which factors through the orbit map $P_{\tau_-}\to C(\tau_-),g\mapsto g\tau_+$.
Regarding properness, note that a simplex $\tau\in C(\tau_-)$ is determined by any point $y$ contained in the parallel set $P(\tau_-,\tau)$, namely as the simplex $y$-opposite to $\tau_-$. Thus, if $P(\tau_-,\tau)\cap B(x,R)\neq\emptyset$ for some fixed $R>0$, then there exists $g\in P_{\tau_-}$ such that $\tau=g\tau_+$ and $d(x,gx)<R$. In particular, $g$ lies in a compact subset. This implies properness.
Moreover, the function (\[eq:distfrpar\]) has a unique minimum zero in $\tau_+$.
We define the following open subsets of $C(\tau_-)$ which can be regarded as [*shadows*]{} of balls in $X$ with respect to $\tau_-$. For $x\in X$ and $r>0$, we put $$\label{eq:shadwdf}
U_{\tau_-,x,r}:=\{\tau\in C(\tau_-) | d(x,P(\tau_-,\tau))<r\} .$$ The next fact expresses the [*strong asymptoticity*]{} of asymptotic Weyl cones:
\[lem:expconvsect\] For $r,R>0$ there exists $d=d(r,R)>0$ such that:
If $y\in V(x,\st(\tau_-))$ with $d(y,\D V(x,\st(\tau_-)))\geq d(r,R)$, then $U_{\tau_-,x,R}\subset U_{\tau_-,y,r}$.
If $U_{\tau_-,x,R}\not\subset U_{\tau_-,y,r}$ then there exists $x'\in B(x,R)$ such that $d(y,V(x',\st(\tau_-)))\geq r$. Thus, if the assertion is wrong, there exist a sequence $x_n\to x_{\infty}$ in $\ol B(x,R)$ and an $\iota\taumod$-regular sequence $(y_n)$ in $V(x,\st(\tau_-))$ such that $d(y_n,V(x_n,\st(\tau_-)))\geq r$.
Let $\rho:[0,+\infty)\to V(x,\tau_-)$ be a geodesic ray with initial point $x$ and asymptotic to an interior point of $\tau_-$. By $\iota\taumod$-regularity, the sequence $(y_n)$ eventually enters every Weyl cone $V(\rho(t),\st(\tau_-))$. Since the distance function $d(\cdot,V(x_n,\st(\tau_-)))$ is convex and bounded, and hence non-increasing along rays asymptotic to $\st(\tau_-)$, we have that $$R\geq d(x,V(x_n,\st(\tau_-)))
\geq d(\rho(t),V(x_n,\st(\tau_-)))\geq d(y_n,V(x_n,\st(\tau_-)))\geq r$$ for $n\geq n(t)$. It follows that $$R\geq d(\rho(t),V(x_{\infty},\st(\tau_-)))\geq r$$ for all $t\geq0$. However, the ray $\rho$ is strongly asymptotic to $V(x_{\infty},\st(\tau_-))$, cf. Proposition \[prop:strasspariso\], a contradiction.
Horocycles {#sec:horocycles}
----------
We discuss various foliations of $X$ naturally associated to a simplex $\tau\subset\geo X$.
We begin with foliations by flats and parallel sets: First, we denote by ${\mathcal F}_{\tau}$ the partition of $X$ into the singular flats $f\subset X$ such that $\tau\subset\geo f$ is a top-dimensional simplex. Second, we consider the partition ${\mathcal P}_{\tau}$ of $X$ into the parallel sets $P(\tau,\hat\tau)$ for the simplices $\hat\tau$ opposite to $\tau$. Note that ${\mathcal P}_{\tau}$ is a coarsening of ${\mathcal F}_{\tau}$, and coincides with it iff $\tau$ is a chamber. The parabolic subgroup $P_{\tau}$ preserves both partitions and acts transitively on their leaves. This implies that these partitions are [*smooth foliations*]{}.
We will now show that there exist complementary orthogonal foliations. To do so, we describe preferred mutual identifications between the leaves of ${\mathcal F}_{\tau}$ as well as of ${\mathcal P}_{\tau}$ by the actions of certain subgroups of $P_{\tau}$. Their orbits will be submanifolds orthogonal and complementary to the foliations, i.e. the integral submanifolds of the distributions normal to them.
The tuple $(b_{\xi})_{\xi\in\Vert(\tau)}$ of Busemann functions for the vertices $\xi$ of $\tau$ (well-defined up to additive constants) provides affine coordinates simultaneously for each flat $f\in{\mathcal F}_{\tau}$. The Busemann functions at the other ideal points in $\tau$ are linear combinations of these. The group $P_{\tau}$ preserves the family of horospheres at every $\xi\in\tau$, and the action on it yields a natural “shift” homomorphism $\phi_{\xi}:P_{\tau}\to\R$. The intersection of their kernels forms the normal subgroup $$\label{eq:largehorocgp}
\bigcap_{\xi\in\Vert(\tau)}\Stab(b_{\xi})
=\bigcap_{\xi\in\tau}\Stab(b_{\xi})
\triangleleft P_{\tau} .$$ It acts transitively on the set ${\mathcal F}_{\tau}$ of flats and preserves the coordinates; it thus provides consistent identifications between these flats. The level sets of $(b_{\xi})_{\xi\in\Vert(\tau)}$ are submanifolds orthogonal and complementary to these flats, because the gradient directions of the Busemann functions $b_{\xi}$ at a point $x\in f\in{\mathcal F}_{\tau}$ constitute a basis of the tangent space $T_xf$. These level sets form a smooth foliation ${\mathcal F}_{\tau}^{\perp}$ and are the orbits of the subgroup (\[eq:largehorocgp\]).
In order to describe the foliation normal to ${\mathcal P}_{\tau}$, we define the [*horocyclic subgroup*]{} at $\tau$ as the (smaller) normal subgroup $N_\tau \triangleleft P_{\tau}$ given by $$N_{\tau}=\bigcap_{\xi\in\st(\tau)}\Stab(b_{\xi}) \triangleleft \Fix(\st(\tau))\triangleleft P_{\tau} .$$ It is the kernel of the $P_\tau$-action on the set of all (unnormalized) Busemann functions centered at ideal points in $\st(\tau)$.
Note that as a consequence of Lemma \[lem:strasycrit\], $N_{\tau}$ preserves the strong asymptote classes of geodesic rays at all ideal points $\xi\in\ost(\tau)$.
We now give a method for constructing isometries in $N_{\tau}$.
Let $\xi\in\inte(\tau)$, and let $c(t)$ be a geodesic line forward asymptotic to it, $c(+\infty)=\xi$. Consider the one parameter group $(T_t^c)_{t\in \R}$ of transvections along $c$. The transvections $T_t^c$ fix $\geo P(c)$ pointwise and shift the Busemann functions $b_{\eta}$ centered at ideal points $\eta\in\geo P(c)$ by additive constants: $$b_{\eta}\circ T_t^c-b_{\eta} \equiv -t\cdot\cos\tangle(\eta,\xi)$$ Note that $\st(\tau)\subset\geo P(c)$.
\[lem:constrhiso\] Let $c_1(t)$ and $c_2(t)$ be geodesic lines forward asymptotic to $\xi\in\inte(\tau)$, which are strongly asymptotic. Then there exists an isometry[^5] $n\in G$ with the properties:
\(i) $n\circ c_1=c_2$.
\(ii) $n$ fixes $\geo P(c_1)\cap\geo P(c_2)$ pointwise.
\(iii) $b_{\eta}\circ n\equiv b_{\eta}$ for all $\eta\in\geo P(c_1)\cap\geo P(c_2)$.
In particular, $n\in N_{\tau}$.
By our observation above, the isometries $T_{-t}^{c_2}\circ T_t^{c_1}$ fix $\geo P(c_1)\cap\geo P(c_2)\supseteq\st(\tau)$ pointwise and preserve the Busemann functions $b_{\eta}$ for all $\eta\in\geo P(c_1)\cap\geo P(c_2)$. Thus, they belong to $N_{\tau}$. Moreover, they form a bounded family. Therefore, as $t\to+\infty$, they subconverge to an isometry $n\in N_{\tau}$ which maps $c_1$ to $c_2$ while preserving parameterizations.
\[cor:horotranspar\] $N_{\tau}$ acts transitively on
\(i) every strong asymptote class of geodesic rays at every ideal point $\xi\in\interior(\tau)$;
\(ii) the set of leaves of ${\mathcal P}_{\tau}$.
Part (i) is a direct consequence of the lemma.
Also (ii) follows because every parallel set in ${\mathcal P}_{\tau}$ contains a (in fact, exactly one) geodesic ray of every strong asymptote class at any point $\xi\in\inte(\tau)$, cf. Proposition \[prop:strasspariso\].
One also obtains that every geodesic asymptotic to an ideal point $\xi\in\D\tau$ can be carried by an isometry in $N_{\tau}$ to any other strongly asymptotic geodesic. However, $N_{\tau}$ does not preserve strong asymptote classes at $\xi$ in that case.
If $n\in N_{\tau}$ preserves a parallel set $P(\tau,\hat\tau)$, $n\hat\tau=\hat\tau$, then it acts trivially on it.
The hypothesis implies that $n$ fixes $\st(\tau)$ and $\hat\tau$ pointwise, and hence also their convex hull $\geo P(\tau,\hat\tau)$ in $\tits X$. Thus $n$ preserves every maximal flat $F\subset P(\tau,\hat\tau)$. Moreover it preserves all Busemann functions $b_{\xi}$ centered at points $\xi\in\geo F\cap\st(\tau)$, and therefore must fix $F$ pointwise, compare Lemma \[lem:strasycrit\].
The stabilizer of $P(\tau,\hat\tau)$ in $N_{\tau}$ is its pointwise fixator $K_{\tau,\hat\tau}<G$.
The claim follows from the obvious inclusion $K_{\tau,\hat\tau}\subset N_{\tau}$ together with the lemma.
The subgroup $N_\tau$ decomposes as the semidirect product $U_\tau\rtimes K_{\tau,\hat\tau}$, where $U_\tau \triangleleft P_\tau$ is the [*unipotent radical*]{} of $P_\tau$.
By the above, $N_{\tau}$ provides consistent identifications between the parallel sets $P(\tau,\hat\tau)$. The $N_{\tau}$-orbits are submanifolds orthogonal to the parallel sets and must have complementary dimension. They form a smooth foliation $$\label{eq:horfol}
{\mathcal H}_{\tau}={\mathcal P}_{\tau}^{\perp}$$ refining ${\mathcal F}_{\tau}^{\perp}$, which we call the [*horocyclic foliation*]{} and its leaves the [*horocycles*]{} at $\tau$. We denote the horocycle at $\tau$ through the point $x$ by $\Hc_{\tau, x}$, i.e. $\Hc_{\tau,x}=N_{\tau}x$.
For incident faces, the associated subgroups and foliations are contained in each other: If $\ups\subset\tau$, then $\st(\ups)\supset\st(\tau)$ and $N_{\ups}< N_{\tau}$. Therefore, e.g. ${\mathcal H}_{\ups}$ refines ${\mathcal H}_{\tau}$.
Note that in rank one, horocycles are horospheres.
We also see how horocycles and strong asymptote classes relate; by Corollary \[cor:horotranspar\](i):
The sectors $V(x_1,\tau)$ and $V(x_2,\tau)$ are strongly asymptotic if and only if $x_1$ and $x_2$ lie in the same horocycle at $\tau$.
Moreover, the discussion shows that for the stabilizer $P_{\tau}\cap P_{\hat\tau}$ of $P(\tau,\hat\tau)$ in $P_{\tau}$ it holds that $N_{\tau}(P_{\tau}\cap P_{\hat\tau})=P_{\tau}$ and $P_{\tau}\cap P_{\hat\tau}\cap N_{\tau}=K_{\tau,\hat\tau}$, and so the sequence $$1\to N_{\tau}\to P_{\tau}\to\Isom(X_{\tau}^{par})$$ is exact.
Note that the homomorphism $P_{\tau}\to\Isom(X_{\tau}^{par})$ is in general not surjective. Namely, let $X_{\tau}^{par}=:f_{\tau}\times CS(\tau)$ denote the decomposition (\[eq:parsplit\]) of $X_{\tau}^{par}\cong P(\tau,\hat\tau)$. Then $P_{\tau}$ acts on the flat factor $f_{\tau}$ only by the group $A_{\tau}$ of translations. On the cross section, it acts by a subgroup $M_\tau\leq\Isom(CS(\tau))$ containing the identity component. The above exact sequence is then a part of the [*Langlands’ decomposition*]{} of $P_\tau$, $$1\to N_\tau \to P_\tau \to A_\tau\times M_\tau \to 1,$$ which, on the level of Lie algebras, is a split exact sequence.
We return now to Lemma \[lem:constrhiso\]. For later use, we elaborate on the special case when the geodesics $c_i$ are contained in the parallel set of a singular flat of dimension rank minus one.
Consider a half-apartment $h\subset\geo X$; it is a simplicial $\pihalf$-ball in $\geo X$. We call its center $\zeta$ the [*pole*]{} of $h$. We define the [*star*]{} $\st(h)$ as the union of the stars $\st(\tau)$ where $\tau$ runs through all simplices with $\inte(\tau)\subset\inte(h)$, equivalently, which are spanned by interior points of $h$. Similarly, we define the [*open star*]{} $\ost(h)$ as the union of the corresponding open stars $\ost(\tau)$. Note that $\inte(h)\subset\ost(h)$. Furthermore, we define the subgroup $N_h< G$ as the intersection of the horocyclic subgroups $N_{\tau}$ at these simplices $\tau$, $$N_h = \bigcap_{\inte(\tau)\subset\inte(h)} N_{\tau}.$$
We observe that $N_h$ preserves the strong asymptote classes of geodesic rays at all ideal points $\xi\in\ost(h)$, and it preserves the family of maximal flats $F$ with $\geo F\supset h$. The action on this set of flats is transitive. Indeed, parallel to Lemma \[lem:constrhiso\], we have:
\[lem:constrhisospec\] Let $F_1,F_2\subset P(\D h)$ be maximal flats with $\geo F_i\supset h$. Then there exists an isometry $n\in N_h$ with the properties:
\(i) $nF_1=F_2$.
\(ii) $n$ fixes $\st(h)$ pointwise.
\(iii) $b_{\eta}\circ n\equiv b_{\eta}$ for all $\eta\in\st(h)$.
The parallel set $P(\D h)$ splits as the product $f\times CS(\D h)$, see , where $f\subset X$ is a singular flat with $\geo f=\D h$, and the cross section $CS(\D h)$ is a rank one symmetric space. Accordingly, the maximal flats $F_i$ split as products $f\times \bar c_i$ with geodesics $\bar c_i\subset CS(\D h)$ asymptotic to the pole $\zeta\in CS(\D h)$ of $h$.
Let $\xi\in\inte(h)$. We choose geodesics $c_1(t),c_2(t)$ in $F_1,F_2$ asymptotic to $\xi$. Their $f$-components are parallel geodesics in $f$, and their $CS(\D h)$-components are geodesics in $CS(\D h)$ asymptotic to $\zeta$, equal to $\bar{c}_1, \bar{c}_2$ up to reparametrization. The geodesics $c_1,c_2$ are strongly asymptotic iff they have the same $f$-component and their $CS(\D h)$-components are strongly asymptotic. We choose them in this way, using the fact that any two asymptotic geodesics in a rank one symmetric space become strongly asymptotic after suitable reparameterization.
We then can apply the limiting argument (in the proof of Lemma \[lem:constrhiso\]) to the compositions $T_{-t}^{c_2}\circ T_t^{c_1}$ and obtain an isometry $n\in N_{\tau_{\xi}}$ where $\tau_{\xi}\subset h$ denotes the simplex spanned by $\xi$. The isometry $n$ carries $F_1$ to $F_2$, fixes $\st(\tau_{\xi})$ pointwise and satisfies (iii) for all $\eta\in\st(\tau_{\xi})$.
We observe that the isometries $T_{-t}^{c_2}\circ T_t^{c_1}$ act trivially on $f$ and the limiting isometry $n$ depends only on the $CS(\D h)$-components of the geodesics $c_i$. Thus, by replacing the $f$-component of the $c_i$, we are not affecting $n$, but we can change the ideal endpoint $\xi$ of the $c_i$ to any other ideal point $\xi'\in\inte(h)$. (We work here with constant speed parametrizations $c_i(t)$.) It follows that $n$ fixes also $\st(\tau_{\xi'})$ pointwise and satisfies (iii) also for all $\eta\in\st(\tau_{\xi'})$. Varying $\xi'$, we let $\tau_{\xi'}$ run through all simplices with $\interior(\tau)\subset\interior(h)$ and conclude also parts (ii)+(iii) of the assertion.
We obtain an analogue of Corollary \[cor:horotranspar\]:
\[cor:horotransparspec\] $N_h$ acts transitively on
\(i) every strong asymptote class of geodesic rays at every ideal point $\xi\in\interior(h)$;
\(ii) the set of maximal flats $F$ with $\geo F\supset h$.
We describe a consequence of our discussion for the horocyclic foliations.
The maximal flats $F$ with $\geo F\supset h$ are contained in the parallel set $P(\D h)\cong f\times CS(\D h)$ and form the leaves of a smooth foliation ${\mathcal P}_h$ of $P(\D h)$. This foliation is the pullback (via the natural projection $P(\D h)\to CS(\D h)$) of the one-dimensional foliation of the rank one symmetric space $CS(\D h)$ by the geodesics asymptotic to the ideal point $\zeta\in\geo CS(\D h)$, the center of $h$. There exists a foliation ${\mathcal H}_h$ of $P(\D h)$ whose leaves are normal (orthogonal and complementary) to those of ${\mathcal P}_h$. The leaves of ${\mathcal H}_h$ have the form $\{y\}\times \Hs_{\zeta,z}$, where $y\in f$ and $\Hs_{\zeta,z}\subset CS(\D h)$ is the horosphere centered at $\zeta$ and passing through $z\in CS(\D h)$. We call the leaves of ${\mathcal H}_h$ the [*horocycles at $h$*]{} and the foliation ${\mathcal H}_h$ the [*horocyclic*]{} foliation. The leaf of ${\mathcal H}_h$ passing through $x\in P(\D h)$ will be denoted $\Hc_{h,x}$. Corollary \[cor:horotransparspec\] implies that $\Hc_{h,x}=N_hx$.
Let $\tau$ be a simplex so that $\interior(\tau)\subset\interior(h)$. Then the foliation ${\mathcal P}_{\tau}$ of $X$ by parallel sets restricts on $P(\D h)$ to the foliation ${\mathcal P}_h$ by maximal flats, and the horocyclic foliation ${\mathcal H}_{\tau}$ restricts to the horocyclic foliation ${\mathcal H}_h$. (This follows from the fact that the foliations ${\mathcal P}_{\tau}$ and ${\mathcal H}_{\tau}$ are normal to each other, cf. (\[eq:horfol\]).) In other words, the horocyclic foliations ${\mathcal H}_{\tau}$ for the various simplices $\tau$ with $\interior(\tau)\subset \interior(h)$ [*coincide*]{} on the parallel set $P(\D h)$.
Contraction at infinity {#sec:contraction}
-----------------------
### Identifications of horocycles
We fix a simplex $\tau\subset\geo X$. Since every horocycle at $\tau$ intersects every parallel set $P(\tau,\hat\tau)$, $\hat\tau\in C(\tau)$, exactly once, there are $N_{\tau}$-equivariant diffeomorphisms $$\label{eq:hc-schubert}
\Hc_{\tau,x} \buildrel\cong\over\to C(\tau)$$ sending a point $y\in \Hc_{\tau,x}$ to the unique simplex $\hat\tau\in C(\tau)$ such that $\Hc_{\tau,x} \cap P(\tau, \hat\tau)=\{y\}$. (The smoothness of these identifications follows from their $N_{\tau}$-equivariance.) Composing the maps and their inverses, we obtain $N_\tau$-equivariant diffeomorphisms $$\label{eq:horo-diffeo}
\pi^\tau_{x'x}: \Hc_{\tau,x}\to \Hc_{\tau,x'},$$ sending the intersection point $\Hc_{\tau,x} \cap P(\tau, \hat\tau)$ to the intersection $\Hc_{\tau,x'} \cap P(\tau, \hat\tau)$ for $\hat\tau\in C(\tau)$.
Let $h\subset\geo X$ be a half-apartment such that $\interior(\tau)\subset\interior(h)$. Then, as discussed in the end of the previous section, the horocycles at $\tau$ intersect the parallel set $P(\D h)$ in the horocycles at $h$. The latter are homogeneous spaces for the subgroup $N_h<N_{\tau}$. Thus, for $x,x'\in P(\D h)$, the diffeomorphisms restrict to $N_h$-equivariant diffeomorphisms $$\pi^h_{x'x}: \Hc_{h,x}\buildrel\cong\over\to \Hc_{h,x'}$$ between the horocycles at $h$, while the diffeomorphisms restrict to $N_h$-equivariant diffeomorphisms $$\Hc_{h,x} \buildrel\cong\over\to C(h)$$ between the horocycles at $h$ and the $N_h$-orbit $C(h)\subset C(\tau)$ consisting of the simplices which are contained in $\geo P(\D h)$.
We estimate now the [*contraction-expansion*]{} of the identifications $\pi^h_{x'x}$.
We build on the discussion at the end of the previous section. As we saw, the horocycles $\Hc_{h,x}$ in $P(\D h)\cong f\times CS(\D h)$ are horospheres in the cross sections $pt\times CS(\D h)$. They therefore project isometrically onto the horospheres $\Hs_{\zeta,\bar x}$ in $CS(\D h)$, where $\bar x$ denotes the projection of $x$. Under these projections, the identifications $\pi^h_{x'x}$ correspond to the identifications $$\label{eq:hrsphidfcrsc}
\pi^{\zeta}_{\bar x'\bar x}: \Hs_{\zeta,\bar x}\buildrel\cong\over\to\Hs_{\zeta,\bar x'}$$ of horospheres, i.e. for $x,x'\in P(\D h)$, we have the commutative diagram: $$\begin{array}{ccc}
\Hc_{h,x} & \buildrel{\pi^h_{x'x}}\over{\longrightarrow} & \Hc_{h,x'}\\
\downarrow & ~ & \downarrow\\
\Hs_{\zeta,\bar x} & \buildrel{\pi^{\zeta}_{\bar x'\bar x}}\over{\longrightarrow} & \Hs_{\zeta,\bar x'}
\end{array}$$ Estimating the contraction rate of $\pi^h_{x'x}$ therefore reduces to estimating it for $\pi^{\zeta}_{\bar x'\bar x}$ in the rank one symmetric space $CS(\D h)$.
We estimate the [*infinitesimal*]{} contraction. We assume that $\bar x'$ is closer to $\zeta$ than $\bar x$, $b_{\zeta}(\bar x)\geq b_{\zeta}(\bar x')$. Then there is actual contraction, at a uniform rate in terms of the distance between the horospheres. For the differential $d\pi^{\zeta}_{\bar x'\bar x}$ of $\pi^{\zeta}_{\bar x'\bar x}$, one has the estimate $$e^{-c_1(b_{\zeta}(\bar x)-b_{\zeta}(\bar x'))} \|\bar v\| \leq \|(d\pi^{\zeta}_{\bar x'\bar x}) \bar v\|
\leq e^{-c_2(b_{\zeta}(\bar x)-b_{\zeta}(\bar x'))} \|\bar v\|$$ for all tangent vectors $\bar v\in T\Hs_{\zeta,\bar x}$, with constants $c_1\geq c_2>0$ depending only on the rank one symmetric space $CS(\D h)$, in fact, depending only on $X$, because there are only finitely many isometry types of rank one symmetric spaces occurring as cross sections of parallel sets in $X$. The estimate follows from the standard fact that the exponential decay rate of decaying Jacobi fields along geodesic rays in $CS(\D h)$ is bounded below and above (in terms of the eigenvalues of the curvature tensor).
In view of $b_{\zeta}(x)-b_{\zeta}(x')=b_{\zeta}(\bar x)-b_{\zeta}(\bar x')$, we obtain for $\pi^h_{x'x}$:
\[lem:contrac\] If $b_{\zeta}(x)\geq b_{\zeta}(x')$, then $$\label{ineq:contrestrk1}
e^{-c_1(b_{\zeta}(x)-b_{\zeta}(x'))} \|v\| \leq \|(d\pi^h_{x'x}) v\| \leq e^{-c_2(b_{\zeta}(x)-b_{\zeta}(x'))} \|v\|$$ for all tangent vectors $v$ to $\Hc_{h,x}$, with constants $c_1,c_2>0$ depending only on $X$.
### Infinitesimal contraction of transvections
We now focus on transvections and their action at infinity.
Suppose that $x,x'\in P(\tau,\hat\tau)$ are distinct points. Let $\vartheta_{xx'}$ denote the transvection with axis $l=l_{xx'}$ through $x$ and $x'$ mapping $x'\mapsto x$; we orient the geodesic $l_{xx'}$ from $x'$ to $x$, i.e. so that $\vartheta_{xx'}$ translates along it in the positive direction. The transvection $\vartheta_{xx'}$ preserves the parallel set $P(\tau,\hat\tau)$ and fixes the simplices $\tau,\hat\tau$ at infinity.
We consider the action of $\vartheta_{xx'}$ on $C(\tau)$ and its differential at the fixed point $\hat\tau$. Modulo the identifications and , the action of $\vartheta_{xx'}$ on $C(\tau)$ corresponds to the action of $\vartheta_{xx'}\circ \pi^{\tau}_{x'x}$ on $Hc^{\tau}_x$, and the differential $(d\vartheta_{xx'})_{\hat\tau}$ of $\vartheta_{xx'}$ at $\hat\tau$ to the differential of $\vartheta_{xx'}\circ \pi^{\tau}_{x'x}$ at $x$.
We first consider the case when $\vartheta_{xx'}$ when $\xi:=l_{xx'}(-\infty)\in\ost(\tau)$, equivalently, when $x'$ lies in the interior of the Weyl cone $V(x,\st(\tau))$. Then $(d\vartheta_{xx'})_{\hat\tau}$ strictly contracts:
\[lem:diffposev\] If $\xi\in\ost(\tau)$, then $(d\vartheta_{xx'})_{\hat\tau}$ is diagonalizable with eigenvalues in $(0,1)$.
Since $\xi\in\ost(\tau)$, the group $N_{\tau}$ preserves the strong asymptote classes of geodesic rays at $\xi$,[^6] cf. section \[sec:horocycles\], i.e. the geodesics $nl_{xx'}$ for $n\in N_{\tau}$ are strongly backward asymptotic to $l_{xx'}$. Thus, by assigning to $n\hat\tau\in C(\tau)$ the geodesic $nl_{xx'}$, which is the unique geodesic in the parallel set $P(\tau,n\hat\tau)$ strongly backward asymptotic to $l_{xx'}$, we obtain a smooth family of geodesics in the strong backward asymptote class of $l_{xx'}$, parametrized by the manifold $C(\tau)$.
By differentiating this family, we obtain a linear embedding of the tangent space $T_{\hat\tau} C(\tau)$ into the vector space $\Jac_{l_{xx'},\xi}$ of Jacobi fields along $l_{xx'}$ which decay to zero at $\xi$. The effect of the differential $(d\vartheta_{xx'})_{\hat\tau}$ on $C(\tau)$ is given, in terms of these Jacobi fields, by the push-forward $$J\mapsto (\vartheta_{xx'})_*(J) = d\vartheta_{xx'}\circ J\circ \vartheta_{x'x}$$ The Jacobi fields in $\Jac_{l,\xi}$, which are of the form of a decaying exponential function times a parallel vector field along $l_{xx'}$, correspond to the eigenvectors of $(d\vartheta_{xx'})_{\hat\tau}$ with eigenvalues in $(0,1)$. It is a standard fact from the Riemannian geometry of symmetric spaces that the vector space $\Jac_{l_{xx'},\xi}$ has a basis consisting of such special Jacobi fields.[^7] The same then follows for the linear subspace $L\subseteq\Jac_{l_{xx'},\xi}$ corresponding to $T_{\hat\tau} C(\tau)$. Thus the eigenvectors of $(d\vartheta_{xx'})_{\hat\tau}$ for positive eigenvalues span $T_{\hat\tau}C(\tau)$.
We now give a uniform estimate for the contraction of $(d\vartheta_{xx'})_{\hat\tau}$:
\[lem:evestinst\] If $\xi\in\ost(\tau)$, then the eigenvalues $\la$ of $(d\vartheta_{xx'})_{\hat\tau}$ satisfy an estimate $$\label{eq:evest}
-\log\la\geq c\cdot d(x',\D V(x,\st(\tau)))$$ with a constant $c>0$ depending only on $X$.
We continue the argument in the previous proof.
Let $F\supset l_{xx'}$ be a maximal flat. Then $F\subset P(\tau,\hat\tau)$. The smooth family $n\hat\tau\mapsto nl_{xx'}$ of geodesics parametrized by $C(\tau)$ embeds into the smooth family of maximal flats $n\hat\tau\mapsto nF$. They are all asymptotic to $\st(\tau)\cap\geo F$, i.e. $\geo(nF)\supset\st(\tau)\cap\geo F$. Accordingly, each Jacobi field $J\in L\subseteq\Jac_{l_{xx'},\xi}$ extends to a Jacobi field $\hat J$ along $F$ which decays to zero at all ideal points in $\ost(\tau)\cap\geo F$. (Here we use again that $N_{\tau}$ preserves the strong asymptote classes of geodesic rays at all points in $\ost(\tau)$.) Thus, we obtain a natural identification of $T_{\hat\tau} C(\tau)$ and $L$ with a linear subspace $\hat L$ of the vector space $\Jac_{F,\ost(\tau)\cap\geo F}$ of Jacobi fields along $F$ which decay to zero at all ideal points in $\ost(\tau)\cap\geo F$.
The decomposition of Jacobi fields mentioned in the previous proof works in the same way along flats.[^8] The vector space $\Jac_{F,\ost(\tau)\cap\geo F}$ has a basis consisting of Jacobi fields of the form $e^{-\al}V$ with an affine linear form $\al$ on $F$ and a parallel vector field $V$ along $F$. Furthermore, since $G$ acts transitively on maximal flats, only [*finitely*]{} many affine linear forms $\al$ occur for these basis elements, independently of $F$. (The possible forms are determined by the root system of $G$, but we do not need this fact here.)
The decay condition on the forms $\al$ occurring in our decomposition is equivalent to the property that $\al\geq\al(x)$ on $V(x,\st(\tau)\cap\geo F)\subset F$ and $\al>\al(x)$ on the interior of this cone. It implies an estimate $$\al(x')-\al(x)\geq c\cdot \underbrace{d(x',\D V(x,\st(\tau)\cap\geo F))}_{=d(x',\D V(x,\st(\tau)))}$$ with a constant $c=c(\al)>0$. (The equality of distances follows from Proposition \[prop:hdstwcones\].) Since there are only finitely many forms $\al$ involved, the constant $c$ can be taken [*independent*]{} of $\al$.
Notice that the eigenvalues $\la$ of $(d\vartheta_{xx'})_{\hat\tau}$ are of the form $$e^{-(\al(x')-\al(x))} .$$ The claimed upper bound for the eigenvalues follows.
By continuity, the result extends to the case when $x'$ lies in the boundary of the Weyl cone $V(x,\st(\tau))$. We obtain:
\[cor:wcontrincone\] If $x'\in V(x,\st(\tau))$, then $(d\vartheta_{xx'})_{\hat\tau}$ is diagonalizable with eigenvalues in $(0,1]$ satisfying an estimate .
In particular, the eigenvalues lie in $(0,1)$, if $x'$ lies in the interior of $V(x,\st(\tau))$.
If $x'$ lies outside the Weyl cone $V(x,\st(\tau))$, then $d(\vartheta_{xx'})_{\hat\tau}$ has expanding directions. In order to see this, we consider the action of $\vartheta_{xx'}$ on certain invariant submanifolds of $C(\tau)$ corresponding to parallel sets of singular hyperplanes.
Again, there exists a maximal flat $F$ with $l_{xx'}\subset F\subset P(\tau,\hat\tau)$. Let $h\subset\geo F$ be a half-apartment such that $\inte(\tau)\subset\inte(h)$. Then $l_{xx'}\subset F\subset P(\D h)$. The transvection $\vartheta_{xx'}$ fixes $\geo F$ pointwise. Hence it preserves the parallel set $P(\D h)$ and the submanifold $C(h)=N_h\hat\tau\subset C(\tau)$.
If $l_{xx'}$ is parallel to the euclidean factor of $P(\D h)$, equivalently, if $\geo l_{xx'}\subset\D h$, then $\vartheta_{xx'}$ acts trivially on $\geo P(\D h)$. Hence, $\vartheta_{xx'}$ acts also trivially on $C(h)$, because the latter consists of simplices contained in $\geo P(\D h)$.
In the general case, the action of $\vartheta_{xx'}$ on $C(h)$ corresponds to the restriction of the action of $\vartheta_{xx'}\circ \pi^{\tau}_{x'x}$ to $\Hc_{h,x}=\Hc_{\tau,x}\cap P(\D h)$. When projecting to $CS(\D h)$, the latter action in turn corresponds to the action of $\vartheta_{\bar x\bar x'}\circ \pi^{\zeta}_{\bar x'\bar x}$ on the horosphere $\Hs_{\zeta,\bar x}$. Here, $\vartheta_{\bar x\bar x'}$ denotes the transvection on $CS(\D h)$ with axis $l_{\bar x\bar x'}$ through $\bar x$ and $\bar x'$ mapping $\bar x'\mapsto\bar x$, and $ \pi^{\zeta}_{\bar x'\bar x}$ is the natural identification . The axis $l_{\bar x\bar x'}$ is the image of $F$ under the projection (if $\bar x=\bar x'$, we define it in this way). It is asymptotic to $\zeta$ and another ideal point $\hat\zeta\in C(\zeta)=\geo CS(\D h)-\{\zeta\}$. The simplex $\hat\tau$ corresponds to $\hat\zeta$ under the natural $N_h$-equivariant identification $C(h)\cong C(\zeta)$, and the action of $\vartheta_{xx'}$ on $C(h)$ corresponds to the action of $\vartheta_{\bar x\bar x'}$ on $C(\zeta)$.
We now obtain analogues of Lemmas \[lem:diffposev\] and \[lem:evestinst\]. Recall that $\xi=l_{xx'}(-\infty)$.
\[lem:evestinstrk1\] If $\xi\in\inte(h)$, then $(d\vartheta_{xx'})_{\hat\tau}|_{T_{\hat\tau}C(h)}$ is diagonalizable with eigenvalues $\la\in (0,1)$ satisfying an estimate $$\label{ineq:eigvsubsp}
c_2 \leq\frac{-\log\la}{b_{\zeta}(x)-b_{\zeta}(x')}\leq c_1$$ with constants $c_1,c_2>0$ depending only on $X$.
The diagonalizablility follows by applying Lemma \[lem:diffposev\] to $CS(\D h)$ and $(d\vartheta_{\bar x\bar x'})_{\hat\zeta}$.
Since $\xi\in\interior(h)$, we have that $b_{\zeta}(x)-b_{\zeta}(x')=b_{\zeta}(\bar x)-b_{\zeta}(\bar x')>0$, and the eigenvalue estimate follows from the contraction estimate (\[ineq:contrestrk1\])
\[cor:diffnotcontr\] If $x'\in P(\tau,\hat\tau)-V(x,\st(\tau))$, then $(d\vartheta_{xx'})_{\hat\tau}$ has some eigenvalues in $(1,+\infty)$.
By our assumption, we have that $\xi\not\in\st(\tau)$. Therefore, the half-apartment $h\subset\geo F$ can be chosen so that its interior contains, besides $\interior(\tau)$, also $l_{xx'}(+\infty)$. (Recall that the convex subcomplex $\st(\tau)\cap\geo F$ is an intersection of half-apartments in $\geo F$, cf. Lemma \[lem:intapts\].) Then the estimate (\[ineq:eigvsubsp\]) applied to $\vartheta_{x'x}=\vartheta_{xx'}^{-1}$ yields that $(d\vartheta_{xx'})_{\hat\tau}^{-1}$ has some eigenvalues in $(0,1)$.
Complementing Corollary \[cor:wcontrincone\], we bound the contraction rate from above, if $x'\in V(x,\st(\tau))$:
\[lem:contrestinst\] If $\xi\in\st(\tau)$, then $(d\vartheta_{xx'})_{\hat\tau}$ has some eigenvalue $\la\in(0,1]$ satisfying an estimate $$-\log\la\leq c_1\cdot d(x',\D V(x,\st(\tau)))$$ with a constant $c_1>0$ depending only on $X$.
Since $xx'\subset F$, some nearest point $y'$ to $x'$ on $\D V(x,\st(\tau))$ lies in $F$, cf. Proposition \[prop:hdstwcones\]. Hence we can choose the half-apartment $h\subset\geo F$ such that $b_{\zeta}(y')=b_{\zeta}(x)$ and $$d(x',\D V(x,\st(\tau))) =
b_{\zeta}(x)-b_{\zeta}(x').$$ Now let $\la$ be an eigenvalue of $(d\vartheta_{xx'})_{\hat\tau}|_{T_{\hat\tau}C(h)}$ and apply the upper bound in (\[ineq:eigvsubsp\]).
Putting the information (Corollaries \[cor:wcontrincone\], \[cor:diffnotcontr\] and Lemmas \[lem:evestinstrk1\], \[lem:contrestinst\]) together, we obtain:
\[prop:infcontrtrans\] Let $\tau,\hat\tau\subset\geo X$ be opposite simplices, and let $\vartheta$ be a nontrivial transvection with an axis $l\subset P(\tau,\hat\tau)$ through the point $x$. Then the following hold for the differential $d\vartheta_{\hat\tau}$ of $\vartheta$ on $C(\tau)$ at the fixed point $\hat\tau$:
\(i) $d\vartheta_{\hat\tau}$ is diagonalizable with eigenvalues in $(0,1]$ iff $\vartheta^{-1}x\in V(x,\st(\tau))$, and diagonalizable with eigenvalues in $(0,1)$ iff $\vartheta^{-1}x\in V(x,\ost(\tau))$.
\(ii) If $\vartheta^{-1}x\in V(x,\st(\tau))$, then the eigenvalues $\la$ of $d\vartheta_{\hat\tau}$ satisfy an estimate $$c_2\cdot d(\vartheta^{-1}x,\D V(x,\st(\tau))) \leq
-\log\la
\leq c_1\cdot d(\vartheta^{-1}x,\D V(x,\st(\tau)))$$ with constants $c_1,c_2>0$ depending only on $X$.
We deduce a consequence for the action of general isometries in $G$. For later use, we will formulate it in terms of expansion (of their inverses) rather than contraction.
We need the following notion: For a diffeomorphism $\Phi$ of a Riemannian manifold $M$, we define the [*expansion factor*]{} at $x\in M$ as $$\label{eq:expfacearl}
\eps(\Phi,x) = \inf_{v\in T_xM-\{0\}} \frac{\|d\Phi(v)\|}{\|v\|} = \| (d\Phi_x)^{-1} \|^{-1} ,$$ compare in section \[sec:trexpand\] below.
We equip the flag manifolds $\Flagt$ with auxiliary Riemannian metrics.
\[thm:expand\] Let $\tau\in\Flagt$, $x\in X$, and $g\in G$ such that $d(gx,V(x,\st(\tau)))\leq r$. Then for the action of $g^{-1}$ on $\Flagt$ we have the estimate $$C^{-1}\cdot d(gx,\D V(x,\st(\tau))) - A\leq
\log \eps(g^{-1},\tau)
\leq C\cdot d(gx,\D V(x,\st(\tau))) + A$$ with constants $C,A>0$ depending only on $x$, $r$ and the chosen Riemannian metric on $\Flagt$.[^9]
We write $g$ as a product $g=t b$ of a transvection $t$ along a geodesic $l$ through $x$ with $l(+\infty)\in\st(\tau)$ and an isometry $b\in G$ such that $d(x,bx)\leq r$. Then $t$ fixes $\tau$ on $\Flagt$, and the expansion factor $\eps(g^{-1},\tau)$ equals $\eps(t^{-1},\tau)$ up to a multiplicative constant depending on $r$ and the chosen Riemannian metric on $\Flagt$.
When replacing the metric, $\eps(t^{-1},\tau)$ changes at most by another multiplicative constant, and we may therefore assume that the Riemannian metric is invariant under the maximal compact subgroup $K_x<G$ fixing $x$. Now the eigenspace decomposition of $dt_{\tau}$ on $T_{\tau}\Flagt$ is orthogonal. Consequently, $$\eps(t^{-1},\tau)=\la_{max}^{-1}$$ where $\la_{max}$ denotes the maximal eigenvalue of $dt_{\tau}$.
Let $\hat\tau$ denote the simplex $x$-opposite to $\tau$. Applying Proposition \[prop:infcontrtrans\](ii) to $\vartheta=t$ while exchanging the roles of $\tau$ and $\hat\tau$, we obtain the estimate $$c_2\cdot d(t^{-1}x,\D V(x,\st(\hat\tau))) \leq
-\log\la
\leq c_1\cdot \underbrace{d(t^{-1}x,\D V(x,\st(\hat\tau)))}_{=d(tx,\D V(x,\st(\tau)))}$$ for the eigenvalues $\la$ of $dt_{\tau}$, and so $$c_2\cdot d(tx,\D V(x,\st(\tau))) \leq \log\eps(t^{-1},\tau) \leq c_1\cdot d(tx,\D V(x,\st(\tau))) ,$$ which is the desired estimate.
Let us now consider sequences $(g_n)$ in $G$. The theorem can be used to draw conclusions from the expansion behavior at infinity of the sequence of inverses $(g_n^{-1})$ on the geometry of an orbit sequence $(g_nx)$ in $X$: If $(g_nx)$ lies in a tubular neighborhood of the Weyl cone $V(x,\st(\tau))$, then the expansion factors $\eps(g_n^{-1},\tau)$ on $\Flagt$ are bounded below, and their logarithms measure the distance of $(g_nx)$ to the boundary of the Weyl cone. In particular, if the expansion factors diverge, $\eps(g_n^{-1},\tau)\to+\infty$, then (the projection of) $(g_nx)$ enters deep into the cone $V(x,\st(\tau))$.
The next result shows how to recognize from expansion whether the orbit sequence $(g_nx)$ remains in a tubular neighborhood of the Weyl cone $V(x,\st(\tau))$, once it stays close to the parallel set spanned by it:
\[prop:expand\] Let $\tau,\hat\tau\subset\geo X$ be opposite simplices. Suppose that $(g_n)$ is a sequence in $G$ such that, for some point $x\in X$, the sequence $(g_nx)$ is contained in a tubular neighborhood of the parallel set $P(\tau,\hat\tau)$, but drifts away from the Weyl cone $V(x,\st(\tau))$, $$d(g_nx,V(x,\st(\tau)))\to+\infty$$ as $n\to+\infty$. Then $\eps(g_n^{-1}, \tau)\to0$.
We may assume that $x\in P=P(\tau,\hat\tau)$. As in the proof of Theorem \[thm:expand\], we can reduce to the case that the $g_n$ are transvections along geodesics $l_n$ in $P$ through the point $x$. We need to show that the differentials $(dg_n^{-1})_{\tau}$ on $\Flagt$ have (some) small eigenvalues, i.e. that their minimal eigenvalue goes $\to0$.
We proceed as in the proof of Corollary \[cor:diffnotcontr\]. Let $F_n\subset P$ be a maximal flat containing $l_n$. Then also $$d(g_nx,V(x,\st(\tau))\cap F_n)\to+\infty ,$$ cf. Proposition \[prop:hdstwcones\]. There exist half-apartments $h_n\subset\geo F_n$ with centers $\zeta_n$, so that $b_{\zeta_n}\leq b_{\zeta_n}(x)$ on $V(x,\st(\tau))\cap F_n$ (and hence also on $V(x,\st(\tau))$) and $b_{\zeta_n}(g_nx)-b_{\zeta_n}(x)\to+\infty$. Let $\hat h_n\subset\geo F_n$ denote the complementary half-apartments, $\D\hat h_n=\D h_n$, and $\hat\zeta_n$ their centers. Then $b_{\zeta_n}+b_{\hat\zeta_n}\equiv const$ on $F_n$. It suffices to show that the differentials $(dg_n^{-1})_{\tau}$ are contracting on the invariant subspaces $T_{\tau}C(\hat h_n)\subseteq T_{\tau}C(\hat\tau)$ with norms going $\to0$. According to Lemma \[lem:evestinstrk1\], the eigenvalues of $(dg_n^{-1})_{\tau}|_{T_{\tau}C(\hat h_n)}$ are positive and bounded above by $$e^{-c_2(b_{\hat\zeta_n}(x)-b_{\hat\zeta_n}(g_nx))} = e^{-c_2(b_{\zeta_n}(g_nx)-b_{\zeta_n}(x))}\to0.$$ This finishes the proof.
Finsler geodesics {#sec:fins}
-----------------
We will work with the following notion of Finsler geodesic:
\[def:finsgeo\] A continuous path $c:I\to X$ is a [*$\taumod$-Finsler geodesic*]{} if it is contained in a parallel set $P(\tau_-,\tau_+)$ with $\tau_{\pm}\in\Flagpmt$ such that $$\label{eq:finsgeo}
c(t_+)\in V(c(t_-),\st(\tau_+))$$ for all subintervals $[t_-,t_+]\subseteq I$. It is [*$\Theta$-regular*]{} if, moreover, $$\label{eq:finsgeoth}
c(t_+)\in V(c(t_-),\stTh(\tau_+))$$ We call a $\taumod$-Finsler geodesic [*uniformly $\taumod$-regular*]{} if it is $\Theta$-regular for some $W_{\taumod}$-convex compact subset $\Theta\subset \inte_{\taumod}(\simod)$.
Note that we do not require the parameterization of Finsler geodesics to be by arc length. The terminology is justified by the fact that $\taumod$-Finsler geodesics are (up to parameterization) the geodesics for certain $G$-invariant “polyhedral” Finsler metrics, see [@bordif §5.1.3].
The condition (\[eq:finsgeo\]) is equivalent to $c(t_-)\in V(c(t_+),\st(\tau_-))$, and it follows that the subpaths $c|_{[t_-,t_+]}$ are contained in the diamonds $\diamot(c(t_-),c(t_+))$. Similarly, (\[eq:finsgeoth\]) is equivalent to $c(t_-)\in V(c(t_+),\stTh(\tau_-))$, because $\Theta$ is assumed $\iota$-invariant, and in the $\Theta$-regular case $c|_{[t_-,t_+]}$ is contained in $\diamoTh(c(t_-),c(t_+))$.
It is worth mentioning the following Finsler geometric interpretation of [*diamonds*]{}: They are Finsler versions of Riemannian geodesic segments in the sense that the union of all $\taumod$-Finsler geodesic segments with endpoints $x_{\pm}$ fills out $\diamot(x_-,x_+)$, see also [@bordif §5.1.3].
We now discuss the “drift” component of $\taumod$ Finsler geodesics.
We work with the vector valued distance $d_{\taumod} =\pi^{\De}_{\taumod} \circ d_{\De}$. introduced in (\[eq:vvdt\]). We first consider the case of broken geodesics $xyz$ which are $\taumod$-Finsler geodesics:
Let $\tau\in\Flagt$. If $y\in V(x,\st(\tau))$ and $z\in V(y,\st(\tau))$, then $$d_{\taumod}(x,y)+d_{\taumod}(y,z) =d_{\taumod}(x,z) .$$
The $\taumod$-distance can be expressed in terms of the projections of Weyl cones to their central sectors. Consider the nearest point projection $$\pi_{x,\tau}:V(x,\st(\tau))\to V(x,\tau),$$ cf. (\[eq:prjwcocntsect\]). Note that it coincides with the nearest point projection from $V(x,\st(\tau))$ to the singular flat spanned by the sector $V(x,\tau)$, compare Lemma \[lem:proj\] and the comment thereafter. Then $$d_{\taumod}(x,\cdot) =d_{\De}(x,\pi_{x,\tau}(\cdot))$$ on $V(x,\st(\tau))$.
In order to relate $d_{\taumod}(y,z)$ to $d_{\taumod}(x,y)$ and $d_{\taumod}(x,z)$, we observe that the sectors $V(y,\tau)$ and $V(\pi_{x,\tau}(y),\tau)\subseteq V(x,\tau)$ are parallel and isometrically identified by $\pi_{x,\tau}$. Moreover, $$\pi_{x,\tau}|_{V(y,\st(\tau))}=(\pi_{x,\tau}|_{V(y,\tau)})\circ\pi_{y,\tau} .$$ Therefore, $$d_{\taumod}(y,z) = d_{\De}(y,\pi_{y,\tau}(z)) = d_{\De}(\pi_{x,\tau}(y),\pi_{x,\tau}(z)) .$$ The additivity formula follows in view of the nestedness $\pi_{x,\tau}(z)\in V(\pi_{x,\tau}(y),\tau)$.
Applying the lemma to $\taumod$-Finsler geodesics yields:
If $c:I\to X$ is a $\taumod$-Finsler geodesic, then $$d_{\taumod}(c(t_0),c(t_1))+d_{\taumod}(c(t_1),c(t_2))=d_{\taumod}(c(t_0),c(t_2))$$ for all $t_0\leq t_1\leq t_2$ in $I$.
We reformulate this as:
\[$\taumod$-projection of Finsler geodesics\] \[prop:tmdstalfins\] If $c:[0,T]\to X$ is a $\taumod$-Finsler geodesic, then so is $$\bar c_{\taumod}:= d_{\taumod}(c(0),c) : [0,T]\to V(0,\taumod),$$ and $$\bar c_{\taumod}(t_2) = \bar c_{\taumod}(t_1)+d_{\taumod}(c(t_1),c(t_2))$$ for all $0\leq t_1\leq t_2\leq T$.
Note that the equality in the last proposition implies: $$\label{eq:tmantdl}
d(\bar c_{\taumod}(t_1),\bar c_{\taumod}(t_2)) = \| d_{\taumod}(c(t_1),c(t_2)) \|$$
We now study the [*$\De$-distance along Finsler geodesics*]{}.
This is based on Proposition \[prop:prjwcon\] which concerns the $\De$-side lengths of triangles $\De(x,y,z)$ in $X$ such that the broken geodesic $xyz$ is a Finsler geodesic. Applying this proposition to Finsler geodesics, we obtain our main result concerning their geometry:
\[thm:dedstalfins\] (i) If $c:[0,T]\to X$ is a $\taumod$-Finsler geodesic, then so is $$\bar c_{\De}:=d_{\De}(c(0),c):[0,T]\to \De .$$
\(ii) If $c$ is also $\Theta$-regular, with $\Theta\subset\inte_{\taumod}(\simod)$ compact and $\taumod$-Weyl convex, then so is $\bar c_{\De}$. Moreover, the distances between points on $c$ and $\bar c_{\De}$ are comparable: $$d(\bar c_{\De}(t_1),\bar c_{\De}(t_2)) \geq \eps(\Theta)\cdot d(c(t_1),c(t_2))$$ for $0\leq t_1\leq t_2\leq T$ with a constant $\eps(\Theta)>0$.
We note that $d(\bar c_{\De}(t_1),\bar c_{\De}(t_2))\leq d(c(t_1),c(t_2))$, because $d_{\De}(c(0),\cdot)$ is 1-Lipschitz. (i) Applying Proposition \[prop:prjwcon\] to the triangles $\De(c(0),c(t_1),c(t_2))$, $0\leq t_1\leq t_2\leq T$, yields $$\bar c_{\De}(t_2) \in V(\bar c_{\De}(t_1),\Wt\De),$$ the cone being understood as a subset of $\Fmod$, which means that $\bar c_{\De}$ is a $\taumod$-Finsler geodesic.
\(ii) That $\bar c_{\De}$ is now $\Theta$-regular, follows similarly. The comparability of distances we deduce using our earlier discussion of $\taumod$-distances along Finsler geodesics. We estimate: $$d(\bar c_{\De}(t_1),\bar c_{\De}(t_2))
\geq d(\bar c_{\taumod}(t_1),\bar c_{\taumod}(t_2))
= \|d_{\taumod}(c(t_1),c(t_2))\|
\geq \eps(\Theta)\cdot d(c(t_1),c(t_2))$$ The first inequality holds, because $\bar c_{\taumod} = \pi^{\De}_{\taumod} \circ \bar c_{\De}$ and $\pi^{\De}_{\taumod}$ is 1-Lipschitz. The equality follows from (\[eq:tmantdl\]). The last inequality comes from the lower bound for the length of the $\taumod$-component of $\Theta$-regular segments, cf. (\[eq:urgtdst\]).
Topological dynamics
====================
Expansion {#sec:trexpand}
---------
Let first $Z$ be a metric space and let $\Ga\acts Z$ be a continuous action by a discrete group. We will use the following notions of [*metric expansion*]{}, compare [@Sullivan §9]:
\[def:metexpan\] (i) A homeomorphism $h$ of $Z$ is [*expanding*]{} at a point $z\in Z$ if there exists a neighborhood $U$ of $z$ and a constant $c>1$ such that $h|_U$ is $c$-expanding in the sense that $$d(h z_1,h z_2)\geq c\cdot d(z_1,z_2) .$$ for all points $z_1,z_2\in U$.
\(ii) A sequence of homeomorphisms $h_n$ of $Z$ has [*diverging expansion*]{} at the point $z\in Z$ if there exists a sequence of neighborhoods $U_n$ of $z$ and numbers $c_n\to+\infty$ such that $h_n|_{U_n}$ is $c_n$-expanding.
\(iii) The action $\Ga\acts Z$ is [*expanding*]{} at $z\in Z$ if there exists an element $\ga\in\Ga$ which is expanding at $z$. The action has [*diverging expansion*]{} at $z\in Z$ if $\Ga$ contains a sequence which has diverging expansion at $z$.
\(iv) The action $\Ga\acts Z$ is [*expanding*]{} at a compact $\Ga$-invariant [*subset*]{} $E\subset Z$ if it is expanding at all points $z\in E$.
We observe that the properties of diverging expansion depend only on the bilipschitz class of the metric. Furthermore, if an action is expanding at an invariant compact subset then, due to iteration, it has diverging expansion at every point of the subset.
Now let $M$ be a Riemannian manifold and let $\Ga\acts M$ be a smooth action. There are infinitesimal analogs of the above expansion conditions.
We recall from that, for a diffeomorphism $\Phi$ of $M$, the [*expansion factor*]{} $\eps(\Phi,x)$ at a point $x\in M$ is defined as: $$\label{eq:expfac}
\eps(\Phi,x) = \inf_{v\in T_xM-\{0\}} \frac{\|d\Phi(v)\|}{\|v\|} = \| (d\Phi_x)^{-1} \|^{-1}$$
\[def:infexpan\] (i) A diffeomorphism $\Phi$ of $M$ is [*infinitesimally expanding*]{} at a point $x\in M$ if $\eps(\Phi,x)>1$.
\(ii) A sequence of diffeomorphisms $\Phi_n$ of $M$ has [*diverging infinitesimal expansion*]{} at $x$ if $\eps(\Phi_n,x)\to+\infty$ as $n\to+\infty$.
\(iii) The action $\Ga\acts M$ is [*infinitesimally expanding*]{} at $x$ if there exists an element $\ga\in\Ga$ which is infinitesimally expanding at $x$. The action has [*diverging infinitesimal expansion*]{} at $x$ if $\Ga$ contains a sequence which has diverging infinitesimal expansion at $x$.
\(iv) The action $\Ga\acts M$ is [*infinitesimally expanding*]{} at a compact $\Ga$-invariant [*subset*]{} $E\subset M$ if it is infinitesimally expanding at all points $x\in M$.
If the manifold $M$ is compact, the properties of diverging infinitesimal expansion are independent of the Riemannian metric. In the general case, if an action is infinitesimally expanding at an invariant compact subset then it has diverging infinitesimal expansion at every point of the subset.
We note that for smooth actions on Riemannian manifolds infinitesimal and metric expansion are equivalent.
Discontinuity and dynamical relation {#sec:discdynrl}
------------------------------------
Let $Z$ be a compact metrizable space, and let $\Ga<\Homeo(Z)$ be a countably infinite subgroup (although in the definition of a proper action below we allow for subsemigroups). We consider the action $\Ga\acts Z$.
\[dfn:wand\] A point $z\in Z$ is called [*wandering*]{} with respect to the $\Ga$-action if the action is [*discontinuous*]{} at $z$, i.e. if $z$ has a neighborhood $U$ such that $U\cap\ga U\neq\emptyset$ for at most finitely many $\ga\in\Ga$.
Nonwandering points are called [*recurrent*]{}.
\[dfn:domdisc\] We call the set $$\Om_{disc}\subset Z$$ of wandering points the [*wandering set*]{} or [*domain of discontinuity*]{} for the action $\Ga\acts Z$.
Note that $\Om_{disc}$ is open and $\Ga$-invariant.
The action of a [*subsemigroup*]{} $\Ga< Homeo(X)$ on an open subset $U\subset Z$ is called [*proper*]{} if for every compact subset $K\subset U$ $K\cap\ga K\neq\emptyset$ for at most finitely many $\ga\in\Ga$.
If $\Ga$ is a subgroup of $Homeo(X)$ acting properly discontinuously on $U\subset X$ then the action of $\Ga$ on $U$ is then discontinuous, $U\subseteq\Om_{disc}$, and therefore is called [*properly discontinuous*]{}.
\[dfn:dompropdisc\] If $\Ga< Homeo(X)$ is a subgroup, we call a $\Ga$-invariant open subset $\Om\subseteq\Om_{disc}$ on which $\Ga$ acts properly a [*domain of proper discontinuity*]{} for $\Ga$.
The orbit space $\Om/\Ga$ is then Hausdorff. Note that in general there is [*no unique*]{} maximal [*proper*]{} domain of discontinuity.
Discontinuity and proper discontinuity can be nicely expressed using the notion of dynamical relation. The following definition is due to Frances [@Frances Def. 1]:
Two points $z,z'\in Z$ are called [*dynamically related*]{} with respect to a sequence $(h_n)$ in $\Homeo(Z)$, $$z\stackrel{(h_n)}{\sim}z'$$ if there exists a sequence $z_n\to z$ in $Z$ such that $h_nz_n\to z'$.
The points $z,z'$ are called [*dynamically related*]{} with respect to the $\Ga$-action, $$z\stackrel{\Ga}{\sim}z'$$ if there exists a sequence $\ga_n\to\infty$ in $\Ga$ such that $z\stackrel{(\ga_n)}{\sim}z'$.
Here, for a sequence $(\ga_n)$ in $\Ga$ we write $\ga_n\to\infty$ if every element of $\Ga$ occurs at most finitely many times in the sequence.
One verifies (see e.g. [@manicures]):
\(i) Dynamical relation is a closed relation in $Z\times Z$.
\(ii) Points in different $\Ga$-orbits are dynamically related if and only if their orbits cannot be separated by disjoint $\Ga$-invariant open subsets.
The concept of dynamical relation is useful for our discussion of discontinuity, because:
\(i) A point is nonwandering if and only if it is dynamically related to itself.
\(ii) The action is proper on an open subset $U\subset Z$ if and only if no two points in $U$ are dynamically related.
Convergence groups {#sec:convdy}
------------------
Let $Z$ be a compact metrizable space with at least three points.
A sequence $(h_n)$ in $\Homeo(Z)$ is [*contracting*]{} if there exist points $z_{\pm}\in Z$ such that $$\label{eq:contrtaucv}
h_n|_{Z-\{z_-\}}\to z_+$$ uniformly on compacts as $n\to+\infty$. Equivalently, there is no dynamical relation $z\stackrel{(h_n)}{\sim}z'$ between points $z\neq z_-$ and $z'\neq z_+$. This condition is clearly symmetric, i.e. (\[eq:contrtaucv\]) is equivalent to the dual condition that $$\label{eq:contrtaucvdual}
h^{-1}_n|_{Z-\{z_+\}}\to z_-$$ uniformly on compacts as $n\to+\infty$. The points $z_{\pm}$ are uniquely determined, since $|Z|\geq3$.
A sequence $(h_n)$ in $\Homeo(Z)$ is said to [*converge*]{} to a point $z\in Z$, $$\label{eq:convseqhm}
h_n\to z$$ if every subsequence contains a contracting subsequence which, outside its exceptional point, converges to the constant map $\equiv z$.
One considers the following stronger form of convergence:
A converging sequence $h_n\to z$ converges [*conically*]{}, $$\label{eq:convseqhmcon}
h_n\stackrel{con}{\to} z$$ if for some relatively compact sequence $(\hat z_n)$ in $Z-\{z\}$, the sequence of pairs of distinct points $h_n^{-1}(\hat z_n,z)$ is relatively compact in $(Z\times Z)^{dist}$.
Here, $(Z\times Z)^{dist}\subset Z\times Z$ denotes the complement of the diagonal.
If $h_n\stackrel{con}{\to} z$, then the condition in the definition holds for all relatively compact sequences $(\hat z_n)$ in $Z-\{z\}$.
Let $(\hat z_n)$ be a relatively compact sequence in $Z-\{z\}$. For every contracting subsequence $(h_{n_k})$ there exists a point $\hat z\in Z$ such that $$h^{-1}_{n_k}|_{Z-\{z\}}\to\hat z$$ uniformly on compacts. In particular, $h^{-1}_{n_k}\hat z_{n_k}\to\hat z$ and the relative compactness of $(h_{n_k}^{-1}(\hat z_{n_k},z))$ in $(Z\times Z)^{dist}$ becomes equivalent to the condition that the sequence $(h^{-1}_{n_k}z)$ does not accumulate at $\hat z$. The latter condition is independent of the sequence $(\hat z_n)$.
The following criterion for being a conical limit point of a subsequence is immediate:[^10]
\[lem:recogncnlimcv\] A sequence $(h_n)$ in $\Homeo(Z)$ has a subsequence conically converging to $z\in Z$ iff there exists a subsequence $(h_{n_k})$ and a point $z_-\in Z$ such that the following conditions are satisfied:
\(i) $h_{n_k}^{-1}|_{Z-\{z\}}\to z_-$ uniformly on compacts.
\(ii) $(h_{n_k}^{-1}z)$ converges to a point different from $z_-$.
Now we pass to group actions.
A continuous action $\Ga\acts Z$ of a discrete group $\Ga$ is a [*convergence action*]{} if every sequence $(\ga_n)$ of pairwise distinct elements in $\Ga$ contains a subsequence converging to a point, equivalently, a contracting subsequence. The kernel of a convergence action is finite, and we will identify $\Ga$ with its image in $\Homeo(Z)$ which we will call a [*convergence group*]{}.
The [*limit set*]{} $\La\subset Z$ of a convergence group $\Ga<\Homeo(Z)$ is the subset of all points which occur as limits $z_+$ as in (\[eq:contrtaucv\]), equivalently, as limits $z$ as in (\[eq:convseqhm\]) for sequences $\ga_n\to\infty$ in $\Ga$. The limit set is $\Ga$-invariant and compact. A limit point $\la\in\La$ is [*conical*]{} if it occurs as the limit of a conically converging sequence. A convergence group is said to have [*conical limit set*]{} if all limits points are conical, and to be [*non-elementary*]{} if $|\La|\geq3$. Tukia [@Tukia_convgps Thm. 2S] has shown that in the non-elementary case the limit set is perfect and the $\Ga$-action on it is minimal.
If the limit set is conical, then $\Ga$ and its action on $\La$ are very special:
\[thm:bowdchr\] Suppose that $\Ga<\Homeo(Z)$ is a non-elementary convergence group with conical limit set $\La$. Then $\Ga$ is word hyperbolic and $\La\cong\geo\Ga$ equivariantly.
The converse is easier to see:
\[thm:hypgpbdac\] The natural action of a non-virtually cyclic word hyperbolic group on its Gromov boundary is a minimal conical convergence action.
Expanding convergence groups {#sec:expconvgps}
----------------------------
The following result connects expansion with convergence dynamics.
\[lem:conical\] If $\Gamma\acts Z$ is an expanding convergence action on a perfect compact metric space, then all points in $Z$ are conical limit points.
We start with a general remark concerning expanding actions. For every point $z\in Z$ there exist an element $\ga\in\Ga$ and constants $r>0$ and $c>1$ such that $\ga$ is a $c$-expansion on the ball $B(z,r)$ and $\ga(B(z,r'))\supset B(\ga z,cr')$ for all radii $r'\leq r$. To see this, suppose that $c$ is a local expansion factor for $\ga$ at $z$ and, by contradiction, that there exist sequences of radii $r_n\to0$ and points $z_n\not\in B(z,r_n)$ such that $\ga z_n\in B(\ga z,cr_n)$. Then $z_n\to z$ due to the continuity of $\ga^{-1}$ and, for large $n$, we obtain a contradiction to the local $c$-expansion of $\ga$. Since $Z$ is compact, the constants $r$ and $c$ can be chosen uniformly. It follows by iterating expanding maps that for every point $z$ and every neighborhood $V$ of $z$ there exists $\ga\in\Ga$ such that $\ga(V)\supset B(\ga z,r)$, equivalently, $\ga(Z-V)\subset Z-B(\ga z,r)$.
To verify that a point $z$ is conical, let $V_n$ be a shrinking sequence of neighborhoods of $z$, $$\bigcap_{n} V_n= \{z\},$$ and let $\ga_n\in\Ga$ be elements such that $\ga_n^{-1}(Z-V_n)\subset Z-B(\ga_n^{-1}z,r)$. Since $V_n$ is shrinking and $\ga_n^{-1}(V_n)\supset B(\ga_n^{-1}z,r)$ contains balls of uniform radius $r$, it follows that the $\ga_n^{-1}$ do not subconverge uniformly on any neighborhood of $z$; here we use that $Z$ is perfect. In particular, $\ga_n\to\infty$. The convergence action property implies that, after passing to a subsequence, the $\ga_n^{-1}$ must converge locally uniformly on $Z-\{z\}$. Moreover, we can assume that the sequence of points $\ga_n^{-1}z$ converges. By construction, its limit will be different (by distance $\geq r$) from the limit of the sequence of maps $\ga_n^{-1}|_{Z-\{z\}}$. Hence the point $z$ is conical.
Combining this with Bowditch’s dynamical characterization of hyperbolic groups, we obtain:
If $\Gamma\acts Z$ is an expanding convergence action on a perfect compact metric space, then $\Ga$ is word hyperbolic and $Z\cong\geo\Ga$ equivariantly.
Note that, conversely, the natural action $\Ga\acts\geo\Ga$ of a word hyperbolic group $\Ga$ on its Gromov boundary is expanding with respect to a [*visual*]{} metric, see e.g. [@CP].
Regularity and contraction {#sec:regcontr}
==========================
In this section, we discuss a class of discrete subgroups of semisimple Lie groups which will be the framework for most of our investigations in this paper. In particular, it contains Anosov subgroups. The class of subgroups will be distinguished by an asymptotic [*regularity*]{} condition which in rank one just amounts to discreteness, but in higher rank is strictly stronger. The condition will be formulated in two equivalent ways. First dynamically in terms of the action on a flag manifold, then geometrically in terms of the orbits in the symmetric space.
Contraction
-----------
Consider the action $$G\acts\Flagt$$ on the flag manifold of type $\taumod$. Recall that for a simplex $\tau_-$ of type $\iota\taumod$ we denote by $C(\tau_-)\subset\Flagt$ the open dense $P_{\tau_-}$-orbit; it consists of the simplices opposite to $\tau_-$.
We introduce the following dynamical conditions for sequences and subgroups in $G$:
\[def:contracting\_sequence\] A sequence $(g_n)$ in $G$ is [*$\taumod$-contracting*]{} if there exist simplices $\tau_{+}\in \Flagt, \tau_-\in \Flagit$ such that $$\label{eq:contrtau}
g_n|_{C(\tau_-)}\to\tau_+$$ uniformly on compacts as $n\to+\infty$.
\[def:conv\] A subgroup $\Ga<G$ is a [*$\taumod$-convergence subgroup*]{} if every sequence $(\ga_n)$ of distinct elements in $\Ga$ contains a $\taumod$-contracting subsequence.
Note that $\taumod$-contracting sequences diverge to infinity and therefore $\taumod$-convergence subgroups are necessarily [*discrete*]{}.
A notion for sequences in $G$ equivalent to $\taumod$-contraction had been introduced by Benoist in [@Benoist], see in particular part (5) of his Lemma 3.5.
The contraction property exhibits a symmetry:
\[lem:contrsym\] Property (\[eq:contrtau\]) is equivalent to the dual property that $$\label{eq:contrtaudual}
g^{-1}_n|_{C(\tau_+)}\to\tau_-$$ uniformly on compacts as $n\to+\infty$.
Suppose that (\[eq:contrtau\]) holds but (\[eq:contrtaudual\]) fails. Equivalently, after extraction there exists a sequence $\xi_n\to\xi\neq\tau_-$ in $\Flagit$ such that $g_n\xi_n\to\xi'\in C(\tau_+)$. Since $\xi\neq\tau_-$, there exists $\hat\tau_-\in C(\tau_-)$ not opposite to $\xi$. (For instance, take an apartment in $\geo X$ containing $\tau_-$ and $\xi$, and let $\hat\tau_-$ be the simplex opposite to $\tau_-$ in this apartment.) Hence there is a sequence $\tau_n\to\hat\tau_-$ in $\Flagt$ such that $\tau_n$ is not opposite to $\xi_n$ for all $n$. (It can be obtained e.g. by taking a sequence $h_n\to e$ in $G$ such that $\xi_n=h_n\xi$ and putting $\tau_n=h_n\hat\tau_-$.) Since $\hat\tau_-\in C(\tau_-)$, condition (\[eq:contrtau\]) implies that $g_n\tau_n\to\tau_+$. It follows that $\tau_+$ is not opposite to $\xi'$, because $g_n\tau_n$ is not opposite to $g_n\xi_n$ and being opposite is an open condition. This contradicts $\xi'\in C(\tau_+)$. Therefore, condition (\[eq:contrtau\]) implies (\[eq:contrtaudual\]). The converse implication follows by replacing the sequence $(g_n)$ with $(g_n^{-1})$.
\[lem:contruniq\] The simplices $\tau_{\pm}$ in (\[eq:contrtau\]) are uniquely determined.
Suppose that besides (\[eq:contrtau\]) we also have $g_n|_{C(\tau'_-)}\to\tau'_+$ with simplices $\tau'_{\pm}\in\Flagpmt$. Since the subsets $C(\tau_-)$ and $C(\tau'_-)$ are open dense in $\Flagt$, their intersection is nonempty and hence $\tau'_+=\tau_+$. Using the equivalent dual conditions (\[eq:contrtaudual\]) we similarly obtain that $\tau'_-=\tau_-$.
Regularity {#sec:reg}
----------
The second set of asymptotic properties concerns the geometry of the orbits in $X$.
We first consider sequences in the euclidean model Weyl chamber $\De$. Recall that $\Dt\De=V(0,\Dt\simod)\subset\De$ is the union of faces of $\De$ which do not contain the sector $V(0,\taumod)$. Note that $\Dt\De\cap V(0,\taumod)=\D V(0,\taumod)=V(0,\D\taumod)$.
A sequence $(\de_n)$ in $\De$ is
\(i) [*$\taumod$-regular*]{} if it drifts away from $\Dt\De$, $$d(\de_n,\Dt\De) \to+\infty .$$
\(ii) [*$\taumod$-pure*]{} if it is contained in a tubular neighborhood of the sector $V(0,\taumod)$ and drifts away from its boundary, $$d(\de_n,\D V(0,\taumod)) \to+\infty .$$
Note that $(\de_n)$ is $\taumod$-regular/pure iff $(\iota\de_n)$ is $\iota\taumod$-regular/pure.
We extend these notions to sequences in $X$ and $G$:
\[def:pureg\] (i) A sequence $(x_n)$ in $X$ is [*$\taumod$-regular*]{}, respectively, [*$\taumod$-pure*]{} if for some (any) base point $o\in X$ the sequence of $\De$-distances $d_{\De}(o,x_n)$ in $\De$ has this property.
\(ii) A sequence $(g_n)$ in $G$ is [*$\taumod$-regular*]{}, respectively, [*$\taumod$-pure*]{} if for some (any) point $x\in X$ the orbit sequence $(g_nx)$ in $X$ has this property.
\(iii) A subgroup $\Ga<G$ is [*$\taumod$-regular*]{} if all sequences of distinct elements in $\Ga$ have this property.
That these properties are independent of the base point and stable under bounded perturbation of the sequences, is due to the triangle inequality $|d_{\De}(x,y)-d_{\De}(x',y')|\leq d(x,x')+d(y,y')$.
Subsequences of $\taumod$-regular/pure sequences are again $\taumod$-regular/pure.
Clearly, $\taumod$-pureness is a strengthening of $\taumod$-regularity; a sequence in $\De$ is $\taumod$-pure iff it is $\taumod$-regular and contained in a tubular neighborhood of $V(0,\taumod)$.
The face type of a pure sequence is uniquely determined. Moreover, a $\taumod$-regular sequence is $\taumod'$-regular for every face type $\taumod'\subset\taumod$, because $\Dtp\De\subset\Dt\De$.
A sequence $(g_n)$ is $\taumod$-regular/pure iff the inverse sequence $(g_n^{-1})$ is $\iota\taumod$-regular/pure, because $d_{\De}(x,g_n^{-1}x)=d_{\De}(g_nx,x)=\iota d_{\De}(x,g_nx)$.
Note that $\taumod$-regular subgroups are in particular [*discrete*]{}. If $\rank(X)=1$, then discreteness is equivalent to ($\simod$-)regularity. In higher rank, [*regularity*]{} can be considered as a [*strengthening of discreteness*]{}: A discrete subgroup $\Ga<G$ may not be $\taumod$-regular for any face type $\taumod$; this can happen e.g. for free abelian subgroups of transvections of rank $\geq2$.
A property for sequences in $G$ equivalent to regularity had appeared in [@Benoist Lemma 3.5(1)].
\[lem:obspureg\] Every sequence, which diverges to infinity, contains a $\taumod$-pure subsequence for some face type $\taumod\subseteq\simod$.
In the case of sequences in $\De$, take $\taumod$ to be a minimal face type so that a subsequence is contained in a tubular neighborhood of $V(0,\taumod)$.
Note also that a sequence, which diverges to infinity, is $\taumod$-regular iff it contains $\numod$-pure subsequences only for face types $\numod\supseteq\taumod$.
The lemma implies in particular, that every sequence $\ga_n\to\infty$ in a discrete subgroup $\Ga<G$ contains a subsequence which is $\taumod$-regular, even $\taumod$-pure, for some face type $\taumod$.
\[rem:regfins\] Regularity has a natural Finsler geometric interpretation, cf. [@bordif]: A sequence in $X$ is $\taumod$-regular iff, in the Finsler compactification $\ol X^{Fins}=X\sqcup\geo^{Fins}X$ of $X$, it accumulates at the closure of the stratum $S_{\taumod}\subset\geo^{Fins}X$ at infinity.
Contraction implies regularity {#sec:contrimplrg}
------------------------------
In this section and the next, we relate contractivity and regularity for sequences and, as a consequence, establish the equivalence between $\taumod$-regularity and the $\taumod$-convergence property for discrete subgroups.
To relate contraction and regularity, it is useful to consider the $G$-action on flats. We recall that ${\mathcal F}_{\taumod}$ denotes the space of flats $f\subset X$ of type $\taumod$ (see section \[sec:symmbas\]). Two flats $f_{\pm}\in{\mathcal F}_{\taumod}$ are [*dynamically related*]{} with respect to a sequence $(g_n)$ in $G$, $$f_-\stackrel{(g_n)}{\sim}f_+ ,$$ if there exists a sequence of flats $f_n\to f_-$ in ${\mathcal F}_{\taumod}$ such that $g_nf_n\to f_+$. The action of $(g_n)$ on ${\mathcal F}_{\taumod}$ is [*proper*]{} iff there are no dynamical relations with respect to subsequences, cf. section \[sec:discdynrl\].
Dynamical relations between singular flats yield dynamical relations between maximal ones:
\[lem:dynrsingmx\] If $f_{\pm}\in{\mathcal F}_{\taumod}$ are flats such that $f_-\stackrel{(g_n)}{\sim}f_+$, then for every maximal flat $F_+\supseteq f_+$ there exist a maximal flat $F_-\supseteq f_-$ and a subsequence $(g_{n_k})$ such that $F_-\stackrel{(g_{n_k})}{\sim}F_+$.
Let $f_n\to f_-$ be a sequence in ${\mathcal F}_{\taumod}$ such that $g_nf_n\to f_+$. Then there exists a sequence of maximal flats $F_n\supseteq f_n$ such that $g_nF_n\to F_+$. The sequence $(F_n)$ is bounded because the sequence $(f_n)$ is, and hence $(F_n)$ subconverges to a maximal flat $F_-\supseteq f_-$.
For pure sequences there are dynamical relations between singular flats of the corresponding type with respect to suitable subsequences:
\[lem:improp\] If $(g_n)$ is $\taumod$-pure, then the action of $(g_n)$ on ${\mathcal F}_{\taumod}$ is not proper.
More precisely, there exist simplices $\tau_{\pm}\in\Flagt$ such that for every flat $f_+\in{\mathcal F}_{\taumod}$ asymptotic to $\tau_+$ there exist a flat $f_-\in{\mathcal F}_{\taumod}$ asymptotic to $\tau_-$ and a subsequence $(g_{n_k})$ such that $$f_-\stackrel{(g_{n_k})}{\sim}f_+.$$
By pureness, there exists a sequence $(\tau_n)$ in $\Flagt$ such that $$\label{eq:clsct}
\sup_n d(g_nx,V(x,\tau_n)) <+\infty$$ for any point $x\in X$. There exists a subsequence $(g_{n_k})$ such that $\tau_{n_k}\to\tau_+$ and $g_{n_k}^{-1}\tau_{n_k}\to\tau_-$.
Let $f_+\in{\mathcal F}_{\taumod}$ be asymptotic to $\tau_+$. We choose $x\in f_+$ and consider the sequence of flats $f_k\in{\mathcal F}_{\taumod}$ through $x$ asymptotic to $\tau_{n_k}$. Then $f_k\to f_+$. The sequence of flats $(g_{n_k}^{-1}f_k)$ is bounded as a consequence of (\[eq:clsct\]). Therefore, after further extraction, we obtain convergence $g_{n_k}^{-1}f_k\to f_-$. The limit flat $f_-$ is asymptotic to $\tau_-$ because the $f_k$ are asymptotic to $g_{n_k}^{-1}\tau_{n_k}$.
By a diagonal argument one can also show that the subsequences $(g_{n_k})$ in the two previous lemmas can be made independent of the flats $F_+$ respectively $f_+$.
For contracting sequences, the possible dynamical relations between maximal flats are restricted as follows:
\[lem:contrdynrel\] Suppose that $(g_n)$ is [*$\taumod$-contracting*]{} with (\[eq:contrtau\]), and that $F_-\stackrel{(g_n)}{\sim}F_+$ for maximal flats $F_{\pm}\in{\mathcal F}$. Then $\tau_{\pm}\subset\geo F_{\pm}$.
Suppose that $\tau_-\not\subset\geo F_-$. Then the visual boundary sphere $\geo F_-$ contains at least two different simplices $\hat\tau_-,\hat\tau'_-$ opposite to $\tau_-$, cf. Lemma \[lem:oneantip\].
Let $F_n\to F_-$ be a sequence in ${\mathcal F}$ such that $g_nF_n\to F_+$. Due to $F_n\to F_-$, there exist sequences of simplices $\tau_n,\tau'_n\subset\geo F_n$ such that $\tau_n\to\hat\tau_-$ and $\tau'_n\to\hat\tau'_-$. In particular, $\tau_n\neq\tau'_n$ for large $n$. After extraction, we also obtain convergence $g_n\tau_n\to\hat\tau_+$ and $g_n\tau'_n\to\hat\tau'_+$. Moreover, since $g_nF_n\to F_+$, it follows that the limits $\hat\tau_+,\hat\tau'_+$ are [*different*]{} simplices in $\geo F_+$.
This is however in conflict with the contraction property (\[eq:contrtau\]). In view of $\hat\tau_-,\hat\tau'_-\in C(\tau_-)$, the latter implies that $g_n\tau_n\to\tau_+$ and $g_n\tau'_n\to\tau_+$, convergence to the same simplex, a contradiction. Thus, $\tau_-\subset\geo F_-$.
Considering the inverse sequence $(g_n^{-1})$ yields that also $\tau_+\subset\geo F_+$, cf. Lemma \[lem:contrsym\].
Combining the previous lemmas, we obtain:
\[lem:contrpuresq\] If a sequence in $G$ is $\taumod$-contracting and $\numod$-pure, then $\taumod\subseteq\numod$.
We denote the sequence by $(g_n)$ and assume (\[eq:contrtau\]). According to Lemmas \[lem:improp\] and \[lem:dynrsingmx\], by $\numod$-purity, there exist simplices $\nu_{\pm}\in\Flagn$ such that for [*every*]{} maximal flat $F_+$ with $\geo F_+\supset\nu_+$ there exist a maximal flat $F_-$ with $\geo F_-\supset\nu_-$ and a subsequence $(g_{n_k})$ such that $$F_-\stackrel{(g_{n_k})}{\sim}F_+.$$ By Lemma \[lem:contrdynrel\], always $\tau_+\subset\geo F_+$. Varying $F_+$, it follows that $\tau_+\subseteq\nu_+$, cf. Lemma \[lem:intapts\].
From these observations, we conclude:
\[prop:contrimpreg\] If a sequence in $G$ is $\taumod$-contracting, then it is $\taumod$-regular.
Consider a sequence in $G$ which is not $\taumod$-regular. Then a subsequence is $\numod$-pure for some face type $\numod\subseteq\Dt\simod$, compare Lemma \[lem:obspureg\]. The condition on the face type is equivalent to $\numod\not\supseteq\taumod$. By the last lemma, the subsequence cannot be $\taumod$-contracting.
Regularity implies contraction {#sec:reg-con}
------------------------------
We now prove a converse to Proposition \[prop:contrimpreg\]. Since contractivity involves a convergence condition, we can expect regular sequences to be contracting only after extraction.
Consider a $\taumod$-regular sequence $(g_n)$ in $G$. After fixing a point $x\in X$, there exist simplices $\tau_n^{\pm}\in\Flagpmt$ (unique for large $n$) such that $$\label{eq:shad}
g_n^{\pm1}x \in V(x,\st(\tau_n^{\pm})) .$$ Note that the sequence $(g_n^{-1})$ is $\iota\taumod$-regular, compare the comment after Definition \[def:pureg\].
\[lem:flconvcontr\] If $\tau_n^{\pm}\to\tau_{\pm}$ in $\Flagpmt$, then $(g_n)$ is $\taumod$-contracting with (\[eq:contrtau\]).
Since $x\in g_nV(x,\st(\tau_n^-))=V(g_nx,\st(g_n\tau_n^-))$, it follows together with $g_nx \in V(x,\st(\tau_n^+))$ that the Weyl cones $V(g_nx,\st(g_n\tau_n^-))$ and $V(x,\st(\tau_n^+))$ lie in the same parallel set, namely in $P(g_n\tau_n^-,\tau_n^+)$, and face in opposite directions. In particular, the simplices $g_n\tau_n^-$ and $\tau_n^+$ are $x$-opposite, and thus $g_n\tau_n^-$ converges to the simplex $\hat\tau_+$ which is $x$-opposite to $\tau_+$, $$g_n\tau_n^- \to\hat\tau_+ .$$ Since the sequence $(g_n^{-1}x)$ is $\iota\taumod$-regular, it holds that $$d(g_n^{-1}x,\D V(x,\st(\tau_n^-))) \to+\infty .$$ By Lemma \[lem:expconvsect\], for any $r,R>0$, one has for $n\geq n(r,R)$ the inclusion of shadows (cf. (\[eq:shadwdf\])) $$U_{\tau_n^-,x,R} \subset U_{\tau_n^-,g_n^{-1}x,r} .$$ Consequently, there exist sequences of positive numbers $R_n\to+\infty$ and $r_n\to0$ such that $$U_{\tau_n^-,x,R_n} \subset U_{\tau_n^-,g_n^{-1}x,r_n}$$ for large $n$, equivalently $$\label{eq:mpfshd}
g_nU_{\tau_n^-,x,R_n} \subset U_{g_n\tau_n^-,x,r_n} .$$ Since $\tau_n^-\to\tau_-$ and $R_n\to+\infty$, the shadows $U_{\tau_n^-,x,R_n}\subset C(\tau_n^-)\subset\Flagt$ [*exhaust*]{} $C(\tau_-)$ in the sense that every compact in $C(\tau_-)$ is contained in $U_{\tau_n^-,x,R_n}$ for large $n$.[^11] On the other hand, since $g_n\tau_n^-\to\hat\tau_+$ and $r_n\to0$, the $U_{g_n\tau_n^-,x,r_n}$ [*shrink*]{}, i.e. Hausdorff converge to the point $\tau_+$.[^12] Therefore, (\[eq:mpfshd\]) implies that $$g_n|_{C(\tau_-)} \to \tau_+$$ uniformly on compacts, i.e. $(g_n)$ is $\taumod$-contracting.
With the lemma, we can add the desired converse to Proposition \[prop:contrimpreg\] and obtain a characterization of regularity in terms of contraction:
\[prop:regequivcontr\] The following properties are equivalent for sequences in $G$:
\(i) Every subsequence contains a $\taumod$-contracting subsequence.
\(ii) The sequence is $\taumod$-regular.
This is a direct consequence of the lemma. For the implication (ii)$\Ra$(i) one uses the compactness of flag manifolds. The implication (i)$\Ra$(ii) is obtained as follows, compare the proof of Proposition \[prop:contrimpreg\]: If a sequence is not $\taumod$-regular, then it contains a $\numod$-pure subsequence for some face type $\numod\not\supseteq\taumod$. Every subsequence of this subsequence is again $\numod$-pure and hence not $\taumod$-contracting by Lemma \[lem:contrpuresq\].
A version of Propostition \[prop:regequivcontr\] had already been proven by Benoist in [@Benoist Lemma 3.5].
We conclude for subgroups:
\[thm:regimplcontrgp\] A subgroup $\Ga<G$ is $\taumod$-regular iff it is a $\taumod$-convergence subgroup.
By definition, $\Ga$ is $\taumod$-regular iff every sequence $(\ga_n)$ of distinct elements in $\Ga$ is $\taumod$-regular, and $\taumod$-convergence iff every such sequence $(\ga_n)$ has a $\taumod$-contracting subsequence. According to the proposition, both conditions are equivalent.
Convergence at infinity and limit sets {#sec:conv}
--------------------------------------
The discussion in the preceding two sections leads to a natural notion of convergence at infinity for regular sequences in $X$ and $G$. As regularity, it can be expressed both in terms of orbit geometry in $X$ and dynamics on flag manifolds.
We first consider a $\taumod$-regular sequence $(g_n)$ in $G$. Flexibilizing condition (\[eq:shad\]), we choose points $x,x'\in X$ and consider a sequence $(\tau_n)$ in $\Flagt$ such that $$\label{eq:bdddstfrcona}
\sup_nd\bigl(g_nx,V(x',\st(\tau_n))\bigr) < +\infty.$$ Note that the condition is independent of the choice of the points $x$ and $x'$.[^13]
\[lem:regseqindepch\] The accumulation set of $(\tau_n)$ in $\Flagt$ depends only on $(g_n)$.
Let $(\tau'_n)$ be another sequence in $\Flagt$ such that $d(g_nx,V(x',\st(\tau'_n)))$ is uniformly bounded. Assume that after extraction $\tau_n\to\tau$ and $\tau'_n\to\tau'$. We must show that $\tau=\tau'$.
We may suppose that $x'=x$. There exist bounded sequences $(b_n)$ and $(b'_n)$ in $G$ such that $$g_nb_nx\in V(x,\st(\tau_n))
\qquad\hbox{ and }\qquad
g_nb'_nx\in V(x,\st(\tau'_n))$$ for all $n$. Note that the sequences $(g_nb_n)$ and $(g_nb'_n)$ in $G$ are again $\taumod$-regular. By Lemma \[lem:flconvcontr\], after further extraction, they are $\taumod$-contracting with $$g_nb_n|_{C(\tau_-)}\to\tau
\qquad\hbox{ and }\qquad
g_nb'_n|_{C(\tau'_-)}\to\tau'$$ uniformly on compacts for some $\tau_-,\tau'_-\in\Flagit$. Moreover, we may assume convergence $b_n\to b$ and $b'_n\to b'$. Then $$g_n|_{C(b\tau_-)}\to\tau
\qquad\hbox{ and }\qquad
g_n|_{C(b'\tau'_-)}\to\tau'$$ uniformly on compacts. With Lemma \[lem:contruniq\] it follows that $\tau=\tau'$.
In view of the lemma, we can define the following notion of convergence:
\[def:flgcnvg\] A $\taumod$-regular sequence $(g_n)$ in $G$ [*$\taumod$-flag converges*]{} to a simplex $\tau\in\Flagt$, $$g_n\to\tau ,$$ if $\tau_n\to\tau$ in $\Flagt$ for some sequence $(\tau_n)$ in $\Flagt$ satisfying (\[eq:bdddstfrcona\]).
We can now characterize contraction in terms of flag convergence. We rephrase Lemma \[lem:flconvcontr\] and show that its converse holds as well:
\[lem:flconvcontrconvreph\] For a sequence $(g_n)$ in $G$ and simplices $\tau_{\pm}\in\Flagpmt$, the following are equivalent:
\(i) $(g_n)$ is $\taumod$-contracting with $g_n|_{C(\tau_-)}\to\tau_+$ uniformly on compacts.
\(ii) $(g_n)$ is $\taumod$-regular and $g_n^{\pm1}\to\tau_{\pm}$.
In part (ii), the sequence $(g_n^{-1})$ is $\iota\taumod$-regular and $g_n^{-1}\to\tau_-$ means $\iota\taumod$-flag convergence. The implication (ii)$\Ra$(i) is Lemma \[lem:flconvcontr\].
Conversely, suppose that (i) holds. Since the sequence $(g_n)$ is $\taumod$-contracting, it is $\taumod$-regular by Proposition \[prop:contrimpreg\]. Let $(\tau_n^{\pm})$ be sequences satisfying (\[eq:shad\]). We must show that $\tau_n^{\pm}\to\tau_{\pm}$. Otherwise, after extraction we obtain that $\tau_n^{\pm}\to\tau'_{\pm}$ with $\tau'_+\neq\tau_+$ or $\tau'_-\neq\tau_-$. Then also $g_n|_{C(\tau'_-)}\to\tau'_+$ by Lemma \[lem:flconvcontr\], and Lemma \[lem:contruniq\] implies that $\tau'_{\pm}=\tau_{\pm}$, a contradiction.
Vice versa, we can characterize flag convergence in terms of contraction and thus give an alternative [*dynamical definition*]{} of it:
\[lem:flconvitcontr\] For a sequence $(g_n)$ in $G$, the following are equivalent:
\(i) $(g_n)$ is $\taumod$-regular and $g_n\to\tau$.
\(ii) There exists a bounded sequence $(b_n)$ in $G$ and $\tau_-\in\Flagit$ such that $g_nb_n|_{C(\tau_-)}\to\tau$ uniformly on compacts.
\(iii) There exists a bounded sequence $(b'_n)$ in $G$ such that $b'_ng_n^{-1}|_{C(\tau)}$ converges to a constant map uniformly on compacts.
(ii)$\Ra$(i): According to the previous lemma the sequence $(g_nb_n)$ is $\taumod$-regular and $\taumod$-flag converges, $g_nb_n\to\tau$. Since $d(g_nx,g_nb_nx)$ is uniformly bounded, this is equivalent to $(g_n)$ being $\taumod$-regular and $g_n\to\tau$.
(i)$\Ra$(ii): The sequence $(g^{-1}_n)$ is $\iota\taumod$-regular. There exists a bounded sequence $(b'_n)$ in $G$ such that $(b'_ng^{-1}_n)$ $\iota\taumod$-flag converges, $b'_ng^{-1}_n\to\tau_-\in\Flagit$. We put $b_n={b'_n}^{-1}$. Since also $(g_nb_n)$ is $\taumod$-regular and $g_nb_n\to\tau$, it follows from the previous lemma that $g_nb_n|_{C(\tau_-)}\to\tau$ uniformly on compacts.
The equivalence (ii)$\Leftrightarrow$(iii) with $b'_n=b_n^{-1}$ follows from Lemma \[lem:contrsym\].
We carry over the notion of flag convergence to sequences in $X$.
Consider now a $\taumod$-regular sequence $(x_n)$ in $X$. We choose again a base point $x\in X$ and consider a sequence $(\tau_n)$ in $\Flagt$ such that $$\label{eq:bdddstfrcon}
\sup_nd\bigl(x_n,V(x,\st(\tau_n))\bigr) < +\infty ,$$ analogous to (\[eq:bdddstfrcona\]). As before, the condition is independent of the choice of the point $x$, and we obtain a version of Lemma \[lem:regseqindepch\]:
\[lem:regseqindepchx\] The accumulation set of $(\tau_n)$ in $\Flagt$ depends only on $(x_n)$.
Let $(g_n)$ be a sequence in $G$ such that the sequence $(g_n^{-1}x_n)$ in $X$ is bounded. Then $(g_n)$ is $\taumod$-regular and (\[eq:bdddstfrcon\]) becomes equivalent to (\[eq:bdddstfrcona\]). This reduces the claim to Lemma \[lem:regseqindepch\].
We therefore can define, analogous to Definition \[def:flgcnvg\] above:
A $\taumod$-regular sequence $(x_n)$ in $X$ [*$\taumod$-flag converges*]{} to a simplex $\tau\in\Flagt$, $$x_n\to\tau ,$$ if $\tau_n\to\tau$ in $\Flagt$ for some sequence $(\tau_n)$ in $\Flagt$ satisfying (\[eq:bdddstfrcon\]).
For any $\taumod$-regular sequence $(g_n)$ in $G$ and any point $x\in X$, we have $g_n\to\tau$ iff $g_nx\to\tau$.
Flag convergence and flag limits are stable under bounded perturbations of sequences:
\(i) For any $\taumod$-regular sequence $(g_n)$ and any bounded sequence $(b_n)$ in $G$, the sequences $(g_n)$ and $(g_nb_n)$ have the same $\taumod$-flag accumulation sets in $\Flagt$.
\(ii) If $(x_n)$ and $(x'_n)$ are $\taumod$-regular sequences in $X$ such that $d(x_n,x'_n)$ is uniformly bounded, then both sequences have the same $\taumod$-flag accumulation set in $\Flagt$.
\(i) The sequence $(g_nb_n)$ is also $\taumod$-regular and satisfies condition (\[eq:bdddstfrcona\]) iff $(g_n)$ does.
\(ii) The sequence $(x'_n)$ satisfies condition (\[eq:bdddstfrcon\]) iff $(x'_n)$ does.
\[rem:flconvfins\] There is a natural topology on the bordification $X\sqcup\Flagt$ which induces $\taumod$-flag convergence. Moreover, the bordification embeds into a natural Finsler compactification of $X$, compare Remark \[rem:regfins\].
Flag convergence leads to a notion of limit sets in flag manifolds for subgroups:
\[def:flagl\] For a subgroup $\Ga<G$, the [*$\taumod$-limit set*]{} $$\LatGa\subset\Flagt$$ is the set of possible limit simplices of $\taumod$-flag converging $\taumod$-regular sequences in $\Ga$, equivalently, the set of simplices $\tau_+$ as in (\[eq:contrtau\]) for all $\taumod$-contracting sequences in $\Ga$.
The limit set is $\Ga$-invariant and closed, as a diagonal argument shows.
Benoist introduced in [@Benoist §3.6] a notion of limit set $\La_{\Ga}$ for Zariski dense subgroups $\Ga$ of reductive algebraic groups over local fields which in the case of real semisimple Lie groups is equivalent to (the dynamical version of) our concept of $\simod$-limit set $\Las$.[^14] What we call the $\taumod$-limit set $\Lat$ for other face types $\taumod\subsetneq\simod$ is mentioned in his Remark 3.6(3), and his work implies that, in the Zariski dense case, $\Lat$ is the image of $\Las$ under the natural projection $\Flags\to\Flagt$ of flag manifolds.
Uniform regularity
------------------
In this section we introduce stronger forms of the regularity conditions discussed in section \[sec:reg\].
We first consider sequences in the euclidean model Weyl chamber $\De$.
\[def:unifreg\] A sequence $\de_n\to\infty$ in $\De$ is [*uniformly $\taumod$-regular*]{} if it drifts away from $\Dt\De$ at a linear rate with respect to its norm, $$\liminf_{n\to+\infty} \frac{d(\de_n,\Dt\De)}{\|\de_n\|} > 0.$$
We extend these notions to sequences in $X$ and $G$, compare Definition \[def:pureg\]:
\(i) A sequence $(x_n)$ in $X$ is [*uniformly $\taumod$-regular*]{} if for some (any) base point $o\in X$ the sequence of $\De$-distances $d_{\De}(o,x_n)$ in $\De$ has this property.
\(ii) A sequence $(g_n)$ in $G$ is [*uniformly $\taumod$-regular*]{} if for some (any) point $x\in X$ the orbit sequence $(g_nx)$ in $X$ has this property.
\(iii) A subgroup $\Ga<G$ is [*uniformly $\taumod$-regular*]{} if all sequences of distinct elements in $\Ga$ have this property.
For a subgroup $\Ga<G$, uniform $\taumod$-regularity is equivalent to the visual limit set $\LaGa\subset\geo X$ being contained in the union of the open $\taumod$-stars.
Asymptotic and coarse properties of discrete subgroups {#sec:prp}
======================================================
This chapter is the core of the paper. In section \[sec:bdemb\], motivated by the boundary map part of the original Anosov notion, we study equivariant embeddings of the Gromov boundaries of word hyperbolic subgroups into flag manifolds. We show how these boundary embeddings can be used, especially for regular subgroups, to control the geometry of the orbits in the symmetric space: Intrinsic geodesic lines in the group are uniformly close to parallel sets in the symmetric space. Moreover, in the generic case, for instance for Zariski dense subgroups, intrinsic rays in the group are close to Weyl cones. This conicality property implies in particular that the boundary map continuously extends the orbit maps to infinity and identifies the Gromov boundary with the limit set. This leads us to notion of asymptotically embedded subgroups discussed in section \[sec:asyemb\]. We find that asymptotic embeddedness has strong implications for the coarse extrinsic geometry of subgroups: They are undistorted, and moreover their intrinsic geodesics satisfy a higher rank version of the “Morse property”; they are uniformly close to diamonds. This motivates the notion of Morse subgroups studied in section \[sec:morse\]. The higher rank Morse property immediately implies that the limit set is conical and antipodal. We call regular subgroups with the latter properties RCA and study them in section \[sec:conic\]. Using Bowditch’s dynamical characterization of hyperbolic groups, we show that RCA subgroups are asymptotically embedded, closing part of the circle. In section \[sec:expa\], we observe that conicality implies expansive dynamics at the limit set, which yields another equivalent property for subgroups, this time formulated purely in terms of the dynamics on flag manifolds. In sections \[sec:anosov\] and \[sec:onos\], we discuss different (uniform and non-uniform) versions of our Anosov condition and show that it is equivalent to the previous conditions as well as to the original definition of Anosov subgroups. In section \[sec:mqg\] we take up the discussion of the Morse property. Leaving the context of discrete subgroups, we study the geometry of Morse quasigeodesics in symmetric spaces. We characterize them as bounded perturbations of Finsler quasigeodesics and study the behavior of the $\De$-distance along them: we prove that via the $\De$-distance they project to Morse quasigeodesics in $\De$. We also obtain another characterization of Morse subgroups by the quasiconvexity property that their intrinsic geodesics are extrinsically Morse quasigeodesics, equivalently, are uniformly close to Finsler geodesics.
Antipodality {#sec:antip}
------------
If $X$ has rank one, then $G$ acts transitively on pairs of distinct points in $\geo X$. Thus there are only two possibilities for the [*relative position*]{} of two points in the visual boundary: They can coincide or be different. In higher rank, the $G$-actions on the associated flag manifolds are in general not two point transitive and there are more possibilities for the relative position.
We recall (see section \[sec:symmbas\]) that two simplices $\tau,\tau'\subset\geo X$ are called [*opposite*]{} or [*antipodal*]{} if they are opposite simplices in the apartments $a\subset\geo X$ containing them both. Their types are then related by $\theta(\tau')=\iota\theta(\tau)$. In particular, if three simplices are pairwise opposite, their types must be equal and $\iota$-invariant.
Suppose that $\taumod$ is $\iota$-invariant.
\(i) A subset of $\Flagt$ is [*antipodal*]{} if it consists of pairwise opposite simplices.
\(ii) A map into $\Flagt$ is [*antipodal*]{} if it sends different elements to opposite simplices.
\(iii) A subgroup $\Ga<G$ is [*$\taumod$-antipodal*]{} if $\LatGa$ is antipodal.
Being antipodal is an [*open*]{} condition for pairs of points in flag manifolds. It is the [*generic*]{} relative position. Antipodal maps are in particular [*injective*]{}.
We note that for a $\taumod$-antipodal $\taumod$-convergence subgroup $\Ga<G$ the action $$\Ga\acts\LatGa$$ has [*convergence dynamics*]{} in the usual sense, see section \[sec:convdy\]: If $(\ga_n)$ is a sequence in $\Ga$ such that $\ga_n|_{C(\tau_-)}\to\tau_+$, then $\tau_{\pm}\in\LatGa$. Due to antipodality, $\LatGa-\{\tau_-\}\subset C(\tau_-)$ and we obtain the intrinsic convergence property.
Boundary embeddings and limit sets {#sec:bdemb}
----------------------------------
In this section, we study embeddings of word hyperbolic groups into semisimple Lie groups which admit a certain kind of continuous boundary map. We will assume that $\taumod$ is $\iota$-invariant.
\[def:bdemb\] A subgroup $\Ga<G$ is [*$\taumod$-boundary embedded*]{} if it is intrinsically word hyperbolic and there exists an antipodal $\Ga$-equivariant continuous embedding $$\label{eq:bdemb}
\beta:\geo\Ga\to\Flagt$$ of the Gromov boundary $\geo\Ga$ of $\Ga$. The map $\beta$ is called a [*boundary embedding*]{}. If $|\geo\Ga|\leq2$, we require in addition that $\Ga$ is discrete in $G$.
Thus, $\taumod$-boundary embedded subgroups are necessarily [*discrete*]{}, since $\Ga$ acts on $\beta(\geo\Ga)$ as a discrete convergence group if $|\geo\Ga|\geq3$.[^15]
Boundary embeddings are in general not unique. This is so by trivial reasons if $|\geo\Ga|=2$, cf. below, but it also happens if $|\geo\Ga|\geq3$, see [@morse Example 6.20].
In order to understand the implications of a boundary embedding, we will first use it to obtain control on the geometry of the $\Ga$-orbits in $X$.
We fix a word metric on $\Ga$. Via the antipodal boundary embedding $\beta$ one can assign to every discrete geodesic [*line*]{}[^16] $l:\Z\to\Ga$ a parallel set in $X$. Namely, let $\zeta_{\pm}:=l(\pm\infty)\in\geo\Ga$ denote the ideal endpoints of the line. Their image simplices $\beta(\zeta_{\pm})\in\Flagt$ are opposite and determine the parallel set $$P(\beta(\zeta_-),\beta(\zeta_+))\subset X .$$ We consider the images of the discrete geodesic lines $l$ in $\Ga$ under the orbit map $o_x:\Ga\to\Ga x\subset X$ for a point $x\in X$ (fixed throughout the discussion) and claim that the discrete paths $lx:\Z\to X$ are uniformly close to the corresponding parallel sets:[^17]
\[lem:lnclpar\] The discrete path $lx$ is contained in a tubular neighborhood of the parallel set $P(\beta(\zeta_-),\beta(\zeta_+))$ with uniform radius $\rho=\rho(\Ga,x)$.
Here and below, we mean by the dependence of a constant on $\Ga$ that it depends on $\Ga$ as a subgroup of $G$ and also on the chosen word metric on $\Ga$. This can be seen by a simple compactness argument: Let $$\label{eq:oppfl}
(\Flagt\times\Flagt)^{opp}
\subset\Flagt\times\Flagt$$ denote the subspace of pairs of opposite simplices. It is the open and dense $G$-orbit and in particular a homogeneous $G$-space. The latter implies that the function on $(\Flagt\times\Flagt)^{opp}\times X$ assigning $$\label{eq:dstcnt}
(\tau_-,\tau_+,x') \mapsto d\bigl(x',P(\tau_-,\tau_+)\bigr)$$ is continuous, because $d(gx',P(h\tau_-,h\tau_+))=d(h^{-1}gx',P(\tau_-,\tau_+))$ for $g,h\in G$. Also the map $${\mathcal L} \to (\Flagt\times\Flagt)^{opp}\times X$$ from the space ${\mathcal L}$ of discrete geodesic lines $l:\Z\to\Ga$ [^18] sending $l\mapsto (\beta(l(-\infty)),\beta(l(+\infty)),l(0)x)$ is continuous. Composing both, we see that the map $$l\mapsto d\bigl(l(0)x,P(\beta(l(-\infty)),\beta(l(+\infty)))\bigr)$$ is continuous. Since it is also $\Ga$-periodic, the cocompactness of the action $\Ga\acts{\mathcal L}$ implies that it is bounded, whence the assertion.
From now on, we [*assume*]{} that the subgroup $\Ga<G$ is, in addition to being $\taumod$-boundary embedded, also [*$\taumod$-regular*]{}. This assumption will enable us to further restrict the orbit geometry and will lead to information on the relation between the boundary embedding and the limit set.
We now analyze the position of the images of [*rays*]{} in $\Ga$ along the parallel sets. Let $r:\N_0\to\Ga$ be a discrete geodesic ray with ideal endpoint $\zeta:=r(+\infty)\in\geo\Ga$. There is a dichotomy for the position of the orbit path $rx:\N_0\to X$ relative to the Weyl cone $V(r(0)x,\st(\beta(\zeta)))$ with tip at its initial point, namely the path must either drift away from the cone or dive deep into it:
\[lem:raydivdrif\] There exist constants $\rho'=\rho'(\Ga,x)>0$ and for all $R>0$ numbers $n_0=n_0(\Ga,x,R)\in\N$ such that the following holds:
For all $n\in\N$ with $n\geq n_0$, the point $r(n)x$ either has
\(i) distance $\geq R$ from the Weyl cone $V(r(0)x,\st(\beta(\zeta)))$, or has
\(ii) distance $\leq\rho'$ from this Weyl cone and distance $\geq R$ from its boundary.
In a word hyperbolic group, discrete geodesic rays are contained in uniformly bounded neighborhoods of discrete geodesic lines. Thus, $r$ is contained in a tubular neighborhood with uniform radius $c(\Ga)$ of a line $l:\Z\to\Ga$ asymptotic to $\zeta=r(+\infty)$ and some $\hat\zeta\in\geo\Ga-\{\zeta\}$.
It follows from the previous lemma that the path $rx$ is contained in a tubular neighborhood of the parallel set $P=P(\beta(\hat\zeta),\beta(\zeta))$ with uniform radius $\rho''(\Ga,x)$. Let $x_0\in P$ be a point with $d(x_0,r(0)x)\leq\rho''$. The Weyl cone $V(r(0)x,\st(\beta(\zeta)))$ is then $\rho''$-Hausdorff close to the asymptotic Weyl cone $V(x_0,\st(\beta(\zeta)))\subset P$.
Now we use that the interior of the Weyl cone $V(x_0,\st(\beta(\zeta)))$ is [*open*]{} in the parallel set $P$ and the boundary $\D V(x_0,\st(\beta(\zeta)))$ of the cone [*disconnects*]{} the parallel set, see Lemma \[lem:open-cone\]. The $\taumod$-regularity of $\Ga$ implies (along with the triangle inequality for $\De$-lengths) that the path $rx$ drifts away from $\D V(x_0,\st(\beta(\zeta)))$ at a [*uniform*]{} rate, $$d\bigl(r(n)x,\D V(x_0,\st(\beta(\zeta)))\bigr) \geq\phi(n)$$ with a function $\phi(n)\to+\infty$ as $n\to+\infty$ independent of the ray $r$. The assertion follows.
For all rays in $\Ga$ the same of the two alternatives must occur:
\[lem:dichot\] For all discrete geodesic rays $r:\N_0\to\Ga$, either
\(i) $rx$ drifts away from the Weyl cone $V(r(0)x,\st(\beta(\zeta)))$, $\zeta=r(+\infty)$, at a uniform rate, $$d\bigl(r(n)x,V(r(0)x,\st(\beta(\zeta)))\bigr)\to+\infty$$ uniformly as $n\to+\infty$, or
\(ii) $rx$ is contained in the tubular $\rho'(\Ga,x)$-neighborhood of the cone $V(r(0)x,\st(\beta(\zeta)))$ and drifts away from its boundary at a uniform rate, $$d\bigl(r(n)x,\D V(r(0)x,\st(\beta(\zeta)))\bigr)\to+\infty$$ uniformly as $n\to+\infty$.
We give two arguments. The first one is restricted to the nonelementary case: As a consequence of the previous lemma, for every ray $r$ one of the alternatives (i) and (ii) occurs with growth rates independent of the ray. Which alternative occurs, depends only on the asymptote class $\zeta=r(+\infty)$ of the ray, and depends on it continuously, i.e. the subsets of endpoints for either alternative are open in $\geo\Ga$. Since they are also $\Ga$-invariant, if $|\geo\Ga|\geq3$, the minimality of the action $\Ga\acts\geo\Ga$ implies that one of the subsets must be empty.
The second argument works in the general case: Again we use that it depends only on the asymptote class of the ray, which alternative occurs. We show that the same alternative occurs for any two distinct asymptote classes $\zeta,\hat\zeta\in\geo\Ga$. After replacing a ray $r$ asymptotic to $\zeta$ with a subray, we may assume that we are in the situation of the proof of the previous lemma (whose notation we adopt), i.e. that $r$ lies in a uniform tubular neighborhood of a line $l:\Z\to\Ga$ asymptotic to $\hat\zeta$ and $\zeta$. Moreover, we assume that alternative (ii) holds for $\zeta$ and claim that it holds for $\hat\zeta$, as well.
To see this, fix $R>>\rho',\rho''$ and $n>>n_0$. Let $x_n\in P=P(\beta(\hat\zeta),\beta(\zeta))$ be a point with $d(x_n,r(n)x)\leq\rho''$. Since (ii) holds for $r$, the point $x_n$ must lie deep inside the cone $V(x_0,\st(\beta(\zeta)))\subset P$. This is equivalent to $x_0$ lying deep inside the cone $V(x_n,\st(\beta(\hat\zeta)))\subset P$ opening towards the opposite direction. This however implies that $r(0)x$ is uniformly close (with distance $\leq 2\rho''<<R$) to the cone $V(r(n)x,\st(\beta(\hat\zeta)))$. Thus alternative (ii) holds for the subray $l|_{(-\infty,n]\cap\Z}$ of $l$, and hence also for its ideal endpoint $\hat\zeta$.
On the other hand, in the nonelementary case, the ray images always drift away (at non-uniform rates) from “opposite” Weyl cones:
\[lem:drftawopp\] Suppose that $|\geo\Ga|\geq3$. Then for every discrete geodesic ray $r:\N_0\to\Ga$ and ideal point $\hat\zeta\in\geo\Ga-\{\zeta\}$, $\zeta=r(+\infty)$, it holds that $$d\bigl(r(n)x,V(r(0)x,\st(\beta(\hat\zeta)))\bigr)\to+\infty$$ as $n\to+\infty$.
The ray $r$ is contained in a (non-uniform) tubular neighborhood of a line $l:\Z\to\Ga$ asymptotic to $\hat\zeta$ and $\zeta$. The line image $lx$, and therefore also the ray image $rx$ is contained in a tubular neighborhood of the parallel set $P=P(\beta(\hat\zeta),\beta(\zeta))$.
It follows that the accumulation set $\acct(r)\subset\Flagt$ of $r$ (with respect to $\taumod$-flag convergence, compare section \[sec:conv\]) consists of simplices contained in $\geo P$: Indeed, the nearest point projections $x_n\in P$ of $r(n)x$ lie in euclidean Weyl chambers $V(x_0,\si_n)\subset P$. Therefore, in view of Lemma \[lem:regseqindepch\], $\acct(r)$ equals the accumulation set of the sequence $(\tau_n)$ in $\Flagt$ consisting of the type $\taumod$ faces $\tau_n\subseteq\si_n\subset\geo P$.
Now we use nonelementarity and vary the ideal point opposite to $\zeta$. Since $|\geo\Ga|\geq3$, there exists a third ideal point $\hat\zeta'\in\geo\Ga-\{\zeta,\hat\zeta\}$. It determines another parallel set $P'=P(\beta(\hat\zeta'),\beta(\zeta))$, and the simplices in $\acct(r)$ must also be contained in $\geo P'$. In view of $\beta(\hat\zeta)\not\subset\geo P'$, it follows that $\beta(\hat\zeta)\not\in\acct(r)$.
Since $rx$ is contained in a tubular neighborhood of $P$, we also again have the dichotomy, analogous to the previous lemma, that $rx$ either drifts away from the Weyl cone $V(r(0)x,\st(\beta(\hat\zeta)))$ at a uniform rate, as claimed, or stays in a tubular neighborhood of it and drifts away only from its boundary. However, in the latter case, we would have (conical) flag convergence $r(n)\to\beta(\hat\zeta)$ as $n\to+\infty$, equivalently, $\acct(r)=\{\beta(\hat\zeta)\}$, a contradiction.
If $\Ga$ is virtually cyclic, i.e. if $|\geo\Ga|=2$, there is a trivial way of modifying the boundary embedding. Namely, then the action $\Ga\acts\geo\Ga$ commutes with the transposition $t:\geo\Ga\to\geo\Ga$ exchanging the points, and therefore $-\beta:=\beta\circ t$ is a boundary embedding as well. Therefore the previous lemma may fail. However, if it fails for $\beta$, then it holds for $-\beta$, because case (ii) of the dichotomy in Lemma \[lem:dichot\] arises.
From the above observations on the orbit geometry we will now deduce information about the limit set and its position relative to the image of the boundary embedding.
Let $$\label{eq:extinfin}
\bar o_x=o_x\sqcup\beta : \ol\Ga=\Ga\sqcup\geo\Ga \lra X\sqcup\Flagt$$ denote the extension of the orbit map $o_x:\Ga\to\Ga x\subset X$ to the Gromov compactification $\ol\Ga$ of $\Ga$ by $\ol o_x|_{\geo\Ga}:=\beta$. We say that the extension $\ol o_x$ is [*continuous at infinity*]{} if for all sequences $\ga_n\to\infty$ in $\Ga$ we have flag convergence $\ga_n\to\beta(\zeta)$ whenever $\ga_n\to\zeta\in\geo\Ga$ in $\ol\Ga$.
We obtain the following dichotomy corresponding to the one in Lemma \[lem:dichot\]:
\[thm:bemblim\] Let $\Ga<G$ be a $\taumod$-regular $\taumod$-boundary embedded subgroup. Then for every boundary embedding $\beta$ either
\(i) $\beta(\geo\Ga)\cap\LatGa=\emptyset$, and no simplex in $\beta(\geo\Ga)$ is opposite to a simplex in $\LatGa$,[^19] or
\(ii) $\beta(\geo\Ga)=\LatGa$. Moreover, the extension $\bar o_x$ is continuous at infinity, after replacing $\beta$ with $-\beta$ in the case $|\geo\Ga|=2$, if necessary.
Assume first that case (ii) of Lemma \[lem:dichot\] occurs. Consider a sequence $\ga_n\to\infty$ in $\Ga$. There exist rays $r_n:\N_0\to\Ga$ starting in $r_n(0)=e$ and passing at uniformly bounded distance of $\ga_n$. We denote their ideal endpoints by $\zeta_n:=r_n(+\infty)$. Then the orbit points $\ga_nx$ lie in uniform tubular neighborhoods of the Weyl cones $V(x,\st(\beta(\zeta_n)))$. If $\ga_n\to\zeta\in\geo\Ga$ in $\ol\Ga$, equivalently, $\zeta_n\to\zeta$ in $\geo\Ga$, then $\beta(\zeta_n)\to\beta(\zeta)$ in $\Flagt$, and it follows $\taumod$-flag convergence $\ga_nx\to\beta(\zeta)$. This shows that $\bar o_x$ is continuous at infinity and $\beta(\geo\Ga)\subseteq\LatGa$. To see the opposite inclusion, suppose that $\ga_nx\to\la\in\LatGa$. After extraction, we get convergence $\ga_n\to\zeta\in\geo\Ga$ and conclude from the above that $\la=\beta(\zeta)$. Thus also $\LatGa\subseteq\beta(\geo\Ga)$, and conclusion (ii) of the theorem is satisfied.
If $|\geo\Ga|=2$ and case (ii) of Lemma \[lem:dichot\] occurs for $-\beta$, we reach the same conclusion after replacing $\beta$ with $-\beta$.
Assume now that we are in case (i) of Lemma \[lem:dichot\]. After replacing $\beta$ with $-\beta$ in the case $|\geo\Ga|=2$, if necessary, we may also assume that the conclusion of Lemma \[lem:drftawopp\] holds. As before, we consider a sequence $\ga_n\to\infty$ in $\Ga$ and rays $r_n$. Suppose that $\ga_n\to\zeta\in\geo\Ga$ and let $\hat\zeta\in\geo\Ga-\{\zeta\}$ be arbitrary. Since $\zeta_n\to\zeta$, there exist for all large $n$ lines $l_n:\Z\to\Ga$ with ideal endpoints $l_n(-\infty)=\hat\zeta$ and $l_n(+\infty)=\zeta_n$. The lines $l_n$ pass at uniformly bounded distance from $e$ and $\ga_n$, and they contain the rays $r_n$ in uniform tubular neighborhoods. (For the rest of this argument, uniformity will mean that bounds are independent of $n$.)
By Lemma \[lem:lnclpar\], the ray images $r_nx$ lie in uniform tubular neighborhoods of the parallel sets $P_n=P(\beta(\hat\zeta),\beta(\zeta_n))$ and drift away from both Weyl cones $V(x,\st(\beta(\hat\zeta)))$ and $V(x,\st(\beta(\zeta_n)))$. The drift is uniform in the latter case by Lemma \[lem:dichot\](i), and also in the former case since $r_n(0)x=x$ and $d(x,P_n)$ is bounded.
The uniformity implies that the orbit points $\ga_nx$ lie in uniform tubular neighborhoods of Weyl cones $V(x,\st(\tau_n))$ for simplices $\tau_n\in\Flagt$ with $\tau_n\subset\geo P_n$ but $\tau_n\neq\beta(\hat\zeta),\beta(\zeta_n)$. (Indeed, as in the proof of the previous lemma, $\ga_nx$ is uniformly close to a euclidean Weyl chamber $V(x,\si_n)$ with visual boundary chamber $\si_n\subset\geo P_n$ but $\si_n\not\subset\st(\beta(\hat\zeta))\cup\st(\beta(\zeta_n))$, and we let $\tau_n\subseteq\si_n$ be the type $\taumod$ face.) In particular, $\tau_n$ is not opposite to both $\beta(\hat\zeta)$ and $\beta(\zeta_n)$. The accumulation set of the sequence $(\tau_n)$ in $\Flagt$, which coincides with the $\taumod$-flag accumulation set of the sequence $(\ga_n)$, therefore consists of simplices which are not opposite to both $\beta(\hat\zeta)$ and $\beta(\zeta)$, because oppositeness is an open property. Letting $\hat\zeta$ run through $\geo\Ga-\{\zeta\}$, it follows that these simplices are not opposite to [*any*]{} simplex in $\beta(\geo\Ga)$.
Every limit simplex in $\LatGa$ arises as the $\taumod$-flag limit of a sequence $(\ga_n)$ which converges at infinity in $\ol\Ga$. We obtain that no simplex in $\LatGa$ is opposite to a simplex in $\beta(\geo\Ga)$. In particular, $\LatGa\cap\beta(\geo\Ga)=\emptyset$. Thus, conclusion (i) of the theorem holds.
Consequently, as soon as a boundary embedding hits the limit set, it identifies it with the Gromov boundary of the subgroup and moreover continuously extends the orbit maps:
\[cor:bembaemb\] Let $\Ga<G$ be a $\taumod$-regular $\taumod$-boundary embedded subgroup with boundary embedding $\beta$. If $\beta(\geo\Ga)\cap\LatGa\neq\emptyset$, then $\beta(\geo\Ga)=\LatGa$. Moreover, the extension $\bar o_x$ is continuous at infinity, after replacing $\beta$ with $-\beta$ in the case $|\geo\Ga|=2$, if necessary.
Otherwise, if the boundary embedding avoids the limit set, the image of the boundary embedding and the limit set must have special position:
\[lem:subvr\] In case (i) of Theorem \[thm:bemblim\], both $\beta(\geo\Ga)$ and $\LatGa$ are not Zariski dense in $\Flagt$. In particular, $\Ga$ is not Zariski dense in $G$.
Since no simplex in $\beta(\geo\Ga)$ is opposite to a simplex in $\LatGa$, it follows that $\beta(\geo\Ga)$ is disjoint from the union of open Schubert strata $C(\la)$ over all limit simplices $\la\in\LatGa$. In other words, $\beta(\geo\Ga)$ is contained in the intersection of the proper subvarieties $\D C(\la)=\Flagt-C(\la)$. Similarly, $\LatGa$ lies in the intersection of the $\D C(\tau)$ over all simplices $\tau\in\beta(\geo\Ga)$. In particular, both are $\Ga$-invariant proper subvarieties, which forces $\Ga$ to be non-Zariski dense.
Therefore, the first alternative in the theorem cannot occur in the Zariski dense case, compare [@GW Thm. 1.5]:
\[cor:zdnsasemb\] Let $\Ga<G$ be a Zariski dense $\taumod$-regular $\taumod$-boundary embedded subgroup. Then it admits a unique boundary embedding $\beta$, and $\beta(\geo\Ga)=\LatGa$.
By the lemma, for any boundary embedding $\beta$, only case (ii) in the theorem can occur. It follows that $\beta(\geo\Ga)=\LatGa$. Moreover, $\beta$ is uniquely determined because, due to the density of attractive fixed points of infinite order elements, there are no $\Ga$-equivariant self homeomorphisms of $\geo\Ga$ besides the identity. (Note that $|\geo\Ga|\geq3$ by Zariski density.)
It is worth noting that in the case $\taumod=\simod$ the boundary embedding can always be modified so that it maps onto the limit set:
\[thm:bemmdsi\] Let $\Ga<G$ be a $\simod$-regular $\simod$-boundary embedded subgroup. Then there exists a boundary embedding $\beta$ with $\beta(\geo\Ga)=\LasGa$.
In the case $\taumod=\simod$, the parallel sets considered above are maximal flats and the Weyl cones are euclidean Weyl chambers. What makes it possible to push the argument further, is the fact that the walls in a maximal flat through a fixed point disconnect the flat into euclidean Weyl chambers. Therefore, the above discussion now yields more precise information about the position of the paths $rx$:
Since the $rx$ are uniformly close to maximal flats (provided by a boundary embedding $\beta'$ for $\Ga$, cf. Lemma \[lem:lnclpar\]), $\simod$-regularity forces them to dive into (uniform tubular neighborhoods of) Weyl chambers inside these flats. It follows that the paths $rx$ are contained in uniform tubular neighborhoods of euclidean Weyl chambers with tips at the initial points $r(0)x$. Again by regularity, the asymptote class of the Weyl chamber depends only on the asymptote class of the ray $r$. We therefore obtain a new boundary map $\beta:\geo\Ga\to\Flags$ such that $rx$ is contained in the tubular $\rho'(\Ga,x)$-neighborhood of the euclidean Weyl chamber $V(r(0)x,\beta(\zeta))$ for $\zeta=r(+\infty)$. Clearly, $\beta(\geo\Ga)\subseteq\LasGa$ and $\beta$ is $\Ga$-equivariant. An argument as in the last part of the proof of Lemma \[lem:dichot\] shows that $\beta$ is antipodal.
To verify that $\beta$ is continuous, suppose that $\zeta_n\to\zeta$ in $\geo\Ga$ and $\beta(\zeta_n)\to\si$ in $\Flags$. We must show that $\si=\beta(\zeta)$. Let $r_n,r:\N_0\to\Ga$ be rays starting in $e$ and asymptotic to $\zeta_n,\zeta$. We note that for any sequence $m_n\to+\infty$ in $\N_0$, we have $\simod$-flag convergence $r_n(m_n)\to\si$, because $r_n(m_n)x$ lies in a uniform tubular neighborhood of $V(x,\st(\beta(\zeta_n)))$. On the other hand, if $m_n$ grows sufficiently slowly, then the sequence $(r_n(m_n))$ in $\Ga$ is contained in a tubular neighborhood of $r$, and hence $r_n(m_n)\to\beta(\zeta)$. This shows that $\si=\beta(\zeta)$, as desired.
Thus, $\beta$ is a boundary embedding. Since also $\beta(\geo\Ga)\subseteq\LasGa$, we conclude using Theorem \[thm:bemblim\] that $\beta(\geo\Ga)=\LasGa$.
Asymptotic embeddings and coarse extrinsic geometry {#sec:asyemb}
---------------------------------------------------
The discussion in the previous section, notably part (ii) of the conclusion of Theorem \[thm:bemblim\], motivates the following strengthening of the notion of boundary embeddedness:
\[def:asyemb\] A subgroup $\Ga<G$ is [*$\taumod$-asymptotically embedded*]{} if it is $\taumod$-regular, $\taumod$-antipodal, intrinsically word hyperbolic and there is a $\Ga$-equivariant homeomorphism $$\label{eq:mapalphatau}
\alpha: \geo \Ga \stackrel{\cong}{\lra}
\LatGa\subset \Flagt$$ from its Gromov boundary onto its $\tau_{mod}$-limit set.
The definition can also be phrased purely [*dynamically*]{} in terms of the $\Ga$-action on $\Flagt$, by replacing $\taumod$-regularity with the $\taumod$-convergence condition.
Note that $\taumod$-asymptotically embedded subgroups are necessarily [*discrete*]{} by $\taumod$-regularity. We also keep assuming that $\taumod$ is [*$\iota$-invariant*]{}; this is implicit in $\taumod$-antipodality.
We observe that the boundary map $\al$ is antipodal, because it is injective with antipodal image. It is therefore a boundary embedding for $\Ga$, i.e. $\taumod$-asymptotically embedded implies $\taumod$-boundary embedded. According to Corollary \[cor:bembaemb\], the extension $$\label{eq:extinfinal}
\bar o_x=o_x\sqcup\al : \ol\Ga=\Ga\sqcup\geo\Ga \lra X\sqcup\Flagt$$ cf. (\[eq:extinfin\]), is continuous, after replacing $\al$ with $-\al$ in the case $|\geo\Ga|=2$, if necessary. We will refer to $\al$ then as the [*asymptotic embedding*]{} for $\Ga$.
We rephrase the [*criteria*]{} for asymptotic embeddedness obtained in the previous section (cf. Corollaries \[cor:bembaemb\], \[cor:zdnsasemb\] and Theorem \[thm:bemmdsi\]):
\[thm:bembaembref\] Let $\Ga<G$ be a $\taumod$-regular $\taumod$-boundary embedded subgroup with boundary embedding $\beta$. If $\beta(\geo\Ga)\cap\LatGa\neq\emptyset$, then $\Ga$ is $\taumod$-asymptotically embedded, and $\beta$ is the asymptotic embedding, after replacing it with $-\beta$ in the case $|\geo\Ga|=2$, if necessary.
\[thm:zdnsasembref\] Zariski dense $\taumod$-regular $\taumod$-boundary embedded subgroups are $\taumod$-asymptotically embedded and admit no other boundary embedding besides their asymptotic embedding.
\[thm:bemmdsiref\] $\simod$-Regular $\simod$-boundary embedded subgroups are $\simod$-asymptotically embedded. (But they may admit boundary embeddings different from the asymptotic embedding.)
We also summarize what the discussion in the previous section yields for the [*orbit geometry*]{} of asymptotically embedded subgroups. In addition to the continuity at infinity (\[eq:extinfinal\]) of the orbit maps $o_x$, $x\in X$, we obtained (cf. Lemmas \[lem:lnclpar\] and \[lem:dichot\]):
\[prop:asyembprp\] Let $\Ga<G$ be a $\taumod$-asymptotically embedded subgroup with asymptotic embedding $\al$. Then:
\(i) For every discrete geodesic line $l:\Z\to\Ga$, the path $lx$ is contained in a tubular neighborhood of uniform radius $\rho(\Ga,x)$ of the parallel set $P(\al(\zeta_-),\al(\zeta_+))$, where $\zeta_{\pm}:=l(\pm\infty)\in\geo\Ga$.
\(ii) For every discrete geodesic ray $r:\N_0\to\Ga$, the path $rx$ is contained in a tubular neighborhood of uniform radius $\rho'(\Ga,x)$ of the Weyl cone $V(r(0)x,\st(\al(\zeta)))$, where $\zeta:=r(+\infty)\in\geo\Ga$, and drifts away from its boundary at a uniform rate, $$\label{eq:awbdcn}
d\bigl(r(n)x,\D V(r(0)x,\st(\al(\zeta)))\bigr)\to+\infty$$ uniformly as $n\to+\infty$.
These properties motivate the [*Morse property*]{} to be introduced and discussed below. Let us first draw some further immediate consequences for the coarse extrinsic geometry of subgroups and see how property (ii) leads to [*undistortion*]{} and [*uniform regularity*]{}.
We consider the orbit path $rx$ for a discrete ray $r$. According to property (ii), the path $rx$ must stay uniformly close to the Weyl cone $V(r(0)x,\st(\al(\zeta)))$ predicted by the boundary map and drift away from the boundary of the cone at a uniform rate. Since the same applies to all subrays of $r$, it follows that the cones $V(r(n)x,\st(\al(\zeta)))$ must, up to bounded perturbation, be [*uniformly nested*]{}. This forces the orbit path $rx$ to have a [*linear*]{} drift away from the boundary of the Weyl cone and in particular towards infinity, i.e. $rx$ is uniformly $\taumod$-regular and undistorted.
We combine these properties in the following notion:
\[dfn:uru\] A finitely generated subgroup $\Ga<G$ is [*$\taumod$-URU*]{}, if it is
\(i) uniformly $\taumod$-regular, and
\(ii) undistorted, i.e. the inclusion $\Ga\subset G$, equivalently, the orbit maps $\Ga\to\Ga x\subset X$, are [*quasiisometric embeddings*]{} with respect to a word metric on $\Ga$.
Note that URU subgroups cannot contain parabolic elements.
The above discussion before the definition thus leads to:
\[thm:asymbur\] $\taumod$-Asymptotically embedded subgroups $\Ga<G$ are $\taumod$-URU.
We add some details to the discussion above:
Let $x_n\in V(r(0)x,\st(\al(\zeta)))$ be the nearest point projections of the points $r(n)x$, $n\in\N_0$. Then $d(r(n)x,x_n)\leq\rho'=\rho'(\Ga,x)$ by part (ii) of the proposition. We consider the sequence of Weyl cones $V(x_n,\st(\al(\zeta)))\subset V(r(0)x,\st(\al(\zeta)))$. Note that the cones $V(r(n)x,\st(\al(\zeta)))$ and $V(x_n,\st(\al(\zeta)))$ are asymptotic to each other and have Hausdorff distance $\leq d(r(n)x,x_n)\leq\rho'$, as do their boundaries. Applying (ii) to the subrays of $r$, it follows that the paths $m\mapsto r(n+m)x$ are contained in uniform neighborhoods of the cones $V(x_n,\st(\al(\zeta)))$ and drift away from their boundaries at uniform rates. Thus, for every $d_0>0$ there exists a number $m_0=m_0(\Ga,x,d_0)\in\N$ such that $$x_{n+m}\in V(x_n,\st(\al(\zeta)))$$ and $$d\bigl(x_{n+m},\D V(x_n,\st(\al(\zeta)))\bigr)\geq d_0$$ for all $n\geq0$ and $m\geq m_0$. The latter inequality implies that the boundaries of the Weyl cones $V(x_n,\st(\al(\zeta)))$ and $V(x_{n+m},\st(\al(\zeta)))$ have (nearest point) distance $\geq d_0$, cf. Proposition \[prop:hdstwcones\](ii). From the uniform nestedness of the cones $V(x_{km_0},\st(\al(\zeta)))$ for $k\in\N_0$, it follows that the drift (\[eq:awbdcn\]) away from the boundary of the Weyl cone is [*uniformly linear*]{}. Consequently, the ray images $rx$ are uniformly undistorted and uniformly $\taumod$-regular. Since any pair of elements in $\Ga$ lies in a uniform tubular neighborhood of some discrete geodesic ray, our assertion follows.
\(i) That, conversely, URU implies asymptotic embeddedness is proven in [@mlem]. In particular, URU subgroups are necessarily word hyperbolic.
\(ii) In [@bordif] we prove that URU subgroups $\Ga<G$ satisfy the even stronger coarse geometric property of being [*coarse Lipschitz retracts*]{} of $G$.
Similarly, we also derive a version of Proposition \[prop:asyembprp\] for discrete geodesic [*segments*]{} in $\Ga$:
Consider a line $l:\Z\to\Ga$ and denote $\zeta_{\pm}=l(\pm\infty)$. Let $x_n\in P(\al(\zeta_-),\al(\zeta_+))$ be the nearest point projections of the points $l(n)x$, $n\in\Z$. As in the proof of the previous theorem, we see using Proposition \[prop:asyembprp\](i+ii), that for any $d_0>0$ there exists $m'_0=m'_0(\Ga,x,d_0)\in\N$ such that $$x_{n\pm m}\in V(x_n,\st(\al(\zeta_{\pm})))$$ and $$d\bigl(x_{n\pm m},\D V(x_n,\st(\al(\zeta_{\pm})))\bigr)\geq d_0$$ for all $n$ and $m\geq m'_0$. It follows that, for $n_{\pm}\in\Z$ with $n_+-n_-\geq m'_0$, the diamond $$\diamot(x_{n_-},x_{n_+})=
V(x_{n_-},\st(\al(\zeta_+)))\cap V(x_{n_+},\st(\al(\zeta_-)))\subset P(\al(\zeta_-),\al(\zeta_+))$$ is defined and, using Proposition \[prop:asyembprp\](ii) again, contains the finite subpath $l|_{[n_-,n_+]\cap\Z}x$ in a uniform tubular neighborhood.
Our discussion yields the following complement to, respectively, strengthening of Proposition \[prop:asyembprp\], saying that the images of discrete geodesic segments in $\Ga$ are contained in uniform neighborhoods of diamonds with tips at uniform distance from the endpoints:
\[prop:cldm\] Let $\Ga<G$ be a $\taumod$-asymptotically embedded subgroup. Then for every discrete geodesic segment $s:[n_-,n_+]\cap\Z\to\Ga$, the path $sx$ is contained in a tubular neighborhood of uniform radius $\rho''=\rho''(\Ga,x)$ of a diamond $\diamot(x_-,x_+)$ with $d(x_{\pm},s(n_{\pm})x)\leq\rho''$.
This is a consequence of the above discussion, because every discrete geodesic segment in $\Ga$ lies in a uniform neighborhood of a discrete geodesic line.
Morse property {#sec:morse}
--------------
The [*Morse Lemma*]{} for Gromov hyperbolic spaces asserts that quasigeodesic segments are uniformly close to geodesic segments with the same endpoints. Proposition \[prop:cldm\] along with Proposition \[prop:asyembprp\] in the previous section can be interpreted as saying that, for asymptotically embedded subgroups $\Ga<G$, the images of discrete geodesic segments, rays and lines in $\Ga$ under the orbit maps into $X$ satisfy a higher rank version of the Morse Lemma, with geodesic segments replaced by diamonds.
This motivates the following notion (we keep assuming that $\taumod$ is $\iota$-invariant):
\[def:mrs\] A subgroup $\Ga<G$ is [*$\taumod$-Morse*]{} if it is $\taumod$-regular, intrinsically word hyperbolic and satisfies the following property:
For every discrete geodesic segment $s:[n_-,n_+]\cap\Z\to\Ga$, the path $sx$ is contained in a tubular neighborhood of uniform radius $\rho''=\rho''(\Ga,x)$ of a diamond $\diamot(x_-,x_+)$ with tips at distance $d(x_{\pm},s(n_{\pm})x)\leq\rho''$ from the endpoints.
Note that the definition does not a priori assume the existence of a boundary map, neither does it assume undistortion. These will be consequences.
As we saw, asymptotically embedded subgroups are Morse. We will now show that, conversely, asymptotic embeddedness follows from the Morse property, in fact from an a priori weaker version of it for rays in $\Ga$ (instead of segments):
\[thm:mrsasembeq\] For a subgroup $\Ga<G$ the following properties are equivalent:
\(i) $\Ga$ is $\taumod$-asymptotically embedded.
\(ii) $\Ga$ is $\taumod$-Morse.
\(iii) $\Ga$ is $\taumod$-regular, intrinsically word hyperbolic and satisfies the following property: For every discrete geodesic ray $r:\N_0\to\Ga$, the path $rx$ is contained in a tubular neighborhood of uniform radius $\rho'''=\rho'''(\Ga,x)$ of a $\taumod$-Weyl cone with tip at the initial point $r(0)x$.
The $\taumod$-Weyl cone in (iii) is then the cone $V(r(0)x,\al(r(+\infty)))$ where $\al$ is the asymptotic embedding for $\Ga$.
The implication (i)$\Ra$(ii) is Proposition \[prop:cldm\]. The implication (ii)$\Ra$(iii) is immediate by a limiting argument. It remains to show that (iii)$\Ra$(i).
We first observe that the $\taumod$-Weyl cone $V(r(0)x,\st(\tau))$ containing the path $rx$ in a tubular neighborhood is uniquely determined. This follows from the $\taumod$-flag convergence $r(n)\to\tau$. Moreover, $\tau$ depends only on the asymptote class $r(+\infty)$ of the ray $r$. Hence there is a well-defined map at infinity $$\check\al:\geo\Ga \to \Flagt$$ such that for every ray $r$ the path $rx$ is contained in a uniform tubular neighborhood of the Weyl cone $V(r(0)x,\st(\check\al(r(+\infty))))$. Our goal is to show that $\check\al$ is an asymptotic embedding.
$\check\al$ is continuous and continuously extends the orbit maps $o_x$ at infinity.
We proceed as in the proof of Theorem \[thm:bemmdsi\] (continuity of $\beta$). Consider a converging sequence $\zeta_n\to\zeta$ in $\geo\Ga$. Let $r_n,r:\N_0\to\Ga$ be rays starting in $e$ and asymptotic to $\zeta_n,\zeta$. We note that for any sequence $m_n\to+\infty$ in $\N_0$, the flag accumulation set of the sequence $(r_n(m_n))$ in $\Flagt$ equals the accumulation set of the sequence $(\check\al(\zeta_n))$ in $\Flagt$, and in particular does not depend on the sequence $(m_n)$. On the other hand, if $(m_n)$ grows sufficiently slowly, then the sequence $(r_n(m_n))$ in $\Ga$ is contained in a tubular neighborhood of $r$, and hence flag converges to $\check\al(\zeta)$. It follows that $\check\al(\zeta_n)\to\check\al(\zeta)$. This shows that $\check\al$ is continuous.
Proceeding as in the first part of the proof of Theorem \[thm:bemblim\], we then see that, for a sequence $\ga_n\to\infty$ in $\Ga$, convergence $\ga_n\to\zeta\in\geo\Ga$ in $\ol\Ga$ implies flag convergence $\ga_n\to\check\al(\zeta)$, i.e. $\check\al$ continuously extends $o_x$ at infinity.
The continuous extension part of the lemma implies
\[cor:Morse-limit\] $\check\al(\geo\Ga)=\LatGa$.
In order to see that $\LatGa$ is antipodal and $\check\al$ is an asymptotic embedding for $\Ga$, it remains to verify:
The map $\check\al$ is antipodal.
Let $\zeta_{\pm}\in\geo\Ga$ be distinct, and let $l:\Z\to\Ga$ be a line with $l(\pm\infty)=\zeta_{\pm}$. Applying property (iii) to the subrays $l|_{[-n,+\infty)}$ for large $n\in\N$, we get that the point $l(0)x$ is uniformly close to the cones $V(l(-n)x,\st(\check\al(\zeta_+)))$, equivalently, there exists a bounded sequence of points $y_n\in V(l(-n)x,\st(\check\al(\zeta_+)))$. By $\taumod$-regularity, $d(y_n,\D V(l(-n)x,\st(\check\al(\zeta_+))))\to+\infty$ as $n\to+\infty$. We denote by $\tau_n^-\in\Flagt$ the simplex $l(-n)x$-opposite to $y_n$.[^20] Then $l(-n)x\in V(y_n,\st(\tau_n^-))$, and hence $l(-n)x$ is uniformly close to $V(l(0)x,\st(\tau_n^-))$. In view of the flag convergence $l(-n)\to\check\al(\zeta_-)$, it follows that $\tau_n^-\to\check\al(\zeta_-)$ in $\Flagt$. Since the parallel sets $P(\tau_n^-,\check\al(\zeta_+))$ lie at bounded distance from $l(0)x$, as they contain the points $y_n$, the sequence $(\tau_n^-)$ is relatively compact in the open Schubert stratum $C(\check\al(\zeta_+))$. Hence $\check\al(\zeta_-)\in C(\check\al(\zeta_+))$, i.e. $\check\al(\zeta_-)$ is opposite to $\check\al(\zeta_+)$.
This concludes the proof of the theorem.
Note that the theorem implies in particular that [*$\taumod$-Morse subgroups are $\taumod$-URU*]{}, because asymptotically embedded subgroups are URU by Theorem \[thm:asymbur\].
We restricted our definition of the Morse property to [*word hyperbolic*]{} subgroups because, as shown in [@mlem], URU subgroups are always word hyperbolic. This had been unknown at the time of writing the first version of [@morse].
Conicality {#sec:conic}
----------
The condition for discrete subgroups which we study in this section concerns the asymptotic geometry of their orbits, i.e. how they approach infinity. To state it, we first need to elaborate on our discussion of convergence at infinity for sequences from section \[sec:conv\].
For arbitrary $\taumod$, consider a $\taumod$-flag converging sequence $(x_n)$ in $X$, $$x_n\to\tau\in\Flagt .$$ The following notion of going “straight” to the limit simplex generalizes [*conical*]{} or [*radial*]{} convergence at infinity in rank one symmetric spaces where one requires the sequence to stay in a tubular neighborhood of a geodesic ray. Working with rays also in higher rank turns out to be too restrictive,[^21] and we replace the rays with Weyl cones, compare [@Albuquerque Def. 5.2]:
A $\taumod$-flag converging sequence $x_n\to\tau\in\Flagt$ converges [*$\taumod$-conically*]{}, $$x_n\stackrel{con}{\to}\tau ,$$ if it is contained in a tubular neighborhood of a Weyl cone $V(x,\st(\tau))$ for some point $x\in X$.
Accordingly, $\taumod$-flag converging sequences in $G$ are said to converge [*$\taumod$-conically*]{} if their orbit sequences in $X$ do.
Note that the Weyl cones $V(x,\st(\tau))$ for different points $x\in X$ are Hausdorff close to each other, and the conical convergence condition is therefore independent of the choice of $x$.
The next result describes a situation for sequences close to parallel sets where flag convergence already implies the stronger form of conical convergence:
\[lem:frconcnv\] Suppose that a sequence $(x_n)$ in $X$ $\taumod$-flag converges, $x_n\to\tau\in\Flagt$.
\(i) If $(x_n)$ is contained in a tubular neighborhood of a parallel set $P(\hat\tau,\tau)$ for some $\hat\tau\in C(\tau)$,
\(ii) or if, more generally, there exists a relatively compact sequence $(\hat\tau_n)$ in $C(\tau)$ such that $$\sup_n d(x_n,P(\hat\tau_n,\tau))<+\infty ,$$ then $x_n\stackrel{con}{\to}\tau$.
Suppose first that the stronger condition (i) holds and that $x_n\stackrel{con}{\nrightarrow}\tau$. Let $x\in P(\hat\tau,\tau)$. As in the proof of Lemma \[lem:raydivdrif\], it follows from the openness of the cone $V(x,\st(\tau))$ in the parallel set $P(\hat\tau,\tau)$ that, after extraction, the sequence $(x_n)$ drifts away from $V(x,\st(\tau))$. As in the proof of Theorem \[thm:bemblim\], the points $x_n$ are then contained in uniform neighborhoods of cones $V(x,\st(\tau_n))$ with simplices $\tau_n\in\Flagt$ satisfying $\tau_n\subset\geo P(\hat\tau,\tau)$ but $\tau_n\neq\tau$. Since $\tau$ is the only simplex in $C(\hat\tau)$ which lies in $P(\hat\tau,\tau)$, see and the discussion preceding Lemma \[lem:opst\], the sequence $(\tau_n)$ is contained in the closed set $\Flagt-C(\hat\tau)$, and hence so is its accumulation set. In particular, $\tau$ does not belong to the accumulation set of $(\tau_n)$ in $\Flagt$. Since the latter set equals the flag accumulation set of the sequence $(x_n)$ in $\Flagt$, it follows in particular that $x_n\nrightarrow\tau$, a contradiction.
Suppose now that the weaker condition (ii) holds. Since $C(\tau)$ is a homogeneous $P_{\tau}$-space, there exist $\hat\tau\in C(\tau)$ and a bounded sequence $(b_n)$ in $P_{\tau}$ such that $\hat\tau_n=b_n\hat\tau$. The sequence $(b_n^{-1}x_n)$ is then contained in a tubular neighborhood of $P(\hat\tau,\tau)$, i.e. it satisfies condition (i). Moreover, we also have flag convergence $b_n^{-1}x_n\to\tau$.[^22] Hence, by the above, it follows that $b_n^{-1}x_n\stackrel{con}{\to}\tau$. By the definition of conical convergence, this means that the sequence $(b_n^{-1}x_n)$ lies in a tubular neighborhood of the cone $V(x,\st(\tau))$ for some point $x\in X$, equivalently, that $$\sup_n d(x_n,V(b_nx,\st(\tau)))<+\infty .$$ Now the cones $V(b_nx,\st(\tau))$ are asymptotic to $V(x,\st(\tau))$ and have finite Hausdorff distance $\leq d(x,b_nx)$ from it. This Hausdorff distance is uniformly bounded and it also follows that the sequence $(x_n)$ lies in a tubular neighborhood of $V(x,\st(\tau))$, i.e. $x_n\stackrel{con}{\to}\tau$.
As we did with regularity and flag convergence, we will now also rephrase conical convergence for sequences in $G$ in terms of their dynamics on flag manifolds.
For a flag convergent sequence, conical convergence is reflected as follows by the dynamics on the space of parallel sets, equivalently, on the space of pairs of opposite simplices, cf. (\[eq:oppfl\]):
Suppose that a sequence $(g_n)$ in $G$ $\taumod$-flag converges, $g_n\to\tau\in\Flagt$. Then for a relatively compact sequence $(\hat\tau_n)$ in $C(\tau)$, the following are equivalent:
\(i) $g_n\stackrel{con}{\to}\tau$.
\(ii) The parallel sets $g_n^{-1}P(\hat\tau_n,\tau)$ all intersect a fixed bounded subset in $X$.
(ii’) The sequence of pairs $g_n^{-1}(\hat\tau_n,\tau)$ is relatively compact in $(\Flagit\times\Flagt)^{opp}$.
We first note that conditions (ii) and (ii’) are equivalent as a consequence of:
A subset $A\subset(\Flagit\times\Flagt)^{opp}$ is relatively compact iff the corresponding parallel sets $P(\tau_-,\tau_+)$ for $(\tau_-,\tau_+)\in A$ all intersect a fixed bounded subset of $X$, i.e. $$\sup_{(\tau_-,\tau_+)\in A} d(x,P(\tau_-,\tau_+))<+\infty$$ for a base point $x\in X$.
The forward direction follows from the continuity of the function (\[eq:dstcnt\]).[^23]
For the converse direction we note that for a pair $(\tau_-,\tau_+)\in (\Flagit\times\Flagt)^{opp}$ the intersection of parabolic subgroups $P_{\tau_-}\cap P_{\tau_+}$ preserves the parallel set $P(\tau_-,\tau_+)$ and acts transitively on it. Consequently, the set of triples $(\tau_-,\tau_+,x')\in(\Flagit\times\Flagt)^{opp}\times X$ such that $x'\in P(\tau_-,\tau_+)$ is still a homogeneous $G$-space. Let us fix in it a reference triple $(\tau_0^-,\tau_0^+,x)$. Then the parallel sets $P(\tau_-,\tau_+)$ intersecting a closed ball $\ol B(x,R)$ are of the form $gP(\tau_0^-,\tau_0^+)$ with $g\in G$ such that $d(x,gx)\leq R$. It follows that the set of these pairs $(\tau_-,\tau_+)=g(\tau_0^-,\tau_0^+)$ is compact.
Continuing with the proof of the lemma, let $x\in X$ be a base point. In view of $$d(x,g_n^{-1}P(\hat\tau_n,\tau))=d(g_nx,P(\hat\tau_n,\tau))$$ condition (ii) is equivalent to $$\label{eq:gxparn}
\sup_n d(g_nx,P(\hat\tau_n,\tau)) <+\infty .$$ The implication (ii)$\Ra$(i) thus follows from the previous lemma. The reverse implication (i)$\Ra$(ii) is easy: Since $\sup_n d(x,P(\hat\tau_n,\tau))<+\infty$, compare the sublemma, the cone $V(x,\st(\tau))$ is contained in uniform tubular neighborhoods of all parallel sets $P(\hat\tau_n,\tau)$, and conical convergence implies the same for the sequence $(g_nx)$, i.e. (\[eq:gxparn\]) is satisfied.
Combining the lemma with our earlier dynamical characterization of flag convergence, see Lemma \[lem:flconvitcontr\], we obtain:
A sequence $(g_n)$ in $G$ is $\taumod$-regular and $g_n\stackrel{con}{\to}\tau\in\Flagt$ iff there exists a bounded sequence $(b_n)$ in $G$ and a simplex $\tau_-\in\Flagit$ such that the following conditions are satisfied:
\(i) $b_ng_n^{-1}|_{C(\tau)}\to\tau_-$ uniformly on compacts.
\(ii) The accumulation set of the sequence $(b_ng_n^{-1}\tau)$ in $\Flagt$ is contained in $C(\tau_-)$.
Suppose first that $(g_n)$ is $\taumod$-regular and $g_n\stackrel{con}{\to}\tau\in\Flagt$. Then we have in particular flag convergence $g_n\to\tau$, and Lemma \[lem:flconvitcontr\] yields $(b_n)$ and $\tau_-$ with (i). The conical convergence $g_n\stackrel{con}{\to}\tau$ is equivalent to $g_nb_n^{-1}\stackrel{con}{\to}\tau$, and so the previous lemma implies for any $\hat\tau\in C(\tau)$ that the sequence $b_ng_n^{-1}(\hat\tau,\tau)$ is relatively compact in $(\Flagit\times\Flagt)^{opp}$. Since $b_ng_n^{-1}\hat\tau\to\tau_-$ by (i), the sequence $(b_ng_n^{-1}\tau)$ therefore cannot accumulate at points outside $C(\tau_-)$.
Suppose now vice versa that $(b_n)$ and $\tau_-$ with (i+ii) are given. By Lemma \[lem:flconvitcontr\], (i) implies that $(g_n)$ is $\taumod$-regular and $g_n\to\tau$, and the same follows for the sequence $(g_nb_n^{-1})$. Furthermore, (i+ii) imply that for any $\hat\tau\in C(\tau)$ the sequence $b_ng_n^{-1}(\hat\tau,\tau)$ is relatively compact in $(\Flagit\times\Flagt)^{opp}$. Thus $g_nb_n^{-1}\stackrel{con}{\to}\tau$ by the previous lemma, and hence $g_n\stackrel{con}{\to}\tau$.
We deduce the following criterion for being a conical limit simplex of a subsequence:
\[cor:recogncnlim\] A sequence $(g_n)$ in $G$ has a $\taumod$-regular subsequence $\taumod$-conically converging to $\tau\in\Flagt$ iff there exists a subsequence $(g_{n_k})$ and a simplex $\tau_-\in\Flagit$ such that the following conditions are satisfied:
\(i) $g_{n_k}^{-1}|_{C(\tau)}\to\tau_-$ uniformly on compacts.
\(ii) $(g_{n_k}^{-1}\tau)$ converges to a simplex in $C(\tau_-)$.
Suppose that there is a $\taumod$-regular subsequence $(g_{n_k})$ with $g_{n_k}\stackrel{con}{\to}\tau$. The proposition yields a bounded sequence $(b_k)$ and $\tau_-$ such that properties (i+ii) in the proposition are satisfied for the sequence $(b_kg_{n_k}^{-1})$. After extraction, we obtain convergence $b_k\to b$ in $G$ and $b_kg_{n_k}^{-1}\tau\to\hat\tau_-\in C(\tau_-)$ in $\Flagt$. The asserted properties (i+ii) then result from replacing $\tau_-$ with $b^{-1}\tau_-$. The converse is immediate in view of the proposition.
Now we turn to subgroups.
For a subgroup $\Ga<G$, a limit simplex $\la\in\LatGa$ is [*$\taumod$-conical*]{} if there exists a $\taumod$-regular sequence $(\ga_n)$ in $\Ga$ such that $\ga_n\stackrel{con}{\to}\la$. The [*conical $\taumod$-limit set*]{} $\LatGacon\subseteq\LatGa$ is the subset of conical limit simplices. The subgroup $\Ga$ [*has conical $\taumod$-limit set*]{} or [*is $\taumod$-conical*]{} if all limit simplices are conical, $\LatGacon=\LatGa$.
We restrict ourselves to $\taumod$-antipodal $\taumod$-regular subgroups and assume in particular that $\taumod$ is $\iota$-invariant. Recall that then the action $$\Ga\acts\LatGa$$ is a [*convergence action*]{}, see section \[sec:antip\]. This raises the question how the $\taumod$-conicality of limit simplices compares to their intrinsic conicality with respect to this convergence action, cf. section \[sec:convdy\]. We show that these properties are equivalent:
\[Conical versus intrinsically conical limit simplex\] \[prop:concon\] Let $\Ga<G$ be a $\taumod$-antipodal $\taumod$-regular subgroup with $|\LatGa|\geq3$. Then a limit simplex in $\LatGa$ is conical iff it is intrinsically conical for the convergence action $\Ga\acts\LatGa$.
That conicality implies intrinsic conicality is, in view of the corollary, an immediate consequence of antipodality and Lemma \[lem:recogncnlimcv\].
Suppose that, conversely, $\la\in\LatGa$ is intrinsically conical. Again invoking Lemma \[lem:recogncnlimcv\], this means that there exist a sequence $(\ga_n)$ in $\Ga$ and a limit simplex $\la_-\in\LatGa$ such that $\ga_n^{-1}|_{\LatGa-\{\la\}}\to\la_-$ uniformly on compacts and $\ga_n^{-1}\la\to\hat\la_-\in\LatGa-\{\la_-\}\subset C(\la_-)$. On the other hand, since $\Ga$ is a $\taumod$-convergence subgroup, after extraction, the sequence $(\ga_n^{-1})$ becomes $\taumod$-contracting and there are limit simplices $\la',\la'_-\in\LatGa$ such that $\ga_n^{-1}|_{C(\la')}\to\la'_-$ uniformly on compacts. In view of antipodality, $C(\la')$ contains $\LatGa-\{\la'\}$. Since $|\LatGa|\geq3$, it follows that $C(\la')$ intersects $\LatGa-\{\la\}$ and therefore $\la'_-=\la_-$. Moreover, from $\ga_n^{-1}\la\to\hat\la_-\neq\la_-$ it follows that $\la\not\in C(\la')$ and hence also $\la'=\la$. We conclude that $\ga_n^{-1}|_{C(\la)}\to\la_-$ uniformly on compacts and $\ga_n^{-1}\la\to\hat\la_-\in C(\la_-)$. Corollary \[cor:recogncnlim\] now yields that the limit simplex $\la$ is $\taumod$-conical.
\[cor:concon\] Let $\Ga<G$ be a $\taumod$-antipodal $\taumod$-regular subgroup with $|\LatGa|\geq3$. Then $\Ga$ is $\taumod$-conical iff all simplices in $\LatGa$ are conical limit points for the convergence action $\Ga\acts\LatGa$.
We introduce the following asymptotic condition on the orbit geometry of subgroups:
\[def:rca\] A subgroup $\Ga<G$ is [*$\taumod$-RCA*]{} if it is $\taumod$-regular, $\taumod$-conical and $\taumod$-antipodal.
From the corollary we deduce, using the dynamical characterization of word hyperbolic groups and their boundary actions, the following equivalence:
\[thm:rcasmbeq\] For a subgroup $\Ga<G$ with $|\LatGa|\geq3$ the following properties are equivalent:
\(i) $\taumod$-RCA
\(ii) $\taumod$-asymptotically embedded
The implication (ii)$\Ra$(i) holds without restriction on the size of the limit set.
Since this is part of both conditions, we assume that $\Ga$ is $\taumod$-regular and $\taumod$-antipodal.
The implication (ii)$\Ra$(i) follows, without restriction on the size of $\LatGa$, from the implication (i)$\Ra$(iii) of Theorem \[thm:mrsasembeq\].
Suppose now that $|\LatGa|\geq3$. According to the previous corollary, the subgroup $\Ga$ is $\taumod$-RCA if and only if the convergence action $\Ga\acts\LatGa$ is (intrinsically) conical. In view of Theorems \[thm:bowdchr\] and \[thm:hypgpbdac\] this is equivalent to $\Ga$ being word hyperbolic and $\LatGa$ being $\Ga$-equivariantly homeomorphic to $\geo\Ga$, i.e. to $\Ga$ being $\taumod$-asymptotically embedded.
Subgroups with two-point limit sets
-----------------------------------
For antipodal regular subgroups with two-point limit sets, some of our conditions are automatically satisfied:
\[lem:2limrca\] Suppose that $\Ga<G$ is $\taumod$-antipodal $\taumod$-regular with $|\LatGa|=2$. Then:
\(i) $\Ga$ is $\taumod$-RCA,
\(ii) $\Ga$ is virtually cyclic,
\(iii) The orbit maps $o_x:\Ga\to\Ga x\subset X$ extend continuously to infinity by an asymptotic embedding. In particular, $\Ga$ is $\taumod$-asymptotically embedded.
\(i) By antipodality, $\LatGa$ consists of a pair of opposite simplices $\la_{\pm}\in\Flagt$. The subgroup $\Ga$ therefore preserves the parallel set $P(\la_-,\la_+)$. The limit simplices $\la_{\pm}$ must be conical by Lemma \[lem:frconcnv\]. Hence $\Ga$ is $\taumod$-RCA.
\(ii) Pick a point $x\in P(\la_-,\la_+)$. By conicality, there exists an element $\ga_0\in\Ga$ which fixes $\la_{\pm}$ and so that $\ga_0x$ lies in the interior of the Weyl cone $V=V(x,\st(\la_+))\subset P(\la_-,\la_+)$. We consider the biinfinite nested sequence of Weyl cones $\ga_0^nV$ for $n\in\Z$. The cones $\ga_0^nV$ cover $P(\la_-,\la_+)$, cf. Proposition \[prop:hdstwcones\]. Moreover, $\ga_0^{n+1}V$ is contained in the interior of $\ga_0^nV$ and has finite Hausdorff distance from it. By regularity, the difference of cones $V-\ga_0V$ can only contain finitely many points of the orbit $\Ga x$. The corresponding elements in $\Ga$ form a set of representatives for the cosets of the infinite cyclic subgroup $\Ga_0$ generated by $\ga_0$ in $\Ga$. Hence $\Ga$ is virtually cyclic.
\(iii) Since $\ga_0^{\pm n}\to\la_{\pm}$ as $n\to+\infty$, the restrictions of the orbit maps to $\Ga_0$ extend continuously to $\geo\Ga_0\cong\geo\Ga$ by an asymptotic embedding $\al$. Since $\Ga_0$ has finite index in $\Ga$, the map $\al$ is a continuous extension also of the orbit maps of $\Ga$ itself. Moreover, it is $\Ga$-equivariant.
Expansion {#sec:expa}
---------
We define another purely dynamical condition for subgroups, inspired by Sullivan’s notion of [*expanding actions*]{} [@Sullivan], namely that their action on the appropriate flag manifold is expanding at the limit set in the sense of Definition \[def:metexpan\]. As before, we equip the flag manifolds with auxiliary Riemannian metrics.
\[def:cea\] A subgroup $\Ga<G$ is [*$\taumod$-CEA*]{} (convergence, expanding, antipodal) if it is $\taumod$-convergence, $\taumod$-antipodal and the action $\Ga\acts\Flagt$ is expanding at $\LatGa$.
The next result relates conicality to infinitesimal expansion, cf. Definition \[def:infexpan\]. For smooth actions on Riemannian manifolds, metric and infinitesimal expansion are equivalent.
\[lem:expconlim\] Let $(g_n)$ be a $\taumod$-regular sequence in $G$ such that $g_n\stackrel{con}{\to}\tau\in\Flagt$. Then the inverse sequence $(g_n^{-1})$ has diverging infinitesimal expansion on $\Flagt$ at $\tau$, i.e. $$\eps(g_n^{-1},\tau)\to+\infty$$
This follows from the expansion estimate in Theorem \[thm:expand\].
Applied to subgroups, the lemma yields:
\[prop:conicimplexpatau\] Let $\Ga<G$ be a subgroup. If $\la\in\LatGacon$, then the action $\Ga\acts\Flagt$ has diverging infinitesimal expansion at $\la$.
In particular, if $\Ga$ is $\taumod$-conical, then $\Ga\acts\Flagt$ is expanding at $\LatGa$.
This is a direct consequence of the lemma, together with the fact that infinitesimal expansion implies metric expansion.
We obtain the equivalence of conditions:
\[thm:rceaq\] For a subgroup $\Ga<G$ with $|\LatGa|\geq2$, the following properties are equivalent:
\(i) $\taumod$-RCA
\(ii) $\taumod$-CEA
The implication (i)$\Ra$(ii) holds without restriction on the size of the limit set.
We recall that $\taumod$-regularity is equivalent to the $\taumod$-convergence property, cf. Theorem \[thm:regimplcontrgp\]. Thus either condition implies that $\Ga$ is $\taumod$-regular and $\taumod$-antipodal.
The implication (i)$\Ra$(ii) is the previous proposition. (We do not need that $|\LatGa|\geq2$.)
For the direction (ii)$\Ra$(i) we first assume that $|\LatGa|\geq3$ and consider the convergence action $\Ga\acts\LatGa$. Since $\LatGa$ contains at least three points, it must be perfect[^24] (see [@Tukia_convgps Thm. 2S]). By assumption, the action $\Ga\acts\LatGa$ is expanding. Therefore all points $\la\in\LatGa$ are intrinsically conical, cf. Lemma \[lem:conical\], and hence (extrinsically) conical, i.e. $\Ga$ is $\taumod$-conical, cf. Corollary \[cor:concon\].
In the case $|\LatGa|=2$, the assertion follows from Lemma \[lem:2limrca\].
Anosov property {#sec:anosov}
---------------
The Anosov condition combines boundary embeddedness with an infinitesimal expansion condition at the image of the boundary embedding:
\[dfn:ouranosov\] A subgroup $\Ga<G$ is [*$\taumod$-Anosov*]{} if:
\(i) $\Ga$ is $\taumod$-boundary embedded with boundary embedding $\beta$.
\(ii) For every ideal point $\zeta\in \geo \Ga$ and every normalized (by $r(0)=e\in \Ga$) discrete geodesic ray $r: \N\to \Ga$ asymptotic to $\zeta$, the action $\Ga\acts\Flagt$ satisfies $$\eps(r(n)^{-1}, \beta(\zeta))\ge A e^{Cn}$$ for $n\geq 0$ with constants $A, C>0$ independent of $r$.
We recall that boundary embedded subgroups are [*discrete*]{}.
Our notion of $\taumod$-Anosov is equivalent to the notion of $P$-Anosov in [@GW] where $P<G$ is a parabolic subgroup in the conjugacy class corresponding to $\taumod$, see section \[sec:onos\]. We note also that the study of $(P_+,P_-)$-Anosov subgroups quickly reduces to the case of $P$-Anosov subgroups by intersecting parabolic subgroups, cf. [@GW Lemma 3.18].
In both our and the original definition uniform exponential expansion rates are required. We will see that the conditions can be relaxed without altering the class of subgroups. Uniformity can be dropped, and instead of exponential divergence the mere unboundedness of the expansion rate suffices.
\[def:nuanos\] A subgroup $\Ga<G$ is [*non-uniformly $\taumod$-Anosov*]{} if:
\(i) $\Ga$ is $\taumod$-boundary embedded with boundary embedding $\beta$.
\(ii) For every ideal point $\zeta\in \geo \Ga$ and every normalized[^25] discrete geodesic ray $r: \N_0\to \Ga$ asymptotic to $\zeta$, the action $\Ga\acts\Flagt$ satisfies $$\label{eq:nuanosexp}
\sup_{n\in\N}\, \eps(r(n)^{-1}, \beta(\zeta))=+\infty.$$
In other words, we require that for every ideal point $\zeta\in\geo\Ga$ the expansion rate $\eps(\ga_n^{-1},\beta(\zeta))$ non-uniformly diverges along some sequence $(\ga_n)$ in $\Ga$ which converges to $\zeta$ [*conically*]{}.
We relate the Anosov to the Morse property, building on our discussion of the coarse extrinsic geometry of subgroups in sections \[sec:asyemb\] and \[sec:morse\].
\[thm:nuanosasemb\] Each non-uniformly $\taumod$-Anosov subgroup $\Ga< G$ is $\taumod$-Morse.
Moreover, the boundary embedding $\beta$ of $\Ga$ sends $\geo \Ga$ homeomorphically onto $\Lat(\Ga)$.
Let $\Ga<G$ be non-uniformly $\taumod$-Anosov. Since non-uniformly Anosov subgroups are boundary embedded by definition, discrete geodesic lines in $\Ga$ are mapped into uniform neighborhoods of $\taumod$-parallel sets prescribed by the boundary embedding, see Lemma \[lem:lnclpar\]. The same follows for discrete geodesic rays in $\Ga$ because they lie in uniform neighborhoods of lines, compare the proof of Lemma \[lem:raydivdrif\]: For every ray $r:\N_0\to\Ga$ asymptotic to $\zeta=r(+\infty)$ there exists an ideal point $\hat\zeta\in\geo\Ga-\{\zeta\}$ such that the path $rx$ lies in the $\rho''(\Ga,x)$-neighborhood of the parallel set $P=P(\beta(\hat\zeta),\beta(\zeta))$. Here, as usual, $x\in X$ is some fixed base point.
The expansion condition (\[eq:nuanosexp\]) further restricts the position of the path $rx$ along the parallel set: Let $x_n\in P$ denote points at distance $\leq\rho''$ from the points $r(n)x$, e.g. their nearest point projections to $P$. For a strictly increasing sequence $n_k\to+\infty$ with diverging expansion rate $$\eps(r(n_k)^{-1}, \beta(\zeta))\to+\infty$$ we have in view of Proposition \[prop:expand\] and Theorem \[thm:expand\] that $x_{n_k}\in V(x_0,\st(\beta(\zeta)))$ for large $k$ and $$d\bigl(x_{n_k},\D V(x_0,\st(\beta(\zeta)))\bigr)\to+\infty$$ (non-uniformly) as $k\to+\infty$. Fix a constant $d>>\rho''$. It follows that there exists a smallest “entry time” $T=T(r)\in\N$ such that the point $r(T)x$ lies in the open $3\rho''$-neighborhood of the cone $V(r(0)x,\st(\beta(\zeta)))$ and has distance $>d$ from its boundary.
We observe next that $T(r')\leq T(r)$ for rays $r'$ sufficiently close to $r$, because $\zeta$ varies continuously with $r$, and rays sufficiently close to $r$ agree with $r$ up to time $T(r)$. Thus, $T$ is locally bounded above as a function of $r$. Since $\Ga$ acts cocompactly on rays, equivalently, since the space of rays with fixed initial point is compact, we conclude that $T$ is [*bounded above globally*]{}, i.e. there exists a number $T_0=T_0(\Ga,x,d)$ such that $T(r)\leq T_0$ for all rays $r$.
As a consequence, for every ray $r$ the above sequence of natural numbers $(n_k)$ can be chosen with bounded increase $n_{k+1}-n_k\leq T_0$ and so that $$x_{n_{k+1}}\in V(x_{n_k},\st(\beta(\zeta)))$$ and $$d\bigl(x_{n_{k+1}},\D V(x_{n_k},\st(\beta(\zeta)))\bigr)>\frac{d}{2}$$ for all $k$, i.e. the sequence $(n_k)$ increases uniformly linearly and the Weyl cones $V(x_{n_k},\st(\beta(\zeta)))$ are uniformly nested, compare the proof of Theorem \[thm:asymbur\].
It follows that the paths $rx$ are uniformly $\taumod$-regular and undistorted, and are contained in uniform neighborhoods of the cones $V(r(0),\st(\beta(r(+\infty))))$. In particular, $\Ga$ satisfies property (iii) of Theorem \[thm:mrsasembeq\], and therefore is $\taumod$-Morse. It also follows that $\beta(\geo \Ga)\subseteq \Lat(\Ga)$. The equality $\beta(\geo \Ga)=\Lat(\Ga)$ follows from Theorem \[thm:bemblim\].
A converse readily follows from our earlier results:
\[thm:mrsimplanos\] $\taumod$-Morse subgroups $\Ga<G$ are $\taumod$-Anosov.
Let $\Ga<G$ be $\taumod$-Morse. By Theorems \[thm:mrsasembeq\] and \[thm:asymbur\], $\Ga$ is then also $\taumod$-asymptotically embedded and uniformly $\taumod$-regular. Furthermore, denoting the asymptotic embedding by $\al$ and fixing a point $x\in X$, we know that for every ray $r:\N_0\to\Ga$ the path $rx$ is contained in a uniform neighborhood of the Weyl cone $V(r(0)x,\al(r(+\infty)))$ and drifts away from its boundary at a uniform linear rate. With Theorem \[thm:expand\] it follows that the infinitesimal expansion factor $\eps(r(n)^{-1},\al(r(+\infty)))$ for the action $\Ga\acts\Flagt$ grows at a uniform exponential rate. Thus, $\Ga$ is $\taumod$-Anosov.
Equivalence of conditions
-------------------------
Combining our results comparing the various geometric and dynamical conditions for discrete subgroups, we obtain:
\[thm:eqv\] The following properties for subgroups $\Ga<G$ are equivalent in the nonelementary[^26] case:
\(i) $\taumod$-asymptotically embedded
\(ii) $\taumod$-CEA
\(iii) $\taumod$-Anosov
\(iv) non-uniformly $\taumod$-Anosov
\(v) $\taumod$-RCA
\(vi) $\taumod$-Morse.
These properties imply $\taumod$-URU.
Moreover, the boundary maps in (i), (iii) and (iv) coincide.
By Theorem \[thm:mrsasembeq\], (i) and (vi) are equivalent. By Theorems \[thm:nuanosasemb\] and \[thm:mrsimplanos\], conditions (iii), (iv) and (vi) are equivalent. The fact that the boundary maps in (i), (iii) and (iv) coincide follows from the second part of Theorem \[thm:nuanosasemb\].
By Theorem \[thm:asymbur\], (i) implies $\taumod$-URU. By Theorem \[thm:rcasmbeq\], (i) and (v) are equivalent. By Theorem \[thm:rceaq\], (ii) and (v) are equivalent.
\(i) The equivalence of the conditions (i), (iii), (iv) and (vi), the fact that they imply $\taumod$-URU, and the implications (i)$\Ra$(v)$\Ra$(ii) hold without restriction on the size of the limit set.
\(ii) It is shown in [@mlem] that, conversely, $\taumod$-URU implies $\taumod$-Morse.
For subgroups with small limit sets we have the following additional information, see Lemma \[lem:2limrca\]:
For a $\taumod$-antipodal $\taumod$-regular subgroup $\Ga<G$ with $|\LatGa|=2$, properties (i)-(vi) and $\taumod$-URU are always satisfied.
We are unaware of examples of $\taumod$-RCA or $\taumod$-CEA subgroups with one limit point in higher rank. Note that such subgroups cannot be $\taumod$-asymptotically embedded.
Morse quasigeodesics {#sec:mqg}
--------------------
When studying the coarse geometry of Anosov subgroups in sections \[sec:asyemb\] and \[sec:morse\], we were lead to the Morse and URU properties. We also saw that Morse implies URU. (The converse is true as well, but harder to prove, see [@mlem].)
Thus, for Morse subgroups $\Ga<G$, the images of the discrete geodesics in $\Ga$ under an orbit map are uniform quasigeodesics in $X$ which are uniformly regular and satisfy a Morse type property involving closeness of subpaths to diamonds. Leaving the group-theoretic context, we will now make this class of quasigeodesics precise and study some of its geometric properties. (See also [@morse] for further discussion.) We will build in the uniform regularity into the Morse property by replacing the diamonds with smaller “uniformly regular” $\Theta$-diamonds.
In the following, $\Theta\subset\inte_{\taumod}(\simod)$ denotes an $\iota$-invariant $\taumod$-Weyl convex compact subset which is used to quantify uniform regularity. We work with discrete paths; $I\subseteq\R$ denotes an interval and $n_{\pm}$ integers.
\[dfn:mqg\] A quasigeodesic $q:I\cap\Z\to X$ is [*$(\Theta,\rho)$-Morse*]{} if for every subinterval $[n_-,n_+]\subseteq I$ the subpath $q|_{[n_-,n_+]\cap\Z}$ is contained in the $\rho$-neighborhood of a diamond $\diamoTh(x_-,x_+)$ with tips at distance $d(x_{\pm},q(n_{\pm}))\leq\rho$ from the endpoints.
We say that an infinite quasigeodesic is [*$\Theta$-Morse*]{} if it is $(\Theta,\rho)$-Morse for some $\rho$, and we say that it is [*$\taumod$-Morse*]{} if it is $\Theta$-Morse for some $\Theta$.
The $\Theta$-Morse property for quasigeodesics is clearly stable under bounded perturbation.
We say that some paths are [*uniform $\taumod$-Morse quasigeodesics*]{} if they are uniform quasigeodesics[^27] and $(\Theta,\rho)$-Morse with the same $\Theta,\rho$.
We can now interpret the Morse subgroup property in terms of Morse quasigeodesics:
\[prop:msbgpmqg\] An intrinsically word hyperbolic subgroup $\Ga< G$ is $\taumod$-Morse if and only if an orbit map $o_x:\Ga\to\Ga x\subset X$ sends uniform quasigeodesics in $\Ga$ to uniform $\taumod$-Morse quasigeodesics in $X$.
Suppose that $\Ga$ is $\taumod$-Morse. We fix a word metric on $\Ga$. In view of the Morse Lemma for word hyperbolic groups (Gromov hyperbolic spaces) it suffices to prove that $o_x$ sends discrete geodesics in $\Ga$ to uniform $\taumod$-Morse quasigeodesics in $X$.
First of all, since Morse subgroups are URU, we know that $\Ga$ is undistorted in $G$, i.e. $o_x$ is a quasiisometric embedding. Equivalently, the $o_x$-images of discrete geodesics in $\Ga$ are uniform quasigeodesics. We need to show that they are uniformly $\taumod$-Morse.
Consider a discrete geodesic segment $s: [n_-, n_+]\cap\Z\to \Ga$. According to the Morse subgroup property of $\Ga$, the image path $sx=o_x\circ s$ is contained in a tubular neighborhood of uniform radius $\rho''=\rho''(\Ga,x)$ of a diamond $\diamot(x_-,x_+)$ with $d(x_{\pm},s(n_{\pm})x)\leq\rho''$. It will be enough to verify that $sx$ is also contained in a uniform tubular neighborhood of the smaller $\Theta$-diamond $\diamo_\Theta(x_-,x_+)$ for some $\Theta$ independent of $s$.
For $n_-\leq n\leq n_+$, let $p_n\in \diamot(x_-, x_+)$ denote the nearest point projection of $s(n)x$. In view of the uniform upper bound $\rho''$ for the distances $d(x_{\pm},s(n_{\pm})x)$ and $d(p_n,s(n)x)$, the uniform regularity of $\Ga$ implies: If $n- n_-, n_+ - n \geq C_0$ (with a uniform constant $C_0$), then $$d_\Delta(x_\pm, p_n)\in V(0, \Theta)$$ with a compact $\Theta\subset \inte_{\taumod}(\simod)$ independent of $s$. Moreover, after enlarging $\Theta$, we may assume that it is $\iota$-invariant and $\taumod$-Weyl convex. It follows that the diamond $\diamoTh(x_-,x_+)$ is defined and $p_n\in \diamoTh(x_-,x_+)$. Hence, $sx$ is contained in a uniform tubular neighborhood of $\diamoTh(x_-,x_+)$.
Conversely, suppose that $o_x$ sends discrete geodesics in $\Ga$ to uniform $\taumod$-Morse quasigeodesics in $X$. Then $\Ga$ is undistorted and the geodesic segments with endpoints in the orbit $\Ga x$ are uniformly close to $\Theta$-regular segments, equivalently, the $\De$-distances $d_{\De}(x,\ga x)$ between orbit points are contained in a tubular neighborhood of the cone $V(0,\Theta)$. It follows that $\Ga$ is (uniformly) $\taumod$-regular, and hence $\taumod$-Morse.
Next, we briefly discuss the [*asymptotics*]{} of infinite Morse quasigeodesics. There is much freedom for the asymptotic behavior of arbitrary quasigeodesics in euclidean spaces, and therefore also in symmetric spaces of higher rank. However, the asymptotic behavior of Morse quasigeodesics is as restricted as for quasigeodesics in rank one symmetric spaces.
Morse quasirays satisfy a version of the defining property for Morse quasigeodesic segments, with diamonds replaced by cones. As a consequence, although Morse quasirays in general do not converge at infinity in the visual compactification, they [*flag converge*]{}:
\[lem:morsecon\] A $(\Theta,\rho)$-Morse quasiray $q:\N_0\to X$ is contained in the $\rho$-neighborhood of a $\Theta$-cone $V(x,\stTh(\tau))$ with $d(x,q(0))\leq\rho$ for a unique simplex $\tau\in\Flagt$. Furthermore, $q(n)\to\tau$ conically.
The existence of the cone $V(x,\stTh(\tau))$ follows from the definition of Morse quasigeodesics by a limiting argument. Obviously, we have conical $\taumod$-flag convergence $q(n)\to\tau$, which also implies the uniqueness of $\tau$.
Now we give a [*Finsler geometric characterization*]{} of Morse quasigeodesics. We show that they are the coarsification of (uniformly regular) Finsler geodesics (cf. Definition \[def:finsgeo\]). Even though this is true in general, we will give the proof only in the infinite case (of rays and lines), since it is simpler and suffices for the purposes of this paper:
\[Morse quasigeodesics are uniformly close to Finsler geodesics\] \[thm:mqgclfins\] Uniform $\taumod$-Morse quasigeodesic rays and lines are uniformly [Hausdorff]{} close to uniformly $\taumod$-regular $\taumod$-Finsler geodesic rays and lines.
It suffices to treat the ray case. The line case follows by a limiting argument.
Let $q:\N_0\to X$ be a $(\Theta,\rho)$-Morse quasigeodesic ray. According to Lemma \[lem:morsecon\], $q$ is contained in a uniform tubular neighborhood of a Weyl cone $V=V(q(0),\st(\tau))$. As in the proof that asymptotically embedded implies URU (Theorem \[thm:asymbur\]), we consider the sequence of nearest point projections $x_n\in V$ of the points $q(n)$, $n\in\N_0$. Again by Lemma \[lem:morsecon\], the point $x_{n+m}$ lies in a uniform tubular neighborhood of the $\Theta$-cone $V(x_n,\stTh(\tau))\subset V$ for all $n,m\geq0$.
We slightly enlarge $\Theta$ to $\Theta'$, such that $\Theta\subset\inte(\Theta')$ as subsets of $\inte_{\taumod}(\simod)$. Then there exists $m_0\in\N$ depending on $\Theta,\Theta',\rho$ and the quasiisometry constants of $q$, such that $$x_{n+m}\in V(x_n,\st_{\Theta'}(\tau))$$ for all $n\geq0$ and $m\geq m_0$. The piecewise geodesic path $$x_0x_{m_0}x_{2m_0}x_{3m_0}\ldots$$ is then a $\Theta'$-regular $\taumod$-Finsler geodesic ray uniformly Hausdorff close to $q$.
We use the approximation of Morse quasigeodesics by Finsler geodesics to coarsify Theorem \[thm:dedstalfins\] and deduce an analogous result on the [*$\De$-distance along Morse quasigeodesics*]{}. Again, we restrict ourselves to the infinite case of rays:
\[thm:dedstalmqg\] If $q:\N_0\to X$ is a $\taumod$-Morse quasiray, then so is $$\bar q_{\De}=d_{\De}(q(0),q):\N_0\to \De .$$ Moreover, uniform $\taumod$-Morse quasirays $q$ yield uniform $\taumod$-Morse quasirays $\bar q_{\De}$.
Suppose that $q$ is a $(\Theta,\rho)$-Morse quasiray. We enlarge $\Theta$ to $\Theta'$ such that $\Theta\subset\inte(\Theta')$. According to the proof of Theorem \[thm:mqgclfins\], there exists a $\Theta'$-regular $\taumod$-Finsler geodesic ray $c:[0,+\infty)\to X$ which is uniformly close to $q$ in terms of the data $\Theta,\Theta',\rho$ and the quasiisometry constants, i.e. $d(c(n),q(n))$ is uniformly bounded. In particular, $c$ is also a uniform quasiray.
For the $\De$-projections $\bar c_{\De}=d_{\De}(c(0),c)$ and $\bar q_{\De}$, the pointwise distance $d(\bar c_{\De}(n),\bar q_{\De}(n))$ is also uniformly bounded. According to Theorem \[thm:dedstalfins\], $\bar c_{\De}$ is again a $\Theta'$-regular $\taumod$-Finsler geodesic ray and a uniform quasiray. It follows that $\bar q_{\De}$ is a $(\Theta',\rho')$-Morse quasiray with uniform $\rho'$ and uniform quasiisometry constants.
Appendix: The original Anosov definition {#sec:onos}
----------------------------------------
A notion of Anosov representations of surface groups into $PSL(n,\R)$ was introduced by Labourie in [@Labourie], and generalized to a notion of $(P_+,P_-)$-Anosov representations $\Ga\to G$ of word hyperbolic groups into semisimple Lie groups by Guichard and Wienhard in [@GW]. The goal of this section is to review this definition of Anosov representations $\Ga\to G$ using the language of [*expanding and contracting flows*]{} and then present a closely related and equivalent definition which avoids the language of flows.
Let $\Gamma$ be a non-elementary (i.e. not virtually cyclic) word hyperbolic group with a fixed word metric $d_\Ga$ and Cayley graph $C_\Ga$. Consider a [*geodesic flow*]{} $\widehat\Ga$ of $\Ga$; such a flow was originally constructed by Gromov [@Gromov_hypgps] and then improved by Champetier [@Champetier] and Mineyev [@Mineyev], resulting in definitions with different properties. We note that the exponential convergence of asymptotic geodesic rays will not be used in our discussion; as we will see, it is also irrelevant whether the trajectories of the geodesic flow are geodesics or uniform quasigeodesics in $\widehat\Ga$. In particular, it will be irrelevant for us which definition of $\widehat\Ga$ is used. Only the following properties of $\widehat\Ga$ will be used in the sequel:
1\. $\widehat\Ga$ is a proper metric space.
2\. There exists a properly discontinuous isometric action $\Ga\acts\widehat\Ga$.
3\. There exists a $\Ga$-equivariant quasi-isometry $\pi: \widehat\Ga\to \Ga$; in particular, the fibers of $\pi$ are relatively compact.
4\. There exists a continuous action $\R\acts\widehat\Ga$, denoted $\phi_t$ and called the [*geodesic flow*]{}, whose trajectories are uniform quasigeodesics in $\widehat\Ga$, i.e. for each $\hat m\in \widehat\Ga$ the [*flow line*]{} $$t\to \hat m_t := \phi_t(\hat m)$$ is a uniform quasi-isometric embedding $\R\to \widehat\Ga$.
5\. The flow $\phi_t$ commutes with the action of $\Ga$.
6\. Each $\hat m\in\hat\Ga$ defines a uniform quasigeodesic $m:t\mapsto m_t$ in $\Ga$ by the formula: $$m_t= \pi(\hat m_t)$$ Following the notation in section \[sec:convdy\], we let $(\geo\Ga\times\geo\Ga)^{dist}
$ denote the subset of $\geo\Ga\times\geo\Ga$ consisting of pairs of distinct points. The natural map $$e=(e_-,e_+):\hat\Ga\to (\geo\Ga\times\geo\Ga)^{dist}$$ assigning to $\hat m$ the pair of ideal endpoints $(m_{-\infty},m_{+\infty})$ of $m$ is continuous and surjective. In particular, every uniform quasigeodesic in $\hat\Ga$ is uniformly Hausdorff close to a flow line.
The reader can think of the elements of $\widehat\Ga$ [*as parameterized geodesics in $C_\Ga$, so that $\phi_t$ acts on geodesics via reparameterization*]{}. This was Gromov’s original viewpoint, although not the one in [@Mineyev].
We say that $\hat m\in \widehat\Ga$ is [*normalized*]{} if $\pi(\hat m)=1\in\Ga$. Similarly, maps $q: \Z\to \Ga$, and $q: \N\to \Ga$ will be called [*normalized*]{} if $q(0)=1$. It is clear that every $\hat m\in \widehat\Ga$ can be sent to a normalized element of $\widehat\Ga$ via the action of $m_0^{-1}\in \Ga$.
Since trajectories of $\phi_t$ are uniform quasigeodesics, for each normalized $\hat m\in \widehat\Ga$ we have $$\label{eq:distance}
C_1^{-1} t - C_2\le d_\Ga(1, m_t) \le C_1 t + C_2$$ for some positive constants $C_1, C_2$.
Let ${\mathrm F}^\pm=\Flagpmt$ be a pair of [*opposite*]{} partial flag manifolds associated to the Lie group $G$, i.e. they are quotient manifolds of the form ${\mathrm F}^\pm=G/P_{\pm\taumod}$, see section \[sec:symmbas\]. As usual, we will regard elements of ${\mathrm F}^\pm$ as simplices of type $\taumod, \iota\taumod$ in the Tits boundary of $X$.
Define the trivial bundles $$E^\pm =\widehat \Ga \times {\mathrm F}^\pm \to \widehat \Ga.$$ For every representation $\rho: \Ga\to G$, the group $\Ga$ acts on both bundles via its natural action on $\widehat\Ga$ and via the representation $\rho$ on ${\mathrm F}^\pm$. Put a $\Ga$-invariant background Riemannian metric on the fibers of theses bundles, which varies continuously with respect to $\hat m\in \widehat\Ga$. We will use the notation ${\mathrm F}^\pm_{\hat m}$ for the fiber above the point $\hat m$ equipped with this Riemannian metric. Since the subspace of $\widehat\Ga$ consisting of normalized elements is compact, it follows that for normalized $\hat m, \hat m'$ the identity map $${\mathrm F}^\pm_{\hat m} \to {\mathrm F}^\pm_{\hat m'}$$ is uniformly bilipschitz (with bilipschitz constant independent of $\hat m, \hat m'$). We will identify $\Ga$-equivariant (continuous) sections of the bundles $E^\pm$ with equivariant maps $s_\pm: \widehat\Ga\to {\mathrm F}^\pm$. These sections are said to be [*parallel along flow lines*]{} if $$s_\pm(\hat m)= s_\pm(\hat m_t)$$ for all $t\in \R$ and $\hat{m} \in \widehat\Ga$.
Parallel sections $s_\pm$ are called [*strongly parallel along flow lines*]{} if for any two flow lines $\hat m,\hat m'$ with the same ideal endpoints, we have $s_\pm(\hat m)=s_\pm(\hat m')$.
Note that this property is automatic for the geodesic flows constructed by Champetier and Mineyev since (for their flows) any two flow lines which are at finite distance from each other are actually equal. Strongly parallel sections define $\Ga$-equivariant [*boundary maps*]{} $$\beta_\pm:\geo\Ga\to {\mathrm F}^\pm$$ from the Gromov boundary $\geo \Ga$ of the word hyperbolic group $\Ga$ by: $$\label{eq:bdmapsect}
\beta_{\pm}\circ e_{\pm} = s_{\pm}~ .$$
The maps $\beta_{\pm}$ are continuous.
Let $(\xi^n_-,\xi^n_+)\to(\xi_-,\xi_+)$ be a converging sequence in $(\geo\Ga\times\geo\Ga)^{dist}$. There exists a bounded sequence $(\hat m^n)$ in $\hat\Ga$ such that $e_{\pm}(\hat m^n)=\xi^n_{\pm}$. After extraction, the sequence $(\hat m^n)$ converges to some $\hat m\in \hat\Ga$. Continuity of $s_{\pm}$ implies that $\beta_{\pm}(\xi^n_{\pm})=s_{\pm}(\hat m^n)\to s_{\pm}(\hat m)=\beta_{\pm}(\xi_{\pm})$. This shows that no subsequence of $(\beta_{\pm}(\xi^n_{\pm}))$ can have a limit $\neq\beta_{\pm}(\xi_{\pm})$, and the assertion follows from compactness of ${\mathrm F}^{\pm}$.
Conversely, equivariant continuous maps $\beta_\pm$ define $\Ga$-equivariant sections $s_{\pm}$ strongly parallel along flow lines, by the formula (\[eq:bdmapsect\]).
Consider the identity maps $$\Phi_{\hat m,t}: {\mathrm F}^\pm_{\hat m} \to {\mathrm F}^\pm_{\phi_t\hat m}.$$ These maps distort the Riemannian metric on the fibers. Using , we define the [*infinitesimal expansion factor*]{} of the flow $\phi(t)$ on the fiber ${\mathrm F}^\pm_{\hat m}$ at the point $s_\pm(\hat m)$ as: $$\eps_\pm(\hat m, t) :=
\eps(\Phi_{\hat m,t}, s_\pm(\hat m))$$
\[defn:uniformly expanding\] The geodesic flow $\phi_t$ is said to be [*uniformly exponentially expanding*]{} on the bundles $E^\pm$ with respect to the sections $s_\pm$ if there exist constants $a, c>0$ such that $$\eps_{\pm}(\hat m,\pm t) \ge a e^{ct}$$ for all $\hat m\in \widehat \Ga$ and $t\geq0$.
Our next goal is to give an alternative interpretation for the uniform expansion in this definition. First of all, since the metrics on the fibers are $\Ga$-invariant, it suffices to verify uniform exponential expansion only for normalized elements of $\widehat\Ga$. For a normalized element $\hat m\in \widehat\Ga$ and $t\in\R$ consider the composition $$m_t^{-1} \circ \Phi_{\hat m,t}: {\mathrm F}^\pm_{\hat m} \to {\mathrm F}^\pm_{m_t^{-1}\hat m_t}.$$ Note that $\pi(m_t^{-1}\hat m_t)=m_t^{-1}m_t=1$, i.e. both $\hat m$ and $m_t^{-1}\hat m_t$ are normalized. Since the group $\Ga$ acts isometrically on the fibers of the bundles $E^\pm$, the metric distortion of the above compositions is exactly the same as the distortion of $\Phi_{\hat m,t}$. Furthermore, since, as we noted above, the metrics on ${\mathrm F}^\pm_{\hat m}$ and ${\mathrm F}^\pm_{m_t^{-1}\hat m_t}$ are uniformly bilipschitz to each other (via the “identity” map), the rate of expansion for the above composition (up to a uniform multiplicative error) is the same as the expansion rate for the map $$\rho(m_t^{-1}): {\mathrm F}^\pm\to {\mathrm F}^\pm .$$ (Here we are using fixed background Riemannian metrics on ${\mathrm F}^\pm$.) Thus, we get the estimate $$C_3^{-1} \eps( \rho(m_t^{-1}), \beta_{\pm}(m_{\pm\infty}))\le \eps_\pm(\hat m, t) \le
C_3 \eps( \rho(m_t^{-1}), \beta_{\pm}(m_{\pm\infty}))$$ for some uniform constant $C_3>1$. By taking into account the equation , we obtain the following equivalent reformulation of Definition \[defn:uniformly expanding\]:
\[lem:expansion\] The geodesic flow is uniformly exponentially expanding with respect to the sections $s_\pm$ if and only if for every normalized uniform quasigeodesic $q: \Z\to \Ga$, which is asymptotic to points $\xi_\pm=q(\pm \infty)\in \geo \Ga$, the elements $\rho(q(\pm n))^{-1}$ act on $T_{\beta_\pm(\xi_\pm)} {\mathrm F}^\pm$ with uniform exponential expansion rate, i.e. $$\eps( \rho(q(\pm n))^{-1}, \beta_\pm(\xi_\pm))\ge Ae^{Cn}$$ for all $\hat m\in \widehat \Ga$ and $n\ge 0$ with some fixed constants $A,C>0$.
There exists a normalized flow line $\hat m$ uniformly close to $q$, i.e. $q(n)$ is uniformly close to $m_{t_n}$ with $n\mapsto t_n$ being a uniform orientation-preserving quasiisometry $\Z\to\Z$. Then $m_{\pm\infty}=\xi_\pm$, and $\eps(\rho(q(\pm n))^{-1}, \beta_\pm(\xi_\pm))$ equals $\eps( \rho(m_{t_{\pm n}}^{-1}), \beta_{\pm}(m_{\pm\infty}))$ up to a uniform multiplicative error, and hence also $\eps_\pm(\hat m, t_{\pm n})$.
Since every uniform quasigeodesic ray in $\Ga$ extends to a uniform quasigeodesic line, and in view of Morse lemma for hyperbolic groups, in the above definition it suffices to consider only normalized discrete geodesic rays $r: \N\to \Ga$.
We can now give the original and an alternative definition of Anosov representations.
A pair of continuous maps $\beta_\pm: \geo \Ga \to {\mathrm F}^\pm$ is said to be [*antipodal*]{} if it satisfies the following conditions (called [*compatibility*]{} in [@GW]):
\(i) For every pair of distinct ideal points $\zeta, \zeta'\in \geo \Ga$, the simplices $\beta_+(\zeta)$, $\beta_-(\zeta')$ in the Tits boundary of $X$ are antipodal, equivalently, the corresponding parabolic subgroups of $G$ are opposite. (In [@GW] this property is called [*transversality*]{}.)
\(ii) For every $\zeta\in \geo \Ga$, the simplices $\beta_+(\zeta), \beta_-(\zeta)$ belong to the same spherical Weyl chamber, i.e. the intersection of the corresponding parabolic subgroups of $G$ contains a minimal parabolic subgroup.
Note that, as a consequence, the maps $\beta_{\pm}$ are [*embeddings*]{}, because antipodal simplices cannot be faces of the same chamber.
A representation $\rho: \Ga\to G$ is said to be $(P_{+\taumod}, P_{-\taumod})$-Anosov if there exists an antipodal pair of continuous $\rho$-equivariant maps $\beta_\pm: \geo \Ga \to {\mathrm F}^\pm$ such that the geodesic flow on the associated bundles $E^\pm$ satisfies the uniform expansion property with respect to the sections $s_\pm$ associated to the maps $\beta_\pm$.
The pair of maps $(\beta_+,\beta_-)$ in this definition is called [*compatible*]{} with the Anosov representation $\rho$. Note that a $(P_{+\taumod}, P_{-\taumod})$-Anosov representation admits a unique compatible pair of maps. Indeed, the fixed points of infinite order elements $\ga\in\Ga$ are dense in $\geo\Ga$. The maps $\beta_{\pm}$ send the attractive and repulsive fixed points of $\ga$ to fixed points of $\rho(\ga)$ with contracting and expanding differentials, and these fixed points are unique. In particular, if $P_{+\taumod}$ is conjugate to $P_{-\taumod}$ (equivalently, $\iota\taumod=\taumod$) then $\beta_-=\beta_+$.
We note that Guichard and Wienhard in [@GW] use in their definition the uniform contraction property of the reverse flow $\phi_{-t}$ instead of the expansion property used above, but the two are clearly equivalent. Note also that in the definition, it suffices to verify the uniform exponential expansion property only for the bundle $E_+$. We thus obtain, as a corollary of Lemma \[lem:expansion\], the following alternative definition of Anosov representations:
\[Alternative definition of Anosov representations\] A representation $\rho: \Ga\to G$ is $(P_{+\taumod}, P_{-\taumod})$-Anosov if and only if there exists a pair of antipodal continuous $\rho$-equivariant maps $\beta_\pm: \geo \Ga \to {\mathrm F}^\pm$ such that for every normalized discrete geodesic ray $r: \N\to \Ga$ asymptotic to $\xi\in \geo \Ga$, the elements $\rho(r(n))^{-1}$ act on $T_{\beta_+(\xi)} {\mathrm F}_+$ with uniform exponential expansion rate, i.e. $$\label{eq:ano}
\eps(\rho(r(n))^{-1}, \beta_+(\xi))\ge A e^{Cn}$$ for $n\geq0$ with constants $A,C>0$ which are independent of $r$.
We now restrict to the case that the parabolic subgroups $P_{\pm\taumod}$ are conjugate to each other, i.e. the simplices $\iota\taumod=\taumod$. The $(P_{+\taumod}, P_{-\taumod})$-Anosov representations will in this case be called simply [*$P_{\taumod}$-Anosov*]{}, where $P_{\taumod}=P_{+\taumod}$, or simply $\tau_{mod}$-Anosov. Note that the study of general $(P_{+\taumod}, P_{-\taumod})$-Anosov representations quickly reduces to the case of $P$-Anosov representations by intersecting parabolic subgroups, cf. [@GW Lemma 3.18]. Now, $${\mathrm F}^{\pm}={\mathrm F}=G/P_{\taumod}=\Flagt$$ and $$\beta_{\pm}=\beta:\geo\Ga\to {\mathrm F}$$ is a single continuous embedding. The compatibility condition reduces to the [*antipodality*]{} condition: For any two distinct ideal points $\xi,\xi'\in\geo \Ga$ the simplices $\beta(\xi)$ and $\beta(\xi')$ are antipodal to each other. In other words, $\beta$ is a [*boundary embedding*]{} in the sense of Definition \[def:bdemb\].
We thus arrive to our definition, compare Definition \[dfn:ouranosov\]:
\[defn:our anosov\] Let $\taumod$ be an $\iota$-invariant face of $\simod$. We call a representation $\rho: \Ga\to G$ [*$P_{\taumod}$-Anosov*]{} or $\tau_{mod}$-Anosov if it is $\tau_{mod}$-boundary embedded with boundary embedding $\beta: \geo \Ga \to {\mathrm F}=\Flagt$ such that for every normalized discrete geodesic ray $r: \N\to \Ga$ asymptotic to $\zeta\in \geo \Ga$, the elements $\rho(r(n))^{-1}$ act on $T_{\beta(\zeta)} {\mathrm F}$ with uniform exponential expansion rate, i.e. $$\eps(\rho(r(n))^{-1}, \beta(\zeta))\ge A e^{Cn}$$ for $n\geq 0$ with constants $A, C>0$ independent of $r$.
[BLP05]{}
P. Albuquerque, [*Patterson-Sullivan theory in higher rank symmetric spaces*]{}, Geom. Funct. Anal. Vol. [**9**]{} (1999), no. 1, p. 1–28.
W. Ballmann, M. Gromov and V. Schroeder, “Manifolds of nonpositive curvature”, Birkhäuser Verlag, 1985.
Y. Benoist, [*Propriétés asymptotiques des groupes linéaires*]{}, Geom. Funct. Anal. Vol. [**7**]{} (1997), no. 1, pp. 1–47.
B. Bowditch, [*A topological characterisation of hyperbolic groups*]{}, J. Amer. Math. Soc. Vol. [**11**]{} (1998), no. 3, p. 643–667.
C. Champetier, [*Petite simplification dans les groupes hyperboliques*]{}, Ann. Fac. Sci. Toulouse Math. (6) Vol. [**3**]{} (1994), no. 2, p. 161–221.
M. Coornaert, A. Papadopoulos, “Symbolic dynamics and hyperbolic groups”, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. [**1539**]{}, Berlin, 1993.
P. Eberlein, “Geometry of nonpositively curved manifolds”, University of Chicago Press, 1997.
Ch. Frances, [*Lorentzian Kleinian groups*]{}, Comment. Math. Helv. Vol. [**80**]{} (2005), no. 4, p. 883–910.
E. Freden, [*Negatively curved groups have the convergence property I*]{}, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A I Math. Vol. [**20**]{} (1995), no. 2, p. 333–348.
F. Guéritaud, O. Guichard, F. Kassel, A. Wienhard, [*Anosov representations and proper actions*]{}, Preprint arXiv:1502.03811, February 2015.
M. Gromov, [*Hyperbolic groups*]{}, in: “Essays in group theory", Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ. 8, Springer, New York (1987), p. 75–263.
O. Guichard, A. Wienhard, [*Anosov representations: Domains of discontinuity and applications*]{}, Invent. Math. Vol. [**190**]{} (2012) no. 2, p. 357–438.
S. Helgason, [*Differential geometry and symmetric spaces*]{}, Academic Press, 1962.
J. C. Jantzen, “Representations of Algebraic Groups”, AMS Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, 2nd Edition, 2003.
M. Kapovich, B. Leeb and J. J. Millson, [*Convex functions on symmetric spaces, side lengths of polygons and the stability inequalities for weighted configurations at infinity*]{}, Journal of Differential Geometry, Vol. [**81**]{}, 2009, p. 297– 354.
M. Kapovich, B. Leeb, J. Porti, [*Dynamics at infinity of regular discrete subgroups of isometries of higher rank symmetric spaces*]{}, arXiv e-print, June 2013.
M. Kapovich, B. Leeb, J. Porti, [*Dynamics on flag manifolds: domains of proper discontinuity and cocompactness*]{}, arXiv e-print, October 2015.
M. Kapovich, B. Leeb, J. Porti, [*Morse actions of discrete groups on symmetric spaces*]{}, arXiv e-print, March 2014.
M. Kapovich, B. Leeb, J. Porti, [*A Morse Lemma for quasigeodesics in symmetric spaces and euclidean buildings*]{}, arXiv e-print, November 2014.
M. Kapovich, B. Leeb, J. Porti, [*Some recent results on Anosov representations*]{}, Transformation Groups Vol. [**21**]{} (2016), no. 4, p. 1105–1121.
M. Kapovich, B. Leeb, [*Finsler bordifications of symmetric and certain locally symmetric spaces*]{}, arXiv e-print, May 2015.
M. Kapovich, B. Leeb, [*Discrete isometry groups of symmetric spaces*]{}, MSRI Lecture Notes, Preprint, January 2017.
B. Kleiner, B. Leeb, [*Rigidity of quasi-isometries for symmetric spaces and euclidean buildings*]{}, Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math. No. 86 (1997) p. 115–197.
B. Kleiner, B. Leeb, [*Rigidity of invariant convex sets in symmetric spaces*]{}, Invent. Math. Vol. [**163**]{}, No. 3, (2006) p. 657–676.
F. Labourie, [*Anosov flows, surface groups and curves in projective space*]{}, Invent. Math. Vol. [**165**]{} (2006), no. 1, p. 51–114.
B. Leeb, [*A characterization of irreducible symmetric spaces and euclidean buildings of higher rank by their asymptotic geometry*]{}, Bonner Mathematische Schriften, Vol. [**326**]{} (2000), see also arXiv:0903.0584 (2009).
I. Mineyev, [*Flows and joins of metric spaces*]{}, Geom. Topol. 9 (2005), p. 403–482.
A. Parreau, [*La distance vectorielle dans les immeubles affines et les espaces symétriques*]{}, in preparation.
D. Sullivan, [*Quasiconformal homeomorphisms and dynamics. II. Structural stability implies hyperbolicity for Kleinian groups*]{}, Acta Math. Vol. [**155**]{} (1985), no. 3-4, p. 243–260.
P. Tukia, [*Convergence groups and Gromov’s metric hyperbolic spaces*]{}, New Zealand J. Math. Vol. [**23**]{} (1994), no. 2, p. 157–187.
M.K.: Department of Mathematics, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA\
email: [email protected]
B.L.: Mathematisches Institut, Universität München, Theresienstr. 39, D-80333 München, Germany, email: [email protected]
J.P.: Departament de Matemàtiques, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, E-08193 Bellaterra, Spain, email: [email protected]
[^1]: What is really needed is a weaker property than connectedness, namely that $G$ has finitely many connected components and acts on the Tits building of $X$ by (type preserving) automorphisms. The latter is equivalent to the triviality of the $G$-action on the model chamber $\simod$, equivalently, on the Dynkin diagram. Under this assumption, the theory of discrete subgroups presented in this paper goes through unchanged.
[^2]: [When the group $G$ is complex, the minimal parabolic subgroups are the [*Borel subgroups*]{}, which is why we use the notation $B$ for these subgroups.]{}
[^3]: This is clear for discrete euclidean buildings. (In particular, for buildings with only one vertex, like the complete euclidean cone over $\tits P$.) For the general case, see e.g. [@qirigid §4.1.3].
[^4]: Observe that $d_{\tau}(x_1,x_2)$ depends only on the strong asymptote classes of the sectors $V(x_i,\tau)$, and hence $d_{\tau}$ descends to $X_{\tau}^{par}\times X_{\tau}^{par}$. The triangle inequality is a consequence of Proposition \[prop:strasspariso\] below. One can also verify the triangle inequality for $d_{\tau}$ directly, using the fact that, for bounded convex functions $\phi,\psi:V(0,\taumod)\to[0,+\infty)$, it holds that $\inf\phi+\inf\psi=\inf(\phi+\psi)$.
[^5]: This isometry is unipotent but we will not need this fact.
[^6]: However, $N_{\tau}$ does not act transitively on it, unless $\xi\in\inte(\tau)$.
[^7]: A transvection along a geodesic acts on the space of Jacobi fields along this geodesic as a diagonalizable transformation, see [@Eberlein; @Helgason].
[^8]: As in the case of geodesics, a transvection along a flat acts on the space of Jacobi fields along this flat as a diagonalizable transformation, see [@Eberlein; @Helgason].
[^9]: The estimate depends also on the point $x$ because the choice of the auxiliary metric on $\Flagt$ reduces the symmetry: The action of a compact subgroup of $G$ on $\Flagt$ is uniformly bilipschitz, but not the $G$-action.
[^10]: Here it suffices that $|Z|\geq2$.
[^11]: Indeed, for fixed $R>0$ we have Hausdorff convergence $U_{\tau_n^-,x,R}\to U_{\tau_-,x,R}$ in $\Flagt$, which follows e.g. from the transitivity of the action $K_x\acts\Flagit$ of the maximal compact subgroup $K_x<G$ fixing $x$. Furthermore, the shadows $U_{\tau_-,x,R}$ exhaust $C(\tau_-)$ as $R\to+\infty$, cf. the continuity part of Lemma \[lem:contpr\].
[^12]: Indeed, $U_{g_n\tau_n^-,x,r}\to U_{\hat\tau_+,x,r}$ in $\Flagt$ for fixed $r>0$, and $U_{\hat\tau_+,x,r}\to\tau_+$ as $r\to0$, using again the continuity part of Lemma \[lem:contpr\] and the fact that the function (\[eq:distfrpar\]) assumes the value zero only in $\tau_+$.
[^13]: Recall that the Hausdorff distance of asymptotic Weyl cones $V(y,\st(\tau))$ and $V(y',\st(\tau))$ is bounded by the distance $d(y,y')$ of their tips.
[^14]: Benoist’s limit set $\La_{\Ga}$ is contained in the flag manifold $Y_{\Ga}$ which in the case of real Lie groups is the full flag manifold $G/B$, see the beginning of §3 of his paper. It consists of the limit points of sequences contracting on $G/B$, cf. his Definitions 3.5 and 3.6.
[^15]: Note that boundary embedded subgroups are not required to be regular, although they frequently are, see Theorem 3.11 in [@manicures].
[^16]: Recall that by a [discrete geodesic line]{}, we mean an isometric embedding of $\Z$, cf, section \[sec:general\].
[^17]: For a map $\phi:N\to\Ga$ and a point $x\in X$ we denote by $\phi x:N\to X$ the map sending $n\in N$ to $\phi(n)x\in X$.
[^18]: The space ${\mathcal L}$ of discrete geodesic lines $l:\Z\to\Ga$ is equipped with the topology of pointwise convergence. It is a locally compact Hausdorff space on which $\Ga$ acts properly discontinuously and cocompactly.
[^19]: Note that in view of the antipodality of $\beta$ the second part of (i) implies the first part.
[^20]: I.e. $l(-n)x\in V(y_n,\st(\tau_n^-))$. Then $l(-n)x,y_n\in P(\tau_n^-,\check\al(\zeta_+))$.
[^21]: From our construction of Anosov Schottky subgroups, see [@morse], it immediately follows that in higher rank they are generically not ray conical, for instance never in the Zariski dense case. This implies furthermore that Zariski dense Anosov subgroups are never ray conical.
[^22]: Because the $b_n$ are bounded and fix $\tau$ on $\Flagt$.
[^23]: Since here $\taumod$ is not required to be $\iota$-invariant, we consider the function on $(\Flagit\times\Flagt)^{opp}\times X$.
[^24]: I.e. has no isolated points.
[^25]: Here, the normalization can be dropped because no [*uniform*]{} growth is required.
[^26]: Meaning that $|\LatGa|\geq3$ in (i), (ii), (v), (vi) and that $\Ga$ is word hyperbolic with $|\geo \Ga|\ge 3$ in (iii), (iv).
[^27]: I.e. quasigeodesics with the same quasiisometry constants.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We study two variants of the well-known orthogonal drawing model: (i) the smooth orthogonal, and (ii) the octilinear. Both models form an extension of the orthogonal, by supporting one additional type of edge segments (circular arcs and diagonal segments, respectively).
For planar graphs of max-degree $4$, we analyze relationships between the graph classes that can be drawn bendless in the two models and we also prove NP-hardness for a restricted version of the bendless drawing problem for both models. For planar graphs of higher degree, we present an algorithm that produces bi-monotone smooth orthogonal drawings with at most two segments per edge, which also guarantees a linear number of edges with exactly one segment.
author:
- 'Michael A. Bekos, Henry Förster, Michael Kaufmann'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'On Smooth Orthogonal and Octilinear Drawings: Relations, Complexity and Kandinsky Drawings[^1]'
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Orthogonal graph drawing is an intensively studied and well established model for drawing graphs. As a result, several efficient algorithms providing good aesthetics and good readability have been proposed over the years, see e.g., [@kant; @kandinsky; @liuEtAl; @tamassia]. In such drawings, each vertex corresponds to a point on the Euclidean plane and each edge is drawn as a sequence of axis-aligned line segments; see Fig. \[fig:introduction\].
Several research directions build upon this successful model. We focus on two models that have recently received attention:
the *smooth orthogonal* [@smog1], in which every edge is a sequence of axis-aligned segments and circular arc segments with common axis-aligned tangents (i.e., quarter, half or three-quarter arc segments), and
the *octilinear* [@octi], in which every edge is a sequence of axis-aligned and diagonal (at $\pm 45^\circ$) segments.
Observe that both models extend the orthogonal by allowing one more type of edge-segments. The former was introduced with the aim of combining the artistic appeal of *Lombardi drawings* [@lombardi-1; @lombardi-2] with the clarity of the orthogonal drawings. The latter, on the other hand, is primarily motivated by metro-map and map schematization applications (see, e.g., [@metromaps-1; @octiNP; @metromaps-2; @metromaps-3]). Note that in the orthogonal and in the smooth orthogonal models, each edge may enter a vertex using one out of four available (axis-aligned) directions, called *ports*. Thus both models support graphs of max-degree $4$. In the octilinear model, each vertex has eight available ports and therefore one can draw graphs of max-degree $8$.
For readability purposes, usually in such drawings one seeks to minimize the *edge complexity* [@gd-book-1; @gd-book-2], i.e., the maximum number of segments used for representing any edge. Also, when the input is a planar graph, one seeks for a corresponding planar drawing. Note that drawings with edge complexity $1$ are also called *bendless*. We refer to drawings with edge complexity $k$ as *$k$-drawings*; thus, by definition, orthogonal $k$-drawings have at most $k-1$ bends per edge.
#### Known results.
There exists a plethora of results for each of the aforementioned models; here we list existing results for drawings with low edge complexity.
- All planar graphs of max-degree $4$, except for the octahedron, admit orthogonal $3$-drawings; the octahedron is orthogonal $4$-drawable [@kant; @liuEtAl]. Minimizing the number of bends over all embeddings of a planar graph of max-degree $4$ is $\mathcal{NP}$-hard [@gargTamassia]. For a given planar embedding, however, finding a planar orthogonal drawing with minimum number of bends can be done in polynomial time by an approach, called *topology-shape-metrics* [@tamassia], that is based on min-cost flow computations and works in three phases. Initially, a planar embedding is computed if not specified by the input. In the next phase, the angles and the bends of the drawing are computed, yielding an *orthogonal representation*. In the last phase, the actual coordinates for the vertices and bends are computed.
- All planar graphs of max-degree $4$ (including the octahedron) admit smooth orthogonal $2$-drawings. Note that not all planar graphs of max-degree $4$ allow for bendless smooth orthogonal drawings [@smog1], and that such drawings may require exponential area [@smog2]. Bendless smooth orthogonal drawings are possible only for subclasses, e.g., for planar graphs of max-degree $3$ [@perfectSmog] and for outerplanar graphs of max-degree $4$ [@smog2]. It is worth mentioning that the complexity of the problem, whether a planar graph of max-degree $4$ admits a bendless smooth orthogonal drawing, has not been settled (it is conjectured to be $\mathcal{NP}$-hard [@smog2]).
- All planar graphs of max-degree $8$ admit octilinear $3$-drawings [@slopes], while planar graphs of max-degree $4$ or $5$ allow for octilinear $2$-drawings [@octi]. Bendless octilinear drawings are always possible for planar graphs of max-degree $3$ [@latin]. Note that deciding whether an embedded planar graph of max-degree $8$ admits a bendless octilinear drawing is $\mathcal{NP}$-hard [@octiNP]. It is not, however, known whether this negative result applies for planar graphs of max-degree $4$ or whether these graphs allow for a decision algorithm (in fact, there exist planar graphs of max-degree $4$ that do not admit bendless octilinear drawings [@octi-2]).
#### Our contribution
Motivated by the fact that usually one can “easily” convert an octilinear drawing of a planar graph of max-degree $4$ to a corresponding smooth orthogonal one (e.g., by replacing diagonal edge segments with quarter circular arc segments; see Figs. \[fig:octilinear\]-\[fig:smooth\] for an example), and vice versa, we study in Section \[sec:relationships\] inclusion-relationships between the graph-classes that admit such drawings. In Section \[sec:nphardness\], we show that it is $\mathcal{NP}$-hard to decide whether an embedded planar graph of max-degree $4$ admits a bendless smooth orthogonal or a bendless octilinear drawing, in the case where the angles between any two edges incident to a common vertex and the shapes of all edges are specified as part of the input (e.g., as in the last step of the topology-shape-metrics approach [@tamassia]). Our proof is a step towards settling the complexities of both decision problems in their general form. Inspired from the *Kandinsky model* (see, e.g., [@kandinsky-2; @kandinsky-3; @kandinsky]) for drawing planar graphs of arbitrary degree in an orthogonal style, we present in Section \[sec:kandinsky\] two drawing algorithms that yield bi-monotone smooth orthogonal drawings of good quality. The first yields drawings of smaller area, which can also be transformed to octilinear with bends at $135^\circ$. The second yields larger drawings but guarantees that at most $2n-5$ edges are drawn with two segments. We conclude in Section \[sec:conclusions\] with open problems.
![ Different inclusion-relationships: For $k \geq 1$, $SC_k$ and $8C_k$ correspond to the classes of graphs admitting smooth orthogonal and octilinear $k$-drawings, respectively. []{data-label="fig:graphClasses"}](relationships)
#### Preliminaries
For graph theoretic notions refer to [@graphtheory]. For definitions on planar graphs, we point the reader to [@gd-book-1; @gd-book-2]. We also assume familiarity with standard graph drawing techniques, such as the *canonical ordering* [@dFPP; @cannonicalorder] and the *shift-method* by de Fraysseix, Pach and Pollack [@dFPP]; see for more details.
Relationships between Graph Classes {#sec:relationships}
===================================
In this section, we consider relationships between the classes of graphs that admit smooth orthogonal $k$-drawings and octilinear $k$-drawings, $k \geq 1$, denoted as $SC_k$ and $8C_k$, respectively. Our findings are also summarized in Fig. \[fig:graphClasses\].
By definition, $SC_1 \subseteq SC_2$ and $8C_1 \subseteq 8C_2 \subseteq 8C_3$ hold. Since each planar graph of max-degree $8$ admits an octilinear $3$-drawing [@slopes], class $8C_3$ coincides with the class of planar graphs of max-degree $8$. Similarly, class $SC_2$ coincides with the class of planar graph of max-degree $4$, as these graphs admit smooth orthogonal $2$-drawings [@smog2]. This also implies that $SC_2 \subseteq 8C_2$, since each planar graph of max-degree $4$ admits an octilinear $2$-drawing [@octi]. The relationship $8C_2 \neq 8C_3$ follows from [@octi], where it was proven that there exist planar graphs of max-degree $6$ that do not admit octilinear $2$-drawings. The relationship $SC_2 \neq 8C_2$ follows from [@octi-2], where it was shown that there exist planar graphs of max-degree $5$ that admit octilinear $2$-drawings and no octilinear $1$-drawings, and the fact that planar graphs of max-degree $5$ cannot be drawn in the smooth orthogonal model. The octahedron graph admits neither a bendless smooth orthogonal drawing [@smog1] nor a bendless octilinear drawing [@octi-2]. However, since it is of max-degree $4$, it admits $2$-drawings in both models [@smog2; @octi]. Hence, it belongs to $8C_2 \cap SC_2 \setminus (8C_1 \cup SC_1)$. To prove that $8C_1 \setminus SC_2 \neq \emptyset$, observe that a caterpillar whose spine vertices are of degree 8 clearly admits an octilinear $1$-drawing, however, due to its degree it does not admit a smooth orthogonal.
To complete the discussion of the relationships of Fig. \[fig:graphClasses\], we have to show that $SC_1$ and $8C_1$ are incomparable. This is the most interesting part of our proof, as usually one can “easily” convert a bendless octilinear drawing of a planar graph of max-degree $4$ to a corresponding bendless smooth orthogonal one (e.g., by replacing diagonal segments with quarter circular arcs), and vice versa; see, e.g., Figs. \[fig:octilinear\]-\[fig:smooth\]. Since the endpoints of each edge of a bendless smooth orthogonal or octilinear drawing are along a line with slope $0$, $1$, $-1$ or $\infty$, such conversions are in principle possible. Two difficulties that might arise are to preserve planarity and to guarantee that no two edges enter a vertex using the same port. Clearly, however, there exist infinitely many (even $4$-regular) planar graphs that admit both drawings in both models; see Fig. \[fig:trains\] and for more details.
[There is an infinitely large family of $4$-regular planar graphs that admit both bendless smooth orthogonal and bendless octilinear drawings.]{}\[theo:union\]
In the next two theorems we show that $SC_1$ and $8C_1$ are incomparable.
There is an infinitely large family of $4$-regular planar graphs that admit bendless smooth orthogonal drawings but no bendless octilinear drawings. \[theo:smoothAndNotOcti\]
Consider the planar graph $C$ of Fig. \[fig:4gonOctahedronComponentSC1\], which is drawn bendless smooth orthogonal. We claim that $C$ admits no bendless octilinear drawing. If one substitutes its degree-$2$ vertex (denoted by $c$ in Fig. \[fig:4gonOctahedronComponentSC1\]) by an edge connecting its two neighbors, then the resulting graph is triconnected, which admits an unique embedding (up to the choice of its outerface; see Figs. \[fig:4gonOctahedronComponentSC1\]-\[fig:4gonOctahedronComponentEmbedding2\]). Now, observe that the outerface of any octilinear drawing of graph $C$ (if any) has length at most $5$ (Constraint $1$). In addition, each vertex of this outerface (except for $c$, which is of degree $2$) must have two ports pointing in the interior of this drawing, because every vertex of $C$ is of degree $4$ except for $c$. This implies that the angle formed by any two consecutive edges of this outerface is at most $225^\circ$, except for the pair of edges incident to $c$ (Constraint $2$). But if we want to satisfy both constraints, then at least one edge of this outerface must be drawn with a bend; see Fig. \[fig:4gonOctahedronComponentNotOcC1\]. Hence, graph $C$ does not admit a bendless octilinear drawing.
Based on graph $C$, for each $k \in \mathbb{N}_0$ we construct a $4$-regular planar graph $G_k$ consisting of $k + 2$ biconnected components $C_1,\ldots,C_{k+2}$ arranged in a chain; see Fig. \[fig:4gonOctahedronChain\] for the case $k=1$. Clearly, $G_k$ admits a bendless smooth orthogonal drawing for any $k$. Since the end-components of the chain (i.e., $C_1$ and $C_{k+2}$) are isomorphic to $C$, $G_k$ does not admit a bendless octilinear drawing for any $k$.
There is an infinitely large family of $4$-regular planar graphs that admit bendless octilinear drawings but no bendless smooth orthogonal drawings. \[theo:octiAndNotSmooth\]
Consider the planar graph $B$ of Fig. \[fig:necklaceGem\], which is drawn bendless octilinear. Graph $B$ has two separation pairs (i.e., $\{t_1,t_2\}$ and $\{p_1,p_2\}$ in Fig. \[fig:necklaceGem\]).
Based on graph $B$, for each $k \in \mathbb{N}_0$ we construct a $4$-regular planar graph $G_k$ consisting of $2k + 4$ copies of $B$ arranged in a cycle; see Fig. \[fig:necklaceConstruction\] where each copy of $B$ is drawn as a gray-shaded parallelogram. By construction, $G_k$ admits a bendless octilinear drawing for any $k$. By planarity at least one copy of graph $B$ must be embedded with the outerface of Fig. \[fig:necklaceGem\]. However, if we require the outerface of $B$ to be the one of Fig. \[fig:necklaceGem\], then all possible planar embeddings of $B$ are isomorphic to the one of Fig. \[fig:necklaceGem\]. We exploit this property in to show that $B$ does not admit a bendless smooth orthogonal drawing with this outerface. The detailed proof is based on an exhaustive consideration of all bendless smooth orthogonal drawings of subgraphs of $B$, which we incrementally augment by adding more vertices to them. Thus, for any $k$, graph $G_k$ does not admit a bendless smooth orthogonal drawing.
$\mathcal{NP}$-hardness Results {#sec:nphardness}
===============================
In this section, we study the complexity of the bendless smooth orthogonal and octilinear drawing problems. As a first step towards addressing the complexity of both problems for planar graphs of max-degree $4$ in general, here we make an additional assumption. We assume that the input, apart from an embedding, also specifies a *smooth orthogonal* or an *octilinear representation*, which are defined analogously to the orthogonal ones:
the angles between consecutive edges incident to a common vertex in the cyclic order around it (given by the planar embedding) are specified, and
the *shape* of each edge (e.g., straight-line, or quarter-circular arc) is also specified.
In other words, we assume that our input is analogous to the one of the last step of the topology-shape-metrics approach [@tamassia].
\[thm:np-smooth\] Given a planar graph $G$ of max-degree $4$ and a smooth orthogonal representation $\mathcal{R}$, it is $\mathcal{NP}$-hard to decide whether $G$ admits a bendless smooth orthogonal drawing preserving $\mathcal{R}$.
Our reduction is from the well-known $3$-SAT problem [@GareyJ79]. Given a formula $\varphi$ in conjunctive normal form, we construct a graph $G_\varphi$ and a smooth orthogonal representation $\mathcal{R}_\varphi$, such that $G_\varphi$ admits a bendless smooth orthogonal drawing $\Gamma_\varphi$ preserving $\mathcal{R}_\varphi$ if and only if $\varphi$ is satisfiable; see also Fig. \[fig:example\].
The main ideas of our construction are:
specific straight-line edges in $\Gamma_\varphi$ transport *information* encoded in their length,
rectangular faces of $\Gamma_\varphi$ propagate the edge length of one side to its opposite, and
for a face composed of two straight-line edges and a quarter circle arc, the straight-line edges are of same length, which allows us to change the *direction* in which the information “flows”.
[[*Variable gadget*.]{}]{} For each variable $x$ of $\varphi$, we introduce a gadget; see Figs. \[fig:variable-1\]-\[fig:variable-2\]. The bold-drawn quarter circle arc ensures that the sum of the edge lengths to its left is the same as the sum of the edge lengths to its bottom (refer to the edges with gray endvertices). As “input” the gadget gets three edges of unit length $\ell(u)$. This ensures that $\ell(x) + \ell(\overline{x}) = 3 \cdot \ell(u)$ holds for the “output literals” $x$ and $\overline{x}$, where $\ell(x)$ and $\ell(\overline{x})$ denote the lengths of two edges representing $x$ and $\overline{x}$.
To introduce our concept, assume that the lengths of all straight-line edges are integral and at least $1$. If we could require $\ell(u) = 1$, then $\ell(x), \ell(\overline{x}) \in \{1,2\}$. This would allow us to encode the assignment $x=\mathtt{true}$ with $\ell(x) = 2$ and $\ell(\overline{x}) = 1$, and the assignment $x=\mathtt{false}$ with $\ell(x) = 1$ and $\ell(\overline{x}) = 2$. However, if we cannot avoid, e.g., that $\ell(u) = 2$, then the variable gadget would not prevent us from setting $\ell(x) = \ell(\overline{x}) = 3$, which means that $x$ and $\overline{x}$ are “half-true”. We solve this issue by the so-called *parity gadget*, that allows us to relax the integral constraint and to ensure that $\ell(x), \ell(\overline{x}) \in \{\ell(u) + \varepsilon, 2 \ell(u) - \varepsilon \}$, for $0 < \varepsilon << \ell(u)$.
[[*Parity gadget*.]{}]{} For each variable $x$ of $\varphi$, $G_\varphi$ has a gadget (see Figs. \[fig:parity-1\]-\[fig:parity-2\]), which results in overlaps in $\Gamma_\varphi$, if the values of $\ell(x)$ and $\ell(\overline{x})$ do not differ significantly. The central part of this gadget is a “*vertical gap*” of width $3 \cdot \ell(u)$ (shaded in gray in Figs. \[fig:parity-1\]-\[fig:parity-2\]) with two blocks of vertices (triangular- and square-shaped in Figs. \[fig:parity-1\]-\[fig:parity-2\]) pointing inside the gap. Each block defines two square-shaped faces and three faces of length $3$, each formed by two straight-line edges and a quarter circle arc. Depending on the choice of $\ell(x)$ and $\ell(\overline{x})$, one of the blocks may be located above the other. If $\ell(x) \approx \ell(\overline{x})$, however, we can observe that the two blocks are not far enough apart from each other, which leads to overlaps. Using elementary geometry, we prove in that overlaps can be avoided if and only if $|\ell(\overline{x}) - \ell(x)|> \sqrt{3}/2 \cdot \ell(u)\approx 0.866 \cdot \ell(u)$, which implies: that $\ell(x), \ell(\overline{x}) \in (0,~1.067 \cdot \ell(u)] \cup [1.933 \cdot \ell(u),~3)\text{, i.e., }\varepsilon < 0.067 \cdot \ell(u)$.
[[*Clause gadget*.]{}]{} For each clause of $\varphi$ with literals $a$, $b$ and $c$, we introduce a gadget, which is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:clauseGadget\]. The bold-drawn quarter circle arc of Fig. \[fig:clauseGadget\] compares two sums of information. From the righthand side, four edges of unit length “enter” the arc. Observe that there is also a *free edge* (marked with an asterisk in Fig. \[fig:clauseGadget\]), which also contributes to the sum but can be stretched independently of any other edge. Hence, the sum of edge lengths on the righthand side of this arc is $> 4 \cdot \ell(u)$. The three literals “enter” at the bottom; the sum here is $\ell(a) + \ell(b) + \ell(c)$. Combining both, we obtain that $\ell(a) + \ell(b) + \ell(c) > 4 \cdot \ell(u)$ must hold. This implies that not all $a$, $b$ and $c$ can be $\texttt{false}$, since in this case $\ell(a) + \ell(b) + \ell(c) = 3 \cdot (\ell(u)+\varepsilon) < 4 \cdot \ell(u)$.
[[*Auxiliary gadgets*.]{}]{} The *crossing gadget* just consists of a rectangle and is used to allow two flows of information to cross each other; see Fig. \[fig:crossingGadget\]. The *copy gadget* takes an information and creates three copies of this information; see Fig. \[fig:copyGadget\]. This is because both quarter circular arcs of the copy gadget must have the same radius in the presence of the half circular arc of the copy gadget. Finally, the *unit length gadget* is a single edge, which we assume to be of length $\ell(u)$.
We now describe our construction; see Fig. \[fig:example\]: $G_\varphi$ contains one unit length gadget, which is copied several times using the copy gadget (the number of copies depends linearly on the number of variables $\nu$ and clauses $\mu$ of $\varphi$). For each variable of $\varphi$, $G_\varphi$ has a variable gadget and a parity gadget, each of which is connected to different copies of the unit length gadget. For each clause of $\varphi$, $G_\varphi$ has a clause gadget, which has four connections to different copies of the unit length gadget. We compute $\mathcal{R}_\varphi$ as follows. We place the variable gadget of each variable $x$ above and to the left of its parity gadget and we connect the output literals of the variable gadget of $x$ with its parity gadget through a copy gadget. We place the variable and the parity gadgets of the $i$-th variable below and to the right of the corresponding ones of the $(i-1)$-th variable. We place each clause gadget to the right of the sketch constructed so far, so that the gadget of the $i$-th clause is to the right of the $(i-1)$-th clause. This allows us to connect copies of the output literals of the variable gadget of each variable with the clause gadgets that contain it, so that all possible crossings (which are resolved using the crossing gadget) appear above the clause gadgets. More precisely, if a clause contains a literal of the $i$-th variable, we have a crossing with the literals of all variables with indices $(i+1)$ to $\nu$. Hence, for each clause we add $O(\nu)$ crossing and three copy gadgets. Note that all copy gadgets of the unit length gadget lie below all variable, parity, and clause gadgets. The obtained representation $\mathcal{R}_\varphi$ conforms with the one of Fig. \[fig:example\]. The construction can be done in $O(\nu \mu)$ time.
To complete the proof, assume that $G_\varphi$ admits a bendless smooth orthogonal drawing $\Gamma_\varphi$ preserving $\mathcal{R}_\varphi$. For each variable $x$ of $\varphi$, we set $x$ to $\texttt{true}$ if and only if $\ell(x) \geq 1.933 \cdot \ell(u)$. Since for each clause $(a \vee b \vee c)$ of $\varphi$ we have that $\ell(a) + \ell(b) + \ell(c) > 4 \cdot \ell(u)$, at least one of $a$, $b$ and $c$ must be $\texttt{true}$. Hence, $\varphi$ admits a truth assignment. For the opposite direction, based on a truth assignment of $\varphi$, we can set, e.g., $\ell(x)=1.95$ and $\ell(\overline{x})=1.05$ for each variable $x$, assuming that $\ell(u)=1$. Then, arranging the variable and the clause gadgets of $G_\varphi$ as in Fig. \[fig:example\] yields a bendless smooth orthogonal drawing $\Gamma_\varphi$ preserving $\mathcal{R}_\varphi$.
The special case of our problem, in which circular arcs are not present, is known as *HV-rectilinear planarity testing* [@DBLP:conf/gd/ManuchPPT10]. As opposed to our problem, HV-rectilinear planarity testing is polynomial-time solvable in the fixed embedding setting [@DBLP:conf/latin/DurocherF0M14] (and becomes $\mathcal{NP}$-hard in the variable embedding setting [@DBLP:conf/gd/DidimoLP14]).
\[thm:np-octilinear\] Given a planar graph $G$ of max-degree $4$ and an octilinear representation $\mathcal{R}$, it is $\mathcal{NP}$-hard to decide whether $G$ admits a bendless octilinear drawing preserving $\mathcal{R}$.
Except for the parity gadget, we can adjust to the octilinear model simply by replacing arcs with diagonal segments; for details see . In this case the parity gadget guarantees $|\ell(x)-\ell(\overline{x})| > {5}/{6} \cdot \ell(u) \approx 0.833 \cdot \ell(u)$, which implies that $\varepsilon < 0.084 \cdot \ell(u)$.
Bi-Monotone Drawings {#sec:kandinsky}
====================
In this section, we study variants of the *Kandinsky* drawing model [@kandinsky-2; @kandinsky-3; @kandinsky], which forms an extension of the orthogonal model to graphs of degree greater than $4$. In this model, the vertices are represented as squares, placed on a *coarse grid*, with multiple edges attached to each side of them aligned on a *finer grid*.
The Kandinsky model allows for natural extensions to both smooth orthogonal and octilinear models. We are aware of only one preliminary result in this direction: A linear time drawing algorithm is presented in [@smog1] for the production of smooth orthogonal $2$-drawings for planar graphs of arbitrary degree in quadratic area, in which all vertices are on a line $\ell$ and the edges are drawn either as half circles (above or below $\ell$), or as two consecutive half circles one above and one below $\ell$ (i.e., the latter ones are of complexity $2$, but they are at most $n-2$).
For an input maximal planar graph $G$ (of arbitrary degree), our goal is to construct a smooth orthogonal (or an octilinear) $2$-drawing for $G$ with the following aesthetic benefits over the aforementioned drawing algorithm:
the vertices are distributed evenly over the drawing area, and
each edge is *bi-monotone* [@DBLP:conf/wg/FulekPSS11], i.e., $xy$-monotone.
We achieve our goal at the cost of slightly more edges drawn with complexity $2$ or at the cost of increased drawing area (but still polynomial).
Our first approach is a modification of the *shift-method* [@dFPP]. Based on a canonical order $\pi =(v_1,\ldots,v_n)$ of $G$, we construct a planar smooth orthogonal $2$-drawing $\Gamma$ of $G$ in the Kandinsky model, as follows. We place $v_1$, $v_2$ and $v_3$ at $(0,0)$, $(2,0)$ and $(1,1)$. Hence, we can draw $(v_1,v_2)$ as a horizontal segment, and each of $(v_1,v_3)$ and $(v_2,v_3)$ as a quarter circular arc. We also color $(v_1,v_3)$ blue and $(v_2,v_3)$ green. For $k=4,\ldots,n$, assume that a smooth orthogonal $2$-drawing $\Gamma_{k-1}$ of the subgraph $G_{k-1}$ of $G$ induced by $v_1,\ldots,v_{k-1}$ has been constructed, in which each edge of the outerface $C_{k-1}$ of $\Gamma_{k-1}$ is drawn as a quarter circular arc, whose endvertices are on a line with slope $\pm 1$, except for edge $(v_1,v_2)$, which is drawn as a horizontal segment (called *contour condition* in the shift-method; see Fig. \[fig:shift-smooth\]). Each of $v_1,\ldots,v_{k-1}$ is also associated with a so-called *shift-set*, which for $v_1$, $v_2$ and $v_3$ are singletons containing only themselves.
Let $w_1,\ldots,w_p$ be the vertices of $C_{k-1}$ from left to right in $\Gamma_{k-1}$, where $w_1=v_1$ and $w_p=v_2$. Let $(w_\ell,\ldots,w_r)$, $1 \leq \ell < r \leq p$, be the neighbors of $v_k$ from left to right along $C_{k-1}$ in $\Gamma_{k-1}$. As in the shift-method, our algorithm first translates each vertex in $\cup_{i=1}^{\ell} S(w_i)$ one unit to the left and each vertex in $\cup_{i=r}^{p} S(w_i)$ one unit to the right, where $S(v)$ is the shift-set of $v \in V$. During this translation, $(w_{\ell},w_{\ell+1})$ and $(w_{r-1},w_r)$ acquire a horizontal segment each (see the bold edges of Fig. \[fig:shift-smooth\]). We place $v_k$ at the intersection of line $L_\ell$ with slope $+1$ through $w_\ell$ with line $L_r$ with slope $-1$ through $w_r$ (dotted in Fig. \[fig:shift-smooth\]) and we set the shift-set of $v_k$ to $\{v_k\} \cup_{i=\ell+1}^{r-1}S(w_i)$, as in the shift-method. We draw each of $(w_\ell,v_k)$ and $(v_k,w_r)$ as a quarter circular arc. For $i=\ell+1,\ldots,r-1$, $(w_i,v_k)$ has a vertical line-segment that starts from $w_i$ and ends either at $L_\ell$ or $L_r$ and a quarter circle arc from the end of the previous segment to $v_k$. Hence, the contour condition is satisfied. We color $(w_\ell,v_k)$ blue, $(v_k,w_r)$ green and the remaining edges of $v_k$ red; see also [@felsner; @Schnyder90]. Observe that each blue and green edge consists of a quarter circular arc and a horizontal segment (that may have zero length), while a red edge consists of a vertical segment and a quarter circular arc (that may have zero radius). We are now ready to state our first theorem; the analogous of Theorem \[theo:niceSC2\] for the octilinear model is shown in .
![ Illustration of the contour condition (left) and the placement of $v_k$ (right).[]{data-label="fig:shift-smooth"}](canonical "fig:"){width=".47\textwidth"} ![ Illustration of the contour condition (left) and the placement of $v_k$ (right).[]{data-label="fig:shift-smooth"}](canonical "fig:"){width=".47\textwidth"}
A maximal planar $n$-vertex graph admits a bi-monotone planar smooth orthogonal $2$-drawing in the Kandinsky model, which requires $O(n^2)$ area and can be computed in $O(n)$ time. \[theo:niceSC2\]
Bi-monotonicity follows by construction. The time complexity follows from [@DBLP:journals/ipl/ChrobakP95]. Planarity is proven by induction. Drawing $\Gamma_3$ is planar by construction. Assuming that $\Gamma_{k-1}$ is planar, we observe that no two edges incident to $v_k$ cross in $\Gamma_k$. Also, these edges do not cross edges of $\Gamma_{k-1}$. Since the radii of the arcs of the edges incident to vertices that are shifted remain unchanged and since edges incident to vertices in the shift-sets retain their shape, drawing $\Gamma_k$ is planar.
We reduce the number of edges drawn with complexity $2$ in two steps.
\[([S.]{}1)\]
\[s:h-stretch\] We stretch the drawing horizontally (by employing appropriate vertical cuts; ) to eliminate the vertical segments of all red edges with a circular arc segment of non-zero radius.
\[s:v-stretch\] We stretch the drawing vertically, to guarantee that the edges of a spanning tree (i.e., $n-1$) are drawn with complexity $1$.
For Step S.\[s:h-stretch\], we assume that each blue and green edge has a horizontal segment (that may be of zero length). Consider a red edge $(u,v)$ with a vertical segment of length $\delta$ and assume w.l.o.g. that $u$ is to the right and above $v$. If we shift $u$ by $\delta$ units to the right, then $(u,v)$ can be drawn as a quarter circular arc. If the shift is by more than $\delta$ units, then a horizontal segment is needed. Since all edges incident to $u$ that are drawn below $u$ enter $u$ from its left or from its right side, the shift of $u$ cannot introduce crossings between them. We eliminate the vertical segments of all red edges with a circular arc segment of non-zero radius, as follows. As long as there exist such edges, we choose the one, call it $(u,v)$, whose vertical segment has the largest length $\delta$, and assume that $u$ is to the right and above $v$. We eliminate the vertical segment of $(u,v)$ using a vertical cut $L$ at $x(u)- \varepsilon$, for small $\varepsilon>0$. Since $L$ crosses several edges, shifting all vertices to the right of $L$ by $\delta$ to the right has the following effects. By the choice of $(u,v)$, the vertical segments of all red edges crossed by $L$ are eliminated; note that this may introduce new horizontal segments. The horizontal segment of each blue and green edge crossed by $L$ is elongated by $\delta$. Both imply that no edge crossings are introduced. Hence, by the termination of our algorithm all edges with vertical segments are of complexity $1$.
Step \[s:h-stretch\] ensures that the $x$-distance of adjacent vertices is at least as large as their $y$-distance (unless they are connected by vertical edges). Based on this property, in Step \[s:v-stretch\] we compute new $y$-coordinates for the vertices in the sequence of the canonical ordering $\pi$, keeping their $x$-coordinates unchanged. First, we set $y(v_1) = y(v_2) = 0$. For each $k=3,\ldots,n$, we set $y(v_k) = \max_{w\in\{w_\ell,\ldots,w_r\}}\{y(w) + \max\{\Delta_x(v_k, w),1\} \}$, where $w_\ell,\ldots,w_r$ are the neighbors of $v_k$ in $\Gamma_{k-1}$, i.e., $v_k$ is placed above $w_\ell,\ldots,w_r$ in $\Gamma_{k-1}$, such that one of its edges (the one of the maximum; call it $(v_k,w^\ast)$) is drawn with complexity $1$; as a quarter circle arc or as a vertical edge depending on whether the $x$- distance of $v_k$ and $w^\ast$ is non-zero or not. Since $(v_k,w^\ast)$ is the edge that must be stretched the most in order to ensure that it is drawn with complexity $1$, for all other edges incident to $v_k$ in $G_k$, the $y$-distance of their endpoints is at least as large as their corresponding $x$-distance. Hence, they are drawn as vertical segments followed by quarter circular arcs (that may have zero radius). We are now ready to state our second theorem.
[A maximal planar $n$-vertex graph admits a bi-monotone planar smooth orthogonal $2$-drawing with at least $n-1$ edges with complexity $1$ in the Kandinsky model, which requires $O(n^4)$ area and can be computed in $O(n^2)$ time.]{}\[theo:evenNicerSC2\]
For $k=3,\ldots,n$, vertex $v_k$ is incident to an edge drawn with complexity $1$ in Step \[s:v-stretch\]. Since $(v_1,v_2)$ is drawn as a horizontal segment, at least $n-1$ edges have complexity $1$. Planarity is proven by induction; the main invariant is that all edges on $C_k \setminus \{(v_1,v_2)\}$ have a quarter circular arc and possibly a vertical segment. Time and area requirements are shown in .
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
In this paper, we continued the study on smooth orthogonal and octilinear drawings. Our $\mathcal{NP}$-hardness proofs are a first step towards settling the complexity of both drawing problems. We conjecture that the former is $\mathcal{NP}$-hard, even in the case where only the planar embedding is specified by the input. For the latter, it is of interest to know if it remains $\mathcal{NP}$-hard even for planar graphs of max-degree $4$ or if these graphs allow for a decision algorithm. Our drawing algorithms guarantee bi-monotone $2$-drawings with a certain number of complexity-$1$ edges for maximal planar graphs. Improvements on this number or generalizations to triconnected or simply connected planar graphs are of importance.
#### Acknowledgements.
The authors would like to thank Patrizio Angelini and Martin Gronemann for useful discussions.
[^1]: This work is supported by DFG grant Ka812/17-1.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- |
Guillaume Bossard$^{\sf{a}}$ and Stefanos Katmadas$^{\sf{a}, \sf{b}}$\
[$\sf{a}$ Centre de Physique Théorique, École Polytechnique, CNRS, 91128 Palaiseau, France]{}\
[$\sf{b}$ Institut de Physique Théorique, CEA Saclay, CNRS-URA 2306,\
91191 Gif sur Yvette, France ]{}\
,\
bibliography:
- 'PaperG.bib'
title: 'non-BPS walls of marginal stability'
---
Introduction and Overview {#sec:intro}
=========================
The description of black holes in supergravity, viewed as a low energy effective description of string compactifications, has been a useful tool for understanding the structure and properties of nonperturbative features of the theory. In particular, the possible bound states of D-branes manifest themselves as multi-centre supergravity solutions at strong coupling [@Denef:2000nb]. In the BPS sector, the properties of the supergravity solutions, such as the walls of marginal stability and attractor flow trees [@Denef:2000nb; @Denef:2007vg], have been instrumental in uncovering this connection, leading to remarkable results on the description of D-brane bound states in terms of quiver quantum mechanics [@Denef:2002ru].
The purpose of this paper is to set the stage for a similar study of a particular subsector of the non-BPS spectrum. We restrict attention to zero temperature under-rotating multi-centre black holes, charged and rotating extremal black holes, for which the extremality bound is saturated by the charges.[^1] This class includes BPS solutions, wherein all charges involved allow for some supersymmetry to be preserved and no local rotation at the horizons is allowed, even though there is a global angular momentum generically. In this paper, we study the reverse situation, solutions where only non-BPS charges (of strictly negative quartic invariant) are allowed at the centres, as described by the composite non-BPS system [@Bossard:2011kz; @Bossard:2012ge; @Bossard:2013oga]. The mixed situation, in which both BPS and non-BPS charges are allowed is described by the more complicated almost-BPS system [@Goldstein:2008fq; @Bossard:2013oga], but will not be discussed here.
Using the formalism developed in [@Bossard:2013oga], we are able to solve the system completely, in a general duality frame. As was already noted in [@Bossard:2011kz; @Bossard:2012ge], the resulting composite solutions only exist on certain hypersurfaces of the moduli space, unlike the BPS solutions whose domain of existence is of codimension zero in moduli space. The origin of this complication can be understood from the property that the phase of the central charge, which determines the BPS flow in multi-centre solutions, is somehow replaced by the $n_v-1$ flat directions of the individual charges [^2] in the composite non-BPS system. It follows that instead of the $N-1$ equations for $N$ centres one finds in the BPS system, one now finds $n_v\times ( N-1)$ equations, which not only fix the distances between the centres, but also constrain the electromagnetic charges and the asymptotic scalars in general. Nonetheless, restricting attention to the relevant hypersurface in moduli space where the solution exists, we find that the situation is essentially the same as for BPS solutions, that this hypersurface admits a co-dimension one boundary in moduli space corresponding to walls of marginal stability, where (some of) the distances between the centres diverge.
Furthermore, we study explicitly the binding energy of multi-centre solutions within the composite non-BPS system. This is based on an extension of the notion of the fake superpotential, as it has been defined for single-centre solutions [@Ceresole:2007wx; @Andrianopoli:2007gt; @LopesCardoso:2007ky; @Perz:2008kh; @Bossard:2009we; @Ceresole:2009vp]. Here, we give the general expression for the single-centre fake superpotential, for any value of the charge vector, in terms of the scalar fields and the parameters describing the flat directions mentioned above. The latter correspond precisely to the auxiliary variables introduced for the ST$^2$ and STU models in [@Ceresole:2009vp], and can be identified with them. In this paper we prove that the ‘true fake superpotential’ describing the single-centre flow is not only obtained as an extremum of the flat directions dependent potential as defined in [@Ceresole:2009vp], but is in fact always a global maximum.
Let us stress that the expression of the fake superpotential linear in the charges as defined in [@Ceresole:2009vp], is a rather involved function of the moduli and the flat directions parameters, already for the STU model. Proving that the extrema of the parameters describing flat directions were maxima therefore has been a technical obstacle for some time. Using a parametrisation of the moduli and the flat directions that depends explicitly on the electromagnetic charges, as inspired by the structure of the general single-centre solution, we shall see that the expression of the fake superpotential simplifies drastically such that we are able to prove our results for any cubic model with symmetric Kähler space.
Using the property that the energy of a composite bound state is described by the same potential linear in the charges, at non-extremum values of the flat directions parameters [@Bossard:2011kz; @Bossard:2012ge], we are able to prove that the binding energy is always positive. Furthermore, we also exhibit that the total energy at the location of a wall of marginal stability in moduli space is equal to the sum of the masses of the constituents that decouple, irrespectively of whether they are single-centre or composite themselves.
In fact we also find that the total mass of a composite solution is always lower than that of a single-centre solution of the same total charge, so that composite solutions are actually energetically favored, whenever they exist. This is in contrast with BPS configurations, for which the mass is entirely determined by the total electromagnetic charges and the asymptotic scalars, such that a BPS bound state always has the same mass as the single-centre BPS black hole with identical charges. The existence and structure of the composite solutions is also shown to be connected to a notion of attractor flow tree, very similar to the corresponding one for BPS solutions [@Denef:2000nb].
This paper is organised as follows. In section \[sec:system\] we introduce some notations and discuss the composite non-BPS system without any restriction on the charges, in a convenient basis. We then discuss the properties of single-centre and multi-centre non-BPS solutions in section \[sec:explicit-sols\], using the same basis. In particular, we present the most general single-centre solution in section \[sec:sing-cent-expl\], while in section \[sec:superpotential\] we define the fake superpotential and consider its properties. These are then used in section \[sec:multi-cent-expl\], where the multi-centre solutions are presented and the walls of marginal stability and the binding energy of the composites are studied. Some of our results are illustrated in an explicit two-centre example carrying D0-D6 and D0-D4-D6 charges, in section \[sec:two-cent-ex\]. Section \[sec:derive-sols\] is devoted to the detailed derivation of several results used in the previous sections for the single- and multi-centre solutions in a frame independent formulation. We conclude in section \[sec:concl\], where we discuss our results and point to further directions. Finally, we recall some technicalities about T-dualities derived in [@Bossard:2013oga] in Appendix A, we show the appearance of space-dependent Kähler transformations to identify different sections describing the same solution in Appendix B, and in Appendix C we compute the stabilizer of two generic charges of negative quartic invariant.
Composite non-BPS system {#sec:system}
========================
In this section, we give some basic properties of the supergravity models we consider, in subsection \[sec:preliminaries\], and define the general composite non-BPS system in a convenient basis in subsection \[sec:def-sys\]. Using this basis, we give expressions for the general multi-centre solution, in terms of harmonic functions, referring to section \[sec:derive-sols\] for the details of the derivation in a general basis.
Preliminaries {#sec:preliminaries}
-------------
In this paper we wish to describe stationary asymptotically flat extremal black holes in the context of $\N=2$ supergravity coupled to $n_v$ vector multiplets. The bosonic field content consists of the metric, $n_v$ complex scalar fields, $t^i$, and $n_v+1$ gauge fields, $A^I$, where $i=1\dots n_v$ and $I=1\dots n_v+1$. The bosonic Lagrangian then reads [@deWit:1984pk; @deWit:1984px] (see [@Bossard:2013oga] for our conventions) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Poincare-4d}
8\pi\,e^{-1}\, {\cal L} &=&
- \tfrac12 R - g_{i\bar{\jmath}}\, \partial^{\mu} t^i \partial_{\mu} \bar{t}^{\bar\jmath}
-\tfrac{\mathrm{1}}4\, F^I_{\mu\nu}\, G_I^{\mu\nu} \,.\end{aligned}$$ Here, the $F^{I}_{\mu\nu} = \partial_\mu A^I_\nu - \partial_\nu A_\mu^I$ encompass the graviphoton and the gauge fields of the vector multiplets, while $G_I^{\mu\nu}$ are the dual field strengths, defined in terms of the $F^I_{\mu\nu}$ though the scalar dependent couplings. The explicit form of these couplings and of the Kähler metric, $g_{i\bar{\jmath}}$, will not be relevant in what follows, but can be computed in terms of the prepotential, which we will always consider to be cubic $$\label{prep-def}
F=-\frac{1}{6}c_{ijk}\frac{X^i X^j X^k}{X^0} \equiv -\frac{\det[{\bf{X}}]}{X^0} \,.$$ Here, the tensor $c_{ijk}$, $i=1,\dots n_v$, is completely symmetric and we introduced the cubic determinant $\det[{\bf{X}}]=\frac{1}{6}c_{ijk}\,X^i X^j X^k$ and the shorthand boldface notation for objects carrying an index $i,j,\dots$.
Here, we consider $\N=2$ supergravity theories for which the special Kähler target space, $\mathcal{M}_4$, is a symmetric space and can be obtained by Kaluza–Klein reduction from the corresponding five dimensional theories [^3] defined in [@Gunaydin:1983bi]. In this case, $\mathcal{M}_4$ is a coset space, while the symmetric tensor $c_{ijk}$ satisfies special properties.
In order to set up the notation used throughout this paper, we define the cross product $$\label{cross-def}
(\va\times\vb)_i= \frac12\,c_{ijk} a^j b^k\,,$$ where we use boldface notation for vectors, omitting the indices $i\,,j\,,\dots$ for brevity. Symmetric special target spaces are defined by tensors satisfying the Jordan algebra identity $$(\va\times\va)\times(\va\times \va) = \det\va\, \va\,,$$ for any vector $\va$. Taking derivatives of this basic identity, one can easily show identities involving different vectors, as $$\begin{aligned}
4\,(\va\times\va)\times(\va\times \vb) =&\, \det\va\, \vb+ \va\,\tr[\va\times\va \,\vb]\,,
{\nonumber \\*}4 \, (\va\times\vb)\times (\va\times\vb)
=&\, - 2 \, (\va\times\va)\times (\va\times\vb)
{\nonumber \\*}&\, + \va \,\tr[\vb\times\vb\, \va] + \vb \,\tr[\va\times\va\, \vb]\,,\end{aligned}$$ which will be used extensively in what follows. Note that the notation $\tr[\va \vc]= a^i c_i$ denotes the contraction of two elements with two different kinds of indices.[^4] Similar notation will be used for vector and scalar fields when writing components, so that we write $\vt$ for the complex scalars. This notation is rather natural for the so-called magic theories, for which a vector $\va$ can be represented as a three by three Hermitian matrix over a Hurwitz algebra ($\mathds{R},\, \mathds{C},\, \mathds{H},\, \mathds{O}$) [@Gunaydin:1983bi].
Throughout this work, we use objects transforming covariantly under electric/magnetic duality, in order to naturally parametrise solutions. The gauge field equations of motion and Bianchi identities can then be cast as a Bianchi identity on the symplectic vector $$\label{eq:dual-gauge}
\cF_{\mu\nu}=\begin{pmatrix} G_{I\,\! \mu\nu} \vspace{.3cm} \\ F^I_{\mu\nu}\end{pmatrix}\,,$$ whose integral over any two-cycle defines the associated electromagnetic charges through$$\label{ch-def}
\Gamma = \frac{1}{2\pi} \,\int_{S^2} \cF
=\begin{pmatrix} q_{0} \\ \vq \\ \vp \\ p^0 \end{pmatrix}
\,,$$ where we explicitly show the decomposition of the charge vector in the $n_v+1$ electric and magnetic components. We use exactly the same decomposition for all other symplectic vectors. The symplectic inner product in this representation then takes the form $$\label{inn-prod-def}
{\langle {\Gamma_1}, {\Gamma_2} \rangle} =
q_{0\,1} p^0_{\,2} + \tr[\vq_1\,\vp_2] - p^0_{\,1} q_{0\,2} - \tr[\vp_1\,\vq_2] \,.$$
Finally, the physical scalar fields, $\vt$, also appear through a symplectically covariant object, the so called symplectic section, $\cV$, which is uniquely determined by the physical scalar fields as $$\label{eq:sec-canon}
\mathcal{V} = \begin{pmatrix} F_I \\ X^I \end{pmatrix}
= X^0 \left(\begin{array}{c} \det \vt \\ -\vt \times \vt \\ \vt \\ 1 \end{array}\right)\,,$$ up to the local $U(1)$ phase $X^0$.
#### Quartic invariant and charges of restricted rank
\
The invariance of the cubic norm $\det\va$ can be used to define duality invariants and restricted charge vectors, a concept that is of central importance for the applications we consider later in this paper. First, we introduce the quartic invariant for a charge vector $\Gamma$, as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{I4-basis}
I_4(\Gamma)&=& \frac{1}{4!} t^{MNPQ}\Gamma_M\Gamma_N\Gamma_P\Gamma_Q
\nonumber\\
&=& -4\,q_0\,\det\vp + 4\,p^0\,\det\vq + 4\,\tr[\vp\times\vp\,\vq\times\vq]
- (p^0 q_0 + \tr \vp \vq)^2 \,,
\label{I4-ch}\end{aligned}$$ where we also defined the completely symmetric tensor $t^{MNPQ}$ for later reference. It is also convenient to define a symplectic vector out the first derivative, $I_4^\prime(\Gamma)$, of the quartic invariant, as $$\label{I4-der-basis}
I_4^\prime(\Gamma) = 4 \left( \begin{array}{c} -\det \vq + \tfrac{1}{2} q_0 ( q_0 p^0 + \tr \vq \vp )\\
q_0 \vp \times \vp - 2 \vp \times ( \vq \times \vq ) + \tfrac{1}{2} \vq ( q_0 p^0 + \tr \vq \vp ) \\
p^0 \vq \times \vq + 2 \vq \times ( \vp \times \vp ) - \tfrac{1}{2} \vp ( q_0 p^0 + \tr \vq \vp ) \\
-\det \vp - \tfrac{1}{2} p^0 ( q_0 p^0 + \tr \vq \vp )
\end{array}\right) \ ,$$ so that the following relations hold $${\langle {\Gamma}, {I^\prime_4(\Gamma)} \rangle} = 4 I_4(\Gamma) \ , \qquad I^\prime_4(\Gamma,\Gamma,\Gamma) = 6 I_4^\prime(\Gamma) \ .$$ In the following, all instances of $I_4(\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2,\Gamma_3,\Gamma_4)$ will denote the contraction of the tensor $t^{MNPQ}$ in with the four charges, without any symmetry factors, except for the case with a single argument, as in $I_4(\Gamma)$ and $I^\prime_4(\Gamma)$.
We are now in a position to introduce the concept of charge vectors of restricted rank. A generic vector leads to a nonvanishing invariant and is also referred to as a rank-four vector, due to the quartic nature of the invariant. Similarly, a rank-three vector, $\Gamma_\trois$, is a vector for which the quartic invariant vanishes, but not its derivative. An obvious example is a vector with only $\vp \neq 0$ and all other charges vanishing, so that the derivative $I_4^\prime(\Gamma_\trois)$ is nonzero and proportional to the cubic term $\det\vp$.
There are two more classes of restricted vectors, defined analogously as rank-two (small) and rank-one (very small) vectors. A rank-two vector, $\Gamma_\deux$, is defined such that both $I_4(\Gamma_\deux)= I^\prime_4(\Gamma_\deux)=0$, and a simple example is provided by a vector with all entries vanishing except the $\vp$, with the additional constraint that $\det\vp=0$. Finally, a very small vector, $\Gamma_\un$, is defined such that $$\begin{gathered}
I_4(\Gamma_\un)= I^\prime_4(\Gamma_\un)=0\,,
{\nonumber \\*}\frac{1}{4} I_4(\Gamma_\un , \Gamma_\un , \Gamma , \Gamma )
\equiv \frac{1}{4} t^{MNPQ} \Gamma_{\un M} \Gamma_{\un N} \Gamma_P \Gamma_Q
= - {\langle {\Gamma_\un}, {\Gamma} \rangle}^2\,, \label{VerySmallI4}\end{gathered}$$ for any vector $\Gamma$. Examples of very small vectors are given by vectors where only the $q_0$ or $p^0$ component is nonzero. More generally, we will use the parametrisation $$\label{eq:R-gen}
\hat{R} = \frac{ 2 \sqrt{2}}{ \det \ve } \left( \begin{array}{c} 1 \\ \ve \\ \ve \times \ve \\ - \det \ve \end{array} \right) \ ,$$ for a general very small vector, where the choice of normalisation is for later convenience. Note that a general rank one vector can always be written in this way up to a possibly singular rescaling. Since the black hole solutions described in what follows do not depend on the normalisation of $\hat{R}$, this parametrisation is completely general, although it is singular for specific rank one vectors. In the discussion of explicit black hole solutions, we will need to define a second constant very small vector, denoted ${ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$, that does not commute with $\hat{R}$, so that in the parametrisation , it reads [^5] $$\label{pre-Rst}
{ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }= \frac{\sqrt{2}\, \det \ve }{\det( \ve +\ve^*)} \left( \begin{array}{c} 1 \\ -\ve^* \\ \ve^* \times \ve^* \\ \det \ve^* \end{array} \right) \ ,$$ where $\ve^*$ is defined such that $\det (\ve +\ve^*) \ne 0$ and $\langle \hat{R} , { R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }\rangle = 4$ by construction. Despite the fact that this provides a natural parametrisation for ${ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$, it turns out it is not the most convenient, as it obscures the action of T-dualities, which are central to our construction and we describe next.
#### T-dualities
\
A crucial ingredient in the description of black hole solutions in supegravity is the action of abelian isometries of the scalar manifold in the real basis. These isometries are defined as including the standard spectral flow transformations, given by (the notation $\exp({\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^-}_\vk)$ for this action will become clear shortly) $$\exp({\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^-}_\vk) \left(\begin{array}{c} q_0 \\ \vq \\ \vp \\ p^0 \end{array}\right) = \left(\begin{array}{c} q_0 - \tr \vk\vq + \tr \vk \times \vk \, \vp + \det \vk \, p^0 \\ \vq -2 \vk \times \vp - \vk \times \vk \, p^0 \\ \vp + \vk \, p^0 \\ p^0 \end{array}\right) \ , \label{Tminus0}$$ as well as all the abelian isometries dual to . An obvious example are the transformations obtained by S-duality on , as $$\exp({\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^+}_\vk) \left(\begin{array}{c} q_0 \\ \vq \\ \vp \\ p^0 \end{array}\right) = \left(\begin{array}{c} q_0 \\ \vq - \vk q_0 \\ \vp - 2 \vk \times \vq + \vk \times \vk\, q_0 \\ p^0+\tr \vk \vp - \tr \vk \times \vk \, \vq + \det \vk \, q_0 \end{array}\right) \ . \label{Tplus0}$$ For the purposes of this paper, we define general T-dualities as the collection of all abelian subgroups in the duality group, obtained from the spectral flows by dualities. These can be described in terms of real vector parameters in the general case, similar to spectral flows, as shown in [@Bossard:2013oga]. We refer to that work for the details of the description in the symplectic real basis and concentrate on the results for the representation of T-dualities that will be used extensively in constructing black hole solutions.
It is useful to think of T-dualities as raising and lowering operators ${{\mathrm T}^\pm}$ on the components in -. This is clearly the case for the spectral flow parametrised by $\vk$ in , whose generators never generate $p^0$, while the magnetic components, $\vp$, are only generated by the action on $p^0$ etc. As shown in [@Bossard:2013oga], this structure is general to all T-dualities, which act on four separate eigenspaces in a similar fashion. The relevant generator is given by $${\bf h}_T\, \Gamma \equiv {\langle {\hat{R}}, {{ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }} \rangle}^{-1} {\Bigl ({
\frac{1}{2} I_4^{\prime}( \hat{R}, { R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } },\Gamma) + {\langle {\Gamma}, {{ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }} \rangle} \hat{R} - { R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }{\langle {\hat R}, {\Gamma} \rangle}} \Bigr )} \ ,
\label{hTReal-1}$$ where $\hat{R}$ and ${ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$ are two mutually nonlocal very small vectors. One can verify that ${\bf h}_T$ preserves both the symplectic product and the quartic invariant. For example, taking $\ve\rightarrow 0$ and $\ve^*\rightarrow \infty$ in - leads to a pair $\hat{R}$, ${ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$ along $p^0$ and $q_0$ respectively and to the decomposition seen in the spectral flow transformations -. In the following, we denote the four eigenspaces of by their corresponding eigenvalue.[^6] Indeed, it is simple to show that $\hat{R}$ and ${ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$ have eigenvalues $+3$ and $-3$ respectively, while the remaining charge components are evenly split into $+1$ and $-1$ eigenvalue vectors. For the spectral flows of , the magnetic components $\vp$ are of eigenvalue $+1$, while the electric components $\vq$ are of eigenvalue $-1$.
In the general case, one should use the parametrisation for $\hat R$, which by using , can be written as $$\label{SimilarlyR}
\hat{R} = \exp{\Bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^-}_{ - \frac{ \ve \times \ve}{\det \ve}}} \Bigr )} \left( \begin{array}{c} 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ - 2 \sqrt{2} \end{array} \right)
= \exp{\Bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^-}_{ - \frac{ \ve \times \ve}{\det \ve}}} \Bigr )} \exp{\bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^+}_{ \vk}} \bigr )} \left( \begin{array}{c} 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ - 2 \sqrt{2} \end{array} \right) \ .$$ Here we used the property that the vector is invariant with respect to ${\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^+}$ in the second line. This way it is straightforward to write another parametrisation for ${ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$ in , where such a T-duality parameter appears polynomially, as $$\begin{aligned}
{ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }&=& \exp{\Bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^-}_{ - \frac{ \ve \times \ve}{\det \ve}}} \Bigr )} \exp{\bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^+}_{\vk}} \bigr )} \left( \begin{array}{c} \sqrt{2} \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{array} \right) {\nonumber \\*}&=& \frac{\sqrt{2}}{ \det \ve} \left( \begin{array}{c} \det(\ve - \vk) \\ - \vk\, \det \ve + 2 ( \ve \times \ve ) \times ( \vk \times \vk ) - \ve \, \det \vk \\ \vk \times \vk \, \det \ve- \ve \times \ve\, \det \vk \\ \det \ve \, \det\vk \end{array} \right) \ .\label{RsK}\end{aligned}$$ Of course this base will be rather singular when $\det \ve = 0 $, but this is only the case for isolated points in the moduli space of pairs of rank one vectors with a fixed symplectic product.
Using the relations above, we can obtain an explicit representation for general T-dualities, denoted ${{\mathrm T}^\pm}$, that will be useful in what follows, especially in section \[sec:explicit-sols\]. As explained in Appendix \[sec:T-duality\], the representation and allows one to define the generic ${{\mathrm T}^+}$ from the spectral flows and their S-dual through , or explicitly $$\label{T-similar}
{{\mathrm T}^+}_{\vk} = \exp{\Bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^-}_{ - \frac{ \ve \times \ve}{\det \ve}}} \Bigr )} {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^+}_{\vk} \exp{\Bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^-}_{ \frac{ \ve \times \ve}{\det \ve}}} \Bigr )} \ .$$ Similarly, one can define the dual T-dualities ${{\mathrm T}^-}_{\vk_-}$ through , but these do not appear in the composite non-BPS system studied here.
We emphasise that all explicit formulae above are fully duality covariant, despite the fact that we use spectral flows as preffered transformations in order to define a representation. On the contrary, our parametrisation identifies the correct combinations of a general charge vector that transform under the simple spectral flows -. To be precise, we record the following rewriting of the charge vector in the preffered basis, $$\label{eq:ch-dec-basis-gen}
\Gamma = \exp{\Bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^-}_{ - \frac{ \ve \times \ve}{\det \ve}}} \Bigr )} \exp{\bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^+}_{ \vk} } \bigr )}
\left( \begin{array}{c} P \\ \vl_\Gamma + \vk\, P\\
\vp + \frac{\ve \times \ve}{\det \ve} \, p^0 + 2 \vk \times \vl_\Gamma + \vk\times \vk \, P\\
p^0 - \tr \vk {\Bigl ({\vp + \frac{\ve \times \ve}{\det \ve} \, p^0 } \Bigr )}
- \tr \vk \times \vk \, \vl_\Gamma - \det\vk\,P
\end{array} \right) \ ,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
P = &\, \frac1{2\,\sqrt{2}}{\langle {\hat{R}}, {\Gamma} \rangle}
= \frac1{\det\ve}\,(p^0 + \tr \ve \vp - \tr \ve \times \ve \, \vq) + q_0\,,
{\nonumber \\*}\vl_\Gamma = &\, \vq - 2 \frac{ \ve \times \ve}{\det \ve } \times \vp - p^0 \frac{\ve}{\det \ve } \ .
\label{lGamma-gen}\end{aligned}$$ It is straightforward to verify that the action of the general T-duality on $\Gamma$ is equivalent to the action of ${\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^+}$ in on the combinations $P$, $\vl_\Gamma$, $\vp + \frac{\ve \times \ve}{\det \ve} \, p^0$ and $p^0$, in the order they appear in . Therefore, $P$ is the charge of grade $-3$, $\vl_\Gamma$ is of grade $-1$, while $\vp + \frac{\ve \times \ve}{\det \ve} \, p^0$ and $p^0$ are of grade $+1$ and $+3$ respectively.
Similarly, we use the definition in to act on the moduli, given the known action of ${\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^\pm}$. By definition, the spectral flow ${\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^-}$ is the T-duality shifting the axions as $$\label{Tm-scal}
\exp{\bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^-}_{\vk}} \bigr )} \vt = \vt + \vk\,,$$ which is exactly the action of ${\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^-}$ on the physical scalar following by application of on the section in . Finally, the action of ${\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^+}$ on leads to the transformation $$\label{Tp-scal}
\exp{\bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^+}_{\vk}} \bigr )} \vt = \left( \vt^{-1} + \vk \right)^{-1} =
\frac{\vt + 2 \vk\times(\vt\times\vt) + \vk\times\vk\,\det\vt }
{1 + \tr\vt\times\vt\,\vk + \tr\vk\times\vk\,\vt + \det\vk \,\det\vt}\,.$$ Here, the inverse is the Jordan inverse $\vt^{-1}\equiv\frac{\vt\times\vt}{\det\vt}$ and the first equality expresses the fact that ${\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^+}$ is related to ${\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^-}$ by an S-duality.
Definition of the system {#sec:def-sys}
------------------------
We are now ready to introduce the composite non-BPS system for constructing multi-centre black hole solutions. We assume stationary backgrounds and restrict ourselves to the solutions with a flat $\mathbb{R}^3$ base space. We therefore introduce the standard Ansatz for the metric $$\label{metricMltc}
ds^2=- e^{2U}( d t+\omega )^2 + e^{-2U} d \vec{x} \cdot d\vec{x} \,,$$ in terms of a scale function $U(x)$ and the Kaluza–Klein one-form $\omega(x)$ (with spatial components only), which are both required to asymptote to zero at spatial infinity. Here and henceforth, all quantities are independent of time, so that all scalars and forms are defined on the flat three-dimensional base.
For a background as in , the $n_v+1$ gauge fields of the theory, together with their magnetic duals, as arranged in the symplectic vector, $\cF$, in are decomposed as $$\label{gauge-decop}
2 \cF= d \zeta \, ( d t+\omega) + F \,, \qquad
F= \zeta\, d \omega + d w \,.$$ Here, we defined the gauge field scalars $\zeta$, arising as the time component of the corresponding gauge fields, and the one-forms $w$ describing the charges. Of these components, only the vector fields $w$ are indepedent, while the $\zeta$ can straightforwardly be constructed once the solution for the scalars is known.
In order to describe a solution, one therefore needs to specify the spatial part of the gauge fields, $dw$, the scalar section $\cV$ (or the physical moduli $t^i$ directly), as well as the metric components $e^U$ and $\omega$. The composite non-BPS system can be described by introducing two constant, mutually nonlocal very small vectors, $\hat R$ and ${ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$, as above and two vectors of functions, denoted ${ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$ and $\cK$. The former is contains eigenvectors of eigenvalues $(-1)\oplus(+3)$ with respect to the grading and will be parameterised as $$\label{V-L-def}
{ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2} }\,
\exp{\Bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^-}_{ - \frac{ \ve \times \ve}{\det \ve}}} \Bigr )} \exp{\bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^+}_{ \vk} } \bigr )}
\left(\begin{array}{c} 0 \\ \vL \\ 0 \\ -V \end{array}\right) \,.$$ Here, $\vL$ and $V$ are the two functions parametrising the $(-1)$ and $(+3)$ components respectively.[^7] The second vector of functions, $\cK$, appears only as a parameter of T-dualities that vary in space. We therefore do not need its explicit covariant form, but only the corresponding parameter in the chosen representation, which we denote by $\vK$.
The two vectors, $\vK$ and $\vL$, are harmonic on the flat $\mathbb{R}^3$ base, as $$d\star d \vK = d\star d \vL=0\,,$$ while the function $V$ is specified by the Poisson equation $$\label{V-Poiss-b}
d\star d V = \tr [\vL\, d\star d (\vK \times \vK)] \,.$$ The final dynamical equation required is the one for the angular momentum vector $\omega$, which is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:dom-5-b}
\star d \omega - d M = \tr [\vL\times \vL \,d\vK] \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $M$ is a new local function that appears explicitly in the solutions. Taking the divergence of , we obtain the Poisson equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Poiss-M-b}
d \star d M = -d\,\tr [\vL\times \vL \,\star d\vK] \,,\end{aligned}$$ in terms of $\vK$ and $\vL$.
The solutions are then given by the above functions, as follows. The scalars are given by $$\begin{aligned}
2\,e^{-U}\mbox{Im}(e^{-i\alpha}\cV)
=&\, -\exp{\Bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^-}_{ - \frac{ \ve \times \ve}{\det \ve}}} \Bigr )}
\exp{\bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^+}_{\vK-\vk} } \bigr )} \exp{\Bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^-}_{ \frac{ \ve \times \ve}{\det \ve}}} \Bigr )}
\left({ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }- \tfrac12\, V\,\hat{R} - \tfrac{M}{V}\,{ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }\right) \,
{\nonumber \\*}=&\, -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2} } \exp{\Bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^-}_{ - \frac{ \ve \times \ve}{\det \ve}}} \Bigr )} \exp{\bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^+}_{\vK}} \bigr )}
\left( \begin{array}{c} -2 \frac{M}{V} \\ \vL \\ 0 \\ V \end{array} \right) \,,
\label{scals-5-b}\end{aligned}$$ where we have used in the second line the explicit form of ${ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$ and the very small vectors. The physical scalars do not depend on the Kähler phase $\alpha$. Note that the vector of harmonic functions, $\vK$, appears in place of the constant parameter of the basis, $\vk$, which can be viewed as the asymptotic value of $\vK$, parametrising ${ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$ (cf. also the discussion below ). Similarly, the vector fields are defined from the first order equation $$\begin{aligned}
\star dw = &\, \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
\exp{\Bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^-}_{ - \frac{ \ve \times \ve}{\det \ve}}} \Bigr )} \exp{\bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^+}_{\vK}} \bigr )}
\left( d \left( \begin{array}{c} 0 \\ \vL \\ 0 \\ -V \end{array} \right)
- {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^+}_{d \vK} \left( \begin{array}{c} 0 \\ \vL \\ 0 \\ -V \end{array} \right)\right)
{\nonumber \\*}= &\,\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \exp{\Bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^-}_{ - \frac{ \ve \times \ve}{\det \ve}}} \Bigr )}
\left( \begin{array}{c} 0 \\ d \vL \\ 2 \vL \times d \vK - 2 \vK \times d \vL \\ -dV - \tr \vK \times \vK \, d \vL + \tr \vL \, d ( \vK \times \vK ) \end{array} \right)\,,
\label{dw-bas}\end{aligned}$$ so that the additional harmonic functions $\vK$ modify the charges explicitly. One computes the gauge fields scalars according to [@Bossard:2013oga] $$\zeta = -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{4U} \exp{\Bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^-}_{ - \frac{ \ve \times \ve}{\det \ve}}} \Bigr )} \exp{\bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^+}_{\vK}} \bigr )} \left( \begin{array}{c} \det \vL \\ - M \vL \\ V \vL \times \vL \\ M V \end{array} \right) \ .$$ We note that can be solved in exactly the same way as for the BPS solutions [@Bates:2003vx], which in our basis gives $$\begin{aligned}
\vt &=& \exp{\Bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^-}_{ - \frac{ \ve \times \ve}{\det \ve}}} \Bigr )} \exp{\bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^+}_{\vK}} \bigr )} \frac{ \vL \times \vL}{M-ie^{-2U} } {\nonumber \\*}&=& \frac{ {\bigl ({ \frac{ M - i e^{-2U}}{\det \vL} \vL +\vK } \bigr )} \times {\bigl ({ \frac{ M - i e^{-2U}}{\det \vL} \vL +\vK } \bigr )}}{\det{\bigl ({ \frac{ M - i e^{-2U}}{\det \vL} \vL +\vK } \bigr )}} - \frac{\ve \times \ve}{\det \ve } \ . \label{Gen-Moduli}\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, the metric scale factor is given by $$e^{-4U} = V\, \det\vL - M^2 \ . \label{ScallingFactorInvariant}$$ Regularity implies that the $n_v$ harmonic functions $\vL$ must correspond to a strictly positive Jordan algebra element, so that leads to a non-degenerate metric and the scalar fields lie in the Kähler cone. Strictly positive means that the three eigen values of $\vL$ must be strictly positive for a classical Jordan algebra, and equivalently in the STU truncation that the three functions $L_i$ are strictly positive.
Explicit solutions to this system where derived in a particular frame in [@Bossard:2011kz; @Bossard:2012ge] while in the next section we discuss the general solution carrying arbitrary charges in the specific base above. The general manifestly duality covariant solution is derived in section \[sec:derive-sols\], independently of any specific frame.
Composite non-BPS solutions {#sec:explicit-sols}
===========================
In this section we discuss the general properties of composite non-BPS solutions, in the explicit parametrisation of the previous section. This representation is useful in studying the properties of solutions, since it provides explicit formulae for all quantities, as explained above. In particular, the natural parametrisation of the moduli in terms of integration constants in allows us to study the behaviour of solutions as a function of the asymptotic scalars for fixed electromagnetic charges.
We find that all regular composite solutions only exist for moduli constrained to a $(n_v+1)$-dimensional hypersurface with an $n_v$-dimensional boundary defining a wall of marginal stability. The solution admits a non-zero binding energy that tends to zero at the wall, while the distance between the centres diverges, in complete analogy to BPS composite solutions. Somewhat surprisingly, we find that a single-centre solution always has a greater energy compared to the total energy of a composite solution of the same total charge, at points in moduli space where it exists. Finally, we show that one can introduce a notion of attractor tree flow, similar to the existing one for BPS solutions [@Denef:2000nb].
In section \[sec:sing-cent-expl\] we first discuss the general single-centre solution, while in section \[sec:superpotential\] we give a detailed presentation of the properties of the fake superpotential for single-centre solutions, in the basis introduced in the previous section. This completes a longstanding discussion in the literature [@Ceresole:2007wx; @Andrianopoli:2007gt; @LopesCardoso:2007ky; @Perz:2008kh; @Bossard:2009we; @Ceresole:2009vp; @Yeranyan:2012au; @Ferrara:2012qm] and at the same time establishes various relations that are crucial in our treatment of multi-centre solutions. Indeed, as it turns out, this same function describes the total mass of the multi-centre solutions, and satisfy to a generalisation of the triangular identity that permits to prove the positivity of the binding energy. Finally, in section \[sec:two-cent-ex\] we present an explicit example including two centres, for which we make all relations fully explicit, including a numerical treatment of some aspects of the solution.
Revisiting the single-centre solution {#sec:sing-cent-expl}
-------------------------------------
We now turn to an explicit description of the general single-centre solution in the representation introduced above. The general solution was constructed in [@Bossard:2012xsa], but it has not been given in a fully explicit form, while the mass formula and the properties of the relevant fake superpotential were only briefly discussed in that paper. In addition, a precise description of these properties will prove crucial in the discussion of composite solutions in what follows.
For a single-centre solution, the functions $\vK$ can be consistently set a to a specific constant $\vk_\Gamma$,[^8] which depends on the charge vector $\Gamma$. We then find from that the charge is defined by the poles of $\vL$ and $V$ of grade $(-1)\oplus(+3)$. This is not a constraint, but rather a choice of basis, as a single charge can be always brought to this form by choosing $\hat R$ and ${ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$ appropriately. Indeed, consider a general charge vector and constrain the vector $\ve$ as satisfying $$\frac{ \det \ve }{2 \sqrt{2} } {\langle {\hat{R}}, {\Gamma} \rangle} = p^0 + \tr \ve \vp - \tr \ve \times \ve \, \vq + \det \ve\, q_0 = 0 \ \label{NoRstar}\,,$$ which from sets the grade $(-3)$ charge to zero. One then finds $$\label{eq:ch-dec-basis}
\Gamma = \exp{\Bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^-}_{ - \frac{ \ve \times \ve}{\det \ve}}} \Bigr )} \exp{\bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^+}_{ \vk} } \bigr )} \left( \begin{array}{c} 0 \\ \vl_\Gamma \\ \vp + \frac{\ve \times \ve}{\det \ve} \, p^0 + 2 \vk \times \vl_\Gamma \\ p^0 - \tr \vk {\Bigl ({\vp + \frac{\ve \times \ve}{\det \ve} \, p^0 } \Bigr )} - \tr \vk \times \vk \, \vl_\Gamma \end{array} \right) \ ,$$ for $$\vl_\Gamma = \vq - 2 \frac{ \ve \times \ve}{\det \ve } \times \vp - p^0 \frac{\ve}{\det \ve } \ . \label{lGamma}$$ For a single-centre solution, one may additionally choose the grade $(+1)$ component of the charge to vanish, by choosing $\vk$ appropriately. The appropriate value, $\vk_\Gamma$, is found by setting the third row in to zero, as $$2 \vl_\Gamma \times \vk_\Gamma = - \vp - \frac{ \ve \times \ve }{\det \ve} \, p^0 \ .\label{k-sing}$$ One then obtains the charge $$\label{sing-charge}
\Gamma = \exp{\Bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^-}_{ - \frac{ \ve \times \ve}{\det \ve}}} \Bigr )} \exp{\bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^+}_{\vk_\Gamma}} \bigr )} \left( \begin{array}{c} 0 \\ \vl_\Gamma \\ 0 \\ \frac{I_4(\Gamma)}{4 \det \vl_\Gamma } \end{array} \right) \ ,$$ which is indeed a general vector of grade $(-1)\oplus(+3)$ for $\vk=\vk_\Gamma$. Note that we used the parametrisation $\frac{I_4(\Gamma)}{4 \det \vl_\Gamma }$ for the charge of grade $(+3)$, instead of the equivalent expression in the last line of . The general solution of for $\vk_\Gamma$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\vk_\Gamma &=& -\frac{ 2 ( \vl_\Gamma \times \vl_\Gamma ) \times {\Bigl ({\vp + \frac{\ve \times \ve}{\det\ve} \, p^0 } \Bigr )} - \tfrac{1}{2} \vl_\Gamma \, \tr \vl_\Gamma {\Bigl ({\vp + \frac{\ve \times \ve}{\det\ve} \, p^0 } \Bigr )}}{\det \vl_\Gamma} \label{kGamma} \\
&=& \frac1{\det \ve \, \det \vl_\Gamma}\biggl( \det \ve \, q_0 \, \vp \times \vp + \ve \, \det \vp - 2\, p^0 \, ( \ve \times \ve ) \times ( \vq \times \vq )
{\nonumber \\*}&& \hspace{1.5cm}
- 2 \,\det \ve \, ( \vq \times \vq ) \times \vp
- 4 \,( \ve \times \ve ) \times {\bigl ({ \vq \times ( \vp \times \vp ) } \bigr )}
{\nonumber \\*}&& \hspace{1.5cm}
+ \frac{1}{2} {\bigl ({ \det \ve \, \vq + 2 ( \ve \times \ve ) \times \vp + \ve \, p^0 } \bigr )} ( q_0 p^0 + \tr \vq \vp ) \biggr) \ , \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the determinant of $\vl_\Gamma$ is given explicitly by $$\begin{aligned}
\det \ve \, \det \vl_\Gamma = &\, \det \vp + q_0 \tr \ve \times \ve \, \vp \times \vp + \det \ve \, \det \vq
+ {\bigl ({ - \det \ve \, q_0 + \tr \ve \times \ve \, \vq } \bigr )} ( q_0 p^0 + \tr \vq \vp )
{\nonumber \\*}&\,- p^0 \, \tr \ve \, \vq \times \vq
- 2 \tr ( \ve \times \ve)\times ( \vq \times \vq)\, \vp - 2 \tr \ve \times \vq\, \vp \times \vp \ .\end{aligned}$$
It is then straightforward to define the general single-centre solution from these data. One chooses the vector of harmonic functions $${ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }= \exp{\Bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^-}_{ - \frac{ \ve \times \ve}{\det \ve}}} \Bigr )} \exp{\bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^+}_{\vk_\Gamma}} \bigr )} \left( \begin{array}{c} 0 \\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \vl+ \frac{1}{r} \vl_\Gamma \\ 0 \\ -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{1+m^2}{\det \vl} + \frac{1}{r} \frac{I_4(\Gamma)}{4\det \vl_\Gamma } \end{array} \right) \ ,$$ and the corresponding section reads $$\label{eq:sec-expli-sing}
2 \mbox{Im}( e^{-U-i\alpha} \cV ) = -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \exp{\Bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^-}_{ - \frac{ \ve \times \ve}{\det \ve}}} \Bigr )} \exp{\bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^+}_{\vk_\Gamma}} \bigr )} \left( \begin{array}{c} -2 \frac{M}{V} \\ \vL \\ 0 \\ V \end{array} \right) \ ,$$ for $$\begin{aligned}
V &=& \frac{1+m^2}{\det \vl } - \frac{1}{2 \sqrt{2}} \, \frac{I_4(\Gamma)}{r \det \vl_\Gamma}\ , {\nonumber \\*}\vL &=& \vl +\sqrt{2} \, \frac{\vl_\Gamma }{r} \ , {\nonumber \\*}M &=& m + {\mathsf{J}}\frac{\cos \theta}{r^2} \ .\end{aligned}$$ One then obtains the scaling factor $$e^{-4U} = V \det \vL - M^2 \,$$ and the scalar fields $$\begin{aligned}
\vt &=& \exp{\Bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^-}_{ - \frac{ \ve \times \ve}{\det \ve}}} \Bigr )} \exp{\bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^+}_{\vk_\Gamma}} \bigr )} \frac{ \vL \times \vL}{M-ie^{-2U} } {\nonumber \\*}&=& \frac{ {\bigl ({ \frac{ M - i e^{-2U}}{\det \vL} \vL +\vk_\Gamma } \bigr )} \times {\bigl ({ \frac{ M - i e^{-2U}}{\det \vL} \vL +\vk_\Gamma } \bigr )}}{\det{\bigl ({ \frac{ M - i e^{-2U}}{\det \vL} \vL +\vk_\Gamma } \bigr )}} - \frac{\ve \times \ve}{\det \ve } \ , \label{SingleCentreModuli}\end{aligned}$$ where we used and . The solution will be regular provided $$- I_4(\Gamma) - {\mathsf{J}}^2 > 0\,,$$ and the vector $\vL \times \vL$ is a positive Jordan algebra element everywhere.[^9] For $\vl$ positive, this requires that $\vl_\Gamma$ be positive, which fixes some conditions on the vector $\ve$ that parametrises partially the asymptotic scalars. Note that, in principle, we should consider regularity of $\vk_\Gamma$ as well, but since the denominator of the explicit solution in is $\det\ve\,\det \vl_\Gamma$, this condition is already implied by the regularity of $\vl_\Gamma$, $\ve$.
Before concluding our discussion of the single-centre solution, let us return to the choice made above and note that one can write the same solution with non constant $\vK$. This function is however quite restricted, since the requirement of regularity at the horizon implies that its poles are proportional to those of $\vL$. The relevant expressions for the various functions then follow from - as $$\begin{aligned}
\vL &= &\vl + \sqrt{2} \frac{\vl_\Gamma}{r} \ ,
\quad \ V = \frac{1+m^2}{\det \vl } + \gamma^2 {\bigl ({ \det \vL - \det \vl } \bigr )} - \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}\frac{1}{r} \frac{I_4(\Gamma)}{\det \vl_\Gamma} \ , {\nonumber \\*}\vK &=& \vk_{\Gamma} + \gamma \vL \ , \qquad
M = m + \gamma {\bigl ({ \det \vl - \det \vL } \bigr )} + \frac{ {\mathsf{J}}\cos \theta}{r^2} \ , \label{sing-complicated}\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma$ is the proportionality constant relating the poles of $\vL$ and $\vK$. The asymptotic scalars are then parametrised according to $$\begin{aligned}
\vt_{\infty} &=& \exp{\Bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^-}_{ - \frac{ \ve \times \ve}{\det \ve}}} \Bigr )} \exp{\bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^+}_{ \vk}} \bigr )} \frac{ \vl \times \vl}{m-i} {\nonumber \\*}&=& \frac{ {\bigl ({ \frac{ m - i }{\det \vl} \vl + \vk } \bigr )} \times {\bigl ({ \frac{ m - i }{\det \vl} \vl + \vk } \bigr )}}{\det{\bigl ({ \frac{ m - i }{\det \vl} \vl +\vk } \bigr )}} - \frac{\ve \times \ve}{\det \ve } \ , \label{AsymptoticModuli}\end{aligned}$$ for $\vk = \vk_\Gamma +\gamma \vl$. The full expression for the moduli follows from and, as it turns out, is equivalent to the one in , where all functions are harmonic. One can easily check that is only a rewriting of the simple single centre solution, since $\gamma$ can be absorbed in a redefinition of the parameters, as $m \rightarrow m + \gamma \det \vl$. The proof in the general frame independent case is given in \[app:kahler-trans\]. This redefinition defines a different set of coordinates in moduli space , which will prove useful in various settings below.
The fake superpotential {#sec:superpotential}
-----------------------
The mass formula for single-centre solutions is crucial for the applications that follow, especially in comparing the mass of multi-centre solutions to that of their constituents. We therefore wish to rewrite the explicit expression of the mass in the representation used in this paper, in terms of the fake superpotential proposed in [@Ceresole:2007wx] and defined in [@Bossard:2009we; @Ceresole:2009vp]. Using the parametrisation for the moduli, the non-BPS mass formula takes the rather simple form $$\label{W-single}
W(\Gamma) = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} {\Bigl ({ ( 1 + m^2 ) \frac{ \tr \vl \times \vl \, \vl_\Gamma }{\det \vl} -\frac{1}{4} \frac{ \det \vl}{\det \vl_\Gamma} I_4(\Gamma) } \Bigr )} \ .$$ Similarly, the asymptotic central charge in this basis is $$|Z(\Gamma)| = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} \Bigl| ( m - i )^2 \frac{ \tr \vl \times \vl \, \vl_\Gamma }{\det \vl} - \frac{1}{4} \frac{ \det \vl}{\det \vl_\Gamma} I_4(\Gamma) \Bigr| \ .$$ Noting that the constant $m$ is finite for regular values of the moduli, it is simple to verify that $W(\Gamma) > |Z(\Gamma)|$, provided $I_4(\Gamma) < 0 $. In contrast, one would have $W(\Gamma) < |Z(\Gamma)|$ for $I_4(\Gamma)>0$. This proves that such a regular non-BPS extremal black hole always satisfies to the BPS bound. We emphasise that our formula is not linear in the charge $\Gamma$, as the parametrisation of the asymptotic scalars we use depends implicitly on the charge (through $\vk_\Gamma$ and $\ve$ via the condition ${\langle {\hat{R}}, {\Gamma} \rangle}=0$). In order to understand this property, it is convenient to rewrite the mass formula in a form that only depends on the asymptotic scalars, the charges, and the auxiliary vector $\ve$. This vector, defined such that it satisfies to , can then be understood as parametrising the $n_v-1$ flat directions associated to the charge vector $\Gamma$.
To this end, it is convenient to introduce some shorthand notation, that will be used in the remainder of this section. First, we define one complex and one real variable $$\label{u-defs}
\vu \equiv ( \vt + \ve^{-1} )^{-1} \ ,
\qquad
\vpe \equiv \vp + \ve^{-1} p^0\,,$$ which appear in all expressions involving $W$. Here, the inverse is the Jordan inverse $\ve^{-1} = \frac{ \ve \times \ve}{\det \ve}$ (and similarly for $(\vt + \ve^{-1})^{-1}$). It is important to note that these variables only depend on the moduli $\vt$, the electromagnetic charge $\Gamma$ and the parameter $\ve$. Using these objects, one computes indeed that $W(\Gamma)$ can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
W(\Gamma) =&\,
\frac{|\det(\vt + \ve^{-1})|}{ \sqrt{i \det (\vt - \bar \vt) } } \biggl(
\tr\bigl[ \vu \times \bar{\vu}\, \vl_\Gamma \bigr]
- p^0
+ \frac12\,\tr\bigl[ {\bigl ({ \vu + \bar{\vu} } \bigr )} \vpe \bigr]
\biggr)\ , \label{FakeSuperpotential}\end{aligned}$$ where $\vl_\Gamma$ is given by . Note that this expression is linear in the charge $\Gamma$. In this form, the fake superpotential reproduces the formula derived in [@Ceresole:2009vp], where the vector $\ve$ satisfying to parametrises the $n_v-1$ flat directions associated to the charge $\Gamma$. Moreover, this parametrisation of the flat directions exhibits the similarity of the fake superpotential and the central charge in this basis. The latter can be shown to take the form $$\begin{aligned}
|Z(\Gamma)| =&\, \biggl|
\frac{\det(\vt + \ve^{-1})}{ \sqrt{ i \det (\vt - \bar \vt) } } \biggl(
\tr\bigl[ \vu \times \vu\, \vl_\Gamma \bigr]
- p^0
+ \,\tr \vu \,\vpe
\biggr) \biggr| \ , \label{eCentralCharge}\end{aligned}$$ in this basis, using the constraint ${\langle {\Gamma}, {\hat R} \rangle}=0$. Note that the explicit dependence of on $\ve$ is due to exactly this constraint, and can be eliminated by rewriting $\vl_\Gamma$ and $\vpe$ in terms of the charges.
According to [@Ceresole:2009vp], $\ve$ must be such that it extremises $W(\Gamma,\ve)$, with respect to variations preserving . In order to check this property we compute the variation of $W$ with respect to $\ve^{-1}$ while keeping the charge and the moduli fixed. The variation of $\vu$ following from reads $$\delta \vu = 2 ( \vu \times \vu ) \times \delta \ve^{-1} - \vu \tr \vu \delta \ve^{-1}\,,$$ so that we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\delta W &=& \frac{|\det(\vt + \ve^{-1})|}{ \sqrt{i \det (\vt - \bar \vt) } } \biggl( 2 \tr {\Bigl ({ {\bigl ({ ( \vu \times \vu ) \times \delta\ve^{-1} } \bigr )} \bar \vu \times \vl_\Gamma } \Bigr )} + 2 \tr {\Bigl ({ {\bigl ({ ( \bar \vu \times \bar \vu ) \times \delta\ve^{-1} } \bigr )} \vu \times \vl_\Gamma } \Bigr )} \biggr . {\nonumber \\*}&& \hspace{40mm} - \frac{1}{2} \tr {\bigl ({ ( \vu + \bar \vu ) \delta \ve^{-1} } \bigr )} \ \tr {\bigl ({ \vu \times \bar \vu \, \vl_\Gamma } \bigr )} \\
&& \hspace{10mm} \biggl . + \tr{\bigl ({ ( \vu - \bar \vu ) \times ( \vu - \bar \vu )\, \vpe \times \delta \ve^{-1} } \bigr )} - \frac{1}{4} \tr {\bigl ({ ( \vu - \bar \vu ) \delta \ve^{-1}} \bigr )} \tr {\bigl ({ ( \vu - \bar \vu ) \vpe} \bigr )} \biggr)\,. \nn\end{aligned}$$ For the single-centre solution, one computes that this variation reduces to $$\label{W-first}
\delta W = \frac{\det \vl }{2\sqrt{2}} \biggl( \det {\Bigl ({ \vk_\Gamma + m \frac{\vl}{\det \vl}} \Bigr )} + \tr \frac{ \vl\times\vl}{(\det\vl)^2 } {\Bigl ({ \vk_\Gamma + m \frac{\vl}{\det \vl}} \Bigr )} \biggr) \ \tr \vl_\Gamma \delta\ve^{-1} \ ,$$ which indeed vanishes for $\delta \ve^{-1}$ preserving the condition , that $\hat{R}$ mutually commutes with the charge, $$\delta{\langle {\hat R}, {\Gamma} \rangle}=0\quad \Rightarrow \quad \tr \vl_\Gamma \delta\ve^{-1} =0\,,$$ in agreement with [@Ceresole:2009vp]. Note that it is important [@Ceresole:2009vp], that the flat directions parameter extremises the fake superpotential for arbitrary moduli, and so the reader may worry that we only check this variation within the solution. But note that the asymptotic scalars are completely arbitrary in this solution, and so this is perfectly consistent.
In the construction of [@Ceresole:2009vp] it is also important that these extrema are unique, so as to fix unambiguously the expression of the fake superpotential in terms of the charge $\Gamma$ and the moduli. To check this, we can simply consider the moduli to be parametrised by with $\vk$ arbitrary and not necessarily equal to $\vk_\Gamma$, in which case $\ve$ would extremise $W$ as we just explained. One computes that the condition that $\delta W$ is proportional to $\tr \vl_\Gamma \delta \ve $ gives $${\Bigl ({ 4 ( \vl \times \vl ) \times {\bigl ({ ( \vk - \vk_{\Gamma}) \times \vl_{\Gamma} } \bigr )}
- \vl\, \tr \vl \, ( \vk - \vk_{\Gamma}) \times \vl_{\Gamma}} \Bigr )}
= \det \vl \ \gamma \vl_{\Gamma} \ ,$$ for some arbitrary Lagrange multipliers $\gamma$. Using the property that $\vl$ is positive, one can simplify this equation to $$( \vk - \vk_{\Gamma} - \gamma \vl ) \times \vl_{\Gamma} = 0 \ ,$$ which because $\vl_\Gamma$ is also positive, reduces to $$\vk = \vk_{\Gamma} + \gamma \vl \ .$$ Since the term in $\gamma$ can always be reabsorbed in a redefinition of $m$ as in without affecting $\ve$, we find that the unique solution for $\ve$ is indeed the expression it takes for a single-centre solution.
Beyond the first order variation , it is important for the multi-centre applications that follow to consider the second variation of $W$ as well, as it turns out to be crucial in comparing the mass of a composite to that of its constituents. In the remainder of this section, we compute explicitly the Hessian of $W$ at its extremum, viewed as a function of $\ve$, imposing the constraint that this vector is such that ${\langle {\Gamma}, {\hat R} \rangle}=0$. We find that the resulting quadratic form is negative definite along all directions preserving the constraint, in an open set in moduli space for general charges, so that one can extend the result to the full moduli space by duality. Because the extremum is unique, it follows that it is moreover a global maximum. The result that the extremum of $W$ is moreover a global maximum is crucial in defining a generalisation of the triangular identity for BPS black holes, which states that the mass of a composite is always lower than the masses of its constituents. However, the details of the proof are technical and not directly relevant for the remainder of this paper, so that they can be skipped by a hasty reader.
In order to prove that the second derivative of $W$ is a negative definite quadratic form, we consider the explicit form of the latter, which reads $$\begin{aligned}
\delta^2 W &=& \frac{|\det(\vt + \ve^{-1})|}{ \sqrt{ i \det (\vt - \bar \vt) } } \biggl( 2 \tr \Bigl[ ( \delta \ve^{-1} \times \delta \ve^{-1} ) \times \vl_\Gamma \, {\Bigl ({ \det \vu \, \bar \vu - 2 ( \vu \times \vu ) \times ( \bar \vu \times \bar \vu ) + \det \bar \vu \, \vu } \Bigr )}\Bigr] \biggr . {\nonumber \\*}&& \hspace{10mm} + \tr \bigl[ \delta \ve^{-1} \times \delta \ve^{-1} \, \vu \times \vu \bigr] \ \tr \bar \vu \times \bar \vu \, \vl_\Gamma+ \tr \bigl[ \delta \ve^{-1} \times \delta \ve^{-1} \, \bar \vu \times \bar \vu \bigr] \ \tr \vu \times \vu \, \vl_\Gamma {\nonumber \\*}&& \hspace{35mm} - \tr \bigl[ \delta \ve^{-1} \times \delta \ve^{-1} \, \ ( \vu \times \vu + \bar \vu \times \bar \vu ) \bigr] \ \tr \vu \times \bar \vu \, \vl_\Gamma {\nonumber \\*}&& \hspace{10mm} - 2 \tr\bigl[ ( \vu + \bar \vu ) \delta \ve^{-1}\bigr] \,\tr \bigl[ \delta \ve^{-1} {\bigl ({ ( \vu \times \vu ) \times ( \bar \vu \times \vl_\Gamma) + ( \bar \vu \times\bar \vu ) \times ( \vu \times \vl_\Gamma ) } \bigr )} \bigr] {\nonumber \\*}&& \hspace{10mm} + \tr [\vu \times \bar \vu \, \vl_\Gamma] \, {\Bigl ({ \frac{1}{2} {\bigl ({ \tr \vu \delta \ve^{-1} } \bigr )}^2 + \frac{1}{4} {\bigl ({ \tr ( \vu + \bar \vu ) \delta \ve^{-1} } \bigr )}^2 + \frac{1}{2} {\bigl ({ \tr \bar \vu \delta \ve^{-1} } \bigr )}^2} \Bigr )} {\nonumber \\*}&& \hspace{5mm} + 4 \tr \bigl[ ( \delta \ve^{-1} \times \delta \ve^{-1} ) \times \bar \vu \ ( \vu \times \vu ) \times \vpe \bigr] + 4 \tr\bigl[ ( \delta \ve^{-1} \times \delta \ve^{-1} ) \times \vu \ ( \bar \vu \times \bar \vu ) \times \vpe\bigr] {\nonumber \\*}&& \hspace{10mm} + \tr \bigl[ \delta \ve^{-1} \times \delta \ve^{-1}\, \vpe\bigr] \ {\Bigl ({ \det \vu - \tr \vu \times \vu \, \bar \vu - \tr \vu \, \bar \vu \times \bar \vu + \det \bar \vu } \Bigr )} {\nonumber \\*}&& \hspace{10mm} - \frac{1}{2} \tr \bigl[ \delta \ve^{-1} \times \delta \ve^{-1}\, ( \vu \times \vu + \bar \vu \times \bar \vu ) \bigr] \ \tr ( \vu + \bar \vu ) \vpe {\nonumber \\*}&& \hspace{10mm} - \tr\bigl[ ( \vu - \bar \vu ) \times ( \vu -\bar \vu ) \ \vpe \times \delta \ve^{-1}\bigr] \ \tr ( \vu + \bar \vu ) \delta \ve^{-1} {\nonumber \\*}&& \hspace{5mm} + \frac{1}{2} {\bigl ({ \tr \vu \delta \ve^{-1} } \bigr )}^2 \, \tr \vu \vpe - \frac{1}{8} {\bigl ({\tr (\vu + \bar \vu ) \delta \ve^{-1} } \bigr )}^2 \, \tr (\vu + \bar \vu ) \vpe+ \frac{1}{2} {\bigl ({\tr \bar \vu \delta \ve^{-1} } \bigr )}^2 \, \tr \bar \vu \vpe {\nonumber \\*}&& \hspace{10mm} \biggl . + p^0 {\Bigl ({ \tr \bigl[ ( \vu - \bar \vu ) \times ( \vu - \bar \vu ) \ \delta\ve^{-1} \times \delta \ve^{-1}\bigr] - \frac{1}{4} {\bigl ({ \tr ( \vu - \bar \vu ) \delta \ve^{-1} } \bigr )}^2 } \Bigr )} \biggr) \ .\end{aligned}$$ Substituting the single-centre expression one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\delta^2 W &=& - 2 \sqrt{2} \frac{1+m^2 } { ( \det \vl )^2 } \tr \vl \times \vl_\Gamma \, \delta \ve^{-1} \times \delta \ve^{-1} +\sqrt{2} \frac{m}{\det \vl} \tr \vpe \, \delta \ve^{-1} \times \delta \ve^{-1} {\nonumber \\*}&& \qquad + \frac{W}{( \det \vl)^2 } {\Bigl ({ 4 \tr \vl \times \vl \, \delta \ve^{-1} \times \delta \ve^{-1} - {\bigl ({ \tr \vl \delta \ve^{-1}} \bigr )}^2 } \Bigr )} {\nonumber \\*}&& - \frac{1}{ \sqrt{ i \det (\vt - \bar \vt) } } \frac{ \tr ( \vu + \bar \vu ) \vu \times \bar \vu }{|\det \vu|} \ \delta^2 \frac{ \det \ve \, q_0 - \tr \ve \times \ve\, \vq + \tr\ve \vp + p^0}{\det \ve} {\nonumber \\*}&\approx& - 2\sqrt{2} \frac{1+m^2 } { ( \det \vl )^2 } \tr \vl \times \vl_\Gamma \, \delta \ve^{-1} \times \delta \ve^{-1} + \sqrt{2} \frac{m}{\det \vl} \tr \vpe \, \delta \ve^{-1} \times \delta \ve^{-1} {\nonumber \\*}&& \qquad + \frac{W}{( \det \vl)^2 } {\Bigl ({ 4 \tr \vl \times \vl \, \delta \ve^{-1} \times \delta \ve^{-1} - {\bigl ({ \tr \vl \delta \ve^{-1}} \bigr )}^2 } \Bigr )} \ , \label{SecondDerW}\end{aligned}$$ where in the second equality we neglected the component that vanishes assuming that the variation of $\ve$ preserves ${\langle {\hat{R}}, {\Gamma} \rangle}=0$. We shall prove that the above defined quadratic form is negative definite for appropriate variations of $\ve^{-1}$ preserving this constraint. However it is generally not negative definite for arbitrary variations $\delta \ve^{-1}$, therefore it is important to take the constraint into account.
In order to proceed, it turns out that a change of variable from $\ve$ to $\vk$ is useful, where $\vk$ is the arbitrary vector parametrising the asymptotic scalars as in . Because we consider the variation of $\ve^{-1}$ at fixed moduli, the variation $\delta \ve^{-1}$ is determined by the corresponding variation of $\vk$ such that is kept constant. For $\vk \ne \vk_\Gamma$, one can always find the corresponding $\vl^\prime,\, \ve^\prime,\, m^\prime$ such that $${\Bigl ({ \frac{ m - i }{\det \vl} \vl + \vk } \Bigr )}^{-1} - \ve^{-1} = {\Bigl ({ \frac{ m^\prime - i }{\det \vl^\prime} \vl^\prime + \vk_{\Gamma}(\ve^\prime) } \Bigr )}^{-1} - \ve^{\prime\, -1} \ .$$ For infinitesimal variations of the parameters in the vicinity of $\vk = \vk_\Gamma$, one obtains $$2 ( \vu^{-1} \times \vu^{-1} ) \times \delta \vk - \vu^{-1} \tr \vu^{-1} \delta \vk = 2 ( \vu^{-1} \times \vu^{-1} ) \times \delta \vu - \vu^{-1} \tr \vu^{-1} \, \delta \vu - \delta \ve^{-1} \ ,$$ where $$\delta \vu = \frac{\vl}{\det \vl } \delta m + ( m-i ) \delta \frac{ \vl }{\det \vl } + \frac{ \partial \vk_\Gamma}{\partial \ve^{-1}} \cdot \delta \ve^{-1} \ .$$ Note that the variation of $\vk_\Gamma$ is required because the correct $\vk_\Gamma$ as a function of $\ve$ is evaluated at $\ve + \delta \ve$ at this order. It is convenient to rewrite this equation as $$\delta \vk - \frac{\vl}{\det \vl } \delta m- ( m-i ) \delta \frac{ \vl }{\det \vl } = - 2 ( \vu \times \vu ) \times \delta \ve^{-1} + \vu \tr \vu \, \delta \ve^{-1} + \frac{ \partial \vk_\Gamma}{\partial \ve^{-1}} \cdot \delta \ve^{-1} \ . \label{ConstantModuli}$$ One can compute the variation of $\vk_\Gamma$ as $$\frac{ \partial \vk_\Gamma}{\partial \ve^{-1}} \cdot \delta \ve^{-1} = 2 ( \vk_\Gamma \times \vk_\Gamma ) \times \delta \ve^{-1} - \vk_\Gamma \tr \vk_\Gamma \, \delta \ve^{-1} - \frac{1}{2} \frac{I_4(\Gamma)}{(\det \vl_\Gamma)^2 } ( \vl_\Gamma \times \vl_\Gamma ) \times \delta \ve^{-1} \ ,$$ such that the terms quadratic in $\vk_\Gamma$ cancel in after substituting $\vu = \frac{m-i}{\det \vl} \vl + \vk_\Gamma$. Decomposing into its imaginary and real components one obtains $$\begin{gathered}
\delta \frac{ \vl }{\det \vl} = \frac{ 4}{\det \vl } ( \vl \times \vk_\Gamma) \times \delta \ve^{-1} - \frac{ \vl}{\det \vl } \tr \vk_\Gamma \, \delta \ve^{-1} - \frac{ \vk_\Gamma}{\det \vl } \tr \vl \, \delta \ve^{-1}\\ + \frac{ 2 m }{ (\det \vl)^2 } {\bigl ({ 2 ( \vl \times \vl ) \times \delta \ve^{-1} - \vl \tr \vl \, \delta \ve^{-1}} \bigr )} \ , \end{gathered}$$ and $$\delta \vk - \frac{\vl}{\det \vl } \delta m = - \frac{1}{2} \frac{I_4(\Gamma)}{(\det \vl_\Gamma)^2 } ( \vl_\Gamma \times \vl_\Gamma ) \times \delta \ve^{-1} + \frac{1 + m^2 }{( \det \vl )^2 } {\bigl ({ 2 ( \vl \times \vl ) \times \delta \ve^{-1} - \vl \tr \vl \, \delta \ve^{-1}} \bigr )} \ ,\label{kgivese}$$ where $\delta m$ is itself determined such that $\tr \vl_\Gamma \, \delta \ve^{-1} = 0 $. The last two expressions exhibit that $\delta \ve^{-1}$ and $\delta \vl$ are completely determined by the variation $\delta \vk$. The second formula in particular provides the required change of variable from $\delta \ve^{-1}$ to $\delta \vk$. As a variation of $\delta \vk$ proportional to $\vl$ can be reabsorbed in a redefinition of $m$ (cf. ), one can restrict attention to the variations of $\vk$ linearly independent of $\vl$. This parametrisation of the flat directions in terms of $\vk$ is more useful because we can forget about the constraint, which now simply determines the decomposition of in the variations $\delta\ve^{-1}$ and $\delta m$. Moreover, it is the variation $\delta \vk$ rather than $\delta \ve^{-1}$ that will appear explicitly in the two-centre solutions as will be shown shortly.
The quadratic form written in terms of $\delta \vk$ is a rather complicated expression in general, and we shall only consider the limit of small and large $\vl$. These limits both correspond to asymptotic scalars that have order one axions and very large dilatons. Note however that we do not consider any restriction on the electromagnetic charges, so it is enough to prove the result on an open set in moduli space to ensure that this property holds in general, given that the mass formula is duality invariant and the duality group $G_4$ acts transitively on the moduli space. The only restriction on our representation arises from singularities at regions where $\det \ve=0$, but the corresponding configurations define isolated points in moduli space. Therefore, showing that the extrema of $W(\Gamma,\ve)$ are maxima on an open set in moduli space for all charges, is enough to circumvent this issue. The reader might note that the domain of large dilatons in moduli space corresponds to small volume moduli in string theory, and the supergravity approximation cannot be trusted in this limit. However this is only a technical detail at this level, since the proof extends by duality to all values of the moduli.
### Small $\vl$ {#small-vl .unnumbered}
For very small $\vl$, the expression of $\delta \ve^{-1}$ simplifies to $$\delta \ve^{-1} = 2 \frac{ \det \vl }{1 + m^2 } {\Bigl ({ \vl \times \delta \vk - \vl \times \vl \frac{ \tr \vl \, \vl_\Gamma \times \delta \vk }{\tr \vl \times \vl \, \vl_\Gamma}} \Bigr )} + \mathcal{O}(\vl^8) \ ,$$ and the quadratic form reads $$\begin{aligned}
\delta^2 W &=& \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} \frac{1 + m^2}{( \det \vl)^3} \biggl( \tr \vl \times \vl \, \vl_\Gamma {\Bigl ({ 4 \tr \vl \times \vl\, \delta\ve^{-1} \times \delta \ve^{-1} - {\bigl ({ \tr \vl \delta \ve^{-1} } \bigr )}^2 } \Bigr )} \biggr . {\nonumber \\*}&& \hspace{55mm} \biggl . - 8\, \det \vl \, \tr \vl \times \vl_\Gamma \, \delta \ve^{-1} \times \delta \ve^{-1} \biggr) + \mathcal{O}(\vl^{-3}) {\nonumber \\*}&=&\sqrt{2} \frac{ \det \vl }{1 + m^2} \biggl( \tr \vl_\Gamma \, \delta \vk \times \delta \vk - \frac{ (\tr \vl \, \vl_\Gamma \times \delta \vk )^2}{\tr \vl \times \vl \, \vl_\Gamma} \biggr) + \mathcal{O}(\vl^5) \ ,\end{aligned}$$ which can be shown to be negative for all $\delta \vk$. To prove this one can use the $G_5$ invariance of this equation to chose both $\vl$ and $\vl_\Gamma$ to be diagonal Jordan algebra elements sitting in the STU truncation. Regularity of the solution then requires all components of $\vl$ and $\vl_\Gamma$ to be strictly positive. This permits to rewrite $$\begin{aligned}
\delta^2 W &=& -\frac{1 }{ 2 W(l_2 l_{\Gamma 1} + l_1 l_{\Gamma 2} )^2 } \biggl( \det \vl_\Gamma \, \tr \vl \times \vl \, \vl_\Gamma \, ( l_2 \delta k_1 - l_1 \delta k_2)^2 {\nonumber \\*}& & + \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} \big[(l_2 l_{\Gamma 1} + l_1 l_{\Gamma 2} )^2 \delta k_3 + \tr \vl \times \vl \, \vl_\Gamma \, ( l_{\Gamma 1 } \delta k_2 + l_{\Gamma 2} \delta k_1 )
{\nonumber \\*}&& \hspace{6cm}
- l_{\Gamma 3} ( l_1^{\; 2} l_{\Gamma 2 } \delta k_2 + l_2^{\; 2} l_{\Gamma 1} \delta k_1 ) \big]^2 \biggr)
{\nonumber \\*}&& - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{\det \vl}{1 + m^2 } {\Bigl ({\tr \vl_\Gamma (\delta \vk )^2 - \sum_i l_{\Gamma i} (\delta k_i)^2 } \Bigr )} + \mathcal{O}(\vl^5) \ ,\end{aligned}$$ which is manifestly negative. The last line shows that the non-diagonal components of $\delta \vk$ necessarily contribute negatively to $\delta^2 W$ and $(\delta \vk)^2$ is the Jordan square of $\delta \vk$, as a matrix in an explicit basis. For completeness, we note that this region corresponds to small volume moduli and finite axions $$\vt = \frac{ \vl \times \vl}{m-i} - \ve^{-1} + \mathcal{O}(\vl^2) \ .$$
### Large $\vl$ {#large-vl .unnumbered}
In this case $\delta \ve^{-1}$ reduces to $$\delta \ve^{-1} = - 8 \frac{\det \vl_\Gamma}{I_4(\Gamma)} \, \vl_\Gamma \times {\Bigl ({ \delta \vk - \vl \frac{ \tr \vl_\Gamma \times \vl_\Gamma \, \delta \vk}{\tr \vl\, \vl_\Gamma \times \vl_\Gamma} } \Bigr )} + \mathcal{O}(\vl^{-4}) \ .$$
After some algebra one obtains the perturbation of the mass to be $$\begin{aligned}
\label{d2WlargeL}
\delta^2 W &=&4 \sqrt{2} \frac{ \det \vl_\Gamma}{- I_4(\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}) \det \vl} \biggl( - 2 \tr \vl \times \vl \, ( \vl_\Gamma \times \vl_\Gamma ) \times ( \delta \vk \times \delta \vk ) - \det \vl \frac{ ( \tr \vl_\Gamma \times \vl_\Gamma \, \delta \vk )^2 }{\tr \vl\, \vl_\Gamma \times \vl_\Gamma} \biggr . \\ && \biggl . + \tr \vl \times \vl \, \delta \vk \ \tr \vl_\Gamma \times \vl_\Gamma \, \delta \vk+ \tr \vl \times \vl \, \vl_\Gamma \ \tr \delta \vk \times \delta \vk \, \vl_\Gamma - ( \tr \vl \, \vl_\Gamma \times \delta \vk)^2 \biggr) + \mathcal{O}(\vl^{-3}) \ . \nn \end{aligned}$$ Although this is not manifest in this equation, it is possible to show that is always strictly negative, in a similar way as shown for the case of very small $\vl$, provided that $\delta \vk$ is not proportional to $\vl$ (in which case $\delta \ve^{-1}$ itself vanishes). To do this we restricted ourselves to the STU truncation, requiring that all components of $\vl, \vl_\Gamma$ are strictly positive. This region also corresponds to small volume moduli with finite axions $$\vt = \vk_\Gamma^{\;-1} - \ve^{-1} + \frac{-m+i}{\det \vl (\det \vk_\Gamma)^2 } {\Bigl ({ \vk_\Gamma \times \vk_\Gamma \, \tr \vk_\Gamma\times \vk_\Gamma \, \vl - 2 \vk_\Gamma \times \vl \, \det \vk_\Gamma } \Bigr )} + \mathcal{O}(\vl^{-4})\ .$$
The multi-centre solutions {#sec:multi-cent-expl}
--------------------------
We now turn to multi-centre solutions, using the same parametrisation of charges and moduli as for the single-centre solutions above. The scalar section and the gauge fields are now given by -, where the harmonic functions $\vK$ parametrising the T-dualities are now nontrivial. In the preferred basis of the previous section, we consider a system of $N$ centres, labeled by an index $\mathrm{A}$. Then, implies that all charges commute with the vector $\hat R$, so that all $P_{{\text{\tiny A}}}=0$ in the decomposition . Of the remaining components, it turns out that only the $\vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}}$ appear in the various expressions, since we have $$\begin{aligned}
\vL &=& \vl + \sqrt{2} \sum_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\frac{\vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}} }{r_{{\text{\tiny A}}}} \ , {\nonumber \\*}\vK &=& \vk + \sqrt{2} \sum_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\frac{\vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}} }{r_{{\text{\tiny A}}}}\ ,\label{LKdef}\end{aligned}$$ where $\vk$, $\vl$ and $\gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}$ are constants and $r_{{\text{\tiny A}}}=|x-x_{{\text{\tiny A}}}|$ is the distance from centre $\mathrm{A}$. We stress here that regularity imposes that the poles of $\vK$ and $\vL$ be linearly dependent at each centre (see the constraint ). Given these expressions, the solutions to - are given by , and upon substituting the explicit expression for ${ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$, leading to $$\begin{gathered}
\label{V-frame}
V = \frac{1 + m^2}{\det \vl } + \sqrt{2} \sum_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\frac{ - p^0_A + \tr \bigl[ ( {\bf k}- 2 {\bf k}_{\Gamma_A} ) ({\bf k} \times {\bf l}_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}} )\bigr] }{r_{{\text{\tiny A}}}}
- 2 \sum_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\frac{ {\mathsf{J}}_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}i } r_{{\text{\tiny A}}}^i}{ r_{{\text{\tiny A}}}^3}\\
+ \sum_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}^{\; 2} \biggl(2 \sqrt{2} \frac{ \det[\vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}}] }{r_{{\text{\tiny A}}}^3} +2 \frac{\tr {\bf l} \, \vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}} \times \vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}} }{r_{{\text{\tiny A}}}^2} \biggr )
+2 \sum_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}\ne {{\text{\tiny B}}}} \gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\gamma_{{\text{\tiny B}}}\frac{\tr {\bf l} \, \vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}} \times \vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny B}}}} }{r_{{\text{\tiny A}}}r_{{\text{\tiny B}}}} \\
+2 \sqrt{2} \sum_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}\ne {{\text{\tiny B}}}} \gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\tr \vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny B}}}} \, \vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}} \times \vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}} \biggl( \frac{ \gamma_{{\text{\tiny B}}}}{r_{{\text{\tiny A}}}^2 r_{{\text{\tiny B}}}} + \frac{\gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}-\gamma_{{\text{\tiny B}}}}{{{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}^2_{{\text{\tiny AB}}}}}} \Bigl( \frac{ r_{{\text{\tiny B}}}}{r_{{\text{\tiny A}}}^2} - \frac{1}{r_{{\text{\tiny B}}}}\Bigr) \biggr)
\\
-4 \sqrt{2} \sum_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}\ne {{\text{\tiny B}}}\ne {{\text{\tiny C}}}} \gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\gamma_{{\text{\tiny B}}}\tr \vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}} \, \vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny B}}}} \times \vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny C}}}} \Bigl( F_{{{\text{\tiny A}}},{{\text{\tiny BC}}}} + \frac{1}{{{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny AC}}}}}\,{{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny BC}}}}}\, r_{{\text{\tiny C}}}} \Bigr)
\\
+ 2 \sqrt{2} \sum_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}\ne {{\text{\tiny B}}}\ne {{\text{\tiny C}}}} \gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\gamma_{{\text{\tiny B}}}\frac{\tr \vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}} \, \vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny B}}}} \times \vl_{\Gamma_C}} {r_{{\text{\tiny A}}}r_{{\text{\tiny B}}}r_{{\text{\tiny C}}}}
\end{gathered}$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
\label{M-frame}
M = m + \sum_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\biggl( \det \vl - \det {\Bigl ({ \vl + \sqrt{2 } \frac{ \vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}}}{r_{{\text{\tiny A}}}}} \Bigr )} \biggr) + \sum_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\frac{ {\mathsf{J}}_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}i } r_{{\text{\tiny A}}}^i}{ r_{{\text{\tiny A}}}^3}
\\
-2 \sum_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}\ne {{\text{\tiny B}}}} \gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\tr {\bf l} \, \vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}} \times \vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny B}}}} \biggl( \frac{ 1}{r_{{\text{\tiny A}}}r_{{\text{\tiny B}}}} + \frac{1}{{{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny AB}}}}}\, r_{{\text{\tiny A}}}} - \frac{1}{{{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny AB}}}}}\,r_{{\text{\tiny B}}}} \biggr) \\
-\sqrt{2} \sum_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}\ne {{\text{\tiny B}}}} \tr \vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny B}}}} \, \vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}} \times \vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}} \biggl( \frac{ \gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}+ \gamma_{{\text{\tiny B}}}}{r_{{\text{\tiny A}}}^2 r_{{\text{\tiny B}}}} + \frac{\gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}-\gamma_{{\text{\tiny B}}}}{{{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}^2_{{\text{\tiny AB}}}}}} \Bigl( \frac{ r_{{\text{\tiny B}}}}{r_{{\text{\tiny A}}}^2} - \frac{1}{r_{{\text{\tiny B}}}}\Bigr) \biggr)
\\
-2 \sqrt{2} \sum_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}\ne {{\text{\tiny B}}}\ne {{\text{\tiny C}}}} \gamma_{{\text{\tiny C}}}\tr \vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}} \, \vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny B}}}} \times \vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny C}}}} \Bigl( F_{{{\text{\tiny A}}},{{\text{\tiny BC}}}} + \frac{1}{{{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny AC}}}}}\, {{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny BC}}}}}\,r_{{\text{\tiny C}}}} \Bigr)
\end{gathered}$$ In these expressions, ${\mathsf{J}}_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}i }$ is the intrinsic ‘under-rotating’ angular momentum at each centre, ${{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny AB}}}}}$ is the distance between the centres labeled by $A$ and $B$, while the function $F_{{{\text{\tiny A}}},{{\text{\tiny BC}}}}$ was defined in [@Bossard:2012ge] as the everywhere regular solution to . We refer to that work for the properties of this function.
Using these explicit functions, one can now write down the scalar fields and the metric, using -. In addition, one can readily understand the property that the poles of $\vK$ and $\vL$ must be linearly dependent at each centre, by considering the explicit expression for the scalar fields at the horizons $$\vt(x_{{\text{\tiny A}}}) = \exp{\Bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^-}_{ - \frac{ \ve \times \ve}{\det \ve}}} \Bigr )} \exp{\bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^+}_{\vK(x_{{\text{\tiny A}}})-\gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\vL(x_{{\text{\tiny A}}}) }} \bigr )} \frac{ 2 \, \vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}} \times \vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}}}{{\mathsf{J}}_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\cos \theta_{{\text{\tiny A}}}- i \sqrt{- I_4(\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}) - {\mathsf{J}}_{{\text{\tiny A}}}^2 }} \ , \label{AttractorModuli}$$ which leads to the requirement that $\vK-\gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\vL$ must be regular at $x_{{\text{\tiny A}}}$. The finite values of these functions at each horizon define a set of T-duality parameters that play an important role in the definition of the electromagnetic charges.
In the multi-centre case, the charges at the various centres are allowed to have nontrivial grade $(+1)$ components, but are still constrained to have a vanishing grade $(-3)$ component, as commutes with $\hat R$. It follows that the most general charge allowed in each centre is given by . In the explicit parametrisation of the previous section, the additional components can be computed by decomposing all charges as in , by viewing each charge as the result of a T-duality acting on the poles of $\vL$ and $V$. This is conveniently realised in terms of the functions above, since the expression for the charges at a given centre, obtained by integrating , is indeed given as a T-duality of parameter $\vK(x_{{\text{\tiny A}}})-\gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\vL(x_{{\text{\tiny A}}})$ acting on an underlying vector defined from the poles of $\vL$ and $V$ at that centre, as $$\label{ch-full-5-0}
\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}= \exp{\Bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^-}_{ - \frac{ \ve \times \ve}{\det \ve}}} \Bigr )}
\exp{\Bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^+}_{ \vK(x_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}})-\gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\vL(x_{{\text{\tiny A}}})} } \Bigr )}
\left( \begin{array}{c} 0 \\ \vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}} \\ 0 \\
\frac{I_4(\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}})}{4 \det \vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}}}
\end{array} \right) \,,$$ which is exactly of the form for a vanishing grade $(+1)$ charge. Note that, while this equation simply defines the charge for given harmonic functions $\vK$ and $\vL$, it becomes a nontrivial constraint on the parameters of the solutions if the charges are kept fixed.
The parameters of the T-dualities in are the central objects governing the structure of multi-centre solutions. In order to obtain their value, one can compare to , to find that $$\begin{aligned}
\vk_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}}=&\, \vK(x_{{\text{\tiny A}}})-\gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\vL(x_{{\text{\tiny A}}})
{\nonumber \\*}=&\,
\vk - \gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\vl + \sqrt{2} \sum_{{{\text{\tiny B}}}\ne {{\text{\tiny A}}}} \frac{\gamma_{{\text{\tiny B}}}- \gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}}{{{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny AB}}}}}} \vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny B}}}} \ , \label{BubbleTframe}\end{aligned}$$ because the action of T-dualities is faithful on charges carrying a non-zero grad 3 component as does . Alternatively, the same result is obtained by use of the general formula derived in below, which can be used in any other basis as well.
Note that is consistent with the property that $\vk = \vk_\Gamma$ for a single centre solution, due to and , since the single-centre limit of the multi-centre solution naturally leads to a nontrivial $\vK$. We stress that although this formula is identical to the ones displayed in [@Bossard:2011kz; @Bossard:2012ge] in a specific duality frame, the dependence of the vectors $\vl,\ \vk,\ \vk_\Gamma$ and $\vl_\Gamma$ in terms of the charges and the asymptotic scalars is here manifest. Within the formulation of this paper, we can therefore keep the charges fixed and rather consider as a constraint on the asymptotic scalars.
Although there is no solution for generic charge configurations with more than three centres, the problem generally admits a solution for two centres. In this case, one can easily solve as $$\begin{aligned}
\vl &=& -\frac{\sqrt{2}}{{{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{\text{\tiny 12}}}}} {\bigl ({ \vl_{\Gamma_1} + \vl_{\Gamma_{2}} } \bigr )} + \frac{1}{\gamma_1-\gamma_2} {\bigl ({ \vk_{\Gamma_2} - \vk_{\Gamma_1}} \bigr )}\ , \label{AsympL} \\
\vk &=&- \frac{\sqrt{2}}{ {{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{\text{\tiny 12}}}}} {\bigl ({ \gamma_1 \vl_{\Gamma_1} + \gamma_2 \vl_{\Gamma_{2}} } \bigr )} + \frac{1}{\gamma_1-\gamma_2} {\bigl ({ \gamma_1 \vk_{\Gamma_2} -\gamma_2 \vk_{\Gamma_1}} \bigr )} \ ,
\label{eq:lk-two-c}\end{aligned}$$ so that the asymptotic scalars are parametrised by the vector $\ve$ satisfying both ${\langle {\hat{R}}, {\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}} \rangle}=0$ for $A=1,2$ (), the two proportionality constants, $\gamma_1,\ \gamma_2$, in and the distance between the two centres, denoted by ${{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{\text{\tiny 12}}}}$. This sums up to a total of $n_v+1$ parameters for the $2 n_v$ asymptotic moduli (this holds for $n_v\ge 3$). Note that the parameter $m$ does not count, because it can always be reabsorbed in a redefinition of $\vk$. This is a more general property that persists when adding more centres, so that composite non-BPS solutions only exist for moduli constrained to an (at most) $(n_v+1)$-dimensional subsurface, specified by the charges at the centres.
For the asymptotic scalar fields to be well defined, $\vl$ in must moreover define a positive Jordan algebra element. As both $\vl_{\Gamma_1}$ and $ \vl_{\Gamma_{2}}$ must be positive for the solution to be well behaved at the two horizons, the positive contribution must come from $\vk_{\Gamma_2}-\vk_{\Gamma_1}$. Regularity therefore requires that $\vk_{\Gamma_2}-\vk_{\Gamma_1}$ is a strictly positive Jordan algebra element (or strictly negative, depending on the sign of $\gamma_1-\gamma_2$). Indeed, one can always find a $G_5$ element that rotates $\vl_{\Gamma_1}+ \vl_{\Gamma_{2}}$ to a Jordan algebra element proportional to the identity. The group $K_5$ defined as leaving the identity element invariant then permits to rotate $\vk_{\Gamma_2}-\vk_{\Gamma_1}$ to a diagonal Jordan algebra element. For the three eigenvalues of $\vl$ to all be positive, it is then clear that the three eigen values of $(\gamma_1-\gamma_2)^{-1}(\vk_{\Gamma_2}-\vk_{\Gamma_1})$ must themselves be strictly positive.
A final aspect of the multi-centre solutions worth discussing is the issue of flat directions. As is well known, the scalar fields of single-centre solutions admit $n_v-1$ flat directions, in the sense that $n_v-1$ of the $2\,n_v$ scalar fields are undetermined constants throughout the flow. In the description of the previous subsection, one can easily check that the $n_v-1$ parameters in $\ve$ account for exactly these flat directions. These directions can be also viewed as the invariance group of the non-BPS charge vector, embedded in the duality group [@Bellucci:2006xz]. These are the flat directions of the individual centres, whereas the flat directions associated to the common stabilizer of the two charges are much more restricted if not trivial. The latter define the actual flat directions of the solution, and we shall discuss them latter.
The scalar fields at the horizon $x_{{\text{\tiny A}}}$, , are still localised at the non-BPS attractor of the corresponding charge $\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}$, and therefore only know about the global structure of the solution through the explicit expression of their own flat directions parametrised by $\ve$. In this case, $\ve$ is not determined by the charge $\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}$ of the centre at hand and the asymptotic moduli only, as it would be in the single centre solution, but is determined by the property that $\ve$ extremises the fake superpotential $W(\sum_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}},\ve)$ with respect to the variations leaving invariant all the constraints ${\langle {\hat{R}}, {\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}} \rangle}=0$ for all centres $A=1,\, N$. Through this property, $\ve$ is in fact a function of the asymptotic scalars and all the charges $\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}$. This vector does not depend explicitly on the distances between the centres, although the latter are eventually determined in terms of the asymptotic moduli and the individual charges themselves.
Given the above, the possibility of genuine flat directions for multi-centre solutions is not excluded. This turns out to depend on the values of the charges at the centres, as we show explicitly in section \[sec:two-cent-ex\] for a two-centre example of restricted charges, while in appendix \[app:stabilizer\] we discuss the classification of the allowed flat directions for a two-centre configuration of generic charges.
### Binding energy of composite states
One of the most important advantages of obtaining explicit general multi-centre black hole solutions, as we have done in this paper, is the possibility of studying the binding energy of the constituents. Indeed, showing that the solutions obtained are genuine bound states, rather than collections of marginally interacting objects, could be useful in the study of the non-BPS bound states at the microscopic level.
The energy of a composite solution is defined by the standard ADM expansion of the metric at infinity, which can be carried out in the general multi-centre case. For the solutions in the previous section, this involves expanding the metric scale function in near infinity, using the expressions -. The resulting expression, in terms of the parameters introduced above, takes the form $$\begin{gathered}
W{\bigl ({ \Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}|_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}=1}^{N} } \bigr )} = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} \sum_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}=1}^N \Bigl( ( 1 + m^2 ) \frac{\tr \vl \times \vl \, \vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}} }{\det \vl} -\frac{1}{4} \frac{ \det \vl}{\det \vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}}} I_4({\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}}) \\ + \det \vl \, \tr \vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}} {\bigl ({ 2 \gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\vl \times \vk - \vk \times \vk + \vk_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}} \times \vk_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}} } \bigr )} + 2 m \gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\tr \vl \times \vl \, \vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}} \Bigr)\,. \label{EnergyMulticentre} \end{gathered}$$ Note that the first line of this expression is simply the sum of the single-centre mass formulae for each centre. In the non-interacting limit, where all charges mutually commute, all $\gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}$ are equal and $\vk=\vk_\Gamma + \gamma \vl$, so that the second line can be reabsorbed into a redefinition of $m$, as in .
While the structure of is suggestive of a nontrivial binding energy, verifying this directly is rather complicated in general. Using the parametrisation , one shows that can still be rewritten in terms of the fake superpotential , $$W{\bigl ({ \Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}|_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}=1}^{N} } \bigr )} = \sum_{{\text{\tiny A}}}W(\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}},\ve) \ ,$$ where the value of $\ve$ does not however extremise each of its components in the sum. This simplifies the comparison to the mass of the constituent centres, since the single-centre mass, $M_{{\text{\tiny A}}}$ is found by extremising the fake superpotential, $W(\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}},\ve)$, with respect to $\ve$, to obtain a vector $\ve_{{\text{\tiny A}}}$. As we have seen in section \[sec:superpotential\], the resulting value $W(\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}},\ve_{{\text{\tiny A}}})$ is a global maximum of the fake superpotential, and therefore one finds $$W(\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}},\ve ) \le W(\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}},\ve_{{\text{\tiny A}}}) \equiv M_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\ ,$$ for each centre separately. This directly implies that the binding energy of any composite solution is necessarily positive, since $$W{\bigl ({ \Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}|_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}=1}^{N} } \bigr )} = \sum_{{\text{\tiny A}}}W(\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}},\ve)
\le \sum_{{\text{\tiny A}}}W(\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}},\ve_{{\text{\tiny A}}}) = \sum_{{\text{\tiny A}}}M_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\,.$$ Moreover, by exactly the same argument, one finds that the energy of a composite solution is lower than the the energy of a single-centre solution of the same total charge, as $$\label{single-comp}
W{\bigl ({ \Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}|_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}=1}^{N} } \bigr )} = W(\Gamma_{\sf t} ,\ve) \le M_{\Gamma_{\sf t}}\,,$$ where $\Gamma_{\sf t}=\sum_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}$. We then conclude that single-centre non-BPS solutions are energetically disfavored over multi-centre solutions with the same total charge. Note that this comparison can only be done on the relevant hypersurface in moduli space where the composite solutions exist. This property is in contrast with the BPS case, in which the mass is uniquely determined by the total charge and the moduli. However, we should mention that single-centre black holes are generically entropically favored over multi-centre black holes, as can be computed using the area law and the properties of the quartic invariant. We shall prove that this is always the case in the two-centre configurations we consider in section \[sec:two-cent-ex\].
The discussion above illustrates that the parameter $\ve$, describing flat directions for non-BPS solutions, plays a role analogous to the one of the Kähler phase $\alpha$ of the central charge in the corresponding BPS solutions. Indeed, the linear mass formula for a BPS black hole also follows from a superpotential, given by $$W_{\sf BPS} = \mbox{Re}[ e^{-i\alpha} Z(\Gamma)] \ ,$$ where $\alpha$ is chosen such that $ W_{\sf BPS} $ is maximised, to be the phase of the central charge $Z(\Gamma)$. The resulting mass formula is of course $$M = |Z(\Gamma)| \ .$$ The energy of a two-centre solution then satisfies the triangular identity $$\begin{gathered}
\mbox{Re}[ e^{-i\alpha} Z(\Gamma_1+\Gamma_2)] \le
\mbox{Re}[e^{-i\alpha_1} Z(\Gamma_1)] + \mbox{Re}[e^{-i\alpha_2} Z(\Gamma_2)] \Rightarrow
{\nonumber \\*}M_{\sf tot} \le M_1 + M_2\,,\end{gathered}$$ where $\alpha$ is the phase of $Z(\Gamma_1 + \Gamma_2)$ and $\alpha_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}}$ are the phases of $Z(\Gamma_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}})$ for $A=1,2$. Positivity of the binding energy between the two centres then follows from the property that $\alpha_{{\text{\tiny A}}}$ is a maximum of $ \mbox{Re}[e^{-i\alpha} Z(\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}})]$. As seen above, the composite non-BPS mass formula obeys the same property, but with the subtle difference that, if a single-centre non-BPS solution of charge $\Gamma_1 + \Gamma_2$ exists, it has a mass bigger than that of the bound states of constituent charges $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$, due to .
For a two-centre solution, one can make these properties more explicit in the regime of large separation of centres, using the expression , $$\label{BubbleTframe-2}
\vk = \gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\vl + \vk_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}} + \sqrt{2}\frac{ \gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}- \gamma_{{\text{\tiny B}}}}{{{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny AB}}}}}} \vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny B}}}} \ ,$$ to obtain the variation from the single-centre solution. In this case, the term proportional to $\gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\vl $ can be reabsorbed into a redefinition of $m$, so that the relevant small perturbation $\delta \vk$ that determines $\delta \ve$ in is $$\delta \vk = \sqrt{2} \frac{ \gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}- \gamma_{{\text{\tiny B}}}}{{{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny AB}}}}}} \vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny B}}}} \ ,$$ whenever the solution exists, provided $\vl_{\Gamma_B}$ is linearly independent of $\vl$. This can be used in to verify that the two-centre binding energy is indeed nontrivial whenever the solution exists. Moreover, in the two-centre case simplifies to $$\begin{gathered}
W(\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2) = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} \sum_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}=1}^2 \Bigl( ( 1 + ( m + \gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\det \vl )^2 ) \frac{\tr \vl \times \vl \, \vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}} }{\det \vl} -\frac{1}{4} \frac{ \det \vl}{\det \vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}}} I_4({\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}}) \Bigr) \\ +\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{(\gamma_1-\gamma_2)^2}{ {{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{\text{\tiny 12}}}}} \det \vl \, \tr \vl_{\Gamma_1} \times \vl_{\Gamma_2} \, {\Bigl ({ \sqrt{2}\, \vl + \tfrac{1}{{{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{\text{\tiny 12}}}}} ( \vl_{\Gamma_1} + \vl_{\Gamma_2} )} \Bigr )} \ , \end{gathered}$$ where we used the explicit form of $\vk$ in . This expression of the mass looks naively like the sum of the individual masses plus a manifestly positive quantity on the second line, which would be in contradiction with a positive binding energy. It is important to point out however that this is not the case because these expressions of the individual masses do not correspond to the individual masses at the same moduli whenever ${{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{\text{\tiny 12}}}}< \infty$, because then $\vk \ne \vk_{\Gamma_A} +\gamma_A \vl$. When ${{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{\text{\tiny 12}}}}\rightarrow \infty$, one gets instead that $\vk = \vk_{\Gamma_A} +\gamma_A \vl$ and the second line vanishes, which shows that the binding energy vanishes in the limit of large radius. This limit corresponds to a wall of marginal stability in moduli space, as we shall discuss in more detail in the next subsection.
It is interesting to compare this expression of the mass to the central charge, which reads $$\begin{gathered}
|Z(\Gamma_1+\Gamma_2)| = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}} \biggl| \sum_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}=1}^2 \Bigl( ( m + \gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\det \vl - i )^2 \frac{\tr \vl \times \vl \, \vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}} }{\det \vl} - \frac{1}{4} \frac{ \det \vl}{\det \vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}}} I_4({\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}}) \biggr) \Bigr . \\ \biggl . + 2 \frac{(\gamma_1-\gamma_2)^2}{ {{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{\text{\tiny 12}}}}} \det \vl \, \tr \vl_{\Gamma_1} \times \vl_{\Gamma_2} \, {\Bigl ({ \sqrt{2}\, \vl + \tfrac{1}{{{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{\text{\tiny 12}}}}} ( \vl_{\Gamma_1} + \vl_{\Gamma_2} )} \Bigr )} \biggr| \ . \end{gathered}$$ Now, for a regular solution, one has to demand both that $\frac{\tr \vl \times \vl \, \vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}} }{\det \vl} > 0 $ and that $$- \sum_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}=1,2} \frac{ \det \vl}{\det \vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}}} I_4({\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}})
+ 8 \frac{(\gamma_1-\gamma_2)^2}{ {{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{\text{\tiny 12}}}}} \det \vl \, \tr \vl_{\Gamma_1} \times \vl_{\Gamma_2} \, {\Bigl ({ \sqrt{2} \vl
+ \tfrac{1}{{{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{\text{\tiny 12}}}}} ( \vl_{\Gamma_1} + \vl_{\Gamma_2} )} \Bigr )} > 0 \,,$$ where all three terms are separately positive. These formulae show explicitly that the energy is always strictly above the BPS bound, as expected. We stress that this result holds everywhere in moduli space, where the non-BPS solution exists.
It is interesting to note that using one finds that there is always a critical radius $R_{\rm c}$ at which the vector $\vl$ becomes degenerate ($\det\vl=0$), and the asymptotic scalars are singular, as ${\rm Im}(\vt) \times {\rm Im}(\vt) = \mathcal{O}(R-R_{\rm c})$ for finite value of the other parameters. One computes that both the energy and the central charge diverge as $(R-R_{\rm c})^{-1}$ in this limit, while still consistent with the BPS bound up to order $\mathcal{O}(R-R_{\rm c})$ $$W(\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2) = |Z(\Gamma_1 + \Gamma_2)| + \mathcal{O}(R-R_{\rm c}) \ .$$ This limit should not be considered as a boundary of the $(n_v+1)$-dimensional surface in moduli space on which the solution exists, since it is itself at the boundary of moduli space, consistently with the property that the BPS bound is saturated in this limit.
### Attractor tree and walls of marginal stability {#sec:attr-tree}
Given the results of the previous subsection on the positivity of the binding energy, the natural next step is to consider the possibility of decay of composite solutions at regular points in moduli space, the existence of walls of marginal stability. Before turning to the corresponding analysis, we emphasise that the question at hand is in principle more subtle for non-BPS composites, which only exist on appropriate hypersurfaces in moduli space, compared to the BPS solutions, which exist in codimension zero subspaces of the moduli space. In practice, this means that BPS solutions exist in codimension zero domains in moduli space, which boundaries define walls of marginal stabilities where some of the distance ${{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny AB}}}}}$ diverge. For non-BPS composites one finds exactly the same situation, but now restricted on the relevant hypersurface where the given solution exists, as discussed above. It then follows that the walls of marginal stability are only defined on the appropriate hypersurfaces as their boundaries in moduli space and do not extend outside of them, as we discuss in more detail now.
Consider a general two-centre solution, as described by - above. Assuming that $\vk_{\Gamma_2}-\vk_{\Gamma_1}$ is indeed a strictly positive Jordan algebra element, the solution clearly exists for arbitrary large distance between the centres, ${{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{\text{\tiny 12}}}}$, since the distance dependent term in these relations becomes irrelevant at this limit. Taking the limit ${{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{\text{\tiny 12}}}}\rightarrow \infty$, the moduli are regular, so that one finds a wall of marginal stability for finite moduli.
For a marginally bounded solution, one expects that the energy of the composite solution is equal to the sum of the masses of the constituent black holes. In order to verify that, we consider in the limit of marginal stability, where becomes simply $$\label{Bubble-triv}
\vk_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}} = \vk - \gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\vl \ .$$ This is identical to the value of $\vk$ for which describes non-interacting centres, as explained below that equation. It follows that the total energy decouples $$\lim_{{{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{\text{\tiny 12}}}}\rightarrow \infty} W( \Gamma_1,\Gamma_2) = W(\Gamma_1) + W(\Gamma_2) \ .$$ This formula generalises to any number of centres, as long as the solution exists. Suppose that we have a solution to for $N+1$ centres, such that $\vl$ is strictly positive, in the limit where $x_{{\text{\tiny A}}}$ goes to spatial infinity for some $A_0$, then again applies for that value $A=A_0$, while for $A, B \ne A_0$ define the corresponding equations for $N$ centres. Therefore, one finds that the mass formula satisfies $$\label{wall-dec-gen}
\lim_{|x_{N+1}| \rightarrow \infty} W{\bigl ({ \Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}|_{A=1}^{N+1} } \bigr )}
= W{\bigl ({ \Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}|_{A=1}^{N} } \bigr )} + W(\Gamma_{N+1}) \ .$$
The property that the binding energy is finite at finite radius relies on the property that $\ve$ is not an extremum of each $W(\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}},\ve)$ for generic variations preserving ${\langle {\hat{R}}, {\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}} \rangle}=0$ separately. Nonetheless, given a total charge $\Gamma_{\sf t}$ and a set of charges, $\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}$, such that $\Gamma_{\sf t}=\sum_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}$, one checks that $\ve$ extremises $W$ on the subvariety satisfying ${\langle {\hat{R}}, {\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}} \rangle}$ for all $A$. Indeed, one computes using that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{del-W-tot}
\delta W = &\,
\frac{\det \vl }{2\sqrt{2}} \biggl( \det {\Bigl ({ \vk + m \frac{\vl}{\det \vl}} \Bigr )} + \tr \frac{ \vl\times\vl}{(\det\vl)^2 } {\Bigl ({ \vk + m \frac{\vl}{\det \vl}} \Bigr )} \biggr) \ \tr \vl_{\sum_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}} \delta\ve^{-1}
{\nonumber \\*}&\, - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \tr \vl_{\sum_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}} \delta \ve^{-1} \ .\end{aligned}$$ Here one can interpret the coefficients $\gamma_A$ as Lagrange multipliers for the conditions $${\langle {\hat{R}}, { \Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}} \rangle} = 0\quad \forall A \ . \label{Hypersurface}$$ The existence of a well defined extremum then constrains $\ve$ and the moduli. For a regular multi-centre solution $\ve$ must in fact satisfy , but for a single centre of charge $\sum_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}$ the $\ve$ following from does not extremise correctly the function $W{\bigl ({\Gamma_{\sf t},\ve} \bigr )}$ in one direction, and would not reproduce the same mass, as discussed in . In fact it follows that unlike for the BPS solutions, a multi-centre non-BPS solution admits an energy strictly lower than the energy of the single-centre solution with the same total charge and asymptotic scalars, so the composite configuration is energetically favored whenever it exists.
Given this extremisation problem, we may now ask the reverse question and consider a top-down approach where one seeks to infer criteria for the existence of solutions from the function $W(\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}, \ve)$ alone, instead of using the explicit knowledge of solutions to derive the properties of the fake superpotential. One may wonder if the condition that $\ve$ extremises $W$ on the subvariety satisfying is strong enough to ensure the existence of a solution. One computes in general that for $\ve$ to be such an extremum, the condition $$\sum_{{\text{\tiny A}}}{\Bigl ({ 4 ( \vl \times \vl ) \times {\bigl ({ ( \vk - \vk_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}}) \times \vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}} } \bigr )}
- \vl\, \tr \vl \, ( \vk - \vk_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}}) \times \vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}}} \Bigr )}
= \det \vl \sum_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}} \ ,$$ must hold for some arbitrary Lagrange multipliers $\gamma_A$. Using the property that $\vl$ is positive, one can simplify this to $$\sum_{{\text{\tiny A}}}( \vk - \vk_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}} - \gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\vl ) \times \vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}} = 0 \ ,$$ whose general solution is $$\vk = \vk_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}} + \gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\vl + \sum_{{{\text{\tiny B}}}\ne {{\text{\tiny A}}}} A_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}{{\text{\tiny B}}}} \vl_{\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny B}}}} \ ,$$ where $A_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}{{\text{\tiny B}}}}$ is an antisymmetric matrix. Upon identifying the $\gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}$ as the proportionality constants in , this solution would reproduce equation for $$A_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}{{\text{\tiny B}}}} = \sqrt{2} \frac{ \gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}- \gamma_{{\text{\tiny B}}}}{{{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny AB}}}}}} \ .$$ However, this is not simply a particular parametrisation of $A_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}{{\text{\tiny B}}}}$, since an $N\times N$ antisymmetric matrix comprises $\frac{N(N-1)}{2}$ independent components, whereas there are only $3(N-2)$ independent distances ${{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny AB}}}}}$ in three dimensions for $N\ge 3$ (so that the solution is not general for $N\ge 5$). Therefore the condition that $\ve$ extremises $W$ on the appropriate subvariety satisfying does not ensure the existence of a solution in general.
Nevertheless, this shows that there is a natural generalisation of the existence of an attractor flow tree associated to BPS composite solutions. Indeed, any solution to with $N+1$ centres admits a large radius limit in which the solution decouples in a single-centre solution and an $N$-centre solution to , as in . Therefore, one can solve by adding each centre one after the other by following the inverse procedure that ensures to be satisfied at each addition. Moreover, the existence of a limit of marginal stability implies that for any two-centre solution of charges $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$, there exist moduli for which the solution $\ve$ extremising both $W(\Gamma_1,\ve)$ and $W(\Gamma_2,\ve)$ is the same. Then, adding a third centre requires that there exist moduli such that $\ve$ extremise $W(\Gamma_1+\Gamma_2,\ve)$ with respect to variations preserving both ${\langle {\hat{R}}, {\Gamma_1} \rangle}$ and ${\langle {\hat{R}}, {\Gamma_2} \rangle}$, and extremise $W(\Gamma_3,\ve)$ with respect to variations preserving $ {\langle {\hat{R}}, { \Gamma_3} \rangle} = 0 $. Each new centre or cluster of centres already satisfying requires similarly the existence of a common extremising vector $\ve$ for some moduli.
This construction clearly extends Denef’s attractor tree, where the role of the central charge phase is now played by the Jordan algebra element $\ve$ parametrising the flat directions of the individual centres. The existence of such a non-BPS attractor tree is clearly required for the solution to exist, and it is therefore natural to wonder if it provides a sufficient condition. However, the construction of such a tree is a rather difficult task in practice. An obvious obstacle is that, unlike for BPS solutions, where a closed form formula for the phase of the central charge is available, there is no such formula for the vector $\ve$ extremising the fake superpotential.
It is important to point out that the restrictions on $\ve$ can rapidly become overconstraining. In particular, for $n_v$ centres one finds configurations of charges such that ${\langle {\hat{R}}, {\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}} \rangle}$ determines $\ve$ completely. Then there is no freedom in tuning $\ve$ to accommodate a new centre anymore, and although the solution may still exist, it can only be marginally stable. For example, this is the case for solutions within the one modulus model, for which $\ve$ is necessarily fixed already for a single-centre solution. In this case we have found that there exist two-centre solutions, but the total energy is independent of the distance and is equal to sum of the constituent masses.
Explicit two-centre example {#sec:two-cent-ex}
---------------------------
In this final subsection, we make the above considerations fully explicit for a two-centre example. While the structure and properties of the solution are exactly those discussed in the general case above, having an explicit example allows for an even more detailed description of the possible bound states. We display most of the formulae within the STU truncation, which does not constitute a restriction for the charge configurations we consider. We also perform numerical estimates of the binding energy.
We consider a system of two black holes, carrying charges $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$ respectively, which we choose as follows. Up to an electric/magnetic duality, one can always bring one of the charges to be a D0-D6 with $q_0 = - p^0 \equiv Q_0 > 0 $, so we choose for simplicity $$\label{Gamma1}
\Gamma_1 = \left( \begin{array}{c} Q_0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ -Q_0 \end{array}\right)\ .$$ Given that we used duality covariance to restrict one of the charges, the second charge is a priori unrestricted for the most general two-centre solution up to dualities. Here, we shall nevertheless restrict the second charge to be a D0-D4-D4-D4-D6 for simplicity. We do not expect a significant change in the physical properties of the solution by adding a D2 charge. We therefore take $$\label{Gamma2}
\Gamma_2 = \left( \begin{array}{c} q_0 \\ 0 \\ \vp \\ p^0 \end{array}\right)\ ,$$ where we assume that $I_4(\Gamma_2) = - 4 q_0 \det \vp - (p^0 q_0)^2 < 0 $, so that we are indeed dealing with two non-BPS charges. Note that the inner product ${\langle {\Gamma_1}, {\Gamma_2} \rangle}=Q_0\,(q_0 + p^0)$, does not depend on the magnetic charges, $\vp$, and the interaction of the two centres vanishes in the limit $q_0=-p^0$. It is also worth mentioning that the uplift of this configuration to five dimensions describes a pair of doubly spinning extremal Kerr black holes [^10] located at the two tips of a two-centre Taub-NUT geometry, while the magnetic fluxes $\vp$ are threading the two-cycle between the centres.
We start by considering the relevant constraints coming from the two charges on the auxiliary vector $\ve$. First, the condition ${\langle {\hat{R}}, {\Gamma_1} \rangle}=0$ simply implies that $\det \ve = 1$, and , for $\Gamma_1$ also simplify dramatically, to give $$\vl_{\Gamma_1} = Q_0 \ve \ , \qquad \vk_{\Gamma_1} = \frac{1}{2} \ve \ .$$ The regularity condition at the horizon requires that $\ve$ is a positive Jordan algebra element (all three $e_i$ are positive numbers within the STU truncation) and we shall always assume that this condition is satisfied. Using the results of subsection \[sec:sing-cent-expl\], it is straightforward to construct the general single center solution carrying the particular D0-D6 charge in .[^11] Turning to the second charge , the equations and become respectively $$\label{ch2-gr}
q_0 + \tr \ve \vp + p^0 =0\ ,
\qquad
\vl_{\Gamma_2} = - 2 ( \ve \times \ve ) \times \vp - \ve \, p^0 \ .$$ Solving for $p^0$ using the first relation, one finds $$\begin{aligned}
\vl_{\Gamma_2} &=& ( q_0 + \tr \ve \vp) \, \ve - 2 ( \ve \times \ve ) \times \vp {\nonumber \\*}(\vl_{\Gamma_2})_i &=& e_i {\bigl ({ q_0 + e_i p_i } \bigr )} \ ,\end{aligned}$$ as well as $$\begin{aligned}
\vk_{\Gamma_2} - \vk_{\Gamma_1} &=& \frac{1}{2} \frac{ \ve {\bigl ({ \det \vp - q_0 \tr \ve \times \ve \, \vp \times \vp + q_0 p^0 ( q_0 + p^0 ) } \bigr )} + 2 q_0 \, \vp \times ( \vp + p^0\,\ve \times \ve )}{ \det \vp + q_0 \tr \ve \times \ve \, \vp \times \vp - q_0^{\; 2} p^0 } {\nonumber \\*}( \vk_{\Gamma_2} - \vk_{\Gamma_1})_i &=& \frac{e_i}{2} \frac{ q_0 \, e_i p_i + e_{i+1} e_{i+2} p_{i+1} p_{i+2}}{( q_0 + e_{i+1} p_{i+1} ) ( q_0 + e_{i+2} p_{i+2} )} \ ,
\label{k-comp-2}\end{aligned}$$ where we wrote the expressions within the STU truncation in the second lines. These are relevant in what follows, because we can always use the $G_5$ symmetry of the problem to diagonalise both $\ve$ and $\vp$ and solve these equations within the STU truncation without loss of generality.
### Existence of solution {#existence-of-solution .unnumbered}
The conditions above can clearly be solved by requiring that $q_0$ and $\vp$ are both positive, and $p^0$ is negative, but this is not the only solution. Without loss of generality, we can assume that $$e_1 p_1 \le e_2 p_2 \le e_3 p_3 \ .$$ One can then verify that regularity requires $q_0>0$, while $\vp$ is not necessarily positive and satisfies $$- e_2 p_2 \min{\Bigl ({ \frac{ q_0}{e_3 p_3} , \frac{e_3 p_3}{q_0} } \Bigr )} < e_1 p_1 \le e_2 p_2 \le e_3 p_3 \ .$$ It follows that $q_0,\, p_2,\, p_3$ must all be strictly positive, but $p_1$ can possibly be negative. Note that the presence of a nonzero $p^0$ is required for the latter possibility so that $I_4(\Gamma_2)<0$ (even though we have solved for $p^0$ in all equations). Indeed, we have by construction that $ \min{\bigl ({ \frac{ q_0}{e_3 p_3} , \frac{e_3 p_3}{q_0} } \bigr )} \le 1$ and therefore $$\sum_{i=1}^3 e_i p_i > e_3 p_3 \ ,$$ so that $-p^0 > q_0 + e_3 p_3$. This also guarantees that the two charges are never mutually commuting, as $${\langle {\Gamma_1}, {\Gamma_2} \rangle} = Q_0 ( p^0 + q_0 ) < - Q_0 e_3 p_3 \ .$$ The existence of a regular solution for $\ve$ to the first of leads to a bound on $p^0$. For $p_1 \le 0$, it turns out there are solutions for $-p^0 > q_0$ arbitrary close to $q_0$, whereas it must satisfy to [^12] $$-p^0 > q_0 + 3 \sqrt[3]{\det \vp} \ , \label{p0Bound}$$ when $p_1 > 0$. The limit case $-p^0 = q_0 + 3 \sqrt[3]{\det \vp} $ is physical but degenerate, and will be discussed separately.
We shall now concentrate on the example without flat directions, for which $\vp$ is strictly positive. In the general situation described by , it is simple to consider the STU truncation, where one can solve for $\ve$ explicitly as $$\begin{aligned}
e_2 &=& \frac{-e_1 p^0 - e_1^{\; 2} p_1 - e_1 q_0
\pm \sqrt{-4 e_1 p_2 p_3 + (e_1 p^0 + e_1^{\; 2} p_1 + e_1 q_0)^2}}{2 e_1 p_2}
{\nonumber \\*}e_3 &=& \frac{-e_1 p^0 - e_1^{\; 2} p_1 - e_1 q_0
\mp \sqrt{-4 e_1 p_2 p_3 + (e_1 p^0 + e_1^{\; 2} p_1 + e_1 q_0)^2}}{2 e_1 p_3}
\ ,\end{aligned}$$ where the signs appearing in the two expressions must be opposite. Defining $${\rm x} \equiv - \frac{ q_0 + p^0}{3 \sqrt[3]{\det \vp }} \ ,$$ one obtains that in the generic situation, for which ${\rm x} > 1 $, a positive solution of for $\ve$ exists, provided that $e_1$ satisfies $${\bigl ({ 2 {\rm x} + a_1 + \bar a_1 } \bigr )} \sqrt[3]{\frac{p_2 p_3}{p_1^{\; 2} }} < e_1 < {\bigl ({ 2 {\rm x} + a_2 + \bar a_2 } \bigr )} \sqrt[3]{\frac{p_2 p_3}{p_1^{\; 2} }} \label{ebound}$$ where $a_i$ are the three cubic roots of $2 - {\rm x}^3 + 2 i \sqrt{ {\rm x}^3 -1}$ ordered such that $\mbox{Re}[a_1] \le \mbox{Re}[a_2] \le \mbox{Re}[a_3]$, and that $\gamma_1 - \gamma_2 $ satisfies to $$0 < \gamma_1 - \gamma_2 < \frac{{{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{\text{\tiny 12}}}}}{2\sqrt{2}} \inf_i \left[ \frac{ q_0 \, e_i p_i + e_{i+1} e_{i+2} p_{i+1} p_{i+2}}{( Q_0 + q_0 + e_i p_i ) ( q_0 + e_{i+1} p_{i+1} ) ( q_0 + e_{i+2} p_{i+2} )} \right] \ . \label{gammabound}$$ This inequality shows explicitly that one can reach infinite radius at finite values of the moduli, and therefore exhibits the existence of a wall of marginal stability.
Within the STU truncation, the six moduli are parametrised by the four free parameters ${{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{\text{\tiny 12}}}}$, $e_3,\, \gamma_1,\, \gamma_2$, up to the conditions , . Therefore, the wall defined at ${{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{\text{\tiny 12}}}}\rightarrow \infty$ is clearly of co-dimension one in the 4-dimensional hypersurface of allowed moduli. Note that ${{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{\text{\tiny 12}}}}$ can be arbitrarily small, but the limit ${{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{\text{\tiny 12}}}}\rightarrow 0$ is located at the boundary of moduli space. A similar analysis leads to the same conclusions for $p_1\le 0$.
It is also interesting to compare the entropy of such a two-centre configuration with the entropy of the single-centre solution that would carry the same total electromagnetic charges and total angular momentum. For simplicity, we consider the case in which the intrinsic angular momenta of the two individual centres vanish. In this case the total angular momentum of the solution is the symplectic product of the two charges. Using the regularity conditions that $Q_0 > 0 , \, q_0 > 0$ and, either $\det \vp > 0 $ and is satisfied, or $\det \vp < 0 $ and $p^0 < - \mbox{max}\bigl[ q^0, \sqrt{ \frac{ - \det \vp}{q_0}}\bigr]$, one proves that $${\bigl ({ 2 \det \vp - q_0 p^0 ( 3 Q_0 + q_0 - p^0 ) + Q_0^{\; 2} ( q_0 - p^0 ) } \bigr )}^2 > Q_0^{\; 2} {\bigl ({ 4 q_0 \det \vp + ( q_0 p^0 )^2 } \bigr )} \ ,$$ and therefore $$\sqrt{ - I_4(\Gamma_1 + \Gamma_2) - {\langle {\Gamma_1}, {\Gamma_2} \rangle}^2 } > \sqrt{ - I_4(\Gamma_1) } + \sqrt{ - I_4(\Gamma_2) } \ .$$ We conclude that for all the regular solutions we consider in this section, the entropy of the single-centre solution carrying the same total electromagnetic charges and angular momentum is always strictly greater than the entropy of the two-centre solution.
We did several numerical checks of this solution in the parametrisation above, unfortunately excluding the region of large volume in moduli space. The reason is that reaching large imaginary values requires a severe fine tuning of the parameters, such that $\vl$ is very large and at the same time $$\vk = - m \frac{\vl}{\det \vl} + \mathcal{O}( \vl^{-3}) \ ,$$ which is complicated to obtain in practice. We checked for several axisymmetric examples, including different signs of $p_1$, that not only the metric is regular, but there is no closed time-like curves outside the horizons, $$e^{-4U} - \frac{ \omega_\varphi^{\; 2}}{r^2 \sin^2 \theta} > 0 \ .$$ An example plot of this function for $p_1<0$ is shown in figure \[fig:two-cen-plot\], which immediately shows that it falls off monotonically as one approaches asymptotic infinity. Here, we choose not to display any further details, since this behaviour seems to be universal for all examples we considered. The numerical simulations we have been doing all manifest the behaviour that $$W(\Gamma_1) + W(\Gamma_2) -W(\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2) <\hspace{-1mm}< W(\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2) - | Z(\Gamma_1 + \Gamma_2)| <\hspace{-1mm}< W(\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2) \ ,$$ so that the binding energy is extremely small compared to both the total energy of the system and the energy above the BPS bound. In connection to this, it is interesting to note that given a two-centre non-BPS composite, generically one can define a BPS solution with the same total charges and moduli, as two centre configurations. Such a solution is then largely favored energetically and one may expect the non-BPS composite to decay into the BPS composite by tunneling relatively rapidly. Although they carry the same total charges, these solutions are however extremely different on large scales, and such a decay would require rather non-local quantum effects, and it is by no means clear that this can occur in string theory.
Let us comment finally on the limiting case $-p^0 = q_0 + 3 \sqrt[3]{\det \vp} $, when there is a unique solution $\ve = \frac{ \vp \times \vp}{(\det \vp)^{2/3}}$ for the vector parametrising $\hat R$. In this case, the solution is always equivalent up to duality transformations to a solution of the one modulus model (or $t^3$ model). Since a non-BPS charge has no flat directions in this model, the binding energy always vanishes in this case, and the energy of the solution is independent of the radius. This solution is therefore only marginally stable for all values of the radius. This behaviour is peculiar to the $T^3$ model and it is worth mentioning that the composite non-BPS system is associated to a nilpotent orbit that in fact does not exist in $\mathfrak{g}_{2(2)}$, the three-dimensional duality group of this model. The existence of non-BPS composite solutions within the $T^3$ model despite the absence of the relevant nilpotent orbit in $\mathfrak{g}_{2(2)}$ was pointed out in [@Yeranyan:2012au].
### Flat directions {#flat-directions .unnumbered}
One can distinguish three cases among these examples, depending on the sign of the minimum eigen value $p_1$ of $\vp$. The latter determines the flat directions associated to the solution. The D0-D6 charge is by construction left invariant by a subgroup $G_5 \subset G_4$, whereas the common stabiliser of the two charges is the stabiliser of $\vp$ in $G_5$. The stabiliser of $\vp$ is the maximal compact subgroup $K_5$ of $G_5$ if $p_1>0$, whereas it is a non-compact real form $K_5^* \subset G_5$ if $p_1<0$. The non-compact real form $K_5^*$ is the divisor group that would define the pseudo-Riemannian scalar manifold $K_5^* \backslash G_5$ of the theory obtained by time-like reduction of a genuine six-dimensional theory, so we shall write its maximal compact subgroup as $K_6\subset K_5^*$. [^13] In the special case $p_1=0$, the stabiliser subgroup $I\hspace{-0.6mm}K_6$ is the contracted form of $K_5$ interpolating between the two real forms $K_5$ and $K_5^*$. For example, in the exceptional theory with Kähler geometry $(U(1) \times E_{6(-78)}) \backslash E_{7(-25)}$, one has $$K_5 \cong F_{4(-52)} \ , \quad I\hspace{-0.6mm}K_6 \cong Spin(9) \ltimes \mathds{R}^{16} \ , \quad K_5^* \cong F_{4(-20)} \ .$$ Note however that this configuration is not generic, because the common stabiliser in $E_{7(-25)}$ of two independent generic vectors $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$ is either $Spin(8)$ or $Spin(1,7)$ in general, as shown in appendix \[app:stabilizer\]. Note that when $Spin(8)$ stabilizes both $\vp$ and $\vq$, one can always use $E_{6(-26)}$ to diagonalise them, such that they can be realised within the STU truncation, whereas this is not possible when their common stabilizer is $Spin(1,7)$. In the latter situation, both $\vp$ and $\vq$ are negative, and are linearly independent.
One can easily convince oneself from our analysis that such configurations indeed exist. The positivity condition on $\vl_{\Gamma_2}$ and $\vk_{\Gamma_2}-\vk_{\Gamma_1}$ are identical upon substituting $\vp - 2 \ve \times \vq$ to $\vp$ and adding to $\vk_{\Gamma_2}-\vk_{\Gamma_1}$ a term linear in $\vq$. If one consider a situation in which $\vq$ is very small compare to the other charges ($\vq <\hspace{-1mm}< \vp$), it is clear that one can find solutions as deformations of the D0-D4-D6 ones. This does not require any particular property of $\vq$ with respect to $\vp$ apart from being very small, and so one can clearly find regular solutions for charge of common stabilizer $Spin(8)$ or $Spin(1,7)$.
The two-centre solutions therefore admit drastically different sets of flat directions, from zero to sixteen in the exceptional theory, $$\{ \mathds{1} \} \subset Spin(7) \backslash Spin(1,7) \subset \dots \subset Spin(9) \backslash F_{4(-20)} \ .$$ Although the flat directions associated to the individual charges seem to play an important role in the physical properties of the solution through their link to the vector $\ve$ parametrising the fake superpotential, it is not clear at this stage if the common flat directions of the two charges carry similar properties. We did not find specific differences between the solutions carrying or not flat directions.
Derivation of composite non-BPS solutions {#sec:derive-sols}
=========================================
In this section, we present the detailed analysis of the duality covariant form of the composite non-BPS system, as defined in [@Bossard:2013oga]. This leads to a characterisation of solutions in terms of harmonic functions in an arbitrary symplectic basis, leading to the results already presented in section \[sec:def-sys\] in a convenient basis. After a short summary of the system as defined in [@Bossard:2013oga] in section \[sec:summ-5\], we discuss the general single-centre solution of the multi-centre system in section \[sec:single-5\]. This turns out to be slightly more complicated than the purely single-centre system of [@Bossard:2012xsa], but leads to exactly the same physical results. We then turn to the analysis of the multi-centre configurations in section \[sec:multi-5\], where we present the general solution of the system in an arbitrary frame and give the duality covariant constraints on the allowed charges and distances between centres.
The composite non-BPS system in a general basis {#sec:summ-5}
-----------------------------------------------
Given the ansatze for the metric and gauge fields in -, the first order flow equation for the composite non-BPS system is given as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dw-summ}
\star dw =- \left(d -2\,{{\mathrm dT}^+}_{\scriptscriptstyle \cK} \right)
\left(2\,\mbox{Im}(e^{-U-i\alpha}\cV) - \frac12\, V\,\hat{R} -\frac{M}{V}\,\hat{R}^*\right)
\,.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $M$, $V$, are functions to be specified below, while $\hat{R}$ and $\hat{R}^*$ are a constant and a non-constant very small vector respectively, where ${\langle {\hat R}, {\hat{R}^*} \rangle}= 4$. The non-constant $\hat{R}^*$ is related to a constant very small vector, ${ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$, by $$\label{Rstar0-real}
\hat{R}^*= \exp[{{\mathrm T}^+}_\csK]{ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }\,,$$ which also satisfies ${\langle {\hat R}, {{ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }} \rangle}= 4$. In this and all equations in this section, ${{\mathrm T}^+}_{\csK}$ is a generator of the T-dualities leaving $\hat{R}$ invariant, parametrised by a vector of harmonic functions, $\cK$. The vector of parameters $\cK$ lies in the grade $(-1)$ component of the vector space according to the decomposition implied by the T-duality, a three-charge vector satisfying $$\label{grade-1}
\frac{1}{2} I_4^\prime(\hat{R},{ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }, \cK ) = -{\langle {\hat R}, {{ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }} \rangle}\, \cK \,,$$ which indeed specifies a vector of $n_v$ degrees of freedom. Without loss of generality, we will consider the $\cK$ to asymptote to zero, all the harmonic functions contained in this vector have no constant parts. This choice identifies the asymptotic value of $\hat{R}^*$ with the constant vector ${ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$ and can be changed by passing to a different ${ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$ by a constant T-duality. Note that this choice is convenient for discussing the general properties of the system, but not necessarily for constructing explicit solutions. Indeed, we use the freedom of reintroducing asymptotic values for $\cK$ in the discussion of the explicit representation of solutions in section \[sec:explicit-sols\].
The solutions to the flow equation are simplified by introducing a vector, ${ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$, of grade $(-1)\oplus(+3)$, satisfying $$\frac{1}{2} I_4^\prime(\hat{R},{ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }, { \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }) =
-{\langle {\hat R}, {{ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }} \rangle}\,{ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }+ 3\, {\langle {{ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }}, {{ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }} \rangle} \hat{R} \ .
\label{sympl-constr-summ}$$ Note that is trivially a solution of the last equation, found by setting the grade $(+3)$ component, ${\langle {{ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }}, {{ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }} \rangle}$, to vanish. In practice, once a basis is chosen, as was done in section \[sec:system\], the constraints and determine $n_v$ and $n_v+1$ allowed components for the two vectors, $\cK$ and ${ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$ respectively (cf. ).
The equations resulting from take the form $$\begin{gathered}
2\,e^{-U}\mbox{Im}(e^{-i\alpha}\cV)
=-\exp[{{\mathrm T}^+}_{\scriptscriptstyle \cK}]
\left({ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }- \frac12\, V\,\hat{R} - \frac{M}{V}\,{ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }\right) \,,
\label{scals-5}
\\
\star dw = \exp[{{\mathrm T}^+}_{\scriptscriptstyle \cK}]
\left( d{ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }- {{\mathrm dT}^+}_{\scriptscriptstyle \cK}{ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }\right)\,,
\label{dw-fin-summ}\end{gathered}$$ where $V$ is now identified with the grade $(+3)$ component of ${ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$, as $V={\langle {{ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }}, {{ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }} \rangle}$. The compatibility relation for the last relations leads to the field equation for ${ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$, given by $$\begin{gathered}
d\star d { \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }= {{\mathrm dT}^+}_{\scriptscriptstyle \cK}\! \wedge \star {{\mathrm dT}^+}_{\scriptscriptstyle \cK}\, { \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }=-\frac1{64}\, I_4(d\cK,\star d\cK,{ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } },\hat{R})\,\hat{R}
\,. \label{Lapl-fin-summ}\end{gathered}$$ As the right hand side of this relation is only along $\hat{R}$, it follows that all grade $(-1)$ components of ${ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$ are harmonic, whereas $V$ is not, leading to $$\label{V-Poiss}
d\star d V = -\frac1{16}\,I_4(d\cK, \star d\cK, { \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }, \hat{R}) \,,$$ by taking the inner product of with ${ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$. Note that this is a linear equation for $V$, since the grade $(+3)$ component of ${ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$ drops out from the right hand side (cf. in a specific basis). The final dynamical equation required is the one for the function $M$ in and the angular momentum vector $\omega$, both of which are conveniently given as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:dom-5}
\star d \omega - d M =
{\langle {{ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }}, {d{ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }- {{\mathrm dT}^+}_{\scriptscriptstyle \cK}\,{ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }} \rangle}=
\frac1{16}\,I_4(d\cK ,{ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }, { \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }, \hat{R})\,.\end{aligned}$$ Taking the divergence of this equation, one obtains a Poisson equation for $M$, as $$\label{M-Poisson-5}
d \star d M =
-\frac1{8}\,I_4(d\cK ,\star d{ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }, { \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }, \hat{R})\,$$ whose solution can be used back in to obtain the angular momentum one-form, $\omega$.
These equations can be seen to be equivalent to the formulation given in section \[sec:system\], by choosing the constant vectors $\hat R$ and ${ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$ as in -. Similarly, one can verify that the formulations of the composite non-BPS system given in a fixed duality frame in [@Bossard:2011kz; @Bossard:2012ge] can be also obtained from the above equations. The relevant choice for comparing with [@Bossard:2011kz] is $$\label{fixedframe}
\hat{R}=\left( \begin{array}{c} 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ - 2 \sqrt{2} \end{array} \right) \ ,
\qquad
{ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }= \left( \begin{array}{c} \sqrt{2} \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{array} \right) \ ,$$ while [@Bossard:2012ge] uses the base obtained by an S-duality on the choice above. Note that are very similar to -, but do not include the arbitrary overall T-dualities that allow to cover all frames. It then follows that one can only describe a restricted set of charges using , contrary to the system in section \[sec:system\].
Single centre flows {#sec:single-5}
-------------------
As a first application of the covariant system defined in this section, we now consider single-centre flows, i.e. the explicit solution when only one centre is involved. While this case was treated in detail in [@Bossard:2012xsa], we find it illuminating to solve the general equations in this case, since they are still nontrivial even though they lead to the same physical results as in a purely single-centre treatment. Additionally, the structure of the solution near each centre in the multi-centre case is necessarily of the type discussed here and the precise embedding of the single-centre attractor in a multicentre solution is of particular importance for later applications.
We therefore assume that all functions depend only on the coordinates relative to one point, which represents the single horizon, and which we take to be the origin of $\mathbb{R}^3$. In this case, determines ${ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$ as $$\begin{gathered}
{ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }= \cH_s -\frac14\, V_n \hat{R}\,,
{\nonumber \\*}\cH_s = \mathrm{h} + \frac{{\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }}{r}\,, \qquad
V_n= \frac1{32}\, \frac{1}{r^2} I_4({\mathpzc{d}}, {\mathpzc{d}}, \mathrm{h} + \frac{{\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }}{3r}, \hat{R}) \,,
\label{H-exp-hor-5}\end{gathered}$$ where $\mathrm{h}$ and ${\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$ are two constant vectors satisfying the same constraints as ${ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$, that correspond to the harmonic parts that remain arbitrary, while ${\mathpzc{d}}$ are the poles of the vector $\cK$, defined as $$\cK= \frac{{\mathpzc{d}}}{r}\,. \label{K-decomp-1}$$ As noted below , a possible constant part in $\cK$ can be absorbed in ${ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$ and can be disregarded. The non-harmonic terms in arise by solving for the only nontrivial component, $V$, by $$\begin{gathered}
d\star d V
= -\frac1{16}\,\frac1{r^4}\,I_4({\mathpzc{d}}, {\mathpzc{d}}, { \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }, \hat{R})
\quad \Rightarrow \quad
V \equiv -{\langle {{ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }}, {{ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }} \rangle} = V_s - V_n
\,.\end{gathered}$$ The harmonic function $V_s$ is the grade $(+3)$ component of the ones in , which are naturally decomposed as $$\label{harm-decom-5}
\mathrm{h} + \frac{{\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }}{r} = \mathrm{h}^{{{\scriptscriptstyle (-1)}}} + \frac{{\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }^{{{\scriptscriptstyle (-1)}}}}{r} + \frac14\, V_s\, \hat{R}\,,
\qquad
V_s = {\langle {\mathrm{h}}, {{ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }} \rangle} + \frac{{\langle {{\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }}, {{ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }} \rangle}}{r}\,.$$
We may now relate the integration constants in ${ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$ to the physical charges, by using and the definitions above, to obtain the following equation $$dw = -\frac1{r^2}\, \left({\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }- {{\mathrm T}^+}_{{\mathpzc{d}}}\mathrm{h} \right) \star dr\,,$$ so that the charge vector at the given pole is given by $$\label{ch-attr-5}
\Gamma = {\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }- {{\mathrm T}^+}_{{\mathpzc{d}}}\mathrm{h} \,.$$ Note that the presence of nontrivial T-dualities implies that the poles of ${ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$ are different than the charges, which explicitly involve the constant parts of ${ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$, through $\mathrm{h}$. Note that once a given set of charges $\Gamma$ is chosen, one can use the fact that the poles of ${ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$ and ${{\mathrm T}^+}_{{\mathpzc{d}}}\mathrm{h}$ lie in independent Lagrangian submanifolds to determine them explicitly.
The final equation to be solved is , which leads to the solution $$\begin{aligned}
\label{M-sol0}
M = M_{\zer} -\frac1{16}\,I_4(\cK ,\mathrm{h}, \mathrm{h}, \hat{R})
- \frac1{16}\frac1{r^2}\,I_4({\mathpzc{d}},\mathrm{h}, {\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }, \hat{R})
- \frac1{48}\frac1{r^3}\,I_4({\mathpzc{d}},{\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }, {\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }, \hat{R})
\,.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $M_{\zer}$ stands for an dipole harmonic function describing rotation through $$\label{single-M}
\star d \omega = d M_{\zer} \,, \qquad M_{\zer}= m + {\mathsf{J}}\,\frac{\cos{\theta}}{r^2}\,,$$ where ${\mathsf{J}}$ is the angular momentum along the axis $\theta=0$, as is conventionally chosen for a single-centre solution.
We now consider the metric starting with the expression for the scale factor, given in the standard way by $$\label{e4U-sc-5}
e^{-4U} = -I_4({ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }) - M^2\,,$$ where ${ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$ and $M$ are given by the expressions above. Firstly, the quartic invariant can be expanded in the possible combinations of the different terms in , leading to $$\begin{aligned}
I_4({ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } })=&
\frac1{r^4}\,I_4({\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } })
- \frac1{24\, r^3}\,V_n\, I_4({\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }, {\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }, {\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }, \hat{R})
\nonumber\\
& - \frac1{8\, r^2}\,V_n\, I_4(\mathrm{h}, {\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }, {\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }, \hat{R})
- \frac1{8\, r}\,V_n\, I_4(\mathrm{h}, \mathrm{h}, {\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }, \hat{R})
+ \mathcal{O}(r^{-3})
\,,\label{I4-decomp-5}\end{aligned}$$ where we omitted the terms of lower order in $r$, that can however be straightforwardly computed. Using the expression for $V_n$ as given in , one finds poles of order higher than $4$ in this expression, which lead to unphysical behaviour near the horizon and must not be present for a physical solution.
We now note that only the grade $(-1)$ components of $\mathrm{h}$ and ${\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$ appear in the full expression , since one can verify that the components along $\hat{R}$ in drop out due to the presence of $\hat{R}$ in all terms involving the quartic invariant. Using the solution for the function $M$, one finds that the terms of order $r^{-6}$ and $r^{-5}$ in are skew-symmetric forms in ${\mathpzc{d}}$ and ${\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }^{{{\scriptscriptstyle (-1)}}}$, so that they vanish only if the condition $$\begin{gathered}
\label{keql-5}
{\mathpzc{d}}=\gamma\, {\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }^{{{\scriptscriptstyle (-1)}}}\,,\end{gathered}$$ is imposed on the poles of the harmonic functions, where $\gamma$ is an arbitrary constant. Imposing this condition, we obtain the expression $$\begin{aligned}
\label{single-metric-5}
e^{-4U} =& -I_4({ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }) - M^2
\nonumber\\
=&-\frac1{r^4}\,I_4({\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } })
- \frac1{192}\, \frac{\gamma^2}{r^4}\,I_4({\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }, {\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }, \hat{R}, {\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } })
I_4(\mathrm{h}, \mathrm{h}, {\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }, \hat{R})
\nonumber\\
&-M_{\zer} \left(M_{\zer} -\frac14\frac{\gamma}{r^2}\,I_4({\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } },\mathrm{h}, {\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }, \hat{R})
- \frac1{12}\frac{\gamma}{r^3}\,I_4({\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } },{\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }, {\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }, \hat{R})\right)
+ \mathcal{O}(r^{-3})\,.\end{aligned}$$ This still contains an unwanted pole of order $5$, proportional to $I_4({\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } },{\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }, {\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }, \hat{R})$, whenever the angular momentum is nonzero, i.e. in the presence of a dipole harmonic term in $M_{\zer}$. This term can be easily canceled by adding a dipole harmonic piece in the function $V$, which amounts to shifting $$\label{H-shift0}
{ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }\rightarrow { \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }+ \frac1{4}\,\gamma\, \frac{{\mathsf{J}}\,\cos{\theta}}{r^2}\,\hat{R} \,.$$
Note that in solving all non-harmonic equations above, we did not use the freedom of adding fixed harmonic pieces in all functions, as the one in . Indeed, adding such terms not only simplifies expressions significantly, but also leads to a simpler identification of charges. We therefore modify the solution and to $$\begin{gathered}
{ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }= \cH_s + \frac14\,\gamma\,M_{\zer}\, \hat{R}
-\frac1{384}\, \gamma^2 I_4(\cH_s, \cH_s, \cH_s, \hat{R})\, \hat{R} \,,
{\nonumber \\*}M= M_{\zer} -\frac1{48}\, \gamma I_4(\cH_s, \cH_s, \cH_s, \hat{R})\,,\label{HM-5-str}\end{gathered}$$ which, by repeating the steps above, leads to the metric function $$\begin{aligned}
\label{metr-sing}
e^{-4U} =& -I_4({ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }) - M^2 = - I_4(\cH_s) -M_{\zer}^2 \,,\end{aligned}$$ where we have computed the full expression rather than the leading term. Observe that this is identical to the corresponding single-centre expression for charges equal to ${\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$, if the poles of $\cH_s$ are taken to be equal to the charges computed above.
Using this solution, it is now possible to completely fix the integration constants in terms of the charges, starting from , which is now modified to $$\label{ch-5-n}
\Gamma =
{\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }- {{\mathrm T}^+}_{{\mathpzc{d}}}\mathrm{h} -\frac1{128}\, \gamma^2 I_4(\mathrm{h}, \mathrm{h}, {\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }, \hat{R})\, \hat{R} \,,$$ after taking into account the additional harmonic term in . Now, we can use to rearrange the second term as $${{\mathrm T}^+}_{{\mathpzc{d}}}\mathrm{h}= \gamma\,{{\mathrm T}^+}_{\mathrm{h}^{{{\scriptscriptstyle (-1)}}}}{\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }\,,$$ where we used the linearity of T-dualities and the fact that the grade $(+3)$ component of $\mathrm{h}$ and ${\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$ drops out from both sides. Combining this with , the expression takes the rather simple form $$\label{ch-5-fin}
\Gamma = \exp[{{\mathrm T}^+}_{-\gamma\,\mathrm{h}^{{{\scriptscriptstyle (-1)}}}}]{\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }\,,$$ so that the charges are indeed given by ${\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$, up to an overall finite T-duality with parameter $-\gamma\,\mathrm{h}^{{{\scriptscriptstyle (-1)}}}$.
In order to show that the equivalence with the single-centre solutions is complete, one needs to show that not only the metric in , but also the scalar fields are driven by a single-centre flow with charges as in . This computation involves a local Kähler transformation governed by the non harmonic part of ${ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$ above and leaving the physical moduli invariant. Such gauge transformations were recently discussed in [@Galli:2012ji]. The interested reader can find an outline of this computation in appendix \[app:kahler-trans\], where we show that an appropriate Kähler transformation indeed brings the section with ${ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$ as in to exactly the single-centre form. The action on the various functions is given in - in the general case and in in the basis used in sections \[sec:system\]-\[sec:explicit-sols\].
A final point worthwhile discussing is the inversion of to find the asymptotic constants $ -\gamma\,\mathrm{h}^{{{\scriptscriptstyle (-1)}}}$ in terms of the charges. Since this equation is based on a finite T-duality that leaves $\hat{R}$ invariant and acts nontrivially on ${ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$ by definition, one needs to relate a combination of the charges to the vector ${ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$. This can be easily done starting from the expression $$\label{pre-d}
I_4^\prime({\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }) = \frac1{24}\, I_4({\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } },{\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } },{\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } },\hat R)\, { R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }+ \frac18\, {\langle {{\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }}, {{ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }} \rangle} I_4^\prime({\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } },{\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } },\hat R)\,,$$ which is simply the decomposition of the Freudenthal dual of a charge ${\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$ as in , in its grade $(-3)$ and $(+1)$ components, from which one also derives $$\label{dec-I4}
I_4(\Gamma) = I_4({\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } })
= \frac16\, I_4({\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } },{\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } },{\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } },\hat R)\, {\langle {{\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }}, {{ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }} \rangle}
= \frac16\, I_4(\Gamma,\Gamma,\Gamma,\hat R)\, {\langle {{\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }}, {{ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }} \rangle} \,,$$ by contracting with the charges. Using the manifest covariance of , we can boost ${\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$ to the physical charge $\Gamma$ according to , to obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\label{d-expr}
\exp[{{\mathrm T}^+}_{ -\gamma\mathrm{h}}] { R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }=
\frac{6\,{\langle {\hat R}, {{ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }} \rangle}}{I_4(\Gamma,\Gamma,\Gamma,\hat R)}
\left(I_4^\prime(\Gamma)
- \frac{3\,I_4(\Gamma)}{ I_4(\Gamma,\Gamma,\Gamma,\hat R) } I_4^\prime(\Gamma,\Gamma,\hat R)\right)
\,,\end{gathered}$$ where we also used to express ${\langle {{\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }}, {{ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }} \rangle}$ in terms of charges. The last expression gives the combination $ -\gamma\,\mathrm{h}^{{{\scriptscriptstyle (-1)}}}$ in terms of the charges in any given frame, once the vectors $R$ and ${ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$ are determined. It follows that once these vectors and the total charge are chosen, one can directly invert to obtain the charge ${\Gamma_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$ that governs the flow. Note that this does not imply that the above combination is fixed in terms of charges only, since in practice the constant vector ${ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$ depends on asymptotic scalars, as in the single-centre case discussed in [@Bossard:2012xsa]. In terms of an explicit basis, the value $-\gamma\mathrm{h}$ for the relevant T-duality parameter can be seen explicitly by the shift the harmonic functions $\vK$ in .
Multi-centre flows {#sec:multi-5}
------------------
In view of the solutions presented in the previous section on single-centre flows, one can consider solutions involving multiple centres. In this setting, one has to superpose a set single-centre black holes, as described above, by allowing for the various functions to have poles in all allowed centres. Of central importance in this respect is the fact that all centres in a given solution must be compatible with a single pair of vectors $\hat{R}$ and ${ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$, which poses a strong constraint on the allowed structures.
### Local structure {#local-structure .unnumbered}
In the composite non-BPS system, all centres carry non-BPS charge vectors and their near horizon regions are of the type described in the previous section. Considering a multi-centre flow, all but one function in ${ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$ continue to be harmonic, in addition to the $\cK$ describing the T-dualities. Therefore, they take a form similar to , as $$\begin{gathered}
{ \cH_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }= \cH_s - \frac14\, V_n \, \hat R \,,
\nonumber\\
\cH_s= \mathrm{h} + \sum_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\frac{{\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny A}}}}}}{r_{{\text{\tiny A}}}}\,,
\qquad
\cK = \sum_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\frac{{\mathpzc{d}}_{{\text{\tiny A}}}}{r_{{\text{\tiny A}}}}\,,
\label{hars-multi-5}\end{gathered}$$ where $V_n$ contains the non-harmonic part of the function $V$, to be determined below. In order to have a regular solution near the centres, we need to impose the restrictions found for the single-centre case above, and in particular , so that the poles of $\cH_s$ and $\cK$ must be colinear at every centre, i.e. $$\begin{gathered}
\label{keql-5-multi}
{\mathpzc{d}}_{{\text{\tiny A}}}= \gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\, {\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny A}}}}}^{{{\scriptscriptstyle (-1)}}}\,,\end{gathered}$$ where $\gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}$ are a set of constants.
We can now use these expressions to obtain the non-harmonic functions $V_n$ and $M$, by solving and respectively. As shown in [@Bossard:2012ge], it is possible to find the exact solutions for these functions in terms of the function $F_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}{{\text{\tiny B}}},{{\text{\tiny C}}}}$, defined as the everywhere regular solution to the Poisson equation $$\label{F-triple-def}
d\star d F_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}{{\text{\tiny B}}},{{\text{\tiny C}}}}=\frac{1}{r_{{\text{\tiny C}}}}\,d\star d\left( \frac{1}{r_{{\text{\tiny A}}}} \frac{1}{r_{{\text{\tiny B}}}} \right)\,.$$ While the existence and regularity of this function was shown in [@Bossard:2012ge], it cannot be expressed by elementary functions generically, but only in the special case when all three centres $A,\,B,\,C$ are aligned. Additionally, in view of the discussion in the previous section, we find it convenient to include a harmonic part in each of these functions, both to impose regularity of the metric at each pole, as well as to simplify some expressions. The complete expressions for these two functions are as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\label{V-gen}
V_n =&\, \sum_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\,{\mathsf{J}}_{i\,{{\text{\tiny A}}}} \,\frac{r^i_{{\text{\tiny A}}}}{r^3_{{\text{\tiny A}}}}
-\frac1{96}\sum_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}} \gamma^2_{{\text{\tiny A}}}I_4{\Bigl ({\frac{{\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny A}}}}}}{r_{{\text{\tiny A}}}}, \frac{{\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny A}}}}}}{r_{{\text{\tiny A}}}}, 3\,\mathrm{h} + \frac{{\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny A}}}}}}{r_{{\text{\tiny A}}}}, \hat R} \Bigr )}
{\nonumber \\*}&\,
-\frac1{32}\,\sum_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}\neq {{\text{\tiny B}}}} \gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\gamma_{{\text{\tiny B}}}\,
I_4{\Bigl ({\frac{{\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny A}}}}}}{r_{{\text{\tiny A}}}}, \frac{{\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny B}}}}}}{r_{{\text{\tiny B}}}}, \mathrm{h} +\!\!\! \sum_{{{\text{\tiny C}}}\neq\{{{\text{\tiny A}}},{{\text{\tiny B}}}\}} \frac{{\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny C}}}}}}{r_{{\text{\tiny C}}}} , \hat R} \Bigr )}
\nonumber\\
&\,
-\frac1{32}\,\sum_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}\neq {{\text{\tiny B}}}} \gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\, I_4({\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny A}}}}}, {\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny A}}}}}, {\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny B}}}}}, \hat R)
\left( \frac{ \gamma_{{\text{\tiny B}}}}{{r_{\text{\tiny A}}}^2 {r_{\text{\tiny B}}}}
+ \frac{ \gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}- \gamma_{{\text{\tiny B}}}}{{{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}^2_{{\text{\tiny AB}}}}}} \left(\frac{{r_{\text{\tiny B}}}}{{r_{\text{\tiny A}}}^2} - \frac{1}{{r_{\text{\tiny B}}}} \right)\right) \,
\nonumber\\
&\,
+\frac1{16}\,\sum_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}\neq {{\text{\tiny B}}}\neq {{\text{\tiny C}}}} \gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\gamma_{{\text{\tiny C}}}\, I_4({\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny A}}}}}, {\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny B}}}}}, {\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny C}}}}}, \hat R)
\,\left( F_{{{\text{\tiny AB}}},{{\text{\tiny C}}}} + \frac1{{{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny AB}}}}}{{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny BC}}}}}} \frac1{{r_{\text{\tiny B}}}} \right)
\,,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{M-gen}
M =&\, m + \sum_{{\text{\tiny A}}}{\mathsf{J}}_{i\,{{\text{\tiny A}}}} \,\frac{r^i_{{\text{\tiny A}}}}{r^3_{{\text{\tiny A}}}}
- \frac1{48}\,\sum_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\,
I_4{\Bigl ({\mathrm{h}+ \frac{{\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny A}}}}}}{r_{{\text{\tiny A}}}}, \mathrm{h}+ \frac{{\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny A}}}}}}{r_{{\text{\tiny A}}}}, \mathrm{h}+ \frac{{\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny A}}}}}}{r_{{\text{\tiny A}}}}, \hat R} \Bigr )}
\nonumber\\
&\,
-\frac1{16}\,\sum_{A\neq B} \gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\, I_4({\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny A}}}}}, {\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny B}}}}}, \mathrm{h}, \hat R)
\left( \frac{1}{{r_{\text{\tiny A}}}} \frac{1}{{r_{\text{\tiny B}}}} + \frac1{{{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny AB}}}}}} \frac{1}{{r_{\text{\tiny A}}}}
- \frac1{{{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny AB}}}}}} \frac{1}{{r_{\text{\tiny B}}}} \right)
\nonumber\\
&\,
-\frac1{32}\,\sum_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}\neq {{\text{\tiny B}}}} I_4({\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny A}}}}}, {\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny A}}}}}, {\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny B}}}}}, \hat R)
\left( \frac{ \gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}+ \gamma_{{\text{\tiny B}}}}{{r_{\text{\tiny A}}}^2 {r_{\text{\tiny B}}}}
+ \frac{ \gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}- \gamma_{{\text{\tiny B}}}}{{{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}^2_{{\text{\tiny AB}}}}}} \left(\frac{{r_{\text{\tiny B}}}}{{r_{\text{\tiny A}}}^2} - \frac{1}{{r_{\text{\tiny B}}}} \right)\right) \,
\nonumber\\
&\,
-\frac1{16}\,\sum_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}\neq {{\text{\tiny B}}}\neq {{\text{\tiny C}}}} \gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\, I_4({\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny A}}}}}, {\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny B}}}}}, {\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny C}}}}}, \hat R)
\,\left( F_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}{{\text{\tiny B}}},{{\text{\tiny C}}}} + \frac1{{{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny AB}}}}}{{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny BC}}}}}} \frac1{{r_{\text{\tiny B}}}} \right)
\,,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathsf{J}}_{i\,{{\text{\tiny A}}}}$ is the angular momentum vector associated to the centre $A$. Note that both these expressions contain harmonic parts, chosen so that the appropriate behaviour near each centre is obtained, in direct analogy with . Upon specifying to the frame , one easily recovers the results of [@Bossard:2012ge], while the general choice - similarly leads to -.
Using these expressions, one can show that the expression for the charges at each centre takes a form very similar to the single-centre result , as $$\label{ch-full-5}
\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}= \exp[{{\mathrm T}^+}_{{\mathsf{d}}_{{\text{\tiny A}}}}] {\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny A}}}}}\,.$$ Here and in the following, we use the combination $$\begin{aligned}
\label{comp-const}
{\mathsf{d}}_{{\text{\tiny A}}}= \sum_{{{\text{\tiny B}}}\neq {{\text{\tiny A}}}}\frac{{\mathpzc{d}}_{{\text{\tiny B}}}}{{{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny AB}}}}}}- \gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\mathrm{h}^{{{\scriptscriptstyle (-1)}}}_{{\text{\tiny A}}}= \sum_{{{\text{\tiny B}}}\neq {{\text{\tiny A}}}}( \gamma_{{\text{\tiny B}}}- \gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}})\frac{{\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny B}}}}}^{{{\scriptscriptstyle (-1)}}}}{{{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny AB}}}}}} - \gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\mathrm{h}^{{{\scriptscriptstyle (-1)}}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ which is given in terms of the constant parts of the harmonic functions $\cH_s$ and $\cK$ at each pole. Note that there are multiple ways of casting , in particular one can use the relations to find the expansion $$\label{ch-full-5-alt}
\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}= {\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny A}}}}}-\frac18\, I_4^{\prime}({\mathsf{d}}_{{\text{\tiny A}}}, {\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny A}}}}}, \hat{R})
-\frac1{64}\, I_4 ({\mathsf{d}}_{{\text{\tiny A}}}, {\mathsf{d}}_{{\text{\tiny A}}}, {\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny A}}}}}, \hat{R})\,\hat{R}
\,,$$ which will prove useful in what follows. Finally, note that following the arguments in - we can solve for the combination of asymptotic constants ${\mathsf{d}}_{{\text{\tiny A}}}$ as $$\begin{gathered}
\label{d-expr-mult}
\exp[{{\mathrm T}^+}_{{\mathsf{d}}_{{\text{\tiny A}}}}] { R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }=
\frac{{\langle {\hat R}, {{ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }} \rangle}}{I_4(\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}},\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}},\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}},\hat R)} I_4^\prime(\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}})
- \frac{{\langle {\hat R}, {{ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }} \rangle}\,I_4(\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}})}
{\left(I_4(\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}},\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}},\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}},\hat R)\right)^2} I_4^\prime(\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}},\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}},\hat R)
\,,\end{gathered}$$ which must hold at each centre independently. Similar to , one can write the solution as $${\mathsf{d}}_{{\text{\tiny A}}}=
\frac{{\langle {\hat R}, {{ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }} \rangle}}{I_4(\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}},\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}},\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}},\hat R)}
\mathsf{P}(I_4^\prime(\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}))^{{{\scriptscriptstyle (-1)}}}\,.$$ Note that this relation explicitly contains the distances between the various centres, through . This property will be used in the following, in the discussion of the global structure of solutions. Once again, writing the formal expression in terms of an explicit basis leads to a simple identification of T-duality parameters, as in .
### Global structure {#global-structure .unnumbered}
Turning to the global features of multi-centre solutions, we consider the total angular momentum. Inserting and in , we obtain the full expression for the total angular momentum one-form as $$\begin{aligned}
\omega = &\,
\sum_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\varepsilon_{ijk} \frac{ {\mathsf{J}}_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}}^i\, r_{{\text{\tiny A}}}^j\, dx^k}{ r_{{\text{\tiny A}}}^3}
-\frac18\! \sum_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}\ne {{\text{\tiny B}}}\ne {{\text{\tiny C}}}}\! \gamma_{{\text{\tiny C}}}\, I_4({\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny A}}}}}, {\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny B}}}}}, {\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny C}}}}}, \hat R) \; \omega_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}{{\text{\tiny B}}},{{\text{\tiny C}}}}
\nonumber\\
&\,
-\frac18\, \sum_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}\ne {{\text{\tiny B}}}} \frac{ ( \gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}- \gamma_{{\text{\tiny B}}})\, I_4({\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny A}}}}}, {\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny B}}}}}, \mathrm{h}, \hat R)\,
\, \varepsilon_{ijk}\, {{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}^i_{{\text{\tiny AB}}}}}\, r_{{\text{\tiny B}}}^j\, dx^k }{{{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny AB}}}}}\, r_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\, r_{{\text{\tiny B}}}\, {\bigl ({ r_{{\text{\tiny A}}}+ r_{{\text{\tiny B}}}+ {{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny AB}}}}}} \bigr )}}
\nonumber\\
&\,
-\frac18\,\sum_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}\ne {{\text{\tiny B}}}} ( \gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}- \gamma_{{\text{\tiny B}}})
\frac{ I_4({\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny A}}}}}, {\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny B}}}}}, {\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny C}}}}}, \hat R)\,
\varepsilon_{ijk}\, {{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}^i_{{\text{\tiny AB}}}}}\, r_{{\text{\tiny A}}}^j\, dx^k }{{{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}^2_{{\text{\tiny AB}}}}}\, r_{{\text{\tiny A}}}^2\, r_{{\text{\tiny B}}}}\,,
\label{omega-gen}\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega_{AB,C}$ is defined as the solution to $$\star d \omega_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}{{\text{\tiny B}}},{{\text{\tiny C}}}} = d {\Bigl ({ F_{({{\text{\tiny A}}},{{\text{\tiny B}}}){{\text{\tiny C}}}} + \frac{1}{{{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny AC}}}}}\, {{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny BC}}}}}\, r_{{\text{\tiny C}}}} } \Bigr )}
- \frac{1}{r_{{\text{\tiny A}}}\,r_{{\text{\tiny B}}}} d \frac{1}{r_{{\text{\tiny C}}}}\,.$$ In order to extract the angular momentum, we expand in the asymptotic region, using the asymptotic expansion for the function $F_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}{{\text{\tiny B}}},{{\text{\tiny C}}}}$ as given in [@Bossard:2012ge], along with the corresponding contribution to the angular momentum one-form through . One can verify that the resulting expression for the asymptotic total angular momentum is $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathsf{J}}^i_{\text{t}} &=& \sum_{{\text{\tiny A}}}{\mathsf{J}}_{{\text{\tiny A}}}^i
+\frac18\,\sum_{A>B} \frac{{{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}^i_{{\text{\tiny AB}}}}}}{{{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny AB}}}}}} \biggl(
I_4({\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny A}}}}}, {\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny B}}}}}, {\mathsf{d}}_{{\text{\tiny A}}}, \hat R)
- I_4({\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny A}}}}}, {\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny B}}}}}, {\mathsf{d}}_{{\text{\tiny B}}}, \hat R)
\biggr)
{\nonumber \\*}&&
+\frac18\, \sum_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}\ne {{\text{\tiny B}}}\ne {{\text{\tiny C}}}} \gamma_{{\text{\tiny C}}}\,
I_4({\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny A}}}}}, {\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny B}}}}}, {\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny C}}}}}, \hat R)
\frac{ {{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny AB}}}}}^2 \, R^i_{{\text{\tiny BC}}}- {{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny AB}}}}}\hspace{-1mm}\cdot \hspace{-1mm} {{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny BC}}}}}\, R^i_{{\text{\tiny AB}}}}{ {{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny AB}}}}}\, {{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny AC}}}}}\, {{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny BC}}}}}\, {\bigl ({ {{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny AB}}}}}+ {{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny AC}}}}}+ {{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny BC}}}}}} \bigr )}} {\nonumber \\*}&=&
\sum_{{\text{\tiny A}}}{\mathsf{J}}_{{\text{\tiny A}}}^i
- \sum_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}>{{\text{\tiny B}}}} \, {\langle {\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}}, {\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny B}}}} \rangle}\, \frac{{{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}^i_{{\text{\tiny AB}}}}}}{{{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny AB}}}}}}
\hspace{35mm}
{\nonumber \\*}&&
+\frac18\, \sum_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}\ne {{\text{\tiny B}}}\ne {{\text{\tiny C}}}} \gamma_{{\text{\tiny C}}}\,
I_4(\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}, \Gamma_{{\text{\tiny B}}}, \Gamma_{{\text{\tiny C}}}, \hat R)
\frac{ {{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny AB}}}}}^2 \, R^i_{{\text{\tiny BC}}}- {{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny AB}}}}}\hspace{-1mm}\cdot \hspace{-1mm} {{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny BC}}}}}\, R^i_{{\text{\tiny AB}}}}{ {{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny AB}}}}}\, {{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny AC}}}}}\, {{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny BC}}}}}\, {\bigl ({ {{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny AB}}}}}+ {{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny AC}}}}}+ {{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny BC}}}}}} \bigr )}} \,,
\label{NonBPSJ}
\end{aligned}$$ where in the second equality we used to rewrite the second sum as the inner product of charges at all the centres, and the property that $I_4({\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny A}}}}}, {\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny B}}}}}, {\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny C}}}}}, \hat R)=I_4(\Gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}, \Gamma_{{\text{\tiny B}}}, \Gamma_{{\text{\tiny C}}}, \hat R)$ because of the grading. Note that, while the first two terms are standard, the third term in this expression, resulting from the asymptotic expansion of $\omega_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}{{\text{\tiny B}}},{{\text{\tiny C}}}}$, is rather non-standard and appears only when not all centres lie on a line.
The final step is to consider the spatial structure of the solution, by fixing the distances between the centres through the interactions described above. To this end, we define the antisymmetric combination $${\mathsf{d}}_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}{{\text{\tiny B}}}}\equiv {\mathsf{d}}_{{\text{\tiny A}}}- {\mathsf{d}}_{{\text{\tiny B}}}\,,$$ which is fixed in terms of charges by . Using , this can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{distan-5}
{\mathsf{d}}_{{{\text{\tiny A}}}{{\text{\tiny B}}}}= &\,
\sum_{{{\text{\tiny C}}}\neq {{\text{\tiny A}}}}( \gamma_{{\text{\tiny C}}}- \gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}})\,\frac{{\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny C}}}}}^{{{\scriptscriptstyle (-1)}}}}{{{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny AC}}}}}}
-\sum_{{{\text{\tiny C}}}\neq {{\text{\tiny B}}}}( \gamma_{{\text{\tiny C}}}- \gamma_{{\text{\tiny B}}})\,\frac{{\Gamma_{\mbox{\tiny{0}} {{\text{\tiny C}}}}}^{{{\scriptscriptstyle (-1)}}}}{{{\mbox{\footnotesize{R}}_{{\text{\tiny BC}}}}}}
-( \gamma_{{\text{\tiny A}}}- \gamma_{{\text{\tiny B}}})\,\mathrm{h}^{{{\scriptscriptstyle (-1)}}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ which is the covariant version of the relation , as given in the explicit basis of section \[sec:system\]. Note that due to the presence of all distances between all $N$ centres, one can use to constrain their values.
To obtain explicit solutions to however, one has to appreciate the fact that while the $\mathrm{h}$ parametrise (some of) the asymptotic scalars, all other terms are fixed in terms of charges at each centre by , so that this set of equations is overconstrained. This was shown in detail in section \[sec:explicit-sols\], where we saw the emergence of hypersurfaces on which the composite solutions are constrained to exist. It would be interesting to investigate whether particular contractions of can be used to study these properties directly, without going to an explicit basis.
Conclusion {#sec:concl}
==========
In this paper, we presented the first detailed analysis of the properties of non-BPS black hole bound states in extended supergravity, which is not attached to a specific duality frame. This permitted us to study the domain of existence of these solutions in moduli space for fixed electromagnetic charges. In particular, we showed explicitly the existence of walls of marginal stability where the binding energy vanishes. Moreover we define the notion of a non-BPS attractor flow tree as a criterion of existence for these solutions. This was done for a relatively simple subclass of non-BPS extremal solutions, corresponding to the so-called composite non-BPS system of black hole solutions. These correspond to a system of black holes each carrying a non-BPS charge (of negative quartic invariant) and an angular momentum that is bounded above by the charges.
The results derived in section \[sec:explicit-sols\] show that all the features familiar from the study of multi-centre BPS solutions appear for non-BPS composites as well. The only crucial difference is that, while BPS solutions a priori exist on codimension zero subspaces of moduli space, non-BPS solutions can only exist on specific hypersurfaces in moduli space, depending on the charges involved [@Bossard:2011kz; @Bossard:2012ge]. One of our main technical result is to prove that the composite solutions always carry a non-trivial binding energy between the constituents, exhibiting that they indeed define bound states (with the exception of the solutions of the $T^3$ model). In order to arrive to this conclusion we showed that the fake superpotential, defined in [@Ceresole:2009vp] as a function of auxiliary parameters associated to the flat directions of the individual centres, defines the mass of a single-centre non-BPS black hole at its global maximum. Using the property that the mass of a composite solution is defined from the same function at different values of these auxiliary parameters, one concludes that the binding energy is always positive.
As for the BPS solutions, the distances between the centres are determined in terms of the individual charges and the moduli. We show explicitly that the distance between two centres (or two clusters of centres) diverges for finite values of the asymptotic scalars. Moreover, we prove that the corresponding binding energy vanishes in this limit, exhibiting that it defines a wall of marginal stability in moduli space. These domains indeed define codimension one boundaries of the hypersurface on which the solution exists in moduli space.
As it turns out, the auxiliary parameters associated to flat directions play a very similar role to that of the Kähler phase of the central charge for BPS solutions, leading to a natural notion of attractor flow tree. Indeed, as explained in section \[sec:attr-tree\], a solution may only exist if a wall of marginal stability exists, on which the values for the auxiliary parameters for the constituents are the same as for the bound state. It then follows that any solution can be assembled in this way, so that one can associate an attractor flow tree to any such composite solution. It is therefore tempting to conjecture that the reverse would be true, that the existence of such an attractor flow tree would imply the existence of a solution, as proposed in [@Denef:2000nb] for BPS solutions.
Note that the property that these solutions only exist on a hypersurface in moduli space may be an artifact of the composite non-BPS system we are solving, rather than a physical property. The system somehow forces us to restrict ourselves to a hypersurface without boundaries in moduli space, on which we can identify a boundary carrying all physical properties of a wall of marginal stability. If we know that there is no deformation of our solutions in the normal directions to this hypersurface within the composite non-BPS system of equations, there may exist more general extremal solutions that would extend the domain of existence to a codimension zero domain in moduli space. This would require to give up some special properties of these solutions, as for example the condition that the three-dimensional Euclidean base is flat.
There are a number of future directions related to the above developments. First, it would be interesting to extend the analysis to more general systems of black hole composites. The most obvious such example is to allow for BPS charges as well, so that a BPS/non-BPS system of charges may arise. This is described by the almost-BPS system [@Goldstein:2008fq; @Bena:2009ev; @Bena:2009en; @Bossard:2013oga], which can be treated in a very similar fashion. Further extensions may involve solutions that do not admit a flat three-dimensional base space, which are however much less understood and there is no known system of equations to describe them systematically. Finally, it would be very interesting to understand the possible higher dimensional origin of the hypersurfaces in moduli space on which the non-BPS solutions are constrained to exist.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported by the French ANR contract 05-BLAN-NT09-573739, the ERC Advanced Grant no. 226371 and the ITN programme PITN-GA-2009-237920. The work of SK was supported in part by the ANR grant 08-JCJC-0001-0, and by the ERC Starting Independent Researcher Grant 240210-String-QCD-BH.
T-dualities {#sec:T-duality}
===========
In this appendix, we discuss in some detail the properties of T-duality operators, following [@Bossard:2013oga], and indicate how to obtain explicit parametrisations for their action. The discussion is based on two very small vectors, $R$ and $R^*$, which are ultimately identified to the two vectors used to describe composite non-BPS solutions in and .
The description of T-dualities is based on the grading of the symplectic vector space according to the eigenspaces of the generator $${\bf h}_T\, \Gamma \equiv {\langle {R}, {R^*} \rangle}^{-1} {\Bigl ({ \frac{1}{2} I_4^{\prime}( R,R^* ,\Gamma) + {\langle {\Gamma}, {R^*} \rangle} R -R^* {\langle {R}, {\Gamma} \rangle}} \Bigr )} \ , \label{hTReal}$$ in terms of its eigenvalues, $\pm 1$, $\pm 3$, as $$\label{eq:vec-decomp}
\mathds{R}^{2n_v+2} \cong \mathds{R}^{{\scriptscriptstyle (-3)}} \oplus ({\mathds{R}}^{n_v})^{{\scriptscriptstyle (-1)}} \oplus ({\mathds{R}}^{n_v})^{{\scriptscriptstyle (1)}} \oplus \mathds{R}^{{\scriptscriptstyle (3)}} \ .$$ The corresponding projectors to each of the four eigenspaces are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma^{{\scriptscriptstyle (3)}} &=& {\langle {R}, {R^*} \rangle}^{-1} {\langle {\Gamma}, {R^*} \rangle} R\ , {\nonumber \\*}\Gamma^{{\scriptscriptstyle (1)}} &=& \frac{1}{2} \Gamma+ \frac{1}{2}{\langle {R}, {R^*} \rangle}^{-1} {\Bigl ({ \frac{1}{2} I_4^{\prime}( R,R^* ,\Gamma) - 3 {\langle {\Gamma}, {R^*} \rangle} R +R^* {\langle {R}, {\Gamma} \rangle}} \Bigr )} \ , {\nonumber \\*}\Gammamun &=& \frac{1}{2} \Gamma- \frac{1}{2}{\langle {R}, {R^*} \rangle}^{-1} {\Bigl ({ \frac{1}{2} I_4^{\prime}( R,R^* ,\Gamma) - {\langle {\Gamma}, {R^*} \rangle} R +3R^* {\langle {R}, {\Gamma} \rangle}} \Bigr )} \ , {\nonumber \\*}\Gammamtrois &=& {\langle {R}, {R^*} \rangle}^{-1} {\langle {R}, {\Gamma} \rangle} R^* \ . \label{RProjector}\end{aligned}$$ This construction allows for practical simplifications, since all inner products must respect the grading. For instance, the grading implies that $$I^\prime(\Gammamun,\Gammamun,R^*)
= 0 \ , \qquad I^\prime(\Gamma^{{\scriptscriptstyle (1)}},\Gamma^{{\scriptscriptstyle (1)}},R)= 0 \ ,$$ since there is no vector of weight $\pm 5$ that these cubic terms could be equal to. Similar considerations apply to scalar products, which necessarily vanish unless the sum of grades of the vectors involved is zero.
As shown explicitly in [@Bossard:2013oga], one may consider any grade $-1$ vector of parameters $\kmun$ to define the grade 2 T-duality generators as $${{\mathrm T}^+}_k \Gamma = {\langle {R}, {R^*} \rangle}^{-1} {\Bigl ({ \kmun {\langle {R}, {\Gamma^{{\scriptscriptstyle (-3)}}} \rangle} - \frac{1}{4} I_4^{\prime}( R,\kmun ,\Gammamun) - {\langle {\Gamma^{{\scriptscriptstyle (1)}}}, {\kmun} \rangle} R } \Bigr )} \ , \label{Tp1}$$ where $\Gamma$ is a generic symplectic vector and $\Gamma^{{\scriptscriptstyle (\pm 3)}}$, $\Gamma^{{\scriptscriptstyle (\pm 1)}}$ are its components of each respective grade. All these generators clearly commute between themselves for different $\kmun$’s. Similarly, one defines the grade $-2$ generator in terms of a grade $1$ vector $k^{{\scriptscriptstyle (1)}}$ $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathrm T}^-}_k \Gamma &\equiv&
{\langle {R}, {R^*} \rangle}^{-1} {\Bigl ({k^{{\scriptscriptstyle (1)}} {\langle {\Gamma^{{\scriptscriptstyle (3)}}}, {R^*} \rangle} + \frac{1}{4} I_4^{\prime}( R^*,k^{{\scriptscriptstyle (1)}} ,\Gamma^{{\scriptscriptstyle (1)}}) - {\langle {k^{{\scriptscriptstyle (1)}}}, {\Gammamun} \rangle} R^* } \Bigr )} \ . \label{Tm1}\end{aligned}$$ The normalisations we have chosen are such that $$\label{t-dual-params}
{{\mathrm T}^+}_k R^* = \kmun \ , \qquad {{\mathrm T}^-}_k R = k^{{\scriptscriptstyle (1)}} \ ,$$ while one easily computes that $$\label{R-Rst-inv}
{{\mathrm T}^+}_k R = 0 \ , \qquad {{\mathrm T}^-}_k R^* = 0 \ .$$ Conversely, any grade $\pm 1$ vectors can be re-expressed in terms of a T-duality acting as in , while the T-dualities can be defined by specifying the invariant very small vectors, as in . In this form, one easily computes that these generators are nilpotent of order 4, as $$\label{eq:nil-cond-T}
({{\mathrm T}^\pm}_k)^{4} \Gamma = 0 \ ,$$ consistent with the grading , which only allows for four eigenspaces. Explicitly, we find the following expressions for the two sets of generators $$\begin{aligned}
({{\mathrm T}^+}_k)^{ 2} \Gamma&=& - \frac{1}{4} {\langle {R}, {R^*} \rangle}^{-2} {\Bigl ({ I_4^\prime(R,\kmun,\kmun) {\langle {R}, {\Gamma} \rangle} + I_4(R,\kmun,\kmun,\Gamma) R } \Bigr )} \ , \label{Tp2} \\
({{\mathrm T}^+}_k)^{3} \Gamma &=&- \frac{1}{4} {\langle {R}, {R^*} \rangle}^{-3} I_4(R,\kmun,\kmun,\kmun) {\langle {R}, {\Gamma} \rangle} R \ , \label{Tp3}\\
({{\mathrm T}^-}_k)^{ 2} \Gamma&=& \frac{1}{4} {\langle {R}, {R^*} \rangle}^{-2} {\Bigl ({ I_4^\prime(R^*,k^{{\scriptscriptstyle (1)}},k^{{\scriptscriptstyle (1)}}) {\langle {\Gamma}, {R^*} \rangle} - I_4(R^*,k^{{\scriptscriptstyle (1)}},k^{{\scriptscriptstyle (1)}},\Gamma) R^* } \Bigr )} \ , \label{Tm2}\\
({{\mathrm T}^-}_k)^{3} \Gamma &=&-\frac{1}{4} {\langle {R}, {R^*} \rangle}^{-3} I_4(R^*,k^{{\scriptscriptstyle (1)}},k^{{\scriptscriptstyle (1)}},k^{{\scriptscriptstyle (1)}}) {\langle {\Gamma}, {R^*} \rangle} R^* \ . \label{Tm3}\end{aligned}$$ Finally, a finite T-duality is defined by the exponential of ${{\mathrm T}^\pm}$, as $$\label{expTdual}
\exp[{{\mathrm T}^\pm}_k] = 1 + {{\mathrm T}^\pm}_k + \tfrac12\, ({{\mathrm T}^\pm}_k)^2 + \tfrac16\, ({{\mathrm T}^\pm}_k)^3\,,$$ where we used . In the main text, we always use in combination with , and - to compute the action of a general T-duality on an arbitrary vector in a general frame.
In order to construct particular black hole solutions, it is necessary to give a representation of ${{\mathrm T}^\pm}$ explicitly, which is simplified by observing that the variety of very small vectors, such as $R$ and $R^*$, can be generated by action of any T-duality on any very small vector that is not invariant under it[^14]. Therefore, we can choose any distinguished pair of T-dualities, such as the spectral flows ${\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^\pm}$ in -, to obtain an explicit representation of all T-dualities.
More concretely, the most general transformation that brings the charge along $q_0$ to the most general vector $R$ is given by $\exp{\Bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^-}_{ k^{-}_0 } } \Bigr )} \exp{\Bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^+}_{ k^{+}_0 } } \Bigr )} $, so that $$\label{eq:R-rot}
R_{k^{-}_0} = \exp{\Bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^-}_{ k^{-}_0 } } \Bigr )} \exp{\Bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^+}_{ k^{+}_0 } } \Bigr )} \overset{\,\circ}{R}
= \exp{\Bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^-}_{ k^{-}_0 } } \Bigr )} \overset{\,\circ}{R} \,,$$ where $k^\pm_0$ are arbitrary parameters of grade $(\mp 1)$. Here, $\overset{\,\circ}{R}$ is the vector along $q_0$ and we used that all T-dualities ${\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^+}$ are defined as leaving $\overset{\,\circ}{R}$ invariant. The associated $R^*$ then takes the form $$\label{eq:R_st-rot}
\qquad
R^*_{k^{-}_0, k^{+}_0} = \exp{\Bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^-}_{ k^{-}_0 } } \Bigr )} \exp{\Bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^+}_{ k^{+}_0 } } \Bigr )} \overset{\,\circ}{R}{}^*\,,$$ where $\overset{\,\circ}{R}{}^*$ is the vector along $p^0$ and we stress the fact that the new $R^*$ depends on both $k^{\pm}_0$.
It now follows that all T-dualities can be obtained by conjugating the simple spectral flows by duality transformations above, so that, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:T-conj}
{{\mathrm T}^+}_{k^{+}} = &\,
\exp{\Bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^-}_{ k^{-}_0 } } \Bigr )} \exp{\Bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^+}_{ k^{+}_0 } } \Bigr )}
{\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^+}_{k^{+}}
\exp{\Bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^+}_{ - k^{+}_0 } } \Bigr )}\exp{\Bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^-}_{ - k^{-}_0 } } \Bigr )}
{\nonumber \\*}= &\,
\exp{\Bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^-}_{ k^{-}_0 } } \Bigr )} {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^+}_{k^{+}} \exp{\Bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^-}_{ - k^{-}_0 } } \Bigr )} \ .\end{aligned}$$ The representation for the dual T-dualities ${{\mathrm T}^-}$, can be easily obtained from , as $$\label{eq:T-conj-dual}
{{\mathrm T}^-}_{k^{-}} =
\exp{\Bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^-}_{ k^{-}_0 } } \Bigr )} \exp{\Bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^+}_{ k^{+}_0 } } \Bigr )}
{\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^-}_{k^{-}}
\exp{\Bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^+}_{ - k^{+}_0 } } \Bigr )}\exp{\Bigl ({ {\overset{\circ}{\mathrm T}{}^-}_{ - k^{-}_0 } } \Bigr )} \ .$$ These operators leave $R^*_{k^{-}_0, k^{+}_0}$invariant by construction, but are not useful for the discussion of composite non-BPS solutions. In the main text, we use the representation to do explicit computations of T-dualities in a duality covariant setting, using only the simple spectral flows .
Physical moduli and local Kähler transformations {#app:kahler-trans}
================================================
We summarise some of the relevant formulae for computing the physical moduli in terms of the components of the symplectic section. Our starting point is the expression $$\label{i-sec-app}
2\, \mbox{Im}( e^{-U-i\alpha} \cV ) = - \cH + \frac{1}{2}\, V\, \hat R + \frac{M}{V} \, \hat{R}^* \ ,$$ which gives the scalars in all solutions discussed in this paper, up to an overall T-duality, which can be applied on the final moduli. From this, one can compute the real part of the section by a straightforward evaluation of the general solution, given by $$\begin{aligned}
e^{-4U} = &\, I_4{\Bigl ({- \cH + \frac{1}{2}\, V\, \hat R + \frac{M}{V} \, \hat{R}^*} \Bigr )}
= - I_4(\cH) -M^2\,,
{\nonumber \\*}2\,\mbox{Re}( e^{-U-i\alpha} \cV ) = &\,
-\frac{1}{2}\,e^{2U} I_4^\prime{\Bigl ({- \cH + \frac{1}{2}\, V\, \hat R + \frac{M}{V} \,\hat{R}^* } \Bigr )}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Expanding the last expression in components along each grade, we obtain the following result $$\begin{aligned}
\label{r-sec-app}
2\,e^{-2U} \mbox{Re}( e^{-U-i\alpha} \cV ) = &\,
\frac{I_4(\cH)}{2 V}\, \hat{R}^*
-\frac{1}{16}\,V\,I_4^\prime(\cH, \cH , \hat R)
+ \frac{M^2}{V} \, \hat{R}^* - M \,\cH\,.\end{aligned}$$ We can now write the complete expression for the section as $$\begin{aligned}
2\, e^{-U-i\alpha} \cV = &\,
\frac{1}{2V}e^{-2U}\left( e^{2U} M + i \right)^2\, \hat{R}^*
-\left( e^{2U} M + i\right)\,\cH
{\nonumber \\*}&\,
-\frac{1}{16}\,e^{2U} V\,I_4^\prime(\cH, \cH , \hat R)
+ i\,\frac12\,V \, \hat{R} \,, \label{ComplexSection}\end{aligned}$$ from which follows the solution for the physical moduli.
In this paper we have shown that a single-centre solution can be described within the composite non-BPS system with non-trivial functions $\mathcal{K}$. This rewriting of the single-centre solution can be reabsorbed in a T-duality, which requires a modification of the Kähler phase defining the system in order to be identified with the single-centre solution in its standard form. To prove this, we will show the existence of a phase $\alpha_\zer$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kah-sec}
2\, \mbox{Im}( e^{-U-i\alpha_\zer} \cV ) =&\,
\exp\Bigl[-\gamma\,{{\mathrm T}^+}_{\cH^{{\mbox{\fontsize{3.35pt}{3pt}\selectfont(-1)\fontsize{12.35pt}{12pt}\selectfont}}}}\Bigr]\,
\left(- \cH^{{\scriptscriptstyle (-1)}} + \frac{1}{4}\, V_{\zer} \, \hat R + \frac{M_{\zer}}{V_{\zer}} \, \hat{R}^* \right)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the functions $V_\zer$ and $M_\zer$ are related to the original ones through $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kah-trans-VM}
V=&\, V_{\zer} + \gamma\,M_{\zer} +\frac{\gamma^2}{4}\frac{e^{-4U} + M_\zer^2 }{V_{\zer}}\,,
{\nonumber \\*}M=&\, M_{\zer} +\frac{\gamma}{2}\frac{e^{-4U} + M_\zer^2}{V_{\zer}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ for some constant real parameter $\gamma$. Here, we used the grade $-1$ component $\cH^{{\scriptscriptstyle (-1)}}$ for convenience, noting that one can straightforwardly define a new vector as $\cH^{{\scriptscriptstyle (-1)}} + \frac{1}{4}\, V_{\zer} \, \hat R$, to match with the standard form . One can easily verify that $e^{-4U}$ is invariant under these transformations, and one computes that is indeed satisfied for $\cV$ defined as and $$e^{i(\alpha-\alpha_\zer)} = 1 -\frac{\gamma^2}{2}\frac{1}{V\,V_{\zer}} e^{-4U}
+ i\,\frac{\gamma}{V\,V_{\zer}}\,e^{-2U}\left(V_{\zer} + \frac12\,\gamma\,M_{\zer}\right)\, .$$
Stabilizer of two charges {#app:stabilizer}
=========================
In this appendix we briefly discuss the stabiliser of an electric and a magnetic vector of charges in five dimensional supergravity coupled to a symmetric scalar manifold. This stabiliser defines the possible flat directions of the example two-centre solution in four dimensions constructed in section \[sec:two-cent-ex\]. Indeed, since one of the centres is chosen to carry a D0-D6 charge, the possible flat directions are classified by exactly the stabiliser of the $\vp$, $\vq$ charges at the second centre, and is therefore identical to a five dimensional computation.
Let us consider the exceptional theory for which the five dimensional duality group is $E_{6(-26)}$. From this example it is completely straightforward to extend the results to all other symmetric theories with a cubic prepotential, since the computation would go exactly the same way for the three other magic supergravity theories, and is even simpler for the infinite series of axion-dilaton theories. It is convenient to consider the following graded decomposition of $E_{6(-26)}$, which arises by viewing the five dimensional theory as the Kaluza-Klein reduction of a six dimensional theory of duality group $Spin(1,9)$ $$\mathfrak{e}_{6(-26)} \cong \overline{\bf 16}^{{\scriptscriptstyle (-3)}} \oplus {\bigl ({ \mathfrak{gl}_1 \oplus \mathfrak{so}(1,9)} \bigr )}^{{\scriptscriptstyle (0)}} \oplus {\bf 16}^{{\scriptscriptstyle (3)}}\,,$$ with respect to which the fundamental representation decomposes as $$\label{5d-ch-dec}
{\bf 27} \cong {\bf 1}^{{\scriptscriptstyle (-4)}} \oplus {\bf 16}^{{\scriptscriptstyle (-1)}} \oplus {\bf 10}^{{\scriptscriptstyle (2)}} \ .$$ In the corresponding decomposition of the five dimensional vector fields in terms of the six-dimensional field components, the singlet comes from the six-dimensional metric, the spinor from the six-dimensional 1-forms, and the vector from the six-dimensional 2-forms. Let us write the electric and magnetic charges according to as $$\vq = (q_1, \chi, q^a)\,, \qquad \vp = ( p_1, \psi , p^a)\,,$$ respectively, where $q_1$, $p_1$, are real numbers, $\chi$, $\psi$ are commuting $Spin(1,9)$ Majorana–Weyl spinors of opposite chirality and $q^a$, $p^a$ are vectors. One then obtains that $$\begin{gathered}
\det \vp = p_1 p_a p^a - 2\, p_a \bar \psi \gamma^a \psi \ , \quad
\det \vq = q_1 q_a q^a + 2\, q_a \bar \chi \gamma^a \chi\,,
{\nonumber \\*}\tr \vp \vq = p_1 q_1 + 4\, \bar \psi \chi + 2\, p_a q^a \ . \end{gathered}$$ The action of the $GL(1) \times Spin(1,9)$ subgroup on these components is manifest, so we shall only display the transformations associated to the other generators, parameterised by spinor parameters $\Lambda_+,\Lambda_-$ of opposite chirality, as $$\begin{split} \delta p_1 &= 4\, \bar \Lambda_- \psi\,, \\
\delta \psi &= p_1 \Lambda_+ - p_a \gamma^a \Lambda_-\,, \\
\delta p^a &= 2\, \bar \Lambda_+ \gamma^a \psi \,,
\end{split}\hspace{10mm}\begin{split}
\delta q_1 &=- 4\, \bar \Lambda_+ \chi \,, \\
\delta \chi &= q_1 \Lambda_- - q_a \gamma^a \Lambda_+ \,, \\
\delta q^a &= -2\, \bar \Lambda_- \gamma^a \chi \,.
\end{split}$$ Using these generators, one can always set the spinor component of $\vp$ to zero. The stabilizer of a generic magnetic charge with $\det \vp \ne 0$ contains therefore the stabilizer of the non-null vector $p^a$ in $Spin(1,9)$, and the elements generated by the spinor generators satisfying to $$\Lambda_+ = \frac{ p_a}{p_1} \gamma^a \Lambda_- \ . \label{SpinStab}$$ For $p^a$ time-like, these generators are compact if $p_1p^a$ is a positive energy vector ($p_1 p^0 > 0$), and non-compact otherwise. Accordingly, one finds that the stabilizer of $\vp$ is $F_{4(-52)}$, with $$\mathfrak{f}_{4(-52)} \cong \mathfrak{so}(9) \oplus {\bf 16} \ , \label{F4-SO9}$$ if all the eigen values of $\vp$ have the same sign, and $F_{4(-20)}$ otherwise (in which case the spinor generators in are non-compact). If $p^a$ is space-like, the generators decompose into 8 compact plus 8 non-compact generators, such that the stabilizer subgroup is also $F_{4(-20)}$. This reproduces the results derived in [@Ferrara:2006xx].
If the stabilizer of $\vp$ is compact, one can always use it to rotate the second charge $\vq$ to a basis in which its spinor component vanishes as well. However, this is not always possible when the stabilizer of $\vp$ is non-compact. Nevertheless, we will see that it is enough to consider an example with vanishing spinor component to get all possible stabilizers of generic charges. Assuming that the spinor component of $\vq$ vanishes, the constraint that a spinor generator leaves it invariant gives $$( q_1 p_1 - q_a \gamma^a p_b \gamma^b ) \Lambda_- = 0 \ .$$ Consistency requires that $\Lambda_-$ can only be non-zero if $$q_a q^a \, p_b p^b - 2 q_1 p_1 q_a p^a + q_1^{\; 2} q_1^{\; 2} = 0 \ ,$$ which is not the case for generic charges. It follows that for generic charges (without spinor components), the stabilizer of $\vp$ and $\vq$ in $E_{6(-26)}$ is identified with the stabilizer of $p^a$ and $q^a$ in $Spin(1,9)$. Being generic, these vectors are linearly independent. Their common stabilizer is therefore $Spin(8)$, unless they are both space-like and $q_a q^a p_b p^b > ( q_a p^a )^2$, in which case it is $Spin(1,7)$.
Note that altogether with the four invariants $$\det \vp \ , \quad \tr \vq \vp \ , \quad \tr \vq \times \vq \, \vp \times \vp \ , \quad \det \vq \ ,$$ the angles of the homogeneous spaces $Spin(8) \backslash E_{6(-26)}$ and $Spin(1,7) \backslash E_{6(-26)}$, provide the $2\times 27$ parameters of the two charges. The same counting applies for two four-dimensional charges in the ${\bf 56}$ with stabilizer $Spin(8)$ or $Spin(1,7)$ and their seven $E_{7(-25)}$ invariants defined in [@Andrianopoli:2011gy].
Although we did not consider generic charge configurations, for which one cannot remove the spinor components of both the electric and magnetic charges $\vq$, $\vp$, the stabilizer of the two charges must also be a real form of the same complex group $D_4$ in this case, since it is always possible to remove the spinor component by a complex $F_4$ rotation. However, there is no other real form of $D_4$ than $Spin(8)$ and $Spin(1,7)$ that one can embed in $E_{6(-26)}$, and the result above is therefore general.
A similar analysis shows that the stabilizer of two four-dimensional charges can only be $Spin(8)$ when one charge is BPS, since $Spin(8)$ is the only real form of $D_4$ inside $E_{6(-78)}$. Instead, the stabilizer of a non-BPS charge of positive quartic invariant is $E_{6(-14)}$ which includes $Spin(2,8)$ and therefore $Spin(8)$, $Spin(1,7)$ and $Spin(2,6)$. If the two charges are both of this type, the stabilizer can be any of these three groups, as can be checked explicitly in the $SL(2) \times SO(2,10)$ truncation of the theory. These stabilizers are discussed in [@Andrianopoli:2011gy].
[^1]: Black holes for which the extremality bound is saturated by the angular momentum are similarly called over-rotating.
[^2]: For a single center solution of given non-BPS charge, there are exactly $n_v-1$ scalars that remain constant throughout the flow and are by definition determined by the $n_v-1$ non-compact generators of the duality group leaving the charge invariant.
[^3]: This excludes theories with minimally coupled vector multiplets, which do not contain systems of the type we consider here.
[^4]: For symmetric models, one can define a dual tensor $c^{ijk}$, that allows for the cross product to be defined for vectors with lower indices.
[^5]: We use the particular notation $\hat R$ and ${ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$ for the two vectors in order to simplify comparison with the notation introduced in [@Bossard:2013oga], as well as with section \[sec:derive-sols\] below, which uses the notation of that paper.
[^6]: We refer to appendix \[sec:T-duality\] for a more detailed discussion
[^7]: Note that in we rescaled these functions by factors of $\det \ve$ with respect to their definition in terms of $\hat{R}$ and ${ R^*_{ \mbox{\tiny{0}} } }$ in -, for simplicity (this can be reabsorbed by a rescaling of these two very small vectors).
[^8]: This need not be the case, but allowing $\vK$ to be a harmonic function leads to exactly the same physical results, as we will discuss in .
[^9]: $L_{i+1} L_{i+2} > 0$ within the STU truncation.
[^10]: There are indeed four independent angular momenta, since we allow for arbitrary under-rotation at both centres and $q_0\neq Q_0$ in general.
[^11]: Note that this example is in fact the simplest in our framework, while the corresponding single-centre solution has not yet been described explicitly in the literature.
[^12]: The function $f(e_1,e_2) \equiv e_1 p_1 + e_2 p_2 + \frac{p_3}{e_1 e_2}$ is minimum at $ \ve = \frac{ \vp \times \vp}{(\det \vp)^{2/3}}$.
[^13]: We write this group $K_6$ because it is also the maximal compact subgroup of the six-dimensional theory duality group for magic supergravity theories. For the infinite series of axion-dilaton theories, $K_6\cong SO(n) $ is the compact group acting on the $n$ vector multiplets coupled to gravity and one tensor multiplet in six dimensions.
[^14]: Note that a given parametrisation does not generically cover all possible very small vectors, but it is always possible to find a parametrisation that is non-singular for a given vector.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study superdense coding with uniformly accelerated particle in single mode approximation and beyond single mode approximation. We use four different functions, the capacity of superdense coding, negativity, discord and the probability of success for evaluating the final results. In single mode approximation, all the four functions behave as expected, however in beyond single mode approximation, except the probability of success, the other three functions represent peculiar behaviors at least for special ranges where the beyond single mode approximation is strong.'
author:
- Mehrnoosh Farahmand
- Hosein Mohammadzadeh
- 'Hossein Mehri-Dehnavi'
- Robabeh Rahimi
title: Superdense Coding with Uniformly Accelerated Particle
---
Introduction
============
Two particles, even being far away from each other, can be correlated as a result of existing nonclassical correlation and entanglement in between them. Theoretical studies and experimental investigations of entanglement and nonclassical correlation have been main topics for groups of researchers [@Monroe; @Bennett; @Ursin1; @Mehri1; @Mehri2]. In the process of so called superdense coding [@Bennentt] two classical bits of information are transferred by sending only one quantum bit, qubit. The original superdense coding process begins with a pair of entangled two-level particles being shared between Alice, sender, and Bob, receiver. An EPR pair [@EPR] is used as a maximally entangled state. We have four orthonormal EPR states which can be written as \[in\] |\_\_[AB]{}={|0\_[A]{}|\_[B]{}+(-1)\^|1\_[A]{}|\_[B]{}}, where $\alpha,\beta=\{0,1\}$, $\overline{\alpha}=1-\alpha$ and subscripts $A$ and $B$ denote Alice’s qubit and Bob’s qubit, respectively.
Let us assume, without loss of generality, that Alice and Bob share the state $|\varphi_{00}\rangle_{AB}, ~ \alpha=\beta=0$. Alice has a two-bit message that she wants to send it to Bob. The classical two-bit message can be one of the forms $ij=\{00, 01, 10, 11\}$. Alice first operates one of the four unitary operators $U_{ij}=Z^{j}X^{i}$ on her qubit. $X$ and $Z$ are Pauli operators. Consequently, the initial EPR pair changes to one of the four orthonormal EPR states, $|\varphi_{ij}\rangle$, i.e. the original EPR state is encoded by the message, $ij$. Then, Alice sends her manipulated qubit to Bob, who performs a measurement in the Bell-basis, that yields the classical message, $ij$. Superdense coding has been experimentally implemented [@Mattle; @Fang; @Rahimi; @Jietai; @Mizuno].
In this paper, we suppose two particles denoted as Alice and Bob. Alice is accelerated while Bob stays inertial. Therefore, one can say that Alice has constant acceleration with respect to Bob in the z-direction. The accelerated observer’s trajectory in Minkowski coordinates is a hyperbola that is indicated in terms of Rindler coordinates $(\tau,\xi)$ [@Davies; @Carroll], with the following form \[E1\] (z,t)=((a), (a )), where $\tau$ is the Alice’s proper time, $a$ is an arbitrary reference acceleration and $\frac{{{e^{a\xi }}}}{a}$ is the proper acceleration for Alice. The straight lines passing from origin are obtained by the coordinate constant $\tau$, and hyperbola is obtained by the coordinate $\xi$ as is plotted in Fig. \[Fig0\]. The horizons $H_{\pm}$ that are obtained by the light-like asymptotes, $z^{2}=t^{2}$, represent proper times $\tau=\pm\infty$ in the limit of $\xi\rightarrow-\infty$. The right half and the left half of Minkowski plane are two regions that are called Rindler wedges I and II, respectively. Alice and the fictitious observer, anti-Alice, are constrained to move in the Rindler wedges I and II, respectively, as these regions are causally disconnected from each other, i.e. no information can propagate between them.
![Minkowski diagram for Alice and Bob. Bob is stationary and Alice travels with constant acceleration and is moving along the hyperbola in region I while fictitious observer anti-Alice moving along a corresponding hyperbola in region II. Bob will cross from the horizons $H_{\pm}$ at his finite Minkowski time $t_{A}$. After this time Alice’s signals can just across from $H_{+}$ and arrives to Bob. []{data-label="Fig0"}](fig0.pdf "fig:"){width="0.5\columnwidth"}\
In a general discussion, we shall study superdense coding with an accelerated particle in single mode approximation and beyond single mode approximation. We cover the discussion in a general manner and find the probability of success for superdense coding with uniformly accelerated particle. We appraise the whole process by means of superdense coding capacity, with definition given below. For the sake of completeness, we also discuss the results in terms of existing entanglement and quantum correlation and the corresponding changes under superdense coding with uniformly accelerated particle.
Superdense coding capacity is the maximum value of classical information that can be conveyed for a primary given state being shared between Alice and Bob. When the encoding operator used in the protocol is a unitary operator and the channel is noiseless, then superdense coding capacity is defined as follow [@Hiroshima; @Bowen; @Metwally] \[capacity\] C(A:B)=\_[2]{}d+S(\^[B]{})-S(\^[AB]{}). Here, $\rho^{B}$ is Bob’s reduced density matrix, $\rho^{AB}$ is the initial shared state and $d$ is the dimension of Alice’s system. $S(\rho)$ is the von Neumann entropy, $S(\rho)=-\sum_{i}\lambda_{i}\log_{2}(\lambda_{i})$, where $\lambda_{i}$’s are the eigenvalues of $\rho$.
Logarithmic negativity [@Peress; @Horodeki] that is employed for evaluating entanglement of $\rho$ is defined as \[N\] N()=\_[2]{}\_[i]{}|\_[i]{}(\^[pt]{})|, where $\lambda_{i}(\rho^{\rm pt})$’s are the eigenvalues of the partial transpose of $\rho$.
Quantum discord is evaluated [@ollivier; @Vedral; @Vedral2; @saitoh; @rahimi] for measuring nonclassical correlation and it is defined as \[Discord\] D(A:B)=(A:B)-(A:B), where $\mathcal{I}(A:B)$ is quantum mutual information. It is determined as \[mutual\] (A:B)=S(\^[A]{})+S(\^[B]{})-S(\^[AB]{}). $\mathcal{C}(A:B)$ is the classical correlation given as follow (A:B)=\_[{ [ \_k]{}} ]{} \[[\_[{ [ \_k]{}} ]{}]{}(A:B)\] , where, $\mathcal{J}$ is locally accessible mutual information defined as follow (A:B) = S([\_A]{}) - [S\_[{ [\_k]{}} ]{}]{}(A|B). ${S_{\{ {\mathcal{B} _k}\} }}(A|B)$ is the quantum conditional entropy defined as follow \[conditional\] [S\_[{ [ \_k]{}} ]{}]{}(A|B)=\_k [[p\_k]{}S([\_[A|k]{}]{})]{}, where $\{\rho_{k}, p_{k}\}$ is the ensemble of the outcome, after von Neumann measurements $\{\mathcal{B} _k\}$ for the subsystem $B$, and ${\rho _{A|k}} = {{\rm {Tr}}_B}({\mathcal{B}_k}\rho {\mathcal{B}
_k})/{p_k}$, with ${p_k} = {\rm Tr} ({\mathcal{B} _k}\rho
{\mathcal{B} _k})$. Calculating quantum discord for a general state can be hard, however for special cases, e.g. where the state is a X-state, there is a standard approach (see appendix A). The resultant states being studied in the process of superdense coding with uniformly accelerated particle are X-states. Therefore, we give precise quantum discord values in addition to logarithmic negativity values and compare them with superdense coding capacities.\
Superdense coding in single-mode approximation
==============================================
Considering a free Minkowski Dirac field in 1+1 dimensions, we assume all modes of the field are in vacuum state except two modes that belong to Alice and Bob. The Minkowski vacuum for Alice can be expanded in terms of the corresponding Rindler vacuum [@Alsing], as &&|0\_[A]{}= r |0\_[I]{}|0\_[II]{} + r |1\_[I]{}|1\_[II]{},\[0\]\
&&|1\_[A]{}= |1\_[I]{}|0\_[II]{},\[1\] where $|i\rangle_{A}$ is the Minkowski particle mode belonging to Alice, $|i\rangle_{\rm I}$ is the Rindler region I particle modes and $|i\rangle_{\rm II}$ is the Rindler region II anti-particle modes.
In single mode approximation, the shared state $|\varphi_{00}\rangle_{AB}$ can be rewritten by substituting the relations Eq. (\[0\]) and Eq. (\[1\]) in Eq. (\[in\]) only for Alice, as \[00\] |\_[00]{}\_[[[I,II]{}]{},B]{} = {r|000+ r |110+ |101}, where $|abc\rangle= |b\rangle_{\rm I} |c\rangle_{\rm
II}|a\rangle_{B} $. A unitary operator $U_{ij}$ is applied on Alice, the accelerated qubit. The operator $I$ does not change the state Eq. (\[00\]), but other operators change the state into another state, as follow
\[ij\] U\_[ij]{}|\_[00]{}\_[[[I,II]{}]{},B]{} & =& {r|i00+ (-1)\^[j]{} |01 +(-1)\^[j]{} r |10 }\
&=&|\_[ij]{}\_[[[I,II]{}]{},B]{}. Then, the accelerated particle reaches Bob. If the information to be sent is $ij=00$ then the resultant density matrix is as follow \_[00]{}\^[[[I,II]{}]{},B]{}&=& {\^[2]{}r|000000| +\^[2]{}r|110110| +|101101|+(r|000101|.\
&&. +rr|000110| + r|110101|+[h.c.]{})}.
Recall that the Rindler regions I and II are causally disconnected. Alice is constrained to move in region I, so by tracing out region II, Bob obtains the shared density matrix, as follow \[s00\] \_[00]{}\^[[[I]{}]{},B]{} = (
[\*[20]{}[c]{}]{} [[\^2]{}r]{}&0&0&[r]{}\
0&0&0&0\
0&0&[[\^2]{}r]{}&0\
[r]{}&0&0&1
), where $|ab\rangle= |b\rangle_{\rm I}|a\rangle_{B} $. The density matrix obtained for different cases of $ij$, the classical message, can be found as \[st1\] \_[ij]{}\^[[I]{},B]{} &=&[Tr]{}\_[II]{}(\_[ij]{}\^[[I,II]{},B]{})\
& =&{\^[2]{}r|i0i0|+\^[2]{}r||[i]{}0|[i]{}0|+||[i]{}1 |[i]{}1|. .+(-1)\^[j]{}(r|i0|[i]{}1| +h.c.)}. Eq. (\[st1\]) represents four distinctive states that are X-states. For decoding the classical message, a Bell basis measurement is performed to obtain the following results \[p1\] &&\_[ij]{}|\_[ij]{}\^[[I]{},B]{}|\_[ij]{}=(1+r)\^[2]{},\
&&\_[i|[j]{}]{}|\_[ij]{}\^[[I]{},B]{}|\_[i|[j]{}]{}=(1-r)\^[2]{},\
&&\_[|[i]{}j]{}|\_[ij]{}\^[[I]{},B]{}|\_[|[i]{}j]{}= \_[|[i]{}|[j]{}]{}|\_[ij]{}\^[[I]{},B]{}|\_[|[i]{}|[j]{}]{} =\^[2]{} r. Results of this measurement on the density matrix, after tracing out region [II]{}, is dependent on the acceleration parameter, $r$. In other words, superdense coding is performed with a probability of $r$. By letting $r=0$, corresponding to $a=0$, then superdense coding is run absolutely in accordance with the original scenario [@Bennentt]. Fig. \[Fig1\] shows probability of success for superdense coding, $P(\rho_{ij}^{{\rm
I},B})=\langle\varphi_{ij}|\rho_{ij}^{{\rm
I},B}|\varphi_{ij}\rangle$, Eq. (\[p1\]), as a function of acceleration parameter, $r$.
![Probability of success for superdense coding, $P$, solid line, superdense coding capacity, $C({\rm I}:B)$, dotdashed line, logarithmic negativity, $N$, dashed line, and quantum discord, $D({\rm I}:B)$, dotted line, as functions of acceleration parameter, $r$, for $\rho_{00}^{{\rm I},B}$, in single mode approximation.[]{data-label="Fig1"}](fig1.pdf "fig:"){width=".5\columnwidth"}\
In order to evaluate superdense coding capacity and later for quantum discord, we need to calculate the von Neumann entropies as follows \[entropy1\] &&S(\^[[I]{},B]{})= - \_[2]{} - \_[2]{},\
&& S(\^[[I]{}]{})=- \_[2]{} - \_[2]{},\
&& S(\^[B]{})=1. Thus, superdense coding capacity, Eq. (\[capacity\]), for the state Eq. (\[s00\]), is obtained as follow \[capacity1\] C([I]{}:B)=2+ \_[2]{} + \_[2]{}. In Fig. \[Fig1\], superdense coding capacity, Eq. (\[capacity1\]), is plotted as a function of acceleration parameter, $r$.
Logarithmic negativity, Eq. (\[N\]), is calculated for the entanglement of the state, Eq. (\[s00\]). Eigenvalues of the partial transpose of the density matrix $\rho_{00}^{{\rm I},B}$, are given by && \_[1,2]{}(\^[pt]{}\_[[I]{},B]{})=,\
&& \_[3,4]{}(\^[pt]{}\_[[I]{},B]{})= . Thus, logarithmic negativity can be written as follow \[N1\] N(\_[00]{}\^[[I]{},B]{}) = [\_2]{}(1 + \^[2]{}r). Fig. \[Fig1\] indicates Eq. (\[N1\]) as a function of $r$.
Quantum discord is given by Eq. (\[Discord\]). For the state of Eq. (\[s00\]), after evaluating the corresponding von Neumann entropies, Eqs. (\[entropy1\]), and employing the approach explained in Refs. [@Ali; @Chen], quantum discord is calculated for which Fig. \[Fig1\] shows its behavior as a function of $r$. It is clear, that four quantities, probability of success, superdense coding capacity, logarithmic negativity and quantum discord for superdense coding with accelerated particle, in single mode approximation, are descending functions of $r$.
Superdense coding in beyond single-mode approximation
=====================================================
In beyond single mode approximation, an accelerated detector can detect a mode in both Rindler wedges I and II, therefore there are different right and left components for the single-particle state denoted as Alice [@Bruschi], \[by\] && |0\_[A]{}= r |0\_[I]{}|0\_[II]{} + r |1\_[I]{}|1\_[II]{},\
&& | 1\_[A]{}= [q\_l]{}[| 0 \_[I]{}]{}[| 1 \_[II]{}]{} + [q\_r]{}[| 1 \_[I]{}]{}[| 0 \_[II]{}]{}, where ${q_l}$ and ${q_r}$ are complex numbers that satisfy $q_{l}^{2}+q_{r}^{2}=1$. For simplicity, we only consider the cases that ${q_l}$ and ${q_r}$ are real. The single mode approximation is found by letting $ q_r = 1$ in the general form Eq. (\[by\]). The shared state $ |\varphi_{00}\rangle_{AB}$ can be rewritten by substituting the relations Eq. (\[0\]) and Eq. (\[by\]) for Alice in Eq. (\[in\]), in beyond single mode approximation, as |\_[00]{}\_[[[I,II]{}]{},B]{} &=& {r |000+ r |110. .+ q\_[l]{} |011+ q\_[r]{} |101}.\[q00\] Alice applies a unitary operator $U_{ij}$ on her qubit. Like the previous section, operator $I$ does not change the state Eq. (\[q00\]), but others do change the state into another state, as follows
\[qij\] U\_[ij]{}|\_[00]{}\_[[[I,II]{}]{},B]{} & =& {r |i00+ (-1)\^[j]{} r |10 +q\_[l]{} |i11 + (-1)\^[j]{}q\_[r]{}|01}\
& =&|\_[ij]{}\_[[[I,II]{}]{},B]{}. Now, the state in Bob’s possession, after he receives the accelerated particle is $\left| \varphi_{ij}
\right\rangle_{{\rm{I,II}},B}$. For the case $ij=00$, the resultant density matrix is given by \_[00]{}\^[[[I,II]{}]{},B]{}&&= {\^[2]{}r|000000|+\^[2]{}r|110110| +q\_[l]{}\^[2]{}|011011|+q\_[r]{}\^[2]{}|101101| +(rr|000110|\
&& +q\_[l]{}r |110011|+q\_[r]{}r|000101| +q\_[l]{}r |000011| +q\_[r]{}r |110101|+q\_[l]{} q\_[r]{} |011101| +h.c.)}. The density matrix that is given by tracing out region II, is given by \[st00\] \_[00]{}\^[[I]{},B]{} =[Tr]{}\_[[II]{}]{}(\_[00]{}\^[[I,II]{},B]{}) =(
[\*[20]{}[c]{}]{} [[\^2]{}r]{}&0&0&[[q\_r]{}r]{}\
0&[q\_l\^2]{}&[[q\_l]{}r]{}&0\
0&[[q\_l]{}r]{}&[[\^2]{}r]{}&0\
[[q\_r]{}r]{}&0&0&[q\_r\^2]{}
). For other cases for the classical message $ij$, the density matrix can be obtained as follow \[st\] \_[ij]{}\^[[I]{},B]{} & =&[Tr]{}\_[II]{}(\_[ij]{}\^[[I,II]{},B]{})\
& =&{\^[2]{}r|i0i0|+\^[2]{}r||[i]{}0|[i]{}0| +q\_[l]{}\^[2]{}|i1i1|+q\_[r]{}\^[2]{}||[i]{}1|[i]{}1| +(-1)\^[j]{}(q\_[r]{}r|i0|[i]{}1|+ q\_[l]{}r||[i]{}0i1| +h.c.)},
which represents four distinctive matrices that are X-forms. Thus, measurement in Bell basis by Bob yields \[p2\] &&\_[ij]{}|\_[ij]{}\^[[I]{},B]{}|\_[ij]{}=(q\_[r]{}+r)\^[2]{},\
&&\_[i|[j]{}]{}|\_[ij]{}\^[[I]{},B]{}|\_[i|[j]{}]{}=(q\_[r]{}-r)\^[2]{},\
&&\_[|[i]{}j]{}|\_[ij]{}\^[[I]{},B]{}|\_[|[i]{}j]{}=(q\_[l]{}+r)\^[2]{},\
&&\_[|[i]{}|[j]{}]{}|\_[ij]{}\^[[I]{},B]{}|\_[|[i]{}|[j]{}]{}=(q\_[l]{}-r)\^[2]{}. These results show the probability of success, $P(\rho_{ij}^{{\rm
I},B})$, is $\frac{1}{4}(q_{r}+\cos r)^{2}$, and it is illustrated in Fig. \[Fig4\], Fig. \[Fig2\] and Fig. \[Fig3\]. Therefore, measurement by Bob depends on the acceleration parameter, $r$. If $r=0$ and $q_{r}=1$, corresponding to $a=0$ and $q_{l}=0$, respectively, then the original superdense coding scenario is given [@Bennentt].
![Probability of success in terms of acceleration parameter, $r$, and presence possibility of the particle in region II of Rindler region, $q_{l}$.[]{data-label="Fig4"}](fig4.png "fig:"){width="0.5\columnwidth"}\
For the state Eq. (\[st00\]), the von Neumann entropies are given as follows \[entropy\] S(\^[[I]{},B]{})=&& - \_[2]{}- \_[2]{},\
S(\^[[I]{}]{})=&&- \_[2]{}- \_[2]{},\
S(\^[B]{})=&&1. Thus, superdense coding capacity $C({\rm I}:B)$, Eq. (\[capacity\]), is calculated as follow \[ca\] C([I]{}:B)= &&2+ \_[2]{} + \_[2]{}. Fig. \[Fig5\], Fig. \[Fig2\] and Fig. \[Fig3\] show the behavior of Eq. (\[ca\]) as a function of $r$ and $q_{l}$, respectively.
![Capacity of superdense coding in terms of acceleration parameter, $r$, and presence possibility of the particle in region II of Rindler region, $q_{l}$.[]{data-label="Fig5"}](fig5.png "fig:"){width="0.5\columnwidth"}\
The entanglement of Eq. (\[st00\]) is evaluated by logarithmic negativity, Eq. (\[N\]). Eigenvalues of the partial transpose of the density matrix $\rho_{00}^{{\rm I},B}$, are given by &&\_[1,2]{}(\^[pt]{}\_[[I]{},B]{})=,\
&&\_[3,4]{}(\^[pt]{}\_[[I]{},B]{})= ( [\^[2]{}r - [q\_l]{}\^2]{} ). Thus, logarithmic negativity is calculated as follow N(\_[00]{}\^[[I]{},B]{}) = [\_2]{}(1+ | \^[2]{}r - q\_l\^2 |). Fig. \[Fig6\], Fig. \[Fig2\] and Fig. \[Fig3\] show the behavior of Eq. (\[capacity\]) as a function of $r$ and $q_{l}$, respectively.
![Logarithmic negativity in terms of acceleration parameter, $r$, and presence possibility of the particle in region II of Rindler region, $q_{l}$.[]{data-label="Fig6"}](fig6.png "fig:"){width="0.5\columnwidth"}\
Quantum discord, Eq. (\[Discord\]), is derived by considering the corresponding von Neumann entropies, Eqs. (\[entropy\]), and following the approach in Refs. [@Ali; @Chen]. Fig. \[Fig7\], Fig. \[Fig2\] and Fig. \[Fig3\] show nonclassical correlation in terms of $r$ and $q_{l}$, respectively.
![Quantum discord in terms of acceleration parameter, $r$, and presence possibility of the particle in region II of Rindler region, $q_{l}$.[]{data-label="Fig7"}](fig7.png "fig:"){width="0.5\columnwidth"}\
Generality of discussions for all $\alpha,\beta=\{0,1\}$, Eq. (\[in\])
======================================================================
Generally, the initial shared state $ |\varphi_{\alpha\beta}\rangle_{A,B}$ can be rewritten by substituting the relations Eq. (\[0\]) and Eq. (\[by\]) in beyond single mode approximation, as \[qkl\] |\_\_[[[I,II]{}]{},B]{} = {r |00+ r |11 + (-1)\^q\_[l]{} |01|+(-1)\^ q\_[r]{} |10|}.\
A unitary operator $U_{ij}$ is applied on the accelerated particle. Then the resultant state is sent to Bob. The operator $I$ does not change the state Eq. (\[qkl\]), but others do change the state into another state, as follow \[qijkl\] U\_[ij]{}|\_\_[[[I,II]{}]{},B]{} &=& {r |i0+(-1)\^ q\_[l]{} |i1| +(-1)\^[j]{} r |1 + (-1)\^[+j]{}q\_[r]{}|0|}. This is the state in Bob’s possession. The resultant density matrix for superdense coding beyond single mode approximation is given by tracing out region II, as follow \[stijkl\] && \^[[I]{},B]{} =[Tr]{}\_[II]{}(\^[[I,II]{},B]{})\
&& ={\^[2]{}r|ii |+\^[2]{}r||[i]{}|[i]{}| +q\_[l]{}\^[2]{}|i|i||+q\_[r]{}\^[2]{}||[i]{}||[i]{}||\
&& +(-1)\^[+j]{}(q\_[r]{}r|i|[i]{}||+ q\_[l]{}r||[i]{}i|| +h.c.)}, which represents X-form matrices for all cases of $\alpha,\beta,i,j$.
Therefore, our initial assumption of $\alpha=\beta=0$ for the shared entanglement, Eq. (\[in\]), does not affect the generality of discussions for single mode approximation and beyond single mode approximation. For both of the cases, the resultant states from superdense coding with uniformly accelerated particle can be evaluated for their probabilities of success, superdense coding capacities, negativity values and discord values. The final states, for all four choices of $\alpha$ and $\beta$, are X-form states. Therefore, quantum discord can be calculated following the approach discussed in Refs. [@Ali; @Chen].
Discussions and Conclusion
==========================
![Probability of success for superdense coding, $P$, solid lines, superdense coding capacity, $C({\rm I}:B)$, dotdashed lines, logarithmic negativity, $N$, dashed lines, and quantum discord, $D({\rm I}:B)$, dotted lines, for $q_{l}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$, thin lines, and $q_{l}=1$, thick lines, as functions of $r$, for $\rho_{00}^{{\rm I},B}$, in beyond single mode approximation.[]{data-label="Fig2"}](fig2.pdf "fig:"){width=".5\columnwidth"}\
![Probability of success for superdense coding, $P$, solid lines, superdense coding capacity, $C({\rm I}:B)$, dotdashed lines, logarithmic negativity, $N$, dashed lines, and quantum discord, $D({\rm I}:B)$, dotted lines, for $r=0$, thin lines, and $r=\frac{\pi}{4}$, thick lines, as functions of $q_{l}$, for $\rho_{00}^{{\rm I},B}$, in beyond single mode approximation.[]{data-label="Fig3"}](fig3.pdf "fig:"){width=".5\columnwidth"}\
We studied superdense coding with uniformly accelerated particle in single mode approximation and beyond single mode approximation. In single mode approximation, $q_{r}=1$ (or equally $q_{l}=0$), measurement by Bob on the density matrix after tracing out region [II]{} is dependent on the acceleration parameter, $r$. By letting $r=0$, corresponding to $a=0$, superdense coding is performed with absolute probability, Eq. (\[p1\]), in accordance with the original superdense coding [@Bennentt]. As illustrated in Fig. \[Fig1\], probability of success, superdense coding capacity, logarithmic negativity and quantum discord are all descending functions of acceleration parameter, $r$.
In beyond single mode approximation, the situation is more intricate. Fig. \[Fig2\] (Fig. \[Fig3\]) is to show behaviors of probability of success, superdense coding capacity, negativity and quantum discord for the resultant state of superdense coding with uniformly accelerated particle, for distinct values of $q_{l} ~(r)$, as functions of $r ~(q_{l})$. $q_{l}$ is in interval \[0,1\]. Fig. \[Fig2\] shows the functions for $q_{l}$ maximum that is $q_{l}=1$, and for $q_{l}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$. Entanglement and nonclassical correlation are zero for $q_{l}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$, with $r=\frac{\pi}{4}$. In Fig. \[Fig3\], the four functions are shown for $r$ minimum, that is $r=0$, and for $r=\frac{\pi}{4}$, that is when quantum correlations are zero at $q_{l}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$.
Recall that single mode approximation is a special case for beyond single mode approximation for when $q_{l}=0$. From Fig. \[Fig3\] ,we can see that for $q_{l}=0$, and two cases of $r=0$ and $r=\frac{\pi}{4}$, the evaluated functions values exactly coincide with the corresponding ones being represented in Fig. \[Fig1\].
In Fig. \[Fig2\], when $q_{l}=1$, the maximum value for $q_{l}$, the maximum probability of success, $P$, is for $r=0$, Eq. (\[p2\]). $P$ is decreasing with increasing $r$. We would expect similar behaviors for entanglement, nonclassical correlation and the capacity, however negativity and discord, as well as the capacity, are representing increasing behaviors. In beyond single mode approximation, Eq. (\[by\]), if the accelerated object starts from $|1\rangle$, there is some distinct probability for the state to change to $|0\rangle$, and this probability is equal to $1$ specifically for when $q_{l}=1$, the case illustrated in Fig. \[Fig2\] with thick lines. Indeed, we do not evaluate the entanglement, nor nonclassical correlation of the original shared entangled state by negativity and discord, and what is illustrated is actually the negativity and discord for the state $|\psi_{\bar{i}j}\rangle$, but not the original state $|\psi_{ij}\rangle$. The same discussion is applied to explain the capacity of superdense coding since this function is evaluated using nonclassical correlations. We, therefore, conclude that the probability of success is the best means for evaluating the process of superdense coding with accelerated particle, specially for a large $q_{l}$, i.e. when beyond single mode approximation is strongly used.
In Fig. \[Fig2\], when $q_{l}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$, since $q_{l}$ is not very large, i.e. even in beyond single mode approximation, the initial state of the accelerated particle only changes to an unbiased superposition of $|0\rangle$ and $|1\rangle$, Eq. (\[by\]). Therefore, we do not see any peculiar behavior from the studied functions, as the previous paragraph. Here, the capacity of superdense coding, entanglement, discord and the probability of success are all decreasing functions with regard to $r$.
In Fig. \[Fig3\], when $r=0$, with an increase in $q_{l}$, the four evaluated functions decrease, which is the expected behavior, consulting the corresponding equations, and specifically Eq. (\[by\]). In the same figure, when $r=\frac{\pi}{4}$, with an increase in $q_{l}$, entanglement and nonclassical correlation decrease until they reach the minimum value $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$. From this point, the behaviors of these two functions are changed. They represent increasing behaviors, which can be explained again by Eq. (\[by\]), since the state $|\psi_{ij}\rangle$ changes to $|\psi_{\bar{i}j}\rangle$. Correspondingly, the capacity of superdense coding is showing similar peculiar behavior. The capacity of superdense coding generally follows the behavior of quantum correlations, however the relationship is not as simple to give an exact form. The probability of success is presenting behavior as the expectation.
In relativistic regimes, superdense coding with an accelerated particle and its probability of success can be reliably used for evaluating the involved quantum states in terms of their capabilities for being employed and manipulated for quantum information processing purposes. In this regard, negativity, discord and superdense coding capacity definitions are shown to have obstacles at least for specific ranges of acceleration and in a general form where one investigates the process in a general manner, i.e. in beyond single mode approximation.
[99]{}
C. Monroe, D. M. Meekhof, B. E. King, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Wineland, Phys. Rev. Lett [**75**]{}, 4714 (1995).
C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. A [**54**]{}, 3824 (1996).
R. Ursin, T. Jennewein, M. Aspelmeyer, R. Kaltenbaek, M. Lindenthal, P. Walther, and A. Zeilinger, Nature Phys. [**430**]{}, 849 (2004).
H. Mehri-Dehnavi, B. Mirza, H. Mohammadzadeh, and R. Rahimi, Ann. Phys. [**326**]{}, 1320–1333 (2011).
H. Mehri-Dehnavi, R. Rahimi, H. Mohammadzadeh, Z. Ebadi, and B. Mirza, Quantum Inf. Process. [**14**]{}, 1025–1034 (2015).
C. H. Bennett, and S. J. Wiesner, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 2881 (1992).
A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. [**47**]{}, 777 (1935).
K. Mattle, H. Weinfurter, P. G. Kwiat, and A. Zeilinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 4656 (1996).
X. Fang, X. Zhu, M. Feng, X. Mao, and F. Du, Phys. Rev. A [**61**]{}, 022307 (2000).
R. Rahimi, K. Takeda, M. Ozawa, and M. Kitagawa, J. Phys. A [**39**]{}, 2151 (2006).
J. Jing, J. Zhang, Y. Yan, F. Zhao, C. Xie, and K. Peng, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 167903 (2003).
J. Mizuno, K. Wakui, A. Furusawa, and M. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. A [**71**]{}, 012304 (2005).
N. D. Birrell, and P. C. W. Davies, *Quantum Fields in Curved Space*, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1982).
S. Carroll, *Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity*, Addison Wesley, San Francisco (2004).
T. Hiroshima, J. Phys. A [**34**]{}, 6907 (2001).
G. Bowen, Phys. Rev. A [**63**]{}, 022302 (2001).
N. Metwally, and A. Sagheer, Quantum Inf. Process. [**13**]{}, 771 (2014).
A. Peres, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 1413 (1996).
K. Życzkowski, P. Horodecki, A. Sanpera, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. A [**58**]{}, 883 (1998).
H. Ollivier, and W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 017901 (2001).
L. Henderson, and V. Vedral, J. Phys. A [**34**]{}, 6899 (2001).
K. Modi, A. Brodutch, H. Cable, T. Paterek, and V. Vedral, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**84**]{}, 1655 (2012).
A. SaiToh, R. Rahimi, and M. Nakahara, Phys. Rev. A [**77**]{}, 052101 (2008).
A. SaiToh, R. Rahimi, and M. Nakahara, Int. J. Quantum Inf. [**6**]{}, 787 (2008).
P. M. Alsing, I. Fuentes-Schuller, R. B. Mann, and T. E. Tessier, Phys. Rev. A [**74**]{}, 032326 (2006).
D. E. Bruschi, J. Louko, E. Martín-Martínez, A. Dragan, and I. Fuentes, Phys. Rev. A [**82**]{}, 042332 (2010).
M. Ali, A. R. P. Rau, and G. Alber, Phys. Rev. A [**81**]{}, 042105 (2010); *ibid.* [**82**]{}, 069902 (2010).
Q. Chen, C. Zhang, S. Yu, X. X. Yi, and C. H. Oh, Phys. Rev. A [**84,**]{} 042313 (2011).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'E. Rovilos, I. Georgantopoulos, P. Tzanavaris, M. Pracy, M. Whiting, D. Woods,'
- 'C. Goudis'
date: 'Received date; accepted date'
subtitle: 'X-rays as a star formation indicator'
title: 'Normal galaxies in the *XMM-Newton* fields'
---
Introduction
============
X-ray emission from normal galaxies (i.e. galaxies which do not host an AGN) has been targeted by X-ray telescopes since the early years of X-ray astronomy. Normal galaxies are generally divided into two broad morphological categories, late-type (spirals and irregulars) and early-type (S0 and ellipticals). Early studies of optically selected samples of early-type galaxies with EINSTEIN [@Trinchieri1985; @Fabbiano1987] have examined the relation between the X-ray, the blue optical and radio luminosities and argued that the X-ray luminosity arises from a combination of low-mass X-ray binaries (LMXRBs) and hot gas [e.g. @Forman1979]. On the other hand, the X-ray study of late-type systems with EINSTEIN [@Fabbiano1985; @Fabbiano1988] has revealed a different kind of X-ray correlation for the radio (shallower) and blue (more linear) luminosities, as well as a correlation between X-ray and infrared luminosity, suggesting a link with on-going star formation or starburst activity. Optically selected samples of normal galaxies observed with ROSAT generally confirmed the above picture. Studying the X-ray emission of spiral galaxies and analyzing its compact and diffuse components, @Read1997 have shown that its origins are hot diffuse continuum, supernova remnants and high-mass X-ray binaries (HMXRBs), phenomena which are related to star formation activity, and that their relative strength is also related with the galaxy’s activity [@Read2001].
The above studies are restricted to optically selected samples of normal galaxies in the nearby universe. The advent of the second-generation X-ray telescopes (Chandra and XMM) has allowed for the first time the compilation of X-ray selected normal galaxy samples. Their selection is usually based on low X-ray to optical flux ratios [see @Hornschemeier2003] and optical spectral properties [e.g. @Norman2004; @Bauer2004]. Searches for normal galaxies in broad [e.g. @Georgakakis2003; @Georgakakis2004; @Georgakakis2006; @Hornschemeier2005; @Tajer2005; @Tzanavaris2006] and deep [e.g. @Alexander2002; @Hornschemeier2003; @Norman2004; @Georgakakis2007] surveys have provided a large number of X-ray selected galaxies. Using these samples, the luminosity function of normal galaxies has been established, both locally [e.g. @Georgantopoulos2005; @Georgakakis2006] and at higher redshifts [e.g. @Norman2004; @Ptak2007; @Tzanavaris2008].
One of the most interesting properties of the X-ray emission of normal galaxies is its connection to star formation. New results have confirmed earlier findings that X-rays can act as a star formation indicator in late-type systems. The tight correlation of the X-ray luminosity with other star formation indicators, such as infrared and radio luminosities [@Shapley2001; @Ranalli2003] support this hypothesis. The X-ray emission of late-type galaxies comes from both their extended structures (spiral arms and the Galactic centre) and compact sources. Emission from the spiral arms is tightly connected with star formation [@Tyler2004], while the connection to the Galactic centre is less well defined. The compact sources on the other hand are mostly HMXRBs [@Colbert2004] which are directly connected to star formation as end products of massive rapidly evolving stars [@Persic2004; @Persic2007]. @Grimm2003 and @Gilfanov2004 reproduce the observational characteristics of X-ray normal galaxies as a combination of discrete point sources and predict a steep ($L_{\rm x}\propto{\rm SFR}^\beta$ with $\beta>1$) $L_{\rm x}-{\rm SFR}$ relation when the star formation rate is low ($\lesssim4.5{\rm M}_{\odot}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$) and a linear ($\beta=1$) relation thereafter.
In this paper we expand the galaxy samples of @Georgakakis2006 and explore the relation between the X-ray and H$\alpha$ luminosities for emission line systems. This provides an insight into the $L_{\rm x}-{\rm SFR}$ relation [see also @Hornschemeier2005].
Sample Selection
================
The first *XMM Newton* Serendipitous Source Catalogue [1XMM, @Watson2003] is a compilation of source detections drawn from 585 XMM-Newton EPIC observations made between March 2000 and May 2002, and released in January 2003. It contains $\sim55000$ sources, of which $\sim33000$ are considered safe detections and covers an area of $\sim90$deg$^2$. From the 1XMM catalogue we selected only sources which are observed for more than 10ks to achieve a reasonable signal-to-noise ratio in X-rays and required the detection likelihood to be above $10\,\sigma$ in the soft band (0.5-2.0keV). Since we are aiming for normal galaxies, we limited our search sample to sources with hardness ratios $<-0.2$ (between the 0.5-2.0 and 2.0-4.5keV bands) to avoid X-ray obscured AGN. This limit is unlikely to reject any normal galaxies since their hardness ratios are normally $<-0.2$ (see e.g. Table 1 of @Tzanavaris2006).
To identify these X-ray sources with optical counterparts, we used the USNO-B optical catalogue [@Monet2003]. This is an all-sky catalogue of $\sim 10^9$ optical sources observed during various surveys over the past 50 years. We searched for optical counterparts to the X-ray sources in the USNO-B catalogue with a search radius of 6arcsec (see Fig. \[optical\_images\]). We limited our search to the southern hemisphere ($\delta <0$) in order to be within the observing range of the Siding Spring Observatory, and to avoid Galactic stars and high Galactic $N_H$ we excluded sources that are within a belt of $\pm20$ degrees of Galactic latitude. We also avoided the areas of the sky close to the Magellanic Clouds, with an exclusion radius of 3 and 1.5 degrees from the centres of the LMC and the SMC respectively. This left us with an initial catalogue of $\sim$16000 XMM sources, of which 4700 are associated with an optical detection.
A useful diagnostic to discriminate between normal galaxies and AGN is the X-ray to optical flux ratio $(f_{\rm x}/f_{\rm o})$. @Hornschemeier2003 found that optically bright X-ray faint objects (OBXF, which they define as having $\log(f_{\rm x}/f_{\rm o})<-2.3$) are almost exclusively galaxies with a contamination from stars. Moreover, AGN are usually confined in the area $-1<\log(f_{\rm x}/f_{\rm o})<1$ [@Stocke1991; @Lehmann2001]. For the purposes of this study we selected as normal galaxy candidates sources having $\log(f_{\rm x}/f_{\rm o})<-2$ [see also @Georgakakis2004; @Georgantopoulos2005; @Georgakakis2006]. This is a conservative limit and it might introduce a bias against massive ellipticals and powerful starbursts [@Tzanavaris2006; @Georgakakis2007]. On the other hand it minimizes contamination from AGN with low X-ray luminosities having unusually low $f_{\rm x}/f_{\rm o}$ [@Lehmann2001]. To calculate the X-ray to optical flux ratio we used: $$\log\left(\frac{f_{\rm x}}{f_{\rm opt}}\right)=\log f_{\rm x}+\frac{R}{2.5}+5.5$$ [e.g. @Hornschemeier2003], where $f_{\rm x}$ is the (0.5-2.0)keV X-ray flux in ergs$^{-1}$cm$^{-2}$, and $R$ is the magnitude from the USNO-B catalogue.
Selecting our sources taking into account the hardness ratio and the X-ray to optical flux ratio, left us with a catalogue of 713 normal galaxy candidates contaminated with a large number of Galactic stars, as they have similar observational characteristics. We used optical morphologies to identify and distinguish the stars from the galaxies. For that purpose, we used the APM Sky Catalogues[^1] [@Irwin1994], which are a digitized compilation of the Palomar O and E sky survey in the northern and the UKST $B_{\rm J}$ sky survey in the southern hemisphere. They also include a star-galaxy separation parameter based on the extended nature of each source, which we used to select extragalactic candidates. Visual inspection of the sources with the DSS2-Red image [@Lasker1996] generally agrees with the star-galaxy separation from the APM; 98% of sources characterized as stars with APM are independently characterized as stars when optically inspecting the images.
The final catalogue consists of 44 normal galaxy candidates, listed in Table \[candidates\]. Their DSS2-Red optical images with an indication on the location of the X-ray source are shown in Fig.\[optical\_images\]. The X-ray fluxes of the sources are calculated from the 0.5-2keV count rates given in the 1XMM catalogue, assuming a power-law X-ray spectrum with $\Gamma=1.9$. In Fig. \[fxfo\] we plot the $R$ magnitude with respect to the X-ray flux for emission and absorption line galaxies. We do not observe any difference between early and late-type galaxies in terms of their relative X-ray to optical fluxes.
Observations and Data Reduction
===============================
Long-slit spectral observations were carried out at the Australian National University’s 2.3m telescope in Siding Spring, Australia, between 2006 October 23-29. We used the Double Beam Spectrograph (DBS) with dichroic \#3 and 600 lines/mm gratings. We set the central wavelength at 5100Å (7000Å) in the blue (red) arm, thus obtaining continuous coverage over the spectral region 4140Å–7965Å with a sampling of $\sim2$Å/pixel and with a 1$^{\prime\prime}$ slit. As our observing run was partly affected by cloudy conditions, we were only able to observe 35 of the full set of 44 normal galaxy candidates. Standard calibration exposures were carried out, including comparison lamps and spectrophotometric standard stars for wavelength and flux calibration, respectively.
------- ------------------ -------------- ----------- ---------
ID XMM name obs.date exp. time S/N
min
1703 J005818.3-355548 Oct. 23 2006 60 32.1
1774 J005922.8-360933 Oct. 26 2006 45 3.6
1778 J005929.7-361113 Oct. 28 2006 30 34.0
3654 J022416.7-050323 Oct. 29 2006 55 -
3716 J022456.2-050801 Oct. 24 2006 40 2.5
3773 J022536.4-050012 Oct. 24 2006 30 84.7
3776 J022537.8-050223 Oct. 24 2006 40 -
3777 J022538.2-050806 Oct. 25 2006 45 118.0
3778 J022538.3-050423 Oct. 29 2006 30 3.4
4009 J023613.5-523036 Oct. 23 2006 40 131.4
4298 J030927.5-765223 Oct. 28 2006 40 4.5
4379 J031256.5-765039 Oct. 29 2006 30 9.4
4481 J031723.1-442056 Oct. 28 2006 40 4.5
4736 J031829.8-441140 Oct. 29 2006 45 23.7
4765 J031845.0-441042 Oct. 23 2006 55 11.4
4927 J033831.4-351421 Oct. 25 2006 40 6.8
5570 J043306.5-610760 Oct. 24 2006 55 3.3
5663 J043333.5-612427 Oct. 24 2006 40 2.3
7355 J055940.7-503218 Oct. 24 2006 45 2.7
7400 J060014.9-502230 Oct. 24 2006 30 -
12281 J201329.7-414737 Oct. 27 2006 45 79.2
12308 J201345.0-563713 Oct. 23 2006 30 2.0$^1$
13137 J213758.7-143611 Oct. 23 2006 30 61.6
14402 J221726.0-082531 Oct. 26 2006 30 2.6
14541 J222110.0-244749 Oct. 28 2006 40 -
14608 J222804.4-051751 Oct. 29 2006 45 -
15022 J225149.3-175225 Oct. 23 2006 30 153.7
15393 J231421.6-424559 Oct. 24 2006 40 4.0
15584 J231851.8-423114 Oct. 25 2006 30 2.9
15631 J232454.9-120459 Oct. 28 2006 45 1.9
15867 J235340.6-102420 Oct. 23 2006 30 3.2
15892 J235405.7-101829 Oct. 27 2006 45 1.3
15926 J235418.1-102013 Oct. 28 2006 40 14.3
15997 J235629.1-343743 Oct. 25 2006 30 2.0$^1$
------- ------------------ -------------- ----------- ---------
: Observation summary[]{data-label="observations"}
1. [S/N of the Mg I b2 line]{}
Standard IRAF[^2] routines were used for data reduction. All frames were overscan and bias-subtracted. Observations at the same setting were combined to increase the signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) and to remove cosmic rays. Subsequently, the spectra were flat-fielded, sky-subtracted, wavelength- and flux-calibrated. Details of the observations can be found in Tab. \[observations\]. The signal-to-noise ratio is the ratio of the most prominent feature of each spectrum, which for emission-line systems is the H$\alpha$ line and for absorption-line systems the Na D doublet.
Optical Spectral Properties
===========================
We have obtained spectra for 35 of the normal galaxy candidates, which are shown in Fig.\[spectra\]. For 29 sources we were able to identify emission and absorption lines, the most prominent of which are: H$\alpha$, H$\beta$, H$\gamma$, \[SII\](6718Å), \[SII\](6731Å), \[OI\](6300Å), \[OIII\](4959Å), \[OIII\](5007Å), \[NII\](6548Å), \[NII\](6584Å) in emission, and NaD1(5898Å), NaD2(5892Å), MgIb2(5172Å), FeG(4308Å), CaHK(3934 & 3968Å) in absorption. 11 galaxies are characterized as emission line systems, 12 absorption line systems, while 2 sources show both emission and absorption lines and are characterized as composite and 4 sources have stellar-like spectra. The redshifts of the sources with identified lines were calculated from the rest-frame frequencies by fitting gaussians to the line profiles. They agree with published values. 7 of the redshifts we obtained are not published in the literature.
In cases of systems with emission lines, we measured their intensities and used the line ratios to trace signs of AGN. For this purpose, we use the line ratio diagnostics of @Ho1997, which are based on the ratios of the \[OIII\](5007Å), \[OI\](6300Å), \[NII\](6584Å), \[SII\](6718Å) and \[SII\](6731Å) lines with the Balmer lines (H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$). These line combinations (\[OIII\]/H$\beta$ - \[OI\]/H$\alpha$ - \[NII\]/H$\alpha$ - \[SII\]/H$\alpha$) are selected to have small wavelength separation and therefore be insensitive to reddening [see also @Veilleux1987]. Without including any reddening correction, we find that the emission line ratios are compatible with starburst galaxies for all the emission line systems. For systems having composite spectra, the emission line ratios are compatible with Seyfert nuclei. These are removed from our sample of normal galaxies.
Sources which show no prominent features in their spectra are marked as “featureless” in Table \[candidates\]. A featureless optical spectrum can indicate a BL Lac object [e.g. @Londish2002; @Sbarufatti2006]. The broadband spectra of BL Lacs show a variety of X-ray to optical to radio flux ratios [@Bondi2001] and there are cases where BL Lacs are bright in optical and faint in X-rays [@Troitsky2008]. The host galaxies of BL Lacs are in most cases ellipticals or bulge dominated systems [@Falomo1996] and optical images are consistent with this picture. We therefore cannot rule out that at least some of the sources with featureless spectra harbor AGN and we remove them from our final sample of normal galaxies.
Starburst diagnostics
=====================
A good diagnostic of the star formation rate is the luminosity of the H$\alpha$ line, which is found to scale linearly with the SFR for nearby galaxies and also at higher redshifts [@Kennicutt1994; @Kewley2002; @RosaGonzalez2002]. The X-ray versus the H$\alpha$ luminosity diagram is shown in Fig. \[lxlha\]. We corrected the derived H$\alpha$ luminosity for dust extinction using the reddening curves of @Savage1979 and the flux ratio of the H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ lines, assuming an intrinsic value of 2.76 [@Brocklehurst1971]. Our data points are plotted as open circles in Fig. \[lxlha\], while crosses represent the combined sample of the 1XMM survey of @Georgakakis2006 and the NHS survey [@Georgakakis2004].
Because our dataset has errors in both directions we choose a fitting method that deals with the two axes in a symmetric way. As such we choose the bisector line and the orthogonal regression method [@Isobe1990], which yield $\beta=0.72\pm 0.04$ and $\beta=0.68\pm 0.05$ respectively when fitting $L_{\rm x}=\alpha L_{\rm H\alpha}^{\beta}$. These are the solid and dashed lines in Fig. \[lxlha\]. These values lie within the uncertainty ranges of the measurements made by @Griffiths1990 ($0.70\pm0.12$), @Zezas2000 ($0.62\pm0.11$), and @Georgakakis2006 ($0.69\pm0.06$) and they are not linear. If we attribute the X-ray emission to a number of HMXRBs, the relation is expected to be linear [@Persic2004; @Persic2007]. Indeed, a linear relation is found by @David1992 and @Ranalli2003 for both soft and hard X-rays, using the far-infrared and radio (1.4GHz) as star formation indicators. Non-linearity is expected in cases of very low or very high star formation rates, where, as a result of small number statistics and hypothetical intermediate mass black holes respectively, it is expected to be even steeper with $\beta>1$ [@Grimm2003; @Gilfanov2004]. If we use the relation: SFR($M_\odot$yr$^{-1}$)=$7.9\times 10^{-42}L_{\rm H\alpha}$(ergs$^{-1}$) [@Kennicutt1994], we are expecting the low-SFR cut at $L_{\rm H\alpha}\sim10^{42}$ergs$^{-1}$, which is within the range we are sampling (see dotted line in Fig. \[lxlha\]). It is therefore puzzling that the $L_{\rm x}-L_{\rm SFR}$ rate appears flatter than linear.
Such a behavior could be explained by the existence of other sources of X-ray emission not connected with star formation activity. As such we could consider LMXRBs, older supernova remnants or globular clusters [see e.g. @Vogler1997] and hot diffuse gas toward the Galactic centre [@Tyler2004]. If not linked with star formation, their relative contribution to the total X-ray luminosity would be stronger in galaxies with lower star formation rates, thus flattening the $L_{\rm x}-L_{\rm SFR}$ relation.
The combined X-ray luminosity of LMXRBs is associated with the stellar content of the galaxy [@Gilfanov2004b], which can be examined from its luminosity in the K-band. For that purpose we search for counterparts of the galaxies in our sample in the 2MASS survey catalogues [@Skrutskie2006]. We then calculate the K-band luminosities and use the mass-to-light ratio of @Bell2001 to derive the stellar mass of each source. This is translated into the respective luminosity of the LMXRB content using the relation of @Gilfanov2004; the results are presented in Tab. \[candidates\]. We find that the combined X-ray luminosity of LMXRBs is two orders of magnitude fainter than the total X-ray luminosity and thus not enough to have an effect on the $L_{\rm x}-L_{\rm SFR}$ correlation.
In Fig. \[hardness\] we plot two different hardness ratios for emission and absorption like systems. HR1 refers to the hardness ratio between the $(0.5-2.0)$keV and $(2.0-4.5)$keV bands, whereas HR2 refers to the $(2.0-4.5)$keV and $(4.5-7.5)$keV bands. As different sources have been observed with *XMM-Newton* in different modes with different CCDs and different optical light blocking filters, to have consistent hardness ratios, we transformed all count rates to the PN CCD with thin filter mode, correcting for the respective galactic absorption of each source. Late-type galaxies are represented by blue colour and early-type by red. The errors in the count rates of each source have been taken into account to create a 2 dimensional gaussian to be used in creating the colour representation of Fig. \[hardness\].
All sources by selection have ${\rm HR}1<-0.2$. We can see that the bulk of the late-type galaxies appear soft in both hardness ratios, which is not a typical behavior of HMXRBs, therefore a contribution of another X-ray source should be considered.
In studies of nearby galaxies, where the X-ray emission from point sources can be resolved out, the diffuse emission from hot gas is generally spatially coincident with star formation regions [e.g. @Doane2004; @Warwick2007; @Owen2009], consistent with its heating mechanism being supernova explosions and the winds of very massive stars, possibly with a small contribution from the bulge [@Tyler2004]. The origin of it in star forming related properties would make its contribution scale linearly with the star formation rate and not affect the slope of the $L_{\rm x}-L_{\rm SFR}$ relation. @Persic2004 find that considering only the X-ray contribution of the point sources in their sample of star forming galaxies, that affects only the scatter of the $L_{\rm x}-L_{\rm SFR}$ relation (making it smaller) and not the slope which is in both cases linear.
In order to test the non-linearity of the $L_{\rm x}-L_{\rm SFR}$ relation, we attempt to reproduce it using other proxies of star formation rate than the H$\alpha$ luminosity. The far infrared luminosity is a good example and we search for FIR counterparts of the late-type galaxies in the combined sample of this study and that of @Georgakakis2006 in the IRAS faint source catalogue [@Moshir1990]. We detect 8 sources and calculate their FIR luminosities using the formula of @Helou1985. We find tentative evidence that the $L_{\rm x}-L_{\rm FIR}$ is flatter than linear ($b=0.81\pm0.09$ and $b=0.76\pm0.11$ using again the bisector and the orthogonal regression lines). However the number of data points is too small to allow us to extract conclusive results; moreover earlier studies of the $L_{\rm x}-L_{\rm FIR}$ relation using larger samples [e.g. @Fabbiano2002] are in agreement with a linear relation.
We must caution here two effects that might bias our data. Our sample and also these of @Georgakakis2004 and @Georgakakis2006 are selected using an $f_{\rm x}/f_{\rm o}$ cut-off and are thus flux limited in the X-rays. A flux limited sample could introduce a bias in the $L_{\rm x}-L_{\rm SFR}$ relation flattening it. Also, the star formation rate is proxied by the luminosity of the H$\alpha$ line. The H$\alpha$ flux is measured through slit spectroscopy and this technique allows only a fraction of the light of the source to be detected. The slit width is 1$^{\prime\prime}$, which corresponds to 3.4kpc at a redshift of 0.21 and to 0.23kpc at a redshift of 0.0115. This is significantly smaller than the typical diameter of a spiral galaxy. Moreover, this effect is more severe for galaxies at lower redshift, which are the less luminous in flux limited surveys. This introduces a bias in the $L_{\rm x}-L_{\rm SFR}$ relation and more specifically it flattens it. If we check the normalization of the $L_{\rm x}-L_{\rm SFR}$ we derive with respect to @Ranalli2003 and [@Persic2007] (shaded region in Fig. \[lxlha\], see also @Hornschemeier2005 and references therein), we find an agreement for luminous sources (at higher redshifts) and a deviation of fainter sources (at lower redshifts). Interestingly, the normalization in the case of @Hornschemeier2005 where there is a correction applied to the H$\alpha$ fluxes to compensate for the aperture effect seems to be in good agreement with @Ranalli2003 and @Persic2007.
To further investigate the aperture effect to our data, we compile a sample of (nearby) normal galaxies with measured X-ray and integrated H$\alpha$ luminosities. We use the EINSTEIN spiral galaxy sample of @Shapley2001 and combine it with the sample of @Trinchieri1989, which uses integrated H$\alpha$ measured from @Kennicutt1983. We find 30 common sources between the two samples, not including sources from the @Shapley2001 sample which show evidence for non-stellar ionizing source. We transform the X-ray luminosities to the 0.5 - 2.0keV band using a power-law profile with $\Gamma=1.9$. We also adopt the distances from @Shapley2001 and transform the H$\alpha$ luminosities accordingly. The $L_{\rm x}-L_{\rm H\alpha}$ pairs are plotted with triangles in Fig. \[lxlha\] (arrows indicate upper $L_{\rm x}$ limits). We can see that these data-points lie close to the shaded area and are systematically more H$\alpha$ luminous compared to the data-points of this study, and the bisector line fit (not taking upper limits into account) has a slope of $\beta=1.05\pm0.10$. We therefore conclude that it the “aperture effect” of slit spectroscopy plays an important role in the flattening of the $L_{\rm x}-L_{\rm SFR}$ relation.
Summary and Conclusions
=======================
In this study we select normal galaxies from the XMM-Newton first serendipitous source catalogue (1XMM). We select soft sources with reliable detections and compare their X-ray with their optical fluxes. After selecting candidates with $\log(f_{\rm x}/f_{\rm o})<-2$ we examine their morphologies to remove any contamination from Galactic stars. This way we are left with a sample of 44 sources (in the southern hemisphere). We observed 35 of them with the ANU’s 2.3m telescope to derive their optical spectra. Of the 35 sources, 4 are Galactic stars, 2 are associated with AGN, and 6 have featureless spectra and are probably associated with BL-Lac objects. The remaining 23 (65.7%) are indeed normal galaxies with emission (11) and absorption-line (12) spectra.
We examined the sub-sample of emission line galaxies (late type) to derive their star formation properties. For this purpose we combined our sample with those of @Georgakakis2004 and @Georgakakis2006. We find tentative evidence that the X-ray luminosity does not scale linearly with star formation, approximated by the H$\alpha$ luminosity, this result is however sensitive to observational and selection biases. The normalization of the $L_{\rm x}-L_{\rm SFR}$ relation agrees with previous studies at the luminous end, indicating underestimation of the H$\alpha$ luminosities for fainter sources.
ER wishes to thank the European Social Fund (ESF), Operational Program for Educational and Vocational Training II (EPEAEK II), and particularly the Program PYTHAGORAS II, for funding part of this work.
------- ------------------ --------------------- ----------------------- ------------------ ------- ----------------------------------- ------------------- -------- ------------- --------------
ID XMM name $z$ $f_{{\rm x}}$ $\log L_{\rm x}$ $R$ $\log\frac{f_{\rm x}}{f_{\rm o}}$ $L_{\rm H\alpha}$ $K$ $L_{\rm K}$ type
ergcm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$ ergs$^{-1}$ mag ergs$^{-1}$ mag ergs$^{-1}$
1703 J005818.3-355548 $0.0489\pm0.0008$ $6.421\times10^{-15}$ 40.53 15.64 -2.436 40.82 14.585 42.84 emission
1774 J005922.8-360933 $0.1271\pm0.0007$ $7.858\times10^{-15}$ 41.51 16.27 -2.099 - 13.982 43.95 absorption
1778 J005929.7-361113 $0.0115\pm0.0003$ $2.571\times10^{-14}$ 39.87 12.38 -3.140 41.50 14.042 41.81 emission
3654 J022416.7-050323 - $7.173\times10^{-15}$ - 15.38 -2.492 - - - featureless
3716 J022456.2-050801 $0.0837\pm0.0008$ $2.769\times10^{-14}$ 41.67 12.57 -3.032 - 13.839 43.63 absorption
3773 J022536.4-050012 $0.0530\pm0.0002$ $1.940\times10^{-14}$ 41.11 12.40 -3.252 41.76 13.298 43.45 emission
3776 J022537.8-050223 - $1.489\times10^{-14}$ - 13.94 -2.751 - - - featureless
3777 J022538.2-050806 $0.0607\pm0.0003$ $3.862\times10^{-15}$ 40.53 15.67 -2.645 41.17 15.670 42.61 emission
3778 J022538.3-050423 0.0000 $1.157\times10^{-14}$ STAR 15.06 -2.413 - - - STAR
4009 J023613.5-523036 $0.1117\pm0.0005$ $8.520\times10^{-15}$ 41.42 14.47 -2.784 41.99 14.869 43.47 emission
4298 J030927.5-765223 0.0000 $1.597\times10^{-14}$ STAR 14.99 -2.301 - - - STAR
4379 J031256.5-765039 0.0000 $1.104\times10^{-14}$ STAR 13.12 -3.209 - - - STAR
4481 J031723.1-442056 0.0000 $2.835\times10^{-14}$ STAR 14.82 -2.119 - - - STAR
4736 J031829.8-441140 $0.0732\pm0.0005$ $5.158\times10^{-14}$ 41.82 12.19 -2.914 42.25 14.366 43.30 emission
4765 J031845.0-441042 $0.0735\pm0.0006$ $8.163\times10^{-15}$ 41.02 12.95 -3.408 42.20 14.664 43.18 emission
4927 J033831.4-351421 $0.139\pm0.003$ $9.464\times10^{-14}$ 42.66 13.31 -2.202 40.85 - - composite
5570 J043306.5-610760 $0.0589\pm0.0007$ $1.304\times10^{-14}$ 41.02 13.80 -2.865 - 14.254 43.15 absorption
5663 J043333.5-612427 $0.0604\pm0.0012$ $1.382\times10^{-14}$ 41.04 14.58 -2.527 - 14.195 43.17 absorption
7355 J055940.7-503218 $0.197\pm0.020$ $8.546\times10^{-15}$ 42.02 15.35 -2.430 - 14.702 44.10 absorption
7400 J060014.9-502230 - $7.370\times10^{-15}$ - 15.56 -2.411 - - - featureless
9062 J124238.5-111919 - $1.940\times10^{-14}$ - 13.45 -2.832 - - - not observed
9064 J124239.1-112822 - $8.434\times10^{-15}$ - 13.59 -3.140 - - - not observed
9337 J125204.5-292029 - $3.552\times10^{-14}$ - 13.81 -2.426 - - - not observed
9480 J125718.4-171441 - $1.182\times10^{-14}$ - 12.21 -3.543 - - - not observed
9539 J125819.1-171837 - $1.512\times10^{-14}$ - 12.12 -3.472 - - - not observed
9730 J133032.4-014735 - $5.251\times10^{-15}$ - 14.05 -3.162 - - - not observed
9966 J133527.7-342630 - $1.014\times10^{-14}$ - 15.15 -2.434 - - - not observed
12281 J201329.7-414737 $0.1293\pm0.0006$ $1.078\times10^{-14}$ 41.67 14.69 -2.591 43.49 14.047 43.93 emission
12308 J201345.0-563713 $0.0541\pm0.0005$ $1.114\times10^{-14}$ 40.89 13.49 -3.057 - 12.947 43.61 absorption
13137 J213758.7-143611 $0.0524\pm0.0002$ $4.446\times10^{-15}$ 40.46 14.08 -3.222 41.84 13.829 43.22 emission
14252 J221543.0-173958 - $2.929\times10^{-15}$ - 17.44 -2.057 - - - not observed
14402 J221726.0-082531 $0.0845\pm0.0002$ $2.733\times10^{-14}$ 41.67 13.97 -2.477 - 13.759 43.67 absorption
14541 J222110.0-244749 - $8.297\times10^{-15}$ - 16.06 -2.157 - - - featureless
14608 J222804.4-051751 - $5.319\times10^{-15}$ - 15.03 -2.762 - - - featureless
14640 J222818.3-050745 - $7.741\times10^{-15}$ - 15.44 -2.435 - - - not observed
14683 J222834.0-052818 - $9.300\times10^{-15}$ - 13.88 -2.980 - - - featureless
15022 J225149.3-175225 $0.0776\pm0.0005$ $1.711\times10^{-14}$ 41.39 14.12 -2.621 42.59 13.744 43.59 emission
15393 J231421.6-424559 $0.0672\pm0.0006$ $2.039\times10^{-14}$ 41.35 12.47 -3.203 - 13.391 43.63 absorption
15584 J231851.8-423114 $0.11432\pm0.00015$ $1.460\times10^{-14}$ 41.68 13.74 -2.840 - 13.985 43.85 absorption
15631 J232454.9-120459 $0.0809\pm0.0005$ $1.164\times10^{-14}$ 41.27 15.81 -2.110 40.30 - - composite
15867 J235340.6-102420 $0.0742\pm0.0011$ $1.972\times10^{-14}$ 41.42 12.15 -3.347 - 13.985 43.47 absorption
15892 J235405.7-101829 $0.0739\pm0.0006$ $7.687\times10^{-15}$ 40.99 13.38 -3.262 - 13.780 43.53 absorption
15926 J235418.1-102013 $0.0804\pm0.0003$ $1.349\times10^{-14}$ 41.32 14.48 -2.580 43.38 14.040 43.51 emission
15997 J235629.1-343743 $0.0523\pm0.0009$ $1.437\times10^{-14}$ 40.96 12.12 -3.494 - 13.136 43.49 absorption
------- ------------------ --------------------- ----------------------- ------------------ ------- ----------------------------------- ------------------- -------- ------------- --------------
[^1]: `http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~mike/apmcat/`
[^2]: IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. (AURA) under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
**Critical Behavior of the 3D anisotropic quantum Heisenberg model in a trimodal random field distribution**
**Ümit Akinci[^1]**
*Department of Physics, Dokuz Eylül University, TR-35160 Izmir, Turkey*
Abstract
========
Effect of the trimodal random magnetic field distribution on the phase diagrams of the anisotropic quantum Heisenberg model has been investigated for three dimensional lattices with effective field theory (EFT) for a two spin cluster. Variation of the phase diagrams with the random magnetic field distribution parameters has been obtained and the effect of the anisotropy in the exchange interaction on the phase diagrams has been investigated in detail. Particular attention has been devoted on the behavior of the tricritical points with random magnetic field distribution. Keywords: **Quantum anisotropic Heisenberg model; random magnetic field; trimodal distribution**
Introduction
============
Recently there has been growing theoretical interest in the random field lattice spin models. For instance, Ising model in a quenched random field (RFIM) has been studied over three decades. The model was introduced for the first time by Larkin [@ref1] for superconductors and later generalized by Imry and Ma [@ref2]. Diluted antiferromagnets (such as $Fe_xZn_{1-x}F_2$, $Rb_2Co_xMg_{1-x}F_4$ and $Co_xZn_{1-x}F_2$) in a homogenous magnetic field behave like ferromagnetic systems in the presence of random fields [@ref3; @ref4]. Beside this, a rich class of experimentally accessible disordered systems can be described by RFIM, such as structural phase transitions in random alloys, commensurate charge- density-wave systems with impurity pinning, binary fluid mixtures in random porous media, and the melting of intercalates in layered compounds, such as $TiS_2$[@ref5]. RFIM generally mimics the phase transitions and interfaces in random media [@ref6; @ref7], e.g prewetting transition on a disordered substrate can be mapped onto a 2D RFIM problem [@ref8]. Also, RFIM has been applied in order to describe critical surface behavior of amorphous semi-infinite systems [@ref9; @ref10].
Random field distribution of the magnetic field produces drastic effects on the phase diagrams and related magnetic properties of the system. It has been shown that Ising systems under the influence of discrete symmetric distributions, like bimodal [@ref11] and trimodal [@ref12] distributions, show tricritical behavior, while continuous symmetric distributions like Gaussian distribution [@ref13] exhibit only second order transitions.
On the other hand, as far as we know, there have been less attention paid on the random field effects on the Heisenberg model, which is more realistic model than the Ising model for the spin systems. Albuquerque and Arruda [@ref14] studied the effect of the bimodal random field distribution on the phase transition characteristics of the spin-1/2 isotropic classical Heisenberg model and they found tricritical behavior within the EFT formulation for the two spin cluster which is abbreviated as EFT-2. Oubelkacem et al., studied the same system with another approach, namely EFT with probability distribution technique and they obtained similar results [@ref15]. Albuquerque et al. [@ref16] treated the same system with amorphisation effect, again with the EFT-2 formulation. Recently, Sousa et al. have studied the effect of the bimodal random field distribution on phase transition characteristics of the isotropic -classical and quantum- spin-1/2 Heisenberg model within the EFT-2 formulation and also they found a tricritical behavior [@ref17]. All these works have been restricted to the spin-1/2 isotropic Heisenberg model with bimodal random field distribution and they concluded that tricritical behavior exists in this system as in Ising model with bimodal random field distribution. They utilized an EFT which is characterized by differential operator technique introduced by Honmura and Kaneyoshi for Ising systems [@ref18]. EFT approximation can provide results that are superior to those obtained within the traditional mean field approximation, due to the consideration of self spin correlations which are omitted in the mean field approximation. EFT for a typical Ising system starts by constructing a finite cluster of spins which represents the system. Callen-Suzuki spin identities [@ref19; @ref20] are the starting point of the EFT for the one spin clusters. If one expands these identities with differential operator technique, multi spin correlations appear, and in order to avoid from the mathematical difficulties, these multi spin correlations are often neglected by using decoupling approximation [@ref21]. Working with larger finite clusters will give more accurate results. Callen-Suzuki identities have been generalized to two spin clusters in Ref. [@ref22] (EFT-2 formulation). This EFT-2 formulation has been successfully applied to a variety of systems, such as quantum spin-1/2 Heisenberg ferromagnet [@ref23; @ref24] and antiferromagnet [@ref25] systems, classical n-vector model [@ref26; @ref27], and spin-1 Heisenberg ferromagnet [@ref28; @ref29].
The aim of this work is to investigate the effect of the symmetric discrete random field distributions (bimodal and trimodal) on the phase transition characteristics of a spin-1/2 anisotropic quantum Heisenberg model on simple cubic and body centered cubic lattices. Quantum Heisenberg model can take into account the quantum fluctuations which dominates the thermal fluctuations in the low temperatures. Thus it is expected that it gives more reasonable results than the classical one at this low temperature region. We follow the EFT-2 formulation which is derived in Ref. [@ref23] for this system.
The paper is organized as follows: In Sec. \[formulation\], we briefly present the model and formulation. The results and discussions are presented in Sec. \[results\], and finally Sec. \[conclusion\] contains our conclusions.
Model and Formulation {#formulation}
=====================
We consider a lattice which consists of $N$ identical spins (spin-$1/2$) such that each of the spins has $z$ nearest neighbors. The Hamiltonian of the system is given by [$$\label{denk1} \mathcal{H}=-{{{\underset{<i,j> }{\overset{}{\displaystyle\sum}}}{\left(J_x s_i^xs_j^x+J_y s_i^ys_j^y+J_z s_i^zs_j^z\right)}}}-{{{\underset{i }{\overset{}{\displaystyle\sum}}}H_is_i^z}}$$]{} where $s_i^x,s_i^y$ and $s_i^z$ denote the Pauli spin operators at a site $i$. $J_x,J_y$ and $J_z$ stand for the anisotropy in the exchange interactions between the nearest neighbor spins and $H_i$ is the longitudinal magnetic field at a site $i$. The first sum is carried over the nearest neighbors of the lattice, while the second one is over all the lattice sites. Magnetic field is distributed on the lattice sites according to a trimodal distribution function which is given by [$$\label{denk2} P{\left(H_i\right)}=p\delta{\left(H_i\right)}+\frac{1-p}{2}\left[\delta{\left(H_i-H_0\right)}+\delta{\left(H_i+H_0\right)}\right]$$]{} where $p$ is a real number which provides $0\le p \le 1$, and $\delta$ stands for the delta function. The distribution given by Eq. [(\[denk2\])]{} covers a bimodal distribution for $p=0$ and reduces to the system with zero magnetic field (pure system) for $p=1$. According to the distribution given in Eq. [(\[denk2\])]{}, $p$ percentage of the lattice sites are subjected to a magnetic field $H_i=0$, while half of the remaining sites are under the influence of a field $H_i=H_0$ whereas the field $H_i=-H_0$ acts on the remaining sites.
We use the two spin cluster approximation as an EFT formulation namely EFT-2 formulation[@ref23]. In this approximation, we choose two spins (namely $s_1$ and $s_2$) and treat interactions exactly in this two spin cluster. In order to avoid some mathematical difficulties we replace the perimeter spins of the two spin cluster by Ising spins (axial approximation) [@ref24]. After all, by using the differential operator technique and decoupling approximation (DA) [@ref21], we get an expression for the magnetization per spin as [$$\label{denk3}
m={\left\langle \frac{1}{2}{\left(s_1^z+s_2^z\right)}\right\rangle}={\left\langle \left[A_{x}+m B_{x}\right]^{z_0}
\left[A_{y}+m B_{y}\right]^{z_0}
\left[A_{xy}+m B_{xy}\right]^{z_1}\right\rangle} F{\left(x,y,H_0\right)}|_{x=0,y=0}$$]{} where each of $s_1$ and $s_2$ has number of $z_0$ distinct nearest neighbors and both of them have $z_1$ common nearest neighbors. The coefficients are defined by [$$\label{denk4}
\begin{array}{lcl}
A_{x}=\cosh{{\left(J_z\nabla_x\right)}}&\quad&
B_{x}=\sinh{{\left(J_z\nabla_x\right)}}\\
A_{y}=\cosh{{\left(J_z\nabla_y\right)}}
&\quad&
B_{y}=\sinh{{\left(J_z\nabla_y\right)}}\\
A_{xy}=\cosh{\left[J_z{\left(\nabla_x+\nabla_y\right)}\right]}&\quad&
B_{xy}=\sinh{\left[J_z{\left(\nabla_x+\nabla_y\right)}\right]}\\
\end{array}$$]{} where $\nabla_x=\partial/\partial x$ and $\nabla_y=\partial/\partial y$ are the usual differential operators in the differential operator technique. Differential operators act on an arbitrary function via [$$\label{denk5} \exp{{\left(a\nabla_x+b\nabla_y\right)}}G{\left(x,y\right)}=G{\left(x+a,y+b\right)}$$]{} with any constant $a$ and $b$. The function in Eq. [(\[denk3\])]{} is given by [$$\label{denk6} F{\left(x,y,H_0\right)}={{{\underset{ }{\overset{}{\displaystyle\int}}}}}dH_1dH_2P{\left(H_1\right)}P{\left(H_2\right)}f{\left(x,y,H_1,H_2\right)}$$]{} where [$$\label{denk7} f{\left(x,y,H_1,H_2\right)}=\frac{x+y+H_1+H_2}{X_0}\frac{\sinh{{\left(\beta X_0\right)}}}{\cosh{{\left(\beta X_0\right)}}+\exp{{\left(-2\beta J_z\right)}}\cosh{{\left(\beta Y_0\right)}}}$$]{} and [$$\label{denk8}
X_0=\left[{\left(J_x-J_y\right)}^2+(x+y+H_1+H_2)^2\right]^{1/2}, \quad Y_0=\left[{\left(J_x+J_y\right)}^2+(x-y+H_1-H_2)^2\right]^{1/2}.$$]{} Here $\beta=1/(k_B T)$ where $k_B$ is Boltzmann constant and $T$ is the temperature.
With the help of the Binomial expansion, Eq. [(\[denk3\])]{} can be written as [$$\label{denk9}
m={{{\underset{p=0 }{\overset{z_0}{\displaystyle\sum}}}}}{{{\underset{q=0 }{\overset{z_0}{\displaystyle\sum}}}}}{{{\underset{r=0 }{\overset{z_1}{\displaystyle\sum}}}}}C^\prime_{pqr}m^{p+q+r}$$]{} where the coefficients are [$$\label{denk10}
C^\prime_{pqr}={{\left(\begin{array}{c} z_0 \\ p \end{array}\right)}}{{\left(\begin{array}{c} z_0 \\ q \end{array}\right)}}{{\left(\begin{array}{c} z_1 \\ r \end{array}\right)}}A_x^{z_0-p}A_y^{z_0-q}A_{xy}^{z_1-r}B_x^{p}B_y^{q}B_{xy}^{r}F{\left(x,y,H_0\right)}|_{x=0,y=0}$$]{} and these coefficients can be calculated by using the definitions given in Eqs. [(\[denk4\])]{} and [(\[denk5\])]{}. Let us write Eq. [(\[denk9\])]{} in more familiar form as [$$\label{denk11}
m={{{\underset{k=0 }{\overset{z}{\displaystyle\sum}}}}}C_{k}m^{k}$$]{} [$$\label{denk12}
C_{k}={{{\underset{p=0 }{\overset{z_0}{\displaystyle\sum}}}}}{{{\underset{q=0 }{\overset{z_0}{\displaystyle\sum}}}}}{{{\underset{r=0 }{\overset{z_1}{\displaystyle\sum}}}}}\delta_{p+q+r,k}C^\prime_{pqr}$$]{} where $\delta_{i,j}$ is the Kronecker delta. It can be shown from the symmetry properties of the function defined in Eq. [(\[denk6\])]{} and operators defined by Eq. [(\[denk4\])]{} that for even $k$, the coefficient $C_k$ is equal to zero.
For a given set of Hamiltonian parameters ($J_x,J_y,J_z$), temperature and field distribution parameters ($p,H_0$), we can determine the coefficients from Eq. [(\[denk12\])]{} and we can obtain a non linear equation from Eq. [(\[denk11\])]{}. By solving this equation, we can get the magnetization ($m$) for a given set of parameters and temperature. Since the magnetization is close to zero in the vicinity of the critical point, we can obtain a linear equation by linearizing the equation given in Eq. [(\[denk11\])]{} which allows us to determine the critical temperature. Since we have not calculated the free energy in this approximation, we can locate only second order transitions from the condition given as [$$\label{denk13}
C_1=1, \quad C_3<0$$]{}The tricritical point at which second and first order transition lines meet can be determined from the condition [$$\label{denk14}
C_1=1, \quad C_3=0.$$]{}
Results and Discussion {#results}
======================
Let us scale the exchange interaction components with the unit of energy $J$ as, $$r_n=\frac{J_n}{J}$$ where $n=x,y,z$. Let us choose $r_z=1$, then $r_x,r_y$ can be used as the measure of the anisotropy in the exchange interaction. It can be seen from the definition of the function given in Eq. [(\[denk7\])]{} that the transformation $J_x\rightarrow J_y,J_y\rightarrow J_x$ does not change the function. Hence, we can say that mentioned transformation does not affect the formulation. Because of that let us fix $r_x$ and concentrate only on varying $r_y$ values. Our investigation is on the simple cubic ($z_0=5,z_1=0$) and body centered cubic ($z_0=7,z_1=0$) lattices.
Bimodal Distribution
--------------------
This distribution is given by Eq. [(\[denk2\])]{} with $p=0$ and it distributes the longitudinal magnetic fields $\pm H_0$ to the lattice sites with equal percentages. Increasing randomness (which comes from increasing $H_0$ values in bimodal distribution) will reduce the critical temperature, as expected. Beside this, in order to concentrate on the variation of the tricritical point as a function of anisotropy in the exchange interaction, let us examine the evolution of the phase diagrams in a $(k_BT_c/J,H_0/J)$ plane with different $r_y$ values. In Fig. [(\[sek1\])]{}, we can see the phase diagrams of the anisotropic quantum Heisenberg model on simple cubic and body centered cubic lattices for a bimodal random magnetic field distribution in a $(k_BT_c/J,H_0/J)$ plane for some selected values of the $r_y$. We can track the path of the tricritical point (denoted by filled circles) with changing $r_y$ values for simple cubic and body centered cubic lattice in Figs. [(\[sek1\])]{} (a) and [(\[sek1\])]{} (b), respectively. Increasing $r_y$ values -which means that the anisotropy in the spin-spin interaction increases- reduce the two coordinates of the tricritical point in $(k_BT_c/J,H_0/J)$ plane. Also for arbitrarily fixed $H_0/J$ values, rising anisotropy reduces the critical temperature, as expected. For a certain $r_y$ value, we can see that tricritical point of the body centered lattice appears to be greater than that of the simple cubic lattice. We can also see from Fig. [(\[sek1\])]{} that falling rate of a critical temperature corresponding to a certain $H_0/J$ value rises with increasing $r_y$. Tricritical point coordinates of the isotropic case ($r_x=r_y=1$) found in the present work $(H_0/J,k_BT_c/J)=(2.274,2.748)$ can be compared with the classical case $(H_0/J,k_BT_c/J)=(2.389,2.785)$ [@ref14; @ref16]. Our values in the quantum case are slightly lower than corresponding classical values, as expected.
Trimodal Distribution
---------------------
As we can see from Eq. [(\[denk2\])]{} that trimodal distribution brings the system closer to the pure one (system with zero magnetic field) with increasing $p$. Thus, it is expected that the phase diagrams in $(k_BT_c/J,H_0/J)$ plane with increasing $p$ will become parallel lines with the $H_0/J$ axis (at the value of $p=1$), which is nothing but just the critical temperature of the pure system with given parameter values. Also for a given $H_0/J$ value, increasing $p$ means decreasing randomness effect. Therefore, the ferromagnetic region is expected to get expanded in $(k_BT_c/J,H_0/J)$ plane. However, it would be interesting to inspect again the evolution of the tricritical point with increasing $p$ values. In Fig. [(\[sek2\])]{}, we can see the phase diagrams of the anisotropic quantum Heisenberg model in $(k_BT_c/J,H_0/J)$ plane for simple cubic and body centered cubic lattices in the presence of a trimodal random magnetic field distribution, and for some selected values of $p$. We can see from Fig. [(\[sek2\])]{} that observed tricritical points at low $p$ values gradually decrease and reduce to $k_BT_c/J=0$ at a certain $H_0/J$. Right after the disappearance of the tricritical point, the system exhibits a second order reentrant behavior, i.e. after a certain value of $p$ (which depends on the lattice geometry, as well as $r_x,r_y$ values) the system which stays in a disordered phase at zero temperature can pass to an ordered phase with a second order transition due to increasing thermal fluctuations, then it passes again to another disordered phase characterized by a second order transition with increasing temperature. For $p$ values greater than a special value (let us denote it by $p^{*}$), the phase diagrams in $(k_BT_c/J,H_0/J)$ plane do not intersect the x-axis, i.e. for $p>p^*$, the system will stay in an ordered phase at zero temperature for any $H_0/J$ value. This specific value depends on the lattice geometry and the degree of the anisotropy in the exchange interaction ($r_x$ and $r_y$). When we compare Figs. [(\[sek2\])]{}(a) and (b) with each other, we can conclude that increasing exchange anisotropy does not alter this situation significantly for small anisotropy, but it affects only the critical values (e.g. compare Figs. [(\[sek2\])]{} (a) and (b) or Figs. [(\[sek2\])]{} (c) and (d)). The same observation also holds for a body centered cubic lattice. After all, we can say that in general, three qualitatively different regions are observed in the phase diagrams depicted in a $(k_BT_c/J,H_0/J)$ plane as $p$ rises. Namely, a tricritical behavior region, a second order reentrant region, as well as a region which gets expanded towards increasing $H_{0}/J$ direction. We also note that the second order reentrant region corresponding to the simple cubic lattice is wider than that of the body centered cubic lattice. This point is depicted more apparently in Fig. [(\[sek3\])]{}.
In order to see the dependence of $p^*$ on the exchange anisotropy, we plot the variation of $p^*$ with $r_y$ for some selected values of $r_x$ in Figs. [(\[sek3\])]{} (a) and (b) for simple cubic and body centered cubic lattices, respectively. We note that for a certain value of $r_x$, the points which lie below the related curve in $(p^*,r_y)$ plane have disordered ground states for high $H_0/J$ values. In other words, for a selected $r_x$ value, if we choose $(p,r_y)$ pairs which lie under the curve corresponding to selected $r_x$, this means that the phase diagram of the system in $(k_BT_c/J,H_0/J)$ plane either exhibits a tricritical behavior or a second order reentrant behavior. For a system with parameter values of ($p,r_y$) which lie above the related curve has an ordered ground state in high $H_0/J$ region, i.e. the phase diagram of the system in a $(k_BT_c/J,H_0/J)$ plane does not intersect the x-axis. Thus, we can see from Fig. [(\[sek3\])]{} that increasing anisotropy contracts the region where the phase diagrams on the right side of the $(k_BT_c/J,H_0/J)$ plane are stretched. For a fixed value of $r_x$, and after a certain value of $r_y$, we get $p^*=1.0$ which means that the system can not exhibit an ordered ground state at high values of $H_0/J$ regardless the value of $p$. Another point is that the simple cubic lattice has a higher $p^*$ value for a fixed $r_x,r_y$, unless we have $p^*=1.0$.
Finally, in order to reveal the relation between the $p^*$ value and the anisotropy in the exchange interaction more clearly, we depict equally valued $p^*$ curves in $(r_x,r_y)$ plane in Fig. [(\[sek4\])]{}. As we can see from Fig. [(\[sek4\])]{} that these curves are symmetric about the $r_x=r_y$ line. This is obvious, since $r_x\rightarrow r_y, r_y\rightarrow r_x$ transformation does not alter the equations of the system, as stated in the beginning of this section. In general, for a selected value of $r_x$, if we move on the increasing direction of $r_y$, we pass through increasing $p^*$ curves, successively. But for instance, if we choose $r_x=2.0$ and continue in increasing direction of $r_y$ starting from $r_y=1.0$ (in Fig. [(\[sek4\])]{} (a)), we intersect $p^*=0.54$ curve two times and the other curves once. Thus, the relation between anisotropy and $p^*$ is not linear; i.e. we can not say $p^*$ increases monotonically with increasing anisotropy.
Conclusion
==========
The effect of the trimodal random magnetic field distribution on the phase diagrams of the anisotropic quantum Heisenberg model has been investigated in detail. The effects of the random magnetic fields in the presence of exchange interaction anisotropy have been discussed for three dimensional lattices, namely for simple cubic and body centered cubic lattices. Qualitatively similar characteristics have been observed for the phase diagrams of these different lattice geometries. However, quantitative differences have been obtained for bimodal and trimodal distributions.
Calculations for bimodal distribution performed in this work may be thought as a generalization of the earlier works which were devoted to a bimodal distribution in isotropic Heisenberg model[@ref14; @ref15; @ref16; @ref17] case to the anisotropic case. According to the phase diagrams plotted in $(k_BT_c/J,H_0/J)$ plane, presence of exchange anisotropy in the system reduces all critical temperatures, as well as tricritical points.
On the other hand, trimodal distribution gives rise to qualitatively three different phase diagram types with varying $p$ values in $(k_BT_c/J,H_0/J)$ plane. Namely, as $p$ increases starting from $p=0.0$, we observe phase diagrams exhibiting tricritical behavior, phase diagrams with second order reentrant phenomenon, and phase diagrams which become stretched to the right hand side of $(k_BT_c/J,H_0/J)$ plane, respectively. At the end of this evolution process (i.e. for $p=1.0$), phase diagrams become parallel lines with the $H_0/J$ axis. In this case, $k_BT_c/J$ value just corresponds to the critical temperature of the pure system. This classification scheme is valid for both simple cubic and body centered cubic lattices.
Particular attention has been devoted on the $p$ value (namely $p^*$) for which the phase diagrams become stretched to the right hand side of $(k_BT_c/J,H_0/J)$ plane. The effect of the anisotropy in the exchange interaction on $p^*$ value has been investigated in detail. For this purpose, equally valued $p^*$ curves have been obtained in $(r_x,r_y)$ plane. It has been shown that, the effect of the parameters $r_x$, $r_y$ on the value of $p^*$ is not linear.
We hope that the results obtained in this work may be beneficial form both theoretical and experimental point of view.
[00]{}
A. I. Larkin, Sov. Phys. JETP **31**, 784 (1970). Y. Imry and S. K. Ma, Phys. Rev. Lett. **35**, 1399 (1975).
S. Fishman and A. Aharony, J. Phys. C **12**, L729 (1979). J. L. Cardy, Phys. Rev. B **29**, 505 (1984).
Daniel S. Fisher, Geoffrey M. Grinsrein, Anil Khurana, Physics Today **56**, December (1988).
M.E. Fisher, J. Chem. Soc. Faraday Trans. **2**, 1569 (1986). G. Forgacs, R. Lipowsky, T.M. Nieuwenhuizen C. Domb, J. Lebowitz (Eds.), Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena, vol. 14 Academic Press, London (1991), p. 136
R. Blossey, T. Kinoshita, J. Dupont-Roc, Physica A **248**, 247 (1998).
Y. El Amraoui, A. Khmou J. Magn. Magn. Mater. **218**, 182 (2000).
Y. El Amraoui, A. Hamid, S. Sayouri J. Magn. Magn. Mater. **219**, 89 (2000).
A. Aharony, Phys. Rev. B **18**, 3318 (1978).
D. C. Mattis, Phys. Rev. Lett. **55**, 3009 (1985). T. Schneider and E. Pytte, Phys. Rev. B **15**, 1519 (1977). Douglas F. de Albuquerque, A.S. de Arruda Physica A **316**, 13 (2002).
A. Oubelkacem, K. Htoutou, A. Ainane, M. Saber Chin. J. Phys. **42**, 717 (2004).
Douglas F. de Albuquerque, Sandro L. Alves, A.S. de Arruda Phys. Lett. A **346**, 128 (2005).
J. Ricardo de Sousa, Douglas F. de Albuquerque, Alberto S. de Arruda, Physica A **391**, 3361 (2012).
R. Honmura, T. Kaneyoshi J. Phys. C **12**, 3979 (1979).
H.B. Callen Phys. Lett. **4**, 161 (1963).
H. Suzuki Phys. Lett **19**, 267 (1965).
T. Kaneyoshi, Acta Phys. Pol. A **83**, 703 (1993).
A. Bobák, M. Jaščur Phys. Stat. Sol. B **135**, K9 (1986).
T. Idogaki, N. Uryû Physica A **181**, 173 (1992).
J. Mielnicki, G. Wiatrowski, T. Balcerzak, J. Magn. Magn. Mater **71**, 186 (1988).
Ijanílio G. Araújo, J. Cabral Neto, J. Ricardo de Sousa Physica A **260**, 150 (1998).
J. Ricardo de Sousa, Douglas F. de Albuquerque Physica A **236**, 419 (1997).
J. Ricardo de Sousa, Physica A **256**, 383 (1998).
Y. Miyoshi, A. Tamaka, J.W. Tucker, T. Idogaki J. Magn. Magn. Mater. **205**, 110 (1999).
T. Idogaki, A. Tanaka, J.W. Tucker J. Magn. Magn. Mater. **177–181**, 773 (1998).
[^1]: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The gamma-ray burst (GRB) afterglows provide an unique opportunity to study the interstellar medium (ISM) of star-forming galaxies at high-redshift. The GRB-DLAs (damped Lyman-$\alpha$ absorbers) contain a large neutral hydrogen column density, N(H I), and are observed against the GRB afterglow. A large fraction of GRB-DLAs show presence of molecular hydrogen (H$_2$) which is an indicator of star-formation. Hence it is important to study those GRB-DLAs which have H$_2$ lines to decipher and understand their physical conditions. The GRB-DLAs 121024A and 120815A, situated at redshift 2.30 and 2.36 respectively, are two such important H$_2$-bearing GRB-DLAs. Besides H$_2$, these two GRB-DLAs also show many metal lines. In this work we have carried out a detail numerical study on the H$_2$ lines, as well as on those metal lines, in GRB-DLAs 121024A and 120815A self-consistently. We use the spectral synthesis code CLOUDY for this study. This modeling helps us to determine the underlying physical conditions which give rise such lines and hence to understand these two GRB-DLAs in much more detail than any other previous investigation. We find that the hydrogen densities for these two H$_2$-bearing DLAs are $\geq$ 60 cm$^{-3}$. Moreover our study infers that the linear sizes are $\leq 17.7$ pc for these two GRB-DLAs, and the mean gas temperatures averaged over the cloud thickness, are $\leq$ 140 K. Overall, we find that these two H$_2$-bearing GRB-DLAs are denser, cooler and smaller compared to those without H$_2$.'
author:
- |
Gargi Shaw$^{1}$[^1], [G. J. Ferland$^{2}$]{}\
$^{1}$Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Tata Institute of fundamental research,\
Homi Bhabha Road, Navy Nagar, Colaba, Mumbai 4000005, India\
$^{2}$Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Kentucky,Lexington, KY 40506, USA\
date: 'Accepted ... . Received ; in original form '
title: 'Physical conditions in two high-redshift H$_2$-bearing GRB-DLAs, 120815A and 121024A.'
---
\[firstpage\]
galaxies: high-redshift, galaxies: ISM, ISM: molecules
Introduction
============
Molecular hydrogen (H$_2$) is the first neutral molecule to be formed in the universe, and it is the most abundant and the main constituent of molecular clouds where star formation takes place . Furthermore, H$_2$ controls most of the chemistry in ISM through its ionic or neutral form. In addition to these, level populations of H${_2}$ in various levels can be used as tracers for physical conditions. For example, in the well-shielded H$_2$ gas the lower rotational levels of the ground state of H$_2$ are mostly collisionally dominated, hence they are in LTE, and can be used to infer gas temperature [@1992Abgrall]. Whereas, the higher levels are generally populated by non-thermal processes and can be used to estimate ambient radiation field and the cosmic ray ionisation rate of hydrogen [@1997Tine]. As a result, H$_2$ spectra provide an excellent opportunity to probe star formation and chemical enrichment of galaxies ranging from local to high-redshift (z).
In Milky Way, a large neutral hydrogen column density N(H I) is in general associated with H$_2$ . If the physical conditions of high-z galaxies are similar to that of Milky Way, it is expected that large N(H I) regions at high-z galaxies are also associated with H$_2$. Therefore, chemical evolutions of these high-z galaxies can also be studied through systems with large N(H I). The damped Lyman-$\alpha$ systems (DLAs) are such systems with a large N(H I) [@2005Wolfe] and which are also the main reserviour of neutral gas at high-z.
DLAs can be probed using absorption spectroscopy against distant bright sources, such as quasi-stellar objects (QSOs) or gamma-ray bursts (GRBs). DLAs observed against the QSOs are called QSO-DLAs, whereas, DLAs detected against the GRB afterglow are called GRB-DLAs. The long GRBs, with a duration greater than two seconds, are believed to be originated from the core-collapsed supernova. Since massive stars are short lived and are located in star-forming regions of galaxies, it is apparent that GRBs are also associated with star-forming regions of a galaxy [@1993Woosley]. An excellent review of GRB-DLAs in the Swift era is provided by @2017Schady.
To date, many QSO-DLAs and GRB-DLAs have been observed by several groups etc. The GRB-DLAs are smaller in number than QSO-DLAs as GRBs are transitory in nature. However, the GRB-DLAs show larger N (H I) and higher metallicity than those of QSO-DLAs [@2007Prochaska]. Here, metallicity relative to solar is expressed as \[X/H\]=log\[N(X)/N(H)\]-log\[N(X)/N(H)\]$_{\odot}$ (with X= Zn, or Si, or S). It was also noticed by @2015Cucchiara that at high-z the average metallicity of QSO-DLAs decline at a faster rate than GRB-DLAs. In general, QSO-DLAs probe diffuse gas and hence they are not suitable to study star formation. On the contrary, since GRBs are located inside the galaxies, GRB-DLAs probe inner regions of galaxies [@2008Fynbo], and consequently, GRB-DLAs are much suitable for studying star-forming regions. However, recent studies of extremely saturated DLAs (ESDLA) indicate that ESDLAs and GRB-DLAs likely represent the same population of the galaxies, probed by small impact parameters, and hence can probe star-forming regions. Furthermore, recently, a huge data is also available on GRB-DLA host galaxies up to a very high redshift (z$\approx$ 6) .
Initially, @2007Tumlinson studied five GRB-DLAs but did not find H$_2$ in spite of large N(H I). They concluded that this lack of H$_2$ may be due to a combination of low metallicity and an FUV radiation field of 10-100 times the Galactic mean field. Later, @2009Ledoux observed seven z > 1.8 GRB afterglows with VLT/UVES but they also did not find H$_2$ in their sample. They explained the lack of detected H${_2}$ through the low metallicities, low depletion factors, and moderate particle densities of these systems. Though @2007Tumlinson and @2009Ledoux differed regarding the FUV radiation field, they both agreed on the low metallicity of these systems. @2009Ledoux estimated a particle density of 5-15 cm$^{-3}$, a linear cloud size of 520$^{+240}_{-190}$ pc, and the kinetic temperature >1000 K for these seven z > 1.8 GRB afterglows of their sample which did not show H$_2$. Later @2016Toy observed a sample of 45 GRB-DLAs in the redshift range of 2 to 6 and they found that DLA counterpart star formation rates (SFRs) are not correlated with either redshift or H I column density.
However, some other GRB-DLAs, which harbour H$_2$, were found, namely, GRB-DLA 80607, GRB-DLA 121024A, GRB-DLA 120815A and GRB-DLA 120327A at redshifts 3.03, 2.30, 2.36 and 2.8 . Recently @2019Bolmer have observed 22 GRB-DLAs with VLT/X-shooter for z > 2. In their sample, they found H$_2$ absorption lines in 6 out of these 22 GRB-DLAs, which also include GRB-DLA 121024A, GRB-DLA 120815A and GRB-DLA 120327A. They concluded that there is no lack of detected H${_2}$ for GRB-DLAs and the detection rate is much higher in GRB-DLAs than the QSO-DLAs. It has been noted that for GRB-DLAs with log N (H I) > 21.7, the detection of molecular hydrogen increases [@2019Bolmer]. The same increase in the detection rate at high HI is also seen in QSO-DLAs . Earlier, such conversion of HI to H$_2$ was analytically studied , and observationally constrained for both low and high redshifts . It is thus natural to ask whether the physical conditions of H$_2$-bearing DLAs are quite different than those without H$_2$, and if so, how to probe and then understand that. One of the plausible answers for detectable H$_2$ could be the presence of dust grains, higher metallicity, and higher density. Dust grains are very important as their surfaces act as a catalyst for efficient H$_2$ formation. As an example, it has been suggested by many observers that the H$_2$-bearing QSO-DLAs might have higher density and higher dust content compared to the non H$_2$-bearing QSO-DLAs.
A detail numerical spectroscopic modeling of GRB-DLAs considering all the possible microphysics of H$_{2}$ is thus quite crucial to determine the underlying physical conditions which give rise such lines, and hence to understand these systems which harbour H$_{2}$. Previously, @2008Whalen had carried out a numerical simulation to understand the absence of H$_2$ in GRB-DLAs. However, so far, no one has performed any detail microscopic modelling of such systems which harbour H$_2$. Previously, we successfully carried out several detail modelings of QSO-DLAs [@Srianand2005a; @Srianand2005b; @2016Shaw; @2018Rawlins] with detected H$_2$ lines. Following that in this work, we employ the spectral synthesis code CLOUDY [@Ferland2017] for a microscopic detail modelling with an aim to understand the physical conditions of H$_2$-bearing GRB-DLAs.
Our calculation incorporates detail microphysics both at atomic and molecular levels including collisional physics and line shape theory. In this work we choose following two systems: GRB-DLAs 121024A and 120815A, and study them self-consistently. We select these two GRB-DLAs as they have higher molecular fraction with log(f)$\approx$ $-1.14 \pm$ 0.15 and $-1.4$, respectively, and so will serve our purpose best to distinguish H$_2$-bearing from non-H$_2$-bearing GRB-DLAs. In addition to H$_{2}$, these two DLAs show numerous metal lines together with the rest frame UV absorption lines of H$_2$. Along with H$_2$ lines, above mentioned extra lines are also modeled self-consistently in our calculation.
This article is organized as below: in section 2 we give details of our calculation using CLOUDY. Detail of microphysics incorporated in our calculation is also provided. In section 3 we present the findings from this study, first providing results for GRB-DLA 120815A and then for GRB-DLA 121024A. Summary and conclusions are presented in section 4.
Calculations
============
CLOUDY is a self-consistent stationary micro-physics code based on $\textit {ab initio}$ calculation of thermal, ionisation, and chemical balance of non-equilibrium gas and dust exposed to a source of radiation. It predicts column densities of various atomic and molecular species and resultant spectra covering the whole range of EM radiation and vice verse using a minimum number of input parameters. It has a state-of-the art detailed H$_2$ network [@2005Shaw] embedded which is very helpful for modelling environments with H$_2$. The H$_2$ network includes 301 rovibrational levels within the ground electronic state and also the rovibrational levels within the lowest six electronic excited states.
Here, we briefly discuss the main formation and destruction processes of H$_2$ that are implemented inside CLOUDY and affect the H$_2$ level populations. Since the formation process of H$_2$ is exothermic and the resulting energy for such process is close to its dissociation energy, H$_2$ formation does not simply take place in gas phase by interaction of two H atoms. It requires a mechanism to take away some of the formation energy to form a stable H$_2$ molecule. In a dusty environment, dust plays the role to share that formation energy. As a result, H$_2$ is mainly formed on dust grain surfaces where dusts can act as a catalyst and take away some of the formation energy. In a dust-free environment, H$_2$ can still form through an exchange reaction of H with H${^-}$ [@1991Launay] and H${_2}{^+}$ [@2002Kristic] but the reaction rates are smaller. The main destruction and excitation mechanism for H$_2$ is the photoexcitation. In this process, H$_2$ absorbs Lyman and Werner band photons and gets excited to higher electronic levels. Of these excited populations, 10-15% comes down to the continuum of ground electronic state and get dissociated. The rest populates higher vibrational levels of the ground electronic state [@1992Abgrall]. Besides this, the formation process is exothermic, hence the dust grains also play a crucial role in the distribution of level population of newly formed H$_2$ on dust grain surfaces . Note that deep into the cloud, excitation by secondary electrons produced by cosmic ray is also an important H$_2$ level excitation mechanism [@1997Tine]. All these above mentioned processes are incorporated inside CLOUDY and details are given in @2005Shaw and @2012Gay. It is well known that depending on the nuclear spin orientations, H$_2$ can be in one of the two quantum states, namely, ortho or para. In an ortho state, the nuclear spins are aligned parallel, whereas in a para state, they are anti-parallel. Note that radiative transitions are not possible between ortho and para states of the ground electronic level and only reactive collisions with H$^{0}$, H$^{+}$, and H$^{+3}$ [@1994Sun; @1990Gerlich; @1991Bourlot] are capable to make transitions between these quantum states. In our H$_2$ network, CLOUDY includes both reactive and non-reactive collisions. For details, see [@2005Shaw].
Modelling {#Modelling}
---------
For all the models that we incorporated in this work, we assume a plane-parallel constant pressure gas exposed to radiation. We vary a few free parameters, as will be discussed below, to match the predicted column densities with the observed column densities of various atoms, ions and state specific H$_2$. The chosen radiation field has three components: a meta-galactic radiation at appropriate redshift [@2012Haardt], a synchrotron radiation (power-law continuum) arising from GRB afterglow and a blackbody radiation from $\textit {in situ}$ star formation. Our GRB-DLA models are similar to our previous QSO-DLA models except that here we have an additional synchrotron radiation arising from GRB afterglows. While the gas is exposed to UV radiation from everywhere it is exposed to GRB afterglow only from one side.
In the current CLOUDY set up, it is not possible to consider both two-sided and one-sided radiation fields simultaneously in a same model. Hence we consider following two cases separately: Case 1, where we assume that the gas cloud is irradiated from both sides; and Case 2: where we assume that the gas cloud is irradiated from one side. We present our results for both the cases. The models presented here show that this does not effect the conclusions. However, it need to be noted that the geometry of the cloud is unknown and might be unknowable. The time history of the cloud is not known and we are also using a stationary code. These can also affect the results.
Input parameters {#Input parameters}
----------------
In this work, we use the dimensionless ratio of hydrogen-ionising photon $Q(H)$ (s$^{-1}$) to total-hydrogen densities $n(H)$ (cm$^{-3}$) in order to quantify the radiation field, and denote it by ionisation parameter, $\chi$, as, $$\chi = \frac{Q(H)} {4\pi {r_0}^2 c\, n(H)} .$$ Here $r_0$ and $c$ are the separation (cm) between the center of the source of ionizing radiation and the illuminated face of the cloud, and the speed of light, respectively.
We consider both graphite and silicate grains in the calculations with MRN [@1977Mathis] size distribution over ten size bins in the range 0.005 to 0.25 micron (ISM grains). For MRN grains, the grain size distribution varies as $a^{-3.5}$, where $a$ is the radius of the grain. Beside that, dusts provide heating through photoelectric heating, as well as it shields interior regions of molecular cloud from far-ultraviolet (FUV) radiation. The detail grain physics included in CLOUDY was described in @2004vanhoof. It has been observed that dust is correlated with metallicity, and in general, metallicity is anti-correlated with redshift. It is believed that Fe is strongly depleted on dust grains whereas Zn is not depleted. Hence, one can estimate the metallicity and dust-to-gas ratio with the help of Zn/H and Fe/Zn ratios [@Prochaska2002]. In our models, both metallicity and dust-to-gas ratio are derived using column densities of Zn, Fe and equation no. 1 from @Prochaska2002.
As mentioned earlier, cosmic ray affects the level populations of H$_2$ via secondary electrons which are produced by cosmic ray ionisation [@1997Tine]. However, the cosmic ray ionisation rate is not the same along all line-of-sights . Since not much is known on the cosmic ray ionisation rate at high-redshift, we consider this rate as a free parameter in our models.
We also treat the total hydrogen density, which includes all forms of hydrogen bearing chemical species, as a free parameter in our models. To be noted that CLOUDY requires at least one suitable stopping criterion for each model and it will stop calculations at some depth of the cloud depending on the stopping criterion. These stopping criteria vary depending on particular observed quantities that one match with. For all our case 2 models, we consider the observed total H$_2$ column densities as the stopping criterion, i.e., CLOUDY will continue its calculation till a depth of the cloud where the predicted total H$_2$ column density matches well with the corresponding observed value. Whereas, for case 1, we stop the model at a depth in the cloud where the total H$_2$ column density equals half of the observed H$_2$ column density. Finally we multiply our predictions by 2 to mimic the situation where the cloud is irradiated from both sides.
A built-in optimization program, based on phymir algorithm [@vanhoof1997], which calculates a non-standard goodness-of-fit estimator $\chi^2$ and minimises it by varying input parameters, is employed to identify the best model. Sometimes, to reach to the final model of a calculation, a few parameters are fine tuned so that the observed data can be matched maximally. This optimisation program is user friendly and has been utilised extensively in many previous works .
In this work, using various parameters as discussed above, our main focus is to model the observed state-specific H$_2$ column densities self-consistently together with other observed column densities of ionic, atomic and molecular species to understand the underlying physical conditions which play pivotal roles to generate them. Below we discuss our findings.
Results
=======
In this section, results and main findings are elaborated. First GRB-DLA 120815A is discussed in detail, followed by GRB-DLA 121024A.
GRB-DLA 120815A {#subsec:GRB-DLA 120815AA}
---------------
For the GRB-DLA 120815A, H$_2$ lines were first detected at z = 2.36 by @2013Kruhler. They observed the line-of-sight using X-shooter at VLT. H$_2$ absorption lines were observed in the rest frame Lyman and Werner bands (11.2–13.6 eV) which have been shifted to optical band due to redshift and hence could be easily observed by X-shooter which is an optical telescope. They reported H$_2$ column densities for the first four rotational levels of ground state. The neutral carbon and H$_2$ gets photo-dissociated by photons of the same energies, and hence the neutral carbon generally co-exists with H$_2$ . As expected, the neutral carbon was also observed in this GRB-DLA. Beside H$_2$, they also detected various metal lines, such as Zn, S, Si, Mn, Fe, Ni in their first ionisation states. The observed metallicity ($[$Zn/H$]$) and dust depletion ($[$Zn/Fe$]$) were found to be $-1.15 \pm 0.15$ and $1.01 \pm 0.10$, respectively. Using these the dust-to-gas ratio is calculated to be $\approx$ 0.06 of the local ISM value, and is used in our models. They also found the broadening parameter of the H$_2$ lines to be $8.7 \pm 0.6$ km s$^{-1}$. In our model, we fix the microturbulence/broadening parameter to the observed value 8 km s$^{-1}$.
As mentioned previously, in our model we consider that radiation consists of a meta-galactic background at z=2.36, a blackbody radiation from an $\textit in situ$ star formation and a power law continuum due to afterglow. @2013Kruhler found a power law slope of $-0.78$ as the best-fit value. Furthermore, recently, @2018Li have published a large catalogue of multi-wavelength GRB afterglows with spectral indices of 70 GRBs, and they have mentioned -0.78$\pm$0.01 as the spectral index for GRBs 120815A. Based on these facts, we choose $-0.8$ as the spectral index for GRB. As an example, in Fig.\[fig:fig\_conti\] we plot all the components of the SED for GRB-DLA 120815A (case 1). The corresponding UV field is equivalent to 7 Habing. Case 2 also has the similar features with corresponding UV field 6.6 habing.
![The SED of the individual components of incident radiation field for GRB-DLA 120815A. The dash-dotted (black) and medium-dashed (red) lines represent CMB and Haardt-Madau metagalactic radiation field at z=2.36, respectively. The long-dashed (blue) line represents extinguished (no H-ionising radiation) stellar radiation generated using black body radiation at 10$^{5}$ K. The solid black line represents the powerlaw continuum from the GRB. The powerlaw continuum behaves as $\nu$$^{5/2}$ at lower energy to account for self-absorbed synchroton [@1979Rybicki], $\nu$$^{-2}$ at higher energies and -0.8 between 10 micron and 50 KeV.[]{data-label="fig:fig_conti"}](fig_conti.PDF)
In Table \[tab:table 1\] we list the model parameters corresponding to our best model and the second and third columns represent Case 1 and Case 2, respectively. In case 1, our model predicts a hydrogen density of 440 cm$^{-3}$. Whereas, for case 2 the predicted hydrogen density is lower, 230 cm$^{-3}$. For other elements, whose lines were observed, we vary their abundances in our model to match their observed values while keeping the abundances of other elements at 0.07 of the ISM value. Final values of metal abundances of Zn, S, Si, Fe, Ni, Cr and Mn, that we obtain from our best fit model, match well with the observed data (within the observed error bars) by @2013Kruhler. In addition to these, we also predict the abundances of C, O, N and Mg. @2013Kruhler have measured the A$_v$ = 0.15 $\pm$ 0.02 along this sight line. However, we predict A$_v$ = 0.32 and 0.31 for case 1 and case 2, respectively. These are higher than the observed value. We also find that the cosmic ray ionisation rate of hydrogen along this line-of-sight is approximately 2 $\times$ 10$^{-16}$ s$^{-1}$, similar to the average galactic value reported by @2007Indriolo. In Table \[tab:table 2\] we compare the observed data and our model predicted column densities in two different columns. To be noted that in addition to the observed species, observable amount of OH and OH$^+$ with column density > 10$^{13}$ cm$^{-2}$ are also predicted by our models. One can see that our model predicts the rotationally resolved H$_2$ column densities within the observed range, except for rotation level $\textit J$ = 2.
-------------------------------------------------- ------------- -------------
Physical parameters best values best values
Case 1 Case 2
Power law: log($\chi$) -4.2 -4.0
Black body: Temperature (log K), log($\chi$) 5.0, -1.8 5.3, -2.6
Density n(H) ($cm^{-3}$) 440 230
Cosmic ray ionisation rate (10$^{-16}$ s$^{-1}$) 1.9 1.9
$[$Fe/H$]$ -2.24 -2.27
$[$Mg/H$]$ -1.93 -1.89
$[$C/H$]$ -2.39 -2.39
$[$Zn/H$]$ -1.28 -1.27
$[$Ni/H$]$ -2.17 -2.19
$[$Mn/H$]$ -2.27 -2.27
$[$Cr/H$]$ -2.07 -2.04
$[$S/H$]$ -1.48 -1.20
$[$N/H$]$ -1.18 -1.18
$[$O/H$]$ -1.33 -1.33
-------------------------------------------------- ------------- -------------
: Physical parameters for GRB-DLA 120815A using CLOUDY.[]{data-label="tab:table 1"}
-------------- ---------------------- ------------- -------------
Species observed predicted predicted
(cm$^{-2}$) (cm$^{-2}$) (cm$^{-2}$)
Case 1 Case 2
H I $21.95\pm 0.10$ 22.10 22.08
H$_2$ $20.54\pm 0.13$ 20.54 20.54
Mg I $13.54\pm 0.05 $ 13.48 13.49
Ni II $14.19 \pm 0.05$ 14.17 14.17
Zn II $13.47 \pm 0.06 $ 13.44 13.44
C I $13.41 \pm 0.11 $ 13.41 13.43
Fe II $15.29 \pm 0.05$ 15.34 15.26
Mn II $13.26 \pm 0.05 $ 13.22 13.16
Cr II $13.75 \pm 0.06 $ 13.73 13.74
S II $\le 16.22\pm 0.25$ 15.90 16.17
Si II $\ge 16.34\pm 0.16 $ 16.00 15.85
CO < 15.0 11.60 11.50
OH – 13.85 13.85
OH$^+$ – 13.16 13.36
HCl – 12.67 12.46
H$_2$O – 12.54 12.42
H$_2$O$^+$ – 12.41 12.46
H$_3$$^+$ – 12.42 12.51
H$_2$(0) 19.84 $\pm$ 0.33 20.02 19.98
H$_2$(1) 20.43 $\pm$ 0.12 20.37 20.38
H$_2$(2) 16.76 $\pm$ 0.50 18.89 19.01
H$_2$(3) $\le$ 19.01 17.91 17.99
H$_2$(total) 20.54 $\pm$ 0.13 20.54 20.54
-------------- ---------------------- ------------- -------------
: Comparison of observed and predicted column densities (in log scale) for GRB-DLA 120815A using CLOUDY.[]{data-label="tab:table 2"}
Different parameters affect the predicted column densities to different amounts. To see the variation in predicted column densities due to change in parameters, we vary the important parameters by 0.3 dex around their values used in the best model (Case 1). In Table 3 we present this change in predicted column densities (in dex). We would like to emphasis here that the stopping criterion, i,e., total H$_{2}$ column density, remains the same for each set of parameters. Our calculation shows that among all parameters the effect of dust grains is the maximum. Similar trend is observed for case 2.
------------ -------------- --------------- ---------------------
Species $\Delta$n(H) $\Delta$grain $\Delta$log($\chi$)
power law
0.3 dex 0.3 dex -0.3 dex
H I 0.02 -0.-30 -0.20
Mg I -0.01 -0.35 0.04
Ni II -0.07 -0.38 -0.22
Zn II 0.01 -0.28 -0.20
C I -0.02 -0.32 -0.04
Fe II 0.01 -0.28 -0.22
Mn II 0 -0.27 -0.22
Cr II 0.01 -0.28 -0.21
S II 0.02 -0.28 -0.22
CO 0.10 0.21 0.27
OH 0.08 0.22 0.05
OH$^+$ 0.01 -0.10 0.25
HCl 0.03 -0.06 0.03
H$_2$O 0.14 0.39 0.21
H$_2$O$^+$ 0.85 0.14 -0.13
H$_3$$^+$ 0 0.18 0
H$_2$(0) -0.03 -0.05 0.07
H$_2$(1) 0 0.01 -0.03
H$_2$(2) 0.10 0.16 -0.20
H$_2$(3) 0.24 0.13 -0.31
------------ -------------- --------------- ---------------------
: Variation in column densities of GRB-DLA 120815A (in dex) for variation of different input parameters (Case 1).[]{data-label="tab: table 3"}
As we know that numerical models can be utilized to predict various physical conditions across the cloud which are not possible by todays’ observations. In our model we also calculate the abundances of H$^0$/H$_{total}$, H$^+$/H$_{total}$, 2H$_2$/H$_{total}$ and the variation of gas temperature across the cloud, Figs. \[fig:fig\_ad1\] and \[fig:fig\_as1\] show those for Case 1 and case 2, respectively. Fig.1 shows half of the cloud, and the other half is its reflection. Our best models predict the size of the GRB-DLA 120815A to be 9.8 and 17.7 parsec for case 1 and case 2, respectively. Interestingly, this linear size is much smaller than that reported by [@2009Ledoux] for GRB-LAs with no H$_2$. The gas temperature is one of the important physical conditions for any astrophysical environment. It is well known that in the warm phase of the ISM, T$>$1000 K and n$<$10 cm$^{-3}$. Whereas, in the dense cold phase T$\sim$100K and n$>$100 cm$^{-3}$. For Case 1, the predicted gas temperature remains almost constant near 120 K. On the contrary, for case 2 the gas temperature ranges from 157 K to 129 K with an average of 142 K over the linear extension of the cloud. In a collisionally dominated environment, $\textit J$ = 1 and 0 levels of H$_2$ are generally thermalised and can be used to determine the surrounding gas temperature. This excitation temperature, T$_{10}$, is calculated using the following equation, $$T_{10} = -170.5 \left[ln \frac{N(J = 1)} {9N(J = 0)}\right]^{-1} K.$$ Here ${N(J = 1)}$ and ${N(J = 0)}$ are column densities in the $\textit J$ = 1 and 0 levels of H$_2$, respectively, separated by the energy gap equivalent to 170.5 K. For this source, the observed T$_{10}$ ranges from 90 to 480 K, matching with our prediction of the average temperature mentioned earlier. Both the temperatures are cooler than the GRB-DLAs without H$_2$. This suggests that the H$_2$-bearing GRB-DLAs trace the cold neutral phase of the ISM. It is to be noted that, the kinetic temperature is directly measured for H$_2$-bearing DLAs. Whereas, it is not well constrained for non-H$_2$-bearing DLAs. Though, so far, there is no observational data on 21 cm absorption for this source, we calculate the excitation temperate of the hyperfine levels involved in 21cm transition ($T_{21cm})$ using, $$T_{21cm} = -0.068 \left[ln \frac{N_2} {3N_1}\right]^{-1} K.$$ Here, N$_2$ and N$_1$ are column densities of the hyperfine levels $^{1}S_{1/2}$ and $^{0}S_{1/2}$ , respectively, separated by the energy gap equivalent to 0.068 K. Previously @2017Shaw described all the possible excitation and de-excitation processes of the hyperfine levels related to 21 cm transition, as incorporated by CLOUDY. It includes collisional excitations and de-excitations by H$^0$, e$^{-}$ and H$^{+}$, together with the non-thermal radiative processes including direct pumping by the 21 cm radio continuum, pumping by the continuum near Ly$\alpha$, and by the Ly$\alpha$ line itself. Here we find $T_{21cm}$ to be 508 K and 1006 K for case 1 and case 2, respectively. This is higher than the kinetic temperature. Similar trend had also been observed for the QSO-DLA at redshift 1.78 along Q1333+ .
In our models the gas temperature is determined by heating and cooling balance where various processes contribute to the total heating and cooling. We find that the grain photoelectric heating is the dominant heating processes for this source. In the grain photoelectric heating, a dust grain absorbs a FUV photon and emits energetic electrons which heats up its surrounding region by collisions. We find that the grain photoelectric heating diminishes deep inside the cloud as FUV decreases inside the cloud. On the other hand, fractional heating by cosmic ray ionisation increases as one moves inside the cloud. The dominant coolants are found to be O I and C II lines.
![Temperature and H$^0$/H$_{total}$, H$^+$/H$_{total}$, 2H$_2$/H$_{total}$ are plotted as a function of distance into GRB-DLA 120815A (Case 1). The temperature axis is shown in the right. This plot shows half of the cloud. The other half is just the reflection of this portion.[]{data-label="fig:fig_ad1"}](fig_ad1.PDF)
We would like to emphasis here that for both cases we find the GRB-DLA 120815A is denser, smaller, and cooler than that reported by @2009Ledoux for GRB-DLAs with no H$_{2}$. Next we discuss GRB-DLA 121024A.
![Temperature and H$^0$/H$_{total}$, H$^+$/H$_{total}$, 2H$_2$/H$_{total}$ are plotted as a function of distance into GRB-DLA 120815A (Case 2). The temperature axis is shown in the right.[]{data-label="fig:fig_as1"}](fig_as1.PDF)
GRB-DLA 121024A {#subsec:GRB-DLA 121024A}
---------------
In this section, we present our findings for another H$_2$-bearing GRB-DLA: GRB-DLA 121024A. The first trigger of GRB-DLA 121024A was reported in 2012. Later, @2015Friis observed numerous absorption and emission lines spanned over five components. However, H$_2$ was detected in only three out of five components (c+d+e) in rest frame Lyman and Werner band. They derived H$_2$ in its lowest four rotational states of the ground vibrational level ($\textit J$ = 0, 1, 2, 3). However, CO (< 14.4) was not detected even though H$_2$ was detected. In addition to these, many metal lines of the metals Fe, Ni, Cr, Mn, Ca, Zn were present in their first ionised state. The reported metallicity (\[Zn/H\]) and dust depletion (\[Zn/Fe\]) are observed to be $-0.6 \pm 0.2$ and $0.85 \pm 0.04$, respectively. Using these the dust-to-gas ratio is calculated to be $\approx$ 0.2 of the local ISM value.
Though the component wise column densities were reported for metal lines, the component wise H$_2$ and H I column densities were not provided. Hence, we add up the three H$_2$ -bearing components and consider them as a single component, and try to decipher the physical conditions of this stratified component. They have mentioned that the total H I column density for this stratified component is 10$^{21.6}$ cm$^{-2}$. In this calculation we use the metalicity and dust-to-gas ratio to the observed value. @2015Friis used -0.9$\pm$0.02 as the spectral index for the GRB afterglow. In addition to this, @2018Li also observed -0.86$\pm$0.01 as the spectral index for GRB 121024A. Keeping the observed value in mind, we fix the slope for the power law continuum to -0.9. Similar to our study of previous DLA, here also in our calculations we consider Case 1 and 2. The individual components of the SED have similar features as shown in Fig. \[fig:fig\_conti\]. The equivalent UV fields are 15 and 28 Habing for cases 1 and 2, respectively. Below we presents our results for these two cases.
We list our best model parameters for these cases in the second and third columns of Table \[tab:table 4\]. The abundances of the elements, whose lines have been observed, are varied to match their observed values. The predicted hydrogen density is 100 cm$^{-3}$ and 60 cm$^{-3}$ for case 1 and case 2, respectively. Beside hydrogen density, the ionisation parameter for the powerlaw continuum also differs for these two cases. Our best model for case 1 and case 2 predicts value of A$_v$ $\approx$ 0.65 and 0.54, respectively. This value is consistent with A$_v$ = 0.9$\pm$0.3 as measured by @2015Friis. Our best models predict the cosmic ray ionisation rate for hydrogen 0.36 $\times$ 10$^{-16}$ s$^{-1}$, same for both the cases.
In the fourth and fifth columns of Table \[tab:table 5\] we compare our predicted column densities with the observed data for case 1 and case 2, respectively. As can be seen that our predicted column densities match very well with the observed values within the observed error bars. Previously @2015Friis reported column densities for two different $b$ parameters, 1 and 10 km s$^{-1}$. Their $\textit J$ =2, 3 column densities differ by more than a dex for $b = 1$ and 10 km s$^{-1}$. Our best models uses micro-turbulence $b = 1$ km s$^{-1}$ and the predicted $\textit J =2, 3$ column densities lie between their values. We check a model with $b$ = 10 km s$^{-1}$, but the results for $\textit J =2, 3$ column densities do not differ much. Keeping in mind, the uncertainty of dust grain sizes at high-redshift, two additional models are also considered with half and double the size of ISM grains. However, none of those give the desired effect of reproducing the observed $\textit J =2, 3$ column densities. In Table 6 we present the change in predicted column densities (in dex) by varying important parameters by 0.3 dex around the value used in the best model. Since the result is similar for both the cases, we show results for Case 1 only. It is to be noted that like the previous GRB-DLA, among all the parameters, the effect of dust grains is the maximum. Temperature (solid grey), and abundances of H$^0$/H$_{total}$ (solid-black) , H$^+$/H$_{total}$ (black-dotted) , 2H$_2$/H$_{total}$ (black-dashed) are plotted in Figs. \[fig:fig\_ad2\] and \[fig:fig\_as2\] as a function of distance into the cloud for case 1 and case 2, respectively. It can be seen that the H$_2$ fraction starts to increase beyond 10$^{19}$ cm from the illuminated face of the cloud. For our best model of case 1, temperature varies between 73 K to 57 K with a mean of 65 K averaged over the linear thickness of the cloud, which matches well with the observed excitation temperature T$_{10}$ at 60K. We also calculate the excitation temperature of the hyperfine levels involved in 21 cm transition and found it to be $T_{21cm} = 1370$ K, which is much higher than the kinetic temperature. Furthermore, our best model predicts the linear size of the GRB-DLA 121024A to be nearly 16 parsec for case 1.
-------------------------------------------------- ------------- -------------
Physical parameters best values best values
Case 1 Case 2
Power law: log($\chi$) -3.3 -2.8
Black body: Temp (log K), log($\chi$) 4.9, -2.5 4.9, -2.5
Density n(H) ($cm^{-3}$) 100 60
Cosmic ray ionisation rate (10$^{-16}$ s$^{-1}$) 0.4 0.4
$[$Fe/H$]$ -1.6 -1.6
$[$Mg/H$]$ -1.0 -1.0
$[$Ca/H$]$ -2.6 -2.6
$[$Zn/H$]$ -0.9 -0.9
$[$Ni/H$]$ -1.5 -1.5
$[$Mn/H$]$ -1.8 -1.8
$[$Cr/H$]$ -1.4 -1.4
-------------------------------------------------- ------------- -------------
: Physical parameters of GRB-DLA 121024A using CLOUDY.[]{data-label="tab:table 4"}
-------------- ------------- ------------------ ------------- -------------
Species observed observed predicted predicted
b=10 b=1 b=1 b=1
(cm$^{-2}$) (cm$^{-2}$) (cm$^{-2}$) (cm$^{-2}$)
Case1 Case2
H I – 21.6 21.77 21.69
H$_2$ – 19.90 19.90 19.90
Mg I – <13.86 13.56 13.44
Ni II – 14.47 $\pm$ 0.06 14.54 14.45
Zn II – 13.47 $\pm$ 0.04 13.52 13.43
Ca II – 12.40 $\pm$ 0.12 12.40 12.37
Fe II – 15.58 $\pm$ 0.03 15.63 15.55
Mn II – 13.47 $\pm$ 0.03 13.51 13.43
Cr II – 13.97 $\pm$ 0.03 14.03 13.94
CO – – 10.93 11.26
HCl – – 12.28 12.18
H$_2$(0) 19.7 19.7 19.69 19.63
H$_2$(1) 19.2 19.3 19.47 19.55
H$_2$(2) 16.1 18.3 17.72 17.83
H$_2$(3) 16.0 18.2 17.21 17.83
H$_2$(total) 19.8 19.9 19.90 19.90
-------------- ------------- ------------------ ------------- -------------
: Comparison of observed and predicted column densities GRB-DLA 121024A (in log scale) using CLOUDY.[]{data-label="tab:table 5"}
---------- -------------- --------------- ---------------------
Species $\Delta$n(H) $\Delta$grain $\Delta$log($\chi$)
power law
0.3 dex 0.3 dex 0.3 dex $-$0.3 dex
H I 0.02 $-$0.31 $-$0.15
Mg I 0.02 $-$0.37 $-$0.06
Ni II 0 .01 $-$0.31 $-$0.15
Zn II 0.02 $-$0.30 $-$0.15
Ca II 0.04 $-$0.35 $-$0.01
Fe II 0.02 $-$0.33 $-$0.15
Mn II 0.03 $-$0.29 $-$0.15
Cr II 0.02 $-$0.30 $-$0.15
CO 0.16 0.71 0
HCl 0.01 0.08 0.15
H$_2$(0) -0.03 $-$0.16 0.02
H$_2$(1) 0.04 0.18 $-$0.10
H$_2$(2) 0.06 0.17 $-$0.15
H$_2$(3) 0.26 0.03 $-$0.29
---------- -------------- --------------- ---------------------
: Variation in column density of GRB-DLA 121024A (in dex) for variation in different input parameters (Case 1).[]{data-label="tab:table 6"}
![Temperature and H$^0$/H$_{total}$, H$^+$/H$_{total}$, 2H$_2$/H$_{total}$ are plotted as a function of distance into GRB-DLA 121024A (case 1). The temperature axis is shown in the right. This plot shows half of the cloud. The other half is just the reflection of this portion.[]{data-label="fig:fig_ad2"}](fig_ad2.PDF)
For the one-sided radiation field model, the predicted size of the DLA is found to be nearly 13 parsec. Also we find the gas temperature is 111 K at illuminated face of the cloud and it decreases to 66 K at the shielded face of the cloud with an average of 86 K over the linear size of the cloud. Furthermore we find that like the previous source, here $T_{21cm}$ $\approx$ 1800 K, which is higher than the kinetic temperature. It is to be noted that here also both the gas temperature and the $T_{21cm}$ is higher for Case 2 than Case 1. For both the cases, the grain photoelectric heating is found to be the main source of heating, whereas the main sources of cooling points to C II line. Like the previous GRB-DLA, this GRB-DLA is also denser, smaller, and cooler than that reported by @2009Ledoux for GRB-DLAs with no H$_{2}$.
![Temperature and H$^0$/H$_{total}$, H$^+$/H$_{total}$, 2H$_2$/H$_{total}$ are plotted as a function of distance into GRB-DLA 121024A (Case 2). The temperature axis is shown in the right.[]{data-label="fig:fig_as2"}](fig_as2.PDF)
Summary and Conclusions
=======================
GRB afterglows provide an unique opportunity to study the interstellar medium of star-forming galaxies at high-redshift. Observationally many GRB-DLA show H$_2$, the main constituent of molecular clouds where star formation takes place. However, till date there is no detail study, incorporating quantum mechanical microphysics, on these systems to model H$_2$ lines. In this work for the first time we carry out such a study using spectral synthesis code CLOUDY, by modelling the observed column densities [@2015Friis] of GRB-DLA 121024A and GRB-DLA 120815 [@2013Kruhler]self-consistently. We select these two specific H$_2$-bearing GRB-DLAs, situated at redshifts 2.30 and 2.36 respectively, as they have substantially large H$_2$ molecular fraction. While the gas is exposed to UV radiation from everywhere it is exposed to GRB afterglow only from one side. Since the current CLOUDY set up does not allow to include both one-sided and two-sided radiation field simultaneously in a given model, we consider two cases separately. In Case 1, we assume that the gas cloud is irradiated from both sides, whereas in Case 2 we assume that the gas cloud is irradiated from one side. We present results for both the cases. The first number in the parenthesis represents Case 1 and the second number represent Case 2, respectively. We will follow this convention throughout.
- The total hydrogen density, consisting of ionised and atomic hydrogen together with all the hydrogen bearing molecules, are found to be (440, 230) and (100, 60) cm$^{-3}$ for GRB-DLAs 120815 and 121024A, respectively. Earlier, @2009Ledoux estimated a particle density of 5-15 cm$^{-3}$ for seven z > 1.8 GRB afterglows of their sample which did not show H$_2$. Hence, our findings strongly suggest that the total hydrogen densities of H$_2$-bearing GRB-DLAs are higher than that of without H$_2$ GRB-DLAs. This finding is also very much consistent with the recent observation of @2019Bolmer who indicated that the GRB-DLA’s gas pressure is higher and conversion of H I to H$_2$ occurs there.
- Earlier, @2009Ledoux estimated a linear cloud size of 520$^{+240}_{-190}$ pc for GRB-DLAs lacking H$_{2}$. Here we find that linear sizes of H$_2$-bearing GRB-DLAs, 120815A and 121024A, are (9.8, 17.7) and (16, 13) pc, respectively. Taking together this also suggests that the linear sizes of H$_2$-bearing GRB-DLAs are smaller than that without H$_2$ GRB-DLAs. @2018Noterdaeme had also concluded that H$_{2}$-bearing QSO-DLAs have small physical extent.
- @2009Ledoux estimated that the kinetic temperatures of the metal-poor H$_2$ lacking GRB-DLAs are more than 1000 K. Our results suggest that the gas temperatures of H$_2$-bearing GRB-DLAs are lower than that of GRB-DLAs without H$_2$.
- The higher density, lower temperature and smaller physical extension as mentioned above suggests that the H$_2$-bearing GRB-DLAs trace the cold neutral phase of the ISM.
- Most of the heating to the environment of these systems is contributed by photoelectric heating.
- Most of the cooling of these systems is contributed by O I and C II lines.
- We find A$_v$ values (0.32, 0.31) and (0.65, 0.54) for GRB-DLAs 120815 and 121024A, respectively. A$_v$ > 0.1 for both the sight lines are consistent with the measurement of @2019Bolmer.
- The cosmic ray ionization rate for hydrogen along the lines of sight for GRB-DLAs 120815 and 121024A are (1.9$\times 10^{-16}$, 1.9$\times 10^{-16}$) s$^{-1}$ and (0.4$\times 10^{-16}$, 0.4$\times 10^{-16}$) s$^{-1}$, respectively.
- The predicted column densities match very well with observed data except for the H$_2$ ($\textit J$ ) = 2 level for GRB-DLA 120815A. In case of GRB-DLAs 121024A, Case 1 predicts H$_2$ ($\textit J$ ) = 0, 1 levels better whereas Case 2 predicts H$_2$ ($\textit J$ ) = 2, 3 levels better. Hence, only the temperature of these sources are constrained by the H$_2$ ($\textit J$ ) = 0, 1 levels.
- Besides the observed species, the best model for GRB-DLA 120815A predicts OH and OH$^+$ column densities to be more than 10$^{13}$ cm$^{-3}$. It will be interesting if this prediction gets verified by future observations.
- We find that the 21 cm spin temperature is higher than the gas kinetic temperature for both these sources, though observationally the 21 cm absorption line has not been found yet for none of them. It is to be noted that similar trend had also been observed for the QSO-DLA at redshift 1.78 along Q1333+ . In future, 21 cm absorption can be observed for GRB-DLAs using LOFAR or SKA.
In future, following this study, we will investigate more such H$_2$-bearing DLAs, some of which have recently been observed [@2019Bolmer]. It will be interesting to find whether our results also hold in general for all other H$_2$-bearing DLAs. That may help us to gain significant insights into the physical conditions of these important astrophysical systems and to understand why they possess molecular hydrogen, the main constituent of molecular clouds where star formation takes place. That will be an important contribution to the physics of star formation at high-red shift.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
Gargi Shaw acknowledges WOS-A grant (SR/WOS-A/PM-9/2017) from the Department of Science and Technology, India and also like to thank the Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, TIFR for its support. We would also like to thank the referee for his/her valuable comments and suggestions.
[99]{} Abgrall, H., Roueff, E., & Drira, I., 2000, A&AS, 141, 297 Abgrall, H., Le Bourlot, J., Pineau Des Forets, G., Roueff, E., Flower, D. R., & Heck, L., 1992, A&A, 253, 525 Balashev, S. A. et al., 2017, , 440, 225 Balashev, S. A., Noterdaeme, P., 2018, , 478, 7 Bigiel, F., Leroy, A., Walter, F. et al., 2008, AJ, 136, 2846 Bolmer, J., Ledoux, C., Wiseman, P., et al., 2019, A & A, 623, 43 Black, J. H., & van Dishoeck, E. F., 1987, , 322, 412 Burton, M. G. 1992,Australian Journal of Physics, 45, 463 Chengalur, J. N., & Kanekar, N., 2000, , 318, 303 Cucchiara, A. et al., 2015, , 804, 51 Cui, J., Bechtold, J., Ge, J., & Meyer, D. M., 2005, , 633, 649 Dabrowski, I., 1984, Canadian J. Phys., 62, 1639 Whalen, D., Prochaska, J. X., Heger, A. et al., 2008, , 682, 1114 D’Elia, V. et al., 2014, A & A, 564, 38 Deguchi, S., & Watson, W. D., 1985, , 290, 578 Draine, B. T., & Bertoldi, F., 1996, , 468, 269 Ferland, G. J., Porter, R. L., van Hoof, P. A. M., et al., 2013, RMxAA, 49, 137 Ferland, G. J., Chatzikos, M., Guzman, F., et al., 2017, RMxAA, Field, G. B., 1959, , 129, 536 Friis, M. et al., 2015, , 451, 157 Fynbo, J. P. U., Prochaska, J. X., Sommer-Larsen, J., Dessauges-Zavadsky, M., Møller, P., 2008, , 683, 321 Gay, C. D., et al., 2012, , 746, 68 Gerlich, D., 1990, J. Chem. Phys, 92, 2377 Hartoog, O. E., et al., 2015, A & A, 580, 139 Haardt F., Madau P., 2012, , 746, 125 Heintz, K. E., Ledoux, C., Fynbo, J. P. U., et al., 2019, A & A, 621, 20 Indriolo N., Geballe T. R., Oka T., McCall B. J., 2007, , 671, 1736 Krstic, P. S., 2002, Phys. Rev. A, 66, 042717 Krühler, T. et al., 2015, A & A, 581, 125 Krühler, T. et al., 2013, A & A, 557, 18 Komasa, J. et al., 2011, JCTC, 7(10), 3105 Launay, J. R., Le Dourneuf, M., & Zeippen, C. J., 1991, A & A, 252, 842 Li, L., Wang, Y., Wu, X., Huang, Y., Zhang, B., Ryde, F., Yu, H., 2018, , 234, 26 Le Bourlot, J., Pineau des Forets, G., Roueff, E., Dalgarno, A., & Gredel, R., 1995, , 449, 178 Le Bourlot, J. Z., 1991, A & A, 242, 235 Ledoux, C., Vreeswijk, P. M., Smette, A., Fox, A. J., Petitjean, P., Ellison, S. L., Fynbo, J., P. U., Savaglio, S. 2009, A & , 506, 661 Ledoux, C., Petitjean, P., & Srianand, R., 2003, , 346, 209 Mathis J. S., Rumpl W., Nordsieck K. H., 1977, , 217, 425 Marasco, A., Fraternali, F., van der Hulst, J. M., Oosterloo, T., 2017, A & A, 607, 106 Porter, R. L., Ferland, G. J., Storey, P. J., & Detisch, M. J., 2012, , 425, L28 Noterdaeme, P., et al., 2014, A & A, 566, 24 Noterdaeme, P., et al., 2015a, A & A, 577, 24 Noterdaeme, P., Petitjean, P.,Srianand, R., 2015b, A & A, 578, 5 Noterdaeme, P., Ledoux, C., Petitjean, P., Le Petit, F., Srianand, R., & Smette, A., 2007, A & A, 474, 393 Noterdaeme, P. et al., 2018, A & A, 612, 58 Prochaska, J, X., & Wolfe, G., 2002, ApJ, 566, 68 Prochaska, Jason, X. et al., 2001, ApJS, 137, 21 Prochaska, Jason X., Chen, Hsiao-Wen, Dessauges-Zavadsky, Miroslava, Bloom, Joshua S., 2007, , 666, 267 Ranjan, A., et al., 2018, A & A, 618, 184 Ranjan, A., et al., 2020, A & A, 633, 125 Rawlins K., Srianand R.,Shaw, G., 2018, , 481, 2083 G. B. Rybicki and A. P. Lightman, Radiative processes in astrophysics. New York, Wiley-Interscience, 1979, 393p Jorgenson, R. A., Wolfe, A. M., Prochaska, J, X., Carswell, R. F., 2009, , 704,1 Savage, B. D., Bohlin, R. C., Drake, J. F., & Budich, W., 1977, , 216, 291 Schady, P., 2017, RSOS, 470304S Shaw, G., Ferland, G. J., Srianand, R., et al., 2008a, , 675, 405 Shaw, G., Ferland, G. J., Abel, N. P., et al., 2005, , 624, 794 Shaw, G., Ferland, G. J., Srianand, R., Abel, N. P., 2006, , 639, 941 Shaw G., Rawlins K., Srianand R., 2016, , 459, 3234 Shaw, G., Ferland, G. J., Abel, N. P., et al., 2008b, , 624, 794 Shaw, G., Ferland, G. J., Hubeny, I., 2017, , 843, 149 Shaw, G., Bhattacharyya, S., 2019, , 486, 195 R. Srianand & P. Petitjean., 2000, A&A, 357, 414 Sheffer, Y., Prochaska, J, X., Draine, B. T., et al., 2009, , 701, 63 Srianand R., Shaw G., Ferland G., Petitjean P., Ledoux C., 2005a, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, Srianand R., Petitjean P., Ledoux C., Ferland G., Shaw G., 2005b,, 362, 549 Sternberg, A. 1988, ApJ, 332, 400 Sternberg, Amiel; Le Petit, Franck; Roueff, Evelyne; Le Bourlot, Jacques, 2014, ApJ, 790, 10 Sun, Y., & Dalgarno, A., 1994, , 427, 1053 Takahashi, J., & Uehara, H., 2001, , 561, 843 Tielens, A.G.G.M. 2005, The physics and Chemistry of interstellar medium, Cambridge university press,UK Tineé, S., Lepp, S., Gredel, R., Dalgarno, A., 1997, , 481, 282 Tumlinson, J., et al., 2007, , 668, 673 Toy, Vicki L., Cucchiara, Antonino., Veilleux, Sylvain., et al., 2016, , 832, 175 Urbaniak, J.J., & Wolfe, A. M., 1981, , 244, 406 Ubachs, W., et al., 2019, A & A, 622, 127 van Hoof, P. A. M. 1997, PhD thesis, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen 905 van Hoof, P. A. M., Weingartner, J. C., Martin, P. G., Volk, K., Ferland, G. J., 2004, , 350, 1330 Verela et al., 2016, a&a, 589, 37 Welty, Daniel E.; Lauroesch, James T.; Wong, Tony; York, Donald G., 2016, ApJ, 821, 118 Whalen, D.; Prochaska, Jason X.,Heger, A. & Tamlinson, J., 2008, , 682, 1114 Wolfe A. M., G,wiser E., Prochaska J. X., 2005, ARAA, 43, 861 Winkel, B., et al., 2017, A & A, 600, 2 Woosley, S. E., 1993, , 405, 273 Zafar, T., et al., 2018, , 480, 108
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
‘=11 @ =msym10 scaled1 =msym7 scaled1 =msym5 scaled1 ====eufm10 scaled1 =eufm7 scaled1 =eufm5 scaled1 === @\#1[[@@[\#1]{}]{}]{} @@\#1[@\#1]{} @\#1[[@@[\#1]{}]{}]{} @@\#1[@\#1]{} @[7]{} @[@[0]{}]{} ‘=
addtoreset[equation]{}[section]{}
\[section\] \[thm\][Proposition]{} \[thm\][Lemma]{} \[thm\][Corollary]{} \[thm\][Conjecture]{} \[thm\][Fact]{} \[section\]
RIMS-1160\
hep-th/9708148\
Aug. 1997
Form factors of the XXZ model and the affine quantum group symmetry
Yas-Hiro Quano
*Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-01, Japan\
*
We present new expressions of form factors of the XXZ model which satisfy Smirnov’s three axioms. These new form factors are obtained by acting the affine quantum group $U_q \bigl( \widehat{\frak s \frak l _2}\bigr)$ to the known ones obtained in our previous works. We also find the relations among all the new and known form factors, i.e., all other form factors can be expressed as kind of descendents of a special one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture.
Introduction
============
In [@KMQ] we presented integral formulae of solutions to the quantum Knizhnik–Zamolodchikov ($q$-KZ) equation [@FR] of level $0$ associated with the vector representation of the affine quantum group $U_q \bigl( \widehat{\frak s \frak l _2}\bigr)$. Those solutions satisfy Smirnov’s three axioms of form factors [@Smbk].
Throughout the study of form factors of the sine-Gordon model, Smirnov [@Smbk] found that his three axioms are sufficient conditions of local commutativity of local fields of the model. Smirnov also constructed the space of local fields of the sine-Gordon model [@S1], from the standpoint of the form factor bootstrap formalism. Smirnov’s formulae for form factors of the sine-Gordon model are expressed in terms of the deformed Abelian integrals, or deformed hyper-elliptic integrals [@S2].
Babelon, Bernard and Smirnov [@BBS1] computed form factors of the restricted sine-Gordon model at the reflectionless point, by quantizing solitons of the model. They also found null vectors of the model [@BBS2], which leads to a set of differential equations for form factors.
A form factor is originally defined as a matrix element of a local operator. In this paper, however, we call any vector valued function a ‘form factor’ that satisfies Smirnov’s three axioms. In this sense, the integral formulae given in [@KMQ] are form factors of the XXZ model. Furthermore, we wish to consider the space of form factors of the XXZ model, or solutions of Smirnov’s three axioms. Our earlier motivation is the question if the space of form factors is invariant under the action of the affine quantum group $U_q \bigl( \widehat{\frak s \frak l _2}\bigr)$, which is a symmetry of the XXZ model.
Let us consider the spin $1/2$ XXZ model with the nearest neighbor interaction:
$$H_{XXZ}=-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}
(\sigma_{n+1}^x \sigma_{n}^x + \sigma_{n+1}^y \sigma_{n}^y +
\Delta \sigma_{n+1}^z \sigma_{n}^z),$$
where $\Delta =(q+q^{-1})/2$ and $-1<q<0$.
Let $V=\Bbb C^2$ be a vector representation of the affine quantum group $U_q \bigl( \widehat{\frak s \frak l _2}\bigr)$. The XXZ Hamiltonian $H_{XXZ}$ formally acts on $\cdots \otimes V\otimes V\otimes \cdots$. This Hamiltonian commutes with $U_q \bigl( \widehat{\frak s \frak l _2}\bigr)$. In [@XXZ; @JM] the space of states $V^{\otimes \infty}$ was identified with the tensor product of level $1$ highest and level $-1$ lowest representations of $U_q \bigl( \widehat{\frak s \frak l _2}\bigr)$.
Since the XXZ model possesses $U_q \bigl( \widehat{\frak s \frak l _2}\bigr)$-symmetry, any physical quantities of the model are expected to also possess the same symmetry. The following question is thus natural: Let $G(\zeta_1, \cdots , \zeta_N)$ be a $V^{\otimes N}$-valued form factor of the XXZ model. Then does $\pi_\zeta (y) G(\zeta )$, where $y\in
U_q \bigl( \widehat{\frak s \frak l _2}\bigr)$, again satisfy Smirnov’s axioms?
The answer is as follows: It is not always true that $\pi_\zeta (y) G(\zeta )$ solves Smirnov’s axioms even if $G(\zeta )$ does. However, for a form factor that satisfies Smirnov’s axioms, there exists $y\in U_q \bigl( \widehat{\frak s \frak l _2}\bigr)$ such that $\pi_\zeta (y) G(\zeta )$ again satisfies the axioms.
The present paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we summarize the results obtained in the previous paper [@KMQ]. In section 3 we present new form factors which satisfy Smirnov’s three axioms by acting the affine quantum group $U_q \bigl( \widehat{\frak s \frak l _2}\bigr)$ to form factors given in section 2. In section 4 we show the relations among form factors obtained in sections 2 and 3. In section 5 we give some remarks.
Integral formula of form factors of the XXZ model
=================================================
In this section we review Smirnov’s three axioms of form factors [@Smbk] and the integral formula of form factors of the XXZ model given in [@KMQ]. See [@JKMQ; @KMQ] as for explicit expressions of some scalar functions and homogeneous functions below.
For a fixed complex parameter $q$ such that $0<x=-q<1$, let $U$ be the affine quantum group $U'_q \bigl(\widehat{\frak s \frak l _2}\bigr)$ generated by $e_i, f_i, t_i(i=0,1)$ [@J]. Set $V={{\Bbb C}}v_+ \oplus {{\Bbb C}}v_- $ and let $(\pi_\zeta, V)$, where $\zeta\in \Bbb C \backslash \{0\}$, denote the vector representation of $U$ defined by $$\begin{array}{l}
\pi_{\zeta} (e_1)(v_+ , v_-)=\zeta(0,v_+), \quad
\pi_{\zeta} (f_1) (v_+ , v_-)=\zeta^{-1}(v_-,0), \quad
\pi_{\zeta} (t_1) (v_+ , v_-)=(q v_+ , q^{-1} v_-), \\
\pi_{\zeta} (e_0)(v_+ , v_-)=\zeta(v_-,0), \quad
\pi_{\zeta} (f_0) (v_+ , v_-)=\zeta^{-1}(0,v_+), \quad
\pi_{\zeta} (t_0) (v_+ , v_-)=(q^{-1} v_+ , q v_-).
\end{array}
\label{eqn:pv}$$
Let $R(\zeta), S(\zeta) =S_0(\zeta)R(\zeta) \in
\mbox{End}(V \otimes V)$ be the $R$ and $S$ matrix of the XXZ model, where the ratio $S_0(\zeta)$ is a scalar function, which satisfy the intertwining property [@J]:
$$X(\zeta_1 /\zeta_2)
(\pi_{\zeta_1} \otimes\pi_{\zeta_2})\circ\Delta(y)=
(\pi_{\zeta_1} \otimes\pi_{\zeta_2})\circ\Delta'(y)
X(\zeta_1 /\zeta_2),
\label{eqn:intertwine}$$
for $X=R$ or $S$; $\Delta$ and $\Delta'=\sigma \circ \Delta$ are coproducts of $U$.
For $n\geq 0, l\geq 0, n+l=N$, let $V^{(n l)}$ be a subspace of $V^{\otimes N}$ such that $$V^{(n l)}
=\bigoplus_{\sum \varepsilon_i =l-n} \Bbb C v_{\varepsilon_1} \otimes
\cdots \otimes v_{\varepsilon_N}.$$ Here we set $N$ even such that $n\equiv l$ mod $2$, for the simplicity. The odd $N$ cases can be treated similarly.
Let $G^{(n l)}_{\varepsilon}(\zeta_1,\cdots,\zeta_N)
\in V^{(n l)}$ with $\varepsilon =\pm$ be a form factor that satisfies the following three axioms:
[**1. $S$-matrix symmetry**]{} $$P_{j\,j+1} G_{\varepsilon}^{(n l)}
(\cdots,\zeta_{j+1},\zeta_j,\cdots)
\quad =
S_{j\,j+1}(\zeta_j/\zeta_{j+1})G_{\varepsilon}^{(n l)}
(\cdots,\zeta_j,\zeta_{j+1},\cdots)
\qquad (1\leq j\leq N-1),
\label{eqn:S-symm} \\$$ where $P(x\otimes y)=y\otimes x$ for $x,y\in V$.
[**2. Deformed cyclicity**]{} $$P_{12}\cdots P_{N-1 N} G_{\varepsilon}^{(n l)}
(\zeta_2,\cdots,\zeta_N, \zeta_1 q^{-2})
=
\varepsilon r(\zeta_1) D_1 G_{\varepsilon}^{(n l)}
(\zeta_1,\cdots,\zeta_N),
\label{eqn:cyc}\\$$ where $r(\zeta)$ is an appropriate scalar function and $D_1$ is a diagonal operator of the form $D_1=D\otimes 1\otimes \cdots \otimes 1$. The LHS of (\[eqn:cyc\]) is the analytic continuation of $P_{12}\cdots P_{N-1 N} G_{\varepsilon}^{(n l)}
(\zeta_2,\cdots,\zeta_N, \zeta_1)$ in the variable $\zeta_1$.
[**3. Annihilation pole condition**]{} The $G_{\varepsilon}^{(n l)} (\zeta)$ has simple poles at $\zeta_N =\sigma\zeta_{N-1}x^{-1}$ with $\sigma=\pm$, and the residue is given by $$\begin{aligned}
&& \displaystyle
{\rm Res}_{\zeta_N =\sigma\zeta_{N-1}x^{-1}}
G_{\varepsilon}^{(n l)} (\zeta)
\label{eqn:Res} \\
&=& \frac{1}{2}
\displaystyle\left( I
-\varepsilon \sigma^{N+1}
r(\sigma\zeta_{N-1}x)
D_N S_{N-1,N-2}(\zeta_{N-1}/\zeta_{N-2})
\cdots S_{N-1,1}(\zeta_{N-1}/\zeta_{1})
\right)
G_{\varepsilon}^{(n-1 l-1)}(\zeta') \otimes u_{\sigma} ,
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $(\zeta)=(\zeta_1, \cdots , \zeta_N),
(\zeta')=(\zeta_1, \cdots , \zeta_{N-2})$, and $u_{\sigma} =v_+ \otimes v_-
+\sigma v_- \otimes v_+ $. Here $D_N$ is of course a diagonal operator of the form $D_N =1\otimes \cdots \otimes 1\otimes D$.
[*Remark 1.*]{} Note that the consistency of these three axioms implies the relation $r(\zeta)r(\sigma\zeta x)=\sigma^N$.
[*Remark 2.*]{} Let $|\mbox{vac}\rangle _i$ ($i=0, 1$) be the ground states of the XXZ model, where the subscript $i$ signifies the boundary condition of the ground state. From the standpoint of the vertex operator formalism, $|\mbox{vac}\rangle _i$ is the canonical element of $V(\Lambda_i)\otimes V(\Lambda_i)^*$, where $V(\Lambda_i)$ is the level $1$ highest weight module of the affine quantum group $U$ [@XXZ]. Let $\varphi^*(\zeta)$ denote the creation operator. Then the form factor of the local operator ${\cal O}$ is given as follows: $$G^{(N)}_i (\zeta_1,\cdots,\zeta_N)
={}_{i}\langle{\rm vac}|
{\cal O}\varphi^*(\zeta_N)\cdots \varphi^*(\zeta_1)
|{\rm vac}\rangle_{i}.$$ We set $G^{(N)}_\varepsilon(\zeta)
=G^{(N)}_0 (\zeta)+\varepsilon G^{(N)}_1 (\zeta)$ such that the second and third axioms (\[eqn:cyc\]–\[eqn:Res\]) reduce the closed form in terms of $G^{(N)}_\varepsilon (\zeta)$.
In [@JKMQ; @KMQ] we constructed a solution of (\[eqn:S-symm\]–\[eqn:Res\]) as follows. Set $m=n-1$ for $n=l$ and $m=\mbox{min}(n,l)$ for $n\neq l$, and set $D=D^{(nl)}=q^{-N/2}\mbox{diag}(q^n, q^l)$. Let $\Delta^{(nl)}(x_1, \cdots , x_m| z_1,\cdots,z_n |
z_{n+1}, \cdots , z_N )$ be a homogeneous polynomial of $x$’s and $z$’s, antisymmetric with respect to $x$’s and symmetric with $z_j$’s($1\leq j \leq n$) and $z_i$’s($n+1\leq i \leq N$), respectively. For such a polynomial, let us define $\langle \Delta^{(nl)} \rangle
(x_1, \cdots , x_m| \zeta_1,\cdots,\zeta_N )
\in V^{\otimes N}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
&&\langle \Delta^{(nl)} \rangle
(x_1, \cdots , x_m| \zeta_1,\cdots,\zeta_N ) ^{-\cdots -+\cdots +}
=
\displaystyle\Delta^{(nl)} \bigl(
x_1, \cdots , x_m |
z_1, \cdots , z_n |z_{n+1}, \cdots , z_N \bigr)
\prod_{j=1}^{n} \zeta_j \left(
\prod_{i=n+1}^{N} \frac{1}{z_i -z_j \tau^2} \right),
\nonumber \\
&&P_{j\,j+1} \langle \Delta^{(nl)} \rangle
(x_1, \cdots , x_m | \cdots,\zeta_{j+1},\zeta_j,\cdots)
=
R_{j\,j+1}(\zeta_j/\zeta_{j+1})
\langle \Delta^{(nl)} \rangle
(x_1, \cdots , x_m | \cdots,\zeta_j,\zeta_{j+1},\cdots),
\label{eqn:Rsym}\end{aligned}$$ where $z_j=\zeta_j^2 (1\leq j\leq N)$.
Assume that $n\leq l$ for a while. Then an integral formula that solves all the three axioms (\[eqn:S-symm\]–\[eqn:Res\]) is given as follows:
$$G_{\varepsilon}^{(nl)}(\zeta)
=
\displaystyle
\frac{G_0^{(N)}(\zeta)}{m!}
\prod_{\mu =1}^{m} \oint_{C} \frac{dx_{\mu }}{2\pi i}
\Psi_{\varepsilon}^{(m N)}
(x_1 , \cdots , x_m | \zeta_1 , \cdots , \zeta_N )
\langle \Delta^{(nl)} \rangle
(\zeta_1,\cdots,\zeta_N ),
\label{eqn:ref_G}$$
where $G_0(\zeta)$ is an appropriate scalar function.
The path of the integral $C=C(z_1, \cdots , z_N)$ and the explicit expression of the integral kernel $\Psi_{\varepsilon}^{(m N)}$ are not important in this paper. See [@JKMQ; @KMQ] as for details. Note that (\[eqn:Rsym\]) ensures the $S$-matrix symmetry (\[eqn:S-symm\]). The second axiom (\[eqn:cyc\]) and the third one (\[eqn:Res\]) imply the transformation properties [@JKMQ] and the recursion relation [@KMQ] of the kernel $\Psi_\varepsilon ^{(m N)}(x|\zeta)$, respectively.
The explicit expression of $\Delta^{(nl)}$ is also unimportant in this paper. The essential point concerning $\Delta^{(nl)}$ is the following recursion relations $$\begin{aligned}
&& \Delta^{(nl)}(x_1,\cdots,x_m|z_1, \cdots , z_n |
z_{n+1}, \cdots , z_N)|_{z_N=z_n q^{-2}}
\label{eqn:Drec} \\
&=& \displaystyle\prod_{\mu=1}^m (x_\mu-z_n q^{-1})
\sum_{\nu=1}^m (-1)^{m+\nu}
h^{(N-2)}(x_\nu|z_1, \mathop{\hat{\cdots}}^n , z_{N-1})
\Delta^{(n-1 l-1)}(x_1,\mathop{\hat{\cdots}}^\nu,x_m|
z_1, \cdots, z_{n-1}|z_{n+1}, \cdots, z_{N-1}),
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $h^{(N)}(x|z_1, \cdots, z_N)$ is a homogeneous function of degree $N-1$ [@JKMQ], and the degree condition $$\mbox{deg} \Delta^{(nl)}=\left(
\begin{array}{c} m \\ 2 \end{array} \right) +nl-n.
\label{eqn:Ddeg}$$ Note that one can determine $\Delta^{(nl)}$ recursively by using (\[eqn:Drec\]). From the antisymmetry with respect to $x$’s, $\Delta^{(nl)}$ has the factor $\displaystyle \prod_{\mu <\nu} (x_\mu -x_\nu)$. Hence $\Delta^{(nl)}
/\displaystyle \prod_{\mu <\nu} (x_\mu -x_\nu)$ is a polynomial of degree $nl-n$. From the symmetry property with respect to $z$’s, the recursion relation (\[eqn:Drec\]) gives values of $\Delta^{(nl)}$ at $nl$ points. Thus the polynomial $\Delta^{(nl)}$ can be determined from the initial conditions $$\Delta^{(0l)}=\Delta^{(11)}=1, ~~l>0.
\label{eqn:Dini}$$
Form factors and the action of the affine quantum group
=======================================================
In this section we discuss the transformation properties of the form factors given in the last section under the action of the affine quantum group $U=U'_q \bigl(\widehat{\frak s \frak l _2}\bigr)$.
For any $y\in U$, the tensor representation $(\pi_{(\zeta_1,\cdots,\zeta_N)}(y), V^{\otimes N})$ is defined as follows: $$\pi_{(\zeta_1,\cdots,\zeta_N)}(y)
=(\pi_{\zeta_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes\pi_{\zeta_N})\circ
\Delta^{(N-1)}(y).$$ Let us act $\pi_{(\zeta_1,\cdots,\zeta_N)}(y)$ to $G_\varepsilon^{(nl)}(\zeta_1, \cdots, \zeta_N)$. The action of $t_i$’s are trivial: $$\pi_{\zeta}(t_0)G_\varepsilon^{(nl)}(\zeta)
=q^{n-l}G_\varepsilon^{(nl)}(\zeta), ~~
\pi_{\zeta}(t_1)G_\varepsilon^{(nl)}(\zeta)
=q^{l-n}G_\varepsilon^{(nl)}(\zeta).$$
The action of $f_0$ is non-trivial but the result is very simple:
$$\pi_{\zeta}(f_0)G_\varepsilon^{(nl)}(\zeta)=0,
\label{eqn:f0G}$$
[*Proof.* ]{} In order to prove (\[eqn:f0G\]) it is enough to show $$\pi_{\zeta}(f_0)\langle \Delta^{(nl)} \rangle(x|\zeta) =0.
\label{eqn:hw}$$ The $R$-matrix symmetry (\[eqn:Rsym\]) of $\langle \Delta^{(nl)} \rangle(x|\zeta)$ implies that of $\pi_{\zeta}(f_0)\langle \Delta^{(nl)} \rangle(x|\zeta)$ from the intertwining property (\[eqn:intertwine\]). The arbitrary component of $\pi_{\zeta}(f_0)\langle \Delta^{(nl)} \rangle(x|\zeta)$ can be expressed in terms of linear combination of the extreme component $(\pi_{\zeta}(f_0)\langle \Delta^{(nl)} \rangle
(x|\zeta_{s(1)}, \cdots, \zeta_{s(N)}))^{
-\cdots -+\cdots +}$’s, where $s \in \frak S_N$. The claim (\[eqn:hw\]) thus follows from that $(\pi_{\zeta}(f_0)\langle \Delta^{(nl)} \rangle(x|\zeta))^{
-\cdots -+\cdots +}$ vanishes.
Set $\langle \Delta_{(n-1 l+1)}^{(0)} \rangle(x|\zeta)
=\pi_{\zeta}(f_0)\langle \Delta^{(nl)} \rangle(x|\zeta)$. Then $\Delta_{(n-1 l+1)}^{(0)}(x_1, \cdots, x_m|
z_1, \cdots, z_{n-1}|z_n, \cdots, z_N)$ is proportional to $(\pi_{\zeta}(f_0)\langle \Delta^{(nl)} \rangle(x|\zeta))^{
-\cdots -+\cdots +}$. Thanks to the $R$-matrix symmetry we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{cl}
&\Delta_{(n-1 l+1)}^{(0)}
(x_1,\cdots,x_m|z_1,\cdots,z_{n-1}|z_n,\cdots,z_N) \\
=&\displaystyle \sum_{k=n}^{N}
\frac{\prod_{j=1}^{n-1}(z_k-z_j q^{-2})}
{\prod_{\scriptstyle{i=n}\atop \scriptstyle{i\ne k}}^{N}
(z_i-z_k)q^{-1}}
\Delta^{(n l)}(x_1,\cdots,x_m|z_1,\cdots, z_{n-1},z_k|
z_{n},\mathop{\hat{\cdots}}^{k},z_N),
\end{array}
\label{eqn:f0}\end{aligned}$$
Note that the singularity at $z_k=z_i$ in the RHS of (\[eqn:f0\]) is spurious, and hence that $\Delta_{(n-1 l+1)}^{(0)}$ is a homogeneous polynomial of degree $\displaystyle{{m \choose 2}}+(n-1)(l+1)-n$, antisymmetric with respect to $x_\mu$’s and symmetric with respect to $\{z_1,\cdots,z_{n-1}\}$ and $\{z_{n},\cdots,z_N\}$, respectively. The recursion relation $$\begin{array}{cl}
&\Delta_{(n-1\,l+1)}^{(0)}
(x_1,\cdots,x_m|z_1, \cdots, z_{n-1}|z_n, \cdots, z_N)|_{
z_N=z_{n-1}q^{-2}} \\
=& \displaystyle\prod_{\mu=1}^m (x_\mu-z_n q^{-1})
\sum_{\nu=1}^m (-1)^{m+\nu}
h^{(N-2)}(x_\nu|z_1, \mathop{\hat{\cdots}}^n , z_{N-1})
\Delta_{(n-2\, l)}(x_1,\mathop{\hat{\cdots}}^\nu,x_m|
z_1, \cdots, z_{n-2}|z_{n}, \cdots, z_{N-1}),
\end{array}$$ is enough to determine $\Delta_{(n-1 l+1)}^{(0)}$ recursively. From the power counting $\Delta_{(0 l+1)}^{(0)}=0$. Thus $\Delta_{(n-1 l+1)}^{(0)}=0$, which implies (\[eqn:hw\]). $\Box$
From now on, we wish to consider $\pi_\zeta(y)G^{(nl)}(\zeta)$ for $y\in U$. For that purpose, let us list the following formulae for $\langle \Delta_{(n+1 l-1)}^{(0)} \rangle(x|\zeta)
=\pi_{\zeta}(e_0)\langle \Delta^{(nl)} \rangle(x|\zeta)$, $\langle \Delta_{(n-1 l+1)}^{(1)} \rangle(x|\zeta)
=\pi_{\zeta}(e_1)\langle \Delta^{(nl)} \rangle(x|\zeta)$, and $\langle \Delta_{(n+1 l-1)}^{(1)} \rangle(x|\zeta)
=\pi_{\zeta}(f_1)\langle \Delta^{(nl)} \rangle(x|\zeta)$:
$$\begin{array}{cl}
&\Delta_{(n+1 l-1)}^{(0)}
(x_1,\cdots,x_m|z_1,\cdots,z_{n+1}|z_{n+2},\cdots,z_N) \\
=&\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^{n+1}
\frac{\prod_{i=n+2}^{N}(z_i-z_k q^{-2})}
{\prod_{\scriptstyle{j=1}\atop \scriptstyle{j\ne k}}^{n+1}
(z_k-z_j)q^{-1}}
\Delta^{(n l)}(x_1,\cdots,x_m|z_1,\mathop{\hat{\cdots}}^{k},z_{n+1}|
z_k, z_{n+2},\cdots,z_N),
\end{array}
\label{eqn:e0}$$
$$\begin{array}{cl}
&\Delta_{(n-1 l+1)}^{(1)}
(x_1,\cdots,x_m|z_1,\cdots,z_{n-1}|z_n,\cdots,z_N) \\
=&\displaystyle q^{l-n+1}\sum_{k=n}^{N} z_k
\frac{\prod_{j=1}^{n-1}(z_k-z_j q^{-2})}
{\prod_{\scriptstyle{i=n}\atop \scriptstyle{i\ne k}}^{N}
(z_i-z_k)q^{-1}}
\Delta^{(n l)}(x_1,\cdots,x_m|z_1,\cdots, z_{n-1},z_k|
z_{n},\mathop{\hat{\cdots}}^{k},z_N),
\end{array}
\label{eqn:e1}$$
$$\begin{array}{cl}
&\Delta_{(n+1 l-1)}^{(1)}
(x_1,\cdots,x_m|z_1,\cdots,z_{n+1}|z_n,\cdots,z_N) \\
=&\displaystyle q^{n-l+1} \sum_{k=1}^{n+1} z_k^{-1}
\frac{\prod_{i=n+2}^{N}(z_i-z_k q^{-2})}
{\prod_{\scriptstyle{j=1}\atop \scriptstyle{j\ne k}}^{n+1}
(z_k-z_j)q^{-1}}
\Delta^{(n l)}(x_1,\cdots,x_m|z_1,\mathop{\hat{\cdots}}^{k}
,z_{n+1}|z_k, z_{n+2},\cdots,z_N).
\end{array}
\label{eqn:f1}$$
The expressions (\[eqn:e0\]–\[eqn:f1\]) can be proved in a similar manner as (\[eqn:f0\]) is shown.
Let $A_0(\zeta)=G_\varepsilon^{(nl)}(\zeta)$, and $A_j(\zeta)=\pi_\zeta(e_0)A_{j-1}(\zeta)$, where $1\leq j$. Then $A_j(\zeta)=0$ for $j>l-n$, and $A_{j-1}(\zeta)=\mbox{const.}
\pi_\zeta(e_0)A_{j}(\zeta)$ for $1\leq j \leq l-n$. These $(l-n+1)$ $\left\{A_j(\zeta)\right\}_{0\leq j\leq l-n}$ form a multiplet. Now the following natural question arises: Do all $A_j(\zeta)$’s satisfy the three axioms (\[eqn:S-symm\]–\[eqn:Res\]) for a suitable choice of the diagonal operator $D$?
The $S$-matrix symmetry is apparently satisfied by any $A_j(\zeta)$. The second and third axioms are unfortunately invalid unless $n=l$. (Since $\pi_\zeta(f_0)G_\varepsilon^{(nn)}(\zeta)=0=
\pi_\zeta(e_0)G_\varepsilon^{(nn)}(\zeta)$, the case $n=l$ is trivial.)
However, we can consider if $\pi_\zeta(y)G_\varepsilon^{(nl)}(\zeta)$ do satisfy the three axioms, where $y=e_1$ or $f_1$, because $\pi_\zeta(y)G_\varepsilon^{(nl)}(\zeta)$ for any $y\in U$ always satisfy the first axiom (\[eqn:S-symm\]). We do not have to restrict ourselves to the case $y=e_0$. Actually, $\tilde{G}_\varepsilon^{(n+1 l-1)}:
=\pi_\zeta(f_1)G_\varepsilon^{(nl)}(\zeta)$ solves all the three axioms for $D=q^{-N/2}\mbox{diag}(q^{n-1}, q^{l+1})$:
The vector $\tilde{G}_\varepsilon^{(n+1 l-1)}
:=\pi_\zeta(f_1)G_\varepsilon^{(nl)}(\zeta)$ satisfies (\[eqn:S-symm\]–\[eqn:Res\]) when we set the diagonal operator $D=D^{(n-1 l+1)}$.
[*Proof.* ]{} The proof is straightforward. By noticing that the LHS of (\[eqn:cyc\]) should be interpreted as the analytic continuation in the variable $\zeta_1$, we have $$\begin{array}{cl}
&P_{12}\cdots P_{N-1 N}
\pi_{(\zeta_2, \cdots, \zeta_N, \zeta_1 q^{-2})}(f_1)
G_\varepsilon^{(nl)}(\zeta_2, \cdots, \zeta_N, \zeta_1 q^{-2}) \\
=&(\pi_{(\zeta_1 q^{-2}, \zeta_2, \cdots, \zeta_N)}
\circ \Delta' (f_1)) P_{12}\cdots P_{N-1 N}
G_\varepsilon^{(nl)}(\zeta_2, \cdots, \zeta_N, \zeta_1 q^{-2}) \\
=&\varepsilon r(\zeta_1)
(\pi_{\zeta_1 q^{-2}}(f_1) \otimes
\pi_{(\zeta_2, \cdots, \zeta_N)}(1)
+\pi_{\zeta_1 q^{-2}}(t_1^{-1}) \otimes
\pi_{(\zeta_2, \cdots, \zeta_N)}(f_1))
D^{(nl)}_1 G_\varepsilon^{(nl)}(\zeta_1, \cdots, \zeta_N) \\
=&\varepsilon r(\zeta_1)
D^{(nl)}_1 (q^{n-l} \pi_{\zeta_1}(t_1^{-1}f_1 t_1) \otimes
\pi_{(\zeta_2, \cdots, \zeta_N)}(t_1^{-1}t_1)
+\pi_{\zeta_1}(t_1^{-1}) \otimes
\pi_{(\zeta_2, \cdots, \zeta_N)}(f_1))
G_\varepsilon^{(nl)}(\zeta_1, \cdots, \zeta_N) \\
=&\varepsilon r(\zeta_1)(D^{(nl)}t_1^{-1})_1
(\pi_{\zeta_1}(f_1) \otimes
\pi_{(\zeta_2, \cdots, \zeta_N)}(t_1^{-1})
+\pi_{\zeta_1}(1) \otimes
\pi_{(\zeta_2, \cdots, \zeta_N)}(f_1))
G_\varepsilon^{(nl)}(\zeta_1, \cdots, \zeta_N) \\
=&\varepsilon r(\zeta_1)(D^{(nl)}t_1^{-1})_1
\tilde{G}_\varepsilon^{(n+1 l-1)}(\zeta).
\end{array}
\label{eqn:actf1}$$ Thus the second axiom is proved.
The third axiom for $\tilde{G}_\varepsilon^{(n+1 l-1)}(\zeta)$ can be proved as follows. Since the action of $\pi_{\zeta}(f_1)$ produces no further singularity of form factors, we have $${\rm Res}_{\zeta_N =\sigma \zeta_{N-1}x^{-1}}
\tilde{G}_\varepsilon^{(n+1 l-1)}(\zeta)
=\pi_{(\zeta',\zeta_{N-1},\sigma \zeta_{N-1}x^{-1})}(f_1)
{\rm Res}_{\zeta_N =\sigma \zeta_{N-1}x^{-1}}
G_\varepsilon^{(n+1 l-1)}(\zeta).$$ Note that $\pi_{(\zeta_{N-1},\sigma \zeta_{N-1}x^{-1})}(f_1)
u_\sigma =0$. We also notice that $$\begin{array}{cl}
&\pi_{(\zeta',\zeta_{N-1},\sigma \zeta_{N-1}x^{-1})}(f_1)
S_{N-1,N-2}(\zeta_{N-1}/\zeta_{N-2})\cdots
S_{N-1,1}(\zeta_{N-1}/\zeta_{1}) \\
=&
S_{N-1,N-2}(\zeta_{N-1}/\zeta_{N-2})\cdots
S_{N-1,1}(\zeta_{N-1}/\zeta_{1})
(\pi_\zeta'(t_1^{-1})\otimes \pi_{\zeta_{N-1}}(f_1)\otimes
\pi_{\zeta_N}(t^{-1}_1) \\
&+
\pi_\zeta'(f_1)\otimes \pi_{\zeta_{N-1}}(1)\otimes
\pi_{\zeta_N}(t^{-1}_1)+
\pi_\zeta'(1)\otimes \pi_{\zeta_{N-1}}(1)\otimes
\pi_{\zeta_N}(f_1)), \label{eqn:f1Res}
\end{array}$$ and that the first and the third term of the RHS of (\[eqn:f1Res\]) cancel when they act on $G_\varepsilon^{(n-1 l-1)}(\zeta')\otimes u_\sigma$. Thus we obtain $$\begin{array}{cl}
&{\rm Res}_{\zeta_N =\sigma \zeta_{N-1}x^{-1}}
\tilde{G}_\varepsilon^{(n+1 l-1)}(\zeta) \\
=&
\frac{1}{2}
\displaystyle\left( I
-\varepsilon \sigma^{N+1}
r(\sigma\zeta_{N-1}x)
(t_1^{-1}D^{(nl)})_N S_{N-1,N-2}(\zeta_{N-1}/\zeta_{N-2})
\cdots S_{N-1,1}(\zeta_{N-1}/\zeta_{1})
\right)
\tilde{G}_{\varepsilon}^{(n-1 l-1)}(\zeta') \otimes u_{\sigma},
\end{array}$$ that implies the third axiom with $D=D^{(n-1 l+1)}$. $\Box$
Note that the diagonal operator for $\tilde{G}_\varepsilon^{(n+1 l-1)}(\zeta)$ is $D^{(n-1 l+1)}$ but not $D^{(n+1 l-1)}$, so that $\pi_\zeta(f_1)\tilde{G}_\varepsilon^{(n+1 l-1)}(\zeta)$ no more satisfies the second and the third axioms (\[eqn:cyc\]–\[eqn:Res\]).
Relations among form factors of the XXZ model
=============================================
In this section we shall find further relations among $G_\varepsilon^{(nl)}(\zeta)$’s and $\tilde{G}_\varepsilon^{(n+1 l-1)}(\zeta)$’s.
When $N=2n$ we have the following simple relation between $G_\varepsilon^{(nn)}(\zeta)$ and $G_\varepsilon^{(n-1 n+1)}(\zeta)$:
$$G_\varepsilon^{(n-1 n+1)}(\zeta) = (-1)^n q^{-n-1}
\pi_\zeta(e_1) G_\varepsilon^{(nn)}(\zeta).
\label{eqn:nn}$$
\[prop:nn\]
[*Proof.* ]{} Put $n=l$ now. Then it follows from (\[eqn:Drec\]) and (\[eqn:e1\]) that $\Delta_{(n-1 n+1)}^{(1)}$ and $(-1)^n q^{n+1}\Delta^{(n-1 n+1)}$ have the same recursion relation and the same initial condition, and thus the two are the same. Since the integral kernel $\Psi_\varepsilon^{(mN)}=\Psi_\varepsilon^{(n-1 N)}$ is also common for $G_\varepsilon^{(n n)}(\zeta)$ and $G_\varepsilon^{(n-1 n+1)}(\zeta)$, we obtain (\[eqn:nn\]). $\Box$
Two homogeneous polynomial $\Delta_{(n-1 n+1)}^{(1)}$ and $\Delta^{(n-1 n+1)}$ coincide up to a constant factor as shown in Proposition \[prop:nn\]. The relation $\Delta_{(n-1 l+1)}^{(1)}$ and $\Delta^{(n-1 l+1)}$ for $n<l$ is not so simple. In order to establish the relation, let us introduce the symbol $\cong$ as follows: We denote $A(x_1, \cdots, x_m |z_1, \cdots, z_N)\cong
B(x_1, \cdots, x_m |z_1, \cdots, z_N)$ when $$\displaystyle
\prod_{\mu =1}^{m} \oint_{C} \frac{dx_{\mu }}{2\pi i}
\Psi_{\varepsilon}^{(m N)}(x|\zeta) A(x|z) =
\prod_{\mu =1}^{m} \oint_{C} \frac{dx_{\mu }}{2\pi i}
\Psi_{\varepsilon}^{(m N)}(x|\zeta) B(x|z).$$ Then the following relations hold:
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\Delta_{(n-1 l+1)}^{(1)}(x_1, \cdots, x_n |
z_1, \cdots, z_{n-1}|z_n, \cdots, z_N)
\label{eqn:updown} \\
&\cong&\displaystyle n(l-n+2)(-1)^{l-n}q^{l+1}(1-q^{-2(l-n)})
\prod_{j=1}^{n-1} (x_n -z_jq^{-1})
\Delta^{(n-1 l+1)}(x_1, \cdots, x_{n-1} |
z_1, \cdots, z_{n-1}|z_n, \cdots, z_N).
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
[*Proof.* ]{} The relation (\[eqn:updown\]) follows from the antisymmetry of $x$’s, other than the recursion relation and the initial condition of $\Delta^{(nl)}$.
When $l>n=1(N=l+1)$, by using (\[eqn:e1\]) we have $$\Delta_{(0 N)}^{(1)}(x_1, \cdots, x_n |
~|z_1, \cdots, z_N)
=\displaystyle q^{l}\sum_{k=1}^{N} z_k
\frac{\Delta^{(1 l)}(x_1,\cdots,x_n|z_k|
z_{1},\mathop{\hat{\cdots}}^{k},z_N)}
{\prod_{\scriptstyle{i=1}\atop \scriptstyle{i\ne k}}^{N}
(z_i-z_k)q^{-1}}.
\label{eqn:e1ini}$$ The RHS of (\[eqn:e1ini\]) is a constant because $\mbox{deg} \Delta_{(0 N)}^{(1)} =0$. In order to determine this constant, we substitute the explicit expression of $\Delta^{(1 l)}$ [@JKMQ] and put $x_1=0$. Then we have $$\Delta_{(0 N)}^{(1)}(x_1 |
~|z_1, \cdots, z_N)
=\displaystyle N(-q)^{l+1}(1-q^{-2(l-1)}).
\label{eqn:upini}$$
When $z_N=z_{n-1}q^{-2}$ in (\[eqn:e1\]) we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Delta_{(n-1 l+1)}^{(1)}(x_1, \cdots, x_n |
z_1, \cdots, z_{n-1}|z_n, \cdots, z_N)|_{z_N=z_{n-1}q^{-2}}
\nonumber \\
&=&(-q)\prod_{\mu=1}^n (x_\mu -z_{n-1}q^{-1})
\left\{ \sum_{\mu=1}^{n-1} (-1)^{n+\mu}h(x_\mu)
\Delta_{(n-2 l)}^{(1)}(x_1, \mathop{\hat{\cdots}}^{\mu}, x_{n-1},
x_n | z_1, \cdots, z_{n-2}|z_n, \cdots, z_{N-1}) \right.
\nonumber \\
&+& \left. h(x_n)
\Delta_{(n-2 l)}^{(1)}(x_1, \cdots, x_{n-1} |
z_1, \cdots, z_{n-2}|z_n, \cdots, z_{N-1}) \right\}
\nonumber \\
&\cong &(-q)\prod_{\mu=1}^n (x_\mu -z_{n-1}q^{-1})
\left\{ \sum_{\mu=1}^{n-1} (-1)^{n+\mu}h(x_\mu)
\Delta_{(n-2 l)}^{(1)}(x_1, \mathop{\hat{\cdots}}^{\mu}, x_{n-1},
x_n | z_1, \cdots, z_{n-2}|z_n, \cdots, z_{N-1}) \right.
\nonumber \\
&+&\left. \frac{1}{n-1} \sum_{\mu=1}^{n-1} (-1)^{n+\mu}h(x_\mu)
\Delta_{(n-2 l)}^{(1)}(x_1, \mathop{\hat{\cdots}}^{\mu}, x_{n-1},
x_n | z_1, \cdots, z_{n-2}|z_n, \cdots, z_{N-1}) \right\}
\nonumber \\
&\cong &(1+\frac{1}{n-1})
\times (-q) (n-1)(l-n+2)(-1)^{l-n}q^l (1-q^{-2(l-n)})
\prod_{\mu=1}^{n} (x_\mu -z_{n-1}q^{-1})
\nonumber \\
&\times &\sum_{\mu=1}^{n-1} (-1)^{n+\mu}h(x_\mu)
\prod_{j=1}^{n-2} (x_n -z_{j}q^{-1})
\Delta^{(n-2 l)}(x_1, \mathop{\hat{\cdots}}^{\mu}, x_{n-1} |
z_1, \cdots, z_{n-2}|z_n, \cdots, z_{N-1})
\nonumber \\
&=& n(l-n+2)(-1)^{l-n}q^{l+1} (1-q^{-2(l-n)})
\prod_{j=1}^{n-1} (x_n -z_{j}q^{-1})
\prod_{\mu=1}^{n-1} (x_\mu -z_{n-1}q^{-1})
\nonumber \\
&\times &\sum_{\mu=1}^{n-1} (-1)^{n-1+\mu}h(x_\mu)
\Delta_{(n-2 l)}^{(1)}(x_1, \mathop{\hat{\cdots}}^{\mu}, x_{n-1} |
z_1, \cdots, z_{n-2}|z_n, \cdots, z_{N-1})
\nonumber \\
&=& \left( \mbox{RHS of (\ref{eqn:updown})}\right)|_{z_N=z_{n-1}q^{-2}},
\label{eqn:uprec}\end{aligned}$$ where we use the antisymmetric property with respect of $x$’s, and the assumption of the induction, in the second and the third equality, respectively. Eq. (\[eqn:updown\]) follows from (\[eqn:upini\]) and (\[eqn:uprec\]). $\Box$
Until now, we discuss the case $n\leq l$. Let us construct $G_\varepsilon^{(nl)}(\zeta)$ with $n>l$ from $G_\varepsilon^{(nn)}(\zeta)$, the spin $0$ sector of form factors. Define $G_\varepsilon^{(n+1 n-1)}(\zeta)=
\pi_\zeta(f_1)G_\varepsilon^{(nn)}(\zeta)$. Then $G_\varepsilon^{(n+1 n-1)}(\zeta)$ also satisfies the three axioms with $D=D^{(n-1 n+1)}$. By acting $f_1$ successively, we can obtain $G_\varepsilon^{(n+k n-k)}(\zeta)$ for $n=1, \cdots, n$, just like we construct $G_\varepsilon^{(n-k n+k)}(\zeta)$ from $G_\varepsilon^{(nn)}(\zeta)$ by acting $e_1$ successively. As for $G_\varepsilon^{(n l)}(\zeta)$ with $n>l$, $\pi_\zeta(e_0)G_\varepsilon^{(n l)}(\zeta)=0$ holds. The proof is easy if you notice that $\pi_\zeta(e_0)G_\varepsilon^{(n n)}(\zeta)=0$ and $[e_0, f_1]=0$.
Note that $G_\varepsilon^{(n l)}(\zeta)$ with $n>l$ is a form factor; i.e., $G_\varepsilon^{(n l)}(\zeta)$ satisfies the three axioms of form factors with $D=D^{(l n)}$. You can also show that $\tilde{G}_\varepsilon^{(n-1 l+1)}(\zeta):=
\pi_\zeta(e_1)G_\varepsilon^{(n l)}(\zeta)$ again satisfies the three axioms with $D=D^{(l-1 n+1)}$.
Let us summarize the relations obtained until now.
1.7mm
(90,50)(-5,0) (36.5,40)[$G_\varepsilon^{(nn)}(\zeta)$]{} (35,40.6)[(-1,0)[5.0]{}]{} (32,41.5)[$f_0$]{} (28,40)[$0$]{} (45,40.6)[(1,0)[5.0]{}]{} (46.5,41.5)[$e_0$]{} (52,40)[$0$]{} (40,39)[(-1,-1)[7.0]{}]{} (34,36)[$e_1$]{} (25,30)[$G_\varepsilon^{(n-1\,\, n+1)}(\zeta)$]{} (24,30.6)[(-1,0)[5.0]{}]{} (21,31.5)[$f_0$]{} (17,30)[$0$]{} (40,39)[(1,-1)[7.0]{}]{} (45,36)[$f_1$]{} (45,30)[$G_\varepsilon^{(n+1\,\, n-1)}(\zeta)$]{} (58,30.6)[(1,0)[5.0]{}]{} (59,31.5)[$e_0$]{} (64,30)[$0$]{} (30,29)[(-1,-1)[7.0]{}]{} (24,26)[$e_1$]{} (16,20)[$G_\varepsilon^{(n-2\,\, n+2)}(\zeta)$]{} (15,20.6)[(-1,0)[5.0]{}]{} (12,21.5)[$f_0$]{} (8,20)[$0$]{} (30,29)[(1,-1)[7.0]{}]{} (34,26)[$f_1$]{} (50,29)[(-1,-1)[7.0]{}]{} (44,26)[$e_1$]{} (36.5,20)[$\tilde{G}_\varepsilon^{(n n)}(\zeta)$]{} (50,29)[(1,-1)[7.0]{}]{} (54,26)[$f_1$]{} (53,20)[$G_\varepsilon^{(n+2\,\, n-2)}(\zeta)$]{} (66,20.6)[(1,0)[5.0]{}]{} (68,21.5)[$e_0$]{} (72,20)[$0$]{} (20,19)[(-1,-1)[7.0]{}]{} (14,16)[$e_1$]{} (6,10)[$G_\varepsilon^{(n-3\,\, n+3)}(\zeta)$]{} (5,10.6)[(-1,0)[5.0]{}]{} (2,11.5)[$f_0$]{} (-2,10)[$0$]{} (20,19)[(1,-1)[7.0]{}]{} (24,16)[$f_1$]{} (25,10)[$\tilde{G}_\varepsilon^{(n-1\,\, n+1)}(\zeta)$]{} (60,19)[(1,-1)[7.0]{}]{} (64,16)[$f_1$]{} (63,10)[$G_\varepsilon^{(n+3\,\, n-3)}(\zeta)$]{} (76,10.6)[(1,0)[5.0]{}]{} (78,11.5)[$e_0$]{} (82,10)[$0$]{} (60,19)[(-1,-1)[7.0]{}]{} (54,16)[$e_1$]{} (45,10)[$\tilde{G}_\varepsilon^{(n+1\,\, n-1)}(\zeta)$]{} (10,9)[(-1,-1)[7.0]{}]{} (4,6)[$e_1$]{} (10,9)[(1,-1)[7.0]{}]{} (14,6)[$f_1$]{} (70,9)[(-1,-1)[7.0]{}]{} (64,6)[$e_1$]{} (70,9)[(1,-1)[7.0]{}]{} (74,6)[$f_1$]{}
It is evident from this relationship that $G_\varepsilon^{(n-k n+k)}(\zeta)$ and $\tilde{G}_\varepsilon^{(n-k n+k)}(\zeta)$ ($-n\leq k \leq n$) can be obtained from $G_\varepsilon^{(n n)}(\zeta)$ by acting $e_1$ and $f_1$ in an appropriate order. We again notice that $\pi_\zeta(f_0)G_\varepsilon^{(n n)}(\zeta)=
\pi_\zeta(e_0)G_\varepsilon^{(n n)}(\zeta)=0$.
We naturally have a form factor $F_\varepsilon^{(n n)}(\zeta)$ that belongs to $V^{(nn)}$ such that $\pi_\zeta(f_1)F_\varepsilon^{(n n)}(\zeta)=
\pi_\zeta(e_1)F_\varepsilon^{(n n)}(\zeta)=0$. We can obtain $F_\varepsilon^{(n n)}(\zeta)$ from $G_\varepsilon^{(n n)}(\zeta)$ by a simple transformation.
If $G(\zeta)$ solves the three axioms of form factors with the diagonal operator $D$, then $F(\zeta)=(\sigma^x)^{\otimes N} G(\zeta)$ solves them with the diagonal operator $\sigma^x D$. Hence $F_\varepsilon^{(ln)}(\zeta)
:=(\sigma^x)^{\otimes N} G_\varepsilon^{(nl)}(\zeta)$ and $\tilde{F}_\varepsilon^{(ln)}(\zeta)
:=(\sigma^x)^{\otimes N}
\tilde{G}_\varepsilon^{(nl)}(\zeta)$ are also form factors of the XXZ model. We can further show that $\pi_\zeta(f_1)F_\varepsilon^{(n n)}(\zeta)=
\pi_\zeta(e_1)F_\varepsilon^{(n n)}(\zeta)=0$, and $\pi_\zeta(f_1)F_\varepsilon^{(l n)}(\zeta)=0$ for $n<l$, $\pi_\zeta(e_1)F_\varepsilon^{(n n)}(\zeta)=0$ for $n>l$.
Sum up the results obtained in this paper: For fixed $n<l$, we find eight form factors which belongs to $V^{(nl)}$-sector; i.e., $G_\varepsilon^{(nl)}(\zeta)$, $\tilde{G}_\varepsilon^{(nl)}(\zeta)$, $F_\varepsilon^{(nl)}(\zeta)$ and $\tilde{F}_\varepsilon^{(nl)}(\zeta)$, where $\varepsilon =\pm$. Since we have had $G_\varepsilon^{(nl)}(\zeta)$ only when we fix $n<l$ at the stage of [@KMQ], we get four times solutions of the three axioms of form factor in the present work.
Concluding Remarks
==================
In this paper, we have constructed new integral expressions of form factors of the XXZ model, by acting $U_q \bigl( \widehat{\frak s \frak l _2}\bigr)$ to the form factors obtained in [@KMQ]. The axioms for the form factor $G_\varepsilon^{(nl)}(\zeta)$ with the diagonal operator $D=D^{(nl)}$ reduces those for the form factor $\tilde{G}_\varepsilon^{(n+1 l-1)}(\zeta)$ with $D=D^{(n-1 l+1)}$ after the action of $f_1$ when $n<l$; whereas the axioms for $G_\varepsilon^{(nl)}(\zeta)$ with $D=D^{(l n)}$ reduces those for $\tilde{G}_\varepsilon^{(n-1 l+1)}(\zeta)$ with $D=D^{(l-1 n+1)}$ after the action of $e_1$ when $n>l$.
The spin $0$ form factor $G^{(nn)}(\zeta)$ is a kind of singlet because $\pi_\zeta(f_0)G^{(n n)}(\zeta)=
\pi_\zeta(e_0)G^{(n n)}(\zeta)=0$. In the earlier stage of this work, our goal was to decompose the space of form factors of the XXZ model into infinitely many multiplets of $U_q \bigl(\frak s \frak l _2\bigr)$. Though $G_\varepsilon^{(nl)}(\zeta)$ satisfies three axioms (\[eqn:S-symm\]–\[eqn:Res\]) and $\pi_\zeta(f_0)G_\varepsilon^{(nl)}(\zeta)=0$ when $n<l$, $\pi_\zeta(e_0)G_\varepsilon^{(nl)}(\zeta)$ no more satisfies (\[eqn:S-symm\]–\[eqn:Res\]). For example, by similar manipulation in (\[eqn:actf1\]) we have $$\begin{array}{cl}
&P_{12}\cdots P_{N-1 N}
\pi_{(\zeta_2, \cdots, \zeta_N, \zeta_1 q^{-2})}(e_0)
G_\varepsilon^{(nl)}(\zeta_2, \cdots, \zeta_N, \zeta_1 q^{-2}) \\
=&\varepsilon r(\zeta_1)D^{(n+1 l-1)}_1
(q^{2(n-l)}\pi_{\zeta_1}(e_0) \otimes
\pi_{(\zeta_2, \cdots, \zeta_N)}(1)
+\pi_{\zeta_1}(t_0) \otimes
\pi_{(\zeta_2, \cdots, \zeta_N)}(e_0))
G_\varepsilon^{(n l)}(\zeta).
\end{array}
\label{eqn:acte0}$$ The RHS of (\[eqn:acte0\]) reduces to $\pi_\zeta(e_0)G_\varepsilon^{(n l)}(\zeta)$ up to constant at the limit $q\rightarrow -1$, which corresponds the XXX model limit.
The XXX model has the Yangian $Y\bigl(\frak s \frak l _2\bigr)$-symmetry. The Yangian $Y\bigl(\frak s \frak l _2\bigr)$ is the minimal quantum group which includes the universal enveloping algebra $U\bigl(\frak s \frak l _2\bigr)$ as a sub-Hopf algebra. Since $U\bigl(\frak s \frak l _2\bigr)$ has the symmetric coproduct unlike $U_q \bigl(\frak s \frak l _2\bigr)$, we may be possible to decompose the space of form factors of the XXX model into infinitely many multiplet of $U\bigl(\frak s \frak l _2\bigr)$. We hope it fruitful to consider the XXX model and to find some relations among form factors of the model as obtained in this paper.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The author would like to thank M. Jimbo, T. Miwa and A. Nakayashiki for useful discussion. He also wishes to thank V. E. Korepin and F. A. Smirnov for their interest in this work.
[99]{} Kojima, T., Miki, K. and Quano, Y.-H., 1995: Annihilation poles of a Smirnov-type integral formula for solutions to the quantum Knizhnik–Zamolodchikov equation, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**28**]{} 3479–3491. Frenkel, I. B. and Reshetikhin, N. Yu., 1992: Quantum affine algebras and holonomic difference equations, Comm. Math. Phys. [**146**]{} 1–60. Smirnov, F. A., 1992: [*Form Factors in Completely Integrable Models of Quantum Field Theory*]{}, World Scientific, Singapore. Smirnov, F.A., 1995: Counting the local fields in sine-Gordon theory, Nucl. Phys. [**B453**]{} \[FS\] 807–824. Smirnov, F.A., 1996: On the deformation of Abelian integral, Lett. Math. Phys. [**36**]{} 267–275. Babelon, O., Bernard, D. and Smirnov, F.A., 1996: Quantization of solitons and the restricted sine-Gordon model, hep-th/9603010. Babelon, O., Bernard, D. and Smirnov, F.A., 1996: Null-vectors in integrable field theory, hep-th/9606068. Davies, B., Foda, O., Jimbo, M., Miwa, T. and Nakayashiki, A., 1993: Diagonalization of the $XXZ$ Hamiltonian by Vertex Operators, Comm. Math. Phys. [**151**]{} 89-153. Jimbo, M. and Miwa, T. , 1994: [*Algebraic analysis of solvable lattice models*]{}, CBMS Regional Conferences Series in Mathematics. Jimbo, M., Kojima, T., Miwa, T. and Quano, Y.-H., 1994: Smirnov’s integrals and quantum Knizhnik–Zamolodchikov equation of level $0$, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**27**]{} 3267–3283. See e.g., Jimbo, M., 1992: [*Topics from Representations of $U_q (\frak g)$— An Introductory Guide to Physicists*]{}, Nankai Lectures on Mathematical Physics, World Scientific, Singapore, pp. 1–61.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We investigate the possibility that the relation between the peak energy $E_p$ of the $\nu F_\nu$ spectrum and energy output $\Eg$ for long-duration GRBs arises from the external shock produced by the interaction of a relativistic outflow with the ambient medium. To that aim, we take into account the dependence of all parameters which determine $E_p$ and $\Eg$ on the radial distribution of the ambient medium density and find that the relation can be explained if the medium around GRBs has a universal radial stratification. For various combinations of GRB radiative process (synchrotron or inverse-Compton) and dissipation mechanism (reverse or forward shock), we find that the circumburst medium must have a particle density with a radial distribution different than the $R^{-2}$ expected for constant mass-loss rate and terminal speed.'
author:
- |
A. Panaitescu\
Space Science and Applications, MS D466, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA
title: 'An external-shock origin of the relation for Gamma-Ray Bursts'
---
radiation mechanisms: non-thermal - shock waves - gamma-rays: bursts
Introduction
============
Lloyd, Petrosian & Mallozzi (2000) have established that the 25–1000 MeV fluence $\Phi$ of bright BATSE Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRBs) is strongly correlated with the photon energy $E_p^{(obs)}$ at which peaks the burst $\nu F_\nu$ spectral energy distribution. More recently, Sakamoto et al (2008) have shown that 83 Swift-BAT and HETE-2 bursts display a $E_p^{(obs)} \propto \Phi^{0.52\pm 0.11}$ correlation, with the burst fluence measured at 15–150 keV, while Ghirlanda et al (2008) report $E_p^{(obs)} \propto
\Phi^{0.32\pm 0.05}$ for 76 bursts (with known redshifts), the burst fluence being calculated in the 1 keV–10 MeV range (i.e. bolometric).
Lloyd et al (2000) found that the 8 GRBs with redshifts known at that time are not standard candles and, thus, the $E_p^{(obs)}-\Phi$ correlation is not due to cosmological effects but is, most likely, intrinsic. In that venue, Amati et al (2000) have shown that the intrinsic peak energy $E_p$ and the isotropic-equivalent burst output $\Eg$ at $1-10^4$ keV are correlated, $E_p \propto \Eg^{0.52 \pm 0.06}$, for a set of 9 bursts with known redshifts (most of which are among those used by Lloyd et al 2000). Later, Amati (2006) found that $E_p \propto \Eg^{0.49 \pm 0.06}$ for a set of 41 GRBs, while Ghirlanda et al (2008) arrive at $E_p \propto \Eg^{0.54 \pm 0.01}$ for 76 bursts.
The lack of bursts with a high fluence and average/low peak energy bursts in the $E_p^{(obs)}
- \Phi$ correlation is, evidently, not due to selection effects (i.e. at least half of that correlation is real), with the thresholds for burst triggering and measuring the peak energy possibly affecting only bursts with a high peak energy and low/average fluence. Ghirlanda et al (2008) and Nava et al (2008) investigate this possibility and conclude that selection effects are negligible for pre-Swift bursts but do truncate the distribution of Swift bursts in the $E_p^{(obs)}-\Phi$ plane. However, as the range of peak energies of Swift bursts is much narrower than that of the entire sample, they conclude that the $E_p^{(obs)}-\Phi$ is not an artifact of selection effects.
Possible origins for the relation
=================================
The simplest explanation of the relation is that it arises from viewing geometry and/or relativistic effects. Such an explanation is generic, i.e. it does not make use of a certain mechanism for the production of the GRB.
In the former framework, GRBs arise from narrow jets seen at various angles $\theta$, the intrinsic burst emission being relativistically boosted by a factor $D = [\Gamma (1-\beta\cos\theta)]^{-1} \simeq 2/(\Gamma \theta^2)$, with $\Gamma$ being the jet Lorentz factor and the viewing angle $\theta$ being larger than the both the jet opening and the relativistic beaming angle $\Gamma^{-1}$. Relativistic beaming of the comoving frame emission (denoted with primed quantities) implies that the observed burst peak energy is $E_p = D E'_p$ and the inferred isotropic-equivalent GRB output is $\Eg = D^3 \Egp$ (the factor $D^3$ arising from $D^2$ for angular beaming and $D$ for boost of photon energy). Hence, in this scenario, the simplest expectation is that $E_p \propto \Eg^{1/3}$, assuming that the comoving-frame peak energy $E'_p$ and GRB output $\Egp$ are [*universal*]{} (i.e. they have same values for all bursts) or, at least, uncorrelated. Toma, Yamazaki & Nakamura (2005) obtain the $E_p \propto \Eg^{1/3}$ analytical expectation in a more sophisticated way (for a typical GRB spectrum) but their numerical integration of the Doppler-boosted emission yields $E_p \propto \Eg^{0.4}$ for observer offsets that are comparable to (but larger than) the jet opening, which corresponds to higher energies $E_p$ and $\Eg$. Using an annulus geometry for the GRB outflow (i.e. a hollow jet), Eichler & Levinson (2004) obtain a relation between the apparent $E_p$ and $\Eg$ consistent with or shallower than the relation.
A potential problem with the off-aperture jet model is the expected distribution of GRB peak photon fluxes. The average photon flux (taken as a measure for the peak photon flux) of bursts seen at an offset angle less than $\theta$ is larger than $C(\theta) \propto \Eg / (E_p t_\gamma) \propto D^3 \Egp /(DE'_p t'_\gamma/D)
\propto D^3 \propto \theta^{-6}$, where $t_\gamma$ is the burst duration. The number of such bursts is $N(<\theta) \propto \theta^2$. Thus, the cumulative peak-flux distribution expected in this model is $N(>C) \propto C^{-1/3}$ (for a volume-limited sample), which is flatter than that measured by BATSE (e.g. Pendleton et al 1996), showing $N (>C) \propto C^{-1}$ at peak fluxes between 1 and 10 photons/${\rm cm^2\,s}$ and $N (>C) \propto C^{-3/2}$ at peak fluxes above 10 photons/${\rm cm^2\,s}$.
Relativistic beaming of the emission from a jet wider than $\Gamma^{-1}$ and seen from a location within its aperture may also be a possible origin of the relation, as both quantities of interest, $E_p$ and $\Eg$, are affected by the source relativistic motion. In this case, $D \simeq \Gamma$, $E_p = \Gamma E'_p$, and $\Eg = \Gamma \Egp$ (only one power of $D$ because relativistic angular beaming also reduces the source observed angular size by a factor $D^2$ relative to that of the entire source), hence $E_p \propto \Eg$ is expected if comoving-frame burst properties were universal or uncorrelated. Thus, the relation cannot be explained with just relativistic effects and requires a correlation of the comoving-frame peak energy $E'_p$ and GRB output $\Egp$ or a correlation of at least one of these quantities with the source Lorentz factor $\Gamma$ (Schaefer 2003). Evidently, progress in this direction requires that a specific mechanism for the GRB emission generation is adopted (as done below).
In that venue, Zhang & Mészáros (2002) showed that the relation may be accommodated with internal shocks, by noting that the comoving-frame magnetic field of a Poynting outflow (or that generated through shock dissipation) satisfies $B \propto L_{p/int}^{1/2}/R\Gamma$, where $L_{p/int}$ is the outflow’s Poynting flux luminosity (or that of the dissipated, internal energy) and $R$ is the radius at which the burst emission is produced. The GRB synchrotron emission peaks at $E_p \propto \gamma^2 B \Gamma \propto \gamma^2 L_{p/int}^{1/2}/R$, where $\gamma
m_e c^2$ is the typical electron energy in the GRB source. Thus, one obtains the relations if (1) the outflow’s Poynting (or internal energy) luminosity is a good measure of the GRB output (in the sense that the $L_{p/int}/\Eg$ ratio is universal) and if (2) $\gamma$ and $R$ are universal (or not correlated with $L_{p/int}$).
Note that the above argument applies to any dissipation mechanism. For internal shocks, the first condition above would lead to a constraint between the history of ejecta Lorentz factors ($\Gamma(t)$) and the distribution of ejecta mass with the Lorentz factor, while the second requirement for the GRB radius would constrain only $\Gamma(t)$. As for the condition on the electron Lorentz factor, we note that, if electrons acquire a fraction $\epsilon_e$ of the outflow’s internal energy, i.e. $N \gamma m_e c^2 =
\epsilon_e U'$, where $N \propto \Ek/\Gamma$ is the electron number ($\Ek$ being the outflow isotropic-equivalent kinetic energy) and $U' \propto V'u' \propto V'L (R\Gamma)^{-2}$ is the internal energy (with $V' = 4\pi R^2 ct'_\gamma$ being the volume of the GRB source), then $\gamma \propto \epsilon_e L_{p/int}/L_k$, where $L_k = \Ek/t_\gamma$ is the outflow kinetic luminosity. The requirement that $\gamma$ is not correlated with $L_{p/int}$ (leading to the relation) implies that either $\epsilon_e \propto L_{p/int}^{-1}$ or that $L_k \propto L_{p/int}$, otherwise one would obtain that $E_p \propto L_{p/int}^{5/2}
\propto \Eg^{5/2}$.
Similarly, constraints on some model properties are required to explain the relation if the burst emission results from Comptonization of the thermal radiation produced by magnetic reconnection or shock dissipation below the baryonic and/or pair photospheres. In this model (Mészáros & Rees 2000, Ryde 2004, Ramirez-Ruiz 2005), the GRB peak energy and luminosity are correlated because both depend on the photospheric temperature. Rees & Mészáros (2005) have shown that, if dissipation occurs above the saturation radius, then $E_p \propto \Gamma^2 L_\gamma^{-1/4}$, where $L_\gamma$ is the GRB luminosity. Then the relation requires a certain correlation of the burst luminosity with the photosphere’s Lorentz factor. Within the same model for the burst emission, Thompson (2006) has shown that the relation is obtained if the burst thermal radiation is produced at the stellar progenitor’s photosphere, for which the rest-frame temperature of the photons is $T'_{bb} \propto (L_\gamma/\Gamma^2)^{1/4}$, and assuming that the outflow opening is set by its lateral expansion at the sound speed ($\theta \propto \Gamma^{-1}$) and that the collimation-corrected GRB output ($\propto
L_\gamma \theta^2$) is universal (as was first indicated by the analysis of Frail et al 2001 and later shown to be incorrect by that the GRB collimated output ranges over 2 decades – e.g. figure 1 of Ghirlanda, Ghisellini & Lazzati 2004).
In this work, we present a possible origin of the relation related to the dynamics of the GRB source, assuming an observer located within the opening of the relativistic outflow (i.e. viewing geometry is not at work). If the burst emission is synchrotron, then the peak of the GRB $\nu F_\nu$ spectrum is at $E_p \propto \gamma^2 B \Gamma$ and the flux density at that photon energy is $F_p \propto B \Gamma N$, where $\gamma$ is the electron typical comoving-frame Lorentz factor and $N$ the number of electrons in the GRB source. The GRB output being $\Eg \sim F_p E_p t_\gamma$, it follows that the relation requires $$B \Gamma \gamma^2 \propto B \Gamma \gamma (N t_\gamma)^{1/2} \;.
\label{sy}$$ If the burst emission were inverse-Compton scatterings of the synchrotron emission generated by same electrons, then $E_p$ picks an extra-factor $\gamma^2$ and $F_p$ a factor $\tau$, the optical thickness to electron scattering of the GRB source. Then the relation requires $$B \Gamma \gamma^4 \propto B \Gamma \gamma^2 (N t_\gamma \tau)^{1/2} \;.
\label{ic}$$
It is tempting to attribute the relation to $(i)$ variations from burst to burst of the $B\Gamma$ factor, which appears both in the peak energy $E_p$ and the GRB output $\Eg$, $(ii)$ universality of $\gamma$, and $(iii)$ the remaining “dummy” parameters ($N$, $t_\gamma$, $\tau$) being either universal or uncorrelated with $B\Gamma$ (so that they do not yield a different $E_p-\Eg$ dependence). We note that variations in $\gamma$ (for synchrotron) or $\gamma^2$ (for inverse-Compton) from burst to burst that are larger than those of $B\Gamma$ would induce a $E_p \propto \Eg$ correlation for either emission process.
The burst duration $t_\gamma$, which is the only observable that appears in equations (\[sy\]) and (\[ic\]), has a spread of 1.5-2.0 orders of magnitude among long-bursts, which is comparable to the observed spread in GRB energy $\Eg$ at fixed peak energy $E_p$ (see figure 1 of Ghirlanda et al 2008). This suggests that the observed spread in the relation requires some correlation among the dummy parameters, although it is possible that the range of measured $\Eg$ is smaller than the true spread because, for a fixed peak energy, bursts of a lower GRB output may fall below detection.
If the GRB emitting electrons are accelerated at shocks, then it is unlikely that the product $B\Gamma$ can vary among bursts while $\gamma$ is universal, because acceleration of electrons at relativistic shocks is expected to yield an electron Lorentz factor $\gamma$ that depends on that of the shock. As the latter bears a connection with the GRB source Lorentz factor $\Gamma$, a universal $\gamma$ requires either universal $\Gamma$ and $\epsilon_e$ or an ad-hoc correlation of these parameters. In the former case, the relation would rest entirely on variations in the magnetic field $B$ among bursts. The nearly 3 decades spread in observed $E_p$ and that $E_p \propto B \propto
\epsilon_B^{1/2}$ imply that the fraction $\epsilon_B$ of the internal energy stored in shock-generated magnetic fields has a range of 6 decades. Thus, a universal $\gamma$ requires a mechanism for electron acceleration at shocks that is completely decoupled from to the generation of magnetic fields, which is an extreme requirement. For example, in the Weibel instability model of Medvedev (2006), proton current filaments created by the instability produce electric fields which accelerate electrons over distances of about the proton plasma skin-depth, leading to $\epsilon_e \simeq \epsilon_B^{1/2}$, hence the 3 decades range of observed peak energies $E_p$ would be associated with an electron $\gamma$ which is far from being universal.
Thus, it seems much more likely that relation is not due just to variations in the $B\Gamma$ term among bursts and that some or all of the other parameters appearing in equations (\[sy\]) and (\[ic\]) contribute as well. To include their effect in driving the relation, we assume that the outflow’s energy is dissipated by shocks which accelerates electrons and generate magnetic fields that acquire quasi-universal fractions of the dissipated energy. Some justification for the latter assumption is that, if the electron and magnetic parameters $\epsilon_e$ and $\epsilon_B$ were correlated as for the Weibel instability model, then their variations among bursts would induce a $E_p \propto \Eg^{3/4}$ correlation for synchrotron emission and $E_p
\propto \Eg^{5/6}$ correlation for inverse-Compton.
In the following section, we study the implications of equations (\[sy\]) and (\[ic\]), representing the relation, in the framework of [*external shocks*]{}. We note that this model has the drawback that the efficiency of the GRB emission should be small (below 10 percent) for those bursts with a large number (hundreds) of pulses (Sari & Piran 1997). The same can be done for internal shocks which, as discussed above, will lead to constraints on the distribution of the ejecta Lorentz factor with mass and ejection time (or variability timescale). A low GRB efficiency is also expected for this model (e.g. Kumar 1999).
External-shock emission
=======================
The external shock driven by the interaction of the relativistic ejecta with the burst ambient medium offers two possible GRB sources: the reverse shock, which energizes the ejecta, and the forward shock, which sweeps-up the circumburst medium. Denoting by $\Gamma'$ the Lorentz factor of either shock as measured in the frame of the incoming gas (the ejecta or the ambient medium), the shock jump conditions lead to an internal energy density in the shocked gas that is $u' = (\Gamma'-1) n'
m_p c^2$, where $n'= (4\Gamma'+3) n'_0$ is the comoving-frame particle density in the shocked fluid and $n'_0$ that in the unshocked gas. Thus, for a relativistic shock $\Gamma' \gg 1$), the typical electron Lorentz factor is $\gamma \propto \Gamma'$ and the magnetic field is $B \propto \Gamma n^{1/2}$, where $n$ is the ambient medium density and $\Gamma$ the laboratory-frame Lorentz factor of the shocked gas (i.e. the GRB source), the latter being valid also for the reverse shock because the contact discontinuity between the two shocked media is in hydrostatic equilibrium, (i.e. pressure and internal energy density is the same behind both shocks).
For a source moving at Lorentz factor $\Gamma$, the burst duration is $t_\gamma =
R_\gamma/\Gamma^2$, where $R_\gamma$ is the GRB source radius, which results from either the spread in the photon arrival time across the visible area of angular opening $\Gamma^{-1}$ or from the observer duration of the source travel-time up to radius $R$ (provided that the source is decelerating or accelerating slower than $\Gamma \propto R^{1/2}$). Adding that the optical thickness to electron scattering is $\tau \propto N/R_\gamma^2$, the relation of equations (\[sy\]) and (\[ic\]) becomes $$\Gamma'^2 \Gamma^2 n^{1/2} \propto \Gamma' \Gamma (n N R_\gamma)^{1/2}
\label{syn}$$ for synchrotron emission and $$\Gamma'^4 \Gamma^2 n^{1/2} \propto \Gamma'^3 \Gamma N (n/R_\gamma)^{1/2}
\label{inv}$$ for inverse-Compton.
Below, we investigate the conditions required for the synchrotron and inverse-Compton emissions from the reverse and forward shocks to accommodate the relation with the following simplifications:\
(1) the burst emission is produced before the reverse shock crosses the ejecta shell, i.e. before the deceleration of the external shock starts. One reason for this restriction is that the shock-crossing radius offers a “milestone” in the evolution of the external shock that could be the GRB radius $R_\gamma$, while no such reference point exist after deceleration sets in. A second reason is that it would be unnatural for a decelerating external shock to radiate episodically, once during the burst, until 100 s, and then again staring after 1000 s, during the afterglow, as observed in the X-ray emission of a majority of Swift GRBs (O’Brien et al 2006, Willingale et al 2007),\
(2) the entire emitting fluid moves at the same Lorentz factor $\Gamma(R_\gamma)$ and is filled with the same magnetic field $B(R_\gamma)$, with the values taken at the radius were the burst emission is released. As $E_p$, $F_pE_p$, and $\Gamma$ are power-laws in the shock radius, for a radially extended burst emission, their burst-averaged ($\overline{E_p} = \int E_p dF_p/ \int dF_p$) and burst-integrated ($\int F_p E_p dt \propto \Eg$ with $dt=dR/\Gamma^2$) values have the same dependence on $R_\gamma$ as their values at $R_\gamma$,\
(3) the distribution with energy of the shock-accelerated electrons is softer than $dN/d\gamma_e \propto \gamma_e^{-3}$ above the typical $\gamma$, so that the peak of $\nu F_\nu$ is for the typical $\gamma$ electrons and not at a higher random Lorentz factor determined by electron cooling and/or acceleration,\
(4) the electrons with the typical Lorentz factor $\gamma$ do not cool significantly during the GRB emission. We note that only a small of the BATSE bursts (Preece et al 2000) have the $F_\nu \propto \nu^{-1/2}$ spectrum below the peak energy $E_p$ expected in the opposite case. If the $\gamma$-electrons cool during the burst, the $\nu F_\nu$ spectrum still peaks at the synchrotron or inverse-Compton energy corresponding to $\gamma$ (i.e. the peak energy $E_p$ remains unchanged), but the flux at $E_p$ picks a multiplying factor $\gamma_c/\gamma \propto (\Gamma' \Gamma n R_\gamma)^{-1}$ for synchrotron and a factor $(\gamma_c/\gamma)^2$ for inverse-Compton, owing to that most electrons are at the cooling Lorentz factor $\gamma_c \propto \Gamma/(B^2 R_\gamma)$ for which the radiative cooling timescale is equal to the burst duration.
Thus, the treatment provided below is not sufficiently comprehensive and serves only as an illustration of the conditions required for the external shock to account for the relation.
Dense ejecta (semi-relativistic reverse shock)
----------------------------------------------
For the evolution of the ejecta–ambient medium interaction at times before the reverse shock crosses the ejecta shell (i.e. before the standard deceleration sets-in), the shock jump conditions can be used to derive a fourth-degree equation for the Lorentz factor $\Gamma$ of the shocked fluid (which is the same for both the shocked ejecta and the swept-up ambient medium). As shown by Panaitescu & Kumar (2004), the solution of that equation is $$\Gamma \simeq \Gamma_0 \left[ 1 + 2 \Gamma_0 \left( n/n'_{ej} \right)^{1/2} \right]^{-1/2} \;
\label{G}$$ where $\Gamma_0$ is the Lorentz factor of the unshocked ejecta and $n'_{ej}$ their comoving-frame density.
In the $n'_{ej} \gg 4 \Gamma_0^2 n$ limit (thin and dense ejecta shell), equation (\[G\]) leads to $\Gamma \siml \Gamma_0$, independent of the $n/n'_{ej}$ ratio, and to a mildly relativistic reverse shock of constant Lorentz factor $\Gamma'$. If $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma'$ do not change with radius, then equations (\[syn\]) and (\[inv\]) imply that the relation is induced by a certain correlation of the ejecta Lorentz factor $\Gamma_0$ with the radius $R_\gamma$ where the GRB emission is released. We focus on the forward shock emission because the mildly relativistic reverse shock is unlikely to yield an emission spectrum peaking in the hard X-rays. For the forward shock, $\Gamma' = \Gamma \simeq \Gamma_0$ and $N \propto n R_\gamma^3 =
R_\gamma^{3-s}$ for an ambient medium density stratified as $n \propto R_\gamma^{-s}$ with $s<3$, and $N \simeq const$ if $s>3$.
For synchrotron emission and $s < 3$, equation (\[syn\]) requires $\Gamma_0^2
\propto R_\gamma^{2-s/2}$. If $\Gamma_0$ were universal, this leads to an inconsistent solution $s=4$. Thus $\Gamma_0$ should vary among bursts, in which case the requirement imposed by the relation is that the [*GRB emission is released at a radius that is correlated with the ejecta Lorentz factor*]{}. Further investigation can be done if $R_\gamma$ is determined in some way. The termination shock of the wind expelled by the GRB progenitor is the only milestone expected in the evolution of the forward shock, though it is not evident how it could set the GRB radius; even that were achieved, the location of the termination shock should not be related to the ejecta initial Lorentz factor. Instead, we speculate that the location where the forward-shock GRB emission is released is tied to the radius $R_+
\propto (\Ek/\Gamma_0^2)^{1/(3-s)}$ at which the reverse shock crosses the ejecta ($\Ek$ being the ejecta kinetic energy), and after which the blast-wave is decelerated. Then and the relation can be obtained if $s=10/3$, which is inconsistent with the starting assumption $s<3$.
For synchrotron emission and $s > 3$, equation (\[syn\]) requires $\Gamma_0^2
\propto R_\gamma^{1/2}$. Relating $R_\gamma$ to the shock-crossing radius $R_+$, a self-consistent solution ($s=3.5$) is found, for which $E_p \propto \Gamma_0^4
R_\gamma^{-7/4} \propto \Gamma_0^{-3} \Ek^{1/4}$.
For inverse-Compton emission and $s < 3$, equation (\[inv\]) requires $\Gamma_0^2
\propto R_\gamma^{2.5-s}$. If $\Gamma_0$ were universal, the relation would be accounted for by an ambient medium with $s=2.5$. In this case, $R_\gamma = R_+$ leads to $R_\gamma \propto \Ek^2$ and $E_p \propto R_\gamma^{-11/8} \propto \Ek^{-5/2}$. If $\Gamma_0$ is not universal, the relation is obtained for $s=11/4$, leading to $E_p \propto \Gamma_0^6 R_\gamma^{-11/8} \propto \Gamma_0^{17} \Ek^{-11/2}$. For $s>3$, the relation requires $\Gamma_0^2 \propto R_\gamma^{-1/2}$, which for $R_\gamma = R_+$ leads to $s=2.5$, i.e. an inconsistent solution.
Therefore, for a thin ejecta shell, the relation can be explained with synchrotron emission from the forward shock if GRBs are produced at the radius where the reverse shock crosses the ejecta shell and if the ambient medium around bursts has a universal $n \propto R^{-3.5}$ radial structure, bursts with higher peak energy $E_p$ and GRB output $E_\gamma$ resulting for lower ejecta Lorentz factors $\Gamma_0$ or larger ejecta kinetic energies $\Ek$. The relation can also be obtained with inverse-Compton emission if $n \propto R^{-2.5}$ and $\Gamma_0$ are universal, bursts with higher $E_p$ and $E_\gamma$ resulting from a lower $\Ek$, or if $n \propto R^{-2.75}$ for all bursts if $\Gamma_0$ is not universal, a higher $E_p$ and $E_\gamma$ being obtained for a higher $\Gamma_0$ or lower $\Ek$.
Tenuous ejecta (relativistic reverse shock)
-------------------------------------------
In the $n'_{ej} \ll 4 \Gamma_0^2 n$ limit (thick and tenuous ejecta shell), equation (\[G\]) leads to $\Gamma = (\Gamma_0/2)^{1/2} (n'_{ej}/n)^{1/4} \ll \Gamma_0$ and to a relativistic reverse shock with $\Gamma' \simeq \Gamma_0/(2\Gamma) \gg 1$. Considering that the radial width of the ejecta shell increases linearly with its radius, the comoving-frame ejecta density is $n'_{ej} \propto (\Ek/\Gamma_0)/ R^3$. Then, for a ambient medium with radial density profile $n \propto R^{-s}$, we obtain that the Lorentz factor of the shocked gas evolves as $\Gamma \propto R^{(s-3)/4}$. Therefore, if $s>3$, the shocked gas motion is accelerated by the ram pressure of the incoming ejecta, starting from a value well below $\Gamma_0$ (and remaining below it at all times). For $s<3$, the GRB source is decelerating (but this deceleration is substantially slower than that after the reverse shock has crossed the ejecta shell).
In the following investigation, we drop the dependence of two quantities of interest, $E_p$ and $E_\gamma$, on the ejecta Lorentz factor $\Gamma_0$, i.e. we assume it to be universal, and determine the stratification index $s$ that accommodates the relation. In this case, bursts have different peak energies and GRB outputs because their emission is produced at different radii $R_\gamma$. If $R_\gamma$ is identified with the shock having crossed the entire ejecta shell, then the GRB radius is set by the ejecta kinetic energy and the duration of the ejecta release, which is about the same as the observer frame burst duration: $R_+ \propto (\Ek t_\gamma)^{1/(4-s)}$ (Panaitescu & Kumar 2004).
If $\Gamma_0$ were not universal, the relation could be explained if the GRB radius $R_\gamma$ and $\Gamma_0$ satisfy a certain relation. Then, relating $R_\gamma$ with the shock crossing radius will lead to a certain correlation among $\Gamma_0$, $\Ek$, and $t_\gamma$, an avenue which we will not explore any further.
The continuous injection of relativistic electrons (in the downstream region) of a Lorentz factor $\gamma_e \propto \Gamma'$ which changes with the outflow radius will lead to an electron population at $R_\gamma$ that has a power-law distribution with energy, $dN/d\gamma_e \propto \gamma_e^{-q}$. The effective index $q$ can be calculated by first determining the medium structure parameter $s(q)$ that accounts for the relation, then the dynamics of the shocked fluid $\Gamma(R)$ (which sets $\gamma_e$) and the derivative $dN/dR$ of the electrons number, from where $dN/d\gamma_e$ can be obtained and the loop is closed to find the exponent $q$ [^1] . Because $\gamma$ evolves with $R$, one must check that the assumed location of the peak of $\nu F_\nu$ is consistent with the evolution of $\gamma(R)$ and the inferred effective index $q$ of the electron distribution.
### Forward shock
For the forward shock, $\Gamma' = \Gamma \propto R_\gamma^{(s-3)/4}$ and $N \propto R_\gamma^{3-s}$ if $s<3$, while $N \simeq const$ if $s>3$. For $s>3$, most of electrons have been accelerated before the GRB radius $R_\gamma$ and we have to find a self-consistent solution considering that the peak energy $E_p$ is either at $\gamma (R_\gamma)$ (which we will denote as $\gamma_1$) or at some electron Lorentz factor $\gamma_0$ corresponding to when relativistic electrons were first produced. We will make the simplifying assumption that $\gamma_0$ is a universal quantity.
For a $dN/d\gamma_e \propto \gamma_e^{-q}$ electron distribution, with most electrons being at $\gamma_0$, the flux at photon energy $E_0 \propto \gamma_0^2
B\Gamma$ is $F_0 \propto \Gamma N B$, while the flux at energy $E_1 \propto
\gamma_1^2 B\Gamma$ is $F_1 \propto \Gamma NB (\gamma_0/\gamma_1)^{q-1}$. (1) If the peak of $\nu F_\nu$ is at $E_0$, then it can be shown that the relation requires $s=5$, for which $\gamma_e \propto R^{1/2}$, $dN/dR \propto
R^{-3}$, hence $dN/d\gamma_e \propto \gamma_e^{-7}$. Given that $d\gamma_e/dR > 0$, $q=7$ implies that the peak of $\nu F_\nu$ is, indeed, at $E_0$, consistent with the starting assumption. For this case, $E_p \propto R_\gamma^{-3/2}$.\
(2) If the peak of $\nu F_\nu$ is at $E_1$, then the relation leads to $s=3+4/(q+3)$, $\gamma_e \propto R^{1/(q+3)}$, $q=5$ which, together with $d\gamma_e/dR > 0$, implies that the peak of $\nu F_\nu$ is, in fact, at $E_0$, in contradiction with the starting assumption.
For synchrotron emission and $s<3$, the relation given in equation (\[syn\]) is satisfied if $s=3.5$, hence this is not a self-consistent solution.
For inverse-Compton emission and $s<3$, the relation of equation (\[inv\]) requires $s=19/7$, leading to $\gamma_e \propto R^{-1/14}$, $dN/dR \propto R^{-5/7}$, and $q=5$ which, together with $d\gamma_e/dR <0$, implies that the peak of $\nu F_\nu$ is, indeed, determined by the $\gamma(R_\gamma)$ electrons. For this case, $E_p
\propto R_\gamma^ {-25/16}$.
For inverse-Compton emission and $s>3$, the flux at photon energy $E_0 \propto
\gamma_0^4 B\Gamma$ is $F_0 \propto \tau \Gamma N B$, while the flux at energy $E_1 \propto \gamma_1^4 B\Gamma$ is $F_1 \propto \tau \Gamma NB (\gamma_0/\gamma_1)^
{2(q-1)}$.\
(1) If the peak of $\nu F_\nu$ is at $E_0$, the relation requires $s=1$, incompatible with the assumed $s>3$.\
(2) If the peak of $\nu F_\nu$ is at $E_1$, then the relation leads to $s=3-2/(q+2)$, $\gamma_e \propto R^{-1/(2q+4)}$, $dN/dR \propto R^{-q/(q+2)}$, from where $q=5$ and $s=19/7$, inconsistent with the $s>3$ initial assumption.
Therefore, the relation can be accommodated with the synchrotron emission from the pre-deceleration forward shock if all GRBs occur in a $n \propto R^{-5}$ medium, but at different radii, or by with the inverse-Compton forward shock emission if the ambient medium has a universal $n \propto R^{-19/7}$ stratification. In either case, bursts of higher $E_p$ and $\Eg$ are those occurring at smaller radii.
### Reverse shock
For the reverse shock, $\Gamma' \propto \Gamma^{-1} \propto R_\gamma^{(3-s)/4}$ and the number of energized ejecta electrons evolves as $dN/dR \propto R^2
(\Gamma_0 n'_{ej})(\beta_0 - \beta)$, where $\beta_0$ and $\beta$ are the lab-frame velocities of the unshocked and shocked ejecta, respectively. For $\Gamma_0 \gg \Gamma$, we have $\beta_0 - \beta \simeq (2\Gamma^2)^{-1}$. Using $n'_{ej} \propto R^{-3}$ and $\Gamma \propto R_\gamma^{(s-3)/4}$, one arrives at $dN/dR \propto R^{(1-s)/2}$, from where $N \propto R_\gamma^{(3-s)/2}$ for $s<3$ and $N \simeq const$ for $s>3$.
For synchrotron emission and $s<3$, the relation leads to a contradicting $s=5$. For $s>3$, assuming that the $\nu F_\nu$ spectrum peaks at $E_0 \propto
\gamma_0^2 B\Gamma$, the relation requires $s=5$, implying $\gamma_e \propto
R^{-1/2}$, $dN/dR \propto R_\gamma^{-2}$, thus $q=-1$ which, together with $d\gamma_e/dR < 0$, implies that the peak of $\nu F_\nu$ is, indeed, at $E_0$. For this case, we obtain $E_p \propto R_\gamma^{-3/2}$. For $s>3$, assuming that the $\nu F_\nu$ spectrum peaks at $E_1 \propto \gamma_1^2
B\Gamma$, the relation requires $s=3-4/(q+1)$, from where $\gamma_e \propto
R_\gamma^{1/(1-q)}$, $dN/dR \propto R^{(3-q)/(q-1)}$, leading to $q=3$ and $s=1$, inconsistent with the starting choice $s>3$.
For inverse-Compton emission and $s<3$, the relation requires $s=1$, yielding $\gamma_e \propto R^{1/2}$, $dN/dR = const$, hence $q=-1$, thus $d\gamma_e/dR > 0$ implies that $\nu F_\nu$ peak energy is determined by the $\gamma_1$ electrons. In this case, $E_p \propto R_\gamma^{-1/2}$. For $s>3$, assuming that the $\nu F_\nu$ spectrum peaks at $E_0 \propto \gamma_0^4
B\Gamma$, the relation requires $s=1$, which is incompatible with the working condition $s>3$. For $s>3$, assuming that the $\nu F_\nu$ spectrum peaks at $E_1 \propto \gamma_1^4
B\Gamma$, the relation leads to $s=3+2/q$, implying $\gamma_e \propto
R^{-1/(2q)}$ and $dN/dR \propto R^{-1-1/p}$, from where $q=-1$ and $s=1$, again incompatible with the starting condition.
Thus, synchrotron emission from the reverse shock can account for the relation provided that bursts occur at various radii in a $n \propto R^{-5}$ medium, while inverse-Compton emission can explain the same relation if $n \propto R^{-1}$. For either radiation process, bursts of higher $E_p$ and $\Eg$ are those occurring at smaller radii.
Conclusions
===========
We have investigated the ability of the external shock (produced by the interaction of relativistic ejecta with the ambient medium) to accommodate the relation between the burst peak energy and isotropic-equivalent energy release. First, we noted that it seems unlikely that the relation is due to variations of the quantity $B\Gamma$ among bursts, with the electron Lorentz factor $\gamma$ being universal and all other quantities ($N$, $t_\gamma$, $\tau$) in the right-hand sides of equations (\[sy\]) and (\[ic\]) not being correlated with $E_p$. That is so because electron acceleration at relativistic shocks is likely related to the generation of magnetic fields and with the strength of the shock and because the number of radiating electrons $N$ and the burst duration $t_\gamma$ could be related with the dynamics of the external shock.
For that reason, we have identified the conditions that lead to the relation by taking into account all the quantities that determine $E_p$ and $\Eg$. After making some simplifications (uniform magnetic field, single Lorentz factor in the shocked fluid, negligible electron cooling), and considering only the external shock emission before the reverse shock crosses the ejecta shell (as an interrupted burst–afterglow emission from the same decelerating outflow seems too contrived), we have determined the dependence of $E_p$ and $\Eg$ on the radius where (or up to which) the burst emission is produced, with allowance for both the reverse and forward shock, synchrotron and inverse-Compton emissions, and relativistic or semi-relativistic reverse shock. In the latter case, only the forward shock is expected to produce the high-energy prompt emission, the relation requiring a correlation between the ejecta Lorentz factor and the GRB radius which does not have a plausible justification. For that reason, we favour an explanation of the relation where the reverse shock is relativistic.
In our treatment of that case, the burst emission is assumed to arise over a small range of source radii or up to a certain radius, the relation resulting from variations in that radius from burst to burst. The reverse shock crossing the ejecta or the external shock encountering the termination shock of the progenitor’s freely expanding wind are the milestones in the dynamical evolution of the reverse and forward shock, respectively, that could set the location where the burst radius is produced. This implies that the variations from burst to burst in the radius at which the prompt emission is released is due to either (1) variations among bursts in the kinetic energy of the ejecta or in the duration of ejecta release (for a reverse shock origin of the GRB), or (2) to the history of the mass-loss of the GRB progenitor shortly before its core collapse (for GRBs produced by the forward shock).
Within the external-shock model for GRBs, the relation can be accounted for by just the power-law radial stratification of the burst ambient medium density. For the four possible combinations of dissipation shock and radiation process, we find the following density profiles: $n \propto R^{-1}$ (inverse-Compton from reverse shock), $R^{-19/7}$ (inverse-Compton from forward shock), and $R^{-5}$ (synchrotron from either shock). In general, a steep ambient profile is required to explain the slope of the relation because of the weak dependence of the source Lorentz factor on the density of the ambient medium ($\Gamma \propto n^{-1/4}$ – equation \[G\]).
None of the ambient medium stratification required by the relation is the $n \propto R^{-2}$ profile expected for a massive stellar GRB progenitor expelling a constant speed wind a steady mass-loss rate. Considering that the burst emission occurs at $\siml 10^{16.5}$ cm and that the wind termination shock moves at $\sim
10 \; {\rm km\; s^{-1}}$), this implies that, in the last $\siml 1000$ years before core collapse, the Wolf-Rayet progenitor of long-bursts had a varying mass-loss rate or wind terminal velocity. However, we do rule out that, by relaxing the simplifying assumptions made here, the ambient medium density profile required to explain the relation with the external-shock emission becomes consistent with $n \propto R^{-2}$.
As the burst model employed here is that of the external shock before the reverse shock crosses the ejecta (i.e. before deceleration begins), the ensuing afterglow emission could be attributed to the emission from the reverse or forward shocks after deceleration, with allowance for injection of ejecta and energy after the burst, to account for the extended afterglow emission (if it is from the reverse shock) and the X-ray light-curve plateaus (if it is from the forward shock). Then, the general lack of continuity of burst-to-afterglow emissions, shown by the steep fall-off of the X-ray flux by 2–3 dex at the end of the burst, would lead to a rather contrived model, where the discontinuous burst-to-afterglow emission requires a temporary switch-off of the external-shock emission, followed by a much softer emission (the afterglows). A simpler is that where the two emission phases, prompt and delayed, are attributed to different outflows, with the burst arising from a narrower jet whose bright, high-energy emission is produced only before the reverse shock crosses the ejecta or the external shock reaches the wind termination shock, but having a sufficiently low, collimated kinetic energy, so that its post-burst (forward shock) emission is dimmer than that from a wider, more energetic outflow producing the afterglow emission.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The author acknowledges the support of the US Department of Energy through the LANL/LDRD 20080039DR program.
[99]{}
Amati L. et al, 2002, A&A, 390, 81 Amati L., 2006, MNRAS, 372, 233 Eichler D., Levinson A., 2004, ApJ, 614, L13 Frail D. et al, 2001, ApJ, 562, L55 Ghirlanda G., Ghisellini G., Lazzati D., 2004, ApJ, 616, 331 Ghirlanda G., Nava L., Ghisellini G., Firmani C., Cabrera J., 2008, MNRAS, 387, 319 Kumar P., 1999, ApJ, 523, L113 Lloyd N., Petrosian V., Mallozzi R., 2000, ApJ, 534, 227 Medvedev M., 2006, ApJ, 651, L9 Mészáros P., Rees M., 2000, ApJ, 530, 292 Nava L., Ghirlanda G., Ghisellini G., Firmani C., 2008, preprint (arXiv:0807.4931) O’Brien P. et al, 2006, ApJ, 647, 1213 Panaitescu A., Kumar P., 2004, MNRAS, 353, 511 Pendleton G. et al, 1996, ApJ, 464, 606 Preece R. et al, 2000, ApJS, 126, 19 Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2005, MNRAS, 363, L61 Rees M., Mészáros P., 2005, ApJ, 628, 847 Ryde F., 2004, ApJ, 614, 827 Sakamoto T. et al, 2008, ApJ, 679, 570 Sari R., Piran T., 1997, ApJ, 485, 270 Schaefer B., 2003, ApJ, 583, L71 Toma K., Yamazaki R., Nakamura T., 2005, ApJ, 635, 481 Thompson C., 2006, ApJ, 651, 333 Willingale R. et al, 2007, ApJ, 662, 1093 Zhang B., Mészáros P., 2002, ApJ, 581, 1236
[^1]: If, at each instant, a power-law distribution with index $p$ is injected downstream, the cumulative electron distribution will have the index $q$ if $q<p$ and the index $p$ if $q>p$. For simplicity, we assume that the former is always the case.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study the heat current autocorrelation function (HCAF) in one-dimensional, momentum-conserving lattices. In particular, we explore if there is any relation between the decaying characteristics of the HCAF and asymmetric interparticle interactions. The Lennard-Jones model is intensively investigated in view of its significance to applications. It is found that in wide ranges of parameters, the HCAF decays faster than power-law manners, and in some cases it decays even exponentially. Following the Green-Kubo formula, the fast decay of HCAF implies the convergence of heat conductivity, which is also corroborated by numerical simulations. In addition, with a comparison to the Fermi-Pasta-Ulam-$\beta$ model of symmetric interaction, the HCAF of the Fermi-Pasta-Ulam-$\alpha$-$\beta$ model of asymmetric interaction is also investigated. Our study suggests that, in certain ranges of parameters, the decaying behavior of the HCAF is correlated to the asymmetry degree of interaction.'
author:
- 'Shunda Chen$^1$, Yong Zhang$^1$, Jiao Wang$^1$, Hong Zhao$^{1,2}$'
title: 'Key role of asymmetric interactions in low-dimensional heat transport'
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
How a fluctuation relaxes in the equilibrium state is very important, not only in its own right, but also because it governs the transport behavior of a system in a nonequilibrium state. Relaxation of a fluctuation is characterized by the corresponding correlation function, and according to the linear Boltzmann and Enskog equations, if a system is not in a critical region, in general its correlation functions are believed to decay exponentially at long times [@Hansen; @Pomeau]. Consequently, the integral of a flux autocorrelation function, which appears in the Green-Kubo formula, converges and thus guarantees a size-independent transport coefficient [@KuboSP]. Until the late 1960s, the viewpoint that correlation functions decay exponentially had been prevailing. However, after Alder and Wainwright [@Alder] numerically evidenced the long-time tail of velocity autocorrelation in gas models in 1970, extensive analytical and numerical studies suggested that in one-dimensional (1D) and two-dimensional (2D) momentum-conserving systems, the heat current autocorrelation function (HCAF) generally decays in power-law manners instead. (See Refs. [@Lebowitz; @Lepri; @Dharrev] for reviews and more literatures.) The HCAF is defined as $$C(t)\equiv\langle J(0)J(t)\rangle,$$ where $\langle\cdot\rangle$ denotes the equilibrium thermodynamic average and $J(t)$ is the total heat current. For 1D momentum-conserving systems, a recent analytical study has summarized that $C(t)\sim t^{-\gamma}$ with $%
\gamma=1/2$ and $\gamma=2/3$, respectively, for systems with symmetric and asymmetric interparticle interactions [@Beijeren]. For 2D momentum-conserving systems [@Lepri; @Nara], the decaying exponent is $%
\gamma=1$. An important consequence of the power-law decay is the divergence of the heat conductivity for $\gamma \leq 1$ following the Green-Kubo formula [@KuboSP; @Lepri] $$\kappa=\frac{1}{k_{B}{T^{2}}d}\lim\limits _{\tau\rightarrow\infty} \lim
\limits _{V\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{V}\int_{0}^{\tau}C(t)dt.$$ Here $\kappa$, $T$, $d$, and $V$ are, respectively, the heat conductivity, the temperature, the dimension, and the volume of the system, and $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant. It implies that low dimensional (i.e., 1D or 2D) materials, such as nanowires and graphene flakes, may possess an anomalous thermal transport property. At present, this viewpoint — that the HCAF of low dimensional momentum-conserving systems generally decays in power-law manners — is a mainstream viewpoint that has also been accepted by experimentalists.
Nevertheless, in a recent numerical study [@Zhong12], it has been found that in 1D momentum-conserving lattices with asymmetric interparticle interactions, the heat conductivity may turn out to be independent of the system size. This finding implies that in such a system, the HCAF may decay faster than power-law manners, or in a power-law manner but with $\gamma > 1$. Later, faster decay has also been observed in several other 1D momentum-conserving lattices with asymmetric interactions [@Chen12; @Zhong13; @Savin]. The faster decay behavior is in clear contrast with existing theories and has significant importance. On one hand, it requires us to revisit the theories developed for low dimensional transport problem during last decades; On the other hand, it implies that realistic low dimensional materials, such as nanowires and graphene flakes, may still follow the well-known Fourier heat conduction law [@G14; @G15; @GMC15], because real materials usually show the thermal expansion effect, which is a consequence of asymmetric interparticle interactions. This problem hence deserves careful studies.
The purpose of this paper is to explore if there exists any link between asymmetric interparticle interactions and the decaying behavior of the HCAF in 1D momentum-conserving lattices. The model we focus on is the Lennard-Jones (L-J) lattices, whose interaction asymmetry degree depends on both the temperature and a pair of system parameters. We show that in wide ranges of temperature and system parameters, this model has a high asymmetry degree and the HCAF decays faster than any power-law manners. Nonequilibrium simulations also confirm that it has a size-independent heat conductivity. The Fermi-Pasta-Ulam-$\alpha$-$\beta$ (FPU-$\alpha$-$\beta$) model is also studied. This model has asymmetric interaction but faster decay of its HCAF has not been reported yet [@Savin; @Das; @Dhar; @WL]. Our analysis shows that in clear contrast to intuition, the effects of asymmetric interactions, such as thermal expansion, do not vanish in the low temperature regime; rather, it becomes even stronger in some sense. In this regime, fast decay of the HCAF, that may lead to normal heat conduction, is observed as well. To make a comparison, we also study the HCAF of the Fermi-Pasta-Ulam-$\beta$ (FPU-$\beta$) model of symmetric interaction, in such a low temperature regime. Our results suggest that under proper conditions, asymmetric interactions may lead to the fast decay of the HCAF, i.e., certain correlation may exist between fast decay of the HCAF and asymmetric interactions. This finding could be a helpful clue for further studies on the HCAF. As the two lattice models of asymmetric interactions (L-J model and FPU-$\alpha$-$\beta$) are general in some sence, we suspect such correlation may also be found in other asymmetric lattices with proper parameter values. Nevertheless, we point out that at present the exact conditions for observing such correlation are not clear yet, and it would be risky to interpret such correlation as a cause-effect relationship. These problems deserve more efforts and should be clarified in future.
We adopt molecular dynamics studies for our aim here. At present numerical analysis plays an important role in studying the heat conduction properties of low dimensional systems. Although the problem can be dealt with analytically, certain approximations and assumptions have to be resorted to. For example, in analytical studies, it has been generally assumed that all slow variables of relevance for the long-time behavior of hydrodynamics and the related time correlation functions are the long-wavelength Fourier components of the conserved quantities’ densities [@Beijeren]. For this reason, particular attention must be paid when analytical results are compared with simulation and experiment results [@Das]. As to experimental studies, despite the fact that in recent years it has become technically feasible to measure the heat conductivity of low dimensional materials, the accessible precision is still far away for drawing convincing conclusions. In addition, realistic materials studied in laboratories, such as nanowires and graphene flakes, may not be genuine 1D and 2D objects, considering their possible transverse motions. Hence, how to control or evaluate the effects of the transverse motions turns out to be a new experimental challenge. In contrast, the molecular dynamics method does not suffer from any of these problems. However, it has its own difficulty: the finite-size effect, which often makes it hard to reach consensus on the simulation results [@Chen14]. Inevitably, our study in this paper will also face the doubt whether our results can be extrapolated to the thermodynamic limit. Regarding to this concern, by taking the FPU-$\alpha$-$%
\beta$ model as an example, we will show that, even though the Fourier heat conduction behavior observed with finite system sizes does not hold up to an infinite system eventually, it does hold up to a physically meaningful macroscopic system.
In the following we shall first describe the lattice model of Lennard-Jones potential and present the simulation results; then we shall turn to the asymmetric, Fermi-Pasta-Ulam-$\alpha$-$\beta$ (FPU-$\alpha$-$\beta$) model. A brief summary and discussion will be presented in the last section.
Lennard-Jones Lattices
======================
The Lennard-Jones (L-J) potential has been widely adopted in modeling realistic materials. It is asymmetric with respect to the equilibrium point, and our study has shown that in 1D lattices with L-J potentials, the HCAF can decay faster than power-law manners [@Chen12]. This finding is in clear contrast to the well known theoretical prediction of the power-law decay.
The Hamiltonian of a 1D lattice with the nearest neighboring coupling can be written as $$H=\sum_{i}\frac{p_{i}^{2}}{2m_{i}}+U(x_{i}-x_{i-1}-1),$$ where $p_{i}$, $x_{i}$, $m_{i}$, and $U$ represent, respectively, the momentum, the position, the mass of the $i$th particle and the potential between two neighboring particles. For both models we study in the following, we assume that all the component particles are identical and have unit mass; i.e., $m_{i}=1$. The lattice constant is set to be unity so that the system length $L$ equals the particle number $N$. In our simulations for the HCAF, the periodic boundary condition is imposed, and the total momentum of the system is set to be zero. Note that in 1D lattices, if there is no steady motion (i.e., the total momentum is zero), then the heat current equals the energy current [@Lepri]; Hence our results can be extended to the energy current straightforwardly. We consider the total heat current defined as $J\equiv\sum_{i}\dot{x}_{i}\frac{\partial U} {\partial x_{i}}$ [@Mai]. To numerically measure the heat current in the equilibrium state, the system is first evolved from an appropriately assigned random initial condition for a long enough time ($>10^{8}$ in our simulations) to ensure that it has relaxed to the equilibrium state, then the total heat current at ensuing times is measured. The energy density, or the energy per particle, denoted by $\langle E_i\rangle$, is determined by the initial condition and is conserved during the simulation. At the low temperature regime, by using the Viral theorem, we have $k_B T \approx \langle E_i
\rangle \approx 2\langle U_i \rangle$, where $\langle U_i\rangle$ is the averaged potential energy per particle at the equilibrium state. (Note that this relation holds only when the harmonic term dominates the potential; hence only applies at the low temperature regime.) The Boltzmann constant is set to be unity throughout.
The L-J potential we consider has the form $U(x)=[({x+1})^{-m}-2({x+1}%
)^{-n}+1]$. It involves a pair of parameters, $m$ and $n$, that control the asymmetry degree of the potential. Without loss of generality, in the following we fix $m=2n$ so that the minimum of $U(x)$ is fixed at $x=0$. The potential is asymmetric with respect to the equilibrium point \[see Fig. 1(a)\]. In order to compare the asymmetry degree for different $(m,n)$ and at different temperatures, we introduce the following measure of the asymmetry degree: $$\eta \equiv {\frac{d }{{d\left\langle U \right\rangle }}}({x_+ } - |{x_- }|);$$ where $x_+$ and $x_-$ are, respectively, the right- and the left-side zero point of $U(x)-\langle U \rangle=0$, with $\langle U \rangle $ being the average potential energy between two neighboring particles, or the average potential energy per particle. Note that ${x_+ }-|{x_- }|$ represents expansion and $\eta$ is equivalent to the thermal expansion coefficient upon a factor of the heat capacity [@Kittel]. As $\eta$ captures and reflects thermal effects of asymmetric interactions, it is a natural and physically meaningful choice to measure the asymmetry degree. As Fig. 1(b) shows, the asymmetry degree of the L-J potential increases as the average potential energy $\langle U \rangle$, and for a fixed $\langle U \rangle$ value it increases as the parameter pair $(m,n)$ varies from $(m,n) = (12,6)$ to $%
(m,n) = (2,1)$.
We will focus on the case of $(m,n) = (12,6)$, the most frequently adopted parameters in literatures, but also discuss other values of $(m,n)$ when it is in order. In Fig. 2 we show the simulation results of the HCAF. We have performed the finite-size effect analysis as outlined in Ref. [@Chen14] and found that in 1D L-J lattices, the finite-size effect is in fact negligible, which is very favorable for numerical studies of the HCAF. Thanks to this property, the asymptotic decaying behavior of $C(t)$ can be reliably revealed even with a comparatively small system of $N \approx 4
\times {10^3}$ ( $N$ is the total number of particles in the system). To show this property, in Fig. 2(a) and (b) the HCAF at different system sizes are compared for $(m,n) = (12,6)$ and $(m,n) = (2,1)$, respectively. The energy density $\langle E\rangle $, i.e., the average energy per particle, is fixed at $\langle E\rangle=0.5$, which corresponds to the temperature of $%
T \approx 0.55$ and the average potential energy per particle $\langle
U\rangle \approx 0.2$. It can be seen that in both cases, all the curves of $%
C(t)$ perfectly collapse onto one upon scaling by the system size $N$. This evidence strongly suggests that the finite-size effects are negligible for $%
N > 4 \times {10^3}$. Note that the oscillating tails around zero for $t > {%
10^3}$ appear in Fig. 2(a) \[also in Fig. 2(c) and Fig. 2(d)\] are due to uncertainty of statistical average of $J(0)J(t)$ \[see Eq. (1)\], and the negative parts of the oscillations are not shown as the vertical axis is in the logarithmic scale.
It shows clearly in Fig. 2(a) that the HCAF decays faster than any power-law manners. The inset presents the data in the semi-log scale, from which one can see that the decay manner is already very close to an exponential one. Fig. 2(b) shows the results for $(m,n) = (2,1)$, and $C(t)$ curves can be regarded as decaying exponentially with certainty. It can be found from Fig. 1(b) that the L-J potential with $(m,n) = (2,1)$ has relatively higher asymmetry degree; we thus conjecture the higher the asymmetry degree is, the closer the decaying behavior of the HCAF tends to be exponential. To check this conjecture, in Fig. 2(c) we compare the HCAF for various $(m,n)$ values. It shows that, as $(m,n)$ varies from $(12,6)$ to $(2,1)$, i.e., as the asymmetry degree increases \[see Fig. 1(b)\], the $C(t)$ curve in the semi-log scale becomes straighter and straighter \[see the inset of Fig. 2(c)\], suggesting that the decaying behavior indeed tends to be exponential progressively.
As Fig. 1(b) shows, for a given parameter pair $(m,n)$, the asymmetry degree is controlled by the average potential energy per particle $\langle U\rangle$: it increases dramatically as the latter. As the temperature monotonically increases with $\langle U\rangle$, it implies that the temperature could also be correlated to the decaying behavior of the HCAF: For the L-J model at a higher temperature, the average potential per particle is higher and consequently, the potential’s asymmetry degree would be higher \[see Fig. 1(b)\]. In Fig. 2(d) the temperature dependence of the decaying behavior of the HCAF is studied for $(m,n) = (12,6)$ with $\langle E\rangle $=0.5, 1, and 2. For these $\langle E\rangle $ values, the corresponding temperature is $T \approx $0.55, 1.2, and 2.4, and the corresponding $\langle U\rangle $ is about 0.2, 0.4, and 0.8. Again, the $C(t)$ curve in the semi-log scale \[see the inset of Fig. 2(d)\] becomes straighter and straighter and at $%
\langle E\rangle $=1, it has already become a perfect exponential function. This again confirms that the decaying behavior of the HCAF is correlated to the asymmetry degree. Following the Green-Kubo formula \[see Eq. (2)\], the fact that $C(t)$ decays faster than the power law of $\sim{t^{-1}}$ suggests that the integral of $C(t)$ is convergent. In addition, for $N > 4 \times {%
10^3}$, the fact that $C(t)/N$ curves for different system sizes agree with each other as shown in Fig. 2(a) and (b) implies that the thermal conductivity does not depend on the system size. In Fig. 3, we present the heat conductivity given by the Green-Kubo formula. Note that in order to get rid of the possible finite-size effect, a practical procedure for obtaining the heat conductivity at a given system size $N$, denoted by ${\kappa _{GK}}%
(N)$, is to truncate the time integration in the Green-Kubo formula [Lepri, Pros]{} up to the time ${\tau _{tr}}(N) = N/(2{v_s})$ (${v_s}$ is the sound speed of the system) [@Chen14]; i.e., $$\kappa_{GK}(N)=\frac{1}{k_{B}{T^{2}}}\int_{0}^{\tau}\frac{C(t)}{N}dt.$$ It can be seen from Fig. 3 that $\kappa_{GK}$ increases as $N$ for $%
N<4\times 10^3$ but gets saturated for larger $N$, which is in good consistence with the results of $C(t)/N$ \[see Fig. 2(a)\].
To further verify the convergence of the heat conductivity, we have also computed it directly by using the nonequilibrium simulations: Two Langevin heat bathes [@Dharrev] with with temperatures $T_{+}=0.7$ and $T_{-}=0.4$, respectively, are connected to the two ends of an L-J lattice. After the stationary state is established, the heat conductivity is evaluated by assuming the Fourier law $j=-\kappa dT/dx$, where $j\equiv \langle J\rangle/N
$, and $dT/dx \equiv ({T_+ } - {T_- })/N$ is the temperature gradient along the lattice. The results (denoted by $\kappa_{neq}$) are also presented in Fig. 3 for a close comparison. Again, the heat conductivity measured in this way tends to saturate and the value it tends to is the same as that obtained by integrating the HCAF with the Green-Kubo formula.
To summarize, 1D L-J lattices obey the Fourier law at large system sizes, and their HCAF decay faster than power-law manners. This conclusion is not affected by the finite-size effects.
FPU-$\protect\alpha$-$\protect\beta$ lattices
=============================================
The potential of the 1D FPU-$\alpha$-$\beta$ model is $U(x) = {x^2}/2 -
\alpha {x^3}/3 + \beta {x^4}/4,$ where the two parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta
$ determine, respectively, the asymmetric and the symmetric nonlinear term. As our aim is to investigate the effects induced by the asymmetric term, we fix $\beta=1$ throughout. Fig. 4(a) shows the potential for three different values of $\alpha$, and Fig. 4(b) shows the corresponding result of the asymmetry degree.
From Fig. 4(b) it can be seen that the FPU-$\alpha$-$\beta$ model is quite different from the L-J model: Though in general the asymmetry degree increases as $\alpha$, it generally decreases and tends to zero as the average potential energy $\langle U\rangle $ increases. In addition, for larger $\alpha$ the asymmetry degree may depend on $\langle U\rangle $ in a nonmonotonic manner as in the case of $\alpha$=1.5. At the first glance, these results seem to contradict to our intuition; e.g., when the temperature tends to zero, $\langle U\rangle $ decreases accordingly, and the potential energy represented by the quadratic term in the potential function would become dominant. For this reason, one may expect that the physical properties of the FPU-$\alpha$-$\beta$ model would converge to those of a harmonic lattice. However, we would like to point out that, for some nonlinear effects, such as thermal expansion, the cubic term in the potential function is always the leading term; hence whether a nonlinear effect is non-negligible in the low temperature limit depends on if it could stand out from the linear effect. As far as thermal expansion is concerned, in the low temperature limit the thermal expansion coefficient tends to be a temperature independent constant proportional to $g/{c^2}$ with $g$ and $c$ being, respectively, the coefficient of the cubic and the quadratic term of the Taylor expansion of the given potential function (see Ref. [@Kittel]). For the FPU-$\alpha$-$\beta$ model $g/{c^2} = 4\alpha /3$; i.e., the larger is $\alpha$, the larger is the thermal expansion coefficient, which is in good consistence with the results of the asymmetry degree given in Fig. 4(b). \[Note that for the L-J model, the thermal expansion coefficient does not tend to zero in the low temperature limit either, and the value of $%
g/{c^2}$ for various parameter $(m,n)$ is also in consistence with the results given in Fig. 1(b).\]
If the decaying behavior of the HCAF is correlated to the asymmetry degree, then based on Fig. 4(b), we could expect that faster decay may be observed in the low temperature regime where the asymmetry degree is high enough. In the high temperature regime, the asymmetry degree tends to be low, which is consistent with the fact that as the temperature increases, the symmetric quartic term becomes overwhelmingly dominating so that the expansion quantity ${x_+ } - |{x_- }|$ tends to be a constant, inducing in turn a decreasing thermal expansion rate. As a result, one may expect instead slow decay of the HCAF.
Fig. 4(b) also tells that the asymmetry degree is relatively strong only at low temperatures, in particular for the potential with a smaller value of $%
\alpha$. To reveal the effects of the asymmetric potential, we first investigate the HCAF at a very low energy density of $\langle E\rangle = 0.05
$. For this energy density, we have $T \approx 0.05$ and $\langle U\rangle
\approx 0.025$. In Fig. 5(a) we show the HCAF for $\alpha$=0.5, 1, and 1.5 with $N = 8192$; it can be seen that for $t < 2 \times {10^4}$, before the fluctuations (due to uncertainty of statistical average) set in, $C(t)$ decays more rapidly — in an exponential-like way — than any power-law manners in all three cases. In addition, we have also verified that for all these cases $C(t)/N$ does not change as $N$ as long as $N > {10^3}$.
Now let us turn to the case of a high temperature: $\langle E\rangle=0.8$, which corresponds to $T \approx 0.9$ and $\langle U\rangle \approx 0.3$. Compared with the low temperature case, it can be seen from Fig. 4 (b) that the asymmetry degree has greatly diminished. In this case, the HCAF does show a power-law tail with the decaying exponent close to 2/3 \[see Fig. 5(b)\] as predicted by the self-consistent mode coupling theory [@Del06; @Del07].
Fig. 5(b) also suggests that the HCAF undergoes an initial faster decaying stage which lasts longer and longer with the increase of $\alpha$. This is a signal that the asymmetric potential term even plays a role in the high temperature regime; i.e., higher asymmetry degree can maintain a longer initial faster decaying stage. It can be expected that if the temperature is increased further, the effects induced by the asymmetric potential will become even more unnoticeable due to the rapid decrease of the asymmetric degree. This has been verified by our simulations.
Concerning the results given in Fig. 5(a), one may wonder if there exists a crossover from the exponential-like decay to the power-law decay even at low temperatures, but the time corresponding to the crossover point, denoted by $%
t^*$, is so long that has gone beyond the scope of our simulations. To study this question, we computed the HCAF at several low temperatures with $%
\alpha=1$ and $N=8192$ \[see Fig. 6(a)\]. It can be seen that such a crossover may exist and $t^*$ may increase very fast as the temperature decreases.
Nevertheless, we would like to argue that, even though the HCAF turns out to have a power-law tail, *in practice* the faster decay before the power-law tail can still guarantee an effective constant heat conductivity [@Chen13], as long as the faster decaying stage lasts sufficiently long. To show this, we calculate the heat conductivity for a finite system size $N$ by using the Green-Kubo formula and divide the integral of $C(t)$ into two parts; i.e., $$\kappa = {\frac{1 }{{{k_B}{T^2}}}}[\int_0^{{\tau _e}} {{\frac{1 }{N}}}
C(t)dt + \int_{{\tau _e}}^{{\tau _{tr}}(N)} {{\frac{1 }{N}}} C(t)dt].$$ In the time range of the second integral, i.e., $({\tau _e},{\tau _{tr}}(N))$, the HCAF is assumed to decay as $C(t)\sim{t^{ - 2/3}}$. Taking the case of $\alpha = 1.5$ as shown in Fig. 5(a) as an example, where one can see that the initial rapid decay lasts up to ${\tau _e} \approx 2.5 \times {10^4}$ and $C({\tau _e})/N$ drops to about ${10^{ - 6}}$; then the first integral $%
\int_0^{{\tau _e}} {(C(} t)/N)dt \approx 4$ and the second integral $\int_{{%
\tau _e}}^{{\tau _{tr}}} {(C} (t)/N)dt \approx 2.6 \times {10^{ - 3}}{t^{1/3}%
}|_{{\tau _e}}^{{\tau _{tr}}}$. It follows that the contribution of the power-law tail (given by the second integral) to the heat conductivity is not comparable to that of the faster decaying part until the system size reaches up to $N = {10^9}$, given that [@Lepri; @Chen14; @Pros] ${\tau
_{tr}}(N) \approx N$. In other words, if we suppose that the average distance between two neighboring particles is one angstrom, then the heat conductivity would keep in effect unchanged over a wide system size range from about one micrometer to ten centimeters. So as long as the faster decay stage $(0,{\tau _e})$ lasts long enough, as evidenced in Fig. 5(a), even though we assume that the HCAF has a power law tail, its influence to the heat conduction can still be safely neglected.
Above analysis raises a relevant question: If these properties remain in the FPU-$\beta$ model. In Fig. 6(b), we show the HCAF at several temperatures for the FPU-$\beta$ model with $N=8192$. Roughly, its behavior looks similar as in the FPU-$\alpha$-$\beta$ model \[see Fig. 6(a)\], in that there is a fast decay stage followed by a slow power-law tail. However, qualitative difference exists: for FPU-$\beta$ model, the decay behavior of HCAF is of power-law rather than exponential-like, and is slower than $C(t)\sim{t^{ - 1}%
}$ throughout \[see Fig. 6(b)\]. As a result, the thermal conductivity for FPU-$\beta$ model would increase with the system size significantly.
Summary and Discussion
======================
In summary, we have numerically studied the HCAF in the 1D L-J lattices. It has been shown that the HCAF generally decays faster than power-law manners. In addition, we have observed a correlation between the decaying behavior of the HCAF and the interaction asymmetry degree: As the system parameters $%
(m,n)$ change from $(m,n)=(12,6)$ to (2,1), the asymmetry degree increases, and meanwhile the HCAF tends to decay more and more exponentially. In particular, for $(m,n)=(2,1)$, the HCAF shows clear signal of exponential decay. On the other hand, the asymmetry degree increases as the average potential energy per particle, or equivalently the temperature. Again, the HCAF tends to decay exponentially as the temperature increases.
We have also studied the decaying behavior of the HCAF in the FPU-$\alpha$-$%
\beta$ model. While the asymmetry degree increases with the asymmetry parameter $\alpha$, its dependence on temperature is quite different from that of the L-J model: in the high temperature regime, the asymmetry degree decreases monotonically as the average potential energy per particle increases, in consistence with the fact that the symmetric quartic term in the potential becomes dominating. We show that in the low temperature regime the exponential-like fast decay of the HCAF can last for a significantly long time though a power-law tail may follow.
One important question that cannot be definitely answered via numerical simulations only is whether the power-law tail would show up if the system size is out of the scope accessible to simulations. Our observation is that there are not any signals of the power-law tail in the L-J model with all the system parameters investigated. However, as to the FPU-$\alpha$-$\beta$ model, we cannot exclude such a possibility based on our present simulation results.
Nevertheless, we have shown that for the FPU-$\alpha$-$\beta$ model at a low temperature, even if the HCAF has a power-law tail eventually, effective constant heat conductivity can still be expected if only the initial faster decay lasts long enough. In particular, if the HCAF keeps decaying faster over more than three orders, the contribution of the assumed power-law tail to the heat conductivity can be neglected even when the system reaches a macroscopic scale. Namely, the slow tail of the HCAF may not necessarily imply abnormal transport *in practice*, hence should be carefully analyzed when theoretical predictions based on the power-law tail are applied to experiments. (It is worth noting that though for the FPU-$\beta$ model there is also a fast decaying period in low-temperature regime, the decaying rate is slower than $\sim1/t$.) Based on these analysis, we conclude that with proper system parameters, both the L-J model and the FPU-$%
\alpha$-$\beta$ model (at a sufficient low temperature) may have the normal heat conduction property given by the Fourier law. As realistic materials usually contain asymmetric interactions, we think this result may be significant to applications as well.
In a recent work, heat conduction of 1D L-J lattices was studied [@Savin] at different particle densities. Though the authors did not show how the HCAF decays, they provided the convergent heat conductivity at low temperature regime by using the Green-Kubo formula, which implies that the HCAF decays faster than $\sim1/t$. This is consistent with our earlier conclusion on this model [@Chen12]. In that work [@Savin], the authors also conjectured that the lattices with the parabolic and/or quartic confining potential, to which the Fermi-Pasta-Ulam model belongs, should all exhibit anomalous heat transport. Our study suggests that their conjecture should be studied further because as we have shown here, the heat conduction behavior of the FPU-$\alpha$-$\beta$ model can also be normal. In addition, normal heat conduction has also been evidenced in other lattices with confining potential [@Zhong12; @Chen12; @Zhong13], such as the piecewise parabolic potential [@Zhong13]. Therefore, more efforts are still needed to unveil the exact conditions under which the HCAF decays faster.
Finally, we emphasize that asymmetric interactions are not a sufficient condition for the faster decay of the HCAF and normal heat conduction, just as suggested by the results of the FPU-$\alpha$-$\beta$ model at high temperatures. Asymmetric interactions may not be a necessary condition for the faster decay of the HCAF and normal heat conduction, either. To this end, the 1D rotator lattice [@Gia00; @GS00] is the only known example. This model has normal heat conductivity under certain conditions, but its interaction is symmetric. However, recent studies suggest that the angle variables of this model do not constitute a conserved field [@HSpohn14; @DD14], implying that this model is in effect irrelevant with the subject we discuss here. It is worth noting that if this example is excluded, then all the 1D momentum-conserving systems where the HCAF has been reported to decay faster up to now have asymmetric interactions [@Zhong12; @Chen12; @Zhong13; @Savin]. Recently, two more model systems have also been added to this category: 1D hard-point gas and 1D Toda lattice with alternative masses [@Fourier14]. The faster decay of the HCAF and normal heat conduction are found in both models in certain range of the system size when the mass ratio tends to unity, i.e., when the systems approach their integerable limit. Taking into account all these studies, the faster decay of the HCAF seems to be a collective consequence of some different factors to which asymmetric interactions belong.
**Acknowledgments**
Very useful discussions with S. Lepri, R. Livi and A. Politi are gratefully acknowledged. This work is supported by the NSFC (Grants No. 11335006, No. 11275159, No. 10805036, and No. 11535011).
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{} Hansen J P and McDonald I R 2006 *Theory of Simple Liquids*, 3rd ed. (Academic)
Pomeau Y and Résibois P 1975 *Phys. Rep.* **19** 63 (DOI:10.1016/0370-1573(75)90019-8)
Kubo R, Toda M and Hashitsume N 1991 *Statistical Physics II: Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics* (Springer, New York)
Alder B J and Wainwright T E 1970 *Phys. Rev.* A **1** 18
Bonetto F, Lebowitz J L and Ray-Bellet L 2000 *Fourie’s Law: A Chanllenge to Theorists*, Mathematical Physics (Imperial College Press, London)
Lepri S, Livi R and Politi A 2003 *Phys. Rep.* **377** 1
Dhar A 2008 *Adv. Phys.* **57** 457
van Beijeren H 2012 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **108** 180601
Narayan O and Ramaswamy S 2002 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **89** 200601
Zhong Y, Zhang Y, Wang J and Zhao H 2012 *Phys. Rev.* E **85** 060102(R)
Chen S, Zhang Y, Wang J and Zhao H 2012 arXiv:1204.5933v2; arXiv:1204.5933v3
Zhong Y, Zhang Y, Wang J and Zhao H 2013 *Chin. Phys.* B **22** 070505
Savin A and Kosevich Y A 2014 *Phys. Rev.* E **89** 032102
Fugallo G, Cepellotti A, Paulatto L, Lazzeri M, Marzari N and Mauri F 2014 *Nano Lett.* **14** 6109
Cepellotti A, Fugallo G, Paulatto L, Lazzeri M, Mauri F and Marzari N 2015 *Nat. Comm.* **6** 6400
Barbarino G, Melis C and Colombo L 2015 *Phys. Rev.* B **91** 035416
Das S G, Dhar A, Saito K, Mendl C B and Spohn H 2014 *Phys. Rev.* E **90** 012124
Das S G, Dhar A and Narayan O 2014 *J. Stat. Phys.* **154** 204
Wang L, Hu B and Li B 2013 *Phys. Rev.* E **88** 052112
Chen S, Zhang Y, Wang J and Zhao H 2014 *Phys. Rev.* E **89** 022111
Mai T, Dhar A and Narayan O 2007 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **98** 184301
Kittel C 1996 *Introduction to Solid State Physics*, 7th ed. (John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York), pp. 130-131.
Prosen T and Campbell D K 2005 *Chaos* **15** 015117
Delfini L, Lepri S, Livi R and Politi A 2006 *Phys. Rev.* E **73** 060201(R)
Delfini L, Lepri S, Livi R and Politi A 2007 *J. Stat. Mech.* P02007 (DOI:10.1088/1742-5468/2007/02/P02007)
Chen S, Zhang Y, Wang J and Zhao H 2013 arXiv:1309.7146
Giardina C, Livi R, Politi A and Vassalli M 2000 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **84** 2144
Gendelman O V and Savin A 2000 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **84** 2381
Spohn H 2014 arXiv:1411.3907
Das S G and Dhar A 2014 arXiv:1204.5247
Chen S, Wang J, Casati G and Benenti G 2014 *Phys. Rev.* E **90** 032134
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We derive the Friedmann-like equations in braneworld cosmology by imposing the first law of thermodynamics and Bekenstein’s area-entropy formula on the apparent horizon of a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universe in both Randall-Sundrum II gravity and Dvali-Gabadadze-Porrati gravity models. Israel’s boundary condition plays an important role in our calculations in both cases, besides the first law of thermodynamics and Bekenstein’s area-entropy formula. The results indicate that thermodynamics on the brane world knows the behaviors of gravity.\
PACS:98.80.-k, 04.50.+h
address: |
Asia-Pacific Center for Theoretical Physics,\
Pohang 790-784, Republic of Korea
author:
- 'Xian-Hui Ge'
title: 'First law of thermodynamics and Friedmann-like equations in braneworld cosmology'
---
Introduction
============
The relations between thermodynamics of space time and the nature of gravity is one of the most intriguing topics in theoretical physics. The four laws of black hole thermodynamics were first derived from the classical Einstein equation [@bar]. With the discovery of Hawking radiation of black holes [@haw], it became clear that the analogy is actually an identity[@bek]. On the other hand, the Einstein equation is derived by Jacobson from the proportionality of entropy and horizon area together with the first law of thermodynamics $\delta Q=TdS$[@jac]. Verlinde found that the Friedmann equation in a radiation dominated Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) universe can be written in an analogous form of the Cardy-Verlinde formula, an entropy formula for a conformal field theory[@ver]. The above observations imply that thermodynamics of space time and the Einstein equation are closely related [@pad]. In ref.[@cai], Cai and Kim derived the Friedmann equations of FRW universe with any spatial curvature by applying the first law of thermodynamics to the apparent horizon and assuming the geometric entropy is given by a quarter of the apparent horizon area.\
The main interest of this paper relys on the relations between the first law of thermodynamics and the Friedmann-like equation in braneworld cosmology. In the study of three-brane cosmological models, an unusual law of cosmological expansion on the brane has been reported (for incomplete references see [@bin; @bin2; @col; @barc; @sht]). According to this law, the energy density of matter on the brane quadratically enters the right-hand of the new Friedmann equation for the braneworld cosmology, in contrast with the standard cosmology, where the Friedmann equation depends linearly on the energy density of matter. In this paper, we shall derive the Friedmann-like equation in the braneworld cosmology from the first law of thermodynamics.\
This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we discuss the relations between thermodynamics and gravity in Randall-Sundrum II (RSII) model [@randall]. In section 3, we derive the Friedmann-like equation in Dvali-Gabadadze-Porrati (DGP) model [@dav] by applying the first law of thermodynamics to the apparent horizon together with Israel’s boundary condition. We present our conclusions in section 4.
FRW universe in Randall-Sundrum II gravity
==========================================
We consider a D-brane located on the boundary of a $(n+1)$-dimensional Anti-de Sitter space time, as our visible universe with ordinary matter being trapped on this brane by string theory effects. We will derive the braneworld cosmological evolution equations from the first law of thermodynamics. At each point of on the brane, we define a space-time unit normal, $N_A=N_A(x)$, to the surface that satisfies $g^{AB}N_AN_B=1$. $g^{AB}$ is the bulk metric and the indices $A,B$ run over all the bulk coordinates. The bulk metric induces a metric on the brane, $$g_{\mu\nu}=g_{AB}-N_{AB}.$$ The Einstein equation on the 3-brane world has been derived in[@meada]. The Einstein equation on this $(n-1)$-brane is given by[@cao; @padilla](we use the notations in [@cao]), $$\label{einstein} ^{(n)}G_{\mu\nu}=-\Lambda_{n}g_{\mu\nu}+8\pi
G_{n}T_{\mu\nu}+\kappa_{n+1}^4\Pi_{\mu\nu}-E_{\mu\nu},$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Lam}
\Lambda_{n}&=&\kappa_{n+1}^2\left[\frac{n-2}{n}\Lambda_{n+1}+\frac{(n-2)}{8(n-1)}\kappa_{n+1}^2\lambda^2\right],\\
\label{G} G_{n}&=&\frac{n-2}{32\pi(n-1)}\lambda\kappa_{n+1}^4,\\
\label{pi}
\Pi_{\mu\nu}&=&-\frac{1}{4}T_{\mu\alpha}T_{\nu}^{\alpha}+\frac{1}{4(n-1)}TT_{\mu\nu}+\frac{1}{8}g_{\mu\nu}T_{\alpha\beta}T^{\alpha\beta}
-\frac{1}{8(n-1)}T^2g_{\mu\nu},\end{aligned}$$ where $\kappa_{n+1}^2=8\pi G_{n+1}$, $\Lambda_{n}$ is the brane cosmological constant, $\lambda$ is the brane tension, $G_n$ is the Newton’s constant in n-dimensions, $T_{\mu\nu}$ is the energy-momentum tensor of matter in the brane world, and $E_{\mu\nu}$ is the Weyl tensor, which is vanishing in pure Anti-de Sitter space time. We can see from (\[einstein\]) that the n-dimensional effective equations of motion, being given entirely in terms of quantities defined on the brane, is independent of the evolution of the bulk space time. Different from the standard Einstein’s equation in general relativity, the energy-momentum tensor in the right-hand of (\[einstein\]) is modified due to the presence of extrinsic curvature when project $(n+1)$-dimensional bulk quantities to the brane. We will not solve (\[einstein\]) in the rest of our work, but just utilize the modified energy-momentum tensor in the right-hand of (\[einstein\]) together with the first law of thermodynamics to derive cosmological evolution equation on the brane.\
In the following calculation, we assume the cosmological constant $\Lambda_n$ vanishes, since we are mainly concern with the dynamical aspects of the braneworld cosmology while $\Lambda_n$ is a constant and does not vary with time. The induced metric on the brane is the FRW metric with the form, $$\label{bmetric}
ds^2_{n}=-d\tau^2+a^2(\tau)\left(\frac{dr^2}{1-kr^2}+r^2d\Omega^2_{n-2}\right)$$ where $d\Omega^2_{n-2}$ is the metric on an $(n-2)$-dimensional Euclidean unit space of constant curvature, $k=1,0,-1$ which corresponds to the unit sphere, plane, and hyperboloid respectively. The metric (\[bmetric\]) can be rewritten as[@bak] $$\label{metric}
ds^2=h_{ab}dx^adx^b+\tilde{r}^2d\Omega^2_{n-2},$$ where $\tilde{r}=a(\tau)r$ and $x^0=\tau$, $x^1=r$. The 2-dimensional metric $h_{ab}={\rm{diag}}(-1,\frac{a^2(\tau)}{1-kr^2})$. Since the apparent horizon satisfies the equation $h^{ab}\partial_{a}\tilde{r}\partial_{b}\tilde{r}=0$, we obtain the radius of the apparent horizon, $$\tilde{r}_{A}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{H^2+\frac{k}{a^2}}},$$ where $H=\frac{\dot{a}}{a}$ is the Hubble parameter. For a dynamical space time, the apparent horizon is regarded as the horizon satisfying the Bekenstein area-entropy formula[@hay]. A unified law of black hole dynamics and relativistic thermodynamics is derived in spherically symmetric general relativity, where the gradient of the active gravitational energy $E$ determined by the Einstein’s equation is divided into *energy-supply* and *work* terms[@hay]. Assume the matter on the brane is given by a homogeneous perfect fluid of density $\rho$ and pressure $p$, so that $$T_{\mu\nu}=(\rho+p)U_{\mu}U_{\nu}+pg_{\mu\nu}.$$Substituting the tensor back to Eq.(\[einstein\]) and keep in mind that $\Lambda_{n}$ and $E_{\mu\nu}$ are vanishing, we find that, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tensor}\tilde{T}^{~\mu}_{\nu}&=&T^{~\mu}_{\nu}+\frac{\kappa_{n+1}^4}{\kappa_{n}^2}\Pi^{~\mu}_{\nu}\nonumber\\
&=&{\rm diag}\left(-\rho-
\frac{n-2}{8(n-1)}\frac{\kappa_{n+1}^4}{\kappa_{n}^2}\rho^2,p+\frac{n-2}{8(n-1)}
\frac{\kappa_{n+1}^4}{\kappa_{n}^2}\rho(\rho+2p),...\right),\end{aligned}$$where $\tilde{T}^{\mu}_{\nu}$ can be regarded as the total effective energy-momentum tensor on the brane and $\kappa_{n}^2=8\pi G_{n}$ denotes Newton’s constant. Now we would like to project the total effective energy-momentum tensor $\tilde{T}^{\mu}_{\nu}$ to the normal direction of the $(n-1)$-space and have it denoted as $T^{ab}$. Then, one may define the *work density* by [@bak; @hay], $$\label{work} W=-\frac{1}{2}T^{ab}h_{ab},$$ and the *energy-supply* vector is given by, $$\label{energy-supply}
\Psi_{a}\equiv
T^{~b}_{a}\partial_{b}\tilde{r}+W\partial_{a}\tilde{r}$$ As noted in ref.[@hay], the work density at the apparent horizon may be viewed as the work done by the change of the apparent horizon and the energy-supply at the horizon is total energy flow through the apparent horizon. Thus the total change of energy on the apparent horizon can be written as, $$\label{unified} \nabla E=A\Psi+W\nabla V,$$where $A=(n-1)\Omega_{n-1}\tilde{r}^{n-2}$ and $V=\Omega_{n-1}\tilde{r}^{n-1}$ are the area and the volume of the $(n-1)$-brane with radius $\tilde{r}$, and $\Omega_{n-1}=\pi^{(n-1)/2}/\Gamma((n-1)/2+1)$ is the volume of an $(n-1)$-dimensional unit ball. Eq.(\[unified\]) is interpreted as *unified first law*[@hay].\
Let us turn to calculating the heat flow $\delta Q$ through the apparent horizon during an infinitesimal time interval $dt$, while keep the volume of the brane stable, namely $\nabla
V=0$. In this sense,$$dE\equiv A\Psi.$$ The heat flow $\delta Q$ through the apparent horizon is just the amount of energy crossing it during the time interval $dt$. Thus, $\delta Q=-dE$ is the change of the energy inside the apparent horizon. From (\[tensor\]), (\[work\]) and (\[energy-supply\]), we obtain the expression of work density and energy-supply, $$\begin{aligned}
W&=&-\frac{1}{2}(-\rho+p+\frac{n-2}{4(n-1)}\frac{\kappa_{n+1}^4}{\kappa_{n}^2}\rho
p),\\
\Psi_{t}&=&-\frac{1}{2}(\rho+p)\dot{a}r-\frac{n-2}{8(n-1)}\frac{\kappa_{n+1}^4}{\kappa_{n}^2}\rho(\rho+p)\dot{a}r,\\
\Psi_{r}&=&\frac{1}{2}(\rho+p)a+\frac{n-2}{8(n-1)}\frac{\kappa_{n+1}^4}{\kappa_{n}^2}\rho(\rho+p)a\end{aligned}$$ We assume the entropy of the apparent horizon is described by the Bekenstein area formula, $$S=\frac{A}{4G_{n}},$$ with the horizon temperature, $$~T=\frac{1}{2\pi\tilde{ r}_{A}}.$$ Calculating the amount of energy crossing the apparent horizon and applying the first law, $-dE=A\Psi dt= TdS$, we find $$\label{friedmann}
\kappa_{n}^2(\rho+p)\left(1+\frac{n-2}{8(n-1)}\frac{\kappa_{n+1}^4}{\kappa_{n}^2}\rho\right)=-(n-2)(\dot{H}-\frac{k}{a^2}).$$ Integrating (\[friedmann\]) together with the energy conservation equation on the brane, $$\dot{\rho}+(n-1)H(\rho+p)=0,$$ we finally obtain the cosmological evolution equation in the Randall-Sundrum II universe $$\label{friedmanone}H^2+\frac{k}{a^2}=\frac{2\kappa_{n}^2}{(n-1)(n-2)}\rho+\frac{\kappa_{n+1}^4}{4(n-1)^2}\rho^2
.$$ The above equation is exactly the Friedmann-like equation that describes the cosmological evolution of Randall-Sundrum II universe, where the cosmological constant is set to be vanishing here.\
One should note that in the above calculations, we have simply use the Bekenstein entropy-area formula. In ref.[@cao; @cai2], the authors started from the Friedmann-like equation on the braneworld together with the first law of thermodynamics $-dE=TdS+WdV$ and then derived the entropy expressions for the apparent horizon. The results show that the apparent horizon is proportional to the horizon area but with some corrections and only in the large horizon radius limit, the entropy obeys the $1/4$ area law. Here, we would like to justify the assumption about the usage of Bekenstein formula. In the above calculation, we have assumed during the time interval $dt$, the volume of the brane does not change, namely $dV\propto
d\tilde{r}_{A}=0$. In other words, we have only considered the isometric process, $-dE=TdS$. Thus, if one starts from the Friedmann-like equation (\[friedmanone\]) and consider the isometric thermodynamical process, one can find that the apparent horizon entropy obeys the $1/4$ area law. In this sense, let us examine the expression of the surface gravity at the apparent horizon, which is generally given by, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{k} \kappa
=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{-h}}\partial_{a}(\sqrt{-h}h^{ab}\partial_{b}\tilde{r})
=-\frac{1}{\tilde{r}_{A}}\left(1-\frac{\dot{\tilde{r}}_A}{2H\tilde{r}_{A}}\right).\end{aligned}$$ The second term in the parenthesis is vanishing while $d\tilde{r}_{A}=\frac{d\tilde{r}_{A}}{dt}dt=0$. As a consequence, the temperature is read as $T=\frac{1}{2\pi \tilde{r}_{A}}$. Therefore, an isometric thermodynamical process on the apparent horizon encodes the cosmological evolution equation. However, as suggested in ref.[@cao; @cai2], this does not mean that the Bekenstein area formula used in the calculations above really reveal the relation between horizon entropy and horizon geometry, since the presence of an extra dimension cause the gravity here to be non-Einstein type. More explicit entropy expressions of the apparent horizon of FRW universe in RSII model are given in ref.[@cao].\
In summary, If the entropy and temperature of the brane can be described by the apparent horizon, an isometric thermodynamical process on the apparent horizon should ensure the Bekenstein area formula established and from the first law of thermodynamics $-dE=TdS$, we are able to obtain the Friedmann-like equation for an $(n+1)$-dimensional Randall-Sundrum II universe with arbitrary spatial curvature.
FRW universe in Dvali-Gabadadze-Porrati gravity
================================================
In this section, we explore the relations between the first law of thermodynamics and cosmology based on the Dvali-Gabadadze-Porrati gravity model[@dav]. In this model, a 3-brane is embedded in a spacetime with an infinite-size extra dimension. The usual gravitational laws is obtained by adding to the action of the brane an Einstein-Hilbert term computed with the intrinsic curvature on the brane. Particularly, one recovers a standard four-dimensional (4D) Newtonian potential for small distances, whereas gravity is in a 5D regime for large distances. The cosmology of this model in the case of a 5D bulk was studied by Bin$\rm \acute{e}$truy et al[@bin; @bin2; @dav]. It is shown there that if the cosmological model contains a scalar curvature term in the action for the brane, besides the brane and bulk cosmological constraints, the presence of the scalar curvature term in the brane action can lead to a late-time acceleration of the universe even in the absence of any material form of dark energy [@deff].\
The cosmology in a 5-dimensional bulk is described by the metric, $$\label{bulkmetric}
ds^2=-n^2(\tau,y)d\tau^2+a^2(\tau,y)\left(\frac{dr^2}{1-kr^2}+r^2d\Omega^2_{2}\right)+b^2(\tau,y)dy^2,$$where $d\Omega^2$ is the metric of a 2-dimensional Euclidean unit space and $k=0,\pm 1$. Since we mainly focus our attention on the hypersurface defined by $y=0$[@bin], which the world volume of brane is identify with that of our universe, it is important to examine the behavior of metric in the bulk. The metric (\[bulkmetric\]) can be rewritten as[@bak] $$\label{metric}
ds^2=h_{ab}dx^adx^b+\tilde{r}^2d\Omega^2_{2},$$ where $\tilde{r}=a(\tau,y)r$ and $x^0=\tau$, $x^1=r$. The 3-dimensional metric $h_{ab}={\rm{diag}}(-n^2(\tau,y),\frac{a^2(\tau,y)}{1-kr^2},b^2(\tau,y))$. The apparent horizon is defined by[@hay], $$\label{apparent} h^{ab}\partial_{a}\tilde{r}\partial_{b}\tilde{r}=0,$$ which denotes the radius of the apparent horizon, $$\label{rA}
\tilde{r}_A=\frac{1}{\sqrt{{\frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2n^2}}+\frac{k}{a^2}-\frac{{a'}^2}{a^2b^2}}}.$$ Since $a(\tau,y)$, $b(\tau,y)$ and $n(\tau,y)$ are functions of the fifth dimension coordinate $y$, the above apparent horizon is different from that of standard cosmology. Hereafter we choose $n^2(y=0)=1$, which implies that the time on the brane corresponds to standard cosmic time, and assume the fifth dimension is static $\dot{b}=0$ and set $b=1$. The $5$-dimensional Einstein equations in the bulk is given by, $$\label{bulk} \tilde{G}_{AB}\equiv
\tilde{R}_{AB}-\frac{1}{2}\tilde{R}\tilde{g}_{AB}=\kappa_{5}^2
\tilde{T}_{AB},$$ where $\kappa_{5}^2=8\pi G_{5}$, $\tilde{R}_{AB}$ is the five-dimensional Ricci tensor and $\tilde{T}_{AB}$ is the energy-momentum tensor of matter. The energy-momentum tensor can be further decomposed into two parts, $$\label{t} \tilde{T}^{~A}_{B}=-\Lambda_{5}+T^{~A}_{B}\mid_{\rm
brane},$$where $\Lambda_{5}$ is the $5$-dimensional bulk cosmological constant and the second term is the energy-momentum tensor of the brane at $y=0$, which is given by, $$T^{~A}_{B}\mid_{\rm brane}=-\lambda
\delta_{B}^{~\mu}\delta_{\nu}^{~A}
g^{~\mu}_{\nu}\delta(y)+\delta(y)\rm{diag}(-\rho,p,p,p,0),$$ where $\lambda$ corresponds to brane tension (or cosmological constant) and the last term is the matter content on the brane ($y=0$), which is assumed in the form of a perfect fluid for homogenous and isotropic universe on the brane. We emphasize that the brane tension can in principle be tuned to be zero [@dav; @gaba]. In view of the brane tension do not vary with cosmic time $t$ and the dynamical aspects of the braneworld cosmology are our object, hereafter we follow the method of ref.[@cai] and focus mainly on the matter content of the brane in the calculations. One will see lately that an integration constant can be regarded as the brane tension, in case it does not vanish.\
Now we project the energy-momentum tensor of the matter content of the brane to the normal direction of $(\tau,r,y)$ that is denoted as $T^{~b}_{a}$. Note that we assume there are no flows of matter along the fifth dimension and $T_{yy}\mid_{\rm brane}=0$. The work density and energy-supply vector defined in (\[work\]) and (\[energy-supply\]) here read as, $$\begin{aligned}
W&=&\frac{1}{2}\delta(y)(\rho-p),\nonumber~~~
\Psi_{t}=-\frac{1}{2}\delta(y)(\rho+p)\dot{a}r,\nonumber\\
\Psi_{r}&=&\frac{1}{2}\delta(y)(\rho+p)a,~~~~
\Psi_{y}=\frac{1}{2}\delta(y)(\rho-p)a'r.\end{aligned}$$ At the time interval $dt$, the amount of energy crossing the apparent horizon is then, $$\label{de}
-dE=-A\Psi=\delta(y)A(\rho+p)H\tilde{r}_{A}dt.$$ Since our discussions about the brane are confined to the hypersurface $y=0$, and the volume of the brane is exactly that of our observing universe, then considering an isometric thermodynamical process across the apparent horizon, we can assume that the entropy and temperature denoted by the apparent horizon can be written as, $$S=\frac{A}{4 G_{(4)} },~~~~ T=\frac{1}{2\pi \tilde{r}_{A}}$$where $A=4\pi \tilde{r}_{A}^2$ is the apparent horizon area. Using the first law of thermodynamics, $-dE=TdS$, together with (\[de\]), we find that at $y=0$, $$\label{fried}
\kappa_{4}^2(\rho+p)=-2(\dot{H}-\frac{k}{a^2}-\frac{a'\dot{a}'}{a\dot{a}}+\frac{{a'}^2}{a^2
}).$$ The energy conservation equation on the brane is given by, $$\label{conservation} \dot{\rho}+3H(\rho+p)=0.$$ From (\[fried\]) and (\[conservation\]), we finally obtain, $$\label{friedman1} {H}^2+\frac{k}{a^2}-\frac{{a'}^2}{a^2
}=\frac{{\kappa_4}^2}{3}\rho+C,$$where $C$ is the integration constant that denotes the brane cosmological constant, namely $C=\Lambda_{4}$. The brane cosmological constant is given by Eq.(3) with $n=4$, $$\label{lamda}
\Lambda_{4}=\frac{\kappa_{5}^2}{6}(\Lambda_{5}+\frac{\kappa_{5}^2}{6}\lambda^2).$$ The value of $\frac{{a'}^2}{a^2 }$ can be determined by using the Israel junction condition [@israel; @meada; @cao], $$K^{+}_{\mu\nu}=K^{-}_{\mu\nu}=-\frac{{\kappa_{5}}^2}{2}\left(T_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{3}g_{\mu\nu}T\right),$$where $K_{\mu\nu}=g_{\mu}^{\alpha}g_{\nu}^{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}n_{\beta}$ denotes the extrinsic curvature of the brane, $T_{\mu\nu}$ is the matter energy-momentum tensor of the brane, and the superscript “+” and “-”refer to the “+”side ($\rm lim_{y\rightarrow +0}$) and “-” side ($\rm lim_{y\rightarrow -0}$) of the brane, respectively. As a consequence, we have $$\frac{{a'}^2}{a^2 }=\frac{{\kappa_{5}}^4}{36}\rho^2,$$ where the $Z_{2}$ symmetry $y\leftrightarrow -y$ has been used here. Therefore, the cosmological evolution equation on the brane has the final form, $$\label{friedman2}
{H}^2+\frac{k}{a^2}=\frac{{\kappa_4}^2}{3}\rho+\frac{{\kappa_{5}}^4}{36}\rho^2+\Lambda_{4}.$$ Eq.(\[friedman2\]) is in agreement with Eq.(\[friedmanone\] when $n=4$ and a non-vanishing cosmological constant . By using Eq.(\[lamda\]) and the relation (\[G\]) (see also [@csaki; @cline]), $$\label{tension} \kappa_4^2=\frac{\kappa^4_5}{6}\lambda$$ Eq.(\[friedman2\]) can be written as $$\label{binu}
{H}^2+\frac{k}{a^2}=\frac{\kappa_{5}^2}{6}\Lambda_{5}+\frac{\kappa_{5}^4}{36}(\rho+\lambda)^2,$$ which is the exact results of [@bin2] with vanishing Weyl tensor. If an intrinsic curvature term is taken into accounted, then Israel’s junction condition is modified and the value of $\frac{{a'}}{a }$ is replaced by [@deffayet], $$\frac{{a'}}{a
}=-\frac{{\kappa_{5}}^2}{6}\rho^2+\frac{{\kappa_{5}}^2}{2\kappa_{4}^2}\left(H^2+\frac{k}{a^2}\right).$$ Substituting the above formula back to (\[friedman1\]) and using (\[lamda\]) and (\[tension\]), we obtain cosmological evolution equation in DGP gravity, $$\label{rc}
H^2+\frac{k}{a^2}=\left(\sqrt{\frac{\kappa_4^2}{3}\rho_{b}+\frac{1}{4r_{c}^2}}+\frac{1}{2r_{c}}\right)^2,$$ where $\rho_{b}=\rho+\lambda $, $r_{c}=\frac{{\kappa_{5}}^2}{2\kappa_{4}^2}$ and $\Lambda_{5}$ here has been set to be zero. Eq.(\[rc\]) is precisely the Friedmann-like equation for a FRW universe in DGP gravity first found in ref.[@deffayet], when intrinsic curvature is added to the brane.\
Therefore, to derive the Friedmann-like equations for FRW universe in DGP gravity, Israel’s boundary condition is needed, besides applying the first law of thermodynamics and Bekenstein’s entropy-area formula to the apparent horizon. The intrinsic curvature term added to the brane action plays a crucial role in obtaining (\[rc\]).
[Conclusions]{}
===============
In conclusion, we have presented an alternative methods to derive cosmological evolution equations in braneworld cosmology. Employing the first law of thermodynamics, $-dE=TdS$ and Bekenstein’s area-entropy formula to the apparent horizon of FRW universe in RSII gravity and DGP gravity, we have obtained the Friedmann-like equations for brane world cosmology. Comparing section 2 with section 3, we find that Israel’s boundary condition plays an important role in determining the effective energy-momentum tensor $\tilde{T}_{\mu\nu}$ or the apparent horizon $\tilde{r}_{A}$. Israel’s boundary condition is not directly used in section 2, since we were start with the brane world Einstein equation, but it is indeed crucial to derive the effective energy-momentum tensor $\tilde{T}_{\mu\nu}$ [@meada]. An isometric thermodynamical process happened across the apparent horizon is assumed in the above discussions, thus whether a more general thermodynamical process yields the Friedmann-like equations or not worth further investigations. The detailed thermodynamical properties of apparent horizon in braneworld scenario are investigated in ref.[@cao; @cai2] and some new physics about the braneworld gravity and thermodynamics is found.\
It has been proved that gravity knows thermodynamics, when Bekenstein and Hawking found that entropy of black hole horizon is proportional to its horizon area[@haw; @bek]. Black hole entropy and temperature can be regarded as purely geometric quantities in that the horizon area and surface gravity is determined by space-time geometry. The above analysis and references mentioned[@jac; @ver; @pad; @cai; @hay], also indicate that thermodynamics knows gravity. Once the form of energy-momentum tensor of the system is determined, one can derive the spacetime geometric evolution equations from Eqs.(15) and (19). The results obtained are certainly related to the holographic principle, since the brane world cosmology models are closely related to the AdS/CFT conjecture[@mal]. It would be worthwhile to study the implications of above analysis to the holographic principle or quantum gravity in the future. The author would like to thank Prof. S. P. Kim for his helpful discussions.
[10]{} J. M. Bardeen, B. Carter and S.W. Hawking, Comm. Math. Phys. [**31**]{} (1973) 161 S. W. Hawking, Comm. Math. Phys. [**43**]{} (1975) 199 J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. [**D 7**]{} (1973) 2333 T. Jacobson, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} 75 (1995) 1260 \[gr-qc/9504004\] E. Verlinde, hep-th/0008140 T. Padmanabhan, [Class. Quantum Grav. ]{}, [**19**]{} (2002) 5387 \[gr-qc/0204019\]; T. Padmanabhan, [Phys. Rep.]{} [**406**]{} (2005) 49 \[gr-qc/0311036\]; A. Paranjape, S. Sarkar, T. Padmanabhan , [Phys.Rev.,]{} [**D 74**]{},104015 (2006) \[hep-th/0607240\]; A. Mukhopadhyay, T. Padmanabhan , [Phys. Rev.]{}, [**D 74**]{} (2006) 124023 \[hep-th/0608120\]; T. Padmanabhan and A. Paranjape, [Phys. Rev. ]{} [**D75**]{} (2007) 064004 \[gr-qc/0701003\] ; R. G. Cai and L. M. Cao, [Phys. Rev. ]{} [**D 75**]{} (2007) 064008 R. G. Cai and S. P. Kim, JHEP 02 (2005) 050 P. Bin$\acute{e}$truy, C. Deffayet,and D. Langlois, [ Nucl. Phys.]{} [**B565**]{} (2000) 269 \[hep-th/9905012\] P. Bin$\acute{e}$truy, C. Deffayet, U. Ellwanger and D. Langlois, [ Phys. Lett. B]{} [**477**]{} (2000) 285 \[hep-th/9910219\] H. Collins and B. Holdom, [Phys. Rev.]{} [**D62**]{} (2000) 105009 \[hep-ph/0003173\] C. Barcel$\acute{o}$ and M. Visser, [Phys. Lett.]{} [**B 482**]{} (2000) 183 \[hep-th/0004056\] Y. V. Shtanov, \[hep-th/0005193\] L. Randall and R. Sundrum, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} 83 (1999) 4690 G. Dvali, G. Gabadadze, M. Porrati, [Phys. Lett.]{} [**B 485**]{} (2000) 208 \[hep-th/0005016\] T. Shiromiza, K. Maeda, and M. Sassaki, [Phys. Rev.]{} [**D 62**]{} (2000) 349 \[gr-qc/9910076\]; A. N. Aliev and A. E. Gumrukcuoglu, [Class. Quant. Grav.]{} 21 (2004) 5081 R. G. Cai and L. M. Cao, hep-th/0612144 A. Padilla, Ph. D Thesis, hep-th/0210217. D. Bak and S. J. Rey, [Class. Quantum Grav.]{} [**17**]{} (2000) L83 \[hep-th/9902173\] S. A. Hayward, S. Mukohyama and M. C. Ashworth, [Phys. Lett.]{} [**A 256**]{} (1999) 347 \[gr-qc/9810006\]; S. A. Hayward, [Class. Quantum Grav.]{} [**15**]{} (1998) 3147 \[gr-qc/9710089\] A. Sheykhi, B. Wang and R. G. Cai, hep-th/0701198; A. Sheykhi, B. Wang and R. G. Cai, hep-th/0701261 C. Deffayet, G. Dvali and G. Gabadadze, [Phys. Rev.]{} [**D 65**]{}, ( 2002) 044023; C. Deffayet, S. J. Landau, J. Raux, M. Zaldarriaga and P. Astier, [Phys. Rev.]{} D [**66**]{} (2002) 024019 \[astro-ph/0201164\] G. Dvali and G. Gabadadze, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{} (2001) 065007 \[hep-th/0008054\] W. Israel, [Nuovo Cimento]{} [**B 44**]{} (1966) 1 C. Cs$\rm \acute{a}$ki, M. Graesser and C. Kolda, J. Terning, [Phys. Lett.]{} [**B 462**]{} (1999) 34 \[hep-th/9906513\] J. M. Cline, C. Grosjean and G. Servant, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} 83 (1999) 4245 \[hep-ph/9906523\] C. Deffayet, [Phys. Lett.]{} [**B 502**]{} (2001) 199 J. M. Maldacena, [Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.]{} **2** (1998) 231 \[hep-th/9711200\]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
The paper is devoted to determine necessary and sufficient conditions for existence of solutions to the problem $\displaystyle \inf\left\{ \operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{x\in\Omega} f(\nabla u(x)): u \in u_0 + W^{1,\infty}_0(\Omega)\right\}$, when the supremand $f$ is not necessarily level convex. These conditions are obtained through a comparison with the related level convex problem and are written in terms of a differential inclusion involving the boundary datum. Several conditions of convexity for the supremand $f$ are also investigated.
[**Résumé**]{}
Dans cet article on étudie des conditions nécessaires et suffisantes pour l’existence de solutions pour le problème de minimisation $\displaystyle \inf\left\{ \operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{x\in\Omega} f(\nabla u(x)): u \in u_0 + W^{1,\infty}_0(\Omega)\right\}$ lorsque la fonction $f$ n’est pas une fonction convexe par niveaux. La stratégie utilisée pour obtenir ces conditions est celle de comparer ce problème avec son problème relaxé. On obtient comme condition nécessaire et suffisante une inclusion différentielle sur la donnée au bord. On étudie aussi plusieurs conditions de convexité.
**Keywords**: Supremal functionals, differential inclusions, convexity.
**MSC2010 classification**: 49K21, 49J45, 26B25, 46N10.
author:
- 'Ana Margarida Ribeiro[^1] Elvira Zappale [^2]'
title: 'Existence of Minimizers for Non-Level Convex Supremal Functionals'
---
Introduction
============
The direct method of the calculus of variations requires some lower semicontinuity of the functional to minimize, which, in general, is related to some notion of convexity. In the lack of this ‘convexity’, the usual procedure is to consider the relaxed problem, related to the original one, obtained by ‘convexification’ of the ‘non-convex’ function. This leads in many problems to an understanding of the minimizing sequences and of the infimum to the original problem, but it doesn’t ensure the problem has a solution.
In this paper we will investigate necessary and sufficient conditions for existence of solutions to $$(P)\qquad\inf\left\{ \operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{x\in\Omega}f\left( \nabla u\left(
x\right) \right):\ u\in u_0+W_{0}^{1,\infty}(\Omega)\right\},$$ when $f$ lacks of the appropriate convexity notion. We restrict our attention to the so-called scalar case, that is $u$ is a scalar function, $u:\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n\longrightarrow\mathbb{R}$, $n\ge 1$, $u_0\in W^{1,\infty}(\Omega)$. It is also possible to have $u_0$ Lipschitz only defined on $\partial \Omega$, $u_0:\partial\Omega\longrightarrow\mathbb{R}$. In this case, $u_0$ shall be extended to $\Omega$ as a Lipschitz function and the study of problem $(P)$ can be done according to the choice of the Lipschitz extension.
Functionals in the $L^\infty$ form, as above, provide a realistic setting to many physical problems in a variety of contexts like nonlinear elasticity, chemotherapy or imaging. For a more detailed description see [@BJW-ARMA] due to Barron-Jensen-Wang.
Minimizing the functional in problem $(P)$ appears also as a generalization of the Lipschitz extension problem (this is the case when $f=|\cdot|$ and $u_0$ is a given Lipschitz function defined on $\partial\Omega$) and was intensively studied by Aronsson in the 1960’s, cf. [@A1; @A2; @A3; @A4], also developing a theory on absolute minimizers, see also the monograph of Aronsson-Crandall-Juutinen [@ACJ] and the references therein. The problem of existence and uniqueness of Lipschitz extension has been addressed by many authors with different tools, cf. for instance [@J; @ACJS; @AS] among a wide literature. In recent years also other questions of the calculus of variations, like lower semicontinuity, relaxation, homogenization, $L^p$ approximations, dimensional reduction, $\Gamma$-convergence and supremal representation, have been addressed for $L^\infty$ functionals by several authors: Barron-Liu [@BL], Barron-Jensen-Wang [@BJW99], Acerbi-Buttazzo-Prinari [@ABP], Briani-Garroni-Prinari [@BGP], Bocea-Nesi [@BN], Prinari [@Pr02], [@Pr09], Cardialaguet-Prinari [@CP], Babadjian-Prinari-Zappale [@BPZ], Zappale [@Z].
The functional defined in problem $(P)$ is known to be lower semicontinuous with respect to the weak\* topology of $W^{1,\infty}$ (cf. [@BJW99] and [@BJ], see also Theorems \[level convexity sufficient\] and \[level convexity necessary\]), if and only if $f$ is a level convex function, that is the level sets of $f$ are convex (see Definition \[def1.4\]). This notion is usually known in areas like convex analysis, optimization or economics as [*quasiconvexity*]{}. However, since [*quasiconvexity*]{} has a different meaning in the calculus of variations, we prefer to use the present terminology.
Our main interest is the case in which $f$ is not necessarily a level convex function. In this context we establish necessary and sufficient conditions for existence of solutions to $(P)$. This is done through a differential inclusion which is obtained in turn relating the original problem $(P)$ and the relaxed one $$(P^{\rm lc})\qquad\inf\left\{ \operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{x\in\Omega}f^{\rm lc}\left( \nabla u\left(
x\right) \right):\ u\in u_0+W_{0}^{1,\infty}(\Omega)\right\},$$ where $f^{\rm lc}$ denotes the level convex envelope of $f$ (cf. Definition \[def1.4\]). This was the procedure applied to problems in the integral form $$\displaystyle{\inf\left\{ \int_\Omega f\left( \nabla u\left(
x\right) \right)dx:\ u\in u_0+W_{0}^{1,\infty}(\Omega)\right\},}$$ and we refer to Cellina [@CellinaNecessary], [@CellinaSufficient] and Friesecke [@Friesecke] in the scalar case and to Dacorogna-Marcellini [@DM95] and Dacorogna-Pisante-Ribeiro [@DPR] in the vectorial one. For further references, see also [@D Chapter 11].
In the present context of $L^\infty$ functionals, to our knowledge very few is known, and although our problem is a scalar one, our approach is close to the one used in the vectorial case by Dacorogna-Marcellini [@DM95] and Dacorogna-Pisante-Ribeiro [@DPR] for integral functionals. Moreover, our results are sharp since differential inclusions in the scalar case are better understood than in the vectorial one. In particular, we characterize existence of solutions to problem $(P)$ when the boundary datum is affine, say $u_0:=u_{\xi_0}$, with gradient $\xi_0 \in \mathbb R^n$ , in terms of suitable ‘level convexity’ properties of the relaxed density $f^{\rm lc}$ around $\xi_0$.
The paper is organized as follows. Section \[levelconvexitysection\] is devoted to the study of the properties of a [*level convex*]{} function and the [*level convex envelope*]{} of a function. This includes supremal Jensen’s inequality, Carathéodory type results and several notions of [*strict level convexity*]{}, which are explored in view of uniqueness results for the minimizing problems with affine boundary data. Moreover, this may also have an independent interest for optimization purposes. Some prerequisites concerning differential inclusions are also recalled in this section.
In Section \[SectionRelaxation\] we state the relaxation result which will be one of the key results to achieve our necessary and sufficient condition for existence. In particular, under suitable hypothesis, we show in Corollary \[Plc=P\] that $$\inf (P)=\inf (P^{\rm lc}).$$
Necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of solutions to problem $(P)$ are provided and discussed in Section \[NecSufCond\]. Our main general result is stated as Theorem \[NSC\] and it establishes that a necessary and sufficient condition for existence of solutions to $(P)$ is $$\exists\ u\in u_0+W_0^{1,\infty}(\Omega):\ f(\nabla u(x))\le \inf (P^{\rm lc}),\ a.e.\ x\in\Omega.$$ Moreover, making use of well known results on differential inclusions, a sufficient condition to this last one can be written as $$\nabla u_0(x)\in L_{\inf (P^{\rm lc})}(f)\cup {\rm int}\, L_{\inf(P^{\rm lc})}(f^{\rm lc}),\ a.e.\ x\in\Omega,$$ where $L_c(g)$ denotes the set of level $c$ of the function $g$, that is $$L_c(g):=\left\{\xi\in\mathbb{R}^n:\ g(\xi)\le c\right\}.$$ Then, with this characterization in mind, we explore both sufficient and necessary conditions. Regarding sufficient conditions we consider both the cases $u_0$ is an affine function or not. In particular, we can always get existence of solutions in dimension $n=1$, cf. Corollary \[existencedim1\], and for arbitrary dimension $n$, and arbitrary data $u_0$, if we require some regularity on the solution of the relaxed problem $(P^{\rm lc})$, together with some constant properties on $f^{\rm lc}$, we can ensure existence of solutions to $(P)$, see Theorem \[Theoremexistenceregular\]. The constant hypothesis on $f^{\rm lc}$ will be clarified later on Theorem \[analog to thm 11.26 Dacorogna\], where necessary and sufficient conditions to have a solution to $(P)$ with affine boundary datum $u_0(x)=<\xi_0,x>+c$, $\xi_0\in\mathbb{R}^n$, will be explored in terms of the set $\displaystyle\{\xi\in\mathbb{R}^n:\ f^{\rm lc}(\xi)=f^{\rm lc}(\xi_0)\}$.
Concerning necessary conditions we follow the ideas of Marcellini [@Marcellini83], Dacorogna-Marcellini [@DM95], and Dacorogna-Pisante-Ribeiro [@DPR]. Our approach is done through uniqueness of solutions to a level convex problem of type $(P)$. This can be achieved if the function $f$ is strictly level convex (cf. Definition \[sLC\]). However, as we observe, it is not reasonable to assume $f^{\rm lc}$ to satisfy such property and, mimicking Dacorogna-Marcellini [@DM95], we introduce the notion of strict level convexity of a function $f$ at a point $\xi_0\in\mathbb{R}^n$ in at least one direction as: for some $\alpha\in\mathbb{R}^n\setminus \{0\}$ $$\left.\begin{array}{l} \xi_0=t\gamma+ (1-t)\eta,\ t\in(0,1)\vspace{0.2cm} \\
f(\xi_0)= \max\{f(\gamma), f(\eta)\} \end{array} \right\}\ \Longrightarrow \ <\gamma-\eta, \alpha>=0.$$ This condition turns out to be a sufficient one for uniqueness of solution to level convex problems with affine boundary datum, see Theorem \[thm strict level conv\]. As a consequence, in Corollary \[corollary slc in at least\], if $f^{\rm lc}(\xi_0) < f(\xi_0)$, we prove that $f^{\rm lc}$ satisfies the above condition if and only if the original problem $(P)$ does not admit any solution.
Finally, in the Appendix, we briefly address convexity notions in the supremal setting for the vectorial case. In [@BJW99], it was investigated the right notion to ensure lower semicontinuity of the supremal functionals in the vectorial case, together with supremal notions of polyconvexity and rank one convexity. Our goal here is to clarify the relations between these notions.
Level Convexity and Differential Inclusions {#levelconvexitysection}
===========================================
All through the paper we will use the following notation for affine functions. Given a vector $\xi_0\in\mathbb{R}^n$, by $u_{\xi_0}\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n\longrightarrow \mathbb{R}$ we denote a function such that $\nabla u_{\xi_0}(x)=\xi_0$, $a.e.\ x\in\Omega$, or equivalently $u_{\xi_0}(x):= <\xi_0, x> + c, \hbox{ for some }c \in \mathbb R.$
Properties of level convex functions and level convex envelopes
---------------------------------------------------------------
In this section we establish some results on level convex functions and level convex envelopes which are well known in the usual convexity setting. The main reason to consider level convex functions here is that it is, together with the lower semicontinuity of the function, a sufficient and necessary condition to sequential weak\* lower semicontinuity in $W^{1,\infty}(\Omega)$ for functionals in the supremal form (see Theorem \[level convexity sufficient\] below due to Barron-Jensen-Wang [@BJW99] and Theorem \[level convexity necessary\]).
We first recall definitions and properties on lower semicontinuity. We refer to [@CDA Chapter 1], [@FL Chapter 3], [@Rockafellar Section 7].
\(i) A function $f:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow[-\infty,+\infty]$ is said to be *lower semicontinuous* if the level sets $L_c(f):=\left\{\xi\in\mathbb{R}^n:\ f(\xi)\le c\right\}$ are closed for every $c\in\mathbb{R}.$ Equivalently, $f$ is lower semicontinuous if it is sequentially lower semicontinuous, that is, if $$f(\xi)\le\lim\inf f(\xi_n),\ \text{for every }\ \xi_n\to \xi.$$
\(ii) The lower semicontinuous envelope of a function $f:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow[-\infty,+\infty]$ is the function $\mathrm{lsc}f:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow[-\infty,+\infty]$ defined by $$\mathrm{lsc}f(\xi)=\sup\left\{g(\xi):\ g:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow[-\infty,+\infty],\ g\text{ lower semicontinuous, } g\le f\right\}.$$
\[characterization lsc\] Let $f:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow[-\infty,+\infty]$, the lower semicontinuous envelope of $f$ is a lower semicontinuous function and $$\mathrm{lsc}f(\xi)=\inf\left\{\lim\inf f(\xi_n):\ \xi_n\to \xi\right\},\ \forall\ \xi\in\mathbb{R}^n.$$ Moreover, for every $\xi\in\mathbb{R}^n$ there exists a sequence $\xi_n$ converging to $\xi$, such that $\mathrm{lsc}f(\xi)=\lim f(\xi_n)$.
Now we recall the notion of *level convexity* and the related envelope. We observe that, in Convex Analysis and Operational Research, level convexity is usually referred as *quasiconvexity*. We avoid here this designation because, in the Calculus of Variations, quasiconvexity is known as a different concept. For a reference in Operational Research, see [@Mangasarian].
\[def1.4\] (i) A function $f:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow[-\infty,+\infty] $ is said to be *level convex* if the level sets of $f$, $L_c(f)$, are convex for each $c\in\mathbb{R}.$ Equivalently a function $f:\mathbb R^n \to [-\infty, + \infty]$ is level convex if and only if for every $\xi,\eta \in \mathbb R^n$ and $t \in [0,1]$ $$\nonumber
f(t\xi+ (1-t)\eta) \leq \max\{f(\xi), f(\eta)\}.$$
\(ii) The level convex envelope of a function $f:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow[-\infty,+\infty]$ is the function $f^{\rm lc}:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow[-\infty,+\infty]$ defined by $$f^{\rm lc}(\xi)=\sup\left\{g(\xi):\ g:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow[-\infty,+\infty],\ g\text{ level convex, } g\le f\right\}.$$
\(iii) The lower semicontinuous level convex envelope of a function $f:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow [-\infty, +\infty]$ is the function $f^{\rm lslc}:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow[-\infty,+\infty]$ defined by $$\begin{array}{l}f^{\rm lslc}(\xi)=\sup\left\{g(\xi):\ g:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow[-\infty,+\infty],\ g\text{ lower semicontinuous and}\right.\vspace{0.2cm}\\ \hspace{8.3cm}\left.\text{level convex, } g\le f\right\}.\end{array}$$
\[remark envelopes\] (i) It is easily seen that $f^{\rm lc}$ is a level convex function and that $f^{\rm lslc}$ is a lower semicontinuous and level convex function. Therefore, we can call these envelopes respectively the greatest level convex function below $f$ and the greatest lower semicontinuous level convex function below $f$.
\(ii) It is easy to verify that $f^{\rm lslc}\le f^{\rm lc}\le f$ and $f^{\rm lslc}\le \mathrm{lsc}f\le f$.
\(iii) The function $f(\xi)=-\xi^2$ defined in $\mathbb{R}$ provides an example of a function whose envelopes take the $-\infty$ value, indeed $f^{\rm lc}\equiv f^{\rm lslc}\equiv -\infty$.
\(iv) In general, $f^{\rm lc}$ and $f^{\rm lslc}$ don’t coincide. Indeed the characteristic function of $\mathbb{R}\setminus (0,1)$ is a level convex function, but it is not lower semicontinuous.
\(v) In general a level convex function defined in $\mathbb R^n$, with $n>1$, may not be Borel measurable, in fact one may consider the characteristic function of the complement of a convex set which is not Borel measurable.
\(vi) An equivalent formulation for $f^{\rm lslc}$ is given by Volle’s envelope, $f^{c\gamma}$, introduced in [@V].
We establish some preliminary properties.
\[level convexity of lsc f\] Let $f:\mathbb{R}^n\rightarrow[-\infty,+\infty]$.
\(i) If $f$ is a level convex function, then the lower semicontinuous envelope of $f$ is still level convex, that is $\mathrm{lsc}f$ is level convex.
\(ii) The following identity holds: $f^{\rm lslc}=\mathrm{lsc}(f^{\rm lc})$.
To obtain condition (i) we consider $\xi,\eta\in\mathbb{R}^n$ such that $\mathrm{lsc}f(\xi)\le c$ and $\mathrm{lsc}f(\eta)\le c$ for some fixed $c\in\mathbb{R}$ and we need to show that $\mathrm{lsc}f(\lambda \xi+(1-\lambda) \eta)\le c$ for every $\lambda\in[0,1]$. Using Proposition \[characterization lsc\] and the level convexity of $f$ we get, for certain sequences $\xi_n\to \xi$ and $\eta_n\to \eta$, $$\begin{array}{l}\mathrm{lsc}f(\lambda \xi+(1-\lambda) \eta)\le \lim\inf f(\lambda \xi_n+(1-\lambda)\eta_n)\le \lim\inf \max\{f(\xi_n),f(\eta_n)\}\vspace{0.2cm}\\ \phantom{\mathrm{lsc}f(\lambda \xi+(1-\lambda) \eta)}\le\max\{\mathrm{lsc}f(\xi),\mathrm{lsc}f(\eta)\}\le c, \end{array}$$ as desired.
To prove condition (ii) we start noticing that, since $f^{\rm lslc}\le f^{\rm lc}$, one has $f^{\rm lslc}=\mathrm{lsc}(f^{\rm lslc})\le\mathrm{lsc}(f^{\rm lc})$, where we have used the fact that $f^{\rm lslc}$ is lower semicontinuous. On the other hand, by condition (i), $\mathrm{lsc}(f^{\rm lc})$ is level convex and since it is also lower semicontinuous and below $f$ it follows that $\mathrm{lsc}(f^{\rm lc})\le f^{\rm lslc}$.
Next we relate the level convexity of a function with a generalization of Jensen’s inequality for the supremal setting. The proof can be found in Barron [@Barron Theorem 30], (see also [@BJW99 Theorem 1.2], where the theorem is stated under a lower semicontinuity hypothesis).
\[Jensensupremalscalar\] A Borel measurable function $f:\mathbb R^{n}\to \mathbb R$ is level convex if and only if it verifies the supremal Jensen’s inequality: $$\nonumber
f\left(\int_\Omega \varphi\,d\mu\right)\leq \mu-\supess_{x\in\Omega} f(\varphi(x))$$ for every probability measure $\mu$ on $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ supported on the open set $\Omega \subseteq \mathbb{R}^{d}$, and every $\varphi \in L^1_\mu(\Omega;\mathbb{R}^{n})$.
In particular, considering the Lebesgue measure, if $\Omega$ is a set with finite Lebesgue measure, $$f\left(\frac{1}{|\Omega|}\int_\Omega\varphi(x)\,dx\right)\le \operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{x\in\Omega}f(\varphi(x)),\ \forall\ \varphi\in L^1(\Omega;\mathbb{R}^n).$$
From Carathéodory’s theorem, it follows the next characterization of the level convex envelope of a function. For this characterization, under slightly different assumptions, we refer to [@BL Theorem 5.5].
\[Caratheodory for f lc\] Let $f:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow(-\infty,+\infty]$ be a function such that $f^{\rm lc}>-\infty$. Then $$\nonumber
f^{\rm lc}(\xi)=\inf\left\{\max_{1\le i\le n+1}f(\xi_i):\ \xi=\sum_{i=1}^{n+1}\lambda_i \xi_i,\ \lambda_i\ge 0,\ \sum_{i=1}^{n+1}\lambda_i=1\right\},\ \forall\ \xi\in \mathbb{R}^n.$$ Moreover, if $f$ is continuous and $\displaystyle\lim_{|\xi|\to +\infty}f(\xi)=+\infty$, then the infimum above is indeed a minimum and $f^{\rm lc}$ is a continuous function. In particular, in this case, $f^{\rm lslc}=f^{\rm lc}$.
Let $$h(\xi):=\inf\left\{\max_{1\le i\le I}f(\xi_i):\ \xi=\sum_{i=1}^{I}\lambda_i \xi_i,\ \lambda_i\ge 0,\ \sum_{i=1}^{I}\lambda_i=1,\ I\in\mathbb{N}\right\},\ \forall\ \xi\in \mathbb{R}^n.$$ We start showing that $f^{\rm lc}= h$.
Observe that, since $f^{\rm lc}$ is level convex and $f^{\rm lc}\le f$, if $\displaystyle \xi=\sum_{i=1}^{I}\lambda_i \xi_i$ for some $\lambda_i\ge 0$ such that $\displaystyle \sum_{i=1}^{I}\lambda_i=1$, then $\displaystyle f^{\rm lc}(\xi)\le \max_{1\le i\le I}f(\xi_i)$. From this we conclude that $-\infty< f^{\rm lc}\le h$.
Now we prove that $h$ is level convex. Once this is proved, we achieve the identity $f^{\rm lc}=h$ by definition of $f^{\rm lc}$ and because $h\le f$. Let $c\in\mathbb{R}$, we need to show that $L_c(h)$ is convex. Let $\xi,\eta\in L_c(h)$ and $\lambda\in(0,1)$, we have to show that $h(\lambda \xi+(1-\lambda)\eta)\le c$. Since $h>-\infty$ we just need to show that, given $\varepsilon>0$, we can find $I\in\mathbb{N}$, $\lambda_i\ge 0$, with $\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{I}\lambda_i=1$ and $z_i\in \mathbb{R}^n$ such that $\displaystyle\lambda \xi+(1-\lambda)\eta=\sum_{i=1}^{I}\lambda_i z_i$ and $\displaystyle\max_{1\le i\le I}f(z_i)\le c+\varepsilon$. This follows easily from the fact that $\xi,\eta\in L_c(h)$ and thus we have that $f^{\rm lc}=h$.
Next we show that $I$ can be reduced to $n+1$ achieving the first assertion of the theorem. This follows from Carathéodory’s theorem. Indeed, let $\xi\in\mathbb{R}^n$ and assume $\displaystyle \xi=\sum_{i=1}^I\lambda_i \xi_i$ for some $I>n+1$, $\xi_i\in\mathbb{R}^n$ and $\lambda_i\ge 0$, with $\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{I}\lambda_i=1$. In particular, $\xi\in \mathrm{co}\{\xi_1,\xi_2,...,\xi_I\}\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ and, by Carathéodory’s theorem, we can write $\displaystyle \xi=\sum_{j=1}^{n+1}\mu_j \xi_{\gamma(j)}$ for some $\mu_j\ge 0$, with $\displaystyle \sum_{i=1}^{n+1}\mu_j=1$ and $\gamma:\{1,2,...,n+1\}\rightarrow\{1,2,...,I\}$ an into function. Defining $\eta_j=\xi_{\gamma(j)}$ we obviously have $\displaystyle\max_{1\le j\le n+1}f(\eta_j)\le\max_{1\le i\le I}f(\xi_i)$ which shows our goal.
Now we show the assertion of the theorem saying that the infimum is attained as a minimum. Let $\xi\in\mathbb{R}^n$ and let $\lambda_i^\nu\ge 0$, with $\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{n+1}\lambda_i^\nu=1$, and $\xi_i^\nu\in\mathbb{R}^n$ be such that $\displaystyle \xi=\sum_{i=1}^{n+1}\lambda_i^\nu \xi_i^\nu$, $\displaystyle f^{\rm lc}(\xi)=\lim_{\nu\to\infty}\max_{1\le i\le n+1}f(\xi_i^\nu)$. Without loss of generality we can assume $\displaystyle\max_{1\le i\le n+1}f(\xi_i^\nu)=f(\xi_1^\nu)$. By the assumption on the limit of $f$ at infinity we can reduce to the case where the sequences $\xi_i^\nu$ are bounded otherwise $f^{\rm lc}(\xi)=+\infty$, thus $f(\xi)=+\infty$ and the minimum is attained through the trivial convex combination of $\xi$: $\xi=1\cdot \xi$. In the case where the sequences $\xi_i^\nu$ are bounded, we have, up to a subsequence, $\displaystyle\lim_{\nu\to\infty}\xi_i^\nu=\xi_i$ and $\displaystyle \lim_{\nu\to\infty}\lambda_i^\nu=\lambda_i$, for every $i=1,\dots, n+1$. Clearly $\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{n+1}\lambda_i=1$ and $\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{n+1}\lambda_i \xi_i=\xi.$ Using the continuity hypothesis on $f$, we get $\displaystyle f(\xi_1)=\lim_{\nu\to\infty}f(\xi_1^\nu)\ge\lim_{\nu\to\infty}f(\xi_i^\nu)=f(\xi_i)$ for every $i=1,...,n+1$ and $f^{\rm lc}(\xi)=f(\xi_1)$.
Finally we show that $f^{\rm lc}$ is continuous, under the continuity assumption on $f$ and its behavior at infinity. Let $\xi,\xi_\nu \in\mathbb{R}^n$ be such that $\displaystyle \lim_{\nu\to\infty} \xi_\nu=\xi$. First we show that $\displaystyle f^{\rm lc}(\xi)\le \lim\inf f^{\rm lc}(\xi_\nu)$. Without loss of generality assume $\lim\inf f^{\rm lc}(\xi_\nu)=\lim f^{\rm lc}(\xi_\nu)$. From what was already proved, we can consider, for each $\nu$, $\lambda_i^\nu\ge 0$, with $\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{n+1}\lambda_i^\nu=1$, and $\xi_i^\nu\in\mathbb{R}^n$ such that $\displaystyle \xi_\nu=\sum_{i=1}^{n+1}\lambda_i^\nu \xi_i^\nu$ and $\displaystyle f^{\rm lc}(\xi_\nu)=\max_{1\le i\le n+1}f(\xi_i^\nu)$. Re-ordering if necessary the elements $\xi_i^\nu$, we can assume $\displaystyle\max_{1\le i\le n+1}f(\xi_i^\nu)=f(\xi_1^\nu)$ and thus $f^{\rm lc}(\xi_\nu)=f(\xi_1^\nu)$. We consider two cases. If, up to a subsequence, for some $i$, $\displaystyle \lim_{\nu \to \infty}|\xi_i^\nu|=+\infty$ then the desired inequality follows from the assumption that $\displaystyle \lim_{|z|\to\infty}f(z)=+\infty$. Otherwise we can write, up to a subsequence, that $\displaystyle \lim_{\nu\to\infty} \xi_i^\nu=\xi_i$ and $\displaystyle \lim_{\nu\to\infty} \lambda^\nu_i=\lambda_i$. Observe that, the continuity of $f$ implies that $\max_{1\le i\le n+1}f(\xi_i)=f(\xi_1)$ and thus $$\lim f^{\rm lc}(\xi_\nu)=\lim f(\xi_1^\nu)=f(\xi_1)=\max_{1\le i\le n+1}f(\xi_i)\ge f^{\rm lc}(\xi)$$ this last inequality following from the fact that $\displaystyle \xi=\sum_{i=1}^{n+1}\lambda_i \xi_i$ and the first assertion of the present theorem. To establish the continuity of $f^{\rm lc}$ on $\xi$, it remains to show that $\displaystyle f^{\rm lc}(\xi)\ge \lim\sup f^{\rm lc}(\xi_\nu)$. Again, let’s assume $\lim\sup f^{\rm lc}(\xi_\nu)=\lim f^{\rm lc}(\xi_\nu)$. Then, as before, we have $\displaystyle \xi=\sum_{i=1}^{n+1}\lambda_i \xi_i$ for some $\lambda_i\ge 0$, with $\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{n+1}\lambda_i=1$, $\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{n+1}\lambda_i=1$, $\xi_i\in\mathbb{R}^n$ and $\displaystyle f^{\rm lc}(\xi)=\max_{1\le i\le n+1}f(\xi_i)$. Defining $\xi_i^\nu=\xi_i+\xi_\nu-\xi$, we have $\displaystyle \xi_\nu=\sum_{i=1}^{n+1}\lambda_i \xi_i^\nu$ and thus $\displaystyle f^{\rm lc}(\xi_\nu)\le \max_{1\le i\le n+1}f(\xi_i^\nu)$. Since $\displaystyle \lim_{\nu\to\infty}\xi_i^\nu=\xi_i$, the continuity of $f$ implies that $\displaystyle \lim_{\nu\to\infty}f(\xi_i^\nu)=f(\xi_i)$ and thus $$\lim f^{\rm lc}(\xi_\nu)\le \lim\sup \max_{1\le i\le n+1}f(\xi_i^\nu)=\max_{1\le i\le n+1}f(\xi_i)=f^{\rm lc}(\xi),$$ as desired.
In particular, we get the following characterization of the convex hulls of the level sets of a function.
\[Corollary to Caratheodory\] Let $f:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow(-\infty,+\infty]$ be a continuous function such that $f^{\rm lc}>-\infty$ and $\displaystyle\lim_{|\xi|\to +\infty}f(\xi)=+\infty$, then $${\rm co }\left\{\xi\in\mathbb{R}^n:\ f(\xi)\le c\right\}=\left\{\xi\in\mathbb{R}^n:\ f^{\rm lc}(\xi)\le c\right\},\ \forall\ c\in\mathbb{R}.$$
We can get the same assertion of the corollary if we assume $f$ lower semicontinuous, bounded from below and such that $\displaystyle \lim_{|\xi|\to\infty}\frac{f(\xi)}{|\xi|}=+\infty$. This is achieved by mimicking the proof but using Theorem \[thm1.8\] below, instead of Theorem \[Caratheodory for f lc\].
Of course the first set in the equality is included in the second one. Now let $\xi\in \mathbb{R}^n$ be such that $f^{\rm lc}(\xi)\le c$. Then, by Theorem \[Caratheodory for f lc\], there exist, for $1\le i\le n+1$, $\lambda_i\ge 0$, $\xi_i\in\mathbb{R}^n$, such that $\displaystyle \xi=\sum_{i=1}^{n+1}\lambda_i \xi_i,$ $\displaystyle \sum_{i=1}^{n+1}\lambda_i=1 $ and $\displaystyle f^{\rm lc}(\xi)=\max_{1\le i\le n+1}f(\xi_i)$. Therefore $\xi\in {\rm co}\,\{\xi_1,...,\xi_{n+1}\}$ and $\displaystyle \max_{1\le i\le n+1}f(\xi_i)\le c$ and thus $\displaystyle \xi\in {\rm co }\left\{\eta\in\mathbb{R}^n:\ f(\eta)\le c\right\}.$
In the same spirit of [@FL Theorem 4.98] for the convex setting, we can also get the following result which provides in particular a characterization of $f^{\rm lslc}$. The proof is omitted.
\[thm1.8\] Let $f:\mathbb{R}^n\rightarrow(-\infty,+\infty]$ be a function bounded from below such that $\displaystyle \lim_{|\xi|\to\infty}\frac{f(\xi)}{|\xi|}=+\infty$.
\(i) If $f$ is lower semicontinuous, then the level convex envelope of $f$ is still lower semicontinuous, that is $f^{\rm lc}$ is lower semicontinuous.
\(ii) The following identities hold: $$\begin{array}{l}f^{\rm lslc}(\xi)=\mathrm{lsc}(f^{\rm lc})(\xi)=(\mathrm{lsc}f)^{\rm lc}(\xi)=\vspace{0.2cm}\\ \displaystyle =\min\left\{\max_{1\le i\le n+1}\mathrm{lsc}f(\xi_i):\ \xi=\sum_{i=1}^{n+1}\lambda_i \xi_i,\ \lambda_i\ge 0,\ \sum_{i=1}^{n+1}\lambda_i=1\right\},\ \forall\ \xi\in \mathbb{R}^n.\end{array}$$
We observe that, in comparison with Theorem \[Caratheodory for f lc\], there is no continuity hypothesis in Theorem \[thm1.8\], but the growth hypothesis at infinity is stronger than the one considered in Theorem \[Caratheodory for f lc\].
Strict level convexity {#Strict level convexity}
----------------------
Next we introduce the notion of *strict level convexity* that we will relate later with uniqueness of solutions to minimum problems.
\[sLC\] A level convex function $f:\mathbb R^n \to [-\infty;+ \infty]$ is said to be [*strictly level convex*]{} if $$\nonumber
f(t\xi+ (1-t)\eta)< \max\{f(\xi), f(\eta)\},$$ for every $t \in (0,1)$ and every $\xi,\eta \in \mathbb R^n$, $\xi \not = \eta$.
The above definition can be given also if $f$ is defined on a convex subset of $\mathbb R^n$.
Clearly Definition \[sLC\] is more stringent than level convexity. In the remaining part of this subsection we give a characterization of strict level convexity, known in Convex Analysis, and that will be exploited in the sequel. We also introduce weaker conditions than strict level convexity.
We begin recalling some definitions and some results.
\[DefC.20Grippo\] (i) A set $C$ is said to be strictly convex if for every $x,y \in \partial C$ with $x \not =y$, for every $z:= tx+ (1-t)y$, $t \in (0,1)$, $z \in {\rm int}(C)$.
\(ii) A point $x$ in a convex set $C \subset \mathbb R^n$ is an extreme point of $C$ if and only if there exists no points $y,z \in C$, both distinct from $x$ such that $x= (1-t)y + tz$ for some $t \in (0,1)$. The set of extreme points of $C$ is called the profile of $C$ and is denoted by $Ext(C)$.
\(iii) A point $x$ in a convex set $C \subset \mathbb R^n$ is an exposed point of $C$ if and only if there exists a supporting hyperplane $H$, such that $H \cap C= \{x\}$. The set of exposed points of a convex set $C$ is denoted by $Exp(C)$.
\[moreonCAandSLC\] (i) Of course $Exp(C)\subset Ext(C)$ for any convex set $C\subset\mathbb R^n$. We observe however that there may exist extreme points which are not exposed, even if, cf. [@Rockafellar Theorem 18.6], the set $Exp(C)$ is dense in $Ext(C)$. Consider, for example, the set $$\left\{(x,y)\in\mathbb{R}^2:\ x^2+y^2\le 1\right\}\cup \left( [0,1]\times [-1,1]\right).$$
\(ii) When a convex set $C$ is closed, strict convexity of $C$ is equivalent to the condition that every boundary point of $C$ is an extreme point of $C$.
\[Ex=Exp\] Let $C \subset \mathbb R^n$ be a strictly convex set, then $Ext(C) =Exp(C)$.
\[counterexampletoEx=Exp\] The converse of Proposition \[Ex=Exp\] is false as one can easily see considering the set $Q= [0,1]^2$ in $\mathbb R^2$, where $Ext(Q)=\{(0,0), (0,1), (1,0), (1,1)\}=Exp(Q)$ and $Q$ is not strictly convex.
Let $x \in Ext(C)$, and assume by contradiction that $x$ is not exposed. Since $x$ is not exposed, for every supporting hyperplane $H$ at $x$, it results that there exists $y\not=x$, $y \in H \cap C$. Clearly $y \in \partial C$, and $ty +(1-t)x \in H \cap C \subset \partial C$, $t \in (0,1)$ (see for instance [@Rockafellar Corollary 18.1.3]) and this contradicts the strict convexity of $C$.
Now we introduce a notation.
\[CArecalls\] Let $f:\mathbb R^n \to [-\infty,+ \infty]$ and $c \in \mathbb [-\infty,+ \infty]$. We define the set $$R_c(f): = \{x\in\mathbb{R}^n: f(x)= c\}.$$
The proof of the following result can be found in [@Danao Theorem 4.3].
\[Danao4.3\] Let $f$ be a real valued function defined on a convex set $C $ in $\mathbb R^n$. The function $f$ is strictly level convex if and only if for every $c$ in the range of $f$ the following conditions are verified:
- $L_c(f) $ is convex,
- $R_c (f) \subseteq {\rm Ext}(L_c(f))$.
The previous characterization doesn’t ensure the strict convexity of $L_c(f)$. To get this property we need to assume the continuity of $f$.
\[strictlevelconvexityandcontinuity\] Let $f$ be a real valued function defined on a convex set $C$ in $\mathbb R^n$. If $f$ is strictly level convex and continuous then for every $c$ in the range of $f$, $L_c(f)$ is closed and strictly convex for every $c \in \mathbb R$.
The closedness of $L_c(f)$ is a consequence of the lower semicontinuity of $f$. By the level convexity of $f$ follows that $L_c(f)$ is convex. It remains to prove its strict convexity.
To this end, by Remark \[moreonCAandSLC\] (ii), it will be enough to show that $\partial L_c(f)\subseteq Ext(L_c(f))$. By Theorem \[Danao4.3\] it is known that $R_c(f)\subseteq Ext(L_c(f))$. Thus it will suffice to prove that $\partial L_c(f)\subseteq R_c(f)$.
Let $y \in \partial L_c (f)$. Then, by the continuity of $f$, $f(y)\le c$. Assume $y\notin R_c(f)$, that is $f(y)< c$. Again, the continuity of $f$ would imply that $y \in {\rm int}(L_c(f))$ which is clearly a contradiction. That concludes the proof.
Next we give several different characterizations of strict level convexity.
\[carastrictlc\] Let $f:\mathbb R^n \to (-\infty,+ \infty]$ be a level convex function. Then $f$ is strictly level convex if and only if one of the following conditions is satisfied.
\(i) $f(t\xi+ (1-t)\eta)= \max\{f(\xi), f(\eta)\}$ for some $t \in (0,1)$ implies $\xi=\eta$.
\(ii) $\displaystyle f\left(\xi+ \frac{1}{2}\eta\right) = \max\left\{f(\xi),f(\xi+\eta)\right\}$ implies $\eta=0$.
\(iii) In the case $f$ is a Borel measurable and finite function, $$\displaystyle{f\left(\int_\Omega \varphi\,d \mu\right) < \mu-\operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{x\in\Omega} f(\varphi(x))},$$ for every probability measure $\mu$ on $\mathbb{R}^n$ supported in the open set $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^d$ and every nonconstant $\varphi \in L^1_\mu(\Omega;\mathbb{R}^n)$.
\[weakMqcx\] (i) In condition (ii), the value $1/2$ can be replaced by any $t\in (0,1)$.
\(ii) By Proposition \[carastrictlc\] (iii), we observe that if a Borel measurable function $f$ is strictly level convex then whenever $$\label{swMqcx}
\displaystyle{\operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{x\in\Omega} f(\xi_0 + D \varphi(x))= f(\xi_0)},$$ for some $\varphi \in W^{1,\infty}_0(\Omega;\mathbb{R}^m)$, $\varphi$ is necessarily $0$. Notice that we include both the scalar and the vectorial case in this assertion.
It is clear that strict level convexity is equivalent to (i). Now we prove that (i) and (ii) are also equivalent. If we assume (i) is true, then it suffices to consider vectors $\xi$ and $\xi+\eta$, the convex combination $\frac{1}{2}\xi+\frac{1}{2} (\xi+\eta)$ and apply (i) with $t=\frac{1}{2}$. Conversely, assume (ii) and let $\xi$ and $\eta$ be such that $f(t\xi+(1-t)\eta)=\max\{f(\xi),f(\eta)\}$ for some $t\in (0,1)$. Suppose, by contradiction, that $\xi\neq\eta$. If $f(\xi)=f(\eta)$ then, since $f$ is level convex, either $f\equiv f(\xi)$ in the segment $[\xi, t\xi+(1-t)\eta]$ or in the segment $[t\xi+(1-t)\eta, \eta]$. But this contradicts (ii). If $f(\xi)\neq f(\eta)$, without loss of generality, we can assume $f(\eta)<f(\xi)$. Then $f\equiv f(\xi)$ in the segment $[\xi, t\xi+(1-t)\eta]$. Indeed, if $f(\zeta)<f(\xi)$ for some $\zeta\in (\xi, t\xi+(1-t)\eta)$ then, $$f(t\xi+(1-t)\eta)\le \max\{f(\zeta), f(\eta)\}<\max \{f(\xi),f(\eta)\}$$ which is a contradiction. But $f\equiv f(\xi)$ in $[\xi, t\xi+(1-t)\eta]$ also contradicts $(ii)$. This finishes the proof of the equivalence between (i) and (ii).
Concerning condition (iii) first we observe that if $f$ satisfies (iii), then for every $t \in (0,1)$ we can take a function $\varphi$ with value $\xi$ on a set of $\mu $-measure $t$ and $\eta$ ($\eta \not = \xi$) on a set of $\mu$-measure $(1-t)$ to get $f(t\xi+(1-t)\eta)<\max\{f(\xi), f(\eta)\}.$
To prove the viceversa, we argue by contradiction. Assume $f$ is strictly level convex and there exists a nonconstant function $\varphi \in L^1_\mu(\Omega;\mathbb{R}^n)$ such that $$\displaystyle{f\left(\int_\Omega \varphi\,d \mu\right) =\mu-\operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{x\in\Omega} f(\varphi(x))}= c.$$ If $K = \{\zeta : f(\zeta)\leq c\}$, i.e. $K= L_c(f)$, the level convexity of $f$ guarantees that $K$ is convex and in particular $f(\varphi (x))\leq c$ for $\mu$-a.e. $x \in \Omega$, i.e. $\varphi(x) \in K$ for $\mu$-a.e. $x \in \Omega$. Observe that by Theorem \[Danao4.3\], since $\int_\Omega \varphi\, d \mu \in R_c(f)$, $\int_\Omega \varphi\, d \mu \in Ext L_c (f)$. Now if $E= \{x: \varphi (x) \not = \int_\Omega \varphi\, d \mu\}$, since $\varphi$ is assumed nonconstant, $\mu(E)>0$. Moreover, observe that $\frac{1}{\mu(E)}\int_E \varphi\, d \mu =\int_\Omega \varphi \, d\mu$. Clearly for a.e. $x \in E: \varphi(x) \in K':= L_c(f) \setminus \{\int_\Omega \varphi\, d \mu\}$, which is still a convex set (because it is a convex without an extreme point of it, cf. Theorem \[Danao4.3\]). Since $K'$ is convex and $\varphi(x)\in K'$ for a.e. $x \in E$, it results that $\frac{1}{\mu(E)}\int_E \varphi\, d \mu \in K' $, and this is obviously a contradiction.
In the remainder of this section we will investigate weaker conditions than strict level convexity.
\[slcxi0\] A level convex function $f:\mathbb R^n \to \mathbb R$ is said to be strictly level convex at $\xi_0\in\mathbb{R}^n$ if for every $t \in (0,1)$ and for every $\xi \not = \eta$: $\xi_0= t\xi + (1-t)\eta$ $\Longrightarrow f(\xi_0) < \max \{f(\xi), f(\eta)\}$.
With the following result, we introduce a stronger notion than the one in Definition \[slcxi0\].
\[endtowardsmid\] Let $f:\mathbb R^n \to \mathbb R$ be a level convex function and let $\xi_0\in\mathbb{R}^n$. Assume that $$\label{strictlevelconvexendpoint}
\text{for every }t \in (0,1)\text{ and for every }\xi\not=\xi_0,\ f(t \xi_0+ (1-t)\xi) < \max \{f(\xi_0), f(\xi)\}.$$
Then $f$ is strictly level convex at $\xi_0$.
The reverse implication of Proposition \[endtowardsmid\] is not true, to this end it is enough to consider the function $$\xi \in \mathbb R \to f(\xi):= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
-\xi & \hbox{ if }\ \xi \leq 0,\\
0 &\hbox{ if }\ \xi >0,
\end{array}
\right.$$ which is strictly level convex at $0$, but it doesn’t satisfy condition with $\xi_0=0$.
Let $\xi_0= t \xi + (1-t)\eta$ for $t \in (0,1)$ and $\xi, \eta \in \mathbb R^n$. Let $\theta$ and $\zeta$ be in the segments $(\xi, \xi_0)$ and $(\xi_0, \eta)$ respectively. By $f(\theta)< \max\{f(\xi_0), f(\xi)\}$ and $f(\zeta)< \max \{f(\xi_0), f(\eta)\}.$ Observe that $\xi_0\in(\theta,\zeta)$. From the level convexity of $f$ and the previous inequalities it results $$f(\xi_0)\leq \max\{f(\theta), f(\zeta)\}< \max\{f(\xi), f(\eta), f(\xi_0)\}.$$ Therefore $\max\{f(\xi), f(\eta), f(\xi_0)\}=\max\{f(\xi), f(\eta)\}$ and thus $$f(\xi_0) <\max \{f(\eta), f(\xi)\}$$ which concludes the proof.
\[Extxi0slc\] A level convex function $f:\mathbb R^n \to \mathbb R$ is strictly level convex at $\xi_0$ if and only if $\xi_0 \in {\rm Ext}L_{f(\xi_0)}(f)$.
Arguing by contraddiction, assume that $f$ is strictly level convex at $\xi_0$ but $\xi_0 \not \in {\rm Ext}L_{f(\xi_0)}(f)$, namely there exist $\xi $ and $\eta \in L_{f(\xi_0)}(f)$ such that $\xi_0= t \xi+ (1-t)\eta$, $ t \in (0,1)$ and $\xi\neq\eta$, then $\max \{f(\xi), f(\eta)\} > f(\xi_0)$, and this contradicts the fact that $\xi, \eta \in L_{f(\xi_0)}(f)$.
Now we want to prove that if $\xi_0 \in {\rm Ext}L_{f(\xi_0)}(f)$, then $f$ is strict level convex at $\xi_0$. If this was not the case, there would exist $\xi$, $\eta \in \mathbb R^n$, with $\xi, \eta\not= \xi_0$ and $t \in (0,1)$ such that $\xi_0 = t \xi + (1-t)\eta$ and $f(\xi_0)= \max \{f(\xi), f(\eta)\}$ and so $\xi, \eta \in L_{f(\xi_0)}(f)$, which is a contradiction.
We finish this section with a notion, weaker than the strict level convexity at a point either in the sense of Definition \[slcxi0\] or in the sense of . This will be useful to deal with the minimizing problems in Section \[NecSufCond\].
\[slc1Dmid\] A level convex function $f:\mathbb R^n \to \mathbb{R}$ is said to be [*strictly level convex at $\xi_0\in\mathbb{R}^n$ in at least one direction*]{} if there exists $\alpha\in\mathbb{R}^n\setminus \{0\}$ such that: if for some $\gamma$ and $\eta \in \mathbb R^n$ $$\left\{\begin{array}{l} \xi_0=t\gamma+ (1-t)\eta,\ t\in(0,1)\vspace{0.2cm}
\\
f(\xi_0)= \max\{f(\gamma), f(\eta)\} \end{array} \right.$$ then $$<\gamma-\eta, \alpha>=0.$$
\[end=midonedir\] One could also give a definition of strict level convexity in at least one direction in the spirit of . Precisely given $\xi_0\in\mathbb{R}^n$ there exists $\alpha\in\mathbb{R}^n\setminus \{0\}$ such that: if for some $\eta \in \mathbb R^n$
$$\label{slcinatleastendpoint}
\left\{\begin{array}{l} \xi=t\xi_0+ (1-t)\eta,\ t\in(0,1)\vspace{0.2cm}\\
f(\xi)= \max\{f(\xi_0), f(\eta)\}\end{array}\right.$$
then $$<\xi_0-\eta, \alpha>=0.$$
Then an argument very similar to that employed to prove Proposition \[endtowardsmid\] and the fact that $\xi_0, \gamma $ and $\eta$ of Definition \[slc1Dmid\] are in the same line, guarantee that if $f$ satisfies at $\xi_0$ then it is also strictly level convex at $\xi_0$ in at least one direction.
On the other hand, the opposite implication is false, that is, there are strictly level convex functions at $\xi_0$ in at least one direction but not in the sense of . To this end consider the function $f(\xi)={\rm dist}(\xi,\mathbb{R}^+\times \mathbb{R})$ defined for $\xi\in\mathbb{R}^2$ and take $\xi_0=(0,0)$. Notice also that, this function, although being strictly level convex at $\xi_0$ in at least one direction, it is not strictly level convex at $\xi_0$.
We have the following characterization of strict level convexity at a point in at least one direction.
\[strictlcboundary\] A lower semicontinuous and level convex function $f:\mathbb R^n \to \mathbb R$ is strictly level convex at $\xi_0$ in at least one direction if and only if $\xi_0\in \partial L_{f(\xi_0)}(f)$.
Actually, the lower semicontinuity hypothesis is only required to show that $\xi_0\in \partial L_{f(\xi_0)}(f)$ is a sufficient condition for strict level convexity of $f$ at $\xi_0$ in at least one direction.
Assume $f$ is strictly level convex at $\xi_0$ in at least one direction. We will show that $\xi_0\in \partial L_{f(\xi_0)}(f)$. Of course $\xi_0\in L_{f(\xi_0)}(f)$. Assume, by contradiction, that $\xi_0 \in {\rm int}L_{f(\xi_0)}(f)$. Then $f(\xi)\le f(\xi_0)$ in a neighborhood of $\xi_0$. Let $\alpha$ be the direction given by Definition \[slc1Dmid\] and let $\eta_1,\eta_2$ be of the form $\eta_i=\xi_0+\varepsilon_i\alpha$ for some $\varepsilon_i\in\mathbb{R}$ such that $\eta_i$ belong to the neighborhood referred above. Then, by the level convexity of $f$, $f(\xi_0)=\max\{f(\eta_1),f(\eta_2)\}$. But $<\eta_1-\eta_2,\alpha >\neq 0$ which contradicts the hypothesis.
Next we show the opposite implication. Assume that $\xi_0 \in \partial L_{f(\xi_0)}(f)$. The lower semicontinuity of $f$ ensures that $ L_{f(\xi_0)}(f)$ is closed. Notice that, since $\xi_0 \in \partial L_{f(\xi_0)}(f)$, $ L_{f(\xi_0)}(f)\neq\mathbb{R}^n$. Moreover, since $ L_{f(\xi_0)}(f)$ is also convex, there is $\alpha \in\mathbb{R}^n\setminus\{0\}$, such that $<\alpha,\xi_0>\ge <\alpha,\xi>$ for all $\xi\in L_{f(\xi_0)}(f)$. We will show that $f$ is strictly level convex at $\xi_0$ in the direction $\alpha$. Assume $\xi_0= \lambda \xi + (1-\lambda) \eta$ for some $\lambda\in (0,1)$ and $\eta\neq\xi$ such that $\eta-\xi$ is collinear with $\alpha$. Then at least one of $\xi$ and $\eta$ is not in the set $L_{f(\xi_0)}(f)$, let’s say it is $\eta$. Then $f(\eta) > f(\xi_0)$ and thus $f(\xi_0) < \max \{f(\eta), f(\xi)\}$, showing that $f$ is strictly level convex at $\xi_0$ in at least the direction $\alpha$.
Differential inclusions
-----------------------
We recall that $W^{1,\infty}_0(\Omega)$ is the closure of $C_0^\infty(\Omega)$ in $W^{1,1}(\Omega)$ intersected with $W^{1,\infty}(\Omega)$.
In the sequel we recall two classical results stating necessary and sufficient conditions for existence of solutions to differential inclusions for scalar valued functions. The results are due to Cellina [@CellinaNecessary], [@CellinaSufficient], Friesecke [@Friesecke]. See also Bandyopadhyay-Barroso-Dacorogna-Matias [@BBDM]. We observe that ${\rm int}\,{\rm co}\,E$ stands for the interior of the convex hull of the set $E$ and we refer respectively to [@D Theorem 10.24] and [@DaMa Theorem 2.10] for the proofs.
\[Necdiffincl\] Let $\Omega \subset R^n$ be a bounded open set, $E \subset \mathbb R^n$, $\xi_0 \in \mathbb R^n$ and denote by $u_{\xi_0}$ an affine function such that $\nabla u_{\xi_0}=\xi_0$. If $u \in u_{\xi_0}+W^{1,\infty}_0(\Omega)$ is such that $$\nabla u(x) \in E,\ a.e.\ x \in \Omega,$$ then $$\xi_0 \in E \cup {\rm int}\,{\rm co}\,E.$$
\[Suffdiffincl\] Let $\Omega \subset \mathbb R^n$ be a bounded open set and $E \subset \mathbb R^n$. Let $\varphi\in W^{1,\infty}(\Omega)$ satisfying $$\nonumber
\nabla \varphi(x) \in E \cup {\rm int}\,{\rm co}\,E,\ a.e.\ x \in \Omega.$$ Then there exists $u \in \varphi + W^{1,\infty}_0(\Omega)$ such that $$\nabla u(x) \in E,\ a.e.\ x \in \Omega.$$ Moreover, given $\varepsilon>0$, $u$ can be chosen such that $||u-\varphi||_{L^\infty(\Omega)}\le\varepsilon$.
\[SuffdiffinclRem\] The last assertion of the previous theorem follows from a more careful pyramidal construction than the one present in [@DaMa Theorem 2.10].
Relaxation Theorem {#SectionRelaxation}
==================
Consider the following two minimum problems $$\label{problemP}
(P)\qquad\inf\left\{ \operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{x\in\Omega}f\left( \nabla u\left(
x\right) \right):\ u\in u_0+W_{0}^{1,\infty}(\Omega)\right\}$$ and $$\label{problemPlc}
(P^{\rm lc})\qquad\inf\left\{ \operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{x\in\Omega}f^{\rm lslc}\left( \nabla u\left(
x\right) \right):\ u\in u_0+W_{0}^{1,\infty}(\Omega)\right\},$$ where $f$ is given, $f^{\rm lslc}$ is the lower semicontinuous and level convex envelope of $f$, introduced in $(iii)$ of Definition \[def1.4\], and $u_0\in W^{1,\infty}(\Omega)$ is the boundary data. Notice that, if $u_0$ is only defined on the boundary of $\Omega$, $u_0:\partial\Omega\longrightarrow\mathbb{R}$, and it is a Lipschitz function, we can extend it to all $\Omega$ and get a $W^{1,\infty}$ function. In this case, and in view of Theorem \[NSC\] below, the existence of solutions to problem $(P)$ can be ensured depending on the choice of the extension.
The goal of this section is to show that $$\inf (P)=\inf (P^{\rm lc}).$$ This will result as a consequence of the relaxation Theorem \[PrinariACV\] below.
Before that we recall that level convexity, together with lower semicontinuity is a necessary and sufficient condition for sequential weak\* lower semicontinuity in $W^{1,\infty}(\Omega)$ for functionals in the supremal form. The sufficient part is due to Barron-Jensen-Wang cf. [@BJW99 Theorem 3.3].
\[level convexity sufficient\] Let $f:\mathbb{R}^n\longrightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be a level convex and lower semicontinuous function and let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be a bounded open set. Then the functional $\displaystyle F(u)=\operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{x\in\Omega}f( \nabla u(x))$ defined in $W^{1,\infty}(\Omega)$ is sequential weak\* lower semicontinuous.
The necessary condition follows from [@BJ Theorem 3.5] (see also [@ABP Theorem 4.1]).
\[level convexity necessary\] Let $f:\mathbb{R}^n\longrightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be a Borel function and let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be a bounded open set. If the functional $\displaystyle F(u)=\operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{x\in\Omega}f( \nabla u(x))$ defined in $W^{1,\infty}(\Omega)$ is sequentially weak\* lower semicontinuous, then $f$ is lower semicontinuous and level convex.
Now we establish the relaxation theorem.
\[PrinariACV\] Let $\Omega \subset \mathbb R^n$ be a bounded open set with Lipschitz boundary and let $f: \mathbb R^n \to \mathbb R$ be a continuous function satisfying $$\label{alphacoerciveness}
f(\xi) \geq \gamma (|\xi|),\ \forall\ \xi \in \mathbb R^n,$$ with $\gamma :\mathbb R^+ \to \mathbb R^+$ a continuous and increasing function such that $\displaystyle{\lim_{t \to +\infty} \gamma (t)=+ \infty}$. Let $u_0 \in W^{1,\infty}(\Omega)$. Define the functional $F: u \in u_0 + W^{1,\infty}_0(\Omega) \to \displaystyle\operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{x\in\Omega}f( \nabla u(x))$, and let $\overline{F}$ be the relaxed functional of $F$ with respect to the weak $\ast$ convergence in $W^{1,\infty}(\Omega)$, namely for every $u\in u_0+ W^{1,\infty}_0(\Omega)$, $$\nonumber
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\overline{F}(u)= \inf \left\{\liminf_{h \to + \infty} F(u_h): u_h \in u_0+ W^{1,\infty}_0(\Omega), u_h \rightharpoonup u \text{\,weakly\,} \ast \hbox{\,in }W^{1,\infty}(\Omega)\right\}.}
\end{array}$$
Then $$\nonumber
\displaystyle{\overline{F}(u)= \supess_{x\in \Omega} f^{\rm lslc}(\nabla u(x)),\ \forall\ u \in u_0+ W^{1,\infty}_0(\Omega).}$$
A result similar to Theorem \[PrinariACV\] was proved by Prinari [@Pr09 Theorem 2.6], with no boundary condition. Our arguments are very similar so we omit them.
In the integral context, this type of results can be proved directly thanks to piecewise affine approximation arguments. In the supremal setting, sets of arbitrarily small measure are determinant to the value of the functional and this kind of arguments is not well fitted. To show the relaxation Theorem \[PrinariACV\] we need to pass through the sequential weak $\ast$ lower semicontinuous envelope of the functional involved in problem $(P)$, and we extended first this functional to $C(\overline{\Omega})$, as $+ \infty$ in the complement of $u_0+ W^{1,\infty}_0(\Omega)$. For the reader’s convenience we recall that a result devoted to this extension can be found in [@Pr02 Proposition 3.1], see also [@DM93 Theorem 8.10 and Corollary 8.12]. We also observe that our setting entails that the sequentially weak $\ast$ lower semicontinuous envelope of $f$ coincides with the lower semicontinuous envelope of the extended functional in $C(\overline{\Omega})$, with respect to the uniform tolopology.
Now we achieve the desired condition $$\inf (P)=\inf(P^{\rm lc}).$$
\[Plc=P\] Let $\Omega \subset \mathbb R^n$ be a bounded open set with Lipschitz boundary and let $f: \mathbb R^n \to \mathbb R$ be a continuous function satisfying condition . Let $u_0 \in W^{1,\infty}(\Omega)$ and let $(P)$ and $(P^{\rm lc})$ be the problems (\[problemP\]) and (\[problemPlc\]), respectively. Then $$\inf(P)=\inf (P^{\rm lc}).$$
Moreover, if the boundary condition is affine, say $u_0(x)=u_{\xi_0}(x)$ for some $\xi_0 \in \mathbb R^n$, then $$\inf (P)=f^{\rm lslc}(\xi_0).$$
\[weakquasiconvexity\] From this result we obtain that, for every $\xi_0 \in \mathbb R^n$, $$\label{wMqcxe}
\displaystyle{f^{\rm lslc}(\xi_0)= \inf\left\{ \operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{x\in\Omega}f\left( \nabla u\left(
x\right) \right):\ u\in u_{\xi_{0}}+W_{0}^{1,\infty}(\Omega)\right\}.}$$ This formula represents an alternative and equivalent formulation for the lower semicontinuous and level convex envelope of $f$, when $f:\mathbb R^n \to \mathbb{R}$ is continuous and satisfies suitable coerciveness assumptions.
On the other hand is known as weak Morrey quasiconvexity (see [@BJW99 Definition 2.2] when $\Omega$ is a cube). We observe that Corollary \[Plc=P\] entails that, at least in the scalar case, holds in any open set $\Omega$, not necessarily a cube. Moreover, we observe that we don’t expect formula to provide a characterization to $f^{\rm lslc}$ in the vectorial case. Indeed, the notions of level convexity and weak Morrey quasiconvexity, in general, don’t coincide and we don’t expect them to coincide even under coercivity assumptions.
We start proving the first equality. Clearly $\inf(P) \geq \inf(P^{\rm lc})$. To prove the converse inequality, let $\overline{F}$ be the functional introduced in Theorem \[PrinariACV\] and observe that the same theorem entails that $\displaystyle{\overline{F}(u) =\supess_{\Omega}f^{\rm lslc}(\nabla u)}$. Therefore, by the direct method of the calculus of variations, the infimum appearing in $(P^{\rm lc})$ is indeed a minimum, since (\[alphacoerciveness\]) entails the required coercivity condition and since $\overline{F}$ is sequential weak $\ast$ lower semicontinuous. Thus we can write $$\displaystyle{\min(P^{\rm lc}) = \overline{F}(\overline{u}),}$$ for some $\overline{u}\in u_0+ W^{1,\infty}_0(\Omega)$.
By definition of $\overline{F}$, we also have that there exists a sequence $\{u_n\}\subset u_0+ W^{1,\infty}_0(\Omega)$, such that $$\displaystyle{\overline{F}(\overline{u})=\liminf_{n \to +\infty}F(u_n) \geq \inf (P)},$$ and that proves the first equality in the claim.
To prove the last assertion of the corollary we only need to observe that, if the boundary condition is affine then the supremal Jensen’s inequality in Theorem \[Jensensupremalscalar\] guarantees that $u_{\xi_0}$ is a solution to problem $(P^{\rm lc})$.
Necessary and Sufficient Conditions {#NecSufCond}
===================================
In this section we will investigate necessary and sufficient conditions for existence of solutions to the non-level convex problem $(P)$ introduced in Section \[SectionRelaxation\], see equation (\[problemP\]). Before that we start with some considerations on level convex problems.
Observe that, if $f$ is a level convex function, then the solutions $u$ to the related problem $(P)$ are completely characterized by the following condition $$\label{solutionsforlevelconvexproblems}\left\{\begin{array}{l}u\in u_0+W_0^{1, \infty}(\Omega)\vspace{0.2cm}\\f(\nabla u(x))\le \inf (P),\ a.e.\ x\in\Omega.\end{array}\right.$$
This characterization shall be compared with Theorem 1 in [@CellinaNecessary]. In the present supremal context and for affine boundary condition $u_0=u_{\xi_0}$, the analogous result we should obtain is that for any solution $u$ to problem $(P)$, one has $\nabla u(x)\in F,\ a.e.\ x\in\Omega$ if $F$ is a face of the convex set $L_{f(\xi_0)}(f)$ containing $\xi_0$ in its relative interior. Since the relative interiors of the faces are disjoint, cf. [@Rockafellar Theorem 18.2], Proposition \[diffincl\] below, shows that $L_{f(\xi_0)}(f)$ is the only possible face containing $\xi_0$ in its relative interior. Therefore the analogous result to [@CellinaNecessary Theorem 1] doesn’t give more information than what was stated in condition .
The already mentioned Proposition \[diffincl\], concerns uniqueness of solution to a level convex problem.
\[diffincl\] Let $f:\mathbb{R}^n\longrightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be a Borel measurable level convex function and let $(P)$ be the related problem defined in (\[problemP\]) with an affine boundary condition $u_0=u_{\xi_0}$, $\xi_0\in\mathbb{R}^n$.
If $(P)$ admits a solution $u\neq u_{\xi_0}$, then $\xi_0\in {\rm int}\, L_{f(\xi_0)}(f)$.
Since $f$ is a level convex function, by the supremal Jensen’s inequality $\inf (P)=f(\xi_0)$. Therefore, if $u$ is a solution to $(P)$, $u\neq u_{\xi_0}$, then, by , $f(\nabla u(x))\le f(\xi_0), \ \forall\ x\in\Omega\setminus A,$ where $A$ is a null measure subset of $\Omega$. Thus $$S:=\{\nabla u(x):\ x\in\Omega\setminus A\}\subset\{\xi:\ f(\xi)\le f(\xi_0)\},$$ this last set being convex. On the other hand, since $$\xi_0=\frac{1}{|\Omega|}\int_\Omega \nabla u(x)\,dx,$$ we get $\xi_0\in \overline{\mathrm{co}S}.$ Repeating the argument of Theorem 10.24 in [@D], we get $\xi_0\in \mathrm{int}\,\overline{\mathrm{co}S}=\mathrm{int}\,\mathrm{co}S\subset \mathrm{int}\{\xi:\ f(\xi)\le f(\xi_0)\}.$
Now, we pass to the case of non-level convex problems. In the same spirit as before, we have the following result. We observe that, in this case, we need to assume the continuity of the function in order to apply the relaxation theorem of the previous section.
\[NSC\] Let $\Omega \subset \mathbb R^n$ be a bounded open set with Lipschitz boundary and let $f: \mathbb R^n \to \mathbb R$ be a continuous function satisfying (\[alphacoerciveness\]). Let $u_0 \in W^{1,\infty}(\Omega)$ and let $(P)$ and $(P^{\rm lc})$ be the problems (\[problemP\]) and (\[problemPlc\]), respectively.
Then problem $\left( P\right)$ has a solution if and only if there exists $u\in u_0+W_{0}^{1,\infty}(\Omega)$ such that $$\label{NSCeq}
f(\nabla u\left(x\right))\le \inf (P^{\rm lc}),\ \text{a.e.}\ x\in \Omega.$$ Moreover, if $$\label{eqmaisuma}\nabla u_0(x) \in L_{\inf(P^{\rm lc})}(f) \cup {\rm int}\,L_{\inf(P^{\rm lc})}(f^{\rm lslc}),\ \text{a.e.}\ x\in \Omega$$ then $(P)$ has a solution.
In particular, if $u_0$ is affine, say $u_0=u_{\xi_0}$ with $\nabla u_{\xi_0}(x)= \xi_0 \in \mathbb R^n$, then condition reads $$\label{NSCeqaffine}
f(\nabla u\left( x\right))\le f^{\rm lslc}(\xi_0),\ \text{a.e.}\ x\in \Omega.$$ Moreover, still under the assumption that $u_0=u_{\xi_0}$ is affine, problem (P) admits a solution if and only if $$\label{bcincluded}
\xi_0 \in L_{f^{\rm lslc}(\xi_0)}(f) \cup {\rm int}\,L_{f^{\rm lslc}(\xi_0)}(f^{\rm lslc}).$$
\(i) By the supremal Jensen’s inequality, the existence of $u\in u_0+W_{0}^{1,\infty}(\Omega)$ satisfying is equivalent to the existence of $u\in u_0+W_{0}^{1,\infty}(\Omega)$ such that $$\operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{x\in\Omega}f\left(\nabla u\left(x\right) \right)=f^{\rm lslc}(\xi_0).$$
\(ii) Observe that, for general $u_0$, is only a sufficient condition, while, for affine functions $u_0$ it is necessary and sufficient (cf. ).
\(iii) If $u_0$ is a Lipschitz function only defined on the boundary of $\Omega$, $u_0:\partial\Omega\longrightarrow\mathbb{R}$, then condition can be replaced by condition (2.62) in [@DaMa Theorem 2.17] to get a sufficient condition. Notice that, from , we need to solve the differential inclusion $\nabla u\in E$ where $E=\{\xi\in\mathbb{R}^n:\ f(\xi)\le \inf (P^{\rm lc})\}$.
We start proving the first equivalence stated in the theorem. Let $u \in u_0+W^{1,\infty}_0(\Omega) $ be a solution to problem $(P)$. Then, by Corollary \[Plc=P\], it results that $$\operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{x\in\Omega}f\left( \nabla u\left(
x\right) \right)=\inf (P^{\rm lc}),$$ hence $f(\nabla u(x))\le \inf (P^{\rm lc})$ for a.e. $x \in \Omega$.
To prove the reverse implication, it is enough to observe that $$\inf (P^{\rm lc})\le \inf(P).$$
Then, that condition is sufficient for existence of solutions to $(P)$, follows from , Theorem \[Suffdiffincl\], and from Corollary \[Corollary to Caratheodory\], where the set $E$ is given by $L_{\inf (P^{\rm lc})}(f)$.
Regarding condition (\[NSCeqaffine\]), it suffices to observe that, by the supremal Jensen’s inequality, cf. Theorem \[Jensensupremalscalar\], $f^{\rm lslc}(\xi_0)=\inf (P^{\rm lc})$.
For what concerns the last statement, condition , we observe that it follows from Theorems \[Necdiffincl\] and \[Suffdiffincl\] and from Corollary \[Corollary to Caratheodory\], where the set $E$ is given by $L_{f^{\rm lslc}(\xi_0)}(f)$.
As we will see in the next result, in dimension $n=1$, for sufficiently regular $f$, problem $(P)$ with an affine boundary condition, always admits a solution. This is not true for $n>1$ as Example \[notalwaysexistence\] shows.
\[existencedim1\] Let $\Omega \subset \mathbb R$ be a bounded open set and let $f:\mathbb R \to \mathbb{R}$ be a continuous function satisfying . Then problem $(P)$ introduced in admits a solution for every $u_0:\partial\Omega\longrightarrow\mathbb{R}$.
Let $u_0:\partial\Omega\longrightarrow\mathbb{R}$. Since $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}$, we can write $\displaystyle\Omega=\cup_{i\in\mathbb{N}}\Omega_i$ with $\Omega_i$ disjoint open intervals. In each of these intervals consider the affine functions $u_{\xi_i}$, for some $\xi_i\in\mathbb{R}$, such that $u_{\xi_i}=u_0$ on $\partial \Omega_i.$ Once proved the existence of solution to each problem $$(P_i)\quad\inf\left\{ \operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{x\in\Omega_i}f\left( u'(x) \right):\ u\in u_{\xi_i}+W_{0}^{1,\infty}(\Omega_i)\right\},$$ say $u_i\in u_{\xi_i}+W_{0}^{1,\infty}(\Omega_i)$, one gets the existence of solution to $(P)$ patching together the functions $u_i$ in each interval $\Omega_i$.
It remains to prove the existence of solution to each problem $(P_i)$. To achieve this it will be enough to show that every $\xi_i\in \mathbb R$ verifies with $\xi_0$ replaced by $\xi_i$. Of course, $\xi_i\in L_{f^{\rm lslc}(\xi_i)}(f^{\rm lslc})=\mathrm{co}\,L_{f^{\rm lslc}(\xi_i)}(f)$, by Corollary \[Corollary to Caratheodory\]. If $\xi_i \in L_{f^{\rm lslc}(\xi_i)}(f)$, the existence is proven. So, without loss of generality, we may assume that $\xi_i \in {\rm co}\,L_{f^{\rm lslc}(\xi_i)}(f)\setminus L_{f^{\rm lslc}(\xi_i)}(f)$. Since we are working on the real line, we immediately conclude that $\xi_i \in {\rm int}\,L_{f^{\rm lslc}(\xi_i)}(f^{\rm lslc})={\rm int}\,\mathrm{co}\,L_{f^{\rm lslc}(\xi_i)}(f)$: in $\mathbb{R}$, the elements of the boundary of a convex hull belong either to the original set or to the complement of the convex hull. Thus we proved and the proof is finished.
The following result provides a sufficient condition for existence of solutions to a non-level convex problem with more general boundary data.
\[Theoremexistenceregular\] Let $\Omega \subset \mathbb R^n$ be a bounded open set with Lipschitz boundary and let $f: \mathbb R^n \to \mathbb R$ be a continuous function satisfying (\[alphacoerciveness\]). Let $u_0 \in W^{1,\infty}(\Omega)$ and let $(P)$ and $(P^{\rm lc})$ be the problems (\[problemP\]) and (\[problemPlc\]), respectively. Assume that problem $(P^{\rm lc})$ admits a solution $\overline{u}\in C^1_{piec}(\Omega)$.
Then, if $f^{\rm lslc}$ is constant in each connected component of the set where $f^{\rm lslc}< f$, problem $(P)$ has a solution.
The same assertion can be proved under the weaker assumption that $f^{\rm lslc}$ is constant in the connected components of $\{\xi:\ f^{\rm lslc}(\xi)< f(\xi)\}$ whose intersection with $\{\nabla \overline{u}(x):\ x\in \Omega'\}$ is nonempty for some $\Omega'\subset\Omega$ with positive measure.
By the continuity hypothesis on $f$ and the coercivity condition (\[alphacoerciveness\]), Theorem \[Caratheodory for f lc\] implies that $f^{\rm lslc}$ is also continuous and thus the set $$A:=\left\{\xi\in\mathbb{R}^n:\ f^{\rm lslc}(\xi)<f(\xi)\right\}$$ is open. Therefore we can split $A$ in a disjoint countable union of open sets $A_i$, $i\in\mathbb{N}$. By hypothesis, in each of these sets $A_i$, the function $f^{\rm lslc}$ is constant. Since the function $\xi\mapsto\gamma(|\xi|)$ is level convex and continuous, $f^{\rm lslc}\ge \gamma(|\cdot|)$. Thus $\displaystyle \lim_{|\xi|\to +\infty}f^{\rm lslc}(\xi)=+\infty$ and this, together with the fact that $f^{\rm lslc}$ is constant in $A_i$ implies that the sets $A_i$ are bounded.
Now, we split the set $\Omega$ in several parts: $$\begin{array}{l}\displaystyle\Omega_0:=\left\{x\in\Omega:\ \nabla\overline{u}(x)\notin\cup_{i\in\mathbb{N}} A_i\right\}\vspace{0.2cm}\\ \Omega_i:=\left\{x\in\Omega:\ \nabla\overline{u}(x)\in A_i\right\},\ i\in\mathbb{N} \end{array}$$ and we construct the solution in the following way. For each $i\in\mathbb{N}$ consider $v_i\in \overline{u}+W_0^{1,\infty}(\Omega_i)$ such that $\nabla v_i\in\partial A_i$, this exists by Theorem \[Suffdiffincl\] and since $A_i$ being open and bounded, is contained in ${\rm int}\,{\rm co}\,\partial A_i$.
Define $$u(x):=\left\{\begin{array}{l}\overline{u}(x),\text{ if }x\in\Omega_0,\vspace{0.2cm}\\ v_i(x),\text{ if }x\in\Omega_i,\ i\in\mathbb{N}.\end{array}\right.$$ One has $\overline{u}\in u_0+W_0^{1,\infty}(\Omega)$. Moreover, since $f^{\rm lslc}$ is constant on each $A_i$, by the continuity of $f^{\rm lslc}$, it is constant on $\overline{A_i}$. On the other hand, since $A_i$ are open, on their boundary, $f^{\rm lslc}$ coincides with $f$. Therefore, since $\nabla v_i\in\partial A_i$, $$\displaystyle\operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{x\in\Omega_i}f\left(\nabla v_i\left(
x\right)\right)=\operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{x\in\Omega_i}f^{\rm lslc}\left(\nabla v_i\left(
x\right)\right)=\operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{x\in\Omega_i}f^{\rm lslc}\left(\nabla \overline{u}\left(
x\right)\right)$$ where we have used the fact that $\nabla\overline{u}\in A_i$ in $\Omega _i$.
Therefore $$\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle\operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{x\in\Omega}f\left(\nabla u\left(
x\right)\right)=\max\left\{\operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{x\in\Omega_0}f\left(\nabla \overline{u}\left(
x\right)\right),\ \operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{x\in\Omega_i}f\left(\nabla v_i\left(
x\right)\right),\ i\in\mathbb{N} \right\}\vspace{0.2cm}\\
\displaystyle\phantom{\operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{x\in\Omega}f\left(\nabla u\left(
x\right)\right)}=\operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{x\in\Omega}f^{\rm lslc}\left(\nabla \overline{u}\left(
x\right)\right)=\inf(P^{\rm lc})\end{array}$$ and the existence of solution to problem $(P)$ follows from Theorem \[NSC\].
The following example shows many of the features of the results stated in this section.
\[notalwaysexistence\] Let $f:(\xi_1,\xi_2)\in \mathbb R^2 \to (\xi_1^2-1)^2 + \xi_2^2 \in \mathbb R$. Clearly $f\geq 0$, and $f(\xi_1,\xi_2)= 0$ if and only if $(\xi_1,\xi_2)=\pm (1,0)$. Since $f\ge 0$ then $f^{\rm lslc}\ge 0$, and thus, using Corollary \[Corollary to Caratheodory\], $$\left\{f^{\rm lslc}=0\right\}=L_0(f^{\rm lslc})={\rm co}\,L_0(f)=[-1,1]\times \{0\},$$ which has empty interior.
This example also shows that in dimension $n>1$ there are cases where the gradient of the boundary datum doesn’t belong neither to $L_{f^{\rm lslc}(\xi_0)}(f)$ nor to ${\rm int }\,L_{f^{\rm lslc}(\xi_0)}(f^{\rm lslc})$ and thus the inclusion doesn’t admit any solution. By Theorem \[NSC\], if $u_0= u_{\xi_0}$ is such that $\nabla u_0(x)\equiv\xi_0 \in (-1,1)\times \{0\}$, considering the minimizing problem $(P)$ related to the function $f$ with the boundary data $u_0= u_{\xi_0}$, we can ensure that $(P)$ doesn’t have a solution.
We also observe that, in this example, problem $(P^{\rm lc})$ with affine boundary condition $u_0= u_{\xi_0}$, such that $\nabla u_0(x)\equiv\xi_0 \in (-1,1)\times \{0\}$ has exactly one solution. Indeed, if $u\in u_0+W_0^{1,\infty}(\Omega)$ is a solution to $(P^{\rm lc})$, then $f^{\rm lslc}(\nabla u(x))=0$, a.e. $x\in\Omega$ and thus $\nabla u(x)\in [-1,1]\times \{0\}$, a.e. $x\in\Omega$. In particular, $\nabla u(x)-\xi_0$ is orthogonal to the vector $(0,1)$, a.e. $x\in\Omega$. It then follows by [@D Lemma 11.17], that $u\equiv u_{\xi_0}$, showing that $u_{\xi_0}$ is the only solution to $(P^{\rm lc})$.
As we will see in Proposition \[Prop no solution\], the fact that $(P^{\rm lc})$ admits a unique solution, and the boundary condition is such that $\xi_0\in\{f^{\rm lslc}<f\}$ implies that $(P)$ has no solution.
We will now turn our attention to necessary conditions for existence of solutions to a non-level convex problem of the form $(P)$ with affine boundary data. Our strategy will be based on uniqueness of solutions to the relaxed problem $(P^{\rm lc})$, as considered for problems in the integral form by Marcellini [@Marcellini83], Dacorogna-Marcellini [@DM95], and Dacorogna-Pisante-Ribeiro [@DPR]. The basis to our research is the following result.
\[Prop no solution\] Let $\Omega \subset \mathbb R^n$ be a bounded open set with Lipschitz boundary and let $f: \mathbb R^n \to \mathbb R$ be a continuous function satisfying . Let $(P)$ and $(P^{\rm lc})$ be the problems and , respectively, with the affine boundary condition $u_{\xi_0}(x)=\xi_0\cdot x+c$. Assume that $f^{\rm lslc}(\xi_0)<f(\xi_0)$ and assume $f^{\rm lslc}$ satisfies the condition $$\left.\begin{array}{c} \displaystyle\operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{x\in\Omega}f^{\rm lslc}\left(\nabla u\left(x\right) \right)=f^{\rm
lslc}(\xi_0) \vspace{0.2cm}\\
u\in u_{\xi_0}+W_0^{1,\infty}(\Omega)
\end{array}\right\}\ \Rightarrow\ u=u_{\xi_0},$$ which means that problem $(P^{\rm lc})$ has a unique solution.
Then problem $(P)$ has no solution.
Since $f^{\rm lslc}\le f$, if $u$ is a solution to $(P)$ then, by Corollary \[Plc=P\], it is also a solution to $(P^{\rm lc})$. Therefore, by the uniqueness of solutions to $(P^{\rm lc})$ stated in the hypothesis, $u=u_{\xi_0}$. This contradicts the fact that $f^{\rm lslc}(\xi_0)<f(\xi_0)$ and we conclude that a solution to $(P)$ cannot exist.
In view of the result just stated, we want to find conditions ensuring uniqueness of solution to level convex problems of type $(P)$, defined in . We start observing that the strict level convexity of the function related to the minimizing problem $(P)$ provides that uniqueness, if the boundary condition is affine. Indeed this follows from Remark \[weakMqcx\] and applies to both the scalar and the vectorial cases. It is interesting to observe that condition , involved in Proposition \[Prop no solution\] is the counterpart in the supremal setting of the notion of strict quasiconvexity at $\xi_0$ which guarantees uniqueness of solutions in the integral framework (see Definition 11.9 and Theorem 11.11 in [@D].) Therefore, if $f^{\rm lslc}$ was strictly level convex then, for affine boundary conditions, problem $(P^{\rm lc})$, defined in , would have a unique solution and problem $(P)$, defined in , would have no solution. However, we show in the next proposition that we can’t expect $f^{\rm lslc}\neq f$ to be strictly level convex and thus we will work with a weaker notion.
Let $f:\mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}$ be a continuous function such that $f^{\rm lc}>-\infty$ and $\displaystyle \lim_{|\xi|\to +\infty}f(\xi)=+\infty$ and let $\xi_0\in\mathbb{R}^n$ be such that $f^{\rm lslc}(\xi_0)<f(\xi_0).$ Then $f^{\rm lslc}$ is constant in a segment line containing $\xi_0$ (possibly $\xi_0$ is an extremity of the segment line).
The same assertion can be proved if we assume $f$ to be lower semicontinuous, bounded from below, and such that $\displaystyle \lim_{|\xi|\to +\infty}\frac{f(\xi)}{|\xi|}=+\infty$. The proof in this case is the same that we present below, but one shall invoke Theorem \[thm1.8\] (ii), instead of Theorem \[Caratheodory for f lc\].
By Theorem \[Caratheodory for f lc\], $f^{\rm lslc}(\xi_0)=\max\{f(\xi_1), \dots, f(\xi_{n+1})\}$ for some $\xi_i\in\mathbb{R}^n,\ i=1,\dots, n+1$, such that $\xi_0=\lambda_1\xi_1+\dots + \lambda_{n+1} \xi_{n+1}$ with $\lambda_i\ge 0,\ i=1,\dots, n+1$ and $\sum_{i=1}^{n+1} \lambda_ i = 1$. Moreover, we can assume $\lambda_i> 0$ for every $i=1 ,\dots n+1$ (notice that some $\xi_i$ can be equal) and since $f^{\rm lslc}(\xi_0)<f(\xi_0),$ we conclude that $\xi_0$ belongs to the relative interior of the convex hull ${\rm co}\{\xi_1,\dots,\xi_{n+1}\}$. Therefore we can consider a segment line $[\eta,\zeta]$ contained in this relative interior such that $\xi_0\in (\eta,\zeta)$. By the level convexity of $f^{\rm lslc}$, $$f^{\rm lslc}(\xi)\le \max\{f^{\rm lslc}(\xi_1),\dots,f^{\rm lslc}(\xi_{n+1})\}\le \max\{f(\xi_1),\dots,f(\xi_{n+1})\}= f^{\rm lslc}(\xi_0),\ \forall\ \xi\in [\eta,\zeta].$$ Finally, again by the level convexity of $f^{\rm lslc}$, one has $f^{\rm lslc}\equiv f^{\rm lslc}(\xi_0)$ either in $[\eta,\xi_0]$ or in $[\xi_0,\zeta]$, as wished.
In the spirit of [@DM95], we will deal with a weaker notion of strict level convexity, the strict level convexity in at least one direction, which was introduced in Section \[Strict level convexity\]. We have the following result.
\[thm strict level conv\] Let $\Omega \subset \mathbb R^n$ be a bounded open set, let $\xi_0\in\mathbb{R}^n$, and let $f:\mathbb{R}^n\longrightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be a Borel measurable and level convex function which is strictly level convex at $\xi_0$ in at least one direction. Then, $u_{\xi_0}$ is the only solution to the problem $$\label{minpb}
\qquad\inf\left\{ \operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{x\in\Omega}f\left( \nabla u\left(
x\right) \right):\ u\in u_{\xi_0}+W_{0}^{1,\infty}(\Omega)\right\}.$$
Of course, by the supremal Jensen’s inequality, $u_{\xi_0}$ is a solution of the minimizing problem and thus another solution $u$ satisfies $\displaystyle\operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{x\in\Omega}f\left( \nabla u\left(
x\right)\right)=f(\xi_0)$. Let us fix a representative of $u$ still denoted by $u$.
One has, in particular, $f(Du(x))\le f(\xi_0), \ \forall\ x\in\Omega\setminus A,$ where $A$ is a null measure subset of $\Omega$. Thus $$S:=\{Du(x):\ x\in\Omega\setminus A\}\subset\{\xi:\ f(\xi)\le f(\xi_0)\}.$$ On the other hand, as in the proof of Proposition \[diffincl\] we get $\xi_0\in \mathrm{int}\,\overline{\mathrm{co}S}=\mathrm{int}\,\mathrm{co}S.$
Now let $x\in\Omega\setminus A$. Then either $Du(x)=\xi_0$ or $Du(x)\neq \xi_0$. If $x$ is in this last case we do the following. Since $\xi_0\in \mathrm{int}\,\mathrm{co}S,$ we can write $$\xi_0=t\,Du(x)+(1-t)\eta$$ for some $\eta\in \mathrm{co}S$ with $\eta\neq\xi_0$ and $t\in(0,1)$. By the level convexity of $f$ $$f(\xi_0)\le \max\{f(Du(x)), f(\eta)\}\le f(\xi_0).$$ Thus, $\max\{f(Du(x)), f(\eta)\}= f(\xi_0)$ and by the strict level convexity of $f$ at $\xi_0$ in at least one direction one gets $<Du(x)-\eta,\gamma>=0$ for some $\gamma\in\mathbb{R}^n\setminus\{0\}$. Since $Du(x)-\eta$ and $Du(x)-\xi_0$ are colinear, then $<Du(x)-\xi_0,\gamma>=0$.
So we have obtained $<Du(x)-\xi_0,\gamma>=0,\ \forall\ x\in\Omega\setminus A$ and repeating the argument in [@DM95 Theorem 5.1] one gets $u=u_{\xi_0}$ which proves the desired uniqueness of solution.
\[strict lev conv 2\] Another proof for Theorem \[thm strict level conv\] can be obtained via geometric arguments on the level sets. Namely Proposition \[strictlcboundary\] ensures that $\xi_0 \in \partial L_{f(\xi_0)}(f)$, and thus by Proposition \[diffincl\], admits just the affine solution.
It is worth to observe also that Theorem \[thm strict level conv\] provides a result analogous to [@D Proposition 11.14] (where the notion of strict quasiconvexity has been introduced and compared with strict convexity in at least one direction in order to guarantee uniqueness of solutions to integral vectorial minimum problems). In fact one can read as a strict weak Morrey quasiconvexity, and deduce that this condition is weaker than strict convexity at a point in at least one direction.
Going back to the non-level convex problems we can state the following result which shows that, the strict level convexity at $\xi_0$ in at least one direction for $f^{\rm lslc}$, with $f^{\rm lslc}(\xi_0)< f(\xi_0)$, is the characterizing feature for non existence of solutions to problem $(P)$.
\[corollary slc in at least\]Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be a bounded open set with Lipschitz boundary, let $\xi_0\in\mathbb{R}^n$, and let $f:\mathbb{R}^n\longrightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be a continuous function satisfying . Assume that $f^{\rm lslc}(\xi_0)< f(\xi_0)$. Consider problem $(P)$ with $u_0=u_{\xi_0}$. Then problem $(P)$ admits a solution if and only if $f^{\rm lslc}$ is not strictly level convex at $\xi_0$ in any direction.
Under the assumptions of the corollary, we can state more precisely that, if $f^{\rm lslc}$ is strictly level convex at $\xi_0$ in at least one direction, then problem $(P^{\rm lc})$ has exactly one solution and problem $(P)$ has no solution. This follows from Theorem \[thm strict level conv\] and Proposition \[Prop no solution\], as mentioned in the proof below. If f is also lower semicontinuous, Propositions \[diffincl\] and \[strictlcboundary\] ensure that strict level convexity at $\xi_0$ in at least one direction is equivalent to strict weak Morrey quasiconvexity at $\xi_0$.
The fact that if $(P)$ has a solution then $f^{\rm lslc}$ is not strictly level convex at $\xi_0$ in any direction is an immediate consequence of Theorem \[thm strict level conv\] and Proposition \[Prop no solution\].
Now we prove the reverse implication. Assume $f^{\rm lslc}$ is not strictly level convex at $\xi_0$ in any direction. Then, by Propostion \[strictlcboundary\], $\xi_0 \not \in \partial L_{f^{\rm lslc}(\xi_0)}(f^{\rm lslc})$, being an interior point of this set. Theorem \[NSC\], ensures then that $(P)$ has a solution.
Our previous results lead to the following theorem, which intends to characterize the set $R_{f^{\rm lslc}(\xi_0)}(f^{\rm lslc})$ (cf. Notation \[CArecalls\]) near the point $\xi_0$, for non level convex problems admitting a minimizer and with affine boundary data $u_0=u_{\xi_0}$ . The result is the analogous version to [@D Theorem 11.26] for the supremal setting.
\[analog to thm 11.26 Dacorogna\] Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be a bounded open set with Lipschitz boundary, let $\xi_0\in\mathbb{R}^n$, and let $f:\mathbb{R}^n\longrightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be a continuous function satisfying . Assume that $f^{\rm lslc}(\xi_0)< f(\xi_0)$. Let $K:=\{\xi\in\mathbb{R}^n: f^{\rm lslc}(\xi) < f(\xi)\}$ and assume that $K$ is connected, otherwise we replace $K$ by its connected component containing $\xi_0$. Consider problem $(P)$ with $u_0=u_{\xi_0}$.
1. If $(P)$ has a minimizer, then there exists $\nu \in \mathbb{R}^n\setminus\{0\}$ and $\e >0$ such that $f^{\rm lslc}$ is constant in the set $\{\xi \in B_\varepsilon(\xi_0):\ <\xi-\xi_0,\nu> \geq 0\}\subset R_{f^{\rm lslc}(\xi_0)}(f^{\rm lslc})$.
2. If there exists $E \subset \partial K$ such that $\xi_0 \in {\rm int}\,{\rm co}(E)$ and $f^{\rm lslc}\left|_{\{\xi_0\}\cup E}\right.$ is constant then $(P)$ has a solution.
To prove the necessary part we start observing that, by Corollary \[corollary slc in at least\], if $(P)$ admits a minimizer, then $f^{\rm lslc}$ is not strictly level convex at $\xi_0$ in any direction. Then, by Proposition \[strictlcboundary\], $\xi_0\in {\rm int} L_{f^{\rm lslc}(\xi_0)}(f^{\rm lslc})$. Let $\varepsilon>0$ be such that $B_\varepsilon(\xi_0)\subset L_{f^{\rm lslc}(\xi_0)}(f^{\rm lslc})$ and consider, for each $n\in\mathbb{N}$, the convex sets $$C_n:=\left\{\xi\in B_\varepsilon(\xi_0):\ f^{\rm lslc}(\xi)\le f^{\rm lslc}(\xi_0)-\frac{1}{n}\right\}.$$ Let $$C:=\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}C_n=\left\{\xi\in B_\varepsilon(\xi_0):\ f^{\rm lslc}(\xi)< f^{\rm lslc}(\xi_0)\right\}.$$ Observe that $C$, being an increasing sequence of convex sets, it is also a convex set. Moreover, by Theorem \[Caratheodory for f lc\], $f^{\rm lslc}$ is continuous and thus $C$ is open. If $C$ is empty, it means that $f^{\rm lslc}$ is constant in $B_\varepsilon(\xi_0)$. Otherwise, applying a separation result for the convex open set $C$, one gets the existence of $\nu\in\mathbb{R}^n\setminus\{0\}$ such that $<\xi_0-\xi,\nu>< 0$ for all $\xi\in C$. Therefore, for all $\xi\in B_\varepsilon(\xi_0)$ such that $<\xi_0-\xi,\nu>\ge 0$ one has $f^{\rm lslc}(\xi)=f^{\rm lslc}(\xi_0)$, as wished. The sufficient part is proved observing that, by Theorem \[Suffdiffincl\], there exists $\overline{u} \in u_{\xi_0}+ W^{1,\infty}_0(\Omega)$ such that $\nabla \overline{u} \in E \subset \partial K$ for a.e. $x \in \Omega$. Since $f^{\rm lslc}= f$ on $\partial K$, we have $f(\nabla {\overline u}(x))= f^{\rm lslc}(\nabla {\overline u}(x))$ for a.e. $x \in \Omega$ and since $f^{\rm lslc}$ is constant in $\{\xi_0\}\cup E$, we have $${\rm ess}\sup_{x \in \Omega} f(\nabla {\overline u}(x)) = {\rm ess}\sup_{x \in \Omega} f^{\rm lslc}(\nabla {\overline u}(x))=f^{\rm lslc}(\xi_0),$$ which, by Theorem \[NSC\], ensures that $(P)$ has a solution.
\[fslcnoFslc\] We observe that (as very well emphasized by Crandall [@C] and Aronsson-Crandall-Juutinen in [@ACJ]) that given $u_0 \in W^{1,\infty}(\Omega)$, and $f:\mathbb R^n \to \mathbb R$ continuous and strict level convex, then the functional $$F: u \in C(\overline{\Omega})\to \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}\displaystyle
\supess_{x \in \Omega} f(\nabla u(x)) & \hbox{ if } u \in u_0+ W^{1,\infty}_0(\Omega),\\
\\
+\infty & \hbox{ otherwise,}
\end{array}
\right.$$ is in general not strictly level convex as a functional, i.e. it does not satisfy $F(u) < \max\{F(u_1), F(u_2)\}$, for every $u= \lambda u_1 + (1-\lambda )u_2$, $u_1, u_2 \in u_0+ W^{1,\infty}_0(\Omega)$, $\lambda\in (0,1)$, even when $n=1$. This is in fact the case of the minimum problem arising when looking for the minimal Lipschitz extension, where in fact the density $f$ defined as $f(\cdot):= |\cdot|$ is strictly level convex, but the minimizer is not unique. On the other hand, our previous results (cf. in particular Remark \[weakMqcx\], Proposition \[Prop no solution\] and Theorem \[thm strict level conv\]) show (also in the vectorial case) that if $u_0$ is affine, namely $u_0:= u_{\xi_0}$ then we have a unique solution to the problem $\displaystyle\inf\left\{ \supess_{x \in \Omega} f(\nabla u(x)): u \in u_{\xi_0} + W^{1,\infty}_0(\Omega)\right\}$.
We also observe that the continuity and strict level convexity of a function $f: \mathbb R^n \to \mathbb R$, satisfying , is sufficient to ensure the uniqueness of solution to the minimization problem $$\inf \left\{\supess_{x \in \Omega} f(u(x)):\ u \in L^\infty(\Omega;\mathbb{R}^n)\right\}.$$ Moreover, this unique solution is a constant function. Indeed, the coercivity condition and the continuity of $f$ implies the existence of a global minimum to $f$ and the strict level convexity ensures that this minimum is attained in only one point, say $\xi_0\in\mathbb{R}^n$. Therefore $u(x)\equiv \xi_0$ is a solution to the minimization problem and it is obviously the only solution, since any other solution $v$ satisfies $\supess_{x \in \Omega} f( v(x))=f(\xi_0)$ and this implies that $v(x)=\xi_0$ for a.e. $x\in\Omega.$
Appendix
========
In this section we make some considerations concerning the vectorial case, that is when $f:\mathbb{R}^{m\times n}\to\mathbb{R}$. We also correct some statements by Barron-Jensen-Wang in [@BJW99]. In the vectorial case the necessary and sufficient condition for sequential weak \* lower semicontinuity of the supremal functional is the so called (strong) Morrey quasiconvexity as proved by Barron-Jensen-Wang [@BJW99 Theorems 2.6 and 2.7]. We start recalling this notion together with other notions also introduced in [@BJW99 Definitions 2.1, 2.2 and 3.7]. We denote by $Q$ the unitary cube of $\mathbb{R}^n$.
\[generalized notions\] (i) A Borel measurable function $f:\mathbb R^{m\times n}\to \mathbb R$ is said to be strong Morrey quasiconvex if for any $\varepsilon>0$, for any $\xi\in \mathbb R^{m\times n}$, and any $K>0$, there exists a $\delta= \delta(\varepsilon, K, \xi)>0$ such that if $\varphi \in W^{1,\infty}(Q;\mathbb R^m)$ satisfies $$\displaystyle{\|\nabla \varphi\|_{L^\infty(Q)} \leq K, \qquad \max_{x \in \partial Q}|\varphi(x)|\leq \delta},$$ then, $$\nonumber
f(\xi) \leq \operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{x \in Q} f(\xi+ \nabla \varphi(x))+ \varepsilon.$$
\(ii) A function $f:\mathbb R^{m\times n}\to \mathbb R$ is said to be weak Morrey quasiconvex if $$\label{wMqcx}
f(\xi) \leq \operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{x\in Q}f(\xi+ \nabla \varphi(x)),$$ for every $\xi\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times n}$ and every $\varphi \in W^{1,\infty}_0(Q;\mathbb R^m)$.
\(iii) A function $f:\mathbb R^{m\times n}\to \mathbb R$ is level convex if $f(t\xi+(1-t)\eta)\leq \max \{f(\xi),f(\eta)\}$, for every $t \in [0,1]$ and for every $\xi,\eta \in \mathbb R^{m\times n}$.
\(iv) A function $f:\mathbb R^{m\times n}\to \mathbb R$ is rank one quasiconvex (rank one level convex) if for any $\xi,\eta \in \mathbb R^{m\times n}$ with ${\rm rank}(\xi-\eta)\leq 1$, $f(t\xi+(1-t)\eta)\leq \max \{f(\xi),f(\eta)\}$, for every $t \in [0,1]$.
Clearly, as observed in [@BJW99], strong Morrey quasiconvexity implies weak Morrey quasiconvexity. However, it is not true that weak Morrey quasiconvexity implies rank one quasiconvexity, as it was wrongly stated in [@BJW99 Proposition 3.8 and Corollary 3.9]. See Example \[example BJW not true\]. We will show in Theorem \[weakMorreyimpliesrankone\] below, that this statement is true if we assume the function to be upper semicontinuous.
\[example BJW not true\] Let $m\ge 1$ and $n>1$. Let $S:=\{\xi, \eta\}\subset\mathbb{R}^{m\times n}$ such that $\rm{rank}(\xi-\eta)=1$ and let $f:=1-\chi_S$, where $\chi_S$ is the characteristic function of $S$. Of course $f$ is not rank one quasiconvex. Let’s see that $f$ is weak Morrey quasiconvex: $$f(\zeta)\leq \operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{x\in Q}f(\zeta+ \nabla \varphi(x)),\ \forall\ \zeta\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times n},\ \varphi \in W_0^{1,\infty}(Q;\mathbb{R}^m).$$ To this end it is enough to consider the case where $\zeta \notin S$. Then, the inequality follows from the fact that, there is no $\varphi \in W^{1,\infty}_0(Q;\mathbb{R}^m)$ such that $\nabla \varphi(x)\in \{\xi-\zeta,\eta-\zeta\}$ a.e. in $Q$. Actually, if $m=1$, this is a consequence of Theorem \[Necdiffincl\]. In the vectorial case $m>1$, this follows from [@BallJames Propositions 1 and 2].
We also observe that $f$ is lower semicontinuous. So lower semicontinuity and weak Morrey quasiconvexity is not enough to ensure rank one quasiconvexity.
Next we show that if a function is upper semicontinuous and weak Morrey quasiconvex then it is rank one quasiconvex. We start recalling a lemma due to M[ü]{}ller-[Š]{}ver[á]{}k [@MS Lemma 2.1], which is a generalization of a classical one and which will be useful for our proof.
\[key-lemma\]Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}$ be a bounded open set. Let $t\in\lbrack0,1]$ and $\xi,\eta\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times n}$ with ${\rm rank}(\xi-\eta)=1$. Let $\varphi$ be an affine map such that $$D\varphi(x)=t\xi+(1-t)\eta,\ x\in\overline{\Omega}.$$ Then, for every $\varepsilon>0,$ there exists $u \in Aff_{piec}(\overline{\Omega};\mathbb{R}^m)$ such that $$\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{l}
\mathrm{dist}(Du(x),\{\xi,\eta\})\le \varepsilon,\ \text{a.e. }x\in\Omega,\vspace{0.2cm}\\
\displaystyle\sup_{x\in\Omega}\left\vert u(x)-\varphi(x)\right\vert \leq\varepsilon,\vspace{0.2cm}\\
u(x)=\varphi(x),\ x\in\partial\Omega.
\end{array}
\right.$$
\[weakMorreyimpliesrankone\] (i) Let $f:\mathbb{R}^{m\times n}\to\mathbb{R}$ be an upper semicontinuous and weak Morrey quasiconvex function, then $f$ is rank one quasiconvex. In particular, for $m=1$, if $f$ is upper semicontinuous and weak Morrey quasiconvex, then $f$ is level convex.
\(ii) For $m=1$, if $f$ is continuous then $f$ is weak Morrey quasiconvex if and only if $f$ is level convex.
\(iii) Let $f:\mathbb{R}^{m\times n}\to\mathbb{R}$ be a Borel measurable function. If $n=1$ and $f$ is weak Morrey quasiconvex then $f$ is level convex.
Clearly, if a function $f:\mathbb{R}^{m\times n}\longrightarrow\mathbb{R}$ satisfies the supremal Jensen’s inequality then it is weak Morrey quasiconvex. The converse being true in the scalar case $n=1$, that is when $\Omega$ is an interval. This follows from the present theorem combined with Theorem \[Jensensupremalscalar\].
Once the first assertion of the theorem is proved, the remainder of condition (i) and condition (ii) follow immediately since evidently rank one quasiconvexity reduces to level convexity if $m=1$ and since, level convex functions satisfy the supremal Jensen’s inequality (cf. Theorem \[Jensensupremalscalar\]).
We prove that weak Morrey quasiconvexity implies Morrey rank one quasiconvexity for upper semicontinuous functions. Let $\xi,\eta\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times n}$ be such that ${\rm rank}(\xi-\eta)=1$ and let $t\in(0,1)$. We want to show that $f(t\xi+(1-t)\eta)\le \max\{f(\xi),f(\eta)\}$. Fix $\delta>0$. By the upper semicontinuity of $f$, there exists $\varepsilon>0$ such that $$|X-\xi|\le\varepsilon,\ |Y-\eta|\le\varepsilon\ \Rightarrow\ f(X)\le \delta+f(\xi),\ f(Y)\le \delta+f(\eta).$$ Applying Lemma \[key-lemma\], we get $\psi\in W_0^{1,\infty}(Q,\mathbb{R}^m)$ such that $$\mathrm{dist}(D\psi(x),\{(1-t)(\xi-\eta),-t(\xi-\eta)\})\le \varepsilon,\ \text{a.e. }x\in Q.$$ Using the weak Morrey quasiconvexity and the upper semicontinuity of $f$, we get $$f(t\xi+(1-t)\eta)\le\operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{x\in Q}f(t\xi+(1-t)\eta+D\psi(x))\le\delta+\max\{f(\xi),f(\eta)\}.$$ The result is now achieved letting $\delta$ go to zero.
It remains to prove condition (iii). Let $f:\mathbb R^{m\times 1} \to \mathbb R$ be a Borel measurable and weak Morrey quasiconvex function, let $\xi,\eta \in \mathbb R^{m\times 1}$, and let $t \in [0,1]$ be arbitrary. Define $$\varphi(x)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}(1-t) (\xi-\eta) x &\hbox{ if }0\leq x \leq t,\vspace{0.2cm}\\
t(\xi-\eta)(1-x) &\hbox{ if } t \leq x \leq 1.
\end{array}
\right.$$ Clearly $\varphi \in W^{1,\infty}_0((0,1);\mathbb R^m)$ and applying one gets $ f(t \xi+ (1-t)\eta)\leq \max\{f(\xi), f(\eta)\}$, which gives the level convexity of $f$.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors are indebted to Giuliano Gargiulo for the discussions on the subject of the paper and to Professor Luigi Grippo for the suggestions of references, in particular [@Danao] and [@Mangasarian].
The work of Ana Margarida Ribeiro was partially supported by the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology) through PEst-OE/MAT/UI0297/2011 (CMA), UTA-CMU/MAT/0005/2009 and PTDC/MAT109973/2009.
The work of Elvira Zappale was partially supported by GNAMPA project 2013 ‘Funzionali supremali: esitenza di minimi e condizioni di semicontinuitá nel caso vettoriale’, by the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology) through UTA-CMU/MAT/0005/2009 and PTDC/MAT109973/2009.
[99]{} E. Acerbi, G. Buttazzo, and F. Prinari, *The class of functionals which can be represented by a supremum*, J. Convex Anal. [**9**]{}, No.1, (2002), 225–236.
S. N. Armstrong, M. C. Crandall, V. Julin, and C. K. Smart, *Convexity criteria and uniqueness of absolutely minimizing functions*, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. [**200**]{}, (2011), 405-443.
S. N. Armstrong and C. K. Smart, *An easy proof of Jensen’s theorem on the uniqueness of infinity harmonic functions*, Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. [**37**]{}(3), (2010), 381-384.
G. Aronsson, *Minimization problem for the functional $\sup_x F(x, f(x), f'(x))$*,
G. Aronsson, *Minimization problem for the functional $\sup_x F(x, f(x), f'(x))$ II*,
G. Aronsson, *Extension of functions satisfying Lipschitz conditions*,
G. Aronsson, *Minimization problem for the functional $\sup_x F(x, f(x), f'(x))$ III*,
G. Aronsson, M.G. Crandall, and P. Juutinen, *A tour of the theory of absolutely minimizing functions*, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) [**41**]{}, No.4, (2004), 439–505.
J.-F. Babadjian, F. Prinari, and E. Zappale, *Dimensional reduction for supremal functionals*, Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems - Series A (DCDS-A) , 5, (2012), 1503 –1535.
J. Ball and R. James, *Fine Phase Mixtures as Minimizers of Energy*, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. [**100**]{}, (1987), 15-52.
S. Bandyopadhyay, A. C. Barroso, B. Dacorogna, and J. Matias, *Differential inclusions for differential forms*, Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. [**28**]{}, (2007), 449-469.
E. N. Barron, *Viscosity solutions and analysis in [$L^\infty$]{}*, Nonlinear analysis, differential equations and control ([M]{}ontreal, [QC]{}, 1998) Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, (1999), 1–60.
E. N. Barron and R. R. Jensen, *Relaxed minimax control*, SIAM J. Control Optim., [**33**]{}, (1995), 1028-1039.
E. N. Barron, R. R. Jensen, and C.Y.Wang, *Lower semicontinuity of $L^\infty$ functionals*, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire [**18**]{}, (2001), 495–517.
E. N. Barron, R. R. Jensen, and C.Y.Wang, *The Euler equation and absolute minimizers of $L^\infty$ functionals*, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. [**157**]{}, no. 4, (2001), 255–283.
E. N. Barron and W. Liu, *Calculus of variations in $ L^\infty$.* Appl. Math. Optim., [**35**]{}, no. 3, (1997), 237–263.
M. Bocea and V. Nesi, *$\Gamma$-convergence of power-law functionals, variational principles in $L^\infty$, and applications.* SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, [**39**]{} No. 5 (2008), 1550-1576.
A. Briani, A. Garroni, and F. Prinari, *Homogenization of $L^\infty$ functionals.* Math. Mod. Meth. Appl. Sci., [**14**]{}, 12, (2004), 1761–1784.
L. Carbone and R. De Arcangelis, Unbounded functionals in the calculus of variations, Monographs and Surveys in Pure and Applied Mathematics, [**125**]{}, Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton (2005).
P. Cardaliaguet and F. Prinari, Supremal representation of $L^\infty$ functionals Appl. Math. Optim. [**52**]{}, no. 2, (2005), 129–141.
A. Cellina, *On minima of a functional of the gradient: necessary conditions*, Nonlinear Anal. [**20**]{}, No.4, (1993), 337–341.
A. Cellina, *On minima of a functional of the gradient: sufficient conditions*, Nonlinear Anal. [**20**]{}, No.4, (1993), 343–347.
M. C. Crandall *A visit with the $\infty$-Laplace equation, in Calculus of Variations and Non-Linear Partial Differential Equations. (Lecture notes from A CIME Summer School, Cetraro (2005).* Lecture Notes in Math. Vol. 1927. Berlin: Springer.
B. Dacorogna, Direct Methods in the Calculus of Variations, Second Edition, Applied Mathematical Sciences, [**78**]{}, Springer (2008).
B. Dacorogna and P. Marcellini, Implicit Partial Differential Equations, Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and Their Applications, [**37**]{}, Birkhauser (1999).
B. Dacorogna and P. Marcellini, *Existence of minimizers for non-quasiconvex integrals*, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal., [**131**]{}, Springer-Verlag (1995), 359–399.
B. Dacorogna, G. Pisante, and A. M. Ribeiro, *On non quasiconvex problems of the calculus of variations*, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., [**13**]{}, n. 4, (2005), 961–983.
G. Dal Maso, An Introduction to $\Gamma$-Convergence, Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and their Applications [**8**]{}, Birkhauser, Boston (1993).
R. A. Danao, *Some Properties of Explicitly Quasiconcave Functions*, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, [**74**]{}, n. 3. (1992), 457–468.
I. Fonseca and G. Leoni, Modern Methods in the Calculus of Variations: $L^{p}$ Spaces, Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Springer, New York, (2007).
G. Friesecke, *A necessary and sufficient condition for nonattainment and formation of microstructure almost everywhere in scalar variational problems*, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A, [**124**]{}, (1994), 437–471.
R. R. Jensen, *Uniqueness of Lipschitz extension: minimizing the sup norm of the gradient.* Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. [**123**]{}(1), (1993), 51-74.
O. L. Mangasarian, *Nonlinear Programming Repr. of the orig. 1969*, Classics in Applied Mathematics. 10. Philadelphia, PA: SIAM, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. xv, 220 p (1994).
P. Marcellini, *A relation between existence of minima for nonconvex integrals and uniqueness for nonstrictly convex integrals of the calculus of variations*, Mathematical theories of optimization, Lecture Notes in Math., Springer, Berlin [**979**]{}, (1983) 216–231.
S. M[ü]{}ller and V. [Š]{}ver[á]{}k, *Convex integration with constraints and applications to phase transitions and partial differential equations*, J. Eur. Math. Soc., [**1**]{}, (1999), 393–422.
F. Prinari, *Relaxation and $\Gamma$-convergence of supremal functionals*, Boll. Unione Mat. Ital. [**9**]{}, (2006), no. 1, 101–132.
F. Prinari, *Semicontinuity and relaxation of $L^\infty$-functionals*, Adv. Calc. Var. [**2**]{}, (2009), 43–71.
R. T. Rockafellar, *Convex analysis*, Princeton Landmarks in Mathematics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, (1997).
M. Volle, *Duality for the level sum of quasiconvex functions and applications*, ESAIM Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations, [**3**]{}, (1998), 329–343.
E. Zappale, *A remark on dimension reduction for supremal functionals: The case with convex domains*, Differential and Integral Equations, vol 26, n.9-10 (2013), 1077–1090.
[^1]: Centro de Matemática e Aplicações (CMA) and Departamento de Matemática, FCT, UNL Quinta da Torre, 2829-516 Caparica, Portugal. E-mail: [email protected],
[^2]: Dipartimento di Ingegneria Industriale, Universitá degli Studi di Salerno, Via Giovanni Paolo II, 132, 84084 Fisciano (SA) Italy. E-mail:[email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Emerging sonography techniques often require increasing the number of transducer elements involved in the imaging process. Consequently, larger amounts of data must be acquired and processed. The significant growth in the amounts of data affects both machinery size and power consumption. Within the classical sampling framework, state of the art systems reduce processing rates by exploiting the bandpass bandwidth of the detected signals. It has been recently shown, that a much more significant sample-rate reduction may be obtained, by treating ultrasound signals within the Finite Rate of Innovation framework. These ideas follow the spirit of Xampling, which combines classic methods from sampling theory with recent developments in Compressed Sensing. Applying such low-rate sampling schemes to individual transducer elements, which detect energy reflected from biological tissues, is limited by the noisy nature of the signals. This often results in erroneous parameter extraction, bringing forward the need to enhance the SNR of the low-rate samples. In our work, we achieve SNR enhancement, by beamforming the sub-Nyquist samples obtained from multiple elements. We refer to this process as “compressed beamforming". Applying it to cardiac ultrasound data, we successfully image macroscopic perturbations, while achieving a nearly eight-fold reduction in sample-rate, compared to standard techniques.'
title: Compressed Beamforming in Ultrasound Imaging
---
Array Processing, Beamforming, Compressed Sensing (CS), Finite Rate of Innovation (FRI), Ultrasound, Xampling
Introduction {#sec:01}
============
Diagnostic sonography allows visualization of body tissues, by radiating them with acoustic energy pulses, which are transmitted from an array of transducer elements. The image typically comprises multiple scanlines, each constructed by integrating data collected by the transducers, following the transmission of an energy pulse along a narrow beam. As the pulse propagates, echoes are scattered by density and propagation-velocity perturbations in the tissue [@Jensen01], and detected by the transducer elements. Averaging the detected signals, after their alignment with appropriate time-varying delays, allows localization of the scattering structures, while improving the Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) [@Szabo01]. The latter process is referred to as beamforming. Performed digitally, beamforming requires that the analog signals, detected by the transducers, first be sampled. Confined to classic Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem [@Shannon01], the sampling rate must be at least twice the bandwidth, in order to avoid aliasing.
As imaging techniques develop, the amount of elements involved in each imaging cycle typically increases. Consequently, the rates of data which need to be transmitted from the system front-end, and then processed by the beamformer, grow significantly. The growth in transmission and processing rates inevitably effects both machinery size and power consumption. Consequently, in recent years there has been growing interest in reducing the amounts of data as close as possible to the system front-end. In fact, such reduction is already possible within the classical sampling framework: state of the art devices digitally downsample the data at the front-end, by exploiting the fact that the signal is modulated onto a carrier, so that the spectrum essentially occupies only a portion of its entire base-band bandwidth. The preliminary sample rate remains unchanged, since the demodulation is performed in the digital domain. Nevertheless, a key to significant data compression lies beyond the classical sampling framework.
Indeed, the emerging Compressive Sensing (CS) framework [@Candes01; @Davenport01] states, that sparse signals may be accurately reconstructed from a surprisingly small amount of coefficients. Complementary ideas rise from the Finite Rate of Innovation (FRI) framework [@Vetterli01], in which the signal is assumed to have a finite number of degrees of freedom per unit time. Many classes of FRI signals can be recovered from samples taken at the rate of innovation [@Michaeli01]. For a detailed review of previously proposed FRI methods, the reader is referred to [@Uriguen01]. Combining the latter notions with classical sampling methods, the developing Xampling framework [@Mishali01; @Mishali05; @Mishali06] involves methods for fully capturing the information carried by an analog signal, by sampling it far below the Nyquist-rate.
Following the spirit of Xampling, Tur et. al. proposed in [@Tur01], that ultrasound signals be described within the FRI framework. Explicitly, they assume that these signals, formed by scattering of a transmitted pulse from multiple reflectors, may be modeled by a relatively small number of pulses, all replicas of some known pulse shape. Denoting the number of reflected pulses by $L$, and the signal’s finite temporal support by $\left[0,T\right)$, the detected signal is completely defined by $2L$ degrees of freedom, corresponding to the replicas’ unknown time delays and amplitudes. Based on [@Vetterli01], the authors formulate the relationship between the signal’s Fourier series coefficients, calculated with respect to $\left[0,T\right)$, and its unknown parameters, in the form of a spectral analysis problem. The latter may be solved using existing techniques, given a subset of Fourier series coefficients, with a minimal cardinality of $2L$. The sampling scheme is thus reduced to the problem of extracting a small subset of the detected signal’s frequency samples. Two robust schemes are derived in [@Tur01; @Gedalyahu01], extracting such a set of coefficients from samples of the signal, taken at sub-Nyquist rates. The system presented in [@Tur01] employs a single processing channel, in which the analog signal is filtered by an appropriate sampling kernel and then sampled with a standard low-rate analog to digital converter (ADC). The method of [@Gedalyahu01] employs multiple processing channels, each comprising a modulator and an integrator. These approaches were shown to be more robust than previous FRI techniques and also allow for arbitrary pulse shapes.
The initial motivation for our work stems from the need to translate the ultrasound Xampling scheme proposed in [@Tur01], into one which achieves the final goal of reconstructing a two-dimensional ultrasound image, by integrating data sampled at multiple transducer elements. In conventional ultrasound imaging, such integration is achieved by the beamforming process. The question is how may we implement beamforming, using samples of the detected signals taken at sub-Nyquist rates.
A straightforward approach is to replace the Nyquist-rate sampling mechanism, utilized in each receiver element, by an FRI Xampling scheme. Having estimated the parametric representation of the signal detected in each individual element, we could reconstruct it digitally. The reconstructed signals can then be further processed via beamforming. However, the nature of ultrasound signals reflected from real tissues, makes such an approach impractical. This is mainly due to the detected signals’ poor SNR, which results in erroneous parameter extraction by the Xampling scheme, applied to each element independently.
Our approach is to generalize the FRI Xampling scheme proposed in [@Gedalyahu01], such that it integrates beamforming into the low-rate sampling process. The result is equivalent to that obtained by Xampling the beamformed signal, which exhibits significantly better SNR. Furthermore, beamforming practically implies that the array of receivers is dynamically focused along a single scanline. Consequently, the resulting signal depicts reflections originating in the intersection of the radiated medium with a vary narrow beam. Such a signal better suits the FRI model proposed in [@Tur01], which assumes the reflections to be caused by isolated, point-like scatterers. We refer to our scheme by the term compressed beamforming, as it transforms the beamforming operator into the compressed domain [@Wagner02; @Wagner03]. Applied to real cardiac ultrasound data obtained from a GE breadboard ultrasonic scanner, our approach successfully images macroscopic perturbations in the tissue while achieving a nearly eight-fold reduction in sampling rate, compared to standard imaging techniques.
The paper is organized as follows: in Section \[sec:02\], we summarize the general principles of beamforming in ultrasound imaging. In Section \[sec:03\] we outline the FRI model and its contribution to sample rate reduction in the ultrasound context. We motivate compressed beamforming in Section \[sec:04\], considering the nature of ultrasound signals reflected from biological tissues. Beamforming and FRI Xampling are combined in Section \[sec:05\], where we propose that the signal obtained by beamforming may be treated within the FRI framework. Following this observation, we derive our first compressed beamforming scheme, which operates on low-rate samples taken at the individual receivers. This approach is then further simplified in Section \[sec:06\]. In Section \[sec:07\] we focus on image reconstruction from the parametric representation obtained by either Xampling scheme. In this context, we generalize the signal model proposed in [@Tur01], allowing additional unknown phase shifts of the detected pulses. We then discuss an alternative recovery approach, based on CS. Simulations comparing the performance of several recovery methods are provided in Section \[sec:08\]. Finally, experimental results obtained for cardiac ultrasound data are presented in Section \[sec:09\].
Beamforming in Ultrasound Imaging {#sec:02}
=================================
![Imaging setup: $M$ receivers are aligned along the $\hat{x}$ axis. The origin is set at the position of the reference receiver, denoted $m_0$. $\delta_m$ denotes the distance measured from the reference receiver to the $m$th receiver. The imaging cycle begins when an acoustic pulse is transmitted at direction $\theta$. Echoes are then reflected from perturbations in the radiated medium.[]{data-label="Fig:01"}](Setup){width="5.5cm"}
In this section, we describe a typical B-mode imaging cycle, focusing on the beamforming process, carried out during the reception phase. The latter constitutes a significant block in ultrasound imaging, and plays a major role in our proposed FRI Xampling scheme.
Consider the array depicted in Fig. \[Fig:01\], comprising $M$ transducer elements, aligned along the $\hat{x}$ axis. Denote by $\delta_m$ the distance from the $m$th element to the reference receiver $m_0$, used as the origin, namely $\delta_{m_0}=0$. The imaging cycle begins when, at time $t=0$, the array transmits acoustic energy into the tissue. Subsequently, the elements detect echoes, which originate in density and propagation-velocity perturbations, characterizing the radiated medium. Denote by $\varphi_m\left(t\right)$ the signal detected by the $m$th receiver. The acoustic reciprocity theorem [@Kinsler01] suggests, that we may use the signals detected by multiple transducer elements, in order to probe arbitrary coordinates for reflected energy. Namely, by combining the detected signals with appropriate time delays, echoes scattered from a chosen coordinate will undergo constructive interference, whereas those originating off this coordinate will be attenuated, due to destructive interference.
In practice, the array cannot effectively radiate the entire medium simultaneously. Instead, a pulse of energy is conducted along a relatively narrow beam, whose central axis forms an angle $\theta$ with the $\hat{z}$ axis. Focusing the energy pulse along such a beam is achieved by applying appropriate time delays to modulated acoustic pulses, transmitted from multiple array elements. Rather than arbitrarily probing the radiated tissue, we are now forced to adjust the probed coordinate in time, in coordination with the propagation of the transmitted energy. This practically implies that, combining the detected signals with appropriate time-varying delays, we may obtain a signal, which depicts the intensity of the energy reflected from each point along the central transmission axis. Throughout the rest of this section, we derive an explicit expression for creating this beamformed signal.
Assume that the energy pulse, transmitted at $t=0$, propagates at velocity $c$ in the direction $\theta$. At time $t\geq0$, the pulse crosses the coordinate $\left(x,z\right)=\left(ct\sin\theta,ct\cos\theta\right)$. Consider a potential reflection, originating in this coordinate, and arriving at the $m$th element. The distance traveled by such a reflection is: $$\label{E:02}
d_m(t;\theta)=\sqrt{\left(ct\cos\theta\right)^2+\left(\delta_m-ct\sin\theta\right)^2}.$$ The time in which the reflection crosses this distance is $d_m\left(t;\theta\right)/c$, so that it reaches the receiver element at time $$\label{E:03}
\begin{split}
{\hat{\tau}}_m(t;\theta)&=t+\frac{d_m\left(t;\theta\right)}{c}.
\end{split}$$ It is readily seen that ${\hat{\tau}}_{m_0}\left(t;\theta\right)=2t$. Hence, in order to align the reflection detected in the $m$th receiver with the one detected in the reference receiver, we need to apply a delay to $\varphi_m\left(t\right)$, such that the resulting signal, ${\hat{\varphi}}_m\left(t;\theta\right)$, satisfies ${\hat{\varphi}}_m\left(2t;\theta\right)= \varphi_m\left({\hat{\tau}}_m\left(t;\theta\right)\right)$. Denoting $\tau_m\left(t;\theta\right)={\hat{\tau}}_m\left(t/2;\theta\right)$, and using , we obtain the following distorted signal for $t\geq0$: $$\label{E:04}
\begin{split}
{\hat{\varphi}}_m\left(t;\theta\right)&=\varphi_m\left({{\tau}}_m\left(t;\theta\right)\right),\\
{\tau}_m\left(t;\theta\right)&=\frac{1}{2}\left(t+\sqrt{t^2-4\gamma_mt\sin\theta+4\gamma_m^2}\right),
\end{split}$$ with $\gamma_m=\delta_m/c$. The aligned signals may now be averaged, resulting in the beamformed signal $$\label{E:05}
\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)=\frac{1}{M}\sum_{m=1}^M{{\hat{\varphi}}_m\left(t;\theta\right)},$$ which exhibits enhanced SNR compared to $\left\{{\hat{\varphi}}_m\left(t;\theta\right)\right\}_{m=1}^M$. Furthermore, by its construction, $\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)$ represents, for every $t\geq0$, the intensity which was measured when focusing the array to ${\bf{p}}\left(t\right)=\left(ct/2\sin\theta,ct/2\cos\theta\right)$. Therefore, it may eventually be translated into an intensity pattern, plotted along the corresponding ray.
Although defined over continuous time, ultrasound systems perform the process formulated in - in the digital domain, requiring that the analog signals $\varphi_m\left(t\right)$ first be sampled. Confined to the classic Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem, these systems sample the signals at twice their baseband bandwidth, in order to avoid aliasing. The detected signals typically occupy only a portion of their baseband bandwidth. Exploiting this fact, some state of the art systems manage to reduce the amount of samples transmitted from the front-end, by down-sampling the data, after demodulation and low-pass filtering. However, since such operations are carried out digitally, the preliminary sampling-rate remains unchanged.
To conclude this section, we evaluate the nominal number of samples needed to be taken from each active receiver element in order to obtain a single scanline using standard imaging techniques. Consider an ultrasound system which images to a nominal depth of $r=16 \mbox{cm}$. The velocity at which the pulse propagates, $c$, varies between $1446\mbox{m/sec}$ (fat) to $1566\mbox{m/sec}$ (spleen) [@Jensen02]. An average value of $1540\mbox{m/sec}$ is assumed by scanners for processing purposes, such that the duration of the detected signal is $T=2r/c\approx 210\mu\mbox{sec}$. The signal’s baseband bandwidth requires a nominal sampling rate of $f_s=16\mbox{Mhz}$, resulting in an overall number of $Tf_s=3360$ real-valued samples. Assuming that the signal’s passband bandwidth is only $4\mbox{MHz}$, the data sampled at Nyquist-rate may be finally down-sampled to 1680 real-valued samples. These samples, taken from all active receivers, are now processed, according to -, in order to construct the beamformed signal. Since standard imaging devices carry out beamforming by applying delay and sum operations to the sampled data, the amount of operations required for generating a single scanline is directly related to the sample rate.
Regardless of our computational power, physical constraints imply that the time required for constructing a single scanline is at least $T$. This takes into account the round-trip time required for the transmitted pulse to penetrate the entire imaging depth, and for the resulting echoes to cross a similar distance back to the array. Nevertheless, sufficient computational power may allow construction of several scanlines, within that same time interval, increasing the overall imaging rate. By using compressed beamforming, we aim at capturing significant information in the imaging plane, while reducing the sampling rate and consequently the processing rate. This, in turn, may improve the existing trade-off between imaging rates and both machinery size and power consumption.
Sample Rate Reduction Using the FRI Model {#sec:03}
=========================================
In a pioneer attempt to implement Xampling methodology in the context of ultrasound imaging, [@Tur01] suggests that the signal detected in each receiver element may be sampled at a rate far below Nyquist, by modeling it as an FRI signal. The authors propose that $\varphi_m\left(t\right)$, detected in the $m$th element, be regarded as sum of a relatively small number of pulses, all replicas of some known pulse shape. Explicitly: $$\label{E:01}
\varphi_m\left(t\right)=\sum_{l=1}^L{a_{l,m}h\left(t-t_{l,m}\right)}.$$ Here $L$ is the number of scattering elements, distributed throughout the sector radiated by the transmitted pulse, $t_{l,m}$ denotes the time in which the reflection from the $l$th element arrived at the $m$th receiver, and $a_{l,m}$ denotes the reflection’s amplitude, as detected by the $m$th receiver. Finally, $h\left(t\right)$ denotes the known pulse shape, regarded, in our work, by the term two-way pulse. The signal in is completely defined by $2L$ real-valued parameters, $\left\{t_{l,m},a_{l,m}\right\}_{l=1}^L$.
Sampling FRI signals was first treated by Vetterli et. al. [@Vetterli01]. Their approach involves projecting the FRI signal, characterized by $2L$ degrees of freedom per unit time, onto a $2L$-dimensional subspace, corresponding to a subset of its Fourier series coefficients. Having extracted $2L$ frequency samples of the signal, spectral analysis techniques (e.g. annihilating filter [@Stoica01], matrix pencil [@Tapan01]) may be applied, in order to extract the unknown signal parameters. Applying this solution to the problem formulated in , [@Tur01] formalizes the relationship between the ultrasound signal’s Fourier series coefficients to its unknown parameters, as a spectral analysis problem.
Let $T$ be the duration of $\varphi_m\left(t\right)$. We can then expand $\varphi_m\left(t\right)$ in a Fourier series, with coefficients $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:06}
\begin{split}
\phi_m\left[k\right]&=\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T}{\varphi_m\left(t\right)e^{-i\frac{2\pi}{T}kt}dt}\\
&=\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T}{\sum_{l=1}^L{a_{l,m}h\left(t-t_{l,m}\right)}e^{-i\frac{2\pi}{T}kt}dt}\\
&=\frac{1}{T}H\left(\frac{2\pi}{T}k\right)\sum_{l=1}^L{a_{l,m}e^{-i\frac{2\pi}{T}kt_{l,m}}},
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $H\left(\omega\right)$ denotes the Continuous Time Fourier Transform (CTFT) of $h\left(t\right)$. Consider the sequence $\left\{k_{j,m}\right\}_{j=1}^{K_m}$, comprising $K_m$ integers, and define the length-$K_m$ vector $\bf{\Phi_m}$ with $j$th element $\phi_m\left[k_{j,m}\right]$. Then may be written in matrix form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:07}
\begin{split}
{\bf{\Phi_m}}=\frac{1}{T}\bf{H_m V_m a_m},
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf{H_m}}$ is a diagonal matrix with diagonal elements $H\left(\frac{2\pi}{T}k_{j,m}\right)$, ${\bf{V_m}}$ contains $e^{-i\frac{2\pi}{T}k_j t_{l,m}}$ as its $\left(j,l\right)$th element, and ${\bf{a_m}}$ is the length $L$ vector, with elements $a_{l,m}$. Choosing $k_{j,m}$ such that $H\left(\frac{2\pi}{T}k_{j,m}\right)\neq 0$,we can express as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:08}
\begin{split}
{\bf{y_m}}=\bf{V_m a_m},
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf{y_m}}=T{\bf{H_m^{-1}}\Phi_m}$. If the values $k_{j,m}$ are a sequence of consecutive indices, then ${\bf{V_m}}$ takes on a Vandermonde form, and has full column rank [@Stoica01] as long as $K_m\geq L$ and the time-delays are distinct, i.e., $t_{i,m} \neq t_{j,m}$, for all $ i\neq j$. The formulation derived in is a standard spectral analysis problem. As long as $K_m\geq 2L$, it may be solved for the unknown parameters $\left\{t_{l,m},a_{l,m}\right\}_{l=1}^L$, using methods such as annihilating filter [@Stoica01] or matrix pencil [@Tapan01].
Having obtained , the sampling scheme reduces to the problem of extracting $K_m$ frequency samples of $\varphi_m\left(t\right)$, where $K_m\geq2L$. A single-channel Xampling scheme, such as the one derived in [@Tur01], allows robust estimation of such coefficients from point-wise samples of the signal, after filtering it with an appropriate kernel. The estimation is performed by applying a linear transformation to $p$ complex-valued samples (equivalently, $2p$ real-valued samples) of the filtered signal, requiring that $p\geq K_m$. In this context, [@Tur01] introduces the Sum of Sincs kernel, which satisfies the necessary constraints, and is additionally characterized by a finite temporal support. Combining the requirements that $K_m\geq2L$ and $p\geq K_m$, the Xampling scheme proposed in [@Tur01] allows reconstruction of the signal detected in each receiver element from a minimal number of $4L$ real-valued samples. Considering the nominal figures derived in the previous section for standard beamforming, we conclude that, as long as $4L\ll1680$, such a Xampling method may indeed achieve a substantial rate reduction.
Why Compressed Beamforming? {#sec:04}
===========================
Applied to a single receiver element, the Xampling scheme proposed in [@Tur01] achieves good signal reconstruction for an actual ultrasound signal, reflected from a setup of phantom targets. In principle, we could apply this approach to each receiver element individually, resulting in a parametric representation for each of the signals $\left\{\varphi_m\left(t\right)\right\}_{m=1}^M$. Being able to digitally reconstruct the detected signals, we could then proceed with the standard beamforming process, outlined in Section \[sec:02\], aimed at constructing the corresponding scanline. Computational effort would have been reduced, by limiting the beamforming process to the support of the estimated pulses. In fact, we could possibly bypass the beamforming stage, by deriving a geometric model which maps the set of delays, $\left\{t_{l,m}\right\}_{m=1}^M$, associated with the $l$th reflector, to its two-dimensional position ${\bf{p_l}}=\left(x_l,z_l\right)$. However, applying the proposed FRI Xampling scheme to signals reflected from biological tissues, we face two fundamental obstacles: low SNR and proper interpretation of the estimated signal parameters, considering the profile of the transmitted beam. These two difficulties may be better understood by examining Fig. \[Fig:02\], which depicts traces acquired for cardiac images of a healthy consenting volunteer using a GE breadboard ultrasonic scanner.
{width="7.0cm"}
(a)
{width="7.0cm"}
(b)
In the left plot (a), are signals detected by 32 of 64 active array elements, following the transmission of a single pulse. The pulse was conducted along a narrow beam, forming an arbitrary angle $\theta$ with the $\hat{z}$ axis. The right plot (b) depicts the signal obtained by applying beamforming to the detected signals, as outlined in Section \[sec:02\]. Examining the individual traces, one notices the appearance of strong pulses, possibly overlapping, characterized by a typical shape, as proposed in . Let us assume that we could indeed extract the delays and amplitudes of these pulses, by applying the proposed FRI Xampling scheme to each element. We suggested that beamforming could be bypassed, by deriving a geometric model for estimating the two-dimensional position of a scattering element, based on the delays of pulses associated with it, yet estimated in different receivers. In order to apply such a model, we must first be able to match corresponding pulses across the detected signals. However, referring to the practical case depicted in (a), we notice that such a task is not at all trivial - the individual signals depict reflections, originating from the entire sector, radiated by the transmitted pulse. These reflections may, therefore, vary significantly across traces. In fact, some pulses, visible in several traces, are not at all apparent in other traces. In contrast, the beamformed signal, by its construction, depicts intensity of reflections originating from along the central transmission axis, while attenuating reflections originating off this axis.
Attempting to apply FRI Xampling to each receiver element individually, we encounter an even more fundamental obstacle, at the earlier stage of extracting the signal’s parametric representation from its low-rate samples. The individual traces contain high levels of noise. The noisy components, especially noticeable in traces 54 and 64, rise mainly from constructive and destructive interference of acoustic waves, reflected by dense, sub-wavelength scatterers in the tissue. The latter are typically manifested as granular texture in the ultrasound image, called speckle, after a similar effect in laser optics [@Szabo01]. The noisy components inherently induce erroneous results, when attempting to sample and reconstruct the FRI components using the Xampling approach. In extreme scenarios, where the noise masks the FRI component, the extracted parameters will be meaningless, such that any attempt to cope with errors in the parametric domain will turn out useless.
The motivation to our approach rises from the observation, that we may resolve the aforementioned obstacles by Xampling the beamformed signal, $\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)$, rather than the individual signals $\varphi_m\left(t\right)$. Whereas beamforming is a fundamental process in ultrasound imaging since its early days, our innovation regards its integration into the Xampling process. We derive our compressed beamforming approach, beginning with conceptual Xampling of the beamformed signal, using the scheme proposed in [@Gedalyahu01]. We then show that an equivalent result may be obtained from low-rate samples of the individual signals $\varphi_m\left(t\right)$.
A necessary condition for implementing our approach is that $\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)$, generated from $\left\{\varphi_m\left(t\right)\right\}_{m=1}^M$ satisfying , is also FRI of similar form. Examining Fig. \[Fig:02\] we notice that $\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)$ exhibits a structure similar to that of the individual signals, comprising strong pulses of typical shape, which may overlap. In this case, there are several obvious advantages in Xampling $\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)$. First, since $\left\{\varphi_m\left(t\right)\right\}_{m=1}^M$ are averaged in $\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)$ (after appropriate distortion, derived from the acoustic reciprocity theorem) it naturally exhibits enhanced SNR with respect to the individual signals. The attenuation of noise in the beamformed signal, compared to the individual signals, is apparent in Fig. \[Fig:02\], especially in the interval $50\mbox{mm}-80\mbox{mm}$. Second, $\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)$ is directly related to an individual scanline. This means that we are no longer bothered with the ambiguous problem of matching pulses across signals detected in different elements. Finally, recall that the signal model derived in assumes isolated point-reflectors. Such a model is better justified with respect to $\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)$ since, by narrowing the effective width of the imaging beam, we may indeed approximate its intersection with reflecting structures to be point-like. This effect is noticeable in Fig. \[Fig:02\] where some pulses, visible in individual traces, appear attenuated in the beamformed signal. Such pulses correspond to reflectors located off the central axis of the transmission beam.
In the next section, we focus on justifying the assumption that $\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)$ may be treated within the FRI framework. An additional challenge, implied in Section \[sec:02\], regards the fact that $\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)$ does not exist in the analog domain - standard ultrasound devices generate it digitally, from samples of the signals detected in multiple receiver elements, taken at the Nyquist-rate. Our goal is, therefore, to derive a scheme, which manages to estimate the necessary samples of $\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)$, from low-rate samples of filtered versions of $\left\{\varphi_m\left(t\right)\right\}_{m=1}^M$.
Compressed Beamforming {#sec:05}
======================
Our approach is based on the assumption that the FRI scheme, outlined in Section \[sec:03\], may be applied to the beamformed signal $\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)$, constructed according to -. The latter exhibits much better SNR than signals detected in individual receiver elements. Additionally, it depicts reflections originating from a sector much narrower than the one radiated by the transmission beam. Its translation into a single scanline is therefore straightforward. In Section \[sec:51\] we prove that if the signals $\varphi_m\left(t\right)$ obey the FRI model , then $\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)$ is [**[approximately]{}**]{} of the form: $$\label{E:09}
\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)=\sum_{l=1}^L{b_l h\left(t-t_{l}\right)},$$ where $t_l$ denotes the time in which the reflection from the $l$th element arrived at the reference receiver, indexed $m_0$. $\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)$ may thus be sampled using the Xampling schemes derived in [@Tur01; @Gedalyahu01]. In practice, we cannot sample $\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)$ directly, since it does not exist in the analog domain. In Second \[sec:52\] we show how the desired low-rate samples of $\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)$ can be determined from samples of $\varphi_m\left(t\right)$.
FRI Modeling of the Beamformed Signal {#sec:51}
-------------------------------------
Throughout this section we apply three reasonable assumptions. First, we assume that $2\gamma_m\leq t_l$. Practically, such a constraint may be forced by appropriate apodization, as often performed in ultrasound imaging. Namely, $\varphi_m\left(t\right)$ is combined in $\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)$ only for $t\geq 2\gamma_m$. As an example, for the breadboard ultrasonic scanner used in our experiments, the array comprised $64$ receiver elements, distanced $0.29\mbox{mm}$ apart. The proposed apodization implies that the receivers located farthest from the origin are combined in the beamformed signal for imaging depth greater than $9.1\mbox{mm}$. Second, we assume the two-way pulse, $h(t)$, to be compactly supported on the interval $\left[0,\Delta\right)$. Finally, we assume that $\Delta \ll t_l$. The last assumption may also be forced by appropriate apodization. As an example, the nominal duration of the pulse acquired by the breadboard ultrasonic scanner used in our experiments was $4\mu \mbox{sec}$. In this case, echoes scattered from depth greater than $3.1\mbox{cm}$ already satisfy $t_l>10\Delta$.
Suppose that $\varphi_m\left(t\right)$ can be written as in . Applying the beamforming distortion , we get $$\label{E:10}
\begin{split}
{\hat{\varphi}}_m(t;\theta)=\sum_{l=1}^L{a_{l,m}h\left(\tau_m\left(t;\theta\right)-t_{l,m}\right)}.
\end{split}$$ The resulting signal comprises $L$ pulses, which are distorted versions of the two-way pulse $h\left(t\right)$. Suppose that some of the pulses originated in reflectors located off the central beam axis. Beamforming implies that, once averaging the distorted signals according to , such pulses will be attenuated due to destructive interference. Being interested in the structure of the beamformed signal $\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)$, we are therefore concerned only with pulses which originated in reflectors located along the central beam. For convenience, we assume that all pulses in satisfy this property (pulses which do not satisfy it, will vanish in $\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)$). We may thus use $\tau_m\left(t;\theta\right)$, defined in , in order to express $t_{l,m}$ in terms of $t_l$. Substituting $t=t_l$ into $\tau_m\left(t;\theta\right)$, we get $t_{l,m}=\tau_m\left(t_l;\theta\right)$, so that becomes $$\label{E:12}
\begin{split}
{\hat{\varphi}}_m(t;\theta)&=\sum_{l=1}^L{a_{l,m}\tilde{h}_{l,m}\left(t;\theta\right)},
\end{split}$$ where we defined $\tilde{h}_{l,m}\left(t;\theta\right)=h\left(\tau_m\left(t;\theta\right)-\tau_m\left(t_l;\theta\right)\right)$.
Applying our second assumption, the support of $\tilde{h}_{l,m}\left(t;\theta\right)$ is defined by the requirement that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:13}
0\leq\tau_m\left(t;\theta\right)-\tau_m\left(t_l;\theta\right)<\Delta.\end{aligned}$$ Using and , it is readily seen that $\tilde{h}_{l,m}\left(t;\theta\right)$ is supported on $\left[t_l,t_l+\Delta'\right)$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:14}
\Delta'=2\Delta\frac{\sqrt{t_l^2-4\gamma_m t_l \sin\theta + 4\gamma_m^2}+\Delta}{\sqrt{t_l^2-4\gamma_m t_l \sin\theta + 4\gamma_m^2}+2\Delta+t_l-2\gamma_m\sin\theta}.\end{aligned}$$
Further applying our assumption that $2\gamma_m\leq t_l$, we obtain $\Delta'\leq2\Delta$.
We have thus proven that $\tilde{h}_{l,m}\left(t;\theta\right)=0$ for $t\notin\left[t_l, t_l+2\Delta\right)$. Next, let us write any $t$ in $\left[t_l, t_l+2\Delta\right)$ as $t=t_l+\eta$, where $0\leq \eta < 2\Delta$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:16}
\begin{split}
\tilde{h}_{l,m}\left(t;\theta\right)&=h\left(\tau_m\left({t_l+\eta};\theta\right)-\tau_m\left({t_l};\theta\right)\right).
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
We now rely on our assumption that $\Delta \ll t_l$. Since $\eta<2\Delta$, we also have $\eta\ll t_l$. The argument of $h\left(\cdot\right)$ in may therefore be approximated, to first order, as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:17}
&\tau_m\left({t_l+\eta};\theta\right)-\tau_m\left({t_l};\theta\right)=\sigma_{m,l}\left(\theta\right)\eta+o\left(\eta^2\right), \end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:15}
\sigma_{m,l}\left(\theta\right)= \frac{1}{2}\left(1+\frac{t_l-2\gamma_m\sin\theta}{\sqrt{t_l^2-4\gamma_mt_l\sin\theta+4\gamma_m^2}}\right).\end{aligned}$$
Up until this point, we assumed that $2\gamma_m\leq t_l$. Further assuming that $\gamma_m\ll t_l$, $\sigma_{m,l}\left(\theta\right)\rightarrow 1$. Replacing $\eta$ by $\eta=t-t_l$, may therefore be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:19}
\begin{split}
\begin{array}{ll}\tilde{h}_{l,m}\left(t;\theta\right)\approx h\left(t-t_l\right)&t\in\left[t_l,t_l+2\Delta\right).\end{array}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
Combining with the fact that $h\left(t-t_l\right)$ is zero outside $\left[t_l,t_l+2\Delta\right)$, may be approximated as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:20}
{\hat{\varphi}}_m(t;\theta) \approx \sum_{l=1}^L{a_{l,m}h\left(t-t_l\right)}.\end{aligned}$$ Averaging the signals $\left\{\hat{\varphi}_m(t;\theta)\right\}_{m=1}^M$ according to , we get: $$\label{E:21}
\begin{split}
\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)&\approx\sum_{l=1}^L{\left(\frac{1}{M}\sum_{m=1}^M{a_{l,m}}\right)h\left(t-t_l\right)}=\sum_{l=1}^L{b_l h\left(t-t_l\right)},
\end{split}$$ which is indeed the FRI form . Additionally, assuming that the support of $\varphi_m\left(t\right)$ is contained in $\left[0,T\right)$, we show in the Appendix that there exists $T_B\left(\theta\right)\leq T$, such that the support of $\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)$ is contained in $\left[0,T_B\left(\theta\right)\right)$ and, additionally, $\tau_m\left({T_B\left(\theta\right)};\theta\right)\leq T$.
As $\gamma_m$ grows towards $t_l$, $\sigma_{m,l}\left(\theta\right)$ decreases, resulting in a larger distortion of the $l$th pulse. Consequently, the approximation of ${\hat{\varphi}}_m(t;\theta)$ as a sum of shifted replicas of the two-way pulse becomes less accurate. The Xampling schemes used by [@Tur01; @Gedalyahu01] rely on the projection of the detected signal onto a subspace of its Fourier series coefficients. We therefore examine the dependency of the projection error on the distortion parameters, $\gamma_m$, $t_l$ and $\theta$. In Fig. \[Fig:03\], we show projection errors calculated numerically, for a signal comprising a single pulse of duration $\Delta=2\mu\mbox{sec}$. The pulse was simulated by modulating a Gaussian envelope with carrier frequency $3\mbox{MHz}$. It was then shifted by multiple time delays, $t_l$, where $0\leq t_l \leq T$, and $T=210\mu\mbox{sec}$, corresponding to an imaging depth of $16\mbox{cm}$. For each delay, we generated the signals $\varphi_m\left(t\right)$, assuming that the reflector is positioned along the $\hat{z}$ axis ($\theta=0$), and that the receiver elements are distributed $0.29\mbox{mm}$ apart, along the $\hat{x}$ axis. We chose $M=63$, such that the center (reference) receiver was indexed $m_0=32$. The beamforming distortion was then applied to the simulated signals, based on . Finally, the distorted signals were projected onto a subset of $K=121$ consecutive Fourier series coefficients, taken within the essential spectrum of the two-way pulse. The coefficients extracted from the $m$th distorted signal were arranged into the length $K$ vector, ${\bf{\Phi_m}}$. As implied by , no distortion is applied to the signal detected at the reference receiver. We therefore evaluate the projection error by calculating the SNR defined as $20\log_{10}{\frac{\|{\bf{\Phi_{m_0}}}\|_2}{\|{\bf{\Phi_m}}-{\bf{\Phi_{m_0}}}\|_2}}$.
The traces obtained for several values of $1\leq m<32$ are depicted in the figure. As $t_l$ grows, $\sigma_{m,l}\left(\theta\right)$ approaches 1, and the approximation becomes more valid. As a result, the projection error decreases. For receivers located near the origin, such that $\delta_m\ll10\mbox{mm}$, the error decreases very quickly. For instance, examining $\delta_{31}=0.29\mbox{mm}$, the SNR grows above $25\mbox{dB}$ for a reflection originating at distance greater than $1/50$ of the imaging depth. The SNR improves more moderately for receivers located farther away from the origin. Nevertheless, considering the receiver located farthest away from the origin, $\delta_{1}=8.99\mbox{mm}$, the SNR grows above $10\mbox{dB}$ for a reflection originating at distance greater than $1/5$ of the imaging depth.
![Projection error caused by beamforming distortion with $\theta=0$ vs. pulse delay, $t_l$, for several receiver elements. The elements are distributed $0.29\mbox{mm}$ apart, such that $\delta_1=8.99\mbox{mm}$ (element farthest from array center) and $\delta_{31}=0.29\mbox{mm}$. Zero error is obtained for the center element, $\delta_{32}$, since no distortion is required in this case.[]{data-label="Fig:03"}](ProjectionError){width="7.50cm"}
Concluding this section, our empirical results indeed justify the approximation proposed in , where appropriate apodization may further improve this approximation. Assuming to be valid, we may reconstruct the beamformed signal using the Xampling schemes proposed in [@Tur01; @Gedalyahu01].
Compressed Beamforming with Distorted Analog Kernels {#sec:52}
----------------------------------------------------
An obvious problem is that $\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)$ does not exist in the analog domain, and therefore may not be Xampled directly. We now propose a modified Xampling scheme, which allows extraction of its necessary low-rate samples, by sampling filtered versions of $\varphi_m\left(t\right)$ at sub-Nyquist rates.
Since the support of $\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)$ is contained in $\left[0,T_B\left(\theta\right)\right)$, where $T_B\left(\theta\right)\leq T$, we may define $\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)$’s Fourier series with respect to the interval $\left[0,T\right)$. Denoting by $c_j$ the $k_j$th Fourier series coefficient of $\Phi\left(t;\theta \right)$, we have
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\label{E:23}
c_j&=\frac{1}{T}\int_0^{T}{I_{\left[0,T_B\left(\theta\right)\right)}\left(t\right)\Phi\left(t;\theta \right)e^{-i\frac{2\pi}{T}k_j t}dt},
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
where $I_{\left[a,b\right)}\left(t\right)$ is the indicator function, taking the value 1 for $a\leq t<b$ and 0 otherwise. Plugging the indicator function in may seem unnecessary. However, once transforming into an operator applied directly to $\left\{\varphi_m\left(t\right)\right\}_{m=1}^M$, it serves an important role in zeroing intervals, which are assumed zero according to , but, in any practical implementation, contain noise. Substituting into , we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\label{E:24}
c_j=\frac{1}{M}\sum_{m=1}^{M}{c_{j,m}},
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where, from , $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\label{E:25}
c_{j,m}&=\frac{1}{T}\int_0^{T}{I_{\left[0,T_B\left(\theta\right)\right)}\left(t\right) \varphi_m\left(\tau_m\left({t};\theta\right)\right) e^{-i\frac{2\pi}{T}k_j t}dt}\\
&=\frac{1}{T}{\int_{0}^{T}g_{j,m}(t;\theta)\varphi_m\left(t\right)dt},
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:27}
\begin{split}
g_{j,m}(t;\theta)=&q_{j,m}(t;\theta)e^{-i\frac{2\pi}{T}k_j t},\\
q_{j,m}(t;\theta)=&I_{\left[|\gamma_m|,T_m\left(\theta\right)\right)}\left(t\right)\left(1+\frac{\gamma_m^2 \cos^2\theta}{\left(t-\gamma_m \sin\theta\right)^2}\right) \times \\
&\exp\left\{i \frac{2\pi}{T} k_j\frac{\gamma_m-t\sin\theta}{t-\gamma_m\sin\theta}\gamma_m \right\},\\
T_m\left(\theta \right)=&\tau_m\left({T_B\left(\theta\right)};\theta\right).
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
The process defined in - can be translated into a multi-channel Xampling scheme, such as the one depicted in Fig. \[Fig:04\]. Each signal $\varphi_m\left(t\right)$ is multiplied by a bank of kernels $\left\{g_{j,m}\left(t;\theta\right)\right\}_{j=1}^K$ defined by , and integrated over $\left[0, T\right)$. This results in a vector ${\bf{c_m}}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}c_{1,m}&c_{2,m}&...&c_{K,m}\end{array}\right]^T$. The vectors $\left\{{\bf{c_m}}\right\}_{m=1}^M$ are then averaged in ${\bf{c}}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}c_{1}&c_{2}&...&c_{K}\end{array}\right]^T$, which has the desired improved SNR property, and provides a basis for extracting the $2L$ parameters which define $\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)$. Since $\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)$ satisfies , we apply a similar derivation to that outlined in Section \[sec:04\], yielding $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:47}
\begin{split}
{\bf{c}}=\frac{1}{T}{\bf{HVb}},
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf{H}}$ is a diagonal matrix with $j$th diagonal element $H\left(\frac{2\pi}{T}k_{j}\right)$, ${\bf{V}}$ contains $e^{-i\frac{2\pi}{T}k_j t_{l}}$ as its $\left(j,l\right)$th element, and ${\bf{b}}$ is the length $L$ vector, with elements $b_{l}$. The matrix ${\bf{V}}$ may be estimated by applying spectral analysis techniques, allowing for the vector of coefficients ${\bf{b}}$ to be solved by a least squares approach [@Tapan01]. Fig. \[Fig:11\] illustrates the shape of the resulting kernels $g_{j,m}\left(t;\theta\right)$, setting $\theta=0$ and choosing two arbitrary values of $k_j$. For each choice of $k_j$ we plot the kernels corresponding to 7 receiver elements, selected from an array comprising 64 elements, distanced $0.49\mbox{mm}$ apart.
![Xampling scheme utilizing distorted exponential kernels.[]{data-label="Fig:04"}](Scheme1){width="8.5cm"}
![Real part of $g_{j,m}(t;\theta=0)$ for $T=210\mu\mbox{sec}$ and $k_j$ satisfying: (a) $k_j=3$, (b) $k_j$=5. We assume an array comprising $M=64$ elements, distanced $0.49\mbox{mm}$ apart, and plot 7 traces which were obtained for the elements indexed $\left\{m_0, m_0+5, m_0+10, ..., m_0+30\right\}$.[]{data-label="Fig:11"}](kernels3){width="7cm"}
(a)
![Real part of $g_{j,m}(t;\theta=0)$ for $T=210\mu\mbox{sec}$ and $k_j$ satisfying: (a) $k_j=3$, (b) $k_j$=5. We assume an array comprising $M=64$ elements, distanced $0.49\mbox{mm}$ apart, and plot 7 traces which were obtained for the elements indexed $\left\{m_0, m_0+5, m_0+10, ..., m_0+30\right\}$.[]{data-label="Fig:11"}](kernels5){width="7cm"}
(b)
Simplified Xampling Mechanism {#sec:06}
=============================
In the previous section, we developed a Xampling approach to extract the Fourier series coefficients of $\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)$. However, the complexity of the resulting analog kernels, together with their dependency on $\theta$, makes hardware implementation of the scheme depicted in Fig. \[Fig:04\] complex. Here, we take an additional step, which allows the approximation of $\left\{c_{j,m}\right\}_{j=1}^K$, and consequently $\left\{c_{j}\right\}_{j=1}^K$, from low-rate samples of $\varphi_m\left(t\right)$, obtained in a much more straightforward manner.
We begin by substituting $\varphi_m\left(t\right)$ of by its Fourier series, calculated with respect to $\left[0,T\right)$. Denoting the $n$th Fourier coefficient by $\phi_m\left[n\right]$, we get: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:28}
\begin{split}
c_{j,m}&=\sum_{n}{\phi_m\left[n\right]\frac{1}{T}\int_0^T{q_{j,m}(t;\theta)e^{-i\frac{2\pi}{T}\left(k_j-n\right) t}dt}}\\
&=\sum_{n}{\phi_m\left[k_j-n\right]Q_{j,m;\theta}\left[n\right]},
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $Q_{j,m;\theta}\left[n\right]$ are the Fourier series coefficients of $q_{j,m}(t;\theta)$, also defined on $\left[0, T\right)$. Let us replace the infinite summation of by its finite approximation: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:29}
\begin{split}
{\hat{c}}_{j,m}=\sum_{n=N_1}^{N_2}{\phi_m[k_j-n]Q_{j,m;\theta}\left[n\right]}.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ The following proposition shows that this approximation can be made sufficiently tight.
Assume that $\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}{\left|\varphi_m\left(t\right)\right|^2dt}<\infty$. Then, for any $\epsilon>0$, and for any selection $\left(j,m;\theta\right)$, there exist finite $N_1\left(\epsilon, k_j, m; \theta \right)$ and $N_2\left(\epsilon, k_j, m;\theta \right)$ such that $|{c_{j,m}-\hat{c}}_{j,m}|^2<\epsilon$.
Let $l_2$ be the space of square-summable sequences, with norm $\|{\bf{x}}\|_2^2=\sum_n{|x_n|^2}$. Let ${\bf{a}}=\left\{\phi_m\left[k_j-n\right]\right\}_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}$ and ${\bf{b}}=\left\{Q_{j,m;\theta}^*\left[n\right]\right\}_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}$. Since $\varphi_m\left(t\right)$ is of finite energy, ${\bf{a}}\in l_2$. We may calculate the $l_2$ norm of ${\bf{b}}$, based on the definition of $q_{j,m}\left(t;\theta\right)$ in , resulting in $\|{\bf{b}}\|_2\approx T_m\left(\theta\right)/T<\infty$. This implies that ${\bf{b}}\in l_2$ as well. Let ${\bf{b_t}}$ be the truncated sequence ${\bf{b}}$ for $N_1\leq n\leq N_2$ and zero otherwise. We may then write the approximation error as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:30}
\begin{split}
|c_{j,m}-{\hat{c}}_{j,m}|^2=|\left<{\bf{a}},{\bf{b}-{\bf{b_t}}}\right>|^2\leq \|{\bf{a}}\|_{2}^2\|{\bf{b}}-{\bf{b_t}}\|_{2}^2,
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $\left<\cdot,\cdot\right>$ is the inner product defined as $\left<{\bf{x}},{\bf{y}}\right>=\sum_n{x_ny_n^*}$. The last transition in is a result of Cauchy-Schwartz inequality. By definition of ${\bf{b_t}}$ and ${\bf{b}}$, it is readily seen that $\|{\bf{b}}-{\bf{b_t}}\|_{2}^2={\|{\bf{b}}\|_{2}^2-\|{\bf{b_t}}\|_{2}^2}$. Denoting $\rho^2=\|{\bf{b_t}}\|_2^2/\|{\bf{b}}\|_2^2$, becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:31}
\begin{split}
|c_{j,m}-{\hat{c}}_{j,m}|^2\leq \|{\bf{a}}\|_{2}^2\|{\bf{b}}\|_{2}^2\left(1-\rho^2\right).
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
Since $\|{\bf{b}}\|_2<\infty$, $\rho^2$ can approach $1$ as close as we desire, by appropriate selection of $N_1$ and $N_2$. For any $\epsilon>0$, there exists $\rho^2\left(\epsilon\right)< 1$, such that the right side of is smaller than $\epsilon$. Selecting $N_1$ and $N_2$ for which $\|{\bf{b_t}}\|_2^2/\|{\bf{b}}\|_2^2\geq \rho^2\left(\epsilon\right)$, results in $|c_{j,m}-{\hat{c}}_{j,m}|^2<\epsilon$, as required. Furthermore, setting an upper bound on the energy of $\varphi_m\left(t\right)$, and thereby on $\|{\bf{a}}\|_2^2$, $N_1$ and $N_2$ may be chosen off-line, subject to the decay properties of the sequence $\left\{Q_{j,m;\theta}\left[n\right]\right\}_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}$.
Using Proposition 1, we can compute ${\hat{c}}_{j,m}$ as a good approximation to $c_{j,m}$. We now show how $\hat{c}_{j,m}$ can be obtained directly from the Fourier series coefficients $\phi_m\left[n\right]$ of each $\varphi_m\left(t\right)$.
We first evaluate $N_1$ and $N_2$ for a certain choice of $m$ and $\theta$, such that $c_{j,m}$ may be approximated to the desired accuracy using . Equivalently, we obtain the minimal subset of $\varphi_m\left(t\right)$’s Fourier series coefficients, required for the approximation of $c_{j,m}$. Performing this for all $1\leq j\leq K$, we obtain $K$ such subsets. Denoting the union of these subsets by $\kappa_m$, we may now simultaneously compute $\left\{\hat{c}_{j,m}\right\}_{j=1}^K$ from $\left\{\phi_m\left[n\right]\right\}_{n\in\kappa_m}$ by a linear transformation. Define the length-$K_m$ vector ${\bf{\Phi_m}}$, with $l$th element $\phi_m\left[k_l\right]$, and $k_l$ being the $l$th element in $\kappa_m$. Using , we may write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:32}
\begin{split}
{\bf{{\hat{c}}_m}}={\bf{A_{m}}}\left(\theta\right){\bf{\Phi_m}},
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf{\hat{c}_m}}$ is the length-$K$ vector with $j$th element $\hat{c}_{j,m}$, and ${\bf{A_{m}}}\left(\theta\right)$ is a $K\times K_m$ matrix with elements $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:33}
\begin{split}
a_{j,l}=\left\{\begin{array}{ll} Q_{j,m;\theta}\left[k_j-k_l\right] & N_1\left(k_j\right) \leq k_j-k_l \leq N_2\left(k_j\right) \\ 0 & \mbox{otherwise} \end{array}\right.
\end{split}.\end{aligned}$$ Notice, that we have omitted the dependency of $N_1$ and $N_2$ on $\epsilon$, $m$ and $\theta$, since, unlike $k_j$, these remain constant throughout the construction of ${\bf{A_{m}}}\left(\theta\right)$.
The resulting Xampling scheme is depicted in Fig. \[Fig:05\]. Based on [@Tur01], we propose a simple mechanism for obtaining the Fourier coefficients in each individual element: a linear transformation, ${\bf{W_m}}$, is applied to point-wise samples of the signal, taken at a sub-Nyquist rate, after filtering it with an appropriate kernel, $s_m^*\left(-t\right)$, such as the Sum of Sincs. In this scheme, while we do need to extract larger number of samples at the output of each element, as $K_m>K$, we avoid the use of complicated analog kernels as in Section \[sec:52\]. Furthermore, as we show in Section \[sec:09\], in an actual imaging scenario good approximation is obtained with just a small sampling overhead.
![Xampling scheme utilizing Fourier samples of $\varphi_m\left(t\right)$.[]{data-label="Fig:05"}](Scheme2){width="9.2cm"}
Signal Reconstruction {#sec:07}
=====================
So far we derived our approach for extracting the parameters $\left\{t_l,b_l\right\}_{l=1}^L$ which determine $\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)$ from sub-Nyquist samples, taken at the individual receiver elements. In this section we focus on the reconstruction of $\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)$ from these parameters. Once $\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)$ is constructed for multiple values of $\theta$, a two-dimensional image may be formed, by applying standard post-processing techniques: first, $\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)$’s envelope is extracted using the Hilbert transform [@Shiavi01]; logarithmic compression is then applied to each envelope, resulting in a corresponding scanline; finally, all scanlines are interpolated onto a two-dimensional grid. Having obtained the parametric representation of $\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)$, the first two steps may be calculated only within the support of the recovered signal.
In Section \[sec:71\] we describe the reconstruction of $\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)$ from its estimated parameters, while generalizing the model proposed in : we assume that the detected signals are additionally parametrized by unknown carrier phases of the reflected pulses, and show that the Xampling approach allows estimation of these unknown phases.
In Section \[sec:72\] we propose an alternative approach for reconstructing $\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)$, using CS methodology.
Signal Reconstruction Assuming Unknown Carrier Phase {#sec:71}
----------------------------------------------------
Consider the signal defined in . Modeling a signal of physical nature, it is obviously real-valued, implying that $a_{l,m}$ are real. Consequently, by , $b_l$ must also be real-valued. However, when we apply spectral analysis techniques aimed at solving the system formulated in , there is generally no constraint that ${\bf{b}}$ be real-valued. Indeed, solving it for samples obtained using our proposed Xampling schemes, the resulting coefficients are complex, with what appears to be random phases. In fact, a similar phenomenon is observed when solving for samples taken from the individual signals, $\varphi_m\left(t\right)$, as proposed in [@Tur01]. Below we offer a physical interpretation of the random phases, by generalizing the model proposed in . The result is a closed-form solution for reconstructing the estimated signal, using the complex coefficients. When applied, a significant improvement is observed, comparing the envelope of the reconstructed signal, with that of the original signal.
The ultrasonic pulse $h\left(t\right)$ may be modeled by a baseband waveform, $g\left(t\right)$, modulated by a carrier at frequency $f_0$: $h\left(t\right)=g\left(t\right)\cos\left(\omega_0 t+\beta\right)$, where $\omega_0=2\pi f_0$ and $\beta$ is the phase of the carrier. The model proposed in , just like the one in , assumes the detected pulses to be exact replicas of $h\left(t\right)$. However, a more accurate assumption is that each reflected pulse undergoes a phase shift, based upon the relative complex impedances involved in its reflection [@Brown01]. We thus propose to approximate the beamformed signal as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:48}
\begin{split}
\Phi\left(t;\theta \right)=\sum_{l=1}^L{\left|b_l\right| g\left(t-t_l\right)\cos\left(\omega_0\left(t-t_l\right)+\beta_l\right)},
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ $\beta_l$ being an unknown phase. The $j$th Fourier series coefficient of $\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)$ is now given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:49}
\begin{split}
c_j&=\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T}{\sum_{l=1}^L{\left|b_l\right| g\left(t-t_l\right)\cos\left(\omega_0\left(t-t_l\right)+\beta_l\right)}e^{-i\frac{2\pi}{T}k_jt}dt}\\
=& \frac{1}{2T}\sum_{l=1}^L{|b_l|\left(e^{i\beta_l}G\left(\omega_j-\omega_0\right)+e^{-i\beta_l}G\left(\omega_j+\omega_0\right)\right)e^{-i\omega_jt_l}},
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $G\left(\omega\right)$ is the CTFT of $g\left(t\right)$ and $\omega_j=\frac{2\pi}{T}k_j$.
Let $g\left(t\right)$ be approximated as a Gaussian with variance $\sigma^2$ and assume that $k_j\geq 0$. It is readily seen that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:50}
\begin{split}
\left|\frac{G\left(\omega_j+\omega_0\right)}{G\left(\omega_j-\omega_0\right)}\right|=e^{-2\sigma^2\omega_j\omega_0}
\end{split}.\end{aligned}$$ We can then choose $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:51}
\begin{split}
k_j\geq \frac{5T}{4\pi\sigma^2\omega_0}
\end{split},\end{aligned}$$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:52}
\begin{split}
\left|\frac{G\left(\omega_j+\omega_0\right)}{G\left(\omega_j-\omega_0\right)}\right|<10^{-2}
\end{split}.\end{aligned}$$ This allows to be approximated as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:53}
\begin{split}
c_j\approx& \frac{1}{2T}G\left(\omega_j-\omega_0\right)\sum_{l=1}^L{|b_l|e^{i\beta_l}e^{-i\frac{2\pi}{T}k_jt_l}},
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ and additionally $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:54}
\begin{split}
H\left(\omega_j\right)\approx \frac{1}{2} e^{i\beta}G\left(\omega_j-\omega_0\right).
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Combining and , we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:55}
\begin{split}
c_j&\approx \frac{1}{T}H\left(\frac{2\pi}{T}k_j\right)\sum_{l=1}^L{b_l e^{-i\frac{2\pi}{T}k_jt_l}},
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where we define $b_l=|b_l|e^{i\left(\beta_l-\beta\right)}$.
Denoting by ${\bf{c}}$ the length $K$ vector, with $c_j$ as its $j$th element, the last result may be brought into the exact same matrix form written in . However, now we expect the solution to extract complex coefficients, of which phases correspond to the unknown phase shifts of the reflected pulses, $\angle b_l = \beta_l-\beta$. Having obtained the complex coefficients, we may now reconstruct $\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)$ according to , and then proceed with standard post-processing techniques. The constraint imposed in is mild, considering nominal ultrasound parameters. Assuming, for instance, $T=210\mu\mbox{sec}$, $f_0=3\mbox{MHz}$, and $\sigma=630\mbox{nsec}$, we must choose $k_j\geq 12$. The requirement that ${\bf{H}}$ of be invertible, already imposes a stronger constraint on $k_j$, the $j$th Fourier coefficient, since $H\left(\frac{2\pi}{T}k_j\right)$ drops below $-3\mbox{dB}$ for $\left|k_j-630\right|>44$.
CS Approach for Signal Reconstruction {#sec:72}
-------------------------------------
Throughout the previous sections, we addressed the problem of ultrasound signal reconstruction, within the FRI framework. As shown in [@Vetterli01], for various FRI problems, the relationship between the unknown signal parameters and its subset of Fourier series coefficients takes the form of a spectral analysis problem. The latter is then typically solved by applying techniques such as annihilating filter [@Stoica01] or matrix pencil [@Tapan01]. In this section, we consider an alternative approach for reconstructing the signal defined in , based on CS methodology [@Candes01; @Davenport01].
Assume that the time delays $\left\{t_l\right\}_{l=1}^L$ in are quantized with a $\Delta_s$ quantization step, such that $t_l=q_l\Delta_s$, $q_l\in\mathbb{Z}$. Using , we may write the Fourier series coefficients of $\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)$ as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:34}
c_j&\approx\frac{1}{T}H\left(\frac{2\pi}{T}k_j\right)\sum_{l=1}^L{b_l e^{-i\frac{2\pi}{T}\Delta_s k_j q_l}}.\end{aligned}$$ Let $N$ be the ratio $\lfloor T/\Delta_s\rfloor$. Then may be expressed in the following matrix form: $$\label{E:35}
\begin{split}
{\bf{c}}&\approx\frac{1}{T}{\bf{H\hat{V}}x}={\bf{Ax}},\\
\end{split}$$ where ${\bf{H}}$ is the $K\times K$ diagonal matrix with $H\left(\frac{2\pi}{T}k_j\right)$ as its $j$th diagonal element, and ${\bf{x}}$ is a length $N$ vector, whose $j$th element equals $b_l$ for $j=q_l$, and $0$ otherwise. Finally, ${\bf{\hat{V}}}$ is a $K\times N$ matrix, formed by taking the set $\kappa$ of rows from an $N\times N$ FFT matrix.
The formulation obtained in , is a classic CS problem, where our goal is to reconstruct the $N$-dimensional vector ${\bf{x}}$, known to be $L$-sparse, with $L\ll N$, based on its projection onto a subset of $K$ orthogonal vectors, represented by the rows of ${\bf{A}}$. This problem may be solved by various CS methods, as long as the sensing matrix ${\bf{A}}$ satisfies desired properties such as the Restricted Isometry Property (RIP) or coherence. In our case, ${\bf{A}}$ is formed by choosing $K$ rows from the Fourier basis. Selecting these rows uniformly at random it may be shown that if $$\label{E:38}
K\geq CL\left(\log N\right)^4,$$ for some positive constant $C$, then ${\bf{A}}$ obeys the RIP with large probability [@Rudelson01]. As readily seen from , the resolution of the grid, used for evaluating $\left\{t_l\right\}_{l=1}^L$, directly effects the RIP. Recall that, by applying spectral analysis methods, one may reconstruct $\bf{x}$ from a minimal number of $2L$ samples, if it is indeed $L$-sparse. However, these samples must be carefully chosen. Using matrix pencil, for instance, the sensing vectors must be consecutive. Moreover, in any practical application, the measured data will be corrupted by noise, forcing us to use oversampling. In contrast, the bound proposed in regards random selection of the sensing vectors. Additionally, applying the CS framework, we may effectively cope with the more general case, of reconstructing ${\bf{x}}$ which is not necessarily $L$-sparse.
Comparison between Recovery Methods {#sec:08}
===================================
In this section, we provide results obtained by applying three recovery algorithms to ultrasound signals which were simulated using the [*[Field II]{}*]{} program [@Jensen03]. The evaluation was performed based on multiple beamformed signals, each calculated along the $\hat{z}$ axis ($\theta=0$) for a random phantom realization. The phantom comprised $L$ strong reflectors, distributed along the $\hat{z}$ axis, and multiple additional reflectors, distributed throughout the entire imaging medium. A measurement vector was obtained by projecting the beamformed signal onto a subset of its Fourier series coefficients. Finally, each algorithm was evaluated for its success in recovering the strong reflectors’ positions from the vector of measurements. The first two algorithms which were evaluated were matrix pencil [@Tapan01] and total least-squares approximation, enhanced by Cadzow’s iterated algorithm [@Blu01]. Both algorithms may be considered spectral analysis techniques. The third algorithm was Orthogonal Matching Pursuit (OMP) [@Tropp01], which is a CS method.
The simulation setup is depicted in Fig. \[Fig:06\]. We created an aperture comprising 64 transducer elements, with central frequency $f_0=3.5\mbox{MHz}$. The width of each element, measured along the ${\hat{x}}$ axis, was $c/{f_0}=0.44\mbox{mm}$, and the height, measured along the ${\hat{y}}$ axis, was $5\mbox{mm}$. The elements were arranged along the $\hat{x}$ axis, with a $0.05\mbox{mm}$ kerf. The transmitted pulse was simulated by exciting each element with two periods of a sinusoid at frequency $f_0$, where the delays were adjusted such that the transmission focal point was at depth $r=70\mbox{mm}$. Additionally, Hanning apodization was used during transmission, by applying an appropriate excitation power to each element.
![[*[Field II]{}*]{} simulation setup: $M=64$ elements are aligned along the $\hat{x}$ axis with a $0.05\mbox{mm}$ kerf. The width of each element is $0.44\mbox{mm}$. Speckle pattern is simulated by randomly distributing $10^5$ point reflectors within the box $B$. Additionally, $L=6$ point reflectors are aligned along the $\hat{z}$ axis, also within the boundaries of the box. The pulse is transmitted along the $\hat{z}$ axis, and the beamformed signal is constructed along the same line.[]{data-label="Fig:06"}](SetupFieldII){height="3.5cm"}
In each iteration, we constructed a random phantom, for which we simulated the beamformed signal. The phantom was constructed in two stages. We first created a speckle phantom, by drawing positions of $10^5$ point reflectors uniformly, at random, within the three-dimensional box $B=\left\{\left(x,y,z\right): |x| \leq 25\mbox{mm}, |y| \leq 5\mbox{mm}, |z-60| \leq 30\mbox{mm}\right\}$. The corresponding amplitudes were also drawn randomly, with zero-mean and unit-variance Normal distribution. We then generated a signal phantom, by drawing positions of $L=6$ point reflectors, $\left\{{\bf{p_l}}\right\}_{l=1}^L$, with $x_l=y_l=0$ and $z_l$ uniformly distributed in the interval $\left[35\mbox{mm},85\mbox{mm}\right)$. These reflectors were assigned identical amplitudes, which were adjusted according to the SNR requirement, in the following manner: for each of the two phantoms, we simulated the beamformed signal, acquired along $\theta=0$ following pulse transmission in the same direction. Denoting the beamformed signal obtained for the first (speckle) phantom by $n\left(t;\theta=0\right)$ and that obtained for the second (signal) phantom by $\Phi\left(t;\theta=0\right)$, we defined $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:SNR1}
{\mbox{SNR}}=10\log_{10}\frac{\int_0^T{\left|\Phi\left(t;\theta=0\right)\right|^2dt}}{\int_0^T{\left|n\left(t;\theta=0\right)\right|^2dt}}.\end{aligned}$$ The amplitudes of the reflectors comprising the second phantom were modified, such that complied with the desired SNR value. After this calibration, we combined the two phantoms into a single one, for which we generated an individual beamformed signal realization. The detected signals and the resulting beamformed signal were simulated at sampling rate $f_s=100\mbox{MHz}$. Since the spectrum of the detected pulses decayed to $-50\mbox{dB}$ at $\approx 6\mbox{MHz}$, this rate was far beyond Nyquist. Hanning apodization was used for constructing the beamformed signal, by applying appropriate weights to the detected signals. This type of apodization may be easily implemented with both our Xampling schemes, by replacing the average in by a weighted one.
Fig. \[Fig:07\] illustrates the method by which we simulated a realization of the noisy beamformed signal. This image was obtained by applying standard imaging techniques to an individual phantom. We are interested in recovering the strong reflections aligned along the $\hat{z}$ axis. The corresponding beamformed signal was corrupted by speckles, originating in the multiple point reflectors scattered throughout the medium. The phantom was calibrated such that the SNR of the beamformed signal along $\theta=0$, defined in , was $15\mbox{dB}$.
![Image obtained by applying standard imaging techniques to an individual phantom realization. Our goal is to recover the $L=6$ strong reflectors aligned along the $\hat{z}$ axis. $10^5$ point reflectors were distributed in the imaging plain, resulting in echoes which corrupted the detected signals. In the ultrasound image, these reflections are manifested in a speckle pattern. The phantom was calibrated such that the SNR of the beamformed signal, calculated along $\hat{\theta=0}$, defined in , was $15\mbox{dB}$.[]{data-label="Fig:07"}](PhantomUSImage15dB){height="5.0cm"}
Having generated the beamformed signal, we obtained a measurement vector, by projecting the signal onto a subset of its $K$ Fourier series coefficients, where $K=2\lceil \eta L \rceil+1$, and $\eta>1$ is the desired oversampling factor. For the spectral analysis techniques, we chose the coefficients consecutively, around $k_0=\lceil f_0 T \rceil$. OMP was tested using both this selection of coefficients, and a random selection, taken such that $H\left(\frac{2\pi}{T}k_j\right)$ is above $-2\mbox{dB}$. With this selection, we obtain samples which are better spread in the frequency domain. We emphasize, that the coefficients were drawn once, for each choice of $\eta$. An additional degree of freedom, using the OMP method, regards the density of the reconstruction grid, determined by $N$. We set $N=1860$, complying with a sampling frequency $f_s=20\mbox{MHz}$, of order typically used in imaging devices.
Recovery was evaluated based on the estimated time delays. These were compared to the delays associated with the known reflector positions, $t_l=2z_l/c$. At the $i$th iteration, we examined, for each algorithm, all possible matches between actual delays $\left\{t_l\right\}_{l=1}^L$, and estimated delays $\left\{\hat{t}_l\right\}_{l=1}^L$. Of all possible permutations (a total number of $L!$), we selected the one for which the number of matches, achieving error smaller than the width of $h\left(t\right)$, was maximal. Denoting this number by $S_i^{(q)}$, $q\in\left\{1,2,3,4\right\}$ corresponding to the evaluated method, we estimate the probability of recovery by the $q$th method as $$\label{E:39}
P^{(q)}=\frac{1}{LI}\sum_{i=1}^I{S_i^{(q)}},$$ where $I$ is the total number of iterations, set to 500 in our simulation. We note that all reconstruction algorithms require that we first calculate $H\left(\frac{2\pi}{T}k_j\right)$. For this purpose, we simulated the signal beamformed along $\theta=0$, for a phantom which comprised a single reflector at the transmission focal point $\left(x,y,z\right)=\left(0,0,70\mbox{mm}\right)$. We used the detected signal, depicted in Fig. \[Fig:08\], for calculating $H\left(\frac{2\pi}{T}k_j\right)$.
![$h\left(t\right)$ evaluated from the beamformed signal, calculated for a single reflector using [*[Field II]{}*]{} simulator. The reflector was positioned at the transmission focal point.[]{data-label="Fig:08"}](FieldIIEvaluatedPulse){height="4.0cm"}
{height="3.7cm"}
(a)
{height="3.7cm"}
(b)
{height="3.7cm"}
(c)
{height="3.7cm"}
(d)
The simulation results obtained for multiple combinations of SNR and oversampling factor are illustrated in Fig. \[Fig:09\]. The calculated recovery probabilities are represented by gray-levels, where a common color-bar was used for all plots. For clarity, we plotted a line separating between probabilities lower than 0.85 and probabilities above 0.85, and a line separating between probabilities lower than 0.97 and probabilities above 0.97. Of the two spectral analysis techniques, matrix pencil appears preferable, as it obtains high probability values over a wider range of SNR and oversampling. Both OMP methods outperformed the spectral analysis ones, with an obvious advantage to random OMP.
An additional aspect which should be taken into consideration, when choosing the reconstruction method, regards the complexity of the Xampling hardware. Using the Xampling scheme proposed in [@Tur01], random selection of Fourier series coefficients will increase the hardware complexity: in such case, the sampling kernel, e.g. SoS, must be specifically designed for the choice of coefficients. This is in contrast with the relatively simple kernel, applied for a consecutive choice of coefficients. On the other hand, the Xampling scheme proposed in [@Gedalyahu01] is practically invariant to the manner in which the coefficients are selected.
Experiments on Cardiac Ultrasound Data {#sec:09}
======================================
{width="5.0cm"}
(a)
{width="5.0cm"}
(b)
{width="5.0cm"}
(c)
In this section, we examine results obtained by applying our Xampling schemes, illustrated in Figs. \[Fig:04\] and \[Fig:05\], to raw RF data, acquired and stored for cardiac images of a healthy consenting volunteer. The acquisition was performed using a GE breadboard ultrasonic scanner of 64 acquisition channels. The transducer employed was a 64-element phased array probe, with $2.5\mbox{MHz}$ central frequency, operating in second harmonic imaging mode: 3 half cycle pulses are transmitted at $1.7\mbox{MHz}$, resulting in a signal characterized by a rather narrow bandpass bandwidth, centered at $1.7\mbox{MHz}$. The corresponding second harmonic signal, centered at $3.4\mbox{MHz}$, is then acquired. The signal detected in each acquisition channel is amplified and digitized at a sampling-rate of $50\mbox{MHz}$. Data from all channels were acquired along 120 beams, forming a $60^{\circ}$ sector, where imaging to a depth of $z=16\mbox{cm}$, we have $T=207{\mu\mbox{sec}}$. The imaging results are illustrated in Fig. \[Fig:10\].
The first image (a) was generated using the standard technique, applying beamforming to data first sampled at the Nyquist-rate, and then down-sampled, exploiting its limited essential bandwidth. For a single scanline, sampling at $50 {\mbox{MHz}}$, we acquire $10389$ real-valued samples from each element, which are then down-sampled, to $1662$ real-valued samples, used for beamforming. The resulting image is used as reference, where our goal is to reproduce the macroscopic reflectors observed in this image with our Xampling schemes.
We begin by applying the scheme illustrated in Fig. \[Fig:04\], utilizing the analog kernels defined in . Modulation with the kernels is simulated digitally. Assuming $L=25$ reflectors, and using two-fold oversampling, $\kappa$ comprises $K=100$ consecutive indices. With such selection, the corresponding frequency samples practically cover the essential spectrum of $h\left(t\right)$. Since each sample is complex, we get an eight-fold reduction in sample-rate. Having estimated the Fourier series coefficients of $\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)$, we obtain its parametric representation by solving using OMP. We then reconstruct $\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)$ according to , that is we apply phase shifts to the modulated pulses, based on the extracted coefficients’ phases. The resulting image (b) depicts the strong perturbations observed in (a). Moreover, isolated reflectors at the proximity of the array ($z\approx 6{\mbox{cm}}$) remain in focus.
We next apply the approximated scheme, illustrated in Fig. \[Fig:05\]: for every $k_j\in\kappa$, $1\leq m \leq M$ and $\theta$, we find $N_1$ and $N_2$ of such that $\rho^2 \approx 0.95$. This process is performed numerically, off-line, based on our imaging setup. Consequently, we construct $\left\{{\bf{A_m}}\right\}_{m=1}^M$ off-line, according to . Choosing this level of approximation, we end up with a seven-fold reduction in sample rate, where, for the construction of a single scanline, an average of $116$ complex samples must be taken from each element. We point out that in this scenario, the maximal number of samples, taken from certain elements, reaches $133$ for specific values of $\theta$. Thus, if a common rate is to be used for all sensors, for all values of $\theta$, we may still achieve a six-fold reduction in sample rate. As before, we use OMP in order to obtain $\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)$’s parametric representation, and reconstruct it based on our generalized FRI model proposed in . The resulting image (c) appears very similar to (b).
Table \[Tab:01\] gathers SNR values, calculated for the beamformed signals estimated using both our Xampling schemes, after envelope detection with the Hilbert transform. The values were calculated with respect to the envelopes of the beamformed signals, obtained by standard imaging. Explicitly, let $\Phi\left(t;\theta_i\right)$ denote the beamformed signal obtained by standard beamforming along the direction $\theta_i$, $i=1,2,...,I$, let $\hat{\Phi}\left(t;\theta_i\right)$ denote the beamformed signal reconstructed from the parameters recovered by compressed beamforming along the same direction, and let $H\left(\cdot\right)$ denote the Hilbert transform. For the set of $I=120$ scanlines, we defined the SNR as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:SNR2}
\mbox{SNR}=10\log_{10}\frac{\sum_{i=1}^I{\int_0^T{\left|\mbox{H}(\Phi\left(t;\theta_i\right))\right|^2dt}}}{\sum_{i=1}^I{\int_0^T{\left|\mbox{H}(\hat{\Phi}\left(t;\theta_i\right))-\mbox{H}(\Phi\left(t;\theta_i\right))\right|^2dt}}}.\end{aligned}$$ This calculation was repeated when reconstructing the signals without the random phase assumption, proposed in Section \[sec:71\]. For the latter case, reconstruction of a real-valued $\hat{\Phi}\left(t;\theta_i\right)$, given complex coefficients, may be heuristically achieved by either ignoring the coefficients’ imaginary part, or by taking their modulus. It may be seen that, weighting over all $120$ beamformed signals, the random phase assumption achieves a relatively minor improvement ($0.1$-$0.15\mbox{dB}$) compared to reconstruction using the modulus of the coefficients. However, when examining individual signals, we observed that, for certain values of $\theta_i$, the improvement exceeded $1.5\mbox{dB}$.
----------------------- ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
Reconstruction Method Distorted Kernels (Fig. \[Fig:04\]) Approximated Scheme (Fig. \[Fig:05\])
Random Phase [6.47]{} [5.89]{}
Real part of Residues [4.59]{} [4.03]{}
Modulus of Residues [6.32]{} [5.79]{}
----------------------- ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
: SNR in \[dB\] of $\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)$ obtained with the proposed Xampling schemes and three reconstruction methods
\[Tab:01\].
We emphasize, that the calculated SNR values provide a useful measure for quantitatively comparing the different Xampling and reconstruction approaches. However, they are of smaller value when attempting to evaluate the overall performance of Xampling, compared to standard imaging: recall that our scheme is aimed at reproducing only strong pulses, reflected from macroscopic reflectors. The reference signal, on the other hand, generated by standard technique, already contains the additional speckle component, caused by multiple microscopic perturbations. A possible approach for evaluating the overall performance of either Xampling scheme, would be to examine its success rate in recovering strong reflections, detected by standard beamforming. For this purpose, we tracked the $L$ strongest local maxima in each beamformed signal. If the Xampling scheme recovered a pulse within the range of $1.2\mbox{mm}$ from a certain maximum, we say that this maximum was successfully detected. Certain pulses, detected by Xampling, may match more than one maximum in the beamformed signal. In such case, we choose the one-to-one mapping which achieves smallest MSE. Applying this evaluation method to signals Xampled using our approximated scheme, and reconstructed with the random phase assumption, we conclude that the reconstruction successfully retrieves $70.4 \%$ of the significant maxima, with standard deviation of the error being approximately $0.42\mbox{mm}$.
Conclusion {#sec:10}
==========
In this work, we generalized the Xampling method proposed in [@Tur01], to a scheme applied to an array of multiple receiving elements, allowing reconstruction of a two-dimensional ultrasound image. At the heart of this generalization was the proposal that the one-dimensional Xampling method derived in [@Tur01] be applied to signals obtained by beamforming. Such signals exhibit enhanced SNR, compared to the individual signals detected by the array elements. Moreover, they depict reflections which originate in a much narrower sector, than that initially radiated by the transmitted pulse. A second key observation, which made our approach feasible, regarded the integration of the beamforming process into the filtering part of the Xampling scheme.
The first approach we purposed comprised multiple modulation and integration channels, utilizing analog kernels. We next showed that the parametric representation of the beamformed signal may be well approximated, from projections of the detected signals onto appropriate subsets of their Fourier series coefficients. The contribution of our schemes regards both the reduction in sample rate, but additionally, the resulting reduction in the rate of data transmission from the system front-end to the processing unit. In particular, our second approach is significant even when preliminary sampling is performed at the Nyquist-rate. In such a case, it allows a reduction in data transmission rate, by a relatively simple linear transformation, applied to the sampled data.
An additional contribution of our work regards the method by which we reconstruct the ultrasound signal, assumed to obey a specific FRI structure, from a subset of its frequency samples. Rather than using traditional spectral analysis techniques, we formulate the relationship between the signal’s samples to its unknown parameters as a CS problem. The latter may be efficiently solved using a greedy algorithm such as the OMP. We show that, in our scenario, CS is generally comparable to spectral analysis methods, managing to achieve similar success rates with sample sets of equal cardinality. Moreover, working in a noisy regime, CS typically outperformed spectral analysis methods, provided that the frequency samples were highly spread over the essential spectrum of the signal. Using actual cardiac data, a relatively large number of reflectors was assumed. Consequently, by simply choosing the Fourier series coefficients consecutively, as in the spectral analysis techniques, we end up with the necessary wide distribution. However, as shown in our simulations, CS approach inherently allows a wide distribution of samples, even when the cardinality of the sample set is small, since we are not obliged to unique configurations of samples.
A final observation discussed in our work, regards the generalization of the signal model proposed in [@Tur01], allowing additional, unknown phase shifts, of the detected pulses. We show that these shifts may be estimated by appropriate interpretation of the extracted coefficients, without changing the recovery method.
Combining the random phase assumption with our proposed Xampling schemes and the CS recovery method, we construct two-dimensional ultrasound images, which well depict strong perturbations in the tissue, while achieving up to seven-fold reduction of sample rate, compared to standard imaging techniques.
beamformed signal support
=========================
We assume $h\left(t\right)$ to be supported on $\left[0,\Delta\right)$, and that the support of $\varphi_m\left(t\right)$ is contained in $\left[0,T\right)$. The last assumption may be justified by the fact that the pulse is transmitted at $t=0$, such that reflections may only be detected for $t\geq 0$. Additionally, the penetration depth of the transmitted pulse allows us to set $T$, such that all reflections arriving at $t\geq T$ are below the noise level.
For all $1\leq l\leq L$ and $1\leq m\leq M$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:40}
\begin{split}
t_{l,m}+\Delta \leq T,
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Applying the relation $t_{l,m}=\tau_m\left(t_l;\theta\right)$, justified in Section \[sec:51\], and using the fact that $\tau_m\left(t;\theta\right)$ is non-decreasing for $t\geq 0$ we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\label{E:41}
t_l&\leq \tau_m^{-1}\left(T-\Delta;\theta\right),
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ $\tau_m^{-1}\left(t;\theta\right)$ being the inverse of $\tau_m\left(t;\theta\right)$. Explicitly: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\label{E:42}
\begin{array}{ll}
{\tau_m^{-1}\left(t;\theta\right)}=\frac{t^2-\gamma_m^2}{t-\gamma_m\sin\theta}, & t\geq \gamma_m.
\end{array}
\end{split} \end{aligned}$$ Assuming that $\Delta\ll T$, then, since is true for every $1 \leq m \leq M$, we may write: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\label{E:43}
t_l \leq \min_{1\leq m\leq M}{\tau_m^{-1}\left(T;\theta\right)}.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ This allows us to set the following upper bound on the support of $\Phi\left(t;\theta\right)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\label{E:44}
T_B\left(\theta\right) = \min_{1\leq m\leq M}{\tau_m^{-1}\left(T;\theta\right)},
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ once again, using the assumption that $\Delta\ll T$. From it is readily seen that $ T_B\left(\theta\right)\leq T$, since we can always find $\gamma_m$ with sign opposite to that of $\sin\theta$, such that: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\label{E:45}
{\tau_m^{-1}\left(T;\theta\right)}=\frac{T^2-\gamma_m^2}{T+|\gamma_m\sin\theta|}\leq \frac{T^2-\gamma_m^2}{T}\leq T.
\end{split} \end{aligned}$$ Finally, by construction of $T_B\left(\theta\right)$ we see that, for all $1\leq m\leq M$, $\tau_m\left(T_B\left(\theta\right);\theta\right) \leq T$.
[10]{} \[1\][\#1]{} url@samestyle \[2\][\#2]{} \[2\][[l@\#1=l@\#1\#2]{}]{}
J. A. Jensen, “Linear description of ultrasound imaging systems,” Notes for the International Summer School on Advanced Ultrasound Imaging, Technical University of Denmark, 1999.
T. L. Szabo, “Diagnostics ultrasound imaging: Inside out,” in *Academic Press Series in Biomedical Engineering*, J. Bronzino, Ed.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emElsevier Academic Press, 2004, pp. Ch. 7, 10.
C. E. Shannon, “Communication in the presence of noise,” *Proc. IRE*, vol. 37, pp. 10 – 21, 1949.
E. J. Candes and M. Wakin, “An introduction to compressive sampling,” *IEEE Signal Processing Magazine*, vol. 25, Issue 2, pp. 21 – 30, 2008.
M. A. Davenport, M. F. Duarte, Y. C. Eldar, and G. Kutyniok, “Introduction to compressed sensing,” in *Compressed Sensing: Theory and Applications*, Y. C. Eldar and G. Kutyniok, Eds.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em Cambridge University Press, 2012.
M. Vetterli, P. Marziliano, and T. Blu, “Sampling signals with finite rate of innovation,” *IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing*, vol. 50, No. 6, pp. 1417 – 1428, 2002.
T. Michaeli and Y. C. Eldar, “Xampling at the rate of innovation,” *IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing*, vol. 60, Issue 3, pp. 1121 – 1133, 2012.
J. Uriguen, Y. C. Eldar, P. L. Dragotti, and Z. Ben-Haim, “Sampling at the rate of innovation: Theory and applications,” in *Compressed Sensing: Theory and Applications*, Y. C. Eldar and G. Kutyniok, Eds.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emCambridge University Press, 2012.
M. Mishali, Y. C. Eldar, O. Dounaevsky, and E. Shoshan, “Xampling: Analog to digital at sub-nyquist rates,” *IET Journal of Circuits, Devices and Systems*, vol. 5, Issue 1, pp. 8 – 20, 2011.
M. Mishali, Y. C. Eldar, and A. Elron, “Xampling: Signal acquisition and processing in union of subspaces,” *IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing*, vol. 59, Issue 10, pp. 4719 – 4734, 2011.
M. Mishali and Y. C. Eldar, “Xampling: Compressed sensing for analog signals,” in *Compressed Sensing: Theory and Applications*, Y. C. Eldar and G. Kutyniok, Eds.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emCambridge University Press, 2012.
R. Tur, Y. C. Eldar, and Z. Friedman, “Innovation rate sampling of pulse streams with application to ultrasound imaging,” *IEEE Trans. on Signal Processing*, vol. 59, No. 4, pp. 1827 – 1842, 2011.
K. Gedalyahu, R. Tur, and Y. C. Eldar, “Multichannel sampling of pulse streams at the rate of innovation,” *IEEE Trans. on Signal Processing*, vol. 59, No. 4, pp. 1491 – 1504, 2011.
N. Wagner, Y. C. Eldar, A. Feuer, and Z. Friedman, “Compressed beamforming with applications to ultrasound imaging,” *to appear in ICASSP*, 2012.
N. Wagner, Y. C. Eldar, A. Feuer, G. Danin, and Z. Friedman, “Xampling in ultrasound imaging,” *SPIE Proceedings*, vol. 7968, 2011.
L. E. Kinsler, A. R. Frey, A. B. Coppens, and J. V. Sanders, *Fundamentals of Acoustics*, 3rd ed.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emNew York: John Wiley and Sons, 1982.
J. A. Jensen, “Ultrasound imaging and its modeling,” *Topics in Applied Physics*, vol. 84, pp. 135 – 165, 2002.
P. Stoica and R. Moses, *Introduction to Spectral Analysis*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emEnglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2000.
T. K. Sarkar and O. Pereira, “Using the matrix pencil method to estimate the parameters of a sum of complex exponentials,” *IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine*, vol. 37, No. 1.
R. Shiavi, *Introduction to Applied Statistical Signal Analysis - Guide to Biomedical and Electrical Engineering Applications*, 3rd ed.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emBurlington, MA: Elsevier Inc., 2007.
A. E. Brown, “Rationale and summary of methods for determining ultrasonic properties of materials at lawrence livermore national laboratory,” Lawrence Livermore National Lab., CA (United States), Tech. Rep. UCRL-ID–119958, 1995.
M. Rudelson and R. Vershynin, “On sparse reconstruction from fourier and gaussian measurements,” *Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics*, vol. 61, 2008.
J. A. Jensen, “Field: A program for simulating ultrasound systems,” *Medical $\&$ Biological Engineering $\&$ Computing*, vol. 34, Supplement 1, 1996.
T. Blu, P. L. Dragotti, M. Vetterli, P. Marziliano, and L. Coulot, “Sparse sampling of signal innovations,” *IEEE Signal Process. Mag.*, vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 31 – 40, 2008.
J. A. Tropp and A. C. Gilbert, “Signal recovery from random measurements via orthogonal matching pursuit,” *IEEE Transactions on Information Theory*, vol. 53, No. 12, 2007.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We have carried out extensive isokinetic [*ab initio*]{} molecular dynamic simulations to investigate the finite temperature properties of the impurity doped cluster Li$_6$Sn along with the host cluster Li$_7$. The data obtained from about 20 temperatures and total simulation time of at least 3 ns is used to extract thermodynamical quantities like canonical specific heat. We observe a substantial charge transfer from all Li atoms to Sn which inturn weakens the Li-Li bonds in Li$_6$Sn compared to the bonds in Li$_7$. This weakening of bonds changes the finite temperature behavior of Li$_6$Sn significantly. Firstly, Li$_6$Sn becomes liquid-like around 250 K, a much lower temperature than that of Li$_7$ ($\approx$ 425 K). Secondly, an additional quasirotational motion of lithium atoms appears at lower temperatures giving rise to a shoulder around 50 K in the specific heat curve of Li$_6$Sn. The peak in the specific heat of Li$_7$ is very broad and the specific heat does not show any premelting features.'
author:
- 'Kavita Joshi and D. G. Kanhere'
title: 'Finite temperature behavior of impurity doped Lithium cluster [*viz*]{} Li$_6$Sn. '
---
Introduction\[sec:intro\]
=========================
Small clusters are known to behave differently than their bulk counterparts, mainly because of their finite size. The finite size effects are reflected in the most of their properties, like equilibrium geometries, energetics, optical properties, ionization potential, polarizabilities, etc[@ref1; @ref2; @ref3; @ref4; @ref5]. For example, equilibrium geometries of small as well as medium size clusters are considerably different than the bulk structures. Stability of a class of clusters depends on the filling up of geometric or electronic shell. The well known example of such a stability is that of alkali metal clusters displaying magic numbers. Further, the properties of homogeneous clusters may be altered, some times quite significantly by adding an impurity. In the last few years some work has been reported on the impurity doped clusters[@heteroclust; @heteroclust1]. These studies have brought out a number of interesting aspects like traping of an impurity, modifications in the equilibrium structures, changes in the bonding characteristics and enhancement or otherwise in the stability. A few studies have also been reported on the optical properties. Many of these properties have been shown to get influnced by the relative difference in the valence, ionic radii and electronegativity.
A majority of the investigations on heterogeneous and homogeneous clusters pertain to the ground state properties. During the last few years a number of experimental[@Naexpt; @tinexpt] and theoretical[@melttheo; @sn10; @sn20] studies on finite temperature behavior of clusters have been reported. Finite temperature behavior of homogeneous clusters turns out to be very intriguing and has brought out many interesting features in contrast to the bulk behavior[@amvrev]. For instance, clusters exhibit a broad peak in the specific heat which is sometimes accompanied by a premelting feature like a shoulder indicating possible isomarization. Recent experiments[@tinexpt] and simulations[@sn10; @sn20] on tin clusters have shown that these clusters become liquidlike at higher temperatures than the bulk melting temperature (Tm$_{{\rm bulk}}$) contrary to the belief that solidlike to liquidlike transition in the finite size systems occurs at a temperature lower than Tm$_{{\rm bulk}}$ because of the surface effects. A number of experiments on Na clusters by Haberland and co-workers[@Naexpt] have demonstrated that there is no systematic size dependence observed in the melting temperature of clusters between sizes 50 to 200. More interestingly, the peaks in the melting temperature as function of size do not occur at the geometric or electronic shell closing.
In the present work, we investigate the finite temperature behavior of Li$_6$Sn and Li$_7$. Since the impurity is known to change the geometry as well as bonding substantially in the host cluster it is also expected to change the finite temperature properties of the host cluster. The motivation for investigating these clusters comes from our previous study of Sn doped Li clusters[@linsn]. This study has shown that, doping of lithium cluster with a tetravalent impurity such as Sn, induces a charge transfer from Li to Sn and as a result the nature of bonding changes from metallic like to dominantly ionic like. Preliminary investigation of the finite temperature behavior of Li$_6$Sn has also indicated that this charge transfer induces dramatic effects at low temperatures. The interest in these systems also stems from the anomalous behavior seen in the bulk properties ([*e.g.*]{} electrical resistivity, density, stability function) of Li-Group IV alloys as a function of composition[@Lugt]. These alloys show peak in the resistivity around 20% Sn composition and this has been interpreted as atomic clustering around Sn at this composition whereas other alkali metal-Group IV alloys show peak in the resistivity around 50% composition of Group IV elements. It has also been observed that Li-Si alloys[@lisi] show 15% volume contraction in the liquid state for Si concentration between 15% to 50% whereas in Na-Sn alloys[@nasn] melting takes place via [*rotor*]{} phase in which alkali atoms are suppose to diffuse freely while the group IV polyanions perform only rotational or vibrational movement.
As we shall demonstrate in this paper, the impurity induces a quasirotational motion of alkali atoms around Sn at low temperatures. In addition, in the liquid-like state the value of root mean square bond length fluctuations ($\delta_{{\rm rms}}$) of impurity doped cluster turns out to be considerably lower than that of Li$_7$ indicating that volume expansion upon melting is much less in this cluster. Although it is difficult to establish a direct correlation between the properties of the bulk alloys and a small cluster like Li$_6$Sn, we believe that the physics of impurity induced effects in both the systems essentially has the same origin arising out of the charge transfer which results into the strong ionic bond.
It is now well established that for reliable ion dynamics one must reproduce the bonding properly. Description of ion dynamics critically depends on the correct microscopic description of instantaneous state of electrons as system evolves in time. This is especially true when the nature of bonding may change during evolution of the trajectories at different temperatures. Therefore, for obtaining reliable ion dynamics we have chosen to use density functional theory(DFT). Small size of the system has permitted us to perform [*ab initio*]{} calculations for substantially larger simulation time as compared to the previously published [*ab initio*]{} results[@melttheo; @sn10; @sn20].
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[sec:comput\] we describe briefly our computational and statistical approaches. Results for the equilibrium geometries, nature of bonding and finite temperature properties are given in Sec. \[sec:results\], and the conclusions are given in Sec. \[sec:conclusions\].
Computational Details\[sec:comput\]
===================================
All the calculations have been performed using the Kohn-Sham formulation of density-functional molecular dynamics (MD),[@Payne] using the nonlocal norm-conserving pseudo-potentials of Bachelet [*et al.*]{}[@BHS] in Kleinman-Bylander form [@KB] with the Ceperley-Alder [@CA] exchange-correlation functional. A cubic supercell of length 30 a.u. is used with energy cutoff of 15 Ry. for Li$_6$Sn and 12 Ry. for Li$_7$, which is found to provide sufficient convergence in total electronic energy(E$_{tot}$). To have a sufficiently precise evaluation of the Hellmann-Feynman forces on the ions, we ensure that the residual norm of each KS orbital, defined as $|H_{{\rm KS}}\psi _{i}-\epsilon
_{i}\psi _{i}|^{2}$ ($\epsilon _{i}$ being the eigenvalue corresponding to eigenstate $\psi _{i}$ of the KS Hamiltonian $H_{{\rm KS}}$), was maintained at $10^{-12}$ a.u. After every ionic movement the total electronic energy is converged up to $10^{-5}$ a.u. for low temperatures (T$\leq$ 200 K) and the convergence is $10^{-4}$ a.u. for higher temperatures. Such a high convergence is not warranted in the simulated annealing runs but it is very crucial for probing finite temperature behavior of impurity doped clusters. The ground state and other equilibrium structures have been found by carrying out several steepest-descent runs starting from structures chosen periodically from a high-temperature simulation.
The ionic phase space is sampled by isokinetic MD,[@isokin] in which the kinetic energy is held constant using velocity scaling. For Li$_{7}$ we split the temperature range 100 K $\leq T\leq$ 1000 K into about 20 different temperatures, performing up to 90 ps of simulation for lower temperatures ([*i.e.*]{} T $\leq$ 200) and 150-200 ps for higher temperatures. For Li$_{6}$Sn we split the temperature range 10 K $\leq
T\leq$ 900 K into about 23 different temperatures, performing up to 200 ps of simulation for lower temperatures ([*i.e.*]{} T $\leq$ 200) and 150 ps for higher temperatures. This results into total simulation time about 3 ns for Li$_7$ and 5 ns for Li$_6$Sn.
The data obtained from these extensive simulations is used to extract different thermodynamic quantities such as entropy, specific heat, etc. The ionic specific heat is calculated from the fluctuations in the internal energy of the system and is given by, $$C(T)=\frac{3Nk_{B}}{2}+\frac{1}{k_{B}T^2} ( \langle V^2 \rangle_{t} -
{\langle V \rangle}_{t}^2 ) , \label{eqn:Cv_by_f}$$ where $V$ is total electronic energy and $\langle \cdots \rangle _{t}$ denotes time averaged over the entire trajectory. A smooth specific heat can be obtained by using multiple histogram (MH) technique[@MH]. With multi histogram fit, which is basically a least square fit we extract density of states ($\Omega (E)$) or entropy ($S(E)=k_{B}\ln \Omega (E)$). From entropy we can compute various thermodynamic quantities like canonical specific heat, $C(T)=\partial U(T)/\partial T$, where $U(T)=\int
E\,p(E,T)\,dE$ is the average total energy, and where the probability of observing an energy $E$ at a temperature $T$ is given by the Gibbs distribution $p(E,T)=\Omega (E)\exp (-E/k_{B}T)/Z(T)$, with $Z(T) $ the normalizing canonical partition function.
Along with these thermodynamic quantities we also analyze the data using tradition parameters such as the $\delta _{{\rm rms}}$, defined as $$\delta _{{\rm rms}}=\frac{2}{N(N-1)}\sum_{I>J}\frac{(\langle
R_{IJ}^{2}\rangle _{t}-\langle R_{IJ}\rangle _{t}^{2})^{1/2}}{\langle
R_{IJ}\rangle _{t}}, \label{eqn:deltarms}$$ where $N$ is the number of ions in the system, $R_{IJ}$ is the distance between ions $I$ and $J$, and $\langle \cdots \rangle _{t}$ denotes a time average over the entire trajectory.
=10.0cm
We would like to make few pertinent comments on some technical issues which are specific to [*ab initio*]{} simulations. Since such DFT simulations are quite expensive, a judicious choice of simulation time step ($\Delta t$) , criteria for the convergence in the total electronic energy during Born-Oppenheimer MD ($\Delta E_{{\rm SCF}}$) and total simulation time has to be made. Some of these issues may not be very crucial for geometry optimization, since there the details of ion dynamics are secondary. However for reliable extraction of thermodynamic data, the ion dynamics should be faithfully simulated using the accurate forces. Since the calculation of forces involves the total electronic energy (E$_{tot}$), the choice of $\Delta E_{{\rm SCF}}$ can turn out to be crucial. We demonstrate this point by showing potential energy distribution (PED) (shown in Fig. \[fig0\]) calculated using two different $\Delta E_{{\rm SCF}}$ criteria, 0.0001 and 0.00001 a.u., for two temperatures 40 K and 175 K. Let us recall that PED(E,T) denotes accessible energy states between $E$ and $E+dE$ (where E is total electronic energy of the system). Fig. \[fig0\] clearly shows that two different $\Delta E_{{\rm SCF}}$ leads to considerably different PEDs. The height of the peak in curve (a) ([*i.e.*]{} $\Delta E_{{\rm
SCF}}=0.00001$ a.u.) is about 25% higher than the curve (b) ([*i.e.*]{} $\Delta E_{{\rm SCF}}=0.0001$ a.u.) at 40 K. Further, it can be seen that the lower accuracy curve is seen to span a broader energy range and we have verified that this leads to the erroneous specific heat in this range of temperatures. However as the temperature rises lower criteria can be used without lose of accuracy.
Results and Discussions\[sec:results\]
======================================
Finite temperature behavior of host cluster: Li$_7$ \[sec:Li$_7$\]
------------------------------------------------------------------
We begin our discussion by examining the equilibrium geometries of Li$_{7}$ (shown in Fig. \[fig1\]). The ground state structure is a pentagonal bipyramid with D$_{5h}$ symmetry. The excited state is tricapped tetragon (C$_{2v}$ symmetry) with $0.22$ eV higher in energy compared to the ground state. These geometries are consistent with the earlier reported work[@Li7geo]. As expected the charge distribution is completely delocalized indicating metallic like bonding in this cluster (not shown).
=10.0cm
=10.0cm
Before discussing the thermodynamic quantities like specific heat it is instructive to examine normalized potential energy distribution (PED) obtained via our molecular dynamic simulations, as a function of temperature. In Fig. \[fig2\] we show PED for different temperatures ranging from 150 K to 500 K. It may be noted from Fig. \[fig2\] that the PED for low temperatures is very sharp and narrow indicating that the system spans a very restricted range of energies. Indeed the observed motion at these temperatures shows that atoms oscillate around their equilibrium positions. As temperature increases the pumped in energy is used to break some of the bonds and as a result cluster spans wider configuration space which reflects in the broader PED. We note that around 400 K the PED becomes very flat which indicates that the cluster is spanning large number of energy states with equal probability. This rather broad PED around 400 K and above as compared to the PED for lower temperatures is suggestive of liquid-like nature of the cluster in this range of temperatures.
=10.0cm
Some insight can be gained by observing the detailed motion (the movie) of the cluster at few interesting temperature. We note that, around 360 K cluster starts revisiting the ground state via the first excited state and during this process, atoms from the pentagonal ring and atoms capping the ring get interchanged. This processes of interchanging of atoms, becomes more frequent with increasing temperature. Indeed as we shall see this behavior leads to the peak in the specific heat around 425 K. In Fig.\[fig3\] we show ionic specific heat of Li$_7$ calculated using Eq.\[eqn:Cv\_by\_f\] directly (shown in Fig. \[fig3\] a) as well as with the multiple histogram technique (shown in Fig. \[fig3\] b). Evidently, both the methods yield similar specific heat except that specific heat by MH is much smoother. We note that the specific heat is very broad and does not change significantly after the peak around 425 K. Such a broad peak in the specific heat is a characteristic of small clusters in contrast to the sharp transition observed in the extended systems.
=10.0cm
These observations are also supported by the $\delta_{{\rm rms}}$ which is shown in Fig. \[fig4\]. As the name suggest $\delta_{{\rm
rms}}$ indicates fluctuations in the bond lengths averaged over all pairs and simulation time. According to the Lindmann criteria the clusters are considered to be in the liquid-like state when $\delta_{{\rm rms}}$ exceeds 0.1. It is interesting to note that $\delta_{{\rm rms}}$ shows three distinct regions, a solid-like region below 320 K and a liquid-like region above 450 K. 320 K to 450 K is a transition region and the value of $\delta_{{\rm rms}}$ rises sharply in this region. If we chose to use the Lindmann criteria to estimate the “melting temperature" then this cluster “melts" between 320 K to 360 K.
To summarize, the specific heat curve indicates that above 425 K Li$_{7}$ is definitely [*liquid-like*]{} and the transition is characterized by rather broad peak in the specific heat. These features are consistent with the specific heat of Li$_8$ reported in Ref.. Both these clusters namely Li$_7$ and Li$_8$ do not show any premelting features.
Finite temperature behavior of impurity doped cluster: Li$_6$Sn \[sec:Li$_6$Sn\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section we present our results on the impurity doped cluster, namely Li$_6$Sn and contrast the behavior with that of host cluster Li$_7$.
Before studying these finite temperature effects let us examine the equilibrium structures of Li$_6$Sn which are shown in Fig.\[fig5\]. Firstly, we note that both the geometries are considerably different than that of Li$_7$. Secondly, in the ground state, Sn has six fold coordination whereas the first excited state which is 0.16 eV above the ground state, has five fold coordination with Li atoms. Thus the first excited state has one less Li-Sn bond. Further, these two structures can be obtained by capping the most stable Li$_4$Sn tetrahedron [@linsn] in two different ways.
=10.0cm
=10.0cm
Now we turn to the bonding features of the system. Our earlier work[@linsn] has shown that a tetravalent impurity like Sn in lithium clusters changes the delocalized metallic like bonding to dominantly ionic like. In Fig. \[fig6\] we show the difference charge density of Li$_6$Sn, defined as the difference between the selfconsistent charge density and the superimposed atomic charge density. Quite clearly, the charge gained region is mainly around Sn whereas the charge depletion region is near all Li atoms. This clearly shows that there is a charge transfer from all Li atoms to Sn, filling in the Sn centered [*p*]{} orbitals[@obser]. Typically the depleted charge is of the order of $2/3$ electron per Li atom. As a consequence of the significant charge transfer from Li to Sn, considerable depletion of charge in the region of Li-Li bond is observed which results into weakening of Li-Li bond. This weakening of Li-Li bonds show dramatic effects on the finite temperature behavior of the cluster.
=10.0cm
=10.0cm
The consequences of weakening of Li-Li bonds are observed at very low temperatures. Around 30 K two Li-Li bonds break and Li atoms get separated into two bunches (see Fig. \[fig7\] b and c ). These bunches perform a quasirotational motion around Sn as shown in Fig. \[fig7\]. We note from Fig. \[fig7\] that the initial (Fig. \[fig7\] a) and final (Fig. \[fig7\] d) geometries are same but have different orientations. Since the motion is observed at very low temperatures the potential barrier joining these two (identical) structures must be very low. This quasirotational motion seen at such a low temperature shows up in the PED of Li$_6$Sn. In Fig. \[fig8\] we compare PED of Li$_6$Sn with that of Li$_7$. Evidently, at 150 K the PED of Li$_6$Sn is significantly different than that of Li$_7$. A rather narrow and sharp distribution for Li$_7$ indicates that it is showing clear solid-like behavior exhibiting small oscillations at this temperature, whereas the significantly broader distribution of Li$_6$Sn shows that other modes of excitations are also available to the system at this temperature. In fact the observed motion at this temperature shows breaking of most of the Li-Li bonds. On the other hand at 400 K the PED of both clusters have similar shapes.
=10.0cm
Turning to the ionic specific heat of Li$_6$Sn (shown in Fig. \[fig9\]) we note that the specific heat curve is significantly different than that of Li$_7$. Unlike Li$_7$, it shows a shoulder around 50 K[@footnote] and the main peak is observed at substantially lower temperature ([*i.e.*]{} 250 K ) compared to that of Li$_7$ (425 K). The shoulder in the specific heat curve of Li$_6$Sn corresponds to the quasirotational motion described earlier. As temperature rises further this quasirotational motion becomes more rigorous and eventually around 200 K the bunches of Li atoms lose their identity and exhibit diffusive motion around Sn. This leads to the peak around 250 K in the specific heat.
These observations are also consistent with the $\delta_{{\rm
rms}}$ which is shown in Fig. \[fig4\] along with the $\delta_{{\rm
rms}}$ for Li$_7$. For Li$_6$Sn the value of $\delta_{{\rm rms}}$ rises in two distinct steps. The first step is around 30 K. We recall that quasirotational motion starts around this temperature and another step is around 200 K where the bunches of Li atoms lose their identity and diffuse around Sn.
It is also observed that the value of $\delta_{{\rm rms}}$ remains nearly constant between 250 to 700 K. Although this effect is small it is noteworthy. In this temperature range the system is [*liquid-like*]{} but instead of random diffusive motion of all atoms in the cluster we observe that Li atoms perform constrained diffusive motion with Sn at the center. The averaged fluctuations in Li-Sn bond in this range of temperatures is found to be within 15%. Thse observations indicate that the main peak around 250 K is associated with the breaking of weak Li-Li bonds. We also note that in Li$_6$Sn though $\delta_{{\rm rms}}$ satisfies the Lindmann criteria at very low temperature compared to that of Li$_7$, its saturated value is $0.17$ which is considerably lower compared to the host Li$_7$ ($\delta_{{\rm rms}}=0.25$) cluster. This indicates that in the liquidstate the volume expansion of the impurity system is much less than in the case of host cluster. This is consistent with the existence of stronger Li-Sn bond in the system. At still higher temperatures one of the ionic bonds breaks and we observe the first excited state (shown in Fig. \[fig5\]) in which Sn has one less coordination number than the ground state. Thus the route for evaporation proceeds via the first excited state.
Finally we note that, Li$_6$Sn is an over lithiated cluster, [*i.e.*]{} the number of Li atoms in the cluster are more than those required to complete the [*p*]{} shell of Sn atom. It will be interesting to investigate the finite temperature behavior of a cluster which satisfy the octate rule [*i.e.*]{} like Li$_{4x}$Sn$_x$. In these clusters though we expect that because of [*complete*]{} charge transfer from all Li atoms to Sn, the bonds between Li atoms will be extremely weak, the ionic bond between Li-Sn will be more strong than those in the overlithiated cluster like Li$_6$Sn.
Conclusions\[sec:conclusions\]
==============================
We have presented an [*ab initio*]{} isokinetic MD simulations on Li$_6$Sn and Li$_7$ to demonstrate the dramatic effects induced by the impurity in the host cluster. The key point which emerges out of these calculations is that the essential physics governing these effects comes from the charge transfer from Li to Sn because of the large difference in their electronegativities. In Li$_6$Sn, we observe a quasirotational motion at very low temperature which gives rise to a shoulder in the specific heat curve around 50 K. The main peak is observed at much lower temperature, around 250 K, compared to the host cluster ($\approx$ 425 K) whereas Li$_7$ shows a broad peak in the specific heat with no premelting features. The motion in the liquid state of Li$_6$Sn is essentially a constrained motion of Li atoms around Sn center.
We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the ISRO-DRDO, India.
edited by P. Jena, S. N. Khanna, and B. K. Rao (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 1992), Vols. 1 and 2.
, edited by P. Jena and S. N. Behera (Nova Science Publishers, Inc., New York, 1996); Vijay Kumar, E. Esfarjini, and Y. Kawazoe, [*Advances in Cluster Science*]{} (Springer- Verlag, Heidelberg, 2000).
W. A. de Heer, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**65**]{}, 611 (1993).
Matthias Brack, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**65**]{}, 677 (1993).
T. P. Martin, Phys. Rep. [**273**]{}, 199 (1996).
B. K. Rao and P. Jena, J. Chem. Phys. [**113**]{}, 1508,(2000); J. A. Alonso, L. M. Molina, M. J. Lopez, A. Rubio, and M. J. Stott, Chem. Phys. Lett. [**289**]{}, 451 (1998); H-P. Cheng, R. N. Barnett, and U. Landman, Phys. Rev. B, [**48**]{}, 1820 (1993).
M. Deshpande, A. Dhavale, R. R. Zope, S. Chacko and D. G. Kanhere, Phys. Rev. A, [**62**]{}, 063202 (2000); R. R. Zope, S. A. Blundell, T. Baruah ad D. G. Kanhere, J. Chem. Phys. [**115**]{}, 2109,(2001); S. Chacko, M. Deshpande and D. G. Kanhere, Phys. Rev. B,[**64**]{}, 155409,(2001); M. Deshapnde, D. G. Kanhere, P. V. Panat, I. Vasiliev and R. M. Martin, Phys. Rev. A, [**65**]{}, 053204, A; Dhavale, D. G. Kanhere, S. A. Blundell and R. R. Zope, Phys. Rev. B, [**65**]{}, 085402 (2002) and references therein.
M. Schmidt, R. Kusche, W. Kronmüller, B. von Issendorff, and H. Haberland, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 99 (1997); Nature (London) [**393**]{}, 238 (1998).
A. A. Shvartsburg and M. F. Jarrold, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 2530 (2000).
A. Vichare, D. G. Kanhere, and S. A. Blundell, Phys. Rev. B [**64**]{}, 045408 (2001); P. Blaise and S. A. Blundell, Phys. Rev. B [**63**]{}, 235409 (2001); A. Rytkönen, H. Häkkinen, and M. Manninen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 3940 (1998); A. Aguado, J. M. Lopez , J.A. Alonso, and M. J. Stott, J. Chem. Phys. [**111**]{}, 6026 (1999).
Kavita Joshi, D. G. Kanhere, and S. A. Blundell, Phys. Rev. B, [**66**]{}, 155329 (2002).
Kavita Joshi, D. G. Kanhere, and S. A. Blundell, Phys. Rev. B, (2003) (in press).
D. G. Kanhere, A. Vichare and S. A. Blundell, [*Reviews in Modern Quantum Chemistry*]{}, Edited by K. D. Sen, World Scientific, Singapore (2001); T. L. Hill, [*The Thermodynamics of Small Systems Part I*]{} (Benjamin, New York, 1963); [*The Thermodynamics of Small Systems Part II*]{} (Benjamin, New York, 1963).
Kavita Joshi and D. G. Kanhere, Phys. Rev. A, [**65**]{}, 043203 (2002).
W van der Lugt, J. Phys: Condenns. Matter [**8**]{}, 6115 (1996); O. Genser and J. Hafner, J. Phys: Cond. Matt., [**13**]{},959(2000); O. Genser and J. Hafner, J. Phys: Cond. Matt., [**13**]{},981(2000); O. Genser and J. Hafner, Phys. Rev. B, [**63**]{},144204(2001).
P.H.K. de Jong, P. Verkerk, W. van der Lugt and, L.A. de Graaf, J. Non-Cryst. Sol. 156-158, 978 (1993).
D. L. Price, M-L Samboungi, and W.S. Howells, Phys. Rev. B [**51**]{}, 14923 (1995).
M. C. Payne, M. P. Teter, D. C. Allen, T. A. Arias, and J. D. Joannopoulos, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**64**]{}, 1045 (1992).
G. B. Bachelet, D. R. Hamman, and M. Schlüter, Phys. Rev. B [**26**]{}, 4199 (1982).
L. Kleinman and D. M. Bylander, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**48**]{}, 1425 (1982).
D. M. Ceperley and B. J. Alder, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**45**]{}, 566 (1980).
D. J. Evans and G. P. Morriss, [*Statistical Mechanics of Non-Equilibrium Liquids*]{} (Academic Press, London, 1990).
A. M. Ferrenberg and R. H. Swendsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**61**]{}, 2635 (1988); P. Labastie and R. L. Whetten, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**65**]{}, 1567 (1990).
I. Boustani, W. Pewestorf, P.Fantucci, V.Bonačić -Koutecký, and J. Koutecký, Phys. Rev. B. [**35**]{}, 9437 (1987); R. O. Jones, A. I. Lichtenstein, and J. Hutter, J. Chem. Phys. [**106**]{}, 4566, (1997).
S. Srinivas and J. Jellinek, Phys. Stat. Sol.(b) [**217**]{}, 311 (2000).
We have examined the relevant occupied orbitals and have observed that all the orbitals are centered around Sn.
We have verified the exisistance of this small shoulder by carrying out a number of additional simulations between 10 K to 100 K.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The electronic Lorentz theory is employed to explain the optical properties of planar split-ring metamaterials. Starting from the dynamics of individual free carriers, the electromagnetic response of an individual split-ring meta-atom is determined, and the effective permittivity tensor of the metamaterial is calculated for normal incidence of light. Whenever the split ring lacks in-plane mirror symmetry, the corresponding permittivity tensor has a crystallographic structure of an elliptically dichroic medium, and the metamaterial exhibits optical properties of planar chiral structures. Its transmission spectra are different for right-handed vs. left-handed circular polarization of the incident wave, so the structure changes its transmittance when the direction of incidence is reversed. The magnitude of this change is shown to be related to the geometric parameters of the split ring. The proposed approach can be generalized to a wide variety of metal-dielectric metamaterial geometries.'
author:
- 'Andrey V. Novitsky'
- 'Vladimir M. Galynsky'
- 'Sergei V. Zhukovsky'
title: |
Asymmetric transmission in planar chiral split-ring metamaterials:\
Microscopic Lorentz-theory approach
---
Introduction\[sec:1\]
=====================
The concept of metamaterials have drawn a strong interest ever since fabrication and characterization of such structures became feasible. The ability to engineer the metamaterial elements (“meta-atoms”) in a largely arbitrary fashion adds a whole new dimension of freedom in material science. Artificial materials show promise for a wide range of unusual physical phenomena, some of which are rare or absent in nature. Examples include negative refraction, [@ShalaevNeg] hyperbolic dispersion relation resulting in anomalously high density of states in a wide frequency range, [@NarimanovHyp] or support for transformation optics, [@UlfTrans; @PendryTrans; @ShalaevTrans] offering superior degree of control over light propagation and guiding.
More specifically, if the shape of the meta-atoms is chiral, i.e., when the meta-atom cannot be superimposed with its own mirror image, such metamaterials resemble naturally occurring optically active media and outperform them by orders of magnitude. [@GiantGyro; @GiantGyroZhel; @CarstenGyro; @WegenerGyro] More recently, following a seminal paper by Plum et al, [@ZhelPRL] *planar chiral metamaterials* (PCMs) were introduced. They consist of planar meta-atoms on a flat substrate [@ZhelPRL; @DrezetPCM-OE; @PlumCSR] that cannot be superimposed with their [*in-plane*]{} mirror image without being lifted off the plane. In other words, truly chiral metamaterials possess distinct 3D enantiomers while PCMs do not, but can be said to possess distinct 2D enantiomers \[see Fig. \[fig:PCMs\](b)\].
A notable feature of the PCMs is their asymmetry in propagation of electromagnetic waves incident from opposite directions or having different (right- or left-handed) circular polarization. [@ZhelPRL] This directional asymmetry results from the fact that the wave propagating in the opposite direction effectively interacts with the mirror image of the original structure. Therefore it is a manifestation of asymmetry between 2D enantiomers. This makes PCMs distinct from 3D chiral metamaterials [@Plum3D; @WegenerGyro; @CarstenGyro] where 3D enantiomers do not flip when the wave propagation direction is reversed.
Directional asymmetry is also known to exist in other environments such as the Faraday cell. In this case, however, it is usually attributed to non-reciprocity due to the presence of magnetic field, while PCMs do not have such non-reciprocity. Further analysis reveals that both in Faraday media and in optically active liquids the waves whose polarization state does not change during propagation (polarization eigenstates) are circularly polarized and *counter-rotating*, i.e., they come in pairs of eigenwaves one of which has right-handed (RH) and the other left-handed (LH) circular polarization. In contrast, PCMs have polarization eigenstates that are elliptical and *co-rotating*, [@ZhelPRL] meaning that their handedness is the same for both eigenwaves in the pair.
Thus, while 3D chiral metamaterials are simply an analogy of bi-isotropic (e.g., optically active liquids) or bianisotropic (gyrotropic) media, PCMs clearly represent a distinct type of electromagnetic materials, apparently without an immediate naturally occurring counterpart. Hence, explaining the exotic optical properties of PCMs certainly poses an exciting problem in theoretical electrodynamics. On an abstract crystallographic level, it has been shown recently that a combination of birefringence and circular dichroism provides a basis for optical manifestation of planar chirality, and that an elliptically dichroic medium should exhibit characteristic optical properties of a PCM. [@ourOL]
On a more involved, microscopic level, several explanations of PCM operation have been developed. Most works attribute the dichroism to polarization-sensitive excitation of dark plasmonic resonant modes in meta-atoms. In a variety of PCM designs, this polarization sensitivity is attributed to magnetic dipole excitations that become “trapped” due to poor coupling with the incident wave. [@PlumCSR; @Zhel09Collapse; @ZhelTHz] Other accounts [@Falk09] build up on earlier multipole treatment of metamaterials [@Falk08] to express the meta-atom’s dichroic response based on collective dipole oscillations in its individual segments. Still other works attempt to formulate the theory of PCMs by treating the meta-atom as a plasmonic oligomer and calculating its response in coupled dipole approach.[@ourFiO10; @ourAPB11]
However, an [*ab initio*]{} theoretical description of PCMs, which would explain their dichroic behavior on a microscopic level and independently of a particular PCM geometry, is still missing. A first attempt, based on considering the response of the meta-atom in terms of the dynamics of individual electrons (Lorentz theory), was made in Ref. . That attempt, however, was only successful in arriving at the right form of the metamaterial’s effective dielectric permittivity tensor, reproducing qualitatively correct optical properties of a PCM. A more rigorous, quantitative description with a detailed analysis of the applicability range for the Lorentz theory is still called for.
In this paper, we make a further step towards an [*ab initio*]{} description of metamaterials and present a detailed route to arrive at the chiral properties for the asymmetric split-ring PCMs.[@PlumCSR] We start by considering the dynamics of free electrons in an arc-shaped metallic element in presence of an external electromagnetic wave. The electron motion is shown to be determined by (i) screening forces caused by the charge redistribution in the external field, and (ii) electromotive forces caused by currents flowing in the segment as the charges redistribute. These forces exert spring-like and inertia-like effects on an electron, respectively, and can be associated with capacitance-like and inductance-like contribution in an equivalent LC-circuit. Together, these two kinds of forces give rise to a particle plasmon resonance. Its properties are derived directly from geometric dimensions of the arc segment and material properties of the metal without the need for phenomenological parameters. By considering two such segments in close proximity, the electromagnetic response of a split-ring meta-atom is evaluated.
In order to connect the meta-atom’s response to the exotic properties of PCMs described previously, a standard homogenization procedure [@Ishimaru; @Vinogradov] is then employed to derive the effective dielectric permittivity tensor for the PCM. Since the PCM in question is a surface rather than a bulk material,[@Baena; @Alu] this procedure should not be regarded as a true homogenization, and a multipole-expansion approach should give a more accurate physical description. [@Falk08; @Falk09; @Yatsenko; @Falcone] Still, interpreting a metafilm as an effective medium can be feasible,[@Holloway] and the resulting effective permittivity tensor is shown to be valid for normal incidence of light in the frequency range of the fundamental resonance of the split ring. Moreover, it turns out to have the crystallographic structure of elliptically dichroic media, as would be expected for planar chiral materials. [@ourOL] A similar approach was recently applied to calculate the THz field enhancement in a nanoslit,[@ourTHz] the results showing a good agreement with experiment.[@Seo]
The optical properties (transmission and reflection spectra) of the PCM are then calculated using wave operator based extension of standard transfer-matrix method. [@BBL; @BorzdovTheory] In agreement with previous theoretical and experimental results, [@ZhelPRL; @PlumCSR] the spectra are sensitive to whether the incident wave has left- or right-handed circular polarization. This difference, which translates to directional asymmetry, [@PlumCSR] can be used to quantify the strength of planar chiral properties. The dependence of this strength on the geometrical parameters of the split ring is analyzed. When the split ring is symmetric, i.e., when there are no distinguishable 2D enantiomers, optical manifestation of planar chirality is seen to vanish as required by symmetry and reciprocity constraints. [@Tretyakov] Maximum chiral properties are observed when the enantiomers are most distinct. The proposed approach can be relatively straightforwardly extended to a wider variety of shapes for planar meta-atoms. Moreover, the model lends itself to an extension along the lines of Refs. to the cases of oblique incidence and non-planar meta-atom shapes. The results obtained can also be generalized from a single PCM to PCM-based multilayers, inasmuch as such generalization can be performed.[@Andriyeuski]
The rest of the paper is structured as follows. In Section \[sec:2\], the Lorentz theory is employed to arrive at the electromagnetic response of a single split-ring meta-atom. Section \[sec:3\] follows with the procedure to arrive at the effective permittivity tensor of the PCM. The structural properties of this tensor are analyzed, and calculation of the PCM’s optical spectra is outlined. In Section \[sec:comp\], the results on calculated spectral properties of split-ring PCMs are presented and compared with numerical simulations. In Section \[sec:geom\], the relations between chiral properties and meta-atom geometry are systematically analyzed. Finally, Section \[sec:5\] summarizes the paper and outlines future extensions for the proposed theory.
Response of a split-ring meta-atom\[sec:2\]
===========================================
As an example of a planar chiral metamaterial, we consider a two-dimensional array of chiral split rings (CSRs). The corresponding meta-atom is shown in Fig. \[fig:1\]. It comprises a metallic ring broken into two segments in an asymmetric fashion, so that two 2D enantiomers can be distinguished \[see Fig. \[fig:PCMs\](b)\]. CSR metamaterial was chosen for its relative geometrical simplicity and for availability of previous experimental results. [@PlumCSR]
The lateral width of the ring $d$ is assumed to be much smaller than its radius $R$, and its thickness $h$ is even smaller. The ring sits atop a thicker dielectric substrate. The metal of the ring is taken to be copper with complex dielectric permittivity $\varepsilon_m$,[@CopperParms] and the permittivity of the substrate is $\varepsilon_d$. Both materials are non-magnetic. A monochromatic incident wave with electric field ${{\bf E}}= {{\bf E}}_0 \exp(-{{\rm i}}\omega t)$ is assumed to illuminate the material, $\omega$ being the angular frequency of the wave.
Dynamics of the electrons
-------------------------
We begin by considering the motion of an electron in a finite-sized metallic inclusion. Each electron is affected by the driving force $e {{\bf E}}$ originating from the external electric field, the friction force $-m \gamma {\bf v}$ due to losses in the metal, the screening force ${\bf F}_C$ resulting from other electrons as they are redistributed in the inclusion by the external field, and the electromotive force ${\bf F}_L$ due to currents produced by electrons as they move under the action of the field. Here, $m$ and $e<0$ are electron mass and charge, ${\bf v}$ is its velocity, and $\gamma$ is the decay frequency for the metal (a friction coefficient for electrons). By determining the dynamics of the electrons in the metal and by averaging this dynamics over the meta-atom, its polarizability can be determined, and one can introduce effective dielectric parameters of the entire metamaterial.
It should be noted that averaging and homogenization are two distinct procedures. From the averaging of the microscopic parameters we get the average displacement of electrons and the overall polarizability of the metal ring segments. Specifically, the averaging yields the resonance frequency and spectral shape. Once the polarizability of the metal segments is known, the effective medium parameters can be introduced by homogenization. To be able to connect the properties of PCMs with those of bulk planar chiral media, we employ the standard approaches used for bulk metamaterials. However, it should be realized that the resulting effective parameters can be attributed to the PCMs under study only in specific cases (for the normal incidence of light).
The screening force ${\bf F}_C$ is expected to depend heavily on the geometry of the metallic inclusion. Under the action of the field, all the electrons are displaced, and uncompensated charges are accumulated at the edges of the metal in the direction of the field. If the distance between the edges in that direction is small and the edges are wide enough, the induced charges produce the field similar to that inside a capacitor, i.e. it is mostly homogeneous and compensates the external field. Therefore it can be assumed that the electrons simply won’t move between such edges. So, for our geometry we can neglect out-of-plane and radial electron motion as long as $d$ and $h$ are small.
![(Color online) (a) Top view and (b) side view of a CSR unit cell; (c) schematics of the induced charge redistribution in a CSR: $\Delta q_{1,2} = \Sigma_{1,2} \Delta S$, where $\Delta S = h d$. The parameters are as in Ref. (cell size: $L=15$mm, ring radius: $R=6$ mm, ring width: $d=0.8$ mm, ring thickness: $h=35$ $\mu$m, substrate thickness: $D=1.6$ mm, substrate material: dielectric with $\varepsilon_d=4$). The angles determining the CSR composition are $\alpha_1=140^\circ$, $\alpha_2=160^\circ$, $\beta_1=40^\circ$, $\beta_2=20^\circ$. []{data-label="fig:1"}](fig2.eps){width="0.98\columnwidth"}
The displacement of an individual electron $\zeta$ therefore depends on time and on the position in the ring: $\zeta=\zeta(t,\varphi)$. It is subject to the equation of azimuthal motion for the electrons ($\dot\zeta\equiv\partial\zeta/\partial t$): $$m \ddot{\zeta} + m \gamma \dot{\zeta} = {{\bf e}}_\varphi \cdot
(e {{\bf E}}+ \mathbf{F}_C + \mathbf{F}_L).$$
Equation of motion introduces resonant features in the response of the structure. Electrons are pushed by the external driving forces, which induce both electric currents in the ring and charges at the tips of the ring segments. The charges create a “restoring force” $F_C$ like the one in a harmonic oscillator (e.g., by Hooke’s law). The electromotive force $F_L$ caused by the current is the reason of the additional non-dynamic inertia of the electrons. As in the ordinary classical mechanics, a particle under these forces will be subject to resonant motion, which should manifest itself as resonant properties of the effective medium.
Usually, the electron displacement is small and in good accordance with the external field, so for a subwavelength-sized inclusion it can be considered as position-independent. In this case, $\zeta(t,\varphi)=s(t)$. However, this behavior is expected to break down in the vicinity of a particle plasmon resonance where the electron shift can be substantial and more in accordance with the resonant mode. Therefore, $\zeta$ becomes very sensitive to the $\varphi$-dependence. At the fundamental resonance, it is reasonable to assume the standing-wave positional dependence in the two ring segments $$\begin{gathered}
\zeta_1(t,\varphi) = s_1(t) (\pi/2) \sin(\pi(\varphi-\varphi_1)/\alpha_1), \\
\zeta_2(t,\varphi) = s_2(t) (\pi/2) \sin(\pi(\varphi-\varphi_3)/\alpha_2),
\end{gathered}\label{eq:zeta_phi}$$ where $s_{1} = (1/\alpha_{1})\int_{\varphi_1}^{\varphi_2} \zeta_{1} d\varphi$ and $s_{2} = (1/\alpha_{2})\int_{\varphi_3}^{\varphi_4} \zeta_{2} d\varphi$ have the meaning of an averaged electron displacement in the corresponding segment. It is seen that the electrons do not move near the tips of the split rings as $\zeta(t,\varphi_i) = 0$, $i = 1,\ldots,4$ (see Fig. \[fig:1\]), and maximally shift in the middle of the segments. While the positional dependence in $\zeta$ can be safely neglected in the off-resonant situations, it will be shown below that it is required to correctly predict the resonant frequency of a CSR.
The effective response of the entire meta-atom is obtained by averaging over all available azimuthal angles where metal is present, i.e., for $\varphi$ from $\varphi_1$ to $\varphi_2$ and from $\varphi_3$ to $\varphi_4$ \[see Fig. \[fig:1\](c)\]. With the brackets $\langle A \rangle$ denoting the averaging of $A$ over $\varphi$, the equation of motion for the averaged electron displacement $s$ takes the form $$m \ddot{s} + m \gamma \dot{s} = e \langle ({{\bf e}}_\varphi \cdot
{{\bf E}}^d) \rangle + \langle {{\bf e}}_\varphi \cdot\mathbf{F}_C \rangle
+\langle {{\bf e}}_\varphi \cdot\mathbf{F}_L \rangle. \label{eq_mot}$$ We assume that the metal is fully embedded into the substrate medium, so external field ${{\bf E}}$ coincides with the field in the ambient medium ${{\bf E}}^d$.
Screening force and induced charges
-----------------------------------
Since the accumulation of charges along the ring edges only serves to prevent the electron motion in the radial direction, the screening force $\mathbf{F}_C$ inside the ring segment can be approximately described as the Coulomb force generated by the charges at the tips of the segment, labeled by the points $\varphi_1$ and $\varphi_2$ ($\varphi_3$ and $\varphi_4$). This assumption (which is valid outside the immediate vicinity of the tips) is further substantiated by the fact that charges do accumulate mostly near the tips of metallic objects. In a CSR, we need to take into account the tips of the other segment in the same split ring \[see Fig. \[fig:1\](c)\], as well as the influence of the neighboring CSRs.
The screening force on electrons in a ring segment from its own tips is essentially similar to that in a metallic rod with width $d$ and thickness $h$. For the rod placed in dielectric with $\varepsilon=\varepsilon_d$, the force is equal to $$F^\text{tip}(x) = -\frac{4 e \Sigma}{\varepsilon_d} \arctan\left( \frac{h d/4}{x \sqrt{x^2 + h^2/4 + d^2/4}} \right), \label{force_rod}$$ where $\Sigma$ is the surface charge density at the tip facet of the rod with area $\Delta S = d\times h$ , and $x$ is the distance from the center of the facet to an observation point.
To avoid unphysical behavior of the force $F^{\text{tip}}$ very close to the tip, the positional dependence of the displacement $\zeta(\varphi)$ in Eq. has to be taken into account as $\Sigma = e N \zeta(t,\varphi)$. The expression given by Eq. is approximately valid if $x$ is small enough so that the arc segment with length $x$ is not significantly different in shape from a rod with dimensions $x\times d \times h$. It can be assumed so if the line connecting the observation point with the tip lies wholly within the metal, i.e., if $0<x<2\sqrt{Rd}$ for $h\ll d$.
Outside of that range, Eq. no longer holds. However, for the observation point far away from the tips one can regard the charges accumulated at the tip as one point charge and calculate the screening force according to the Coulomb law. Unlike $F^{\text{tip}}$, the forces “in the center” of an arc segment (labeled $F^\text{cen}$) are not dominated by contribution from any particular tip, so both tips of the segment in question, as well as the tips of the neighboring segment in the ring and from the neighboring rings need to be taken into account. As a result, we get the following expression for the upper segment
$$\begin{aligned}
F_1^\text{cen}& =& {\bf F}_C \cdot {{\bf e}}_\varphi
\nonumber \\ &=&
\frac{e \Sigma_1 \Delta S}{\varepsilon_d}
\sum_{n,m} \left(\frac{{{\bf e}}_\varphi(\varphi) ({\bf L}_{nm} + R {{\bf e}}_r(\varphi_1))}
{|R {{\bf e}}_r(\varphi) - {\bf L}_{nm} - R {{\bf e}}_r(\varphi_1)|^3}
\right. \nonumber \\ && \left.
-\frac{{{\bf e}}_\varphi(\varphi) ({\bf L}_{nm} + R {{\bf e}}_r(\varphi_2))}
{|R {{\bf e}}_r(\varphi) - {\bf L}_{nm} - R {{\bf e}}_r(\varphi_2)|^3} \right) \nonumber \\
& +& \frac{e \Sigma_2 \Delta S}{\varepsilon_d}
\sum_{n,m} \left(\frac{{{\bf e}}_\varphi(\varphi) ({\bf L}_{nm} + R {{\bf e}}_r(\varphi_3))}
{|R {{\bf e}}_r(\varphi) - {\bf L}_{nm} - R {{\bf e}}_r(\varphi_3)|^3}
\right. \nonumber \\ && \left.
- \frac{{{\bf e}}_\varphi(\varphi) ({\bf L}_{nm} + R {{\bf e}}_r(\varphi_4))}
{|R {{\bf e}}_r(\varphi) - {\bf L}_{nm} - R {{\bf e}}_r(\varphi_4)|^3} \right),
\label{force_cen} \end{aligned}$$
where ${\bf L}_{nm} = n {{\bf e}}_x + m {{\bf e}}_y$ is the position of a CSR in the ($x$, $y$) plane, characterized by a couple of lattice indices $n$ and $m$. The charge densities for the upper and lower segments are $\Sigma_1 = e N \zeta_1(t,\varphi)$ and $\Sigma_2 = e N \zeta_2(t,\varphi)$, respectively.
To obtain the averaged screening force for the meta-atom, we assume that it is given by Eq. for $0<x<2\sqrt{Rd}$ (i.e., within an angle $\delta \varphi = 2 \sqrt{d/R}$ from each tip, see Fig. \[fig:1\](c)), and by Eq. elsewhere. Accordingly, the averaging over the upper segment results in the formula $$\begin{aligned}
\langle {{\bf e}}_\varphi {\bf F}_C \rangle_1 = \frac{1}{\alpha_1}\left(
\int_{\varphi_1}^{\varphi_1 + \delta \varphi} F^\text{tip} d\varphi + \int_{\varphi_1 +
\delta \varphi}^{\varphi_2 - \delta \varphi} F^\text{cen}_1 d\varphi + \right. \nonumber \\
\left. \int_{\varphi_2 - \delta \varphi}^{\varphi_2} F^\text{tip} d\varphi \right),
\label{eq:screening}\end{aligned}$$ Similar expressions can be obtained for the lower segment. These integrals cannot be evaluated in closed form, but can be easily calculated numerically. The resulting screening force for the two segments in the ring can be finally expressed as $$F_{1,2} = - k_{11,22} s_{1,2} - k_{12,21} s_{2,1}, \label{Fscr}$$ where $k_{ij}$ are coefficients obtained from the integrals in Eq. . They have the meaning of “stiffness” coefficients in a mechanical oscillator, and are given by
$$\begin{aligned}
&& k_{11,22} = \frac{m \omega_p^2}{\alpha_{1,2} R \varepsilon_d} \int_{0}^{R \delta\varphi} \sin\left( \frac{\pi x}{\alpha_{1,2} R} \right) \arctan\left( \frac{h d/4}{x \sqrt{x^2 + h^2/4 + d^2/4}} \right) dx \nonumber \\
&& - \frac{m \omega_p^2 h d}{8 \alpha_{1,2} \varepsilon_d} \int_{\varphi_{1,3} + \delta\varphi}^{\varphi_{2,4} - \delta\varphi} \sin\left( \frac{\pi (\varphi - \varphi_{1,3})}{\alpha_{1,2}} \right)
\sum_{n,m} \left[\frac{{{\bf e}}_\varphi(\varphi) ({\bf L}_{nm} + R {{\bf e}}_r(\varphi_{1,3}))} {|R {{\bf e}}_r(\varphi) - {\bf L}_{nm} - R {{\bf e}}_r(\varphi_{1,3})|^3}
-\frac{{{\bf e}}_\varphi(\varphi) ({\bf L}_{nm} + R {{\bf e}}_r(\varphi_{2,4}))}
{|R {{\bf e}}_r(\varphi) - {\bf L}_{nm} - R {{\bf e}}_r(\varphi_{2,4})|^3} \right] d\varphi, \\
&& k_{12,21} = - \frac{m \omega_p^2 h d}{8 \alpha_{1,2} \varepsilon_d} \int_{\varphi_{1,3} + \delta\varphi}^{\varphi_{2,4} - \delta\varphi} \sin\left( \frac{\pi (\varphi - \varphi_{2,1})}{\alpha_{2,1}} \right)
\sum_{n,m} \left[\frac{{{\bf e}}_\varphi(\varphi) ({\bf L}_{nm} + R {{\bf e}}_r(\varphi_{3,1}))}
{|R {{\bf e}}_r(\varphi) - {\bf L}_{nm} - R {{\bf e}}_r(\varphi_{3,1})|^3}
- \frac{{{\bf e}}_\varphi(\varphi) ({\bf L}_{nm} + R {{\bf e}}_r(\varphi_{4,2}))}
{|R {{\bf e}}_r(\varphi) - {\bf L}_{nm} - R {{\bf e}}_r(\varphi_{4,2})|^3} \right] d\varphi. \nonumber
$$
Electromotive force
-------------------
The force ${\bf F}_L = e {\bf E}_{em}$ appears because the electron motion along the split ring under the action of the external electric field can be regarded as currents in the loop and induces secondary magnetic field, which in turn penetrates the closed contour of the loop and creates an electromotive force. This force is directed in opposition to the induced current in accordance with Lenz’s rule.
To determine ${\bf F}_L$, we start from the Maxwell equation in integral form $$\int_C {{\bf E}}_{em} d{\bf l} = -\frac{1}{c} \dot{B}_z S.$$ The integration is performed along the loop of the ring $C$, while $S=\pi R^2$ is its area and $B_z$ is the $z$-component of magnetic field. Assuming homogeneous electromotive electric field over the contour and taking the length of the loop as $2 \pi R$ and its area as $S = \pi R^2$, the force affecting an electron in a CSR is $$\langle {{\bf e}}_\varphi \cdot\mathbf{F}_L \rangle = -\frac{e R}{2 c} \dot{B}_z.$$ Since the magnetic field of a normally incident wave has no $z$-component, $B_z$ can only originate from the current flowing along the loop. The field can be estimated from the Biot-Savart law $${\bf B}({{\bf r}}_0) = \int \frac{I d{\bf l}\times {{\bf r}}}{c r^3},
\label{eq:induction}$$ where ${{\bf r}}$ is the radius-vector from the current element $I d{\bf l}$ to the observation point ${{\bf r}}_0$. The current $I$ in the metallic parts of the loop is $I_{1,2} = e N \dot{\zeta}_{1,2} \Delta
S = e N \dot{\zeta}_{1,2} h d$.
We then assign the magnetic field in the loop to be the magnetic field at the center of the split ring. The magnetic field created by the current in each segment is summed: $$B_z = \frac{1}{c R} \left( I_1 \alpha_1 + I_2 \alpha_2 \right),$$ so the electromotive force finally equals $$\begin{aligned}
F_L = \langle {{\bf e}}_\varphi \cdot\mathbf{F}_L \rangle = - m \frac{\omega_p^2 \Delta S}{8\pi c^2} \left[ \alpha_1 \ddot{s}_1
+ \alpha_2 \ddot{s}_2 \right]. \label{Fem}\end{aligned}$$
The force $F_L$ is proportional to the electron’s acceleration which allows us to regard the coefficient in front of $\ddot{s}_{1,2}$ as an effective mass.
Equation of motion
------------------
By substituting the screening Eq. (\[Fscr\]) and electromotive Eq. (\[Fem\]) forces into equation of motion for the electrons (\[eq\_mot\]) in each segment, we derive the following coupled differential equations: $$\begin{aligned}
m_{11} \ddot{s}_{1} + m_{12} \ddot{s}_2 + \gamma \dot{s}_{1} + k_{11} s_1 + k_{12} s_2 = e (\langle{{\bf e}}_\varphi\rangle_{1} {{\bf E}}^d), \nonumber \\
m_{21} \ddot{s}_{1} + m_{22} \ddot{s}_2 + \gamma \dot{s}_{2} + k_{22} s_2 + k_{21} s_1 = e (\langle{{\bf e}}_\varphi\rangle_{2} {{\bf E}}^d),\label{deq}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
m_{11} &=& m + m \frac{\alpha_1 \omega_p^2 h d}{8\pi c^2}, \qquad
m_{12} = m \frac{\alpha_2 \omega_p^2 h d}{8\pi c^2}, \nonumber \\
m_{21} &=& m \frac{\alpha_1 \omega_p^2 h d}{8\pi c^2}, \qquad
m_{22} = m + m \frac{\alpha_2 \omega_p^2 h d}{8\pi c^2}.
\label{deq:coefs}\end{aligned}$$ Here $\langle{{\bf e}}_\varphi\rangle_{1} = \frac{1}{\varphi_2-\varphi_1}
\int_{\varphi_1}^{\varphi_2} {{\bf e}}_\varphi d\varphi$ and $
\langle{{\bf e}}_\varphi\rangle_{2} = \frac{1}{\varphi_4-\varphi_3}
\int_{\varphi_3}^{\varphi_4} {{\bf e}}_\varphi d\varphi$ denote the averaging of the vector ${{\bf e}}_\varphi$ over the upper and lower segment, respectively (see Fig. \[fig:1\]).
For the geometrical parameters of CSRs used, it can be estimated that $m \alpha_1 \omega_p^2 h d/8\pi c^2 \gg m$, which leads to $m_{11} \approx m_{21}$ and $m_{12} \approx m_{22}$. In other words, the effective mass of an electron is dominated by the contribution of the electromotive force rather than by the dynamic counterpart. However, electromotive and dynamic masses can become comparable at the nanoscale. Note that the effective mass $m_{ij}$ can be regarded as inductance, while the coefficients $k_{ij}$ have the meaning of inverse capacitance. In this picture, it is seen that the proposed model coincides with a well-known effective-circuit (LC) model with the effective inductance and capacitance calculated from the material and geometrical properties of the CSR. This result is not surprising because the LC model is expected to be valid for millimeter-sized resonators at the gigahertz operating frequencies. It also follows that the LC-model remains applicable as long as $\Delta S = h d \gg 8\pi c^2/(\alpha_1 \omega_p^2) \sim 10^{-13}$ m$^2$.
In a CSR, the coupling between the two segments is realized by means of the effective masses $m_{12}$ and $m_{21}$ and the “stiffness” coefficients $k_{12}$ and $k_{21}$. As we have just seen, all mass coefficients $m_{ij}$ are almost identical. It is not the case for the coefficients $k_{ii}$, which contain the contribution in the vicinity of the tips $F^\text{tip}$ \[see Eq. \]. This contribution is greater than the forces in the central part of the ring $F^\text{cen}$ by about 10 times, so it can be considered dominant. On the contrary, the coefficients $k_{ij\neq i}$ contain only $F^\text{cen}$, so $k_{ij} \ll k_{ii}$. Moreover, since $k_{ii} \simeq m_{ii} \omega^2 \approx m_{ij} \omega^2 \gg k_{ij}$, so the condition $F^\text{cen}\ll F^\text{tip}$ allows the contribution of $k_{ij\neq i}$ to be entirely neglected. Thus, we can simplify the expressions for the remaining stiffness coefficients $k_{ii}$: $$\begin{aligned}
k_{11,22} = \frac{m \omega_p^2}{\varepsilon_d \alpha_{1,2} R} \int_0^{R \delta\varphi} \sin(\pi x/(\alpha_{1,2} R))\nonumber\\
\times\arctan\left( \frac{h d/4}{x \sqrt{x^2 + h^2/4 + d^2/4}} \right) dx. \label{k1122}\end{aligned}$$ Note that both tips for each segment are taken into account.
Eqs. (\[deq\]) are essentially equations of motion for two coupled oscillators with a time-harmonic driving force. Therefore, we look for a solution of these equations (\[deq\]) in the form $s_{1,2} = \exp(-{{\rm i}}\omega t) l_{1,2}$, where $\omega$ is the frequency of the incident wave and $l_{1}$ and $l_2$ are constants. Then the equations are simplified as $$\begin{gathered}
(- m_{11} \omega^2 - {{\rm i}}\omega \gamma + k_{11}) l_{1} +(- m_{12} \omega^2 + k_{12}) l_2 = e \langle{{\bf e}}_\varphi\rangle_{1} {{\bf E}}^d, \\
(- m_{21} \omega^2 + k_{21})l_{1} + (- m_{22} \omega^2 - {{\rm i}}\omega \gamma + k_{22}) l_2 = e \langle{{\bf e}}_\varphi\rangle_{2} {{\bf E}}^d.
\end{gathered} \label{system}$$
This system is easily solved with respect to $l_1$ and $l_2$. So, we find the averaged displacements of electrons in both CSR segments of the ring: $$\begin{aligned}
l_1 = \frac{1}{4\pi N e} (\chi_{11}(\omega) \langle{{\bf e}}_\varphi\rangle_{1} +
\chi_{12}(\omega) \langle{{\bf e}}_\varphi\rangle_{2}) {{\bf E}}^d , \nonumber
\\
l_2 = \frac{1}{4\pi N e} (\chi_{21}(\omega) \langle{{\bf e}}_\varphi\rangle_{1} +
\chi_{22}(\omega) \langle{{\bf e}}_\varphi\rangle_{2}) {{\bf E}}^d,
\label{avel}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&& \chi_{11}(\omega) = \frac{-m\omega_p^2(m_{22} \omega^2 + {{\rm i}}\gamma \omega
- k_{22})}{D_0}, \nonumber \\
&& \chi_{12}(\omega) = \frac{m\omega_p^2 (m_{12} \omega^2 - k_{12})}{D_0}, \nonumber \\
&& \chi_{21}(\omega) = \frac{m\omega_p^2 (m_{21} \omega^2 - k_{21})}{D_0}, \nonumber \\
&& \chi_{22}(\omega) = \frac{-m\omega_p^2(m_{11} \omega^2 + {{\rm i}}\gamma
\omega - k_{11})}{D_0}, \nonumber \\
&& D_0 = (m_{11} \omega^2 + {{\rm i}}\gamma \omega - k_{11})(m_{22} \omega^2 +
{{\rm i}}\gamma \omega - k_{22}) \nonumber \\
&& - (m_{12} \omega^2 - k_{12}) (m_{21} \omega^2 - k_{21}).
\label{chi}\end{aligned}$$
Polarizability of the meta-atom
-------------------------------
Finally, to arrive at the effective polarization of the unit metamaterial cell, we present it as a sum of the polarization of both CSR segments and of the surrounding dielectric: $$\begin{aligned}
4 \pi \langle {\bf P}\rangle &=& (1-p_1-p_2) (\varepsilon_d -1) {{\bf E}}^d \nonumber \\
&+& 4\pi N e \left( p_1 \langle {{\bf e}}_\varphi \rangle_1 s_1
+ p_2 \langle {{\bf e}}_\varphi \rangle_2 s_2 \right), \label{polariz0}\end{aligned}$$ where $p_{1,2}={R d \alpha_{1,2} h}/{L^2 D}$ are filling factors of the two metallic segments. By substituting the average displacement (\[avel\]) into Eq. (\[polariz0\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
4 \pi \langle {\bf P} \rangle &=& (1-p_1-p_2) (\varepsilon_d -1) {{\bf E}}^d \nonumber \\
&+& [p_1 \langle {{\bf e}}_\varphi \rangle_1 \otimes
(\chi_{11} \langle{{\bf e}}_\varphi\rangle_{1} +
\chi_{12} \langle{{\bf e}}_\varphi\rangle_{2}) \nonumber \\
&+& p_2 \langle {{\bf e}}_\varphi \rangle_2 \otimes (\chi_{21}
\langle{{\bf e}}_\varphi\rangle_{1} + \chi_{22}
\langle{{\bf e}}_\varphi\rangle_{2})] {{\bf E}}^d,\end{aligned}$$ where $\langle{{\bf E}}^m\rangle$ is the thickness-averaged electric field in metal, ${{\bf E}}^d$ is the field in dielectric, and ${\bf a} \otimes {\bf b}$ denotes an outer (tensor or dyadic) product between two vectors.
The average electric field in the metamaterial cell approximately equals the electric field in dielectric, $\langle {{\bf E}}\rangle \approx {{\bf E}}^d$. So, the polarization of the cell can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
&& 4 \pi \langle {\bf P} \rangle = 4 \pi \chi \langle {{\bf E}}\rangle = \left[ (\varepsilon_d -1) \right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. + \tilde{\chi}_{11}(\omega) \langle
{{\bf e}}_\varphi \rangle_1 \otimes \langle{{\bf e}}_\varphi\rangle_{1} +
\tilde{\chi}_{12}(\omega) (\langle {{\bf e}}_\varphi \rangle_1 \otimes
\langle{{\bf e}}_\varphi\rangle_{2} \right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. + \langle {{\bf e}}_\varphi \rangle_2
\otimes \langle {{\bf e}}_\varphi\rangle_{1}) + \tilde{\chi}_{22}(\omega)
\langle {{\bf e}}_\varphi \rangle_2 \otimes
\langle{{\bf e}}_\varphi\rangle_{2} \right] \langle {{\bf E}}\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\tilde{\chi}_{ij} = p_i \chi_{ij} \qquad (i, j = 1, 2).$$ Notice that $\tilde{\chi}_{12} = \tilde{\chi}_{21}$, so the susceptibility tensor $\chi$ is symmetric, as would be required by the reciprocity considerations. [@Tretyakov]
Effective parameters of a PCM\[sec:3\]
======================================
Permittivity and permeability tensors\[sec:3a\]
-----------------------------------------------
To move on from a unit cell to the entire lattice of meta-atoms comprising a PCM, one needs to take into account that the field in each unit cell is modified by the presence of the neighboring meta-atoms. (It is known that an array of symmetric meta-atoms with no intrinsic chirality can exhibit [*extrinsic*]{} chiral properties due to the way the atoms are arranged in a lattice. [@KseniaPRA09]) If the arrangement of meta-atoms is not too dense so that the individual atoms remain distinct, it can be assumed that the influence of the neighboring atoms is weak and can be simulated by regarding the meta-atoms as effective dipoles. The resulting field in each cell is equal to the sum of the electric field averaged over the whole planar metamaterial $\overline{{{\bf E}}}$ and the field of the dipoles: $\langle {{\bf E}}\rangle = \overline{{{\bf E}}} + 4 \pi
\hat{C} \langle {\bf P} \rangle$, where $\hat{C}$ is the interaction matrix. [@Ishimaru] The interaction matrix depends on the symmetry of the lattice. For a planar arrangement of atoms (see Appendix A) its form is $$\hat{C} = 0.36 \frac{D}{\varepsilon_d L} \left({\bf e}_x
\otimes {\bf e}_x + {\bf e}_y \otimes {\bf e}_y - 2 {\bf e}_z
\otimes {\bf e}_z \right).
\label{eq:intmatrix}$$ For the case $D\ll L$, the interaction matrix has negligible components, and the average field in the metamaterial nearly coincides with that in a single meta-atom: $\langle{{\bf E}}\rangle \approx \overline{{{\bf E}}}$. In our case $D/L \sim 0.1$, therefore, the influence of the surrounding meta-atoms can be non-negligible.
![(Color online) (a) Real and (b) imaginary parts of the components of the effective dielectric permittivity tensor for the split-ring metamaterial with geometrical parameters given in the caption of Fig. \[fig:1\]. In calculations, we neglect the force $F^\text{cen}$, so that $k_{12} = k_{21} = 0$ and $k_{11}$ and $k_{22}$ are given by Eq. (\[k1122\]). The copper ring is characterized by $\omega_p =
2000$ THz, $\gamma=8$ THz; permittivity of the dielectric is $\varepsilon_d = 4$.[]{data-label="fig:eps"}](Fig3.eps){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
The resulting effective dielectric permittivity tensor of the PCM can be derived from equations $\langle {{\bf E}}\rangle = \overline{{{\bf E}}} + 4 \pi \hat{C} \langle {\bf P} \rangle$, $\varepsilon_\text{eff} \overline{{{\bf E}}} = \overline{{{\bf E}}} + 4 \pi \langle {\bf P} \rangle$, and $\langle {\bf P} \rangle = \chi \langle {{\bf E}}\rangle$. Its final form is $$\begin{aligned}
&& \varepsilon_\text{eff}(\omega) = 1 + 4 \pi (\chi^{-1} - 4 \pi \hat{C})^{-1}
\label{eps_eff}\end{aligned}$$ and can be rewritten as a matrix: $$\varepsilon_\text{eff} = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} \varepsilon_{xx} &
\varepsilon_{xy} & 0 \\ \varepsilon_{xy} & \varepsilon_{yy} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \varepsilon_{zz} \end{array} \right). \label{eps_matrix}$$ The components $\varepsilon_{ij}$ are complex, and it is seen that $\varepsilon_\text{eff}$ has the structure of a dichroic and anisotropic medium, in line with crystallographic expectations. [@ourOL]
The typical frequency dependencies of $\varepsilon_{xx}$, $\varepsilon_{yy}$, and $\varepsilon_{xy}$ for the example CSR structure in Fig. \[fig:1\] are shown in Fig. \[fig:eps\]. It can be seen that the structure features a Lorentz-like absorption resonance in the range near 5.1 GHz, in agreement with experimental results for such CSRs.[@PlumCSR] This resonance corresponds to the minimum in the denominator $D_0$ in Eq. , so it is an intrinsic excitation in an individual meta-atom. It is important to realize two fundamental limitations of the presented homogenization approach. First, we neglect the magnetic dipole and electric quadrupole contributions (they have the same order of magnitude and should be accounted for simultaneously [@Falk08]). This can be safely done for the light normally incident onto a planar structure. Indeed, the quadrupole moment $Q$ has the form $Q(z) = (Q_\perp + Q_{zz} {{\bf e}}_z \otimes {{\bf e}}_z) \exp({{\rm i}}k_0 z)$, where $Q_\perp {{\bf e}}_z = {{\bf e}}_z Q_\perp = 0$ and the $z$-dependence in $Q(z)$ is caused by the external field. Hence the quadrupole contribution has the form $\nabla Q(z) = {{\rm i}}k_0 {{\bf e}}_z Q(z)$ and is $z$-directed, resulting in a contribution to $\varepsilon_{zz}$. The magnetic dipole moment is $z$-directed, too, since the electrons move in the ($x$, $y$)-plane, which results in effective magnetic permeability $\mu = {\rm diag}(1,1,\mu_{zz})$. Therefore, these higher-moment contributions will not affect $\varepsilon_{xx}$, $\varepsilon_{yy}$, and $\varepsilon_{xy}$, which are the only components that will play a part in determining the normal-incidence transmission and reflection spectra. So it is sufficient to consider just the electric dipole moment, assuming $\mu = 1$ for the PCM.
Secondly, and perhaps more seriously, the presented approach is commonly employed for bulk metamaterial homogenization, [@Baena] and its applicability for metamaterial surfaces leaves room for uncertainty regarding how, specifically, the homogenization in the $z$-direction should be performed. It is questionable whether a planar surface can be described as a finite-thickness slab of a bulk effective medium that would mimic the response of the metamaterial for all cases of the incident light, even when magnetic dipole and electric quadrupole contributions are taken into account. It is commonly assumed that first-principle characterization methods based on multipole expansion [@Falk09; @Falk08; @Alu] should be used instead of homogenization. Still, we can obtain the effective material parameters valid in a specific case, in order to see whether a bulk material with planar chiral properties can be related to real PCMs.[@ourOL] Hence we can continue with the effective permittivity derived in Eq. , keeping in mind that it is only valid for normal incidence of light.
Polarization eigenstates
------------------------
Polarization of the eigenwaves of anisotropic medium with dielectric permittivity (\[eps\_matrix\]) can be found from the wave equation[@FedorovBook] $$\left( n^2 (1-{{\bf e}}_z \otimes {{\bf e}}_z) - \varepsilon_\text{eff} \right) {{\bf E}}=0,$$ where $n$ is the effective refractive index for the eigenwave. The electric fields in two eigenstates take the form $${{\bf E}}_\pm = E_x \left( 1, \frac{\varepsilon_{xx}-\varepsilon_{yy}\pm
\sqrt{(\varepsilon_{xx}-\varepsilon_{yy})^2+4\varepsilon_{xy}^2}}{2
\varepsilon_{xy}}, 0 \right).$$
![ Coefficient $\eta$ vs. frequency calculated for parameters indicated in Fig. \[fig:eps\].[]{data-label="fig:eta"}](Fig4.eps){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
Since the components of permittivity tensor are complex, these eigenwaves are elliptically polarized. Their direction of rotation (“right- or left-handedness”) can be defined by the parameter $\eta_\pm = (|\varepsilon_{xy}/E_x|)^2 {{\rm i}}{{\bf e}}_z ({{\bf E}}_\pm
\times {{\bf E}}_\pm^\ast)$. [@FedorovBook] An RH-polarized wave has $\eta_\pm>0$, an LH-polarized one has $\eta_\pm<0$, and, obviously, $\eta_\pm=0$ coresponds to a linearly polarized wave whose sense of handedness cannot be determined.
Consequently, we can identify whether the calculated effective parameters of the CSR metamaterial correspond to those of a PCM by simply evaluating the product $\eta = \eta_+ \eta_-$. Conventionally, in isotropic or lossless birefringent media $\eta=0$ as the eigenwaves are linearly polarized. In 3D chiral or Faraday media, $\eta<0$ as the eigenwaves (either circularly or elliptically polarized, depending on the presence of anisotropy in addition to optical activity) are counter-rotating. On the contrary, PCMs (and elliptically dichroic crystals, see Ref. ) are characterized by co-rotating polarization eigenstates, so it is expected that $\eta>0$ in these media.
Fig. \[fig:eta\] shows the coefficient $\eta$ calculated for the CSR metamaterial in Fig. \[fig:1\] with dielectric permittivity shown in Fig. \[fig:eps\]. Indeed, it can be seen that $\eta$ is positive for all frequencies in the vicinity of the intrinsic resonance around 5.1 GHz. Thus, the signature crystallographic property of a PCM (co-rotating elliptical polarization eigenstates) is indeed reproduced in the effective medium, confirming that it is 2D rather than 3D chirality that manifests in CSR metamaterials.
Transmission and reflection spectra
-----------------------------------
As the final step in the theoretical model, we briefly outline the calculation procedure for the optical spectra of a PCM. Following the set-up in Ref. , we consider the CSR metamaterial of effective thickness $D+h\approx D$ and calculate the reflection and transmission coefficients of a dichroic and anisotropic monolayer with dielectric permittivity given by Eq. (\[eps\_eff\]). Since we are interested in all possible polarizations of the incident wave, it is convenient to make use of the well known covariant operator generalization of the transfer matrix method (the covariant Fedorov’s approach [@FedorovBook]). For the details on this method, the reader is referred to previous publications. [@BBL; @BorzdovTheory; @ourJOA]
We define a unit vector ${\bf q}=\mathbf{e}_z$ pointing in the propagation direction and write the Maxwell equations for a monochromatic normally incident wave in the form $${\bf q}^\times \frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d} z} {{\bf H}}= - {{\rm i}}k_0
\varepsilon {{\bf E}}, \qquad {\bf q}^\times \frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d} z} {{\bf E}}= {{\rm i}}k_0 {{\bf H}},
\label{eq:maxwell}$$ where $k_0=\omega/c$ is the vacuum wavenumber, and ${\bf q}^\times$ denotes the antisymmetric tensor dual to the vector ${\bf q}$ \[$({\bf
q}^\times)_{ik}=\mathcal{E}_{ijk} q_j$, $\mathcal{E}_{ijk}$ is the Levi-Civita pseudotensor\]. [@BBL]
The fields are always tangential, and the field vectors are continuous across the layer interfaces. Eqs. can be combined into the form $$\frac{{\rm d} {{\bf W}}(z)}{{\rm d} z}={{\rm i}}k_0 M {{\bf W}}(z),
\label{Meqt_planar}$$ where, for non-magnetic, non-gyrotropic materials, $${{\bf W}}= \left(\begin{array}{c}{{\bf H}}\\
{\bf q} \times {{\bf E}}\end{array}\right),
\qquad
M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0&-{\bf q}^\times\varepsilon {\bf q}^\times \\
I&0\end{array}\right).
\label{ABCD_planar}$$ Here $I=1-{\bf q} \otimes {\bf q}= - {\bf q}^{\times 2}$ is the projection operator onto the plane normal to ${\bf q}$, and 1 is the three-dimensional identity tensor. The fundamental solution of Eq. (\[Meqt\_planar\]) is a matrix exponential $${{\bf W}}(z) = P(z) {{\bf W}}(0), \qquad P(z) = \exp({{\rm i}}k_0 M z),
\label{eq:evolution}$$ where $4 \times 1$ dimensional constant vector ${{\bf W}}(0)$ is the initial field. The $4\times 4$ matrix $P(z)$ is called the evolution operator.
Taking into account that in the medium surrounding the metamaterial layer (i.e., in air) the fields are related as $ {\bf q}\times {{\bf E}}=\pm I {{\bf H}}$ depending on the propagation direction,[@BorzdovTheory] the incident and reflected waves at the input (air/PCM) boundary are related to the initial field $W(0)$ as $${{\bf W}}(0) = \left( \begin{array}{c} I \\ I \end{array} \right)
{{\bf H}}_\text{inc} + \left( \begin{array}{c} I \\ -I
\end{array} \right) {{\bf H}}_\text{refl}.$$ From Eq. , the field at the output (PCM/air) interface is $P(D) {{\bf W}}(0)$. The evolution operator of the metamaterial $P$ can be derived by setting $\varepsilon=\varepsilon_\text{eff}$ in Eq. (\[ABCD\_planar\]).
On the other hand, the field at the output interface is the transmitted wave $${{\bf W}}(D) = \left( \begin{array}{c} I \\ I
\end{array} \right) {{\bf H}}_\text{tr}.$$ Hence the boundary conditions take the form $$\left( \begin{array}{c} I \\ I \end{array} \right) {{\bf H}}_\text{tr} = P
\left[ \left( \begin{array}{c} I \\ I
\end{array} \right) {{\bf H}}_\text{inc} + \left( \begin{array}{c} I \\ -I
\end{array} \right) {{\bf H}}_\text{refl} \right]. \label{BC}$$ Multiplying Eq. (\[BC\]) by the rectangular block matrix $\left( \begin{array}{cc} I & I \end{array} \right) P^{-1}$ and thus eliminating ${{\bf H}}_\text{refl}$, the expression for the transmitted magnetic field becomes $${{\bf H}}_\text{tr} = 2 \left[ \left( \begin{array}{cc} I & I \end{array}
\right) P^{-1} \left( \begin{array}{c} I \\ I \end{array} \right)
\right]^{-1} {{\bf H}}_\text{inc},
\label{transm_field}$$ which, along with the evolution operator $P$, will depend on $\omega$. Finally we define the transmission coefficient of the metamaterial slab as the ratio between the intensity of transmitted and incident waves: $$T(\omega) = \frac{|{{\bf H}}_\text{tr}(\omega)|^2}{|{{\bf H}}_\text{inc}|^2}. \label{transmission}$$ Eqs. (\[transm\_field\]) and (\[transmission\]) hold likewise for the electric fields. [@BorzdovPart]
Comparison with numerical simulations\[sec:comp\]
=================================================
{width="80.00000%"}
{width="80.00000%"}
Varying the frequency and polarization of the incident wave ${{\bf H}}_\text{inc}$ , one can obtain the corresponding transmission spectrum as outlined in the previous section. We will be particularly interested in investigating the PCM transmittance for LH vs. RH circularly polarized incident wave, labelled $T_L(\omega)$ and $T_R(\omega)$, and corresponding to complex vectors ${{\bf H}}_\text{inc}= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} ({{\bf e}}_x \pm {{\rm i}}{{\bf e}}_y)$, respectively. Here, $T_L(\omega)$ and $T_R(\omega)$ are the overall transmittances, without regard for polarization of transmitted light. The vast majority of materials (either naturally occurring or artificial) do not discriminate between LH and RH circular polarization in transmittance, so that $\Delta T(\omega)=T_L(\omega)-T_R(\omega)$ is zero for all frequencies. A non-zero $\Delta T$ signifies the presence of circular dichroism and enantiomeric asymmetry.
To test the applicability limits of the proposed model, we first compare analytically and numerically calculated $T_{L}(\omega)$ and $T_{R}(\omega)$ for our example CSR structure of Fig. \[fig:1\] with varying ring radius $R$ and lattice period $L$. Numerical results are obtained using a commercially available finite integration solver (CST Microwave Studio) in the frequency domain, using periodic boundary conditions in the $x-y$ directions.
We see that a resonant dip in the transmission that results from the intrinsic resonance for the components of $\varepsilon$ in the analytical model (see Fig. \[fig:eps\]) is reproduced in numerical calculations and corresponds to the fundamental dipole excitation of the CSR. The resonant frequency $f_\text{res}$ changes when the ring radius is varied \[Fig. \[fig:spectra\](a)\]. The resonance has a Fano-like shape, which is also reproduced numerically.
For frequencies below $f_\text{res}$, we see a good agreement between analytical and numerical results, which gradually worsens as $R$ is increased in comparison with $L$, so that meta-atoms become closer to each other and the assumptions about a sparsely packed lattice that were needed in deriving Eq. become increasingly violated. This also causes a mismatch between analytically and numerically derived $f_\text{res}$. On the other hand, for frequencies above $f_\text{res}$ the agreement is worse because the numerical spectra are affected by higher-order CSR resonances (which are explicitly not accounted for in our determination of a CSR’s response), as well as the Bragg resonances of the lattice, which are also neglected in our account under the assumption that the effective medium is regarded as homogeneous.
Fig. \[fig:spectra\](b) shows the dependence of the analytical vs. numerical spectra as $L$ is varied for the constant CSR radius. It is seen that the agreement below $f_\text{res}$ is restored as $L$ increases, confirming our reasoning. However, the agreement above $f_\text{res}$ becomes much worse because the Bragg resonances scale as $f_\text{Bragg} \sim 1/L$, and are thus pushed into lower frequencies. Physically it means that the upper frequency limit where $L \ll \lambda$ (and where the structure can be regarded as a metamaterial) becomes smaller. Ultimately $f_\text{Bragg}$ moves past $f_\text{res}$, which is where the response of an individual meta-atom becomes irrelevant to the whole optical properties of the structure.
Therefore as far as the quantitative agreement of $T(\omega)$ is concerned, the model is found to be valid for the lattice period $L$ not exceeding 20-25 mm and for the CSR radius $R$ significantly lower than $L$. Most discrepancies occur in higher frequencies ($f>f_\text{res}$) and can be attributed to higher-order and/or lattice resonances which have been left out of consideration intentionally. The trade-off between split-ring coupling and grating diffraction is mentioned in the recent Ref. .
Good agreement within these validity limits of the model can also be confirmed in the spectra for the asymmetry $\Delta T(\omega)=T_{L}-T_{R}$ (Fig. \[fig:spectraDT\]). Moreover, we see that in a vast majority of cases, $T_{L}\approx T_{R}$ everywhere except the vicinity of $f_\text{res}$, which coincides with the range where polarization eigenstates are co-rotated elliptical (see Fig. \[fig:eta\]). So, many quantitative discrepancies in the transmission spectra have no effect over $\Delta T$ and the model remains qualitatively valid for all the parameter values shown in Fig. \[fig:spectraDT\] with mismatch to the resonance frequency $f_\text{res}$ and the maximum value of $\Delta T(f_\text{res})$ gradually increasing as the approximations behind the presented model become less accurate. The exception is the case of larger $L$ where non-zero $\Delta T$ is also seen at odd-numbered higher-order CSR resonances \[Fig. \[fig:spectraDT\](b)\]. However, since such additional chiral response is spectrally well separated from the fundamental resonance that interests us, it does not affect planar chiral properties of CSRs under present investigation.
Hence, numerical simulations confirm that the proposed microscopic description of the CSR structures reproduces the PCM behavior, as reported in previous experiments. [@PlumCSR; @ZhelPRL] Within the assumptions of the model that takes into account only the fundamental particle plasmon resonance of the CSR segments, the model provides a good agreement in a wide range of parameters. Having established this, we move on to investigate how the spectrum $\Delta T (\omega)$ behaves in various CSR designs.
Geometrical transformations with chiral split rings\[sec:geom\]
===============================================================
A non-zero $\Delta T$, signifying the presence of circular dichroism, carries special significance for 2D structures. One notices that spatial inversion of the whole system with respect to the plane normal to the metamaterial changes the handedness of the circular polarization (LH $\leftrightarrow$ RH), [*and*]{} replaces the structure with its enantiomeric counterpart (see Fig. \[fig:PCMs\]). Hence, if $T(\omega)$ is the spectrum of any planar structure and $\tilde{T}(\omega)$ is the spectrum of its enantiomeric counterpart, then $$T_{L,R}(\omega)=\tilde{T}_{R,L}(\omega)
\label{eq:enant}$$ for any structure at any frequency. Therefore, for any planar meta-atom with no distinct 2D enantiomers (i.e., with an in-plane symmetry axis) $\Delta T=0$. So, it is important to point out that $\Delta T \neq 0$ indicates the presence of planar chirality. A CSR of the design considered here (see Fig. \[fig:1\]) becomes symmetric and therefore achiral if either the ring segments are of equal length ($\alpha_1=\alpha_2$), or the gaps between the segments are equal ($\beta_1=\beta_2$), or else in a few degenerate cases when there is effectively just one segment (i.e., $\alpha_1=0$, $\alpha_2=0$, $\beta_1=0$, or $\beta_2=0$).
Furthermore, the reversal of the direction of incidence also transforms the structure into its enantiomeric counterpart but does [*not*]{} change the incident wave polarization. Hence, if the transmission spectra for the forward- vs. backward-incident wave are labeled $T^{f,b}$, respectively, then Eq. results in $$T^{f,b}_{L,R}(\omega)=\tilde{T}^{f,b}_{R,L}(\omega)=T^{b,f}_{R,L}(\omega),
\label{eq:direct}$$ again, for any structure at any frequency.[@Tretyakov] Therefore, a non-zero $\Delta T$ is a measure of the planar structure’s directional asymmetry and its magnitude can be used as an indication of how strongly the planar chiral properties of a structure manifest themselves optically.
![(Color online) Difference of transmission for LH and RH circularly polarized incident waves for different ring geometries with $L=15$ mm, $R=6$ mm, $\alpha_1 = 140^\circ$, $\alpha_2 = 160^\circ$, $\beta_1 = 60^\circ-\beta_2$: (a) comparison of $\Delta T$ for enantiomeric counterparts ($\beta_1 \leftrightarrow \beta_2$) in the range $10^\circ \leq \beta_2 \leq 50^\circ$; (b) evolution of maximum $\Delta T$ ($\Delta T_\text{peak}$) between symmetric and asymmetric CSRs for $\beta_2\leq30^\circ$.[]{data-label="fig:a1a2"}](Fig6.eps){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
Consider first the displacement of one of the ring segments along the circle by varying $\beta_1$ and setting $\beta_2=360^\circ - \beta_1-(\alpha_1+\alpha_2)$. The results are presented in Fig. \[fig:a1a2\]. Not surprisingly, chiral properties are rather weak for $\beta_1\gg\beta_2$ and become larger as $\beta_2$ increases towards the case of Fig. \[fig:spectra\] where $\beta_1 = 40^\circ$, $\beta_2 = 20^\circ$. After a certain optimum value, however, $\Delta T$ decreases again, vanishing completely in the symmetric case $\beta_1 = \beta_2 = 30^\circ$. So the proposed theory confirms that both circular dichroism and directional asymmetry indeed vanish when mirror symmetry is present.
The spectral shape $\Delta T (\omega)$ is seen to have a wider shape for small $\beta_2$, becoming the narrowest for the optimal case and then diminishing without significantly changing its shape. This is what one would expect as the inter-segment coupling (which is stronger for smaller $\beta_2$ because the tips are in close proximity) pushes the particle plasmon resonances of a CSR apart from each other. This feature is specific to CSR design: while the response of each arc-shaped segment in a CSR closely resembles that of a rod of equal length,[@ourFiO10] the split ring is a geometry where the tips of the segments are in much closer proximity than for the rods placed at similar distance. Hence, the field enhancement near the tips causes the response of the whole CSR to depend strongly both on the individual segments and on inter-segment coupling.
In addition, making $\beta_2$ small while maintaining the CSR orientation should increase the contribution of extrinsic effects to chiral properties. [@KseniaPRA09] This is indeed seen in Fig. \[fig:a1a2\](b), and this is likely the reason of a small but non-vanishing $\Delta T$ for these values.
Displacing the ring segment past the symmetric case $\beta_1 = \beta_2 = 30^\circ$, we notice in Fig. \[fig:a1a2\](a) that $\Delta T$ changes its sign and that an exchange of $\beta_1 \leftrightarrow \beta_2$ results in the inversion of planar chiral properties ($\Delta T(\omega)\leftrightarrow - \Delta T(\omega)$). This entirely confirms the result expected from Eq. , taking into account that structures obtained by an exchange of $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$ are 2D enantiomeric counterparts.
We also examine CSRs with variable length of the longer ring segment by varying $\beta_1$ and $\alpha_2$ while keeping the other two angles constant (note that all the time $\alpha_1+\alpha_2+\beta_1+\beta_2=360^\circ$). The results are given in Fig. \[fig:a1b2\](a). As expected, $\Delta T$ vanishes for the two symmetric cases $\beta_1 = \beta_2 =20^\circ$ and $\beta_1 = 60^\circ$ ($\alpha_1 = \alpha_2 = 140^\circ$). The sign of $\Delta T$ changes when these two symmetric cases are traversed. The increase of the peak frequency $f_\text{res}$ corresponds to an increase in the stiffness coefficients $k_{11,12}$ as one of the segments becomes shorter, affected by a change in the coupling between the segments’ resonances as they differ in length more strongly. Similarly varying the length of the shorter ring segment, i.e., changing the angles $\beta_1$ and $\alpha_1$, the same behavior is observed, as can be seen in Fig. \[fig:a1b2\](b). The spectral shape changes in the same manner as in the previous case, the peak in $\Delta T$ becoming broader for larger $\beta_1$. However, this case is specific because $\alpha_2+\beta_2=180^
\circ$, so there is only one symmetric shape ($\beta_1=\beta_2=20^\circ$, $\alpha_1=\alpha_2=160^\circ$). Because of this “degeneracy”, $\Delta T$ does not change sign when traversing the symmetric case. The same property can be responsible for higher peak values of $\Delta T(f_\text{res})$.
Finally, to determine how the chiral properties of PCMs scale with the size of the meta-atoms, we investigate the dependence of $\Delta T$ on the ring radius $R$ in Fig. \[fig:R\]. The resonant frequency $f_\text{res}$ depends on the radius primarily due to $1/R$ appearing in the stiffness coefficients $k_{ij}$ \[see Eq. \]. The estimated dependence $f_\text{res} \sim 1/R$ is confirmed in Fig. \[fig:R\](b). The resonance peak in $\Delta T (\omega)$ broadens as $R$ increases.
Concluding remarks\[sec:5\]
===========================
In conclusion, we have proposed a microscopic theoretical description of planar chiral metamaterials based on the electronic Lorentz theory. Using a chiral split-ring (CSR) geometry[@PlumCSR] as an example and considering the dynamics of individual free electrons, we arrive at expressions for electromagnetic response of a single split-ring meta-atom. Its polarizability is derived analytically without phenomenological parameters. The effective dielectric permittivity tensor $\varepsilon_\text{eff}$ is then obtained from the single-atom response along the lines of standard homogenization techniques, [@Ishimaru; @Vinogradov] to the extent that these techniques can be used at all to describe planar structures. [@Yatsenko; @Falcone; @Holloway] Even in this simplified consideration, the crystallographic structure of this tensor is shown to coincide with that of elliptically dichroic media, as would be expected from earlier theoretical studies.[@ourOL]
The transmission spectra of a CSR-based PCM are then calculated using the standard wave operator based extension of transfer-matrix methods. [@BBL; @BorzdovTheory] In agreement with previous theoretical and experimental results, [@ZhelPRL; @PlumCSR] the spectra show a difference with respect to whether the incident wave has left- or right-handed circular polarization \[$\Delta T(\omega)=T_L(\omega)-T_R(\omega)$\]. This difference, which translates to directional asymmetry, [@PlumCSR] is shown to strongly depend on the geometrical parameters of the CSR (Figs. \[fig:a1a2\]–\[fig:a1b2\]). Whenever the split ring is symmetric, i.e., when there are no distinguishable 2D enantiomers, optical manifestation of planar chirality is seen to vanish \[$\Delta T(\omega)=0$\], and $\Delta T$ changes its sign when the structure is replaced with its enantiomeric counterpart \[Fig. \[fig:a1a2\](a)\]. Note that we have deliberately chosen the overall CSR orientation in the lattice so as to focus on purely intrinsic chirality and to suppress extrinsic effects where possible. A detailed investigation of how intrinsic and extrinsic chiral properties interact in CSR-based PCMs warrants a separate investigation.
While the specific split-ring geometry is chosen for its relative simplicity in analytical derivation, it should be understood that the proposed approach can be extended to any planar meta-atom consisting of thin wire-like metallic elements where transverse motion of electrons is restricted. The integrals in Eqs. and are likely to be more complicated and may have to be taken numerically. Moreover, it may be particularly challenging to determine the correct charge density dependencies \[see Eq. \] and to identify the loops that contribute to the effective mass; one may need to use equivalent LC-circuit or even resort to using data from direct numerical simulations if the geometry is particularly intricate. Nevertheless, once the equations for the effective mass and stiffness coefficients for a particular unit cell geometry are established, parametric transformations of this geometry lend themselves to very easy semi-analytical treatment within the proposed framework.
Furthermore, oblique wave incidence and non-planar meta-atoms composed of similar thin elements are also tractable if the magnetic dipole and electric quadrupole contributions are accounted for, giving rise to corrections in $\varepsilon_\text{eff}$ and introducing effective magnetic permeability tensor $\mu$, as well as gyration pseudotensors responsible for magnetoelectric coupling or spatial dispersion. [@BBL; @BorzdovPart; @BorzdovTheory] However, it still remains an open question whether such oblique-incidence treatment would be universal taking into account the inherent limitations of applying volume homogenization to surface structures. [@Yatsenko; @Falcone; @Holloway] Should such a generalization prove feasible, it is very interesting to extend the proposed approach from a single-layer PCM to PCM-based multilayers (in the cases when such PCMs can lend themselves to 3D homogenization [@Andriyeuski]) and investigate its applicability as a planar metamaterial turns into a bulk one.
Inspiring discussions with D. N. Chigrin, V. Fedotov, and A. Chipouline are acknowledged. This work was supported in part by the Danish Research Council for Technology and Production Sciences (THz COW), Basic Research Foundation of Belarus (F10M-021), the Deutsche Fouschungsgemeinschaft (DFG Research Unit FOR 557), and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).
Derivation of the interaction matrix\[appendix:a\]
==================================================
To calculate the interaction matrix for meta-atoms arranged in a square planar array used in Sec. \[sec:3a\], one can write the field in an $n$th unit cell as a sum of the averaged electric field in the metamaterial $\overline{{{\bf E}}}$ and the fields of the dipoles ${\bf p}$ at the center of the each cell: $$\langle {{\bf E}}\rangle=\overline{{{\bf E}}} + \sum_{i \neq n} \frac{3 {\bf r}_i \otimes
{\bf r}_i - r_i^2}{\varepsilon_d r_i^5} {\bf p},$$ where ${\bf r}_i$ is the radius-vector of $i$th dipole. Following Ref. , we define the interaction matrix $\hat{C}$ by means of equation $\langle {{\bf E}}\rangle=\overline{{{\bf E}}} + 4 \pi \hat{C} {\bf P}_0$. The polarization of the medium is connected with the dipole moment of the single cell via ${\bf P}_0 = N_0 {\bf p}$, where $N_0 = 1/(L^2 D)$ is the number of inclusions per unit volume (we suppose that the cell is square). Therefore, the interaction matrix equals $$\hat{C} = \frac{L^2 D}{4 \pi \varepsilon_d} \sum_{i \neq n}\frac{3 {\bf r}_i
\otimes {\bf r}_i - r_i^2}{r_i^5}.$$
Placing the origin at the center of the cell under consideration ($n$th cell) we present the radius-vectors of the others as ${\bf
r}_{i}={\bf r}_{k l}= L (k {\bf e}_{x} + l {\bf e}_{y})$, where integer numbers $k$, $l$ vary from $-\infty$ to $\infty$. The $n$th cell is characterized by the numbers $k=0$ and $l=0$ and should be excluded from the summing.
The result of the summation is used as Eq. in Sec. \[sec:3\]: $$\hat{C} = \frac{\tau D}{\varepsilon_d L} \left( I - 2 {\bf e}_z \otimes {\bf
e}_z \right), \label{int_mat_is}$$ where $I = {\bf e}_x \otimes {\bf e}_x + {\bf e}_y \otimes {\bf
e}_y$ is the projection operator onto the plane normal to the $z$ axis, $$\tau = \frac{1}{2 \pi} \left( \zeta(3) +
\sum_{k,l=1}^\infty \frac{1}{(k^2+l^2)^{3/2}} \right) \approx 0.3592$$ and $\zeta(x) = \sum_{k=1}^\infty k^{-x}$ is the Riemann Zeta function.
[42]{}
V. M. Shalaev, Nature Photon. **1**, 41–48 (2007).
Z. Jacob, J.-Y. Kim, G. V. Naik, A. Boltasseva, E. E. Narimanov, and V. M. Shalaev, Appl. Phys. B [**100**]{}, 215–218 (2010).
U. Leonhardt, Science [**312**]{}, 1777–1780 (2006).
J. B. Pendry, D. Schurig, and D. R. Smith, Science [**312**]{}, 1780–1782 (2006).
V. M. Shalaev, Science **322**, 384–386 (2008).
M. Kuwata-Gonokami, N. Saito, Y. Ino, K. Jefimovs, T. Vallius, J. Turunen, and Y. Svirko, Phys. Rev. Lett. **95**, 227401 (2005).
M. Decker, M. W. Klein, M. Wegener, and S. Linden, Opt. Lett. **32**, 856–858 (2007).
E. Plum, V. A. Fedotov, A. S. Schwanecke, and N. I. Zheludev, Appl. Phys. Lett. **90**, 223113 (2007).
C. Rockstuhl, C. Menzel, T. Paul, and F. Lederer, Phys. Rev. B **79**, 035321 (2009).
V. A. Fedotov P. L. Mladyonov, S. L. Prosvirnin, A. V. Rogacheva, Y. Chen, and N. I. Zheludev, Phys. Rev. Lett. **97**, 167401 (2006).
A. Drezet, C. Genet, J.-Y. Laluet, and T. W. Ebbesen, Opt. Express **16**, 12559 (2008).
E. Plum, V. A. Fedotov, and N. I. Zheludev, Appl. Phys. Lett. **94**, 131901 (2009).
E. Plum, J. Zhou, J. Dong, V. A. Fedotov, T. Koschny, C. M. Soukoulis, and N. I. Zheludev, Phys. Rev. B **79**, 035407 (2009).
S. V. Zhukovsky, A. V. Novitsky, and V. M. Galynsky, *Opt. Lett.* **34**, 1988–1990 (2009).
R. Singh, E. Plum, C. Menzel, C. Rockstuhl, A. K. Azad, R. A. Cheville, F. Lederer, W. Zhang, and N. I. Zheludev, Phys. Rev. B [**80**]{}, 153104 (2009).
V. A. Fedotov, N. Papasimakis, E. Plum, A. Bitzer, M. Walther, P. Kuo, D. P. Tsai, and N. I. Zheludev, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 223901 (2010).
J. Petschulat, A. Chipouline, A. Tünnermann, T. Pertsch, C. Menzel, C. Rockstuhl, T. Paul, and F. Lederer, Phys. Rev. B [**82**]{}, 075102 (2010).
J. Petschulat, C. Menzel, A. Chipouline, C. Rockstuhl, A. Tünnermann, F. Lederer, and T. Pertsch, Phys. Rev. A **78**, 043811 (2008).
S. V. Zhukovsky, C. Kremers, and D. N. Chigrin, Opt. Lett. [**36**]{}, 2278–2280 (2011). D. N. Chigrin, C. Kremers, and S. V. Zhukovsky, Appl. Phys. B [**105**]{}, 81–97 (2011).
A. Ishimaru, S.-W. Lee, Y. Kuga, and V. Jandhyala, IEEE Trans. Ant. Propag. [**51**]{}, 2250–2257 (2003).
A. P. Vinogradov, A. V. Dorofeenko, and S. Zouhdi, Physics–Uspekhi [**51**]{}, 485–492 (2008).
J. D. Baena, L. Jelinek, R. Marques, and M. Silveirinha, Phys. Rev. A [**78**]{}, 013842 (2008). A. Alu, Phys. Rev. B [**84**]{}, 075153 (2011). V. V. Yatsenko, S. I. Maslovski, S. A. Tretyakov, S. L. Prosvirnin, and S. Zouhdi, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. [**51**]{}, 2–11 (2003). F. Falcone, T. Lopetegi, M. A. G. Laso, J. D. Baena, J. Bonache, M. Beruete, R. Marques, F. Martin, and M. Sorolla, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 197401 (2004). C. L. Holloway, A. Dienstfrey, E. F. Kuester, J. F. O’Hara, A. K. Azad, and A. J. Taylor, Metamaterials [**3**]{}, 100–112 (2009).
A. Novitsky, M. Zalkovskij, R. Malureanu, and A. Lavrinenko, Opt. Commun. [**284**]{}, 5495–5500 (2011).
M. A. Seo, H. R. Park, S. M. Koo, D. J. Park, J. H. Kang, O. K. Suwal, S. S. Choi, P. C. M. Planken, G. S. Park, N. K. Park, Q. H. Park, and D. S. Kim, Nature Photon. [**3**]{}, 152–156 (2009).
L. M. Barkovskii, G. N. Borzdov, and A. V. Lavrinenko, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. **20**, 1095–1106 (1987).
G. N. Borzdov, J. Math. Phys. **38**, 6328–6366 (1997).
S. I. Maslovski, D. K. Morris, and S. A. Tretyakov, J. Opt. A: Pure Appl. Opt. [**11**]{}, 074004 (2009).
A. Andryieuski, C. Menzel, C. Rockstuhl, R. Malureanu, F. Lederer, and A. Lavrinenko, Phys. Rev. B [**82**]{}, 235107 (2010).
R. W. Ziolkowski, *PIER* **41**, 159–183 (2003).
S. N. Volkov, K. Dolgaleva, R. W. Boyd, K. Jefimovs, J. Turunen, Y. Svirko, B. K. Canfield, and M. Kauranen, Phys. Rev. A [**79**]{}, 043819 (2009).
J. M. Ziman, *Principles of the Theory of Solids* (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1972), Ch. 5.
C. Kremers, S. V. Zhukovsky, and D. N. Chigrin, “Numerical time-domain simulations of planar chiral metamaterials," in [*Theoretical and Computational Nanophotonics: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop*]{}, D. N. Chigrin, ed., AIP Conference Proc. [**1176**]{}, pp. 118–120, 2009.
F. I. Fedorov, *Theory of Gyrotropy* (Minsk: Nauka, 1976, in Russian).
S. V. Zhukovsky and V. M. Galynsky, J. Opt. A: Pure Appl. Opt. **8**, 489–500 (2006).
G. N. Borzdov, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. **34** (2001) 6249–6257.
I. Sersic, M. A. van de Haar, F. B. Arango, and A. F. Koenderink, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**108**]{}, 223903 (2012).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present high-resolution spectropolarimetric observations of the spectroscopic binary $\chi $Dra. Spectral lines in the spectrum of the main component $\chi $DraA show variable Zeeman displacement, which confirms earlier suggestions about the presence of a weak magnetic field on the surface of this star. Within about 2 years of time base of our observations, the longitudinal component $B_{\rm L}$ of the magnetic field exhibits variation from $-11.5 \pm 2.5$G to $+11.1 \pm 2.1$G with a period of about 23 days. Considering the rotational velocity of $\chi $DraA in the literature and that newly measured in this work, this variability may be explained by the stellar rotation under the assumption that the magnetic field is globally stable. Our new measurements of the radial velocities (RV) in high-resolution $I$-spectra of $\chi $DraA refined the orbital parameters and reveal persistent deviations of RVs from the orbital curve. We suspect that these deviations may be due to the influence of local magnetically generated spots, pulsations, or a Jupiter-size planet orbiting the system.'
date: Released 2017 August 04
title: Magnetic field and radial velocities of the star Chi Draconis A
---
\[firstpage\]
magnetic fields – stars: individual: $\chi$ Dra: binaries.
Introduction
============
The spectroscopic binary system $\chi$Dra is a classic spectroscopic binary first discovered by @Cam. Since 1987 [@Tomkin; @Schoeller] the system is also known as an interferometric binary. The angular separation between components is $0\farcs12$, and the orbital period is 280.55 days [@Tomkin; @Schoeller]. The primary component $\chi $DraA is a F7V 4th magnitude star with a projected rotational velocity of $v \sin i = 2.5$km s$^{-1}$ [@Gray84b] [^1] and a radius of 1.2 $R_\odot$ [@Torres]. The secondary component is a convective K type star, two magnitudes fainter than the primary.
In a comparatively recent study by @Monin, it was suggested that the main component, $\chi $DraA, has a weak longitudinal field of up to a few tens of Gauss. This suggestion, along with the binarity of $\chi $Dra, makes this system an interesting laboratory to study the formation and evolution of magnetic stars within multiple stellar systems. Motivated by this idea, we conducted an extensive set of high-resolution spectropolarimetric observations of $\chi$Dra with spectropolarimetric facilities of the Bohyunsan Optical Astronomical Observatory (BOAO) of the Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute (KASI) in Republic of Korea. Another goal of this study was a high-precision search for the radial velocity (RV) variations of the system’s main component. Observations, data reduction, and measurements are described in the next section. Section 3 presents results of magnetic field and RV measurements. In Section 4, we discuss our findings.
Observations, data reduction and measurements
=============================================
Observations of $\chi$Dra were carried out on 15 nights between 2006 and 2008. The BOES spectropolarimeter at the 1.8-m of the BOAO was used. The spectrograph and spectropolarimetric observational procedures are described by @Kangmin. The instrument is a moderate-beam fiber-fed high-resolution spectrograph which incorporates 3 STU Polymicro fibers of 300, 200, and 80 $\mu$m core diameter (corresponding spectral resolutions are $\lambda/\Delta \lambda $ = 30000, 45000, and 90000, respectively). We used a 3800 – 10000$\rm\AA$ working wavelength range and a spectropolarimetric mode provided with a spectral resolution of 60000 by using two additional fiber-fed channels. An overview of observations is given in Table\[t1\], where we list the date of observations, total number of exposures, typical exposure time for an individual frame, and sky conditions.
Date N Exp(sec) Sky conditions
------------- ---- ---------- ----------------
27 Sep 2006 4 360 good
22 Jan 2007 12 600 moderate
24 Jan 2007 16 400 good
25 Jan 2007 8 600 moderate
28 Jan 2007 4 600 moderate
31 Jan 2007 6 480 good
02 Feb 2007 8 500 moderate
03 Feb 2007 24 360 good
04 Feb 2007 4 360 good
25 Apr 2007 4 360 good
26 Apr 2007 4 720 poor
27 Apr 2007 4 600 poor
02 May 2007 24 600 moderate
13 Jun 2008 4 800 moderate
10 Sep 2008 4 360 good
: Observation log of the binary system $\chi$ Dra
\[t1\]
The reduction of spectropolarimetric data was carried out using the image processing program DECH [^2] as well as an automatic pipeline program [@Dongii1; @Dongii2]. The general steps are standard and include cosmic ray hits removal, electronic bias and scatter light subtraction, extraction of the spectral orders, division by the flat-field spectrum, normalization to the continuum and wavelength calibration.
RV Measurements in the stellar spectra were carried out by calculating the gravity centers of all narrow and symmetric spectral lines and their comparison with laboratory wavelengths which together with Lande factors and other atomic data necessary for data processing were derived from the VALD database [@Piskun; @Ryabchik; @Kupka]. Measurements of the longitudinal magnetic field were made as described in detail by @Kangmin.
We identified several hundred lines in the spectrum of $\chi$DraA within the range 3800 – 10000$\rm\AA$ from which we selected about 300 deepest ($r_c \ge 0.4$ where $r_c$ is the central depth of the line) single narrow and symmetric absorptions with non-zero Lande factors. By measuring Zeeman displacements individually in all these lines, weighting and averaging these measurements as described by @Monin, we obtained the estimates and corresponding uncertainties of the star’s longitudinal magnetic field at paired exposures of different orientation of the quarter-wave plate following the scheme described in detail by @Kangmin. Since the spin period of $\chi$DraA is much longer than several days, we integrated these individual estimates within a combined exposure for each observing nights. The duration of such exposure are equal to $N\times$Exp (see Table\[t1\]) and ranges from a few tens of minutes to a few hours.
In order to control the sign and zero level of the measured field, we used typical magnetic stars (HD 215441, HD 32633, and HD 40312) which have magnetic field of different strengths as well as zero-field stars (for details, see @Kangmin). To control our measurements, we used non-saturated telluric spectral lines and the star Procyon which has not demonstrated a magnetic field higher than oneG [@Kangmin] and has a spectral class very similar to $\chi$DraA .
Since individual RV estimates obtained for each short-time exposure have shown no remarkable features, we averaged all RV measurements within combined exposures in the same manner as magnetic field estimates.
------------- -------------- --------------- --------------- ------- ----------
Date HJD-245 0000 RV $\sigma$ $B_L$ $\sigma$
(days) (km s$^{-1}$) (km s$^{-1}$) (G) (G)
27 Sep 2006 4006.096 38.78 0.05 +11.1 2.1
22 Jan 2007 4123.337 36.351 0.017 +5.3 0.9
24 Jan 2007 4125.334 34.836 0.013 -3.2 0.7
25 Jan 2007 4126.331 34.112 0.021 -2.3 1.1
28 Jan 2007 4129.320 32.126 0.029 -5.3 1.7
31 Jan 2007 4132.345 29.898 0.032 -10.5 3.4
02 Feb 2007 4134.093 27.019 0.017 -11.5 2.5
03 Feb 2007 4135.345 26.089 0.018 -7.8 0.7
04 Feb 2007 4136.347 24.421 0.045 -9.5 1.8
25 Apr 2007 4216.014 25.58 0.046 +5.8 2.0
26 Apr 2007 4216.999 25.55 0.045 +4.4 2.0
27 Apr 2007 4218.061 26.31 0.045 +5.0 2.8
02 May 2007 4223.218 26.88 0.023 -7.1 0.9
13 Jun 2008 4630.817 46.56 0.035 -8.9 1.9
10 Sep 2008 4719.988 12.24 0.040 -8.5 2.5
------------- -------------- --------------- --------------- ------- ----------
: Results of the radial velocity and magnetic field measurements for the star $\chi$ DraA
\[t2\]
Results
=======
Results of our measurements for each observing date are presented in Table\[t2\] where column (1) is the date of observations, column (2) is a Heliocentric Julian Date of mid-exposure, columns (3) and (4) display a nightly mean value of RV and its uncertainty $\sigma$, columns (5) and (6) give corresponding estimates of the longitudinal magnetic field $B_L$ and its uncertainty $\sigma$. Let us consider the results of Zeeman and RV measurements independently.
Magnetic field
--------------
![[*Upper panel*]{}: power spectrum of the field variation. [*Middle panel*]{}: observed phase variation of the longitudinal field $B_L$ of the star $\chi$ DraA (filled circles) and the best sinusoidal fit to the data (a solid line). [*Lower panel*]{}: control results of “zero-field” measurements in the spectra of Procyon (filled triangles) and telluric lines in the spectra of $\chi$ DraA (open circles)[]{data-label="f1"}](fig1.eps){width="80mm"}
As clearly seen from Table\[t2\], ten out of fifteen estimates of the longitudinal field have a significance exceeding the 3$\sigma$ level. Besides, a long observing run between 22 Jan. 2007 and 04 Feb. 2007 revealed monotonous change of the field $B_L$ from maximum to minimum with passing through the negative extremum. This may indicate the presence of a global magnetic field on the stellar surface. Due to the rotation of $\chi$ DraA, the magnetosphere demonstrates different integral projections of the surface magnetic field to the line of sight. If the magnetosphere is stable, this process should be periodic with the spin period of the star. The two-year time base of our observations makes it possible to primarily investigate this possibility.
In order to determine the time-scale over which the longitudinal magnetic field varies (which may be the rotation period of the star), we applied the Lafler-Kinman method. The method tests trial periods by requiring the sum of the squares of the field magnitude differences between observations of adjacent phase to be a minimum. Such a criterion effectively reveals smooth periodical signals on a limited number of observations. Analysis of the power spectrum (Fig.\[f1\], upper plot) of the data obtained with the Lafler-Kinman revealed a strong signal indicating the presence of a period P = 23.39(9)days.
The magnetic phase curve of $\chi$ DraA constructed for the found period is shown in Fig.\[f1\] (middle plot). The phase variation of the longitudinal field is symmetric with some deviations from the sinusoidal symmetry (for example two points between $\phi = 0$ and $\phi = 0.25$). If from minimum to maximum individual measurements of Bl vary from $-11.5 \pm 2.5$G to $+11.1 \pm 2.1$G, the sinusoidal fit of these data by the Marquard $\chi^2$ minimization method [@Bevington] gives the field variation from $-11.5\,\pm 1.5$G to $+5.2\,\pm 1.5$G. This discrepancy suggests, that the field geometry is more complicated than a simple dipole. The moment of maximum of the mean longitudinal field can be calculated according to the following ephemeris: $T0 = 2454006.095 + 23.39(9)\,E$.
Radial velocities
-----------------
Good quality of the RV data owing to the high mechanical stability of the BOES makes it possible to reanalyse RVs of $\chi$ DraA with an accuracy higher than achieved in previous studies. To the best of our knowledge, the most complete set of RV data for the system was presented and analysed by @Tomkin. Using several tens of individual RV measurements as well as speckle observations, these authors determined the RV orbit for $\chi$ Dra. In more recent studies [@Schoeller; @Farrington], the orbit was further refined by interferometric method. Combining RV measurements published by @Tomkin with our new measurements described here, we get a modified orbital solution. The best-fit results are summarized in Table\[t3\], which lists the projected velocity semi-amplitude of $\chi$ DraA ($K$), the periastron angle ($W$), the epoch of periastron ([**$T_p$**]{}), the orbital period ($P$), the eccentricity ($e$), the offset RV ($V0$), and the linear slope $S$ of RV variation to remove the linear component of the variation.
Orbital element Unit Value Uncertainty
----------------- ---------------------- ------------- -------------
$K$ km s$^{-1}$ 16.95 0.19
$W$ deg($^{\circ}$) 116.9 2.0
$T_p$ HJD 2437307.827 1.294
$P$ days 280.523 0.019
$e$ 0.432 0.02
$V0$ km s$^{-1}$ 28.73 11.18
$S$ m s$^{-1}$day$^{-1}$ 0.13 0.05
: Radial-velocity orbit of $\chi$ DraA
\[t3\]
![[*Upper panel*]{}: observed radial velocities and constructed orbital curve. Open diamonds are data from @Tomkin. Filled circles represent our data. [*Lower panel*]{}: residual radial velocities (the “O-C” values) after subtraction of orbital curve from the individual RV estimates. []{data-label="f2"}](fig2.eps){width="80mm"}
Figure.\[f2\] (upper plot) illustrates our solution (solid line) with all known RV estimates for $\chi$ DraA folded with the obtained value of the orbital period P = 280.523days. Filled circles represent our measurements and open diamonds data from @Tomkin. The standard deviation of the “O-C” (Observed minus Calculated) values (lower plot in the Fig.\[f2\]) for the whole data set is 0.97 km s$^{-1}$, and for our measurements it is 0.37 km s$^{-1}$. This means that our data demonstrate much better agreement with the orbital curve thanks to the essential improvement in spectroscopic techniques since the 1980s. However, despite improved agreement, both our data and the data from @Tomkin demonstrate noticeable deviations of measured RVs from the calculated RV orbit. Considering that the orbital elements derived in this paper (Table\[t2\]) are in excellent agreement with the latest speckle-interferometric data [@Farrington], we suspect that these deviations are not due to uncertainties in the orbital solution. For example, inspecting our RV estimates obtained within the longest two-week observing run (22 Jan. – 4 Feb. 2007) reveal an unexpectedly high scatter of the data (several times larger than observational uncertainties). Visual inspection of Fig.\[f2\] hints a periodicity within days to tens of days in the deviations of observed RVs from the orbital curve. A similar picture can be seen in Fig.\[f2\] from @Tomkin. This suggests the presence of additional cause of RV variations in $\chi$ DraA. In order to examine this variability, we have analyzed the “O-C” residuals from the spectroscopic orbital solution obtained here for all available RV measurements.
The Lomb-Scargle power spectrum [@Lomb; @Scargle] of these “O-C” residuals is presented in Fig.\[f3\]. A considerable peak at $\sim$ 12 days was found to suggest the presence of a periodical signal. Unfortunately, due to the strong inhomogeneity of the data, the very long time base of observations (tens of years), and insufficient amount of data limit ourselves to the illustration of the periodogogram only; we are presently unable to to clearly identify the true periodicity in the residual RVs of $\chi$ DraA. Additional high-precision spectral observations are needed for more reliable conclusions.
![Power spectrum of the residual of radial velocity variations of $\chi$ DraA. []{data-label="f3"}](fig3.eps){width="85mm"}
Discussion
==========
We obtained high-resolution spectropolarimetric observations of the star $\chi$ DraA. Analysis of these new and previously published data revealed the presence of variable longitudinal magnetic field. Within the 2-years time base of our observations the field varied from $-11.5\,\pm 1.5$G to $+5.2\,\pm 1.5$G with the period P = 23.39(9)days.
As discussed by @Tomkin and @Torres, the star $\chi$ DraA is a low mass, low metallicity old star. As such, the origin of the field on $\chi$ DraA should be typical for low mass stars of spectral classes from late F to cooler classes [@Reiners]. For these stars, as it is for the Sun, magnetic fields are concentrated mainly into locally generated, dynamically unstable strong-magnetic tubes seen as dark spots on stellar surfaces. These spots monotonously migrate with different velocities, giving additional contribution to the field variation in addition to rotation. The found period P = 23.39days is in principle consistent with typical rotation periods of low mass stars with masses comparable to $\chi$ Dra A, although it may be a bit longer than expected based on our measured longitudinal magnetic field strengths [@Marsden]. From this point of view it is important to establish whether the star’s rotation period is indeed around 23 days.
In order to clarify the situation with rotation we have analysed Doppler widths of spectral lines in the spectrum of $\chi$ Dra A. To measure the projected rotational velocity $v \sin i$, we have chosen several single lines with small Lande factors. By modeling profiles of these lines using the ATLAS/WIDTHS atmosphere model programs [@Kurucz], we derived $v \sin i \le $3km/sec, which is consistent with the estimate $v \sin i=\,2.5$km/sec by @Gray84b. Surprisingly, $v \sin i=\,2.5$km/sec with the orbital inclination of about 75$^\circ$ [@Tomkin] and the stellar radius of 1.2 $R_\odot$ [@Torres] yields the rotation period of 23.5 days, almost the same as the found period of P=23.39 days.
Thus, we suspect that the found 23.39 days period is mainly due to the rotation of the star. This result, if confirmed, may also imply the existence of a long-living (more than several years) global poloidal magnetic field. In contrast to the solar-type stars’ unstable magnetic fields, stable poloidal (say dipolar) morphology of the field suggests that we may be seeing a special case of fossil or generated magnetic field, originated and evolving within the frame of the binary system. However, this interesting possibility is based on our currently limited observational data, and we don’t exclude the possibility that this variation could have more complicated origin and may not be regular. The detailed interpretation of the nature of the magnetic field in $\chi$ Dra A requires further accumulation of observational data on longer time base. In this paper we restrict ourself with presentation of new observational data confirming the presence of magnetized field structures on the surface of $\chi$ DraA.
Lastly, measured RVs of $\chi$ DraA exhibit systematic deviations from the orbital curve. Despite the fact that the measurements presented in this paper demonstrate improved agreement with the orbital solution, the deviation still exists. No explanation of this phenomenon has been found so far. It may result from additional line displacement due to magnetic nature of the star. For example, the presence of magnetic field with inhomogeneous distribution over the stellar surface (in particular, magnetically-induced spots) may simply distort integral symmetry of spectral lines. Rotational modulation of such line profiles can, in turn, cause “artificial” RV variations. However, the period found through the analysis of RV residuals is not consistent with the rotation period estimated by means of spectropolarimetric methods. Our data cannot exclude the existence of a hot Jupiter mass orbiting $\chi$ DraA with a short period. Following this idea and taking into account that the system is seen almost edge-on, it seems reasonable to monitor $\chi$ DraA photometrically in order to search for deep, 1 – 2%, transit. New high-precision, high-resolution spectral observations of the star $\chi$ DraA are also necessary to answer this particularly important question.
Acknowledgements
================
We thank the anonymous referee for useful comments. The authors acknowledge the Russian Science Foundation (grant N14-50-00043) for financial support of theoretical part of this study. BCL acknowledges partial support by Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute (KASI) grant 2017-1-830-03. NGB acknowledges the support of the RAS Presidium Program P-7. AFK thanks the RFBR grant 16-02-00604 A for support of experimental investigaition of the observed data. Support for MGP was provided by the KASI under the R&D program supervised by the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning and by the National Research Foundation of Korea to the Center for Galaxy Evolution Research (No. 2012-0027910).
Bevington P.R., 1969, Data reduction and error analysis for the physical sciences, McGraw-Hill, New York
Campbell, W. W. 1898, ApJ, 8, 292
Farrington, C. D.; ten Brummelaar, T. A.; Mason, B. D.; Hartkopf, W. I.; McAlister, H. A.; Raghavan, D.; Turner, N. H.; Sturmann, L.; Sturmann, J.; Ridgway, S. T. 2010, AJ, 139.2308F
Gray, D.F. 1984a, ApJ, 277, 640
Gray, D.F. 1984b, ApJ, 281, 719
Kang, Dong-Ii; Park, H.-S.; Han, Inwoo; Valyavin, G.; Lee, B.-C.; Kim, K.-M. 2005, Publication of the Korean Astronomical Society, 20, 97
Kang, Dong-Ii; Park, Hong-Suh; Han, In-Woo; Valyavin, G.; Lee, Byeong-Cheol; Kim, Kang-Min 2006, Publications of the Korean Astronomical Society, 21, 101
Kim, Kang-Min; Han, Inwoo; Valyavin, Gennady G.; Plachinda, Sergei; Jang, Jeong Gyun; Jang, Be-Ho; Seong, Hyeon Cheol; Lee, Byeong-Cheol; Kang, Dong-Il; Park, Byeong-Gon; Yoon, Tae Seog; Vogt, Steven S. 2007, PASP, 119, 1052
Kupka F., Piskunov N.E., Ryabchikova T.A., Stempels H.C., & Weiss W.W. 1999, A&AS, 138, 119
Kurucz, R., ATLAS9 Stellar Atmosphere Programs and 2 km/s Grid. CD-ROM No. 13 (Smithsonian Astrophys. Obs., Cambridge, 1993).
Lafler, J., $\&$ Kinman, T. D., 1965, ApJS, 11, 216
Lomb, N. R. 1976, ApSS, 39, 447
Marsden, S. C., Petit, P., Jeffers, S. V., Morin, J., Fares, R., Reiners, A. et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 3517
Monin, D., Fabrika, S., Valyavin, G. 2002, A&A, 396, 131
Piskunov N.E., Kupka F., Ryabchikova T.A., Weiss W.W., & Jeffery C.S. 1995, A&AS, 112, 525
Ramírez, I., Allende Prieto, C., Lambert, D. L. 2013, ApJ, 764, 78R
Reiners, Ansgar 2012, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 9, 73
Ryabchikova T.A., Piskunov N.E., Stempels H.C., Kupka F., & Weiss W.W. 1999, in the 6th International Colloquium on Atomic Spectra and Oscillator Strengths, Victoria BC, Canada, 1998, Physica Scripta, T83, 162
Scargle, J. D. 1982, ApJ, 263, 835
Schoeller, M., Balega, I. I., Balega, Y. Y., et al. 1998, Astron. Lett., 24, 337
Stibbs, D. W. N. 1950, MNRAS, 110, 395S
Tomkin, J., McAlister, H. A., Hartkopf, W. I., & Fekel, F. C. 1987, AJ, 93, 1236
Torres, G., Andersen, J., Giménez, A. 2010, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 18, 67
[^1]: @Monin lists erroneous value of $v \sin i = 11$km s$^{-1}$ in Table 1, citing [@Gray84a].
[^2]: http://gazinur.com/DECH-software.html
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'This paper introduces a microscopic approach to model epidemics, which can explicitly consider the consequences of individual’s decisions on the spread of the disease. We first formulate a microscopic multi-agent epidemic model where every agent can choose its activity level that affects the spread of the disease. Then by minimizing agents’ cost functions, we solve for the optimal decisions for individual agents in the framework of game theory and multi-agent reinforcement learning. Given the optimal decisions of all agents, we can make predictions about the spread of the disease. We show that there are negative externalities in the sense that infected agents do not have enough incentives to protect others, which then necessitates external interventions to regulate agents’ behaviors. In the discussion section, future directions are pointed out to make the model more realistic.'
author:
- 'Changliu Liu[^1]'
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
date:
title: 'A Microscopic Epidemic Model and Pandemic Prediction Using Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning'
---
Introduction
============
With the COVID-19 pandemic souring across the world, a reliable model is needed to describe the observed spread of the disease, make predictions about future, and guide public policy design to control the spread.
#### Existing Epidemic Models
There are many existing macroscopic epidemic models.[@daley2001epidemic] For example, the SI model describes the growth of infection rate as the product of the current infection rate and the current susceptible rate. The SIR model further incorporates the effect of recovery into the model, i.e., when the infected population turns into immune population after a certain period of time. The SIRS model considers the case that immunity is not for lifetime and that the immune population can become susceptible population again. In addition to these models, the SEIR model incorporates the incubation period into analysis. Incubation period refers to the duration before symptoms show up.[@yan2006seir] The most important factor in all those models is $R0$, the regeneration number, which tells how fast the disease can spread. $R0$ can be regressed from data.
#### Limitations of Existing Models
Although these models are useful in predicting the spread of epidemics, they lack the granularity needed for analyzing individual behaviors during an epidemic and understanding the relationship between individual decisions and the spread of the disease.[@barrett2009estimating] For example, many countries now announced “lock-down", “shelter-in-place", “stay-at-home", or similar orders. However, their effects are very different across different countries, or even across different counties in the same country. One factor that can possibly explain these differences is the cultural difference. In different cultures, individuals make different choices. For instance, in the west, people exhibit greater inertia to give up their working/life routines so that they do not follow the orders seriously. While in the east, people tend to obey the rules better. These different individual choices can result in significantly different outcomes in disease propagation that cannot be captured by a macroscopic model.
#### A Microscopic Epidemic Model
In this paper, we develop a microscopic epidemic model by explicitly considering individual decisions and the interaction among different individuals in the population, in the framework of multi-agent systems. The aforementioned cultural difference can be understood as a difference in agents’ cost functions, which then affect their behaviors when they are trying to minimize their cost functions. The details of the microscopic epidemic model will be explained in the next section, followed by the analysis of the dynamics of the multi-agent system, and the prediction of system trajectories using multi-agent reinforcement learning. The model is still in its preliminary form. In the discussion section, future directions are pointed out to make the model more realistic.
Microscopic Epidemic Model
==========================
Suppose there are $M$ agents in the environment. Initially, $m_0$ agents are infected. Agents are indexed from $1$ to $M$. Every agent has its own state and control input. The model is in discrete time. The time interval is set to be one day. The evolution of the infection rate for consecutive days depends on agents’ actions. The questions of interest are: How many agents will eventually be infected? How fast they will be infected? How can we slow down the growth of the infection rate?
Agent Model
-----------
We consider two state values for an agent, e.g., for agent $i$, $x_i = 0$ means healthy (susceptible), $x_i = 1$ means infected. Everyday, every agent $i$ decides its level of activities $u_i\in[0,1]$. The level of activities for agent $i$ can be understood as the expected percentage of other agents in the system that agent $i$ wants to meet. For example, $u_i = 1/M$ means agent $i$ expects to meet one other agent. The actual number of agents that agent $i$ meets depends not only on agent $i$’s activity level, but also on other agents’ activity level. For example, if all other agents choose an activity level $0$, then agent $i$ will not be able to meet any other agent no matter what $u_i$ it chooses. Mathematically, the chance for agent $i$ and agent $j$ to meet each other depends on the minimum of the activity levels of these two agents, i.e., $\min\{u_i, u_j\}$. In the extreme cases, if agent $i$ decides to meet everyone in the system by choosing $u_i = 1$, then the chance for agent $j$ to meet with agent $i$ is $u_j$. If agent $i$ decides to not meet anyone in the system by choosing $u_i = 0$, then the chance for agent $j$ to meet with agent $i$ is $0$.
Before we derive the system dynamic model, the assumptions are listed below:
1. In the agent model, we only consider two states: healthy (susceptible) and infected. All healthy agents are susceptible to the disease. There is no recovery and no death for infected agents. There is no incubation period for infected agents, i.e., once infected, the agent can start to infect other healthy agents. To relax this assumption, we may introduce more states for every agent.
2. The interactions among agents are assumed to be uniform, although it is not true in the real world. In the real world, given a fixed activity level, agents are more likely to meet with close families, friends, colleagues than strangers on the street. To incorporate this non-uniformity into the model, we need to redefine the chance for agent $i$ and agent $j$ to meet each other to be $\beta_{i,j}\min\{u_i, u_j\}$, where $\beta_{i,j}\in[0,1]$ is a coefficient that encodes the proximity between agent $i$ and agent $j$ and will affect the chance for them to meet with each other. For simplicity, we assume that the interaction patterns are uniform in this paper.
3. Meeting with infected agents will result in immediate infection. To relax this assumption, we may introduce an infection probability to describe how likely it is for a healthy agent to be infected if it meets with an infected agent.
System Dynamic Model
--------------------
On day $k$, denote agent $i$’s state and control as $x_{i,k}\in\mathcal{X}$ and $u_{i,k}\in\mathcal{U}$. By definition, the agent state space is $\mathcal{X} = \{0,1\}$ and the agent control space is $\mathcal{U}=[0,1]$. The system state space is denoted $\mathcal{X}^M:= \mathcal{X}\times\cdots \times \mathcal{X}$. The system control space is denoted $\mathcal{U}^M:=\mathcal{U}\times\cdots \times \mathcal{U}$. Define $m_k = \sum_{i} x_{i,k}$ as the number of infected agents at time $k$. The set of infected agents is denoted: $$\mathcal{I}_k := \{i: x_{i,k}= 1\}.$$
The state transition probability for the multi-agent system is a mapping $$\mathbb{T}: \mathcal{X}^M \times \mathcal{U}^M \times \mathcal{X}^M \mapsto [0,1].$$
According to the assumptions, an infected agent will always remain infected. Hence the state transition probability for an infected agent $i$ does not depend on other agents’ states or any control. However, the state transition probability for a healthy agent $i$ depends on others. The chance for a healthy agent $i$ to not meet an infected agent $j\in\mathcal{I}_k$ is $1-\min\{u_i,u_j\}$. A healthy agent can stay healthy if and only if it does not meet any infected agent, the probability of which is $\Pi_{j\in\mathcal{I}_k} (1-\min\{u_i,u_j\})$. Then the probability for a healthy agent to be infected is $1-\Pi_{j\in\mathcal{I}_k} (1-\min\{u_i,u_j\})$. From the expression $\Pi_{j\in\mathcal{I}_k} (1-\min\{u_i,u_j\})$, we can infer that: the chance for a healthy agent $i$ to stay health is higher if
- the agent $i$ limits its own activity by choosing a smaller $u_i$;
- the number of infected agents is smaller;
- the infected agents in $\mathcal{I}_k$ limit their activities.
The state transition probability for an agent $i$ is summarized in \[table:dynamics\].
\[table:dynamics\]
#### Example
Consider a four-agent system shown in \[fig:example\]. Only agent $1$ is infected. And the agents choose the following activity levels: $u_1 = 0.1, u_2 = 0.2, u_3 = 0.3, u_4 = 0.4$. Then the chance $p_{i,j}$ for agents $i$ and $j$ to meet with each other is $p_{1,2} = p_{1,3} = p_{1,4} = 0.1$, $p_{2,3} = p_{2,4} = 0.2$, and $p_{3,4} = 0.3$. Note that $p_{i,j} = p_{j,i}$. The chance for agents $2$, $3$, and $4$ to stay healthy is $0.9$, although they have different activity levels.
{width="3.5cm"}
Case Study
----------
Before we start to derive the optimal strategies for individual agents and analyze the closed-loop multi-agent system, we first characterize the (open-loop) multi-agent system dynamics by Monte Carlo simulation according to the state transition probability in \[table:dynamics\].
Suppose we have $M=1000$ agents. At the beginning, only agent $1$ is infected. We consider two levels of activities: normal activity level $u$ and reduced activity level $u^*$. The two activity levels are assigned to different agents following different strategies as described below. In particular, we consider “no intervention" case where all agents continue to follow the normal activity level, “immediate isolation" case where the activity levels of infected agents immediately drop to the reduced level, “delayed isolation" case where the activity levels of infected agents drop to the reduced level after several days, and “lockdown" case where the activity levels of all agents drop to the reduced level immediately.
{width="\linewidth"}
For each case, we simulate 200 system trajectories and compute the average, maximum, and minimum $m_k$ (number of infected agents) versus $k$ from all trajectories. A system trajectory in the “no intervention" case is illustrated in \[fig:monte\_carlo\], where $u=1/M$ for all agents. The $m_k$ trajectories under different cases are shown in \[fig:open\_loop\], where the solid curves illustrate the average $m_k$ and the shaded area corresponds to the range from min $m_k$ to max $m_k$. The results are explained below.
- Case 0: no intervention.
All agents keep the normal activity level $u$. The scenarios for $u= 1/M$ and $u= 2/M$ are illustrated in \[fig:open\_loop\]. As expected, a higher activity level for all agents will lead to faster infection. The trajectory of $m_k$ has a $S$ shape, whose growth rate is relatively slow when either the infected population is small or the healthy population is small, and is maximized when $50\%$ agents are infected. It will be shown in the following discussion that (empirical) macroscopic models also generate $S$-curves.
- Case 1: immediate isolation of infected agents.
The activity levels of infected agents immediately drop to $u^*$, while others remain $u$. The scenario for $u = 1/M$ and $u^* = 0.1/M$ is illustrated in \[fig:open\_loop\]. Immediate isolation significantly slows down the growth of the infections rate. As expected, it has the best performance in terms of flattening the curve, same as the lockdown case. The trajectory also has a $S$ shape.
- Case 2: delayed isolation of infected agents.
The activity levels of infected agents drop to $u^*$ after $T$ days, while others remain $u$. In the simulation, $u = 1/M$ and $u^* = 0.1/M$. The scenarios for $T=1$ and $T=2$ are illustrated in \[fig:open\_loop\]. As expected, the longer the delay, the faster the infection rate grows, though the growth of the infection rate is still slower than the “no intervention" case. Moreover, the peak growth rate (when $50\%$ agents are infected) is higher when the delay is longer.
- Case 3: lockdown.
The activity levels of all agents drop to $u^*$. The scenario for $u^* = 0.1/M$ is illustrated in \[fig:open\_loop\]. As expected, it has the best performance in terms of flattening the curve, same as the immediate isolation case.
Since the epidemic model is monotone, every agent will eventually be infected as long as the probability to meet infected agents does not drop to zero. Moreover, we have not discussed decision making by individual agents yet. The activity levels are just predefined in the simulation.
#### Remark
The model we introduced is microscopic, in the sense that interactions among individual agents are considered. The simulated open-loop trajectories are indeed similar to those from a macroscopic model. Since only susceptible and infected populations are considered in the proposed microscopic model, we then compare it with the macroscopic Susceptible-Infected (SI) model. Define the state $s\in[0,1]$ as the fraction of infected population. The growth of the infected population is proportional to the susceptible population and the infected population. Suppose the infection coefficient is $\beta$, the system dynamics in the SI model follow: $$\dot s = \beta s (1-s).$$
{width="\linewidth"}
We simulate the system trajectory under different infection coefficients as shown in \[fig:SI\]. The trajectories also have S shapes, similar to the ones in the microscopic model. However, since this macroscopic SI model is deterministic, there is no “uncertainty" range as shown in the microscopic model. The infection coefficient $\beta$ depends on the agents’ choices of activity levels. However, there is not an explicit relationship yet. It is better to directly use the microscopic model to analyze the consequences of individual agents’ choices.
Distributed Optimal Control
===========================
This section tries to answer the following question: in the microscopic multi-agent epidemic model, what is the best control strategy for individual agents? To answer that, we need to first specify the knowledge and observation models as well as the cost (reward) functions for individual agents. Then we will derive the optimal choices of agents in a distributed manner. The resulting system dynamics correspond to a Nash Equilibrium of the system.
Knowledge and Observation Model
-------------------------------
A knowledge and observation model for agent $i$ includes two aspects: what does agent $i$ know about itself, and what does agent $i$ know about others? The knowledge about any agent $j$ includes the dynamic function of agent $j$ and the cost function of agent $j$. The observation corresponds to run-time measurements, i.e., the observation of any agent $j$ includes the run-time state $x_{j,k}$ and the run-time control $u_{j,k}$. In the following discussion, regarding the knowledge and observation model, we make the following assumptions:
- An agent knows its own dynamics and cost function;
- All agents are homogeneous in the sense that they share the same dynamics and cost functions. And agents know that all agents are homogeneous, hence they know others’ dynamics and cost functions;
- At time $k$, agents can measure $x_{j,k}$ for all $j$. But they cannot measure $u_{j,k}$ until time $k+1$. Hence, the agents are playing a simultaneous game. They need to infer others’ decisions when making their own decisions at any time $k$.
Cost Function
-------------
We consider two conflicting interests for every agent:
- Limit the activity level to minimize the chance to get infected;
- Maintain a certain activity level for living.
We define the run-time cost for agent $i$ at time $k$ as $$l_{i,k} = x_{i,k+1} + \alpha_i p(u_{i,k}),$$ where $x_{i,k+1}$ corresponds to the first interest, $p(u_{i,k})$ corresponds to the second interest, and $\alpha_i > 0$ adjusts the preference between the two interests. The function $p(u)$ is assumed to be smooth. Due to our homogeneity assumption on agents, they should have identical preferences, i.e., $\alpha_i = \alpha$ for all $i$.
Agent $i$ chooses its action at time $k$ by minimizing the expected cumulative cost in the future: $$\label{eq: repeated game}
u_{i,k} = \arg\min \mathbb{E}[\sum_{t=k}^{\infty} \gamma^{t-k} l_{i,k} ],$$ where $\gamma\in[0,1]$ is a discount factor. The objective function depends on all agents’ current and future actions. It is difficult to directly obtain an analytical solution of . Later we will use multi-agent reinforcement learning to obtain a numerical solution.
In this section, to simplify the problem, we consider a single stage game where the agents have zero discount of the future, i.e., $\gamma = 0$. Hence the objective function is reduced to $$u_{i,k} = \arg\min \mathbb{E}[l_{i,k} ],$$ which only depends on the current actions of agents. According to the state transition probability in \[table:dynamics\], the expected cost is $$\label{eq: expected cost}
\mathbb{E}[l_{i,k} ] = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
1-\Pi_{j\in\mathcal{I}_k} (1-\min\{u_i,u_j\}) + \alpha_i p(u_{i,k}) & \text{if }x_{i,k} = 0\\
1 + \alpha_i p(u_{i,k}) & \text{if }x_{i,k} = 1
\end{array}\right..$$
Nash Equilibrium
----------------
{width="\linewidth"}
According to , the expect cost for an infected agent only depends on its own action. Hence the optimal choice for an infected agent is $u_{i,k} = \bar u := \arg\min_u p(u)$. Then the optimal choice for a healthy agent satisfies: $$\begin{aligned}
u_{i,k} &=& \arg\min_u [1-\Pi_{j\in\mathcal{I}_k} (1-\min\{u,\bar u\}) + \alpha_i p(u)],\\
&=&\arg\min_u [1-(1-\min\{u,\bar u\})^{m_k} + \alpha_i p(u)].\label{eq: healthy agent cost}\end{aligned}$$ Note that the term $1-(1-\min\{u,\bar u\})^{m_k}$ is positive and is increasing for $u\in[0,\bar u]$ and then constant for $u\in[\bar u, 1]$. Hence, the optimal solution for should be smaller than $\bar u = \arg\min_u p(u)$. Then the objective in can be simplified as $1-(1-u)^{m_k} + \alpha_i p(u)$. In summary, the optimal actions for both the infected and the healthy agents in the Nash Equilibrium can be compactly written as $$\label{eq: Nash}
u_{i,k} = \arg\min_u \{1-(1-u)^{m_k}(1-x_{i,k}) + \alpha_i p(u)\}, \forall i.$$
#### Example
Consider the previous example with four agents shown in \[fig:example\]. Define $$\label{eq: cost on activity}
p(u) = \exp(\frac{1}{u-1}),$$ which is a monotonically decreasing function as illustrated in \[fig: p\]. Then the optimal actions in the Nash Equilibrium for this specific problem satisfy: $$\label{eq: example Nash}
u_{i,k} = \arg\min_u \{u+x_{i,k}-ux_{i,k} + \alpha_i \exp(\frac{1}{u-1})\}, \forall i.$$
{width="\linewidth"}
Solving for , for infected agents, $u_{i,k} = 1$. For healthy agents, the choice also depends on $\alpha_i$ as illustrated in \[fig: alpha\]. We have assumed that $\alpha_i = \alpha$ which is identical for all agents. We further assume that $\alpha < 2$ such that the optimal solution for healthy agents should be $u_{i,k} = 0$. The optimal actions and the corresponding costs for all agents are listed in \[fig: example cost\]. In the Nash Equilibrium, no agent will meet each other, since all agents except agent $1$ reduce their activity levels to zero. The actual cost (received at the next time step) equals to the expected cost (computed at the current time step).
Agent ID State $x_{i,k}$ Optimal $u_{i,k}$ Optimal $\mathbb{E}[l_{i,k}]$ Actual $l_{i,k}$
---------- ----------------- ------------------- ------------------------------- -----------------------
1 1 1 1 1
2,3,4 0 0 $\alpha \exp(-1)$ $\alpha \exp(-1)$
Total $1+ 3\alpha \exp(-1)$
: List of the agent decisions and associated costs in the Nash Equilibrium in the four-agent example.
\[fig: example cost\]
However, let us consider another situation where the infected agent chooses $0$ activity level and all other healthy agents choose $1$ activity level. The resulting costs are summarized in \[fig: example cost global\]. Obviously, the overall cost is reduced in the new situation. However, this better situation cannot be attained spontaneously by the agents, due to externality of the system which will be explained below.
Agent ID State $x_{i,k}$ Optimal $u_{i,k}$ Optimal $\mathbb{E}[l_{i,k}]$ Actual $l_{i,k}$
---------- ----------------- ------------------- ------------------------------- ----------------------
1 1 0 1+$\alpha \exp(-1)$ 1+$\alpha \exp(-1)$
2,3,4 0 1 0 0
Total $1+ \alpha \exp(-1)$
: List of the agent decisions and associated costs in a situation better than the Nash Equilibrium in the four-agent example.
\[fig: example cost global\]
Dealing with Externality
------------------------
For a multi-agent system, define the system cost as a summation of the individual costs: $$L_k := \sum_i l_{i,k}.$$ The system cost in the Nash Equilibrium is denoted $L^*_k$, which corresponds to the evaluation of $L_k$ under agent actions specified in . On the other hand, the optimal system cost is defined as $$\label{eq: system optimum}
L^o_k := \min_{u_{i,k},\forall i} L_k.$$ The optimization problem is solved in a centralized manner, which is different from how the Nash Equilibrium is obtained. To obtain the Nash Equilibrium, all agents are solving their own optimization problems independently. Although their objective functions depend on other agents’ actions, they are not jointly make the decisions, but only “infer" what others will do. By definition, $L^o_k \leq L^*_k$. In the example above, $L^*_k = 1+3\alpha \exp(-1)$ and $L^o_k = 1+\alpha \exp(-1)$. The difference $L^*_k - L^o_k$ is called the **loss of social welfare**. In the epidemic model, the loss of social welfare is due to the fact that bad consequences (i.e., infecting others) are not penalized in the cost functions of the infected agents. Those unpenalized consequences are called *externality*. There can be both positive externality and negative externality. Under positive externality, agents are lacking motivations to do things that are good for the society. Under negative externality, agents are lacking motivations to prevent things that are bad for the society. In the epidemic model, there are negative externality with infected agents.
To improve social welfare, we need to “internalize" externality, i.e., add penalty for “spreading" the disease. Now let us redefine agent $i$’s run-time cost as $$\label{eq: shaped cost}
\tilde l_{i,k} = x_{i,k+1} + \alpha_i p(u_{i,k}) + x_{i,k} q(u_{i,k}),$$ where $q(\cdot)$ is a monotonically increasing function. The last term $x_{i,k}q(u_{i,k})$ does not affect healthy agents since $x_{i,k} = 0$, but adds a penalty for infected agents if they choose large activity level. One candidate function for $q(u)$ is $1-(1-u)^{m_k}$. In the real world, such “cost shaping" using $q$ can be achieved through social norms or government regulation. The expected cost becomes $$\label{eq: expected cost tilde}
\mathbb{E}[\tilde l_{i,k} ] = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
1-\Pi_{j\in\mathcal{I}_k} (1-\min\{u_i,u_j\}) + \alpha_i p(u_{i,k}) & \text{if }x_{i,k} = 0\\
1 + \alpha_i p(u_{i,k}) + q(u_{i,k}) & \text{if }x_{i,k} = 1
\end{array}\right.$$ Suppose the function $q$ is well tuned such that the $\arg\min_u [ \alpha_i p(u) + q(u)] = 0$. Then although the expected costs for infected agents are still independent from others, their decision is considerate to healthy agents. When the infected agents choose $u =0$, then for healthy agents, the expected cost becomes $\alpha_i p(u_{i,k})$, meaning that they do not need to worry about getting infected. Let us now compute the resulting Nash Equilibrium under the shaped costs using the previous example.
#### Example
In the four-agent example, set $q(u) = u$. Then $\arg\min_u [ \alpha p(u) + u] = 0$. Hence agent 1 will choose $u_{1,k} = 0$. For agents $i= 2,3,4$, they will choose $u_{i,k}=1$ since they are only minimizing $p(u)$. The resulting costs are summarized in \[fig: example cost improved\]. With the shaped costs, the system enters into a better Nash Equilibrium which indeed aligns with the system optimum in . A few remarks:
- Cost shaping did not increase the overall cost for the multi-agent system.
- The system optimum remains the same before and after cost shaping.
- Cost shaping helped agents to arrive at the system optimum without centralized optimization.
Agent ID State $x_{i,k}$ Optimal $u_{i,k}$ Optimal $\mathbb{E}[\tilde l_{i,k}]$ Actual $\tilde l_{i,k}$
---------- ----------------- ------------------- -------------------------------------- -------------------------
1 1 0 1+$\alpha \exp(-1)$ 1+$\alpha \exp(-1)$
2,3,4 0 1 0 0
Total $1+ \alpha \exp(-1)$
: List of the agent decisions and associated costs in the Nash Equilibrium with shaped cost functions in the four-agent example.
\[fig: example cost improved\]
Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning
==================================
We have shown how to compute the Nash Equilibrium of the multi-agent epidemic model in a single stage. However, it is analytically intractable to compute the Nash Equilibrium when we consider repeated games . The complexity will further grow when the number of agents increases and when there are information asymmetry. Nonetheless, we can apply multi-agent reinforcement learning[@bucsoniu2010multi] to numerically compute the Nash Equilibrium. Then the evolution of the pandemic can be predicted by simulating the system under the Nash Equilibrium.
Q Learning
----------
As evident from , the optimal action for agent $i$ at time $k$ is a function of $x_{i,k}$ and $m_k$. Hence we can define a Q function (action value function) for agent $i$ as $$Q_i: x_{i,k}\times m_k\times u_{i,k}\mapsto \mathbb{R}.$$ According to the assumptions made in the observation model, all agents can observe $m_k$ at time $k$. For a single stage game, we have derived in that $Q_i (x,m,u)= 1-(1-u)^{m}(1-x) + \alpha_i p(u)$. For repeated games , we can learn the Q function using temporal different learning. At every time $k$, agent $i$ chooses its action as $$\label{eq: optimal action}
u_{i,k} = \arg\min_u Q_i(x_{i,k}, m_k, u).$$ After taking the action $u_{i,k}$, agent $i$ observes $x_{i,k+1}$ and $m_{k+1}$ and receives the cost $l_{i,k}$ at time $k+1$. Then agent $i$ updates its Q function: $$\begin{aligned}
&Q_i (x_{i,k},m_k,u_{i,k}) \leftarrow Q_i (x_{i,k},m_k,u_{i,k}) + \eta \delta_{i,k},\\
&\delta_{i,k} = l_{i,k} + \gamma \min_u Q_i(x_{i,k+1},m_{k+1},u) - Q_i(x_{i,k},m_k,u_{i,k}),\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta$ is the learning gain and $\delta_{i,k}$ is the temporal difference error.
All agents can run the above algorithm to learn their $Q$ functions during the interaction with others. However, the algorithm introduced above has several problems:
- Exploration and limited rationality.
There is no exploration in . Indeed, Q-learning is usually applied together with $\epsilon$-greedy where with probability $1-\epsilon$, the action $u_{i,k}$ is chosen to be the optimal action in , and with probability $\epsilon$, the action is randomly chosen with a uniform distribution over the action space. The $\epsilon$-greedy approach is introduced mainly from an algorithmic perspective to improve convergence of the learning process. When applied to the epidemic model, it has a unique societal implication. When agents are randomly choosing their behaviors, it represents the fact that agents have only limited rationality. Hence in the learning process, we apply $\epsilon$-greedy as a way to incorporate exploration for faster convergence as well as to take into account limited rationality of agents.
- Data efficiency and parameter sharing.
Keeping separated Q functions for individual agents is not data efficient. An agent may not be able to collect enough samples to properly learn the desired Q function. Due to the homogeneity assumptions we made earlier about agents’ cost functions, it is more data efficient to share the Q function for all agents. Its societal implication is that agents are sharing information and knowledge with each other. Hence, we apply parameter sharing[@gupta2017cooperative] as a way to improve data efficiency as well as to consider information sharing among agents during the learning process.
With the above modifications, the multi-agent Q learning algorithm[@hu2003nash] is summarized below.
- For every time step $k$, agents choose their actions as: $$u_{i,k} = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\arg\min_u Q(x_{i,k}, m_k, u) & \text{probability }1-\epsilon\\
\text{random} &\text{probability }\epsilon \end{array}\right. \forall i.$$
- At the next time step $k+1$, agents observe the new states $x_{i,k+1}$ and receive rewards $l_{i,k}$ for all $i$. Then the Q function is updated: $$\begin{aligned}
&Q (x_{i,k},m_k,u_{i,k}) \leftarrow Q (x_{i,k},m_k,u_{i,k}) + \eta \delta_{i,k},\forall i,\\
&\delta_{i,k} = l_{i,k} + \gamma \min_u Q(x_{i,k+1},m_{k+1},u) - Q(x_{i,k},m_k,u_{i,k}).\end{aligned}$$
#### Example
In this example, we consider $M=50$ agents in the system. Only one agent is infected in the beginning. The run-time cost is the same as in the example in the *distributed optimal control* section, i.e., $l_{i,k} = x_{i,k+1} + \alpha \exp (\frac{1}{u_{i,k}-1})$ where $\alpha$ is chosen to be $1$. For simplicity, the action space is discretized to be $\{0, 1/M, 10/M\}$, called as low, medium, and high. Hence the Q function can be stored as a $2\times M\times 3$ matrix. In the learning algorithm, the learning rate is set to $\eta = 1$. The exploration rate is set to decay in different episodes, i.e., $\epsilon = 0.5(1-E/\max E)$ where $E$ denotes the current episode and the maximum episode is $\max E = 200$. The Q function is initialized to be $10$ for all entries. Three different cases are considered. For each case, we illustrate the Q function learned after 200 episodes as well as the system trajectories for episodes $10, 20,\ldots, 200$, blue for earlier episodes and red for later episodes. The results are shown in \[fig: marl\].
- Case 1: discount $\gamma = 0$ with runtime cost $l_{i,k}$.
With $\gamma = 0$, this case reduces to a single stage game as discussed in the *distributed optimal control* section. The result should align with the analytical Nash Equilibrium in . As shown in the left plot in \[fig: marl\](a), the optimal action for a healthy agent is always *low* (solid green), while the optimal action for an infected agent is always *high* (dashed magenta). The Q values for infected agents do not depend on $m_k$. The Q values for healthy agents increase when $m_k$ increases if the activity level is not zero, due to the fact that: for a fixed activity level, the chance to get infected is higher when there are more infected agents in the system. All these results align with our previous theoretical analysis. Moreover, as shown in the right plot in \[fig: marl\](a), the agents are learning to flatten the curve across different episodes.
- Case 2: discount $\gamma = 0.5$ with runtime cost $l_{i,k}$.
Since the agents are now computing cumulative costs as in , the corresponding Q values are higher than those in case 1. However, the optimal actions remain the same, *low* (solid green) for healthy agents, *high* (dashed magenta) for infected agents, as shown in the left plot in \[fig: marl\](b). The trends of the Q curves also remain the same: the Q values do not depend on $m_k$ for infected agents and for healthy agents whose activity levels are zero. However, as shown in the right plot in \[fig: marl\](b), the agents learned to flatten the curve faster than in case 1, mainly because healthy agents are more cautious (converge faster to low activity levels) when they start to consider cumulative costs.
- Case 3: discount $\gamma = 0.5$ with shaped runtime cost $\tilde l_{i,k}$ in .
The shaped cost changes the optimal actions for all agents as well as the resulting Q values. As shown in the left plot in \[fig: marl\](c), the optimal action for an infected agent is *low* (dashed green), while that for a healthy agent is *high* (solid magenta) when $m_k$ is small and *low* (solid green) when $m_k$ is big. Note that when $m_k$ is high, the healthy agents still prefer low activity level, though the optimal actions for infected agents are low. That is because: due to the randomization introduced in $\epsilon$-greedy, there is still chance for infected agents to have medium or high activity levels. When $m_k$ is high, the healthy agents would rather limit their own activity levels to avoid the risk to meet with infected agents that are taking random actions. This result captures the fact that agents understand others may have limited rationality and prefer more conservative behaviors. We observe the same trends for the Q curves as the previous two cases: the Q values do not depend on $m_k$ for infected agents and for healthy agents whose activity levels are not zero. In terms of absolute values, the Q values for infected agents are higher than those in case 2 due to the additional cost $q(u)$ in $\tilde l_{i,k}$. The Q values for healthy agents are smaller than those in case 2 for medium and high activity levels, since the chance to get infected is smaller as infected agents now prefer low activity levels. The Q values remain the same for healthy agents with zero activity levels. With shaped costs, the agents learned to flatten the curve even faster than in case 2, as shown in the right plot in \[fig: marl\](c), since the shaped cost encourages infected agents to lower their activity levels.
Discussion and Future Work
==========================
#### Agents vs humans
The epidemic model can be used to analyze real-world societal problems. Nonetheless, it is important to understand the differences between agents and humans. We can directly design and shape the cost function for agents, but not for humans. For agents, their behavior is predictable once we fully specify the problem (i.e., cost, dynamics, measurement, etc). Hence we can optimize the design (i.e., the cost function) to get desired system trajectory. For humans, their behavior is not fully predictable due to limited rationality. We need to constantly modify the knowledge and observation model as well as the cost function to match the true human behavior.
#### Future work
The proposed model is in its preliminary form. Many future directions can be pursued.
- Relaxation of assumptions.
We may add more agent states to consider recovery, incubation period, and death. We may consider the fact that the interaction patterns among agents are not uniform. We may consider a wide variety of agents who are not homogeneous. For example, health providers and equipment suppliers are key parts in fighting the disease. They should receive lower cost (higher reward) for maintaining or even expanding their activity levels than ordinary people. Their services can then lead to higher recovery rate. In addition, we may relax the assumptions on agents’ knowledge and observation models, to consider information asymmetry as well as partial observation. For example, agents cannot get immediate measurement whether they are infected or not, or how many agents are infected in the system.
- Realistic cost functions for agents.
The cost functions for agents are currently hand-tuned. We may learn those cost functions from data through inverse reinforcement learning. Those cost functions can vary for agents from different countries, different age groups, and different occupations. Moreover, the cost functions carry important cultural, demographical, economical, and political information. A realistic cost function can help us understand why we observe significantly different outcomes of the pandemic around the world, as well as enable more realistic predictions into the future by fully considering those cultural, demographical, economical, and political factors.
- Incorporation of public policies.
For now, the only external intervention we introduced is cost shaping. We may consider a wider range of public policies that can change the closed-loop system dynamics. For example, shut-down of transportation, isolation of infected agents, contact tracing, antibody testing, etc.
- Transient vs steady state system behaviors.
We have focused on the steady state system behaviors in the Nash Equilibrium. However, as agents live in a highly dynamic world, it is not guaranteed that a Nash Equilibrium can always be attained. While agents are learning to deal with unforeseen situations, there are many interesting transient dynamics, some of which is captured in \[fig: marl\], i.e., agents may learn to flatten the curve at different rates. Methods to understand and predict transient dynamics may be developed in the future.
- Validation against real world historical data.
To use the proposed model for prediction in the real world, we need to validate its fidelity again the historical data. The validation can be performed on the $m_k$ trajectories, i.e., for the same initial condition, the predicted $m_k$ trajectories should align with the ground truth $m_k$ trajectories.
Conclusion
==========
This paper introduced a microscopic multi-agent epidemic model, which explicitly considered the consequences of individual’s decisions on the spread of the disease. In the model, every agent can choose its activity level to minimize its cost function consisting of two conflicting components: staying healthy by limiting activities and maintaining high activity levels for living. We solved for the optimal decisions for individual agents in the framework of game theory and multi-agent reinforcement learning. Given the optimal decisions of all agents, we can make predictions about the spread of the disease. The system had negative externality in the sense that infected agents did not have enough incentives to protect others, which then required external interventions such as cost shaping. We identified future directions were pointed out to make the model more realistic.
[^1]: C. Liu is with Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh PA 15213. Email: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.